| Literature DB >> 32226838 |
Walaa E Omer1, Maged A El-Kemary1, Mostafa M Elsaady2, Mona N Abou-Omar3, Ahmed O Youssef2, Ali A Sayqal4, Ayman A Gouda5, Mohamed S Attia2.
Abstract
We developed a novel, simple, sensitive, accurate, and precise method for the determination of calcitonin in different serum samples with medullar <span class="Disease">thyroid carcinoma. The designed flower-like thin film gold nanoparticles doped in a sol-gel/polyethylene glycol mold are used as an optical biosensor for the efficient determination of calcitonin. The sensor was characterized by transmission electron microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis, and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. The efficiency of the considered bio-sensor is done using the quencher calcitonin of the emission band at 360 nm of biomarker obtained at λex = 333 nm in acetonitrile solvent. The sensing mechanism was based on fluorescence resonance energy transfer. The remarkable quenching of the fluorescence intensity at 360 nm of optical sensor by various concentrations of calcitonin was successfully used as an optical biosensor for the assessment of calcitonin for different serum samples of patients with medullar thyroid carcinoma. The calibration plot was prepared for the concentration range 0.01-1000 pg/mL of calcitonin with a correlation coefficient of 0.99 and a detection limit of 0.707 pg/mL. The suggested method augments the sensitivity of calcitonin as a useful biomarker for the early diagnosis of medullar thyroid carcinoma. This method is considered as a gateway for the construction of a new prototype for the follow-up of thyroid cancer in the spinal cord during and after treatment.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32226838 PMCID: PMC7097903 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b02833
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1(a) UV–vis absorption spectrum of AuNFs in acetonitrile at 296 K. (b) Electronic transition in Au.
Figure 2(a) Emission spectrum of the AuNF colloidal solution at λex = 333 nm, (b) emission spectrum of AuNFs doped in the sol–gel matrix at λex = 333 nm, and (c) AuNFs embedded in sol–gel.
Figure 3(a) TEM image of AuNFs, (b) SAED pattern of AuNFs, and (c) SEM image of AuNFs.
Figure 4(a) FT-IR spectra of AuNFs doped in the sol–gel/PEG matrix thin film, (b) XRD pattern of AuNFs doped in the sol–gel/PEG matrix thin film, (c) (1) SEM image of the thin film with PEG only, (2) SEM image of the film of AuNFs/sol–gel/PEG matrix, (3) SEM image of the film of AuNFs/sol–gel/PEG matrix + calcitonin, and (d) EDX spectrum of AuNFs doped in the sol–gel/PEG matrix thin film.
Figure 5(a) Luminescence emission spectra of the optical sensor AuNFs-doped sol–gel/PEG thin film in different solvents at λex = 333 nm, (b) fluorescence emission spectra of the thin film of AuNFs doped in the sol–gel/PEG matrix in different concentrations of calcitonin at λex = 333 nm, (c) mechanism of quenching of the AuNF optical sensor by calcitonin, and (d) effect of the interfering ion concentration on the luminescence spectrum of AuNFs.
Intraday and Interday Accuracy and Precision Calculation of the Proposed Methoda
| intraday accuracy and precision ( | interday accuracy and precision ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| samples | standard method average pg/mL | average found pg/mL ± CL | % RE | % RSD | average found pg/mL ± CL | % RE | % RSD |
| patient (1) | 0.53 | 0.51 ± 0.21 | 3.77 | 1.10 | 0.54 ± 0.21 | –1.89 | 1.00 |
| patient (2) | 0.52 | 0.52 ± 0.21 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.53 ± 0.21 | –1.92 | 1.10 |
| patient (3) | 1.2 | 1.23 ± 0.14 | 2.50 | 0.51 | 1.15 ± 0.14 | 4.17 | 0.52 |
| patient (4) | 0.99 | 1.00 ± 0.15 | 1.01 | 0.09 | 1.10 ± 0.15 | –11.1 | 0.02 |
| patient (5) | 18 | 18.1 ± 0.03 | 0.56 | 0.01 | 18.1 ± 0.03 | 0.56 | 0.19 |
| patient (6) | 23 | 23.02 ± 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 23.1 ± 0.03 | –0.43 | 0.15 |
| patient (7) | 12 | 12.2 ± 0.04 | 1.67 | 0.29 | 12.3 ± 0.04 | –2.50 | 0.29 |
| patient (8) | 34 | 34.16 ± 0.03 | 0.47 | 0.10 | 34.5 ± 0.03 | –0.74 | 0.10 |
| Patient (9) | 93 | 93.06 ± 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 93.1 ± 0.02 | –0.11 | 0.03 |
| Patient (10) | 125 | 125.2 ± 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.02 | 125.4 ± 0.01 | –0.32 | 0.02 |
[% RE: relative error percentage, % RSD: percentage relative standard deviation, and CL = ±tS/√n: confidence limits. t is the tabulated value = 4.303, at the confidence level = 95%; n = number of measurements; and S = standard deviation].