3.9 Review

Microfluidic models of the human circulatory system: versatile platforms for exploring mechanobiology and disease modeling

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL REVIEWS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 769-786

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s12551-021-00815-8

关键词

Microfluidics; Organ-on-a-chip; Human circulatory system; Cardiovascular diseases; Mechanobiology

资金

  1. E.P. acknowledges the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for funding The Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (APP1135076). K.P. acknowledges the NHMRC for a L3 Investigator Fellowship support (GNT1174098). S.B. ack [APP1135076]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [GNT1174098]
  3. NHMRC [DE170100239, DP200101248]
  4. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DP180102049]
  5. ARC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current animal and cell culture models do not replicate the functional properties of the human circulatory system, while microfluidic systems have the unique ability to recapitulate these properties and explore the complex biology of the cardiovascular system and drug screening.
The human circulatory system is a marvelous fluidic system, which is very sensitive to biophysical and biochemical cues. The current animal and cell culture models do not recapitulate the functional properties of the human circulatory system, limiting our ability to fully understand the complex biological processes underlying the dysfunction of this multifaceted system. In this review, we discuss the unique ability of microfluidic systems to recapitulate the biophysical, biochemical, and functional properties of the human circulatory system. We also describe the remarkable capacity of microfluidic technologies for exploring the complex mechanobiology of the cardiovascular system, mechanistic studying of cardiovascular diseases, and screening cardiovascular drugs with the additional benefit of reducing the need for animal models. We also discuss opportunities for further advancement in this exciting field.

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

3.9
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