"
Team:Grenoble/Human Practice/Cost
From 2012.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
| - | However, if we examine the reliability of the kit (see <a href="https://2012.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Team:Grenoble/Modeling/Amplification/Stochastic">modeling stochastic section</a>) it appears that, thanks to the | + | However, if we examine the reliability of the kit (see <a href="https://2012.igem.org/wiki/index.php?title=Team:Grenoble/Modeling/Amplification/Stochastic">modeling stochastic section</a>) it appears that, thanks to the feed-forward loop in the amplification module, the probability of having a false positive response is very low. Moreover, our device is composed of millions of bacteria that will each act as a sensor and each be capable of propagating a response in the whole population. Therefore the probability of false negatives is expected to be extremely low ! A PCR-based pathogen detection method achieves a perfect specificity (0% <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Grenoble/Human_Practice/Cost#ref">[1]</a>) but is prone to false negatives (93% <a href="https://2012.igem.org/Team:Grenoble/Human_Practice/Cost#ref">[1]</a>). While false positives only have financial costs, false negatives can be deadly for the patient and should be avoided. |
</br> | </br> | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
| - | In order to enhance | + | In order to enhance the reliability of our system, we decided to set a second design based on a 96-well plate to perform 96 tests simultaneously. This enables to build tests with fewer false positive and false negative rates. According to the results of the stochastic modeling section, if no <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> has to be detected, no more than one sample out of 96 gets a visible output signal. |
</br> | </br> | ||
<center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/8/86/Device_gre.PNG"></center> | <center><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2012/8/86/Device_gre.PNG"></center> | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
</br> | </br> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| - | <li>A detection-kit that is absolutely easy to use and needs no qualified staff to use it. This test is approximately ten times faster than a traditional plate test (48h) and twice slower than a PCR (from 2 to 3 hours) as it needs 5 hours to give a visible output signal. Besides, thanks to this system, the probability of having a false positive response is | + | <li>A detection-kit that is absolutely easy to use and needs no qualified staff to use it. This test is approximately ten times faster than a traditional plate test (48h) and twice slower than a PCR (from 2 to 3 hours) as it needs 5 hours to give a visible output signal. Besides, thanks to this system, the probability of having a false positive response is expected to be low. Its design makes it a competitive candidate for assessing contamination level in medical environment</li> |
<br/> | <br/> | ||
<li>A 96-well plate kit for diagnosis, easy to use, fast enough (5 hours) and above all highly reliable.</li> | <li>A 96-well plate kit for diagnosis, easy to use, fast enough (5 hours) and above all highly reliable.</li> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:09, 27 September 2012
Design of the device and comparative study of cost assessment
Specifications
Based on the requirements of the medical field (see the section meeting for further details), we set our pathogen detection specifications. So, sEnsiColi should be:
- Sensitive
- Reliable (little false positives)
- Fast
- Easy to use
- Lower in price than the current methods.
Design of sEnsiColi
Regarding the specifications above, we set two possible designs for sEnsiColi. The first one is intended for prevention purposes such as assessing the contamination level of hospital’s rooms. The design of this detection-kit is given by the picture below:
- A detection-kit that is absolutely easy to use and needs no qualified staff to use it. This test is approximately ten times faster than a traditional plate test (48h) and twice slower than a PCR (from 2 to 3 hours) as it needs 5 hours to give a visible output signal. Besides, thanks to this system, the probability of having a false positive response is expected to be low. Its design makes it a competitive candidate for assessing contamination level in medical environment
- A 96-well plate kit for diagnosis, easy to use, fast enough (5 hours) and above all highly reliable.
Comparative study of cost assessment
We wanted to make sure that sEnsiColi would be competitive in term of price. So we conducted a comparative cost analysis between the mostly used detection methods in the CHU and our two possible designs of sEnsiColi. For the cost assessment, we followed a very specific process in order to have a precise and reliable result. The first step was to set the protocols of production for each device (for the PCR we followed our PCR protocol available on biological section.) The next step was to define all the flows including electricity, handworker’s wages, raw materials, consumables… Finally, we had to search for the cost of each used component and calculate the total cost. You can find here the files we created to assess the cost of the PCR and sEnsiColi test in its two forms: test tube and 96-well plate.| Method/device | Cost (€) |
|---|---|
| PCR | 21.70 |
| sEnsiColi (test tube) | 0.23 |
| sEnsiColi (96-well plate) | 5.77 |
