4.6 Article

Cell-free DNA in a three-dimensional spheroid cell culture model: A preliminary study

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocel.2017.06.014

关键词

Cell-free DNA; 3D cell culture; Spheroid; Capillary electrophoresis; Rotating bioreactors

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa [SFH14061869958, RCA13091339132]
  2. NRF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Investigating the biological functions of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is limited by the interference of vast numbers of putative sources and causes of DNA release into circulation. Utilization of three-dimensional (3D) spheroid cell cultures, models with characteristics closer to the in vivo state, may be of significant benefit for cfDNA research. Methods: CfDNA was isolated from the growth medium of C3A spheroid cultures in rotating bioreactors during both normal growth and treatment with acetaminophen. Spheroid growth was monitored via planimetry, lactate dehydrogenase activity and glucose consumption and was related to isolated cfDNA characteristics. Results: Changes in spheroid growth and stability were effectively mirrored by cfDNA characteristics. CfDNA characteristics correlated with that of previous two-dimensional (2D) cell culture and human plasma research. Conclusions: 3D spheroid cultures can serve as effective, simplified in vivo-simulating closed-circuit models since putative sources of cfDNA are limited to only the targeted cells. In addition, cfDNA can also serve as an alternative or auxiliary marker for tracking spheroid growth, development and culture stability. Biological significance: 3D cell cultures can be used to translate closed-circuit in vitro model research into data that is relevant for in vivo studies and clinical applications. In turn, the utilization of cfDNA during 3D culture research can optimize sample collection without affecting the stability of the growth environment. Combining 3D culture and cfDNA research could, therefore, optimize both research fields.

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