4.8 Article

Is it Time for Reviewer 3 to Request Human Organ Chip Experiments Instead of Animal Validation Studies?

期刊

ADVANCED SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202002030

关键词

microfluidics; microphysiological systems; organoids; organ-on-a-chip; preclinical studies

资金

  1. DARPA [W911NF1920023, W911NF1920027, W911NF-12-2-0036, HR0011-20-2-0040]
  2. FDA [75F40119C10098]
  3. NIH [UH3HL141797]
  4. Cancer Research United Kingdom [C25640/A29057]
  5. Gates Foundation [OPP1173198, INV-002164]
  6. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1173198, INV-002164] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the past century, experimental data obtained from animal studies have been required by reviewers of scientific articles and grant applications to validate the physiological relevance of in vitro results. At the same time, pharmaceutical researchers and regulatory agencies recognize that results from preclinical animal models frequently fail to predict drug responses in humans. ThisProgress Reportreviews recent advances in human organ-on-a-chip (Organ Chip) microfluidic culture technology, both with single Organ Chips and fluidically coupled human Body-on-Chips platforms, which demonstrate their ability to recapitulate human physiology and disease states, as well as human patient responses to clinically relevant drug pharmacokinetic exposures, with higher fidelity than other in vitro models or animal studies. These findings raise the question of whether continuing to require results of animal testing for publication or grant funding still makes scientific or ethical sense, and if more physiologically relevant human Organ Chip models might better serve this purpose. This issue is addressed in this article in context of the history of the field, and advantages and disadvantages of Organ Chip approaches versus animal models are discussed that should be considered by the wider research community.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据