| Literature DB >> 27405995 |
Surasak Kasetsirikul1, Jirayut Buranapong1, Werayut Srituravanich1, Morakot Kaewthamasorn2, Alongkorn Pimpin3.
Abstract
The large number of deaths caused by malaria each year has increased interest in the development of effective malaria diagnoses. At the early-stage of infection, patients show non-specific symptoms or are asymptomatic, which makes it difficult for clinical diagnosis, especially in non-endemic areas. Alternative diagnostic methods that are timely and effective are required to identify infections, particularly in field settings. This article reviews conventional malaria diagnostic methods together with recently developed techniques for both malaria detection and infected erythrocyte separation. Although many alternative techniques have recently been proposed and studied, dielectrophoretic and magnetophoretic approaches are among the promising new techniques due to their high specificity for malaria parasite-infected red blood cells. The two approaches are discussed in detail, including their principles, types, applications and limitations. In addition, other recently developed techniques, such as cell deformability and morphology, are also overviewed in this article.Entities:
Keywords: Cell deformability; Cell morphology; Detection; Dielectrophoresis; Magnetophoresis; Malaria; Separation
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27405995 PMCID: PMC4942956 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-016-1400-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Comparison of performance between different malaria-diagnosis techniques
| Technique | Detectable parasite density (per µL) |
| Infected stage | Sensitivity (%) | Operation cost (per test) | Parasite enrichment | Heterogeneity | Operation time (per test) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage dependence | Cell-size dependence | ||||||||
| Microscopy | 5–20 [ | All species (depending on expertise) | All stages (depending on expertise) | Gold standard | $5000 for a microscope | No | No | No | 30–60 min [ |
| RDTs | |||||||||
| HRP-2 | >100 [ |
| No data available | 96.9 % [ | $0.55–$1.50 [ | No | No | No | ~20 min [ |
| pLDH | >100 [ | All species | No data available | 91.2 % [ | $0.55–$1.50 [ | No | No | No | ~20 min [ |
| PCR | 1–5 [ | All species (depending on the primer set) | All stages | ~100 % when density >5000/µL for | $100 for a PCR thermal cycler | No | No | No | ~24 h [ |
| DEP deformation [ | No data available |
| All stages | No data available | <0.1$ per test (approx.) | Yes | No data available | Yes | Depending on volume of sample |
| Electromagnet with wedge-shaped pole [ | No data available |
| No data available |
| <0.1$ per test (approx.) | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6–12 h [ |
| Magnetophoretic between stainless wool in a large chamber [ | 5000 for 1st chamber and 50 for 2nd chamber (107 and 105/2 mL) |
| Trophozoites and schizonts | No data available | <0.1$ per test (approx.) | Yes | Yes | Yes | ~15 min [ |
| Magnetophoretic in a microchannel between two magnets [ | No data available |
| Trophozoites, schizonts, gametocyte | No data available | <0.1$ per test (approx.) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Depending on volume of sample |
| Magnetophoretic between stainless wool in a commercial column tube [ | 400 (107 per 25 mL) |
| Trophozoites and schizonts | 95.7 % | <0.1$ per test (approx.) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Depending on volume of sample |
| Magnetophoretic with magnet nanoparticles [ | 30 | No data available | No data available | No data available | <0.1$ per test (approx.) | Yes | No data available | No data available | Depending on volume of sample |
| Magnetophoretic with ferromagnetic material [ | No data available |
| All stages | 99.2 % for late-stage iRBCs, 73 % for ring-stage iRBCs at optimal flow (0.14 μL/min) | <0.1$ per test (approx.) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Depending on volume of sample |
| Magnetic relaxometry detection [ | <10 [ |
| All stages | ~100 % | No | Yes | Yes | ~30 min | |
Remark: sensitivity is the probability of a positive test result for a patient with the disease
Fig. 1Comparison of the net force between different situations: a uniform electric field, b positive dielectrophoresis and c negative dielectrophoresis
Fig. 2Two methodologies to create a non-uniform electric field: a asymmetric electrode pair and b asymmetric microchannel
Dielectric properties of iRBC and hRBC [62]
| Cell type | Position | Electrical conductivity (S/m) | Relative dielectric permittivity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host | Parasite | Host | Parasite | ||
| iRBC | Membrane | 7 ± 2 × 10−5 | <10−6 | 9.03 ± 0.82 | 8 ± 4 |
| Interior | (0.95 ± 0.05)σm | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 58 ± 10 | 70 ± 5 | |
| hRBC | Membrane | <10−6 | 4.44 ± 0.45 | ||
| Interior | 0.31 ± 0.03 | 59 ± 6 | |||
Remark: σm is the electrical conductivity of the suspension medium
Fig. 3Two applications of the dielectrophoretic force: a cell separation and b cell characterization
Relative magnetic susceptibilities of each type of RBC to water [57]
| Type of RBC | Relative magnetic susceptibilities ( |
|---|---|
| hRBC | 0.01 |
| Early ring form-iRBC | 0.82 |
| Late trophozoite-iRBC | 0.91 |
| Schizont-iRBC | 1.80 |
Fig. 4Applications of magnetophoresis: a locally strengthening the force using metal wool, b switching the magnetic field direction using opposing poles, c creating the non-homogenous field using a ferromagnetic wire and d manipulating cells to a location under high magnetic force using a centrifugal force