I have read a lot of articles and review articles regarding immunosensor, in the articles researcher compares the sensitivity of immunosensor vs ELISA. But other than this, I could not any distinguish advantage of immunosesnor over ELISA? Could anyone let me know the advantages of immunosensor over ELISA?
Dear Om,
I just would like to confirm the explanations given by Krysztof. In addition, as you certainly know, a lot of work has been dedicated to microfluidics which has the advantage (due to the very small size of the reaction volumes) to decrease the time-to-result in immunoassay. Additionnally, dependaning on the format, microsensors may also offer a nice way to pre-concentrate the analyte to detect and hence improve sensitivity.
In case of interest, you can get some more insights with a short general article we wrote few years ago: N. Lion, et al., Why the move to microfluidics for protein analysis?, Current opinion Biotech., 15(1), 2004, 31-37. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958166904000035)
There are plenty of other references, but I hope this will already be of some help.
All the best in your research and best regards. Frédéric
Hi Om, I think its the speed, what can be the advantage of immunosensors over ELISA. With immunosensors you can detect target antigen in minutes while by ELISA you will get your results in hours.
Dear Krzysztof Treder thanks for sharing information. I have some confusion, why that immunoreaction is rapid on immunosensor? what are the factors which make it more rapid than conventional ELISA? while we use same ELISA principle on immunosensor. Could you suggest me any reference to it?
There are at least 2 reasons. First, in ELISA antigen binding and its detection stages are separated in time while on immunosensors antigen binding to antibody directly triggers signal detected by proper detector (depending on the design of the detection system). Second, in case of biosensors entire antigen-antibody interaction is more similar to interaction occurring in liquid phase (which is driven by flow of analyte or by small surface of immersed probe) while in ELISA it is strictly 2 phase system - liquid analyte and solid phase bond antibodies so antigen needs more time to equilibrate between both phases. I can look later for good refs if you wish. And I am sure here ppl will provide you more detailed answers, I am not expert in the field of immunosensors (but I do work a lot with ELISA).
OK thanks for sharing info. Yes, I would appreciate if you could assist me in finding good reference article.
Dear Om,
I just would like to confirm the explanations given by Krysztof. In addition, as you certainly know, a lot of work has been dedicated to microfluidics which has the advantage (due to the very small size of the reaction volumes) to decrease the time-to-result in immunoassay. Additionnally, dependaning on the format, microsensors may also offer a nice way to pre-concentrate the analyte to detect and hence improve sensitivity.
In case of interest, you can get some more insights with a short general article we wrote few years ago: N. Lion, et al., Why the move to microfluidics for protein analysis?, Current opinion Biotech., 15(1), 2004, 31-37. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958166904000035)
There are plenty of other references, but I hope this will already be of some help.
All the best in your research and best regards. Frédéric
Dear Om, as I see, Frederic and Krzysztof provided good explanation. I would like to get my opinion about terminology. Biosensors (where immunosensors belong) are devices with tight junction between sensor and biorecognition element. In principle, it is another method that can be performed in disparate setting. Affinity of used antibody and type of labelling (if any) strongly influence the both method. Poor antibodies will cause that immunosensor will be poor. The same will happen to ELISA. As wrote Frederic and Krzystof, further improving such as miniatirizing, microfluid settlement or label free assay can make immunosensor advantageous over ELISA in fast field assay, personal assays etc. In standard clinical laboratories, ELISA will probably win the competition. On the other hand, some types of biosensors use the same interaction and antibodies so the differences in analytical parameters between ELISA and immunosensor is minimal.
Some comparisons and data in e.g.:
Defence Science Journal 57(3): 185-193
Electroanalysis 19 (24):2507-2512
The most sensitive and specific assay diagnosis for infectious disease are the laboratory-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA) methods. However, the methods mentioned above are costly, time consuming, and need qualified personnel and sophisticated instrumentation. Thus, alternative approaches are desirable. Immunosensors constitute an alternative and promising immunoassay technique that can be widely applied in many different areas.
In my opinion the biggest difference is the equipment on ELISA and miniaturization capability which they have biosensors. And not all biomarkers should be done with immunosensor but one that requires rapid detection and could be detected quantitatively in hospital emergency rooms for example cardiac biomarkers, maybe some pathogenic microorganisms.
Om,I see you got many good answers and also reference Frederic is directing you to, is very good one.
Biosensor is faster, rusable for many times anl it in most cases uses less 'immino-chemicals', which are expensive,e e.g. in attachment
Article Comparative study of Surface Plasmon Resonance, electrochemi...
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Immunology
- Immunology Techniques
- Immunoassay
- ELISA