Abstract
The organ-on-a-chip (OOC) technology has been utilized in a lot of biomedical fields such as fundamental physiological and pharmacological researches. Various materials have been introduced in OOC and can be broadly classified into inorganic, organic, and hybrid materials. Although PDMS continues to be the preferred material for laboratory research, materials for OOC are constantly evolving and progressing, and have promoted the development of OOC. This mini review provides a summary of the various type of materials for OOC systems, focusing on the progress of materials and related fabrication technologies within the last 5 years. The advantages and drawbacks of these materials in particular applications are discussed. In addition, future perspectives and challenges are also discussed.
Introduction
An organ-on-a-chip (OOC) is a microfluidics-based cell culture device that contains continuously perfused chambers inhabited by living cells to simulate tissue- and organ-level physiology (; ). The development of OOC stems from the recognition that the conventional two-dimensional static cell culture methods lack the ability to mimic the environment that cells experience in vivo (Ryan et al., 2016; ). Microfluidic technology provides a way to simulate spatiotemporal chemical gradients, dynamic mechanical forces, and critical tissue interfaces by manipulation of fluids at micro levels. OOC systems that can recreate key aspects of the complex physiological microenvironment of human lung (), heart (), stomach (Lee K. K. et al., 2018), intestine (), liver (Weng et al., 2017), kidney (Sateesh et al., 2018), blood vessels (Wang et al., 2015), etc., have been developed. Moreover, multi-organs-on-a-chip or body-on-a-chip systems have been proposed (Sung et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019a). OOC platforms have shown application potential in a lot of biomedical fields such as fundamental physiological and pharmacological researches (Zhang and Radisic, 2017; Zhang et al., 2018a).
Materials play the major roles in the development of microfluidics and OOC technologies. In general, material considerations include non-toxic to cells, gas permeable, optically transparent for microscopic imaging, costs of the materials and the fabrication process, and the ability to model specific properties of organs (). Although polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is still the most common material for laboratory research, emerging materials such as hydrogel, paper and hybrid materials are being developed and used. In this mini review, the classic and advanced materials and fabrication technologies for OOC devices are introduced and discussed, focusing on the progress within the last 5 years. The major properties, limitations, and typical applications in OOC of some representative materials are summarized in Table 1. Future perspectives and challenges in the development of materials for OOCs are briefly discussed.
TABLE 1
| Materials | Major properties | Limitations | Typical applications in OOC |
| Glass | + Surface stability + Optically transparent + Electrically insulating | – Not gas permeable – High cost of fabrication | • OOC device substrate • Glass-based chip for transform studies () • Enabling real-time imaging () |
| PDMS | + High elasticity + High gas permeability + Biocompatibility + Rapid prototyping | – Hydrophobicity – Strong adsorption of biomolecules – Not compatible with organic solvents | • Most common OOC substrate • Biomimetic cell culture scaffold () • Microvascular model (Zhang W. et al., 2016) |
| Plastic | + Optically transparent + Low absorption + Rigid + Suitable for mass production | – Less gas-permeable – Unsuitable for prototyping | • OOC device substrate () • Porous membrane to model tissue-tissue interfaces (Pocock et al., 2017) |
| Paper | + Highly porous + Matrix of cellulose + Potable and low cost | – Limited detection methods – Difficult to integrate microcomponents | • OOC device substrate • TRACER (Young et al., 2018) • Model of respiratory system (Rahimi et al., 2016) |
| Collagen | + Biocompatible + Enzymatically degradable + Similar in structural and mechanical properties to native tissues + Good cell adhesion | – Weak mechanical properties | • Microvascular networks (Zheng et al., 2012) • Scaffold mimicking 3D villi structure (Shim et al., 2017) • Neurovascular model () • Skin model () • Kidney model () • Pumping heart chamber model () • Liver spheroids, tumor spheroids (Yamada et al., 2015; ) |
| Gelatin | + Biocompatible + Biodegradable + Similar in composition to collagen + Good cell adhesion + Tunable properties by the addition of functional group (e.g., GelMA) | – Weak mechanical properties – Rapid degradation | • Heart-on-a-chip (Zhang Y. S. et al., 2016) • Skin model (Zhao et al., 2016) • Microvascular networks (Yang et al., 2016) • Spheroid-based liver model () |
| Alginate | + Biocompatible + Biodegradable + Easy functionalization + Immediate gelation at mild condition | – Weak mechanical properties – Poor cell adhesion – Uncontrollable degradation | • Scaffolds containing living cells (Ning et al., 2016) • Liver spheroids, tumor spheroids (; ) • Hydrogel fibers (Zhu et al., 2017) |
| PEG and its derivatives (e.g., PEGDA) | + Biocompatible + Tunable and precise mechanical and degradation properties + Relatively low protein adsorption | – Less cell adhesive – Limited biodegradation | • Self-organizing cardiac microchambers () • Liver organoids generation (Ng et al., 2018) • Intestinal organoids generation () |
Typical materials for OOC applications.
Materials for OOCs
Inorganic Materials
Silicon and glass are the main inorganic materials for OOCs. The first-generation microscale cell culture analog (μCCA) devices mimicking the organ-level function of human physiology were fabricated on silicon (Sin et al., 2004; ). Compared to opaque silicon, glass is optically transparent and optimal for real-time imaging, while reducing the absorbance of hydrophobic molecules and the adsorption of biomolecules (; ). Nevertheless, glass chips with enclosed channels are not suitable for long-term cell culture because glass is not gas permeable. Another problem is that glass is typically processed with standard photolithography and etching, which are time-consuming and expensive. Recently, femtosecond laser ablation technique has been applied to fabricate 3D structures in glass-based OOCs (Xu et al., 2015; Schulze et al., 2017). Liquid glass, a photocurable amorphous silica nanocomposite enabling soft replication, has been developed for low-cost prototyping of glass microfluidics ().
Elastomer
Elastomers are polymers with elasticity, and generally having lower Young’s modulus and higher yield strain than other materials. PDMS is one of the most common materials used for the fabrication of microchips for the life science applications. It is not only gas permeable, biocompatible and optically transparent, but also particularly useful in prototyping new devices by soft lithography and micromolding technique (). Its elasticity allows to demold the PDMS replica with complex 3D structures (Suzuki et al., 2017). Moreover, the elasticity can be used to fabricate biomimetic cell culture scaffolds, such as the human lung-on-a-chip and gut-on-a-chip with pneumatically controlled deformation (Figure 1A) (; ) and the microvascular models (; Zhang W. et al., 2016). Apart from the conventional replication method, other strategies including hybrid stamp approach (), razor-printing (), sacrificial template methods () can also be used for PDMS. An optimized blend of PDMS-methacrylate macromers has been developed and demonstrated for 3D stereolithography (SL) with mechanical properties similar to conventional thermally cured PDMS. The 3D-printable PDMS resin would facilitate the fabrication of PDMS-based OOC platforms ().
FIGURE 1
Nevertheless, some characteristics of PDMS such as incompatibility with organic solvents, hydrophobicity and strong adsorption of biomolecules also limits its application in certain fields. Surface modifications of PDMS or the use of alternative materials may be feasible solutions. Some polymers with similar fabrication procedures suitable for rapid prototyping, higher rigidity, and better resistance to solvents, such as thermoset polyester (TPE), polyurethane methacrylate (PUMA) and Norland adhesive 81 (NOA81), have been assessed as complementary to PDMS (Sollier et al., 2011). However, they have not developed into the common choice in OOC devices. Styrene-(ethylene/butylene)-styrene (SEBS) copolymer () and tetrafluoroethylene-propylene (FEPM) elastomer (Sano et al., 2019) that do not absorb hydrophobic molecules have been used for fabrication of OOCs for drug discovery and development.
To establish vascular networks, a biodegradable elastomer, poly(octamethylene maleate (anhydride) citrate) (POMaC) is used to construct a scaffold (AngioChip) with a build-in microchannel network. This material provides desired mechanical properties, biodegradation rate, and biocompatibility for specific applications (for example, human myocardium or liver tissue engineering) (Zhang B. et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018b). In a platform termed Biowire II, two parallel POMaC wires are suspended in the microwell between which cardiac tissue would self-assemble, matching the mechanical properties of the native cardiac tissue (Zhao et al., 2019b). A biodegradable elastomer with significantly low Young’s modulus has been synthesized and demonstrated utility in cardiac tissue engineering constructs ().
Plastic
Typical plastic materials for microfluidics include poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polystyrene (PS), Cyclic Olefin Polymer (COP) and Cyclic Olefin Copolymer (COC). They are generally optically transparent, more rigid than elastomers, less gas-permeable than PDMS, resistant to the permeation of small molecule, but incompatible with most organic solvents (Ren et al., 2013; ). Among these materials, PMMA has been widely utilized as substrate materials for OOC devices due to its rigid mechanical property, excellent optical transparency and low auto-fluorescence background (; ). Porous PC membranes are usually incorporated between microchannels in OOC systems to model tissue-tissue interfaces (Shah et al., 2016; Pocock et al., 2017). PS is highly biocompatible and suitable for cell growth and adhesion (). COP and COC present excellent optical transmittance in both the visible and UV range, allowing for high quality fluorescence imaging. They are also FDA approved, showing a promising potential for future routine clinical use (Mottet et al., 2014). And recently, polylactic acid (PLA) as a sustainable, low absorption, low autofluorescence alternative to other plastics for OOC applications has been demonstrated (Ongaro et al., 2020).
Thermoplastics are suitable for thermo-processing, which is excellent for commercial production due to high production-rate and low cost, but not economical for prototypic use (Ren et al., 2013). Some novel materials such as a photocurable soft lithography compatible liquid PS prepolymer (Nargang et al., 2014) and a fast curing PMMA prepolymer that can be used as a negative photoresist and directly structured using UV or visible light () have been developed for rapid prototyping. Fabrication methods for rapid prototyping of whole-thermoplastic microfluidic chips with microvalves and micropumps are being developed and could be employed for the OOC applications (Pourmand et al., 2018; Shaegh et al., 2018).
Paper
Paper microfluidics has the advantages of lightweight, easy-of-use and low cost. The cellulose matrix of paper allows for a porous structure for cell growth in a 3D format. Paper-based microfluidics with dynamic control of physiological microenvironment can be formed on multilayered paper and be used as high-throughput test platforms (; Sapp et al., 2015). And by directly incorporating a luminescent sensing film, the spatiotemporal oxygen consumption rates or pH gradients can be monitored in real-time through quantitative image analysis (; ). In a device named tumor roll for analysis of cellular environment and response (TRACER), different cells are seeded in a defined area on the paper, and then the 3D tumors are assembled by rolling the biocomposite strip. By unrolling the strip, the model can be rapidly disassembled for snapshot analysis (Figure 1B) (Rodenhizer et al., 2016; Young et al., 2018). The Khademhosseini group presented the use of hydrophobic paper as a semi-permeable membrane for culturing cells at the air-liquid interface. The final paper-based device provides a cost-effective platform for human respiratory system studies under physiologically relevant conditions (Figure 1C) (Rahimi et al., 2016).
Having many similarities with paper, nitrocellulose membranes (), threads (Yang et al., 2014), and cloths (Wu and Zhang, 2015) have also been investigated as a scaffold for cell culture. They have potential as superior alternatives to paper due to the stronger, higher controllable rates for fluid mixing and lower environmental impact ().
Hydrogel
Hydrogels are polymeric materials distinguished by high water content (Seliktar, 2012). They can mimic salient elements of native extracellular matrices (ECMs) due to their high biocompatibility and tunable properties, such as elasticity, porosity, permeability, stiffness and degradability. These properties of hydrogels are largely dependent on the types, gelation methods, and fabrication technologies. Hydrogels can be broadly classified into natural, synthetic, and hybrid according to their source (; ; ). Typical natural hydrogels include collagen, alginate, gelatin, agarose, and fibrin. They are generally highly biocompatible and containing cell-binding sites for cell attachment, spreading, growth, and differentiation. Collagen is the most common ECM component in the body and one of the most widely used hydrogels for bioengineered tissue microenvironments (). Gelatin has a similar composition to collagen. Gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels closely resemble some essential properties of native ECM and can be microfabricated using different methodologies (Yue et al., 2015). In recent studies, ECM hydrogels derived from decellularized tissues have been used to provide a supportive microenvironment capable of long-term culture of islets or directing cell growth (; ). Nevertheless, natural hydrogels suffer from some drawbacks such as relatively poor mechanical properties, limited long-term stability, and batch-to-batch variability. Typical synthetic hydrogels include polyethylene glycol (PEG) and its derivatives [e.g., PEG-diacrylate (PEG-DA)], polylactic acid (PLA), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL). Synthetic and hybrid hydrogels are more tunable to provide desired mechanical properties and degradation rates.
Since the materials for chip fabrication mentioned above, such as PDMS and plastics, are unfavorable for cell attachment, hydrogels are often coated on the channel surfaces or integrated into OOC devices (; Zhang X. et al., 2016). By incorporating a collagen scaffold that mimics the human intestinal villi, the microfluidic gut-on-a-chip could provide cells with both 3D tissue structure and fluidic shear to induce further improvement in gut functions (; Shim et al., 2017). A hydrogel microlayer consisting of type I collagen and Matrigel has been used in a lung airway-on-a-chip, replacing the semipermeable, PDMS membrane, allowing for the co-culture of epithelial cells and smooth muscle cells (). Hydrogels can also act as diffusion barriers which separate cells while permitting the soluble factors, such as nutrients, proteins, and signaling molecules exchange (Figure 1D) (). Compared with other artificial membranes used in OOC models, hydrogel barriers allow close cell association by making direct cell–cell contact between multiple cell types possible (Tibbe et al., 2018). Thanks to the progress in 3D (bio)printing technology, cell-laden hydrogels scaffolds can be rapidly created with spatial heterogeneity in predefined patterns (; ). Methods for the fabrication of hydrogel-based microfluidic chips are being developed. By stereolithographic high-resolution printing of PEG-DA, microfluidic chips with biofunctionalized complex 3D perfusion networks can be rapidly fabricated (Zhang and Larsen, 2017). Combining casting and bonding processes, Nie et al. (2018) fabricated a hydrogel-based vessel-on-a-chip of gelatin and GelMA.
Another frequently employed strategy for cell-based assays using hydrogels is to generate cell-encapsulated hydrogel droplets or hydrogel microfibers, especially through microfluidic approaches. On-chip production, storage, sorting and high-resolution imaging of hydrogel droplet has been achieved (). The generated microgels, including multicellular microspheres and microcapsules, create microenvironments for cell growth and proliferation (Figure 1E) (; ; ). By adjusting flow conditions in the microfluidic devices, various microfibers with morphological and compositional diversity can be generated as platforms for cell coculture (Figure 1F) (Yu et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2017; ; Xie et al., 2018).
The development of “smart” responsive hydrogels adapting to external stimuli has found its applications in OOC. Light-responsive hydrogels are of particular interest because of their capability of contact-free remote manipulation and the inherent space-time control capabilities of light stimulation (). Softening or stiffening hydrogels can be achieved by sequential photodegradation and photoinitiated crosslinking reactions, which is useful to design dynamic cell microenvironments (Rosales et al., 2017). Based on photodegradable hydrogels, 3D vascular networks within hydrogels can be altered dynamically, permitting user-defined 4D control even in the presence of live cells (Figure 1G) (). In addition to applications related to cell culture, nanocomposite hydrogels crosslinking with metal or metal-oxide nanoparticles, and hydrogels of conducting polymers, such as poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene): poly(styrene sulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) based hydrogels, have biocompatibility, desired electrical and mechanical properties, and can be used to make sensors integrated in OOC platforms (; Park et al., 2015; ).
Organic-Inorganic Hybrid Materials
Organic–inorganic hybrid materials offer the advantages of the organic content and the inorganic matrix. By combining inorganic clay nanoparticles with polymer matrix, clay-polymer nanocomposites has the ability to marry important biomaterial parameters such as porosity or self-organization with mechanical strength and toughness. Enhancements in cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation in response to clay nanoparticles have been observed in investigation into clay-cell interactions, suggesting the potential for the generation of multifunctional scaffolds for tissue engineering (). A UV-curable hybrid ceramic polymer Ormocomp is inherently biocompatible supporting cell adhesion without any additional coating and has been utilized as scaffolds for cell culture (Scheiwe et al., 2015; ). Ormocomp has excellent transparency for VIS and near UV down to 350 nm. In a recent study, round concave cross-sectional shaped microchannels of Ormocomp were fabricated via single step lithography to improve the sensitivity of fluorescence imaging (). Novel organic-inorganic hybrid materials can potentially be used in the fabrication of OOC devices (, ).
Summary and Outlook
The OOC technology has been utilized in biomedical fields and has displayed great potential to speed up and simplify fundamental physiological and pathophysiological researches. The choice of chip materials is the first and crucial step for a successful OOC application. PDMS and plastics have been utilized as substrate materials for the majority of OOC platforms. Hydrogel materials are particularly suitable for mimicking native ECMs, and are often combined with other substrate materials to form hybrid chips. Many materials suitable for 3D (bio)printing technologies have been developed, providing a convenient method for prototyping complex chip structures. In particular, novel multi-material bioprinting technologies facilitate the fabrication of cell-laden constructs that highly similar to the biological tissues. These advances in materials and fabrication technologies have promoted the development of OOCs.
However, limitations and challenges exist. The hydrogel simulated microenvironments still differ from the native ECM microenvironments in stiffness, permeability and biochemical components. Moreover, the native microenvironment is diverse and may dynamically change during the stages of growth. It is important to design materials that can mimic the real ECM microenvironments as well as simple but precise methods to regulate the properties. In addition, the design of most OOC devices typically requires the assembly of hybrid materials. Novel materials together with fabrication methods covering both biological and engineering aspects can be a great challenge and an active area of research.
Statements
Author contributions
CD and XY conceived and designed the manuscript. CD and XC wrote the original draft. QK and XY revised the manuscript. All the authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31730090), Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2018CFA020), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2662018JC008 and 2662019YJ010).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AdrianiG.MaD.PavesiA.KammR. D.GohE. L. K. (2017). A 3D neurovascular microfluidic model consisting of neurons, astrocytes and cerebral endothelial cells as a blood–brain barrier.Lab Chip17448–459. 10.1039/C6LC00638H
2
AhadianS.CivitareseR.BannermanD.MohammadiM. H.LuR.WangE.et al (2018). Organ-on-a-chip platforms: a convergence of advanced materials, cells, and microscale technologies.Adv. Healthc. Mater.7:1700506. 10.1002/adhm.201700506
3
AlessandriK.FeyeuxM.GurchenkovB.DelgadoC.TrushkoA.KrauseK.-H.et al (2016). A 3D printed microfluidic device for production of functionalized hydrogel microcapsules for culture and differentiation of human Neuronal Stem Cells (hNSC).Lab Chip161593–1604. 10.1039/C6LC00133E
4
AnnabiN.SelimovićŠAcevedo CoxJ. P.RibasJ.Afshar BakooshliM.HeintzeD.et al (2013). Hydrogel-coated microfluidic channels for cardiomyocyte culture.Lab Chip133569–3577. 10.1039/C3LC50252J
5
AntoineE. E.VlachosP. P.RylanderM. N. (2014). Review of collagen I hydrogels for bioengineered tissue microenvironments: characterization of mechanics, structure, and transport.Tissue Eng. Part B Rev.20683–696.
6
ArakawaC. K.BadeauB. A.ZhengY.DeForestC. A. (2017). Multicellular vascularized engineered tissues through user-programmable biomaterial photodegradation.Adv. Mater.29:1703156. 10.1002/adma.201703156
7
AubryG.ZhanM.LuH. (2015). Hydrogel-droplet microfluidic platform for high-resolution imaging and sorting of early larval Caenorhabditis elegans.Lab Chip151424–1431. 10.1039/C4LC01384K
8
BagherbaigiS.CórcolesE. P.WicaksonoD. H. B. (2014). Cotton fabric as an immobilization matrix for low-cost and quick colorimetric enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).Anal. Methods67175–7180. 10.1039/C4AY01071J
9
BhatiaS. N.IngberD. E. (2014). Microfluidic organs-on-chips.Nat. Biotechnol.32760–772. 10.1038/nbt.2989
10
BhattacharjeeN.Parra-CabreraC.KimY. T.KuoA. P.FolchA. (2018). Desktop-Stereolithography 3D-printing of a poly(dimethylsiloxane)-based material with sylgard-184 properties.Adv. Mater.30:1800001. 10.1002/adma.201800001
11
BhiseN. S.ManoharanV.MassaS.TamayolA.GhaderiM.MiscuglioM.et al (2016). A liver-on-a-chip platform with bioprinted hepatic spheroids.Biofabrication8:014101.
12
BonabiA.CitoS.TammelaP.JokinenV.SikanenT. (2017). Fabrication of concave micromirrors for single cell imaging via controlled over-exposure of organically modified ceramics in single step lithography.Biomicrofluidics11:034118. 10.1063/1.4985653
13
BoyceM. W.KenneyR. M.TruongA. S.LockettM. R. (2016). Quantifying oxygen in paper-based cell cultures with luminescent thin film sensors.Anal. Bioanal. Chem.4082985–2992. 10.1007/s00216-015-9189-x
14
CaliariS. R.BurdickJ. A. (2016). A practical guide to hydrogels for cell culture.Nat. Methods13405–414. 10.1038/nmeth.3839
15
ChanH. F.ZhangY.LeongK. W. (2016). Efficient one-step production of microencapsulated hepatocyte spheroids with enhanced functions.Small122720–2730. 10.1002/smll.201502932
16
ChenQ.UtechS.ChenD.ProdanovicR.LinJ.-M.WeitzD. A. (2016). Controlled assembly of heterotypic cells in a core–shell scaffold: organ in a droplet.Lab Chip161346–1349. 10.1039/C6LC00231E
17
ChenX.ShenJ.ZhouM. (2016). Rapid fabrication of a four-layer PMMA-based microfluidic chip using CO2-laser micromachining and thermal bonding.J. Micromech. Microeng.26:107001. 10.1088/0960-1317/26/10/107001
18
ChengS.-B.XieM.XuJ.-Q.WangJ.LvS.-W.GuoS.et al (2016). High-efficiency capture of individual and cluster of circulating tumor cells by a microchip embedded with three-dimensional Poly(dimethylsiloxane) Scaffold.Anal. Chem.886773–6780. 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01130
19
ChoiJ. S.PiaoY.SeoT. S. (2014). Circumferential alignment of vascular smooth muscle cells in a circular microfluidic channel.Biomaterials3563–70. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.09.106
20
CossonS.AeberliL. G.BrandenbergN.LutolfM. P. (2015). Ultra-rapid prototyping of flexible, multi-layered microfluidic devices via razor writing.Lab Chip1572–76. 10.1039/C4LC00848K
21
Cruz-AcuñaR.QuirósM.FarkasA. E.DedhiaP. H.HuangS.SiudaD.et al (2017). Synthetic hydrogels for human intestinal organoid generation and colonic wound repair.Nat. Cell Biol.191326–1335. 10.1038/ncb3632
22
Davenport HuyerL.ZhangB.KoroljA.MontgomeryM.DrecunS.ConantG.et al (2016). Highly elastic and moldable polyester biomaterial for cardiac tissue engineering applications.ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.2780–788. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.5b00525
23
DawsonJ. I.OreffoR. O. C. (2013). Clay: new opportunities for tissue regeneration and biomaterial design.Adv. Mater.254069–4086. 10.1002/adma.201301034
24
DomanskyK.SlizJ. D.WenN.HinojosaC.ThompsonG.FraserJ. P.et al (2017). SEBS elastomers for fabrication of microfluidic devices with reduced drug absorption by injection molding and extrusion.Microfluid. Nanofluid.21:107.
25
DuvalK.GroverH.HanL.-H.MouY.PegoraroA. F.FredbergJ.et al (2017). Modeling physiological events in 2D vs. 3D cell culture.Physiology32266–277. 10.1152/physiol.00036.2016
26
GaharwarA. K.PeppasN. A.KhademhosseiniA. (2014). Nanocomposite hydrogels for biomedical applications.Biotechnol. Bioeng.111441–453. 10.1002/bit.25160
27
GencturkE.MutluS.UlgenK. O. (2017). Advances in microfluidic devices made from thermoplastics used in cell biology and analyses.Biomicrofluidics11:051502. 10.1063/1.4998604
28
GiobbeG. G.CrowleyC.LuniC.CampinotiS.KhedrM.KretzschmarK.et al (2019). Extracellular matrix hydrogel derived from decellularized tissues enables endodermal organoid culture.Nat. Commun.10:5658.
29
GuoY.LiZ.SuW.WangL.ZhuY.QinJ. (2018). A biomimetic human gut-on-a-chip for modeling drug metabolism in intestine.Artif. Organs421196–1205. 10.1111/aor.13163
30
HeadenD. M.AubryG.LuH.GarcíaA. J. (2014). Microfluidic-based generation of size-controlled, biofunctionalized synthetic polymer microgels for cell encapsulation.Adv. Mater.263003–3008. 10.1002/adma.201304880
31
HuhD.MatthewsB. D.MammotoA.Montoya-ZavalaM.HsinH. Y.IngberD. E. (2010). Reconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip.Science3281662–1668. 10.1126/science.1188302
32
HumayunM.ChowC.-W.YoungE. W. K. (2018). Microfluidic lung airway-on-a-chip with arrayable suspended gels for studying epithelial and smooth muscle cell interactions.Lab Chip181298–1309. 10.1039/C7LC01357D
33
JärvinenP.BonabiA.JokinenV.SikanenT. (2020). Simultaneous culturing of cell monolayers and spheroids on a single microfluidic device for bridging the gap between 2d and 3d cell assays in drug research.Adv. Funct. Mater.30:2000479. 10.1002/adfm.202000479
34
JeongS.-Y.LeeJ.-H.ShinY.ChungS.KuhH.-J. (2016). Co-culture of tumor spheroids and fibroblasts in a collagen matrix-incorporated microfluidic chip mimics reciprocal activation in solid tumor microenvironment.PLoS One11:e0159013. 10.1371/journal.pone.0159013
35
JiangK.ChaimovD.PatelS. N.LiangJ. P.WigginsS. C.SamojlikM. M.et al (2019). 3-D physiomimetic extracellular matrix hydrogels provide a supportive microenvironment for rodent and human islet culture.Biomaterials19837–48. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.08.057
36
JiangW.LiM.ChenZ.LeongK. W. (2016). Cell-laden microfluidic microgels for tissue regeneration.Lab Chip164482–4506. 10.1039/c6lc01193d
37
KangJ.LeeD. W.HwangH. J.YeonS.-E.LeeM.-Y.KuhH.-J. (2016). Mini-pillar array for hydrogel-supported 3D culture and high-content histologic analysis of human tumor spheroids.Lab Chip162265–2276. 10.1039/C6LC00526H
38
KenneyR. M.BoyceM. W.WhitmanN. A.KromhoutB. P.LockettM. R. (2018). A ph-sensing optode for mapping spatiotemporal gradients in 3D paper-based cell cultures.Anal. Chem.902376–2383. 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b05015
39
KimH. J.HuhD.HamiltonG.IngberD. E. (2012). Human gut-on-a-chip inhabited by microbial flora that experiences intestinal peristalsis-like motions and flow.Lab Chip122165–2174. 10.1039/c2lc40074j
40
KimH. J.LiH.CollinsJ. J.IngberD. E. (2016). Contributions of microbiome and mechanical deformation to intestinal bacterial overgrowth and inflammation in a human gut-on-a-chip.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.113E7–E15. 10.1073/pnas.1522193112
41
KimS. H.ChiM.YiB.KimS. H.OhS.KimY.et al (2014). Three-dimensional intestinal villi epithelium enhances protection of human intestinal cells from bacterial infection by inducing mucin expression.Integr. Biol.61122–1131. 10.1039/c4ib00157e
42
KotzF.ArnoldK.WagnerS.BauerW.KellerN.NargangT. M.et al (2018). Liquid PMMA: a high resolution polymethylmethacrylate negative photoresist as enabling material for direct printing of microfluidic chips.Adv. Eng. Mater.20:1700699. 10.1002/adem.201700699
43
KotzF.PlewaK.BauerW.SchneiderN.KellerN.NargangT.et al (2016). Liquid glass: a facile soft replication method for structuring glass.Adv. Mater.284646–4650. 10.1002/adma.201506089
44
KulthongK.DuivenvoordeL.MizeraB. Z.RijkersD.DamG. T.OegemaG.et al (2018). Implementation of a dynamic intestinal gut-on-a-chip barrier model for transport studies of lipophilic dioxin congeners.RSC Adv.832440–32453. 10.1039/C8RA05430D
45
KungY.-C.HuangK.-W.FanY.-J.ChiouP.-Y. (2015). Fabrication of 3D high aspect ratio PDMS microfluidic networks with a hybrid stamp.Lab Chip151861–1868. 10.1039/C4LC01211A
46
LeeH.ChungM.JeonN. L. (2014). Microvasculature: an essential component for organ-on-chip systems.MRS Bulletin3951–59. 10.1557/mrs.2013.286
47
LeeK. K.McCauleyH. A.BrodaT. R.KofronM. J.WellsJ. M.HongC. I. (2018). Human stomach-on-a-chip with luminal flow and peristaltic-like motility.Lab Chip183079–3085. 10.1039/c8lc00910d
48
LeeS.JinS.-P.KimY. K.SungG. Y.ChungJ. H.SungJ. H. (2017). Construction of 3D multicellular microfluidic chip for an in vitro skin model.Biomed. Microdevices19:22.
49
LeeS.LimJ.YuJ.AhnJ.LeeY.JeonN. L. (2019). Engineering tumor vasculature on an injection-molded plastic array 3D culture (IMPACT) platform.Lab Chip192071–2080. 10.1039/C9LC00148D
50
LeeS. J.WangH.-J.KimT.-H.ChoiJ. S.KulkarniG.JacksonJ. D.et al (2018). In situ tissue regeneration of renal tissue induced by collagen hydrogel injection.Stem Cells Transl. Med.7241–250. 10.1002/sctm.16-0361
51
LiL.ScheigerJ. M.LevkinP. A. (2019). Design and applications of photoresponsive hydrogels.Adv. Mater.31:1807333. 10.1002/adma.201807333
52
LiR. A.KeungW.CashmanT. J.BackerisP. C.JohnsonB. V.BardotE. S.et al (2018). Bioengineering an electro-mechanically functional miniature ventricular heart chamber from human pluripotent stem cells.Biomaterials163116–127. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.02.024
53
LiX.GeorgeS. M.VernettiL.GoughA. H.TaylorD. L. (2018). A glass-based, continuously zonated and vascularized human liver acinus microphysiological system (vLAMPS) designed for experimental modeling of diseases and ADME/TOX.Lab Chip182614–2631. 10.1039/C8LC00418H
54
LiuH.WangY.CuiK.GuoY.ZhangX.QinJ. (2019). Advances in hydrogels in organoids and organs-on-a-chip.Adv. Mater.31:e1902042. 10.1002/adma.201902042
55
LiuY.XuP.LiangZ.XieR.DingM.LiuH.et al (2018). Hydrogel microfibers with perfusable folded channels for tissue constructs with folded morphology.RSC Adv.823475–23480. 10.1039/C8RA04192J
56
LuB.YukH.LinS.JianN.QuK.XuJ.et al (2019). Pure PEDOT:PSS hydrogels.Nat. Commun.10:1043.
57
MaZ.WangJ.LoskillP.HuebschN.KooS.SvedlundF. L.et al (2015). Self-organizing human cardiac microchambers mediated by geometric confinement.Nat. Commun.67413. 10.1038/ncomms8413
58
MahlerG. J.EschM. B.GlahnR. P.ShulerM. L. (2009). Characterization of a gastrointestinal tract microscale cell culture analog used to predict drug toxicity.Biotechnol. Bioeng.104193–205. 10.1002/bit.22366
59
MaozB. M.HerlandA.HenryO. Y. F.LeineweberW. D.YadidM.DoyleJ.et al (2017). Organs-on-Chips with combined multi-electrode array and transepithelial electrical resistance measurement capabilities.Lab Chip172294–2302. 10.1039/C7LC00412E
60
McDonaldJ. C.WhitesidesG. M. (2002). Poly(dimethylsiloxane) as a material for fabricating microfluidic devices.Acc. Chem. Res.35491–499. 10.1021/ar010110q
61
MechrefE.JabbourJ.Calas-EtienneS.AmroK.MehdiA.TaukR.et al (2016a). New organic–inorganic hybrid material based on a poly(amic acid) oligomer: a promising opportunity to obtain microfluidic devices by a photolithographic process.RSC Adv.690666–90673. 10.1039/C6RA10584J
62
MechrefE.JabbourJ.Calas-EtienneS.AmroK.MehdiA.TaukR.et al (2016b). Synthesis and characterization of a photosensitive organic–inorganic, hybrid positive resin type material: application to the manufacture of microfluidic devices by laser writing.RSC Adv.63951–3959. 10.1039/C5RA21393B
63
MillerP. G.ShulerM. L. (2016). Design and demonstration of a pumpless 14 compartment microphysiological system.Biotechnol. Bioeng.1132213–2227. 10.1002/bit.25989
64
MiriA. K.NietoD.IglesiasL.Goodarzi HosseinabadiH.MaharjanS.Ruiz-EsparzaG. U.et al (2018). Microfluidics-enabled multimaterial maskless stereolithographic bioprinting.Adv. Mater.30:e1800242. 10.1002/adma.201800242
65
MoroniL.BurdickJ. A.HighleyC.LeeS. J.MorimotoY.TakeuchiS.et al (2018). Biofabrication strategies for 3D in vitro models and regenerative medicine.Nat. Rev. Mater.321–37. 10.1038/s41578-018-0006-y
66
MosadeghB.LockettM. R.MinnK. T.SimonK. A.GilbertK.HillierS.et al (2015). A paper-based invasion assay: assessing chemotaxis of cancer cells in gradients of oxygen.Biomaterials52262–271. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.012
67
MottetG.Perez-TorallaK.TulukcuogluE.BidardF.-C.PiergaJ.-Y.DraskovicI.et al (2014). A three dimensional thermoplastic microfluidic chip for robust cell capture and high resolution imaging.Biomicrofluidics8024109. 10.1063/1.4871035
68
NargangT. M.BrockmannL.NikolovP. M.SchildD.HelmerD.KellerN.et al (2014). Liquid polystyrene: a room-temperature photocurable soft lithography compatible pour-and-cure-type polystyrene.Lab Chip142698–2708. 10.1039/c4lc00045e
69
NgS. S.Saeb-ParsyK.BlackfordS. J. I.SegalJ. M.SerraM. P.Horcas-LopezM.et al (2018). Human iPS derived progenitors bioengineered into liver organoids using an inverted colloidal crystal poly (ethylene glycol) scaffold.Biomaterials182299–311. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.043
70
NieJ.GaoQ.WangY.ZengJ.ZhaoH.SunY.et al (2018). Vessel-on-a-chip with hydrogel-based microfluidics.Small14:1802368. 10.1002/smll.201802368
71
NingL.XuY.ChenX.SchreyerD. J. (2016). Influence of mechanical properties of alginate-based substrates on the performance of Schwann cells in culture.J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed.27898–915. 10.1080/09205063.2016.1170415
72
OngaroA. E.Di GiuseppeD.KermanizadehA.Miguelez CrespoA.MencattiniA.GhibelliL.et al (2020). Polylactic is a sustainable, low absorption, low autofluorescence alternative to other plastics for microfluidic and organ-on-chip applications.Anal. Chem.926693–6701. 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00651
73
ParkS.KangY. J.MajdS. (2015). A review of patterned organic bioelectronic materials and their biomedical applications.Adv. Mater.277583–7619. 10.1002/adma.201501809
74
PocockK.DelonL.BalaV.RaoS.PriestC.PrestidgeC.et al (2017). Intestine-on-a-chip microfluidic model for efficient in vitro screening of oral chemotherapeutic uptake.ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.3951–959. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00023
75
PourmandA.ShaeghS. A. M.GhavifekrH. B.Najafi AghdamE.DokmeciM. R.KhademhosseiniA.et al (2018). Fabrication of whole-thermoplastic normally closed microvalve, micro check valve, and micropump.Sens. Actuators B Chem.262625–636. 10.1016/j.snb.2017.12.132
76
RahimiR.HtweS. S.OchoaM.DonaldsonA.ZiegerM.SoodR.et al (2016). A paper-based in vitro model for on-chip investigation of the human respiratory system.Lab Chip164319–4325. 10.1039/C6LC00866F
77
RenK.ZhouJ.WuH. (2013). Materials for microfluidic chip fabrication.Acc. Chem. Res.462396–2406. 10.1021/ar300314s
78
RodenhizerD.GaudeE.CojocariD.MahadevanR.FrezzaC.WoutersB. G.et al (2016). A three-dimensional engineered tumour for spatial snapshot analysis of cell metabolism and phenotype in hypoxic gradients.Nat. Mater.15227–234. 10.1038/nmat4482
79
RosalesA. M.VegaS. L.DelRioF. W.BurdickJ. A.AnsethK. S. (2017). Hydrogels with reversible mechanics to probe dynamic cell microenvironments.Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.5612132–12136. 10.1002/anie.201705684
80
RyanS.-L.BairdA.-M.VazG.UrquhartA. J.SengeH.RichardD. J.et al (2016). Drug discovery approaches utilizing three-dimensional cell culture.ASSAY Drug Dev. Technol.1419–28. 10.1089/adt.2015.670
81
SanoE.MoriC.MatsuokaN.OzakiY.YagiK.WadaA.et al (2019). Tetrafluoroethylene-propylene elastomer for fabrication of microfluidic organs-on-chips resistant to drug absorption.Micromachines10:793. 10.3390/mi10110793
82
SappM. C.FaresH. J.EstradaA. C.Grande-AllenK. J. (2015). Multilayer three-dimensional filter paper constructs for the culture and analysis of aortic valvular interstitial cells.Acta Biomater.13199–206. 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.11.039
83
SateeshJ.GuhaK.DuttaA.SenguptaP.Srinivasa RaoK. (2018). Design and analysis of microfluidic kidney-on-chip model: fluid shear stress based study with temperature effect.Microsyst. Technol.252553–2560. 10.1007/s00542-018-4261-z
84
ScheiweA. C.FrankS. C.AutenriethT. J.BastmeyerM.WegenerM. (2015). Subcellular stretch-induced cytoskeletal response of single fibroblasts within 3D designer scaffolds.Biomaterials44186–194. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.12.018
85
SchulzeT.MatternK.FrühE.HechtL.RustenbeckI.DietzelA. (2017). A 3D microfluidic perfusion system made from glass for multiparametric analysis of stimulus-secretioncoupling in pancreatic islets.Biomed. Microdevices19:47. 10.1007/s10544-017-0186-z
86
SeliktarD. (2012). Designing cell-compatible hydrogels for biomedical applications.Science3361124–1128. 10.1126/science.1214804
87
ShaeghS. A. M.PourmandA.NabaviniaM.AvciH.TamayolA.MostafaluP.et al (2018). Rapid prototyping of whole-thermoplastic microfluidics with built-in microvalves using laser ablation and thermal fusion bonding.Sens. Actuators B Chem.255100–109. 10.1016/j.snb.2017.07.138
88
ShahP.FritzJ. V.GlaabE.DesaiM. S.GreenhalghK.FrachetA.et al (2016). A microfluidics-based in vitro model of the gastrointestinal human-microbe interface.Nat. Commun.7:11535. 10.1038/ncomms11535
89
ShimK. Y.LeeD.HanJ.NguyenN. T.ParkS.SungJ. H. (2017). Microfluidic gut-on-a-chip with three-dimensional villi structure.Biomed. Microdevices19:37. 10.1007/s10544-017-0179-y
90
SinA.ChinK. C.JamilM. F.KostovY.RaoG.ShulerM. L. (2004). The design and fabrication of three-chamber microscale cell culture analog devices with integrated dissolved oxygen sensors.Biotechnol. Prog.20338–345. 10.1021/bp034077d
91
SollierE.MurrayC.MaoddiP.Di CarloD. (2011). Rapid prototyping polymers for microfluidic devices and high pressure injections.Lab Chip113752–3765. 10.1039/C1LC20514E
92
SungJ. H.WangY. I.Narasimhan SriramN.JacksonM.LongC.HickmanJ. J.et al (2019). Recent advances in body-on-a-chip systems.Anal. Chem.91330–351. 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b05293
93
SuzukiH.MitsunoK.ShiroguchiK.TsuganeM.OkanoT.DohiT.et al (2017). One-step micromolding of complex 3D microchambers for single-cell analysis.Lab Chip17647–652. 10.1039/c6lc01313a
94
TibbeM. P.LeferinkA. M.van den BergA.EijkelJ. C. T.SegerinkL. I. (2018). Microfluidic gel patterning method by use of a temporary membrane for organ-on-chip applications.Adv. Mater. Technol.3:1700200. 10.1002/admt.201700200
95
WangX. Y.PeiY.XieM.JinZ. H.XiaoY. S.WangY.et al (2015). An artificial blood vessel implanted three-dimensional microsystem for modeling transvascular migration of tumor cells.Lab Chip151178–1187. 10.1039/c4lc00973h
96
WengY. S.ChangS. F.ShihM. C.TsengS. H.LaiC. H. (2017). Scaffold-free liver-on-a-chip with multiscale organotypic cultures.Adv. Mater.29:1701545. 10.1002/adma.201701545
97
WuP.ZhangC. (2015). Low-cost, high-throughput fabrication of cloth-based microfluidic devices using a photolithographical patterning technique.Lab Chip151598–1608. 10.1039/c4lc01135j
98
XieR.XuP.LiuY.LiL.LuoG.DingM.et al (2018). Necklace-like microfibers with variable knots and perfusable channels fabricated by an oil-free microfluidic spinning process.Adv. Mater.30:1705082. 10.1002/adma.201705082
99
XuJ.WuD.IpJ. Y.MidorikawaK.SugiokaK. (2015). Vertical sidewall electrodes monolithically integrated into 3D glass microfluidic chips using water-assisted femtosecond-laser fabrication for in situ control of electrotaxis.RSC Adv.524072–24080. 10.1039/c5ra00256g
100
XuP.XieR.LiuY.LuoG.DingM.LiangQ. (2017). Bioinspired microfibers with embedded perfusable helical channels.Adv. Mater.29:1701664. 10.1002/adma.201701664
101
YamadaM.HoriA.SugayaS.YajimaY.UtohR.YamatoM.et al (2015). Cell-sized condensed collagen microparticles for preparing microengineered composite spheroids of primary hepatocytes.Lab Chip153941–3951. 10.1039/C5LC00785B
102
YangL.ShridharS. V.GerwitzM.SomanP. (2016). An in vitro vascular chip using 3D printing-enabled hydrogel casting.Biofabrication8035015. 10.1088/1758-5090/8/3/035015
103
YangY.-A.LinC.-H.WeiY.-C. (2014). Thread-based microfluidic system for detection of rapid blood urea nitrogen in whole blood.Microfluid. Nanofluid.16887–894.
104
YoungM.RodenhizerD.DeanT.D’ArcangeloE.XuB.AillesL.et al (2018). A TRACER 3D Co-Culture tumour model for head and neck cancer.Biomaterials16454–69. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.01.038
105
YuY.WeiW.WangY.XuC.GuoY.QinJ. (2016). Simple spinning of heterogeneous hollow microfibers on chip.Adv. Mater.286649–6655. 10.1002/adma.201601504
106
YueK.Trujillo-de SantiagoG.AlvarezM. M.TamayolA.AnnabiN.KhademhosseiniA. (2015). Synthesis, properties, and biomedical applications of gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) hydrogels.Biomaterials73254–271. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.08.045
107
ZhangB.KoroljA.LaiB. F. L.RadisicM. (2018a). Advances in organ-on-a-chip engineering.Nat. Rev. Mater.3257–278.
108
ZhangB.LaiB. F. L.XieR.Davenport HuyerL.MontgomeryM.RadisicM. (2018b). Microfabrication of AngioChip, a biodegradable polymer scaffold with microfluidic vasculature.Nat. Protoc.131793–1813.
109
ZhangB.MontgomeryM.ChamberlainM. D.OgawaS.KoroljA.PahnkeA.et al (2016). Biodegradable scaffold with built-in vasculature for organ-on-a-chip engineering and direct surgical anastomosis.Nat. Mater.15669–678. 10.1038/nmat4570
110
ZhangB.RadisicM. (2017). Organ-on-a-chip devices advance to market.Lab Chip172395–2420. 10.1039/c6lc01554a
111
ZhangR.LarsenN. B. (2017). Stereolithographic hydrogel printing of 3D culture chips with biofunctionalized complex 3D perfusion networks.Lab Chip174273–4282. 10.1039/c7lc00926g
112
ZhangW.ZhangY. S.BakhtS. M.AlemanJ.ShinS. R.YueK.et al (2016). Elastomeric free-form blood vessels for interconnecting organs on chip systems.Lab Chip161579–1586. 10.1039/c6lc00001k
113
ZhangX.LiL.LuoC. (2016). Gel integration for microfluidic applications.Lab Chip161757–1776. 10.1039/C6LC00247A
114
ZhangY. S.ArneriA.BersiniS.ShinS.-R.ZhuK.Goli-MalekabadiZ.et al (2016). Bioprinting 3D microfibrous scaffolds for engineering endothelialized myocardium and heart-on-a-chip.Biomaterials11045–59. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.09.003
115
ZhaoX.LangQ.YildirimerL.LinZ. Y.CuiW.AnnabiN.et al (2016). Photocrosslinkable gelatin hydrogel for epidermal tissue engineering.Adv. Healthc. Mater.5108–118. 10.1002/adhm.201500005
116
ZhaoY.KankalaR. K.WangS. B.ChenA. Z. (2019a). Multi-organs-on-chips: towards long-term biomedical investigations.Molecules24:675. 10.3390/molecules24040675
117
ZhaoY.RafatianN.FericN. T.CoxB. J.Aschar-SobbiR.WangE. Y.et al (2019b). A platform for generation of chamber-specific cardiac tissues and disease modeling.Cell176913. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.042
118
ZhengY.ChenJ.CravenM.ChoiN. W.TotoricaS.Diaz-SantanaA.et al (2012). In vitro microvessels for the study of angiogenesis and thrombosis.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1099342–9347. 10.1073/pnas.1201240109
119
ZhuY.WangL.YinF.YuY.WangY.LiuH.et al (2017). A hollow fiber system for simple generation of human brain organoids.Integr. Biol.9774–781. 10.1039/c7ib00080d
Summary
Keywords
organ-on-a-chip, microfluidics, elastomer, hydrogel, microfabrication
Citation
Ding C, Chen X, Kang Q and Yan X (2020) Biomedical Application of Functional Materials in Organ-on-a-Chip. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8:823. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00823
Received
26 April 2020
Accepted
29 June 2020
Published
22 July 2020
Volume
8 - 2020
Edited by
Jianxun Ding, Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry (CAS), China
Reviewed by
Peter Ertl, Vienna University of Technology, Austria; Mario Rothbauer, Vienna University of Technology, Austria
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Ding, Chen, Kang and Yan.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Xianghua Yan, xhyan@mail.hzau.edu.cn
This article was submitted to Biomaterials, a section of the journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.