4.7 Review

Advances and challenges of fully integrated paper-based point-of-care nucleic acid testing

期刊

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 37-50

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2017.05.007

关键词

Low-cost paper substrates; Nucleic acid testing; Sample preparation; Nucleic acid amplification; Amplicon detection; Challenges; Commercialization

资金

  1. National Instrumentation Program of China [2013YQ190467]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [81370952]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  4. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2014M562390, 2016M5927736]
  5. International Science and Technology Cooperation and Exchange Program of Shaanxi Province of China [2016KW-064]
  6. UM High Impact Research Grant UM-MOHE from Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia [UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/44]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nucleic acid testing (NAT) has been studied extensively in paper-based diagnostics, presenting a substantially higher sensitivity and specificity than immunoassays. Paper-based NAT provides an alternative to laborious, expensive and time-consuming conventional NAT. Recent advances in paper fabrication and modification technologies have made it possible to integrate all key steps of NAT (i.e., sample preparation, nucleic acid amplification and amplicon detection) into one single paper-based device, and are hence suitable for resource-poor settings. However, multiple challenges are yet to be addressed to translate the technologies into practical applications. In the present review, we discuss the current status and challenges in accomplishing each key step of NAT using low-cost paper substrates. We highlight the most recent advances, challenges and possible solutions in integrating all these steps into a compact paper-based device. We also review the latest progress towards commercialization and future perspectives on the development of an ideal sample-in-answer-out device. (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

4.7
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