Next Article in Journal
Thermo-Mechanical Fluid–Structure Interaction Numerical Modelling and Experimental Validation of MEMS Electrothermal Actuators for Aqueous Biomedical Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
Performance Analysis of an Aperture-Coupled THz Antenna for Diagnosing Breast Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Robot-Assisted and Manual Cannula Insertion in Simulated Big-Bubble Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty
Previous Article in Special Issue
Advanced Theranostic Strategies for Viral Hepatitis Using Carbon Nanostructures
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

SiC Electrochemical Sensor Validation for Alzheimer Aβ42 Antigen Detection

by
Brayan Montero-Arevalo
1,*,
Bianca I. Seufert
2,
Mohammad S. Hossain
2,
Evans Bernardin
2,
Arash Takshi
2,
Stephen E. Saddow
2 and
Norelli Schettini
1,*
1
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla 081007, Colombia
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Micromachines 2023, 14(6), 1262; https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14061262
Submission received: 28 April 2023 / Revised: 7 June 2023 / Accepted: 13 June 2023 / Published: 16 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosensors for Biomedical and Environmental Applications)

Abstract

:
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease with only late-stage detection; thus, diagnosis is made when it is no longer possible to treat the disease, only its symptoms. Consequently, this often leads to caregivers who are the patient’s relatives, which adversely impacts the workforce along with severely diminishing the quality of life for all involved. It is, therefore, highly desirable to develop a fast, effective and reliable sensor to enable early-stage detection in an attempt to reverse disease progression. This research validates the detection of amyloid-beta 42 (Aβ42) using a Silicon Carbide (SiC) electrode, a fact that is unprecedented in the literature. Aβ42 is considered a reliable biomarker for AD detection, as reported in previous studies. To validate the detection with a SiC-based electrochemical sensor, a gold (Au) electrode-based electrochemical sensor was used as a control. The same cleaning, functionalization and Aβ1–28 antibody immobilization steps were used on both electrodes. Sensor validation was carried out by means of Cyclic Voltammetry (CV) and Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) aiming to detect an 0.5 µg·mL−142 concentration in 0.1 M buffer solution as a proof of concept. A repeatable peak directly related to the presence of Aβ42 was observed, indicating that a fast SiC-based electrochemical sensor was constructed and may prove to be a useful approach for the early detection of AD.

1. Introduction

Dementia, an early sign of Alzheimer’s disease, is a syndrome in which cognitive deterioration occurs and usually affects the elderly [1]. Currently, this disease affects around 55 million people around the world, and according to the world health organization, there are 10 million new cases reported each year. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) accounts for 60 to 70 percent of dementia cases and has no known cure, although early detection does allow for treatment to slow its progression [1].
AD is a type of brain disease caused by damage to the nerve cells in the brain, and the biggest challenge with this disease is that the first set of symptoms normally does not appear during the earliest stages of the disease. Symptoms may take 20 years or more to appear and are already a reflection of advanced brain damage. AD, when diagnosed, results in a life expectancy of 4 to 7 years [2]. One of the most accepted hypotheses, still under study, about the origin of AD is the so-called Amyloid cascade hypothesis [3]. This hypothesis states that Alzheimer’s disease is caused by an abnormal accumulation of Amyloid Beta (Aβ) plaques in various areas of the brain. These plaques act as a trigger for a cascade effect that includes neuronal injury and the formation of neurofibrillary tangles via the tau protein, which in turn leads to neuronal dysfunction and cell death for patients with AD [4,5]. The origin of AD can be traced back to Aβ peptides, which are present in two lengths of amino acids, Aβ40 and Aβ42, containing 40 and 42 amino acids, respectively. Aβ is produced through enzymatic action on the amyloid precursor protein (APP) by β and γ-secretase. This, in turn, releases the Aβ peptides, including Aβ40 and Aβ42 monomers, with the latter considered as the pathogenic species [4,5]. Consequently, Aβ42 monomers experience conformational change, first assembling into Aβ42 oligomers and then a continuous aggregation into Aβ42 fibers. These fibers then accumulate in the brain as amyloid plaques. Recent studies conducted by Castellani et al. also confirm the predominance of Aβ42 in affected areas of diagnosed AD brain tissue [5].
The available diagnostic measures for Alzheimer’s include psychological, genetic, brain imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests [6]. Psychological tests are quite inaccurate, and genetic tests are not always available. Brain imaging can be expensive, while CSF tests are invasive and extremely painful for the patient [7,8]. Considering that the treatment for AD can be more effective if it starts at the early stages of the disease, a simple, reliable, and relatively inexpensive early-stage diagnostic method should prove to be a tremendous improvement.
The reported studies on antibody-based biosensors are shown in Table 1, where it is observed that certain characteristics predominate, such as gold and carbon electrode materials and the use of mouse monoclonal antibodies. It is important to note that Lien et al. used a human monoclonal antibody [9], Rama et al. and Dai et al. used a rabbit monoclonal antibody [10,11], and Li et al. and Hsu et al. used a rabbit polyclonal antibody [12,13]. The latter draw attention because they are more tolerant to small changes in the nature of the antigen and are reported to offer more robust detection [14]. In practice, an AD biosensor would require a liquid sample for operation, which in most cases is CSF, which requires an invasive lumbar puncture. Non-invasive attempts have been made targeting other bodily fluids, such as blood and saliva. However, in these bodily fluids, the Aβ concentration is lower than in the CSF, where the cut-off value to differentiate between patients with dementia and healthy patients is 500 pg·mL−1. This requires detection techniques that allow for a significantly lower limit of detection (LOD) [15].
As observed in Table 1, most of the reported electrochemical biosensors have a LOD below the cut-off value to differentiate patients with dementia; this is due to their advantages regarding selectivity, sensitivity, and response time compared to other methods [16]. Among the parameters that can be measured with antibody-based biosensors, the following are the most common:
  • Electrical Current: Used in techniques such as Cyclic Voltammetry (CV), Square Wave Voltammetry (SWV), Differential Pulse Voltammetry (DPV), and Chronoamperometry (CA).
  • Electrical Impedance: Used in Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS).
  • Optical Luminescence: Used in Electrochemiluminescence (ECL).
Throughout the years, electrochemical biosensors have been used for biomedical research and many medical applications, mainly due to their simplicity, affordability, point-of-care strategies [17] and, in many cases, better LOD than other methods [16]. Additionally, antibodies are suited for element biorecognition because they provide the sensor with high specificity and sensitivity [18]. The application of metallic or carbon-based electrodes limits the potential window of an electrochemical-based biosensor to 1.23 V [19], at which water electrolysis occurs. However, wide energy bandgap materials, such as 4H-SiC, which has a potential window of 3.2 V, allow for the targeting of a wider range of organic molecules [20].
Thanks to its wide energy bandgap, silicon carbide (SiC) is characterized by low leakage currents and very low electronic noise [21], which makes it suitable as an electrode for biosensors and neuro-implant applications [22]. Furthermore, its performance in harsh environments [23] makes it ideal for the development of reusable biosensors since it can be subjected to multiple chemical processes using etching techniques without suffering any deterioration in its chemical properties.
Table 1. Electrochemical biosensors based on antibodies for Aβ42 detection.
Table 1. Electrochemical biosensors based on antibodies for Aβ42 detection.
Method *Electrode MaterialFunctionalizing Antibody42
Solution Media
42
Detection Range **
42
LOD **
Refs.
CVGold electrode1–42PBS 100 300   μ M 100   μ M [24]
SWVCarbon fiber microelectrodemHJ2, mHJ7.4Mice CSF 20 140   nM 20   nM [25]
CVGold electrode6E10aCSF 0.02 1.50   nM 10   pM [26]
EISAAO Sensing electrode12F4BSA 1 10 , 000   pg · mL 1 1   pg · mL 1 [27]
CVScreen printed carbon electrodeH31L21BSA 0.5 500   ng · mL 1 0.1   ng · mL 1 [10]
CVGold electrode6E10
12F4
aCSF 0.5 50   nM   0.05 0.5   nM 5   pM [28]
CV, EISGold Electrode6E10Nutrient Mixture F12- ~ 5   pM [29]
EISCarbon printed electrodeantimAβ0.02% (v/v) ammonia water at 200 mM concentration 0.01 100   nM 0.57   nM [9]
CAScreen printed carbon electrodeanti-AβHuman CSF, Serum and Plasma 20 12500   pg · mL 1 19   pg · mL 1 [30]
CV, DPVScreen printed gold electrode1–28CSF 5 800   pg · mL 1 5   pg · mL 1 [12]
SWV, EISGold electrodeDE2B4PBS 10 1000   pg · mL 1 5.2   pg · mL 1 [31]
ECLGlassy Carbon Electrodeanti-AβPBS 80   fg · mL 1 100   ng · mL 1 52   fg · mL 1 [32]
SWV, CV, EISGlassy Carbon Electrodeanti-AβPBS 0.0001 100   ng · mL 1 0.03   pg · mL 1 [33]
CVScreen printed carbon electrode12F4, 1E11Human Serum and Plasma 100   fM 25   nM 100   fM [34]
DPV, EISGold ElectrodeEPR9296PBS and Human Serum 0.0675 0.5   μ g   mL 1 0.0675   μ g · mL 1 [11]
LSVConductive silk fibroin-based immunoparticlesmOC31Serum 22.5 1125   pg · mL 1 3.74   pg · mL 1 [35]
EIS, CVICE (Ti+Au)anti-AβHuman Serum 0.01 10 , 000   ng · mL 1 100   pg · mL 1 [36]
EISICEanti-AβHuman Serum 10 100 , 000   pg · mL 1 7.5   pg · mL 1 [37]
DPVGraphene-modified Screen-printed electrodeH31L21Spiked human and mice plasmas 11   pM 55   nM 2.398   pM [38]
EISGold Electrode12F4PBS 10   pg   mL 1 100   ng   mL 1 113   fg   mL 1 [39]
CVGold Electrode1–28PBS 0.1   pg   mL 1 10 , 000   ng   mL 1 10.4   fg   mL 1 [13]
* LOD: Limit of Detection, CV: Cyclic Voltammetry, DPV: Differential Pulse Voltammetry, LSV: Linear Sweep Voltammetry, SWV: Square Wave Voltammetry, AAO: Anodic Aluminum Oxide, mAb: Monoclonal Antibody, aCSF: Artificial Cerebrospinal Fluid, ECL: Electrochemiluminescence, ICE: Interdigitated chain-shaped electrode. BSA: Bovine Serum Albumin. ** The units are reported as they appear in their respective research citations.
This work compares the electrochemical performance of bare gold (Au) and hexagonal crystalline silicon carbide (4H-SiC) electrodes [40] for Aβ42 detection. The presented results here show distinct features in the 4H-SiC electrode due to the feasibility of testing the sensor at a larger voltage range than what can be applied to a gold electrode.

2. Experimental

2.1. Apparatus and Electrodes

The CV and EIS measurements were carried out using a VersaSTAT 4 Potentiostat, where the 4H-SiC and Au electrodes were incorporated into a conventional three-electrode cell configuration. The 4H-SiC and Au electrodes were developed in previous works [40,41], respectively, then refurbished and used in this preliminary study.
The fabrication and performance of the 4H-SiC electrodes were detailed in Bernardin et al. [42]; however, the experimental procedure used in this work has been refined as it follows [40]. Figure 1 shows the mask design used to produce the single-ended 4H-SiC electrodes (top) and the test structures (bottom), along with the device cross-section delineating all materials used to construct the sensor.
4H-SiC sensor fabrication started with an epiwafer consisting of a p base layer (doping ~ 1 × 1016 cm−3) capped with a heavily doped n+ layer (doping ~ 5 × 1018 cm−3). The electrodes were realized using various standard microelectronic fabrication methods resulting in the device cross-section shown in Figure 1. The novel aspect of this device was the use of a degenerately doped n+ 4H-SiC electrode layer to realize metallic-like electron transport in a semiconductor mesa. Amorphous SiC (a-SiC) was used as a conformal insulator, thus resulting in a low-electrical impedance device with only SiC materials in contact with the analyte [43] and, in this case, the electrochemical environment.
The 4H-SiC electrodes were packaged in an electrochemical test well 3D printed in PLA for this purpose, as shown in Figure 2b, whereby the recording tips were exposed to the electrochemical solution while the rest of the sensor die (i.e., bonding pads) were dry (Figure 2a), thus allowing for connection of the metal bonding pads to the electrochemical apparatus.
The Au electrodes (RMS roughness < 2 nm) as shown in Figure 3b, were fabricated through the evaporation of an adhesion layer of 20 nm of chromium at a deposition rate of 2 Å·s−1 followed by 500 nm of gold at a deposition rate of ~1 Å·s−1 onto glass substrates [41].

2.2. Reagents and Solutions

Phosphate buffer solution (PBS), 3-Mercaptopropionic acid (MPA), N-(3-Dimethylaminopropyl)-N′-ethylcarbodiimide hydrochloride (EDC), N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS), concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4 95.0 to 98.0 w/w%), concentrated nitric acid (HNO3 70% w/w%), K3[Fe(CN)6], K4[Fe(CN)6], sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) were purchased from Sigma Aldrich and used in this study as described below.

2.3. Antibody and Antigen Solutions

1 mg of IgG in 0.1 mL (1 mg·mL−1) of PBS pH 7.4 with 0.09% sodium azide Amyloid Beta [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39] rabbit polyclonal antibody and 1 mg of lyophilized solid packaged Amyloid Beta [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] Peptide were obtained from Abbiotec. For the dissolution of the Amyloid Beta [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] Peptide, Abbiotec recommends the use of 100% DMSO, and for Amyloid Beta [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39] antibody, 0.1 M PBS solution was added until a concentration of 18.75 µg·mL−1 was reached.
This antibody was selected because it is a highly specific antibody [13], and it has also been used successfully on gold electrodes [12,13]. The Aβ concentration in solution during the functionalization of the electrode surface is crucial for successful detection. If the concentration is high while the Aβ42 target concentration is low, the electrochemical reaction will likely not be detected. For this reason, both the antibody and antigen concentrations of 18.75 μg·mL−1 and 0.5 μg·mL−1, respectively, were taken from Dai et al. research, where Aβ42 detection was successfully reported using a gold electrode [11].

2.4. Methods

2.4.1. Cleaning

Before starting the electrochemical experiments, the electrodes were cleaned based on the studies carried out previously [11,44,45]. The electrodes were first immersed in a 2 M NaOH solution for 15 min according to the study carried out by Schneider et al. [46] and then rinsed with deionized (DI) water for 30 s. Next, the electrodes were immersed in a 0.05 M H2SO4 solution for 3–5 min and then rinsed with DI water for 30 s. Lastly, the electrodes were immersed in a 0.05 M HNO3 solution for 3–5 min and then rinsed in DI water for 30 s. After the cleaning was completed, the electrodes were left to air dry. Refer to Figure 4a for reference.

2.4.2. Electrochemical Cells

In order to properly and accurately test each electrode, a 3-probe configuration was used for the electrochemical cell setup with an Ag/AgCl reference electrode, Pt wire as the counter electrode, and our electrode under test (Au or 4H-SiC) as the working electrode. All electrodes were then submerged in the liquid electrolyte with a pH of 7.4 with the following chemistry: 0.18417 g of K4Fe(CN)6, 0.1646 g of K3Fe(CN)6, and 100 mL PBS.

2.4.3. Procedure & Measurements

Once the electrodes were appropriately cleaned, they were characterized with CV and EIS measurements, as shown in Figure 4a. These readings were designated as the baseline for each electrode’s response. CV measurement settings were as follows: for the Au electrode, the sweep voltage was from −0.5 V to 0.5 V, while for the case of 4H-SiC with a wider electrochemical window, the voltage sweep was from −1.98 to 2.77 V. For EIS measurements a 50 mV amplitude signal with a frequency range from 10 kHz to 0.1 Hz was applied to both electrodes. Upon establishing the baseline performance of each electrode, the electrodes were subsequently functionalized using the procedure shown in Figure 4.
To functionalize the electrodes, they were first immersed in a 1 mM solution of 3-MPA in ethanol for 24 h to achieve a self-assembled monolayer (3-MPA-SAM), rinsed with DI water and then dried gently with air at room temperature. Afterward, the exposed end of the 3-MPA-SAM was functionalized by treating the electrodes in a solution of 0.1 M PBS containing 0.25 M EDC and 0.05 M NHS for 5 h, rinsed with DI water and then dried gently with air at room temperature. Next, the electrodes were immersed in 20 mL of Aβ antibody solution (Aβ1–28) with a concentration of 18.75 µg·mL−1 for 20 h at 4 °C, rinsed with 0.1 M PBS and stored at 4 °C. Once functionalized, CV and EIS measurements with the sensors were performed to validate their response to antibody exposure.
After the antibody response measurements were completed, a solution of Aβ42 Antigen dissolved with DMSO to prevent aggregation was diluted with 0.1 M PBS solution to reach an Aβ42 concentration of 0.5 μg·mL−1. The diluted solution was incubated for 30 min at room temperature on the top of each biosensor to avoid aggregation of Aβ42 during incubation [11]. After the incubation, the biosensor was rinsed in 0.1 M PBS, and CV and EIS measurements of the sensor response to the Aβ42 Antigen were then made. CV and EIS measurements were then performed in the electrolyte solution described earlier (10 mL solution of K4Fe(CN)6 and K3Fe(CN)6 of 5 mM in 0.1 M PBS).

3. Results

For clarity, it is best to break the following electrochemical data graphs into a comparison of “steps” that allow for a conclusive analysis of the electrochemical sensor performance (please see the three steps in Figure 4 for reference). In the last section, the device steps are described as baseline (after cleaning), antibody functionalization, and the Aβ42 functionalization steps. After each step, the sensors were tested in the aforementioned electrochemical solution and setup. Figure 5 shows the data obtained for the Au electrode, and Figure 6 the data for the 4H-SiC electrode.
As seen in Figure 5a, the CV baseline in the gold electrode shows a reversible reaction with the reduction and oxidation peaks at 290 mV and 210 mV, respectively. After the immobilization of the antibody, the peaks were shifted to 310 mV and 180 mV, and the magnitude of the current was increased. The CV results also show a higher current level after the introduction to Aβ (Aβ1–28) antibody. Still, the shape of the curves shows a fully reversible redox reaction on the gold electrode. The EIS results in Figure 5b reveal more details about the differences between the tested samples. The radius of the semicircles at the higher frequencies increased from the baseline to the antibody sample, indicating larger charge transfer resistance in the electrode with the immobilized antibody. While a slight decrease in the radius was observed after the incubation of the antibody, the tail of the curve at lower frequencies shows a distinct feature. As seen in the Nyquist plot, the tail of the impedance at low frequencies represents the mass transfer limitations. It is clear that in the presence of Aβ1–28, the mechanism of redox reaction in potassium ferricyanide is more affected by the interaction of the antibody to the immobilized antigen.
The experimental results from the 4H-SiC electrode show a totally different response (Figure 6). First, despite the wider voltage range in the CV experiment, there are only oxidation peaks at negative voltages and no reduction peak. However, the exponential increase in the current at the positive voltages represents the Butler–Volmer model (limitation by the kinetics of the reaction) [47]. Such a rectifying response is expected from a wideband gap semiconductor as the electron donation rate is significantly lower than the electron acceptance rate by the electrode. In addition to the domination of the oxidation process in the SiC electrode, immobilization of the antibody had a significant impact on the oxidation peak, shifting it from −1.19 V in the baseline to −0.85 V in the electrode with the immobilized antibody. However, the peak voltage did not change after the incubation of Aβ1–28. Unlike the gold electrode, the EIS results from the 4H-SiC electrode (Figure 6b) show the domination of the semicircle response and almost no tails at the lower frequencies. This again shows that due to the semiconducting property of the electrode, the kinetic rate of the reaction dominates the response of the sensor. While the baseline shows a relatively large semicircle, after adding the antibody, the radius decreased significantly, implying a faster kinetic rate. However, the antigen had a reverse response resulting in a slightly larger semicircle radius (slower reaction rate).
Comparing the two electrodes, the most important observation was that Aβ42 was detected by both the Au and SiC sensors, albeit at different voltages and with different amplitudes. It appears that the gold electrode was sensitive enough to utilize a lower voltage input and provide a clearly measurable response compared with the SiC sensor. It should be noted that the contact surface of the 4H-SiC electrode had a diameter of 800 μm compared to 5.5 mm in the case of gold. While the CV results are reported based on the current density, a much smaller electrode surface area in the SiC electrode resulted in a much larger impedance (MΩ range) than that in Au (kΩ range). Nevertheless, incubation of the biomaterials had the opposite effect on the impedance of the gold and SiC by increasing the impedance in the gold electrode and decreasing it in the SiC.

4. Conclusions and Future Implications

In conclusion, this paper presents preliminary sensor response data from two electrodes made using Au and SiC, respectively. Both sensors were functionalized and tested for their suitability as effective electrochemical biosensors for Alzheimer’s Antigen (Aβ42) detection. The results presented here demonstrate that the Antigen and both sensors resulted in the positive detection of Aβ42, a highly important finding. The gold surface resulted in a larger signal response compared to 4H-SiC. It should be noted that the data are very preliminary, and SiC microelectrode array electrodes were used for these tests, which were not of the same form fit as the gold electrodes.
Most importantly, this research contributes to the science of defining a possible diagnostic measurement of the Alzheimer’s Aβ42 Antigen. In addition to identical form-fit sensors, future work in this area by our research team will involve the use of other metal oxides to define a baseline of the electrochemical biosensor’s response over time so as to identify the best candidate material for further development of AD diagnostic tools.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.M.-A., S.E.S. and N.S.; methodology, B.M.-A., B.I.S., M.S.H. and N.S.; validation, A.T., S.E.S. and N.S.; formal analysis, B.M.-A., B.I.S., A.T., S.E.S. and N.S.; investigation, B.M.-A., B.I.S., M.S.H. and N.S.; resources, E.B., A.T. and S.E.S.; writing—original draft preparation, B.M.-A. and B.I.S.; writing—review and editing, A.T., S.E.S. and N.S.; visualization, B.M.-A. and B.I.S.; supervision, A.T., S.E.S. and N.S.; project administration, S.E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8040514.

Acknowledgments

Bianca I. Seufert would also like to thank the LSAMP BD: University of South Florida Florida-Georgia Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (FGLSAMP), HRD # 1906518, for their continued support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Dementia. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia (accessed on 28 January 2023).
  2. 2022 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022, 18, 700–789. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tolar, M.; Abushakra, S.; Sabbagh, M. The path forward in Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics: Reevaluating the amyloid cascade hypothesis. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2019, 16, 1553–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Barage, S.H.; Sonawane, K.D. Amyloid cascade hypothesis: Pathogenesis and therapeutic strategies in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropeptides 2015, 52, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Castellani, R.J.; Plascencia-Villa, G.; Perry, G. The amyloid cascade and Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics: Theory versus observation. Lab. Investig. 2019, 99, 958–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Afzal, S.; Maqsood, M.; Khan, U.; Mehmood, I.; Nawaz, H.; Aadil, F.; Song, O.-Y.; Nam, Y. Alzheimer Disease Detection Techniques and Methods: A Review. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2021, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zetterberg, H.; Bendlin, B.B. for Alzheimer’s disease—Preparing for a new era of disease-modifying therapies. Mol. Psychiatry 2020, 26, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Humpel, C. Identifying and validating biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Trends Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lien, T.T.N.; Takamura, Y.; Tamiya, E.; Vestergaard, M.C. Modified screen printed electrode for development of a highly sensitive label-free impedimetric immunosensor to detect amyloid beta peptides. Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 892, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rama, E.C.; González-García, M.B.; Costa-García, A. Competitive electrochemical immunosensor for amyloid-beta 1–42 detection based on gold nanostructurated Screen-Printed Carbon Electrodes. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2014, 201, 567–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dai, Y.; Molazemhosseini, A.; Liu, C.C. In Vitro Quantified Determination of β-Amyloid 42 Peptides, a Biomarker of Neuro-Degenerative Disorders, in PBS and Human Serum Using a Simple, Cost-Effective Thin Gold Film Biosensor. Biosensors 2017, 7, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Li, S.-S.; Lin, C.-W.; Wei, K.-C.; Huang, C.-Y.; Hsu, P.-H.; Liu, H.-L.; Lu, Y.-J.; Lin, S.-C.; Yang, H.-W.; Ma, C.-C.M. Non-invasive screening for early Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis by a sensitively immunomagnetic biosensor. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Hsu, C.-H.; Gupta, A.K.; Purwidyantri, A.; Prabowo, B.A.; Chen, C.-H.; Chuang, C.-C.; Tian, Y.-C.; Lu, Y.-J.; Lai, C.-S. Sensing Alzheimer’s Disease Utilizing Au Electrode by Controlling Nanorestructuring. Chemosensors 2022, 10, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sigma Aldrich. Antibody Generation. Available online: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/CO/es/technical-documents/technical-article/protein-biology/elisa/generation-of-antibodies (accessed on 24 May 2023).
  15. Veerabhadrappa, B.; Delaby, C.; Hirtz, C.; Vialaret, J.; Alcolea, D.; Lleó, A.; Fortea, J.; Santosh, M.S.; Choubey, S.; Lehmann, S. Detection of amyloid beta peptides in body fluids for the diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease: Where do we stand? Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2019, 57, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Jiang, M.; Wang, X.Y.; Wang, X.B. Advances in Detection Methods of β-Amyloid Protein. Chin. J. Anal. Chem. 2018, 46, 1339–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Campuzano, S.; Pedrero, M.; Gamella, M.; Serafín, V.; Yáñez-Sedeño, P.; Pingarrón, J.M. Beyond Sensitive and Selective Electrochemical Biosensors: Towards Continuous, Real-Time, Antibiofouling and Calibration-Free Devices. Sensors 2020, 20, 3376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sharma, S.; Byrne, H.; O’Kennedy, R.J. Antibodies and antibody-derived analytical biosensors. Essays Biochem. 2016, 60, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yi, Y.; Weinberg, G.; Prenzel, M.; Greiner, M.; Heumann, S.; Becker, S.; Schlögl, R. Electrochemical corrosion of a glassy carbon electrode. Catal. Today 2017, 295, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saddow, S.E. Recent advances in SiC biomedical devices: Healthcare applications. Silicon Carbide Technol. Adv. Hum. Healthc. Appl. 2022, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Napoli, M. SiC detectors: A review on the use of silicon carbide as radiation detection material. Front. Phys. 2022, 10, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Oliveros, A.; Guiseppi-Elie, A.; Saddow, S.E. Silicon carbide: A versatile material for biosensor applications. Biomed. Microdevices 2013, 15, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Saddow, S.E.; Agarwal, A. Advances in Silicon Carbide Processing and Applications, 1st ed.; Artech House Publishers: Norwood, MA, USA, 2004; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272944831_Advances_in_Silicon_Carbide_Processing_and_Applications (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  24. Islam, K.; Jang, Y.C.; Chand, R.; Jha, S.K.; Lee, H.H.; Kim, Y.S. Microfluidic biosensor for β-amyloid(1–42) detection using cyclic voltammetry. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2011, 11, 5657–5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Prabhulkar, S.; Piatyszek, R.; Cirrito, J.R.; Wu, Z.-Z.; Li, C.-Z. Microbiosensor for Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostics: Detection of Amyloid Beta Biomarkers. J. Neurochem. 2012, 122, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Liu, L.; Zhao, F.; Ma, F.; Zhang, L.; Yang, S.; Xia, N. Electrochemical detection of β-amyloid peptides on electrode covered with N-terminus-specific antibody based on electrocatalytic O2 reduction by Aβ(1–16)-heme-modified gold nanoparticles. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 49, 231–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Wu, C.-C.; Ku, B.-C.; Ko, C.-H.; Chiu, C.-C.; Wang, G.-J.; Yang, Y.-H.; Wu, S.-J. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy analysis of A-beta (1–42) peptide using a nanostructured biochip. Electrochim. Acta 2014, 134, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, L.; He, Q.; Zhao, F.; Xia, N.; Liu, H.; Li, S.; Liu, R.; Zhang, H. Competitive electrochemical immunoassay for detection of β-amyloid (1–42) and total β-amyloid peptides using p-aminophenol redox cycling. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 51, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Rushworth, J.V.; Ahmed, A.; Griffiths, H.H.; Pollock, N.M.; Hooper, N.M.; Millner, P.A. A label-free electrical impedimetric biosensor for the specific detection of Alzheimer’s amyloid-beta oligomers. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 56, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De la Escosura-Muñiz, A.; Plichta, Z.; Horák, D.; Merkoçi, A. Alzheimer′s disease biomarkers detection in human samples by efficient capturing through porous magnetic microspheres and labelling with electrocatalytic gold nanoparticles. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 67, 162–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Carneiro, P.; Loureiro, J.; Delerue-Matos, C.; Morais, S.; Pereira, M.D.C. Alzheimer’s disease: Development of a sensitive label-free electrochemical immunosensor for detection of amyloid beta peptide. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2017, 239, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Wang, J.X.; Zhuo, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, H.J.; Yuan, R.; Chai, Y.Q. Ceria Doped Zinc Oxide Nanoflowers Enhanced Luminol-Based Electrochemiluminescence Immunosensor for Amyloid-β Detection. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 12968–12975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Han, J.; Zhang, M.; Chen, G.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, Q.; Zhuo, Y.; Xie, G.; Yuan, R.; Chen, S. Ferrocene covalently confined in porous MOF as signal tag for highly sensitive electrochemical immunoassay of amyloid-β. J. Mater. Chem. B 2017, 5, 8330–8336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Diba, F.S.; Kim, S.; Lee, H.J. Electrochemical immunoassay for amyloid-beta 1–42 peptide in biological fluids interfacing with a gold nanoparticle modified carbon surface. Catal. Today 2017, 295, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, T.-C.; Lee, Y.-C.; Ko, C.-Y.; Liu, R.-S.; Ke, C.-C.; Lo, Y.-C.; Hong, P.-S.; Chu, C.-Y.; Chang, C.-W.; Wu, P.-W.; et al. Highly sensitive/selective 3D nanostructured immunoparticle-based interface on a multichannel sensor array for detecting amyloid-beta in Alzheimer’s disease. Theranostics 2018, 8, 4210–4225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Le, H.T.N.; Park, J.; Chinnadayyala, S.R.; Cho, S. Sensitive electrochemical detection of amyloid beta peptide in human serum using an interdigitated chain-shaped electrode. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 144, 111694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Le, H.T.N.; Park, J.; Cho, S. A Probeless Capacitive Biosensor for Direct Detection of Amyloid Beta 1–42 in Human Serum Based on an Interdigitated Chain-Shaped Electrode. Micromachines 2020, 11, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sethi, J.; Van Bulck, M.; Suhail, A.; Safarzadeh, M.; Perez-Castillo, A.; Pan, G. A label-free biosensor based on graphene and reduced graphene oxide dual-layer for electrochemical determination of beta-amyloid biomarkers. Mikrochim. Acta 2020, 187, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wang, B.-Y.; Gu, B.-C.; Wang, G.-J.; Yang, Y.-H.; Wu, C.-C. Detection of Amyloid-β(1–42) Aggregation With a Nanostructured Electrochemical Sandwich Immunoassay Biosensor. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 853947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bernardin, E.K.; Frewin, C.L.; Everly, R.; Hassan, J.U.; Saddow, S.E. Demonstration of a Robust All-Silicon-Carbide Intracortical Neural Interface. Micromachines 2018, 9, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Yaghoubi, H.; Li, Z.; Jun, D.; Saer, R.; Slota, J.E.; Beerbom, M.; Schlaf, R.; Madden, J.D.; Beatty, J.T.; Takshi, A. The role of gold-adsorbed photosynthetic reaction centers and redox mediators in the charge transfer and photocurrent generation in a bio-photoelectrochemical cell. J. Phys. Chem. C 2012, 116, 24868–24877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bernardin, E.; Frewin, C.L.; Dey, A.; Everly, R.; Hassan, J.U.; Janzén, E.; Pandrazio, J.; Saddow, S.E. Development of an all-SiC neuronal interface device. MRS Adv. 2016, 1, 3679–3684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saddow, S.E. Silicon Carbide Technology for Advanced Human Healthcare Applications. Micromachines 2022, 13, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Willner, I.; Riklin, A. Electrical Communication between Electrodes and NAD(P)+-Dependent Enzymes Using Pyrroloquinolinequinone-Enzyme Electrodes in a Self-Assembled Monolayer Configuration: Design of a New Class of Amperometric Biosensors. Anal. Chem. 1994, 66, 1535–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Campuzano, S.; Gálvez, R.; Pedrero, M.; de Villena, F.J.M.; Pingarrón, J. Preparation, characterization and application of alkanethiol self-assembled monolayers modified with tetrathiafulvalene and glucose oxidase at a gold disk electrode. J. Electroanal. Chem. 2002, 526, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schneider, M.; Fritzsche, N.; Puciul-Malinowska, A.; Baliś, A.; Mostafa, A.; Bald, I.; Zapotoczny, S.; Taubert, A. Surface Etching of 3D Printed Poly(lactic acid) with NaOH: A Systematic Approach. Polymers 2020, 12, 1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bard, A.J.; Faulkner, L.R. Electrochemical Methods: Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001; Available online: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Electrochemical+Methods:+Fundamentals+and+Applications,+2nd+Edition-p-9780471043720 (accessed on 27 May 2023).
Figure 1. Single-ended electrodes (top left image) with various recording areas (diameters of 25, 50, 100, 400, and 800 μm) and test structures. The right shows the device’s cross-section construction at both the recording tip (top right) and the metal contact pad (bottom right).
Figure 1. Single-ended electrodes (top left image) with various recording areas (diameters of 25, 50, 100, 400, and 800 μm) and test structures. The right shows the device’s cross-section construction at both the recording tip (top right) and the metal contact pad (bottom right).
Micromachines 14 01262 g001
Figure 2. 4H-SiC electrode schematic showing (a) a top view of the recording tip region submerged in the electrochemical solution and (b) a 3D view of the 4H-SiC electrodes packaged in a liquid containment well. (c) Photograph of the 4H-SiC electrode mounted in the test well (white).
Figure 2. 4H-SiC electrode schematic showing (a) a top view of the recording tip region submerged in the electrochemical solution and (b) a 3D view of the 4H-SiC electrodes packaged in a liquid containment well. (c) Photograph of the 4H-SiC electrode mounted in the test well (white).
Micromachines 14 01262 g002
Figure 3. (a) Top and side view diagram of the gold electrodes. (b) Photograph of the 75.5 mm long, 9.6 mm wide electrodes.
Figure 3. (a) Top and side view diagram of the gold electrodes. (b) Photograph of the 75.5 mm long, 9.6 mm wide electrodes.
Micromachines 14 01262 g003
Figure 4. Electrode preparation procedure (a) Cleaning, (b) Functionalization and antibody immobilization, and (c) Antigen Detection.
Figure 4. Electrode preparation procedure (a) Cleaning, (b) Functionalization and antibody immobilization, and (c) Antigen Detection.
Micromachines 14 01262 g004
Figure 5. Gold (Au) electrode response after each electrochemical sensor functionalization step is shown in Figure 4. (a) CV response and (b) EIS response.
Figure 5. Gold (Au) electrode response after each electrochemical sensor functionalization step is shown in Figure 4. (a) CV response and (b) EIS response.
Micromachines 14 01262 g005
Figure 6. 4H-SiC electrode response after each electrochemical sensor functionalization step. (a) CV response and (b) EIS response.
Figure 6. 4H-SiC electrode response after each electrochemical sensor functionalization step. (a) CV response and (b) EIS response.
Micromachines 14 01262 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Montero-Arevalo, B.; Seufert, B.I.; Hossain, M.S.; Bernardin, E.; Takshi, A.; Saddow, S.E.; Schettini, N. SiC Electrochemical Sensor Validation for Alzheimer Aβ42 Antigen Detection. Micromachines 2023, 14, 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14061262

AMA Style

Montero-Arevalo B, Seufert BI, Hossain MS, Bernardin E, Takshi A, Saddow SE, Schettini N. SiC Electrochemical Sensor Validation for Alzheimer Aβ42 Antigen Detection. Micromachines. 2023; 14(6):1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14061262

Chicago/Turabian Style

Montero-Arevalo, Brayan, Bianca I. Seufert, Mohammad S. Hossain, Evans Bernardin, Arash Takshi, Stephen E. Saddow, and Norelli Schettini. 2023. "SiC Electrochemical Sensor Validation for Alzheimer Aβ42 Antigen Detection" Micromachines 14, no. 6: 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14061262

APA Style

Montero-Arevalo, B., Seufert, B. I., Hossain, M. S., Bernardin, E., Takshi, A., Saddow, S. E., & Schettini, N. (2023). SiC Electrochemical Sensor Validation for Alzheimer Aβ42 Antigen Detection. Micromachines, 14(6), 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi14061262

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop