4.6 Article

Microfluidic skin chip with vasculature for recapitulating the immune response of the skin tissue

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 117, 期 6, 页码 1853-1863

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bit.27320

关键词

in vitro skin model; microfluidic skin-on-a-chip; microphysiological system (MPS)

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B03934710, 2019R1A4A1025958] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B03934710, 2019R1A4A1025958] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology [R0004073] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a considerable need for cell-based in vitro skin models for studying dermatological diseases and testing cosmetic products, but current in vitro skin models lack physiological relevance compared to human skin tissue. For example, many dermatological disorders involve complex immune responses, but current skin models are not capable of recapitulating the phenomena. Previously, we reported development of a microfluidic skin chip with a vessel structure and vascular endothelial cells. In this study, we cocultured dermal fibroblasts and keratinocytes with vascular endothelial cells, human umbilical vascular endothelial cells. We verified the formation of a vascular endothelium in the presence of the dermis and epidermis layers by examining the expression of tissue-specific markers. As the vascular endothelium plays a critical role in the migration of leukocytes to inflammation sites, we incorporated leukocytes in the circulating media and attempted to mimic the migration of neutrophils in response to external stimuli. Increased secretion of cytokines and migration of neutrophils was observed when the skin chip was exposed to ultraviolet irradiation, showing that the microfluidic skin chip may be useful for studying the immune response of the human tissue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据