Biosensor Regeneration: A Review of Common Techniques and Outcomes.
Biosensors are ideally portable, low-cost tools for the rapid detection of pathogens, proteins, and other analytes. The global biosensor market is currently worth over 10 billion dollars annually and is a burgeoning field of interdisciplinary research that is hailed as a potential revolution in consumer, healthcare, and industrial testing. A key barrier to the widespread adoption of biosensors, however, is their cost. Although many systems have been validated in the laboratory setting and biosensors for a range of analytes are proven at the concept level, many have yet to make a strong commercial case for their acceptance. Though it is true with the development of cheaper electrodes, circuits, and components that there is a downward pressure on costs, there is also an emerging trend toward the development of multianalyte biosensors that is pushing in the other direction. One way to reduce the cost that is suitable for certain systems is to enable their reuse, thus reducing the cost per test. Regenerating biosensors is a technique that can often be used in conjunction with existing systems in order to reduce costs and accelerate the commercialization process. This article discusses the merits and drawbacks of regeneration schemes that have been proven in various biosensor systems and indicates parameters for successful regeneration based on a systematic review of the literature. It also outlines some of the difficulties encountered when considering the role of regeneration at the point of use. A brief meta-analysis has been included in this review to develop a working definition for biosensor regeneration, and using this analysis only ∼60% of the reported studies analyzed were deemed a success. This highlights the variation within the field and the need to normalize regeneration as a standard process across the field by establishing a consensus term.
†School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.|‡AbCam Plc, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
J A
JA
Goode
†School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.|§School of Allied Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom.
J V H
JV
Rushworth
†School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
P A
PA
Millner
D000906:Antibodies / Q000737:chemistry; D052157:Aptamers, Nucleotide / Q000737:chemistry; D015374:Biosensing Techniques / Q000191:economics / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003902:Detergents / Q000737:chemistry; D055664:Electrochemical Techniques; D004566:Electrodes / Q000191:economics; D017743:Equipment Reuse; D005998:Glycine / Q000737:chemistry; D006863:Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; D013016:Sound; D013816:Thermodynamics
D000906:Antibodies; D052157:Aptamers, Nucleotide; D003902:Detergents; D005998:Glycine