You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Chemosensors
  • Review
  • Open Access

15 July 2024

Machine Learning-Assisted Raman Spectroscopy and SERS for Bacterial Pathogen Detection: Clinical, Food Safety, and Environmental Applications

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA
2
2-Dimensional Materials for Biofilm Engineering Science and Technology (2D-BEST) Center, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA
3
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK
4
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD 57107, USA
This article belongs to the Special Issue Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)-Assisted Chemical Sensors

Abstract

Detecting pathogenic bacteria and their phenotypes including microbial resistance is crucial for preventing infection, ensuring food safety, and promoting environmental protection. Raman spectroscopy offers rapid, seamless, and label-free identification, rendering it superior to gold-standard detection techniques such as culture-based assays and polymerase chain reactions. However, its practical adoption is hindered by issues related to weak signals, complex spectra, limited datasets, and a lack of adaptability for detection and characterization of bacterial pathogens. This review focuses on addressing these issues with recent Raman spectroscopy breakthroughs enabled by machine learning (ML), particularly deep learning methods. Given the regulatory requirements, consumer demand for safe food products, and growing awareness of risks with environmental pathogens, this study emphasizes addressing pathogen detection in clinical, food safety, and environmental settings. Here, we highlight the use of convolutional neural networks for analyzing complex clinical data and surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy for sensitizing early and rapid detection of pathogens and analyzing food safety and potential environmental risks. Deep learning methods can tackle issues with the lack of adequate Raman datasets and adaptability across diverse bacterial samples. We highlight pending issues and future research directions needed for accelerating real-world impacts of ML-enabled Raman diagnostics for rapid and accurate diagnosis and surveillance of pathogens across critical fields.

1. Introduction

Bacterial infections claim millions of lives annually, aggravated by the increasing threat of antibiotic-resistant strains. These infections worsen due to delays in diagnosis and ineffective treatment. In developed and developing nations, bacterial infections result in over 6.7 million deaths annually, while foodborne illnesses caused by microbial pathogens contribute to 420,000 deaths worldwide each year [1,2,3]. In the United States alone, treating bacterial infections costs an estimated USD 33 billion annually [4]. Antibiotic misuse and overuse accelerate the rise of dangerous antimicrobial resistance (AMR) [5]. Projections indicate that bacterial infections could become a leading cause of death, claiming 10 million lives annually by 2050 [6].
Traditional diagnostic methods face significant limitations. The time-consuming nature of culture-based techniques can prompt empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic use while awaiting results, potentially contributing to AMR when overused [7]. Popular molecular techniques like polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) require complex sample preparation, specialized expertise, and expensive reagents, limiting their widespread deployment, particularly in resource-limited settings [8,9,10,11]. Phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) adds further delays, hindering effective treatment [12]. Even advanced tools like matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) may struggle to distinguish closely related bacterial species or accurately identify antibiotic-resistant strains [13,14]. Further challenges include the inability of many of these techniques to analyze individual cells within mixed populations, identify pathogens directly in their natural environments (like food or complex ecosystems), and reliably detect the unique pathogens present in marine environments. Other challenges with traditional methods include lack of speed, sensitivity, and adaptability. To combat bacterial infections and improve patient outcomes, safeguard food safety, and improve environmental monitoring, there is an urgent need for rapid, culture-free, accurate, and cost-effective diagnostic tools for detecting bacterial pathogens.
Raman spectroscopy can address these challenges by providing rapid, label-free bacterial detection based on the unique vibrational “fingerprints” of biomolecules within cells, offering a wealth of information on their molecular composition [15,16,17]. The Raman spectrum of a bacterial cell provides a detailed fingerprint of its key biomolecules, such as nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, metabolites, and pigments. By analyzing the unique patterns (e.g., Raman shift, cm−1) and intensities of Raman peaks associated with these biomolecules, researchers can gain valuable information about the composition and structure of the microbial cells, aiding in various applications, including bacterial identification, characterization, differentiation of different strains and phenotypes, and monitoring of metabolic activities.Its rapid response, easier sample preparation, sensitivity, effectiveness across large scan areas, and non-destructive nature surpass traditional methods, enabling real-time analysis in both natural and engineered settings [18,19,20]. As explained in subsequent paragraphs, the emerging ML-based Raman spectroscopy serves as a powerful tool for the rapid detection of microorganisms. This allows for studying complex communities, identifying low bacterial loads, and maximizing information from a single sample. Figure 1A illustrates a typical workflow for Raman/SERS-based bacterial detection. For bacterial samples with weak Raman signals, nanoparticles are added to create a SERS effect, significantly amplifying the signal for improved detection.The process involves Raman/SERS analysis of processed bacterial samples transferred to suitable substrates such as aluminum, calcium fluoride (CaF2), Teflon, or silicon. Raman detection considers parameters like laser settings, grate size, acquisition time, power, and background subtraction to optimize signal quality and analysis speed. Machine learning models (unsupervised or supervised) are then employed for rapid and seamless bacterial detection at different levels of resolution, including genus, species, strain, and phenotypic response (Figure 1B). ML tackles data complexities for high-resolution bacterial identification in clinical, food safety, and environmental monitoring. Relevant case studies are provided in latter sections to discuss the key challenges addressed in the three key target areas (Figure 1B).
Figure 1. Workflowfor Raman/SERS-based bacterial detection and machine learning applications. (A) Raman/SERS analysis of processed bacterial samples from diverse settings (clinical, environmental, food) followed by optional SERS modification. (B) Utilization of ML models for rapid and seamless detection of unique Raman signatures for target pathogens. The graphic highlights typical challenges “(a)–(d)”, typical unsupervised and supervised models, three case studies focused on in this article (1–3), and the envisioned resolution of Raman signatures at the genus, species, strain, and phenotype levels.
Emerging ML methods, along with new algorithms, large datasets, and increased computational power, have been successfully leveraged in diverse research fields [21,22,23,24]. Currently, they are being explored for enabling next-generation Raman/SERS methods for bacterial identification [17,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38], including image analysis and ML-assisted MALDI-TOF MS [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. This review article highlights the convergence of machine learning with Raman spectroscopy as a pivotal area for detecting bacteria including pathogens. These ML models have the potential to address some critical challenges, including (i) an inherently weak Raman signal, which leads to low signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) [18,49] and hinders the ability to extract subtle spectral differences crucial for distinguishing unique phenotypes (e.g., antibiotic resistance) [18,50,51], (ii) convoluted and long peaks of varying widths, intensities, and positions, and (iii) the complexity of signals typical of surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS), a powerful tool for amplifying the Raman signals based on trace amounts of pathogens [52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. ML methods can transform Raman-based bacterial detection processes by addressing issues with a typical need for experts trained in the meticulous preparation of samples and analyzing weak and complex signals. ML-based SERS can be used to analyze real-world clinical samples which contain complex mixtures of bacteria, body fluids, and other contaminants that obscure spectral information. Recent studies demonstrate its exceptional sensitivity towards subtle biomarkers for species and antibiotic resistance classification [59,60,61,62,63,64].
The convergence of machine learning and Raman spectroscopy within the past five years has unleashed a new era for rapid, label-free bacterial pathogen detection. While these convergent ML/Raman tools have been explored in certain branches [65,66,67,68,69,70,71], a focused review on their specific applications for bacterial detection, specifically to discriminate friends (beneficial bacteria) from foes (pathogens) is still needed. Based on the above background, this review article focuses on addressing key challenges with Raman-based bacterial detection; they include (a) weak Raman signals, (b) complex Raman spectra, (c) limited Raman datasets, and (d) lack of adaptability across diverse datasets. We will discuss the ML-based approaches for addressing these issues using three in-depth case studies. As mentioned earlier, this study focuses on fundamental aspects of ML-enabled Raman analysis for bacterial pathogen detection for clinical diagnostics, food safety, and environmental monitoring.

2. Raman and SERS: Fundamentals and Signal Enhancement

Raman spectroscopy is a non-invasive, label-free method for studying a bacterial cell’s interior by analyzing how its biomolecules’ unique structures vibrate in response to light. In other words, it works by analyzing how biomolecules scatter light, revealing their vibrational “fingerprint”. The incoming near-infrared (NIR) laser light bathes the microbial cell. The spectral wavelength, typically between 532 and 1064 nm, is chosen to achieve a good penetration depth within the cell (typically a few micrometers in size) and minimize damage to the cell itself. The laser spot size is focused on a tiny area, typically 1–10 μm in diameter, allowing researchers to target a single cell or a specific region within the cell even though the cell itself is much smaller. Please note that the diameter of typical bacterial cells ranges from 0.2 to 10 μm (e.g., 1 μm for Staphylococcus aureus, 1.5–4 μm for Mycobacterium tuberculosis) [72,73]. While laser light bathes the entire outer surface of the cell, it can penetrate to reach biomolecules within the cell. The laser light continuously illuminates the cell (seconds to minutes), and the key information of biomolecules comes from the femtosecond (fs) excitation (1 fs = 10−15 s) of the biomolecules (proteins, lipids, DNA, etc.) by the laser light. This excitation causes the molecules, which are much smaller than cells, to vibrate at their characteristic frequencies for a short period (picoseconds to nanoseconds). This vibrational state is a fleeting response (picoseconds to nanoseconds) as the bonds within the molecule pull it back to its original state. The biomolecule eventually relaxes by releasing the energy gained from the laser light. The Raman signal, which carries the fingerprint information of the biomolecules, is generated during this short vibrational state. By analyzing the Raman spectrum (pattern of scattered light intensities), scientists can identify the types of biomolecules present and their relative abundance within the cell. When the laser beam hits the bacterial cell or a biomolecule, most of the light scatters without changing energy, but a tiny fraction scatters at different frequencies. This change in frequency is called the Raman shift. The in-depth details regarding Raman mechanisms are documented elsewhere [74].
While Raman spectroscopy offers advantages, an even more powerful technique, SERS, can be used to address challenges like trace detection or complex mixtures. SERS boosts signal strength by harnessing the interaction of molecules with specially designed metallic nanostructures [75,76,77]. When light hits these nanostructures, it excites localized surface plasmon resonances (LSPRs)—essentially, waves of electrons moving across the metal’s surface [78,79]. LSPRs create intense electromagnetic fields that amplify the Raman signal of nearby molecules, making it possible to detect even minute traces of substances [80,81].
Beyond this powerful plasmonic effect, SERS sensitivity also draws from a chemical interaction between the molecule and the metal surface [82]. This involves a temporary exchange of electrons, acting as a bridge that can further amplify the molecule’s Raman signal [75]. Importantly, the chemical effect can further amplify or slightly reduce the Raman signal, but its overall contribution is typically less significant than the powerful boost provided by plasmons [83].
The sensitivity of SERS opens promising possibilities across various fields. It enables early detection of pathogens, allowing for the rapid treatment of infections. In food safety, SERS can detect minute traces of harmful bacteria or toxins, safeguarding consumers [52]. Additionally, SERS allows for the analysis of complex environmental samples for pollutants or other contaminants, aiding in environmental monitoring [84].
While offering significant advantages and sophisticated results, SERS still faces the challenge of analyzing complex spectral data. Subtle differences between closely related pathogens or the influence of background noise can be hard to distinguish using traditional methods. This is where machine learning enters the picture, providing essential assisting tools to extract meaningful patterns from complex Raman/SERS data. This leads to groundbreaking advancements in areas like bacterial pathogen detection.
For a deeper technical understanding of the mechanisms behind SERS enhancement, see Appendix A.

3. ML Techniques for Raman Spectroscopy: Traditional ML, CNNs, and Other Deep Learning Techniques

Machine learning models discussed in this section have been effectively used to address the previously discussed key challenges. Table 1 provides a comparative overview of the key ML techniques deployed in Raman spectroscopy for bacterial identification, exploring their specific advantages and challenges.
Table 1. Unsupervised and supervised ML techniques for Raman spectroscopy: a comparative guide.

3.1. Unsupervised Machine Learning

Unsupervised machine learning techniques offer an exploratory approach to Raman data analysis, particularly valuable when dealing with unlabeled datasets. These techniques offer advantages such as the discovery of unknown bacterial subgroups, dimensionality reduction for simplified analysis, and guidance for hypothesis generation in basic research. Principal component analysis (PCA) reduces data dimensionality by identifying the principal components explaining most of the variance, making it ideal for visualizing data and identifying underlying patterns. Researchers have used PCA in combination with classification models for preliminary spectral exploration and biomarker identification [89]. K-means partitions data into “K” clusters based on similarity, effectively grouping similar spectra, but requires specifying the number of clusters. Hierarchical clustering creates a tree-like structure (dendrogram) representing spectral relationships, helpful for exploring hierarchical structures in data. Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) discovers clusters of arbitrary shape based on density, making it ideal for identifying clusters with varying densities and dealing with outliers. Researchers have applied clustering methods like K-means and DBSCAN to Raman data for bacterial strain differentiation and to study microbial community dynamics [90].

3.2. Supervised Machine Learning

In contrast to unsupervised methods, supervised machine learning techniques leverage labeled datasets to learn specific relationships between spectral features and target outcomes (e.g., bacterial species, antibiotic resistance). This approach offers several advantages, including the potential for high accuracy when well-defined labels are available and the ability to directly predict specific biological characteristics of interest.

3.2.1. Traditional Machine Learning

Traditional machine learning algorithms, including support vector machine (SVM), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and others, offer a complementary approach, often focusing on extracting handcrafted features from spectral data. They can excel with smaller datasets (typically less than 1000 samples) and provide insights into the driving spectral features, offering valuable transparency. SVM constructs a hyperplane to separate classes and works well with high-dimensional data, while RF is an ensemble of decision trees that is robust to overfitting and handles non-linear relationships. DT is simple and interpretable but can be prone to overfitting, whereas KNN classifies based on proximity to neighbors in a feature space but is sensitive to noise and outliers. Ensemble methods combine multiple models to improve overall performance. For scenarios where computational resources are limited or rapid analysis is crucial, traditional ML methods can be highly suitable. However, they may struggle with highly complex spectral data or subtle differences between samples compared to deep learning techniques. Researchers have successfully used RF to classify complex bacterial communities in environmental samples and to explore SERS-based bacterial chemotaxonomy [60,86]. Additionally, various traditional ML methods have been combined with Raman spectroscopy for rapid, label-free clinical diagnostics, including antibiotic resistance profiling [91].

3.2.2. Deep Learning (DL)

Deep learning encompasses a powerful suite of supervised learning techniques that leverage multilayered neural networks to uncover complex relationships within data. In the context of Raman analysis, two key deep learning categories emerge: CNNs and other deep learning techniques.
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)
CNNs, inspired by the structure of the visual cortex, have emerged as a dominant force due to their ability to process grid-like data [92].They excel at extracting intricate patterns and spatial features from complex Raman spectra. CNNs have demonstrated superior performance in identifying complex spectral patterns and can handle large, labeled datasets (often exceeding 1000 samples per class), making them ideal for differentiating closely related bacterial strains, identifying subtle antibiotic resistance markers, and handling samples with background noise [18,93,94,95]. They offer advantages such as automatic feature extraction, high accuracy with large datasets, and robustness to noise. CNNs can be trained to adapt to variations in sample preparation and spectral noise, enhancing their robustness in real-world clinical settings. Researchers have successfully employed CNNs to distinguish between closely related pathogens like Shigella spp. and Escherichia coli and for accurate identification even in complex clinical samples [87,96]. Additionally, CNNs have demonstrated the ability to detect subtle antibiotic resistance markers in bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus [18]. However, CNNs can be computationally intensive and may be challenging to interpret. They also face challenges such as potential overfitting to training data and the need for large, well-labeled datasets [97].
Other Deep Learning (ODL)
Researchers are harnessing innovative ODL methods like vision transformers (ViTs), attentional neural networks (aNN), and generative adversarial networks (GANs) to tackle specific challenges, such as addressing dataset limitations, extracting subtle patterns, and handling real-world sample complexities. ViTs have proven effective for rapid antibiotic resistance classification in clinical settings [59], while aNNs show potential for analyzing complex extracellular vesicles, aiding in disease diagnostics [98]. GANs can be used to augment datasets for rare bacteria analysis, as exemplified by their use in enhancing datasets for rare deep-sea bacteria analysis [88]. These ODL methods offer advantages such as effectiveness for complex data, robustness to noise, and the ability to handle limited datasets. However, they can be computationally intensive, require careful validation, and demand domain expertise for optimal method selection.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

While the integration of machine learning with Raman spectroscopy demonstrates extraordinary potential, it is crucial to acknowledge its current limitations and chart a path for overcoming those challenges. To fully realize its transformative impact, the field must address dataset scarcity and lack of standardization and promote explainable AI methodologies.
  • Data challenges: The development of robust, accurate models often depends on substantial, well-curated, and harmonized datasets. Initiatives for multi-institutional data sharing through accessible repositories with standardized metadata are essential to address smaller dataset limitations. Exploration of techniques like transfer learning and data augmentation also holds promise.
  • Standardization: The lack of standardized protocols for sample preparation, spectral acquisition, and data analysis hinders reproducibility and clinical translation. Establishing best practices and guidelines will ensure reliable results across different laboratories and applications.
  • Limited focus on quantification: Our review reveals a predominant focus on classification tasks in pathogen detection, highlighting an opportunity for further research into regression-based approaches for quantifying bacterial load. The study by Yan et al., as highlighted in Case Study II, demonstrates the potential of machine learning to accurately predict bacterial concentration using SERS, underscoring a promising avenue for future exploration.
  • Explainable AI: While certain deep learning models deliver exceptional results, achieving a clear understanding of their decision-making processes remains a challenge. Developing explainable AI techniques, such as Grad-CAM, is vital for building trust in ML–Raman solutions, especially within the clinical context.
By focusing research efforts on these core areas, researchers can unlock the full potential of ML–Raman to revolutionize our approach to infectious diseases, food safety, and fundamental biological research. Recalling the challenges outlined in the Introduction, it is these limitations that often impede the translation of promising research into real-world applications.
The future of ML–Raman is immensely bright, with exciting potential for transformative advances in several areas:
  • Open questions: The case studies examined highlight exciting open questions for future research. These include the development of ODL architectures specifically tailored for Raman spectroscopy, computationally efficient models for real-time applications, and the pursuit of spectral biomarkers for early disease detection.
  • Multimodal analysis: Integrating Raman spectroscopy with complementary techniques like microfluidics and mass spectrometry paves the way for comprehensive analysis. This offers richer insights into bacterial phenotypes, antibiotic resistance mechanisms, and single-cell dynamics—areas crucial for combating the AMR crisis.
  • Harnessing GenAI’s potential: The integration of cutting-edge generative AI (GenAI) models holds significant promise for Raman spectroscopy and microbiology. These models can further enhance data generation, aid in spectral interpretation, and potentially uncover novel biological insights.
  • Cross-field collaboration: Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between experts in Raman spectroscopy, machine learning, and microbiology is paramount. By combining diverse knowledge and expertise, researchers can develop innovative ML–Raman solutions tailored to address specific biological challenges and clinical needs.
The studies analyzed in this review powerfully demonstrate the transformative capabilities of machine learning in Raman spectroscopy. By critically addressing limitations, harnessing emerging technologies, and promoting cross-field collaboration, we can solidify the role of ML–Raman as a cornerstone of microbiology, ultimately improving patient outcomes and safeguarding global health.

6. Conclusions

This review journeyed through the groundbreaking synergy of machine learning and Raman spectroscopy for bacterial identification, revealing its transformative potential to revolutionize how we diagnose infections, ensure food safety, and understand the microbial world.
Case Study I established the potential of CNNs to revolutionize clinical diagnostics. Their ability to handle complex spectral data and pinpoint subtle biomarkers for antibiotic resistance underscores their potential impact on treatment decisions and the fight against AMR. Building upon those foundations, Case Study II delved into the power of SERS. By amplifying the Raman signal, SERS enables the detection of trace pathogens and offers unparalleled sensitivity for scenarios like food safety and early-stage disease detection. Finally, Case Study III highlighted the potential of other deep learning techniques. These innovative methods address challenges like limited datasets through techniques like GANs and extract insights from complex samples, greatly expanding the applications of Raman spectroscopy.
Throughout these case studies, the challenges and opportunities for advancement within the field became increasingly clear. The availability of diverse, well-curated Raman datasets, the standardization of experimental protocols, and the pursuit of explainable AI models are crucial areas for further development. However, the potential impact of addressing these challenges is immense. Imagine a future where ML–Raman enables the following:
  • Rapid point-of-care diagnostics: Clinicians, equipped with portable, ML-powered Raman devices, can swiftly identify the cause of an infection and determine the most effective antibiotic, preventing needless delays and improving patient outcomes.
  • Precision-guided food safety: Rapid ML-SERS-based tests screen food production lines for harmful bacteria, overcoming adaptability challenges to safeguard consumers and prevent costly outbreaks.
  • Decoding the microbial world: Researchers harness the power of ML and Raman to unlock insights into complex bacterial communities, unraveling the mysteries of microbial ecosystems and their impact on the environment and human health.
The integration of machine learning and Raman spectroscopy is not simply about improving existing technologies—it holds the key to fundamentally transforming how we diagnose infections, protect our food supply, and understand the world around us. This burgeoning field demands continuous research and innovation to fully realize its transformative potential. The field is poised for rapid progress and invites researchers, clinicians, and innovators to join this revolutionary journey.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.-U.R. and V.G.; methodology, M.H.-U.R.; validation, M.H.-U.R., R.S., M.T., M.Z., E.G.Z., B.K.J., A.B.D., T.Y. and V.G.; formal analysis, M.H.-U.R.; investigation, M.H.-U.R.; resources, V.G.; data curation, M.H.-U.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.-U.R.; writing—M.H.-U.R., R.S., M.T., M.Z., E.G.Z., B.K.J., A.B.D., T.Y. and V.G.; visualization, M.H.-U.R. and R.S.; supervision, V.G.; project administration, V.G.; funding acquisition, V.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Gadhamshetty’s group acknowledges the support from National Science Foundation (NSF) RII FEC awards #1849206 and #1920954, and NSF CBET award #1454102. Gnimpieba acknowledges support from the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (P20GM103443).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

R.S. and T.Y. would like to acknowledge the Civil and Environmental Engineering department of South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. M.T. and A.B.D. would like to acknowledge the University of Sussex strategic development fund.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A. Technical Details of SERS Enhancement Mechanisms

SERS achieves its remarkable sensitivity through a combination of electromagnetic and chemical enhancement mechanisms [75]. These two contributions arise due to the fundamental phenomenon of Raman scattering intensity (IR), which is proportional to the square of the induced dipole moment ( μ ind ), which is the product of Raman polarizability ( α ) and magnitude of electric field (E) [76]. In the SERS measurement, when the incident light strikes over a metallic nanoparticle of smaller dimensions than the wavelength, it leads to the excitation of surface plasmons, which is the coupling of photons to the charge density oscillations of conducting electrons, Figure A1a [78]. Under these excitations, localized surface plasmons (LSPRs) occur when the frequency ( ω o ) of incident light matches the frequency of the oscillating electron. It leads to the locally enhanced electric field (Eloc) at the particle surface compared to the incident electromagnetic field (Eo) by a factor of Gex given in the following relation of enhancement factor [79,81].
G ex = [ E loc ( ω o ) / E o ( ω o ) ] 2
The resonance frequency of plasmons in the metallic structure depends on certain factors: dielectric function of the metal, effective electron mass, local surroundings, and structural geometry for the propagation [133]. In the localized surroundings, other oscillation sources are generated, such as the modified Raman dipole (Po). Generally, the interaction between α of the molecule with Po is higher in magnitude (2–3 orders) than the free molecules not attached to the metals. Thus, these mutual excitations of ( α ) by (Eo), and vice versa, further enhance the SERS signal by enhancement factor GR given below.
G R = [ E loc ( ω R ) / E o ( ω R ) ] 2
where ω R is the Raman-shifted frequency. For the molecules exhibiting low vibrational frequencies in the Raman mode, ω o ω R is considered roughly equal, and the electromagnetic field enhancement factors of Equations (A1) and (A2) are considered comparable. Thus, overall enhancement under the effect of the electromagnetic field in the SERS (G) scale with the fourth power of the Eo is responsible for the sensitivity of SERS techniques, capable of addressing minor changes in the local field enhancement [77].
G = I E loc ( ω R ) I 4 / I E o ( ω R ) I 4
Figure A1. (a) In the presence of electromagnetic waves of incoming frequency ( ω inc ) over metallic nanoparticle (Au) generating a localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR). Reprinted with permission from Sebastian Schlücker, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2014. Copyright 2014, John Wiley and Sons [80]. (b) The chemical contribution in SERS shows a charge transfer mechanism for the attached molecule over the metal and semiconductor interface. The arrows represent the direction of charge transfer and the spheres represent molecular orbitals. Reprinted with permission from Shan Cong et al., The Innovation, Elsevier, 2020. Copyright 2020 [134].
In the chemical enhancement mechanism of SERS, the surface plasmon resonance absorption occurs far from the laser excitation wavelength (within a certain sensing volume) through the charge transfer transition ( μ CT ) mechanism either through the molecule-to-metal or metal-to-molecule pathway. Three different types of mechanisms have been proposed during chemical enhancement: interfacial ground state charge transfer ( μ GSCT ), photon-induced charge transfer ( μ PICT ), and the occurrence of the electronic exciting resonance within the molecule [135]. In the vicinity of the metallic nanoparticles, the generation of electrons after photo-irradiation is either excited from the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of the adsorbed molecule transferred to the Fermi energy level (EF) of the metal or excited from the EF of the metal and transferred to the lowest occupied molecular orbital of the molecule (LUMO), Figure A1b. In the case of semiconductors, the energy band gap (Eg) and its associated EF play a crucial role in plasmonic nanoparticles in the charge transfer process. It is important to note that the chemical-contributed mechanism during SERS could either lead to quenching or enhancement of the scattering [82]. Nevertheless, the chemical contribution to the SERS enhancement is not significant (factor of 103), as observed in electromagnetically induced plasmons (105 to 109) [83]. The total enhancement factor constituting the electromagnetic and chemical contribution is generalized in relation (Equation (A4)), given below.
E n h a n c e m e n t F a c t o r SERS = [ I SERS / N Sur ] / [ I NRS / N Vol ]
The relation evaluated for a single excitation wavelength describes the average Raman enhancement, where ISERS is the intensity of the Raman band of the adsorbed molecule, INRS is the normal Raman intensity (i.e., without SERS effect), and Nsur and Nvol are the average number of molecules in the scattering volume of SERS and non-SERS Raman spectroscopic measurements [136].

Appendix B

Researchers can optimize their Raman spectroscopy–ML experimental design for bacterial identification by referencing Table A1. This table offers a valuable guide to Raman spectroscopy parameters, sample details, bacterial species/strains, algorithms, and accuracy metrics drawn from 32 diverse studies. This resource can streamline the process by providing insights into effective parameter choices and methodological comparisons.
Table A1. Design effective Raman spectroscopy–ML experiments: a parameter guide for bacterial research.
Table A1. Design effective Raman spectroscopy–ML experiments: a parameter guide for bacterial research.
Sample TypeSpecific BacteriaAlgorithm CategoryAccuracy MetricInput (No. of Spectra)Raman ParametersRef.
Pure bacterial culturesE. coli (2 strains), Shigella spp. (8 strains)CNN99.64%1600Excitation: 784.56 nm, 25 mW grating: 600 L/mm, spectral range: 400–2300 cm−1, exposure = 60 s, objective = 100×[87]
Clinical isolates + AgNPs30 species, 9 generaCNNCNN: 99.80% (genus), 98.37% (species)17,149Excitation: 785 nm, 20 mW, spectral range: 65–2800 cm−1, exposure = 5 s[96]
Pure cultures30 isolates, 15 speciesCNN84.7 ± 0.3% (isolate), 97 ± 0.3% (treatment ID)≈60,000N/A[100]
K. pneumoniae clinical isolatesK. pneumoniae (71 strains)CNN>94% for antibiotic resistance genes7455Excitation: 785 nm, 150 mW, grating: 1200 L/mm, spectral range: 390.79–1552.14 cm−1, objective = 50×[101]
N/AN/ACNN86.7% (isolate), 92.7% (MRSA/MSSA)Paper 10 dataN/A[89]
Genomic DNA isolatesBrucella spp., Bacillus spp.CNNCNN: 96.33%843Excitation: 785 nm, 30 mW, grating: 600 L/mm, spectral range: 600–1700 cm−1, exposure = 60 s, objective = 100×[85]
Pure bacterial cultures + AuNPsS. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium, S. ParatyphiCNN97%1854Excitation: 785 nm, 5 mW, spectral range: 550–1676 cm−1, exposure = 2 s[62]
Individual microbes and cells on Teflon12 species (Gram +ve and −ve) + fungiCNN95–100%≈6000 per organismExcitation: 532 nm, 20 mW[102]
Bacteria, archaea, yeast under various conditions14 speciesCNN95.64 ± 5.46%>4200 (train) 1400 (test)Excitation: 785 nm, <16 mW, grating: 600 L/mm, spectral range: 600–1800 cm−1, exposure = 60–90 s, objective = 100×[103]
Lab-prepared isolatesS. aureus (MRSA/MSSA pair) + yeastCNN82% (isolate), 97% (treatment), 89% (MRSA/MSSA)72,000Excitation: 633 nm, 13.17 mW, grating: 300 L/mm, spectral range: 381.98–1792.4 cm−1, background: poly fit (5)[18]
Mixed bacterial culturesE. coli, S. aureus, S. typhimuriumTraditional MLANN: R2 > 0.95, RMSE < 0.06N/AN/A[84]
Bacterial cultures6 distinct speciesTraditional ML>98%100 per speciesExcitation: 532 nm, 0.3–0.4 mW, spectral range: 400–1800 cm−1, objective = 20×[60]
Clinical isolates, some cultured12 species (Gram +ve/−ve) + 2 fungiTraditional MLRF: 90.73% (species ID), 99.92% (antibiotic resistance)>300 per species (train), 80 per species (test)Integration time = 60–90 s[91]
Clinical isolates on aluminum9 species (Gram +ve/−ve)Traditional MLSimple filter: 92% (1 s/cell), DAE: 84% (0.1 s/cell)≈11,141Excitation: 532 nm, 7 mW, grating: 1200 L/mm, spectral range: 280–2186 cm−1, exposure = 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, or 15 s, objective = 100×[137]
Clinical isolates + AgNPs117 S. aureus strainsTraditional MLDBSCAN: 0.9733, Rand index, CNN: 98.21% Accuracy2752Excitation: 785 nm, spectral range: 519.56–1800.8 cm−1, exposure = 20 s[90]
Bacterial cultures on silver-coated slides30 species, 7 generaTraditional ML86.23 ± 0.92% (all, single model); 87.1–95.8% (hierarchical)15,890Excitation: 532 nm, 5 mW, grating: 300 L/mm, spectral range: 400–1800 cm−1, objective = 20×[19]
Single prokaryotic cells3 bacteria, 3 archaeaTraditional ML>98%40 per speciesN/A[86]
Pure cultures on silicon waferE. coli ATCC 8739Traditional MLN/AN/AExcitation: 532 nm, 8 mW, spectral range: 650–3300 cm−1, exposure = 0.033 s, background: poly fit (6)[138]
Bacterial isolates + AgNPsS. aureus (MRSA/MSSA), L. pneumophilaTraditional ML97.8 ± 0.63% (kNN)230Excitation: 785 nm, 3 mW, spectral range: 550–1700 cm−1, exposure = 1 s, objective = 50×[114]
Milk, beefE. coli O157:H7 (and others)Traditional MLLimit of detection: 6.94 × 101 CFU/mL, Recovery 86–128%2700Excitation: 633 nm, grating: 300 L/mm, exposure = 2 s, objective = 50×[52]
Heat-inactivated bacterial cellsB. mallei, B. pseudomallei, other Burkholderia spp.Traditional ML95.5% sensitivity (core group), 83.4% sensitivity (others)≈ 200 per strainExcitation: 532 nm, 7 mW, grating: 920 L/mm, spectral range: 15–3275 cm−1, exposure = 5 s, objective = 100×[139]
Bacteria from blood cultures8 common speciesOther deep learning99.3% Gram type, 97.56% species, 98.5% MRSA/MSSA11,774Excitation: 632.8 nm, objective = 20×[59]
Clinical isolates + AgNO3A. xylosoxidans, B. cepacian, C. indologenes, + 12 othersOther deep learningCNN: 99.86%≈6950Excitation: 785 nm, 20 mW, spectral range: 519.56–1800.81 cm−1, exposure = 5 s[115]
Extracellular vesicles (EVs)6 bacterial speciesOther deep learning>96% (Gram/species), 93% (strain), 87% (physiological)4335Excitation: 532 nm, 5 mW, grating: 300 L/mm, spectral range: 800–1800 & 2700–3200 cm−1, exposure = 9 s, objective = 100×[98]
Clinical isolatesESKAPE pathogensOther deep learning99.99% (training), 98.66% (validation)>160 per speciesExcitation: 633 nm, grating: 1200 L/mm, spectral range: 600–1700 cm−1, exposure = 20 s, objective = 100×[129]
Single bacterial cells (deep-sea)5 deep-sea strainsOther deep learning99.8 ± 0.2%Initial: 300 per strain (augmented)Excitation: 785 nm, grating: 1800 L/mm[122]
Partially covered CaF2 surfaces15 bacterial/non-bacterial classes, incl. MR/MSOther deep learning96% (15 classes), 95.6% (MR/MS)5200 per speciesExcitation: 785 nm, 60 mW, grating: 950 L/mm, spectral range: 700–1600 cm−1[130]
N/AN/AOther deep learning86.3% (species-level), 97.84% (empiric treatment), 95% (antibiotic resistance)Paper 10 dataN/A[131]
Clinical isolates + AgNPsS. aureus (19 MRSA, 1 MSSA)Other deep learning97.66% accuracy, 99.2% specificity, 96.1% sensitivity≈1699 per isolateExcitation: 785 nm, 3 mW, grating: 1200 L/mm, spectral range: 550–1700 cm−1, exposure = 1 s, objective: 100×[108]
Tomato plant leavesC. michiganensis subsp. michiganensisOther deep learningPCA + MLP: 99% Acc, 95% Spec, PCA + LDA: 97% Acc, 88% Spec177 (infected), 120 (healthy)Excitation: 785 nm, 20 mW, grating: 1200 L/mm, spectral range: 800–1800 cm−1 exposure = 10 s, objective = 20×[126]
Pure bacterial cultures (intestinal pathogens)8 strains from Urechis unicinctusOther deep learning94% isolation-level accuracy150 per strainExcitation: 785 nm, grating: 600 L/mm, spectral range: 600–1800 cm−1, exposure = 60 s, objective = 100×[132]
Pure bacterial culturesS. hominis, V. alginolyticus, B. licheniformisOther deep learningN/A100 per strainGrating: 1200 L/mm, exposure = 60 s, objective = 100×[88]

References

  1. Fleischmann, C.; Scherag, A.; Adhikari, N.K.; Hartog, C.S.; Tsaganos, T.; Schlattmann, P.; Angus, D.C.; Reinhart, K. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis current estimates and limitations. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 193, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. DeAntonio, R.; Yarzabal, J.P.; Cruz, J.P.; Schmidt, J.E.; Kleijnen, J. Epidemiology of community-acquired pneumonia and implications for vaccination of children living in developing and newly industrialized countries: A systematic literature review. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2016, 12, 2422–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Estimating the Burden of Foodborne Diseases. Available online: https://www.who.int/activities/estimating-the-burden-of-foodborne-diseases (accessed on 9 April 2024).
  4. Torio, C.M.; Moore, B.J. National Inpatient Hospital Costs: The Most Expensive Conditions by Payer, 2013. In Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fleming-Dutra, K.E.; Hersh, A.L.; Shapiro, D.J.; Bartoces, M.; Enns, E.A.; File, T.M.; Finkelstein, J.A.; Gerber, J.S.; Hyun, D.Y.; Linder, J.A.; et al. Prevalence of Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescriptions among US Ambulatory Care Visits, 2010–2011. JAMA 2016, 315, 1864–1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. No Time to Wait: Securing the Future from Drug-Resistant Infections. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/no-time-to-wait-securing-the-future-from-drug-resistant-infections (accessed on 19 April 2024).
  7. Järvinen, A.K.; Laakso, S.; Piiparinen, P.; Aittakorpi, A.; Lindfors, M.; Huopaniemi, L.; Piiparinen, H.; Mäki, M. Rapid identification of bacterial pathogens using a PCR- and microarray-based assay. BMC Microbiol. 2009, 9, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abram, T.J.; Cherukury, H.; Ou, C.Y.; Vu, T.; Toledano, M.; Li, Y.; Grunwald, J.T.; Toosky, M.N.; Tifrea, D.F.; Slepenkin, A.; et al. Rapid bacterial detection and antibiotic susceptibility testing in whole blood using one-step, high throughput blood digital PCR. Lab Chip 2020, 20, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Strommenger, B.; Kettlitz, C.; Werner, G.; Witte, W. Multiplex PCR assay for simultaneous detection of nine clinically relevant antibiotic resistance genes in Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 4089–4094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Shih, C.M.; Chang, C.L.; Hsu, M.Y.; Lin, J.Y.; Kuan, C.M.; Wang, H.K.; Huang, C.T.; Chung, M.C.; Huang, K.C.; Hsu, C.E.; et al. Paper-based ELISA to rapidly detect Escherichia coli. Talanta 2015, 145, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Febo, T.D.; Schirone, M.; Visciano, P.; Portanti, O.; Armillotta, G.; Persiani, T.; Giannatale, E.D.; Tittarelli, M.; Luciani, M. Development of a Capture ELISA for Rapid Detection of Salmonella enterica in Food Samples. Food Anal. Methods 2019, 12, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baltekin, Ö.; Boucharin, A.; Tano, E.; Andersson, D.I.; Elf, J. Antibiotic susceptibility testing in less than 30 min using direct single-cell imaging. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9170–9175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Singhal, N.; Kumar, M.; Kanaujia, P.K.; Virdi, J.S. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry: An emerging technology for microbial identification and diagnosis. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 144398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sloan, A.; Wang, G.; Cheng, K. Traditional approaches versus mass spectrometry in bacterial identification and typing. Clin. Chim. Acta 2017, 473, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lee, K.S.; Landry, Z.; Pereira, F.C.; Wagner, M.; Berry, D.; Huang, W.E.; Taylor, G.T.; Kneipp, J.; Popp, J.; Zhang, M.; et al. Raman microspectroscopy for microbiology. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 2021, 1, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Butler, H.J.; Ashton, L.; Bird, B.; Cinque, G.; Curtis, K.; Dorney, J.; Esmonde-White, K.; Fullwood, N.J.; Gardner, B.; Martin-Hirsch, P.L.; et al. Using Raman spectroscopy to characterize biological materials. Nat. Protoc. 2016, 11, 664–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, P.; Sun, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, L.; Xu, Y.; He, L.; Li, G. Recent advances in dual recognition based surface enhanced Raman scattering for pathogenic bacteria detection: A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2021, 1157, 338279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ho, C.S.; Jean, N.; Hogan, C.A.; Blackmon, L.; Jeffrey, S.S.; Holodniy, M.; Banaei, N.; Saleh, A.A.; Ermon, S.; Dionne, J. Rapid identification of pathogenic bacteria using Raman spectroscopy and deep learning. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yan, S.; Wang, S.; Qiu, J.; Li, M.; Li, D.; Xu, D.; Li, D.; Liu, Q. Raman spectroscopy combined with machine learning for rapid detection of food-borne pathogens at the single-cell level. Talanta 2021, 226, 122195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Graf, A.A.; Ogilvie, S.P.; Wood, H.J.; Brown, C.J.; Tripathi, M.; King, A.A.; Dalton, A.B.; Large, M.J. Raman Metrics for Molybdenum Disulfide and Graphene Enable Statistical Mapping of Nanosheet Populations. Chem. Mater. 2020, 32, 6213–6221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jordan, M.I.; Mitchell, T.M. Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 2015, 349, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sikder, R.; Zhang, T.; Ye, T. Predicting THM Formation and Revealing Its Contributors in Drinking Water Treatment Using Machine Learning. ACS ES T Water 2024, 4, 899–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rahman, M.H.U.; Bommanapally, V.; Abeyrathna, D.; Ashaduzzman, M.; Tripathi, M.; Zahan, M.; Subramaniam, M.; Gadhamshetty, V. Machine Learning-Assisted Optical Detection of Multilayer Hexagonal Boron Nitride for Enhanced Characterization and Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), Istanbul, Turkiye, 5–8 December 2023; pp. 4506–4508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rahman, M.H.U.; Dip, B.; Gurung, S.; Jasthi, B.K.; Gnimpieba, E.Z.; Gadhamshetty, V. Automated Crack Detection in 2D Hexagonal Boron Nitride Coatings Using Machine Learning. Coatings 2024, 14, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Udupa, R.; Yegneswaran, P.P.; Lukose, J.; Chidangil, S. Utilization of Raman spectroscopy for identification and characterization of fungal pathogens. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2024, 47, 100339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Usman, M.; Tang, J.W.; Li, F.; Lai, J.X.; Liu, Q.H.; Liu, W.; Wang, L. Recent advances in surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy for bacterial pathogen identifications. J. Adv. Res. 2023, 51, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rodriguez, L.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, D. Recent advances of Raman spectroscopy for the analysis of bacteria. Anal. Sci. Adv. 2023, 4, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, L.; Ma, W.; Wang, X.; Li, S. Recent Progress of Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy for Bacteria Detection. Biosensors 2023, 13, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhu, A.; Ali, S.; Jiao, T.; Wang, Z.; Ouyang, Q.; Chen, Q. Advances in surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy technology for detection of foodborne pathogens. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023, 22, 1466–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wu, L.; Tang, X.; Wu, T.; Zeng, W.; Zhu, X.; Hu, B.; Zhang, S. A review on current progress of Raman-based techniques in food safety: From normal Raman spectroscopy to SESORS. Food Res. Int. 2023, 169, 112944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jayan, H.; Pu, H.; Sun, D.W. Recent developments in Raman spectral analysis of microbial single cells: Techniques and applications. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 4294–4308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Rebrosova, K.; Samek, O.; Kizovsky, M.; Bernatova, S.; Hola, V.; Ruzicka, F. Raman Spectroscopy—A Novel Method for Identification and Characterization of Microbes on a Single-Cell Level in Clinical Settings. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 866463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, L.; Liu, W.; Tang, J.W.; Wang, J.J.; Liu, Q.H.; Wen, P.B.; Wang, M.M.; Pan, Y.C.; Gu, B.; Zhang, X. Applications of Raman Spectroscopy in Bacterial Infections: Principles, Advantages, and Shortcomings. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 683580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Berry, M.E.; Kearns, H.; Graham, D.; Faulds, K. Surface enhanced Raman scattering for the multiplexed detection of pathogenic microorganisms: Towards point-of-use applications. Analyst 2021, 146, 6084–6101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahmad, W.; Wang, J.; Li, H.; Jiao, T.; Chen, Q. Trends in the bacterial recognition patterns used in surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2021, 142, 116310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Akanny, E.; Bonhommé, A.; Bessueille, F.; Bourgeois, S.; Bordes, C. Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy for bacteria analysis: A review. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2021, 56, 380–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, H.; Das, A.; Bi, L.; Choi, N.; Moon, J.I.; Wu, Y.; Park, S.; Choo, J. Recent advances in surface-enhanced Raman scattering-based microdevices for point-of-care diagnosis of viruses and bacteria. Nanoscale 2020, 12, 21560–21570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Chisanga, M.; Linton, D.; Muhamadali, H.; Ellis, D.I.; Kimber, R.L.; Mironov, A.; Goodacre, R. Rapid differentiation of Campylobacter jejuni cell wall mutants using Raman spectroscopy, SERS and mass spectrometry combined with chemometrics. Analyst 2020, 145, 1236–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wu, Y.; Gadsden, S.A. Machine learning algorithms in microbial classification: A comparative analysis. Front. Artif. Intell. 2023, 6, 1200994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kotwal, S.; Rani, P.; Arif, T.; Manhas, J.; Sharma, S. Automated Bacterial Classifications Using Machine Learning Based Computational Techniques: Architectures, Challenges and Open Research Issues. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2022, 29, 2469–2490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, Y.; Jiang, H.; Ye, T.; Juhas, M. Deep Learning for Imaging and Detection of Microorganisms. Trends Microbiol. 2021, 29, 569–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rani, P.; Kotwal, S.; Manhas, J.; Sharma, V.; Sharma, S. Machine Learning and Deep Learning Based Computational Approaches in Automatic Microorganisms Image Recognition: Methodologies, Challenges, and Developments. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021, 29, 1801–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Goodswen, S.J.; Barratt, J.L.; Kennedy, P.J.; Kaufer, A.; Calarco, L.; Ellis, J.T. Machine learning and applications in microbiology. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2021, 45, fuab015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nami, Y.; Imeni, N.; Panahi, B. Application of machine learning in bacteriophage research. BMC Microbiol. 2021, 21, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Anahtar, M.N.; Yang, J.H.; Kanjilal, S. Applications of Machine Learning to the Problem of Antimicrobial Resistance: An Emerging Model for Translational Research. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2021, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Peiffer-Smadja, N.; Dellière, S.; Rodriguez, C.; Birgand, G.; Lescure, F.X.; Fourati, S.; Ruppé, E. Machine learning in the clinical microbiology laboratory: Has the time come for routine practice? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1300–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Weis, C.V.; Jutzeler, C.R.; Borgwardt, K. Machine learning for microbial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing on MALDI-TOF mass spectra: A systematic review. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2020, 26, 1310–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Qu, K.; Guo, F.; Liu, X.; Lin, Y.; Zou, Q. Application of machine learning in microbiology. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 451710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Rathnayake, R.A.; Zhao, Z.; McLaughlin, N.; Li, W.; Yan, Y.; Chen, L.L.; Xie, Q.; Wu, C.D.; Mathew, M.T.; Wang, R.R. Machine learning enabled multiplex detection of periodontal pathogens by surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024, 257, 128773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Liu, C.Y.; Han, Y.Y.; Shih, P.H.; Lian, W.N.; Wang, H.H.; Lin, C.H.; Hsueh, P.R.; Wang, J.K.; Wang, Y.L. Rapid bacterial antibiotic susceptibility test based on simple surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopic biomarkers. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, X.; Samuelson, D.R.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Wang, S.; Rasco, B.A.; Xu, J.; Konkel, M.E. Detecting and tracking nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus using a microfluidic SERS biosensor. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 2320–2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Yan, S.; Liu, C.; Fang, S.; Ma, J.; Qiu, J.; Xu, D.; Li, L.; Yu, J.; Li, D.; Liu, Q. SERS-based lateral flow assay combined with machine learning for highly sensitive quantitative analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2020, 412, 7881–7890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cheong, Y.; Kim, Y.J.; Kang, H.; Choi, S.; Lee, H.J. Rapid label-free identification of Klebsiella pneumoniae antibiotic resistant strains by the drop-coating deposition surface-enhanced Raman scattering method. Spectrochim. Acta. Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2017, 183, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, J.; Wang, C.; Shi, L.; Shao, L.; Fu, P.; Wang, K.; Xiao, R.; Wang, S.; Gu, B. Rapid identification and antibiotic susceptibility test of pathogens in blood based on magnetic separation and surface-enhanced Raman scattering. Microchim. Acta 2019, 186, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wu, X.; Xu, C.; Tripp, R.A.; Huang, Y.W.; Zhao, Y. Detection and differentiation of foodborne pathogenic bacteria in mung bean sprouts using field deployable label-free SERS devices. Analyst 2013, 138, 3005–3012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kumar, A.; Islam, M.R.; Zughaier, S.M.; Chen, X.; Zhao, Y. Precision classification and quantitative analysis of bacteria biomarkers via surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy and machine learning. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2024, 320, 124627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tang, J.W.; Yuan, Q.; Wen, X.R.; Usman, M.; Tay, A.C.Y.; Wang, L.; Wang, C.L. Label-free surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy coupled with machine learning algorithms in pathogenic microbial identification: Current trends, challenges, and perspectives. Interdiscip. Med. 2024, e20230060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jarvis, R.M.; Goodacre, R. Discrimination of bacteria using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Anal. Chem. 2004, 76, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tseng, Y.M.; Chen, K.L.; Chao, P.H.; Han, Y.Y.; Huang, N.T. Deep Learning-Assisted Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering for Rapid Bacterial Identification. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 26398–26406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Leong, S.X.; Tan, E.X.; Han, X.; Luhung, I.; Aung, N.W.; Nguyen, L.B.T.; Tan, S.Y.; Li, H.; Phang, I.Y.; Schuster, S.; et al. Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering-Based Surface Chemotaxonomy: Combining Bacteria Extracellular Matrices and Machine Learning for Rapid and Universal Species Identification. ACS Nano 2023, 17, 23132–23143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Sun, J.; Xu, X.; Feng, S.; Zhang, H.; Xu, L.; Jiang, H.; Sun, B.; Meng, Y.; Chen, W. Rapid identification of salmonella serovars by using Raman spectroscopy and machine learning algorithm. Talanta 2023, 253, 123807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Ding, J.; Lin, Q.; Zhang, J.; Young, G.M.; Jiang, C.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, J. Rapid identification of pathogens by using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy and multi-scale convolutional neural network. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2021, 413, 3801–3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wang, W.; Wang, X.; Huang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Fang, X.; Cong, Y.; Tang, Z.; Chen, L.; Zhong, J.; Li, R.; et al. Raman spectrum combined with deep learning for precise recognition of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2024, 416, 2465–2478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Al-Shaebi, Z.; Ciloglu, F.U.; Nasser, M.; Kahraman, M.; Aydin, O. Staphylococcus Aureus-Related antibiotic resistance detection using synergy of Surface-Enhanced Raman spectroscopy and deep learning. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 2024, 91, 105933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Qi, Y.; Hu, D.; Jiang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Zheng, M.; Chen, E.X.; Liang, Y.; Sadi, M.A.; Zhang, K.; Chen, Y.P. Recent Progresses in Machine Learning Assisted Raman Spectroscopy. Adv. Opt. Mater. 2023, 11, 2203104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rahman, M.H.U.; Tripathi, M.; Dalton, A.; Subramaniam, M.; Talluri, S.N.; Jasthi, B.K.; Gadhamshetty, V. Machine Learning-Guided Optical and Raman Spectroscopy Characterization of 2D Materials. In Machine Learning in 2D Materials Science; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; pp. 163–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhou, H.; Xu, L.; Ren, Z.; Zhu, J.; Lee, C. Machine learning-augmented surface-enhanced spectroscopy toward next-generation molecular diagnostics. Nanoscale Adv. 2023, 5, 538–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Luo, R.; Popp, J.; Bocklitz, T. Deep Learning for Raman Spectroscopy: A Review. Analytica 2022, 3, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pan, L.; Zhang, P.; Daengngam, C.; Peng, S.; Chongcheawchamnan, M. A review of artificial intelligence methods combined with Raman spectroscopy to identify the composition of substances. J. Raman Spectrosc. 2022, 53, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ralbovsky, N.M.; Lednev, I.K. Towards development of a novel universal medical diagnostic method: Raman spectroscopy and machine learning. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2020, 49, 7428–7453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Lussier, F.; Thibault, V.; Charron, B.; Wallace, G.Q.; Masson, J.F. Deep learning and artificial intelligence methods for Raman and surface-enhanced Raman scattering. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2020, 124, 115796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Monteiro, J.M.; Fernandes, P.B.; Vaz, F.; Pereira, A.R.; Tavares, A.C.; Ferreira, M.T.; Pereira, P.M.; Veiga, H.; Kuru, E.; Vannieuwenhze, M.S.; et al. Cell shape dynamics during the staphylococcal cell cycle. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Cook, G.M.; Berney, M.; Gebhard, S.; Heinemann, M.; Cox, R.A.; Danilchanka, O.; Niederweis, M. Physiology of Mycobacteria. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 2009, 55, 81–182, 318–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Raman, C.V.; Krishnan, K.S. A New Type of Secondary Radiation. Nature 1928, 121, 501–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Han, X.X.; Rodriguez, R.S.; Haynes, C.L.; Ozaki, Y.; Zhao, B. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 2022, 1, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stiles, P.L.; Dieringer, J.A.; Shah, N.C.; Duyne, R.P.V. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2008, 1, 601–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ding, S.Y.; Yi, J.; Li, J.F.; Ren, B.; Wu, D.Y.; Panneerselvam, R.; Tian, Z.Q. Nanostructure-based plasmon-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for surface analysis of materials. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Willets, K.A.; Duyne, R.P.V. Localized surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy and sensing. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2007, 58, 267–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hutter, E.; Fendler, J.H. Exploitation of Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance. Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1685–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Schlücker, S.; Schlücker, S. Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy: Concepts and Chemical Applications. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 4756–4795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pérez-Jiménez, A.I.; Lyu, D.; Lu, Z.; Liu, G.; Ren, B. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy: Benefits, trade-offs and future developments. Chem. Sci. 2020, 11, 4563–4577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ru, E.C.L.; Etchegoin, P.G. Quantifying SERS enhancements. MRS Bull. 2013, 38, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Halas, N.J.; Lal, S.; Chang, W.S.; Link, S.; Nordlander, P. Plasmons in strongly coupled metallic nanostructures. Chem. Rev. 2011, 111, 3913–3961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Ning, Y.; Miao, P.; Li, Z.; Wang, H. Simultaneous quantitative analysis of Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy coupled with partial least squares regression and artificial neural networks. Spectrochim. Acta. Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2023, 293, 122510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sil, S.; Mukherjee, R.; Kumbhar, D.; Reghu, D.; Shrungar, D.; Kumar, N.S.; Singh, U.K.; Umapathy, S. Raman spectroscopy and artificial intelligence open up accurate detection of pathogens from DNA-based sub-species level classification. J. Raman Spectrosc. 2021, 52, 2648–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kanno, N.; Kato, S.; Ohkuma, M.; Matsui, M.; Iwasaki, W.; Shigeto, S. Machine learning-assisted single-cell Raman fingerprinting for in situ and nondestructive classification of prokaryotes. iScience 2021, 24, 102975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Liu, W.; Tang, J.W.; Mou, J.Y.; Lyu, J.W.; Di, Y.W.; Liao, Y.L.; Luo, Y.F.; Li, Z.K.; Wu, X.; Wang, L. Rapid discrimination of Shigella spp. and Escherichia coli via label-free surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy coupled with machine learning algorithms. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1101357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Yu, S.; Li, H.; Li, X.; Fu, Y.V.; Liu, F. Classification of pathogens by Raman spectroscopy combined with generative adversarial networks. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Deng, L.; Zhong, Y.; Wang, M.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, J. Scale-Adaptive Deep Model for Bacterial Raman Spectra Identification. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2022, 26, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Tang, J.W.; Liu, Q.H.; Yin, X.C.; Pan, Y.C.; Wen, P.B.; Liu, X.; Kang, X.X.; Gu, B.; Zhu, Z.B.; Wang, L. Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms on Surface Enhanced Raman Spectra of Clinical Staphylococcus Species. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 696921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Lu, W.; Li, H.; Qiu, H.; Wang, L.; Feng, J.; Fu, Y.V. Identification of pathogens and detection of antibiotic susceptibility at single-cell resolution by Raman spectroscopy combined with machine learning. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1076965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Gu, J.; Wang, Z.; Kuen, J.; Ma, L.; Shahroudy, A.; Shuai, B.; Liu, T.; Wang, X.; Wang, G.; Cai, J.; et al. Recent advances in convolutional neural networks. Pattern Recognit. 2018, 77, 354–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tewes, T.J.; Kerst, M.; Pavlov, S.; Huth, M.A.; Hansen, U.; Bockmühl, D.P. Unveiling the efficacy of a bulk Raman spectra-based model in predicting single cell Raman spectra of microorganisms. Heliyon 2024, 10, e27824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Hu, J.; He, L.; Wang, G.; Liu, L.; Wang, Y.; Song, J.; Qu, J.; Peng, X.; Yuan, Y. Rapid and accurate identification of marine bacteria spores at a single-cell resolution by laser tweezers Raman spectroscopy and deep learning. J. Biophotonics 2024, 17, e202300510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Contreras, J.; Mostafapour, S.; Popp, J.; Bocklitz, T. Siamese Networks for Clinically Relevant Bacteria Classification Based on Raman Spectroscopy. Molecules 2024, 29, 1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wang, L.; Tang, J.W.; Li, F.; Usman, M.; Wu, C.Y.; Liu, Q.H.; Kang, H.Q.; Liu, W.; Gu, B. Identification of Bacterial Pathogens at Genus and Species Levels through Combination of Raman Spectrometry and Deep-Learning Algorithms. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e02580-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Alzubaidi, L.; Zhang, J.; Humaidi, A.J.; Al-Dujaili, A.; Duan, Y.; Al-Shamma, O.; Santamaría, J.; Fadhel, M.A.; Al-Amidie, M.; Farhan, L. Review of deep learning: Concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions. J. Big Data 2021, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Qin, Y.F.; Lu, X.Y.; Shi, Z.; Huang, Q.S.; Wang, X.; Ren, B.; Cui, L. Deep Learning-Enabled Raman Spectroscopic Identification of Pathogen-Derived Extracellular Vesicles and the Biogenesis Process. Anal. Chem. 2022, 94, 12416–12426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Basodi, S.; Ji, C.; Zhang, H.; Pan, Y. Gradient amplification: An efficient way to train deep neural networks. Big Data Min. Anal. 2020, 3, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhou, B.; Tong, Y.K.; Zhang, R.; Ye, A. RamanNet: A lightweight convolutional neural network for bacterial identification based on Raman spectra. RSC Adv. 2022, 12, 26463–26469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Lu, J.; Chen, J.; Liu, C.; Zeng, Y.; Sun, Q.; Li, J.; Shen, Z.; Chen, S.; Zhang, R. Identification of antibiotic resistance and virulence-encoding factors in Klebsiella pneumoniae by Raman spectroscopy and deep learning. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 15, 1270–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Maruthamuthu, M.K.; Raffiee, A.H.; Oliveira, D.M.D.; Ardekani, A.M.; Verma, M.S. Raman spectra-based deep learning: A tool to identify microbial contamination. MicrobiologyOpen 2020, 9, e1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lu, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, L.; Li, H.; Fu, Y.V. Combination of an Artificial Intelligence Approach and Laser Tweezers Raman Spectroscopy for Microbial Identification. Anal. Chem. 2020, 92, 6288–6296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Guidotti, R.; Monreale, A.; Ruggieri, S.; Turini, F.; Giannotti, F.; Pedreschi, D. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2018, 51, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Zhang, Q.; Wu, Y.N.; Zhu, S.C. Interpretable Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 18–23 June 2018; pp. 8827–8836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Selvaraju, R.R.; Cogswell, M.; Das, A.; Vedantam, R.; Parikh, D.; Batra, D. Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2020, 128, 336–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zhang, X.; Xu, J.; Yang, J.; Chen, L.; Zhou, H.; Liu, X.; Li, H.; Lin, T.; Ying, Y. Understanding the learning mechanism of convolutional neural networks in spectral analysis. Anal. Chim. Acta 2020, 1119, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Ciloglu, F.U.; Caliskan, A.; Saridag, A.M.; Kilic, I.H.; Tokmakci, M.; Kahraman, M.; Aydin, O. Drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria detection by combining surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) and deep learning techniques. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Tong, S.Y.; Davis, J.S.; Eichenberger, E.; Holland, T.L.; Fowler, V.G. Staphylococcus aureus infections: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 28, 603–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Walter, A.; März, A.; Schumacher, W.; Rösch, P.; Popp, J. Towards a fast, high specific and reliable discrimination of bacteria on strain level by means of SERS in a microfluidic device. Lab Chip 2011, 11, 1013–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Zhou, H.; Yang, D.; Ivleva, N.P.; Mircescu, N.E.; Niessner, R.; Haisch, C. SERS detection of bacteria in water by in situ coating with Ag nanoparticles. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 1525–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Schuster, K.C.; Reese, I.; Urlaub, E.; Gapes, J.R.; Lendl, B. Multidimensional information on the chemical composition of single bacterial cells by confocal Raman microspectroscopy. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 5529–5534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. García, A.B.; Viñuela-Prieto, J.M.; López-González, L.; Candel, F.J. Correlation between resistance mechanisms in Staphylococcus aureus and cell wall and septum thickening. Infect. Drug Resist. 2017, 10, 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ciloglu, F.U.; Saridag, A.M.; Kilic, I.H.; Tokmakci, M.; Kahraman, M.; Aydin, O. Identification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria using surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy and machine learning techniques. Analyst 2020, 145, 7559–7570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Tang, J.W.; Li, J.Q.; Yin, X.C.; Xu, W.W.; Pan, Y.C.; Liu, Q.H.; Gu, B.; Zhang, X.; Wang, L. Rapid Discrimination of Clinically Important Pathogens through Machine Learning Analysis of Surface Enhanced Raman Spectra. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 843417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Gautam, R.; Vanga, S.; Ariese, F.; Umapathy, S. Review of multidimensional data processing approaches for Raman and infrared spectroscopy. EPJ Tech. Instrum. 2015, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Byrne, H.J.; Knief, P.; Keating, M.E.; Bonnier, F. Spectral pre and post processing for infrared and Raman spectroscopy of biological tissues and cells. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2016, 45, 1865–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Boardman, A.K.; Wong, W.S.; Premasiri, W.R.; Ziegler, L.D.; Lee, J.C.; Miljkovic, M.; Klapperich, C.M.; Sharon, A.; Sauer-Budge, A.F. Rapid detection of bacteria from blood with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 8026–8035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Sivanesan, A.; Witkowska, E.; Adamkiewicz, W.; Dziewit, Ł.; Kamińska, A.; Waluk, J. Nanostructured silver–gold bimetallic SERS substrates for selective identification of bacteria in human blood. Analyst 2014, 139, 1037–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Premasiri, W.R.; Gebregziabher, Y.; Ziegler, L.D. On the difference between surface-enhanced raman scattering (SERS) spectra of cell growth media and whole bacterial cells. Appl. Spectrosc. 2011, 65, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Auner, G.W.; Koya, S.K.; Huang, C.; Broadbent, B.; Trexler, M.; Auner, Z.; Elias, A.; Mehne, K.C.; Brusatori, M.A. Applications of Raman spectroscopy in cancer diagnosis. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2018, 37, 691–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Liu, B.; Liu, K.; Wang, N.; Ta, K.; Liang, P.; Yin, H.; Li, B. Laser tweezers Raman spectroscopy combined with deep learning to classify marine bacteria. Talanta 2022, 244, 123383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Kong, J.L.; Dong, L.Q.; Wang, Q.Q.; Wei, K.; Xiangli, W.T.; Teng, G.E.; Liu, W.W.; Cui, X.T. Extending the spectral database of laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy with generative adversarial nets. Opt. Express 2019, 27, 6958–6969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Goodfellow, I.J.; Pouget-Abadie, J.; Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.; Courville, A.; Bengio, Y. Generative Adversarial Networks. Sci. Robot. 2014, 3, 2672–2680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Karras, T.; Aila, T.; Laine, S.; Lehtinen, J. Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018—Conference Track Proceedings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 30 April–3 May 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Vallejo-Pérez, M.R.; Sosa-Herrera, J.A.; Navarro-Contreras, H.R.; Álvarez Preciado, L.G.; Rodríguez-Vázquez, Á.G.; Lara-Ávila, J.P.; Potosí, L.; de la Cruz, E.P.; de Graciano Sánchez, S.; Potosí, S.L. Raman Spectroscopy and Machine-Learning for Early Detection of Bacterial Canker of Tomato: The Asymptomatic Disease Condition. Plants 2021, 10, 1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kaparakis-Liaskos, M.; Ferrero, R.L. Immune modulation by bacterial outer membrane vesicles. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2015, 15, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Woo, S.; Park, J.; Lee, J.Y.; Kweon, I.S. CBAM: Convolutional block attention module. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 11211 LNCS, pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Singh, S.; Kumbhar, D.; Reghu, D.; Venugopal, S.J.; Rekha, P.T.; Mohandas, S.; Rao, S.; Rangaiah, A.; Chunchanur, S.K.; Saini, D.K.; et al. Culture-Independent Raman Spectroscopic Identification of Bacterial Pathogens from Clinical Samples Using Deep Transfer Learning. Anal. Chem. 2022, 94, 14745–14754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Thomsen, B.L.; Christensen, J.B.; Rodenko, O.; Usenov, I.; Grønnemose, R.B.; Andersen, T.E.; Lassen, M. Accurate and fast identification of minimally prepared bacteria phenotypes using Raman spectroscopy assisted by machine learning. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Al-Shaebi, Z.; Ciloglu, F.U.; Nasser, M.; Aydin, O. Highly Accurate Identification of Bacteria’s Antibiotic Resistance Based on Raman Spectroscopy and U-Net Deep Learning Algorithms. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 29443–29451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Yu, S.; Li, X.; Lu, W.; Li, H.; Fu, Y.V.; Liu, F. Analysis of Raman Spectra by Using Deep Learning Methods in the Identification of Marine Pathogens. Anal. Chem. 2021, 93, 11089–11098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Kelly, K.L.; Coronado, E.; Zhao, L.L.; Schatz, G.C. The optical properties of metal nanoparticles: The influence of size, shape, and dielectric environment. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 668–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Cong, S.; Liu, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, Z. Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering Revealed by Interfacial Charge-Transfer Transitions. Innovation 2020, 1, 100051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Jensen, L.; Aikens, C.M.; Schatz, G.C. Electronic structure methods for studying surface-enhanced Raman scattering. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2008, 37, 1061–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. McFarland, A.D.; Young, M.A.; Dieringer, J.A.; Duyne, R.P.V. Wavelength-scanned surface-enhanced Raman excitation spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 11279–11285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Xu, J.; Yi, X.; Jin, G.; Peng, D.; Fan, G.; Xu, X.; Chen, X.; Yin, H.; Cooper, J.M.; Huang, W.E. High-Speed Diagnosis of Bacterial Pathogens at the Single Cell Level by Raman Microspectroscopy with Machine Learning Filters and Denoising Autoencoders. ACS Chem. Biol. 2022, 17, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Barzan, G.; Sacco, A.; Mandrile, L.; Giovannozzi, A.M.; Portesi, C.; Rossi, A.M. Hyperspectral chemical imaging of single bacterial cell structure by raman spectroscopy and machine learning. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Moawad, A.A.; Silge, A.; Bocklitz, T.; Fischer, K.; Rösch, P.; Roesler, U.; Elschner, M.C.; Popp, J.; Neubauer, H. A Machine Learning-Based Raman Spectroscopic Assay for the Identification of Burkholderia mallei and Related Species. Molecules 2019, 24, 4516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.