Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26436734›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Temporal Monitoring of Differentiated Human Airway Epithelial Cells Using Microfluidics.

Cornelia Blume, Riccardo Reale, Marie Held, Timothy M Millar, Jane E Collins, Donna E Davies, Hywel Morgan, Emily J Swindle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Advanced in vitro lung-on-chip platforms for inhalation assays: From prospect to pipeline.European journal of pharmaceutics and biopharmaceutics : official journal of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik e.V · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Through the Looking Glass:Applied in vitro toxicology · 2018
    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

8 authors.

Cornelia BlumeAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Riccardo RealeElectronics and Computer Sciences, Faculty of Physical Sciences and Engineering, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Marie HeldElectronics and Computer Sciences, Faculty of Physical Sciences and Engineering, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Timothy M MillarAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jane E CollinsAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Donna E DaviesAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; National Institute for Health Research, Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Hywel MorganElectronics and Computer Sciences, Faculty of Physical Sciences and Engineering, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Emily J SwindleAcademic Unit of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; National Institute for Health Research, Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0900453National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research G1001598/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The airway epithelium is exposed to a variety of harmful agents during breathing and appropriate cellular responses are essential to maintain tissue homeostasis. Recent evidence has highlighted the contribution of epithelial barrier dysfunction in the development of many chronic respiratory diseases. Despite intense research efforts, the responses of the airway barrier to environmental agents are not fully understood, mainly due to lack of suitable in vitro models that recapitulate the complex in vivo situation accurately. Using an interdisciplinary approach, we describe a novel dynamic 3D in vitro model of the airway epithelium, incorporating fully differentiated primary human airway epithelial cells at the air-liquid interface and a basolateral microfluidic supply of nutrients simulating the interstitial flow observed in vivo. Through combination of the microfluidic culture system with an automated fraction collector the kinetics of cellular responses by the airway epithelium to environmental agents can be analysed at the early phases for the first time and with much higher sensitivity compared to common static in vitro models. Following exposure of primary differentiated epithelial cells to pollen we show that CXCL8/IL-8 release is detectable within the first 2h and peaks at 4-6h under microfluidic conditions, a response which was not observed in conventional static culture conditions. Such a microfluidic culture model is likely to have utility for high resolution temporal profiling of toxicological and pharmacological responses of the airway epithelial barrier, as well as for studies of disease mechanisms.

Indexed as

MicrofluidicsEpithelial CellsHumansIn Vitro TechniquesRespiratory System

Identifiers

PMID26436734
PMCPMC4593539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.