4.6 Article

Development of three-dimensional lung multicellular spheroids in air- and liquid-interface culture for the evaluation of anticancer therapeutics

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 1701-1709

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2016.3376

关键词

multicellular spheroids; air interface culture; paclitaxel; three-dimensional cell culture; lung cancer

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [R25CA153954]
  2. National Cancer Institute Cancer Nanotechnology Training Center (NCI-CNTC) Postdoctoral Traineeship
  3. Directorate For Engineering
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1508868] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three-dimensional (3D) lung multicellular spheroids (MCS) in liquid-covered culture (LCC) and air-interface culture (AIC) conditions have both been developed for the evaluation of aerosol anticancer therapeutics in solution and aerosols, respectively. The MCS were formed by seeding lung cancer cells on top of collagen where they formed spheroids due to the prevalence of cell-to-cell interactions. LCC MCS were exposed to paclitaxel (PTX) in media whereas AIC MCS were exposed to dry powder PEGylated phospholipid aerosol microparticles containing paclitaxel. The difference in viability for 2D versus 3D culture for both LCC and AIC was evaluated along with the effects of the particles on lung epithelium via transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) measurements. For LCC and AIC conditions, the 3D spheroids were more resistant to treatment with higher IC50 values for A549 and H358 cell lines. TEER results initially indicated a decrease in resistance upon drug or particle exposure, however, these values increased over the course of several days indicating the ability of the cells to recover. Overall, these studies offer a comprehensive in vitro evaluation of aerosol particles used in the treatment of lung cancer while introducing a new method for culturing lung cancer MCS in both LCC and AIC conditions.

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

4.6
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