Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33916687›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Current Trends and Challenges for Rapid SMART Diagnostics at Point-of-Site Testing for Marine Toxins.

Michael Dillon, Maja A Zaczek-Moczydlowska, Christine Edwards, Andrew D Turner, Peter I Miller, Heather Moore, April McKinney, Linda Lawton, Katrina Campbell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Michael DillonInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.
Maja A Zaczek-MoczydlowskaInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.
Christine EdwardsSchool of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen AB10 7GJ, UK.
Andrew D TurnerCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, The Nothe, Barrack Road, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1390-0924
Peter I MillerPlymouth Marine Laboratory, Remote Sensing Group, Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5292-8789
Heather MooreAgri-Food and Biosciences Institute, 18a Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 5PX, UK.
April McKinneyAgri-Food and Biosciences Institute, 18a Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT9 5PX, UK.
Linda LawtonSchool of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen AB10 7GJ, UK.
Katrina CampbellInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, 19 Chlorine Gardens, Belfast BT9 5DL, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S004211/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past twenty years marine biotoxin analysis in routine regulatory monitoring has advanced significantly in Europe (EU) and other regions from the use of the mouse bioassay (MBA) towards the high-end analytical techniques such as high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with tandem mass spectrometry (MS). Previously, acceptance of these advanced methods, in progressing away from the MBA, was hindered by a lack of commercial certified analytical standards for method development and validation. This has now been addressed whereby the availability of a wide range of analytical standards from several companies in the EU, North America and Asia has enhanced the development and validation of methods to the required regulatory standards. However, the cost of the high-end analytical equipment, lengthy procedures and the need for qualified personnel to perform analysis can still be a challenge for routine monitoring laboratories. In developing regions, aquaculture production is increasing and alternative inexpensive Sensitive, Measurable, Accurate and Real-Time (SMART) rapid point-of-site testing (POST) methods suitable for novice end users that can be validated and internationally accepted remain an objective for both regulators and the industry. The range of commercial testing kits on the market for marine toxin analysis remains limited and even more so those meeting the requirements for use in regulatory control. Individual assays include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and lateral flow membrane-based immunoassays (LFIA) for EU-regulated toxins, such as okadaic acid (OA) and dinophysistoxins (DTXs), saxitoxin (STX) and its analogues and domoic acid (DA) in the form of three separate tests offering varying costs and benefits for the industry. It can be observed from the literature that not only are developments and improvements ongoing for these assays, but there are also novel assays being developed using upcoming state-of-the-art biosensor technology. This review focuses on both currently available methods and recent advances in innovative methods for marine biotoxin testing and the end-user practicalities that need to be observed. Furthermore, it highlights trends that are influencing assay developments such as multiplexing capabilities and rapid POST, indicating potential detection methods that will shape the future market.

Indexed as

Marine ToxinsSaxitoxinAnimalsAsiaEuropeMiceOkadaic AcidMarine ToxinsOkadaic AcidSaxitoxinmarine toxinsmethods of analysismultiplex detectionPOSTSMART diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID33916687
PMCPMC8038394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.