Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42793270›Full record

ReviewCurrent issues in molecular biology2026

Current Perspectives on 2D and 3D Cell Culture Models in Cancer Research: Molecular Determinants of Tumor Biology and Therapeutic Response.

Selma Yıldırım, Juan Gómez-Salgado, Luis El Khoury-Moreno, Özkan Özden

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current issues in molecular biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Selma YıldırımDepartment of Biotechnology, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-3521-3383
Juan Gómez-SalgadoDepartment of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Labour Sciences, University of Huelva, 21007 Huelva, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9053-7730
Luis El Khoury-MorenoDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain.ORCID 0009-0003-8012-8652
Özkan ÖzdenDepartment of Bioengineering, Kafkas University, 36000 Kars, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-9467-3761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer remains a major global health challenge, requiring innovative diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Cell culture models are essential tools in cancer research. While traditional two-dimensional (2D) cultures are widely used because of their accessibility and simplicity, they inadequately represent the tumor microenvironment. This review provides a molecular perspective on the biological differences between 2D and 3D cancer models, emphasizing extracellular matrix signaling, mechanotransduction, metabolic adaptation, tumor heterogeneity, and therapeutic resistance rather than a general comparison of culture systems. It discusses the limitations of 2D models and highlights the advantages of 3D systems, including spheroids and organoids, for more accurately recapitulating the tumor microenvironment and improving the predictive value of anticancer drug testing. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on the roles of 2D and 3D cell culture methods in oncology. The literature was searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science from 2015 to 2026 using keywords including "2D cell culture," "3D cell culture," "spheroids," "organoids," and "cancer." Studies were eligible for inclusion if they addressed cancer research using 2D or 3D cell culture models and provided relevant experimental, preclinical, or translational evidence, particularly regarding tumor microenvironment, extracellular matrix signaling, cellular interactions, therapeutic response, or molecular mechanisms. Studies unrelated to cancer or 2D/3D culture models, duplicate records, and publications lacking relevant primary data were excluded. Study selection was performed by screening titles and abstracts followed by full-text assessment according to the predefined eligibility criteria. Seminal studies were also included when considered relevant to the conceptual framework of the review. Findings were synthesized narratively without quantitative analysis. 2D cultures limit cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix interactions, reducing the applicability of findings to in vivo conditions. In contrast, 3D cultures better reproduce oxygen and nutrient gradients and cellular interactions, providing a more realistic representation of the tumor microenvironment. Recent advances in 3D systems have improved predictive accuracy for drug screening and personalized medicine. Both 2D and 3D culture methods possess unique strengths and limitations. Used in complementary ways, they can improve the translation of in vitro findings to in vivo and clinical applications, accelerating progress in cancer research and therapeutic development.

Indexed as

2D cell culture3D cell culturecancerextracellular matrixtumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID42793270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.