Media additives to promote spheroid circularity and compactness in hanging drop platform
Source abstract
Abstract
Three-dimensional spheroid cultures have become increasingly popular as drug screening platforms, especially with the advent of different high throughput spheroid forming technologies. However, comparing drug efficacy across different cell types in spheroid culture can be difficult due to variations in spheroid morphologies and transport characteristics. Improving the reproducibility of compact, circular spheroids contributes to standardizing and increasing the fidelity of the desired gradient profiles in these drug screening three-dimensional tissue cultures. In this study we discuss the role that circularity and compaction has on spheroids, and demonstrate the impact methylcellulose (MethoCel) and collagen additives in the culture media can contribute to more compact and circular spheroid morphology. We demonstrate that improved spheroid formation is not a simple function of increased viscosity of the different macromolecule additives, suggesting that other macromolecular characteristics contribute to improved spheroid formation. Of the various macromolecular additives tested for hanging drop culture, MethoCel provided the most desirable spheroid formation. Additionally, the higher viscosity of MethoCel-containing media improved the ease of imaging of cellular spheroids within hanging drop cultures by reducing motion-induced image blur.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: 3D Printing in Biomedical Research · Cancer Cells and Metastasis · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Biointerfaces Institute
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor
USA
Funding
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada · National Institutes of Health · Division of Graduate Education
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. Hirschhaeuser · J. Biotechnol. · 2010 · 148 · 310.1016/j.jbiotec.2010.01.012 ↗
2. Fennema · Trends Biotechnol. · 2013 · 31 · 10810.1016/j.tibtech.2012.12.003 ↗
3. Wirz · Differentiation · 2008 · 76 · 78410.1111/j.1432-0436.2007.00260.x ↗
4. Lin · Biotechnol. J. · 2008 · 3 · 117210.1002/biot.200700228 ↗
5. Kurosawa · J. Biosci. Bioeng. · 2007 · 103 · 38910.1263/jbb.103.389 ↗
6. Tung · Analyst · 2011 · 136 · 47310.1039/C0AN00609B ↗
7. Timmins · Angiogenesis · 2004 · 7 · 9710.1007/s10456-004-8911-7 ↗
8. Kelm · Tissue Eng. · 2004 · 10 · 20110.1089/107632704322791853 ↗
9. Wagner · Lab Chip · 2013 · 13 · 353810.1039/c3lc50234a ↗
10. Hsiao · Biotechnol. Bioeng. · 2012 · 109 · 129310.1002/bit.24399 ↗
11. Hsiao · Biomed. Microdevices · 2012 · 14 · 31310.1007/s10544-011-9608-5 ↗
12. Ivascu · Int. J. Oncol. · 2007 · 31 · 1403
13. Gwak · J. Biomed. Mater Res., Part A · 2006 · 78 · 26810.1002/jbm.a.30687 ↗
14. De Bank · Biotechnol. Bioeng. · 2007 · 97 · 161710.1002/bit.21343 ↗
15. Lin · Cell Tissue Res. · 2006 · 324 · 41110.1007/s00441-005-0148-2 ↗
16. Longati · BMC Cancer · 2013 · 13 · 9510.1186/1471-2407-13-95 ↗
17. Haeger · Cells Tissues Organs · 2011 · 193 · 27410.1159/000320544 ↗
18. Urich · Sci. Rep. · 2013 · 3 · 150010.1038/srep01500 ↗
19. Dang · Biotechnol. Bioeng. · 2002 · 78 · 44210.1002/bit.10220 ↗
20. Sasaki · Keio J. Med. · 2012 · 61 · 5710.2302/kjm.61.57 ↗
21. Mueller-Klieser · Biophys. J. · 1984 · 46 · 34310.1016/S0006-3495(84)84030-8 ↗
22. Grimes · J. R. Soc., Interface · 2014 · 11 · 2013112410.1098/rsif.2013.1124 ↗
23. Ivascu · J. Biomol. Screening · 2006 · 11 · 92210.1177/1087057106292763 ↗
24. Debnath · Nat. Rev. Cancer · 2005 · 5 · 67510.1038/nrc1695 ↗
25. Chen · Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. · 2011 · 63 · 27710.1016/j.addr.2011.03.003 ↗
26. Satyam · Adv. Mater. · 2014 · 26 · 302410.1002/adma.201304428 ↗
27. Kojima · Biomaterials · 2012 · 33 · 450810.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.02.065 ↗
28. Sacan · Bioinformatics · 2008 · 24 · 164710.1093/bioinformatics/btn247 ↗