BACKGROUND:  Conventional methods for isolating and culturing cells require technical expertise and must be carried out in a dedicated cell culture facility under absolutely aseptic conditions. The process involves many steps and specialized equipment, including numerous centrifugation and washing steps that must be performed by a trained technician. The specialized processes inherent in cell separation and concentration make the automation of cell cultures particularly difficult and complex. Current methods also entail trade-offs between purity and recovery rates, adding further to the challenges of establishing cell lines. Methods to overcome current issues in automating cell cultures will hence provide a valuable tool to increase laboratory efficiency.

INNOVATION:  The self-contained microfluidic cell culture device uses small metal particles to generate a magnetic field gradient that is large enough to facilitate cell/bead separation. After the initial setup by a practitioner, the device automatically sorts cells from a sample without any repeated centrifugation and washing steps traditionally performed by a technician. The device's capabilities can also be extended to construct a high-throughput microfluidic cell separation array, enabling multiple separations in one single step. Compared to current micro-magnetic cell separation devices, which require costly MEMS fabrication technologies, the present invention is fabricated with a replicate molding technique that has a much lower cost of production. The apparatus not only offers the convenience of packaging a cell culture facility in a box, its economic advantages makes cell culture tools more widely available in a variety of laboratory settings.

POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS 

• The technology is adapted for the mass culture of cell lines in both therapeutic and research applications.

ADVANTAGES

• Simplified components with lower cost of production
• Reduces the need for trained technicians and dedicated facilities
• Decreased risk of contamination from frequent intervening steps

Reference: UCLA Case No. 2007-095