ArticleLab on a chip2012
Effects of sample delivery on analyte capture in porous bead sensors.
Article in Lab on a chip, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shear Histories Alter Local Shear Effects on Thrombus Nucleation and Growth.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Miniaturized Platform for Individual Coral Polyps Culture and Monitoring.Micromachines · 2020Article
- 3D Printing of Elastic Membranes for Fluidic Pumping and Demonstration of Reciprocation Inserts on the Microfluidic Disc.Micromachines · 2019Article
- Sensors that Learn: The Evolution from Taste Fingerprints to Patterns of Early Disease Detection.Micromachines · 2019Review
- Programmable Bio-nanochip Platform: A Point-of-Care Biosensor System with the Capacity To Learn.Accounts of chemical research · 2016Article
- Programmable bio-nano-chip system: a flexible point-of-care platform for bioscience and clinical measurements.Lab on a chip · 2015Article
- Real-time Detection of Breast Cancer Cells Using Peptide-functionalized Microcantilever Arrays.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Porous bead-based diagnostic platforms: bridging the gaps in healthcare.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sample delivery is a crucial aspect of point-of-care applications where sample volumes need to be low and assay times short, while providing high analytical and clinical sensitivity. In this paper, we explore the influence of the factors surrounding sample delivery on analyte capture in an immunoassay-based sensor array manifold of porous beads resting in individual wells. We model using computational fluid dynamics and a flow-through device containing beads sensitized specifically to C-reactive protein (CRP) to explore the effects of volume of sample, rate of sample delivery, and use of recirculation vs. unilateral delivery on the effectiveness of the capture of CRP on and within the porous bead sensor. Rate of sample delivery lends to the development of a time-dependent, shrinking depletion region around the bead exterior. Our findings reveal that at significantly high rates of delivery, unique to porous bead substrates, capture at the rim of the bead is reaction-limited, while capture in the interior of the bead is transport-limited. While the fluorescence signal results from the aggregate of captured material throughout the bead, multiple kinetic regimes exist within the bead. Further, under constant pressure conditions dictated by the array architecture, we reveal the existence of an optimal flow rate that generates the highest signal, under point-of-care constraints of limited-volume and limited-time. When high sensitivity is needed, recirculation can be implemented to overcome the analyte capture limitations due to volume and time constraints. Computational simulations agree with experimental results performed under similar conditions.
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.