Next Article in Journal
Nonlinear Optics in Microspherical Resonators
Previous Article in Journal
Metal-Assisted Chemical Etching and Electroless Deposition for Fabrication of Hard X-ray Pd/Si Zone Plates
Previous Article in Special Issue
Advances in Magnetoresistive Biosensors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Micromachines
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/mi11030302
micromachines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Magnetic Particles: Their Applications from Sample Preparations to Biosensing Platforms

by
Seong-Eun Kim
1,
My Van Tieu
2,
Sei Young Hwang
2 and
Min-Ho Lee
2,*
1
Human IT Convergence Research Center, Korea Electronics Technology Institute, Gyeonggi-do 13509, Korea
2
School of Integrative Engineering, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Seoul 06974, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Micromachines 2020, 11(3), 302; https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11030302
Submission received: 27 December 2019 / Revised: 28 February 2020 / Accepted: 10 March 2020 / Published: 13 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Magnetic Biosensors)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The growing interest in magnetic materials as a universal tool has been shown by an increasing number of scientific publications regarding magnetic materials and its various applications. Substantial progress has been recently made on the synthesis of magnetic iron oxide particles in terms of size, chemical composition, and surface chemistry. In addition, surface layers of polymers, silica, biomolecules, etc., on magnetic particles, can be modified to obtain affinity to target molecules. The developed magnetic iron oxide particles have been significantly utilized for diagnostic applications, such as sample preparations and biosensing platforms, leading to the selectivity and sensitivity against target molecules and the ease of use in the sensing systems. For the process of sample preparations, the magnetic particles do assist in target isolation from biological environments, having non-specific molecules and undesired molecules. Moreover, the magnetic particles can be easily applied for various methods of biosensing devices, such as optical, electrochemical, and magnetic phenomena-based methods, and also any methods combined with microfluidic systems. Here we review the utilization of magnetic materials in the isolation/preconcentration of various molecules and cells, and their use in various techniques for diagnostic biosensors that may greatly contribute to future innovation in point-of-care and high-throughput automation systems.

1. Introduction

Magnetic particles typically refer to the materials consisting of magnetite (Fe3O4) or maghemite (gamma-Fe2O3) ranging from sub-nano to micro-meters in size which respond to an external magnetic field [1]. Due to their unique magnetic property, they have great potentials in a variety of biological applications in their bare form or coated with surface coating materials and functional groups chosen for specific uses [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Isolation and separation of specific target molecules, including small drugs, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), proteins, and cells from biological media are necessary for bioscience and biomedical applications. However, biological environments known as highly complex matrixes (i.e., serum, urine, saliva, etc.) and also typical separation processes, e.g., the silica-based column method, are required to have a time-consuming procedure, and even traditional ones, e.g., the phenol/alcohol precipitation method, require toxic reagents for the extraction of DNA/(ribonucleic acid)RNA, proteins, etc. [8]. In recent developments, magnetic particles can improve the efficiency of target molecule separations without harmful reagents. Due to different compositions, sizes and magnetic properties, magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) can be used in a variety of instruments and formats for biosensing with an enhancement of sensitivity and the stability [9,10,11]. Thus, many types of biosensors have been using surface-functionalized magnetic particles to recognize specific molecular targets with high sensitivity and selectivity. In the field of biomedical applications, a wide spectrum of advanced materials, including micro and nanoparticles, have been developed for sample preparation and biosensing platforms [12,13,14]. The use of magnetic particles has allowed the biomedical processes to be quick, simple, robust, and high-throughput systems. In this review, a number of cases of magnetic materials applied in isolation/pre-concentration of various target molecules and their use in recent biosensing platforms for biomedical applications will be given. It has been highly anticipated that these current developments in magnetic particle may contribute to future innovation in point-of-care and high-throughput systems to increase the chance of successful diagnostics and clinical treatments.

2. Sample Preparations Using Magnetic Particles

Magnetic particles are considered interesting materials that are widely used in many applications, such as separation, diagnostics, and therapeutics. Magnetic nanoparticles can easily be separated from complex matrices such as biological samples by using an external magnetic field. Thus, traditional separation processes are not required, such as filtration or centrifugation. Magnetic solid-phase extraction (MSPE) was proposed for the facile and fast sample preparation processes. The magnetic materials are generally directly dispersed in the sample solutions for the rapid extraction process because they can be readily recovered by a magnet. Typically, the MSPE material is composed of a magnetic core and the functionalized outer surface of the same particle to be collected by using a magnet and for the extraction of various target compounds from biological samples (i.e., serum, urine, saliva, etc.), respectively.

2.1. MP-Based Drug Extraction from Biological Samples

MSPE for drug molecule extraction from biological samples (blood plasma, urine, etc.) is one of the crucial application areas of magnetic nanoparticles. Carbon coated magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles were used for extracting pharmaceutical compounds, including carvedilol, losartan, and amlodipine besylate, from plasma samples [15]. Magnetic nanocomposites composed of Fe3O4 nanoparticles and polyaniline were developed and successfully separated benxodiazepine drugs, including nitrazepam and lorazepam, from human plasma and urine samples [16]. Multiwalled carbon nanotube coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles used for the efficient extraction of brucine (a neurotoxic alkaloid existing in the Nux-vomica tree) from human urine samples were also reported [17]. For the selective extraction of seven estrogens from human urine samples, magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles having a layer composed of 1,3,5-triformylbenzene (Tb) and benzidine (Bd) (Fe3O4@TbBd) were prepared and successfully applied [18]. Organic dendrimer-modified magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles for the extraction of rosuvastatin from human urine and blood plasma were reported [19]. The magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles were first synthesized by using FeCl2 and FeCl3. The surface of the synthesized magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles was conjugated with organic dendrimers containing ethylene diamine and methyl methacrylate, and then applied for efficient separation, achieving 61 mg g-1. In addition, magnetic nanoparticles having a molecularly imprinted polymeric (MIP) layer were successfully developed and utilized for the selective separation of 9-hydroxyrisperidone and risperidone from human urine samples [20]. Polydopamine(pDA)-coated magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles modified with multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were prepared. Owing to the pDA, it results in the formation of a continuous coating layer on the substrate magnetic material via strong binding affinity of catechol functional groups. The prepared magnetic nanoparticles were successfully used for the extraction of antiepileptic drugs, including phenytoin, oxcarbazepine, and carbamazepine from human urine, plasma, and cerebrospinal fluid samples [21].

2.2. MP-Based DNA/RNA Extraction from Biological Samples

Magnetic particles have significant advantages in both ease of use and high purity when isolating nucleated cells and nucleotides directly from biological samples. Although the extracted genomic DNA (gDNA) are easily contaminated by various known enzyme inhibitors (phenol, urea, and salts) originating from the traditional organic extraction and/or biological samples, this approach concentrates and extracts gDNA and eliminates the influence of physiological metabolites from the biological samples that would otherwise inhibit enzyme activities for polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Shan et al. used carboxylated magnetic nanoparticles (CMNPs) to develop a PCR-ready gDNA extraction from urine and blood samples. CMNPs were first used for cell extractions and then absorbed gDNA from the lysates. Relative to traditional methods, the present procedure required less handling, no hazardous reagents (e.g., chloroform), and could be carried out in single microcentrifuge tube within 30 min. These methods, while simple, rapid, sensitive, and environmentally friendly, are suitable for routine laboratory use, but also hold promise for the construction of automated urine extraction systems for various diagnostic purposes [22,23,24].

2.3. MP-Based Protein/Peptide Isolation from Biological Samples

The use of magnetic particles is highly convenient and rapid for separations of proteins and peptide. Magnetic beads exhibit low non-specific binding of non-target molecules included in different samples. For certain samples, preclearing may be required to remove molecules having highly non-specific binding affinity. First, the sample can be mixed with magnetic nanoparticles not coated with the affinity ligand. For the case of immunomagnetic separation, magnetic nanoparticles have been coated with secondary antibody or with irrelevant antibodies. In addition, the non-specific binding can also be reduced by adding a non-ionic detergent either in the sample or in the washing buffers during the isolation of the target. In general, magnetic particles for protein/peptide separation can be used in two different methods. In the direct method, an appropriate affinity ligand is directly coupled to the magnetic particles exhibiting the affinity towards target compounds. These particles are added to the sample and target compounds then bind to them. In the indirect method, the free affinity ligand (in most cases an appropriate antibody) is added to the solution to enable the interaction with the target compound. The resulting complex is then captured by appropriate magnetic particles. In both methods, magnetic particles with isolated target compounds are magnetically separated, and then several washing steps are performed to the remove majority of contaminating compounds and particles. The target compounds are then usually eluted. In most cases, bound protein/peptide can be added to standard elution methods, such as the change of pH, change of ionic strength, and use of polarity reducing agent (e.g., dioxane or ethyleneglycol). Affinity elution (e.g., elution of glycoproteins from lectin coated magnetic beads by the addition of free sugar) may be both efficient and gentle. The following examples are for the protein/peptide magnetic separations (Table 1).

3. Biosensing Devices Using Magnetic Particles

In this section, we summarized recent studies of biosensing devices that apply magnetic materials. They have advantageous functional capabilities, such as their magnetic property, low background noise, good dispersions, and highly biocompatible surfaces with regard to the immobilized recognizable bioreceptors [34,35,36,37]. With the continuing multidisciplinary development of magnetic-particle-based biosensing techniques, these efforts have found the way for modern biological devices for on-site or high-throughput purposes by replacing sophisticated monitoring biomedical devices. Of the varied biosensing devices available, we have paid attention to two main biosensing devices; i.e., optical sensing devices and electrochemical sensing devices with the integration of magnetic material for sensing biological targets. As illustrated in Figure 1, we have paid much attention to smartphones and other mobile devices integrated with detection in paper-based analytical devices or lateral-flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIA)—and the interdigitated array microelectrode, screen-printed electrode, and microfluidic devices too—providing useful insights on point-of-care healthcare devices.

3.1. Optical Biosensing Devices

Optical biosensing devices have been developed to offer a simple and rapid approach for sensing biological analytes. This method has been classified into, mainly, four techniques: colorimetric, fluorescent, surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and surface-enhanced Raman scattering methods, which are combined with magnetic particles in integrated devices; these were reported in proof-of-concept studies. Here, we discuss how the magnetic particles can be adapted to the optical sensing systems.

3.1.1. Colorimetric Biosensing Devices

Colorimetric biosensing techniques are to transform the detection of biological elements into measurable color changes. Additionally, they are inexpensive and only require simple detection equipment [36,37]. For various colorimetric devices for analysis, lateral flow tests (LFA) and paper devices are the main methods which are commonly associated with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to identify targets [38]. As mentioned earlier, these devices combined with MNPs have benefits such as sensitivity, specificity, speed, and inexpensive platforms [39]. Moreover, due to the small testing sample volume, vulnerable individuals being exposed to dangerous chemicals is not an issue. Lastly, colorimetric tests are primarily tested with digital images, leading to an objective automated analysis by smartphone or camera [40,41]. Table 2 summarizes magnetic-materials-based colorimetric devices developed and employed for the quantification of biological targets.
Recently, Russell et al. depicted a sensitive colorimetric assay for the detection sepsis biomarkers in whole blood on filter papers [50]. Biotinylated capture antibodies and avidin-labeled particles were used to remove non-specific interactions with target PCT. It was followed by the motion-to-color transduction process and further amplification via Janus nanoparticles. Finally, these color changes are then read and quantified by customized smartphone apps. The assay depicted high sensitivity (limit of detection (LOD) = 2 ng·mL−1) in the dynamic linear range of 1–20 ng mL−1 within 13 min and potential application in whole blood without preparation. And another example is from Li’s group, who published a rapid and effective method for a L. monocytogenes gene; it is a major infectious pathogen that threatens public health worldwide [51]. In this study, in the strong interaction between streptavidin and biotin, the immunomagnetic-streptavidin is effectively attached to L. monocytogenes cells for high molecular identification and catalytic activity. The genomic DNA of L. monocytogenes was extracted, and PCR was performed to create single-strand DNA amplifiers (ssDNA). Finally, through the nucleic acid lateral flow (NALF) biosensor, ssDNA amplifiers were detected by the naked eye. The LOD and the linear range for L. monocytogenes were 3.5 × 103 colony forming unit (CFU) mL−1 and 100 to 107 CFU mL−1, respectively.

3.1.2. Fluorescent Biosensing Devices

Fluorescent biosensing devices are based on changes caused by analytes in the chemical and physical properties of fluorophores, including fluorescence intensity, lifetime, and anisotropy, in connection with the process of charge transfer or power transmission process [52,53]. In addition, it has been known as an effective method for multiple and highly sensitive detections of biological targets in molecular and clinical diagnosis to monitor disease progression and drug/therapy method response to diagnose images and image-guided surgery [54,55,56,57]. The use of magnetic particles enables the high washing efficiency of the target separation step to rapidly remove the unwanted components, resulting in the enhancement of the limit of detection. Based on those advantages, widely used fluorescence-based technologies for multiple/highly sensitive detections using the magnetic beads, such as Luminex xMAP [58,59,60,61], magnetic modulation biosensing (MMB) [62], Quanterix Simoa [63,64] and magnetically-modulated optical nanoprobes (MagMOONs) [65,66], have emerged. A recent study by Wang et al. pointed out a microfluidic biosensing device modification platform for Salmonella typhimurium measurement using fluorescent labeling and video processing on smartphones. Magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) were modified with monoclonal antibodies against Salmonella typhimurium and then reacted with modified fluorescence microscopy (FMS) with polyclonal antibodies against Salmonella typhimurium to form a FMS-Salmonella complex. The structure of a smartphone-based fluorescent microscope system has been used with LED light sources to excite fluorescence to track the fluorescence points and the number of fluorescent bacteria calculated via real-time video processing within 2 h. The detection limit (LOD) and linear range of Salmonella typhimurium were 58 CFU mL−1 and 1.4 × 102 to 1.4 × 106 CFU mL−1, respectively. The existence of Listeri monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157: H7, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in samples did not interfere with the detection of Salmonella typhimurium [67].
Other fluorescence methods to detect biological targets include the use of composite materials in which magnetic nanoparticles serve as the main material to facilitate higher detection capacity. To perform this method, several studies have tried to incorporate magnetic nanoparticles known to be capable of separating samples into a specific target of interest. In 2019, Zhang et al. developed fluorescent, magnetic, spore-based (spore@Fe3O4@CDs) microrobots (FMSMs) for detecting toxins secreted by Clostridium difficile bacteria. Based on fluorescence property, the detection limit of this platform for Clostridium difficile was 2.13 ng mL−1 and the linear range was 0.38–17.80 ng mL−1 [68]. Therefore, owing to the selectivity of magnetic materials, this technique could be an effective method for various biological targets. Burg et al. also reported a cluster of magnetic particles based on fluorescence. Since the fluorescence is based on a cluster of magnetic beads with an active conic tip, a cluster of magnetic beads provides far greater fluorescent signals than single-particles. Human interleukin-8 was detected by fluorescent devices with a CMOS camera. The detection limit was 0.1 ng L−1 [69].

3.1.3. Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensing Devices

Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensing techniques are based on photonic technology, electronics, and nanotechnology for label-free optical sensing technology, which allows for direct refractive index changes and real-time sensor surfaces, providing excellent sensitivity due to magnified electric fields. The rapid and widespread advancement of SPR technology has been done by using magnetic materials for the intensity of the sensitivity of reflected light at a specific angle called the resonant angle [70]. The changing color of the solution can be observed due to the change in reflectance angle or wavelength against time in SPR system [71,72]. Immunoassays with SPR devices have been successfully developed to detect the extracellular vesicles by using antibodies against CD81 [73]. Meanwhile, Reiner’s group has utilized magnetic nanoparticles to develop the novel method of SPR combined with fluorescence, which resulted in 2.4-fold higher fluorescence than just an SPR detection channel only. In addition, a smartphone integrated compact system has been developed to detect different concentrations of antibodies under the nM range sensitivity, and the device has a resolution of 7.4 × 10−5 refractive index unit (RIU) and weight of 40 g [74].

3.1.4. Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering Biosensing Devices

Surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) was founded in the 1970s by M. Fleischmannand et al. and can generate the spectral signatures of various biological analytes with its high sensitivity, specificity, and speed. Especially, SERS has intense penetration in complex biological sample matrices, such as in blood, and in pork samples [75,76,77]. For example, Xiong et al. reported the magnetic particle integrated microfluidic chip applied in SPR for a simple, rapid, and highly sensitive detection of multi cancer biomarkers (prostate specific antigen (PSA), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA) 125, and CA19-9) with the detection limit of PSA down to 0.2 pg mL−1 and bacterial species (E. coli O157: H7 and S. aureus) in 1 μL of body fluids within 8 min (Figure 2 and Figure 3) [78]. Zhang’s group also demonstrated that S. typhimurium and S. aureus were detected by using aptamer probes and magnetic gold nanoparticles with enhanced Raman intensity under the SERS intensity at 1582 cm−1 in the range of 102–107 CFU mL−1. The limits of detection are 35 CFU mL−1 for S. aureus and 15 CFU mL−1 for S. typhimurium, respectively [79].

3.2. Electrochemical Biosensing Devices

Electrochemical biosensing techniques require the understanding of the electrical properties of the detection method, such as its potential, current, capacitance, and impedance, to measure the electric current generated by the oxidation and reduction reactions of analytical targets. They are directly proportional to the concentrations of analyte in complex biological samples [80,81,82]. We can categorize the system of the electrochemical detection in biological samples into four techniques: potentiometric, conductometric, amperometric, and impedance biosensing devices (see Table 3). The development of electrochemical equipment, when combined with magnetic materials, has led to great potential for commercialization of biosensing devices.

3.2.1. Potentiometric Biosensing Devices

Potentiometry is an engaging instrument for many practical applications, because it allows the measurement of a wide spectrum of ions, and it applies mobile and reasonable price devices in numerous medical, industrial, and environmental tests [36,83,84]. The potentiometric transduction was first reported in 1969, in which an enzyme based sensor was used to detect urea [85]. It involves measuring the potential difference between the working and reference electrodes in order to generate different potentials from analysis when providing a constant voltage. In addition, there is no significant current flow between them [86]. Potentiometry usually has a large dynamic range due to the signal proportional to the logarithm of the ionic activity. In addition, they have a short response time, in the order of seconds, making them suitable for process control and enabling high sample throughput in flow analysis. Moreover, their small size, reasonably economical production values, low power expenditure, and portability, make them more proper for diverse purposes [87,88]. Liu et al. presented a specific single-cell detection device that is based on target cells that are conjugated with magnetic beads for the magnetic bead assay and two micro Coulter counters for potentiometric detection of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) [89]. The HUVECs’ obviously have a much longer transit time distribution than the non-target rat adipose-derived stem cells (rASCs). They also reported that the various cell ratios (2%, 5%, 10%, 30%, and 50%) of HUVECs which can be detected in situ were accurately identified.

3.2.2. Conductometric Biosensing Devices

In this type of device, analytical information is obtained by measuring the electrical conductivity, due to the charge transmission of cations and anions under the action of an external electric field. In other words, the measurement is based on an electroanalytical method that involves measuring conductivity separated by a specific distance or environment, such as nanowires. Conductivity measurement is based on the alternating current (AC) power supply to apply across the electrode using an Ohmmeter. The main advantages of the instrumentation are that they do not require a reference electrode, are inexpensive, have the ability to minimize the direct electrical response, are fast, and are single-use biological devices [90,91,92]. In this study, urease based magnetic beads were modified with graphene oxide and nickel oxide to have conduction of interfacial electrons and high enzyme binding activity [93]. Upon the target outline in urea samples, the wireless measurement system and the microfluidic measurement system proceeded to separate testing assays. While using a microfluidic device, the developed biosensing device could measure urea at the sensitivity 5.582 mV (mg/dl)−1 with a linearity of 0.959 and high reliability.

3.2.3. Amperometric Biosensing Devices

Amperometry is the one of the most sensitive techniques to obtain high sensitivity in biosensor devices. This technique is based on the measurement of electric current as a function of the time due to the oxidation and reduction of an electrolyte in the biochemical reaction, largely depending on the concentration of the analyte of constant potential. Because most analytes (proteins) cannot essentially act as redox partners in the electrochemical reaction, electrons are also not transferred from the analyte to the working electrode or to the analyte from the electrode. To overcome that problem, a labeling electrochemical test is required for the electrochemical reaction of the analyte at the electrode surfaces. Horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) are the most commonly used as labels to catalyze the reaction of substrates to form electroactive products [94,95]. Bandodkar’s group recently represented a rapid, sensitive, and reasonable price in printed electrochemical devices for the detection of H2O2 at self-healing electrodes [96]. As illustrated in Figure 4, a Nd2Fe14B microparticle (NMP)–loaded graphitic inks were used to improve the self-healing ability with highly repeats recovery. It was followed by amperometric quantification of H2O2, with repeat five times for each H2O2 concentration at the same location. This assay produced a new self-healing notion, and the inherent application can also be applied in the wearable device based electrical circuits.

3.2.4. Impedimetric Biosensing Devices

In electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), there are interference characteristics of surface-changing electrodes and mechanisms of charge transfer and ion transport in the electrolytic interface, which have recently become widespread tools for bioreceptors. This method is known as an oscilloscope scan with a frequency of electrical sweep of the immunoassay system, within 10 kHz and 10 mHz, with these parameters being resistance (R), resistance transfer charge (Rct) between solution and electrode surface, Warburg element (Zw), and double-layer capacitance (Cdl) [97,98]. The sample impedance is calculated as the ratio of voltage to current with both amplitude and phase: a complex number. EIS may have the strongest advantage of lower concentration detection (nano unit and pico unit) and is capable of testing for unlabeled detection [99,100]. In one of the studies by Wang et al., thrombin was electrochemically tracked in biological samples in serum using a microfluidic system and magnetic separation functionalized with the detection of protein. The probe thrombin-aptamer was coated magnetic beads to capture and separate thrombin target. After the target was injected into the microfluidic flow cell, the values of impedance changed, owing to the fact that the concentration of thrombin is proportional to the charges on the thrombin surface. This microfluidic device submitted a notable, rapid, specific, and sensitive method, with a detection limit of 0.01 nM and a linear range from 0.1 nM to 10 nM [101]. Another study was conducted by Kongsuphol’s team to detect tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) by using a magnetic antibody biosensor-based biosensor platform [102]. Abundant protein sources are drained from the serum by using magnetic particles in combination with albumin and IgG antibodies. TNF-α is then captured by TNF-α antibodies conjugated with magnetic particles. The conjugated TNF-α was eluted from magnetic particles and measured using EIS technique which combined a structured gold microelectrode array (CSGM) to detect ultrasensitive 1 pg mL−1 with undiluted human serum and linearity from 1 to 1000 pg mL−1. Both published methods are designed to be sensitive, simple, and label-free platforms. As shown in Table 3, we summarized the strategies for electrochemical biosensor using magnetic particles.

4. Magnetic Phenomena-Based Bioassays

In this section, we will discuss magnetic phenomena used in biosensing platforms. Magnetic materials are basically composed of metals, such as Fe, Co, or Ni, or metal oxides. Since they provide various advantages, such as larger surface area, specific controllability through a magnetic field, and functional alterations through surface modifications, they are often used to fulfill requirements for developing advanced forms of biosensing as ways of separating and pre-treatment of samples or used as detection probes for enhancing measured signals. Moreover, magnetic particles have been employed in various magnetic phenomena-based bioassays. This review will categorize recent magnetic nanoparticle-based assays into giant magnetoresistance (GMR), magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ), magnetic particle spectroscopy (MPS), and the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based assay.

4.1. GMR-Based Bioassay

Giant magnetoresistance (GMR) biosensor employs the basic phenomenon that occurs in magnetic materials including nanoparticles, multilayered thin films, and permanent magnets combined with bioreceptors. This appears alteration of magnetization in so called “free-layer” which consists GMR sensor platform, leading to the change of the resistance of GMR sensors [112] The detection takes place through measuring the signal intensity, which would be proportional to number of nanoparticles bound to the unit area [113]. It has been demonstrated that GMR sensors show highly sensitive and real-time signal readout. Furthermore, they can be produced with low cost which will be advantageous for mass production. [114,115,116] Through surface modification of MNPs, this platform can be widely used for detection of several biological targets as shown in Figure 5A,B. [113,117,118,119,120,121,122].

4.2. MTJ-Based Bioassay

Magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) sensors, also one of the magneto resistive sensors, often called as tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) sensor require low magnetic field while still offering high sensitivity because they possess higher ratio of magnetoresistance compared with GMR. Furthermore, there are various important qualities of TMR sensor platform such as convenience, less demand of sample quantity, wider conditions for choices of working temperature and voltage [123,124]. Furthermore, this feature can lead to fabrication of power-saving sensors, strengthening the merits of producing economic and eco-friendly bioassay devices [125]. TMR is caused by spinning coming from electron tunneling. Several studies have done for detecting bio recognition elements. For instance, Xiao’s team detected magnetic nanoparticles conjugated with DNA on MgO-based sensor surface [126]. To detect E. coli O157:H7 while using test strips, capture antibody-conjugated magnetic beads were employed. Signals were measured based on a potential change caused by difference of magnetic field fluctuation pattern due to the contrast between existence and absence of target binding to antibody-conjugated MNPs [127] (see Figure 5C,D). Mu et al. also conducted a study of detecting ricin on a test strip with magnetic field generating platform constituting of vertical and horizontal coils [128].

4.3. MPS-Based Bioassay

Magnetic particle spectroscopy (MPS), also known as magnetization response spectroscopy, is a newly rising technique that applies a sinusoidal magnetic field applied to superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles and observes their periodical saturation of magnetization in response to the magnetic field [129,130]. MPS signal is only observed from magnetic nanoparticles, rather than iron in blood or biological tissue, which makes it more accurate to quantify MNPs unaffected by other undesired factors [131]. Combined with Brownian relaxation methods, biotin-coated MNPs captured streptavidin successfully, which also showed sensitivity of detecting streptavidin at as low a concentration as 75nM. The demonstrated study adopted the changes in MPS patterns that occur when MNPs are bound to specific target, while diminishing the need of washing process [132].

4.4. NMR-Based Bioassay

Nuclear magnetic resonance is a physical event that occurs when a certain atomic nucleus is placed in magnetic field to absorb electromagnetic radiation and released again. Through numerous investigations of this event, one can apply this event to analyze the magnetic characteristics of nuclei and develop the information to detect bio-molecules as well [133]. Due to the facts that this signal can pass through samples without destructing them and sample preparation time is not necessary, NMR methods are adequate to analyze biological samples, and to save up time for analysis. With various modifications to improve this technique, fast and accurate detection with small sample volume has been made possible, also enabling mass production of handy-sized, easy-of-use sensor platform with low cost [134,135]. Addition of magnetic nanoparticles to the platforms can guarantee higher sensitivity and shorten the testing time. To detect prostate-specific antigen, nitrocellulose membrane-based test strips were designed and measured by a portable NMR relaxometer [136]. Many other research groups attempted to adopt this technique to detect several biological components such as food borne bacteria [137,138,139,140] (See Figure 6).

5. Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives

Recent advances in magnetic particles have been focusing on employing various biomedical applications to achieve highly sensitive and rapid sensing performance. Magnetic particle-based target-molecule separation processes for sample preparation have been developed and reported by multiple research groups. For point-of-care biosensing devices, various magnetic particles were easily applied for the enhanced performances of biosensors with various techniques, such as the optical/electrochemical method combined with a microfluidic channel or LFA system, and also various magnetic phenomena-based bioassays, resulting in greatly simplifying extraction and detection procedures. In this review, the use of magnetic materials in the efficient isolations of various molecules and cells, and their successful use in many types of diagnostic biosensors, were summarized. These simple, rapid, and sensitive approaches may show promising developments in point-of-care and high-throughput biological devices for precise testing and analysis within a short time, greatly improving human health in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.-H.L. and S.-E.K.; methodology, S.-E.K.; validation, S.-E.K., M.V.T. and S.Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-E.K.; writing—review and editing, S.-E.K.; visualization, M.V.T. and S.Y.H.; supervision, M.-H.L.; funding acquisition, M.-H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Ministry of the Environment (grant number RQ201901136) and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (number NRF-2019R1F1A1060724).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wu, W.; Wu, Z.; Yu, T.; Jiang, C.; Kim, W.S. Recent progress on magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: Synthesis, surface functional strategies and biomedical applications. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2015, 16, 023501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mahdavi, M.; Ahmad, M.B.; Haron, M.J.; Namvar, F.; Nadi, B.; Rahman, M.Z.; Amin, J. Synthesis, surface modification and characterisation of biocompatible magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for biomedical applications. Molecules 2013, 18, 7533–7548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Silva, S.M.; Tavallaie, R.; Sandiford, L.; Tilley, R.D.; Gooding, J.J. Gold coated magnetic nanoparticles: From preparation to surface modification for analytical and biomedical applications. Chem. Commun. 2016, 52, 7528–7540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Yang, H.M.; Park, C.W.; Ahn, T.; Jung, B.; Seo, B.K.; Park, J.H.; Kim, J.D. A direct surface modification of iron oxide nanoparticles with various poly (amino acids) for use as magnetic resonance probes. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2013, 391, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yang, P.; Xu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, L.; Kuang, H.; Aguilar, Z.P. Surface modification affect the biodistribution and toxicity characteristics of iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles in rats. IET Nanobiotechnology 2018, 12, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Iravani, S. Bio-Based Synthesis of Magnetic Nanoparticles and Their Applications. In Magnetic Nanostructures: Environmental and Agricultural Applications; Abd-Elsalam, K.A., Mohamed, M.A., Prasad, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 13–31. [Google Scholar]
  7. Elrahman, A.A.A.; Mansour, F.R. Targeted magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: Preparation, functionalization and biomedical application. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2019, 52, 702–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kotchoni, S.O.; Gachomo, E.W. A rapid and hazardous reagent free protocol for genomic DNA extraction suitable for genetic studies in plants. Mol. Boil. Rep. 2009, 36, 1633–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Yi, D.K.; Selvan, S.T.; Lee, S.S.; Papaefthymiou, G.C.; Kundaliya, D.; Ying, J.Y. Silica-coated nanocomposites of magnetic nanoparticles and quantum dots. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 4990–4991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Elrefai, A.L.; Yoshida, T.; Enpuku, K. Magnetic parameters evaluation of magnetic nanoparticles for use in biomedical applications. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2019, 474, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xianyu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Chen, Y. Magnetic particles-enabled biosensors for point-of-care testing. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2018, 106, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wu, K.; Su, D.; Liu, J.; Saha, R.; Wang, J.-P. Magnetic nanoparticles in nanomedicine: A review of recent advances. Nanotechnology 2019, 30, 502003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Vallabani, N.V.S.; Singh, S.; Karakoti, A.S. Magnetic Nanoparticles: Current Trends and Future Aspects in Diagnostics and Nanomedicine. Curr. Drug Metab. 2019, 20, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ha, Y.; Ko, S.; Kim, I.; Huang, Y.; Mohanty, K.; Huh, C.; Maynard, J.A. Recent Advances Incorporating Superparamagnetic Nanoparticles into Immunoassays. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2018, 1, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Heidari, H.; Limouei-Khosrowshahi, B. Magnetic solid phase extraction with carbon-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles coupled to HPLC-UV for the simultaneous determination of losartan, carvedilol, and amlodipine besylate in plasma samples. J. Chromatogr. B 2019, 1114, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Asgharinezhad, A.A.; Ebrahimzadeh, H.; Mirbabaei, F.; Mollazadeh, N.; Shekari, N. Dispersive micro-solid-phase extraction of benzodiazepines from biological fluids based on polyaniline/magnetic nanoparticles composite. Anal. Chim. Acta 2014, 844, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Feng, Z.; Yang, R.; Du, B. Fast SPE and HPLC–DAD determination of brucine in human urine using multi-walled carbon nanotubes modified with magnetic nanoparticles. J. Anal. Chem. 2017, 72, 862–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, L.; Zhang, M.; Fu, F.; Li, J.; Lin, Z. Facile synthesis of magnetic covalent organic framework nanobeads and application to magnetic solid-phase extraction of trace estrogens from human urine. J. Chromatogr. A 2018, 1567, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mirzapour, H.; Panahi, H.A.P.A.; Moniri, E.M.; Feizbakhsh, A.F. Magnetic nanoparticles modified with organic dendrimers containing methyl methacrylate and ethylene diamine for the microextraction of rosuvastatin. Microchim. Acta 2018, 185, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ji, W.-H.; Guo, Y.-S.; Wang, X.; Guo, D.-S. A water-compatible magnetic molecularly imprinted polymer for the selective extraction of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone from human urine. Talanta 2018, 181, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, R.; Wang, S.; Yang, Y.; Deng, Y.; Li, D.; Su, P.; Yang, Y. Modification of polydopamine-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles with multi-walled carbon nanotubes for magnetic-μ-dispersive solid-phase extraction of antiepileptic drugs in biological matrices. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2018, 410, 3779–3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhou, Z.; Kadam, U.; Irudayaraj, J. One-step Genome DNA extraction by Salicylic Acid Coated Magnetic Nanoparticles. Anal. Biochem. 2013, 442, 249–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Saiyed, Z.M.; Ramchand, C.N.; Telang, S.D. Isolation of genomic DNA using magnetic nanoparticles as a solid-phase support. J. Physics: Condens. Matter 2008, 20, 204153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shan, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Chen, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Wen, A.; Oakes, K.D.; Servos, M.R. PCR-ready human DNA extraction from urine samples using magnetic nanoparticles. J. Chromatogr. B 2012, 881, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Odabaşi, M.; Denizli, A.; Odabaşı, M. Polyhydroxyethylmethacrylate-based magnetic DNA-affinity beads for anti-DNA antibody removal from systemic lupus erythematosus patient plasma. J. Chromatogr. B 2001, 760, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Meng, Z.-H.; Lin, B.; Xie, Y.-H.; Zhang, K.-Q. Cloning and expression of fused Fc-binding protein (SPA-SPG) and its application in purification of IgG. Prog. Biochem. Biophys. 2004, 31, 146–149. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bhagwati, S.; Ghatpande, A.; Leung, B. Identification of Two Nuclear Proteins Which Bind to RNA CUG Repeats: Significance for Myotonic Dystrophy. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1996, 228, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zollner, T.C.A.; Zollner, R.D.L.; De Cuyper, M.; Santana, M.H.A. Adsorption of Isotype “E” Antibodies on Affinity Magnetoliposomes. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2003, 24, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zeng, G.; Gao, L.; Xia, T.; Tencomnao, T.; Yu, R.K. Characterization of the 5′-flanking fragment of the human GM3-synthase gene. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Gene Struct. Expr. 2003, 1625, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Blank, M.; Weinschenk, T.; Priemer, M.; Schluesener, H. Systematic evolution of a DNA aptamer binding to rat brain tumor microvessels selective targeting of endothelial regulatory protein pigpen. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276, 16464–16468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Chakraborty, A.; White, S.M.; Schaefer, T.S.; Ball, E.D.; Dyer, K.F.; Tweady, D.J. Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Activation of Stat3alpha and Stat3beta in Immature Normal and Leukemic Human Myeloid Cells. Blood 1996, 88, 2442–2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Müller-Schulte, D.; Brunner, H. Novel magnetic microspheres on the basis of poly (vinyl alcohol) as affinity medium for quantitative detection of glycated haemoglobin. J. Chromatogr. A 1995, 711, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ji, Z.; Pinon, D.I.; Miller, L. Development of Magnetic Beads for Rapid and Efficient Metal-Chelate Affinity Purifications. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 240, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lu, H.; Yi, G.; Zhao, S.; Chen, D.; Guo, L.-H.; Cheng, J. Synthesis and characterization of multi-functional nanoparticles possessing magnetic, up-conversion fluorescence and bio-affinity properties. J. Mater. Chem. 2004, 14, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tiikkaja, M.; Aro, A.L.; Alanko, T.; Lindholm, H.; Sistonen, H.; Hartikainen, J.E.; Toivonen, L.; Juutilainen, J.; Hietanen, M. Electromagnetic interference with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from low-frequency electromagnetic fields in vivo. Europace 2013, 15, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Wang, C.; Yuan, H.; Duan, Z.; Xiao, D. Integrated multi-ISE arrays with improved sensitivity, accuracy and precision. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Nima, Z.A.; Watanabe, F.; Jamshidi-Parsian, A.; Sarimollaoglu, M.; Nedosekin, D.A.; Han, M.; Watts, J.A.; Biris, A.S.; Zharov, V.P.; Galanzha, E.I. Bioinspired magnetic nanoparticles as multimodal photoacoustic, photothermal and photomechanical contrast agents. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Coleman, B.; Coarsey, C.; Asghar, W. Cell phone based colorimetric analysis for point-of-care settings. Analyst 2019, 144, 1935–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kangas, M.J.; Burks, R.M.; Atwater, J.; Lukowicz, R.M.; Williams, P.; Holmes, A.E. Colorimetric Sensor Arrays for the Detection and Identification of Chemical Weapons and Explosives. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2017, 47, 138–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Yetisen, A.K.; Akram, M.S.; Lowe, C.R. Paper-based microfluidic point-of-care diagnostic devices. Lab Chip 2013, 13, 2210–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reboud, J.; Xu, G.; Garrett, A.; Adriko, M.; Yang, Z.; Tukahebwa, E.M.; Rowell, C.; Cooper, J. Paper-based microfluidics for DNA diagnostics of malaria in low resource underserved rural communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2019, 116, 4834–4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Shin, J.; Choi, S.; Yang, J.-S.; Song, J.; Choi, J.-S.; Jung, H.-I. Smart Forensic Phone: Colorimetric analysis of a bloodstain for age estimation using a smartphone. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2017, 243, 221–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jung, Y.; Kim, J.; Awofeso, O.; Kim, H.; Regnier, F.; Bae, E. Smartphone-based colorimetric analysis for detection of saliva alcohol concentration. Appl. Opt. 2015, 54, 9183–9189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Srisa-Art, M.; Boehle, K.E.; Geiss, B.J.; Henry, C.S. Highly Sensitive Detection of Salmonella typhimurium Using a Colorimetric Paper-Based Analytical Device Coupled with Immunomagnetic Separation. Anal. Chem. 2018, 90, 1035–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kim, M.S.; Kweon, S.H.; Cho, S.; An, S.S.A.; Kim, M.I.; Doh, J.; Lee, J. Pt-Decorated Magnetic Nanozymes for Facile and Sensitive Point-of-Care Bioassay. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 35133–35140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, D.B.; Tian, B.; Zhang, Z.P.; Wang, X.Y.; Fleming, J.; Bi, L.J.; Yang, R.F.; Zhang, X.E. Detection of Bacillus anthracis spores by super-paramagnetic lateral-flow immunoassays based on “Road Closure”. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 67, 608–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Suaifan, G.; Alhogail, S.; Zourob, M. Paper-based magnetic nanoparticle-peptide probe for rapid and quantitative colorimetric detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2017, 92, 702–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guo, R.; Wang, S.; Huang, F.; Chen, Q.; Li, Y.; Liao, M.; Lin, J. Rapid detection of Salmonella Typhimurium using magnetic nanoparticle immunoseparation, nanocluster signal amplification and smartphone image analysis. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2019, 284, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huang, Y.; Wu, T.; Wang, F.; Li, K.; Qian, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, G. Magnetized Carbon Nanotube Based Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Visual Detection of Complement Factor B. Molecules 2019, 24, 2759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Russell, S.M.; Alba-Patino, A.; Borges, M.; de la Rica, R. Multifunctional motion-to-color janus transducers for the rapid detection of sepsis biomarkers in whole blood. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 140, 111346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, F.; Li, F.; Luo, D.; Lai, W.; Xiong, Y.; Xu, H. Biotin-exposure-based immunomagnetic separation coupled with nucleic acid lateral flow biosensor for visibly detecting viable Listeria monocytogenes. Anal. Chim. Acta 2018, 1017, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Quinn, M.K.; Gnan, N.; James, S.; Ninarello, A.; Sciortino, F.; Zaccarelli, E.; McManus, J.J. How fluorescent labelling alters the solution behaviour of proteins. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 31177–31187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Prendergast, F.G.; Mann, K.G. Chemical and physical properties of aequorin and the green fluorescent protein isolated from Aequorea forskalea. Biochemistry 1978, 17, 3448–3453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zeng, Y.; Zhu, J.; Wang, J.; Parasuraman, P.; Busi, S.; Nauli, S.M.; Wang, Y.X.J.; Pala, R.; Liu, G. Functional probes for cardiovascular molecular imaging. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2018, 8, 838–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kim, S.E.; Jo, S.D.; Kwon, K.C.; Won, Y.Y.; Lee, J. Genetic Assembly of Double-Layered Fluorescent Protein Nanoparticles for Cancer Targeting and Imaging. Adv. Sci. 2017, 4, 1600471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lim, M.C.; Kim, Y.R. Analytical Applications of Nanomaterials in Monitoring Biological and Chemical Contaminants in Food. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 26, 1505–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Li, C. A targeted approach to cancer imaging and therapy. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Reslova, N.; Michna, V.; Kasny, M.; Mikel, P.; Kralik, P. xMAP Technology: Applications in Detection of Pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Burnham, C.-A.D.; Doern, C.; Binder, S.R. Viral Diseases 1, The Immunoassay Handbook; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 919–927. [Google Scholar]
  60. Doseeva, V.; Colpitts, T.; Gao, G.; Woodcock, J.; Knezevic, V. Performance of a multiplexed dual analyte immunoassay for the early detection of non-small cell lung cancer. J. Transl. Med. 2015, 13, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Breen, E.J.; Tan, W.; Khan, A. The Statistical Value of Raw Fluorescence Signal in Luminex xMAP Based Multiplex Immunoassays. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 26996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Verbarg, J.; Hadass, O.; Olivo, P.D.; Danielli, A. High sensitivity detection of a protein biomarker interleukin-8 utilizing a magnetic modulation biosensing system. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2017, 241, 614–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chunyk, A.G.; Joyce, A.; Fischer, S.K.; Dysinger, M.; Mikulskis, A.; Jeromin, A.; Lawrence-Henderson, R.; Baker, D.; Yeung, D. A Multi-site In-depth Evaluation of the Quanterix Simoa from a User’s Perspective. AAPS J. 2017, 20, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Poorbaugh, J.; Samanta, T.; Bright, S.W.; Sissons, S.E.; Chang, C.Y.; Oberoi, P.; MacDonald, A.J.; Martin, A.P.; Cox, K.L.; Benschop, R.J. Measurement of IL-21 in human serum and plasma using ultrasensitive MSD S-PLEX(R) and Quanterix SiMoA methodologies. J. Immunol. Methods 2019, 466, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Anker, J.N.; Behrend, C.J.; Huang, H.; Kopelman, R. Magnetically-modulated optical nanoprobes (MagMOONs) and systems. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2005, 293, 655–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nguyen, K.T.; Anker, J.N. Detecting De-gelation through Tissue Using Magnetically Modulated Optical Nanoprobes (MagMOONs). Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2014, 205, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Wang, S.; Zheng, L.; Cai, G.; Liu, N.; Liao, M.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.; Lin, J. A microfluidic biosensor for online and sensitive detection of Salmonella typhimurium using fluorescence labeling and smartphone video processing. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 140, 111333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Yang, L.; Vong, C.I.; Chan, K.-F.; Wu, W.K.K.; Kwong, T.N.Y.; Lo, N.W.; Ip, M.; Wong, S.H.; et al. Real-time tracking of fluorescent magnetic spore–based microrobots for remote detection of C. diff toxins. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaau9650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Burg, S.; Cohen, M.; Margulis, M.; Roth, S.; Danielli, A. Magnetically aggregated biosensors for sensitive detection of biomarkers at low concentrations. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2019, 115, 103702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zeng, S.; Baillargeat, D.; Ho, H.P.; Yong, K.T. Nanomaterials enhanced surface plasmon resonance for biological and chemical sensing applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2014, 43, 3426–3452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhou, X.; Li, X.; Li, S.; An, G.-W.; Cheng, T. Magnetic Field Sensing Based on SPR Optical Fiber Sensor Interacting With Magnetic Fluid. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2019, 68, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jiang, J.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Ding, F.; Li, N.; Meng, S.; Li, R.; Qi, J.; Liu, Q.; Liu, G.L. Plasmonic nano-arrays for ultrasensitive bio-sensing. Nanophotonics 2018, 7, 1517–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Reiner, A.T.; Fossati, S.; Dostalek, J. Biosensor platform for parallel surface plasmon-enhanced epifluorescence and surface plasmon resonance detection. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2018, 257, 594–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Liu, Y.; Liu, Q.; Chen, S.; Cheng, F.; Wang, H.; Peng, W. Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensor Based on Smart Phone Platforms. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 12864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Pang, Y.; Wan, N.; Shi, L.; Wang, C.; Sun, Z.; Xiao, R.; Wang, S. Dual-recognition surface-enhanced Raman scattering(SERS)biosensor for pathogenic bacteria detection by using vancomycin-SERS tags and aptamer-Fe3O4@Au. Anal. Chim. Acta 2019, 1077, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ilkhani, H.; Hughes, T.; Li, J.; Zhong, C.J.; Hepel, M. Nanostructured SERS-electrochemical biosensors for testing of anticancer drug interactions with DNA. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 80, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fleischmann, M.; Hendra, P.J.; McQuillan, A.J. Raman spectra of pyridine adsorbed at a silver electrode. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1974, 26, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Xiong, Q.; Lim, C.Y.; Ren, J.; Zhou, J.; Pu, K.; Chan-Park, M.B.; Mao, H.; Lam, Y.C.; Duan, H. Magnetic nanochain integrated microfluidic biochips. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Zhang, H.; Ma, X.; Liu, Y.; Duan, N.; Wu, S.; Wang, Z.; Xu, B. Gold nanoparticles enhanced SERS aptasensor for the simultaneous detection of Salmonella typhimurium and Staphylococcus aureus. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 74, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mohammadniaei, M.; Nguyen, H.V.; Tieu, M.V.; Lee, M.H. 2D Materials in Development of Electrochemical Point-of-Care Cancer Screening Devices. Micromachines 2019, 10, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Wu, H.; Gao, W.; Yin, Z. Materials, Devices and Systems of Soft Bioelectronics for Precision Therapy. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2017, 6, 1700017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bandodkar, A.J.; Mohan, V.; López, C.S.; Ramírez, J.; Wang, J. Self-Healing Inks for Autonomous Repair of Printable Electrochemical Devices. Adv. Electron. Mater. 2015, 1, 1500289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sempionatto, J.R.; Martin, A.; García-Carmona, L.; Barfidokht, A.; Kurniawan, J.F.; Moreto, J.R.; Tang, G.; Shin, A.; Liu, X.; Escarpa, A.; et al. Skin-worn Soft Microfluidic Potentiometric Detection System. Electroanalysis 2019, 31, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dobbelaere, T.; Vereecken, P.M.; Detavernier, C. A USB-controlled potentiostat/galvanostat for thin-film battery characterization. HardwareX 2017, 2, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Guilbault, G.G.; Montalvo, J.G. Urea-specific enzyme electrode. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969, 91, 2164–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Liu, C.; Neale, Z.G.; Cao, G. Understanding electrochemical potentials of cathode materials in rechargeable batteries. Mater. Today 2016, 19, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ainla, A.; Mousavi, M.P.S.; Tsaloglou, M.N.; Redston, J.; Bell, J.G.; Fernandez-Abedul, M.T.; Whitesides, G.M. Open-Source Potentiostat for Wireless Electrochemical Detection with Smartphones. Anal. Chem. 2018, 90, 6240–6246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Canovas, R.; Parrilla, M.; Blondeau, P.; Andrade, F.J. A novel wireless paper-based potentiometric platform for monitoring glucose in blood. Lab Chip 2017, 17, 2500–2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Liu, F.; Kc, P.; Zhang, G.; Zhe, J. In situ single cell detection via microfluidic magnetic bead assay. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dzyadevych, S.; Jaffrezic-Renault, N. Conductometric biosensors. Biological Identification 2014, 6, 153–193. [Google Scholar]
  91. Soldatkin, O.O.; Burdak, O.S.; Sergeyeva, T.A.; Arkhypova, V.M.; Dzyadevych, S.V.; Soldatkin, A.P. Acetylcholinesterase-based conductometric biosensor for determination of aflatoxin B1. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2013, 188, 999–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Saiapina, O.Y.; Pyeshkova, V.M.; Soldatkin, O.O.; Melnik, V.G.; Kurç, B.A.; Walcarius, A.; Dzyadevych, S.V.; Jaffrezic-Renault, N. Conductometric enzyme biosensors based on natural zeolite clinoptilolite for urea determination. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2011, 31, 1490–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chou, J.C.; Wu, C.Y.; Lin, S.H.; Kuo, P.Y.; Lai, C.H.; Nien, Y.H.; Wu, Y.X.; Lai, T.Y. The Analysis of the Urea Biosensors Using Different Sensing Matrices via Wireless Measurement System & Microfluidic Measurement System. Sensors 2019, 19, 3004. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tieu, M.V.; Go, A.; Park, Y.J.; Nguyen, H.V.; Hwang, S.Y.; Lee, M.-H. Highly Sensitive ELISA Using Membrane-Based Microwave-Mediated Electrochemical Immunoassay for Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone Detection. IEEE Sensors J. 2019, 19, 9826–9831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mistry, K.K.; Layek, K.; Chell, T.N.; Chaudhuri, C.R.; Saha, H. Design and development of an amperometric immunosensor based on screen-printed electrodes. Anal. Methods 2016, 8, 3096–3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bandodkar, A.J.; López, C.S.; Mohan, A.M.V.; Yin, L.; Kumar, R.; Wang, J. All-printed magnetically self-healing electrochemical devices. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1601465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Ducote, M.; Vinson, B.; Hogquist, S. Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) as a Tool for Pathogen Detection. J. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 7, 224. [Google Scholar]
  98. Baleg, A.A.; Jahed, N.; Yonkeu, A.L.D.; Njomo, N.; Mbambisa, G.; Molapo, K.M.; Fuku, X.G.; Fomo, G.; Makelane, H.; Tsegaye, A.; et al. Impedimetry and microscopy of electrosynthetic poly (propylene imine)-co-polypyrrole conducting dendrimeric star copolymers. Electrochimica Acta 2014, 128, 448–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Yagati, A.K.; Chavan, S.G.; Baek, C.; Lee, M.H.; Min, J. Label-Free Impedance Sensing of Aflatoxin B(1) with Polyaniline Nanofibers/Au Nanoparticle Electrode Array. Sensors 2018, 18, 1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Spain, E.; Carrara, S.; Adamson, K.; Ma, H.; O’Kennedy, R.; de Cola, L.; Forster, R.J. Cardiac Troponin I: Ultrasensitive Detection Using Faradaic Electrochemical Impedance. ACS Omega 2018, 3, 17116–17124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, Y.; Ye, Z.; Ping, J.; Jing, S.; Ying, Y. Development of an aptamer-based impedimetric bioassay using microfluidic system and magnetic separation for protein detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 59, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kongsuphol, P.; Ng, H.H.; Pursey, J.P.; Arya, S.K.; Wong, C.C.; Stulz, E.; Park, M.K. EIS-based biosensor for ultra-sensitive detection of TNF-alpha from non-diluted human serum. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2014, 61, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chen, Q.; Lin, J.; Gan, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Xiong, Y.; Lai, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, M. A sensitive impedance biosensor based on immunomagnetic separation and urease catalysis for rapid detection of Listeria monocytogenes using an immobilization-free interdigitated array microelectrode. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 74, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Rackus, D.G.; Dryden, M.D.; Lamanna, J.; Zaragoza, A.; Lam, B.; Kelley, S.O.; Wheeler, A.R. A digital microfluidic device with integrated nanostructured microelectrodes for electrochemical immunoassays. Lab Chip 2015, 15, 3776–3784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Shafiee, H.; Asghar, W.; Inci, F.; Yuksekkaya, M.; Jahangir, M.; Zhang, M.H.; Durmus, N.G.; Gurkan, U.A.; Kuritzkes, D.R.; Demirci, U. Paper and flexible substrates as materials for biosensing platforms to detect multiple biotargets. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 8719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Torrente-Rodriguez, R.M.; Campuzano, S.; Montiel, V.R.; Gamella, M.; Pingarron, J.M. Electrochemical bioplatforms for the simultaneous determination of interleukin (IL)-8 mRNA and IL-8 protein oral cancer biomarkers in raw saliva. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2016, 77, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wang, D.; Chen, Q.; Huo, H.; Bai, S.; Cai, G.; Lai, W.; Lin, J. Efficient separation and quantitative detection of Listeria monocytogenes based on screen-printed interdigitated electrode, urease and magnetic nanoparticles. Food Control. 2017, 73, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Angulo-Ibanez, A.; Eletxigerra, U.; Lasheras, X.; Campuzano, S.; Merino, S. Electrochemical tropomyosin allergen immunosensor for complex food matrix analysis. Anal. Chim. Acta 2019, 1079, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Pereira-Barros, M.A.; Barroso, M.F.; Martin-Pedraza, L.; Vargas, E.; Benede, S.; Villalba, M.; Rocha, J.M.; Campuzano, S.; Pingarron, J.M. Direct PCR-free electrochemical biosensing of plant-food derived nucleic acids in genomic DNA extracts. Application to the determination of the key allergen Sola l 7 in tomato seeds. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 137, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Toldra, A.; Alcaraz, C.; Diogene, J.; O’Sullivan, C.K.; Campas, M. Detection of Ostreopsis cf. ovata in environmental samples using an electrochemical DNA-based biosensor. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 689, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ruiz-Vega, G.; Garcia-Berrocoso, T.; Montaner, J.; Baldrich, E. Paper microfluidics on screen-printed electrodes for simple electrochemical magneto-immunosensor performance. Sensors Actuators B: Chem. 2019, 298, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Binasch, G.; Grünberg, P.; Saurenbach, F.; Zinn, W. Enhanced magnetoresistance in layered magnetic structures with antiferromagnetic interlayer exchange. Phys. Rev. B 1989, 39, 4828–4830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Krishna, V.D.; Wu, K.; Perez, A.M.; Wang, J.-P. Giant Magnetoresistance-based Biosensor for Detection of Influenza A Virus. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Wang, W.; Wang, Y.; Tu, L.; Feng, Y.; Klein, T.; Wang, J.-P. Magnetoresistive performance and comparison of supermagnetic nanoparticles on giant magnetoresistive sensor-based detection system. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 5716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. Hall, D.A.; Gaster, R.S.; Lin, T.; Osterfeld, S.J.; Han, S.; Murmann, B.; Wang, S.X. GMR biosensor arrays: A system perspective. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2010, 25, 2051–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Qiu, W.; Chang, L.; Liang, Y.-C.; Litvinov, J.; Guo, J.; Chen, Y.-T.; Vu, B.; Kourentzi, K.; Xu, S.; Lee, T.R.; et al. Spin-Valve based magnetoresistive nanoparticle detector for applications in biosensing. Sensors Actuators A Phys. 2017, 265, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wu, K.; Klein, T.; Krishna, V.D.; Su, D.; Perez, A.M.; Wang, J.-P. Portable GMR Handheld Platform for the Detection of Influenza A Virus. ACS Sensors 2017, 2, 1594–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Gupta, S.; Kakkar, V. DARPin based GMR Biosensor for the detection of ESAT-6 Tuberculosis Protein. Tuberculosis 2019, 118, 101852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Zhu, F.; Li, D.; Ding, Q.; Lei, C.; Ren, L.; Ding, X.; Sun, X. 2D magnetic MoS2–Fe3O4 hybrid nanostructures for ultrasensitive exosome detection in GMR sensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2020, 147, 111787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Klein, T.; Wang, W.; Yu, L.; Wu, K.; Boylan, K.L.M.; Vogel, R.I.; Skubitz, A.P.N.; Wang, J.-P. Development of a multiplexed giant magnetoresistive biosensor array prototype to quantify ovarian cancer biomarkers. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 126, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Gao, Y.; Huo, W.; Zhang, L.; Lian, J.; Tao, W.; Song, C.; Tang, J.; Shi, S.; Gao, Y. Multiplex measurement of twelve tumor markers using a GMR multi-biomarker immunoassay biosensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 123, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Huang, C.-C.; Zhou, X.; Hall, D.A. Giant Magnetoresistive Biosensors for Time-Domain Magnetorelaxometry: A Theoretical Investigation and Progress Toward an Immunoassay. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Yuasa, S.; Nagahama, T.; Fukushima, A.; Suzuki, Y.; Ando, K. Giant room-temperature magnetoresistance in single-crystal Fe/MgO/Fe magnetic tunnel junctions. Nat. Mater. 2004, 3, 868–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Parkin, S.S.P.; Kaiser, C.; Panchula, A.; Rice, P.M.; Hughes, B.; Samant, M.; Yang, S.-H. Giant tunnelling magnetoresistance at room temperature with MgO (100) tunnel barriers. Nat. Mater. 2004, 3, 862–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Negulescu, B.; Lacour, D.; Montaigne, F.; Gerken, A.; Paul, J.; Spetter, V.; Marien, J.; Duret, C.; Hehn, M. Wide range and tunable linear magnetic tunnel junction sensor using two exchange pinned electrodes. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2009, 95, 112502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Shen, W.; Schrag, B.D.; Carter, M.J.; Xie, J.; Xu, C.; Sun, S.; Xiao, G. Detection of DNA labeled with magnetic nanoparticles using MgO-based magnetic tunnel junction sensors. J. Appl. Phys. 2008, 103, 07A306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhan, Q.; Liu, J.P.; Li, R.-W. Rapid detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 using tunneling magnetoresistance biosensor. AIP Adv. 2017, 7, 056658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Mu, X.-H.; Liu, H.-F.; Tong, Z.-Y.; Du, B.; Liu, S.; Liu, B.; Liu, Z.-W.; Gao, C.; Wang, J.; Dong, H. A new rapid detection method for ricin based on tunneling magnetoresistance biosensor. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2019, 284, 638–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wu, K.; Su, D.; Saha, R.; Wong, D.; Wang, J.-P. Magnetic particle spectroscopy-based bioassays: Methods, applications, advances, and future opportunities. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2019, 52, 173001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Orlov, A.V.; Khodakova, J.A.; Nikitin, M.P.; Shepelyakovskaya, A.O.; Brovko, F.A.; Laman, A.G.; Grishin, E.V.; Nikitin, P.I. Magnetic Immunoassay for Detection of Staphylococcal Toxins in Complex Media. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 1154–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Biederer, S.; Knopp, T.; Sattel, T.F.; Lüdtke-Buzug, K.; Gleich, B.; Weizenecker, J.; Borgert, J.; Buzug, T.M. Magnetization response spectroscopy of superparamagnetic nanoparticles for magnetic particle imaging. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2009, 42, 205007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Wu, K.; Liu, J.; Su, D.; Saha, R.; Wang, J.-P. Magnetic Nanoparticle Relaxation Dynamics-Based Magnetic Particle Spectroscopy for Rapid and Wash-Free Molecular Sensing. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 22979–22986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Zohra, I.; Fauzi, A.; Jawad, M. Uses of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Technique in Pharmaceutical Analysis: A Review. Int. J. Curr. Pharm. Rev. Res. 2017, 8, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Luo, Y.; Alocilja, E.C. Portable nuclear magnetic resonance biosensor and assay for a highly sensitive and rapid detection of foodborne bacteria in complex matrices. J. Boil. Eng. 2017, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Hash, S.; Martinez-Viedma, M.P.; Fung, F.; Han, J.E.; Yang, P.; Wong, C.; Doraisamy, L.; Menon, S.; Lightner, D. Nuclear magnetic resonance biosensor for rapid detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Biomed. J. 2019, 42, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Khramtsov, P.; Kropaneva, M.; Bochkova, M.; Timganova, V.; Zamorina, S.; Rayev, M. Solid-phase nuclear magnetic resonance immunoassay for the prostate-specific antigen by using protein-coated magnetic nanoparticles. Microchim. Acta 2019, 186, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Jiang, K.; Wang, J.; White, W.L.; Yang, S.; Lu, J. Rapid detection of Listeria monocytogenes in food by biofunctionalized magnetic nanoparticle based on nuclear magnetic resonance. Food Control. 2017, 71, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Huber, S.; Min, C.; Staat, C.; Oh, J.; Castro, C.M.; Haase, A.; Weissleder, R.; Gleich, B.; Lee, H. Multichannel digital heteronuclear magnetic resonance biosensor. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2019, 126, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Zou, D.; Jin, L.; Wu, B.; Hu, L.; Chen, X.; Huang, G.; Zhang, J. Rapid detection of Salmonella in milk by biofunctionalised magnetic nanoparticle cluster sensor based on nuclear magnetic resonance. Int. Dairy J. 2019, 91, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Wu, B.; Yang, T.; Zou, D.; Jin, L.; Liang, X.; Li, T.; Huang, G.; Zhang, J. Nuclear magnetic resonance biosensor based on streptavidin–biotin system and poly-l-lysine macromolecular targeted gadolinium probe for rapid detection of Salmonella in milk. Int. Dairy J. 2020, 102, 104594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Micromachines 11 00302 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the detection method based on either optical or electrochemical techniques combined with magnetic materials for biosensing.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the detection method based on either optical or electrochemical techniques combined with magnetic materials for biosensing.
Micromachines 11 00302 g001
Micromachines 11 00302 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Schematic illustration of the Magchain-integrated microchip (MiChip) assay platform: with (B) a single-channel unit and (C) multiple-channel arrays. Reproduced with permission from Xiong et al. [78].
Figure 2. (A) Schematic illustration of the Magchain-integrated microchip (MiChip) assay platform: with (B) a single-channel unit and (C) multiple-channel arrays. Reproduced with permission from Xiong et al. [78].
Micromachines 11 00302 g002
Micromachines 11 00302 g003 550
Figure 3. (A) Schematic, surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) performance, and corresponding calibration curve with a mixture biomarkers (PSA, AFP, and CEA) at different concentrations from 0 to 100 ng mL−1; (B) schematic illustration of in-situ screening of detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Staphylococcus aureus based on an MiChip assay with various concentrations (ranging from 0 to 104 CFU μL−1) and the results of saliva spiked samples in MiChip assay. Reproduced with permission from Xiong et al. [78].
Figure 3. (A) Schematic, surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) performance, and corresponding calibration curve with a mixture biomarkers (PSA, AFP, and CEA) at different concentrations from 0 to 100 ng mL−1; (B) schematic illustration of in-situ screening of detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Staphylococcus aureus based on an MiChip assay with various concentrations (ranging from 0 to 104 CFU μL−1) and the results of saliva spiked samples in MiChip assay. Reproduced with permission from Xiong et al. [78].
Micromachines 11 00302 g003
Micromachines 11 00302 g004 550
Figure 4. (A) Schematic diagram to illustrate the fabrication of self-healing principle and the manufacturing process; (B) Nyquist plot for self-healing printed electrodes; (C) cyclic voltammetry (CV) plots recorded for a self-healing trace; (D) real-time recovery of triple damage 3 mm wide; (E) amperometric response of the fabricated self-healing H2O2 in different concentrations from 0 to 20mM and under 1-mm-wide damage repetition. Reproduced with permission from [60].
Figure 4. (A) Schematic diagram to illustrate the fabrication of self-healing principle and the manufacturing process; (B) Nyquist plot for self-healing printed electrodes; (C) cyclic voltammetry (CV) plots recorded for a self-healing trace; (D) real-time recovery of triple damage 3 mm wide; (E) amperometric response of the fabricated self-healing H2O2 in different concentrations from 0 to 20mM and under 1-mm-wide damage repetition. Reproduced with permission from [60].
Micromachines 11 00302 g004
Micromachines 11 00302 g005 550
Figure 5. (A) Illustration of giant magnetoresistance (GMR) biosensors for time-domain magnetorelaxometry with the corresponding resistance signals in response to the external magnetic field; (B) simplified measurement setup with electromagnet and sensor array and GMR sensor array; (C) the Wheatstone bridge based on tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) sensors and the sandwich assay on a test strip; (D) the results of the system under different magnetic fields, and the real-time response of the system when applying the magnetic beads. Inset: magnetic field dependence on the resistance of a TMR sensor. Reproduced with permission from [122,127].
Figure 5. (A) Illustration of giant magnetoresistance (GMR) biosensors for time-domain magnetorelaxometry with the corresponding resistance signals in response to the external magnetic field; (B) simplified measurement setup with electromagnet and sensor array and GMR sensor array; (C) the Wheatstone bridge based on tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) sensors and the sandwich assay on a test strip; (D) the results of the system under different magnetic fields, and the real-time response of the system when applying the magnetic beads. Inset: magnetic field dependence on the resistance of a TMR sensor. Reproduced with permission from [122,127].
Micromachines 11 00302 g005
Micromachines 11 00302 g006 550
Figure 6. (A) Illustration of magnetic immunosandwich on 3D fiber filters used as a solid phase: 1— filter surface, 2—capture antibody, 3—antigen, 4—biotinylated tracer antibody, 5—streptavidin, 6—magnetic nanoparticles; (B) detection of superparamagnetic nanolabels by their non-linear response at combinatorial frequencies from the whole volume of 3D solid phase located inside a pipette tip; (C) portable nuclear magnetic resonance biosensor; (D) assay for the highly sensitive and rapid detection of foodborne bacteria in complex matrices. Reproduced with permission from [130,134].
Figure 6. (A) Illustration of magnetic immunosandwich on 3D fiber filters used as a solid phase: 1— filter surface, 2—capture antibody, 3—antigen, 4—biotinylated tracer antibody, 5—streptavidin, 6—magnetic nanoparticles; (B) detection of superparamagnetic nanolabels by their non-linear response at combinatorial frequencies from the whole volume of 3D solid phase located inside a pipette tip; (C) portable nuclear magnetic resonance biosensor; (D) assay for the highly sensitive and rapid detection of foodborne bacteria in complex matrices. Reproduced with permission from [130,134].
Micromachines 11 00302 g006
Table
Table 1. Examples of proteins/peptides purified by magnetic techniques.
Table 1. Examples of proteins/peptides purified by magnetic techniques.
Purified Protein/PeptideSourceMagnetic CarrierAffinity LigandFurther DetailsRef.
Anti-DNA antibodySystemic lupus erythematosus patient plasmaMagnetic poly(2-hydroxyethyl-methacrylate) beadsDNADesorption with 1 M NBaSCN solution[25]
Immunoglobulin GBlood serumCarboxyl-terminated magnetic particlesMproteinAG (fused-Fc-binding protein staphylococcal A and G )-[26]
IgE antibodiesAllergic patients seraMagnetoliposomesAntigenic proteins-[27]
CUG binding proteins (RNA binding protein1)Human myoblasts or fibroblastsDynabeads M-280 streptavidinBiotinylated(CUG)10Elution with 1 M NaCl[28]
DNA-binding proteinsHeLa nuclear extractsDynabeads M-280 streptavidinBiotin-labelled DNA fragmentElution with 2 M NaCl[29]
Pigpen proteinEndothelial cellsMagnetic streptavidin beadsBiotinylated aptamerElution with 1 M NaCl[30]
Transcription proteinsHuman myeloid cellsDynabeads M-280 streptavidinBiotinylated serum inducible elementElution with high salt buffer[31]
Glycated heamoglobinHuman bloodMagnetic poly(vinyl alcohol) beadsm-Aminophenyl-boronic acidElution with sorbitol[32]
(His)6-Ala-Tyr-GlySynthetic peptideDynabeads M-280 tosylactivatedAminocaproic nitrilotriacetic acid charged with Ni+Elution with imidazole solution[33]
Table
Table 2. Summary of the strategies used for magnetic-biomaterials-based colorimetric devices.
Table 2. Summary of the strategies used for magnetic-biomaterials-based colorimetric devices.
Types of Detection PlatformTargetMagnetic BiomaterialLinear RangeLimit of Detection
(LOD)		AdvantageousnessDetection TimeRef.
Paper-based analytical device (PAD) Bacteria (S. typhimurium)Magnetic beads102 to 108 colony forming unit (CFU) mL−1102 CFU mL−1Simple, rapid and sensitive without pre-enrichment sample 90 min[42]
Lateral-flow immunochro-matographic assays (LFIA) Antigen (hCG)Fe3O4−Pt/
core−shell nanoparticles		0 to 1 ng mL−10.039
ng mL−1		Sensitive more than conventional Au-LFIA-[43]
Lateral-flow immunochro-matographic assays (LFIA) Bacteria (B. anthracis)Super-paramagnetic particles2.0 × 103 to 1.0 × 106 CFU mL−17.0 × 103 CFU mL−1Sensitive, specificity, cost and ease of operation20 min[44]
Paper-based MNP-gold sensing assays Bacteria (Escherichia coli O157:H7)Magnetic nanoparticles1.21 × 101 to 1.21 × 106 CFU mL−112 CFU mL−1Simple to perform, low cost, rapid without pre-enrichment sampleLess than 30s[45]
Paper-based analytical
devices 		Antigen (PCT)Janus particles1 to 20 ng mL−12 ng mL−1Not required any pre-enrichment sample13 min[46]
Lateral-flow immunochro-matographic assays (LFIA) Antigen (CFB)Magnetized Carbon Nanotube5 to 100 ng mL−15 ng mL−1Rapid and low-cost tool30 min[47]
Peroxide strip based assay analyzed by Smartphone Bacteria (S. typhimurium)Immunomagnetic nanoparticles101 to 105 CFU mL−11.6 × 101 CFU mL−1Simple, portable and low-cost method for rapid detection45 min[48]
Nucleic acid lateral flow
(NALF) assay 		Nucleic acid (L.
monocytogenes)		Immunomagnetic nanoparticles100 to 107 CFU mL−13.5 × 103 CFU mL−1Excellent viable capability for viable L. monocytogenes6 h[49]
Table
Table 3. Summary of the strategies used for magnetic biomaterials based electrochemical biosensing devices.
Table 3. Summary of the strategies used for magnetic biomaterials based electrochemical biosensing devices.
Device ConceptsTargetMagnetic BiomaterialDetection RangeLODAdvantageousnessDetection TimeDetection MethodRef.
Microfluidic deviceHuman umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs)Magnetic beads13 to 100 cell µL−1-Simple device and easy operation-Potentio-metry[89]
Wireless measurement system
and microfluidic measurement system		UreaMagnetic beads0 to 50 mV (mg/dl)4.780 mV (mg/dl) −1 for wireless measurement and 5.582 mV (mg/dl) −1 for microfluidic measurementReliability measurement-Conducto-metry[93]
An
immobilization- free interdigitated array microelectrode		Bacteria (L
monocytogenes)		Immunomagnetic nanoparticles3.0 × 101 to 3.0 × 104 CFU mL−1300 CFU mL−1Simple, low-cost and sensitive method
for rapid screening		-Impedi-metry[103]
Digital microfluidics - Nanostructured microelectrodes (DMF-NME) deviceRubella virus (RV)Magnetic beads0 to 250 IU mL−10.07 IU mL−1Sensitive device with the small size30 minAmpero-metry[104]
Flexible film
-based devices		Viruses (HIV)Magnetic beads106 to 108 copies mL−1106 copies mL−1Sensitive, robust, portable, and inexpensive device-Impedi-metry[105]
Screen-printed car-
bon electrodes (SPdCEs)		Antigen (IL-8 protein) and
IL-8 mRNA		Magnetic beads-0.21 nM for IL-8 mRNA and 72.4 pg mL−1 for IL-8 proteinDetectable in undiluted saliva samples and confirm test with commercial ELISA Kit5 hAmpero-metry[106]
Screen-printed interdigitated electrode (SPIE)Bacteria (L
monocytogenes)		Immuno-magnetic nanoparticles-1.6 x 103 CFU mL−1Simple, low cost and good specificity3 hImpedi-metry[107]
Screen Printed Carbon Electrodes (SPCEs)Antigen (TPM)Magnetic particles0 to 218.7 ng mL−147 pg mL−1High sensitivity and specificityUnder 3 hAmpero-metry[108]
Screen Printed Carbon Electrodes (SPCEs)Nucleic acid (Sola l 7)Magnetic beads-0.2 pMHighly sensitive without pre-amplification sample, simple handling, low cost and safety90 minAmpero-metry[109]
Screen Printed Carbon Electrodes (SPCEs)Nucleic acid (Ostreopsis cf. ovata)Maleimide-coated magnetic beads-9 pg µL−1Sensitivity, specificity, storage stability and good correlation with other molecular methods-Ampero-metry[110]
Paper microfluidics on screen-printed electrodesAntigen (MMP-9)Magnetic beads30 pg mL−1 and 2 ng mL−10.01 ng mL−1Simplify manipulation, providing fast, simple and sensitive assay formats10 minAmpero-metry[111]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, S.-E.; Tieu, M.V.; Hwang, S.Y.; Lee, M.-H. Magnetic Particles: Their Applications from Sample Preparations to Biosensing Platforms. Micromachines 2020, 11, 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11030302

AMA Style

Kim S-E, Tieu MV, Hwang SY, Lee M-H. Magnetic Particles: Their Applications from Sample Preparations to Biosensing Platforms. Micromachines. 2020; 11(3):302. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11030302

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Seong-Eun, My Van Tieu, Sei Young Hwang, and Min-Ho Lee. 2020. "Magnetic Particles: Their Applications from Sample Preparations to Biosensing Platforms" Micromachines 11, no. 3: 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11030302

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop