4.5 Article

Amplifying Lateral Flow Assay Signals for Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Specific Antibodies

期刊

GLOBAL CHALLENGES
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/gch2.202200008

关键词

antibodies; COVID-19; diagnostics; infection; rapid assays; SARS-CoV-2; serology

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah [GCV1945-1441]
  2. DSR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduces a novel rapid lateral flow immunoassay technique that uses a complex of anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-protein antibodies conjugated to gold nanoparticles to detect the immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 in a rapid, specific, and highly sensitive manner.
Rapid lateral flow immune-assays are point-of-care diagnostic tools that are easy to use, cheap, and do not need centralized infrastructure. Therefore, these devices are appealing for rapid detection of the humoral immune responses to infections, particularly severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The novel technique introduced here uses a complex of anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-protein antibodies conjugated to gold nanoparticles that are bound to five SARS-CoV-2 N protein conjugated to gold nanoparticles to amplify the signals obtained from the conjugated SARS-CoV-2 N protein and to enhance the assay detection limit. To validate the performance of the adopted lateral flow, serum from SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals and prepandamic negative samples are tested and compared to a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of SARSCoV-2 N protein specific IgG and IgM antibodies. The data shows that the designed lateral flow assay has an excellent sensitivity and specificity upon detecting IgM and IgG antibodies by applying only 2 la from the serum sample to the adopted strips. Taken together, the developed lateral flow immunoassay assay provides a rapid, specific, and highly sensitive means to detect the immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 with only 2 mu L from the serum sample.

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

4.5
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