ArticleMicromachines2025
Development and Comparative Evaluation of Two Enzyme-Based Amperometric Biosensor Designs for Alanine Aminotransferase Determination in Biological Fluids.
Article in Micromachines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is a key biomarker of liver function. Compared with conventional assays for ALT detection-which are expensive, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and require experienced personnel-biosensors represent a promising alternative, but it remains unclear which biorecognitive enzymatic configuration offers the best analytical performance for ALT detection. This study presents the development and comparative evaluation of two amperometric biosensors based on oxidase biorecognition elements: pyruvate oxidase (POx) and glutamate oxidase (GlOx). Enzymes were immobilized onto platinum electrodes under optimized conditions using entrapment for POx (pH 7.4, enzyme loading 1.62 U/µL, PVA-SbQ concentration 13.2%) and covalent crosslinking for GlOx (pH 6.5, enzyme loading 2.67%, glutaraldehyde concentration 0.3%). Analytical parameters were systematically assessed, including linear range (1-500 U/L for POx vs. 5-500 U/L for GlOx), limit of detection (1 U/L for both), and sensitivity (0.75 vs. 0.49 nA/min at 100 U/L). The POx-based biosensor demonstrated higher sensitivity and lower detection limits, whereas the GlOx-based biosensor exhibited greater stability in complex solutions and reduced assay costs due to a simpler working solution. Moreover, while the POx-based system is uniquely suited for ALT determination, the GlOx-based sensor can be affected by AST activity in samples but may also be adapted for targeted AST detection. Overall, the study highlights a trade-off between sensitivity, robustness, and versatility in ALT biosensor design, providing guidance for the rational development of clinically relevant devices.
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.