Microvascular Experimentation in the Chick Chorioallantoic Membrane as a Model for Screening Angiogenic Agents including from Gene-Modified Cells
Kennedy DC., Coen B., Wheatley AM., McCullagh KJA.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Int J Mol Sci (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35008876
- PMCID
- PMC8745510
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms23010452
- Citations
- 25
Abstract (original English)
The chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) assay model of angiogenesis has been highlighted as a relatively quick, low cost and effective model for the study of pro-angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors. The chick CAM is a highly vascularised extraembryonic membrane which functions for gas exchange, nutrient exchange and waste removal for the growing chick embryo. It is beneficial as it can function as a treatment screening tool, which bridges the gap between cell based in vitro studies and in vivo animal experimentation. In this review, we explore the benefits and drawbacks of the CAM assay to study microcirculation, by the investigation of each distinct stage of the CAM assay procedure, including cultivation techniques, treatment applications and methods of determining an angiogenic response using this assay. We detail the angiogenic effect of treatments, including drugs, metabolites, genes and cells used in conjunction with the CAM assay, while also highlighting the testing of genetically modified cells. We also present a detailed exploration of the advantages and limitations of different CAM analysis techniques, including visual assessment, histological and molecular analysis along with vascular casting methods and live blood flow observations.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.