Pokhrel Pravin, Jha Shashank, Giri Basant
Department of Biotechnology, Kantipur Valley College, Kumaripati, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Center for Analytical Sciences, Kathmandu Institute of Applied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Pract Lab Med. 2020 May 16;21:e00166. doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2020.e00166. eCollection 2020 Aug.
Paper-analytical devices (PADs) have gained popularity as a simple and low-cost alternative for determining a wide range of analytes including proteins. Even though several colorimetric PADs methods for protein estimation are reported in literature, they lack justification for the chosen method and parameters therein.
Major aim of this work was to thoroughly evaluate the most commonly used colorimetric protein assays and recommend the most appropriate method for PADs platform.
We performed following six colorimetric protein assays on PADs: biuret, lowry, bicinchoninic acid, bradford, bromocresol green, and tetrabromophenol blue. We obtained assay signal by analyzing images of the PADs and then assessed analytical figures of merit.
Precision, accuracy, LOD, and LOQ of PADs protein assay methods ranged from 1.2 to 6.4%, 73.3-102.4%, 0.3-3.8 mg/mL, and 1.2-12.8 mg/mL, respectively. Out of six methods, we determined bromocresol green and tetrabromophenol blue as the best methods for serum and urine samples, respectively based on their optimized parameters and analytical figures of merit. The total average serum and urine protein in human samples were found to be 94.6 ± 16.2 mg/mL and 2.1 ± 1.5 mg/mL, respectively using PADs methods. The PADs result on human samples moderately correlated with the results from spectrophotometric determination (r > 0.6).
Paper-based protein assays were easy to perform and were completed with thousand-fold less volume of samples/reagents without a spectrophotometer compared to conventional assay methods. After testing human samples, we found one protein assay method may not be appropriate for all types of samples.
纸基分析装置(PADs)作为一种简单且低成本的替代方法,可用于测定包括蛋白质在内的多种分析物,因而受到广泛关注。尽管文献中报道了几种用于蛋白质定量的比色PADs方法,但它们缺乏对所选方法及其参数的合理性说明。
本研究的主要目的是全面评估最常用的比色蛋白质测定方法,并为PADs平台推荐最合适的方法。
我们在PADs上进行了以下六种比色蛋白质测定:双缩脲法、洛里法、二喹啉甲酸法、考马斯亮蓝法、溴甲酚绿法和四溴酚蓝法。通过分析PADs的图像获得测定信号,然后评估分析性能指标。
PADs蛋白质测定方法的精密度、准确度、检测限和定量限分别为1.2%至6.4%、73.3%至102.4%、0.3至3.8mg/mL和1.2至12.8mg/mL。在这六种方法中,基于其优化参数和分析性能指标,我们分别确定溴甲酚绿法和四溴酚蓝法为血清和尿液样本的最佳方法。使用PADs方法测得的人体样本中血清和尿液总蛋白平均含量分别为94.6±16.2mg/mL和2.1±1.5mg/mL。PADs对人体样本的检测结果与分光光度法测定结果具有中等程度的相关性(r>0.6)。
与传统检测方法相比,基于纸基的蛋白质检测易于操作,所需样本/试剂体积减少数千倍,且无需使用分光光度计。在检测人体样本后,我们发现一种蛋白质检测方法可能并不适用于所有类型的样本。