$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The open-well core module is initially positioned within a specific cavity created by a lower housing and a coverslip, as illustrated in Figure 6A. Subsequently, the flow module, which includes a microchannel and access ports, is inserted into the well of the core module. The flow module is securely sealed against the silicon support layer of the membrane due to the magnetic attraction force between magnets embedded in the lower and upper housings, as depicted in Figure 6B. To evaluate the effectiveness of this magnetic latching mechanism, a burst pressure test was conducted, demonstrating that the system can withstand dead-ended pressures of up to 38.8 ± 2.4 kPa. This pressure tolerance significantly exceeds the typical operating pressures encountered in cell culture applications. Furthermore, the system remains free of leaks when subjected to flow rates of up to 4000 µL/min, which is equivalent to a shear stress of 74 dynes/cm2 at the culture region16.
When developing a platform that can switch between open-well and microfluidic modes, careful consideration must be given to the cell seeding approach, which is not typically a concern for conventional static open-well platforms16. Damage to the monolayer around the channel boundary could introduce complications in experimental results20. To address this issue, a removable stencil was designed that fits within the open well of the core module and provides a specific window for cells to settle preferentially on the membrane surface (Figure 3). Once the cell monolayer is patterned and reaches confluency, the user has the flexibility to continue the experiment in the open-well format or reconfigure the platform into microfluidic mode to expose the cell monolayer to physiological shear stress (Figure 3). The magnetic latching mechanism provides the ability to easily switch between the open-well and microfluidic formats as required. For instance, the device can be reverted to the open-well format after a flow stimulation, offering users the flexibility to conduct a variety of assays (such as immunostaining, RNA extraction, and molecular permeability measurements) using standard experimental protocols15,16.
In the physiological setting of the human body, the vascular barrier is exposed to flow-induced shear stress, which serves as a key biophysical cue that affects the structure and function of the barrier5,21,22. Thus, the addition of fluid flow in microphysiological systems is a key requirement. To demonstrate the versatility of the platform, an HUVEC monolayer was established in an open-well format using standard protocols. After 24 h of static culture, the platform was reconfigured into microfluidic mode to expose the cell monolayer to 10.7 dynes/cm2 shear stress for 24 h. The results indicated that cells cultured under flow aligned along the flow direction while cells cultured without flow remained randomly oriented (Figure 8A,B). After shear stimulation, the platform was reconfigured to the open-well format to extract RNA using standard protocols. The results indicated that the exposure of cells to shear stress resulted in the upregulation of Kruppel-like factor 2 (KLF2) and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), which serve critical roles such as anti-thrombotic and atheroprotective functions in healthy blood vessels23,24(Figure 8C).

Figure 1: Comparison of in vitro vascular barrier models. Schematic illustration of (A) conventional Transwell-like inserts and (B) the open-well m-µSiM. Bright-field images of a confluent HUVEC monolayer highlight the difference in bright-field imaging quality between a track-etched membrane and an ultrathin nanomembrane. Scale bars = 100 µm. Adapted from Mansouri et al.16. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Decision-making flow chart. A flow chart based on experimental needs and downstream analysis preferences. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Experimental workflow of the platform. (A) To directly position cells on the porous membrane, a removable patterning stencil is inserted in the well of the core module (the inset shows patterned cells, yellow lines exhibit microchannel boundaries). (B) The stencil can be kept or removed in the device for static cell culture. (C) To reconfigure the platform into microfluidic mode, the stencil is replaced with the flow module. Because of the magnetic sealing mechanism, the configuration is reversible; housings and the flow module can be removed to switch into open-well mode. Scale bar = 200 µm. Adapted from Mansouri et al.16. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the molds. (A) The stencil mold. (B) Laser-cut acrylic sheet. (C) assembled view of the stencil mold. (D) Flow module mold. (E) Laser-cut acrylic sheet. (F) Assembled view of the flow module mold. Triangle-shaped features are alignment marks to facilitate attaching acrylic sheets to the molds. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Schematic of the clover-shape flow module. (A) The contact interface between the flow module and the membrane chip. The inlet and outlet ports for fluid flow are shown in pink. (B) 3D image of the PDMS flow module. Adapted from Mansouri et al.16. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Magnetic assembly for device reconfiguration. (A) Schematic demonstration of components for device reconfiguration into microfluidic mode. Embedded magnets with opposite poles induce attraction for the sealing. (B) Cross-sectional view of the reconfigured device showing the vascular channel in pink and the tissue compartment in green. Adapted from Mansouri et al.16. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Assembled view of the flow circuit. The circuit consists of a peristaltic pump, two reservoirs for supplying cell media and damping fluctuations, tubing, and an acrylic stage to hold the components in place. Adapted from Mansouri et al.16. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8: Comparison of HUVECs cultured in open-well and microfluidic modes. Cells were seeded and cultured in open-well for 24 h to establish a confluent monolayer. During the subsequent 24 h period, one set of devices was reconfigured into microfluidic mode. (A) Cells cultured under flow (10.7 dynes.cm-2 shear stress) aligned along the flow direction (the inset shows actin and nuclei of cells in green and blue, respectively). (B) Cells cultured without flow in open-well format showed no alignment. The length of bars in radar plots shows the number of cells in the corresponding direction. (C) Cells cultured under flow showed higher upregulation of KLF2 and eNOS genes compared to the no-flow condition (**p < 0.01, n = 3, mean ± SD). Scale bars = 100 µm. Adapted from Mansouri et al.16. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary Table 1: Shear stress on the nanomembrane surface at different flow rates. This table provides information about shear stress values on the nanomembrane surface at various flow rates. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Coding File 1: CAD model of the stencil mold. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Coding File 2: CAD model of laser cut cavities for the stencil mold. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Coding File 3: CAD model of the flow module. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Coding File 4: CAD model of laser cut cavities for the flow module mold. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Coding File 5: CAD model of the upper housing. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Coding File 6: CAD model of the lower housing. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Coding File 7: CAD model of the acrylic stage. Please click here to download this File.