This growing collection consists of scholarly works authored by ASU-affiliated faculty, staff, and community members, and it contains many open access articles. ASU-affiliated authors are encouraged to Share Your Work in KEEP.

Displaying 41 - 43 of 43
Filtering by

Clear all filters

129156-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Structural mechanisms behind variations in glycosaminoglycan (GAG) affinities of decorin-binding protein As (DBPAs) from different Borrelia strains were investigated using NMR. DBPA from strain PBr was revealed to have an additional GAG-binding epitope and a retracted linker allowing more access to its GAG-binding sites.

ContributorsMorgan, Ashli (Author) / Wang, Xu (Author) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor)
Created2015-05-01
129147-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

To achieve improved sensitivity in cardiac biomarker detection, a batch incubation magnetic microbead immunoassay was developed and tested on three separate human protein targets: myoglobin, heart-type fatty acid binding protein, and cardiac troponin I. A sandwich immunoassay was performed in a simple micro-centrifuge tube allowing full dispersal of the solid

To achieve improved sensitivity in cardiac biomarker detection, a batch incubation magnetic microbead immunoassay was developed and tested on three separate human protein targets: myoglobin, heart-type fatty acid binding protein, and cardiac troponin I. A sandwich immunoassay was performed in a simple micro-centrifuge tube allowing full dispersal of the solid capture surface during incubations. Following magnetic bead capture and wash steps, samples were analyzed in the presence of a manipulated magnetic field utilizing a modified microscope slide and fluorescent inverted microscope to collect video data files. Analysis of the video data allowed for the quantitation of myoglobin, heart-type fatty acid binding protein and cardiac troponin I to levels of 360 aM, 67 fM, and 42 fM, respectively. Compared to the previous detection limit of 50 pM for myoglobin, this offers a five-fold improvement in sensitivity. This improvement in sensitivity and incorporation of additional markers, along with the small sample volumes required, suggest the potential of this platform for incorporation as a detection method in a total sample analysis device enabling multiplexed detection for the analysis of clinical samples.

ContributorsWoolley, Christine (Author) / Hayes, Mark (Author) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor)
Created2015-08-20
129146-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Electrophoretic and dielectrophoretic approaches to separations can provide unique capabilities. In the past, capillary and microchip-based approaches to electrophoresis have demonstrated extremely high-resolution separations. More recently, dielectrophoretic systems have shown excellent results for the separation of bioparticles. Here we demonstrate resolution of a difficult pair of targets: gentamicin resistant and

Electrophoretic and dielectrophoretic approaches to separations can provide unique capabilities. In the past, capillary and microchip-based approaches to electrophoresis have demonstrated extremely high-resolution separations. More recently, dielectrophoretic systems have shown excellent results for the separation of bioparticles. Here we demonstrate resolution of a difficult pair of targets: gentamicin resistant and susceptible strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis. This separation has significant potential implications for healthcare. This establishes a foundation for biophysical separations as a direct diagnostic tool, potentially improving nearly every figure of merit for diagnostics and antibiotic stewardship. The separations are performed on a modified gradient insulator-based dielectrophoresis (g-iDEP) system and demonstrate that the presence of antibiotic resistance enzymes (or secondary effects) produces a sufficient degree of electrophysical difference to allow separation. The differentiating factor is the ratio of electrophoretic to dielectrophoretic mobilities. This factor is 4.6 ± 0.6 × 109 V m−2 for the resistant strain, versus 9.2 ± 0.4 × 109 V m−2 for the susceptible strain. Using g-iDEP separation, this difference produces clear and easily discerned differentiation of the two strains.

ContributorsJones, Paul (Author) / Hilton, Shannon (Author) / Davis, Paige (Author) / McLemore, Ryan (Author) / McLaren, Alex (Author) / Hayes, Mark (Author) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor)
Created2015-06-09