ArticleACS applied bio materials2022
Compatibility of Popular Three-Dimensional Printed Microfluidics Materials with In Vitro Enzymatic Reactions.
Article in ACS applied bio materials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development, Fabrication and Application of a Sectioned 3D-Printed Human Nasal Cavity Model for In Vitro Nasal Spray Deposition Studies.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- 3D-printed microfluidic device for high-throughput production of lipid nanoparticles incorporating SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mRNA.Lab on a chip · 2024Article
- Parylene-C Coating Protects Resin-3D-Printed Devices from Material Erosion and Prevents Cytotoxicity toward Primary Cells.ACS applied bio materials · 2023Article
- Applied tutorial for the design and fabrication of biomicrofluidic devices by resin 3D printing.Analytica chimica acta · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
3D printed microfluidics offer several advantages over conventional planar microfabrication techniques including fabrication of 3D microstructures, rapid prototyping, and inertness. While 3D printed materials have been studied for their biocompatibility in cell and tissue culture applications, their compatibility for in vitro biochemistry and molecular biology has not been systematically investigated. Here, we evaluate the compatibility of several common enzymatic reactions in the context of 3D-printed microfluidics: (1) polymerase chain reaction (PCR), (2) T7 in vitro transcription, (3) mammalian in vitro translation, and (4) reverse transcription. Surprisingly, all the materials tested significantly inhibit one or more of these in vitro enzymatic reactions. Inclusion of BSA mitigates only some of these inhibitory effects. Overall, inhibition appears to be due to a combination of the surface properties of the resins as well as soluble components (leachate) originating in the matrix.
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.