Christen J Boyer1, David H Ballard2, Jungmi W Yun1, Adam Y Xiao1, Jeffery A Weisman3, Mansoureh Barzegar1, Jonathan Steven Alexander4. 1. Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA. 2. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA. 4. Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, USA. jalexa@lsuhsc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cell migration/invasion assays are widely used in commercial drug discovery screening. 3D printing enables the creation of diverse geometric restrictive barrier designs for use in cell motility studies, permitting on-demand assays. Here, the utility of 3D printed cell exclusion spacers (CES) was validated as a cell motility assay. METHODS: A novel CES fit was fabricated using 3D printing and customized to the size and contour of 12 cell culture plates including 6 well plates of basal human brain vascular endothelial (D3) cell migration cells compared with 6 well plates with D3 cells challenged with 1uM cytochalasin D (Cyto-D), an F-actin anti-motility drug. Control and Cyto-D treated cells were monitored over 3 days under optical microscopy. RESULTS: Day 3 cell migration distance for untreated D3 cells was 1515.943μm ± 10.346μm compared to 356.909μm ± 38.562μm for the Cyt-D treated D3 cells (p < 0.0001). By day 3, untreated D3 cells reached confluency and completely filled the original voided spacer regions, while the Cyt-D treated D3 cells remained significantly less motile. CONCLUSIONS: Cell migration distances were significantly reduced by Cyto-D, supporting the use of 3D printing for cell exclusion assays. 3D printed CES have great potential for studying cell motility, migration/invasion, and complex multi-cell interactions.
PURPOSE: Cell migration/invasion assays are widely used in commercial drug discovery screening. 3D printing enables the creation of diverse geometric restrictive barrier designs for use in cell motility studies, permitting on-demand assays. Here, the utility of 3D printed cell exclusion spacers (CES) was validated as a cell motility assay. METHODS: A novel CES fit was fabricated using 3D printing and customized to the size and contour of 12 cell culture plates including 6 well plates of basal human brain vascular endothelial (D3) cell migration cells compared with 6 well plates with D3 cells challenged with 1uM cytochalasin D (Cyto-D), an F-actin anti-motility drug. Control and Cyto-D treated cells were monitored over 3 days under optical microscopy. RESULTS: Day 3 cell migration distance for untreated D3 cells was 1515.943μm ± 10.346μm compared to 356.909μm ± 38.562μm for the Cyt-D treated D3 cells (p < 0.0001). By day 3, untreated D3 cells reached confluency and completely filled the original voided spacer regions, while the Cyt-D treated D3 cells remained significantly less motile. CONCLUSIONS: Cell migration distances were significantly reduced by Cyto-D, supporting the use of 3D printing for cell exclusion assays. 3D printed CES have great potential for studying cell motility, migration/invasion, and complex multi-cell interactions.
Authors: Hyun-Wook Kang; Sang Jin Lee; In Kap Ko; Carlos Kengla; James J Yoo; Anthony Atala Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: David H Ballard; Anthony Paul Trace; Sayed Ali; Taryn Hodgdon; Matthew E Zygmont; Carolynn M DeBenedectis; Stacy E Smith; Michael L Richardson; Midhir J Patel; Summer J Decker; Leon Lenchik Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jeffery A Weisman; David H Ballard; Udayabhanu Jammalamadaka; Karthik Tappa; Jan Sumerel; Horacio B D'Agostino; David K Mills; Pamela K Woodard Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Taryn Hodgdon; Raman Danrad; Midhir J Patel; Stacy E Smith; Michael L Richardson; David H Ballard; Sayed Ali; Anthony Paul Trace; Carolynn M DeBenedectis; Matthew E Zygmont; Leon Lenchik; Summer J Decker Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Robert J Morrison; Khaled N Kashlan; Colleen L Flanangan; Jeanne K Wright; Glenn E Green; Scott J Hollister; Kevin J Weatherwax Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Nina Kramer; Angelika Walzl; Christine Unger; Margit Rosner; Georg Krupitza; Markus Hengstschläger; Helmut Dolznig Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Monica M Laronda; Alexandra L Rutz; Shuo Xiao; Kelly A Whelan; Francesca E Duncan; Eric W Roth; Teresa K Woodruff; Ramille N Shah Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Shuai Leng; Kiaran McGee; Jonathan Morris; Amy Alexander; Joel Kuhlmann; Thomas Vrieze; Cynthia H McCollough; Jane Matsumoto Journal: 3D Print Med Date: 2017-04-26