| Literature DB >> 21161513 |
Kaj R Blomberg1, Veli-Matti Mukkala, Harri H O Hakala, Pauliina H Mäkinen, Mikko U Suonpää, Ilkka A Hemmilä.
Abstract
The limitation of current dissociative fluorescence enhancement techniques is that the lanthanide chelate structures used as molecular probes are not stable enough in one-step assays with high concentrations of complexones or metal ions in the reaction mixture since these substances interfere with lanthanide chelate conjugated to the detector molecule. Lanthanide chelates of diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) are extremely stable, and we used EuDTPA derivatives conjugated to antibodies as tracers in one-step immunoassays containing high concentrations of complexones or metal ions. Enhancement solutions based on different β-diketones were developed and tested for their fluorescence-enhancing capability in immunoassays with EuDTPA-labelled antibodies. Characteristics tested were fluorescence intensity, analytical sensitivity, kinetics of complex formation and signal stability. Formation of fluorescent complexes is fast (5 min) in the presented enhancement solution with EuDTPA probes withstanding strong complexones (ethylenediaminetetra acetate (EDTA) up to 100 mM) or metal ions (up to 200 μM) in the reaction mixture, the signal is intensive, stable for 4 h and the analytical sensitivity with Eu is 40 fmol/L, Tb 130 fmol/L, Sm 2.1 pmol/L and Dy 8.5 pmol/L. With the improved fluorescence enhancement technique, EDTA and citrate plasma samples as well as samples containing relatively high concentrations of metal ions can be analysed using a one-step immunoassay format also at elevated temperatures. It facilitates four-plexing, is based on one chelate structure for detector molecule labelling and is suitable for immunoassays due to the wide dynamic range and the analytical sensitivity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21161513 PMCID: PMC3026668 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4485-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem ISSN: 1618-2642 Impact factor: 4.142
Fluorescence of Eu and Sm in the BFPP-based enhancement solution
| Fluorometer settings | Fluorescence ( | Limit of blank | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lanthanide | Excitation filter (nm) | Emission filter (nm) | Delay time (μs) | Window time (μs) | Cycle time (μs) | Counts at 1 nmol/L | Background Signal | Concentration (fmol/L) | 95% CI |
| Eu | 340 | 615 | 400 | 400 | 1,000 | 1,112,000 | 113 | 40 | 30–64 |
| Sm | 340 | 642 | 50 | 100 | 1,000 | 6,092 | 62 | 2,100 | 1,610–3,370 |
| Tb | 340 | 545 | 500 | 1,400 | 2,000 | 571,300 | 825 | 130 | 86–181 |
| Dy | 340 | 572 | 30 | 30 | 1,000 | 8,824 | 350 | 8,500 | 6,310–13,200 |
Tb and Dy were measured after addition of dipicolinic acid
Kinetics of fluorescent complex formation in the BFPP-based fluorescence enhancement solution at RT
| Incubation time (min) | Fluorescence (counts, 103) | CV% ( |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 1,800 | 4.5 |
| 15 | 1,850 | 4.2 |
| 30 | 1,853 | 4.0 |
| 60 | 1,858 | 4.4 |
| 120 | 1,869 | 4.7 |
| 240 | 1,849 | 4.7 |
Storage stability of the BFPP-based enhancement solution at +4 °C
| Storage time (days) | Fluorescence (counts, 103) | CV% ( |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1,252 | 0.9 |
| 6 | 1,316 | 1.9 |
| 13 | 1,256 | 1.1 |
| 27 | 1,237 | 0.9 |
| 41 | 1,263 | 1.1 |
| 83 | 1,263 | 0.3 |
| 178 | 1,259 | 0.2 |
| 345 | 1,158 | 0.3 |
| 539 | 1,267 | 0.6 |
Fig. 1Excitation and emission spectra for Eu, Sm, Tb and Dy. The spectra for Eu (red) and Sm (dark red) were measured in the BFPP-based enhancement solution. Excitation maxima, emission maxima and decay times obtained were 354 nm, 614 nm and 570 μs for Eu and 353 nm, 643 nm and 43 μs for Sm, respectively. The spectra for Tb (green) and Dy (orange) were determined after addition of dipicolinic acid to the BFPP enhancement solution. Excitation maxima, emission maxima and decay times for Tb were 319 nm, 544 nm and 1,190 μs and for Dy 317 nm, 572 nm and 20 μs, respectively
Fig. 2Linear regression analysis of serum and EDTA plasma samples analysed for hCGβ and AFP using a one-step assay format. Concentration level difference between the two sample types was not observed. a hCGβ assay, y = 1.001 × −0.16; y/x = 0.329; n = 22; r = 0.998. b AFP assay, y = 0.958 × +0.611; y/x = 5.990; n = 26; r = 0.996
Fig. 3Effect of EDTA and Cu2+ on the stability of the EuDTPA derivative used for detector antibody labelling in the hCGβ assay. a The P value was >0.05 for up to 100 mmol/L EDTA for all three hCGβ concentrations tested (from the highest to the lowest signal level, P = 0.68 (circles); P = 0.07 (squares); P = 0.67 (triangles)). b The P value was >0.05 for up to 200 μmol/L Cu2+ for all three hCGβ concentrations tested (from the highest to the lowest signal level, P = 0.11 (circles); P = 0.27 (squares); P = 0.42 (triangles))