Nucleic acid-based diagnostics for infectious diseases in public health affairs

Abstract

Infectious diseases, mostly caused by bacteria and viruses but also a result of fungal and parasitic infection, have been one of the most important public health concerns throughout human history. The first step in combating these pathogens is to get a timely and accurate diagnosis at an affordable cost. Many kinds of diagnostics have been developed, such as pathogen culture, biochemical tests and serological tests, to help detect and fight against the causative agents of diseases. However, these diagnostic tests are generally unsatisfactory because they are not particularly sensitive and specific and are unable to deliver speedy results. Nucleic acid-based diagnostics, detecting pathogens through the identification of their genomic sequences, have shown promise to overcome the above limitations and become more widely adopted in clinical tests. Here we review some of the most popular nucleic acid-based diagnostics and focus on their adaptability and applicability to routine clinical usage. We also compare and contrast the characteristics of different types of nucleic acid-based diagnostics.

Keywords

nucleic acid-based diagnostics / infectious disease / PCR / NASBA / LAMP / microarray / LOAC / public health affairs

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), infectious diseases account for more than 13 million deaths every year, one in two of which happen in developing countries with nearly two-thirds of all deaths among children under the age of 5. Poverty causes limited access to basic healthcare and has allowed deadly infectious diseases to gain ground. The poorest countries therefore pay the heaviest price. However, the substantial threats from infectious diseases do not recognize international boundaries. With globalization creating a new paradigm of population movement, living and non-living agents and materials capable of carrying infectious agents are inadvertently transported across vast distances. Modern transportation systems allow the spread of epidemics in a matter of hours. Huge increases in population mobility pose new challenges to traditional concepts of infection transmission and the relationship between populations and the global spread of disease [1].

This threat has grown and become more complex in the last decade, with many examples of changes in infectious disease patterns. New diseases have emerged: a typical example was provided in 2003 with the global alert on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) outbreak originating in Guangdong Province, China. It quickly spread from a localized area to become to a pandemic threat and, overall, 30 countries have reported a total of 8 098 probable cases of SARS. On the other hand, pathogens once viewed as declining in significance have resurged in importance; for example, the worldwide resurgence of dengue fever and the global spread of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The story is made even more complicated by the increasing awareness of the role of infectious agents in some cancers and chronic diseases once believed to be noninfectious. For example, Helicobacter pylori is now widely accepted as the causative agent of peptic ulcers, and perhaps of gastric malignancy, and human papillomavirus is likely to be the most important cause of invasive cervical cancer [2].

Changing epidemiology and understanding of infectious diseases calls for updated diagnostics. However, “correct diagnosis” is not enough, “timely” and “accurate” diagnosis is critical to the global effort to fight infectious diseases. The loss of life and decrease in the quality of living caused by pandemics is still very large, mainly because of the lack of tools for fast and efficient diagnosis. The similarity of symptoms between pandemic diseases and the common cold can have severe social and economic impacts, increasing stress levels and hospital work-loads. The WHO has provided the “ASSURED” definition for an ideal diagnostic test (Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly, Rapid, Equipment-free and Delivered to those who need it). To maximize efficiency and minimize cost, an ideal diagnostic technology should also be multiplexed, able to test many disease targets and markers simultaneously. A multiplexed ASSURED diagnostic technology will provide a tool to control and contain infectious diseases at a sufficiently early stage.

Pathogen isolation and serological tests are the conventional diagnostic methods that, though not very sensitive, have been widely used to identify the cause of a disease. In the early 1990s, with the development of specific monoclonal antibody technology, molecular diagnostics became a powerful player in healthcare, representing a highly sensitive approach for clinical diagnosis. Although molecular tests have played an important role in the surveillance and control of infectious diseases, more accurate and more sensitive diagnostic tools are still required. Technological advances and personalized medicine are driving the rapid development of optimal patient diagnosis and treatment in healthcare institutions.

Nucleic acid-based diagnostics provide us not only fast, accurate and sensitive detection and diagnosis of pathogens that cause infectious disease, but also knowledge of the epidemiology of the disease. These diagnostic methods usually involve two critical steps: sample pre-treatment and genetic analysis. The sample pre-treatment, such as extraction and purification of the target nucleic acids, is a time consuming manual process. This step is essential, and the methodology used should be standardized to minimize discrepancies between tests and between testing centers. Potential contamination should also be kept to a minimum to increase the accuracy of the tests. A full discussion of these factors is outside the scope of this review (see Refs. [3] and [4]). For the genetic analysis, there is often a nucleic acid amplification step. While reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is most commonly used, a number of other amplification methods, including nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and displacement amplification have shown their importance in clinical applications. Recently, multiplex PCR assays have been introduced to detect as many as 20 different pathogens simultaneously and several commercial multiplex assays are now available [5]. These highly sensitive nucleic acid-based diagnostics are gradually being adopted for routine clinical tests.

New tests and diagnostic systems must demonstrate clinical value and validity, and be easy to use, in order to attract widespread adoption. Nucleic acid-based amplification technologies could provide promising tools in the quest for an ideal diagnostic. Here we review the main nucleic acid-based diagnostic tools, focusing on their pros and cons for routine clinical usage. The review is written for medical health professionals and will not explore in-depth technical issues of nucleic acid-based diagnostics.

Polymerase chain reaction-based amplification

PCR is an in vitro enzymatic reaction that allows the production of large quantities of a specific fragment of DNA through repeated cycles of replication driven by DNA polymerase. It has become a very popular and basic practical technique used in laboratories for DNA cloning and other molecular procedures like Southern blotting, DNA sequencing, and recombinant DNA technology. This easy-to-carry-out but vital tool has revolutionized molecular biology and clinical diagnostics. Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for this discovery [6].

The portion of DNA to be amplified is known as the “template.” “Primers” are short pieces of artificially synthesized DNA sequences that bind to the template to provide sites for initiation of DNA replication. There are three major steps involved: (1) Denaturation: The double-stranded DNA is subjected to high temperature to “unzip” it into single strands, and the heating also stops all enzymatic activities; (2) Annealing: When the temperature is reduced, the primers identify and bind to the segment of the targeted region to be amplified; (3) Extension: At an appropriate temperature, DNA polymerase catalyzes the formation of a DNA molecule complementary to the template sequence. These three steps are usually repeated for 30 to 40 cycles. The specificity of PCR is provided by the sequences of the primers which are complementary to only one region of the template DNA. Only the sequence between the two primer-bound sites is amplified. Primers bound at positions with no exact match will not hydrogen-bond properly and will not result in extension of the fragment.

The DNA polymerase used in the original protocol was not heat-resistant and therefore had to be replenished after the denaturation step of each cycle. This problem was solved with the discovery of Taq polymerase [7], a DNA polymerase purified from Thermus aquaticus, a thermophilic bacterium living naturally in hot springs [8]. Taq polymerase, being stable and heat-resistant, allowed an automatic thermocycler-based process for DNA amplification to be implemented. The repeated PCR cycles can now be performed on an automated cycler which rapidly heats and cools the reaction mixtures.

Traditionally, PCR is performed in a tube and the amplified DNA can only be visualized after the reaction is completed by subsequent analysis with gel electrophoresis. Although it has become the most important technique for DNA study, PCR cannot be used for quantitative analysis. Although computer software may be utilized to quantify the intensity of the band to determine the relative amount of PCR product, the sensitivity and accuracy of the process require further evaluation. A great advancement of the PCR technique was the invention of quantitative real-time PCR (RT-PCR or qPCR). RT-PCR detects the initial amount of the template rather than the final product [9]. By monitoring the amount of fluorescence emitted during the PCR reaction as an indicator of the amount of DNA amplification during each cycle, the progress of the reaction in “real time” can be visualized using an RT-PCR machine. Thus, RT-PCR is commonly used to determine not only the presence, but also the original copy number of a specific DNA target.

Extensive application of PCR in clinical laboratory tests requires a high level of sensitivity and accuracy of detection. RT-PCR has a very high degree of precision compared to standard PCR. Unless a standardized molecular test with high sensitivity and specificity becomes available, the risk of false-negative test results (where the test is negative while the virus is present) exists, leading to escape of infected patients/carriers from isolation and control measures. When SARS broke out in 2003, scientists had to devise a more sensitive detection method because it was difficult to identify the virus at an early stage of infection [10]. When the regular primer sets failed, a group of Chinese scientists designed a nested set of primers and successfully amplified shorter genomic fragments for sequencing [11]. This nested PCR procedure, combined with RT-PCR, evolved into an enhanced real-time PCR (ERT-PCR) technique (Fig. 1), which is more sensitive, reliable and accurate in the detection of SARS-CoV [12,13]. Statistical results from 120 clinical samples showed that the limit of detection (LOD) of ERT-PCR was 10³-fold higher than the standard RT-PCR and 10⁷-fold higher than traditional PCR assays [12]. The increased sensitivity of the assay may help to control the spread of infection during future outbreaks of SARS and other infectious diseases [10,14].

Clinical applications of PCR

Watson and Crick’s model of the DNA double helix structure [15] has opened the path for DNA technology which has revolutionized both science and medicine. It is now easy to amplify DNA by PCR and conduct functional analysis of the genes [16]. Medical research and clinical medicine benefit from PCR technology via the diagnosis of hereditary diseases, the identification of genetic fingerprints (used in forensic sciences) and paternity testing [17].

The PCR technique is faster and more accurate than antibody-based detection or bacterial incubation. The antibody-based test used for virus detection is based on the fact that an infected individual produces specific antibodies against viral antigens which can be detected in the laboratory. Unfortunately, it takes a period of time, the window period, for the body to produce sufficient antibodies to yield a positive result. Therefore, during this window period, carriers can be misdiagnosed (a false-negative result) and the disease can be transmitted to other people. PCR can be used to detect the presence of virus directly in the early infectious cycle. Bacterial/viral incubation used in diagnosis also has a window period, which may last for several days to weeks. For example, tubercle bacillus, the bacterium causing tuberculosis, multiplies slowly, with a reproduction cycle every 24 h. Doctors can only order treatment based on the limited information of the disease symptoms while waiting for a definitive result. In this situation, the PCR technique can be used to amplify genes very rapidly, and so greatly increase the sensitivity of detection and greatly reduce the overall detection time. Some diseases, like Lyme disease which is caused by a tick-borne spirochete, are not easily diagnosed. In this case, the spirochetes are too small to be seen under the light microscope and nearly impossible to culture in the laboratory. Traditionally, diagnosis is made on the basis of symptoms, epidemiological considerations, and serological tests. None of these methods is completely reliable, and without accurate diagnosis treatments have to be delayed. Recently, the Federal Rocky Mountain Laboratory successfully used PCR to amplify the spirochetal DNA, and used DNA probes to detect the pathogen in patients’ blood [18]. Influenza is a very common infectious disease that has been widely ignored. Since the epidemics of SARS [12,13], H1N1 [19] and H5N1 [20], fast nucleic acid tests (PCR or PCR-related) for diagnosis of influenza have been reported. RT-PCR has also been used to screen a congenital virus infection in new-borns [21].

PCR has not been limited to detection of infectious organisms, but is also useful in blood screening. The WHO recommends all donated blood used for transfusion should be screened for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis, at a minimum. The traditional screening methods, immunoassays which detect antibodies to viruses or viral antigens, have the same risk of missing the infection during the “window period.” PCR detects the presence of viral infection by directly probing for viral nucleic acids, and can be used to screen whole blood and plasma samples. The benefits of using PCR technology to monitor the blood supply include a decreased window period during which the infectious agent is undetectable by traditional screening methods and the ability to perform comprehensive and combined blood screening for several pathogens. Combination or multiplex PCR-based tests in blood donor screening programs are expected to decrease the turnaround time and reduce the risk of virus transmission.

PCR has also been used to gain insights into the molecular basis of cancer and its genetic factors [22]. However, since clinical biomarkers and gene detections of predictive value are not yet accurate and reliable for cancers, PCR is not currently of much diagnostic value in this area [23]. Nevertheless, as more biomarkers become available PCR will become an increasingly valuable tool in the fight against cancer.

Advantages and disadvantages of PCR

PCR enables small amounts of genetic material to be detected and, with species-specific primers, allows unique identification of virus/bacteria or biomarkers. It is fast, accurate and specific, requires little sample and is easy to perform. Therefore, PCR is well suited for clinical use to provide early diagnosis and in-time treatment for patients. The major problem with PCR is the possibility of false-negative/positive results. The presence of inhibitors which prevent DNA amplification will cause a false-negative test result. Other aspects leading to false-positive or false-negative results include contamination, mismatched target gene and primer sequences, variable experimental conditions, DNA extraction procedures and PCR product detection methods [24]. Thus, the set up of the experiment, primer design and interpretation of PCR results requires a well-trained professional.

Isothermal amplification

Isothermal nucleic acid amplification technologies utilize a single reaction temperature for the amplification phase, which allows less complex and less expensive instrumentation to be used, compared to the specially designed thermal cyclers required for PCR amplification. Isothermal amplification can be performed in water baths, using simple resistive heaters, or via exothermic chemical heating [25].

Current isothermal amplification methods can be grouped based on reaction mechanisms. Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) and transcription-mediated amplification are based on RNA transcription [26,27]; both are well-established and implemented in commercial laboratories. Helicase-dependent amplification is an example of DNA replication with enzymatic duplex melting and primer annealing [28]. Methods based on DNA-polymerase-mediated strand displacement from linear or circular targets include loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and rolling circle amplification [29]. Many isothermal amplification methods, such as strand-displacement amplification, use polymerase extension in conjunction with a single-strand cutting event [30,31]. In this section, we focus on the most widely used isothermal technologies, NASBA and LAMP, and compare their clinical applications.

Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA)

NASBA is a continuous, isothermal, enzymatic RNA-based nucleic acid amplification technique developed in 1991 [26,27]. Because the reaction is isothermal it can be carried out in a simple water bath and does not require a thermocycler (Fig.2). It employs a mixture of reverse transcriptase, ribonuclease-H, RNA polymerase and two specially designed DNA oligonucleotide primers. The forward primer has a 5′ extension containing the promoter sequence for bacteriophage T7 DNA-dependent RNA polymerase. The reverse primer has a 5′ extension containing a complementary binding sequence for a DNA oligonucleotide detection probe labeled with a ruthenium-based electrochemiluminescent (ECL) tag. During the amplification process, the 5′ primer extensions are incorporated fully into the amplified sequence, allowing both highly efficient production of complementary RNA template (directed by the RNA polymerase) and specific detection by the ECL-tagged probe [32]. This method of detection requires the use of a chemiluminescence detector. Under optimum conditions, it is possible to achieve 10¹²-fold amplification, versus the 10⁹-fold amplification accomplished by PCR [33].

Being highly sensitive, specific, accurate and rapid for nucleic acid amplification, the applicability of ECL-NASBA is only limited by the high cost of the equipment required for the ECL detection. An alternative, more applicable procedure, the enzyme-linked oligonucleotide capture (EOC) detection, was then developed [34]. In the EOC-NASBA detection method, the amplicons are immobilized by hybridization onto a biotinylated oligonucleotide capture probe bound to a streptavidin-coated surface. Detection is then achieved by a digoxigenin (DIG)-labeled detection probe and an anti-DIG antibody-alkaline phosphatase conjugate which produces a colorimetric end product that can be read by standard 96-well microtiter plate spectrophotometers. EOC-NASBA allows relatively inexpensive and high throughput analyses of amplicons, providing an affordable option for highly sensitive and specific molecular diagnostics in many laboratories. Since only simple equipment, such as a water bath and ELISA plate reader, are required, EOC-NASBA becomes a more versatile application compared to ECL-NASBA and RT-PCR, especially in locations where field-sample testing is crucial, such as monitoring potential contagious diseases crossing country borders [35]. NASBA detection methods have also been adapted to real-time format [36]. Real-time NASBA uses DNA hybridization probes that fluoresce upon hybridization with their amplicon targets. The probes have a stem-loop structure and contain a fluorophore and a quencher group. In its normal state, the stem keeps the fluorophore and the quencher together, preventing emission of fluorescence. Upon hybridization of the loop sequence, the probe unfolds, the quencher no longer absorbs photons emitted by the fluorophore, and the probe starts to fluoresce. The whole process of amplification and detection runs in a fluorescent reader. Real-time NASBA assays are suitable for high-throughput applications, reducing the assay time and limiting potential contamination between samples [37].

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)

LAMP is another isothermal DNA amplification method first reported in 2000. It employs two sets of primers and a DNA polymerase with strand displacement activity to amplify target DNA [38]. The four different primers identify six distinct regions on the target gene. A pair of outer primers displaces the amplified strand with the help of the DNA polymerase to release a single-stranded DNA which then forms a hairpin to initiate the starting loop for a cyclic amplification. The amplification proceeds in cyclical fashion, with each strand being displaced during elongation with the addition of new loops in each cycle. The final products are stem-loop DNAs with several inverted repeats of the target sequence. The addition of a primer set that anneals to the LAMP amplicon loop structure increases the efficiency and specificity of the reaction [39].

Several detection methods can be used to identify positive LAMP reaction products. The byproducts of a LAMP reaction, pyrophosphate ions, bind to magnesium ions to form white magnesium pyrophosphate precipitates which can be easily visualized, especially for large reaction volumes [40], or via simple detection approaches capable of measuring real-time turbidity which can quantify 2 × 10³ to 2 × 10⁹ copies of initial template DNA [41]. Alternatively, LAMP products can be visualized by incorporation of SYBR Green I stain which has high binding affinity for DNA [42]. A sequence-specific visual detection method that utilizes the unique nature of low molecular weight polyethylenimine (PEI) has also been described [43]. PEI forms an insoluble complex with high molecular weight DNA, such as a LAMP product, but not with a single-stranded anionic polymer of low molecular weight, such as a DNA probe. Since the amount of LAMP amplicon is large, the LAMP-PEI precipitate is of a size that can be detected visually. For multiplex nucleic acid target detection, DNA probes can be labeled with different fluorescent dyes, and the precipitate would emit a different fluorescence for each distinct fluorescent DNA probe hybridized to the corresponding LAMP target. As a result of these characteristics, minute amounts of nucleic acid targets can be detected simply through visual observation of the color of the LAMP-PEI precipitate [43].

Clinical applications of isothermal amplification

NASBA is particularly well suited for the amplification of single-stranded RNA and has been successfully used in the detection of numerous different viruses such as HIV type 1 [27], simian immunodeficiency virus [44], avian influenza virus [34], foot-and-mouth disease virus [45], Newcastle disease virus, classical swine fever virus, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus [32]. NASBA protocols have also been described for bacteria, fungi, parasite and cytokine detection [46]. Examples include macrophage-derived chemokine mRNA [47] and Salmonella enterica [48]. LAMP has been applied to detect a variety of pathogens, including viruses and bacteria, and can also amplify RNA with the addition of reverse transcriptase [49]. Detection of food-borne disease bacteria such as Salmonella [50], Escherichia coli [51] and Noroviruses [52] employing LAMP technology has been reported. Clinical applications employing the LAMP protocol, including detection of SARS-CoV [53], H5N1 [54], Mycobacterium tuberculosis [55], avian influenza subtypes, influenza subtype 1, influenza subtype 3 and influenza B virus, have been reported [56].

Advantages and disadvantages of isothermal amplification

NASBA has several advantages over PCR-based diagnostics. Foremost, it requires only a water bath and so developing countries and budget-restricted laboratories can afford to perform NASBA-based molecular diagnostics. Besides, it provides accurate and consistent results with high sensitivity, even surpassing RT-PCR [14] and comparable to the “gold standard” virus culture approach which takes days to be completed [57]. Moreover, because of its isothermal nature, NASBA methods can be standardized easily. On the contrary, although RT-PCR is currently the commonly used molecular method for the detection of various viruses and other pathogens, variations in reaction temperatures, signal-generating chemistry and detection technologies, and the availability of many different reagents and cycling equipment make the standardization of PCR conditions almost unfeasible. The main disadvantage of NASBA is its limitation to the detection of RNA pathogens, since it is an RNA-based amplification procedure. Although it is possible to amplify DNA using different enzymes in the NASBA protocol, in practice this is not done.

The LAMP assay has high specificity because amplification only proceeds when all six regions within a target DNA are correctly recognized by the primers. However, the difficulty of designing workable primers discourages practical usage of LAMP [49]. Real-time turbidity detection by a cost-effective photometer with an incubation function has enabled the kinetic analysis of the LAMP reaction without the need for any detection reagents such as a fluorescence intercalator [40].

Unlike PCR, NASBA and LAMP are less affected by various inhibitory components of clinical samples [32,58]. This helps save the time and cost required for sample purification which is labor intensive and can take hours to complete.

The future of isothermal amplification

Time-saving multiplex NASBA (mNASBA) technologies are being developed to enable high throughput screening. An EOC-mNASBA assay for screening common lower respiratory tract pathogens including influenza A, influenza B, human parainfluenza viruses 1-4, respiratory syncytial virus, rubella virus and Coxsackie virus [59], and a real-time mNASBA detecting Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae and Legionella spp. in respiratory specimens [60] have been reported. However, mNASBA was shown to be less sensitive than the simplex NASBA reactions in both cases [59,61]. A microarray-based mNASBA procedure, mNASBA-on-microarray, which detects the expression of five genes and their single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) parameters has been used for breast cancer diagnosis. This single-step process requires at least 10 pg of total RNA for the detection of the reference parameter RPS18. The LOD of the mNASBA-on-microarray procedure theoretically allows single-cell assays to be performed [62].

A multiplex LAMP (mLAMP) protocol using two sets of species-specific LAMP primers incorporated with a restriction endonuclease cleavage site for distinction between B. bovis and B. bigemina has been described [63]. Differential fluorescent-labeling of the LAMP amplification products can also be adapted for mLAMP screening [43]. There is much potential for further miniaturization of LAMP, as amplification of single DNA templates encapsulated in polyacrylamide microchambers as small as 1.5 mm ×17.5 mm have been demonstrated [64].

Isothermal nucleic acid amplification technologies are suitable for point of care (POC) applications, especially in low-resource settings. The other factor which facilitates its widespread adoption for clinical diagnosis is the signal detection method. Whereas incorporation of fluorescent markers increases the sensitivity of signal detection, a delicate and expensive fluorescence detector is essential. On the other hand, simple visual methods detectable by the naked eye are practical and affordable [65]. A breakthrough in developing new detection methods with a balance between cost and sensitivity will greatly enhance the applicability of isothermal amplification technologies for routine clinical diagnosis.

Microarray/chip-based technologies

Although PCR and other amplification methods now have multiplexing capability, they are costly and still not fast enough to meet clinical needs. The invention of microarray/chip-based technologies allows analysis of samples with a vast number of sequences in one test, which no amplification-based technologies can achieve.

Microarrays evolved from the work of E. M. Southern who first proposed a method to analyze nucleic acid fragments on nitrocellulose filters [66,67]. This technique, known as “Southern blotting,” involves the transfer of gel-separated DNA fragments onto nitrocellulose filters, followed by hybridization with radio- or fluorescent-labeled probes. The DNA fragment(s) containing the labeled probe sequence can be identified through analysis using appropriate scanners. This idea gave rise to the dot blot method for analysis of multiple DNA targets which form an array of dots on nitrocellulose filters [68]. The reverse dot blot method was introduced for sequence typing of a single target hybridized with an array of probes immobilized on a nylon membrane [69]. Depending on the number of dots which can be accommodated, a large number of sequences can be tested. For pathogen screening, the expressed sequences of multiple pathogens can be immobilized on the filter to identify which pathogens are present in the tested samples. Thus a single reverse dot blot procedure can provide both genome analysis and diagnosis for multiple pathogens [70].

Improvements in constructing high-density dotted arrays greatly enhanced the throughput and efficiency of the test. The conventional nitrocellulose filter and nylon membrane are porous, causing diffusion and merging of droplets that not only limit the number of probes immobilized but also affect the positional accuracy of the dots and the array resolution. The problem was solved by using solid substrates such as glass and plastic slides.

Initially, UV was used to immobilize nucleic acids onto cellulose fabrics [71]. For immobilization of nucleic acids onto substrate surfaces, different types of molecular interactions, namely, adsorption, a biotin-avidin affinity pair, thiol-gold interactions and covalent linkages, have been employed (see Refs. [72-83] for details). The choice depends on the type of application, the substrate, the sample and the environment.

By eliminating the diffusion effect and adjusting the hydrophobicity of both the droplets and surfaces, the dot size can be precisely controlled. Using advanced automatic spotting machines, both the dot size and the array resolution have adequately reached the micrometer scale and thus the term “microarray” was derived [73]. Two major spotting technologies, contact-mode [73] and inkjet-mode [84,85], are commercially available. Selection between these two depends on cost, throughput and resolution considerations. The highest density of a microarray, to date, was achieved by combining the solid-phase synthesis and photolithography technologies, producing a fine resolution of more than 400 000 probes synthesized on an area of 1.28 cm² [86,87]. The photolithography technique was well established in microelectronics, where the term “chip” originated [88]. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the name GeneChip (an Affymetrix product) as a combination of microarray and microelectronic technologies. Generically, a microarray processed with microelectronic fabrication was referred to as a “chip.” However, confusion gradually arose as the names “chip” and “microarray” were often used interchangeably. In addition to DNA chips, different kinds of biologic species, such as proteins, cells and tissues can be attached to chips, which allows many novel experiments to be performed. The invention of high density DNA chips enabled a parallel analysis of a target sample with many thousands of sequences in one test, a feature which other amplification-based technologies cannot attain.

Clinical applications of microarrays

Microarray-based methods have been applied to clinical diagnostic studies. For example, the tumor suppressor p53, a transcription factor, plays key roles in multiple cellular pathways. A microarray-based re-sequencing test, the p53 GeneChip assay, was first used for detecting p53 mutations in cancer [89]. In addition, a targeted oligonucleotide array was developed to interrogate 179 clinically relevant genomic loci. These multiplex arrays were shown to deliver results that were consistent with those from bacterial artificial chromosome arrays [90]. High density microarrays were also used to identify signatures for distal metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer [91] and for screening clinical samples for viruses [92-94]. A multi-pathogen identification microarray capable of identifying 18 pathogenic prokaryotes, eukaryotes and viruses was demonstrated to be more sensitive than PCR [95].

The high-throughput capability of chips has also benefited scientific research in genome-wide SNP analysis [96,97], comparative genome sequencing [98], comparative genomic hybridization [99,100], ChIp-Chip [101], DNA methylation [102] and expression analysis [103,104].

Laboratory-on-a-chip (LOAC) system

Incorporation of microelectronics with microarray technologies has become increasingly important in the development of new diagnostics. Integration of electronic circuits can add new functionalities, such as electrically accelerating the hybridization process [105,106], embedding sensors [107,108] and performing electrical detections [109,110]. Compatibility with standard microelectronic fabrication and miniaturization of DNA chips provide a cost-effective solution for mass production. The fabrication technology, specifically microelectromechanical systems technology [111], is capable of creating precise geometrical structures of sub-micrometer scale on solid substrates. The structures utilized include nanowires, microfluidic channels, stripes, wells, etc. [112,113]. Thus, in conjunction with basic mechanical automations and software, the chip can handle various tasks previously dependent on human operations. The chip can also integrate laboratory procedures, such as microfluidic systems, exchange of aqueous solutions, temperature control in a reaction chamber, providing optimum conditions for hybridization, post-hybridization detection and data analysis. The idea of developing an all-in-one, fully automatic system for completing an entire analysis protocol led to the creation of the laboratory-on-a-chip (LOAC) system. LOAC greatly simplifies the high-throughput analysis since human involvement is minimal. The automation also provides operational convenience and ensures repeatable results. It should also be able to offer very rapid multiple detections with high sensitivity and specificity, thus reducing the cost. Therefore, LOAC systems are recognized as a promising technology for delivering POC diagnostic capabilities that could revolutionize medicine [114]. Currently, commercial exploitation has been slow, but is gaining pace. STMicroelectronics and Toshiba have developed LOAC systems, namely the “In-Check system” and “Genelyzer,” respectively. Nanogen Inc., acquired by Epoch Biosciences in 2004, launched the NanoChip workstation and the NanoChip microarray. However, these systems were mainly adopted for research purposes and have not yet achieved the expected success in commercialization.

Challenges

Microarray/chip technologies are not well suited for use in routine clinical diagnosis. An ideal clinical diagnostic tool is expected to deliver early and accurate diagnosis which depends on the sensitivity and specificity of the system, respectively.

Sensitivity is defined as the lowest detectable concentration or copy number of the target. High sensitivity is desirable in diagnostics, especially during an outbreak of infectious diseases, so that infected individuals can be identified and treated at an early stage. The sensitivity required for diagnosing influenza is typically ~10³ copies/µl [115-117], while the sensitivity for the current microarray and chip technology is ~50 fM, which corresponds to ~10⁴ copies/µl [118] which does not meet the clinical need. Although an amplification step can be included to increase copy number before sample analysis, the diagnostic time will be prolonged as well. The low sensitivity of microarrays is attributed to the hybridization mechanism and the detection methods. The hybridization process is a slow thermodynamic process which takes hours to days to complete. The targets require a number of collisions before they find the correct orientations to hybridize with the complementary probes. On a microarray, a hybridization event is restricted to the surface, which further lowers the efficiency. Optimizations of the hybridization conditions have been reported, including probe concentration [119], buffer condition [120,121], temperature, probe spacer [122], rotation of the hybridization chamber [123] and incorporation of the photovoltaic effect [124]. To accelerate the hybridization process, Nanogen scientists incorporated hydrogel permeation coating onto every spot in their DNA chips [106,125,126]. The hydrogel confined the probes and metal electrodes located below, and when electrically connected, nucleic acids were driven to the spots by electrophoresis. This process increases the DNA concentration on the spots, thus enhancing hybridization. However, proper choice of buffer is crucial because of the pH change during electrophoresis [106]. By using a pulse with a rise/fall time, the hybridization efficiency was enhanced [127-129]. However, the success of this method requires a significant amount of nucleic acids distributed close to the surface, and clinical samples usually contain only small amounts of DNA. Other methods using electrokinetics have also been reported [130,131]. Although these methods have all been demonstrated to enhance hybridization efficiency, they have not been properly utilized in clinical applications due to reliability and consistency issues and a lack of clinical samples for trial performance. A better solution toward increasing the hybridization efficiency has yet to be devised. Detection methods employing fluorescent, electrochemical [132], electrical [24,25], optical [133], nano-particle [134] and quantum-dot [135] technology have been reported. However, the most sensitive detection method is not necessarily favorable for clinical applications. Other factors including cost and ease of operation, time for developing signals and integration to the entire system need to be considered.

Specificity is reflected by the accuracy in detecting the causative agents of the disease. Design of specific probes is the most critical step and requires substantial understanding of the genetic makeup of disease organisms. Moreover, there are a vast number of different probes immobilized on the chip. Random binding and non-specific hybridization resulting in false-positives is therefore unavoidable. An appropriately stringent washing procedure can be implemented to enhance the specificity.

Although the incorporation of microelectronics fabrication processes has relieved the financial pressure arising from the mass production of DNA chips, expenses for immobilizing the probes on the chip, equipping an advanced optical system for detection and a precise fluidic system are still high, imposing major difficulties in adopting microarray/chip-based technology for clinical diagnosis. However, it has great potential to become a mainstream diagnostic tool since it can provide a powerful parallel analysis of multiple pathogens in one test that no other technologies can achieve. The introduction of the LOAC system has greatly improved the miniaturization process and simplified this complex technology. However, its clinical application in fighting infectious diseases is still far off until various issues, such as increasing the sensitivity and specificity of the system, reducing the cost and increasing the speed of hybridization, are resolved.

The future of molecular diagnostics

Clinical diagnostic tests are categorized as high complexity, moderate complexity or waived according to the United States Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. However, there are no waived POC nucleic acid systems currently available. High complexity tests are limited to central laboratories, whereas moderate complexity tests can be performed near patients in a hospital. Developments in “fully automated sample-in/answer-out” testing systems affordable for use in clinical diagnosis will be vital. Fighting against infectious diseases requires a high penetration of technology into society. To prevent outbreaks on the front line the diagnostics should appear not just in hospitals or a few major disease control centers, but also serve general practitioners in public clinics and healthcare centers. In the penetration process, the cost of a diagnostic system is equivalently important to its technical performance.

Nucleic acid purification and extraction is the bottleneck for most diagnostic technique applications at the POC because it is a lengthy manual process. Most infectious disease applications require extraction and concentration of target nucleic acids from sample input volumes>500 µl to reach a suitably low LOD. This requirement often cannot be accommodated in microfluidic devices. There are no commercially viable products currently available, possibly because of the challenges related to system complexity, manufacturability, and performance reproducibility [65].

What is the ideal diagnostic technology? Many promising candidates have been developed toward an ASSURED standard, such as protein chips, tissue chips and LOAC. Genomic, proteomic and metabolomic technologies are making their way into clinical diagnostics. Personalized medicine and proper diagnostics accompanied by personalized therapy represent the future of medicine. The ideal future diagnostic tool, therefore, should be multiplexed and gather information from the genome, the proteome and the metabolome, and also provide this information quickly and easily at an affordable cost. Many hurdles must be overcome before these techniques can be transformed from research tools into routine clinical practices.

Conclusions

Despite decades of developments toward their treatment and prevention, infectious diseases remain a major cause of death and asthenia and are responsible for worsening the living condition of millions of people around the world. However, the current allocated resources and the existing healthcare system are not adequate for future needs. Also, the ever-changing epidemiologies of infectious diseases present consistent challenges to traditional diagnostics. Rapid advances in molecular methods have led to the development of sensitive and specific nucleic acid-based diagnostic tests which strengthen our ability to diagnose, treat and control infectious diseases that cause public health problems. We have reviewed several popular and important nucleic acid-based diagnostic methods, many of which have the potential to be used in the clinic. However, there is still a long way to go until these methods can be routinely used in hospitals. It is likely that biomarkers will be found that are specific for classes of infectious agents and to provide insights that will guide clinical management, even in cases of chronic diseases. However, many hurdles still need to be cleared; for example hybridization, the bottleneck step in most procedures, is still slow and causes delays in diagnosis. We believe that some future nucleic acid technologies will break through the bottlenecks to achieving the perfect diagnostic systems. In particular, an accurate, fast, easy and cost-effective diagnostic for infectious diseases will offer advantages to both basic scientists, clinical doctors and, most importantly, patients. Ideal future diagnostics should not only be “ASSURED,” but should also be multiplexed. The more information we can get from a single rapid test, the more powerful will be our awareness and response in battling future pandemic outbreaks. Therefore, a more concerted worldwide effort should be made toward developing and promoting the ideal nucleic acid diagnostic technology.

References

[1] Apostolopoulos Y, Sonmez S. Population mobility and infectious disease. New York, NY: Springer, 2007

[2] Zetterström R. The Nobel Prize in 2005 for the discovery of Helicobacter pylori: implications for child health. Acta Paediatr 2006; 95(1): 3-5

[3] Vomelová I, Vanícková Z, Sedo A. Methods of RNA purification. All ways (should) lead to Rome. Folia Biol (Praha) 2009; 55(6): 243-251

[4] Demeke T, Jenkins GR. Influence of DNA extraction methods, PCR inhibitors and quantification methods on real-time PCR assay of biotechnology-derived traits. Anal Bioanal Chem 2010; 396(6): 1977-1990

[5] Wu W, Tang YW. Emerging molecular assays for detection and characterization of respiratory viruses. Clin Lab Med 2009; 29(4): 673-693

[6] Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, Mullis KB, Horn GT, Erlich HA, Arnheim N. Enzymatic amplification of beta-globin genomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Science 1985; 230(4732): 1350-1354

[7] Chien A, Edgar DB, Trela JM. Deoxyribonucleic acid polymerase from the extreme thermophile Thermus aquaticus. J Bacteriol 1976; 127(3): 1550-1557

[8] Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf SJ, Higuchi R, Horn GT, Mullis KB, Erlich HA. Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase. Science 1988; 239(4839): 487-491

[9] Freeman WM, Walker SJ, Vrana KE. Quantitative RT-PCR: pitfalls and potential. Biotechniques 1999; 26(1): 112-122, 124-125

[10] Yu AC. The difficulties of testing for SARS. Science 2004; 303(5657): 469-471

[11] Song HD, Tu CC, Zhang GW, Wang SY, Zheng K, Lei LC, Chen QX, Gao YW, Zhou HQ, Xiang H, Zheng HJ, Chern SW, Cheng F, Pan CM, Xuan H, Chen SJ, Luo HM, Zhou DH, Liu YF, He JF, Qin PZ, Li LH, Ren YQ, Liang WJ, Yu YD, Anderson L, Wang M, Xu RH, Wu XW, Zheng HY, Chen JD, Liang G, Gao Y, Liao M, Fang L, Jiang LY, Li H, Chen F, Di B, He LJ, Lin JY, Tong S, Kong X, Du L, Hao P, Tang H, Bernini A, Yu XJ, Spiga O, Guo ZM, Pan HY, He WZ, Manuguerra JC, Fontanet A, Danchin A, Niccolai N, Li YX, Wu CI, Zhao GP. Cross-host evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus in palm civet and human. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102(7): 2430-2435

[12] Yu AC, Lau LT, Fung YW. Boosting the sensitivity of real-time polymerase-chain-reaction testing for SARS. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(15): 1577-1579

[13] Lau LT, Fung YW, Wong FP, Lin SS, Wang CR, Li HL, Dillon N, Collins RA, Tam JS, Chan PK, Wang CG, Yu AC. A real-time PCR for SARS-coronavirus incorporating target gene pre-amplification. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003; 312(4): 1290-1296

[14] Lau LT, Banks J, Aherne R, Brown IH, Dillon N, Collins RA, Chan KY, Fung YW, Xing J, Yu AC. Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification methods to detect avian influenza virus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004; 313(2): 336-342

[15] Watson JD, Crick FH. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953; 171(4356): 737-738

[16] Kremer EJ, Pritchard M, Lynch M, Yu S, Holman K, Baker E, Warren ST, Schlessinger D, Sutherland GR, Richards RI. Mapping of DNA instability at the fragile X to a trinucleotide repeat sequence p(CCG)n. Science 1991; 252(5013): 1711-1714

[17] Gill P. DNA as evidence—the technology of identification. N Engl J Med 2005; 352(26): 2669-2671

[18] Alcamo IE. DNA analysis and diagnosis. In: DNA Technology: the Awesome Skill. New York: Academic Press, 2001

[19] .Writing Committee of the WHO Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza,Bautista E, Chotpitayasunondh T, Gao Z, Harper SA, Shaw M, Uyeki TM, Zaki SR, Hayden FG, Hui DS, Kettner JD, Kumar A, Lim M, Shindo N, Penn C, Nicholson KG. Clinical aspects of pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(18): 1708-1719lt;OrgAddress>20445182</OrgAddress>

[20] Oner AF, Bay A, Arslan S, Akdeniz H, Sahin HA, Cesur Y, Epcacan S, Yilmaz N, Deger I, Kizilyildiz B, Karsen H, Ceyhan M. Avian influenza A (H5N1) infection in eastern Turkey in 2006. N Engl J Med 2006; 355(21): 2179-2185

[21] Boppana SB, Ross SA, Shimamura M, Palmer AL, Ahmed A, Michaels MG, Sánchez PJ, Bernstein DI, Tolan RW Jr, Novak Z, Chowdhury N, Britt WJ, Fowler KB; National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders CHIMES Study. Saliva polymerase-chain-reaction assay for cytomegalovirus screening in newborns. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(22): 2111-2118

[22] McDermott U, Downing JR, Stratton MR. Genomics and the continuum of cancer care. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(4): 340-350

[23] Baltzell K, Buehring GC, Krishnamurthy S, Kuerer H, Shen HM, Sison JD. Limited evidence of human papillomavirus on breast tissue using molecular in situ methods. Cancer 2011; 118(5): 1212-1220

[24] Yamamoto Y. PCR in diagnosis of infection: detection of bacteria in cerebrospinal fluids. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2002; 9(3): 508-514

[25] Labarre P, Gerlach J, Wilmoth J, Beddoe A, Singleton J, Weigl B.Non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA): instrument-free molecular malaria diagnostics for low-resource settings. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010; 2010: 1097-1099

[26] Compton J. Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification. Nature 1991; 350(6313): 91-92

[27] Romano JW, van Gemen B, Kievits T. NASBA: a novel, isothermal detection technology for qualitative and quantitative HIV-1 RNA measurements. Clin Lab Med 1996; 16(1): 89-103

[28] Vincent M, Xu Y, Kong H. Helicase-dependent isothermal DNA amplification. EMBO Rep 2004; 5(8): 795-800

[29] Liu D, Daubendiek SL, Zillman MA, Ryan K, Kool ET. Rolling circle DNA synthesis: small circular oligonucleotides as efficient templates for DNA polymerases. J Am Chem Soc 1996; 118(7): 1587-1594

[30] Walker GT, Fraiser MS, Schram JL, Little MC, Nadeau JG, Malinowski DP. Strand displacement amplification—an isothermal, in vitro DNA amplification technique. Nucleic Acids Res 1992; 20(7): 1691-1696

[31] Walker GT, Little MC, Nadeau JG, Shank DD. Isothermal in vitro amplification of DNA by a restriction enzyme/DNA polymerase system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992; 89(1): 392-396

[32] Lau LT, Fung YW, Yu AC. Detection of animal viruses using nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA). Dev Biol (Basel) 2006; 126: 7-15

[33] Boom R, Sol CJ, Salimans MM, Jansen CL, Wertheim-van Dillen PM, van der Noordaa J. Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids. J Clin Microbiol 1990; 28(3): 495-503

[34] Collins RA, Ko LS, So KL, Ellis T, Lau LT, Yu AC. A NASBA method to detect high- and low-pathogenicity H5 avian influenza viruses. Avian Dis 2003; 47(3 Suppl): 1069-1074

[35] Gu J, Xie Z, Gao Z, Liu J, Korteweg C, Ye J, Lau LT, Lu J, Gao Z, Zhang B, McNutt MA, Lu M, Anderson VM, Gong E, Yu AC, Lipkin WI. H5N1 infection of the respiratory tract and beyond: a molecular pathology study. Lancet 2007; 370(9593): 1137-1145

[36] Leone G, van Schijndel H, van Gemen B, Kramer FR, Schoen CD. Molecular beacon probes combined with amplification by NASBA enable homogeneous, real-time detection of RNA. Nucleic Acids Res 1998; 26(9): 2150-2155

[37] Loens K, Ieven M, Ursi D, De Laat C, Sillekens P, Oudshoorn P, Goossens H. Improved detection of rhinoviruses by nucleic acid sequence-based amplification after nucleotide sequence determination of the 5′ noncoding regions of additional rhinovirus strains. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41(5): 1971-1976

[38] Notomi T, Okayama H, Masubuchi H, Yonekawa T, Watanabe K, Amino N, Hase T. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 2000; 28(12): E63

[39] Nagamine K, Hase T, Notomi T. Accelerated reaction by loop-mediated isothermal amplification using loop primers. Mol Cell Probes 2002; 16(3): 223-229

[40] Tomita N, Mori Y, Kanda H, Notomi T. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) of gene sequences and simple visual detection of products. Nat Protoc 2008; 3(5): 877-882

[41] Mori Y, Kitao M, Tomita N, Notomi T. Real-time turbidimetry of LAMP reaction for quantifying template DNA. J Biochem Biophys Methods 2004; 59(2): 145-157

[42] Karlsen F, Steen HB, Nesland JM. SYBR green I DNA staining increases the detection sensitivity of viruses by polymerase chain reaction. J Virol Methods 1995; 55(1): 153-156

[43] Mori Y, Hirano T, Notomi T. Sequence specific visual detection of LAMP reactions by addition of cationic polymers. BMC Biotechnol 2006; 6(1): 3

[44] Romano JW, Shurtliff RN, Dobratz E, Gibson A, Hickman K, Markham PD, Pal R. Quantitative evaluation of simian immunodeficiency virus infection using NASBA technology. J Virol Methods 2000; 86(1): 61-70

[45] Lau LT, Reid SM, King DP, Lau AM, Shaw AE, Ferris NP, Yu AC. Detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus by nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA). Vet Microbiol 2008; 126(1-3): 101-110

[46] Collins RA, Ko LS, So KL, Ellis T, Lau LT, Yu AC. Detection of highly pathogenic and low pathogenic avian influenza subtype H5 (Eurasian lineage) using NASBA. J Virol Methods 2002; 103(2): 213-225

[47] Romano JW, Shurtliff RN, Grace M, Lee EM, Ginocchio C, Kaplan M, Pal R. Macrophage-derived chemokine gene expression in human and macaque cells: mRNA quantification using NASBA technology. Cytokine 2001; 13(6): 325-333

[48] Simpkins SA, Chan AB, Hays J, Pöpping B, Cook N. An RNA transcription-based amplification technique (NASBA) for the detection of viable Salmonella enterica. Lett Appl Microbiol 2000; 30(1): 75-79

[49] Mori Y, Notomi T. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP): a rapid, accurate, and cost-effective diagnostic method for infectious diseases. J Infect Chemother 2009; 15(2): 62-69

[50] Hara-Kudo Y, Yoshino M, Kojima T, Ikedo M. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the rapid detection of Salmonella. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2005; 253(1): 155-161

[51] Hill J, Beriwal S, Chandra I, Paul VK, Kapil A, Singh T, Wadowsky RM, Singh V, Goyal A, Jahnukainen T, Johnson JR, Tarr PI, Vats A. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for rapid detection of common strains of Escherichia coli. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46(8): 2800-2804

[52] Iturriza-Gómara M, Xerry J, Gallimore CI, Dockery C, Gray J. Evaluation of the Loopamp (loop-mediated isothermal amplification) kit for detecting Norovirus RNA in faecal samples. J Clin Virol 2008; 42(4): 389-393

[53] Poon LL, Leung CS, Tashiro M, Chan KH, Wong BW, Yuen KY, Guan Y, Peiris JS. Rapid detection of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus by a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay. Clin Chem 2004; 50(6): 1050-1052

[54] Imai M, Ninomiya A, Minekawa H, Notomi T, Ishizaki T, Tashiro M, Odagiri T. Development of H5-RT-LAMP (loop-mediated isothermal amplification) system for rapid diagnosis of H5 avian influenza virus infection. Vaccine 2006; 24(44-46): 6679-6682

[55] Geojith G, Dhanasekaran S, Chandran SP, Kenneth J. Efficacy of loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the laboratory identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates in a resource limited setting. J Microbiol Methods 2011; 84(1): 71-73

[56] Ito M, Watanabe M, Nakagawa N, Ihara T, Okuno Y. Rapid detection and typing of influenza A and B by loop-mediated isothermal amplification: comparison with immunochromatography and virus isolation. J Virol Methods 2006; 135(2): 272-275

[57] Shan S, Ko LS, Collins RA, Wu Z, Chen J, Chan KY, Xing J, Lau LT, Yu AC. Comparison of nucleic acid-based detection of avian influenza H5N1 with virus isolation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003; 302(2): 377-383

[58] Kaneko H, Kawana T, Fukushima E, Suzutani T. Tolerance of loop-mediated isothermal amplification to a culture medium and biological substances. J Biochem Biophys Methods 2007; 70(3): 499-501

[59] Lau LT, Feng XY, Lam TY, Hui HK, Yu AC. Development of multiplex nucleic acid sequence-based amplification for detection of human respiratory tract viruses. J Virol Methods 2010; 168(1-2): 251-254

[60] Loens K, Beck T, Ursi D, Overdijk M, Sillekens P, Goossens H, Ieven M. Evaluation of different nucleic acid amplification techniques for the detection of M. pneumoniae, C. pneumoniae and Legionella spp. in respiratory specimens from patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Microbiol Methods 2008; 73(3): 257-262

[61] Loens K, Beck T, Ursi D, Overdijk M, Sillekens P, Goossens H, Ieven M. Development of real-time multiplex nucleic acid sequence-based amplification for detection of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Legionella spp. in respiratory specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2008; 46(1): 185-191

[62] Mader A, Riehle U, Brandstetter T, Stickeler E, zur Hausen A, Rühe J. Microarray-based amplification and detection of RNA by nucleic acid sequence based amplification. Anal Bioanal Chem 2010; 397(8): 3533-3541

[63] Iseki H, Alhassan A, Ohta N, Thekisoe OM, Yokoyama N, Inoue N, Nambota A, Yasuda J, Igarashi I. Development of a multiplex loop-mediated isothermal amplification (mLAMP) method for the simultaneous detection of bovine Babesia parasites. J Microbiol Methods 2007; 71(3): 281-287

[64] Lam L, Sakakihara S, Ishizuka K, Takeuchi S, Arata HF, Fujita H, Noji H. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of a single DNA molecule in polyacrylamide gel-based microchamber. Biomed Microdevices 2008; 10(4): 539-546

[65] Niemz A, Ferguson TM, Boyle DS. Point-of-care nucleic acid testing for infectious diseases. Trends Biotechnol 2011; 29(5): 240-250

[66] Southern EM. Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. J Mol Biol 1975; 98(3): 503-517

[67] Maskos U, Southern EM. Oligonucleotide hybridizations on glass supports: a novel linker for oligonucleotide synthesis and hybridization properties of oligonucleotides synthesised in situ. Nucleic Acids Res 1992; 20(7): 1679-1684

[68] Kafatos FC, Jones CW, Efstratiadis A. Determination of nucleic acid sequence homologies and relative concentrations by a dot hybridization procedure. Nucleic Acids Res 1979; 7(6): 1541-1552

[69] Saiki RK, Walsh PS, Levenson CH, Erlich HA. Genetic analysis of amplified DNA with immobilized sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989; 86(16): 6230-6234

[70] Bains W, Smith GC. A novel method for nucleic acid sequence determination. J Theor Biol 1988; 135(3): 303-307

[71] Yamada M, Kato K, Shindo K, Nomizu M, Sakairi N, Yamamoto H, Nishi N. Immobilization of DNA by UV irradiation and its utilization as functional materials. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 1999; 42(1): 103-104

[72] Müller UR, Nicolau DV. Microarray technology and its applications. Berlin: Springer, 2005: xxii-379

[73] Schena M, Shalon D, Davis RW, Brown PO. Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science 1995; 270(5235): 467-470

[74] Allemand JF, Bensimon D, Jullien L, Bensimon A, Croquette V. pH-dependent specific binding and combing of DNA. Biophys J 1997; 73(4): 2064-2070

[75] Henke L, Piunno PAE, McClure AC, Krull UJ. Covalent immobilization of single-stranded DNA onto optical fibers using various linkers. Anal Chim Acta 1997; 344(3): 201-213

[76] Henke L, Krull UJ. Immobilization technologies used for nucleic acid biosensors: a review. Can J Anal Sci Spectros 1999; 44(2): 61-70

[77] Piunno PAE, Hanafi-Bagby D, Henke L, Krull Ulrich J. A critical review of nucleic acid biosensor and chip-based oligonucleotide array technologies. In: Chemical and Biological Sensors for Environmental Monitoring. American Chemical Society, 2000: 257-291

[78] Palchetti I, Mascini M, Wittmann C. Electrochemical adsorption technique for immobilization of single-stranded oligonucleotides onto carbon screen-printed electrodes immobilisation of DNA on chips II. Vol. 261. Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer, 2005: 27-43

[79] Algar WR, Lim Y, Massey M, Wong AKY, Ye Y, Krull UJ. Assembly of oligonucleotide probes on surfaces for development of biosensors and biochips. In: Soft Nanomaterials. American Scientific Publishers, 2009: 1-66

[80] Masarik M, Kizek R, Kramer KJ, Billova S, Brazdova M, Vacek J, Bailey M, Jelen F, Howard JA. Application of avidin-biotin technology and adsorptive transfer stripping square-wave voltammetry for detection of DNA hybridization and avidin in transgenic avidin maize. Anal Chem 2003; 75(11): 2663-2669

[81] Nuzzo RG, Allara DL. Adsorption of bifunctional organic disulfides on gold surfaces. J Am Chem Soc 1983; 105(13): 4481-4483

[82] Wink T, van Zuilen SJ, Bult A, van Bennkom WP. Self-assembled monolayers for biosensors. Analyst (Lond) 1997; 122(4): 43R-50R

[83] Ruediger D, Daniel H, Rajendra R, Alistair R. The role of substrates in microarray experimentation and how to choose the correct coating for microarraying. In: Microarray Innovations. CRC Press, 2009: 53-69

[84] Okamoto T, Suzuki T, Yamamoto N. Microarray fabrication with covalent attachment of DNA using bubble jet technology. Nat Biotechnol 2000; 18(4): 438-441

[85] de Gans BJ, Schubert US. Inkjet printing of well-defined polymer dots and arrays. Langmuir 2004; 20(18): 7789-7793

[86] Fodor SP, Read JL, Pirrung MC, Stryer L, Lu AT, Solas D. Light-directed, spatially addressable parallel chemical synthesis. Science 1991; 251(4995): 767-773

[87] Fodor SPA. DNA Sequencing: massively parallel genomics. Science 1997; 277(5324): 393-395

[88] May GS. Fundamentals of semiconductor fabrication. New York, Chichester: Wiley, 2003: 320

[89] Ahrendt SA, Halachmi S, Chow JT, Wu L, Halachmi N, Yang SC, Wehage S, Jen J, Sidransky D. Rapid p53 sequence analysis in primary lung cancer using an oligonucleotide probe array. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96(13): 7382-7387

[90] Shen Y, Miller DT, Cheung SW, Lip V, Sheng X, Tomaszewicz K, Shao H, Fang H, Tang HS, Irons M, Walsh CA, Platt O, Gusella JF, Wu BL. Development of a focused oligonucleotide-array comparative genomic hybridization chip for clinical diagnosis of genomic imbalance. Clin Chem 2007; 53(12): 2051-2059

[91] Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Yang F, Talantov D, Timmermans M, Meijer-van Gelder ME, Yu J, Jatkoe T, Berns EM, Atkins D, Foekens JA. Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet 2005; 365(9460): 671-679

[92] Wang D, Coscoy L, Zylberberg M, Avila PC, Boushey HA, Ganem D, DeRisi JL. Microarray-based detection and genotyping of viral pathogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99(24): 15687-15692

[93] Chiu CY, Rouskin S, Koshy A, Urisman A, Fischer K, Yagi S, Schnurr D, Eckburg PB, Tompkins LS, Blackburn BG, Merker JD, Patterson BK, Ganem D, DeRisi JL. Microarray detection of human parainfluenza virus 4 infection associated with respiratory failure in an immunocompetent adult. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43(8): e71-e76

[94] Chen EC, Miller SA, DeRisi JL, Chiu CY. Using a pan-viral microarray assay (Virochip) to screen clinical samples for viral pathogens. J Vis Exp 2011; 50: 2536

[95] Wilson WJ, Strout CL, DeSantis TZ, Stilwell JL, Carrano AV, Andersen GL. Sequence-specific identification of 18 pathogenic microorganisms using microarray technology. Mol Cell Probes 2002; 16(2): 119-127

[96] Schick B, Wemmert S, Willnecker V, Dlugaiczyk J, Nicolai P, Siwiec H, Thiel CT, Rauch A, Wendler O. Genome-wide copy number profiling using a 100K SNP array reveals novel disease-related genes BORIS and TSHZ1 in juvenile angiofibroma. Int J Oncol 2011; 39(5): 1143-1151

[97] Tuefferd M, de Bondt A, Van den Wyngaert I, Talloen W, Göhlmann H. Microarray profiling of DNA extracted from FFPE tissues using SNP 6.0 Affymetrix platform. Methods Mol Biol 2011; 724: 147-160

[98] Herring CD, Palsson BO. An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes. BMC Genomics 2007; 8(1): 274

[99] Chui JV, Weisfeld-Adams JD, Tepperberg J, Mehta L. Clinical and molecular characterization of chromosome 7p22.1 microduplication detected by array CGH. Am J Med Genet A 2011; 155A(10): 2508-2511

[100] Panzeri E, Conconi D, Antolini L, Redaelli S, Valsecchi MG, Bovo G, Pallotti F, Viganò P, Strada G, Dalprà L, Bentivegna A. Chromosomal aberrations in bladder cancer: fresh versus formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissue and targeted FISH versus wide microarray-based CGH analysis. PLoS ONE 2011; 6(9): e24237

[101] Gorski JJ, Savage KI, Mulligan JM, McDade SS, Blayney JK, Ge Z, Harkin DP. Profiling of the BRCA1 transcriptome through microarray and ChIP-chip analysis. Nucleic Acids Research 2011; 39(22): 9536-9548

[102] Schwartzman J, Mongoue-Tchokote S, Gibbs A, Gao L, Corless CL, Jin J, Zarour L, Higano C, True LD, Vessella RL, Wilmot B, Bottomly D, McWeeney SK, Bova GS, Partin AW, Mori M, Alumkal J. A DNA methylation microarray-based study identifies ERG as a gene commonly methylated in prostate cancer. Epigenetics 2011; 6(10): 1248-1256

[103] Kong BW, Song JJ, Lee JY, Hargis BM, Wing T, Lassiter K, Bottje W. Gene expression in breast muscle associated with feed efficiency in a single male broiler line using a chicken 44K oligo microarray. I. Top differentially expressed genes. Poult Sci 2011; 90(11): 2535-2547

[104] Takahashi H, Tainaka H, Umezawa M, Takeda K, Tanaka H, Nishimune Y, Oshio S. Evaluation of testicular toxicology of doxorubicin based on microarray analysis of testicular specific gene expression. J Toxicol Sci 2011; 36(5): 559-567

[105] Fixe F, Cabeça R, Chu V, Prazeres DMF, Ferreira GNM, Conde JP. Electric-field-pulse-assisted covalent immobilization of DNA in the nanosecond time scale. Appl Phys Lett 2003; 83(7): 1465-1467

[106] Edman CF, Raymond DE, Wu DJ, Tu E, Sosnowski RG, Butler WF, Nerenberg M, Heller MJ. Electric field directed nucleic acid hybridization on microchips. Nucleic Acids Res 1997; 25(24): 4907-4914

[107] Moreno-Hagelsieb L, Foultier B, Laurent G, Pampin R, Remacle J, Raskin JP, Flandre D. Electrical detection of DNA hybridization: three extraction techniques based on interdigitated Al/Al₂O₃ capacitors. Biosens Bioelectron 2007; 22(9-10): 2199-2207

[108] Fixe F, Chu V, Prazeres DM, Conde JP. An on-chip thin film photodetector for the quantification of DNA probes and targets in microarrays. Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32(9): e70

[109] Zheng G, Patolsky F, Cui Y, Wang WU, Lieber CM. Multiplexed electrical detection of cancer markers with nanowire sensor arrays. Nat Biotechnol 2005; 23(10): 1294-1301

[110] Gao A, Lu N, Dai P, Li T, Pei H, Gao X, Gong Y, Wang Y, Fan C. Silicon-nanowire-based CMOS-compatible field-effect transistor nanosensors for ultrasensitive electrical detection of nucleic acids. Nano Lett 2011; 11(9): 3974-3978

[111] Varadan VK, Jiang X, Varadan VV. Microstereomicrolithography and other fabrication techniques for 3D MEMS. Chichester: Wiley, 2001:xiii-260

[112] Ng JM, Gitlin I, Stroock AD, Whitesides GM. Components for integrated poly(dimethylsiloxane) microfluidic systems. Electrophoresis 2002; 23(20): 3461-3473

[113] Lin MC, Chu CJ, Tsai LC, Lin HY, Wu CS, Wu YP, Wu YN, Shieh DB, Su YW, Chen CD. Control and detection of organosilane polarization on nanowire field-effect transistors. Nano Lett 2007; 7(12): 3656-3661

[114] Castillo-Salgado C. Trends and directions of global public health surveillance. Epidemiol Rev 2010; 32(1): 93-109

[115] Chan KH, Lai ST, Poon LL, Guan Y, Yuen KY, Peiris JS. Analytical sensitivity of rapid influenza antigen detection tests for swine-origin influenza virus (H1N1). J Clin Virol 2009; 45(3): 205-207

[116] Ngaosuwankul N, Noisumdaeng P, Komolsiri P, Pooruk P, Chokephaibulkit K, Chotpitayasunondh T, Sangsajja C, Chuchottaworn C, Farrar J, Puthavathana P. Influenza A viral loads in respiratory samples collected from patients infected with pandemic H1N1, seasonal H1N1 and H3N2 viruses. Virol J 2010; 7(1): 75

[117] Lee N, Chan PK, Hui DS, Rainer TH, Wong E, Choi KW, Lui GC, Wong BC, Wong RY, Lam WY, Chu IM, Lai RW, Cockram CS, Sung JJ. Viral loads and duration of viral shedding in adult patients hospitalized with influenza. J Infect Dis 2009; 200(4): 492-500

[118] Cagnin S, Caraballo M, Guiducci C, Martini P, Ross M, SantaAna M, Danley D, West T, Lanfranchi G. Overview of electrochemical DNA biosensors: new approaches to detect the expression of life. Sensors (Basel Switzerland) 2009; 9(4): 3122-3148

[119] Peterson AW, Heaton RJ, Georgiadis RM. The effect of surface probe density on DNA hybridization. Nucleic Acids Res 2001; 29(24): 5163-5168

[120] Fuchs J, Fiche JB, Buhot A, Calemczuk R, Livache T. Salt concentration effects on equilibrium melting curves from DNA microarrays. Biophys J 2010; 99(6): 1886-1895

[121] Nakano S, Fujimoto M, Hara H, Sugimoto N. Nucleic acid duplex stability: influence of base composition on cation effects. Nucleic Acids Res 1999; 27(14): 2957-2965

[122] Halperin A, Buhot A, Zhulina EB. Hybridization at a surface: the role of spacers in DNA microarrays. Langmuir 2006; 22(26): 11290-11304

[123] Vanderhoeven J, Pappaert K, Dutta B, Van Hummelen P, Desmet G. DNA microarray enhancement using a continuously and discontinuously rotating microchamber. Anal Chem 2005; 77(14): 4474-4480

[124] Chen CC, Ku WC, Chiu SK, Tzeng CM. Deoxyribonucleic acid hybridization acceleration by photovoltaic effect. Appl Phys Lett 2006; 89(23): 233902

[125] Sosnowski RG, Tu E, Butler WF, O’Connell JP, Heller MJ. Rapid determination of single base mismatch mutations in DNA hybrids by direct electric field control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997; 94(4): 1119-1123

[126] Heller MJ, Forster AH, Tu E. Active microeletronic chip devices which utilize controlled electrophoretic fields for multiplex DNA hybridization and other genomic applications. Electrophoresis 2000; 21(1): 157-164

[127] Fixe F, Chu V, Prazeres DM, Conde JP. Single base mismatch detection by microsecond voltage pulses. Biosens Bioelectron 2005; 21(6): 888-893

[128] Fixe F, Branz HM, Louro N, Chu V, Prazeres DM, Conde JP. Electric-field assisted immobilization and hybridization of DNA oligomers on thin-film microchips. Nanotechnology 2005; 16(10): 2061-2071

[129] Fixe F, Branz HM, Louro N, Chu V, Prazeres DM, Conde JP. Immobilization and hybridization by single sub-millisecond electric field pulses, for pixel-addressed DNA microarrays. Biosens Bioelectron 2004; 19(12): 1591-1597

[130] Erickson D, Liu X, Krull U, Li D. Electrokinetically controlled DNA hybridization microfluidic chip enabling rapid target analysis. Anal Chem 2004; 76(24): 7269-7277

[131] Swami N, Chou CF, Ramamurthy V, Chaurey V. Enhancing DNA hybridization kinetics through constriction-based dielectrophoresis. Lab Chip 2009; 9(22): 3212-3220

[132] Creager S, Yu CJ, Bamdad C, O’Connor S, MacLean T, Lam E, Chong Y, Olsen GT, Luo J, Gozin M, Kayyem JF. Electron transfer at electrodes through conjugated “molecular wire” bridges. J Am Chem Soc 1999; 121(5): 1059-1064

[133] Peterlinz KA, Georgiadis RM, Herne TM, Tarlov MJ. Observation of hybridization and dehybridization of thiol-tethered DNA using two-color surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc 1997; 119(14): 3401-3402

[134] Taton TA, Mirkin CA, Letsinger RL. Scanometric DNA array detection with nanoparticle probes. Science 2000; 289(5485): 1757-1760

[135] Robelek R, Niu L, Schmid EL, Knoll W. Multiplexed hybridization detection of quantum dot-conjugated DNA sequences using surface plasmon enhanced fluorescence microscopy and spectrometry. Anal Chem 2004; 76(20): 6160-6165

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg