Advantages and challenges of microfluidic cell culture in polydimethylsiloxane devices

Abstract

Culture of cells using various microfluidic devices is becoming more common within experimental cell biology. At the same time, a technological radiation of microfluidic cell culture device designs is currently in progress. Ultimately, the utility of microfluidic cell culture will be determined by its capacity to permit new insights into cellular function. Especially insights that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to obtain with macroscopic cell culture in traditional polystyrene dishes, flasks or well-plates. Many decades of heuristic optimization have gone into perfecting conventional cell culture devices and protocols. In comparison, even for the most commonly used microfluidic cell culture devices, such as those fabricated from polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), collective understanding of the differences in cellular behavior between microfluidic and macroscopic culture is still developing. Moving in vitro culture from macroscopic culture to PDMS based devices can come with unforeseen challenges. Changes in device material, surface coating, cell number per unit surface area or per unit media volume may all affect the outcome of otherwise standard protocols. In this review, we outline some of the advantages and challenges that may accompany a transition from macroscopic to microfluidic cell culture. We focus on decisive factors that distinguish macroscopic from microfluidic cell culture to encourage a reconsideration of how macroscopic cell culture principles might apply to microfluidic cell culture.

Spheroids Formation on Non‐Adhesive Surfaces by Liquid Overlay Technique: Considerations and Practical Approaches

“…[54,55] Most of these devices are formed by casting agarose or polymethylsiloxane (PDMS) in a mold. [56,57] These micromolded structures allow [3,36,53,57,59] www.advancedsciencenews.com www.biotechnology-journal.com the production of spheroids in a highly reproducible manner, with a tailored shape and size. [56,57] Moreover, some of the molds employed for spheroids formation are already commercially available (e.g., 3D Petri Dish 1 , Microtissues, Inc., and AggreWell TM , STEMCELL Technologies, Inc.).…”

Untitled

“…Secondly, culture protocols need to be optimized at every step for microfluidicspecific conditions; as long as minute volumes of reagents are involved as it needs patience and careful handling. Creating a dynamic system inside the microfluidic device ask for some additional components such as syringe pumps and its accessories that require expertise and dedication to gain full operational control [28]. Recreation of artificial structures with physiologicallevel resemblance demands microarchitectured chips.…”

A two-compartment microfluidic device for long-term live cell detection based on surface plasmon resonance

“…9,37 To reduce the shear stress s while ensuring sufficient nutrient supply, COMSOL was used to simulate the flow characteristics of the cell culture chambers. The simulation model was described specifically in the supplementary material.…”

“…These limitations motivated the development of microfluidic cell culture techniques to "minimize" the incubator, where the cell environment was controlled by means of medium perfusion. [36][37][38] Integrated with the microfluidic devices, many microscopic imaging and spectroscopy based detection systems have enabled long-term cell monitoring as well. [39][40][41][42] However, to our knowledge, there are very few papers integrating the microfluidic cell culture with SPR for long-term detection of the cell physiological process.…”