Ryan Snodgrass1, Andrea Gardner2, Aggrey Semeere3, Varun Lingaiah Kopparthy1, Jens Duru1, Toby Maurer4, Jeffrey Martin5, Ethel Cesarman6, David Erickson7. 1. Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Infectious Diseases Institute, Kampala, Uganda. 4. Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. martin@psg.ucsf.edu. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. ecesarm@med.cornell.edu. 7. Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. de54@cornell.edu.
Abstract
A decentralized approach to diagnostics can decrease the time to treatment of infectious diseases in resource-limited settings. Yet most modern diagnostic tools require stable electricity and are not portable. Here, we describe a portable device for isothermal nucleic-acid quantification that can operate with power from electricity, sunlight or a flame, and that can store heat from intermittent energy sources, for operation when electrical power is not available or reliable. We deployed the device in two Ugandan health clinics, where it successfully operated through multiple power outages, with equivalent performance when powered via sunlight or electricity. A direct comparison between the portable device and commercial qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction) machines for samples from 71 Ugandan patients (29 of which were tested in Uganda) for the presence of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus DNA showed 94% agreement, with the four discordant samples having the lowest concentration of the herpesvirus DNA. The device's flexibility in power supply provides a needed solution for on-field diagnostics.
A decentralized approach to diagnostics can decrease the time to treatment of infectious diseases in resource-limited settings. Yet most modern diagnostic tools require stable electricity and are not portable. Here, we describe a portable device for isothermal nucleic-acid quantification that can operate with power from electricity, sunlight or a flame, and that can store heat from intermittent energy sources, for operation when electrical power is not available or reliable. We deployed the device in two Ugandan health clinics, where it successfully operated through multiple power outages, with equivalent performance when powered via sunlight or electricity. A direct comparison between the portable device and commercial qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction) machines for samples from 71 Ugandan patients (29 of which were tested in Uganda) for the presence of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus DNA showed 94% agreement, with the four discordant samples having the lowest concentration of the herpesvirus DNA. The device's flexibility in power supply provides a needed solution for on-field diagnostics.
Communicable diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,
malaria, and respiratory infections are among the leading causes of death in low
income countries[1]. While treatment
for many infectious diseases is available worldwide, effective and widespread
diagnosis remains a challenge[2-4]. For example,
a nucleic-acid test (NAT) is required for early infancy diagnosis of HIV[5], but in 2014 only half of the
estimated 1.2 million infants exposed to HIV received a diagnostic test[6]. Furthermore, NAT that are
quantitative are required for applications such as HIV viral load
monitoring[7,8], but such tests are still largely unavailable
to the resource limited settings where infectious diseases are most common[9].Traditional diagnostics in LMIC (low and middle-income countries) may be
burdened by lengthy procedures for transporting human samples from rural healthcare
clinics to central laboratories. Modern tools have aimed to disrupt this dependency
on centralized laboratories to improve the time to treatment of infectious
diseases[10-12]. For example, tuberculosis time to
treatment in Cape Town, South Africa was decreased from 71 days (centralized) to 8
days (decentralized) following implementation of the GeneXpert[13]. The GeneXpert (Cepheid) is a fully
automated system for NAT and has reported good clinical performance[14,15]; however, the GeneXpert IV is not portable, has an
instrument cost of about 17,000 USD[16], and requires a dedicated electricity supply (Supplementary Fig. 1). Electricity
dependence is a critical issue for using such tools in LMIC: in 11 sub Saharan
African countries, one-fourth of healthcare facilities have no
access to electricity, and about three-fourths of healthcare facilities lack access
to reliable electricity[17]. Furthermore, in populations the are largely rural –
for instance, 75% of Ugandan households are rural[18] – systems for NAT should be
portable[19], enabling
transportation between clinics.Because they negate the need for thermal cycling, many forms of isothermal
nucleic acid amplification[20,21] have been used in point of care
diagnostic tools[22]. Loop mediated
isothermal amplification (LAMP) is one such isothermal method, and is capable of
nucleic acid quantification[23].
Simple systems for performing isothermal amplification in resource limited settings
exist, although many are only qualitative[24-27], and those
that are quantitative use microfluidic chips as consumables[28-30], often making them impractical to use in the field. For heat
input, these systems either use exothermic chemical reaction packets, or stable
electricity. None have the flexibility to use electricity when it is available, and
alternative heat sources when electricity is unavailable (Supplementary Table 1).With this article, we present a portable system called TINY (Tiny Isothermal
Nucleic acid quantification sYstem). TINY can be heated from a variety of energy
sources, including sunlight, flame, or electricity, giving it the unique capability
to be operated in a laboratory when electricity is available, or in the field when
electricity is unavailable. TINY enables nucleic acid quantification in a handheld
package (Fig. 1a), and its weight and volume
are approximately an order of magnitude smaller when compared to commercial qPCR
(quantitative polymerase chain reaction) machines (Fig. 1b). TINY can use a variety of heat sources (Fig. 1c, 1d, 1e) because it stores heat isothermally through
use of a phase change material (PCM); thermal cycling is not required as TINY
performs LAMP. The latent heat of the melted PCM inside TINY keeps the system
isothermal for over an hour in-case of power outages when heated by electricity, or
in-case of variable cloud coverage when heated via sunlight.
Fig. 1.
TINY system overview.
(a) TINY is portable and easily carried in one hand, in
contrast to other nucleic acid quantification systems (b) such as
the GeneXpert IV by Cepheid (footprint outlined by the dark purple box), or the
ViiA 7 Real-Time PCR System by Thermo Fisher Scientific (light purple box).
(c) TINY heated by a Bunsen burner through an opening in the
bottom of the system. (d) TINY heated via electricity, using an
integrated cartridge heater. (e) TINY heated via concentrated
sunlight at the Infectious Diseases Institute in Uganda.
After describing how TINY functions, we evaluate the system against
commercial machines performing both qPCR and LAMP. The evaluation is conducted on
human skin biopsies from Ugandan patients suspected of Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS).
KS is caused by the Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV, also
formally known as human herpesvirus 8)[31], and is most common in HIV-infected individuals[32]. Diagnosis of KS via NAT for KSHV
DNA in skin lesions is being considered as an alternative to current diagnostics
(visual inspection or histology) because the accuracy of those methods in LMIC is
often low[33]. Our results suggest
that TINY performs the LAMP assay with accuracy equivalent to commercial machines.
However, we did find that LAMP underperforms qPCR when quantification is desired. We
also deployed TINY at two Ugandan health clinics in November 2017, and we report
comparable performance in the field as in the laboratory. Four months following TINY
deployment, Ugandan staff analyzed additional patients and were able to
independently obtain results that mostly agree with gold standard qPCR performed in
the US.
Results
TINY design and construction
TINY is built from two units performing separate functions. A
temperature-regulation unit is responsible for heat collection and isothermal
stabilization. A measurement unit is responsible for tracking the progress of
the NAT. A picture of the measurement unit is shown in Fig. 2a, and a cross-section view in Fig. 2b. It is made from aluminum and contains six
wells to insert samples into. 0.2 mL PCR tubes are used as plastic consumables,
as they are inexpensive and easily accessible. Printed circuit boards (PCBs)
mounted to the top and bottom of the measurement unit hold the optical sensors
for monitoring the LAMP reaction. LEDs affixed to the top PCB excite commonly
used fluorophores in the sample (Fig. 2c).
A dual bandpass optical filter is placed above photodiodes on the bottom PCB,
allowing TINY to measure both fluorescence and absorbance by cycling the active
LED.
Fig. 2.
Construction and design of TINY.
(a) A photograph of the measurement unit separated from the
temperature-regulation unit. (b) A cross section of the measurement
unit. Printed circuit boards are shown in green in the cross section. The dashed
blue line shows the idealized path that sensed light takes from the excitation
LED to the photodiodes. (c) LEDs are placed on the bottom side of
the top PCB. When the LED shines blue, Evagreen dye is measured; yellow, ROX dye
(used for normalization); and red, turbidity. The transmission characteristics
of the dual bandpass filter are simplified here for clarity. (d)
Looking down into the TINY system with the solar absorption plate removed, the
measurement unit can be seen in the center of the temperature-regulation unit.
(e) A cross section of the temperature-regulation unit
(measurement unit excluded from cross section). After heat collection, the outer
aluminum cylinder is covered with insulation on the top and bottom to slow heat
loss (only shown on the sides in this cross section). Top and bottom insulation
is attached to the TINY outer enclosure.
The measurement unit is placed into the center of the
temperature-regulation unit (Fig. 2d),
which is made from concentric aluminum cylinders. PCM is inserted between the
two cylinders: PureTemp 68 (Entropy Solutions) is used because its melting
temperature (68°C) is suitable for the LAMP reaction. The PCM serves two
functions. First, it acts as a thermal buffer to make sure that the temperature
of the samples does not get too high: heat input may be attenuated before
temperature increase begins after the melting stage. Second, it serves as a
large heat reservoir for operation with unreliable heat sources. For example,
solar energy may be collected in excess when available and stored in the form of
latent heat, allowing for isothermal operation even if clouds block the sun
during LAMP. The volume of required PCM was estimated via COMSOL simulation
(Supplementary Fig.
2), where our goal was > 1 hour of dwell time at 68 ±
1°C in the case of total heat source disruption.When assembled inside an aluminum enclosure (Protocase), the volume and
weight of TINYis 2.1 L and 1.1 kg, respectively. TINY can accept heat from both
the top and bottom of the outer aluminum cylinder (Fig. 2e). If heating via sunlight, a Fresnel lens is used to
concentrate sunlight onto an absorber plate (Fig.
1e). A supporting structure allows a user to rotate the lens for
alignment with the sun, and we found that lens readjustment was necessary
between 1–3 times when heating TINY via sunlight (depending on location
and time of year). TINY is presently designed to operate at solar altitude
angles > 50°.
Isothermal for 65 minutes following heat disruption
Two of the heat sources available for operating TINY are electricity and
sunlight. To be resistant to electricity outages and cloud coverage, TINY stores
a large amount of heat (14 kJ) in the latent heat of a PCM. Even in cases of
complete heat source disruption, this heat storage enables TINY to stay
isothermal for about 65 minutes (Fig. 3a)
– sufficient time for about two LAMP reactions. The temperature stability
provided by the PCM is illustrated well when compared with water: we replaced
the PCM in TINY with water and found that the system stayed isothermal for only
11% as long (Fig. 3b). If stable
electricity is available, the system stays isothermal indefinitely (Fig. 3c).
Fig. 3.
TINY heating characterization.
(a) Temperature profiles of TINY at the location where
samples are placed when heated by a hotplate for a variety of times. Heating
started at 0 minutes, and at the respective heating time TINY was taken off the
hotplate and allowed to cool. Dashed horizontal lines show the isothermal
temperature range (68 ± 1°C). Thick colored lines show the
isothermal dwell. (b) Comparison of the cooldown temperature
profile inside TINY when different materials were placed between the two
concentric aluminum cylinders. Isothermal time for each material is overlaid.
(c) Temperature profile of TINY when heated by a cartridge
heater. A microcontroller is used to automatically turn on and off the heating.
(d) Summary of the energy required to operate TINY for one
hour. Measurement error for electrical power consumption: ± 0.04 kJ;
other categories were calculated by device geometry and heat capacitance values.
(e) Temperature profiles of TINY when heated via sunlight (i,
ii), hotplate (iii), or Bunsen burner (iv). Heating conditions are displayed in
each subfigure, along with the duration of the following isothermal dwell
(marked with the right-facing arrow) given no additional heat input.
(f) Temperature profile of TINY when heated using sunlight on a
partly cloudy day. Subfigures are from experiments performed once; however, (a)
shows that a long isothermal dwell (~ 65 m) is repeatably observed in TINY when
cooled in a room temperature environment from a fully heated state.
While the heating of TINY need not be provided by electricity,
electricity is required to power TINY’s sensors. Only a small amount (3%)
of TINY’s total energy requirement is electrical (Fig. 3d, Supplementary Table 2). Therefore,
TINY is uniquely suitable for operation in resource limited settings because
most of the required energy (heating) can be supplied via sunlight or flame.
TINY can operate in the field permanently using solar thermal heating and a
small photovoltaic cell to power the electronics, while systems that rely solely
on batteries for field use cannot (Supplementary Fig. 3). Extended
field operation is also possible without photovoltaics; for example, an iPhone
6S battery (capacity: 6.9 Wh) can power TINY’s electronics for over 24
hours.
LAMP assay in TINY is independent of heat source
We heated TINY using a variety of heat sources, with the hypothesis that
all heat sources would be able to reach the isothermal condition desired for the
LAMP reaction. Fig. 3e shows temperature
profiles of TINY during heat-up using a Bunsen burner, a small hotplate, and
sunlight. We found that heating TINY for about half an hour in sunlight was
sufficient to melt all the PCM and to sustain the long isothermal dwell,
although this is dependent upon ambient conditions. Once while collecting
sunlight, TINY experienced complete cloud coverage for about 6 minutes, but the
effect of the cloud was to only delay heating of TINY (Fig. 3f). In contrast, a previously developed
microfluidic device that performed PCR via solar thermal heating was only
capable of operation during clear-sky operation[34,35].We hypothesized that TINY would perform the LAMP assay equivalently
using any of the heating methods. LAMP reactions were performed when TINY was
heated by a hotplate, a Bunsen burner, and by sunlight. The average sample
temperature for each of these experiments was just above 68°C, and only
deviated by 0.3°C between the heating methods (Fig. 4a). Similar threshold times were observed when
the same sample was amplified in TINY, no matter the heating method (Fig. 4b). Threshold times were calculated by
tracking fluorescence data in real-time (Fig.
4c, Supplementary
Figs. 4 and 5).
Fig. 4.
LAMP assay performed using multiple heating methods.
(a) The temperature of the samples inside TINY during three
separate LAMP reactions, with each experiment using a different heating method.
Average temperatures are reported in the top-right corner. Samples were inserted
into TINY at 0 minutes. Each experiment was performed once, but similar profiles
are obtained when TINY is cooled in a room temperature environment from a fully
heated state. (b) The threshold times of samples containing the
same target DNA concentration (12,000 copies/reaction) but heated using
different sources. The average time of four samples is displayed above each
method. The data in (b) are from the same experiments shown in (a). Measurement
resolution was 5 s. (c) The fluorescent signal measured in TINY
during nucleic acid amplification. The threshold time (large data point) is
taken as the time the fluorescence passes a predefined threshold. Samples were
inserted into TINY at 0 minutes. Fluorescence curves are demonstrative and show
the response from TINY’s optical sensors from a single experiment.
Standard curves show TINY provides comparable quantification
We evaluated TINY’s capability to perform quantitative NAT using
skin biopsy samples from patients suspected of Kaposi’s sarcoma. To
quantify KSHV load in unknown-concentration skin biopsy samples, standard curves
with known copy numbers of the KS target gene, ORF 26, were generated from
recombinant plasmid DNA, and DNA extracted from a KSHV+ cell line,
BC-3[36].The following observations are drawn from the KSHV+ cell line (BC-3)
standards, as the DNA in these samples was extracted using the same procedure as
for the human biopsy samples (DNeasy, Qiagen). The qPCR assay proved
quantitative for all concentrations of standards (Fig. 5a). The LAMP assay produced repeatable threshold times for the
four highest standards tested (3.2 × 103 to 3.9 ×
105 copies/reaction), but at lower concentrations threshold time
no longer linearly predicted starting DNA concentration. At the lowest
concentration (19 copies/reaction), the LAMP assay amplified in 7 of 8 trials,
and at the second lowest concentration (135 copies/reaction), the LAMP assay
amplified in 8 of 8 trials. A 2007 study using a similar assay found a limit of
detection of approximately 100 copies/reaction[37]. We also observed that the amplification
efficiency of the LAMP assay was dependent upon the type of sample being
amplified (Supplementary Fig.
6 and Supplementary
Table 3).
Fig. 5.
Standard curves for qPCR and LAMP.
(a) Amplification results for the BC-3 cell line standards,
as tested by qPCR and LAMP (LAMP results include trials from both TINY and the
ViiA 7). Nine replicates were performed for the LAMP assay at the four higher
concentrations, while eight replicates were performed at the three lowest
concentrations. One LAMP replicate resulted in no amplification (concentration:
19 copies/reaction). Two replicates were performed using the qPCR assay.
Plotted: mean ± standard deviation. (b) Standard curves as
measured by TINY and the ViiA 7 commercial machine, both performing the LAMP
assay using BC-3 cell line standards. Five replicates were performed in TINY,
and four replicates were performed in the ViiA 7. Plotted: mean ±
standard deviation.
We amplified standard samples using LAMP in both TINY and a commercial
qPCR machine (ViiA 7, Thermo Fisher Scientific, set to 68°C). Similar
standard curves were produced using both machines (Fig. 5b), confirming that TINY can perform quantitative, isothermal
assays with results that are equivalent to those from commercial systems.
Human skin biopsies analyzed by TINY and commercial machines
We collected human biopsy samples from 42 Ugandan patients suspected of
having Kaposi’s sarcoma, and tested these samples via LAMP in TINY, via
LAMP in the ViiA 7, and via traditional qPCR in an Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast.
Samples were collected at the Infectious Diseases Institute of Makerere
University (Kampala, Uganda), and then transferred to the US for analysis.TINY-qPCR agreement was 41/42 (98%) on a binary,
detectable/not-detectable basis, with both systems finding the same 8 patients
negative (Fig. 6a). For the sample with the
lowest KSHV concentration, TINY gave a mixed positive/negative result (samples
were tested twice using each system/assay). We note that the diagnostic value of
this analysis cannot be assessed without histological confirmation and a larger
sample size.
Fig. 6.
Analysis of 42 human skin samples for KSHV DNA.
(a) The true KSHV DNA concentration of 42 human skin
samples (as determined by qPCR), grouped by LAMP result from TINY. Each sample
was amplified in TINY twice. Samples with detectable levels of KSHV were those
that amplified for both trials with threshold times < 24 minutes. One
sample had mixed results for the two trials and was classified as uncertain.
Samples reported as 0 copies/reaction by qPCR were below the qPCR limit of
detection (shown by the dashed line: about 19 copies/reaction). (b)
KSHV DNA quantification by qPCR and LAMP (in TINY) for the 33 detectable samples
from (a). The mean from two independent experiments is plotted. Dashed line
shows where the two assays match.
r is the ordinary coefficient
of determination. (c) The order-of-magnitude difference in KSHV
quantification between duplicates for each assay/system. Sample size is 33
patients for each box plot. Maximum whisker length is 1.5 times the
interquartile range, and the median of each group is plotted and overlaid.
Technical replicates were samples amplified twice on the same qPCR plate, while
experimental replicates were samples amplified in different qPCR experiments.
(d) A comparison of absorbance and fluorescence threshold times
for the 33 detectable samples. LAMP quantification reported in (b) and
throughout this manuscript was calculated using fluorescence threshold time.
r is the ordinary coefficient
of determination.
Next, the 33 samples with TINY-detectable KSHV levels were analyzed
quantitatively. We compared quantification by qPCR with quantification by LAMP
(performed in TINY), finding a coefficient of
determination:r = 0.38
(Fig. 6b). A similar coefficient of
determination (r = 0.48) was found
in a previous study that compared LAMP and qPCR quantification[37]. In all cases except for one,
we observed that the quantification obtained from the LAMP assay was lower than
the quantification obtained from the qPCR assay (Supplementary Fig. 7). This
observation has been previously reported in a study comparing digital LAMP and
digital PCR[38]. Quantification
of the human samples via LAMP was similar whether performed in TINY or the ViiA
7 commercial machine (Supplementary Fig. 8), supporting our previous observation that TINY
does not introduce significant quantification error (Fig. 5b). That is, the correlation between LAMP and
qPCR quantification is a result of the assays and is unrelated to the
performance of TINY as a machine.To further explore LAMP’s quantification capability, we compared
the repeatability of the two assays. Successive trials of qPCR gave more
repeatable quantification than successive trials of LAMP (Fig. 6c). Replicate trials of qPCR quantified the same
sample with high reproducibility, while replicate trials of LAMP could often
disagree in quantification by an order of magnitude or more (meaning that
differences in threshold time of a few minutes can occur from assay variation
and not only because of differences in target nucleic acid concentration). The
difference in quantification was similar for both TINY and the ViiA 7, further
confirming that the correlation between LAMP and qPCR quantification (Fig. 6b) is a result of the assays and not
the machine used. We considered quantifying samples using either fluorescence
and absorbance data from TINY, and found the two methods equally capable (Fig. 6d).
TINY evaluated at Ugandan health clinics
In 2017, we conducted a field trial of the TINY system in partnership
with two Ugandan health clinics that regularly diagnose KS-suspect patients
using visual inspection and/or histology. The field trial took place at the
Infectious Disease Institute (IDI) in Kampala, and the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation – Uganda Cares Clinic in Masaka.One of the goals of this effort was to characterize the sample-to-answer
timeline and to demonstrate that results from TINY could be obtained on a
clinically relevant timescale. Three KS-suspect patients presented at the
clinics during our field trial. Biopsies were taken from the patients and a
portion of each biopsy was immediately sent to our team for DNA extraction and
subsequent analysis by TINY. Results from TINY were obtained about 2.5 hours
following the start of the biopsy procedure (Fig.
7a). DNA extraction (DNeasy) was the longest part of the process (85
minutes on average).
Fig. 7.
Analysis of human samples by TINY in Uganda.
(a) Detailed timeline from biopsy to TINY result, for 3
patients. Gray boxes show when electricity outages were experienced. Light blue
boxes detail how TINY was heated before LAMP. (b) TINY being heated
with sunlight at the Uganda Cares Clinic in Masaka, Uganda. (c)
Threshold times of 8 human samples (target: KSHV DNA) when analyzed at a variety
of locations and via different heating conditions or operating procedures.
Horizontal lines are the mean. (d) The threshold times of the same
8 human samples from (c) but grouped by patient. Some patients were not analyzed
for all scenarios due to experimental limitations (see Table 1). Plotted: mean ± the expected
variation of the LAMP assay (calculated using the upper adjacent value from
Fig. 6c: 1.04 orders of magnitude in
copies/reaction, or 2.00 minutes when converted to time using the slope of the
standard curve). Patient Z from (a) is not included as that sample was obtained
after many conditions were tested. (e) Temperature profiles inside
TINY during LAMP from (a) through (d), with color indicating the heating method.
Data are from ten, two, and three experiments in TINY when heated by stable
electricity, interrupted electricity, and sunlight, respectively. Dashed lines:
target temperature (68 ± 1°C). (f) The true KSHV DNA
concentration of 21 patient samples, grouped by TINY result. Specimens were
independently tested in TINY by the Ugandan team at the IDI four months after
the field trial (TINY heated by electricity). Those samples producing threshold
times < 24 minutes were considered detectable by TINY. Samples reported
as 0 copies/reaction by qPCR were below the qPCR limit of detection (shown by
the dashed line: about 19 copies/reaction).
We hypothesized that results from TINY would not depend on the location
of the test (US vs. Uganda), the heating method used (electricity vs. sunlight),
or the device operator (TINY developers vs. local staff). DNA was extracted from
8 KS-suspect biopsies at the IDI in Uganda and was amplified under different
experimental conditions. We found that the same 5 samples were positive for KSHV
DNA regardless of the location, heating method, or device operator for TINY
(Table 1), including samples
amplified using sunlight (Fig. 7b). The
threshold times for these 8 samples were similar across a large variety of
conditions (Fig. 7c), even when switching
from liquid to lyophilized reagents (for applications where maintaining the cold
chain is not feasible). Furthermore, when threshold times were grouped by
patient, the resulting clustering shows that quantification by TINY is possible
across all locations and heating methods, as the variation in threshold time was
consistent with the expected variation from the LAMP assay itself (Fig. 7d). This result supports our previous
observation that TINY does not introduce significant quantification error (Fig. 5b), but that variation in threshold
time is a result of the trial to trial fluctuation of the LAMP assay (Fig. 6c).
Table 1.
TINY results for 8 human samples tested in Uganda.
DNA was extracted from biopsy samples in Uganda and was then amplified
in TINY at the Infectious Disease Institute (IDI) in Kampala, or the Uganda
Cares Clinic in Masaka, under a variety of test conditions. Results were
confirmed at Cornell in Ithaca, NY (via LAMP) and in New York City, NY (via
qPCR).
TINY result for the presence
of KSHV DNA
KSHV
quant.log10(copies/reaction)
Patient
IDI interrupted electricity
IDI electricity
IDI sunlight
IDI electricity, lyophilized
reagents
IDI electricity, operated by Uganda
staff
Masaka electricity
Masaka sunlight
Cornell (Ithaca) electricity
LAMP*
qPCR
A
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2.64
4.12
B
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
4.02
5.31
C
Power outage not
experienced.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2.96
4.85
D
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
E
+
+
+
+
+
Sunlight not available.
+
4.24
6.12
F
+
+
+
+
+
+
4.13
3.97
G
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
H
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Based on mean threshold time from all locations, heating methods,
and other test conditions.
Three electricity outages (durations: 62 minutes, 1 minute, and 1
minute) were experienced during the amplification of 2 of the 8 biopsy samples.
During the longest electricity outage, we heated TINY at a neighboring building
(Fig. 7a). Upon bringing TINY back to
the laboratory after heating, TINY stayed within our target temperature and
finished the assay without electricity. The temperature inside TINY for all
experiments performed in Uganda was within our 68 ± 1°C target
temperature, regardless of heating method or electricity outages (Fig. 7e). We performed 19, 6-sample experiments (114
samples) during the 5 day field trial. After training the local staff how to
operate TINY, they were proficient at operating the system autonomously, and
they obtained the same results for the 8 samples as did the Cornell team (Table 1).Four months after the field trial, human biopsies from 21 new patients
were analyzed in TINY at the IDI in Uganda. DNA extraction and TINY operation
was completed by the Ugandan team without help from TINY developers besides for
the instruction manuals left during the field trial. Four different individuals
performed LAMP using TINY during this time. Of the 21 patients, qPCR performed
in the US determined 8 to be negative for KSHV DNA, and 13 to be positive. TINY
performed in Uganda agreed with qPCR on a binary level for 18 of 21 patients
(86%) (Fig. 7f). The concentrations of the
three discordant samples were among the three lowest of all samples containing
KSHV (Supplementary Fig.
9).
Discussion
We found that one of the greatest assets of TINY was its usability in the
field. Our team has previously developed microfluidic devices for nucleic acid tests
in resource limited settings, particularly for use in Uganda[34,35].
TINY – because it uses off-the-shelf, inexpensive consumables, and because it
does not require any pumps or tubing – was much easier to operate in the
field than the microfluidic device. This observation is supported by the successful
operation of TINY in Uganda several months after deployment. In this manuscript, we
have compared TINY to both commercial and research-grade systems for NAT (Supplementary Table 1). TINY
is the only system that can use electrical and non-electrical energy sources, making
it uniquely suited for extended operation both in the laboratory and the field, even
when compared to battery-powered commercial systems (Supplementary Fig. 3). Our results show
that quantification by TINY is on-par with commercial systems performing the same
assay, meaning that diagnostic performance need not be sacrificed for system
portability.We validated TINY by testing human skin samples from Uganda for KSHV DNA. A
total of 71 patient samples were analyzed (42 in the US, 8 in Uganda during the
field trial, and 21 more in Uganda after the field trial). TINY-qPCR agreement was
67/71 (94%) across all patients, and the four discordant specimens (all false
negatives) were among the four samples with lowest KSHV concentrations (Supplementary Fig. 9),
suggesting that the disagreement resulted from a lack of assay sensitivity and not
TINY capability. Compared to qPCR, we found that the LAMP assay was inferior in its
ability to quantify nucleic acids at low concentrations (as found by other
studies[38]), and that the
repeatability of quantification for the same sample was relatively low. We showed
that mediocre quantification repeatability was a result of the LAMP assay and not a
result of the TINY itself (Fig. 6c, Supplementary Fig. 8) or of
the heating method used (Fig. 4b, Fig. 7d). While LAMP underperformed qPCR, our
work did not focus on optimization of the assay, and improvements could be
implemented: for example, stabilization of LAMP via chemical additives[39]. Alternatively, other isothermal
assays may give better quantification repeatability. Our future work will include
the development of helicase-dependent amplification (HDA) and recombinase polymerase
amplification (RPA) assays for KSHV detection.Our field trial in Uganda confirms that TINY is particularly useful for
operation in resource limited settings. The small size of TINY made it convenient to
transport to two Ugandan clinics, and TINY result for KSHV DNA was consistent using
a variety of locations, device-operators, and heating conditions, including
sunlight. TINY successfully completed multiple LAMP reactions even though
electricity outages were experienced mid-assay. During the outages that TINY
successfully operated through, commercial machines running diagnostics in the same
laboratory had their assays ruined, even though a generator and backup batteries
were installed for such situations (generator failed to start). Several KS-suspect
patients arrived at the Ugandan clinics during our field trial, and we were able to
obtain TINY results just 2.5 hours following the start of the biopsy procedure. Four
months after the field trial, the Ugandan team independently analyzed 21 more
samples in TINY with strong agreement to gold standard qPCR performed in the US.Although we used TINY to perform LAMP, replacement of the PCM with one that
melts at other temperatures would allow the system to perform other isothermal
assays, making the system broadly useful. TINY is suitable for multiple applications
in LMIC. For example, TINY could be carried by healthcare workers traveling between
communities, providing diagnostics to patients unable to travel to urban healthcare
institutions. TINY could also be used as a stationary tool in district-level clinics
and hospitals, where its unique ability to use unreliable electricity would be of
value. Both applications can enable nucleic acid diagnostics to reach more of the
population in LMIC.
Methods
LAMP assay composition
LAMP uses a strand displacement polymerase and a set of four to six DNA
primers to create amplicons that resemble cauliflower-like, stem-loop DNA
structures in less than an hour[40,41]. Our LAMP
assay contained 320 U/mL of Bst 2.0 WarmStart DNA Polymerase,
1X Isothermal Amplification Buffer, 6 mM MgSO4, 1.4 mM dNTP mix (all
from New England BioLabs Inc.), along with primers: 1.6 μM FIP/BIP, 0.2
μM F3/B3, and 0.4 μM LoopF/LoopB. Isothermal primers were designed
previously[37] with ORF
26 as the target (Supplementary Table 4). We also added Evagreen fluorescent dye
(Biotium) to final concentration 1X, and ROX reference dye (Themo Fisher
Scientific) to final concentration 2X. LAMP amplicons were confirmed via gel
electrophoresis (Supplementary
Fig. 10).
Sample preparation for amplification in TINY and ViiA 7
4 mL of master mix was made prior to performing quantification
experiments. This mix was aliquoted into tubes for individual experiments to be
performed in TINY, and then frozen. The large master mix was made to minimize
variation in assay composition that might arise from pipetting errors during the
preparation of multiple master mixes, so that threshold times could be compared
between experiments. The master mix contained all reagents except for
Bst 2.0 WarmStart polymerase, nuclease-free water, and DNA
sample. To prepare a sample for amplification in TINY, Bst 2.0
Warmstart DNA Polymerase and water were added to the master mix, and then 35
μL of this mixture was aliquoted into a PCR tube. Next, 5 μL of
DNA sample was added to the PCR tube and mixed by repeated pipetting. Finally,
50 μL of paraffin oil was placed on top of the LAMP assay to prevent
evaporation. For amplifications performed in the ViiA 7 qPCR machine, the same
assay was used except 2.5 μL of DNA sample and 17.5 μL of the
mixture containing all other reagents were combined in individual wells in a 96
well qPCR plate. No oil was used for ViiA 7 amplifications.
Isothermal amplification in TINY
All nucleic acid amplification experiments in TINY started with heating
the system to at or above 67°C. If too much heat was put into the system,
the inner system temperature (sample temperature) was cooled to at least
70°C before beginning LAMP. When the temperature was suitable for
amplification, we removed the lid of TINY, inserted the PCR tubes into sample
holes, and replaced the lid. A microcontroller (Teensy 3.2) running an Arduino
program was used to track the temperature, fluorescence, and absorbance of the
samples throughout the course of the LAMP reaction (at least 50 minutes).
Sampling rate was 0.2 Hz. Data from all sensors was analyzed by a MATLAB script
to determine threshold time (please see supplementary information for
details).
Isothermal amplification in the ViiA 7 Real-Time PCR System
The normal thermal cycling profile in the ViiA 7 was replaced with a
single ramp from room temperature to 68°C, followed by a repeated dwell
at 68°C so that fluorescence was recorded every 30 seconds and total
amplification time was 60 min. Threshold times were calculated by the
QuantStudio™ Real-Time PCR Software using default settings. We added 30
seconds to the threshold time of all samples ran in the ViiA 7 to account for an
initial 30 second hold that is not considered the first cycle.
Plasmid DNA standards preparation
Circular pBSK-ORF26 plasmid DNA was transformed into competent TOP10 E.
coli (Invitrogen, cat. no. C404003) via heat shock. Transformed E. coli were
incubated on LB agar plates with ampicillin overnight. Presence of ORF 26 was
confirmed via PCR and a single colony was expanded in LB broth with ampicillin.
Resulting DNA was extracted (Zymo Research, cat. no. D4036) and measured via
NanoDrop. The circular pBSK-ORF26 plasmid DNA was linearized with EcoRI for 1
hour at 37˚C followed by heat inactivation for 20 minutes. Resulting
linearized DNA was measured via Qubit 2.0 HS DNA assay and diluted in water
until a minimally detectable concentration was reached (~0.1
μg/μL). Further dilutions were performed in 1 ng/μL salmon
sperm DNA (Life Technologies, cat. no. 15632011) until an estimated target
concentration of 0.216 pg/uL was reached, corresponding to 300,000 copies of ORF
26 per 5 μL. 1:5 serial dilutions were performed such that a set of
standards was created containing 300000, 60000, 12000, 2400, 480, 96, 19, and 0
copies of ORF 26 per 5 μL reaction.
Cell culture DNA standards preparation
DNA was extracted from KSHV+ BC-3 cells cultured in RPMI 1640 + 20% FBS
using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen, cat. no. 69504). Total starting
DNA concentration was measured via Qubit 2.0 HS DNA assay and the sample was
diluted in water to a minimally detectable concentration. 1:5 serial dilutions
were performed in salmon sperm DNA and each sample was run in duplicate against
the plasmid standard curve to estimate copy number. Resulting BC-3 standards
used in LAMP amplified linearly via qPCR and were estimated to contain copy
numbers on the same order of magnitude as the plasmid standard curve.
DNA extraction from human samples
All ethical regulations were complied with during this study. Written,
informed consent was obtained for all patients involved. The study was approved
by the Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences Ethics Review
Committee.Cylindrical (4 mm diameter) punch biopsies of skin lesions were obtained
from Ugandan adults who had at least some level of clinical suspicion for
Kaposi’s sarcoma and who were referred to the Infectious Diseases
Institute in Kampala for a diagnostic biopsy. Biopsies were stored in RNAlater
(Qiagen, cat. no. 76104) and later bisected. Half of the biopsy was processed
using the Purification of Total DNA from Animal Tissues protocol of the DNeasy
Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen, cat. no. 69504) and resulting DNA was eluted in
75 μL of Buffer AE. Total DNA concentration and purity was assessed for
each sample via NanoDrop spectrophotometry.
qPCR assay
TaqMan assays were used for real-time amplification and detection of
viral ORF 26 and control gene GAPDH in qPCR. Each reaction of the custom ORF 26
assay was performed at a total volume of 20 μL containing: 10 μL
of PrimeTime Gene Expression Master Mix (IDT, cat. no. 1055770), 1.8 μL
of a 10 μM forward and reverse primer mix (primer sequences in Supplementary Table 4),
2.2 μL nuclease-free water, 1 μL of 5 μM ORF 26 probe, and
5 μL of sample. The ORF 26 assay was thermal-cycled with holding at
95˚C for 20 seconds before cycling 40 times between 95˚C for 3
seconds and 60˚C for 30 seconds. Each reaction of the GAPDH assay was
performed at a total reaction volume of 10 μL containing: 5 μL of
TaqMan Genotyping Master Mix (Thermo Scientific, cat. no. 4371355), 0.5
μL of a 20X GAPDH TaqMan Copy Number Assay (Thermo Scientific, cat. no.
4400292-Hs00483111_cn), and 4.5 μL of sample. The GAPDH assay was
thermal-cycled with holding at 50˚C for 2 minutes, 95˚C for 10
minutes, then cycling 40 times between 95˚C for 15 seconds and
60˚C for 1 minute. All samples were run in duplicate against a standard
plasmid curve. Late Ct values amplifying outside the range of the standard curve
were considered inconclusive/negative. Raw tissue biopsy DNA extracts were run
directly as the assay input and verified with standard 10 ng dilutions in both
assays. All samples showed high copy number of GAPDH.
Authors: Mickey Urdea; Laura A Penny; Stuart S Olmsted; Maria Y Giovanni; Peter Kaspar; Andrew Shepherd; Penny Wilson; Carol A Dahl; Steven Buchsbaum; Gerry Moeller; Deborah C Hay Burgess Journal: Nature Date: 2006-11-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Alexandra Calmy; Nathan Ford; Bernard Hirschel; Steven J Reynolds; Lut Lynen; Eric Goemaere; Felipe Garcia de la Vega; Luc Perrin; William Rodriguez Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2006-11-28 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Tracy L Creek; Gayle G Sherman; John Nkengasong; Lydia Lu; Thomas Finkbeiner; Mary Glenn Fowler; Emilia Rivadeneira; Nathan Shaffer Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Alexander Y Trick; Johan H Melendez; Fan-En Chen; Liben Chen; Annet Onzia; Aidah Zawedde; Edith Nakku-Joloba; Peter Kyambadde; Emmanuel Mande; Joshua Matovu; Maxine Atuheirwe; Richard Kwizera; Elizabeth A Gilliams; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; Charlotte A Gaydos; Yukari C Manabe; Matthew M Hamill; Tza-Huei Wang Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Rachael V Dixon; Eldhose Skaria; Wing Man Lau; Philip Manning; Mark A Birch-Machin; S Moein Moghimi; Keng Wooi Ng Journal: Acta Pharm Sin B Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 11.413