MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997093606 · doi:10.1121/1.4805347

Removal of living cells from biosensing surfaces in droplet-based microfluidics using surface acoustic waves

2013· article· en· W1997093606 on OpenAlexaff
Adrien Bussonnière, Alan Renaudin, Yannick Miron, Michel Grandbois, Michaël Baudoin, Paul G. Charette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologiqueUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosensorMicrofluidicsTrypsinMaterials scienceSurface acoustic waveCleaveNanotechnologySubstrate (aquarium)Surface modificationChemistryOpticsEnzymeBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Removal of living biological cells from surfaces is a critical process for many applications in the area of biosensing and lab-on-a-chip. Trypsin is one of the most effective biochemical tools used to cleave the cells proteins that are responsible for bonding cells to surfaces [K. A. Walsh, Meth. Enzymol. 19, 41 (1970)]. We propose a method using Rayleigh-type (20 MHz) surface acoustic wave (SAW)-based mixing [Renaudin et al., Lab Chip 10, 111 (2010)] as an accelerator for trypsin-mediated removal of living cells from surfaces. In the experiments, a 10 μL droplet of Hank’s Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS)-trypsin is placed on a piezoelectric substrate covered with human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293). Using phase contrast microscopy, cells removal time for different acoustic power levels and trypsin concentrations is measured. Results from validation experiments show that a minimum of 180 s is necessary to completely release surface-bonded cells covered by the 10 µL droplet without the use of SAW (negative control). By using microstreaming flow in the droplets generated by the SAW, cells are released from the surface in less than 8 s. This work will contribute to improved lab-on-a-chip devices based on living cell biosensing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207