4.5 Article

Preparation and application of a monoclonal antibody against the isoflavone glycoside daidzin using a mannich reaction-derived hapten conjugate

期刊

PHYTOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 81-88

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pca.2604

关键词

ELISA; monoclonal antibody; daidzin; soybean; Glycine max; Pueraria lobata; Pueraria mirifica

资金

  1. Fuji Foundation for Protein Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction - Daidzin and its aglycone daidzein are major pharmacologically active compounds of soybean (Glycinemax), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), and kwao kruea khao (P. mirifica). Pharmacological activities of daidzin are mediated by its more potent metabolites daidzein and equol; however, daidzin is the predominant compound found in these medicinal plants, and the efficacy and safety of equol depend on the amount of daidzin consumed. Objective - To develop a specific monoclonal antibody (MAb)-based indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (icELISA) for standardisation of daidzin content in herbal medicines or nutraceuticals. Methodology - The Mannich reaction was used for the synthesis of a highly immunogenic conjugate between daidzin and a cationised carrier protein. Splenocytes of hyperimmunised mice were fused with myeloma cells to generate a hybridoma secreting antibody against daidzin. Results - The icELISA showed high selectivity and acceptable sensitivity for daidzin determination (1.56-100 ng/mL) with high reproducibility (coefficients of variation were <5%). The icELISA was a reliable analytical method for daidzin in Glycine max, Pueraria lobata and P. mirifica, for which daidzin recoveries from spiked samples were 98.99-104.94%. Daidzin content of these plant-derived products determined using the icELISA were in close agreement with those determined by a HPLC-UV method. Conclusion - The icELISA is useful for specific daidzin determination because of its reliability, low cost, speed and high throughput. Copyright (C) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.5
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