4.7 Article

Miniaturized Rapid Electrochemical Immunosensor Based on Screen Printed Carbon Electrodes for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Detection

期刊

BIOSENSORS-BASEL
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/bios13060589

关键词

Mycobacterium tuberculosis; LAMP-Electrochemical; carbon screen-printed electrode; CV analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2019, more than 21% of new tuberculosis patients were not diagnosed or reported to public health authorities. Therefore, it is critical to develop faster and more effective point-of-care diagnostic tools to combat the global TB epidemic.
In 2019, over 21% of an estimated 10 million new tuberculosis (TB) patients were either not diagnosed at all or diagnosed without being reported to public health authorities. It is therefore critical to develop newer and more rapid and effective point-of-care diagnostic tools to combat the global TB epidemic. PCR-based diagnostic methods such as Xpert MTB/RIF are quicker than conventional techniques, but their applicability is restricted by the need for specialized laboratory equipment and the substantial cost of scaling-up in low- and middle-income countries where the burden of TB is high. Meanwhile, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) amplifies nucleic acids under isothermal conditions with a high efficiency, helps in the early detection and identification of infectious diseases, and can be performed without the need for sophisticated thermocycling equipment. In the present study, the LAMP assay was integrated with screen-printed carbon electrodes and a commercial potentiostat for real time cyclic voltammetry analysis (named as the LAMP-Electrochemical (EC) assay). The LAMP-EC assay was found to be highly specific to TB-causing bacteria and capable of detecting even a single copy of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) IS6110 DNA sequence. Overall, the LAMP-EC test developed and evaluated in the present study shows promise to become a cost-effective tool for rapid and effective diagnosis of TB.

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