| Literature DB >> 24458089 |
Peyman Jahanshahi1, Erfan Zalnezhad2, Shamala Devi Sekaran3, Faisal Rafiq Mahamd Adikan1.
Abstract
Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) is a medical diagnosis technique with high sensitivity and specificity. In this research, a new method based on SPR is proposed for rapid, 10-minute detection of the anti-dengue virus in human serum samples. This novel technique, known as rapid immunoglobulin M (IgM)-based dengue diagnostic test, can be utilized quickly and easily at the point of care. Four dengue virus serotypes were used as ligands on a biochip. According to the results, a serum volume of only 1 μl from a dengue patient (as a minimized volume) is required to indicate SPR angle variation to determine the ratio of each dengue serotype in samples with 83-93% sensitivity and 100% specificity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24458089 PMCID: PMC3900921 DOI: 10.1038/srep03851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Immobilization sensorgram of four serotypes of dengue antigen on sensor surface.
Comparative data base of ELISA and proposed SPR biosensor in low, mid and high positive patient samples of dengue virus
| ELISA results | Biosensor results (Δ | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of sample (HI) | Patient serum | P/N ratio | NS1 | IgM | S.T. 1 | S.T. 2 | S.T. 3 | S.T. 4 |
| AH01 | 2.48 | − | + | 1.0110 | 0.7454 | 0.5808 | 0.5923 | |
| AH02 | 2.67 | − | + | 1.0570 | 0.7186 | 0.5845 | 0.6344 | |
| AH03 | 2.59 | + | + | 1.0688 | 0.7211 | 0.5785 | 0.6369 | |
| AH04 | 2.47 | + | + | 1.0013 | 0.6498 | 0.5499 | 0.5957 | |
| AH05 | 2.81 | + | + | 1.0102 | 0.6694 | 0.5162 | 0.5572 | |
| AH06 | 2.47 | + | + | 1.0060 | 0.6560 | 0.5080 | 0.5467 | |
| AH07 | 2.79 | + | + | 0.9665 | 0.6910 | 0.5548 | 0.6105 | |
| AH08 | 2.14 | + | + | 1.0019 | 0.7015 | 0.5002 | 0.5844 | |
| AH09 | 2.93 | − | + | 1.1015 | 0.7528 | 0.5775 | 0.6512 | |
| AH10 | 2.58 | − | + | 1.0104 | 0.7501 | 0.5771 | 0.6081 | |
| AH11 | 3.01 | + | + | 0.9983 | 0.8863 | 0.6866 | 0.7051 | |
| AH12 | 3.93 | + | + | 1.0574 | 0.9095 | 0.5849 | 0.8077 | |
| AH13 | 3.45 | − | + | 1.1691 | 0.7965 | 0.5987 | 0.7498 | |
| AH14 | 3.75 | + | + | 0.9862 | 0.9380 | 0.6720 | 0.7899 | |
| AH15 | 3.34 | − | + | 1.1001 | 0.8754 | 0.6972 | 0.7386 | |
| AH16 | 4.59 | − | + | 1.1124 | 0.9566 | 0.7399 | 0.8211 | |
| AH17 | 4.5 | + | + | 1.1092 | 0.9487 | 0.7410 | 0.8222 | |
| AH18 | 4.96 | + | + | 1.1978 | 0.9637 | 0.7405 | 0.8230 | |
| AH19 | 4.34 | − | + | 1.0543 | 0.7688 | 0.7337 | 0.6968 | |
| AH20 | 4.63 | + | + | 1.1733 | 0.9598 | 0.7234 | 0.8176 | |
| AH21 | 5.25 | + | + | 1.1255 | 1.0114 | 0.7154 | 0.9045 | |
| AH22 | 5.69 | + | + | 1.1469 | 0.9778 | 0.7740 | 0.8304 | |
| AH23 | 5.12 | + | + | 1.1344 | 0.9463 | 0.7595 | 0.7983 | |
| AH24 | 5.6 | + | + | 1.1226 | 0.9462 | 0.7519 | 0.8084 | |
| AH25 | 6.53 | − | + | 1.1215 | 0.9084 | 0.7585 | 0.7845 | |
| AH26 | 7.13 | − | + | 1.1987 | 1.0695 | 0.7021 | 0.8793 | |
| AH27 | 7.32 | + | + | 1.2731 | 1.1128 | 0.8676 | 0.9519 | |
| AH28 | 6.06 | + | + | 1.1996 | 0.9954 | 0.7567 | 0.8922 | |
| AH29 | 7.02 | − | + | 1.2453 | 1.0532 | 0.8063 | 0.9476 | |
| AH30 | 7.38 | − | + | 1.2782 | 0.9869 | 0.7631 | 0.8541 | |
The negative controls and the number of the serum samples were examined for the specificity evaluation in this study
| ELISA results | Biosensor results (|Δ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of sample | Patient serum | NS1 | IgM | S.T. 1 | S.T. 2 | S.T. 3 | S.T. 4 |
| SAM01 | − | − | 0.31852 | 0.3760 | 0.19469 | 0.32879 | |
| SAM02 | − | − | 0.15085 | 0.2557 | 0.21550 | 0.19386 | |
| SAM 03 | − | − | 0.37746 | 0.2860 | 0.00040 | 0.19946 | |
| SAM 04 | − | − | 0.16855 | 0.2940 | 0.04890 | 0.16955 | |
| SAM 05 | − | − | 0.14738 | 0.1254 | 0.02943 | 0.13294 | |
| SAM 06 | − | − | 0.02807 | 0.1651 | 0.25771 | 0.08001 | |
| SAM 07 | − | − | 0.25098 | 0.0770 | 0.18170 | 0.10140 | |
| SAM 08 | − | − | 0.03523 | 0.0973 | 0.02780 | 0.07478 | |
| SAM 09 | − | − | 0.04094 | 0.0646 | 0.07810 | 0.04010 | |
| SAM 10 | − | − | 0.05042 | 0.0050 | 0.01400 | 0.01260 | |
| SAM 11 | − | − | 0.24308 | 0.0911 | 0.25786 | 0.04538 | |
| SAM 12 | − | − | 0.11004 | 0.0011 | 0.25924 | 0.09303 | |
| SAM 13 | − | − | 0.25980 | 0.1937 | 0.21978 | 0.09314 | |
| SAM 14 | − | − | 0.35171 | 0.2944 | 0.31243 | 0.20877 | |
| SAM 15 | − | − | 0.2852 | 0.1905 | 0.23039 | 0.10882 | |
| SAM 16 | − | − | 0.21199 | 0.1115 | 0.14507 | 0.01650 | |
| SAM 17 | − | − | 0.22769 | 0.1312 | 0.17126 | 0.03061 | |
| SAM 18 | − | − | 0.28431 | 0.1407 | 0.15434 | 0.00509 | |
| SAM 19 | − | − | 0.25883 | 0.1396 | 0.17210 | 0.04012 | |
| SAM 20 | − | − | 0.21092 | 0.1737 | 0.23510 | 0.11329 | |
| SAM 21 | − | − | 0.23587 | 0.1497 | 0.24237 | 0.09972 | |
| SAM 22 | − | − | 0.30437 | 0.1798 | 0.19558 | 0.06360 | |
Figure 2Characterization of the immobilization process on the gold surface using SEM and AFM equipments.
Figure 3The binding response curve termed by sensorgram, (a) the binding process and (b) the regeneration of biosensor surface.
Figure 4SPR angle variation via patient's serum- dengue virus diagnosis graph.
Figure 5Schematic of the dengue virus diagnosis process.