Cited by 433D Printing in Biomedical ResearchAnimal testing and alternativesTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Microphysiological Systems Evaluation: Experience of TEX-VAL Tissue Chip Testing Consortium

Open access
Rusyn, Ivan, Sakolish, Courtney, Kato, Yuki, Stephan, Clifford, Vergara, Leoncio, Hewitt, Philip, Bhaskaran, Vasanthi, Davis, Myrtle +11 more·2022·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

Much has been written and said about the promise and excitement of microphysiological systems, miniature devices that aim to recreate aspects of human physiology on a chip. The rapid explosion of the offerings and persistent publicity placed high expectations on both product manufacturers and regulatory agencies to adopt the data. Inevitably, discussions of where this technology fits in chemical testing paradigms are ongoing. Some end-users became early adopters, whereas others have taken a more cautious approach because of the high cost and uncertainties of their utility. Here, we detail the experience of a public-private collaboration established for testing of diverse microphysiological systems. Collectively, we present a number of considerations on practical aspects of using microphysiological systems in the context of their applications in decision-making. Specifically, future end-users need to be prepared for extensive on-site optimization and have access to a wide range of imaging and other equipment. We reason that cells, related reagents, and the technical skills of the research staff, not the devices themselves, are the most critical determinants of success. Extrapolation from concentration-response effects in microphysiological systems to human blood or oral exposures, difficulties with replicating the whole organ, and long-term functionality remain as critical challenges. Overall, we conclude that it is unlikely that a rodent- or human-equivalent model is achievable through a finite number of microphysiological systems in the near future; therefore, building consensus and promoting the gradual incorporation of these models into tiered approaches for safety assessment and decision-making is the sensible path to wide adoption.

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 · 10.1093/toxsci/kfac061

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 67 · Cited by 43

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. ECHA. (2020). The use of alternatives to testing on animals for the REACH Regulation: Fourth report (2020) under Article 117(3) of the REACH Regulation. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland. doi: 10.2823/509114. [DOI] · DOI
  2. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Using 21st Century Science to Improve Risk-Related Evaluations. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. National Research Council (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]

Authors
Rusyn, I., Sakolish, C., Kato, Y., Stephan, C., Vergara, L., Hewitt, P., Bhaskaran, V., Davis, M., Hardwick, R. N., Ferguson, S. S., Stanko, J. P., Bajaj, P., Adkins, K., Sipes, N. S., Hunter, E. S., Baltazar, M. T., Carmichael, P. L., Sadh, K., & Becker, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) (DE)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Sanofi (United States) (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Unilever (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • American Chemistry Council (US)
Corresponding author
Rusyn, Ivan
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2022-06-11
Volume
188
Issue
2
Pages
143-152
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W4282914496
Cited by
43
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (U24 TR001950, U24 TR002633)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
microphysiological systems, chemical toxicity testing, public-private collaboration, organ-on-a-chip, regulatory acceptance
MeSH terms
Humans, Lab-On-A-Chip Devices

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