Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 63 references

High-throughput antibody screening with high-quality factor nanophotonics and bioprinting

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single nanophotonic chip functionalized by acoustic bioprinting can characterize antibody libraries—binding kinetics, affinity, specificity, and epitope bins—in 30 minutes at sub-picomolar concentrations.

desk verdict A credible integrated nanophotonic antibody-screening platform with solid optics but overclaimed LOD and kinetics that need tightening before the quantitative results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18557 v1 pith:5PFV57M5 submitted 2024-11-27 physics.optics physics.bio-ph

Sajjad Abdollahramezani , Darrell Omo-Lamai , Gerlof Bosman , Omid Hemmatyar , Sahil Dagli , Varun Dolia , Kai Chang , Nicholas A. Gusken
show 7 more authors
Hamish C. Delgado Geert-Jan Boons Mark L. Brongersma Fareeha Safir Butrus T. Khuri-Yakub Parivash Moradifar Jennifer A. Dionne
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.bio-ph
keywords antibodyscreeninghigh-throughputbiosensinghigh-Qnanoantennasacousticbioprintingepitopebinninglabel-freedetectionguidedmoderesonancesLangmuirkinetics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a single nanophotonic chip can characterize antibody libraries at a scale and speed that well-plate assays cannot match. The platform pairs high-quality-factor silicon nanoantennas, patterned at over one million sensors per square centimeter, with an acoustic bioprinter that deposits picoliter droplets of capture antigens onto individual sensors. The authors demonstrate selective detection and full kinetic fits for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and B, sub-picomolar limit of detection, and a four-order linear dynamic range, all within 30 minutes. They also use the same readout to bin antibodies by epitope overlap for H5N1 hemagglutinin and for glycoengineered Cetuximab antibodies against EGFR. If the platform works as described, large synthetic and natural antibody repertoires—and eventually de novo designed proteins—could be screened with far less sample and time than current methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the very-large-scale-integrated nanoantenna pixel (VINPix): a truncated one-dimensional array of symmetry-broken silicon nanoblocks supporting guided mode resonances, bracketed by photonic-crystal mirrors that shrink the mode volume and produce a Gaussian field envelope. It converts antibody capture into a resonance wavelength shift that can be read from free space, and because each pixel is small, more than one million sensors fit on a square centimeter. Around that transducer, the assay rests on three supporting mechanisms: digitized acoustic droplet ejection prints picoliter droplets of capture antigens at up to 25,000 droplets per second; an epoxy-silane self-assembled monolayer covalently anchors the printed antigens and is backfilled with m-PEG-amine to block nonspecific binding; and spectro-microscopy sweeps a tunable near-IR laser while a CCD captures frames, building a data cube from which every sensor's spectrum and resonance shift are reconstructed.

What would settle it

Immobilize the same H5N1 hemagglutinin through a site-specific tag so all copies present the same epitope orientation, repeat the kinetic and epitope-binning measurements, and compare the $K_D$ and heat maps to the random-epoxy results; if they differ materially, the reported constants are population averages, not intrinsic molecular affinities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that independently addressable high-Q nanoantennas can be turned into a massively multiplexed, label-free antibody assay by combining them with digitized acoustic bioprinting and hyperspectral readout. Each 15 µm × 3 µm silicon nanoantenna supports a guided mode resonance with Q above 5000, an electric near-field enhancement above 40-fold, and roughly 34 percent of the field energy exposed to the surface, so molecular binding shifts the resonance measurably. The authors report a limit of detection near 45 fM and a linear dynamic range from 70 pM to 400 nM for the antibody-antigen pairs tested. Real-time sensorgrams fit the Langmuir adsorption model, giving association and dissociation rates and $K_D$ values near 0.07 nM for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B. Tandem epitope binning separates four H5N1 antibodies into overlapping and non-overlapping epitopes, while five glycoengineered Cetuximab variants all block a common EGFR epitope.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that capture antigens randomly printed onto the epoxy surface keep their native shape and are equally reachable by antibodies, so the observed resonance shifts and Langmuir fits reflect true one-to-one binding kinetics rather than a mixture of orientations and steric effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With simultaneous imaging of tens of thousands of sensors, a 1 cm² chip could carry out the work of over 10,000 96-well plate assays.
  • One 30-minute run yields association and dissociation rates, $K_D$, and epitope bins, so lead selection can be based on affinity and epitope diversity rather than endpoint titer.
  • Because the printing step is nozzle-free and probe-agnostic, the same platform can be extended to nucleic acids, aptamers, metabolites, and other proteins.
  • Higher quality factors, in the hundreds of thousands to millions, could push sensitivity toward near-single-molecule detection while keeping free-space excitation and readout.
  • High-content kinetic and affinity data could close the loop in computational protein design by providing fast empirical screening of designed antibody libraries.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported $K_D$ values are likely population averages: if capture antigens were immobilized in a fixed orientation, the platform's variance would drop and the constants would better approximate intrinsic molecular values.
  • The same sensor array could map general pairwise protein-protein interactions, with each printed sensor address encoding one interaction pair, not just antibody-antigen complexes.
  • A direct side-by-side comparison of HT-NaBS and solution-phase affinity measurements for the same antibody pairs would reveal how much surface immobilization biases the kinetics.
  • If the acoustic printer is combined with live-cell capture of secreted antibodies, the platform could become a high-throughput functional screen for antibody-secreting cells.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents HT-NaBS, a label-free antibody screening platform that combines high-Q pixelated silicon nanoantennas (adapted from the authors' prior VINPix design), acoustic droplet bioprinting for site-specific sensor functionalization, and hyperspectral imaging for parallel readout. The authors characterize the optical performance (Q-factor versus asymmetry parameter ΔL, sensing figure of merit ≈ 353 RIU⁻¹), demonstrate multiplexed detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 RBD and Influenza A/B hemagglutinin, extract binding kinetic parameters (ka, kd, KD) and EC50 values, show specificity controls, report a claimed sub-picomolar limit of detection (≈45 fM) with a near-four-decade linear dynamic range (70 pM–400 nM), and apply the platform to epitope binning of an H5N1 HA antibody panel and of glycoengineered Cetuximab variants. The headline claim is that the platform can characterize antibody affinity, kinetics, and epitope coverage at high throughput, with low sample consumption and a 30-minute assay time.

Significance. If the kinetic and sensitivity claims are fully validated, this is a genuine advance: it integrates a previously reported high-Q nanoantenna pixel (ref. 32) with a mature acoustic-printing method into an end-to-end screening workflow, and the multiplexed spectral readout of dozens to hundreds of sensors per field of view is a step beyond conventional 96/384-well platforms. The optical characterization is careful and coherent — the Q-versus-ΔL scaling, the FOM measurement against NaCl standards, and the use of 50-antenna statistics give the photonic core of the paper a solid footing — and the specificity and epitope-binning demonstrations are concrete and useful. The principal uncertainties concern whether the extracted rate constants are intrinsic molecular parameters and whether the sub-picomolar LOD is experimentally supported; both issues are addressable with additional controls and revised claims, so the paper's core contribution is defensible in revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4d and Abstract] The claimed 45 fM LOD is an extrapolation: the lowest measured concentration standard shown is 1 pM (Fig. 4b), the stated linear dynamic range begins at 70 pM (Fig. 4d(iii)), and no data point below 1 pM is presented. The IUPAC blank-plus-3σ procedure yields a resonance-shift threshold, but converting that threshold to 45 fM requires the calibration model to be valid more than an order of magnitude below the lowest validated standard. The factor of roughly 20 between the claimed LOD and the lowest measured concentration, and the factor of roughly 1500 between the LOD and the start of the linear range, make the abstract's 'sub-picomolar LOD' claim unsupported as stated. Please measure standards at 50–500 fM and report recoveries, or revise the claim to an extrapolated LOD and clearly separate detection limit from quantitation range.
  2. [Fig. 4b–c] The kinetic parameters in Fig. 4c are reported as point values without confidence intervals, and the underlying sensorgrams are collected at only three concentrations (1 pM, 1 nM, 1 µM) that sparsely bracket the fitted KD of roughly 70–80 pM; for the 1 pM condition, equilibrium is approached only near the 25-minute mark, leaving little of the association phase for fitting ka, and mass-transport limitation is not discussed. It is therefore not demonstrated that ka and kd are individually identifiable from these data. In addition, the reported EC50 values (2.35–5.72 nM) exceed the corresponding KD values by about two orders of magnitude, which is difficult to reconcile with a 1:1 equilibrium-occupancy response and suggests that either the response model or the interpretation of the dose–response curves is more complex than stated. Please provide per-replicate fits with uncertainties, a statement of the fitting model with an identifiability check, and an explanation of the EC50/KD discrepancy.
  3. [Fig. 2d discussion, pp. 4–5, and Fig. 4 caption] The Langmuir 1:1 interpretation rests on the premise of a homogeneous, orientationally uniform, and fully accessible antigen layer. The authors themselves enumerate the competing effects — steric hindrance, stochastic walking of antibodies, surface repulsion, and unfavorable epitope orientation — in the Fig. 2d discussion, and the capture antigens are printed from 1 µM solutions, conditions that favor high surface density and possible bivalent-avidity stabilization of IgG binding. Under these conditions, the fitted constants are apparent, density-dependent values rather than intrinsic molecular constants, and the paper provides no control in which the immobilized antigen density is varied (or monovalent Fab fragments are used) to show that the extracted KD is density-independent. Please add such a control, or explicitly qualify the tabulated ka, kd, and KD as apparent values and discuss the avidity contribution.
  4. [Fig. 5e and text on p. 6] There is an internal inconsistency in the epitope-binning results. The text states that 'antibodies 1 and 3 share the overlapped epitope' in the Fig. 5d(ii) discussion, yet the heat map in Fig. 5e reports 143 pm and 181 pm for the (1,3) and (3,1) pairs — values comparable to the clearly non-blocking pairs — while the only mutually blocking pair is (2,3)/(3,2) with 36 pm and 32 pm. Either the text or the heat map is mislabeled. Please correct the statement (if the intended claim is that antibodies 2 and 3 overlap) and state the explicit shift threshold, defined relative to the measurement noise, that separates blocking from non-blocking pairs.
  5. [Fig. 5f] The conclusion that all five glycoengineered Cetuximab variants share a single epitope is an absence-of-signal result: the reported pairwise shifts range from about −22 to +24 pm and appear comparable to the measurement noise, and no positive control (for example, a known non-overlapping anti-EGFR antibody) is shown to demonstrate that a spatially distinct epitope would be detected as a significant shift in this assay format. Without such a control, 'negligible shift' cannot be distinguished from 'assay unable to resolve this pair,' and the claim that Fab/Fc glycosylation does not affect antigen binding is weaker than presented. Please add a positive control or calibrate the blocking threshold against the measured noise floor.
minor comments (6)
  1. [p. 3, Fig. 2a discussion] The FWHM values '0.31 µm to 0.78 µm' appear to be a unit error: at λ ≈ 1600 nm and Q ≈ 2000–5000 the expected linewidths are 0.3–0.8 nm, not micrometers; please correct.
  2. [Fig. 3c] The statement that the 1.5 nm redshift is '1.5x the FWHM of the high-Q resonators' is inconsistent with Q ≈ 5000, which implies a FWHM of roughly 0.3 nm; please reconcile the factor and state the operating Q used for this comparison.
  3. [Abstract, p. 4, and Methods (Acoustic bioprinting)] The abstract and main text claim deposition rates up to 25,000 droplets per second, but the described custom printer is driven at a continuous repetition frequency of 1 kHz in the Methods; please clarify whether 25 kHz is a demonstrated capability of this system or a general ADE limit, and align the claims with the settings actually used.
  4. [Abstract, Fig. 2a, and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state Q-factors exceeding 5000, but the measured maximum average Q reported in Fig. 2a is approximately 4200; please attribute the 5000 figure to simulations or report the measured maximum.
  5. [Fig. 4d discussion] The comparison of the 45 fM LOD to 'gold-standard affinity-based assays such as ELISA' citing ref. [48] is not well supported, since the cited reference is a review of COVID-19 antibody test limitations; a direct quantitative benchmark (for example, a table of LODs from SPR or ELISA for comparable antibodies) would be more informative.
  6. [Fig. 5e–f captions] The heat-map colorbar scales as rendered (a '2500' scale for Fig. 5e and a '30/−30' scale for Fig. 5f) do not match the reported shift magnitudes (up to about 220 pm and about ±24 pm, respectively); please clarify the units, the scaling factors mentioned in the caption, and the color assignment for blocking versus non-blocking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the platform's binding kinetics, LOD, and epitope calls are experimentally measured and externally benchmarked, not derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are experimental measurements, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs. The kinetic constants (ka, kd, KD) are obtained by fitting real-time sensorgrams to the Langmuir adsorption model (Fig. 4b-c) and are then compared with external gold-standard values from reference [47], so the validation is independent. The 45 fM LOD is defined in the standard IUPAC way as blank mean plus three standard deviations, an estimate from the measured noise floor rather than a prediction. Epitope binning is inferred directly from differential resonance shifts in pairwise competition experiments (Fig. 5d-f), an assay readout rather than a renamed prior result. The design citation to the authors' own VINPix work [32] is a dependency for the sensor platform, but the paper independently fabricates and characterizes Q-factor, FOM, and binding response, and the central antibody-screening claim does not rest on a self-citation chain. The authors' own caveats about antigen orientation heterogeneity and weakly bound antigen loss are limitations that affect accuracy, not circularity. No step was found in which a 'prediction' is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to a self-cited result.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard surface chemistry, Langmuir kinetics, and the authors' prior VINPix and bioprinter devices. No new physical entities are introduced. The main not-upstream-verified inputs are the fidelity of random amine coupling, PEG blocking, and protein viability after acoustic ejection. The kinetic and dose-response parameters are fitted to the platform's own data.

free parameters (10)
  • ka, anti-SARS-CoV-2 = 3.96 x 10^6 /M/s
    Fitted from the Langmuir model to the binding sensorgram (Fig 4b); used to compute KD = 0.07 nM.
  • ka, anti-Influenza A = 3.37 x 10^6 /M/s
    Fitted from the binding sensorgram; used to compute KD = 0.08 nM.
  • ka, anti-Influenza B = 2.61 x 10^6 /M/s
    Fitted from the binding sensorgram; used to compute KD = 0.07 nM.
  • kd, anti-SARS-CoV-2 = 3.03 x 10^-4 /s
    Dissociation rate fitted from the dissociation phase of the sensorgram.
  • kd, anti-Influenza A = 2.86 x 10^-4 /s
    Dissociation rate fitted from the sensorgram.
  • kd, anti-Influenza B = 1.95 x 10^-4 /s
    Dissociation rate fitted from the sensorgram.
  • EC50, anti-SARS-CoV-2 = 5.72 nM
    From the Hill equation fit to the concentration-response curve in Fig 4d.
  • EC50, anti-Influenza A = 2.35 nM
    From the Hill equation fit to the concentration-response curve.
  • EC50, anti-Influenza B = 3.04 nM
    From the Hill equation fit to the concentration-response curve.
  • LOD (HA B) = 45 fM
    Computed from mean + 3 sigma of blank measurements, but no blank data are shown and 45 fM is below the lowest tested standard (1 pM), so it is an extrapolation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Langmuir 1:1 adsorption model describes antigen-antibody binding in the microfluidic flow cell.
    Invoked in the fit of sensorgrams to extract ka and kd (Fig 4b,c); deviations due to bivalent binding or mass transport are not modeled.
  • domain assumption GMR resonance wavelength shift is proportional to the surface-bound mass of antibody.
    Used to interpret redshift as binding in Fig 3 and Fig 4; the proportionality constant is not independently calibrated.
  • domain assumption Epoxy-amine covalent immobilization preserves the native conformation and epitope accessibility of the printed capture antigens.
    Relied on for all binding and binning measurements; the authors acknowledge orientation heterogeneity as a source of variance.
  • domain assumption m-PEG-amine backfill prevents nonspecific protein adsorption.
    Necessary for specificity claims in Fig 4d; no direct surface coverage measurement of the PEG layer is provided.
  • domain assumption Acoustic droplet ejection does not denature or damage the printed proteins.
    Stated in the text with reference to prior work; no activity assay of printed antigens is shown in this paper.
  • domain assumption The VINPix high-Q nanoantenna design from the authors' prior publication [32] performs as characterized there.
    This paper adopts the design without reproducing the full VINPix characterization; Q and mode volume are taken from [32].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-throughput antibody screening with high-quality factor nanophotonics and bioprinting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5PFV57M5

@misc{pith2026241118557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-throughput antibody screening with high-quality factor nanophotonics and bioprinting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5PFV57M5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18557}
}
read the original abstract

Empirical investigation of the quintillion-scale, functionally diverse antibody repertoires that can be generated synthetically or naturally is critical for identifying potential biotherapeutic leads, yet remains burdensome. We present high-throughput nanophotonics- and bioprinter-enabled screening (HT-NaBS), a multiplexed assay for large-scale, sample-efficient, and rapid characterization of antibody libraries. Our platform is built upon independently addressable pixelated nanoantennas exhibiting wavelength-scale mode volumes, high-quality factors (high-Q) exceeding 5000, and pattern densities exceeding one million sensors per square centimeter. Our custom-built acoustic bioprinter enables individual sensor functionalization via the deposition of picoliter droplets from a library of capture antigens at rates up to 25,000 droplets per second. We detect subtle differentiation in the target binding signature through spatially-resolved spectral imaging of hundreds of resonators simultaneously, elucidating antigen-antibody binding kinetic rates, affinity constant, and specificity. We demonstrate HT-NaBS on a panel of antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B antigens, with a sub-picomolar limit of detection within 30 minutes. Furthermore, through epitope binning analysis, we demonstrate the competence and diversity of a library of native antibodies targeting functional epitopes on a priority pathogen (H5N1 bird flu) and on glycosylated therapeutic Cetuximab antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor. With a roadmap to image tens of thousands of sensors simultaneously, this high-throughput, resource-efficient, and label-free platform can rapidly screen for high-affinity and broad epitope coverage, accelerating biotherapeutic discovery and de novo protein design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of HT-NaBS. a, Digitized acoustic bioprinting of biological samples. Schematic of the acoustic bioprint￾ing platform, including an ultrasound transducer, multiwell plates, and a translational stage. Left inset: stroboscopic image of a 15-µm diameter, ∼2-pL volume droplet ejected from a well containing a biostable buffer (see also Supplementary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Design and characterization of high-Q nanoantennas. a, Comparison of experimental (circle markers) and simulated (star markers) Q-factors for different (∆L) in the cavity section. Mean Q-factor values (bold markers) and standard deviations (error bars) are derived from measurements of 50 nanoantennas for each perturbation condition. b, Figure of merit (FOM) of the nanophotonic sensor. GMR wavelength of nanoantenna i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Working principle of high-throughput antibody screening. a,b,. A rendered graphic of the bioassay shows a 10 × 5 nanoantenna array independently functionalized with RBD (a) before selective deposition of different antibodies with µM concentration using digitized acoustic bioprinting (b). Antibodies are color-coded as in Fig. 1b. The nanoantenna array is illuminated by a narrow-band tunable near-IR laser, and time-se… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Binding kinetics, affinity, and specificity measurements of pathogenic antigens. a, Ideal sensorgram indicating different phases of antigen-antibody interactions. The binding kinetic measurement begins with the baseline, where antigens are surface immobilized, followed…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Epitope binning analysis of antibodies using HT-NaBS. a, Cartoon illustration of the tandem assay format. This competitive assay involves the sequential application of competing antibody variants over an immobilized antigen that has been pre-bound with a coupled antibo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Briney, A

    B. Briney, A. Inderbitzin, C. Joyce, and D. R. Burton, Commonality despite exceptional diversity in the baseline human antibody repertoire, Nature 566, 393 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    P. J. Carter and G. A. Lazar, Next generation antibody drugs: pursuit of the’high-hanging fruit’, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 17, 197 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Pantaleo, B

    G. Pantaleo, B. Correia, C. Fenwick, V. S. Joo, and L. Perez, Antibodies to combat viral infections: devel- opment strategies and progress, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 21, 676 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    S. Paul, M. F. Konig, D. M. Pardoll, C. Bettegowda, N. Papadopoulos, K. M. Wright, S. B. Gabelli, M. Ho, A. van Elsas, and S. Zhou, Cancer therapy with antibod- ies, Nature Reviews Cancer , 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    that operates at a center frequency of 147 MHz and a focal distance of 3.5 mm. The droplet generation pro- cess is driven by a waveform generator (Keysight 33600A Series Trueform), which produces a square-wave burst at a continuous repetition frequency of 1 kHz, with a pulse width of 5.5 µs and a voltage of 1.5 V, sufficient to activate the RF synthesizer...

    work page

  6. [6]

    McCafferty, A

    J. McCafferty, A. D. Griffiths, G. Winter, and D. J. Chiswell, Phage antibodies: filamentous phage display- ing antibody variable domains, nature 348, 552 (1990)

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Winter, Harnessing evolution to make medicines, e Nobel Prizes (2020)

    G. Winter, Harnessing evolution to make medicines, e Nobel Prizes (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    K¨ ohler and C

    G. K¨ ohler and C. Milstein, Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity, nature 256, 495 (1975)

    work page 1975

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Abramson, J

    J. Abramson, J. Adler, J. Dunger, R. Evans, T. Green, A. Pritzel, O. Ronneberger, L. Willmore, A. J. Bal- lard, J. Bambrick, et al., Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Lu, Y.-C

    R.-M. Lu, Y.-C. Hwang, I.-J. Liu, C.-C. Lee, H.-Z. Tsai, H.-J. Li, and H.-C. Wu, Development of therapeutic an- tibodies for the treatment of diseases, Journal of biomed- ical science 27, 1 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Notin, N

    P. Notin, N. Rollins, Y. Gal, C. Sander, and D. Marks, Machine learning for functional protein design, Nature biotechnology 42, 216 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    A. Jug, T. Bratkoviˇ c, and J. Ilaˇ s, Biolayer interferometry and its applications in drug discovery and development, TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry , 117741 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Homola, Present and future of surface plasmon reso- nance biosensors, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry 377, 528 (2003)

    J. Homola, Present and future of surface plasmon reso- nance biosensors, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry 377, 528 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    P. J. Tighe, R. R. Ryder, I. Todd, and L. C. Fair- clough, Elisa in the multiplex era: potentials and pitfalls, PROTEOMICS–Clinical Applications 9, 406 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Markin, D

    C. Markin, D. Mokhtari, F. Sunden, M. Appel, E. Akiva, S. Longwell, C. Sabatti, D. Herschlag, and P. Fordyce, Revealing enzyme functional architecture via high- throughput microfluidic enzyme kinetics, Science 373, eabf8761 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    DelRosso, J

    N. DelRosso, J. Tycko, P. Suzuki, C. Andrews, Arad- hana, A. Mukund, I. Liongson, C. Ludwig, K. Spees, P. Fordyce, et al., Large-scale mapping and mutagenesis of human transcriptional effector domains, Nature 616, 365 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    K. M. Mayer and J. H. Hafner, Localized surface plasmon resonance sensors, Chemical reviews 111, 3828 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    M. L. Tseng, Y. Jahani, A. Leitis, and H. Altug, Dielec- tric metasurfaces enabling advanced optical biosensors, ACS photonics 8, 47 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Altug, S.-H

    H. Altug, S.-H. Oh, S. A. Maier, and J. Homola, Ad- vances and applications of nanophotonic biosensors, Na- ture nanotechnology 17, 5 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Krasnok, M

    A. Krasnok, M. Caldarola, N. Bonod, and A. Al´ u, Spec- troscopy and biosensing with optically resonant dielectric nanostructures, Advanced optical materials 6, 1701094 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Iwanaga, T

    M. Iwanaga, T. Hironaka, N. Ikeda, T. Sugasawa, and K. Takekoshi, Metasurface biosensors enabling single- molecule sensing of cell-free dna, Nano Letters 23, 5755 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    J. Hu, F. Safir, K. Chang, S. Dagli, H. B. Balch, J. M. Abendroth, J. Dixon, P. Moradifar, V. Dolia, M. K. Sa- hoo, et al., Rapid genetic screening with high quality factor metasurfaces, Nature Communications 14, 4486 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Tittl, A

    A. Tittl, A. Leitis, M. Liu, F. Yesilkoy, D.-Y. Choi, D. N. Neshev, Y. S. Kivshar, and H. Altug, Imaging-based molecular barcoding with pixelated dielectric metasur- faces, Science 360, 1105 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Rodrigo, O

    D. Rodrigo, O. Limaj, D. Janner, D. Etezadi, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, V. Pruneri, and H. Altug, Mid-infrared plasmonic biosensing with graphene, Science 349, 165 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    S.-H. Oh, H. Altug, X. Jin, T. Low, S. J. Koester, A. P. Ivanov, J. B. Edel, P. Avouris, and M. S. Strano, Nanophotonic biosensors harnessing van der waals mate- rials, Nature communications 12, 3824 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    and even surpasses all-dielectric metasurface sensors

  19. [27]

    Rosas, K

    S. Rosas, K. A. Schoeller, E. Chang, H. Mei, M. A. Kats, K. W. Eliceiri, X. Zhao, and F. Yesilkoy, Metasurface- enhanced mid-infrared spectrochemical imaging of tis- sues, Advanced Materials 35, 2301208 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    C. W. Hsu, B. Zhen, A. D. Stone, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Bound states in the continuum, Nature Reviews Materials 1, 1 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Yavas, M

    O. Yavas, M. Svedendahl, P. Dobosz, V. Sanz, and R. Quidant, On-a-chip biosensing based on all-dielectric nanoresonators, Nano letters 17, 4421 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Yavas, M

    O. Yavas, M. Svedendahl, and R. Quidant, Unravelling the role of electric and magnetic dipoles in biosensing with si nanoresonators, ACS nano 13, 4582 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Jahani, E

    Y. Jahani, E. R. Arvelo, F. Yesilkoy, K. Koshelev, C. Cianciaruso, M. De Palma, Y. Kivshar, and H. Al- tug, Imaging-based spectrometer-less optofluidic biosen- sors based on dielectric metasurfaces for detecting ex- tracellular vesicles, Nature Communications 12, 3246 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Koshelev, S

    K. Koshelev, S. Lepeshov, M. Liu, A. Bogdanov, and Y. Kivshar, Asymmetric metasurfaces with high-q reso- nances governed by bound states in the continuum, Phys- ical review letters 121, 193903 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Yesilkoy, E

    F. Yesilkoy, E. R. Arvelo, Y. Jahani, M. Liu, A. Tittl, V. Cevher, Y. Kivshar, and H. Altug, Ultrasensitive hy- perspectral imaging and biodetection enabled by dielec- tric metasurfaces, Nature Photonics 13, 390 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    d-lab” logo is printed onto the nanoantenna array (see Fig. 1a). A false-colored “five-tone

    due to the sensitive high-Q GMR. Combined with the high surface-to-volume ratio of the nanoblocks, which maximizes available binding sites for surface-bound ana- lytes, our design demonstrates significant responsiveness to surface interactions, making it suitable for biorecogn...

    2000

  27. [35]

    Dolia, H

    V. Dolia, H. B. Balch, S. Dagli, S. Abdollahramezani, H. Carr Delgado, P. Moradifar, K. Chang, A. Stiber, F. Safir, M. Lawrence, et al., Very-large-scale-integrated high quality factor nanoantenna pixels, Nature Nanotech- nology 19, 1290 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Z. Liu, Y. Xu, Y. Lin, J. Xiang, T. Feng, Q. Cao, J. Li, S. Lan, and J. Liu, High-q quasibound states in the con- tinuum for nonlinear metasurfaces, Physical review let- ters 123, 253901 (2019). 18

    2019

  29. [37]

    Y. Yang, I. I. Kravchenko, D. P. Briggs, and J. Valen- tine, All-dielectric metasurface analogue of electromag- netically induced transparency, Nature communications 5, 5753 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    V. V. Tsukruk, I. Luzinov, and D. Julthongpiput, Sticky molecular surfaces: epoxysilane self-assembled monolay- ers, Langmuir 15, 3029 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    Obermeier, F

    B. Obermeier, F. Wurm, C. Mangold, and H. Frey, Multi- functional poly (ethylene glycol) s, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 50, 7988 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Zalipsky and J

    S. Zalipsky and J. M. Harris, Introduction to chemistry and biological applications of poly (ethylene glycol) (ACS Publications, 1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    Zhang, R

    Q. Zhang, R. Huang, and L.-H. Guo, One-step and high- density protein immobilization on epoxysilane-modified silica nanoparticles, Chinese Science Bulletin 54, 2620 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Preiner, N

    J. Preiner, N. Kodera, J. Tang, A. Ebner, M. Brameshu- ber, D. Blaas, N. Gelbmann, H. J. Gruber, T. Ando, and P. Hinterdorfer, Iggs are made for walking on bac- terial and viral surfaces, Nature communications 5, 4394 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    De Michele, P

    C. De Michele, P. De Los Rios, G. Foffi, and F. Piazza, Simulation and theory of antibody binding to crowded antigen-covered surfaces, PLoS computational biology 12, e1004752 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Hadzhieva, A

    M. Hadzhieva, A. D. Pashov, S. Kaveri, S. Lacroix- Desmazes, H. Mouquet, and J. D. Dimitrov, Impact of antigen density on the binding mechanism of igg anti- bodies, Scientific reports 7, 3767 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Safir, N

    F. Safir, N. Vu, L. F. Tadesse, K. Firouzi, N. Banaei, S. S. Jeffrey, A. A. Saleh, B. P. T. Khuri-Yakub, and J. A. Dionne, Combining acoustic bioprinting with ai-assisted raman spectroscopy for high-throughput identification of bacteria in blood, Nano Letters 23, 2065 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Elrod, B

    S. Elrod, B. Hadimioglu, B. Khuri-Yakub, E. Rawson, E. Richley, C. Quate, N. Mansour, and T. Lundgren, Noz- zleless droplet formation with focused acoustic beams, Journal of Applied Physics 65, 3441 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Dholakia, B

    K. Dholakia, B. W. Drinkwater, and M. Ritsch-Marte, Comparing acoustic and optical forces for biomedical re- search, Nature Reviews Physics 2, 480 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    W. Wang, E. Wang, and J. Balthasar, Monoclonal anti- body pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 84, 548 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    A. J. Haes and R. P. Van Duyne, A nanoscale opti- cal biosensor: sensitivity and selectivity of an approach based on the localized surface plasmon resonance spec- troscopy of triangular silver nanoparticles, Journal of the American Chemical Society 124, 10596 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    S. J. Zost, P. Gilchuk, J. B. Case, E. Binshtein, R. E. Chen, J. P. Nkolola, A. Sch¨ afer, J. X. Reidy, A. Trivette, R. S. Nargi, et al., Potently neutralizing and protective human antibodies against sars-cov-2, Nature 584, 443 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Liu and J

    G. Liu and J. F. Rusling, Covid-19 antibody tests and their limitations, ACS sensors 6, 593 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    W. T. Harvey, A. M. Carabelli, B. Jackson, R. K. Gupta, E. C. Thomson, E. M. Harrison, C. Ludden, R. Reeve, A. Rambaut, S. J. Peacock, et al., Sars-cov-2 variants, spike mutations and immune escape, Nature Reviews Mi- crobiology 19, 409 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    C. O. Barnes, C. A. Jette, M. E. Abernathy, K.-M. A. Dam, S. R. Esswein, H. B. Gristick, A. G. Malyutin, N. G. Sharaf, K. E. Huey-Tubman, Y. E. Lee, et al., Sars-cov-2 neutralizing antibody structures inform ther- apeutic strategies, Nature 588, 682 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    H. Cho, K. K. Gonzales-Wartz, D. Huang, M. Yuan, M. Peterson, J. Liang, N. Beutler, J. L. Torres, Y. Cong, E. Postnikova, et al., Bispecific antibodies targeting dis- tinct regions of the spike protein potently neutralize sars- cov-2 variants of concern, Science translational ...

    2021

  47. [55]

    B. E. Jones, P. L. Brown-Augsburger, K. S. Corbett, K. Westendorf, J. Davies, T. P. Cujec, C. M. Wiethoff, J. L. Blackbourne, B. A. Heinz, D. Foster, et al., The neutralizing antibody, ly-cov555, protects against sars- cov-2 infection in nonhuman primates, Science transla- tio...

    2021

  48. [56]

    L. C. Caserta, E. A. Frye, S. L. Butt, M. Laverack, M. Nooruzzaman, L. M. Covaleda, A. C. Thompson, M. P. Koscielny, B. Cronk, A. Johnson, et al., Spillover of highly pathogenic avian influenza h5n1 virus to dairy cattle, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Mallapaty, The pathogens that could spark the next pandemic., Nature 632, 488 (2024)

    S. Mallapaty, The pathogens that could spark the next pandemic., Nature 632, 488 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Graham, M

    J. Graham, M. Muhsin, and P. Kirkpatrick, Cetuximab., Nature reviews Drug discovery 3 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Saporiti, D

    S. Saporiti, D. Bianchi, O. Ben Mariem, M. Rossi, U. Guerrini, I. Eberini, and F. Centola, In silico eval- uation of the role of fab glycosylation in cetuximab an- tibody dynamics, Frontiers in Immunology 15, 1429600 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    J. P. Giddens, J. V. Lomino, D. J. DiLillo, J. V. Ravetch, and L.-X. Wang, Site-selective chemoenzymatic glyco- engineering of fab and fc glycans of a therapeutic an- tibody, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 12023 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Jefferis, Glycosylation as a strategy to improve antibody-based therapeutics, Nature reviews Drug dis- covery 8, 226 (2009)

    R. Jefferis, Glycosylation as a strategy to improve antibody-based therapeutics, Nature reviews Drug dis- covery 8, 226 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    F. S. Van De Bovenkamp, N. I. Derksen, P. Ooijevaar-de Heer, K. A. Van Schie, S. Kruithof, M. A. Berkowska, C. E. van der Schoot, H. IJspeert, M. van der Burg, A. Gils, et al., Adaptive antibody diversification through n-linked glycosylation of the immunoglobulin variable re- ...

    2018

  55. [63]

    Z. Wang, Z. S. Chinoy, S. G. Ambre, W. Peng, R. McBride, R. P. de Vries, J. Glushka, J. C. Paulson, and G.-J. Boons, A general strategy for the chemoen- zymatic synthesis of asymmetrically branched n-glycans, Science 341, 379 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.