This article reveals the first ever prospective application of Graphene-Rhodamine array (GRH) as a colorimetric and fluorimetric sensor for Hg(2+) ions. The duality of Graphene to undergo π-π and dispersive interactions with Rhodamine as well as to act as a selective adsorbent for Hg(2+) is conceptualized in this study. These interactions lead to decrease in absorbance of the dye in the presence of graphene, which is restored when kept in contact with Hg(2+) ions. The feasibility of the mechanism has been proved using EDTA as the coordinating ligand. It is noteworthy that all the optical variations occurred in the visible scale of the electromagnetic spectrum. The GRH array exhibited higher sensitivity toward the target ion with a limit of detection of 2 ppb. A perfect linear variation of absorbance at 554 nm with Hg(2+) concentration was observed in 0-1000 nM range, enabling the use of the system as a quantitative sensor for the test ion. The commendable selectivity of the array toward Hg(2+) ion has been investigated by observing the optical response in the presence of other environmentally relevant metal ions. A reversible turn off and turn on INHIBIT logic gate has been proposed which extends the scope of the designed array for the development of automated chemical systems. The fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) ability of graphene paves the backbone for the fluorimetric detection. Fluorimetric strategy yielded a much lower limit of detection of 380 ppt using this probe, which makes a significant advance in trace detection of Hg(2+) ions.
Hospitalized adult patients suffer from high rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), which puts them at risk for multiple nutrition problems. The etiology and management strategy of AKI has major implications for the management of the hospitalized patient. The purpose of this review is to understand the incidence and management of AKI in hospitalized adult patients and review the challenges to providing adequate nutrition support.
Aim:We determined the antibody response in cattle naturally infected with brucellosis and normal healthy adult cattle vaccinated during calf hood with strain 19.Materials and Methods:The antibody titers were measured by standard tube agglutination test (STAT), microtiter plate agglutination test (MAT), indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA) as per standard protocols.Results:The mean STAT titers were 1.963±0.345 in infected cattle and 1.200±0.155 in healthy vaccinated cattle. The difference was extremely significant (p<0.0001). The mean MAT titers were 2.244±0.727 in infected cattle and 1.200±0.155 in healthy vaccinated cattle. The difference was very significant (p<0.005). The mean IHA titers in infected cattle were 2.284±0.574, and those in healthy vaccinated cattle were 1.200±0.155. The difference was extremely significant (p=0.0002). However, the difference in mean iELISA titers of infected cattle (1.3678±0.014) and healthy vaccinated cattle (1.367±0.014) was non-significant. The infected animals showed very high titers of agglutinating antibodies compared to the vaccinated animals. However, it cannot be ascertained whether these antibodies are due to vaccine or response to infection. Since the infected animals had been vaccinated earlier, the current infection may suggest that vaccination was unable to induce protective levels of antibody. The heightened antibody response after infection may also indicate a secondary immune response to the antigens common to the vaccine strain and wild Brucella organisms.Conclusion:The brucellosis infected animals showed very high titers of agglutinating antibodies compared to the vaccinated animals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.