Advantages of stereolithographic 3D printing in the fabrication of the Affiblot device for dot-blot assays.
3D printing
Antibody
Dot-blot
Microfluidics
Prototyping
Journal
Mikrochimica acta
ISSN: 1436-5073
Titre abrégé: Mikrochim Acta
Pays: Austria
ID NLM: 7808782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jul 2024
02 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
15
04
2024
accepted:
15
06
2024
medline:
2
7
2024
pubmed:
2
7
2024
entrez:
2
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printing, objects are constructed by exposing layers of photocurable resin to UV light. It is a highly user-friendly fabrication method that opens a possibility for technology sharing through CAD file online libraries. Here, we present a prototyping procedure of a microfluidics-enhanced dot-blot device (Affiblot) designed for simple and inexpensive screening of affinity molecule characteristics (antibodies, oligonucleotides, cell receptors, etc.). The incorporation of microfluidic features makes sample processing user-friendly, less time-consuming, and less laborious, all performed completely on-device, distinguishing it from other dot-blot devices. Initially, the Affiblot device was fabricated using CNC machining, which required significant investment in manual post-processing and resulted in low reproducibility. Utilization of SLA 3D printing reduced the amount of manual post-processing, which significantly streamlined the prototyping process. Moreover, it enabled the fabrication of previously impossible features, including internal fluidic channels. While 3D printing of sub-millimeter microchannels usually requires custom-built printers, we were able to fabricate microfluidic features on a readily available commercial printer. Open microchannels in the size range 200-300 μm could be fabricated with reliable repeatability and sealed with a replaceable foil. Economic aspects of device fabrication are also discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38954238
doi: 10.1007/s00604-024-06512-z
pii: 10.1007/s00604-024-06512-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
442Subventions
Organisme : European Regional Development Fund, Singing Plant
ID : CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/ 16_026/0008446
Organisme : OP RDE, Strengthening interdisciplinary cooperation in research of nanomaterials and their effects on living organisms
ID : CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/17_048/ 0007421
Organisme : Ústav analytické chemie, Akademie Věd České Republiky
ID : RVO 68081715
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Couchman JR (2009) Commercial antibodies: the good, bad, and really ugly - John R. Couchman. J Histochem Cytochem 57(2009):7–8. https://doi.org/10.1369/jhc.2008.952820
doi: 10.1369/jhc.2008.952820
pubmed: 18854593
pmcid: 2605718
Howat WJ, Lewis A, Jones P, Kampf C, Pontén F, van der Loos CM, Gray N, Womack C, Warford A (2014) Antibody validation of immunohistochemistry for biomarker discovery: recommendations of a consortium of academic and pharmaceutical based histopathology researchers. Methods 70:34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.01.018
doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.01.018
pubmed: 24525140
pmcid: 4240800
Baker M (2015) Reproducibility crisis: blame it on the antibodies. Nature News 521:274. https://doi.org/10.1038/521274a
doi: 10.1038/521274a
Bradbury A, Plückthun A (2015) Reproducibility: standardize antibodies used in research. Nature News 518:27. https://doi.org/10.1038/518027a
doi: 10.1038/518027a
O’Kennedy R, Fitzgerald S, Murphy C (2017) Don’t blame it all on antibodies – the need for exhaustive characterisation, appropriate handling, and addressing the issues that affect specificity. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 89:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2017.01.009
doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2017.01.009
Goodman SL (2018) The antibody horror show: an introductory guide for the perplexed. New Biotechnol 45:9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2018.01.006
doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2018.01.006
H.-F. Li, Optimal validation of accuracy in antibody assays and reasonable definition of antibody positive/negative subgroups in neuroimmune diseases: a narrative review, Annals of Translational Medicine 11 (2023) 280–280. 10.21037/atm-21-2384.
Ayoubi R, Ryan J, Biddle MS, Alshafie W, Fotouhi M, Bolivar SG, Ruiz Moleon V, Eckmann P, Worrall D, McDowell I, Southern K, Reintsch W, Durcan TM, Brown C, Bandrowski A, Virk H, Edwards AM, McPherson P, Laflamme C (2023) Scaling of an antibody validation procedure enables quantification of antibody performance in major research applications. eLife 12:RP91645. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.91645
doi: 10.7554/eLife.91645
pubmed: 37995198
pmcid: 10666931
Myler H, Pedras-Vasconcelos J, Lester T, Civoli F, Xu W, Wu B, Vainshtein I, Luo L, Hassanein M, Liu S, Ramaswamy SS, Mora J, Pennucci J, McCush F, Lavelle A, Jani D, Ambakhutwala A, Baltrukonis D, Barker B et al (2023) Neutralizing antibody validation testing and reporting harmonization. AAPS J 25:69. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-023-00830-5
doi: 10.1208/s12248-023-00830-5
pubmed: 37421491
Svobodova Z, Novotny J, Ospalkova B, Slovakova M, Bilkova Z, Foret F (2021) Affiblot: a dot blot-based screening device for selection of reliable antibodies. Anal Methods 13:3874–3884. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1AY00955A
doi: 10.1039/D1AY00955A
pubmed: 34528947
Walsh DI, Kong DS, Murthy SK, Carr PA (2017) Enabling microfluidics: from clean rooms to makerspaces. Trends Biotechnol 35:383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.01.001
doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.01.001
pubmed: 28162773
pmcid: 6812491
Ho CMB, Ng SH, Li KHH, Yoon Y-J (2015) 3D printed microfluidics for biological applications. Lab Chip 15:3627–3637. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5LC00685F
doi: 10.1039/C5LC00685F
pubmed: 26237523
Dixit CK, Kadimisetty K, Rusling J (2018) 3D-printed miniaturized fluidic tools in chemistry and biology. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 106:37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.06.013
doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2018.06.013
McDonald JC, Chabinyc ML, Metallo SJ, Anderson JR, Stroock AD, Whitesides GM (2002) Prototyping of microfluidic devices in poly(dimethylsiloxane) using solid-object printing. Anal Chem 74:1537–1545. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac010938q
doi: 10.1021/ac010938q
pubmed: 12033242
Maher PS, Keatch RP, Donnelly K (2010) Characterisation of rapid prototyping techniques for studies in cell behaviour. Rapid Prototyp J 16:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552541011025834
doi: 10.1108/13552541011025834
Moore JL, McCuiston A, Mittendorf I, Ottway R, Johnson RD (2011) Behavior of capillary valves in centrifugal microfluidic devices prepared by three-dimensional printing. Microfluid Nanofluid 10:877–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-010-0721-1
doi: 10.1007/s10404-010-0721-1
Anderson KB, Lockwood SY, Martin RS, Spence DM (2013) A 3D printed fluidic device that enables integrated features. Anal Chem 85:5622–5626. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac4009594
doi: 10.1021/ac4009594
pubmed: 23687961
C.W. Hull, Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography, US4575330A, 1986. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4575330A/en (accessed November 27, 2023).
Melchels FPW, Feijen J, Grijpma DW (2010) A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomaterials 31:6121–6130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.050
doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.050
pubmed: 20478613
Gao W, Zhang Y, Ramanujan D, Ramani K, Chen Y, Williams CB, Wang CCL, Shin YC, Zhang S, Zavattieri PD (2015) The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput Aided Des 69:65–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2015.04.001
doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2015.04.001
Ligon SC, Liska R, Stampfl J, Gurr M, Mülhaupt R (2017) Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev 117:10212–10290. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074
doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074
pubmed: 28756658
pmcid: 5553103
Au AK, Lee W, Folch A (2014) Mail-order microfluidics: evaluation of stereolithography for the production of microfluidic devices. Lab Chip 14:1294–1301. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3LC51360B
doi: 10.1039/C3LC51360B
pubmed: 24510161
pmcid: 4362723
Bhargava KC, Thompson B, Malmstadt N (2014) Discrete elements for 3D microfluidics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:15013–15018. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414764111
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414764111
pubmed: 25246553
pmcid: 4210303
Shallan AI, Smejkal P, Corban M, Guijt RM, Breadmore MC (2014) Cost-effective three-dimensional printing of visibly transparent microchips within minutes. Anal Chem 86:3124–3130. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac4041857
doi: 10.1021/ac4041857
pubmed: 24512498
Bhattacharjee N, Parra-Cabrera C, Kim YT, Kuo AP, Folch A (2018) Desktop-stereolithography 3D-printing of a poly(dimethylsiloxane)-based material with sylgard-184 properties. Adv Mater 30:1800001. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201800001
doi: 10.1002/adma.201800001
Kim YT, Castro K, Bhattacharjee N, Folch A (2018) Digital manufacturing of selective porous barriers in microchannels using multi-material stereolithography. Micromachines 9:125. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi9030125
doi: 10.3390/mi9030125
pubmed: 30424059
pmcid: 6187461
Perrucci F, Bertana V, Marasso SL, Scordo G, Ferrero S, Pirri CF, Cocuzza M, El-Tamer A, Hinze U, Chichkov BN, Canavese G, Scaltrito L (2018) Optimization of a suspended two photon polymerized microfluidic filtration system. Microelectron Eng 195:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2018.04.001
doi: 10.1016/j.mee.2018.04.001
Penny MR, Hilton ST (2020) Design and development of 3D printed catalytically-active stirrers for chemical synthesis. React Chem & Eng 5:853–858. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RE00492K
doi: 10.1039/C9RE00492K
Razavi Bazaz S, Rouhi O, Raoufi MA, Ejeian F, Asadnia M, Jin D, Ebrahimi Warkiani M (2020) 3D printing of inertial microfluidic devices. Sci Rep 10:5929. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62569-9
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62569-9
pubmed: 32246111
pmcid: 7125121
Rossi S, Puglisi A, Raimondi LM, Benaglia M (2020) Stereolithography 3D-printed catalytically active devices in organic synthesis. Catalysts 10:109. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal10010109
doi: 10.3390/catal10010109
Ruiz C, Kadimisetty K, Yin K, Mauk MG, Zhao H, Liu C (2020) Fabrication of hard–soft microfluidic devices using hybrid 3D printing. Micromachines 11:567. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi11060567
doi: 10.3390/mi11060567
pubmed: 32492980
pmcid: 7345326
Barbosa WS, Wanderley RFF, Gioia MM, Gouvea FC, Gonçalves FM (2022) Additive or subtractive manufacturing: analysis and comparison of automotive spare-parts. Jnl Remanufactur 12:153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13243-021-00106-1
doi: 10.1007/s13243-021-00106-1
Faludi J, Cline-Thomas N, Agrawala S (2017) 3D printing and its environmental implications. OECD, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264271036-9-en
doi: 10.1787/9789264271036-9-en
Watson JK, Taminger KMB (2018) A decision-support model for selecting additive manufacturing versus subtractive manufacturing based on energy consumption. J Clean Prod 176:1316–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.009
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.009
Krishna LSR, Srikanth PJ (2021) Evaluation of environmental impact of additive and subtractive manufacturing processes for sustainable manufacturing. Materials Today: Proceedings 45:3054–3060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.060
doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.060
V. Nagri, What is Low Force Stereolithography?, Truventor Blog (2019). https://blogs.truventor.ai/blogs/what-is-low-force-stereolithography/ (accessed April 25, 2023).
Sanchez Noriega JL, Chartrand NA, Valdoz JC, Cribbs CG, Jacobs DA, Poulson D, Viglione MS, Woolley AT, Van Ry PM, Christensen KA, Nordin GP (2021) Spatially and optically tailored 3D printing for highly miniaturized and integrated microfluidics. Nat Commun 12:5509. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25788-w
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25788-w
pubmed: 34535656
pmcid: 8448845
Sao AK, Sharma A, Verma M, Tomar M, Chowdhuri A (2023) Development of CdS-SnO2 hybrid nanocomposite thin films for trace level detection of NO2 gas. Sensors Actuators B Chem 393:134198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2023.134198
doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2023.134198