Cite as: Cold Spring Harb. Protoc.; 2009; doi:10.1101/pdb.prot5255
| Protocol |
1 Laboratoire Biopuces, iRTSV, DSV, CEA, 38054, Grenoble, France
2 Systems Cell Biology of Cell Division and Cell Polarity, UMR144, Institut Curie, CNRS, Paris, France
3Corresponding authors (manuel.thery{at}cea.fr; matthieu.piel{at}curie.fr)
INTRODUCTION
This protocol describes a simple, fast, and efficient method for making adhesive micropatterns that can be used to control individual cell shape and adhesion patterns. It is based on the use of an elastomeric stamp containing microfeatures to print proteins on the substrate of choice. The process can be subdivided into three parts. First, a silicon master is fabricated, which contains the microfeatures of interest. Once fabricated, the master can be used multiple times to make stamps. Masters with customized patterns can also be purchased commercially. Second, a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) stamp is fabricated. Unlike fabrication of the master, this step can be performed without specialized equipment. The PDMS stamp is inked with extracellular matrix proteins. Proteins are printed on a substrate (e.g., a tissue culture polystyrene dish or a glass coverslip covered with a thin layer of polystyrene). The nonprinted areas are back-filled with poly-L-lysine-polyethylene glycol, which renders them resistant to cell adhesion. The production of these micropatterned substrates can be completed in <2 h. The third and final portion of the protocol describes the deposition of cells onto the micropatterned substrate.
RELATED INFORMATION
Movie 1 illustrates many of the steps for performing microcontact printing as described in this protocol.
![]() View as movie: (111K): |
Movie 1. A step-by-step illustration of preparation of an elastomeric stamp containing microfeatures, preparation of the substrate, and cell growth on the microfeatures. (Movie created by Nicolas Carpi.)
|
Reagents
AP6000 adhesion promoter (Dow Chemical)
Cells of choice
Culture medium, complete (DMEM or DMEM-F12 containing 10% fetal calf serum [FCS] and 1% penicillin/streptomycin)
Dulbeccos phosphate-buffered saline (with calcium and magnesium; with phenol red) (PBS)
Ethanol
Fetal calf serum
Fibronectin (Sigma-Aldrich F1141) (50 µg/mL in PBS)
Fixative (optional; see Step 33)
HEPES (10 mM, pH 7.4)
Photoresist (Clariant AZ 4562)
PLL(20)-g-[3,5]-PEG(2) (PLL-g-PEG; SurfaceSolutions)
Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) (Sylgard 184; Dow Corning)
Polystyrene (Acros Organics 178890250)
Equipment
Adhesive tape or sonicator (see Step 12)
Beaker, plastic
Beaker, small
Centrifuge, tabletop
Coverslips, glass (24 x 24 mm) or tissue culture polystyrene dishes
See the section on Substrate Preparation.
Flasks, cell culture (75-cm2)
Forceps
Hot plate or oven preset to 100°C
Incubator, humidified, 5% CO2
Laminar flow hood
Mask aligner (e.g., Süss MicroTec MA750) with a vacuum mask holder
A simpler and much cheaper alternative can be made from a UV lamp (Delolux 03S, 400 W) mounted with a 310- to 460-nm band pass filter and a custom-made vacuum mask holder.
Microscope, inverted
Nitrogen gas (optional; see Steps 1, 7)
Optical mask (Delta Mask)
The optical mask is a quartz plate coated with a chromium layer that has been etched to obtain the desired patterns of opaque and transparent regions. A file with the desired micropatterns must be provided to the manufacturer. If the micropattern features are greater than several tens of micrometers in their smallest dimension, a high-resolution plastic transparency can be used instead. The plastic transparency is less expensive but has limited spatial resolution.
Ovens preset to 60°C, 70°C
Parafilm
Petri dish sealed with Parafilm (for storing the resist master and stamps)
Photoresist master
If a master is not produced in-house, then purchase one from a commercial manufacturer (e.g., Biotray or Advance Reproductions Corporation). If the experiment does not require pattern resolution better than 10 µm, the mask may be ordered as an inexpensive transparency film from a number of companies (e.g., CAD/Art Services).
Pipettes
Plasma cleaner or UV/ozone cleaner (
<200 nm) (see Step 17)
Scalpel
Silicon wafer, 100 mm (e.g., MEMC Electronic Materials) or glass (borosilicate) wafer, 100 x 100 x 0.175 mm (Schott D263T)
The glass wafers are thinner but much cheaper.
Spin coater (e.g., Laurell Technologies Corporation WS-400-6NPP-LITE)
Spoon, fork, or pipette, plastic (see Step 8)
Tissue (optional; see Step 15)
Tubes, 50-mL culture
Tweezers
Ultrasonic bath
Vacuum desiccator
Video recorder (optional; see Step 33)
METHOD
Fabrication of the Master
This part requires specialized equipment and training; thus, it is best to fabricate the master in collaboration with a nanofabrication facility. However, a relatively simple lithography facility can be set up under a chemical hood. Fabrication of a master need only be done once, because it can be reused indefinitely to produce the elastomeric stamps. The desired photoresist master can also be purchased from companies that fabricate custom-made microstructured masters on demand.
This protocol provides guidelines for the various parameters needed to fabricate a photoresist master. Details of this photolithography protocol, however, must be adapted to the specific needs of each laboratory (e.g., size of the microfeatures, distance between features, incubation times and temperatures). Note that the production of a master with microfeatures ranging from 1 µm to several hundred micrometers is a routine procedure in any microfabrication facility. The example in this protocol is best suited for features with a minimum dimension of 3-10 µm (but up to several tens of micrometers is okay) and a distance between features of <50 µm. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the steps required to fabricate a photoresist master.
![]() View larger version (13K): [in a new window] |
Figure 1. The steps involved in producing molds by photolithography. (Circled numbers correspond to numbered steps in the Method.)
|
Micropatterned Substrate Fabrication
Fabrication of the elastomeric stamp and microcontact printing of the micropattern can be performed in any biology laboratory without the need for specialized equipment. Two substrates for micropatterning are presented: the glass coverslip, which ensures the best optical quality, and the tissue culture treated polystyrene dish. Because in most cases protein adhesion is better on oxidized polystyrene than on glass, glass coverslips must be coated with a thin layer of polystyrene before protein and cells are applied. On bare glass, cells have been observed to rip adherent proteins, like fibronectin, off the glass.
![]() View larger version (9K): [in a new window] |
Figure 2. PDMS stamp production. |
![]() View larger version (10K): [in a new window] |
Figure 3. Preparation of a polystyrene-coated glass coverslip. |
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] |
Figure 4. Stamping fibronectin and backfilling with PLL-g-PEG. |
< 200 nm). Cell Deposition
Micropatterned substrates prepared using this protocol have been used successfully with the following cells: HeLa-B, RPE1, MCF10A, MCF7, NIH3T3, HepaRG, MDCK, and human mesenchymal stem cells, as well as dendritic cells derived from murine bone marrow.
![]() View larger version (47K): [in a new window] |
Figure 5. Images of cells on micropatterns. (Top) Fluorescently labeled fibronectin, (middle) HeLa cells under phase contrast, (bottom) overlay. (Right) Enlargements (2.5X) of cells shown in the images on the left. Scale bar, 100 µm. |
TROUBLESHOOTING
Problem: Separating the PDMS layer from the photoresist master destroys the master.
[Step 11]
Solution: Consider the following:
Problem: Salt crystals form on the surface of the elastomeric stamp as the PBS dries.
[Step 19]
Solution: This may happen if an excess of PBS is left to dry on the stamp. Avoid this by washing the stamp once with H2O before drying.
Problem: The polystyrene layer detaches and floats at the surface when the coverslip is placed in aqueous solution.
[Step 22]
Solution: Consider the following:
= 185 nm and 4 x 60 W (Yan and Harnish 2003). Problem: Cells do not grow uniformly and/or they grow significantly beyond the boundaries of the microfeatures.
[Step 33]
Solution: Consider the following when stamping the substrate in Step 20:
DISCUSSION
Microfabrication techniques as applied to cell biology now have a long and successful history (see Folch and Toner [2000] and Whitesides et al. [2001] for reviews of many micropatterning techniques developed from the 1970s to the 1990s). Accompanying the rapid development of biological applications (in cell biology, tissue engineering, cell co-cultures, bioassays, and biosensors, among other fields), there has been a huge burst of technical papers in the last 10 years that expand the utility of micropatterning techniques to new substrates (glass, plastics, hydrogels, and elastomers), additional molecules, cell types, and into three dimensions.
There are many alternative techniques, but five main processes dominate the field of micropatterning:
Each method has drawbacks and advantages, so that the method chosen will depend upon the application. In a biology laboratory, independence from the expense and complexity of a specialized microfabrication facility may be a priority. Thus, photolithography and other stencil-type methods should be avoided. Although these methods provide patterns with very good spatial resolution and the methods are quite versatile, each substrate has to be made in a clean room using highly toxic chemicals. Laser beam and electron beam etching are rather easy to implement, provided that a microscopy facility is available with a dedicated microfabrication microscope. Although the method is versatile (the size and shape of features can be readily altered, and multiple patterns of different proteins can be generated), it is a slow method, producing low numbers of substrates having only very small areas covered with micropatterns. The same is true for nanoprinting, which is versatile but slow. Microprinting using regular printers requires very slow printing rates to achieve satisfactory spatial resolution.
Two methods are left for biologists wanting to do simple micropatterning: microcontact printing and UV-based chemistry. UV-based techniques often require special surface chemistry and photomasks, which can be expensive when very high resolution is required (at low resolution, only a transparency is needed). Both UV-based techniques and microcontact printing require specialized software to design the masks. For a recent contribution to UV-based techniques for two-dimensional surface micropatterning, see Azioune et al. (2009), which includes an introduction that reviews the field.
As shown in this protocol, with microcontact printing, once a photoresist master (a mold) is available to produce the stamps, no special equipment and no special chemistry is needed to produce the patterns. In addition, microcontact printing is well suited for generating features to control cell adhesion geometry and cell shape (i.e., patterns having minimal dimensions of several micrometers). It is also easy to implement in a cell biology laboratory. Microcontact printing can be applied to many types of substrates, although the quality of the patterns produced depends critically upon the quality of the contact between the stamp and the substrate. Microcontact printing is usually used to transfer molecules to a substrate, but it can also be used for etching (Kandere-Grzybowska et al. 2005). The transferred molecule can be used to bind other molecules, such as cell adhesion molecules, or can itself be a cell adhesion molecule. Alternatively, the transferred molecule can be a protein- or cell-repelling molecule, like polyethylene oxide. Microcontact printing, therefore, offers a large spectrum of potential variations.
To optimize the transfer of molecules from the stamp to the surface, it was proposed in the 1990s to use thiol chemistry on gold (a recent version of this protocol was recently released by Ostuni et al. [2009]). This very efficient method became a standard in the field; however, it requires gold-covered substrates, which are rare among substrates of interest to biologists. In addition, it is not optimal for low-light live-cell fluorescent microscopy. Direct microcontact printing on regular cell culture substrates is a relatively simple and versatile alternative method. A variety of surface treatments can be applied to the regions of the substrate that should repel cells or protein regions. A variety of other treatments can be used to optimally bind cell adhesion molecules. Options include simple adsorption, covalent binding, electrostatic interactions and hydrophobic/hydrophilic interactions. These choices will be guided by the types of cells used (and consequently the type of adhesion molecule used), the size of the patterns, and the time during which cells should be kept on the patterns. Some very simple techniques (e.g., direct patterning on bare glass without any backfilling with repellent molecule) will work well with cells that do not bind on bare glass and do not pull too strongly on their adhesion molecules. For other cells, very good repellent molecules should be used, and very strong binding of the adhesion molecules to the substrate is required. For a discussion of some of these issues, see Fink et al. (2007). Direct microcontact printing works with many cell types, keeping them confined for several days (although not weeks). PLL-g-PEG is a cell/protein-repellent molecule that binds readily and with strong affinity to glass and activated polystyrene, by electrostatic interaction of poly-L-lysine chains.
REFERENCES
Azioune A, Storch M, Bornens M, Théry M, Piel M. 2009. Simple and rapid process for single cell micro-patterning. Lab Chip 9: 1640–1642.[Medline]
Fink J, Théry M, Azioune A, Dupont R, Chatelain F, Bornens M, Piel M. 2007. Comparative study and improvement of current cell micro-patterning techniques. Lab Chip 7: 672–680.[Medline]
Folch A, Toner M. 2000. Microengineering of cellular interactions. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2: 227–256.[Medline]
Grabarek Z, Gergely J. 1990. Zero-length crosslinking procedure with the use of active esters. Anal Biochem 185: 131–135.[Medline]
Hermanson GT. 2008. Bioconjugate Techniques, 2nd ed. Academic Press, Burlington, MA.
Kandere-Grzybowska K, Campbell C, Komarova Y, Grzybowski BA, Borisy GG. 2005. Molecular dynamics imaging in micropatterned living cells. Nat Methods 2: 739–741.[Medline]
Ostuni E, Whitesides GM, Ingber DE, Chen CS. 2009. Using self-assembled monolayers to pattern ECM proteins and cells on substrates. Methods Mol Biol 522: 183–194.[Medline]
Van Kooten TG, Spijker HT, Busscher HJ. 2004. Plasma-treated polystyrene surfaces: Model surfaces for studying cell-biomaterial interactions. Biomaterials 25: 1735–1747.[Medline]
Whitesides GM, Ostuni E, Takayama S, Jiang X, Ingber DE. 2001. Soft lithography in biology and biochemistry. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 3: 335–373.[Medline]
Yan M, Harnish B. 2003. A simple method for the attachment of polymer films on solid substrates. Advanced Materials 15: 244–248.
Related Protocol
Copyright © 2009 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. Online ISSN: 1559-6095 Terms of Service |