ArticleBiomedical microdevices2016
A membrane-based microfluidic device for mechano-chemical cell manipulation.
Article in Biomedical microdevices, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Specific Organoid and Organ-on-a-Chip: 3D Cell-Culture Meets 3D Printing and Numerical Simulation.Advanced biology · 2021Review
- Permeability of Epithelial/Endothelial Barriers in Transwells and Microfluidic Bilayer Devices.Micromachines · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We introduce a microfluidic device for chemical manipulation and mechanical investigation of circulating cells. The device consists of two crossing microfluidic channels separated by a porous membrane. A chemical compound is flown through the upper "stimulus channel", which diffuses through the membrane into the lower "cell analysis channel", in which cells are mechanically deformed in two sequential narrow constrictions, one before and one after crossing the stimulus channel. Thus, this system permits to measure cell deformability before and after chemical cues are delivered to the cells within one single chip. The validity of the device was tested with monocytic cells stimulated with an actin-disrupting agent (Cytochalasin-D). Furthermore, as proof of principle of the device application, the effect of an anti-inflammatory drug (Pentoxifylline) was tested on monocytic cells activated with Lipopolysaccharides and on monocytes from patients affected by atherosclerosis. The results show that the system can detect differences in cell mechanical deformation after chemical cues are delivered to the cells through the porous membrane. Diffusion of Cytochalasin-D resulted in a considerable decrease in entry time in the narrow constriction and an evident increase in the velocity within the constriction. Pentoxifylline showed to decrease the entry time but not to affect the transit time within the constriction for monocytic cells. Monocytes from patients affected by atherosclerosis were difficult to test in the device due to increased adhesion to the walls of the microfluidic channel. Overall, this analysis shows that the device has potential applications as a cellular assay for analyzing cell-drug interaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.