# Development and Comparative Evaluation of Two Enzyme-Based Amperometric Biosensor Designs for Alanine Aminotransferase Determination in Biological Fluids

**Authors:** Daryna Mruga, Yevhen Vakhovskyi, Veronika Bakhmat, Viktoriya Pyeshkova, Sergii Dzyadevych, Oleksandr Soldatkin

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/mi16101168 · Micromachines · 2025-10-15

## TL;DR

This paper compares two biosensor designs for measuring alanine aminotransferase (ALT), a liver function biomarker, to determine which offers better performance in terms of sensitivity, stability, and cost.

## Contribution

The study introduces and evaluates two novel enzyme-based biosensor configurations for ALT detection, highlighting their trade-offs in analytical performance and practical application.

## Key findings

- The POx-based biosensor showed higher sensitivity and lower detection limits for ALT.
- The GlOx-based biosensor offered greater stability in complex solutions and lower assay costs.
- The GlOx system can be adapted for AST detection but is affected by AST activity in ALT samples.

## Abstract

Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is a key biomarker of liver function. Compared with conventional assays for ALT detection—which are expensive, time-consuming, labor-intensive, and require experienced personnel—biosensors represent a promising alternative, but it remains unclear which biorecognitive enzymatic configuration offers the best analytical performance for ALT detection. This study presents the development and comparative evaluation of two amperometric biosensors based on oxidase biorecognition elements: pyruvate oxidase (POx) and glutamate oxidase (GlOx). Enzymes were immobilized onto platinum electrodes under optimized conditions using entrapment for POx (pH 7.4, enzyme loading 1.62 U/µL, PVA-SbQ concentration 13.2%) and covalent crosslinking for GlOx (pH 6.5, enzyme loading 2.67%, glutaraldehyde concentration 0.3%). Analytical parameters were systematically assessed, including linear range (1–500 U/L for POx vs. 5–500 U/L for GlOx), limit of detection (1 U/L for both), and sensitivity (0.75 vs. 0.49 nA/min at 100 U/L). The POx-based biosensor demonstrated higher sensitivity and lower detection limits, whereas the GlOx-based biosensor exhibited greater stability in complex solutions and reduced assay costs due to a simpler working solution. Moreover, while the POx-based system is uniquely suited for ALT determination, the GlOx-based sensor can be affected by AST activity in samples but may also be adapted for targeted AST detection. Overall, the study highlights a trade-off between sensitivity, robustness, and versatility in ALT biosensor design, providing guidance for the rational development of clinically relevant devices.

## Linked entities

- **Chemicals:** glutaraldehyde (PubChem CID 3485), PVA-SbQ (PubChem CID 177845346)

## Full-text entities

- **Genes:** SLC17A5 (solute carrier family 17 member 5) [NCBI Gene 26503] {aka AST, ISSD, NSD, SD, SIALIN, SIASD}, PRODH (proline dehydrogenase 1) [NCBI Gene 5625] {aka HSPOX2, PIG6, POX, PRODH1, TP53I6}, GPT (glutamic--pyruvic transaminase) [NCBI Gene 2875] {aka AAT1, ALT, ALT1, GPT1, SGPT}
- **Chemicals:** PVA-SbQ (-), platinum (MESH:D010984), glutaraldehyde (MESH:D005976)

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12566202/full.md

## Figures

11 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12566202/full.md

## References

49 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12566202/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12566202