Frequency-dependent conductance change of dielectrophoretic-trapped DNA-labeled microbeads and its application in DNA size determinations

  • Michihiko Nakano
  • Zhenhao Ding
  • Junya Suehiro
Research Paper


DNA amplification is essential in several types of molecular biology approaches. A more rapid and easy analysis of amplicons is still required although many analysis methods have been developed. We have recently devised a new DNA detection method, where DNA amplicons are attached to dielectric microbead surfaces, so that their dielectrophoresis (DEP) force on the microbead reverses polarity, from negative to positive. The DNA-labeled microbeads are trapped on a microelectrode by positive DEP, enabling their rapid detection via DEP impedance measurement. In this paper, we report frequency-dependent conductance of DNA-labeled microbeads. To measure the impedance, sweep-frequency voltage was superimposed on fixed-frequency voltage, with the aim of inducing frequency-dependent conformational change of microbead-attached DNA, ultimately resulting in a change in the conductance of DNA-labeled microbeads. Microbeads labeled with DNA of various sizes (142-, 204-, 391-, and 796-bp) were examined. The normalized conductance sharply decreased at a specific frequency; the frequency was higher with larger DNA size, suggesting a potential application of this method in distinguishing DNA targets according to their size. By combining this method with previously devised DNA detection techniques, both the size and amount of target DNA can be determined within 20 min. This approach is easier and more rapid than conventional methods, such as a gel electrophoresis.


Dielectric microbeads Dielectrophoresis DNA-bead complex DNA size determination PCR 



This work was partly supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP26289125, JP15K0611, and JP15KK0242.


  1. Bag S, Mogurampelly S, Goddard WA III, Maiti PK (2016) Dramatic changes in DNA conductance with stretching: structural polymorphism at a critical extension. Nanoscale 8:16044–16052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakewell DJ, Morgan H (2006) Dielectrophoresis of DNA: time- and frequency-dependent collections on microelectrodes. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci 5:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basuray S, Chang H-C (2010) Designing a sensitive and quantifiable nanocolloid assay with dielectrophoretic crossover frequencies. Biomicrofluidics 4:13205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonanni A, del Valle M (2010) Use of nanomaterials for impedimetric DNA sensors: a review. Anal Chim Acta 678:7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruot C, Xiang L, Palma JL, Tao N (2015) Effect of mechanical stretching on DNA conductance. ACS Nano 9:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao J, Zhu D, Zhang Y et al (2016) DNA nanotechnology-enabled biosensors. Biosens Bioelectron 76:68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diehl F, Li M, He Y et al (2006) BEAMing: single-molecule PCR on microparticles in water-in-oil emulsions. Nat Methods 3:551–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ding Z, Kasahara H, Nakano M, Suehiro J (2016) Bacterial detection based on polymerase chain reaction and microbead dielectrophoresis characteristics. IET Nanobiotechnol 11:1–15Google Scholar
  9. Drummond TG, Hill MG, Barton JK (2003) Electrochemical DNA sensors. Nat Biotechnol 21:1192–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ermolina I, Morgan H (2005) The electrokinetic properties of latex particles: comparison of electrophoresis and dielectrophoresis. J Colloid Interf Sci 285:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gagnon Z, Senapati S, Gordon J, Chang H-C (2008) Dielectrophoretic detection and quantification of hybridized DNA molecules on nano-genetic particles. Electrophoresis 29:4808–4812. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gagnon Z, Senapati S, Chang H-C (2010) Optimized DNA hybridization detection on nanocolloidal particles by dielectrophoresis. Electrophoresis 31:666–671. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Germishuizen WA, Walti C, Wirtz R et al (2003) Selective dielectrophoretic manipulation of surface-immobilized DNA molecules. Nanotechnology 14:896–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Germishuizen WA, Tosch P, Middelberg APJ et al (2005) Influence of alternating current electrokinetic forces and torque on the elongation of immobilized DNA. J Appl Phys 97:14702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang S-C, Stump MD, Weiss R, Caldwell KD (1996) Binding of biotinylated DNA to streptavidin-coated polystyrene latex: effects of chain length and particle size. Anal Biochem 237:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lisdat F, Schäfer D (2008) The use of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy for biosensing. Anal Bioanal Chem 391:1555–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu Y-S, Banada PP, Bhattacharya S et al (2008) Electrical characterization of DNA molecules in solution using impedance measurements. Appl Phys Lett 92:143902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ma H, Wallbank RWR, Chaji R et al (2013) An impedance-based integrated biosensor for suspended DNA characterization. Sci Rep 3:2730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nakano M, Hamada R, Takayama H et al (2012) Pretreatment of cell membranes for improved electropermeabilization-assisted dielectrophoretic impedance measurement. Sens Actuat B: Chem 173:676–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nakano M, Ding Z, Kasahara H, Suehiro J (2014) Rapid microbead-based DNA detection using dielectrophoresis and impedance measurement. Europhys Lett 108:28003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Namasivayam V, Larson RG, Burke DT, Burns MA (2002) Electrostretching DNA molecules using polymer- enhanced media within microfabricated devices. Anal Chem 74:3378–3385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paleček E, Bartošík M (2012) Electrochemistry of nucleic acids. Chem Rev 112:3427–3481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pungetmongkol P, Mogi K, Yamamoto T (2015) Conformation dependent non-linear impedance response of DNA in nanofluidic device. In: Proc 2015 IEEE-NANO, pp 1163–1166Google Scholar
  24. Ririe KM, Rasmussen RP, Wittwer CT (1997) Product differentiation by analysis of DNA melting curves during the polymerase chain reaction. Anal Biochem 245:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rödiger S, Liebsch C, Schmidt C et al (2014) Nucleic acid detection based on the use of microbeads: a review. Microchim Acta 181:1151–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothberg JM, Leamon JH (2008) The development and impact of 454 sequencing. Nat Biotechnol 26:1117–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salm E, Liu Y-S, Marchwiany D et al (2011) Electrical detection of dsDNA and polymerase chain reaction amplification. Biomed Microdevices 13:973–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suehiro J, Yatsunami R, Hamada R, Hara M (1999) Quantitative estimation of biological cell concentration suspended in aqueous medium by using dielectrophoretic impedance measurement method. J Phys D Appl Phys 32:2814–2820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suehiro J, Hamada R, Noutomi D et al (2003a) Selective detection of viable bacteria using dielectrophoretic impedance measurement method. J Electrostat 57:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suehiro J, Shutou M, Hatano T, Hara M (2003b) High sensitive detection of biological cells using dielectrophoretic impedance measurement method combined with electropermeabilization. Sens Actuator B Chem 96:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suehiro J, Hatano T, Shutou M, Hara M (2005) Improvement of electric pulse shape for electropermeabilization-assisted dielectrophoretic impedance measurement for high sensitive bacteria detection. Sens Actuators B Chem 109:209–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Suzuki S, Yamanashi T, Tazawa S et al (1998) Quantitative analysis of DNA orientation in stationary AC electric fields using fluorescence anisotropy. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 34:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Treadway CR, Hill MG, Barton JK (2002) Charge transport through a molecular π-stack: double helical DNA. Chem Phys 281:409–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Veigas B, Fortunato E, Baptista P (2015) Field effect sensors for nucleic acid detection: recent advances and future perspectives. Sensors 15:10380–10398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voityuk AA (2009) Can charge transfer in DNA significantly be modulated by varying the π stack conformation? J Phys Chem B 113:14365–14368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wälti C, Germishuizen WA, Tosch P et al (2007) AC electrokinetic manipulation of DNA. J Phys D Appl Phys 40:114–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolter M, Woiczikowski PB, Elstner M, Kubař T (2012) Response of the electric conductivity of double-stranded DNA on moderate mechanical stretching stresses. Phys Rev B 85:75101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information Science and Electrical EngineeringKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Information Science and Electrical EngineeringKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations