Figure 1A shows an image of a single cartridge used for rare cell isolation. The cartridge consists of five individual chambers connected by microchannels and controllable valves that regulate liquid flow. The structure of the cartridge is as follows: (1) a plasma chamber that collects plasma separated from whole blood; (2) an initial chamber in which whole blood is separated into plasma, red blood cell, and PBMC layers; (3) a mixing chamber where isolated PBMCs are combined with leukocyte isolation beads; (4) a depletion chamber that removes leukocytes; (5) a final chamber for collecting the enriched rare cell fraction; (6) an inlet for loading whole blood; (7) an inlet for introducing leukocyte isolation beads; (8) an inlet for introducing density gradient media; and (9) a collection hole that serves as the outlet for retrieving enriched cells.
The initial chamber has a sloped structure designed to prevent red blood cell (RBC) contamination after density-based separation (Figure 1B). During processing, density gradient media were first loaded into the initial chamber, and the Spin Down step was performed (Figure 1C-i), followed by injection of whole blood (Figure 1C-ii). The disc was then centrifuged until distinct layers of RBCs, PBMCs, and plasma were formed (Figure 1C-iii). After centrifugation, the plasma layer was removed (Figure 1C-iv), and the PBMC fraction was automatically transferred to the next chamber (Figure 1C-v). Subsequently, leukocyte isolation beads were introduced to label leukocytes (Figure 1C-vi), which were then directed to the depletion chamber for leukocyte removal (Figure 1C-vii). Finally, the CRCs were collected in the final chamber (Figure 1C-viii).
To evaluate the performance of the rare cell isolation cartridge, recovery rates were measured (Figure 2). To mimic CTCs and cCAFs, cancer cell line (PC-9) and fibroblast cell line (IMR-90) were spiked into healthy donor blood samples. Prior to spiking, cells were pre-labeled with green CMFDA (5-Chloromethylfluorescein Diacetate) to enable independent fluorescence-based tracking. After spiking, the rare cell isolation disc was operated according to the standard protocol, and captured cells were evaluated by fluorescence microscopy. The recovery rate was 90.03% (CV: 5.79%) for PC-9 cells and 86.1% (CV: 3.77%) for IMR-90 cells, demonstrating that the platform supports efficient isolation of both tumor-like and fibroblast-like rare cell models under the same workflow conditions (Figure 2A). Regarding purity, the WBC depletion rate was calculated using the following equation:
(1-(Final WBC counts)/(Initial WBC counts))×100%
Using this calculation, the depletion rate was 97.22% (CV: 1.29%) (Figure 2B). Although this result indicates effective leukocyte depletion, further improvement in purity may be required for certain downstream applications. To address this limitation, a double-step process was evaluated, in which the sample collected after the first platform run was reloaded into the system and processed a second time (Figure 2C). Under this double-step condition, the recovery rate decreased to 79.88% (CV: 3.59%), whereas the WBC depletion rate increased to 99.02% (CV: 0.31%). This result indicates a trade-off between recovery and depletion performance. Therefore, when higher purity is required, WBC depletion efficiency can be further improved by introducing an additional processing step, although this improvement is accompanied by a partial loss in recovery rate. Interestingly, fluorescence images of the isolated cells stained with green CMFDA and DAPI showed that the fibroblast cell line exhibited greater size heterogeneity than the cancer cell line (Figure 2D,E). This observation further supports that the platform can isolate cells with diverse size distributions.
After cell isolation, the collected cells were stained using specific immunofluorescence markers. The overall staining protocol is illustrated in Figure 3A. Each chamber consists of an upper funnel and a lower glass plate. First, the cell–prepolymer mixture was transferred into the funnel and centrifuged to position the cells onto the glass surface. A thickness controller was then inserted to define the gel height. Subsequently, the sample was exposed to UV light, which induced hydrogel polymerization and immobilized the cells. After polymerization, the thickness controller was removed, and the washing steps were performed to eliminate unreacted residues. Finally, conventional immunofluorescence staining was conducted to visualize the target markers.
To evaluate the effect of hydrogel-based cell immobilization on staining quality and cell morphology, the results were compared with those obtained using a conventional smear-based preparation method (Figure 3B). Cells prepared by the smear method showed altered morphology, likely due to drying-associated deformation stress in the immobilization process. In contrast, cells embedded in the hydrogel matrix maintained a more intact cellular morphology while allowing clear visualization of DAPI, keratin, and β-actin signals. Quantitative fluorescence analysis was performed using images acquired under identical microscope settings (Figure 3C). The DAPI signal, which is generated by a small fluorescent DNA-binding molecule, was higher in hydrogel-based ICC than in smear-based ICC. In contrast, keratin and β-actin signals were higher in smear-based ICC than in hydrogel-based ICC. Nevertheless, both preparation methods produced clearly detectable fluorescence signals for all evaluated markers, indicating that hydrogel-based ICC enables reliable immunofluorescence staining while better preserving cellular morphology.
To assess the feasibility of this workflow in a clinical setting, circulating rare-cell isolation was performed using blood samples obtained from 18 lung cancer patients, followed by immunostaining analysis. The patients had undergone surgical resection after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. cCAFs were detected in 55.6% of the patients, with counts ranging from 0 to 8 cells per sample across all patients. In contrast, CTCs were detected in two patients, with counts ranging from 0 to 1 cell per sample across all patients. Notably, in one patient sample, both CTCs and cCAFs were identified from the same blood specimen, demonstrating the capability of this workflow to simultaneously analyze multiple circulating rare-cell populations. The relatively low CTC detection rate is likely associated with the clinical context of these samples, as the patients had already received neoadjuvant treatment and undergone surgery, which may have reduced the number of circulating tumor cells in peripheral blood. These results suggest that the proposed workflow can detect circulating rare-cell populations in clinically relevant samples, while further validation using larger cohorts and pre-treatment samples will be required to more comprehensively evaluate clinical performance. Based on marker expression, CTCs were identified as keratin-positive and CD45-negative cells (Figure 4A), while keratin/CD45 double-positive cells were separately classified (Figure 4B). cCAF candidates were identified as DAPI-positive cells expressing SMA and/or FAP, selected here as commonly used stromal-associated markers in the CAF literature, and multicellular cCAF clusters were also detected (Figure 4C).

Figure 1: Workflow of CRC isolation. (A) Image of a single isolation cartridge. (B) Sequential separation of blood components within the initial chamber during centrifugation. (C) Representative images of the disc during each isolation step. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Recovery and WBC depletion performance of spiked cancer and fibroblast cell lines using the rare cell isolation disc. (A) Recovery rates of spiked cancer and fibroblast cell lines processed under the same workflow conditions. (B) WBC depletion rate calculated from the initial and final WBC counts. (C) Recovery and WBC depletion rates after single-step and double-step processing. For double-step processing, the sample collected after the first run was reloaded into the platform and processed a second time. (D) Cancer cells and (E) fibroblast cells were stained with green CMFDA and DAPI to visualize recovered cells and compare cell morphology and size distribution. Scale bars: 50 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: ICC workflow for circulating rare cells. (A) Schematic illustration of the ICC process, including hydrogel formation, UV polymerization, and immunostaining. (B) Representative fluorescence images of isolated cells stained with DAPI, keratin, and β-actin after conventional smear-based ICC and hydrogel-based ICC. Scale bar = 10 µm. (C) Quantitative comparison of fluorescence intensity for DAPI, keratin, and β-actin between smear-based ICC and hydrogel-based ICC. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Representative ICC images of circulating rare cells. (A) CTC, (B) keratin/CD45 double-positive cell, and (C) cCAFs identified in clinical blood samples from lung cancer patients. Scale bar = 10 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.