The DOI matches its Crossref record; 129 of the 131 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; 44 of the 86 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Modeling Physiological Events in 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture
Open accessAbstract
Cell culture has become an indispensable tool to help uncover fundamental biophysical and biomolecular mechanisms by which cells assemble into tissues and organs, how these tissues function, and how that function becomes disrupted in disease. Cell culture is now widely used in biomedical research, tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, and industrial practices. Although flat, two-dimensional (2D) cell culture has predominated, recent research has shifted toward culture using three-dimensional (3D) structures, and more realistic biochemical and biomechanical microenvironments. Nevertheless, in 3D cell culture, many challenges remain, including the tissue-tissue interface, the mechanical microenvironment, and the spatiotemporal distributions of oxygen, nutrients, and metabolic wastes. Here, we review 2D and 3D cell culture methods, discuss advantages and limitations of these techniques in modeling physiologically and pathologically relevant processes, and suggest directions for future research.
Verified 2026-10-07 · 2 references not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
44 of 86 cited sources checked · 18 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“These behaviors include cell differentiation, migration, growth, and mechanics, all of which are impacted by their biochemical and biomechanical microenvironment (57).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [57] source
In “Microengineering Meets Cell Biology” (page not provided), the paper says the mechanical environment is critical for cell growth and tissue differentiation, and describes chemical gradients used to study cell motility. The same section describes how ECM patterning and substrate conditions affect cell shape and tissue contraction, supporting the claim about mechanics. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“For instance, some important characteristics of cancer cells cannot be appropriately modeled in 2D cultures (22).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Abstract
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [22] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Experimental Section describes culturing NIH-3T3 fibroblasts in porous beads, and the paper’s discussion of three-dimensional matrices concerns cell viability. Searches for cancer cells and comparisons with 2D cultures found no passage addressing whether 2D cultures inadequately model cancer-cell characteristics; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Results from 3D studies demonstrate that increasing the dimensionality of extracellular matrix (ECM) around cells from 2D to 3D can significantly impact cell proliferation, differentiation, mechano-responses, and cell survival (2,10,41).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] source
- Partly supportedcites [10] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page not provided) reports that 3D matrices can alter cell phenotype and metabolism and discusses proliferation, differentiation, and resistance to toxic effects. It does not address mechano-responses. The Discussion (page not provided) also states that this study found no evidence that moving cells from 2D plastic to 3D collagen affected their health or viability, so the paper does not support the full list as a finding of this study. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [41] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (§3.3; page unavailable) show that cells remained viable and proliferated on the 3D GelMA scaffolds. The Introduction (§1) discusses scaffold cues affecting differentiation, but the paper does not establish that changing the ECM from 2D to 3D significantly changes all four listed outcomes; its mechanical measurements concern the scaffolds, not cellular mechano-responses. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The sandwich culture method, e.g., placing cells between two layers comprised of ECM, polyacrylamide, or collagen, has long been demonstrated to produce hepatocyte cell cultures, where morphology and function more accurately reproduce in vivo behavior (9,29,34,65,73).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] source
- Partly supportedcites [29] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The opening summary (p. 1043) reports that rat hepatocytes between two collagen layers maintained albumin mRNA at levels similar to normal liver, supporting the claim about preserved function. The paper does not demonstrate that sandwich cultures reproduce in vivo morphology more accurately, and it tests collagen rather than the other materials listed in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Cells in our body perform bioactivities in response to the stimulation from a highly complex, 3D microenvironment (15,98,112).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Considerations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [15] source
The Biomimetic Approach section says that cells in living organisms inhabit a biologically complex microenvironment, respond to its molecular and physical cues, and remodel it. It contrasts this native context with standard 2D culture and describes the relevant in vivo environment as dynamic and 3D. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [98] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Cell interactions with scaffolds; page unavailable) show that endothelial-cell infiltration responds to porosity, RGD peptide, and S1P delivery in three-dimensional engineered scaffolds. This supports the general idea that a cell’s surroundings influence its activity, but the paper does not establish the broader claim about cells throughout the body responding to a highly complex natural 3D microenvironment. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [112] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The introduction of 3D cell culture approaches aimed at modeling the in vivo interactions of tissues and organs has opened new possibilities in studying the underlying biochemical and biomechanical signals (46,57).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Considerations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [46] source
The “Biomaterials to create 3D tumor models” section says 3D cultures better resemble tumors in vivo and help researchers understand cancer biology. Its subsections describe using 3D models to study cellular interactions, soluble microenvironmental cues, and matrix mechanics; “Future directions and considerations” also discusses organ-on-chip models. The paper supports the claim in the context of cancer models. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites [57] source
The “3D Cell Culture” section describes a new wave of 3D models designed to mimic organ structure, mechanical properties, and biochemical functions. In “From 3D Culture to Organs-on-Chips,” the paper says these microengineered approaches opened new possibilities for modeling organ-level structures and incorporating mechanical and chemical signals. The claim is supported as a description of these advanced 3D approaches, rather than conventional gel cultures. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This device was able to maintain spheroid cultures for up to 2 wk (110).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [110] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and discussion section, under “Long-term culture of spheroids in hanging drops” (page unavailable), reports viable spheroids after 12 days of culture. This supports long-term maintenance with the device, but the copy does not establish the claimed two-week (14-day) duration. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Hepatocytes in the liver are surrounded by a complex ECM, and several researchers have shown that conventional 2D culture methods, flasks with or without ECM protein coatings, do not establish well enough the complex microenvironment that hepatocytes need to function (29,34,73).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [29] source
The Introduction (p. 1043) says hepatocytes rapidly degenerate under classical culture conditions and that adding complex extracellular matrix can prolong their function. The Results (p. 1046) show that albumin mRNA declined rapidly on a single collagen-gel layer but was maintained in collagen-sandwich culture, supporting the claim that conventional flat cultures inadequately sustain hepatocyte function. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [73] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“This induced polarity may alter the functions of native cells with regard to spreading, migrating, and sensing soluble factors and other microenvironmental cues (61).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Considerations
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [61] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Engineered microenvironments regulate LA/C-C epitope accessibility’ section reports that substrate properties affect cell spreading and nuclear-lamina polarization. The ‘Physiological implications’ section links that polarization to engineered niches, but neither section says that induced polarity in pseudo-3D models alters native-cell spreading, migration, or sensing of soluble factors and other cues. Searches for pseudo-3D models, migration, and soluble-factor sensing did not locate such a passage. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Could not verify
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“To control cell shape in 2D cell culture, micro-patterned substrates, such as cell-adhesive islands (30), microwells (121), and micropillars (40), have been created to customize the 2D shape of cells and help study the effects of cell shape on bioactivities.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [121] source
- Supportedcites [40] source
Citation (40) is attached to the micropillars example. The paper reports fabricating micropost arrays and using them to study changes in cell morphology and stem-cell differentiation (Abstract; Online Methods, ‘Design and fabrication of PDMS micropost arrays’; page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“PDMS wells with a triangular pyramid shape opening promoted the growth of spheroids, with some control over the size achievable.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [110] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Experimental section (‘Plate design, fabrication, and hanging drop formation’; page unavailable) says the plate is made of polystyrene, not PDMS, and describes circular access holes and plateaus by diameter, not triangular-pyramid openings. The Results section (‘Formation of hanging drops for spheroid culture’; page unavailable) does support spheroid formation, while the Introduction says the platform forms uniformly sized spheroids. The claimed well material and opening shape are contrary to the paper’s design description. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“To overcome this limitation, novel 3D cell culture platforms are being created to better mimic in vivo conditions and are sometimes called spheroid or organoid culture, as described below (37,61,84,98,117,118).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] source
- Could not verifycites [61] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods section describes cells plated on hydrogels, microposts, and adhesive micro-islands, while ‘Engineered microenvironments regulate LA/C-C epitope accessibility’ examines their effects on the nuclear lamina. Searches for spheroid or organoid culture and for 3D platforms that mimic in vivo conditions found no passage addressing the claim; the paper’s engineered substrates alone do not establish it. (LLM, conf=0.77)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [84] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“They demonstrated that cells preferred to round up on smooth-surfaced PLLA substrates and stretch on rough surfaces.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Micro-pattering.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [113] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Materials and Methods section describes breast cells cultured in basement membrane, and the Abstract discusses integrin–EGFR signaling. Searches for PLLA, surface roughness, and rounded versus stretched cells found no passage addressing the claimed substrate comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Torisawa et al. (110) created a novel chip system utilizing microfluidics that allows spheroids to grow in a controlled environment for long-term culture.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [110] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and the Results and discussion section on long-term culture support that the authors developed a platform for stable, long-term spheroid culture. But the Experimental section describes their system as an injection-molded 384 hanging-drop plate, not a microfluidic chip; the Introduction discusses microfluidic devices as other approaches. Torisawa is a coauthor, although Tung is the paper’s first author. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Their results showed that the sandwich culture could maintain a proper albumin production rate for at least 6 wk, whereas the one-gel system already had rates that were tenfold lower than normal by the end of the first week (29).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [29] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (p. 1045) say sandwich cultures maintained albumin production for at least six weeks and that production rates differed roughly tenfold between the sandwich and single-gel systems by the end of week one. The paper does not say the single-gel production rate was tenfold lower than normal; its comparison with normal liver concerns albumin mRNA levels, not production rates. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Cell growth in 2D monolayers allows for access to a similar amount of nutrients and growth factors present in the medium, which results in homogenous growth and proliferation (31).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Considerations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [31] source
The ‘Characteristics of 3D Cell Cultures Versus the Traditional 2D Cell Culture’ section says all cells in a 2D monolayer receive a homogeneous amount of nutrients and growth factors and that the monolayer is mainly composed of proliferating cells. Its contrast with the varied cell states in 3D cultures supports the paraphrase about homogeneous growth and proliferation. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In 2D cultures, there are decreases in transcriptional genes and rapid changes in morphology (29,34).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [29] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (p. 1047) show that albumin-gene transcription declined over seven days in hepatocytes cultured on a single collagen gel. The Discussion (p. 1050) mentions a change in actin-filament organization when hepatocytes are sandwiched between collagen gels, but does not establish rapid morphological changes in the single-gel culture. The claim also generalizes a finding about specific genes in rat hepatocytes to 2D cultures broadly. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The effect of microtopography on cell migration was further supported by Wan et al. (113), whose experiments also revealed that pseudopods extending from cells could encroach into pits in culture surfaces.The less rigid pseudopods could act as anchors for the cell and influence its migration patterns, thereby providing a contact guidance (113).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Micro-pattering.
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [113] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract describes β1-integrin and EGFR signaling in three-dimensional breast-cell cultures, not migration over patterned surfaces. Searches for pseudopods, pits, microtopography, anchors, and contact guidance found no passage addressing the attributed experiments. The cited paper is by Wang et al., whereas the citing sentence names Wan et al. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Surfaces of the aggregated spheroids, for example, have the highest levels of proliferation, whereas the interior of the 3D cell bodies possesses the highest number of quiescent or necrotic cells (31).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Considerations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Characteristics of 3D Cell Cultures Versus the Traditional 2D Cell Culture” (page unavailable), the paper says spheroid outer layers are mainly proliferating and core cells tend to be quiescent or hypoxic. It lists necrotic cells among the cells in spheroids, but does not say they are concentrated in the interior or establish where the highest numbers occur. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They continued on to use these plates as a high throughput method for testing anticancer drug sensitivities on H9 human epithelial carcinoma cells.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [55] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Materials and Methods section (Hanging Drop Formation and Spheroid Culture; page unavailable) confirms that Hsiao et al. used 384 hanging-drop plates to culture cancer-containing spheroids. It describes PC-3Luc GFP prostate cancer cells in a co-culture, not H9 cells, and the experiment assessed long-term culture rather than anticancer drug sensitivity. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Biopolymers from non-mammal tissues, such as alginate and chitosan, are also used for making 3D scaffolds (23,63,68,84).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Biopolymer scaffolds.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [23] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes alginate as a naturally derived polysaccharide, and the Conclusion reports using alginate hydrogels for in vitro 3D cell culture. This supports alginate as a 3D scaffold material, but the paper does not identify its source as non-mammalian or address chitosan. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [63] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“To overcome this, one group, Hsiao et al. (55), designed a plate using micro-ring structures to stabilize the drops, allowing for 14day culture of prostate cancer cells.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [55] source
The Introduction describes a modified hanging-drop plate with micro-ring features designed to stabilize droplets. Materials and Methods reports 14-day culture of spheroids containing PC-3Luc GFP prostate cancer cells, and Results and Discussion reports that the drops remained stable throughout that period. The cells were grown in co-culture, a detail the citing sentence omits but does not contradict. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Among the most commonly used natural polymers are hyaluronic acid, gelatin, collagen, and chondroitin sulfate (14, 108).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Biopolymer scaffolds.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies hyaluronic acid and collagen as materials investigated for cartilage scaffolds, supporting their use as natural biomaterials. It does not identify gelatin as a commonly used material, and mentions chondroitin sulfate as a cartilage component rather than as a commonly used polymer. It also does not establish that the four named materials are among the most commonly used. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [108] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Pineda et al.(91) demonstrated that OCT4 in mouse ESCs decreased in both 2D and 3D cultures, showing a loss of pluripotency, whereas NES (ectoderm) and BRACHY-T (mesoderm) markers were shown to increase.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Conclusions and Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [91] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Results, ‘Pluripotency and Germ Lineage Differentiation’ (page unavailable), OCT4 markedly decreased after four days in the 2D slide and 3D gel and embryoid-body cultures, indicating loss of pluripotency. The same section says NESTIN (NES) and BRACHY-T varied over time and were highest at day 4, rather than showing a general increase; ‘Functional Gene Groupings’ also reports that NES remained very low. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Their results from 2D and 3D spheroid culture indicated spheroids were more resistant to one anti-cancer drug, 5-fluorouracil, which inhibits proliferation, whereas 2D cultures were more resistant to a different anticancer drug, tirapazamine, which is cytotoxic in hypoxic conditions (111).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [111] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses stem-cell culture platforms and small-molecule screens, but does not report a 2D-versus-spheroid drug-response comparison. Searches for spheroids, 5-fluorouracil, and tirapazamine found no passage addressing the claimed resistance results; the indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
In the paper
“LeCluyse et al. (73) found that the polarity of hepatocytes was also affected when cultured on only single-layer gels.When a sandwich culture was used, a normal distribution of the apical membrane markers was found at the canalicular membrane, and bile canaliculi were also well established (73).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [73] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The results indicated that the micro-patterning and type of surface both affected the rate of differentiation of cells (18).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Micro-pattering.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, 3D platforms are likely to provide an increasingly attractive alternative for 2D cell culture as the technology develops to enable a wider range of processes.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: 2D cell culture approaches can still recapitulate in vivo behavior for many bioactivities.
In the paper
“Micropatterning can also be used to pattern areas or to create “microwells” for the controlled growth of spheroids (i.e., agarose) (35).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [35] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These methods allow for a more physiologically relevant environment to investigate cell and tissue behavior.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Conclusions and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Three-dimensional studies are becoming increasingly necessary to replicate the behaviors of some in vivo conditions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“different cell types will most likely be better matched for certain 3D systems.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Conclusions and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, microwells made out of a non-adhesion promoting material, such as agarose, can be used to grow several arrays of spheroids at once (86).”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Techniques
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [86] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some cases, 2D studies are more feasible, and the results can be meaningful.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Conclusions and Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, the situation and questions at hand will determine whether a 2D or 3D culture method is best suited.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Conclusions and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in other cases, 3D studies will yield more accurate results and can be done in combination with 2D studies.”
§ 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture > Conclusions and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Under some circumstances, 2D systems produce cell bioactivities that deviate appreciably from the in vivo response.
“Although these approaches are well-accepted and have significantly advanced our understanding of cell behavior, growing evidence now shows that, under some circumstances, the 2D systems can result in cell bioactivities that deviate appreciably the in vivo response.”
The paper relies on this without support.
2D cell culture approaches can still recapitulate in vivo behavior for many bioactivities.
“additionally, 2D cell culture approaches can still recapitulate in vivo behavior for many bioactivities, while new advances in substrate”
The paper relies on this without support.
A universal 3D platform does not currently exist.
“the platform of choice is often dictated by the specific process of interest, and a universal 3D platform does not currently exist”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most 2D methods do not provide control of cell shape.
“However, most of these 2D methods do not provide control of cell shape, which determines biophysical cues affecting cell bioactivities in vivo.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Hepatocytes do not survive well under traditional 2D culture methods.
“Indeed, alternative methods to traditional 2D cell culture were developed for hepatocytes because they do not survive well under traditional 2D culture methods.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A major problem in the field is the lack of a standard approach in three-dimensional cultures.
“One major problem in the field is the lack of a standard approach in 3D cultures”
The paper relies on this without support.
Two-dimensional cell culture practice is standard and roughly comparable.
“whereas 2D cell culture practice is standard and roughly comparable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Three-dimensional studies are becoming increasingly necessary to replicate the behaviors of some in vivo conditions.
“Classically, 2D studies have been favored, but 3D studies are becoming more necessary to replicate the behaviors of some in vivo conditions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Accurate measurements of the forces exerted on the extracellular matrix are necessary for understanding physiological processes such as cancer or immune cell migration.
“Obtaining accurate measurements of forces exerted on the ECM are necessary to understand physiological processes such as cancer or immune cell migration.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Cells grow on a fl at plastic surface as a monolayer, and this can result in loss of crucial cellular signaling pathways and changes in cell responses to stimuli [14 -16].”
From 3D In Vitro Model (R)evolution: Unveiling Tumor–Stroma Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, 2D models are too simple and are unable to mimic the complexity and dynamic interactions of the TME.”
From 3D In Vitro Model (R)evolution: Unveiling Tumor–Stroma Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Generally, 2D cell culture models lack cues provided by the extracellular matrix (ECM). These models are easy to maintain and cost-effective but do not allow the study of glia-neuron communication and crosstalk [119].”
From Alzheimer's Disease: Treatment Strategies and Their Limitations. (2022) · cites this paper as [119]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“3D models can reproduce mechanical and biochemical cues that are crucial for cancer development, such as morphology, cell -cell/cell -ECM interactions, tissue stiffness, and speci fi c gradients [4,14,18].”
From 3D In Vitro Model (R)evolution: Unveiling Tumor–Stroma Interactions (2021) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The development of hepatocyte sandwich cultures (SCs), co-cultures with non-parenchymal cells and even more advanced 3-dimensional culturing techniques has revealed the importance of cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions for improving hepatic functions in liver models (Bachmann et al., 2015[2]; Duval et al., 2017[9]; Wei et al., 2018[45]).”
From Optimization of extracellular matrix for primary human hepatocyte cultures using mixed collagen-matrigel matrices (2023) · cites this paper as Duval et al., 2017[9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Diagnostic-tool claim cites a scaffold study
MinorReference 95 is identified as a study of bone-scaffold porosity and stem cells, rather than microfluidic diagnostic tools.
“as a diagnostic tool in developing countries (95)”
“95. Salerno A, Guarnieri D, Iannone M, Zeppetelli S, Netti PA. Effect of micro-and macroporosity of bone tissue three-dimensional-poly(epsilon-cap- rolactone) scaffold on human mesenchymal stem cells invasion, proliferation, and differentiation in vitro.”
Cancer-cell claim cites a paper on porous beads
MinorThe citation attached to the claim about cancer cells in 2D culture is listed as a paper on beads with controllable pore sizes.
“some important characteristics of cancer cells cannot be appropriately modeled in 2D cultures (22).”
“22. Choi SW, Yeh YC, Zhang Y, Sung HW, Xia Y. Uniform beads with controllable pore sizes for biomedical applications.”
PDMS claim cites a skin-grafting review
MinorThe cited reference 107 is identified as a paper on skin grafting and wound treatment, not PDMS behavior in cell-culture devices.
“PDMS does not corrode or become affected by aqueous solutions used in cell culture, pressure, or temperature, and cells are able to survive or grow as a result (107).”
“107. Sun BK, Siprashvili Z, Khavari PA. Advances in skin grafting and treatment of cutaneous wounds.”
Gas-foaming citation identifies a bioreactor study
MinorThe reference given for scaffold fabrication by gas foaming is listed as a study of embryonic stem-cell cardiogenesis using a liquid-marble micro-bioreactor.
“gas foaming (96)”
“96. Sarvi F, Jain K, Arbatan T, Verma PJ, Hourigan K, Thompson MC, Shen W, Chan PPY. Cardiogen- esis of embryonic stem cells with liquid marble micro-bioreactor.”
Citations
Cites
Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification
Engler, A. J., Sen, S., Sweeney, H. L., & Discher, D. E. (2006) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.044 · Cited by 13,915
The origins and the future of microfluidics
Whitesides, G. M. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05058 · Cited by 9,687
Tissue Cells Feel and Respond to the Stiffness of Their Substrate
Discher, D. E., Janmey, P., & Wang, Y.-L. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1116995 · Cited by 6,382
Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction
Dupont, S., Morsut, L., Aragona, M., Enzo, E., Giulitti, S., Cordenonsi, M., Zanconato, F., Le Digabel, J., Forcato, M., Bicciato, S., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10137 · Cited by 5,979
Lutolf, M. P., & Hubbell, J. A. (2005) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1055 · Cited by 4,551
Reconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip
Huh, D., Matthews, B. D., Mammoto, A., Montoya-Zavala, M., Hsin, H. Y., & Ingber, D. E. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1188302 · Cited by 4,250
Cell Shape, Cytoskeletal Tension, and RhoA Regulate Stem Cell Lineage Commitment
McBeath, R., Pirone, D. M., Nelson, C. M., Bhadriraju, K., & Chen, C. S. (2004) · Developmental Cell · doi:10.1016/s1534-5807(04)00075-9 · Cited by 4,182
Porous scaffold design for tissue engineering
Hollister, S. J. (2005) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/nmat1421 · Cited by 3,979
Bhatia, S. N., & Ingber, D. E. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2989 · Cited by 3,305
Taking Cell-Matrix Adhesions to the Third Dimension
Cukierman, E., Pankov, R., Stevens, D. R., & Yamada, K. M. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1064829 · Cited by 3,027
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,845
Piatnitskaia, S., Альбертовна, Р. Г., Bilyalov, A. R., Chugunov, S. S., Akhatov, I., Павлов, В. Н., & Kzhyshkowska, J. G. (2024) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1349461 · Cited by 45
Engineering multifunctional surface topography to regulate multiple biological responses
Tokmedash, M. A., Kim, C., Chavda, A. P., Li, A., Robins, J., & Min, J. (2025) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2025.123136 · Cited by 45
Nunes, A. S., Costa, E. C., Barros, A. S., de Melo‐Diogo, D., & Correia, I. J. (2018) · Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1002/biot.201800268 · Cited by 37
Lung on a Chip for Drug Screening and Design
Kızılkurtlu, A. A., Polat, T., Aydın, G. B., & Akpek, A. (2019) · Current Pharmaceutical Design · doi:10.2174/1381612825666190208122204 · Cited by 41
Biomimetic hybrid scaffold consisting of co-electrospun collagen and PLLCL for 3D cell culture
Türker, E., Yıldız, Ü. H., & Yıldız, A. A. (2019) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.08.082 · Cited by 39
Liver Cancer: Current and Future Trends Using Biomaterials
Chew, S. A., Moscato, S., George, S., Azimi, B., & Danti, S. (2019) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers11122026 · Cited by 40
“In recent years, the increased development of biomimetic scaffolds for various biological applications has shown that the behavior of cells in three dimensional (3D) is very different from that of the same cells in bidimensional (2D) structures [140].”
BackgroundMarchini, A., Favoino, C., & Gelain, F. (2020) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00413 · Cited by 39
Signore, M. A., Pascali, C. D., Giampetruzzi, L., Siciliano, P. A., & Francioso, L. N. (2021) · Sensing and Bio-Sensing Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbsr.2021.100443 · Cited by 41
Modelling acute myeloid leukemia (AML): What’s new? A transition from the classical to the modern
Dozzo, A., Galvin, A., Shin, J., Scalia, S., O’Driscoll, C. M., & Ryan, K. B. (2022) · Drug Delivery and Translational Research · doi:10.1007/s13346-022-01189-4 · Cited by 40
“The lack of complex architecture has been shown to influence how the cells access nutrients [159], and other limitations include the necessary addition of exogenous growth factors to preserve the growth of primary leukemic cells [160].”
BackgroundDeloria, A. J., Haider, S., Dietrich, B., Kunihs, V., Oberhofer, S., Knöfler, M., Leitgeb, R. A., Liu, M., Drexler, W., & Haindl, R. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/tbme.2020.3038466 · Cited by 39
“which influences cellular proliferation, differentiation, and function due to different signals, chemical gradients, and cellcell interactions [1], [3].”
BackgroundMahieu, L., Moll, L. V., Vooght, L. D., Delputte, P., & Cos, P. (2024) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuae007 · Cited by 44
Li, Y., Motschman, J. D., Kelly, S. T., et al. (2020) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.9b05099 · Cited by 38
Three‐Dimensional Osteosarcoma Models for Advancing Drug Discovery and Development
Monteiro, C. F., Custódio, C. A., & Mano, J. F. (2018) · Advanced Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/adtp.201800108 · Cited by 37
Kalantari, E., Naghib, S. M., Iravani, N. J., et al. (2019) · Materials Science and Engineering C · doi:10.1016/j.msec.2019.109912 · Cited by 37
Three dimensional engineered models to study hypoxia biology in breast cancer
Aggarwal, V., Miranda, O., Johnston, P. A., & Sant, S. (2020) · Cancer Letters · doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2020.05.030 · Cited by 41
Organoid models in gynaecological oncology research
Semertzidou, A., Brosens, J. J., McNeish, I. A., & Kyrgiou, M. (2020) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2020.102103 · Cited by 38
Perfusion Flow Enhances Viability and Migratory Phenotype in 3D-Cultured Breast Cancer Cells
Pasini, A., Lovecchio, J., Cortesi, M., Liverani, C., Spadazzi, C., Mercatali, L., Ibrahim, T., & Giordano, E. (2021) · Annals of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10439-021-02727-w · Cited by 38
Shahidi, S., Janmaleki, M., Riaz, S., Sanati‐Nezhad, A., & Syed, N. I. (2021) · Materials Science and Engineering C · doi:10.1016/j.msec.2021.112131 · Cited by 40
Going with the Flow: Modeling the Tumor Microenvironment Using Microfluidic Technology
Xie, H., Appelt, J. W., & Jenkins, R. W. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13236052 · Cited by 41
“Depending on the type of culture chosen, cell behavior differs in many aspects, as reviewed elsewhere [118].”
BackgroundLadeira, B., Custódio, C. A., & Mano, J. F. (2022) · Biomaterials Science · doi:10.1039/d1bm01974k · Cited by 37
Davidsen, N., Rosenmai, A. K., Lauschke, K., Svingen, T., & Vinggaard, A. M. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130624 · Cited by 41
Zou, X., Zou, D., Li, L., Yu, R., Li, X., Du, X.-Y., Guo, J., Wang, K., & Liu, W. (2022) · Stem Cell Research & Therapy · doi:10.1186/s13287-022-03137-y · Cited by 37
“Compared to 2D culture, the multicellular structure achieved in 3D culture has superior biological simulation advantages [71].”
BackgroundOrganic electronic transmembrane device for hosting and monitoring 3D cell cultures
Pitsalidis, C., van Niekerk, D. C., Moysidou, C., Boys, A. J., Withers, A. M., Vallet, R., & Owens, R. M. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo4761 · Cited by 37
“To overcome these constraints, efforts have shifted toward improved in vitro systems, termed 3D cell culture models, which can better mimic the physiological architecture of in vivo systems, exhibiting phenotypic and functional characteristics similar to their living tissue counterparts (6, 7).”
BackgroundTranscriptional Landscape of 3D vs. 2D Ovarian Cancer Cell Models
Kerslake, R., Belay, B., Panfilov, S., Hall, M., Kyrou, I., Randeva, H. S., Hyttinen, J., Karteris, E., & Sisu, C. (2023) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers15133350 · Cited by 36
“As a result, monolayer cultures often fail to recapitulate the complex microenvironment, diffusion gradients, and cellular characteristics associated with in vivo systems, thus leading to variation from the predicted response in animal and computational modelling, as well as clinical testing [6,8].”
BackgroundAdvances in current in vitro models on neurodegenerative diseases
Pereira, I., Lopez-Martinez, M. J., & Samitier, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2023.1260397 · Cited by 35
“Architecture in a 3D model is documented as extremely valuable for cell-cell interactions along with cell-matrix interactions (Nguyen-Vu et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2007; Kunze et al., 2011; Duval et al., 2017).”
BackgroundAn, S. (2018) · Journal of Cellular Physiology · doi:10.1002/jcp.27068 · Cited by 36
“…microenvironments to direct cell proliferation and differentiation and to instruct the differentiating cells to produce the necessary biological building blocks three‐ dimensionally (i.e., generation of critical cell mass, ECM synthesis, and mineralization; Chai et al., 2012; Duval et al., 2017).”
Background3D micro-organisation printing of mammalian cells to generate biological tissues
Jeffries, G. D. M., Xu, S., Lobovkina, T., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-74191-w · Cited by 36
Ustun, M., Dabbagh, S. R., Ilci, I., Onder, T. B., & Taşoğlu, S. (2021) · Micromachines · doi:10.3390/mi12050490 · Cited by 39
“Conventional two-dimensional (2D) in vitro cell culture models provide beneficial information regarding cell analysis and drug responses, while they fail to recapitulate cell morphology, complex in-vivo structures, cell-cell, and cell-matrix interactions [6].”
BackgroundNano-scale microfluidics to study 3D chemotaxis at the single cell level
Frick, C., Dettinger, P., Renkawitz, J., Jauch, A., Berger, C. T., Recher, M., Schroeder, T., & Mehling, M. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198330 · Cited by 33
Pallegar, N. K., Garland, C., Mahendralingam, M. J., Viloria‐Petit, A., & Christian, S. L. (2018) · Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia · doi:10.1007/s10911-018-9420-4 · Cited by 36
Current Stage of Marine Ceramic Grafts for 3D Bone Tissue Regeneration
Díaz‐Rodríguez, P., López‐Álvarez, M., Serra, J., González, P., & Landín, M. (2019) · Marine Drugs · doi:10.3390/md17080471 · Cited by 37
Geometric Dependence of 3D Collective Cancer Invasion
Kim, J., Zheng, Y., Alobaidi, A. A., Nan, H., Tian, J., Jiao, Y., & Sun, B. (2020) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2020.01.008 · Cited by 34
“To study the collective invasion of solid tumors, we use in vitro tumor models in three-dimensional (3D) cultures, which offer more physiologically relevant insights compared with two-dimensional assays (7).”
MethodBioprinting for combating infectious diseases
Zimmerling, A., & Chen, D. (2020) · Bioprinting · doi:10.1016/j.bprint.2020.e00104 · Cited by 42
3D cell culture using a clinostat reproduces microgravity-induced skin changes
Choi, D. H., Jeon, B., Lim, M. H., Lee, D. H., Ye, S. K., Jeong, S.-Y., & Kim, S. (2021) · npj Microgravity · doi:10.1038/s41526-021-00148-6 · Cited by 34
Bioprinted Multi-Cell Type Lung Model for the Study of Viral Inhibitors
Berg, J., Weber, Z., Fechler-Bitteti, M., Hocke, A. C., Hippenstiel, S., Elomaa, L., Weinhart, M., & Kurreck, J. (2021) · Viruses · doi:10.3390/v13081590 · Cited by 37
Strnadová, K., Pfeiferová, L., Přikryl, P., Dvořánková, B., Vlčák, E., Frýdlová, J., Vokurka, M., Novotný, J., Šáchová, J., Hradilová, M., et al. (2021) · Histochemistry and Cell Biology · doi:10.1007/s00418-021-02052-2 · Cited by 37
“These differences between 2D and 3D cultures are well known (Duval et al. 2017).”
BackgroundRodrigues, J., Sarmento, B. F. C. C., & Pereira, C. L. (2022) · In vitro models · doi:10.1007/s44164-022-00008-x · Cited by 41
“, ECM stiffness, oxygen/metabolic levels, interpatient heterogeneity), allowing to undercover cancerrelated events under a relevant microenvironment [8, 10].”
BackgroundHuman Protein‐Based Porous Scaffolds as Platforms for Xeno‐Free 3D Cell Culture
Santos, S. C., Custódio, C. A., & Mano, J. F. (2022) · Advanced Healthcare Materials · doi:10.1002/adhm.202102383 · Cited by 35
Optical tissue clearing associated with 3D imaging: application in preclinical and clinical studies
Brenna, C., Simioni, C., Varano, G., Conti, I., Costanzi, E., Melloni, M., & Neri, L. M. (2022) · Histochemistry and Cell Biology · doi:10.1007/s00418-022-02081-5 · Cited by 35
Sun, X., Cui, Z., Liang, Y., Duan, C., Chan, H. F., Mao, S., Gu, J., Ding, C., Yang, X., Wang, Q., et al. (2023) · Biofabrication · doi:10.1088/1758-5090/acc761 · Cited by 35
Considerations for the Bioengineering of Advanced Cardiac In Vitro Models of Myocardial Infarction
Sharma, P., Wang, X., Ming, C. L. C., Vettori, L., Figtree, G. A., Boyle, A., & Gentile, C. (2021) · Small · doi:10.1002/smll.202003765 · Cited by 40
Stojanovska, V., Arnold, S., Bauer, M., Voss, H., Fest, S., & Zenclussen, A. C. (2022) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells11182884 · Cited by 32
“These 2D culture conditions have been proven to be poor predictors of treatment responses in vivo, mostly due to reduced cell-cell contact, flat layered cellular structure and increased surface area directly exposed to oxygen and nutrients [11,12].”
BackgroundPereira, I., Lopez-Martinez, M. J., Villasante, A., Introna, C., Tornero, D., Canals, J. M., & Samitier, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2023.1110547 · Cited by 34
Chen, W., Wu, P., Jin, C., Chen, Y. E., Li, C., & Qian, H. (2024) · Journal of Nanobiotechnology · doi:10.1186/s12951-024-02455-y · Cited by 36
Kang, M., Cho, Y., & Kim, T. P. (2024) · Coordination Chemistry Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2024.216400 · Cited by 37
A three‐dimensional microfluidized liver system to assess hepatic drug metabolism and hepatotoxicity
Corrado, B., Gregorio, V. D., Imparato, G., Attanasio, C., Urciuolo, F., & Netti, P. A. (2018) · Biotechnology and Bioengineering · doi:10.1002/bit.26902 · Cited by 34
Fetal Membrane Organ-On-Chip: An Innovative Approach to Study Cellular Interactions
Richardson, L., Gnecco, J. S., Ding, T., et al. (2019) · Reproductive Sciences · doi:10.1177/1933719119828084 · Cited by 34
Yang, W., Cai, S., Chen, Y., Liang, W., Lai, Y., Yu, H., Wang, Y., & Liu, L. (2020) · Advanced Materials Technologies · doi:10.1002/admt.201900847 · Cited by 34
Orange, S. T., Jordan, A., & Saxton, J. (2020) · Physiological Reports · doi:10.14814/phy2.14635 · Cited by 37
“Three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures better recapitulate in vivo tumor physiology and the physical characterizes of a solid tumor mass (Duval et al., 2017).”
BackgroundEstablishing a 3D In Vitro Hepatic Model Mimicking Physiologically Relevant to In Vivo State
Kang, H. K., Sarsenova, M., Kim, D., Kim, M. S., Lee, J. Y., Sung, E., Kook, M. G., Kim, N. G., Choi, S. W., Ogay, V. B., et al. (2021) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells10051268 · Cited by 35
“This finding indicates that under static conditions, bioprinted hepatic constructs show large spheroids that are less susceptible and are not subjected to apoptosis when exposed to drugs [43].”
BackgroundNguyen, N., Thurgood, P., Sekar, N. C., Chen, S., Pirogova, E., Peter, K., Baratchi, S., & Khoshmanesh, K. (2021) · Biophysical Reviews · doi:10.1007/s12551-021-00815-8 · Cited by 34
Lung Organoids—The Ultimate Tool to Dissect Pulmonary Diseases?
Bosáková, V., Zuani, M. D., Sládková, L., Garlíková, Z., Jose, S. S., Zelante, T., Kohoutková, M. H., & Frič, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology · doi:10.3389/fcell.2022.899368 · Cited by 35
Mestres, G., Pérez, R. A., D’Elía, N. L., & Barbe, L. (2019) · Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ab1033 · Cited by 33
Mental health dished up—the use of iPSC models in neuropsychiatric research
McNeill, R. V., Ziegler, G. C., Radtke, F., Nieberler, M., Lesch, K., & Kittel‐Schneider, S. (2020) · Journal of Neural Transmission · doi:10.1007/s00702-020-02197-9 · Cited by 32
“…technology (Xie et al. 2018). iPSCs and many iPSC-derived cells are grown as a homogenous 2D monolayer, which although provides numerous advantages (such as ease of downstream analysis, simple protocols, highly producible) (Duval et al. 2017; Ho et al. 2018), also has several disadvantages.”
BackgroundTavares, M. T., Santos, S. C., Custódio, C. A., et al. (2021) · Materials Today Bio · doi:10.1016/j.mtbio.2021.100096 · Cited by 33
Nanomedicine for Gene Delivery and Drug Repurposing in the Treatment of Muscular Dystrophies
Andreana, I., Repellin, M., Carton, F., Kryza, D., Briançon, S., Chazaud, B., Mounier, R., Arpicco, S., Malatesta, M., Stella, B., et al. (2021) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics13020278 · Cited by 34
“However, these 2D monolayer cultures inaccurately representing in vitro tissue cells and cellular response to therapeutic treatments might be erroneous due to the unnatural microenvironment [236,237].”
BackgroundCD44 and CD133 aptamer directed nanocarriers for cancer stem cells targeting
Grover, R., Drall, S., Poonia, N., Jain, G. K., Aggarwal, G., Lather, V., Kesharwani, P., Pandita, D., & Goyal, R. K. (2022) · European Polymer Journal · doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2022.111770 · Cited by 38
On-chip modeling of tumor evolution: Advances, challenges and opportunities
Li, C., Holman, J. B., Shi, Z., Qiu, B., & Ding, W. (2023) · Materials Today Bio · doi:10.1016/j.mtbio.2023.100724 · Cited by 33
Husain, A., Meenakshi, D. U., Ahmad, A., Shrivastava, N., & Khan, S. A. (2023) · Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences · doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_380_23 · Cited by 36
“[19] Usually, the immortalized primary cell culture has been reported to analyze the toxicity in cells cultured in vitro .”
Adult Animal Stem Cell-Derived Organoids in Biomedical Research and the One Health Paradigm
Gabriel, V., Zdyrski, C., Sahoo, D. K., Ralston, A., Wickham, H., Bourgois‐Mochel, A., Ahmed, B. H., Merodio, M. M., Paukner, K., Piñeyro, P. E., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms25020701 · Cited by 35
“Typically, these cell lines are composed of cells that adhere to a flat surface, such as a flask or plate, in which they can proliferate [20].”
BackgroundA Simple Method for the Production of Human Skin Equivalent in 3D, Multi-Cell Culture
Szymański, Ł., Jęderka, K., Cios, A., Ciepielak, M., Lewicka, A., Stankiewicz, W., & Lewicki, S. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21134644 · Cited by 32
Tunesi, M., Izzo, L., Raimondi, I., Albani, D., & Giordano, C. (2020) · Journal of Tissue Engineering · doi:10.1177/2041731420945633 · Cited by 34
Mastrorocco, A., Cacopardo, L., Martino, N. A., Fanelli, D., Camillo, F., Ciani, E., Roelen, B. A. J., Ahluwalia, A. D., & Dell’Aquila, M. E. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238812 · Cited by 32
“This may have led to limitations due to loss of cell native phenotype [14].”
BackgroundInduced Pluripotency: A Powerful Tool for In Vitro Modeling
Záhumenská, R., Nosáľ, V., Smolár, M., Okajčeková, T., Škovierová, H., Strnádel, J., & Halášová, E. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21238910 · Cited by 34
“However, they do not sufficiently reflect the real 3D environment; they lack oxygen, nutritional, or waste gradients; the architecture of these cultures does not provide interactions between cells or between cells and the extracellular matrix (ECM).”
BackgroundSeo, J., Kim, K.-S., Park, J., Cho, J., Chang, H., Fukuda, J., Hong, K. Y., & Chun, Y. (2020) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120622 · Cited by 33
Advances in Modeling the Immune Microenvironment of Colorectal Cancer
Yoon, P., Piccolo, N. D., Shirure, V. S., Peng, Y., Kirane, A., Canter, R. J., Fields, R. C., George, S. C., & Gholami, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.614300 · Cited by 33
“org 3 vitro systems more accurately model in vivo biochemical factor distribution and transport (28, 30); cell morphology, polarity, and gene expression (61–66); heterogeneity in cell types (62, 64, 67); and sensitivity to cancer therapeutics (61, 64, 67, 68).”
BackgroundChiang, M., Cheng, H., Lo, Y.-C., Wang, W., Chang, S., Cheng, C.-H., Lin, Y., Lu, H., Sue, M.-W., Tsou, N., et al. (2021) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.120762 · Cited by 34
Fabro, F., Lamfers, M. L. M., & Leenstra, S. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14030600 · Cited by 33
MOF-based nanozyme grafted with cooperative Pt(IV) prodrug for synergistic anticancer therapy
Wu, P.-H., Cheng, P.-F., Kaveevivitchai, W., et al. (2023) · Colloids and Surfaces B Biointerfaces · doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113264 · Cited by 32
A 3D Cell Death Assay to Quantitatively Determine Ferroptosis in Spheroids
Demuynck, R., Efimova, I., Lin, A. G., Declercq, H., & Krysko, D. V. (2020) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells9030703 · Cited by 32
“The 2D cultures do not properly resemble the structures found in vivo as they often lack cell extracellular matrix (ECM) and cell-cell interactions, thereby influencing cell death responses to therapy (in particular to apoptosis) [2,3].”
BackgroundA quick pipeline for the isolation of 3D cell culture‐derived extracellular vesicles
Kyykallio, H., Faria, A. V. D. S., Hartman, R., Capra, J., Rilla, K. J., & Siljander, P. R. M. (2022) · Journal of Extracellular Vesicles · doi:10.1002/jev2.12273 · Cited by 32
“Furthermore, cell polarity may be lost, and diversity of phenotypes diminished, because of the cell morphology in the 2D cell culture (Duval et al., 2017), and the limited cell-cell and cell-matrix contacts do not promote formation of environmental niches (Edmondson et al., 2014).”
BackgroundExperimental Models of Polycystic Kidney Disease: Applications and Therapeutic Testing
Sieben, C. J., & Harris, P. C. (2023) · Kidney360 · doi:10.34067/kid.0000000000000209 · Cited by 31
Liver organoid culture methods
Hu, Y., Hu, X., Luo, J. C., Huang, J., Sun, Y., Li, H., Qiao, Y., Wu, H., Li, J., Zhou, L., et al. (2023) · Cell & Bioscience · doi:10.1186/s13578-023-01136-x · Cited by 37
Hoffman, M., Zylla, J. L. S., Bhattacharya, S., Calar, K., Hartman, T. W., Bhardwaj, R. D., Miskimins, W. K., de la Puente, P., Gnimpiéba, E. Z., & Messerli, S. M. (2020) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers12030756 · Cited by 35
Using the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens to Develop Research on Chemical Mixtures and Cancer
Rider, C. V., McHale, C. M., Webster, T. F., Lowe, L. J., Goodson, W. H., Merrill, M. A. L., Rice, G. E., Zeise, L. A., Zhang, L., & Smith, M. T. (2021) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp8525 · Cited by 31
Engineering strategies to capture the biological and biophysical tumor microenvironment in vitro
Tan, M. L., Lu, L., & Fischbach, C. (2021) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2021.113852 · Cited by 31
The Application of Brain Organoid Technology in Stroke Research: Challenges and Prospects
Song, G., Zhao, M., Chen, H., Zhou, X., Lenahan, C., Ou, Y., & He, Y. (2021) · Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncel.2021.646921 · Cited by 35
3D-Printing Graphene Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
MacDonald, A., Harley‐Troxell, M. E., Newby, S. D., & Dhar, M. S. (2022) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14091834 · Cited by 31
Engineered cell culture microenvironments for mechanobiology studies of brain neural cells
Ransanz, L. C., van Altena, P. F. J., Heine, V. M., & Accardo, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2022.1096054 · Cited by 31
3D Cell Models in Radiobiology: Improving the Predictive Value of In Vitro Research
Antonelli, F. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms241310620 · Cited by 34
Mechanobiology of cells and cell systems, such as organoids
Bayır, E., Şendemir, A., & Missirlis, Y. F. (2019) · Biophysical Reviews · doi:10.1007/s12551-019-00590-7 · Cited by 35
Pei, Z., Gao, M., Xing, J., Wang, C., Zhao, P., Zhang, H., & Qu, J. (2023) · International Journal of Bioprinting · doi:10.18063/ijb.v9i2.662 · Cited by 32
“The transition from 2D culture to 3D culture will become an inevitable development trend[43].”
BackgroundAmyloid fibril-based thixotropic hydrogels for modeling of tumor spheroids in vitro
Singh, N., Patel, K., Navalkar, A., Kadu, P., Datta, D., Chatterjee, D., Mukherjee, S., Shaw, R., Gahlot, N., Shaw, A., et al. (2023) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122032 · Cited by 36
Recent Advances in Electrospun Fibers for Biological Applications
Fromager, B., Marhuenda, E., Louis, B., Bakalara, N., Cambedouzou, J., & Cornu, D. (2023) · Macromol—A Journal of Macromolecular Research · doi:10.3390/macromol3030033 · Cited by 34
Sui, J., Pragnère, S., & Kurniawan, N. A. (2025) · Biomaterials Science · doi:10.1039/d5bm00210a · Cited by 35
Potential miRNAs for miRNA-Based Therapeutics in Breast Cancer
Wong, J. S., & Cheah, Y. K. (2020) · Non-Coding RNA · doi:10.3390/ncrna6030029 · Cited by 32
“One of the major dra backs of this system is the failure to mimic the cellular micro nvironment in vivo, such as the lack of cross-talking betwe n the different types of cells within the system, and the absence f extracellular matrix and growth factor [17].”
BackgroundStrategies for developing complex multi-component in vitro tumor models: Highlights in glioblastoma
DePalma, T. J., Sivakumar, H., & Skardal, A. (2021) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2021.114067 · Cited by 30
Entezari, M., Mozafari, M., Bakhtiyari, M., Moradi, F., Bagher, Z., & Soleimani, M. (2022) · Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.37361 · Cited by 30
Current Perspectives on Gastrointestinal Models to Assess Probiotic-Pathogen Interactions
Anjum, M., Laitila, A., Ouwehand, A. C., & Forssten, S. D. (2022) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.831455 · Cited by 35
Santi, M., Mapanao, A. K., Cappello, V., & Voliani, V. (2020) · ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c00617 · Cited by 31
A Model of Hepatic Steatosis with Declined Viability and Function in a Liver-Organ-on-a-Chip
Wiriyakulsit, N., Keawsomnuk, P., Thongin, S., Ketsawatsomkron, P., & Muta, K. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-44198-0 · Cited by 29
Photobiomodulation in 3D tissue engineering
Bikmulina, P., Kosheleva, N. V., Shpichka, A. I., Yusupov, V. I., Gogvadze, V. G., Rochev, Y. A., & Timashev, P. S. (2022) · Journal of Biomedical Optics · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.27.9.090901 · Cited by 32
Tissue-Engineered 3D In Vitro Disease Models for High-Throughput Drug Screening
Huskin, G. N., Chen, J., Davis, T. J., & Jun, H. (2023) · Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13770-023-00522-3 · Cited by 30
“A variety of 2D in vitro models have been developed, including 2D models with 3D characteristics, such as cells on tissue culture plastics coated with ECM-mimicking materials [36].”
BackgroundYun, C., Kim, S. H., Kim, K. M., Yang, M. H., Byun, M. R., Kim, J., Kwon, D., Pham, H. T. M., Kim, H.-S., Kim, J.-H., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms25052512 · Cited by 33
“While valuable, traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures are constrained in accurately representing the intricate cellular environments essential for understanding bone biology [3,4].”
BackgroundScaffold Application for Bone Regeneration with Stem Cells in Dentistry: Literature Review
Saberian, E., Jenča, A., Zafari, Y., Jenča, A., Petrášová, A., Zare‐Zardini, H., & Jenčová, J. (2024) · Cells · doi:10.3390/cells13121065 · Cited by 29
“Fujii et al. [87] Human dental pulp stem cells 4-(4-Methoxyphenyl) pyrido[40,30:4,5]thieno[2,3-b]pyridine-2-carboxamide (TH)-induced DPSCs are examined in vitro for their ability to induce osteogenesis and in vivo for their ability to stimulate osteogenesis in mouse calvaria defects using…”
BackgroundThe mechanics of the retina: Müller glia role on retinal extracellular matrix and modelling
Prieto-López, L., Pereiro, X., & Vecino, E. (2024) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1393057 · Cited by 37
Ogoke, O., Maloy, M. H., & Parashurama, N. (2020) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.12650 · Cited by 28
“Tissue engineers have generated 3D epithelial tissues that replicate aspects of in vivo architecture (Duval et al., 2017) by tailoring cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions, and employing biomaterial-based and natural scaffolds (Ogoke et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMatejovič, A., Wakao, S., Kitada, M., et al. (2021) · FEBS Open Bio · doi:10.1002/2211-5463.13075 · Cited by 29
Yalçın, Y. D., & Lüttge, R. (2021) · Organs-on-a-Chip · doi:10.1016/j.ooc.2021.100006 · Cited by 28
Yang, L., Xiao, Y., Fuller, A. M., et al. (2019) · Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · doi:10.21037/qims.2019.08.15 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Duval, K., Grover, H., Han, L.-H., Mou, Y., Pegoraro, A. F., Fredberg, J., & Chen, Z.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Drexel University (US)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chen, Zi
- Venue
- Physiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 266-277
- ISSN
- 0886-1714 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-9213
- 1548-9221
- PMC
- PMC5545611
- OpenAlex
- W2626725994
- Cited by
- 1,849
- References
- 129
- Citations by year
- 2026: 184 · 2025: 240 · 2024: 251 · 2023: 252 · 2022: 241 · 2021: 268 · 2020: 234 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 9.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Physiology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Society in Science-Branco Weiss Fellowship
- HHS | NIH | National Cancer Institute (NCI) (U01CA202123)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
- Keywords
- 2D cell culture, 3D cell culture, tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, mechanical microenvironment, metabolic waste, physiological modeling, biomechanics
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cell Differentiation, Cell Movement, Extracellular Matrix, Humans, Cell Culture Techniques, Tissue Engineering, Biomedical Research, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
