4.6 Article

Label-Free Sensing of Cell Viability Using a Low-Cost Impedance Cytometry Device

Journal

MICROMACHINES
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/mi14020407

Keywords

microfluidic impedance cytometry; low-cost ITO electrodes; cell viability analysis; label-free sensing; sensitive electrodes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cell viability is essential for drug screening. This study proposed a low-cost microfluidic impedance cytometry device with 100-micron wide indium tin oxide (ITO) electrodes to assess cell viability without the cytotoxicity of dye staining.
Cell viability is an essential physiological status for drug screening. While cell staining is a conventional cell viability analysis method, dye staining is usually cytotoxic. Alternatively, impedance cytometry provides a straightforward and label-free sensing approach for the assessment of cell viability. A key element of impedance cytometry is its sensing electrodes. Most state-of-the-art electrodes are made of expensive metals, microfabricated by lithography, with a typical size of ten microns. In this work, we proposed a low-cost microfluidic impedance cytometry device with 100-micron wide indium tin oxide (ITO) electrodes to achieve a comparable performance to the 10-micron wide Au electrodes. The effectiveness was experimentally verified as 7 mu m beads can be distinguished from 10 mu m beads. To the best of our knowledge, this is the lowest geometry ratio of the target to the sensing unit in the impedance cytometry technology. Furthermore, a cell viability test was performed on MCF-7 cells. The proposed double differential impedance cytometry device has successfully differentiated the living and dead MCF-7 cells with a throughput of similar to 1000 cells/s. The label-free and low-cost, high-throughput impedance cytometry could benefit drug screening, fundamental biological research and other 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available