Cited by 1,0473D Printing in Biomedical ResearchTissue Engineering and Regenerative MedicineHydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications

Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Matrices: State of the Art

Open access
Lee, Jungwoo, Cuddihy, Meghan J., Kotov, Nicholas A.·2008·Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews

Abstract

Traditional methods of cell growth and manipulation on 2-dimensional (2D) surfaces have been shown to be insufficient for new challenges of cell biology and biochemistry, as well as in pharmaceutical assays. Advances in materials chemistry, materials fabrication and processing technologies, and developmental biology have led to the design of 3D cell culture matrices that better represent the geometry, chemistry, and signaling environment of natural extracellular matrix. In this review, we present the status of state-of-the-art 3D cell-growth techniques and scaffolds and analyze them from the perspective of materials properties, manufacturing, and functionality. Particular emphasis was placed on tissue engineering and in vitro modeling of human organs, where we see exceptionally strong potential for 3D scaffolds and cell-growth methods. We also outline key challenges in this field and most likely directions for future development of 3D cell culture over the period of 5-10 years.

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 · 10.1089/teb.2007.0150

Cites

206 of 206 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?

  • Cellular responses to drug treatments in 3D cultures are more similar to what occurs in vivo compared to 2D culture.

    “Cellular responses to drug treatments in 3D cultures have been shown to be more similar to what occurs in vivo compared to 2D culture. 11-13”

    From Three-dimensional cell culture systems and their applications in drug discovery and cell-based biosensors (2014) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Biomaterials section (page unavailable) reports that 3D tumor models better reproduced in vivo tumor characteristics than 2D cultures and showed reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy. The Modifications section also reports greater resistance to drug-induced apoptosis in organized 3D spheroids than in 2D monolayers. Neither passage directly compares drug-treatment responses with in vivo responses, so the claim’s general conclusion is not fully established by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cell responses in 3D cultures are more similar to in vivo behavior compared to 2D culture.

    “It has been demonstrated that cell responses in 3D cultures are more similar to in vivo behavior compared to 2D culture. 11-13”
  • In both cases, the data agreed with values obtained from 2D/3D cell cultures in 96-well plates or from the literature, demonstrating that the 3D array's miniaturization has no appreciable effect on either cell line's cytotoxicity responses.

    “In both cases, the data agreed with values obtained from 2D/3D cell cultures in 96-well plates or from the literature, demonstrating that the 3D array's miniaturization has no appreciable effect on either cell line's cytotoxicity responses. 13”

    From Three-dimensional cell culture systems and their applications in drug discovery and cell-based biosensors (2014) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Introduction discusses conventional well-plate culture, and Future Directions discusses the potential of 3D models for toxicity screening (page numbers unavailable). Neither reports a comparison of a miniaturized 3D array with 96-well cultures or literature values. Searches for “96-well,” “miniaturization,” and cytotoxicity responses found no passage establishing the claimed result for either cell line. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 209 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Stupp, S.I., Donners, J.J.J.M., Li, L.S., and Mata, A. Ex- panding frontiers in biomaterials. MRS Bulletin 30, 864, 2005.
  2. Palsson, B., Hubbell, J.A., Plonsey, R., and Bronzino, J.D. Tissue Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2003.
  3. Ma, P.X. and Elisseeff, J.H. Scaffolding in Tissue En- gineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, J., Cuddihy, M. J., & Kotov, N. A.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews
Published
2008-03
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
61-86
ISSN
  • 1937-3368 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-3376
OpenAlex
W2043156676
Cited by
1,047
References
209
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 77
FWCI
38.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tissue Engineering Part B Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Hydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications
Keywords
3D cell culture, cell culture scaffolds, extracellular matrix mimics, tissue engineering, in vitro organ models, scaffold fabrication, scaffold materials, pharmaceutical assay
MeSH terms
Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Biomedical Engineering, Culture Media, Humans, Materials Testing, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Surface Properties, Cell Culture Techniques, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Tissue Engineering, Nanotechnology, Culture Techniques, Cell Proliferation

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