|
|
CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/02/07 Through 3/01/08
Project Title: A Multichannel Handheld Sensor for Microbial Contaminants
Project Objectives for This Reporting Period Objectives 1. To develop a multichannel handheld analyzer to detect microbial contaminants based upon Nucleic Acid Sequence Based Amplification (NASBA), 2. Develop a simple method for field nucleic acid extraction from environmental samples, and 3. Test the extraction method and analyzer in the field in the GTM NERR near St. Augustine, FL, the Apalachicola NERR, and in Tampa Bay.
Tasks to meet objectives
Progress on Tasks
We anticipate the complete prototype to be ready for testing by May 2008. The multiplexed system utilizes the concept of flexible printed circuit board (PCB) substrates, planar fabrication techniques and component placement, with subsequent folding to produce a 3-dimensional reaction chamber in the form of a compact heated fluorometer. The mini-fluorometer subsystem uses an inserted heater/detection chamber manufactured from polyimide printed circuit material. Circuits for a planar resistive heater, integrated LED and filtered photo-detector have been completed. The heater/detection chamber is manufactured as a planar circuit and LED and photo-detector attached. The entire construct is then folded in space to form a cylindrical and distributed reaction/detection flex unit that is inserted inside the (ABS) acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene block. Heat is both supplied and regulated to the heater section by measuring the resistance of the heater circuit at a constant voltage and varying current. Figure 1, and Figure 2, exhibit the 2D-3D transform concept and the final opto-electro-thermal block that forms the basis for the multiplexed system. We have two blocks fully completed and ready for integration. Microcontroller developments have been completed and described in a previous report.
Replacement of transcript standard and internal control RNA with oligonucleotide DNAs
Oligonucleotide targets and internal control molecules for rbcL were designed with the exact base sequences as their respective mRNA targets. NASBA assays were performed targeting equal copy numbers of both oligonucleotides and in vitro RNA transcripts at various ranges of titers. In vitro RNA transcripts were used in the comparison instead of whole cell K. brevis mRNA extracts due to constant availability at times when borrowed K. brevis cultures were not readily available. Previous research by our lab has shown a highly reproducible correlation between in vitro RNA transcript copy numbers and mRNA extracted from known numbers of K. brevis cells. This correlation allows us to equate oligonucleotide copy number to inferred in vitro RNA transcript copy number and then to inferred K. brevis cell number. Table 1 shows the performance of oligonucleotides in three such cross calibration experiments. The TTP ratio (time to positivity ratio) is the ratio of the rbcL target time to positivity divided by the internal control target time to positivity. As can be seen, although TTP ratio increases with a decrease in concentration for transcripts or oligoucleotides, the actual TTP values are significantly greater for the oligonucleotides. Strictly speaking, on a molecule-per-molecule basis, the RNA transcripts were significantly more sensitive than the DNA oligonucleotides. Using the RNA transcripts to serve as a standard curve, the oligonucleotide TTP ratios were used to generate apparent transcript concentrations (Figure 3). As can be seen from the slope of the line, the oligonucleotides give about _ the signal (or twice the TTP ratio) as in vitro transcribed mRNA. Why the amplification primes RNA better than synthetic oligonucleotides is not known. It may be that the length of the oligonucleotides (87 bp and 92 bp for rbcL target and internal control, respectively) may push the limit of oligonucleotide synthesis, and that a portion of our oligonucleotides are shorter than expected, and therefore cannot be amplified. This would account for the overestimation of the actual oligonucleotide copy number. Alternatively, NASBA might prime RNA more efficiently than ssDNA. In either case, we need to use roughly twice as much oligonucleotide as transcript to achieve the same dynamic range. Using regression analysis from the equation derived from the in vitro transcript RNA standard curve, inferred RNA copy numbers were calculated for each DNA oligonucleotide titer. Previous studies in our lab have shown there to be approximately 10,000 rbcL mRNA copies per K. brevis cell. Given the linear relationship between TTP ratios from the RNA transcript and DNA oligonucleotide comparison (Figure 3), we can now equate DNA oligonucleotide copy number to cell number using TTP ratio regression analysis (Figure 4). This will allow us to produce lyophilized rbcL DNA oligonucleotide internal control standards that equate directly to a target cell number for a quantitative NASBA assay using the hand held sensor. Our intention is to calibrate each oligonucleotide lot against whole K. brevis cell abundance to ensure precise quantification in the field.
Have the results/data gathered during this reporting period changed the project objectives when compared to your original proposal? Please explain.
Dissemination activities during this reporting period (please include the number of participants where applicable).
Publications appearing
Difficulties
Data Generated to date
Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period
Objectives
Work Plan to Meet Objectives
Dissemination Objectives for next reporting period
Overall Project Timeline Update
Expenditures
End User Advisor Feedback
At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
What are the key challenges to application of this technology? Please consider the technology itself as well as issues related to regulation, politics, socio-economic pressures, trends in the field etc.
Has anything changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period (not applicable to the first Progress Report)?
Questions/comments/ suggestions for the researchers?
PI Response to End User Advisor Feedback
|