The Microfluidic Probe: Operation and Use for Localized Surface Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microfluidic devices allow assays to be performed using minute amounts of sample and have recently been used to control the microenvironment of cells. Microfluidics is commonly associated with closed microchannels which limit their use to samples that can be introduced, and cultured in the case of cells, within a confined volume. On the other hand, micropipetting system have been used to locally perfuse cells and surfaces, notably using push-pull setups where one pipette acts as source and the other one as sink, but the confinement of the flow is difficult in three dimensions. Furthermore, pipettes are fragile and difficult to position and hence are used in static configuration only. The microfluidic probe (MFP) circumvents the constraints imposed by the construction of closed microfluidic channels and instead of enclosing the sample into the microfluidic system, the microfluidic flow can be directly delivered onto the sample, and scanned across the sample, using the MFP. . The injection and aspiration openings are located within a few tens of micrometers of one another so that a microjet injected into the gap is confined by the hydrodynamic forces of the surrounding liquid and entirely aspirated back into the other opening. The microjet can be flushed across the substrate surface and provides a precise tool for localized deposition/delivery of reagents which can be used over large areas by scanning the probe across the surface. In this video we present the microfluidic probe (MFP). We explain in detail how to assemble the MFP, mount it atop an inverted microscope, and align it relative to the substrate surface, and finally show how to use it to process a substrate surface immersed in a buffer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".