Abstract:The traditional two-dimensional (2D) in vitro cell culture system (on a flat support) has long been used in cancer research. However, this system cannot be fully translated into clinical trials to ideally represent physiological conditions. This culture cannot mimic the natural tumor microenvironment due to the lack of cellular communication (cell-cell) and interaction (cell-cell and cell-matrix). To overcome these limitations, three-dimensional (3D) culture systems are increasingly developed in research and have become essential for tumor research, tissue engineering, and basic biology research. 3D culture has received much attention in the field of biomedicine due to its ability to mimic tissue structure and function. The 3D matrix presents a highly dynamic framework where its components are deposited, degraded, or modified to delineate functions and provide a platform where cells attach to perform their specific functions, including adhesion, proliferation, communication, and apoptosis. So far, various types of models belong to this culture: either the culture based on natural or synthetic adherent matrices used to design 3D scaffolds as biomaterials to form a 3D matrix or based on non-adherent and/or matrix-free matrices to form the spheroids. In this review, we first summarize a comparison between 2D and 3D cultures. Then, we focus on the different components of the natural extracellular matrix that can be used as supports in 3D culture. Then we detail different types of natural supports such as matrigel, hydrogels, hard supports, and different synthetic strategies of 3D matrices such as lyophilization, electrospiding, stereolithography, microfluid by citing the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. Finally, we summarize the different methods of generating normal and tumor spheroids, citing their respective advantages and disadvantages in order to obtain an ideal 3D model (matrix) that retains the following characteristics: better biocompatibility, good mechanical properties corresponding to the tumor tissue, degradability, controllable microstructure and chemical components like the tumor tissue, favorable nutrient exchange and easy separation of the cells from the matrix.

3D Cell Culture—Can It Be As Popular as 2D Cell Culture?

Projection-based 3D Bioprinting for Hydrogel Scaffold Manufacturing

Is It Time to Start Transitioning From 2D to 3D Cell Culture?

3D Cell Culture Technology – A New Insight Into in Vitro Research – A Review

Current Advances in 3D Dynamic Cell Culture Systems

Three-Dimensional Cell Culture with Alginate Hetero Gel Microspheres

3D Cell Cultures: Evolution of an Ancient Tool for New Applications

3D Cell Culture Systems: Advantages and Applications

Three-dimensional tissue cultures: current trends and beyond

3D Bioprinting: A Novel Avenue for Manufacturing Tissues and Organs

Trinity of Three-Dimensional (3D) Scaffold, Vibration, and 3D Printing on Cell Culture Application: A Systematic Review and Indicating Future Direction

3D Bioprinting: an Emerging Technology Full of Opportunities and Challenges

3D Cell Culture Systems: Tumor Application, Advantages, and Disadvantages

3D Cardiac Cell Culture: A Critical Review of Current Technologies and Applications

Towards a New 3Rs Era in the construction of 3D cell culture models simulating tumor microenvironment

Biomaterials based on hyaluronic acid, collagen and peptides for three-dimensional cell culture and their application in stem cell differentiation

Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Systems and Their Applications in Drug Discovery and Cell-Based Biosensors

Three-Dimensional Spheroid Culture of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Offering Therapeutic Advantages and In Vitro Glimpses of the In Vivo State

Three-Dimensional In Vitro Cell Culture Models for Efficient Drug Discovery: Progress So Far and Future Prospects

Microfluidic 3D cell culture: potential application for tissue-based bioassays

Bioprinting of Cell-Laden Microfiber: Can It Become a Standard Product?