Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34940267›Full record

ArticleBiosensors2021

Lateral Flow Immunoassay of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen with SERS-Based Registration: Development and Comparison with Traditional Immunoassays.

Kseniya V Serebrennikova, Nadezhda A Byzova, Anatoly V Zherdev, Nikolai G Khlebtsov, Boris N Khlebtsov, Sergey F Biketov, Boris B Dzantiev

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biosensors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kseniya V SerebrennikovaA.N. Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Research Center of Biotechnology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071 Moscow, Russia.
Nadezhda A ByzovaA.N. Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Research Center of Biotechnology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071 Moscow, Russia.
Anatoly V ZherdevA.N. Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Research Center of Biotechnology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-3008-2839
Nikolai G KhlebtsovInstitute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and Microorganisms, Russian Academy of Sciences, 410049 Saratov, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-2055-7784
Boris N KhlebtsovInstitute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and Microorganisms, Russian Academy of Sciences, 410049 Saratov, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-3996-5750
Sergey F BiketovState Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 142279 Obolensk, Moscow Region, Russia.
Boris B DzantievA.N. Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Research Center of Biotechnology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119071 Moscow, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-4008-4918
A N Bach Institute of Biochemistry · RUInstitute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and Microorganisms · RUSaratov State University · RUState Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · RU

Funding

Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia 075-15-2019-1671
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current COVID-19 pandemic has increased the demand for pathogen detection methods that combine low detection limits with rapid results. Despite the significant progress in methods and devices for nucleic acid amplification, immunochemical methods are still preferred for mass testing without specialized laboratories and highly qualified personnel. The most widely used immunoassays are microplate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with photometric detection and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) with visual results assessment. However, the disadvantage of ELISA is its considerable duration, and that of LFIA is its low sensitivity. In this study, the modified LFIA of a specific antigen of the causative agent of COVID-19, spike receptor-binding domain, was developed and characterized. This modified LFIA includes the use of gold nanoparticles with immobilized antibodies and 4-mercaptobenzoic acid as surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) nanotag and registration of the nanotag binding by SERS spectrometry. To enhance the sensitivity of LFIA-SERS analysis, we determined the optimal compositions of SERS nanotags and membranes used in LFIA. For benchmark comparison, ELISA and conventional colorimetric LFIA were used with the same immune reagents. The proposed method combines a low detection limit of 0.1 ng/mL (at 0.4 ng/mL for ELISA and 1 ng/mL for qualitative LFIA) with a short assay time equal to 20 min (at 3.5 h for ELISA and 15 min for LFIA). The results obtained demonstrate the promise of using the SERS effects in membrane immuno-analytical systems.

Indexed as

COVID-19ImmunoassayMetal NanoparticlesSpectrum Analysis, RamanAntigens, ViralCOVID-19 TestingGoldHumansSARS-CoV-2Antigens, ViralGoldimmunochromatographyRaman spectraSARS-CoV-2surface antigentest strips

Identifiers

PMID34940267
PMCPMC8699720
OpenAlexW4200053287

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.