4.7 Review

Microfluidics-assisted in vitro drug screening and carrier production

期刊

ADVANCED DRUG DELIVERY REVIEWS
卷 65, 期 11-12, 页码 1575-1588

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2013.07.004

关键词

Microfluidics; Drug carrier; Gene carrier; Drug screening; High-throughput

资金

  1. Department of Bioengineering at the University of Washington
  2. Wallace H. Coulter Foundation Translational Research Partnership Award
  3. Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) Research Grant [MDA 255907]
  4. American Heart Association (AHA) Scientist Development Grant [AHA 13SDG14560076]
  5. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Office of Vice President for Research at Texas Tech University
  6. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [NIH 1R01NS064404]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microfluidic platforms provide several unique advantages for drug development. In the production of drug carriers, physical properties such as size and shape, and chemical properties such as drug composition and pharmacokinetic parameters, can be modified simply and effectively by tuning the flow rate and geometries. Large numbers of carriers can then be fabricated with minimal effort and with little to no batch-to-batch variation. Additionally, cell or tissue culture models in microfluidic systems can be used as in vitro drug screening tools. Compared to in vivo animal models, microfluidic drug screening platforms allow for high-throughput and reproducible screening at a significantly lower cost, and when combined with current advances in tissue engineering, are also capable of mimicking native tissues. In this review, various microfluidic platforms for drug and gene carrier fabrication are reviewed to provide guidelines for designing appropriate carriers. In vitro microfluidic drug screening platforms designed for high-throughput analysis and replication of in vivo conditions are also reviewed to highlight future directions for drug research and development. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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