Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30090895›Full record

ArticleLab on a chip2018

Microfluidic filter device with nylon mesh membranes efficiently dissociates cell aggregates and digested tissue into single cells.

Xiaolong Qiu, Jeremy A Lombardo, Trisha M Westerhof, Marissa Pennell, Anita Ng, Hamad Alshetaiwi, Brian M Luna, Edward L Nelson, Kai Kessenbrock, Elliot E Hui and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lab on a chip, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Augmented 3D Printing for Multiscale Microphysiological Systems.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Novel methods to monitor the biodegradation of polylactic acid (PLA) byFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Cell Separations and Sorting.Analytical chemistry · 2020
    Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaolong QiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Irvine, 3107 Natural Sciences II, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. jered.haun@uci.edu.
Jeremy A Lombardo
Trisha M Westerhof
Marissa Pennell
Anita Ng
Hamad Alshetaiwi
Brian M Luna
Edward L Nelson
Kai Kessenbrock
Elliot E Hui
Jered B Haun
Irvine Valley College · US

Funding

Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Christine Hui · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissues are increasingly being analyzed at the single cell level in order to characterize cellular diversity and identify rare cell types. Single cell analysis efforts are greatly limited, however, by the need to first break down tissues into single cell suspensions. Current dissociation methods are inefficient, leaving a significant portion of the tissue as aggregates that are filtered away or left to confound results. Here, we present a simple and inexpensive microfluidic device that simultaneously filters large tissue fragments and dissociates smaller aggregates into single cells, thereby improving single cell yield and purity. The device incorporates two nylon mesh membranes with well-defined, micron-sized pores that operate on aggregates of different size scales. We also designed the device so that the first filtration could be performed under tangential flow to minimize clogging. Using cancer cell lines, we demonstrated that aggregates were effectively dissociated using high flow rates and pore sizes that were smaller than a single cell. However, pore sizes that were less than half the cell size caused significant damage. We then improved results by passing the sample through two filter devices in series, with single cell yield and purity predominantly determined by the pore size of the second membrane. Next, we optimized performance using minced and digested murine kidney tissue samples, and determined that the combination of 50 and 15 μm membranes was optimal. Finally, we integrated these two membranes into a single filter device and performed validation experiments using minced and digested murine kidney, liver, and mammary tumor tissue samples. The dual membrane microfluidic filter device increased single cell numbers by at least 3-fold for each tissue type, and in some cases by more than 10-fold. These results were obtained in minutes without affecting cell viability, and additional filtering would not be required prior to downstream applications. In future work, we will create complete tissue analysis platforms by integrating the dual membrane microfluidic filter device with additional upstream tissue processing technologies, as well as downstream operations such as cell sorting and detection.

Indexed as

Cell AggregationLab-On-A-Chip DevicesMembranes, ArtificialNylonsAnimalsCell SeparationFiltrationHumansKidneyMCF-7 CellsMiceSingle-Cell AnalysisMembranes, ArtificialNylons

Identifiers

PMID30090895
PMCPMC6171522
OpenAlexW2885576901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.