| Literature DB >> 31481686 |
Hunter Stevenson1, Amanda Bacon1, Kathleen Mary Joseph1, Wilma Ruth Wanjiku Gwandaru1, Ashlesha Bhide1, Devangsingh Sankhala1, Vikram Narayanan Dhamu1, Shalini Prasad2.
Abstract
Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance under the American Controlled Substances Act of 1970. As more U.S. states and countries beyond the U.S. seek legalization, demands grow for identifying individuals driving under the influence (DUI) of marijuana. Currently no roadside DUI test exists for determining marijuana impairment, thus the merit lies in detecting the primary and the most sought psychoactive compound tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana. Salivary THC levels are correlated to blood THC levels making it a non-invasive medium for rapid THC testing. Affinity biosensing is leveraged for THC biomarker detection through the chemical reaction between target THC and THC specific antibody to a measure signal output related to the concentration of the targeted biomarker. Here, we propose a novel, rapid, electrochemical biosensor for the detection of THC in saliva as a marijuana roadside DUI test with a lower detection limit of 100 pg/ml and a dynamic range of 100 pg/ml - 100 ng/ml in human saliva. The developed biosensor is the first of its kind to utilize affinity-based detection through impedimetric measurements with a rapid detection time of less than a minute. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis confirmed the successful immobilization of the THC immobilization assay on the biosensing platform. Zeta potential studies provided information regarding the stability and the electrochemical behavior of THC immunoassay in varying salivary pH buffers. We have demonstrated stable, dose dependent biosensing in varying salivary pH's. A binary classification system demonstrating a high general performance (AUC = 0.95) was employed to predict the presence of THC in human saliva. The biosensor on integration with low-power electronics and a portable saliva swab serves as a roadside DUI hand-held platform for rapid identification of THC in saliva samples obtained from human subjects.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31481686 PMCID: PMC6722119 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-49185-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic outlining the principal of operation of the THC biosensor.
Figure 2FTIR spectra of (a) DSP crosslinker immobilized on Au surface, (b) anti-THC antibody conjugated to DSP cross-linker.
Figure 3Zeta potential measurements in synthetic saliva at various pH for (a) the THC-BSA hapten and (b) BSA with no conjugation.
Figure 4Calibrated dose response represented as Nyquist complex impedance plots with calibrated dose response inset for (a) 1x PBS (b) synthetic saliva at pH of 6 (c) synthetic saliva at pH of 4 (d) human saliva. All inserts represent the change in imaginary impedance (with respect to the 0-dose step) extracted at 10 Hz.
Classification accuracy of both Decision Tree and Logistic Regression on dataset with no feature selection and feature selection using FCBF and FCBFK algorithms.
| Raw Impedance Data (no normalization) | Normalized to Synthetic Saliva Measurement | Normalized to Antibody Measurement | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision | Logistic Regression | Decision Tree | Logistic Regression | Decision Tree | Logistic Regression | |
| No Feature Selection | 0.710 | 0.713 | 0.746 | 0.721 | 0.765 | 0.724 |
| FCBF | 0.901 | 0.845 | 0.824 | 0.813 | 0.699 | 0.632 |
| FCBFK | 0.820 | 0.702 | 0.652 | 0.813 | 0.742 | 0.746 |
Figure 5(a) Violin plots displaying normalized distributions and (b) correlation heatmap displaying Pearson’s correlation of the 5 features identified as most predictive by the FCBFK algorithm for the normalized to the antibody step.
Figure 6(a) Correlation heatmap and (b) 3D scatter-plot of final three selected features after the FCBF & FCBFK algorithms.
Performance summary of Binary Classification Algorithms.
| Classifier Name | AUC | Threshold | TPR | FPR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic Regression | 0.911 | 0.39 | 97.1 | 60.0 |
| 0.722 | 88.6 | 15.0 | ||
| Logistic Regression with K-folds cross-validation | 0.916 | 0.303 | 97.1 | 60.0 |
| 0.769 | 88.6 | 10.0 | ||
| Linear kernel SVM | 0.911 | 0.214 | 97.1 | 60.0 |
| 0.829 | 88.6 | 15.0 | ||
| Radial Bias Function kernel SVM | 0.951 | 0.621 | 97.1 | 15.0 |
| 0.797 | 0.943 | 5.0 |
Figure 7Rbf kernel SVM classification performance metrics. (a) ROC curve with TPR and FPR identified at thresholds 0.621 (dark blue) and 0.797 (light blue). (b–d) 2D cross-sections of the classification probability.