Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34105271›Full record

ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2021

A Microfluidic Multisize Spheroid Array for Multiparametric Screening of Anticancer Drugs and Blood-Brain Barrier Transport Properties.

Christoph Eilenberger, Mario Rothbauer, Florian Selinger, Anna Gerhartl, Christian Jordan, Michael Harasek, Barbara Schädl, Johannes Grillari, Julian Weghuber, Winfried Neuhaus and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 3DFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Periodic Flows in Microfluidics.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Christoph EilenbergerFaculty of Technical Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9, Vienna, 1060, Austria.
Mario RothbauerFaculty of Technical Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9, Vienna, 1060, Austria.
Florian SelingerFaculty of Technical Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9, Vienna, 1060, Austria.
Anna GerhartlAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Center Health and Bioresources, Competence Unit Molecular Diagnostics, Giefinggasse 4, Vienna, 1210, Austria.
Christian JordanFaculty of Technical Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9, Vienna, 1060, Austria.
Michael HarasekFaculty of Technical Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9, Vienna, 1060, Austria.
Barbara SchädlLudwig-Boltzmann-Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Donaueschingenstraße 13, Vienna, 1200, Austria.
Johannes GrillariLudwig-Boltzmann-Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Donaueschingenstraße 13, Vienna, 1200, Austria.
Julian WeghuberSchool of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Stelzhamerstraße 23, Wels, 4600, Austria.
Winfried NeuhausAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Center Health and Bioresources, Competence Unit Molecular Diagnostics, Giefinggasse 4, Vienna, 1210, Austria.
Seta KüpcüInstitute of Synthetic Bioarchitectures, Department of Nanobiotechnology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Muthgasse 11, Vienna, 1190, Austria.
Peter ErtlFaculty of Technical Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9, Vienna, 1060, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-7625-2445
TU Wien · ATAustrian Institute of Technology · ATLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, The Research Center in Cooperation with AUVA · ATBOKU University · ATUniversity of Applied Sciences Upper Austria · AT

Funding

Christian Doppler Forschungsgesellschaft (Josef Ressel Center for Phytogenic Drug Research)(EFPIA) grant agreement number 807015European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physiological-relevant in vitro tissue models with their promise of better predictability have the potential to improve drug screening outcomes in preclinical studies. Despite the advances of spheroid models in pharmaceutical screening applications, variations in spheroid size and consequential altered cell responses often lead to nonreproducible and unpredictable results. Here, a microfluidic multisize spheroid array is established and characterized using liver, lung, colon, and skin cells as well as a triple-culture model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to assess the effects of spheroid size on (a) anticancer drug toxicity and (b) compound penetration across an advanced BBB model. The reproducible on-chip generation of 360 spheroids of five dimensions on a well-plate format using an integrated microlens technology is demonstrated. While spheroid size-related IC

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBiological TransportBlood-Brain BarrierDoxorubicinDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalEndothelial CellsHumansMicrofluidic Analytical TechniquesNeoplasmsSpheroids, CellularAntineoplastic AgentsDoxorubicinanticancer drugsblood-brain barrierin vitro testsmicrofluidicsmulticellular spheroids

Identifiers

PMID34105271
PMCPMC8188192
OpenAlexW3151307822

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.