3D printing of soft lithography mold for rapid production of polydimethylsiloxane-based microfluidic devices for cell stimulation with concentration gradients
- 3.7k Downloads
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is advantageous over conventional technologies for the fabrication of sophisticated structures such as 3D micro-channels for future applications in tissue engineering and drug screening. We aimed to apply this technology to cell-based assays using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), the most commonly used material for fabrication of micro-channels used for cell culture experiments. Useful properties of PDMS include biocompatibility, gas permeability and transparency. We developed a simple and robust protocol to generate PDMS-based devices using a soft lithography mold produced by 3D printing. 3D chemical gradients were then generated to stimulate cells confined to a micro-channel. We demonstrate that concentration gradients of growth factors, important regulators of cell/tissue functions in vivo, influence the survival and growth of human embryonic stem cells. Thus, this approach for generation of 3D concentration gradients could have strong implications for tissue engineering and drug screening.
Keywords3D printing Microfluidics Polydimethylsiloxane Human embryonic stem cell Concentration gradient
Funding was generously provided by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS): Young Scientists (A) (to K.K.; 23681028) and Challenging Exploratory Research (to K.K.; 26560209); funding was also provided by Terumo Life Science Foundation. The WPI-iCeMS is supported by the World Premier International Research Centre Initiative (WPI), the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan.
Competing financial interests
K. K. and Y. C. are listed as co-inventors on the Japanese provisional patent application based on this research. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests.
(MOV 676 kb)
(MOV 614 kb)
(MOV 1563 kb)
(MOV 1304 kb)
- E. Berthier, D.J. Beebe, Lab Chip 14, 3241 (2014)Google Scholar
- J. Condeelis, R.H. Singer, J.E. Segall, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 21, 695 (2005)Google Scholar
- E. Cukierman, K.E. Sung, X. Su, E. Berthier, C. Pehlke, A. Friedl, D.J. Beebe, PLoS One 10, e76373 (2013)Google Scholar
- K.M. Fosen, S.R. Thom, Antioxid Redox Signaling 21, 1634 (2014)Google Scholar
- D. Irimia, Ann. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 12, 259 (2010)Google Scholar
- B.J. Kim, M. Wu, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 40, 6 (2012)Google Scholar
- D.B. Kolesky, R.L. Truby, A.S. Gladman, T.A. Busbee, K.A. Homan, J.A. Lewis, Adv. Mater. 26, 19 (2014)Google Scholar
- T. Ludwig, V. Bergendahl, M. Levenstein, J. Yu, M.D. Probasco, J. Thomson, Nat. Meth. 3, 8 (2006a)Google Scholar
- L. Przybyla, L. Voldman, Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 5, 293 (2012)Google Scholar
- E.K. Sackmann, A.L. Fulton, D.J. Beebe, Nature 507, 181 (2014)Google Scholar
- H. Yoshioka, M. Mikami, Y. Mori, E. Tsuchida, J. Macromol. Sci. Pure A31, 113 (1994a)Google Scholar
- H. Yoshioka, M. Mikami, Y. Mori, E. Tsuchida, J. Macromol. Sci. Pure A31, 121 (1994b)Google Scholar