Israeli and German researchers combine efforts to push scientific boundaries
[Jerusalem] Scientists at Hebrew University have developed a technology that they hope may lead to the end of the practice of testing new drugs and compounds on animals in laboratories. If proven successful, the development could lead to victory for animal rights groups’ campaigning for an abolition of animal testing with help from an unlikely direction – from the scientists themselves.
Researchers from Hebrew University affiliated Alexander Grass Center for Bioengineering worked in partnership with colleagues from the German Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology. The technological advancement is based on what is known as organ-on-chip research. Rather than experimenting on organs that are in a living creature – usually a laboratory mouse or rat – scientists use human cells contained in a chip, which essentially looks like a petri dish.
Such technology has existed for the past ten years. What the team from the Alexander Grass Center for Bioengineering did differently was to overlay micro sensors into the fabric of the organ, Professor Yaakov Nahmias, the center’s director and the head of the research team, told The Media Line. “We realized that because we are building the organs ourselves, we are not limited to biology, and could introduce electronic and optical sensors to the tissue itself,” Nahmias said. “Essentially we are building bionic organs on a chip,” he added.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
The advantage this allowed was a far greater level of accuracy in measuring the impact that new drugs and compounds can have on an organ, in this case on the liver. Scientists were able to analyze real time data, “every five minutes or seconds,” using the suite of nano-sensors, Nahmias explained. This compared to conventional organ-on-chip research which simply looked at the effect a compound had on sample tissue at the end of a set time period. “(We gained) a completely new insight that nobody could see before because nobody had our resolution,” the scientist said.
In light of this greater sensory data the team of researchers identified patterns that they believe brings into question existing beliefs on the dangers of certain mainstream drugs. Medications that have previously been seen as safe might in future no longer be viewed that way – this could lead to a large shake up in the warning labels on everyday pharmacy bought drugs, Nahmias said, listing paracetamol as one compound that his team examined.
But the research could also have a large impact on the use of animals as test subjects for the toxicity of emerging compounds. Previously, before new drugs were put through human trials they were tested on animals. However such tests were often flawed as humans and other mammals react differently to chemicals, because of differences in metabolism and other aspects of physiology. Three years ago organ-on-chip technology could achieve a lot of the same standards of testing as research using mice or rats – now, with the aid of nano-sensors it can do better than animals testing, Nahmias said. This means that animal testing could be eliminated in predictive toxicology altogether, he added.
Animal rights groups have welcomed the opportunity to move away from animal testing that organ-on-chip technology has created. “The ISAV sees the organ-in-chip as a viable replacement for animal testing (because the) technology simulates the interactions between different organs and the effects of different substances on them,” Adi Winter, a spokesperson for the Israeli Society Against Vivisection, told The Media Line. Human-derived stem-cell research, micro-dosing of human subjects and predictions based on computational models also represented sufficient alternatives to animal testing if organ-on-chip technology was to prove inadequate, Winter said.
Vivisection is a term used by animal rights activists pejoratively to describe cutting or experimenting on animals. It is generally not used by the scientific community. Winter was dismissive of any distinction between research on animals for medical or cosmetic reasons. “Animals should not pay with their lives for our health problems,” she said, adding, “it has been proved that these tests are not reliable due to the simple fact that mice and rats are not humans, even on the molecular and cellular (level).”
Organ-on-chip technology was recognized by a second animal rights organization, Animal Defenders International, as a viable alternative to live experimentation. “(We) welcome the move away from the outdated use of animals in experiments toward advanced techniques, including organs on chips,” Jan Creamer, the group’s president, told The Media Line. “Science has quickly outpaced antiquated, unreliable and unethical animal testing with cutting edge methodologies such as this, and we are all the better for it.”
Nahmias disputed such notions arguing that there was a distinction between medical and cosmetic or pharmaceutical studies. Medical science will continue to need some form of animal testing and it is right that it does so, the scientist suggested. The cost otherwise would not be desirable, he said, stating, “my sister has type one diabetes,” without the testing that was done on dogs in the past to research insulin, her and millions of others would not be here today.