Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Rapid TB Detector

An ultrasensitive test can spot bacteria in a half hour.

By Katherine Bourzac

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

One third of the world's population is infected with tuberculosis. Detecting the bacteria is time-consuming and expensive, even in hospitals with sophisticated lab equipment. And in the poor countries where the infection is most prevalent, people often don't have access to this equipment. Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and Harvard University have now demonstrated that a handheld device can be used to count as few as 20 bacteria in a sputum sample in a half hour. They hope to develop the test into an inexpensive product that can be deployed for TB testing.

TB detector: A handheld device can count as few as 20 bacteria in a sputum sample. A plastic card inside the device uses microfluidics to direct magnetically labeled bacteria in a sample to one of two chambers surrounded by metal coils. The coils are used for nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the sample.
Credit: Hakho Lee

The bacteria counter is being developed by researchers led by Ralph Weissleder, director of the Center for Systems Biology and the Center for Molecular Imaging Research at Harvard Medical School, and Hakho Lee, an instructor at Mass General. The technology uses magnetic-nanoparticle labels and a detector that works on the same principles as magnetic resonance imaging. They're focused on tuberculosis, says Lee, because "even one bacterium can cause the disease, but at this point there is no easy way to detect the bacteria at high sensitivity."

The biggest problem with existing tests is that they are too slow, says Peter Katona, associate clinical professor of infectious diseases at the University of California, Los Angeles. The most accurate way to identify the infection is to grow a sample in the lab. But because TB grows slowly, that can take as long as six weeks. What's more, expensive culture equipment is typically not available in poor areas where the infection is prevalent.

Story continues below

The cheapest and fastest way to detect TB is a skin test that screens for an immune reaction. But such tests are not particularly accurate. "There are a number of conditions where there is no immune reaction" even if the patient carries the infection, says Steven Miller, director of the clinical laboratories at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. TB and HIV often go hand in hand, but in HIV-positive patients the skin test doesn't work. Another common test, staining a sputum sample with a dye that targets TB and examining it under the microscope, also has a high rate of false negatives. "Unless there is a very high load of bacteria, you can't pick it up," says Miller.

The Harvard detector can find very small loads of bacteria. It's a miniaturized version of a nuclear magnetic resonance imager, a very sensitive but typically large and expensive device used for clinical and chemical applications such as brain imaging and determining protein structures. The size and expense of typical nuclear magnetic resonance imagers is dictated by the need for a strong magnet. Weissleder's group simplified the instrument into a portable, one-pound device with disposable parts by compromising on signal quality and by placing the sample chamber right inside the radio-frequency coils. "When you're measuring bacteria, you don't need high resolution--you just need to pick up one pattern," says Lee.

Comments

  • Ingenious
    We had an employee in a large dept at previous company I worked at who was found to have TB so they had to test everyone.

    The health dept worker who came in to tell us was clueless.  The person was telling me you have the bacteria for life (probably based on positive skin test after exposure even w/o disease).  

    I seriously doubt this and think they were told to say this, as it is easier to tell the public.

    Bacteria can be killed much easier than viruses (not being alive) so the bacteria can be either minimized or totally gone.  Plus if you have had it you'll have the immune response molecules present from your immune system's memory which can last well beyond any infection.   And the skin test is not for the bacteria but for the antibodies. 

    Once you HAVE been exposed, e.g. our med class teacher was in ward with TB pt, she has to get periodic x-rays to confirm not have it as already tests positive by skin test.  this would be much better.

    That combine with the mentioned shortcomings of the test make this much better.

    This technique likely has the potential to be modified to detect other bacteria before they trigger immune responses (which vary and may not happen).  Maybe viruses too. 

    We do PCR amplification now for gonorrhea and chlamydia, which can detect similar minute amounts.  but this is not something dr office will do inhouse. our lab has specialized gear.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    erbium
    08/09/2009
    Posts:105
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.