Advertisement

Biomedical Microdevices

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 159–166 | Cite as

Microfluidics/CMOS orthogonal capabilities for cell biology

  • Vincent Linder
  • Sander Koster
  • Wendy Franks
  • Tobias Kraus
  • Elisabeth Verpoorte
  • Flavio Heer
  • Andreas Hierlemann
  • Nico F. de RooijEmail author
Article

Abstract

The study of individual cells and cellular networks can greatly benefit from the capabilities of microfabricated devices for the stimulation and the recording of electrical cellular events. In this contribution, we describe the development of a device, which combines capabilities for both electrical and pharmacological cell stimulation, and the subsequent recording of electrical cellular activity. The device combines the unique advantages of integrated circuitry (CMOS technology) for signal processing and microfluidics for drug delivery. Both techniques are ideally suited to study electrogenic mammalian cells, because feature sizes are of the same order as the cell diameter, ∼ 50 μm. Despite these attractive features, we observe a size mismatch between microfluidic devices, with bulky fluidic connections to the outside world, and highly miniaturized CMOS chips. To overcome this problem, we developed a microfluidic flow cell that accommodates a small CMOS chip. We simulated the performances of a flow cell based on a 3-D microfluidic system, and then fabricated the device to experimentally verify the nutrient delivery and localized drug delivery performance. The flow-cell has a constant nutrient flow, and six drug inlets that can individually deliver a drug to the cells. The experimental analysis of the nutrient and drug flow mass transfer properties in the flowcell are in good agreement with our simulations. For an experimental proof-of-principle, we successfully delivered, in a spatially resolved manner, a ‘drug’ to a culture of HL-1 cardiac myocytes.

Keywords

Microfluidic Device Flow Cell Microfluidic System Delivery Performance Localize Drug Delivery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C.A. Jr. Thomas et al., A miniature microelectrode array to monitor the bioelectric activity of cultured cells. Experimental cell research 74(1), 61–6 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. G.W. Gross et al., The use of neuronal networks on multielectrode arrays as biosensors. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 10(6/7), 553–67 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. G.W. Gross, W.Y. Wen, and J.W. Lin, Transparent indium-tin oxide electrode patterns for extracellular, multisite recording in neuronal cultures. Journal of neuroscience methods 15(3), 243–52 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. E.W. Keefer A. Gramowski, and G.W. Gross, NMDA receptor-dependent periodic oscillations in cultured spinal cord networks. Journal of Neurophysiology 86(6), 3030–3042 (2001).Google Scholar
  5. E.W. Keefer et al., Characterization of acute neurotoxic effects of trimethylolpropane phosphate via neuronal network biosensors. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 16(7–8), 513–525 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Tscherter et al., Spatiotemporal characterization of rhythmic activity in rat spinal cord slice cultures. European journal of neuroscience 14(2), 179–90 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Streit et al., The generation of rhythmic activity in dissociated cultures of rat spinal cord. European journal of neuroscience 14(2), 191–202 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Y. Jimbo and H.P.C. Robinson, Propagation of spontaneous synchronized activity in cortical slice cultures recorded by planar electrode arrays. Bioelectrochemistry 51(2), 107–115 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Q. Bai and K.D. Wise, Single-unit neural recording with active microelectrode arrays. IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering 48(8), 911–20 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. B.D. DeBusschere and G.T.A. Kovacs, Portable cell-based biosensor system using integrated CMOS cell-cartridges. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 16(7–8), 543–556 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. B. Eversmann et al., A 128 × 128 CMOS bio-sensor array for extracellular recording of neural activity. Journal of Solid-State Circuits 38(12), 2306–2317 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Tourovskaia X. Figueroa-Masot, and A. Folch, Differentiation-on-a-chip, A microfluidic platform for long-term cell culture studies. Lab on a Chip 5(1), 14–19 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. P.J. Hung et al., Continuous perfusion microfluidic cell culture array for highthroughput cell-based assays. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 89(1), 1–8 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. H. Kaji, M. Nishizawa and T. Matsue, Localized chemical stimulation to micropatterned cells using multiple laminar fluid flows. Lab on a Chip 3(3), 208–211 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Takayama et al., Selective Chemical Treatment of Cellular Microdomains Using Multiple Laminar Streams. Chemistry & Biology 10(2), 123–130 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Y. Matsubara et al., Application of on-chip cell cultures for the detection of allergic response. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 19(7), 741–747 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. M.A. Unger et al., Monolithic microfabricated valves and pumps by multilayer soft lithography. Science (Washington, D. C.) 288(5463), 113–116 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Liu, C. Hansen and S.R. Quake, Solving the “world-to-chip” interface problem with a microfluidic matrix. Analytical Chemistry 75(18), 4718–4723 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. T. Kraus et al., Microfluidic dispensing system for localized stimulation of cellular networks. Lab on a Chip Submitted (2005).Google Scholar
  20. H. Lu et al., Microfluidic Shear Devices for Quantitative Analysis of Cell Adhesion. Analytical Chemistry 76(18), 5257–5264 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. F. Heer et al., CMOS microelectrode array for the monitoring of electrogenic cells. Biosensors & Bioelectronics 20(2), 358–366 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Linder
    • 1
  • Sander Koster
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wendy Franks
    • 3
  • Tobias Kraus
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Verpoorte
    • 1
    • 2
  • Flavio Heer
    • 3
  • Andreas Hierlemann
    • 3
  • Nico F. de Rooij
    • 1
  1. 1.SAMLAB, Institute of MicrotechnologyUniversity of NeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.Groningen Research Institute of PharmacyUniversity of Groningenthe Netherlands
  3. 3.ETH ZurichPhysical Electronics LaboratoryZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations