www.rsc.org/analyst | The Analyst
PAPER
The efficiency of immobilised glutamate oxidase decreases with surface
enzyme loading: an electrostatic effect, and reversal by a polycation
significantly enhances biosensor sensitivity
Colm P. McMahon,a Gaia Rocchitta,ab Pier A. Serra,ab Sarah M. Kirwan,a John P. Lowryb and
Robert D. O’Neill*a
Received 15th August 2005, Accepted 17th October 2005
First published as an Advance Article on the web 9th November 2005
DOI: 10.1039/b511643k
The apparent Michaelis constant, KM, for glutamate oxidase (GluOx) immobilised on Pt
electrodes increased systematically with enzyme loading. The effect was due, at least in part, to
electrostatic repulsion between neighbouring oxidase molecules and the anionic substrate,
glutamate (Glu). This understanding has allowed us to increase the Glu sensitivity of GluOxbased amperometric biosensors in the linear response region (100 ¡ 11 nA cm22 mM21 at pH 7.4;
SD, n = 23) by incorporating a polycation (polyethyleneimine, PEI) to counterbalance the
polyanionic protein. Differences in the behaviour of glucose biosensors of a similar configuration
highlight a limitation of using glucose oxidase as a model enzyme in biosensor design.
Introduction
The development of devices for monitoring L-glutamate (Glu)
has become a significant research area due to the important
role this amino acid plays in a range of complex matrices,
including food processing,1 cell cultures,2 tissue slices ex vivo,3
and intact brain in vivo.4–7 As an excitatory amino acid, Glu is
the most widespread neurotransmitter in the mammalian CNS
and has been implicated in a number of neurological
disorders.8 Systems for monitoring Glu in brain extracellular
fluid (ECF) have therefore become an important goal in the
analytical and neurobiological sciences in recent years.
The high spatial and temporal resolution achievable with
implantable amperometric biosensors has motivated the design
of a number of Glu biosensor configurations incorporating the
enzyme glutamate oxidase (GluOx).6,7,9–15 Based on Pt wire
modified with GluOx immobilised using PPD, poly(o-phenylenediamine), the Pt/GluOx/PPD cylinder biosensor, designed
specifically for detection of Glu in vivo,15 has shown promising
responses for monitoring Glu in the alert brain implanted with
probes of moderate sensitivity in the linear response region
(y20 nA cm22 mM21),16 whereas sensors of lower sensitivity
(y10 nA cm22 mM21) failed to detect Glu changes associated
with mild behavioural stimulation.17 Thus, there is an urgent
need to increase Glu biosensor sensitivity for a range of
applications, including detection of small changes in ECF Glu
levels. A recent study of the same Pt/GluOx/PPD design, but
based on smaller Pt disks, provided a useful increase in Glu
sensitivity (y30 nA cm22 mM21), and showed that both
geometrical configurations had good oxygen tolerance.18 Here
we investigate the effects of surface enzyme loading on the Glu
a
UCD School of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, University College
Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland. E-mail: Robert.ONeill@UCD.ie;
Fax: +353-1-7162127; Tel: +353-1-7162314
b
UCD School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Sciences, University
College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
68 | Analyst, 2006, 131, 68–72
response of both cylinder and disk Pt/GluOx/PPD designs, a
study which has led to a significant increase in linear region
sensitivity (y100 nA cm22 mM21) of these implantable
devices.
FAD is the prosthetic group of many oxidases, including
GluOx,19 and molecular oxygen the co-substrate, which reoxidises the FADH2 to form H2O2 (reactions (1) and (2)) that
can be detected amperometrically (reaction (3)). A number of
sophisticated mathematical models of the behaviour of
enzymes in membranes have been described.20–24 These
complex analyses are often needed to understand and optimise
the behaviour of thick and/or conducting layers.24,25 However,
a recent study has shown that substrate diffusion is not
limiting for PPD layers incorporating enzyme, due to their
relatively small thickness.26 Therefore, the basic Michaelis–
Menten enzyme parameters used here provide more readily
accessible insights into factors affecting the responsiveness of
biosensors fabricated from ultrathin (10–30 nm)27–30 insulating
polymers, such as PPD.
L-glutamate
+ H2O + GluOx/FAD A a-ketoglutarate +
(1)
NH3 + GluOx/FADH2
GluOx/FADH2 + O2 A GluOx/FAD + H2O2
(2)
H2O2 A O2 + 2H+ + 2e
(3)
A two-substrate model is necessary to describe the kinetics
of oxidase enzymes under conditions of varying concentration
of both substrate and O2.31,32 When the concentration of the
co-substrate is constant, however, the two-substrate equation
simplifies to the one-substrate Michaelis–Menten form
(eqn (4)), where the current density for the biosensor Glu
response, JGlu, is a measure of the overall rate of the enzyme
reaction, and Jmax is the JGlu value at enzyme saturation.
Different values of Jmax, determined under the same conditions, reflect differences in the amount of active enzyme on the
This journal is ß The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
surface, provided the sensitivity of the electrode to H2O2
(reaction (3)) does not vary, as was the case for the PPDmodified Pt cylinders and disks used here.33–35
JGlu ~
Jmax
1z KM
½Glu
(4)
The Michaelis constant, KM, is defined in terms of the rate
constants for the generalised reactions (reaction (5)) describing
the conversion of substrate (S) to product (P), catalysed by
enzyme (E); see eqn (6). When eqn (4) is used to approximate
the two-substrate case, the KM is more complex, containing cosubstrate terms. KM is then the apparent Michaelis constant
and phenomenologically defines the concentration of substrate
that gives half the Jmax response. Thus, changes in KM are
sensitive to the binding constant, k1, and have often been
interpreted in terms of barriers to substrate/enzyme binding,36,37 as well as changes in oxygen demand.38 Here we
present data that suggest that GluOx molecules (pI = 6.2)19
packed on an electrode surface represent an electrostatic
barrier to Glu accessing the enzyme active site; this limits
enzyme loading as a stand-alone strategy for increasing
sensitivity of Glu biosensors in their linear response region, a
design feature which is crucial for successful applications in
neurochemical studies where Glu concentrations are in the low
micromolar range.39,40
k1
k2
? ES ? EzP
EzS /
(5)
k{1
KM ~
k{1 zk2
k1
(6)
Experimental
Biosensors were fabricated from Teflon1-coated Pt wire
(diameter 125 mm), either in the form of disks or cylinders
1 mm long. Glucose oxidase (GOx, EC 1.1.3.4, Sigma,
200 U mL21) or GluOx (EC 1.4.3.11, Yamasa Corp., Japan,
200 U mL21) was deposited onto the metal surface by dipevaporation (1–4 dips), and then immobilised by amperometric
electropolymerisation (+700 mV vs. SCE) in phosphatebuffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4) containing 300 mM o-phenylenediamine, as described previously, to form Pt/GOx/PPD and
Pt/GluOx/PPD biosensors, respectively.15 Additional sets of
biosensors were prepared by pre-coating the Pt surface with
either the zwitterionic lipid phosphatidylethanolamine (PEA,
type II-S, Sigma, 5 mg mL21 in chloroform) or the polycation
polyethyleneimine (PEI, Aldrich, MWr y750 kDa, 1%
aqueous solution), also by dip evaporation, before enzyme
deposition.
Experiments were computer controlled with data collection
accomplished using either a Biodata Microlink interface or a
National Instruments (NI, Austin, Texas) AT-MIO-16 data
acquisition board linked to a low noise, low damping
potentiostat (Biostat II, Electrochemical and Medical
Systems, Newbury, UK). All electropolymerisations and
calibrations were carried out amperometrically in quiescent
PBS solution, pH 7.4: NaCl (BDH, AnalaR grade, 150 mM),
This journal is ß The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
NaH2PO4 (BDH, AnalaR grade, 40 mM) and NaOH (Sigma,
40 mM). After rinsing and a settling period at +700 mV vs.
SCE in 20 mL of fresh air-saturated PBS, calibrations were
performed to determine the response of the biosensors to
enzyme substate and H2O2.
Non-linear regression analysis (Prism 4.02, GraphPad
Software Inc.) was carried out on the current density responses
for each biosensor to determine the apparent Michaelis–
Menten constants, using eqn (4); see Fig. 1. The apparent
Michaelis constant is symbolised by KM(Glu) for GluOx and
KM(G) for GOx when required for clarity, but KM otherwise.
Values reported are mean ¡ SEM, unless stated otherwise,
with n being the number of biosensors. The significance of
differences in the values of parameters determined for distinct
populations of electrodes was calculated using Student’s twotailed unpaired t-tests, with p , 0.05 taken to indicate
statistical significance.
Results and discussion
Immobilisation of enzyme onto bare metal
The response of a thin (10–30 nm)27–30 PPD-entrapped GluOx
layer to substrate depends on two main factors:26 enzyme
kinetics (reactions (1) and (2), and eqn (4)) and sensitivity of
the composite device to H2O2 (reaction (3)). To determine the
extent to which variations in H2O2 sensitivity would affect Jmax
comparisons for different sensor types, two analyses were
performed on H2O2 calibration data. There was no significant
difference between the H2O2 slopes for bare disks (n = 51) and
bare cylinders (n = 23): 2 ¡ 8%. This demonstrates that the
efficiency of mass transport from the bulk solution is similar
for the two forms of radial diffusion to electrodes of these
dimensions over the time scale of the amperometric recording.
Secondly, there was no correlation between Jmax values and
H2O2 slopes for biosensors (R2 = 0.036, n = 23). These results
are in line with literature reports that the H2O2 sensitivity of Pt
Fig. 1 Current densities from glutamate calibrations carried out in
PBS (pH 7.4) at +700 mV vs. SCE with two Pt/GluOx/PPD disk
biosensors showing different active enzyme loading, Jmax. The
following non-linear regression parameters were obtained for the high
(—) and the low (---) responses: Jmax/mA cm22 = 120 (high) and
60 (low); KM/mM = 2.8 (high) and 1.2 (low); R2 > 0.999 in both cases
(eqn (4)); see Fig. 2 for results from 67 Glu biosensors. The mean linear
region Glu calibration slope for disk biosensors of this design was 30 ¡
2 nA cm22 mM21 (n = 46).
Analyst, 2006, 131, 68–72 | 69
is not affected by PPD and PPD–protein composites made
under the conditions described here.29,33,34 Differences in Jmax
across sensor designs should therefore be a good reflection of
differences in the amount of active enzyme present.
Because dip-evaporation is expected to lead to different
amounts of deposited enzyme for each electrode, whose
activity could be affected differently by the subsequent
polymerisation step, it is not surprising that biosensors
fabricated in this way from 125 mm diameter cylinders or
disks displayed a range of Jmax values (see Fig. 1 and 2).
Unexpectedly, however, there was also a strong dependence of
KM on GluOx loading (Jmax) for disk-based Pt/GluOx/PPD
biosensors (Fig. 1). Ideally (eqn (6)), KM values should be
independent of enzyme loading, but in practice several factors
related to the density of GluOx on the surface could affect the
apparent Michaelis constant, including steric and electrostatic
hindrance of Glu (reaction (1)) by neighbouring enzyme
molecules, and limited oxygen supply (reaction (2)). Thus,
for example, a slight increase in KM with enzyme loading for
GOx-based glucose biosensors has been reported and discussed in terms of oxygen turnover.41 However, recent studies
have shown that the Pt/GluOx/PPD disk-based Glu biosensors, which show higher Glu sensitivity than the corresponding
cylinder-based devices (see Fig. 1), had a lower dependence on
solution pO2,18 indicating that increased oxygen demand
cannot be used to explain the increase in KM observed here.
To examine further the effects of GluOx loading on
KM(Glu), a regression analysis was performed on the
respective KM(Glu) and Jmax values for Pt/GluOx biosensors
fabricated from both disks and cylinders (Fig. 2). There was a
significant correlation between these two paramaters (slope =
34 ¡ 2 mM mA21 cm2, R2 = 0.85, n = 67), which fitted the data
for both geometrical designs (see Fig. 2). It is clear, however,
that the GluOx loading density was considerably greater on
the disks than on the cylinders. This is consistent with
retention of a dome of enzyme solution around the disk tip
as it is removed vertically from the liquid during fabrication, as
expected from surface tension considerations. Upon evaporation, the density of GluOx on the disk surface should therefore
be higher than that achieved with the corresponding cylinder
geometry. The magnitude of the increase in KM(Glu) from
Fig. 2 Linear correlation analysis for KM vs. Jmax values
obtained using eqn (4) (see Fig. 1) for Pt/GluOx/PPD biosensors
based on cylinder (n = 21) and disk (n = 46) designs (slope = 34 ¡
2 mM mA21 cm2, n = 67).
70 | Analyst, 2006, 131, 68–72
cylinders (y0.5 mM) to disks (y10 mM; see Fig. 2) was
approximately 20-fold; this compares with only a 3-fold increase
in KM(G) for Pt/GOx over a similar range of Jmax values, and
therefore of oxygen demand.35 One explanation for these results
is that the additional electrostatic repulsion between anionic Glu
and the surface GluOx (pI = 6.2)19 may reduce access by Glu to
the enzyme (decreasing k1, eqn (6)) as the GluOx loading builds
up, an interaction not relevant to neutral glucose.
To determine whether the polymer contributed to the effects
shown in Fig. 1 and 2, PPD-free Pt/GluOx biosensors (n = 4)
were fabricated using glutaraldehyde as the immobilisation
agent. Glu calibrations, performed after each of two enzyme
layers was deposited in this way, showed that the second layer
of GluOx resulted in an 80 ¡ 20% increase in Jmax and a 30 ¡
10% increase in KM compared with layer 1 (p , 0.02), a trend
similar to that for PPD-based electrodes. Furthermore,
deposition of PPD after these calibrations led to only a small
and statistically insignificant change in the KM: 1.4 ¡ 0.1 to
1.7 ¡ 0.1 mM (p > 0.13), indicating that neither the PPD
polymer itself, nor diffusion through it, plays a major role in
the effect of enzyme loading on KM.
Therefore, some increase in Glu sensitivity in the linear
region (LR) of the calibration response (LR slope = Jmax/KM)
is achievable by increasing the loading of GluOx in Pt/GluOx/
PPD biosensors18 (e.g., the higher LR slopes for disk
biosensors in Fig. 1 compared with previous reports for
PPD-based cylinder designs12,15,16). However, much of the
additional enzyme activity (Jmax) does not translate down to
boosting the response at lower Glu concentrations due to an
increased KM value, possibly caused by an anionic electrostatic
barrier associated with enzyme crowding. The following
experiments were designed to test this hypothesis.
Immobilisation of enzyme onto coated metal
The polycation PEI, polyethyleneimine, has been used in a
number of studies to stabilise enzymes, such as GluOx42 and
lactate oxidase,43,44 and to neutralise the negative charge on
carbon electrodes.45 PEI was therefore an ideal candidate in
attempts here to reverse the proposed anionic electrostatic
barrier associated with high GluOx loading. PEI (branched
form, MWr y 750 kDa, 1 or 5% aqueous solution) was
deposited onto bare Pt wire disks by dip evaporation, followed
by GluOx immobilisation and electropolymerisation to
form Pt/PEI/GluOx/PPD disk biosensors, as described for
the Pt/GluOx/PPD electrodes. Calibrations with Glu showed
that pre-coating the Pt with PEI led to a large decrease in the
KM: 0.65 ¡ 0.05 mM (PEI, n = 20) compared to 5.4 ¡ 0.7 mM
(no PEI, n = 45, p , 0.0001), a finding consistent with a
reduction in the repulsion between anionic Glu and the PEIcontaining enzyme layer (see Fig. 3).
An analysis for PEI-containing biosensors, similar to that in
Fig. 2, showed that PEI reduced the regression slope by a
factor of ten, but had no effect on the intercept which
represents KM(Glu) in the limit of zero loading of GluOx
(y0.4 mM, comparing favourably with the solution value of
0.2 mM19). Thus, PEI did not significantly affect the
interaction of Glu with GluOx when the enzyme molecules
were widely separated (zero loading limit). This finding
This journal is ß The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
Fig. 3 Schematic representation of the immobilisation of glutamate
oxidase molecules (GluOx, 140 kDa,19 polyanionic) over a molecule of
polyethyleneimine (PEI, 750 kDa, polycationic). The PEI helps reduce
the electrostatic barrier between neighbouring enzymes and the anionic
substrate (Glu), significantly decreasing the apparent Michaelis
constant (KM) for Glu and increasing Glu sensitivity in the analytically
important linear response region.
provides evidence that the effect of PEI is not mediated by
diffusion effects through the PEI/GluOx/PPD matrix, and is
consistent with our ‘ultrathin-layer’ enzyme kinetic analysis,26
which avoids the concept of the Thiele modulus.32 It appears,
therefore, that PEI specifically inhibits the repulsion between
Glu and neighbouring GluOx molecules in the high loading,
crowded, region (illustrated in Fig. 3), but does not modify
significantly the interaction between Glu and its host enzyme
molecule.
Two sets of control experiments were carried out to test the
conclusion that electrostatics played a major role in the PEIreversal of the increase in KM(Glu) caused by GluOx loading.
In the first, to demonstrate that the effect was not simply due
to the immobilisation of the enzyme on an organic layer as
opposed to the bare metal, disk-based biosensors were
prepared using a zwitterionic lipid, PEA, layer in place of
the polycationic PEI. The globally neutral lipid coating had no
significant effect on KM(Glu): 3.6 ¡ 0.7 mM, n = 11; p > 0.22
compared with PEA absent. In the second, a PEI polycationic
layer was included in GOx-based biosensors. The presence of
PEI in the glucose biosensors had no significant effect on the
KM(G) value: 12.3 ¡ 0.3 mM (PEI, n = 4); 11.1 ¡ 0.7 mM
(no PEI, n = 4); p > 0.22. These results, taken together, support
the electrostatic hypothesis.
The combination of high Jmax and low KM for Pt/PEI/
GluOx/PPD disk biosensors gave rise to superb sensitivity to
Glu (LR slope), the exact value depending on the amount of
surface PEI. When a 5% PEI solution was used in the dipevaporation procedure, subsequent Glu calibrations gave a LR
slope of 62 ¡ 5 nA cm22 mM21 (n = 12), compared with 100 ¡
5 nA cm22 mM21 (n = 8) for 1% PEI (p , 0.001). This latter
value represents a new benchmark value (Fig. 4) which has not
been surpassed by other Glu biosensor designs.7,11,13,14,42,46,47
One of the reasons for exploring the disk geometry in the
design of implantable biosensors was the increased LR slope
achieved through the extra loading available on disks.18 The
final step in these studies was to investigate the effects of PEI
on the LR sensitivity of cylinder-based Glu biosensors. As
observed for the disk design, there was a substantial increase in
This journal is ß The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006
Fig. 4 The linear region calibration slope (LRS) for glutamate
determined using cylinder and disk biosensors fabricated by immobilising GluOx on either bare Pt or PEI-coated Pt. Data are pooled for
one dip of 1–5% PEI followed by 1–4 dips of GluOx solution, except
for PEI-modified disks (optimum 1% PEI, 1–2 dips GluOx; see text).
Mean ¡ SEM with number of biosensors in brackets.
the LR slope for biosensors fabricated from PEI-coated Pt
cylinders. Surprisingly, however, there was no significant
difference between the responses for cylinder biosensors
produced with different amounts of PEI and GluOx. All
combinations of one dip of either a 1% or 5% PEI solution
followed by either two or four dips of the enzyme solution gave
similar responses (nA cm22 mM21: 108 ¡ 1, n = 4; 100 ¡ 4, n =
11; 97 ¡ 4, n = 4; and 96 ¡ 3, n = 4). These values were
therefore pooled: 100 ¡ 3 nA cm22 mM21, n = 23. In an
attempt to increase the sensitivity further, a layer-by-layer
approach described in the literature for the fabrication of
sensors using a variety of polyelectrolytes48–51 was investigated. This was found not to be advantageous here because the
deposition of polycationic PEI over the polyanionic enzyme
led to a marked loss of Glu sensitivity, presumably due to the
large size of PEI molecules relative to GluOx (see Fig. 3).
The LR slopes for both cylinders and disks are compared in
Fig. 4. The enhanced LR slope achieved through the extra
loading on PEI-free disks18 was not apparent in the presence of
PEI. Thus, the polycation also enhanced the deposition of the
enzyme on the vertical cylinder surface during the dipevaporation process, and led to indistinguishably high
sensitivities for the two PEI-coated geometries. The lack of a
major effect of PEI on Glu sensitivity for redox hydrogel based
biosensors reported previously42 may be due to the more
dispersed distribution of enzyme in the hydrogel matrix. That
regime coincides more with the limit of zero loading described
here, where there was no effect of PEI on the KM(Glu) value.
Conclusions
Taken together, the results indicate that the KM for surfaceimmobilised GluOx increases systematically with enzyme
loading, due in part to electrostatic repulsion between the
anionic substrate and neighbouring enzyme molecules at
neutral pH. This effect was counteracted by pre-coating the
metal surface with a polycationic (PEI), but not a
zwitterionic (PEA), layer prior to enzyme deposition. The
resulting Pt/PEI/GluOx/PPD biosensors of both cylinder and
Analyst, 2006, 131, 68–72 | 71
disk configurations displayed superb sensitivity in the linear
Glu calibration region: 100 ¡ 11 nA cm22 mM21 (SD, n = 23)
for cylinders; and 100 ¡ 13 nA cm22 mM21 (SD, n = 8) for
disks.
Given the small area of these Pt disk sensors (similar to
0.5 mm cylinders made from 10 mm diameter carbon fibre),7,47
biosensors based on this configuration would provide excellent
Glu sensitivity and spatial resolution in neurochemical
monitoring involving small brain areas or layered structures
in vivo.11,52 The enhanced sensitivity of the cylinder design will
allow these larger devices to find applications in larger brain
regions, such as dorsal striatum and accumbens, where the
greater signal strength will be an important advantage in early
in vivo investigations. The results presented here also
demonstrate some limitations of using GOx as a model
enzyme for developing biosensors for other enzyme systems,
and provide an explanation of why multiple dip-evaporation
steps increased the LR slope for biosensors incorporating
GOx, but not GluOx, in a previous study.15
Acknowledgements
This work was funded in part by Science Foundation Ireland
(03/IN3/B376 and 04/BR/C0198). We thank Enterprise Ireland
for a postgraduate research award (CMcM), Dr Kusakabe of
Yamasa Corp., Japan, for a generous gift of glutamate
oxidase, and UCD for financial support.
References
1 P. N. Nakorn, M. Suphantharika, S. Udomsopagit and
W. Surareungchai, World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2003, 19,
479–485.
2 R. Kurita, K. Hayashi, K. Torimitsu and O. Niwa, Anal. Sci.,
2003, 19, 1581–1585.
3 M. Qhobosheane, D. H. Wu, G. R. Gu and W. H. Tan, J. Neurosci.
Methods, 2004, 135, 71–78.
4 J. J. Burmeister and G. A. Gerhardt, Trends Anal. Chem., 2003, 22,
498–502.
5 Y. Matsushita, K. Shima, H. Nawashiro and K. Wada,
J. Neurotrauma, 2000, 17, 143–153.
6 Y. Hu, K. M. Mitchell, F. N. Albahadily, E. K. Michaelis and
G. S. Wilson, Brain Res., 1994, 659, 117–125.
7 N. V. Kulagina, L. Shankar and A. C. Michael, Anal. Chem., 1999,
71, 5093–5100.
8 B. Belsham, Hum. Pharmacol. Clin. Exp., 2001, 16, 139–146.
9 K. S. Chang, W. L. Hsu, H. Y. Chen, C. K. Chang and C. Y. Chen,
Anal. Chim. Acta, 2003, 481, 199–208.
10 K. Nakajima, T. Yamagiwa, A. Hirano and M. Sugawara, Anal.
Sci., 2003, 19, 55–60.
11 J. J. Burmeister and G. A. Gerhardt, Anal. Chem., 2001, 73,
1037–1042.
12 J. M. Cooper, P. L. Foreman, A. Glidle, T. W. Ling and
D. J. Pritchard, J. Electroanal. Chem., 1995, 388, 143–149.
13 S. Cosnier, C. Innocent, L. Allien, S. Poitry and M. Tsacopoulos,
Anal. Chem., 1997, 69, 968–971.
14 R. D. O’Neill, S. C. Chang, J. P. Lowry and C. J. McNeil, Biosens.
Bioelectron., 2004, 19, 1521–1528.
15 M. R. Ryan, J. P. Lowry and R. D. O’Neill, Analyst, 1997, 122,
1419–1424.
16 J. P. Lowry, M. R. Ryan and R. D. O’Neill, Anal. Commun., 1998,
35, 87–89.
72 | Analyst, 2006, 131, 68–72
17 J. P. Lowry, M. R. Ryan and R. D. O’Neill, in Monitoring
Molecules in Neuroscience, ed. W. T. O’Connor, J. P. Lowry, J. J.
O’Connor and R. D. O’Neill, National University of Ireland,
Dublin, 2001, pp. 70–71.
18 C. P. McMahon and R. D. O’Neill, Anal. Chem., 2005, 77,
1196–1199.
19 H. Kusakabe, Y. Midorikawa, T. Fujishima, A. Kuninaka and
H. Yoshino, Agric. Biol. Chem., 1983, 47, 1323–1328.
20 W. J. Albery and P. N. Bartlett, J. Electroanal. Chem., 1985, 194,
211–222.
21 P. N. Bartlett and K. F. E. Pratt, Biosens. Bioelectron., 1993, 8,
451–462.
22 C. Phanthong and M. Somasundrum, J. Electroanal. Chem., 2003,
558, 1–8.
23 R. Baronas, F. Ivanauskas, F. Ivanauskas and J. Kulys, J. Math.
Chem., 2004, 35, 199–213.
24 J. J. Gooding, E. A. H. Hall and D. B. Hibbert, Electroanalysis,
1998, 10, 1130–1136.
25 R. Baronas, F. Ivanauskas and J. Kulys, Sensors, 2003, 3, 248–262.
26 J. I. R. De Corcuera, R. P. Cavalieri and J. R. Powers,
J. Electroanal. Chem., 2005, 575, 229–241.
27 C. Malitesta, F. Palmisano, L. Torsi and P. G. Zambonin, Anal.
Chem., 1990, 62, 2735–2740.
28 T. W. Sohn, P. W. Stoecker, W. Carp and A. M. Yacynych,
Electroanalysis, 1991, 3, 763–766.
29 J. D. Craig and R. D. O’Neill, Analyst, 2003, 128, 905–911.
30 S. Myler, S. Eaton and S. P. J. Higson, Anal. Chim. Acta, 1997,
357, 55–61.
31 J. K. Leypoldt and D. A. Gough, Anal. Chem., 1984, 56,
2896–2904.
32 J. J. Gooding and E. A. H. Hall, Electroanalysis, 1996, 8, 407–413.
33 J. P. Lowry and R. D. O’Neill, Electroanalysis, 1994, 6, 369–379.
34 C. P. McMahon, S. J. Killoran, S. M. Kirwan and R. D. O’Neill,
Chem. Commun., 2004, 2128–2130.
35 C. P. McMahon, S. J. Killoran and R. D. O’Neill, J. Electroanal.
Chem., 2005, 580, 193–202.
36 D. Compagnone, G. Federici and J. V. Bannister, Electroanalysis,
1996, 7, 1151–1155.
37 S. V. Sasso, R. J. Pierce, R. Walla and A. M. Yacynych, Anal.
Chem., 1990, 62, 1111–1117.
38 Y. N. Zhang and G. S. Wilson, Anal. Chim. Acta, 1993, 281,
513–520.
39 G. Segovia, A. Porras and F. Mora, Neurochem. Res., 1997, 22,
1491–1497.
40 M. Miele, M. Berners, M. G. Boutelle, H. Kusakabe and
M. Fillenz, Brain Res., 1996, 707, 131–133.
41 G. S. Wilson and Y. B. Hu, Chem. Rev., 2000, 100, 2693–2704.
42 A. Belay, A. Collins, T. Ruzgas, P. T. Kissinger, L. Gorton and
E. Csoregi, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 1999, 19, 93–105.
43 N. G. Patel, A. Erlenkotter, K. Cammann and G. C. Chemnitius,
Sens. Actuators, B, 2000, 67, 134–141.
44 J. A. Cox, P. M. Hensley and C. L. Loch, Microchim. Acta, 2003,
142, 1–5.
45 J. Jezkova, E. I. Iwuoha, M. R. Smyth and K. Vytras,
Electroanalysis, 1997, 9, 978–984.
46 E. Mikeladze, A. Schulte, M. Mosbach, A. Blochl, E. Csoregi,
R. Solomonia and W. Schumann, Electroanalysis, 2002, 14,
393–399.
47 W. H. Oldenziel and B. H. C. Westerink, Anal. Chem., 2005, 77,
5520–5528.
48 T. Hoshi, H. Saiki, S. Kuwazawa, C. Tsuchiya, Q. Chen and
J. I. Anzai, Anal. Chem., 2001, 73, 5310–5315.
49 W. J. Li, Z. Wang, C. Q. Sun, M. Xian and M. Y. Zhao, Anal.
Chim. Acta, 2000, 418, 225–232.
50 M. K. Ram, P. Bertoncello, H. Ding, S. Paddeu and C. Nicolini,
Biosens. Bioelectron., 2001, 16, 849–856.
51 J. P. Santos, E. R. Welsh, B. P. Gaber and A. Singh, Langmuir,
2001, 17, 5361–5367.
52 R. D. O’Neill, J. P. Lowry and M. Mas, Crit. Rev. Neurobiol.,
1998, 12, 69–127.
This journal is ß The Royal Society of Chemistry 2006