4.7 Article

Continuous separation of breast cancer cells from blood samples using multi-orifice flow fractionation (MOFF) and dielectrophoresis (DEP)

Journal

LAB ON A CHIP
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages 1118-1125

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c0lc00345j

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) [2009-0072750, 2008-05943]
  2. National Core Research Center (NCRC) for Nanomedical Technology [R15-2004-024-00000-0]
  3. Innovation Cluster for Bio-Fusion Industry of Seoul RBD program [10816]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are highly correlated with the invasive behavior of cancer, so their isolations and quantifications are important for biomedical applications such as cancer prognosis and measuring the responses to drug treatments. In this paper, we present the development of a microfluidic device for the separation of CTCs from blood cells based on the physical properties of cells. For use as a CTC model, we successfully separated human breast cancer cells (MCF-7) from a spiked blood cell sample by combining multi-orifice flow fractionation (MOFF) and dielectrophoretic (DEP) cell separation technique. Hydrodynamic separation takes advantage of the massive and high-throughput filtration of blood cells as it can accommodate a very high flow rate. DEP separation plays a role in precise post-processing to enhance the efficiency of the separation. The serial combination of these two different sorting techniques enabled high-speed continuous flow-through separation without labeling. We observed up to a 162-fold increase in MCF-7 cells at a 126 mu L min(-1) flow rate. Red and white blood cells were efficiently removed with separation efficiencies of 99.24% and 94.23% respectively. Therefore, we suggest that our system could be used for separation and detection of CTCs from blood cells for biomedical applications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available