4.7 Article

Microfluidics-based point-of-care test for serodiagnosis of Lyme Disease

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep35069

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Public Health Service grant from the NIAID, National Institutes of Health [R44 AI096551]
  2. Saving Lives at Birth transition grant (United States Agency for International Development)
  3. Saving Lives at Birth transition grant (Gates Foundation)
  4. Saving Lives at Birth transition grant (Government of Norway)
  5. Saving Lives at Birth transition grant (Grand Challenges Canada)
  6. Saving Lives at Birth transition grant (World Bank)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Currently, diagnostic testing for Lyme disease is done by determination of the serologic responses to Borrelia burgdorferi antigens, with the exception of the early localized phase of disease where diagnosis must be done clinically. Here, we describe the use of microfluidics technology to develop a multiplexed rapid lab-on-a-chip point of care (POC) assay for the serologic diagnosis of human Lyme disease. Following ELISA screening of 12 candidate antigens, we tested 8 on a microfluidic diagnostic system, called mChip-Ld, using a set of 60 serological samples. The mChip-Ld test, which can be performed in 15 minutes at the point of care, showed promising performance for detection of antibodies to B. burgdorferi using the PPO triplex test (rP100 + PepVF + rOspC-K, AUC of 0.844) compared to a gold-standard reference of culture confirmed clinical samples. The performance is comparable to the commonly used C6 peptide by lab-based ELISA. In addition, the mChip-Ld test showed promising performance for early-stage diagnosis of the disease using the antigen OspC-K (sensitivity and specificity of 84% and 92%, respectively; AUC of 0.877). Overall, this study underscores the potential of using microfluidics to aid the diagnosis of Lyme disease at the point of care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available