2000
DOI: 10.1006/abio.2000.4844
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implementation of Force Differentiation in the Immunoassay

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
38
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A magnetic field gradient can be applied to attract magnetic beads to the chip or to selectively pull off only those beads not bound to the surface by specific binding. The field can be generated by external permanent magnets or electromagnets (Lee et al 2000), electromagnets integrated with the chip (Edelstein et al 2000), or by current-carrying lines positioned close to the chip (Lagae et al 2002). Bound beads are detected by the GMR sensors by applying a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the substrate, imposing a magnetic moment to the superparamagnetic beads.…”
Section: Magnetic Beads As Labels For Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A magnetic field gradient can be applied to attract magnetic beads to the chip or to selectively pull off only those beads not bound to the surface by specific binding. The field can be generated by external permanent magnets or electromagnets (Lee et al 2000), electromagnets integrated with the chip (Edelstein et al 2000), or by current-carrying lines positioned close to the chip (Lagae et al 2002). Bound beads are detected by the GMR sensors by applying a uniform magnetic field perpendicular to the substrate, imposing a magnetic moment to the superparamagnetic beads.…”
Section: Magnetic Beads As Labels For Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Factors that determine the optimal bead size include the settling times for suspended beads (i.e. their buoyancy), the magnitude of the force that can be applied to the settled beads (to discriminate against biochemical background [12,19]), and the sensor response. As discussed previously, we have evaluated a number of commercial paramagnetic particles and currently use Dynal M-280 beads [2].…”
Section: Magnetic Bead Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We then apply a magnetic field gradient to create a controlled vertical force on each bead that selectively pulls off only those beads not bound to the surface by specific binding. This force discrimination assay increases the sensitivity of detection by greatly reducing the background bead density and thereby permitting very low bead densities to be detected with confidence [12,19]. Finally, an AC magnetic field is applied, magnetizing the beads to generate sensing fields.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several bioassay methods have been developed that exploit this differential in binding by applying magnetic forces to microparticle labels, a technique known as magnetic force discrimination (MFD) (Baselt et al, 1998;Edelstein et al, 2000;Lee et al, 2000;Rife et al, 2003). With commercially available paramagnetic microbeads and simple magnetic geometries, MFD forces are limited to ~1 pN; therefore, the nonfouling properties of the substrate must be very tightly controlled for MFD to be effective.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, we find microbead labels offer two significant advantages over smaller labels that far outweigh any disadvantages from the size mismatch. First, it is far simpler to detect low numbers of microbeads than molecular fluorophores, chromophores, or nanoparticles, with individual microbeads readily counted with routine optical microscopy (Lee et al, 2000;Mulvaney et al, 2004) or magnetic detection (Rife et al, 2003;Rife and Whitman, 2004). Second, and more significantly, we find that if a controlled laminar flow is maintained at the capture surface, fluidic drag forces can be applied to the microbead labels to preferentially remove nonspecifically bound labels and thereby dramatically improve the assay performance (Rife and Whitman, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%