High-throughput screening (HTS) using multiwell plates and fluorescence plate readers is a powerful tool for drug discovery and evaluation by allowing tens of thousands of assays to be completed in 1 day. Although this method has been successful, electrophoresis-based methods for screening are also of interest to avoid difficulties associated fluorescence assays such as requirements to engineer fluorogenic reactions and false positives. We have developed a method using droplet microfluidics to couple multiwell plate-based assays to microchip electrophoresis (MCE) to screen enzyme modulators. Samples contained in multiwell plates are reformatted in to plugs with a sample volume of 8 nL segmented by an immiscible oil. The segmented flow sample streams are coupled to a hybrid polydimethylsiloxane-glass microfluidic device capable of selectively extracting the aqueous samples from the droplet stream and rapidly analyzing by MCE with laser-induced fluorescence detection. This system was demonstrated by screening a test library of 140 compounds against using protein kinase A. For each sample in the screen, two droplets are generated, allowing approximately 6 MCE injections per sample. Using a 1 s separation at 2000 V/cm, we are able to analyze 96 samples in 12 min. Separation resolution between the internal standard, substrate, and product is 1.2 and average separation efficiency is 16,000 plates/s using real samples. Twenty-five compounds were identified as modulators during primary screening and verified using dose-response curves.
High-throughput screening (HTS) using multiwell plates and fluorescence plate readers is a powerful tool for drug discovery and evaluation by allowing tens of thousands of assays to be completed in 1 day. Although this method has been successful, electrophoresis-based methods for screening are also of interest to avoid difficulties associated fluorescence assays such as requirements to engineer fluorogenic reactions and false positives. We have developed a method using droplet microfluidics to couple multiwell plate-based assays to microchip electrophoresis (MCE) to screen enzyme modulators. Samples contained in multiwell plates are reformatted in to plugs with a sample volume of 8 nL segmented by an immiscible oil. The segmented flow sample streams are coupled to a hybrid polydimethylsiloxane-glass microfluidic device capable of selectively extracting the aqueous samples from the droplet stream and rapidly analyzing by MCE with laser-induced fluorescence detection. This system was demonstrated by screening a test library of 140 compounds against using protein kinase A. For each sample in the screen, two droplets are generated, allowing approximately 6 MCE injections per sample. Using a 1 s separation at 2000 V/cm, we are able to analyze 96 samples in 12 min. Separation resolution between the internal standard, substrate, and product is 1.2 and average separation efficiency is 16,000 plates/s using real samples. Twenty-five compounds were identified as modulators during primary screening and verified using dose-response curves.
Modern high-throughput screening
(HTS) technology allows for 104 to 105 automated
assays to be completed in 1 day. HTS has emerged as a powerful tool
for many applications including drug, catalyst, and chemical probe
discovery. The dominant form of HTS is based on assays performed in
multiwell plates (MWP) with liquid handling and plate manipulation
performed by robots and detection by optical plate readers. Although
this approach has been successful, it has limitations. A fluorescent
or other optical indicator must be coupled to or engineered into the
biochemical reaction of interest. This requirement can increase development
time, reagent costs, and potential for false signals wherein test
compounds affect the indicator rather than the actual reaction. Further,
in such schemes, only one analyte is detected per reaction and interference
from buffer components or test compounds is possible.Analysis
of reaction mixtures by microchip electrophoresis (MCE)
can avoid these limitations by separating substrates, products, and
interfering species to eliminate the need of having a selective optical
change upon reaction. Rapid separations are possible; however, reloading
chips with fresh sample is a bottleneck for HTS. A commercial instrument
overcomes these problems by “sipping” sample from wells
and pulling sample by vacuum into the separation channel.[1] This powerful system allows continuous operation
and a reliable interface to MWP; however, it does not reach the full
potential of MCE because band broadening induced by flow through the
separation channel gives reduced resolution requiring longer separation
times.An alternative for screening many distinct samples by
MCE is to
deliver samples to the chip as droplets or segmented flow.[2] In such a method, aqueous samples encapsulated
in immiscible oil are pumped into the chip where the aqueous portion
is extracted for injection onto the MCE channel. A significant advantage
of this approach is that it is also compatible with the emerging trend
of miniaturization by performing reactions at droplet scale (pL to
nL volume) rather than MWP scale (1–30 μL). Droplet strategies
have been used for several novel screens.[3−9]Although coupling droplets to MCE is an attractive prospect
for
HTS, most previous methods of interfacing have been developed for
other applications (e.g., for two-dimensional separations[10,11] or coupling to a sampling probe for chemical monitoring[12−14]) and have limited proven utility for screening. Extraction of droplets
has relied on modified surface chemistry,[2,12,15] applied external fields,[16] special channel geometries,[10,17] or the use
of oleophilic films[18,19] to remove carrier oil. In these
systems, the extraction and injection processes are coupled so that
compromises between droplet size, injection volume, and separation
speed must be made. For example, the droplet volume directly controls
the injection volume. Often, droplets are larger than typical MCE
injection volumes, so separation efficiency is lowered. Also, the
droplet flow and manner of extraction can influence the shape of the
plug that is loaded onto the separation column, further affecting
separation efficiency. An exception was a method that allowed extraction
followed by electrokinetic gated injection.[15] In this approach, extraction of sample from the oil stream is a
separate step from injection so that each is controlled independently.
This approach to droplet–MCE interface yielded high efficiency
(223 000 plates in 50 s separation); however, it was not shown
to be compatible with screening, which requires analysis of many distinct
samples and long-term unattended operation of several hundred samples.
Further, this method required a complex fabrication procedure involving
surface chemistry patterning.Here we report a new droplet–MCE
interface that uses a similar
concept of separate extraction and injection. Rather than relying
on surface chemistry pattering to achieve injection, the method uses
a minor modification of a standard MCE chip design and therefore has
a simplified fabrication. We also show that this method allows at
least 700 sequential MCE injections from droplet samples with subsecond
separations, demonstrating potential for high-throughput screening.
We also demonstrate a method to track samples during a screen. The
system was tested using a small scale screen of protein kinase A (PKA)
modulators but in principle can be applied to any assays resulting
in a change in analyte charge or size, such as peptide cleavage, dephosphorylation,
and deacetylation.
Experimental Section
Chemicals and Materials
All reagents were purchased
from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO) with the following exceptions.
5-Carboxyfluorescein (FAM)-labeled Kemptide was purchased from AnaSpec
(Fremont, CA) and the catalytic subunit of cAMP-dependent protein
kinase A was purchased from New England Biolabs (Ipswich, MA). The
epigenetics compound library was purchased from Cayman Chemical (Ann
Arbor, MI) and the kinase inhibitor library was obtained from the
Center for Chemical Genomics at University of Michigan.
PDMS Chip Fabrication
Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) tees
were fabricated using a pour over method to align droplet tubing and
microfluidic devices during operation. Briefly, a 360 μm o.d.
capillary was taped in the bottom of a Petri dish. A 100 o.d. capillary
was glued into a 150 μm i.d × 360 o.d. sheath capillary
such that ∼3 mm of 100 o.d. capillary was exposed. Two of these
sheathed capillaries were taped on opposite sides of the 360 μm
o.d. capillary with a 2–3 mm gap between them. PDMS was poured
over the mold and cured at 75 °C for 15 min. After curing, the
mold was flipped and PDMS was poured on the other side and the mold
was cured for an additional 20 min at 75 °C. After curing, all
capillaries were removed and the device was cut to size using a razor
blade.
Glass Chip Fabrication
Glass chips were fabricated
using photolithography and wet-etching by hydrofluoric acid (HF).[20−22] Briefly, one slide is etched to 90 μm for the capillary insertion
channel and to 50 μm for the sample channel. A second slide
is etched to 90 μm for the capillary insertion channel and 5
μm for all separation channels. During etching of deep channels,
other features were covered with HF resistant tape (Semiconductor
Equipment Corporation, Moorpark, CA). After etching, access holes
were drilled with a 500 μm drill bit (Kyocera Tycom, Costa Mesa,
CA). Glass slides were washed for 20 min in piranha solution (sulfuric
acid:hydrogen peroxide, 4:1) and for 40 min in heated RCA solution
(ammonium hydroxide:hydrogen peroxide:water, 1:1:5). : piranha solution is aggressive and explosive.
Never mix piranha waste with solvents. Check the safety precautions
before using it. Slides were rinsed with water, aligned under a microscope,
and annealed at 610 °C for 8 h. Reservoirs and access ports (IDEX
Health and Science, Oak Harbor, WA) were attached at the access holes
and a 40 μm i.d. × 150 μm o.d. × 2.5 mm long
extraction capillary was waxed in place in the capillary insertion
channel.
Microfluidic Chip Operation
All reservoirs and channels
on the glass chip were primed with separation buffer (10 mM sodium
tetraborate, pH 10, 0.9 mM hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextran) to
remove air bubbles. Voltage for electrophoresis was applied using
a CZE1000R power supply (Spellman, Hauppague, NY) and a high-voltage
relay (Kilovac, Santa Barbara, CA) was used to control electrokinetic-gated
injection.[23,24] Detection was accomplished using
an in-house confocal laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) detector. Briefly,
the 488 nm line from a solid-state laser (CrystaLaser, Reno, NV) was
directed through a 488 ± 10 nm band-pass filter and a 10×
objective lens. Emission was filtered through a 520 ± 10 nm band-pass
filter and detected by a photomultiplier tube (R1477, Hamamatsu, Bridgewater,
NJ). Current from the PMT was amplified by a current preamplifier
(Stanford Research Systems, Sunnyvale, CA) and monitored using an
in-house LabVIEW program (National Instruments, Austin, TX). Data
analysis was done using Cutter 7.0,[25] Excel
2011 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA), and Igor Pro 6.32 (Wavemetrics, Inc.,
Lake Oswego, OR).
Droplet Generation from MWP
Droplets,
segmented by
perfluorinated oil (100:1, perfluorodecalin (PFD):perfluorooctanol
(PFO)), were generated from a multiwell plate using a method previously
described. Droplet samples were pulled into a 150 μm i.d. ×
360 μm o.d. HPFA tube (IDEX Health and Science, Oak Harbor,
WA) using a syringe connected to a PHD 200 syringe pump (Harvard Apparatus,
Holliston, TX) operating in refilling mode. After the syringe and
tubing were primed with 100:1 PFD:PFO, droplets were generated using
a computer-controlled XYZ-positioner to move the tubing from well
to well in a defined pattern. Samples were covered with carrier oil
to prevent sample evaporation and aspiration of air into tubing.[8,26]
Protein Kinase A Modulator Screen and Droplet Analysis
Each
sample in the screen was prepared in 20 μL with final
concentrations of 50 mM Tris, pH 7.5; 10 mM MgCl2; 200
μM ATP; 15 μM FAM-Kemptide; 3.75 nM protein kinase A.
During screening experiments, test compounds from the kinase inhibitor
library were deposited using a Caliper Sciclone (PerkinElmer, Waltham,
MA) into a 384-well plate (0.1 to 12.5 μM final concentration).
For the epigenetics compound library, compounds were pipetted manually
into a 384-well plate (5 μM final concentration). Control samples
contained dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at equal volume to test compounds.
Negative controls contained no inhibitor (mimicking no inhibition),
and positive controls contained no enzyme (mimicking 100% inhibition).
Reactions were incubated at room temperature for 30 min and quenched
with 80 μL of 15 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and
placed on ice. Immediately prior to droplet generation, 90 μL
of each sample was transferred to a modified 384-well plate designed
to allow samples to be covered by carrier oil. To extract droplets,
a 50 μL syringe filled with water was attached to a 40 μm
i.d. × 150 μm o.d. capillary and connected to the PDMS
tee after the extraction region and the PDMS chip was primed with
water. Next, tubing containing sample droplets was inserted until
flush with the extraction capillary in the glass chip and connected
to a 100 μL syringe on a syringe pump. Droplets were pumped
into the PDMS chip at 360 nL/min and injections were made every 1
s.
Results and Discussion
Droplet Extraction from Segmented Flow
Our strategy
for high throughput electrophoresis is to introduce a series of samples
to the microchip as segmented flow. A primary challenge of achieving
rapid MCE analysis from segmented flow is separation of the oil phase
from sample prior to MCE analysis. To simplify the process of droplet
extraction, we used the native properties of glass (hydrophilic) and
PDMS (hydrophobic) to extract droplets through a hybrid device (Figure 1). An advantage of this approach is that we take
advantage of the native surface chemistry of these materials to achieve
extraction, eliminating the need for surface patterning. A hybrid
device has the added benefit of decoupling the extraction and analysis
stages for better performance. Also, it has the practical advantage
that a new extraction or analysis chip can be substituted if it stops
working without the need to fabricate a new device.
Figure 1
Schematic of PDMS–glass
hybrid microfluidic device for analysis
of segmented flow samples. Aqueous droplets (blue colored) are extracted
by the hydrophilic extraction capillary and sampled by electro-osmotic
flow (EOF) in the sampling channel toward the injection cross. During
injection, the positive high-voltage power supply is floated to allow
injection of a discrete sample plug into the separation channel. The
positive high-voltage is applied again during separation and excess
sample is gated to the waste channel. To assist extraction waste droplets
(green colored) are generated after the extraction point to provide
a slight backpressure for extraction.
Schematic of PDMS–glass
hybrid microfluidic device for analysis
of segmented flow samples. Aqueous droplets (blue colored) are extracted
by the hydrophilic extraction capillary and sampled by electro-osmotic
flow (EOF) in the sampling channel toward the injection cross. During
injection, the positive high-voltage power supply is floated to allow
injection of a discrete sample plug into the separation channel. The
positive high-voltage is applied again during separation and excess
sample is gated to the waste channel. To assist extraction waste droplets
(green colored) are generated after the extraction point to provide
a slight backpressure for extraction.In this device, a length of Teflon tubing containing sample
droplets
is positioned orthogonal to the inlet of a fused silica extraction
capillary that is interfaced to the glass MCE chip using a tee molded
from PDMS (Figure 1). The fused silica extraction
capillary also acts as a conduit to the glass MCE chip. As droplets
exit the Teflon tubing, aqueous samples are extracted into the hydrophilic
fused silica extraction capillary while the oil phase continues toward
the outlet of the hydrophobic PDMS device. The extracted sample droplet
fills the extraction capillary and sampling channel (Figure 1) where it can be injected onto the MCE channel
using an electrokinetic flow gate.[23,24] Subsequent
samples wash the extraction capillary and sampling channel out for
serial injections.Although the inherent surface chemistry of
the extraction capillary
and PDMS tee will favor droplet extraction and oil phase flow past
the extraction point, it is also necessary to use proper capillary
and channel dimensions so that capillary force and back pressure are
balanced to favor droplet but not oil flow into the extraction capillary.
In other words, with high flow rates, wide bore extraction capillaries
or narrow PDMS channels, oil can be forced into the extraction capillary.
In the opposite case, aqueous samples will not be fully extracted.
For the flow rates and chip dimensions used here, a 40 μm i.d.
fused silica capillary generated good extraction (i.e., the entire
aqueous droplet) with no oil phase entering the extraction capillary.
We visually observed that droplet extraction was more reliable by
elevating pressure slightly at the outlet of the PDMS tee. This pressure
was created by a pumping water at 150 nL/min into an inlet positioned
downstream of the extraction point (waste droplet generator in Figure 1).The chip was also designed to minimize
carryover between samples.
To reduce carryover, dead volume from the extraction point on the
PDMS device to the sampling point, on the glass device was minimized
through the use of narrow bore capillaries and short capillary lengths
(3.3 nL). With this small volume, we anticipated that ∼10 nL
of sample would be needed to washout the capillary and prevent carryover.To evaluate the extraction efficiency and sample carryover in the
extraction channel, we monitored fluorescence as alternating pairs
of 8 nL droplets containing fluorescein at high (6 μM) and low
(2 μM) concentrations were pumped through the system. Droplets
are detected as square-topped pulses within the Teflon tube (Figure 2A) reflecting signal from fluorescence within the
droplet and no signal for the oil. After extraction, the droplets
fill the extraction capillary and become continuous phase without
pulses between droplets of the same concentration (red trace, Figure 2A). In the transition from high to low concentration,
the signal decreases and then stabilizes. The timing of the transition
suggests that the sample is 80% washed out by the first droplet and
98% washed out by the time the second droplet is extracted. In the
transition from low to high concentration, the signal stabilizes more
quickly. These results show that carryover should be minimized using
two droplets. The exact volumes required may depend on the sample
type being used, e.g., if surface adsorption is greater, more rinses
may be required.
Figure 2
Comparison of extraction of droplet stream with (A) and
without
(B) waste channel droplets shows the effect of added back pressure
on extraction efficiency. When waste droplets are present intensity
of droplets before extraction (black trace) is nearly identical to
intensity of sample after extraction (red trace) and transitions from
high to low intensity occur rapidly suggesting that each droplet rapidly
rinses out the previously extracted droplet from the glass chip. Without
waste droplets, sample intensity is not stable over time on the MCE
chip as sample droplets mix. Detection point for droplets before extraction
(black star) and after extraction (red star) are marked on the schematic
in Figure 1.
Comparison of extraction of droplet stream with (A) and
without
(B) waste channel droplets shows the effect of added back pressure
on extraction efficiency. When waste droplets are present intensity
of droplets before extraction (black trace) is nearly identical to
intensity of sample after extraction (red trace) and transitions from
high to low intensity occur rapidly suggesting that each droplet rapidly
rinses out the previously extracted droplet from the glass chip. Without
waste droplets, sample intensity is not stable over time on the MCE
chip as sample droplets mix. Detection point for droplets before extraction
(black star) and after extraction (red star) are marked on the schematic
in Figure 1.If the back pressure was not provided by the extra flow,
the transitions
were longer and not as reliable, as shown by the increase in carryover
in the red trace in Figure 2B starting after
60 s. This result coincides with incomplete extractions and sample
buildup at the capillary inlet. By using the waste droplet to increase
pressure in the extraction zone, sampling buildup was greatly reduced
and carryover between samples was less than 2% (Figure 2A). At least 500 droplets, the most tested, could be extracted
reliably with this approach.
MCE Injection from Droplets
After
extraction, aqueous
samples fill the sample channel, which acts as the sample reservoir
in a cross-style injector in MCE.[23,24] In this way,
the hybrid chip acts as a means to rapidly introduce new samples to
a microfluidic device while maintaining injection geometry known to
have high performance.[15,23,24,27] To make an injection, sample is directed
toward the injection cross by electro-osmotic flow (EOF) using applied
electric fields. During separation, this sample stream is gated toward
a waste reservoir on chip by a cross-flow, which also provides fresh
separation buffer to the electrophoresis channel. During injection,
the gating flow is shut off by a high-voltage relay to allow a small
plug of sample to be injected into the separation channel for analysis.
Importantly, unlike many other designs used for droplet MCE, the volume
and shape of the plug that is injected is controlled by the voltages
applied independent of the extraction process enabling higher efficiency
for a given separation time.Using this injection method, screening
reaction samples containing substrate, product, and rhodamine were
separated with good efficiency. For example, using a 10 mM sodium
tetraborate buffer at pH 10 and an electric field of 2000 V/cm, separation
efficiency of 16 000 plates for a 1 s separation in 0.5 cm
was routinely achieved. By making a discrete injection from a larger
sample droplet, injection volume is not controlled by droplet volume
and multiple injections can be made from each sample droplet. Further,
the separation time is not limited by droplet spacing, as is the case
when an injection is made from each droplet[2,12] or
whole droplet injection is used.[10] We found
that these differences were useful for HTS. Using a gated-injection
scheme, coupling MCE to 2D separations or other sampling probes for
chemical sensing by segmented flow should also be possible.
Mobility
Shift Assay of Enzymatic Reactions
Phosphorylation
of kemptide by PKA was used as a test assay for this system (Figure 3A). Injection of the reaction mixture results in
two peaks in the electropherogram due to the unphosphorylated substrate
and phosphorylated product, which migrates slower due to the addition
of a negative charge through the phosphate group (Figure 3B). By injecting substrate alone, only the first
peak is present and both substrate and product migration times were
verified (data not shown).
Figure 3
Protein kinase A catalyzed phosphorylation of
kemptide (A) and
resulting electropherogram (B) for the separation of the reaction
mixture. Product and substrate were separated in 0.5 cm using an applied
field of 2000 V/cm and a 30 ms injection.
Protein kinase A catalyzed phosphorylation of
kemptide (A) and
resulting electropherogram (B) for the separation of the reaction
mixture. Product and substrate were separated in 0.5 cm using an applied
field of 2000 V/cm and a 30 ms injection.Due to the large number of samples generated in HTS, a rapid
MCE
separation is required. The change in charge on kemptide due to phosphorylation
allowed for easy separation of the substrate and product peak. A separation
in <1 s was achieved using a high electric field (2000 V/cm) and
a short separation length (0.5 cm) without sacrificing separation
resolution. This separation was fast enough to allow at least three
injections per droplet that entered the capillary (Figure 4A). Indeed, the effect of droplet clearing can be
observed in the relative peak heights for each electropherogram. The
first three injections shown in the trace in Figure 4A correspond to the second droplet for a sample and the peak
heights are stable. The next four traces correspond to a new sample
that has been extracted. Fluctuation in peak height for rhodamine,
substrate, and product is observed as the droplet washes out the reservoir
and reaches a stable signal, similar to the continuous measurements
depicted in Figure 2A. The last three traces
correspond to the second droplet being extracted and entering the
sample reservoir. By this time, the peak heights have once again stabilized
for all traces. Thus, these results illustrate that use of two droplets
per sample, the first to rinse the small reservoir and the second
to provide a stable signal, allows for analysis of discrete samples
in series. In principle, the number of injections per droplet can
be varied by using different size droplets and flow rates. Likewise,
the amount of rinse required could be decreased by using even lower
dead volumes. Obtaining multiple injections per droplet can be valuable
in achieving reliable results at the expense of throughput.
Figure 4
Electropherograms
and raw peak area data demonstrating sample clearing
and indexing for screening by MCE. (A) Electropherograms showing injection
and separation of rhodamine (R), substrate (S), and product (P) and
transition from a sample without rhodamine to a sample with rhodamine
demonstrating complete sample clearing by two droplets. (B) Extracted
peak areas for rhodamine (black trace), substrate (red trace), and
product (blue trace) for analysis of 12 samples, two controls and
ten test compounds. Changes in rhodamine peak height were used to
determine start and end points for each compound to calculate reaction
yield.
Electropherograms
and raw peak area data demonstrating sample clearing
and indexing for screening by MCE. (A) Electropherograms showing injection
and separation of rhodamine (R), substrate (S), and product (P) and
transition from a sample without rhodamine to a sample with rhodamine
demonstrating complete sample clearing by two droplets. (B) Extracted
peak areas for rhodamine (black trace), substrate (red trace), and
product (blue trace) for analysis of 12 samples, two controls and
ten test compounds. Changes in rhodamine peak height were used to
determine start and end points for each compound to calculate reaction
yield.At this high of a separation speed,
reproducibility was still good.
For example, we performed over 700 injections in ∼12 min with
a migration time relative standard deviation (RSD) of ∼2%.
Reaction yield, calculated as P/(P + S), where P and S are the product and substrate peak area respectively, had an RSD
of 7% (n = 8) for negative control samples spread
throughput the sample set. For a series of injections from a single
sample, the RSD was generally less than 5% (n = 3).
As observed in the substrate peak area trace in Figure 4B, droplet extraction causes a slight increase in pressure
on the glass device, leading to an increase in substrate peak area
for that injection. Using reaction yield, instead of raw peak area,
for analysis combined with averaging three injections per sample mitigates
this effect.
Indexing Droplet Data Using a Fluorescent
Dye
When
analyzing a series of samples reformatted from a MWP to droplet streams,
it can be difficult to determine which electropherograms belong to
each sample. This is especially true for the passive extraction/injection
system used here. Thus, even though droplets are introduced to the
chip at a constant flow rate and injections are performed at a constant
rate, we found that the exact number of injections per sample (formatted
as two droplets of 8 nL each) can vary from 6 to 8. We attribute this
primarily to slight variations in sample size, sample flow rate, and
the timing of injection relative to the droplet extraction. The variability
in injection number per droplet means that it is necessary to mark
each droplet to register an electropherogram with test analyte or
sample. Figure 4B illustrates the peak area
for a series of electropherograms from assay samples. With the exception
of a positive control, which has a low product peak area, determining
which data corresponds to each sample is nearly impossible. To avoid
this problem, a marker compound, rhodamine 110, was added to every
other sample to provide data indexing. During data analysis, every
other sample (corresponding to a train of approximately six injections)
will have a rhodamine peak in the electropherogram as can be observed
in Figure 4A. Using changes in rhodamine intensity
as a guide, the start and end point for each sample can be quickly
identified across all electropherograms (black trace, Figure 4B). For example, from 20 to 100 s, 10 samples, each
containing a different test compound, are analyzed, but substrate
and product peak areas remain stable because none of the compounds
inhibit PKA. However, utilizing the changes in rhodamine peak area,
the change from sample to sample can be tracked.
Droplet-based
Screen of Protein Kinase A Modulators
To test our novel droplet–MCE
method, we screened two small
molecule libraries against PKA for inhibitory activity. The kinase
inhibitor library contained 60 test compounds with known activity
at various kinases and the epigenetics library contained 80 test compounds
that are known to act at proteins involved in histone modification
and not necessarily kinases. A total of 168 samples were analyzed
for the primary screen, including positive and negative controls.
Samples were prepared and reacted as outlined in the Experimental Section and two droplets were generated for each
sample. Samples were analyzed in batches of 96 for a total of ∼200
droplets per analysis. Analysis of each batch required approximately
12 min. By generating the next set of samples during analysis, near
continuous analysis by MCE is possible, achieving a sample throughput
of 0.16 samples/s.Reaction yields were calculated for each
sample and normalized to the average positive control reaction yield
(Figure 5). An inhibition threshold was set
at 80%, which corresponds to three standard deviations below the normalized
positive control yield across all experiments (n =
40). Any compounds with reaction yields below this threshold were
identified as inhibitors of PKA with lower reaction yields denoting
stronger inhibitors. In total, 25 test compounds (7 from the epigentics
library and 18 from the kinase library) were identified as potential
hits during the primary screen and all of these compounds showed a
dose-dependent inhibition of protein kinase A during follow-up screening
experiments. Two false negatives were identified during the screen.
One compound, H-89, showed no inhibition at 12.5 μM, but was
active at three lower concentrations. The second compound, piceattanol,
was present in both compound libraries but was only active in the
kinase library. However, a dose-dependent response was observed suggesting
this is a true hit compound and was likely degraded in the epignetics
compound library. Overall the assays had a high Z′-factor of 0.8, making identification of both strong and
weak inhibitors possible.
Figure 5
Screening 140 small molecules against protein
kinase A reveals
25 hit compounds based on the inhibitor threshold (red line). All
reaction yields are normalized to the average negative control yield
(blue line). With the exception of compound 25, which is plotted at
2.5 μM, compounds 1–60 were tested at 12.5 μM and
compounds 61–140 were tested at 5 μM.
Screening 140 small molecules against protein
kinase A reveals
25 hit compounds based on the inhibitor threshold (red line). All
reaction yields are normalized to the average negative control yield
(blue line). With the exception of compound 25, which is plotted at
2.5 μM, compounds 1–60 were tested at 12.5 μM and
compounds 61–140 were tested at 5 μM.Follow up dose–response curves for H-89
and ellagic acid
(Figure 6), two known protein kinase A inhibitors,
showed good agreement with accepted IC50 values. For H-89,
the experimental IC50 value was 89 ± 1 nM and the
IC50 value for ellagic acid was 1.00 ± 0.01 μM.
Previous results using filter based assays with [γ-32P]ATP were 135 nM for H-89,[28] and 3.5
μM for ellagic acid.[29]
Figure 6
Dose–response
curves for H-89 (black trace) and ellagic
acid (red trace) generated from protein kinase A screening data. The
measured IC50 values agree with literature values of 150
nM[28] and 3 μM[29] for H-89 and ellagic acid, respectively.
Dose–response
curves for H-89 (black trace) and ellagic
acid (red trace) generated from protein kinase A screening data. The
measured IC50 values agree with literature values of 150
nM[28] and 3 μM[29] for H-89 and ellagic acid, respectively.
Comparison to Other Systems
It is
interesting to consider
the potential of this system relative to the commercial MCE screening
system described in the introduction. Using
a comparable peptide substrate and product, the Caliper instrument
was able to analyze samples from multiwell plates using a 42 s separation
in a single channel corresponding to 0.02 samples/s.[1] In a previous report, we used a droplet extraction method
to achieve 0.07 samples/s for one channel.[2] The efficiency was much lower than in the new system because the
droplet volume and flow rate determined the injection volume. (In
a previous report, the same extraction geometry achieved an average
separation efficiency of 53 500 plates for a 12 s separation
of three amino acid neurotransmitters;[12] however, for technical reasons, the efficiency was generally lower
for screening purposes.) The droplet MCE system achieves about 10-fold
higher sample analysis rates per channel than these prior systems
even though replicate injections are performed and some replicates
are wasted on carryover. This increase in throughput is due to the
higher efficiency enabled by combination of droplet introduction and
electrokinetic injection. A further potential advantage of droplet-based
sample introduction is a substantial reduction in reagent consumption
by utilizing an all-droplet format, i.e., reactions performed in droplets,[8,30] which could achieve over a 1000-fold reduction in reagents. Although
these observations demonstrate a significant potential advantage of
the droplet MCE approach, further testing and development is required
before a droplet system could compete with commercial systems in terms
of robustness and routine use for screening 104 to 105 samples and continuous operation.
Conclusion
This
work has demonstrated a novel droplet extraction method for
coupling segmented flow to MCE that uses the native properties of
PDMS and glass to separate the two phases in segmented flow prior
to electrokinetic injection for MCE. We demonstrated the utility of
this sample introduction method combined with MCE for HTS by performing
a proof-of-concept screen with PKA and a set 140 small molecules.
Each sample consisted of two droplets and approximately six injections
were made per sample. This equates to an injection throughput of 1
Hz and a sample throughput of 0.16 Hz, which would allow for analysis
of >10 000 samples per day. To increase sample throughput
without
sacrificing separation resolution or data quality, parallel analysis
would be required and could be achieved by fabricated multiple separation
channels per device. Additionally, this platform is applicable to
other screening assays and other droplet–MCE applications,
such as coupling stages of a 2D separation or chemical sensing from
sampling probes.
Authors: Luis M Fidalgo; Graeme Whyte; Brandon T Ruotolo; Justin L P Benesch; Florian Stengel; Chris Abell; Carol V Robinson; Wilhelm T S Huck Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2009 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Thomas R Slaney; Jing Nie; Neil D Hershey; Prasanna K Thwar; Jennifer Linderman; Mark A Burns; Robert T Kennedy Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Simon K Küster; Stephan R Fagerer; Pascal E Verboket; Klaus Eyer; Konstantins Jefimovs; Renato Zenobi; Petra S Dittrich Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Wesley G Cochrane; Amber L Hackler; Valerie J Cavett; Alexander K Price; Brian M Paegel Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Greggory Murray; Samuel Bednarski; Michael Hall; Samuel W Foster; SiJun Jin; Joshua J Davis; Wei Xue; Eric Constans; James P Grinias Journal: HardwareX Date: 2021-08-10