Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of major culture platforms used for in vitro BBB models

From: Recent advances in human iPSC-derived models of the blood–brain barrier

AdvantagesHighly scalable; easily measure TEER; relatively simple model for drug permeability studies; allows for investigation of paracrine signalingReplicates in vivo physiological forces of flow and stretch; allows cell–cell contacts; mimics vasculature with microfluidic channelsGeometry mimics in vivo vessels; replicates physiological shear stress and cell–matrix interactions
ChallengesStatic culture conditions; lack of cell–cell contacts in co-cultureLimited scalability; expensive; requires specialized expertise for manufacturing; drug absorption by materials such as PDMSLow throughput; difficult to measure TEER values and drug permeabilities; challenges with long-term stability
Response to shear stress DeStefano [60]; Wang [64]; Vatine [31]Faley [63]; Linville [67]
NVU cell–cell interactionsLippmann [13]; Appelt-Menzel [24]; Canfield [26, 27]; Hollman [17]; Delsing [25, 28]; Mantle [45]; Stebbins [29]Motallebnejad [66]; Park [19]; Vatine [31]; Jagadeesan [58]Campisi [57]; Jamieson [32]
Drug permeability and drug deliveryLippmann [12]; Mantle [73]; Appelt-Menzel [24]; Delsing [25]; Ribecco-Lutkiewicz [30]; Le Roux [74]; Li [71]; Ohshima [69]Wang [64]; Park [19]; Vatine [31]Linville [67]; Lee [65]
Neurological disease modelingQosa [46]; Lim [39]; Vatine [38]; Lee [41]; Al-Ahmad [72]; Katt [40]; Mantle [85]; Mohamed [47]; Page [48]Motallebnejad [66]; Vatine [31]Shin [43]
Infectious disease modelingKim [49, 50]; Alimonti [53]; Patel [52]; Martins Gomes [51]  
  1. Key recent iPSC-derived BBB studies utilizing each platform are listed according to main area of research