Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33282849›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020

Microfluidics for Biotechnology: Bridging Gaps to Foster Microfluidic Applications.

Vera Ortseifen, Martina Viefhues, Lutz Wobbe, Alexander Grünberger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. In Vitro Models for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Biocatalytic Performance ofMicromachines · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Microfluidic Single-Cell Study onPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Vera OrtseifenProteome and Metabolome Research, Faculty of Biology, Center for Biotechnology/CeBiTec, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Martina ViefhuesExperimental Biophysics and Applied Nanosciences, Faculty of Physics, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Lutz WobbeAlgae Biotechnology and Bioenergy Group, Faculty of Biology, Center for Biotechnology/CeBiTec, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Alexander GrünbergerMultiscale Bioengineering, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microfluidics and novel lab-on-a-chip applications have the potential to boost biotechnological research in ways that are not possible using traditional methods. Although microfluidic tools were increasingly used for different applications within biotechnology in recent years, a systematic and routine use in academic and industrial labs is still not established. For many years, absent innovative, ground-breaking and "out-of-the-box" applications have been made responsible for the missing drive to integrate microfluidic technologies into fundamental and applied biotechnological research. In this review, we highlight microfluidics' offers and compare them to the most important demands of the biotechnologists. Furthermore, a detailed analysis in the state-of-the-art use of microfluidics within biotechnology was conducted exemplarily for four emerging biotechnological fields that can substantially benefit from the application of microfluidic systems, namely the phenotypic screening of cells, the analysis of microbial population heterogeneity, organ-on-a-chip approaches and the characterisation of synthetic co-cultures. The analysis resulted in a discussion of potential "gaps" that can be responsible for the rare integration of microfluidics into biotechnological studies. Our analysis revealed six major gaps, concerning the lack of interdisciplinary communication, mutual knowledge and motivation, methodological compatibility, technological readiness and missing commercialisation, which need to be bridged in the future. We conclude that connecting microfluidics and biotechnology is not an impossible challenge and made seven suggestions to bridge the gaps between those disciplines. This lays the foundation for routine integration of microfluidic systems into biotechnology research procedures.

Indexed as

biotechnologydroplet microfluidicsinterdisciplinary researchmicrofluidicsorgan-on-a-chipsingle-cell analysissingle-cell cultivation

Identifiers

PMID33282849
PMCPMC7691494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.