Cited by 2533D Printing in Biomedical ResearchCancer Cells and MetastasisCellular Mechanics and Interactions

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

Open access
Stock, Kristin, Estrada, Marta F., Vidic, Suzana, Gjerde, Kjersti, Rudisch, Albin, Santo, Vítor E., Barbier, Michaël, Blom, Sami +14 more·2016·Scientific Reports

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep28951

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Conventional 2D cell monolayers and 3D cell culture models are unable to recapitulate the complex biochemical and biophysical factors of the tumor microenvironment in vivo because they lack the systemic nature of tumors, leading to weak predictive ability.

    “2D cell monolayers and three-dimensional cell culture models have been widely employed as initial screening models to provide a cost-efficient and simplified method to elucidate the mechanism of cancer biology or identify the efficacy and safety of a drug candidate14–16; however, they are unable to recapitulate complex biochemical and biophysical factors of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in vivo”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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.
Affiliations
  • Bayer (Germany) (DE)
  • Instituto de Biologia Experimental e Tecnológica (PT)
  • University of Primorska (SI)
  • Janssen (Belgium) (BE)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim (Austria) (AT)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • AbbVie (United States) (US)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Graeser, Ralph
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2016-07-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
28951-28951
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2471907651
Cited by
253
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 1
FWCI
10.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
  • Innovative Medicines Initiative (115188)
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (EXPL/BBB-IMG/0363/2013, SFRH/BD/52208/2013)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
Keywords
3D tumor models, 2D cell culture, in vitro tumor model, drug discovery, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, MCF-7 cells, LNCaP cells, model comparison, tumor growth curves, 3D image analysis
MeSH terms
Humans, Stromal Cells, Spheroids, Cellular, Coculture Techniques, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Cell Line, Tumor, MCF-7 Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review