| Title |
Quantitative and multiplexed detection for blood typing based on quantum dot–magnetic bead assay
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s133247 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ting Xu, Qiang Zhang, Ya-han Fan, Ru-qing Li, Hua Lu, Shu-ming Zhao, Tian-lun Jiang |
| Abstract |
Accurate and reliable blood grouping is essential for safe blood transfusion. However, conventional methods are qualitative and use only single-antigen detection. We overcame these limitations by developing a simple, quantitative, and multiplexed detection method for blood grouping using quantum dots (QDs) and magnetic beads. In the QD fluorescence assay (QFA), blood group A and B antigens were quantified using QD labeling and magnetic beads, and the blood groups were identified according to the R value (the value was calculated with the fluorescence intensity from dual QD labeling) of A and B antigens. The optimized performance of QFA was established by blood typing 791 clinical samples. Quantitative and multiplexed detection for blood group antigens can be completed within 35 min with more than 10(5) red blood cells. When conditions are optimized, the assay performance is satisfactory for weak samples. The coefficients of variation between and within days were less than 10% and the reproducibility was good. The ABO blood groups of 791 clinical samples were identified by QFA, and the accuracy obtained was 100% compared with the tube test. Receiver-operating characteristic curves revealed that the QFA has high sensitivity and specificity toward clinical samples, and the cutoff points of the R value of A and B antigens were 1.483 and 1.576, respectively. In this study, we reported a novel quantitative and multiplexed method for the identification of ABO blood groups and presented an effective alternative for quantitative blood typing. This method can be used as an effective tool to improve blood typing and further guarantee clinical transfusion safety. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 18% |
| Engineering | 2 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,598
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,218
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#78
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.