Clinical Relevance of “Biomarkers” in Cancer Metabolism

Cancer biomarker profiling using nanozyme containing iron oxide loaded with gold particles

“…Also, oxides with a higher surface area oxidize twice as much HQ to quinone and pH had little or no effect on the oxidation of HQ in the presence of an iron oxide loaded surface material [38]. Unexpectedly, the amperometry profile (figure 4 and table 1) indicated a lower response in scheme 3(3), approximately 40 µA than the nanozyme assay in scheme 3 (1), approximately 100 µA. There was no signal response in scheme 3(2) containing MBs, suggesting there was a partial flow of electrons from nanozyme in the double-modified nanomaterials in scheme 3 (3).…”

“…Biomarkers are biological tools used for mapping the metastatic cascade in in vitro and in vivo environments. More recently, interest in cancer-based interface technologies is expanding the detection of early-stage disease [1]. However, cancer cells are highly heterogeneous, and the quantitative profiling of biomarkers using analytical methods of detection becomes imperative.…”

“…The direct capture method with EpCAM immobilised STE, produced a relatively low net signal response (⁓ 5 µA). Nonetheless, Scheme 3(1) pathway with nanozyme produced the highest signal response (⁓ 100 µA).We calculated the amperometry responses by considering the response without cells (control), response with cells and the net response of the biosensing platform (figure 4) according to the following calculations, Amperometry response, Amp(R) = IR (HQ/H2O2 stabilised response) -IR (HQ addition)(1) where IR (HQ/H2O2 stabilised response) is the stabilised current response at the addition of HQ/H2O2 and IR (HQ addition is the current response at the addition of HQ only). Here, we noted that HQ addition induced different current responses, attributed to the differentinterface layers.…”