Development of a monoclonal antibody binding okadaic acid and dinophysistoxins-1, -2 in proportion to their toxicity equivalence factors

Okadaic acid (OA) and structurally related toxins dinophysistoxin-1 (DTX-1), and DTX-2, are lipophilic marine biotoxins. The current reference method for the analysis of these toxins is the mouse bioassay (MBA). This method is under increasing criticism both from an ethical point of view and because of its limited sensitivity and specificity. Alternative replacement methods must be rapid, robust, cost effective, specific and sensitive. Although published immuno-based detection techniques have good sensitivities, they are restricted in their use because of their inability to: (i) detect all of the OA toxins that contribute to contamination; and (ii) factor in the relative toxicities of each contaminant. Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) were produced to OA and an automated biosensor screening assay developed and compared with ELISA techniques. The screening assay was designed to increase the probability of identifying a MAb capable of detecting all OA toxins. The result was the generation of a unique MAb which not only cross-reacted with both DTX-1 and DTX-2 but had a cross-reactivity profile in buffer that reflected exactly the intrinsic toxic potency of the OA group of toxins. Preliminary matrix studies reflected these results. This antibody is an excellent candidate for the development of a range of functional immunochemical-based detection assays for this group of toxins.

Appearance of the frequency-doubling stimulus at threshold.

PURPOSE. It has been argued that the threshold for detecting frequency-doubling (FD) technology perimeter stimuli differs from the threshold for perceiving spatial structure (pattern) in the same targets. Thresholds for perceiving spatial structure have typically been assessed using orientation-identification experiments. The authors investigated the influence of orientation, edge profile, and psychophysical method on the origin of the reported differences in detection and orientation-identification thresholds for FD gratings.

METHODS. Detection and orientation-identification thresholds were determined in 12 observers with the use of FD stimuli (0.25 cyc/deg, 25 Hz) presented centrally and at 15° eccentricity. Edge profile (square- and Gaussian-windowed) and orientation (horizontal, vertical, and oblique) were independently modified. Detection thresholds were also measured for spatially uniform flickering targets (25 Hz). Orientation-identification thresholds using a two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) and a two-interval forced choice (2-IFC) method were also compared in five experienced observers.

RESULTS. Orientation-identification and detection thresholds did not significantly differ under any condition tested. Orientation-identification thresholds obtained with 2-AFC were not significantly different from those obtained with 2-IFC. Thresholds for spatially uniform flicker were significantly lower than for FD stimuli.

CONCLUSIONS. The authors found that orientation-identification and detection thresholds for FD gratings did not differ and argue that recent findings to the contrary arise from the inappropriate use of spatially uniform flicker targets as alternatives in 2-IFC experiments.