4.8 Article

Broad-specificity immunoassays for sulfonamide detection: Immunochemical strategy for generic antibodies and competitors

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 78, 期 5, 页码 1559-1567

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac0514422

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of antibodies with broad specificity recognition for sulfonamide drugs was found to be surprisingly difficult when conventional immunochemical strategies were applied to hapten design. To improve the cross-reactivity pattern of antibodies for the family of sulfonamide drugs, a novel strategy based on the single-ring (fragment-derived) hapten moieties with different spacer substituent lengths was employed for the preparation of immunogens, coating conjugates, and enzyme competitors. The rabbit antibodies raised against a common (one-ring) p-aminobenzenesulfonamide hapten moiety (attached to a carrier protein through the N-1 position) in combination with a homologous hapten-peroxidase tracer allowed the detection of 15 sulfonamide species at the maximum residue limit level using direct ELISA. The two-ring 6-(4-aminobenzensulfonylamino)hexanoic hapten mimics, previously reported in the literature as a weak generic antigen, generated surprisingly superior immune responses in rabbits. The antibodies raised against this two-ring hapten were capable of detecting at least 19 and 17 sulfonamides in a direct ELISA system at the regulatory level with sensitivities corresponding to 20 and 50% binding inhibition, respectively. A negligible cross-reaction with N4 metabolites makes it possible to measure responses of parent sulfonamides in the presence of their metabolized forms. In skimmed milk, the highest limit of detection (LOD) for sulfacetamide defined as 20% inhibition was 65.2 mu g.L-1 (IC20 value), whereas the additional 18 sulfonamides tested exhibited LODs in the range of 0.2-36.8 mu g.L-1. This sensitivity allows simple multisulfonamide tests to be established for use in the laboratory or on site.

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