ReviewIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal2021
Factors to consider when interrogating 3D culture models with plate readers or automated microscopes.
Review in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Characterization of Biocompatibility of Functional Bioinks for 3D Bioprinting.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Optimization of 3D-aggregated spheroid model (3D-ASM) for selecting high efficacy drugs.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- OrganoID: A versatile deep learning platform for tracking and analysis of single-organoid dynamics.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Three-dimensional in vitro culture models in oncology research.Cell & bioscience · 2022Review
- SERS and Fluorescence-Active Multimodal Tessellated Scaffolds for Three-Dimensional Bioimaging.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2022Article
- Drug-Induced Nephrotoxicity Assessment in 3D Cellular Models.Micromachines · 2021Review
- In vivo imaging of EVs in zebrafish: New perspectives from "the waterside".FASEB bioAdvances · 2021Review
- In vitro and ex vivo models of the oral mucosa as platforms for the validation of novel drug delivery systems.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Along with the increased use of more physiologically relevant three-dimensional cell culture models comes the responsibility of researchers to validate new assay methods that measure events in structures that are physically larger and more complex compared to monolayers of cells. It should not be assumed that assays designed using monolayers of cells will work for cells cultured as larger three-dimensional masses. The size and barriers for penetration of molecules through the layers of cells result in a different microenvironment for the cells in the outer layer compared to the center of three-dimensional structures. Diffusion rates for nutrients and oxygen may limit metabolic activity which is often measured as a marker for cell viability. For assays that lyse cells, the penetration of reagents to achieve uniform cell lysis must be considered. For live cell fluorescent imaging assays, the diffusion of fluorescent probes and penetration of photons of light for probe excitation and fluorescent emission must be considered. This review will provide an overview of factors to consider when implementing assays to interrogate three dimensional cell culture models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.