
==== Front
RSC Adv
RSC Adv
RA
RSCACL
RSC Advances
2046-2069
The Royal Society of Chemistry

d4ra04038d
10.1039/d4ra04038d
Chemistry
Bioreceptor modified electrochemical biosensors for the detection of life threating pathogenic bacteria: a review
Khaleque Md. Abdul ab
Hossain Syed Imdadul bc
Ali Md. Romzan ab
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0091-2467
p-9361-2015
Aly Saad Aly Mohamed d
Abuelmakarem Hala S. e
Al Mamun Muhammad Shamim f
Hossain Khan Md. Zaved ab
a Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Jashore University of Science and Technology Jashore 7408 Bangladesh zaved.khan@yahoo.com

b Laboratory of Nano-bio and Advanced Materials Engineering (NAME), Jashore University of Science and Technology Jashore 7408 Bangladesh
c Centre for Sophisticated Instrumentation and Research Laboratory (CSIRL), Jashore University of Science and Technology Jashore 7408 Bangladesh
d Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Georgia Tech Shenzhen Institute (GTSI) Shenzhen Guangdong 518055 China Mohamed.alysaadaly@ece.gatech.edu

e Systems and Biomedical Engineering Department, The Higher Institute of Engineering El Shorouk Egypt
f Chemistry Discipline, School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Khulna University Khulna 9208 Bangladesh
6 9 2024
4 9 2024
6 9 2024
14 39 2848728515
1 6 2024
23 8 2024
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry
2024
The Royal Society of Chemistry
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.
The lack of reliable and efficient techniques for early monitoring to stop long-term effects on human health is an increasing problem as the pathogenesis effect of infectious bacteria is growing continuously. Therefore, developing an effective early detection technique coupled with efficient and continuous monitoring of pathogenic bacteria is increasingly becoming a global public health prime target. Electrochemical biosensors are among the strategies that can be utilized for accomplishing that goal with promising potential. In recent years, identifying target biological analytes by interacting with bioreceptors modified electrodes is among the most commonly used detection techniques in electrochemical biosensing strategies. The commonly employed bioreceptors are nucleic acid molecules (DNA or RNA), proteins, antibodies, enzymes, organisms, tissues, and biomimetic components such as molecularly imprinted polymers. Despite the advancement in electrochemical biosensing, developing a reliable and effective biosensor for detecting pathogenic bacteria is still in the infancy stage with so much room for growth. A major milestone in addressing some of the issues and improving the detection pathway is the investigation of specific bacterial detection techniques. The present study covers the fundamental concepts of electrochemical biosensors, human PB illnesses, and the latest electrochemical biosensors based on bioreceptor elements that are designed to detect specific pathogenic bacteria. This study aims to assist researchers with the most up-to-date research work in the field of bio-electrochemical pathogenic bacteria detection and monitoring.

The lack of reliable and efficient techniques for early monitoring to stop long-term effects on human health is an increasing problem as the pathogenesis effect of infectious bacteria is growing continuously.

pubstatusPaginated Article
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Pathogenic bacteria (PB) can cause life-threatening infections and are one of the main causes of mortality worldwide because PB poses an urgent threat to global health. Due to the shield created by PB, essential antibiotics are insufficient to fight against PB,1 thus, antibiotics are becoming ineffective against PB.2 Paralysis, tetanus, fever, cramping in the stomach, respiratory and urinary tract infections, cancer, diarrhea, cholera, and fever are the deadliest illnesses and diseases caused by PB.3 The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that antibiotic resistance poses a serious worldwide problem with far-reaching implications for public health and the economy.4 Intestinal infectious disorders are caused by bacteria that are associated with water, food, and physiological fluids. These bacteria also propagate infectious diseases among humans and animals.5 The primary cause of foodborne illness outbreaks is undercooked or processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat, dairy products, fruit, and vegetables.6–8 The primary reservoirs for many foodborne diseases include the environment (soil and water), foods produced from animals (meat, milk, and eggs), and agricultural goods (fruit and vegetables).5,9 The most common foods that can harbor bacteria such as Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Campylobacter, Listeria, Shigella, or Escherichia coli O157:H7 are fruit, vegetables, fish, meat, eggs, and dairy products. Due to the severe pandemic brought on by the life-threatening infection of PB, preventive measures should be taken.10 Nonetheless, the development of diagnosis and prevention tools and routes can address the intense outbreak of PBs.

Electrochemical biosensors have garnered increasing attention from researchers in recent years because of their extremely sensitive and selective method of detecting PB. The primary function of a biorecognition element on a biosensor is to give target analyte specificity. The bioreceptors are immobilized on a sensor surface to capture the target analyte. Antibodies, enzymes, cells, aptamers, DNAs, biomimetics, and phages are the most frequent types of bioreceptors or biorecognition elements, also known as molecular probes. Bioreceptor-modified electrochemical biosensors are a potent tool for the identification of pathogenic bacteria, providing quick, accurate, and targeted diagnostics in a range of applications. Table 1 summarizes the advantages of electrochemical biosensing over other methods of detecting PBs is presented below.

Advantages of electrochemical biosensor over other methods for PBs detectiona

Specification	Electrochemical method	Other methods	
Sensitivity	Electrochemical biosensors are highly sensitive to specific analytes for the lowest limit of detection.11	Most of the conventional methods are low sensitive, e.g., ELISA requires long incubation time (24–48 hours) with low sensitivity (≥105 CFU mL−1) yield12	
Selectivity and viability	Electrochemical biosensors are highly selective, bind and detect specific analyte, discriminate between live and dead bacteria.13,14	All methods are less selective, PCR techniques cannot distinguish between nonviable and viable bacteria cells due to false positive cross-amplification and false negative DNA polymerase inhibition.15	
Stability	Retained their efficiency for a long time, it shows high efficiency.16	Insufficient stability, low efficiency of signal amplification.17	
Linearity and limit of detection	Wide dynamic linear range of biosensor response and lowest limit of detection.18	Lack of linear dynamic range and poor limit of detection.17	
Detection method	This method is rapid, real-time with portable device.16	Most of the conventional methods are time consuming, and long working protocol requires heavy machinery.19,20	
a Abbreviations: ELISA: enzyme-linked immunoassay, CFU: colony forming unit, PCR: polymerase chain reaction.

In recent years, electrochemical biosensors, especially portable electrochemical biosensors, have been the preferred bioanalytical method for detecting PBs. Numerous biosensors were previously reported such as mass-based (piezoelectric21 and surface acoustic22), optical (light scattering,22 fiber optics,23 and SPR24), and electrochemical (amperometry,25 potentiometric,26 and impedance27). However, they all face the challenge of identifying pathogens in real samples (such as food) at low analyte concentrations with excellent sensitivity and selectivity. Nonspecific adsorption of biomolecules in the sample (either from the matrix or microbes) can severely impede the biosensor surface.28 This increases background “noise”, reduces the selectivity of the biosensor, and weakens the signal. Recently, several studies have been performed on novel and portable biosensors that can outperform conventional detection technologies. More research is needed on biosensors that can quantitatively identify and screen infections in clinical, environmental, and dietary samples.29 Electrochemical platforms are the commonly used biosensor due to their high analyte selectivity and ability to perform multiplex analyses. Furthermore, they can achieve high analytical precession even in complex food matrices with varying densities, compositions, and pH levels. As a diagnostic tool for clinical applications, electrochemical-based biosensors have shown considerable promise. However, they still face some obstacles that must be overcome. Among these challenges, preserving the sensor's stability and repeatability in intricate real matrices, generating a low limit of detection (LOD), and preventing non-specific adsorption of interfering species are the three main obstacles faced in the development of electrochemical biosensing platforms.30 Pathogens are electrochemically detected using a working electrode that has been modified with recognition components (such as an antibody, aptamer, or DNA probe) to guarantee measurements with high selectivity, sensitivity, and specificity. Employing a working electrode modified with recognition elements (e.g., an antibody, aptamer, or DNA probe) allows for the electrochemical detection of pathogens while maintaining measurement selectivity, sensitivity, and specificity. For this reason, the most widely used biosensors are electrochemical-based platforms.

Incorporating biorecognition elements into the electrode surface of the electrochemical biosensing to selectively detect and identify biologically significant microorganisms such as pathogens can significantly enhance the accuracy and specificity of biosensing recognition platforms. Therefore, bioreceptors incorporated transducers-based bio-electrochemical sensors increase the overall platform viability for the diagnostic and detecting applications. This study covers the fundamentals of electrochemical biosensors, human PBs illnesses, and the most recent advancements in bioreceptor element-based electrochemical biosensors for the detection of specific pathogenic bacteria. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published survey that comprehensively review electrochemical biosensors based on bioreceptors surface modification for the detection of pathogenic bacteria with a great length of details on the commonly used biorecognition elements and a large selection of life threating pathogenic bacteria along with the most frequent diseases caused by these infectious microorganisms. This work can serve as a reference for researchers with interest in developing reliable and highly sensitive electrochemical based biosensors to selectively detect deadly pathogens for point of care applications in the health care sector.

2. Principle of an electrochemical biosensor

A combined receptor-transducer device that employs a biological recognition element for selected quantitative or semi-quantitative analytical data is called an electrochemical biosensor.31 In 1962, Clark and Lyons introduced the term “biosensor”. Their outstanding achievements has made them the original founders of biosensing concept.31 To measure the amount of dissolved oxygen in blood using the amperometry technique, they developed an oxygen electrode and a glucose oxidase enzyme.32 The electrochemical biosensors are the most extensively used biosensing platform and are successfully commercialized to monitor glucose for diabetic patients. For biosensing detection, pathogenic bacteria are collected from host body, cultured, and screened. The desired biochemical conversion is performed to bring detectable condition. Thereafter, pathogenic, or nonpathogenic bacteria can be detected using a group of bioreceptors (enzyme, antibody, cell, bacteriophage, nucleic acid) fabricated electrode.33,34 Both live and dead bacteria can be detected by electrochemical biosensors. The interaction of bioreceptors with bacterial cellular components-which can be found in both living and dead bacteria is frequently the basis for detection mechanisms.14,35 Additionally, the bacteriophage base biosensor cannot detect dead bacteria.36 The receptor–analyte interaction is measured using electrochemical techniques such as amperometry, potentiometry, impedimetric, and conductometry. The most used signal measurement techniques are cyclic voltammetry (CV), differential pulse voltammetry (DPV), stripping voltammetry, alternating current voltammetry (ACV), polarography, square wave voltammetry (SWV), and linear sweep voltammetry (LSV). Different electrochemical signal measurement techniques are suitable for various biosensing applications, and each method has its own merits. The type of analyte, the desired level of sensitivity and specificity, and the practical considerations all play a role in the measurement systems selection. These approaches can be classified into many types based on which characteristics of the electrode are regulated and which are measured. For incidence, potentiometry is used to quantify the difference in electrode potentials, amperometry analyses electric current, and coulometry records charge passed during a given time period.37 Technological developments in these areas keep improving the functionality and performance of electrochemical biosensors across a range of applications.

Recent wearable electrochemical sensors have attracted a great deal of attention due to their wide range of applications in the human body. These electrochemical devices are used numerous forms such as contact lenses, Google glass, skin-patch, mouth gourds, smartwatches, underwear, and wristbands.38 Additionally, electrochemical biosensor has been trailed for bacteria detection in the human body. Mannoor et al., developed a wireless and wearable biosensor based on graphene-electrode-silk hybrid structure for Staphylococcus aureus bacteria detection on tooth enamel.39 The developed sensor displayed a high sensitivity and with detection limits down to a single bacterium. Another flexible, wearable, wireless and battery-free DNA hydrogel-based biosensor was developed by Xiong and his colleagues. The introduced biosensor can identify wound infections caused by pathogenic bacteria (such as Staphylococcus aureus.) prior to any evident signs of wound infection. The fully integrated wound infections sensor integrates biologically responsive DNA hydrogel and Near-field communication (NFC) module to support a smartphone-based readout for updating the wound infection condition.40 Based on the previously reported finding that in infected wounds, the pH becomes alkaline which have been linked predominantly to the presence of bacteria.41 Manjakkal et al. introduced graphite-polyurethane thick electrode for potentiometric electrochemical pH-based wearable sensor for pH level detection, thus determining the wound healing stage.42

Overall, graphical representation of pathogenic bacteria detection strategy is represented in Fig. 1. The three main parts of a biosensor are (i) a bioreceptor, also known as a biorecognition element, which identifies the desired analyte; (ii) a transducer that changes biological (electrochemical) impulses into electrical signals, (iii) a signal processing system presents these electrical signals in a recognizable format. Furthermore, biosensors are classified according to the type of transducer used, which includes electrochemical, calorimetric (thermometric), mass (piezoelectric or surface acoustic wave devices), and optical.43 Electrochemical biosensors are becoming increasingly popular for applications in biotechnology, food safety, environmental monitoring, and clinical diagnostics due to their rapid reaction, ease of use, and low cost.

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram showing the typical electrochemical biosensing process for the detection of pathogenic bacteria. It consists of PB, bioreceptor modified electrode, electrochemical workstation measuring the receptor–analyte interaction signal.

2.1. Bioreceptors

A molecule known as a bioreceptor binds to analytes through biological processes. Bioreceptors are categorized into affinity (such as nucleic acid and antibodies) and catalytic (such as enzymes, cells, and tissues) types. Biosensors are further classed according to the type of bioreceptor they use enzymes, cells, antibodies, or nucleic acid based. Immobilization techniques that can be utilized to attach bioreceptors on the surface of sensors include membrane and matrix entrapment, covalent and ionic binding, physical adsorption, and intermolecular crosslinking.44 The physical adsorption of bioreceptors is mediated by Van der Waals forces, hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonds, and ionic forces. Covalent bonding between bioreceptors and sensor surfaces involves functional groups such as amino, sulfhydryl, hydroxyl, phenolic, and thiol groups, among others. It is worth noting that covalent binding is commonly utilized for enzyme immobilization. Polymeric materials such as polyacrylamide, cellulose acetate, starch, alginate, pectate, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl chloride, polycarbonate, and silica gel are employed to entrap matrices or pathogens. Glutaraldehyde, hexamethylene diisocyanate, 1,5-difluoro 2,4-dinitrobenzene, and bisdiazobenzidine-2,2′-disulphonic acid are examples of bi- or multi-functional cross-linking chemicals used in intermolecular cross-linking.45 Furthermore, successful immobilization techniques include covalent attachment to a functionalized substrate, affinity immobilization (attachment of biotinylated probes to streptavidin-coated surfaces), and self-assembling (chemisorption of thiol-modified probes onto gold surfaces). A short summary of bioreceptor bonding on transducer surface is presented in Fig. 2. Bioreceptor can be also classified into two main categories: catalytic biochemical receptors such as enzyme, cells, and DNA zymes; and affinity biochemical receptors such as antibody, aptamer, DNA/RNA oligonucleotides, engineered and protein.

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram illustrating examples of matrix-analyte bonding formation techniques. The figure was adopted from ref. 46 with permissions, copyright @ Elsevier.

2.1.1 Enzymes

Proteins called enzymes function as biological catalysts in organisms to quicken chemical reactions. Because they are composed of polypeptide chains of amino acids, the three-dimensional structure of the enzyme is determined by the arrangement of these amino acids.47 Enzymes were the first molecular recognition components to be incorporated in biosensors.48 Enzyme-based biosensors use a stable source of enzyme material (primarily through bio-renewable sources) and have a high possibility of modifying the catalytic properties or substrate specificity of the enzymes by means of genetic engineering. Finally, catalytic amplification of the biosensor response can be achieved by the modulation of the enzyme activity with respect to the target analyte.46 The capacity to speed biochemical activities.49

To improve detection stability and repeatability, enzymes can be immobilized on the transducer matrix surface. Therefore, the choice of inert, stable, and resistant support material is essential for improving enzyme activity.50 The enzymes can be immobilized on support material via adsorption, covalent bonding, crosslinking, encapsulation, and entrapment as illustrated in Fig. 3. Literature revealed that enzyme activity varies depending on the type of bonding with the surface of the sensor. Peroxidases and oxidoreductases have received a great deal of attention within the biosensor scientific community because they are the most stable enzymes for catalyzing oxide reduction reaction.54Listeria monocytogenes,55Escherichia coli56, and campylobacter jejuni57 pathogenic bacteria detection was reported by enzymes modified electrochemical biosensor. Even though enzyme application takes up a lot of space on the catalytic biosensor, the enzyme quickly loses its ability to function after two to four weeks after application.58

2.1.2 Cells

A wide range of applications, including the detection of diverse analytes from the environment, food, clinical settings, and other sources, can be fulfilled by creating biosensors through live cell-based assays.59 It has previously been documented that several cells, including bacteria, yeast, and higher eukaryotic cells like vertebrata or mammals, were used as bioreceptors within bio-electrochemical sensors. Moreover, earlier research revealed that mammalian tissue slices or cells might be successfully employed as biorecognition components in studies utilizing biosensors.36 The use of living cells as identification elements can result in low detection limits and functional stability due to their great sensitivity. Banerjee et al.,60 investigated a cell-based sensing mechanism based on collagen-encapsulated mammalian cells for rapid detection of pathogenic bacteria and toxins. Zhao et al.,61 discussed the synthesis of silica nanocomposite doped with liposome to be exploited as an artificial cell-based biosensor. The synthesized artificial cell can bind and detect hemolysin and Listeriolysin O, secreted by pathogen L. monocytogenes bacterium. One of the disadvantages of the proposed cell-based sensor is that the presence of undesired enzymes can cause a complicated response and result in a lack of selectivity.62

Fig. 3 Bioreceptor–analyte interaction for electrochemical biosensor detection. Figure was created by authors based on ideas by ref. 51–53.

2.1.3 Antibodies

Antibodies (Ab) or immunoglobulins (Ig) are large Y-shaped glycoproteins that have a high specificity for recognizing antigens, which are substances that might trigger an immune response.63 Each antigen contains discrete areas called epitopes to which the antibody can bind. While monoclonal antibodies are selective for only one epitope within an antigen, polyclonal antibodies can bind many epitopes inside an antigen. To analyze surface plasmon resonance (SPR) immunosensors using optical transduction, biosensor chips were coated with various secreted antibodies, including monoclonal, polyclonal, and recombinant.64 To facilitate the conjugation of the transducer and the antibody, the transducer surface had to be modified by adding functional groups such as carboxyl, amino, aldehyde, or sulfhydryl groups using a polymer or monomer. The antigen-specific antibody binding acts as a lock and key mechanism, and it is very simple in SPR, thus making it more accurate and faster than traditional assay.65 The results, however, were highly variable because of the limits of the antibody-decorated immunosensors with irreversibility, binding affinity, temperature, and the pH level of the reaction.66

2.1.4 Bacteriophages

Viruses known as bacteriophages, which range in size from 20 to 200 nm, are extracted from host cell lysis and can be employed to decorate sensitive and specific electrochemical biosensors. While most phages have a net negative charge due to their positively charged tail fibers and negatively charged capsid (head), researchers have suggested several methods to immobilize phages on electrochemical biosensor platforms, including covalent and ionic techniques. The dipole attraction force mechanism was preserved in ionic bonding to immobilize the phage on the electrode surface.65 Furthermore, the presence of a particular receptor on their tail protein makes the lysis bacteriophage more selective to the host strain. In addition, bacteriophages have distinct morphologies, binding affinities, and variable temperature, pH, and ionic strength compared to immunosensors, which makes them uniquely distinctive.67 Phage function as a biorecognition component for pathogen exposure has been declared by researchers for a variety of pathogens, including Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus anthracis spores.68

2.1.5 Aptamers and nucleic acids

Small single-stranded RNA or DNA oligonucleotides, known as aptamers, typically have a length of 20 to 60 nucleotides and are highly selective and affinity-bound to target molecules. Presently produced aptamers have a broad spectrum of binding sites, ranging from simple inorganic molecules to whole cells and huge protein complexes. The aptamers are the nucleotide counterparts of antibodies; yet the synthesis of aptamers is significantly less costly and complex than that of antibodies.69,70 Furthermore, aptamers are not poisonous or immunogenic.69 These nucleic acid segments were bioreceptor components with broad use for transducer manufacturing. Phosphate and sugar (deoxyribose) groups alternate to form nucleic acid strands. One of the nitrogen bases; adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), or thymine (T) is held by each sugar group. As in the cases of adenine:thymine (A:T) and cytosine:guanine (C:G), one strand nitrogen base is joined to another strand by hydrogen bonds.71 Signal amplification strategies were also studied by attaching reporter probe with suitable condition. The transducer surface is properly functionalized by a monomer, polymer, or composite to immobilize the nucleic acid receptor.11 The ssDNA immobilized biosensor has a broad range of applications in both experimental and real sample medium. Literature from various studies reporting on nucleic acid-based electrochemical biosensors was discussed in this study.

3. Pathogenic bacteria respective diseases

PBs cause a great deal of human disorders by interfering with normal bodily functions. The intestinal mucosa serves as the body's largest interface for the colonization of both pathogenic and nonpathogenic bacterial species in most cases. Some of which combat the pathogenesis infections by fighting against infectious bacteria.72 Beneficial bacteria may prevent the cluster of pathogenic bacteria by forming colonization and invasion. Nevertheless, pathogenesis begins with the transmission of the bacterial infectious agent to the host. Then bacteria remain at the site for colonization in the host system. The sickness is finally caused by the host immune system. The most common pathogenic bacteria and the resulting infectious diseases in humans are listed in Table 2. Hazardous infections can be caused by a variety of bacteria, viruses, and fungi, particularly in environments that support their growth and survival. Pneumonia and diarrhea together are the third cause of death among children under 5 years of age, accounting for 2 million deaths per year.100 Food and waterborne PB can cause acute or chronic infections in most individuals. A list of 26 human microbial species studied in electrochemical biosensor detection review on 13 PBs are summarized in Table 2. Here, the focus is on literature studies and reporting on electrode fabrication material, testing performance parameters, and concluding remarks on discussing the PBs.

The most common pathogenic bacteria along with the resulting infectious diseases in humans

Pathogenic bacteria	Human diseases	Pathogenic bacteria	Human diseases	
(1) Salmonella spp.	Diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps73	(14) Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Urinary tract, respiratory, wound infections74	
(2) Escherichia spp.	Urinary tract infection, kidney failure75	(15) Klebsiella pneumoniae	Pneumonia, urinary tract infection, bloodstream infections76,77	
(3) Vibrio spp.	Cholera, diarrhea, and dehydration78	(16) Listeria monocytogenes	Fever, muscle aches, meningitis79	
(4) Shigella spp.	Dysentery, diarrhea, fever, stomach cramps80	(17) Yersinia pestis	Bubonic, septicemic, and pneumonic plague81	
(5) Bacillus spp.	Anthrax (skin, lungs, gastrointestinal tract)82	(18) Enterococcus faecalis	Urinary tract infections, endocarditis (inflammation of heart lining)83	
(6) Clostridium spp.	Tetanus, botulism, paralysis, colitis84	(19) Francisella tularensis	Tularensis illness85,86	
(7) Neisseria spp.	Gonorrhea, meningitis87	(20) Haemophilus influenzae	Respiratory tract infection (pneumonia, sinusitis, and ear infections)88	
(8) Mycobacterium spp.	Tuberculosis, leprosy, skin, peripheral nerves, and mucosa of respiratory tract89	(21) Corynebacterium diphtheriae	Diphtheria (pharyngitis, fever, swelling of the neck)90	
(9) Staphylococcus spp.	Skin, respiratory, bloodstream, bone and joint, heart infection91	(22) Bordetella parapertussis	Pertussis, whooping cough92	
(10) Streptococcus spp.	Pneumonia, skin infection93	(23) Borrelia burgdorferi	Lyme diseases (joint, heart, nervous infections)94	
(11) Brucella spp.	Brucellosis, zoonotic diseases (fever, and joint pain, infections), flu-like infections91	(24) Chlamydia trachomatis	Lung carcinoma, trachoma, detrimental effects on female reproductive health95	
(12) Legionella spp.	Legionnaires (pneumonia, Pontiac fever)96	(25) Campylobacter spp.	Campylobacteriosis (diarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain, and fever)97	
(13) Helicobacter pylori	Gastritis, peptic ulcers, stomach cancer98	(26) Serratia marcescens	Urinary tract infections, ocular lens infections99	

4. Electrochemical biosensors for pathogenic bacteria detection

The electrode is a critical component of an electrochemical sensor that serves as a substrate for attaching the bioreceptor and target analyte while also converting the biological signal into an analogue electric signal. The performance of electrochemical sensors is affected differentially by various electrode materials. When developing high-performance electrochemical sensing platforms that use different analytical techniques to identify target molecules, electrode material is a crucial component in determining the sensitivity of electrochemical sensors.101 That is the sensitivity of electrochemical sensors can be maximized for a variety of applications by carefully choosing the electrode materials.

4.1. Salmonella spp.

One of the main culprits behind bacterial foodborne illnesses worldwide is Salmonella spp., which is a Gram-negative bacterium. Many studies reported on the detection of Salmonilla typhi by ssDNA modified electrochemical biosensor. Bacchu et al. fabricated a highly sensitive gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) and polycysteine (P-Cys) modified screen-printed electrode (SPE), SPE/P-Cys@AuNPs, electrochemical biosensor for the detection of Salmonella typhi in anthraquinone-2-sulfonic acid monohydrate sodium salt (AQMS) and characterized by Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV).102 Target DNA was detected by the developed electrochemical biosensor with a detection range of 1 × 10−6 to 1 × 10−22 mol L−1 and a limit of detection (LOD) of 6.8 × 10−25 mol L−1. The modified biosensor has excellent discrimination ability and is reusable up to 6 to 7 times. The developed sensor displayed an excellent detection performance in real samples such as blood, poultry feces, egg, and milk. The detection summary is represented in Fig. 4. Recently all reported electrochemical biosensors research work for Salmonilla typhi is shown in Table 3. Nanoporous gold decorated glassy carbon electrode (GCE) aptasensor was also utilized for Salmonella typhi detection.

Fig. 4 Schematic illustration for the fabrication of DNA-biosensor and the detection of Salmonilla Typhi from real samples. The figure was adapted from ref. 102 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

Examples of the most recent reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Salmonella spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
ITO/GO-CHI	NH2-ssDNA	Salmonella typhi	DNA biosensor	DPV	5.0 × 10−8 to 1.0 × 10−14 mol L−1	1.0 × 10−14 mol L−1	PBS	N/A	103	
SPE/MPTS-AuNPs	SH-ssDNA	Salmonella typhi	DNA biosensor	DPV	5.0 × 10−8 to 1.0 × 10−10 mol L−1	5.0 × 10−11 mol L−1	PBS	Serum	104	
GCE/GO/GNPs	SH-ssDNA	Salmonella	DNA biosensor	EIS	2.4–2.4 × 103 CFU mL−1	3.0 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Pork	105	
ITO/GNAs	NH2-ssDNA	Salmonella typhi	DNA biosensor	EIS	2.4 × 10−14 to 4.0 × 10−18 mol L−1	4.0 × 10−18 mol L−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Urine and blood	106	
Au/Cys/Glu	HO-ssDNA	Salmonella typhi	DNA biosensor	EIS	N/A	1.91 mg mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	107	
GCE/Au/NPG	SH-ssDNA	Salmonella typhi	Aptasensor	EIS	6.5 × 102 to 6.5 × 108 CFU mL−1	1 CFU mL−1	PBS	Egg	108	
SPE/P-Cys@AuNPs	HN2-ssDNA	Salmonella typhi	DNA biosensor	DPV	1 × 10−6 to 1 × 10−10; 1 × 10−10 to 1 × 10−22 mol L−1	6.8 × 10−23 mol L−1	AQMS	Blood, poultry feces, egg, milk	102	
a ITO: indium tin oxide, CHI: chitosan, GO: graphene oxide, MPTS: organosilane 3-mercaptopropyltrimethoxy silane, GNPs: gold nanoparticles, CFU: colony forming unit, GNAs: gold nanoaggregates, Glu: glutaraldehydes, NPG: nanoporous gold; AQMS: anthraquinone-2-sulfonic acid monohydrate sodium salt, N/A: not/absent.

Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was applied to characterize and evaluate the results of the electrochemical detection.108 It was concluded that the developed sensor performed well in real samples with the ability to detect and distinguish between live and dead Salmonella bacterial cells in egg samples. The main distinguishing mechanism between live and dead bacteria was based on the value of the charge transfer resistance (Rct); it increases after binding with live bacteria and significantly decreases in the presence of dead bacterial cells. Additionally, in another research gold nanoaggregates modified surface was prepared to covalently bond with 5′NH2 modified ssDNA probes.106 The target DNA was hybridized at 35 °C for 60 seconds. The binding efficiency was analyzed by standard EIS techniques in [5 mM K3Fe(CN)6] in 0.1 mol L−1 KCl solution. For the detection of Salmonilla typhi, DNA probe modified electrode displayed the most superior performance among the reported electrochemical biosensors.

4.2. Escherichia spp.

Among the family of Escherichia species, E. coli bacterial cells are frequently found in the digestive tracts of healthy individuals; yet a small number of clones are accountable for severe diarrhea and infections beyond the intestines. Escherichia spp. was detected by biosensors modified with different bioreceptors such as antibody, DNA and bacteriophage. M. Barreiros et. al. reported on the detection of E. coli O157:H7 using Anti-E. Coli onto an epoxy silane modified indium tin oxide (ITO) electrode (Barreiross dos Santos et al., 2015).109 In this study, EIS technique was applied with a linear range of 10 to 106 CFU mL−1 and limit of detection of 1 CFU mL−1. The developed biosensor was found to be highly selective in 1 : 500 Salmonella typhimurium/E. coli O157:H7 medium. Many of these impedimetric immunosensors displayed high sensitivity and selectivity. Other antibody modified immunosensors were developed and reported for the detection of Escherichia spp., and they are listed in Table 4. Furthermore, Xu et.al. reported on NH2-ssDNA modified ssDNA/GO/CS/GCE electrode for the electrochemical detection of E. coli O157:H7 using EIS and DPV. In this study, the developed sensor showed an excellent performance on the detection of E. coli O157:H7.118 A T4 phagosensor was decorated on micro-electrochemical sensor with a 3-mercaptoreopionic acid modified gold electrode.122 Utilizing DPV, the modified sensor showed a limit of detection of 14 ± 5 CFU mL−1 and a wide dynamic range of 1.9 × 101 to 1.9 × 108 CFU mL−1. This phagosensor was successfully able to selectively distinguish between viable and dead bacteria cells. The schematic representation of the AuE/Cys/PDCIT/T4 phage electrode fabrication aided with applied chemistry is shown in Fig. 5.

Examples of reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Escherichia spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
AuE/Ag@BSA/EDC	Anti-E. coli	E. coli O157:H7	Immunosensor	DPV	3.0 × 102 to 3.0 × 108 CFU mL−1	N/A	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	110	
PGE/PPy/AuNP/MWCNT@Chi	Anti-E. coli	E. coli O157:H7	Immunosensor	Amperometry	3 × 101 to 3 × 107 CFU mL−1	30 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Food	111	
SPE/PDA@GOx-MBs/AuNPs/GOx	Anti-E. coli	E. coli O157:H7	Immunosensor	Amperometry	102 to 106 CFU mL−1	102 CFU mL−1	Glucose	Beef	112	
ITO/Epoxysilane	Anti-E. coli	E. coli O157:H7	Immunosensor	EIS	10 to 106 CFU mL−1	1 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	113	
SPCE/CDs/ZnO nanorod/PANI	pDNA	E. coli O157:H7	Aptasensor	DPV	1.3 × 10−18 to 10 × 10−12 mol L−1	1.3 × 10−18 mol L−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Water	113	
AuE/MCE/pDNA/GNSs	pDNA	E. coli O157:H7	Genosensor	SWVs	7.3 to 1.0 × 10−17 μmol L−1	1.0 × 10−17 μmol L−1	(Fe(CN)63−/4−–KCl)	Water	114	
GCE/CDs-Fe3O4	DNA	E. coli O157:H7	DNA biosensor	DPV	10 to 108 CFU mL−1	6.88 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Milk, water	115	
Au IDE/APTES	COOH-ssDNA	E. coli O157:H7	DNA biosensor	Amperometry	1 × 10−16 to 10 × 10−6 mol L−1	0.8 fmol L−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	116	
Co-aliginic acid	NH2-ssDNA	E. coli	DNA biosensor	DPV	1.0 × 102 to 2.0 × 103 cells per mL	50 cells mL−1	PBS	Water	117	
GCE/GO/CS/EDC/NHS	NH2-ssDNA	E. coli O157:H7	DNA biosensor	EIS	1.0 × 10−14 to 1.0 × 10−8 mol L−1	3.584 × 10−15 mol L−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	N/A	118	
PGE/MWCNT/ssDNA	NH2-ssDNA	E. coli	DNA biosensor	DPV	NA	17 nmol L−1	Guanine	PCR sample	119	
AuE/ECA I or ECA II or ECA–MCH	SH-ECA	E. coli OMPs	Aptasensor	FIS	1 × 10−7 to 2 × 10−6 mol L−1	NA	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Water	120	
GCE/PEI-CNT	T2-phage	Escherichia coli B	Phagosensor	EIS	103 to 107 CFU mL−1	102 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	65	
SPE/CNFs	T4-phage	Escherichia coli	Phagosensor	EIS	102 to 106 CFU mL−1	36 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Apple juice	121	
AuE/3-MPA	T4-phage	Escherichia coli B	Phagosensor	DPV	19–1.9 × 109 CFU mL−1	14 ± 5 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	122	
SPE/EDC	T4-phage	E. coli K12 cells	Phagosensor	EIS	102 to 108 CFU mL−1	103 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Milk	123	
AuE/Cys/PDCIT	T4-phage	Escherichia coli	Phagosensor	EIS	102 to 107 CFU mL−1	8.0 × 102 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	124	
GOx/HRP-Cu3(PO4)/AuNPs/Thi	T4-phage	Escherichia coli	Phagosensor	EIS	1.5 × 101–1.5 × 108 CFU mL−1	1 CFU mL−1	PBS + [Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Urine	67	
PtE/β-gal	T7	Escherichia coli	Phagosensor	DPV	N/A	102 CFU mL−1	PAPG	Water	125	
a EDC: 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide; BSA: bovine serum albumin, NHS: N-hydroxysuccinimide, MWCNT: multiwall carbon nanotube, PGE: pencil graphite electrode; PPy: polypyrrole; GOx:glucose oxidase; PDA: polydopamine; SPCE: screen printed carbon electrode, CDs: carbon dots, PANI: polyaniline, MCE: mercaptoethanol, GNS: graphene nano sheets; IDE: Interdigitated electrode; APTES: (3-Aminopropyl) triethoxysilane; CS: chitosan, PCR: olymerase chain reaction, MCH: 6-mercapto-1-hexanol, DNR: daunomycin; PEI: polyethylenenimine; CNT: carbon nanotube; CNFs: carbon nanofibers; AuE: gold electrode; EIS: electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; DPV: differential pulse voltammetry; 3-MPA: 3-mercaptoreopionic acid; EI: electrostatic interaction; CL: covalent linkage; Cys: cysteamine; PDCIT: 1,4-dithiocyanate; GOx: glucose oxidase; HRP: horseradish peroxide; AuNPs: gold nanoparticles; Thi: thionine; AMP: Amperometric; AP: alkaline phosphatase; β-gal: β-galactosidase; PAPG: 4-aminophenyl-β-galactopyranoside.

Fig. 5 Schematic illustration showing the fabrication of AuE/Cys/PDCIT/T4 phage electrode. The figure was adapted from ref. 122 reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

Furthermore, T4 bacteriophage modified electrochemical biosensor was developed for rapid detection of live pathogenic bacteria in urine medium with GOx/HRP-Cu3(PO4)/AuNPs/Thi composite modified electrode. This modified electrode showed a linear range of 15–1.5 × 108 CFU mL−1 with limit of detection of 1 CFU mL−1 in clinical settings.67 It was concluded that bacteriophage based electrochemical biosensor detection strategy is simple, quick, highly selective, and sensitive.

4.3. Vibrio spp.

Most diseases in humans connected to the natural microbiota of aquatic environments and seafood are caused by Gram-negative bacteria called Vibrio spp. Vibrio cholerae are among the most common species of Vibrio spp. Ali et al. designed and fabricated gold nanotube and 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane/N-hydroxysuccinimide modified glassy carbon electrode (GCE/AuNC/APTES/NHS) for DNA modified biosensor for the detection of pathogenic Vibrio cholera in real sample.126 In this work, stepwise GCE modification was performed with analytical confirmation and characterization with SEM and FTIR. The developed biosensor had a dynamic linear range of 10−8 to 10−14 mol L−1 to detect the target DNA. The established electrochemical biosensor was highly sensitive as shown in results summarized in Table 5. Poly (propylene imine) dendrimer (PPI) and gold nanoparticles (AuNP) composite modified electrode was chosen as a platform for antibody immobilization in the development of immunosensor.133 Anti-cholera toxin antibody was attached to the developed PPI-AuNP composite for final electrode fabrication. The fabricated electrode was able to detect vibrio cholera toxin with a dynamic range of 10−7 g mL−1 to 10−12 g mL−1 with two different limits of detection 7.2 × 10−13 and 4.2 × 10−13 g mL−1. It is worth mentioning that the LOD is the lowest reported limit of detection for the detection of vibrio cholera. In another research work, a label-free immunosensor was developed by antibody binding with amino eater composite on cerium oxide nanowire. The graphical representation of this immunosensor is shown in Fig. 6. In immunosensor assay, label free immunosensor was developed for the detection of Vibrio cholerae O. The immobilization of anti-V. cholerae O1 onto CeO2 nanowire-deposited sensor was performed via an amino ester. The electrochemical response of an immunosensor modified electrode with an immobilized Vibrio cholerae O was measured in [Fe(CN)6]3−/4− using standard EIS method. In the author's opinion, immunity receptor modified electrochemical biosensor detection mechanism have occupied great attention in research field except DNA probe modified detection strategy.

Examples of reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Vibrio spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
GCE/AuNC/APTES/NHS	HN2-ssDNA	Vibrio cholerae	DNA biosensor	DPV	10−8 to 10−14 10−14 to 10−27 mol L−1	7.41 × 10−30 mol L−1	AQMS	Poultry feces	126	
ITO/ZrO2	ssDNA	Vibrio cholerae	DNA biosensor	DPV	10−10 to 1017 mol L−1	10−17 mol L−1	Methylene blue	N/A	127	
AuE	SH-ssDNA	Vibrio cholerae	DNA biosensor	CV	500–100 ng μL−1	100 ng μL−1	Methylene blue	N/A	128	
Carbon electrode	npcRNA	Vibrio cholera	DNA biosensor	SWV	NA	6 × 10−17 mol L−1	Acetate buffer	PCR sample	129	
SPE/AuNPs/PSA	ncDNA	Vibrio cholera	DNA biosensor	DPV	10−8 to 10−17 mol L−1	10−21 mol L−1	AQMS	N/A	130	
ME/CeO2@APTES/NHS/EDC	Anti-V. cholerae O1	Vibrio cholerae O1	Immunosensor	EIS	1.0 × 102 to 1.0 × 104 CFU mL−1	1.0 × 102 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	131	
GCE/CNF	Anti-V. cholera toxin	Vibrio cholerae toxin	Immunosensor	EIS	1.3 × 10−13 to 4.56 × 10−5 g mL−1	1.2 × 10−13 g mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Water	132	
GCE/AuNPs-PPI	Anti-cholera toxin	Cholera Toxin	Immunosensor	SWV, EIS	10−7 to 10−12 g mL−1	7.2 × 10−13 (SWV), 4.2 × 10−13 (EIS) g mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	133	
ITO/ZnO	Anti-cholera toxin B	Vibrio cholerae toxin B	Immunosensor	DPV	12.5–500 g mL−1	0.16 g mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Selective medium	134	
ITO/PANnf	Anti-cholera toxin B	Vibrio cholerae toxin B	Immunosensor	DPV	6.25 × 10−9 to 5.00 × 10−7 g mL−1	22 × 10−11 g mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Selective medium	135	
GCE/CNT/PPy-NTA	Anti-CT	Anti-cholera toxin antibody	Immunosensor	EIS	10−13 to 10−5 g mL−1	∼10−13 g mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	136	
a npcRNA: non-protein coding RNA; PSA: polystyrene-co-acrylic acid; ncDNA: non complementary DNA; ME: microelectrode; PPI: poly(propylene imine) dendrimer, PANnf: polyacrylonitrile nanofiber, Anti-CT: anti cholera toxin, PPy-NTA: polypyrrole-nitrilotriacetic acid.

Fig. 6 Schematic illustration of the immunosensor fabrication for the detection of V. cholera O1 detection. The figure was adapted from ref. 133 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

4.4. Shigella spp. and Bacillus spp.

Shigella spp. are Gram negative bacteria that are most known for their intestinal infection (shigellosis). Ali et al. demonstrated a label free electrochemical detection of Shigella flexneri in real food samples by applying a series of chemical modification to establish a highly efficient immobilization of ssDNA capture probe.137 For this purpose, poly-melamine, poly-glutamic acid, and disuccinimidyl suberate functionalized indium tin oxide electrode was prepared to immobilize NH2-ssDNA. Then, using one or two base pair mismatches, a reporter probe, a modified electrode was bound with the linear target. Lastly, the DPV response was measured in anthraquinone-2-sulfonic acid monohydrate sodium salt (AQMS) acting as a redox probe mediator. They concluded that the proposed biosensor could serve as a model methodology for the detection of other pathogens. The ITO/P-Mel/PGA/DSS electrode preparation of the above-mentioned sensor is illustrated in Fig. 7. Shigella dysenteriae was detected via thiolated aptamer modified electrodeposited GCE.138 The assay has a linear dynamic range that extends from 101 to 106 CFU mL−1 and a limit of detection of 10° CFU mL−1. The amino functionalized ssDNA, and aptamer-based sensor have extensive applications for the detection of Shigella spp. compared with other reported research work.

Fig. 7 Schematic diagram illustrating the fabrication process of the ITO/P-Mel/PGA/DSS modified electrode for the detection Shigella flexneri. The figure was adapted from ref. 137 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

Bacillus subtilis are among the bacterial family of Bacillus spp., Gram positive bacterial species famous for causing foodborne illness. It was previously reported that SH-ssDNA modified gold electrode was used to detect Bacillus subtilis bacteria utilizing conventional DPV technique.139 The developed sensor successfully detected the target pathogenic species (Bacillus subtilis) with a linear range of 0.1–20 fmol L−1 and a limit of detection down to 0.08 fmol L−1. They concluded that the results were in strong agreement with that of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) detecting system. Table 6 summaries the reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of Shigella spp. and Bacillus spp. In another detection strategy, protein-based Bacillus licheniformis detection strategy was developed by H. Wu et al.145 In this assay, the biosensor was constructed using a d-amine acid containing substrate peptide via self-assembly of cysteine residual at the C-terminal. A biotin modifier was labelled at the N-terminal of the substrate peptide. This enabled the sensitive electrochemical detection of the intact substrate peptide using a streptavidin-conjugated alkaline phosphatase, which catalyzes the conversion of electrochemically inactive 1-naphthyl phosphate into electrochemically active phenol. Under optimized conditions, the protease can be determined in concentration range from 0.5 to 100 mg mL−1 with a detection limit to 0.16 mg mL−1. From Table 6 and the performance parameter analysis, it is evident that DNA probe and peptide based electrochemical biosensor reported the best result for the detection of Bacillus spp.

Examples of reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Shigella spp. and Bacillus spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
Shigella spp.	
ITO/P-Mel/PGA/DSS	NH2-ssDNA	Shigella flexneri	DNA biosensor	DPV	1 × 10−21 to 1 × 10−6 CFU mL−1	10 cells per ml	AQMS	Food	137	
80 to 8 × 1010 cells per mL	
GCE/AuNPs	Aptamer	Shigella dysenteriae	Aptasensor	EIS	101 to 106 CFU mL−1	1.0 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Mik, water	138	
SPE/HOOCA	Aminated-DNA aptamer	S. typhimurium	Aptasensor	EIS	101 to 108 CFU mL−1	6 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Apple juice	140	
SPE/MWCNT/SA	Anti-S. flexneri	Shigella flexneri	Immunosensor	CV	104 to 1010 CFU mL−1	3.1 × 103 CFU mL−1	HAc–NaAc buffer	N/A	141	
SPE/MWCNT/CHI	Anti-S. flexneri	Shigella flexneri	Immunosensor	CV	104 to 1010 CFU mL−1	2.3 × 103 CFU mL−1	HAc–NaAc buffer	N/A	142	
Carbon electrode	npcRNA	Shigella flexneri	DNA biosensor	SWV	N/A	6 × 10−17 mol L−1	Acetate buffer	PCR product	129	
 	
Bacillus spp.	
GE	SH-ssDNA	Bacillus subtilis	DNA biosensor	DPV	0.1 fmol L−1 to 20 fmol L−1	0.08 fmol L−1	N.BstNBI and NEBuffer 3	PCR product	139	
PGE/GNPs-SH	SH-ssDNA	Bacillus cereus	DNA biosensor	EIS	0.02–10 nmol L−1	100 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	Food	143	
0.01–10 μmol L−1	9.4 × 10−12 mol L−1	
AuE/SWCNTs/1-PBSE	Anti-B. subtilis	Bacillus subtilis	Immunosensor	Potentiostatic	102 to 1010 CFU mL−1	102 CFU mL−1	PBS	Dust	144	
AuE/Peptide/MCH	Peptide	Bacillus licheniformis	Peptide biosensor	DPV	0.5–100 μg mL−1	0.16 μg mL−1	PBS	Serum, saliva	145	
GCE/Chit/GNPs	Anti-Bacillus cereus	Bacillus cereus	Immunosensor	Amperometric	5.0 × 101 to 5.0 × 104 CFU mL−1	10.0 CFU mL−1	MYP medium	Milk	146	
SPCE/immuno-c/sNP	Anti-Bacillus cereus	Bacillus cereus	Immunosensor	CV	N/A	40 CFU mL−1	HCl solution	Food, water	147	
a P-Mel: poly-melamine, PGA: poly-glutamic acid, DSS: disuccinimidyl suberate, HOOCA: 4-amino benzoic acid tetrafluoroborate, SA: sodium aliginate, GE: gold electrode; GNPs: gold nanoparticles, MCH: mecatohexanol; GNPs: gold nanoparticles; PBSE: pyrenebutanoic acid succinimidyl ester.

4.5. Clostridium spp. and Neisseria spp.

Clostridium spp. are Gram positive bacteria, cause bacterial infection diseases such as botulism and tetanus. Qian et al.,148 developed a nanocomposite modified ssDNA/CeO2/CHIT/GCE biosensor for the detection of Clostridium perfringens extracted from dairy products. With favorable selectivity, they were able to achieve a linear dynamic range of 1.0 × 10−14 to 1.0 × 10−7 mol L−1 and a limit of detection of 7.06 × 10−15 mol L−1. Neisseria spp. are Gram negative bacterial microorganisms that are incriminated for causing human diseases such as gonorrhea, leprosy, and Mycobacterium leprae. In another study, antitoxin B single domain antibody receptor was modified to decorate polyurethane (PU) nanospiked gold electrode-based label-free electrochemical immunosensor for Clostridium difficile toxin B detection.149 This electrochemical immunosensor can detect within a concentration range of 1–130 pg mL−1 and a limit of detection of 0.5 pg mL−1. Therefore, it can be concluded that immunosensor reported the lowest detection capability amongs different bioreceptor modified electrochemical biosensors.

Singh et al. developed DNA-biosensor for the detection of a sexually transmitted disease, gonorrhoeae, caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae, pathogenic bacteria.150 In this study, thiolated capture probe was immobilized on gold electrode and 6-Mercapto-1-hexanol (MCH) was used to block nonspecific agents to facilitate oligos “stand”. A complete graphical representation of the electrode preparation and DPV analysis in methylene blue (MB) medium is shown in Fig. 8. The most updated reported research is summarized in Table 7. 5′ Aminated capture probes and super sandwiched detector probes were utilized for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The capture probe modified surface hybridize with gonorrheal DNAs and after sandwich type detector probe amplified the detection signal. Further, the biosensing assay displayed a wide linear range of 100 aM to 100 nM (109 orders of magnitude) with an excellent sensitivity of 22.6 kΩ·(log[concentration])−1. This type of strategic detection occupies a prizeworthy position in the research community.

Fig. 8 Schematic diagram showing the fabrication process of the ssDNA-Au electrode for the detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The figure was adapted from ref. 150 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

Examples of reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Clostridium spp. and Neisseria spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
Clostridium spp.	
GCE/CHIT/CeO2	ssDNA	Clostridium perfringens	DNA biosensor	EIS	10−14 to 10−7 mol L−1	7.06 × 10−15 mol L−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Milk	148	
GCE/MWCNT/AuNP	ssDNA	Clostridium tetani	DNA biosensor	DPV	NA	1.0 × 10−16 mol L−1	MB	N/A	151	
AuE/PU	Anti-C. Difficile toxin B	Clostridium difficile	Immunosensor	DPV	1–130 pg mL−1	0.5 pg mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Stool	149	
SPE/AuNPs	SA aptamer	Clostridium perfringens	Aptasensor	DPV	10−12 to 10−6 mol L−1	10−12 mol L−1	PBS	N/A	152	
 	
Neisseria spp.	
C5@paper/cMWCNT	NH2-ssDNA	Neisseria gonorrhoeae	DNA biosensor	EIS	(5 zmol–5 pmol)	(45 aM)	PBS	Selective medium	153	
SPAuE	SH-ssDNA	Neisseria gonorrhoeae	DNA biosensor	DPV	1 × 10−15 to 1 × 10−22 mol L−1	NA	PBS	N/A	154	
AuE	SH-ssDNA	Neisseria gonorrhoeae	DNA biosensor	DPV	1.0 × 10−6–0.5 × 10−18 mol L−1	1.0 × 10−18 mol L−1	PBS + MB	Selective medium	150	
Glass subs/Cr/AuNPs	SH-ssDNA	Neisseria gonorrhoeae	DNA biosensor	CV	10–60 ng μl−1	NA	PBS + MB	N/A	155	
Si/Pt/ZNF	SH-ssDNA	Neisseria meningitidis	DNA biosensor	DPV, EIS	5–240 ng μl−1	5 ng μl−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	156	
a cMWCNT: carboxylated MWCNT; ZNF: zinc oxide nanoflower; PU: polyurethane, SA: streptavidin.

4.6. Mycobacterium spp.

Mycobacterium spp. are Gram positive bacteria causing several infectious human diseases such as Tuberculosis, leprosy, Buruli ulcer and tuberculous mycobacterium. Among Mycobacterium spp., Mycobacterium tuberculosis-based DNA detection mechanism was reported based on gold nanotube array (AuNTsA) electrode platform with a 1.5 μm in length and 200 nm in diameter.157 For the biosensor fabrication, AuNTsA was vertically aliened on Au thick film during nanotubes synthesis process and a DNA probe was immobilized using Tris–EDTA for 12 hours. Next, different complementary DNA was immobilized on captured DNA probe in an incubated environment at 37 °C for 45 minutes. The schematic representation for the biosensor decoration is presented in Fig. 9. Recently, another research work was carried out for the early diagnosis of tuberculosis caused by ESAT-6 antibody.158 A Ni-rGO-PANI composite film modified electrode was fabricated for the immobilization of anti-ESAT-6 antibody. They reported a linear range of 1–100 ng mL−1 and a detection limit of 1.042 ng mL−1. Table 8 summarizes the previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of Mycobacterium spp. A sensitive electrochemical DNA biosensor based on functionalized iron oxide with mercaptopropionic acid (MPA-Fe3O4) nanoparticle for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis was reported.163 A DNA probe was immobilized on MPA-Fe3O4/NCC/CTAB electrode and sequentially bond with the target DNA and signal amplification, ruthenium bipyridyl Ru(bpy)32+. The sensing mechanism offered a wide detection range of 1.0 × 10−6 to 1.0 × 10−12 M and limit of detection of 7.96 × 10−13 M.163 Therefore, it can be concluded that with some limitations DNA biosensor, immunosensor, and aptasensor bioreceptor modified biosensor showed good result for the detection of Mycobacterium spp.

Fig. 9 Graphical representation of (a) AuNTsA synthesis; (b) decoration of DNA based biosensor on AuNTsA electrodes. The figure was adapted from ref. 157 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

Examples the previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Mycobacterium spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
FTO/APTES/PDITC	NH3-ssDNA	Mycobacterium tuberculosis	DNA biosensor	CV	1–100 nmol L−1	1.5 ng μL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Sputum, urine	159	
SPAuE	SH-ssDNA	Mycobacterium tuberculosis	DNA biosensor	DPV	0.5–10 nmol L−1	1.90 nmol L−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Sputum	160	
AuNTsA	SH-ssDNA	Mycobacterium tuberculosis	DNA biosensor	DPV	0.01 ng μL−1 to 100 ng μL−1	0.05 ng μL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	N/A	157	
GCE/AuNPs-rGO	SH-ssDNA	Mycobacterium tuberculosis	DNA biosensor	DPV	1.0 × 10−15 to 1.0 × 10−9 mol L−1	NA	PBS	Selective medium	161	
ITO/APTES/AuNPs	SH-ssDNA	Mycobacterium sp. genomic DNA.	DNA biosensor	DPV	1.25 to 50 ng mL−1	1.25 ng mL−1	Tris–HCl	Sputum	162	
SPCE/MPA-Fe3O4/NCC/CTAB/EDC/NHS	ssDNA	Mycobacterium tuberculosis	DNA biosensor	DPV	1.0 × 10−6 to 1.0 × 10−12 mol L−1	7.96 × 10−13 mol L−1	Ru(bpy)32+	Selective medium	163	
SPCE/PANI/GP/EDC-NHS	ssDNA	Mycobacterium tuberculosis	DNA biosensor	DPV	10−6 to 10−9 mol L−1	7.853 × 10−7 mol L−1	PBS + MB	N/A	164	
PANI-rGO-Ni-DSP	Anti-ESAT-6	ESAT-6	Immunosensor	CV	1–100 ng mL−1	1.042 ng mL−1	PBS	Blood	158	
SPGE/GP/PANI/EDC-NHS	Anti-CFP10-ESAT6	CFP10-ESAT6	Immunosensor	DPV	10–500 ng mL−1	1.5 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Sputum	165	
SPGE/GP/PANI	Anti-CFP10	CFP10 antigen	Immunosensor	DPV	20–100 ng mL−1	15 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Sputum	166	
SPGE/PANI/GP	CapAptamer	CFP10-ESAT6	Aptasensor	DPV	5–500 ng mL−1	1.5 ng mL−1	PBS	Sputum	167	
a FTO: tin-doped fluorine, PDITC: phenylene diisothiocyanate, MPA: mercaptopropionic acid, NCC/CTAB: nanocellulose crystalline functionalized cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide, SPGE: screen-printed gold electrode.

4.7. Staphylococcus spp.

Gram-positive Staphylococcus spp. species can cause suppuration and other infectious illnesses in both people and animals. In 2020, Roushani et al.168 described the use of chicken IgY antibody as an immunosensing agent that was covalently bound to AuNPs as a biosensor based on AuNPs modified GCE for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus. The antibody was bonded with G-producing Staphylococcus and the interference from EIS study was reported for the detection of Staphylococcus aureus. This biosensor reported by this work displayed a wide linear dynamic range from 10 to 107 CFU mL−1 and a limit of detection of 3.3 CFU mL−1 with a 3.0% of relative standard deviation (RSD). This sensor successfully identified the pathogenic species in both milk and human blood serum. In another study, nuc and mecA genes of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was detected for the quantification of Staphylococcus aureus.169 For this purpose, methylene blue (MB) and epirubicin (EP) were encapsulated in UiO-66-NH2 and locked by hybrid double-stranded DNA. Based on an electroactive dye release approach, the target DNA hybridizes with the displacement DNA (DEP and DMB) from metal–organic frameworks (MOF). The detection performance was significantly enhanced by Co–Zn bimetallic zeolitic imidazolate framework-derived N-doped porous carbon (BMZIF) nanocomposite modified electrode compared with intrinsic electrode. Table 9 presents examples of the previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of Staphylococcus spp.

Examples of reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Staphylococcus spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
GCE@AuNP	IgY	Staphylococcus aureus	Immunosensor	EIS	10 to 107 CFU mL−1	3.3 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	Milk, blood	168	
AuE/SAMs	Anti-S. aureus	Staphylococcus aureus	Immunosensor	EIS	101 to 107 CFU mL−1	10 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	N/A	170	
TTF-MPA-AuE	RbIgG	Staphylococcus aureus	Immunosensor	Amperometric	2.2 × 105 to 9.2 × 105 CFU mL−1	1.6 × 105 CFU mL−1	NaAc/NaCl buffer	N/A	171	
PtE/GA-PEI	Anti-S. aureus	Staphylococcus aureus	Immunosensor	Amperometric	101 to 108 CFU mL−1	10 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	Milk, cheese meat	172	
GCE/CNFs/CNPs/AuNPs	SH-anti-S. aureus	Staphylococcus aureus	Aptasensor	EIS	1.2 × 101 to 1.2 × 108 CFU mL−1	1 CFU mL−1	Fe(CN)63−/4−	Serum	173	
MBs	Anti-S. aureus	Staphylococcus aureus	Aptasensor	DPV	10−1 × 106 CFU mL−1	1.0 CFU mL−1	Buffer C	Water	174	
GCE/MOFs/AuNPs	SH-DNA	Staphylococcus aureus	Aptasensor	DPV	7–7 × 106 CFU mL−1	1.9 and 5.2 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	Urine	175	
AuE	DNA nanoflowers	Staphylococcus aureus	Aptasensor	DPV	60–6 × 107 CFU mL−1	9.0 CFU mL−1	MB	Water, honey	176	
GCE/AuNP-ssDNA-rGO	ssDNA	Staphylococcus aureus	Aptasensor	EIS	10 to 106 CFU mL−1	10 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	Food	177	
SPGE	Aptamer	Staphylococcus aureus	Aptasensor	CV	N/A	39 and 414 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	Water	178	
GCE/BMZIF-derived NPCs	dsDNA	Staphylococcus aureus	DNA biosensor	DPV	N/A	3.7 fmol L−1 and 1.6 fmol L−1	PBS	Water	169	
SPGE-cys-GGP	GGP	Staphylococcus aureus	Biosensor	CV	3 × 102 and 3 × 108 CFU mL−1	102 CFU mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]4−/3−	Food	179	
BC/c-MWCNTs-PEI	Phage	Staphylococcus aureus	Phagosensor	DPV	3 × 100 to 3 ×107 CFU mL−1	3 CFU mL−1	PBS	Milk, food	14	
SPE/CNT-f-PEI	Phage	Staphylococcus aureus	Phagosensor	EIS	102 to 107	1.23 × 102	Fe(CN)63−/4−	Blood plasma	180	
102 to 105 CFU mL−1	1.29 × 102 CFU mL−1	
SPE-COOH	Phage	Staphylococcus aureus	Phagosensor	EIS	2.0–2.0 × 106 CFU mL −1	N/A	Fe(CN)63−/4−	Apple juice, water	181	
a IgY: anti-protein antibody, SAM: self-assembled molecular monolayer, TTF: tetrathiafulvalene, MB: magnetic bead, BMZIF: Co–Zn bimetallic ZIF, GGP: guinea grass leaves.

Additionally, a sensitive and specific Staphylococcus aureus detection system was developed using a gold nanoparticle/carbon nanoparticle/cellulose nanofiber nanocomposite (AuNPs/CNPs/CNFs) synthesized on the surface of GCE. This combination worked as a sensing element, immobilizing a specific S. aureus aptamer. With a LOD of 1 CFU mL−1, the fabricated aptasensor demonstrated a broad linear dynamic range (1.2 × 101 to 1.2 × 108) CFU mL−1 and was able to precisely identify and quantify Staphylococcus aureus in human blood serum, a clinical sample with a complicated matrix. The published research on an electrochemical biosensor for the detection of pathogenic Staphylococcus species showed good performance, with a few limitations.173 The working procedures are summarized and presented in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10 Aptamer-based electrochemical determination of S. aureus. The figure was adapted from ref. 173 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

4.8. Streptococcus spp. and Legionella spp.

A Gram-positive bacterium called Streptococcus spp. is linked to bacterial intra-mammary infections in bovine that cause mastitis. Recently, Yaghoobi et al.182 demonstrated a research work on the detection and quantification of Streptococcus Pneumoniae bacteria (SPB) with lead nanoparticles (Pb NPs) and DNA-FAM-S modified GCE. After binding with the complementary targeted DNA, the electrode performance was measured by standard EIS technique. The systematic representation is shown in Fig. 11. They concluded that the produced biosensor's selectivity is on par with that of the standard NanoDrop technique. In a different study, an electrochemical immunosensor was created by anchoring DNA tetrahedrons (DNA TH) with hollow structures to gold electrodes. This allowed for the quick detection of pneumococcal surface protein A (PspA) peptide and Streptococcus pneumoniae lysate from both synthetic and real human samples. Furthermore, with a LOD of 0.093 CFU mL−1, the developed DNA-TH-based immunosensor demonstrates strong sensing efficacy against Streptococcus pneumoniae lysate in a therapeutically relevant linear range from 5 to 100 CFU mL−1. This leads to the conclusion that Streptococcus spp. can be effectively detected in immunological and biosensors using electrochemical sensing technology.

Fig. 11 Schematic diagram showing the preparation procedure for AuE/AuNPs/CysA/pDNA electrode and the detection of SPB. The figure was adapted from ref. 182 [open access].

Literature revealed that Legionella pneumophila was detected by DNA based bioassay of square wave voltammetry technique.183 In this study, mip gen of Legionella pneumophila was detected by AuE/AuNPs/Cys A/pDNA biosensor. A linear dynamic calibration line with a range of 1 μmol L−1 to 1 zmol L−1 and low limit of detection were reported. These results are among the highest for the detection of Legionella pneumophila. Table 10 shows some examples of the previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of Streptococcus spp. and Legionella spp. Additionally, complementary DNA was hybridized to provide a DNA probe-based detection technique.189 For the quantification of the ss 21mer DNA sequence, the developed biosensor showed a wide linear range over seven orders of magnitude with an ultrasensitive detection limit of 3.1 × 10−13 M. It also selectively distinguished the complementary sequence from target sequences that had single base mismatches (MM1) and triple base mismatches (MM3) of different strains of Legionella spp. In contrast, other immunosensor showed unsatisfactory results.186

Examples of previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Streptococcus spp. and Legionella spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
Streptococcus spp.	
AuE	DNA tetrahedron	Streptococcus pneumonia lysate	Immunosensor	SWV	5–100 ng mL−1	0.093 ng mL−1	PBS	Axilla, nasal cavity, mouth	184	
SPGE/GA	Anti-Streptococcus pyogenes	Anti-Streptococcus pyogenes	Immunosensor	EIS	4.2 × 102 to 4.2 × 106 CFU mL−1	9.3 CFU mL−1	Fe(CN)63−/4−	N/A	185	
GCE/Pb NPs	DNA-FAM-S	Streptococcus Pneumoniae	DNA biosensor	EIS	0.0031 ng mL−1- 0.4 ng mL−1	0.0022 ng mL−1	Fe(CN)63−/4−	N/A	182	
 	
Legionella spp.	
AuE/6-MHA	Anti-L. pneumophila	Lp02-GFP-L. pneumophila	Immunosensor	EIS	N/A	2.0 × 102 cells per mL	PBS	N/A	186	
SPE/TMB	LP3IIG2 anti-Legionella	Legionella pneumophila	Immunosensor	Chronoamperometry	101 and 104 CFU mL−1	4 CFU mL−1	PBS	N/A	187	
SPGE/16-AHT	Anti-Legionella	Legionella pneumophila	Immunosensor	SWV	10 to 108 CFU mL−1	10 CFU mL−1	Fe(CN)63−/4−	Artificially contaminated samples	188	
PtE/GA	ssDNA	Legionella pneumophila	DNA biosensor	DPV	10−13 to 10−6 mol L−1	3.1 × 10−13 mol L−1	Fe(CN)63−/4−	N/A	189	
AuE/AuNPs/Cys a	ssDNA	Legionella pneumophila	DNA biosensor	SWV	1 μmol L−1 to 1 zmol L−1	1 zepto-molar	Tris–HCl	N/A	183	
a 6-MHA: 6-mercaptohexanoic acid, TMB: 3,3′,5,5′-tetramethylbenzidine, 16-AHT: 16-amino-1-hexadecanethiol.

4.9. Brucella spp.

The Gram-negative bacterium Brucella spp. is the primary cause of the infectious, communicative, and contagious disease brucellosis, which mostly affects cattle, bison, and pigs. The development of novel composite materials and effective detection approach could address these issues. Fe3O4@Au nanocomposite has been widely used to fabricate electrochemical biosensor. A poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) and hyaluronic acid (HA) modified Fe3O4@Au NPs electrochemical immunosensor was proposed by Lv et al. to detect disease markers that are specific to brucellosis antibodies.190 The graphical explanation of the devolped sensor is shown in Fig. 12. It's interesting to note that this immunosensor can test in 100% serum without biological interference and has a linear response range of 10−15 to 10−11 g mL−1 towards brucellosis antibodies. Rahi et al.191 created a three-dimensional nanostructure with gold nanoribbons encased in gold nanoblooms using the sonoelectrodeposition technique. The suggested nanostructure was employed as a transducer to create a genosensor and to immobilize a probe unique to Brucella. The zepto-molar electrochemical detection of Brucella in blood samples from brucellosis patients was carried out using this technology. Table 11 summarizes examples of previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of Brucella spp. Additionally, a probe specific to Brucella was immobilized by fabricating 6-Mercapto-1-hexanol (MCH) on the nPd electrode surface.194 The created genosensor was assessed for the purpose of testing the bacteria in human and cultured samples both with and without PCR. With a sensitivity of 0.02 μA dm3 mol−1, a linear concentration range of 1.0 × 10−12 to 1.0 × 10−19 mol dm−3, and a detection limit of 2.7 × 10−20 mol dm−3, the genosensor was able to identify the complimentary sequence. This sensor exhibited the lowest limit of detection among the surveyed literature.

Fig. 12 Schematic diagram explanting the fabrication of Fe3O4@Au@PEG@HA NPs electrochemical immunosensor. The figure was adapted from ref. 190 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

Examples of reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Brucella spp.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
Fe3O4@SiO2@p(PEG-MA-GMA)	Aptamer	Brucella melitensis	Aptasensor	EIS	102 to 107 CFU mL−1	N/A	PBS	Milk, milk products	192	
AuE/nAu	p-ssDNA	Brucella genome	DNA biosensor	DPV	10 zmol dm−3 to 10 pmol dm−3	1.71 zmol dm−3	MB	N/A	191	
AuE	ssDNA	Cas12/crRNA/target DNA	DNA biosensor	SWV	4.5 × 108 to 4.5 × 101 copies per reaction	2 copies per reaction	MB	Blood, milk	193	
AuE/nPd	p-ssDNA	t-ssDNA	Genosensor	DPV	1.0 × 10−12 to 1.0 × 10−19 mol dm−3	2.7 × 10−20 mol dm−3	Fe(CN)63−/4−	Serum	194	
(GO–NW@Au-NF)FTO/Au-NF@NW-GO	OMP31 antigen	Br-antibody	Immunosensor	DPV	N/A	9.3 fg mL−1	PBS	Serum	190	
GCE/Fe3O4@Au@PEG@HA NPs	OMP31 antigen	Brucellosis antibody	Immunosensor	DPV	10−15 g mL−1 to 10−11 g mL−1	0.36 fg mL−1	PBS	Serum	190	
GCE/AuNPs/GSH/HA	OMP31 antigen	Antibody	Immunosensor	DPV	2.08 × 10−15 to 1.04 × 10−12 g mL−1	0.50 fg mL−1	Fe(CN)63−/4−	Serum	195	
SPCE/GNP	Anti-Brucella melitensis	Brucella melitensis	Immunosensor	EIS	4 × 104 to 4 × 106 CFU mL−1	1 × 104 CFU mL−1	Fe(CN)63−/4−	Milk	196	
a PEG-MA: poly(ethyleneglycol)-methacrylate, GMA: glycidylmethacrylate, PEG: polyethylene glycol, HA: hyaluronic acid, GSH: glutathione.

4.10. Helicobacter pylori

Gram-negative Helicobacter pylori bacteria are well known for damaging the stomach lining and negatively impacting human health. Recently, Jaradat et al. developed HopQ (protein) biomarker grafted screen-printed carbon electrodes with MWCNT-COOH decorated with gold nanoparticles (AuNP), SPCE/MWCNT/AuNP, immunosensor for the detection of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) pathogenic bacterium.197 It is important to emphasize that the linearity was discovered to be within the range of 10 pg mL−1 to 100 ng mL−1. The platform showed limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of 2.0 pg mL−1 and 8.6 pg mL−1, respectively. Another study found that the AuNPs-based electrochemical biosensor may be used to detect H. pylori bacterium iDNA sequences by introducing initiator DNA (iDNA) triggered hybridization chain reaction (HCR).198 Gel electrophoresis image confirmed that the HCR occurs with the free DNA at the DNA-modified AuNPs. Authors highlighted that HCR converts the iDNA to long dsDNA concatemer. Furthermore, it was observed that electrochemical active molecule [Ru(NH3)5L]2+ intercalated into dsDNA. Table 12 sums up examples of some previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of Helicobacter pylori. Furthermore, it was revealed that an electrochemical biosensor based on SiO2 nanoparticle decorated molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) was created to detect Helicobacter pylori on a screen-printed electrode (SPE), which is thought to function as a receptor by using template VacA antigen.201 Schematic illustration showing the fabrication process of the devoloped biosensor is presented in Fig. 13. The developed VacA-MIP/SiO2 @SPE sensor shows excellent sensitivity (0.304 mA ng ml−1) and a very low detection limit (0.01 ng mL−1) in a linear range of 0.01–100 ng mL−1 under optimal testing conditions. Consequently, the effective detection approach was occupied by MIP electrochemical detection techniques, DNA biosensors, and immunosensors with no restrictions.

Examples of some previously reported electrochemical biosensors for the detection of pathogenic Helicobacter pylori.a

Electrode	Bioreceptor	Analyte	Biosensor type	Electrochemical method	Linear range	Limit of detection	Redox probe	Real sample	Ref.	
AuE	SH-ssDNA	Helicobacter pylori	DNA biosensor	DPV	20.0–410.0 nmol L−1	7.2 nmol L−1	Chlorogenic acid	N/A	199	
SPE@rGO/Au	MIP-CagA	Helicobacter pylori	Biosensor	DPV	0.05–50 ng mL−1	0.05 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Blood	200	
SPE@SiO2	MIP-VacA	Helicobacter pylori	Biosensor	DPV, EIS	0.01–100 ng mL− 1	0.01 ng mL− 1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Serum	201	
GCE/Ti3C2Tx/AuNPs	SH-cpDNA	Helicobacter pylori	DNA biosensor	DPV	10−11 to 10−14 mol L−1	1.6 × 10−16 mol L−1	PBS	Milk, serum	202	
AuE	SH-ssDNA	Helicobacter pylori	DNA biosensor	DPV	0.3–240 nmol L−1	0.15 nmol L−1	β-cyclodextrin	N/A	203	
GCE/GO/AuNP	ssDNA	Helicobacter pylori	DNA biosensor	DPV	60.0–600.0 p mol L−1	27.0 p mol L−1	Oracet blue	SDS, ethanol, glucose, CTAB	204	
AuE	SH-cpDNA	Helicobacter pylori	DNA biosensor	DPV	0.01 fmol L−1 to 0.5 fmol L−1, 1 fmol L−1 to 100 fmol L−1	0.68 amol L−1	[Ru(NH3)5L]2+	N/A	198	
AuE/PEDOT/rGO/Pdnano	BabA antibody	Helicobacter pylori	Immunosensor	CV	0.2–20 ng mL−1	0.2 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Stool	205	
AuET/ZnO/g-C3N4	VacA antigen	Helicobacter pylori	Immunosensor	DPV	0.1–12.8 ng mL−1	0.1 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Serum	200	
AuE/red-GOx/PEDOT/Ptnano	CagA antibody	Helicobacter pylori	Immunosensor	DPV	0.1 ng mL−1 to 30 ng mL−1	0.1 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Serum	206	
SPAuE@ZnO-T	CagA antigen	Helicobacter pylori	Immunosensor	CV, SWV	0.2 ng mL−1 to 50 ng mL−1	0.2 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Serum	207	
AuE/Pin5COOH/c-MWCNT/TiO2NPs	Cag aantibody	Helicobacter pylori	Immunosensor	SWV	0.1–8.0 ng mL−1	0.1 ng mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Stool	208	
SPCE/MWCNT/AuNPs	HopQ antibody	Helicobacter pylori	Immunosensor	SWV	10 pg mL−1 to 100 ng mL−1	2.0 pg mL−1	[Fe(CN)6]3−/4−	Artificial saliva	197	
a PEDOT: poly-3,4 ethylene dioxythiophene, g-C3N4: graphitic carbon nitrite, Pin5COOH: polyindole carboxylic acid, ZnO-T: zinc oxide tetrapods.

Fig. 13 Molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) based biosensor. The figure was adapted from ref. 201 and reproduced with permission, copyright @ Elsevier.

5. Conclusions

This review of the literature concentrates on the bioreceptor theme for electrochemical biosensor modification, which offers a wide range of applications as a platform for pathogen detection. The performance metrics and a summary of the electrode construction techniques for identifying pathogenic bacteria are provided. Additionally, new developments on various bioreceptors, detection techniques, assay plans, redox probes, and material kinds are summarized and tallied. Thus, combining electrochemical-based biosensors with electrode materials and bioreceptors makes it easier to determine the optimal approach for identifying specific infections. This work also includes a comprehensive analysis of various electrochemical biosensor production methods for the detection of pathogenic bacteria and the process by which they are modified. All bioreceptors have a specific role in PB detection, however the detection limit of DNA and antibody-modified electrochemical biosensors is lower than that of other bioreceptors. Furthermore, phagosensors, or phage base sensors, are more straightforward than others. Thus, this review focuses on biosensing techniques that have led to notable advancements in the survivability, response time, selectivity, and sensitivity of bacterial detection. To prevent negative effects as early as possible, a great deal of research has recently been conducted with the goal of sensitively detecting infectious microorganisms. Additionally, combining the bioreceptor immobilized electrochemical biosensor into a single, reliable, and integrated platform for the management of healthcare is becoming a global aim for the scientific community. For scientists conducting research on electrochemically based bioreceptor modified sensors, this review can therefore be used as a starting point and a reference.

6. Present challenges and future perspectives

Water, food, hospitals, and human fluids can harbor or be the source of a variety of pathogenic bacteria that can cause potentially fatal illnesses and become resistant to antibiotics. Due to the drawbacks of bioreceptors, such as limited stability for antibodies, difficulties binding to DNA targets for nucleic acids. That decreased sensitivity to nuclease for aptamers, electrochemical biosensors have several limitations when it comes to practical applications. However, the combination of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) associated technology209 and electrochemical DNA sensors can improve the sensitivity and precision. One of the major challenges in electrochemical biosensing of pathogenic bacteria in real samples is the need for multiple sample preparation stages. Furthermore, despite the potential for extreme sensitivity and robustness, selective biorecognition element-based bioanalytical techniques necessitate the addition of reagents to the sample and laborious sample preparation procedures, which lengthen the time-to-results (TTR). Additionally, furthermore, a wide range of molecules, including proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and other cellular debris, are commonly present in bacterial samples and can obstruct the response of biosensors. It can be challenging to preserve the viability of bacteria during sample preparation, particularly when live bacteria is required for the analytical phases of the detection process. The wide fluctuation in bacterial concentrations in samples makes it difficult to consistently and reliably detect bacteria. False detection or a drop in signal to noise ratio may arise due to environmental conditions or contamination from other microorganisms such as intercellular bacterial leakage. Literature revealed that electrochemical biosensing still suffer from low yield during simultaneous detection. Furthermore, it is difficult to design compact, portable electronics without sacrificing effectiveness. For practical applications, biosensors must be integrated with electronic systems for data processing and wireless communication; however, this requires sophisticated engineering solutions.

Future research could benefit from adding nanomaterials to electrochemically based biosensors to increase their performance even further. The design of biosensors has been significantly impacted by the swift advancement of nanomaterials research. Moreover, a range of organic groups, including conductive polymers, thiols, and silanes, can be functionalized on the surfaces to effectively immobilize bioreceptors.210 The development of point-of-need diagnostic instruments that incorporate nanomaterials, microfluidics, and electrochemical biosensors can benefit from cooperation between several disciplines, including nanotechnology, food science, material science, electrochemistry, microbiology, and system design and integration. At every stage of the process, including production, packaging, distribution, storage, and consumption, these devices will offer food safety evaluations and food screening capabilities. Academic and industrial researchers are collaborating to collectively commercialize a few fully integrated biosensing detection technologies. However, further research is required to precisely identify infectious bacteria.211 Electrochemical biosensors can be used as a wearable detection tool in the near future,16 collecting data wirelessly near the field to quickly identify pathogenic bacteria that pose a threat to human life. Such wearable and wireless integrated systems should be also commercially attractive. For the PBs detection, further bacterial culture protocol improvements is currently being aggressively sought. Achieving efficient bacterial disruption might require a combination of chemical (such as detergents), mechanical (e.g., bead-beating), and enzymatic (for incident lysozyme) lysis techniques. Immuno-magnetic beads or selective growth media is often employed to extract the desired bacterial population from the sample. Removal of cellular debris through filtration and centrifugation after lysis is part sample preparation procedure. Setting up and following standardized protocols for the collection, storage, and preparation of bacterial samples are recommended steps to ensure high yield and reproducibility. By implementing efficient and reliable strategies to tackle the above challenges, electrochemical biosensors can greatly enhance the accuracy and dependability of bacterial sample analysis.

Data availability

No primary research results, software or code have been included and no new data were generated or analysed as part of this review.

Author contributions

Md. Abdul Khaleque: conceptualized the main idea, structured, and wrote the original manuscript; S. I. Hossain: contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript; Md. Romzan Ali: contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript; Hala S. Abuelmakarem: wrote sections of the manuscript; Mohamed Aly Saad Aly: updated the main concepts and ideas, wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript, supervised and evaluated the overall work; Muhammad Shamim Al Mamun: designed, wrote, reviewed and edited sections of the manuscript; Md. Zaved Hossain Khan: contributed to the main concept, supervised and evaluated the overall concepts.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

This research received specific funding facilities from Georgia Tech Shenzhen Institute (GTSI).
==== Refs
References

Uddin T. M. Chakraborty A. J. Khusro A. Zidan B. R. M. Mitra S. Bin Emran T. Dhama K. Ripon M. K. H. Gajdács M. Sahibzada M. U. K. Hossain M. J. Koirala N. J. Infect. Public Health 2021 14 1750 1766 34756812
Peterson E. Kaur P. Front. Microbiol. 2018 9 1 21 29403456
Smith S. W. , Approach to Internal Medicine, 2016
Ajulo S. Awosile B. PLoS One 2024 e0297921 10.1371/journal.pone.0297921 38315668
Wang B. Wang H. Lu X. Zheng X. Yang Z. Foods 2023 2795 10.3390/foods12142795 37509887
Wang B. Wang H. Lu X. Zheng X. Yang Z. Foods 2023 2795 10.3390/foods12142795 37509887
Strawn L. K. Fortes E. D. Bihn E. A. Nightingale K. K. Gröhn Y. T. Worobo R. W. Wiedmann M. Bergholz P. W. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013 79 588 600 23144137
Khaleque M. A. Ali M. R. Bacchu M. S. Mamun M. R. A. Hossain M. I. Hossain M. S. Aly Saad Aly M. Khan M. Z. H. Heliyon 2022 e20676 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20676
Aijuka M. Buys E. M. Food Microbiol. 2019 82 363 370 31027795
Kafetzopoulos D. P. Psomas E. L. Kafetzopoulos P. D. Food Control 2013 33 505 513
Bacchu M. S. Ali M. R. Das S. Akter S. Sakamoto H. Suye S. I. Rahman M. M. Campbell K. Khan M. Z. H. Anal. Chim. Acta 2022 339332 10.1016/j.aca.2021.339332 35057920
Sakamoto S. Putalun W. Vimolmangkang S. Phoolcharoen W. Shoyama Y. Tanaka H. Morimoto S. J. Nat. Med. 2018 72 32 42 29164507
Mahari S. Gandhi S. Biosensors 2022 12 365 35735514
Farooq U. Ullah M. W. Yang Q. Aziz A. Xu J. Zhou L. Wang S. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020 112163 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112163 32250935
Hameed S. Xie L. Ying Y. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018 81 61 73
Zhang L. Guo W. Lv C. Liu X. Yang M. Guo M. Fu Q. Adv. Sensor Energy Mater. 2023 2 100081
Azmi A. Azman A. A. Ibrahim S. Yunus M. A. M. Int. J. Smart Sens. Intell. Syst. 2017 10 223 261
Prabowo B. A. Cabral P. D. Freitas P. Fernandes E. Chemosensors 2021 9 299
Oon Y. L. Oon Y. S. Ayaz M. Deng M. Li L. Song K. Front. Microbiol. 2023 14 1286923 38075917
Foddai A. C. G. Grant I. R. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020 104 4281 4288 32215710
Serra B. Gamella M. Reviejo A. J. Pingarrón J. M. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008 391 1853 1860 18523759
Gagliardi M. Agostini M. Lunardelli F. Lamanna L. Miranda A. Bazzichi A. Luminare A. G. Cervelli F. Gambineri F. Totaro M. Lai M. Maisetta G. Batoni G. Pistello M. Cecchini M. Sens. Actuators, B 2023 133299 10.1016/j.snb.2023.133299
Kuzhandai Shamlee J. Swamy V. V. L. S Rajamani A. Mukherji S. Satija J. Janakiraman V. Sai V. V. R. Biosens. Bioelectron. X 2022 100271 10.1016/j.biosx.2022.100271
Pasquardini L. Cennamo N. Arcadio F. Perri C. Chiodi A. D'agostino G. Zeni L. Sci. Rep. 2023 22832 10.1038/s41598-023-50344-5 38129569
Palchetti I. , Mascini M. , Principles of Bacterial Detection: Biosensors, Recognition Receptors and Microsystems, in Amperometric Biosensor for Pathogenic Bacteria Detection, ed. M. Zourob, S. Elwary, A. Turner, Springer, New York, NY, 2008, 10.1007/978-0-387-75113-9_13
Ercole C. Del Gallo M. Mosiello L. Baccella S. Lepidi A. Sens. Actuators, B 2003 91 163 168
Liu J. Jasim I. Abdullah A. Shen Z. Zhao L. El-Dweik M. Zhang S. Almasri M. Sci. Rep. 2018 16109 10.1038/s41598-018-33972-0 30382115
Bobrinetskiy I. Radovic M. Rizzotto F. Vizzini P. Jaric S. Pavlovic Z. Radonic V. Nikolic M. V. Vidic J. Nanomaterials 2021 11 10 2700 34685143
Kotsiri Z. Vidic J. Vantarakis A. J. Environ. Sci. 2022 111 367 379
Ferrag C. Kerman K. Front. Sensors 2020 583822 10.3389/fsens.2020.583822
Shanbhag M. M. Manasa G. Mascarenhas R. J. Mondal K. Shetti N. P. Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 2023 16 100516
Sharma H. Agarwal M. Goswami M. Sharma A. Roy S. K. Rai R. Murugan M. S. Vet. World 2013 6 968 973
Ali M. R. Bacchu M. S. Al-Mamun M. R. Hossain M. I. Khaleque A. Khatun A. Ridoy D. D. Aly M. A. S. Khan M. Z. H. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2022 2115286
Khan M. Z. H. Hasan M. R. Hossain S. I. Ahommed M. S. Daizy M. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020 166 112431 32862842
Santhanam M. Algov I. Alfonta L. Sensors 2020 20 1 15
Ahmed A. Rushworth J. V. Hirst N. A. Millner P. A. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2014 27 631 646 24982325
Dincer C. Bruch R. Costa-Rama E. Fernández-Abedul M. T. Merkoçi A. Manz A. Urban G. A. Güder F. Adv. Mater. 2019 1806739 10.1002/adma.201806739
Khaleque M. A. Hossain M. I. Ali M. R. Bacchu M. S. Aly Saad Aly M. Khan M. Z. H. RSC Adv. 2023 13 22973 22997 37529357
Mannoor M. S. Tao H. Clayton J. D. Sengupta A. Kaplan D. L. Naik R. R. Verma N. Omenetto F. G. McAlpine M. C. Nat. Commun. 2012 763 10.1038/ncomms1767 22453836
Xiong Z. Achavananthadith S. Lian S. Edward Madden L. Ong Z. X. Chua W. Kalidasan V. Li Z. Liu Z. Singh P. Yang H. Heussler S. P. Kalaiselvi S. M. P. Breese M. B. H. Yao H. Gao Y. Sanmugam K. Tee B. C. K. Chen P. Y. Loke W. Lim C. T. Chiang G. S. H. Tan B. Y. Li H. Becker D. L. Ho J. S. Sci. Adv. 2021 eabj1617 10.1126/sciadv.abj1617 34797719
Percival S. L. McCarty S. Hunt J. A. Woods E. J. Wound Repair Regen. 2014 22 174 186 24611980
Manjakkal L. Dang W. Yogeswaran N. Dahiya R. Biosensors 2019 14 10.3390/bios9010014 30654478
Shafiee A. Ghadiri E. Kassis J. Pourhabibi Zarandi N. Atala A. Curr. Stem Cell Rep. 2018 4 105 115
Naresh V. Lee N. Sensors 2021 21 1 35
Modenez I. A. Sastre D. E. Moares F. C. Marques Netto C. G. C. Molecules 2018 2230 10.3390/molecules23092230 30200521
Bettazzi F. Marrazza G. Minunni M. Palchetti I. Scarano S. Compr. Anal. Chem. 2017 77 1 33
Heckmann C. M. Paradisi F. ChemCatChem 2020 12 6082 6102 33381242
Mehrotra P. J. Oral Biol. Craniofac. Res. 2016 6 153 159 27195214
Wang T. Fan X. Li R. Xu J. Liu J. Chem. Eng. J. 2018 129082 10.1016/j.cej.2021.129082
Ijaz Gul A. Sheeraz Ahmad M. Saqlan Naqvi S. M. Hussain Ansar Wali R. Farooqi A. A. Ahmed I. J. Appl. Biol. Biotechnol. 2017 72 10.7324/jabb.2017.50313
Arora S. Ahmed N. Siddiqui S. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2018 1031 1039
Ooka H. Chiba Y. Nakamura R. Nat. Commun. 2023 4860 10.1038/s41467-023-40471-y 37620340
Barisch C. Holthuis J. C. M. Cosentino K. Biol. Chem. 2023 404 467 490 36810295
Sun G. Wei X. Zhang D. Huang L. Liu H. Fang H. Biosensors 2023 13 886 37754120
Soni D. K. Ahmad R. Dubey S. K. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2018 44 590 608 29790396
Chen J. Jiang Z. Ackerman J. D. Yazdani M. Hou S. Nugen S. R. Rotello V. M. Analyst 2015 140 4991 4996 26042607
Yang X. Kirsch J. Simonian A. J. Microbiol. Methods 2013 95 48 56 23830967
Alvarado-Ramírez L. Rostro-Alanis M. Rodríguez-Rodríguez J. Sosa-Hernández J. E. Melchor-Martínez E. M. Iqbal H. M. N. Parra-Saldívar R. Biosensors 2021 11 410 34821626
Banerjee P. Kintzios S. Prabhakarpandian B. Toxins 2013 5 2366 2383 24335754
Xu L. Bai X. Tenguria S. Liu Y. Drolia R. Bhunia A. K. Front. Microbiol. 2020 575615 10.3389/fmicb.2020.575615 33329436
Shukla S. Haldorai Y. Hwang S. K. Bajpai V. K. Huh Y. S. Han Y. K. Front. Microbiol. 2017 8 2398 29259595
Hasan A. Nurunnabi M. Morshed M. Paul A. Polini A. Kuila T. Al Hariri M. Lee Y. K. Jaffa A. A. BioMed Res. Int. 2014 307519 10.1155/2014/307519 25165697
Ferapontova E. E. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2017 5 218 225
Kausaite-Minkstimiene A. Popov A. Ramanaviciene A. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022 14 20720 20728 35499973
Zhou Y. Marar A. Kner P. Ramasamy R. P. Anal. Chem. 2017 89 5734 5741 28485143
Marazuela M. D. Moreno-Bondi M. C. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2002 372 664 682 11941437
Li Y. Xie G. Qiu J. Zhou D. Gou D. Tao Y. Li Y. Chen H. Sens. Actuators, B 2018 258 803 812
Al-Hindi R. R. Teklemariam A. D. Alharbi M. G. Alotibi I. Azhari S. A. Qadri I. Alamri T. Harakeh S. Applegate B. M. Bhunia A. K. Biosensors 2022 12 905 36291042
Zhou J. Rossi J. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2017 16 181 202 27807347
V Lakhin A. Tarantul V. Z. V Gening L. Aptamers: Problems, Solutions and Prospects 2013 5 34 43
Minchin S. Lodge J. Essays Biochem. 2019 63 433 456 31652314
Bosco-Drayon V. Poidevin M. Boneca I. G. Narbonne-Reveau K. Royet J. Charroux B. Cell Host Microbe 2012 12 153 165 22901536
Popa G. L. Popa M. I. Germs 2021 11 88 96 33898345
Musser A. W. Beamer P. R. J. Indiana State Med. Assoc. 1961 54 1627 1634 14477572
Santos A. C. de M. Santos F. F. Silva R. M. Gomes T. A. T. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2020 10 1 11 32083019
Vading M. Nauclér P. Kalin M. Giske C. G. PLoS One 2018 13 1 13
Ali M. R. Bacchu M. S. Ridoy D. D. Mozumder P. L. Hasan M. N. Das S. Palash M. F. H. Akter S. Sakib N. Khaleque A. Chakrobortty D. Khan M. Z. H. RSC Adv. 2022 12 31497 31505 36382147
Baker-Austin C. Oliver J. D. Alam M. Ali A. Waldor M. K. Qadri F. Martinez-Urtaza J. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2018 1 19 10.1038/s41572-018-0005-8 29930242
Ramaswamy V. Cresence V. M. Rejitha J. S. Lekshmi M. U. Dharsana K. S. Prasad S. P. Vijila H. M. J. Microbiol., Immunol. Infect. 2007 40 4 13 17332901
Taylor D. N. Trofa A. C. Sadoff J. Chu C. Bryla D. Shiloach J. Cohen D. Ashkenazi S. Lerman Y. Egan W. Schneerson R. Robbins J. B. Infect. Immun. 1993 61 3678 3687 8359890
Brubaker R. R. , Yersinia pestis, Elsevier Ltd, 2014
Haque M. A. Wang F. Chen Y. Hossen F. Islam M. A. Hossain M. A. Siddique N. He C. Ahmed F. Front. Microbiol. 2022 783103 10.3389/fmicb.2021.783103 35058902
Kau A. L. Martin S. M. Lyon W. Hayes E. Caparon M. G. Hultgren S. J. Infect. Immun. 2005 73 2461 2468 15784592
Num S. M. Useh N. M. Jordan J. Biol. Sci. 2014 7 81 94
McLendon M. K. Apicella M. A. Allen L. A. H. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2006 60 167 185 16704343
Strašková A. Stulík J. Mil. Med. Sci. Lett. 2012 81 27 39
Nolan S. M. , Pediatric Infectious Diseases E-Book: Requisites, 2008, 198–208
Langereis J. D. De Jonge M. I. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2015 21 1711 1718
Primm T. P. Lucero C. A. Falkinham J. O. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2004 17 98 106 14726457
Cavalieri S. J. and Knoop F. C. , Corynebacterium Infections, Elsevier Inc., 2014
von Graevenitz A. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 1977 31 447 471 334044
Elahi S. Thompson D. R. Strom S. O'Connor B. Babiuk L. A. Gerdts V. J. Infect. Dis. 2008 198 384 392 18540802
Avire N. J. Whiley H. Ross K. Pathogens 2021 10 1 18
Tilly K. Rosa P. A. Stewart P. E. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 2008 22 217 234 18452798
Gaydos C. A. , Chlamydia trachomatis, Elsevier Inc., 1st edn, 2012, vol. 1
Diederen B. M. W. J. Infect. 2008 56 1 12 17980914
Rukambile E. Sintchenko V. Muscatello G. Kock R. Alders R. Zoonoses Public Health 2019 66 562 578 31179637
Bravo D. Hoare A. Soto C. Valenzuela M. A. Quest A. F. World J. Gastroenterol. 2018 24 3071 3089 30065554
Buckle J. , in Clinical Aromatherapy, Elsevier, 2015, pp. 130–167
Leung D. T. Das S. K. Malek M. A. Faruque A. S. G. Qadri F. Chisti M. J. Ryan E. T. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015 93 831 835 26149863
Huang Q. Lin X. Tong L. Tong Q. X. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2020 8 1644 1650
Bacchu M. S. Ali M. R. Das S. Akter S. Sakamoto H. Suye S. Rahman M. M. Campbell K. Khan M. Z. H. Anal. Chim. Acta 2021 339332 35057920
Singh A. Sinsinbar G. Choudhary M. Kumar V. Pasricha R. Verma H. N. Singh S. P. Arora K. Sens. Actuators, B 2013 185 675 684
Das R. Sharma M. K. Rao V. K. Bhattacharya B. K. Garg I. Venkatesh V. Upadhyay S. J. Biotechnol. 2014 188 9 16 25116360
Ma X. Jiang Y. Jia F. Yu Y. Chen J. Wang Z. J. Microbiol. Methods 2014 98 94 98 24445115
Suryapratiwi W. N. , Paat V. I. , Gaffar S. and Hartati Y. W. , in AIP Conference Proceedings, American Institute of Physics Inc., 2017, vol. 1848
Singh A. Choudhary M. Singh M. P. Verma H. N. Singh S. P. Arora K. Bioelectrochemistry 2015 105 7 15 25917793
Ranjbar S. Shahrokhian S. Nurmohammadi F. Sens. Actuators, B 2018 255 1536 1544
Barreiros dos Santos M. Azevedo S. Agusil J. P. Prieto-Simón B. Sporer C. Torrents E. Juárez A. Teixeira V. Samitier J. Bioelectrochemistry 2015 101 146 152 25460610
Huang H. Liu M. Wang X. Zhang W. Yang D. P. Cui L. Wang X. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2016 11 1 7 26729219
Güner A. Çevik E. Şenel M. Alpsoy L. Food Chem. 2017 229 358 365 28372186
Xu M. Wang R. Li Y. Analyst 2016 141 5441 5449 27358917
Pangajam A. Theyagarajan K. Dinakaran K. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 2020 29 100317
Razmi N. Hasanzadeh M. Willander M. Nur O. Anal. Methods 2022 14 1562 1570 35357389
Lin X. Mei Y. He C. Luo Y. Yang M. Kuang Y. Ma X. Zhang H. Huang Q. Front. Chem. 2021 9 4 11
Rajapaksha R. D. A. A. Hashim U. Afnan Uda M. N. Fernando C. A. N. De Silva S. N. T. Microsyst. Technol. 2017 23 5771 5780
Geng P. Zhang X. Teng Y. Fu Y. Xu L. Xu M. Jin L. Zhang W. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2011 26 3325 3330 21277764
Xu S. Zhang Y. Dong K. Wen J. Zheng C. Zhao S. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2017 12 3443 3458
Ozkan-Ariksoysal D. Kayran Y. U. Yilmaz F. F. Ciucu A. A. David I. G. David V. Hosgor-Limoncu M. Ozsoz M. Talanta 2017 166 27 35 28213234
Queirós R. B. De-Los-Santos-Álvarez N. Noronha J. P. Sales M. G. F. Sens. Actuators, B 2013 181 766 772
Wang R. F. Wang R. Bioelectrochemistry 2022 148 108229 35987062
Xu J. Zhao C. Chau Y. Lee Y. K. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020 151 111914 31999572
Shabani A. Marquette C. A. Mandeville R. Lawrence M. F. Talanta 2013 116 1047 1053 24148514
Tlili C. Sokullu E. Safavieh M. Tolba M. Ahmed M. U. Zourob M. Anal. Chem. 2013 4893 4901 23510137
Wang D. Chen J. Nugen S. R. Anal. Chem. 2017 89 1650 1657 28208254
Ali M. R. Bacchu M. S. Setu M. A. A. Akter S. Hasan M. N. Chowdhury F. T. Rahman M. M. Ahommed M. S. Khan M. Z. H. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021 188 113338 34030094
Solanki P. R. Patel M. K. Kaushik A. Pandey M. K. Kotnala R. K. Malhotra B. D. Electroanalysis 2011 23 2699 2708
Patel M. K. Solanki P. R. Khandelwal S. Agrawal V. V. Ansari S. G. Malhotra B. D. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2012 012009 10.1088/1742-6596/358/1/012009
Vijian D. Chinni S. V. Yin L. S. Lertanantawong B. Surareungchai W. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016 77 805 811 26513287
Rahman M. Heng L. Y. Futra D. Ling T. L. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2017 474 10.1186/s11671-017-2236-0 28774152
Tam P. D. Thang C. X. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016 58 953 959
Ozoemena O. C. Maphumulo T. Shai J. L. Ozoemena K. I. ACS Omega 2020 5 5762 5771 32226855
Tshikalaha P. Arotiba O. A. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2015 10 10083 10092
Gupta P. K. Khan Z. H. Solanki P. R. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2016 163 B309 B318
Gupta P. K. Gupta A. Dhakate S. R. Khan Z. H. Solanki P. R. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2016 133 1 9
Palomar Q. Gondran C. Holzinger M. Marks R. Cosnier S. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017 97 177 183 28599177
Ali M. R. Bacchu M. S. Das S. Akter S. Rahman M. M. Saad Aly M. A. Khan M. Z. H. Talanta 2023 253 123909 36152607
Zarei S. S. Soleimanian-Zad S. Ensafi A. A. Microchim. Acta 2018 185 1 9
Hu Y. Xu X. Liu Q. Wang L. Lin Z. Chen G. Anal. Chem. 2014 86 8785 8790 25112918
Bagheryan Z. Raoof J. B. Golabi M. Turner A. P. F. Beni V. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016 80 566 573 26894987
Zhao G. Zhan X. Dou W. Anal. Biochem. 2011 408 53 58 20816661
Zhao G. Zhan X. Electrochim. Acta 2010 55 2466 2471
Izadi Z. Sheikh-Zeinoddin M. Ensafi A. A. Soleimanian-Zad S. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016 80 582 589 26896793
Yoo M. S. Shin M. Kim Y. Jang M. Choi Y. E. Park S. J. Choi J. Lee J. Park C. Chemosphere 2017 175 269 274 28226280
Wu H. Liu S. Jiang J. Shen G. Yu R. Analyst 2012 137 4829 4833 22930190
Kang X. Pang G. Chen Q. Liang X. Sens. Actuators, B 2013 177 1010 1016
Setterington E. B. Alocilja E. C. Biosensors 2012 2 15 31 25585629
Qian X. Qu Q. Li L. Ran X. Zuo L. Huang R. Wang Q. Sensors 2018 1878 10.3390/s18061878 29890646
Cui F. Zhou Z. Feng H. Susan Zhou H. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2020 3 357 363
Singh R. Sumana G. Verma R. Sood S. Pandey M. K. Gupta R. K. Malhotra B. D. J. Biotechnol. 2010 150 357 365 20932863
Liu X. Du C. Ni D. Ran Q. Liu F. Jiang D. Pu X. Anal. Methods 2016 8 8280 8287
Jiang D. Liu F. Zhang L. Liu L. Liu C. Pu X. RSC Adv. 2014 4 57064 57070
Gupta N. Kumar D. Das A. Sood S. Malhotra B. D. Biosensors 2023 486 10.3390/bios13040486 37185561
Verma R. Sood S. Singh R. Sumana G. Bala M. Sharma V. K. Samantaray J. C. Pandey R. M. Malhotra B. D. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2014 78 16 23 24207077
Patel M. K. Solanki P. R. Kumar A. Khare S. Gupta S. Malhotra B. D. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010 25 2586 2591 20472423
Tak M. Gupta V. Tomar M. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014 59 200 207 24727606
Torati S. R. Reddy V. Yoon S. S. Kim C. G. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016 78 483 488 26657592
Omar R. A. Verma N. Arora P. K. Front. Immunol. 2021 653853 10.3389/fimmu.2021.653853 34093542
Ramos-Sono D. Laureano R. Rueda D. Gilman R. H. La Rosa A. Ruiz J. León R. Sheen P. Zimic M. PLoS One 2020 e0241067 10.1371/journal.pone.0241067 33112923
Taufiq S. Waqar M. Sharif M. N. Abbas S. R. Bioelectrochemistry 2023 108353 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2022.108353 36603412
Liu C. Jiang D. Xiang G. Liu L. Liu F. Pu X. Analyst 2014 139 5460 5465 25171135
Thiruppathiraja C. Kamatchiammal S. Adaikkappan P. Santhosh D. J. Alagar M. Anal. Biochem. 2011 417 73 79 21693099
Zaid M. H. M. Che-Engku-Chik C. E. N. Yusof N. A. Abdullah J. Othman S. S. Issa R. Md Noh M. F. Wasoh H. Molecules 2020 3373 10.3390/molecules25153373 32722334
Mohamad F. S. Zaid M. H. M. Abdullah J. Zawawi R. M. Lim H. N. Sulaiman Y. Rahman N. A. Sensors 2017 2789 10.3390/s17122789 29207463
Azmi U. Z. M. Yusof N. A. Abdullah J. Ahmad S. A. A. Faudzi F. N. M. Raston N. H. A. Suraiya S. Ong P. S. Krishnan D. Sahar N. K. Mikrochim. Acta 2021 188 20 33404779
Azmi U. Z. M. Yusof N. A. Kusnin N. Abdullah J. Suraiya S. Ong P. S. Raston N. H. A. Rahman S. F. A. Fathil M. F. M. Sensors 2018 3926 10.3390/s18113926 30441776
Azmi U. Z. M. Yusof N. A. Abdullah J. Mohammad F. Ahmad S. A. A. Suraiya S. Raston N. H. A. Faudzi F. N. M. Khiste S. K. Al-Lohedan H. A. Nanomaterials 2021 2446 10.3390/nano11092446 34578762
Roushani M. Rahmati Z. Golchin M. Lotfi Z. Nemati M. Microchim. Acta 2020 567 10.1007/s00604-020-04547-6
Dai G. Li Z. Luo F. Lu Y. Chu Z. Zhang J. Zhang F. Wang Q. He P. Microchim. Acta 2021 39 10.1007/s00604-020-04698-6
Bekir K. Barhoumi H. Braiek M. Chrouda A. Zine N. Abid N. Maaref A. Bakhrouf A. Ben Ouada H. Jaffrezic-Renault N. Ben Mansour H. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015 22 15796 15803
Escamilla-Gómez V. Campuzano S. Pedrero M. Pingarrón J. M. Electroanalysis 2007 19 1476 1482
Majumdar T. Chakraborty R. Raychaudhuri U. Food Biosci. 2013 4 38 45
Ranjbar S. Shahrokhian S. Bioelectrochemistry 2018 123 70 76 29729642
Abbaspour A. Norouz-Sarvestani F. Noori A. Soltani N. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015 68 149 155 25562742
Sun Z. Peng Y. Wang M. Lin Y. Jalalah M. Alsareii S. A. Harraz F. A. Yang J. Li G. Anal. Chem. 2021 8994 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c01763 34151551
Cai R. Zhang S. Chen L. Li M. Zhang Y. Zhou N. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021 13 4905 4914 33470807
Jia F. Duan N. Wu S. Ma X. Xia Y. Wang Z. Wei X. Microchim. Acta 2014 181 967 974
Nguyen T. T. Q. Kim E. R. Gu M. B. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2022 198 113835 34847360
Guarín P. Cristancho J. J. Colomb. Acad. Phys. Nat. Sci. 2020 44 835 844
Patel D. Zhou Y. Ramasamy R. P. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2021 168 057523
Bhardwaj N. Bhardwaj S. K. Mehta J. Mohanta G. C. Deep A. Anal. Biochem. 2016 505 18 25 27114042
Yaghoobi A. Abiri R. Alvandi A. Arkan E. Mohammadi G. Farshadnia T. Jalalvand A. R. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 2022 36 100494
Mobed A. Hasanzadeh M. Hassanpour S. Saadati A. Agazadeh M. Mokhtarzadeh A. Microchem. J. 2019 148 708 716
Wang J. Leong M. C. Leong E. Z. W. Sen Kuan W. Leong D. T. Anal. Chem. 2017 89 6900 6906 28548485
Malinowska N. Białobrzeska W. Łęga T. Pałka K. Dziąbowska K. Żołędowska S. Czaczyk E. Pala K. Nidzworski D. Sensors 2020 20 1 10
Li N. Brahmendra A. Veloso A. J. Prashar A. Cheng X. R. Hung V. W. S. Guyard C. Terebiznik M. Kerman K. Anal. Chem. 2012 84 3485 3488 22424137
Ezenarro J. J. Párraga-Niño N. Sabrià M. Del Campo F. J. Muñoz-Pascual F. X. Mas J. Uria N. Biosensors 2020 102 10.3390/bios10090102 32825468
Laribi A. Allegra S. Souiri M. Mzoughi R. Othmane A. Girardot F. Talanta 2020 215 120904 32312449
Rai V. Deng J. Toh C. S. Talanta 2012 98 112 117 22939135
Lv S. Sheng J. Zhao S. Liu M. Chen L. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018 117 138 144 29894850
Rahi A. Sattarahmady N. Heli H. Sci. Rep. 2015 5 18060 26657828
Bayramoglu G. Ozalp V. C. Oztekin M. Arica M. Y. Talanta 2019 200 263 271 31036183
Xu J. Ma J. Li Y. Kang L. Yuan B. Li S. Chao J. Wang L. Wang J. Su S. Yuan Y. Sens. Actuators, B 2022 364 131864
Rahi A. Sattarahmady N. Heli H. Anal. Biochem. 2016 510 11 17 27423961
Chen L. Zhao S. Liu M. Wu P. Chen C. Sens. Actuators, B 2019 287 510 516
Wu H. Zuo Y. Cui C. Yang W. Ma H. Wang X. Sensors 2013 13 8551 8563 23881126
Jaradat H. Al-Hamry A. Ibbini M. Fourati N. Kanoun O. Biosensors 2023 527 10.3390/bios13050527 37232889
Lv M. M. Fan S. F. Wang Q. L. Lv Q. Y. Song X. Cui H. F. Microchim. Acta 2020 187 12 16
Asadzadeh-Firouzabadi A. Zare H. R. Nasirizadeh N. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2016 163 B43 B48
Saxena K. Kumar A. Chauhan N. Khanuja M. Malhotra B. D. Jain U. ACS Omega 2022 7 32292 32301 36120075
Saxena K. Chauhan N. Malhotra B. D. Jain U. Process Biochem. 2023 130 87 95
Wang L. Cui K. Wang P. Pei M. Guo W. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2021 413 4353 4362 34013401
Peng P. Xu F. Xu Y. Sun S. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2017 12 9478 9487
Hajihosseini S. Nasirizadeh N. Hejazi M. S. Yaghmaei P. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016 61 506 515
Gupta S. Jain U. Murti B. T. Putri A. D. Tiwari A. Chauhan N. Sci. Rep. 2020 10 1 14 31913322
Gupta S. Tiwari A. Jain U. Chauhan N. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019 103 109733
Chauhan N. Gupta S. Avasthi D. K. Adelung R. Mishra Y. K. Jain U. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018 10 30631 30639 30130396
Jain U. Gupta S. Soni S. Khurana M. P. Chauhan N. Helicobacter 2020 25 1 11
Li F. Ye Q. Chen M. Zhou B. Zhang J. Pang R. Xue L. Wang J. Zeng H. Wu S. Zhang Y. Ding Y. Wu Q. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2021 179 113073 33581428
Cho I. H. Kim D. H. Park S. Biomater. Res. 2020 24 1 12 31911841
Doyon G. , Arch J. , Doyon G. , Twede D. , Drasner B. , Baylis A. M. , Kopsilk D. R. , Fisher E. , Sweeney F. J. , Leonard M. W. , Finnigan B. , Liu L. , Kost J. , Takhistov P. , Takhistov P. , Irwin C. , Mandel A. S. , Foster G. A. , Lynch L. , Brasington R. M. , Quinn R. and Henningsen P. , in The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, Wiley, 2009, pp. 71–180
