Read Article 02:
Dongeun Huh, Benjamin D. Matthews, Akiko Mammoto, MartÃn
Montoya-Zavala, Hong Yuan Hsin, and Donald E. Ingber. Reconstituting
Organ-Level Lung Functions on a Chip. Science 328 (5986):1662-1668,
2010.
Post a PCRC on the Blog
The Systems Biology of COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The class will build a foundation that includes the emergence of complexity, simple biological subsystems, their reductionist and equivalent toy and organ-chip models, and the measurements required to specify model architecture and parameters. Applications to biology, physiology, medicine, chemical and biological defense, pharmacology, drug discovery, and toxicology. UGrad: PHYS 240 01 and BME 290B; Grad: PHYS 326 and BME 395C.
David Wooten
ReplyDeleteAsgn_2D_Class_02_Article_02_2013_08_27
0. Knew: About OoC in general, plus some of the specific details (e.g. vacuum pumps for lung)
1. Learned: About more of the specific actuator details, as well as the PDMS substrate, as well as the material's shortcomings.
2. Pressing ?: In this paper it was mentioned that an OoC model was used to test anti-cancer drug Tegafur, and the method was strengthened by the development of a mathematical model. How are math models used to strengthen OoC design methods?
3. Presentation: Cell response to physical forces
4. Thoughts: I'm still very interested in the integration of OoC models with mathematical models. Can they be used to estimate reaction rates / diffusion? I am very interested in biological signaling, and it seems like any iter-organ signaling would be artificially done. How reliably could that then be used to understand in vivo signals?
0. Knew: 3D cell culture was being used to create more realistic tissue models. Studying metabolism across and between organ systems is essential in drug testing.
ReplyDelete1. Learned: Biomimetic microsystems are being used to model diseased states as well as health organ states, e.g. migration of cancer cells studying in the "body on a chip."
2. Pressing ?: How does PDMS affect cell specification and signaling?
3. Presentation: Examples of toxic drugs that animal and cell culture screening missed but OoC's may have caught.
4. Thoughts: It seems that the more natural we can make microfluidic devices the better. PDMS is not particularly natural. Perhaps coating it in protein mitigates this fact.
Austin Oleskie
ReplyDeleteAsgn_2D_Class_02_Article_02_2013_08_27
0. Knew: General background of OoC and had previously learned from the videos about the applications and obstacles.
1. Learned: About how the OoC is actually created, what materials are used to create the devices, the need for a blood mimic.
2. Pressing ?: Can the need for a blood substitute be overcome? Can a substitute be made that has all the properties of blood (viscosity, various proteins found in the blood stream, etc.)?
3. Presentation: Linking together the organs to create a body on a chip.
4. Thoughts: This seems like a great method for studying cellular processes. We need to continue to work to make the system as close to natural as possible. I think the use of 3d scaffolding mimics grealtly helps.
Frank "Edad" Block, Jr.
ReplyDeleteAsgn_2D_Class_02_Article_02_2013_08_27
NOT SURE WHICH ARTICLE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE READING. I am reviewing Huh 2012 from the E-mail.
0 Knew: General background, scaffold
1 Learned: Need for mechanical forces, strain, etc.
2 Pressing: Issue of perfusion and PULSATILE PRESSURE. Human kidneys don’t work well on cardiac bypass – they like pulsatile flow.
3 Presentation: Can a kidney be modeled without pulsatile flow?
4 Thoughts: Circulatory system must have the correct arterial, venous, pressures. Starling’s law is critical in every organ system (hydrostatic pressure vs. oncotic pressures).
Asgn_2D_Class_02_Article_02_2013_08_27
ReplyDelete0. Knew: Animal models are expensive and not always true indicators of how our bodies will react to a drug or toxin.
1. Learned: Microfluidic flow, co-culturing, and chemical and physical environments can stimulate the cells to mimic their physiological state/function.
2. Questions: Are the PDMS's made with different flexibility and permeability for different organs and barriers?
3. Presentation: Testing/verifying a OoC works correctly by comparison to ex vivo models. (As mentioned briefly on pg 2160)
4. Thoughts: How is the mammary gland chip being used to test breast cancer detection methods? Could it be used to predict a response to a treatment in the future?
Jie Zhao
ReplyDeleteAsgn_2D_Class_02_Article_02_2013_08_27
0. Hamilton and Wikswo's TeDx talks
1. a. the detailed design for the current OoC, the structure, chemical/physical environment consideration.
b. OoC's potential application on enviromental toxity study
2. why physiologically the gut is different from other organs?
3. cell culturing in microfluidic device;
4.
Cameron Stewart
ReplyDeleteAsgn_2D_Class_02_Article_02_2013_08_27
0. It intuitively made sense to me that an in vitro cell culture will behave most like in vivo cells if there are placed in more natural environments under physiologically relevant stresses and with their neighboring cells nearby.
1. I learned that chemotactic cell movement can be controlled by controlling the concentration gradient of the chemotaxis signalers around the cell.
2. Why is a blood substitute needed? With all this work towards creating the most realistic environment for the organs, wouldn’t real blood (maintained by the organs on the chip) be best? Pg 8 (last paragraph before the conclusion)
3. Organs-on-chips have produced very promising results and may even lead to bodies-on-chips. They have the potential to be more predictive of drug metabolism in humans than animal studies do, and therefore a strong effort should be made towards making them.
4. This stuff is way cool. I would be interested in learning more about how the measurements are done on the organs on a chip, other than “does this drug kill them or not?” Are cytoplasmic solution substrates measured in a time sensitive way? Do the BioMEMS do that?
0. I knew about the potential application of the “organ-on-a-chip” and liked the detailed review.
ReplyDelete1. I learned about the role of micro-fluidics in the development of creating a better in vitro environment.
2. Pressing to me is the work that needs to be done to capture the intangible. How do we improve the system and make it more in vivo?
3. I found figure 2 fascinating but are there better measurement means to highlight the chip.
4. I think the concept of a “body-on-chip” is still not a reality though the article seems to highlight that it exists. I believe the authors are ignoring that despite it being a fantastic concept there are aspects and difference between in vivo and in vitro that are not necessary captured.
Blog Harvested
ReplyDeleteJPW
Rui Wang
ReplyDelete0. Knew: In 2D culture cases, cells are limited to move in a plane while cells can freely communicate with the local environment inside the chips. In most cases, 2D culture conditions are easier to obtain better images that 3D because of the focal distance. However, measurement in 3D are more close to the reality but difficulty to control in a micro space.
1. Learned: Examples of microfluidic approach to mimic certain functions or control certain properties.
2. Questions: Biological observations are easy for microfluidic devices. How to install the measure mechanism or stimulation in the microfluidic devices while not having negative influence on the cells inside?
3. Presentation: Neuron cultured on 2D and 3D environments
4. Thoughts: What is the best example to illustrate the predictive human relevant models for toxicity and efficacy testing?