Open Access
Open access
Scientific Reports, volume 6, issue 1, publication number 28951

Capturing tumor complexity in vitro: Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D tumor models for drug discovery

Stock Kristin 1
Estrada Marta F 2, 3
Vidic Suzana 4, 5, 6
Gjerde Kjersti 4, 5
Rudisch Albin 7
Santo Vítor E 2, 3
Barbier Michaël 4
Blom Sami 8
Arundkar Sharath C 9
Selvam Irwin 7
Osswald Annika 7, 10
Stein Yan 9
Gruenewald Sylvia 1
Brito Catarina 2, 3
van Weerden Wytske 5
ROTTER VARDA 9
Boghaert Erwin 11
Oren Moshe 9
Sommergruber Wolfgang 7
Chong Yolanda 4
de Hoogt Ronald 4
Graeser Ralph 12
1
 
Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany
2
 
iBET, Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica, Oeiras, Portugal
3
 
Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica António Xavier, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Av. da República, 2780-157 Oeiras, Portugal ,
4
 
Janssen Pharmaceutica nv, Belgium
5
 
ERASMUS MC, The Netherlands
6
 
Faculty of Mathematics, University of Primorska, Slovenia
7
 
Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, GmbH & Co. KG, Doktor-Boehringer-Gasse 5-11, 1120 Wien, Austria ,
8
 
Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, Finland
11
 
AbbVie, 1 North Waukegan Road, IL 60064-6098, USA
12
 
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Germany
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2016-07-01
Quartile SCImago
Q1
Quartile WOS
Q2
Impact factor4.6
ISSN20452322
PubMed ID:  27364600
Multidisciplinary
Abstract
Two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures growing on plastic do not recapitulate the three dimensional (3D) architecture and complexity of human tumors. More representative models are required for drug discovery and validation. Here, 2D culture and 3D mono- and stromal co-culture models of increasing complexity have been established and cross-comparisons made using three standard cell carcinoma lines: MCF7, LNCaP, NCI-H1437. Fluorescence-based growth curves, 3D image analysis, immunohistochemistry and treatment responses showed that end points differed according to cell type, stromal co-culture and culture format. The adaptable methodologies described here should guide the choice of appropriate simple and complex in vitro models.

Citations by journals

2
4
6
8
10
12
Cancers
Cancers, 12, 6.56%
Cancers
12 publications, 6.56%
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports, 9, 4.92%
Scientific Reports
9 publications, 4.92%
Methods in Molecular Biology
Methods in Molecular Biology, 6, 3.28%
Methods in Molecular Biology
6 publications, 3.28%
SLAS Discovery
SLAS Discovery, 5, 2.73%
SLAS Discovery
5 publications, 2.73%
Acta Biomaterialia
Acta Biomaterialia, 5, 2.73%
Acta Biomaterialia
5 publications, 2.73%
Biomaterials
Biomaterials, 5, 2.73%
Biomaterials
5 publications, 2.73%
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 4, 2.19%
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
4 publications, 2.19%
Biomaterials Science
Biomaterials Science, 4, 2.19%
Biomaterials Science
4 publications, 2.19%
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers in Pharmacology, 3, 1.64%
Frontiers in Pharmacology
3 publications, 1.64%
Drug Delivery and Translational Research
Drug Delivery and Translational Research, 3, 1.64%
Drug Delivery and Translational Research
3 publications, 1.64%
Frontiers in Oncology
Frontiers in Oncology, 3, 1.64%
Frontiers in Oncology
3 publications, 1.64%
Bio-Design and Manufacturing
Bio-Design and Manufacturing, 3, 1.64%
Bio-Design and Manufacturing
3 publications, 1.64%
Biofabrication
Biofabrication, 3, 1.64%
Biofabrication
3 publications, 1.64%
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering, 3, 1.64%
ACS Biomaterials Science and Engineering
3 publications, 1.64%
Lab on a Chip
Lab on a Chip, 3, 1.64%
Lab on a Chip
3 publications, 1.64%
Frontiers in Immunology
Frontiers in Immunology, 2, 1.09%
Frontiers in Immunology
2 publications, 1.09%
Biotechnology Advances
Biotechnology Advances, 2, 1.09%
Biotechnology Advances
2 publications, 1.09%
Materials Science and Engineering C
Materials Science and Engineering C, 2, 1.09%
Materials Science and Engineering C
2 publications, 1.09%
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 2, 1.09%
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery
2 publications, 1.09%
Metallomics
Metallomics, 2, 1.09%
Metallomics
2 publications, 1.09%
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 2, 1.09%
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology
2 publications, 1.09%
Cancer Research
Cancer Research, 2, 1.09%
Cancer Research
2 publications, 1.09%
Journal of Biological Engineering
Journal of Biological Engineering, 2, 1.09%
Journal of Biological Engineering
2 publications, 1.09%
APL Bioengineering
APL Bioengineering, 1, 0.55%
APL Bioengineering
1 publication, 0.55%
Current Pharmaceutical Design
Current Pharmaceutical Design, 1, 0.55%
Current Pharmaceutical Design
1 publication, 0.55%
F1000Research
F1000Research, 1, 0.55%
F1000Research
1 publication, 0.55%
Oncotarget
Oncotarget, 1, 0.55%
Oncotarget
1 publication, 0.55%
Journal of the Royal Society Interface
Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 1, 0.55%
Journal of the Royal Society Interface
1 publication, 0.55%
Cell Biology International
Cell Biology International, 1, 0.55%
Cell Biology International
1 publication, 0.55%
2
4
6
8
10
12

Citations by publishers

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Springer Nature
Springer Nature, 39, 21.31%
Springer Nature
39 publications, 21.31%
Elsevier
Elsevier, 37, 20.22%
Elsevier
37 publications, 20.22%
Wiley
Wiley, 17, 9.29%
Wiley
17 publications, 9.29%
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), 17, 9.29%
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
17 publications, 9.29%
Frontiers Media S.A.
Frontiers Media S.A., 14, 7.65%
Frontiers Media S.A.
14 publications, 7.65%
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), 14, 7.65%
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
14 publications, 7.65%
SAGE
SAGE, 7, 3.83%
SAGE
7 publications, 3.83%
American Chemical Society (ACS)
American Chemical Society (ACS), 7, 3.83%
American Chemical Society (ACS)
7 publications, 3.83%
IOP Publishing
IOP Publishing, 5, 2.73%
IOP Publishing
5 publications, 2.73%
Taylor & Francis
Taylor & Francis, 3, 1.64%
Taylor & Francis
3 publications, 1.64%
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), 3, 1.64%
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
3 publications, 1.64%
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
American Institute of Physics (AIP), 2, 1.09%
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
2 publications, 1.09%
Bentham Science
Bentham Science, 1, 0.55%
Bentham Science
1 publication, 0.55%
F1000 Research
F1000 Research, 1, 0.55%
F1000 Research
1 publication, 0.55%
Impact Journals
Impact Journals, 1, 0.55%
Impact Journals
1 publication, 0.55%
The Royal Society
The Royal Society, 1, 0.55%
The Royal Society
1 publication, 0.55%
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), 1, 0.55%
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
1 publication, 0.55%
Oxford University Press
Oxford University Press, 1, 0.55%
Oxford University Press
1 publication, 0.55%
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1, 0.55%
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
1 publication, 0.55%
Pleiades Publishing
Pleiades Publishing, 1, 0.55%
Pleiades Publishing
1 publication, 0.55%
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
  • We do not take into account publications that without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.
Metrics
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Stock K. et al. Capturing tumor complexity in vitro: Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D tumor models for drug discovery // Scientific Reports. 2016. Vol. 6. No. 1. 28951
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Stock K., Estrada M. F., Vidic S., Gjerde K., Rudisch A., Santo V. E., Barbier M., Blom S., Arundkar S. C., Selvam I., Osswald A., Stein Y., Gruenewald S., Brito C., van Weerden W., ROTTER V., Boghaert E., Oren M., Sommergruber W., Chong Y., de Hoogt R., Graeser R. Capturing tumor complexity in vitro: Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D tumor models for drug discovery // Scientific Reports. 2016. Vol. 6. No. 1. 28951
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1038/srep28951
UR - https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fsrep28951
TI - Capturing tumor complexity in vitro: Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D tumor models for drug discovery
T2 - Scientific Reports
AU - Stock, Kristin
AU - Estrada, Marta F
AU - Vidic, Suzana
AU - Gjerde, Kjersti
AU - Rudisch, Albin
AU - Santo, Vítor E
AU - Barbier, Michaël
AU - Blom, Sami
AU - Arundkar, Sharath C
AU - Selvam, Irwin
AU - Osswald, Annika
AU - Stein, Yan
AU - Gruenewald, Sylvia
AU - Brito, Catarina
AU - van Weerden, Wytske
AU - ROTTER, VARDA
AU - Boghaert, Erwin
AU - Oren, Moshe
AU - Sommergruber, Wolfgang
AU - Chong, Yolanda
AU - de Hoogt, Ronald
AU - Graeser, Ralph
PY - 2016
DA - 2016/07/01 00:00:00
PB - Springer Nature
IS - 1
VL - 6
PMID - 27364600
SN - 2045-2322
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex Copy
@article{2016_Stock,
author = {Kristin Stock and Marta F Estrada and Suzana Vidic and Kjersti Gjerde and Albin Rudisch and Vítor E Santo and Michaël Barbier and Sami Blom and Sharath C Arundkar and Irwin Selvam and Annika Osswald and Yan Stein and Sylvia Gruenewald and Catarina Brito and Wytske van Weerden and VARDA ROTTER and Erwin Boghaert and Moshe Oren and Wolfgang Sommergruber and Yolanda Chong and Ronald de Hoogt and Ralph Graeser},
title = {Capturing tumor complexity in vitro: Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D tumor models for drug discovery},
journal = {Scientific Reports},
year = {2016},
volume = {6},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {jul},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fsrep28951},
number = {1},
doi = {10.1038/srep28951}
}
Found error?