Table 3.
Summary of some of the advantages and disadvantages of methods described in this review in terms of binding interaction and signal detection for LPS.
| Method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Binding Interaction | ||
| Limulus Amoebocyte lysate | Inexpensive; ease of use | Reliance on horseshoe crabs; possible variation in lysate potency |
| Rabbit pyrogen test | Ease of use | Use of rabbits, lack of sensitivity, waiting time |
| Aptamers | Highly specific, high binding affinity, chemically robust | Aptamer availability |
| Polymyxin | Inexpensive and stable | Nonspecific electrostatic interactions |
| Lectin-based detection | Targeting of specific carbohydrate structures | Low binding affinity, affinity for other substrates |
| Toll-like receptor complex-based detection | Highly selective | Stability and proper immobilization of complex |
| Signal detection | ||
| Optical detection (Localized surface plasmon resonance) | Use of simple absorbance spectroscopy for detection | Sensitivity varies with particle geometry; non-specific binding must be prevented |
| Optical detection (fluorescence) | High sensitivity | Possible quenching effects or fluorophore degradation |
| Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy | High sensitivity, label-free | Sophisticated instrumentation and data analysis |
| Mass-sensitive detection (e.g., quartz crystal microbalance) | Label-free | Response to non-specific adsorption and changes in viscoelasticity |
| Magnetic nanoparticles | Prospect for separation of target from complex media | More suitable for separation than detection |