Makiko N Hatori1, Samuel C Kim1, Adam R Abate1,2. 1. Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences , University of California , San Francisco , California 94158 , United States. 2. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub , San Francisco , California 94158 , United States.
Abstract
The compartmentalization of reactions in monodispersed droplets is valuable for applications across biology. However, the requirement of microfluidics to partition the sample into monodispersed droplets is a significant barrier that impedes implementation. Here, we introduce particle-templated emulsification, a method to encapsulate samples in monodispersed emulsions without microfluidics. By vortexing a mixture of hydrogel particles and sample solution, we encapsulate the sample in monodispersed emulsions that are useful for most droplet applications. We illustrate the method with ddPCR and single cell culture. The ability to encapsulate samples in monodispersed droplets without microfluidics should facilitate the implementation of compartmentalized reactions in biology.
The compartmentalization of reactions in monodispersed droplets is valuable for applications across biology. However, the requirement of microfluidics to partition the sample into monodispersed droplets is a significant barrier that impedes implementation. Here, we introduce particle-templated emulsification, a method to encapsulate samples in monodispersed emulsions without microfluidics. By vortexing a mixture of hydrogel particles and sample solution, we encapsulate the sample in monodispersed emulsions that are useful for most droplet applications. We illustrate the method with ddPCR and single cell culture. The ability to encapsulate samples in monodispersed droplets without microfluidics should facilitate the implementation of compartmentalized reactions in biology.
Biological systems are often
complex, necessitating many experiments to characterize them.[1−3] The modern biological lab is thus full of high-throughput tools,
from robotic fluid handlers that automate experiments to flow cytometers,
next generation sequencers, and mass spectrometers for high-throughput
sample analysis.[4,5] Nevertheless, the complexity of
biology outpaces even these instruments, motivating new tools of ever
higher throughput.[6] In particular, microfluidic-based
single-cell sequencing has become a powerful tool to study cell populations
and heterogeneity.[7−9]The field of droplet microfluidics studies
how laboratory automation
can be scaled up by reducing reaction volumes to picoliters and increasing
processing speed to kilohertz.[10−13] Microfluidic devices form, process, and sort aqueous
droplets suspended in carrier oil, each acting as an isolated “test
tube” in which a reaction can be performed with a single molecule
or a cell.[7,8,14] The throughput
of the approach, combined with the tiny reagent consumption, provide
unprecedented potential for a new era of high-throughput biology.
Indeed, droplet methods have already been applied to numerous important
applications, including enzyme evolution, single cell sequencing,
and accurate DNA and protein quantitation.[7,15−17]A barrier to implementing powerful droplet
methods is the requirement
for specialized microfluidic hardware and skill. Consequently, the
most notable impacts have been made when a specific system is commercialized
and reduced to a user-friendly instrument, such as digital droplet
PCR (ddPCR) and ultrahigh-throughput single cell transcriptome sequencing.[18,19] Nevertheless, engineers have developed many other microfluidic tools
that have yet to achieve the high bar of commercialization. The inability
to immediately translate technological advances in droplet microfluidics
to the biology lab is thus a major inefficiency in microfluidics research.
To address this bottleneck, a new strategy for performing isolated
reactions in uniform droplets without microfluidics is needed.In this paper, we describe particle-templated emulsification (PTE),
an approach for generating compartmentalized reactions in monodispersed
droplets with vortexing. The central concept of PTE is to use particles
to “template” the formation of droplets of similar size
under agitation with oil. To encapsulate a sample into monodispersed
droplets, as is normally accomplished with microfluidics, monodispersed
particles are used. If cells, DNA molecules, or beads are present
in the sample, they are coencapsulated with the particles. The droplet-templating
particles can also introduce additional components to the droplets,
such as barcoded oligonucleotides required for single cell transcriptome
sequencing, or reagents necessary for cell lysis or reporter assays.[7,20] To demonstrate the power of PTE for microfluidics-free digital biology,
we use it to perform ddPCR and single-cell culture.
Experimental
Section
Hydrogel Particle Preparation
A total of 6.2% acrylamide
(Sigma-Aldrich), 0.18% N,N′-methylenebis(acrylamide)
(Sigma-Aldrich), and 0.3% ammonium persulfate (Sigma-Aldrich) is used
for PAA particle generation. A total of 14% (w/v) 8-arm PEGSH (Creative
PEGworks) in 100 mM NaHCO3 and PEGDA (6 kDa, Creative PEGworks)
in 100 mM NaHCO3 are used for PEG particle generation.
A 1% low melting temperature agarose (Sigma-Aldrich) is used for agarose
particle generation. The agarose solution is warmed with a space heater
during emulsification to prevent solidification. Agarose and PEG solutions
are injected into a droplet generation device (Figure S-1) with the oil (HFE-7500 fluorinated oil supplemented
with 5% (w/w) deprotonated Krytox 157 FSH) using syringe pumps (New
Era, NE-501). The PAA solution is injected into the droplet generation
device with the fluorinated oil supplemented with 1% TEMED. The hydrogel
solution and oil are loaded into separate 1 mL syringes (BD) and injected
at 300 and 500 μL, respectively, into the droplet generation
device using syringe pumps, controlled with a custom Python script
(https://github.com/AbateLab/Pump-Control-Program). The PAA and PEG droplets are collected and incubated for 1 h at
room temperature for gelation. The agarose droplets are incubated
on ice for gelation. After gelation, the gelled droplets are transferred
to an aqueous carrier by destabilizing them in oil with the addition
of an equal volume of 20% (v/v) perfluoro-1-octanol in HFE-7500. The
particles are washed twice with hexane containing 2% Span-80 (Sigma-Aldrich)
to remove residual oil. Following the hexane wash, the particles are
washed with sterile water until all oil is removed. Droplets are imaged
using the EVOS Cell Imaging System (Thermo Fisher). Images are taken
under a 4× and 10× objective using EVOS FITC LED light sources.
Device Fabrication
The polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)
device used for making monodispersed hydrogel particles is fabricated
by pouring uncured PDMS (10:1 polymer-to-cross-linker ratio) over
a photolithographically patterned layer of photoresist (SU-8 3025,
MicroChem) on a silicon wafer. The device is cured for 1 h in an 80
°C oven, excised with a scalpel, and inlet ports are punched
using a 0.75 mm biopsy puncher (World Precision Instruments, #504529).
The device is bonded to a glass slide using oxygen plasma and the
inner surface of the channels treated with Aquapel (PPG Industries)
to render them hydrophobic. The sealed device is baked at 80 °C
for 10 min.
ddPCR
Monodispersed PAA particles
or commercial PAA
particles (Bio-Rad, 150–4164) are washed with 0.5% Triton-X100
(Sigma-Aldrich) in sterile water. A total of 33 μL of washed
PAA particles are mixed with 17 μL of PCR reagents to make a
total volume of 50 μL. The 50 μL mixture includes 1×
LongAmp Taq Reaction Buffer (NEB), 2 units of LongAmp Taq DNA Polymerase
(NEB), 0.6 μM of forward and reverse primers (IDT), 0.6 μM
of TaqMan probe (IDT), 300 μM of dNTPs (Fisher Scientific),
and a varying amount of budding yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae genomic DNA (Milipore). For the multiplexed
ddPCR, additional 0.6 μM of forward and reverse primers and
TaqMan probe for lambda virus DNA are included. The primer/probe sequences
are as follows: Yeast FWD 5′-GCAGACCAGACCAGAACAAA-3′,
Yeast REV 5′-ACACGTATGTATCTAGCCGAATAAC-3′,
Yeast Probe 5′-/56-FAM/ATATGTTGT/ZEN/TCACTCGCGCCTGGG/3IABkFQ/-3′,
Lambda FWD 5′-GTGGCATTGCAGCAGATTAAG-3′,
Lambda REV 5′-GGC AGTGAAGCCCAGATATT-3′,
Lambda Probe 5′-/Cy5/TATCCGTCAGGCAATCGACCGT
G/3IAbRQSp/-3′.The mixture is incubated for 15 min to
allow PCR reagent to diffuse into the particles, and centrifuged for
1 min at 6000 g. Excess aqueous phase (20 μL) is removed with
a micropipette. A total of 20 μL of particles and 25 μL
of HFE-7500 oil supplemented with 2% (w/w) PEG–PFPE amphiphilic
block copolymer surfactant (008-Fluoro-surfactant, RAN Biotechnologies)
are mixed well by tapping in a 1.7 mL Eppendorf tube. The mixture
is agitated at 2300 rpm for 30 s with a vortex (VWR). After transferring
the emulsion to PCR tubes, the oil under the buoyant droplets is removed
with a pipet and replaced with FC-40 oil (Sigma-Aldrich) containing
5% (w/w) PEG–PFPE amphiphilic block copolymer surfactant. This
oil/surfactant combination yields greater thermostability during PCR.
The emulsion is transferred to a T100 thermocycler (Bio-Rad) and subjected
to the following program: 94 °C for 30 s, followed by 35 cycles
of 94 °C for 30 s, 53 °C for 60 s, and 65 °C for 50
s, followed by final extension of 10 min at 65 °C and held at
12 °C. The droplets are imaged using the EVOS Cell Imaging System
(Thermo Fisher) under a 10× and 20× objective with EVOS
GFP and FITC LED light sources.
Cell Culture
A
budding yeast Saccharomyces
cerevisiae strain expressing yellow fluorescent protein
(YFP) is grown at 30 °C in a standard rich media (YPD) and the
cell density measured using NanoDrop (Thermo Fisher). PAA particles
are washed with 0.5% Triton in YPD and centrifuged to remove excess
aqueous solution. Diluted yeast suspension is prepared to achieve
Poisson-distributed cell occupancy per droplet. A total of 1 μL
of yeast suspension, 20 μL of particles, and 25 μL of
HFE-7500 oil with 2% (w/w) PEG–PFPE amphiphilic block copolymer
surfactant are mixed well by tapping in a 1.7 mL Eppendorf tube. The
mixture is vortexed at 2,300 rpm for 30 s. Holes are punched on the
tube lid for oxygen exchange for yeast cells and 1 mL of YPD media
added. Cells are incubated at 30 °C for 10 h and imaged using
the EVOS Cell Imaging System under 20× objective with EVOS RFP
and FITC LED light sources.
Results and Discussion
The objective of PTE is to use vortexing to encapsulate biological
samples in uniform droplets, which have been shown by the microfluidics
community to be valuable for many applications.[21,22] The primary challenge is that, while vortexing is simple, uncontrolled
agitation normally generates a broad distribution of droplet sizes.[23] The strategy of PTE is to obtain a defined droplet
size by using monodispersed particles to “template”
the formation of monodispersed droplets. Hydrogel particles comprising
>95% aqueous solution are used for the templating, so that the
final
droplet is mostly aqueous solution, necessary for performing biochemical
reactions in the resultant droplets. The particles are added to the
solution to be encapsulated, with oil and surfactant, and the mixture
vortexed. The hydrogel particles are permeable to molecules with hydraulic
diameters smaller than the pore size, like small molecules, but are
impermeable to large molecules, such as genomic DNA, which remain
within the thin layer of aqueous solution surrounding the particles
in the droplets[22] (Figure a–e). During vortexing, the particles
are dispersed into continually smaller droplets until each contains
just one particle and a thin shell of aqueous solution, as illustrated
in (Figure e). Beyond
this, further droplet breakup is suppressed because it requires fracturing
solid particles. The result is an emulsion in which the droplets are
of a similar size to the original particles and, thus, monodispersed.
Figure 1
Schematic
of PTE workflow. Monodispersed polyacrylamide (PAA) beads
are added to the PCR reaction mix (a) and soaked with enzymes and
molecules (b). After removing excess aqueous phase (c), oil with stabilizing
surfactant is introduced (d) and the mixture is uniformly emulsified
by vortexing (e). For digital droplet PCR, target sequences are encapsulated
and amplified in the droplets, generating a detectable fluorescence
signal (f).
Schematic
of PTE workflow. Monodispersed polyacrylamide (PAA) beads
are added to the PCR reaction mix (a) and soaked with enzymes and
molecules (b). After removing excess aqueous phase (c), oil with stabilizing
surfactant is introduced (d) and the mixture is uniformly emulsified
by vortexing (e). For digital droplet PCR, target sequences are encapsulated
and amplified in the droplets, generating a detectable fluorescence
signal (f).PTE encapsulates reagents
in the initial sample into droplets,
allowing compartmentalized reactions like what is normally achieved
with microfluidics. Compounds smaller than the hydrogel pore size
are absorbed before emulsification and are thus present in the final
droplet containing the hydrogel. Larger entities end up in the thin
layer of aqueous solution surrounding the hydrogel, as illustrated
in Figure e. We use
vortexing for PTE due to its reproducibility, although other agitation
techniques are compatible, like pipetting and tube flicking.
Optimizing
PTE
Vortexed emulsions are simple to make
but polydispersed and of limited value for precision biology (Figure a), while microfluidic
emulsions require specialized devices and skill, but exhibit superior
monodispersity and are of utmost value (Figure a). An optimal method for sample encapsulation
would, thus, combine the simplicity of vortexing with the quality
of microfluidics. PTE accomplishes this by exploiting the rigidity
of particles to resist droplet breakup below the particle size, even
with vortexing. Nevertheless, the time to reach the final droplet
size and the monodispersity of the resultant emulsion still depend
on fluid and particle properties. For example, particle properties
like size and self-affinity, and solution properties like viscosity
and interfacial tension, affect the droplet templating process. To
characterize the impact of these parameters on emulsion monodispersity,
we perform PTE with different hydrogel materials and solution interfacial
tensions (Figure b).
We fix particle size, carrier oil, and oil-soluble surfactant, since
they are usually dictated by the needs of the biological reactions,
and inflexible.
Figure 2
Size uniformity of droplets generated by PTE. (a) While
microfluidically
prepared emulsions are monodispersed, untemplated vortexed emulsions
are not. (b) For certain conditions, vortexing with particle templates
allows generation of monodispersed emulsions. To identify the best
conditions, we test different particle compositions and aqueous-soluble
surfactants. The fraction of droplets containing a single hydrogel
particle is determined by image analysis (bar graphs on right). PAA
and PEG-templated emulsions with Triton yield 98.8% (n = 433) and 99.1% (n = 683) single-particle droplets,
respectively. (c) We quantify the monodispersity of the resultant
emulsions by image analysis, plotting as histograms. Untemplated vortexing
yields polydispersed emulsions, with 4.3% of diameters between 35–40
μm (n = 561), while microfluidic generation
yields monodispersed emulsions, with 95.7% of droplet diameters between
35–38 μm (n = 816). PTE droplets contain
either a single hydrogel core (58%, 35–40 μm) or no hydrogel
particle (42%, <35 μm). The no-particle droplets, however,
due to their small sizes, contribute to <5% of the total sample
volume (n = 1421).
Size uniformity of droplets generated by PTE. (a) While
microfluidically
prepared emulsions are monodispersed, untemplated vortexed emulsions
are not. (b) For certain conditions, vortexing with particle templates
allows generation of monodispersed emulsions. To identify the best
conditions, we test different particle compositions and aqueous-soluble
surfactants. The fraction of droplets containing a single hydrogel
particle is determined by image analysis (bar graphs on right). PAA
and PEG-templated emulsions with Triton yield 98.8% (n = 433) and 99.1% (n = 683) single-particle droplets,
respectively. (c) We quantify the monodispersity of the resultant
emulsions by image analysis, plotting as histograms. Untemplated vortexing
yields polydispersed emulsions, with 4.3% of diameters between 35–40
μm (n = 561), while microfluidic generation
yields monodispersed emulsions, with 95.7% of droplet diameters between
35–38 μm (n = 816). PTE droplets contain
either a single hydrogel core (58%, 35–40 μm) or no hydrogel
particle (42%, <35 μm). The no-particle droplets, however,
due to their small sizes, contribute to <5% of the total sample
volume (n = 1421).To modulate interfacial tension, we add aqueous-soluble surfactants
to the droplet phase that are compatible with most biochemical reactions.
When the aqueous-phase surfactant is omitted, the vortexed droplets
are polydispersed for all hydrogel types (Figure b); this may be due to interparticle affinity
and high water–oil interfacial tension, preventing breakup
of large, nonuniform, multicore droplets. Increasing vortexing up
to 20 min does not appreciably change emulsion monodispersity (Figure S-2a). By contrast, when we include surfactants
in the aqueous phase, particle affinity and interfacial tension are
reduced; monodispersed single-core droplets are generated in 30 s
of vortexing; longer vortexing durations do not substantially alter
the appearance of the resultant emulsion (Figure S-3). Droplets formed from polyacrylamide (PAA) and polyethylene
glycol methacrylate (PEG) particles yield the best emulsions (Figure b). Agarose-particle
emulsions are less uniform, possibly due to their self-affinity. Other
aqueous-phase surfactants may also be used, although the requisite
vortexing parameters and emulsion monodispersity may differ (Figure S-2b,c).PTE is uniquely scalable,
because the time required to generate
an emulsion does not depend on the volume of the emulsion (Figure a,b). This contrasts
with conventional microfluidic emulsification where generation time
scales with volume. With PTE, generating 20 μL of emulsion takes
the same time as 2 mL (30 s, Figure c), while with microfluidics 2 mL would take ∼11
h. The scalability of PTE is a key advantage for applications requiring
emulsification of large volume samples. Moreover, because the emulsion
generation occurs in the sample reservoir and does not require shuttling
sample to and from a microfluidic instrument, PTE is also scalable
for emulsifying large numbers of samples.
Figure 3
PTE allows rapid and
facile production of monodispersed emulsions
from microliter to milliliter scales. (a) Images PTE emulsions of
different total volume. The samples comprise PAA particles with 0.5%
Triton suspended in 1.25 volume of HFE oil with 2% (20 μL) or
5% (200 μL and 2 mL) fluorosurfactant. All emulsions, independent
of total volume, are vortexed for 30 s to generate the droplets. (b)
Histograms of the droplet size distribution for the 200 μL and
2 mL emulsions, demonstrating equivalent monodispersity. (c) Comparison
of droplet generation time with PTE to microfluidics for a typical
droplet generation rate of 1 kHz.
PTE allows rapid and
facile production of monodispersed emulsions
from microliter to milliliter scales. (a) Images PTE emulsions of
different total volume. The samples comprise PAA particles with 0.5%
Triton suspended in 1.25 volume of HFE oil with 2% (20 μL) or
5% (200 μL and 2 mL) fluorosurfactant. All emulsions, independent
of total volume, are vortexed for 30 s to generate the droplets. (b)
Histograms of the droplet size distribution for the 200 μL and
2 mL emulsions, demonstrating equivalent monodispersity. (c) Comparison
of droplet generation time with PTE to microfluidics for a typical
droplet generation rate of 1 kHz.We have focused on ∼50 μm hydrogels, but other
particle
types are compatible with the method, including different sizes, hydrogel
chemistries, and porosities. While we focus on fluorinated oil and
surfactant for our carrier phase, because they are predominant in
the field due to their value for cell and molecular biology, other
formulations are compatible, including silicon and hydrocarbon oils
and surfactants. Other polar phases can also be used, provided they
form stable emulsions, which should be valuable for generating core–shell
structures. These properties should provide much needed flexibility
for extending PTE to other areas, such as cost-effective and scalable
encapsulation of compounds in double emulsions.In addition
to the desired monodispersed droplets with size similar
to the templating particles, PTE generates tiny “satellite
droplets” containing no particles. The number of satellites
depends on the amount of excess aqueous solution surrounding the particles,
emulsion interfacial tension, and vortexing time and power. To reduce
their number, excess aqueous solution should be removed from the particle-sample
mixture prior to vortexing. Nevertheless, while aesthetically unpleasing,
satellites contribute negligibly to biological reactions performed
in the emulsions, because they usually comprise a relatively small
fraction of the total sample volume (<3%).Engulfed volume
can be predictable by considering vortex power,
surface tension and particle size and so on. Vortexing, however, generate
a distribution of velocities in the sample, and each droplet experiences
a random sample of these velocities during emulsification and so this
is only a rough estimation. Nevertheless, vortexing is a reasonably
controlled method for agitating fluids, and thus, it is possible to
identify a power that yields mostly single core droplets with uniform
engulfment volumes, as we have shown.A common challenge in
droplet microfluidics is the efficient encapsulation
of discrete entities, like beads and cells. Microfluidic techniques
normally encapsulate discrete entities randomly, resulting in inefficient
Poisson loading in which only a small fraction of the droplets are
properly loaded. A unique and valuable property of PTE is that every
droplet of the appropriate size contains one templating particle (Figure b). If these particles
are an essential component of the reaction, most droplets will contain
one. Other components, however, such as cells, beads, and DNA molecules,
are loaded randomly. Indeed, efficient hydrogel encapsulation is a
key step in recently reported single cell sequencing technologies
and exploited in commercial instruments.[24−26]
PTE Allows
Accurate DNA Quantitation with Digital Droplet PCR
A notable
commercial success of droplet microfluidics is ddPCR,
an alternative to quantitative PCR for nucleic acid analysis that
is more sensitive, accurate, and provides absolute concentration measurements.[18,27,28] In the approach, the nucleic
acids to be quantitated are microfluidically encapsulated into millions
of aqueous droplets at limiting dilution, and subjected to PCR. During
amplification, droplets containing targets become fluorescent while
those devoid remain dim, enabling the absolute quantification of nucleic
acid concentration by counting fluorescent droplets. While valuable,
all described ddPCR approaches require single-use microfluidic chips,
costly control hardware, and custom reagents. A method for performing
ddPCR without microfluidics and using commonly available reagents
would, thus, be beneficial to many laboratories.PTE allows
facile, microfluidic-free ddPCR. To illustrate this, we encapsulate
several DNA samples at different concentrations of a target molecule
(Figure a). Just as
in microfluidic ddPCR, increasing target concentration increases the
number of fluorescent droplets. To determine whether this allows concentration
estimation, we follow conventional ddPCR analysis and quantify droplet
fluorescence, plotting the results as fluorescence versus diameter
(Figure b). Three
droplet populations are visible, at low fluorescence and small diameter
(satellites), at the expected 30–40 μm diameter and low
fluorescence (PCR-negative), and similar size range but high fluorescence
(PCR-positive). We ignore the satellites and model target concentration
for the correctly sized droplets via Poisson statistics,where λ is the template copy number
per droplet and p is the positive fraction. The measured
concentration follows the expected scaling over the three-decade tested
range (Figure c) and
performs comparably to microfluidic-based ddPCR (Figure S-4).
Figure 4
ddPCR assay with droplets prepared by PTE. (a) Fluorescence
images
of droplets after PCR amplification with TaqMan probes and primers
for yeast genomic DNA templates at varying dilution factors. The fractions
of observed fluorescence-positive droplets correspond with the template
concentrations. (b) Scatter plot showing the size and fluorescence
distribution from a sample in the dilution series. The population
with low fluorescence (<20 AU) and small diameter (<30 μm)
is composed of droplets containing no hydrogel particles (bottom-left).
The population with expected diameter (30–40 μm) consists
of single-hydrogel-core droplets. They form two tight clusters: high
fluorescence (PCR-positive) and low fluorescence (PCR-negative, no-template
droplets). (c) The average template copy number per droplet estimated
by assuming a Poisson distribution scales with the controlled template
concentrations over the tested three-decade range (R2 = 0.9994 and error bar depicts standard error).
ddPCR assay with droplets prepared by PTE. (a) Fluorescence
images
of droplets after PCR amplification with TaqMan probes and primers
for yeast genomic DNA templates at varying dilution factors. The fractions
of observed fluorescence-positive droplets correspond with the template
concentrations. (b) Scatter plot showing the size and fluorescence
distribution from a sample in the dilution series. The population
with low fluorescence (<20 AU) and small diameter (<30 μm)
is composed of droplets containing no hydrogel particles (bottom-left).
The population with expected diameter (30–40 μm) consists
of single-hydrogel-core droplets. They form two tight clusters: high
fluorescence (PCR-positive) and low fluorescence (PCR-negative, no-template
droplets). (c) The average template copy number per droplet estimated
by assuming a Poisson distribution scales with the controlled template
concentrations over the tested three-decade range (R2 = 0.9994 and error bar depicts standard error).Essential to the PTE method are
the hydrogel particles that template
the droplets, which we have used microfluidics to make. Even with
microfluidically made particles, PTE represents a substantial simplification
for ddPCR, since one large batch of synthesized particles can be used
for many analyses. Nevertheless, the use of microfluidics undercuts
the main advantage of PTE for laboratories entirely lacking this expertise.
An optimal implementation of PTE would obviate all microfluidics and,
ideally, use only commercially available components.Indeed,
hydrogel microspheres with a variety of compositions, sizes,
and uniformity can be purchased from commercial vendors. These spheres
are usually sold as components for purification columns and, thus,
quality-controlled and free of contaminants that could interfere with
reactions. To show that PTE can be performed with commercial hydrogels,
we purchase quasi-monodispersed PAA spheres, ranging from 45 to 90
μm diameter; this size distribution is larger than for particles
made with microfluidics, which are typically below 5%, but is acceptable
for most applications, including ddPCR. To demonstrate this, we use
the particles to perform ddPCR with PTE, and observe similar droplet
fluorescence properties (Figure a). The larger diameter distribution results in broader
scatter in the plot, both in size and fluorescence, but the PCR positive
and negative populations are nevertheless clearly discernible (Figure b). We thus vary
target concentration and perform standard ddPCR analysis, achieving
accurate measurements over the same range (Figure c). When the variability in droplet size
is included using multiple Poisson distributions weighted by droplet
volume, the correction factors for estimated copy numbers are small,
ranging from 0.1% (for the lowest concentration) to 4.5% (for the
highest concentration).
Figure 5
Demonstration of ddPCR quantitation with commercially
available
hydrogel particles. (a) Fluorescence images of droplets after PCR
amplification of yeast genomic DNA at different concentrations. (b)
Scatter plots show that the hydrogel-templated droplets are less uniform
in size. But fluorescence-positives and negatives are clearly distinguishable
from each other, enabling quantitation by image analysis. (c) The
Poisson estimator values obtained by using multiple Poisson distributions
weighted by droplet volumes show a linear correlation with the template
concentration (R2 = 0.9409 and error bar
depicts standard error).
Demonstration of ddPCR quantitation with commercially
available
hydrogel particles. (a) Fluorescence images of droplets after PCR
amplification of yeast genomic DNA at different concentrations. (b)
Scatter plots show that the hydrogel-templated droplets are less uniform
in size. But fluorescence-positives and negatives are clearly distinguishable
from each other, enabling quantitation by image analysis. (c) The
Poisson estimator values obtained by using multiple Poisson distributions
weighted by droplet volumes show a linear correlation with the template
concentration (R2 = 0.9409 and error bar
depicts standard error).Access to monodispersed particles is critical for PTE, which
will
in most cases be the principal barrier to its implementation. We use
microfluidically made particles to characterize PTE, since they are
monodispersed and thus allow accurate measurement of droplet volume
variation. However, as we have shown, commercially available beads
that are relatively uniform will suffice for many applications.
Multiplexed PTE-ddPCR
Like other PCR analysis methods,
ddPCR can be multiplexed using probes labeled with different fluorescent
dyes. Since ddPCR acts on molecules in droplets, this provides unique
measurement opportunities not possible with common “bulk”
methods, like the physical association of distinct sequences. This
is valuable for a variety of important applications in genomic biology,
including characterizing virus diversity, phasing microbial genomes,
haplotyping cancer genomes, measuring mRNA splice forms, and characterizing
length distributions of target molecules in solution.[29−31] To demonstrate that PTE-ddPCR can be multiplexed, we use it to analyze
a mixture of lambda virus and yeast (S. cerevisiae) genomic DNA. We use TaqMan probes targeting either the lambda virus
(red) or yeast (green) genomes. The DNA of both organisms is mixed
together, and the sample emulsified with PTE. We find that, as expected,
many droplets are pure red or green, indicating that they contain
either lambda or yeast genomic DNA, respectively (Figure a). However, in rare instances,
a droplet contains one of each target and, thus, is double-positive,
appearing yellow (Figure a, merged). Since these nucleic acids do not physically associate,
the likelihood of a double positive is described by Poisson double-encapsulation.[32] Deviations from Poisson statistics thus represent
associations of sequences.[31]
Figure 6
PTE for multiplexed
ddPCR and cell culture. (a) Probes targeting
lambda virus or yeast are fluorescently labeled with Cy5 (red) and
FAM (green), respectively. (b) Yeast cells grow in droplets prepared
by PTE. After 10 h of incubation, colonies grown from single encapsulated
cells can be detected by endogenous YFP fluorescence.
PTE for multiplexed
ddPCR and cell culture. (a) Probes targeting
lambda virus or yeast are fluorescently labeled with Cy5 (red) and
FAM (green), respectively. (b) Yeast cells grow in droplets prepared
by PTE. After 10 h of incubation, colonies grown from single encapsulated
cells can be detected by endogenous YFP fluorescence.
PTE for Single Cell Biology
Single
cell biology is
growing in importance, fueled by microfluidic tools for encapsulating,
culturing, and analyzing huge numbers of single cells.[9,33] New methods for ultrahigh-throughput single cell sequencing are
valuable for studying the importance of heterogeneity to phenotypes
and disease. These methods, however, require coencapsulation of a
cell and barcoded bead in every droplet, an inefficient process that
requires specialized microfluidic chips and control systems. Similar
encapsulations can be efficiently achieved with PTE much more simply,
since it already uses hydrogel spheres to template droplet generation.
To demonstrate this, we use PTE to encapsulate single yeast cells.
The PAA hydrogels are added to a suspension of yeast cells and the
mixture emulsified by vortexing. The cells are suspended at low concentration
so that most droplets are empty, but a small fraction contain single
cells, just as in microfluidic methods. Because the micron-scale yeast
cannot diffuse into the nanometer hydrogel pores, they end up in the
aqueous shell near the periphery of the droplets (Figure b). The number of yeast encapsulated
per droplet can be controlled with cell concentration in the original
sample.The PTE droplets are compatible with yeast growth because
PAA is a biologically inert hydrogel that comprises >95% aqueous
solution.
Consequently, when we incubate the emulsions, the cells grow into
clonal microcolonies (Figure b). The triton surfactant that aids in the emulsification
does not appreciably affect yeast viability, since the fraction of
drops containing single seeded cells is the same (within error) to
the number of droplets containing colonies (2.17 ± 0.22%, 2.06
± 0.31%). Such microcolonies are useful for microbe cultivation,
sequencing, and metabolite screening.[9,34,35] The shell volume may be an important parameter for
cell culture since it may limit the resources available for cell growth.
This parameter can be controlled with the particle size.We
describe particle-templated emulsification (PTE), an approach
for generating compartmentalized reactions in monodispersed droplets
with vortexing. The particles afford an independent and avenue for
introducing compounds into the droplets, for example, by functionalizing
with reactive groups, oligos, and proteins.[36,37] Reversible cross-linkers can release functional groups or melt gels
after encapsulation, providing a fully liquid environment that might
have advantageous chemical kinetics. For example, recently described
single cell RNA and DNA sequencing require the encapsulation of unique
“barcode” sequences in droplets, which can be achieved
by functionalizing each bead with a unique sequence using split-pool
techniques.[20] Prefunctionalized beads can
be used in PTE to generate and encapsulate cells in the emulsion,
and introduce the barcode sequence. This yields an emulsion equivalent
to what is currently generated with microfluidics at a fraction of
the cost and microfluidics-free, making adoption of these methods
simpler and more affordable.PTE is gentle on biological samples
and uses biocompatible chemicals
and particles, making it applicable to many reactions. For example,
recently described digital droplet multiple displacement amplification
techniques have demonstrated compartmentalized amplification for quantitative
sequencing of single cell and low-input samples; however, all require
microfluidics or custom hardware. PTE can perform this and many other
compartmentalized reactions. Moreover, PTE is more scalable than conventional
microfluidic emulsification because the time to emulsify a sample
does not increase appreciably with sample volume. This should make
it valuable for implementing droplet encapsulation into high throughput
workflows performed in well plates, which can contain hundreds of
separate samples that each need to be emulsified. With PTE, particles,
oil, and surfactant can be added to all wells, and the plate agitated
using plate-vortexers or pipetting to generate the emulsions. Combined,
these properties should make PTE especially valuable for high throughput
sequencing workflows involving robotic preparation of samples that
are otherwise difficult to use with microfluidics.While PTE
prepares huge numbers of droplet assays without special
equipment, many applications require analyzing or sorting droplets,
like the ddPCR method we have demonstrated here,[27] or enzyme evolution methods described previously.[38,39] Microscopy, which is widely available in the biological laboratory
can be used for simple droplet analysis, as we have shown. Specific
droplets can even be recovered manually with a pipet. In some cases,
however, microscopy and manual picking may not suffice, and higher
throughput analysis will be needed. In these cases, the best option
may be flow cytometry, in which the PTE emulsion can be re-encapsulated
in an aqueous carrier using in vitro compartmentalization techniques.[40−42] The resultant water-suspended droplets can be directly analyzed
and sorted with flow cytometry.[43] Alternatively,
chemical techniques can exploit the hydrogel scaffold, attaching,
for example, fluorescent reaction products to the gel backbone. The
solid particles can be redispersed in aqueous solution and subjected
to flow cytometry.[22]
Conclusions
Droplet microfluidics has enabled ultrahigh-throughput digital
biology, to precision-analyze large numbers of individual molecules
and cells. Uniformity of the droplet compartments is crucial, but
necessitates microfluidic devices and expertise, limiting adoption
by the community at large. Here, we
report a novel method to prepare monodispersed emulsions by vortexing
that obviates microfluidics. PTE generates droplets with uniformity
like microfluidics and is useful for similar applications. In addition,
it can encapsulate reagents in the droplets, including beads, cells,
and molecules, and is compatible with biological operations like cell
culture and ddPCR. This simple but fundamental method should facilitate
adoption of droplet compartmentalization for biological applications
and advance the field of digital biology.
Authors: Evan Z Macosko; Anindita Basu; Rahul Satija; James Nemesh; Karthik Shekhar; Melissa Goldman; Itay Tirosh; Allison R Bialas; Nolan Kamitaki; Emily M Martersteck; John J Trombetta; David A Weitz; Joshua R Sanes; Alex K Shalek; Aviv Regev; Steven A McCarroll Journal: Cell Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Linas Mazutis; John Gilbert; W Lloyd Ung; David A Weitz; Andrew D Griffiths; John A Heyman Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Adam R Abate; Tony Hung; Ralph A Sperling; Pascaline Mary; Assaf Rotem; Jeremy J Agresti; Michael A Weiner; David A Weitz Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: Benjamin J Hindson; Kevin D Ness; Donald A Masquelier; Phillip Belgrader; Nicholas J Heredia; Anthony J Makarewicz; Isaac J Bright; Michael Y Lucero; Amy L Hiddessen; Tina C Legler; Tyler K Kitano; Michael R Hodel; Jonathan F Petersen; Paul W Wyatt; Erin R Steenblock; Pallavi H Shah; Luc J Bousse; Camille B Troup; Jeffrey C Mellen; Dean K Wittmann; Nicholas G Erndt; Thomas H Cauley; Ryan T Koehler; Austin P So; Simant Dube; Klint A Rose; Luz Montesclaros; Shenglong Wang; David P Stumbo; Shawn P Hodges; Steven Romine; Fred P Milanovich; Helen E White; John F Regan; George A Karlin-Neumann; Christopher M Hindson; Serge Saxonov; Bill W Colston Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Sarah J Spencer; Manu V Tamminen; Sarah P Preheim; Mira T Guo; Adrian W Briggs; Ilana L Brito; David A Weitz; Leena K Pitkänen; Francois Vigneault; Marko P Juhani Virta; Eric J Alm Journal: ISME J Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 10.302
Authors: Julia Sandberg; Patrik L Ståhl; Afshin Ahmadian; Magnus K Bjursell; Joakim Lundeberg Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2009-03-20 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Robert J Kimmerling; Gregory Lee Szeto; Jennifer W Li; Alex S Genshaft; Samuel W Kazer; Kristofor R Payer; Jacob de Riba Borrajo; Paul C Blainey; Darrell J Irvine; Alex K Shalek; Scott R Manalis Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Ivan Francisco Loncarevic; Susanne Toepfer; Stephan Hubold; Susanne Klingner; Lea Kanitz; Thomas Ellinger; Katrin Steinmetzer; Thomas Ernst; Andreas Hochhaus; Eugen Ermantraut Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas Fryer; Joel David Rogers; Christopher Mellor; Timo N Kohler; Ralph Minter; Florian Hollfelder Journal: ACS Cent Sci Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 18.728