Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24912505›Full record

ReviewExperimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)2014

Biological and medical applications of a brain-on-a-chip.

David Pamies, Thomas Hartung, Helena T Hogberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Advances in currentFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Morphological and biochemical repercussions ofBrain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2021
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David Pamies *Centers for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; University of Konstanz, POB 600, Konstanz 78457, Germany.
Thomas Hartung *Centers for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; University of Konstanz, POB 600, Konstanz 78457, Germany.
Helena T Hogberg *Centers for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; University of Konstanz, POB 600, Konstanz 78457, Germany.

Funding

A 3D Model of Human Brain Development for Studying Gene/Environment InteractionsU18TR000547 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HARTUNG, THOMAS · 2012 to 2013
$865k
Developmental neurotoxicity pathways for high throughput testing by metabolomicsU01FD004230 · FDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HARTUNG, THOMAS · 2011 to 2012
$815k
FDA HHS U01 FD004230FDA HHS U01FD004230NCATS NIH HHS 1U18TR000547NCATS NIH HHS U18 TR000547
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The desire to develop and evaluate drugs as potential countermeasures for biological and chemical threats requires test systems that can also substitute for the clinical trials normally crucial for drug development. Current animal models have limited predictivity for drug efficacy in humans as the large majority of drugs fails in clinical trials. We have limited understanding of the function of the central nervous system and the complexity of the brain, especially during development and neuronal plasticity. Simple in vitro systems do not represent physiology and function of the brain. Moreover, the difficulty of studying interactions between human genetics and environmental factors leads to lack of knowledge about the events that induce neurological diseases. Microphysiological systems (MPS) promise to generate more complex in vitro human models that better simulate the organ's biology and function. MPS combine different cell types in a specific three-dimensional (3D) configuration to simulate organs with a concrete function. The final aim of these MPS is to combine different "organoids" to generate a human-on-a-chip, an approach that would allow studies of complex physiological organ interactions. The recent discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) gives a range of possibilities allowing cellular studies of individuals with different genetic backgrounds (e.g., human disease models). Application of iPSCs from different donors in MPS gives the opportunity to better understand mechanisms of the disease and can be a novel tool in drug development, toxicology, and medicine. In order to generate a brain-on-a-chip, we have established a 3D model from human iPSCs based on our experience with a 3D rat primary aggregating brain model. After four weeks of differentiation, human 3D aggregates stain positive for different neuronal markers and show higher gene expression of various neuronal differentiation markers compared to 2D cultures. Here we present the applications and challenges of this emerging technology.

Indexed as

BrainLab-On-A-Chip DevicesNeurogenesisNeuronal PlasticityOrgan Culture TechniquesAnimalsDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansRatshuman-on-a-chipInduced pluripotent stem cellsneural modelsthree-dimensionalTox-21 c

Identifiers

PMID24912505
PMCPMC4779552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.