(Invited) Simple Microfluidic Sample Preparation for Point of Care Diagnostics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sample preparation is a crucial set of unit operations that is performed on the sample to make it suitable for detection or sensing. Miniaturization of the sample preparation steps and their integration with the sensor is important for developing truly point of care sensing systems or the so called “Lab-on-Chip” devices. An ideal point of care device should be able to take raw sample in and provide information out. Sample preparation in such a setting should be performed with minimal intervention by the user, in an automated way and possibly without the use of external reagents. Although many microfluidic Lab-on-Chip devices have been developed with integrated sample preparation capability, the focus of the innovation has been on the sensor itself. They have typically used the same sequence of unit operations as the laboratory tests that they are based on and do not necessarily exploit the advantages of miniaturization to optimize sample preparation. We posit here that these devices should be developed with a focus on easy and simple sample preparation with minimal to no user intervention in order to find widespread applicability Here, we present examples of developing devices with focus on redesigning sample preparation methods to enable ease of use. First we demonstrate a simple microfluidic device (shown in Figure 1a) that can be used to analyse the cell free DNA concentration, a biomarker that is a prognostic indicator of mortality, at the bedside of septic patients. The device can separate cell free DNA from whole blood, concentrate it and quantify the concentration in a small form factor and under 5 min using small amount (10 uL) of blood. The device exploits the advantages of miniaturization in combining several unit operations that are normally performed sequentially in the laboratory so that the assay can be done faster. In another example, we exploit the advantage of miniaturization to perform bacterial culture assays faster. Bacterial culture and staining is the oldest method of diagnosis of bacterial infection. However, they are slow and take anywhere between 1 day (E.Coli) to few weeks (Mycobacteria). Molecular assays based on nucleic acids or proteins as biomarkers have emerged over the past few decades as faster methods to identify a pathogen. However, these assays do not provide viability or drug effectiveness information that are useful for medical professionals to formulate their treatment. In order to make culture based detection faster, we have developed a novel platform that automatically segments a sample in thousands of nanovolume wells. The device design is optimized to automatically segment the sample using a simple squeegee and under 1 min (shown in Figure 1b) which is suitable for point of care applications in resource poor settings. Metabolic activity of the bacteria aliquoted into these nanowells can be measured as an indicator of their presence and viability. By segmenting the sample into small volumes we show that the analysis time can be made much smaller especially at low concentrations. We also demonstrate single cell detection. The compact form factor of these devices and the minimal need for external reagents make them ideally suited for point of care testing. Figure 1
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».