Electrochemical techniques for characterization of stem-loop probe and linear probe-based DNA sensors

Rebecca Y. Lai, Bryce Walker, Kent Stormberg, Anita J. Zaitouna, Weiwei Yang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Here we present a summary of the sensor performance of the stem-loop probe (SLP) and linear probe (LP) electrochemical DNA sensors when interrogated using alternating current voltammetry (ACV), cyclic voltammetry (CV), and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). Specifically, we identified one critical parameter for each voltammetric technique that can be adjusted for optimal sensor performance. Overall, the SLP sensor displayed good sensor performance (i.e., 60. +. % signal attenuation in the presence of the target) over a wider range of experimental conditions when compared to the LP sensor. When used with ACV, the optimal frequency range was found to be between 5 and 5000. Hz, larger than the 5-100. Hz range observed with the LP sensor. A similar trend was observed for the two sensors in CV; the LP sensor was operational only at scan rates between 30 and 100. V/s, whereas the SLP sensor performed well at scan rates between 1 and 1000. V/s. Unlike ACV and CV, DPV has demonstrated to be a more versatile sensor interrogation technique for this class of sensors. Despite the minor differences in total signal attenuation upon hybridization to the target DNA, both SLP and LP sensors performed optimally under most pulse widths used in this study. More importantly, when used with longer pulse widths, both sensors showed "signal-on" behavior, which is generally more desirable for sensor applications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)267-275
Number of pages9
JournalMethods
Volume64
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 15 2013

Fingerprint

Electrochemical Techniques
DNA Probes
DNA
Sensors
Voltammetry
Cyclic voltammetry

Keywords

  • Alternating current voltammetry
  • Cyclic voltammetry
  • Differential pulse voltammetry
  • Linear probe E-DNA sensor
  • Methylene blue
  • Stem-loop probe E-DNA sensor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Molecular Biology
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)

Cite this

Electrochemical techniques for characterization of stem-loop probe and linear probe-based DNA sensors. / Lai, Rebecca Y.; Walker, Bryce; Stormberg, Kent; Zaitouna, Anita J.; Yang, Weiwei.

In: Methods, Vol. 64, No. 3, 15.12.2013, p. 267-275.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lai, Rebecca Y. ; Walker, Bryce ; Stormberg, Kent ; Zaitouna, Anita J. ; Yang, Weiwei. / Electrochemical techniques for characterization of stem-loop probe and linear probe-based DNA sensors. In: Methods. 2013 ; Vol. 64, No. 3. pp. 267-275.
@article{d7db530d790c42b9a6778fadc29e76ef,
title = "Electrochemical techniques for characterization of stem-loop probe and linear probe-based DNA sensors",
abstract = "Here we present a summary of the sensor performance of the stem-loop probe (SLP) and linear probe (LP) electrochemical DNA sensors when interrogated using alternating current voltammetry (ACV), cyclic voltammetry (CV), and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). Specifically, we identified one critical parameter for each voltammetric technique that can be adjusted for optimal sensor performance. Overall, the SLP sensor displayed good sensor performance (i.e., 60. +. {\%} signal attenuation in the presence of the target) over a wider range of experimental conditions when compared to the LP sensor. When used with ACV, the optimal frequency range was found to be between 5 and 5000. Hz, larger than the 5-100. Hz range observed with the LP sensor. A similar trend was observed for the two sensors in CV; the LP sensor was operational only at scan rates between 30 and 100. V/s, whereas the SLP sensor performed well at scan rates between 1 and 1000. V/s. Unlike ACV and CV, DPV has demonstrated to be a more versatile sensor interrogation technique for this class of sensors. Despite the minor differences in total signal attenuation upon hybridization to the target DNA, both SLP and LP sensors performed optimally under most pulse widths used in this study. More importantly, when used with longer pulse widths, both sensors showed {"}signal-on{"} behavior, which is generally more desirable for sensor applications.",
keywords = "Alternating current voltammetry, Cyclic voltammetry, Differential pulse voltammetry, Linear probe E-DNA sensor, Methylene blue, Stem-loop probe E-DNA sensor",
author = "Lai, {Rebecca Y.} and Bryce Walker and Kent Stormberg and Zaitouna, {Anita J.} and Weiwei Yang",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.07.041",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "64",
pages = "267--275",
journal = "ImmunoMethods",
issn = "1046-2023",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electrochemical techniques for characterization of stem-loop probe and linear probe-based DNA sensors

AU - Lai, Rebecca Y.

AU - Walker, Bryce

AU - Stormberg, Kent

AU - Zaitouna, Anita J.

AU - Yang, Weiwei

PY - 2013/12/15

Y1 - 2013/12/15

N2 - Here we present a summary of the sensor performance of the stem-loop probe (SLP) and linear probe (LP) electrochemical DNA sensors when interrogated using alternating current voltammetry (ACV), cyclic voltammetry (CV), and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). Specifically, we identified one critical parameter for each voltammetric technique that can be adjusted for optimal sensor performance. Overall, the SLP sensor displayed good sensor performance (i.e., 60. +. % signal attenuation in the presence of the target) over a wider range of experimental conditions when compared to the LP sensor. When used with ACV, the optimal frequency range was found to be between 5 and 5000. Hz, larger than the 5-100. Hz range observed with the LP sensor. A similar trend was observed for the two sensors in CV; the LP sensor was operational only at scan rates between 30 and 100. V/s, whereas the SLP sensor performed well at scan rates between 1 and 1000. V/s. Unlike ACV and CV, DPV has demonstrated to be a more versatile sensor interrogation technique for this class of sensors. Despite the minor differences in total signal attenuation upon hybridization to the target DNA, both SLP and LP sensors performed optimally under most pulse widths used in this study. More importantly, when used with longer pulse widths, both sensors showed "signal-on" behavior, which is generally more desirable for sensor applications.

AB - Here we present a summary of the sensor performance of the stem-loop probe (SLP) and linear probe (LP) electrochemical DNA sensors when interrogated using alternating current voltammetry (ACV), cyclic voltammetry (CV), and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). Specifically, we identified one critical parameter for each voltammetric technique that can be adjusted for optimal sensor performance. Overall, the SLP sensor displayed good sensor performance (i.e., 60. +. % signal attenuation in the presence of the target) over a wider range of experimental conditions when compared to the LP sensor. When used with ACV, the optimal frequency range was found to be between 5 and 5000. Hz, larger than the 5-100. Hz range observed with the LP sensor. A similar trend was observed for the two sensors in CV; the LP sensor was operational only at scan rates between 30 and 100. V/s, whereas the SLP sensor performed well at scan rates between 1 and 1000. V/s. Unlike ACV and CV, DPV has demonstrated to be a more versatile sensor interrogation technique for this class of sensors. Despite the minor differences in total signal attenuation upon hybridization to the target DNA, both SLP and LP sensors performed optimally under most pulse widths used in this study. More importantly, when used with longer pulse widths, both sensors showed "signal-on" behavior, which is generally more desirable for sensor applications.

KW - Alternating current voltammetry

KW - Cyclic voltammetry

KW - Differential pulse voltammetry

KW - Linear probe E-DNA sensor

KW - Methylene blue

KW - Stem-loop probe E-DNA sensor

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888260225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84888260225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.07.041

DO - 10.1016/j.ymeth.2013.07.041

M3 - Article

C2 - 23933234

AN - SCOPUS:84888260225

VL - 64

SP - 267

EP - 275

JO - ImmunoMethods

JF - ImmunoMethods

SN - 1046-2023

IS - 3

ER -