| Literature DB >> 36133274 |
Anju Joshi1, Anil Vishnu G K1,2, Tushar Sakorikar1, Arif M Kamal1, Jayant S Vaidya3, Hardik J Pandya1.
Abstract
Timely and accurate diagnosis of breast cancer is essential for efficient treatment and the best possible survival rates. Biosensors have emerged as a smart diagnostic platform for the detection of biomarkers specific to the onset, recurrence, and therapeutic drug monitoring of breast cancer. There have been exciting recent developments, including significant improvements in the validation, sensitivity, specificity, and integration of sample processing steps to develop point-of-care (POC) integrated micro-total analysis systems for clinical settings. The present review highlights various biosensing modalities (electrical, optical, piezoelectric, mass, and acoustic sensing). It provides deep insights into their design principles, signal amplification strategies, and comparative performance analysis. Finally, this review emphasizes the status of existing integrated micro-total analysis systems (μ-TAS) for personalized breast cancer therapeutics and associated challenges and outlines the approach required to realize their successful translation into clinical settings. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 36133274 PMCID: PMC9417675 DOI: 10.1039/d1na00453k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanoscale Adv ISSN: 2516-0230
Fig. 1Highlights of different biosensing approaches for breast cancer diagnosis.
Fig. 2Different examples of electrochemical biosensing approaches for breast cancer detection. (I) Schematic representation of GNR@Pd SSs—Apt—HRP: formation and its application for HER2 detection. Reproduced with permission.[27] Copyright 2019, Elsevier. (II) Schematics of the steps involved in the electrochemical detection of mi-RNA 155. Reproduced with permission.[35] Copyright 2016, Elsevier. (III) Detailed process of graphene facilitated BRCA 1 detection using gold-thiolate chemistry. Reproduced with permission.[41] Copyright 2014, Elsevier.
Fig. 3Different optical biosensors for breast cancer specific biomarkers. (I) AgNC facilitated fluorescence aptasensing of HER2. Reproduced with permission.[59] Copyright 2019, Elsevier. (II) Optical Magnetoactuated immunoassay for pre-concentration, and detection of breast cancer cell derived exosome. Adapted with permission.[61] Copyright 2020, Elsevier. (III) An all-in-one optical DNA biosensor for multiplexed detection of miRNAs (exosomal origin) using the competitive strand displacement strategy. Reproduced with permission.[64] Copyright 2020, Royal Society of Chemistry.
Fig. 4DNAzyme assisted DNA recycling and rolling circle amplification for the colorimetric detection of the BRCA1 genetic biomarker for breast cancer. Reproduced with permission.[94] Copyright 2015, Royal Society of Chemistry.
Performance of different electrochemical biosensors for the detection of breast cancer-specific biomarkers
| S. no. | Sensing interface | Electrochemical technique | Electrode | Target analyte | Real samples | Strategy | Detection limit | Linear range | Advantages | Limitations | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GCE/Gr/DNA-C|DNA-t|DNA-r AuNP | CV and chronoamperometry | Glassy carbon electrode | BRCA1 | NS | Gold nps | 1 fM | 1 fM to 1 nM | Ultra-sensitive detection of BRCA1 | Gold nanoparticle-based labelled approach adds to the cost and is affected by the instability of the labels |
|
| Real sample investigations are not performed | |||||||||||
| 2 | dsDNA/MCH | EIS and DPV | Gold electrode | BRCA1 | NS | Label-free | 0.05 nM | 0.1–10 nM | Label-free sensitive detection of BRCA1 | Immobilized exonucleases adds to the cost and affects the reproducibility of the sensor |
|
| 3 | ss-DNA | EIS | GCE | Mammaglobin | Clinical breast cancer samples | Label-free | 5.0 × 10−10 M | 1.0 × 10−9 to 2.0 × 10−8 M | Convenient, sensitive, and time-saving approach | Sensor's response should be extended to other biomarkers to ensure reliable detection |
|
| 4 | SPCE-AuNP/HER2-ECD anti-HER2-ECD-AP | LSV | Screen printed carbon electrode | HER2-ECD | Human serum | Alkaline phosphatase | 5 U mL−1 | 0–70 U mL−1 | Simultaneous detection of HER2 and CA 15-3 for accurate breast cancer prediction | Immobilized alkaline phosphatase can add to the cost and affects the reproducibility of the sensor |
|
| 5 | AuNPs/Apt/Ab-EGFR | DPV | Magnet | EGFR | Human serum | Gold nps | 50 pg mL | 1–40 ng mL−1 | First approach of Apt/Ab sandwich assay of EGFR | Proposed approach is still in the proof-of-concept stage |
|
| 6 | Polycytosine DNA/gold electrode | SWV | Gold electrode | HER2 | Human serum | Gold nps | 0.5 pg mL−1 | 1 pg mL−1 to 1 ng mL−1 | Versatile and sensitive approach for the detection of HER2 | Sensor's response should be extended to other biomarkers to ensure reliable detection |
|
| 7 | cDNA/Fc/MXene/Apt/Au/GCE | SWV | Glassy carbon electrode | MUC1 | Human serum | Fc labelled cDNA | 0.33 pM | 1.0 pM to 10 μM | Sensitive and stable approach with clinical potential | Ferrocene-cDNA labelling process can add to the cost and processing steps |
|
| 8 | GCE/APTMS-Fe3O4 NPs/Ab/HER2/hyd@AuNPs-APTMS-Fe3O4 labeled Ab-AgNO3 | DPV | Glassy carbon electrode | HER2 | Human serum | Fe3O4 labeled Ag NO3 | 2 × 10−5 ng mL | 5.0 × 10−4 to 50.0 ng mL | AuNP-promoted silver enhancement-based amplification strategy | Ag nanoparticle-based labelled approach |
|
| 9 | Au NPs/β-CD/HT/FcNS/HRPNS | DPV | Gold electrode | HER2 | Human serum | HRPNS | 4.9 ng mL−1 | 10–150 ng mL−1 | RecJf exonuclease and peroxidase-based signal amplification towards HER2 | Immobilization of multiple enzymes may add to the cost and affect reproducibility due to random orientation. |
|
| 10 | GNR@Pd SSs—Apt—HRP/DNA tetrahedron | DPV | Gold electrode | HER2 | Human serum | HRP | 0.15 ng mL | 10–200 ng mL | Combined application of a DNA tetrahedron and GNR@Pd SSs—Apt—HRP for amplification towards HER2 | Time consuming labelling process and instability due to the presence of the HRP enzyme |
|
| 11 | Tetrahedral DNA nanostructure and G-wire | Chronoamperometry | Gold electrode | miRNA 21 | Human serum | Label-free | 176 fM | 0.5–10 000 pM | Tetrahedral DNA nanostructure probes and guanine nanowire amplification assisted detection of miRNA-21 | Regeneration of the biosensor is not feasible and improvisation in the detection range is required |
|
| 12 | SWNT-SPE | EIS and DPV | Screen printed electrode | BRCA1 | NS | Label-free | 378.52 nM | 10–120 μg mL−1 | Nano-structuring and screen printing facilitated disposable and sensitive platform for the detection of BRCA1 | Complex DNA based chemistry can lead to false signals as a consequence of varying DNA structures. |
|
| 13 | Au-SPR/anti-miRNA-155 | EIS and SWV | Gold–SPE | miRNA −155 | Human serum | Label-free | 5.7 aM | 10 aM to 1.0 nM | Simple and sensitive approach for multiplexed detection of miRNA-155 | Sensor's response should be extended to multiplexed miRNA detection in human serum |
|
| 14 | HER2-peptide/Apt HER2/phosphate ion | SWV | Gold electrode | HER2 | Human serum samples | Label-free | 0.05 pg mL−1 | 0.1–500 pg mL−1 | Dual signal amplification based sensitive approach for HER2 detection | Adsorption based immobilization of phosphate ions onto MnO2 nanosheets can affect the reproducibility of sensor response |
|
| 15 | 2′- | Amperometry (current–time) | Gold Electrode | miR-21 | Human serum | Label-free | 8 aM | 50–500 aM | 2′- | Instability of DNAzymes and high cost can affect sensor performance |
|
| 16 | Bipedal DNA walkers/LNA | DPV | Gold electrode | miR-21 | Breast cancer patient serum | LNA labelled captured probe | 67 aM | 0.1–100 fM | Cascade signal amplification assisted by two footed DNA walkers and excellent specificity due to LNA and TMSDR approaches | Further improvisation in the performance (extension of the walking duration of DNA walkers) is required and integration of components to execute exosomal capture, release, crush and detection on a single platform is required |
|
| 17 | MOF@Pt@MOF | DPV | Gold electrode | miR-21 | Breast cancer patient serum | PER (primer exchange reaction) | 0.29 fM | 1 fM to 1 nM | Ultrasensitive response due to cascade PER and multiple layered nanozymes | Time-consuming and high cost of PER constituents (primer, gated hairpin, and DNA polymerase) |
|
Summary of FET biosensors for different breast cancer specific biomarkers
| S. no. | Target biomarker | Nanomaterials | Detection limit | Advantages | Limitations | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BRCA1 | Graphene oxide | 0.2 nM | Convenient strategy with potential for lab-on-chip application to detect exon 20 of BRCA1 | PCR assisted amplification is required for the specific DNA region, 157 bp |
|
| 2 | DNA and cancer cells (universal approach) | Graphene oxide ink | 0.1 pM | Versatile approach with excellent selectivity with 0.1 pM of the target DNA | Needs association of integrated circuits for wireless POC applications |
|
| 3 | HER3 | Pt modified graphene | 300 fg mL−1 | Scalable fabrication of arrays of graphene field effect transistors (GFETs). A novel approach for scalable fabrication of 52 arrays of graphene field effect transistors (GFETs) for sensitive detection of HER3 | Real sample analysis needs to be done in the presence of HER1, HER2, and HER4 |
|
| 4 | HER2 and EGFR | r-GO-silicon oxide NPs | 1 pM and 100 pM | Convenient, sensitive, and selective approach | Sensor's response should be extended to multiple breast cancer specific biomarkers on a single platform |
|
| 5 | miRNA-155 | MoS2 | 0.03 fM | Convenient and sensitive approach | Sensor's response should be extended to multiplexed miRNA detection |
|
Different optical biosensors for breast cancer detection
| S. no. | Type of sensor | Target analyte | Matrices | Detection limit | Linear range | Advantages | Limitations | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fluorescence | c-erbB-2 oncogene | Human saliva | 20 fM | 100 fM to 1 pM | Sensitive detection of c-erbB-2 in saliva using thioflavin-T as the fluorescent indicator | Loss of fluorescence due to photobleaching |
|
| 2 | Fluorescence | HER 2 | Human serum | 0.0904 fM | 8.5–255 fM | Convenient and sensitive turn-on approach for the detection of HER2 | Temperature and pH-dependent fluorescence response |
|
| 3 | Fluorescence | HER2 and microRNA-21 | Human serum | 0.042 ng mL−1; 0.048 pM | 0.5 to 3.5 ng mL−1; 0.1 to 20 pM | Convenient approach for sensitive multiplexed detection of HER2 and microRNA-21 | Loss of fluorescence due to photobleaching |
|
| 4 | Fluorescence | miRNA-155 | Human serum samples | 5.5 fM | 2.70 fM to 0.01 pM | Ultra-sensitive FRET approach for the detection of miRNA-155 using a La( | Approach should be extended for multiplexed detection of miRNAs |
|
| 5 | Fluorescence | HER2 | Cell lysates | 1.5 pM | NA | Sensitive assay for the detection of HER2 within 30 min | Future studies to be directed to perform the detection of HER2 in human plasma samples |
|
| Application of two different quantification techniques (LF or FLUO modes) without any change in optical systems was proposed | ||||||||
| 6 | Fluorescence | miR-21, miR-27a, miR-375 | Human serum samples | 0.116 μg mL−1, 0.125 μg mL−1, 0.287 μg mL−1 | 5–140 nM, 2–100 nM, 7–70 nM | Self-competent biosensor with a capability to enter into exosomes and perform multiplexed detection of miRNAs (miR-21, miR-27a and miR-375) | Collection of exosomes from cell lysates and extraction is time consuming (48 h). |
|
| Attached fluorophores are subject to photo-bleaching | ||||||||
| 7 | SPR | HER2 | Serum | 180 pg mL | 0.23–55 ng/mL | Gold nanoparticle assisted amplification leads to a 180 pg mL−1 detection limit towards HER2 | Detection process should be extendable to other biomarkers for accuracy in the detection process |
|
| 8 | SPR | HER2 | NA | 2 ng mL | NA | Compact, disposable, and sensitive (2 ng mL−1) approach towards the detection of HER2 | Sensor's response should be extended to multiple breast cancer biomarkers |
|
| 9 | SPR | HER2 | Serum and cell lysates | 10 ng mL | 13 to 100 ng mL | Convenient and efficient approach | Streptavidin-avidin antibody modifiers are required for better and oriented interaction with the target |
|
| 10 | SERS | miR-21, miR-34a | NA | NA | NA | Strategy holds potential for multiplexing capabilities | Detailed studies are required for implementation in clinical practice |
|
| 11 | SERS | MUC1 | Human serum samples | 4.3 aM | 0.005–1 fM | Sensitive technique for the detection of MUC1 (4.3 aM) using core–shell nanostructures | Multiplexed detection of breast cancer biomarkers is required |
|
| 12 | SERS-colorimetric | MUC1 | Human serum samples | 0.1 U mL−1 | 0.1–100 U mL−1 | Visual naked eye based sensitive detection of MUC1 | Time consuming assay procedure (MUC1 capture: 90 min and magnetic separation: 75 min) |
|
| 13 | SERS | Exosomal miRNAs | Human serum samples | 1 aM | 1 aM to 100 nm | Versatile approach for sensitive detection of mi-RNA's | Incorporation of sample extraction, processing, and detection capabilities on a single platform is required |
|
Integrated micro-total analysis systems for the detection of breast cancer-specific biomarkers
| S. no. | Sensing modalities | Technique | Target entity | Detection limit | Detection range | Cost | Real samples | Advantages | Limitations | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Electrochemical | Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy | ErbB2 | 1 fM | 1.0 fM to 0.1 pM | NA | NA | Clinically relevant high sensitivity towards ErbB2. | Device's response should be extended for other potential breast cancer specific biomarkers. |
|
| 0.1 pM to 0.1 μM | Efficient discrimination between ErbB2, ErbB3, and ErbB4 biomarkers | Sample processing steps needs to be incorporated for lab-on-chip settings | ||||||||
| 2 | Electrochemical | Amperometry | ERα | 10.0 fg mL−1 | 16.6–513.3 fg mL | $0.20 | Calf serum | Inexpensive approach, quick and sensitive detection (2 h) | Device response should be extended to other breast cancer specific biomarkers for reliable prediction |
|
| 3 | Electrochemical | Amperometry | HER2 | 12 pg mL−1 | 2 pg mL−1 to 12.5 ng mL−1 | $0.25 | Serum | Inexpensive, ultra-fast assay process (15 min) | Multiplexing is required for other breast cancer specific biomarkers for reliable prediction, and sample processing steps needs to be incorporated into the device |
|
| 4 | Electrochemical | Capacitance electrochemical impedance | HER2 | 1 pM | 1 pM to 100 nM | NA | Serum | Capacitance-based sensitive detection of HER2 in undiluted serum. | Response of the device should be extended to other breast cancer specific biomarkers for reliable prediction |
|
| 5 | Optical | FRET | let-7a and miRNA-195 | 0.061 nM; 0.064 nM | 0–10 nM; 0–10 nM | NA | Serum | Sensitive response towards multiple breast cancer specific biomarkers | Minimization of the noise and background interference is required for human serum samples |
|
| 6 | Optical | Fluorescence microfluidics | miR-21 | NA | NA | NA | 51 (30 healthy and 21 breast cancer positive patients) blood samples | Efficient and low-cost approach for discriminating breast cancer patients from healthy individuals. | Multiplexing capabilities need to be incorporated for enhancing the performance of the device. |
|
| 7 | Optical | Fluorescence | miR-4732, miR-3646, miR-4484, miR-K12-5 | 1 pM | 10−7 to 10−12 M | NA | Serum | Sensitive multiplexed detection of miRNAs (∼30 min) | Sample processing steps need to be integrated to avoid interference in the detection process |
|
| 8 | Optical | Fluorescence microfluidics | HER2 positive exosomes | NA | NA | NA | Plasma sample from breast cancer patients | Device capable of performing on-chip capture and quantification of circulating HER2 positive exosomes | Analytical performance of the device (concentration responses and interference studies) should be investigated in detail |
|
| 9 | Optical | Fluorescence microfluidics | EpCAM positive exosomes | NA | NA | NA | Blood of breast cancer patients | Device capable of performing on-chip isolation and detection of circulating exosomes | Requirement of the secondary antibody labelled approach for exosome enrichment |
|
| 10 | Optical | SERS | Peptides from BRCA1 | 0.1 ng μL−1 | NA | NA | NA | Device competent in extracting breast cancer specific peptides and performing their detection | Multiplexed separation and SERS-based detection of breast cancer specific peptides are required |
|
Fig. 5Recent advancements in electrochemical transducer based integrated microfluidic devices for breast cancer specific biomarker detection. (I) Detailed steps involved during the construction of the μFED device for estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) detection. Reproduced with permission.[104] Copyright 2018, Elsevier. (II) Electrochemical fully inkjet printed array for sandwich immunoassay-based detection of HER2. Reproduced with permission.[105] Copyright 2018, Elsevier. (III) Capacitive electrochemical device for the detection of HER2. Reproduced with permission.[106] Copyright 2018, Elsevier.
Fig. 6Different integrated optical microfluidic devices for the detection of breast cancer specific biomarkers. (I) Microfluidic device for the detection of circulating CD63 positive exosomes. Reproduced with permission.[111] Copyright 2017, PLOS ONE. (II) Immunofluorescence based isolation and detection of the EpCAM expressing exosome. Reproduced with permission.[112] Copyright 2019, American Institute of Physics (AIP). (III) Self-competent SERS based sensing platform for the detection of BRCA1 specific peptides. Reproduced with permission.[113] Copyright 2014, Royal Society of Chemistry.
Fig. 7(I) Design of the ac-EHD based multiplexed device for naked-eye detection of exosomes derived from HER2 positive cells. Adapted with permission.[114] Copyright 2014, American Chemical Society. (II) Detailed steps involved during the avidin-biotin assisted functionalization of the device with anti-HER2 and anti-CD9/anti-PSA. Reproduced with permission.[114] Copyright 2014, American Chemical Society.