| Literature DB >> 35815063 |
Bahar Ince1, Mustafa Kemal Sezgintürk1.
Abstract
Bacteria, viruses, and parasites are harmful microorganisms that cause infectious diseases. Early detection of diseases is critical to prevent disease transmission and provide epidemic preparedness, as these can cause widespread deaths and public health crises, particularly in resource-limited countries. Lateral flow assay (LFA) systems are simple-to-use, disposable, inexpensive diagnostic devices to test biomarkers in blood and urine samples. Thus, LFA has recently received significant attention, especially during the pandemic. Here, first of all, the design principles and working mechanisms of existing LFA methods are examined. Then, current LFA implementation strategies are presented for communicable disease diagnoses, including COVID-19, zika and dengue, HIV, hepatitis, influenza, malaria, and other pathogens. Furthermore, this review focuses on an overview of current problems and accessible solutions in detecting infectious agents and diseases by LFA, focusing on increasing sensitivity with various detection methods. In addition, future trends in LFA-based diagnostics are envisioned.Entities:
Keywords: Biosensor; Immunoassay; Lateral flow assay; SARS-CoV-2; Viruses detection
Year: 2022 PMID: 35815063 PMCID: PMC9252863 DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2022.116725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trends Analyt Chem ISSN: 0165-9936 Impact factor: 14.908
Fig. 1(A) Components of a conventional LFA; (B) Schematic illustration for test design and application method.
Fig. 2The sandwich assay and competitive assay models.
Fig. 3(A) Schematic representation of the LFIA test for the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2. Antibodies; (B) For the negative sample, only the control line color is expected; (C) 2 test regions and 1 control regions appear in the asset of anti-N antibodies (IgG, IgM and IgA) [53]. Reproduced with permission from ref. 53, Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 4(A) Schematic diagram of the SERS based LFA strip prepared using gap enhancement nano-tags for IgM and IgG detection [76]; (B) Working principle of LFA that can test SARS-CoV-2 S protein using ACE2 receptor in test line [78]. Reproduced with permission from ref. 76–78, Elsevier Ltd.
LFA-based studies for COVID-19 detection.
| Disease | Reporter | Detection element | Assay type | Analyte/Real Sample | Specificity or LOD | Assay time | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | IgM/IgG Antibody | LFA | Serum | Sensitivity IgM 88% | 15 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | IgM/IgG Antibody | LFA | Whole Blood | Sensitivity IgM 92% | 10 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Carboxylic red latex beads | Nucleocapsid proteins | Half-LFA | – | 3.03 ng/mL | 20 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | IgM/IgG Antibody | Fluorescent LFA | Serum | IgM 100% | 15 min | [ | |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | Spike glycoprotein | LFA | – | 5 μg/mL | 30 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | SiO2@DQD fluorescent probe | IgM/IgG Antibody | Fluorescent LFA | Serum | Sensitivity 97.37% | 15 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | LNPs | IgG Antibody | LFA | Serum | – | 10 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | Total antibody | LFA | Serum | Sensitivity 94.6% | 20 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Gap-enhancement nanotags | IgM/IgG Antibody | SERS-based LFIA | – | IgM 1 ng/mL | 15 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Red cellulose nanobeads | S protein | LFA | Nasal swabs | 1.86 × 105 copies/mL | 20 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | IgM Antibody | LFA | Whole blood | Sensitivity 100% | 15 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | IgG Antibody | LFA | Serum | Sensitivity 69.1% | 15–20 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Eu(III) fluorescent microsphere | IgM/IgG Antibody | Fluorescent LFA | Serum and plasma | IgM 98.68% | 10 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | IgM/IgG Antibody | LFA | Whole blood | Sensitivity 85.29% | 15 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | IgM/IgG Antibody | LFA | Serum | Specificity 97,47% | 15 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Selenium nanoparticle | IgM/IgG Antibody | LFA | Whole blood and serum | Sensitivity 93.33% | 5 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Europium (III) chelate microparticles | Nucleocapsid proteins | LFA | Oropharyngeal swabs | Sensitivity 100% | 10 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Co–Fe@hemin-peroxidase nanoenzyme | S protein | LFA | Saliva and nasal swab | 0.1 ng/mL | 16 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Gold nanostars | IgM Antibody | SERS-based LFA | – | 100 fg/mL | – | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | S protein | LFA | – | 61 pg/mL | 8 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | AuNPs | IgM/IgG Antibody | LFA | Serum | Sensitivity 90% Specificity 96.6% | 10–15 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Fluorescence | SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA | Catalytic hairpin assembly-LFA | Nasal swabs | 2000 copies/mL | 90 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Simple split luciferase | S protein | LFA | Serum | Sensitivity 98% Specificity 100% | 30 min | [ |
| COVID-19 | Carbon dot-based silica spheres | Nucleocapsid proteins | LFA | Serum | 10 pg mL | 20 min | [ |
LFA-based studies for the detection of viral infectious diseases.
| Disease | Reporter | Detection element | Assay type | Analyte/Real Sample | Specificity or LOD | Assay time | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dengue | Dextrin-capped AuNPs | Dengue-1 RNA | LFA | Serum | cut-off value of 1.2 × 104 pfu/mL | 20 min | [ |
| Zika and Dengue | Gold nanostars | Zika NS1, | SERS-based LFA | Serum | Zika NS1 0,72 ng/mL | – | [ |
| Zika | Si-AuNPs | Zika NS1 | SERS-based LFA | – | 1.906 μg/mL | [ | |
| Dengue | Carboxyl-Adembeads | DENV-1, | Magneto enzyme LFA | – | 0.1 ng/mL | 25 min | [ |
| Zika and Dengue | Quantum dot microspheres | ZIKV NS1, | Fluorescent-LFA | – | 0.045 ng/mL and 0.15 ng/mL | 20 min | [ |
| Zika | Silanized carbon dots | Zika NS1 | LFA | – | 10 pg/mL | 20 min | [ |
| Dengue | Gold decorated graphene oxide sheets | Dengue NS1 | LFA | – | 4.9 ng/mL | 10 min | [ |
| AIDS | AuNPs | HIV-1 DNA | Surface modified AuNP by MGITC as Raman reporter | – | 0.24 pg/mL | 15 min | [ |
| AIDS | AuNP | HIV-1 p24 antigen | LFA | Serum | 30 pg/mL | 40 min | [ |
| AIDS | AuNPs | HIV-1 RNA | LFA | – | 0.5–13 log10 copies/mL (50 copies of gag RNA) | 20 min | [ |
| AIDS | QDs | HIV-DNA | LFA | Serum | 0.76 pM | 15 min | [ |
| AIDS, | QDs | HIV | Fluorescent LFA | Serum | 0.11 NCU/mL, | 20 min | [ |
| AIDS | GNS | HIV-1 p24 antigen | TCA- LFA | Serum | 8 pg/mL | – | [ |
| AIDS | Carbon nanoparticles | HIV-1 p24 antigen | LFA | – | 50 pg/mL | 40 min | [ |
| AIDS | PtNCs | HIV-1 p24 antigen | LFA | Serum | 8 pg/mL | 20 min | [ |
| AIDS | AuNPs | HIV-1 DNA | LFA | – | 0.1 nM | 15 min | [ |
| AIDS | AuNPs | HIV gp41 antigen | LFA | – | Sensitivity 100% | 15 min | [ |
| AIDS | UCNPs | UCNPs LFS | Serum | Sensitivity 96.6% | 20–40 min | [ | |
| Hepatitis | Carboxyl modified CdSe/ZnS QDs | HbsAg | LFA | – | 75 pg/mL | 15 min | [ |
| Hepatitis B | Fluoro-Max fluorescent nanoparticles | HBV A | Fluorescent -LFA | Serum | 2.5 IU/mL, | 20 min | [ |
| Hepatitis B | Fluoro-Max fluorescent nanoparticles | HBV DNA | Fluorescent -LFA | Serum | 2.5–10.0 IU/mL | 20 min | [ |
| AIDS | AuNPs | HIV, HCV, HAV | LFA | Serum | Sensitivity 100% | 30 min | [ |
| Hepatitis | Up-converting phosphor | Hepatitis B surface antigen (HbsAg) | LFA | – | 60 mIU/mL | 10 min | [ |
| Hepatitis | ZnSe/CdSe/CdS/Cd xZn1−xS/ZnS QDs | Hepatitis B surface antigen | QD-LFIA | – | 0.05 ng/mL | 10 min | [ |
| Influenza A | AuNPs | Hemagglutinin | LFA | – | 0.25 HA units | 10 min | [ |
| Influenza A | Cy5 doped silica nanoparticles | Hemagglutinin | LFA | – | 250 ng/mL | 30 min | [ |
| Influenza A and Human adenovirus | Fe3O4@Ag magnetic tags | H1N1 and HadV | SERS- based LFA | – | 50 PFU/mL, | 30 min | [ |
| COVID-19 and Influenza A | QDs | Sars-CoV-2 IgG Antibody and FluA | Fluorescent -LFA | Serum | IgG 5 pg/mL | 15 min | [ |
| Influenza B | Cy5-loaded silica nanoparticles | Influenza B virus protein | Fluorescent -LFA | – | 0.55 μg | 30 min | [ |
| Influenza A and Influenza B | Streptavidin-coated gold colloid | H1N1 and H3N2 | Lateral flow dipsticks | – | H1N1 78.57% | 20 min | [ |
| Malaria | AuNPs | pLDH | Dipstick LFA | Serum | 1 ng/μL | 20 min | [ |
| Malaria | AuNPs | pLDH | LFA | – | 10 ng/mL | – | [ |
| PRV | AuAg4−ATP@AgNPs | wild-type PRV | SERS-based LFA | – | 5 ng/mL | 15 min | [ |
| Y. pestis, F. Tularensis, and B. Anthracis | SERS nanotags | Y. pestis, F. Tularensis, and B. Anthracis | SERS- based LFA | – | 43.4 CFU/mL, | 15 min | [ |
| Ebola | AuNPs | EBOV Glycoprotein | LFA | Serum | Sensitivity 100% Selectivity 98% | 15 min | [ |
| Tuberculosis | AuNPs | Tuberculosis antigen | LFA | Serum | Specificity 95% | 25 min | [ |
Fig. 5(A) Schematic illustration of the SERS-based LFA for human IgG using thermally stable Si-AuNPs. The Si-AuNPs are trapped by anti-human IgG antibodies on the test region, whereas the excess SERS nanoprobes are captured by capture antibodies on the control region [100]; (B) Reading the proposed fluorescent LFIA test result with a smartphone and the general principle of the design. a) 3D schematic of the imaging device showing the internal structure and components, b) İmage of the designed LFA reader device, c) Detailed schematic representation of fluorescent based LFA for determination of Zika NS1, d) Strip images of positive and negative results [102]. Reproduced with permission from ref. 100–102, Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 6(A) Installation image and measuring principle of the SERS-LFA for quantification of HIV-1 DNA biomarker [105]; (B) Demonstration of design of integrated fluorescence lateral flow assay platform with 4-sided cassette for multiplex detection of HIV, TP, HCV markers [110]; (C) The elaboration of a LFA strip and detail schematic of strand displacement amplification and positive or negative expression on strips [107]. Reproduced with permission from ref. 105-110-107, Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 7The sandwich approach for detecting HBsAg utilizing a QB based LFA platform is shown schematically; (A) The five-component assembly of a traditional LFA, with a test region and a control region due to positive testing; (B) An immunochromatographic test with a control line yields a negative result; (C) The reader for fluorescence strips [117]; (D) Schematic representation of the developed LFA system. The NC membrane contains three test zones and a control zone. The test regions include the protein probe to detect anti-HIV, anti-HCV, and anti-HAV antibodies, respectively, while the control region contains goat anti-human secondary antibodies [125]. Reproduced with permission from ref. 117–125, Elsevier Ltd.
Fig. 8(A) Synthesis of silica-QD nanobead probes for detection of SARS-CoV-2 and FluA at the same time, (B) conjugation of silica-QD nanobeads with SARS-CoV-2 NP and FluA, (C) application of developed beads to LFA-based biosensor and test working principle [142]; (D) Detail illustration of the SERS-LFA. (a) Positive result, the AuAg4−ATP@AgNPs-(gE-mAb) is captured at both the detector region (test and the control). (b) Negative result, the AuAg4−ATP@AgNPs-(gE-mAb) is captured at the control region. (c) Basic drawing and measurement of the positive reaction on the T line [153]; (E) Operating concept of the SERS-LFA biosensing platform. Y. pestis, F. tularensis, and B. anthracis LFA strips were dipped into wells of a 96-well ELISA plate containing mixes of SERS nanotags and varying quantities of bacteria in buffer solution. The generated immunocomplexes moved to the test line through capillary action, where their Raman signals were recorded and evaluated [157]. Reproduced with permission from ref. 142-153-157, Elsevier Ltd.