The present disclosure relates to biological multiplexing analysis, in particular in diagnosis of complex diseases based on detection of multiple biomarkers in a biological sample.
Diagnosis of complex diseases and response to treatments are often associated with multiple biomolecules rather than a single identifiable biomarker. In contrast to conventional techniques which measure one analyte at a time, multiplexing technologies may measure, within a single assay, tens to thousands of different biomolecules, e.g., proteins or nucleic acids, from a single biological sample using identical conditions. Basically, capture molecules of different types, e.g. antibodies, target proteins, peptides or nucleic acids, are provided in an assay apparatus filled with the sample, each type of capture molecule being designed to form with the biomarker to be searched in the sample a particular fluorescently labeled complex (usually referred as “the targeted fluorescent labeled biomarker”). One main issue of multiplexing techniques is to determine during the single assay the fluorescence originating from a single type of fluorescently labeled biomarkers bound to their complementary capture molecules (hereafter “individual fluorescence”).
Various multiplexing technologies are available, each being usually classified according to its specific encoding strategy addressing this issue. The most popular commercially available multiplexing technologies are array-based and bead-based. In array-based technologies, capture molecules are bound on a panel in a known arrangement to form a 2D array of “capture spots”, each dedicated to the capture of a particular biomarker. Such planar arrays thus rely on x-y-coordinates of the capture spots to determine the fluorescence of each biomarker. Bead-based technologies are based on spectral encoding in which the color and intensity allows discriminating each bead population. They have proven to be highly flexible and scalable. However, the currently available bead-based systems are designed to run cost-effectively in batches and the need for waiting on sufficient samples to fill the plate can slow down the turnaround time in routine clinical testing. Furthermore, both technologies suffer from slow binding kinetics, as they are mainly driven by diffusion. This usually imposes long sample incubation times even when agitation is used to speed up the process. In addition, diffusion limited binding regime can also contribute to reported high intra- and interassay variations.
To address the above limitations, a multiplexing technology based on encoded microparticles and microfluidic channels has been designed. This technology is for example described in “Rapid, Sensitive and Real-Time Multiplexing Platform for the Analysis of Protein and Nucleic-Acid Biomarkers”, Didier Falconnet and al., Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 1582-1589 and its supporting information downloadable from the website http://pubs.acs.org. One apparatus embodying this technology is sold under the reference named “Evaluation™” by MyCartis, Ghent, BE. The main components of this technology (encoded microparticles, microfluidic channel cartridge and instrumentation) are now briefly described in relation with
Referring to
Referring to
Instrumentation aims at acquiring images of the channel, at controlling the fluid actuation and the temperature in the channels and at analyzing acquired images. More particularly, instrumentation comprises:
an optical system 28, with for example a long-working distance objective and a high-sensitivity CMOS camera, to acquire bright field and epi-fluorescence images (e.g. excitation at 640 nm, e.g. using a laser) of the detection zone of the cartridge. The objective is mounted on an automated x-y-z stage for scanning each channel either during the assay for real-time readout or in end point;
lighting system (not illustrated) for uniformly illuminate the detection zone in order to get a high contrast image of the microparticles in bright background for decoding purpose;
a controlling unit (not illustrated) for controlling the microfluidic operation of the cartridge (inlet/outlet wells, pressurization, temperature . . . ), as well as the operation of the optical system;
a computing unit 30 (e.g. personal computer, a server, or more generally any computing hardware configured to receive data from the camera and process the data according to instructions stored on a memory . . . ), possibly part of the controlling unit or independent therefrom, coupled to the camera for receiving images thereof and running an multiplexing analysis computing program to automatically quantify the biomarkers in the tested sample based on the fluorescent and bright-light images acquired by the optical system.
Referring to
producing a suspension mix of microparticles 32, the microparticles 10 being chosen based on the biomarkers to be searched for in a tested sample and loading the liquid mix of microparticles 32 in the cartridge 20 to fill one or more channels 22 so that a planar arrangement of the microparticle is provided for optimal readout purpose (
loading the tested liquid sample, along with, if required, reagents (e.g. for sandwich reactions), in the channels 22, thereby initiating incubation and/or binding reaction in microfluidic environment between the biomarkers 34 in the tested sample and the capture molecules 36 bound to the microparticles 10 (
acquiring images of the detection zone of the channels 22 (e.g. in real time or once at the end of the process). While the microparticles 10 are immobilized in the channels 22 thanks to pressurization and filter elements, a cycle of image acquisition preferably consists in acquiring consecutively a bright field image 38 and a fluorescence image 40 or vice versa, so that the position of each microparticles is the same in both images (
for each channel 22 and for each pair of bright field and a fluorescence images 38, 40 of the channel:
analyzing the bright field image 38 to identify location Xi of each microparticle 10 in the channels 22 and to read the code Idm 12 of each microparticle 10;
analyzing the fluorescence image 40 to determine the fluorescence φmeas of each microparticle 10 in the fluorescent image (e.g. corresponding to the maximum of a kernel density fitted on the pixels of the portion of the image corresponding to the central portion of the microparticle);
for each channel 22 and each population of microparticles 10 sharing the same code Idm in the channel:
computing an aggregate value of fluorescence φpop for the population, e.g.: applying a Tukey's boxplot filter on fluorescences φmeas to filter out abnormal fluorescence values φmeas and thereafter computing the aggregate value as the arithmetic mean value of the remaining fluorescences φmeas (
determining the biomarker concentration [b] in the tested sample (or “titration”) based on the aggregate value φpop using a stored relationship fluorescence versus concentration (e.g. table, analytic mathematical model, . . . ) determined beforehand for the biomarker and stored in a digital memory of the computing unit 30 (
The computed concentrations are then displayed to the user and/or stored on a digital memory (e.g.: the one of the computing unit).
This multiplexing technology allows (i) short assay times and high reproducibility thanks to reaction-limited binding regime, (ii) dynamic control of assay conditions and real-time binding monitoring allowing optimization of multiple parameters within a single assay run, (iii) compatibility with various immunoassay formats such as co-flowing the samples and detection antibodies simultaneously and hence simplifying workflows, (iv) analyte quantification based on initial binding rates leading to increased system dynamic range and (v) high sensitivity via enhanced fluorescence collection, (vi) opportunity to run monoplex (i.e. providing only one type of capture molecules for the quantitative measure of a particular biomarker) assay if desired.
However, in some instances, one observes divergence between a biomarker concentration [b] which is computed from multiplex assay data and the biomarker concentration [b] computed from monoplex assay data.
One aim of the disclosed embodiments is to propose, in a multiplexing analysis, computation of microparticle fluorescences that corrects the difference between multiplex and monoplex assays.
To this end, one object of the disclosed embodiments is a method for determining fluorescences {φispe}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} of a set of I fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} of a multiplexing analysis, said microparticles being in a monolayer arrangement, the method comprising:
acquiring a digital fluorescence image of the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I}; and
computing, for each fluorescent microparticle μPi in the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I}, a first fluorescence φimeas based only on pixels of the acquired image corresponding to said fluorescent microparticle μPi,
According to the disclosed embodiments, the method comprises computing the fluorescence φispe of said fluorescent microparticle μPi by correcting its first fluorescence φimeas by a cross-talk fluorescence contribution φicross in said first fluorescence φimeas from other fluorescent microparticles {μPj}j≠i in the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I}.
In other words, the portion of the acquired image corresponding to a microparticle μPj does not strictly correspond to the light produced by said microparticle. Each microparticle produces light that scatters and thus superimposes to the light of other microparticles. Drawing a parallel with imagery, there is a “cross-talk” effect between the microparticles. In particular, the cross-talk effect may be observed when at least two populations of microparticles of different fluorescences (e.g. a dark population and a bright population) are mixed together. For example, when the difference in fluorescence is large enough between the two populations, an increase in fluorescence is observed on some microparticles of the darker populations that are in the neighborhood of microparticles of the brighter population. Cross-talk may also exist in monoplex assay.
According to one embodiment, the computation of the fluorescence value φispe comprises:
computing a position Xi in the digital fluorescence image for each fluorescent microparticle μPi in the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPj}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I};
modelling the first fluorescence value φimeas as a function of the positions {Xi}i∈{1, . . . , I} and fluorescence values {φispe}i∈{1, . . . , I} of all fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I}; and
computing the inverse of said function to obtain the fluorescence value φispe.
According to one embodiment, the computation of fluorescence φispe is carried on based on the following relationship:
wherein φjspe is the fluorescence of the jth fluorescent microparticle μPj, and αij is a unitary cross-talk fluorescence contribution in the first fluorescence φimeas of the jth fluorescent microparticle μPj, the unitary cross-talk fluorescence contribution αij depending only on the distance between the fluorescent microparticles μPi and μPj.
In other words, for a given microparticle, light produced by other microparticles does not reduce to a uniform background noise that one could measure (e.g. by computing the average of the image's brightness) and subtract from the fluorescence of the microparticle. The inventors have further noticed that disturbance from other microparticles is variable, depending on the particular arrangement of the microparticles. To correct the cross-talk effect on a microparticle, embodiments thus compute the contribution of each other microparticles. Accounting for each said contributions results in multiplex measure that is similar to monoplex measure, even for high contrast conditions amongst microparticles.
Moreover, the inventor noticed that the cross-talk effect may be modelled by the sum of isotropic decay profiles. This implies that one may consider a microparticle independently from the other for computing its contribution and that the fluorescence scattered by a microparticle depends only on the distance from the microparticle and the fluorescence on the microparticle. The unitary cross-talk fluorescence contributions αij corresponds for example to the normalized fluorescence that a microparticle generates and is computed based on constant parameters determined beforehand, for example by the manufacturer of a multiplex analyzer, and stored in the memory of the analyzer.
In particular, the method comprises:
computing a distance di,j between the ith and the jth fluorescent microparticles in the digital fluorescence image;
for each couple of microparticles (μPi,μPj) in the set of I fluorescent microparticles, computing the unitary cross-talk fluorescence contribution αij of said couple (μPi,μPj) based on the distance di,j;
computing the fluorescences {φispe}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} of the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} based on the following relationship:
In other words, the computation is based on a two particular reductions, as it will be discussed later, which enables a simple, while very accurate, correction of the cross-talk effect.
In particular, the unitary cross-talk fluorescence of the jth microparticle in the first fluorescence φmeas of the ith fluorescent microparticle is computed based on the following relationship:
wherein N is an integer greater or equal to 2, θn, kn and βn are predetermined parameters.
Sum of exponential functions is an effective way to model the unitary cross-talk fluorescence contribution αij, while at the same time offering flexibility of convex optimization for computing parameters θn, kn and βn. In particular, three exponentials are sufficient to compute αij.
In one embodiment, each fluorescent microparticle μPi of the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} comprises an identifier Idm(i) of a set of M different unique identifiers {idm}m∈{1, 2, . . . , M}, said identifiant IdM(i) being readable through processing of a digital image of said fluorescent microparticle μPi, and in that the method further comprises:
acquiring a digital image of the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I};
reading the identifier Idm(i) of each microparticle μPi in the digital image; and
for each identifier Idm of the set of M different unique identifiers {idm}m∈{1, 2, . . . , M}, computing an aggregate fluorescence φmag based on the fluorescences φispe of the fluorescent microparticles comprising said identifier.
In particular, each fluorescent microparticle μPi of the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} comprises a surface coated with fluorescent complexes uniquely associated to the identifiant Idm(i) of said fluorescent microparticle μPi, said complexes comprising first non-fluorescent molecules fixed to the microparticles and second fluorescent molecules bound to the first non-fluorescent molecules.
More particularly, the microparticles have equal dimension.
In a variation, the method comprises:
prior to acquiring the digital fluorescence image of the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I}:
disposing in a channel the microparticles without any second fluorescent molecules bound to the first non-fluorescent molecules, so as to arrange the microparticles in a monolayer; and
filling the channel with a liquid sample,
computing concentration of second fluorescent molecules in the sample based on the aggregate fluorescences φmag.
Another object of the disclosed embodiments is a system for embodying the aforementioned method, in particular a system for determining fluorescences {φispe}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} of a set of I fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} comprising:
at least one channel for receiving the set of I fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} in a monolayer arrangement;
an acquisition unit for acquiring a digital fluorescent image of the monolayer arrangement of the set fluorescent microparticles {μPj}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} in the channel;
a computing unit for computing the fluorescences {φispe}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} based on the acquired digital fluorescent image, the computing unit computing a first fluorescence φmeas based only on pixels of acquired digital fluorescent image corresponding to said fluorescent microparticle μPi,
characterized in that the computing unit computes, for each fluorescent microparticle μPi in the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I}:
a cross-talk fluorescence contribution φicross in the first fluorescence φimeas of said fluorescent microparticle μPi from other fluorescent microparticles {μPj}j≠t in the set of fluorescent microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I}, said computing being based on first fluorescences {φimeas}i≠t of said other microparticles; and
the fluorescence φispe of said fluorescent microparticle μPi by correcting its first fluorescence φimeas by the cross-talk fluorescence contribution φicross.
The presently described embodiments will be better understood on reading of the following description provided as an example only in relation with the accompanying drawings, where the same reference numerals designate the same or similar elements, among which:
An embodiment, based on the Evalution™ system detailed above, is now described. The embodiment differs from the Evalution™ system by supplementary processing. In particular, computer instructions and parameters are stored in the memory of the “Evalution™” system to process the acquired digital fluorescence images of the channels so as to correct the cross-talk effect in the fluorescence φmeas computed by the system. The corrected fluorescences φspec are then used to compute the aggregate values of fluorescence φpop for the populations and the biomarker's concentrations [b] in the tested sample.
In particular, in a set of microparticles {μPi}i∈{1, 2, . . . , I} in a channel 22 of the cartridge 20, the measured fluorescence φimeas of a particular microparticle μPi equals:
φimeas=φispe+φicross (1)
where the fluorescence φispe of a microparticle μPi corresponds to the fluorescence produced by the microparticle μPi only and φicross is the fluorescence from other microparticles {μPj}j≠t that superimpose to the fluorescence φispe, that is to say the cross-talk contribution from said other microparticles {μPi}j≠t.
According to the described embodiments, the cross-talk contribution φicross is modeled as a sum of individual contributions, each having an isotropic decay profile, that is to say:
where αij is a unitary cross-talk fluorescence contribution in the first fluorescence φimeas of the jth fluorescent microparticle μPj depending only on the distance di,j between microparticles μPi and μPj, for example the distance between the respective centers of the microparticles.
The fluorescences φjspe not being available, for the cross-talking effect correction, they are approximated by φjspe=φimeas, which gives the relation:
In a first variant, φispe is thus computed according to:
While this variant shows good results in correcting the cross-talk effect, a better correction is done by the following computation.
In particular, by posing ∀i, αii=1 and storing the αij in a matrix A, one gets:
All the fluorescences φispe are thus computed together according to:
As it will be discussed more in detail later, the unitary cross-talk fluorescence contributions αij are computed according the following relation:
where N is an integer greater or equal to 2, θn, kn and βn are predetermined parameters identical whatever the microparticles, which are stored in the memory of the computing unit 30.
In particular regarding the microparticles of the Evalution™ system, N=3 shows good results in approximating the αij.
Based on the above, according to one embodiment, the computing unit 30 thus computes:
the positions of the center of each microparticles (e.g. the center of the disk-shaped microparticles) in the acquired digital fluorescent image of the channel and thereafter computes for each couples of microparticles (μPi,μPj) in said image the distance (μPi,μPj);
the unitary cross-talk fluorescence contributions αij according to relation (7);
the matrix A according to relation (5) and its inverse A−1;
the fluorescences φispe according to relation (6).
Determination of the unitary cross-talk fluorescence contribution is now described in relation to
In a second step, in order to measure the influence on pixels at a distance from the center of the bright microparticle, all the pixels corresponding to the dark microparticles at a distance between d and d+p (where p is a predefined step, e.g. equal to 1), are pooled together in a bin and their mean fluorescence and mean distance to the center of the bright microparticles are computed. The pixels of the dark microparticles are selected with the bright field image.
In
In order to make the profiles comparable among the different conditions, the relative fluorescence is computed by dividing the bin's means fluorescence by the fluorescence of the bright microparticle.
Determination of the relative fluorescence decay profiles has been done for different exposure times, different buffers, instruments and microparticles in order to assess the potential sources of variability. This study shows that the decay profile is substantially independent from the fluorescence of the bright microparticle, as well as from the type of buffer used and the exposure conditions.
In a further step, a chosen model is fitted to the relative fluorescence decay profile. More particularly, the sum of exponentials of relation (7) is chosen as the model, and in particular a sum of three exponentials. This model, while flexible, still provides an analytical expression between the relative crosstalk fluorescence and the distance from center of the bright microparticle. The profile of relative fluorescence decay has a complicated shape that may be hard to fit with a sum of three exponentials (plateau from 0 to ˜50 pixels then sharp slope up to 85). Therefore, in order to increase the goodness of fit of the model, the data of the sharp slope are discarded. This is justified by the fact that distance corresponding to the sharp slope won't be filled with any other microparticles. For example, in the Evalution™ system, the radius of microparticle is approximatively of 56 pixels and therefore, the minimum distance between two microparticles is not expected to be smaller than 85 pixels. The model use to fit the data is thus in the Evalution™:
Example of the cross-talk effect correction is illustrated in relation with
In particular, cross-talk effect results in an increasing of the φCOOHpop value as it is illustrated by the horizontal dashed line which corresponds to the population fluorescence of COOH microparticles in a monoplex assay under the same acquisition conditions (0.07 A.U.). For example, with one biotin-RPE microparticle, the population fluorescence φCOOHpop of COOH population equals 0.44 A.U. i.e. a six fold increase of the monoplex value. This dependence of population fluorescence to the fluorescence of the other populations in a multiplex is detrimental to the assay precision and might notably induce false positive results. For example, in a cytokine assay, a population fluorescence of 0.07 A.U. for INF-g is considered as not significantly above the blank fluorescence and therefore called negative. However a population fluorescence of 0.44 A.U. is well above the limit of detection and corresponds to an estimated concentration of 10.3 pg/ml.
After application of the cross-talk effect correction, the fluorescence measured on COOH microparticles should not be impacted by the fluorescence of bright microparticles present in the same field of view. In order to verify this independence, the population fluorescence of COOH microparticles in multiplex assays is compared to a reference value. The reference value is the corresponding population fluorescence of COOH measured in a monoplex assay under the same experimental condition.
The statistics used for the comparison between COOH in monoplex and multiplex assays is the ratio:
If the signal intensity of COOH microparticles is not impacted by the presence of the bright microparticles, the ratio ρ should be equal to one. In case of crosstalk between fluorescent and COOH microparticles, the ratio is expected to be greater than. Ratios ρ have to be computed before and after decrosstalk in order assess the improvement of signal robustness to the plex level induced by the cross-talk effect correction.
From
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
15186210 | Sep 2015 | EP | regional |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2016/072341 | 9/21/2016 | WO | 00 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2017/050788 | 3/30/2017 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
20080241843 | Zare | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20110306506 | Demierre | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120015825 | Zhong et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120315622 | Rotman | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130302910 | Demierre | Nov 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO-2006015251 | Feb 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Streit, The effect of interchannel crosstalk on array performance, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 86, 1827-1834 (Year: 1989). |
Kannan, Spatially Resolved Total Internal Reflection Fluorescence Correlation Microscopy Using an Electron Multiplying Charge-Coupled Device Camera, Analytical Chemistry, vol. 79, No. 12, Jun. 15, 4463-4470 (Year: 2007). |
Falconnet et al., “Raid, Sensitive and Real-Time Multiplexing Platform for the Analysis of Protein and Nucleic-Acid Biomarkers,” Analytical Chemistry, pp. 1582-1589 (2015). |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/EP2016/072341 dated Dec. 20, 2017. |
Written Opinion issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/EP2016/072341 dated Dec. 1, 2016. |
International Search Report issued in PCT Patent Application No. PCT/EP2016/072341 dated Dec. 1, 2016. |
Nielsen et al., “High efficiency beam splitter for multifocal multiphoton microscopy,” Journal of Microscopy, Blackwell Science, vol. 201, (Mar. 2001). |
Irawan et al., “Cross-Talk Problem on a Fluorescence Multi-Channel Microfluidic Chip System,” Biomedical Microdevices, Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 7, No. 3 (Sep. 2005. |
Pregibon et al., “Multifunctional encoded particles for high-throughput biomolecule analysis,” Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. 315, No. 5817 (Mar. 2007). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180275059 A1 | Sep 2018 | US |