4.6 Article

Development of quantitative immunochromatographic assay for rapid and sensitive detection of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) in human plasma

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2017.09.004

关键词

Lateral flow; Biosensor; Gold nanoparticle; CA 19-9; Quantitative; immunochromatographic

资金

  1. National Institute of Health, Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (NIH, COBRE) [P20 GM109024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A quantitative immunochromatographic assay (QIA) was developed by using gold nanoparticle (GNP) based lateral flow strip biosensor (LFSB) and a portable strip reader for rapid and sensitive quantitation of Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) in human plasma. CA 19-9 is a biomarker that has been associated with cancers (such as pancreatic and colorectal cancers) and various non-cancerous diseases. The principle is based on sandwich-type immunoreactions between gold nanoparticle (GNP)-labelled detection antibody, anti-CA 19-9 capture antibody and CA 19-9to capture the GNPs on the test zone of LFSB. The accumulation of GNPs on the test zone gave a red line whose intensity was read with a portable strip reader to quantify the concentration of CA 19-9. Assay parameters including the membrane type, antibody concentration, amount of GNP-anti-CA 19-9 conjugates and the components of the running buffer were optimized to obtain the best sensitivity and reproducibility of the assay. The detection limit of the assay was determined to be 5 U mL(-1) (SAN = 3) with a linear range of 5 U mL(-1)-100U mL(-1). CA 19-9 concentrations in healthy human and pancreatic cancer patient plasma samples were successfully evaluated using the developed quantitative immunochromatographic assay (QIA), and the results were in accordance with that obtained with enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The developed assay shows great promise for clinical application and biomedical diagnosis, particularly in limited resource settings. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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