Cargando…
Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models
In recent years, the need for sophisticated human in vitro models for integrative biology has motivated the development of organ-on-a-chip platforms. Organ-on-a-chip devices are engineered to mimic the mechanical, biochemical and physiological properties of human organs; however, there are many impo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071412/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33921018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi12040441 |
_version_ | 1783683696807641088 |
---|---|
author | Cameron, Tiffany Bennet, Tanya Rowe, Elyn M. Anwer, Mehwish Wellington, Cheryl L. Cheung, Karen C. |
author_facet | Cameron, Tiffany Bennet, Tanya Rowe, Elyn M. Anwer, Mehwish Wellington, Cheryl L. Cheung, Karen C. |
author_sort | Cameron, Tiffany |
collection | PubMed |
description | In recent years, the need for sophisticated human in vitro models for integrative biology has motivated the development of organ-on-a-chip platforms. Organ-on-a-chip devices are engineered to mimic the mechanical, biochemical and physiological properties of human organs; however, there are many important considerations when selecting or designing an appropriate device for investigating a specific scientific question. Building microfluidic Brain-on-a-Chip (BoC) models from the ground-up will allow for research questions to be answered more thoroughly in the brain research field, but the design of these devices requires several choices to be made throughout the design development phase. These considerations include the cell types, extracellular matrix (ECM) material(s), and perfusion/flow considerations. Choices made early in the design cycle will dictate the limitations of the device and influence the end-point results such as the permeability of the endothelial cell monolayer, and the expression of cell type-specific markers. To better understand why the engineering aspects of a microfluidic BoC need to be influenced by the desired biological environment, recent progress in microfluidic BoC technology is compared. This review focuses on perfusable blood–brain barrier (BBB) and neurovascular unit (NVU) models with discussions about the chip architecture, the ECM used, and how they relate to the in vivo human brain. With increased knowledge on how to make informed choices when selecting or designing BoC models, the scientific community will benefit from shorter development phases and platforms curated for their application. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8071412 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80714122021-04-26 Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models Cameron, Tiffany Bennet, Tanya Rowe, Elyn M. Anwer, Mehwish Wellington, Cheryl L. Cheung, Karen C. Micromachines (Basel) Review In recent years, the need for sophisticated human in vitro models for integrative biology has motivated the development of organ-on-a-chip platforms. Organ-on-a-chip devices are engineered to mimic the mechanical, biochemical and physiological properties of human organs; however, there are many important considerations when selecting or designing an appropriate device for investigating a specific scientific question. Building microfluidic Brain-on-a-Chip (BoC) models from the ground-up will allow for research questions to be answered more thoroughly in the brain research field, but the design of these devices requires several choices to be made throughout the design development phase. These considerations include the cell types, extracellular matrix (ECM) material(s), and perfusion/flow considerations. Choices made early in the design cycle will dictate the limitations of the device and influence the end-point results such as the permeability of the endothelial cell monolayer, and the expression of cell type-specific markers. To better understand why the engineering aspects of a microfluidic BoC need to be influenced by the desired biological environment, recent progress in microfluidic BoC technology is compared. This review focuses on perfusable blood–brain barrier (BBB) and neurovascular unit (NVU) models with discussions about the chip architecture, the ECM used, and how they relate to the in vivo human brain. With increased knowledge on how to make informed choices when selecting or designing BoC models, the scientific community will benefit from shorter development phases and platforms curated for their application. MDPI 2021-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8071412/ /pubmed/33921018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi12040441 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Cameron, Tiffany Bennet, Tanya Rowe, Elyn M. Anwer, Mehwish Wellington, Cheryl L. Cheung, Karen C. Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models |
title | Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models |
title_full | Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models |
title_fullStr | Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models |
title_full_unstemmed | Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models |
title_short | Review of Design Considerations for Brain-on-a-Chip Models |
title_sort | review of design considerations for brain-on-a-chip models |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071412/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33921018 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mi12040441 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT camerontiffany reviewofdesignconsiderationsforbrainonachipmodels AT bennettanya reviewofdesignconsiderationsforbrainonachipmodels AT roweelynm reviewofdesignconsiderationsforbrainonachipmodels AT anwermehwish reviewofdesignconsiderationsforbrainonachipmodels AT wellingtoncheryll reviewofdesignconsiderationsforbrainonachipmodels AT cheungkarenc reviewofdesignconsiderationsforbrainonachipmodels |