ArticleInternational journal of nanomedicine2006
Influence of biologically inspired nanometer surface roughness on antigen-antibody interactions for immunoassay-biosensor applications.
Article in International journal of nanomedicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Fructose-enhanced reduction of bacterial growth on nanorough surfaces.International journal of nanomedicine · 2012Article
- Highly adherent bioactive glass thin films synthetized by magnetron sputtering at low temperature.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2011Article
- An alternative pathway for alphavirus entry.Virology journal · 2011Review
- Bayesian analysis of heterogeneity in the distribution of binding properties of immobilized surface sites.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current research efforts to improve immunoassay-biosensor functionality have centered on detection through the optimal design of microfluidic chambers, electrical circuitry, optical sensing elements, and so on. To date, little attention has been paid to the immunoassay-biosensor membrane surface on which interactions between antibodies and antigens must occur. For this reason, the objective of the present study was to manipulate the nanometer surface roughness of a model immunoassay-biosensor membrane to determine its role on sensitivity and specificity. It was hypothesized that surface roughness characteristics similar to those used by the body's own immune system with B-lymphocyte cell membranes would promote antigen-antibody interactions and minimize non-specific binding. To test this hypothesis, polystyrene 96-well plate surfaces were modified to possess similar topographies as those of B-lymphocyte cell membranes. This was accomplished by immobilizing Protein A conjugated gold particles and Protein A conjugated polystyrene particles ranging in sizes from 40 to 860 nm to the bottom of polystyrene wells. Atomic force microscopy results provided evidence of well-dispersed immunoassay-biosensor surfaces for all particles tested with high degrees of biologically inspired nanometer roughness. Testing the functionality of these immunosurfaces using antigenic fluorescent microspheres showed that specific antigen capture increased with greater nanometer surface roughness while nonspecific antigen capture did not correlate with surface roughness. In this manner, results from this study suggest that large degrees of biologically inspired nanometer surface roughness not only increases the amount of immobilized antibodies onto the immunosurface membrane, but it also enhances the functionality of those antibodies for optimal antigen capture, criteria critical for improving immunoassay-biosensor sensitivity and specificity.
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.