Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0245805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245805

Novel three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model

Tess M Calcagno 1, Chongxu Zhang 2, Runxia Tian 2, Babak Ebrahimi 3, Mehdi Mirsaeidi 2,*
Editor: Mária A Deli4
PMCID: PMC7861546  PMID: 33539409

Abstract

Sarcoidosis is a multi-system disorder of granulomatous inflammation which most commonly affects the lungs. Its etiology and pathogenesis are not well defined in part due to the lack of reliable modeling. Here, we present the development of an in vitro three-dimensional lung-on-chip biochip designed to mimic granuloma formation. A lung on chip fluidic macrodevice was developed and added to our previously developed a lung-on-membrane model (LOMM). Granulomas were cultured from blood samples of patients with sarcoidosis and then inserted in the air-lung-interface of the microchip to create a three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model (3D BSGM). Cytokines were measured after 48 hours. ELISA testing was performed to measure cytokine response difference between LOMM with 3D BSGM. There were statistically significant differences in IL-1ß (P = 0.001953), IL-6 (P = 0.001953), GM-CSF (P = 0.001953), and INF-γ expressions (P = 0.09375) between two groups. The current model represents the first 3D biochip sarcoidosis model created by adding a microfluidics system to a dual-chambered lung on membrane model and introducing developed sarcoid-granuloma to its air-lung-interface.

Introduction

Sarcoidosis is a heterogenous multisystem disorder characterized by the formation of noncaseating granulomas which can lead to extensive fibrosis. Its etiology is still largely unknown, though genetic, environmental, and infectious causes have all been considered [1]. Its clinical presentation is extremely variable ranging from an asymptomatic to a life-threatening disease [2]. Although sarcoidosis can virtually affect any organ, lung is the most involved organ and is associated with the highest morbidity and mortality, usually related to and extensive pulmonary fibrosis and pulmonary hypertension [3].

The features of human pulmonary sarcoidosis that could be modeled are still undefined, largely due to the limited understanding of etiology and pathogenesis of the disease. Human exposure to a wide variety of infectious and environmental components including mycobacteria [48], propionibcateria [9,10], occupational antigens [11], desert dusts [12,13], and also to human cancer cell products [14] may cause sarcoidosis with different clinical phenotypes [15]. Inherited histocompatibility complexes including HLA-DR allele DRB1*1101 in African American and European American is associated with the development of sarcoidosis [16]. Genetic polymorphisms in Angiotensin-Converting enzyme have also been linked to the development and degree of severity of sarcoidosis [17]. Mutation in annexin A11 has been associated with susceptibility to sarcoidosis and pulmonary fibrosis in sarcoidosis [18,19]. Genetic predisposition to sarcoidosis is an important consideration in developing an acceptable animal model, which is currently not well developed. Even if animal granulomas are created via the introduction of infectious/environmental agents, such granulomas may represent only a subgroup of sarcoidosis patients.

Two-dimensional in vitro cell culture models combined with in vivo animal testing served as gold standard methods for decades of medical advancements in pulmonary research [20]. In two-dimensional (2D) cell culture, cells of one type can be studied in a low-cost standardized fashion which allows for massive high throughput screenings and experimental protocols which can easily be replicated. However, 2D cell culture is limited by its fixed device architecture and stagnant culture media. Simplistic representation fails to recreate lung-specific microenvironments which rely on the interplay between multiple cell types within a complex physiologic system [21].

Contemporary three-dimensional (3D) microfluidic lung on chip models more accurately reconstruct normal lung physiology [22,23]. Lung on chip models use microfluid-based cell culture on a micro- or nano-sized chip allowing for perfusion of targeted cells into the chip and reduction of reagent consumption as compared to conventional cell culture technique. Most lung-on-chip models (LOCM) are designed to mimic the environment of the alveolar air-blood barrier comprised of alveolar epithelial cells and vascular endothelial cells in the setting of applied mathematical models which consider both fluid mechanics and stretch frequency [24]. Structural limitations of cell culture are largely circumvented if the cultured cells are introduced to a 3D microfluidics model. For example, cultured primary human cell lines with M. tuberculosis have been added to 3D microfluidic plates to model active granulomatous inflammation [25].

In the setting of sarcoidosis, novel 3D models properly mimicking granuloma formation have not yet been created; this has contributed to the lack of available targeted therapies. We developed a novel lung on chip model by adding a microfluidics system to our previously developed dual-chambered lung on membrane model (LOMM) [26,27]. We also recently developed an in vitro sarcoidosis granulomas model [28]. Here, we introduced the in vitro granuloma to the air-lung interface (ALI) of LOMM, making this the first three-dimensional lung on chip model mimicking sarcoidosis.

Methods

Development of granuloma

Human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PMBCs) were introduced to granuloma-inducing microparticles to effectively create human sarcoid-like granulomas. PMBCs were isolated from peripheral blood samples of patients with confirmed sarcoidosis taken from University of Miami Sarcoidosis biobank as previously described [28]. All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations and approved by University of Miami Institutional Review Board no 20150612. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects in this study. A quantity of 2 x106 PBMC was cultured in a 12-well tissue culture plate and immediately challenged with microparticles generated from myobacterium abscessus (MAB) cell wall to induce granuloma formation. The methods for microparticle development and details of granuloma formation were discussed elsewhere [28]. Granuloma maturation was considered complete when the diameter of the based was in the range of 100 to 200 micrometers.

Design and fabrication of fluidic macrodevice

The lung on chip fluidic macrodevice is comprised of two main components, the base and top cover (cap). Both components are CNC machined Polycarbonate blocks that sealed together to create a multi-channel platform with independent flow-control capability. There are three channels at the base, where cell cultures are inserted via membrane dual cell culture plate (12 mm Transwell with 0.4 μm pore polycarbonate membrane insert). Channels are independently sealed via Soft Viton® Fluoroelastomer O-Ring (Made of FDA Listed Material, SAE AS568). For each channel at the base, there is a corresponding channel in the top cover, providing controlled air supply to the cell culture. Ismatec REGLO ICC peristaltic pump (3 channel/3 roller) was utilized to independently control the flow rate of the 3 channels for media flow and 3 channels for air flow. If needed, a separate pump could be used to achieve independent air flow control. Masterflex Tygon E-LFL tubes with 1.42mm ID were used for fluid transfer. Considering 1ml medium volume in each chamber and 700mm tube length per channel, the pump speed was set to 20 rpm to achieve 2ml/min flow rate per channel resembling lung cell exposure to blood based on a cardiac output equal 5–6 liter/min. 6 electrodes (3 in the top cover and 3 in the base) were used for continuous electrical impedance measurement (TEER test). The microfluidics system allows the researcher to control the flow rate in real time using an iOS and Android compatible microcontroller.

Development of lung on chip

We previously developed a lung-on-membrane model (LOMM) with a dual chamber including normal bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells and human microvascular endothelial cells [26,27]. We added a microfluidics system to the LOMM to develop a novel lung on chip.

Adding granuloma to ALI

Fully matured granulomas were developed separately. We then added granuloma to the ALI of the chip included with a lung-on membrane model. A narrow scratch was made on the middle of the ALI surface of membrane and developed granulomas from 2 x106 PBMC in 50 μL of medium were directly added to the narrow to develop three-Dimensional Biochip Sarcoidosis Granuloma Model (3D BSGM).

Cytokine measurements

To demonstrate the functionality of the device to run an experimental study, we developed ten exact replicate LOMM and ten exact replicate 3D BSGM as previously described. The circulatory medium of each unit was collected after 48 hours and ELISA testing was performed to measure cytokine response difference between groups. ELISA was performed using a kit from Invitrogen (Carlsbad, CA, USA) (Procartaplex human th1/th2 cytokine panel 11 plex from Invitrogen, cat # epx110-10810-901) per the manufacturers’ instruction. We designed the experiment with 3 replicates, each replicate has 10 samples.

Results

Mature granulomas from PBMC from sarcoidosis patients and challenged with MAB microparticles developed within 72 hours as shown in Fig 1. The presence of multi-nucleated giant cells, lymphocytes, and macrophages which are aggregated together formed a large- structured granuloma.

Fig 1. In vitro granulomas from PBMC taken from blood of patients with sarcoidosis.

Fig 1

(A) displays granuloma at 20X magnification, (B) displays granuloma at 60X magnification, (C) displays granuloma at 100X magnification.

The fluidic macrodevice was developed and shown in Fig 2. S1 Fig shows TEER test functionality of the device.

Fig 2. Design and fabrication of fluidic macrodevice and physical device in action.

Fig 2

The macrodevice set up in its compact form contains three individually controlled channels which are independently sealed. Each channel is equipped with integrated electrodes for resistance measurement, in-line flow meters, microcontrollers, and built-in Wi-Fi connectors.

The bilayer lung model was developed as shown in Fig 3 which displays TEM images of the lung model and its varying components (NHBE cells, endothelial cells, and intervening membrane). We also observed small vesicles (sized about 300 μm, assumed exosomes) into channels between epithelial and endothelial cell layers as shown in Fig 3C.

Fig 3. Dual-chambered lung on membrane model (LOMM).

Fig 3

(A) shows LOMM with the red arrow pointing to NHBE cells, magnification X400, exposure 3000 (ms). (B) shows LOMM with the yellow arrow pointing to the polycarbonate membrane magnification X1500, exposure 3000 (ms). (C) shows LOMM with the purple arrow pointing to membrane with 0.4 μm pore magnification X4000, Exposure 3000 (ms). (D) shows LOMM displaying NHBE cells (red arrow), membrane (yellow arrow), and endothelial cells (green arrow), magnification X40.

The three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model (BOSGM) developed from the addition of preformed granulomas to the bilayer lung model was shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4. Transmission electron microscopic images of the three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model.

Fig 4

(A) shows bronchial epithelial cell with cilia (Red arrow) and granuloma (lymphocytes and macrophages) with Blue arrow, magnification of X1200. (B) shows macrophages and lymphocytes from developed granuloma in the ALI, magnification of x1200, Exposure 3000 (ms). (C) shows mature bronchial epithelial cell with cilia (Blue arrow) and microvillia (Red arrow), magnification X5000. Red arrows show NHBE cells.

To test the functionality of the BOSGM, cytokine measurement was performed in media collected from the BSGM and compared with control (lung on chip without granuloma). There were statistically significant differences in IL-1ß expression (P = 0.001953), IL-6 expression (P = 0.001953), GM-CSF expression (P = 0.001953), and INF-γ expression (P = 0.09375) as shown in Fig 5.

Fig 5. ELISA results for cytokine response measurements.

Fig 5

Concentrations of cytokines (IL-1ß, Il-6, GM-CSF, and IFN-γ) reported in in pg/ml. Control represents the lung on chip model without granuloma in ALI. Granulomas represent lung on chip model with granulomas in ALI (n = 10 for each group, repeated X3).

Discussion

We developed a Three-Dimensional Biochip Sarcoidosis Granuloma Model by adding a microfluidics system to our previously developed lung on membrane model and introduced fully developed granulomas to its air-lung interface. Our model uses standardization techniques and is compatible to use artificial intelligence (AI) to combine the benefits of reproducibility from 2D cell culture with the complexity of lung on chip microfluid models. It is comprised of three individually controlled channels which are independently sealed and contain individual peristaltic pumps to control the flow rate of media in each channel with precision.

Lung on chip (LOC) models emulate lung physiology using a microfluid design combined with culture inoculation [29,30]. Huh et al. developed the first LOC model which contains two microchannels coated with endothelial cells and alveolar epithelial cells separated by a 10um collagen coated polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) porous membrane. Two separate channels with vacuum applied suction surround the lateral aspects of the model to stimulate negative intrapleural pressure involved in inspiration [31]. Humayun et al. added a hydrogel micro layer which allowed for the development of a LOC model with smooth muscle and epithelial cells to mimic bronchiolar microenvironments [32]. This model was limited with being a solid system (unable to remove the membrane) with unscalable experiment due to very limited cell numbers in the system. LOC models have since been used to mimic lung injury, lung inflammation, pulmonary fibrosis, and lung cancer, but not sarcoidosis [3336]. Lately, microscale infectious granuloma models combining cell culture and microchip technology have recently been reported. Berry et al. introduced human immune cells combined with virulent mycobacterial strains to a suspended microfluidics platform to study tuberculosis infection [37]. Bielecka et al. developed a microsphere granuloma model equipped with a microfluidic plate to model pharmacokinetics and antimicrobial resistance [25]. Walter et al. recently developed an in vitro model to study tuberculous mycobacterial granuloma in central nervous system [38].

The inability to recreate sarcoid granulomas in animal models, has severely limited our ability to discover novel pharmacologic therapies, characterize its etiology, and understand its heterogenous clinical presentation. Prior to the development of our model, there were no 3D lung models designed to mimic sarcoid-like granulomatous disease. The pathogenesis of sarcoidosis is associated with CD4 + T Cell activation, and secretion of cytokines including interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and transforming growth factor-β [39].

In previous investigations, sarcoid has been studied using biopsies, animal models, and single cell lines. Biopsies of granulomas from diseased patients have been used to characterize sarcoid histologically at a stagnant point in time, but they cannot properly represent the dynamic interplay between multiple cell types seen in sarcoid-like granulomas [40]. Many animal models made to simulate granuloma formation have been developed in the past ten years, but development is limited since sarcoidosis does not occur naturally in most animals. In order to simulate sarcoid-like granulomas in animals, animals are exposed to environmental antigens [15] and mycobacterial antigens [26,41]. For example, Werner et al. created a pulmonary granuloma in mice by introducing Propionibacterium acnes, an environmental bacterium possibly implicated in the development of sarcoidosis in human lung tissue [42]. Such models have been limited by lack of similarity to polygenic human sarcoid-induced granulomatous processes involving the interplay between T-cell, cytokine, and aberrant macrophage-mediated immune responses [43]. Two-dimensional cell cultures using BAL or blood samples have been used to study antigenic response in a single cell population, however this fails to account for a sarcoid microenvironment incorporating multiple cell types [40].

The current model is designed based on a mycobacteria component which is one of the potential etiologies of sarcoidosis. However, it does not consider granuloma formation in response to other potential environmental exposures. This may limit future study to one pathophysiologic subset of sarcoid disease.

Future directions

The proposed model which uses three-dimensional structuring, compatible to AI, and standardization techniques mimics pulmonary sarcoidosis. AI will be the next step of development of this device. AI can control TEER testing, volume control as well as adding new medication of chemical to the experimental chamber. This development circumvents a large hurdle in the progression of sarcoidosis research. The model is scalable to be incorporated with four cell groups including fibroblast and circulatory macrophages. It will allow for better characterization of a heterogenous and complex multi-organ disease. Furthermore, efficient testing of novel pharmacotherapeutic agents will bring agents into clinical trials more quickly.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(TIF)

S1 Data

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by a Health Resources and Services Administration contract awarded to MM (234–2005–37011C), and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals for research grant support awarded to MM (Grant No. 5043). Genix-Engineering provided support for this study in the form of a salary for BE. The specific roles of this author are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The content is the responsibility of the authors alone and does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Ungprasert P, Ryu JH, Matteson EL. Clinical Manifestations, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Sarcoidosis. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2019;3(3):358–75. 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2019.04.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mirsaeidi M, Machado RF, Schraufnagel D, Sweiss NJ, Baughman RP. Racial difference in sarcoidosis mortality in the United States. Chest. 2015;147(2):438–49. 10.1378/chest.14-1120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Huang CT, Heurich AE, Sutton AL, Lyons HA. Mortality in sarcoidosis. A changing pattern of the causes of death. Eur J Respir Dis. 1981;62(4):231–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Masoud S, Mihan P, Hamed M, Mehdi M, Mohamad RM. The presence of mycobacterial antigens in sarcoidosis associated granulomas. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2017;34(3):236–41. 10.36141/svdld.v34i3.5739 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kirschenbaum MB. The sarcoidosis-tuberculosis relationship: a case report. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84:109–14. 10.1001/archderm.1961.01580130115018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dubaniewicz A, Dubaniewicz-Wybieralska M, Sternau A, Zwolska Z, Izycka-Swieszewska E, Augustynowicz-Kopec E, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and mycobacterial heat shock proteins in lymph node tissue from patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(9):3448–51. 10.1128/JCM.01433-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dubaniewicz A, Holownia A, Kalinowski L, Wybieralska M, Dobrucki IT, Singh M. Is mycobacterial heat shock protein 16 kDa, a marker of the dormant stage of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, a sarcoid antigen? Hum Immunol. 2013;74(1):45–51. 10.1016/j.humimm.2012.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Carlisle J, Evans W, Hajizadeh R, Nadaf M, Shepherd B, Ott RD, et al. Multiple Mycobacterium antigens induce interferon-gamma production from sarcoidosis peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 2007;150(3):460–8. 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2007.03510.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhou Y, Wei YR, Zhang Y, Du SS, Baughman RP, Li HP. Real-time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction to detect propionibacterial ribosomal RNA in the lymph nodes of Chinese patients with sarcoidosis. Clin Exp Immunol. 2015;181(3):511–7. 10.1111/cei.12650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Eishi Y. Etiologic aspect of sarcoidosis as an allergic endogenous infection caused by Propionibacterium acnes. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:935289 10.1155/2013/935289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Newman KL, Newman LS. Occupational causes of sarcoidosis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;12(2):145–50. 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283515173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lippmann M, Cohen MD, Chen LC. Health effects of World Trade Center (WTC) Dust: An unprecedented disaster’s inadequate risk management. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2015;45(6):492–530. 10.3109/10408444.2015.1044601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schweitzer MD, Calzadilla AS, Salamo O, Sharifi A, Kumar N, Holt G, et al. Lung health in era of climate change and dust storms. Environ Res. 2018;163:36–42. 10.1016/j.envres.2018.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schweitzer MD, Salamo O, Holt G, Donna E, Mirsaeidi M. Sarcoidosis onset after breast cancer; a potential association. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;44:e11–e2. 10.1016/j.ejim.2017.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hu Y, Yibrehu B, Zabini D, Kuebler WM. Animal models of sarcoidosis. Cell Tissue Res. 2017;367(3):651–61. 10.1007/s00441-016-2526-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rossman MD, Thompson B, Frederick M, Maliarik M, Iannuzzi MC, Rybicki BA, et al. HLA-DRB1*1101: a significant risk factor for sarcoidosis in blacks and whites. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73(4):720–35. 10.1086/378097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Maliarik MJ, Rybicki BA, Malvitz E, Sheffer RG, Major M, Popovich J Jr., et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene polymorphism and risk of sarcoidosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158(5 Pt 1):1566–70. 10.1164/ajrccm.158.5.9804123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fatimathas L, Moss SE. Characterisation of the sarcoidosis-associated variant of annexin A11. Gen Physiol Biophys. 2009;28 Spec No Focus:F29-38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mirsaeidi M, Vu A, Zhang W, Arbieva Z, Zhang C, Abbasi T, et al. Annexin A11 is associated with pulmonary fibrosis in African American patients with sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2016;33(4):418–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Konar D, Devarasetty M, Yildiz DV, Atala A, Murphy SV. Lung-On-A-Chip Technologies for Disease Modeling and Drug Development. Biomed Eng Comput Biol. 2016;7(Suppl 1):17–27. 10.4137/BECB.S34252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Huh D, Hamilton GA, Ingber DE. From 3D cell culture to organs-on-chips. Trends Cell Biol. 2011;21(12):745–54. 10.1016/j.tcb.2011.09.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Artzy-Schnirman A, Hobi N, Schneider-Daum N, Guenat OT, Lehr CM, Sznitman J. Advanced in vitro lung-on-chip platforms for inhalation assays: From prospect to pipeline. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2019;144:11–7. 10.1016/j.ejpb.2019.09.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bhatia SN, Ingber DE. Microfluidic organs-on-chips. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(8):760–72. 10.1038/nbt.2989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Li K, Yang X, Xue C, Zhao L, Zhang Y, Gao X. Biomimetic human lung-on-a-chip for modeling disease investigation. Biomicrofluidics. 2019;13(3):031501–. 10.1063/1.5100070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bielecka MK, Tezera LB, Zmijan R, Drobniewski F, Zhang X, Jayasinghe S, et al. A Bioengineered Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Platform Integrated with Microfluidics To Address Antimicrobial Resistance in Tuberculosis. mBio. 2017;8(1):e02073–16. 10.1128/mBio.02073-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zhang C, Asif H, Holt GE, Griswold AJ, Campos M, Bejarano P, et al. Mycobacterium abscessus-Bronchial Epithelial Cells Cross-Talk Through Type I Interferon Signaling. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2888 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Korukonda A, Zhang C, Rodriguez L, Guerrero A, Campos M, Holt G, et al. Electronic Cigarettes Enhance Replication of Mycobacterium abscessus in Airway Epithelial Cells. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2019;60(6):717–9. 10.1165/rcmb.2018-0339LE [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhang C, Chery S, Lazerson A, Altman NH, Jackson R, Holt G, et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of alpha-MSH through p-CREB expression in sarcoidosis like granuloma model. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):7277 10.1038/s41598-020-64305-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sosa-Hernández JE, Villalba-Rodríguez AM, Romero-Castillo KD, Aguilar-Aguila-Isaías MA, García-Reyes IE, Hernández-Antonio A, et al. Organs-on-a-Chip Module: A Review from the Development and Applications Perspective. Micromachines (Basel). 2018;9(10):536 10.3390/mi9100536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Huh DD. A human breathing lung-on-a-chip. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12 Suppl 1:S42–4. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201410-442MG [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Huh D, Matthews BD, Mammoto A, Montoya-Zavala M, Hsin HY, Ingber DE. Reconstituting Organ-Level Lung Functions on a Chip. Science. 2010;328(5986):1662–8. 10.1126/science.1188302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Humayun M, Chow CW, Young EWK. Microfluidic lung airway-on-a-chip with arrayable suspended gels for studying epithelial and smooth muscle cell interactions. Lab Chip. 2018;18(9):1298–309. 10.1039/c7lc01357d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yang X, Li K, Zhang X, Liu C, Guo B, Wen W, et al. Nanofiber membrane supported lung-on-a-chip microdevice for anti-cancer drug testing. Lab Chip. 2018;18(3):486–95. 10.1039/c7lc01224a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Huh DD. A human breathing lung-on-a-chip. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S42–4. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201410-442MG [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Douville NJ, Zamankhan P, Tung YC, Li R, Vaughan BL, Tai CF, et al. Combination of fluid and solid mechanical stresses contribute to cell death and detachment in a microfluidic alveolar model. Lab Chip. 2011;11(4):609–19. 10.1039/c0lc00251h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Asmani M, Velumani S, Li Y, Wawrzyniak N, Hsia I, Chen Z, et al. Fibrotic microtissue array to predict anti-fibrosis drug efficacy. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):2066 10.1038/s41467-018-04336-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Berry SB, Gower MS, Su X, Seshadri C, Theberge AB. A Modular Microscale Granuloma Model for Immune-Microenvironment Signaling Studies in vitro. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology. 2020;8:931–. 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Walter FR, Gilpin TE, Herbath M, Deli MA, Sandor M, Fabry Z. A Novel In Vitro Mouse Model to Study Mycobacterium tuberculosis Dissemination Across Brain Vessels: A Combination Granuloma and Blood-Brain Barrier Mouse Model. Curr Protoc Immunol. 2020;130(1):e101 10.1002/cpim.101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Llanos O, Hamzeh N. Sarcoidosis. Med Clin North Am. 2019;103(3):527–34. 10.1016/j.mcna.2018.12.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Locke LW, Schlesinger LS, Crouser ED. Current Sarcoidosis Models and the Importance of Focusing on the Granuloma. Front Immunol. 2020;11(1719). 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Swaisgood CM, Oswald-Richter K, Moeller SD, Klemenc JM, Ruple LM, Farver CF, et al. Development of a sarcoidosis murine lung granuloma model using Mycobacterium superoxide dismutase A peptide. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2011;44(2):166–74. 10.1165/rcmb.2009-0350OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Werner JL, Escolero SG, Hewlett JT, Mak TN, Williams BP, Eishi Y, et al. Induction of Pulmonary Granuloma Formation by Propionibacterium acnes Is Regulated by MyD88 and Nox2. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2017;56(1):121–30. 10.1165/rcmb.2016-0035OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Standiford TJ. Macrophage Polarization in Sarcoidosis: An Unexpected Accomplice? Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2019;60(1):9–10. 10.1165/rcmb.2018-0298ED [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mária A Deli

21 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-30175

Development of a novel three-dimensional organoid sarcoidosis granuloma model; created by adding a microfluidics system and developed granulomas to a dual-chambered lung on membrane model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mirsaeidi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Two experts have evaluated the manuscript. While the data are promising, the manuscript need to be substantially reorganized and rewritten. Both reviewers found that the references do not reflect the field. Ethical approvals/permissions for the use of human cells need to be added to the Methods section.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You state "to demonstrate the functionality of the device to run an experimental study, we developed ten LOMM and ten 3D OSGM as previously described." Please clarify whether these were exact replicates, or whether the ten LOMMs and OSGMs differed. If so, how did they differ from one another?

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist".

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: 'Genix-Engineering, Irvine, California, USA'.

1.     Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

* Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Cacagno et al. developed an in vitro sarcoidosis granuloma model derived from the blood of patients. These 3D cellular structures were then added to a novel microfluidics system using regular Transwell system to model air liquid interface (ALI), and cell-cell interactions, cell aggregate-cell interactions and cytokine release was characterized.

Generally the paper contains very interesting material related to the field, since no good lung granuloma-lung tissue (or other barrier tissue) in vitro model exists. Although non-referenced, but important papers in this research area should be cited such as (PMIDs): 28174307; 32974300; 32716613. This model is new by combining the ALI with the granuloma formation and studying cell-cell interactions. The major problems with the paper are not the findings, but with the presentation of the data.

Introduction is too general, contains repetitions and the references are not always matching the text in a required fashion. Authors claim that neither human, animal or in vitro models are good to model the disease, which is important when one wants to state the limitations of different experimental systems. Here biochip models are claimed as too low throughput and cell culture models as redundant. Still authors try to present a new microfluidic-ALI-cell culture granuloma-model. Although one understands the model, the reasoning behind is not very logical.

Methods section does not contain any ethical statements, although cells were isolated from patients. This has to be added. Discussion contains some methodology about the device, which should be inserted here. 10 paralells mean less than 4 repeats with the system / group?

Results section is extremely redundant. Results have to be presented more in detail, not just as one would describe a figure legend.

Please also double-check all references, for which I also indicated some ideas:

- Ref 2, 3: the text is matching the logic of the paper, but the references are not very well chosen, they are too general. To discuss the limitations of animal models, special sarcoidosis animal models should be mentioned and discussed. Ref. 3. Is a German language paper matching the content of the text, but is also too general and is not available to read to wider audience.

- Ref 4-7. - About biochip modeling and its versatility. These references are coming from 2 groups, where 2 papers is citing heart tissue monitoring. Plenty of papers are to be found about lung models, and in other tissue barrier models, please use a more broad range of citations when referring to this very wide field.

- Sentence before Ref. 9. is almost the same as sentence before ref.2., so it is a repetition, please remove.

- Refs 12 and 13 are the same, please correct.

In general the paper contains good data, and the biochip system looks valuable, but the manuscript has to be re-formatted, carefully checked and some parts re-written. Also the title (and the text) should be re-formatted: the word "organoid" suggests a stem-cell based approach, which is not the case here.

Reviewer #2: The authors present the development of an in vitro model of 3-D lung-on-chip organoid designed to mimic granuloma formation, which is characteristic of a heterogeneous multisystem disorder known as sarcoidosis. The 3-D organoid sarcoidosis model was created by adding a newly designed fluidic device, with three channels for cell culture insertion, to a previously developed dual-chambered lung-on-membrane model. Granulomas were cultured from blood samples of patients with sarcoidosis and then inserted in the air-lung interface of a microchip to create a 3-D organoid sarcoidosis model, and it was tested for cell viability with fibroblasts. They further challenged the air-lung interface of the organoid sarcoidosis model with microparticles to demonstrate the functionality of the device for experimental studies.

Overall, the manuscript seems to be prepared in haste without sufficient detail for the readers to follow the narrative resulting in major deficiencies and, therefore, is not recommended for publication in its current form. The field of lung-on-a-chip has rapidly been developing in the last decade and is reaching maturity to a certain extent. Introducing granuloma formation to mimic in vitro sarcoidosis in the lungs is certainly a nice contribution. However, the text is rather confusing as to the origin of granuloma formation; is it from PBMC taken from blood of patients with sarcoidosis or is it induced by in-house developed microparticles?

The images in Figure 1 seem to be taken from a culture dish; how these cultures are utilized for the development of 3-D OSGM? No protocol has been detailed.

The 3 chambers in the system design shown in Figure 2 is an artefact as all chambers are identical; it is rather easy to design a similar device with 6 chambers or assemble two devices with the same number of devices. The authors should completely mute this aspect of the device.

How the cross-section in Figure 3 was taken; presumably this is taken from the previously developed dual-chambered lung-on-membrane model which is not new?

The endothelial layer seems to be rather sparse not quite fully confluent; is this an important issue, Can this be a reliable model?

What is the role of the fibroblast cells shown in Figure 4; the lung model has already been developed and includes only epithelial and endothelial cells. The fibroblast discussion is completely superficial and should be removed although the image is nice. A similar image for the endothelial cells would be much more desired.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0245805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245805.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Nov 2020

October 23, 2020

Dr. Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.D.

Associate Editor

Plos one

Dear editor,

Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript, and especially for the constructive criticism of the reviewers. We are also grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript, and respond to their critiques. We believe that we have addressed all concerns and, in doing so, have significantly improved the manuscript. We understand that our manuscript is not perfect, but, has important messages for your readers. A point-by-point response to items raised by the reviewers follows.

Response to Editors.

Response to Reviewer

Reviewer #1:

Cacagno et al. developed an in vitro sarcoidosis granuloma model derived from the blood of patients. These 3D cellular structures were then added to a novel microfluidics system using regular Transwell system to model air liquid interface (ALI), and cell-cell interactions, cell aggregate-cell interactions and cytokine release was characterized.
Generally the paper contains very interesting material related to the field, since no good lung granuloma-lung tissue (or other barrier tissue) in vitro model exists.

Although non-referenced, but important papers in this research area should be cited such as (PMIDs): 28174307; 32974300; 32716613.

Reply: Thanks for reference! It has been added.

The major problems with the paper are not the findings, but with the presentation of the data.

Reply: Thanks for comment. We restructured the manuscript.


Introduction is too general, contains repetitions and the references are not always matching the text in a required fashion. Authors claim that neither human, animal or in vitro models are good to model the disease, which is important when one wants to state the limitations of different experimental systems. Here biochip models are claimed as too low throughput and cell culture models as redundant. Still authors try to present a new microfluidic-ALI-cell culture granuloma-model. Although one understands the model, the reasoning behind is not very logical.



Reply: Thanks for comment. We manuscript has been revised per your comment.

Methods section does not contain any ethical statements, although cells were isolated from patients. This has to be added.

Reply: Thanks for comment. Ethical statement was added.

Discussion contains some methodology about the device, which should be inserted here. 10 paralells mean less than 4 repeats with the system / group?


Reply: Thanks for comment. (N) is 10 and has been corrected.


Results section is extremely redundant. Results have to be presented more in detail, not just as one would describe a figure legend.


Reply: Thanks for comment and apology for mistakes. The discussion has been rewritten.

Please also double-check all references, for which I also indicated some ideas:
- Ref 2, 3: the text is matching the logic of the paper, but the references are not very well chosen, they are too general.

Reply: Thanks for comment. The reference section has been corrected

To discuss the limitations of animal models, special sarcoidosis animal models should be mentioned and discussed.

Reply: Thanks for comment. It has been added.

Ref. 3. Is a German language paper matching the content of the text, but is also too general and is not available to read to wider audience.
- Ref 4-7. - About biochip modeling and its versatility. These references are coming from 2 groups, where 2 papers is citing heart tissue monitoring. Plenty of papers are to be found about lung models, and in other tissue barrier models, please use a more broad range of citations when referring to this very wide field.
- Sentence before Ref. 9. is almost the same as sentence before ref.2., so it is a repetition, please remove.
- Refs 12 and 13 are the same, please correct.

Reply: Thanks for comment. We have enriched the reference section.


In general the paper contains good data, and the biochip system looks valuable, but the manuscript has to be re-formatted, carefully checked and some parts re-written. Also the title (and the text) should be re-formatted: the word "organoid" suggests a stem-cell based approach, which is not the case here.

Reply: Thanks for comment. The paper has been improved with your comments and title has been changed.

Reviewer #2:

They further challenged the air-lung interface of the organoid sarcoidosis model with microparticles to demonstrate the functionality of the device for experimental studies.

Overall, the manuscript seems to be prepared in haste without sufficient detail for the readers to follow the narrative resulting in major deficiencies and, therefore, is not recommended for publication in its current form. The field of lung-on-a-chip has rapidly been developing in the last decade and is reaching maturity to a certain extent. Introducing granuloma formation to mimic in vitro sarcoidosis in the lungs is certainly a nice contribution. However, the text is rather confusing as to the origin of granuloma formation; is it from PBMC taken from blood of patients with sarcoidosis or is it induced by in-house developed microparticles?



Reply: Thanks for comment. We added more details on the development of in vitro granuloma.

The images in Figure 1 seem to be taken from a culture dish; how these cultures are utilized for the development of 3-D OSGM? No protocol has been detailed.


Reply: Thanks for comment. The method section has been rewritten to add the methodology of 3D BOSG.


The 3 chambers in the system design shown in Figure 2 is an artefact as all chambers are identical; it is rather easy to design a similar device with 6 chambers or assemble two devices with the same number of devices. The authors should completely mute this aspect of the device.


Reply: We agree with your great point. Your comment has been applied.


How the cross-section in Figure 3 was taken; presumably this is taken from the previously developed dual-chambered lung-on-membrane model which is not new?
The endothelial layer seems to be rather sparse not quite fully confluent; is this an important issue, Can this be a reliable model?


Reply: Thanks for comment. This image is from our published model. Endothelial cells are so thin and easily wall off when the paraffin block gets cut.


What is the role of the fibroblast cells shown in Figure 4; the lung model has already been developed and includes only epithelial and endothelial cells. The fibroblast discussion is completely superficial and should be removed although the image is nice. A similar image for the endothelial cells would be much more desired.

Reply: Thanks for comment. We moved fibroblasts experiments to supplemental file.

Thank you

Attachment

Submitted filename: R1 response to Editor .docx

Decision Letter 1

Mária A Deli

16 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-30175R1

Novel three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mirsaeidi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised during the review process.

==============================

While the manuscript has been improved, many of the original requests remained unanswered. A thorough revision is needed addressing all the original comments, together with a marked-up copy of the manuscript showing all changes in yellow. It should be clearly described, explained and justified if figures were left out or changed.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Calcagno et al. provided R1 in a timely fashion. Although several major issues

have been addressed, I still do not recommend the publication in this form.

This group has high quality and well written papers, such as PMID 32350353,

which shows an example for this paper's aim as for quality. Although PlosOne

is a lower impact factor journal than the PMID 323250353, PlosOne is Q1 in its

field, therefore high quality of writing and data presentation is expected.

Introduction and Discussion were modified and amended as requested. Still some references

are missing, which for example work with Transwell granuloma models, such as PMID 32716613.

References 28 and 29 (previously 12 and 13) are still the same, were not corrected,

please correct.

Ethical statement was added. Clarification about the repeat numbers was added, although

in the text it is still confusing how many repeats were performed. The Figure legend makes

it more understandable.

The general term "organoid" was removed and corrected.

My two most major concerns are the results section and presentation of the data.

Some figures are missing compared to the previous version and the it is not clear

why or what was corrected. Still the description of the data is very redundant,

although a bit improved compared to the previous version.

Also the answers for the reviewers' questions were extremely redundant and

minimalistic, which is very unprecedented and unacceptable. Several questions

of the previous revisons were not answered or are not found well in the text.

Marked-up copy should have been provided to help the work of the reviewers.

In general the paper was improved majorly. Still major revision is needed,

but if authors correct the mistakes outlined, it would be recommended for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0245805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245805.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


8 Dec 2020

Dec 8, 2020

Dr. Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.D.

Associate Editor

Plos one

Dear editor,

Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript, and especially for the constructive criticism of the reviewers. We are also grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript, and respond to their critiques. We believe that we have addressed all concerns and, in doing so, have significantly improved the manuscript. We understand that our manuscript is not perfect, but, has important messages for your readers. A point-by-point response to items raised by the reviewers follows.

Response to Editors.

Response to Reviewer

Reviewer #1: Calcagno et al. provided R1 in a timely fashion. Although several major issues

have been addressed, I still do not recommend the publication in this form.

This group has high quality and well written papers, such as PMID 32350353,

which shows an example for this paper's aim as for quality. Although PlosOne

is a lower impact factor journal than the PMID 323250353, PlosOne is Q1 in its

field, therefore high quality of writing and data presentation is expected.

Introduction and Discussion were modified and amended as requested. Still some references are missing, which for example work with Transwell granuloma models, such as PMID 32716613. References 28 and 29 (previously 12 and 13) are still the same, were not corrected, please correct.

Reply: Thanks for suggesting much improved references, they helped to provide more context for our introduction and discussion. A new sentence was added to the discussion as “Walter et al. recently developed an in vitro model to study tuberculous mycobacterial granuloma in central nervous system”. We do apologize for the duplication in reference number 29. It has since been removed from the manuscript.

Clarification about the repeat numbers was added, although in the text it is still confusing how many repeats were performed. The Figure legend makes

it more understandable.

Reply: A new sentence was added to methods section as “We designed the experiment with 3 replicates, each replicate has 10 samples.” This sentence appears under the subcategory Cytokine measurements. We also added clarification to the legend of the ELISA results. We hope this adjustment makes the text more understandable.

My two most major concerns are the results section and presentation of the data.

Some figures are missing compared to the previous version and the it is not clear

why or what was corrected. Still the description of the data is very redundant,

although a bit improved compared to the previous version.

Reply:

Thanks for sharing your concerns.

The image about TEER test was removed from the manuscript and added as supplementary figure per the reviewer #2. Reviewer #2 brought up a good point that quality control features of our model (ie TEER testing) were not the central focus of this paper, and belonged in the supplementary data. The data on fibroblast growth to prove functionality of the model was also completely removed as per advice from reviewer #2 to avoid redundancy in results. Instead, cytokine growth measurement is used as our surrogate marker for functionality.

Taking your advice into consideration; we worked to make the results section less redundant.

Results section changes are as follows

1) Paragraph 1: Deletion of sentence two to avoid redundancy. The structure of the granuloma is detailed in the figure legend.

2) Paragraph 2: No changes. The purpose of this paragraph was to outline the progression of our model formation. Development of the macrodevice was the next essential step.

3) Paragraph 3: No changes. This paragraph outlines the development of the bilayered lung model with its various components.

4) Paragraph 4: Sentence 2 deleted to avoid redundancy. Sentence 2 was essentially a descriptor of how the BOSGM appears; we agree this was redundant in the setting of the descriptor of appearance in legend of figure 4. We added in a sentence to clarify what the BOSGM is comprised of. We hope this will make it easier for the reader to understand the full picture.

5) Paragraph 5: We clarified the purpose of cytokine testing. Cytokine expression to show the functionality of the model.

Overall, we explain our results in an improved and structured fashion � Granuloma formation, macrodevice development � Bilayer lung model development � BOSGM final product � Cytokine test against control. Figure legends do a nice job of describing the visuals without in text redundancy.

Also the answers for the reviewers' questions were extremely redundant and

minimalistic, which is very unprecedented and unacceptable. Several questions

of the previous revisions were not answered or are not found well in the text.

Marked-up copy should have been provided to help the work of the reviewers.

Reply: We hope that in the round of edits, we provide a more complete view of the changes made and provide more adequate responses. We agree that highlighted version would help you to find extensive changes in the manuscript. We added highlighted Revised 1 for your review. We hope we have adequately addressed any pending concerns in this round of edits.

Thank you again for taking the time to help us publish our message and share our research with readers of PlosOne.

All the best,

Attachment

Submitted filename: R2 response to Editor.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Mária A Deli

5 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-30175R2

Novel three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mirsaeidi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

There are two minor issues left to be addressed as requested by the Reviewer.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing my comments. Two minor comments are left, and then

I suggest the paper for publication:

For Fig 1. Please insert back the sentence detailing the cell types either in

the figure legends or to the text.

Previously text contained "The presence of multi-nucleated giant cells,

lymphocytes, and macrophages which are aggregated together formed a large

structured granuloma", which is now missing. This information is important,

therefore I suggest its addition to the paper.

Please put a short decription of the model to the Figure 2 legend - explaining

the setup in a compact form.

After these small modifications the manuscript is ready for acceptance.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0245805. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245805.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


5 Jan 2021

January 5, 2021,

Dear editor,

Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript, and especially for the constructive criticism of the reviewers. We are also grateful for the opportunity to revise the manuscript, and respond to their critiques. We believe that we have addressed all remaining concerns and, in doing so, have significantly improved the manuscript.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing my comments. Two minor comments are left, and then

I suggest the paper for publication:

For Fig 1. Please insert back the sentence detailing the cell types either in

the figure legends or to the text.

Previously text contained "The presence of multi-nucleated giant cells,

lymphocytes, and macrophages which are aggregated together formed a large

structured granuloma", which is now missing. This information is important,

therefore I suggest its addition to the paper.

Previous text containing the above description was added back to the results section (line 154-156).

Please put a short decription of the model to the Figure 2 legend - explaining

the setup in a compact form.

A short description explaining the setup of the model in its compact form was added to the Figure 2 legend.

After these small modifications the manuscript is ready for acceptance.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

The above modifications suggested in red have been made to our manuscript. Thank you again for taking the time to help us publish our message and share our research with readers of PlosOne.

Have a happy new year!

Mehdi Mirsaeidi, MD, MPH

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care,

Sleep and Allergy

Director of Sarcoidosis Program

Miami VA Medical Center

Department of Medicine

University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine

1600 NW 10th Ave # 7072A

Miami, FL 33136

(305) 243-9227

Email: msm249@miami.edu

Attachment

Submitted filename: R2 response to Editor.pdf

Decision Letter 3

Mária A Deli

8 Jan 2021

Novel three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model

PONE-D-20-30175R3

Dear Dr. Mirsaeidi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mária A. Deli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all my comments. Now the paper is ready for acceptance.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Mária A Deli

27 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-30175R3

Novel three-dimensional biochip pulmonary sarcoidosis model

Dear Dr. Mirsaeidi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mária A. Deli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (TIF)

    S1 Data

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: R1 response to Editor .docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: R2 response to Editor.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: R2 response to Editor.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES