ArticleIn vitro models2024
Characterization of a primary cellular airway model for inhalative drug delivery in comparison with the established permanent cell lines CaLu3 and RPMI 2650.
Article in In vitro models, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mucoadhesive Nanoemulsions for Nose-to-Brain Delivery of Dimethyl Fumarate: Development, Characterization and Proof-of-Concept In Vivo Evaluation.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- The role of ABC transporters in the human lung epithelium-insights from and limitations of current in vitro cell models.In vitro models · 2026Review
- Inhalative polyclonal immunoglobulin G for the prevention of respiratory infections: A comprehensiveInternational journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2025Article
- Nasal microbionts differentially colonize and elicit cytokines in human nasal epithelial organoids.mSphere · 2025Article
- Advances in Nasal Biopharmaceutics to Support Product Development and Therapeutic Needs.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Development and Characterization of a Primary Ciliated Porcine Airway Model for the Evaluation of In Vitro Mucociliary Clearance and Mucosal Drug Delivery.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: For optimization of respiratory drug delivery, the selection of suitable in vitro cell models plays an important role in predicting the efficacy and safety of (bio)pharmaceutics and pharmaceutical formulations. Therefore, an in-depth comparison of different primary and permanent in vitro cellular airway models was performed with a focus on selecting a suitable model for inhalative antibodies. Methods: Primary cells isolated from the porcine trachea were compared with the established human cell lines CaLu3 and RPMI 2650. The in vitro models were characterized for different epithelial markers by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, which provides insight into the cellular composition of each model. For a few selected markers, the results from RT-qPCR were confirmed via immunofluorescence. Barrier integrity was assessed by transepithelial electrical resistance measurements and FITC-dextran permeability. Results: Primary cell models retain key features of the respiratory epithelium, e.g., the formation of a tight epithelial barrier, mucin production, and the presence of club/basal cells. Furthermore, the expression of Fc receptors in the primary cell models closely resembles that in respiratory mucosal tissue, an essential parameter to consider when developing therapeutic antibodies for inhalation. Conclusion: The study underlines the importance of selecting wisely appropriate in vitro models. Despite the greater effort and variability in cultivating primary airway cells, they are far superior to permanent cells and a suitable model for drug development. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44164-024-00079-y.
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.