doi:10.1016/j.bios.2004.01.010
Copyright © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Electrochemical modulation of antigen–antibody binding
J. Justin Gooding
,
, a, Christine Wasiowycha, Donald Barnetta, D. Brynn Hibberta, Joseph N. Bariscib and Gordon G. Wallaceb
a School of Chemical Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
b Intelligent Polymer Research Institute, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
Received 21 June 2003;
Revised 15 January 2004;
accepted 22 January 2004.
Available online 25 February 2004.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
The label-free amperometric detection of a rabbit IgG antigen by an anti-rabbit IgG antibody is achieved by observing the electrochemistry at a glassy carbon electrode modified with antibody entrapped in an electrodeposited polypyrrole membrane. In a flow injection apparatus the electrode is pulsed between −0.2 and +0.4 V versus Ag/AgCl. The pulsing of the electrode switches the polypyrrole membrane between the oxidised and reduced states. When antigen is injected into the flow stream a change in current is observed at the electrode despite the antigen or antibody being redox inactive at the potentials employed. It is proposed that this current is due to a change in the flux of ions into and out of the polypyrrole matrix during a pulse when the poly-anionic antigen is present. The immunoreaction was reversible because the 200 ms pulse at each potential was too short to allow secondary bonding forces (hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic forces) which are responsible for the strength of the antibody–antigen complex to be established. The consequence of the reversibility of the antigen–antibody binding is a low apparent affinity constant but an easily regenerated recognition interface.
Author Keywords: Antigen; Polypyrrole; Anti-rabbit IgG; Label free immunosensor; Electrochemical biosensor
Scheme 1. The proposed mechanism for signal generation in the PED immunosensor.
Fig. 1. The influence of polymer growth time at a growth rate of 0.5 mA cm−2 on the response of the PED immunosensor for three different counter ions: sulphate (○), nitrate (×) and chloride (
). The measurement parameters were 50 μg ml−1 of antigen was injected with a flow rate of 0.5 ml min−1, E− as shown and E+=+0.40 V.
Fig. 2. Pulsed waveform applied at the PED immunosensor.
Fig. 3. Pulsed potential hydrodynamic voltammograms of a PED immunosensor for different electrolytes used during fabrication: 50 μg ml−1 of antigen was injected with a flow rate of 0.5 ml min−1, E− as shown and E+=+0.40 V. Electrolytes: (•) sulphate, (○) nitrate, (▪) chloride, (□) p-toluenesulphonate.
Fig. 4. Cyclic voltammograms of the antibody–polypyrrole modified electrode fabricated in sodium sulphate electrolyte The solid line is before injection of antigen and the dotted line is after injection of antigen. The scan rate was 100 mV s−1 and electrolyte 0.1 M sodium sulphate.
Fig. 5. Typical FIA for 50 μg ml−1 rabbit antigen injections. Carrier solution 0.1 mol l−1 Na2SO4; flow rate 0.5 ml min−1; E−=−0.2 V; E+=+0.4 V.
Fig. 6. Calibration plot of FIA peak against the logarithm of the antigen concentration. Solid points: the mean and 95% confidence intervals of electrodes prepared with 200 μg ml−1 (nine electrodes). Open circles: the mean of the responses from three electrodes prepared with 50 μg ml−1 antibody. Line is a fit to an equilibrium binding model.
Fig. 7. Response of a PED immunosensor to 50 μg ml−1 antigen as a function of pulse period. Solid points: Time at E+=+0.4 V for constant 200 ms at E−=−0.2 V. Open points: Time at E−=−0.2 V for constant 200 ms at E+=+0.4 V.
Table 1. The influence of the electrolytes used during the preparation of the antibody–polypyrrole membrane on the amount of antibody incorporated in the polymer and the resultant signal of the PED immunosensor to 50 μg ml−1 antigen

Table 2. The influence of the amount of antibody in solution during preparation of the electrode on the amount of antibody incorporated and on the performance of the final sensor
