ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2012
Towards in vitro molecular diagnostics using nanostructures.
Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2012. 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Nanowire Devices Applied in Simulating Neuromorphic Computing.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Nanowire-Based Biosensors: From Growth to Applications.Micromachines · 2018Review
- Nanotechnologies for In Vitro IgE Testing.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2017Review
- On the Use of Scalable NanoISFET Arrays of Silicon with Highly Reproducible Sensor Performance for Biosensor Applications.ACS omega · 2016Article
- Lanthanide nano-drums: a new class of molecular nanoparticles for potential biomedical applications.Faraday discussions · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanostructures appear to be promising for a number of applications in molecular diagnostics, mainly due to the increased surface-to-volume ratio they can offer, the very low limit of detection achievable, and the possibility to fabricate point-of-care diagnostic devices. In this paper, we review examples of the use of nanostructures as diagnostic tools that bring in marked improvements over prevalent classical assays. The focus is laid on the various sensing paradigms that possess the potential or have demonstrated the capability to replace or augment current analytical strategies. We start with a brief introduction of the various types of nanostructures and their physical properties that determine the transduction principle. This is followed by a concise collection of various functionalization protocols used to immobilize biomolecules on the nanostructure surface. The sensing paradigms are discussed in two contexts: the nanostructure acting as a label for detection, or the nanostructure acting as a support upon which the molecular recognition events take place. In order to be successful in the field of molecular diagnostics, it is important that the nanoanalytical tools be evaluated in the appropriate biological environment. The final section of the review compiles such examples, where the nanostructure-based diagnostic tools have been tested on realistic samples such as serum, demonstrating their analytical power even in the presence of complex matrix effects. The ability of nanodiagnostic tools to detect ultralow concentrations of one or more analytes coupled with portability and the use of low sample volumes is expected to have a broad impact in the field of molecular diagnostics.
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.