| Literature DB >> 30424286 |
Hogyeong Gwak1, Junmoo Kim2, Leila Kashefi-Kheyrabadi3, Bongseop Kwak4, Kyung-A Hyun5, Hyo-Il Jung6.
Abstract
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a popular topic in cancer research because they can be obtained by liquid biopsy, a minimally invasive procedure with more sample accessibility than tissue biopsy, to monitor a patient's condition. Over the past decades, CTC research has covered a wide variety of topics such as enumeration, profiling, and correlation between CTC number and patient overall survival. It is important to isolate and enrich CTCs before performing CTC analysis because CTCs in the blood stream are very rare (0⁻10 CTCs/mL of blood). Among the various approaches to separating CTCs, here, we review the research trends in the isolation and analysis of CTCs using microfluidics. Microfluidics provides many attractive advantages for CTC studies such as continuous sample processing to reduce target cell loss and easy integration of various functions into a chip, making "do-everything-on-a-chip" possible. However, tumor cells obtained from different sites within a tumor exhibit heterogenetic features. Thus, heterogeneous CTC profiling should be conducted at a single-cell level after isolation to guide the optimal therapeutic path. We describe the studies on single-CTC analysis based on microfluidic devices. Additionally, as a critical concern in CTC studies, we explain the use of CTCs in cancer research, despite their rarity and heterogeneity, compared with other currently emerging circulating biomarkers, including exosomes and cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Finally, the commercialization of products for CTC separation and analysis is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: CTC analysis; CTC isolation; cancer; circulating tumor cell (CTC); microfluidic device
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424286 PMCID: PMC6082257 DOI: 10.3390/mi9070353
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Schematic sketch of research trends in circulating tumor cells (CTC) isolation. The solid line shows the number of papers according to the time (http://www.scopus.com), and the dashed line is a prediction of the number of articles published in the future.
Figure 2Schematic sketch of the comparison of different methods for CTC isolation. Five performance categories are used for the comparison: (1) heterogeneity of isolated CTCs, (2) intactness of isolated CTCs, (3) purity, (4) target cell recovery, and (5) throughput. A scale of 1 to 3 was used to rank each category, where 3 represents the highest score.
Figure 3Positive enrichment of CTCs. (a) Antibody-coated triangular microarray structures of the SDI-Chip. The surface of triangular microarray structures is coated by epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) antibodies. CTCs are selectively captured depending on EpCAM expression level since the rotated triangular micro-pillars makes different hydrodynamic gradient shear forces; (b) The spiral shape of the microfluidic device for the selective isolation of CTCs depending on the EpCAM expression level. EpCAM positive CTCs bind more magnetic particles than EpCAM negative CTCs. EpCAM positive CTCs are captured far away from the magnet due to the magnetic force different; (c) CTCs and non-target cells move into the flow channel and CTCs are captured in the pockets by moving the diaphragm upwards. CTCs are released by moving the diaphragm downward after passing through non-target cells; (d) The p-MOFF device for label-free separation of CTCs from blood cells. CTCs and white blood cells (WBC) pass through the multi orifice channels. Larger CTCs than WBC are separated by hydrodynamic force. Reproduced from ref. [22,25,26,27] with permission from 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, NJ, USA), 2015 Royal Society of Chemistry, 2018 ELSEVIER, and 2016 Impact Journals.
Figure 4Negative enrichment of CTCs. (a) The micro-MixMACS chip for one-step negative enrichment of CTCs. Anti-CD45 coated magnetic nanoparticles (MNP) and WBC are bound by expansion and Dean vortices in a Micro-mixer. WBCs conjugated with MNP are captured in the enrichment channel by magnets and pure CTCs are collected in the outlet; (b) Separation process of the acoustophoresis chip for CTC enrichment using frequency modulation. CTCs, WBCs, and elastomeric particles (EP)/WBC-complex are injected in the acoustophoresis chip. CTCs move in the middle of the chip and others separated to the sidewall by acoustic forces. Reproduced from ref. [17,38] with permission from 2017 ELSEVIER and 2018 ELSEVIER.
Figure 5Integration of CTC enrichment methods. (a) Two-stage microfluidic chip consisting of a focusing region, geometrically activated surface interaction (GASI) region, and magnetic-activated cell sorter (MACS) to selectively separate CTCs depending on EpCAM expression level. Magnets in the first stage chip separate CTCs and WBCs bound with CD-45 antibody-coated magnetic particles. CTCs pass through the focusing region and move into EpCAM antibody-coated GASI region. EpCAM (+) CTCs are captured in the surface of the GASI region and EpCAM (−) CTCs are separated; (b) The monolithic chip integrates with deterministic lateral displacement (DLD), inertial focusing, and MACS to split purified CTCs from blood cells. Blood cells injected the monolithic chip and red blood cell (RBC) and platelets are removed in DLD region. CTCs and WBCs are aligned in the inertial focusing channel and two cells are separated in the MACS channel. Pure CTCs are collected after passing through the 2nd inertial focusing and MACS channel. Reproduced from ref. [36,39] with permission from 2015 ELSEVIER and 2017 Nature Publishing Group.
Figure 6Single CTC isolation using microfluidic chip. (a) Generation of water-in-oil droplets in a high throughput manner (~100 cells/experimental run) that contain a single cell with Multi-color Forster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET)-based enzymatic substrates to measure multiple protease activities specifically; (b) Selective picking and isolation of single CTC in each chamber could be performed by hydrodynamic focusing, thereby tracking variation after drug treatment using a model PC9 cell line. The scale bar represents 100 μm. Reproduced from ref. [42,43] with permission from 2016 ELSEVIER and 2016 Nature Publishing Group.
Comparison of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and other circulating biomarkers.
| Circulating Biomarkers | Features | Isolation Techniques | Applications | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTC |
Cancer cells derived from tumor tissue 1–100 CTCs/mL of blood Size: 5–20 μm Heterogeneity Live information |
Immuno-affinity-based methods Size/density-based methods Microfluidic-based methods |
Multiple chromosome abnormalities (translocation, deletion, inversion, duplication, numerical aberration) RNA profiling Protein expression Cellular communication In vitro culture In vivo study (Patient Derived Tumor Xenograft (PDTX)) | -- |
| Exosome |
Extracellular vesicles derived from cells 105 exosomes/mL of blood 100 cancer-related exosomes/mL of blood Size: 30–150 nm Fixed information |
Differential ultracentrifugation Polymer-based isolation methods Immuno-affinity-based methods Microfluidic-based methods |
Chromosome abnormalities (translocation, deletion, inversion, duplication, numerical aberration) RNA profiling Protein expression Cellular communication | [ |
| cfDNA |
Fragmented DNA derived from cells 10–30 ng/mL of healthy blood 100 ng/mL of cancer patient blood Size: 150–200 base pair Fixed information |
Affinity-based methods |
Chromosome abnormalities (translocation, deletion, inversion, duplication) | [ |
List of companies working on microfluidic-based CTC analysis.
| Company (Country) | Product (Chip) | Highlights | Revenue * | Year Founded | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angel plc (UK) | ParsortixTM system |
Size-based separation: Cell trapping Possible to harvest cells or stain CTCs in cassette 100 µL to 30 mL blood sample | $0.64 million | 2003 |
|
| ApoCell, Inc. (USA) | ApoStreamTM |
Dielectrophoresis (DEP)-based separation 50 µL to 10 mL blood sample Sample suspension collection volume: ~1.5 mL Support user prompts for step-by-step operation | $6.27 million | 2004 |
|
| Biocept, Inc. (US) | Target Selector™ platform (CEE microfluidic chip) |
Immunocapture in microfluidic chip (post) Support CTC separation (5–7 days) | $3.22 million | 1997 |
|
| Biofluidica, Inc. (USA) | BioFluidica’s CTC System |
Immunocapture in microfluidic cartridge (sinusoidal shaped) Processes 10 mL of blood in less than 30 min | $0.29 million | 2012 |
|
| Celsee diagnostics (USA) | Celsee PREP 400, Celsee ANALYZER |
Size-based separation: Cell trapping >56,000 cell trapping well (4~8 mL of blood) ~8 micron pore 16 samples in an 8 h shift | -- | 2011 |
|
| Clearbridge Biomedics (Singapore) | ClearCell® FX1 system (CTChip® FR) |
Size-based separation: Dean Flow Fractionation (DFF) Processes 8 mL of blood in less than an hour | $0.57 million | 2009 |
|
| Cynvenio Biosystems, Inc. (USA) | LiquidBiopsy® Platform (ClearID® Clinical Testing) |
Immunomagnetic separation within a microfluidic chip Staining and cell isolation in less than 3 h Support genomic analysis of cells prepped by CleareID® (10–14 days) | -- |
| |
| Fluxion Bioscience, Inc. (USA) | IsoFlux CTC system, IsoFlux Cytation Imager |
Immunomagnetic separation within a microfluidic cartridge Up to 4 cartridges can be loaded into the instrument at one time Processes 7–10 mL of blood in less than 2 and a half hours Supports custom assays | -- |
| |
| Menarini Silicon Biosystem (USA) | DEPArray™ |
DEP-based fluorescently labelled cell trapping in cages 300,000 DEP cages in each cartridge Image-based cell selection (single cell resolution) Enrichment and labeling steps are required before using DEPArray™ | $5.58 million | 1976 |
|
| Vortex Bioscience | VTX-1 |
Size and deformability-based separation: microscale vortices Processes ~8 mL of blood in less than 1 h Collects CTCs into an Eppendorf™ tube, a Petri dish, a slide chamber, or a microwell strip | -- | 2010 |
|
* Search in D&B Hoovers (www.hoovers.com).