Development of a Point-of-Care Microfluidic RNA Extraction Slide for Gene Expression Diagnosis after Irradiation

In times of war, radiological/nuclear emergency scenarios have become a reemphasized threat. However, there are challenges in transferring whole-blood samples to laboratories for specialized diagnostics using RNA. This project aims to miniaturize the process of unwieldy conventional RNA extraction with its stationed technical equipment using a microfluidic-based slide (MBS) for point-of-care diagnostics. The MBS is thought to be a preliminary step toward the development of a so-called lab-on-a-chip microfluidic device. A MBS would enable early and fast field care combined with gene expression (GE) analysis for the prediction of hematologic acute radiation syndrome (HARS) severity or identification of RNA microbes. Whole blood samples from ten healthy donors were irradiated with 0, 0.5 and 4 Gy, simulating different ARS severity degrees. RNA quality and quantity of a preliminary MBS was compared with a conventional column-based (CB) RNA extraction method. GE of four HARS severity-predicting radiation-induced genes (FDXR, DDB2, POU2AF1 and WNT3) was examined employing qRT-PCR. Compared to the CB method, twice as much total RNA from whole blood could be extracted using the MBS (6.6 ± 3.2 µg vs. 12.0 ± 5.8 µg) in half of the extraction time, and all MBS RNA extracts appeared DNA-free in contrast to the CB method (30% were contaminated with DNA). Using MBS, RNA quality [RNA integrity number equivalent (RINe)] values decreased about threefold (3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 9.0 ± 0.4), indicating severe RNA degradation, while expected high-quality RINe ≥ 8 were found using column-based method. However, normalized cycle threshold (Ct) values, as well as radiation-induced GE fold-changes appeared comparable for all genes utilizing both methods, indicating that no RNA degradation took place. In summary, the preliminary MBS showed promising features such as: 1. halving the RNA extraction time without the burden of heavy technical equipment (e.g., a centrifuge); 2. absence of DNA contamination in contrast to CB RNA extraction; 3. reduction in blood required, because of twice the biological output of RNA; and 4. equal GE performance compared to CB, thus, increasing its appeal for later semi-automatic parallel field applications.