A Multi-site In-depth Evaluation of the Quanterix Simoa from a User’s Perspective
An in-depth evaluation of the Quanterix© Simoa™ platform was undertaken by scientists from the AAPS Emerging Technologies Focus Group to determine the overall performance of the technology as well as provide guidance to future users. In order to test the platform in a non-GLP bioanalytical setting, a cross-site evaluation of the Quanterix IL-6 biomarker kit was performed. Parameters tested during this evaluation included sensitivity, accuracy and precision, and parallelism in human serum from normal individuals. The results demonstrated improved sensitivity compared to the claimed sensitivity of other commercially available IL-6 kits and showed excellent site-to-site reproducibility. Observed issues included difficulties with system reliability and a lack of parallelism and specificity in a subset of samples. Overall, these results demonstrate that while there are challenges to the Simoa platform this technology offers automation capabilities and excellent sensitivity that enhance bioanalysis especially of low-abundance analytes.
KEY WORDSautomation IL-6 ligand binding assay Simoa ultrasensitive technology
The authors would like to thank David Duffy and David Wilson for the technical support and review of content and Joe Palandra for LC-MS/MS testing of IL-6 samples.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This manuscript has undergone documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues, per the uniform guidelines from the World Medical Association (http://www.wma/net/en/30publications/10policies/HB-E-2011.pdf).
- 5.Rissin DM, Fournier DR, Piech T, Kan CW, Campbell TG, Song L, et al. Simultaneous detection of single molecules and singulated ensembles of molecules enables immunoassays with broad dynamic range. Anal Chem. 2011;83(6):2279–85. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac103161b.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Kuhle J, Barro C, Andreasson U, Defuss T, Lindberg R, Sandelius A, et al. Comparison of three analytical platforms for quantification of the neurofilament light chain in blood samples: ELISA, electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and Simoa. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2016;54(10):1655–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-1195.
- 8.Chang L, Song L, Fournier DR, Kan CW, Patel PP, Ferrel EP, et al. Simple diffusion-constrained immunoassay for p24 protein with the sensitivity of nucleic acid amplification for detecting acute HIV infection. J Virol Methods. 2012;188(1-2):153–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.viromet.2012.08.017. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Mora J, Given Chunyk A, Dysinger M, Purushothama S, Ricks C, Osterlund K, et al. Next generation ligand binding assays—review of emerging technologies’ capabilities to enhance throughput and multiplexing. AAPS J. 2014;16(6):1175–84. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-014-9660-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Yeung D, Ciotti S, Purushothama S, Gharakhani E, Kuesters G, Schlain B, et al. Evaluation of highly sensitive immunoassay technologies for quantitative measurements of sub-pg/mL levels of cytokines in human serum. J Immunol Methods. 2016;437:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2016.08.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Lee JW, Weiner RS, Sailstad JM, Bowsher RR, Knuth DW, O’Brien PJ, et al. Method validation and measurement of biomarkers in nonclinical and clinical samples in drug development: a conference report. Pharm Res. 2005;22(4):499–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-00502495-9. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar