| Literature DB >> 34063027 |
Thomas Lorenz1,2, Mona Kirschke1,3, Verena Ledwig1,3, Stephan Reichl1,3, Andreas Dietzel1,2.
Abstract
Automated biomimetic systems for the preclinical testing of drugs are of great interest. Here, an in vitro testing platform for in vivo adapted drug absorption studies is presented. It has been designed with a focus on easy handling and the usability of established cell cultivation techniques in standard well plate inserts. The platform consists of a microfluidic device, which accommodates a well plate insert with pre-cultivated cells, and provides a fluid flow with dynamic drug dilution profiles. A low-cost single-board computer with a touchscreen was used as a control unit. This provides a graphical user interface, controls the syringe pump flow rates, and records the transepithelial electrical resistance. It thereby enables automated parallel testing in multiple devices at the same time. To demonstrate functionality, an MDCK cell layer was used as a model for an epithelial barrier for drug permeation testing. This confirms the possibility of performing absorption studies on barrier tissues under conditions close to those in vivo. Therefore, a further reduction in animal experiments can be expected.Entities:
Keywords: MDCK; TEER; drug testing; in vitro; microfluidic test system; organ-on-chip; permeation; sodium fluorescein; transepithelial electrical resistance
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063027 PMCID: PMC8147988 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering8050058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Figure 1Photo of the fluidic device levels and the assembled device. Outer dimensions: , , .
Figure 2Electronic circuit of the potentiostat used for automated TEER measurements in connection to the microfluidic device. OP = operational amplifier; DA = differential amplifier; RI = shunt resistor; CE = current electrode; RE = reference electrode.
Figure 3Automated test setup. (a) Schematic of the experimental setup and connections. (b) Photo of the experimental setup.
Figure 4(a) Concentration profile according to Equation (1). (b) Deduced flow rates to mimic the concentration profile with two pumps, of which one contains the active-ingredient solution and the other contains a buffer solution.
Figure 5Measurement software with the graphical user interface (GUI) running on the RaspberryPi control unit.
Figure 6(a) Comparison of the programmed and experimentally determined volume flows of Pumps 1 and 2. (b) The programmed donor concentration profile according to Equation (1) with a time delay (10 min) compared to the measured donor concentration profile compared to the desired concentration profile (n = 2).
Figure 7Automatically recorded TEER values for two permeation experiments (E1 and E2) in comparison to values recorded using the EVOM2.
Figure 8Mean acceptor concentration with standard deviation from experiments with dynamic dilution (n = 18).