4.4 Article

Optimized linkage and quenching strategies for quantum dot molecular beacons

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR PROBES
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 116-124

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mcp.2006.09.001

关键词

quantum dots; biosensor; molecular beacon; DNA; detection

资金

  1. PHS HHS [06000002499A] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantum dot (QD) molecular beacons were explored for sequence-specific DNA detection. The effectiveness of multiple linkage strategies and fluorescence quenchers were compared in hybridization-based assays. To compare linkage strategies, covalent amide linkage and streptavidin-biotin binding were used to link semiconductor QDs to molecular beacon DNA. Amide-linked beacons showed a 57% greater fluorescence increase than streptavidin-linked beacons when hybridized to 200 pmol of target DNA. The specificity of the molecular beacons, however, was similar for both linkage methods. Hybridization of both QD molecular beacons with non-complementary target DNA resulted in approximately 50% lower fluorescence intensity than hybridization with complementary DNA. The effectiveness of different quencher moieties was also evaluated. Iowa Black and 1.4nm Nanogold-quenched molecular beacons exhibited approximately 2-fold greater fluorescence increases than dabcyl-quenched beacons when hybridized to complementary target. Specificity for target DNA was also confirmed through hybridization assays with non-complementary DNA. To provide insight into differences between the QD molecular beacons and the linkage strategies used, the hydrodynamic radius of each was measured. These measurements indicated that the larger radius of the streptavidin QDs (13.5 nm) than the carboxyl QDs (7 nm) could have a negative effect on FRET-based quenching for QD molecular beacons. These data outline the importance of choosing proper linkage methods and quencher moieties for creating high-quality QD molecular beacons. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.4
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