2016
DOI: 10.1002/adma.201602947
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surface Acoustic Waves Grant Superior Spatial Control of Cells Embedded in Hydrogel Fibers

Abstract: By exploiting surface acoustic waves and a coupling layer technique, cells are patterned within a photosensitive hydrogel fiber to mimic physiological cell arrangement in tissues. The aligned cell-polymer matrix is polymerized with short exposure to UV light and the fiber is extracted. These patterned cell fibers are manipulated into simple and complex architectures, demonstrating feasibility for tissue-engineering applications.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
66
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
66
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, relative to OT and OET, p‐OET has some advantages (long‐term “always on” trapping without optical heating, capacity to clear a crowded field of view) and disadvantages (fabrication is more complex and some degree of flexibility is lost). But there are numerous other techniques that have been developed for similar applications, including magnetic tweezers (MT), DEP tweezers (DEPT), acoustic tweezers (AT), physical tweezers (PT), plasmonic optical tweezers (POT), and photovoltaic tweezers (PVT) . Each of these methods has a unique combination of properties—for example, some techniques are purely “optical” but are limited to <nN trapping forces (OT, POT), other techniques enable application of >nN forces but require special measures to work with high‐conductivity media (OET, p‐OET, PVT), others are innately compatible with high‐conductivity media but require moving parts and physical contact with the trapped particles (MT, PT), and still others are useful for noncontact trapping of populations but are less well‐suited for active selection of individual particles of interest (AT, DEPT).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, relative to OT and OET, p‐OET has some advantages (long‐term “always on” trapping without optical heating, capacity to clear a crowded field of view) and disadvantages (fabrication is more complex and some degree of flexibility is lost). But there are numerous other techniques that have been developed for similar applications, including magnetic tweezers (MT), DEP tweezers (DEPT), acoustic tweezers (AT), physical tweezers (PT), plasmonic optical tweezers (POT), and photovoltaic tweezers (PVT) . Each of these methods has a unique combination of properties—for example, some techniques are purely “optical” but are limited to <nN trapping forces (OT, POT), other techniques enable application of >nN forces but require special measures to work with high‐conductivity media (OET, p‐OET, PVT), others are innately compatible with high‐conductivity media but require moving parts and physical contact with the trapped particles (MT, PT), and still others are useful for noncontact trapping of populations but are less well‐suited for active selection of individual particles of interest (AT, DEPT).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162 Much of this work has focused on developing clever IDT designs, including chirped IDTs that allow for multiple resonance frequencies 10 and tilted-angle IDTs that allow for better control of the separation. 154 One particular advancement was integrating fluorescent labeling and a fluorescence detector to developed a feedback-controlled method for rapid sorting – a so-called fluorescence activated cell sorter (FACS) – that allowed for the selective separation of cell targets from a heterogeneous sample.…”
Section: Saw-integrated Microfluidicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[5][6][7] There are three categories of techniques that have been used to manufacture TMPs; the first (canonical) category relies on photo-or electron-beam (e-beam) lithography and etching. [12,13] These techniques are useful, but they also rely on expensive and specialized tools and well-trained personnel, and can have limited throughput.A third category of "wet" cleanroom-free techniques has recently been proposed for forming topographical micropatterns, relying on dielectrophoresis tweezers (DEPT), [14][15][16] acoustic tweezers (AT), [17][18][19] magnetic tweezers (MT), [20,21] and optical tweezers (OT). In recognition of these limitations, a second category of "dry" cleanroom-free methods has been developed, including 3D printing, [8][9][10] laser machining, [11] and "pick-and-place" technologies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A third category of "wet" cleanroom-free techniques has recently been proposed for forming topographical micropatterns, relying on dielectrophoresis tweezers (DEPT), [14][15][16] acoustic tweezers (AT), [17][18][19] magnetic tweezers (MT), [20,21] and optical tweezers (OT). [22][23][24][25] These techniques, in which patterns of 3D particles are assembled in a fluidic environment and are later dried for use in TMP applications, are creative and interesting, and preserve many of the advantages of the canonical methods while allowing for accessible, cleanroom-free operation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%