The ASBMB story notes that nanopore technology depends on differences in charges on either side of the membrane to force DNA or RNA through the hole. This is one reason why proteins pose such a challenge.
“Think of a cell as a miniature city, with proteins as its inhabitants. Each protein-resident has a unique identity, its own characteristics, and function. If there was a database cataloging the fingerprints, job profiles, and talents of the city’s inhabitants, such a database would undoubtedly be invaluable!” said Behzad Mehrafrooz, PhD (above), Graduate Research Assistant at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in an article he penned for the university website. This research should be of interest to the many clinical laboratories that do protein testing. (Photo copyright: University of Illinois.)
How the Maglia Process Works
In a Groningen University news story, Maglia said protein is “like cooked spaghetti. These long strands want to be disorganized. They do not want to be pushed through this tiny hole.”
His technique, developed in collaboration with researchers at the University of Rome Tor Vergata, uses electrically charged ions to drag the protein through the hole.
“We didn’t know whether the flow would be strong enough,” Maglia stated in the news story. “Furthermore, these ions want to move both ways, but by attaching a lot of charge on the nanopore itself, we were able to make it directional.”
The researchers tested the technology on what Maglia described as a “difficult protein” with many negative charges that would tend to make it resistant to flow.
“Previously, only easy-to-thread proteins were analyzed,” he said in the news story. “But we gave ourselves one of the most difficult proteins as a test. And it worked!”
Maglia now says that he intends to commercialize the technology through a new startup called Portal Biotech.
Detecting Post-Translational Modifications in the UK
In another recent study, researchers at the University of Oxford reported that they have adapted nanopore technology to detect post-translational modifications (PTMs) in protein chains. The term refers to changes made to proteins after they have been transcribed from DNA, explained an Oxford news story.
“The ability to pinpoint and identify post-translational modifications and other protein variations at the single-molecule level holds immense promise for advancing our understanding of cellular functions and molecular interactions,” said contributing author Hagan Bayley, PhD, Professor of Chemical Biology at University of Oxford, in the news story. “It may also open new avenues for personalized medicine, diagnostics, and therapeutic interventions.”
Bayley is the founder of Oxford Nanopore Technologies, a genetic sequencing company in the UK that develops and markets nanopore sequencing products.
The news story notes that the new technique could be integrated into existing nanopore sequencing devices. “This could facilitate point-of-care diagnostics, enabling the personalized detection of specific protein variants associated with diseases including cancer and neurodegenerative disorders,” the story states.
In another recent study, researchers at the University of Washington reported that they have developed their own method for protein sequencing with nanopore technology.
“This opens up the possibility for barcode sequencing at the protein level for highly multiplexed assays, PTM monitoring, and protein identification!” Motone wrote.
Single-cell proteomics, enabled by nanopore protein sequencing technology, “could provide higher sensitivity and wider throughput, digital quantification, and novel data modalities compared to the current gold standard of protein MS [mass spectrometry],” they wrote. “The accessibility of these tools to a broader range of researchers and clinicians is also expected to increase with simpler instrumentation, less expertise needed, and lower costs.”
There are approximately 20,000 human genes. However, there are many more proteins. Thus, there is strong interest in understanding the human proteome and the role it plays in health and disease.
Technology that makes protein testing faster, more accurate, and less costly—especially with a handheld analyzer—would be a boon to the study of proteomics. And it would give clinical laboratories new diagnostic tools and bring some of that testing to point-of-care settings like doctor’s offices.
In the absence of a “gold standard,” researchers are finding a high frequency of false negatives among SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests
Serology tests designed to detect antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness have been dogged by well-publicized questions about accuracy. However, researchers also are raising concerns about the accuracy of molecular diagnostics which claim to detect the actual presence of the coronavirus itself.
“Diagnostic tests, typically involving a nasopharyngeal swab, can be inaccurate in two ways,” said Steven Woloshin, MD, MS, in a news release announcing a new report that “examines challenges and implications of false-negative COVID-19 tests.” Woloshin is an internist, a professor at Dartmouth Institute, and co-director of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
“A false-positive result mistakenly labels a person infected, with consequences including unnecessary quarantine and contact tracing,” he stated in the news release. “False-negative results are far more consequential, because infected persons who might be asymptomatic may not be isolated and can infect others.”
Woloshin led a team of Dartmouth researchers who analyzed two studies from Wuhan, China, and a literature review by researchers in Europe and South America that indicated diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are frequently generating false negatives. The team published their results in the June 5 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
For example, one research team in Wuhan collected samples from 213 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and found that an approved RT-PCR test produced false negatives in 11% of sputum samples, 27% of nasal samples, and 40% of throat samples. Their research was published on the medRxiv preprint server and has not been peer-reviewed.
The literature review Woloshin’s team studied was also published on medRxiv, titled, “False-Negative Results of Initial Rt-PCR Assays for COVID-19: A Systematic Review.” It indicated that the rate of false negatives could be as high as 29%. The authors of the review looked at five studies that had enrolled a total of 957 patients. “The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability,” they wrote. “Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection.”
Another literature review, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, titled, “Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure,” estimated the probability of false negatives in RT-PCR tests at varying intervals from the time of exposure and symptom onset. For example, the authors found that the median false-negative rate was 38% if a test was performed on the day of symptom onset, versus 20% three days after onset. Their analysis was based on seven studies, five of which were peer-reviewed, with a total of 1330 test samples.
Doctors also are seeing anecdotal evidence of false negatives. For example, clinicians at UC San Diego Health medical center treated a patient with obvious symptoms of COVID-19, but two tests performed on throat samples were negative. However, a third test, using a sample from a bronchial wash, identified the virus, reported Medscape.
Sensitivity and Specificity of COVID-19 Clinical Laboratory Tests
The key measures of test accuracy are sensitivity, which refers to the ability to detect the presence of the virus, and specificity, the ability to determine that the targeted pathogen is not present. “So, a sensitive test is less likely to provide a false-negative result and a specific test is less likely to provide a false-positive result,” wrote Kirsten Meek, PhD, medical writer and editor, in an article for ARUP Laboratories.
“Analytic” sensitivity and specificity “represent the accuracy of a test under ideal conditions in which specimens have been collected from patients with either high viral loads or a complete absence of exposure,” she wrote. However, “sensitivity and specificity under real-world conditions, in which patients are more variable and specimen collection may not be ideal, can often be lower than reported numbers.”
In a statement defending its ID Now molecular point-of-care test, which came under scrutiny during a study of COVID-19 molecular tests by NYU Langone Health, Northwell Health, and Cleveland Clinic, according to MedTech Dive, Abbott Laboratories blamed improper sample collection and handling for highly-publicized false negatives produced by its rapid test. An FDA issued alert about the test on May 14 noted that Abbott had agreed to conduct post-market studies to identify the cause of the false negatives and suggest remedial actions.
Issues with Emergency Use Authorizations
In their NEJM analysis, Woloshin et al point to issues with the FDA’s process for issuing Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). For example, they noted variations in how manufacturers are conducting clinical evaluations to determine test performance. “The FDA prefers the use of ‘natural clinical specimens’ but has permitted the use of ‘contrived specimens’ produced by adding viral RNA or inactivated virus to leftover clinical material,” they wrote.
When evaluating clinical performance, manufacturers ordinarily conduct an index test of patients and compare the results with reference-standard test, according to the Dartmouth researchers. For people showing symptoms, the reference standard should be a clinical diagnosis performed by an independent adjudication panel. However, they wrote, “it is unclear whether the sensitivity of any FDA-authorized commercial test has been assessed in this way.” Additionally, a reference standard for determining sensitivity in asymptomatic people “is an unsolved problem that needs urgent attention to increase confidence in test results for contact-tracing or screening purposes.”
“To truly determine false negatives, you need a gold standard test, which is essentially as close to perfect as we can get,” Stephen Rawlings, MD, PhD, (above), a resident physician of internal medicine and infectious diseases fellow at UC San Diego’s Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), who has been working on SARS-CoV-2 test validation since March. “But there just isn’t one yet for coronavirus,” he told Medscape. (Photo copyright: University of California, San Diego.)
Continued adherence to current measures, such as physical distancing and surface disinfection.
Development of highly sensitive and specific tests or combinations of tests to minimize the risk of false-negative results and ongoing transmission based on a false sense of security.
Improved RT-PCR tests and serological assays.
Development and communication of clear risk-stratified protocols for management of negative COVID-19 test results.
“These protocols must evolve as diagnostic test, transmission, and outcome statistics become more available,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, clinical laboratories remain somewhat on their own at selecting which COVID-19 molecular and serology tests they want to purchase and run in their labs. Complicating such decisions is the fact that many of the nation’s most reputable in vitro diagnostics manufacturers cannot produce enough of their COVID-19 tests to meet demand.
Consequently, when looking to purchase tests for SARS-CoV-2, smaller medical laboratory organizations find themselves evaluating COVID-19 kits developed by little-known or even brand-new companies.
Using 3D printing and a chemical heat source, University of Pennsylvania researchers have created a proof-of-concept for an affordable Zika test that returns results in just 40 minutes
There’s a gap in Zika virus testing that researchers at the University of Pennsylvania hope to fill. That gap is a point-of-care test for the Zika virus that can produce a fast and accurate result, whether in developed nations or in developing countries that don’t have many state-of-the art clinical laboratories.
New imaging technology might change flow of biopsies to dermatopathologists
Dermatopathologists will be interested to learn about new imaging technology that significantly boosts the accuracy of this methodology to analyze images of the skin and diagnose malignant melanomas.
Although still in the research stage, these technology advances demonstrate how advanced imaging solutions, in tandem with computer-aided diagnosis, may allow dermatologists to evaluate patients without the need to harvest a biopsy and send it to the pathology laboratory for diagnosis.
