4.7 Article

Quantifying oxygen in paper-based cell cultures with luminescent thin film sensors

Journal

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 408, Issue 11, Pages 2985-2992

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-015-9189-x

Keywords

Paper-based scaffold; 3D culture; Oxygen gradient; Oxygen sensor; Thin film; Fluorescence imaging

Funding

  1. University of North Carolina

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Paper-based scaffolds are an attractive material for generating 3D tissue-like cultures because paper is readily available and does not require specialized equipment to pattern, cut, or use. By controlling the exchange of fresh culture medium with the paper-based scaffolds, we can engineer diffusion-dominated environments similar to those found in spheroids or solid tumors. Oxygen tension directly regulates cellular phenotype and invasiveness through hypoxia-inducible transcription factors and also has chemotactic properties. To date, gradients of oxygen generated in the paper-based cultures have relied on cellular response-based readouts. In this work, we prepared a luminescent thin film capable of quantifying oxygen tensions in apposed cell-containing paper-based scaffolds. The oxygen sensors, which are polystyrene films containing a Pd(II) tetrakis(pentafluorophenyl)porphyrin dye, are photostable, stable in culture conditions, and not cytotoxic. They have a linear response for oxygen tensions ranging from 0 to 160 mmHg O-2, and a Stern-Volmer constant (K (sv)) of 0.239 +/- 0.003 mmHg O-2 (-1). We used these oxygen-sensing films to measure the spatial and temporal changes in oxygen tension for paper-based cultures containing a breast cancer line that was engineered to constitutively express a fluorescent protein. By acquiring images of the oxygen-sensing film and the fluorescently labeled cells, we were able to approximate the oxygen consumption rates of the cells in our cultures.

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