Table 2 Comparison of developed whole-cell biosensors for the detection of bioavailable Hg(II).

From: Development of a bioavailable Hg(II) sensing system based on MerR-regulated visual pigment biosynthesis

No

Host cells

Biosensing modules

growth phase when induction

Detection range

LOD (μM)

Induction time

Specificity

Ref

1

E. coli MT102-PIR

merR-Pmer-luxCDABE

lag phase

–

0.0012

80 min

Hg(II)

13

merR-Pmer-lacZ

lag phase

–

0.0024

4 h

Hg(II)

merR-Pmer-gfp

lag phase

–

0.5

16 h

Hg(II)

2

E. coli DH5α

zntR-Pznt-egfp-hj1

lag phase

2.5–7.5

1.0

6 h

Cd(II), Hg(II)

50

3

E. coli JM109

chromosomally based merR-Pmer-gfp

lag phase

0.1–1.7

–

12 h

Hg(II)

38

4

E. coli TOP10

merR-Pmer-mcherry

exponential phase

6.25–200

–

8 h

Hg(II)

42

5

E. coli DH5α

merR-Pmer-rfp

Late exponential phase

0.05–10

–

2 h

Hg(II)

51

6

E. coli DH5α

mer-rfp quorum-sensing system

exponential phase

0.01–0.25

0.01

6 h

Hg(II)

46

7

Sphingobium SA2

chromosomally based partial merA-gfp

lag phase

0.02–0.04

-

5 h

Hg(II)

39

8

Pseudomonas putida

chromosomally based merR-Pmer-egfp

lag phase

0.2–1.4

–

16 h

Hg(II)

33

9

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

merR-Pmer-phzM-Pmer-phzS

early-lag phase

0.025–1

0.01

12 h

Hg(II)

27

10

Enterobacter cloacae

merR-Pmer-lux

early exponential phase

0.002–7.98

0.001

1 h

Hg(II)

52

11

E. coli TOP10

merR-Pmer-vioABCDE

exponential phase

0.78–12.5

0.39

5 h

Hg(II)

This study

lag phase

–

0.006

12 h

Hg(II)

  1. LOD: limit of detection, lux: luciferase, lacZ: β-galactosidase, gfp: green fluorescent protein, zntR: Zn(II)-responsive transcriptional regulator, rfp: red fluorescent protein, merA: mercuric reductase, phzM: phenazine-specific methyltransferase, phzS: FAD-dependent monooxygenase.
Back to article page