4.7 Article

Analysis of oxidative stress biomarkers using a simultaneous competitive/non-competitive micromosaic immunoassay

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 640, 期 1-2, 页码 1-6

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2009.03.003

关键词

Immunoassay; Micromosaic; Microfluidics; Multi-analyte analysis; High throughput; Immunoaffinity array

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [EB00726]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunoassays represent a core workhorse methodology for many applications ranging from clinical diagnostics to environmental monitoring. In traditional formats such as the enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), analytes are measured singly or in small sets. As more biomarkers are identified for disease states, there is a need to develop methods that can measure Multiple markers simultaneously. Immunoaffinity arrays are one Such Chemistry that can achieve multi-marker screening. Most arrays are performed in either competitive or non-competitive formats. where the former are Used predominantly for small molecules and the later for macromolecules. To date, ELISA and immunoaffinity array methods have relied exclusively oil one of these formats and not the other. Here ail immunoaffinity array method capable of performing simultaneous competitive and non-competitive analysis generated using micromosaic immunoassay techniques is introduced for the analysis of metabolites and proteins. In this report, three markers of oxidative stress were used as a model system. The method described here demonstrates the simultaneous analysis of 3-nitrotyrosine, by indirect competitive immunoassay while the enzymes catalase and superoxide dismutase are analyzed by non-competitive sandwich immunoassay method requires less than 1 mu Lsample and 45 min for completion. Logistic curve fits and LOD (limits of detection) statistical analysis of the binding results are presented and show good agreement with published data for these antibody-antigen systems. (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