| Title |
Towards pain-free diagnosis of skin diseases through multiplexed microneedles: biomarker extraction and detection using a highly sensitive blotting method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Delivery and Translational Research, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13346-015-0231-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keng Wooi Ng, Wing Man Lau, Adrian C. Williams |
| Abstract |
Immunodiagnostic microneedles provide a novel way to extract protein biomarkers from the skin in a minimally invasive manner for analysis in vitro. The technology could overcome challenges in biomarker analysis specifically in solid tissue, which currently often involves invasive biopsies. This study describes the development of a multiplex immunodiagnostic device incorporating mechanisms to detect multiple antigens simultaneously, as well as internal assay controls for result validation. A novel detection method is also proposed. It enables signal detection specifically at microneedle tips and therefore may aid the construction of depth profiles of skin biomarkers. The detection method can be coupled with computerised densitometry for signal quantitation. The antigen specificity, sensitivity and functional stability of the device were assessed against a number of model biomarkers. Detection and analysis of endogenous antigens (interleukins 1α and 6) from the skin using the device was demonstrated. The results were verified using conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The detection limit of the microneedle device, at ≤10 pg/mL, was at least comparable to conventional plate-based solid-phase enzyme immunoassays. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 24% |
| Researcher | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 24% |
| Engineering | 8 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2015.
All research outputs
#8,194,284
of 25,393,528 outputs
Outputs from Drug Delivery and Translational Research
#214
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,295
of 279,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Delivery and Translational Research
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,528 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.