Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:29:27.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SERS Biotags (SBTs) for the Quantitative Ratiometric Discrimination between Noncancerous and Cancerous Prostate Cells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2012

Alessia Pallaoro
Affiliation:
Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Gary Braun
Affiliation:
Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Martin Moskovits
Affiliation:
Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
Get access

Abstract

We report on a multiplexed, ratiometric method that can confidently distinguish between cancerous and non-cancerous epithelial prostate cells in vitro, as demonstrated by a double blind experiment. The technique is based on bright SERRS biotags (SBTs) infused with unique Raman reporter molecules, and carrying cell-specific peptides. Two sets of SERRS biotags were used. One targets the neuropilin-1 (NRP) receptors of cancer cells through the RPARPAR peptide. The other functions as a positive control (PC) and binds to both non-cancerous and cancer cells through the HIV derived TAT peptide. Averaging the SERRS signal over a given cell yielded an NRP/PC ratio from which a robust quantitative measure of the overexpression of the NRP-1 by the cancer cell line was extracted. The use of a local, on-cell reference produces quantitative, statistically robust measures of overexpression independent of such sources of uncertainty such as variations in the location of the focal plane, the local cell concentration and turbidity.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Rouprêt, M., Hupertan, V., Yates, D.R., et al. ., Clin Cancer Res 13, 1720 (2007).10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantel, K., Brakenhoff, R.H., Brandt, B., Nat Rev Cancer 8, 329 (2008).10.1038/nrc2375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scher, H.I., Jia, X., de Bono, J.S., et al. ., Lancet Oncol 10, 233 (2009).10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70340-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A.T., Garg, M., Yang, X.B., et al. ., Head Neck Oncol 1, 38 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, P., Barrass, B., Kendall, C., et al. ., Br J Cancer 92, 2166 (2005).10.1038/sj.bjc.6602638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, B., Dentinger, C., Sun, L., et al. ., J Histochem Cytochem 56, 371 (2008).10.1369/jhc.7A7313.2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, L., Sung, K.-B., Dentinger, C., et al. ., Nano Lett 7, 351 (2007).10.1021/nl062453tCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuen, J.M., Shah, N.C., Walsh, J.T., et al. ., Anal Chem 82, 8382 (2010).10.1021/ac101951jCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, S., Chen, R., Lin, J., et al. ., Biosens Bioelectron 25, 2414 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, G.B., Lee, S.J., Laurence, T., et al. ., J Phys Chem C 113, 13622 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P.C., Meisel, D., J Phys Chem 86, 3391 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, A.D., Pabo, C.O., Cell 55, 1189 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teesalu, T., Sugahara, K.N., Kotamraju, V.R., Ruoslahti, E., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106, 16157 (2009).10.1073/pnas.0908201106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, H., Cheng, L., Tickner, M., et al. ., Br J Cancer 102, 541 (2010).10.1038/sj.bjc.6605539CrossRefGoogle Scholar