4.6 Article

Human lung cell models to study aerosol delivery-considerations for model design and development

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2022.106337

Keywords

Lung structure; Aerosol deposition; Scaffold; Lung cell types; Cell characterization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human lung tissue models can range from simple monolayer cultures to more advanced three-dimensional co-cultures to study the interactions of different types of aerosols. This review focuses on the functional and structural aspects of lung tissue and how it relates to the design of a model and the interfacial properties with the respiratory wall. The important aspects of lung model design, including scaffold choice, cell types, culture conditions, aerosol exposure methods, and endpoints are summarized, and the remaining challenges and future directions in this field are discussed.
Human lung tissue models range from simple monolayer cultures to more advanced three-dimensional co -cul-tures. Each model system can address the interactions of different types of aerosols and the choice of the model and the mode of aerosol exposure depends on the relevant scenario, such as adverse outcomes and endpoints of interest. This review focuses on the functional, as well as structural, aspects of lung tissue from the upper airway to the distal alveolar compartments as this information is relevant for the design of a model as well as how the aerosol properties determine the interfacial properties with the respiratory wall. The most important aspects on how to design lung models are summarized with a focus on (i) choice of appropriate scaffold, (ii) selection of cell types for healthy and diseased lung models, (iii) use of culture condition and assembly, (iv) aerosol exposure methods, and (v) endpoints and verification process. Finally, remaining challenges and future directions in this field are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available