Advertisement

A nanobody-based test for highly sensitive detection of hemoglobin in fecal samples

  • Triana Delfin-Riela
  • Martín A. Rossotti
  • César Echaides
  • Gualberto González-SapienzaEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

Colon cancer has a high prevalence worldwide and is a serious public health problem. Early diagnosis greatly improves its prognosis and, among the existing methods, the detection of fecal occult blood is the only noninvasive test recommended for screening of the disease. To promote its massive application as a screening tool for asymptomatic populations in low-resource settings, the availability of a reliable and cost-effective method is imperative. Here, we describe the development and validation of a sensitive nanobody-based immunoassay for the detection of hemoglobin in human fecal samples. The nanobodies were selected from a library generated from a llama immunized with human hemoglobin, using a high-throughput platform that enabled the identification of the best nanobody pair. The assay allowed a sub-ng/mL limit of detection to be reached in phosphate-buffered saline, and was validated with stool samples, showing excellent reproducibility (CV% < 15 inter-day precision) and accuracy at 2 and 4 μg of hemoglobin per gram of feces, which are well below the recommended cutoff for this test (10–20 μg/g). Moreover, no cross-reactivity was observed with a panel of dietary non-human hemoglobins removing the need for pre-test dietary restrictions. Considering that the monodomain nature of nanobodies facilitates their straightforward and low-cost production by bacterial fermentation, with their provided sequences and using synthetic genes, the assay reported here could be replicated in any laboratory to perform thousands of tests for early detection of colorectal cancer at almost no cost.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Immunoassay/ELISA Phage display Colorectar cancer FOBT Nanobody 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Ana Acuña and Dr. Mariana González from Parasitology and Mycology Department from Central Laboratory of Pasteur Hospital who kindly provided the stool samples used in this study.

Funding information

This work was supported with funds provided by CSIC-149 UdelaR. Triana Delfin is the recipient of a scholarship from ANII-Uruguay.

Compliance with ethical standards

All fecal samples were collected with informed consent of donors and studied according to the ethic protocols followed by the Laboratory of Mycology and Parasitology of the Hospital Pasteur, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The blood sample used for the preparation of hemoglobin was donated for this purpose with informed consent by one of the authors of this study, and was taken by trained personnel in a local hospital.

The use of a 2-year-old llama for this study was approved by the authorities of the Zoológico Parque Lecocq, Montevideo, Uruguay, and all the procedures were carried out by the veterinarians of the zoo following the protocol approved by the Comisión de Ética en el Uso de Animales del Parque Lecocq (CEUA).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2019_2246_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (469 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 469 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiu HM, Chen SL, Yen AM, Chiu SY, Fann JC, Lee YC, et al. Effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing in reducing colorectal cancer mortality from the One Million Taiwanese Screening Program. Cancer. 2015;121(18):3221–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(6):1541–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS, Lederle FA, Bond JH, Mandel JS, et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kratochvil JF, Burris RH, Seikel MK, Harkin JM. Isolation and characterization of alpha-guaiaconic acid and nature of guaiacum blue. Phytochemistry. 1971;10(10):2529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Young GP, St John DJ, Rose IS, Blake D. Haem in the gut. Part II. Faecal excretion of haem and haem-derived porphyrins and their detection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1990;5(2):194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young GP, Symonds EL, Allison JE, Cole SR, Fraser CG, Halloran SP, et al. Advances in fecal occult blood tests: the FIT revolution. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(3):609–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffman RM, Steel S, Yee EF, Massie L, Schrader RM, Murata GH. Colorectal cancer screening adherence is higher with fecal immunochemical tests than guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests: a randomized, controlled trial. Prev Med. 2010;50(5-6):297–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Rossum LG, van Rijn AF, Laheij RJ, van Oijen MG, Fockens P, van Krieken HH, et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(1):82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brenner H, Tao S. Superior diagnostic performance of faecal immunochemical tests for haemoglobin in a head-to-head comparison with guaiac based faecal occult blood test among 2235 participants of screening colonoscopy. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(14):3049–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassan C, Giorgi Rossi P, Camilloni L, Rex DK, Jimenez-Cendales B, Ferroni E, et al. HTA Group. Meta-analysis: adherence to colorectal cancer screening and the detection rate for advanced neoplasia, according to the type of screening test. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2012;36(10):929–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parra-Blanco A, Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Quintero E, Nicolás D, Moreno SG, Jimenez A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of immunochemical versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer screening. J Gastroenterol. 2010;45(7):703–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gies A, Cuk K, Schrotz-King P, Brenner H. Direct comparison of diagnostic performance of 9 quantitative fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(1):93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muyldermans S. Nanobodies: natural single-domain antibodies. Annu Rev Biochem. 2013;82:775–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Linden RH, Frenken LG, de Geus B, Harmsen MM, Ruuls RC, Stok W, et al. Comparison of physical chemical properties of llama VHH antibody fragments and mouse monoclonal antibodies. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999;1431(1):37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ewert S, Cambillau C, Conrath K, Pluckthun A. Biophysical properties of camelid V(HH) domains compared to those of human V(H)3 domains. Biochemistry. 2002;41(11):3628–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tabares-da Rosa S, Rossotti M, Carleiza C, Carrion F, Pritsch O, Ahn KC, et al. Competitive selection from single domain antibody libraries allows isolation of high-affinity antihapten antibodies that are not favored in the llama immune response. Anal Chem. 2011;83(18):7213–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gonzalez-Sapienza G, Rossotti MA, Tabares-da RS. Single-domain antibodies as versatile affinity reagents for analytical and diagnostic applications. Front Immunol. 2017;8:977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rossotti MA, Pirez M, Gonzalez-Techera A, Cui Y, Bever CS, Lee KS, et al. Method for sorting and pairwise selection of nanobodies for the development of highly sensitive sandwich immunoassays. Anal Chem. 2015;87(23):11907–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rossotti M, Tabares S, Alfaya L, Leizagoyen C, Moron G, Gonzalez-Sapienza G. Streamlined method for parallel identification of single domain antibodies to membrane receptors on whole cells. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015;1850(7):1397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pirez-Schirmer M, Rossotti M, Badagian N, Leizagoyen C, Brena BM, Gonzalez-Sapienza G. Comparison of three antihapten VHH selection strategies for the development of highly sensitive immunoassays for microcystins. Anal Chem. 2017;89(12):6800–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chapman-Smith A, Turner DL, Cronan JE Jr, Morris TW, Wallace JC. Expression, biotinylation and purification of a biotin-domain peptide from the biotin carboxy carrier protein of Escherichia coli acetyl-CoA carboxylase. Biochem J. 1994;302(Pt 3):881–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    SANTE/11813/2017. Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticide residues and analysis in food and feed. European Commission.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Triana Delfin-Riela
    • 1
  • Martín A. Rossotti
    • 1
  • César Echaides
    • 2
  • Gualberto González-Sapienza
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Cátedra de Inmunología, DEPBIO, Facultad de QuímicaInstituto de Higiene, UDELARMontevideoUruguay
  2. 2.Parque Lecocq, IMMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations