Sample preparation is a major bottleneck in many biological processes. Paramagnetic particles (PMPs) are a ubiquitous method for isolating analytes of interest from biological samples and are used for their ability to thoroughly sample a solution and be easily collected with a magnet. There are three main methods by which PMPs are used for sample preparation: (1) removal of fluid from the analyte-bound PMPs, (2) removal of analyte-bound PMPs from the solution, and (3) removal of the substrate (with immobilized analyte-bound PMPs). In this paper, we explore the third and least studied method for PMP-based sample preparation using a platform termed Sliding Lid for Immobilized Droplet Extractions (SLIDE). SLIDE leverages principles of surface tension and patterned hydrophobicity to create a simple-to-operate platform for sample isolation (cells, DNA, RNA, protein) and preparation (cell staining) without the need for time-intensive wash steps, use of immiscible fluids, or precise pinning geometries. Compared to other standard isolation protocols using PMPs, SLIDE is able to perform rapid sample preparation with low (0.6%) carryover of contaminants from the original sample. The natural recirculation occurring within the pinned droplets of SLIDE make possible the performance of multistep cell staining protocols within the SLIDE by simply resting the lid over the various sample droplets. SLIDE demonstrates a simple easy to use platform for sample preparation on a range of complex biological samples.
Sample preparation is a major bottleneck in many biological processes. Paramagnetic particles (PMPs) are a ubiquitous method for isolating analytes of interest from biological samples and are used for their ability to thoroughly sample a solution and be easily collected with a magnet. There are three main methods by which PMPs are used for sample preparation: (1) removal of fluid from the analyte-bound PMPs, (2) removal of analyte-bound PMPs from the solution, and (3) removal of the substrate (with immobilized analyte-bound PMPs). In this paper, we explore the third and least studied method for PMP-based sample preparation using a platform termed Sliding Lid for Immobilized Droplet Extractions (SLIDE). SLIDE leverages principles of surface tension and patterned hydrophobicity to create a simple-to-operate platform for sample isolation (cells, DNA, RNA, protein) and preparation (cell staining) without the need for time-intensive wash steps, use of immiscible fluids, or precise pinning geometries. Compared to other standard isolation protocols using PMPs, SLIDE is able to perform rapid sample preparation with low (0.6%) carryover of contaminants from the original sample. The natural recirculation occurring within the pinned droplets of SLIDE make possible the performance of multistep cell staining protocols within the SLIDE by simply resting the lid over the various sample droplets. SLIDE demonstrates a simple easy to use platform for sample preparation on a range of complex biological samples.
Methods for
isolating DNA, RNA,
and protein from biological samples are central to molecular biology.
However, these methods are often overlooked as new assays are developed
for the biological sample processing workflow.[1,2] As
such, sample preparation methods have become a limiting factor to
the advancement of downstream analytical techniques.[3] Many of the traditional methods used for sample preparation
are time-consuming due to the multitude of steps needed. These steps
can include substrate binding and several washes, liquid transfers,
or dilutions. The time-intensive nature of these steps can result
in sample loss and degradation.[2]The utility of exploiting functionalized paramagnetic particles
(PMPs) for analyte isolation has proven useful on a wide range of
platforms.[4] One advantage of using PMPs
is the ability to simply and thoroughly interrogate a fluid for analyte
capture. In contrast with immobile functionalized surfaces, the PMPs
can be suspended in a solution, allowing the functional surfaces of
the PMPs to interact with a large portion of the fluid, without the
need for complex mixing or flow focusing techniques. Another advantage
is that the particles can be used in many different embodiments, as
only a magnet is required for actuation and analyte isolation.[4−11]The ways to isolate an analyte of interest from a given sample
using PMPs can be further divided into three basic methods (Figure 1). In the first method, most commonly used in commercially
available kits, background sample and any contaminants are removed
by washing fluid (i.e., buffers) over the substrate and immobilized
PMPs.[4] Limitations of this widely used
method include (1) the loss or dilution of the original input sample,
which limits the ability to reinterrogate the sample, (2) a time and
fluid handling-intensive assay protocol due to the repeated liquid
transfers required to wash the PMP-captured analyte,[1] and (3) loss of weakly bound analyte due to the time and
shear stress required to perform an isolation.[5,12] In
the second method, PMPs are selectively removed from a sample of interest.
In these methods, analyte-bound PMPs are physically pulled from the
original sample along the surface of a device, through an immiscible
phase (e.g., oil), and into a second aqueous phase.[3,6,13−15] This method for PMP
sample preparation has been highly effective at isolating analytes
with high specificity and selectivity while simplifying workflows,
and isolation can be performed in a matter of seconds.[6,7] Though effective, limitations for this method exist due to potential
sample loss associated with the friction created by dragging the PMPs
along a surface. Further, the need to incorporate oil[16] or surface[8]/geometric[5,15] pinning complicates these devices. In the third method of isolating
PMPs, and the focus of this manuscript, analyte-bound PMPs are pinned
to a surface, the surface is removed entirely from the background
present in the original sample, and then the surface and PMPs are
brought into contact with a second solution to elute the analyte.
This method builds upon the benefits of simple workflows found with
the second method but does not involve any dragging of the PMPs, significantly
reducing loss due to friction and simplifying the device operation.
Figure 1
Different
methods to isolate paramagnetic particles (PMPs) from
a fluid. (A) Move the fluid: by keeping the PMPs and substrate stationary,
fluid can be washed over the PMPs, isolating and purifying the analyte.
(B) Move the PMPs: by moving the PMPs and binding analyte, the analyte
can be effectively removed from an original sample into an elution
buffer. (C) Move the substrate with the PMPs: by keeping the PMPs
stationary with respect to the substrate, the substrate can be removed
from the original sample and placed into an elution buffer.
Different
methods to isolate paramagnetic particles (PMPs) from
a fluid. (A) Move the fluid: by keeping the PMPs and substrate stationary,
fluid can be washed over the PMPs, isolating and purifying the analyte.
(B) Move the PMPs: by moving the PMPs and binding analyte, the analyte
can be effectively removed from an original sample into an elution
buffer. (C) Move the substrate with the PMPs: by keeping the PMPs
stationary with respect to the substrate, the substrate can be removed
from the original sample and placed into an elution buffer.In this paper, we present a method
that enhances the benefits of
previous exclusion-based sample preparation methods and leverage a
new technology called Sliding Lid for Immobilized Droplet Extractions
(SLIDE). The SLIDE was developed to achieve gentle and reliable extraction
of analyte-bound PMPs for sample preparation by leveraging surface
tension of fluids and hydrophilic/hydrophobic patterning of surfaces.
The operational principle of the SLIDE involves pulling analyte-bound
PMPs to a hydrophobic surface (the “lid”) and pulling
the entire surface from an input sample to an output droplet. By creating
simple hydrophilic pinning regions on the bottom plate, the surface
tension of the fluid will maintain the droplets in place, while the
PMPs can be moved from one droplet to the other without any loss due
to PMPs dragging along the surface. Here, we demonstrate the ability
of SLIDE to leverage simple fluid characteristics to create a robust
and easy-to-use device for sample preparation for a range of analytes.
Materials
and Methods
SLIDE Lid and Base Fabrication
The SLIDE method uses
two components, a base and a lid (Figure 2)
that were rapid prototyped via stereolithography with Accura 60 (3D
Systems, Rock Hill, SC). The base component serves as a holder for
disposable cartridges, houses magnets located underneath the patterned
fluid droplets, and acts as a guide for the handle. The lid contains
two arms that guide the lid along the base and control the spacing
between the bottom of the handle and the droplets. Built inside of
the handle are vertical slots spaced 12 mm apart and designed to guide
magnets during operation. Each of the magnets contained a stack of
five 3/16 in. cube magnets (#B333-N52, K&J Magnetics, Jamison,
PA), which were interconnected on the top by a thin steel bar (#36970754,
MSC Industrial Supply Co., Melville, NY) to reduce the effect of the
neighboring magnets by sharing a magnetic field. The distance between
the handle bottom and the glass slide was 3 mm. While this distance
was easily changed by altering the geometry of the SLIDE base or handle,
operators should ensure that the spacing is appropriate to establish
contact between the SLIDE lid and the liquid droplets. For example,
in preliminary experimentation with SLIDE (data not shown), we demonstrated
successful SLIDE operation with droplet volumes ranging from 10 to
400 μL. As the droplet volume was changed, the spacing must
be changed accordingly to establish contact between the droplet and
lid.
Figure 2
Image of the magnetic version of the SLIDE device. The device consists
of a handle that houses the magnets and a hydrophobic layer, a base
that houses the cartridge, and an insert that contains hydrophilic/hydrophobic
patterns to position liquid drops (top right). SLIDE is simply operated
by sliding the handle over the cartridge (bottom).
Image of the magnetic version of the SLIDE device. The device consists
of a handle that houses the magnets and a hydrophobic layer, a base
that houses the cartridge, and an insert that contains hydrophilic/hydrophobic
patterns to position liquid drops (top right). SLIDE is simply operated
by sliding the handle over the cartridge (bottom).
SLIDE Operation
The SLIDE technology
utilized surface
tension and fluid droplet pinning dynamics for simple and low cost
analyte isolation. A key advantage of the SLIDE was the usability
of the device with an easily recognizable and intuitive platform that
operates similar to that of a traditional credit card imprinter. (Younger
readers may need to refer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7wutgAlNHk for a demonstration of how a credit card imprinter works.) As previously mentioned, the SLIDE operates by placing magnets on
a top hydrophobic surface (the lid) and immobilizing PMPs relative
to that surface. To redisperse the PMPs in the output fluid, the magnets
must be removed from the lid, allowing PMPs to drop into the output
fluid (Figure 2 and Supplemental Figure 1A, Supporting Information). Initially, this was
accomplished using a system of cams that mechanically lifted the upper
magnets as the lid passed over the output droplets of the SLIDE device
(Supplemental Figure 1C, Supporting Information). However, we found that this cam system added unnecessary complexity
to the system. In the final version of the SLIDE device, this mechanical
actuation of the upper magnets was replaced with a magnetic field-driven
mechanism. The upper magnets were allowed to freely move within vertical
slots in the lid, while lower magnets of opposing polarity (1/4 in.
magnetic disks, #D64-N52, K&J Magnetics, Jamison, PA) were held
stationary in the base, below the cartridge. As the lid passed over
the lower magnets, the upper magnets were repelled into the top of
the lid. Because PMPs do not have permanent magnetism, they naturally
repolarize and move toward the more powerful magnetic field. Thus,
when the upper magnets were deflected into the top of the lid, the
PMPs traveled toward the lower magnet and dissociated from the lid
surface (Supplemental Figure 1B, Supporting
Information). During SLIDE operation, PMPs traveled to the
lid surface when no magnet was present in the base (as in input droplets)
and to the bottom surface when a magnet was placed in the base (as
in output droplets).
SLIDE Operation Control
We performed
a control experiment
where the PMPs were drawn along a hydrophobic surface connecting the
two droplets (as illustrated in the second method in Figure 1). Specifically, a hydrophobic surface (a Parafilm-coated
glass slide) was mounted 3 mm above the surface of the SLIDE base
such that the input and output droplets both made contact with this
surface. The same cube magnets used in the SLIDE handle were used
to draw the PMPs from the input droplet into the output droplet (with
the hydrophobic surface held stationary). The quantities of PMPs that
were successfully transferred were quantified via their autofluorescence
in the red spectrum using a fluorometer (#Q32866, Life Technologies,
Grand Island, NY).
SLIDE Disposables
The SLIDE integrates
two main disposables,
which were necessary for biological safety and cross-contamination
minimization. The first was a cartridge patterned with wax to create
a hydrophobic geometry to constrain the droplets. The substrate used
for the cartridge was a 2 in. × 3 in. glass slide, and the wax
was a paraffin-based wax (#D20-3, Sasol Wax, Hayward, CA). To pattern
the wax on the slide, a stencil was made from silicone rubber (#31938707,
MSC Industrial Supply Co.). The stencil consisted of a 4 × 4
array of 6 mm diameter holes separated by 19 mm and 12 mm in the length
and width directions, respectively. This stencil was preheated on
a hot plate at 105 °C, and melted wax was spread over the stencil
with a transfer pipet. Next, a clean glass slide was placed on the
stencil and allowed to sit until the wax covered the entire interface
between the stencil and the glass slide. The stencil and glass slide
were removed from the hot plate and allowed to cool at room temperature,
at which point the silicone stencil was removed from the glass slide,
exposing a (wax) hydrophobic region surrounding (glass) hydrophilic
regions designed to hold 40 μL. The second disposable was a
strip of parafilm (#P7793, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) that served
as a hydrophobic barrier separating the droplet from the lid. The
parafilm was held in place with Scotch tape (504662, Staples Inc.,
Framingham, MA) and changed between every operation. A step-by-step
description of the process is illustrated in the Supporting Information (Supplemental Figure 2). The resulting
thickness of the wax layer was approximately 0.1 mm.
Carryover Study
To assess the amount of fluid carryover
in the SLIDE device, an acridine orange solution was made at a concentration
of 0.5 mg/mL in stock solutions of 0%, 0.1%, and 1% Triton X-100 in
DI water. For each experiment, 2 μL of Magnesil PMPs (#MD1471,
Promega, Madison, WI) was added to each input solution of 40 μL.
Droplets of deionized water were used as the output droplet. To evaluate
the amount of carryover, an acridine orange dilution curve was created,
and a linear fit was used to calculate the percent carryover based
on the arbitrary intensity units measured using a Qubit Fluorometer
with an excitation wavelength of 430–495 nm (Life Technologies).
Protein Readouts
To evaluate the utility of the SLIDE
for protein purification, green fluorescent protein (GFP) was purified
from a mixture of E. coli expressing both GFP and
red fluorescent protein (RFP). Specifically, a solution containing
12.5 mg/mL of Protein G-conjugated PMPs (3 μm diameter, Dynabeads
Protein G, Invitrogen) and 0.031 mg/mL anti-GFP antibody in PBS supplemented
with 0.01% Tween 20 was prepared and incubated for 30 min at room
temperature to allow antibody attachment to the PMPs. Following washing
with PBS supplemented with 0.01% Tween 20, the antibody-labeled PMPs
were resuspended in PBS (15 mg/mL PMP concentration) and 2% (by volume) E. coli bacterial lysate was added. At this dilution, the
concentrations of the GFP and RFP were approximately 12 and 240 mg/mL,
respectively. After incubating the GFP and RFP lysate with antibody-PMPs
on a shaker for 10 min at room temperature, 50 μL of this solution
was purified using SLIDE as previously described. The green and red
fluorescence of the output droplets (and the input droplets) were
measured with a fluorescent scanner (Typhoon Trio, GE Healthcare)
to determine recovery and specificity, respectively. Samples were
also run on an SDS-PAGE gel (NuPAGE 4–12% Bis-Tris Gel, Invitrogen)
and silver stained (SilverQuest Silver Staining Kit, Invitrogen) to
determine if GFP was effectively separated from the bulk of the nonfluorescent
bacterial proteins.
DNA Readouts
Samples to measure
DNA extraction were
prepared by lysing LNCaP cells in Buffer RLT (Qiagen) for 5 min at
room temperature with 2 μL of MagneSil PMPs (Promega). Lysates
were prepared at concentrations of 1000 and 10 000 cells per
50 μL device input volume. Lysates were loaded onto SLIDE and
processed as previously described. DNA was eluted from the PMPs in
nuclease free water. As a comparison, other aliquots of this sample
were purified using a conventional technique, where PMPs were captured
against the side of a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube, the supernatant
was removed, and the PMPs were resuspended in buffer (Promega Wizard
Kit Wash Buffer). In the comparison samples, this wash process was
repeated four times. Extracted DNA was amplified and quantified using
qPCR on a LightCycler 480 (Roche) thermal cycler. Isolated DNA was
mixed with 2× Taqman Gene Expression Master Mix (Life Technologies)
and a commercially available assay for GAPDH genomic DNA (#4331182,
Life Technologies). The thermal cycler ran 40 cycles of 60 °C
for 1 min and 95 °C for 15 s, and threshold cycles (CT) were calculated by the LightCycler software using the
second derivative algorithm.
RNA Readouts
Samples to measure
viral RNA extraction
were prepared by spiking HIV viral-like particles (VLPs; viral envelope
removed to render particles noninfectious; generous gift of Dr. Nathan
Scherer) into fetal bovine serum (Gibco). Samples were lysed for 5
min at room temperature in Buffer MFL (Qiagen) in the presence of
2 μL of MagAttract PMP solution (2.8um diameter PMPs, Qiagen).
Samples were prepared at VLP concentrations of 100 and 10 000
copies per SLIDE input volume. Samples were purified using SLIDE as
previously described, and viral RNA was eluted into Buffer MFE (Qiagen).
Reverse transcription was performed in a Techne TC-412 thermal cycler
at 37 °C for 1 h followed by 85 °C for 5 min. The resulting
cDNA was mixed with qPCR master mix (Taqman Gene Expression Master
Mix, Life Technologies) and primers and probe specific to the LTR
region of HIV (forward primer: 5′-GCCTCAATAAAGCTTGCC-3′;
reverse primer: 5′-GGCGCCACTGCTAGAGATTTT-3′;
probe: 5′-AAGTAGTGTGTGCCC-3′; taken
from Veronique et al. and synthesized by Life Technologies[17]). qPCR thermal cycling and analysis was performed
as previously described for the DNA samples.
Cell Readouts
Prostate cancer epithelial cells (LNCaPs;
ATCC) were cultured in RPMI 1640 media with 10% fetal bovine serum
and 1% penicillin and streptomycin. Cells were suspended in media
using treatment with trypsin and EDTA following conventional cell
passaging protocols. Cells were stained green using Calcein AM (1:500
for 30 min at 37 °C), and 1000 cells were spiked into peripheral
blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained by separating whole blood
via centrifugation on a Ficoll gradient (GE Healthcare). For visualization,
the PBMCs were stained red using CellTracker Red following the manufacturer’s
protocol. Streptavidin-coated PMPs (Dynabeads M-280) were coated with
biotinylated anti-EpCAM antibody (Abcam product ab79079; 1 μg
of antibody per mg of PMPs) via incubation for 15 min with tumbling
at room temperature followed by washing with PBS with 0.01% Tween
20. Antibody-coated PMPs were mixed with cells and incubated for 30
min at room temperature with tumbling (50 μg of antibody-coated
PMPs per sample). The cell/PMP mixture was loaded onto the SLIDE device
as previously described, except that an intermediate droplet (positioned
between the input and output droplet) was added. This droplet contained
fluorescently labeled anti-EpCAM antibody (Abcam, ab112067). During
operation, the SLIDE handle was moved from the input to the intermediate
droplet and allowed to incubate for 15 min at room temperature to
promote staining of the cells (the PMP/cell aggregate was not released
into solution and remained as a flattened aggregate on the handle
surface). After staining, the PMP/cell aggregate was released into
the output droplet as previously described. The released cells were
imaged using an epi-fluorescent microscope (IX-70, Olympus).
Results
and Discussion
Droplets Rolling on the Surface of the SLIDE
When a
droplet of fluid moves along an inclined hydrophobic surface, it rolls
on that surface, leaving behind little to no residue.[18−21] The flow profiles within the droplet reflect a fluid recirculation
in droplets that are rolling down an inclined hydrophobic surface.[22] The interaction of the pinned fluid droplet
within the SLIDE on the top hydrophobic surface was similar to these
cases of a droplet rolling on inclined surfaces. The recirculation
effect of a rolling droplet was experimentally validated in the case
of the SLIDE (Figure 3A), demonstrating similarities
in the two fluid systems. Because the fluid was rolling and not sliding
down the surface, an important implication was the active detachment
of the fluid from the receding edge of the fluid droplet that was
caused by the surface tension of the fluid pulling away from the surface.
This detachment ensured that there was a low amount of residual fluid
left on the surface to contaminate the subsequent elution droplet.
However, as a surface is separated from being in contact with a droplet,
there will be residual fluid left on the surface or “carryover”
from the fluid droplet. This concept of “carryover”
was very important for the operation of sample preparation devices,
as there can be many contaminants in an input sample that could interfere
with downstream molecular analyses, and thus represents a critical
area of study with the SLIDE device. Because of the similarities of
fluid motion in the SLIDE to a droplet on an inclined surface, existing
literature can be leveraged to better understand characteristics of
the top surface that will result in lower carryover.
Figure 3
Churning effect of the
fluid droplet. (A) Drop rolling on an inclined
surface is similar to that found in the SLIDE (right). SLIDE image
taken by suspending 1 μm of FITC microspheres into the fluid
drop and opening exposure on the microscope for one second to show
fluid motion. (B) Three types of hydrophobic surfaces shown. The Cassie
surface has features in close enough proximity to prohibit wetting
between the features, whereas the Wenzel surface has features far
enough apart to permit wetting between. The smooth surface does not
have these features. (C) The Wenzel and smooth surfaces were characterized
using water and solutions of Tween in PBS. Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic
smooth surface were tested for comparison.
Churning effect of the
fluid droplet. (A) Drop rolling on an inclined
surface is similar to that found in the SLIDE (right). SLIDE image
taken by suspending 1 μm of FITC microspheres into the fluid
drop and opening exposure on the microscope for one second to show
fluid motion. (B) Three types of hydrophobic surfaces shown. The Cassie
surface has features in close enough proximity to prohibit wetting
between the features, whereas the Wenzel surface has features far
enough apart to permit wetting between. The smooth surface does not
have these features. (C) The Wenzel and smooth surfaces were characterized
using water and solutions of Tween in PBS. Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic
smooth surface were tested for comparison.
Recovery of PMPs
In a control experiment, PMPs functionalized
to capture each analyte (protein, RNA, and DNA) were drawn from the
input droplet to the output droplet along a stationary hydrophobic
surface. While no measurable loss was observed with the DNA and RNA
PMPs, we discovered that 20% of the protein PMPs (standard deviation
of 3%, n = 3) were lost during transfer. It appeared
that this loss was caused by the frictional forces encountered when
“dragging” these PMPs across the stationary surface.
In contrast, no measurable loss was seen with any of the PMP types
when using the SLIDE mechanism. This result highlights a potential
advantage of the “moving surfaces” strategy over the
“moving PMPs” strategy (see Figure 1 for more illustrations of these strategies), particularly
for certain PMP types.
Surface Properties and the Effect on Carryover
Surfaces
can play a large role in the amount of carryover. Hydrophilic upper
surfaces caused most biologically relevant fluids to “streak”
along the top surface, resulting in high amounts of carryover. Hydrophobic
surfaces minimized the interaction of the sample fluids to the surface
and as such were exclusively explored for use with the SLIDE as the
lid material. There are three classifications of hydrophobic surfaces
that relate the “stickiness” of that surface to a fluid:
Cassie, Wenzel, and smooth surfaces[21] (Figure 3B). In the example of a Cassie surface (a super
hydrophobic surface), micro- and nanofeatures are used to create a
thin layer of air below the sample droplet. While the hydrophobicity
would be beneficial and potentially provide lower carryover, PMPs
drawn by the magnetic force would be pulled into these spaces and
get stuck, making deposition into the subsequent droplet challenging.
Similar to a Cassie surface, the Wenzel surface relies on micro- and
nanofeatures to improve surface hydrophobicity; however, unlike the
Cassie surface, there is no layer of air, and the fluid contacts the
surface directly. Though Wenzel surfaces had a higher contact angle
than smooth hydrophobic surfaces, the “stickiness” of
Wenzel surfaces resulted in more fluid and contaminants left behind,
as this roughened surface carried more input fluid into the output
fluid. This was experimentally validated by observing the carryover
resulting from a hydrophilic top surface (cellulose acetate), a hydrophobic
top surface (paraffin), and a Wenzel hydrophobic top surface (roughened
paraffin). The smoother hydrophobic top surface was demonstrated to
have the lowest carryover (Figure 3C).
Fluid
Properties and the Effect on Carryover
While
the composition of lid surface had significant impact on sample carryover,
the physical shape of the lid was demonstrated to be important. In
order to create a device with simple user operation (similar to a
credit card imprinter), the SLIDE was designed with a lid that the
user could move across the sample in a single motion to perform all
purification steps and have immediate access to the purified analyte.
This operation required the lid to contact a fluid droplet and then
be removed from that fluid droplet. However, when the edge of a lid
passed over a fluid droplet, contact was severed between the fluid
and the lid. This breakup event often resulted in the deposition of
a residual “satellite” droplet on the surface of the
lid (Figure 4A). During SLIDE operation, this
satellite droplet was composed of original sample material and occasionally
resulted in excess carryover. The influence of fluid properties was
tested to evaluate the impact on the amount of material carried within
this satellite droplet. Fluid viscosity did not seem to impact the
amount of carryover to a viscosity of approximately 10 cP. However,
fluid viscosities in excess of 10 cP yielded a high Stokes’
drag, preventing the PMPs from moving toward the magnet (Supplementary
Figure 3, Supporting Information). In
these cases, the droplet acted as a ferrofluid and followed the magnet
out of the hydrophilic pinning region. Surface tension was found to
affect the size of the satellite droplet, as increasing the amounts
of Triton-X 100 (i.e decreasing surface tension) in the solution resulted
in increased contaminant carryover (Figure 4A).
Figure 4
Generation of and mitigation of carryover. (A) A schematic demonstrates
how a carryover droplet is created as the handle is removed from a
drop. (B) Using wash drops can reduce the effect of carryover by rinsing
and diluting. The wash method reduces the amount of carryover proportionally
to the number of wash steps. (C) Offset drops are able to create a
PMP pellet that is not in line with the carryover drop, thus allowing
PMPs to be transferred without the carryover drop. (D) Two-way operation
can be used to prevent carryover from ever contacting the output drop
by moving the top surface backward before the carryover drop makes
contact. Bottom Panel: Each method was characterized and compared
to a standard macroscale technique. The data for each method is demonstrated
below its respective method. In each case, error bars represent standard
deviation of the mean (n = 4).
Generation of and mitigation of carryover. (A) A schematic demonstrates
how a carryover droplet is created as the handle is removed from a
drop. (B) Using wash drops can reduce the effect of carryover by rinsing
and diluting. The wash method reduces the amount of carryover proportionally
to the number of wash steps. (C) Offset drops are able to create a
PMP pellet that is not in line with the carryover drop, thus allowing
PMPs to be transferred without the carryover drop. (D) Two-way operation
can be used to prevent carryover from ever contacting the output drop
by moving the top surface backward before the carryover drop makes
contact. Bottom Panel: Each method was characterized and compared
to a standard macroscale technique. The data for each method is demonstrated
below its respective method. In each case, error bars represent standard
deviation of the mean (n = 4).
SLIDE Design to Mitigate
Carryovers
In order to mitigate
the effect of satellite droplets, a curved lid was designed to promote
a controlled and reproducible droplet, while maintaining operational
simplicity. When using a flat lid, the droplet dissociated at the
edge quickly, yielding a large and variable satellite droplet. The
curved lid reduced the size of the satellite droplet by gradually
removing the top surface from the fluid droplet, while maintaining
the one-direction swipe operation of the device. However, due to the
nature of fluid separation from a surface, a small droplet (∼0.1
μL) was still left behind, the size of which differed with various
fluids and operating parameters. In most conditions tested, the amount
of carryover from the input droplet to the output droplet using a
Parafilm surface was below 2%. If there is a concentration step (e.g.,
the output droplet is smaller than the input droplet), however, this
percentage could be higher. There are many solutions that could be
implemented to mitigate this carryover. Three methods for decreasing
carryover were evaluated for their efficacy and operational simplicity:
(1) wash droplets were placed between the input and output droplet
(Figure 4B), (2) the center of the input droplet
was offset from the magnet and output droplet (Figure 4C), and (3) a two-way operation of the lid where the PMPs
were taken to the output droplet, and then the lid was pulled backwards
before the satellite droplet could contact the output droplet (Figure 4D).
Wash Droplets
Droplets of fluid
placed between the
input and output droplets that came in contact with the SLIDE lid
surface allowed contaminants to reconstitute into the intermediate
buffers instead of into the output droplet. Assuming that the main
source of contamination in the SLIDE was due to the carryover instead
of interstitial space of the collected PMPs,[6] the PMPs did not need to be mixed into each of the wash steps to
effectively remove the source of contamination. To test this method
of purification, three sets of devices were tested: (1) no wash droplet,
(2) one wash droplet, and (3) two wash droplets. Each wash was seen
to produce a 2-fold removal of background contaminant, with the contamination
in the two-wash device in all cases to be below 0.6% (Figure 4B).
Offset Droplets
As the lid was removed
from the droplet,
the highest point of the drop was naturally above the geometric center
of the pinning region. This represents the point at which the drop
detaches and forms a satellite drop on the upper surface. Because
the droplets used were semispherical in shape and the magnet is above
the center of the droplet, the satellite droplet and PMP pellet are
both aligned with the apex of the droplet. However, by offsetting
the input droplet relative to the magnet or by changing the geometry
of the input droplet, the apex could be guided away from the PMP pellet
as the lid was moved out of the input droplet. By separating the apex
from the PMP pellet, the satellite droplet was no longer collinear
with the output droplet and the PMP pellet. As a result of this simple
geometrical change, the satellite droplet avoided the output droplet,
preventing contact and thus carryover of input fluid via this satellite
droplet (Figure 4C). When this hypothesis was
tested, it resulted in carryover below 0.6% (Figure 4C).
Two-Way Operation
The SLIDE was
designed to work akin
to a credit card imprinter, in that one swipe produced purified, isolated
samples. However, to avoid introducing the carryover droplet to the
elution droplet, a two-way operation was introduced to only allow
the PMPs to drop into the elution and pull the lid back toward the
input droplet prior to introducing the satellite droplet to the output.
The observed carryover with this method was below 0.6% (Figure 4D).These methods for reducing carryover were
chosen for their user friendliness when operating the SLIDE while
reducing the sample carryover. Specifically, (1) the wash droplets
were placed in line with the SLIDE, resulting in no change of the
operation of the device. (2) Offset droplets caused the carryover
droplet to be diverted in a way that is invisible to the operator,
again resulting in no change of the operation of the device. For the
two-way operation (3), a jam is simply placed on the device such that
carry over drops never reached the output drop and following isolation
the handle was slid back to its starting position.
Applications
of the SLIDE Isolation Technique
To demonstrate
the utility of the SLIDE to isolate a variety of analytes, cell, protein,
and DNA captures were performed in the SLIDE device. A specific cell
type was isolated with high specificity (>90%, Figure 5A) from a heterogeneous mixture of multiple cells
(similar
to the buffy-coat layer after a Ficoll-Paque density centrifugation
of blood samples). Leveraging the in-droplet mixing that occurs during
the operation of the SLIDE, a simplified staining protocol was performed.
Cells remained on the lid during staining and were transferred into
a PBS containing output droplet for imaging. In less than an hour
and within a single linear operational path, cells were bound to PMPs,
isolated from background cells, stained, and placed into a droplet
for imaging (Figure 5B). To demonstrate the
purity and specificity of analyte isolation from complex samples using
the SLIDE, we evaluated the ability to isolate GFP from a complex
cell lysate containing GFP, RFP, and cellular proteins. Without performing
any additional washing steps beyond the previously described SLIDE
protocol, we demonstrated highly specific capture of GFP using a silver
stained gel (Figure 5D). This result demonstrates
that SLIDE can specifically isolate a protein of interest without
substantial nonspecific capture. On the basis of the results of the
carryover quantification experiments (Figure 3C), we decided to modify our nucleic acid protocols to include a
wash volume between the sample and elution buffers. Specifically,
Wizard Wash Buffer (Promega) was used for the DNA samples and Buffer
MFW2 (Qiagen) was used for the viral RNA samples. qPCR of the DNA
indicated that there was no significant difference in CT values between samples purified with SLIDE and those
purified with conventional washing methods (Figure 5C). Furthermore, the isolation of viral RNA using SLIDE demonstrated
the high precision of this method, including SLIDE’s ability
to handle samples with low numbers of analyte copies (∼100,
Figure 5E). Taken together, these data demonstrate
that SLIDE is a viable alternative as a sample preparation process
for isolating nucleic acids.
Figure 5
Applications of the SLIDE. (A) The SLIDE can
be used for cell capture
from a background of 5 million fixed peripheral blood mononuclear
cells with an efficiency of >70% for each of three cellular densities
(300, 30, and 3 cells, n = 3 per experiment). The
purification efficiency was high, with 99.997 ± 0.0078% of nontarget
cells left behind in the first well (an average of 134 ± 39 nontarget
cells remaining, n = 3). (B) Cell staining using
SLIDE involves loading the samples, moving the lid from being positioned
over the input drop to collect sample, to over a staining drop to
perform cell staining methods, to a final release well to image the
cells. Cells in the left panel were stained with cell tracker and
EpCAM surface antibodies, and cells in the right panel were stained
for Hoescht and EpCAM. (C) DNA isolation using SLIDE shows comparable
DNA extraction from lysed LNCaPs to standard washing methods. (D)
Low carryover of the SLIDE demonstrated with GFP isolation from complex
GFP-RFP expressing E. coli bacterial lysates, with
an efficiency of >70% and a specificity of GFP capture of >99%
compared
to RFP nonspecific carryover (n = 3, left). Silver
stained gels demonstrate the purity of the sample from background
proteins (right). (E) HIV virus-like particle isolation demonstrated
in the SLIDE from lysed human plasma spiked samples.
Applications of the SLIDE. (A) The SLIDE can
be used for cell capture
from a background of 5 million fixed peripheral blood mononuclear
cells with an efficiency of >70% for each of three cellular densities
(300, 30, and 3 cells, n = 3 per experiment). The
purification efficiency was high, with 99.997 ± 0.0078% of nontarget
cells left behind in the first well (an average of 134 ± 39 nontarget
cells remaining, n = 3). (B) Cell staining using
SLIDE involves loading the samples, moving the lid from being positioned
over the input drop to collect sample, to over a staining drop to
perform cell staining methods, to a final release well to image the
cells. Cells in the left panel were stained with cell tracker and
EpCAM surface antibodies, and cells in the right panel were stained
for Hoescht and EpCAM. (C) DNA isolation using SLIDE shows comparable
DNA extraction from lysed LNCaPs to standard washing methods. (D)
Low carryover of the SLIDE demonstrated with GFP isolation from complex
GFP-RFP expressing E. coli bacterial lysates, with
an efficiency of >70% and a specificity of GFP capture of >99%
compared
to RFP nonspecific carryover (n = 3, left). Silver
stained gels demonstrate the purity of the sample from background
proteins (right). (E) HIV virus-like particle isolation demonstrated
in the SLIDE from lysed human plasma spiked samples.
Conclusions
We have presented a
sample preparation method that leverages moving
the substrate instead of the fluid containing sample. While improving
the operational simplicity of sample preparation, the SLIDE also eliminates
the need for dilutive and/or harsh washing steps during which analyte
can be lost,[5,12,23] the need for immiscible fluids, or complicated manifolds for collecting
and purifying analyte from a complex sample. The SLIDE is enabling
for the simplicity and inherent usability of the device; operation
of the SLIDE is similar to a credit card imprinter and needs few parts
to operate. During initial characterization experiments, a mode of
device failure was found when using low surface tension samples, resulting
in nonspecific carryover of sample into the elution buffer. It was
demonstrated that this carryover was a result of satellite droplets
created when the fluid detaches from the SLIDE lid. Three strategies
to mitigate the effect of this satellite droplet were evaluated, including
(1) adding nondilutive wash droplets between the input and output
droplets, (2) changing operation to a two-step motion, and (3) offsetting
the input droplet from the output droplet. Without contamination mitigation
strategies, approximately 2% of the sample (from a 40 μL sample)
was carried over into the output droplet. While this may be adequate
for certain downstream analysis techniques, a carryover of approximately
0.6% was achieved when using any of the three strategies, putting
SLIDE performance on par or better than existing commercial purification
protocols. These methods for the SLIDE maintain a simple operational
workflow for analyte purification that is both robust and precise.
Further, the simple workflow can be translated to cell capture and
staining protocols to streamline these processes, saving time and
reagents. The SLIDE is an enabling method, as the fundamental operational
principles will translate to simple embodiments that can be employed
for the high purity isolation of any analyte.
Authors: R Boom; C J Sol; M M Salimans; C L Jansen; P M Wertheim-van Dillen; J van der Noordaa Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1990-03 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Hali Bordelon; Nicholas M Adams; Amy S Klemm; Patricia K Russ; John V Williams; H Keipp Talbot; David W Wright; Frederick R Haselton Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Scott M Berry; Emily N Chin; Shawn S Jackson; Lindsay N Strotman; Mohit Goel; Nancy E Thompson; Caroline M Alexander; Shigeki Miyamoto; Richard R Burgess; David J Beebe Journal: Anal Biochem Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 3.365
Authors: Jamie M Sperger; Lindsay N Strotman; Allison Welsh; Benjamin P Casavant; Zachery Chalmers; Sacha Horn; Erika Heninger; Stephanie M Thiede; Jacob Tokar; Benjamin K Gibbs; David J Guckenberger; Lakeesha Carmichael; Scott M Dehm; Philip J Stephens; David J Beebe; Scott M Berry; Joshua M Lang Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jacob J Tokar; Jay W Warrick; David J Guckenberger; Jamie M Sperger; Joshua M Lang; J Scott Ferguson; David J Beebe Journal: SLAS Technol Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 3.047
Authors: David J Guckenberger; Hannah M Pezzi; Mary C Regier; Scott M Berry; Kevin Fawcett; Kevin Barrett; David J Beebe Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Nitu Thakore; Steve Garber; Arial Bueno; Peter Qu; Ryan Norville; Michael Villanueva; Darrell P Chandler; Rebecca Holmberg; Christopher G Cooney Journal: J Microbiol Methods Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 2.363
Authors: Paul K Drain; Jienchi Dorward; Andrew Bender; Lorraine Lillis; Francesco Marinucci; Jilian Sacks; Anna Bershteyn; David S Boyle; Jonathan D Posner; Nigel Garrett Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Hannah M Pezzi; David J Guckenberger; Jennifer L Schehr; Jacob Rothbauer; Charlotte Stahlfeld; Anupama Singh; Sacha Horn; Zachery D Schultz; Rory M Bade; Jamie M Sperger; Scott M Berry; Joshua M Lang; David J Beebe Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: Duane S Juang; Terry D Juang; Dawn M Dudley; Christina M Newman; Molly A Accola; William M Rehrauer; Thomas C Friedrich; David H O'Connor; David J Beebe Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 14.919