|
1
|
Ivanov YD, Malsagova KA, Goldaeva KV, Pleshakova TO, Kozlov AF, Galiullin RA, Shumov ID, Popov VP, Abramova IK, Ziborov VS, Petrov OF, Dolgoborodov AY, Archakov AI. The Study of Performance of a Nanoribbon Biosensor, Sensitized with Aptamers and Antibodies, upon Detection of Core Antigen of Hepatitis C Virus. MICROMACHINES 2023; 14:1946. [PMID: 37893383 PMCID: PMC10609547 DOI: 10.3390/mi14101946] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2023] [Revised: 10/09/2023] [Accepted: 10/11/2023] [Indexed: 10/29/2023]
Abstract
The development of highly sensitive diagnostic systems for the early revelation of diseases in humans is one of the most important tasks of modern biomedical research, and the detection of the core antigen of the hepatitis C virus (HCVcoreAg)-a protein marker of the hepatitis C virus-is just the case. Our study is aimed at testing the performance of the nanoribbon biosensor in the case of the use of two different types of molecular probes: the antibodies and the aptamers against HCVcoreAg. The nanoribbon sensor chips employed are based on "silicon-on-insulator structures" (SOI-NR). Two different HCVcoreAg preparations are tested: recombinant β-galactosidase-conjugated HCVcoreAg ("Virogen", Watertown, MA, USA) and recombinant HCVcoreAg ("Vector-Best", Novosibirsk, Russia). Upon the detection of either type of antigen preparation, the lowest concentration of the antigen detectable in buffer with pH 5.1 was found to be approximately equal, amounting to ~10-15 M. This value was similar upon the use of either type of molecular probes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuri D. Ivanov
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
- Joint Institute for High Temperatures of Russian Academy of Sciences, 125412 Moscow, Russia; (O.F.P.); (A.Y.D.)
| | - Kristina A. Malsagova
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| | - Kristina V. Goldaeva
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| | - Tatyana O. Pleshakova
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| | - Andrey F. Kozlov
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| | - Rafael A. Galiullin
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| | - Ivan D. Shumov
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| | - Vladimir P. Popov
- Rzhanov Institute of Semiconductor Physics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia;
| | - Irina K. Abramova
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| | - Vadim S. Ziborov
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
- Joint Institute for High Temperatures of Russian Academy of Sciences, 125412 Moscow, Russia; (O.F.P.); (A.Y.D.)
| | - Oleg F. Petrov
- Joint Institute for High Temperatures of Russian Academy of Sciences, 125412 Moscow, Russia; (O.F.P.); (A.Y.D.)
| | - Alexander Yu. Dolgoborodov
- Joint Institute for High Temperatures of Russian Academy of Sciences, 125412 Moscow, Russia; (O.F.P.); (A.Y.D.)
| | - Alexander I. Archakov
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 119121 Moscow, Russia; (Y.D.I.); (K.A.M.); (T.O.P.); (A.F.K.); (R.A.G.); (I.D.S.); (I.K.A.); (V.S.Z.); (A.I.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Comparing RT-qPCR and Hepatitis C Virus Antigen Detection Assay for Detecting Active Infection in Blood Donors in Fars Province, Iran. HEPATITIS MONTHLY 2022. [DOI: 10.5812/hepatmon-123438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/13/2023]
Abstract
Background: Immunoassay is still used to detect hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies in donated blood in many developing countries. However, an immunoblotting confirmation test is needed to confirm positive results. Objectives: We compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of nucleic acid testing and HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) detection in the serum samples of blood donors with HCV antibodies to determine active infection. Methods: Overall, 90 serum samples from blood donors referred to Fars Blood Transfusion Organization, Iran during March 2017-March 2019 and initially tested for HCV antibodies were included in the study. Enzyme immunoassays were used to detect the HCV antigen and anti-HCV antibody. A commercial reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) kit was used to quantify HCV RNA. The HCV genotypes were also determined by DNA sequencing. In order to compare the HCVcAg detection method with the RT-qPCR reference method, sensitivity, specificity, performance, PPV, and NPV were calculated. Results: Out of 90 serum samples, 73 were positive for anti-HCV antibody, and 17 sera were negative. The HCV RNA was detected in 60 (82%) of anti-HCV antibody-positive samples, whereas the HCVcAg test detected HCV antigen in 54 (74%) of the samples, indicating a significant correlation between the two assays (r = 0.86). The overall sensitivity and specificity for HCVcAg detection method were 93.85% [95% confidence interval (CI): 84.99 - 98.3%] and 100% (95% CI: 94.64 - 100%), respectively. Based on the statistical analysis, the accuracy of the antigen detection test was 94.83% (95% CI: 87.26 - 98.58%). Moreover, the agreement between HCV RNA detection using RT-qPCR and HCVcAg detection was 97.78% (kappa value: 0.94). Conclusions: The sensitivity and specificity of HCVcAg detection in blood donors were ideal compared to the RT-qPCR reference method. However, the method should be tested on more HCV antibody-positive and -negative samples. Furthermore, our study revealed a significant association between the number of RT-qPCR-positive cases and the cases diagnosed by the HCVcAg detection method for screening and detecting active HCV infection in blood donors.
Collapse
|