4.7 Review

Critical evaluation of aptamer binding for biosensor designs

Journal

TRAC-TRENDS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 146, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2021.116480

Keywords

Aptamers; Dissociation constant; Biosensors; Isothermal titration calorimetry; SELEX

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the past three decades, aptamer-based biosensors have been extensively studied. This article reviews recent papers that question the binding ability of popular aptamers and provides insights into the reasons for false positive results. It also highlights the importance of carefully designed controls and immobilized libraries for obtaining high-quality aptamers. The findings emphasize the need for validated aptamers in order to achieve meaningful results in biosensor design.
Over the last three decades, numerous aptamer-based biosensors have been reported. The basis of these sensors is the selective binding of target analytes by aptamers. In the last few years, a number of papers have been published questioning the binding ability of some popular aptamers such as those documented for As(III), ampicillin, chloramphenicol, isocarbophos, phorate and dopamine. In this article, these papers are reviewed, and the binding assays are described, which may provide possible reasons for obtaining false positive aptamers. Additionally, relevant aptamer selection methods and typical characterization steps are described. It is found that for small molecular targets, using an immobilized library might result in better aptamers. Furthermore, the importance of carefully designed controls to ensure the quality of binding assays is discussed, especially in the case of mutated nonbinding aptamers. Only then, with fully validated aptamers, can subsequent biosensor design bring about meaningful results. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available