BACKGROUND: Newborn screening for lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) has been gaining considerable interest owing to the availability of enzyme replacement therapies. We present a digital microfluidic platform to perform rapid, multiplexed enzymatic analysis of acid α-glucosidase (GAA) and acid α-galactosidase to screen for Pompe and Fabry disorders. The results were compared with those obtained using standard fluorometric methods. METHODS: We performed bench-based, fluorometric enzymatic analysis on 60 deidentified newborn dried blood spots (DBSs), plus 10 Pompe-affected and 11 Fabry-affected samples, at Duke Biochemical Genetics Laboratory using a 3-mm punch for each assay and an incubation time of 20 h. We used a digital microfluidic platform to automate fluorometric enzymatic assays at Advanced Liquid Logic Inc. using extract from a single punch for both assays, with an incubation time of 6 h. Assays were also performed with an incubation time of 1 h. RESULTS: Assay results were generally comparable, although mean enzymatic activity for GAA using microfluidics was approximately 3 times higher than that obtained using bench-based methods, which could be attributed to higher substrate concentration. Clear separation was observed between the normal and affected samples at both 6- and 1-h incubation times using digital microfluidics. CONCLUSIONS: A digital microfluidic platform compared favorably with a clinical reference laboratory to perform enzymatic analysis in DBSs for Pompe and Fabry disorders. This platform presents a new technology for a newborn screening laboratory to screen LSDs by fully automating all the liquid-handling operations in an inexpensive system, providing rapid results.
BACKGROUND: Newborn screening for lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) has been gaining considerable interest owing to the availability of enzyme replacement therapies. We present a digital microfluidic platform to perform rapid, multiplexed enzymatic analysis of acid α-glucosidase (GAA) and acid α-galactosidase to screen for Pompe and Fabry disorders. The results were compared with those obtained using standard fluorometric methods. METHODS: We performed bench-based, fluorometric enzymatic analysis on 60 deidentified newborn dried blood spots (DBSs), plus 10 Pompe-affected and 11 Fabry-affected samples, at Duke Biochemical Genetics Laboratory using a 3-mm punch for each assay and an incubation time of 20 h. We used a digital microfluidic platform to automate fluorometric enzymatic assays at Advanced Liquid Logic Inc. using extract from a single punch for both assays, with an incubation time of 6 h. Assays were also performed with an incubation time of 1 h. RESULTS: Assay results were generally comparable, although mean enzymatic activity for GAA using microfluidics was approximately 3 times higher than that obtained using bench-based methods, which could be attributed to higher substrate concentration. Clear separation was observed between the normal and affected samples at both 6- and 1-h incubation times using digital microfluidics. CONCLUSIONS: A digital microfluidic platform compared favorably with a clinical reference laboratory to perform enzymatic analysis in DBSs for Pompe and Fabry disorders. This platform presents a new technology for a newborn screening laboratory to screen LSDs by fully automating all the liquid-handling operations in an inexpensive system, providing rapid results.
Authors: Yijun Li; C Ronald Scott; Nestor A Chamoles; Ahmad Ghavami; B Mario Pinto; Frantisek Turecek; Michael H Gelb Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2004-08-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Angéla Dajnoki; Adolf Mühl; György Fekete; Joan Keutzer; Joe Orsini; Victor Dejesus; X Kate Zhang; Olaf A Bodamer Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Patricia K Duffner; Michele Caggana; Joseph J Orsini; David A Wenger; Marc C Patterson; Carl J Crosley; Joanne Kurtzberg; Georgianne L Arnold; Maria L Escolar; Darius J Adams; Mary R Andriola; Alan M Aron; Emma Ciafaloni; Alexandra Djukic; Richard W Erbe; Patricia Galvin-Parton; Laura E Helton; Edwin H Kolodny; Barry E Kosofsky; David F Kronn; Jennifer M Kwon; Paul A Levy; Jill Miller-Horn; Thomas P Naidich; Joan E Pellegrino; James M Provenzale; Stanley J Rothman; Melissa P Wasserstein Journal: Pediatr Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: L F Oemardien; A M Boer; G J G Ruijter; A T van der Ploeg; J B C de Klerk; A J J Reuser; F W Verheijen Journal: Mol Genet Metab Date: 2010-09-26 Impact factor: 4.797
Authors: X Kate Zhang; Carole S Elbin; Wei-Lien Chuang; Samantha K Cooper; Carla A Marashio; Christa Beauregard; Joan M Keutzer Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: J A Moore; M Nemat-Gorgani; A C Madison; M A Sandahl; S Punnamaraju; A E Eckhardt; M G Pollack; F Vigneault; G M Church; R B Fair; M A Horowitz; P B Griffin Journal: Biomicrofluidics Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 2.800
Authors: Thomas P Mechtler; Thomas F Metz; Hannes G Müller; Katharina Ostermann; Rene Ratschmann; Victor R De Jesus; Bori Shushan; Joseph M Di Bussolo; Joseph L Herman; Kurt R Herkner; David C Kasper Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Huijiang Ding; Saman Sadeghi; Gaurav J Shah; Supin Chen; Pei Yuin Keng; Chang-Jin C J Kim; R Michael van Dam Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 6.799