| Literature DB >> 31133019 |
Monika Ruzycka1, Mihaela R Cimpan2, Ivan Rios-Mondragon2, Ireneusz P Grudzinski3.
Abstract
The incidence of lung cancer continues to rise worldwide. Because the aggressive metastasis of lung cancer cells is the major drawback of successful therapies, the crucial challenge of modern nanomedicine is to develop diagnostic tools to map the molecular mechanisms of metastasis in lung cancer patients. In recent years, microfluidic platforms have been given much attention as tools for novel point-of-care diagnostic, an important aspect being the reconstruction of the body organs and tissues mimicking the in vivo conditions in one simple microdevice. Herein, we present the first comprehensive overview of the microfluidic systems used as innovative tools in the studies of lung cancer metastasis including single cancer cell analysis, endothelial transmigration, distant niches migration and finally neoangiogenesis. The application of the microfluidic systems to study the intercellular crosstalk between lung cancer cells and surrounding tumor microenvironment and the connection with multiple molecular signals coming from the external cellular matrix are discussed. We also focus on recent breakthrough technologies regarding lab-on-chip devices that serve as tools for detecting circulating lung cancer cells. The superiority of microfluidic systems over traditional in vitro cell-based assays with regard to modern nanosafety studies and new cancer drug design and discovery is also addressed. Finally, the current progress and future challenges regarding printable and paper-based microfluidic devices for personalized nanomedicine are summarized.Entities:
Keywords: Lung cancer; Metastasis; Microfluidics; Nanomedicine; Nanosafety; Theranostics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31133019 PMCID: PMC6537392 DOI: 10.1186/s12951-019-0492-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nanobiotechnology ISSN: 1477-3155 Impact factor: 10.435
Fig. 1Increased publication trend on microfluidics used in cancer studies in the years 2005–2018. Data were collected based on PUBMED and NCBI databases. The insert presents the estimated and expected worth of the microfluidic market in billion USD based on PR Newswire [33], Grand View Research [20], Markets and Markets [22] and Mordor Intelligence [34] estimations
Fig. 2Microfluidic device for nanotoxicity testing originally designed in the GEMNS project (EuroNanoMed II program) by the Nanotoxicology group at the University of Bergen, Norway. Microfluidic set-up. A The microfluidic chip comprises four independent microfluidic channels (blue). Cells growing within the microfluidic channel are analyzed via cell-substrate electrical impedance using microelectrode arrays (gold) (scale bar, 5 mm). B Mounted microfluidic chip. On-chip liquid reservoirs (red dots), tubing from syringe pumps (red arrows), electrical contacts (yellow arrows) and tubing providing humidified air/CO2 are connected to the chip
Fig. 3Graphical representation of the microfluidic devices used in cancer studies described in the chapter 2. Presented microfluidic systems were applied to study the different stages of lung cancers metastasis. The figures are reproduced from Li et al. [8] with permission of Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kim et al. [13] and Xu et al. [72] with permission of Electrophoresis, Benoit et al. [73] with permission of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Guo et al. [74] with permission of Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Yu et al. [75] and Bai et al. [14] with permission of Oncotarget, Zhao et al. [47] with permission of Scientific Reports, Wang et al. [9] and Anguiano et al. [5] with permission of Plos One, Cui et al. [76] and Kao et al. [77] with permission of Biomicrofluidics, Zou et al. [78] with the permission of Analytical Chemistry, Tata et al. [38] with permission of Advances in Natural Sciences: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Huang et al. [39] and Li et al. [79] with permission of Biosensors and Bioelectronics, Li et al. [80] with the permission of Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
Advantages and disadvantages of affinity-based and label-free isolation [17, 117, 118]
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|
| Affinity-based isolation | Highly specific High purity of CTCs Application of the combination of antibodies allow to capture cells with epithelial and mesenchymal phenotype Capture of CTC clusters Separation/categorization based on abundance of Ep-CAM expression | Limitations in velocity and flow Blood volume Decrease of cell viability during the detachment process High cost of antibodies Low capture efficiency |
| Label-free isolation | High-throughput Allow CTCs capture regardless of subpopulation differences and EMT process Allow further cell molecular characterization Allow cell culturing and further recovery in suspension Allow preservation of cell clusters to study their metastatic ability Low cost | Capture depends on size pores Overlapping in CTCs and leucocytes sizes Pores clogging Low sample purity Low CTCs recovery |
Fig. 4Impedance measurements of adenocarcinomic human alveolar basal epithelial cells (A549) in the microfluidic device originally designed in the “GEMNS” project (EuroNanoMed II program) by the Nanotoxicology group at the University of Bergen, Norway. Please see video information for A549 cells in the microfluidic device set-up (Additional file 1)
Summary of analytical performance of microfluidic devices applied to real samples screening from lung cancer
| Tumor type | Microfluidic device | Number of samples | Detection rate of CTCs | CTCs/ml (SD) | Additional tests | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSCLC | CTC-Chip (affinity-based) | 55 (human) | – | Mean: 155/ml (236) | EGFR mutation test | [ |
| Lung cancer early stage patients | Immunoaffinity-based microfluidic device | 19 (human) | 68% | 1–11/ml (3) | mRNA expression level determination | [ |
| Cancer and non-cancer lung diseases | Microfluidic SiNW with MUNPs conjugated with anti-EpCAM | 21 (human) | ~ 90% | – | Immuno-fluorescence staining and imaging under the confocal fluorescence microscope | [ |
| 344SQ and 393P | Nanoroughened adhesion-based capture of CTCs | 9 (mice) | Capture yields of > 80% | 0–1148/ml (−) | Positive staining of anti-cytokeratin and DAPI; negative staining of anti-CD45; and appropriate morphometric characteristics including cell size, shape, and nuclear size | [ |
| Lung cancer | Ultra-high throughput microfluidic Vortex technology | 15 (human) | ~ 80% | 0.5–24.2/ml | Staining with DAPI, anti-CD45-PE, and FITC-conjugated CK cocktail against Pan-CK AE1/AE3, CK3-6H5, and CK CAM5.2 before imaging. Following CK staining, some samples were stained for granulocytes with CD66b-AlexaFluor647 (CD66b-AF647), or for EMT markers with anti EpCAM-FITC, anti-vimentin-AlexaFluor647 (VIM-AF647, Abcam), and anti N-Cadherin (NCAD-AF67, Abcam) | [ |
| Advanced-stage metastatic non-small cell lung cancer | Ultra-high-throughput spiral microfluidic Biochip | 5 (human) | 100% | 33–135/ml | Immunofluorescence staining and Fluorescent Automated Cytometry System (FACS) Analysis | [ |
| Advanced stage metastatic lung cancers, patients with non-small cell lung cancer | Ultra High-Throughput Spiral Microfluidics | 35 (human) | 100% | 10–1535/ml | Immunophenotyping (Pan-cytokeratin/CD45, CD44/CD24, EpCAM), FISH (EML4-ALK) or targeted somatic mutation analysis. Ultra-sensitive mass spectrometry based system to highlight the presence of an EGFR-activating mutation in both isolated | [ |
| Metastatic lung cancer | Inertial-based microfluidic cell sorter | 34 (human) | 90% | – | Immunostaining and CK-19 mRNA detection | [ |
| Lung cancer | FAST disc | 35 (human) | 68.6% | 0–62/7.5 ml | Real-time polymerized chain reaction (PCR) | [ |
| Lung cancer | Size-based microfluidic chip | 77 (human) | – | 1.85–68.45/ml | Immune-fluorescent staining combining an epithelial marker and a mesenchymal marker | [ |
| Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients | Label-free high-throughput microfluidic approach | 16 stage IV NSCLC (human) | 93.8% | – | Fluorescent staining (CK+/CD45-/DAPI+) and cytomorphological characteristics (large nuclear size > 9 μm and nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio > 0.8) to classify cells as CTCs | [ |
| Lung cancer | Size-based microfluidic chip with contained array and filter channel array | 200 (human) | Stage I (42.86%) Stage II (72.92%) Stage III (96.88%) Stage IV (96.49%) | Stage I (5.0 ± 5.121/ml) Stage II (8.731 ± 6.36/ml) Stage III (16.81 ± 9.556/ml) Stage IV (28.72 ± 17.39/ml) | Immunofluorescence staining, using epithelial marker (CK-FITC), DAPI and CD45-PE | [ |
| NSCLC patients | Vortex HT chip | 22 (human) | – | 0.1 to 9.67 CTCs/ml | Immunostaining | [ |
SiNW silicon nanowire array, MUNPs multifunctional magnetic upconversion nanoparticles, FAST fluid assisted separation technology
Summary of analytical performance of microfluidic devices applied to screen the sample spiked with lung cancer CTCs
| Tumor type | Microfluidic device | Efficiency/capture rate | Additional tests | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A549 | CTC-Chip (affinity-based) | 87–100% | Immunofluorescence cell staining with CK7/8 or TTF-1 or Ki67 as well as the corresponding secondary antibodies. After FACS sorting, CTCs were stained with EGFR and pan-CK. CTCs also underwent RNA extraction, RT-PCR, TP53 sequencing and next-generation sequencing | [ |
| A549 | CTC-Chip (affinity-based) | 60% | Cells were immunofluorescence (IF) stained for Cytokeratin 7/8 (green), white blood cells were stained for CD45 (red) and nuclei were counterstained with DAPI | [ |
| A549 | Microfluidic SiNW with MUNPs conjugated with anti-EpCAM | About 80% | Cells were stained with the method of immuno-fluorescence and then imaged under the confocal fluorescence microscope | [ |
| A549 | A-1 peptide modified microfluidic chip (affinity-based) | E-A549 (58.0 ± 19.7%) M-A549 similar to E-A549 | The authors did not perform any additional tests | [ |
| A549 and MDA-MB-231 | Nanoroughened adhesion-based capture of CTCs | > 80% | CTCs were identified by: positive staining of anti-cytokeratin and DAPI; negative staining of anti-CD45; and appropriate morphometric characteristics including cell size, shape, and nuclear size | [ |
| A549 | Inertial‐based microfluidic cell sorter | 74.4% | Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for detection of CK-19 mRNA from captured CTCs | [ |
SiNW silicon nanowire array, MUNPs multifunctional magnetic upconversion nanoparticles
Fig. 5On-chip biomimetic model to study metastatic lung cancer. Tumor microvasculature-on-a-chip. Top-view (top) and cross section (bottom) of a multicompartment microfluidic chip for the development of perfusable microvascular networks and microtumors. Diamond-like chambers support the growth of microvascular networks emended in extracellular matrix (ECM) gels, while flanking side channels are used to perfused nutrients and drugs. Perfusable microvascular networks are formed by co-culturing microvascular endothelial cells with lung fibroblast and vascular smooth muscle cells in the ECM gel. Lung cancer cells can be co-injected before ECM gelification to grow microtumors. Alternatively, lung cancer cells can be perfused via flanking channels to study metastatic colonization (adapted from Sobrino et al. [190])
Fig. 6Static vs. dynamic conditions in cell-based assays for nanotoxicology. a Nanoparticles (NP)s tend to agglomerate and sediment in traditional cell-based assays performed under static conditions. This creates large particle agglomerates that are not readily taken up by cells. In addition, sedimentation generates concentration gradients. Therefore, delivered doses do not often match cellular doses (i.e., the amount of material in contact with and taken up by cells). b In contrast, cell-based assays performed in microfluidic devices, i.e., under dynamic conditions, allow perfusion of homogeneous NP dispersions from reservoirs equipped with mechanical stirrers. In addition, the fluid shear stress decreases NP agglomeration and sedimentation within the microfluidic channels. These two factors can be further reduced by designing microchannels structured with microgrooves and herringbone-microstructures to increase convective mixing
Fig. 7Schematic diagram depicting the components of the microfluidic platform developed in the GEMNS project (EuroNanoMed II program) by the Nanotoxicology group, University of Bergen, Norway. In this setup, custom-made on-chip reservoirs are directly attached to the chip inlets and the fluid is withdrawn continuously through the outlets using pulsatile-free syringe pumps. The on-chip reservoirs are automatically refilled with homogeneous nanoparticle dispersions every 30 min using a programmable pressure pump. To ensure dispersion homogeneity, the liquid reservoir of the pressure pump is kept under agitation using a magnetic stirrer with a stirring bar that does not interact with nanoparticles. The microfluidic device consists of four independent microfluidic chambers, each with a microelectrode array to evaluate the cytotoxicity via a cell-substrate impedance sensing. Impedance measurements were performed sequentially using an electrode switch and a potentiostat
Fig. 8Recent progress of microfluidic technologies in nanomedicine. The figures are reproduced from El-Ali et al. [228] with permission of Nature, Kong et al. [44] with the permission of Oncotarget, Long et al. [229] with the permission of Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Palaninathan et al. [230] with permission of MRS Communication