Organ-On-A-Chip: An Emerging Research Platform

Figures & data

Table 1. Pros and cons of organ-on-a-chip.^18–20

Pros	Cons
Research speedup in testing the impact of different concentrations of drugs The effect of the drug and the dosage can be examined simultaneously Creates a replicated microenvironment A coin-sized device that is easy to operate, portable, and capable of enormous output	Potential drawback in adsorption of small and hydrophobic moieties Robustness and results of these devices differ from laboratory to laboratory Due to the tiny dimensions of the OOC device, surface effects predominate over volume effects Additional tools may be required to obtain accurate findings

Table 2. Comparison of organ-on-a-chip with traditional methods. ^25–27

Specifications	Organ-on-a-chip	Conventional method
Description	The microfluidics-based cell culture technique thoroughly explains the interplay between cell culture parameters and microenvironmental factors.	Conventional cell culture techniques must be improved in demonstrating cell culture parameters and microenvironmental factors.
Technique employed	Microfluidic technique under-regulated operating conditions at the microenvironmental level will develop cell culture technology even more quickly.	No specific technique
Outcome measure	Provides a unique platform for practical high throughput experiments.	Inaccurate outcomes
Relevance to physiological systems	Offer drug testing devices that are more pertinent to physiological systems.	Inadequate relevance to physiological systems.
Precision	Precise control over the cellular environment	No precise control over the cellular environment
Environment condition	Provide an in vivo like dynamic environment.	Fail to produce a dynamic environment.
Accuracy	Provides test results rapidly	No accurate results
Distribution	Diffusion gradient of nutrients and drugs	Equal dispersion of nutrients and drugs

Figure 1. An outline of liver-on-a-chip, reproduced from,⁴⁹ with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 2. Liver-on-chip containing the Hepg2 cell line, reproduced from⁵⁰ with permission from American Chemical Society.

Figure 3. A magnetic stretching skin-on-a-chip.⁶⁵

Figure 4. Vascularized skin-on-a-chip, reproduced from⁶⁶ with the permission from springer nature.

Figure 5. Choroid-on-a-chip depicting the choroid layer of the eye. ²⁴

Siwczak F, Cseresnyes Z, Hassan MIA, Aina KO, Carlstedt S, Sigmund A, Groger M, Surewaard BGJ, Werz O, Figge MT, et al. Human macrophage polarization determines bacterial persistence of Staphylococcus aureus in a liver-on-chip-based infection model. Biomater. 2022;287:287. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121632.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dhwaj A, Roy N, Jaiswar A, Prabhakar A, Verma D. 3D-printed impedance micropump for continuous perfusion of the sample and nutrient medium integrated with a liver-on-chip prototype. ACS Omega. 2022;7(45):40900–10. doi:10.1021/acsomega.2c03818.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim K, Jeong S, Sung GY. Effect of periodical tensile stimulation on the human skin equivalents by magnetic stretching skin-on-a-chip (MSSC). Biochip J. 2022;16(4):501–14. doi:10.1007/s13206-022-00092-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sun S, Jin L, Zheng Y, Zhu J. Modeling human HSV infection via a vascularized immune-competent skin-on-chip platform. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1). doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33114-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cipriano M, Schlünder K, Probst C, Linke K, Weiss M, Fischer MJ, Mesch L, Achberger K, Liebau S, Mesquida M, et al. Human immunocompetent choroid-on-chip: a novel tool for studying ocular effects of biological drugs. Commun Biol. 2022;5(1). doi:10.1038/s42003-021-02977-3.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar