New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

How to Hijack A Cell

Taking control of cells by squeezing them

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

If we could somehow make our own cells do our bidding, they might manufacture insulin, attack tumors and do other helpful things. But hijacking a cell is not easy. Current methods entail penetrating the cell walls with a virus, which tends to inflict permanent damage.

In 2009 researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology solved this problem, by accident. The researchers were playing around with a method of implanting cells with large molecules and nanomaterials using a microscopic water gun. Mainly, they were trying to get things inside a cell—the sorts of things that might alter a cell's behavior while keeping it alive. Chemical engineer Armon Sharei noticed that some of the water-shot cells became momentarily misshapen, and while they were, the material was getting inside them. “It turns out if you deform a cell fast enough, you can temporarily break down its membrane,” Sharei says. The water gun was too crude a tool, however. They needed a gentler way to squeeze cells.

Sharei, working under Klavs F. Jensen, a founder of the field of microfluidics, and biotech pioneer Robert S. Langer, developed a silicon-and-glass microchip that is etched with channels through which cells flow. The channels narrow gradually, until the gap tapers into a space slimmer than the cells themselves. The squeezed cells are supple, and they force their way through. In the process, temporary holes form in the cell membrane. The holes are tiny but wide enough to let in a variety of behavior-altering agents, including proteins, nucleic acids and carbon nanotubes. The technique works even on stem and immune cells, which were too sensitive to be manipulated using previous methods. “We were taken aback by how many cells this approach could apply to,” Sharei says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Since the initial discovery, the group has developed 16 different chips with channel arrays designed to squeeze different cells. More chips are coming, and the device, which can already process 500,000 cells a second, continues to get faster and more efficient. The group has started a company to commercialize the technology—called SQZ Biotech—and scientists in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the U.K. will soon be using its products.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe