Consensus IDs Gaps in Atopic Dermatitis Skin Models
Key Takeaways
- A 2026 expert consensus review identifies human-based in vitro skin models as important tools for studying atopic dermatitis (AD), particularly epidermal barrier dysfunction and inflammatory pathways.
- Human skin explants, reconstructed epidermal models, cytokine-stimulated skin equivalents, and emerging bioprinted systems offer different research advantages, but none fully reproduces the complexity of human AD.
- The authors emphasize the need for standardized experimental conditions, improved model validation, and better representation of disease heterogeneity to strengthen the translational relevance of preclinical research.
A 2026 expert consensus review published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology examined the advantages and limitations of human-based in vitro models for atopic dermatitis (AD), identifying opportunities to improve preclinical research and reduce reliance on animal models.
Reviewers evaluated experimental approaches used to investigate AD pathogenesis, epidermal barrier dysfunction, inflammatory signaling, and potential therapeutic targets.
In Vitro Models that Best Reproduce Atopic Dermatitis
The authors examined human skin explants, human epidermal equivalents (HEEs), human skin equivalents (HSEs), and emerging bioprinted models.
According to their analysis, reconstructed HEEs and HSEs offered greater experimental control. Models incorporating filaggrin (FLG) deficiency or stimulation with interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 can reproduce selected features of AD, including impaired epidermal differentiation, spongiosis, and altered barrier function. The also authors noted FLG deficiency alone does not fully replicate AD pathology. Cytokine concentrations, stimulation duration, and cellular composition also influence experimental outcomes, according to the study.
The investigators noted that emerging approaches incorporating immune cells, microorganisms, and bioprinting technologies may improve disease modeling, while technical complexity and incomplete physiological representation remain challenges.
"It is important for the dermatology community to come to a consensus regarding the minimal basic acceptance criteria—including morphology recapitulating nonlesional or lesional AD (eg, hypogranulosis, KC hyperproliferation, spongiosis) and the presence of AD-specific hallmarks (eg, reduced FLG and HNRN, impaired epidermal barrier function, overexpression of CCL17) or disease-specific gene signatures—to validate AD skin models and ensure the reliability of results for translational research and preclinical trials," the authors wrote.
Source
Peters RHW, et al. Journal Investigative Dermatology. 2026;146:2673-2686. Doi:10.1016/j.jid.2026.04.032