| Literature DB >> 31817458 |
Sertan Sukas1, Bieke Van Dorst2, Agata Kryj1, Ole Lagatie2, Wim De Malsche1, Lieven J Stuyver2.
Abstract
We present a lab-on-a-disk technology for fast identification and quantification of parasite eggs in stool. We introduce a separation and packing method of eggs contained in 1 g of stool, allowing for removal of commonly present solid particles, fat droplets and air bubbles. The separation is based on a combined gravitational and centrifugal flotation, with the eggs guided to a packed monolayer, enabling quantitation and identification of subtypes of the eggs present in a single field of view (FOV). The prototype was tested with stool samples from pigs and humans infected with intestinal parasites (soil-transmitted helminths eggs). The quality of the images created by this platform was appropriate for identification and quantification of egg types present in the sample.Entities:
Keywords: diagnostic microfluidic device; parasite egg identification and quantification; particle separation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31817458 PMCID: PMC6952989 DOI: 10.3390/mi10120852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Comparison of the major techniques for parasite detection in stool (info mainly from [11]).
| Method | Principle | Advantage | Disadvantage | Sensitivity | Time | Sample Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kato–Katz | Feces are pressed through a mesh screen to remove large particles. A portion of sieved sample is then transferred to the hole of a template on a slide. After filling the hole, the template is removed, and the remaining sample is covered with a piece of cellophane soaked in glycerol. The glycerol clears the fecal material from around the eggs. | Easy sample preparation | Reduced sensitivity in individuals with low parasite loads | Medium | 30–60 min | 41.7 mg |
| McMaster | Sample is added to a flotation solution and placed under a slide with two gridded chambers. Eggs float towards the surface and the ones within the gridded area of the chamber are counted using a microscope. | Easy procedure | Lacks sensitivity at low eggs counts | Medium | 5–10 min | 2 g |
| FECPAK | A tube with a central pillar is filled with a stool sample dissolved in flotation solution, allowing the parasite eggs to accumulate into a single viewing area within a fluid meniscus. An image of the fecal sample is then captured. | Digitalized images | Limited sensitivity of the test | Medium | 24 min | 3 g |
| FLOTAC | Technique based on centrifugal flotation of a fecal sample suspension and subsequent translation of the apical portion of the floating suspension. | Very precise and sensitive | Complexity of the application | Very high | 12–15 min | 1 g |
| Mini-FLOTAC | Method based on flotation of the eggs. Miniaturized version of FLOTAC. Two chambers (1 mL each) are filled with fecal sample diluted in flotation solution. | Permits work with fresh and fixed fecal samples | Detection of some parasites (e.g., trematoda) requires centrifugation | High | 12 min | 2 g |
| Cornell Wisconsin | Flotation of eggs in salt solutions is enabled by centrifugation. | No expensive tools needed | Lack of precision, owing to the absence of a grid on the coverslip | Low | 20 min | 5 g |
| Lab-on-a-disk | Separation is based on a combined gravitational and centrifugal flotation, with the eggs guided to a packed monolayer, enabling quantitation and identification of subtypes of the eggs present in a single field of view | Single and high quality digitalized image | Not commercially available | High | 15 min | 1 g |
Figure 1Working principle of the flotation chamber. Top and cross-sectional views illustrate the particle movement, where the acting forces on the eggs are drawn within their corresponding section. FRCF is the relative centrifugal force caused by disc rotation, Fg is the natural buoyancy force (by Earth’s gravity), FW is the wall reaction force acting on the particle against the chamber bottom surface. The drag force, which arises from the particle movement, which is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the illustrated total net forces, is not shown for simplicity. Although the top view is scaled correctly, the cross-sectional view is not on scale for clarity. The corresponding relative centrifugal force (FRCF) and radial velocity (net velocity towards the center of the disk) values are listed at the interfaces between segments, and the radial positions are also provided. The values are provided for a spin speed of 5000 rpm during 5 min (see calculations in Supplementary Figures S1 and S2).
Figure 2(a) Fabricated lab-on-a-disk device (without cover plate and before bonding) (b) and the commercial minicentrifuge with the device fixed onto its rotor. Inset in (a) shows a closer look into the collection/imaging zone and the downstream filtering unit with a depth of 20 µm equipped with pillars, which are 400 µm in diameter and have 400 µm spacing. The PMMA disk, hosting two identical chambers, has 10 cm in diameter and 5 mm in thickness. Chamber depth goes from 4 mm to 20 µm in steps. The center hole with a diameter of 6.3 mm is for fitting the disk onto the commercial minicentrifuge. (1.) shows the design of the outlet region, which is 2 mm in depth. (2.) shows a part of the flow chamber, where it converges to the collection/imaging zone with a depth going from 600 to 60 µm. The footprint of the imaging zone is measured 4 mm by 2.5 mm.
Figure 3Picture of the imaging setup.
Figure 4Layout description of the flow chamber and the illustrations of the steps of the centrifugation analysis.
Figure 5Layout description of the flow chamber and illustrations of the steps of the centrifugation analysis (illustration for section 2.3. Continuous Size-Based Filtering).
Figure 6Digitally zoomed images of identified parasite eggs with our system (caption of Figure 2a): Schistosoma mansoni (a), hookworm (b), Ascaris lumbricoides (c) and Trichuris trichiura (d).
Number of eggs per gram of stool (EPG) detected with the lab-on-a-disk device and compared to reference methods.
| Sample | Reference Method * Total # of Eggs in the Sample (EPG) | Reference Method ** Total # of Eggs after Sample Preparation Steps (EPG) | # of Eggs in the FOV of Lab-on-a-Disk Device | Total # of Eggs Inserted in the Lab-on-a-Disk Device (EPG) | Detection (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loss Within the Chip | Total Eggs # Inserted in Chip vs. * | Total Eggs # Inserted in Chip vs. ** | |||||
| 120 | 250 | 70 | 140 | 50 | 116.67 | 56 | |
| 30 | 100 | 20 | 100 | 80 | 333.33 | 100 | |
| 30 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 100 | 33.33 | 100 | |
| 220 | 310 | 50 | 250 | 80 | 113.64 | 80.65 | |
| Human | 50 | 115 | 5 | 30 | 83.33 | 60 | 26.09 |
| Human | 60 | 130 | 30 | 90 | 66.67 | 150 | 69.23 |
| Human | 50 | 65 | 5 | 40 | 87.50 | 66.67 | 61.54 |
| Average ± standard deviation (%) | 78 ± 16 | 125 ± 100 | 71 ± 26 | ||||
* Mini-FLOTAC and ** McMaster.
Figure 7(a) Photo of the imaging zone (see Figure 2a) of the lab-on-a-disk device after testing a stool sample from a pig with Ascaris suum infection, and (b) photo of the imaging zone of the lab-on-a-disk device after testing a stool sample from human with Ascaris lumbricoides infection.
Figure 8Amount of eggs present in soil-transmitted helminths (STH) infected samples detected with our device (y-axis) compared to Mini-FLOTAC (x-axis) for low infected samples.