Key result
Multiplex bead assays provide a more complete multi-parametric picture for the immunodiagnosis of infectious agents at a fraction of the time, sample volume, and cost compared to conventional assays.
Why the study?
Despite the advantages of ELISA and PCR, next generation research and diagnostic tools must fulfill the requirements of systems and synthetic biology.
Multiplex bead assays offer a highly efficient, multi-parametric alternative to traditional ELISA and PCR for the immunodiagnosis of infectious agents.
May support multiplex assays in infectious disease diagnostics; leaves open prospective validation before routine adoption.
Traditionally, definitive diagnosis of infectious diseases is made by cultivation of the causative agent, while various antigens and antibodies as biomarkers of various diseases are detected by commercially available ELISA kits. PCR has emerged as a major innovation that greatly accelerated the accumulation of genomic and transcriptomic data, yet it has also revolutionized microbial diagnostics by enabling the detection of pathogen nucleic acid. Despite the advantages of and vast experience in ELISA and PCR, the next generation research and diagnostic tools have to fulfill the requirements of systems and synthetic biology era. Multiplex bead assays hold this promise by providing a more complete multi-parametric picture of the biological phenomenon of interest at a fraction of time, sample volume and cost required for conventional assay systems. To date, numerous multiplex bead assays have been described to detect multiple antigen, antibody and nucleic acid targets of both microbial pathogens and immune response. These assays have been successfully used in diagnostic, cohort screening and research setups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Doruk Engin (2019) conducted a review in Infectious diseases. Multiplex bead assays vs. ELISA and PCR was evaluated. Multiplex bead assays provide a more complete multi-parametric picture for the immunodiagnosis of infectious agents at a fraction of the time, sample volume, and cost compared to conventional assays.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: