1932

Abstract

Enhancing the early detection of new therapies that are likely to carry a safety liability in the context of the intended patient population would provide a major advance in drug discovery. Microphysiological systems (MPS) technology offers an opportunity to support enhanced preclinical to clinical translation through the generation of higher-quality preclinical physiological data. In this review, we highlight this technological opportunity by focusing on key target organs associated with drug safety and metabolism. By focusing on MPS models that have been developed for these organs, alongside other relevant in vitro models, we review the current state of the art and the challenges that still need to be overcome to ensure application of this technology in enhancing drug discovery.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052722
2018-01-06
2024-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/pharmtox/58/1/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052722.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052722&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J. 1.  2014. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:40–51 [Google Scholar]
  2. Kola I, Landis J. 2.  2004. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3:711–15 [Google Scholar]
  3. Hornberg JJ, Laursen M, Brenden N, Persson M, Thougaard AV. 3.  et al. 2014. Exploratory toxicology as an integrated part of drug discovery. Part II: screening strategies. Drug Discov. Today 19:1137–44 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhatia SN, Ingber DE. 4.  2014. Microfluidic organs-on-chips. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:760–72 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ewart L, Fabre K, Chakilam A, Dragan Y, Duignan DB. 5.  et al. 2017. Navigating tissue chips from development to dissemination: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Exp. Biol. Med. 242:1579–85 [Google Scholar]
  6. Schuster D, Laggner C, Langer T. 6.  2005. Why drugs fail—a study on side effects in new chemical entities. Curr. Pharm. Des. 11:3545–59 [Google Scholar]
  7. Laverty H, Benson C, Cartwright E, Cross M, Garland C. 7.  et al. 2011. How can we improve our understanding of cardiovascular safety liabilities to develop safer medicines?. Br. J. Pharmacol. 163:675–93 [Google Scholar]
  8. Wilkening S, Stahl F, Bader A. 8.  2003. Comparison of primary human hepatocytes and hepatoma cell line Hepg2 with regard to their biotransformation properties. Drug Metab. Dispos. 31:1035–42 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gerets HHJ, Tilmant K, Gerin B, Chanteux H, Depelchin BO. 9.  et al. 2012. Characterization of primary human hepatocytes, HepG2 cells, and HepaRG cells at the mRNA level and CYP activity in response to inducers and their predictivity for the detection of human hepatotoxins. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 28:69–87 [Google Scholar]
  10. Sison-Young RL, Lauschke VM, Johann E, Alexandre E, Anthérieu S. 10.  et al. 2016. A multicenter assessment of single-cell models aligned to standard measures of cell health for prediction of acute hepatotoxicity. Arch. Toxicol. 91:1385–400 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gómez-Lechón MJ, Tolosa L, Conde I, Donato MT. 11.  2014. Competency of different cell models to predict human hepatotoxic drugs. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 10:1553–68 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lauschke VM, Vorrink SU, Moro SM, Rezayee F, Nordling A. 12.  et al. 2016. Massive rearrangements of cellular microRNA signatures are key drivers of hepatocyte dedifferentiation. Hepatology 64:1743–56 [Google Scholar]
  13. Heslop JA, Rowe C, Walsh J, Sison-Young R, Jenkins R. 13.  et al. 2017. Mechanistic evaluation of primary human hepatocyte culture using global proteomic analysis reveals a selective dedifferentiation profile. Arch. Toxicol. 91:439–52 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lauschke VM, Hendriks DF, Bell CC, Andersson TB, Ingelman-Sundberg M. 14.  2016. Novel 3D culture systems for studies of human liver function and assessments of the hepatotoxicity of drugs and drug candidates. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29:1936–55 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Bruyn T, Chatterjee S, Fattah S, Keemink J, Nicolai J. 15.  et al. 2013. Sandwich-cultured hepatocytes: utility for in vitro exploration of hepatobiliary drug disposition and drug-induced hepatotoxicity. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 9:589–616 [Google Scholar]
  16. Swift B, Pfeifer ND, Brouwer KL. 16.  2010. Sandwich-cultured hepatocytes: an in vitro model to evaluate hepatobiliary transporter-based drug interactions and hepatotoxicity. Drug Metab. Rev. 42:446–71 [Google Scholar]
  17. Rowe C, Gerrard DT, Jenkins R, Berry A, Durkin K. 17.  et al. 2013. Proteome-wide analyses of human hepatocytes during differentiation and dedifferentiation. Hepatology 58:799–809 [Google Scholar]
  18. Tostões RM, Leite SB, Serra M, Jensen J, Björquist P. 18.  et al. 2012. Human liver cell spheroids in extended perfusion bioreactor culture for repeated-dose drug testing. Hepatology 55:1227–36 [Google Scholar]
  19. Messner S, Agarkova I, Moritz W, Kelm JM. 19.  2013. Multi-cell type human liver microtissues for hepatotoxicity testing. Arch. Toxicol. 87:209–13 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bell CC, Hendriks DF, Moro SM, Ellis E, Walsh J. 20.  et al. 2016. Characterization of primary human hepatocyte spheroids as a model system for drug-induced liver injury, liver function and disease. Sci. Rep. 6:25187 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bell CC, Lauschke VM, Vorrink SU, Palmgren H, Duffin R. 21.  et al. 2017. Transcriptional, functional and mechanistic comparisons of stem cell-derived hepatocytes, HepaRG cells and 3D human hepatocyte spheroids as predictive in vitro systems for drug-induced liver injury. Drug Metab. Dispos. 45:419–29 [Google Scholar]
  22. Godoy P, Hewitt NJ, Albrecht U, Andersen ME, Ansari N. 22.  et al. 2013. Recent advances in 2D and 3D in vitro systems using primary hepatocytes, alternative hepatocyte sources and non-parenchymal liver cells and their use in investigating mechanisms of hepatotoxicity, cell signaling and ADME. Arch. Toxicol. 87:1315–530 [Google Scholar]
  23. Desai SS, Tung JC, Zhou VX, Grenert JP, Malato Y. 23.  et al. 2016. Physiological ranges of matrix rigidity modulate primary mouse hepatocyte function in part through hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha. Hepatology 64:261–75 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hendriks DF, Fredriksson Puigvert L, Messner S, Mortiz W, Ingelman-Sundberg M. 24.  2016. Hepatic 3D spheroid models for the detection and study of compounds with cholestatic liability. Sci. Rep. 6:35434 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dash A, Simmers MB, Deering TG, Berry DJ, Feaver RE. 25.  et al. 2013. Hemodynamic flow improves rat hepatocyte morphology, function, and metabolic activity in vitro. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 304:C1053–63 [Google Scholar]
  26. Zeilinger K, Schreiter T, Darnell M, Soderdahl T, Lubberstedt M. 26.  et al. 2011. Scaling down of a clinical three-dimensional perfusion multicompartment hollow fiber liver bioreactor developed for extracorporeal liver support to an analytical scale device useful for hepatic pharmacological in vitro studies. Tissue Eng. Part C Methods 17:549–56 [Google Scholar]
  27. Darnell M, Ulvestad M, Ellis E, Weidolf L, Andersson TB. 27.  2012. In vitro evaluation of major in vivo drug metabolic pathways using primary human hepatocytes and HepaRG cells in suspension and a dynamic three-dimensional bioreactor system. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 343:134–44 [Google Scholar]
  28. Khetani SR, Bhatia SN. 28.  2008. Microscale culture of human liver cells for drug development. Nat. Biotechnol. 26:120–26 [Google Scholar]
  29. Khetani SR, Kanchagar C, Ukairo O, Krzyzewski S, Moore A. 29.  et al. 2013. Use of micropatterned cocultures to detect compounds that cause drug-induced liver injury in humans. Toxicol. Sci. 132:107–17 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nguyen TV, Ukairo O, Khetani SR, McVay M, Kanchagar C. 30.  et al. 2015. Establishment of a hepatocyte-Kupffer cell coculture model for assessment of proinflammatory cytokine effects on metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters. Drug Metab. Dispos. 43:774–85 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bhushan A, Senutovitch N, Bale SS, McCarty WJ, Hegde M. 31.  et al. 2013. Towards a three-dimensional microfluidic liver platform for predicting drug efficacy and toxicity in humans. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 4:Suppl. 1S16 [Google Scholar]
  32. Vernetti LA, Senutovitch N, Boltz R, DeBiasio R, Shun TY. 32.  et al. 2016. A human liver microphysiology platform for investigating physiology, drug safety, and disease models. Exp. Biol. Med. 241:101–14 [Google Scholar]
  33. Vernetti LA, Vogt A, Gough A, Taylor DL. 33.  2017. Evolution of experimental models of the liver to predict human drug hepatotoxicity and efficacy. Clin. Liver Dis. 21:197–214 [Google Scholar]
  34. Turner RM, Park BK, Pirmohamed M. 34.  2015. Parsing interindividual drug variability: an emerging role for systems pharmacology. WIREs Syst. Biol. Med. 7:221–41 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lauschke VM, Ingelman-Sundberg M. 35.  2016. The importance of patient-specific factors for hepatic drug response and toxicity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17:10 [Google Scholar]
  36. Vorrink SU, Ullah S, Schmidt S, Nandania J, Velagapudi V. 36.  et al. 2017. Endogenous and xenobiotic metabolic stability of primary human hepatocytes in long-term 3D spheroid cultures revealed by a combination of targeted and untargeted metabolomics. FASEB J 31:2696–708 [Google Scholar]
  37. Davidson MD, Ballinger KR, Khetani SR. 37.  2016. Long-term exposure to abnormal glucose levels alters drug metabolism pathways and insulin sensitivity in primary human hepatocytes. Sci. Rep. 6:28178 [Google Scholar]
  38. Braunersreuther V, Viviani GL, Mach F, Montecucco F. 38.  2012. Role of cytokines and chemokines in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J. Gastroenterol. 18:727–35 [Google Scholar]
  39. Leite SB, Roosens T, El Taghdouini A, Mannaerts I, Smout AJ. 39.  et al. 2016. Novel human hepatic organoid model enables testing of drug-induced liver fibrosis in vitro. Biomaterials 78:1–10 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kimes BW, Brandt BL. 40.  1976. Properties of a clonal muscle cell line from rat heart. Exp. Cell Res. 98:367–81 [Google Scholar]
  41. Claycomb WC, Lanson NA Jr., Stallworth BS, Egeland DB, Delcarpio JB. 41.  et al. 1998. HL-1 cells: a cardiac muscle cell line that contracts and retains phenotypic characteristics of the adult cardiomyocyte. PNAS 95:2979–84 [Google Scholar]
  42. Guo L, Abrams RM, Babiarz JE, Cohen JD, Kameoka S. 42.  et al. 2011. Estimating the risk of drug-induced proarrhythmia using human induced pluripotent stem cell–derived cardiomyocytes. Toxicol. Sci. 123:281–89 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mummery C, Ward-van Oostwaard D, Doevendans P, Spijker R, van den Brink S. 43.  et al. 2003. Differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to cardiomyocytes: role of coculture with visceral endoderm-like cells. Circulation 107:2733–40 [Google Scholar]
  44. Scott CW, Peters MF, Dragan YP. 44.  2013. Human induced pluripotent stem cells and their use in drug discovery for toxicity testing. Toxicol. Lett. 219:49–58 [Google Scholar]
  45. Beauchamp P, Moritz W, Kelm JM, Ullrich ND, Agarkova I. 45.  et al. 2015. Development and characterization of a scaffold-free 3D spheroid model of induced pluripotent stem cell-derived human cardiomyocytes. Tissue Eng. Part C Methods 21:852–61 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pointon A, Pilling J, Dorval T, Wang Y, Archer C, Pollard C. 46.  2017. High-throughput imaging of cardiac microtissues for the assessment of cardiac contraction during drug discovery. Toxicol. Sci. 155:444–57 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tan Y, Richards D, Coyle RC, Yao J, Xu R. 47.  et al. 2017. Cell number per spheroid and electrical conductivity of nanowires influence the function of silicon nanowired human cardiac spheroids. Acta Biomater 51:495–504 [Google Scholar]
  48. Ravenscroft SM, Pointon A, Williams AW, Cross MJ, Sidaway JE. 48.  2016. Cardiac non-myocyte cells show enhanced pharmacological function suggestive of contractile maturity in stem cell derived cardiomyocyte microtissues. Toxicol. Sci. 152:99–112 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zimmermann WH, Melnychenko I, Wasmeier G, Didie M, Naito H. 49.  et al. 2006. Engineered heart tissue grafts improve systolic and diastolic function in infarcted rat hearts. Nat. Med. 12:452–58 [Google Scholar]
  50. Radisic M, Park H, Shing H, Consi T, Schoen FJ. 50.  et al. 2004. Functional assembly of engineered myocardium by electrical stimulation of cardiac myocytes cultured on scaffolds. PNAS 101:18129–34 [Google Scholar]
  51. Naito H, Melnychenko I, Didie M, Schneiderbanger K, Schubert P. 51.  et al. 2006. Optimizing engineered heart tissue for therapeutic applications as surrogate heart muscle. Circulation 114:I72–78 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lind JU, Busbee TA, Valentine AD, Pasqualini FS, Yuan H. 52.  et al. 2016. Instrumented cardiac microphysiological devices via multimaterial three-dimensional printing. Nat. Mater. 16:303–8 [Google Scholar]
  53. Godier-Furnemont AF, Tiburcy M, Wagner E, Dewenter M, Lammle S. 53.  et al. 2015. Physiologic force-frequency response in engineered heart muscle by electromechanical stimulation. Biomaterials 60:82–91 [Google Scholar]
  54. Eng G, Lee BW, Protas L, Gagliardi M, Brown K. 54.  et al. 2016. Autonomous beating rate adaptation in human stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. Nat. Commun. 7:10312 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mathur A, Loskill P, Shao K, Huebsch N, Hong S. 55.  et al. 2015. Human iPSC-based cardiac microphysiological system for drug screening applications. Sci. Rep. 5:8883 [Google Scholar]
  56. Nunes SS, Miklas JW, Liu J, Aschar-Sobbi R, Xiao Y. 56.  et al. 2013. Biowire: a platform for maturation of human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes. Nat. Methods 10:781–87 [Google Scholar]
  57. Schaaf S, Shibamiya A, Mewe M, Eder A, Stohr A. 57.  et al. 2011. Human engineered heart tissue as a versatile tool in basic research and preclinical toxicology. PLOS ONE 6:e26397 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zimmermann WH, Fink C, Kralisch D, Remmers U, Weil J, Eschenhagen T. 58.  2000. Three-dimensional engineered heart tissue from neonatal rat cardiac myocytes. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 68:106–14 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stancescu M, Molnar P, McAleer CW, McLamb W, Long CJ. 59.  et al. 2015. A phenotypic in vitro model for the main determinants of human whole heart function. Biomaterials 60:20–30 [Google Scholar]
  60. Huebsch N, Loskill P, Deveshwar N, Spencer CI, Judge LM. 60.  et al. 2016. Miniaturized iPS-cell-derived cardiac muscles for physiologically relevant drug response analyses. Sci. Rep. 6:24726 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tiburcy M, Hudson JE, Balfanz P, Schlick SF, Meyer T. 61.  et al. 2017. Defined engineered human myocardium with advanced maturation for applications in heart failure modelling and repair. Circulation 135:1832–47 [Google Scholar]
  62. Jang KJ, Suh KY. 62.  2010. A multi-layer microfluidic device for efficient culture and analysis of renal tubular cells. Lab Chip 10:36–42 [Google Scholar]
  63. Weber EJ, Chapron A, Chapron BD, Voellinger JL, Lidberg KA. 63.  et al. 2016. Development of a microphysiological model of human kidney proximal tubule function. Kidney Int 90:627–37 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wilmer MJ, Ng CP, Lanz HL, Vulto P, Suter-Dick L, Masereeuw R. 64.  2016. Kidney-on-a-chip technology for drug-induced nephrotoxicity screening. Trends Biotechnol 34:156–70 [Google Scholar]
  65. Davidman M, Olson P, Kohen J, Leither T, Kjellstrand C. 65.  1991. Iatrogenic renal disease. Arch. Intern. Med. 151:1809–12 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sharif-Askari FS, Syed Sulaiman SA, Sharif-Askari NS, Al Sayed Hussain A. 66.  2014. Development of an adverse drug reaction risk assessment score among hospitalized patients with chronic kidney disease. PLOS ONE 9:e95991 [Google Scholar]
  67. Morrissey KM, Stocker SL, Wittwer MB, Xu L, Giacomini KM. 67.  2013. Renal transporters in drug development. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 53:503–29 [Google Scholar]
  68. Basile DP, Anderson MD, Sutton TA. 68.  2012. Pathophysiology of acute kidney injury. Compr. Physiol. 2:1303–53 [Google Scholar]
  69. Jenkinson SE, Chung GW, van Loon E, Bakar NS, Dalzell AM, Brown CDA. 69.  2012. The limitations of renal epithelial cell line HK-2 as a model of drug transporter expression and function in the proximal tubule. Pflügers Arch 464:601–11 [Google Scholar]
  70. Brown CDA, Sayer R, Windass AS, Haslam IS, De Broe ME. 70.  et al. 2008. Characterisation of human tubular cell monolayers as a model of proximal tubular xenobiotic handling. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 233:428–38 [Google Scholar]
  71. Jang KJ, Mehr AP, Hamilton GA, McPartlin LA, Chung S. 71.  et al. 2013. Human kidney proximal tubule-on-a-chip for drug transport and nephrotoxicity assessment. Integr. Biol. 5:1119–29 [Google Scholar]
  72. Kim S, LesherPerez SC, Kim BCC, Yamanishi C, Labuz JM. 72.  et al. 2016. Pharmacokinetic profile that reduces nephrotoxicity of gentamicin in a perfused kidney-on-a-chip. Biofabrication 8:015021 [Google Scholar]
  73. BéruBé K, Prytherch Z, Job C, Hughes T. 73.  2010. Human primary bronchial lung cell constructs: the new respiratory models. Toxicology 278:311–18 [Google Scholar]
  74. Huh D, Matthews BD, Mammoto A, Montoya-Zavala M, Hsin HY, Ingber DE. 74.  2010. Reconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip. Science 328:1662–68 [Google Scholar]
  75. Huh D, Leslie DC, Matthews BD, Fraser JP, Jurek S. 75.  et al. 2012. A human disease model of drug toxicity–induced pulmonary edema in a lung-on-a-chip microdevice. Sci. Transl. Med. 4:159ra47 [Google Scholar]
  76. Stucki AO, Stucki JD, Hall SR, Felder M, Mermoud Y. 76.  et al. 2015. A lung-on-a-chip array with an integrated bio-inspired respiration mechanism. Lab Chip 15:1302–10 [Google Scholar]
  77. Bhowmick R, Gappa-Fahlenkamp H. 77.  2016. Cells and culture systems used to model the small airway epithelium. Lung 194:419–28 [Google Scholar]
  78. Prytherch Z, Job C, Marshall H, Oreffo V, Foster M, BéruBé K. 78.  2011. Tissue-specific stem cell differentiation in an in vitro airway model. Macromol. Biosci. 11:1467–77 [Google Scholar]
  79. Blume C, Reale R, Held M, Millar TM, Collins JE. 79.  et al. 2015. Temporal monitoring of differentiated human airway epithelial cells using microfluidics. PLOS ONE 10:e0139872 [Google Scholar]
  80. Benam KH, Novak R, Nawroth J, Hirano-Kobayashi M, Ferrante TC. 80.  et al. 2016. Matched-comparative modeling of normal and diseased human airway responses using a microengineered breathing lung chip. Cell Syst 3:456–66.e4 [Google Scholar]
  81. Nesmith AP, Agarwal A, McCain ML, Parker KK. 81.  2014. Human airway musculature on a chip: an in vitro model of allergic asthmatic bronchoconstriction and bronchodilation. Lab Chip 14:3925–36 [Google Scholar]
  82. Sommer F, Backhed F. 82.  2013. The gut microbiota—masters of host development and physiology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 11:227–38 [Google Scholar]
  83. Groschwitz KR, Hogan SP. 83.  2009. Intestinal barrier function: molecular regulation and disease pathogenesis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 124:3–20 [Google Scholar]
  84. Wagoner M, Kelsal J, Hattersley M, Hickling K, Pederson J. 84.  et al. 2014. Bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) domain inhibitors induce a loss of intestinal stem cells and villous atrophy. Toxicol. Lett. 229:Suppl.S75–76 [Google Scholar]
  85. Sato T, Vries RG, Snippert HJ, van de Wetering M, Barker N. 85.  et al. 2009. Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt–villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature 459:262–65 [Google Scholar]
  86. Wang L, Llorente C, Hartmann P, Yang AM, Chen P, Schnabl B. 86.  2015. Methods to determine intestinal permeability and bacterial translocation during liver disease. J. Immunol. Methods 421:44–53 [Google Scholar]
  87. Shah P, Fritz JV, Glaab E, Desai MS, Greenhalgh K. 87.  et al. 2016. A microfluidics-based in vitro model of the gastrointestinal human-microbe interface. Nat. Commun. 7:11535 [Google Scholar]
  88. Kim HJ, Ingber DE. 88.  2013. Gut-on-a-Chip microenvironment induces human intestinal cells to undergo villus differentiation. Integr. Biol. 5:1130–40 [Google Scholar]
  89. Kim HJ, Li H, Collins JJ, Ingber DE. 89.  2016. Contributions of microbiome and mechanical deformation to intestinal bacterial overgrowth and inflammation in a human gut-on-a-chip. PNAS 113:E7–15 [Google Scholar]
  90. Desprez B, Barroso J, Griesinger C, Kandarova H, Alepee N, Fuchs HW. 90.  2015. Two novel prediction models improve predictions of skin corrosive sub-categories by test methods of OECD Test Guideline No. 431. Toxicol. Vitro 29:2055–80 [Google Scholar]
  91. Groeber F, Schober L, Schmid FF, Traube A, Kolbus-Hernandez S. 91.  et al. 2016. Catch-up validation study of an in vitro skin irritation test method based on an open source reconstructed epidermis (Phase II). Toxicol. Vitro 36:254–61 [Google Scholar]
  92. Ackermann K, Borgia SL, Korting HC, Mewes KR, Schafer-Korting M. 92.  2010. The Phenion full-thickness skin model for percutaneous absorption testing. Skin Pharmacol. Physiol. 23:105–12 [Google Scholar]
  93. Reijnders CM, van Lier A, Roffel S, Kramer D, Scheper RJ, Gibbs S. 93.  2015. Development of a full-thickness human skin equivalent in vitro model derived from TERT-immortalized keratinocytes and fibroblasts. Tissue Eng. Part A 21:2448–59 [Google Scholar]
  94. Boelsma E, Gibbs S, Faller C, Ponec M. 94.  2000. Characterization and comparison of reconstructed skin models: morphological and immunohistochemical evaluation. Acta Derm. Venereol. 80:82–88 [Google Scholar]
  95. Mori N, Morimoto Y, Takeuchi S. 95.  2017. Skin integrated with perfusable vascular channels on a chip. Biomaterials 116:48–56 [Google Scholar]
  96. Abaci HE, Gledhill K, Guo Z, Christiano AM, Shuler ML. 96.  2015. Pumpless microfluidic platform for drug testing on human skin equivalents. Lab Chip 15:882–88 [Google Scholar]
  97. Atac B, Wagner I, Horland R, Lauster R, Marx U. 97.  et al. 2013. Skin and hair on-a-chip: in vitro skin models versus ex vivo tissue maintenance with dynamic perfusion. Lab Chip 13:3555–61 [Google Scholar]
  98. Bergers LI, Reijnders CM, van den Broek LJ, Spiekstra SW, de Gruijl TD. 98.  et al. 2016. Immune-competent human skin disease models. Drug Discov. Today 21:1479–88 [Google Scholar]
  99. Viravaidya K, Sin A, Shuler ML. 99.  2004. Development of a microscale cell culture analog to probe naphthalene toxicity. Biotechnol. Prog. 20:316–23 [Google Scholar]
  100. Kim JY, Fluri DA, Kelm JM, Hierlemann A, Frey O. 100.  2015. 96-Well format-based microfluidic platform for parallel interconnection of multiple multicellular spheroids. J. Lab. Autom. 20:274–82 [Google Scholar]
  101. Mahler GJ, Esch MB, Glahn RP, Shuler ML. 101.  2009. Characterization of a gastrointestinal tract microscale cell culture analog used to predict drug toxicity. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 104:193–205 [Google Scholar]
  102. Wagner I, Materne EM, Brincker S, Sussbier U, Fradrich C. 102.  et al. 2013. A dynamic multi-organ-chip for long-term cultivation and substance testing proven by 3D human liver and skin tissue co-culture. Lab Chip 13:3538–47 [Google Scholar]
  103. Maschmeyer I, Lorenz AK, Schimek K, Hasenberg T, Ramme AP. 103.  et al. 2015. A four-organ-chip for interconnected long-term co-culture of human intestine, liver, skin and kidney equivalents. Lab Chip 15:2688–99 [Google Scholar]
  104. Coppeta JR, Mescher MJ, Isenberg BC, Spencer AJ, Kim ES. 104.  et al. 2016. A portable and reconfigurable multi-organ platform for drug development with onboard microfluidic flow control. Lab Chip 17:134–44 [Google Scholar]
  105. Sung JH, Kam C, Shuler ML. 105.  2010. A microfluidic device for a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model on a chip. Lab Chip 10:446–55 [Google Scholar]
  106. Miller PG, Shuler ML. 106.  2016. Design and demonstration of a pumpless 14 compartment microphysiological system. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 113:2213–27 [Google Scholar]
  107. Wang X, Phan DTT, Sobrino A, George SC, Hughes CCW, Lee AP. 107.  2016. Engineering anastomosis between living capillary networks and endothelial cell-lined microfluidic channels. Lab Chip 16:282–90 [Google Scholar]
  108. Kim S, Lee H, Chung M, Jeon NL. 108.  2013. Engineering of functional, perfusable 3D microvascular networks on a chip. Lab Chip 13:1489–500 [Google Scholar]
  109. Hasenberg T, Mühleder S, Dotzler A, Bauer S, Labuda K. 109.  et al. 2015. Emulating human microcapillaries in a multi-organ-chip platform. J. Biotechnol. 216:1–10 [Google Scholar]
  110. Schimek K, Busek M, Brincker S, Groth B, Hoffmann S. 110.  et al. 2013. Integrating biological vasculature into a multi-organ-chip microsystem. Lab Chip 13:3588–98 [Google Scholar]
  111. Marx U, Andersson TB, Bahinski A, Beilmann M, Beken S. 111.  et al. 2016. Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing. ALTEX 33:272–321 [Google Scholar]
  112. Oleaga C, Bernabini C, Smith AS, Srinivasan B, Jackson M. 112.  et al. 2016. Multi-organ toxicity demonstration in a functional human in vitro system composed of four organs. Sci. Rep. 6:20030 [Google Scholar]
  113. Wikswo JP, Curtis EL, Eagleton ZE, Evans BC, Kole A. 113.  et al. 2013. Scaling and systems biology for integrating multiple organs-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 13:3496–511 [Google Scholar]
  114. Sung JH, Srinivasan B, Esch MB, McLamb WT, Bernabini C. 114.  et al. 2014. Using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic-guided “body-on-a-chip” systems to predict mammalian response to drug and chemical exposure. Exp. Biol. Med. 239:1225–39 [Google Scholar]
  115. Stokes CL, Cirit M, Lauffenburger DA. 115.  2015. Physiome-on-a-chip: the challenge of “scaling” in design, operation, and translation of microphysiological systems. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 4:559–62 [Google Scholar]
  116. Tourlomousis F, Chang RC. 116.  2016. Numerical investigation of dynamic microorgan devices as drug screening platforms. Part II: microscale modeling approach and validation. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 113:623–34 [Google Scholar]
  117. Tsamandouras N, Kostrzewski T, Stokes CL, Griffith LG, Hughes DJ, Cirit M. 117.  2017. Quantitative assessment of population variability in hepatic drug metabolism using a perfused three-dimensional human liver microphysiological system. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 360:95–105 [Google Scholar]
  118. Leclerc E, Hamon J, Bois FY. 118.  2016. Investigation of ifosfamide and chloroacetaldehyde renal toxicity through integration of in vitro liver–kidney microfluidic data and pharmacokinetic-system biology models. J. Appl. Toxicol. 36:330–39 [Google Scholar]
  119. Shintu L, Baudoin R, Navratil V, Prot JM, Pontoizeau C. 119.  et al. 2012. Metabolomics-on-a-chip and predictive systems toxicology in microfluidic bioartificial organs. Anal. Chem. 84:1840–48 [Google Scholar]
  120. Lee H, Kim DS, Ha SK, Choi I, Lee JM, Sung JH. 120.  2017. A pumpless multi-organ-on-a-chip (MOC) combined with a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 114:432–43 [Google Scholar]
  121. Yu J, Cilfone NA, Large EM, Sarkar U, Wishnok JS. 121.  et al. 2015. Quantitative systems pharmacology approaches applied to microphysiological systems (MPS): data interpretation and multi-MPS integration. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 4:585–94 [Google Scholar]
  122. Kelly EJ, Wang Z, Voellinger JL, Yeung CK, Shen DD. 122.  et al. 2013. Innovations in preclinical biology: ex vivo engineering of a human kidney tissue microperfusion system. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 4:Suppl. 1S17 [Google Scholar]
  123. Rebelo SP, Dehne EM, Brito C, Horland R, Alves PM, Marx U. 123.  2016. Validation of bioreactor and human-on-a-chip devices for chemical safety assessment. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 856:299–316 [Google Scholar]
  124. Huh D, Hamilton GA, Ingber DE. 124.  2011. From 3D cell culture to organs-on-chips. Trends Cell Biol 21:745–54 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052722
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052722
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error