Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19280179›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2009

Bioconjugation techniques for microfluidic biosensors.

Julie M Goddard, David Erickson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Biopatterning for label-free detection.Colloids and surfaces. B, Biointerfaces · 2010
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie M GoddardSibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. jmg26@cornell.edu
David Erickson
Cornell University · US

Funding

Nanoscale Optofluidic Pathogen DetectionR21EB007031 · NIBIB · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI ERICKSON, DAVID CARL · 2007 to 2009
$554k
NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB007031NIBIB NIH HHS R21EB007031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have evaluated five bioconjugation chemistries for immobilizing DNA onto silicon substrates for microfluidic biosensing applications. Conjugation by organosilanes is compared with linkage by carbonyldiimidazole (CDI) activation of silanol groups and utilization of dendrimers. Chemistries were compared in terms of immobilization and hybridization density, stability under microfluidic flow-induced shear stress, and stability after extended storage in aqueous solutions. Conjugation by dendrimer tether provided the greatest hybridization efficiency; however, conjugation by aminosilane treated with glutaraldehyde yielded the greatest immobilization and hybridization densities, as well as enhanced stability to both shear stress and extended storage in an aqueous environment. Direct linkage by CDI activation provided sufficient immobilization and hybridization density and represents a novel DNA bioconjugation strategy. Although these chemistries were evaluated for use in microfluidic biosensors, the results provide meaningful insight to a number of nanobiotechnology applications for which microfluidic devices require surface biofunctionalization, for example vascular prostheses and implanted devices.

Indexed as

Biosensing TechniquesDNAMicrofluidicsMolecular StructureSpectroscopy, Fourier Transform InfraredDNA

Identifiers

PMID19280179
PMCPMC2715300
OpenAlexW2024002388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.