Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0279102. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279102

Spatially selective cell treatment and collection for integrative drug testing using hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting

Xu Wang 1, Jingtian Zheng 1, Maheshwar Adiraj Iyer 2, Adam Henry Szmelter 2, David T Eddington 2,3,*, Steve Seung-Young Lee 1,3,*
Editor: Giuseppe Chirico4
PMCID: PMC9844832  PMID: 36649249

Abstract

Hydrodynamic focusing capable of readily producing and controlling laminar flow facilitates drug treatment of cells in existing microfluidic culture devices. However, to expand applications of such devices to multiparameter drug testing, critical limitations in current hydrodynamic focusing microfluidics must be addressed. Here we describe hydrodynamic focusing and shifting as an advanced microfluidics tool for spatially selective drug delivery and integrative cell-based drug testing. We designed and fabricated a co-flow focusing, three-channel microfluidic device with a wide cell culture chamber. By controlling inlet flow rates of sample and two side solutions, we could generate hydrodynamic focusing and shifting that mediated precise regulation of the path and width of reagent and drug stream in the microfluidic device. We successfully validated a hydrodynamic focusing and shifting approach for spatially selective delivery of DiI, a lipophilic fluorophore, and doxorubicin, a chemotherapeutic agent, to tumor cells in our device. Moreover, subsequent flowing of a trypsin EDTA solution over the cells that were exposed to doxorubicin flow allowed us to selectively collect the treated cells. Our approach enabled downstream high-resolution microscopy of the cell suspension to confirm the nuclear delivery of doxorubicin into the tumor cells. In the device, we could also evaluate in situ the cytotoxic effect of doxorubicin to the tumor cells that were selectively treated by hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting. These results show that hydrodynamic focusing and shifting enable a fast and robust approach to spatially treat and then collect cells in an optimized microfluidic device, offering an integrative assay tool for efficient drug screening and discovery.

Introduction

Microfluidics have advanced immensely over the past decades, becoming an indispensable technology in biomedical and pharmaceutical research [1, 2]. A microfluidic device capable of adequately housing live cells and precisely controlling microliter volume fluids offers a miniaturized in vitro platform for cell biology and cell-based drug assays [3, 4]. Highly predictive preclinical drug testing is essential to increasing success rates in drug development [5]. Although incubation of cells with drug candidates in a multiwell format is the gold standard for high-throughput drug testing in vitro, static treatment conditions do not emulate the exposure of cells to drug molecules in vivo. In contrast, microfluidics systems can generate a controlled stream of drug solutions through microchannels where cells are located. This dynamic condition mimics an in vivo model with a tissue environment where cells interact and take up drug molecules being circulated in the bloodstream after administration [6, 7]. Importantly, microfluidics can produce laminar flow having a width of less than 50 nm [8]. These technical advantages enable spatial and temporal regulation of the cellular environment and intracellular biochemical processes. Such regulation could be possible through selective spatiotemporal exposure of a given part of a cell with a reagent stream (e.g. chemical stimulant or perturbation), which facilitates the studies of subcellular or organelle biology [911]. Cell patterning in a microfluidic device for studying cell migration and cell-cell interactions in the context of a wound healing assay is also possible with laminar flow [12, 13]. These cell analysis platforms can be viable by hydrodynamic flow focusing in a relatively simple microfluidics device [14, 15].

Previous microfluidics studies using hydrodynamic flow focusing have shown promising results in cell-based drug testing [16, 17]. Wang and co-workers have designed a hydrodynamic flow focusing microfluidic device with a cross-shaped channel connecting three input ports (two sides for buffer and one central for sample) and one output port [18]. By changing the flow rate ratio of the side and sample fluids, the authors could control the focus width of the sample stream and selectively deliver a model drug molecule to CHO cells located along the central channel (100 μm width). A two-layer microfluidic system consisting of a circle-shaped cell culture chamber (1.2 mm in diameter) and channels in different layers has also been introduced to expose cells to hydrodynamically focused streams of soluble bioreagents under low shear stress [19]. Another multi-layer and -channel microfluidic device has been developed for a long-term cell study in which myoblasts differentiated and formed a microtube pattern in the cell trench (L/W/H = 400/80/110 μm or 360/60/110 μm) [20]. The device generated a hydrodynamically focused reagent stream and enabled focal delivery of cytoplasmic and nuclear dyes to micro-patterned myoblasts and myofibers. In addition, hydrodynamic flow focusing facilitated a cell migration study by generating different physiological environments in a microfluidics device with a 100 μm-wide culture channel [21]. The microfluidic device was composed of separate cell culture and chemical reaction channels that produce spatially defined oxygen gradients and cell patterns, enabling characterization of oxygen level-dependent endothelial cell migration.

These pioneering efforts demonstrate the potential of hydrodynamic flow focusing for spatially selective drug delivery to cells and testing the effects of drugs on cells. However, most of the previously reported hydrodynamic flow focusing microfluidic devices have been designed to have a small cell culture space (~0.1–1 mm) and to deliver a drug or a bio-molecule to cells within a confined area, typically the centerline of the main channel. Although the devices facilitate response monitoring of a few targeted cells after direct treatment with a single drug, these approaches make it difficult to study the effects of different drug molecules and concentrations on cells in a device. Thus, currently used approaches require much time and cost to prepare many devices and culture cells for testing various drugs. A microfluidics system capable of culturing cells in a large chamber and shifting the position of a hydrodynamically focused flow of drug solution has not yet been reported for simultaneous evaluation of cell responses to various drug treatments in the same device. Furthermore, integration of hydrodynamic focusing microfluidics with other drug assay methods, such as high-resolution microscopy and single-cell sequencing, has also not yet been assessed, which would provide further detailed information of drug effects on individual cells.

Here we introduce a novel hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting approach for spatially selective drug delivery and cell collection in a simple microfluidic culture device. We designed three different inlet geometries and characterized them by computational simulation to determine an optimal device design for efficiently generating a stable laminar flow and controlling its position. Then, we fabricated a novel hydrodynamic focusing and shifting microfluidics (HFSM) device with a sample/side co-flow input channel and a large cell culture chamber (2 mm width). The device provided an appropriate environment for cancer cells to proliferate and grow, and successfully cultured millions of cells after 7 days of incubation. We generated hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting by controlling inlet flow rates of sample and side fluids. Lateral shifting of the central stream could be made within a range of 1 mm, which was confirmed by both 2D laminar flow simulations and a real experiment using a food coloring dye. We applied the hydrodynamic focusing and shifting for spatially controlled delivery of DiI, a lipophilic fluorescent dye, and doxorubicin, a chemotherapy drug, to cancer cells localized in different regions of the culture chamber. To evaluate the cytotoxic effect of doxorubicin in situ, we monitored the drug-treated cells using a brightfield microscope with a low magnification objective and then observed spatially selective cell death. Direct cell exposure to the drug in the perfusion stream caused fast delivery and cellular response. We also selectively collected the cells exposed to doxorubicin flow by precisely controlling the stream path of a trypsin EDTA solution. Then, we applied high-resolution microscopy for imaging the single cells to confirm nuclear delivery of doxorubicin where it acts pharmacologically. These results show great potential of hydrodynamic focusing and shifting as a novel microfluidic tool for integrative cell-based drug testing.

Materials and methods

Cell culture

The cell line used in this study was mouse mammary gland tumor cells (4T1 cells) obtained from Dr. Stephen J. Kron’s group at the University of Chicago. 4T1 cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 media (Gibco, U.S.A.) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% Penicillin-Streptomycin (PS). Cells were maintained at 37°C with 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere.

Hydrodynamic focusing and shifting microfluidics (HFSM) design and fabrication

We tested three different HFSM designs having three different inlet geometries: 1) cross-channel with an inverted T-shape junction, 2) 45° tilted side channel with a down arrow-shaped junction, and 3) sample/side co-flow channel without a junction. We evaluated and determined an optimal HFSM device design using 2D laminar flow simulation. We also simulated the time-dependent concentration change of a shifted sample stream in the selected design. The design of the optimized HFSM device is illustrated in Fig 1A. The height of all the channels are 160 μm. Co-flow of side fluids hydrodynamically squeeze the center sample fluid to generate a laminar stream and can also shift the sample stream by uneven inlet flow ratios. The culture chamber is located underneath the inlet channels where cells are loaded and grown. The widths of the inlet channels Win and cell culture chamber Wcc were designed to be 200 μm and 2 mm, respectively.

Fig 1. Design, simulation and experimental test of hydrodynamic focusing and shifting microfluidics (HFSM).

Fig 1

A Design of HFSM device. B Simulation and C experimental testing of sample fluid in the HFSM device using a brightfield microscope and food dye solution. The red dotted lines in A and B (left) indicate the entrance to the cell culture chamber.

The HFSM device was fabricated from polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS, Sylgard 184, Dow Corning) using replica molding methods. The master mold was fabricated by patterning a layer of photoresist (SU-8, Kayaku Advanced Materials) through photolithography. PDMS elastomer and curing agent were mixed in a ratio of 10:1 (w/w) and degassed before pouring onto the master mold. After curing on a hot plate at 95°C for 1 hour, the PDMS was cross-linked and peeled off from the master mold. Then, inlet and outlet ports were made with a 1.0 mm biopsy puncher and the PDMS microfluidic network (2 mm thick) was bonded to a 1 mm-thick glass slide using oxygen plasma. The bonded microfluidic device was cleaned by flowing isopropyl alcohol and deionized water through all the channels. Finally, the fabricated microfluidic device was autoclaved and stored in a sterilized biosafety cabinet before cell loading.

Loading cells into the culture chamber of the HFSM

Before loading cells, the channels of the HFSM were pre-incubated with the cell culture media for 30 min. 4T1 cells were prepared in a T-75 flask and harvested in cell culture media at a concentration of 500,000 cells/mL. A cell solution of 100 μL was injected into the culture chamber of the HFSM through the center channel using a 1 mL syringe (BD Luer-Lok™, sterile) and 0.02 inch x 0.06 inch (I.D. × O.D.) tubing (Tygon® ND-100-80, autoclaved before usage), and then the HFSM was placed in the cell culture incubator. Cell culture media (RPMI-1640 containing 10% FBS and 1% PS) in the HFSM was changed every 12 hr.

Flow simulation

To predict the type of flow in the HFSM, the concentration profiles of the sample fluid were simulated in COMSOL Multiphysics 5.5 (COMSOL Inc.) with a 2D laminar flow model. Since all fluids used in this study were aqueous solutions, we considered all sample and side solutions as water with a density of 997.1 kg/m3 and a dynamic viscosity of 8.91×10−4 Pa•s at room temperature (300K).

Treating, collecting, and imaging cells in the HFSM

After culturing 4T1 cells in the HFSM for 7 days, the device was moved into a stage top incubator with a confocal fluorescence microscope (Zeiss, LSM 710) for maintaining cell viability during subsequent treatment and imaging. The syringes containing sample and buffer solutions were positioned on the pumps and the tubing (Tygon® ND-100-80 (0.02 inch x 0.06 inch)) was connected to the syringe needle and the other end was plugged into the hole of the PMDS layer of the device. Different sample solutions including the green food coloring dye (ESCO foods Inc.), DiI (DiIC18(3), 5 μM), doxorubicin (2 mg/ml in 0.9% saline containing 0.02% Triton X-100), and trypsin EDTA (0.25% w/v) were prepared. DiI stock solution was prepared by dissolving DiI in DMSO at 5 mM and stored in the dark at 4°C. Right before use, 5 μL stock solution was diluted in 5 mL cell culture media to make 5 μM staining solution. The sample solution and cell culture media were pumped into the sample inlet and two side inlets, respectively, using three digital syringe pumps and three 5 ml syringes (BD Luer-Lok™, sterile). All syringes were wrapped with heating pads (New Era Inc.) to keep the temperature of solutions at 37°C. The path of the sample fluid stream was controlled by changing the flow rates of cell culture media in the two side channels. The cells were collected through the outlet after exposure to trypsin EDTA flow. Brightfield and fluorescence images of cells in the HFSM were acquired with the microscope using low- (Zeiss A-Plan, 5x, dry and Zeiss Plan-Apochromat, 10x and 20x, dry) and high- (Zeiss Plan-Apochromat, 63x, oil) magnification objectives.

Results and discussion

Simulation and experimental testing of laminar flow in the HFSM

The width (Wf) and path of a hydrodynamically focused sample stream depend on the following dimensional parameters: (1) the flow rate of sample fluid Qs and the flow rate of the side fluid Qsi, and (2) the density ρ and dynamic viscosity μ of the fluids. Assuming sample and side fluids have similar physical properties with water, the Reynolds number Re = ρQccD/μ, where Qcc is the flow rate of fluid in the culture chamber and D is the characteristic length of the culture chamber, was less than 1 based on our calculation when Qcc<0.01. Thus, hydrodynamic focusing of a sample fluid in our device is governed mainly by the flow rates of sample and side fluids and minimal diffusion occurs as shown in our model and experiments.

To optimize and characterize the microfluidic device design, we performed simulations of the hydrodynamic focusing and shifting of sample fluid with a 2D laminar flow model (S1 and S2 Figs and Fig 1B). Sample fluid (H2O having 1 arbitrary concentration unit (a.u.)) was hydrodynamically focused along the center channel by two side fluids (H2O having 0 a.u.). To simulate the behavior of the sample stream with different flow rate ratios, we applied a range of values for the fluid velocity of the main (0.001–0.0025 m/s corresponding to a flow rate range of 2–5 μL/min) and side (0.0025–0.0175 m/s corresponding to a flow rate range of 5–35 μL/min) inlets. Pseudocolor images of the simulation data showed laminar flows and concentration distributions of the sample fluid with different inlet flow rate ratios. With unequal flow rates of the two side fluids Qsi, the path of the focused sample stream could be shifted left and right from the center of the main channel. With these simulation conditions, we evaluated HFSM device designs with three different inlet geometries: 1) cross-channel with an inverted T-shape junction, 2) 45° tilted side channel with a down arrow-shaped junction, and 3) sample/side co-flow channel without a junction (S1 Fig). The simulation data show that the third configuration of sample/side co-flow input channels was the optimal device inlet geometry for creating the narrowest width and precisely controlled path of a hydrodynamically focused and shifted sample stream. We determined the mean width of the focused stream by measuring the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the concentration profiles. To change the position of the sample stream, we turned off the input pump for the sample fluid, adjusted the flow rates of the left and right side fluids to preset the new position of the sample stream before turning on the input pump for the sample fluid. This pump off-on method can prevent unselected cells from exposure to sample molecule during repositioning of sample solution stream. Therefore, simulation of the time-dependent concentration change of the shifted sample stream right after turning on its input pump is necessary to characterize hydrodynamic shifting in the co-flow inlet device. Under the preset side flow rates for shifting the position of the sample stream at a flow rate ratio of 35:2:5 (μL/min), it took 5 seconds for the shifted sample stream to reach its peak concentration across the entrance of the culture chamber after turning on the input pump for the sample fluid. The mean width (264 ± 4 (SD) μm) of the sample stream did not significantly change during this time period (S2 Fig). In addition to shifting the sample stream in the optimal device design at flow rate ratios of 5:2:35, 20:2:20, and 35:2:5 (μL/min) in Fig 1B, we simulated an increase in the flow rate of the sample fluid while keeping the same flow rates for both side fluids (i.e., 20:2:20 to 20:5:20 (μL/min)), as shown in the 2nd and 4th images in Fig 1B.

To confirm the simulation data of flow focusing and shifting in Fig 1B, we conducted experiments under similar conditions. Green food coloring dye and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) were pumped into the central inlet and side inlets of the HFSM, respectively, at different flow rate ratios using digital syringe pumps (NE-300 New Era). The range of inlet flow rates for the food dye solution was from 2 to 5 μL/min while the range for PBS was from 5 to 35 μL/min. Fig 1C shows time-averaged snapshots of the food dye stream in the main channel of the HFSM acquired in brightfield imaging mode by confocal fluorescence microscopy. PBS from the left and right side inlets squeezed the food dye stream from the main inlet as a co-flow-focusing. The food dye flow formed a laminar stream with a narrow width that continued down to the culture chamber. The shift in the food dye stream due to uneven side inlet velocities of PBS is also apparent.

We further analyzed the lateral concentration of the sample stream at the entrance to the culture chamber (indicated by red dotted lines in Fig 1A and 1B (left)) through simulation profiles (Fig 2A). The mean width of the focused streams at flow ratios of 20:2:20 and 20:5:20 (μL/min) is 488 μm in both cases. The simulated peak concentration of the sample fluid in the culture chamber increased 1.8 times (from 0.2 to 0.37 a.u.) as the inlet flow rate of the sample fluid Qs rose from 2 to 5 μL/min.

Fig 2. Quantitative profiles of hydrodynamic focusing and shifting in the HFSM.

Fig 2

A Simulation profiles of differences in lateral concentration of sample fluid at the entrance to the culture chamber in the device for different sample flow rates. B Simulation predictions and experimental measurement of distance of the sample stream from the centerline of the culture chamber at different side flow rates.

Fig 2B shows the strong correlation between simulation predictions and experimental measurements of shifting the sample stream under different flow rate ratios. The distance was measured from the centerline of the culture chamber. A distance of 0 indicates that the sample stream is directly along the center of the culture chamber while negative and positive values represent left and right shifts of the sample stream, respectively. The sample stream could be shifted in ±0.5 mm lateral range from the center of culture chamber. These simulation and experimental results demonstrate the capability for precise microfluidic flow control for spatially selective delivery of drugs to cells.

Application of the HFSM for spatially controlled, cell-based drug testing

To demonstrate the feasibility of our device to spatially select cells for treatment prior to collection for an integrative cell-based drug assay, we treated a mouse mammary tumor cells (4T1) with a lipophilic fluorophore (DiI), a chemotherapeutic agent (doxorubicin), and cell detachment enzyme (Trypsin EDTA) solutions as sample fluids. High- and low-magnification brightfield and fluorescence microscopy was used as the primary monitoring method.

Culturing tumor cells in the HFSM

After being loaded with 4T1 cells, the HFSM was moved into a humidified cell incubator. 4T1 cells grew and covered more than 75% of the cell culture chamber area after incubation for 7 days at 37°C with 5% CO2 in a humidified atmosphere, as shown in Fig 3. This result demonstrates our device can provide proper environmental conditions for culturing and housing millions of adherent 4T1 tumor cells to examine spatially selective cell treatment and collection.

Fig 3. Proliferation and growth of 4T1 tumor cells in the HFSM device.

Fig 3

Brightfield microscope images of 4T1 cells in the culture chamber over the course of a 7-day incubation.

Spatially selective cell staining with lipophilic fluorescent dye

The HFSM device containing 4T1 cells was placed on the stage of a confocal fluorescence microscope (Zeiss, LSM 710) and a stage top incubator covered the device to maintain cell viability during imaging. A DiI staining solution and cell culture media were pumped into the sample channel (center) and two side channels (left and right), respectively, using digital syringe pumps. The path of the DiI stream in the culture chamber could be controlled by the flow rates of the cell culture media in the side inlets. By confocal fluorescence microscopy with a 514 nm excitation laser, 519–673 nm emission filter, and 5x dry objective, 4T1 cells were visualized by DiI dye staining (Fig 4A). Three vertical stripes of fluorescently stained 4T1 cells were marked in the culture chamber by focusing and shifting the DiI stream with flow rate ratios of 5:2:35, 20:2:20, and 35:2:5 (μL/min). The flow time for each stream was 5 min. Fig 4B shows the strong fluorescence signal of DiI in the plasma member and cytoplasm of 4T1 cells. Thus, our device created hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting that was successfully applied for spatially selective delivery of a reagent to cells in the 2 mm-wide culture chamber. These results demonstrate the potential for testing different drug compounds or drug doses for millions of cells in a single device by spatially controlled delivery.

Fig 4. Spatially controlled staining and collection of 4T1 tumor cells using the HFSM.

Fig 4

A A single fluorescence image of 4T1 cells visualized after staining by three different DiI stream paths (flow rate ratios of 5:2:35, 20:2:20, and 35:2:5 (μL/min)). B High magnification image of 4T1 cells stained with DiI at a flow rate ratio of 20:2:20 (μL/min). C, D Brightfield images of 4T1 cells in the culture chamber (C) before and (D) after exposure to trypsin EDTA flow. Black dotted lines present the stream path of trypsin EDTA. E Brightfield image of collected 4T1 cells after detachment from the chamber by exposure to trypsin EDTA flow.

Spatially selective cell collection with trypsin EDTA flow

4T1 cells were selectively collected from the HFSM device by perfusion of 0.25% (w/v) trypsin EDTA. After loading and culturing 4T1 cells in a fresh HFSM device, the device was moved onto the microscope and contained in a stage top incubator. Trypsin-EDTA solution and cell culture media were constantly pumped into the sample inlet and two side inlets, respectively. The flow rates for trypsin EDTA solution and cell culture media were 5 μL/min and 20 μL/min, respectively. 4T1 cells attached to the bottom of the culture chamber before trypsin EDTA flow passes over (Fig 4C). 4T1 cells under the path of trypsin EDTA flow (area between black dashed lines in Fig 4D) detached and washed out of the HFSM device after 40 min exposure. Using ImageJ, we determined that the cell area of 79% in between the black dashed lines in the Fig 4C and 4D was disappeared after trypsin EDTA flow treatment (S3 Fig). The suspension of detached cells was collected through the outlet of the device (Fig 4E). These results demonstrate a proof of concept for our device and overall approach for spatially selective cell collection for downstream single-cell and molecular analyses.

Spatially selective cell treatment with a chemotherapy drug

Doxorubicin is a cytotoxic molecule currently used for chemotherapy of breast and ovarian cancers [2224]. We tested the ability of our device to spatially deliver doxorubicin to cells and selectively collect the treated cells. 4T1 cells were loaded and cultured in a HFSM device for 7 days as described above. Again, the HFSM device loaded with 4T1 cells was placed on the stage of the confocal fluorescence microscope and contained within a stage top incubator. Doxorubicin solution (2 mg/ml in 0.9% saline, containing 0.02% Triton X-100) and cell culture media were constantly pumped into the sample inlet and two side inlets at flow rates of 2 μL/min and 20 μL/min, respectively. Fig 5A shows the fluorescence and brightfield contrast images of 4T1 cells exposed to the doxorubicin stream for 10 min. Doxorubicin molecules have intrinsic fluorescence [25, 26]. Thus, the doxorubicin internalized in 4T1 cells was able to be visualized with a 488 nm excitation laser and 535–674 nm emission filter using 5x and 10x dry objectives (top and bottom, Fig 5A). Doxorubicin can induce therapeutic effects (i.e. cytotoxicity) to a cancer cell only when the drug molecules interact with DNA in the cell nucleus. However, while low magnification objectives having long working distances (9.9 mm and 2 mm for 5x and 10x objectives, respectively) can image many cells at once across a 1 mm thick glass slide at the bottom of the device, the same objectives have a low numerical aperture (NA) of 0.12 and 0.45, respectively, and cannot provide subcellular resolution images that clearly show cell nuclei. Thus, to confirm nuclear delivery of doxorubicin, we collected the treated 4T1 cells after exposure to trypsin EDTA flow and applied high-resolution imaging of the cell suspension using a 63x oil objective (working distance = 0.19 mm, NA = 1.4) (Fig 5B). By counterstaining DNA with 4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI), high-resolution images clearly show strong co-localized signal of doxorubicin in the cell nuclei. This downstream analysis offered further evaluation of subcellular targeting of the drug compound. Other assays, such as flow cytometry and single-cell sequencing, might also be applied to single cell suspensions, offering more detailed information on drug treatment effects at the cellular and molecular levels.

Fig 5. Spatially selective treatment and collection of 4T1 tumor cells for testing subcellular doxorubicin delivery using the HFSM.

Fig 5

A Low-resolution fluorescence (right) and brightfield (left) images of 4T1 cells after exposure to a stream of doxorubicin for 10 min. Images at the top and bottom were obtained using 5x and 10x dry objectives, respectively. The red fluorescence signal represents doxorubicin internalized in 4T1 cells. B High-resolution fluorescence images of a 4T1 cell suspension collected using spatially controlled trypsin EDTA flow post-exposure to doxorubicin flow. The top and bottom images were acquired using a 63x oil objective and zoom functionality (0.6x and 3x zoom), respectively. The high-resolution images show clear co-localization of the fluorescence signals of DAPI (blue) and doxorubicin (red) in the cell nuclei, verifying nuclear delivery of doxorubicin using the HFSM.

Given the result above, we sought to determine the cytotoxic effect of doxorubicin on the tumor cells. We selectively delivered doxorubicin to 4T1 cells (at a flow rate ratio of 20:2:20 (μL/min), 10 min duration) in a fresh HFSM device as described above, placed the device in a cell culture incubator for 12 hr, and changed the media. Fig 6 shows the cytotoxic effect that doxorubicin had on the 4T1 cells that were selectively exposed to the drug flow. The 4T1 cells died and washed out from the device after the 12 hr incubation.

Fig 6. Cytotoxicity assay of doxorubicin on spatially selected 4T1 cells in the HFSM device.

Fig 6

Brightfield microscope images of 4T1 cells in the culture chamber immediately after a 10 min exposure to a doxorubicin stream (left) and after a subsequent 12 hr incubation and one time media change (right). The area between the black dashed lines indicates the path of the doxorubicin stream.

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrated hydrodynamic focusing and shifting as an advanced microfluidics approach for cell-based drug testing. Our optimized microfluidics device can readily control the path of a drug or reagent solution over the culture chamber for spatially selective delivery to cells. It is also capable of growing millions of cells by providing a large culture chamber (2 mm width). These technical advantages permitted not only in situ monitoring of drug effects but also selective cell collection for downstream high-resolution analysis. Although it requires further studies and optimization in cell culturing and spatially selective collection to expand the application of the device for other cell types, we anticipate that this HFSM approach and device can be applied broadly to facilitate the simultaneous evaluation of cell responses to various drug treatments under fluid dynamic conditions mimicking physiological blood flow. In particular, through integration with other assay methods, the HFSM will provide comprehensive information on the effects of drug candidates at the cellular and molecular levels for drug screening and discovery research.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Simulation of hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting in different HFSM designs.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Simulation of the time-dependent concentration changes of a hydrodynamically shifted sample flow.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Reduction of cell area on the stream path of trypsin EDTA solution.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Stephen J. Kron at the University of Chicago for providing 4T1 cell line. We also thank the Fluorescence Imaging Core at the University Illinois Chicago for their technical support in confocal fluorescence microscopy and Evan H. Phillips for manuscript editing assistance.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by NIBIB (National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering) R00 EB0022636 and NIGMS (National Institute of General Medical Sciences) R35 GM142743 to S. S.-Y. Lee. Experiments were performed in a renovated laboratory space at University of Illinois Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, supported by NIH (National Institutes of Health) C06 RR015482. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sackmann EK, Fulton AL, Beebe DJ. The present and future role of microfluidics in biomedical research. Nature. 2014;507(7491):181–9. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13118 doi: 10.1038/nature13118 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Low LA, Mummery C, Berridge BR, Austin CP, Tagle DA. Organs-on-chips: into the next decade. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20(5):345–61. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0079-3 doi: 10.1038/s41573-020-0079-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tehranirokh M, Kouzani AZ, Francis PS, Kanwar JR. Microfluidic devices for cell cultivation and proliferation. Biomicrofluidics. 2013;7(5):051502. Available from: doi: 10.1063/1.4826935 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu X, Zheng W, Jiang X. Cell-based assays on microfluidics for drug screening. ACS Sens. 2019;4(6):1465–75. Available from: doi: 10.1021/acssensors.9b00479 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kitaeva KK, Rutland CS, Rizvanov AA, Solovyeva VV. Cell culture based in vitro test systems for anticancer drug screening. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8(322). Available from: doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fan X-Y, Deng Z-F, Yan Y-Y E, Orel V, Shypko A, B. Orel V, et al. Application of microfluidic chips in anticancer drug screening. Bosn J of Basic Med Sci. 2022;22(3):302–14. Available from: doi: 10.17305/bjbms.2021.6484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Russo M, Cejas CM, Pitingolo G. Chapter Six—Advances in microfluidic 3D cell culture for preclinical drug development. In: Pandya A, Singh V, editors. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 187: Academic Press; 2022. p. 163–204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Knight JB, Vishwanath A, Brody JP, Austin RH. Hydrodynamic focusing on a silicon chip: mixing nanoliters in microseconds. Phys Rev Lett. 1998;80(17):3863. Available from: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.3863. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Takayama S, Ostuni E, LeDuc P, Naruse K, Ingber DE, Whitesides GM. Selective chemical treatment of cellular microdomains using multiple laminar streams. Chem Biol. 2003;10(2):123–30. Available from: doi: 10.1016/s1074-5521(03)00019-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tarn MD, Lopez-Martinez MJ, Pamme N. On-chip processing of particles and cells via multilaminar flow streams. Anal Bioanal Chm. 2014;406(1):139–61. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-013-7363-6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Aggarwal V, Lele TP. Intracellular concentration gradients that mirror external gradients in microfluidic flows: A computational analysis. Cell Mol Bioeng. 2017;10(2):198–207. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12195-016-0474-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lin J-Y, Lo K-Y, Sun Y-S. A microfluidics-based wound-healing assay for studying the effects of shear stresses, wound widths, and chemicals on the wound-healing process. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–11. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56753-9 doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56753-9 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee I, Kim D, Park G-L, Jeon T-J, Kim SM. Investigation of wound healing process guided by nano-scale topographic patterns integrated within a microfluidic system. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0201418. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201418 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Golden JP, Justin GA, Nasir M, Ligler FS. Hydrodynamic focusing—a versatile tool. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012;402(1):325–35. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-011-5415-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Huber D, Oskooei A, Casadevall i Solvas X, Demello A, Kaigala GV. Hydrodynamics in cell studies. Chem Rev. 2018;118(4):2042–79. Available from: doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00317 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sun J, Warden AR, Ding X. Recent advances in microfluidics for drug screening. Biomicrofluidics. 2019;13(6):061503. Available from: doi: 10.1063/1.5121200 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cui P, Wang S. Application of microfluidic chip technology in pharmaceutical analysis: A review. J Pharm Anal. 2019;9(4):238–47. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2018.12.001 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wang F, Wang H, Wang J, Wang HY, Rummel PL, Garimella SV, et al. Microfluidic delivery of small molecules into mammalian cells based on hydrodynamic focusing. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008;100(1):150–8. Available from: doi: 10.1002/bit.21737 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu Y, Butler WB, Pappas D. Spatially selective reagent delivery into cancer cells using a two-layer microfluidic culture system. Anal Chim Acta. 2012;743:125–30. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2012.06.054 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cheng JW, Chang TC, Bhattacharjee N, Folch A. An open-chamber flow-focusing device for focal stimulation of micropatterned cells. Biomicrofluidics. 2016;10(2):024122. Available from: doi: 10.1063/1.4946801 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shih H-C, Lee T-A, Wu H-M, Ko P-L, Liao W-H, Tung Y-C. Microfluidic collective cell migration assay for study of endothelial cell proliferation and migration under combinations of oxygen gradients, tensions, and drug treatments. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–10. Available from: doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44594-5 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cai S, Thati S, Bagby TR, Diab H-M, Davies NM, Cohen MS, et al. Localized doxorubicin chemotherapy with a biopolymeric nanocarrier improves survival and reduces toxicity in xenografts of human breast cancer. J Control Release. 2010;146(2):212–8. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.04.006 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Park K, Kim J, Lim S, Han S. Topoisomerase II-α (topoII) and HER2 amplification in breast cancers and response to preoperative doxorubicin chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(5):631–4. Available from: doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00745-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nabholtz J-M, Falkson C, Campos D, Szanto J, Martin M, Chan S, et al. Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. Am J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(6):968–75. Available from: https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2003.04.040 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Karukstis KK, Thompson EH, Whiles JA, Rosenfeld RJ. Deciphering the fluorescence signature of daunomycin and doxorubicin. Biophys Chem. 1998;73(3):249–63. Available from: doi: 10.1016/s0301-4622(98)00150-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shah S, Chandra A, Kaur A, Sabnis N, Lacko A, Gryczynski Z, et al. Fluorescence properties of doxorubicin in PBS buffer and PVA films. J Photochem Photobiol B: Biol. 2017;170:65–9. Available from: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.03.024 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Giuseppe Chirico

22 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-11631Spatially selective cell treatment and collection for integrative drug testing using hydrodynamic flow focusing and shiftingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Chirico

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was supported by NIBIB R00 EB0022636 and NIGMS R35 GM142743 to S. S.-Y. Lee. Experiments were performed in a renovated laboratory space at University of Illinois Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, supported by NIH C06 RR015482.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please expand the acronym “NIBIB, NIGMS and NIH” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Basing on my personal reading of the Ms. and the review reports I suggest the Authors to review their Ms. and resubmit it. In particular, I would like to stress the following points:

(1) Both the Reviewers ask to expand the literature analysis. Similar microfluidic experiments are reported. It is very much desired that the reader can understand what are the technical advances in this paper and the differences with the published studies.

(2) Please, provide a characterization of the switching/stabilization of flow positions.

(3) please, outline the advantages of the presented device over conventional cell culture systems.

I would appreciate to have marked changes in the revised submission and a detailed comments to the points highlighted by the Reviewers.

thank you

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Wang et al. reported a microfluidic device for treating cells with drugs using flow-focusing and switching methods. The authors cultured mammalian cells at the bottom of the flow channel and then treated the cells with fluorescent dyes and antitumor drugs. They also used a trypsin/EDTA solution to locally detach the cells and collect them. Although the manuscript is well organized, I do not recommend this paper due to some critical weaknesses. Details are as follows.

(1) First of all, similar microfluidic experiments were performed 10-20 years ago. The authors have not verified the technical advances in this paper, so it lacks novelty.

(2) The authors do not properly characterize the switching behavior of the flow position. In a laminar flow system such as the one in this paper, switching/stabilization of flow positions takes a certain amount of time, which is critically associated with the accuracy of cell processing. However, there is no description on this point.

(3) The system presented is not practical as a platform for evaluating the effects of drugs on cells. The advantages over conventional cell culture systems, including 96-well plates, are not described.

Reviewer #2: The Authors present a simple microfluidic device with a wide cell culture chamber and demonstrate the use of hydrodynamic focusing and shifting to selectively expose cells to treatments and to retrieve cells via selective exposure to Trypsin.

The device has many potential applications. Experimental results are supported by modelling and simulations. The paper is clear and well organized. Figures are carefully designed.

I have only one suggestion, to better highlight the novelty of this work. I think the Authors should expand the literature survey at lines 51-57, providing more details about existing devices and approaches. In this way, the statement at lines 58-61 would be better motivated and supported.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0279102. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279102.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Sep 2022

Please find our response to Editor's and Reviewers' comments in the submitted 'Cover Letter' and ' Response to Reviewers' documents.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-22-11631.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Giuseppe Chirico

9 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-11631R1Spatially selective cell treatment and collection for integrative drug testing using hydrodynamic flow focusing and shiftingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lee,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you see from the revisions, one additional reviewer was contacted by me and raised a few additional minor points that I suggest to address in a further revision of you Ms. You find the details in the review reports. After these clarifications on some experimental procedures, the Ms. can accepted for publication.  Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Chirico

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I thank you for the revisions of the original Ms. that is now in a form that can be accepted for publication after you address the comments of reviewer #2. In particular the clarification of some experimental results and discussions that appear to be still are unclear.

In addition to this, a short description on the limitation of this device and method would also improve the discussion.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: After revision, the author has adequately answered my previous questions/comments. I still question the novelty of this paper, but I recommend that this paper be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #3: This paper reports the development of a microfluidic device for drug testing based on controlling hydrodynamics. The authors designed and simulated three microfluidic devices suitable for creating the sample flow stream. After optimizing the microfluidic device, they demonstrated the cell culture, selective cell staining, selective cell collection, and selective cell treatment with doxorubicin. The microfluidic device proposed in this paper could perform selective drug delivery and cell-based drug testing. The experimental results well supported the concept of the paper. However, several experimental results and discussions are unclear. Therefore, I recommend this paper for publication in PLOS ONE after minor revision.

Comments

1. How did they connect between the syringe pumps and syringes? Please provide information about the tubing (or connection to the microfluidic device and syringes).

2. Did they treat the microchannel surface to adhere cells onto the microchannel? For the cell culture in the microfluidic device, how did they prevent drying out the cell culture medium? PDMS shows high gas permeability, and the microchannel may be dried out during the incubation. In addition, what is the confluency of the cells before each experiment?

3. On page 10, line 226, how did they measure the flow width?

4. Why did they turn off the syringe pump for the sample stream? Generally, the flow rate could be changed without turning off the syringe pump.

5. On page 12, line 275, please elaborate the differences in growth rate compared with the typical cell culture method and other on-chip cell culture methods.

6. For the cell stain experiments, is there any effect of molecular (DiI) diffusion? In addition, when the flow rate was changed to shift the DiI stream, the DiD stream could stain undesirable cells onto the microchannel due to the shift of the flow stream. Please comment on it and how to prevent undesirable cell staining.

7. What is the cell recovery rate for the selective cell collection experiment?

8. For the selective cell collection and cytotoxic effect of doxorubicin, please provide the cell viability.

9. Please discuss the limitation of this device and method. Is there a possibility of cell type effects?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Giuseppe Chirico

1 Dec 2022

Spatially selective cell treatment and collection for integrative drug testing using hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting

PONE-D-22-11631R2

Dear Dr. Lee,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Giuseppe Chirico

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Giuseppe Chirico

5 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-11631R2

Spatially selective cell treatment and collection for integrative drug testing using hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting

Dear Dr. Lee:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Giuseppe Chirico

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Simulation of hydrodynamic flow focusing and shifting in different HFSM designs.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Simulation of the time-dependent concentration changes of a hydrodynamically shifted sample flow.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Reduction of cell area on the stream path of trypsin EDTA solution.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-22-11631.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-22-11631R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES