Thionitrous acid (HSNO), the smallest S‐nitrosothiol, is emerging as a potential key intermediate in cellular redox regulation linking two signaling molecules H2S and NO. However, the chemical biology of HSNO remains poorly understood. A major hurdle is the lack of methods for selective detection of HSNO in biological systems. Herein, we report the rational design, synthesis, and evaluation of the first fluorescent probe TAP‐1 for HSNO detection. TAP‐1 showed high selectivity and sensitivity to HSNO in aqueous media and cells, providing a useful tool for understanding the functions of HSNO in biology.
Rational Design of a Dual‐Reactivity‐Based Fluorescent Probe for Visualizing Intracellular HSNO
Thionitrous acid (HSNO), the smallest S‐nitrosothiol, is emerging as a potential key intermediate in cellular redox regulation linking two signaling molecules H2S and NO. However, the chemical biology of HSNO remains poorly understood. A major hurdle is the lack of methods for selective detection of HSNO in biological systems. Herein, we report the rational design, synthesis, and evaluation of the first fluorescent probe TAP‐1 for HSNO detection. TAP‐1 showed high selectivity and sensitivity to HSNO in aqueous media and cells, providing a useful tool for understanding the functions of HSNO in biology.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10118051
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Angewandte Chemie
- Volume:
- 131
- Issue:
- 45
- ISSN:
- 0044-8249
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 16213-16216
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract Electrochemical sensors for mercury ion detection would ideally demonstrate wide linear detection ranges (LDRs), ultratrace sensitivity, and high selectivity. This work presents an electrochemical sensor based on metallic 1T phase tungsten disulfide (WS2) microflowers for the detection of trace levels of Hg2+ions with wide LDRs, ultratrace sensitivity, and high selectivity. Under optimized conditions, the sensor shows excellent sensitivities for Hg2+with LDRs of 1 n
m –1 µm and 0.1–1 mm . In addition to this, the limit of detection of the sensor toward Hg2+is 0.0798 nm or 79.8 pm , which is well below the guideline value recommended by the World Health Organization. The sensor exhibits excellent selectivity for Hg2+against other heavy metal ions including Cu2+, Fe3+, Ni2+, Pb2+, Cr3+, K+, Na+, Ag+, Sn2+, and Cd2+. The thus‐obtained excellent sensitivity and selectivity with wide LDRs can be attributed to the high conductivity, large surface area microflower structured 1T‐WS2, and the complexation of Hg2+ions with S2−. In addition to good repeatability, reproducibility, and stability, this sensor shows the practical feasibility of Hg2+detection in tap water suggesting a promising device for real applications. -
more » « less
Abstract This study presents a thorough analysis of the electronic structures of the TaP
x As1−x series of compounds, which are of significant interest due to their potential as topological materials. Using a combination of first principles and Wannier‐based tight‐binding methods, this study investigates both the bulk and surface electronic structures of the compounds for varying compositions (x = 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1), with a focus on their topological properties. By using chirality analysis, (111) surface electronic structure analysis, and surface Fermi arcs analysis, it is established that the TaPx As1−x compounds exhibit topologically nontrivial behavior, characterized as Weyl semimetals (WSMs). The effect of spin–orbit coupling (SOC) on the topological properties of the compounds is further studied. In the absence of SOC, the compounds exhibit linearly dispersive fourfold degenerate points in the first Brillouin zone (FBZ) resembling Dirac semimetals. However, the introduction of SOC induces a phase transition to WSM states, with the number and position of Weyl points (WPs) varying depending on the composition of the alloy. For example, TaP has 12 WPs in the FBZ. The findings provide novel insights into the electronic properties of TaPx As1−x compounds and their potential implications for the development of topological materials for various technological applications. -
Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.more » « less
-
Detection of illicit drug residues from wastewater provides a new route toward community-level assessment of drug abuse that is critical to public health. However, traditional chemistry analytical tools such as high-performance liquid chromatography in tandem with mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) cannot meet the large-scale testing requirement in terms of cost, promptness, and convenience of use. In this article, we demonstrated ultra-sensitive and portable surface-enhanced Raman scattering sensing (SERS) of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, from sewage water and achieved quantitative analysis through principal component analysis and partial least-squares regression. The SERS substrates adopted in this application were synthesized by in situ growth of silver nanoparticles on diatomaceous earth films, which show ultra-high sensitivity down to 10 parts per trillion in artificially contaminated tap water in the lab using a commercial portable Raman spectrometer. Based on training data from artificially contaminated tap water, we predicted the fentanyl concentration in the sewage water from a wastewater treatment plant to be 0.8 parts per billion (ppb). As a comparison, the HPLC-MS confirmed the fentanyl concentration was below 1 ppb but failed to provide a specific value of the concentration since the concentration was too low. In addition, we further proved the validity of our SERS sensing technique by comparing SERS results from multiple sewage water treatment plants, and the results are consistent with the public health data from our local health authority. Such SERS sensing technique with ultra-high sensitivity down to sub-ppb level proved its feasibility for point-of-care detection of illicit drugs from sewage water, which is crucial to assess public health.more » « less
