Review evaluates detection of single molecules and cells using single-entity electrochemistry, suggesting improvements in analytical methods.
Single-entity electrochemistry (SEE) expands the scope of analytical electrochemical measurement by shifting attention from ensemble-averaged currents to individually resolved stochastic events. This review evaluates progress toward two analytical endpoints, trustworthy detection of single molecules and context-preserving interrogation of single cells, with emphasis on quantitative rigor rather than platform novelty alone. Across nanoparticle collisions, nanopores, confined nanoelectrodes, vesicle electrochemical cytometry, intracellular nanopipettes, and array-enabled single-cell devices, the decisive analytical issue is no longer simply whether one entity can be detected, but whether event assignment, calibration, throughput, and reproducibility are sufficient to support credible inference. Representative primary studies are compared through shared metrics including event frequency, temporal resolution, bandwidth, molecular counts, detection limit, affinity, and effective yield of analyzable events. Particular attention is given to three recurring bottlenecks: interfacial variability, model-dependent event interpretation, and incomplete reporting of denominators such as rejected events, insertion success, and pore-to-pore or cell-to-cell reproducibility. The current evidence base is strongest in secretion and vesicle studies, whereas confinement-enabled and multimodal routes define the leading edge of single-molecule analysis. Overall, SEE is developing not as a single universal platform, but as a family of interface-controlled, data-rich analytical strategies whose future analytical value will depend on standardized reporting, multimodal validation, and benchmarking practices that preserve both sensitivity and confidence of assignment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: