Organ-on-a-Chip: A Roadmap for Translational Research in Human and Veterinary Medicine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a detailed and systematic summary of the work on the roadmap for translational research in human and veterinary medicine, which is an important topic. Some future perspectives are proposed accordingly. Nonetheless, it reads like an ordinary review. It is my sincere hope that the authors can further highlight their contributions to distinguish this review from others. Here are my comments.

1) Each in-text citation marker should be treated as an English word in typesetting. For example, "tissues[2]" should be written as "tissues [2]".

2) Figure 1 lacks adequate quality and resolution. It does not look academic.

3) Please add an introductory paragraph between the titles of Section 2 and Section 2.1, between the titles of Section 2.1 and Section 2.1.1, and between the titles of Section 3 and Section 3.1.

4) Figure 2 is a somewhat satisfactory figure. Meanwhile, the authors need to change the font family of the text in the figure to make the font family aligned with the font family used in the plain text of the paper.

5) Sections 4, 5, and most subsections in Section 3 are full of text. They can be wordy. Please consider using more figures and tables for description.

6) What makes this review stand out compared to other related review papers?

7) This review contains many references. In the reference list, please right-align the reference numbers and leave a space between the square brackets to the right of the reference number and the content of the reference entry.

Overall, I would like to make a "Major Revision" decision.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. The manuscript improved as you suggested, the detailed respond as below.

1)  7) References are formatted as you requested.

2)  The Figure 1 is improved.

3)  Introductory paragraphs are added.

4)  The figure has done in Biorender, unfortunately there is no Palatino font that used in the plain text.

5) Table1 and Table 2 are added in Section 3.1 and 3.2 respectively and Figure 3 is added in section 4.

6)  There are several reasons why this review stands out compared to other relevant publications. First, the organ-on-a-chip field is inherently interdisciplinary, requiring expertise in both organoid biology and microfluidic engineering. Many researchers and startup companies entering this area tend to approach it from only one side, either as biologists with limited engineering knowledge or as engineers with limited biological expertise. Consequently, most existing reviews focus primarily on either the biological aspects of organoids or the engineering aspects of microfluidics, but rarely integrate both perspectives. In contrast, this review is structured as a tutorial workflow of organ-on-a-chip development and is particularly accessible for beginners in the field. It provides a step-by-step overview covering organoid culture, microfluidic chip fabrication, perfusion systems, and data acquisition and analysis.  At each stage, we highlight both the advantages and limitations, providing a balanced perspective that aids experimental planning and decision-making.

Another distinguishing feature is the careful selection of content. Rather than attempting to cover the entire range of materials and methods used in microfluidics, this review highlights the approaches most relevant to organ-on-chip applications. It summarizes widely adopted fabrication and perfusion methods, outlines common design strategies, and discusses hydrogel patterning techniques—topics often overlooked in other reviews. This targeted approach ensures that readers gain both clarity and practical insights.

Furthermore, because organ-on-chip is a rapidly evolving field, timely updates are essential. 114 articles cited are published in recent 5 years. The review offers a comprehensive and up-to-date resource that distinguishes it from earlier works in the field.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review is exceptionally well-written and shows a comprehensive understanding of the subject. The manuscript shows many important concepts and addresses highly relevant issues for both veterinary and biological sciences. It serves as an excellent summary of organ-on-a-chip technology and its applications in both veterinary and medical contexts.

I do have a few suggestions regarding readability, as there are sections where the information could be streamlined for greater clarity, and a few areas where additional context or concepts could enhance the discussion. My specific comments are annotated directly in the PDF.

In addition, I would appreciate seeing more figures included in this manuscript. Reviews can often be text-heavy, so incorporating additional graphical elements would be helpful. Including more figures, or perhaps an extra table summarizing various publications, would further assist in guiding readers through the content.

Overall, this is a valuable and thoughtfully constructed contribution to the field.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

All of text revised as you suggested in the PDF file, for point to point respond please refer to the PDF file attached.

Table1 and Table 2 are added in Section 3.1 and 3.2 respectively and Figure 3 is added in section 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-organized and well-written, covering the proposed topic and providing the reader with the necessary foundation to understand the field of Organs-on-a-Chip.

 

On the other hand, there is a lack of figures and images. There is only one figure showing the growth in the number of publications in the field and another figure with a very simplified summary of the microfabrication processes. If there is a figure limit, Figure 1 is dispensable. Therefore, it is essential that authors include figures to illustrate the most important biological processes, as well as to illustrate the device architecture and actual images of the devices. If possible, include data in the illustrations. This research area is fascinating, and there are incredible illustrations and images that enhance the work in the eyes of the reader.

 

In this sense, authors should choose the figures to include and possibly adapt the text to address them.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

The Figure 1 is improved.

Table1 and Table 2 are added in Section 3.1 and 3.2 respectively and Figure 3 is added in section 4.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for the revision. Most of my comments are addressed. Regarding the font families used in Figures 2 and 3, there seem to be at least 2 font families used currently. I can understand that the figure drawer may miss some common font families. I suggest that the authors change all the font families used in Figures 2 and 3 to "Times New Roman", such that the font families can be uniform within the figures themselves. Figure 1 is a good example, where there seems to be only one font family used, "Times New Roman". I have no further comments. Please optimize the paper flexibly before final publishing if the paper is finally accepted. Overall, I would like to make a "Minor Revision" decision this time. There is no need to send the future revised version of the manuscript back to me to review again. Thanks.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback again.

The font of Figure 2 and Figure 3 are changed to Times New Roman.