Exploration of BioMat-X

Table 3. Advantages and limitations of in vitro screening.

Advantages	Limitations
Controlled conditions (pH, temperature, medium)	Lack of systemic interactions (immune response, metabolism)
Rapid, high-throughput screening	Limited physiological relevance of immortalized or tumor-derived cell lines
Ethical alignment with 3R principle	Oversimplified environment, lacking ECM and mechanical forces
Mechanistic insights into toxicity and antimicrobial action	Poor prediction of chronic toxicity or long-term effects
Cost-effective compared with animal studies	Short experimental duration limits assessment of sustained effects

Return to article view

Declarations

Acknowledgments

M.R. acknowledges that the foundational knowledge underpinning this study was developed during a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) project between AB Vista, ABITEC Corporation, and the University of Strathclyde.

Author contributions

MR: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. CO: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft. MB: Project administration. ABM: Project administration. DK: Project administration. VAF: Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The publication of the article is not subject to any financial or other restrictions.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Funding

This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators; Murray CJ, Ikuta KS, Sharara F, Swetschinski L, Aguilar GR, et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399:629–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, Zaidi AKM, Wertheim HFL, Sumpradit N, et al. Antibiotic resistance-the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:1057–98. [DOI] [PubMed]

Price R. O’Neill report on antimicrobial resistance: funding for antimicrobial specialists should be improved. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2016;23:245–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Prestinaci F, Pezzotti P, Pantosti A. Antimicrobial resistance: a global multifaceted phenomenon. Pathog Glob Health. 2015;109:309–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Bengtsson-Palme J, Kristiansson E, Larsson DGJ. Environmental factors influencing the development and spread of antibiotic resistance. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018;42:fux053. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Larsson DGJ, Flach C. Antibiotic resistance in the environment. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022;20:257–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Brown ED, Wright GD. Antibacterial drug discovery in the resistance era. Nature. 2016;529:336–43. [DOI] [PubMed]

Miethke M, Pieroni M, Weber T, Brönstrup M, Hammann P, Halby L, et al. Towards the sustainable discovery and development of new antibiotics. Nat Rev Chem. 2021;5:726–49. [DOI] [PubMed]

Theuretzbacher U, Bush K, Harbarth S, Paul M, Rex JH, Tacconelli E, et al. Critical analysis of antibacterial agents in clinical development. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:286–98. [DOI] [PubMed]

10.

Patel D, Patel B, Thakkar H. Lipid Based Nanocarriers: Promising Drug Delivery System for Topical Application. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol. 2021;123:2000264. [DOI]

11.

Mitchell MJ, Billingsley MM, Haley RM, Wechsler ME, Peppas NA, Langer R. Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20:101–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Makvandi P, Wang C, Zare EN, Borzacchiello A, Niu L, Tay FR. Metal-Based Nanoparticles: Antibacterial Mechanisms and Biomedical Application. Microorganisms. 2022;10:1778. [DOI]

13.

Sarnella A, Ferrara Y, Terlizzi C, Albanese S, Monti S, Licenziato L, et al. The Chicken Embryo: An Old but Promising Model for In Vivo Preclinical Research. Biomedicines. 2024;12:2835. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Hubrecht RC, Carter E. The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change. Animals (Basel). 2019;9:754. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

15.

Sommerfeld S, Mundim AV, Silva RR, Queiroz JS, Rios MP, Notário FO, et al. Physiological Changes in Chicken Embryos Inoculated with Drugs and Viruses Highlight the Need for More Standardization of this Animal Model. Animals (Basel). 2022;12:1156. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

16.

Pariente N; PLOS Biology Staff Editors. The antimicrobial resistance crisis needs action now. PLoS Biol. 2022;20:e3001918. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Davies J, Davies D. Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010;74:417–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

Levy SB, Marshall B. Antibacterial resistance worldwide: causes, challenges and responses. Nat Med. 2004;10:S122–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Ventola CL. The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats. P T. 2015;40:277–83. [PubMed] [PMC]

20.

Kümmerer K. Antibiotics in the aquatic environment--a review--part I. Chemosphere. 2009;75:417–34. [DOI] [PubMed]

21.

Martínez JL. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in natural environments. Science. 2008;321:365–7. [DOI] [PubMed]

22.

Lewis K. Platforms for antibiotic discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:371–87. [DOI] [PubMed]

23.

Payne DJ, Gwynn MN, Holmes DJ, Pompliano DL. Drugs for bad bugs: confronting the challenges of antibacterial discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:29–40. [DOI] [PubMed]

24.

Goletti D, Meintjes G, Andrade BB, Zumla A, Lee SS. Insights from the 2024 WHO Global Tuberculosis Report - More Comprehensive Action, Innovation, and Investments required for achieving WHO End TB goals. Int J Infect Dis. 2025;150:107325. [DOI] [PubMed]

25.

Pelgrift RY, Friedman AJ. Nanotechnology as a therapeutic tool to combat microbial resistance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65:1803–15. [DOI] [PubMed]

26.

Niemirowicz K, Swiecicka I, Wilczewska AZ, Misztalewska I, Kalska-Szostko B, Bienias K, et al. Gold-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles restrict growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Nanomedicine. 2014;9:2217–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

27.

Palanisamy S, Anjali R, Rajasekar P, Kannapiran E, Vaseeharan B, Prabhu N. Synthesis and Distribution of Bioinspired Silver Nanoparticles Using Spirulina Extract for Control of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Infection in Aquaculture. Asian J Chem. 2017;29:857–63. [DOI]

28.

Aabed K, Mohammed AE. Synergistic and Antagonistic Effects of Biogenic Silver Nanoparticles in Combination With Antibiotics Against Some Pathogenic Microbes. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:652362. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

29.

Celardo I, Pedersen JZ, Traversa E, Ghibelli L. Pharmacological potential of cerium oxide nanoparticles. Nanoscale. 2011;3:1411–20. [DOI] [PubMed]

30.

Chatzikleanthous D, O’Hagan DT, Adamo R. Lipid-Based Nanoparticles for Delivery of Vaccine Adjuvants and Antigens: Toward Multicomponent Vaccines. Mol Pharm. 2021;18:2867–88. [DOI] [PubMed]

31.

Slavin YN, Asnis J, Häfeli UO, Bach H. Metal nanoparticles: understanding the mechanisms behind antibacterial activity. J Nanobiotechnology. 2017;15:65. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

32.

Akhavan O, Ghaderi E. Toxicity of graphene and graphene oxide nanowalls against bacteria. ACS Nano. 2010;4:5731–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

33.

Taposhree D, Rudra S, Bholanath P, Subrata G, Ripon S, Ananya B, et al. ROS generation by reduced graphene oxide (rGO) induced by visible light showing antibacterial activity: comparison with graphene oxide (GO). RSC Adv. 2015;5:80192–5. [DOI]

34.

Prasanna VL, Vijayaraghavan R. Insight into the Mechanism of Antibacterial Activity of ZnO: Surface Defects Mediated Reactive Oxygen Species Even in the Dark. Langmuir. 2015;31:9155–62. [DOI] [PubMed]

35.

Akhavan O, Ghaderi E, Esfandiar A. Wrapping bacteria by graphene nanosheets for isolation from environment, reactivation by sonication, and inactivation by near-infrared irradiation. J Phys Chem B. 2011;115:6279–88. [DOI] [PubMed]

36.

Liu S, Zeng TH, Hofmann M, Burcombe E, Wei J, Jiang R, et al. Antibacterial activity of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano. 2011;5:6971–80. [DOI] [PubMed]

37.

Akhavan O, Ghaderi E. Escherichia coli bacteria reduce graphene oxide to bactericidal graphene in a self-limiting manner. Carbon. 2012;50:1853–60. [DOI]

38.

Kumar A, Pandey AK, Singh SS, Shanker R, Dhawan A. Engineered ZnO and TiO(2) nanoparticles induce oxidative stress and DNA damage leading to reduced viability of Escherichia coli. Free Radic Biol Med. 2011;51:1872–81. [DOI] [PubMed]

39.

Akhavan O, Ghaderi E. Enhancement of antibacterial properties of Ag nanorods by electric field. Sci Technol Adv Mater. 2009;10:015003. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

40.

Wang Y, Cao A, Jiang Y, Zhang X, Liu J, Liu Y, et al. Superior antibacterial activity of zinc oxide/graphene oxide composites originating from high zinc concentration localized around bacteria. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014;6:2791–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

41.

Jannesari M, Akhavan O, Hosseini HRM, Bakhshi B. Graphene/CuO₂Nanoshuttles with Controllable Release of Oxygen Nanobubbles Promoting Interruption of Bacterial Respiration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020;12:35813–25. [DOI] [PubMed]

42.

Jannesari M, Ejehi F, English NJ, Mohammadpour R, Akhavan O, Shams S. Triggering triboelectric nanogenerator antibacterial Activities: Effect of charge polarity and host material correlation. Chem Eng J. 2024;486:150036. [DOI]

43.

Chiriac V, Stratulat DN, Calin G, Nichitus S, Burlui V, Stadoleanu C, et al. Antimicrobial property of zinc based nanoparticles. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2016;133:012055. [DOI]

44.

D’Lima L, Phadkea M, Ashokb VD. Biogenic silver and silver oxide hybrid nanoparticles: a potential antimicrobial against multi drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. New J Chem. 2020;44:4935–41. [DOI]

45.

Kong C, Yehye WA, Rahman NA, Tan M, Nathan S. Discovery of potential anti-infectives against Staphylococcus aureus using a Caenorhabditis elegans infection model. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014;14:4. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

46.

Parveen A, Chatterjee A, Karak P. Biomedical Applications of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials: Exploring Recent Advances in Therapeutics, Diagnostics, and Tissue Engineering. Adv Pharm Bull. 2025;15:232–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

47.

Pandit J, Sultana Y, Aqil M. Chitosan-coated PLGA nanoparticles of bevacizumab as novel drug delivery to target retina: optimization, characterization, and in vitro toxicity evaluation. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2017;45:1397–407. [DOI] [PubMed]

48.

Shkodra B, Grune C, Traeger A, Vollrath A, Schubert S, Fischer D, et al. Effect of surfactant on the size and stability of PLGA nanoparticles encapsulating a protein kinase C inhibitor. Int J Pharm. 2019;566:756–64. [DOI] [PubMed]

49.

Liu H, Guo S, Wei S, Liu J, Tian B. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cyclodextrin-based oral drug delivery formulations for disease therapy. Carbohydr Polym. 2024;329:121763. [DOI] [PubMed]

50.

Kurantowicz N, Sawosz E, Halik G, Strojny B, Hotowy A, Grodzik M, et al. Toxicity studies of six types of carbon nanoparticles in a chicken-embryo model. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12:2887–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

51.

Hassett KJ, Benenato KE, Jacquinet E, Lee A, Woods A, Yuzhakov O, et al. Optimization of Lipid Nanoparticles for Intramuscular Administration of mRNA Vaccines. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2019;15:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

52.

Sabnis S, Kumarasinghe ES, Salerno T, Mihai C, Ketova T, Senn JJ, et al. A Novel Amino Lipid Series for mRNA Delivery: Improved Endosomal Escape and Sustained Pharmacology and Safety in Non-human Primates. Mol Ther. 2018;26:1509–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

53.

Verbeke R, Lentacker I, Smedt SCD, Dewitte H. The dawn of mRNA vaccines: The COVID-19 case. J Control Release. 2021;333:511–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

54.

Rennick JJ, Johnston APR, Parton RG. Key principles and methods for studying the endocytosis of biological and nanoparticle therapeutics. Nat Nanotechnol. 2021;16:266–76. [DOI] [PubMed]

55.

Kowalski PS, Rudra A, Miao L, Anderson DG. Delivering the Messenger: Advances in Technologies for Therapeutic mRNA Delivery. Mol Ther. 2019;27:710–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

56.

Bozzuto G, Molinari A. Liposomes as nanomedical devices. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:975–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

57.

Beloqui A, Solinís MÁ, Rodríguez-Gascón A, Almeida AJ, Préat V. Nanostructured lipid carriers: Promising drug delivery systems for future clinics. Nanomedicine. 2016;12:143–61. [DOI] [PubMed]

58.

Müller RH, Radtke M, Wissing SA. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLC) in cosmetic and dermatological preparations. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002;54 Suppl 1:S131–55. [DOI] [PubMed]

59.

Deshpande S, Singh N. Influence of Cubosome Surface Architecture on Its Cellular Uptake Mechanism. Langmuir. 2017;33:3509–16. [DOI] [PubMed]

60.

Al-Mahallawi AM, Abdelbary AA, El-Zahaby SA. Norfloxacin loaded nano-cubosomes for enhanced management of otitis externa: In vitro and in vivo evaluation. Int J Pharm. 2021;600:120490. [DOI] [PubMed]

61.

Khiev D, Mohamed ZA, Vichare R, Paulson R, Bhatia S, Mohapatra S, et al. Emerging Nano-Formulations and Nanomedicines Applications for Ocular Drug Delivery. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2021;11:173. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

62.

Shapira S, Bogin O, Kazanov D, Bedny F, Hershkovizh D, Izhaki A, et al. The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane assay: In ovo model for personalized assessment and evaluation of the most effective therapeutic approach in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:e14634. [DOI]

63.

Wang H, Wang W, Xie Q, Wu D, Cao J, Chen H, et al. Using Chicken Embryos to Identify the Key Determinants of Nanoparticles for the Crossing of Air-Blood Barriers. Anal Chem. 2023;95:6009–19. [DOI] [PubMed]

64.

Butler KS, Brinker CJ, Leong HS. Bridging the In Vitro to In Vivo gap: Using the Chick Embryo Model to Accelerate Nanoparticle Validation and Qualification for In Vivo studies. ACS Nano. 2022;16:19626–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

65.

Gulati N, Dua K, Dureja H. Enhancing the Therapeutic Potential of Nanomedicines by Modifying Surface Characteristics. Curr Drug Deliv. 2023;20:1031–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

66.

Ghimire S, Zhang X, Zhang J, Wu C. Use of Chicken Embryo Model in Toxicity Studies of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Nanoparticles. Chem Res Toxicol. 2022;35:550–68. [DOI] [PubMed]

67.

Hamid R, Rotshteyn Y, Rabadi L, Parikh R, Bullock P. Comparison of alamar blue and MTT assays for high through-put screening. Toxicol In Vitro. 2004;18:703–10. [DOI] [PubMed]

68.

Fasihi K, Amerizadeh F, Sabbaghzadeh R, Heydari M, Rahmani F, Mostafapour A, et al. The therapeutic potential of γ-Al₂O₃nanoparticle containing 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Tissue Cell. 2022;76:101755. [DOI] [PubMed]

69.

Elgendy MY, Shaalan M, Abdelsalam M, Eissa AE, ElAdawy MM, Seida AA. Antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles against antibiotic-resistant Aeromonas veronii infections in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), in vitro and in vivo assay. Aquac Res. 2022;53:901–20. [DOI]

70.

Domínguez-Oliva A, Hernández-Ávalos I, Martínez-Burnes J, Olmos-Hernández A, Verduzco-Mendoza A, Mota-Rojas D. The Importance of Animal Models in Biomedical Research: Current Insights and Applications. Animals (Basel). 2023;13:1223. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

71.

Madende M, Albertyn J, Sebolai O, Pohl CH. Caenorhabditis elegans as a model animal for investigating fungal pathogenesis. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2020;209:1–13. [DOI] [PubMed]

72.

Marsh EK, May RC. Caenorhabditis elegans, a model organism for investigating immunity. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:2075–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

73.

Hunt PR. The C. elegans model in toxicity testing. J Appl Toxicol. 2017;37:50–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

74.

Obafemi OT, Ayeleso AO, Adewale OB, Unuofin J, Ekundayo BE, Ntwasa M, et al. Animal models in biomedical research: Relevance of Drosophila melanogaster. Heliyon. 2024;11:e41605. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

75.

Ménard G, Rouillon A, Cattoir V, Donnio P. Galleria mellonella as a Suitable Model of Bacterial Infection: Past, Present and Future. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:782733. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

76.

Pereira MF, Rossi CC, da Silva GC, Rosa JN, Bazzolli DMS. Galleria mellonella as an infection model: an in-depth look at why it works and practical considerations for successful application. Pathog Dis. 2020;78:ftaa056. [DOI] [PubMed]

77.

Serrano I, Verdial C, Tavares L, Oliveira M. The Virtuous Galleria mellonella Model for Scientific Experimentation. Antibiotics (Basel). 2023;12:505. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

78.

Barnoy S, Gancz H, Zhu Y, Honnold CL, Zurawski DV, Venkatesan MM. The Galleria mellonella larvae as an in vivo model for evaluation of Shigella virulence. Gut Microbes. 2017;8:335–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

79.

Choi T, Choi T, Lee Y, Choe S, Kim C. Zebrafish as an animal model for biomedical research. Exp Mol Med. 2021;53:310–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

80.

Gomes MC, Mostowy S. The Case for Modeling Human Infection in Zebrafish. Trends Microbiol. 2020;28:10–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

81.

Qosimah D, Santoso S, Maftuch M, Khotimah H, Fitri LE, Aulanni’am A, et al. Aeromonas hydrophila induction method in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) as animal infection models. Vet World. 2023;16:250–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

82.

de Cristo Soares Alves A, Rosane Dallemole D, Medeiro Ciocheta T, Ferreira Weber A, da Silva Gündel S, Visioli F, et al. Chicken embryo model for in vivo acute toxicological and antitumor efficacy evaluation of lipid nanocarrier containing doxorubicin. Int J Pharm X. 2023;6:100193. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

83.

Lee Y, Jang H, Chung I, Cho Y. Drosophila melanogaster as a polymicrobial infection model for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. J Microbiol. 2018;56:534–41. [DOI] [PubMed]

84.

Asai M, Li Y, Newton SM, Robertson BD, Langford PR. Galleria mellonella-intracellular bacteria pathogen infection models: the ins and outs. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2023;47:fuad011. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

85.

Kalelkar PP, Riddick M, García AJ. Biomaterial-based delivery of antimicrobial therapies for the treatment of bacterial infections. Nat Rev Mater. 2022;7:39–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

86.

Adam R, Mussa S, Lindemann D, Oelschlaeger TA, Deadman M, Ferguson DJP, et al. The avian chorioallantoic membrane in ovo--a useful model for bacterial invasion assays. Int J Med Microbiol. 2002;292:267–75. [DOI] [PubMed]

87.

García-Gareta E, Binkowska J, Kohli N, Sharma V. Towards the Development of a Novel Ex Ovo Model of Infection to Pre-Screen Biomaterials Intended for Treating Chronic Wounds. J Funct Biomater. 2020;11:37. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

88.

Wong EA, Uni Z. Centennial Review: The chicken yolk sac is a multifunctional organ. Poult Sci. 2021;100:100821. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

89.

Caplar BD, Togoe MM, Ribatti D, Pop D, Sinescu C, Rominu M, et al. The Chick Embryo Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) Assay: A Novel Experimental Model in Dental Research. Cureus. 2024;16:e74714. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

90.

Naik M, Brahma P, Dixit M. A Cost-Effective and Efficient Chick Ex-Ovo CAM Assay Protocol to Assess Angiogenesis. Methods Protoc. 2018;1:19. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

91.

Castañeda CD, McDaniel CD, Abdelhamed H, Karsi A, Kiess AS. Evaluating bacterial colonization of a developing broiler embryo after in ovo injection with a bioluminescent bacteria. Poult Sci. 2019;98:2997–3006. [DOI] [PubMed]

92.

Braukmann M, Sachse K, Jacobsen ID, Westermann M, Menge C, Saluz H, et al. Distinct intensity of host-pathogen interactions in Chlamydia psittaci- and Chlamydia abortus-infected chicken embryos. Infect Immun. 2012;80:2976–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

93.

Jacobsen ID, Grosse K, Berndt A, Hube B. Pathogenesis of Candida albicans infections in the alternative chorio-allantoic membrane chicken embryo model resembles systemic murine infections. PLoS One. 2011;6:e19741. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

94.

Radwan IA, Salam HS. Fungi associated with dead-in-shell embryos of chicken and Turkey layers. Egypt J Vet Sci. 2015;1:67–78. [DOI]

95.

Furuta PI, Mineo TWP, Carrasco AOT, Godoy GS, Pinto AA, Machado RZ. Neospora caninum infection in birds: experimental infections in chicken and embryonated eggs. Parasitology. 2007;134:1931–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

96.

Dos Reis TFM, Hoepers PG, Azevedo VAC, da Silva GR, Notário FO, Soares MC, et al. Chicken embryos are a valuable model for the selection of Bacillus subtilis for probiotic purposes. Arch Microbiol. 2022;204:715. [DOI] [PubMed]

97.

Nnadi EN, Enweani IB, Ayanbimpe GM. Infection of Chick Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) as a Model for the Pathogenesis of Cryptococcus gattii. Med Mycol J. 2018;59:E25–E30. [DOI] [PubMed]

98.

Alnassan AA, Shehata AA, Kotsch M, Lendner M, Daugschies A, Bangoura B. Embryonated chicken eggs as an alternative model for mixed Clostridium perfringens and Eimeria tenella infection in chickens. Parasitol Res. 2013;112:2299–306. [DOI] [PubMed]

99.

Zhang J, Wei B, Cha S, Shang K, Jang H, Kang M. The use of embryonic chicken eggs as an alternative model to evaluate the virulence of Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0238630. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

100.

Dolka B, Czopowicz M, Dolka I, Szeleszczuk P. Chicken embryo lethality assay for determining the lethal dose, tissue distribution and pathogenicity of clinical Enterococcus cecorum isolates from poultry. Sci Rep. 2022;12:10675. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

101.

Warncke P, Fink S, Wiegand C, Hipler U, Fischer D. A shell-less hen’s egg test as infection model to determine the biocompatibility and antimicrobial efficacy of drugs and drug formulations against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Pharm. 2020;585:119557. [DOI] [PubMed]

102.

de Oliveira JE, van der Hoeven-Hangoor E, van de Linde IB, Montijn RC, van der Vossen JM. In ovo inoculation of chicken embryos with probiotic bacteria and its effect on posthatch Salmonella susceptibility. Poult Sci. 2014;93:818–29. [DOI] [PubMed]

103.

de Souza JB, Sommerfeld S, Almeida-Souza HO, Vaz ER, Bastos LM, Santos FAA, et al. A new standardization for the use of chicken embryo: selection of target from the phage display library and infection. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024;108:412. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

104.

Bahrami S, Rezaie A, Boroomand Z, Namavari M, Ghavami S. Embryonated pigeon eggs as a model to investigate Neospora caninum infection. Lab Anim. 2017;51:191–203. [DOI] [PubMed]

105.

Gow NAR, Knox Y, Munro CA, Thompson WD. Infection of chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) as a model for invasive hyphal growth and pathogenesis of Candida albicans. Med Mycol. 2003;41:331–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

106.

Jacobsen ID, Grosse K, Hube B. Embryonated chicken eggs as alternative infection model for pathogenic fungi. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;845:487–96. [DOI] [PubMed]

107.

Jacobsen ID, Grosse K, Slesiona S, Hube B, Berndt A, Brock M. Embryonated eggs as an alternative infection model to investigate Aspergillus fumigatus virulence. Infect Immun. 2010;78:2995–3006. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

108.

McGrew MJ, Holmes T, Davey MG. A scientific case for revisiting the embryonic chicken model in biomedical research. Dev Biol. 2025;522:220–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

109.

Mühlenpfordt M, Nymark E, Åslund AKO, van Wamel A, Bye I, Jarmund AH, et al. Real-time Imaging of Vascular Changes and Extravasation in the Chicken Chorioallantoic Membrane (CAM) Model Exposed to Ultrasound and Microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2025;51:1971–83. [DOI] [PubMed]

110.

Schusser B, Collarini EJ, Pedersen D, Yi H, Ching K, Izquierdo S, et al. Expression of heavy chain-only antibodies can support B-cell development in light chain knockout chickens. Eur J Immunol. 2016;46:2137–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

111.

Sutovska H, Babarikova K, Zeman M, Molcan L. Prenatal Hypoxia Affects Foetal Cardiovascular Regulatory Mechanisms in a Sex- and Circadian-Dependent Manner: A Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:2885. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

112.

Acharya B, Dey S, Sahu PK, Behera A, Chowdhury B, Behera S. Perspectives on chick embryo models in developmental and reproductive toxicity screening. Reprod Toxicol. 2024;126:108583. [DOI] [PubMed]

113.

Kovács L, Domaföldi G, Bertram P, Farkas M, Könyves LP. Biosecurity Implications, Transmission Routes and Modes of Economically Important Diseases in Domestic Fowl and Turkey. Vet Sci. 2025;12:391. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

114.

Schwein A, Magnus L, Markovits J, Chinnadurai P, Autry K, Jenkins L, et al. Endovascular Porcine Model of Iliocaval Venous Thrombosis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2022;63:623–30. [DOI] [PubMed]