MEMS in the Market – Design and Market Analysis
Ryan Dempsey, Peter Shanahan, John Richardson, Rachel Weaver, Charles Bloom
Advisors: Franz Baudenbacher, Ph.D.1; Raghav Venkataraman; Paul King, Ph.D.1
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Cost Savings
Device Dimensions
•
•
1. Technology
• Design and fabricate dual cell culture micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) device in
order to allow for multiple experiments on single chip
• Design enclosure in order to allow gas permeability to simulate in-vivo environment
• Design the device to be capable of allowing both nutrient and drug perfusion via
different pathways in order to provide drug testing capabilities
• Design device with pneumatic valves in order to prevent cellular relocation
• Device should hold pico-liter volumes and have channel diameters >30 microns
• Design device to be low cost and disposable
2. Business
• To create a business proposal in order to market our technology to venture capitalists
Background
•
•
•
•
Biological MicroElectroMechanical Systems
(BioMEMS)
MEMS devices are micro-sized devices used in
a wide variety of applications from
automobiles to cell culturing in order to
provide sensor and cultures at a reduced size
Bio-MEMS devices are designed to use very
small volumes which translates to significantly
fewer supplies for experimentation
The significantly fewer supplies and the low
cost of actual devices has potential to
substantially cut costs
Current Method
Establish screening goal of 100 active compounds.
Device Testing
Micro-beads
• A diluted solution of beads was mixed using water
• The solution was then drawn into a syringe
• The syringe was connected to plastic tubing lines
which were then connected to the device inlet
ports
• Following this the bead solution was run through
the device in order to check for structural integrity
and to assure that none of the fluidic lines were
sealed to the underlying glass slide
Large scale bioreactor for experimenation
BioMEMS Cell Culture
Integration of multiple sensors to the cell
culture area for rigorous analysis of cell
metabolism and reaction to drug
• Oxygen sensor
• pH sensor
• CO2 sensor
• Lactate sensor
• Glucose sensor
•
•
Spin Photoresist onto
Silicon Wafer
PHOTORESIST
CURRENT HTS COSTS FOR THIS ASSAY:
(# of compounds screened) x (cost per compound)
= 100,000 x $1.50 = $150,000
ASSAY COSTS USING OUR DEVICE:
(# of compounds screened) x (cost per compound)
= 10,000 x $5.00 = $50,000
Total cost: $150,000
Number of Hits: 100
Total cost: $50,000
Number of Hits: 100
Project Valuation
New, Aftermarket, and Total Unit Sales
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
Market & Demand
New Unit Sales
Aftermarket Sales
Total Unit Sales
6,000,000
2,000,000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
•
•
•
Exposed and Developed
Photoresist
SILICON
•
PDMS
Expect 100 hits with present hit rate of 0.01.
(10,000 compounds) x (.01) = 100 hits
4,000,000
SILICON
PDMS Casting and
Curing
Screen 10,000 compounds
to identify active compounds.
• The NPV of our project is $6,612,618 for the
period between 2001 and 2010.
• Therefore, we should accept the project because
it is profitable.
Device Fabrication
Spin SU-8 photoresist onto silicon wafer
Pre-Bake SU-8
Expose using mask below with UV light
“Post-Exposure” bake
Develop SU-8 photoresist
Hard Bake
Cast and cure PDMS on master
Remove PDMS device from master
Bind upper pneumatic PDMS layer to lower cell
culture PDMS layer using bake
Punch insertion holes for fluidics channels in
PDMS device
Seal entire PDMS device to glass slide using
plasma oxidation
Screen 100,000 compounds
to identify active compounds.
Expect 100 hits with present hit rate of 0.001.
(100,000 compounds) x (.001) = 100 hits
Schematic above shows future direction of device.
Courtesy of Dr. Baudenbacher
Micro-sized BioMEMS device for experimentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Order any 10,000 compounds.
(Internal inventory or vendor.)
Total cost using current HTS method = $ 150,000
Total cost using our bioMEMS device = $ 50,000
TOTAL SAVINGS FOR ONE ASSAY = $ 100,000
Advantages over conventional Petri dish
• Higher cell-to-volume ratio
• MEMS devices can have on-chip sensors unlike Petri dishes
• Allows detection of cell metabolism changes more accurately due to more sensitive
detectors for smaller concentration changes
Advantages over conventional bioreactors
• Conventional bioreactors require large amounts of physical laboratory space which MEMS
devices do not
• Substantially lower cost
• Reduced experimentation setup time
• Reduced sensing time of metabolic activity from smaller volumes
Order any 100,000 compounds.
(Internal inventory or vendor.)
Image of beads flowing through device taken
through Zeiss microscope and digital camera
Future Directions
•
Our BioMEMS Device
Establish screening goal of 100 active compounds.
•
The market for our BioMEMS device
includes companies involved in one of two
related industries: (1) major drug
manufacturing, and (2) drug delivery.
Major pharmaceutical companies spend an
average of $802 million and 10 to 15 years
researching and developing a drug to come
to the market
The following is a list of our device’s
primary design innovation factors that
improve on the most current designs:
• Circular wells to allow user-friendly cell
insertion and perfusion
• Dual-chambers to allow independent
experiments on a single chip
• Disposable and low per-unit cost
Unit cost of our device is approximately $3
per chip (beginning in 2008).
The market potential for lab-on-chip (LOC)
devices used in drug development and
delivery is massive!
Annual Net Cash Flow
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
Net Cash Flow
Objectives
Our device increases cost savings by…
• Increasing the hit rate of discovered compounds
• Reducing # of ordered compounds for testing
• Reducing reagent cost
Cell culture = 600 x 600 um
Perfusion channels
• Maximum = 200 microns
• Minimum = 100 microns
Annual Sales (units)
1
Markets for microfluidic devices
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
($2,000,000)
Year
Corporate Environment
Current drug development costs
• The market is young and fragmented
• The top five companies account for
approximately 48% of the total LOC market
in 2004.
• Caliper, Cephoid, Agilent, Combimatrix,
and Nanogen Inc.
• Initially, our forecast market share = 1%
Company
LOC Device Name(s)
Market
Share
Public/Private
Caliper Life
Sciences
LabChip
17%
Public
Cepheid
SmartCycler; GeneXpert
10%
Private
Agilent
Technologies
HPLC Chip; 2100
Bioanalyzer; 5100
Automated LOC
9%
Public
CombiMatrix
Corp.
CustomArray
7%
Public
Nanogen, Inc.
NanoChip
5%
Public
SILICON
Market Barriers
Release and Bind
PDMS
AutoCad drawings of actual
masks used for fabrication
with the device on left and
pneumatic valves on right.
•
GLASS
Courtesy of Raghav Venkataraman
United States Microfluidics/LOC revenue forecasts 2004-2012
The most significant barriers to market entry include:
• Interfacing concerns: nano- versus macro• Lack of silicon flexibility
• Replacing old systems with new technologies
• Lack of BioMEMS technological standard
• Government regulation (Class I device)





Our device has great potential in the market
Market share is anyone’s “game”
Cell-scaled beads can correctly perfuse
The future of our device’s design will be in bio-sensing.
We can now pass our project on to future design groups to add bio-sensors to our design