4.7 Article

Plastic Polymers for Efficient DNA Microarray Hybridization: Application to Microbiological Diagnostics

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 11, Pages 3752-3758

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00377-08

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Genome Canada
  2. Genome Quebec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fabrication of microarray devices using traditional glass slides is not easily adaptable to integration into microfluidic systems. There is thus a need for the development of polymeric materials showing a high hybridization signal-to-background ratio, enabling sensitive detection of microbial pathogens. We have developed such plastic supports suitable for highly sensitive DNA microarray hybridizations. The proof of concept of this microarray technology was done through the detection of four human respiratory viruses that were amplified and labeled with a fluorescent dye via a sensitive reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assay. The performance of the microarray hybridization with plastic supports made of PMMA [poly(methylmethacrylate)]-VSUVT or Zeonor 1060R was compared to that with high-quality glass slide microarrays by using both passive and microfluidic hybridization systems. Specific hybridization signal-to-background ratios comparable to that obtained with high-quality commercial glass slides were achieved with both polymeric substrates. Microarray hybridizations demonstrated an analytical sensitivity equivalent to approximately 100 viral genome copies per RT-PCR, which is at least 100-fold higher than the sensitivities of previously reported DNA hybridizations on plastic supports. Testing of these plastic polymers using a microfluidic microarray hybridization platform also showed results that were comparable to those with glass supports. In conclusion, PMMA-VSUVT and Zeonor 1060R are both suitable for highly sensitive microarray hybridizations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available