Yifan Lv1, Liang Cui1, Ruizi Peng1, Zilong Zhao1, Liping Qiu2, Huapei Chen1, Cheng Jin1, Xiao-Bing Zhang1, Weihong Tan1,2. 1. Molecular Science and Biomedicine Laboratory, State Key Laboratory of Chemo/Biosensing and Chemometrics, College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, College of Biology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Chemistry and Molecular Medicine, Hunan University , Changsha, 410082, China. 2. Department of Chemistry and Department of Physiology and Functional Genomics, Center for Research at the Bio/Nano Interface, Shands Cancer Center, UF Genetics Institute, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida , Gainesville, Florida 32611-7200, United States.
Abstract
Here, we propose an efficient strategy for enzyme- and hairpin-free nucleic acid detection called an entropy beacon (abbreviated as Ebeacon). Different from previously reported DNA hybridization/displacement-based strategies, Ebeacon is driven forward by increases in the entropy of the system, instead of free energy released from new base-pair formation. Ebeacon shows high sensitivity, with a detection limit of 5 pM target DNA in buffer and 50 pM in cellular homogenate. Ebeacon also benefits from the hairpin-free amplification strategy and zero-background, excellent thermostability from 20 °C to 50 °C, as well as good resistance to complex environments. In particular, based on the huge difference between the breathing rate of a single base pair and two adjacent base pairs, Ebeacon also shows high selectivity toward base mutations, such as substitution, insertion, and deletion and, therefore, is an efficient nucleic acid detection method, comparable to most reported enzyme-free strategies.
Here, we propose an efficient strategy for enzyme- and hairpin-free nucleic acid detection called an entropy beacon (abbreviated as Ebeacon). Different from previously reported DNA hybridization/displacement-based strategies, Ebeacon is driven forward by increases in the entropy of the system, instead of free energy released from new base-pair formation. Ebeacon shows high sensitivity, with a detection limit of 5 pM target DNA in buffer and 50 pM in cellular homogenate. Ebeacon also benefits from the hairpin-free amplification strategy and zero-background, excellent thermostability from 20 °C to 50 °C, as well as good resistance to complex environments. In particular, based on the huge difference between the breathing rate of a single base pair and two adjacent base pairs, Ebeacon also shows high selectivity toward base mutations, such as substitution, insertion, and deletion and, therefore, is an efficient nucleic acid detection method, comparable to most reported enzyme-free strategies.
The efficient
detection of nucleic
acids, especially the strong capacity to identify single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs), is highly significant in biochemical studies
and genetic diagnostics inasmuch as DNA is, intrinsically, an essential
biotarget.[1−5] However, the environmental interference of the cytoplasm (e.g.,
relatively high temperature and ubiquitous biomolecules) has made
traditional nuclease-based signal amplification strategies difficult
to use in complex biosystems, despite their outstanding performance
in buffer solution.[6−10] This calls for the development of enzyme-free nucleic acid-detection
strategies with high detection sensitivity, high selectivity toward
base mutation,[2,6] and high stability in complex
biological milieu.[11,12]Among all reported enzyme-free
strategies,[13−18] the dynamic DNA-assembly-based enzyme-free signal amplification
strategy has been regarded as having unparalleled advantages, such
as low cost, easy construction, high tolerance to environmental disturbance,
and uncompromised biocompatibility.[19] Apart
from conventional hybridization of two complementary DNA sequences,
toehold-mediated strand displacement,[20−23] which is known as a programmable
form of dynamic DNA hybridization, can also be used to design powerful
amplification systems, and some of them can even achieve polynomial
or exponential amplification of input signals.[22] Most reported DNA hybridization/displacement-based amplification
strategies are driven by the released free energy associated with
base-pair formation, which has proven especially suitable for signal
acquisition.[21,24] During the past five years, quite
a few remarkable designs based on this strategy have been proposed,
including the hybridization chain reaction (HCR)[15] and catalytic hairpin assembly (CHA).[16] Relying on these typical transduction and amplification
strategies, more and more biosensors have been created with diverse
reporting signals and a variety of targets.[25−33]However, these strategies also have some weaknesses, such
as circuit
leakage resulting from catalyst-independent side reactions and environmental
sensitivity related to pH, temperature, biomolecules, or random DNA
sequences, which may lead to relatively high background and false-positive
signals.[34] For instance, the two hairpin
substrates in a CHA circuit can potentially react nonspecifically,
even in the absence of a single-stranded catalyst, and this nonspecific
background degrades the signal-to-noise ratio.[35] Moreover, many typical DNA amplification systems are hairpin-based
processes,[21,36] in which the opening of the hairpin
structure by strand displacement is, to some extent, reversible, because
the displaced strand is tethered in close proximity to the newly formed
helix.[37] Also, by easily forming multimers,
hairpin structures have led to control problems in biosensing systems,
thus limiting their application in multiplex environments. Therefore,
when designing a DNA amplification-based biosensing system, both reliability
and performance must be considered.Inspired by the entropy-driven
strategy,[38] which was a milestone report
in the field of DNA logic circuits
proposed by Zhang and co-workers, we herein present an enzyme- and
hairpin-free amplification system, termed as entropy beacon (Ebeacon,
as shown in Figure ), to overcome the drawbacks of other enzyme-free strategies. In
this novel design, the displaced strand forms a double-stranded waste
complex, which makes the reaction irreversible. Thus, use of double-stranded
assembling substrates, instead of DNA hairpins, not only allows very
flexible sequence design but also increases the stability of the assembled
products. With this design, we acquired a nucleic acid detection limit
of <5 pM with a zero-background,[32] which
is better than most of previously reported enzyme-free DNA amplification
strategies (see Table S1 in the Supporting
Information).[24,26,29,37,39,40] Benefiting from the unique and exclusive entropy-driven
force, Ebeacon is driven forward by increases in the entropy of the
system, instead of free-energy release by new base-pair formation.
The base pairs of Ebeacon remain unchanged during the amplification
process, thus avoiding the interference of other nucleic acids and
complex environments, while, at the same time, showing robust thermostability.
Furthermore, this design shows outstanding recognition toward single-base
mutation, including substitution, deletion, and insertion, when compared
with other enzyme/nonenzyme strategies.[9,14,41] This be attributed to the difference between the
breathing rates of a single base pair and two adjacent base pairs.
Thus, Ebeacon may find broad application as an efficient signal amplification
element in the construction of various biosensing and biological systems.
Figure 1
(a) Components
of Ebeacon system: beacon complex, fuel strand (pale
green) and target (purple). Beacon complex is a FAM/Dabcyl-labeled
three-stranded double helix structure, consisting of a reporter strand
(R, green), a quencher strand (Q, red) and a byproduct strand (P,
blue). (b) Scheme of the entropy beacon (Ebeacon) amplification platform.
The entire cycle amplification process is triggered by the addition
of a target strand. A substoichiometric concentration of target DNA
leads to the conversion of beacon complex to waste complex and the
subsequent release of reporter strand. Arrows drawn on DNA strands
represent 3′ termini. Domains are named by numbers, and complementarity
is denoted by asterisks.
(a) Components
of Ebeacon system: beacon complex, fuel strand (pale
green) and target (purple). Beacon complex is a FAM/Dabcyl-labeled
three-stranded double helix structure, consisting of a reporter strand
(R, green), a quencher strand (Q, red) and a byproduct strand (P,
blue). (b) Scheme of the entropy beacon (Ebeacon) amplification platform.
The entire cycle amplification process is triggered by the addition
of a target strand. A substoichiometric concentration of target DNA
leads to the conversion of beacon complex to waste complex and the
subsequent release of reporter strand. Arrows drawn on DNA strands
represent 3′ termini. Domains are named by numbers, and complementarity
is denoted by asterisks.
Experimental Section
Reagents
The sequences of oligonucleotides
used in
this paper are listed in Table S2 in the
Supporting Information. DNA synthesis reagents were purchased from
Glen Research (Sterling, VA). A solution of 0.1 M triethylamine acetate
(pH 6.5) was used as HPLC buffer A, and HPLC-grade acetonitrile from
Oceanpak (Sweden) was used as HPLC buffer B. A 1× TAE/Mg2+ buffer (40 mM Tris-acetic acid, 1 mM EDTA, and 12.5 mM magnesium
acetate, balanced to pH 8.0) was used for all reactions. Stainsall
was obtained from Sigma–Aldrich (Shanghai, China). All other
chemicals were obtained from Shanghai Chemical Reagents (Shanghai,
China) and used without further purification. Milli-Q water (resistance
of >18 MΩ cm) was used to prepare all solutions.
Instruments
A PolyGen DNA-synthesizer was used for
DNA synthesis. Probe purification was performed with an Agilent Model
1260 HPLC system that was equipped with a C18 column (Inertsil OSD-3,
5 μm, 250 × 4.6 mm) from GL Sciences, Inc. Ultraviolet–visible
light (UV–vis) measurements were performed with a Biospec-nano
spectrophotometer from Shimadzu for probe quantitation. Steady-state
fluorescence measurements were performed on a Fluoromax-4 spectrofluorometer
from Horiba with a temperature controller, using a quartz fluorescence
cell with an optical path length of 1.0 cm. The excitation was made
at 488 nm with recording emission range of 500–600 nm. All
excitation and emission bandwidths were set at 5 nm. The pH measurements
were carried out on a Mettler–Toledo Delta 320 pH meter.
Buffer Conditions
The buffer for all experiments was
TAE (40 mM Tris-acetic acid, pH balanced to 8.0, 1 mM EDTA), with
12.5 mM MgCl2 added, unless otherwise stated.
Preparation
of Cellular Homogenate
CCRF-CEM cells (1
× 107 cells) were first centrifuged for 5 min at 25
°C (1000 rpm), followed by the removal of supernantant. Precipitated
cells were resuspended in 1 mL buffer solution. Then, the resuspended
cells were strongly sonicated for 30 min in an ice–water bath.
The resulting cellular homogenate was stored at 4 °C for further
use.
DNA Synthesis and Purification
The DNA sequences were
synthesized on a PolyGen DNA synthesizer. The synthesis protocol was
set up according to the requirements specified by the reagents’
manufacturers. Following on-machine synthesis, the DNA products were
deprotected and cleaved from CPG by incubating with 2 mL of AMA (ammonium
hydroxide and 40% methylamine, 1:1) for 30 min at 65 °C in a
water bath. The cleaved DNA product was transferred to a 15 mL centrifuge
tube and mixed with 200 μL of 3.0 M NaCl and 5.0 mL of ethanol,
after which the sample was placed in a freezer at −20 °C
for ethanol precipitation. Afterward, the DNA product was spun at
4000 rpm at 4 °C for 30 min. The supernatant was removed, and
the precipitated DNA product was dissolved in 400 μL of 0.1
M triethylammonium acetate (TEAA) for HPLC purification, which was
performed with a cleaned C18 column on an Agilent 1260 HPLC system.
The collected DNA product was dried and processed for detritylation
by dissolving and incubating in 200 μL of 80% acetic acid for
20 min. The detritylated DNA product was mixed with 20 μL of
3.0 M NaCl and 500 μL of ethanol and placed in a freezer at
−20 °C for 30 min. Afterward, the DNA product was spun
at 14 000 rpm at 4 °C for 5 min. The DNA product was dried
by a vacuum dryer, redissolved in ultrapure water, and desalted with
desalting columns. The DNA products were quantified and stored in
ultrapure water for subsequent experiments. Detailed sequences are
presented in Table S2. The three-stranded
beacon complexes were manually purified to ensure proper stoichiometry
and improve purity. Sources of substrate impurity include synthesis
errors and truncations, partially formed complexes from imperfect
stochiometry, and dimerization, which may cause undesired system leakage
and defects. Strands for beacon complex were prepared with nominally
correct stochiometry at 10 μM and annealed in 1× TAE/Mg2+ buffer (40 mM Tris-Acetate, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0, with 12.5
mM Mg(Ac)2 added). The fuel strand was then added, triggering
many poorly formed substrates to decay into products that can be removed
by gel purification. DNA complex solution was collected by soaking
gel pieces in 1× TAE/Mg2+ buffer for 24 h at room
temperature. Finally, the DNA duplex sequences were quantified by
UV spectrometry and kept in a buffer for future use.[42−44]
Native Gel Electrophoresis
Prior to each experiment,
stock solutions of purified beacon complex and fuel strands were annealed
and diluted to a concentration of 2 μM. For each lane, the final
concentration of beacon complex and fuel strands was 400 nM with a
total volume of 5 μL. Before loading the samples on a gel, reactions
were run for 3 h at room temperature in TAE/Mg2+ buffer
(40 mM Tris-acetic acid, 1 mM EDTA, and 12.5 mM magnesium acetate,
pH 8.0), and reacted samples were supplemented with 1 μL of
6× BeyoRed DNA ladder from Beyotime. Samples were run in a 12%
polyacrylamide gel with 1× TAE/Mg2+ buffer at 110
V for 2 h. The buffer temperature was controlled to maintain the samples
at 4 °C throughout the run. The gel was stained with Stainsall
stain solution (Sigma–Aldrich). Photos were taken above a white
background after the purple in the gel faded. All annealing processes
were performed with an Eppendorf Mastercycler Gradient thermocycler.
The samples were cooled from 95 to 10 °C at a constant rate over
the course of 85 min.
Fluorescence Measurements
All fluorescence
measurements
were performed on a Fluoromax-4 spectrofluorometer from Horiba with
temperature controller, using a quartz fluorescence cell with an optical
path length of 1.0 cm. For spectrofluorimetry studies, the excitation
was recorded at 488 nm with a recording emission range of 500–600
nm. For fluorescence kinetics studies, the excitation was recorded
at 488 nm, and the emission was recorded at 520 nm. After thoroughly
mixing the components, the rate of fluorescence increase was monitored
every 2 min. Unless otherwise specified, all excitation and emission
bandwidths were set at 5 nm. Prior to each experiment, all cuvettes
were washed with 70% ethanol and distilled water. In order to avoid
the nonspecific sticking of DNAs to pipette tips and to acquire high-performance
signals, a nonreactive 20 nt poly-T “carrier” strand
at a concentration of 1 μM was introduced into all diluted stocks
(1 μM and below).[43]
Results
and Discussion
Construction and Thermodynamics Calculation
of Ebeacon System
Ebeacon consists of three components: the
beacon complex (B), the
fuel strand (F), and the target (T) (Figure a). The beacon complex is, in turn, a three-stranded
hybridization complex consisting of a reporter strand (R) with a FAM
modification at the 5′-end, a quencher strand (Q) with a Dabcyl
modification at the 3′-end, and a byproduct strand (P). The
fuel strand is a single-stranded and full-length DNA that can hybridize
with the quencher strand. The amplication process is shown in Figure b. The beacon complex
is formed through hybridization of R, P, and Q, resulting in the quenching
of FAM fluorescence. The quencher strand contains a single-stranded
toehold, denoted as domain 4*. The target binds to domain 4* to form
a four-stranded metastable complex M1, triggering a strand-displacement
reaction between domain 3 on T and domain 3 on P. As a result, T completely
binds to Q and forms a metastable complex M2, which may easily release
strand P and convert to three-stranded complex M3. Then, strand F
binds to domain 2* on strand Q and forms four-stranded complex M4.
Finally, R is released after the strand-displacement reaction, leading
to recovery of fluorescence. Meanwhile, T is regenerated and will
trigger a new cycle. Until now, in the presence of target strand (T),
the beacon complex is converted to a double-stranded waste complex
(W) with the help of the fuel strand (F), releasing a byproduct strand
(P). The entire system is driven forward by increasing entropy, because
during each single catalysis round, the number of base pairs remains
unchanged, i.e., domains 1/1*, 2/2*, 3/3* are double-stranded before
and after the conversion.The entire process is shown as a reaction
equation in Figure , with the parameters labeled. The corresponding thermodynamic theory
is also calculated. As shown in Figure , the Gibbs free energy change for this reaction in
dilute solutions iswhere ΔH is the change
in system enthalpy, ΔS the change in entropy,
and T the thermodynamic temperature. The total number
of base pairs in the reactants and products is unchanged, giving ΔH ≈ 0. Hence, the reaction is driven forward thermodynamically
by the entropic gain of the liberated molecules and the driving force,
at any moment, is TΔS.
Figure 2
Reaction equation
of the Ebeacon system with thermodynamic parameters.
Reaction equation
of the Ebeacon system with thermodynamic parameters.The final concentration of all species in this
entropy-driven system
can now be estimated. The Gibbs free energy change is given bywhere Q is the reaction quotient,
relative to standard conditions (Q = [([R]/c0)([P]/c0)([W]/c0)]/[([B]/c0)([F]/c0)]), and ΔGX0 is the standard
free energy of species X under standard conditions, which herein are
represented by our TAE buffer condition with 12.5 mM Mg2+, 25 °C, and c0 = 1 M.ΔGX0 (expressed in units of kcal/mol) can be calculated
by using free software, such as Mfold and NUPACK,[45] givingWhen the reaction reaches equilibrium,
which
means ΔG = 0, according to eq and 3, we
can calculate Q = 9.61.According to the former
equation, we know that Q = {([R]/c0)([P]/c0)([W]/c0)}/{([B]/c0)([F]/c0)]} and c0 = 1
M. For a system with initial concentrations of B
and F both 10 nM and the final concentration of R is x (expressed in units of nM), we can write the following equation:Using the bisection method, x is estimated to
be between 9.999 and 9.9999 nM, which means a potential systemic fractional
conversion of more than 99.99%, without regard for the reaction time.
Target DNA-Triggered Zero-Background Signal Enhancement
Electrophoresis was first used to show that the conversion from beacon
complex to waste complex was a result of the presence of target DNA
(Figure a). The purified
beacon complex shows a sharp and neat band (lane 1). When target DNA
of the same concentration was added, a toehold-mediated strand migration
occurred, and part of the beacon complex formed complex M1 with the
release of byproduct strand (lane 2). Only negligible leakage, which
accounted for the system background, was observed during the 3 h reaction
time when both beacon complex and fuel strand were present (lane 3).
In the presence of a substoichiometric concentration of target DNA
(0.1×), almost all beacon complexes were converted to waste complex
with obvious bands of released reporter sequence and byproduct sequence.
Figure 3
Ebeacon-based
amplified detection of nucleic acids. (a) Native
PAGE of the entropy beacon system. Lane 1: B: 2 μM × 5
μL; lane 2: B: 2 μM × 5 μL + T: 20 μM
× 0.5 μL; lane 3: B: 2 μM × 5 μL + F:
20 μM × 0.5 μL; lane 4: B: 2 μM × 5 μL
+ F: 20 μM × 0.5 μL + T: 2 μM × 0.5 μL
(0.1×). Reaction time = 3 h. (b) Response of the Ebeacon probes
to different concentrations of target DNA after incubation for 3 h.
Concentration of the target DNA (from top to bottom of curve at 485
nm): 10 nM, 5 nM, 2 nM, 1 nM, 500 pM, 200 pM, 100 pM, 50 pM, 20 pM,
10 pM, 5 pM, control.
Ebeacon-based
amplified detection of nucleic acids. (a) Native
PAGE of the entropy beacon system. Lane 1: B: 2 μM × 5
μL; lane 2: B: 2 μM × 5 μL + T: 20 μM
× 0.5 μL; lane 3: B: 2 μM × 5 μL + F:
20 μM × 0.5 μL; lane 4: B: 2 μM × 5 μL
+ F: 20 μM × 0.5 μL + T: 2 μM × 0.5 μL
(0.1×). Reaction time = 3 h. (b) Response of the Ebeacon probes
to different concentrations of target DNA after incubation for 3 h.
Concentration of the target DNA (from top to bottom of curve at 485
nm): 10 nM, 5 nM, 2 nM, 1 nM, 500 pM, 200 pM, 100 pM, 50 pM, 20 pM,
10 pM, 5 pM, control.Having observed the conversion from beacon complex to waste
complex
in the electrophoresis experiment, we next measured the fluorescence
emission spectra of Ebeacon probes at an excitation wavelength of
488 nm in a buffer solution containing the target DNA at varying concentrations
(see Figures b and 4a). The initial system contained 10 nM beacon complex
and 12 nM fuel strand, and the reaction time was still 3 h. When no
target DNA was present, a very weak emission peak at 520 nm was observed,
corresponding to the negligible leakage observed in electrophoresis.
At this point, the beacon complex remained a stable three-stranded
structure, despite the existence of the fuel strand. However, upon
the addition of target DNA to the solution, the system was quickly
perturbed. A series of strand-displacement reactions occurred, culminating
with the hybridization of the fuel strand with the quencher strand,
as well as the release of the reporter strand. We found that an increasing
number of target sequences correlated with an increasing number of
released reporter strands, leading, in turn, to higher fluorescence
signal over the same reaction time. The stoichiometric concentration
(10 nM) of target DNA caused an ∼20-fold enhancement in fluorescence,
which demonstrated the outstanding response of Ebeacon as a DNA amplification
sensing platform.
Figure 4
Sensitivity of Ebeacon system for target DNA detection.
(a) Calibration
curve of the sensing system for target DNA. The curve was plotted
with the initial rate of fluorescence enhancement vs DNA concentration.
From bottom to top: 0 pM, 5 pM, 10 pM, 20 pM, 50 pM, 100 pM, 200 pM,
500 pM, 1 nM, 2 nM, 5 nM, and 10 nM. The inset shows the responses
at low DNA concentrations. Error bars show the standard deviations
of measurements taken from three independent experiments. (b) Fluorescence
kinetics monitoring conversion of entropy beacon system to the waste
strand and release of the reporter strand. No release is discernible
in the absence of the target strand (control). However, rapid release
of the reporter sequence is observed upon introducing 10 nM target
strand. Substoichiometric target strand concentrations demonstrate
turnover, with the conversion rate decreasing monotonically with target
concentration.
Sensitivity of Ebeacon system for target DNA detection.
(a) Calibration
curve of the sensing system for target DNA. The curve was plotted
with the initial rate of fluorescence enhancement vs DNA concentration.
From bottom to top: 0 pM, 5 pM, 10 pM, 20 pM, 50 pM, 100 pM, 200 pM,
500 pM, 1 nM, 2 nM, 5 nM, and 10 nM. The inset shows the responses
at low DNA concentrations. Error bars show the standard deviations
of measurements taken from three independent experiments. (b) Fluorescence
kinetics monitoring conversion of entropy beacon system to the waste
strand and release of the reporter strand. No release is discernible
in the absence of the target strand (control). However, rapid release
of the reporter sequence is observed upon introducing 10 nM target
strand. Substoichiometric target strand concentrations demonstrate
turnover, with the conversion rate decreasing monotonically with target
concentration.Time-dependent fluorescence
enhancement arising from different
concentrations of target DNA was then measured (Figure b). To balance the reaction time and the
fractional conversion, we chose 1 h as the reaction time for this
assay. Absent the target sequence, the dynamics results showed that
system leakage remained insignificant and unchanged because a zero
background was observed.[32] In order to
further show the sensitivity of Ebeacon for low concentrations of
target DNA, by extending the reaction time to 3 h, we were able to
reliably distinguish between <5 pM target DNA and the background
(see Figure S1 in the Supporting Information).
The calibration curve of the sensing system for target DNA also gave
a similar limit of detection. The effects of toehold length and fuel
strand concentration on reaction rate were also studied (see Figures S2 and S3 in the Supporting Information).
Thermal Stability of the Ebeacon System
Author: Despite
the obvious advantages of DNA-based sensors, one important limitation
is their thermal instability, resulting from the close relationship
between hydrogen bond strength and ambient temperature.[35] This is also a major source of false-positive
signals associated with such sensors. This fact prompted us to further
investigate the effect of temperature on the proposed entropy-driven
biosensing platform. With increasing reaction temperature from 20
°C to 50 °C, the background remained relatively stable for
1 h (see Figure a,
as well as Figure S4 in the Supporting
Information). Even at 50 °C, the enhancement in background signal
was less than 1-fold, compared with the initial signal. This exciting
result demonstrated the outstanding thermostability of the Ebeacon
system. This can be attributed to the forces contributing to DNA double
helix stability. More specifically, the DNA double helix is stabilized
by π–π stacking between each two adjacent bases
and the hydrogen bond between complementary base pairs such as A-T
and C-G. These two forces, which are highly interrelated and mutually
reinforcing, finally lead to the thermostability of the DNA double
helix. Reviewing the beacon complex, as shown in Figure , we can see that the reporter
strand and the byproduct strand each hybridizes with the quencher
strand through 22 base pairs, but together they form a long double
helix of 44 base pairs. According to the two forces that stabilize the DNA double helix,
the three-stranded double helix should have similar thermostability
as the two-stranded double helix of 44 base pairs. Using the open
source software Mfold and NUPACK, we could calculate the melting temperature
of a double helix with 44 base pairs to be ∼80 °C and
the ΔG value to be −64.6 kcal/mol. Both
experimental and theoretical results suggested that (i) the three-stranded
beacon complex had high thermostability and (ii) Ebeacon could function
well over a wide range of temperatures.
Figure 5
(a) Thermostability of
the Ebeacon system at different temperatures
from 20 °C to 50 °C. As the reaction temperature increased
from 20 °C to 50 °C, the background remained relatively
stable for 1 h. Even at 50 °C, the background signal enhancement
was less than 2-fold, compared with the initial signal. (b) Selectivity
toward single-base substitution (mC, mG, mT), insertion (iC, iG, iT,
iA) and deletion (dA).
(a) Thermostability of
the Ebeacon system at different temperatures
from 20 °C to 50 °C. As the reaction temperature increased
from 20 °C to 50 °C, the background remained relatively
stable for 1 h. Even at 50 °C, the background signal enhancement
was less than 2-fold, compared with the initial signal. (b) Selectivity
toward single-base substitution (mC, mG, mT), insertion (iC, iG, iT,
iA) and deletion (dA).
Selectivity toward Single Base Mutation
The sensitive
and selective detection of nucleic acid fragments is important in
biological studies, clinical diagnostics, and biodefense applications.[2,4,5] To test the selectivity of the
Ebeacon probes, we used various oligonucleotides, including matched,
mismatched, deleted, and inserted targets (mutant sites are shown
in Table S2, red bases). Only the matched
DNA triggered the reaction, while the mutant targets led to only very
weak signals. (Fluorescence intensities with error bars are shown
in Figure b, and fluorescence
kinetics plots are shown in Figure S5 in
the Supporting Information.) In contrast, we designed and synthesized
a conventional molecular beacon (MB) that could hybridize with the
target strand in the loop and therefore be opened with an increased
fluorescence signal. As reported previously, MBs have been widely
used for SNP assays. However, according to our results, the ability
of the MB to distinguish SNPs is negligible when compared with that
of the Ebeacon system (see Figure S6 in
the Supporting Information).According to our thermodynamics
calculations, Ebeacon has a huge potential to convert to waste complex
and release the reporter strand. The function of target DNA in this
system can be regarded as a catalyst and all mutant targets here (matched,
mismatched, deleted, and inserted targets) possess very high similarity.
The ability of Ebeacon to distinguish a matched target from a mutant
target might be explained at the base level. As previously demonstrated,
the conversion of such a system is based on strand migration and strand
breathing.[19,22] For a full complementary target
strand, only one base-pair breath is needed in each base migration,
which accounts for a high migration rate. For a mutant target strand,
two adjacent base pairs should breathe simultaneously in base migration
at the mutant site, leading to a low migration rate. It is supposed
that the difference in breathing rate between a single base pair and
two adjacent base pairs explains the high selectivity of the system.
To illustrate our hypothesis, a test was carried out to demonstrate
this conclusion.
The Relationship between Strand Breathing
Rate and System Selectivity
We constructed a simple two-stranded
probe with a blunt end composed
of a fluorophore-modified signal strand (S) and quencher modified
complementary strand (C) (Figure a). The probe has a 6 nt toehold, enabling strand-displacement
reaction after the addition of a full-length invading strand (I).
As a result, the complementary strand is released, and the fluorescence
signal recovers. This is a conventional toehold-mediated strand displacement
reaction, and the result is shown in Figure d (red line). When a mutant site—in
this case, a mismatch—is introduced on an invading strand (mI)
(Figure b, open circle),
the displacement reaction was largely restrained (Figure d, green line). These results
partially prove that the difference of breathing rate between a single
base pair and two adjacent base pairs accounts for selectivity. However,
to further demonstrate that the difference in breathing rate between
a single base pair and two adjacent base pairs accounts for the different
migration rate, we introduced a mismatch site on the complementary
strand (mC) next to the previously mentioned mutant site (shown in Figure c). Although the
invading strand was still mismatched, we predicted that the reaction
rate would be comparable to the completely hybridized system, because
the different breathing rate between a single base pair and two adjacent
base pairs was eliminated. The result shown in Figure d (orange line) finally demonstrates this
conclusion, proving the relationship between strand breathing rate
and system selectivity.
Figure 6
Scheme of the two-mismatch system for mechanism
study. (a) Traditional
strand displacement reaction with a fully complementary I strand.
(b) Strand displacement reaction with mismatched I strand (mI). (c)
Strand displacement reaction with mismatched I strand (mI) and mismatched
C strand (mC). Solid circles indicate adjacent bases while open circles
indicate mismatched bases. Dashed boxes in panels a, b, and c contain
base pairs that breathe in matched or mismatched sites when efficient
strand migrations occur. (d) Fluorescence results of the two-mismatch
system.
Scheme of the two-mismatch system for mechanism
study. (a) Traditional
strand displacement reaction with a fully complementary I strand.
(b) Strand displacement reaction with mismatched I strand (mI). (c)
Strand displacement reaction with mismatched I strand (mI) and mismatched
C strand (mC). Solid circles indicate adjacent bases while open circles
indicate mismatched bases. Dashed boxes in panels a, b, and c contain
base pairs that breathe in matched or mismatched sites when efficient
strand migrations occur. (d) Fluorescence results of the two-mismatch
system.Compared with traditional nuclease-based
signal amplification strategies,
it is an obvious advantage that enzyme-free systems can be used in
some complex biological environments. To test the performance of Ebeacon
under such conditions, we further carried out assays in cellular homogenate.
The fluorescence kinetics is shown in Figure a, and a calibration curve with different
target concentrations is shown in Figure b. According to these results, despite a
visible background signal caused by nuclease digestion, Ebeacon still
showed great reliability when functioning in cellular homogenate,
and the detection limit was calculated to be 50 pM. We also studied
the stability of Ebeacon in a complex environment consisting of a
10-fold excess of 30 nt DNA library. The result showed that Ebeacon
was undisturbed and functioned normally (see Figure S7 in the Supporting Information).
Figure 7
Detection of target DNA
in cellular homogenate. (a) Time-dependent
fluorescence signal for 10 nM target DNA in cellular homogenate. Red
line and orange line correspond to two independent assays which showed
the difference between batches. (b) Calibration curve of the Ebeacon
system for target DNA with different concentrations in cellular homogenate.
From bottom to top: 0 pM, 50 pM, 200 pM, 1 nM, and 2 nM. Error bars
show the standard deviations of measurements taken from three independent
experiments.
Detection of target DNA
in cellular homogenate. (a) Time-dependent
fluorescence signal for 10 nM target DNA in cellular homogenate. Red
line and orange line correspond to two independent assays which showed
the difference between batches. (b) Calibration curve of the Ebeacon
system for target DNA with different concentrations in cellular homogenate.
From bottom to top: 0 pM, 50 pM, 200 pM, 1 nM, and 2 nM. Error bars
show the standard deviations of measurements taken from three independent
experiments.In order to illustrate
the potential of Ebeacon as a universal
biosensing platform, we designed two types of triggering mechanisms
to generate the initial sequence so that Ebeacon could be applied
for the detection of a wider range of targets (Figure S8 in the Supporting Information). Both electrophoresis
and fluorescence kinetics results showed that Ebeacon was successfully
triggered under both regimes and gave a low background and highly
amplified signal.
Conclusion
In summary, we have designed
an entropy-driven enzyme-free DNA
amplification system called the entropy beacon, or Ebeacon. The system
is driven forward by the entropy increase of all species, instead
of the free energy released by the formation of new base pairs. Benefiting
from this unique and exclusive driving force, the base pairs of Ebeacon
remain unchanged during the amplification process. This DNA amplification
system has several advantages over enzyme-free systems previously
reported, including (1) rapid and effective amplification performance
with a low detection limit of 5 pM DNA, (2) the capacity to resist
disturbance from a complex environment, (3) high thermostability,
(4) the ability to distinguish SNPs, (5) the potential for constructing
a cascading amplification platform (see Figure S9 in the Supporting Information), and (6) flexible sequence
design and decreased reversible conversion. Taken together, this efficient
and reliable enzyme- and hairpin-free DNA amplification platform should
find broad applications as an efficient signal amplification element
in the construction of various biosensing systems.
Authors: Joseph N Zadeh; Conrad D Steenberg; Justin S Bois; Brian R Wolfe; Marshall B Pierce; Asif R Khan; Robert M Dirks; Niles A Pierce Journal: J Comput Chem Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 3.376
Authors: Jin Huang; Yanrong Wu; Yan Chen; Zhi Zhu; Xiaohai Yang; Chaoyong James Yang; Kemin Wang; Weihong Tan Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Maria Rudchenko; Steven Taylor; Payal Pallavi; Alesia Dechkovskaia; Safana Khan; Vincent P Butler; Sergei Rudchenko; Milan N Stojanovic Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2013-07-28 Impact factor: 39.213