4.8 Article

Visual Quantitative Detection of Circulating Tumor Cells with Single-Cell Sensitivity Using a Portable Microfluidic Device

期刊

SMALL
卷 15, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/smll.201804890

关键词

circulating tumor cells; microfluidics; portable device; single-cell sensitivity; visual quantification

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21775128, 21435004, 21735004, 21521004]
  2. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT13036]
  3. Chinese Government Scholarship (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunocytological technologies, molecular technologies, and functional assays are widely used for detecting circulating tumor cells (CTCs) after enrichment from patients' blood sample. Unfortunately, accessibility to these technologies is limited due to the need for sophisticated instrumentation and skilled operators. Portable microfluidic devices have become attractive tools for expanding the access and efficiency of detection beyond hospitals to sites near the patient. Herein, a volumetric bar chart chip (V-Chip) is developed as a portable platform for CTC detection. The target CTCs are labeled with aptamer-conjugated nanoparticles (ACNPs) and analyzed by V-Chip through quantifying the byproduct (oxygen) of the catalytic reaction between ACNPs and hydrogen peroxide, which results in the movement of an ink bar to a concentration-dependent distance for visual quantitative readout. Thus, the CTC number is decoded into visually quantifiable information and a linear correlation can be found between the distance moved by the ink and number of cells in the sample. This method is sensitive enough that a single cell can be detected. Furthermore, the clinical capabilities of this system are demonstrated for quantitative CTC detection in the presence of a high leukocyte background. This portable detection method shows great potential for quantification of rare cells with single-cell sensitivity for various applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据