Home / Chroniques / Covid, pregnancy, heart attack: how to improve tests
Mass testing for Covid-19 / SARS-CoV‑2 infection concept : Several rapid antigen test kits. One kit in the middle showing a positive result (two lines visible)
π Health and biotech π Science and technology

Covid, pregnancy, heart attack : how to improve tests

Fanny Mousseau
Fanny Mousseau
postdoctoral researcher at LOB* at École Polytechnique (IP Paris)
Key takeaways
  • Lateral flow tests (LFA) are faster, cheaper, and less demanding than clinical laboratory tests.
  • But they only provide a qualitative response such as “yes” or “no”, where a quantitative response would be valuable as well.
  • The use of luminescent nanoparticles in LFA tests could improve their sensitivity by 40-50 times, while reducing their cost.
  • This method is being developed with the aim of providing easy access to test results in any location and at any time.
  • A small device has been developed to illuminate nanoparticles, facilitating the reading of the result obtained.

Since the Covid-19 pan­de­mic, we have all become fami­liar with late­ral flow tests (LFA), com­mon­ly refer­red to as “anti­gen tests”. This type of test can, in prin­ciple, detect the pre­sence of any pro­tein anti­gen in body fluids (urine, blood, sali­va etc.) – not only SARS-CoV‑2. Their advan­tage over conven­tio­nal tests per­for­med in medi­cal labo­ra­to­ries (such as ELISA) is that they are fast (15 minutes ins­tead of seve­ral hours), inex­pen­sive and do not require hea­vy labo­ra­to­ry equipment. 

They are the­re­fore use­ful for detec­ting many diseases, but also changes in the body such as pre­gnan­cy, or the pre­sence of a pro­tein food that could cause food poi­so­ning. Howe­ver, unlike ELI­SAs, one of the limi­ta­tions of LFA tests is that they only give a qua­li­ta­tive ans­wer. For a pre­gnan­cy test, for example, the results are still limi­ted to “yes/no” – either you are pre­gnant or you are not. Howe­ver, there are many cases where it would be use­ful to deter­mine the amount of the pro­tein being tes­ted for. For example : “yes” you are pre­gnant, but for how many weeks ? Or, “yes” you have Covid, but with what viral load ? 

Our method can be consi­de­red 40 to 50 times more sen­si­tive than tra­di­tio­nal ones.

Ano­ther limi­ta­tion of LFA tests is that they are not par­ti­cu­lar­ly sen­si­tive. Deve­lo­ping quan­ti­ta­tive and sen­si­tive LFA tests would push the boun­da­ries of what these tests can be used for. They could even indi­cate how long ago a pre­gnan­cy star­ted. This sen­si­ti­vi­ty and accu­ra­cy would also allow the test to detect the amount of cTnI pro­tein natu­ral­ly secre­ted before car­diac arrest, for example. Cou­pled with its new acces­si­bi­li­ty, it could be per­for­med direct­ly in the ambu­lance, faci­li­ta­ting patient management.

120x less antibody, 40x more sensitive

Fan­ny Mous­seau, a resear­cher at the Optics and Bios­ciences Labo­ra­to­ry at Ins­ti­tut Poly­tech­nique de Paris, is wor­king on the deve­lop­ment of LFA tests based on a new tech­no­lo­gy. LFA tests are based on the use of detec­tion anti­bo­dies that attach to the tar­ge­ted pro­teins. “The anti­bo­dy (~10 nm) in this type of test must be cou­pled to some­thing per­cep­tible to the naked eye,” explains the resear­cher, “some­thing lar­ger and colou­red, hence the use of gold nano­par­ticles (~50–100 nm) in com­mer­cial tests. The first step in our work was the­re­fore to find a sub­sti­tute with a more intense and quan­ti­fiable opti­cal signal.”

The inno­va­tion : repla­cing gold nano­par­ticles with lumi­nes­cent nano­par­ticles. “By using lumi­nes­cent nano­par­ticles, we were able to improve the sen­si­ti­vi­ty of the test and make it quan­ti­ta­tive and more robust.” And after some research into opti­mi­sing the use of these nano­par­ticles, the Laboratory’s team mana­ged to use 4x fewer of them than gold nano­par­ticles, which amounts to using 120x less detec­tion anti­bo­dy and thus consi­de­ra­bly redu­cing the cost of a test. “When ana­ly­sing LFAs made with our nano­par­ticles with the naked eye, the lowest detec­table pro­tein concen­tra­tion is 5x to 10x lower,” says the resear­cher. “Using our opti­cal ana­ly­sis method, made with the help of the appli­ca­tion we deve­lo­ped for this pur­pose, we can detect concen­tra­tions that are 2–4 times lower. With the two com­bi­ned, our method can be consi­de­red 40–50 times more sen­si­tive than the tra­di­tio­nal one.”

In addi­tion to this increase in sen­si­ti­vi­ty, using lumi­nes­cent nano­par­ticles allows this test to become quan­ti­ta­tive, ins­tead of qua­li­ta­tive as with gold nano­par­ticles. “A test is consi­de­red accu­rate if after three repe­ti­tions we get the same mea­su­re­ment three times,” says Fan­ny Mous­seau. “Howe­ver, by accu­ra­te­ly deter­mi­ning the quan­ti­ty of tar­ge­ted pro­teins present in the body, we can, for example, deter­mine the stage of a disease and fol­low its evolution.”

Two tests in one, multiplexing 

The Laboratory’s team is also wor­king on the poten­tial that this method has with regard to mul­ti­plexing – the pos­si­bi­li­ty of detec­ting seve­ral pro­teins in a single test, and the­re­fore in a single pro­ce­dure. “In the case of cer­tain patho­lo­gies, it is not the evo­lu­tion of a single pro­tein that is inter­es­ting, but that of seve­ral,” explains the resear­cher. For example, endo­can is a bio­mar­ker of inflam­ma­tion. This pro­tein exists in two forms, ‘native’ and ‘clea­ved’, and kno­wing the res­pec­tive quan­ti­ties of these two forms may make it pos­sible to bet­ter define the treat­ment of cer­tain pul­mo­na­ry diseases. To decide on the most sui­table treat­ment for the patient accor­ding to his other condi­tions, it is neces­sa­ry to observe the quan­ti­ty of “native” endo­can and that of “trans­for­med” endocan.

We are able to deter­mine the pre­sence of three dif­ferent pro­teins in one mul­ti­plexed test with an accu­ra­cy rate of 30%.

Deve­lo­ping this poten­tial is still a work in pro­gress : at the moment the research team does not consi­der this method to be reliable enough for mul­ti­plexing. The rea­sons for this lack of relia­bi­li­ty are known, howe­ver, and are due to the phe­no­me­non of cross-reac­ti­vi­ty. “For the detec­tion of two pro­teins, two sepa­rate detec­tion sys­tems are nee­ded [one for the anti­bo­dy, ano­ther for the nano­par­ticles], which gives rise to the pos­si­bi­li­ty of so-cal­led cross-reac­ti­vi­ty bet­ween the dif­ferent systems.”

“So far, mul­ti­plexed tests are still qua­li­ta­tive. This year, I deve­lo­ped an inno­va­tive cali­bra­tion curve, which takes this cross-reac­ti­vi­ty into account, to try to read the results of a mul­ti­plex more accu­ra­te­ly. As a result, we can deter­mine the pre­sence of three dif­ferent pro­teins in one mul­ti­plexed test with an accu­ra­cy rate of 30%. This is a pro­mi­sing start,” she says. The resear­cher is opti­mis­tic that cli­ni­cal trials will begin soon. 

Virtually automated analysis

Once the tech­nique for impro­ving the sen­si­ti­vi­ty of LFA test strips had been iden­ti­fied, all the resear­chers had to do was deve­lop an ana­ly­sis method for these tests. “The main appli­ca­tion of our research was to replace blood sam­pling,” says Fan­ny Mous­seau. With our method, the results are qui­cker, but just as accu­rate. This method was deve­lo­ped with a view to faci­li­ta­ting these ana­lyses in places where access to blood tests is limi­ted [in war zones, in deve­lo­ping coun­tries, etc.], or when they are urgent­ly nee­ded [in an ambu­lance in case of a heart attack, for example].

Tool for illu­mi­na­ting LFA tests with ultra­vio­let radia­tion to excite nano­par­ticles, with the mobile phone (pla­ced on top) sho­wing the inter­face of the appli­ca­tion in ques­tion. – Fan­ny Mousseau

As a result, the ongoing research requi­red a tool to illu­mi­nate the nano­par­ticles to make it easier to read the results. “The ana­ly­sis methods requi­red the use of huge equip­ment, which was contra­dic­to­ry to the por­table advan­tage of this type of test,” explains the resear­cher. “In our labo­ra­to­ry, we inven­ted a small device capable of per­for­ming the test. This small device, which is thi­cker but not lar­ger than a mobile phone (~10 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm), comes with an appli­ca­tion with which the user pho­to­graphs the test.”

“We have inte­gra­ted the ana­ly­sis pro­gram. The user sim­ply takes the pic­ture and presses the control strip on the LFA strip (the strip that veri­fies that the test has wor­ked). The algo­rithm, kno­wing the exact dis­tance bet­ween the control strip and the test strip (the strip on which our pro­tein of inter­est is detec­ted) will ana­lyse, pixel by pixel, the colour inten­si­ty of the test strip.

The result is then dis­played, sim­ply indi­ca­ting the amount of tar­get pro­tein present in the test. “In the long term, the goal is to sim­pli­fy the pro­cess as much as pos­sible so that eve­ryone can have access to it,” she concludes. 

Pablo Andres

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate