4.7 Article

Investigation of the Antigen Hook Effect in Lateral Flow Sandwich Immunoassay: The Case of Lumpy Skin Disease Virus Detection

期刊

BIOSENSORS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/bios12090739

关键词

point-of-care test; rapid diagnosis; infectious diseases; single-epitope sandwich; double-epitope sandwich; lumpy skin disease

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [IZSLER 02/20-PRC2020002]
  2. University of Torino

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A highly sensitive colorimetric LFIA for the point-of-need diagnosis of LSDV was developed using two monoclonal antibodies and gold nanoparticles. The optimized LFIA showed a low limit of detection, high repeatability, and specificity, making it a useful tool for LSD diagnosis in resource-limited settings.
Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is an infectious disease affecting bovine with severe symptomatology. The implementation of effective control strategies to prevent infection outbreak requires rapid diagnostic tools. Two monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), targeting different epitopes of the LSDV structural protein p32, and gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) were used to set up a colorimetric sandwich-type lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). Combinations including one or two mAbs, used either as the capture or detection reagent, were explored to investigate the hook effect due to antigen saturation by the detector antibody. The mAb-AuNP preparations were optimized by a full-factorial design of experiment to achieve maximum sensitivity. Opposite optimal conditions were selected when one Mab was used for capture and detection instead of two mAbs; thus, two rational routes for developing a highly sensitive LFIA according to Mab availability were outlined. The optimal LFIA for LSDV showed a low limit of detection (10(3.4) TCID50/mL), high inter- and intra-assay repeatability (CV% < 5.3%), and specificity (no cross-reaction towards 12 other viruses was observed), thus proving to be a good candidate as a useful tool for the point-of-need diagnosis of LSD.

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