Microphysiological Systems Evaluation: Experience of TEX-VAL Tissue Chip Testing Consortium
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The complexity of OoC devices, and their reliability and reproducibility, heavily resides with the biological component.
“Although the complexity of OoC devices (and their reliability and reproducibility) heavily resides with the biological component (Rusyn et al., 2022)”
From Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility (2024) · cites this paper as Rusyn et al., 2022
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
- 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
- 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]
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Toxicological Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-06-11
- Volume
- 188
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 143-152
- ISSN
- 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-6080
- PMC
- PMC9333404
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- 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