ArticleElectrophoresis2024
Comparison between capillary electrophoresis and fluorescence anisotropy competitive immunoassay for glucagon.
Article in Electrophoresis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent Developments in Capillary and Microchip Electroseparations of Peptides (2023-mid 2025).Electrophoresis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Glucagon plays a crucial role in regulating glucose homeostasis; unfortunately, the mechanisms controlling its release are still unclear. Capillary electrophoresis (CE)- and fluorescence anisotropy (FA)-immunoassays (IA) have been used for online measurements of hormone secretion on microfluidic platforms, although their use in glucagon assays is less common. We set out to compare a glucagon-competitive IA using these two techniques. Theoretical calibration curves were generated for both CE- and FA-IA and results indicated that CE-IA provided higher sensitivity than FA-IA. These results were confirmed in an experiment where both assays showed limits of detection (LOD) of 30 nM, but the CE-IA had ∼300-fold larger sensitivity from 0 to 200 nM glucagon. However, in online experiments where reagents were mixed within the device, the sensitivity of the CE-IA was reduced ∼3-fold resulting in a higher LOD of 70 nM, whereas the FA-IA remained essentially unchanged. This lowered sensitivity in the online CE-IA was likely due to poor sampling by electroosmotic flow from the high salt solution necessary in online experiments, whereas pressure-based sampling used in FA-IA was not affected. We conclude that FA-IA, despite lowered sensitivity, is more suitable for online mixing scenarios due to the ability to use pressure-driven flow and other practical advantages such as the use of larger channels.
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.