4.7 Article

Simultaneous determination of two phosphorylated p53 proteins in SCC-7 cells by an ICP-MS immunoassay using apoferritin-templated europium(III) and lutetium(III) phosphate nanoparticles as labels

期刊

MICROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 186, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00604-019-3540-4

关键词

Cancer; Biomarker; Tumor suppressor; Element label; Carcinogen; Arsenite; Multi-analyte immunoassay; Cell lysates

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [21775113, 21575107, 21575108, 21375097]
  2. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of NSFC [20921062]
  3. MOE of China
  4. Large-scale Instrument and Equipment Sharing Foundation of Wuhan University [LF20191236]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phosphorylated p53 proteins are biomarkers with clinical utility for early diagnosis of cancer, but difficult to quantify. An inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) based immunoassay is described here that uses uniform lanthanide nanoparticles (NPs) as elemental tags for the simultaneous determination of two phosphorylated p53 proteins. Apoferritin templated europium (Eu) phosphate (AFEP) NPs and apoferritin templated lutetium (Lu) phosphate (AFLP) NPs with 8nm in diameter were used to label two phosphorylated p53 proteins at serine 15 and serine 392 sites (p-p53(15) and p-p53(392)), respectively. The assay has a sandwich format, and p-p53(15) and p-p53(392) were first captured and then recognized by AFEP and AFLP NPs labelled antibodies, respectively. The Eu and Lu were then released from the immune complexes under acidic condition for ICP-MS measurement. The limits of detection for p-p53(15) and p-p53(392) are 200 and 20pgmL(-1), with linear ranges of 0.5-20 and 0.05-20ngmL(-1), respectively. The method was further applied to study the response of p-p53(15) and p-p53(392) in SCC-7 cells exposed to the natural carcinogen arsenite. A significant up-regulation of p-p53(15) and p-p53(392) can be observed when cells were exposed to arsenite at 5molL(-1) level for 24h.

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