In vitro disease models 4.0 via automation and high-throughput processing

While much progress has been accomplished in the development of physiologically relevant in vitro disease models, current manufacturing and characterisation workflows still rely on manual, time-consuming, and low-throughput processes, which are not efficient and prone to human errors. For these reasons adoption and, more importantly, reproducibility and validation of 3D in vitro disease models is rather low for fundamental and applied research concepts. This article argues in form of a perspective view that automation and high-throughput methodologies will play a vital role to act as a catalyst to accelerate the development and characterisation process for generations to come. Innovative engineering concepts are required to overcome current limitations of in vitro disease models and to foster the scientific rigour as well as the applied research potential.

[1]  D. Hutmacher,et al.  A clarion call for understanding regulatory processes for additive manufacturing in the health sector , 2019, Expert review of medical devices.

[2]  J. Burdick,et al.  Combinatorial hydrogels with biochemical gradients for screening 3D cellular microenvironments , 2018, Nature Communications.

[3]  Christopher Probst,et al.  High-throughput organ-on-a-chip systems: Current status and remaining challenges , 2018, Current Opinion in Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  D. Kalyon,et al.  Machine learning metrology of cell confinement in melt electrowritten three-dimensional biomaterial substrates , 2019, Microsystems & Nanoengineering.

[5]  A. Ranga,et al.  3D niche microarrays for systems-level analyses of cell fate , 2014, Nature Communications.

[6]  Qing Li,et al.  Biofabrication: A Guide to Technology and Terminology. , 2017, Trends in biotechnology.

[7]  G. Tovar,et al.  Beyond the Modification Degree: Impact of Raw Material on Physicochemical Properties of Gelatin Type A and Type B Methacryloyls. , 2018, Macromolecular bioscience.

[8]  Hans-Georg Kemper,et al.  Application-Pull and Technology-Push as Driving Forces for the Fourth Industrial Revolution , 2014 .

[9]  Loic A. Royer,et al.  Content-aware image restoration: pushing the limits of fluorescence microscopy , 2018, Nature Methods.

[10]  I. Cockburn,et al.  The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research , 2015, PLoS biology.

[11]  Ali Khademhosseini,et al.  Modified Gellan Gum hydrogels with tunable physical and mechanical properties. , 2010, Biomaterials.

[12]  M. Baker.  1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility , 2016, Nature.

[13]  F. Pampaloni,et al.  The third dimension bridges the gap between cell culture and live tissue , 2007, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[14]  Klavs F Jensen,et al.  Reconfigurable system for automated optimization of diverse chemical reactions , 2018, Science.

[15]  Wim E Hennink,et al.  25th Anniversary Article: Engineering Hydrogels for Biofabrication , 2013, Advanced materials.

[16]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  Accelerating the discovery of materials for clean energy in the era of smart automation , 2018, Nature Reviews Materials.

[17]  Jacques Bughin,et al.  A future that works: automation, employment, and productivity , 2017 .

[18]  Andre Sharon,et al.  3D bioprinting of GelMA scaffolds triggers mineral deposition by primary human osteoblasts , 2017, Biofabrication.

[19]  D. Lazer,et al.  Fostering reproducibility in industry-academia research , 2017, Science.

[20]  G. Lippi,et al.  Estimating the intra- and inter-individual imprecision of manual pipetting , 2017, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[21]  Karen Abrinia,et al.  Surface acoustic waves induced micropatterning of cells in gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels , 2017, Biofabrication.

[22]  Pamela Habibovic,et al.  High-throughput screening approaches and combinatorial development of biomaterials using microfluidics. , 2016, Acta biomaterialia.

[23]  Changxue Xu,et al.  Sedimentation Study of Bioink Containing Living Cells , 2019, Volume 1: Additive Manufacturing; Manufacturing Equipment and Systems; Bio and Sustainable Manufacturing.

[24]  Gerald A Urban,et al.  Microsensor systems for cell metabolism - from 2D culture to organ-on-chip. , 2018, Lab on a chip.

[25]  Ali Khademhosseini,et al.  Bioprinting: Rapid Continuous Multimaterial Extrusion Bioprinting (Adv. Mater. 3/2017) , 2017 .

[26]  David A. Romero,et al.  Combinatorial screening of 3D biomaterial properties that promote myofibrogenesis for mesenchymal stromal cell-based heart valve tissue engineering. , 2017, Acta biomaterialia.

[27]  Peter H Seeberger,et al.  Automated carbohydrate synthesis to drive chemical glycomics. , 2003, Chemical communications.

[28]  Markus Schulz,et al.  Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS): Past - Present - Future. , 2018, ALTEX.

[29]  G. Prestwich,et al.  Why regenerative medicine needs an extracellular matrix , 2015, Expert opinion on biological therapy.

[30]  Joshua M. Dempster,et al.  Genetic and transcriptional evolution alters cancer cell line drug response , 2018, Nature.

[31]  Milica Radisic,et al.  Advances in organ-on-a-chip engineering , 2018, Nature Reviews Materials.

[32]  Eric H. Nguyen,et al.  Versatile synthetic alternatives to Matrigel for vascular toxicity screening and stem cell expansion , 2017, Nature Biomedical Engineering.

[33]  Ali Khademhosseini,et al.  Functionalization, preparation and use of cell-laden gelatin methacryloyl–based hydrogels as modular tissue culture platforms , 2016, Nature Protocols.

[34]  T B F Woodfield,et al.  A 96-well microplate bioreactor platform supporting individual dual perfusion and high-throughput assessment of simple or biofabricated 3D tissue models. , 2018, Lab on a chip.

[35]  Craig A Simmons,et al.  Integration of statistical modeling and high-content microscopy to systematically investigate cell-substrate interactions. , 2010, Biomaterials.

[36]  C. Begley,et al.  Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research , 2012, Nature.

[37]  Anthony Tabet,et al.  Quantitative criteria to benchmark new and existing bio-inks for cell compatibility , 2017, Biofabrication.

[38]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  Quantifying co-cultured cell phenotypes in high-throughput using pixel-based classification. , 2015, Methods.

[39]  M. Ungrin,et al.  Oxygenation in cell culture: Critical parameters for reproducibility are routinely not reported , 2018, PloS one.

[40]  Ali Khademhosseini,et al.  Advances in engineering hydrogels , 2017, Science.

[41]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  Cell Painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes , 2016, Nature Protocols.

[42]  Gordon G Wallace,et al.  Tailoring the mechanical properties of gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels through manipulation of the photocrosslinking conditions. , 2018, Soft matter.

[43]  F. Prinz,et al.  Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[44]  Marc Ferrer,et al.  Translational in vitro research: integrating 3D drug discovery and development processes into the drug development pipeline. , 2019, Drug discovery today.

[45]  Uwe Marx,et al.  Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing. , 2016, ALTEX.

[46]  Dietmar W Hutmacher,et al.  Biomaterials offer cancer research the third dimension. , 2010, Nature materials.

[47]  B. Lee,et al.  Gelatin methacryloyl and its hydrogels with an exceptional degree of controllability and batch-to-batch consistency , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[48]  P. Gopalan,et al.  Hydrogel arrays formed via differential wettability patterning enable combinatorial screening of stem cell behavior. , 2016, Acta biomaterialia.