ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Why Not Glycine Electrochemical Biosensors?
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monomeric Glycine oxidase from Azotobacter vinelandii for Glycine biosensing.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Article
- Polymer thin film-embedded metal oxide-modified electrochemical paper-based sensor for glycine detection.RSC advances · 2025Article
- An Innovative Enzymatic Surface Plasmon Resonance-Based Biosensor Designed for Precise Detection of Glycine Amino Acid.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Article
- Intradermal Glycine Detection with a Wearable Microneedle Biosensor: The First In Vivo Assay.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glycine monitoring is gaining importance as a biomarker in clinical analysis due to its involvement in multiple physiological functions, which results in glycine being one of the most analyzed biomolecules for diagnostics. This growing demand requires faster and more reliable, while affordable, analytical methods that can replace the current gold standard for glycine detection, which is based on sample extraction with subsequent use of liquid chromatography or fluorometric kits for its quantification in centralized laboratories. This work discusses electrochemical sensors and biosensors as an alternative option, focusing on their potential application for glycine determination in blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid, the three most widely used matrices for glycine analysis with clinical meaning. For electrochemical sensors, voltammetry/amperometry is the preferred readout (10 of the 13 papers collected in this review) and metal-based redox mediator modification is the predominant approach for electrode fabrication (11 of the 13 papers). However, none of the reported electrochemical sensors fulfill the requirements for direct analysis of biological fluids, most of them lacking appropriate selectivity, linear range of response, and/or capability of measuring at physiological conditions. Enhanced selectivity has been recently reported using biosensors (with an enzyme element in the electrode design), although this is still a very incipient approach. Currently, despite the benefits of electrochemistry, only optical biosensors have been successfully reported for glycine detection and, from all the inspected works, it is clear that bioengineering efforts will play a key role in the embellishment of selectivity and storage stability of the sensing element in the sensor.
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.