4.7 Article

A sensitive and specific ELISA for determining a residue marker of three quinoxaline antibiotics in swine liver

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 405, 期 8, 页码 2653-2659

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-012-6696-x

关键词

Monoclonal antibody; Methyl-3-quinoxaline-2-carboxylic acid; ELISA; Swine liver

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2009CB118801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methyl-3-quinoxaline-2-carboxylic acid (MQCA) is a possible residue marker for three quinoxaline veterinary medicines (olaquindox, mequindox, and quinocetone). The wide application of mequindox/quinocetone or the illegal use of olaquindox leads to MQCA residue in animal's original food, thereby threatening the safety of human food. The indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (IC-ELISA) with a specific coating antigen and monoclonal antibody (MAB) was established and optimized for detecting MQCA in swine liver. Samples were acidified with 2 mol l(-1) hydrochloric acid, extracted with ethyl acetate-hexane-isopropanol (8 + 1 + 1, v/v/v) and then detected by IC-ELISA. The logarithm correlation of standards to OD values ranged from 0.2 to 200 mu g l(-1), with IC50 of 6.46 mu g l(-1). Negligible cross-reactivity happened to five quinoxaline antibiotics (olaquindox, mequindox, quinocetone, carbadox, and cyadox) and the metabolite of carbadox and cyadox (quinoxaline-2-carboxylic acid). When spiked with 1 to 100 mu g kg(-1) of MQCA, the recoveries ranged from 85.44 to 100.02 %, with the intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) of 6.64-10.57 % and inter-assay CV of 7.29-10.88 %. The limit of detection for MQCA was 1.0 mu g kg(-1) in swine liver. Furthermore, incurred samples were detected by the IC-ELISA and then conformed by a reported LC/MS/MS method, it shown that there was good correlation between the two methods. All these results indicated that the IC-ELISA method is appropriate for surveillance MQCA residue in animal tissues.

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