Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2019 Dec 18;14(12):e0220091. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220091

A low-cost fluorescence reader for in vitro transcription and nucleic acid detection with Cas13a

Florian Katzmeier 1,#, Lukas Aufinger 1,#, Aurore Dupin 1,#, Jorge Quintero 2,#, Matthias Lenz 1, Ludwig Bauer 1, Sven Klumpe 1, Dawafuti Sherpa 2, Benedikt Dürr 2, Maximilian Honemann 1, Igor Styazhkin 1, Friedrich C Simmel 1, Michael Heymann 3,*
Editor: Mark Isalan4
PMCID: PMC6919979  PMID: 31851676

Abstract

Point-of-care testing (POCT) in low-resource settings requires tools that can operate independently of typical laboratory infrastructure. Due to its favorable signal-to-background ratio, a wide variety of biomedical tests utilize fluorescence as a readout. However, fluorescence techniques often require expensive or complex instrumentation and can be difficult to adapt for POCT. To address this issue, we developed a pocket-sized fluorescence detector costing less than $15 that is easy to manufacture and can operate in low-resource settings. It is built from standard electronic components, including an LED and a light dependent resistor, filter foils and 3D printed parts, and reliably reaches a lower limit of detection (LOD) of ≈ 6.8 nM fluorescein, which is sufficient to follow typical biochemical reactions used in POCT applications. All assays are conducted on filter paper, which allows for a flat detector architecture to improve signal collection. We validate the device by quantifying in vitro RNA transcription and also demonstrate sequence-specific detection of target RNAs with an LOD of 3.7 nM using a Cas13a-based fluorescence assay. Cas13a is an RNA-guided, RNA-targeting CRISPR effector with promiscuous RNase activity upon recognition of its RNA target. Cas13a sensing is highly specific and adaptable and in combination with our detector represents a promising approach for nucleic acid POCT. Furthermore, our open-source device may be used in educational settings, through providing low cost instrumentation for quantitative assays or as a platform to integrate hardware, software and biochemistry concepts in the future.

Introduction

Fluorescence is widely used to diagnose infectious diseases fast and with high sensitivity, for instance through nucleic acid detection via quantitative PCR (qPCR) or affinity based techniques such as ELISA [1]. Over the past decades, point-of-care testing (POCT) has matured to efficiently manage medical conditions such as diabetes or pregnancy, where rapid on-site diagnosis or monitoring is preferred. Although many fluorescence-based diagnostic techniques are, in principle, suitable for the rapid detection and monitoring of disease outbreaks, their application in disaster and low resource scenarios has been hampered by the need for bulky and expensive laboratory infrastructure [2]. One approach to reduce assay size and costs is to utilize colorimetric readouts [3, 4]. Compared to such visual readouts, however, the higher signal-to-background ratio associated with fluorescence enables quantitative measurements with generally 10 to 100-fold higher sensitivity [5].

Accordingly, portable low-cost open-source fluorescence readers are an attractive option for transferring fluorescence based diagnostics to in-field applications [6]. Here, the challenge is to achieve a sufficiently high sensitivity, small size and low power consumption, while abandoning expensive high-grade optical components. This also means that the reduced cost is usually compromised with a higher degree of specialization, a lower degree of automation, and a lower sensitivity and throughput. Despite these trade-offs, many functioning low-cost fluorescence readers, summarized in Table 1, have been designed and built for various POCT applications, reaching sensitivities in the nanomolar range at material costs as low as ≈ $50. While nowadays LEDs are commonly used as inexpensive, low-power excitation light sources, the main limitations in terms of cost vs. sensitivity are the need for high quality filter sets, magnifying optics and optical sensors [12].

Table 1. Comparison of low-cost fluorescence detectors.

All parameters are noted as specified by the authors, or were estimated, as indicated by ‘≈’ or ‘n.s.’ (not specified) if not enough information was available. Other abbreviations, ‘x’: available detection channels, ‘HV’: high voltage supply needed for capillary electrophoresis.

Assay demonstrated Sensitivity (LOD) Cost Size Power/Voltage x Ref.
Capillary electrophoresis 920 nM Fluorescein $47 4 × 13 × 6 cm3 HV 1 [7]
Capillary electrophoresis 0.2 nM Fluorescein $250 15 × 7 × 24 cm3 121 V, HV 1 [8]
Microfluidics 100 nM Rhodamine 6G n.s. ≈ 5 × 5 × 0.1 cm3 n.s. 1 [9]
Microfluidics 2 nM Fluorescein ≈$1,000 3 × 3 × 1.1 cm3 ≈ 1 − 10 W 1 [10]
Immunoassays 104 photons/mm2 ≈$50 ≈ 5 × 3× 8 cm3 5 V, ≈ 1 − 10 W 4 [11]
Cas13a on paper 6.8 nM Fluorescein $15 7.5 × 4.5 × 11.5 cm3 5 V, < 1 W 1 this work

Another major challenge in POCT is sample preparation with limited laboratory infrastructure. In this context, paper has been successfully applied as a low-cost and versatile carrier material. It can be easily patterned with application specific microfluidic channels using a standard wax-based desktop printer [13]. Paper is compatible with many biochemical reaction assays, which can be freeze-dried onto paper test strips for room temperature storage and distribution [14]. Despite these benefits, fluorescence detection on paper is challenging, as its autofluorescence and strong light scattering can compromise sensitivity significantly [15].

Groundbreaking work towards in-field application of paper-based fluorescence detection was recently conducted by Pardee et al., who developed a nucleic acid paper assay for the detection of infectious diseases such as the Ebola virus [16]. For this, a riboregulator-based RNA sensor (a ‘toehold switch’ [17]) was coupled to a colorimetric readout cascade in a cell-free protein synthesis (CFPS) system that could be distributed when lyophilized on filter paper. The sequence specificity of the system was further enhanced by incorporating CRISPR/Cas9, and isothermal amplification of the extracted RNA was applied to improve sensitivity [18]. Later, Gootenberg et al. developed a related detection assay based on recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA, a technique for isothermal amplification [19]) and CRISPR/Cas13a, termed SHERLOCK [20]. SHERLOCK exploits the RNA-guided RNase activity of Cas13a, which upon target binding develops a collateral RNase activity [21, 22] that could be monitored with a fluorescent readout. More recently, a similar feature was also found in another Cas nuclease, Cas12a, which instead of RNA recognizes dsDNA and develops a collateral ssDNA activity. This was utilized in a similar fashion to develop detection assays termed DETECTR (DNA endonuclease-targeted CRISPR trans reporter) [23] and HOLMES (one-HOur Low-cost Multipurpose highly Efficient System) [24]. This assay was later employed in combination with a facile sample preparation protocol termed HUDSON (Heating Unextracted Diagnostic Samples to Obliterate Nucleases) to detect viral RNA from clinical samples of Zika and Dengue patients [25]. To facilitate multiplexing and to provide a colorimetric readout, SHERLOCK 2.0 was later combined with a lateral flow assay [4].

Here we present a pocket-sized fluorescence detector optimized for measuring biochemical assays freeze-dried on paper in point-of-care settings. The detector consists of an assay cartridge and a detection unit (Fig 1). It can reliably measure fluorescein concentrations in the range of 10 to 1000 nM and was constructed from components costing altogether less than $15. The sample holder allows to sandwich a filter paper onto which the sample was placed between excitation and emission filter foils. The detection unit consists of the corresponding LED for fluorophore excitation and a light dependent resistor for emitted fluorescence detection, as well as auxiliary electronics. Detector calibration and automated time lapse measurements are controlled through a custom software. We developed a detailed calibration procedure including an estimation of measurement uncertainties to achieve nanomolar fluorophore detection sensitivity, a performance that is required for obtaining consistent data and time traces for common biochemical assays and that is comparable to what can be achieved with typically much more expensive laboratory equipment. The portability and low cost of our detector renders it useful in point-of-care applications.

Fig 1. Portable low cost detector.

Fig 1

(a) Photograph of the fully assembled detector (left) comprised of a detection unit and an assay cartridge (right). (b) Schematic of the experimental work flow. After sample deposition onto filter paper, the sample cartridge is clipped together and inserted into the detection unit. An automated time lapse measurement is then performed by the accompanying software.

In two application examples, we validate that our assay/detector system is suitable for a range of biological or chemical fluorescence assays. First, we quantified transcription of the fluorogenic RNA aptamer iSpinach, which becomes highly fluorescent in the presence of its ligand DFHBI in vitro [26, 27]. Second, nanomolar concentrations (above ≈ 4 nM) of a target RNA were detected using a CRISPR/Cas13a paper based nucleic acid assay. As a proof-of-concept, the Cas13a detection system was developed for pathogen detection by undergraduate students as part of the 2017 iGEM Munich project, which aimed at rapid discrimination of bacterial from viral infections.

Results

The design of our detector is based on the premise that fluorescence produced by biochemical reactions on filter paper should be detected in a most economic (cost as well as power consumption), yet reliable way. The main challenge in building a sensitive detector is maximizing the signal-to-background ratio. To ensure an optimal signal, state of the art laboratory equipment typically uses high-power light sources, focusing optics, and photo multipliers. Background signals are minimized through monochromators, filters, dichroic mirrors and by performing measurements at a 90° or 180° angle relative to the illumination source.

Previous solutions for low-cost detectors avoid some of these requirements, by making use of LEDs for excitation, in combination with photodiodes for detection [7, 8, 10]. However, common 90° or 180° excitation/emission geometries require appropriate optical components, compromising either sensitivity [7], or cost [8, 10]. They are also more difficult to combine with paper-detection formats.

We hypothesized that measuring at a 0° could allow for a high signal-to-background ratio, while omitting all optical components, except light filters. Since such an arrangement is placing the LED excitation light source and the LDR fluorescence sensor as close as possible (Fig 2a and 2b). In this setting, the choice of light filters is crucial to not compromise sensitivity, as bleed-through of excitation light to the sensor is the major source of background signal. We thus experimented with cheap photographic light filter foils and found a combination that works sufficiently well in our context. These foils are comparably thin, allowing to reduce the optical path to about 2 mm in total. Conceptually related approaches have been described for using polarizers [9] and low-cost bandpass filters [11], respectively.

Fig 2. Detector operating principle.

Fig 2

(a) The detector body includes the electronics and two flexible levers that extend to the LED and LDR. (b) The assay cartridge is made from two identical sides, each covered with lighting filter foils between which the filter paper containing the sample is placed, protected by two cover slides. (c) Sketch of the assembled detector. (d) Schematic illustrating the light path and electronic modules of the detector.

Our final design features two subunits: a detection unit (Fig 2a, S1 Fig) and an assay cartridge (Fig 2b, S2 Fig). The assay cartridge sandwiches a glass fiber paper strip containing the sensor reaction mix between a set of color filter foils. After assembly, the cartridge is inserted into the detection unit (Fig 2c) that provides a blue LED as an excitation light source and a LDR as a sensor. The measurements are performed by a microcontroller (Arduino Nano) via a simple electronic circuit (S3 Fig) operated from a Windows laptop or tablet (Fig 2d), via a USB port providing 5 V, <1 W power.

Operation of the detector

An overview of the typical operation workflow is given in Fig 1b. About 30 μl sample are pipetted onto the passivated filter paper and placed on the cartridge in front of the detection window. The cartridge is closed and inserted into the detector. After initiating the fluorescence reading via the operating software the user can inspect the measured data in a real-time plot. In this work, we have used either a laptop computer, or a Windows tablet (S5 Fig). Operating the detector on Android or iOS devices requires suitable software ports.

Assay cartridge

Realization of a sensitive fluorescence detector requires maximization of the transmitted emission light reaching the sensor while simultaneously minimizing background signals [12]. The assay cartridge was designed accordingly, and we attempted to optimize the signal-to-background ratio at a minimum budget. The cartridge contains two filter paper sample spots and is built from two identical parts, each holding a filter foil transmission window for excitation and emission light, respectively (Fig 2b, S2 Fig). The flat cartridge design allows light source and sensor to be placed into direct proximity of the sample. The sensor can thus collect the maximum amount of emission light without using additional optical components such as lenses. In order to fix the sample and to exclude external background light, the cartridge is pressed together by six neodymium magnets.

A drawback of this design is that the sensor is placed in the direct light path of the source. Accordingly, appropriate optical filters are required to block background generated from directly transmitted excitation light, while permitting emitted light to pass through. As an alternative to expensive scientific grade optical filters, we used commercial filter foils for photographic lighting applications. To protect the filter foils from contamination, we covered them with microscopy cover slides for facile cleaning with ethanol and water between measurements. To identify an optimal excitation/emission pair, we purchased a sample block (LEE filters) and measured the filter spectra with a UV-Vis spectrometer. For the detection of fluorophores emitting in the green, a combination of the color “TOKYO BLUE” (LEE filters 071), as an excitation light filter, and “RUST” (LEE filters 777), as an emission light filter, represented the best trade-off. This combination blocks nearly all light up to 700 nm, while not limiting emitted light transmission too much (Fig 3). The detector can similarly be adapted for the measurement of other fluorophores by choosing alternative filter pairs and an appropriate excitation LED.

Fig 3. Plastic filter foils for green fluorescence detection and calibration procedure.

Fig 3

(a) Excitation and (b) emission spectra of fluorescein (green) overlaid with the corresponding filter foil transmission spectra. The grey area in a) indicates the interval spanning 95% of the LED intensity. The combination of two blue and one orange filter foils allows for sufficient transmission of the excitation and emission light respectively, while blocking nearly all bleed-through excitation. (c) Calibration of the measured relative resistance for different dilutions of fluorescein over 3 replicates and 2 measurements per replicate. (d) Relative measurement uncertainty calculated as a function of the fluorescein concentration. The confident measurement range is taken as the range where the relative uncertainty is below 15%.

An additional source of background light is auto-fluorescence of the sample itself and in particular of the paper strip carriers used in our detector system. Filter paper was previously shown to be an excellent matrix for long-term storage of lyophilized reaction mixtures [16]. However, biological paper matrices composed of cellulose exhibit strong auto-fluorescence. We therefore chose glass fiber-based filter paper for precise and accurate fluorescence measurements with low auto-fluorescence [20]. Depending on the application, the filter paper can be passivated to avoid denaturation of sensitive components of the reaction mix, as detailed in the methods section.

Detector unit

The assay cartridge described in the previous section fits into a dedicated slot of the detection unit. Both LED and LDR are mounted on two opposing levers that snap into the cavities of the sample windows upon insertion of the cartridge (Fig 1b, S1 Fig). Magnets press both levers together to ensure stable measurements and to shield background light. The excitation LED (466 nm, 12 000 mcd ≡ 70 mW/m2 at 50 cm distance) is controlled by a microcontroller (Arduino Nano) via a transistor (S3 Fig).

For fluorescence light measurements, we use a cadmium sulfide (CdS) LDR, which is a very cost-effective light sensor. CdS LDRs have a maximum relative response for wavelengths around 520 nm and are therefore well-suited for sensing green fluorescence. Quantitative measurements using LDRs require careful consideration of their electric properties and associated measurement uncertainties. We therefore established a calibration procedure (S1 Appendix) and derived an analytical expression that allowed us to estimate the systematic measurement uncertainty as a function of the sample concentration (S1 Appendix) to determine the limit of detection (LOD) and the lower detection limit (LDL) of our setup.

Light dependent resistor

A typical response curve of an LDR follows the relation

R=I-γ, (1)

where R is the resistance of the LDR, which changes with the light intensity I, and γ is a characteristic parameter of the LDR, which can differ even between LDRs of the same type designation [28]. R is measured via a voltage divider (S3 Fig) connected to an analog input pin of the micro controller (with an input impedance of 100 MΩ [29] (p.257)) to measure the voltage ULDR (0 to 5 V) in integer units from 0 to 1023. R can then be computed as

R=RrefU0ULDR-1, (2)

where the supply voltage U0 is 5 V (or 1023). The reference resistance Rref was chosen as 750 kΩ corresponding to half of the LDR’s maximum dark resistance (1.6 MΩ), to ensure a maximum dynamic range of the measurement.

Further, we considered that LDRs respond slowly to changes in light intensity (within approximately 10 seconds [28]) and the resistance of an LDR is affected by Johnson-Nyquist noise. To compensate for this, the detector software turns on the excitation LED 30 seconds prior to the measurement, which was sufficient to equilibrate the LDR. Then, one data point is obtained by measuring ULDR 50 times in 50 ms intervals, which reduced the relative statistical uncertainty δULDRULDR to < 0.2% (S1 Appendix). The exact measurement protocol is defined through the detector control software.

Calibration of the sensor

Next, we derived a calibration function relating the sample fluorophore concentration c with the measured resistance R(c) (S1 Appendix):

R(c)Rb=(1+kc)-γ, (3)

where the calibration parameters are γ, the characteristic constant of the LDR, and k, which is a constant that depends on the spectral properties and light scattering effects of LED, filter foils, fluorophore, and the LDR, but not on the intensity of the excitation light.Rb is the resistance measured for a blank sample, which was usually water as wet samples had a different background signal than dry ones, likely due to different light scattering from the filter paper.

To determine k and γ, we obtained R(c) and the corresponding standard error of the mean δR(c) from a triplicate of dilution series ranging from 1 nM to 10 μM of fluorescein sodium salt (Fig 3c). Each series was preceded and ended with a blank measurement to confirm the absence of contaminations. To ensure that the LDR had equilibrated properly, each individual measurement was performed twice in direct succession. We then computed the relative resistance R(c)Rb by dividing by the average Rb = 1650 ± 22 kΩ obtained from all blank measurements (N = 18) and the uncertainty δR(c)Rb using Gaussian error propagation. Using the inverse square of the uncertainty as weights, we obtained k = (0.0283 ± 0.0010) nM−1 and γ = 1.054 ± 0.019, where δγ and δk are the asymptotic standard errors of the fit. Besides δRb, δγ and δk, we considered the uncertainties δULDR and δU0, which correspond to the 1 digit accuracy of measuring ULDR and U0 with the microcontroller. By propagating these uncertainties through Eqs (2) and (3), we can compute the relative systematic uncertainty of a concentration measurement δcc as a function of concentration c itself (S1 Appendix, Eq (S29), Fig 3d). The confident measurement range can then be defined as the interval where δcc is less than 15%, which is the case between 9 nM and 1730 nM. This is the range of fluorophore concentrations that can be reliably quantified, independently of the assay carried on the filter paper. The measurement range can be adjusted by choosing a different Rref.

An alternative approach to determine the lower detection limit LOD (= LDL) and the lower quantification limit LOQ (also LQL) has been defined by the IUPAC [30]. Here, the LOD is simply the mean blank value plus 3 standard deviations σ of the blank measurements. Because resistance is inversely related to c, this gives the following result:

LOD=Rb+3σRb=1372kΩ=^6.8nMLOQ=Rb+10σRb=717kΩ=^42nM

Detector operating software and GUI

The detector is complemented by a software user interface that can be operated from an external mobile device connected to the microcontroller’s USB port. Setup parameters can be adjusted and saved in the user interface. Adjustable parameters include the calibration parameters, Rb, k and γ together with their uncertainties, the reference resistance Rref, the number of averaged measurements per data point, the equilibration time of the LDR, the number of data points to be collected, and the length of the time interval between the collected data points (Fig 4b). The detector calibration interface facilitates the measurement series acquisition for computing the calibration parameters (Fig 4a). Once calibrated, the detector can perform automated time-series measurements during which the data, including measurement uncertainties, are plotted and saved in real time (Fig 4c).

Fig 4. Detector software.

Fig 4

(a) The user interface of the software allows to perform a calibration (to determine the dependence of the measured resistance on fluorophore concentration) or directly measure a sample. (b) Several parameters can be adjusted, such as the calibration parameters and the frequency of data acquisition. c) During measurements, acquired data can be plotted in real time.

Example applications

Monitoring in vitro transcription reactions

In a first application example that allowed us to validate our detector architecture, we measured fluorescence time traces obtained during in vitro transcription of the fluorogenic iSpinach-RNA aptamer [27]. The corresponding sample contained T7 RNA polymerase, template DNA coding for iSpinach under a T7 RNAP promoter and the iSpinach fluorophore DFHBI (Fig 5a). In this reaction, the fluorescence signal increases proportionally with the formation of iSpinach:DFHBI complexes, which directly follows iSpinach RNA synthesis. The time traces obtained for different template concentrations are shown in Fig 5b, along with reference experiments conducted in a plate reader (inset).

Fig 5. Detection of the transcription of a fluorescent aptamer.

Fig 5

(a) Scheme of the transcription of iSpinach aptamer, which binds the fluorophore DFHBI and increases its fluorescence. (b) Measurement of the concentration of iSpinach:DFHBI complex during transcription on the detector and in bulk (inset), with various concentrations of DNA template: 0 nM (grey), 25 nM (light blue), 50 nM (median blue) and 100 nM (dark blue). Thick line and shaded area represent respectively mean and measurement uncertainty as computed in S1 Appendix.

CRISPR/Cas13a-based RNA detection

We then applied the detector for nucleic acid detection using the CRISPR/Cas13a-based platform SHERLOCK [20], whose molecular reaction mechanism is sketched in Fig 6a. Cas13a is an RNA-dependent RNase that can be programmed to bind an ≈20 nucleotide (nt) long target RNA sequence with high specificity by designing a crRNA (CRISPR-RNA) complementary to its target sequence. Upon binding and cleaving of a target, Cas13a develops an unspecific collateral RNase activity. This collateral activity can be monitored with the self-quenching fluorescent RNA beacon, RNaseAlert (Fig 6b). In combination with an isothermal amplification step (RPA-TX), this approach allows for highly specific and sensitive nucleic acid detection. As it was previously shown that all necessary reagents can be lyophilized and stored on filter paper, our detector could potentially be used to apply SHERLOCK in low resource settings. We tested the feasibility of assessing Cas13a activity with our detector by assembling the reaction on paper with a cognate target RNA complementary to a crRNA and a non-cognate target that did not hybridize to the crRNA. An exemplary fluorescence time trace showing the target specific cleavage of RNaseAlert by Cas13a, as well as the control experiment are shown in Fig 6c. The 30 μL sample contained 20 nM Cas13a, 150 nM crRNA, 100 nM target RNA and 200 nM RNaseAlert on BSA-passivated filter paper. A fast increase in fluorescence signal upon recognition of the cognate target RNA makes this sample distinguishable within 20 minutes from background activity with a non-cognate RNA target. This fast and specific detection of a nucleic acid sequence makes the combined SHERLOCK method and our fluorescence detector suitable for POC applications.

Fig 6. Detection of Cas13a activity.

Fig 6

(a) Mechanism of action of Cas13a: the protein (blue) forms a complex with a crRNA (grey) that consists of a Cas13a-handle and a sequence complementary to the target RNA (orange). Upon binding of the target RNA to the Cas13a-crRNA complex, Cas13a undergoes a conformational change that activates promiscuous RNase activity: Cas13a becomes an unspecific RNase [31]. (b) Mechanism of detection of Cas13a activity: a short RNA strand is modified with a fluorophore and a quencher. Upon cleavage by Cas13a, the fluorophore is released from the proximity of the quencher, and therefore fluorescence increases. (c-d) Measurement of Cas13a activity with 100 nM target RNA on paper in the detector (c) or in bulk using a plate reader (d). Activity in presence of a cognate (i.e. complementary to the crRNA) RNA target is compared to a non-cognate target. Residual activity in the presence of non-cognate target is likely due to an unspecific activity of Cas13a. In (d), positive control in bulk contains RNase A. (e-f) Response of the assay to increasing concentrations of cognate or non-cognate RNA target, in the detector (e) or in bulk (f). The LOD and LOQ as calculated based on the mean and standard deviation of background measurements are shown with dotted lines. Thick line and shaded area (c) and dots and error bars (e) represent mean and measurement uncertainty as computed in S1 Appendix.

Identical experiments were conducted in a 384-well plate and measured with a commercial plate-reader, as shown in Fig 6d. Comparing the experiments in bulk and on paper, the curves are qualitatively similar and show comparable signal amplification. However, the time required to reach the maximum fluorescence in the detector was approximately three times (60 minutes) the time required in the plate reader (20 minutes). This suggests an overall lower catalytic activity in the filter paper assay, which may be due to inactivation or loss of one or a combination of the reaction components. Similarly, the LOD and LOQ are lower in bulk measurements compared to measurements in the detector, although they remain in both cases in the sub-nanomolar to nanomolar range, which is consistent with literature values [20].

Conclusion

We developed a portable low-cost fluorescence detector and successfully used it to monitor biochemical reactions on disposable paper strips. To achieve sensitive and reproducible measurements with low cost components such as an LDR and photography filter foils, we established a thorough calibration procedure and carefully shielded background light. This allows for straight-forward adaptation of fluorescence-based diagnostic tests from a laboratory-based to an infield application, without the need to engineer an alternative visual readout system.

As an exemplary application, we monitored Cas13a activity on passivated, non-auto-fluorescent filter paper, which can be used for nucleic acid testing, for instance detecting viral or bacterial infections. The use of filter paper enables the storage and distribution of the biochemical reaction components, which is critical for a test to be employed in a point-of-care scenario. An in-field application might benefit from multiplexing capabilities, which would allow the simultaneous diagnosis of multiple patients or multiple diseases and include the appropriate controls. Besides upgrading the detector design with multi-channel and/or multi-sample functionalities, multiplexing capabilities could also be engineered into the detection biochemistry. In the case of our Cas13a-based assay this could be achieved by implementing computational modules, for instance using strand displacement guide RNAs [32].

CRISPR/Cas systems and cell-free protein synthesis are tools that are simple to design and operate and have therefore recently been popularized as an educational kit termed BioBits, which uses a qualitative fluorescence imaging chamber [33, 34]. The flexibility, low cost and facile assembly of our detector-cartridge system renders it suitable for quantitative measurements in such teaching activities. Furthermore, in combining hardware, software, physics and biochemistry concepts, interdisciplinary teaching activities can be developed for this platform in the future.

Materials and methods

Expression of Cas13a

Cas13a was expressed from p2CT-His-MBP-Lbu_C2c2_WT, which was obtained from the Jennifer Doudna lab via Addgene (Addgene plasmid No. 83482; RRID:Addgene_83482; http://n2t.net/addgene:83482) [22]. The His-MBP tagged Cas13a plasmid was transformed into Rosetta E. coli. LB-carbenicillin plates were plated with a glycerol stock of the cells (50% glycerol, 50% saturated culture) and incubated at 37°C overnight. Single colonies were picked and resuspended in a preculture of 50 mL LB-medium supplemented with 100 μg/ml of the antibiotic carbenicillin. 10 mL of the preculture was further grown in 1 L 2x YT medium (Carl Roth) with 100 μg/ml carbenicillin. Cells were grown aerobically in a shaker at 37°C up to an optical density of 0.6-0.8, before inducing Cas13a production with 1 mM IPTG in an overnight culture at 16°C. Cells were pelleted the next day by centrifugation at 5000 rcf for 30 minutes at 4°C. The supernatant except 50 mL was discarded. The cell pellet was resuspended in the remaining 50 mL and centrifuged again at 4500 rcf for 10 min at 4°C. After discarding the supernatant, pellets were flash frozen with liquid nitrogen and stored until further use at -80°C.

Purification of Cas13a

Cell pellets were thawed and resuspended in 20 ml lysis buffer (50 mM Tris pH 7, 500 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol and 1 mM TCEP). One protease inhibitor tab (cOmplete, Roche) was added and cells were sonicated at 50% amplitude, 20 s pulse, and 10 s pause (Sonopuls mini20, Bandelin). Lysed cells were centrifuged at 6000 rcf for 30 min. A volume of Ni-NTA Agarose beads (Qiagen, Germany) equivalent to 1/4 of the volume of cell supernatant was centrifuged down for 15 s on a table-top centrifuge. After discarding the supernatant the bead pellet was resuspended in lysis buffer (1/2 the volume of the initial cell supernatant). These beads suspended in lysis buffer were centrifuged again and the supernatant was discarded. Then cell supernatant was dispersed into the washed beads and incubated for 60 min at 4°C while shaking to allow the proteins to bind the beads. This mixture was loaded unto a spin-column, which was subsequently washed twice with 2.5 mL wash buffer (50 mM Tris pH 7, 500 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol, 25 mM Imidazole and 1 mM TCEP). The protein was then eluted 3 times with 0.5 mL elution buffer each (50 mM Tris pH 7, 500 mM NaCl, 5% glycerol, 250 mM Imidazole and 1 mM TCEP). Lysate, flow-through, wash and elution fractions were collected individually and analyzed on a 10% SDS gel (S4a Fig). Protein-containing fractions were dialyzed overnight at 4°C in a gel filtration buffer (20 mM Tris pH 7, 200 mM NaCl, 5% Glycerol and 1 mM TCEP) along with TEV protease (purified with a similar protocol and Ni-NTA Agarose beads from E. coli BL21 star (DE3) cells transformed with pSB1C3-His-BBa-K1639008) at a ratio of 1 protease to 100 MBP-Cas13a to cleave off the His-MBP tag. The following day protease treated protein was purified on a Ni-NTA column to remove the His-MBP tag as described above, except that this time the flow through was collected and analyzed on an SDS gel with subsequent Bradford protein concentration determination (S4b Fig). Purified Cas13a was further concentrated using spin-concentrators (Amicon Ultra 15 ml centrifugal tubes) to about 500 μl to 1 ml final volume for S200 size exclusion column purification (Äkta). Cas13 concentration after size exclusion was about 697 μg/ml (5 μM). All eluted fractions from the SEC peak were characterized on a 10% SDS gel and protein aliquots were flash frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80°C.

Passivation of filter paper

Filter paper (Whatman Grade 934-AH glass microfiber filters) was cut into ≈ 1 × 1 cm2 squares and placed in a glass Petri dish using tweezers, both of which were cleaned with RNase ZAP (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany). Then, 5% w/v RNase free BSA solution (VWR, No. 0332-25G) was poured over the paper. The Petri dish was covered with aluminum foil and incubated for 4 h. The papers were then taken out and, to minimize sticking, placed upright against the walls of a second, identically treated petri dish and allowed to dry for 1 h. Finally, residual moisture was removed by baking the BSA-treated paper sections in an oven at 100°C for 30 min.

In vitro transcription

The in vitro transcription reaction contained 500 nM T7 RNA polymerase (kindly provided by Dr. Sandra Sagredo), with 3, 6, or 12 nM iSpinach DNA (IDT, USA, Ultramers) template in transcription buffer (1x RNAPol Reaction Buffer (NEB, No. B9012, 40 mM Tris-HCl, 6 mM MgCl2, 1 mM DTT, 2 mM spermidine, pH 7.9 at 25°C), supplemented with 12 mM MgCl2, 25 mM KCl, 40 μM DFHBI-1T (Lucerna), 4 mM rNTPs each, and 1 U/μl RNase Inhibitor, Murine (NEB, No. M0314)).

Purified guide crRNA and template RNA was obtained by following this in vitro transcription as a 100 μl batch reaction with a DNA digestion step (0.035 U/μl DNaseI, 1x DNaseI Buffer, NEB No. M0303S, 37°C, 1h) and a phenol-chloroform extraction protocol in a 5’-Phase Lock Gel Heavy (VWR, USA). The RNA was precipitated with ethanol and resuspended in nuclease-free water. RNA concentration was measured by denaturing PAGE. The gel consists of 8 M urea (Carl Roth, Germany, No. 2317), 1x TBE Buffer (Carl Roth, No. 3061), 15% (v/v) Acrylamide 29:1 (Carl Roth, No. A121), 0.1% (v/v) TEMED (Carl Roth, No. 2367), 0.1% (w/v) APS (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany, No. A3678), in double-distilled H2O (total volume 10 mL). The gel was cast in cassettes (Bolt Empty Mini, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA), and the running buffer is 1x TBE. The gel was pre-run for 30 min at 12.5 V/cm with a running temperature of 40°C. RNA samples were mixed with 2x RNA loading dye (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA, No. R0641), denatured at 95°C for 5 min and directly put on ice to prevent the RNA from refolding. RNA samples were then loaded onto the gel and ran at 12.5 V/cm for 1 h 15 min at 40°C. The resulting gel was stained with 1x SybR Green II (Thermo Fisher Scientific, No. S7586). Then a fluorescence image of the gel was acquired and the intensity of the RNA band was quantified against an RNA ladder (low Range Riboruler, Thermo Fisher Scientific, No. SM1831) with ImageJ (S4c Fig).

Cas13a assay

For the Cas13a RNA detection assays crRNA was first diluted with processing buffer (1x is 20 mM HEPES pH 6.8, 50 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl2 and 5% glycerol) to a final assay concentration of 150 nM crRNA in 1x processing buffer, and incubated for 5 min at 65°C to ensure complete folding of the crRNA. Then, Cas13a was added to a final assay concentration of 20 nM and the sample was incubated for 10 min at 37°C to mediate binding between Cas13a and crRNA. Finally, 200 nM of RNase Alert (Thermo Fischer Scientific), 1.5 U/μl of RNase Inhibitor, Murine (NEB, No. M0314) and 100 nM of target RNA (all final concentrations in the assay) were added on ice. The solution was mixed by pipetting up and down, and immediately applied to the filter paper and measured.

Calibration of the detector

We first prepared a stock solution containing 1 mM fluorescein sodium salt in water. This was then diluted to 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 nM, etc. up to 10 μM. For one measurement, 30 μl of the sample was placed on a 1 × 1 cm2 piece of filter paper and measured with the detector. The sequence of measurements for one dilution series as implemented in the software as an automated calibration routine was (blank)2-(1 nM)2-(2 nM)2-(…)2-(blank)2, where subscript 2 indicates that each measurement is directly repeated to ensure that the LDR had equilibrated properly, and the blank measurements should confirm the absence of contaminations. After completing this procedure in triplicates, the resulting data was processed python script (S1 File) to compute RRb and R(c) by fitting k and γ with gnuplot.

Time trace measurement with the detector

To initiate a time trace measurement, the desired number of data points and the time interval between measurements was specified in the software interface. Then, about 30 μl sample are pipetted onto the passivated filter paper and placed on the cartridge in front of the detection window (Fig 1b). The cartridge was closed, inserted into the detector. Then the measurement was started via the operating software and saved in real-time in a.csv format. Plate reader reference curves were recorded using a 384 wellplate (4titude, Ultravision) on a CLARIOstar 2016 plate reader at 470-15 nm excitation with a 491.1 dichroic filter, a 515-20 nm emission and a gain of 1500 by incubating 15 μl reaction volumes at 30°C.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Derivation of calibration function and analysis of measurement uncertainties.

(PDF)

S1 Fig. Detection unit.

(a) CAD drawing, (b) side view photograph and (c) front view photograph illustrating the assembly of the detection unit. The 3D printed parts are first treated with sand paper and the holes for the screws are drilled. Magnets, LED and LDR are inserted and glued into the corresponding cavities. For the LED and LDR we mixed the glue with graphene to block transmission of background light. Then the circuit board carrying the microcontroller (S3 Fig) is assembled on top of the unit and fixed with screws. Finally, the LED and LDR are connected to the circuit board.

(PNG)

S2 Fig. Assay cartridge.

(a) CAD drawing and (b) photograph illustrating the assembly of the assay cartridge. The 3D printed parts are first treated with sand paper. Then the magnets are glued into the corresponding cavities. The filter foils and protective cover slides are cut into the appropriate size, assembled in front of the detection window and fixed with Scotch tape. The filter foils are covered with microscope cover slides to facilitate cleaning with ethanol and water between measurements. To obtain a clean optical pathway, the transmission windows must be free of Scotch tape. A piece of filter paper carrying the sample is placed in front of the transmission window.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Circuit diagram and board layout of the detection unit.

(a) The blue excitation light LED and a green status LED are controlled by NPN transistors via the digital pin-out of the microcontroller. The resistance of the LDR changes according to the intensity of incoming emission light and is measured via a voltage divider using an analog input-pin of the microcontroller. (b) overlay, (c) top, and (d) bottom view of the used circuit board layout for soldering.

(PNG)

S4 Fig. Cas13a and RNA preparation.

SDS-gels of Cas13a Ni-NTA purification after cell lysis (a) and after TEV protease digestion (b). (c) Gel-electrophoretic analysis of In vitro crRNA and targetRNA transcription for Cas13a assay.

(PNG)

S5 Fig. Operation of the detector outside the laboratory.

The detector can be operated and powered from a Windows tablet.

(JPG)

S1 File. Detector operating software and CAD files.

Are available via Github: https://github.com/Katzi93/Fluorescence_detector.

(ZIP)

S2 File. Detector components.

Bill of materials.

(XLSX)

S3 File. DNA sequences.

Lbu-Cas13a, iSpinach, crRNA and Cas13a.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as part of the joint TUM-LMU iGEM Munich team 2017. We gratefully acknowledge Erika Chacin De Leonardis, Christoph Neumayer, Teeradon Phlairaharn, Julian Reinhard, Florian Rothfischer, Robert Strasser, Patrick Wilke, Milica Zivanic, Benjamin Aleritsch, Dong-Jiunn Jeffery Truong, and Gil Gregor Westmeyer for their contributions during the iGEM competition phase of this project. We thank the GRK2062 ‘Molecular Principles of Synthetic Biology’ for discussions and advice throughout the project.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Financial support was provided by TU Munich (through the TUM Board of Management and the Departments of Physics and Chemistry), Lehre@LMU, the Nanosystems Initiative München (NIM), the European Research Council (grant agreement no. 694410—AEDNA) and UnternehmerTUM. M. Heymann gratefully acknowledges support through the Joachim Herz Foundation. Reagents, consumables and services were in part provided as in-kind contributions by IDT, Biomers, New England Biolabs, GATC Biotech, Promega, Scienova, Eurofins Genomics, GE Healthcare Carl Roth, Quiagen.

References

  • 1. Espy MJ, Uhl JR, Sloan LM, Buckwalter SP, Jones MF, Vetter EA, et al. Real-Time PCR in Clinical Microbiology: Applications for Routine Laboratory Testing. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2006; 19:93 10.1128/CMR.19.1.165-256.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Wang S, Lifson MA, Inci F, Liang LG, Sheng YF, Demirci U. Advances in addressing technical challenges of point-of-care diagnostics in resource-limited settings. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2016; 16(4):449–459. 10.1586/14737159.2016.1142877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Sia SK, Linder V, Parviz BA, Siegel A, Whitesides GM. An Integrated Approach to a Portable and Low-Cost Immunoassay for Resource-Poor Settings. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2004; 43(4):498–502. 10.1002/anie.200353016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Kellner MJ, Joung J, Collins JJ, Zhang F. Multiplexed and portable nucleic acid detection platform with Cas13, Cas12a, and Csm6. Science. 2018; 360(6387):439–444. 10.1126/science.aaq0179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Sharma S, Zapatero-Rodríguez J, Estrela P, O’Kennedy R. Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Low Resource Settings: Present Status and Future Role of Microfluidics. Biosensors. 2015; 5(3):577–601. 10.3390/bios5030577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Vashist SK, Luppa PB, Yeo LY, Ozcan A, Luong JHT. Emerging Technologies for Next-Generation Point-of-Care Testing. Trends Biotechnol. 2015; 33(11):692–705. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Yang FB, Pan JZ, Zhang T, Fang Q. A low-cost light-emitting diode induced fluorescence detector for capillary electrophoresis based on an orthogonal optical arrangement. Talanta. 2009; 78(3):1155–1158. 10.1016/j.talanta.2009.01.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Wu J, Liu X, Wang L, Dong L, Pu Q. An economical fluorescence detector for lab-on-a-chip devices with a light emitting photodiode and a low-cost avalanche photodiode. Analyst. 2012; 137(2):519–525. 10.1039/c1an15867h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Pais A, Banerjee A, Klotzkin D, Papautsky I. High-sensitivity, disposable lab-on-a-chip with thin-film organic electronics for fluorescence detection. Lab Chip. 2008; 8(5):794 10.1039/b715143h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Novak L, Neuzil P, Pipper J, Zhang Y, Lee S. An integrated fluorescence detection system for lab-on-a-chip applications. Lab Chip. 2007; 7(1):27–29. 10.1039/b611745g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Obahiagbon U, Smith JT, Zhu M, Katchman BA, Arafa H, Anderson KS, et al. A compact, low-cost, quantitative and multiplexed fluorescence detection platform for point-of-care applications. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018; 117:153–160. 10.1016/j.bios.2018.04.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Dandin M, Abshire P, Smela E. Optical filtering technologies for integrated fluorescence sensors. Lab Chip. 2007; 7(8):955 10.1039/b704008c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Martinez AW, Phillips ST, Whitesides GM, Carrilho E. Diagnostics for the Developing World: Microfluidic Paper-Based Analytical Devices. Anal. Chem. 2010; 82(1):3–10. 10.1021/ac9013989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Pardee K. Perspective: Solidifying the impact of cell-free synthetic biology through lyophilization. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018; 138:91–97. 10.1016/j.bej.2018.07.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Yetisen AK, Akram MS, Lowe CR. Paper-based microfluidic point-of-care diagnostic devices. Lab Chip. 2013; 13(12):2210 10.1039/c3lc50169h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Pardee K, Green A, Ferrante T, Cameron DE, DaleyKeyser A, Yin P, et al. Paper-Based Synthetic Gene Networks. Cell. 2014; 159(4):940–954. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Green A, Silver P, Collins J, Yin P. Toehold Switches: De-Novo-Designed Regulators of Gene Expression. Cell. 2014; 159(4):925–939. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Pardee K, Green A, Takahashi M, Braff D, Lambert G, Lee J, et al. Rapid, Low-Cost Detection of Zika Virus Using Programmable Biomolecular Components. Cell. 2016; 165(5):1255–1266. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Piepenburg O, Williams CH, Stemple DL, Armes NA. DNA Detection Using Recombination Proteins. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4(7):e204 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Lee JW, Essletzbichler P, Dy AJ, Joung J, et al. Nucleic acid detection with CRISPR-Cas13a/C2c2. Science. 2017; 356(6336):438–442. 10.1126/science.aam9321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Abudayyeh OO, Gootenberg JS, Konermann S, Joung J, Slaymaker IM, Cox DBT, et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science. 2016; 353(6299):aaf5573 10.1126/science.aaf5573 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. East-Seletsky A, O’Connell MR, Burstein D, Knott GJ, Doudna JA. RNA Targeting by Functionally Orthogonal Type VI-A CRISPR-Cas Enzymes. Mol. Cell. 2017; 66(3):373–383.e3. 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.04.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Chen JS, Ma E, Harrington LB, Da Costa M, Tian X, Palefsky JM, et al. CRISPR-Cas12a target binding unleashes indiscriminate single-stranded DNase activity. Science. 2018; 360(6387):436–439. 10.1126/science.aar6245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Li SY, Cheng QX, Wang JM, Li XY, Zhang ZL, Gao S, et al. CRISPR-Cas12a-assisted nucleic acid detection. Cell Discov. 2018; 4(1):20 10.1038/s41421-018-0028-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Myhrvold C, Freije CA, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Metsky HC, Durbin AF, et al. Field-deployable viral diagnostics using CRISPR-Cas13. Science. 2018; 360(6387):444–448. 10.1126/science.aas8836 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Paige JS, Wu KY, Jaffrey SR. RNA mimics of green fluorescent protein. Science. 2011; 333(6042):642–646. 10.1126/science.1207339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Autour A, Westhof E, Ryckelynck M. iSpinach: a fluorogenic RNA aptamer optimized for in vitro applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44(6):2491–2500. 10.1093/nar/gkw083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Reisch M. Elektronische Bauelemente: Funktion, Grundschaltungen, Modellierung mit SPICE. Springer-Verlag; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Datasheet ATmega48P/88P/168P/328P; 2009. Available from: https://www.sparkfun.com/datasheets/Components/SMD/ATMega328.pdf.
  • 30. McNaught AD, Wilkinson A. IUPAC. Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed (the “Gold Book”). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford; 1997. Available from: 10.1351/goldbook.L03540. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Tambe A, East-Seletsky A, Knott GJ, Doudna JA, O’Connell MR. RNA Binding and HEPN-Nuclease Activation Are Decoupled in CRISPR-Cas13a. Cell Rep. 2018; 24(4):1025–1036. 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.06.105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Oesinghaus L, Simmel FC. Switching the activity of Cas12a using guide RNA strand displacement circuits. Nat. Commun. 2019; 10(1):2092 10.1038/s41467-019-09953-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Stark JC, Huang A, Nguyen PQ, Dubner RS, Hsu KJ, Ferrante TC, et al. BioBits Bright: A fluorescent synthetic biology education kit. Sci. Adv. 2018; 4(8):eaat5107 10.1126/sciadv.aat5107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Stark JC, Huang A, Hsu KJ, Dubner RS, Forbrook J, Marshalla S, et al. BioBits Health: Classroom activities exploring engineering, biology, and human health with fluorescent readouts. ACS Synth. Biol. 2019; 8(5):1001–1009. 10.1021/acssynbio.8b00381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mark Isalan

30 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-18880

A low-cost fluorescence reader for in vitro transcription and nucleic acid detection with Cas13a

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Heymann,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please consider all the points of the reviewers, including a limit of detection assay and controls. Detecting a real sample is not absolutely required.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mark Isalan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

[none].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

*  This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary

This manuscript describes the development of a low-cost fluorescence spectrophotometer designed to facilitate fluorescence measurements at the point-of-care. The authors have presented a very clever and resourceful design for a fluorescence detector. Given the growing interest in point-of-care diagnostics, I think that this work will be of broad interest to the synthetic biology and biotechnology community. As such, I think this piece is well suited for PLoS One and recommend that this manuscript be published after a few major and minor revisions, explained in detail below.

Major revisions

The authors argue that their fluorescence detector can be used in low-resource settings, but it appears that operation of the detector requires software run on an external computer, which may not be available. Could the software instead be run on a smart phone or tablet? If so, I recommend including this as a demonstration in the manuscript to support the claim that the detector can be used in low-resource settings. Broadly, I ask that the authors somehow address this issue of portability and accessibility before claims about utility in low-resource settings can be made.

The authors argue in their abstract that DIY construction of their fluorescence detector could serve as an educational activity that combines electrical engineering, computer engineering, and biochemistry concepts. However, no framework or target audience (high school, undergraduate, etc.) for teaching such concepts is discussed. Please either provide example curriculum pieces (powerpoint, worksheets, etc.) to support this claim or remove it from the manuscript.

In the results section, I would have liked to read more about the rationale and strategy behind the development of the spectrophotometer. How did you design the device? Did you deconstruct high-tech equipment or model after existing low-cost fluorescence detection equipment? I’d imagine some of the choices made, such as the use of photography lighting filters instead of expensive scientific light filters, might not have been tried before and would be of interest to others seeking to replicate or expand upon this work. Since the design of the fluorescence spectrometer is the crux of this work, I recommend that the authors add discussion of their detector design strategy placing it in the context of previous efforts.

Minor revisions

A low-cost fluorescence imager designed to enable qualitative or semi-quantitative analysis of cell-free reactions as part of hands-on educational activities was recently described (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaat5107). Please include this citation in the discussion when educational applications are discussed.

I noticed on the order of 10 typos throughout the manuscript - please address before resubmission.

Reviewer #2: This study (by Katzmeier, Aufinger, Dupen, Quinteiro et al.) develops a low-cost fluorescence reader, and demonstrate applications with Cas13 detection of RNA, and the RNA aptamer Spinach.

I think the technology described has promise, but would like to see additional validation to show the sensitivity of Cas13 detection using the device for readout, as well as a few additional controls to validate the performance. With these additions, the paper should be suitable for publication.

Major comments:

1. Does the cartridge need to be cleaned in between uses? It is unclear if any sample from the filter paper might be carried over between runs. The authors should clarify this point, as it influences the utility of the device.

2. The authors should perform a limit of detection assay using Cas13a and their fluorescent detector, if they want to use Cas13 as an application of their device. It is not sufficient to show a single experiment, with 100 nM target, and make claims in the abstract about detection in the "nanomolar range".

3. Similarly, Table 1 is misleading, as the fluorescein calibration experiments (shown in Fig. 4) appear to be independent of Cas13 - as far as I can tell no sensitivity analysis has been performed with Cas13 (just with fluorescein).

4. Figure 6b does not have any negative controls, please rerun this experiment with some negative controls (or show them in the plot).

Minor comments:

1. Some of the figures could be combined to improve clarity (e.g., 3 and 4; possibly 1 and 2)

2. What is the final concentration of Cas13a and crRNA in the detection reactions? It is unclear (as written) in the Methods section.

3. The fluorescence in the presence of noncognate target is increasing over time in panel 7c and 7d, to approximately 1/3 of the maximum signal detected for Cas13 in the presence of cognate target after 1 hour of detection. This is remarkably high. Can the authors comment on why this is the case? Is there some sort of impurity present in the Cas13 or crRNA? This effect does not appear to be specific to the detector system being used, so presumably is coming from one of the reagents.

4. There appears to be a broken reference (a "?" in line 72). Please fix, and proofread the manuscript to ensure that no other such typos are present.

5. The authors reference several point of care technologies, but have omitted a recent demonstration of Cas13 detection of viruses at the point of care, which was published alongside the SHERLOCK 2.0 paper: doi: 10.1126/science.aas8836

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors developed a low-cost fluorescence reader for POCT application. With the employment of the CRIPSR-Cas13 collateral cleavage activity against RNA, target RNA can be conveniently detected by the developed reader with high sensitivity. And this invent surely has the potential to be widely used in both clinical and household application scenarios. I have only several minor concerns for the authors to address before the work can be accepted for publication.

1) The filters can be polluted by the paper strip. How to avoid the pollution?

2) In figure 7, longer reaction time is required for the detector, and the authors proposed several possibilities. However, it is still highly recommended that the authors may test with increased amount of enzyme with the detector.

3) To demonstrate the practicability of the device and the system, the authors may need to detect a real clinical or nonclinical sample with the system.

4) Besides of Cas13, Cas12 has also been used for CRISPR-Dx (i.e. HOLMES and DETECTR), and the authors may need to discuss them or at least describe in the introduction part. If the reader is also compatible with the Cas12 system, more readers will be interested.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2019 Dec 18;14(12):e0220091. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220091.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Oct 2019

Reviewer #1:

Summary: This manuscript describes the development of a low-cost fluorescence spectrophotometer designed to facilitate fluorescence measurements at the point-of-care. The authors have presented a very clever and resourceful design for a fluorescence detector. Given the growing interest in point-of-care diagnostics, I think that this work will be of broad interest to the synthetic biology and biotechnology community. As such, I think this piece is well suited for PLoS One and recommend that this manuscript be published after a few major and minor revisions, explained in detail below.

Major revisions

The authors argue that their fluorescence detector can be used in low-resource settings, but it appears that operation of the detector requires software run on an external computer, which may not be available. Could the software instead be run on a smart phone or tablet? If so, I recommend including this as a demonstration in the manuscript to support the claim that the detector can be used in low-resource settings. Broadly, I ask that the authors somehow address this issue of portability and accessibility before claims about utility in low-resource settings can be made.

The reviewer questioned that a laptop computer may not be available, require an AC power outlet, or be inconveniently large in low-resource settings. While various compact low-priced models are available, we now also demonstrate detector compatibility with low-power devices. For this, we operated the detector from a Windows tablet without major modifications, and updated Figure 2, Fig S5, and the text accordingly.

Line 151:

“In this work, we have used either a laptop computer, or a Windows tabled (Fig S5). Operating the detector on Android of iOS devices requires suitable software ports.”

Although we do not demonstrate the operation of the detector with iOS or Android devices, adapting the software accordingly should to our understanding be possible for an expert in this field. While this is beyond our own expertise, we chose to provide all source code as open source in the hope that such portations will be performed in the future.

Regarding the power requirements, smartphones have enough battery capacity to theoretically operate the detector for about ~4000 mAh*5 V/1 W = 20 h. However, the USB/ lightning ports may be limited in their output power to ~0.5-2.5 W in which case it might be necessary to use an additional power bank.

The authors argue in their abstract that DIY construction of their fluorescence detector could serve as an educational activity that combines electrical engineering, computer engineering, and biochemistry concepts. However, no framework or target audience (high school, undergraduate, etc.) for teaching such concepts is discussed. Please either provide example curriculum pieces (powerpoint, worksheets, etc.) to support this claim or remove it from the manuscript.

All engineering and biochemistry work presented in the manuscript was completed by bachelor and master level students during their iGEM summer project as part of their scientific university education. The team comprised of students from diverse degrees, ranging from biotechnology to physics and computer science. While participation in the iGEM project was recognized with credit points that count towards the respective degree requirements, we did not perform conventional lab exercises with worksheets and a condensed work program. Instead students were tasked to explore primary literature and to design and conduct experiments by themselves with supervisors available for counseling.

The genuinely positive feedback about the cross-disciplinary learning experience that we supervisors received from participating students prompted us to comment on the potential utility of the presented detector and auxiliary assays in educational settings in both the abstract and conclusion sections.

Since it was not our intention, we apologize to the reviewer for having invoked the notion to expect a ready-made teaching lab tool kit. This in fact is well beyond the scope of our current work. In light of the general custom to also comment on suitable future directions and developments we like to comment on possible future applications in science teaching. Especially the many cultural and organizational differences in the international education systems motivated us to provide full open source access to all aspects of the detector including the detailed technical supplement to help interested to implement the system for their specific needs – including in education.

We thus now write:

Abstract, line 33:

“Furthermore, our open-source device may be used in educational settings, through providing low cost instrumentation for quantitative assays or as a platform to integrate hardware, software and biochemistry concepts in the future.”

Conclusions, Line 325:

“CRISPR/Cas systems and cell-free protein synthesis have become popular tools that are simple to design and operate and have therefore recently been popularized as an educational kit termed BioBits, including a qualitative fluorescence imaging chamber [29, 30]. The flexibility, low cost and facile assembly of our detector-cartridge system renders it suitable for quantitative measurements in such teaching activities. Furthermore, in combining hardware, software, physics and biochemistry concepts interdisciplinary teaching activities can be developed for this platform in the future.“

In the results section, I would have liked to read more about the rationale and strategy behind the development of the spectrophotometer. How did you design the device? Did you deconstruct high-tech equipment or model after existing low-cost fluorescence detection equipment? I’d imagine some of the choices made, such as the use of photography lighting filters instead of expensive scientific light filters, might not have been tried before and would be of interest to others seeking to replicate or expand upon this work. Since the design of the fluorescence spectrometer is the crux of this work, I recommend that the authors add discussion of their detector design strategy placing it in the context of previous efforts.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that an overall discussion of our design considerations in the context of previous efforts was lacking and added this discussion in the beginning of the results section. We would like to mention, that our final design is quite similar to the design presented by Obahiagbon (2018), we reference accordingly and which was not available when we first presented our concept in 2017 (http://2017.igem.org/Team:Munich/Hardware/Detector).

We now write (line 115):

“The design of our detector is based on the premise that fluorescence produced by biochemical reactions on filter paper should be detected in a most economic (cost as well as power consumption), yet reliable way. The main challenge in building a sensitive detector is maximizing the signal-to-background ratio. To ensure an optimal signal, state of the art laboratory equipment typically uses high-power light sources, focusing optics, and photo multipliers. Background signals are minimized through monochromators, filters, dichroic mirrors and by performing measurements at a 90° or 180° angle relative to the illumination source.

Previous solutions for low-cost detectors avoid some of these requirements, by making use of LEDs for excitation, in combination with photodiodes for detection (Yang et al. 2009, Wu et al. 2012, Novak et al. 2007). However, common 90° or 180° excitation/emission geometries require appropriate optical components, compromising either sensitivity (Yang et al. 2009), or cost (Wu et al. 2012, Novak et al. 2007). They are also difficult to combine with paper-detection formats.

We hypothesized that measuring at a 0° could allow for a high signal-to-background ratio, while omitting all optical components, except light filters. Since such an arrangement is placing the LED excitation light source and the LDR fluorescence sensor as close as possible (Figure 2a,b). In this setting, the choice of light filters is crucial to not compromise sensitivity, as bleed-through of excitation light to the sensor is the major source of background signal. We thus experimented with cheap photographic light filter foils and found a combination that works sufficiently well in our context. These foils are comparably thin, allowing to reduce the optical path to about 2 mm in total. Conceptually related approaches have been described for using polarizers (Pais et al. 2008) and low-cost bandpass filters (Obahiagbon et al. 2018), respectively.

Our final design features” ...

Minor revisions

A low-cost fluorescence imager designed to enable qualitative or semi-quantitative analysis of cell-free reactions as part of hands-on educational activities was recently described (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaat5107). Please include this citation in the discussion when educational applications are discussed.

Thank you very much for this suggestion, we included this very interesting reference and now write:

Conclusions, Line 325:

“CRISPR/Cas systems and cell-free protein synthesis have become popular tools that are simple to design and operate and have therefore recently been popularized as an educational kit termed BioBits, including a qualitative fluorescence imaging chamber [29, 30].”

I noticed on the order of 10 typos throughout the manuscript - please address before resubmission.

We carefully reviewed the text and corrected for several typos.

Reviewer #2: This study (by Katzmeier, Aufinger, Dupen, Quinteiro et al.) develops a low-cost fluorescence reader, and demonstrate applications with Cas13 detection of RNA, and the RNA aptamer Spinach. I think the technology described has promise, but would like to see additional validation to show the sensitivity of Cas13 detection using the device for readout, as well as a few additional controls to validate the performance. With these additions, the paper should be suitable for publication.

Major comments

1. Does the cartridge need to be cleaned in between uses? It is unclear if any sample from the filter paper might be carried over between runs. The authors should clarify this point, as it influences the utility of the device.

To protect the filters from contamination, we covered them with microscopy cover slides. We clean them with ethanol and distilled water between runs. If needed, the filter foils and microscopy cover slides can be replaced within 10 minutes. The schemes in Figure 2 and Figure S1 have been updated to explicitly show the cover slides between the filter foils and the glass fiber paper where the sample is deposited.

We now write (line 169):

“To protect the filter foils from contamination, we covered them with microscopy cover slides for facile cleaning with ethanol and water between measurements.”

Revised Fig 2 detail:

Revised Fig S1:

“Fig S1: a) CAD drawing and b) photograph illustrating the assembly of the assay cartridge. The 3D printed parts are first treated with sand paper. Then the magnets are glued into the corresponding cavities. The filter foils and protective cover slides are cut into the appropriate size, assembled in front of the detection window and fixed with Scotch tape. The filter foils were covered with microscope cover slides to facilitate cleaning with ethanol and water between measurements. To obtain a clean optical pathway, the transmission windows must be free of Scotch tape. A piece of filter paper carrying the sample is placed in front of the transmission window.”

2. The authors should perform a limit of detection assay using Cas13a and their fluorescent detector, if they want to use Cas13 as an application of their device. It is not sufficient to show a single experiment, with 100 nM target, and make claims in the abstract about detection in the "nanomolar range".

We answer this comment together with the following comment, as both refer to the sensitivity and the detection limit of the Cas13a assay and of the detector.

3. Similarly, Table 1 is misleading, as the fluorescein calibration experiments (shown in Fig. 4) appear to be independent of Cas13 - as far as I can tell no sensitivity analysis has been performed with Cas13 (just with fluorescein).

We agree with the reviewer that our text might have introduced some confusion between the sensitivity of the hardware and the sensitivity of the assay conducted on it. The detection limit stated in the abstract and table 1 exclusively refers to the fluorescence sensitivity of the hardware. We believe that Fluorescein concentration is a reasonably sound and standard metric to judge and compare the performance of the hardware itself. On the other hand, biochemical assays, such as the Cas13a assay, have their own detection limit concerning the minimal amount of active molecule (in our case, target RNA) that induces the assay. The sensitivity of the biochemical assay towards target RNA is different than the sensitivity of the hardware to the read-out molecule (RNase Alert or fluorescein for example).

The reviewer is of course correct to notice that the sensitivity of the Cas13a assay is important for applications. To see how the sensitivity of the assay compares to the literature when performing the reaction on paper and with our detector, we performed an additional target titration experiment (Figure 6, e and f).

Fig 6: “e-f) Response of the assay to increasing concentrations of cognate or non-cognate RNA target, in the detector (e) or in bulk (f). The LOD and LOQ as calculated based on the mean and standard deviation of background measurements are shown with dotted lines.”

We note, however, that even a sensitivity of 1 nM RNA is typically not sufficient for any real-world application which usually requires detection limits in the aM range. In the cited references this issue was resolved by pre-amplifying the target RNA with isothermal PCR reactions (for instance RT-RPA-TX), which is performed off-paper and yields RNA in the 100 nM range, as used in our experiments. Such a pre-amplification step is of course compatible with our detector read-out as well.

4. Figure 6b does not have any negative controls, please rerun this experiment with some negative controls (or show them in the plot).

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, we have repeated the experiment with a control with 0 nM template: see Figure 5b.

Minor comments

1. Some of the figures could be combined to improve clarity (e.g., 3 and 4; possibly 1 and 2)

We agree with the reviewer recommendation, and have combined figures 3 and 4:

We preferred to keep figures 1 and 2 separated, as the merged figure contained too much information.

2. What is the final concentration of Cas13a and crRNA in the detection reactions? It is unclear (as written) in the Methods section.

We updated the corresponding methods section to clearly indicate that the concentrations listed were the final concentrations in the assay. The paragraph "CRISPR/Cas13a-based RNA detection" also specifies the concentrations now.

Line 413:

“For the Cas13a RNA detection assays crRNA was first diluted with processing buffer (1x is 20 mM HEPES pH 6.8, 50mM KCl, 5mM MgCl2 and 5% glycerol) to a final assay concentration of 150 nM crRNA in 1x processing buffer, and incubated for 5min at 65C to ensure complete folding of the crRNA. Then, Cas13a was added to a final assay concentration of 20 nM and the sample was incubated for 10 min at 37C to mediate binding between Cas13a and crRNA. Finally, 200 nM of RNase Alert (Thermo Fischer Scientific), 1.5 µL of RNase Inhibitor, Murine (NEB, No. M0314) and 100 nM of target RNA (all final concentrations in the assay) were added on ice. The solution was mixed by pipetting up and down, and immediately applied to the filter paper and measured.

3. The fluorescence in the presence of noncognate target is increasing over time in panel 7c and 7d, to approximately 1/3 of the maximum signal detected for Cas13 in the presence of cognate target after 1 hour of detection. This is remarkably high. Can the authors comment on why this is the case? Is there some sort of impurity present in the Cas13 or crRNA? This effect does not appear to be specific to the detector system being used, so presumably is coming from one of the reagents.

The reviewer has correctly pointed out the relatively high background activity of the assay in the presence of non-cognate target. We consider this to be a consequence of unspecific Cas13a activity: although Cas13a is activated for RNase activity by target recognition, there is also residual unspecific RNase activity of Cas13a in the absence of target. This is more pronounced in the filter paper assay. Hence, a trade-off must be found between target recognition, where higher concentrations of Cas13a allow for a detection of lower concentrations of target RNA and for faster kinetics, and the unspecific activity of Cas13a, which leads to higher background for higher concentrations of Cas13a. In our optimizations, we identified ~ 20 nM Cas13a as the optimal concentration for a high signal-to-noise ratio, consistent with previous literature reports.

Furthermore, target RNA induced signal saturated already after 40 min, at which point the assay would be stopped while non-cognate target still reports low fluorescence values. We choose to plot the full hour recording however to point the reader towards this common assay artefact. For further improving clarity, we now mentioned the unspecific activity of Cas13a in the legend of the revised new Fig 6c-f:

“ ... c-d) Measurement of Cas13a activity with 100 nM target RNA on paper in the detector (c) or in bulk using a plate reader (d). Activity in presence of a cognate (i.e. complementary to the crRNA) RNA target is compared to a non-cognate target. Residual activity in the presence of non-cognate target is likely due to an unspecific activity of Cas13a. In d), positive control in bulk contains RNase A.“...

4. There appears to be a broken reference (a "?" in line 72). Please fix, and proofread the manuscript to ensure that no other such typos are present.

Thank you for noticing this typo, we corrected the mistake and carefully proofread the manuscript.

5. The authors reference several point of care technologies, but have omitted a recent demonstration of Cas13 detection of viruses at the point of care, which was published alongside the SHERLOCK 2.0 paper: doi: 10.1126/science.aas8836

Thank you for directing us to this very interesting reference, which we now include (Myhrvold 2018).

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors developed a low-cost fluorescence reader for POCT application. With the employment of the CRIPSR-Cas13 collateral cleavage activity against RNA, target RNA can be conveniently detected by the developed reader with high sensitivity. And this invent surely has the potential to be widely used in both clinical and household application scenarios. I have only several minor concerns for the authors to address before the work can be accepted for publication.

1) The filters can be polluted by the paper strip. How to avoid the pollution?

Reviewer 2 raised a similar concern. Please find our detailed response to his/her comment 1.

2) In figure 7, longer reaction time is required for the detector, and the authors proposed several possibilities. However, it is still highly recommended that the authors may test with increased amount of enzyme with the detector.

The concentration of Cas13a has been optimized at 20 nM to mitigate two opposite effects: on the one hand, a higher Cas13a concentration allows, as the reviewer points out, faster kinetics and for a detection of lower concentrations of target RNA. On the other hand, Cas13a has unspecific activity, meaning some low RNAse activity can be detected in the absence of crRNA and target RNA. This effect is more significant with increasing concentrations of Cas13a. For this reason, we abstained from using higher concentrations of the enzyme in the detector experiment. We also specified in the caption of Figure 6 that the measured increase in fluorescence with non-cognate target is likely due to the unspecific RNAse activity of Cas13a.

3) To demonstrate the practicability of the device and the system, the authors may need to detect a real clinical or nonclinical sample with the system.

We concur, that such data would be highly desirable. Sadly, we do not have permission or access to clinical samples and national regulations require stringent vetting and patient consent prior to any such experiments, which is beyond the capacity of our undergraduate student team to complete. We therefore hope that this publication with a focus on the fluorescence reader will nevertheless be of interest to the community.

4) Besides of Cas13, Cas12 has also been used for CRISPR-Dx (i.e. HOLMES and DETECTR), and the authors may need to discuss them or at least describe in the introduction part. If the reader is also compatible with the Cas12 system, more readers will be interested.

We thank the reviewer for suggesting these interesting references and have included them in the introduction.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mark Isalan

23 Oct 2019

A low-cost fluorescence reader for in vitro transcription and nucleic acid detection with Cas13a

PONE-D-19-18880R1

Dear Dr. Heymann,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Please note one outstanding point from Reviewer #2, which should be amended at this final submission stage:

"One key component is still missing: the make, model, and settings used to acquire fluorescence data with the plate reader. This will allow the reader to more easily interpret and compare results between the author's device and a more standard setup, and is important for reproducibility."

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Mark Isalan

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have very satisfactorily addressed all of my concerns from the initial round of review. I recommend to accept the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed nearly all of my comments. One key component is still missing: the make, model, and settings used to acquire fluorescence data with the plate reader. This will allow the reader to more easily interpret and compare results between the author's device and a more standard setup, and is important for reproducibility.

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript has been much improved and all of my previous concerns have been fully addressed. Considering the fierce competition in the field of CRISPR diagnostics, this referee suggests that this work should be accepted for publishing on PLOS ONE without much delay.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Acceptance letter

Mark Isalan

14 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-18880R1

A low-cost fluorescence reader for in vitro transcription and nucleic acid detection with Cas13a

Dear Dr. Heymann:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mark Isalan

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Derivation of calibration function and analysis of measurement uncertainties.

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig. Detection unit.

    (a) CAD drawing, (b) side view photograph and (c) front view photograph illustrating the assembly of the detection unit. The 3D printed parts are first treated with sand paper and the holes for the screws are drilled. Magnets, LED and LDR are inserted and glued into the corresponding cavities. For the LED and LDR we mixed the glue with graphene to block transmission of background light. Then the circuit board carrying the microcontroller (S3 Fig) is assembled on top of the unit and fixed with screws. Finally, the LED and LDR are connected to the circuit board.

    (PNG)

    S2 Fig. Assay cartridge.

    (a) CAD drawing and (b) photograph illustrating the assembly of the assay cartridge. The 3D printed parts are first treated with sand paper. Then the magnets are glued into the corresponding cavities. The filter foils and protective cover slides are cut into the appropriate size, assembled in front of the detection window and fixed with Scotch tape. The filter foils are covered with microscope cover slides to facilitate cleaning with ethanol and water between measurements. To obtain a clean optical pathway, the transmission windows must be free of Scotch tape. A piece of filter paper carrying the sample is placed in front of the transmission window.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Circuit diagram and board layout of the detection unit.

    (a) The blue excitation light LED and a green status LED are controlled by NPN transistors via the digital pin-out of the microcontroller. The resistance of the LDR changes according to the intensity of incoming emission light and is measured via a voltage divider using an analog input-pin of the microcontroller. (b) overlay, (c) top, and (d) bottom view of the used circuit board layout for soldering.

    (PNG)

    S4 Fig. Cas13a and RNA preparation.

    SDS-gels of Cas13a Ni-NTA purification after cell lysis (a) and after TEV protease digestion (b). (c) Gel-electrophoretic analysis of In vitro crRNA and targetRNA transcription for Cas13a assay.

    (PNG)

    S5 Fig. Operation of the detector outside the laboratory.

    The detector can be operated and powered from a Windows tablet.

    (JPG)

    S1 File. Detector operating software and CAD files.

    Are available via Github: https://github.com/Katzi93/Fluorescence_detector.

    (ZIP)

    S2 File. Detector components.

    Bill of materials.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. DNA sequences.

    Lbu-Cas13a, iSpinach, crRNA and Cas13a.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES