Femtomolar SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using the Microbubbling Digital Assay with Smartphone Readout Enables Antigen Burden Quantitation and Dynamics Tracking

Design and Characterization of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay

To repurpose the technology for the detection of the very low concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 N antigen during acute infections, we have designed the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay as show in Figure 1. Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab, the same sample used in rRT-PCR methods, is eluted into saline or viral transport media, and treated with lysis buffer to release the N protein from the viruses. The released N protein is then detected using the Microbubbling assay, in which a monoclonal capture antibody is conjugated to the surface of magnetic microbeads, and a polyclonal detection antibody is biotinylated to bind to avidin coated platinum nanoparticles (PtNPs). When N protein is present, immunosandwich complexes form between the magnetic microbeads and PtNPs. After washing, the immunocomplexes are pulled down into a microwell array in the Microbubbling Chip via an external magnetic field, where microbubbles are generated through degradation of H₂O₂ catalyzed by PtNPs. The microbubble images, captured using a smartphone camera and a mobile microscope, are analyzed by computer vision and ML algorithms, which generate quantitative outputs (bubble size, number, total bubble volume) and classify the images as either SARS-CoV-2 positive or negative.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Schematic diagram of the procedures of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay. Nasopharyngeal (NP) swab eluant is first treated with lysis buffer to release N proteins from SARS-CoV-2 viruses. N protein is then detected by the smartphone-based microbubbling digital assay. The microbubble images are quantitated and classified as positive or negative by computer vision and ML algorithms.

To identify the best antibody pair to use in the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 assay, we screened different antibody pairs that bind the SARS-CoV-2 N protein with various capture/detection combinations (Supplementary Figure 1). The pair (N1 as capture antibody, Np as detection antibody) that generated the highest analytical sensitivity was chosen to design the assay (Figure 1). To assess the intrinsic analytical sensitivity of the assay, different amounts of recombinant N protein were spiked into PBS buffer and tested by the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay. As shown in Figure 2A, the number of microbubbles increased linearly with the concentration of N protein between 0-20 pg/mL, with the LOD for recombinant N protein at 0.5 pg/mL (10.6 fM, blank + 3 std, n=10).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Analytical performance of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay. A. Dose response curve for spiked recombinant N protein in buffer (PBS, 1% BSA (Bovine serum albumin), pH7.4). Mean ± standard deviation; n=10 at 0, n=3 for other datapoints. B. Specificity of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay. Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses were tested at 1×10⁵ copies/mL (1.4×10⁴ pfu/mL). CoV-229e, CoV-NL63 and CoV-OC43 were tested at 1×10⁵ pfu/mL. Mean ± standard deviation; n=3. C. Dose response curve for spiked inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses in rRT-PCR-negative NP swab pool. Mean ± standard deviation; n=10 at 0, n=3 for other datapoints. D. Determining limit of detection (LOD) of spiked inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses in PCR-negative NP swab pool, following the FDA antigen template guideline¹¹. Assay signal (number of microbubbles) comparison between rRT-PCR-negative NP swab pool (n=10), 2000 copies/mL (n=21) and 4000 copies/mL (n=21) SARS-CoV-2 spiked into negative NP swab pool. Each diamond represents one independent experiment.

To assess the analytical specificity of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay towards different strains of coronaviruses, we challenged the assay with 3 human coronaviruses: CoV-229e, CoV-NL63 and CoV-OC43. Human coronaviruses OC43, 229E and NL63 cause common cold and bronchiolitis, and are the pathogens that are likely to be present in respiratory samples and possibly cross react in the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay based on sequence homology. As shown in Figure 2B, no significant difference in signal was observed between the blank and the 3 coronaviruses (1×10⁵ pfu/mL), while over 10 times signal increase was observed for SARS-CoV-2 (1×10⁵ copies/mL or 1.4×10⁴ pfu/mL), indicating the high analytical specificity of the assay towards SARS-CoV-2.

We then evaluated the analytical performance of the assay in swab samples. Mucosal swab samples contain catalase and peroxidase, which may interfere with the Microbubbling Digital Assay by degrading the signaling reagent, H₂O₂. To assess this possibility, recombinant N protein was spiked into a negative pool of NP swab samples (confirmed by rRT-PCR to be negative for SARS-CoV-2) and tested in the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay with and without PtNPs as catalyzing reagent. As shown in Supplementary Figure 2, bubbles were only observed when PtNPs were present, indicating catalase and peroxidase from the mucosal matrix had been eliminated during washing steps, and did not interfere in the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay.

We subsequently challenged the assay with 10 rRT-PCR-negative NP swab samples. As shown in Supplementary Figure 3A, the background signals of the 10 samples varied. To investigate if the background signal was specific to the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay, a representative sample (sample 3, with a medium background signal) was tested in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using 96 well plate bottom to immobilize the N1 capture antibody and luciferase as the reporter enzyme labeled onto the Np detection antibody. As shown in Supplementary Figure 3B, a medium background signal was also observed for sample 3, but not for buffer control, in the ELISA assay. This indicates that the background was assay format-agnostic and intrinsic to the swab matrix. Mucins have been reported as the major cause of nonspecific bindings and background signals in many immunoassays using mucosal samples,⁸ due to their ability to bind to a variety of solid surfaces.^9,10 Mucins are a family of glycoproteins that are widely present in the upper respiratory system¹⁰, with high molecular weight, high glycosylation, and abundance of negative charge groups. We postulated that mucins were the source of the background signal in our assay. To eliminate the background signal, we took advantage of the high molecular weight of mucins and used a filter with molecular weight cutoff between mucins (200 kDa∼200 MDa) and N protein (47.08 kDa) (Pierce™ protein concentrator PES, 100K MWCO) to remove mucins and retain filtrate for testing. As shown in Supplementary Figure 3C, background signals in the rRT-PCR-negative NP swab pool were removed by filtering the sample through the above concentrator, while specific signals from SARS-CoV-2 were retained.

We compared the analytical sensitivity of the assay for inactivated SARS-CoV-2 spiked in buffer (without filtration) vs. in negative NP swab pool (with filtration). As shown in Supplementary Figure 4, the analytical sensitivity in buffer (without filtration) was about 10 times higher than that in negative NP swab pool. These findings suggest that sample matrix and sample processing have significant impact on the analytical performance of the assay.

To determine the analytical sensitivity of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in NP swabs, different amounts of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses were spiked into an rRT-PCR-negative NP swab pool, lysed, filtered and tested using the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay. As shown in Figure 2C, the number of microbubbles increased linearly with the concentrations of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses, between 0-18000 copies/mL (virus genome RNA concentration, determined by RT-qPCR using a primer set specific to nsp14), demonstrating the quantitative capability of the assay. To determine the LOD following the FDA antigen assay template¹¹, we tested 10 rRT-PCR-negative NP swab pools, 21 swab pools spiked with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 viruses at 2000 copies/mL and 21 pools at 4000 copies/mL. As shown in Figure 2D, at the concentration of 2000 copies/mL, the signals of 17 out of the 21 samples were above the mean of blank signal; at the concentration of 4000 copies/mL, the signals of all 21 samples were above the blank mean + 3std. Therefore 4000 copies/mL was determined as the LOD of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay for SARS-CoV-2 in swabs. This LOD translates to 400 virus copies/reaction (100 μL sample volume) in the assay.

Clinical Performance of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay

We tested deidentified residual clinical NP swab samples (at least 50 samples in each category) using the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay, and compared the results to clinical testing results using FDA EUA-approved rRT-PCR methods (Table 1, list of rRT-PCR assays in Methods). Characteristics of the clinical samples, including presence of symptoms, days after symptom onset and clinical locations were also listed in Table 1. Samples with bubble count equal to or above the count generated at LOD were determined to be positive, and those with bubble count below the LOD were determined to be negative. Compared to rRT-PCR, the positive percent agreement (PPA) was 97% (95% CI, 92-99%)in symptomatic individuals within 7 days of symptom onset and positive nucleic acid results (n=128), and the negative percent agreement (NPA) was 97% (95% CI, 94-100%) in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals with negative nucleic acid results (n=73). The percent of antigen-positive samples decreased in individuals at 7-12 days and >12 days after symptom onset or initial COVID diagnosis, despite positive rRT-PCR results from the same samples.

In the asymptomatic but rRT-PCR-positive group (n=62), the PPA was 45% (95% CI, 32-58%). The low PPA is likely due to the heterogeneous nature of this group, in which individuals may present for testing at various stages of their infections (SARS-CoV-2 testing was conducted as part of pre-surgery evaluation, prenatal care, or ED visits with non-respiratory complaints), sometimes late enough that antigens have been cleared by immune system (as we have observed in the symptomatic group). In this asymptomatic group, the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay was able to detect a pre-symptomatic case, in which both antigen and nucleic acid results were positive in the swab sample collected one day before the patient developed cough and other respiratory symptoms. This suggests the sensitivity of the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay is sufficiently high to detect the low concentration of antigen in pre-symptomatic cases, and the discrepancy between antigen and nucleic acid results in late samples are unlikely due to insufficient sensitivity of the Microbubbling Antigen Assay.

Automatic Microbubble Detection Using Computer Vision and Image Classification using ML Algorithm

We have previously demonstrated that the Microbubbling Digital Assay is a platform that quantitates very low concentrations of biomarkers, with the number of microbubbles correlating linearly with the biomarker concentration in the low concentration range ⁷. In this study, we also observed that some clinical samples with low Ct values or high viral loads generated large bubbles at the time of image capture (9 min for all experiments). Therefore, we developed a computer vision algorithm to detect and locate microbubbles of any size in each image (Figure 3A) by identifying circle-like shapes. Details of this algorithm are presented in Supplementary Materials.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Automatic microbubble recognition, quantitation and classification using computer vision and ML algorithms. A. Example images from clinical NP swab samples, and microbubble detection using the computer vision algorithm. Green circles show microbubble detections from the computer vision system overlaid on the original images. B. Upper panel: Log transformed total bubble volume correlated inversely with Ct. Pearson linear correlation (dotted line) r= -0.56. Lower panel: Total bubble volume decreased with days-after-symptom-onset. P= 0.04 between day1 and 2, p= 0.02 between day1 and day 3 using Student’s t test. C. ROC curve comparing classification performance of the ML algorithm against the total bubble volume thresholding. D. Decision boundaries from the ML algorithm that learns linear boundaries to accurately classify images as negatives or positives in the validation data set (n=168), based on the number of automatically detected small and large microbubbles in each image. Bubbles were categorized as small if their radius was less than a heuristically set threshold of 8 pixels (in 450 × 450 pixel images, corresponding to about 50 microns), and as large if otherwise. An inset within the plot shows the enlarged area near the decision boundary.

Having automatically detected microbubble locations and sizes we add the volumes of all bubbles to estimate the total bubble volume as a quantitative readout. As shown in Figure 3B, log-transformed total bubble volume correlated inversely with Ct values, and total bubble volume decreased with days-after-symptom-onset. This indicates that total bubble volume may be a potential marker for antigen burden.

Next, we compared two approaches for automatic classification of microbubble images as positives or negatives, both based on the computer vision-based microbubble detection. First, we varied the threshold on the estimated total bubble volume to generate an ROC curve (Figure 3C), using human visual inspection-based classification as gold standard. We compared this against a ML-based classifier, built as follows. In each image, we counted the number of detected bubbles whose radius was above and below a set threshold (∼50 microns, corresponding to 8 pixels in the images). These big bubble and small bubble counts formed the 2-dimensional feature representation of each image. In this 2-dimensional space, we trained a linear separator using the linear support vector ML algorithm¹⁴. We randomly sampled 168 images to use as the training dataset and evaluated the performance (of both approaches) on the remaining 168 images (87 negatives, and 81 positives). Fig 3C shows both the ROC curve of the total bubble volume-based classifier, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of the 2D bubble count features-based ML classifier. The ML classifier performs with much higher sensitivity (100%) and specificity (95%) than any point on the bubble volume thresholding ROC curve. The decision boundaries identified by the ML classifier is shown in Figure 3D. These results were very stable across three random 50-50 splits of the full dataset (336 images) into training and testing data. Overall, this demonstrates that fully automated image analysis and ML are able to produce antigen burden quantitation and accurate classification from the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay. For easy reproducibility, we will publicly release all code for computer vision-based microbubble detection and ML.

Tracking Antigen Dynamics in Different Patient Populations

In the clinical validation group (Table 1), antigen and nucleic acid results showed limited correlation in individuals after the acute infection phase (>7 days). To further investigate this phenomenon longitudinally, we tested for antigen using the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in serial NP/oropharyngeal (OP) swabs collected from 38 ICU patients hospitalized due to COVID (Figure 4A). To compare nucleic acid with antigen dynamics, N1 gene copy number quantitated using RT-qPCR were also plotted in Figure 4A. Consistent with what was observed in Table 1, nucleic acid and antigen results did not always correlate with each other in this patient cohort. Many serial samples did not have detectable N antigens despite significant copy numbers of the N1 gene (>>4000 copies/mL). Several patients (eg. #406, #391, #257) converted from N antigen positive to antigen negative at various time points despite that N1 gene copies either increased or remained stable and above LOD of the Microbubbling assay. This suggests the RT-qPCR may be detecting N1 gene fragments that were not producing intact N protein with the epitope for antibody recognition. On the other hand, for patient #401, N1 gene copy number increase correlated with the change of N antigen result from negative to positive, possibly indicating active virus replication during this period.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Tracking antigen dynamics using the Microbubbling SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Assay in serial swab samples in A. COVID inpatients in ICU and B. immunocompromised COVID patients with either hematological malignancies or transplants. A red + indicates a positive antigen result, whereas a blue - indicates a negative antigen result. Color intensities of the green squares in A. indicate the quantitative results of N1 gene copy number using RT-qPCR. Colors of the squares in B. indicate the qualitative nucleic acid results using FDA EUA-approved rRT-PCR methods.

Immunocompromised individuals remained antigen positive for a longer period of time in our validation group (Table 1). Out of 4 immunocompromised and nucleic acid-positive patients, who either had hematological malignancies or transplants, and were 7-12 days after symptom onset, all 4 were antigen positive (100% positivity rate, compared to 53% in the entire validation group in the 7-12 days range). Out of 13 immunocompromised and nucleic acid-positive patients >12 days after symptom onset, 9 remained antigen positive (69% positivity rate, compared to 26% in the entire validation group in the >12 days range). It has been reported that immunocompromised individuals with hematological malignancies have prolonged viral clearance and delayed or absent humoral responses¹². We therefore tracked antigen results at various days-after-symptom-onset in a group of 13 immunocompromised patients with either hematological malignancies or transplants (Figure 4B). Notably, nucleic acid was detected in all samples for these patients, while antigen was detectable for various periods of time. For the 6 patients for whom we had samples at or after 30 days after symptom onset, 5 remained antigen positive around 30 days. Two patients (#7 and #6) converted from antigen positive to negative at 54 and 57 days, respectively. The furthest antigen-positive timepoint observed in this group was from a patient (#4) post CAR-T therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, who continued to have respiratory issues and tested positive for both nucleic acid and antigen 2 months after initial COVID diagnosis. Our results indicate that immunocompromised individuals have delayed and variable antigen clearance timeline, which correlates poorly with their nucleic acid results.