4.6 Article

Mechanisms of red blood cells agglutination in antibody-treated paper

期刊

ANALYST
卷 137, 期 9, 页码 2205-2210

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2an15798e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DP1094179]
  2. Thailand Research Fund (TRF) through the Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program (RGJ)
  3. Center of Excellence for Innovation in Chemistry (PERCH-CIC), Commission on Higher Education, Ministry of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent reports on using bio-active paper and bio-active thread to determine human blood type have shown a tremendous potential of using these low-cost materials to build bio-sensors for blood diagnosis. In this work we focus on understanding the mechanisms of red blood cell agglutination in the antibody-loaded paper. We semi-quantitatively evaluate the percentage of antibody molecules that are adsorbed on cellulose fibres and can potentially immobilize red blood cells on the fibre surface, and the percentage of the molecules that can desorb from the cellulose fibre surface into the blood sample and cause haemagglutination reaction in the bulk of a blood sample. Our results show that 34 to 42% of antibody molecules in the papers treated with commercial blood grouping antibodies can desorb from the fibre surface. When specific antibody molecules are released into the blood sample via desorption, haemagglutination reaction occurs in the blood sample. The reaction bridges the red cells in the blood sample bulk to the layer of red cells immobilized on the fibre surface by the adsorbed antibody molecules. The desorbed antibody also causes agglutinated lumps of red blood cells to form. These lumps cannot pass through the pores of the filter paper. The immobilization and filtration of agglutinated red cells give reproducible identification of positive haemagglutination reaction. Results from this study provide information for designing new bio-active paper-based devices for human blood typing with improved sensitivity and specificity.

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