ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Characteristics of Immunochromatographic Test Systems for Tylosin Antibiotic in Meat Products.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Tylosin (TYL) is a macrolide antibiotic widely used in animal husbandry. Due to associated health risks, there is a demand for sensitive methods for mass screening of TYL in products of animal origin. This article describes the development of lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) for TYL detection using direct (anti-TYL antibodies conjugated with nanoparticles) and indirect antibody labeling (anti-species antibodies conjugated with nanoparticles and combined with native anti-TYL antibodies). The choice of LFIA conditions, such as concentrations of hapten-protein conjugates, specific antibodies, and gold nanoparticle (GNP) conjugates with antibodies, as well as incubation time of reagents and the concentration of detergent in the sample buffer, is presented. The achieved limits of TYL detection using LFIAs with indirect labeling were 0.8 ng/mL (visual) and 0.07 ng/mL (instrumental), compared to 4 ng/mL (visual) and 0.4 ng/mL (instrumental) for the case of direct labeling. The sensitivity of the LFIA using the indirect format was up to seven times higher, allowing the determination of the target analyte at low concentrations. TYL detection in ground meat using LFIA with indirect antibody labeling ranged from 76-119%.
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.