4.8 Article

Enzyme immunosensing of pepsinogens 1 and 2 by scanning electrochemical microscopy

Journal

BIOSENSORS & BIOELECTRONICS
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages 3099-3104

Publisher

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2007.01.015

Keywords

enzyme immunoassay; scanning electrochemical microscopy; dual imaging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM) was applied to a dual enzyme immunoassay for the detection of pepsinogen 1 (PG I) and pepsinogen 2 (PG2). Sandwich-type immunocomplexes labeled with horseradish peroxidase (HRP) were constructed on microspots consisting of anti-PG1 IgG antibody and anti-PG2 IgG antibody. These microspots were fabricated on a hydrophobic glass substrate using a capillary microspotting technique. In the presence of H2O2 and ferrocenemethanol (FcOH; used as an electron mediator), the labeled HRP catalyzed the oxidation of FcOH by H2O2 to generate the oxidized form of FcOH (Fc(+)OH) at localized areas corresponding to microspots containing both immunocomplexes. The enzymatically generated Fc(+)OH was reduced and detected with a SECM probe (0.05 V versus Ag/AgCl), and the substrate surface was mapped to generate SECM images of the PG I and PG2 spots. Relationships between the reduction current in the SECM images and the concentrations of PG I and PG2 were obtained in the range 1.6-60.3 ng/ml protein. Dual imaging of PG1 and PG2 was achieved using microspots containing PG1 and PG2 immunocomplexes separated by a 200 mu m physical barrier on the substrate. Pyramidal hole arrays with 100 mu m x 100 mu m openings on the silicon wafer were utilized to fabricate spots using antibodies on poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) membranes. Current responses obtained from microspots fabricated with pyramidal holes are significantly sharper compared to the responses obtained from spots fabricated using the capillary method. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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