This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Whole-cell and cell-free transcription-translation biosensors have recently become favorable alternatives to conventional detection methods, as they are cost-effective, environmental friendly, and easy to use. Importantly, the biological responses from the biosensors need to be converted into a physicochemical signal for easy detection, and a variety of genetic reporters have been employed for this purpose. Reporter gene selection is vital to a sensor performance and application success. However, it was largely based on trial and error with very few systematic side-by-side investigations reported. To address this bottleneck, here we compared eight reporters from three reporter categories, i.e., fluorescent ( gfpmut3, deGFP, mCherry, mScarlet-I ), colorimetric ( lacZ ), and bioluminescent ( luxCDABE from Aliivibrio fischeri and Photorhabdus luminescens, NanoLuc ) reporters, under the control of two representative biosensors for mercury- and quorum-sensing molecules. Both whole-cell and cell-free formats were investigated to assess key sensing features including limit of detection (LOD), input and output dynamic ranges, response time, and output visibility. For both whole-cell biosensors, the lowest detectable concentration of analytes and the fastest responses were achieved with NanoLuc. Notably, we developed, to date, the most sensitive whole-cell mercury biosensor using NanoLuc as reporter, with an LOD ≤ 50.0 fM HgCl 2 30 min postinduction. For cell-free biosensors, overall, NanoLuc and deGFP led to shorter response time and lower LOD than the others. This comprehensive profile of diverse reporters in a single setting provides a new important benchmark for reporter selection, aiding the rapid development of whole-cell and cell-free biosensors for various applications in the environment and health.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lopreside et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: