ArticlePloS one2014
Comparison of static and microfluidic protease assays using modified bioluminescence resonance energy transfer chemistry.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protease Substrate-Independent Universal Assay for Monitoring Digestion of Native Unmodified Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Resonance Energy Transfer-Based Biosensors for Point-of-Need Diagnosis-Progress and Perspectives.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Sub-nanomolar detection of thrombin activity on a microfluidic chip.Biomicrofluidics · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluorescence and bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (F/BRET) are two forms of Förster resonance energy transfer, which can be used for optical transduction of biosensors. BRET has several advantages over fluorescence-based technologies because it does not require an external light source. There would be benefits in combining BRET transduction with microfluidics but the low luminance of BRET has made this challenging until now. METHODOLOGY: We used a thrombin bioprobe based on a form of BRET (BRET(H)), which uses the BRET(1) substrate, native coelenterazine, with the typical BRET(2) donor and acceptor proteins linked by a thrombin target peptide. The microfluidic assay was carried out in a Y-shaped microfluidic network. The dependence of the BRET(H) ratio on the measurement location, flow rate and bioprobe concentration was quantified. Results were compared with the same bioprobe in a static microwell plate assay. PRINCIPAL
findingsThe BRET(H) thrombin bioprobe has a lower limit of detection (LOD) than previously reported for the equivalent BRET(1)-based version but it is substantially brighter than the BRET(2) version. The normalised BRET(H) ratio of the bioprobe changed 32% following complete cleavage by thrombin and 31% in the microfluidic format. The LOD for thrombin in the microfluidic format was 27 pM, compared with an LOD of 310 pM, using the same bioprobe in a static microwell assay, and two orders of magnitude lower than reported for other microfluidic chip-based protease assays.
conclusionsThese data demonstrate that BRET based microfluidic assays are feasible and that BRET(H) provides a useful test bed for optimising BRET-based microfluidics. This approach may be convenient for a wide range of applications requiring sensitive detection and/or quantification of chemical or biological analytes.
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.