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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3D Cell Culture Systems: Advantages and Applications

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

A review of the three-dimensional cell culture technique: Approaches, advantages and applications.

Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research

Drug Discovery Goes Three-Dimensional: Goodbye to Flat High-Throughput Screening?

Three-dimensional tissue cultures: current trends and beyond

Current Advances in 3D Dynamic Cell Culture Systems

Modeling Physiological Events in 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture

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

3D Cell Culture: Techniques For and Beyond Organoid Applications

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

Looking into the Future: Toward Advanced 3D Biomaterials for Stem-Cell-Based Regenerative Medicine

Biomaterials for Three-Dimensional Cell Culture: From Applications in Oncology to Nanotechnology

Three-Dimensional in Vitro Cell Culture Models in Drug Discovery and Drug Repositioning

Transcending toward Advanced 3D-Cell Culture Modalities: A Review about an Emerging Paradigm in Translational Oncology