Cited by 330Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications

Tumour-on-a-chip provides an optical window into nanoparticle tissue transport

Open access
Albanese, Alexandre, Lam, Alan K., Sykes, Edward A., Rocheleau, Jonathan V., Chan, Warren C.W.·2013·Nature Communications

Abstract

Nanomaterials are used for numerous biomedical applications, but the selection of optimal properties for maximum delivery remains challenging. Thus, there is a significant interest in elucidating the nano-bio interactions underlying tissue accumulation. To date, researchers have relied on cell culture or animal models to study nano-bio interactions. However, cell cultures lack the complexity of biological tissues and animal models are prohibitively slow and expensive. Here we report a tumour-on-a-chip system where incorporation of tumour-like spheroids into a microfluidic channel permits real-time analysis of nanoparticle (NP) accumulation at physiological flow conditions. We show that penetration of NPs into the tissue is limited by their diameter and that retention can be improved by receptor targeting. NP transport is predominantly diffusion-limited with convection improving accumulation mostly at the tissue perimeter. A murine tumour model confirms these findings and demonstrates that the tumour-on-a-chip can be useful for screening optimal NP designs prior to in vivo studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms3718

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nanoparticle transport in tumor spheroids was predominantly dispersion-limited.

    “The penetration of NPs into the tissue was mainly influenced by their diameter (Figure 4a-iv–vi) and NP transport was predominantly dispersion-limited.”

    From The Tumor-on-Chip: Recent Advances in the Development of Microfluidic Systems to Recapitulate the Physiology of Solid Tumors (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Results section (“Effect of flow rate on tissue accumulation”) says nanoparticles diffuse into spheroid tissue after accumulating at its surface; increased flow did not increase penetration depth. The claim says transport was predominantly dispersion-limited, whereas the paper describes diffusion as the mechanism of penetration. Its separate finding that diameter limits penetration is supported by the Results (“Effect of nanoparticle size on tissue accumulation”). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For nanoparticles larger than 100 μm, inlet flow rate affected their accumulation exclusively at the spheroid perimeter and did not increase their penetration depth.

    “For larger particles (i.e., larger than 100 µm), the inlet flow rate affected their accumulation exclusively at the spheroid perimeter and did not increase their penetration depth”

    From The Tumor-on-Chip: Recent Advances in the Development of Microfluidic Systems to Recapitulate the Physiology of Solid Tumors (2019) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Results section, “Effect of flow rate on tissue accumulation” (page unavailable), reports greater accumulation at the spheroid’s outer layer with no detectable change in average penetration depth. But it also reports more nanoparticles diffusing into the tissue, so “exclusively” at the perimeter overstates the finding. The separate size experiment tested particles measured in nanometres, not particles larger than 100 µm; the flow-rate result is not established for the size stated in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a microfluidic configuration with a perfused microchannel adjacent to a cavity containing multicellular tumor spheroids embedded in polydimethylsiloxane, nanoparticle transport was size-dependent, with smaller particles penetrating more deeply into the spheroid.

    “Nanoparticles of varying sizes were introduced into the flow channel, and their transport was found to be size-dependent, with smaller particles penetrating more deeply into the spheroid [230].”
  • Ligand functionalization of nanoparticles enhanced their retention at the spheroid surface through receptor-mediated interactions.

    “Ligand functionalization of nanoparticles further enhanced their retention at the spheroid surface through receptor-mediated interactions [230].”
  • In vivo xenograft models using the same tumor cells showed comparable nanoparticle distribution patterns, reinforcing the predictive utility of the in vitro platform.

    “When tested in vivo using the same tumor cells in xenograft models, comparable distribution patterns were observed, reinforcing the predictive utility of the in vitro platform [230].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albanese, A., Lam, A. K., Sykes, E. A., Rocheleau, J. V., & Chan, W. C. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Rocheleau, Jonathan V.
  • Chan, Warren C.W.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2013-10-31
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
2718-2718
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997203755
Cited by
330
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 21
FWCI
9.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (126588_1, MOP93532, 93532_1, COP126588)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (288231, 950-223824, RGPIN-288231, RGPIN371705)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Keywords
tumor spheroids, microfluidics, nanoparticle accumulation, nanoparticle size effects, receptor targeting, diffusion-limited transport, convection, nanoparticle retention, nano-bio interactions, mouse tumor model
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Transport, Collagen, Diffusion, Drug Combinations, Equipment Design, Fluorescent Dyes, Humans, Laminin, Neoplasm Transplantation, Proteoglycans, Silver Staining, Microscopy, Confocal, Nanotechnology, Microfluidics, Cell Line, Tumor, Microfluidic Analytical Techniques, Tissue Array Analysis, Mice, Nanoparticles, Optics and Photonics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review