4.7 Article

Using a co-culture microsystem for cell migration under fluid shear stress

Journal

LAB ON A CHIP
Volume 11, Issue 15, Pages 2583-2590

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c1lc20113a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Southern Taiwan Science Park Administration (STSPA), Taiwan, R.O.C. [EZ-10-09-44-98]
  2. National Science Council [97-2221-E-006-222-MY3]
  3. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan [99-EC-17-A-19-S1-133]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have successfully developed a microsystem to co-cultivate two types of cells with a minimum defined gap of 50 mu m, and to quantitatively study the impact of fluid shear stress on the mutual influence of cell migration velocity and distance. We used the hydrostatic pressure to seed two different cells, endothelial cells (ECs) and smooth muscle cells (SMCs), on opposite sides of various gap sizes (500 mu m, 200 mu m, 100 mu m, and 50 mu m). After cultivating the cells for 12 h and peeling the co-culture microchip from the culture dish, we studied the impacts of gap size on the migration of either cell type in the absence or presence of fluid shear stress (7 dyne cm(-2) and 12 dyne cm(-2)) influence. We found that both gap size and shear stress have profound influence on cell migration. Smaller gap sizes (100 mu m and 50 mu m) significantly enhanced cell migration, suggesting a requirement of an effective concentration of released factor(s) by either cell type in the gap region. Flow-induced shear stress delayed the migration onset of either cell type in a dose-dependent manner regardless of the gap size. Moreover, shear stress-induced decrease of cell migration becomes evident when the gap size was 500 mu m. We have developed a co-culture microsystem for two kinds of cells and overcome the conventional difficulties in observation and mixed culture, and it would have more application for bio-manipulation and tissue repair engineering.

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