| Literature DB >> 33946403 |
Evran E Ural1,2, Victoria Toomajian1,2, Ehsanul Hoque Apu1,2,3, Mladen Veletic3,4, Ilangko Balasingham3,4, Nureddin Ashammakhi1,2,5, Masamitsu Kanada1,6, Christopher H Contag1,2,7.
Abstract
Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are cell-derived nanostructures that mediate intercellular communication by delivering complex signals in normal tissues and cancer. The cellular coordination required for tumor development and maintenance is mediated, in part, through EV transport of molecular cargo to resident and distant cells. Most studies on EV-mediated signaling have been performed in two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cell cultures, largely because of their simplicity and high-throughput screening capacity. Three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures can be used to study cell-to-cell and cell-to-matrix interactions, enabling the study of EV-mediated cellular communication. 3D cultures may best model the role of EVs in formation of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and cancer cell-stromal interactions that sustain tumor growth. In this review, we discuss EV biology in 3D culture correlates of the TME. This includes EV communication between cell types of the TME, differences in EV biogenesis and signaling associated with differing scaffold choices and in scaffold-free 3D cultures and cultivation of the premetastatic niche. An understanding of EV biogenesis and signaling within a 3D TME will improve culture correlates of oncogenesis, enable molecular control of the TME and aid development of drug delivery tools based on EV-mediated signaling.Entities:
Keywords: cell-to-matrix interactions; extracellular vesicles (EVs); scaffold; three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models; tumor microenvironment (TME)
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33946403 PMCID: PMC8125158 DOI: 10.3390/ijms22094784
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Schematic illustration of various methods to study extracellular vesicles (EVs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME) including spheroids, organoids, tumor explants, organ-on-a-chip and zebrafish. Created with BioRender.com (accessed on 3 April 2021).
Key advantages and limitations of the currently available 3D culture models for studying EVs.
| TME Model | Common Methods of EV Imaging | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2D cell monolayers |
Lipophilic dye (e.g., PKH, DiR, or DiI) [ Fluorescent protein labeling [ Bioluminescent protein labeling [ Raman Imaging [ |
Quick High throughput Cost-effective |
Unrepresentative protein/gene expression [ Cell-cell interactions confined to 2D plane Fewer cell-ECM interactions |
| Small mammalian animal models |
Lipophilic dye [ Fluorescent protein labeling [ Bioluminescent protein labeling [ Intravital fluorescence microscopy [ Nuclear imaging i.e., SPECT, PET [ MRI, MPI [ |
3D cellular interactions within TME TME crosstalk with systemic signals |
Low clinical success rate [ Non-human cell types Cost-intensive Time-consuming Difficult to track EVs long-term [ |
| Cancer spheroids |
Lipophilic dye [ Fluorescent protein labeling [ |
EV size, cargo and biogenesis representative of patient plasma EVs [ Spatial and physical aspects of TME (e.g., 3D cell-cell and/or cell-ECM interactions) [ Relatively simple set up for cancer cell culture and co-culture systems CSC production [ |
Limited cell types present in a tumor |
| Stem cell-derived organoids |
Lipophilic dye [ |
Representative EV size, cargo and biogenesis of patient plasma EVs [ Self-organized by self-renewal [ Heterogeneity of cell types and stemness gradient present in an organ and EVs |
Higher cost for growth factors Long-term culture required for stem cell differentiation |
| Organ-on-a-chip |
Lipophilic dye [ Fluorescent protein labeling [ |
Spaciotemporal control of biochemical signals [ Unidirectional perfusion vascular systems [ Steady cell metabolism for over time [ Long-term culture of normal cells and tissues |
Lacking models of the immune system in TME [ More laborious Cost of hardware e.g., chips, microfluidic pumps |
| Tissue explants |
Label free multimodal imaging [ |
Preserves original tissue architecture [ Physiologically relevant [ |
Short-term cultures [ Cost-intensive [ Lower feasibility |
| Zebrafish |
Lipophilic dye (e.g., MemBright) [ Fluorescent protein labeling [ |
Similar complex vascular systems to humans Transparency of embryos for live cell and EV imaging High throughput due to ease of genetic modifications and high fecundity |
Xenograft models misrepresent systemic signaling to the TME due to xenograft implantations in non-physiologic site Differences in host niche and environmental factors in xenografts |
Figure 2Schematic illustration of tumor microenvironment (TME) showing how the extracellular vesicles (EVs) are secreted by tumor cells that act on other cells in the tumor and on the extracellular matrix (ECM). In the TME, interaction with the ECM also influences tumor cells and lead to EV release. ECM sends biochemical signals and mechanical cues to tumor cells that affects EV biogenesis and cargo loading. Created with BioRender.com (accessed on 3 April 2021).
Figure 3Schematic illustration of how 3D extracellular matrix (ECM) within the tumor microenvironment (TME) can affect the phenotype of tumor cells and biogenesis of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and how EVs interact with ECM and subsequently signal to tumor-associated stromal cells such as mesenchymal stem cells, immune cells and tumor-associated fibroblasts. Created with BioRender.com (accessed on 3 April 2021).