Abstract:It is well known that three‐dimensional (3D) cultures can more accurately represent physiological cell responses, and that two‐dimensional (2D) in vitro cell culture systems fall short in predicting tumor cell behavior in vivo . Major shortcomings of 2D cell culture systems include altered cell morphologies, reduced aggression, and an inaccurate representation of the dynamic 3D cellular environment experienced by cells in vivo . These 2D cell culture obstacles become even more deleterious to research when performing drug screenings or studying disease pathogenesis. Hence, cancer research demands a more biologically relevant in vitro model system that can improve drug discovery success rates to combat rising rates of cancer and other diseases. Moreover, an accurate and reproducible in vitro model will accelerate the drug discovery process and significantly reduce development costs. To this end, we have engineered a novel transparent 3D polystyrene (PS) scaffold to meet the emerging demand. We hypothesize that these 3D PS scaffolds are a superior 3D in vitro model for tumor pathogenesis research and drug discovery and development. To test our hypothesis we cultured and observe the growth of two cancer cell lines, human epithelial MCF‐7 cells and HepG2 hepatocarcinoma cells, on both 2D PS‐tissue culture plates (TCP) and 3D PS scaffolds (3D Insert™‐PS). Observation by an inverted light microscope indicated that MCF‐7 and HepG2 cells cultured on the 3D PS scaffolds formed cell aggregates along scaffold fibers and within pores, whereas cells cultured on the 2D PS‐TCPs adopted a phenotype characteristically seen in cells growing in flat monolayers. Proliferation time‐course assays performed with MCF‐7 and HepG2 cells demonstrated that growth rates and metabolic activities of cells cultured on 3D scaffolds were significantly enhanced at numerous time points when compared with cells cultured on 2D TCPs, as determined by Alamar blue and MTT assays. These data suggest that 3D Insert™‐PS scaffolds provide an improved in vitro culture environment. The susceptibility of both 2D and 3D cultured MCF‐7 and HepG2 cells to anticancer drugs was assessed by tamoxifen (TAM) [10‐6 M and 10‐5 M] and methotrexate (MTX) [25 µM and 100 µM] treatments, respectively. The cellular cytotoxic response to TAM and MTX was measured by MTT and LDH assays and was found to be significantly lower in MCF‐7 and HepG2 cultured on 3D scaffolds compared with cells cultured in 2D TCPs. Taken together, these data indicate that cancer cells cultured on 3D Insert™‐PS scaffolds are more robust and resistant to anticancer drug treatments than cells cultured on traditional 2D TCPs. Furthermore, 3D Insert™‐PS scaffolds do not have the same limitations encountered with traditional 2D cell culture. In conclusion, using 3D Insert™‐PS scaffolds as in vitro 3D tumor models will provide a superior 3D cell culture environment for cancer research and the evaluation of new anticancer drugs. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(23 Suppl):C64.

Significance of cell culture phases for utilizing 3D cultures of A549 cells for in vitro studies

3D Microgroove Electrical Impedance Sensing to Examine 3D Cell Cultures for Antineoplastic Drug Assessment

3D Cell-Based Biosensor for Cell Viability and Drug Assessment by 3D Electric Cell/matrigel-Substrate Impedance Sensing.

Culturing substrates influence the morphological, mechanical and biochemical features of lung adenocarcinoma cells cultured in 2D or 3D

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

Abstract 6015: Comprehensive evaluation of three-dimensional (3D) culture systems as compound screening platforms with primary cancer cell lines

Assessing drug uptake and response differences in 2D and 3D cellular environments using stimulated Raman scattering microscopy

Comparing in vitro cytotoxic drug sensitivity in colon and pancreatic cancer using 2D and 3D cell models: Contrasting viability and growth inhibition in clinically relevant dose and repeated drug cycles

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

3D cell culture alters signal transduction and drug response in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

3D Tumer Cell System for in Vitro Screening of Chemotherapeutic Drugs

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

Comparative analysis of 3D culture methods on human HepG2 cells

Flow Analysis of a Porous Polymer Based Three Dimensional Cell Culture Device for Drug Screening

Grafting of 3D Bioprinting to in Vitro Drug Screening: A Review

Abstract 512: Cell-cycle inhibition may influence differences in 2D vs 3D tumor sensitivity profiles

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

Enabling high throughput drug discovery in 3D cell cultures through a novel bioprinting workflow

Application of Self-Assembling Nano-Oligopeptide in Three-Dimensional Culture of Cancer Cell

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

Abstract C64: Polystyrene scaffolds: A novel tool forin vitrothree‐dimensional cancer models