Table 1.

Comparison of current in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo angiogenesis assays with the developed dynamic 3D angiogenesis model (– = absence, + = very low, ++ = low, +++ = low/medium, ++++ = medium, +++++ = medium/high, ++++++ = high).

	Models	Cost	Ethical concern	Reproducibility	Special skill requirement	Representation of the physiological angiogenesis	Duration of the assay	References
In vitro	Proliferation assays	+	–	++++++	+	+	++/+++	Arbiser et al., 1998; Goodwin, 2007; Logie et al., 2010; Chiu et al., 2012
	Migration assays	++	–	++++++	+	+	+	Kye et al., 2004; Logie et al., 2010; Chiu et al., 2012
	Tube formation assays	++	–	++++	++	+	+	Langenfeld and Langenfeld, 2004; Hung et al., 2007; DeCicco-Skinner et al., 2014
	3D dynamic angiogenesis model	+	–	++++++	+	++/+++	++	This study
Ex vivo	Aortic ring/arch assays	++	++	+++	+++	+++	+++	Masson et al., 2002; Auerbach and Muthukkaruppan, 2012; Baker et al., 2012
	Retinal assay	++	++	+++	+++	+++	++	Sawamiphak et al., 2010; Rezzola et al., 2013
In vivo	In-ovo CAM assay	++	+++	+++	++++	++++	++++	Vargas et al., 2007; Lokman et al., 2012
	Ex-ovo CAM assay	++	+++	+++	+++++	++++	++++	Aldemir Dikici et al., 2019a; Dikici et al., 2019a,b; Mangir et al., 2019
	Dorsal skinfold chamber assay	++++++	++++++	++	++++++	++++++	+++	Rücker et al., 2006; Laschke et al., 2011
	Sponge/Matrigel® plug assay	++++++	++++++	++	++++++	++++++	++++	Akhtar et al., 2002; Malinda, 2009
	Corneal assay	+++++	++++++	++	+++++	+++++	+++	Ziche et al., 1994; Arbiser et al., 1998
	Zebrafish assay	++	+++	++	++++	++++	++	Serbedzija et al., 1999; Nicoli and Presta, 2007