Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 17.
Published in final edited form as: ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2022 Mar 24;8(11):4613–4617. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.1c01380

Long term in vitro culture systems to study human microbiome

Miryam Adelfio 1, Chiara Elia Ghezzi 1
PMCID: PMC9508280  NIHMSID: NIHMS1804745  PMID: 35324141

Abstract

Microbial communities are eubiotic ecosystems that interact dynamically and synergistically with the human body. Imbalances in these interactions may cause dysbiosis by enhancing the occurrence of inflammatory conditions, such as periodontal or inflammatory bowel diseases. However, the mechanisms that lie behind eubiosis-dysbiosis transitions are still unclear and constantly being redefined. While the societal impact of these diseases is steadily increasing, the lack of a clear understanding behind the onset of the inflammatory conditions prevents the proper clinical strategies from being formulated. Although preclinical and clinical models, and short-term planar in vitro cultures represent superb research tools, they are still lacking human relevance and long-term use. Bioreactors and organ-on-a-chips have attracted interest because of their ability to recreate and sustain the physical, structural, and mechanical features of the native environment, as well as to support long-term co-culture of mammalian cells and the microbiome through modulation of pH and oxygen gradients. Existing devices, however, are still under development to sustain microbiome-host co-culture over long period of time. In this scenario, to understand disease triggers and develop therapeutics, research efforts should command the development of three-dimensional constructs that would allow the investigation of processes underlying microbial community assembly, and how microorganisms influence host traits in both acute and chronic conditions.

Keywords: host, microbiome, eubiosis, dysbiosis, tissue model, bioreactor, organ-on-a-chip

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name nihms-1804745-f0001.jpg

Overview of current experimental models to systematically study the human microbiome. Partially created with BioRender.com.

Summary:

The human body functions synergistically with a large population of symbiotic microbial cells forming the microbiome. This synergy has resulted in an intertwined and balanced relationship, whereby the microbiome contributes to host physiological processes in several organ systems, such as digestive, immune, and overall organ development. The host provides nutrition, various niches (i.e. oral, skin, lung, gut, or vagina), and the release of antimicrobial factors against exogenous species for microbial survival.13 Within the body, in fact, the microbiome forms an ecosystem that is eubiotic and constantly evolving in response to host life events (i.e., lifestyle, age, nutrition, or diseases).4 This synergistic relationship begins with the recognition of microbial components, pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), by the host that instructs the adaptive immune response and promotes pathogen elimination.5 Several factors could alter these balanced interactions leading the microbiome toward a dysbiotic state.1 Indeed, alteration of host immune competence, diet, environmental factors, or antibiotic treatments may cause the microbiome composition to change or be altered or to translocate to a different site in the body.4,67 Although the boundaries between eubiosis and dysbiosis are continuously redefined, one of the accepted hypotheses views low-abundance microbial pathogens prevailing and remodeling the microbiome toward a dysbiotic state by enhancing inflammatory conditions.1, 89

Due to strong correlations of disease prevalence with an imbalanced microbiome, awareness in host-pathogen interactions has been recently growing. Currently, the National Institutes of Health is investing $215M in the Human Microbiome Project (HMP) with the intent of studying the role of microbial communities in human health and diseases,10 projecting a human microbiome market estimate of $1.6 billions by 2028.11 Some of the pathologies currently investigated are periodontitis, atopic dermatitis, or asthma and inflammatory bowel disease.2,12 Indeed, these chronic diseases are emerging as drivers of global socioeconomic status because of the associated cost of diagnosis and treatments;1314 for example, one-tenth of the worldwide adult population suffers from periodontitis, resulting in a cumulative financial burden of $3.49 billion in the United States alone.15 In addition, healthy human microbiome has been probed using pre/prosynbiotics in personalized medicine as modulators for obesity, liver disease, or environmental-induced perturbations.16 Current knowledge of these unbalanced states is hampered by the intrinsic biological complexity of microbiome systems, stemming from the large intra- and inter-individual variation in composition and prevalence.17 Advances in research have sought to develop frameworks that go beyond the single pathogen-disease correlation. Specifically, the HMP highlighted how some diseases are the results of microbial membership and metabolites combination that depend on host factors (i.e., race or ethnicity), but also on the type of microbial strain.1819 Combining multi-omics analysis7 with in vivo and in vitro studies may be a robust strategy to investigate microbial community structure, inter-individual variation, through modeling host-microbiome interactions associated with pathologies, and to develop successful therapeutic approaches.1,19 It is still unclear whether dysbiosis precedes, and thus causes, the disease state or vice versa, or whether it initiates a vicious cycle; nevertheless, the role of the microbiome in the onset of the disease remains an underdeveloped field of research.

Current experimental strategies to investigate host-microbiome interactions consist of preclinical and clinical models (Figure 1). Due to the complexity of these models, it is difficult to independently control experimental variables, to identify disease triggers, and to target responses. In addition, animal models exhibit differences in microbiome composition and organization, that limit their clinical translation.2021,22242526 In light of this, a successful strategy could be the implementation of a humanized in vitro model, that would recreate the physical, structural and mechanical conditions of the native environment in a long-term high throughput-controlled system. Patient-derived 2D organoid monolayer models (stomach, intestine, gallbladder) have been used to study infection processes, epithelium integrity, inflammatory response and are commonly employed as high-throughput platforms for drug screening.272829 These approaches would provide a short-term simplified, although controlled, experimental model to investigate host-microbiome interactions.23,3031 However, 3D models have been proved to better recapitulate the native tissue architecture of the host-microbiome interface, but most importantly the physical, structural, and metabolic conditions to support the co-culture of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria species in the microbiome by modulating physiological mechanical cues, oxygen, and pH gradients.3234 Accordingly, static 3D-tissue models (e.g. scaffolds, hydrogels, organoids) have been also developed; pre-clinical models include collagen type I hydrogels to study pathogens infiltration in an oral mucosa-like construct,35 or intestinal epithelial cells seeded in a silk-based scaffold colonized by Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG.36 Likewise, intestinal organoids colonized by non-pathogenic E. Coli were used to assess epithelium barrier function.37 In addition to the 3D architecture,38 a major factor in promoting long-term cellular survival as well as bacterial colonization is represented by the introduction of a dynamic culture regime.3940

Figure 1 – Current experimental models.

Figure 1 –

Overview of current experimental strategies and design criteria to investigate underlying microbiome assembly and prevalence, and how microorganisms influence host responses. Partially created with BioRender.com.

Bioreactors and organ-on-a-chips are emerging technologies that aim to recreate long term structural and functional features of native environments coupled with dynamic fluxes (Figure 1).4144 Several humanized intestine systems, or gut-on-a-chip, have been developed to analyze the role of microbiome in physiological and inflammatory processes.4546 These devices have been successfully implemented for drug and therapeutic screenings, supporting the co-culture of human cells with artificial or patient-derived microbiome for up to 24h.47 A recent successful example is an anaerobic intestine-on-a-chip device that sustained the co-culture of mammalian cell lines and infant microbiota samples for up to 3 days.39 Additionally, other devices have been developed to study the oral mucosal response to selected bacterial populations4849 or to recreate the alveolar-capillary interface of the human lung and simulate bacteria pulmonary infection.50

Despite the recent progress, the long-term survival of human-derived microbiome with mammalian cells and the formation of oxygen and pH gradients are some of the main challenges in existing technologies, most of which have failed a day after bacteria inoculum.514948, 52 Furthermore, the struggle in adequately balancing richness and diversity in the microbiome has contributed to both the use of bacterial lines, which that partially resemble the overall microbiome,53 due to the invasiveness of sampling methods, or gnotobiotic mice.39 54 Moreover, difficulties have been encountered on incorporating immune cells due to their short lifespan as well as the negative impact of microgravity on their functions.39,5556 Finally, the integration of sophisticated biorecognition sensors for pathogens or biomolecules analysis to encompass lifestyle-related changes have been adopted for acute studies although not cost-effective for large scale screenings.57 Thus, there is a compelling need to improve current culture technologies to provide sustained in vivo like environments to investigated host-pathogen interactions in acute and chronic conditions.

As the field advances, emphasis should be given to engineer three-dimensional constructs and culture devices that would support the formation of physiological oxygen gradients, while maintaining a neutral pH range, and recreating native mechanical cues. The acting of these elements in concert would support the maintenance of the native microbiome in composition and spatial organization, as well as promote phenotypic tissue traits.48,58 Importantly, the inclusion of dynamic culture regimes that buffer bacterial population might help to extend the culture viability to study the host-microbiome cross-talk over time.45 Such bioreactors would be instrumental to investigate the complexity of the inter-individual variation of the microbiome using mapping tools to assess the microbiome spatial organization and to identify both host-microbiome and microbe-microbe relationships at single-cell resolution under non-physiological perturbations.59,6061,62 In addition, these devices should be implemented with sensors capable of detecting fluctuations of physical conditions (i.e. oxygen content, pH) that may be associated with health to disease transitions, as previously reported.63,64 Finally, the conjunction of human cells with the microbiome will be instrumental for the investigation of processes underlying microbial community assembly, and how microorganisms influence host traits in both acute and chronic conditions.

Acknowledgments:

NIH NIDCR R03DE030224, and ORAU (Ralph E. Powe Junior Faculty Enhancement Awards).

Glossary/Definitions:

Host

a larger organism, inhabited by other organisms (i.e., bacteria, virus, fungus), able to provide a suitable environment to live and nutrients to support the growth of such smaller organisms.

Microbiome

multiple communities of microorganisms (i.e., bacteria, virus, fungus) that colonize a defined niche in the human body and live synergistically with the host by contributing to the maintenance of its health and well-being.

Eubiosis

a physiological and balance state characterized by richness and abundance in species forming the microbiome.

Dysbiosis

a non-physiological state characterized by imbalanced interactions among bacteria within the communities or between host and microbiome. Dysbiosis can be detrimental to both the host and the microbiome leading to a shift in microbiome composition toward virulent species and activation of the immune response by the host.

Tissue model

two or three-dimensional in vitro environments, designed to mimic the native tissue cytoarchitecture and functions to study cellular interplay in both physiological and pathological conditions.

Bioreactor

a manufactured dynamic apparatus used in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine to sustain in vitro long-term viability and function of human tissue systems by providing physiological and controlled mechanical and chemical stimuli, while providing adequate mass transfer, nutrients supply and waste products management.

References:

  • 1.Lamont RJ; Koo H; Hajishengallis G, The oral microbiota: dynamic communities and host interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol 2018, 16 (12), 745–759. DOI: 10.1038/s41579-018-0089-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ruff WE; Greiling TM; Kriegel MA, Host–microbiota interactions in immune-mediated diseases. Nature Reviews Microbiology 2020, 18 (9), 521–538. DOI: 10.1038/s41579-020-0367-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kamada N; Seo S-U; Chen GY; Núñez G, Role of the gut microbiota in immunity and inflammatory disease. Nature Reviews Immunology 2013, 13 (5), 321–335. DOI: 10.1038/nri3430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ogunrinola GA; Oyewale JO; Oshamika OO; Olasehinde GI, The Human Microbiome and Its Impacts on Health. International Journal of Microbiology 2020, 2020, 8045646. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8045646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bahia D; Satoskar AR; Dussurget O, Editorial: Cell Signaling in Host–Pathogen Interactions: The Host Point of View. Frontiers in Immunology 2018, 9 (221). DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rogers GB, The human microbiome: opportunities and challenges for clinical care. Internal Medicine Journal 2015, 45 (9), 889–898. DOI: 10.1111/imj.12650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kuczynski J; Lauber CL; Walters WA; Parfrey LW; Clemente JC; Gevers D; Knight R, Experimental and analytical tools for studying the human microbiome. Nature Reviews Genetics 2012, 13 (1), 47–58. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kamada N; Chen GY; Inohara N; Núñez G, Control of pathogens and pathobionts by the gut microbiota. Nature Immunology 2013, 14 (7), 685–690. DOI: 10.1038/ni.2608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hajishengallis G; Darveau RP; Curtis MA, The keystone-pathogen hypothesis. Nature Reviews Microbiology 2012, 10 (10), 717–725. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Health N. I. o. Human Microbiome Project. https://commonfund.nih.gov/hmp, 2020.
  • 11.Markets M. a. Human Microbiome Market by Product (Prebiotics, Probiotics, Food, Diagnostic Tests, Drugs), Application (Therapeutic, Diagnostic), Disease (Infectious, Metabolic/Endocrine), Research Technology (Genomics, Proteomics, Metabolomics) - Global Forecast to 2028, 2021. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/human-microbiome-market-37621904.html.
  • 12.Glassner KL; Abraham BP; Quigley EMM, The microbiome and inflammatory bowel disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020, 145 (1), 16–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kappelman MD; Rifas-Shiman SL; Porter CQ; Ollendorf DA; Sandler RS; Galanko JA; Finkelstein JA, Direct health care costs of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in US children and adults. Gastroenterology 2008, 135 (6), 1907–13. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.09.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Amato KR; Arrieta M-C; Azad MB; Bailey MT; Broussard JL; Bruggeling CE; Claud EC; Costello EK; Davenport ER; Dutilh BE; Swain Ewald HA; Ewald P; Hanlon EC; Julion W; Keshavarzian A; Maurice CF; Miller GE; Preidis GA; Segurel L; Singer B; Subramanian S; Zhao L; Kuzawa CW, The human gut microbiome and health inequities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2021, 118 (25), e2017947118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2017947118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Eke PI; Lu H; Zhang X; Thornton-Evans G; Borgnakke WS; Holt JB; Croft JB, Geospatial distribution of periodontists and US adults with severe periodontitis. J Am Dent Assoc 2019, 150 (2), 103–110. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2018.09.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Berg G; Rybakova D; Fischer D; Cernava T; Vergès M-CC; Charles T; Chen X; Cocolin L; Eversole K; Corral GH; Kazou M; Kinkel L; Lange L; Lima N; Loy A; Macklin JA; Maguin E; Mauchline T; McClure R; Mitter B; Ryan M; Sarand I; Smidt H; Schelkle B; Roume H; Kiran GS; Selvin J; Souza R. S. C. d.; van Overbeek L; Singh BK; Wagner M; Walsh A; Sessitsch A; Schloter M, Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome 2020, 8 (1), 103. DOI: 10.1186/s40168-020-00875-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ursell LK; Clemente JC; Rideout JR; Gevers D; Caporaso JG; Knight R, The interpersonal and intrapersonal diversity of human-associated microbiota in key body sites. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012, 129 (5), 1204–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Surana NK; Kasper DL, Moving beyond microbiome-wide associations to causal microbe identification. Nature 2017, 552 (7684), 244–247. DOI: 10.1038/nature25019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Proctor LM; Creasy HH; Fettweis JM; Lloyd-Price J; Mahurkar A; Zhou W; Buck GA; Snyder MP; Strauss JF; Weinstock GM; White O; Huttenhower C; The Integrative, H. M. P. R. N. C., The Integrative Human Microbiome Project. Nature 2019, 569 (7758), 641–648. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1238-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Timm CM; Loomis K; Stone W; Mehoke T; Brensinger B; Pellicore M; Staniczenko PPA; Charles C; Nayak S; Karig DK, Isolation and characterization of diverse microbial representatives from the human skin microbiome. Microbiome 2020, 8 (1), 58. DOI: 10.1186/s40168-020-00831-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wake N; Asahi Y; Noiri Y; Hayashi M; Motooka D; Nakamura S; Gotoh K; Miura J; Machi H; Iida T; Ebisu S, Temporal dynamics of bacterial microbiota in the human oral cavity determined using an in situ model of dental biofilms. npj Biofilms and Microbiomes 2016, 2 (1), 16018. DOI: 10.1038/npjbiofilms.2016.18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Park JC; Im S-H, Of men in mice: the development and application of a humanized gnotobiotic mouse model for microbiome therapeutics. Experimental & Molecular Medicine 2020, 52 (9), 1383–1396. DOI: 10.1038/s12276-020-0473-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Luca F; Kupfer SS; Knights D; Khoruts A; Blekhman R, Functional Genomics of Host–Microbiome Interactions in Humans. Trends in Genetics 2018, 34 (1), 30–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2017.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Turner PV, The role of the gut microbiota on animal model reproducibility. Animal Model Exp Med 2018, 1 (2), 109–115. DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Oz HS; Puleo DA, Animal models for periodontal disease. J Biomed Biotechnol 2011, 2011, 754857. DOI: 10.1155/2011/754857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Oz HS; Puleo DA, Animal Models for Periodontal Disease. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2011, 2011, 754857. DOI: 10.1155/2011/754857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Aguilar C; Alves da Silva M; Saraiva M; Neyazi M; Olsson IAS; Bartfeld S, Organoids as host models for infection biology – a review of methods. Experimental & Molecular Medicine 2021, 53 (10), 1471–1482. DOI: 10.1038/s12276-021-00629-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Roodsant T; Navis M; Aknouch I; Renes IB; van Elburg RM; Pajkrt D; Wolthers KC; Schultsz C; van der Ark KCH; Sridhar A; Muncan V, A Human 2D Primary Organoid-Derived Epithelial Monolayer Model to Study Host-Pathogen Interaction in the Small Intestine. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 2020, 10. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mills M; Estes MK, Physiologically relevant human tissue models for infectious diseases. Drug Discovery Today 2016, 21 (9), 1540–1552. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.06.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Antibodies, N. R. C. U. C. I. f. L. A. R. C. o. M. o. P. M., Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vitro and In Vivo Methods. In Monoclonal Antibody Production., National Academies Press (US): 1999; p 74. DOI: 10.17226/9450. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Graudejus O, Bridging the gap between in vivo and in vitro research: Reproducing in vitro the mechanical and electrical environment of cells in vivo. In MEA Meeting 2018, 11th International Meeting on Substrate Integrated Microelectrode Arrays, Reutlingen, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Selden C; Fuller B, Role of Bioreactor Technology in Tissue Engineering for Clinical Use and Therapeutic Target Design. Bioengineering (Basel) 2018, 5 (2). DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering5020032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Renwick S; Ganobis CM; Elder RA; Gianetto-Hill C; Higgins G; Robinson AV; Vancuren SJ; Wilde J; Allen-Vercoe E, Culturing Human Gut Microbiomes in the Laboratory. Annu Rev Microbiol 2021, 75, 49–69. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-micro-031021-084116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Low LA; Mummery C; Berridge BR; Austin CP; Tagle DA, Organs-on-chips: into the next decade. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2021, 20 (5), 345–361. DOI: 10.1038/s41573-020-0079-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.de Carvalho Dias K; de Sousa DL; Barbugli PA; Cerri PS; Salih VM; Vergani CE, Development and characterization of a 3D oral mucosa model as a tool for host-pathogen interactions. Journal of Microbiological Methods 2018, 152, 52–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2018.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chen Y; Lin Y; Davis KM; Wang Q; Rnjak-Kovacina J; Li C; Isberg RR; Kumamoto CA; Mecsas J; Kaplan DL, Robust bioengineered 3D functional human intestinal epithelium. Scientific Reports 2015, 5 (1), 13708. DOI: 10.1038/srep13708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hill DR; Huang S; Nagy MS; Yadagiri VK; Fields C; Mukherjee D; Bons B; Dedhia PH; Chin AM; Tsai YH; Thodla S; Schmidt TM; Walk S; Young VB; Spence JR, Bacterial colonization stimulates a complex physiological response in the immature human intestinal epithelium. Elife 2017, 6. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.29132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rouleau N; Cantley WL; Liaudanskaya V; Berk A; Du C; Rusk W; Peirent E; Koester C; Nieland TJF; Kaplan DL, A Long-Living Bioengineered Neural Tissue Platform to Study Neurodegeneration. Macromol Biosci 2020, 20 (3), e2000004. DOI: 10.1002/mabi.202000004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jalili-Firoozinezhad S; Gazzaniga FS; Calamari EL; Camacho DM; Fadel CW; Bein A; Swenor B; Nestor B; Cronce MJ; Tovaglieri A; Levy O; Gregory KE; Breault DT; Cabral JMS; Kasper DL; Novak R; Ingber DE, A complex human gut microbiome cultured in an anaerobic intestine-on-a-chip. Nature Biomedical Engineering 2019, 3 (7), 520–531. DOI: 10.1038/s41551-019-0397-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Park G-S; Park MH; Shin W; Zhao C; Sheikh S; Oh SJ; Kim HJ, Emulating Host-Microbiome Ecosystem of Human Gastrointestinal Tract in Vitro. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports 2017, 13 (3), 321–334. DOI: 10.1007/s12015-017-9739-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ghezzi CE; Marelli B; Donelli I; Alessandrino A; Freddi G; Nazhat SN, The role of physiological mechanical cues on mesenchymal stem cell differentiation in an airway tract-like dense collagen-silk fibroin construct. Biomaterials 2014, 35 (24), 6236–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ghezzi CE; Risse PA; Marelli B; Muja N; Barralet JE; Martin JG; Nazhat SN, An airway smooth muscle cell niche under physiological pulsatile flow culture using a tubular dense collagen construct. Biomaterials 2013, 34 (8), 1954–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.11.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Siran W; Ghezzi CE; Cairns DM; Pollard RE; Chen Y; Gomes R; McKay TB; Pouli D; Jamali A; Georgakoudi I; Funderburgh JL; Kenyon K; Hamrah P; Kaplan DL, Human Corneal Tissue Model for Nociceptive Assessments. Adv Healthc Mater 2018, 7 (19), e1800488. DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201800488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ghezzi CE; Marelli B; Donelli I; Alessandrino A; Freddi G; Nazhat SN, Multilayered dense collagen-silk fibroin hybrid: a platform for mesenchymal stem cell differentiation towards chondrogenic and osteogenic lineages. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2017, 11 (7), 2046–2059. DOI: 10.1002/term.2100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kim HJ; Li H; Collins JJ; Ingber DE, Contributions of microbiome and mechanical deformation to intestinal bacterial overgrowth and inflammation in a human gut-on-a-chip. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2016, 113 (1), E7–E15. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1522193112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shin W; Kim HJ, Intestinal barrier dysfunction orchestrates the onset of inflammatory host–microbiome cross-talk in a human gut inflammation-on-a-chip. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2018, 115 (45), E10539–E10547. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1810819115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Shah P; Fritz JV; Glaab E; Desai MS; Greenhalgh K; Frachet A; Niegowska M; Estes M; Jäger C; Seguin-Devaux C; Zenhausern F; Wilmes P, A microfluidics-based in vitro model of the gastrointestinal human–microbe interface. Nature Communications 2016, 7 (1), 11535. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rahimi C; Rahimi B; Padova D; Rooholghodos SA; Bienek DR; Luo X; Kaufman G; Raub CB, Oral mucosa-on-a-chip to assess layer-specific responses to bacteria and dental materials. Biomicrofluidics 2018, 12 (5), 054106. DOI: 10.1063/1.5048938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bao K; Papadimitropoulos A; Akgül B; Belibasakis GN; Bostanci N, Establishment of an oral infection model resembling the periodontal pocket in a perfusion bioreactor system. Virulence 2015, 6 (3), 265–73. DOI: 10.4161/21505594.2014.978721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.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. DOI: 10.1126/science.1188302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Abbeele P. V. d., Microbial Community Development in a Dynamic Gut Model Is Reproducible, Colon Region Specific, and Selective for Bacteroidetes and Clostridium Cluster IX. Applied and Environmental microbiology 2010, 76, number 15. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.00759-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Marzorati M; Vanhoecke B; De Ryck T; Sadaghian Sadabad M; Pinheiro I; Possemiers S; Van den Abbeele P; Derycke L; Bracke M; Pieters J; Hennebel T; Harmsen HJ; Verstraete W; Van de Wiele T, The HMI™ module: a new tool to study the Host-Microbiota Interaction in the human gastrointestinal tract in vitro. BMC Microbiology 2014, 14 (1), 133. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-14-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Stewart EJ, Growing unculturable bacteria. J Bacteriol 2012, 194 (16), 4151–60. DOI: 10.1128/jb.00345-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Tang Q; Jin G; Wang G; Liu T; Liu X; Wang B; Cao H, Current Sampling Methods for Gut Microbiota: A Call for More Precise Devices. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 2020, 10. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Yuki K; Cheng N; Nakano M; Kuo CJ, Organoid Models of Tumor Immunology. Trends Immunol 2020, 41 (8), 652–664. DOI: 10.1016/j.it.2020.06.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Fitzgerald AA; Li E; Weiner LM, 3D Culture Systems for Exploring Cancer Immunology. Cancers (Basel) 2020, 13 (1). DOI: 10.3390/cancers13010056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Cesewski E; Johnson BN, Electrochemical biosensors for pathogen detection. Biosens Bioelectron 2020, 159, 112214. DOI: 10.1016/j.bios.2020.112214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Shang L; Deng D; Buskermolen JK; Janus MM; Krom BP; Roffel S; Waaijman T; van Loveren C; Crielaard W; Gibbs S, Multi-species oral biofilm promotes reconstructed human gingiva epithelial barrier function. Scientific Reports 2018, 8 (1), 16061. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34390-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sheth RU; Li M; Jiang W; Sims PA; Leong KW; Wang HH, Spatial metagenomic characterization of microbial biogeography in the gut. Nat Biotechnol 2019, 37 (8), 877–883. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-019-0183-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Sharma PV; Thaiss CA, Host-Microbiome Interactions in the Era of Single-Cell Biology. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 2020, 10 (536). DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.569070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Garg N; Wang M; Hyde E; da Silva RR; Melnik AV; Protsyuk I; Bouslimani A; Lim YW; Wong R; Humphrey G; Ackermann G; Spivey T; Brouha SS; Bandeira N; Lin GY; Rohwer F; Conrad DJ; Alexandrov T; Knight R; Dorrestein PC, Three-Dimensional Microbiome and Metabolome Cartography of a Diseased Human Lung. Cell Host & Microbe 2017, 22 (5), 705–716.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.chom.2017.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Mark Welch JL; Rossetti BJ; Rieken CW; Dewhirst FE; Borisy GG, Biogeography of a human oral microbiome at the micron scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2016, 113 (6), E791–E800. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1522149113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Poletti M; Arnauts K; Ferrante M; Korcsmaros T, Organoid-based Models to Study the Role of Host-microbiota Interactions in IBD. Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis 2020, 15 (7), 1222–1235. DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaa257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Fernández CE; Aspiras MB; Dodds MW; González-Cabezas C; Rickard AH, The effect of inoculum source and fluid shear force on the development of in vitro oral multispecies biofilms. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2017, 122 (3), 796–808. DOI: 10.1111/jam.13376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES