Advertisement

Bioinspired Engineering of Organ-on-Chip Devices

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1174)

Abstract

The human body can be viewed as an organism consisting of a variety of cellular and non-cellular materials interacting in a highly ordered manner. Its complex and hierarchical nature inspires the multi-level recapitulation of the human body in order to gain insights into the inner workings of life. While traditional cell culture models have led to new insights into the cellular microenvironment and biological control in vivo, deeper understanding of biological systems and human pathophysiology requires the development of novel model systems that allow for analysis of complex internal and external interactions within the cellular microenvironment in a more relevant organ context. Engineering organ-on-chip systems offers an unprecedented opportunity to unravel the complex and hierarchical nature of human organs. In this chapter, we first highlight the advances in microfluidic platforms that enable engineering of the cellular microenvironment and the transition from cells-on-chips to organs-on-chips. Then, we introduce the key features of the emerging organs-on-chips and their proof-of-concept applications in biomedical research. We also discuss the challenges and future outlooks of this state-of-the-art technology.

Keywords

Bioinspired materials Microfluidics Organ-on-chip Cellular microenvironment Disease modeling Drug testing 

Abbreviations

ADMET

Adsorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination and toxicity

BBB

Blood-brain-barrier

EBs

Embryonic body

ECM

Extracellular matrix

ECs

Endothelial cells

EMT

Epithelial-to mesenchymal

ESCs

Embryonic stem cells

FSS

Fluidic shear stress

iPSCs

Induced pluripotent stem cells

MEMS

Micro-electromechanical system

MSC

Mesenchymal stem cells

PDMS

Polydimethylsiloxane

PK/PD

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

TEER

Trans-epithelial electrical resistance

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA16020900, XDPB0305), National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 91543121, 31671038, 81573394, 81803492), National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2017YFB0405400), Key Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (KFZD-SW-213), Innovation Program of Science and Research from the DICP, CAS (DICP TMSR201601).

References

  1. 1.
    Haeberle S, Zengerle R (2007) Microfluidic platforms for lab-on-a-chip applications. Lab Chip 7:1094–1110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chin LK et al (2016) Imaging live cells at high spatiotemporal resolution for lab-on-a-chip applications. Lab Chip 16:2014–2024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Young EW, Beebe DJ (2010) Fundamentals of microfluidic cell culture in controlled microenvironments. ChemSoc Rev 39:1036–1048Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tehranirokh M et al (2013) Microfluidic devices for cell cultivation and proliferation. Biomicrofluidics 7:51502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young EW, Simmons CA (2010) Macro- and microscale fluid flow systems for endothelial cell biology. Lab Chip 10:143–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhatia SN, Ingber DE (2014) Microfluidic organs-on-chips. Nat Biotechnol 32:760–772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sung JH et al (2013) Microfabricated mammalian organ systems and their integration into models of whole animals and humans. Lab Chip 13:1201–1212PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tseng P et al (2014) Research highlights: microtechnologies for engineering the cellular environment. Lab Chip 14:1226–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williamson A (2013) The future of the patient-specific body-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 13:3471–3480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xia Y, Whitesides GM (1998) Soft lithography. Annu Rev Mater Sci 1998:153–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mcdonald JC, Whitesides GM (2002) Poly(dimethylsiloxane) as a material for fabricating microfluidic devices. Acc Chem Res 35:491–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Effenhauser CS et al (1997) Integrated capillary electrophoresis on flexible silicone microdevices: analysis of DNA restriction fragments and detection of single DNA molecules on microchips. Anal Chem 69:3451–3457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duffy DC et al (1998) Rapid prototyping of microfluidic systems in poly(dimethylsiloxane). Anal Chem 70:4974–4984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mcdonald JC et al (2000) Fabrication of microfluidic Systems in Poly(dimethylsiloxane). Electrophoresis 21:27–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu HK et al (2003) Fabrication of complex three- dimensional microchannel systems in PDMS. J Am Chem Soc 125:554–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang Q et al (2012) A microfluidic-base device for study of transendothelial invasion of tumor aggregates in realtiem. Lab Chip 12(16):2837–2842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Unger MA et al (2000) Monolithic microfabricated valves and pumps by multilayer soft lithography. Science 288:113–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balagadde FK et al (2005) Long-term monitoring of Bacteria undergoing programmed population control in a microchemostat. Science 309:137–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang B (2007) Counting low-copy number proteins in a single cell. Science 315:81–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wen H et al (2015) A droplet microchip with substance exchange capability for the developmental study of C. elegans. Lab Chip 15(8):1905–1911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gao X et al (2009) Microvalves actuated sandwich immunoassay on an integrated microfluidic system. Electrophoresis 30(14):2481–2487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shi W et al (2010) Droplet microfluidics for characterizing the neurotoxin-induced responses in individual Caenorhabditiselegans. Lab Chip 10(21):2855–2863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ni M et al (2009) Cell culture on MEMS platforms: a review. Int J Mol Sci 10(12):5411–5441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ma LA et al (2010) A porous 3D cell culture micro device for cell migration study. Biomed Microdevices 12(4):753–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shi Y et al (2015) Hypoxia combined with spheroid culture improves cartilage specific function in chondrocytes. Integr Biol (Camb) 7(3):289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gottwald E et al (2007) A chip-based platform for the in vitro generation of tissues in three-dimensional organization. Lab Chip 7(6):777–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Toh YC et al (2009) A microfluidic 3D hepatocyte chip for drug toxicity testing. Lab Chip 9(14):2026–2035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choi J et al (2011) Wnt5a-mediating neurogenesis of human adipose tissue-derived stem cells in a 3D microfluidic cell culture system. Biomaterials 32(29):7013–7022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cate DM et al (2015) Recent developments in paper-based microfluidic devices. Anal Chem 87(1):19–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang L et al (2015) Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived beating cardiac tissues on paper. Lab Chip 15(22):4283–4290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mosadegh B et al (2014) Three-dimensional paper-based model for cardiac ischemia. Adv Healthc Mater 3(7):1036–1043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Derda R et al (2011) Multizone paper platform for 3D cell cultures. PLoS One 6(5):e18940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park HJ et al (2014) Paper-based bioactive scaffolds for stem cell-mediated bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 35(37):9811–9823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mosadegh B et al (2015) A paper-based invasion assay: assessing chemotaxis of cancer cells in gradients of oxygen. Biomaterials 52:262–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Walker GM et al (2004) Microenvironment design consideration for cellular scale studies. Lab Chip 4(2):91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chung BG et al (2011) Microfluidic fabrication of microengineered hydrogels and their application in tissue engineering. Lab Chip 12(1):45–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ota H et al (2011) Microfluidic experimental platform for producing size-controlled three-dimensional spheroids. Sensors Actuators A Phys 169(2):266–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ma J et al (2016) Patterning hypoxic multicellular spheroids in a 3D matrix-a promising method for anti-tumor drug screening. Biotechnology 11(SI):127–134Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hardelauf H et al (2011) Microarrays for the scalable production of metabolically relevant tumour spheroids: a tool for modulating chemosensitivity traits. Lab Chip 11:419–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ruppen J et al (2015) Towards personalized medicine: chemosensitivity assays of patient lung cancer cell spheroids in a perfused microfluidic platform. Lab Chip 15:3076–3085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim C et al (2012) On-chip anticancer drug test of regular tumor spheroids formed in microwells by a distributive microchannel network. Lab Chip 12:4135–4142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tekin H et al (2010) Stimuli-responsive microwells for formation and retrieval of cell aggregates. Lab Chip 10:2411–2418PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karimi M et al (2016) Microfluidic systems for stem cell-based neural tissue engineering. Lab Chip 16:2551–2571PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    No DY et al (2015) 3D liver models on a microplatform: well-defined culture, engineering of liver tissue and liver-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 15:3822–3837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee J et al (2016) A 3D alcoholic liver disease model on a chip. Integr Biol 8:302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kim C et al (2011) 3-dimensional cell culture for on-chip differentiation of stem cells in embryoid body. Lab Chip 11:874–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Khademhosseini A, Nichol JW (2009) Modular tissue engineering: engineering biological tissues from the bottom up. Soft Matter 5(7):1312–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chung BG et al (2012) Microfluidic fabrication of microengineered hydrogels and their application in tissue engineering. Lab Chip 12:45–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yamada M et al (2015) Cell-sized condensed collagen microparticles for preparing microengineered composite spheroids of primary hepatocytes. Lab Chip 15:3941–3951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yu Y et al (2014) Flexible fabrication of biomimetic bamboo-like hybrid microfibers. Adv Mater 26(16):2494–2499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yue Y et al (2016) Simple spinning of heterogeneous hollow microfiber on Chip. Adv Mater 28(31):6649–6655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang X et al (2015) Flexible fabrication of shape-controlled collagen building blocks for self-assembly of 3D microtissues. Small 11(30):3666–3675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Goldbrunner RH et al (1999) Cell-extracellular matrix interaction in glioma invasion. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 141(3):295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ingber DE, Folkman J (1989) Mechanochemical switching between growth and differentiation during fibroblast growth factor-stimulated angiogenesis in vitro: role of extracellular matrix. J Cell Biol 109:317–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Baker BM et al (2013) Microfluidics embedded within extracellular matrix to define vascular architectures and pattern diffusive gradients. Lab Chip 13(16):3246–3252PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Choi NW et al (2007) Microfluidic scaffolds for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 6(11):908–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Haessler U et al (2009) An agarose-based microfluidic platform with a gradient buffer for 3D chemotaxis studies for 3D chemotaxis studies. Biomed Microdevices 11(4):827–835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Joanne Wang C et al (2008) A microfluidics-based turning assay reveals complex growth cone responses to integrated gradients of substrate-bound ECM molecules and diffusible guidance cues. Lab Chip 8(2):227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lanfer B et al (2008) Aligned fibrillar collagen matrices obtained by shear flow deposition. Biomaterials 29(28):3888–3895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lanfer B et al (2009) The growth and differentiation of mesenchymal stem and progenitor cells cultured on aligned collagen matrices. Biomaterials 30(30):5950–5958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chin VI et al (2004) Microfabricated platform for studying stem cell fates. Biotechnol Bioeng 88(3):399–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ma H et al (2012) Probing the role of mesenchymal stem cells in salivary gland cancer on biomimeticmicrodevices. Integr Biol (Camb) 4(5)):522–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhang Q et al (2012) A microfluidic-based device for study of transendothelialinvasion of tumor aggregates in real-time. Lab Chip 12(16):2837–2842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tong Z et al (2014) Engineering a functional neuro-muscular junction model in a chip. RSC Adv 4:54788–54797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chung BG et al (2006) A microfluidic multi-injector for gradient generation. Lab Chip 6:764–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kim S et al (2010) Biological applications of microfluidic gradient devices. Integr Biol 2:584–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ye N et al (2007) Cell-based high content screening using an integrated microfluidic device. Lab Chip 7(12):1696–1704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jeon NL et al (2000) Generation of solution and surface gradients using microfluidic systems. Langmuir 16:8311–8316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Li Y et al (2010) The effects of insulin-like growth factor-1 and basic fibroblast growth factor on the proliferation of chondrocytes embedded in the collagen gel using an integrated microfluidic device. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 16(6):1267–1275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jeon NL et al (2002) Neutrophil chemotaxis in linear and complex gradients of interleukin-8 formed in a microfabricated device. Nat Biotechnol 20:826–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Han S et al (2012) A versatile assay for monitoring in vivo-like transendothelial migration of neutrophils. Lab Chip 12(20):3861–3865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shin Y et al (2011) In vitro 3D collective sprouting angiogenesis under orchestrated ANG-1 and VEGF gradients. Lab Chip 11:2175–2181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jeong GS et al (2011) Sprouting angiogenesis under a chemical gradient regulated by interactions with an endothelial monolayer in a microfluidic platform. Anal Chem 83:8454–8459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Torisawa YS et al (2010) Microfluidic platform for chemotaxis in gradients formed by CXCL2 source-sink cells. Integr Biol 2:680–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dings J et al (1998) Clinical experience with 118 brain tissue oxygen partial pressure catheter probes. Neurosurgery 43:1082–1095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Evans SM et al (2004) Hypoxia is important in the biology and aggression of human glial brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res 10:8177–8184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lo JF et al (2010) Oxygen gradient for open well cellular culture via microfluidic substrates. Lab Chip 10(18):2394–2401PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wang L et al (2013) Construction of oxygen and chemical concentration gradients in a single microfluidic device for studying tumor cell–drug interactions in a dynamic hypoxia microenvironment. Lab Chip 13(4):695–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Oppegard SC, Eddington DT (2013) A microfabricated platform for establishing oxygen gradients in 3-D constructs. Biomed Microdevices 15(3):407–414PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Yang W et al (2015) A novel microfluidic platform for studying mammalian cell chemotaxis in different oxygen environments under zero-flow conditions. Biomicrofluidics 9(4):044121PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chen YA et al (2011) Generation of oxygen gradients in microfluidic devices for cell culture using spatially confined chemicalreactions. Lab Chip 1(21):3626–3633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Derda R et al (2009) Paper-supported 3D cell culture for tissue-based bioassays. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:18457–18462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Widmaier EP et al (2004) In: Fox SI (ed) Human physiology, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 375–466Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Griffith LG, Swartz MA (2006) Capturing complex 3D tissue physiology in vitro. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7:211–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kim L et al (2006) Microfluidic arrays for logarithmically perfused embryonic stem cell culture. Lab Chip 6:394–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lu H et al (2004) Microfluidic shear devices for quantitative analysis of cell adhesion. Anal Chem 76:5257–5264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    van der Meer AD et al (2009) Microfluidic technology in vascular research. J Biomed Biotechnol:823148Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Zhong W et al (2013) Mesenchymal stem cell and chondrocyte fates in a multishear microdevice are regulated by yes-associated protein. Stem Cells Dev 22(14):2083–2093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wang L et al (2016) Human induced pluripotent stem cells derived endothelial cells mimicking vascular inflammatory response under flow. Biomicrofluidics 10(1):014106PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    McCue S et al (2004) Shear-induced reorganization of endothelial cell cytoskeleton and adhesion complexes. Trends Cardiovasc Med 14(4):143–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jang KJ et al (2011) Fluid-shearstress-induced translocation of aquaporin-2 and reorganization of actin cytoskeleton in renal tubular epithelial cells. Integr Biol 3:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Jang KJ et al (2010) A multi-layer microfluidic device for efficient culture and analysis of renal tubular cells. Lab Chip 10:36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zhou M et al (2014) Induction of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in proximal tubular epithelial cells on microfluidic devices. Biomaterials 35(5):1390–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Song JW, Munn LL (2011) Fluid forces control endothelial sprouting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(37):15342–15347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Douville NJ et al (2011) Combination of fluid and solid mechanical stresses contribute to cell death and detachment in a microfluidic alveolar model. Lab Chip 11:609–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Vlahakis NE et al (1999) Stretch induces cytokine release by alveolar epithelial cells in vitro. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 277:L167–L173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tschumperlin DJ et al (2000) Deformationinduced injury of alveolar epithelial cells: effect of frequency, duration, and amplitude. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162:357–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Bilek AM et al (2003) Mechanisms of surface-tensioninduced epithelial cell damage in a model of pulmonary airway reopening. J Appl Physiol 94:770–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Huh D et al (2007) Acoustically detectable cellular-level lung injury induced by fluid mechanical stresses in microfluidic airway systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18886–18891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Hubatsch I et al (2007) Determination of drug permeability and prediction of drug absorption in Caco-2 monolayers. Nat Protoc 2(9):2111–2119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kimura H et al (2008) An integrated microfluidic system for long-term perfusion culture and on-line monitoring of intestinal tissue models. Lab Chip 8(5):741–746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Imura Y et al (2009) A microfluidic system to evaluate intestinal absorption. Anal Sci 25(12):1403–1407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kim HJ et al (2012) Human gut-on-a-chip inhabited by microbial flora that experiences intestinal peristalsis-like motions and flow. Lab Chip 12:2165–2174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kim HJ, Ingber DE (2013) Gut-on-a-chip microenvironment induces human intestinal cells to undergo villus differentiation. Integr Biol (Camb) 5:1130–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Gao X et al (2011) A simple elastic membrane-based microfluidic chip for the proliferation and differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells under tensile stress. Electrophoresis 32(23):3431–3436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Oleaga C et al (2016) Multi-organ toxicity demonstration in a functional human in vitro system system composed of four organs. Sci Rep 6:20030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Whitesides GM (2006) The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature 442(7101):368–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    El-Ali J et al (2006) Cells in chips. Nature 442(7101):403–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Huh D et al (2012) Microengineered physiological biomimicry: organs-on-Chip. Lab Chip 12(12):2156–2164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    van der Meer AD, van den Berg A (2012) Organs-on-chips: breaking the in vitro impasse. Integr Biol (Camb) 4(5):461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Ghaemmaghami AM et al (2012) Biomimetic tissues on a chip for drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 17(3–4):173–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Huh D et al (2011) From three-dimensional cell culture to organs-on-chips. Trends Cell Biol 21(12):745–754PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Steimer A et al (2005) Cell culture models of the respiratory tract relevant to pulmonary drug delivery. J Aerosol Med 18(2):137–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tavana H et al (2001) Epithelium damage and protection during reopening of occluded airways in a physiologic microfluidic pulmonary airway model. Biomed Microdevices 13(4):731–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Huh D et al (2010) Reconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip. Science 328(5986):1662–1668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Huh D et al (2012) A human disease model of drug toxicity-induced pulmonary edema in a lung-on-a-chip microdevice. Sci Transl Med 4(159):159ra147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Fagerholm U et al (1996) Comparison between permeability coefficients in rat and human jejunum. Pharm Res 13(9):1336–1342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Kim SH et al (2013) A microfluidic device with 3-d hydrogel villi scaffold to simulate intestinal absorption. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 13(11):7220–7228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Gan LSL, Thakker DR (1997) Applications of the Caco-2 model in the design and development of orally active drugs: elucidation of biochemical and physical barriers posed by the intestinal epithelium. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 23:77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Ramadan Q et al (2013) NutriChip: nutrition analysis meets microfluidics. Lab Chip 13(2):196–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Sung JH et al (2011) Microscale 3-D hydrogel scaffold for biomimetic gastrointestinal (GI) tract model. Lab Chip 11(3):389–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Li L et al (2012) A microfluidic in vitro system for the quantitative study of the stomach mucus barrier function. Lab Chip 12(20):4071–4079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Yoon ND et al (2015) 3D liver models on a microplatform: well-defined culture, engineering of liver tissue and liver-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 15(19):3822–3837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Bhise NS et al (2016) A liver-on-a-chip platform with bioprinted hepatic spheroids. Biofabrication 8(1):014101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Lee J et al (2014) Fabrication and characterization of microfluidic liver-on-a-chip using microsomal enzymes. Lab Chip 14(17):3290–3299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Lee PJ et al (2007) An artificial liver sinusoid with a microfluidic endothelial-like barrier for primary hepatocyte culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 97(5):1340–1346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Kang IK et al (2004) Co-culture of hepatocytes and fibroblasts by micropatterned immobilization of beta-galactose derivatives. Biomaterials 25(18):4225–4232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Zinchenko YS, Coger RN (2005) Engineering micropatterned surfaces for the coculture of hepatocytes and Kupffer cells. J Biomed Mater Res A 75(1):242–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Ho CT et al (2013) Liver-cell patterning lab chip: mimicking the morphology of liver lobule tissue. Lab Chip 13(18):3578–3587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Ho CT et al (2006) Rapid heterogeneous liver-cell on-chip patterning via the enhanced field-induced dielectrophoresis trap. Lab Chip 6(6):724–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Malinen MM et al (2014) Differentiation of liver progenitor cell line to functional organotypiccultures in 3D nanofibrillar cellulose and hyaluronan-gelatin hydrogels. Biomaterials 35(19):5110–5121PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Lee KH et al (2011) Diffusion-mediated in situ alginate encapsulation of cell spheroids using microscale concave well and nanoporous membrane. Lab Chip 11(6):1168–1167PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Gieseck RL 3rd et al (2014) Maturation of induced pluripotent stem cell derived hepatocytes by 3D-culture. PLoS One 9(1):e86372PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Achilli TM et al (2012) Advances in the formation, use and understanding of multi-cellular spheroids. Expert Opin Biol Ther 12(10):1347–1360PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Jun Y et al (2013) 3D co-culturing model of primary pancreatic islets and hepatocytes in hybrid spheroid to overcome pancreatic cell shortage. Biomaterials 34(15):3784–3794PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Wong SF et al (2011) Concave microwell based size-controllable hepatosphere as a three-dimensional liver tissue model. Biomaterials 32(32):8087–8096PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Goral VN et al (2010) Perfusion-based microfluidic device for three-dimensional dynamic primary human hepatocyte cell culture in the absence of biological or synthetic matrices or coagulants. Lab Chip 10(24):3380–3386PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Miki T et al (2011) Hepatic differentiation of human embryonic stem cells is promoted by three-dimensional dynamic perfusion culture conditions. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 17(5):557–568PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Lee SA et al (2013) Spheroid-based three-dimensional liver-on-a-chip to investigate hepatocyte-hepatic stellate cell interactions and flow effects. Lab Chip 13(18):3529–3537PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Dash A et al (2013) Hemodynamic flow improves rat hepatocyte morphology, function, and metabolic activity in vitro. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 304(11):C1053–C1063PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Trietsch SJ et al (2013) Microfluidic titer plate for stratified 3D cell culture. Lab Chip 13(18):3548–3554PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Nakao Y et al (2011) Bile canaliculi formation by aligning rat primary hepatocytes in a microfluidic device. Biomicrofluidics 5(2):22212PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Esch MB et al (2015) Multi-cellular 3D human primary liver cell culture elevates metabolic activity under fluidic flow. Lab Chip 15(10):2269–2277PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Tanaka Y et al (2007) A micro-spherical heart pump powered by cultured cardiomyocytes. Lab Chip 7:207–212PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Aung A et al (2016) 3D cardiac μtissues within a microfluidic device with real-time contractile stress readout. Lab Chip 16(1):153–162PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Morimoto Y et al (2016) Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived fiber-shaped cardiac tissue on a chip. Lab Chip 16(12):2295–2301PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Khademhosseini A et al (2007) Microfluidic patterning for fabrication of contractile cardiac organoids. Biomed Microdevices 9(2):149–157PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Visone R et al (2016) Cardiac meets skeletal: what’s new in microfluidic models for muscle tissue engineering. Molecules 21(9):piiE1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Radisic M et al (2007) Biomimetic approach to cardiac tissue engineering. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 362:1357–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Grosberg A et al (2011) Ensembles of engineered cardiac tissues for physiological and engineered cardiac tissues for physiological and pharmacological study heart on a chip. Lab Chip 11(24):4165–4173PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Effron MB et al (1987) Changes in myosin isoenzymes, ATPase activity, and contraction duration in rat cardiac muscle with aging can be modulated by thyroxine. Circ Res 60(2):238–245PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Agarwal A et al (2013) Microfluidic heart on a chip for higher throughput pharmacological studies. Lab Chip 13:3599–3608PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Serena E et al (2012) Micro-arrayed human embryonic stem cells-derived cardiomyocytes for in vitro functional assay. PLoS One 7(11):e48483PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Kensah G et al (2013) Murine and human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiac bodies form contractile myocardial tissue in vitro. Eur Heart J 34:1134–1146PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Bergstrom G et al (2015) Stem cell derived in vivo-like human cardiac bodies in a microfluidic device for toxicity testing by beating frequency imaging. Lab Chip 15:3242–3249PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Aung A et al (2016) 3D cardiac mutissues within a microfluidic device with real-time contractile stress readout. Lab Chip 16:153–162PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Mathur A et al (2015) Human iPSC-based cardiac microphysiological system for drug screening applications. Sci Rep 5:8883PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Mathur A et al (2016) In vitro cardiac tissue models: current status and future prospects. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 96:203–213PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Booth R, Kim H (2012) Characterization of a microfluidic in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (mBBB). Lab Chip 12:1784–1792PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Achyuta AK et al (2013) A modular approach to create a neurovascular unit-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 13:542–553PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Wikswo JP et al (2013) Scaling and systems biology for integrating multiple organs-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 13:3496–3511PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Abaci HE, Shuler ML (2015) Human-on-a-chip design strategies and principles for physiologically based pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics modeling. Integr Biol (Camb) 7(4):383–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    vanMidwoud PM et al (2010) A microfluidic approach for in vitro assessment of interorgan interactions in drug metabolism using intestinal and liver slices. Lab Chip 10:2778–2786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Wagner I et al (2013) A dynamic multi-organ-chip for long-term cultivation and substance testing proven by 3D human liver and skin tissue co-culture. Lab Chip 13(18):3538–3547PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Materne EM et al (2015) A multi-organ chip co-culture of neurospheres and liver equivalentsfor long-term substance testing. J Biotechnol 205:36–46PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Sung JH, Shuler ML (2009) A micro cell culture analog (microCCA) with 3-D hydrogel culture of multiple cell lines to assess metabolism-dependent cytotoxicity of anti-cancer drugs. Lab Chip 9(10):1385–1394PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Esch MB et al (2014) Body-on-a chip simulation with gastrointestinal tract and liver tissues suggests that ingested nanoparticles have the potential to cause liver injury. Lab Chip 14(16):3081–3092PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Maschmeyer I et al (2015) A four-organ-chip for interconnected long-term co-culture of human intestine, liver, skin and kidney equivalents. Lab Chip 15(12):2688–2699PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Zhang C et al (2009) Towards a human-on-chip: culturing multiple cell types on a chip with compartmentalized microenvironments. Lab Chip 9:3185–3192PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Odijk M et al (2015) Measuring direct current trans-epithelial electrical resistance in organ-on microsystem. Lab Chip 15(3):745–752PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Benam KH et al (2016) Small airway-on-a-chip enables analysis of human lung inflammation and drug responses in vitro. Nat Methods 13(2):151–157PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Park J et al (2015) Three-dimensional brain-on-a-chip with an interstitial level of flow and its application as an in vitro model of Alzheimer’s disease. Lab Chip 15(1):141–150PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Ma H et al (2013) Biomimetic tumor microenvironment on a microfluidic platform. Biomicrofluidics 7(1):11501PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Kuo CT et al (2014) Modeling of cancer metastasis and drug resistance via biomimeticnanocilial and microfluidics. Biomaterials 35(5):1562–1571PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Choi Y et al (2015) A microengineered pathophysiological model of early-stage breast cancer. Lab Chip 15(16):3350–3357PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Xu H et al (2015) Activation of hypoxia signaling induces phenotypic transformation of glioma cells: implications for bevacizumab antiangiogenic therapy. Oncotarget 6(14):11882–11893PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Li CY et al (2013) Flow-based pipeline for systematic modulation and analysis of 3D tumor microenvironments. Lab Chip 13:1969–1978PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Zervantonakis IK et al (2012) Three-dimensional microfluidic model for tumor cell intravasation and endothelial barrier function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:13515–13520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Moya ML et al (2013) In vitro perfused human capillary networks. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 19:730–737PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Businaro L et al (2013) Cross talk between cancer and immune cells: exploring complex dynamics in a microfluidic environment. Lab Chip 13:229–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Aref AR et al (2013) Screening therapeutic EMT blocking agents in a three-dimensional microenvironment. Integr Biol (Camb) 5:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Vidi PA et al (2014) Disease-on-a-chip: mimicry of tumor growth in mammary ducts. Lab Chip 14:172–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Tatosian DA, Shuler ML (2009) A novel system for evaluation of drug mixtures for potential efficacy in treating multidrug resistant cancers. Biotechnol Bioeng 103:187–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Berdichevsky Y et al (2010) Building and manipulating neural pathways with microfluidics. Lab Chip 10:999–1004PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Xu H et al (2016) A dynamic in vivo-like organotypic blood-brain barrier model to probe metastatic brain tumors. Sci Rep 6:36670PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Lippmann ES et al (2012) Derivation of blood-brain barrier endothelial cells from human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 30:783–791PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Deracinois B et al (2013) Glial-cell-mediated re-induction of the blood-brain barrier phenotype in brain capillary endothelial cells: a differential gel electrophoresis study. Proteomics 13:1185–1199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Choucha-Snouber L et al (2013) Investigation of ifosfamide nephrotoxicity induced in a liver–kidney co-culture biochip. Biotechnol Bioeng 110:597–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    McCain ML et al (2013) Recapitulating maladaptive, multiscale remodeling of failing myocardium on a chip. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:9770–9775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Thavandiran N et al (2013) Design and formulation of functional pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiac microtissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:E4698–E4707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    ChouchaSnouber L et al (2013) Metabolomics-on-a-chip of hepatotoxicity induced by anticancer drug flutamide and its active metabolite hydroxyflutamide using HepG2/ C3a microfluidic biochips. Toxicol Sci 132:8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Shintu L et al (2012) Metabolomics-on-a-chip and predictive systems toxicology in microfluidic bioartificial organs. Anal Chem 84:1840–1848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Mahler GJ et al (2009) Characterization of a gastrointestinal tract microscale cell culture analog used to predict drug toxicity. Biotechnol Bioeng 104(1):193–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Sung JH et al (2010) A microfluidic device for a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model on a chip. Lab Chip 10(4):446–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Li Z et al (2016) Assessment of metabolism-dependent drug efficacy and toxicity on a multilayer organs-on-a-chip. Integr Biol (Camb) 8(10):1022–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Cong X et al (2015) Early life experience and gut microbiome: the brain-gut-microbiota signaling system. Adv Neonatal Care 5(5):314–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Dinan TG, Cryan JF (2012) Regulation of the stress response by the gut microbiota: implications for psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology 37(9):1369–1378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Kim HJ et al (2016) Contributions of microbiome and mechanical deformation to intestinal bacterial overgrowth andinflammation in a human gut-on-a-chip. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(1):E7–E15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Booth R, Kim H (2014) Permeability analysis of neuroactive drugs through a dynamic microfluidic in vitro blood-brain barrier model. Annals Biomed Engineering 42:2379–2391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Deosarkar SP et al (2015) A novel dynamic neonatal blood- brain barrier on a Chip. PLoS One 10(11):e0142725PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Wang G et al (2014) Modeling the mitochondrial cardiomyopathy of Barth syndrome with induced pluripotent stem cell and heart-on-chip technologies. Nature Med 20:616–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Alford PW et al (2010) Biohybrid thin films for measuring contractility in engineered cardiovascular muscle. Biomaterials 31(13):3613–3621PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Punde TH et al (2015) A biologically inspired lung-on-a-chip device for the study of protein induced lung inflammation. IntegrBiol (Camb) 7(2):162–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Jang KJ et al (2013) Human kidney proximal tubule-on-a-chip for drug transport and nephrotoxicity assessment. IntegrBiol (Camb). 5(9):1119–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Zhou M et al (2016) Development of a functional Glomerulus at the organ level on a Chip to mimic hypertensive nephropathy. Sci Rep 6:31771PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Zhou Q et al (2015) Liver injury-on-a-chip: microfluidic co-cultures with integrated biosensors for monitoring liver cell signaling during injury. Lab Chip 15(23):4467–4478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Kang YB et al (2015) Liver sinusoid on a chip: long-term layered co-culture of primary rat hepatocytes and endothelial cells in microfluidic platforms. BiotechnolBioeng 112(12):2571–2582Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    Schimek K et al (2013) Integrating biological vasculature into a multi-organ-chip microsystem. Lab Chip 13(18):3588–3598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Hsu YH et al (2013) A microfluidic platform for generating large-scale nearly identical human microphysiological vascularized tissue arrays. Lab Chip 13(15):2990–2998PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Wang X et al (2016) Engineering anastomosis between living capillary networks and endothelial cell-lined microfluidic channels. Lab Chip 16(2):282–290PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Oleaga C et al (2016) Multi-organ toxicity demonstration in a functional human in vitro system composed of four organs. Sci Rep 6:20030PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Frey O et al (2014) Reconfigurable microfluidic hanging drop network for multi-tissue interaction and analysis. Nat Commun 5:4250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Loskill P et al (2015) μOrgano: a Lego®-like Plug & Play System for Modular Multi-Organ-Chips. PLoS One 10(10):e0139587PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Rigat-Brugarolas LG et al (2014) A functional microengineered model of the human splenon-on-a-chip. Lab Chip 14(10):1715–1724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Adriani G et al (2017) A 3D neurovascular microfluidic model consisting of neurons, astrocytes and cerebral endothelial cells as ablood-brain barrier. Lab Chip 17(3):448–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiotechnologyDalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of SciencesDalianP. R. China
  2. 2.CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Chinese Academy of SciencesShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Institute for Stem Cell and Regeneration, Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options