Progress in the use of high-throughput screening technology for orthopedic diseases


Abstract

Orthopedic diseases are referred to as a series of conditions affecting the normal structure and function of the skeletal system. With a wide variety of types and a year-by-year increasing incidence, they have a severe impact on patients ’ quality of life. Traditional research has made relatively significant progress in understanding the pathogenesis and treating orthopedic diseases; however, it remains constrained by limitations such as low-throughput experimentation and difficulty in mimicking the complex bone microenvironment. In recent years, high-throughput screening (HTS) technology has been combined with experimental techniques and models ( such as microfluidics, omics technologies, 3D bioprinting, artificial intelligence, and organoid models ), which can be used to better simulate the real bone microenvironment and predict molecular activity. This combined approach has not only deepened our understanding of the mechanisms of orthopedic diseases but also broken through the limitations of traditional drug development, which further accelerates drug discovery and clinical translation. In this review, we focus on summarizing HTS technology and its contributions to the treatment of orthopedic diseases, aiming to enhance the understanding of HTS and promote its application in orthopedic disease therapy.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].