The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials for bone regeneration: results of a multicentre analysis.

A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials for bone regeneration: results of a multicentre analysis.
A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials for bone regeneration: results of a multicentre analysis.
New regenerative materials and approaches need to be assessed through reliable and comparable methods for rapid translation to the clinic. There is a considerable need for proven in vitro assays that are able to reduce the burden on animal testing, by allowing assessment of biomaterial utility predictive of the results currently obtained through in vivo studies. The purpose of this multicentre review was to investigate the correlation between existing in vitro results with in vivo outcomes observed for a range of biomaterials. Members from the European consortium BioDesign, comprising 8 universities in a European multicentre study, provided data from 36 in vivo studies and 47 in vitro assays testing 93 different biomaterials. The outcomes of the in vitro and in vivo experiments were scored according to commonly recognised measures of success relevant to each experiment. The correlation of in vitro with in vivo scores for each assay alone and in combination was assessed. A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo assessments of biomaterials was revealed indicating a clear need for further development of relevant in vitro assays. There was no significant overall correlation between in vitro and in vivo outcome. The mean in vitro scores revealed a trend of covariance to in vivo score with 58 %. The inadequacies of the current in vitro assessments highlighted here further stress the need for the development of novel approaches to in vitro biomaterial testing and validated pre-clinical pipelines.
312-322
Hulsart-Billstrom, G.
1be9b158-ba9e-48c7-bc68-78636c83c37c
Dawson, J.I.
b220fe76-498d-47be-9995-92da6c289cf3
Hofmann, S.
29dbd591-6a47-49b5-b840-63732b2be857
Müller, R.
6524b971-59e6-4c83-868d-90dfc3c5b8b0
Stoddart, M.J.
12482020-5bb8-407e-9b06-5777f08ebaa5
Alini, M.
26d8a3df-2734-4d9f-be4a-f70e0388612c
Redl, H.
7164e93c-c525-4e94-90a5-dbbea536fc8d
El Haj, A.
7b06f21b-76bf-42bb-9f33-f73bc61910cb
Brown, R.
b9108870-6092-4963-b323-be7254c71976
Salih, V.
8d0cf20b-e89b-424d-9ce4-ebc45c7be9a6
Hilborn, J.
a712b8ae-6d90-4fee-b950-2c5d45407323
Larsson, S.
8617c357-72b2-4c59-b5cb-63cb96a235b9
Oreffo, R.O.C.
ff9fff72-6855-4d0f-bfb2-311d0e8f3778
Hulsart-Billstrom, G.
1be9b158-ba9e-48c7-bc68-78636c83c37c
Dawson, J.I.
b220fe76-498d-47be-9995-92da6c289cf3
Hofmann, S.
29dbd591-6a47-49b5-b840-63732b2be857
Müller, R.
6524b971-59e6-4c83-868d-90dfc3c5b8b0
Stoddart, M.J.
12482020-5bb8-407e-9b06-5777f08ebaa5
Alini, M.
26d8a3df-2734-4d9f-be4a-f70e0388612c
Redl, H.
7164e93c-c525-4e94-90a5-dbbea536fc8d
El Haj, A.
7b06f21b-76bf-42bb-9f33-f73bc61910cb
Brown, R.
b9108870-6092-4963-b323-be7254c71976
Salih, V.
8d0cf20b-e89b-424d-9ce4-ebc45c7be9a6
Hilborn, J.
a712b8ae-6d90-4fee-b950-2c5d45407323
Larsson, S.
8617c357-72b2-4c59-b5cb-63cb96a235b9
Oreffo, R.O.C.
ff9fff72-6855-4d0f-bfb2-311d0e8f3778

Hulsart-Billstrom, G., Dawson, J.I., Hofmann, S., Müller, R., Stoddart, M.J., Alini, M., Redl, H., El Haj, A., Brown, R., Salih, V., Hilborn, J., Larsson, S. and Oreffo, R.O.C. (2016) A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials for bone regeneration: results of a multicentre analysis. European Cells & Materials, 31, 312-322. (doi:10.22203/eCM.v031a20). (PMID:27215739)

Record type: Article

Abstract

New regenerative materials and approaches need to be assessed through reliable and comparable methods for rapid translation to the clinic. There is a considerable need for proven in vitro assays that are able to reduce the burden on animal testing, by allowing assessment of biomaterial utility predictive of the results currently obtained through in vivo studies. The purpose of this multicentre review was to investigate the correlation between existing in vitro results with in vivo outcomes observed for a range of biomaterials. Members from the European consortium BioDesign, comprising 8 universities in a European multicentre study, provided data from 36 in vivo studies and 47 in vitro assays testing 93 different biomaterials. The outcomes of the in vitro and in vivo experiments were scored according to commonly recognised measures of success relevant to each experiment. The correlation of in vitro with in vivo scores for each assay alone and in combination was assessed. A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo assessments of biomaterials was revealed indicating a clear need for further development of relevant in vitro assays. There was no significant overall correlation between in vitro and in vivo outcome. The mean in vitro scores revealed a trend of covariance to in vivo score with 58 %. The inadequacies of the current in vitro assessments highlighted here further stress the need for the development of novel approaches to in vitro biomaterial testing and validated pre-clinical pipelines.

Text
A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials for bone regeneration results of a multicentre analysis.pdf - Version of Record
Download (2MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 21 March 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 24 May 2016
Published date: 24 May 2016
Additional Information: With kind permission of full reproduction from eCM journal (www.ecmjournal.org). Founded by scientists for the benefit of Science rather than profit.
Organisations: Human Development & Health

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 396363
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/396363
PURE UUID: 66acf51c-d447-48a2-b7fb-d0c1c3d497b6
ORCID for J.I. Dawson: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6712-0598
ORCID for R.O.C. Oreffo: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-5995-6726

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 08 Jun 2016 15:07
Last modified: 17 Dec 2019 01:53

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: G. Hulsart-Billstrom
Author: J.I. Dawson ORCID iD
Author: S. Hofmann
Author: R. Müller
Author: M.J. Stoddart
Author: M. Alini
Author: H. Redl
Author: A. El Haj
Author: R. Brown
Author: V. Salih
Author: J. Hilborn
Author: S. Larsson
Author: R.O.C. Oreffo ORCID iD

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×