| Literature DB >> 34821680 |
Se-Woon Choe1,2, Bumjoo Kim3,4, Minseok Kim5,6.
Abstract
Separation of micro- and nano-sized biological particles, such as cells, proteins, and nucleotides, is at the heart of most biochemical sensing/analysis, including in vitro biosensing, diagnostics, drug development, proteomics, and genomics. However, most of the conventional particle separation techniques are based on membrane filtration techniques, whose efficiency is limited by membrane characteristics, such as pore size, porosity, surface charge density, or biocompatibility, which results in a reduction in the separation efficiency of bioparticles of various sizes and types. In addition, since other conventional separation methods, such as centrifugation, chromatography, and precipitation, are difficult to perform in a continuous manner, requiring multiple preparation steps with a relatively large minimum sample volume is necessary for stable bioprocessing. Recently, microfluidic engineering enables more efficient separation in a continuous flow with rapid processing of small volumes of rare biological samples, such as DNA, proteins, viruses, exosomes, and even cells. In this paper, we present a comprehensive review of the recent advances in microfluidic separation of micro-/nano-sized bioparticles by summarizing the physical principles behind the separation system and practical examples of biomedical applications.Entities:
Keywords: bioparticles; biosample preparation; biosensors; microfluidics; separation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34821680 PMCID: PMC8615634 DOI: 10.3390/bios11110464
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Figure 1Schematic description of operational principles in microfluidic technologies for bioparticle separation. (A) Microfluidic passive separation group 1: hydrodynamic flow-based separation using (i) sieving micro-/nanostructures (filtration), (ii) deterministic lateral displacement arrays, and (iii) spiral-shape microchannels (inertial focusing); (B) Microfluidic passive-force separation group 2: microenvironmental gradients, such as (i) temperature gradient (thermophoresis), (ii) dissolved gas concentration gradient (diffusiophoresis), or (iii) electrolyte concentration gradient (diffusiophoresis); (C) Microfluidic active-force separation group 1: non-contacting mechanical force, such as (i) magnetic field (magnetophoresis), (ii) acoustic wave (acoustophoresis), and (iii) optical beam (optical tweezing); (D) Microfluidic active-force separation group 2: contacting electrical forces created by (i) DC electric field (electrophoresis), (ii) AC electric field (dielectrophoresis), or (iii) concentration polarization phenomena.
Figure 2Microfluidic passive-force separation group 1: hydrodynamic, flow-based separation. (A) Size-based particle filtration using nanoporous hydrogel membranes as a sieving structure within microchannels. (i) Schematic description for showing the operational principle of the size-based filtration. (ii,iii) Experimental results of the separation. (ii) Non-target proteins with green fluorescence (ii) penetrated the hydrogel membrane, (iii) while red-fluorescent target biomolecules bound to long-molecular carriers (microtubules, >10 μm in length) were selectively filtered by the nanoporous membrane. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier B.V. [62]; (B) (i) Separation principle of deterministic lateral displacement (DLD)-based blood cell separation. (ii) Experimental results of blood separation using DLD device. Relatively large white blood cells moved to buffer channel, while smaller cells, such as red blood cells and platelets, remained in sample channel. Reprinted with permission from John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [65]; (C) (i) Operational principle of inertial separation in the syringe i-sorter. (ii) The separation of 7 μm and 20 μm particles at the outlet at the optimal flow rates of 0.2 mL/min and 1.2 mL/min for the sample flow and sheath flow, respectively; (iii) Distributions of tumor and blood cells at the outlet at varied flow rates. At all the tested flow rates, the tumor cells were focused near the inner channel wall (below the yellow dotted line), while the blood cells formed a relatively large band with varied widths near the outer channel wall. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier B.V. [66]. All rights reserved.
Figure 3Microfluidic passive-force separation group 2: environmental gradient-based separation. (A) (i) Illustration to show generation of thermal gradients in microchannel using Joule heating. (ii) Separation of particles using thermal gradient, called thermophoresis. Particles separated toward outlet α or β according to their thermophoretic responses. Reprinted with permission from MDPI [101]; (B) (i) Illustration to describe creation of gas (CO2) concentration gradient using air-permeable PDMS microchannel. (ii) Separation results using gas concentration gradient. Anionic particles migrated toward high CO2 concentration wall, while cation particles were repelled from the high-concentration zone. Reprinted with permission from the Nature Publishing Group [107]; (C) (i) Particle migration using salt concentration gradient with various operation modes. Reprinted with permission from IOP Publishing Ltd. [108]. (ii) Bacterial separation using diffusiophoresis. Negatively charged bacterial cells moved toward high salt concentration channel by salt concentration gradient. Reprinted with permission from the American Chemical Society [109]. All rights reserved.
Figure 4Microfluidic active-force separation group 1: non-contacting, external force-based separation. (A) (i) Illustration to show sorting and separation using magnetic field (neodymium) acting in microchannels. (ii,iii) Experimental results showing simultaneous sorting and separation of cells. (ii) The upstream magnetism zone was designed for cell sorting and removing tumor cells (iii), while the second downstream magnetism zone spectated cells according to their sizes. Reprinted with permission from MDPI [132]; (B) (i) Schematics to explain various separation setups using transducers that generate acoustic waves. Reprinted with permission from the Nature Publishing Group [133]. (ii) Dual-step separations of blood cells and exosomes in blood plasma. The upstream acoustic transducer removed relatively large blood compounds, such as red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets, then the downstream transducer separated exosomes from other proteins or macrovesicles. Reprinted with permission from the National Academy of Sciences [134]; (C) (i) Experimental setup for particle separation using optical tweezing with a continuous microflow. (ii–iv) Microfluidic optical tweezering for manipulation of a single yeast cell (S. cerevisiae) using various microfluidic platforms, such as (ii) glass micropipette, (iii) PDMS chip, and (iv) fused silica chip. Reprinted with permission from MDPI [135]. All rights reserved.
Figure 5Microfluidic active-force separation group 2: electrical force-based separation. (A) (i) Illustration to show electrophoresis-based bioparticle separation. (ii) Experimental result showing protein separation with electric potential (e.g., 30 V). (iii) A two-dimensional separation mapping constructed using microfluidic electrophoresis device with only 3 μL sample over a short time period (7 min). Reprinted with permission from the Nature Publishing Group [155]; (B) (i) A general scheme for AC dielectrophoresis-based microfluidic device for continuous cell separation. (ii), (iii) Separation results with improper (i.e., 1 kHz) and optimal AC electric frequency (i.e., 1 × 107 Hz), respectively. Under the optimized electric frequency, the two cell groups showed opposite dielectrophoretic behaviors, showing separation. Reprinted with permission from the American Chemical Society [158]; (C) (i) Operational principle of particle separation using free-flow ion concentration polarization (ICP) process. The particles initially migrated the cathode due to electro-osmosis, then were separated by the ion depletion region created by the Nafion film, which is an ionically permeable structure. (ii) Separation results obtained by the ICP, showing different equilibrium positions according to EP mobilities. Reprinted with permission from the American Chemical Society [159]. All rights reserved.
Summary of microfluidic separation techniques for separation of various types of bioparticles.
| Separation Criteria | Operational | Sample Matrix | Target Bioparticles | Throughput/Recovery Ratio/Others | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrodynamic flow-based | Sieving/mechanical filtration | PBS buffer with BSA proteins | Aptamer-EGFR conjugate bounded on microtubules | 105–106-fold concentration | Kim, M. et al. [ |
| Deterministic lateral displacement (DLD) array | Human blood sample incubated with fluorochrome-conjugated monoclonal antibodies (mAb) | Human leukocytes (WBCs) | 200 μL during 18 min, 88% target recovery, 99.985% removal of input erythrocytes, >99% of unbound mAb in 18 min | Civin, C.I. et al. [ | |
| Inertial focusing | Diluted blood spiked with pre-stained tumor cells with a concentration of 104 cells/mL | Tumor cells | 0.2 mL/min, 78.67% rare tumor cell recovery, >96.04% blood cell removal | Xiang, N. et al. [ | |
| Micro- | Temperature gradient (thermophoresis) | Tris-HCl aqueous buffer (pH = 8.0) | 0.1 and 1 μm polystyrene particles | Vin = 3.5 µm/s | Tsuji, T. et al. [ |
| Gas concentration gradient | Deionized water | Amine-functionalized polystyrene particles | 2 μL/h out of ~2.2 × 107 total particles, only 104 passed during 5 min | Shin, S. et al. [ | |
| Salt concentration gradient | 1~100 mM NaCl buffer with 0.1 mM sodium dodecyl sulfate | Gram-positive or -negative, flagellated or nonflagellated bacteria | NA | Doan, V.S. et al. [ | |
| Non-contacting mechanical force-based | Magnetic force (magnetophoresis) | PBS buffer with poly(ethylene oxide) | Glioblastoma cancer cells and neural stem cells | 5–13 µL/min, 97 ± 0.8% for 15 μm microparticles | Kye, H.G. et al. [ |
| Acoustic force | Blood or extracellular vesicle mixture solution | Exosomes | 4 μL/min, 98.4% purity, > 99.999% blood cell removal rate | Wu, M.X. et al. [ | |
| Optical force | Water, media, or buffer solution | Yeast cells ( | Vp = 200–300 µm/s | Keloth, A. et al. [ | |
| Contacting electrical forces-based | DC electric field (electrophoresis) | 10 mM sodium phosphate buffer at pH 7.4 | BSA and human lysozyme proteins | 3 μL during 7 min for two-dimensional protein mapping | Saar, K.L. et al. [ |
| AC electric field (dielectrophoresis) | DI water and 0.4–4.8 mM K2HPO4 solution | Yeast cells (standard lab yeast strain, | 3.75 × 10−3 μL/s | Zhao, K. et al. [ | |
| DC electric field with permselective nanojunctions (ion concentration polarization) | 0.1×PBS buffer and human blood plasma with 3.2% sodium acetate | BODIPY disulfonate | 15 μL/min, ~10-fold concentration factor | Papadimitriou, V.A. et al. [ |
Figure 6Next-generation microfluidic sample preparation techniques toward high-throughput and high-resolution bioparticle separation with minimal sample damage based on massively parallelized, multiround, and multiphysical separation. (A) Multiparallelized and multiround separation for high-throughput isolation of target cells from biosamples with high complexity. Reprinted with permission from the American Chemical Society [40]; (B) Multiphysical approach based on combination of passive and active separation mechanisms to minimize sample damage and side effects associated with high electrical field strengths. Reprinted with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry [41]. All rights reserved.