| Literature DB >> 33418184 |
Yiren Liu1, Yayin Tan1, Quanying Fu1, Maoren Lin2, Jinxu He1, Suhua He2, Mei Yang2, Shoudeng Chen3, Jianhua Zhou4.
Abstract
The worldwide epidemic of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to a strong demand for highly efficient immunobinding to achieve rapid and accurate on-site detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, hour-scale time-consumption is usually required to ensure the adequacy of immunobinding on expensive large instruments in hospitals, and the common false negative or positive results often occur in rapid on-site immunoassay (e.g. immunochromatography). We solved this dilemma by presenting a reciprocating-flowing immunobinding (RF-immunobinding) strategy. RF-immunobinding enabled the antibodies in fluid contacting with the corresponding immobilized antigens on substrate repeatedly during continuous reciprocating-flowing, to achieve adequate immunobinding within 60 s. This strategy was further developed into an immunoassay method for the serological detection of 13 suspected COVID-19 patients. We obtained a 100% true negative and true positive rate and a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 4.14 pg/mL. Our strategy also can be a potential support for other areas related to immunorecognition, such as proteomics, immunopharmacology and immunohistochemistry.Entities:
Keywords: Coronavirus disease; Immunoassay; Interaction dynamics; Microfluidic chip; Multiplexed analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33418184 PMCID: PMC7834412 DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112920
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosens Bioelectron ISSN: 0956-5663 Impact factor: 10.618
Fig. 1The principle of RF-immunobinding. (A) The structure of the chip, inset: the top-view photograph of the chip. (B) The schematics of the state of sample flow in different step of RF-immunobinding. (C) The time-dependent fluid level in the inlet chamber. (D) The time-dependent changes of the fluid level in inlet chamber for five rounds. (E) The flow rate distribution of blood in microchannel. (F) The time-dependent flow rate of the blood at the detection site for five rounds.
Fig. 2The dynamics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody binding onto immobilized SARS-CoV-2-nucleoprotein antigen, measuring by SD-PSI in real-time. (A) The schematic diagram showing the binding between antibody and antigen, a) in continuous reciprocating-flowing and b) in static system. (B) Sensorgram obtained from the binding of anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (434.0 ng/mL) to nucleoprotein antigen of SARS-CoV-2 in a) reciprocating-flowing and b) static system, upper: measuring in real-time from 0 s to 1200 s, below: measuring in real-time from 100 s to 350 s. (C) Sensorgram obtained from the binding of anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (4.34 ng/mL) to nucleoprotein antigen of SARS-CoV-2 in a) reciprocating-flowing and b) static system, upper: measuring in real-time from 0 s to 3100 s, below: measuring in real-time from 0 s to 650 s. (D) The first order derivative of the fitting curves taken from the dynamics curves for 434.0 ng/mL antibody solution. (E) The first order derivative of the fitting curves taken from the dynamics curves for 4.34 ng/mL antibody solution.
Fig. 3The qualitative serological detection of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein using the two-step RF-ELISA. (A) The schematics of the main steps for the detection. The qualitative detection of (B) PBS blank and serum 1–3; (C) PBS blank, serum 1 and serum 4–5; (D) serum 1 and serum 6–7; (E) serum 1 and serum 8–10; (F) serum 1 and serum 11–13. Upper: the images of the chips displaying colorimetric results, below: the images of the selected sites and its concentration-dependent responses in gray level. (G) The comparison of qualitative results taken from our presented RF-ELISA (upper) and conventional static ELISA performed in FAH-SYSU (below), respectively.
Fig. 4The performances of quantitative detection by using two-step RF-ELISA. The quantitative detection of the model antibody by using (A) our two-step RF-ELISA; (B) conventional static ELISA adopted by FAH-SYSU. Upper: the images of the selected sites, below: corresponding concentration-dependent gray level. Insets: the linear regions of these two methods. (C) The linear correlation between the results of the serological detections taken from two-step RF-ELISA and conventional static ELISA adopted by FAH-SYSU, respectively.
The comparison of the performances among conventional static ELISA, immunochromatography, electrochemiluminescence, and our RF-ELISA.
| Methods | Performances | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume consumption of sample | Time consumption of detection | Flow manner | LOQ (g/mL) | Cost | POCT potential | |
| Our RF-ELISA | 30–50 μL | 4–5 min | Reciprocating-flowing | ~4 E-12 | Low | High |
| Conventional static ELISA | 100–300 μL | >40 min | Static | ~1.0 E-9 | Low | Low |
| Immuno-chromatography | 30–70 μL | 10–15 min | Flow-through | ~1.0 E-9 | Low | High |
| Electro- chemiluminescence | 100–300 μL | <20 min | Static or flow-through | >1.0 E-15 | High | Low |