4.6 Article

Comparative Study of Multicellular Tumor Spheroid Formation Methods and implications for Drug Screening

期刊

ACS BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 410-420

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00069

关键词

polyNIPAAM; 3D; ovarian cancer; breast cancer; prostate cancer; mafosfamide

资金

  1. Pew Charitable Trusts
  2. National Institute of Health (NIH) New Innovator award [DP2CA186573-01]
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER grant [DMR-1454806]
  4. National Research Service Award from NIH [T32 GM008515]
  5. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship [1451512]
  6. National Research Service Award from the National Institutes of Health [T32 GM008515]
  7. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [DP2CA186573] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R25GM086264, T32GM008515] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Improved in vitro models are needed to better understand cancer progression and bridge the gap between in vitro proof-of-concept studies, in vivo validation, and clinical application. Multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) are a popular method for three-dimensional (3D) cell culture, because they capture some aspects of the dimensionality, cell cell contact, and cell matrix interactions seen in vivo. Many approaches exist to create MCTS from cell lines, and they have been used to study tumor cell invasion, growth, and how cells respond to drugs in physiologically relevant 3D microenvironments. However, there are several discrepancies in the observations made of cell behaviors when comparing between MCTS formation methods. To resolve these inconsistencies, we created and compared the behavior of breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer cells across three MCTS formation methods: in polyNIPAAM gels, in microwells, or in suspension culture. These methods formed MCTS via proliferation from single cells or passive aggregation, and therefore showed differential reliance on genes important for cell cell or cell matrix interactions. We also found that the MCTS formation method dictated drug sensitivity, where MCTS formed over longer periods of time via clonal growth were more resistant to treatment. Toward clinical application, we compared an ovarian cancer cell line MCTS formed in polyNIPAAM with cells from patient-derived malignant ascites. The method that relied on clonal growth (PolyNIPAAM gel) was more time and cost intensive, but yielded MCTS that were uniformly spherical, and exhibited the most reproducible drug responses. Conversely, MCTS methods that relied on aggregation were faster, but yielded MCTS with grapelike, lobular structures. These three MCTS formation methods differed in culture time requirements and complexity, and had distinct drug response profiles, suggesting the choice of MCTS formation method should be carefully chosen based on the application required.

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