比较三种免疫分析法检测微囊藻毒素-LR

张艺; 黄飚; 赵春城; 钮伟民; 金坚

doi:10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2015.05.017

比较三种免疫分析法检测微囊藻毒素-LR

Comparison of Three Immunoassay Methods for Microcystin-LR

摘要

摘要:
目的评估微囊藻毒素-LR(MC-LR)的时间分辨荧光免疫分析(TRFIA)、纳米均相时间分辨荧光免疫分析(NH-TRFIA)和酶联免疫分析(ELISA)三种免疫检测方法。

方法通过比较包被板、反应步骤、信号系统和试剂用量,分析反应条件的差异;通过分析灵敏度、精密度和准确性,比较上述方法的性能指标;通过检测实际样品,评估方法的可靠性。

结果 NH-TRFIA反应时间最短,试剂消耗量最少,灵敏度最高,量程宽;TRFIA信号最强,稳定性佳;三种方法精密度高,相对标准差均小于15%。三种方法检测实际样品与高效液相色谱法的分析结果差异无统计学意义,认为可靠。

结论 TRFIA和NH-TRFIA,技术优势明显,应用前景广阔。

Abstract:
Objective To compare the performance of enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA), time-resolved fluoro-immunoassay (TRFIA) and nano-homogeneous time-resolved fluoro-immunoassay (NH-TRFIA) for the detection of microcystin-LR (MC-LR).
Method The difference of reaction conditions of these three methods were evaluated by the comparison of coated microplates, reaction steps, signal systems and reagent consumption. The performance index of assays were assessed by their sensitivity, precision and accuracy. The reliability of these assays was obtained by effeative sample determination.
Results For NH-TRFIA method, the operating time was shorter, the reagent consumption was less, the sensitivity was better and the working range was wider than others two assay methods; for TRFIA method, the signal was stronger and the stability of signal was keeping longer. All the methods gave the good precision, since the relative standard devietions were all below 15%. The results of these assays were well correlated with the high performance liquid chromatography and showed good reliability.
Conclusion TRFIA and NH-TRFIA offered obvious technical advanfages, which might have a bright future in routine monitoring for MC-LR detection.

HTML全文

参考文献(20)

施引文献

资源附件(0)