Literature DB >> 28972783

Multiple Myeloma Cell Drug Responses Differ in Thermoplastic vs PDMS Microfluidic Devices.

Thomas A Moore1, Peter Brodersen2, Edmond W K Young1.   

Abstract

Poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) is a commonly used elastomer for fabricating microfluidic devices, but it has previously been shown to absorb hydrophobic molecules. Although this has been demonstrated for molecules such as estrogen and Nile Red, the absorption of small hydrophobic molecules in PDMS specifically used to treat cancer and its subsequent impact on cytotoxicity measurements and assays have not been investigated. This is critical for the development of microfluidic chemosensitivity and resistance assay (CSRA) platforms that have shown potential to help guide clinical therapy selection and which rely on the accuracy of the readout involving interactions between patient-derived cells and cancer drugs. It is thus important to address the issue of drug absorption into device material. We investigated drug absorption into microfluidic devices by treating multiple myeloma (MM) tumor cells with two MM drugs (bortezomib (BTZ) and carfilzomib (CFZ)) in devices fabricated using three different materials (polystyrene (PS), cyclo-olefin polymer (COP), and PDMS). Half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50) were obtained for each drug-material combination, and an increase in IC50 of ∼4.3× was observed in PDMS devices compared to both thermoplastic devices. Additionally, each MM drug was exposed to polymer samples, and samples were analyzed using time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) to characterize adsorption and absorption of the drugs into each material. ToF-SIMS data showed the bias observed in IC50 values found in PDMS devices was directly related to the absorption of drug during dose-response experiments. Specifically, BTZ and CFZ absorption in both PS and COP were all in the range of ∼100-300 nm, whereas BTZ and CFZ absorption in PDMS was ∼5.0 and ∼3.5 μm, respectively. These results highlight the biases that exist in PDMS devices and the importance of material selection in microfluidic device design, especially in applications involving drug cytotoxicity and hydrophobic molecules.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28972783     DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b02351

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Chem        ISSN: 0003-2700            Impact factor:   6.986


  9 in total

1.  Chemical-PDMS binding kinetics and implications for bioavailability in microfluidic devices.

Authors:  Alexander W Auner; Kazi M Tasneem; Dmitry A Markov; Lisa J McCawley; M Shane Hutson
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 6.799

2.  Simulating drug concentrations in PDMS microfluidic organ chips.

Authors:  Jennifer Grant; Alican Özkan; Crystal Oh; Gautam Mahajan; Rachelle Prantil-Baun; Donald E Ingber
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 7.517

3.  Modeling Tumor: Lymphatic Interactions in Lymphatic Metastasis of Triple Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Kyungmin Ji; Zhiguo Zhao; Mansoureh Sameni; Kamiar Moin; Yong Xu; Robert J Gillies; Bonnie F Sloane; Raymond R Mattingly
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 4.  Vessel-on-a-chip models for studying microvascular physiology, transport, and function in vitro.

Authors:  Savannah R Moses; Jonathan J Adorno; Andre F Palmer; Jonathan W Song
Journal:  Am J Physiol Cell Physiol       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 4.249

5.  Facile Patterning of Thermoplastic Elastomers and Robust Bonding to Glass and Thermoplastics for Microfluidic Cell Culture and Organ-on-Chip.

Authors:  Stefan Schneider; Eduardo J S Brás; Oliver Schneider; Katharina Schlünder; Peter Loskill
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.891

6.  Tetrafluoroethylene-Propylene Elastomer for Fabrication of Microfluidic Organs-on-Chips Resistant to Drug Absorption.

Authors:  Emi Sano; Chihiro Mori; Naoki Matsuoka; Yuka Ozaki; Keisuke Yagi; Aya Wada; Koichi Tashima; Shinsuke Yamasaki; Kana Tanabe; Kayo Yano; Yu-Suke Torisawa
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 2.891

Review 7.  Microfluidics for interrogating live intact tissues.

Authors:  Lisa F Horowitz; Adán D Rodriguez; Tyler Ray; Albert Folch
Journal:  Microsyst Nanoeng       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 7.127

Review 8.  Recapitulating the Cancer Microenvironment Using Bioprinting Technology for Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Jisoo Kim; Jinah Jang; Dong-Woo Cho
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 2.891

9.  Microdissected "cuboids" for microfluidic drug testing of intact tissues.

Authors:  Lisa F Horowitz; Adan D Rodriguez; Allan Au-Yeung; Kevin W Bishop; Lindsey A Barner; Gargi Mishra; Aashik Raman; Priscilla Delgado; Jonathan T C Liu; Taranjit S Gujral; Mehdi Mehrabi; Mengsu Yang; Robert H Pierce; Albert Folch
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 6.799

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.