ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
In Vitro Models of Biological Barriers for Nanomedical Research.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategies to control cellular spatial organization in microphysiological systems.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Review
- Overcoming tumor microenvironment barriers: transformable and bioinspired nanomedicine strategies for deep tumor penetration.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Review
- Physiological Barriers to Nucleic Acid Therapeutics and Engineering Strategies for Lipid Nanoparticle Design, Optimization, and Clinical Translation.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- A Versatile Platform for Designing and Fabricating Multi-Material Perfusable 3D Microvasculatures.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Immune Modulation with Nanodiscs: Surface Charge Dictates Cellular Interactions and Activation of Macrophages and Dendritic-like Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- 3DFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Hybrid-integrated devices for mimicking malignant brain tumors ("tumor-on-a-chip") forFrontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- An Innovative Fluid Dynamic System to Model Inflammation in Human Skin Explants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The contribution of immunohistochemistry to the development of hydrogels for skin repair and regeneration.European journal of histochemistry : EJH · 2023Review
- Nanoparticle-Based Techniques for Bladder Cancer Imaging: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Cardiac Differentiation Promotes Focal Adhesions Assembly through Vinculin Recruitment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- An ex vivo experimental system to track fluorescent nanoparticles inside skeletal muscle.European journal of histochemistry : EJH · 2023Article
- L-Carnitine Functionalization to Increase Skeletal Muscle Tropism of PLGA Nanoparticles.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Ex Vivo Evaluation of Ethosomes and Transethosomes Applied on Human Skin: A Comparative Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Assessing the interactions between nanoparticles and biological barriers in vitro: a new challenge for microscopy techniques in nanomedicine.European journal of histochemistry : EJH · 2022Article
- Human Brain Organoids-on-Chip: Advances, Challenges, and Perspectives for Preclinical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanoconstructs developed for biomedical purposes must overcome diverse biological barriers before reaching the target where playing their therapeutic or diagnostic function. In vivo models are very complex and unsuitable to distinguish the roles plaid by the multiple biological barriers on nanoparticle biodistribution and effect; in addition, they are costly, time-consuming and subject to strict ethical regulation. For these reasons, simplified in vitro models are preferred, at least for the earlier phases of the nanoconstruct development. Many in vitro models have therefore been set up. Each model has its own pros and cons: conventional 2D cell cultures are simple and cost-effective, but the information remains limited to single cells; cell monolayers allow the formation of cell-cell junctions and the assessment of nanoparticle translocation across structured barriers but they lack three-dimensionality; 3D cell culture systems are more appropriate to test in vitro nanoparticle biodistribution but they are static; finally, bioreactors and microfluidic devices can mimicking the physiological flow occurring in vivo thus providing in vitro biological barrier models suitable to reliably assess nanoparticles relocation. In this evolving context, the present review provides an overview of the most representative and performing in vitro models of biological barriers set up for nanomedical research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.