4.8 Article

Chemical Transfection of Cells in Picoliter Aqueous Droplets in Fluorocarbon Oil

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 83, 期 22, 页码 8816-8820

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac2022794

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET 1016547, CBET 0967069]
  2. United States Department of Agriculture [USDA-NRI 2009-35603-05059]
  3. Office of Research and Graduate Education of USC
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [90913012]
  5. National Basic Research Program of China (973 program) [2011CB911003]
  6. National Natural Science Funds for Creative Research Groups [20821063]
  7. Directorate For Engineering
  8. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1016547] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Directorate For Engineering
  10. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [0967069] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The manipulation of cells inside water-in-oil droplets is essential for high-throughput screening of cell-based assays using droplet microfluidics. Cell transfection inside droplets is a critical step involved in functional genomics studies that examine in situ functions of genes using the droplet platform. Conventional water-in-hydrocarbon oil droplets are not compatible with chemical transfection due to its damage to cell viability and extraction of organic transfection reagents from the aqueous phase. In this work, we studied chemical transfection of cells encapsulated in picoliter droplets in fluorocarbon oil. The use of fluorocarbon oil permitted high cell viability and little loss of the transfection reagent into the oil phase. We varied the incubation time inside droplets, the DNA concentration, and the droplet size. After optimization, we were able to achieve similar transfection efficiency in droplets to that in the bulk solution. Interestingly, the transfection efficiency increased with smaller droplets, suggesting effects from either the microscale confinement or the surface-to-volume ratio.

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