Technical Report | Published:

Matrix-insensitive protein assays push the limits of biosensors in medicine

Nature Medicine volume 15, pages 13271332 (2009) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Advances in biosensor technologies for in vitro diagnostics have the potential to transform the practice of medicine. Despite considerable work in the biosensor field, there is still no general sensing platform that can be ubiquitously applied to detect the constellation of biomolecules in diverse clinical samples (for example, serum, urine, cell lysates or saliva) with high sensitivity and large linear dynamic range. A major limitation confounding other technologies is signal distortion that occurs in various matrices due to heterogeneity in ionic strength, pH, temperature and autofluorescence. Here we present a magnetic nanosensor technology that is matrix insensitive yet still capable of rapid, multiplex protein detection with resolution down to attomolar concentrations and extensive linear dynamic range. The matrix insensitivity of our platform to various media demonstrates that our magnetic nanosensor technology can be directly applied to a variety of settings such as molecular biology, clinical diagnostics and biodefense.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Proteomics in early detection of cancer. Clin. Chem. 47, 1901–1911 (2001).

  2. 2.

    et al. A novel, high-throughput workflow for discovery and identification of serum carrier protein-bound peptide biomarker candidates in ovarian cancer samples. Clin. Chem. 53, 1067–1074 (2007).

  3. 3.

    et al. Multiplexed immunobead-based cytokine profiling for early detection of ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14, 981–987 (2005).

  4. 4.

    et al. A multiparametric panel for ovarian cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and response to chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 13, 6984–6992 (2007).

  5. 5.

    & Nanotechnology and cancer. Annu. Rev. Med. 59, 251–265 (2008).

  6. 6.

    A perspective on protein microarrays. Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 225–229 (2002).

  7. 7.

    et al. Protein microarrays for multiplex analysis of signal transduction pathways. Nat. Med. 10, 1390–1396 (2004).

  8. 8.

    et al. Quantum dots–based reverse phase protein microarray. Talanta 67, 472–478 (2005).

  9. 9.

    et al. Multiplexed electrical detection of cancer markers with nanowire sensor arrays. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 1294–1301 (2005).

  10. 10.

    et al. Microcantilever biosensors based on conformational change of proteins. Analyst 133, 434–443 (2008).

  11. 11.

    , & Carbon nanotube flow sensors. Science 299, 1042–1044 (2003).

  12. 12.

    , & Electrochemical DNA sensors. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 1192–1199 (2003).

  13. 13.

    et al. Nanotechnologies for biomolecular detection and medical diagnostics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 10, 11–19 (2006).

  14. 14.

    et al. Novel magnetoresistance effect in layered magnetic structures: Theory and experiment. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 42, 8110–8120 (1990).

  15. 15.

    Magnetoelectronics. Science 282, 1660–1663 (1998).

  16. 16.

    et al. Spintronics: A spin-based electronics vision for the future. Science 294, 1488–1495 (2001).

  17. 17.

    et al. A biosensor based on magnetoresistance technology. Biosens. Bioelectron. 13, 731–739 (1998).

  18. 18.

    et al. Detection of single micron-sized magnetic bead and magnetic nanoparticles using spin valve sensors for biological applications. J. Appl. Phys. 93, 7557–7559 (2003).

  19. 19.

    et al. Single magnetic microsphere placement and detection on-chip using current line designs with integrated spin valve sensors: biotechnological applications. J. Appl. Phys. 91, 7786–7788 (2002).

  20. 20.

    et al. Comparison of a prototype magnetoresistive biosensor to standard fluorescent DNA detection. Biosens. Bioelectron. 19, 1149–1156 (2004).

  21. 21.

    et al. Giant magnetoresistive sensors and superparamagnetic nanoparticles: a chip-scale detection strategy for immunosorbent assays. Anal. Chem. 77, 6581–6587 (2005).

  22. 22.

    et al. Spin valve sensors for ultrasensitive detection of superparamagnetic nanoparticles for biological applications. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 126, 98–106 (2006).

  23. 23.

    et al. Giant magnetoresistive biochip for DNA detection and HPV genotyping. Biosens. Bioelectron. 24, 99–103 (2008).

  24. 24.

    et al. Multiplex protein assays based on real-time magnetic nanotag sensing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 20637–20640 (2008).

  25. 25.

    et al. Measurement of urinary lactoferrin as a marker of urinary tract infection. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37, 553–557 (1999).

  26. 26.

    et al. Label-free immunodetection with CMOS-compatible semiconducting nanowires. Nature 445, 519–522 (2007).

  27. 27.

    et al. Nanoparticle-based detection in cerebral spinal fluid of a soluble pathogenic biomarker for Alzheimer's disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2273–2276 (2005).

  28. 28.

    et al. Bioassay of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) using microcantilevers. Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 856–860 (2001).

  29. 29.

    , & Assessment of serial CEA determinations in urine of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer 46, 1802–1809 (1980).

  30. 30.

    et al. A longitudinal study of unsaturated iron-binding capacity and lactoferrin in unstimulated parotid saliva. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 57, 1–8 (1997).

  31. 31.

    et al. Protein microarrays with carbon nanotubes as multicolor Raman labels. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 1285–1292 (2008).

  32. 32.

    et al. Nanowire nanosensors for highly sensitive and selective detection of biological and chemical species. Science 293, 1289–1292 (2001).

  33. 33.

    et al. Human colonic adenocarcinoma cells. I. Establishment and description of a new line. In Vitro 12, 180–191 (1976).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by US National Cancer Institute grants 1U54CA119367 and N44CM–2009-00011, US National Science Foundation grant ECCS-0801385-000, US Defense Threat Reduction Agency grant HDTRA1-07-1-0030-P00005, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/Navy Grant N00014–02-1–0807, NCI ICMIC P50 CA114747, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Review B4872, the Canary Foundation and The National Semiconductor Corporation. R.S.G. acknowledges financial support from Stanford Medical School Medical Scientist Training Program and a National Science Foundation graduate research fellowship. C.H.N. acknowledges financial support from the Denmark-American Foundation and the Lundbeck Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

    • Richard S Gaster
    •  & Drew A Hall

    These authors contributed equally to the work.

Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Richard S Gaster
    •  & Sanjiv S Gambhir
  2. Medical Scientist Training Program, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Richard S Gaster
  3. Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Drew A Hall
    • , Boris Murmann
    •  & Shan X Wang
  4. Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford, Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Carsten H Nielsen
    •  & Sanjiv S Gambhir
  5. Cluster for Molecular Imaging and Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and Positron Emission Tomography, Rigshospitalet & University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

    • Carsten H Nielsen
  6. Section for Biomedical Engineering, Department of Electrical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.

    • Carsten H Nielsen
  7. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Sebastian J Osterfeld
    • , Robert J Wilson
    •  & Shan X Wang
  8. MagArray, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA.

    • Sebastian J Osterfeld
    •  & Heng Yu
  9. Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Kathleen E Mach
    •  & Joseph C Liao
  10. Bio-X Program, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Joseph C Liao
    • , Sanjiv S Gambhir
    •  & Shan X Wang

Authors

  1. Search for Richard S Gaster in:

  2. Search for Drew A Hall in:

  3. Search for Carsten H Nielsen in:

  4. Search for Sebastian J Osterfeld in:

  5. Search for Heng Yu in:

  6. Search for Kathleen E Mach in:

  7. Search for Robert J Wilson in:

  8. Search for Boris Murmann in:

  9. Search for Joseph C Liao in:

  10. Search for Sanjiv S Gambhir in:

  11. Search for Shan X Wang in:

Contributions

R.S.G., D.A.H., S.S.G. and S.X.W designed research; R.S.G., D.A.H., C.H.N. and K.E.M. performed research; R.S.G., D.A.H., C.H.N., S.J.O., H.Y., K.E.M., R.J.W., B.M., J.C.L., S.S.G. and S.X.W contributed new reagents and/or analytical tools; R.S.G., D.A.H. and S.X.W analyzed data; S.J.O. and S.X.W. designed the magnetic sensors; R.S.G. and H.Y. developed the biochemistry; and R.S.G., S.S.G. and S.X.W. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

Stanford University has licensed part of the magnetic bioassay chip technology contained in this publication to MagArray Inc., an early-stage startup company in Silicon Valley, California. S.X.W., S.S.G., H.Y. and S.J.O. hold financial interests in MagArray in the form of stock options.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sanjiv S Gambhir or Shan X Wang.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figs. 1–9

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2032

Further reading