Cited by 845Cancer Cells and Metastasis3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism

Comparison of 2D- and 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in breast cancer

Open access
IMAMURA, YOSHINORI, MUKOHARA, TORU, SHIMONO, YOHEI, FUNAKOSHI, YOHEI, CHAYAHARA, NAOKO, TOYODA, MASANORI, KIYOTA, NAOMI, TAKAO, SHINTARO +3 more·2015·Oncology Reports

Abstract

It is becoming recognized that screening of oncology drugs on a platform using two-dimensionally (2D)-cultured cell lines is unable to precisely select clinically active drugs; therefore three-dimensional (3D)-culture systems are emerging and show potential for better simulating the in vivo tumor microenvironment. The purpose of this study was to reveal the differential effects of chemotherapeutic drugs between 2D- and 3D-cultures and to explore their underlying mechanisms. We evaluated differences between 2D- and 3D-cultured breast cancer cell lines by assessing drug sensitivity, oxygen status and expression of Ki-67 and caspases. Three cell lines (BT-549, BT-474 and T-47D) developed dense multicellular spheroids (MCSs) in 3D-culture, and showed greater resistance to paclitaxel and doxorubicin compared to the 2D-cultured cells. An additional three cell lines (MCF-7, HCC-1954, and MDA-MB‑231) developed only loose MCSs in 3D, and showed drug sensitivities similar to those found in the 2D-culture. Treatment with paclitaxel resulted in greater increases in cleaved-PARP expression in the 2D-culture compared with the 3D-culture, but only in cell lines forming dense 3D-MCSs, suggesting that MCS formation protected the cells from paclitaxel-induced apoptosis. Hypoxia was observed only in the dense 3D-MCSs. BT-549 had fewer cells positive for Ki-67 in 3D- than in 2D-culture, suggesting that the greater G0-dormant subpopulation was responsible for its drug resistance in the 3D-culture. BT-474 had a lower level of caspase-3 in the 3D- than in the 2D-culture, suggesting that the 3D-environment was anti-apoptotic. Finally, we compared staining for Ki-67 and caspases in the 2D- and 3D-primary‑cultured cells originating from a patient-derived xenograft (PDX), fresh PDX tumor, and the patient's original tumor; 2D-cultured cells showed greater proportions of Ki-67-positive and caspase-3-positive cells, in agreement with the view that 3D-primary culture better represents characteristics of tumors in vivo. In conclusion, 3D-cultured cells forming dense MCSs may be better than 2D-cultured cells in simulating important tumor characteristics in vivo, namely hypoxia, dormancy, anti-apoptotic features and their resulting drug resistance.

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 · 10.3892/or.2015.3767

Cites

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?

  • Monolayer systems fall short in predicting in vivo therapeutic efficacy despite their utility in mechanistic studies and target validation.

    “However, despite their utility in mechanistic studies and target validation, these models fall short in predicting in vivo therapeutic efficacy.”

    From Modeling Tumor Microenvironment Complexity In Vitro: Spheroids as Physiologically Relevant Tumor Models and Strategies for Their Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [168]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says 2D-cultured cells do not precisely simulate in vivo tumors and tend to overestimate drug efficacy, supporting the prediction limitation. The paper compares 2D and 3D cultures to explore drug-response mechanisms, but our copy does not establish monolayer systems’ utility for target validation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 2D models cannot be used in the testing of drug efficacy because previous studies have shown that efficacy varies substantially between in vivo and 2D monoculture.

    “For instance, 2D models cannot be used in the testing of drug efficacy as previous studies have shown that the efficacy still varies quite substantially between in vivo as compared to 2D monoculture [52,53].”

    From Microfluidic modelling of the tumor microenvironment for anti-cancer drug development (2019) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Introduction and Discussion say 2D cultures do not precisely simulate tumors in vivo and may overestimate anticancer activity. But the paper does not say 2D models cannot be used for drug-efficacy testing, and its Results compare 2D with 3D cultures rather than directly measuring a substantial efficacy difference between 2D cultures and in vivo tumors. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Numerous anticancer compounds that demonstrate robust activity in monolayer cultures fail to reproduce such outcomes in vivo.

    “Numerous anticancer compounds that demonstrate robust activity in monolayer cultures fail to reproduce such outcomes in vivo [168,169,170,171].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 845

Authors
IMAMURA, Y., MUKOHARA, T., SHIMONO, Y., FUNAKOSHI, Y., CHAYAHARA, N., TOYODA, M., KIYOTA, N., TAKAO, S., KONO, S., NAKATSURA, T., & MINAMI, H.
Affiliations
  • Kobe University (JP)
  • National Cancer Center Hospital East (JP)
Venue
Oncology Reports
Published
2015-01-29
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
1837-1843
ISSN
  • 1021-335X (ISSN-L)
  • 1791-2431
OpenAlex
W1980324695
Cited by
845
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 3
FWCI
16.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Oncology Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
  • Kobe University Repository Kernel (Kobe University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Kobe University Repository Kernel (Kobe University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Takeda Science Foundation
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (25130707, 15K14381, 26460627, 23501268, 15K08588)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Keywords
breast cancer, multicellular spheroids, 2D cell culture, drug resistance, paclitaxel, doxorubicin, tumor hypoxia, Ki-67, caspase-3, apoptosis, patient-derived xenografts, primary tumor cultures, tumor microenvironment, drug susceptibility testing, BT-549
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Spheroids, Cellular, Cell Culture Techniques, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, Ki-67 Antigen, Caspases, Cell Line, Tumor

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