Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Molecular Crowding on the Response of an Electrochemical DNA Sensor

Open access
Ricci, Francesco, Lai, Rebecca Y., Heeger, Alan J., Plaxco, Kevin W., Sumner, James J.·2007·Langmuir

Abstract

E-DNA sensors, the electrochemical equivalent of molecular beacons, appear to be a promising means of detecting oligonucleotides. E-DNA sensors are comprised of a redox-modified (here, methylene blue or ferrocene) DNA stem-loop covalently attached to an interrogating electrode. Because E-DNA signaling arises due to binding-induced changes in the conformation of the stem-loop probe, it is likely sensitive to the nature of the molecular packing on the electrode surface. Here we detail the effects of probe density, target length, and other aspects of molecular crowding on the signaling properties, specificity, and response time of a model E-DNA sensor. We find that the highest signal suppression is obtained at the highest probe densities investigated, and that greater suppression is observed with longer and bulkier targets. In contrast, sensor equilibration time slows monotonically with increasing probe density, and the specificity of hybridization is not significantly affected. In addition to providing insight into the optimization of electrochemical DNA sensors, these results suggest that E-DNA signaling arises due to hybridization-linked changes in the rate, and thus efficiency, with which the redox moiety collides with the electrode and transfers electrons.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/la700328r

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Ricci, F., Lai, R. Y., Heeger, A. J., Plaxco, K. W., & Sumner, J. J.
Venue
Langmuir
Published
2007-05-09
Volume
23
Issue
12
Pages
6827-6834
ISSN
  • 0743-7463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5827
OpenAlex
W1994284144
Cited by
334
References
1
FWCI
7.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.