| Literature DB >> 33217912 |
Haowei Dong1,2,3, Xingshuang An1,4, Yaodong Xiang1,2,3, Fukai Guan1,2,3, Qi Zhang5, Qingqing Yang1,2,3, Xia Sun1,2,3, Yemin Guo1,2,3.
Abstract
Immunoassay has the advantages of high sensitivity, high specificity, and simple operation, and has been widely used in the detection of mycotoxins. For several years, time-resolved fluorescence immunochromatography (TRFIA) paper-based sensors have attracted much attention as a simple and low-cost field detection technology. However, a traditional TRFIA paper-based sensor is based on antibody labeling, which cannot easily meet the current detection requirements. A second antibody labeling method was used to amplify the fluorescence signal and improve the detection sensitivity. Polystyrene fluorescent microspheres were combined with sheep anti-mouse IgG to prepare fluorescent probes (Eu-IgGs). After the probe fully reacted with the antibody (Eu-IgGs-Abs) in the sample cell, it was deployed on the paper-based sensor using chromatography. Eu-IgGs-Abs that were not bound to the target were captured on the T-line, while those that were bound were captured on the C-line. The paper-based sensor reflected the corresponding fluorescence intensity change. Because a single molecule of the deoxynivalenol antibody could bind to multiple Eu-IgGs, this method could amplify the fluorescence signal intensity on the unit antibody and improve the detection sensitivity. The working standard curve of the sensor was established under the optimum working conditions. It showed the lower limit of detection and higher recovery rate when it was applied to actual samples and compared with other methods. This sensor has the advantages of high sensitivity, good accuracy, and good specificity, saving the amount of antibody consumed and being suitable for rapid field detection of deoxynivalenol.Entities:
Keywords: deoxynivalenol; field detection method; paper-based sensor; secondary antibody labeling; time-resolved fluorescence immunochromatography
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33217912 PMCID: PMC7698798 DOI: 10.3390/s20226577
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Time-resolved fluorescence immunochromatography (TRFIA)paper-based sensor assembly structure diagram.
Figure 2Working principle of TRFIA paper-based sensor based on secondary antibody labeling.
Figure 3(A) Uv-vis absorption spectra of europium oxide latex microspheres before and after sheep anti-mouse IgG conjugation; (B) Fluorescence spectra of europium oxide latex microspheres before and after conjugation to sheep anti-mouse IgG; the illustration is a fluorescence picture of the europium oxide latex microspheres before (a) and after (b) the conjugation to sheep anti-mouse IgG.
Figure 4(A) Optimization of coupling amount of sheep anti-mouse IgG; (B) Different Deoxynivalenol antibody dosages and fluorescence intensity of line T; (C) Optimization of reaction time.
Figure 5(A) Standard curve of quantitative detection in 70% methanol (Illustration: physical image of paper-based sensor with a series of pesticide concentrations added); (B) Standard curve of quantitative detection in corn and feed samples.
Comparison of the present study with existing detection technologies.
| Detection Technologies | Limit of Detection (LOD) (ng/mL) | References |
|---|---|---|
| Lateral-flow immunochromatographic assay strip | 1.97–46.8 | [ |
| Simultaneous surface plasmon resonance | 3.26 | [ |
| Colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay | 25 | [ |
| Direct competitive fluorescent-labeled immunosorbent assay | 5.6 | [ |
| Flower-like gold nanoparticles-based immunochromatographic test strip | 5 | [ |
| Immunochromatographic test card (DON-GICT) | 40 | [ |
| HPLC-UV | 4.4 | [ |
| Immunochromatographic assay using secondary antibody-europium nanoparticle conjugates | 0.121 | This work |
Figure 6Paper-based sensor specificity evaluation (A) and physical images (B).
Spike recovery experiment of corn and feed samples.
| Samples | Spiked (ng/mL) | Detected (ng/mL) | Recovery (%) | Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corn | 10 | 8.81 | 88.07 | 8.23 |
| 50 | 60.61 | 121.22 | 10.49 | |
| 80 | 85.26 | 106.58 | 6.98 | |
| Feed | 10 | 10.47 | 104.67 | 8.74 |
| 50 | 53.74 | 107.49 | 8.28 | |
| 80 | 75.84 | 94.8 | 3.09 |
Detection of DON in samples.
| Samples | LC-MS/MS (ng/mL) | Paper-Based Sensors (ng/mL) | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corn 1 | 65.96 | 58.16 | 88.17 |
| Corn 2 | 33.19 | 26.63 | 80.24 |
| Corn 3 | 47.03 | 55.21 | 117.40 |
| Feed 1 | 26.97 | 31.02 | 115.02 |
| Feed 2 | 80.21 | 72.87 | 90.85 |
| Feed 3 | 55.76 | 52.35 | 93.88 |