Table 2.

Summary of in vitro models commonly used in blood–brain barrier research

Model	Shear stress	Cell-cell interactions	High-throughput / cost	Similarity to human physiology
Transwella,b	No	Co-culturing possible, tri-culturing more challenging to evaluate cell populations	Yes / low	Minimal, ECM present only as anchoring points, 2D geometry
Porous-tube modelsc	Yes	Same as Transwell	Minimal / moderate	Improved similarity to human physiology (shear stress, 3D luminal geometry), but minimal ECM present
Microfluidic chips (membrane-based)d,e	Yes	Capability of compartmentalization and studying interactions between cell populations	Yes; however, more time consuming than Transwell / moderate	Same as porous-tube models
Microfluidic chips(ECM-based)f	Yes	Same as membrane-based microfluidic chips	Yes; however, more time consuming than Transwell / moderate	Utmost attempt at in vitro biomimicry (shear stress, 3D geometry, ECM present)

NVC = neurovascular chip.

^aIn this list, we consider studies that use Transwell in static cultures, there are, however, studies that implement flow in Transwell (Hinkel et al., 2019).

^b Zenker et al., 2003; Colgan et al., 2008; Helms et al., 2014; Labus et al., 2014; Canfield et al., 2017; Delsing et al., 2018.

^c Neuhaus et al., 2006; Cucullo et al., 2011;Marino et al., 2018; Moya et al., 2020.

^dIn this list, microfluidic chips with a temporary membrane (i.e. a membrane that degrades over time) are not included, such as the work of Tibbe et al. (2018).

^e Booth and Kim, 2012; Prabhakarpandian et al., 2013; Achyuta et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017; Maoz et al., 2018.

^f Brown et al., 2015; Herland et al., 2016, Xu et al., 2016a; Adriani et al., 2017; Partyka et al., 2017.