4.7 Review

Human organs-on-chips for disease modelling, drug development and personalized medicine

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 467-491

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41576-022-00466-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. DARPA
  2. FDA
  3. NIH
  4. BARDA
  5. Cancer Research United Kingdom
  6. Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This Review discusses the types of single and multiple human organ-on-a-chip (organ chip) microfluidic devices and their diverse applications for disease modeling, drug development, and personalized medicine. It also addresses the challenges that must be overcome for organ chips to reach their full potential and discusses recent advances in the field.
This Review discusses the types of single and multiple human organ-on-a-chip (organ chip) microfluidic devices and their diverse applications for disease modelling, drug development and personalized medicine, as well as the challenges that must be overcome for organ chips to reach their full potential. The failure of animal models to predict therapeutic responses in humans is a major problem that also brings into question their use for basic research. Organ-on-a-chip (organ chip) microfluidic devices lined with living cells cultured under fluid flow can recapitulate organ-level physiology and pathophysiology with high fidelity. Here, I review how single and multiple human organ chip systems have been used to model complex diseases and rare genetic disorders, to study host-microbiome interactions, to recapitulate whole-body inter-organ physiology and to reproduce human clinical responses to drugs, radiation, toxins and infectious pathogens. I also address the challenges that must be overcome for organ chips to be accepted by the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies, as well as discuss recent advances in the field. It is evident that the use of human organ chips instead of animal models for drug development and as living avatars for personalized medicine is ever closer to realization.

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

4.7
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