Multiplex electrochemical sensing platforms for the detection of breast cancer biomarkers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Herein, advancements in electroanalytical devices for the simultaneous detection of diverse breast cancer (BC) markers are demonstrated. This article identifies several important areas of exploration for electrochemical diagnostics and highlights important factors that are pivotal for the successful deployment of novel bioanalytical devices. We have highlighted that the limits of detection (LOD) reported for the multiplex electrochemical biosensor can surpass the sensitivity displayed by current clinical standards such as ELISA, FISH, and PCR. HER-2; a breast cancer marker characterised by increased metastatic potential, more aggressive development, and poor clinical outcomes; can be sensed with a LOD of 0.5 ng/ml using electrochemical multiplex platforms, which falls within the range of that measured by ELISA (from picogram/ml to nanogram/ml). Electrochemical multiplex biosensors are reported with detection limits of 0.53 ng/ml and 0.21 U/ml for MUC-1 and CA 15-3, respectively, or 5.8 × 10 −3 U/ml for CA 15-3 alone. The sensitivity of electrochemical assays is improved when compared to conventional analysis of MUC-1 protein which is detected at 11–12 ng/ml, and ≤30 U/ml for CA 15-3 in the current clinical blood tests. The LOD for micro-ribonucleic acid (miRNA) biomarkers analyzed by electrochemical multiplex assays were all notedly superior at 9.79 × 10 −16 M, 3.58 × 10 −15 M, and 2.54 × 10 −16 M for miRNA-155, miRNA-21, and miRNA-16, respectively. The dogma in miRNA testing is the qRT-PCR method, which reports ranges in the ng/ml level for the same miRNAs. Breast cancer exosomes, which are being explored as a new frontier of biosensing, have been detected electrochemically with an LOD of 10 3 –10 8 particles/mL and can exceed detection limits seen by the tracking and analysis of nanoparticles (∼ 10 7 particles/ml), flow cytometry, Western blotting and ELISA, etc. A range of concentration at 78–5,000 pg/ml for RANKL and 16–1,000 pg/ml for TNF is reported for ELISA assay while LOD values of 2.6 and 3.0 pg/ml for RANKL and TNF, respectively, are demonstrated by the electrochemical dual immunoassay platform. Finally, EGFR and VEGF markers can be quantified at much lower concentrations (0.01 and 0.005 pg/ml for EGFR and VEGF, respectively) as compared to their ELISA assays (EGRF at 0.31–20 ng/ml and VEGF at 31.3–2,000 pg/ml). In this study we hope to answer several questions: (1) Are the limits of detection (LODs) reported for multiplex electrochemical biosensors of clinical relevance and how do they compare to well-established methods like ELISA, FISH, or PCR? (2) Can a single sensor electrode be used for the detection of multiple markers from one blood drop? (3) What mechanism of electrochemical biosensing is the most promising, and what technological advancements are needed to utilize these devices for multiplex POC detection? (4) Can nanotechnology advance the sensitive and selective diagnostics of multiple BC biomarkers? (5) Are there preferred receptors (antibody, nucleic acid or their combinations) and preferred biosensor designs (complementary methods, sandwich-type protocols, antibody/aptamer concept, label-free protocol)? (6) Why are we still without FDA-approved electrochemical multiplex devices for BC screening?
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».