4.7 Article

Perfused Three-dimensional Organotypic Culture of Human Cancer Cells for Therapeutic Evaluation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09686-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs, UK) [NC/P002374/1]
  2. Cancer Research UK [A19277]
  3. Cancer Research UK Oxford Cancer Research Centre
  4. Cancer Research UK [19277] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) [NC/P002374/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pharmaceutical research requires pre-clinical testing of new therapeutics using both in-vitro and in-vivo models. However, the species specificity of non-human in-vivo models and the inadequate recapitulation of physiological conditions in-vitro are intrinsic weaknesses. Here we show that perfusion is a vital factor for engineered human tissues to recapitulate key aspects of the tumour microenvironment. Organotypic culture and human tumour explants were allowed to grow long-term (14-35 days) and phenotypic features of perfused microtumours compared with those in the static culture. Differentiation status and therapeutic responses were significantly different under perfusion, indicating a distinct biological response of cultures grown under static conditions. Furthermore, heterogeneous co-culture of tumour and endothelial cells demonstrated selective cell-killing under therapeutic perfusion versus episodic delivery. We present a perfused 3D microtumour culture platform that sustains a more physiological tissue state and increased viability for long-term analyses. This system has the potential to tackle the disadvantages inherit of conventional pharmaceutical models and is suitable for precision medicine screening of tumour explants, particularly in hard-to-treat cancer types such as brain cancer which suffer from a lack of clinical samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据