| Literature DB >> 35336056 |
Patrícia Zoio1, Abel Oliva1,2.
Abstract
The increased demand for physiologically relevant in vitro human skin models for testing pharmaceutical drugs has led to significant advancements in skin engineering. One of the most promising approaches is the use of in vitro microfluidic systems to generate advanced skin models, commonly known as skin-on-a-chip (SoC) devices. These devices allow the simulation of key mechanical, functional and structural features of the human skin, better mimicking the native microenvironment. Importantly, contrary to conventional cell culture techniques, SoC devices can perfuse the skin tissue, either by the inclusion of perfusable lumens or by the use of microfluidic channels acting as engineered vasculature. Moreover, integrating sensors on the SoC device allows real-time, non-destructive monitoring of skin function and the effect of topically and systemically applied drugs. In this Review, the major challenges and key prerequisites for the creation of physiologically relevant SoC devices for drug testing are considered. Technical (e.g., SoC fabrication and sensor integration) and biological (e.g., cell sourcing and scaffold materials) aspects are discussed. Recent advancements in SoC devices are here presented, and their main achievements and drawbacks are compared and discussed. Finally, this review highlights the current challenges that need to be overcome for the clinical translation of SoC devices.Entities:
Keywords: dermal absorption; drug testing; dynamic culture; microfluidics; organ-on-a-chip; reconstructed skin models; tissue engineering
Year: 2022 PMID: 35336056 PMCID: PMC8955316 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14030682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1Methods used for preclinical studies of skin-targeted drugs. Comparison between the different methodologies regarding controllability and reproducibility as well as physiological relevance and complexity. The figure highlights the potential significance of organ-on-a-chip (OoC) technology to provide a reproducible and physiologically relevant approach to systematically evaluating skin responses.
Figure 2Development of biomimetic skin-on-a-chip platforms. Schematic drawing representing the main factors to be considered when developing physiologically relevant skin-on-a-chip (SoC) models, including technical and biological factors (cell sourcing, cell scaffold, perfusion, cyclic stretching, design and fabrication and sensor integration). The different factors should be evaluated taking into account the specific application as well as available equipment and know-how. ALI: Air-liquid interface; BM: Basement membrane; ECM: Extracellular matrix; TEER: Transepithelial electrical resistance; iPSC: Induced pluripotent stem cells.
Figure 3Extracellular matrix (ECM) in vivo skin. (a) Schematic of the dermal matrix showing dermal fibroblasts surrounded by the components of typical ECM, composed of collagens, glycosaminoglycans, proteoglycans and fibronectin. These components are secreted and remodeled by the fibroblasts, which results in an organized meshwork. (b) Schematic of the interstitial flow. The interstitial flow provides convection necessary for transport of molecules through the ECM or interstitium and induces morphogenic effects in dermal cells.
Figure 4Schematic representation of techniques used to vascularize 3D OoC models. These techniques can be divided into soft-lithography and 3D patterning approaches. (a) Membrane-based soft lithography technique in which a porous membrane is sandwiched between two microfluidic layers. (b) ECM-based soft lithography in which one or more channels are filled with ECM, embedded between the parenchymal and vascular channels. (c) Templating approaches in which a matrix is cast around the template. The template is subsequently removed, generating hollow channels, which can be seeded and perfused. (d) Layer-by-layer approach consisting of assembled modular layers. (e) Three-dimensional printing (bioprinting) in which vascular and cell inks are used to generate a 3D tissue with embedded, perfusable vascular channels.
Figure 5Different mechanical stress types acting on cells, including (a) shear stress, (b) tensile (stretch) forces and (c) compressive forces Simplified illustrations of the effect of each force in planar culture shown for an idealized square (left) and a cell (right).
Figure 6Schematic representation of a polymeric OoC with integrated porous membrane for establishing two separated compartments (apical and basal). A FTSm is generated on top of the membrane and maintained at the ALI with basal perfusion.
Figure 7Transepithelial/transendothelial electrical resistance (TEER) measurements. (a) Using chopstick/STX2 electrode pairs connected to voltOhmeter and (b) using an EndOhm chamber. The uniformity of the current density generated by the electrodes across the cell layer has a significant effect on the TEER measurement. The chopstick electrodes cannot deliver uniform current density. As an alternative, the EndOhm chamber generates a more uniform current density. (c) TEER measurements performed on-chip by inserting electrodes on the chip inlets/outlets (left), in a process similar to the introduction of the chopstick electrodes. Electrodes integrated on-chip and placed closer to the cell culture chamber (right), in a process similar to the EndOhm chamber.
Figure 8Schematic diagram of the strategies used to develop SoC models. (a) Transferred SoC devices in which skin biopsies (top) or skin models generated off-chip (bottom) are transferred on-chip. (b) 2D SoC devices in which cell monolayers are cultured on porous membranes, establishing different compartments. Two-dimensional SoC with 2 membranes (3 compartments) (top) and 1 membrane (2 compartments) (bottom) (c) 3D SoC with perfusable lumens (top). The perfusable lumens are created using 3D patterning techniques, typically using templating, sacrificial modeling or bioprinting. This approach can be combined with vasculogenesis (bottom). (d) 3D SoC with microfluidic channels. Membrane-based SoC device in which the microfluidic layers and a porous membrane are assembled in a sandwiched stricture (top). The skin model is cultured in situ on top of the membrane. Alternatively, a porous scaffold can be integrated, excluding the use of the membrane and hydrogel. Abbreviations: HKs, human keratinocytes; HFs, human fibroblasts, HEs, human endothelial cells.
Summary of the 2D SoC devices reported in the literature. Abbreviations: HUVECS, human umbilical vein endothelial cells; PDMS, polydimethylsiloxane; PEG, polyethylene glycol; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PMMA, poly(methylmethacrylate); TEER, transepithelial electrical resistance; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.
| Reference | Cell Type | Flow Type; | Fabrication Method; Materials | Main Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wufuer et al. (2016) [ | HaCaT, immortalized HS27 and HUVECS | Gravity driven flow; Not stated | Photolithography; PDMS and PET membrane | TNF-α induced skin inflammation; Simulation of skin edema |
| Ramadam et al. (2016) [ | HaCaT and U937 dendritic cells | Syringe pumping; | Rapid prototyping; PMMA, PDMS and PET membrane | Immune competent model; TEER measurements |
| Sasaki et al. (2019) [ | HaCaT | Syringe pumping; | Laser cutter; PMMA, PDMS and PET membrane | Irritation testing with potassium dichromate |
Summary of the 3D SoC with perfusable lumens reported in the literature. Abbreviations: HEKs, human epidermal keratinocytes; HDFns, human dermal fibroblasts; iPSC, induced pluripotent stem cells; hDMECs, human dermal microvascular endothelial cells; HUVECS, human umbilical vein endothelial cells; HPAs, human preadipocytes subcutaneous; dECM, decellularized extracellular matrix; PEEK, polyether ether ketone; PC, polycarbonate; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PCL, polycaprolactone; TEER, transepithelial electrical resistance; ISDN, isosorbide dinitrate.
| Reference | Cell Type | Dermal Matrix | Flow Type; | Fabrication Method; Materials | Main Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groeber et al. (2016) | Primary HEKs, primary HDFs and hDMECC | Decellularized porcine jejunum | Peristaltic pumping; | Rapid prototyping; PEEK, PC | TEER measurements, |
| Abaci et al. (2016) | Primary HEKs, primary HDFs iPSC-derived endothelial cells | Collagen | Syringe pumping; | 3D printing, templating; Tranwell insets, PET membranes | Integration of iPSC; Promotion of neovascularization in a rat model |
| Mori et al. (2016) | Primary HEKs, primary HDFs and HUVECs | Collagen | Peristaltic pumping; | 3D printing, templating; | Vascular channels coated with endothelial cells; Permation testing caffeine and ISDN |
| Kim et al. (2019) | Primary HEKs, primary HDFs, HUVECs and primary HPAs | Fibrinogen, dECM porcine skin | Peristaltic pumping; | 3D printing; | Bioprinting; Integration of hypodermis |
| Salameh (2021) | Primary HEKs, primary HDFs and HUVECs | Collagen | Peristaltic pumping; | 3D printing, templating; | Formation of angiogenic sprouts; systemic drug delivery studies |
Summary of the 3D SoC with basal perfusion reported in the literature. Abbreviations: HEKs, human epidermal keratinocytes; HDFns, human dermal fibroblasts; HUVECS, human umbilical vein endothelial cells; PEG, polyethylene glycol; FDM, fibroblast-derived matrix; PS, polystyrene; ECM, extracellular matrix; FN, fibronectin; G, gelatin; PDMS, polydimethylsiloxane; PC, polycarbonate; PTFE, polytetrafluoroethylene; PET, polyethylene terephthalate; PMMA, poly(methylmethacrylate); FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate; TEER, transepithelial electrical resistance.
| Reference | Cell Type | Dermal Matrix | Flow Type; | Fabrication Method; Materials | Main Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee et al. (2017) | HaCaT or primary HEKs, primary HDFs and HUVECs | Collagen | Gravity driven; | Lithography; | Studies of mass transport with FITC-dextran |
| Song et al. (2017) | Primary HEKs and primary HDFs | Collagen | Gravity driven; Not stated | Lithography; | Study of collagen contraction |
| Lim et al. (2018) | Primary HEKs and primary HDFs | Collagen | Gravity driven; Not stated | Lithography; | Uniaxial stretch applied for modeling wrinkles |
| Strüver et al. (2017) | Primary HEKs and primary HDFs | Collagen | Peristaltic pumping; | Not stated; | Improved skin differentiation |
| Sriram et al. (2019) | N/TERT and primary HDFs | Fibrin + PEG | Peristaltic pumping; | Micromilling; PMMA and PC membrane | Improved skin differentiation and barrier function; stable dermis |
| Valencia et al. (2021) | HaCaT and primary HDFs | Fibrin | Syringe pumping; | Edge plotter; PMMA, PDMS, vinyl and PC membrane | Parallel flow method for bilayer tissue formation |
| Zoio et al. (2021, 2022) | Primary HEKs and primary HDFs | FDM + PS scaffold | Syringe pumping; | Rapid prototyping; PMMA | Improved barrier function; TEER measurements on-chip |
| Rimal et al. (2021) | Primary HEKs, primary HDFs and HUVECS | ECM-coating of single cells (FN and G) | Peristatic pumping; | 3D printing; | Scaffold-free; vascularized dermal tissue; 3D-wound healing assay |
Comparison between SoC models and static controls reported in the literature. ↑ represents increased physiological relevance of the SoC model compared to the controls, ↓ represents decreased physiological relevance of the SoC model compared to the controls, and =represents no significant difference between the SoC model and the controls. Abbreviations: DEJ, dermo-epidermal junction; K, keratin; VE, viable epidermis; SC, stratum corneum; TEER, transepithelial resistance; FD, FITC-Dextran; ECM, extracellular matrix.
| Reference | Epidermis and DEJ Markers | Dermis Markers | Thickness | Functional | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mori et al. (2016) | =K10, | - | =epidermis (VE + SC) | =capacitance | ↑ cross-sectional area channels, |
| Kim et al. (2019) | ↑ K19 | - | - | - | ↑ p63-positive cells |
| Lee et al. (2017) | =K5, | - | - | - | ↓ SC homogeneity |
| Song et al. (2017) | ↓ collagen IV, | =fibronectin, | - | - | ↓ hydrogel |
| Strüver et al. (2017) | ↑ filaggrin, | - | ↑ SC, | ↓ barrier function (increased testosterone permeability) | ↑ claudin 1, |
| Sriram et al. (2019) | ↑ collagen IV, | - | ↑ SC, | ↑ TEER | ↓ SC water content |
| Zoio et al. (2022) | =K10, | ↑ collagen I, | =SC, | ↑ TEER | - |
| Rimal et al. (2021) | ↑ filaggrin, | ↑ fibronectin, | - | ↑ TEER | ↑ wound healing |