Next Article in Journal
Desiccant Films Made of Low-Density Polyethylene with Dispersed Silica Gel—Water Vapor Absorption, Permeability (H2O, N2, O2, CO2), and Mechanical Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Part I: The Analytical Model Predicting Post-Yield Behavior of Concrete-Encased Steel Beams Considering Various Confinement Effects by Transverse Reinforcements and Steels
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 12
Issue 14
10.3390/ma12142303
materials-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Current Trends in the Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay

by
Miroslav Pohanka
Faculty of Military Health Sciences, University of Defense, Trebesska 1575, CZ-50001 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
Materials 2019, 12(14), 2303; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12142303
Submission received: 23 June 2019 / Revised: 16 July 2019 / Accepted: 17 July 2019 / Published: 18 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosensors Based on Nanostructured Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Biosensors are analytical devices combining a physical sensor with a part of biological origin providing sensitivity and selectivity toward analyte. Biological warfare agents are infectious microorganisms or toxins with the capability to harm or kill humans. They can be produced and spread by a military or misused by a terrorist group. For example, Bacillus anthracis, Francisella tularensis, Brucella sp., Yersinia pestis, staphylococcal enterotoxin B, botulinum toxin and orthopoxviruses are typical biological warfare agents. Biosensors for biological warfare agents serve as simple but reliable analytical tools for the both field and laboratory assay. There are examples of commercially available biosensors, but research and development of new types continue and their application in praxis can be expected in the future. This review summarizes the facts and role of biosensors in the biological warfare agents’ assay, and shows current commercially available devices and trends in research of the news. Survey of actual literature is provided.

1. Introduction

Weapons of mass destruction are devices produced for military or terrorist purposes and their use can cause a large number of victims, or a broad impact on economy and material, or endanger other aspects of human life. The mass destruction weapons are commonly abbreviated as CBRN, deriving from the different types of the main mass destruction weapons: chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear. Compared to other types of mass destruction weapons, biological weapons were not widely used in real, large scale combat such as the other mass destruction weapons. In comparison, chemical weapons were widely applied in e.g., the battlefields of World War I or Iran-Iraq War and the nuclear war, which hastened Japan in the end of World War II to the capitulation.
Biological weapons are specific types of weapons as most of them are not able to immediately harm and their impact is visible after an incubation period. Countermeasures against the impact of biological weapons on humans is based on contemporary steps, including detection and identification of the used agents by its direct recognition, or by a diagnostic procedure using biological samples from patients, decontamination and providing medical therapy to the infected or poisoned people. This review is focused on biosensors; devices combining physical sensors with a part of biological origin, which are suitable for the detection of biological warfare agents. Biosensors are typically small, portable devices with good applicability in field conditions. This review summarizes expected applicability and parameters of biosensors for the biological warfare agents’ assay. Current literature is surveyed and the expected use of biosensors in context of the standard analytical protocols is provided as well.

2. Biological Weapon and Biological Warfare Agents

Although the terms biological weapon and biological warfare agent can appear as synonyms—the contrary is also true. A biological weapon is a mean applicable for military or other warfare purposes, and it contains functional parts necessary for the stabilization and delivery of a harmful organism or its toxin. A biological warfare agent is simply a synonym for the organism or its toxin and infectious cells, viral particles and toxins able to cause infection to humans and livestock, and they cause damage to crops or can poison organisms [1,2,3,4]. Various spray making devices, weak explosives, pressure vessels and etc., can serve as parts for the delivery of biological warfare agents. The weapon can be shaped as a standard projectile or bomb, but standard cases can also be expected in the environment of an asymmetric war or terrorist attacks.
The decision of what is considered a biological warfare agent was made on the international level and was codified as an international convention called: “The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction”, also known under the shorter name of the “Biological Weapons Convention”. The convention was signed by most of the countries in the world in 1972—apart from some exceptions—and it came into force in 1975. Biological warfare agents and biological weapons have not been legally produced and stockpiled from the time of the convention entering into force. In a brief summary, the biological warfare agents can be legally produced and manipulated for the purpose of medical or other protective research where therapies, new drugs, decontamination means and etc., are developed. Any offensive research programs are banned by the convention.
It can be expected that every infectious organism can be misused for criminal or warfare activities; on the other hand, some of them are less dangerous and real use is not probable. The reason why some biological agents are a more relevant threat than others is based not only on their virulence or toxicity, but also on the stability of the agent in the environment, how they can penetrate the host organism, etc. The threat from the individual agents was scaled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; Atlanta, GA, USA) which uses the letters A, B and C for the designation of biological warfare agents in compliance with their level of danger. The lowest threat can be expected from the C category of biological warfare agents, who can endanger a wide population only under some circumstances, and their dissemination is not easy. More serious are biological warfare agents of the B category such as: Brucella family (Brucella melitensis and Brucella abortus causing brucellosis can be exampled), Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella family, Schigella family (agents causing shigellosis), Escherichia coli O157:47 (an agent producing shiga toxin and causing foodborne illnesses), Burkholderia mallei (a causative agent of glanders) and Burkholderia psedomallei (a causative agent of melioidosis), Chlamydia psittaci (an agent causing chlamydiosis), Coxiella burnetti (a causative agent of Q fever), Rickettsia prowazekii (a causative agent of typhus), Vibrio cholera (a causative agent of cholera), viruses causing encephalitis, staphylococcal toxins (staphylococcal enterotoxin B for instance) and ricin toxin (a toxin from plant Ricinus communis). The biological agents of the B category can be disseminated moderately easy, or they will have a moderate impact on humans. The top dangerous biological warfare agents are given into the A category containing Bacillus anthracis (a causative agent of anthrax), Clostridium botulinum as well as its botulinum toxin (a group of eight toxins A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H), Francisella tularensis (a causative agent of tularemia), Yersinia pestis (a causative agent of plaque), and a group of highly virulent viruses (Variola major causing smallpox, viruses of hemorrhagic fevers Ebola, Marburg, Lassa, Machupo). An overview of important biological warfare agents can be found in Table 1.

3. Expected Use of Biosensors during a Biological Threat

There is a lot of highly competitive methods available for the identification of biological warfare agents. The analytical methods for the recognition of biological warfare agent the presence or a diagnosis of diseases caused by them, are necessary for the choice of adequate countermeasures and to start an effective therapy for exposed people [5,6,7]. Mass spectrometry alone or in combination with chromatography are universal tools for the purpose of specific structures identification and are suitable for the determination of viral, bacterial and toxin agents [8,9,10,11,12]. Applicability for the identification of chemical agents by the same equipment is another advantage of mass spectrometry [13,14].
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is another method that proved reliability for the purpose of identifying biological warfare agents. It is not suitable for proving that a toxic product comes from biological entities, but it typically has typically excellent sensitivity to viruses and bacteria. Theoretically, only one cell or virion particle can be identified by PCR. Real performances of PCR provide limits of detection in the level of dozens microorganisms such as exerted in the work by Saikaly and coworkers [15] for the assay of Serratia marcescens and Bacillus atrophaeus representing surrogates for Bacillus anthracis and Yersinia pestis. The PCR is dependent on used primers, which are responsible for the specificity of the method. Various configurations of the method are available from which real time PCR is likely the most widely used in the current praxis [16,17]. There are also commercially available PCR devices suitable for field assay.
The mentioned mass spectrometry and PCR are of course not the only methods available for the determination of microorganisms and toxins. A wide number of protocols and methods are available; including cultivation kits, immunochemical assays, laser techniques for biological aerosols, etc. Small hand-held analyzers are very popular devices, and they have place in first response teams. Biosensors and similar bioassays are also very popular in this regard. In exact terminology, a device containing a biorecognition part such as an enzyme or antibody and a sensor—also known as a physical-chemical transducer—can be entitled a biosensor [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Biosensors are not direct competitors to standard and more expensive laboratory methods, but they represent a simple and cheap tool taking place in field analyses, confirming data from the standard laboratory methods or screening samples before selection of the suspicious one. The general role of biosensors in assay of biological warfare agents was also extensively reviewed in the cited papers [24,25,26].

4. Optical Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay

Optical biosensors and similar bioassays are an extensively researched group of analytical devices, as seen from the recent reviews written in this field [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. The optical biosensors also have a long tradition in teams protecting from biological warfare agents because there is a high number of disposable colorimetric tests and portable devices available in the market. The hand-held test strips typically work on the principle of lateral flow (immunochromatography) assay. No instrumentation is necessary for their performance and the strips are suitable for measurement of Bacillus anthracis, Francisella tularensis, Brucella sp., Yersinia pestis, staphylococcal enterotoxin B, botulinum toxin and orthopoxviruses. The strips are made for one, five or eight biological warfare agents contemporary measurable in one step. Manufacturers such as Advnt Biotechnologies (Phoenix, AZ, USA) and Alexeter Technologies (Wheeling, IL, USA) are active in this area. A five-channel commercial colorimetric biosensor on the principle of lateral flow assay is depicted as Figure 1. There also exists optical flow through instruments for the detection of biological warfare agents. Devices Raptor and Biohawk (Research International, Monroe, WA, USA) make automatic fluorometric assay based on the recognition capability of cyanine labelled antibodies. These commercial biosensors are suitable for the assay of staphylococcal enterotoxin B, ricin, botulinum toxin, Francisella tularensis, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Yersinia pestis and Bacillus anthracis [39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Up to four biological agents by Raptor, and up to eight one by Biohawk, can be contemporary analyzed. Biosensor 2200R (MSA, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) is another promising device suitable for the detection of a wide group of biological warfare agents. In its principle, it performs an immunoassay based on magnetic nanoparticles that capture analyte from a sample. Interaction with the fluorescence labelled antibodies is the second step. Bacillus anthracis, ricin, botulinum toxin, Yersinia pestis, Francisella tularensis, Vibrio cholerae, staphylococcal enterotoxin B and West Nile virus can be analyzed by the device.
The current research on optical biosensors have two major lines that have impact on their applicability:
  • Firstly, new materials for immobilization of biorecognition part of biosensors, unique nanoparticles, improved biorecognition parts of biosensors and optically active materials such as quantum dots make the colorimetric biosensors more competitive [46,47,48,49].
  • Secondly, new techniques making optical assays more friendly for practical use have appeared. The colorimetric test based on digital cameras is an example of such techniques [50,51,52,53,54,55,56].
Recently, promising optical biosensors were proposed as a tool for the determination of biological warfare agents using advanced nanotechnologies. The development of methods based on new materials can be seen in the work by Rong et al., who manufactured manganese-doped carbon dots with ethylene diamine and ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid with bound EuIII+ [57]. The modified carbon nanoparticles interacted with 2,6-dipicolonic acid, which is a biomarker of Bacillus anthracis spores, and the presence of 2,6-dipicolonic acid caused change of fluorescence from intense blue to bright red. The assay exerted linearity from 0.1 to 750 nmol/L and limit of detection was 0.1 nmol/L. The fact that the fluorescence appeared quite immediately after sample application (within 1 min) is another advantage. Photonic crystals, i.e. crystal affecting photon motion, are another nanostructure bringing high application potential into biosensors construction. Zhang et al. prepared photonic crystal with total internal reflection with single stranded DNA captured through biotin-streptavidin interactions and used it for the detection of DNA from Bacillus anthracis [58]. The interaction of DNA from a sample with the immobilized single stranded DNA caused resonant wavelength shift. The limit of detection for Bacillus anthracis DNA was equal to 0.1 nmol/L. The authors did not provide specification of time per one assay, but considering the samples manipulation and tempering steps, the assay should be finished within 1 h.
The biosensors can be based on long-period fiber gratings covered with a nanostructured film or membrane. Such an approach was made in the work by Cooper et al. for the detection of Francisella tularensis [59]. They prepared an optical interferometic sensor with immobilized probe for Francisella tularensis subspecies tularensis and subspecies holarctica. The method exerted a good limit of detection ranging in nanograms of DNA. Sample processing (boiling) lasted 5 min, interaction with sensor another 5 min, and considering other steps (rinsing, spectrum recording)—the assay should be finished within 20 min. The interferometry technique was used also by Mechaly et al. who prepared a biolayer consisting of biotynylated antibodies linked in the presence of analyte with another, phosphatase labeled, antibodies causing deposition of non-soluble crystals causing wavelength interference [60]. The assay was based on Bio-Layer Interferometry based on fiber optic biosensors and standard 96-well microplates, and it was suitable for the determination of Francisella tularensis and ricin with a limit of detection for 104 CFU/mL for Francisella tularensis and 10 pg/mL for ricin. The authors claimed they finished the assay within 17 min.
Advanced optical methods can serve as a platform for a biosensor construction. An optical microchip with integrated high-precision Bragg gratings is an emerging platform suitable to be modified with antibodies and can serve as a biosensor. This concept was chosen Bhatta for the assay of Bacillus anthracis, Francisella tularensis, Vaccinia virus and ricin toxin [61]. Surface plasmon resonance is another optical platform providing improved analytical parameters comparing to standard spectral methods. The possibility to perform the assay as label free is the main advantage. On the other hand, the relatively high price of the devices and cost per assay is a disadvantage. The concept of biological warfare agents assay by surface plasmon resonance biosensor can be learned from the work of Leveque et al., who prepared a biosensor for botulinum toxins A and E [62]. The biosensor used the fact that botulinum toxin is an enzyme, and it did not measure botulinum toxin directly, but instead it contained the immobilized antibody against SNAP25 and measured this peptide, which was cleaved by botulinum toxin enzymatic activity. The concept of SNAP25 detection as an enzymatic product of botulinum toxin was also selected for biosensor construction in an experiment by Shi et al. [63]. They prepared a modified fluorogenic SNAP25 linked to graphene oxide and fluorescence resonance energy transfer was measured in the presence of botulinum toxin. The assay provided an excellent limit of detection at 1 fg/mL and quite a long linear range from 1 fg/mL to 1 pg/mL for light chain of botulinum toxin A. The authors claim specificity for botulinum toxin A light chain because of its specificity to the SNAP25-graphene oxide conjugate. The enzymatic activity of botulinum toxin and determining its presence this way can be made by fluorimetry with digital recording of image. This concept is older and it most likely more ready for practical adaptation. It was for instance described in the work by Balsam et al. for botulinum toxin A and SNAP25 containing fluorogenic peptide in a homogenous phase with the sample [64]. Final fluorescence was recorded by a CCD camera. Limit of detection 1.25 nmol/L was achieved. The assay was constructed to cover up to 16 samples in one moment.
Optical biosensors typically exert good reproducibility, and visual control of the reaction is also typical for many types of assay. On the other hand, there are also common drawbacks when optical biosensors constructed. The standard optical biosensors can be sensitive to light as the color reagents can degrade. The issue of degradation is of course not relevant for non-linear type of optics, which is more robust in this sense, but it is also significantly more expensive. Even though prices of non-linear devices, such as apparatuses for surface plasmon resonance, have dropped their price in the last years, the total costs still reduce their ability to compete with the other methods. including very cheap but quite reliable colorimetric methods—including colorimetric biosensors. Survey of optical biosensors is given in Table 2.

5. Electrochemical Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay

Electrochemistry is another well-known platform suitable for the construction of biosensors. When compared to the optical methods, there is no single decision of which platform is better, and whether optical or electrochemical biosensors should be preferred. While electrochemical biosensors can be sensitive to the interference of redox active compounds such as metal ions or antioxidants, optical biosensors can exert limitation when colored samples are processed. Moreover, some physical and chemical conditions have impact on extinction coefficients of chromogenic reagents. Costs per assay should also be considered. Many electrochemical methods are in this regard dependent on the prices of noble metals and the increase of metal price on global market, which causes augmentation of cost per assay for voltammetric and other noble metal needing methods. The issue of general types of electrochemical biosensors were reviewed elsewhere [60,65,66,67,68,69,70]. The electrochemical biosensors can be based on the principle of antibodies interaction, recognizing of DNA sequence, recognizing metabolic or other activity of the whole cells or use of specific enzymes [71]. Overview of electrochemical biosensors can be learned from Table 3.
Voltammetric and potentiometric biosensors have become quite advanced, exerting good analytical parameters such as sensitivity and low limits of detection, as well as having low costs for both the measuring instruments and the disposable material, such as electrodes. The potentiometric biosensors can be constructed on a semiconductor platform as presented below, which makes them quite accessible due to a recent decrease of prices in the manufacturing semiconductors components manufacturing. Regarding the voltammetric, screen printed electrodes can be represented at such low cost, but also as a highly effective platform [49,72,73,74,75]. An example of a screen-printed electrode is shown in Figure 2. The concept of a biosensor based on screen-printed electrodes was for example chosen in the work by Settering and Alocilja [76], who used a screen-printed carbon electrode sensor in combination with magnetic polyaniline nanoparticles modified with an antibody, which catches the analyte, and was then drawn by an external magnet to an electrode surface. Cyclic voltammetry was used to record signals. Voltammograms were differing for nanoparticles with captured analyte and free nanoparticles, because the particles containing the analyte significantly blocked the access to the electrodes and had in this way an impact on the voltammograms. The assay was suitable for Bacillus cereus (a surrogate for Bacillus anthracis) and for Escherichia coli O157:H7. A limit of detection 40 CFU/mL for Bacillus cereus and 6 CFU/mL for Escherichia coli O157:H7 was reached. The assay was finished within 1 h and the authors claim long term stability one year for the stored biosensors. A simplified principle of magnetic particles in combination with the blocking of access to the electrode surface is depicted as Figure 2.
An impedimetric biosensor based on gold screen printed electrodes was introduced in the work by Mazzaracchio et al. [77]. The authors used it for the detection of Bacillus anthracis simulant Bacillus cereus, and the detection was possible due to DNA aptamer recognition potency. The principle of this assay, which is based on blocking ferricyanide access to the electrode surface, is depicted in Figure 3. The assay needed an incubation time of 3 h and it exerted linearity from 104 to 106 CFU/mL and the achieved limit of detection was equal to 3 × 103 CFU/mL. Another DNA recognizing biosensor was developed by Raveendran et al. for the determination of Bacillus anthracis [78]. The biosensor contained ssDNA immobilized on modified gold screen printed electrodes. Cyclic voltammetry in the presence of ferricyanide (3-) was measured in the range −0.5–0.7 V and the volammograms differed when DNA fragments from Bacillus anthracis were captured on the electrode surface by interactions with the ssDNA and blocked access of ferricyanide (3-) to the electrode. The system allowed for the detection of 10 pmol/L of DNA from Bacillus anthracis. Stability of the biosensor for three months was reported by the authors. The authors did not write time per one assay cycle, but it can be inferred from the longest step of the assay—hybridization—which lasted 1 h.
An electrochemical biosensor was for instance also developed by Ziolkowski et al. for the detection of Bacillus anthracis by recognizing the pagA gene [79]. The biosensor contained a folded DNA molecular beacon probe linked to gold electrodes. In the presence of Bacillus anthracis, respective of its pagA gene, the probe became unfolded and electrochemical properties of the modified electrodes are recorded. Limit of detection for the biosensor was 5.7 nmol/L and it exerted a linear range of 22.9–86.0 nmol/L for a 5 min lasting assay. Platforms based on semiconductors are another way to construct a biosensor with applicability to various analytes [80,81,82,83,84,85]. They are also suitable for biological warfare agents, which can be seen from following examples. Choi et al. manufactured a light addressable potentiometric sensor with immobilized antibodies against botulinum toxin, and interaction of the biosensor with botulinum toxin was followed by the application of urease labelled antibodies [86]. This immunoassay based on a light-addressable potentiometric biosensor had a limit of detection of 10 ng/mL. The authors also compared the light-addressable potentiometric sensor platform with surface plasmon resonance and claimed that the light addressable potentiometric sensor assay exerted a better limit of detection than label-free real time assay by a surface plasmon resonance biosensor. The better sensitivity makes the potentiometric biosensor competitive to the standard immunoassay of botulinum toxin.
Magnetic beads and an electrochemically active label on an antibody were chosen as a platform in the work by Cunningham et al. [87]. The researchers prepared magnetic beads covered with antibodies against ricin and another anti-ricin antibodies modified with silver nanoparticles. In the presence of ricin, a complex was formed, containing the both magnetic beads and silver nanoparticles. The complexes were magnetically separated and silver nanoparticles were electrochemically measured. The assay exerted limit of detection for ricin 34 pmol/L within an assay time of 9.5 min.

6. Piezoelectric Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay

Piezoelectric biosensors are other platforms suitable for biological warfare agents’ assay. Compared to most of the other types of biosensors; piezoelectric biosensors are generally suitable for a label free assay and it records direct affinity interaction with surface, rather than chemical or physical properties of the medium, such as the other types of biosensors. Common reviews surveying principles and general applications of the piezoelectric biosensors are given in references [19,20,88,89,90,91,92,93]. An idealized principle of a piezoelectric biosensor containing an antibody and directly reacting with analyte is depicted in Figure 4. The major advantage of the piezoelectric biosensors is based on their ability to directly record affinity interactions. Therefore, they can work as label-free devices and directly monitor affinity interactions between hence antibodies or antigens, can be immobilized and can also interact with their counterpart. There is also a possibility to make molecularly imprinted polymers on their surface [94]. Though there are not available analytical devices containing molecularly imprinted polymer as a sensitive part for the determination of biological warfare agents, the technique is advantageous due to simple mass production, which uses simple organic materials.
Piezoelectric biosensors were proposed as a simple tool for biological warfare agents’ detection in several studies. In the work by Poitras and Tufenkji, Escherichia coli O157:H7 was detected by a QCM biosensor containing purified polyclonal antibodies onto crystal surface [95]. The authors reported the ability to detect 3 × 105 cells/mL and the biosensor was able to quantify the presence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 up to a concentration of 109 cells/mL in a real time assay. In another work, Hao et al. used QCM modified with polyclonal antibody for the detection of Bacillus anthracis spores [96]. This biosensor provided a limit of detection of 103 CFU/mL. The assay can be performed in a flow through array and real time results can be achieved. On the other hand, the better and aforementioned limit of detection is achieved when the biosensor is treated by drying. In this case, the assay is finished within 30 min.
The piezoelectric biosensors can also be used as a diagnostic tool, providing information about disease development, and can help to reveal the misuse of a biological warfare agent when victims occur. Piezoelectric biosensors containing immobilized antigen from Francisella tularensis and exerting sensitivity to antibodies were proposed as a tool of fast diagnosis [97,98,99]. In this case, an antibody specific to Francisella tularensis was the analyte and it was determined by the biosensor. Overview of piezoelectric biosensors can be seen in Table 3.

7. Conclusions

Biosensors for the detection and quantification of biological warfare agents represent a group of analytical tools that have tactical relevance when countermeasures are planned and practical importance when considered their price, simplicity and portability. Though only a small number of biosensors became commercialized, the practical experience from the commercialized one, and the fact that these tools serve as equipment for search teams in the military and other organization making countermeasures against biological warfare agents, are proof of their potential. The recent research on the issue further improved the applicability and practical relevance. It is not expected that the biosensors become a direct competitor to standard methods such as PCR, chromatography or mass spectrometry, but they are the first tool of choice for field research and a reserve for laboratories verifying and supporting the other, more exact, but also more expensive and elaborative, standard methods. The recent progress in biosensors construction makes them more promising for the future.
The next development of biosensors will be conditioned by availability of new specific materials and their price. The biosensor for biological warfare agents will be depending on the process as well. Quantum dots [46,100,101], magnetic micro and nanoparticles [102,103], screen printed electrodes and other 3D printed materials [75,104,105], electrochemically and fluorimetrically active nanoparticles [106,107,108,109,110,111,112] and advanced sensing materials, such as aptamers [113,114,115,116], can be highlighted as promising material platforms in a brief summarization, considering previous reviewing.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic (long-term organization development plan Medical Aspects of Weapons of Mass Destruction of the Faculty of Military Health Sciences, University of Defence); Technological Agency od Czech Republic (TACR TH03030336).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict 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.

References

  1. Janik, E.; Ceremuga, M.; Saluk-Bijak, J.; Bijak, M. Biological toxins as the potential tools for bioterrorism. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Anderson, P.D. Bioterrorism: Toxins as weapons. J. Pharm. Pract. 2012, 25, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Beckham, T. Introduction—Biological threat reduction. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2017, 36, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Clarke, S.C. Bacteria as potential tools in bioterrorism, with an emphasis on bacterial toxins. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 2005, 62, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kolesnikov, A.V.; Ryabko, A.K.; Shemyakin, I.G.; Kozyr, A.V. Development of specific therapy to category a toxic infections. Vestn. Ross Akad. Med. Nauk 2015, 4, 428–434. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pavlovich, M.J.; Musselman, B.; Hall, A.B. Direct analysis in real time-mass spectrometry (dart-ms) in forensic and security applications. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 2018, 37, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bozza, W.P.; Tolleson, W.H.; Rivera Rosado, L.A.; Zhang, B. Ricin detection: Tracking active toxin. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Duriez, E.; Armengaud, J.; Fenaille, F.; Ezan, E. Mass spectrometry for the detection of bioterrorism agents: From environmental to clinical applications. J. Mass Spectrom. 2016, 51, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singh, A.K.; Stanker, L.H.; Sharma, S.K. Botulinum neurotoxin: Where are we with detection technologies? Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 39, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cottingham, K. Ms on the bioterror front lines. Anal. Chem. 2006, 78, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lebedev, A.T. Mass spectrometry in identification of ecotoxicants including chemical and biological warfare agents. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2005, 207, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ler, S.G.; Lee, F.K.; Gopalakrishnakone, P. Trends in detection of warfare agents. Detection methods for ricin, staphylococcal enterotoxin b and t-2 toxin. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1133, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kientz, C.E. Chromatography and mass spectrometry of chemical warfare agents, toxins and related compounds: State of the art and future prospects. J. Chromatogr. A 1998, 814, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. D’Agostino, P.A.; Hancock, J.R.; Chenier, C.L. Mass spectrometric analysis of chemical warfare agents and their degradation products in soil and synthetic samples. Eur. J. Mass Spectrom. 2003, 9, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saikaly, P.E.; Barlaz, M.A.; de los Reyes, F.L. Development of quantitative real-time pcr assays for detection and quantification of surrogate biological warfare agents in building debris and leachate. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 6557–6565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Minogue, T.D.; Rachwal, P.A.; Hall, A.T.; Koehler, J.W.; Weller, S.A. Cross-institute evaluations of inhibitor-resistant pcr reagents for direct testing of aerosol and blood samples containing biological warfare agent DNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 1322–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pal, V.; Singh, S.; Tiwari, A.K.; Jaiswal, Y.K.; Rai, G.P. Development of a polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of burkholderia mallei, a potent biological warfare agent. Def. Sci. J. 2016, 66, 458–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pohanka, M. Biosensors containing acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase as recognition tools for detection of various compounds. Chem. Pap. 2015, 69, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pohanka, M. Overview of piezoelectric biosensors, immunosensors and DNA sensors and their applications. Materials 2018, 11, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pohanka, M. The piezoelectric biosensors: Principles and applications, a review. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2017, 12, 496–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bochenkov, V.E.; Shabatina, T.I. Chiral plasmonic biosensors. Biosensors 2018, 8, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eivazzadeh-Keihan, R.; Pashazadeh-Panahi, P.; Mahmoudi, T.; Chenab, K.K.; Baradaran, B.; Hashemzaei, M.; Radinekiyan, F.; Mokhtarzadeh, A.; Maleki, A. Dengue virus: A review on advances in detection and trends—From conventional methods to novel biosensors. Mikrochim. Acta 2019, 186, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nguyen, H.H.; Lee, S.H.; Lee, U.J.; Fermin, C.D.; Kim, M. Immobilized enzymes in biosensor applications. Materials 2019, 12, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gooding, J.J. Biosensor technology for detecting biological warfare agents: Recent progress and future trends. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 57, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pohanka, M.; Skladal, P.; Kroca, M. Biosensors for biological warfare agent detection. Def. Sci. J. 2007, 57, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kumar, H.; Rani, R. Development of biosensors for the detection of biological warfare agents: Its issues and challenges. Sci. Prog. 2013, 96, 294–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhou, H.; Liu, J.; Xu, J.J.; Zhang, S.S.; Chen, H.Y. Optical nano-biosensing interface via nucleic acid amplification strategy: Construction and application. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 1996–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, Z.; Zhang, W.; Xing, F. Graphene optical biosensors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mowbray, S.E.; Amiri, A.M. A brief overview of medical fiber optic biosensors and techniques in the modification for enhanced sensing ability. Diagnostics 2019, 9, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pospisilova, M.; Kuncova, G.; Trogl, J. Fiber-optic chemical sensors and fiber-optic bio-sensors. Sensors 2015, 15, 25208–25259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Benito-Pena, E.; Valdes, M.G.; Glahn-Martinez, B.; Moreno-Bondi, M.C. Fluorescence based fiber optic and planar waveguide biosensors. A review. Anal. Chim. Acta 2016, 943, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liang, G.; Luo, Z.; Liu, K.; Wang, Y.; Dai, J.; Duan, Y. Fiber optic surface plasmon resonance-based biosensor technique: Fabrication, advancement, and application. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2016, 46, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kim, J.; Campbell, A.S.; de Avila, B.E.; Wang, J. Wearable biosensors for healthcare monitoring. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Steglich, P.; Hulsemann, M.; Dietzel, B.; Mai, A. Optical biosensors based on silicon-on-insulator ring resonators: A review. Molecules 2019, 24, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Morales-Narvaez, E.; Merkoci, A. Graphene oxide as an optical biosensing platform: A progress report. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1805043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nawrot, W.; Drzozga, K.; Baluta, S.; Cabaj, J.; Malecha, K. A fluorescent biosensors for detection vital body fluids’ agents. Sensors 2018, 18, 2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pires, N.M.; Dong, T.; Hanke, U.; Hoivik, N. Recent developments in optical detection technologies in lab-on-a-chip devices for biosensing applications. Sensors 2014, 14, 15458–15479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Paiva, J.S.; Jorge, P.A.S.; Rosa, C.C.; Cunha, J.P.S. Optical fiber tips for biological applications: From light confinement, biosensing to bioparticles manipulation. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2018, 1862, 1209–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Donaldson, K.A.; Kramer, M.F.; Lim, D.V. A rapid detection method for vaccinia virus, the surrogate for smallpox virus. Biosen. Bioelectron. 2004, 20, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nath, N.; Eldefrawi, M.; Wright, J.; Darwin, D.; Huestis, M. A rapid reusable fiber optic biosensor for detecting cocaine metabolites in urine. J. Anal. Toxicol. 1999, 23, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Narang, U.; Anderson, G.P.; Ligler, F.S.; Burans, J. Fiber optic-based biosensor for ricin. Biosens. Bioelectron. 1997, 12, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cao, L.K.; Anderson, G.P.; Ligler, F.S.; Ezzell, J. Detection of yersinia pestis fraction 1 antigen with a fiber optic biosensor. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1995, 33, 336–341. [Google Scholar]
  43. DeMarco, D.R.; Saaski, E.W.; McCrae, D.A.; Lim, D.V. Rapid detection of escherichia coli o157:H7 in ground beef using a fiber-optic biosensor. J. Food Prot. 1999, 62, 711–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tempelman, L.A.; King, K.D.; Anderson, G.P.; Ligler, F.S. Quantitating staphylococcal enterotoxin b in diverse media using a portable fiber-optic biosensor. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 233, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Anderson, G.P.; King, K.D.; Gaffney, K.L.; Johnson, L.H. Multi-analyte interrogation using the fiber optic biosensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2000, 14, 771–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pohanka, M. Quantum dots in the therapy: Current trends and perspectives. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2017, 17, 650–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Girigoswami, K.; Akhtar, N. Nanobiosensors and fluorescence based biosensors: An overview. Int. J. Nano Dimens. 2019, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ge, S.Y.; He, J.B.; Ma, C.X.; Liu, J.Y.; Xi, F.N.; Dong, X.P. One-step synthesis of boron-doped graphene quantum dots for fluorescent sensors and biosensor. Talanta 2019, 199, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alonso-Lomillo, M.A.; Dominiguez-Renedo, O.; MArcos-Martinez, M.J. Screen-printed biosensors in microbiology; A review. Talanta 2010, 82, 1629–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pohanka, M.; Zakova, J.; Sedlacek, I. Digital camera-based lipase biosensor for the determination of paraoxon. Sens. Actuator B Chem. 2018, 273, 610–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pohanka, M. Small camera as a handheld colorimetric tool in the analytical chemistry. Chem. Pap. 2017, 71, 1553–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pohanka, M. Photography by cameras integrated in smartphones as a tool for analytical chemistry represented by an butyrylcholinesterase activity assay. Sensors 2015, 15, 13752–13762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kilic, V.; Alankus, G.; Horzum, N.; Mutlu, A.Y.; Bayram, A.; Solmaz, M.E. Single-image-referenced colorimetric water quality detection using a smartphone. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 5531–5536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Moonrungsee, N.; Peamaroon, N.; Boonmee, A.; Suwancharoen, S.; Jakmunee, J. Evaluation of tyrosinase inhibitory activity in salak (Salacca zalacca) extracts using the digital image-based colorimetric method. Chem. Pap. 2018, 72, 2729–2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Monogarova, O.V.; Oskolok, K.V.; Apyari, V.V. Colorimetry in chemical analysis. J. Anal. Chem. 2018, 73, 1076–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Puangpila, C.; Jakmunee, J.; Pencharee, S.; Pensrisirikul, W. Mobile-phone-based colourimetric analysis for determining nitrite content in water. Environ. Chem. 2018, 15, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rong, M.C.; Liang, Y.C.; Zhao, D.L.; Chen, B.J.; Pan, C.; Deng, X.Z.; Chen, Y.B.; He, J. A ratiometric fluorescence visual test paper for an anthrax biomarker based on functionalized manganese-doped carbon dots. Sens. Actuator B Chem. 2018, 265, 498–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, B.L.; Dallo, S.; Peterson, R.; Hussain, S.; Tao, W.T.; Ye, J.Y. Detection of anthrax lef with DNA-based photonic crystal sensors. J. Biomed. Opt. 2011, 16, 127006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Cooper, K.L.; Bandara, A.B.; Wang, Y.; Wang, A.; Inzana, T.J. Photonic biosensor assays to detect and distinguish subspecies of francisella tularensis. Sensors 2011, 11, 3004–3019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mechaly, A.; Cohen, H.; Cohen, O.; Mazor, O. A biolayer interferometry-based assay for rapid and highly sensitive detection of biowarfare agents. Anal. Biochem. 2016, 506, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bhatta, D.; Michel, A.A.; Villalba, M.M.; Emmerson, G.D.; Sparrow, I.J.G.; Perkins, E.A.; McDonnell, M.B.; Ely, R.W.; Cartwright, G.A. Optical microchip array biosensor for multiplexed detection of bio-hazardous agents. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2011, 30, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Leveque, C.; Ferracci, G.; Maulet, Y.; Mazuet, C.; Popoff, M.R.; Blanchard, M.P.; Seagar, M.; El Far, O. An optical biosensor assay for rapid dual detection of botulinum neurotoxins a and e. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 17953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Shi, J.Y.; Guo, J.B.; Bai, G.X.; Chan, C.Y.; Liu, X.; Ye, W.W.; Hao, J.H.; Chen, S.; Yang, M. A graphene oxide based fluorescence resonance energy transfer (fret) biosensor for ultrasensitive detection of botulinum neurotoxin a (bont/a) enzymatic activity. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 65, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Balsam, J.; Ossandon, M.; Kostov, Y.; Bruck, H.A.; Rasooly, A. Lensless ccd-based fluorometer using a micromachined optical soller collimator. Lab Chip 2011, 11, 941–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Blair, E.O.; Corrigan, D.K. A review of microfabricated electrochemical biosensors for DNA detection. Biosen. Bioelectron. 2019, 134, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Lee, J.H.; Park, S.J.; Choi, J.W. Electrical property of graphene and its application to electrochemical biosensing. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cinti, S. Novel paper-based electroanalytical tools for food surveillance. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2019, 411, 4303–4311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pohanka, M. Biosensors and bioassays based on lipases, principles and applications, a review. Molecules 2019, 24, 616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Asif, M.; Aziz, A.; Azeem, M.; Wang, Z.; Ashraf, G.; Xiao, F.; Chen, X.; Liu, H. A review on electrochemical biosensing platform based on layered double hydroxides for small molecule biomarkers determination. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 262, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhou, Y.; Fang, Y.; Ramasamy, R.P. Non-covalent functionalization of carbon nanotubes for electrochemical biosensor development. Sensors 2019, 19, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shah, J.; Wilkins, E. Electrochemical biosensors for detection of biological warfare agents. Electroanalysis 2003, 15, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Moreira, F.T.C.; Ferreira, M.; Puga, J.R.T.; Sales, M.G.F. Screen-printed electrode produced by printed-circuit board technology. Application to cancer biomarker detection by means of plastic antibody as sensing material. Sens. Actuator B Chem. 2016, 223, 927–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ricci, F.; Adornetto, G.; Palleschi, G. A review of experimental aspects of electrochemical immunosensors. Electrochim. Acta 2012, 84, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pohanka, M.; Skladal, P. Electrochemical biosensors—Principles and applications. J. Appl. Biomed. 2008, 6, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pohanka, M. Three-dimensional printing in analytical chemistry: Principles and applications. Anal. Lett. 2016, 49, 2865–2882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Settrington, E.B.; Alocilja, E.C. Electrochemical biosensor for rapid and sensitive detection of magnetically extracted bacterial pathogens. Biosensors 2012, 2, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mazzaracchio, V.; Neagu, D.; Porchetta, A.; Marcoccio, E.; Pomponi, A.; Faggioni, G.; D’Amore, N.; Notargiacomo, A.; Pea, M.; Moscone, D.; et al. A label-free impedimetric aptasensor for the detection of bacillus anthracis spore simulant. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 126, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Raveendran, M.; Andrade, A.F.B.; Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J. Selective and sensitive electrochemical DNA biosensor for the detection of bacillus anthracis. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2016, 11, 763–776. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ziolkowski, R.; Oszwaldowski, S.; Zacharczuk, K.; Zasada, A.A.; Malinowska, E. Electrochemical detection of bacillus anthracis protective antigen gene using DNA biosensor based on stem-loop probe. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, B187–B195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lard, M.; Linke, H.; Prinz, C.N. Biosensing using arrays of vertical semiconductor nanowires: Mechanosensing and biomarker detection. Nanotechnology 2019, 30, 214003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Molaei, M.J. A review on nanostructured carbon quantum dots and their applications in biotechnology, sensors, and chemiluminescence. Talanta 2019, 196, 456–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Luan, E.; Shoman, H.; Ratner, D.M.; Cheung, K.C.; Chrostowski, L. Silicon photonic biosensors using label-free detection. Sensors 2018, 18, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Piro, B.; Mattana, G.; Reisberg, S. Transistors for chemical monitoring of living cells. Biosensors 2018, 8, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tran, D.P.; Pham, T.T.T.; Wolfrum, B.; Offenhausser, A.; Thierry, B. Cmos-compatible silicon nanowire field-effect transistor biosensor: Technology development toward commercialization. Materials 2018, 11, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zang, Y.; Fan, J.; Ju, Y.; Xue, H.; Pang, H. Current advances in semiconductor nanomaterial-based photoelectrochemical biosensing. Chemistry 2018, 24, 14010–14027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Choi, K.; Seo, W.; Cha, S.; Choi, J. Evaluation of two types of biosensors for immunoassay of botulinum toxin. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1998, 31, 101–105. [Google Scholar]
  87. Cunningha, J.C.; Scida, K.; Kogan, M.R.; Wang, B.; Ellington, A.D.; Crooks, R.M. Paper diagnostic device for quantitative electrochemical detection of ricin at picomolar levels. Lab Chip 2015, 15, 3707–3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ngeh-Ngwainbi, J.; Suleiman, A.A.; Guilbault, G.G. Piezoelectric crystal biosensors. Biosens. Bioelectron. 1990, 5, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wang, Z.L. Progress in piezotronics and piezo-phototronics. Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 4632–4646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chorsi, M.T.; Curry, E.J.; Chorsi, H.T.; Das, R.; Baroody, J.; Purohit, P.K.; Ilies, H.; Nguyen, T.D. Piezoelectric biomaterials for sensors and actuators. Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1802084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bragazzi, N.L.; Amicizia, D.; Panatto, D.; Tramalloni, D.; Valle, I.; Gasparini, R. Quartz-crystal microbalance (qcm) for public health: An overview of its applications. Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 2015, 101, 149–211. [Google Scholar]
  92. Marrazza, G. Piezoelectric biosensors for organophosphate and carbamate pesticides: A review. Biosensors 2014, 4, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Becker, B.; Cooper, M.A. A survey of the 2006–2009 quartz crystal microbalance biosensor literature. J. Mol. Recognit. 2011, 24, 754–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pohanka, M. Sensors based on molecularly imprinted polymers. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2017, 12, 8082–8094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Poitras, C.; Tufenkji, N. A qcm-d-based biosensor for E. coli o157:H7 highlighting the relevance of the dissipation slope as a transduction signal. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2009, 24, 2137–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hao, R.Z.; Wang, D.B.; Zhang, X.E.; Zuo, G.M.; Wei, H.P.; Yang, R.F.; Zhang, Z.P.; Cheng, Z.X.; Guo, Y.C.; Cui, Z.Q.; et al. Rapid detection of bacillus anthracis using monoclonal antibody functionalized qcm sensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2009, 24, 1330–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pohanka, M.; Pavlis, O.; Skladal, P. Rapid characterization of monoclonal antibodies using the piezoelectric immunosensor. Sensors 2007, 7, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pohanka, M.; Pavlis, O.; Skladal, P. Diagnosis of tularemia using piezoelectric biosensor technology. Talanta 2007, 71, 981–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pohanka, M.; Treml, F.; Hubalek, M.; Band’ouchova, H.; Beklova, M.; Pikula, J. Piezoelectric biosensor for a simple serological diagnosis of tularemia in infected european brown hares (Lepus europaeus). Sensors 2007, 7, 2825–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ghosal, K.; Ghosh, A. Carbon dots: The next generation platform for biomedical applications. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2019, 96, 887–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Singh, R.D.; Shandilya, R.; Bhargava, A.; Kumar, R.; Tiwari, R.; Chaudhury, K.; Srivastava, R.K.; Goryacheva, I.Y.; Mishra, P.K. Quantum dot based nano-biosensors for detection of circulating cell free mirnas in lung carcinogenesis: From biology to clinical translation. Front. Genet. 2018, 9, 616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Xianyu, Y.L.; Wang, Q.L.; Chen, Y.P. Magnetic particles-enabled biosensors for point-of-care testing. Trac-Trends Anal. Chem. 2018, 106, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chen, Y.T.; Kolhatkar, A.G.; Zenasni, O.; Xu, S.; Lee, T.R. Biosensing using magnetic particle detection techniques. Sensors 2017, 17, 2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Chinnadayyala, S.R.; Park, J.; Le, H.T.N.; Santhosh, M.; Kadam, A.N.; Cho, S. Recent advances in microfluidic paper-based electrochemiluminescence analytical devices for point-of-care testing applications. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 126, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bakirhan, N.K.; Ozcelikay, G.; Ozkan, S.A. Recent progress on the sensitive detection of cardiovascular disease markers by electrochemical-based biosensors. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2018, 159, 406–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Qing, Z.H.; Bai, A.L.; Xing, S.H.; Zou, Z.; He, X.X.; Wang, K.M.; Yang, R.H. Progress in biosensor based on DNA-templated copper nanoparticles. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 137, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Stine, K.J. Biosensor applications of electrodeposited nanostructures. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Yola, M.L. Development of novel nanocomposites based on graphene/graphene oxide and electrochemical sensor applications. Curr. Anal. Chem. 2019, 15, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kizling, M.; Dzwonek, M.; Wieckowska, A.; Bilewicz, R. Gold nanoparticles in bioelectrocatalysis—The role of nanoparticle size. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2018, 12, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Tan, H.X.; Ma, L.; Guo, T.; Zhou, H.Y.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.H.; Dai, H.J.; Yu, Y. A novel fluorescence aptasensor based on mesoporous silica nanoparticles for selective and sensitive detection of aflatoxin b-1. Anal. Chim. Acta 2019, 1068, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fothergill, S.M.; Joyce, C.; Xie, F. Metal enhanced fluorescence biosensing: From ultra-violet towards second near-infrared window. Nanoscale 2018, 10, 20914–20929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hassanpour, S.; Baradaran, B.; de la Guardia, M.; Baghbanzadeh, A.; Mosafer, J.; Hejazi, M.; Mokhtarzadeh, A.; Hasanzadeh, M. Diagnosis of hepatitis via nanomaterial-based electrochemical, optical or piezoelectrical biosensors: A review on recent advancements. Microchim. Acta 2018, 185, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mehmood, S.; Khan, A.Z.; Bilal, M.; Sohail, A.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Aptamer-based biosensors: A novel toolkit for early diagnosis of cancer. Mater. Today Chem. 2019, 12, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Lorenzo-Gomez, R.; Miranda-Castro, R.; de-los-Santos-Alvarez, N.; Lobo-Castanon, M.J. Electrochemical aptamer-based assays coupled to isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques: New tools for cancer diagnosis. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2019, 14, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zhang, Y.; Lai, B.S.; Juhas, M. Recent advances in aptamer discovery and applications. Molecules 2019, 24, 941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Hanif, A.; Farooq, R.; Rehman, M.U.; Khan, R.; Majid, S.; Ganaie, M.A. Aptamer based nanobiosensors: Promising healthcare devices. Saudi Pharm. J. 2019, 27, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 12 02303 g001 550
Figure 1. Example of a colorimetric, commercially available, biosensor on the principle of lateral flow assay for the determination of Bacillus anthracis (indicated by letters BA on the biosensor), ricin (indicated by letters “RC”), botulinum toxin (indicated by letters “CB”), Yersinia pestis (indicated by letters “YP”), staphylococcal enterotoxin B (indicated by letters “se”).
Figure 1. Example of a colorimetric, commercially available, biosensor on the principle of lateral flow assay for the determination of Bacillus anthracis (indicated by letters BA on the biosensor), ricin (indicated by letters “RC”), botulinum toxin (indicated by letters “CB”), Yersinia pestis (indicated by letters “YP”), staphylococcal enterotoxin B (indicated by letters “se”).
Materials 12 02303 g001
Materials 12 02303 g002 550
Figure 2. Simplified principle of magnetic particles blocking access to the electrode surface. It is a type of assay as described in the cited work [76].
Figure 2. Simplified principle of magnetic particles blocking access to the electrode surface. It is a type of assay as described in the cited work [76].
Materials 12 02303 g002
Materials 12 02303 g003 550
Figure 3. Principle of impedimetric sensor with immobilized ssDNA working on principle when a redox active compound, such as ferricyanide (3-), has limited access to electrode surface. This principle was for instance introduced in the work by Mazzaracchio et al. [77].
Figure 3. Principle of impedimetric sensor with immobilized ssDNA working on principle when a redox active compound, such as ferricyanide (3-), has limited access to electrode surface. This principle was for instance introduced in the work by Mazzaracchio et al. [77].
Materials 12 02303 g003
Materials 12 02303 g004 550
Figure 4. An idealized principle of piezoelectric function. Meaning of numbers: 1. Pure QCM sensor with high frequency of oscillations; 2. Immobilization of an antibody; 3. Finished biosensor prepared for an assay; 4. Application of a sample containing analyte (a biological warfare agent); 5. Analyte is caught on the biosensor surface and frequency of oscillation is decreased.
Figure 4. An idealized principle of piezoelectric function. Meaning of numbers: 1. Pure QCM sensor with high frequency of oscillations; 2. Immobilization of an antibody; 3. Finished biosensor prepared for an assay; 4. Application of a sample containing analyte (a biological warfare agent); 5. Analyte is caught on the biosensor surface and frequency of oscillation is decreased.
Materials 12 02303 g004
Table
Table 1. Survey of important biological warfare agents.
Table 1. Survey of important biological warfare agents.
Category According CDCBiological Warfare AgentType of the AgentCaused Disease
ABacillus anthracisBacteriumAnthrax
Francisella tularensisBacteriumTularemia
Clostridium botulinum including its toxinsBacterium producing Botulinum toxinPoisoning by toxin
Variola majorVirusSmallpox
MarburgVirusMarburg hemorrhagic fever
LassaVirusLassa hemorrhagic fever
MachupoVirusBolivian hemorrhagic fever
BBurkholderia malleiBacteriumGlanders
Burkholderia pseudomalleiBacteriumMelioidosis
Brucella melitensisBacteriumBrucellosis
Chlamydia psittaciBacteriumChlamydiosis
Escherichia coli O157:H7 including its shiga toxinsBacteriumFoodborne illness, poisoning by shiga toxin
Rickettsia prowazekiiBacteriumTyphus
Vibrio choleraeBacteriumCholera
Staphylococcus aureus including its toxinsBacterium producing a group of staphylococcal enterotoxinsStaphylococcal infections, Poisoning by staphylococcal enterotoxins
RicinToxin from a plant Ricinus communisPoisoning by ricin
Table
Table 2. Optical biosensors and bioassays for biological warfare agents assay.
Table 2. Optical biosensors and bioassays for biological warfare agents assay.
AnalytePrinciple Specific Material in BiosensorLimit of DetectionOther SpecificationsReference
2,6-dipicolonic acid—a marker of Bacillus anthracisThe modified dots interacted with 2,6-dipicolonic acid; it resulted in change of fluorescence colorManganese-doped carbon dots with ethylene diamine and ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid with bound EuIII0.1 nmol/LResults within 1 min[57]
DNA from Bacillus anthracisPhotonic sensor immobilized single stranded DNA; interaction with DNA from sample causes resonant wavelength shiftPhotonic crystal sensor with total-internal-reflection modified with DNA0.1 nmol/LResults within 1 h[58]
DNA from Francisella tularensisOptical inteferometry using DNA probesLong-period fiber gratings1 ngResults within 20 min[59]
Francisella tularensis and ricinOptical inteferometry using immobilized antibodies and antibodies labeled with alkaline phosphatase—the enzyme finally caused a deposition of insoluble crystals, which was measured by the interferometryBio-layer interferometry based on fiber optic biosensors and standard 96-well microplates104 CFU/mL for Francisella tularensis and 10 pg/mL for ricinResults within 17 min[60]
Botulinum toxin ABotulium toxin converting fluorogenic peptide containing SNAP25 precursor located on graphene oxide, fluorescence resonance energy transfer is measuredGraphene oxide modified with a peptide1 fg/mLSelective for light chain of Botulinum toxin A[63]
Botulinum toxin ABotulium toxin convert fluorogenic peptide containing SNAP25 precursor, fluorescence is measured by CCD photodetectorFluorogenic peptide1.25 nmol/LAssay of 16 samples contemporary[64]
Table
Table 3. Electrochemical and piezoelectric biosensors and bioassays for biological warfare agents’ assay.
Table 3. Electrochemical and piezoelectric biosensors and bioassays for biological warfare agents’ assay.
AnalyteType of BiosensorPrincipleSpecific Material in BiosensorLimit of DetectionOther SpecificationsReference
Bacillus cereus and Escherichia coli O157:H7 VoltammetricCyclic voltammetry on screen printed electrodes; analyte was captured and magnetically separated by magnetic nanoparticles; voltammograms were differing due to the interaction.Polyaniline/magnetic immunoparticles40 CFU/mL for Bacillus cereus and 6 CFU/mL for Escherichia coli O157:H7 Results within 1 h, stability of storage biosensors for at least 1 year[76]
Bacillus anthracisVoltammetricElectrode contains DNA molecular probe for Bacillus anthracis; in its presence, electrochemical properties of the electrode changed.Gold electrode modified with genetic probe5.7 nmol/L5 min lasting assay[79]
Bacillus cereusImpedimetricDNA aptasensor interacts with specific sequences in Bacillus cereus, impedimetry on screen printed gold electrodes is measuredScreen printed gold electrodes with DNA aptamer3 × 103 CFU/mLIncubation time 3 h is necessary for the assay[77]
Bacillus anthracisVoltammetric Electrodes contained immobilized ssDNA, it interacted with DNA fragments from Bacillus anthracis, cyclic voltammetry was performed and voltamograms were differing due to the interactionsGold screen printed electrode modified with DNA10 pmol/LThe longest step of the assay (hybridization) lasted 1 h; reported long term stability of the biosensor for 3 months[78]
Botulinum toxinPotentiometricPotentiometric electrode covered with antibodies, the assay was a sandwich format principle based on secondary urease labelled antibodiesLight addressable potentiometric sensor10 ng/mLThe light addressable potentiometric sensor assay exerted better limit of detection than label-free real time assay by a surface plasmon resonance biosensor[86]
RicinVoltammetricAntibody modified magnetic beads and silver nanoparticles also covered with an antibodies formed complex with ricin; the complex was magnetically separated due to the magnetic nanoparticles and it was also electrochemically active due to the silver nanoparticles.Magnetic beads covered with antibody, silver nanoparticles with antibody34 pmol/L9.5 min lasting assay[87]
Escherichia coli O157:H7PiezoelectricPiezoelectric biosensor with antibodies against Escherichia coli, affinity interaction is measured piezoelectrically.QCM3 × 105 cells/mLReal time assay[95]
Bacillus anthracisPiezoelectricPiezoelectric biosensor with polyclonal antibodies against Bacillus anthracis, affinity interaction is measured piezoelectrically.QCM103 CFU/mL30 min lasting assay[96]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pohanka, M. Current Trends in the Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay. Materials 2019, 12, 2303. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12142303

AMA Style

Pohanka M. Current Trends in the Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay. Materials. 2019; 12(14):2303. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12142303

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pohanka, Miroslav. 2019. "Current Trends in the Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay" Materials 12, no. 14: 2303. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12142303

APA Style

Pohanka, M. (2019). Current Trends in the Biosensors for Biological Warfare Agents Assay. Materials, 12(14), 2303. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12142303

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