ArticleBiosensors2020
A Disposable Passive Microfluidic Device for Cell Culturing.
Article in Biosensors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- Breaking the clean room barrier: exploring low-cost alternatives for microfluidic devices.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Measuring cell deformation by microfluidics.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Article
- Microfluidics for 3D Cell and Tissue Cultures: Microfabricative and Ethical Aspects Updates.Cells · 2022Review
- Human iPSC Modeling of Genetic Febrile Seizure Reveals Aberrant Molecular and Physiological Features Underlying an Impaired Neuronal Activity.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Cell culture platform fabrication methods and applications.Tzu chi medical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this work, a disposable passive microfluidic device for cell culturing that does not require any additional/external pressure sources is introduced. By regulating the height of fluidic columns and the aperture and closure of the source wells, the device can provide different media and/or drug flows, thereby allowing different flow patterns with respect to time. The device is made of two Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) layers fabricated by micro-milling and solvent assisted bonding and allows us to ensure a flow rate of 18.6 μl/ℎ - 7%/day, due to a decrease of the fluid height while the liquid is driven from the reservoirs into the channels. Simulations and experiments were conducted to characterize flows and diffusion in the culture chamber. Melanoma tumor cells were used to test the device and carry out cell culturing experiments for 48 hours. Moreover, HeLa, Jurkat, A549 and HEK293T cell lines were cultivated successfully inside the microfluidic device for 72 hours.
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.