4.8 Article

Development of Replication Protein A-Conjugated Gold Nanoparticles for Highly Sensitive Detection of Disease Biomarkers

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 91, 期 15, 页码 10001-10007

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b01827

关键词

-

资金

  1. Global Research Institute (GRI) Program - GIST
  2. National Research Foundation - Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning [NRF-2017R1A2B3010816, NRF-2018R1A2B6004388]
  3. Bio & Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF) - Korean government (MSIT) [2015M3A9E2031375]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Paper-based lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) using conventional sandwich-type immunoassays are one of the most commonly used point-of-care (PoC) tests. However, the application of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) in LFIAs does not meet sensitivity requirements for the detection of infectious diseases or biomarkers present at low concentrations in body fluids because of the limited number of AuNPs that can bind to the target. To overcome this problem, we first developed a single-stranded DNA binding protein (RPA70A, DNA binding domain A of human Replication Protein A 70 kDa) conjugated to AuNPs for a sandwich assay using a capture antibody immobilized in the LFIA and an aptamer as a detection probe, thus, enabling signal intensity enhancement by attaching several AuNPs per aptamer. We applied this method to detect the influenza nucleoprotein (NP) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI). We visually detected spiked targets at a low femtomolar range, with limits of detection for NP in human nasal fluid and for cTnI in serum of 0.26 and 0.23 pg.mL(-1), respectively. This technique showed significantly higher sensitivity than conventional methods that are widely used in LFIAs involving antibody-conjugated AuNPs. These results suggest that the proposed method can be universally applied to the detection of substances requiring high sensitivity and can be used in the field of PoC testing for early disease diagnosis.

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