| Literature DB >> 35860331 |
Yoon Jeong1,2, Ashley Tin3, Joseph Irudayaraj1,2,4.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) tumor culture techniques are gaining popularity as in vitro models of tumoral tissue analogues. Despite the widespread interest, need, and present-day effort, most of the 3D tumor culturing methodologies have not gone beyond the inventors' laboratories. This, in turn, limits their applicability and standardization. In this study, we introduce a straightforward and user-friendly approach based on standard 96-well plates with basic amenities for growing 3D tumors in a scaffold-free/scaffold-based format. Hanging drop preparation can be easily employed by flipping a universal 96-well plate. The droplets of the medium generated by the well-plate flip (WPF) method can be easily modified to address various mechanisms and processes in cell biology, including cancer. To demonstrate the applicability and practicality of the conceived approach, we utilized human colorectal carcinoma cells (HCT116) to first show the generation of large scaffold-free 3D tumor spheroids over 1.5 mm in diameter in single-well plates. As a proof-of-concept, we also demonstrate matrix-assisted tumor culture techniques in advancing the broader use of 3D culture systems. The conceptualized WPF approach can be adapted for a range of applications in both basic and applied biological/engineering research.Entities:
Keywords: 3D culture; flip well-plate; hanging drop; scaffold-based; tumor spheroid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35860331 PMCID: PMC9289396 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.898699
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Hanging drop formation by well-plate flip. (A). Schematic illustration of an overfilled and flipped well-plate to generate hanging drop meniscus. (B). Images of 96-well-based strips to compare underfilled wells (−120 and −60 μl) and overfilled wells (20–100 μl) to the maximum volume of a well before/after flipping the plate. (C). Comparison of conventional hanging drop and well-plated hanging drop formation. The mechanistic rationale of hanging drop formation generated at the bottom of a flipped well-plate. Rd is the radius of the pendant drops, and Lc is the capillary length of the well-plate. (D) Representative images of the flipped tube and well-plate overfilled with 60 μl from the maximum volume of each designed dimension (from left to right: 0.7 ml microcentrifuge tubes, Elisa 96-well strip, Black 96-well plate, and 1.1 ml Deep 96-well plate). (E) Images of conventional hanging drop in the lid of a plastic plate and deep well-plate hanging drop.
FIGURE 23D spheroid generation through well-plate flip. (A) Schematic workflow of tumor spheroid generation and sample management for endpoint analysis. (B) Large 3D spheroid of HCT116 cells, uniformly generated at the bottom of the flipped hanging drop in a standard 96-well plate. The 3D spheroids were cultivated for 2 weeks with manual replacement of culture media. The yellow dash box indicates a magnified view of the spheroids in hanging drop formation (C) 3D spheroid generation with different seeding concentrations of HCT-116 cells (D). Microscope images after cultivation for 5 and 7 days. Scale bar = 250 μm. (E) WST-1 assay to assess 3D spheroid proliferation in Day 5 and Day 7; Nondrug treatment and drug treatment of 5-azacytidine (0.5 μM). Data represent mean ± SD (n = 3, biological replicates per condition, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 and ****p < 0.0001 Significance by Student’s t-test.). The results were statistically compared with the groups (on Day 5). (C–E) The initial seeding density of HCT116 cells was from 2 × 104 (Spheroid 1) to 3 × 102 (Spheroid 6) cells per well (a two-fold decrease in each titer).
Summary of spheroid formation techniques along with advantages and disadvantages.
| Methods | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional hanging drop | • Simple | • Low throughput |
| • Inexpensive | • Long-term culture difficult | |
| • Uniform spheroid size | • Not efficient for media exchange | |
| • Small culture volume | ||
| • Labor intensive and time consuming | ||
| • No cell-ECM interaction | ||
| • Transferring of spheroids for analysis | ||
| • Not compatible with most plate readers | ||
| • Evaporation control required | ||
| Nonadherent surface (Liquid overlay method) | • Easy to use | • Long-term culture difficult |
| • Inexpensive | • No cell–ECM interaction | |
| • No specialized equipment | ||
| Cell suspension culture (Rotary cell culture system) | • Simple | • No individual compartments for spheroids |
| • Mass production | • Nonuniformity (size, composition) | |
| • Long-term culture | • High shear force | |
| • Good viability | • No cell–ECM interaction | |
| • Specialized equipment | ||
| Microfabrication (microfluidic device) | • Continuous perfusion | • Difficulty collecting cells for analysis |
| • Precise handling | • High complexity | |
| • Flexibility to study design | • Not available to most users | |
| • Expensive | ||
| Magnetic levitation | • Rapid method to develop heterotypic spheroids | • Requires the magnetic nanoparticles |
| • Nanoparticles’ interference to spheroid assay | ||
| • Difficulty in scale-up | ||
| • Limited spheroid formation | ||
| • Not available to most users | ||
| This work (well-plate flip) | • Simple to use | • Static conditions |
| • No additional cost | • Evaporation control required | |
| • Long-term culture | ||
| • High reproducibility | ||
| • Accessibility to any users | ||
| • Co-culture ability | ||
| • Scaffold-based culture | ||
| • Noncontact environment | ||
| • Compliant with high-throughput screening |
Comparison of 96-well-based commercialized product [Hanging drop plate and Ultra-low attachment (ULA) plate] and our well-plate flip approach.
| Commercialized products | Well-plate flip (WPF) approach (this work) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Hanging drop plate | ULA plate | ||
| Price (in US Market) | $ 30–60 (USD/plate) | $ 30–70 (USD/plate) | Less $1 (USD/plate) |
| Format | Special plate (96 well) + Hanging drop insertion | Special plate (surface coated 96 well) | Any standard 96-well plate |
| Working volume | 10–30 μL/well | 100–200 μL/well | 300–1200 μL/well |
| Long-term culture | Up to 6–7 days | Up to 1–2 weeks | Over 1 month |
| Media replacement | Difficult | Amenable | Amenable |
| Microscope observation | Difficult | Amenable | Amenable |
| Scaffold-based Culture | Difficult | Hard to maintain | Amenable |
FIGURE 3Long-term culture of 3D HCT116 spheroids. (A) Images of 3D spheroids cultivated for an extended time (Day 5, Day 15, and Day 30). (B) Microscopic images of 3D spheroids (on Day 3 and Day 30). (C) The size measurement of HCT116 spheroid for 35 days. The medium was manually replaced after Day 7 (black line: Every 2 days, red line: Every 7 days) through a well-well transfer technique (Supplementary Figure S3). (D) Glucose uptake and (E) lactate release of 3D spheroids on Day 3 and Day 7, generated in different conditions, flipped well-plate method and conventional lid hanging drop method. (F) Flow-cytometric measurement of HTC116 tumor spheroids with a 1-month culture. The spheroids were dissociated completely and stained with Calcein-AM and propidium iodide (PI) for live/dead assay. (G) 2D cell death index determination of 5-azacytidine and (H) Docetaxel. The half the maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values of the drugs were determined from the results of the 2D responses of HCT116 cells. (I) Discrepancy of cell viability assay between 2D and 3D cultures with IC50 of 5-azacytidine and docetaxel. All data represent mean ± SD (n = 3, biological replicates per condition); *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; Significance by Student’s t-test.
FIGURE 4Evaluation of 3D spheroids; cellular motility, matrix embedment, co-culture, and dissemination. (A) Tumor spheroid migration on the 2D bottom of 96-well plate after flipping [middle panel: for 72 h, right panel: drug treatment of docetaxel (10 nM) after 24 and 48 h]. (B) Tumor spheroid embedding assay in the environment of ECM-like hydrogel. 3D HTC 116 spheroids with different sizes (cultivated for 5 days, upper panel and 15 days, lower panel) were embedded in Matrigel and monitored for up to 10 days. (C) Schematic illustration of a WPF approach for co-culture studies. (D) Image of the morphology of IMR-90 fibroblasts adhered to the bottom of a 96-well plate. 3D spheroid dissemination on the 2D substrate with IMR-90 lung fibroblast. (E) Microscopic image of 20% confluency and (F) 50% confluency of IMR-90 fibroblasts with 3D HCT116 spheroid (prepared for 10 days). The scale bar is 500 mm.
FIGURE 5Scaffold-free/scaffold-based 3D culture of tumor spheroid generated in hanging drop formation through well-plate flip. (A,B) Comparison of scaffold-free/scaffold-based 3D spheroid and representative image of Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) staining of scaffold-free/scaffold-based 3D HCT116 spheroid. A mixed gel of alginate (0.5 % wt) and gelatin (1 % wt) was utilized as a 3D substrate. (C) Images of 3D cell culture based on the alginate-gelatin hydrogel scaffold for 1month in hanging drop formation. (D) Schematic of decellularized scaffold-based 3D tumor spheroid generated by hanging drop formation. (E) Comparison images of decellularized mouse intestine (F) DNA quantification of mouse intestine samples, pre- and postdecellularization process. (G) Images of 3D cell culture based on the decellularized intestine for 1 month in hanging drop formation. (H) Histologic H&E analyses of decellularized intestine-based 3D tumor cell culture. upper: day 15 and lower: day 30 (*muscularis externa). (I) Immunohistochemistry images for Ki67 and hematoxylin-stained sections. Brown nuclear stain indicates Ki67 positive (left: Intestine tissue, middle: dECM-based tumor cultured for 15 days, right: dECM-based tumor cultured for 30 days) (*muscularis externa). (J) Percentage of Ki67 expression index (the fraction of Ki67-positive cells) by immunohistochemistry. Data represent mean ± SD; NS, not significant; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, and ****p < 0.0001 by Student’s t-test. (F) n = 3 per condition; (J) n = 5 per condition.