While PCR is generally more sensitive than cell culturing and ELISA, it is rather expensive (e.g., gear ranging from 15,000C90,000 euros depending on gear sensitivity and through-put capacity with about 30 Euros per assay per patient). Despite the enormous potential of MPs as capture/pre-concentrating elements, they are not ideal with regard of being active elements in sensing applications as they are not the sensor element itself. Even though engineering of magneto-plasmonic nanostructures as promising hybrid materials directly applicable for sensing due to their plasmonic properties are often used in sensing, to our Atrimustine surprise, the literature of magneto-plasmonic nanostructures for viral sensing is limited to some examples. Considering the wide interest this topic is usually evoking at present, the different approaches will be discussed in more detail and put into wider perspectives for sensing of viral disease markers. Keywords: computer virus, sensing, plasmonic, magnetic nanoparticles 1. Introduction Infectious diseases pose an omnipresent threat to global and public health, as currently evidenced with the newly emerged Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, associated with several respiratory distress. Generally speaking, the detection of the presence of viral particles is based on the use of a variety of methods commonly operated by specialized laboratories. These include protocols for cell culture with time spans of 2C10 days depending on the computer virus, immune assay procedures such as enzyme immunoassays (EIA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and fluorescent antibody assessments (FAT) [1,2,3,4] (Physique 1). Taking the example of herpes simplex virus (HSV), a double stranded DNA computer virus from the herpesviridae family, one of the traditional ways for HSV diagnosis involves the monitoring of cytopathic effects of the computer virus on cultured cells with results taking up to one week to be completed (Physique 1a) [5]. To gain time, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based diagnostic procedures, requiring typically several hours are preferentially used. These assays remain, however, not only labor intensive, but suffer from poor sensitivity (Physique Atrimustine 1b). Due to the need of specific gear and trained personal, it might require patient samples to be transported to centralized diagnostic laboratories for testing. These facts increase time to answer and costs, while reducing the quality of patient care. Open in a separate window Physique 1 Viral analysis methods: (a) Viral growth in vitro in flat (horizontal) flasks or Petri dish; (b) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based testing for viral antigens based on the use of a few drops of diluted patient sample applied to a membrane filter previously altered with viral specific antibodies and internal controls. Enzyme-linked antibody conjugate is usually added to the filter, with the targeted antibody attached to the antigen (in the case of a positive test). Excess conjugate is washed off the filter. Substrate is added to activate the enzyme-mediated reaction to reveal the color change of a positive test. (c) Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the detection of RNA computer virus together with the PCR diagram showing the correlation between the number of PCR cycles and the number of copies of target gene detected. This also applies to the gold standard in clinical Atrimustine setting for the detection of emerging pathogens, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) (Physique 1c). The typical turnaround time for PCR remains >6?h and the approach is based on viral nucleic acid extraction from samples and their transcription into cDNA, which is then amplified and detected using fluorescence or luminescence [6]. In case of viruses having RNA (ribonucleic acid) as genetic material (e.g., SARS-CoV-1 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus), SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndromeCrelated coronavirus), hepatitis C, Ebola, Dengue computer virus, etc.), cDNA is usually first produced from the RNA sample by reverse transcription. RT-PCR is consequently the currently used method for the screening for SARS-CoV-2 contamination in nasopharyngeal aspirates/throat and nose swabs in a hospital setting. The employment of PCR techniques for computer virus detection and quantification offers the advantages of high sensitivity and reproducibility, combined with an extremely broad dynamic range. While PCR is generally more sensitive than cell culturing and ELISA, it is rather expensive (e.g., gear ranging from 15,000C90,000 euros depending on gear sensitivity and through-put capacity with about 30 Euros per assay per patient). In the case of influenza MAPKK1 A computer virus, RT-PCR achieved a 103 occasions higher sensitivity than computer virus isolation and 106 to 107 occasions than ELISA. The Atrimustine detection rate in clinical samples was 93% for RT-PCR, clearly larger than that attained by computer virus isolation (80%) and ELISA (62%) [7]. To improve therapy uptake, new assays are needed to enable rapid diagnosis in a point-of-care (POC) setting. Biosensors are ideal point-of care devices for the diagnosis of viral infections. A biosensor is usually a device that is based on the immobilization of a biological recognition element onto a solid surface, the transducer, which upon viral binding.