Why the study?
Conventional methods for detecting norovirus have disadvantages such as low sensitivity, cost ineffectiveness, and reduced specificity and selectivity, prompting the development of alternative biosensors.
An oxidized graphitic carbon nitride-modified electrochemical paper-based device provides a rapid, specific, and sensitive method for detecting norovirus DNA with a limit of detection of 100 fM.
Electrochemical biosensors may advance norovirus detection; leaves open clinical validation before practice change.
Norovirus is one of the leading causes of gastroenteritis, acute vomiting, intense diarrhoea, acute pain in the stomach, high fever, headaches, and body pain. Conventional methods of detection gave us very promising results but had disadvantages such as low sensitivity, cost ineffectiveness, reduced specificity and selectivity, etc. Therefore, biosensors can be a viable alternative device which can overcome all setbacks associated with the conventional method. An electrochemical sensor based on oxidized graphitic carbon nitride (Ox-g-C3N4) modified electrochemical paper-based analytical device (ePAD) was fabricated for the detection of norovirus DNA. The synthesized Ox-g-C3N4 nanosheets were characterized by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), X-ray Diffraction (XRD), UV-Vis spectroscopy and X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy. The capture probe DNA (PDNA) modified electrodes were characterized by cyclic voltammetry (CV) and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). These two characterization techniques were also employed to find the optimal scan rate, response time and temperature of the fabricated sensor. The fabricated biosensor showed a limit of detection (LOD) of 100 fM. Furthermore, the specificity of the reported biosensor was affirmed by testing the response of capture probe DNA with oxidized graphitic carbon nitride (PDNA/Ox-g-C3N4) modified ePAD on the introduction of a non-complimentary DNA. The fabricated ePAD sensor is easy to fabricate, cost effective and specific, and requires a minimum analysis time of 5 s.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rana et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: