| Literature DB >> 30274296 |
Luhui Wang1, Yingying Zhang2, Yafei Dong3,4,5.
Abstract
In this paper, a multifunctional biosensing platform for sensitively detecting Hg2+ and Ag⁺, based on ion-mediated base mismatch, fluorescent labeling, and strand displacement, is introduced. The sensor can also be used as an OR logic gate, the multifunctional design of sensors is realized. Firstly, orthogonal experiments with three factors and three levels were carried out on the designed sensor, and preliminary optimization of conditions was performed for subsequent experiments. Next, the designed sensor was tested the specificity and target selectivity under the optimized conditions, and the application to actual environmental samples further verified the feasibility. Generally, this is a convenient, fast, stable, and low-cost method that provides a variety of ideas and an experimental basis for subsequent research.Entities:
Keywords: actual sample detection; biosensor; fluorescence signal; logic gate; multifunction molecular probe
Year: 2018 PMID: 30274296 PMCID: PMC6211076 DOI: 10.3390/s18103280
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
DNA strand sequence.
| Single Strand | Strand Sequence (5′–3′) |
|---|---|
| A | FAM–GTACACTGTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACACTGTG–BHQ |
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the principle of ion detection (A). The OR logic gate and the true value table (B).
Levels of each factor.
| Factor | Concentration of A Strand (A) | Concentration of Ions (B) | Reaction Time (C) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.5 μM | 100 nM | 30 min |
| 2 | 1 μM | 200 nM | 60 min |
| 3 | 1.5 μM | 500 nM | 90 min |
Orthogonal experimental results for Hg2+ and Ag+.
| Experiment Number | Concentration of A Strand (A) | Concentration of Ions (B) | Reaction Time (C) | F0–F | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hg2+ | Ag+ | |||||||
| 1 | A1 | B1 | C1 | 1239.4 |
| |||
| 2 | A1 | B2 | C3 | 1572.9 |
| |||
| 3 | A1 | B3 | C2 | 1535.1 |
| |||
| 4 | A2 | B1 | C3 | 3243.2 |
| |||
| 5 | A2 | B2 | C2 | 6569.5 |
| |||
| 6 | A2 | B3 | C1 | 7675.0 |
| |||
| 7 | A3 | B1 | C2 | 3723.7 |
| |||
| 8 | A3 | B2 | C1 | 8459.9 |
| |||
| 9 | A3 | B3 | C3 | 11,151.3 |
| |||
| Hg2+ | Ag+ | Hg2+ | Ag+ | Hg2+ | Ag+ | |||
| K1 | 4347.4 |
| 8206.3 |
| 17,374.3 |
| ||
| K2 | 17,487.7 |
| 16,602.4 |
| 11,828.4 |
| ||
| K3 | 23,334.9 |
| 20,361.4 |
| 15,967.5 |
| ||
| k1 | 1449.1 |
| 2735.4 |
| 5791.4 |
| ||
| k2 | 5829.2 |
| 5534.1 |
| 3942.8 |
| ||
| k3 | 7778.3 |
| 6787.1 |
| 5322.5 |
| ||
| R | 6329.2 |
| 4051.7 |
| 1848.6 |
| ||
Figure 2Optimization of pH in the presence of Hg2+ (A). Optimization of pH in the presence of Ag+ (B).
Figure 3Optimization of concentration of A stand in the presence of Hg2+ (A). Optimization of concentration of A stand in the presence of Ag+ (B).
Figure 4Optimization of the reaction temperature in the presence of Hg2+ (A). Optimization of the reaction temperature in the presence of Ag+ (B).
Figure 5Optimization of the reaction time in the presence of Hg2+ (A). Optimization of the reaction time in the presence of Ag+ (B).
Figure 6Sensitivity of Hg2+ detection.
Figure 7Sensitivity of Ag+ detection.
The detection of low ion concentration.
| Added | Detected | Recovery (%) | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hg2+ | 3.9 pM | 10.2 pM | 262 | 4.1 |
| 5.0 pM | 13.6 pM | 272 | 3.6 | |
| 15.0 pM | 23.3 pM | 150 | 3.2 | |
| 25.0 pM | 30.3 pM | 121 | 4.7 | |
| 35.0 pM | 38.4 pM | 110 | 4.6 | |
| 45.0 pM | 47.7 pM | 106 | 5.0 | |
| Ag+ | 3.9 pM | 12.3 pM | 315 | 5.4 |
| 5.0 pM | 15.3 pM | 306 | 2.2 | |
| 15.0 pM | 21.3 pM | 142 | 3.7 | |
| 25.0 pM | 31.1 pM | 124 | 3.6 | |
| 35.0 pM | 39.0 pM | 111 | 5.4 | |
| 45.0 pM | 48.1 pM | 107 | 4.7 |
Figure 8Detection of Hg2+ and Ag+ in actual samples.
Detection of Hg2+ and Ag+ in actual samples.
| Added | Detected | Recovery (%) | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hg2+ | 100 nM | 118 nM | 118 | 12.4 |
| 200 nM | 222 nM | 111 | 21.8 | |
| 500 nM | 483 nM | 96.6 | 19.4 | |
| 1000 nM | 969 nM | 96.9 | 16.7 | |
| Ag+ | 100 nM | 114 nM | 114 | 11.4 |
| 200 nM | 223 nM | 115 | 20.3 | |
| 500 nM | 505 nM | 101 | 15.4 | |
| 1000 nM | 983 nM | 98.3 | 17.9 |
Figure 9Specific experiment of Hg2+ and Ag+.
Comparison of different detection methods.
| Detection Method | LOD | Analytical Range (nM) | Reaction and Incubation Time | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorimetric | 10 pM | 1.0 × 10−2–1 | 45 min | [ |
| 1 nM | 1–1.0 × 103 | 6 day | [ | |
| 2 nM | 2–1.0 × 102 | 3 h | [ | |
| Electrochemical | 0.2 nM | 0.5–1.0 × 103 | 50 min | [ |
| 0.12 pM | 0.2 × 10−3–35 | 2 h | [ | |
| 0.1 nM | 0.1–1 × 104 | 5 day | [ | |
| Fluorometric | 30 nM | 0–117.0 × 106 | 1 h | [ |
| 9.5 nM | 32–1.8 × 103 | 30 min | [ | |
| 3 nM | 5–1.0 × 103 | 1 min | [ | |
| 35 pM | 0–1.6 × 103 | 15 min | This work |