optimized cell trapping and multi- perspective imaging using...
TRANSCRIPT
Optimized Cell Trapping and Multi-Perspective Imaging Using Microfluidic
Devices
Jeff Chamberlain, Matt Houston, Eric Kim
Advisors: Dr. Kevin Seale and Dr. John Wikswo
BME 273 – Design of Biomedical Engineering Devices and Systems
Instructor: Dr. Paul King
1
ABSTRACT:
There was a need in the VIIBRE laboratories for characterization of the trapping
efficiency of various trap designs. In order to assist in the trap classification process,
computational fluid dynamics were assessed using Fluent©. Both single traps and arrays of traps
were analyzed for different trap designs. Dr. Seale’s technology, known as Mirrored Pyramidal
Wells (MPWs), provides this ability using inverted square pyramids with reflective walls, each
of which provides a different perspective of the specimen within the well that it creates. Our task
was to design an optimized microfluidic network which would interface with an array of wells
and passively guide the specimen into MPW’s. Different trap designs were tested on similar
devices. Media was continually flowed into the device, both to maintain cell viability and to
utilize trap design. Images were taken using a Carl Zeiss inverted microscope and Metamorph©
as the data acquisition program. Images were taken at known increments, and the images were
analyzed using ImageJ. MPW etching was performed in a multistep process: 1) SiO deposition,
2) photolithography, 3) HF etch, 4) photolith mask removal, 5) KOH etch, and 6) HF removal of
SiO. Results suggest that the gradient density, square, split-back array design is optimal for use
in the coupled device with MPW’s (90% traps filled, 20% traps with 1 cell). Images acquired
from Fluent© offer indications that directing flow into traps requires further modification.
MPW-PDMS coupled device prototypes have been produced (thick and thin) and images
acquired. Continuing development of this device and usage protocol is needed to eliminate
problems with bubbles in wells and cell clumping.
2
INTRODUCTION:
The benefits of using microfluidics for cellular studies are well documented.
Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) devices are constructed using batch fabrication
techniques, such as soft lithography and photolithography. These techniques allow rapid
fabrication of multiple devices by implementing relatively few specific steps. The devices used
in this project contain arrays of barriers which passively trap cells. These trapping arrays allow
the experimenter to perform high-throughput experimentation; each cell that is captured can be
analyzed individually. Using only microliters of reagent, complex biochemical analyses of
hundreds of individual cells can be accomplished in each experiment.
There was a need in the VIIBRE laboratories for characterization of the trapping
efficiency of various trap designs. There were many trap designs already in use, and no
classifications existed for the different designs. When maximizing efficiency, one must first
define what efficiency is for each experiment. For some experiments, efficiency is considered to
be capturing the greatest percentage of loaded cells possible, minimizing waste. For other
experiments, the experimenter may desire control over the number of cells captured by each trap.
For instance, in some experiments, it is preferable to have only 1 cell/trap, allowing the
experimenter to minimize the cell to cell interactions. In order to assist in the trap classification
process, computational fluid dynamics were assessed using Fluent©. Both single traps and arrays
of traps were analyzed for different trap designs.
In addition to analyzing and improving the cell trapping efficiency of microfluidic
devices in the VIIBRE laboratories, our group designed a microfluidic network to interface with
a novel microscopic imaging device developed by one of our advisors, Dr. Kevin Seale.
Conventional microscopy provides a two dimensional view of a specimen in the XY-plane, with
3
adjustable focus along the Z-axis. While this method is sufficient for many biological studies,
imaging other phenomena on the cellular scale would benefit greatly from multiple, and
potentially simultaneous, viewpoints of the specimen. Dr. Seale’s technology, known as
Mirrored Pyramidal Wells (MPWs), provides this ability using inverted square pyramids with
reflective walls, each of which provides a different perspective of the specimen within the
well that it creates. Further, if the
specimen is centered within the
well, all four reflections reside in
the same focal plane, meaning
that four different viewpoints can
be visualized simultaneously.
MPWs can provide three-
dimensional spatial information
and increased signal-to-noise
ratios not possible with conventional microscopy, both of which are important in biological
events such as immune synapse formation, chemotaxis, and cytokinesis, just to name a few. The
set of images in figure 1 serves well to introduce the technology by showing the concept, the
topology of a single well, a complete array of wells, and lastly the impressive resolution
capabilities.
The MPWs are anisotropically etched into silicon wafers at known angles specified by
the unit structure of silicon, with the ultimate width and depth of the wells customized for a
specific specimen by the fabricator. Standard photolithography techniques are applied for
Figure 1. MPWs allow simultaneous multi-perspective imaging using inverted square pyramids with reflective walls, with each wall providing a different view of the specimen. MPWs can provide three-dimensional spatial information and increased signal-to-noise ratios not possible with conventional microscopy. A) SEM micrograph of MPW. B) SolidWorks rendering illustrating MPW concept. C) Autofluorescent Helianthus Annuus pollen grain in MPW. D) Demonstration of scale. *Technology and images developed by Kevin Seale*
4
creating arrays of many wells in a small area (scale: µm2-mm2), which makes them ideal for
integration with biomicroelectromechanical systems (BioMEMS).
There are several factors which limit the effectiveness of an array of MPWs. The first is
the loading efficiency of the specimen into the wells. Previous methods utilized a micro-
positioning tool to physically place the specimen into the well or a pipette to cover the array with
the specimen in solution, with the hope that a few cells would find their way into the wells. Our
task was to design a microfluidic network which would interface with an array of wells and
passively guide the specimen into them, thereby increasing the MPW loading efficiency and
increasing experimental throughput. Secondly, our device allows for long-term analyses because
of continuous and controllable perfusion of the specimen. Finally, this device couples the
experimental advantages of conducting studies using microfluidics and the novel imaging
abilities of the MPWs, increasing the experimental potential of both technologies.
5
METHODOLOGY
When using microfluidic devices for
biochemical analysis, the experimental setup
is crucial. Firstly, the device must be
fabricated. Our devices were made of
polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), a silicon
elastomer. The masters for the devices were
made using photolithography techniques,
with SU-8 photoresist. The PDMS devices
were made using soft lithography. The
PDMS was mixed at a 10:1 polymer to base
ratio, poured onto the SU-8 master, and
degassed. The PDMS was then baked at 60°C
for at least 2 hours. The devices were cut and peeled from the master, and finally plasma bonded
to glass slides (Figure 2). Fluid was pumped into the devices by connecting gas-tight syringes to
the devices via PEEK Polymer Tubing (ID 50 µm). Flow through the device was controlled by
Harvard Apparatus Syringe Pumps.
Figure 3 shows the general device layout. Using proper cell culture techniques, the
Jurkat Cells were placed into a microcentrifuge tube and spun at the lowest possible speed (1500
RPMs) for 1 minute. A syringe pump was run in reverse order to aspirate the cells into the
tubing, which could be observed using a microscope, making the process uncommonly
controllable. If drawn in too quickly, the loading of the cells is unsuccessful because clogging in
Figure 2. Basic steps to photolithography and soft lithography.
6
the tubing causes the cells to lyse. When successful, the cells were loaded into inlet B, and
captured inside the trapping array. Different trap designs were tested on similar devices. Media
was continually flowed into the device, both to
maintain cell viability and to maintain force on the
cells to keep them inside the traps. Images were
taken using a Carl Zeiss inverted microscope and
Metamorph© as the data acquisition program.
Images were taken at known increments, and the
images were analyzed using ImageJ.
One of the prime advantages to
microfluidic bioanalysis systems is the low
quantity of biomaterial, cells in our case, required to perform an analysis. Optimizing this
property, therefore, strengthens one of the advantages of the system. Previous systems for
trapping cells in VIIBRE have proved effective. Despite this, it has often been felt that higher
trapping efficiency could be achieved and this advantage optimized. To this end, we have
developed two new "improved" trapping systems that we hope will optimize cell trapping
efficiency.
It has been frequently observed that a cell flowing through a trap array will weave
between traps and generally avoid being trapped until deep into the array, if it is trapped at all.
We have theorized that this was due to straight flow that simply pushes the cells axially along the
device, instead of adding a transverse component to the cells’ direction, which would offer a
much higher chance of trapping.
Figure 3. CAD image of general cell trapping device. Inset shows actual image of trapped cells within a device.
7
1) Curved-side arrays: To this end, we developed the Curved-side arrays with non-linear
boundaries to force diagonal flow.
2) Wing-Sided arrays: Optimization of trapping requires optimization of flow characteristics, as
it is clear that cell movement is strongly correlated with fluid flow in the device. The Wing-
Sided traps force fluid flow into downstream traps, theoretically optimizing cell trapping. In
addition to the fluid flow, the cells also have inertial characteristics which guide them into the
traps.
3) Gradient-Trap-Density arrays: This array was developed due to a clogging problem that
occurred due to cell clumping. It was noted that cells loaded into the device tended to clump,
and that high density trap arrays tended to catch a lot of these clumps and gather them into a
growing wall of cells that impeded flow. To prevent this, density of traps was varied from low in
front to high in back of the array. Low density traps helped to break up the clumps and avoid
cell walls, optimizing trapping for the downstream high density.
Figure 4. Schematics to elucidate reasons for changed trap and device designs. A) Curved-side arrays. B) Wingback traps. C) Trap density increases with axial position in device.
Optimization of trapping for design purposes required several layers of analysis:
1) Designs must be analyzed for their ability to fill themselves. To this end, analyses were
performed on each trap type for percentage of traps filled with cells vs. without cells. 2) Designs
must be analyzed for their ability to encourage single cell trapping for coupling will MPWs. To
8
this end, analyses were performed on each trap type for percentage of traps with only one cell.
3) Finally, designs must be analyzed for their ability to trap cells uniformly. To this end,
analyses were performed on each trap type for uniformity of trapping percentages throughout the
devices. Analysis of each trap type is rated against a definition of success, the goals of which are
as follows: 1) at least 10% of traps must have one and only one cell (since results were good
enough, high-level success may be defined as above 20%); this parameter is a necessary MPW
operating parameter, 2) 90% of traps must be filled, and 3) a difference of more than 5% must be
identified to classify trap designs into different classes: a) optimized for cell trapping and b)
optimized for single cell trapping. Results were quantified in groups for statistical analysis, with
each column of traps in a device N=1. Cells were counted by hand for each trap in each column
with traps falling into 5 categories: 0 cells, 1 cell, 2 cells, 3 cells, and 4 cells. Percentages of
each category were calculated based of the totals for a single group (column). In addition to
these, rate loading experiments were performed for old arrays vs. Curve-Sided Arrays. Cell
solutions of constant density were flowed through the array and time-lapse pictures were taken.
Cells trapped per frame were counted and used to approximate a linear rate loading.
The computational fluid dynamics were generated for 2 different trap types: the wing
back traps and the triangular split back. For each of these types of traps, 2D meshes were made
for both an individual trap and an array of traps. Velocity magnitude was analyzed by looking at
velocity vector simulations. These vectors show the magnitude of flow both by color and by
length. The velocity contours were also analyzed for both trap designs.
The MPWs are fabricated using processes for etching silicon and metal deposition that
are well documented in the literature, and will be mostly omitted in this discussion. Briefly, the
array is defined using standard photolithographic techniques on a <100> silicon wafer with an
9
oxide layer as a mask. The size and arrangement of the wells are determined by the photomask
used in the photolithography. The silicon is etched using KOH, with the amount of time spent in
the KOH determining the depth of the wells. Once the wells are etched and the oxide mask is
removed, the entire wafer is coated in a reflective metal such as platinum or aluminum using a
thin-film deposition technique known as electron beam evaporation. The result is an array of
MPWs with dimensions appropriate for the specimen.
The first design issue for the MPWs was creating an array of wells that were the correct
size for each of the following cell types: primary T cells, Jurkat T cells, and dendritic cells. KOH
etches silicon anisotropically, and with a <100> silicon wafer, the etching angle is fixed at 54.7o,
which provided our first design constraint. Our second design constraint required that the side
lengths of the bottom of the wells be at least 40% larger than the diameter of the cell they were
designed for. The value of 40% was chosen somewhat arbitrarily with our advisor, but with the
considerations that the wells should be able to accommodate some variance in cell size and leave
room for the cells to grow and possibly divide. The third design constraint is related to the first
two and requires that an incident light ray coming from the microscope should be able to reflect
off the very top of the well and still pass over the specimen. We developed equations on these
design constraints and found the required outer well dimensions and the minimum etch depths
for each type of cell as seen in Appendix A.
After designing the MPW arrays, we designed a microfluidic device to direct the cells
into the wells. For this we adapted an existing device used in our trapping efficiency experiments
and by others in the VIIBRE laboratory. However, we made a few changes to the traps to
improve trapping, prevent clogging, and most importantly, allow multi-perspective imaging
using the reflective walls of the wells. To improve trapping, we included an extra gap in the back
10
of the trap to encourage more flow through it and added wings to the outside of the traps with the
hope of directing cells that passed one row of traps into the subsequent row. To prevent groups
of cells from clogging in the front of the device, we again implemented the strategy of increasing
trap density from the front to the back of the device. To ensure that multi-perspective imaging
was possible, no part of the trap could overlap with the wells because such features diffract light,
which significantly detracts from image quality. All of these considerations led to the general
device layout seen in Figure 6A. Figure 6B shows a schematic cross-section of a single well
with a passive microfluidic trap above it.
Figure 6. A) CAD drawing of microfluidic interface to be used by dendritic cells. Dendritic cells are much bigger than primary and Jurkat T cells, so the traps are larger and there are fewer of them. B) Schematic cross-section of a single trap and MPW. Cells are passively trapped above the wells, and then drop into them where they can be imaged.
Si Wafer
Cross Section of One Well
PDMS
Cell
Light Source and Imaging
A B
11
With the design for the well and the traps established, several design constraints arose for
the coupling of the microfluidics to the MPW array. A common problem with microfluidic
devices is maintaining a tight seal between the microfluidic channels in the PDMS and the
substrate to prevent leakage. This problem is commonly overcome by irreversibly binding the
PDMS to the substrate, which is typically glass. However, this bonding process does not work
with a metal-coated silicon wafer. When bonding is not an option, it is often necessary to use a
clamp to maintain the fluidic integrity of the device. Before designing and fabricating a clamp,
we decided first to test the device with the PDMS passively bonded to the MPW array through
Van der Waals forces. To improve the possibility of this, we reduced the fluidic resistance by
using wide fluidic channels and eliminating any extraneous features. To test the unclamped
device, we pumped fluid starting with low flow rates of 50nl/min, gradually increasing the flow
if no leakage occurred, all the way up to 2000nl/min. Actual experiments in the device will rarely
use flow rates above 1000nl/min, so if the unbound device could withstand flows of 2000nl/min
without leakage, then our experimentation did not require a clamp.
In order to resolve the reflections of a cell in a single well, it is necessary to use an
objective with a magnification of at least 50x. This imposed a major design constraint because of
the limited working distance of the high power objectives. The 50x and 100x objectives on the
microscope which we used for imaging the MPW device have working distances of only 0.9mm
and 0.95mm, respectively. This means that the added distance between the specimen in the well
and the objective has to be less than these distances, requiring our PDMS microfluidic layer to fit
within this space. It is entirely possible to form PDMS devices which are less than 0.9mm, but
since the fluidic connection between the PEEK tubing and the PDMS relies on pressure to stay
sealed, thin devices present serious problems to fluidic delivery. Thin PDMS devices were
12
fabricated by spinning small amount of PDMS onto the master. In order to improve the seal of
these thin devices, the PDMS was made with a higher cross-linking chemical concentration.
Using thin devices brought about two other major problems. As PDMS cures, it tends to
shrink by a small amount. However, this shrinkage is much more extreme with thin devices. In
order to overcome this problem, we started curing the devices at room temperature, as this seems
to lessen the effect significantly. Next, PDMS films are very difficult to work with as they are
very flexible and extremely electrostatic. Aligning a PDMS film within the necessary accuracy
of only a few microns generally requires a lubricating layer of methanol between the PDMS and
the object of alignment, which is the MPW array in our case. After alignment, the complete
device must be baked in the 60degC oven for a period of at least four hours in order for the
methanol to evaporate. Lastly, PDMS is extremely compliant when it is so thin, which
rejuvenated the possibility of having to use a clamp to prevent leaking. We discovered that
bonding a glass coverslip over the device everywhere except for the inlets and outlets reduced
the compliance to a point where leaking could be avoided.
13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figure 7. The graphs above show percentage results for groups of different traps (see discussion below)
Different trap types represented here are graphed in figure 7 according to the percent of
traps filled and percent of traps filled with only one cell. Calculation of percentages are based
upon sums of all traps in each column, each column representing N=1. N values are as follows:
1) SFLD N=24, 2) TSLD N=16, 3) SSLD N=8, 4) TSHD N=30, 5) TFHD N=30, and 6) Curve-
Sided N = 84. The STD's represented in graph b show the relatively even trapping in the Curve-
Sided array. This is also elucidated by the front to back line graphs in c and d. These line graphs
show the % filled for each column in the array from front to back. c represents low density older
traps, and d represents the Curve-Sided traps. The following are specific results to note: 1)
Curve-Sided Arrays exceeds success parameters, reaching 99% of traps filled. It fails success
14
parameters for single cell trapping, being below 8% single cell trapping. 2) Curve-Sided Arrays
offer more uniform trapping, as suggested by the lowest STD of all trap types tested and "front-
to-back" profile. 3) Square, split-back traps fit parameters for success both in traps filled (~90%)
and high-success parameters for single-cell trapping (20-21%). 4) High density traps have
substantially lower uniform loading, as evident from the higher STD’s in Figure 8.
Conclusions that may
be drawn from this data are
as follows: 1) Curve-Sided
Arrays are a perfect design
for high cell trapping
efficiency, 2) split-back, low
density trapping arrays are
best for single cell trapping,
3) gradient trap density is
unnecessary for Curve-Sided
Arrays due to uniformity of loading, and 4) a gradient, split-back, low density array is optimal
for MPW coupling due to its achievement of operational parameters needed for MPW coupling.
Low Density Vs High Density
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
% Traps Filled % Traps with 1 Cell
Perc
ent
Low DensityHigh Density
Figure 8. The graphs above show percentage results for high density and low density
15
Figure 9. Velocity vector simulations of individual traps for wing back trap (left) and triangular split back trap (right). Scale is relative to input flow. The first computational fluid dynamics analyses were done on the single traps (Figure 9).
The flow was limited to only laminar flow, and for simplification purposes, the fluid analyzed
was water. The scale shows the velocity magnitude with respect to the input flow, and the values
should be considered arbitrary. From these flow profiles it was realized that there is nearly
stagnant flow inside the trap, and there are about 4 vortexes around each trap. It was hard to
decide if the flow profiles facilitated trapping, so further analysis was carried out.
Figure 10. Velocity vector simulations of trapping arrays for wing back trap (left) and triangular split back trap (right). Scale is relative to input flow.
16
To further understanding of flow dynamics inside the devices, the different trap designs
were analyzed in arrays. Once again, the scale is relative to the input flow, and the values should
be considered arbitrary. Fortunately, the flow profiles throughout the triangular split back array
support the data, but for reasons that were unexpected. It appears that the extra turbulence in the
flow direct the velocity vectors closer to the insides of the traps. The wing back traps appear to
direct flow between traps, explaining the observed “slaloming” of the loaded cells. These images
and more can be seen in at a larger scale in Appendix B.
The integration of a microfluidic network with the MPWs was successfully
accomplished, as indicated by the absence of leaking. Early tests revealed that a clamp is not
necessary to prevent leaking if careful fabrication techniques are used and if the experimental
flows rates are kept at 2000nl/min. Despite later discovering that we would need to use
extremely thin PDMS devices, the coverslip successfully prevented the PDMS from bending and
no leaking was observed at flow rates below 2000nl/min.
Unfortunately, the farther reaching portion of this design project was not yet
accomplished, which is the ability of the microfluidic device to guide cells into the wells where
they can be analyzed while they are maintained and experimented on. However, a last-minute
trial suggested that success is not far off, and further trials are planned before we graduate.
17
CONCLUSIONS
The overall goal of this project was to design and construct the internal system of a cell-
based microfluidic lab-on-a-chip that optimized high-throughput and incorporated MPW micro-
cellular imaging. It has been determined that, due to the size of the MPW's, a low density array
must be used. Several parameters were established as definitions for success:
Goals Successes
The cell trapping system used must fill at least
90% of traps; 10% of those traps, at least, must
hold single cells only (20% for high-success).
This is necessary for MPW operation
Gradient density, straight, square, split-back
traps achieved a total trapping of ~90% and a
total single cell trapping of ~20%. This makes
them optimal for MPW integration.
Imaging phenomena on the cellular scale from
multiple, and potentially simultaneous,
viewpoints of the specimen with MPW's.
Microfluidics have been successfully coupled
with MPW arrays, and images of cells from
multiple perspectives in the wells have been
acquired. Prototypes with both thick and thin
PDMS have been produced.
Accurately generate computer fluid dynamics
profiles for our traps for use to support theory
of cell loading
Vector velocity approximation of single and
array of traps for two different trap types
obtained. Also velocity contours for same.
Cell trapping experiments could be further elucidated by rate-loading studies. However,
sufficient data has been collected to suggest the conclusions here conceived. MPW's are a
cutting-edge technology for imaging recently developed in the VIIBRE laboratories, and as such
has design complications and limitations that have yet to be worked out. As the MPW
technology changes, improvements and modifications to this design must be made to maintain
18
this successful coupling. Maintaining proper operational parameters for both the fluidics and the
MPW's, as MPW technology is modified, require the flow analyses that we have generated.
Together, these design elements form the system that was intended and a compilation of data that
will allow modification of the device in future research and development.
19
RECOMMENDATIONS
Some problems encountered include:
• Bubbles adhere preferentially to the small wells during etching, causing rough or
misshapen wells.
• Bubbles adhere preferentially to the small wells during cell loading, causing flow and
imaging issues
• Cells clump in large MPW coupled traps, causing imaging problems
Continuing development of this device and usage protocol is needed to eliminate these problems
and optimize the device for use. Cell-based microfluidics offers great potential for high-
throughput analysis. The new design proposed and tested by this report integrates fluidics
designed to minimize necessary biomaterial for analysis with a promising new imaging system
just starting its development in the field. This optimization of old advantages in combination
with cutting edge imaging analysis alone makes this design something worth continued research
and development. The successes of this design project are as follows:
• Optimized and customizable microfluidic systems that minimize necessary quantities of
biomaterial
• Optimized microfluidic systems that create sufficient operating parameters for coupling
and proper operation of MPW's.
• Thick-layer PDMS coupled with an MPW array, our first concept prototype for the
device proposed.
• Thin-layer PDMS coupled with a MPW array, our first thin-layer prototype for the device
proposed.
20
The final two of these points have been achieved, but not quantified, nor tested. Operational
parameters, limitations, and quantified success of this device are things recommended for the
future research and development. Additionally, further development of the relatively new MPW
imaging technology should also be coupled with new designs of this device.
Economic, Social, and Ethical Discussion: There are no major ethical issues involved with our
device, as it has been developed solely with the goal of data acquisition in biological research.
The field of cell-based microfluidics has the potential for clinical use. If it passes this point,
standard ethical questions involved with new device use in patients will be present. Socially, this
device is one step on the way towards lab-on-a-chip, an area that will, in itself, have major social
consequences. Most significantly, public availability of high-throughput scientific analysis
equipment may personalize medical care and diagnosis. Again, this is out of the scope of our
device. Economically, this device will become the intellectual property of VIIBRE. If this
system becomes part of a popularly used lab-on-a-chip system, VIIBRE has the potential to
make money. All research and development costs were paid by VIIBRE.
21
APPENDIX A – Calculation of MPW dimensions
Well Bottom Size
b = w – 2*h / tan(54.7o)
Minimum Etch Depth
h = d + w/2 * tan(19.4o)
22
APPENDIX B – Fluent Image
Asymmetric velocity contour of single wing back trap. Asymmetry due to meshing.
23
Vector velocity simulation of single wing back trap. Vectors show velocity relative to length and
color.
24
Velocity contour of array of wing back traps. No symmetry used.
25
Velocity vector simulation of wing back trapping array. No symmetry used.
26
Velocity vector simulation of single triangular split back trap. Symmetry used.
27
Velocity contour analysis of triangular split back trapping array. No symmetry used.
28
Velocity vector approximation of triangular split back trapping array. No symmetry used.
29
APPENDIX C - Innovation Workbench
Ideation Process
Project Initiation
Project name:Optimization of T cell trapping in a microfluidic device
Project timeline:September 2006 - May 2007
Project team:
Matt Houston
Jeff Chamberlain
Eric Kim
Innovation Situation Questionnaire
Brief description of the situation
Improve functional efficiency
30
Current devices for cell trapping can be improved upon in regard to controlling the total number of cells trapped as well as the number of cells per trap, which will require a new design for the individual traps as well as the overall device.
Detailed description of the situation
Supersystem - System - Subsystems
System name
Microfluidic device for trapping cells. For the traps, the problem is that there are many cells that flow past the traps in the device, and avoid the traps. There is also a problem with traps containing too many cells, when only 1 cell per trap is desired.
System structure
The system structure consists of the following elements:
•pump
•tubing
•microfluidic device
•traps
•cells
•media
Supersystems and environment
Other systems located nearby:
31
•Zeiss inverted microscope
•Computer (PC)
•Multiple moniters
Systems with similar problems
Similar problems exist in many microfluidic applications. This is because the flow dynamics are not well understood. For this reason, a characterization of fluidic flow will accompany the optimization of the traps.
Input - Process - Output
Functioning of the system
The cells will be pumped through the microfluidic device, and will be transported in media. The device will have an array of traps. The primary useful function of the traps is to capture cells as they flow in the environment surrounding the trap. For the trap to be optimized, minimal cells must avoid the trap, and cells should not be able to escape the trap once captured.
System inputs
Microfluidic device inputs
•cells (many)
•media
•chemical reagants
32
System outputs
•cells (as few as possible)
•media
•chemical reagants
•data
Cause - Problem - Effect
Problem to be resolved
Improve the trapping efficiency of the cell-trapping array, so that there are more cells trapped and fewer cells lost. A large number of cells must be loaded into the device, and the percentage of these cells that become trapped is too small.
Mechanism causing the problem
The flow characteristics throughout the array of traps causes the cells to slalom between traps, and not become captured. Changing the design of the cell traps will alter the flow characteristics, ideally causing more cells to be trapped.
Undesirable consequences if the problem is not resolved
If the trapping efficiency problem is not resolved, cells will continue to be wasted, and the process will lack optimization.
Other problems to be solved
Control the number of cells captured and held by each trap.
33
Create an understanding of the fluid dynamics and molecular diffusion in the device.
Past - Present - Future
History of the problem
MEMS have been around since the late 1960's, and the first device was a gold resonating MOS gate structure. BioMEMS is the biological application of MEMS, and is a surging field of research. There are many opportunities for improvements in MEMS, one of these being trapping efficiency and techniques. The dynamics of flow are currently not well understood at this scale, and an understanding of this will improve the success of the project.
Pre-process time
Time before pump is turned on.
Post-process time
Time after pump is turned off.
Resources, constraints and limitations
Available resources
Substance resources:
•Polydimethylsiloxane
•Cells
34
•Media
•PEEK tubing
•Connectors
•Pumps
•Glass slides
Space resources:
•Microscope lab room
•Space inside microfluidic device
Efficiency resources:
•Cells trapped by device
•Cells escaping device
Allowable changes to the system
•System must contain an array of traps, but drastic changes are allowed for trap design.
•Any reduction in efficiency is unacceptable.
•Any drastic increase in difficulty of fabrication is unacceptable.
Constraints and limitations
•Deadline: April 2007
35
•Fabrication techniques must remain simple.
•Cost of computational fluid dynamics program must not be extreme.
Criteria for selecting solution concepts
•Noticeable increase in trapping efficiency.
36
Problem Formulation and Brainstorming
Cell Trap Diagram
37
Develop Concepts
Potential Trap Designs:
Original Design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Design #1
Add curve to center of original
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Design #2
Place 2 traps side by side
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
38
Design #3
Add opening in middle of original trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design #4
Add angles to large section of trap
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Design #5
Add angle to large section of trap and opening in middle of trap
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Design #6
39
Add opening down middle of trap, and round off sides of slit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Design #7
Add opening in arms of trap on Design #6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Design #8
Shorten arms of trap on Design #6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Design #9
40
Add directional bumpers to guide cells into traps.
(Image on right shows placement of traps in an array)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evaluate Results
Current results for trap design efficiency show that the original trap design lacks efficiency. Further testing results for other designs will be posted soon.
41
REFERENCES
1. Alper Joe. "Massively parallel single-cell analyses." Analytical Chemistry, 5249-5250, 1
August 2006.
2. Andersson, Helene, and Albert van den Berg. "Microfluidic devices for cellomics: a review." Sensors and Actuators B 92 (2003) 315–325.
3. Brittain,S, Paul,K, Zhao,XM, Whitesides,G. Soft Lithography and Microfabrication.
Physics World, 11, 31-36, 1998
4. David N. Breslauer, Philip J. Lee, and Luke P. Lee, "Microfluidics-Based Systems Biology," Molecular Biosystems, 2, 97-112 (2006).
5. Dino Di Carlo, Liz Y. Wu, Luke P. Lee, "Dynamic single cell culture array," Lab on a
Chip (2006).
6. Dino Di Carlo, Nima Aghdam, Luke P. Lee, "Single-cell enzyme concentrations, kinetics, and inhibition analysis using high density hydrodynamic cell isolation arrays," Analytical Chemistry 78(14), 4925-4930 (2006).
7. Herman, Peter R , Andrew Yick, Jianzhao Li, Nigel Munce, Lothar Lilge, Eric Jervis, and
Sergey Krylov. "FJaser micromachining of microfluidic channels and vias for biophotonic chip applications." Optical Society of America (2002).
8. J. R. Anderson, D. T. Chiu, R. J. Jackman, O. Cherniavskaya, J. C. McDonald, H. K. Wu,
S. H. Whitesides, and G. M. Whitesides. Fabrication of topologically complex three-dimensional microfluidic systems in PDMS by rapid prototyping. Anal.Chem. 72 (14):3158-3164, 2000.
9. McDonald,JC and Whitesides,GM. Poly(Dimethylsiloxane) As a Material for Fabricating
Microfluidic Devices. Acc.Chem.Res., 35, 491-499, 2002
10. Paul Hung, Philip Lee, and Luke P. Lee, "A Continuous Perfusion Microfluidic Cell Culture Array for High Throughput Cell-based Assays," Biotechnology & Bioengineering, 89, 1-8 (2005)
11. Paul J. Hung, Philip J. Lee, Poorya Sabounchi, Nima Aghdam, Robert Lin, and Luke P.
Lee, "A Novel High Aspect Ratio Microfluidic Design to Provide a Stable and Uniform Microenvironment for Cell Growth in High Throughput Mammalian Cell Culture Chip Array," Lab on a Chip, 5 (1), 44-48 (2005)
12. Quake,SR and Scherer,A. From Micro- to Nanofabrication With Soft Materials. Science,
290, 1536-1540, 2000
42
13. Shawgo, R. S., Grayson A. Richards, Y Li, and M. J. Cima. "BioMEMS for Drug
Delivery." Elsevier 6 (2002). 22 Apr. 2007 <http://www.ingentaconnect.com>qw2c4z
14. Wikswo, Dr. John P. and Franz J. Baudenbacher. Third-Year Review of Academic Venture Capital Fund Initiatives. December 2004.
15. Yi, Changqing, Cheuk-Wing Li, Shenglin Ji, and Mengsu Yang. "Microfluidics
technology for manipulation and analysis of biological cells." Analytica Chimica Acta 560 (2006) 1–23.