TABLE 1.
Comparison of different hepatic in vitro model systems.
| Classifications | Sources | Advantages | Disadvantages | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animals | rodents, canines, cats, etc. | Experimental materials are relatively easy to obtain | Differences in structure and physiological state exist; lack the heterogeneous genetic diversity of humans | Broutier, et al. (2016) |
| Kruitwagen, et al. (2017) | ||||
| Kuijk, et al. (2016) | ||||
| Magami, et al. (2002) | ||||
| Nantasanti, et al. (2015) | ||||
| PHH | Liver tissue | Less experimental investment; Retaining genetic background; proliferate indefinitely | Lack of complexity of morphology; lose the polarity that hepatocytes exhibit in vivo | Huch, et al. (2013) |
| Kang, et al. (2016) | ||||
| Nuciforo and Heim (2021) | ||||
| iPSCs | Fibroblasts and others | Retaining genetic background | Lack of complexity of morphology | Asai, et al. (2017) |
| High throughput screening | More experimental expenses | Coll, et al. (2018) | ||
| Ohnuki and Takahashi (2015) | ||||
| Sampaziotis, et al. (2015) | ||||
| Schutgens and Clevers, (2020) | ||||
| Takebe, et al. (2013) | ||||
| Takebe, et al. (2017) | ||||
| Wang, et al. (2016) | ||||
| Organoids | Adult liver, foetal liver, and pluripotent stem cells | Possesses a complex three-dimensional structure | Difficulty of the experiment process | Bao, et al. (2021) |
| Preservation of gene stability and ability to perform genetic manipulation | More time and materials spent on the experiment | Broutier, et al. (2017) | ||
| Clevers, (2016) | ||||
| Drost and Clevers (2018) | ||||
| Lancaster and Knoblich, (2014) | ||||
| Leite, et al. (2016) | ||||
| Mccauley and Wells, (2017) |
PHH, Primary human hepatocytes; iPSCs, induced pluripotent stem cells.