• Seeding of organ-specific primary or induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) derived cells in a manner that encourages cells to assemble into physiologically relevant configurations that matches the functional units of native organ systems; this can include multiple cell types to account for the role played by different cells present in each organ as well as extra-cellular matrix.
• Perfusion with appropriate media to nourish cells, transport waste, supply/maintain oxygen levels and apply appropriate shear stress; in many systems, this includes a parenchymal compartment and a vascular compartment to mimic vascularization².
• Providing organ-specific stimuli. e.g.: electrical stimuli for heart on chips, mechanical strain for lung on chips and other organs that require contraction/expansion.

Figure 1: Examples of organ on chip systems that have been developed include (clockwise from top right) a blood-brain barrier (Wikswo lab at Vanderbilt University), cardiac muscle (Parker lab at Harvard), kidney proximal tubule (www.nortisbio.com ), female reproductive tract (DRAPER laboratories), vascularized tumor (George lab at Washington University), skin epidermis (Christiano lab at Columbia), vasculature (George lab at Washington University), liver (Taylor lab at University of Pittsburgh), and lung (www.emulatebio.com). Center image from www.ncats.nih.gov/tissuechip. Figure is taken from¹.

Various organ systems have been modelled via OOC’s using these principles (refer Figure 1) and have been covered in-depth elsewhere³. OOC platforms provide greater insight into fundamental organ biology and can model how diseases develop and progress, leading to improved therapeutics and treatment strategies¹. The potential applications of OOC’s in basic, translational, and clinical research including regenerative medicine and personalized medicine⁴ has spurred great interest from researchers and funding agencies⁵.  Meanwhile, the positioning of OOC’s as improved pre-clinical testing platforms that can augment existing animal models and eventually replace them has caught the attention of pharmaceutical companies and regulatory bodies⁶.

The current gold standard for pre-clinal testing has been animal models, for which there exists many decades worth of data to fall back on.  While no one will argue that animal models are ideal, they are still the best method currently available for pre-clinical testing, short of testing on humans.  This lack of a better model is what helped drive research into microfluidic 3D cell cultures and OOC’s forward as an alternative to animal testing.  The biggest argument for OOC’s over animal models (besides the major ethical debate over breeding animals solely for sacrificing in drug tests) is that they use human cells and model human organ function – factors that should make them a better predictive model than animals. However, since OOC’s are so new and unproven (with the kind of rigour that pharma and regulatory bodies expect), there is a fair amount of healthy skepticism that must be overcome. Some of the big questions being asked by pharmaceutical companies with regards to OOC’s are:

1. How translatable and scalable are OOC’s outside of the labs in which they are developed? Proof of concept demonstrations with low number of replicates carried out in one lab can look very promising, but how well can these be deployed in large numbers by different groups of peoples at different labs/institutes while still providing the same quality of data?
2. What are the benchmarks used to evaluate OOC’s – against each other and against animal and patient data? The lack of a standardized set of parameters by which OOC’s can be evaluated makes it difficult to compare OOC performance and identify strengths and weaknesses.
3. How valid are the predictive capabilities of these systems? How much credibility can be associated with what an OOC says about toxicity or efficacy of a new drug candidate – especially if there is conflicting data from existing preclinical models?
4. In what context can OOC models be used – can they replace animal studies or complement them? Or are they better suited for mechanistic studies? How will regulatory bodies accept data coming from OOC models?

The above questions are not trivial, and many ongoing discussions between academics, regulatory bodies, and industry are already taking place to address these issues⁶,⁷. The remainder of this article looks only at the first point raised: the transferability and scalability of OOC’s. This might at first glance appear to be a simple logistical problem; however, the complexity of OOC’s turns this into a much more complicated issue.

OOC-based experiments in academic labs are done at a low scale with most labs running 8 – 20 OOC’s in parallel at any given time. Thus, each OOC receives significant attention every step of the way from highly specialized personnel who can take preventive steps at the first sign of trouble if needed. Given the relatively small number of replicates and the proof of concept nature of the work, entire experiments can be repeated if significant issues arise. However, in highly regulated healthcare environments, for results to be accepted as valid, significant confidence must be established in the testing platform’s ability to provide repeatable, reproducible and consistent results with many replicates.  Repeating entire batches of experiments or devoting excessive resources to maintain and monitor each individual OOC does not become feasible in such situations.  For OOC’s to move into the mainstream as a standardized tool, they will have to become more “plug and play” – easy to set up in large numbers and maintain without requiring troubleshooting at every step of the way.  Bottlenecks that can get in the way of scaling up OOC platforms can arise from:

• The microfluidic device/platform:

  Most academic OOC platforms use custom microfluidic devices made in-house using soft lithography and PDMS.  While this allows complex devices to be made, batches are small and yield rates low – issues which can be tolerated in proof-of-concept platform demonstration situations where replicates are low but untenable in higher throughput rigorous screening scenarios. Translating PDMS designs to commercially viable plastic or glass devices that can be mass fabricated comes with its own set of challenges (e.g. intricate internal features that can be cast in PDMS are harder to translate to plastics/glass, PDMS is oxygen permeable, while most plastics and glass are not, organ-specific stimuli designed in PDMS might not readily translate to other materials, etc.)  Thus, developing a microfluidic device or platform that can be fabricated in large batches with high yield rates, while still enabling the OOC to be established and maintained is usually the first obstacle for scalability.  To address these needs, commercial microfluidic platforms targeted at OOC’s are being developed or already available. However, these tend to lock down a particular OOCmethod/approach/design, leaving room for multiple competing platforms to be developed if they can demonstrate competitive advantages (e.g.easier to setup/maintain, lower cost, higher throughput, or improved functionality)

• Sourcing the cells:

  Most OOC’s rely on either primary human cells or iPSC derived cell types. This represents the biggest bottleneck in scaling up OOC’s since primary human cells are scarce and variable, while current iPSC differentiation protocols can provide sufficiently mature cells for only a few organs (e.g.: brain, heart)⁸. Even with iPSC derived cells considered sufficiently mature for use in OOC’s, differentiation protocols can be lengthy with up to months at a time needed to produce adult-like cells that can still have significant batch-to-batch variability and throw off OOC performance benchmarks.  Moreover, there is the natural variation and heterogeneity between cells, organs, and individuals⁹ that adds significantly to the complexity of developing OOC’s and understanding what exactly represents normal response and what falls into aberrant behaviour.  While initial OOC’s started off by limiting themselves to one particular lot of primary cells or one particular source and protocol for iPSC cells to enable comparisons, how will measurements and performance be affected when incorporating cell types from different donors or sources? Thus, cells represent the greatest source of uncertainty when attempting to scale up OOCs¹⁰. For large scale deployment, initial solutions will most likely lie in biomanufacturing iPSC’s with well-defined differentiation protocols that have been rigorously tested and validated. Incorporating donor-specific cells for precision medicine applications though, will require further work to ensure differentiation protocols for patient-derived iPSC’s yield cells that match the patients’ own native organ cells, and ensuing OOC performance matches the patient donor organ performance before trying to develop personalized treatment strategies based off OOC predicted results.

• Reliable protocols for setting up and maintaining OOC’s:

  The importance of having well defined and documented protocols while setting up and establishing OOC’s cannot be overstated.  Wherever possible, processes should be quantified and/or described with technical parameters to take out any guesswork. Leaving room for interpretation by personnel while setting up OOC’s can be a recipe for disaster, since even slight ambiguities in areas such as the method of seeding cells, injecting ECM or setting up perfusion can have dramatic implications on cell distribution, viability, and function.  Protocols must also consider practical issues that may be encountered, such as how to deal with bubbles, collect efflux samples or prepare chips for imaging

• Thorough validation of the entire system:

  This is an obvious requirement since users need to have confidence in the overall test platform and the results it generates; wide variations in OOC responses from device to device or batch to batch can erode trust in the usefulness of the platform. Thus, rigorous evaluations of the entire OOC must be done to benchmark performance, establish normal baseline behaviour, and how to interpret and identify changes to lead to valid conclusions.

While the above points do not capture the entire range of issues with scaling up OOC’s, they do highlight some of the initial steps to be considered.  The field of OOC’s is one that is continuing to grow and evolve at a rapid pace.  However, it is still important to examine how end-users use and deploy OOC’s in their venues to then draw insights into remaining questions related to ease of use, practicality, and context of use.  For this to occur, OOC’s need to be scaled up and translated from academic labs to end-user settings.  Ultimately, the OOC that gets adopted might not be the one that is the most advanced, but the one that can be easily set up and replicated while still providing compelling organ-like data.

References

<sup>1. Low, L. A. & Tagle, D. A. Tissue chips – innovative tools for drug development and disease modeling. Lab Chip17, 3026–3036 (2017).

2. Osaki, T., Sivathanu, V. & Kamm, R. D. Vascularized microfluidic organ-chips for drug screening, disease models and tissue engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.52, 116–123 (2018).

3. Ronaldson-Bouchard, K. & Vunjak-Novakovic, G. Organs-on-a-Chip: A Fast Track for Engineered Human Tissues in Drug Development. Cell Stem Cell22, 310–324 (2018).

4. Low, L. A. & Tagle, D. A. ‘You-on-a-chip’ for precision medicine. Expert Rev. Precis. Med. Drug Dev.3, 137–146 (2018).

5. Zhang, B. & Radisic, M. Organ-on-a-chip devices advance to market. Lab Chip17, (2017).

6. Livingston, C. A., Fabre, K. M. & Tagle, D. A. Facilitating the commercialization and use of organ platforms generated by the microphysiological systems (Tissue Chip) program through public-private partnerships. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J.14, 207–210 (2016).

7. Willyard, C. Channeling chip power: Tissue chips are being put to the test by industry. Nat. Med.23, 138–140 (2017).

8. Low, L. A. & Tagle, D. A. Microphysiological Systems (Organs-on-Chips) for Drug Efficacy and Toxicity Testing. Clin. Transl. Sci.10, 237–239 (2017).

9. Mertz, D. R., Ahmed, T. & Takayama, S. Engineering cell heterogeneity into organs-on-a-chip. Lab Chip18, 2378–2395 (2018).

10. Sakolish, C. et al. Technology Transfer of the Microphysiological Systems: A Case Study of the Human Proximal Tubule Tissue Chip. Sci. Rep.8, 14882 (2018).</sup>

Enjoyed this article? Don’t forget to share.

Subin M. George

Subin George has a decade of biomedical research experience spanning digital microfluidics for 3D cell culture, liver microphyiological systems, and implantable sensors for non-invasive continuous monitoring of oxygen, glucose and lactate. In the process, he acquired significant inter-disciplinary experience and enjoys working with research professionals from various technical backgrounds. His current interests lie in translating biomedical research from proof of concept settings to real-world applications. Apart from research, he enjoys spending time with his wife and daughter, catching up with technology, cooking, hiking, and playing soccer. 

The post Organ on Chips: Questions to Address Before They Can Move Into Mainstream Applications appeared first on The MicroFluidic Circle.

Muscle disease is one example. One of the NCATS awards is for “Systemic Inflammation in Microphysiological Models of Muscle and Vascular Disease.” This Duke University project focuses on skeletal muscle and blood vessels. The models will replicate inflammation, in order to assess variation in responses to drugs. A similar award went to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center for “Development of a Microphysiological Organ-on-Chip System to Model Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Parkinson’s Disease,” to highlight novel biomarkers. There is no cure for ALS, a neurological condition that stops voluntary muscle movements including chewing, walking, talking and ultimately, breathing. Animal rights proponents welcome these endeavors because they have been vexed for years by the use of dogs for research that leaves them crippled with muscular dystrophy and unable to walk, swallow, or breathe.

“For decades, generations of dogs have suffered and died in gruesome experiments that haven’t led to a cure for muscular dystrophy in humans,” proponents claim. They have also campaigned against the use of birds in related neurotransmitter research, as being “cruel and pointless” while not yielding usable information.

Harvard University researchers received another of the NCATS awards, to develop “Lung-on-a-Chip Disease Models for Efficacy Testing.” Microfluidic organ-on-chip devices replicating influenza virus infection will be used to define new antivirals. This influenza disease model will be linked to human liver chips, to conduct pre-clinical safety testing of existing antiviral drugs, and to identify new therapeutics that target the host response to infection, rather than the virus itself. This too is a welcome mission for animal rights workers, because lung organoids help “scientists get a much better idea of how human lungs respond to airborne substances than they can by forcing animals to inhale chemicals and then trying to apply the results to a completely different species.” Moreover, it could mean an end to animals“ being forced to inhale toxic chemicals for hours at a time before being killed.”

Source: pixabay.com

University of Washington teams received an award to investigate “A Microphysiological System for Kidney Disease Modeling and Drug Efficacy Testing.” Chronic kidney disease affects more than 20 million U.S. adults and is the ninth leading cause of death in the U.S. UW scientists will create in vitro models that mimic critical aspects of kidney function, response to injury, and repair. They will architect “virtual clinical trials” for candidate drugs.

A related project award is “Kidney Microphysiological Analysis Platforms to Optimize Function and Model Disease” at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Microfluidics, stem cell biology, microfabrication and bioprinting will be used to model kidney diseases, and to screen for kidney toxicity. Kidney disease research historically relies upon multiple types of animal studies.

Two of the NCATS awards target heart functions. They include “A 3-DIn Vitro Disease Model of Atrial Conduction,” a University of California Davis project utilizing patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells. “Drug Development for Tuberous Sclerosis Complex and Other Pediatric Epileptogenic Diseases Using Neurovascular and Cardiac Microphysiological Models” at Vanderbilt University will formulate neural and cardiac tissue-chip models that replicate drug response more reliably than those currently in use. In a 2017whistleblower case, a Veterans Affairs employee reported mistreatment of dogs being used for cardiac research.

The experiments he alleged included induced heart attacks. Many of the dogs died at project conclusion, and sometimes their hearts were harvested for further research.

The actions of the whistleblower, himself an Iraq veteran, drew several responses from the VA, some of which read in part: “At VA, we have a duty to do everything in our power to develop new treatments to help restore some of what veterans have lost on the battlefield. One of the most effective ways for VA to discover new treatments for diseases that affect veterans and non-Veterans alike is the continuation of responsible animal research . . . While there are ethical concerns associated with conducting animal research, they are far outweighed by ethical concerns associated with not doing animal research. The broad consensus of medical and scientific experts in the United States and around the world is that animal research is necessary. That’s why VA will continue conducting animal research like someone’s life depends on it — because it does.”

There’s no debating that most life-saving medical treatments were developed around animal research, including insulin, liver transplants, numerous cancer drugs, nicotine patches and pacemakers. Can scientists shift away from the baked-in pull of history? Animal activists have been buoyed by celebrity support, including comedienne Lily Tomlin’s efforts to defang their image as humorless fringe players.

Will organs-on-chips stop animal testing of drugs? Perhaps some of it, but not all. “It’s an illusion to think they can be used to completely replace animal research,” biologist Jurgen Knoblich told The Scientist in 2016.

Alternatively, “The key to staying hopeful is to operate on an assumption of success rather than failure,” Friends of Animals President Priscila Feral writes, summing up the perspective of many other activists.

While the pace of advance accelerates, it’s unknown which of these two predictions will prove realistic. But one thing is certain: NCATS’support for organs-on-chips energizes animal lovers’ central hope — that this horse is out of the barn.

Enjoyed this article? Don’t forget to share.

Kathy Jean Schultz

Kathy Jean Schultz is a freelance medical science writer who focuses on medical innovations. She earned a Master’s Degree in Research Methodology from Hofstra University, and a Master’s Degree in Psychology from Long Island University. She is a member of the National Association of Science Writers, and the Association of Health Care Journalists. Her articles about organoids include "Would you trust a 3-D printed mini organ to test your drugs?" and "Stem cells not only slow disease, they come with their own safety test".

• http://kathyjeanschultz.pressfolios.com/

The post Organs-on-Chips and Animal Lovers: Dovetailing on the Medical Frontier appeared first on The MicroFluidic Circle.