Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access

Malaria and the ‘last’ parasite: how can technology help?

Malaria Journal201817:260

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-018-2408-0

  • Received: 2 March 2018
  • Accepted: 3 July 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Malaria, together with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and hepatitis are the four most deadly infectious diseases globally. Progress in eliminating malaria has saved millions of lives, but also creates new challenges in detecting the ‘last parasite’. Effective and accurate detection of malaria infections, both in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals are needed. In this review, the current progress in developing new diagnostic tools to fight malaria is presented. An ideal rapid test for malaria elimination is envisioned with examples to demonstrate how innovative technologies can assist the global defeat against this disease. Diagnostic gaps where technology can bring an impact to the elimination campaign for malaria are identified. Finally, how a combination of microfluidic-based technologies and smartphone-based read-outs could potentially represent the next generation of rapid diagnostic tests is discussed.

Keywords

  • Malaria
  • Rapid diagnostic tests
  • Elimination
  • Microfluidics
  • Smartphones

The burden of malaria

The first record of malaria fevers dates back to the 5th century BC [1]. Today, malaria remains one of the four most life-threatening infectious diseases worldwide, together with tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis [2]. Latest data published by the World Health Organization (WHO) are staggering: more than 216 million cases in 91 countries and more than 400,000 deaths occurred globally in 2016 [3]. These figures are the same as in 2015, indicating that despite the unprecedented efforts in recent years, progress has stalled. This calls for more effective tools to reduce malaria and finally to eliminate this scourge. If this historical milestone can be accomplished, it could save the global economies $2 trillion by 2040 [4].

Current diagnostic technologies and the challenges of detecting the ‘last’ parasite

This review only focuses on relevant innovative diagnostic technologies for malaria elimination settings where the malaria transmission is low; therefore, there is a critical need to detect asymptomatic individuals. Together with other effective interventions, ultra-sensitive rapid diagnostic tests are much needed to identify the invisible reservoirs. The role of innovative tools becomes crucial in the fight against malaria and the WHO identifies three strategic pillars (universal access to prevention, drugs and diagnosis, elimination and surveillance), of which accurate and effective diagnostics at the point-of-care (POC) is the first step towards appropriate diagnosis and treatment for malaria infection [5, 6].

Table 1 compares the performance of currently available malaria diagnostic tests for case management and surveillance. The landscape for malaria diagnosis can be divided into two main groups, POC methods in case management and laboratory-based methods for surveillance [7]. In case management, microscopy and RDTs are the two diagnostic methods that are recommended in primary settings whilst highly sensitive RDTs and molecular diagnostics [polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)] are often used in laboratory settings [8]. While presenting ultra-sensitivity (less than 2 parasites/μL for both Pan and Pf-LAMP) in the field [9, 10], implementing malaria diagnostic tools in the field still requires addressing of several critical challenges such as simplified sample preparation steps, ready to use kits that require no cold chain [11]. Further, there is no reported literature referring to the use of malaria LAMP as a diagnostic tool in populations, or of being endorsed and procured by any programs or governments. In the meantime, also being less sensitive, conventional RDTs are at much lower cost of approximately 1 $USD per test [12]. Field studies have shown that POC methods such as microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are effective in low-resource settings (LRS) [10, 1325].
Table 1

Characteristics of current malaria diagnostic tools used in case management and surveillance

 

LoD (p/µL or ng mL−1)

Sensitivity (%) (95% CI)

Specificity (%) (95% CI)

Cost ($US/test)

Time

Other requirements

Instrument

Test

Case management

 Microscopy

Expert: 4–20 [18]

Depends on microscopist

~ 3000

0.12–0.40 [19]

60 min [18]

Trained personnel, microscope, Giemsa stain [18]

Average: 50–200 [19]

 RDTs

Existing RDTs: 100 p/µL [22]

Latest product: 80 pg/mL for PfHRP2 [21]

> 85% depending on species [19]

> 99% [19]

No need for expensive instrument

0.55–1.50 [18]

20 min [20]

Test kit, appropriate storage conditions [18]

Surveillance

 RDTs

Latest product: 80 pg/mL for PfHRP2 [21]

> 85% depending on species [19]

> 99% [19]

No need for expensive instrument

0.55–1.50 [18]

20 min [20]

Test kit, appropriate storage conditions [18]

 PCR

26 (real-time) [10]

100% [23]

> 99% [10]

Real-time instrument > 20,000 [25]

1.5–4.0 [24]

Standard > 6 h

Thermocycler, cold chain, power, reagent grade, water

− 0.5 to 5. 0 [24]

 LAMP

47 (real-time) [10]

83.3% [22]

> 99% [22]

Conventional PCR and LAMP ~ 5000 [25]

0.40–0.70 [24]

60 min

Heat source for amplification and DNA extraction

≥ 1 [23]

97.3% [24]

> 85% [23]

p/µL parasites/µL, LoD limit of detection, CI confidence interval

Microscopy

Microscopy is the reference standard for visualization of parasites in blood smears with an analytical sensitivity under normal circumstances approximately tenfold inferior than that of molecular testing [26]. Microscope has been commonly used as a diagnostic tool in peripheral health centres for various reasons, including availability [27]. However, the quality of such diagnosis depends on the availability and skills of trained microscopists, which might not always be available in the LRS, where malaria is endemic.

Rapid diagnostic tests

Field studies have confirmed the benefits of introducing RDTs into routine testing such as better case management, improved adherence to test results, and having more rational treatments [28, 29]. Characteristics of current malaria RDTs are summarized in Table 2. Key advantages of RDTs are the ease to use and quick result delivery time (15–20 min). Unlike PCR or microscopy, RDTs detect circulating antigen; therefore they can also be used to detect placental malaria [30]. Diagnosis of malaria in pregnancy is challenging because of placental sequestration, which is specific to Plasmodium falciparum infections, can make microscopy detection of parasites difficult.
Table 2

Advantages and disadvantages of current malaria RDTs

Advantage

Disadvantages

Easy to use

Deletion of the Pfhrp2 gene leads to false negative RDTs (particularly in populations in the Amazon region)

Low cost

Lack of adequate sensitivity for detection of infection in asymptomatic individuals and/or prozone effect

Quick result delivery time (< 20 min)

Lack of heat stability when being stored in endemic settings

Portable and disposable

Inability to differentiate non-Pf malaria

Require minimal laboratory infrastructure, power or external equipment

Inability to distinguish current and past infections

Quick training

Inability to quantify parasite density, especially for assessing severity of illness or monitoring treatment efficacy

Although using the same technology of lateral flow immunoassays, the performance of malaria RDTs varies greatly from brand-to-brand, and lot-to-lot, especially with specimens having low parasite density (< 200 parasites/μL). In a collaboration between the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), the WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 293 malaria RDTs were evaluated from 2008 to 2016 [31]. Most of the evaluated malaria RDTs detect P. falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) or P. falciparum lactase dehydrogenase (PfpLDH). In the last round of evaluation, anomalies that interfered with result interpretation were also recorded [31]. The most common anomalies were incomplete clearing and red background, which were observed in 48 and 24% of products. The second most common anomalies were failed migration of liquid, incomplete migration and patchy broken test lines, which occurred in 15, 11 and 11% of the products, respectively.

The performance of lateral flow-based RDTs depends on two main factors: the sensitivity and specificity of antibody-antigen combinations, and the ability to facilitate reliable liquid migration on the nitrocellulose membrane. Much research has focused on new biomarker discovery [3234], and only limited attention has been paid to reduce limitations imposed by the inhomogeneous migration of liquid across porous nitrocellulose membranes [35].

Figure 1 illustrates how unstructured the flow paths could be in a nitrocellulose membrane [36]. As the migration of liquid occurs in a porous network and is not actively controlled, a number of limitations arise: large volumes of sample needed, accumulation of reagents at the leading edge of the liquid flow, and increased cross-reactivity [37]. It is, therefore, time to consider alternative options to facilitate a more precise liquid migration, hence more accurate test results.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Scanning electron micrograph showing the porousity of nitrocellulose membrane

(Reprinted with permission from [36] copyright 2014 Royal Society of Chemistry)

Promising and alternative technologies for malaria detection

Table 3 summarizes six major classes of technologies used for detecting malaria and indicates their maturity levels. These technologies are individually reviewed in depth elsewhere [38] and most of them rely on standard concepts using immunoassays [39, 40], molecular diagnostics [4149] and the visualization of parasites [5053]. Table 4 provides specifications of some recently entered market malaria diagnostic [38]. Of those market-ready products, four of them are molecular diagnostics, three are immunoassays and one is based on automated microscopy. Several promising proof-of-concepts for the next generation of malaria RDTs are emerging. For example, prototypes have been built to detect the presence of haemozoin in blood sample [5457]. Haemozoin crystals are produced by Plasmodium parasites as a final non-toxic compound of haemoglobin metabolism. In a specific example, a portable light meter was built to image crystalized haemozoin pigment [58]. These pigments are birefringent, so the detection of haemozoin is based on rotating a plane of polarized light through them and observing anisotropic output of the light. The minimum concentration of haemozoin that could be detected with this polarized light system was 15 pg/mL, equivalent to 30 parasites/μL of blood. Applications in the field are to be tested.
Table 3

Examples of promising technologies for point-of-care diagnostics.

table based on information contained in Ref [38]

LAMP loop-mediated isothermal amplification, MRR magnetic resonance relaxometry, NINA non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification, MOT magneto-optical technology, VNB Homozoin-generated vapour nanobubble

Table 4

Specifications of recently-entered market* technologies for malaria diagnosis.

table based on information contained in Ref [38]

Technology

Product

Developer

Description

Type of detection

Performance

Turn-around time

Sample type

Environmental requirements

Cost per test

Cost per instrument

Power/labour/infrastructure requirements

Result display and storage

Quality control

Microscopy

Parasight

Sight Diagnostics Ltd, 2014

Automated microscopy suitable for processing of multiple malaria

Slide reading

Under way

n/a

Blood smear

n/a

  

n/a

n/a

n/a

Malaria RDTs**

Fio-net

Fio Corporation, 2012

Universal RDT reader and cloud information services to improve malaria RDT quality assurance and malaria surveillance

Combination of mobile diagnostics (mobile universal reader) with cloud information services

Automated and customising reports

Sensitivity and specificity are functions of the RDTs being read

RDTs processing time is dependent on manufacturer’s recommendation

Data upload within minutes

Daily quality control needed

Depending on RDTs’ manufacturers

Subject to RDTs manufacturers’ recommendations

5–40 °C

Similar to pre-paid cellphone plans

Battery powered

Basic 1 day training needed

On screen and web portal

CE marked

UMT

Fyodor Biotechnologies, 2015

A senstitive and specific lateral flow assay detecting novel Plasmodium proteins shed in the urine of febril malaria patients

Dipstick technology (lateral flow assay)

LOD 125 parasites/µL

~ 20 min

100 µL urine

n/a

n/a

 

Usable by lay people

n/a

n/a

Holomic Rapid Diagnostic Reader

Holomic LLC, 2013

Universal RDT reader attachment for smartphones and software to read RDTs and transmit result to a secure cloud information service

Portable, smartphone-based lateral flow immunoassay reader

Quantitative and qualitative

RDTs processing time is dependent on manufacturer’s recommendation

Data upload within seconds

Depending on RDTs’ manufacturers

Subject to RDTs manufacturers’

5–40 °C

Customisable

$US500

Battery powered

Basic < 0.5 day training needed

User interface of the smartphones application

Class I medical device

Nucleic acid detection

LAMP Malaria Diagnostic Kit

Eiken Chemical Ltd and FIND, 2012

Commercial LAMP test kit containing primers and reagents needed to run assays using benchtop laboratory equipment

Isothermal DNA amplification

Fluorescence of visual detection

For pan-LAMP: 97.0% sensitivity

For Pf-LAMP: 93.3% sensitivity

85.0% specificity

60 min

30–60 µL blood

Stable for 12 months at < 30 °C

$US5

$US10’000

Electricity (batter-powered possible)

4 days of training required

Turbidimeter and software

CE marked

Positive and negative controls included

illumigene LAMP

Meridian Bioscience

An automated and compact LAMP technology to qualitatively detect Plasmodium spp. DNA in human whole blood samples

Isothermal DNA amplification

Sensitivity 100%

Specificity 89.3%

< 50 min

Human whole blood

Stable for 12 months at 2–30 °C

n/a

 

Does not require specialised laboratory equipment

n/a

CE marked

MicroPCR

Tulip Group and Bigtec Labs, 2013

POC real-time quantitative PCR instrument

Fluorescent probe-based real-time PCR

> 99% sensitivity and specificity

LOD 2 parasites/µL blood

45–60 min

100 µL blood

15–30 °C

$US15

$US8000

Battery powered

1–2 days training required

5000 test results can be stored internally, cloud information available

CE marked

Truelab

Molbio, 2013

A quantitative micro PCR platform containing all equipment and reagents needed for point-of-care applications

Using the proprietary magnetic nanoparticles to capture DNA

n/a

< 60 min

Whole blood

n/a

  

n/a

A customised micro printer is available

n/a

* Recently-entered market means products pass the regulatory and policy stage

** G6PD point-of-care tests are not included due to lack of information for popular products. CareStart G6PD RDT (AccessBiO) and POC G6PD (PATH) are working on promising products

Another example utilizes a portable breath analyzer: breaths of malaria-infected patients were found to contain terpenes, a family of aromatic chemicals that are produced by parasites that can further attract mosquitoes [59, 60]. A pilot study in Malawi confirmed that these aromatic compounds could be transported into the lungs and hence could be detected in the exhalation of infected patients [61].

Despite being unquestionably novel, these abovementioned methods of detection still need to prove their practicality for POC in LRS and demonstrate a clinically relevant limit of detection (LOD). For instance, in the breath analyzer, it would be useful to be able to convert the level of terpenes detected in breath into parasite density.

Specifications for a new generation of malaria RDTs

Different settings require different target product profiles (TPP) [8]. Unlike previous malaria control campaigns, the key characteristics of malaria elimination efforts are to interrupt endemic transmission and to prevent its re-establishment [62]. The Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (known as PATH) and FIND are pioneering the development and validation of sensitive rapid tests for mass screening in LRS. They also proposed a TPP for malaria RDTs in elimination settings, stating specific requirements for the ideal rapid tests according to concept of Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly, Equipment-free and Deliverable (ASSURED) [63]. The desired LOD is 5 parasites/µL or less, or concentration range of 6–12 ng/mL PfHRP2 [63]. For RDT developers it is important to note the caveat of the prozone phenomenon that might prevent detection of high parasite density [64]. Poor specificity could lead to over-treatment, thus depreciation of the intended value of RDTs (from public health perspectives); therefore, the required specificity for effective malaria diagnosis is at least 97% or ideally 99% [63].

Additional requirements for ideal RDTs are suitability and appropriateness for LRS where most malaria cases occur. To make an impact simplicity and affordability are of utmost importance. Simplicity means, the system should be equipment-free and should require very little resources [65]. A simple and automated test could obviate false results caused by user-errors [66]. Affordability is difficult to measure and depends on the cost–benefit equation of a specific situation. Also, tests should be designed to minimize impact of inappropriate storage conditions (2–40 °C) on reagent stability and usability of the devices [67].

Microfluidic technology for malaria POC testing

Microfluidics enable the miniaturization and simplification of complicated analytical processes while consuming less reagents, minimizing waste, and requiring less supporting instrumentation [68]. This stems out from the predictable behaviour of liquids at the microscale where flow is typically laminar. At microscale, minute amounts of liquids can be manipulated using microstructures, such as microvalves, micromixers or micropumps [69]. Low volumes of reagents, fast reaction times, compact and portable platforms are just a few advantages that make microfluidics technology attractive for POC applications [70, 71]. Figure 2 shows several examples demonstrating the archetype of microfluidic-based diagnostics for POC applications, which is an integrated system composed of a disposable unit (where analysis takes place) and a signal acquisition and processing module to process the results. (a) [72], (b) [73], (c) [74].
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Examples of microfluidic-based diagnostics for low resource settings. Reprinted with permission: a from [72], copyright 2015 The American Association for the Advancement of Science, b from [73], copyright 2017 Royal Society of Chemistry, c from [74] copyright 2018, Diagnostics for All. Image courtesy of Diagnostics for All

Currently, microfluidic-based diagnostic devices can be divided into two categories: non-paper-based “traditional” microfluidics and paper-based microfluidics [75, 76]. Research on traditional microfluidics often focuses on miniaturizing conventional techniques. For example, a collection of passive and active mixing elements were designed to facilitate mixing processes on chips [77]. Recent work in developing microfluidic-based diagnostic devices has focused on integrating all necessary elements into stand-alone platforms [78, 79] because such integrated systems can operate without bulky accessories and do not require water, buffer, or a constant supply of electricity [80]. There are many ways to control liquid flows on microfluidic platforms, for instance, acoustic forces, mechanical forces, magnetic forces, as well as capillary and centrifugal forces [8185]. To satisfy the stringent requirements for LRS, devices based on capillary and centrifugal forces have shown promising results. Table 5 presents some examples of microfluidic-based systems that have been designed to detect PfHRP2 and PfpLDH antigens or genetic materials from the parasites using on-chip molecular testing, cell deformation mechanism, electrical, optical, and magnetic detections amongst others [54, 58, 79, 81, 8694].
Table 5

Performance of proof-of-concept platforms based on microfluidics for malaria detection

Application

Concept/detection principle

Biomarker/target

Limit of detection

Performance

Time (min)

Refs

Sensitivity (%)

Specificity (%)

Molecular analysis

Paper-based LAMP

P. falciparum

5 p/µL

61%

98%

45 min

[81]

P. vivax

81%

98%

P. pan

> 80%

> 98%

Continuous flow PCR

P. falciparum

2 p/µL

97.40%

93.80%

n/a

[86]

< 1 p/µL

n/a

n/a

2.5 h

[87]

Cell deformation mechanism

Inertial focusing

P. falciparum

2–10 p/µL

n/a

n/a

400 µL/min

[88]

Inertial microfluidics

P. falciparum iRBCs

2 cells/min

n/a

  

[89]

Non-inertial lift effect

P. falciparum ring stage iRBCs

Enrichment factor of 4.3

n/a

  

[90]

Throughput 12,000 cells/h

Electrical detection

Electrical conductivity of iRBCs is significantly higher than healthy RBCs

P. falciparum ring stage

n/a

n/a

  

[91]

Optofluidic-flow analyser that can measure the optical absorption of RBCs in P. falciparum infected blood sample

P. falciparum

1712 RBCs/s

n/a

 

3 min

[92]

2.96% parasite density

Naked-eye screening of in-meso detection of hemozoin crystallites based on birefringence

Hemozoin crystals produced by P. falciparum

n/a

  

~ 12 min

[58]

Optical detection

Visual detection of colored assay spot on a disposable microfluidic card based on a flow-through membrane immunoassay

Malaria PfHRP2

10–20 ng/mL

n/a

 

1–5 min

[79]

Paper-based catridge containing detection areas for both thin and thick smears

P. falciparum

100 p/µL

n/a

 

30 min

[93]

Magnetic detection

Cell enrichment microfluidics combined with magnetic relaxometry detection

P. falciparum ring stage parasites

5% parasite density

n/a

 

15 min

[54]

Detection of hemozoin in iRBCs by magnetic resonance relaxometry

Hemozoin in iRBCs in P. falciparum infections

< 10 p/µL

n/a

 

Few mins

[94]

RBC red blood cell, iRBC infected red blood cell

Immunodiagnostics on microfluidic platforms for malaria detection

Standard protocols to perform immunodiagnostics on microfabricated platforms require sample pre-concentration, flow control and detection of biomarkers (analytes and/or parasites). These multi-step protocols can benefit greatly from miniaturization, and in fact, microfluidic-based immunoassays have demonstrated their potential for reliable and accurate performance [95, 96]. Figure 3 presents some examples to illustrate how microfluidics technology can be used to detect malaria by different methods of detection, such as molecular testing, size-based cell sorting, electrical differentiation of healthy and infected red blood cells, optical detection of antigen and magnetic detection of haemozoin. (a) [97], (b) [88], (c) [91], (d) [79], (e) [94].
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Examples of microfluidic prototypes for malaria diagnosis using different methods. Reprinted with permission: a from [86], copyright 2016 Wiley–VCH, b from [77], copyright 2014 Royal Society of Chemistry, c from [80] copyright 2014 Elsevier, d from [68] copyright 2012 Royal Society of Chemistry, e from [83] copyright 2014 Springer Nature

Sample pre-concentration

Low antigen concentration is a common problem in diagnostic immunoassays and malaria antigen detection is not an exception. To overcome this challenge, several prototypes of analyte concentrator have been developed to enrich biomarkers hence improve LOD. To illustrate how analyte enrichment prior to analysis can improve sensitivity of ELISA, Cheow et al. reported a prototype that can enhance the LOD of prostate-specific-antigen assay up to 1.85 pg/mL [98]. The significant enhancement of 100-fold was achieved by trapping the charged fluorescent product of standard ELISA (analyte-bound enzyme complex) using a multiplex electrokinetic preconcentration technique without modifying the immunobinding process.

Blood is the most common type of specimen for POC testing. However, the cellular components in whole blood often cause non-specific background. To address this problem, a continuous microfluidic device was developed to filter the cells, making plasma available for on-chip analysis [99].

Healthy and P. falciparum-infected red blood cells exhibit different ionic permeability of their plasma membrane, with infected cells being more permeable. Therefore, when healthy and infected cells are suspended in a low conductivity medium, infected cells lose internal ions and acquire a different dielectrophoretic mobility than healthy ones [100]. Several groups have developed microfluidic chips using dielectrophoresis and variants of it to separate cells successfully leading to promising prototypes for detecting infected red blood cells thus malaria infections [101103].

Flow control

Controlling flow on microfabricated devices often introduces a great degree of complexity. For example, a combination of screws, pneumatic and solenoid valves was integrated into a microfluidic platform to actuate flow and control chemical gradients in microchannels [104]. This design might be suitable for laboratory-based tests, but may not lead to robust systems for LRS. Nonetheless, the uses of centrifugation and capillary forces to transport liquids are excellent examples of stand-alone systems [105, 106]. Extensive reviews discussing how to engineer flow path in microscale using capillary and centrifugal forces for POC applications exist [69, 107]. Libraries of microfluidic elements such as valves, mixers and pumps have also been developed [77, 108, 109].

Detection

Sensitive detection remains one of the biggest hurdles for clinical diagnosis at the onset of infection. The bottleneck is the limited amount of detectable analytes in a very limited volume of sample. One strategy is to amplify the signal, then convert it into quantitative measurements such as electrical and/or optical signals [96]. The detection strategy is therefore critical for the overall design and fabrication of a device. Optical detection is considered as the ideal read-out for POC applications of microfluidics owing to the simple design and potentially low cost [110, 111]. There are five main categories of optical detection based on the type of generated optical signals: fluorescence, luminescence, absorbance, surface plasmon resonance, and surface-enhanced Raman scattering [112116]. Detailed discussions about detection strategies for microfluidics systems also exist in the literature [117].

Molecular testing on microfluidic platforms for malaria detection

At the moment, PCR and LAMP are the most sensitive technique for identification of asymptomatic individuals, for example, in 130 clinical samples presenting no parasites based on microscopy, as low as 3.6 × 10−4 parasite/μL could be identified in 117 samples by a highly sensitive genus-specific quantitative reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (qPCR) [118]. This low LOD was achieved by amplifying and detecting the total nucleic acids of the 18S rRNA genes, which increased the analytical sensitivity of the assay by more than 1 log unit compared to DNA only. However, current applications of PCR and LAMP are still restricted to well-equipped laboratories and thus not suitable for LRS [119]. Miniaturized PCR and/or LAMP is desirable, but developing such devices is a more challenging task than that for biomarkers detection for three reasons: (1) sample pre-treatment is essential for extracting DNA of parasites for downstream analysis, (2) the critical signal amplification step highly depends on temperature control, and (3) robust, low cost, and portable detection techniques are required for remote settings [120].

Sample pre-treatment

The PCR/LAMP process requires isolation of genetic materials from infected cells, pre-concentration, as well as signal amplification and analysis. All steps need to be integrated seamlessly in a closed process to overcome time consuming laboratory-like processing steps. Earlier studies have demonstrated successful prototypes that could sequentially perform cell isolation and lysis for messenger RNA purification [121]. On this device, a unique valving system was designed to facilitate liquid migration and analysis. Microfluidics with “macrofluidics” can also be combined to precisely reconstitute reagents, and automated filling liquids for multiplex PCR technique. A successful story is the Cepheid GeneXpert instrument, where all steps from sample preparation, nucleic acid extraction, to thermal cycling for amplification and eventually detection can be integrated into one platform [122]. A review of microfluidic-based DNA analysis systems is available here [123].

Heating systems

The major challenge of miniaturizing bench-top PCR instruments is the requirement of numerous heating cycles for thermal reactions. To overcome this challenge, micromixers and microchambers were designed to allow thermal reactions to take place rapidly [124]. To speed up DNA amplification by improving thermal transfer through interfaces, microfluidic elements, such as mixers, heaters and temperature controlling units were integrated into glass and silicon substrates [125]. Another strategy to enable different heating regions using continuous flow was investigated using a Peltier element to regulate the temperature for thermal cycling [86]. On this platform, as few as to 2 P. falciparum parasites/μL could be detected. This device offered a simplified sample processing step using desiccated hydrogel, reagents and a camera to detect amplicons. When analysing 188 archived, frozen samples collected in Uganda, this prototype achieved 97.4% sensitivity and 93.8% specificity.

One of the most promising development for stand-alone integrated systems for DNA analysis perhaps was an elegant combination of an exothermic reaction with phase change materials to regulate the heat for thermal cycling [126]. In this prototype, downstream processes such as purification and concentration of sample were integrated seamlessly into the same platform.

Recent work reported by Juul et al. challenged the need of thermal cycling for PCR-like systems by proposing an endogenous enzyme activity detection called rolling-circle enhanced enzyme activity to quantify as little as 1 P. falciparum parasite/μL [87]. The principle of this method is based on using rolling-circle-amplification (RCA) technique to convert a circular DNA template into a 103 tandem repeat rolling-circle product. In this system, RCA substrates can be processed by the DNA-cleaving enzyme topoisomerase I from Plasmodium parasites, which produces many DNA circles leading to enhanced signal. RCA products can have sizes reaching micrometers, which enable visualization at single molecular level.

Paper-based microfluidics

Paper-based microfluidics was proposed by Whitesides and colleagues [127]. Since then, this technology has been growing fast with great promises for global health applications [128]. Unlike its sister products of paper test strips, paper-based microfluidic analytical devices offer well-defined, millimetre-sized microchannels to transport liquids in a controlled manner, yet with low cost for production (< $0.01) [129]. Using hydrophobic “inks” to define areas on hydrophilic paper, it is possible to perform multiple immunodiagnostic assays on the same test strip. To illustrate how complex analytical processes can be simplified and transformed into a paper-based microfluidic device, Pereira et al. integrated concentration and detection steps into a single step assay [130]. The analyte PfpLDH in low abundance was first accumulated using a micellar aqueous two-phase system (ATPS). The micellar ATPS consisted in a nonionic Triton X-114 surfactant, which was used to concentrate biomarkers in a sample and enhance the LOD. In this system, a tenfold improved LOD of 10 ng/μL PfpLDH was achieved. In an alternative development of a foldable, card-like test device, PfHRP2 could be detected and quantified [131]. The generated signal in presence of PfHRP2 was amplified by gold nanoparticles, yielding a LOD of 1.2 ng/mL PfHRP2, which is four times higher than that of the unamplified case. These studies serves as excellent examples for low cost, non-instrumented analysis systems without compromised performance. Many other innovative approaches to control liquid flows such as selective hydrophobic rendering or origami in which folding of multiple paper layers to trigger reactions were also investigated successfully [132134].

Interfacing microfluidic-based analysis with networked mobile devices

Mobile health applications have rapidly been growing in recent years and there is a trend in interfacing consumer electronics such as smartphones with lateral flow RDTs or microfluidic-based devices [135, 136]. Such combination is expected to deliver increased objectivity of test result interpretation and improved connectivity of the entire healthcare systems. The automation and digitized test results can be more easily combined with other health related parameters and combined with medical decision support systems. User-friendly interfaces, automated result analyses, remote-monitoring and data aggregation, increased storage conditions, and active quality assurance are just a few additional benefits of this approach [137].

In 2008, paper-based microfluidics were integrated with a smartphone camera to perform immunoassays [128]. The camera of the phone was used to take a photograph of the detection zone before and after the deposition of specimen. Since then, many groups have started to develop and enhance capabilities of phone-based low cost diagnostic readers [136]. Table 6 presents an overview of recent work in developing phone-based prototypes that can be used to detect variety of biomarkers for a wide range of diseases with clinically relevant performance. Devices are designed for a broad spectrum of applications, from genetic testing, cancer detection to personalized food allergen monitoring [136, 138140]. A wide range of strategies are also derived to enhance signal strength, for instance, using Quantum dots, Rayleigh/Mie scatter or gold nanoparticles [141143]. At present, applications of smartphone-based diagnostics for malaria detection can be divided into two categories: phone-based RDT readers, which provides automatic interpretation of results, and phone-based brightfield microscopes, which allow simple and portable means to visualize parasites in blood samples [138149].
Table 6

Examples of lab-on-a-phone applications

Optical detection

Data analysis

Signal transduction

Target biomarker

Sample

Platform

Performance

Refs.

Phone LED and camera + 4 external lenses and mirrors

Mie scattering simulation online

Immunoagglutination (Mie light scattering)

PfHRP malaria biomarker

Human blood

Microbeads

1 pg/mL–10 ng/mL

[144]

LOD 1 pg/mL

Computational power + external optical fiber + LED

Phone application

Fluorescence

Genomic DNA

Escherichia coli and Staphylococus aureus

Microfluidics

Comparable to that of commercial PCR

[138]

Phone camera

Phone app

Colorimetry

HE4 (ovarian cancer biomarker)

Urine

Microchip

89.5% sensitivity, 90% specificity

[139]

2 external LEDs + phone camera

Phone app

Colorimetry

Peanut

Cookies

Sample holder

< 1 ppm

[140]

External LED + phone camera + additional lens

Phone application

Fluorescence

Escherichia coli

Milk, water

Glass capillary

5–10 cfu/mL

[141]

External LED and optical fibers

Phone app

Immunochromatography (Mie scatter)

Thyroid stimulating hormone

Human serum

Nitrocellulose test strip

0.31 mIU/L

[142]

Phone camera + external LED

Computer

Colorimetry

Human IgG

Human IgG sample

Microfluidics, silver deposition

n/a

[143]

Snap-on attachment (lens + LEDs) + phone camera

Phone app

Immunochromatography

Malaria biomarkers

Whole blood

Rapid test diagnostic strips

4 × dilution c.f. RDTs

[145]

3 external attachments + lenses + LED + phone camera

Phone application

Fluorescence

Cell count

Blood

Sample holder

600–2500 white cells/image

[146]

400–700 red cells/image

Phone camera

Phone app

Colorimetry

pH

 

Test strip

n/a

[147]

External LEDs and photodiode

Phone app

Colorimetry

Glucose

Urine

Paper strips

0–250 mg/dL

[148]

LOD 10 mg/dL

Snap-on attachments (lens + LED) + phone camera

ImageJ on computer

Fluorescence

Prostate specific antigen (PSA)

Whole blood

Microfluidics

Dynamic range 0.08–60 ng/mL

[149]

LOD 0.4–0.04 ng/mL

Phone-based RDT readers

A smartphone was used for quantitative reading of the Optimal-IT test, a commercially available malaria RDT with a snap-on unit as reader that is suitable for both Android and iPhone [145]. Images of RDTs were acquired, in either transmission or reflection, and then processed in real time to deliver test results within 10 min. The spatio-temporal information collected by this device can document prevalence of many infectious diseases and would allow efficient tracking of epidemics. Another approach to integrate a custom microfluidic-based immunoassay detecting PfHPR2 with phone-based detection was the development of a microfluidic chip, which can be connected to a phone camera to analyze signals and deliver results in 10 min. The opto-mechanical unit in this case consisted of optical fibers, microfluidic chips and mirrors, and could be easily removed from the back camera of the phone. The principle was to quantify changes in fluorescent intensity upon capturing of PfHPR2 on the sensing region, yielding a LOD of 1 pg/mL of PfHRP2 in 10% diluted blood [144].

Phone-based bright-field microscope

Accurate and consistent blood smear reading is challenging to attain in health centres or small clinics in remote regions. A phone-based microscope is a low cost option that can offers enhanced image quality, improved accuracy and user comfort [146, 150]. There are two simplified imaging techniques suitable for smartphone apps: (1) lens-free holographic imaging, and (2) on-lens devices.

Holography is an image-constructing technique using scattering and interference of light and pixel super-resolution to enhance optical images [151]. An automated lens-less holography was developed with a sufficient field of view of 24 mm2 to visualize and capture images of P. falciparum in blood smears [152].

Phone-based microscopy can also be engineered to be a field-ready polarized light microscope without compromised fidelity and resolution [153]. The principle was to detect light birefringence caused by the crystallization of haemozoin. This field-based, modular microscope could magnify Plasmodium chabaudi parasites up to 50 times, gaining a comparable performance compared to conventional polarized microscope. Additional benefits of this prototype are simple operations and low cost per test. Further work using clinical samples could confirm the full potential of this novel phone-based polarized light microscope.

Conclusion

Accurate and effective diagnosis is the first step to further pursue efforts to eliminate and reduce the global burden of malaria by 90% in 2030. Current diagnostic methods can detect malaria symptomatic infections, but often miss out asymptomatic cases. The rise in proportion of asymptomatic infections in low transmission areas calls for a new generation of rapid diagnostic tests that can detect the hidden parasite reservoir. Technology is advanced nowadays to (at least theoretically) be able to track down the last parasite carriers. While malaria case management has improved, other causes of fever need to be detected and treated accordingly. Therefore, the ideal RDT should come in as a complete package with ultra-high sensitivity and specificity, meet the ASSURED standards for LRS, and also provide additional diagnostic capabilities. Microfluidic devices coupled to phone-based readouts offer a unique opportunity to not only reduce the burden of infectious diseases, such as malaria, but also could provide tools for monitoring epidemics and elimination progress on very large scales.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

NMP drafted the manuscript; NMP and EMD wrote the manuscript with contributions from HPB and WK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Funding

NMP receives doctoral scholarship funding from the Engineering for Developing Program at ETH Zürich (Sawiris Foundation).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Lengghalde 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
(2)
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4051 Basel, Switzerland
(3)
University of Basel, Petersgraben 1, 4001 Basel, Switzerland
(4)
IBM Research-Zurich, Säumerstrasse 4, 8803 Rüschlikon, Switzerland

References

  1. Cox FEG. History of human parasitology. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15:595–612.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. WHO. Accelerating progress on HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and neglected tropical diseases : a new agenda for 2016–2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. p. 64.Google Scholar
  3. WHO. World malaria report 2017. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Gates Foundation. From aspiration to action: what will it take to end malaria. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; 2015.Google Scholar
  5. WHO. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.Google Scholar
  6. Mabey D, Peeling RW, Ustianowski A, Perkins MD. Diagnostics for the developing world. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2:231–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Tangpukdee N, Duangdee C, Wilairatana P, Krudsood S. Malaria diagnosis: a brief review. Korean J Parasitol. 2009;47:93–102.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. The malERA Consultative Group on Diagnoses and Diagnostics. A research agenda for malaria eradication: diagnoses and diagnostics. PLoS Med. 2011;8:1–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Vallejo AF, Martínez NL, González IJ, Arévalo-Herrera M, Herrera S. Evaluation of the loop mediated isothermal DNA amplification (LAMP) kit for malaria diagnosis in P. vivax endemic settings of Colombia. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9:e3453.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook J, Aydin-Schmidt B, González IJ, Bell D, Edlund E, Nassor MH, et al. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for point-of-care detection of asymptomatic low-density malaria parasite carriers in Zanzibar. Malar J. 2015;14:43.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Lucchi NW, Ndiaye D, Britton S, Udhayakumar V. Expanding the malaria molecular diagnostic options: opportunities and challenges for loop-mediated isothermal amplification tests for malaria control and elimination. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018;18:195–203.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. WHO. Determining cost effectiveness of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in rural areas with high prevalence. World Health Organization Western Pacific Region. http://www.wpro.who.int/sites/rdtPAGE. Accessed 21 May 2018.
  13. WHO. New perspective in malaria diagnosis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Das S, Peck RB, Barney R, Jang IK, Kahn M, Zhu M, et al. Performance of an ultra-sensitive Plasmodium falciparum HRP2-based rapid diagnostic test with recombinant HRP2, culture parasites, and archived whole blood samples. Malar J. 2018;17:118.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Das S, Jang IK, Barney B, Peck R, Rek JC, Arinaitwe E, et al. Performance of a high-sensitivity rapid diagnostic test for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in asymptomatic individuals from Uganda and Myanmar and naive human challenge infections. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017;97:1540–50.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health. Project diameter—enhanced visual parasite detection; 2014.Google Scholar
  17. BioCat GmbH. Loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). https://www.biocat.com/genomics/rna-amplification/loop-mediated-isothermal-amplification-lamp. Accessed 21 May 2018.
  18. Hathiwala R, Mehta PR, Nataraj G, Hathiwala S. LED fluorescence microscopy: novel method for malaria diagnosis compared with routine methods. J Infect Public Health. 2016;10:1–5.Google Scholar
  19. Wongsrichanalai C, Barcus MJ, Muth S, Sutamihardja A, Wernsdorfer WH. A review of malaria diagnostic tools: microscopy and rapid diagnostic test (RDT). Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;77:119–27.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Feleke DG, Tarko S, Hadush H. Performance comparison of CareStart™ HRP2/pLDH combo rapid malaria test with light microscopy in north-western Tigray, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17:399.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Jimenez A, Rees-Channer RR, Perera R, Gamboa D, Chiodini PL, Gonzalez IJ, et al. Analytical sensitivity of current best-in-class malaria rapid diagnostic tests. Malar J. 2017;16:128.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. UNITAID. Malaria diagnostics technology and market landscape 2015; 2015.Google Scholar
  23. Hopkins H, Gonzalez IJ, Polley SD, Angutoko P, Ategeka J, Asiimwe C, et al. Highly sensitive detection of malaria parasitemia in a malaria-endemic setting: performance of a new loop-mediated isothermal amplification kit in a remote clinic in Uganda. J Infect Dis. 2013;208:645–52.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Cordray MS, Richards-Kortum RR. Emerging nucleic acid-based tests for point-of-care detection of malaria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87:223–30.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Erdman LK, Kain KC. Molecular diagnostic and surveillance tools for global malaria control. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2008;6:82–99.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Hofmann N, Mwingira F, Shekalaghe S, Robinson LJ, Mueller I, Felger I. Ultra-sensitive detection of Plasmodium falciparum by amplification of multi-copy subtelomeric targets. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001788.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. WHO. New perspectives malaria diagnosis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.Google Scholar
  28. Ezennia IJ, Nduka SO, Ekwunife OI. Cost benefit analysis of malaria rapid diagnostic test: the perspective of Nigerian community pharmacists. Malar J. 2017;16:7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Bisoffi Z, Sirima SB, Meheus F, Lodesani C, Gobbi F, Angheben A, et al. Strict adherence to malaria rapid test results might lead to a neglect of other dangerous diseases: a cost benefit analysis from Burkina Faso. Malar J. 2011;10:226.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kattenberg JH, Tahita CM, Versteeg IAJ, Tinto H, Traoré Coulibaly M, D’Alessandro U, et al. Evaluation of antigen detection tests, microscopy, and polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of malaria in peripheral blood in asymptomatic pregnant women in Nanoro, Burkina Faso. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87:251–6.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. WHO/FIND/CDC. Malaria rapid diagnostic test performance round 1–7 (2008–2016). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.Google Scholar
  32. Krampa F, Aniweh Y, Awandare G, Kanyong P. Recent progress in the development of diagnostic tests for malaria. Diagnostics. 2017;7:54.PubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathema VB, Na-Bangchang K. A brief review on biomarkers and proteomic approach for malaria research. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2015;8:253–62.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Jain P, Chakma B, Patra S, Goswami P. Potential biomarkers and their applications for rapid and reliable detection of malaria. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:852645.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Sajid M, Kawde AN, Daud M. Designs, formats and applications of lateral flow assay: a literature review. J Saudi Chem Soc. 2015;19:689–705.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Credou J, Volland H, Berthelot T. Photolinker-free photoimmobilization of antibodies onto cellulose for the preparation of immunoassay membranes. J Mater Chem B. 2015;3:1079–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Posthuma-Trumpie GA, Korf J, Van Amerongen A. Lateral flow (immuno)assay: its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A literature survey. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009;393:569–82.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. UNITAID. Malaria diagnostics technology and market landscape. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.Google Scholar
  39. Alere. Alere Launches the Alere™ Malaria Ag P.f, the first-ever rapid test to screen malaria infection in asymptomatic individuals; 2017. http://news.alere.com/~/media/Files/A/Alere-Newsroom-V2/press-release/Alere_Malaria_Ag_Pf_launch_release_4252017_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  40. Fyodor Biotechnologies Corp. Urine Malaria Test (UMT); 2015. http://www.fyodorbio.com/products/umt/. Accessed 1 Aug 2015.
  41. DIAGMAL. Diagmal rapid malaria diagnostic. http://www.diagmal.eu/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  42. John Hopkins researchers to evaluate malaria saliva test; 2015. https://globalbiodefense.com/2015/03/11/johns-hopkins-researchers-to-evaluate-malaria-saliva-test/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  43. MolBio Diagnostics. TrueLab. http://www.molbiodiagnostics.com/products_pcr_workstation.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  44. Aquila. Accutas for malaria. http://www.aquiladiagnostics.com/Accutas/for/Malaria. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  45. Meridian Biosciences. illumigene Malaria. http://www.meridianbioscience.eu/em-strong-illumi-strong-gene-em-reg-malaria.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  46. Labdisk: The portable lab bringing EU technology to Low- and Middle-Income countries; 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/labdisk-portable-lab-bringing-eu-technology-low-and-middle-income-countries. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  47. PATH. Non-instrumented nucleic acid amplification (NINA) platform. Program for appropriate technology in health. https://sites.path.org/dx/hiv-stis/nina/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  48. FIND. Foundation for innovative new diagnostics. https://www.finddx.org/news/high-throughput-lamp-for-diagnosis-of-malaria/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  49. QuantuMdx. NANOMAL Q-POC. http://quantumdx.com/applications/malaria. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  50. Intellectual Ventures Laboratory. Automated optical diagnostics microscopy; 2015. http://www.intellectualventureslab.com/invent/automated-optical-diagnostics-microscopy. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  51. Foldscope Instrument. Magnify your curiosity. https://www.foldscope.com/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  52. Becton Dickinson and Company. BD collaborates with Sight diagnostics to introduce parasight malaria detection device in India; 2016. http://www.bd.com/contentmanager/b_article.asp?Item_ID=28030. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  53. CellMic. http://www.cellmic.com/content/dxalldxlab/. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  54. Fook Kong T, Ye W, Peng WK, Wei Hou H, Marcos Preiser PR, et al. Enhancing malaria diagnosis through microfluidic cell enrichment and magnetic resonance relaxometry detection. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11425.PubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Newman DM, Heptinstall J, Matelon RJ, Savage L, Wears ML, Beddow J, et al. A magneto-optic route toward the in vivo diagnosis of malaria: preliminary results and preclinical trial data. Biophys J. 2008;95:994–1000.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Lukianova-Hleb E, Bezek S, Szigeti R, Khodarev A, Kelley T, Hurrell A, et al. Transdermal diagnosis of malaria using vapor nanobubbles. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015;21:1122–7.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Orbán Á, Butykai Á, Molnár A, Pröhle Z, Fülöp G, Zelles T, et al. Evaluation of a novel magneto-optical method for the detection of malaria parasites. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:1–8.Google Scholar
  58. Vallooran JJ, Handschin S, Pillai SM, Vetter BN, Rusch S, Beck H-PP, et al. Lipidic cubic phases as a versatile platform for the rapid detection of biomarkers, viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Adv Funct Mater. 2015;26:1–10.Google Scholar
  59. Kelly M, Su CY, Schaber C, Crowley JR, Hsu FF, Carlson JR, et al. Malaria parasites produce volatile mosquito attractants. Am Soc Microbiol. 2015;6:1–6.Google Scholar
  60. Berna AZ, McCarthy JS, Wang RX, Saliba KJ, Bravo FG, Cassells J, et al. Analysis of breath specimens for biomarkers of Plasmodium falciparum infection. J Infect Dis. 2015;212:1120–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Roberts M. Malaria breath test shows promise. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41820346. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
  62. Moonen B, Cohen JM, Snow RW, Slutsker L, Drakeley C, Smith DL, et al. Operational strategies to achieve and maintain malaria elimination. Lancet. 2010;376:1592–603.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. PATH. Target product profile : point-of-care malaria infection detection test. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health; 2014. http://sites.path.org/dx/files/2012/11/DIAMETER_IDT_TPP_FINAL_forwebsite.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  64. Gillet P, Scheirlinck A, Stokx J, De Weggheleire A, Chaúque HS, Canhanga ODJV, et al. Prozone in malaria rapid diagnostics tests: how many cases are missed? Malar J. 2011;10:166.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Weigl BH, Boyle DS, de los Santos T, Peck RB, Steele MS. Simplicity of use: a critical feature for widespread adoption of diagnostic technologies in low-resource settings. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2009;6:461–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Seidahmed OME, Mohamedein MMN, Elsir AA, Ali FT, Malik EFM, Ahmed ES. End-user errors in applying two malaria rapid diagnostic tests in a remote area of Sudan. Trop Med Int Health. 2008;13:406–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Albertini A, Lee E, Coulibaly SO, Sleshi M, Faye B, Mationg ML, et al. Malaria rapid diagnostic test transport and storage conditions in Burkina Faso, Senegal, Ethiopia and the Philippines. Malar J. 2012;11:406.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Whitesides GM. The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature. 2006;442:368–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Gervais L, De Rooij N, Delamarche E. Microfluidic chips for point-of-care immunodiagnostics. Adv Healthc Mater. 2011;23:151–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Yager P, Edwards T, Fu E, Helton K, Nelson K, Tam MR, et al. Microfluidic diagnostic technologies for global public health. Nature. 2006;442:412–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Hawkins K, Weigl B. Microfluidic diagnostics for low-resource settings. In: Proceedings of the SPIE; 2010. p. 75930L–75930L-15.Google Scholar
  72. Laksanasopin T, Guo TW, Nayak S, Sridhara AA, Xie S, Olowookere OO, et al. A smartphone dongle for diagnosis of infectious diseases at the point of care. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:273.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhao Y, Czilwik G, Klein V, Mitsakakis K, Zengerle R, Paust N. C-reactive protein and interleukin 6 microfluidic immunoassays with on-chip pre-stored reagents and centrifugo-pneumatic liquid control. Lab Chip. 2017;17:1666–77.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Ebola epidemic: medical and military technologies converge. http://africahealthitnews.com/ebola-epidemic-medical-and-military-technologies-converge/. cited 28 Nov 2017.
  75. Sia SK, Kricka LJ. Microfluidics and point-of-care testing. Lab Chip. 2008;8:1982.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Yamada K, Shibata H, Suzuki K, Citterio D. Toward practical application of paper-based microfluidics for medical diagnostics: state-of-the-art and challenges. Lab Chip. 2017;17:1206–49.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Meijer HEH, Singh MK, Kang TG, Den Toonder JMJ, Anderson PD. Passive and active mixing in microfluidic devices. Macromol Symp. 2009;279:201–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Dimov IK, Basabe-Desmonts L, Garcia-Cordero JL, Ross BM, Park Y, Ricco AJ, et al. Stand-alone self-powered integrated microfluidic blood analysis system (SIMBAS). Lab Chip. 2011;11:845–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Lafleur L, Stevens D, McKenzie K, Ramachandran S, Spicar-Mihalic P, Singhal M, et al. Progress toward multiplexed sample-to-result detection in low resource settings using microfluidic immunoassay cards. Lab Chip. 2012;12:1119–27.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Gomez FA. The future of microfluidic point-of-care diagnostic devices. Bioanalysis. 2013;5:1–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Bourquin Y, Reboud J, Wilson R, Zhang Y, Cooper JM. Integrated immunoassay using tuneable surface acoustic waves and lensfree detection. Lab Chip. 2011;11:2725–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Chen C-F, Liu J, Chang C-C, DeVoe DL. High-pressure on-chip mechanical valves for thermoplastic microfluidic devices. Lab Chip. 2009;9:3511–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Nam J, Huang H, Lim H, Lim C, Shin S. Magnetic separation of malaria-infected red blood cells in various developmental stages. Anal Chem. 2013;85:7316–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Juncker D, Schmid H, Drechsler U, Wolf H, Wolf M, Michel B, et al. Autonomous microfluidic capillary system. Anal Chem. 2002;74:6139–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Hugo S, Land K, Madou M, Kido H. A centrifugal microfluidic platform for point-of-care diagnostic applications. S Afr J Sci. 2014;110:1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Taylor BJ, Howell A, Martin KA, Manage DP, Gordy W, Campbell SD, et al. A lab-on-chip for malaria diagnosis and surveillance. Malar J. 2014;13:179.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Juul S, Nielsen CJF, Labouriau R, Roy A, Tesauro C, Jensen PW, et al. Droplet microfluidics platform for highly sensitive and quantitative detection of malaria-causing Plasmodium parasites based on enzyme activity measurement. ACS Nano. 2012;6:10676–83.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Warkiani ME, Tay AKP, Khoo BL, Xiaofeng X, Han J, Lim CT. Malaria detection using inertial microfluidics. Lab Chip. 2015;15:1101–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Birch CM, Hou HW, Han J, Niles JC. Identification of malaria parasite-infected red blood cell surface aptamers by inertial microfluidic SELEX (I-SELEX). Sci Rep. 2015;5:11347.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Geislinger TM, Chan S, Moll K, Wixforth A, Wahlgren M, Franke T. Label-free microfluidic enrichment of ring-stage Plasmodium falciparum-infected red blood cells using non-inertial hydrodynamic lift. Malar J. 2014;13:375.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Du E, Dao M, Suresh S. Quantitative biomechanics of healthy and diseased human red blood cells using dielectrophoresis in a microfluidic system. Extrem Mech Lett. 2014;1:35–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Banoth E, Kasula VK, Jagannadh VK, Gorthi SS. Optofluidic single-cell absorption flow analyzer for point-of-care diagnosis of malaria. J Biophotonics. 2016;9:610–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Horning MP, Delahunt CB, Singh SR, Garing SH, Nichols KP. A paper microfluidic cartridge for automated staining of malaria parasites with an optically transparent microscopy window. Lab Chip. 2014;14:2040.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Peng WK, Kong TF, Ng CS, Chen L, Huang Y, Bhagat AAS, et al. Micromagnetic resonance relaxometry for rapid label-free malaria diagnosis. Nat Med. 2014;20:1069–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Baratchi S, Khoshmanesh K, Sacristán C, Depoil D, Wlodkowic D, McIntyre P, et al. Immunology on chip: promises and opportunities. Biotechnol Adv. 2014;32:333–46.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Han KN, Li CA, Seong GH. Microfluidic chips for immunoassays. Annu Rev Anal Chem. 2013;6:119–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Xu G, Nolder D, Reboud J, Oguike MC, van Schalkwyk DA, Sutherland CJ, et al. Paper-origami-based multiplexed malaria diagnostics from whole blood. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2016;55:15250–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Cheow LF, Ko SH, Kim SJ, Kang KH, Han J. Increasing the sensitivity of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using multiplexed electrokinetic concentrator. Anal Chem. 2010;82:3383–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Yang S, Undar A, Zahn JD. A microfluidic device for continuous, real time blood plasma separation. Lab Chip. 2006;6:871–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Gascoyne P, Mahidol C, Ruchirawat M, Satayavivad J, Watcharasit P, Becker FF. Microsample preparation by dielectrophoresis: isolation of malaria. Lab Chip. 2002;2:70–5.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Wang XB, Yang J, Huang Y, Vykoukal J, Becker FF, Gascoyne PRC. Cell separation by dielectrophoretic field- flow-fractionation. Anal Chem. 2000;72:832–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Rousselet J, Markx GH, Pethig R. Separation of erythrocytes and latex beads by dielectrophoretic levitation and hyperlayer field-flow fractionation. Colloids Surfaces. 1998;140:209–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Macounová K, Cabrera CR, Yager P. Concentration and separation of proteins in microfluidic channels on the basis of transverse IEF. Anal Chem. 2001;73:1627–33.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Hulme SE, Shevkoplyas SS, Whitesides GM. Incorporation of prefabricated screw, pneumatic, and solenoid valves into microfluidic devices. Lab Chip. 2009;9:79–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Park J, Sunkara V, Kim TH, Hwang H, Cho YK. Lab-on-a-disc for fully integrated multiplex immunoassays. Anal Chem. 2012;84:2133–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Gervais L, Delamarche E. Toward one-step point-of-care immunodiagnostics using capillary-driven microfluidics and PDMS substrates. Lab Chip. 2009;9:3330–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Strohmeier O, Keller M, Schwemmer F, Zehnle S, Mark D, von Stetten F, et al. Centrifugal microfluidic platforms: advanced unit operations and applications. Chem Soc Rev. 2015;44:6187–229.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Oh KW, Ahn CH. A review of microvalves. J Micromechanics Microengineering. 2006;16:R13–39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Laser DJ, Santiago JG. A review of micropumps. J Micromechanics Microengineering. 2004;14:R35–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Kuswandi B. Nuriman, Huskens J, Verboom W. Optical sensing systems for microfluidic devices: a review. Anal Chim Acta. 2007;601:141–55.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Wu J, Zheng G, Lee LM. Optical imaging techniques in microfluidics and their applications. Lab Chip. 2012;12:3566.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Dittrich PS, Manz A. Single-molecule fluorescence detection in microfluidic channels-the Holy Grail in μTAS? Anal Bioanal Chem. 2005;382:1771–82.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. Mirasoli M, Guardigli M, Michelini E, Roda A. Recent advancements in chemical luminescence-based lab-on-chip and microfluidic platforms for bioanalysis. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2014;87:36–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  114. Chin CD, Laksanasopin T, Cheung YK, Steinmiller D, Linder V, Parsa H, et al. Microfluidics-based diagnostics of infectious diseases in the developing world. Nat Med. 2011;17:1015–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Petryayeva E, Krull UJ. Localized surface plasmon resonance: nanostructures, bioassays and biosensing-A review. Anal Chim Acta. 2011;706:8–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Li M, Cushing SK, Wu N. Plasmon-enhanced optical sensors: a review. Analyst. 2014;140:386–406.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Baker CA, Duong CT, Grimley A, Roper MG. Recent advances in microfluidic detection systems. Bioanalysis. 2009;1:967–75.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  118. Kamau E, Tolbert LS, Kortepeter L, Pratt M, Nyakoe N, Muringo L, et al. Development of a highly sensitive genus-specific quantitative reverse transcriptase real-time PCR assay for detection and quantitation of Plasmodium by amplifying RNA and DNA of the 18S rRNA genes. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49:2946–53.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. Batista-dos-Santos S, Raiol M, Santos S, Cunha MG, Ribeiro-dos-Santos Â. Real-time PCR diagnosis of Plasmodium vivax among blood donors. Malar J. 2012;11:345.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. Liu P, Mathies RA. Integrated microfluidic systems for high-performance genetic analysis. Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27:572–81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  121. Hong JW, Studer V, Hang G, Anderson WF, Quake SR. A nanoliter-scale nucleic acid processor with parallel architecture. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:435–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  122. Timoney CF, Felder RA. Feature Article Cepheid: Expanding the boundaries for practical applications of microinstrumentation and microfluidics. J Assoc Lab Autom. 1998;3:22–6.Google Scholar
  123. Bruijns B, van Asten A, Tiggelaar R, Gardeniers H. Microfluidic devices for forensic DNA analysis: a review. Biosensors. 2016;6:1–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Krishnan M, Ugaz VM, Burns MA. PCR in a Rayleigh-Bénard convection cell. Science. 2002;298:793.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  125. Burns MA, Johnson BN, Brahmasandra SN, Handique K, Webster JR, Krishnan M, et al. An integrated nanoliter DNA analysis device. Science. 1998;282:484–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  126. Mcmahon T, Van Zijl PCM, Gilad AA. Instrument-free exothermic heating with phase change temperature control for paper microfluidic devices. Proc SPIE. 2013;27:320–31.Google Scholar
  127. Martinez AW, Phillips ST, Butte MJ, Whitesides GM. Patterned paper as a platform for inexpensive, low-volume, portable bioassays. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2007;46:1318–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  128. Martinez AW, Phillips ST, Carrilho E, Thomas SW III, Sindi H, Whitesides GM. Simple telemedicine for developing regions: camera phones and paper-based microfluidic devices for real-time, off-site diagnosis. Anal Chem. 2008;80:3699–707.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Martinez AW, Phillips ST, Whitesides GM, Carrilho E. Diagnostics for the developing world: microfluidic paper-based analytical devices. Anal Chem. 2010;82:3–10.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  130. Pereira DY, Chiu RYT, Zhang SCL, Wu BM, Kamei DT. Single-step, paper-based concentration and detection of a malaria biomarker. Anal Chim Acta. 2015;882:83–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Fu E, Liang T, Spicar-Mihalic P, Houghtaling J, Ramachandran S, Yager P. Two-dimensional paper network format that enables simple multistep assays for use in low-resource settings in the context of malaria antigen detection. Anal Chem. 2012;84:4574–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Handique K, Gogoi BP, Burke DT, Mastrangelo CH, Burns MA. Microfluidic flow control using selective hydrophobic patterning. In: Proceedings of SPIE—the international society for optical engineering. 1997;3224:185–95.Google Scholar
  133. Liu H, Crooks RM. Three-dimensional paper microfluidic devices assembled using the principles of origami. J Am Chem Soc. 2011;133:17564–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  134. Martinez AW, Phillips ST, Whitesides GM. Three-dimensional microfluidic devices fabricated in layered paper and tape. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:19606–11.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  135. Preechaburana P, Suska A, Filippini D. Interfacing diagnostics with consumer electronics. In: Iniewski K, Karlen W, editors. Mob. point-of-care monit. diagnostic device des. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2014. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
  136. Coskun AF, Zhu H, Ozcan A. Lab on a Cellphone. In: Karlen W, Iniewski K, editors. Mob. point-of-care monit. diagnostic device des. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2014. p. 23–42.Google Scholar
  137. Ozcan A. Mobile phones democratize and cultivate next-generation imaging, diagnostics and measurement tools. Lab Chip. 2014;14:3187–94.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  138. Stedtfeld RD, Tourlousse DM, Seyrig G, Stedtfeld TM, Kronlein M, Price S, et al. Gene-Z: a device for point of care genetic testing using a smartphone. Lab Chip. 2012;12:1454.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  139. Wang S, Zhao X, Khimji I, Akbas R, Qiu W, Edwards D, et al. Integration of cell phone imaging with microchip ELISA to detect ovarian cancer HE4 biomarker in urine at the point-of-care. Lab Chip. 2011;11:3411.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  140. Coskun AF, Wong J, Khodadadi D, Nagi R, Tey A, Ozcan A. A personalized food allergen testing platform on a cellphone. Lab Chip. 2013;13:636–40.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  141. Zhu H, Sikora U, Ozcan A. Quantum dot enabled detection of Escherichia coli using a cell-phone. Analyst. 2012;137:2541–4.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  142. You DJ, Park TS, Yoon J-Y. Cell-phone-based measurement of TSH using Mie scatter optimized lateral flow assays. Biosens Bioelectron. 2013;40:180–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  143. Lu Y, Shi W, Qin J, Lin B. Low cost, portable detection of gold nanoparticle-labeled microfluidic immunoassay with camera cell phone. Electrophoresis. 2009;30:579–82.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  144. Stemple CC, Angus SV, Park TS, Yoon J-Y. Smartphone-based optofluidic lab-on-a-chip for detecting pathogens from blood. J Lab Autom. 2014;19:35–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  145. Mudanyali O, Dimitrov S, Sikora U, Pasmanabhan S, Navruz I, Ozcan A. Integrated rapid diagnostic test reader platform on a cell phone. Lab Chip. 2012;12:2678–86.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  146. Zhu H, Yaglidere O, Su T-W, Tseng D, Ozcan A. Cost-effective and compact wide-field fluorescent imaging on a cell-phone. Lab Chip. 2011;11:315–22.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  147. Shen L, Hagen JA, Papautsky I. Point-of-care colorimetric detection with a smartphone. Lab Chip. 2012;12:4240.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  148. Lee D-S, Jeon BG, Ihm C, Park J-K, Jung MY. A simple and smart telemedicine device for developing regions: a pocket-sized colorimetric reader. Lab Chip. 2011;11:120–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  149. Barbosa AI, Gehlot P, Sidapra K, Edwards AD, Reis NM. Portable smartphone quantitation of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in a fluoropolymer microfluidic device. Biosens Bioelectron. 2015;70:5–14.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  150. Quinn JA, Andama A, Munabi I, Kiwanuka F. Automated blood smear analysis for mobile malaria diagnosis. In: Karlen W, Iniewski K, editors. Mob. point-of-care monit. diagnostic device des. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015. p. 115–31.Google Scholar
  151. Mudanyali O, Tseng D, Oh C, Isikman SO, Sencan I, Bishara W, et al. Compact, light-weight and cost-effective microscope based on lensless incoherent holography for telemedicine applications. Lab Chip. 2010;10:1417–28.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  152. Bishara W, Sikora U, Mudanyali O, Ting-Wei S, Yaglidere O, Lyckhart S, et al. Holographic pixel super resolution in portable lensless op-chip microscopy using a fiber optic array. Lab Chip. 2011;11:1276–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  153. Pirnstill CW, Coté GL. Malaria diagnosis using a mobile phone polarized microscope. Sci Rep. 2015;5:1–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement