4.5 Review

Human mini-blood-brain barrier models for biomedical neuroscience research: a review

期刊

BIOMATERIALS RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s40824-022-00332-z

关键词

Blood-brain barrier; Human mini-brains; Neurological disorder; Personalized medicine

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea
  2. [NRF-2020R1A2C2010285]
  3. [NRF-I21SS7606036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides insights into the development and application of in vitro human blood-brain barrier (BBB) models for studying physiology and pathology of neurological therapeutic avenues. It highlights the critical components for reconstructing a miniaturized human BBB and discusses recent breakthroughs and applications in the field. The review offers strategies for understanding neurological diseases, a validation model for drug discovery, and a potential approach for personalized medicine.
The human blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a unique multicellular structure that is in critical demand for fundamental neuroscience studies and therapeutic evaluation. Despite substantial achievements in creating in vitro human BBB platforms, challenges in generating specifics of physiopathological relevance are viewed as impediments to the establishment of in vitro models. In this review, we provide insight into the development and deployment of in vitro BBB models that allow investigation of the physiology and pathology of neurological therapeutic avenues. First, we highlight the critical components, including cell sources, biomaterial glue collections, and engineering techniques to reconstruct a miniaturized human BBB. Second, we describe recent breakthroughs in human mini-BBBs for investigating biological mechanisms in neurology. Finally, we discuss the application of human mini-BBBs to medical approaches. This review provides strategies for understanding neurological diseases, a validation model for drug discovery, and a potential approach for generating personalized medicine.

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

4.5
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