| Literature DB >> 33802208 |
J Ponmozhi1, S Dhinakaran2, Zsófia Varga-Medveczky3, Katalin Fónagy3, Luca Anna Bors3,4, Kristóf Iván3, Franciska Erdő3.
Abstract
There is increasing interest in miniaturized technologies in diagnostics, therapeutic testing, and biomedicinal fundamental research. The same is true for the dermal studies in topical drug development, dermatological disease pathology testing, and cosmetic science. This review aims to collect the recent scientific literature and knowledge about the application of skin-on-a-chip technology in drug diffusion studies, in pharmacological and toxicological experiments, in wound healing, and in fields of cosmetic science (ageing or repair). The basic mathematical models are also presented in the article to predict physical phenomena, such as fluid movement, drug diffusion, and heat transfer taking place across the dermal layers in the chip using Computational Fluid Dynamics techniques. Soon, it can be envisioned that animal studies might be at least in part replaced with skin-on-a-chip technology leading to more reliable results close to study on humans. The new technology is a cost-effective alternative to traditional methods used in research institutes, university labs, and industry. With this article, the authors would like to call attention to a new investigational family of platforms to refresh the researchers' theranostics and preclinical, experimental toolbox.Entities:
Keywords: CFD; dermal barrier; drug diffusion through the skin; heat transfer; mathematical modelling; membranes; reconstructed skins; shear stress; skin; skin-on-a-chip device
Year: 2021 PMID: 33802208 PMCID: PMC8001759 DOI: 10.3390/mi12030294
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Chart showing the different factors to be considered in the case of skin-on-a-chip platforms.
Figure 2The anatomical structure of human skin.
Membranes used in diffusion studies as a surrogate of excised skins [9].
| Membranes | Materials | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silicon based | Silastic, Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), | Cost effective, | Fails to incorporate components like metabolism, distribution, and excretion |
| Cellulose-based | Pure cellulose, | Cost effective, | Fails to incorporate components like metabolism, distribution, and excretion, lubrication is needed, not lipophilic |
| Synthetic polymer based | Nylon (aliphatic polyamides) (hydrophobic), polysulfone, polycarbonates (high flux membranes) | Low protein binding, chemical inertness, | Higher cost, lower availability, fails to incorporate components like metabolism, distribution, and excretion |
| Strat-M® | Multilayer polyester sulfone | Multiple layers with different permeability | Fails to incorporate components like metabolism, distribution, and excretion |
| Chitosan | Chitosan-alginate | Porosity can be varied based on molecular weight and origin (fungal or animal) | Fails to incorporate components like metabolism, distribution, and excretion |
Figure 3A Strat-M® membrane and the representation of different layers.
Figure 4Parallel Artificial Membrane Permeability Assay (PAMPA) 96-well setup (left); a single well of PAMPA (right).
Characteristics of skins of different species (modified from Liu et al., 2009 [32]).
| Mouse | Rat | Porcine | Human | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skin thickness | 0.4–1 mm | 1–2 mm | 1.5–2 mm | 2–3 mm |
| Epidermal thickness | 9.4–13.3 µm | 21.7 µm | 52–100 µm | 50–100 µm |
| Stratum corneum | 2.9 µm | 5 µm | 12.28 µm | 10–12.5 µm |
| Fixed skin | no | no | Yes | Yes |
| Hair follicles | 658 hairs/cm2 | 289 hairs/cm2 | 11 hairs/cm2 | 11 hairs/cm2 |
| Sources | laboratory animals | laboratory animals | veterinary education, | cadaver, |
These skin models are commercially available [35,36,37]. They are mostly used in the areas such as skin irritancy corrosivity testing, phototoxicity, tissue replacement in burns and bruises, and transdermal permeation studies.
| Reconstructed Human Epidermis Models (RHE) | Full-Thickness Human Skin Models (LSE) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EpiDerm | MatTek Corporation, Ashland, MA, USA | EpiDermFT | MatTek Corporation, Ashland, MA, USA |
| EpiSkin | L’Oréal, Lyon, France | StrataTest | Stratatech, Madison, WI, USA |
| reconstructed human epidermis | SkinEthic, Lyon, France | Phenion Full-Thick-ness Skin | Phenion, Düsseldorf, Germany |
| EpiCs | CellSystems, Troisdorf, Germany | GraftSkin | Apligraf; Organogenesis, MI, USA |
| open source reconstructed epidermis model | Phenion, Düsseldorf, Germany | Vitrolife-Skin | Kyoto, Japan |
| Straticell | Straticell, Les Isnes, Belgium | ||
| Labcyte | Gamagori, Japan | ||
An overview of tissue-engineered 3D skin models from human primary cells and their limitations (from Broek et al., 2017 [38]).
| Model | Commercially Available | Advantages/Disadvantages | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reconstructed epidermis | Yes: EpiDerm™, EpiSkin™, SkinEthic™, epiCS® | +: differentiated epidermis from keratinocytes | [ |
| Pigmented Reconstructed epidermis | Yes: MelanoDerm | +: pigmented differentiated epidermis from keratinocytes and melanocytes | [ |
| Full-thickness skin models | Yes: EpiDerm-FT, Phenion-FT, LabSkin | +: differentiated epidermis on the fibroblast-populated dermis | [ |
| Three-layered skin model | No: in house models | +: differentiated epidermis on fibroblast-populated dermis on an adipocyte/ASC populated hypodermis | [ |
| Full-thickness skin model containing EC | No: in house models | +: differentiated epidermis on fibroblast and endothelial cell (show vessel-like structures) populated dermis | [ |
| Skin equivalent with integrated Langerhans Cells | No: in house model | +: pigmented skin model containing functional MUTZ-3 derived Langerhans | [ |
Figure 5Sketch of a microfluidic skin-on-a-chip platform.
Figure 6(a) Human reconstructed epidermis model of MatTek, (b) human full thickness reconstructed skin model by MatTek, (c) cross-sectional and top schematics of the skin chip by Lee and co-workers with permission, (d) pictures of the assembled skin chip, (e) picture of the gravity-flow control system, (f) schematics of the gravity-flow control system [64]. (g) Structure of skin-on-a-chip designed by Lukács et al. 2019 [26], (h) diffusion measurement setup by Bajza et al. 2020 [24].
Comparison of properties of traditional diffusion cell systems and skin-on-a-chip microfluidic devices.
| Traditional Diffusion Devices | Skin-On-A-Chip Devices |
|---|---|
| high tissue need | low tissue need |
| high active ingredient need | low active ingredient need |
| high formulation need | low formulation need |
| macroscale size | microscale size |
| static system | dynamic system |
| poor reproducibility | good reproducibility |
| only ex vivo (or in vitro membranes) | ex vivo and in vitro membranes or cell cultures |
| high sample volumes | low sample volumes |
| high cost | low cost |
| controlled parameters | precisely controlled parameters |
Characteristics of different skin-on-a-chip systems in the literature (modified from Sutterby and co-workers, 2020 [65]). PDMS: Poly(dimethylsiloxane), ECM: Extracellular matrix, PET: Polyester, PMMA: Polymethylmethacrylate, PCL: Polycaprolactone, dECM: Dermal extracellular matrix.
| Materials of the Chip | Fabrication Technology | Testing Features | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PDMS | lithography | toxicity testing, | [ |
| PDMS, PDMS membrane, natural ECM | lithography | multiorgan chip | [ |
| PDMS, natural ECM | lithography | efficacy testing | [ |
| PDMS, collagen ECM | lithography | skin wrinkling | [ |
| PDMS, PET membrane, collagen ECM | lithography | drug testing | [ |
| PDMS, collagen ECM | lithography | multiple collagen sources were compared toxicity testing | [ |
| PDMS, collagen ECM | lithography | ex vivo skin and hair, | [ |
| PDMS, PET membrane, fibronectin ECM | lithography | edema and inflammation | [ |
| PDMS, fibrin with collagen | lithography | skin irritation | [ |
| PDMS, polycarbonate membrane, collagen ECM | lithography | pump free system, | [ |
| PMMA, polycarbonate membrane, fibrin ECM | CNC micro milling | micro-milling | [ |
| PDMS, PET membrane | Laser cutting | three parallels, diffusion study | [ |
| PDMS, PMMA, PET membrane | Laser cutting | three parallels and TEER sensor integrated, immune study | [ |
| silicon rubber, collagen ECM | 3D printing | blood vessels, diffusion study | [ |
| PCL, skin-derived dECM | 3D printing | fabricated with vascular channels, validation study | [ |
Effect of associated shear stress on the skin cells in a microfluidic chip.
| Undisturbed Laminar Flow | Disturbed Laminar Flow | Turbulent Flow | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porosity | Controlled porosity [ | Mixed porosity | - |
| Permeability | Decreases [ | Low | - |
| Wound Repair | Healing speed increases [ | Healing speed is low | Healing speed is very low |
| Turnover rate | Low | High [ | Very high |
| Inflammation | Very low [ | High | Very high |
| Toxicology studies | Good toxicity results compared to static conditions [ | - | - |
Figure 7The cross-sectional view in a microchannel with three layers of skin cells with different culture media flowing at different flow rates to visualize inflammation, edema, and drug-based treatment.
Figure 8Representation of different layers of the skin along with the diffusion of drugs in the skin. The layers can be considered as a porous medium and the porous medium equations can be written for the mass transfer across the SC, Epidermis, and Dermis. For the blood flow in the tissues, the Darcy model can be adopted.
Figure 9Representation of heat transfer across the dermal layers on the application of heat over the skin surface. The Pennes Bioheat transfer model is a basic model that represents the heat transfer in the skin.