A Magnetic Bead-Based Sensor for the Quantification of Multiple Prostate Cancer Biomarkers

Jokerst, Jesse V.; Chen, Zuxiong; Xu, Lingyun; Nolley, Rosalie; Chang, Edwin; Mitchell, Breeana L.; Brooks, James D.; Gambhir, Sanjiv S.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139484

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The capability of applying precise intracellular forces circumvents the cytoskeleton and directly exerts forces on the cell nucleus. Besides biophysical measurement, the submicrometer magnetic bead can also be chemically functionalized (e.g., with pH-sensitive or Ca 2+ -sensitive fluorophores) for intracellular biochemical sensing (62,63).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracellular manipulation and measurement with multipole magnetic tweezers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The capability to directly interrogate intracellular structures inside a single cell for measurement and manipulation is important for understanding subcellular and suborganelle activities, diagnosing diseases, and developing new therapeutic approaches. Compared with measurements of single cells, physical measurement and manipulation of subcellular structures and organelles remain underexplored. To improve intracellular physical measurement and manipulation, we have developed a multipole magnetic tweezers system for micromanipulation involving submicrometer position control and piconewton force control of a submicrometer magnetic bead inside a single cell for measurement in different locations (spatial) and different time points (temporal). The bead was three-dimensionally positioned in the cell using a generalized predictive controller that addresses the control challenge caused by the low bandwidth of visual feedback from high-resolution confocal imaging. The average positioning error was quantified to be 0.4 μm, slightly larger than the Brownian motion–imposed constraint (0.31 μm). The system is also capable of applying a force up to 60 pN with a resolution of 4 pN for a period of time longer than 30 min. The measurement results revealed that significantly higher stiffness exists in the nucleus’ major axis than in the minor axis. This stiffness polarity is likely attributed to the aligned actin filament. We also showed that the nucleus stiffens upon the application of an intracellularly applied force, which can be attributed to the response of structural protein lamin A/C and the intracellular stress fiber actin filaments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracellular manipulation and measurement with multipole magnetic tweezers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For total PSA and free PSA assay, we used native human PSA prepared in our laboratory as the standard [24]. The monoclonal antibodies were obtained from Meridian:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved detection of prostate cancer using a magneto-nanosensor assay for serum circulating autoantibodies

Lee

Hao

et al. 2019

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To develop a magneto-nanosensor (MNS) based multiplex assay to measure protein and autoantibody biomarkers from human serum for prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis. Materials and methods A 4-panel MNS autoantibody assay and a MNS protein assay were developed and optimized in our labs. Using these assays, serum concentration of six biomarkers including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) protein, free/total PSA ratio, as well as four autoantibodies against Parkinson disease 7 (PARK7), TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TARDBP), Talin 1 (TLN1), and Caldesmon 1 (CALD1) and were analyzed. Human serum samples from 99 patients (50 with non-cancer and 49 with clinically localized CaP) were evaluated. Results The MNS assay showed excellent performance characteristics and no cross-reactivity. All autoantibody assays showed a statistically significant difference between CaP and non-cancer samples except for PARK7. The most significant difference was the combination of the four autoantibodies as a panel in addition to the free/total PSA ratio. This combination had the highest area under the curve (AUC)– 0.916 in ROC analysis. Conclusions Our results suggest that this autoantibody panel along with PSA and free PSA have potential to segregate patients without cancer from those with prostate cancer with higher sensitivity and specificity than PSA alone.

show abstract

“…Another benefit of this detection method is the potential to detect antigens in the gas phase as well as in the liquid phase. A piezoelectric membrane-based approach with the application of magnetic beads to quantify seven PCa biomarkers including PSA was described [146]. The study dealt with the discrimination between 100 PCa (Gleason score 6 and 7 – a grading system used to evaluate the prostate biopsy samples) and 120 BPH patients.…”

Section: Piezoelectric and Other Alternative Methods For Psa Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study dealt with the discrimination between 100 PCa (Gleason score 6 and 7 – a grading system used to evaluate the prostate biopsy samples) and 120 BPH patients. For these seven proteins in serum samples, the highest AUC (area under the curve) discrimination was achieved with a spondin-2 or free/total PSA operation where the area under the curve was 0.84 with a p value below 10 −6 [146].…”

Section: Piezoelectric and Other Alternative Methods For Psa Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanomaterial-based biosensors for detection of prostate specific antigen

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening serum for the presence of prostate specific antigen (PSA) belongs to the most common approach for the detection of prostate cancer. This review (with 156 refs.) addresses recent developments in PSA detection based on the use of various kinds of nanomaterials. It starts with an introduction into the field, the significance of testing for PSA, and on current limitations. A first main section treats electrochemical biosensors for PSA, with subsections on methods based on the use of gold electrodes, graphene or graphene-oxide, carbon nanotubes, hybrid nanoparticles, and other types of nanoparticles. It also covers electrochemical methods based on the enzyme-like activity of PSA, on DNA-, aptamer- and biofuel cell-based methods, and on the detection of PSA via its glycan part. The next main section covers optical biosensors, with subsections on methods making use of surface plasmon resonance (SPR), localized SPR and plasmonic ELISA-like schemes. This is followed by subsections on methods based on the use of fiber optics, fluorescence, chemiluminescence, Raman scattering and SERS, electrochemiluminescence and cantilever-based methods. The most sensitive biosensors are the electrochemical ones, with lowest limits of detection (down to attomolar concentrations), followed by mass cantilever sensing and electrochemilumenescent strategies. Optical biosensors show lower performance, but are still more sensitive compared to standard ELISA. The most commonly applied nanomaterials are metal and carbon-based ones and their hybrid composites used for different amplification strategies. The most attractive sensing schemes are summarized in a Table. The review ends with a section on conclusions and perspectives.

show abstract

A Magnetic Bead-Based Sensor for the Quantification of Multiple Prostate Cancer Biomarkers

Cited by 17 publications

References 41 publications

Intracellular manipulation and measurement with multipole magnetic tweezers

Intracellular manipulation and measurement with multipole magnetic tweezers

Improved detection of prostate cancer using a magneto-nanosensor assay for serum circulating autoantibodies

Nanomaterial-based biosensors for detection of prostate specific antigen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About