4.8 Article

Effects of Probe Length, Probe Geometry, and Redox-Tag Placement on the Performance of the Electrochemical E-DNA Sensor

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 81, Issue 6, Pages 2150-2158

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac802317k

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies [DAAD19-03-D-0004]
  2. U.S. Army Research Office
  3. Center for Nanoscience Innovation for Defense [H94003-07-2-0704]
  4. Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA)
  5. Santa Barbara Foundation Tri-Counties Blood Bank

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous work has described several reagentless, electrochemical DNA (E-DNA) sensing architectures comprised of an electrode-immobilized, redox-tagged probe oligonucleotide. Recent studies suggest that E-DNA signaling is predicated on hybridization-linked changes in probe flexibility, which will alter the efficiency with which the terminal redox tag strikes the electrode. This, in turn, suggests that probe length, probe geometry, and redox-tag placement will affect E-DNA signaling. To test this we have characterized E-DNA sensors comprised of linear or stem-loop probes of various lengths and with redox tags placed either distal to the electrode or internally within the probe sequence (proximal). We find that linear probes produce larger signal changes upon target binding than equivalent stem-loop probes. Likewise, long probes exhibit greater signal changes than short probes provided that the redox tag is placed proximal to the electrode surface. In contrast to their improved signaling, the specificity of long probes is poorer than that of short probes, suggesting that sensor optimization represents a trade off between sensitivity and specificity. Finally, we find that sensor response time and selectivity are only minimally affected by probe geometry or length. The results of this comparative study will help guide future designs and applications of these sensors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available