ArticleJournal of fluorescence2005
Plastic versus glass support for an immunoassay on metal-coated surfaces in optically dense samples utilizing directional surface plasmon-coupled emission.
Article in Journal of fluorescence, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Palladium on plastic substrates for plasmonic devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared plastic (polycarbonate) and high-quality glass support materials for gold-coated slides, when performing a model immunoassay against rabbit IgG using fluorescently labeled (AlexaFluor-647) anti-rabbit IgG, and detecting surface plasmon-coupled emission (SPCE) signals. Both, glass and plastic slides were simultaneously coated with a 48-nm layer of gold and protected with a 10-nm layer of silica. The maximum SPCE signal of AlexaFluor-647 was only two- to three-fold smaller on plastic slides than on glass slides. A small difference in the SPCE angles on glass (theta (F) = 55 degrees ) and plastic (theta (F) = 52.5 degrees ) slides was observed and can be explained with a slightly smaller refractive index of the plastic. We have not found any difference in the angle distribution (sharpness of the fluorescence signal at optimal SPCE angle) for the plastic slide compared to the glass slide. The kinetics of binding was monitored on the plastic slide as well as on the glass slide. Optically dense samples, a 4% red blood cell suspension and a 15% hemoglobin solution, are causing a reduction in the immunoassay SPCE signal by approximately 15% and three times, respectively, and the percentage of the reduction is the same for plastic and for glass slides. We believe that plastic substrates can be readily used in any SPCE assay, with only marginally lower total signal compared to high-quality glass slides.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.