4.2 Article

Microfluidic device for simultaneous analysis of neutrophil extracellular traps and production of reactive oxygen species

期刊

INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 243-252

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c5ib00225g

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA014520]
  2. NIH [R01EB010039, T32GM007215]
  3. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program (NIH) [UL1TR000427]
  4. University of Wisconsin Medical Scientist Training Program training grant (NIH) [GM008692]
  5. NIH, National Cancer Institute F30 fellowship (NIH) [HL114143]
  6. University of Wisconsin Hematology training grant (NIH) [HL007899]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) were first reported in 2004, and since their discovery, there has been an increasing interest in NETs, how they are formed, their role in controlling infections, and their contribution to disease pathogenesis. Despite this rapid expansion of our understanding of NETs, many details remain unclear including the role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the formation of NETs. Further, to study NETs, investigators typically require a large number of cells purified via a lengthy purification regimen. Here, we report a microfluidic device used to quantify both ROS and NET production over time in response to various stimulants, including live bacteria. This device enables ROS and NET analysis using a process that purifies primary human neutrophils in less than 10 minutes and requires only a few microliters of whole blood. Using this device we demonstrate the ability to identify distinct capabilities of neutrophil subsets (including ROS production and NET formation), the ability to use different stimulants/inhibitors, and the ability to effectively use samples stored for up to 8 hours. This device permits the study of ROS and NETs in a user-friendly format and has potential for widespread applications in the study of human disease.

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

4.2
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