PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15890889

Development of a high-throughput automated analyzer using biochip array technology.

Stephen P Fitzgerald·John V Lamont·Robert I McConnell·El O Benchikh
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Use of protein array technology over conventional assay methods has advantages that include simultaneous detection of multiple analytes, reduction in sample and reagent volumes, and high output of test results. The susceptibility of ligands to denaturation, however, has impeded production of a stable, reproducible biochip platform, limiting most array assays to manual or, at most, semiautomated processing techniques. Such limitations may be overcome by novel biochip fabrication procedures. METHODS: After selection of a suitable biochip substrate, biochip surfaces were chemically modified and assessed to enable optimization of biochip fabrication procedures for different test panels. The assay procedure was then automated on a dedicated instrument, and assay performance was determined for a panel of cytokine markers. Assay results were then compared with a commercial method for measurement of cytokine markers. RESULTS: Secondary ion mass spectrometry and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy demonstrated appropriate and reproducible modification of the biochip surface. Contact-angle studies also confirmed generation of hydrophobic surfaces that enabled containment of droplets for fabrication of discrete test regions. Automation of the biochip assays on a dedicated instrument produced excellent cytokine marker performance with intra- and interassay imprecision <10% for most analytes. Comparison studies showed good agreement with other methods (r = 0.95-0.99) for cytokines. CONCLUSION: Performance data from this automated biochip array analyzer provide evidence that it is now possible to produce stable and reproducible biochips for output of more than 2000 test results per hour.

Explore related subjects

AutoanalysisBiomarkersCytokinesHumansLuminescent MeasurementsProtein Array AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationSpectrometry, X-Ray EmissionJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stephen P Fitzgerald, John V Lamont, Robert I McConnell, El O Benchikh. 2005-05-12. Development of a high-throughput automated analyzer using biochip array technology.. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2005.049429

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Use of the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for rapid and reproducible molecular typing of Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis is an economic and fast technique for molecular typing but has the drawback of difficulties in accurately sizing DNA fragments and comparing banding patterns on agarose gels. We aimed to improve RFLP for typing of the important human pathogen Streptococcus pneumoniae and to compare the results with the commonly used typing techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and multilocus sequence typing. We designed primers to amplify a noncoding region adjacent to the pneumolysin gene. The PCR product was digested separately with six restriction endonucleases, and the DNA fragments were analyzed using an Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer for accurate sizing. The combined RFLP results for all enzymes allowed us to assign each of the 47 clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae tested to one of 33 RFLP types. RFLP analyzed using the bioanalyzer allowed discrimination between strains similar to that obtained by the more commonly used techniques of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, which discriminated between 34 types, and multilocus sequence typing, which discriminated between 35 types, but more quickly and with less expense. RFLP of a noncoding region using the Agilent 2100 bioanalyzer could be a useful addition to the molecular typing techniques in current use for S. pneumoniae, especially as a first screen of a local population.

Autoanalysis↗
PubMed2007

A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System.

We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high-grade disease and productivity. The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides. In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy-confirmed high-grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS-screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%). In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high-grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high-grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides. Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS.

Autoanalysis↗