4.6 Article

A comparative study of aptamer isolation by conventional and microfluidic strategies

期刊

ANALYST
卷 148, 期 4, 页码 787-798

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2an01767a

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares three SELEX strategies for aptamer isolation, including conventional agarose bead-based partitioning, microfluidic affinity selection, and fully integrated microfluidic affinity selection and PCR amplification. Using immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a model target molecule, the microfluidic strategies are shown to be more time- and cost-efficient than conventional SELEX.
Aptamers are single-stranded oligonucleotide molecules that bind with high affinity and specificity to a wide range of target molecules. The method of systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX) plays an essential role in the isolation of aptamers from a randomized oligonucleotide library. To date, significant modifications and improvements of the SELEX process have been achieved, engendering various forms of SELEX from conventional SELEX to microfluidics-based full-chip SELEX. While full-chip SELEX is generally considered advantageous over conventional SELEX, there has not yet been a conclusive comparison between the methods. Herein, we present a comparative study of three SELEX strategies for aptamer isolation, including those using conventional agarose bead-based partitioning, microfluidic affinity selection, and fully integrated microfluidic affinity selection and PCR amplification. Using immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a model target molecule, we compare these strategies in terms of the time and cost for each step of the SELEX process including affinity selection, amplification, and oligonucleotide conditioning. Target-binding oligonucleotides in the enriched pools are sequenced and compared to assess the relative efficacy of the SELEX strategies. We show that the microfluidic strategies are more time- and cost-efficient than conventional SELEX.

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

4.6
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