4.8 Article

Electrochemical Assay of the Alpha Fetoprotein-L3 Isoform Ratio To Improve the Diagnostic Accuracy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 90, 期 21, 页码 13051-13058

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b04045

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21625502, 21475062, 21705079]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20171033]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China [17KJB150026]
  4. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
  5. Program for Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Biomedical Functional Materials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is now the major malignant disease with high morbidity and mortality, which seriously endangers human lives and health. Alpha fetoprotein (AFP) assay is a commonly used serological biomarker for clinical diagnosis of HCC, but it lacks specificity. Analysis of its isoform AFP-L3, especially the AFP-L3 ratio in total AFP (AFP-L3%), can significantly improve the specificity for HCC identification. Herein, an electrochemical approach has been first proposed for simple, accurate, and fast determination of AFP-L3% in clinical samples. On the basis of two independent electrochemical signals generated from the synthesized nanoparticles, 4-mercaptophenylboronic acid (MPA)-functionalized copper nanoparticles (MPA-CuNPs) and the Lens culinaris agglutinin (LCA)-functionalized silver nanoparticles (LCA-AgNPs), simultaneous quantification of the AFP-L3 and total AFP in serum sample has been achieved, thus achieving directly the electrochemical assay of AFP-L3%. To be noted, both the assay time and the assay procedure have been significantly compressed when compared to that of available techniques in clinical use. Therefore, with the integration of electrochemical techniques, this new approach for AFP-L3% analysis would be promising for the accurate diagnosis of HCC.

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

4.8
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