$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The advent of hiPSCs and the subsequent development of protocols for their directed differentiation into different cell types have made it possible to study development and disease at a molecular and patient-specific level, specifically using patient-derived iPSC cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CMs) to model cardiomyopathies1,2. However, a major limitation to studying development and physiology using the iPSC system and other in vitro models is the absence of a structured microenvironment. In situ, cells are subjected to the constraints of the extracellular matrix (ECM), as well as neighboring cells. The particular biochemical composition and stiffness of these microenvironments dictate the spatial distribution of cells as well as factors available for engaging in cell adhesion. This, in turn, influences intracellular signaling pathways, gene expression, and cell fate determination. For example, micropatterned iPSC-CM in an adult-like rod shape has a significantly better contractile ability, calcium flow, mitochondrial organization, electrophysiology, and transverse-tubule formation3. Thus, the properties of the microenvironment are integral in the regulation of cellular functions.
Previous micropatterning techniques heavily relied on photolithography (Figure 1A). In this technique, a layer of photosensitive polymer, or photoresist, is spun on a flat substrate from solution to form a thin film about 1 μm thick. Next, ultraviolet (UV) light is applied onto the photoresist through a mask containing the desired pattern. Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light chemically alters the photoresist by modifying its solubility in its respective developer solution, transferring the desired pattern from the mask onto the substrate. Many micropatterning methods incorporate photolithography, as it confers nanometer to micrometer-level control over the design of the cell patterns. However, the spinning of the photoresist is highly sensitive to impurities, because the smallest dust particles will disrupt the spreading of the solution into a thin film. Photolithography must therefore be carried out in uncontaminated facilities, which are costly to maintain and require special expertise to utilize. In addition, the chemicals used in photolithography are often toxic to cells and can denature important biomolecules. Thus, photolithography poses significant obstacles to the fabrication of micropatterns for convenient biological applications.
In 1994, Whitesides and colleagues4 overcame some of the challenges associated with photolithography by pioneering a collection of techniques called soft lithography. In soft lithography, a microstructured surface made with polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), a transparent, rubber-like material, is used to generate a pattern of ECM proteins4. Common soft lithographic techniques include microcontact printing and microfluidic patterning. In microcontact printing, currently the most popular soft lithographic method, a PDMS stamp coated with ECM proteins transfers the material onto a surface at the areas contacted by the stamp (Figure 1B). In microfluidic patterning, microstructures are designed on a PDMS surface such that when the stamp is pressed to a substrate, a network of microchannels, through which fluids can be delivered to desired areas, is created (Figure 1C)5. Soft lithography offers several benefits over photolithography. Once a master wafer is microfabricated, the PDMS stamps can easily be replicated without further employment of clean-room facilities. In addition, the absence of organic solvents in the process of soft lithography allows for utilization of polymeric materials such as polystyrene, typically used in cell culture. Finally, micropatterning using soft lithographic methods is not restricted to flat surfaces. Thus, soft lithography increases the accessibility and functionality of micropattern fabrication over photolithography6. However, soft lithography has significant drawbacks. For example, an initial etching step, using photolithography, is still required to microfabricate the stamp. In addition, micropatterning using a PDMS stamp is subject to variations in the quality of protein transfer onto the substrate6. Avoiding these discrepancies requires optimization and consistency in the pressure applied to the PDMS stamp during protein transfer, otherwise deformation and distortion of the feature sizes of the PDMS molds can occur6. There is also a major concern of repeatedly using the PDMS due to small molecule absorption7.
To avoid using soft photolithography and PDMS stamps, we describe a stencil-based, lithography-free single cell micropatterning method that overcomes many of the obstacles associated with photolithography and soft lithography. In this method, a polyacrylamide hydrogel is used as a substrate for stencil-based ECM protein incorporation, allowing for selective plating of single hiPSC-CMs. This technique is highly compatible with polymeric materials used in classic cell culture conditions. Moreover, with proper cleaning and maintenance, the stencils are reusable and resistant to degradation and protein absorption during the microfabrication process. Finally, the patterning process is technically robust, inexpensive, customizable, and accessible to those with no specialized bioengineering skills. This stencil-based micropatterning technique has been broadly utilized in our recent publications modeling varied cardiomyopathies8,9,10.