4.7 Article

Development of a competitive ELISA based on estrogen receptor and weak competitive molecule for the screening of potential estrogens in foods

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 401, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134084

关键词

Competitive ELISA; Weak competitive molecule; Estrogen receptor; Estrogen disrupting chemicals; Molecular docking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In competitive broad-spectrum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), weak competitiveness of the competitive molecule leads to improved detectability. Using dual-estrogen receptor (ER) and three estrogen-enzyme conjugates, ELISA based on bisphenol (BPA)-horseradish peroxidase (HRP) shows the highest detectability and can screen all six estrogen disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Biomarkers with weak competitiveness can be applied to other competitive procedures to enhance detectability.
Enzyme labeled competitive molecules are generally homologous with competitors in competitive broad-spectrum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). It is speculated that the detectability will be improved when the competitiveness of competitive molecule is weak. Herein, common small molecule food hazard-estrogen disrupting chemicals (EDCs) were used as target model for verification. The dual-estrogen receptor (ER) and three estrogen-enzyme conjugates with various responses were used as recognizers and competitive molecules in ELISA. ELISA based on bisphenol (BPA)-horseradish peroxidase (HRP) has the highest detectability and can screen all six EDCs, in which BPA-HRP showed the weakest ER excitatory activity (Ka = 1.39 x 10(-2) nmol center dot L-1) among three conjugates. The proposal showed good practicability with spiked recovery of 80.0-110 % for estrogens (17 beta-estradiol, 17 alpha-estradiol, BPA) in foodstuffs, and revealed biomarkers with weak competitiveness may be applied to other competitive procedures to improve detectability, and it provides sen-sitive pre-screening strategy for follow-up screening tool.

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