Determination of Lactoferrin and Immunoglobulin G in Animal Milks by New Immunosensors

Campanella, Luigí; Martini, Elisabetta; Pintore, Manuela; Tomassetti, M.

doi:10.3390/s90302202

Cited by 36 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(69 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, Lfe was quantified by SDS-PAGE method and it average level was of 0.332 g/kg. This level was similar to those of Campanella et al (2009). Using immunosensor method, those authors found Lfe concentrations of 232.0 mg/L in raw buffalo milk.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Lactoferrin Concentration in Buffalo Milk

Giacinti

Basiricò

Ronchi

et al. 2013

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to quantify lactoferrin (Lfe) in buffalo milk and to examine the factors affecting milk Lfe, such as the lactation stage, daily milk yield, parity, and milk somatic cells count (SCC). Milk Lfe concentration was detected by the SDS-polyacrilamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). The overall mean of Lfe concentration was 0.332±0.165 g/kg and ranged from 0.030 to 0.813 g/kg. Milk Lfe concentrations increased (P<0.01) with the increase of days in milk, but it was not affected by parity. Milk Lfe concentration was significantly affected by SCC. The differences became significant when the levels of SCC increased up to 200,000/mL. This is the first investigation on the levels of Lfe in buffalo milk in reference to daily milk production, lactation stage, parity and SCC. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between Lfe and SCC in buffalo milk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Lactoferrin Concentration in Buffalo Milk

Giacinti

Basiricò

Ronchi

et al. 2013

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adrian et al [145] also presented multidrug family detection in milk, following sample dilution, using a flow-based wavelength-interrogated optical biosensor Clenbuterol Labelled residue competition for antibody (optical-fluorescent) [161] Honey Chloramphenicol Antibody competition with nanoparticle enhancement (optical-SPR) [162] Sulfathiazole Antibody competition (optical-fluorescent) [141] Honey/milk Tetracyclines Receptor competition (optical-SPR) [163] Milk Anti-inflammatory drugs Enzyme inhibition (electrochemical-amperometric) [164] Benzimidazole Antibody competition (optical-SPR) […”

Section: Future For Biosensors For Drug Residuesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Biosensors for the analysis of microbiological and chemical contaminants in food

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increases in food production and the ever-present threat of food contamination from microbiological and chemical sources have led the food industry and regulators to pursue rapid, inexpensive methods of analysis to safeguard the health and safety of the consumer. Although sophisticated techniques such as chromatography and spectrometry provide more accurate and conclusive results, screening tests allow a much higher throughput of samples at a lower cost and with less operator training, so larger numbers of samples can be analysed. Biosensors combine a biological recognition element (enzyme, antibody, receptor) with a transducer to produce a measurable signal proportional to the extent of interaction between the recognition element and the analyte. The different uses of the biosensing instrumentation available today are extremely varied, with food analysis as an emerging and growing application. The advantages offered by biosensors over other screening methods such as radioimmunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, fluorescence immunoassay and luminescence immunoassay, with respect to food analysis, include automation, improved reproducibility, speed of analysis and real-time analysis. This article will provide a brief footing in history before reviewing the latest developments in biosensor applications for analysis of food contaminants (January 2007 to December 2010), focusing on the detection of pathogens, toxins, pesticides and veterinary drug residues by biosensors, with emphasis on articles showing data in food matrices. The main areas of development common to these groups of contaminants include multiplexing, the ability to simultaneously analyse a sample for more than one contaminant and portability. Biosensors currently have an important role in food safety; further advances in the technology, reagents and sample handling will surely reinforce this position.

show abstract

“…The lactoferrin (LF) content of buffalo and cow colostrum were extremely high but reached the normal level in mature milk after 15-30 days of parturition (Abd ElGawad et al 1996;Campanella et al 2009). The LF of buffalo milk varies widely from 0.05 mg·mL −1 (Abd El-Gawad et al 1996) in Egyptian buffaloes to 3.40 mg·mL −1 in Indian Murrah buffaloes (Maheshwari and Bhatia 1990) and in Italian buffaloes, 0.23 mg·mL −1 (Campanella et al 2009).…”

Section: Lactoferrinmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Determination of IgG by immunosensors (Campanella et al 2009) revealed averages of IgG at 0.67 and 0.77 mg·mL −1 in buffalo and cow milks, respectively. Interestingly, it was reported (El-Loly et al 2007) that IgG and IgM were not completely denatured in BM upon heating up to 88°C which may be due to the protective effect of the high protein content of BM.…”

Section: Immunoglobulinsmentioning

confidence: 99%