2008
DOI: 10.1080/17458080802163421
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electronic DNA hybridisation detection in low-ionic strength solutions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Direct electrostatic immobilization of DNA molecules onto the FED surface is, in general, impossible due to electrostatic repulsion forces between the DNA and the FED surface with typically negatively charged gate insulators (e.g., SiO 2 , Ta 2 O 5 , Si 3 N 4 ). Therefore, a modification of the sensor surface by means of layer-by-layer (LbL) electrostatic adsorption of a cationic polyelectrolyte/ssDNA bilayer and subsequent hybridization with cDNA molecules becomes more popular in FED-based DNA biosensors design. ,, In contrast to often applied covalent immobilization methods that require time-consuming, cost-intensive procedures and complicated chemistry for functionalization of the gate surface and/or probe ssDNA, the LbL electrostatic adsorption technique is easy, fast, and applicable for substrates with any shapes and form. ,, The suitability of FEDs for the detection of adsorptively immobilized DNA has been demonstrated by modifying the gate surface of an EIS sensor and a floating-gate field-effect transistor by the positively charged poly- l -lysine. However, the recorded DNA-immobilization and hybridization signals were small (several mVs).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Direct electrostatic immobilization of DNA molecules onto the FED surface is, in general, impossible due to electrostatic repulsion forces between the DNA and the FED surface with typically negatively charged gate insulators (e.g., SiO 2 , Ta 2 O 5 , Si 3 N 4 ). Therefore, a modification of the sensor surface by means of layer-by-layer (LbL) electrostatic adsorption of a cationic polyelectrolyte/ssDNA bilayer and subsequent hybridization with cDNA molecules becomes more popular in FED-based DNA biosensors design. ,, In contrast to often applied covalent immobilization methods that require time-consuming, cost-intensive procedures and complicated chemistry for functionalization of the gate surface and/or probe ssDNA, the LbL electrostatic adsorption technique is easy, fast, and applicable for substrates with any shapes and form. ,, The suitability of FEDs for the detection of adsorptively immobilized DNA has been demonstrated by modifying the gate surface of an EIS sensor and a floating-gate field-effect transistor by the positively charged poly- l -lysine. However, the recorded DNA-immobilization and hybridization signals were small (several mVs).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this context, non-covalent surface attachment of probe ssDNA using electrostatic and/or hydrophobic interactions becomes more and more popular in DNA sensor design, including FED-based DNA biosensors. 38,[45][46][47] In this work, we present a new MLAPS-based DNA biosensor, where a simple strategy is used for a rapid immobilization of probe ssDNA molecules onto the gate surface via the layerby-layer (LbL) electrostatic adsorption of a weak-polyelectrolyte/ssDNA bilayer, and the subsequent label-free detection of DNA hybridization. If probe ssDNA molecules preferentially lie flat on the full length of the LAPS surface with negatively charged phosphate groups directed to the positively charged polyelectrolyte layer (in this study, poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH)) and the bases are exposed to the surrounding solution and readied for hybridization with complementary target DNA molecules, both the Debye screening effect and the electrostatic repulsion between target and probe DNA molecules are less effective, and therefore, a higher hybridization signal can be expected.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As represented in Fig. 5c, d, the analytes captured beyond the Debye length do not influence the Gao et al (2012); Hahm and Lieber 2004;Li et al (2004); Lin et al (2009); Zheng et al (2010) NW arrays 1E−13 to 1E−16 50 to 3600 Lu et al (2014); Zhang et al (2015) Planar FETs 1E−4 to 1E−7 300 to 54,000 1E−5 to 1E−7 300 to 1200 Braeken et al (2008); Freeman et al (2007); Sakata et al (2005); Shin et al 2004); Uno et al (2007); Xu et al (2016); Zafar et al (2018); Zayats et al (2006) Fig . 3 a-d Schematics of the iso-concentration diffusion lines (in blue) in close proximity and further from the sensor surface on planar, silicon nanowire, nanowires array, and high aspect ratio Fin FET, respectively.…”
Section: Limitations Of Bio-sensing Using Fetsmentioning
confidence: 93%