1
|
Baker TK, Van Vleet TR, Mahalingaiah PK, Grandhi TSP, Evers R, Ekert J, Gosset JR, Chacko SA, Kopec AK. The Current Status and Use of Microphysiological Systems by the Pharmaceutical Industry: The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality Microphysiological Systems Affiliate Survey and Commentary. Drug Metab Dispos 2024; 52:198-209. [PMID: 38123948 DOI: 10.1124/dmd.123.001510] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Revised: 11/21/2023] [Accepted: 11/27/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Microphysiological systems (MPS) are comprised of one or multiple cell types of human or animal origins that mimic the biochemical/electrical/mechanical responses and blood-tissue barrier properties of the cells observed within a complex organ. The goal of incorporating these in vitro systems is to expedite and advance the drug discovery and development paradigm with improved predictive and translational capabilities. Considering the industry need for improved efficiency and the broad challenges of model qualification and acceptance, the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality (IQ) founded an IQ MPS working group in 2014 and Affiliate in 2018. This group connects thought leaders and end users, provides a forum for crosspharma collaboration, and engages with regulators to qualify translationally relevant MPS models. To understand how pharmaceutical companies are using MPS, the IQ MPS Affiliate conducted two surveys in 2019, survey 1, and 2021, survey 2, which differed slightly in the scope of definition of the complex in vitro models under question. The surveys captured demographics, resourcing, rank order for organs of interest, compound modalities tested, and MPS organ-specific questions, including nonclinical species needs and cell types. The major focus of this manuscript is on results from survey 2, where we specifically highlight the context of use for MPS within safety, pharmacology, or absorption, disposition, metabolism, and excretion and discuss considerations for including MPS data in regulatory submissions. In summary, these data provide valuable insights for developers, regulators, and pharma, offering a view into current industry practices and future considerations while highlighting key challenges impacting MPS adoption. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The application of microphysiological systems (MPS) represents a growing area of interest in the drug discovery and development framework. This study surveyed 20+ pharma companies to understand resourcing, current areas of application, and the key challenges and barriers to internal MPS adoption. These results will provide regulators, tech providers, and pharma industry leaders a starting point to assess the current state of MPS applications along with key learnings to effectively realize the potential of MPS as an emerging technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas K Baker
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.) baker_thomas_k@lilly
| | - Terry R Van Vleet
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| | - Prathap Kumar Mahalingaiah
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| | - Taraka Sai Pavan Grandhi
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| | - Raymond Evers
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| | - Jason Ekert
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| | - James R Gosset
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| | - Silvi A Chacko
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| | - Anna K Kopec
- Investigative Toxicology, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana (T.K.B.); Investigative Toxicology and Pathology, AbbVie, Inc., Chicago, Illinois (T.R.V.F., P.K.M.); Complex In Vitro Models Group, GSK, Collegeville, Pennsylvania (T.S.P.G.); Preclinical Sciences and Translational Safety, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Spring House, Pennsylvania (R.E.); UCB Pharma, Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.E.); Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Medicine Design, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts (J.R.G.); Research and Development, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey (S.A.C.); and Drug Safety Research & Development, Pfizer, Inc., Groton, Connecticut (A.K.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Indolfo NDC, Ganzerla MD, Doratioto TR, Avelino TM, Tofani LB, Peroni LA, Rabelo RS, Arroteia KF, Figueira ACM. Combining a microphysiological system of three organ equivalents and transcriptomics to assess toxicological endpoints for cosmetic ingredients. LAB ON A CHIP 2023; 23:5092-5106. [PMID: 37921576 DOI: 10.1039/d3lc00546a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2023]
Abstract
Animal testing for cosmetic ingredients and final products has been banned in Europe and is gaining legal force worldwide. However, the need for reliable testing methodologies remains for safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients. While new approach methodologies exist for many toxicological endpoints, some complex ones lack appropriate testing methods. Microphysiological systems (MPSs) have emerged as a promising tool to address this gap in pre-clinical testing, offering higher predictivity compared to animal models due to the phylogenetic distance between humans and animals. Moreover, they provide a more physiological approach than traditional in vitro testing by mimicking interconnections between different culture compartments as seen in complex organisms. This study presents a three-organ microfluidic MPS comprising skin, liver, and intestine equivalents. Combining this model with gene expression analysis, we evaluated toxicological endpoints of chemicals, demonstrating its potential for diverse applications. Our findings highlight the MPS model as a reliable and ethical method to be applied in an integrated approach for safety assessment in the cosmetic industry. It offers a promising strategy to evaluate toxicological endpoints for cosmetic ingredients and other chemicals, supporting the elimination of animal testing while ensuring consumer safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathalia de Carvalho Indolfo
- Natura Cosméticos S.A., Cajamar, São Paulo, Brazil
- Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Brazil
| | - Melissa Dibbernn Ganzerla
- Graduate Program in Molecular and Morphofunctional Biology, Institute of Biology, State University of Campinas, Brazil
- Brazilian Biosciences National Laboratory (LNBio), Center for Research in Energy and Materials (CNPEM), Campinas, Brazil.
| | | | - Thayná Mendonça Avelino
- Brazilian Biosciences National Laboratory (LNBio), Center for Research in Energy and Materials (CNPEM), Campinas, Brazil.
| | - Larissa Bueno Tofani
- Brazilian Biosciences National Laboratory (LNBio), Center for Research in Energy and Materials (CNPEM), Campinas, Brazil.
| | - Luis Antonio Peroni
- Brazilian Biosciences National Laboratory (LNBio), Center for Research in Energy and Materials (CNPEM), Campinas, Brazil.
| | - Renata Santos Rabelo
- Brazilian Synchrotron Light Laboratory (LNLS), Center for Research in Energy and Materials (CNPEM), Campinas, Brazil
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nakayama-Kitamura K, Shigemoto-Mogami Y, Toyoda H, Mihara I, Moriguchi H, Naraoka H, Furihata T, Ishida S, Sato K. Usefulness of a humanized tricellular static transwell blood-brain barrier model as a microphysiological system for drug development applications. - A case study based on the benchmark evaluations of blood-brain barrier microphysiological system. Regen Ther 2023; 22:192-202. [PMID: 36891355 PMCID: PMC9988422 DOI: 10.1016/j.reth.2023.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2022] [Revised: 01/21/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 03/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Microphysiological system (MPS), a new technology for in vitro testing platforms, have been acknowledged as a strong tool for drug development. In the central nervous system (CNS), the blood‒brain barrier (BBB) limits the permeation of circulating substances from the blood vessels to the brain, thereby protecting the CNS from circulating xenobiotic compounds. At the same time, the BBB hinders drug development by introducing challenges at various stages, such as pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), safety assessment, and efficacy assessment. To solve these problems, efforts are being made to develop a BBB MPS, particularly of a humanized type. In this study, we suggested minimal essential benchmark items to establish the BBB-likeness of a BBB MPS; these criteria support end users in determining the appropriate range of applications for a candidate BBB MPS. Furthermore, we examined these benchmark items in a two-dimensional (2D) humanized tricellular static transwell BBB MPS, the most conventional design of BBB MPS with human cell lines. Among the benchmark items, the efflux ratios of P-gp and BCRP showed high reproducibility in two independent facilities, while the directional transports meditated through Glut1 or TfR were not confirmed. We have organized the protocols of the experiments described above as standard operating procedures (SOPs). We here provide the SOPs with the flow chart including entire procedure and how to apply each SOP. Our study is important developmental step of BBB MPS towards the social acceptance, which enable end users to check and compare the performance the BBB MPSs.
Collapse
Key Words
- BBB, blood-brain barrier
- BCRP
- BCRP, Breast cancer resistance protein
- Blood‒brain barrier (BBB)
- CNS, central nervous system
- Glut1, Glucose transporter 1
- HASTR, Human astrocytes
- HBMEC, Human brain microvascular endothelial cells
- HBPC, Human brain pericyte
- LC-MS/MS, Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry
- LY, Lucifer yellow
- MPS, Microphysiological system
- Microphysiological system (MPS)
- P-gp
- P-gp, P-glycoprotein
- TEER, Trans-endothelial electrical resistance
- TfR, Transferrin receptor
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimiko Nakayama-Kitamura
- Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Division of Pharmacology, National Institute of Health Science, 3-25-26 Tonomachi, Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki City, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Yukari Shigemoto-Mogami
- Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Division of Pharmacology, National Institute of Health Science, 3-25-26 Tonomachi, Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki City, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Hiroko Toyoda
- Stem Cell Evaluation Technology Research Association, Grande Building 8F, 2-26-9 Hatchobori, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0032, Japan
| | - Ikue Mihara
- Stem Cell Evaluation Technology Research Association, Grande Building 8F, 2-26-9 Hatchobori, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0032, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Moriguchi
- Stem Cell Evaluation Technology Research Association, Grande Building 8F, 2-26-9 Hatchobori, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0032, Japan
| | - Hitoshi Naraoka
- Stem Cell Evaluation Technology Research Association, Grande Building 8F, 2-26-9 Hatchobori, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0032, Japan
| | - Tomomi Furihata
- School of Pharmacy, Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, 1432-1 Horinouchi, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0392 Japan
| | - Seiichi Ishida
- Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Division of Pharmacology, National Institute of Health Science, 3-25-26 Tonomachi, Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki City, Kanagawa, Japan.,Division of Applied Life Science, Graduate School of Engineering, Sojo University, 4-22-1 Ikeda, Nishi-ku, Kumamoto City, Kumamoto, Japan
| | - Kaoru Sato
- Laboratory of Neuropharmacology, Division of Pharmacology, National Institute of Health Science, 3-25-26 Tonomachi, Kawasaki-ku, Kawasaki City, Kanagawa, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rusyn I, Sakolish C, Kato Y, Stephan C, Vergara L, Hewitt P, Bhaskaran V, Davis M, Hardwick R, Ferguson SS, Stanko JP, Bajaj P, Adkins K, Sipes NS, Hunter S, Baltazar MT, Carmichael PL, Sadh K, Becker RA. Microphysiological Systems Evaluation: Experience of TEX-VAL Tissue Chip Testing Consortium. Toxicol Sci 2022; 188:143-152. [PMID: 35689632 DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfac061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Much has been written and said about the promise and excitement of microphysiological systems, miniature devices that aim to recreate aspects of human physiology on a chip. The rapid explosion of the offerings and persistent publicity placed high expectations on both product manufacturers and regulatory agencies to adopt the data. Inevitably, discussions of where this technology fits in chemical testing paradigms are ongoing. Some end-users became early adopters, while others have taken a more cautious approach because of the high cost and uncertainties of their utility. Here, we detail the experience of a public-private collaboration established for testing of diverse microphysiological systems. Collectively, we present a number of considerations on practical aspects of using microphysiological systems in the context of their applications in decision-making. Specifically, future end-users need to be prepared for extensive on-site optimization and have access to a wide range of imaging and other equipment. We reason that cells, related reagents and the technical skills of the research staff, not the devices themselves, are the most critical determinants of success. Extrapolation from concentration-response effects in microphysiological systems to human blood or oral exposures, difficulties with replicating the whole organ, and long-term functionality remain as critical challenges. Overall, we conclude that it is unlikely that a rodent- or human-equivalent model is achievable through a finite number of microphysiological systems in the near future; therefore, building consensus and promoting the gradual incorporation of these models into tiered approaches for safety assessment and decision-making is the sensible path to wide adoption.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivan Rusyn
- Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843
| | - Courtney Sakolish
- Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843
| | - Yuki Kato
- Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843
| | - Clifford Stephan
- Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M University, Houston, TX, 77030
| | - Leoncio Vergara
- Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M University, Houston, TX, 77030
| | - Philip Hewitt
- Chemical and Preclinical Safety, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | - Myrtle Davis
- Discovery Toxicology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, 08543
| | | | - Stephen S Ferguson
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709
| | - Jason P Stanko
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709
| | - Piyush Bajaj
- Global Investigative Toxicology, Preclinical Safety, Sanofi, MA, 01701, Framingham
| | - Karissa Adkins
- Global Investigative Toxicology, Preclinical Safety, Sanofi, MA, 01701, Framingham
| | - Nisha S Sipes
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711
| | - Sid Hunter
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711
| | - Maria T Baltazar
- Unilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Bedfordshire, MK44, 1LQ, United Kingdom Sharnbrook
| | - Paul L Carmichael
- Unilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Bedfordshire, MK44, 1LQ, United Kingdom Sharnbrook
| | - Kritika Sadh
- Unilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Bedfordshire, MK44, 1LQ, United Kingdom Sharnbrook
| | - Richard A Becker
- American Chemistry Council, 700 2nd Street NE, Washington, DC, 20002
| |
Collapse
|