4.7 Article

Sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for naringin

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 903, 期 -, 页码 149-155

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.09.058

关键词

Naringin; Monoclonal antibody; Sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81473338, 81573573]
  2. Classical Prescription Basic Research Team of the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
  3. Beijing Municipal Commission of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among the currently used immunoassay techniques, sandwich ELISA exhibits higher specificity, lower cross-reactivity, and a wider working range compared to the corresponding competitive assays. However, it is difficult to obtain a pair of antibodies that can simultaneously bind to two epitopes of a molecule with a molecular weight of less than 1000 Da. Naringin (Nar) is a flavonoid with a molecular mass of 580 Da. The main aim of this study was to develop a sandwich ELISA for detecting Nar. Two hybridomas secreting anti-Nar monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were produced by fusing splenocytes from a mouse immunised against Nar-bovine serum albumin (BSA) conjugated with a hypoxanthine-aminopterin-thymidine (HAT)-sensitive mouse myeloma cell line; a sandwich ELISA for detecting Nar was developed using these two well-characterised anti-Nar mAbs. The performance of the sandwich assay was further evaluated by limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), recovery, and interference analyses. A dose-response curve to Nar was obtained with an LOD of 6.78 ng mL(-1) and an LOQ of 13.47 ng mL(-1). The inter-assay and intra-assay coefficients of variation were 4.32% and 7.48%, respectively. The recovery rate of Nar from concentrated Fructus aurantii granules was 83.63%. A high correlation was obtained between HPLC and sandwich ELISA. These results demonstrate that the sandwich ELISA method has higher specificity for Nar than indirect competitive ELISA. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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