4.7 Article

Paper and Flexible Substrates as Materials for Biosensing Platforms to Detect Multiple Biotargets

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep08719

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01AI093282, R01GM086382, U54EB15408, R21AI087107, F32AI102590]
  2. Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [2214A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The need for sensitive, robust, portable, and inexpensive biosensing platforms is of significant interest in clinical applications for disease diagnosis and treatment monitoring at the point-of-care (POC) settings. Rapid, accurate POC diagnostic assays play a crucial role in developing countries, where there are limited laboratory infrastructure, trained personnel, and financial support. However, current diagnostic assays commonly require long assay time, sophisticated infrastructure and expensive reagents that are not compatible with resource-constrained settings. Although paper and flexible material-based platform technologies provide alternative approaches to develop POC diagnostic assays for broad applications in medicine, they have technical challenges integrating to different detection modalities. Here, we address the limited capability of current paper and flexible material-based platforms by integrating cellulose paper and flexible polyester films as diagnostic biosensing materials with various detection modalities through the development and validation of new widely applicable electrical and optical sensing mechanisms using antibodies and peptides. By incorporating these different detection modalities, we present selective and accurate capture and detection of multiple biotargets including viruses (Human Immunodeficieny Virus-1), bacteria (Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus), and cells (CD4(+) T lymphocytes) from fingerprick volume equivalent of multiple biological specimens such as whole blood, plasma, and peritoneal dialysis effluent with clinically relevant detection and sensitivity.

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