ChemComm
Communication
respectively. Hence, both intra-assay and inter-assay verified
acceptable reproducibility. In addition, the immunosensor
displayed satisfactory stability. As much as 90% of the initial
current was preserved after storage of the immunosensor and
Fc-pAb2 at 4 1C for 30 days.
Finally, the accuracy of the electrochemical immunoassay
method was evaluated for testing 10 clinical serum specimens,
which were collected from Fujian Provincial Hospital of China
according to the rules of the local ethical committee. The obtained
results were compared with those of the commercialized electro-
chemiluminescent immunoassay (ECLIA) method. As shown in
Table S2 (ESI†), no significant differences were encountered between
the two methods at the 0.05 significance level because all the texp
values in the case were less than tcrit (tcrit[4,0.05] = 2.77). Hence, the
SQA-stimulated electrocatalytic reaction could be regarded as an
optional scheme for detecting AFP in real samples.
Fig. 3 Comparison of electrochemical responses of the as-prepared immuno-
sensor toward AFP standards with various concentrations using different catalytic
substrates in pH 7.4 PBS containing (a) 1.0 mM SQA and 1.0 mM TCEP, (b) 1.0 mM
L-ascorbic acid and 1.0 mM TCEP.
In summary, this work demonstrates a novel and enzyme-free
amplified immunoassay strategy for sensitive electronic detection of
low-abundance protein, using an SQA-stimulated electrocatalytic
reaction and the cycling signal amplification protocol. Compared
with conventional amplified strategies based on enzyme labels or
nanolabels, the method is simple, low-cost and highly efficient.
Further, SQA with a unique crystal structure can be utilized for the
in situ amplification of the electrochemical signal. Although the
present assay system focuses on the determination of target AFP, it
can be easily extended for sensing other biomolecules.
Fig. 4 (a) Calibration plots of the electrochemical immunoassay toward AFP
standards in pH 7.4 PBS containing 1.0 mM SQA and 1.0 mM TCEP (inset: the
corresponding DPV curves). (b) The specificity of the electrochemical immuno-
assay (0.1 ng mLÀ1 AFP and 100 ng mLÀ1 interfering agents used in this case).
Support from the ‘‘973’’ National Basic Research Program of
China (2010CB732403), NSFC of China (21075019, 41176079), the
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of
China (20103514120003), the China–Russia Bilateral Scientific
meet the requirement of clinical diagnostics. Although the system Cooperation Research Program (21211120157), and the National
has not yet been optimized for maximum efficiency, importantly, Science Foundation of Fujian Province (2011J06003) is gratefully
the sensitivity of using SQA as the enhancer was over 1000-fold acknowledged.
lower than that of commercially available AFP ELISA kits
(1.0 ng mLÀ1, Genway Biotech. Inc.).11
Notes and references
To evaluate the specificity of the developed immunoassay for AFP
detection, we challenged the system with other interfering sub-
stances, e.g. carcinoma embryonic antigen (CEA), thyroid-stimulating
hormone (TSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), rabbit IgG (RIgG), uric
acid, ascorbic acid, acetaminophen, cholesterol, creatinine, para-
cetamol, bilirubin, ibuprofen, dopamine, salicylate, tolazamide and
tolbutamide. The assay was carried out with the same experimental
procedures. As indicated in Fig. 4b and Fig. S4 (ESI†), a significantly
higher current was observed with the target AFP than with other
proteins. These results indicated that the components coexisting in
the sample matrix did not interfere in the determination of AFP, i.e.,
the electrochemical immunoassay was shown to be sufficiently
selective for detection of AFP.
Next, the precision of the developed immunoassay was monitored
by assaying 0.01, 1.0 and 100 ng mLÀ1 AFP as examples, using
identical batches of immunosensor and Fc-pAb2. Experimental results
indicated that the coefficients of variation (CVs, n = 3) of the intra-
assay were 7.8, 5.8 and 6.9% for 0.01, 1.0 and 100 ng mLÀ1 AFP,
respectively, whereas the CVs of the inter-assay with various batches
1 (a) D. Basak, C. Versek, D. Toscano, S. Christensen, M. Tuominen
and D. Venkataraman, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 5922; (b) L. Swartz
and L. Howard, J. Phys. Chem., 1971, 75, 1798.
2 (a) D. Semmingse, F. Hollander and T. Koetzle, J. Chem. Phys., 1977,
66, 4405; (b) Z. Dega-Szafran, A. Katrusiak and M. Szafran, J. Mol.
Struct., 2012, 1030, 184.
3 (a) A. Roedig and G. Markl, Justus Liebigs Ann. Chem., 1960, 636, 1;
(b) Y. Huang, Y. Lai and S. Wang, Chem.–Eur. J., 2012, 18, 8614.
4 (a) H. Terao, T. Sugawara, Y. Kita, E. Kaho and S. Takeda, J. Am.
Chem. Soc., 2001, 123, 10468; (b) R. West and H. Niu, J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 1963, 85, 2589.
5 (a) G. Maahs and P. Hegenberg, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 1966,
5, 888; (b) K. Lee, J. Kweon, I. Oh and C. Lee, J. Phys. Chem. Solids,
2012, 73, 890.
6 (a) D. Basak, C. Versek, D. Toscano, S. Christensen, M. Tuominen and
D. Venkataraman, Chem. Commun., 2012, 48, 5922; (b) C. Dingels,
F. Wurm, M. Wagner, H. Klok and H. Frey, Chem.–Eur. J., 2012,
18, 16828.
7 J. Das, M. Aziz and H. Yang, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2006, 128, 16022.
8 M. Akanda, M. Aziz, K. Jo, V. Tamilavan, M. Hyun, S. Kim and
H. Yang, Anal. Chem., 2011, 83, 3926.
9 W. Hummers and R. Offeman, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1958, 80, 1339.
10 Y. Guo, B. Wu, H. Liu, Y. Ma, Y. Yang, J. Zheng, G. Yu and Y. Liu,
Adv. Mater., 2011, 23, 4626.
c
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013
Chem. Commun., 2013, 49, 4761--4763 4763