Clinical chemistry · 2011
Digital microfluidic platform for multiplexing enzyme assays: implications for lysosomal storage disease screening in newborns.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sista Ramakrishna S, Eckhardt Allen E, Wang Tong, Graham Carrie, Rouse Jeremy L, Norton Scott M, Srinivasan Vijay, Pollack Michael G, Tolun Adviye A, Bali Deeksha, Millington David S, Pamula Vamsee K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Newborn screening for lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) has been gaining considerable interest owing to the availability of enzyme replacement therapies. We present a digital microfluidic platform to perform rapid, multiplexed enzymatic analysis of acid α-glucosidase (GAA) and acid α-galactosidase to screen for Pompe and Fabry disorders. The results were compared with those obtained using standard fluorometric methods.
METHODS: We performed bench-based, fluorometric enzymatic analysis on 60 deidentified newborn dried blood spots (DBSs), plus 10 Pompe-affected and 11 Fabry-affected samples, at Duke Biochemical Genetics Laboratory using a 3-mm punch for each assay and an incubation time of 20 h. We used a digital microfluidic platform to automate fluorometric enzymatic assays at Advanced Liquid Logic Inc. using extract from a single punch for both assays, with an incubation time of 6 h. Assays were also performed with an incubation time of 1 h.
RESULTS: Assay results were generally comparable, although mean enzymatic activity for GAA using microfluidics was approximately 3 times higher than that obtained using bench-based methods, which could be attributed to higher substrate concentration. Clear separation was observed between the normal and affected samples at both 6- and 1-h incubation times using digital microfluidics.
CONCLUSIONS: A digital microfluidic platform compared favorably with a clinical reference laboratory to perform enzymatic analysis in DBSs for Pompe and Fabry disorders. This platform presents a new technology for a newborn screening laboratory to screen LSDs by fully automating all the liquid-handling operations in an inexpensive system, providing rapid results.
METHODS: We performed bench-based, fluorometric enzymatic analysis on 60 deidentified newborn dried blood spots (DBSs), plus 10 Pompe-affected and 11 Fabry-affected samples, at Duke Biochemical Genetics Laboratory using a 3-mm punch for each assay and an incubation time of 20 h. We used a digital microfluidic platform to automate fluorometric enzymatic assays at Advanced Liquid Logic Inc. using extract from a single punch for both assays, with an incubation time of 6 h. Assays were also performed with an incubation time of 1 h.
RESULTS: Assay results were generally comparable, although mean enzymatic activity for GAA using microfluidics was approximately 3 times higher than that obtained using bench-based methods, which could be attributed to higher substrate concentration. Clear separation was observed between the normal and affected samples at both 6- and 1-h incubation times using digital microfluidics.
CONCLUSIONS: A digital microfluidic platform compared favorably with a clinical reference laboratory to perform enzymatic analysis in DBSs for Pompe and Fabry disorders. This platform presents a new technology for a newborn screening laboratory to screen LSDs by fully automating all the liquid-handling operations in an inexpensive system, providing rapid results.