Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35626736›Full record

ReviewCells2022

Microfluidics for 3D Cell and Tissue Cultures: Microfabricative and Ethical Aspects Updates.

Tania Limongi, Francesco Guzzi, Elvira Parrotta, Patrizio Candeloro, Stefania Scalise, Valeria Lucchino, Francesco Gentile, Luca Tirinato, Maria Laura Coluccio, Bruno Torre and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Functional Liver Cell-Based Platforms in Biomedical Research.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025
    Review
  4. Osteochondral Tissue-On-a-Chip: A Novel Model for Osteoarthritis Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Nanomedicines against Chagas disease: a critical review.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

16 authors.

Tania LimongiDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5510-5561
Francesco GuzziNanotechnology Research Centre, BioNEM Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3004-7806
Elvira ParrottaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8145-3623
Patrizio CandeloroNanotechnology Research Centre, BioNEM Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6156-887X
Stefania ScaliseResearch Centre for Advanced Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6979-1486
Valeria LucchinoResearch Centre for Advanced Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7350-3835
Francesco GentileNanotechnology Research Centre, BioNEM Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.
Luca TirinatoNanotechnology Research Centre, BioNEM Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9826-2129
Maria Laura ColuccioNanotechnology Research Centre, BioNEM Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.
Bruno TorreDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6056-3759
Marco AllioneDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy.
Monica MariniDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy.
Francesca SusaDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy.
Enzo Di FabrizioDepartment of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy.
Giovanni CudaResearch Centre for Advanced Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6313-1866
Gerardo PerozzielloNanotechnology Research Centre, BioNEM Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University Magna Graecia of Catanzaro, 88100 Catanzaro, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The necessity to improve in vitro cell screening assays is becoming ever more important. Pharmaceutical companies, research laboratories and hospitals require technologies that help to speed up conventional screening and therapeutic procedures to produce more data in a short time in a realistic and reliable manner. The design of new solutions for test biomaterials and active molecules is one of the urgent problems of preclinical screening and the limited correlation between in vitro and in vivo data remains one of the major issues. The establishment of the most suitable in vitro model provides reduction in times, costs and, last but not least, in the number of animal experiments as recommended by the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) ethical guiding principles for testing involving animals. Although two-dimensional (2D) traditional cell screening assays are generally cheap and practical to manage, they have strong limitations, as cells, within the transition from the three-dimensional (3D) in vivo to the 2D in vitro growth conditions, do not properly mimic the real morphologies and physiology of their native tissues. In the study of human pathologies, especially, animal experiments provide data closer to what happens in the target organ or apparatus, but they imply slow and costly procedures and they generally do not fully accomplish the 3Rs recommendations, i.e., the amount of laboratory animals and the stress that they undergo must be minimized. Microfluidic devices seem to offer different advantages in relation to the mentioned issues. This review aims to describe the critical issues connected with the conventional cells culture and screening procedures, showing what happens in the in vivo physiological micro and nano environment also from a physical point of view. During the discussion, some microfluidic tools and their components are described to explain how these devices can circumvent the actual limitations described in the introduction.

Indexed as

Lab-On-A-Chip DevicesMicrofluidicsAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsCell Culture TechniquesBiocompatible Materials3D cell cultures3Rs principlesin vitro cell cultureslab on chipmicrofluidics

Identifiers

PMID35626736
PMCPMC9139493

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.