2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2014.11.045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improvement of recognition specificity of surface protein-imprinted magnetic microspheres by reducing nonspecific adsorption of competitors using 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The intensity of MIP1 to MIP4 is lower compared with MIP5 which is lower than MIP6, where they exhibited the intensity of XRD to be lower than that of corresponding NIPs. The lower functional monomers and higher amount of crosslinker led to the formation of the optimized thin layer from the monomeric mixture of MIP composition (Figure S4, Supporting Information), resulting in higher selectivity . The results indicated the MIP4 has the optimum functional monomers, crosslinker and template molar ratio of 158:88:1 (M:C:T) and consequently minimum nonspecific binding after the polymerization process …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The intensity of MIP1 to MIP4 is lower compared with MIP5 which is lower than MIP6, where they exhibited the intensity of XRD to be lower than that of corresponding NIPs. The lower functional monomers and higher amount of crosslinker led to the formation of the optimized thin layer from the monomeric mixture of MIP composition (Figure S4, Supporting Information), resulting in higher selectivity . The results indicated the MIP4 has the optimum functional monomers, crosslinker and template molar ratio of 158:88:1 (M:C:T) and consequently minimum nonspecific binding after the polymerization process …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The success of imprinting HSA in polymer is the ability to create optimized template cavities for target re‐inclusion. The variety of material surface for protein imprinting has been reported with high adsorption capacities of such as glass beads, silica beads, graphite materials, carbon nanotubes, nanowires, quantum dots, magnetic materials, and hydrogels . Hua et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, this approach is well suited for imprinting of biomacromolecules like proteins . Depending on application modes, the solid supports subjected to surface imprinting of proteins can be nanomaterials , electrodes , microspheres , membranes , and monoliths. Molecular imprinting of proteins in polymers attached to the surface of nanomaterials is currently a hot topic; however, this application mainly focuses on the fabrication of biosensors since the nanomaterials exhibit a remarkably large surface‐to‐volume ratio and size‐related physical and chemical properties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was found that experimental data of adsorbing Lyz were well fitted to the pseudo-second-order model (r > 0.99) for both MCNTs@Lyz-MIPs and MCNTs@NIPs, indicating that chemical process was the rate-limiting step during the adsorption [32]. The v 0 of MCNTs@Lyz-MIPs was much higher than that of MCNTs@NIPs, illustrating the presence of specific binding sites on the surface of MCNTs@Lyz-MIPs.…”
Section: Adsorption Kineticsmentioning
confidence: 88%