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

Advantages

Highly scalable; easily measure TEER; relatively simple model for drug permeability studies; allows for investigation of paracrine signaling

Replicates in vivo physiological forces of flow and stretch; allows cell–cell contacts; mimics vasculature with microfluidic channels

Geometry mimics in vivo vessels; replicates physiological shear stress and cell–matrix interactions

Challenges

Static culture conditions; lack of cell–cell contacts in co-culture

Limited scalability; expensive; requires specialized expertise for manufacturing; drug absorption by materials such as PDMS

Low 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 interactions

Lippmann [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 delivery

Lippmann [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 modeling

Qosa [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 modeling

Kim [49, 50]; Alimonti [53]; Patel [52]; Martins Gomes [51]