4.8 Article

Comparison of surface-enhanced resonance Raman scattering and fluorescence for detection of a labeled antibody

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 80, 期 7, 页码 2351-2356

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac071343j

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comparison is made of the quantitative detection of a labeled antibody by surface-enhanced resonance Raman scattering (SERRS) and by fluorescence using the same instrument with the same laser excitation source. The area under the curve for the fluorescence band is greater than for any single peak in the SERRS spectrum, but the broad fluorescence band is more difficult to discriminate from the background at low concentrations. Using the peak height of one SERRS band and the peak height at the fluorescence maximum, the detection limit for SERRS was lower (1.19 x 10(-11) mol.dm(-3)) than that obtained using fluorescence (3.46 x 10(-10) mol.dm(-3)). The SERRS detection limit is calculated for the concentration of the sample added, but compared to fluorescence, there is an additional dilution step due to the addition of the colloid and the extent of this dilution is dependent on assay format. For comparison with the detection limits found earlier with labeled oligonucleotides, SERRS was remeasured with a 10 s accumulation time, and the final concentration in the cuvette after colloid addition and before any adsorption to the silver was used to calculate a detection limit of 2.79 x 10(-13) mol-dm(-3). This is comparable to the detection limit found using a similar SERRS procedure for an oligonucleotide labeled with the same dye. This experiment is dependent on many parameters that could affect this result, including the nature of the SERRS substrate, the excitation wavelength, and the dye chosen. However, the result indicates that SERRS can give assay sensitivities comparable or better than fluorescence for quantitative direct assay determination, suggesting that the much greater potential for multiple analyte detection could be exploited.

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

4.8
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