4.7 Article

Screening for cystic fibrosis via a magnetic and microfluidic immunoassay format with electrochemical detection using a copper nanoparticle-modified gold electrode

期刊

MICROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 183, 期 1, 页码 397-405

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00604-015-1660-z

关键词

Immunoassay; Amperometry; Cyclic voltammetry; Horse radish peroxidase; Immunoreactive trypsin; Magnetic nanoparticles; Hydrogen peroxide; Electrodeposition

资金

  1. Universidad Nacional de San Luis (UNSL)
  2. Instituto de Quimica de San Luis (INQUISAL)
  3. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)
  4. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (ANPCyT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article describes a microfluidic electrochemical immunoassay that features two strategies, viz. (a), the incorporation of magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) into the central microfluidic channel and acting as a bioaffinity support for the immobilization of the antibody against the immunoreactive trypsin (anti-IRT), and (b), the electrodeposition of copper nanoparticles (CuNPs) on a gold electrode. IRT, a marker for cystic fibrosis, is extracted from blood samples onto a disk using ultrasonication, eluted, and then injected into the detection system where it is captured by anti-IRT-loaded nanoparticles (anti-IRT-Ab-MNPs). Bound IRT is electrochemically quantified after addition of HRP-labeled anti-IRT-Ab which, in the presence of H2O2, catalyzes the oxidation of catechol to form o-benzoquinone which is detected at a working potential of -150 mV (vs. Ag/AgCl). The electrochemical response to benzoquinone is proportional to the concentration of IRT in the range from 0 to 580 nga <...mL(-1). The coefficients of variation are < 5 % for within-day assays, and < 6.4 % for between-day assays. The method was compared to a commercial ELISA for IRT where is showed a correlation coefficient of close to 1. In our perception, this approach represents an attractive alternative to existing methods for screening newborns for cystic fibrosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据