Abstract
Platelet function tests are essential to profile platelet dysfunction and dysregulation in hemostasis and thrombosis. Clinically they provide critical guidance to the patient management and therapeutic evaluation. Recently, the biomechanical effects induced by hemodynamic and contractile forces on platelet functions attracted increasing attention. Unfortunately, the existing platelet function tests on the market do not sufficiently incorporate the topical platelet mechanobiology at play. Besides, they are often expensive and bulky systems that require large sample volumes and long processing time. To this end, numerous novel microfluidic technologies emerge to mimic vascular anatomies, incorporate hemodynamic parameters and recapitulate platelet mechanobiology. These miniaturized and cost-efficient microfluidic devices shed light on high-throughput, rapid and scalable platelet function testing, hematological disorder profiling and antiplatelet drug screening. Moreover, the existing antiplatelet drugs often have suboptimal efficacy while incurring several adverse bleeding side effects on certain individuals. Encouraged by a few microfluidic systems that are successfully commercialized and applied to clinical practices, the microfluidics that incorporate platelet mechanobiology hold great potential as handy, efficient, and inexpensive point-of-care tools for patient monitoring and therapeutic evaluation. Hereby, we first summarize the conventional and commercially available platelet function tests. Then we highlight the recent advances of platelet mechanobiology inspired microfluidic technologies. Last but not least, we discuss their future potential of microfluidics as point-of-care tools for platelet function test and antiplatelet drug screening.
Introduction
In blood circulation, anucleate platelets are the smallest cells that play a central role in hemostasis (hemorrhage arrest upon vascular breach) and thrombosis (vessel occlusion with cessation of blood flow leading to tissue injury) (Rasche, 2001; Ruggeri, 2002; Colman, 2006). In line with the Virchow’s triad (Bagot and Arya, 2008), platelet adhesion, activation and aggregation are significantly influenced by hemodynamic factors such as shear rate and shear stress (Yin et al., 2011; Sheriff et al., 2013). In pathologically relevant vascular anatomies including stenoses, aneurysms and bifurcations, platelet prothrombotic behaviors are further exacerbated by shear gradient (Nesbitt et al., 2009; Westein et al., 2013; Zhang and Neelamegham, 2017), vorticity (Varble et al., 2017), or turbulence (Nesbitt et al., 2009; Ha et al., 2018). At the molecular scale, increasing evidences suggest that platelets can undergo mechanosensing upon receiving these hemodynamic stimuli. Key players in such mechanosensing processes include von Willebrand factors (VWF) (Savage et al., 1996; Fu et al., 2017), fibrinogen (Butera and Hogg, 2020; Peshkova et al., 2020), mechanoreceptors including glycoprotein Ib (GPIb) (Chen et al., 2016; Ju et al., 2016) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIb/IIIa or integrin αIIbβ3) (Nesbitt et al., 2009; Chen Y et al., 2019), and mechanosensitive ion channels (Abbonante et al., 2017; Ilkan et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2021). Further, activated platelets generate contractile forces to stabilize and consolidate the thrombus (Osdoit and Rosa, 2001; Ono et al., 2008; Hansen et al., 2018). Abnormal platelet function can cause thrombosis (Chen and Ju, 2020), bleeding disorders (Castaman et al., 1997); Cines and Bussel, 2021; Lee et al., 2021; Pavord et al., 2021) and autoimmune diseases (Zoller et al., 2012). Diabetes, obesity and other metabolic syndromes are well known to be associated with platelet hyperactive functions and exhibit prothrombotic phenotypes (Podrez et al., 2007; Santilli et al., 2012; Ju et al., 2018). More recently, COVID-19 severe symptoms and thrombotic complications are demonstrated to associate with platelet dysfunctions (Manne et al., 2020; Koupenova et al., 2021).
Over the past decades, multiple platelet function tests—mainly grouped into biomarker-based assays, aggregometry and biomechanical-based assays—have been commercialized and standardized for diagnosis and monitoring of platelet (dys)function in clinical pathology laboratories and intensive care units (Yarovoi et al., 2003; Nesbitt et al., 2006; Furie et al., 2021). However, due to the requirement of large sample volumes and long processing time, these expensive and bulky techniques often have restricted application. More importantly, the hemodynamic microenvironment and platelet mechanobiology at play are insufficiently incorporated in these tests. While the existing biomechanical assays have incorporated the flow effect and viscoelasticity of platelet thrombi, they often have fixed physical constants and black boxes for external manipulation. To this end, more handy, efficient, and inexpensive point-of-care tools that can incorporate platelet mechanobiology promise more comprehensive and profound assessment of platelet function and the related hematological disorders (Paniccia et al., 2015).
With respect to antiplatelet medications, aspirin and triflusal (TxA2 generation blockers), clopidogrel, ticagrelor, ticlopidine and prasugrel (adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor P2Y12 blockers), dipyridamole and cilostazol (phosphodiesterase inhibitors), vorapaxar (PAR-1 antagonist), and warfarin (vitamin K antagonists) are the standards of care that target platelet functions for antithrombotic therapies (Dlott et al., 2014; Thachil, 2016; McFadyen et al., 2018). However, longstanding limitation of these agents is their inability to differentiate between hemostasis and thrombosis. Adverse side effects associated with these antiplatelet therapies can appear, including the increased risk of dose-dependent bleeding (by prasugrel and ticagrelor), thrombocytopenia (by heparin, prasugrel, ticlopidine), hypersensitivity (by clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor), acute kidney injury (by aspirin) and hypotension (by dipyridamole) (Walenga et al., 2012; McFadyen et al., 2018). Therefore, the dose and combination of antiplatelet prescription needs to be tailored carefully upon individuals (Koenig-Oberhuber and Filipovic, 2016). There is a strong driver for rapid, quantitative and accurate analytical tools that have utility with respect to patient-specific antiplatelet therapies, in other words, more effective antiplatelet precision medicine.
With recent advance of microfabrication technologies, a variety of microfluidic approaches emerge to mimic vascular anatomies, reconstitute hemodynamic factors and recapitulate platelet mechanobiology underlying hematological processes (Tovar-Lopez et al., 2010; Tsai et al., 2012; Zilberman-Rudenko et al., 2017; Koupenova et al., 2018; Ting et al., 2019). Whilst clinical translation remains a pertinent issue, the miniaturized and cost-efficient microfluidic devices are the complementary avenues that allow rapid and high-throughput platelet function testing and antiplatelet drug screening. To date, several point-of-care microfluidic systems have gained FDA approvals for clot viscoelasticity assay (TEG® 6s system), blood chemistry analysis (sodium, potassium, chloride, glucose, hematocrit, gases) and immune hematology tests (analytes concentration) (Chin et al., 2012; Sharma et al., 2015).
Hereby, we summarize the existing platelet function tests in the clinical domain, discuss their limitations, then review emerging microfluidic devices inspired by platelet mechanobiology and discuss their future point-of-care potentials.
Commercially Available Platelet Function Tests and Their Clinical Usage
Bleeding time (BT) evaluation appeared as the earliest platelet function test in clinical use (
Duke, 1983). Serving as an
in vivotesting, BT is invasive and has low reproducibility and specificity in the routine monitoring of antiplatelet therapies (
Jakubowski et al., 2007). Recently, noninvasive and simpler
in vitroplatelet function tests become commercially available. We list these existing techniques in
Table 1—A summary of the standardized platelet function tests, which could be broadly categorized into the following three groups:
1) Biomarker-based assessment. Platelet functional status are often depicted by their activation marker expression and metabolite secretion. Flow cytometry is commonly used to not only quantify platelet receptor expression such as GPIb (Adelman et al., 1985), but also depict platelet activation status via PAC-1 antibody binding (GPIIb/IIIa activation) (Ginsberg et al., 1990; Ju et al., 2018), P-selectin expression (α-granule secretion) (Kehrel and Brodde, 2013), annexin A5 binding (phosphatidylserine exposure) (Reddy et al., 2018), and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein-phosphorylation (P2Y12 activation) (Hezard et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2010; Harrison and Keeling, 2012; Kehrel and Brodde, 2013; Dahlen et al., 2013; Harrison and Lordkipanidze, 2013; Paniccia et al., 2015; Reddy et al., 2018). The related deficiency and mutation can be quickly identified by flow cytometry and linked to platelet disorders such as Bernard–Soulier syndrome (BSS) (GPIb), Glanzmann’s thrombasthenia (GT) (GPIIb/IIIa) and platelet storage pool diseases such as gray platelet syndrome (α-granule).
TABLE 1
| Analysis | Device | Measurement | Clinical implication | Pharmacologic monitor | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial devices | |||||||
| Biomarker based | Flow cytometry, ELISA | Platelet activation markers quantification | BSS/GT/HIT/Scott syndrome | Aspirin, P2Y12 antagonists, heparin | Small volume/independent of platelet count | Expensive/specialized training | Muir et al. (2009), Hezard et al. (2010), Williams et al. (2010), Pakala and Waksman (2011), Harrison and Keeling (2012); Kehrel and Brodde (2013); Dahlen et al. (2013), Gremmel et al. (2013), Harrison and Lordkipanidze (2013), Guéry et al. (2018) |
| Aggregom-etry | Light Transmission Aggregometry (VerifyNow®, AggRAM™, APACT 4004®, PAP-8E®) | Optical density | ADP accumulation defect/BSS/Type 2B VWD/GT | Aspirin, P2Y12 and GPIIb/IIIa antagonists | Flexible/gold standard | Sample processing/large sample volumes/lack HCT consideration/not sensitive to acquired platelet defects | Hayward et al. (2009), Morel-Kopp et al. (2010), Sibbing et al. (2010), Solomon et al. (2010), Bolliger et al. (2012a), Tantry et al. (2013), Paniccia et al. (2015), Opheim et al. (2019), Alessi et al. (2020), Le Blanc et al. (2020) |
| Multiple Electrode Aggregometry (Multiplate®, Chrono-Log®) | Electrical impedance | Storage pool disease/GT/VWD/COD/HIT | Aspirin, P2Y12 and GPIIb/IIIa antagonists | Simple/small volume/flexible | Limited HCT and platelet count range/bulky/insensitive to TRAP-induced platelet aggregation | ||
| Biomechan-ical based | Shear flow-based assays (PFA-100/200®, PlaCor PRT®) | Occlusion time | Type 2 VWD/BSS/GT | Aspirin, P2Y12 antagonists | Rapid/small volume/simple/sensitive to severe platelet defects | Insensitive to mild platelet disorders/platelet count and HCT dependent/irrelevant to stenotic thrombosis | Harrison et al. (2002), Harrison et al. (2011), Johnson et al. (2012), Gorog and Jeong (2015) |
| Cone and Plate (Let) Analyzer (Impact-R®) | Surface coverage and aggregation size | Type 3 VWD/GT/Afibrinogenemia | Aspirin, GPIIb/IIIa antagonists, ADP antagonists | Automated/simple/rapid/small volume/ | Expensive/specialized training/lack clinical studies | Savion and Varon (2006), Anand et al. (2007), Shenkman et al. (2008), Paniccia et al. (2015) | |
| Thromboelasto-graphy assay (TEG®, ROTEM®, Sonoclot®) | Clot viscoelasticity upon torque application | ACT/PPH | Heparin, aprotinin, aspirin, GPIIb/IIIa antagonists, ADP antagonists | Complete clot profile | Interlaboratory variation/time-consuming/limited platelet and HCT count range/lack clinical study/expensive | Paniccia et al. (2015), Mitrovic et al. (2021), Moore et al. (2021) | |
| Thromboelast-ography assay (TEG® 6s, Quantra®) | Clot viscoelasticity upon resonance application | Trauma and cardiac surgery | P2Y12 and GPIIb/IIIa antagonists | High precision/fully automated/portable/multi-channel/reduced blood volume | Lack clinical study/expensive | (Ferrante et al., 2016; Dias et al., 2020; Lloyd-Donald et al., 2020) | |
| Microfluidic platforms | |||||||
| Shear dependent platelet function test | Straight | Platelet adhesion | - | COX-1, P2Y1 and P2Y12 antagonists | Controlled flow rate/temporal and spatial observation | - | Li et al. (2017) |
| Stenosis | Clotting time | HPS/Sepsis/SCA | COX, P2Y12, GPIIb/IIIa antagonists (aspirin, clopidogrel, abciximab), Heparin | High dynamic range/real-time monitoring and quantification | Non instantaneous and continuous (<20min) monitoring | Jain et al. (2016b) | |
| Platelet aggregation surface and size | Borderline type 1 VWD; Type 2/3 VWD | TXA2, P2Y12 and P2Y1 antagonists (indomethacin, 2-E11MeSAMP, MRS2179) | Real-time monitoring/small volume/sensitive to low platelet count | Strict to ULVWF involved aggregation | Brazilek et al. (2017) | ||
| Contractile force analysis | Micropatterns | Microdot area and displacement | WAS/MYH9RD | – | Single cell resolution/modulable substrate properties/high throughput | Cannot detect low contraction | Myers et al. (2017) |
| Microposts | Micropillar deflection | TIC/cardiology patient on aspirin medication | P2Y12, GPIb/V/IX, GPIIb/IIIa antagonists (2-MeSAMP, AK2, c7E3) | No additional agonist required/No sample preparation/sensitive | – | Ting et al. (2013), Ting et al. (2019), Miles et al. (2021) | |
| Type 2A VWD | GPIbα, GPIIb/IIIa antagonists (HIP1, abciximab) | Real-time/medium throughput/clot stiffness measurement | – | Chen Z et al. (2019) | |||
| Integrated drug screening system | SpearChip | Platelet adhesion | – | GPIIb/IIIa and P2Y12 antagonists (abciximab, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, cangrelor) | Self-powered/no dead volume/reproducible | Flow controlled by chip design | Jose et al. (2016) |
| Micropump-Mixer | Thrombus volume | – | PI3K inhibitors (AS2524224, TGX221, LY294002, Wortmannin) | High integration/high throughput/automated/short incubation time/small dead volumes | – | Szydzik et al. (2019) | |
A summary of conventional assays and the novel microfluidic devices for platelet function analysis and antiplatelet drug screening.
BSS, Bernard–Soulier syndrome; GT, Glanzmann’s thrombasthenia; HIT, Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; COD, Cyclooxygenase deficiency; ATC, Acute trauma coagulopathy; PPH, Postpartum hemorrhage; HPS, Hermansky–Pudlak syndrome; SCA, sickle cell anemia; WAS, Wiskott–Aldrich; MYH9RD, MYH9-related disorders; TIC, Trauma-induced coagulopathy; VWD, von Willebrand disease; HCT: hematocrit.
Besides, measurement of thromboxane metabolites (T
XA2) allows evaluation of platelet activation using ligand-binding assays such as radioimmunoassay (
Rogasi et al., 1988), immunoradiometric assays (
Shen and Tai, 1986), or enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISA) (
Muir et al., 2009;
Gremmel et al., 2013). The LabCorp Serotonin Release Assay is considered as the gold standard for diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) (
Guéry et al., 2018). While these biomarker-based assays use small sample volumes and can be independent on platelet counts, they are generally time-consuming, expensive, and require specialized operators and core facilities.
2) Aggregometry assays. There are mainly two types of platelet aggregation measurement—Light Transmission Aggregometry (LTA) (Alessi et al., 2020) and Multiple Electrode Aggregometry (MEA) (Opheim et al., 2019). LTA is the gold standard platelet function test that observes the increase of light transmission through the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or washed platelet sample due to the convergence of individual platelets into aggregates; whereas MEA evaluates the electrical impedance proportional to platelet aggregation (Paniccia et al., 2015). There are a few LTA (VerifyNow®, AggRAM®, APACT 4004®, PAP-8E®) and MEA (Multiplate®, Chrono-Log®) currently available for disease screening (storage pool disease, HIT, GT, BSS, von Willebrand disease (VWD), ADP accumulation defects or cyclooxygenase deficiency) (Morel-Kopp et al., 2010; Bolliger et al., 2012a; Tantry et al., 2013; Opheim et al., 2019; Alessi et al., 2020) and antiplatelet drug monitoring (aspirin, P2Y12 and GPIIb/IIIa antagonists) (Sibbing et al., 2010; Solomon et al., 2010; Le Blanc et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, these aggregometries present a few limitations. For example, LTA has less pronounced sensitivity to acquired platelet defects (
Hayward et al., 2009), and MEA has not yet been able to distinguish those not responding to antiplatelet drugs and at risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (
Paniccia et al., 2015).
3) Biomechanical platelet function assays. Biomechanical tests can be broadly grouped into shear flow -based assays [PFA-100/200®, PlaCor PRT® (Johnson et al., 2012)], Cone and Plate(let) Analyzer (CPA) [Impact-R® (Savion and Varon, 2006)], and thromboelastography assays [TEG® (Korpallova et al., 2018), ROTEM® (Bolliger et al., 2012b; Zaky, 2017), Sonoclot® (Ganter and Hofer, 2008), TEG® 6s (Lloyd-Donald et al., 2020), Quantra® system (Ferrante et al., 2016)].
PFA-100/200® and PlaCor PRT® measure the occlusion time after exposing platelets to a constant shear rate at 5,000 s−1 and 1,500 s−1, respectively (Gorog and Jeong, 2015). PFA-100/200® immobilizes exogenous antagonists on a solid cartridge for platelet activation while PlaCor PRT® activates platelets by inducing high shear in a narrowed aperture with a spring (Godino et al., 2014). These shear flow-based assays can distinguish type 2 VWD, BSS and GT but not mild platelet defects such as Hermansky–Pudlak syndrome (HPS), storage pool and release defects, type 1 VWD and macrothrombocytopenia (Harrison et al., 2002; Harrison et al., 2011). CPA assesses adhering platelets subjected to shear forces imposed by the spinning cone on a plate. This system is useful to monitor type 3 VWD and examine dual antiplatelet drug efficiency but need to be further verified for inherited and acquired platelet dysfunction diagnosis (Savion and Varon, 2006; Anand et al., 2007; Shenkman et al., 2008; Paniccia et al., 2015).
Not specific to platelet function analysis, the thromboelastography is a global hemostatic function assay that evaluates viscoelastic variations of clot retraction (both platelet aggregation and fibrin polymerization) to diagnose coagulopathies (e.g., hypofibrinogenemia, platelet dysfunction) (Da Luz et al., 2014), predict bleeding risks (Stravitz, 2012), and determine need for transfusion (Paniccia et al., 2015). Nevertheless, thromboelastography assays may have two major limitations: 1) baseline measurements prior to treatment are required for reference; and 2) single platelet mechanosensing phenotypes are masked by high amounts of thrombin generated and the subsequent clot retraction (Moore et al., 2021).
Novel Microfluidic Approaches for Platelet Function Assessment and Anti-Platelet Drug Screening
While the aforementioned commercial platelet function tests have been broadly used in clinical practices, emerging microfluidic approaches demonstrate several advantages:
1) Microfluidics can emulate physiologically relevant vascular anatomies. Conventional methods such as PFA-100/200® do not capture the geometric characteristics of the vessel, preventing the mimicking of platelet responses to their microenvironment. In contrast, latest soft lithography enables multifaceted, high-fidelity and customized microfluidic designs to imitate various vascular anatomies, such as straight (Jain et al., 2016b; Li et al., 2017; Zhang and Neelamegham, 2017; Albers et al., 2019; Dupuy et al., 2021), bifurcated (Tsai et al., 2012), stenosed (Tovar-Lopez et al., 2010; Jain et al., 2016b) and net (Zilberman-Rudenko et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2021) channels.
2) Microfluidics can recapitulate hemodynamic microenvironment. It is almost impossible for conventional platelet function tests to encapsulate the rheological parameters experienced by the platelets. Even for the PFA-100/200®, pre-exposure to exogenous agonists hinders them to fully recapitulate the synergistic effects of chemical (released endogenously by activated platelets) and mechanical factors (shear stress, shear gradients, vorticity) (Panzer and Jilma, 2011). By mediating the geometries and flow input, microfluidic approaches have great control on the hemodynamic parameters which can be predicted when combined with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation (Zhao et al., 2021).
3) Microfluidics have higher sensitivity in detecting certain platelet mechanobiology relevant disorders. While sometimes not readily and obviously diagnosed by the existing platelet function tests, HPS, VWD, Wiskott–Aldrich syndrome and MYH9-related disorders can be effectively detected with a few platelet mechanobiology inspired microfluidics (Jain et al., 2016b; Brazilek et al., 2017; Myers et al., 2017; Chen Z et al., 2019; Ting et al., 2019).
4) Microfluidics present better biomimetic performance. Endothelialized microfluidics are rapidly evolving as humanized screening platforms (Albers et al., 2019; Jenny et al., 2020; Dupuy et al., 2021). Increasing evidences demonstrate their great potential in simulating the interplays between platelets and circulatory systems (Zhang et al., 2021).
5) Existing platelet function tests are bulky, expensive, and require specialized operators and a large volume of blood samples. In sharp contrast, microfluidic devices are cheap in terms of both materials and fabrication process. These miniaturized microdevices are in sub-millimeter dimension (Chiu et al., 2017), which only require a small volume of blood sample in the scale of microliters (Convery and Gadegaard, 2019) to render reliable results. More recently, the integrated microfluidics with micro-pumps and mixers enable high-throughput, automated disease and drug screening in much shorter turnaround time (Mayr and Bojanic, 2009; Szydzik et al., 2019).
In the following three subsections and Table 1, we summarized novel microfluidic platforms as the potential point-of-care tests of platelet function and antiplatelet drug screening.
Shear Dependent Platelet Mechanobiology Inspired Microfluidics
A range of microfluidic devices that recapitulate physiological and pathological hemodynamic microenvironment have been employed for platelet thrombosis and hematological studies (Gutierrez et al., 2008; Tovar-Lopez et al., 2010; Conant et al., 2011; Costa et al., 2017; Menon et al., 2020). The newly obtained platelet mechanobiology have further inspired novel microfluidic designs for diagnosis of platelet function disorders and patient profiling (Myers et al., 2017; Chen Z et al., 2019).
The earlier study of the shear dependent platelet mechanobiology utilized the simple straight channel with rectangular cross-section which can be easily fabricated by standard soft lithography. Gutierrez et al. (2008) developed two PDMS microfluidics devices with small cross section areas, thereby reducing the blood volume required (<100 µl per assay) under a range of shear rates (13—1,310 s−1). Further, Li et al. (2017) applied an eight-channel microfluidic device coated with collagen to test the efficacy, dosage response, and combined antiplatelet therapeutic outcomes. The effectiveness of antiplatelet drugs (P2Y, COX-1 and kinase inhibitors) was tested on whole blood obtained from healthy individuals under the shear rates of 200 s−1 and 1,000 s−1. Similarly, Rossi and Diamond (2020) designed an injection-molded microfluidic device with a collagen/tissue factor-printed surface to evaluate the dose response of anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban).
With recent microfabrication advancement, pathological microvascular geometries were incorporated into microfluidic channels to recapitulate flow disturbance and examine shear gradient effects on platelet thrombotic functions (Tovar-Lopez et al., 2010). Notably, Jain et al. developed a stenosed arteriole-mimicking microfluidics that consists of three regions: 1) pre-stenosed region with sudden fluid acceleration; 2) stenosed region with uniform shear; 3) post-stenosed region with abrupt flow deceleration (Figure 1A) (Jain et al., 2016a). Remarkably, such microdevice was able to measure hemostatic defects of patients with HPS. The platelet defect in HPS patients is not commonly detectable by conventional PFA-100 and bleeding time assays (Harrison et al., 2011). Additionally, Brazilek et al. (2017) presented a micro-contraction device where 80° double-stenosed test segments were designed. This stenosis microchannel not only can detect the reduction of biomechanical platelet aggregation as implicated in patients with type 1, 2 and 3 VWD, but also can distinguish the borderline type 1 VWD from the severe one. Interestingly, this microdevice gave better diagnostic outcomes in type 1 VWD patients than PFA-100 assay. One of the reason may be that the defective phenotypes of shear-dependent VWF–platelet mechanobiology is masked by the potent platelet pre-activation in the exogenous agonists coated cartridges in PFA-100 (Ardillon et al., 2015; Favaloro, 2015).
FIGURE 1
Other complexed vasculature mimicking systems have been developed, such as bifurcation microchannels (Tsai et al., 2012; Mao et al., 2021), vascular inflammatory model (Johnston et al., 2020) and bleeding model (Hu et al., 2021). These innovative microfluidic platforms are capable of recapitulating not only the pathological shear but also the vascular biological functions for thrombosis, hemostasis and thromboinflammation studies and platelet function tests and drug screening. Moreover, de Wett et al. introduced a multi-microspot microfluidic flow system made of 52 platelet adhesive proteins and eight output parameters to characterize thrombus formation under wall shear rates at 150 s−1 and 1,600 s−1 (Figure 1B) (de Witt et al., 2014). Strikingly, the system has been applied to reveal abnormal thrombus formation in patients with severe combined immune deficiency, GT, HPS, May–Hegglin anomaly or gray platelet syndrome.
Microfluidic Devices That Gauge Platelet Contractile Force
Decreased platelet contractility is associated with the abnormal mechanics of blood clots. Several studies have confirmed the high relevance of platelet contractile forces to platelet aggregation and the subsequent hemostasis (Li and Li, 2006; Muthard and Diamond, 2012; Muthard and Diamond, 2013; Ting et al., 2013; Chen Z et al., 2019; van Rooij et al., 2020). Lam et al. (2011) customized a side-view atomic force microscope (AFM) to measure the contractile force of a single platelet encapsulated between the fibrinogen-coated cantilever and surface. Moreover, DNA-based tension probes are emerging as novel nanotechnology to measure platelet traction force by quantifying the threshold force required to unfold the immobilized DNA hairpins that links to platelet integrin receptors (Dutta et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2019).
While the existing AFM and DNA tension probes do not directly recapitulate hemodynamic effects, Hanke et al. (2019) introduced a microfluidic chamber integrated with traction force microscopy to quantify platelet contraction when exposed to shear. Specifically, a polyacrylamide hydrogel encapsulated with fluorescent beads was attached to the bottom of the microfluidic chamber. By measuring the displacement of substrates indicated by fluorescence beads, one can measure the platelet contractile forces under shear.
Further, Myers et al. (2017) developed a high-throughput platelet contraction cytometry that is capable of evaluating platelet contractile forces at single-cell resolution. This microfluidic device is composed of three layers: 1) a bottom cover slip; 2) a laser cut PDMS gasket filled with fibrinogen microdots-patterned hydrogel; and 3) a microfluidic flow chamber with inlet and outlet. In this model, single platelet contractility is directly associated with the area and displacement of fibrinogen microdot. Notably, patients suffering from Wiskott–Aldrich syndrome or MYH9-related disorders were identified to lack highly contractile platelets (Myers et al., 2017) and clot contraction (Godwin and Ginsburg, 1974; Shcherbina et al., 2010). However, one limitation of this device is that low contractile platelets are not detectable and therefore optimization is needed for more profound platelet contractility analysis.
In addition to single-cell level measurement, Ting et al. examined platelet contractility based on platelet aggregation using a microfluidic device with an array of rectangular micro-blocks paired with flexible microposts (Figure 1C) (Ting et al., 2013; Ting et al., 2019). Platelet contractile forces can be quantified based on the deflections of the microposts. Measurement of platelet contractile forces could help differentiate healthy individuals from patient-specific conditions, for example, cardiology patients on antiplatelet (aspirin) medications or trauma-induced coagulopathy patients at risk of bleeding. Besides, Chen et al. introduced a microclot array elastometry system consisting of three layers: 1) a microchannel on top; 2) collagen microtissues formed on PDMS micropillars in the intermediate layer; 3) stretchable silicone membrane on the bottom layer to allow micropillar deflection for clot contraction measurement (Figure 1D) (Chen Z et al., 2019). Such system has been used to not only test platelet contractility in response to antiplatelet agents, but also distinguish clot mechanics for health individuals from those with VWD. In short, the microfluidic systems of contractility measurement have demonstrated great potential in identifying platelet function disorders and giving additional anti-thrombotic therapeutic instruction.
Highly Integrated Microfluidic Systems for Antiplatelet Drug Screening
To enable efficient and accurate antiplatelet drug screening from a large library in the presence of hemodynamic microenvironment, the microsystem should include the following characteristics: 1) cheap and easy-to-use with small volume requirement of blood samples; 2) Simple and user-friendly operation; 3) accurate and rapid testing; 4) high-throughput to test a large number of drug candidates (Meagher et al., 2008; Gubala et al., 2012; Myers et al., 2017; Berry et al., 2021). Hereby we reviewed several integrated and multiplexed microfluidic systems that meet these requirements, demonstrating great potentials towards rapid, automated and high-throughput antiplatelet drug screening.
Jose et al. (2016) designed an automated microfluidic device consisting of a PDMS layer with microchannels and a cyclic olefin polymer base printed with microcontact dot arrays (Figure 1E). The device achieves self-powered vacuum-driven flow by exposing the pre-degassed PDMS in the air. Here, dot array occupancy indicates platelet adhesion and the system has been used to screen GPIIb/IIIa and P2Y12 antagonists. Moreover, Berry et al. (2021) designed an occlusive thrombosis-on-a-chip model that incorporates two branching channels—a chaotic mixer for testing the EDRA quenching effects on platelet activation, and a collagen/tissue factor-coated channel for coagulation evaluation (Figure 1F). This model is simple and robust to measure occlusion time and can be utilized to screen potent antiplatelet drugs that inhibits channel occlusion and presumably blood vessel occlusion. Similarly, Szydzik et al. (2019) designed a novel active micropump mixer consisting of a pneumatic actuation chamber and a flow chamber separated by a thin diaphragm (Figure 1G). The micropump mixer enabled integration of sample preparation, drug incubation, blood mixing, and thrombus quantification on a single chip for antiplatelet drug screening.
Furthermore, Jongen et al. (2020) combined droplet microfluidics with flow cytometry for high-throughput single platelet function analysis (Figure 1H). The device incorporated four individual inlets to infuse platelets, agonist/antagonist solution and fluoro-oil, which eventually encountered at a common junction where analytes were encapsulated within the fluoro-oil droplets. Standard flow cytometry was then used to monitor droplet retrieved platelets’ response to convulxin—the agonist to platelet receptor glycoprotein VI. Besides, Hao et al. developed a platelet detection microfluidics that integrates chemotherapeutic agents, tumor cells, endothelial cells and the flow rates to predict platelet responsiveness from cancer patients before or during chemotherapy (Hao et al., 2021). The microsystem contained a drug concentration generator, cancer cell culture chips, and three-dimensional circular microchannels lined with confluent endothelial layers. Taken together, these highly integrated microdevices exhibit great potentials for scalable point-of-care application.
Conclusion
Platelet mechanobiology inspired microfluidics are emerging technologies for rapid, robust, high-throughput thrombotic disease diagnosis and antiplatelet drug screening. Compared with the existing commercial platelet function tests, these microsystems are inexpensive and miniaturized, require small sample volume and have short processing time. As the manufacturing industry is rapidly advancing with respect to design standardization, operating procedure, analytical integration, we foresee that the microfluidic devices will evolve as not only cost-effective alternatives for basic platelet biology and anti-thrombotic pharmaceutical research, but also point-of-care and telehealth microdevices in cardiovascular patient management.
Statements
Author contributions
YZ and LJ conceived the study and wrote the manuscript. YZ and FJ co-wrote the manuscript. YC and LJ provided critical comments and supervised the study. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project (DP200101970–LJ), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia Ideas Grant (APP2003904–LJ), NSW Cardiovascular Capacity Building Program (Early-Mid Career Researcher Grant–LJ), Sydney Research Accelerator prize (SOAR–LJ), NSW CVRN-VCCRI Research Innovation Grant and Ramaciotti Foundations Health Investment Grant (2020HIG76–LJ), Charles Perkins Centre Early to Mid-Career Researcher Seed Funding Grant (EMCR–YZ), Cardiovascular Initiative Catalyst Award seed funding (CVI–YZ), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grant (HL153678–YC). Lining Arnold Ju is an ARC DECRA fellow (DE190100609).
Acknowledgments
We thank Renee Ellen Preketes-tardiani, Savindi De Zoysa Ramasundara, Vivian Cheng, Hongxu Lu for the helpful discussion. We acknowledge Sydney Manufacturing Hub, Research Prototype Foundry under the Core Research Facility at the University of Sydney for support of our lab startup.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AbbonanteV.Di BuduoC. A.GruppiC.De MariaC.SpeddenE.De AcutisA.et al (2017). A New Path to Platelet Production through Matrix Sensing. Haematologica102, 1150–1160. 10.3324/haematol.2016.161562
2
AdelmanB.MichelsonA. D.HandinR. I.AultK. A. (1985). Evaluation of Platelet Glycoprotein Ib by Fluorescence Flow Cytometry. Blood66, 423–427. 10.1182/blood.v66.2.423.423
3
AlbersH. J.PassierR.Van Den BergA.Van Der MeerA. D. (2019). Automated Analysis of Platelet Aggregation on Cultured Endothelium in a Microfluidic Chip Perfused with Human Whole Blood. Micromachines (Basel)10 (11), 781. 10.3390/mi10110781
4
AlessiM. C.SiéP.PayrastreB. (2020). Strengths and Weaknesses of Light Transmission Aggregometry in Diagnosing Hereditary Platelet Function Disorders. J. Clin. Med.9 (3), 763. 10.3390/jcm9030763
5
AnandS. X.KimM. C.KamranM.SharmaS. K.KiniA. S.FareedJ.et al (2007). Comparison of Platelet Function and Morphology in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Receiving Bivalirudin versus Unfractionated Heparin versus Clopidogrel Pretreatment and Bivalirudin. Am. J. Cardiol.100, 417–424. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.02.106
6
ArdillonL.TernisienC.FouassierM.SigaudM.LefrançoisA.PacaultM.et al (2015). Platelet function analyser (PFA-100) results and von Willebrand factor deficiency: a 16-year 'real-world' experience. Haemophilia21, 646–652. 10.1111/hae.12653
7
BagotC. N.AryaR. (2008). Virchow and His Triad: a Question of Attribution. Br. J. Haematol.143, 180–190. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2008.07323.x
8
BerryJ.PeaudecerfF. J.MastersN. A.NeevesK. B.GoldsteinR. E.HarperM. T. (2021). An "occlusive Thrombosis-On-A-Chip" Microfluidic Device for Investigating the Effect of Anti-thrombotic Drugs. Lab. Chip21 (21), 4104–4117. 10.1039/d1lc00347j
9
BolligerD.Dell-KusterS.SeebergerM. D.TanakaK. A.GregorM.ZenklusenU.et al (2012a). Impact of loss of high-molecular-weight von Willebrand factor multimers on blood loss after aortic valve replacement. Br. J. Anaesth.108, 754–762. 10.1093/bja/aer512
10
BolligerD.SeebergerM. D.TanakaK. A. (2012b). Principles and Practice of Thromboelastography in Clinical Coagulation Management and Transfusion Practice. Transfus. Med. Rev.26, 1–13. 10.1016/j.tmrv.2011.07.005
11
BrazilekR. J.Tovar-LopezF. J.WongA. K. T.TranH.DavisA. S.McfadyenJ. D.et al (2017). Application of a strain rate gradient microfluidic device to von Willebrand's disease screening. Lab. Chip17, 2595–2608. 10.1039/c7lc00498b
12
ButeraD.HoggP. J. (2020). Fibrinogen Function Achieved through Multiple Covalent States. Nat. Commun.11, 5468. 10.1038/s41467-020-19295-7
13
CastamanG.Yu-FengL.BattistinE.RodeghieroF. (1997). Characterization of a Novel Bleeding Disorder with Isolated Prolonged Bleeding Time and Deficiency of Platelet Microvesicle Generation. Br. J. Haematol.96, 458–463. 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1997.d01-2072.x
14
ChenW.LiangX.SyedA. K.JessupP.ChurchW. R.WareJ.et al (2016). Inhibiting GPIbα Shedding Preserves Post-Transfusion Recovery and Hemostatic Function of Platelets after Prolonged Storage. Arterioscler Thromb. Vasc. Biol.36, 1821–1828. 10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.307639
15
ChenY.JuL. A.ZhouF.LiaoJ.XueL.SuQ. P.et al (2019). An Integrin αIIbβ3 Intermediate Affinity State Mediates Biomechanical Platelet Aggregation. Nat. Mater.18, 760–769. 10.1038/s41563-019-0323-6
16
ChenY.JuL. A. (2020). Biomechanical Thrombosis: the Dark Side of Force and Dawn of Mechano-Medicine. Stroke Vasc. Neurol.5 (2), 185–197. svn-2019-000302. 10.1136/svn-2019-000302
17
ChenZ.LuJ.ZhangC.HsiaI.YuX.MareckiL.et al (2019). Microclot Array Elastometry for Integrated Measurement of Thrombus Formation and Clot Biomechanics under Fluid Shear. Nat. Commun.10, 2051. 10.1038/s41467-019-10067-6
18
ChinC. D.LinderV.SiaS. K. (2012). Commercialization of Microfluidic point-of-care Diagnostic Devices. Lab. Chip12, 2118–2134. 10.1039/c2lc21204h
19
ChiuD. T.DemelloA. J.Di CarloD.DoyleP. S.HansenC.MaceiczykR. M.et al (2017). Small but Perfectly Formed? Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities for Microfluidics in the Chemical and Biological Sciences. Chem.2, 201–223. 10.1016/j.chempr.2017.01.009
20
CinesD. B.BusselJ. B. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia. N. Engl. J. Med.384, 2254–2256. 10.1056/NEJMe2106315
21
ColmanR. W. (2006). Are Hemostasis and Thrombosis Two Sides of the Same coin?J. Exp. Med.203, 493–495. 10.1084/jem.20060217
22
ConantC. G.SchwartzM. A.BeecherJ. E.RudoffR. C.Ionescu-ZanettiC.NevillJ. T. (2011). Well Plate Microfluidic System for Investigation of Dynamic Platelet Behavior under Variable Shear Loads. Biotechnol. Bioeng.108, 2978–2987. 10.1002/bit.23243
23
ConveryN.GadegaardN. (2019). 30 Years of Microfluidics. Micro Nano Eng.2, 76–91. 10.1016/j.mne.2019.01.003
24
CostaP. F.AlbersH. J.LinssenJ. E. A.MiddelkampH. H. T.Van Der HoutL.PassierR.et al (2017). Mimicking Arterial Thrombosis in a 3D-Printed Microfluidic In Vitro Vascular Model Based on Computed Tomography Angiography Data. Lab. Chip17, 2785–2792. 10.1039/c7lc00202e
25
Da LuzL. T.NascimentoB.ShankarakuttyA. K.RizoliS.AdhikariN. K. (2014). Effect of Thromboelastography (TEG®) and Rotational Thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) on Diagnosis of Coagulopathy, Transfusion Guidance and Mortality in Trauma: Descriptive Systematic Review. Crit. Care18, 518. 10.1186/s13054-014-0518-9
26
DahlenJ. R.PriceM. J.PariseH.GurbelP. A. (2013). Evaluating the Clinical Usefulness of Platelet Function Testing: Considerations for the Proper Application and Interpretation of Performance Measures. Thromb. Haemost.109, 808–816. 10.1160/TH12-08-0608
27
De WittS. M.SwieringaF.CavillR.LamersM. M.Van KruchtenR.MastenbroekT.et al (2014). Identification of Platelet Function Defects by Multi-Parameter Assessment of Thrombus Formation. Nat. Commun.5, 4257. 10.1038/ncomms5257
28
DiasJ. D.Lopez-EspinaC. G.BlidenK.GurbelP.HartmannJ.AchneckH. E. (2020). TEG®6s System Measures the Contributions of Both Platelet Count and Platelet Function to Clot Formation at the Site-Of-Care. Platelets31, 932–938. 10.1080/09537104.2019.1704713
29
DlottJ. S.GeorgeR. A.HuangX.OdehM.KaufmanH. W.AnsellJ.et al (2014). National Assessment of Warfarin Anticoagulation Therapy for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation. Circulation129, 1407–1414. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002601
30
DukeW. W. (1983). The Relation of Blood Platelets to Hemorrhagic Disease. JAMA250, 1201–1209. 10.1001/jama.250.9.1201
31
DupuyA.HagimolaL.MgaiethN. S. A.HoulahanC. B.Preketes-TardianiR. E.ColemanP. R.et al (2021). Thromboinflammation Model-On-A-Chip by Whole Blood Microfluidics on Fixed Human Endothelium. Diagnostics (Basel)11, 203. 10.3390/diagnostics11020203
32
DuttaP. K.ZhangY.BlanchardA. T.GeC.RushdiM.WeissK.et al (2018). Programmable Multivalent DNA-Origami Tension Probes for Reporting Cellular Traction Forces. Nano Lett.18, 4803–4811. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b01374
33
FavaloroE. J. (2015). The Platelet Function Analyser (PFA)-100 and von Willebrand disease: a story well over 16 years in the making. Haemophilia21, 642–645. 10.1111/hae.12710
34
FerranteE. A.BlasierK. R.GivensT. B.LloydC. A.FischerT. J.ViolaF. (2016). A Novel Device for the Evaluation of Hemostatic Function in Critical Care Settings. Anesth. Analg.123, 1372–1379. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001413
35
FuH.JiangY.YangD.ScheiflingerF.WongW. P.SpringerT. A. (2017). Flow-induced elongation of von Willebrand factor precedes tension-dependent activation. Nat. Commun.8, 324. 10.1038/s41467-017-00230-2
36
FurieK. L.CushmanM.ElkindM. S. V.LydenP. D.SaposnikG. (2021). American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council, LDiagnosis and Management of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis with Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia. Stroke52, 2478–2482. 10.1161/strokeaha.121.035564
37
GanterM. T.HoferC. K. (2008). Coagulation Monitoring: Current Techniques and Clinical Use of Viscoelastic point-of-care Coagulation Devices. Anesth. Analg. 106, 1366–1375. 10.1213/ane.0b013e318168b367
38
GinsbergM. H.FrelingerA. L.LamS. C.ForsythJ.McmillanR.PlowE. F.et al (1990). Analysis of Platelet Aggregation Disorders Based on Flow Cytometric Analysis of Membrane Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa with Conformation-specific Monoclonal Antibodies. Blood76, 2017–2023. 10.1182/blood.v76.10.2017.bloodjournal76102017
39
GodinoC.PavonA. G.MangieriA.VianiG. M.GalavernaS.SparteraM.et al (2014). PlaCor PRT Measurement of Shear-Activated Platelet Aggregate Formation in Stable Patients Treated with Single and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy. Platelets25, 337–342. 10.3109/09537104.2013.825710
40
GodwinH. A.GinsburgA. D. (1974). May-Hegglin Anomaly: a Defect in Megakaryocyte Fragmentation?Br. J. Haematol.26, 117–128. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1974.tb00455.x
41
GorogD. A.JeongY. H. (2015). Platelet Function Tests: Why They Fail to Guide Personalized Antithrombotic Medication. J. Am. Heart Assoc.4, e002094. 10.1161/JAHA.115.002094
42
GremmelT.PerkmannT.SeidingerD.KoppensteinerR.PanzerS.KoppC. W.et al (2013). Differential Impact of Inflammation on Six Laboratory Assays Measuring Residual Arachidonic Acid-Inducible Platelet Reactivity during Dual Antiplatelet Therapy. J. Atheroscler. Thromb.20, 630–645. 10.5551/jat.17665
43
GubalaV.HarrisL. F.RiccoA. J.TanM. X.WilliamsD. E. (2012). Point of Care Diagnostics: Status and Future. Anal. Chem.84, 487–515. 10.1021/ac2030199
44
GuéryE.-A.VayneC.DerrayC.BesombesJ.LambertW. C.RollinJ.et al (2018). Is There an Alternative to Serotonin Release Assay for the Diagnosis of Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT)? Evaluation of 5 Other Functional Methods Using 5B9 a Monoclonal IgG that Mimics HIT Human Antibodies. Blood132, 3742. 10.1182/blood-2018-99-115011
45
GutierrezE.PetrichB. G.ShattilS. J.GinsbergM. H.GroismanA.Kasirer-FriedeA. (2008). Microfluidic Devices for Studies of Shear-dependent Platelet Adhesion. Lab. Chip8, 1486–1495. 10.1039/b804795b
46
HaH.ZieglerM.WelanderM.BjarnegårdN.CarlhällC. J.LindenbergerM.et al (2018). Age-Related Vascular Changes Affect Turbulence in Aortic Blood Flow. Front. Physiol.9, 36. 10.3389/fphys.2018.00036
47
HankeJ.RankeC.PeregoE.KösterS. (2019). Human Blood Platelets Contract in Perpendicular Direction to Shear Flow. Soft Matter15, 2009–2019. 10.1039/c8sm02136h
48
HansenC. E.QiuY.MccartyO. J. T.LamW. A. (2018). Platelet Mechanotransduction. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng.20, 253–275. 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-062117-121215
49
HaoZ.LvH.TanR.YangX.LiuY.XiaY. L. (2021). A Three-Dimensional Microfluidic Device for Monitoring Cancer and Chemotherapy-Associated Platelet Activation. Acs Omega6, 3164–3172. 10.1021/acsomega.0c05572
50
HarrisonP.LordkipanidzéM. (2013). Testing Platelet Function. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North. Am.27, 411–441. 10.1016/j.hoc.2013.03.003
51
HarrisonP.MackieI.MumfordA.BriggsC.LiesnerR.WinterM.et al (2011). Guidelines for the Laboratory Investigation of Heritable Disorders of Platelet Function. Br. J. Haematol.155, 30–44. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08793.x
52
HarrisonP.RobinsonM.LiesnerR.KhairK.CohenH.MackieI.et al (2002). The PFA-100: a Potential Rapid Screening Tool for the Assessment of Platelet Dysfunction. Clin. Lab. Haematol.24, 225–232. 10.1046/j.1365-2257.2002.00451.x
53
HarrisonP.KeelingD. (2012). Platelet Assays and Platelet Dysfunction. Lab. Hematol. Pract., 1. 480–491. 10.1002/9781444398595.ch37
54
HaywardC. P.PaiM.LiuY.MoffatK. A.SeecharanJ.WebertK. E.et al (2009). Diagnostic Utility of Light Transmission Platelet Aggregometry: Results from a Prospective Study of Individuals Referred for Bleeding Disorder Assessments. J. Thromb. Haemost.7, 676–684. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03273.x
55
HezardN.Tessier-MarteauA.MacchiL. (2010). New Insight in Antiplatelet Therapy Monitoring in Cardiovascular Patients: from Aspirin to Thienopyridine. Cardiovasc. Hematol. Disord. Drug Targets10, 224–233. 10.2174/1871529x11006030224
56
HuX.ChenH.LiJ.MengK.WangY.LiY. (2021). A Microfluidic Bleeding Model to Investigate the Effects of Blood Flow Shear on Microvascular Hemostasis. Friction10 (1), 128–141. 10.1007/s40544-020-0470-2
57
IlkanZ.WrightJ. R.GoodallA. H.GibbinsJ. M.JonesC. I.Mahaut-SmithM. P. (2017). Evidence for Shear-Mediated Ca2+ Entry through Mechanosensitive Cation Channels in Human Platelets and a Megakaryocytic Cell Line. J. Biol. Chem.292, 9204–9217. 10.1074/jbc.M116.766196
58
JainA.GravelineA.WaterhouseA.VernetA.FlaumenhaftR.IngberD. E. (2016a). A Shear Gradient-Activated Microfluidic Device for Automated Monitoring of Whole Blood Haemostasis and Platelet Function. Nat. Commun.7, 10176. 10.1038/ncomms10176
59
JainA.Van Der MeerA. D.PapaA. L.BarrileR.LaiA.SchlechterB. L.et al (2016b). Assessment of Whole Blood Thrombosis in a Microfluidic Device Lined by Fixed Human Endothelium. Biomed. Microdevices18, 73. 10.1007/s10544-016-0095-6
60
JakubowskiJ. A.MatsushimaN.AsaiF.NaganumaH.BrandtJ. T.HirotaT.et al (2007). A Multiple Dose Study of Prasugrel (CS-747), a Novel Thienopyridine P2Y12 Inhibitor, Compared with Clopidogrel in Healthy Humans. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.63, 421–430. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02792.x
61
JennyL.MelmerA.LaimerM.HardyE. T.LamW. A.SchroederV. (2020). Diabetes Affects Endothelial Cell Function and Alters Fibrin Clot Formation in a Microvascular Flow Model: A Pilot Study. Diab Vasc. Dis. Res.17, 1479164120903044. 10.1177/1479164120903044
62
JohnsonG. J.ShardaA. V.RaoG. H.ErethM. H.LaxsonD. D.OwenW. G. (2012). Measurement of Shear-Activated Platelet Aggregate Formation in Non-anticoagulated Blood: Utility in Detection of Clopidogrel-Aspirin-Induced Platelet Dysfunction. Clin. Appl. Thromb. Hemost.18, 140–149. 10.1177/1076029611423387
63
JohnstonI.SarkarA.HayesV.KomaG. T.ArepallyG. M.ChenJ.et al (2020). Recognition of PF4-VWF Complexes by Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Antibodies Contributes to Thrombus Propagation. Blood135, 1270–1280. 10.1182/blood.2018881607
64
JongenM. S. A.MacarthurB. D.EnglystN. A.WestJ. (2020). Single Platelet Variability Governs Population Sensitivity and Initiates Intrinsic Heterotypic Responses. Commun. Biol.3, 281. 10.1038/s42003-020-1002-5
65
JoseB.MccluskeyP.GilmartinN.SomersM.KennyD.RiccoA. J.et al (2016). Self-Powered Microfluidic Device for Rapid Assay of Antiplatelet Drugs. Langmuir32, 2820–2828. 10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b03540
66
JuL.ChenY.XueL.DuX.ZhuC. (2016). Cooperative Unfolding of Distinctive Mechanoreceptor Domains Transduces Force into Signals. Elife5. 1. 10.7554/eLife.15447
67
JuL.McfadyenJ. D.Al-DaherS.AlwisI.ChenY.TønnesenL. L.et al (2018). Compression Force Sensing Regulates Integrin αIIbβ3 Adhesive Function on Diabetic Platelets. Nat. Commun.9, 1087. 10.1038/s41467-018-03430-6
68
KehrelB. E.BroddeM. F. (2013). State of the Art in Platelet Function Testing. Transfus. Med. Hemother.40, 73–86. 10.1159/000350469
69
Koenig-OberhuberV.FilipovicM. (2016). New Antiplatelet Drugs and New Oral Anticoagulants. Br. J. Anaesth.117 (Suppl. 2), ii74–ii84. 10.1093/bja/aew214
70
KorpallováB.SamošM.BolekT.ŠkorňováI.KovářF.KubiszP.et al (2018). Role of Thromboelastography and Rotational Thromboelastometry in the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases. Clin. Appl. Thromb. Hemost.24, 1199–1207. 10.1177/1076029618790092
71
KoupenovaM.ClancyL.CorkreyH. A.FreedmanJ. E. (2018). Circulating Platelets as Mediators of Immunity, Inflammation, and Thrombosis. Circ. Res.122, 337–351. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310795
72
KoupenovaM.CorkreyH. A.VitsevaO.TanriverdiK.SomasundaranM.LiuP.et al (2021). SARS-CoV-2 Initiates Programmed Cell Death in Platelets. Circ. Res.129, 631–646. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.319117
73
LamW. A.ChaudhuriO.CrowA.WebsterK. D.LiT. D.KitaA.et al (2011). Mechanics and Contraction Dynamics of Single Platelets and Implications for Clot Stiffening. Nat. Mater.10, 61–66. 10.1038/nmat2903
74
Le BlancJ.MullierF.VayneC.LordkipanidzéM. (2020). Advances in Platelet Function Testing-Light Transmission Aggregometry and beyond. J. Clin. Med.9, 2636. 10.3390/jcm9082636
75
LeeE. J.CinesD. B.GernsheimerT.KesslerC.MichelM.TarantinoM. D.et al (2021). Thrombocytopenia Following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination. Am. J. Hematol.96, 534–537. 10.1002/ajh.26132
76
LiR.GrosserT.DiamondS. L. (2017). Microfluidic Whole Blood Testing of Platelet Response to Pharmacological Agents. Platelets28, 457–462. 10.1080/09537104.2016.1268254
77
LiX. J.LiP. C. (2006). Contraction Study of a Single Cardiac Muscle Cell in a Microfluidic Chip. Methods Mol. Biol.321, 199–225. 10.1385/1-59259-997-4:199
78
LiuL.ZhangQ.XiaoS.SunZ.DingS.ChenY.et al (2021). Inhibition of Shear-Induced Platelet Aggregation by Xueshuantong via Targeting Piezo1 Channel-Mediated Ca2+ Signaling Pathway. Front. Pharmacol.12, 606245. 10.3389/fphar.2021.606245
79
Lloyd-DonaldP.ChurilovL.CheongB.BellomoR.MccallP. R.MårtenssonJ.et al (2020). Assessing TEG6S Reliability between Devices and across Multiple Time Points: A Prospective Thromboelastography Validation Study. Sci. Rep.10, 7045. 10.1038/s41598-020-63964-y
80
ManneB. K.DenormeF.MiddletonE. A.PortierI.RowleyJ. W.StubbenC.et al (2020). Platelet Gene Expression and Function in Patients with COVID-19. Blood136, 1317–1329. 10.1182/blood.2020007214
81
MaoS.SarkarA.WangY.SongC.LevineD.WangX.et al (2021). Microfluidic Chip Grafted with Integrin Tension Sensors for Evaluating the Effects of Flowing Shear Stress and ROCK Inhibitor on Platelets. Lab. Chip21, 3128–3136. 10.1039/d1lc00259g
82
MayrL. M.BojanicD. (2009). Novel Trends in High-Throughput Screening. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol.9, 580–588. 10.1016/j.coph.2009.08.004
83
McfadyenJ. D.SchaffM.PeterK. (2018). Current and Future Antiplatelet Therapies: Emphasis on Preserving Haemostasis. Nat. Rev. Cardiol.15, 181–191. 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.206
84
MeagherR. J.HatchA. V.RenziR. F.SinghA. K. (2008). An Integrated Microfluidic Platform for Sensitive and Rapid Detection of Biological Toxins. Lab. Chip8, 2046–2053. 10.1039/b815152k
85
MenonN. V.SuC.PangK. T.PhuaZ. J.TayH. M.DalanR.et al (2020). Recapitulating Atherogenic Flow Disturbances and Vascular Inflammation in a Perfusable 3D Stenosis Model. Biofabrication12, 045009. 10.1088/1758-5090/aba501
86
MilesJ.BaileyS. L.ObenausA. M.MollicaM. Y.UsaneerungruengC.ByrneD.et al (2021). Storage Temperature Determines Platelet GPVI Levels and Function in Mice and Humans. Blood Adv.5, 3839–3849. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004692
87
MitrovicM.SabljicN.CvetkovicZ.PanticN.Zivkovic DakicA.BukumiricZ.et al (2021). Rotational Thromboelastometry (ROTEM) Profiling of COVID-19 Patients. Platelets32, 690–696. 10.1080/09537104.2021.1881949
88
MooreE. E.MooreH. B.KornblithL. Z.NealM. D.HoffmanM.MutchN. J.et al (2021). Trauma-induced Coagulopathy. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers7, 30. 10.1038/s41572-021-00264-3
89
Morel-KoppM. C.AboudM.TanC. W.KulathilakeC.WardC. (2010). Whole Blood Impedance Aggregometry Detects Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Antibodies. Thromb. Res.125, e234–9. 10.1016/j.thromres.2009.12.001
90
MuirA. R.McmullinM. F.PattersonC.MckeownP. P. (2009). Assessment of Aspirin Resistance Varies on a Temporal Basis in Patients with Ischaemic Heart Disease. Heart95, 1225–1229. 10.1136/hrt.2008.150631
91
MuthardR. W.DiamondS. L. (2012). Blood Clots Are Rapidly Assembled Hemodynamic Sensors: Flow Arrest Triggers Intraluminal Thrombus Contraction. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol.32, 2938–2945. 10.1161/ATVBAHA.112.300312
92
MuthardR. W.DiamondS. L. (2013). Side View Thrombosis Microfluidic Device with Controllable wall Shear Rate and Transthrombus Pressure Gradient. Lab. Chip13, 1883–1891. 10.1039/c3lc41332b
93
MyersD. R.QiuY.FayM. E.TennenbaumM.ChesterD.CuadradoJ.et al (2017). Single-platelet Nanomechanics Measured by High-Throughput Cytometry. Nat. Mater.16, 230–235. 10.1038/nmat4772
94
NesbittW. S.ManginP.SalemH. H.JacksonS. P. (2006). The Impact of Blood Rheology on the Molecular and Cellular Events Underlying Arterial Thrombosis. J. Mol. Med. (Berl)84, 989–995. 10.1007/s00109-006-0101-1
95
NesbittW. S.WesteinE.Tovar-LopezF. J.ToloueiE.MitchellA.FuJ.et al (2009). A Shear Gradient-dependent Platelet Aggregation Mechanism Drives Thrombus Formation. Nat. Med.15, 665–673. 10.1038/nm.1955
96
OnoA.WesteinE.HsiaoS.NesbittW. S.HamiltonJ. R.SchoenwaelderS. M.et al (2008). Identification of a Fibrin-independent Platelet Contractile Mechanism Regulating Primary Hemostasis and Thrombus Growth. Blood112, 90–99. 10.1182/blood-2007-12-127001
97
OpheimE. N.ApelsethT. O.StanworthS. J.EideG. E.HervigT. (2019). Multiple Electrode Aggregometry and Thromboelastography in Thrombocytopenic Patients with Haematological Malignancies. Blood Transfus.17, 181–190. 10.2450/2018.0140-18
98
OsdoitS.RosaJ. P. (2001). Fibrin Clot Retraction by Human Platelets Correlates with alpha(IIb)beta(3) Integrin-dependent Protein Tyrosine Dephosphorylation. J. Biol. Chem.276, 6703–6710. 10.1074/jbc.M008945200
99
PakalaR.WaksmanR. (2011). Currently Available Methods for Platelet Function Analysis: Advantages and Disadvantages. Cardiovasc. Revasc Med.12, 312–322. 10.1016/j.carrev.2010.09.005
100
PanicciaR.PrioraR.LiottaA. A.AbbateR. (2015). Platelet Function Tests: a Comparative Review. Vasc. Health Risk Manag.11, 133–148. 10.2147/VHRM.S44469
101
PanzerS.JilmaP. (2011). Methods for Testing Platelet Function for Transfusion Medicine. Vox Sang101, 1–9. 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2011.01467.x
102
PavordS.ScullyM.HuntB. J.LesterW.BagotC.CravenB.et al (2021). Clinical Features of Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis. N. Engl. J. Med.385. 1680–1689. 10.1056/nejmoa2109908
103
PeshkovaA. D.EvdokimovaT. A.SibgatullinT. B.AtaullakhanovF. I.LitvinovR. I.WeiselJ. W. (2020). Accelerated Spatial Fibrin Growth and Impaired Contraction of Blood Clots in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Int. J. Mol. Sci.21, 9434. 10.3390/ijms21249434
104
PodrezE. A.ByzovaT. V.FebbraioM.SalomonR. G.MaY.ValiyaveettilM.et al (2007). Platelet CD36 Links Hyperlipidemia, Oxidant Stress and a Prothrombotic Phenotype. Nat. Med.13, 1086–1095. 10.1038/nm1626
105
RascheH. (2001). Haemostasis and Thrombosis: an Overview. Eur. Heart J. Supplements3, Q3–Q7. 10.1016/s1520-765x(01)90034-3
106
ReddyE. C.WangH.ChristensenH.Mcmillan-WardE.IsraelsS. J.BangK. W. A.et al (2018). Analysis of Procoagulant Phosphatidylserine-Exposing Platelets by Imaging Flow Cytometry. Res. Pract. Thromb. Haemost.2, 736–750. 10.1002/rth2.12144
107
RogasiP. G.PanicciaR.CoppoM.PriscoD.BoddiM.ChenJ.et al (1988). Radioimmunoassay of Thromboxane B2 in Plasma: Methodological Modifications. Thromb. Res.51, 533–541. 10.1016/0049-3848(88)90118-1
108
RossiJ. M.DiamondS. L. (2020). Scalable Manufacture of a Disposable, Storage-Stable Eight-Channel Microfluidic Device for Rapid Testing of Platelet, Coagulation, and Drug Function under Whole Blood Flow. Biomicrofluidics14, 054103. 10.1063/5.0023312
109
RuggeriZ. M. (2002). Platelets in Atherothrombosis. Nat. Med.8, 1227–1234. 10.1038/nm1102-1227
110
SantilliF.VazzanaN.LianiR.GuagnanoM. T.DavìG. (2012). Platelet Activation in Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome. Obes. Rev.13, 27–42. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00930.x
111
SavageB.SaldívarE.RuggeriZ. M. (1996). Initiation of platelet adhesion by arrest onto fibrinogen or translocation on von Willebrand factor. Cell84, 289–297. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80983-6
112
SavionN.VaronD. (2006). Impact--the Cone and Plate(let) Analyzer: Testing Platelet Function and Anti-platelet Drug Response. Pathophysiol. Haemost. Thromb.35, 83–88. 10.1159/000093548
113
SharmaS.Zapatero-RodríguezJ.EstrelaP.O'kennedyR. (2015). Point-of-Care Diagnostics in Low Resource Settings: Present Status and Future Role of Microfluidics. Biosensors (Basel)5, 577–601. 10.3390/bios5030577
114
ShcherbinaA.CooleyJ.LutskiyM. I.BenarafaC.GilbertG. E.Remold-O'donnellE. (2010). WASP Plays a Novel Role in Regulating Platelet Responses Dependent on alphaIIbbeta3 Integrin Outside-In Signalling. Br. J. Haematol.148, 416–427. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07959.x
115
ShenR. F.TaiH. H. (1986). Monoclonal Antibodies to Thromboxane Synthase from Porcine Lung. Production and Application to Development of a Tandem Immunoradiometric Assay. J. Biol. Chem.261, 11585–11591. 10.1016/s0021-9258(18)67283-7
116
ShenkmanB.MatetzkyS.FeferP.HodH.EinavY.LubetskyA.et al (2008). Variable Responsiveness to Clopidogrel and Aspirin Among Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome as Assessed by Platelet Function Tests. Thromb. Res.122, 336–345. 10.1016/j.thromres.2007.10.018
117
SheriffJ.SoaresJ. S.XenosM.JestyJ.SlepianM. J.BluesteinD. (2013). Evaluation of Shear-Induced Platelet Activation Models under Constant and Dynamic Shear Stress Loading Conditions Relevant to Devices. Ann. Biomed. Eng.41, 1279–1296. 10.1007/s10439-013-0758-x
118
SibbingD.SchulzS.BraunS.MorathT.StegherrJ.MehilliJ.et al (2010). Antiplatelet Effects of Clopidogrel and Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Coronary Stent Placement. J. Thromb. Haemost.8, 250–256. 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03709.x
119
SolomonC.HartmannJ.OsthausA.SchöchlH.RaymondosK.KoppertW.et al (2010). Platelet Concentrates Transfusion in Cardiac Surgery in Relation to Preoperative point-of-care Assessment of Platelet Adhesion and Aggregation. Platelets21, 221–228. 10.3109/09537100903560155
120
StravitzR. T. (2012). Potential Applications of Thromboelastography in Patients with Acute and Chronic Liver Disease. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. (N Y)8, 513–520.
121
SzydzikC.BrazilekR. J.AkbaridoustF.De SilvaC.MoonM.MarusicI.et al (2019). Active Micropump-Mixer for Rapid Antiplatelet Drug Screening in Whole Blood. Anal. Chem.91, 10830–10839. 10.1021/acs.analchem.9b02486
122
TantryU. S.BonelloL.AradiD.PriceM. J.JeongY.-H.AngiolilloD. J.et al (2013). Working Group on On-Treatment Platelet, RConsensus and Update on the Definition of On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity to Adenosine Diphosphate Associated with Ischemia and Bleeding. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.62, 2261–2273. 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.101
123
ThachilJ. (2016). Antiplatelet Therapy - a Summary for the General Physicians. Clin. Med. (Lond)16, 152–160. 10.7861/clinmedicine.16-2-152
124
TingL.FeghhiS.KarchinA.TooleyW.WhiteN. J.SniadeckiN. (2013). Clot-On-A-Chip: A Microfluidic Device to Study Platelet Aggregation and Contractility under Shear. Blood122, 2363. 10.1182/blood.v122.21.2363.2363
125
TingL. H.FeghhiS.TapariaN.SmithA. O.KarchinA.LimE.et al (2019). Contractile Forces in Platelet Aggregates under Microfluidic Shear Gradients Reflect Platelet Inhibition and Bleeding Risk. Nat. Commun.10, 1204. 10.1038/s41467-019-09150-9
126
Tovar-LopezF. J.RosengartenG.WesteinE.KhoshmaneshK.JacksonS. P.MitchellA.et al (2010). A Microfluidics Device to Monitor Platelet Aggregation Dynamics in Response to Strain Rate Micro-gradients in Flowing Blood. Lab. Chip10, 291–302. 10.1039/b916757a
127
TsaiM.KitaA.LeachJ.RounsevellR.HuangJ. N.MoakeJ.et al (2012). In Vitro modeling of the Microvascular Occlusion and Thrombosis that Occur in Hematologic Diseases Using Microfluidic Technology. J. Clin. Invest.122, 408–418. 10.1172/JCI58753
128
Van RooijB. J. M.ZávodszkyG.HoekstraA. G.KuD. N. (2020). Biorheology of Occlusive Thrombi Formation under High Shear: In Vitro Growth and Shrinkage. Sci. Rep.10, 18604. 10.1038/s41598-020-74518-7
129
VarbleN.TrylesinskiG.XiangJ.SnyderK.MengH. (2017). Identification of Vortex Structures in a Cohort of 204 Intracranial Aneurysms. J. R. Soc. Interf.14, 20170021. 10.1098/rsif.2017.0021
130
WalengaJ. M.ThethiI.LewisB. E. (2012). Nonhemostatic Adverse Effects of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelet Agents. Semin. Thromb. Hemost.38, 884–892. 10.1055/s-0032-1325615
131
WesteinE.Van Der MeerA. D.KuijpersM. J.FrimatJ. P.Van Den BergA.HeemskerkJ. W. (2013). Atherosclerotic geometries exacerbate pathological thrombus formation poststenosis in a von Willebrand factor-dependent manner. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A.110, 1357–1362. 10.1073/pnas.1209905110
132
WilliamsC. D.CheralaG.SerebruanyV. (2010). Application of Platelet Function Testing to the Bedside. Thromb. Haemost.103, 29–33. 10.1160/TH09-06-0375
133
YarovoiH. V.KufrinD.EslinD. E.ThorntonM. A.HaberichterS. L.ShiQ.et al (2003). Factor VIII Ectopically Expressed in Platelets: Efficacy in Hemophilia A Treatment. Blood102, 4006–4013. 10.1182/blood-2003-05-1519
134
YinW.ShanmugavelayudamS. K.RubensteinD. A. (2011). The Effect of Physiologically Relevant Dynamic Shear Stress on Platelet and Endothelial Cell Activation. Thromb. Res.127, 235–241. 10.1016/j.thromres.2010.11.021
135
ZakyA. (2017). Thromboelastometry versus Rotational Thromboelastography in Cardiac Surgery. Semin. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth.21, 206–211. 10.1177/1089253217697146
136
ZhangC.NeelameghamS. (2017). Application of Microfluidic Devices in Studies of Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Platelets28, 434–440. 10.1080/09537104.2017.1319047
137
ZhangY.QiuY.BlanchardA. T.ChangY.BrockmanJ. M.MaV. P.et al (2018). Platelet Integrins Exhibit Anisotropic Mechanosensing and Harness Piconewton Forces to Mediate Platelet Aggregation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A.115, 325–330. 10.1073/pnas.1710828115
138
ZhangY.RamasundaraS. Z.Preketes-TardianiR. E.ChengV.LuH.JuL. A. (2021). Emerging Microfluidic Approaches for Platelet Mechanobiology and Interplay with Circulatory Systems. Front. Cardiovasc. Med.8, 766513. 10.3389/fcvm.2021.766513
139
ZhaoY. C.VatankhahP.GohT.MichelisR.KyanianK.ZhangY.et al (2021). Hemodynamic Analysis for Stenosis Microfluidic Model of Thrombosis with Refined Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation. Sci. Rep.11, 6875. 10.1038/s41598-021-86310-2
140
ZhaoY.WetterN. M.WangX. (2019). Imaging Integrin Tension and Cellular Force at Submicron Resolution with an Integrative Tension Sensor. J. Vis. Exp.146. e59476. 10.3791/59476
141
Zilberman-RudenkoJ.SylmanJ. L.LakshmananH. H. S.MccartyO. J. T.MaddalaJ. (2017). Dynamics of Blood Flow and Thrombus Formation in a Multi-Bypass Microfluidic Ladder Network. Cel. Mol. Bioeng.10, 16–29. 10.1007/s12195-016-0470-7
142
ZöllerB.LiX.SundquistJ.SundquistK. (2012). Autoimmune Diseases and Venous Thromboembolism: a Review of the Literature. Am. J. Cardiovasc. Dis.2, 171–183.
Summary
Keywords
microfluidics, thrombosis, platelet, von Willebrand disease, mechanobiology, clopidogrel, aspirin, COVID-19
Citation
Zhang Y, Jiang F, Chen Y and Ju LA (2022) Platelet Mechanobiology Inspired Microdevices: From Hematological Function Tests to Disease and Drug Screening. Front. Pharmacol. 12:779753. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.779753
Received
19 September 2021
Accepted
28 December 2021
Published
20 January 2022
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited by
Si Zhang, Fudan University, China
Reviewed by
Rongrong Liu, Northwestern University, United States
Ming Zhao, Capital Medical University, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Zhang, Jiang, Chen and Ju.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Lining Arnold Ju, arnold.ju@sydney.edu.au
This article was submitted to Experimental Pharmacology and Drug Discovery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.