Probing antibody surface density and analyte antigen incubation time as dominant parameters influencing the antibody-antigen recognition events of a non-faradaic and diffusion-restricted electrochemical immunosensor

Abstract

Electrochemical sensors based on antibody-antigen recognition events are commonly used for the rapid, label-free, and sensitive detection of various analytes. However, various parameters at the bioelectronic interface, i.e., before and after the probe (such as an antibody) assembly onto the electrode, have a dominant influence on the underlying detection performance of analytes (such as an antigen). In this work, we thoroughly investigate the dependence of the bioelectronic interface characteristics on parameters that have not been investigated in depth: the antibody density on the electrode's surface and the antigen incubation time. For this important aim, we utilized the sensitive non-faradaic electrochemical impedance spectroscopy method. We showed that as the incubation time of the antigen-containing drop solution increased, a decrease was observed in both the solution resistance and the diffusional resistance with reflecting boundary elements, as well as the capacitive magnitude of a constant phase element, which decreased at a rate of 160 ± 30 kΩ/min, 800 ± 100 mΩ/min, and 520 ± 80 pF × s (α-1) /min, respectively. Using atomic force microscopy, we also showed that high antibody density led to thicker electrode coating than low antibody density, with rootmean-square roughness values of 2.2 ± 0.2 nm versus 1.28 ± 0.04 nm, respectively. Furthermore, we showed that as the antigen accumulated onto the electrode, the solution resistance increased for high antibody density and decreased for low antibody density. Finally, the antigen detection performance test yielded a better limit of detection for low antibody density than for high antibody density (0.26 μM vs 2.2 μM). Overall, we show here the importance of these two factors and how changing one parameter can drastically affect the desired outcome.

Combination of Carbon Nanofiber-Based Electrochemical Biosensor and Cotton Fiber: A Device for the Detection of the Middle-East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus

“…Moreover, the conformational change of the antibody–antigen complex may also play a role in the signal-on mechanism of the sensor, as it can give more access to the redox molecules to the surface, enhancing the electron transfer. Tunable signal-off and signal-on electrochemical sensors have been previously reported. , …”

“…Tunable signal-off and signalon electrochemical sensors have been previously reported. 41,42 Figure 3D shows the response (the % of the current change) of the two MERS-CoV biosensors towards the binding to the antibody. The results revealed that the responses of the two biosensors were almost similar.…”

An Electrochemical and Raman Scattering Dual Detection Biosensor for Rapid Screening and Biomolecular Profiling of Cancer Biomarkers

“…For each device functionalization, DSP solution was added to the chip surface and incubated for 2 h. Then, 10 µL of antibody mixed solution (stock) was added to each device surfaces for 2 h to immobilize one type of antibody to each electrode and then washed with 1 mM PBS for 3 times to remove unbound molecules. Then, the functionalized surfaces were rinsed with 10 mM (pH 8.0) Tris-HCl buffer to neutralized unreacted DSP molecules [36]. Finally, 0.1 µM 6-mercapto-1-hexanol (Sigma Aldrich, Australia) was incubated on the device surfaces for 10 min to block the remaining surfaces.…”

Label-Free, Novel Electrofluidic Capacitor Biosensor for Prostaglandin E2 Detection toward Early and Rapid Urinary Tract Infection Diagnosis

“…This was done based on the findings from a recent study by Zorea et al, where it was found that for non-faradaic EIS, with increasing incubation times the measurable values of interfacial capacitance (constant phase element) and resistance (solution and diffusional resistance) decrease. 35 Calibration dose-response curves for EIS-based PGE2 detection in artificial urine (n = 3) and pooled human urine (n = 3) were reported as percentage changes in impedance modulus at 100 Hz relative to a baseline or zero dose as a function of PGE2 concentration. Calibration dose-response curves for MS-based PGE2 detection in artificial urine (n = 3) and pooled human urine (n = 3) were reported as percentage changes in 1/capacitance 2 at 100 Hz relative to a baseline or zero dose as a function of PGE2 concentration.…”