4.4 Article

Evaluation of poly (glycerol-adipate) nanoparticle uptake in an In Vitro 3-D brain tumor co-culture model

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Volume 232, Issue 8, Pages 1100-1108

Publisher

SOC EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3181/0612-RM-301

Keywords

biodegradable nanoparticles; medulloblastoma; organotypic culture

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [E19350] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [E19350] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the inherent problems associated with in vivo animal models of tumor growth and metastases, many of the current in vitro brain tumor models also do notaccurately mimic tumor-host brain interactions. Therefore, there is a need to develop such co-culture models to study tumor biology and, importantly, the efficacy of drug delivery systems targeting the brain. So far, few investigations of this nature have been published. In this paper we describe the development of a new model system and its application to drug delivery assessment. For our new model, a co-culture of DAOY cell brain tumor aggregates and organo-typic brain slices was developed. Initially, the DAOY aggregates attached to cerebellum slices and invaded as a unit. Single cells in the periphery of the aggregate detached from the DAOY aggregates and gradually replaced normal brain cells. This invasive behavior of DAOY cells toward organotypic cerebellum slices shows a similar pattern to that seen in vivo. A er validation of the co-culture model using transmission electron microscopy, nanoparticle (NP) uptake was then evaluated. Confocal micrographs illustrated that DAOY cells in this co-culture model took up most of the NPs, but few NPs were distributed into brain cells. This finding corresponded with results of NP uptake in DAOY and brain aggregates reported elsewhere.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available