Next Article in Journal
Plasma Osteopontin Levels is Associated with Biochemical Markers of Kidney Injury in Patients with Leptospirosis
Previous Article in Journal
Value of Serum NEUROG1 Methylation for the Detection of Advanced Adenomas and Colorectal Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/diagnostics10070438
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Laboratory Diagnosis of Paratyphoid Fever: Opportunity of Surface Plasmon Resonance

by
Dina M. Alhaj-Qasem
1,†,
Mohammad A. I. Al-Hatamleh
2,†,
Ahmad Adebayo Irekeola
3,4,
Muhammad Fazli Khalid
5,
Rohimah Mohamud
2,6,
Aziah Ismail
5 and
Fatin Hamimi Mustafa
5,*
1
Precision Medical Laboratory, Zahran, Amman 11183, Jordan
2
Department of Immunology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan 16150, Malaysia
3
Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan 16150, Malaysia
4
Microbiology Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Natural and Applied Sciences, Summit University Offa, Offa PMB 4412, Kwara State, Nigeria
5
Institute for Research in Molecular Medicine (INFORMM), Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan 16150, Malaysia
6
Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan 16150, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2020, 10(7), 438; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070438
Submission received: 29 May 2020 / Revised: 18 June 2020 / Accepted: 25 June 2020 / Published: 28 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Paratyphoid fever is caused by the bacterium Salmonella enterica serovar Paratyphi (A, B and C), and contributes significantly to global disease burden. One of the major challenges in the diagnosis of paratyphoid fever is the lack of a proper gold standard. Given the absence of a licensed vaccine against S. Paratyphi, this diagnostic gap leads to inappropriate antibiotics use, thus, enhancing antimicrobial resistance. In addition, the symptoms of paratyphoid overlap with other infections, including the closely related typhoid fever. Since the development and utilization of a standard, sensitive, and accurate diagnostic method is essential in controlling any disease, this review discusses a new promising approach to aid the diagnosis of paratyphoid fever. This advocated approach is based on the use of surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensor and DNA probes to detect specific nucleic acid sequences of S. Paratyphi. We believe that this SPR-based genoassay can be a potent alternative to the current conventional diagnostic methods, and could become a rapid diagnostic tool for paratyphoid fever.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The genus Salmonella, which belongs to the Enterobacteriaceae family, consists of rod-shaped Gram-negative facultatively anaerobic bacteria [1]. It includes various types and subtypes, according to the ever-changing and improving classification systems. Initially, the types of Salmonella genus were divided based on epidemiology and the clinical syndromes they cause, and every subtype was considered a species [2]. Antigenic serotypes detailed in the Kauffman-White scheme provides more accurate classification by designating each subset of the bacteria with a unique variant of O (somatic, a lipopolysaccharide of the outer membrane) and H (flagellar) antigens, yielding about 2600 serovars of Salmonella [3]. However, fewer than 100 serovars are known to be harmful to humans and are well-studied, while others have rarely been extensively examined [4].
Recent methods to classify the Salmonella genus are founded on genetic studies of the bacteria. Over the years, the Salmonella genus, with its near 2600 serovars, was divided into two main Salmonella species; S. enterica and S. bongori [5]. More recently, a new species, S. subterranean, which showed 96.4% similarity to S. bongori was reported [6]. The two main species have also been subdivided into subspecies. The S. enterica species involves subspecies enterica (subspecies I) that includes 1531 serovars, subspecies salamae (subspecies II—505 serovars), subspecies arizonae (subspecies IIIa—99 serovars), subspecies diarizonae (subspecies IIIb—336 serovars), subspecies houtenae (subspecies IV—73 serovars), and subspecies indica (subspecies VI—13 serovars) [3]. The S. bongori species, on the other hand, was formerly considered subspecies V, but later distanced as a separate species that includes 22 serovars [3,7]. The main subspecies infectious to humans is subspecies I (enterica) [8]. Depending on clinical syndromes they cause in humans, Salmonella can be categorized into two types; typhoidal and nontyphoidal Salmonella [9]. The former contains serotypes that can cause enteric fever, while nontyphoidal Salmonella includes all other serotypes. In addition, the main serotypes that cause enteric fever have been classified into two types; S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi (which includes S. Paratyphi A, B, and C) [10].
Although typhoid and paratyphoid fever are caused by different types of S. enterica (S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi), they are, to some extent, considered to cause a single disease (i.e., enteric fever). Studies have shown that it is impossible to differentiate clinically between paratyphoid and typhoid fever [11], thus, the diagnosis and management of paratyphoid cases have mainly relied on experience gained from typhoid reports [12,13]. Reports on the paratyphoid fever are still contradictory [12,13]. One major problem within resource-limited areas where standard laboratory approaches for the diagnosis of enteric fever are not available is the unwillingness to verify inaccurate diagnoses. Physicians depend on their professional expertise to create an “accurate guess” of the origin of the disease [14]. This could lead to an overestimation of reported cases of typhoid fever in clinically suspected cases of enteric fever, since typhoid is better studied and well understood compared to paratyphoid [14]. This has been worsened by the unavailability of a vaccine against S. Paratyphi when compared to S. Typhi [15].
Since early and accurate laboratory diagnosis is a crucial phase in ensuring effective health care, reducing disease transmission, and developing potential vaccines, standard methods for S. Paratyphi detection are needed for the proper management of paratyphoid fever [16]. The common procedures for the detection of S. Paratyphi involve growing the bacteria in a culture medium, accompanied by serological, biochemical, or molecular diagnostics. However, these approaches sometimes work with poor selectivity and specificity [17]. So far, there is no true gold standard for the detection of S. Paratyphi. Meanwhile, more advances have been made to detect S. Typhi, especially in the molecular analysis field.
In this review, we highlight the current diagnostic approaches for S. Paratyphi, and expound on the potentials of surface plasmon resonance (SPR) as a promising alternative for the detection of S. Paratyphi. Although the SPR has been extensively used for bacterial detection, it is rarely used for S. Paratyphi, and, to the best of our knowledge, it has never been used for the clinical diagnosis of paratyphoid fever. Thus, we propose in this review, an SPR-based genoassay for the detection of S. Paratyphi, and suggest it as a promising future direction.

2. Paratyphoid Fever

Paratyphoid is caused by the bacterium S. enterica of the serotypes Paratyphi A, B, or C that infect the gastrointestinal tract [18]. Enteric fever was previously believed to be primarily caused by S. Typhi, thus, paratyphoid fever appeared to be neglected. However, emerging data from several Asian countries including India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and China show that S. Paratyphi is also a major cause of enteric fever [15]. Paratyphoid fever is widely spread in Asia, where the common cause is S. Paratyphi A, but less common in Europe and caused by S. Paratyphi B. On the other hand, S. Paratyphi C is very rare and not common in certain destinations [19,20].
Although it is known that paratyphoid fever is clinically milder than typhoid [21], approximately 5 million cases occur globally every year, with developing countries being the most affected. [20]. The symptoms of paratyphoid fever usually begin 6–30 days after exposure, and then a gradual onset of a high fever occurs over several days [22]. Headaches, loss of appetite, and weakness also commonly occur, and a skin rash with rose-colored spots manifests in some individuals. If the condition is not treated, these symptoms could last several weeks [23]. The bacteria usually spread via the consumption of food or drink contaminated with the pathogen as a result of poor hygienic practices during the preparation of food items. [24]. One of the risk factors thus includes poor sanitation, which is common among poor crowded populations and in places where there is poor hygiene [24]. It has been reported that non-domestic hygiene conditions (i.e., environmental and societal) are more relevant to paratyphoid fever, while home-related hygiene conditions are more associated with typhoid fever [25].
Sadly, the clinical diagnosis of paratyphoid fever is so far not precise [26]; it is hard to differentiate it from typhoid fever, as well as some other fever-associated diseases. Altogether, the diagnosis and monitoring of paratyphoid fever is a serious concern for clinical diagnostic experts, due to its overlapping diverse symptoms with typhoid fever. Therefore, various laboratory tests are currently being used to confirm the diagnosis of paratyphoid fever by detecting S. Paratyphi.

3. Laboratory Diagnostic Approaches

Apparently, to diagnose paratyphoid fever, most diagnostic microbiology laboratories depend on a conventional approach of culture and biochemical analysis, which often takes at least 4–5 days to obtain final results [27]. Although efforts have been made in the last three decades to establish accurate and responsive testing systems for Salmonella, these efforts were not focused on S. Paratyphi [28,29,30]. Since it is important to differentiate between S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi infections, as they cannot be differentiated clinically, microbial culture has been supported by other tests that are based on the detection of antigens, antibodies, or nucleic acid (i.e., RNA or DNA).
In addition to the bacterial culture of S. Paratyphi, detection and screening methods rely heavily on the Widal test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [31]. However, these methods are not suitable for large scale routine screening, because it takes a few days for the confirmation of the presence of the bacteria [28]. Moreover, the methods require highly skilled laboratory personnel to handle the equipment [28].
It is important to mention that, upon isolation of S. Paratyphi, it should be carefully handled, to avoid cases of laboratory-acquired infection. While it is recommended to handle the pathogen under biosafety level 3 setting, cultures and specimen should be autoclaved before final disposal [32].

3.1. Bacterial Culture

The most essential diagnostic approach for paratyphoid fever is the culture of S. Paratyphi from bone marrow, followed by other sample types [33]. Compared to blood sample, several reports have shown that culture from bone marrow specimen is more sensitive when isolating S. Paratyphi, and the results of bone marrow culture is rarely affected in the first few days of a patient’s usage of antibiotics [32,34]. This higher sensitivity has been attributed to the increased bacterial concentrations in bone marrow compared to other specimens [35]. In 80% to 95% of cases, the culture of bone marrow showed positive results [36].
Although a few studies have suggested using the fine-needle technique for the collection of bone marrow specimen, as it can be easily tolerated, usage of the specimen for diagnosis is uncommon in actual clinical practice [32,35]. Blood culture, a routine diagnosis preferably performed within the first 14 days of the disease, is reported to be positive in 40% to 80% of cases [33,37]. This range of sensitivity has been attributed to stage of disease, bacterial concentration in the blood, the usage of antimicrobial medicines, bacterial concentration in the broth, type of culture medium, and the period of incubation [38,39].
Although bone marrow samples yield better diagnostic results following culture of S. Paratyphi, other specimens, such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), rose spot, duodenal bile, urine, and feces, have also shown good results, despite their limitations [32]. The majority of positive CSF cultures, for instance, are from young children [32]. Furthermore, even though 70% of paratyphoid patients have shown positive rose spot culture, rose spots are considered an uncommon sign [32]. Although feces and urine are commonly used samples, it has been reported that S. enterica could be isolated from only about 30% of feces, and less than 1% of urine samples in patients with typhoid fever [32]. While the culture of duodenal bile samples has shown similar sensitivity as that reported for blood samples, the procedure of sample collection is difficult to tolerate, especially for young children and those with severe disease [40].
Taken together, despite current advances in diagnostic laboratories, positive culture from specimens other than the bone marrow must be carefully examined, to ensure reliability in the interpreted results [16]. Furthermore, even though blood culture is a recommended test, more than 48 h is required to obtain result [33], making rapid diagnosis and best treatment impossible.

3.2. Serology

Several immunoassay methods are commonly used to identify S. Paratyphi serologically, but they are typically costly compared to bacterial culture, and involve time-consuming and complicated sample pretreatment protocols. The immunoassay reactions to detect Salmonella enterica serovars are mainly focused on O and H antigens, and sometimes the Vi antigen, which is a capsular antigen present in a few Salmonella lineages, including S. Paratyphi C and S. Typhi [41]. Although all the serotypes of Salmonella harbor similar kinds of antigens, it has been reported that each serotype has a unique combination of the antigens, giving rise to distinct antigenic formula (Table 1) [11,41]. The most common serological tests that have been widely used to detect Salmonella enterica serovars are Widal test, ELISA, and rapid tests.

3.2.1. Widal Test

In 1896, Georges Fernand Widal developed a serological test to detect the H and O antigen-based agglutination in the serum of patients suspected to be infected with Salmonella enterica [42]. This test became known as the Widal test, and it is a conventional test to differentiate between typhoid and paratyphoid fever [33]. The core concept of the Widal test is that the antigens (O and H) are present in the reagent that is added to the patient’s serum, which contains antibodies that conjugate to the respective antigens and give visible agglutinates [43]. Currently, the Widal test is known to be either a qualitative detection test if the slide agglutination method is used, or semi-quantitative in the case of the tube method (Figure 1) [44].
For over a century, the Widal test has been an invaluable tool for the detection of S. Paratyphi and S. Typhi. However, modern technological advancements have revealed some limitations of the procedure. If a sample is from an unvaccinated individual who has never been infected, the test result could be considered significantly correct. However, the result may have no diagnostic significance if the patient has been previously infected or vaccinated [45]. In addition, it has been suggested that some pathogens may present antigenic determinants, similar to those of Salmonella, thereby further confounding the reliability and interpretation of Widal test results [45]. Therefore, increased attempts have been made to invent a more sensitive, rapid, accurate, and reliable method for the diagnosis of paratyphoid and typhoid fever.

3.2.2. ELISA

The most common immunochemical detection assay for Salmonella is ELISA. The assay has an efficient detection limit that starts approximately from 104 to 107 colony-forming unit (CFU) per mL (CFU/mL) [46,47,48]. As antibodies are critical factors in any immunoassay-based detection method, ELISA also relies on generated Abs to either capture the vital antigens (especially O and H antigens) or to help in the detection of serum Abs against those main surface antigens [49,50].
Like some other pathogens, the major types of ELISA used to detect S. Paratyphi include indirect, sandwich, and competitive ELISAs [51]. The indirect ELISA is based on the use of specific antigen-coated wells to detect the representative antibodies from the specimen. This is followed by the addition of a formulated enzyme-conjugated secondary antibodies, which improves the rate of detection [51,52]. The indirect ELISA has been used to detect immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM to O antigen [53]. Sandwich ELISA, on the other hand, is based on the use of formulated antibody-coated wells to detect representative antigens, followed by the addition of formulated enzyme-conjugated secondary antibodies [51]. Several studies have used sandwich ELISA with capture antibodies and H or O monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as a detection antibody [50,54,55]. The competitive ELISA is based on preliminary incubation of antibodies with the antigens to be measured, followed by the addition of the antibody-antigen mixture to antigen-coated wells, and a subsequent addition of formulated enzyme-conjugated secondary antibodies [51].
Ayyildiz and colleagues conducted a study using 168 serum samples to determine the titer of antibodies against the pathogens of paratyphoid and typhoid fever using Widal test and ELISA [56]. This study showed lower nonspecific reactions and approximately four to six times higher titer in ELISA, as compared to the Widal test [56]. Additionally, a study of an S. Paratyphi A outbreak in China was conducted, using ELISA to measure the levels of serum IgG against the H antigen [55].
In other studies on S. Paratyphi A in patients, ELISA has also been used to detect antibodies against gene products of the outer membrane protein X (OmpX), SpaO, H1a, and PagC genes [57,58,59]. It was suggested that the gene products could be reliable target antigens in cases of S. Paratyphi A infections [57,58,59]. Similarly, the Vi antigen has been targeted and utilized in ELISA-based diagnosis of chronic carriers since antibodies to the Vi antigen tend to appear late in the course of infection (making it less useful for the diagnosis of acute infection with S. Paratyphi) [60,61]. However, it is important to note that both S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi C share this factor.
Although ELISA has been shown to provide superior results compared to the Widal test against the same antigens, it is reported to have limitations of specificity, as observed in the Widal test [60]. Altogether, although various types of ELISA have been used in the past few decades for the detection of S. Paratyphi [62,63], the technique still requires further developments to improve its diagnostic accuracy for paratyphoid fever.

3.2.3. Other Tests

Other serological diagnostic tests have also been developed and used for S. Paratyphi detection. A notable example is the typhoid and paratyphoid test (TPTest), which has efficiently been used to detect specific IgA to Salmonella in patients’ samples within 24 h [64]. The test showed flexibility in differentiating between current and past infection. Compared to blood culture, the TPTest showed 100% sensitivity and 78–97% specificity, based on predefined true negative samples [64]. Therefore, the TPTest can be considered a relatively rapid and reliable diagnostic assay, and could be very useful, particularly in endemic regions. However, the assay still requires further evaluation to support its usage [64].
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have also been employed for the detection of S. Paratyphi. RDTs are based on various principles, including agglutination, lateral flow, solid-phase, and flow-through methods that can detect antigens or antibodies [65]. Additionally, there are many types and forms of RDTs that allow the use of serum, whole blood, or urine samples [65]. In a comparative meta-analytical study on accuracy of diagnostic tests for pediatric population with paratyphoid and typhoid fever, the lateral-flow IgG immunoassay (rapid test), TPTest, and the reverse passive hemagglutination (RPH) assay, showed a better diagnostic accuracy, compared to ELISA and Widal tests [66]. Another study compared several Salmonella diagnostic tests, and reported the TPTest to be the most sensitive and specific, outperforming blood culture, the Widal, test and commercially available RDTs (Typhidot and Tubex) [67]. Despite some of the recorded successes in the use of these other serological tests, a more robust evaluation needs to be conducted to guarantee their reliability, especially when using human serum, given the polyvalent nature of some antigens.

3.3. Nucleic Acid-Based Diagnostics

As the CFU/mL of blood is often low, especially during antimicrobial therapy, the volume of blood collected for serology or culture tests is critical, as it may lead to an inability to isolate the bacteria [41]. The emergence of nucleic acid-based diagnostics has greatly remedied the concerns of limited quantity of bacteria in blood and other samples [16]. However, this diagnostic approach requires a proper understanding of a pathogen’s genetics.
It has been shown that S. Paratyphi shares similar genetic content to that of S. Typhi, but with a possibility to have more recent evolutionary origins [68]. Furthermore, 1% to 3% of the gene content of S. Paratyphi A and S. Typhi are unique [60]. However, the functions of some S. Paratyphi genes are yet to be fully known, underscoring the need for further investigations to reveal potential targets for S. Paratyphi nucleic acid-based diagnostics.
PCR, a technique which allows the amplification of genetic material [69], has been used for the detection of bacteria from a wide range of biological samples (including clinical and non-clinical) [70,71]. The method typically involves the extraction of genetic material (DNA or RNA), followed by an amplification phase (using a thermal cycler) to generate multiple copies of a genomic region of interest which could then be further studied [72,73]. Given its high sensitivity and specificity, PCR is an indispensable tool in the laboratory diagnosis of infectious diseases [74]. In addition, the method is relatively rapid, and its results are unaffected by sample volume, antibiotics consumption, vaccination status, and the stage of infection [74].
Several genes, including the O antigen genes, H antigen genes, Vi capsular antigen gene and 16S rRNA gene, have been targeted to detect and study S. enterica [27]. The cytolysin A (ClyA, HlyE or SheA) gene, which was earlier discovered in E. coli, has also been reported to be contained in S. Paratyphi A and S. Typhi, but not in other Salmonella serovars [75,76,77]. Tennant and colleagues developed specific probes and primers for the ClyA gene, and found them effective in detecting S. Paratyphi A and S. Typhi in blood using the quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) [31]. Similarly, another study that developed a multiplex PCR (mPCR) targeted the outer membrane protein C (ompC) gene, to detect S. Paratyphi A and S. Typhi. In the study, a sensitivity of 4.5 × 104 CFU/mL was reported [27]. However, the fliC-a gene, which is specific to S. Paratyphi A [78], as well as the intergenic region (SSPAI) between genes SSPA1723a and SSPA1724 [27], have been targeted to distinguish S. Paratyphi A from other serovars.
Despite the distinctive characteristics of PCR as a relatively rapid and sensitive diagnostic tool, it suffers limitations, such as high cost, high risk of contamination that could yield false results, and the need for highly skilled operators [71,79,80].

3.4. SPR: A Promising Technology for Paratyphoid Diagnosis

Biosensors provide hopeful options for bacterial detection with high sensitivity and specificity [81]. SPR is one of the optical biosensor technologies based on an interaction of an evanescent wave field with experimental analyte(s) on a sensor surface [82]. The analytes can be DNAs, RNAs, proteins, antibodies, and antigens, which are tightly bound with selective immobilized ligands on the surface sensor [83]. Various strategies for surface sensor preparation to immobilize ligands have been used, as shown in Table 2.
Prior to the actual SPR detection, clinical samples collected from infected subjects are processed to isolate and culture the pathogen in order to obtain the required concentration (Section 3.1), while antigens and antibodies can be directly assessed from the samples [88]. For DNA/RNA detection, there is a need for the extraction of nucleic acid from the cultured pathogen, using a commercially available kit, followed by PCR before the sensing [93].
The phenomena of an evanescent wave in SPR is created when a polarized light experiences reflection on a metal-based surface (known as surface sensor) incorporated with a prism in sensing systems [94]. Changes in density (concentration) of the analyte bring relative changes to its refractive index (RI), which then leads to the alteration of the angle of the light reflection on the surface sensor [94]. Gold (Au) has been characterized as the best metal for surface sensors, especially with the biological samples, due to its oxidation stability (inert) compared to other suitable metals, such as silver, aluminum, and copper [95]. At a receptor side (detector), a measurable output in terms of binding affinity, binding kinetics, as well as changes of reflection light angle for the determination of the system’s sensitivity, can be obtained (Figure 2).
SPR was proposed for the first time in 1983 by Liedberg and his team [97]. This proposed SPR method was primarily for gas detection. However, the first medical application of SPR in pathogens detection was in 1998 by Fratamico et al., who successfully utilized it to get sensitive, rapid, and quantitative results [98]. During the last two decades, SPR has continuously attracted much interest in various research areas (including bacterial detection), as shown in Figure 3. Several biomolecules, including cells, nucleic acids, antibodies, antigens, proteins, and carbohydrates, have been successfully detected by SPR-methods [94,99]. This has opened the door for the utilization of SPR as a sensitive detector for bacteria in real-time in areas such as pharmaceutics, clinical diagnostics, food analysis, and environmental monitoring [94,99].
The efficiency of any SPR-based detection relies mainly on analyte/ligand interaction, as well as ligand/surface-sensor binding. While the ligands used for immobilization can differ, the concepts of SPR-based methods are similar [100,101]. As the binding of the desired ligand with the analyte is a key step in SPR development, several approaches, including antibody/antigen and protein/protein interactions, have been tested [102]. Antibodies have been the most extensively used ligands in SPR for bacterial detection, and are commonly known as SPR-based immunoassay or SPR immunosensors, as shown in Table 3. The SPR-based immunoassays have been fabricated for bacterial detection by three main detection formats similar to ELISA; direct, sandwich, and competitive detections [103]. However, most studies have used SPR-based detection methods for environmental monitoring and food analysis, and not for clinical diagnostics (Table 3).
For the serotyping of Salmonella, the targets are similar to those in serological tests; the O and H surface antigens can be captured on SPR by immobilized antibodies [104]. Mainly, the SPR-based sandwich immunoassay is most commonly used for detection of Salmonella; where anti-Salmonella mAbs or polyclonal Abs (pAb) are fixed on the sensor surface to capture various Salmonella serovars, and then specific antibodies for O or H antigens helps to detect each serovar [105]. However, among several studies that utilized SPR-based methods for bacteria detection, only two studies targeted S. Paratyphi (Table 3); Perçin et al. [106] detected S. Paratyphi isolated from bacterial culture using a novel SPR method that was based on a special microcontact imprinted sensor chip, and demonstrated 2.5 × 106 CFU/mL as the lowest detected concentration, while Oh et al. [107] detected S. Paratyphi isolated from bacterial culture using SPR-based immunoassay, with 102 CFU/mL as the lowest detected concentration.
Although the SPR-based methods can allow whole cell detection of Salmonella even from crude samples and without purification, some limitations have also been assumed. For instance, Fu et al. pointed that bacteria (∼2 μm long) has a rigid body bigger than the Au NPs (∼30 nm), which could limit the contact area between them, and consequently, affect the expected change in the surrounding environment, and the resultant plasmon peak shift [108]. However, the recent emergence of SPR-based genoassay (genosensor) has allowed the detection of bacteria based on immobilizing specific DNA probes, without a need for whole-cell detection [109]. Interestingly, SPR-based genoassay overcomes even the limitations in PCR methods, as it can directly test extracted DNA (i.e., without amplification) and give highly sensitive results [109].
An SPR-based genoassay has been performed to detect S. Typhi based on thiolated self-assembled monolayer of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) as a DNA probe, which is designed for the Vi-antigen gene of S. Typhi [130]. In this study, specific ssDNA probes were immobilized onto gold film, and the assay records the lowest detection concentration (0.019 ng/mL−1), when compared to several other SPR-based bacterial detection studies (Table 3). Upon using the cell systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (Cell-SELEX) technique in a study, ssDNA probes that could detect S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium were identified [140]. The study recommended using ssDNA probes for ultra-sensitive and specific detection of Salmonella with fabricated genosensors [140]. To our knowledge, no study, to date, has developed and used genosensor for the detection of S. Paratyphi. With the advantages and promise of SPR-based genoassays, it would be pertinent to explore them in the clinical diagnosis of paratyphoid fever.
From a diagnostic perspective, one of the most crucial parameter in any SPR sensor is the limit of detection (LoD), as it indicates the effectiveness of SPR. Usually, it is obtained indirectly from a linear calibration curve—a curve which consist of a linear regression of a set of measurements derived from response of the SPR instrument versus analyte concentration [141]. The LoD presents the least concentration which can give an output signal, and it is equal to three times the system noise (standard deviation (σ)) divided by the sensitivity (S) (3σ/S) [142]. The value of S can be in any terms, including RI, concentration, or molar [143]. The LoD depends on the features of target-probe molecules (i.e., molecular weight, binding affinity, and optical property), in addition to the surface coverage of the probe molecule [83]. Although it is well-known that SPR-based methods can detect at low LoD, there is still a continuous competition towards developing these methods to be more user-friendly with even lower LoD and higher accuracy.

4. Conclusions and Future Directions

The emergence of paratyphoid fever worldwide has led to increase in commercially available immunoassays for early diagnosis, but comes with recognized limitations. Most conventional methods to detect S. Paratyphi after the infection are highly dependent on lab testing, and would usually take a few days for confirmation of the presence of the bacteria. Hence, there is a need for a rapid, low-cost, simple diagnostic method with high sensitivity and specificity to be used as a detection tool for S. Paratyphi. Fortunately, SPR offers those attributes [144]. The development of an optimized SPR-based genoassay to detect S. Paratyphi will be crucial for the rapid, real-time, and label-free detection and efficient diagnosis of paratyphoid fever.
The potential of the SPR for Salmonella (live, dead, protein or DNA) detection, including S. Typhi and S. Typhimurium, has been widely studied [126,145,146], but there are no studies on SPR to detect the DNA of S. Paratyphi using specific DNA probes. Figure 4 illustrates a proposed SPR-based genoassay to detect S. Paratyphi, which can be explored in future studies. The immobilization of a biotinylated DNA probe onto a layer of streptavidin in SPR-based optical sensing provides a stable immobilization structure and prevents the DNA probe from slipping off during the regeneration process. The biotinylated DNA probe would be strongly attached to ssDNA due to its specificity. Note that the presence of primer-linking attached to the other end of ssDNA is to avoid it from binding to other ssDNA in SPR, in order to prevent the formation of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) [93]. The different number of bindings between DNA probe and ssDNA would vary the refractive indices on the surface sensor, and thus lead to changes in reflection angle from I to II, as depicted in Figure 4.
One of the challenges that might be encountered in the proposed SPR-based genoassay (Figure 4) is the design of a highly specific DNA probe to ensure an accurate result. Another challenge would be in the regeneration process, where the reusable biotinylated DNA probe could easily be inactivated or detached from the surface sensor, which would be for various reasons, such as the use of unsuitable regeneration solutions, incorrect regeneration time set up, unstable structure, or short lifespan of the DNA probe itself. With an unusable or unrecyclable DNA probe, the cost of operation would increase. When integrating gold-based sensors, the interactions between ligand/probe must be clearly understood to hasten the development of a reliable SPR-based diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of paratyphoid fever in the near future.
With the drive of digital transformation through technological advancement and convergence towards fifth generation (5G) technology, the technology of SPR is driven by the technological drivers in internet of things (IoT) categories. The interconnection between computing devices and databases via the internet could be harnessed and applied to SPR, so that data or information can be rapidly and efficiently transferred to health staff for prompt decision. In the future, a developed SPR device could be equipped with DNA/RNA extraction kit coupled with mobile PCR equipment, so that in-situ lab-free measurements can be successfully achieved [147]. This will ultimately spur future development of a commercial optical sensor, which utilizes the SPR method and could be incorporated to a computing device for the early detection of S. Paratyphi.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M.A.-Q., M.A.I.A.-H. and F.H.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.M.A.-Q. and M.A.I.A.-H.; writing—review and editing, A.A.I., M.F.K., R.M., A.I. and F.H.M.; funding acquisition, F.H.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Fundamental Research Grant Scheme from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, grant number FRGS/1/2019/TK04/USM/03/1.

Acknowledgments

M.A.I.A.-H. and A.A.I. would like to acknowledge Universiti Sains Malayisa (USM) Fellowship Scheme for providing financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ryan, M.P.; O’Dwyer, J.; Adley, C.C. Evaluation of the Complex Nomenclature of the Clinically and Veterinary Significant Pathogen Salmonella. BioMed. Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Morse, S.A.; Mietzner, T.A.; Miller, S.; Riedel, S. Jawetz Melnick & Adelbergs Medical Microbiology 28 E; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Grimont, P.A.; Weill, F.-X. Antigenic Formulae of the Salmonella Serovars; WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Salmonella: Paris, France, 2007; pp. 1–166. [Google Scholar]
  4. Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention. Serotypes and the Importance of Serotyping Salmonella. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/reportspubs/salmonella-atlas/serotyping-importance.html (accessed on 16 April 2020).
  5. Jajere, S.M. A review of Salmonella enterica with focus on the pathogenicity and virulence factors, host specificity and antimicrobial resistance including multidrug resistance. Vet. World 2019, 12, 504–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shelobolina, E.S.; Sullivan, S.A.; O’Neill, K.R.; Nevin, K.P.; Lovley, D.R. Isolation, Characterization, and U(VI)-Reducing Potential of a Facultatively Anaerobic, Acid-Resistant Bacterium from Low-pH, Nitrate- and U(VI)-Contaminated Subsurface Sediment and Description of Salmonella subterranea sp. nov. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 2959–2965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brenner, F.W.; Villar, R.G.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.; Swaminathan, B. Salmonella Nomenclature. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000, 38, 2465–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Porwollik, S.; Boyd, E.F.; Choy, C.; Cheng, P.; Florea, L.; Proctor, E.; McClelland, M. Characterization of Salmonella enterica Subspecies I Genovars by Use of Microarrays. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 5883–5898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gal-Mor, O.; Boyle, E.C.; Grassl, G.A. Same species, different diseases: How and why typhoidal and non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica serovars differ. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bennett, J.E.; Dolin, R.; Blaser, M.J. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. Vollaard, A.M.; Ali, S.; Widjaja, S.; van Asten, H.A.; Visser, L.G.; Surjadi, C.; van Dissel, J.T. Identification of typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever cases at presentation in outpatient clinics in Jakarta, Indonesia. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2005, 99, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bhan, M.K.; Bahl, R.; Bhatnagar, S. Typhoid, and paratyphoid fever. Lancet 2005, 366, 749–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Maskey, A.P.; Day, J.; Tuan, P.Q.; E Thwaites, G.; Campbell, J.I.; Zimmerman, M.; Farrar, J.; Basnyat, B. Salmonella enterica Serovar Paratyphi A and S. enterica Serovar Typhi Cause Indistinguishable Clinical Syndromes in Kathmandu, Nepal. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2006, 42, 1247–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. John, J.; van Aart, C.J.C.; Grassly, N.C. The Burden of Typhoid and Paratyphoid in India: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLoS Neglect. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sahastrabuddhe, S.; Carbis, R.; Wierzba, T.F.; Ochiai, L. Increasing rates of Salmonella paratyphi A and the status of its vaccine development. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2013, 12, 1021–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Baker, S.; Favorov, M.; Dougan, G. Searching for the elusive typhoid diagnostic. BMC Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Taj, M.K.; Panezai, M.; Nawaz, I.; Taj, I.; Panezai, M.; Panezai, N.; Zafar, U.; Muh, D.G.; Esso, S.A.; Muhammad, G. Isolation and Identification of Salmonella Paratyphi from Enteric Fever Patients at Different Hospitals of Quetta City. Pak. J. Boil. Sci. 2018, 21, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Antillon, M.; Saad, N.J.; Baker, S.; Pollard, A.J.; Pitzer, V.E. The Relationship Between Blood Sample Volume and Diagnostic Sensitivity of Blood Culture for Typhoid and Paratyphoid Fever: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Infect. Dis. 2018, 218, S255–S267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ryan, E.T.; Hill, D.R.; Solomon, T.; Endy, T.P.; Aronson, N. Hunter’s Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Diseases E-Book; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. Brunette, G.W. CDC Yellow Book 2018: Health Information for International Travel; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Waddington, C.S.; Darton, T.C.; Pollard, A.J. The challenge of enteric fever. J. Infect. 2014, 68, S38–S50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Appiah, G.D.; Hughes, M.J.; Chatham-Stephens, K. Typhoid & Paratyphoid Fever, Chapter 4. Travel-Related Infectious Diseases. In CDC Yellow Book; Centers of Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  23. Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention. Typhoid Fever and Paratyphoid Fever. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/typhoid-fever/symptoms.html (accessed on 16 April 2020).
  24. Woh, P.Y.; Thong, K.L.; Lim, Y.A.L.; Behnke, J.M.; Lewis, J.W.; Zain, S.N.M. Microorganisms as an Indicator of Hygiene Status Among Migrant Food Handlers in Peninsular Malaysia. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 2017, 29, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Vollaard, A.; Ali, S.; van Asten, H.A.G.H.; Widjaja, S.; Visser, L.G.; Surjadi, C.; van Dissel, J.T. Risk Factors for Typhoid and Paratyphoid Fever in Jakarta, Indonesia. JAMA 2004, 291, 2607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Teh, C.S.J.; Chua, K.H.; Thong, K.L. Paratyphoid Fever: Splicing the Global Analyses. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2014, 11, 732–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ngan, G.J.Y.; Ng, L.M.; Lin, R.T.; Teo, J.W. Development of a novel multiplex PCR for the detection and differentiation of Salmonella enterica serovars Typhi and Paratyphi A. Res. Microbiol. 2010, 161, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, L.; Li, B. Recent and the Latest Developments in Rapid and Efficient Detection of Salmonella in Food and Water. Adv. Tech. Boil. Med. 2017, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, Q.; Lim, C.; Chan, Y. Detection of Salmonella typhi by polymerase chain reaction. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1996, 80, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kumar, S.; Balakrishna, K.; Batra, H. Detection of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi) by selective amplification of invA, viaB, fliC-d and prt genes by polymerase chain reaction in mutiplex format. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 42, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tennant, S.M.; Toema, D.; Qamar, F.; Iqbal, N.; Boyd, M.A.; Marshall, J.; Blackwelder, W.C.; Wu, Y.; Quadri, F.; Khan, A.; et al. Detection of Typhoidal and Paratyphoidal Salmonella in Blood by Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 61, S241–S250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Crump, J.A.; Sjölund-Karlsson, M.; Gordon, M.A.; Parry, C.M. Epidemiology, Clinical Presentation, Laboratory Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Antimicrobial Management of Invasive Salmonella Infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 28, 901–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wijedoru, L.; Mallett, S.; Parry, C.M. Rapid diagnostic tests for typhoid and paratyphoid (enteric) fever. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 5, CD008892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gordon, M.A.; Kankwatira, A.M.; Mwafulirwa, G.; Walsh, A.L.; Hopkins, M.J.; Parry, C.M.; Faragher, E.B.; Zijlstra, E.E.; Heyderman, R.S.; E Molyneux, M. Invasive Non-typhoid Salmonellae Establish Systemic Intracellular Infection in HIV-Infected Adults: An Emerging Disease Pathogenesis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 50, 953–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wain, J.; Bay, P.V.B.; Vinh, H.; Duong, N.M.; Diep, T.S.; Walsh, A.L.; Parry, C.M.; Hasserjian, R.P.; Ho, V.A.; Hien, T.T.; et al. Quantitation of Bacteria in Bone Marrow from Patients with Typhoid Fever: Relationship between Counts and Clinical Features. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 1571–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Parry, C.M.; Hien, T.T.; Dougan, G.; White, N.J.; Farrar, J. Typhoid Fever. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 347, 1770–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gal-Mor, O. Persistent Infection and Long-Term Carriage of Typhoidal and Nontyphoidal Salmonellae. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 32, e00088-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wain, J.; Diep, T.S.; Ho, V.A.; Walsh, A.M.; Hoa, N.T.T.; Parry, C.M.; White, N.J. Quantitation of Bacteria in Blood of Typhoid Fever Patients and Relationship between Counts and Clinical Features, Transmissibility, and Antibiotic Resistance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998, 36, 1683–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mogasale, V.; Ramani, E.; Mogasale, V.V.; Park, J. What proportion of Salmonella Typhi cases are detected by blood culture? A systematic literature reviews. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2016, 15, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bharmoria, A. Typhoid Fever as a Challenge for Developing Countries and Elusive Diagnostic Approaches Available for the Enteric Fever. Int. J. Vaccine Res. 2017, 2, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sanderson, K.E.; Liu, S.-L.; Tang, L.; Johnston, R.N. Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Paratyphi A. In Molecular Medical Microbiology; Elsevier BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1275–1306. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pokhrel, B.M.; Karmacharya, R.; Mishra, S.K.; Koirala, J. Distribution of antibody titer against Salmonella enterica among healthy individuals in nepal. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2009, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Andualem, G.; Abebe, T.; Kebede, N.; Gebreselassie, S.; Mihret, A.; Alemayehu, H. A comparative study of Widal test with blood culture in the diagnosis of typhoid fever in febrile patients. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aryal, S. Widal Test—Introduction, Principle, Procedure, Interpretation and Limitation. Microbiology Info. 2018. Available online: https://microbiologyinfo.com/widal-test-introduction-principle-procedure-interpretation-and-limitation/ (accessed on 16 April 2020).
  45. Olopoenia, L.; King, A.L. Widal agglutination test—100 years later: Still plagued by controversy. Postgrad. Med. J. 2000, 76, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kumar, S.; Balakrishna, K.; Batra, H.V. Enrichment-ELISA for Detection of Salmonella typhi From Food and Water Samples. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2008, 21, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ng, S.P.; Tsui, C.O.; Roberts, D.; Chau, P.Y.; Ng, M.H. Detection, and serogroup differentiation of Salmonella spp. in food within 30 hours by enrichment-immunoassay with a T6 monoclonal antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 2294–2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kuhn, K.G.; Falkenhorst, G.; Ceper, T.H.; Dalby, T.; Ethelberg, S.; Moelbak, K.; Krogfelt, K. Detecting non-typhoid Salmonella in humans by ELISAs: A literature review. J. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 61, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sojka, M.; Sayers, A.; Woodward, M.J. Analysis of expression of flagella by Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium by monoclonal antibodies recognising both phase specific and common epitopes. Vet. Microbiol. 2001, 78, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, W.; Liu, L.; Song, S.; Tang, L.; Kuang, H.; Xu, C. Highly Sensitive ELISA, and Immunochromatographic Strip for the Detection of Salmonella typhimurium in Milk Samples. Sensors 2015, 15, 5281–5292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alahi, E.E.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Detection Methodologies for Pathogen and Toxins: A Review. Sensors 2017, 17, 1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Min, J.; Song, E.K.; Kim, H.; Kim, K.T.; Park, T.J.; Kang, S. A Recombinant Secondary Antibody Mimic as a Target-specific Signal Amplifier, and an Antibody Immobilizer in Immunoassays. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Sippel, J.; Bukhtiari, N.; Awan, M.B.; Krieg, R.; Duncan, J.F.; A Karamat, K.; Malik, I.A.; Igbal, L.M.; Legters, L. Indirect immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and IgM capture ELISA for detection of antibodies to lipopolysaccharide in adult typhoid fever patients in Pakistan. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1989, 27, 1298–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sadallah, F.; Brighouse, G.; del Giudice, G.; Drager-Dayal, R.; Hodne, M.; Lambert, P.H. Production of Specific Monoclonal Antibodies to Salmonella typhi Flagellin and Possible Application to Immunodiagnosis of Typhoid Fever. J. Infect. Dis. 1990, 161, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Yang, H.H.; Gong, J.; Zhang, J.; Wang, M.L.; Yang, J.; Wu, G.Z.; Quan, W.L.; Gong, H.M.; Szu, S.C. An outbreak of Salmonella Paratyphi A in a boarding school: A community-acquired enteric fever and carriage investigation. Epidemiol. Infect. 2010, 138, 1765–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ayyildiz, A.; Demir, Y.; Tuncel, E.; Babacan, M.; Leloğlu, S. Comparison of the Gruber-Widal and ELISA technics used to study Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi infections in patients. Mikrobiyol. Bulteni 1986, 20, 14–24. [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, M.-L.; Fang, H.-J.; Fan, X.; Zhang, J.; Yan, J.; Sun, A. Distribution of Salmonella paratyphi A outer membrane protein X gene and immune-protective effect related to its recombinant expressed products. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2013, 34, 1219–1222. [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang, J.; Fan, X.; Ge, Y.; Yan, J.; Sun, A. Distribution of Salmonella paratyphi A pagC gene and immunoprotective effect of its recombinant expressed products. J. Zhejiang Univ. Med. Sci. 2013, 42, 171. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ruan, P.; Xia, X.-P.; Sun, D.; Ojcius, D.M.; Mao, Y.-F.; Yue, W.-Y.; Yan, J. Recombinant SpaO and H1a as immunogens for protection of mice from lethal infection with Salmonella paratyphi A: Implications for rational design of typhoid fever vaccines. Vaccine 2008, 26, 6639–6644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Parry, C.M.; Wijedoru, L.; Arjyal, A.; Baker, S. The utility of diagnostic tests for enteric fever in endemic locations. Expert Rev. Anti-Infect. Ther. 2011, 9, 711–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chart, H.; Cheasty, T.; de Pinna, E.; Siorvanes, L.; Wain, J.; Alam, D.; Nizami, Q.; Bhutta, Z.; Threlfall, E.J. Serodiagnosis of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi and S. enterica serovars Paratyphi A, B and C human infections. J. Med. Microbiol. 2007, 56, 1161–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Chaicumpa, W.; Thin-Inta, W.; Khusmith, S.; Tapchaisri, P.; Echeverria, P.; Kalambaheti, T.; Chongsa-Nguan, M. Detection with monoclonal antibody of Salmonella typhi antigen 9 in specimens from patients. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1988, 26, 1824–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Appassakij, H.; Bunchuin, N.; Sarasombath, S.; Rungpitarangsi, B.; Manatsathit, S.; Komolpit, P.; Sukosol, T. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of Salmonella typhi protein antigen. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1987, 25, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Khanam, F.; Sheikh, A.; Sayeed, A.; Bhuiyan, S.; Choudhury, F.K.; Salma, U.; Pervin, S.; Sultana, T.; Ahmed, D.; Goswami, D.; et al. Evaluation of a Typhoid/Paratyphoid Diagnostic Assay (TPTest) Detecting Anti-Salmonella IgA in Secretions of Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes in Patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2013, 7, e2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Pastoor, R.; Hatta, M.; Abdoel, T.H.; Smits, H.L. Simple, rapid, and affordable point-of-care test for the serodiagnosis of typhoid fever. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2008, 61, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Arora, P.; Thorlund, K.; Brenner, D.R.; Andrews, J.R. Comparative accuracy of typhoid diagnostic tools: A Bayesian latent-class network analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2019, 13, e0007303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Islam, K.; Sayeed, A.; Hossen, E.; Khanam, F.; Charles, R.C.; Andrews, J.; Ryan, E.T.; Qadri, F. Comparison of the Performance of the TPTest, Tubex, Typhidot and Widal Immunodiagnostic Assays and Blood Cultures in Detecting Patients with Typhoid Fever in Bangladesh, Including Using a Bayesian Latent Class Modeling Approach. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2016, 10, e0004558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. McClelland, M.; E Sanderson, K.; Clifton, S.W.; Latreille, P.; Porwollik, S.; Sabo, A.; Meyer, R.; Bieri, T.; Ozersky, P.; Harkins, C.R.; et al. Comparison of genome degradation in Paratyphi A and Typhi, human-restricted serovars of Salmonella enterica that cause typhoid. Nat. Genet. 2004, 36, 1268–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yamamoto, Y. PCR in Diagnosis of Infection: Detection of Bacteria in Cerebrospinal Fluids. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2002, 9, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lui, C.; Cady, N.C.; Batt, C.A. Nucleic Acid-based Detection of Bacterial Pathogens Using Integrated Microfluidic Platform Systems. Sensors 2009, 9, 3713–3744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schrader, C.; Schielke, A.; Ellerbroek, L.; Johne, R. PCR inhibitors—Occurrence, properties, and removal. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113, 1014–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Abusalah, M.A.H.; Gan, S.H.; Al-Hatamleh, M.; Irekeola, A.A.; Shueb, R.H.; Yean, C.Y. Recent Advances in Diagnostic Approaches for Epstein–Barr Virus. Pathogens 2020, 9, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Wages, J.M., Jr. Polymerase chain reaction. In Encyclopedia of Analytical Science, 2nd ed.; Worsfold, P., Townshend, A., Poole, C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 243–250. [Google Scholar]
  74. Espy, M.J.; Uhl, J.R.; Sloan, L.M.; Buckwalter, S.P.; Jones, M.F.; Vetter, E.A.; Yao, J.D.C.; Wengenack, N.L.; Rosenblatt, J.E.; Cockerill, F.R.; et al. Real-Time PCR in Clinical Microbiology: Applications for Routine Laboratory Testing. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2006, 19, 165–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Oscarsson, J.; Westermark, M.; Löfdahl, S.; Olsen, B.; Palmgren, H.; Mizunoe, Y.; Wai, S.N.; Uhlin, B.E. Characterization of a Pore-Forming Cytotoxin Expressed by Salmonella enterica Serovars Typhi and Paratyphi A. Infect. Immun. 2002, 70, 5759–5769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Von Rhein, C.; Bauer, S.; Sanjurjo, E.J.L.; Benz, R.; Goebel, W.; Ludwig, A. ClyA cytolysin from Salmonella: Distribution within the genus, regulation of expression by SlyA, and pore-forming characteristics. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 2009, 299, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ludwig, A.; von Rhein, C.; Bauer, S.; Huüttinger, C.; Goebel, W. Molecular Analysis of Cytolysin A (ClyA) in Pathogenic Escherichia coli Strains. J. Bacteriol. 2004, 186, 5311–5320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ali, A.; Haque, A.; Haque, A.; Sarwar, Y.; Mohsin, M.; Bashir, S.; Tariq, A. Multiplex PCR for differential diagnosis of emerging typhoidal pathogens directly from blood samples. Epidemiol. Infect. 2008, 137, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Beauchamp, S.; D’Auria, S.; Pennacchio, A.; Lacroix, M. A new competitive fluorescence immunoassay for detection of Listeria monocytogenes. Anal. Methods 2012, 4, 4187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Jain, S.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Jackeray, R.; Abid, C.Z.; Kohli, G.S.; Singh, H. Highly sensitive detection of Salmonella typhi using surface aminated polycarbonate membrane enhanced ELISA. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2012, 31, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ahmed, A.; Rushworth, J.V.; Hirst, N.A.; Millner, P.A. Biosensors for Whole-Cell Bacterial Detection. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014, 27, 631–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sharma, S.C. Surface Plasmon Resonance Sensors: Fundamental Concepts, Selected Techniques, Materials and Applications. In Advances in Sensors; Yurish, S., Ed.; IFSA Publishing: Barcelona, Spain, 2018; Volume 5, pp. 25–77. [Google Scholar]
  83. Nguyen, H.H.; Park, J.; Kang, S.; Kim, M. Surface Plasmon Resonance: A Versatile Technique for Biosensor Applications. Sensors 2015, 15, 10481–10510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Kong, F.; Hu, F. Biomolecule immobilization techniques for bioactive paper fabrication. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2012, 403, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Lin, S.; Zhang, B.; Skoumal, M.J.; Ramunno, B.; Li, X.; Wesdemiotis, C.; Liu, L.; Jia, L. Antifouling Poly(β-peptoid)s. Biomacromolecules 2011, 12, 2573–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Lee, J.W.; Sim, S.J.; Cho, S.M.; Lee, J. Characterization of a self-assembled monolayer of thiol on a gold surface and the fabrication of a biosensor chip based on surface plasmon resonance for detecting anti-GAD antibody. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2005, 20, 1422–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Löfas, S.; Johnsson, B.; Edström, A.; Hansson, A.; Lindquist, G.; Hillgren, R.-M.M.; Stigh, L.; Lrofas, S. Methods for site-controlled coupling to carboxymethyldextran surfaces in surface plasmon resonance sensors. Biosens. Bioelectron. 1995, 10, 813–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Drescher, D.G.; Drescher, M.J.; Ramakrishnan, N.A. Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) Analysis of Binding Interactions of Proteins in Inner-Ear Sensory Epithelia. In Methods in Molecular Biology; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 493, pp. 323–343. [Google Scholar]
  89. Bergström, G.; Mandenius, C.-F. Orientation and capturing of antibody affinity ligands: Applications to surface plasmon resonance biochips. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2011, 158, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, J.; Lv, R.; Xu, J.; Xu, D.; Chen, H. Characterizing the interaction between aptamers and human IgE by use of surface plasmon resonance. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 390, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Szunerits, S.; Rich, S.A.; Coffinier, Y.; Languille, M.-A.; Supiot, P.; Boukherroub, R. Preparation and characterization of thin organosilicon films deposited on SPR chip. Electrochim. Acta 2008, 53, 3910–3915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mahmoudpour, M.; Dolatabadi, J.E.N.; Torbati, M.; Homayouni-Rad, A. Nanomaterials based surface plasmon resonance signal enhancement for detection of environmental pollutions. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 127, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wang, R. Immobilisation of DNA probes for the development of SPR-based sensing. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2004, 20, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Singh, P. SPR Biosensors: Historical Perspectives and Current Challenges. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 229, 110–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kim, N.-H.; Choi, M.; Kim, T.W.; Choi, W.; Park, S.Y.; Byun, K.M. Sensitivity and Stability Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensors based on a Large-Area Ag/MoS2 Substrate. Sensors 2019, 19, 1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Byrne, B.; Stack, E.; Gilmartin, N.; O’Kennedy, R. Antibody-Based Sensors: Principles, Problems and Potential for Detection of Pathogens and Associated Toxins. Sensors 2009, 9, 4407–4445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Liedberg, B.; Nylander, C.; Lunström, I. Surface plasmon resonance for gas detection and biosensing. Sens. Actuators 1983, 4, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fratamico, P.; Strobaugh, T.; Medina, M.; Gehring, A. Detection of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 using a surface plasmon resonance biosensor. Biotechnol. Tech. 1998, 12, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pattnaik, P. Surface Plasmon Resonance: Applications in Understanding Receptor–Ligand Interaction. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2005, 126, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Homola, J.; Vaisocherová, H.; Dostálek, J.; Piliarik, M. Multi-analyte surface plasmon resonance biosensing. Methods 2005, 37, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Singh, B.K.; Hillier, A.C. Surface Plasmon Resonance Imaging of Biomolecular Interactions on a Grating-Based Sensor Array. Anal. Chem. 2006, 78, 2009–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Templier, V.; Roux, A.; Roupioz, Y.; Livache, T. Ligands for label-free detection of whole bacteria on biosensors: A review. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2016, 79, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Homola, J.; Hegnerová, K.; Vala, M. Surface plasmon resonance biosensors for detection of foodborne pathogens and toxins. Proceedings of Frontiers in Pathogen Detection: From Nanosensors to Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 24–29 January 2009; SPIE Digital Library: San Jose, CA, USA, 2009; p. 716705. [Google Scholar]
  104. Mazumdar, S.D.; Barlen, B.; Kämpfer, P.; Keusgen, M. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) as a rapid tool for serotyping of Salmonella. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010, 25, 967–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Barlen, B.; Mazumdar, S.D.; Lezrich, O.; Kämpfer, P.; Keusgen, M. Detection of Salmonella by Surface Plasmon Resonance. Sensors 2007, 7, 1427–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Perçin, I.; Idil, N.; Bakhshpour, M.; Yılmaz, E.; Mattiasson, B.; Denizli, A. Microcontact Imprinted Plasmonic Nanosensors: Powerful Tools in the Detection of Salmonella paratyphi. Sensors 2017, 17, 1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Oh, B.-K.; Lee, W.; Kim, Y.-K.; Lee, W.H.; Choi, J. Surface plasmon resonance immunosensor using self-assembled protein G for the detection of Salmonella paratyphi. J. Biotechnol. 2004, 111, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Fu, J.; Park, B.; Zhao, Y. Limitation of a localized surface plasmon resonance sensor for Salmonella detection. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2009, 141, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Aura, A.M. Surface Plasmon Resonamce Imaging Biosensors for the Detection of Pathogens and Toxins in Food; University of Catania: Catania, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  110. Arya, S.; Singh, A.; Naidoo, R.; Wu, P.; McDermott, M.; Evoy, S. Chemically immobilized T4-bacteriophage for specific Escherichia coli detection using surface plasmon resonance. Analyst 2011, 136, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bhandari, D.; Chen, F.-C.; Bridgman, R.C. Detection of Salmonella Typhimurium in Romaine Lettuce Using a Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensor. Biosensors 2019, 9, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bhandari, D.; Chen, F.-C.; Hamal, S.; Bridgman, R.C. Kinetic Analysis and Epitope Mapping of Monoclonal Antibodies to Salmonella Typhimurium Flagellin Using a Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensor. Antibodies 2019, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Barlen, B.; Mazumdar, S.D.; Keusgen, M. Immobilisation of biomolecules for biosensors. Phys. Status Solidi 2009, 206, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bokken, G.C.; Corbee, R.J.; van Knapen, F.; A Bergwerff, A. Immunochemical detection of Salmonella group B, D and E using an optical surface plasmon resonance biosensor. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2003, 222, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chen, J.; Park, B. Label-free screening of foodborne Salmonella using surface plasmon resonance imaging. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2017, 410, 5455–5464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Eser, E.; Ekiz, O.Ö.; Çelik, H.; Sülek, S.; Dana, A.; Ekiz, H.İ. Rapid detection of foodborne pathogens by surface plasmon resonance biosensors. Int. J. Biosci. Biochem. Bioinform. 2015, 5, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Jongerius-Gortemaker, B.G.M.; Goverde, R.; van Knapen, F.; A Bergwerff, A. Surface plasmon resonance (BIACORE) detection of serum antibodies against Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium. J. Immunol. Methods 2002, 266, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Jyoung, J.-Y.; Hong, S.; Lee, W.; Choi, J. Immunosensor for the detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 using surface plasmon resonance. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2006, 21, 2315–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Kim, T.J.; Cho, H.S.; Park, N.Y.; Lee, J.I. Serodiagnostic Comparison Between Two Methods, ELISA, and Surface Plasmon Resonance for the Detection of Antibody Titres of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae. J. Vet. Med. Ser. B 2006, 53, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Koubová, V.; Brynda, E.; Karasová, L.; Škvor, J.; Homola, J.; Dostálek, J.; Tobiška, P.; Rosický, J. Detection of foodborne pathogens using surface plasmon resonance biosensors. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2001, 74, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lan, Y.; Wang, S.-Z.; Yin, Y.-G.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Zheng, X. Using a Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensor for Rapid Detection of Salmonella Typhimurium in Chicken Carcass. J. Bionic Eng. 2008, 5, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lukose, J.; Shetty, V.; Ballal, M.; Chidangil, S.; Sinha, R.K. Real-time and rapid detection of Salmonella Typhimurium using an inexpensive lab-built surface plasmon resonance setup. Laser Phys. Lett. 2018, 15, 075701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Mazumdar, S.D.; Hartmann, M.; Kämpfer, P.; Keusgen, M. Rapid method for detection of Salmonella in milk by surface plasmon resonance (SPR). Biosens. Bioelectron. 2007, 22, 2040–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mazumdar, S.D.; Barlen, B.; Kramer, T.; Keusgen, M. A rapid serological assay for prediction of Salmonella infection status in slaughter pigs using surface plasmon resonance. J. Microbiol. Methods 2008, 75, 545–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Meeusen, C.A.; Alocilja, E.C.; Osburn, W.N. Detection of E. Coli O157:H7 Using a Miniaturized Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensor. Trans. ASAE 2005, 48, 2409–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nguyen, H.H.; Yi, S.Y.; Woubit, A.; Kim, M. Portable Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensor for Rapid Detection of Salmonella typhimurium. Appl. Sci. Converg. Technol. 2016, 25, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Oh, B.-K.; Lee, W.; Chun, B.S.; Bae, Y.M.; Lee, W.H.; Choi, J. The fabrication of protein chip based on surface plasmon resonance for detection of pathogens. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2005, 20, 1847–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Perkins, E. Development of instrumentation to allow the detection of microorganisms using light scattering in combination with surface plasmon resonance. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2000, 14, 853–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Si, S.-H.; Li, X.; Fung, Y.-S.; Zhu, D.-R. Rapid detection of Salmonella enteritidis by piezoelectric immunosensor. Microchem. J. 2001, 68, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Singh, A.; Verma, H.N.; Arora, K. Surface Plasmon Resonance Based Label-Free Detection of Salmonella using DNA Self Assembly. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2014, 175, 1330–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Subramanian, A.; Irudayaraj, J.; Ryan, T. A mixed self-assembled monolayer-based surface plasmon immunosensor for detection of E. coli O157:H7. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2006, 21, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Subramanian, A.S.; Irudayaraj, J.M. Surface plasmon resonance based immunosensing of E. coli O157:H7 in apple juice. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49, 1257–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Subramanian, A.; Irudayaraj, J.; Ryan, T. Mono, and dithiol surfaces on surface plasmon resonance biosensors for detection of Staphylococcus aureus. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2006, 114, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Taheri, R.A.; Rezayan, A.H.; Rahimi, F.; Mohammadnejad, J.; Kamali, M. Development of an immunosensor using oriented immobilized anti-OmpW for sensitive detection of Vibrio cholerae by surface plasmon resonance. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 86, 484–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Thomas, E.; Bouma, A.; van Eerden, E.; Landman, W.J.; van Knapen, F.; Stegeman, J.; A Bergwerff, A. Detection of egg yolk antibodies reflecting Salmonella enteritidis infections using a surface plasmon resonance biosensor. J. Immunol. Methods 2006, 315, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Usachev, E.; Usacheva, O.; Agranovski, I. Surface plasmon resonance-based bacterial aerosol detection. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 117, 1655–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Waswa, J.; Debroy, C.; Irudayaraj, J. Rapid detection of Salmonella enteritidis and Escherichia coli using surface plasmon resonance biosensor. J. Food Process. Eng. 2006, 29, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Waswa, J.; Irudayaraj, J.; Debroy, C. Direct detection of E. Coli O157:H7 in selected food systems by a surface plasmon resonance biosensor. LWT 2007, 40, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Zhang, X.; Tsuji, S.; Kitaoka, H.; Kobayashi, H.; Tamai, M.; Honjoh, K.-I.; Miyamoto, T. Simultaneous Detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enteritidis, and Listeria monocytogenes at a Very Low Level Using Simultaneous Enrichment Broth and Multichannel SPR Biosensor. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 2357–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Park, H.-C.; Baig, I.; Lee, S.-C.; Moon, J.-Y.; Yoon, M.Y. Development of ssDNA Aptamers for the Sensitive Detection of Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2014, 174, 793–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Lavín, Á.; de Vicente, J.; Holgado, M.; Laguna, M.F.; Casquel, R.; Santamaria, B.; Maigler, M.V.; Hernandez, A.L.; Ramirez, Y. On the Determination of Uncertainty and Limit of Detection in Label-Free Biosensors. Sensors 2018, 18, 2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Leuermann, J.; Fernandez-Gavela, A.; Torres-Cubillo, A.; Postigo, S.; Sánchez-Postigo, A.; Lechuga, L.M.; Halir, R.; Molina-Fernández, Í. Optimizing the Limit of Detection of Waveguide-Based Interferometric Biosensor Devices. Sensors 2019, 19, 3671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Prabowo, B.A.; Purwidyantri, A.; Liu, K.-C. Surface Plasmon Resonance Optical Sensor: A Review on Light Source Technology. Biosensors 2018, 8, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Yoo, S.M.; Lee, S.Y. Optical Biosensors for the Detection of Pathogenic Microorganisms. Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Eser, E.; Ekiz, H.I. Antibody fragmentation technique for Salmonella detection by SPR based biosensor. J. Biotechnol. 2017, 256, S21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Di, W.; Du, X.; Pan, M.; Wang, J. The SPR detection of Salmonella enteritidis in food using aptamers as recongnition elements. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Singapore, 28–30 July 2017; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 231, p. 12114. [Google Scholar]
  147. Gopinath, S.C.; Yuan, Y.J.; Kumar, P.K.R. Regeneration of commercial Biacore chips to analyze biomolecular interactions. Opt. Eng. 2011, 50, 34402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diagnostics 10 00438 g001
Figure 1. The general procedure for the Widal test tube method [44]. 1. An essential step in any Widal test procedure is the serial dilution (the number of folds could be varied). This helps to avoid false negative results, due to Prozone phenomenon (high antibody (Ab) titer compared to the number of antigens (Ag)); 2. Reagents containing specific S. enterica serovars antigens are added. Although the test relies on the antigenic structure of each serovar (Table 1), the O somatic Ag of S. Paratyphi is not used, because of the factor 12 that is also present in the O Ag of S. Typhi; 3. Upon addition of Ags, the setup is properly mixed and then incubated. Usually, the duration of incubation is up to 18 h at 37 °C; 4. After incubation, the sample is vortexed and then agglutination is viewed by the naked eye if the result is positive. The final result is the highest dilution (titer) with a visible agglutination.
Figure 1. The general procedure for the Widal test tube method [44]. 1. An essential step in any Widal test procedure is the serial dilution (the number of folds could be varied). This helps to avoid false negative results, due to Prozone phenomenon (high antibody (Ab) titer compared to the number of antigens (Ag)); 2. Reagents containing specific S. enterica serovars antigens are added. Although the test relies on the antigenic structure of each serovar (Table 1), the O somatic Ag of S. Paratyphi is not used, because of the factor 12 that is also present in the O Ag of S. Typhi; 3. Upon addition of Ags, the setup is properly mixed and then incubated. Usually, the duration of incubation is up to 18 h at 37 °C; 4. After incubation, the sample is vortexed and then agglutination is viewed by the naked eye if the result is positive. The final result is the highest dilution (titer) with a visible agglutination.
Diagnostics 10 00438 g001
Diagnostics 10 00438 g002
Figure 2. A schematic representation of surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensor based on antibody/antigen binding. This SPR system is commonly used for bacterial detection. Before the bindings occur, the angle of reflection is at I, and after the analyte (Ag) binds to the immobilized ligand (Ab), the reflection angle widens, due to the increase in refractive indices on the gold surface [96].
Figure 2. A schematic representation of surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensor based on antibody/antigen binding. This SPR system is commonly used for bacterial detection. Before the bindings occur, the angle of reflection is at I, and after the analyte (Ag) binds to the immobilized ligand (Ab), the reflection angle widens, due to the increase in refractive indices on the gold surface [96].
Diagnostics 10 00438 g002
Diagnostics 10 00438 g003
Figure 3. Annual publications on the SPR-based methods in the last two decades, according to PubMed databases (as at 20 March 2020).
Figure 3. Annual publications on the SPR-based methods in the last two decades, according to PubMed databases (as at 20 March 2020).
Diagnostics 10 00438 g003
Diagnostics 10 00438 g004
Figure 4. A proposed SPR-based genoassay to detect S. Paratyphi. Immobilization of biotinylated DNA probe onto the gold surface can be done, based on the cross-linking (capturing) method. Streptavidin will be functionalized with biotin (coupled with DNA probe) as a protein capture agent. The binding of the immobilized biotinylated DNA probe to ssDNA will produce a specific change in the light output reflected from the gold-based surface. By monitoring both the immobilization process, as well as the reaction between the biotinylated DNA probe and ssDNA, the changes in refractive index, absorbance, reflectance, kinetic, binding assay, and spectrum can be obtained and analyzed, allowing the determination of the most sensitive parameter within this approach.
Figure 4. A proposed SPR-based genoassay to detect S. Paratyphi. Immobilization of biotinylated DNA probe onto the gold surface can be done, based on the cross-linking (capturing) method. Streptavidin will be functionalized with biotin (coupled with DNA probe) as a protein capture agent. The binding of the immobilized biotinylated DNA probe to ssDNA will produce a specific change in the light output reflected from the gold-based surface. By monitoring both the immobilization process, as well as the reaction between the biotinylated DNA probe and ssDNA, the changes in refractive index, absorbance, reflectance, kinetic, binding assay, and spectrum can be obtained and analyzed, allowing the determination of the most sensitive parameter within this approach.
Diagnostics 10 00438 g004
Table 1. Antigenic signatures that have been utilized in Salmonella enterica serological and molecular detection tests [11,41].
Table 1. Antigenic signatures that have been utilized in Salmonella enterica serological and molecular detection tests [11,41].
Antigen NameAntigenic Virulence Factors
S. Paratyphi AS. Paratyphi BS. Paratyphi CS. Typhi
H flagellara, 1, 5b, 1, 2c, 1, 5d
O somatic1, 2, 121, 4, 5, 126, 79, 12
Capsular antigen--ViVi
Table 2. Surface modification methods for ligand immobilization.
Table 2. Surface modification methods for ligand immobilization.
MethodAdvantage(s)Disadvantage(s)Reference(s)
Physical adsorptionFor study of membrane-associated proteinThe immobilized ligands are formed in random oriented order[84,85]
Thiol-basedCovalent binding; thus, provides strong immobilization of ligand with thiol group and in homogenous orientationChemical synthesis and protein engineering need to be carried out if thiol group is lacking[86,87]
Self-assembled monolayer basedCovalent binding; thus, provides strong immobilization of ligand with amine-coupling group and in homogenous orientation. This method is the simplestEfficiency of immobilization can be decreased due to non-specific biding of ligand onto the surface[88]
CaptureThis method is used when the covalent immobilization process is not sufficient enough. Common techniques: streptavidin-biotin and antibody-antigenBoth analyte and ligand are removed during regeneration, so a new ligand is required, thus, increasing cost[89,90]
Polymer film depositionProvides high sensitivityWeak binding to the sensor chip through non-covalent forces[91,92]
Table 3. Previous studies that have utilized SPR for bacterial detection.
Table 3. Previous studies that have utilized SPR for bacterial detection.
Study ID [Reference]Detected BacteriaSamplePrinciple of ImmobilizationLimit of Detection
Arya 2011 [110]Escherichia coli K12Bacterial cultureT4-based bioassay7 × 102 CFU/mL−1
Aura 2017 [109]Staphylococcal enterotoxin A, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenesMilkAb/Ag immunoassay and PNA/SSO probes-based genoassay0.05 µg/mL
Bhandari 2019 [111]S. TyphimuriumRomaine lettuceAb/Ag immunoassay0.9 log CFU/g
Bhandari 2019 [112]S. TyphimuriumBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay-
Barlen 2007 [105]S. Typhimurium and S. EnteritidisMilkAb/Ag immunoassay2.50 × 105 cells/mL−1
Barlen 2009 [113]S. Enteritidis (antibodies)Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay1010 cells/mL−1
Bokken 2003 [114]Salmonella group B, D and EBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay107 CFU/mL−1
Chen 2017 [115]S. Enteritidis, S. Kentucky, S. Infantis, S. Javiana, S. Heidelberg and S. TyphimuriumChicken carcassAb/Ag immunoassay2.1 × 106 CFU/mL
Eser 2015 [116]S. EnteritidisBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay102 CFU/mL
Fratamico 1998 [98]E. coli O157:H7Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay107 CFU/mL
Fu 2009 [108]S. TyphimuriumBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay104 CFU/mL
Jongerius 2002 [117]S. Enteritidis and S. Typhimurium (antibodies)Serum from infected chickensAb/Ag immunoassay-
Jyoung 2006 [118]Vibrio cholerae O1Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay105 cells/mL
Kim 2006 [119]Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (antibodies)Serum from infected pigsAb/Ag immunoassay-
Koubova 2001 [120]S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenesBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay106 cells/mL
Lan 2008 [121]S. TyphimuriumChicken carcassAb/Ag immunoassay106 CFU/mL
Lukose 2018 [122]S. TyphimuriumBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay106 CFU/mL−1
Mazumdar 2007 [123]S. TyphimuriumMilkAb/Ag immunoassay1.25 × 105 cells/mL−1
Mazumdar 2008 [124]S. Typhimurium (antibodies)Serum from infected pigsAb/Ag immunoassay67.5 µg/mL−1
Mazumdar 2010 [104]Salmonella group B, C and DBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay1010 cells/mL−1
Meeusen 2005 [125]E. coli O157:H7Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay8.7 × 106 CFU/mL
Nguyena 2016 [126]S. TyphimuriumBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay107 CFU/mL
Oh 2004 [107]S. ParatyphiBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay102 CFU/mL
Oh 2005 [127]E. coli O157:H7, S. Typhimurium, Legionella pneumophila and Yersinia enterocoliticaBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay105 CFU/mL
Perçin 2017 [106]S. ParatyphiBacterial cultureA special microcontact imprinted sensor chip programed to detect
S. Paratyphi		2.5 × 106 CFU/mL
Perkins 2000 [128]Bacillus subtilis (spore)Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay107 mL−1
Si 2001 [129]S. EnteritidisBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay105 cells/mL
Singh 2014 [130]S. TyphissDNA extracted from bacterial cultureDNA self-assembly0.019 µg/mL−1
Subramanian 2006 [131]E. coli O157:H7Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay104 CFU/mL
Subramanian 2006 [132]E. coli O157:H7Apple juiceAb/Ag immunoassay106 CFU/mL
Subramanian 2006 [133]S. aureusBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay105 CFU/mL
Taheri 2016 [134]V. cholerae O1 serovar OgawaBacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay43 cells/mL
Thomas 2006 [135]S. Enteritidis (antibodies)Eggs from chickens infected with Salmonella enteritidisAb/Ag immunoassay-
Usachev 2014 [136]E. coli K12Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay1.5 × 103 CFU/mL−1
Waswa 2006 [137]S. Enteritidis, E. coli O26, K12, NM and H16MilkAb/Ag immunoassay23 CFU/mL
Waswa 2007 [138]E. coli O157:H7Milk, apple juice and ground beefAb/Ag immunoassay102 CFU/mL
Zhang 2017 [139]E. coli O157:H7, S. Enteritidis and
L. monocytogenes		Bacterial cultureAb/Ag immunoassay6 CFU/25 g
CFU, colony-forming unit; mL, milliliter; µg, microgram; Ab, antibody; Ag, antigen; ssDNA, single-stranded DNA; PNA, peptide nucleic acid; SSO, sequence-specific oligonucleotide; T4, T4-bacteriophage.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alhaj-Qasem, D.M.; Al-Hatamleh, M.A.I.; Irekeola, A.A.; Khalid, M.F.; Mohamud, R.; Ismail, A.; Mustafa, F.H. Laboratory Diagnosis of Paratyphoid Fever: Opportunity of Surface Plasmon Resonance. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 438. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070438

AMA Style

Alhaj-Qasem DM, Al-Hatamleh MAI, Irekeola AA, Khalid MF, Mohamud R, Ismail A, Mustafa FH. Laboratory Diagnosis of Paratyphoid Fever: Opportunity of Surface Plasmon Resonance. Diagnostics. 2020; 10(7):438. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070438

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alhaj-Qasem, Dina M., Mohammad A. I. Al-Hatamleh, Ahmad Adebayo Irekeola, Muhammad Fazli Khalid, Rohimah Mohamud, Aziah Ismail, and Fatin Hamimi Mustafa. 2020. "Laboratory Diagnosis of Paratyphoid Fever: Opportunity of Surface Plasmon Resonance" Diagnostics 10, no. 7: 438. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070438

APA Style

Alhaj-Qasem, D. M., Al-Hatamleh, M. A. I., Irekeola, A. A., Khalid, M. F., Mohamud, R., Ismail, A., & Mustafa, F. H. (2020). Laboratory Diagnosis of Paratyphoid Fever: Opportunity of Surface Plasmon Resonance. Diagnostics, 10(7), 438. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10070438

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop