Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36277174›Full record

ArticleACS applied polymer materials2022

Microcontact Printing of Biomolecules on Various Polymeric Substrates: Limitations and Applicability for Fluorescence Microscopy and Subcellular Micropatterning Assays.

Roland Hager, Christian Forsich, Jiri Duchoslav, Christoph Burgstaller, David Stifter, Julian Weghuber, Peter Lanzerstorfer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS applied polymer materials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Roland HagerSchool of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, 4600 Wels, Austria.
Christian ForsichSchool of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, 4600 Wels, Austria.
Jiri DuchoslavCenter for Surface and Nanoanalytics (ZONA), Johannes Kepler University Linz, 4040 Linz, Austria.
Christoph BurgstallerSchool of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, 4600 Wels, Austria.
David StifterCenter for Surface and Nanoanalytics (ZONA), Johannes Kepler University Linz, 4040 Linz, Austria.
Julian WeghuberSchool of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, 4600 Wels, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6312-4666
Peter LanzerstorferSchool of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, 4600 Wels, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4512-7964

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polymeric materials play an emerging role in biosensing interfaces. Within this regard, polymers can serve as a superior surface for binding and printing of biomolecules. In this study, we characterized 11 different polymer foils [cyclic olefin polymer (COP), cyclic olefin copolymer (COC), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), DI-Acetate, Lumirror 4001, Melinex 506, Melinex ST 504, polyamide 6, polyethersulfone, polyether ether ketone, and polyimide] to test for the applicability for surface functionalization, biomolecule micropatterning, and fluorescence microscopy approaches. Pristine polymer foils were characterized via UV-vis spectroscopy. Functional groups were introduced by plasma activation and epoxysilane-coating. Polymer modification was evaluated by water contact angle measurement and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Protein micropatterns were fabricated using microcontact printing. Functionalized substrates were characterized via fluorescence contrast measurements using epifluorescence and total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy. Results showed that all polymer substrates could be chemically modified with epoxide functional groups, as indicated by reduced water contact angles compared to untreated surfaces. However, transmission and refractive index measurements revealed differences in important optical parameters, which was further proved by fluorescence contrast measurements of printed biomolecules. COC, COP, and PMMA were identified as the most promising alternatives to commonly used glass coverslips, which also showed superior applicability in subcellular micropatterning experiments.

Identifiers

PMID36277174
PMCPMC9578008

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.