3D Cell Culture Systems: Tumor Application, Advantages, and Disadvantages

Abstract

The traditional two-dimensional (2D) in vitro cell culture system (on a flat support) has long been used in cancer research. However, this system cannot be fully translated into clinical trials to ideally represent physiological conditions. This culture cannot mimic the natural tumor microenvironment due to the lack of cellular communication (cell-cell) and interaction (cell-cell and cell-matrix). To overcome these limitations, three-dimensional (3D) culture systems are increasingly developed in research and have become essential for tumor research, tissue engineering, and basic biology research. 3D culture has received much attention in the field of biomedicine due to its ability to mimic tissue structure and function. The 3D matrix presents a highly dynamic framework where its components are deposited, degraded, or modified to delineate functions and provide a platform where cells attach to perform their specific functions, including adhesion, proliferation, communication, and apoptosis. So far, various types of models belong to this culture: either the culture based on natural or synthetic adherent matrices used to design 3D scaffolds as biomaterials to form a 3D matrix or based on non-adherent and/or matrix-free matrices to form the spheroids. In this review, we first summarize a comparison between 2D and 3D cultures. Then, we focus on the different components of the natural extracellular matrix that can be used as supports in 3D culture. Then we detail different types of natural supports such as matrigel, hydrogels, hard supports, and different synthetic strategies of 3D matrices such as lyophilization, electrospiding, stereolithography, microfluid by citing the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. Finally, we summarize the different methods of generating normal and tumor spheroids, citing their respective advantages and disadvantages in order to obtain an ideal 3D model (matrix) that retains the following characteristics: better biocompatibility, good mechanical properties corresponding to the tumor tissue, degradability, controllable microstructure and chemical components like the tumor tissue, favorable nutrient exchange and easy separation of the cells from the matrix.

The Impact of Obesity, Adipose Tissue, and Tumor Microenvironment on Macrophage Polarization and Metastasis

“…An ECM is a microenvironment with complex biomechanical and physico-chemical properties. This structure provides a platform for cell growth and tissue homeostasis in all organs [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Histologically, it is composed of the following two major parts: (i) the structural interstitial matrix surrounding the cells (collagen I and fibronectin FN) and (ii) the basement membrane (collagen IV, VIII, X, and laminins) [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ].…”

Patient-derived cancer models: Valuable platforms for anticancer drug testing

“…Multiple synthetic and biological materials have been used to develop scaffolds to support the generation of 3D cultures, mimicking ECM. Examples include hydroxyapatite-graphene (116), polyethylene glycol oxide (117), chitosan alginate (118)(119)(120), collagen (76,121) and matrigel (117,122). Different materials present specific advantages but also limitations.…”

An insight into the iPSCs-derived two-dimensional culture and three-dimensional organoid models for neurodegenerative disorders

“…Therefore, analysing the true nature of NDDs is restricted within these models. Due to differences in morphology and organization, two-dimensional cells possess elevated sensitivity when targeted with drug therapies [94]. Even though many two-dimensional models reach the pre-clinical trial stages, translation and applicability to the in vivo setting often fail.…”