Tag Archives: lung

Body-on-a-chip (10 organs)

Also known as human-on-a-chip, the 10-organ body-on-a-chip was being discussed at the 9th World Congress on Alternatives to Animal Testing in the Life Sciences in 2014 in Prague, Czech Republic (see this July 1, 2015 posting for more). At the time, scientists were predicting success at achieving their goal of 10 organs on-a-chip in 2017 (the best at the time was four organs). Only a few months past that deadline, scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) seem to have announced a ’10 organ chip’ in a March 14, 2018 news item on ScienceDaily,

MIT engineers have developed new technology that could be used to evaluate new drugs and detect possible side effects before the drugs are tested in humans. Using a microfluidic platform that connects engineered tissues from up to 10 organs, the researchers can accurately replicate human organ interactions for weeks at a time, allowing them to measure the effects of drugs on different parts of the body.

Such a system could reveal, for example, whether a drug that is intended to treat one organ will have adverse effects on another.

A March 14, 2018 MIT news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, expands on the theme,

“Some of these effects are really hard to predict from animal models because the situations that lead to them are idiosyncratic,” says Linda Griffith, the School of Engineering Professor of Teaching Innovation, a professor of biological engineering and mechanical engineering, and one of the senior authors of the study. “With our chip, you can distribute a drug and then look for the effects on other tissues, and measure the exposure and how it is metabolized.”

These chips could also be used to evaluate antibody drugs and other immunotherapies, which are difficult to test thoroughly in animals because they are designed to interact with the human immune system.

David Trumper, an MIT professor of mechanical engineering, and Murat Cirit, a research scientist in the Department of Biological Engineering, are also senior authors of the paper, which appears in the journal Scientific Reports. The paper’s lead authors are former MIT postdocs Collin Edington and Wen Li Kelly Chen.

Modeling organs

When developing a new drug, researchers identify drug targets based on what they know about the biology of the disease, and then create compounds that affect those targets. Preclinical testing in animals can offer information about a drug’s safety and effectiveness before human testing begins, but those tests may not reveal potential side effects, Griffith says. Furthermore, drugs that work in animals often fail in human trials.

“Animals do not represent people in all the facets that you need to develop drugs and understand disease,” Griffith says. “That is becoming more and more apparent as we look across all kinds of drugs.”

Complications can also arise due to variability among individual patients, including their genetic background, environmental influences, lifestyles, and other drugs they may be taking. “A lot of the time you don’t see problems with a drug, particularly something that might be widely prescribed, until it goes on the market,” Griffith says.

As part of a project spearheaded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Griffith and her colleagues decided to pursue a technology that they call a “physiome on a chip,” which they believe could offer a way to model potential drug effects more accurately and rapidly. To achieve this, the researchers needed new equipment — a platform that would allow tissues to grow and interact with each other — as well as engineered tissue that would accurately mimic the functions of human organs.

Before this project was launched, no one had succeeded in connecting more than a few different tissue types on a platform. Furthermore, most researchers working on this kind of chip were working with closed microfluidic systems, which allow fluid to flow in and out but do not offer an easy way to manipulate what is happening inside the chip. These systems also require external pumps.

The MIT team decided to create an open system, which essentially removes the lid and makes it easier to manipulate the system and remove samples for analysis. Their system, adapted from technology they previously developed and commercialized through U.K.-based CN BioInnovations, also incorporates several on-board pumps that can control the flow of liquid between the “organs,” replicating the circulation of blood, immune cells, and proteins through the human body. The pumps also allow larger engineered tissues, for example tumors within an organ, to be evaluated.

Complex interactions

The researchers created several versions of their chip, linking up to 10 organ types: liver, lung, gut, endometrium, brain, heart, pancreas, kidney, skin, and skeletal muscle. Each “organ” consists of clusters of 1 million to 2 million cells. These tissues don’t replicate the entire organ, but they do perform many of its important functions. Significantly, most of the tissues come directly from patient samples rather than from cell lines that have been developed for lab use. These so-called “primary cells” are more difficult to work with but offer a more representative model of organ function, Griffith says.

Using this system, the researchers showed that they could deliver a drug to the gastrointestinal tissue, mimicking oral ingestion of a drug, and then observe as the drug was transported to other tissues and metabolized. They could measure where the drugs went, the effects of the drugs on different tissues, and how the drugs were broken down. In a related publication, the researchers modeled how drugs can cause unexpected stress on the liver by making the gastrointestinal tract “leaky,” allowing bacteria to enter the bloodstream and produce inflammation in the liver.

Kevin Healy, a professor of bioengineering and materials science and engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, says that this kind of system holds great potential for accurate prediction of complex adverse drug reactions.

“While microphysiological systems (MPS) featuring single organs can be of great use for both pharmaceutical testing and basic organ-level studies, the huge potential of MPS technology is revealed by connecting multiple organ chips in an integrated system for in vitro pharmacology. This study beautifully illustrates that multi-MPS “physiome-on-a-chip” approaches, which combine the genetic background of human cells with physiologically relevant tissue-to-media volumes, allow accurate prediction of drug pharmacokinetics and drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion,” says Healy, who was not involved in the research.

Griffith believes that the most immediate applications for this technology involve modeling two to four organs. Her lab is now developing a model system for Parkinson’s disease that includes brain, liver, and gastrointestinal tissue, which she plans to use to investigate the hypothesis that bacteria found in the gut can influence the development of Parkinson’s disease.

Other applications include modeling tumors that metastasize to other parts of the body, she says.

“An advantage of our platform is that we can scale it up or down and accommodate a lot of different configurations,” Griffith says. “I think the field is going to go through a transition where we start to get more information out of a three-organ or four-organ system, and it will start to become cost-competitive because the information you’re getting is so much more valuable.”

The research was funded by the U.S. Army Research Office and DARPA.

Caption: MIT engineers have developed new technology that could be used to evaluate new drugs and detect possible side effects before the drugs are tested in humans. Using a microfluidic platform that connects engineered tissues from up to 10 organs, the researchers can accurately replicate human organ interactions for weeks at a time, allowing them to measure the effects of drugs on different parts of the body. Credit: Felice Frankel

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Interconnected Microphysiological Systems for Quantitative Biology and Pharmacology Studies by Collin D. Edington, Wen Li Kelly Chen, Emily Geishecker, Timothy Kassis, Luis R. Soenksen, Brij M. Bhushan, Duncan Freake, Jared Kirschner, Christian Maass, Nikolaos Tsamandouras, Jorge Valdez, Christi D. Cook, Tom Parent, Stephen Snyder, Jiajie Yu, Emily Suter, Michael Shockley, Jason Velazquez, Jeremy J. Velazquez, Linda Stockdale, Julia P. Papps, Iris Lee, Nicholas Vann, Mario Gamboa, Matthew E. LaBarge, Zhe Zhong, Xin Wang, Laurie A. Boyer, Douglas A. Lauffenburger, Rebecca L. Carrier, Catherine Communal, Steven R. Tannenbaum, Cynthia L. Stokes, David J. Hughes, Gaurav Rohatgi, David L. Trumper, Murat Cirit, Linda G. Griffith. Scientific Reports, 2018; 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22749-0 Published online:

This paper which describes testing for four-, seven-, and ten-organs-on-a-chip, is open access. From the paper’s Discussion,

In summary, we have demonstrated a generalizable approach to linking MPSs [microphysiological systems] within a fluidic platform to create a physiome-on-a-chip approach capable of generating complex molecular distribution profiles for advanced drug discovery applications. This adaptable, reusable system has unique and complementary advantages to existing microfluidic and PDMS-based approaches, especially for applications involving high logD substances (drugs and hormones), those requiring precise and flexible control over inter-MPS flow partitioning and drug distribution, and those requiring long-term (weeks) culture with reliable fluidic and sampling operation. We anticipate this platform can be applied to a wide range of problems in disease modeling and pre-clinical drug development, especially for tractable lower-order (2–4) interactions.

Congratulations to the researchers!

Call for proposals to create in vitro inhalation tests for nanomaterial toxicity

I got an email announcement (March 17, 2015) which has acted as a spur to my desire to follow up on my Deux Seurats: one (was an artist) and one (is an inquiry into scientifically sound alternatives to animal testing) of December 26, 2014 post.

First, here’s a March 16, 2015 PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) International Science Consortium (PISC) press release which describes a practical and scientific initiative for finding alternatives to animal testing,

Today, the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. put out a request for proposals (RFP) to identify facilities that can develop an in vitro test that, when used in an integrated approach, has the potential to replace the current test conducted on animals to assess the inhalation toxicity of nanomaterials.

The RFP follows a workshop, organized by the Science Consortium and held at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, D.C., that brought together scientific experts from government, industry, academia, and nonprofit organizations from around the world. The goal of the workshop was to make specific recommendations on the design of this in vitro test, including cell types, endpoints, exposure systems, and dosimetry considerations required to develop the in vitro model.

Based on the recommendations from the workshop, the RFP seeks facilities to develop a method that can assess the induction of pulmonary fibrosis in cells co-cultured at the air-liquid interface following exposure to aerosolized multi-walled carbon nanotubes. The Science Consortium will fund this work.

“For both scientific and ethical reasons, there is interest in developing a non-animal method that is faster, cheaper, and more relevant to the human situation,” says the Science Consortium’s Dr. Amy Clippinger.

The long-term vision is to include this in vitro test in a battery of in silico and in vitro assays that can be used in an integrated testing strategy, providing comprehensive information on biological endpoints relevant to inhalation exposure to nanomaterials to be used in the hazard ranking of substances in the risk-assessment process.

The request for proposals can be found here. The proposal deadline is May 29, 2015.

For more information, please visit PISCLTD.org.uk.

I see the research focus is on multi-walled carbon nanotubes. This makes sense since research has shown that long fibres act like the asbestos fibres they resemble when found in the lung.

Second, I’m hoping to follow up my Deux Seurats piece soon with the tentatively titled, The trouble with mice and … .

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes, cancer, and the US National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety’s (NIOSH) latest findings

A Mar. 11, 2013 news item on Nanowerk reveals some of the latest research performed by US National Institute of Occupational Health Safety (NIOSH) researchers into the question of whether or not multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) cause cancer,

Earlier today, at the annual meeting of the Society of Toxicology, NIOSH researchers reported preliminary findings from a new laboratory study in which mice were exposed by inhalation to multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). The study was designed to investigate whether these tiny particles have potential to initiate or promote cancer. By “initiate,” we mean the ability of a substance to cause mutations in DNA that can lead to tumors. By “promote,” we mean the ability of a substance to cause cells that have already sustained such DNA mutations to then become tumors.

It is very important to have new data that describe the potential health hazards that these materials might represent, so that protective measures can be developed to ensure the safe advancement of nanotechnology in the many industries where it is being applied.

The Mar. 11, 2013 posting (which originated the news item) by Vincent Castranova, PhD; Charles L Geraci, PhD; Paul Schulte, PhD  on the NIOSH blog provides details about the experimental protocols and the outcome of the experiments,

In the NIOSH study, a group of laboratory mice were injected with a chemical that is a known cancer initiator, methylcholanthrene.  Another group of mice were injected with a saline solution as a control group.  The mice then were exposed by inhalation either to air or to a concentration of MWCNT.   These protocols enabled the researchers to investigate whether MWNCT alone would initiate cancer in mice, or whether MWCNT would promote cancer where the initiator, methylcholanthrene, had already been applied.

Mice receiving both the initiator chemical plus exposure to MWCNT were significantly more likely to develop tumors (90% incidence) and have more tumors (an average of 3.3 tumors/mouse lung) than mice receiving the initiator chemical alone (50% of mice developing tumors with an average of 1.4 tumors/lung).  Additionally, mice exposed to MWCNT and to MWCNT plus the initiator chemical had larger tumors than the respective control groups.  The number of tumors per animal exposed to MWCNT alone was not significantly elevated compared with the number per animal in the controls.  These results indicate that MWCNT can increase the risk of cancer in mice exposed to a known carcinogen.  The study does not suggest that MWCNTs alone cause cancer in mice.

That last sentence is quite important because (from the NIOSH blog post),

Several earlier studies in the scientific literature indicated that MWCNT could have the potential to initiate or promote cancer. The new NIOSH study is the first to show that MWCNT is a cancer promoter in a laboratory experiment, and reports the growth of lung tumors in laboratory mice following inhalation exposure to MWCNT rather than injection, instillation, or aspiration.  Inhalation exposure most closely resembles the exposure route of greatest concern in the workplace. In the study, laboratory mice were exposed to one type of MWCNT through inhalation at a concentration of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air for five hours per day for a period of 15 days.

Risk of occupational cancer depends on the potency of a given substance to cause or promote cancer and the concentration and duration of worker exposure to that substance.  This research is an important step in our understanding of the hazard associated with MWCNT, but before we can determine whether MWCNT pose an occupational cancer risk, we need more information about actual exposure levels and the types and nature of MWCNT being used in the workplace, and how that compares to the material  used in this study.

This study is part of a larger program designed to establish safety practices with regard to handling nanomaterials/nanoparticles (from the NIOSH blog post),

These laboratory studies are part of a strategic program of NIOSH research to better understand the occupational health and safety implications of nanoparticle exposure, and to make authoritative science-based recommendations for controlling exposures so that the technology is developed responsibly as the research advances, and the societal benefits of nanotechnology can be realized.  NIOSH has worked closely with diverse public and private sector partners over the past decade to incorporate occupational health and safety into practical strategies for safe development of this revolutionary technology. More information is available on the NIOSH nanotechnology topic page.

There is no mention in the blog post as to whether the MWCNTs in this latest work were long or short or a mixture of both. Unfortunately, the study has not yet been published in a journal, so it’s not yet available for reading purposes. I did mention carbon nanotubes and toxicity in a Jan. 16, 2013 posting about a recent study,

Researchers at the University College of London (UCL), France’s Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), and Italy’s University of Trieste have determined that carbon nanotube toxicity issues can be addressed be reducing their length and treating them chemically.

While I find this latest work from NIOSH interesting, it’s hard for me to understand why there’s no mention of length. Unless, the NIOSH work is focused on what happens when MWCNTs are inhaled along with known cancer initiators and they believe that length is not a factor.

ETA Mar. 15, 2013: I did find get some information about the length (long carbon nanotubes for the most part) as per this Mar. 14, 2013 posting or you can find the update in my Mar. 15, 2013 posting here.