4.5 Article

Homogeneous enzyme immunoassay modified for application to luminescence-based biosensors

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 336, 期 1, 页码 102-107

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2004.09.026

关键词

homogeneous immunoassay; CEDIA; spectrophotometry; chemiluminescence; bioluminescence; substrates

资金

  1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [R21RR017329, R33RR017329] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [RR17329] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Application of immunoassay to biosensors for use in the point-of-care setting ideally requires immunoassay without separation steps and with small volumes of both sample and reagents. The suitability of cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA), one of a few homogeneous immunoassays available, was investigated for application to biosensors. This method is based on the bacterial enzyme beta-galactosidase, which has been genetically engineered by others into two inactive fragments, enzyme donor (ED) and enzyme acceptor (EA). Association of the ED and EA fragments in the assay results in formation of active enzyme, which acts on substrate to generate a detectable signal. Sensitivity of commercially available CEDIA kits were compared, with respect to the sample and reagent volumes, using three different signal generation processes. The CEDIA kit for valproic acid and three substrates, a colorimetric (chlorophenol red-beta-D-galactopyrano side), a chemiluminescent (Lumi-Gal 530), and a bioluminescent (Beta-Glo Assay System), were employed in the study. Our results indicate that the high sensitivity of the bioluminogenic substrate, D-luciferin-O-beta-galactopyranoside, with short assay time and small volumes of sample and reagents required for the assay, simple handling, and relatively low expense, make this substrate, together with CEDIA, suitable for application to biosensors intended for drug and metabolite monitoring in the point-of-care setting. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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