4.6 Article

Effect of antibody immobilization strategies on the analytical performance of a surface plasmon resonance-based immunoassay

Journal

ANALYST
Volume 136, Issue 21, Pages 4431-4436

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c1an15325k

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Syracuse, USA
  2. Industrial Development Authority, Ireland [116294]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland [05/CE3/B754]
  4. Biomedical Diagnostics Institute (BDI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Antibody immobilization strategies (random, covalent, orientated and combinations of each) were examined to determine their performance in a surface plasmon resonance-based immunoassay using human fetuin A (HFA) as the model antigen system. The random antibody immobilization strategy selected was based on passive adsorption of anti-HFA antibody on 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APTES)-functionalized gold (Au) chips. The covalent strategy employed covalent crosslinking of anti-HFA antibody on APTES-functionalized chips using 1-ethyl-3-[3-dimethylaminopropyl]carbodiimide (EDC) and sulfo-N-hydroxysuccinimide (SNHS). The orientation strategy used passive adsorption of protein A (PrA) on Au chips, with subsequent binding of the anti-HFA antibody in an orientated fashion via its fragment crystallisable (Fc) region. In the covalent-orientated strategy, PrA was first bound covalently, to the surface, which in turn, then binds the anti-HFA antibody in an orientated manner. Finally, in the most widely used strategy, covalent binding of anti-HFA antibody to carboxymethyldextran (CM5-dextran) was employed. This immobilization strategy gave the highest anti-HFA antibody immobilization density, whereas the highest HFA response was obtained with the covalent-orientated immobilization strategy. Therefore, the covalent-orientated strategy was the best for SPR-based HFA immunoassay and can detect 0.6-20.0 ng/mL of HFA in less than 10 min.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available