Skip to Content
SensorsSensors
  • Feature Paper
  • Review
  • Open Access

29 March 2017

19 Pages

MIP-Based Sensors: Promising New Tools for Cancer Biomarker Determination

and
Department of Chemistry “Ugo Schiff”, University of Florence, Via della Lastruccia 3, Sesto Fiorentino 50019, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosensors for Cancer Biomarkers

Abstract

Detecting cancer disease at an early stage is one of the most important issues for increasing the survival rate of patients. Cancer biomarker detection helps to provide a diagnosis before the disease becomes incurable in later stages. Biomarkers can also be used to evaluate the progression of therapies and surgery treatments. In recent years, molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) based sensors have been intensely investigated as promising analytical devices in several fields, including clinical analysis, offering desired portability, fast response, specificity, and low cost. The aim of this review is to provide readers with an overview on recent important achievements in MIP-based sensors coupled to various transducers (e.g., electrochemical, optical, and piezoelectric) for the determination of cancer biomarkers by selected publications from 2012 to 2016.

1. Introduction

Cancer is defined as a group of diseases involving abnormal cell growth that spreads to other parts of the body beyond their natural boundaries. In the last fifty years, cancer has become one of the leading causes of death worldwide. In Europe in 2012, prostate, lung, colorectal, and bladder cancers were the most common diseases in men; breast cancer was the most common malignancy, followed by colorectal, lung, and corpus uteri cancers in women [1]. If cancer is diagnosed at an early stage, before it has the chance to become too big or spread, it is more likely to be treated successfully. If the cancer has spread, treatment becomes more difficult and generally a person’s chance of survival is much lower. In this context, the need for discovering, developing, and applying new diagnostic tools appears to be evident. New devices have to act as an option for solving the problems within classical clinical diagnostics, such as the need for expensive and sophisticated instrumentation (e.g., computerized axial tomography scan or nuclear magnetic resonance imaging) or qualified personnel, not to mention the long wait time before patients can obtain the analysis results. The precise diagnosis of cancer disease nowadays relies on histological evaluation of tissues using techniques such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), radioimmunoassay, immunofluorescence, etc. However, they present some disadvantages as they can be tedious and time consuming and, in addition, they are often unable to provide results in a reasonably short time, making the early diagnosis of cancer more difficult [2]. All these techniques are based on the detection of biomarkers.
Biomarkers are defined both by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Union National Institute of Health as a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to therapeutic intervention. The biomarker acts as an indicator of a normal or a pathogenic biological process. It allows for assessing the pharmacological response to a therapeutic intervention. A biomarker shows a specific physical trait or a measurable biologically produced change in the body that is linked to a disease or a particular health condition [3]. In brief, if the concentration of a molecule (i.e., protein, enzyme, microRNA, etc.) varies in dependence to the presence of or during the therapeutic treatment of the disease in biological fluids, we can refer to this molecule as a clinical biomarker [4]. The most common cancer biomarkers are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. The most common biomarkers used to detect different cancer types and their clinical use.
In the field of detection of cancer biomarkers, new bioaffinity sensors have been extensively investigated and were successfully applied as an option for solving all the problems mentioned before, and became useful analytical tools. In fact, biosensors as integrated receptor-transducer devices can overcome the aforementioned difficulties, producing rapidly and selective quantitative or semi-quantitative analytical information. Biomolecular receptors (such as antibodies, enzymes, and histones) are being, however, increasingly replaced with artificial recognition elements, which are often almost as selective as natural ones; in particular, molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) are synthetic intelligent materials that can mimic biological recognition well enough to be sometimes called “plastic antibodies” [5].
Here, the MIP-based sensors realized in 2012–2016, coupled with various transducers, for cancer biomarker detection will be reviewed.

2. Molecular Imprinting in the Design of Sensors

Molecular imprinting is a process used for preparing affinity polymers for various targets of analytical interest. It involves the formation of a complex between a given target (template) molecule and functional monomers through covalent or non-covalent interactions, which is then subjected to polymerization to form a cast-like shell. The subsequent removal of the template leaves binding sites within the polymer possessing both the correct shape and the correct orientation of functional groups to allow for selective recognition of the imprint species [6,7]. The molecular memory, imprinted on the polymer, is able to selectively bind the target [8,9]. While this work reviews MIPs, it is worth underlining that molecular imprinting is a quite general concept and that there are alternative methods which do not use polymers, such as self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) or molten gallium [10].
MIPs can be prepared for any kind of substance, such as inorganic ions, drugs, nucleic acids, proteins, and so on. They possess a number of advantages in comparison with natural biomolecules [11], as they are stable, specific, low-cost, and easy to prepare and to miniaturize; all these features render them as promising alternatives to the natural bioreceptors used in sensor technology [12].
MIPs are frequently made of acrylic and methacrylic monomers, which usually produce polymers with superior binding and recognition abilities [13]. This is mainly due to the greater flexibility in selecting the appropriate functionalities (because of the large amount of polymerizable compounds that are commercially available) and polymerization protocol (bulk polymerization, grafting, membrane- or particle-shaped, etc.) [14,15]. Other chemical groups currently used in MIP preparation are polyacrylamides [16], polyurethane, siloxanes, and conjugated polymers such as polyaniline and polypyrrole; there are also examples of MIPs produced from inorganic oxides [17]. Recently, Tu et al. have synthesized a series of high-performance MIPs via the photolithographic boronate affinity molecular imprinting approach for immunoassays of glycoproteins in complex real samples [18]. A list of the functional monomers used in MIP-based sensors for cancer marker analysis is reported in Table 2.
Table 2. Most common monomers and polymerization procedure applied in MIP-based sensors for cancer biomarker analysis.
These synthetic receptors, able to recognize target molecules by the lock and key mechanism, have been used extensively as sample preparation tools in small molecule analysis. Thus, they have been employed as solid-phase extraction (SPE) sorbents for a wide range of food and environmental targets [19]. However, the growing need for stable and low-cost materials in the design of integrated devices for point-of-care testing (POCT) has led to an increasing interest for the application of MIPs as the molecular recognition element in sensors, exploiting their selective binding. The binding of the target analyte to the MIP can be detected by a change in mass in acoustic sensors, by a change in refractive index in surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensors, or by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) in electrochemical sensors. Numerous analytes which have no optical or electrochemical properties can also be detected by exploiting MIPs’ capacity of generating optical or electrochemical signals in response to the template binding to the functional groups in the imprinting site [20,21]. Very few sensors are described in which MIPs are used as catalysts to produce a detectable electrochemical signal [22,23]. One of the limitations associated with the development of MIP sensors is the difficulty in integrating them with transducers; the most direct and smart way for overcoming this drawback is electro-polymerization, in which the MIP can be synthesized in situ at an electrode surface by simply controlling the layer’s thickness by the amount of charge passed. This approach is particularly attractive for making small devices for clinical diagnostics, environmental control, and for the pharmaceutical industries [9,24,25]. Thin MIP films can also be deposited on a solid support by surface grafting using several types of initiation, such as chemical, UV, or thermal initiation [26]. The synthesis and the immobilization are performed as a one-step procedure through the application of a potential or the exposition to UV light in situ on the detector surface, coated with a mixture of the monomer in an appropriate solvent [27].
For the successful application of MIPs in sensors, it is necessary to improve their binding kinetics, to decrease analysis time, and to remove most of the template. The possibility of designing MIPs at the nanoscale has been demonstrated to have a key effect on these issues by enhancing the surface-to-volume ratio, thus making binding sites more accessible to analytes. Different MIP nanostructures have been prepared and incorporated in the design of sensing devices; among these, MIP nanoparticles (NPs) have been prepared through several strategies and successfully applied in different analytical fields [28,29]. Recently, Mazzotta et al. exploited solid phase synthesis for preparing electroactive MIP NPs by using two electroactive monomers (vinylferrocene and ferrocenylmethyl methacrylate) for the electrochemical detection of the non-electroactive template molecules such as the antibiotic vancomycin [20]. A particular and borderline application of this kind of sensing, as it falls outside the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) definition, is the use of MIP fluorescent core-shell NPs as fluo-tags in a screening method targeting sialic acid [30], whose overexpression had been associated with metastatic cancer [31], proposed by Shinde et al. [32]. The MIP NPs were also applied to four different chronic lymphocytic leukemia cell lines [33].

5. Conclusions

In this review, the most recent developments in the design of MIP-based sensors for cancer biomarker detection were reviewed. MIPs represent a promising sensing element combining high affinity for target molecules, low cost, stability, and greater flexibility in choosing the monomers and the polymerization protocol. The coupling of these recognition elements with nanoscale materials offers an enhancement in the binding selectivity as well as in the sensitivity, and improves the development of highly-versatile diagnostic devices ready to be used in clinical analysis directly at the patients’ bedside.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ullah, M.F.; Aatif, M. The footprints of cancer development: Cancer biomarkers. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2009, 35, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  2. Ravalli, A.; Marrazza, G. Gold and magnetic nanoparticles-based electrochemical biosensors for cancer biomarker determination. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2015, 15, 3307–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  3. Mayeux, R. Biomarkers: Potential uses and limitations. NeuroRx 2004, 1, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ravalli, A.; Voccia, D.; Palchetti, I.; Marrazza, G. Electrochemical, electrochemiluminescence, and photoelectrochemical aptamer-based nanostructured sensors for biomarker analysis. Biosensors 2016, 6, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. Cieplak, M.; Kutner, W. Artificial biosensors: How can molecular imprinting mimic biorecognition? Trends Biotechnol. 2016, 34, 922–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  6. Wulff, G. Molecular imprinting in cross-linked materials with the aid of molecular templates—A way towards artificial antibodies. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1995, 34, 1812–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Mayes, A.G.; Mosbach, K. Molecularly imprinted polymers: Useful materials for analytical chemistry? Trends Anal. Chem. 1997, 16, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Haupt, K. Biomaterials: Plastic antibodies. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 612–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  9. Karimian, N.; Vagin, M.; Zavar, M.H.A.; Chamsaz, M.; Turner, A.P.F.; Tiwari, A. An ultrasensitive molecularly-imprinted human cardiac troponin sensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 50, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  10. Schirhagl, R. Bioapplications for molecularly imprinted polymers. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Piletsky, S.; Turner, A. A new generation of chemical sensors based on mips. In Molecular Imprinting of Polymers; Piletsky, S.A., Turner, A.P.F., Eds.; Landes Bioscience: Georgetown, TX, USA, 2006; pp. 64–79. [Google Scholar]
  12. Piletsky, S.A.; Piletskaya, E.V.; Panasyuk, T.L.; El’skaya, A.V.; Levi, R.; Karube, I.; Wulff, G. Imprinted membranes for sensor technology: Opposite behavior of covalently and noncovalently imprinted membranes. Macromolecules 1998, 31, 2137–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Alexander, C.; Andersson, H.S.; Andersson, L.I.; Ansell, R.J.; Kirsch, N.; Nicholls, I.A.; O’Mahony, J.; Whitcombe, M.J. Molecular imprinting science and technology: A survey of the literature for the years up to and including 2003. J. Mol. Recognit. 2006, 19, 106–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  14. Poma, A.; Turner, A.P.F.; Piletsky, S.A. Advances in the manufacture of MIP nanoparticles. Trends Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Panasyuk, T.; Campo Dall’Orto, V.; Marrazza, G.; El’skaya, A.; Piletsky, S.; Rezzano, I.; Mascini, M. Molecular imprinted polymers prepared by electropolymerization of Ni-(Protoporphyrin IX). Anal. Lett. 1998, 31, 1809–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. DePorter, S.M.; Lui, I.; McNaughton, B.R. Programmed cell adhesion and growth on cell-imprinted polyacrylamide hydrogels. Soft Matter 2012, 8, 10403–10408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Lahav, M.; Kharitonov, A.B.; Katz, O.; Kunitake, T.; Willner, I. Tailored chemosensors for chloroaromatic acids using molecular imprinted TiO2 thin films on ion-sensitive field-effect transistors. Anal. Chem. 2001, 73, 720–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Tu, X.; Muhammad, P.; Liu, J.; Ma, Y.; Wang, S.; Yin, D.; Liu, Z. Molecularly imprinted polymer-based plasmonic immunosandwich assay for fast and ultrasensitive determination of trace glycoproteins in complex samples. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 12363–12370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Rossetti, C.; Abdel Qader, A.; Halvorsen, T.G.; Sellergren, B.; Reubsaet, L. Antibody-free biomarker determination: Exploring molecularly imprinted polymers for pro-gastrin releasing peptide. Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 12291–12298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  20. Mazzotta, E.; Turco, A.; Chianella, I.; Guerreiro, A.; Piletsky, S.A.; Malitesta, C. Solid-phase synthesis of electroactive nanoparticles of molecularly imprinted polymers. A novel platform for indirect electrochemical sensing applications. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 229, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Karfa, P.; Roy, E.; Patra, S.; Kumar, D.; Madhuri, R.; Sharma, P.K. A fluorescent molecularly-imprinted polymer gate with temperature and pH as inputs for detection of alpha-fetoprotein. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 78, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Piletsky, S.; Piletsky, S.; Chianella, I. MIP-based sensors. In Molecularly Imprinted Sensors; Li, S., Ge, Y., Piletsky, S.A., Lunec, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 339–354. [Google Scholar]
  23. Berti, F.; Todros, S.; Lakshmi, D.; Whitcombe, M.J.; Chianella, I.; Ferroni, M.; Piletsky, S.A.; Turner, A.P.F.; Marrazza, G. Quasi-monodimensional polyaniline nanostructures for enhanced molecularly imprinted polymer-based sensing. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010, 26, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Karimian, N.; Turner, A.P.F.; Tiwari, A. Electrochemical evaluation of troponin T imprinted polymer receptor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 59, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Peeters, M. Molecularly Imprinted Polymers (MIPs) for bioanalytical sensors: Strategies for incorporation of MIPs into sensing platforms. Austin J. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  26. Piletsky, S.A.; Piletska, E.V.; Chen, B.; Karim, K.; Weston, D.; Barrett, G.; Lowe, P.; Turner, A.P.F. Chemical grafting of molecularly imprinted homopolymers to the surface of microplates. Application of artificial adrenergic receptor in enzyme-linked assay for β-agonists determination. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 4381–4385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  27. Kriz, D.; Kempe, M.; Mosbach, K. Introduction of molecularly imprinted polymers as recognition elements in conductometric chemical sensors. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 1996, 33, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Malitesta, C.; Mazzotta, E.; Picca, R.A.; Poma, A.; Chianella, I.; Piletsky, S.A. MIP sensors—The electrochemical approach. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2012, 402, 1827–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  29. Wackerlig, J.; Lieberzeit, P.A. Molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles in chemical sensing—Synthesis, characterisation and application. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2015, 207, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Blix, F.G.; Gottschalk, A.; Klenk, E. Proposed nomenclature in the field of neuraminic and sialic acids. Nature 1957, 179, 1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  31. Hoff, S.D.; Matsushita, Y.; Ota, D.M.; Cleary, K.L.; Yamori, T.; Hakomori, S.; Irimura, T. Increased expression of sialyl-dimeric LeX antigen in liver metastases of human colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1989, 49, 6883–6888. [Google Scholar]
  32. Shinde, S.; El-Schich, Z.; Malakpour, A.; Wan, W.; Dizeyi, N.; Mohammadi, R.; Rurack, K.; Gjörloff Wingren, A.; Sellergren, B. Sialic acid-imprinted fluorescent core-shell particles for selective labeling of cell surface glycans. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 13908–13912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. El-Schich, Z.; Abdullah, M.; Shinde, S.; Dizeyi, N.; Rosén, A.; Sellergren, B.; Wingren, A.G. Different expression levels of glycans on leukemic cells—A novel screening method with molecularly imprinted polymers (MIP) targeting sialic acid. Tumor Biol. 2016, 37, 13763–13768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  34. Ertürk, G.; Hedström, M.; Tümer, M.A.; Denizli, A.; Mattiasson, B. Real-time prostate-specific antigen detection with prostate-specific antigen imprinted capacitive biosensors. Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 891, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Jolly, P.; Tamboli, V.; Harniman, R.L.; Estrela, P.; Allender, C.J.; Bowen, J.L. Aptamer-MIP hybrid receptor for highly sensitive electrochemical detection of prostate specific antigen. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 75, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Rebelo, T.S.C.R.; Santos, C.; Costa-Rodrigues, J.; Fernandes, M.H.; Noronha, J.P.; Sales, M.G.F. Novel Prostate Specific Antigen plastic antibody designed with charged binding sites for an improved protein binding and its application in a biosensor of potentiometric transduction. Electrochim. Acta 2014, 132, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Patra, S.; Roy, E.; Madhuri, R.; Sharma, P.K. Nano-iniferter based imprinted sensor for ultra trace level detection of prostate-specific antigen in both men and women. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 66, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  38. Ertürk, G.; Özen, H.; Tümer, M.A.; Mattiasson, B.; Denizli, A. Microcontact imprinting based surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensor for real-time and ultrasensitive detection of prostate specific antigen (PSA) from clinical samples. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 224, 823–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Shen, X.; Ma, Y.; Zeng, Q.; Tao, J.; Huang, J.; Wang, L. Molecularly imprinted electrochemical sensor for advanced diagnosis of alpha-fetoprotein. Anal. Methods 2016, 8, 7361–7368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Karfa, P.; Madhuri, R.; Sharma, P.K. A battle between spherical and cube-shaped Ag/AgCl nanoparticle modified imprinted polymer to achieve femtogram detection of alpha-feto protein. J. Mater. Chem. B 2016, 4, 5534–5547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Moreira, F.T.C.; Ferreira, M.J.M.S.; Puga, J.R.T.; Sales, M.G.F. Screen-printed electrode produced by printed-circuit board technology. Application to cancer biomarker detection by means of plastic antibody as sensing material. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2016, 223, 927–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Viswanathan, S.; Rani, C.; Ribeiro, S.; Delerue-Matos, C. Molecular imprinted nanoelectrodes for ultra sensitive detection of ovarian cancer marker. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2012, 33, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Lee, M.-H.; Thomas, J.L.; Chang, Y.-C.; Tsai, Y.-S.; Liu, B.-D.; Lin, H.-Y. Electrochemical sensing of nuclear matrix protein 22 in urine with molecularly imprinted poly(ethylene-co-vinyl alcohol) coated zinc oxide nanorod arrays for clinical studies of bladder cancer diagnosis. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 79, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Patra, S.; Roy, E.; Madhuri, R.; Sharma, P.K. Imprinted ZnO nanostructure-based electrochemical sensing of calcitonin: A clinical marker for medullary thyroid carcinoma. Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 853, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  45. Zhang, C.; Bai, W.; Yang, Z. A novel photoelectrochemical sensor for bilirubin based on porous transparent TiO2 and molecularly imprinted polypyrrole. Electrochim. Acta 2016, 187, 451–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Çiçek, Ç.; Yilmaz, F.; Özgür, E.; Yavuz, H.; Denizli, A. Molecularly imprinted quartz crystal microbalance sensor (QCM) for bilirubin detection. Chemosensors 2016, 4, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Sharma, P.S.; Wojnarowicz, A.; Sosnowska, M.; Benincori, T.; Noworyta, K.; D’Souza, F.; Kutner, W. Potentiometric chemosensor for neopterin, a cancer biomarker, using an electrochemically synthesized molecularly imprinted polymer as the recognition unit. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 77, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  48. Dejous, C.; Hallil, H.; Raimbault, V.; Lachaud, J.-L.; Plano, B.; Delépée, R.; Favetta, P.; Agrofoglio, L.; Rebière, D. Love acoustic wave-based devices and molecularly-imprinted polymers as versatile sensors for electronic nose or tongue for cancer monitoring. Sensors 2016, 16, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  49. Martins, G.V.; Marques, A.C.; Fortunato, E.; Sales, M.G.F. 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) biomarker detection down to picoMolar level on a plastic antibody film. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 86, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. You, J.; Cozzi, P.; Walsh, B.; Willcox, M.; Kearsley, J.; Russell, P.; Li, Y. Innovative biomarkers for prostate cancer early diagnosis and progression. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2010, 73, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  51. Rebelo, T.S.C.R.; Noronha, J.P.; Galésio, M.; Santos, H.; Diniz, M.; Sales, M.G.F.; Fernandes, M.H.; Costa-Rodrigues, J. Testing the variability of PSA expression by different human prostate cancer cell lines by means of a new potentiometric device employing molecularly antibody assembled on graphene surface. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 59, 1069–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  52. Linton, H.J.; Marks, L.S.; Millar, L.S.; Knott, C.L.; Rittenhouse, H.G.; Mikolajczyk, S.D. Benign prostate-specific antigen (BPSA) in serum is increased in benign prostate disease. Clin. Chem. 2003, 49, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  53. Özen, H.; Sözen, S. PSA isoforms in prostate cancer detection. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2006, 5, 495–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Erlandsson, D.; Teeparuksapun, K.; Mattiasson, B.; Hedström, M. Automated flow-injection immunosensor based on current pulse capacitive measurements. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2014, 190, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Kamel, A.H.; Moreira, F.T.C.; Almeida, S.A.A.; Sales, M.G.F. Novel potentiometric sensors of molecular imprinted polymers for specific binding of chlormequat. Electroanalysis 2008, 20, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Di Carlo, I.; Mannino, M.; Toro, A.; Ardiri, A.; Galia, A.; Cappello, G.; Bertino, G. Persistent increase in alpha-fetoprotein level in a patient without underlying liver disease who underwent curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. A case report and review of the literature. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  57. Rapisarda, V.; Loreto, C.; Malaguarnera, M.; Ardiri, A.; Proiti, M.; Rigano, G.; Frazzetto, E.; Ruggeri, M.I.; Malaguarnera, G.; Bertino, N.; et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma and the risk of occupational exposure. World J. Hepatol. 2016, 8, 573–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  58. Tang, J.; Jiang, R.; Deng, L.; Zhang, X.; Wang, K.; Sun, B. Circulation long non-coding RNAs act as biomarkers for predicting tumorigenesis and metastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 4505–4515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  59. Malati, T. Tumour markers: An overview. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 2007, 22, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  60. Beastall, G.H.; Cook, B.; Rustin, G.J.S.; Jennings, J. A review of the role of established tumour markers. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 1991, 28, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  61. Gold, P.; Freedman, S.O. Demonstration of tumor-specific antigens in human colonic carcinomata by immunological tolerance and absorption techniques. J. Exp. Med. 1965, 121, 439–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  62. Duffy, M.J. Carcinoembryonic antigen as a marker for colorectal cancer: Is it clinically useful? Clin. Chem. 2001, 47, 624–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  63. Tanaka, T.; Tanaka, M.; Tanaka, T.; Ishigamori, R. Biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 3209–3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  64. Søreide, K.; Nedrebø, B.S.; Knapp, J.-C.; Glomsaker, T.B.; Søreide, J.A.; Kørner, H. Evolving molecular classification by genomic and proteomic biomarkers in colorectal cancer: Potential implications for the surgical oncologist. Surg. Oncol. 2009, 18, 31–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  65. Soper, S.A.; Brown, K.; Ellington, A.; Frazier, B.; Garcia-Manero, G.; Gau, V.; Gutman, S.I.; Hayes, D.F.; Korte, B.; Landers, J.L.; et al. Point-of-care biosensor systems for cancer diagnostics/prognostics. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2006, 21, 1932–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  66. Minton, J.P.; Martin, E.W. The use of serial CEA determinations to predict recurrence of colon cancer and when to do a second-look operation. Cancer 1978, 42, 1422–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Ricci-Vitiani, L.; Lombardi, D.G.; Pilozzi, E.; Biffoni, M.; Todaro, M.; Peschle, C.; De Maria, R. Identification and expansion of human colon-cancer-initiating cells. Nature 2007, 445, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  68. Yin, B.W.T.; Lloyd, K.O. Molecular cloning of the CA125 ovarian cancer antigen. Identification as a new mucin, MUC16. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276, 27371–27375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  69. Yin, B.W.T.; Dnistrian, A.; Lloyd, K.O. Ovarian cancer antigen CA125 is encoded by the MUC16 mucin gene. Int. J. Cancer 2002, 98, 737–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  70. Diaconu, I.; Cristea, C.; Hârceagǎ, V.; Marrazza, G.; Berindan-Neagoe, I.; Sǎndulescu, R. Electrochemical immunosensors in breast and ovarian cancer. Clin. Chim. Acta 2013, 425, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  71. Peng, N.-J.; Liou, W.-S.; Liu, R.-S.; Hu, C.; Tsay, D.-G.; Liu, C.-B. Early detection of recurrent ovarian cancer in patients with low-level increases in serum CA-125 levels by 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 2011, 26, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  72. Gupta, D.; Lis, C.G. Pretreatment serum albumin as a predictor of cancer survival: A systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Nutr. J. 2010, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  73. Bagan, P.; Berna, P.; Assouad, J.; Hupertan, V.; Le Pimpec Barthes, F.; Riquet, M. Value of cancer antigen 125 for diagnosis of pleural endometriosis in females with recurrent pneumothorax. Eur. Respir. J. 2008, 31, 140–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  74. Su, Z.; Graybill, W.S.; Zhu, Y. Detection and monitoring of ovarian cancer. Clin. Chim. Acta 2013, 415, 341–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  75. Öge, Ö.; Atsü, N.; Kendi, S.; Özen, H. Evaluation of nuclear matrix protein 22 (NMP22) as a tumor marker in the detection of bladder cancer. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2001, 32, 367–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  76. Miyanaga, N.; Akaza, H.; Tsukamoto, T.; Ishikawa, S.; Noguchi, R.; Ohtani, M.; Kawabe, K.; Kubota, Y.; Fujita, K.; Obata, K.; et al. Urinary nuclear matrix protein 22 as a new marker for the screening of urothelial cancer in patients with microscopic hematuria. Int. J. Urol. 1999, 6, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  77. Carpinito, G.A.; Stadler, W.M.; Briggman, J.V.; Chodak, G.W.; Church, P.A.; Lamm, D.L.; Lange, P.H.; Messing, E.M.; Pasciak, R.M.; Reservitz, G.B.; et al. Urinary nuclear matrix protein as a marker for transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract. J. Urol. 1996, 156, 1280–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Svatek, R.S.; Hollenbeck, B.K.; Holmäng, S.; Lee, R.; Kim, S.P.; Stenzl, A.; Lotan, Y. The economics of bladder cancer: Costs and considerations of caring for this disease. Eur. Urol. 2014, 66, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  79. Lakshmi, D.; Bossi, A.; Whitcombe, M.J.; Chianella, I.; Fowler, S.A.; Subrahmanyam, S.; Piletska, E.V.; Piletsky, S.A. Electrochemical sensor for catechol and dopamine based on a catalytic molecularly imprinted polymer-conducting polymer hybrid recognition element. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 3576–3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  80. Toledo, S.P.A.; Lourenço, D.M.; Santos, M.A.; Tavares, M.R.; Toledo, R.A.; Correia-Deur, J.E.D.M. Hypercalcitoninemia is not pathognomonic of medullary thyroid carcinoma. Clinics 2009, 64, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  81. D’Hondt, M.; Van Dorpe, S.; Mehuys, E.; Deforce, D.; De Spiegeleer, B. Quality analysis of salmon calcitonin in a polymeric bioadhesive pharmaceutical formulation: Sample preparation optimization by DOE. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2010, 53, 939–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  82. Silvestro, L.; Savu, S.R. High-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry identification of salmon calcitonin degradation products in aqueous solution preparations. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 1996, 10, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Costante, G.; Durante, C.; Francis, Z.; Schlumberger, M.; Filetti, S. Determination of calcitonin levels in C-cell disease: Clinical interest and potential pitfalls. Nat. Clin. Pract. Endocrinol. Metab. 2009, 5, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  84. Barañano, D.E.; Rao, M.; Ferris, C.D.; Snyder, S.H. Biliverdin reductase: A major physiologic cytoprotectant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 16093–16098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  85. Santhosh, M.; Chinnadayyala, S.R.; Kakoti, A.; Goswami, P. Selective and sensitive detection of free bilirubin in blood serum using human serum albumin stabilized gold nanoclusters as fluorometric and colorimetric probe. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 59, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  86. Tiribelli, C.; Ostrow, J.D. The molecular basis of bilirubin encephalopathy and toxicity: Report of an EASL Single Topic Conference, Trieste, Italy, 1–2 October 2004. J. Hepatol. 2005, 43, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  87. Fevery, J. Bilirubin in clinical practice: A review. Liver Int. 2008, 28, 592–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  88. Moein, M.M.; Jabbar, D.; Colmsjö, A.; Abdel-Rehim, M. A needle extraction utilizing a molecularly imprinted-sol-gel xerogel for on-line microextraction of the lung cancer biomarker bilirubin from plasma and urine samples. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1366, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  89. Wen, C.P.; Zhang, F.; Liang, D.; Wen, C.; Gu, J.; Skinner, H.; Chow, W.H.; Ye, Y.; Pu, X.; Hildebrandt, M.A.T.; et al. The ability of bilirubin in identifying smokers with higher risk of lung cancer: A large cohort study in conjunction with global metabolomic profiling. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015, 21, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  90. Kuzmits, R.; Ludwig, H.; Legenstein, E.; Szekeress, T.; Kratzik, C.; Hofbauer, J. Neopterin as tumour marker serum and urinary neopterin concentrations in malignant diseases. J. Clin. Chem. Clin. Biochem. 1986, 24, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  91. Berdowska, A.; Zwirska-Korczala, K. Neopterin measurement in clinical diagnosis. J. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 2001, 26, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  92. Centi, S.; Tombelli, S.; Puntoni, M.; Domenici, C.; Franek, M.; Palchetti, I. Detection of biomarkers for inflammatory diseases by an electrochemical immunoassay: The case of neopterin. Talanta 2015, 134, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  93. Wirleitner, B.; Schroecksnadel, K.; Winkler, C.; Fuchs, D. Neopterin in HIV-1 infection. Mol. Immunol. 2005, 42, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  94. Widner, B.; Murr, C.; Wirleitner, B.; Mayr, C.; Spotti, N.; Baier-Bitterlich, G.; Fuchs, D. The importance of neopterin as a laboratory diagnostic marker of immune activation. Pteridines 1999, 10, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  95. Murr, C.; Widner, B.; Wirleitner, B.; Fuchs, D. Neopterin as a marker for immune system activation. Curr. Drug Metab. 2002, 3, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  96. Sucher, R.; Schroecksnadel, K.; Weiss, G.; Margreiter, R.; Fuchs, D.; Brandacher, G. Neopterin, a prognostic marker in human malignancies. Cancer Lett. 2010, 287, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  97. Jégourel, D.; Delépée, R.; Breton, F.; Rolland, A.; Vidal, R.; Agrofoglio, L.A. Molecularly imprinted polymer of 5-methyluridine for solid-phase extraction of pyrimidine nucleoside cancer markers in urine. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2008, 16, 8932–8939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  98. Liebich, H.M.; Müller-Hagedorn, S.; Klaus, F.; Meziane, K.; Kim, K.-R.; Frickenschmidt, A.; Kammerer, B. Chromatographic, capillary electrophoretic and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry analysis of urinary modified nucleosides as tumor markers. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1071, 271–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  99. Riedmaier, I.; Pfaffl, M.W. Transcriptional biomarkers—High throughput screening, quantitative verification, and bioinformatical validation methods. Methods 2013, 59, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  100. Iwanowska, A.; Yusa, S.I.; Nowakowska, M.; Szczubiałka, K. Selective adsorption of modified nucleoside cancer biomarkers by hybrid molecularly imprinted adsorbents. J. Sep. Sci. 2016, 39, 3072–3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  101. Zhang, C.; Liu, Z.; Liu, X.; Wei, L.; Liu, Y.; Yu, J.; Sun, L. Targeted metabolic analysis of nucleotides and identification of biomarkers associated with cancer in cultured cell models. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2013, 3, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  102. Schetinger, M.R.C.; Morsch, V.M.; Bonan, C.D.; Wyse, A.T.S. NTPDase and 5′-nucleotidase activities in physiological and disease conditions : New perspectives for human health. BioFactors 2007, 31, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  103. Lee, M.H.; Tsai, T.C.; Huang, C.Y.; Liu, B.D.; Lin, H.Y. Recognition and electrochemical sensing of 8-Hydroxydeoxyguanosine with molecularly imprinted poly (ethylene-co-vinyl alcohol) thin films. Key Eng. Mater. 2012, 495, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  104. Ersöz, A.; Diltemiz, S.E.; Özcan, A.A.; Denizli, A.; Say, R. Synergie between molecular imprinted polymer based on solid-phase extraction and quartz crystal microbalance technique for 8-OHdG sensing. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2008, 24, 742–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  105. Agrofoglio, L.A.; Krstulja, A.; De Schutter, C.; Favetta, P.; Delépée, R.; Roy, V.; Dejous, C.; Hallil, H.; Lachaud, J.-L.; Lebal, N.; et al. Detection of urinary modified nucleosides by a bulk acoustic wave MIP sensor—Results and future work. IRBM 2014, 35, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  106. Ertürk, G.; Mattiasson, B. Molecular imprinting techniques used for the preparation of biosensors. Sensors 2017, 17, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  107. Rissin, D.M.; Kan, C.W.; Campbell, T.G.; Howes, S.C.; Fournier, D.R.; Song, L.; Piech, T.; Patel, P.P.; Chang, L.; Rivnak, A.J.; et al. Single-Molecule enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay detects serum proteins at subfemtomolar concentrations. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 595–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  108. Bahadir, E.B.; Sezgintürk, M.K. Applications of commercial biosensors in clinical, food, environmental, and biothreat/biowarfare analyses. Anal. Biochem. 2015, 478, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.