ArticleACS omega2022
Optimization of an Antibody Microarray Printing Process Using a Designed Experiment.
Article in ACS omega, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated Covalent Microcontact Bioprinting of Lubricant-Infused Microarrays for Biological Assays.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- Development of a high-sensitivity vertical flow immunoassay for the detection of Rift Valley fever virus.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Advances in 3D printing combined with tissue engineering for nerve regeneration and repair.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- Design and Optimization of a Silicon-Based Electrokinetic Microchip for Sensitive Detection of Small Extracellular Vesicles.ACS sensors · 2024Article
- Comparison of blocking reagents for antibody microarray-based immunoassays on glass and paper membrane substrates.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Paper-Based Vertical Flow Immunoassay for the Point-of-Care Multiplex Detection of Radiation Dosimetry Genes.Cytogenetic and genome research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibody microarrays have proven useful in immunoassay-based point-of-care diagnostics for infectious diseases. Noncontact piezoelectric inkjet printing has advantages to print antibody microarrays on nitrocellulose substrates for this application due to its compatibility with sensitive solutions and substrates, simple droplet control, and potential for high-capacity printing. However, there remain real-world challenges in printing such microarrays, which motivated this study. The effects of three concentrations of capture antibody (cAb) reagents and nozzle hydrostatic pressures were chosen to investigate three responses: the number of printed membrane disks, dispensing performance, and microarray quality. Printing conditions were found to be most ideal with 5 mg/mL cAb and a nozzle hydrostatic pressure near zero, which produced 130 membrane disks in a single print versus the 10 membrane disks per print before optimization. These results serve to inform efficient printing of antibody microarrays on nitrocellulose membranes for rapid immunoassay-based detection of infectious diseases and beyond.
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.