Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34830082›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2021

3D Cell Culture Systems: Tumor Application, Advantages, and Disadvantages.

Ola Habanjar, Mona Diab-Assaf, Florence Caldefie-Chezet, Laetitia Delort

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 282 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
282citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

282 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

222 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ola HabanjarUniversité Clermont-Auvergne, INRAE, UNH, Unité de Nutrition Humaine, CRNH-Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Mona Diab-AssafEquipe Tumorigénèse Pharmacologie Moléculaire et Anticancéreuse, Faculté des Sciences II, Université Libanaise Fanar, Beyrouth 1500, Liban.
Florence Caldefie-ChezetUniversité Clermont-Auvergne, INRAE, UNH, Unité de Nutrition Humaine, CRNH-Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Laetitia DelortUniversité Clermont-Auvergne, INRAE, UNH, Unité de Nutrition Humaine, CRNH-Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The traditional two-dimensional (2D) in vitro cell culture system (on a flat support) has long been used in cancer research. However, this system cannot be fully translated into clinical trials to ideally represent physiological conditions. This culture cannot mimic the natural tumor microenvironment due to the lack of cellular communication (cell-cell) and interaction (cell-cell and cell-matrix). To overcome these limitations, three-dimensional (3D) culture systems are increasingly developed in research and have become essential for tumor research, tissue engineering, and basic biology research. 3D culture has received much attention in the field of biomedicine due to its ability to mimic tissue structure and function. The 3D matrix presents a highly dynamic framework where its components are deposited, degraded, or modified to delineate functions and provide a platform where cells attach to perform their specific functions, including adhesion, proliferation, communication, and apoptosis. So far, various types of models belong to this culture: either the culture based on natural or synthetic adherent matrices used to design 3D scaffolds as biomaterials to form a 3D matrix or based on non-adherent and/or matrix-free matrices to form the spheroids. In this review, we first summarize a comparison between 2D and 3D cultures. Then, we focus on the different components of the natural extracellular matrix that can be used as supports in 3D culture. Then we detail different types of natural supports such as matrigel, hydrogels, hard supports, and different synthetic strategies of 3D matrices such as lyophilization, electrospiding, stereolithography, microfluid by citing the advantages and disadvantages of each of them. Finally, we summarize the different methods of generating normal and tumor spheroids, citing their respective advantages and disadvantages in order to obtain an ideal 3D model (matrix) that retains the following characteristics: better biocompatibility, good mechanical properties corresponding to the tumor tissue, degradability, controllable microstructure and chemical components like the tumor tissue, favorable nutrient exchange and easy separation of the cells from the matrix.

Indexed as

Cell Culture Techniques, Three DimensionalTissue EngineeringTumor MicroenvironmentAnimalsHumansNeoplasmsSpheroids, Cellularextracellular matrixhydrogelspheroidsthree-dimensional (3D) culture modeltissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID34830082
PMCPMC8618305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.