| Literature DB >> 20672123 |
Hao Yang1, Ding Li, Rong He, Qin Guo, Kan Wang, Xueqing Zhang, Peng Huang, Daxiang Cui.
Abstract
One-step lateral flow test is recommended as the first line screening of syphilis for primary healthcare settings in developing countries. However, it generally shows low sensitivity. We describe here the development of a novel fluorescent POC (Point Of Care) test method to be used for screening for syphilis. The method was designed to combine the rapidness of lateral flow test and sensitiveness of fluorescent method. 50 syphilis-positive specimens and 50 healthy specimens conformed by Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA) were tested with Quantum Dot-labeled and colloidal gold-labeled lateral flow test strips, respectively. The results showed that both sensitivity and specificity of the quantum dots-based method reached up to 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91-100%), while those of the colloidal gold-based method were 82% (95% CI, 68-91%) and 100% (95% CI, 91-100%), respectively. In addition, the naked-eye detection limit of quantum dot-based method could achieve 2 ng/ml of anti-TP47 polyclonal antibodies purified by affinity chromatography with TP47 antigen, which was tenfold higher than that of colloidal gold-based method. In conclusion, the quantum dots were found to be suitable for labels of lateral flow test strip. Its ease of use, sensitiveness and low cost make it well-suited for population-based on-the-site syphilis screening.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnostics; Lateral flow; Nanomaterial; Quantum dots; Syphilis
Year: 2010 PMID: 20672123 PMCID: PMC2893857 DOI: 10.1007/s11671-010-9578-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett ISSN: 1556-276X Impact factor: 4.703
Figure 1The schematic drawing of QD-based lateral flow test strips
Figure 2Characterization of QDs (a) and colloidal gold (b) by transmission electron microscopy
Figure 3Size distributions of QDs (a) and colloidal gold (b)
Figure 4UV–vis absorption spectra (a) and PL spectra (b) of QDs
A comparison of colloidal gold- and QDs-based test
| TPPA | Validity (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | |||
| Colloidal gold–based test | Positive | 41 | 0 | 41 | Sensitivity 82% (68–91) |
| Negative | 9 | 50 | 59 | Specificity 100% (91–100) | |
| QDs-based test | Positive | 50 | 0 | 50 | Sensitivity 100% (91–100) |
| Negative | 0 | 50 | 50 | Specificity 100% (91–100) | |
Note: CI confidence interval (by Wilson’s method)
Figure 5Result of detection of clinical specimens by colloidal gold and QDs. result of detection by colloidal gold: 1 positive; 2 negative; 3 weak positive; result of detection by QDs: 4 positive; 5 negative; 6 weak positive