| Literature DB >> 35005036 |
Shikha Chaudhary1, Eliza Chakraborty2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evolution in the in vitro cell culture from conventional 2D to 3D technique has been a significant accomplishment. The 3D culture models have provided a close and better insight into the physiological study of the human body. The increasing demand for organs like liver, kidney, and pancreas for transplantation, rapid anti-cancer drug screening, and the limitations associated with the use of animal models have attracted the interest of researchers to explore 3D organ culture. MAIN BODY: Natural, synthetic, and hybrid material-based hydrogels are being used as scaffolds in 3D culture and provide 'close-to-in vivo' structures. Organoids: the stem cell-derived small size 3D culture systems are now favored due to their ability to mimic the in-vivo conditions of organ or tissue and this characteristic has made it eligible for a variety of clinical applications, drug discovery and regenerative medicine are a few of the many areas of application. The use of animal models for clinical applications has been a long-time ethical and biological challenge to get accurate outcomes. 3D bioprinting has resolved the issue of vascularization in organoid culture to a great extent by its layer-by-layer construction approach. The 3D bioprinted organoids have a popular application in personalized disease modeling and rapid drug development and therapeutics. SHORTEntities:
Keywords: 3D cell culture; Disease models; Extra Cellular Matrix; Hydrogel; Organoid; Personalized medicine; Stem cells; Tissue Engineering; Vascularization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35005036 PMCID: PMC8725962 DOI: 10.1186/s43088-021-00172-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Beni Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci ISSN: 2314-8535
Classification of natural and synthetic hydrogels: material, source, characteristic, application and reference
| Material | Source | Characteristic | Application | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alginate | Brown Seaweed | Low cytotoxicity | Cell-laden bio inks in 3D-bioprinting | [ |
| Less Immunogenicity | ||||
| Ability to cross link | ||||
| Biodegradable | ||||
| Gelatin | Fish, Cattle, Bone, Skin, Pig, etc | Biocompatible | Bone tissue engineering | [ |
| Biodegradable | ||||
| Low antigenicity | ||||
| Non-toxic | ||||
| Low mechanical stability | ||||
| Collagen | Rat tail, Bovine tendon, Jelly fish, Porcine, etc | Low viscosity | Tissue engineering and drug delivery | [ |
| Low immunogenicity | ||||
| Biocompatible | ||||
| Hyaluronic Acid | Human and Bacterial fermentation | Immunoneutral. Polysaccharide | Dynamic cell patterning | [ |
| Non-adhesive | ||||
| Silk Fibroin | Silkworm (Bombyx mori) | High strength and stiffness | Useful in Bone tissue engineering | [ |
| Biocompatible and biodegradable | ||||
| Fibrin | Human Plasma | Biocompatible | Fibrin-hybrid constructs useful cartilage, cardiac, smooth muscle cultures and drug delivery systems | [ |
| High cell affinity | ||||
| Rapid degradability | ||||
| Weak mechanical strength | ||||
| i. Plant—lignocellulose materials based | ||||
| Cellulose | Plant cell and natural fibres | Highly crystalline | Application in biomedical | [ |
| Low water solubility | ||||
| Slow biodegradability in vivo | ||||
| Hemicellulose | Plant cell wall | Biocompatible | Application in biomedical | [ |
| Non-toxic | ||||
| Biodegradable | ||||
| Lignin | Plant cell wall | Biodegradable | Drug delivery and tissue engineering | [ |
| Hydrophobic | ||||
| Antioxidant | ||||
| Antimicrobial | ||||
| High global availability | ||||
| ii. Plant—polysaccharide Based | ||||
| Starch | Chloroplast and amyloplast of the plant | Hydrophilic | Tissue engineering, Drug delivery, Agricultural usage, water treatment, Food industry | [ |
| Biocompatible | ||||
| Pectin | Fruit peels and pulp, sugar beet, sunflower heads | High gelling capacity | Drug delivery and tissue engineering | [ |
| Hydrophilic | ||||
| iii. Plant—gum based | ||||
| Natural gums | Plant exudation, seed endosperm, tree exudation | Excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability | Tissue engineering, Drug delivery, Can be used for oral delivery platform | [ |
| Mimic ECM | ||||
| Renewable | ||||
| Edible | ||||
| iv. Plant protein based | ||||
| Soy | Soybean | Biocompatible | Tissue engineering, drug delivery, regenerative medicine | [ |
| Bio reactive | ||||
| Biodegradable | ||||
| High water holding capacity | ||||
| Zein | Corn kernels | Hydrophobic | Tissue engineering, drug delivery, regenerative medicine | [ |
| Poly Ethylene Glycol | By-products of petroleum | Compositionally consistent | In combination with natural polymer suitable as scaffold | [ |
| Non-toxic | ||||
| Hydrophilic | ||||
| Poly Vinyl Alcohol | Hydrolysis of Poly vinyl acetate | Lack biologically active sites | In combination with natural polymer suitable as scaffold | [ |
| Poly Acrylic Acid | Low Mechanical Strength | In combination with natural polymer suitable as scaffold | [ | |
Fig. 1Classification of hydrogel. Courtesy of Malpure et al. [65]
Comparative study of 3D cell culture over animal models
| Parameter | 3D cell culture (organoid) | Animal model | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | Low | Expensive | [ |
| Immunogenic response | Incorporation of immunogenic components under research | The response occurs in normal animal models however immunodeficient models lack such responses | [ |
| Vascularization | Not present | Reflect to in vivo | [ |
| Ethical concerns | No ethical issues because no animal testing is required. Only the use of animal serum raises concerns for animal welfare and human biosafety | Ethical concerns required to be addressed | [ |
| Experimental complexity | Less complex | Higher organisms are used therefore high complexity | [ |
| Human in vivo imitation | Imitate the source tissue or organ | Does not imitate due to variation at the genetic level | [ |
| Genetic expression | Reflective to humans | Differ from humans | [ |
| Cell microenvironment | Lack microenvironment, therefore, scaffolds used | Present naturally | [ |
| Reproducibility | Low since scaffolds are used | Not satisfactory | [ |
Fig. 2Various animal models used for research and therapeutic studies: Xenopus, rodent, rabbit, and fish mostly preferred because of their small size, easy maintenance in laboratories, small gestation period, and a high number of live young. Genetic similarity between these organisms and humans makes them a preferable choice as human disease models. Pig and Monkey are used in research due to their organ size, and structure. The development of new genome modification tools resulted in regaining the interest of researchers towards large size non-rodent and non-human species
Methods to develop vascularization, their advantages and disadvantages
| Method | Process | Advantage | Disadvantage | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth factor delivery system (VEGF, bFGF, PDGF, TGF, Angiopoietin-1 and 2) | Most basic and simple method is to load or coat the growth factor of interest to the scaffold | Pre encapsulation method ensured a prolonged release of growth factors providing high degree of vascularization | Short effective half-life due to their poor stability or fast blood clearance | [ |
| Protein Modification techniques | High concentration use can induce cancer development | |||
| Pre-encapsulation of growth factors in dual drug delivery systems of micro or nanospheres before embedding into a scaffold | ||||
| Engineered scaffold designing | Channeled scaffold prepared by incorporating phosphate based glass fibers into collagen scaffolds or by laser cutting technique | Oxygen diffusion rate, cell alignment and angiogenesis may be controlled | [ | |
| Micro patterning and molecular gradients | Improved cell viability | |||
| Endothelial cell co-culture | Endothelial cells introduced in the tissue via 3D multicellular spheroids or simple mixing of cultures (co-culturing) | Lumenized capillary like network develop | Functional anastomosis into host vasculature remain unsolved | [ |
| Growth factor producing cells (Mesenchymal Stem Cells) | Growth factors like VEGF secreted in vivo models | Improve angiogenesis | Heterogeneity nature of MSCs and individual to individual variance major limitation that delay clinical translation of MSCs | [ |
| Transfection of human MSCs with VEGF-plasmid coated scaffolds | ||||
| iPSCs | Co culture of hiPSC-endothelial cells and hiPSC-derived pericytes/MSCs led to development of tube like structure | Un-exhaustible cell source to form pre-vascularized systems | High chances of tumor formation due to the ‘unsafe’ iPSC lines and residual undifferentiated iPSCs in final product | [ |
| Scaffold vessel formation | Cells (generally endothelial cells) are seeded in the scaffold to form vessel like structure before implantation | Therapeutic angiogenesis can occur in a very short period of time | Endothelial cells lack high proliferative turnover in-vitro so cannot always be cultured in therapeutic quantities | [ |
| Cell sheet technology | Cells seeded on a smart cell culture substrate (example—temperature responsive substrate) to produce a 2D sheet of pre vascularized tissue | No requirement of a preexisting scaffold | - | [ |
| Rapid wound healing | ||||
| In vivo bioreactor system | A scaffold implanted subcutaneously for a period of time to allow neovascularization. Flap technique and AV-loop are two important techniques for in-vivo pre-vascularization | Increased cell survival, proliferation, and vascular infiltration | Inappropriate porous microstructure | [ |
Fig. 3Vascularized organoid development from stem cells on the extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffold by co-culturing with endothelial cells or immobilizing the developed organoid in highly vascular tissue
Fig. 4Comparison between common therapy and personalized therapy: a single drug for a particular disease when administered by a group of people would show highly variable effects. Personalized drugs customized based on genetic analysis and tested on disease models provide a clear effectivity rate of the drug
Fig. 5Drug screening on in vitro hydrogel-based diseased 3D micro models can provide accurate data about the efficacy of the personalized drugs designed