Resonant waveguide grating biosensor for living cell sensing
description
Transcript of Resonant waveguide grating biosensor for living cell sensing
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 1
Resonant waveguide grating biosensor for living cell sensing
Ye Fang, Ann M. Ferrie, Norman H. Fontaine, John Mauro, and Jitendra Balakrishnan
Biochemical Technologies, Science and Technology Division, Corning Incorporated
Biophysical Journal, June 2006
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 2
Presentation Outline
• Motivation• Background: assays, RWGs• Methods
– Vertical and horizontal mass distributions• Results
– Cell adhesion and spreading– Cell detachment
• Conclusion• Where are they now?
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 3
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 4
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 5
Assays
• Procedure to determine the concentration of a component part of a mixture
• Cell-based– More complex, less specific– Useful for functional information
• Pathway activation• Toxicity• Phenotypic responses
– Need for label-free
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 6
Resonant Waveguide Gratings & MRCAT
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 7
Mass redistribution detection method
• Intensity as a function on incident angle– Resonant peaks
• Vertical mass redistribution– Shift in resonant peak
• Lateral mass redistribution– Changes in peak shape (PWHM)
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 8
Effective refractive index
1 response unit = 5.82x10-4
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 9
Vertical mass redistribution
ii
ii
CnCnn
0
cc
nnNN
Specific refractive index incrementα = .0018 per 100ml/g (protein) .0016 per 100ml/g (other, Na)
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 10
Comments on ΔN
1. Primarily sensitive to vertical mass redistribution (DMR)2. Directly a function of changes in protein concentration due
to protein relocation (rather than ion mobilization) mediated by a stimulation
3. Relocation of a target or complex of certain mass near the sensor surface contributes more to the overall response than those further away
4. Optical signature is an integrated signal that is a sum of contributions from mass redistribution occurring at different distances away from sensor surface
cc
nnNN
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 11
Horizontal mass movement
• Lateral inhomogeneity does not affect refractive index
• Lateral inhomogeneity does affect shape of resonant peaks
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 12
Cell adhesion and spreading• Human epidermoid
carcinoma cells (A431) in 5% FBS
1. At room temp adhesion not optimal
2. Cells interact with surface through multiple steps
3. Spreading step increases the mass w/in sensing volume
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 13
Cell spreading inhibitor added
• 100nM vincristine• Reduced kinetics of
cell spreading• Initial steps primarily
affected• Are the effects of
vincristine limited to first 14 hours?
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 14
Cell detachment
• Trypsin – pancreatic serine protease with substrate specificity based on positively charged lysine and argenine side chains
• Used for cell detachment
• A431 cells, 95% confluency
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 15
Low-doses: cell signaling• Presence of P-DMR:
cell signaling• Slight N-DMR:
insignificant cell detachment
• => activation of endogenous protease-activated receptors that lead to typical Gq signaling
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 16
Conclusions
• Optical signatures are integrated responses that can be used to examine cells in native environments label-free
• Systematic investigation of cell processes– Adhesion– Detachment– Cell signaling: EGFR and Bradykinin B2
receptors
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 17
Back to Epic…
Jeremy Colson, Boston University 18
Thank you!