Enzyme Channelling Immunoassay (ECIA): A Unique and Rapid Quantitative Technique
- 33 Downloads
Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) have been widely used for several years to measure accurately minute amounts of substances in different test samples or analytes (Monroe, 1983, 1984, 1985). As compared with various alternative methods, EIAs offer a safe, easy, and rapid means of analysis by simply mixing the sample with certain reagents which include an enzyme conjugate. Resulting enzyme activity associated with immune-complex formation can then be quickly measured and is related to the quantity of a specific substance present.
KeywordsTest Strip Paper Strip Enzyme Conjugate Developer Solution Sodium Metaperiodate
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Hopper, G. D., Wagman, B. and Tillson, S. (1986). On-site theophylline analysis using enzyme immunochromatography. Am. Clin. Prods. Rev. 5(11), 36–41.Google Scholar
- Monroe, D. (1983). ELISA: a versatile chemical tool. Am. Clin. Prods. Rev. 2(3), 22–27.Google Scholar
- Monroe, D. (1984). Enzyme immunoassay. Anal. Chem. 56(8), 921A–931A.Google Scholar
- Monroe, D. (1985). The solid-phase enzyme-linked immunospot assay: current and potential applications. Biotechniques 3(3), 222–229.Google Scholar
- Norman, R. J., Chard, T. and Lewings, C. (1985). Dipstick method for human chorionic gonadotropin suitable for emergency use on whole blood and other fluids. Lancet 19–20.Google Scholar
- Vaughan, L. M., Milavetz, G., Ellis, E., Szefler, S. J., Conboy, K., Carrice, J., Weinberger, M. M., Tillson, S., Jennes, J., Wiener, M. B. and Shaughnessy, T. (1986). Multicentre evaluation of disposable visual measuring device to assay theophylline from capillary blood sample. Lancet 184–186.Google Scholar
- Wilson, M. B. and Nakane, P. K. (1978). Recent developments in the periodate method conjugation of horseradish peroxidase to antibodies. In Knapp, W., Holubar, R. and Wick, G. (eds.), Immunofluorescence and Related Staining Techniques, Elsevier-North Holland Biochemical Press, New York, Amsterdam, pp. 215–224.Google Scholar