4.7 Article

Electrochemical investigations of the interaction of C-reactive protein (CRP) with a CRP antibody chemically immobilized on a gold surface

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 643, 期 1-2, 页码 45-53

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2009.04.009

关键词

C-reactive protein; Antibody-antigen interactions; Cyclic voltammetry; Differential pulse voltammetry; Chronoamperometry; Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. McGill Centre for Biorecognition and Biosensors (CBB)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A possibility of using a range of dc and ac electrochemical techniques to probe associative interactions of C-reactive protein (CRP) with CRP antibody (aCRP) immobilized on a gold electrode Surface was investigated. It was demonstrated that the investigated electrochemical techniques can be used efficiently to probe these interactions over a wide CRP concentration range, from 1.15 x 10(-5) to 1.15 mg L-1. The measured sensitivity of the techniques is in the following decreasing order: differential pulse voltammetry, charge-transfer resistance obtained from electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), cyclic voltammetry, chronoamperometry, and double-layer capacitance deduced from EIS measurements which gave the poorest sensitivity. Measurements of kinetic parameters demonstrated that the associative interactions of CRP with the immobilized aCRP reached quasi-equilibrium after 20-30 min. The kinetics of these interactions was modeled Successfully using a two-step kinetic model. In this model, the first step represents reversible CRP-aCRP associative-dissociative interactions, while the second step represents the irreversible transformation of the bound CRP into a thermodynamically stable configuration. It was demonstrated that the thermodynamically stable configuration of CRP starts prevailing after 7 min of interaction of CRP with the immobilized aCRP. (C) 2009 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