Electrical characterization of a single cell electroporation biochip with the 2-D scanning vibrating electrode technology
- 184 Downloads
- 10 Citations
Abstract
Advancements in microfabrication technology have lead to the development of planar micro-pore electroporation technology. This technology has been shown to provide greater control in single cell manipulation, and electroporation which is independent from cell size. In this work we report direct and spatially resolved characterization of electric currents within a planar micropore electroporation biochip to better understand this phenomenon at the cellular level. This work was performed using a two-dimensional (2-D) vibrating probe (VP). Analysis of the spatial patterns of current density yielded a 4th order polynomial profile in the planes parallel to the biochip’s surface and a three parameter hyperbolic decay profile in the planes perpendicular to the chip surface. A finite element model was developed which correlates with actual measurements on the micropore. Preliminary VP current density measurements of electroporated HepG2 cells revealed a significantly high current density minutes after electroporation even with non-electroporative pulses. These results indicate that cells take a considerable amount of time for complete electrophysiological recovery and indicate the use of the VP as a cell viability indicator for optimized electroporation.
Keywords
Electroporation Biochip Micropore Current density Vibrating probeNotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge members of the Purdue University Cytometry Laboratories (PUCL) for their support with microscopy and cell culture. We would also like to thank Eric McLamore for his assistance on the microprobe rigs and the staff of Bindley Bioscience Center. This work was partially funded by the Institute for Functional Nanomaterials and the Collaboration in Biomedical Engineering Research, a joint initiative between the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez and the Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering at Purdue University.
Supplementary material
(WMV 7075 kb)
References
- A.J. Aldykiewicz, H.S. Isaacs, Corros. Sci. 40, 1627 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- F. Andre, L.M. Mir, Gene Ther. 11, S33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.B. Borgens, J.W. Vanable Jr., L.F. Jaffe, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 74, 4528 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.B. Borgens, L.F. Jaffe, M.J. Cohen, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 77, 1208 (1980)Google Scholar
- D.C. Chang, Guide to electroporation and electrofusion (Academic Press, San Diego, 1992)Google Scholar
- A.-R. Denet, R. Vanbever, V. Preat, Adv. Drug Deliver. Rev. 56, 659 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.E. Diaz-Rivera, B. Rubinsky, Biomed. Microdevices 8, 25 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- K. Haas, W.C. Sin, A. Javaherian, Z. Li, H.T. Cline, Neuron 29, 583 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Y. Huang, B. Rubinsky, Biomed. Microdevices 2, 145 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Y. Huang, B. Rubinsky, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys. 89, 242 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Y. Huang, B. Rubinsky, Sensor. Actuat. A-Phys. 104, 205 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- L.F. Jaffe, R. Nuccitelli, J. Cell Biol. 63, (1974)Google Scholar
- M. Khine, A. Lau, C. Ionescu-Zanetti, J. Seo, L.P. Lee, Lab on a Chip. 5, 38 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- H. Krawiec, V. Vignal, R. Oltra, Electrochem. Commun. 6, 655 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.C. Lee, M.S. Kolodney, Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 80, 663 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R.C. Lee, D.J. Zhang, J. Hannig, Ann. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2, 477 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- E.S. Lee, D. Robinson, J.L. Rognlien, C.K. Harnett, B.S. Simmons, C.R.B. Ellis, R.V. Davalos, Bioelectrochem. 69, 117 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- S. Lemaire, F. Van Bembeke, Mingeot-Leclercq M-P, P.M. Tulkins, Antimicrob. Agents Ch. 51, 2748 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- J.A. Lundqvist, F. Sahlin, M.A.I. Aberg, A. Stromberg, P.S. Eriksson, O. Orwar, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 10356 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- E. Neumann, A.E. Sowers, C.A. Jordan, Electroporation and electrofusion in cell biology (Plenum, New York, 1989)Google Scholar
- T. Niidome, L. Huang, Gene Ther. 9, 1647 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R. Nuccitelli, L.F. Jaffe, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 71, 4955 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- J.L. Rae, R.A. Levis, Pflug. Arch. Eur. J. Phy. 443, 664 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- B. Ried, R. Nuccitelli, M. Zhao, Nat. Protoc. 2, 661 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- F. Ryttsen, C. Farre, C. Brennan, S.G. Weber, K. Nolkrantz, K. Jardemark, D.T. Chiu, O. Orwar, Biophys. J. 79, 1993 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- J. Teissie, M. Golzio, M.P. Rols, Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1724, 270 (2005)Google Scholar
- T. Tryfona, M.T. Bustard, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 93, 413 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- T.Y. Tsong, Biophys. J. 60, 297 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- J.C. Weaver, IEEE T. Dielect. El. In. 10, 754 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- M.H. Weisenseel, H.F. Becker, J.G. Ehlgotz, Plant Physiol. 100, 16 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- M. Zuberi, P. Liu-Snyder, A. ul Haque, D.M. Porterfield, R.B. Borgens, J. Biol. Eng. 2, 17 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar