CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,4993D Printing in Biomedical ResearchCancer Cells and MetastasisCellular Mechanics and Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

2D and 3D Cell Cultures - a Comparison of Different Types of Cancer Cell Cultures

Open access
Kapałczyńska, Marta, Kolenda, Tomasz, Przybyła, Weronika, Zajączkowska, Maria, Teresiak, Anna, Filas, Violetta, Ibbs, Matthew, Bliźniak, Renata, Łuczewski, Łukasz, Lamperska, Katarzyna·2016·Archives of Medical Science
DOI 10.5114/aoms.2016.63743PMC PMC6040128
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cell culture is a widely used in vitro tool for improving our understanding of cell biology, tissue morphology, and mechanisms of diseases, drug action, protein production and the development of tissue engineering.Most research regarding cancer biology is based on experiments using two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures in vitro.However, 2D cultures have many limitations, such as the disturbance of interactions between the cellular and extracellular environments, changes in cell morphology, polarity, and method of division.These disadvantages led to the creation of models which are more closely able to mimic conditions in vivo.One such method is three-dimensional culture (3D).Optimisation of the culture conditions may allow for a better understanding of cancer biology and facilitate the study of biomarkers and targeting therapies.In this review, we compare 2D and 3D cultures in vitro as well as different versions of 3D cultures.

Overview

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 · 10.5114/aoms.2016.63743

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Types of cell culture methods commonly used in research studies. A – Cells flattened in a monolayer on the bottom of the culture vessel. They are in contact with the culture vessel, neighbouring cells, and the culture medium. B – Cells attached to a scaffold are in contact with the scaffolding, neighbouring cells, and the culture medium. C – A group of cells suspended in the culture medium or cultivated in gel-like substance; the cells are in contact with neighbouring cells and with the culture medium
Figure 1 Types of cell culture methods commonly used in research studies. A – Cells flattened in a monolayer on the bottom of the culture vessel. They are in contact with the culture vessel, neighbouring cells, and the culture medium. B – Cells attached to a scaffold are in contact with the scaffolding, neighbouring cells, and the culture medium. C – A group of cells suspended in the culture medium or cultivated in gel-like substance; the cells are in contact with neighbouring cells and with the culture mediumCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 2 FaDu cell line cultured under various conditions. The FaDu cells were maintained in adherent conditions with standard medium (10% FBS) and next detached and placed as single cells in different (A–F) culture conditions in standard medium. A – flattened cells growing as a monolayer under 2D conditions (scale bar represents 100 μm); B – 3D structures in soft agar, single cells suspended in a gel are visible (scale bar represents 200 μm); C – adherent colonies formed between layers of soft agar (scale bar represents 200 μm); D – 3D structure formed on non-adherent plate (scale bar represents 100 μm); E – tissue-like structures formed by attached single spheres cultivated on ultra-low attachment plates (scale bar represents 200 μm); F – cells (red) cultured using 3D scaffold system with visible membrane pores (scale bar represents 100 μm)
Figure 2 FaDu cell line cultured under various conditions. The FaDu cells were maintained in adherent conditions with standard medium (10% FBS) and next detached and placed as single cells in different (A–F) culture conditions in standard medium. A – flattened cells growing as a monolayer under 2D conditions (scale bar represents 100 μm); B – 3D structures in soft agar, single cells suspended in a gel are visible (scale bar represents 200 μm); C – adherent colonies formed between layers of soft agar (scale bar represents 200 μm); D – 3D structure formed on non-adherent plate (scale bar represents 100 μm); E – tissue-like structures formed by attached single spheres cultivated on ultra-low attachment plates (scale bar represents 200 μm); F – cells (red) cultured using 3D scaffold system with visible membrane pores (scale bar represents 100 μm)CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Structural architecture of 3D spheroids. The SCC-040 and FaDu cells were maintained in adherent condition with standard medium (10% FBS) and next detached and placed as single cells on non-adherent plates in standard medium. The created spheroids were taken to make the formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections (FFPET) and H&E staining as well as DAPI staining. A – cross section through the cells growing in 2D and 3D cultures of SCC-040 and FaDu cell lines, H&E staining (scale bars represent 20 μm and 50 μm, respectively); B – 3D structure stained with DAPI; blue – nuclei, pink – cells (scale bar represents 50 μm)
Figure 3 Structural architecture of 3D spheroids. The SCC-040 and FaDu cells were maintained in adherent condition with standard medium (10% FBS) and next detached and placed as single cells on non-adherent plates in standard medium. The created spheroids were taken to make the formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections (FFPET) and H&E staining as well as DAPI staining. A – cross section through the cells growing in 2D and 3D cultures of SCC-040 and FaDu cell lines, H&E staining (scale bars represent 20 μm and 50 μm, respectively); B – 3D structure stained with DAPI; blue – nuclei, pink – cells (scale bar represents 50 μm)CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Co-culture of epithelial SCC-25 (red) and fibroblast MSU-1.1 (green) cell lines (scale bar represents 100 μm). A – cells cultured under 2D conditions are flattened and attached to the plate surface. The epithelial SCC-25 cells (red) have typical rhombus-like shape and MSU-1.1 cells (green) are spindle-like and surround SCC-25 cells; B – SCC-25 (red) and MSU-1.1 (green) cells cultured under 3D conditions changed their own morphology due to the lack of attachment. Cells lose their typical shape and aggregate, creating more (SCC-25) and less (MSU-1.1) compact structures
Figure 4 Co-culture of epithelial SCC-25 (red) and fibroblast MSU-1.1 (green) cell lines (scale bar represents 100 μm). A – cells cultured under 2D conditions are flattened and attached to the plate surface. The epithelial SCC-25 cells (red) have typical rhombus-like shape and MSU-1.1 cells (green) are spindle-like and surround SCC-25 cells; B – SCC-25 (red) and MSU-1.1 (green) cells cultured under 3D conditions changed their own morphology due to the lack of attachment. Cells lose their typical shape and aggregate, creating more (SCC-25) and less (MSU-1.1) compact structuresCC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 93 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [5]Jacoby W Pasten I Methods in Enzymology: Cell Culture 1979 58 New York Academic Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kapałczyńska, M., Kolenda, T., Przybyła, W., Zajączkowska, M., Teresiak, A., Filas, V., Ibbs, M., Bliźniak, R., Łuczewski, Ł., & Lamperska, K.
Affiliations
  • Greater Poland Cancer Center (PL)
  • Poznan University of Medical Sciences (PL)
Corresponding author
Kolenda, Tomasz
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Medical Science
Publisher
Termedia Sp. z.o.o.
Published
2016
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
910-919
ISSN
1734-1922 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5114/aoms.2016.63743
PMC
PMC6040128
OpenAlex
W2587788572
Cited by
1,499
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 114 · 2025: 264 · 2024: 299 · 2023: 256 · 2022: 196 · 2021: 209 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 5
FWCI
7.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Archives of Medical Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
2D cell culture, 3D cell culture, tumor cell culture, in vitro model, tumor biology, extracellular matrix, cell morphology, biomarkers, targeted therapy, tissue engineering

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