Gina E Fridley1, Huy Le, Paul Yager. 1. University of Washington , Department of Bioengineering, Box 355061, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States.
Abstract
We have demonstrated a multistep 2-dimensional paper network immunoassay based on controlled rehydration of patterned, dried reagents. Previous work has shown that signal enhancement improves the limit of detection in 2-dimensional paper network assays, but until now, reagents have only been included as wet or dried in separate conjugate pads placed at the upstream end of the assay device. Wet reagents are not ideal for point-of-care because they must be refrigerated and typically limit automation and require more user steps. Conjugate pads allow drying but do not offer any control of the reagent distribution upon rehydration and can be a source of error when pads do not contact the assay membrane uniformly. Furthermore, each reagent is dried on a separate pad, increasing the fabrication complexity when implementing multistep assays that require several different reagents. Conversely, our novel method allows for consistent, controlled rehydration from patterned reagent storage depots directly within the paper membrane. In this assay demonstration, four separate reagents were patterned in different regions of the assay device: a gold-antibody conjugate used for antigen detection and three different signal enhancement components that must not be mixed until immediately before use. To show the viability of patterning and drying reagents directly onto a paper device for dry reagent storage and subsequent controlled release, we tested this device with the malaria antigen Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) as an example of target analyte. In this demonstration, the signal enhancement step increases the visible signal by roughly 3-fold and decreases the analytical limit of detection by 2.75-fold.
We have demonstrated a multistep 2-dimensional paper network immunoassay based on controlled rehydration of patterned, dried reagents. Previous work has shown that signal enhancement improves the limit of detection in 2-dimensional paper network assays, but until now, reagents have only been included as wet or dried in separate conjugate pads placed at the upstream end of the assay device. Wet reagents are not ideal for point-of-care because they must be refrigerated and typically limit automation and require more user steps. Conjugate pads allow drying but do not offer any control of the reagent distribution upon rehydration and can be a source of error when pads do not contact the assay membrane uniformly. Furthermore, each reagent is dried on a separate pad, increasing the fabrication complexity when implementing multistep assays that require several different reagents. Conversely, our novel method allows for consistent, controlled rehydration from patterned reagent storage depots directly within the paper membrane. In this assay demonstration, four separate reagents were patterned in different regions of the assay device: a gold-antibody conjugate used for antigen detection and three different signal enhancement components that must not be mixed until immediately before use. To show the viability of patterning and drying reagents directly onto a paper device for dry reagent storage and subsequent controlled release, we tested this device with the malaria antigen Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) as an example of target analyte. In this demonstration, the signal enhancement step increases the visible signal by roughly 3-fold and decreases the analytical limit of detection by 2.75-fold.
Lateral flow tests (LFTs) have
been widely accepted for a variety of applications, ranging from home
pregnancy tests to rapid diagnostic tests for infectious diseases
in low-resource settings. A major advantage of these devices over
microfluidic point-of-care diagnostics (such as the Cepheid GeneXpert)
is that the fluid flow in LFTs is driven entirely by capillary pressure,
eliminating the need for any external pumps or vacuum sources. Furthermore,
LFTs have widespread appeal because they satisfy many of the ASSURED
criteria that were developed to describe ideal characteristics of
point-of-care tests: Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly,
Rapid and Robust, Equipment-free, and Delivered to those in need.[1] LFTs are low-cost, rapid, easy to use, and require
little to no instrumentation to interpret results; however, most are
still severely lacking in sensitivity.[2]There has been a recent push in the point-of-care diagnostics
community
to develop paper-based diagnostic tests that incorporate sophisticated
functions into otherwise simple devices, stretching their capabilities
while maintaining the core benefits of LFTs. These advancements include
2D and 3D paper devices that are capable of tasks such as multiplexing,[3−5] sample processing,[6] and signal enhancement,[7,8] sophisticated functions that have previously been reserved for laboratory-based
or traditional microfluidic tests. Conversely, traditional LFTs are
only capable of performing a single step and cannot incorporate enhancement
steps or any sample processing.One key characteristic of most
of these newer paper-based devices
that remains consistent with early LFTs is the inclusion of dried
reagents in the assay device. There are several benefits to including
all of the essential reagents dried in situ within
a device. First, the number and complexity of user steps are reduced:
the user does not need to identify, measure, and add assay reagents
to the device, which is particularly important when incorporating
more sophisticated processes in a point-of-care test. Second, dried
reagents are more resistant to damage at ambient temperatures, particularly
when stabilizing additives, such as sucrose and trehalose,[9,10] are added. Third, reagents dried in situ can facilitate
device automation because device geometry and reagent location within
the device can be designed to automate multistep processes. Together,
these advantages improve the robustness, affordability, and ease-of-use
of the device while decreasing the equipment needs. These four traits
are crucial for designing devices appropriate for point-of-care diagnosis
in low-resource settings.[11,12]Traditionally,
conjugate pads have been used to store dry reagents
in both lateral flow[8,13] and conventional microfluidic
devices.[9] However, there are two significant
disadvantages to using these separate pads: they offer limited control
over the release of rehydrated reagents, and they require additional
materials and components that add to manufacturing costs. The fabrication
costs of including conjugate pads is particularly substantial when
used in two-dimensional paper diagnostics because, unlike LFTs, 2D
devices cannot be fabricated by slicing dozens of strips from a single
sheet (Figure 1A). Instead, conjugate pads
must be added in a “pick-and-place” process (Figure 1B).
Figure 1
Fabrication schematics of different types of tests. (A)
Slicing
lateral flow tests apart is relatively simple and straightforward.
However, (B) the “pick and place” process of laying
down several pads containing a variety of dry reagents, which is required
when conjugate pads are used in 2DPN devices, is inefficient and error-prone.
Printing reagents directly onto the assay membrane, as described here,
is a first step toward roll-to-roll fabrication (C), which is more
high-throughput than pick-and-place methods.
Fabrication schematics of different types of tests. (A)
Slicing
lateral flow tests apart is relatively simple and straightforward.
However, (B) the “pick and place” process of laying
down several pads containing a variety of dry reagents, which is required
when conjugate pads are used in 2DPN devices, is inefficient and error-prone.
Printing reagents directly onto the assay membrane, as described here,
is a first step toward roll-to-roll fabrication (C), which is more
high-throughput than pick-and-place methods.Methods for dry reagent storage, other than conjugate pads,
in
microfluidic devices have achieved such storage directly within the
channels of these devices, for later controlled release. Some examples
of these techniques include cavities in channel walls to control the
reconstitution of dried proteins[14] and
“reagent integrators” to store and subsequently release
predetermined dilutions of reagents into microfluidic devices.[15] Inkjet printing has been used in a variety of
cases to deposit reagents or channel barriers onto paper microfluidic
assays,[16−19] and our previous work developed methods for controlled release of
reagents stored directly on a paper microfluidic device[20] that are analogous to some of the controlled
release mechanisms used in traditional microfluidic devices. Those
novel methods for printing reagents on porous substrates enabled controlled
spatial and temporal concentration gradients of reagents rehydrating
during capillary flow within a porous device. Furthermore, patterning
reagents into arrays of individual spots allows the storage of incompatible
reagents, such as the multicomponent gold enhancement system that
we used here for signal amplification, which loses functionality if
the components are mixed prior to drying. Our previous work showed
that the multiple components of this gold enhancement system can be
reconstituted and recombined when stored dry within arrays patterned
directly onto nitrocellulose membranes.[20] Here, we have expanded upon those methods to present an application
of controlled reagent rehydration in the implementation of a signal-enhanced
immunoassay for the malaria antigen Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2).Though
this is just a proof-of-concept assay example, malaria is
an interesting target for an inexpensive highly sensitive point-of-care
diagnostic test, because while current malaria rapid diagnostics have
improved dramatically, these tests are insufficient for accurate diagnosis
in settings where malaria control efforts have dramatically reduced
the malaria rates in many endemic areas.[21−23] A key part
of the malaria control effort requires rapid and extremely sensitive
diagnostic tests to detect infections early, begin treatment, and
implement further mosquito-control measures in the area in which the
infection was acquired.[21] Another example
of a disease antigen used in currently poorly performing rapid tests
is the influenza nucleoprotein (NP), which is used to distinguish
between influenza A and influenza B infection. Current influenza rapid
tests for NP generally exhibit mediocre (10–70%) sensitivity[24−26] and would dramatically benefit from the increased sophistication
enabled by 2DPN devices.Previous work from our group has shown
high performance two-dimensional
paper-based assays,[8,27] but the work presented here is
particularly significant because all of the necessary reagents were
patterned, dried, and stored on a single porous membrane and rehydrated
with the addition of sample and buffer upon the initiation of the
assay. This method is a significant simplification of conventional
methods that require storage in separate pads and subsequent placement
in the device and is a first step toward roll-to-roll fabrication
of 2DPN devices (Figure 1C). Here, the proof-of-concept
device was tested with mock samples of antigen spiked into fetal bovine
serum. The signal enhancement step increases the visible signal by
roughly 3-fold and increases the analytical limit of detection by
2.75-fold.
Experimental Section
Device Construction and Patterning
All porous devices
were fabricated using untreated backed nitrocellulose membranes with
a nominal pore diameter of 8 μm (Millipore Hi Flow Plus 135,
Millipore, Billerica, MA). Glass fiber pads (Ahlstrom, Helsinki, Finland)
were used as fluid sources, and cellulose pads were used as downstream
wicks to drive capillary flow throughout the duration of the assay.
All of these materials were cut using a CO2 laser (Universal
Laser Systems, Scottsdale, AZ), using a previously described cutting
protocol.[28] Nitrocellulose membranes were
cut into 3-inlet networks (as shown in Figure 2). After cutting, 14 μL of blocking solution was applied to
the first inlet to minimize nonspecific protein adsorption during
storage. This blocking solution consisted of 0.125% poly(vinylpyrrolidone)
+ 0.125% bovine serum albumin + 2.5% sucrose + 7.5 mM sodium azide
+ 0.1% Tween-20 in water. After blocking, membranes were placed in
a desiccated oven at 37 °C for 2 h and then transferred to a
desiccator for storage. An antigen-capture line (0.375 μL, 1
mg/mL mouse monoclonal anti-PfHRP2 IgM, Immunology
Consultants Lab) and a process control (0.375 μL, 0.5 mg/mL
ImmunoPure Antibody goat anti-mouse IgG, Thermo Scientific) were immobilized
at the downstream end of the common channel of the device via printing
with a piezoelectric spotter (SciFLEXARRAYER S3, Scienion AG) (Figure 1). The nonspecific adsorption of proteins to nitrocellulose
in this way has long been used in the fabrication of LFTs.[13]
Figure 2
Schematic of patterned 2D paper network PfHRP2 assay indicating
locations of patterned reagents. Mock sample is indicated by the red
drop; buffer is indicated by the blue drops.
Schematic of patterned 2D paper network PfHRP2 assay indicating
locations of patterned reagents. Mock sample is indicated by the red
drop; buffer is indicated by the blue drops.The detection antibody (Immunogold conjugate mouse monoclonal
anti-PfHRP2, BBInternational) and gold enhancement
solutions
(GoldEnhance LM, Nanoprobes, Yaphank, NY) were also printed onto the
porous device using the piezoelectric printer, but these reagents
were deposited in patterns to prevent nonspecific immobilization and
facilitate controlled rehydration (see Figure 1 for a schematic of pattern and locations). To achieve this controlled
rehydration, the detection antibody was mixed with 5% sucrose, 5%
trehalose, and 1% BSA prior to printing it onto the nitrocellulose
surface. In our previous work, we demonstrated that these additives
improve the uniformity of rehydration of proteins after storage.[20] Then, a total of 2 μL of the detection
antibody was patterned on the first inlet in a single array of 29
spots, spaced at 1 mm from each other to prevent disruption of wet-out
flow. Each of the three components of the gold enhancement reagent
was patterned in a separate 2 μL, 29-spot array onto the third
inlet. These three reagent arrays were sequenced in the order that
the three solutions were required to mix: “enhancer”
solution first must mix with “activator” and then that
combined solution must mix with the “initiator”. These
components are proprietary so their exact composition is unknown to
us; however, the basic process is as follows: the “enhancer”
solution contains a gold salt that is chemically reduced to gold atoms
by the combination of the “activator” and “initiator”
in the reconstituted solution, in the presence of the gold conjugate.
These gold atoms are deposited onto the surface of the gold conjugate
nanoparticle, and this changes the light absorption of the conjugates
captured at the detection region. The third inlet of the device was
not preblocked, and no protein was added to the gold enhancement solutions
because it was found to inhibit the enhancement activity of those
reagents. After printing, strips were wrapped in foil to protect them
from light, then dried in a desiccator, and stored there until use
(2–5 days).
Assay Demonstration
In initial experiments,
nitrocellulose
devices were affixed to a PMMA substrate using double-sided tape (Scotch,
3M, St. Paul, MN), and an untreated glass fiber pad (Ahlstrom, Helsinki,
Finland), cut using the CO2 laser cutter, was placed at
the upstream end of each inlet as a fluid application zone (Figure 2). A 30 μL “mock sample” consisting
of known concentrations of stock PfHRP2 antigen spiked
into fetal bovine serum (FBS, Certified, One Shot, US Origin, Gibco,
16000-077, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) was applied to the first inlet,
while 40 and 100 μL of phosphate buffered saline (PBS) were
applied to the second and third inlets, respectively. The mock sample
rehydrated the gold conjugate antibody in the first inlet, and PBS
rehydrated and combined the gold enhancement reagents in the third
inlet. Rehydrated reagents were then delivered sequentially to the
detection region of the assay. Time-lapse uncompressed AVI videos
of assay experiments were acquired using HandyAvi software (AZcendant,
Tempe, AZ) on a web camera (Logitech, Fremont, CA) at 1 frame per
30 s for 1 h (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Time series of schematics
and images illustrating gold signal development
and enhancement. (A) Device prior to fluid addition. Anti-PfHRP2 IgM
was immobilized as a capture line, while goat anti-mouse IgG was used
as a control line. Thirty μL of a mock sample consisting of
PfHRP2 spiked at 100 ng/mL into fetal bovine serum was applied to
the right-most inlet, where Anti-PfHRP2 IgG-gold conjugate was patterned
for rehydration. Immediately afterward, 40 and 100 μL of PBS
were applied to the middle and left inlets, respectively. (B) The
initial gold signal appears 15 min after fluid addition. At the test
line, the capture IgM, PfHRP2 antigen, and gold conjugate form a “sandwich”,
while the control line consists of goat anti-mouse IgG binding to
the mouse IgGs of the gold conjugate. (C) Finally, the three gold
enhancement solutions patterned on the left-most leg recombine upon
rehydration and deposit more gold ions onto the surface of the gold
nanoparticles, shifting the absorbance and turning the lines a dark
black color. By 60 min, the gold enhancement has increased the signal
to 3.2-fold (s.d. 0.2) of the unenhanced intensity.
Time series of schematics
and images illustrating gold signal development
and enhancement. (A) Device prior to fluid addition. Anti-PfHRP2 IgM
was immobilized as a capture line, while goat anti-mouse IgG was used
as a control line. Thirty μL of a mock sample consisting of
PfHRP2 spiked at 100 ng/mL into fetal bovine serum was applied to
the right-most inlet, where Anti-PfHRP2 IgG-gold conjugate was patterned
for rehydration. Immediately afterward, 40 and 100 μL of PBS
were applied to the middle and left inlets, respectively. (B) The
initial gold signal appears 15 min after fluid addition. At the test
line, the capture IgM, PfHRP2 antigen, and gold conjugate form a “sandwich”,
while the control line consists of goat anti-mouse IgG binding to
the mouse IgGs of the gold conjugate. (C) Finally, the three gold
enhancement solutions patterned on the left-most leg recombine upon
rehydration and deposit more gold ions onto the surface of the gold
nanoparticles, shifting the absorbance and turning the lines a dark
black color. By 60 min, the gold enhancement has increased the signal
to 3.2-fold (s.d. 0.2) of the unenhanced intensity.To quantify the baseline analytical limit of detection
of the PfHRP2 assay, mock samples were generated
by diluting PfHRP2
antigen (ImmunoDx, Woburn, MA) in FBS to 0, 5, 10, 25, and 50 ng/mL
on the same day that the assays were performed. All assays for limit
of detection calculation were performed on the same day. In these
experiments, assay device enclosures were cut from adhesive-coated
Melinex sheets (Fralock, San Carlos, CA) using the CO2 laser
cutter. (See Fu et al. for a full description of the development of
analogous enclosures.[8]) In these cases,
strips were scanned to uncompressed image files with a flatbed scanner
(Epson Perfection V700 Photo, Epson, Long Beach, CA) with gamma set
to 1. Devices were imaged at 15 and 60 min. Four replicates were performed
at each concentration (resulting in 20 devices overall), but two devices
were designated as enhancement failures because the control line did
not fully enhance, and these are not included in the graphical representation
of results or LOD analysis (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Unenhanced (blue) and enhanced (red) assay results for varying
concentrations of PfHRP2 antigen. Four replicates of each concentration
were performed, and assay devices were imaged at 15 min to quantify
unenhanced signal and then again at 60 min to quantify the enhanced
signal. The average signal for each concentration of antigen is plotted
here (n = 4, error bars = s.d.* n = 2 for the enhanced 10 ng/mL data due to two tests failing to enhance
fully.) Dashed lines indicate the limit of detection signal intensity
for both enhanced (red) and unenhanced (blue) assays, and the short
vertical lines intersecting those dashed lines indicate the PfHRP2
concentration corresponding to that signal (at 3.6 and 9.9 ng/mL,
respectively). The dotted lines indicate the limit of blank for both
enhanced (red) and unenhanced (blue) assays.
Assay
Analysis
Uncompressed AVI files of preliminary
experiments were analyzed with ImageJ to determine the signal development
over time (Figure 4). The reported intensity
values were determined as follows: average grayscale intensity of
the test line was quantified for each frame, and background intensity
was subtracted and then normalized by the background to account for
lighting variations. The enhancement ratio was determined by quantifying
the fully enhanced assay signal at 60 min and dividing it by the unenhanced
signal at 15 min. To quantify signal for varying concentrations of PfHRP2 (Figure 5), scanned images were quantified using Matlab (MathWorks,
Natick, MA), using a script that autodetected the location and intensity
of the test lines based on the location of the control line. The grayscale
intensity of the test line was measured, and then, the background
value was subtracted. The limit of detection (LOD) of the assay was
calculated as follows: LOD = (LOB + 1.645σt)/m, where LOB = limit of blank (to be explained below), σt = the standard deviation of the lowest antigen test, and m is the slope of the signal response curve between zero
and the lowest antigen test. The limit of blank is defined as LOB
= averageblank + σb, where σb = standard deviation of the blank (no antigen control).[29]
Figure 4
Assay signal vs time. Time-lapse uncompressed AVI files
were acquired
(1 frame per 30 s) and were analyzed using ImageJ (n = 4, error bars = s.d.). The large error bars between 25 and 50
min are due to variability in the time at which enhancement began,
rather than the rate of enhancement. Over 3-fold enhancement is achieved
through the use of the gold enhancement system.
Assay signal vs time. Time-lapse uncompressed AVI files
were acquired
(1 frame per 30 s) and were analyzed using ImageJ (n = 4, error bars = s.d.). The large error bars between 25 and 50
min are due to variability in the time at which enhancement began,
rather than the rate of enhancement. Over 3-fold enhancement is achieved
through the use of the gold enhancement system.Unenhanced (blue) and enhanced (red) assay results for varying
concentrations of PfHRP2 antigen. Four replicates of each concentration
were performed, and assay devices were imaged at 15 min to quantify
unenhanced signal and then again at 60 min to quantify the enhanced
signal. The average signal for each concentration of antigen is plotted
here (n = 4, error bars = s.d.* n = 2 for the enhanced 10 ng/mL data due to two tests failing to enhance
fully.) Dashed lines indicate the limit of detection signal intensity
for both enhanced (red) and unenhanced (blue) assays, and the short
vertical lines intersecting those dashed lines indicate the PfHRP2
concentration corresponding to that signal (at 3.6 and 9.9 ng/mL,
respectively). The dotted lines indicate the limit of blank for both
enhanced (red) and unenhanced (blue) assays.
Results and Discussion
Figure 3 shows a schematic of the different
assay steps performed in this device and an image of the device at
each time point taken from videos of the entire assay performed with
mock samples at 100 ng/mL antigen spiked into fetal bovine serum.
Videos were analyzed to observe the assay signal development over
time. After 60 min, the rehydration and midflow combination of printed
gold enhancement reagents produced a 3.2-fold signal enhancement (n = 4, s.d. 0.2), relative to the initial signal observed
at 15 min (Figure 4). Just 2 μL of gold-antibody
conjugate and 2 μL of each gold enhancement reagent were used.
These volumes are significantly lower than those required in previous
demonstrations of signal enhancement in paper-based assays, where
at least 9 μL of each reagent was used,[7,8] resulting
in at least 4.5 times less reagent cost for each device. Though the
enhancement ratio achieved with this particular gold enhancement reagent
is modest, this is a clear demonstration of the viability of patterning
and drying reagents for dry reagent storage in paper-based assays.To quantify the enhanced and unenhanced analytical limit of detection
of this device design, mock samples at several different antigen concentrations
(0, 5, 10, 25, and 50 ng/mL) were tested using the patterned reagent
device. Clear visible signal was observed in all enhanced assay containing
nonzero PfHRP2 levels. The unenhanced signal generated
by the 10 ng/mL assay was detectable by the eye; however, the signal
from the 5 ng/mL test was not visible. For quantitative analysis,
the pre- and post-enhanced assay signal was determined from scanned
images using the Matlab script mentioned above. This quantification
confirmed reproducible signal at all concentrations for the enhanced
assay and as low as 10 ng/mL for the unenhanced assay. Both pre- and
post-enhancement images had very low background signal in the negative
controls, though the post-enhancement negatives did exhibit slightly
darker and noisier negatives, which led to a slightly higher “limit
of blank” for the enhanced assay (Figure 5). The intermediate wash step is used for two purposes: first, to
rinse over the detection region to reduce false positive signal and,
second, to prevent the gold conjugate from contacting the reconstituted
gold enhancement system, which would also lead to higher false positives.The wash and enhancement steps lead to an increase in signal observed
in the enhanced assay that is significantly more than the increase
in the limit of blank, however, which yields a 2.75-fold improvement
in the overall limit of detection in the enhanced case. The quantified
limit of detection of the unenhanced assay was 9.9 ng/mL, whereas
the enhanced assay resulted in a limit of detection of 3.6 ng/mL (Figure 5).Though this is just an initial proof-of-concept
demonstration of
the viability of patterning reagents for dry storage and subsequent
rehydration, it is useful to compare these values with published limits
of detection for a variety of malaria diagnostics (Table 1) to benchmark whether this sensitivity is even
within a relevant clinical range. Comparing to other limits of detection
published in the literature, the analytical limit of detection for
our assay is much lower than detection by microscopy and lower than
observed LODs for commercially available RDTs and is comparable to
the upper end of reported ELISA detection LOD (see references included
in table). Even at this early stage of development, this technique
of patterning and later rehydrating reagents from dry storage within
the membrane achieves a limit of detection within the clinical range,
and the addition of a signal enhancement step significantly improves
the limit of detection achieved by this device.
Table 1
Reported Limits of Detection for Various
Malaria Diagnostics
method
reported
limit of detection
converted
limit of detection (parasites/μL ⇔ ng/mL)a
source
microscopy
20–50 parasites/μL
18–44 ng/mL
Moody et al.[31] and Guerin et al.[32]
ELISA
0.1–4 ng/mL
roughly 0.1–4.5 parasites/μL
Butterworth et al.,[33] Dondorp et al.,[34] Kifude et al.[35]
Calculated on the basis of the model
developed by Marquart et al. correlating PfHRP2 concentration to parasite
levels, using their maximum circulating approximation: 6.94 ng/mL
∼ 7.8 parasites/μL.[36]
Calculated on the basis of the model
developed by Marquart et al. correlating PfHRP2 concentration to parasite
levels, using their maximum circulating approximation: 6.94 ng/mL
∼ 7.8 parasites/μL.[36]The current device could benefit
from several process improvements,
however, to lower the limit of detection even further. The second
leg of the device (Figure 2) is a wash step
that prevents the gold conjugate from coming into direct contact with
the gold enhancement solution and rinses the detection region to reduce
nonspecific binding of conjugate. A more rigorous wash step may be
able to further reduce this nonspecifically bound gold conjugate.
Additionally, an improved assay quantification algorithm could be
designed to differentiate between stray marks and true signal (for
example, one negative test had a dark smudge at the upper edge, which
was included in the quantitation method of the current algorithm,
but was clearly not spanning the width of the strip). Another feature
of this device that needs some improvement is the reproducibility
of enhancement: out of the 20 devices that were tested, 2 failed to
enhance fully. Using the detection algorithm and the measured limit
of detection, both of these tests would be correctly designated as
positive results, though if the level of antigen were quantified,
it would be underestimated due to the incomplete enhancement. We hypothesize
that the incomplete enhancement is due to a defect in timing that
caused the enhancement and wash fluid streams to pass over the detection
line simultaneously, with the enhancement stream at the top edge of
the strip and the wash stream at the lower edge of the strip. Improvements
in device actuation, such as the implementation of inlet capillaries
as shown by Dharmaraja et al.,[30] could
mitigate this problem.In the devices described here, all reagents
were patterned onto
the paper membranes and allowed to dry at room temperature for between
2 and 5 days before use in the assay. This demonstration of reagent
drying within the porous nitrocellulose matrix, successful rehydration,
and subsequent viability in the sample assay is a valuable first step
toward incorporating these techniques in clinically relevant assays.
These methods are very well suited for roll-to-roll manufacturing
techniques, which are much more efficient for mass-scale device fabrication
than the pick-and-place methods that would be required to fabricate
an analogous 2DPN with many different dried reagent pads (see comparison
in Figure 1.) This is a proof-of-concept study
to demonstrate the feasibility of patterned reagents in the context
of paper-based assays; however, even after improving the details of
device operation described above, there are several important next
steps needed before this assay device could be used in a clinical
setting: (1) future studies designed to determine longer-term shelf
stability and resistance to damage at extreme temperatures, (2) clinical
sample validation, using blinded samples both positive and negative
for P. falciparum malaria at a wide range of parasitemia
levels, and (3) manufacturing optimization to implement these fabrication
methods within a roll-to-roll process. Another area of future work
that is currently being actively pursued in the laboratory is implementing
similar methods in other assay systems. The gold enhancement chemistry
is effective for any gold-conjugate-based detection, so for another
immunoassay, the only part of the assay that needs to be replaced
is the specific detection antibodies both at the capture region and
those conjugated to the gold nanoparticle for detection.In
this paper, we have shown a proof-of-concept demonstration of
the potential of a novel system for incorporating dry reagents into
paper-based diagnostic devices. Dry reagents are an essential component
of rapid diagnostics for point-of-care use, primarily because wet
reagents require refrigeration and limit automation. Previously, dry
reagents in paper-based devices had only been included via conjugate
pads. Here, a novel method was described to pattern reagents directly
onto a paper substrate for dry-down and subsequent rehydration in
the context of a multistep immunoassay. There are many advantages
to patterning reagents directly onto porous substrates rather than
incorporating several individual dried reagent pads. First, patterned
reagents provide improved control over dry reagent rehydration, allowing
customized rehydration profiles.[20] Second,
smaller volumes of reagents can be used, reducing the material costs
of an assay. Third, applying reagents directly to the assay substrate
reduces the number of pieces required in an assay and, thus, the possible
sources of malfunction or error.
Conclusions
Here,
we have presented a simple and effective demonstration of
the feasibility and utility of patterning multiple reagents sequentially
on a porous device; it is just one example of the potential applications
enabled by printing reagents directly on porous devices for controlled
rehydration and use in assays. Generally, two-dimensional paper network
assays offer a significant improvement over traditional lateral flow
rapid tests by incorporating additional assays steps to dramatically
improve assay sensitivity: our methods to pattern reagents for storage
and rehydration take these advancements a step further by reducing
the amount of reagents required to achieve the same level of performance,
while also simplifying device manufacturing. Though there are many
more steps required before this demonstration is suitable for commercial-scale
manufacturing and clinical use, fabrication considerations are absolutely
essential for engineers who are seeking to develop technologies that
will have the ability to make a real impact on point-of-care diagnostic
medicine; technologies that cannot be manufactured efficiently will
never achieve the low cost and robustness that are required to make
them deliverable to the patients and health centers that most desperately
need them.
Authors: Andres W Martinez; Scott T Phillips; Zhihong Nie; Chao-Min Cheng; Emanuel Carrilho; Benjamin J Wiley; George M Whitesides Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: Jingyun Wang; Maria Rowena N Monton; Xi Zhang; Carlos D M Filipe; Robert Pelton; John D Brennan Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: Ivor Harris; Wesley W Sharrock; Lisa M Bain; Karen-Ann Gray; Albino Bobogare; Leonard Boaz; Ken Lilley; Darren Krause; Andrew Vallely; Marie-Louise Johnson; Michelle L Gatton; G Dennis Shanks; Qin Cheng Journal: Malar J Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Arjen M Dondorp; Varunee Desakorn; Wirichada Pongtavornpinyo; Duangjai Sahassananda; Kamolrat Silamut; Kesinee Chotivanich; Paul N Newton; Punnee Pitisuttithum; A M Smithyman; Nicholas J White; Nicholas P J Day Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-08-23 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Christine F Markwalter; Andrew G Kantor; Carson P Moore; Kelly A Richardson; David W Wright Journal: Chem Rev Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 60.622
Authors: Robert B Channon; Michael P Nguyen; Alexis G Scorzelli; Elijah M Henry; John Volckens; David S Dandy; Charles S Henry Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: Boon Kar Yap; Siti Nur'Arifah M Soair; Noor Azrina Talik; Wai Feng Lim; Lai Mei I Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 3.576