This model tests hepatotoxicity of antiepileptic drugs in HepG2 cells, highlighting improvements in dynamic conditions.
Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI) is the leading cause of late-stage drug failure and withdrawal of medications from the market. This underscores the urgent need for new in vitro liver models that better recapitulate the physiologically relevant conditions and that offer controlled physical and biochemical parameters for drug toxicity testing. While advanced and complex liver-on-a-chip systems have already existed for some years, this study presents a simplified microfluidic model aimed at technically comparing static and dynamic culture conditions using a hepatocyte-like cell line for drug toxicity testing. In this study, a dual-compartment microfluidic device comprising a dynamic flow channel and a cell culture chamber was designed to mimic the liver's microstructure. The device's membrane-based design enabled the investigation of cell-media interactions and replication of hepatic Disse space, with comparisons made between static and dynamic conditions. The chip design was evaluated using computational modeling of glucose consumption and shear stress, establishing an optimal flow rate of 50 µL/h. HepG2 cells cultured within the chip were assessed via live/dead staining and metabolic function assays, including responses to three antiepileptic drugs at physiological doses, to evaluate hepatotoxicity. Under dynamic conditions, cell viability and function improved significantly, simulating a continuous supply of nutrients and oxygen, as well as mechanical shear stress signaling. Among the tested drugs, sodium valproate (500 µM) induced the least hepatotoxicity, whereas carbamazepine and phenytoin led to a ~60% reduction in hepatic function over one week. Although structurally and functionally less complex than existing liver-on-a-chip platforms, these findings suggest that this liver chip platform is a simple yet useful tool for drug screening and assessing hepatotoxicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moradi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: