Доступ предоставлен для: Guest
Портал Begell Электронная Бибилиотека e-Книги Журналы Справочники и Сборники статей Коллекции
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering
SJR: 0.26 SNIP: 0.375 CiteScore™: 1.4

ISSN Печать: 0278-940X
ISSN Онлайн: 1943-619X

Том 48, 2020 Том 47, 2019 Том 46, 2018 Том 45, 2017 Том 44, 2016 Том 43, 2015 Том 42, 2014 Том 41, 2013 Том 40, 2012 Том 39, 2011 Том 38, 2010 Том 37, 2009 Том 36, 2008 Том 35, 2007 Том 34, 2006 Том 33, 2005 Том 32, 2004 Том 31, 2003 Том 30, 2002 Том 29, 2001 Том 28, 2000 Том 27, 1999 Том 26, 1998 Том 25, 1997 Том 24, 1996 Том 23, 1995

Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.2019026545
pages 235-247

Electrochemical Detection of Fertility Hormones

Mukund Khanwalker
School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Jared Johns
School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Mackenzie M. Honikel
School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Victoria Smith
School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Stephanie Maxwell
School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Sandhya Santhanaraman
School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Jeffrey T. La Belle
School of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

Краткое описание

Fertility hormone levels are constantly changing, but it is crucial for a woman to be able to monitor her fertility levels if she is interested in conceiving. Women and physicians often have a difficult time determining ovulation windows due to fluctuating menstrual cycles and inaccurate interpretations of hormone levels. Current methods of fertility monitoring include physical or vaginal exams, laparoscopy, ultrasound scans, as well as evaluation of hormone levels. A rapid, at-home fertility monitoring tool can help alleviate the apprehensiveness associated with routine screenings and give women the privacy desired when trying to conceive. Herein, we discuss the development of an electrochemical biosensor for quantification of three fertility hormones: beta-estradiol, progesterone, and FSH. Each biomarker’s MRE was immobilized onto a gold disk electrode through the use of self-assembled monolayer linking chemistry. Using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), the biomarker concentration was correlated to impedance magnitude. An optimal binding frequency was identified for each biomarker, permitting simplistic hardware requirements and investigation into multimarker detection. Analytes were tested in both purified solutions and 1%–90% whole blood. Each biomarker exhibited a unique imaginary impedance peak and optimal binding frequency. The determination was made by assessing the response parameters including the linear fit correlation across the physiological hormone ranges. The existence of unique optimal frequencies permits for simultaneous detection of multiple hormones in a single test. Additionally, the identified frequency was robust across purified and complex solutions. Response characteristics were negatively impacted by the introduction of blood-based contaminants. However, the introduction of Nafion membranes, similar to ones used in commercial glucose sensors, is both feasible and beneficial.


  1. Cedars M, Jaffe RB. , Infertility and women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr 1;90(4):E2.

  2. Chandra A, Copen C, Stephen E. , Infertility service use in the United States: data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982–2010, No. 73. National Center for Health Statistics: Atlanta, GA; 2014:1–21.

  3. Krysiewicz S. , Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(2):253–61.

  4. Martyn F, McAuliffe FM, Wingfield M. , The role of the cervix in fertility: is it time for a reappraisal? Human Reprod. 2014 Oct 10;29(10):2092–98.

  5. Lyons RA, Saridogan E, Djahanbakhch O. , The reproductive significance of human fallopian tube cilia. Human Reprod Update. 2006 Aug 1;12(4):363–72.

  6. Opsahl MS, Miller B, Klein TA. , The predictive value of hysterosalpingography for tubal and peritoneal infertility factors. Fertil Steril. 1993 Sep 1;60(3):444–48.

  7. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Aging and infertility in women. Fertility and Sterility. 2006;86(5):S248–52.

  8. Kumar TR, Wang Y, Lu N, Matzuk MM. , Follicle stimulating hormone is required for ovarian follicle maturation but not male fertility. Nat Genet. 1997;15(2):201–4.

  9. Raju GAR, Chavan R, Deenadayal M, Gunasheela D, Gutgutia R, Haripriya G, Govindarajan M, Patel NH, Patki KS., Luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone synergy: a review of role in controlled ovarian hyper- stimulation. J Human Reprod Sci. 2013;6(4):227–34.

  10. Chappel SC, Howles C. , Review: Reevaluation of the roles of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone in the ovulatory process. Hum Reprod. 1991 Oct 1; 6(9):1206–12.

  11. Barnhart K, Osheroff J. , Follicle stimulating hormone as a predictor of fertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1998; 10(3):227–32.

  12. De Placido G, Alviggi C, Mollo A, Strina I, Varricchio MT, Molis M. , Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective in poor responders to highly purified follicle stimulating hormone. Human Reprod. 2000 Jan 1;15(1):17–20.

  13. Jirge PR. , Poor ovarian reserve. J Human Reprod Sci. 2016;9(2):63–69.

  14. Kumar P, Sait SF. , Luteinizing hormone and its dilemma in ovulation induction. J Human Reprod Sci. 2011;4(1):2–7.

  15. Lévy DP, Navarro JM, Schattman GL, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. , The role of LH in ovarian stimulation. Exogenous LH: let’s design the future. Human Reprod. 2000 Nov 1;15(11):2258–65.

  16. Young KA, Chaffin CL, Molskness TA, Stouffer RL. , Controlled ovulation of the dominant follicle: a critical role for LH in the late follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. Human Reprod. 2003 Nov 1;18(11):2257–63.

  17. Young S, Lessey B. , Progesterone function in human endometrium: clinical perspectives. Semin Reprod Med. 2010; 28(01):5–16.

  18. Shah D, Nagarajan N. , Luteal insufficiency in first trimester. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2013;17(1):44–49.

  19. Reed BG, Carr BR., The Normal Menstrual Cycle and the Control of Ovulation. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Boyce A, Chrousos G, Dungan K, Grossman A, et al., editors. Endotext. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com, Inc.; 2000. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279054/.

  20. Stricker R, Eberhart R, Chevailler M-C, Quinn F, Bischof P, Stricker R., Establishment of detailed reference values for luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol, and progesterone during different phases of the menstrual cycle on the Abbott ARCHITECT® analyzer. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(7):883–7.

  21. Panchal S, Nagori C. , Imaging techniques for assessment of tubal status. J Human Reprod Sci. 2014;7(1):2–12.

  22. Honikel M, Lin C, Probst D, La Belle J. , Facilitating earlier diagnosis of cardiovascular disease through point-of-care biosensors: a review. Crit Rev Bio Eng. 2018;46(1):53–82.

  23. Bidwell SE, Buck AA, Diesfeld HJ, Enders B, Huldt G, Kent NH, Kirsten C, Mattern P, Ruitenberg EJ, Voller A. , The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Bull World Health Org. 1976;54(2):129–39.

  24. Behre HM, Kuhlage J, Gaβner C, Sonntag B, Schem C, Schneider HP, Nieschlag E., Prediction of ovulation by urinary hormone measurements with the home use ClearPlan ® Fertility Monitor: comparison with transvaginal ultrasound scans and serum hormone measurements. Human Reprod. 2000 Dec 1;15(12):2478–82.

  25. Tanabe K, Susumu N, Hand K, Nishii K, Ishikawa I, Nozawa S., Prediction of the potentially fertile period by urinary hormone measurements using a new home-use monitor: comparison with laboratory hormone analyses. Human Reprod. 2001 Aug 1;16(8):1619–24.

  26. Star A, Tu E, Niemann J, Gabriel J-CP, Joiner CS, Valcke C. , Label-free detection of DNA hybridization using carbon nanotube network field-effect transistors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jan 24;103(4):921.

  27. Bhavsar K, Fairchild A, Alonas E, Bishop DK, La Belle JT, Sweeney J, Alford TL, Wang J, Bhavanandan VP, Joshi L., A cytokine immunosensor for multiple sclerosis detection based upon label-free electrochemical impedance spectroscopy using electroplated printed circuit board electrodes. Biosensor Bioelectron. 2009 Oct 15;25(2):506–9.

  28. Adamson TL, Cook CB, La Belle JT. , Detection of 1,5-anhydroglucitol by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Mar;8(2): 350–55.

  29. Honikel MM, Lin C-E, Cardinell BA, La Belle JT, Penman AD. , Direct measurement of a biomarker’s native optimal frequency with physical adsorption based immobilization. ACS Sens. 2018 Apr 27;3(4):823–31.

  30. Fairchild A, McAferty K, Demirok UK, La Belle J., A label-free, rapid multimarker protein impedance-based immunosensor. 2009 ICME International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering; 2009 April 9–11; Tempe, AZ. New Jersey: IEEE Xplore Digital Library.

  31. Py-Daniel KR, Pires Junior OR, Cordova CMI, Fascineli ML, Tedesco AC, Azevedo RB, HPLC-FLD method for itraconazole quantification in poly lactic-co-glycolic acid nanoparticles, plasma and tissue. J Brazil Chem Soc. 2014;25:697–703.

  32. Lin C, Malkoc A, Probst D, Khanwalker M, Beck C, B Cook C, La Belle J., Enhancing glycemic control via detection of insulin using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017;11(5):930–5.

  33. Maheshwari A, Fowler P, Bhattacharya S. , Assessment of ovarian reserve—should we perform tests of ovarian reserve routinely? Human Reprod. 2006 Nov 1;21(11): 2729–35.

  34. Korcan Demirok U, Verma A, La Belle J. , The development of a label-free electrochemical impedance based point-of-care technology for multimarker detection. J Biosens Bioelectron. 2013;Mar 20;S(12):1–7.

  35. Stefan W, Garnero E, Renaut RA. , Signal restoration through deconvolution applied to deep mantle seismic probes. Geophys J Int. 2006 Dec 1;167(3):1353–62.

  36. Vaidya R, Atanasov P, Wilkins E. , Effect of interference on the performance of glucose enzyme electrodes using Nafion ® coatings. Med Eng Phys. 1995 Sep 1;17(6): 416–24.

Articles with similar content:

Development of Electrochemical Methods to Enzymatically Detect Lactate and Glucose Using Imaginary Impedance for Enhanced Management of Glycemic Compromised Patients
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.47, 2019, issue 3
David Probst, Aldin Malkoc, Ayan Sen, Blake Morrow, Tiffany Gong, Jeffrey T. La Belle, Chi Lin
Development of Fiber Optic and Electrochemical pH Sensors to Monitor Brain Tissue
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.28, 2000, issue 1&2
Julie Hamilton, Kerry Bettencourt, Robert Glass, Peter Krulevitch, Sheila A. Grant
Detection of RNA Viruses: Current Technologies and Future Perspectives
Critical Reviews™ in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, Vol.23, 2013, issue 2
Wilfred Chen, Daniel Blackstock, Marylynn A. Yates, Lakshmi N. Cella, Ashok Mulchandani
Development Toward a Triple-Marker Biosensor for Diagnosing Cardiovascular Disease
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering, Vol.47, 2019, issue 2
David Probst, Maryam Alsuwailem, Anna Deng, Theresa Broniak, Daniel Matloff, Jeffrey T. La Belle, Chi-En Lin
Thirty-Day Readmission Rates Comparing Specific Cruciate Retaining and Posterior Stabilizing Knee Arthroplasties to the National Readmission Rates
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.25, 2015, issue 4
Todd P. Pierce, Julio J. Jauregui, Jeffery J. Cherian, Michael A. Mont, Randa K Elmallah