4.4 Article

Quantum dot nanobead immunochromatographic assay based on bispecific monoclonal antibody for the simultaneous detection of aflatoxin B1 and amantadine

期刊

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 403-418

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09540105.2022.2080188

关键词

Bispecific monoclonal antibody; aflatoxin B-1; amantadine; immunochromatographic assay; quantum dot fluorescent nanobead

资金

  1. Key Research and Development Program of Jiangxi Province [20203BBF63030,JXARS-03]
  2. Earmarked Fund for the Jiangxi Agriculture Research System [JXARS-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A bispecific monoclonal antibody (BsMAb) that can recognize both AFB(1) and AMD was prepared, and a QB-ICA assay based on BsMAb was developed for simultaneous detection of AFB(1) and AMD in feed samples. The QB-ICA assay showed high reliability and specificity, with LOD values and recovery rates within acceptable ranges. This method provides a platform for simultaneous detection of hazardous substances.
A bispecific monoclonal antibody (BsMAb) that can simultaneously recognize aflatoxin B-1 (AFB(1)) and amantadine (AMD) was prepared. Quantum dot nanobead immunochromatographic assay (QB-ICA) based on the BsMAb was developed for the simultaneous detection of AFB(1) and AMD in four feed samples (suckling pig feed, piglet feed, sow feed, and compound feed for laying ducks). Under optimal experimental conditions, the LOD values of QB-ICA for AFB(1) in four feed samples were 0.188, 0.221, 0.233, and 0.306 mu g/kg, respectively. The LOD values of QB-ICA for AMD in the same feed samples were 0.125, 0.187, 0.076, and 0.191 mu g/kg, respectively. The recovery rates of QB-ICA for AFB(1) and AMD ranged from 91.55% to 150.87% and from 91.62% to 138.42%, respectively. The variation coefficients were all less than 15%. The proposed QB-ICA had high reliability and specificity for the simultaneous detection of AFB(1) and AMD, providing a platform for simultaneous detection of hazardous substances.

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

4.4
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