3D Cell Culture Techniques: Advancing Physiologically Relevant Models for Drug Discovery and Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture techniques, which are revolutionizing biomedical research by offering more physiologically relevant models compared to traditional 2D monolayers. We explore the foundational principles driving the adoption of 3D cultures, detail scaffold-based and scaffold-free methodological approaches, and address common troubleshooting and optimization challenges. By comparing the validation and applications of these advanced models in drug screening and disease modeling, this resource equips researchers and drug development professionals with the knowledge to implement and leverage 3D culture systems to enhance predictive accuracy in preclinical studies.

Why 3D? The Scientific Foundation for Advanced Cell Models

The Limitations of Traditional 2D Monolayer Cultures

For decades, the traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayer culture has been the cornerstone of in vitro biological research, providing a simple, inexpensive, and reproducible system for maintaining cells outside their native environment [1] [2]. In this approach, cells are grown adhered to a flat, rigid surface of tissue culture-treated plastic or glass, submerged in a nutrient-rich medium [3]. Despite its widespread use and the significant breakthroughs it has facilitated, a growing body of evidence underscores a critical flaw: the flat, synthetic environment of 2D culture fundamentally alters cell biology, making it a poor surrogate for the complex three-dimensional architecture of human tissues [1] [4] [5]. This application note details the principal limitations of 2D monolayer cultures, framing them within the imperative to adopt more physiologically relevant three-dimensional (3D) models in preclinical research, particularly in drug development and cancer biology. The data and protocols herein are designed to equip researchers with the evidence and methodologies to transition their research towards more predictive in vitro systems.

Core Limitations of 2D Monolayer Systems

The discrepancies between 2D culture and the in vivo environment lead to a cascade of phenotypic and genotypic alterations that compromise the translational value of experimental data.

Altered Cell Morphology and Polarity

In the body, cells are surrounded by a complex extracellular matrix (ECM) and other cells on all sides, which informs their shape, polarity, and function. In 2D culture, this geometry is reduced to a single, flat plane.

• Unnatural Spreading and Adhesion: Cells on 2D surfaces are forced to adhere and spread unnaturally, forming large, supraphysiological focal adhesions that distort cytoskeletal organization [2].
• Loss of Tissue-Specific Architecture: The constraint of a monolayer prevents cells from self-organizing into complex, tissue-specific structures such as glandular tubules, neural rosettes, or the stratified layers of the epidermis [2]. This automatic apical-basal polarization in 2D is simplistic and does not recapitulate the intricate polarity generated when cells are embedded in a 3D matrix [2].

Loss of Physiological Cell-Cell and Cell-ECM Interactions

The in vivo microenvironment is defined by a dynamic interplay of biochemical and biophysical cues.

• Simplified Adhesion Cues: In 2D, cell-substrate interactions dominate over cell-cell interactions [2]. The continuous, flat plastic surface provides unencumbered space for adhesion and migration, unlike the nano- and micro-scale 3D surfaces provided by ECM fibers in vivo [2].
• Non-Physiological Mechanical Environment: The stiffness of tissue culture plastic or glass is orders of magnitude higher than that of most soft tissues [2]. This supraphysiological mechanical signaling directly affects fundamental cell behaviors including adhesion, migration, proliferation, and differentiation [2].

Compromised Tissue-Specific Function and Gene Expression

The failure to replicate the native microenvironment inevitably leads to a loss of physiological function.

• Dedifferentiation: Primary cells, such as hepatocytes and chondrocytes, rapidly lose their tissue-specific functions and gene expression profiles when cultured in 2D [1] [2]. For instance, immortalized human hepatocyte HepG2 cells lose substantial amounts of CYP450 enzyme mRNA and activity in 2D, critical for drug metabolism studies [4].
• Aberrant Gene and Protein Expression: Studies consistently show that the gene and protein expression profiles of cells in 2D differ significantly from those in 3D cultures and in vivo tissues [5] [6]. Proteins involved in cell survival, drug transporters, and drug targets are often dysregulated in 2D systems [4].

Poor Predictability of Drug Responses

Perhaps the most critical limitation for drug development is the failure of 2D cultures to predict clinical drug efficacy and toxicity.

• Increased Drug Sensitivity: 2D-cultured cells often show heightened sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents compared to in vivo tumors [1]. For example, a study on HER2-positive breast cancer cell lines demonstrated that 3D cultures were significantly more resistant to both targeted therapy (neratinib) and classical chemotherapy (docetaxel) than their 2D counterparts (see Table 1) [4].
• Lack of Pharmacokinetic Barriers: In 2D monolayers, drugs are uniformly exposed to all cells. This ignores critical in vivo barriers such as poor drug penetration, which is a major factor in treatment failure, particularly in solid tumors [5] [2].

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Drug Response in 2D vs. 3D Cultures

Cell Line	Drug Treatment	Cell Survival (2D)	Cell Survival (3D)	Increase in Survival (3D vs. 2D)	Citation
BT474 (Breast Cancer)	Neratinib (HER-targeted)	62.7% ± 1.2%	90.8% ± 4.5%	28.1% ± 5.4%	[4]
HCC1954 (Breast Cancer)	Neratinib (HER-targeted)	64.7% ± 3.9%	77.3% ± 6.9%	12.6% ± 5.3%	[4]
EFM192A (Breast Cancer)	Neratinib (HER-targeted)	59.7% ± 2.1%	86.8% ± 0.6%	27.1% ± 2.7%	[4]
BT474 (Breast Cancer)	Docetaxel (Chemotherapy)	60.3% ± 8.7%	91.0% ± 5.9%	30.7% ± 2.8%	[4]
HCC1954 (Breast Cancer)	Docetaxel (Chemotherapy)	52.3% ± 8.5%	101.6% ± 5.7%	49.0% ± 3.1%	[4]

Inability to Model the Tumor Microenvironment (TME)

Solid tumors in vivo are complex ecosystems, or "organs," composed of cancer cells, stromal cells, immune cells, blood vessels, and a dense ECM [5]. The 2D model is profoundly reductionist, lacking this critical complexity.

• Absence of Metabolic Gradients: In 3D tumor spheroids, gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and waste products naturally form, creating distinct regional zones of proliferation, quiescence, and necrosis [5]. This leads to pathophysiological conditions like hypoxia, which is absent in 2D monolayers but is a key driver of tumor progression and therapy resistance in vivo [1] [5].
• Lack of Stromal Interactions: The influence of cancer-associated fibroblasts, immune cells, and endothelial cells on tumor growth, invasion, and drug response cannot be adequately studied in a pure cancer cell monolayer [5].

Experimental Evidence: A Case Study in Breast Cancer

Objective: To quantitatively compare the morphology, viability, protein expression, and drug response of HER2-positive breast cancer cell lines cultured in 2D monolayers versus 3D poly-HEMA forced-floating spheroids [4].

Protocol: Generation of 3D Spheroids via the Forced-Floating Method

Materials:

• Poly-HEMA (Poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate))
• Ethanol (95%)
• HER2-positive breast cancer cell lines (e.g., BT474, HCC1954, EFM192A)
• Standard cell culture reagents (medium, PBS, trypsin-EDTA)
• Tissue culture-treated multi-well plates

Methodology:

• Coating Preparation: Dissolve Poly-HEMA in 95% ethanol to a final concentration of 10 mg/mL. Sterilize by filtration.
• Plate Coating: Add a sufficient volume of the Poly-HEMA solution to cover the surface of each well of a multi-well plate (e.g., 100 µL for a 96-well plate). Allow the ethanol to evaporate completely in a sterile laminar flow hood, leaving a thin, non-adhesive polymer film.
• Cell Seeding: Trypsinize, count, and resuspend cells in their complete growth medium. Seed cells onto the Poly-HEMA-coated plates at a density optimized for spheroid formation (e.g., 5,000 cells/well for a 96-well plate). Centrifuge the plates at low speed (e.g., 500 x g for 5 minutes) to aggregate cells at the bottom of the wells.
• Culture and Maintenance: Culture the plates in a standard humidified incubator (37°C, 5% CO₂). Spheroids should form within 24-72 hours. Change the medium carefully every 2-3 days by partially exchanging the medium without disturbing the spheroids.

Key Findings and Data Analysis

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) confirmed radically different morphologies: 2D cells grew as flat, spread monolayers, while 3D cultures formed compact, uniform spheroids [4]. After 6 days in culture, cell viability (measured by ATP levels) was substantially lower in 3D cultures, being only 41.6%, 18.4%, and 44% of the 2D levels for BT474, HCC1954, and EFM192A cells, respectively, reflecting a more physiologically relevant growth rate [4]. As detailed in Table 1, 3D spheroids demonstrated significantly higher innate resistance to anti-cancer drugs. Furthermore, immunoblot analysis revealed increased expression of proteins involved in cell survival (Akt), drug resistance (transporters), and drug targets in 3D cultures compared to 2D monolayers [4]. Finally, activity of the drug-metabolizing enzyme CYP3A4 was substantially increased in 3D, highlighting a critical pharmacological difference often missed in 2D models [4].

The following diagram synthesizes the logical relationships and experimental workflow that leads to the divergent outcomes between 2D and 3D culture systems.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for 3D Culture

Transitioning to 3D culture requires specific materials. The table below details key reagents and their functions for establishing robust 3D models.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Cell Culture

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application	Key Considerations
Natural Hydrogels	Matrigel, Collagen I, Laminin, Alginate, Fibrin [7] [3]	Mimics the native extracellular matrix (ECM); provides biological cues for cell adhesion, differentiation, and morphogenesis. Ideal for organoid culture and studying cell-ECM interactions.	High batch-to-batch variability; potential immunogenicity; contains undefined growth factors.
Synthetic Hydrogels	Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), Polylactic Acid (PLA), Polycaprolactone (PCL) [7] [3]	Defined composition and tunable mechanical properties (stiffness, porosity). Offers high reproducibility for controlled studies of mechanobiology.	Lacks natural cell adhesion motifs; may require functionalization with peptides (e.g., RGD).
Scaffold-Free Platforms	Low-Attachment Plates, Hanging Drop Plates [7] [8]	Promotes spontaneous cell aggregation to form spheroids. Simple, cost-effective for high-throughput drug screening.	Limited control over spheroid size (hanging drop offers more uniformity); not suitable for long-term or invasive cultures.
Specialized Media	Stem Cell Media, Defined Organoid Media [9]	Formulated with specific growth factors and supplements to support the growth and self-organization of primary cells and stem cells in 3D.	Often proprietary and expensive; requires optimization for specific cell types.

The evidence is compelling: traditional 2D monolayer culture imposes artificial constraints that distort cell morphology, polarity, signaling, and gene expression, leading to data that frequently fails to predict in vivo responses [4] [5] [2]. The case for adopting 3D cell culture techniques is no longer merely speculative but is a necessary step for enhancing the translational fidelity of preclinical research. While 3D models present their own challenges, such as increased cost and complexity in analysis, their ability to more accurately mimic the in vivo tissue environment makes them indispensable for the future of drug discovery, cancer biology, and regenerative medicine [1] [5]. The protocols and tools outlined in this application note provide a foundation for researchers to begin integrating these more physiologically relevant models into their experimental workflows.

Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture has emerged as a transformative technology in biomedical research, primarily by providing models that more accurately mimic the natural tissue architecture and cell-cell interactions found in vivo. Unlike traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers, 3D cultures replicate the complex cellular microenvironment, enabling more physiologically relevant studies of cell behavior, disease mechanisms, and drug responses [3] [7]. This capability is fundamentally changing approaches to drug discovery, cancer research, and regenerative medicine by offering models that bridge the gap between conventional in vitro systems and complex in vivo environments [10] [11].

The core advantage of 3D culture systems lies in their ability to facilitate natural cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions that govern tissue development, homeostasis, and disease progression in living organisms [3] [12]. By recreating these critical interactions, 3D models generate more predictive data for human physiology and therapeutic responses, ultimately reducing reliance on animal models and improving the efficiency of drug development processes [10] [7].

Physiological Relevance of 3D Models

Recapitulation of Native Tissue Architecture

The transition from 2D to 3D culture systems represents more than simply adding dimension—it fundamentally changes cellular architecture and function. In 3D environments, cells can organize spatially, establishing natural polarity and forming complex tissue-like structures that mirror their native counterparts [7]. This spatial organization creates microenvironments with distinct regions of proliferating, quiescent, and hypoxic cells, similar to patterns observed in human tissues and tumors [11].

Cells cultured in 3D systems demonstrate markedly different morphological characteristics compared to their 2D counterparts. They develop more natural cytoskeletal arrangements, establish proper cell-cell junctions, and exhibit enhanced differentiation capacity [3] [7]. The 3D architecture provides mechanical cues and spatial constraints that guide cellular organization and tissue development in ways that flat surfaces cannot replicate [3]. This structural fidelity enables the formation of features such as the open lumen and transparent centers characteristic of healthy cystic spheroids, which serve as visual indicators of viability and proper organization [13].

Enhanced Cell-Cell and Cell-ECM Interactions

The density and proximity of cells in 3D cultures facilitates robust cell-cell communication through direct contact and secreted signaling molecules [3]. These interactions are implemented through protein-based cell junctions that form direct intercellular passageways, allowing transport of soluble factors like cytokines and growth factors to neighboring cells and ECM components [3]. This communication network enables coordinated cellular behaviors that are essential for tissue function, including synchronized differentiation, collective migration, and organized growth [3].

Cell-matrix interactions are equally critical in 3D environments. The ECM biochemical composition, comprising various signaling biomolecules, modulates multiple adhesion-related cell functions including cell cycle progression, adhesion stability, and proliferation capacity [3]. In scaffold-based 3D systems, cells actively interact with the surrounding matrix, receiving mechanical and biochemical cues that influence their gene expression, differentiation potential, and functional outcomes [3] [12]. These dynamic reciprocal interactions between cells and their matrix environment create a self-regulating system that more closely mirrors the adaptive nature of living tissues [3].

Table 1: Quantitative Comparisons Between 2D and 3D Culture Systems in Cancer Research

Parameter	2D Culture Performance	3D Culture Performance	Significance/Implications
Drug Response (5-FU, Cisplatin, Doxorubicin)	Altered responsiveness	Significant (p<0.01) differences in response profiles	3D models provide more clinically predictive drug testing platforms [11]
Proliferation Pattern	Uniform monolayer expansion	Significant (p<0.01) differences over time	3D systems replicate heterogeneous growth patterns seen in tumors [11]
Gene Expression Profile	Altered expression patterns	Significant (p-adj<0.05) dissimilarity involving thousands of genes	3D cultures exhibit transcriptomic profiles more closely resembling in vivo conditions [11]
Methylation Pattern	Elevated methylation rate	Shared pattern with patient FFPE samples	3D cultures better maintain epigenetic fidelity to native tissues [11]
microRNA Expression	Altered expression	Similar to patient FFPE samples	Enhanced molecular relevance for regulatory network studies [11]

Impact on Research Applications

Drug Discovery and Development

The enhanced physiological relevance of 3D culture systems has profound implications for drug discovery and development. Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly adopting 3D models because they reduce clinical trial failures by better replicating human tissue responses to therapeutic compounds, potentially saving up to 25% in R&D costs [10]. The more predictive nature of 3D systems allows for earlier and more effective identification of efficacy and toxicity issues compared to traditional 2D cultures [12].

In toxicity testing, 3D cultures have demonstrated particular utility for assessing compounds that show no adverse effects in 2D systems. For example, the chronic toxicity of fialuridine—which previously failed to exhibit direct hepatotoxicity in 2D cultures—was successfully identified using a 3D primary human hepatocyte culture model [12]. This capability to detect organ-specific toxicities earlier in the development pipeline represents a significant advancement for pharmaceutical safety assessment.

Cancer Research and Personalized Medicine

In oncology, 3D culture systems have become indispensable tools that account for approximately 34% of all 3D culture applications [10]. These models successfully recreate critical aspects of the tumor microenvironment, including oxygen and nutrient gradients, metabolic heterogeneity, and interactions between cancer cells and stromal components [11]. This environmental complexity enables more accurate studies of tumor behavior, drug resistance mechanisms, and metastatic processes [10] [12].

The application of 3D models in personalized medicine represents a particularly promising frontier. Patient-derived organoids and spheroids can predict individual drug responses, as demonstrated in studies of cystic fibrosis and pancreatic cancer [10]. These patient-specific models allow clinicians to test therapeutic options ex vivo before administration, potentially improving treatment outcomes while reducing unnecessary side effects from ineffective therapies.

Table 2: Advanced 3D Model Systems and Their Research Applications

Model Type	Key Characteristics	Primary Research Applications	Technical Considerations
Spheroids	Spherical cell aggregates formed in non-adherent conditions; mimic microtumors and early tissue architecture [12]	Drug screening, cancer research, cell-cell interaction studies [12]	Cost-effective; suitable for basic studies; can show size variability [12]
Organoids	Complex 3D structures from stem cells that self-organize into organ-like tissues [12]	Disease modeling, personalized medicine, developmental biology [12]	High complexity; require specialized protocols and resources [12]
Organ-on-Chip	Microfluidic devices incorporating 3D tissues with controlled fluid flow and mechanical forces [10] [12]	Toxicity testing, disease modeling, pharmacokinetic studies [10]	High precision control; enable real-time monitoring; technical complexity [10]
Bioprinted Models	Custom-designed tissues created by layering biomaterials and cells [12]	Tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, drug testing [12]	Customizable architecture; emerging technology; requires specialized equipment [12]

Experimental Protocols

Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Protocol

Principle: Scaffold-based systems utilize biomaterial supports that provide a 3D structure mimicking the native extracellular matrix (ECM), enabling cells to attach, migrate, and organize into tissue-like structures [3] [12].

Materials:

• Natural hydrogels (e.g., collagen, alginate, hyaluronic acid) or synthetic hydrogels (e.g., polyethylene glycol)
• Low attachment multi-well plates
• Cell culture medium appropriate for cell type
• Sterile pipettes and tips
• 37°C incubator with 5% CO₂

Procedure:

• Hydrogel Preparation: Prepare hydrogel according to manufacturer's instructions. For natural hydrogels like collagen, keep on ice to prevent premature polymerization [3].
• Cell Encapsulation: Trypsinize and count cells. Resuspend cell pellet in hydrogel solution at appropriate density (typically 0.5-2×10⁶ cells/mL, depending on application) [7].
• Polymerization: Transfer cell-hydrogel mixture to low attachment plates (50-100 μL per well for 96-well plates). Incubate at 37°C for 30-60 minutes to allow complete polymerization [7].
• Media Addition: Carefully add appropriate culture medium on top of polymerized hydrogel without disturbing the matrix.
• Culture Maintenance: Change medium every 2-3 days, taking care not to aspirate the hydrogel. Culture for 7-21 days depending on experimental needs [7].
• Analysis: Process constructs for imaging, molecular analysis, or drug testing as required.

Technical Notes: Natural hydrogels like collagen provide natural biochemical cues but may have batch-to-batch variability. Synthetic hydrogels offer better reproducibility and control over mechanical properties but may require modification with adhesion peptides to enhance cell attachment [3].

Scaffold-Free Spheroid Formation Protocol

Principle: Scaffold-free methods promote cell self-aggregation through forced floating, hanging drop, or agitation approaches, allowing cells to form their own ECM and establish natural cell-cell contacts [3] [7].

Hanging Drop Method:

• Cell Preparation: Trypsinize and prepare single-cell suspension at appropriate density (typically 1-5×10⁴ cells/mL in complete medium) [7].
• Droplet Formation: Pipette 20-50 μL droplets of cell suspension onto the inner surface of a Petri dish lid [3] [7].
• Inversion: Carefully invert the lid and place over the bottom portion of the dish containing PBS to maintain humidity.
• Culture: Incubate for 3-7 days, allowing spheroid formation through gravity-mediated aggregation.
• Harvesting: Carefully wash spheroids from droplets using complete medium and transfer to low attachment plates for experimental use [7].

Low Attachment Plate Method:

• Cell Seeding: Prepare single-cell suspension and seed into commercially available low attachment U-bottom plates at desired density (typically 5-10×10³ cells/well for 96-well plates) [11] [7].
• Centrifugation: Centrifuge plates at low speed (300-500 × g for 5 minutes) to encourage cell aggregation at the well bottom [3].
• Culture: Maintain in incubator with medium changes every 2-3 days by carefully removing half the medium and replacing with fresh pre-warmed medium [11].
• Monitoring: Observe spheroid formation daily using inverted microscopy; mature spheroids typically form within 3-5 days [7].

Technical Notes: The hanging drop method produces highly uniform spheroids but is less suitable for long-term culture and high-throughput applications. Low attachment plates offer better scalability and ease of handling but may show more variability in spheroid size [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for 3D Cell Culture

Item	Function/Purpose	Examples/Options
Scaffold Materials	Provide 3D structural support mimicking native ECM; influence cell behavior through mechanical and biochemical cues [3] [12]	Natural hydrogels (collagen, alginate, Matrigel), synthetic polymers (PEG, PLA), composite materials [3]
Low Attachment Plates	Promote cell aggregation by preventing adhesion to plastic surfaces; enable spheroid formation [11] [7]	Nunclon Sphera, Elplasia plates, other commercially available ultra-low attachment surfaces [11] [7]
Microfluidic Systems	Create controlled microenvironments with precise fluid control; enable perfusion and gradient formation [10] [12]	Organ-on-chip platforms, microfluidic chambers with continuous media flow [10]
Bioreactors	Provide dynamic culture conditions with controlled parameters; enhance nutrient/waste exchange [10]	Rotating wall vessels, spinner flasks, perfusion systems [10]
Imaging Systems	Enable visualization and analysis of 3D structures; require specialized optics for thick samples [13] [14]	Confocal microscopes, spinning disk systems, automated water-immersion objectives [14]
Analysis Software	Process complex 3D image data; quantify morphology, viability, and expression patterns [13] [14]	Harmony software, Image Artist, SAAVY algorithm for label-free viability analysis [13] [14]
Specialized Media	Support specific cell types and applications; often require additional supplements for 3D culture [11]	Organoid media, stem cell media, tissue-specific formulations [11]

Advanced Analytical Techniques

Imaging and Image Analysis

The analysis of 3D cultures requires specialized imaging approaches that can penetrate thicker samples while maintaining resolution. Confocal microscopy systems, particularly those equipped with spinning disk technology and automated water-immersion objectives, are essential for obtaining high-quality images of 3D structures [14]. These systems capture up to four times more light than air objectives and provide superior resolution in X, Y, and Z dimensions, enabling researchers to image deeper into 3D models [14].

Advanced software platforms facilitate the analysis of complex 3D image data, allowing researchers to create 3D renderings, calculate volumetric measurements, analyze morphologies, and generate maximum intensity projections [14]. These tools are particularly valuable for tracking changes in 3D cultures over time and quantifying responses to experimental manipulations.

Label-Free Viability Assessment

Traditional viability assays often require cell lysis or fluorescent labeling, preventing longitudinal studies. Recently, machine learning approaches have been developed for non-destructive, quantitative viability analysis of 3D cultures [13]. The Segmentation Algorithm to Assess ViabilitY (SAAVY) analyzes brightfield images to identify features correlated with viability, such as spheroid transparency and overall morphology, without the need for labels or destructive processing [13].

This algorithm can analyze an entire well image in approximately 0.3 seconds—97% faster than manual expert analysis—while providing single-spheroid resolution across multiple parameters including viability, count, radius, and area [13]. This approach enables longitudinal studies of the same samples over time, providing more comprehensive data on cellular responses while reducing experimental costs and labor.

Recapitulating the Tumor Microenvironment and Drug Resistance

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex ecosystem comprising cancer cells, stromal cells, immune cells, and extracellular matrix (ECM) components that collectively influence tumor progression, metastasis, and therapeutic response. Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models have emerged as indispensable tools for replicating the intricate cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions, physiological oxygen and nutrient gradients, and spatial organization found in vivo. These advanced models bridge the gap between traditional two-dimensional (2D) cultures and animal models, providing more physiologically relevant platforms for studying TME-mediated drug resistance mechanisms and screening novel therapeutic strategies. This application note details standardized protocols for establishing 3D models that accurately recapitulate key TME features and their application in drug resistance studies, complete with analytical methods for evaluating therapeutic efficacy and resistance mechanisms.

The TME is not merely a passive backdrop for tumor growth but actively participates in cancer progression and treatment response. It consists of cellular components, including cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), endothelial cells, and immune cells, embedded within an ECM scaffold. This dynamic milieu engages in reciprocal signaling with cancer cells, influencing fundamental processes such as proliferation, angiogenesis, immune evasion, and the emergence of drug resistance [15].

A critical mechanism of therapy failure involves cancer stem cells (CSCs), a subpopulation with self-renewal capacity and enhanced resistance to conventional therapies. The TME provides a protective niche for CSCs, maintaining their stemness and contributing to tumor recurrence [15]. Key TME-mediated resistance pathways include:

• Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) signaling, which promotes genetic instability and alters drug metabolism.
• Activation of Wnt/β-catenin and Hedgehog pathways, which drive CSC self-renewal.
• Induction of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), enhancing invasive potential and conferring resistance.
• Recruitment of immunosuppressive cells, such as tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), which create an immunosuppressive microenvironment [15] [16].

Traditional 2D cell culture systems, while useful for high-throughput screening, fail to replicate these critical TME characteristics. Cells grown in 2D lack proper cell-ECM interactions, exhibit altered gene expression and metabolism, and do not form physiological nutrient and oxygen gradients, leading to poor predictive accuracy for drug responses [17] [18]. 3D cell culture models, including spheroids, organoids, and organ-on-a-chip systems, overcome these limitations by providing a platform where cells can assemble into structures that more closely mimic in vivo tumor biology, making them superior for investigating drug resistance and developing more effective cancer treatments [17].

Key 3D Models for Recapitulating the TME and Drug Resistance

Multicellular Tumor Spheroids (MCTS)

MCTS are self-assembled aggregates of tumor cells that recreate the 3D architecture and metabolic gradients of avascular microtumors. The external proliferating zone, internal quiescent layer, and hypoxic, necrotic core mimic in vivo conditions that drive therapy resistance.

Patient-Derived Tumor Organoids (PDTOs)

PDTOs are 3D structures grown from patient tumor stem cells on scaffold-based matrices. They retain the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of the original tumor, including key mutations and expression profiles, making them powerful tools for personalized medicine and drug screening applications [17] [18].

Tumor-on-a-Chip (Microfluidic Systems)

These systems integrate 3D cell culture with microfluidic channels to simulate dynamic TME conditions, such as fluid shear stress and controlled perfusion. They enable real-time analysis of cancer cell behavior under biomechanical forces and are ideal for studying metastatic processes like intravasation and extravasation.

3D Bioprinted Constructs

3D bioprinting allows for precise spatial deposition of multiple cell types and bioinks to create complex, biomimetic TME structures with defined architecture. This technology facilitates the construction of reproducible, scalable models for high-throughput drug testing.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of 3D Cell Culture Models for TME and Drug Resistance Studies

Model Type	Key Characteristics	Advantages	Limitations	Primary Applications in Drug Resistance
Multicellular Tumor Spheroids	Self-assembled cell aggregates; forms nutrient/oxygen gradients	Simple, cost-effective; mimics diffusion-limited drug penetration	Limited cellular complexity; self-assembly may be variable	Studying penetration resistance and hypoxia-mediated drug resistance
Patient-Derived Organoids (PDTOs)	Stem cell-derived 3D structures from patient tissue	Retains patient-specific genetics and tumor heterogeneity	Technically challenging; culture establishment can be slow	Personalized drug screening; biomarker discovery; studying intrinsic resistance mechanisms
Tumor-on-a-Chip	Microfluidic system with perfused channels	Controls TME parameters (shear stress, gradients); enables real-time imaging	Requires specialized equipment; can be low-throughput	Investigating the role of fluid dynamics and mechanical forces in drug resistance
3D Bioprinted Constructs	Precise spatial patterning of cells and ECM	Highly reproducible; customizable architecture and complexity	High cost; requires optimization of bioinks	Engineering specific TME niches to study their contribution to resistance

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Generation of Multicellular Tumor Spheroids Using Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates

Application: High-throughput drug screening and assessment of drug penetration.

• Principle: ULA surfaces prevent cell attachment, prompting cells to self-assemble into spheroids.
• Materials:
  • ULA round-bottom 96-well plates (e.g., Corning Elplasia plates [19])
  • Appropriate cell culture medium
  • Tumor cell line of interest (e.g., MCF-7)
  • Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
  • Drug compounds for testing
• Procedure:
  • Cell Preparation: Harvest and resuspend cells in complete medium. Determine cell viability (e.g., using trypan blue exclusion).
  • Seeding: Seed cells in ULA plates at an optimized density (typically ( 1 \times 10^3 ) to ( 5 \times 10^3 ) cells/well in 100-200 µL medium). Centrifuge plates at 300-500 × g for 3-5 minutes to aggregate cells at the well bottom.
  • Culture: Incubate at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 3-5 days, allowing spheroid formation. Observe daily using an inverted microscope.
  • Drug Treatment: Once spheroids reach the desired size (typically 150-500 µm in diameter), add drug treatments in fresh medium. Include vehicle controls.
  • Analysis: After 72-120 hours of drug exposure, assess spheroid viability using assays like CellTiter-Glo 3D or measure size reduction via brightfield microscopy.

Protocol 2: Establishing Patient-Derived Tumor Organoids (PDTOs) in a 3D Matrix

Application: Personalized drug sensitivity testing and studying patient-specific resistance mechanisms.

• Principle: Patient-derived cancer stem cells are embedded in a 3D matrix that provides biochemical and structural support, enabling them to form organoids that recapitulate the original tumor's architecture [17] [18].
• Materials:
  • Fresh or viably frozen patient tumor tissue
  • Digestion enzymes (e.g., collagenase, dispase)
  • Basement membrane extract (BME) (e.g., Corning Matrigel matrix [19])
  • Advanced cell culture medium (containing specific growth factors, e.g., EGF, Noggin, R-spondin)
  • 24-well cell culture plates
• Procedure:
  • Tissue Processing: Mechanically mince and enzymatically digest the tumor tissue to create a single-cell suspension or small cell clusters.
  • Matrix Embedding: Mix the cell suspension with cold BME and plate as small droplets (e.g., 30-50 µL) in pre-warmed 24-well plates. Polymerize the BME by incubating at 37°C for 20-30 minutes.
  • Culture and Expansion: Overlay the polymerized BME droplets with organoid culture medium. Refresh the medium every 2-3 days. Passage organoids every 1-2 weeks by mechanically breaking and re-embedding them in fresh BME.
  • Cryopreservation: For biobanking, dissociate organoids, resuspend in freezing medium (e.g., 90% FBS, 10% DMSO), and freeze using a controlled-rate freezer.
  • Drug Sensitivity Testing: Plate fragmented organoids into 96-well plates. After 3-5 days of recovery, treat with a drug panel for 5-7 days. Analyze viability using ATP-based 3D cell viability assays.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for 3D TME Models

Reagent/Category	Example Products	Function and Application in 3D Models
Natural Scaffolds	Corning Matrigel Matrix [19], Collagen I	Provides a biologically active 3D scaffold rich in ECM proteins like laminin and collagen; supports complex organoid growth and differentiation.
Synthetic Scaffolds	Corning Synthegel 3D Matrix Kits [19], PEG-based hydrogels	Offers a chemically defined, reproducible microenvironment; customizable mechanical and biochemical properties for controlled studies.
ULA Ware	Corning Elplasia Plates, Spheroid Microplates [19]	Surfaces engineered to inhibit cell attachment, promoting the self-assembly of cells into uniform spheroids for high-throughput screening.
Dissociation Agents	Accutase, TrypLE Select	Gentle enzymes for dissociating 3D spheroids and organoids into single cells for subsequent analysis, sub-culturing, or flow cytometry.
3D Viability Assays	CellTiter-Glo 3D	Optimized lytic reagents that penetrate 3D structures to measure ATP content, a marker of metabolically active cells, for viability assessment.
Imaging Reagents	3D Clear Tissue Clearing Reagent [19], Live-Cell Dyes	Enhances light penetration for deep imaging of 3D models and enables visualization of specific cellular structures or viability in real-time.

Analytical Methods for Assessing Drug Response in 3D Models

Evaluating drug efficacy in 3D models requires assays that account for their structural complexity and heterogeneity.

• Viability and Proliferation: Use ATP-based luminescence assays (e.g., CellTiter-Glo 3D) designed to penetrate 3D structures. Normalize results to untreated controls.
• Morphological Analysis: Quantify spheroid/organoid size, shape, and integrity over time using brightfield microscopy and automated image analysis software.
• Invasion and Migration: In modified setups, track the invasion of cells from spheroids into a surrounding matrix (e.g., collagen) to assess metastatic potential.
• Immunofluorescence (IF) and Histology: Fix, embed, and section 3D models for staining with antibodies against proliferation (Ki-67), apoptosis (cleaved caspase-3), CSC markers (e.g., Lgr5 [15]), or hypoxia markers (e.g., HIF-1α [15]). Tissue clearing reagents can improve antibody penetration for whole-mount imaging [19].
• Molecular Analysis: Recover cells from 3D models for downstream genomic, transcriptomic, or proteomic analyses to identify resistance biomarkers and altered signaling pathways.

Signaling Pathways in TME-Mediated Drug Resistance

The following diagram illustrates key signaling pathways within the TME that contribute to the development of drug resistance, a process that can be effectively studied using 3D culture models.

Diagram 1: Key TME-Mediated Drug Resistance Pathways. This diagram illustrates how core TME features (Hypoxia, ECM Remodeling, and Microbial Metabolites) activate signaling pathways that converge on the promotion of cancer stem cells (CSCs), epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and an immunosuppressive niche, collectively leading to drug resistance. Abbreviations: HIF-1α (Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha), ECM (Extracellular Matrix), FAK (Focal Adhesion Kinase), SCFA (Short-Chain Fatty Acid), Treg (Regulatory T cell), MDSC (Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cell), EMT (Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition).

Integrated Workflow for Drug Testing in 3D TME Models

The diagram below outlines a generalized experimental workflow for utilizing 3D TME models in drug resistance studies and therapeutic screening.

Diagram 2: Integrated Workflow for 3D TME Drug Testing. This workflow outlines the key steps from model establishment to data analysis for evaluating drug responses and resistance mechanisms in 3D TME models. IF: Immunofluorescence; RNA-seq: RNA sequencing.

The Role of the Extracellular Matrix (ECM) and Mechanical Cues

The extracellular matrix (ECM) is far more than a passive structural scaffold; it is a dynamic, information-rich network that provides essential mechanical and biochemical cues, orchestrating critical cell behaviors including differentiation, migration, and proliferation through a process known as mechanotransduction [20] [21]. While foundational knowledge in cell biology was established using cells cultured on two-dimensional (2D) plastic or glass surfaces, it is now widely appreciated that these models fail to recapitulate the complex mechanical interactions that occur in a native three-dimensional (3D) context [22]. In vivo, cells are embedded within a 3D ECM that exhibits complex mechanical properties such as stiffness, viscoelasticity, and nonlinear elasticity [20] [23]. The shift to 3D culture systems has revealed profound differences in how cells sense and respond to their mechanical environment, influencing everything from stem cell fate decisions to tissue morphogenesis and cancer progression [20] [22] [24]. This application note details the core mechanical properties of the ECM, provides standardized protocols for 3D culture, and outlines the key mechanotransduction pathways, equipping researchers with the tools to leverage mechanical cues in their experimental designs.

Mechanical Properties of the ECM: Quantitative Profiles

The mechanical properties of ECM components are not single-valued metrics but complex, dynamic profiles that directly instruct cell behavior. The following table summarizes key mechanical parameters for common ECM materials used in 3D culture.

Table 1: Mechanical Properties of Common ECM Components in 3D Culture

ECM Component	Typical Elastic Modulus (Stiffness)	Key Structural Features	Primary Cell Receptors	Major Mechanical Characteristics
Collagen-I	10s - 100s of Pa (gels) [20]	Fibrillar network; fibre diameters 50-nm to several hundred nm [20]	Integrins (e.g., α2β1, α11β1) [20]	Nonlinear elasticity (strain-stiffening), viscoelasticity, plasticity [20]
Fibrin	100s of Pa - low kPa [20]	Branched fibrous network [20]	Integrins (e.g., αVβ3) [20]	Strain-stiffening, viscoelasticity, plasticity [20]
Reconstituted Basement Membrane (e.g., Matrigel)	100s of Pa - 10s of kPa [20] [21]	Nanoporous, homogeneous network [20]	Integrins (e.g., β1-containing, α6β4) [20] [21]	Nonlinear elasticity [20]
Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Hydrogels	Tunable, often in the Pa-kPa range [20] [25]	Hydrated polysaccharide network; can be interpenetrated with other ECM components [20]	CD44, RHAMM [20]	High compression resistance, influences hydration and mechanotransduction [20] [25]
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Hydrogels	Highly tunable (Pa to MPa) [25]	Synthetic, nanoporous; properties defined by polymer chemistry and crosslinking [25]	Functionalized with adhesive peptides (e.g., RGD) [25]	Highly reproducible, elastic; mechanics can be decoupled from biochemistry [25]

Experimental Protocols: Application in 3D Culture

Protocol 1: Establishing 3D Cultures in Natural Matrices (Collagen-I/Matrigel)

This protocol describes a standard method for encapsulating cells in natural hydrogel matrices like Collagen-I or Matrigel, which are promoting of cell function due to their inherent bioactivity [25].

Workflow Overview:

Materials:

• Research Reagent: Rat tail Collagen-I, high concentration (e.g., ~8-10 mg/mL) or Matrigel [26].
• Neutralization Solution: Sterile NaOH or cell culture medium to adjust pH for Collagen-I.
• Cell Culture Vessel: Low-adhesion plates or microfluidic chips (e.g., OrganoPlate) [26].

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Matrix Precursor Preparation: Thaw Matrigel on ice. For Collagen-I, keep on ice and mix with neutralization solution according to manufacturer's instructions to achieve a physiological pH (~7.4). Maintain all components on ice to prevent premature gelation [26].
• Cell Suspension Mixing: Gently mix a single-cell suspension with the prepared, cold matrix precursor at the desired final cell density. Avoid introducing air bubbles.
• Gelation: Pipette the cell-matrix mixture into the desired culture vessel. For Collagen-I, transfer to an incubator (37°C, 5% CO₂) for 30-60 minutes to initiate polymerization. For Matrigel, incubate at 37°C for similar duration to allow gelation [26].
• Media Overlay: Once the gel is fully set, carefully overlay with pre-warmed appropriate cell culture medium to provide nutrients and prevent dehydration.
• Maintenance: Culture the 3D constructs, replacing the medium regularly according to cell type-specific requirements. Monitor cell morphology and proliferation using microscopy.

Protocol 2: Probing Mechanosensing in Synthetic Hydrogels

Synthetic hydrogels like Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) are permissive scaffolds that allow for precise, independent control over mechanical and biochemical properties, making them ideal for reductionist studies of mechanotransduction [25].

Workflow Overview:

Materials:

• Research Reagent: PEG-based hydrogels (e.g., PEG-diacrylate, PEG-vinyl sulfone) [25].
• Functionalization Reagents: Cell-adhesive peptides (e.g., RGD, from fibronectin) and protease-cleavable crosslinkers (e.g., MMP-sensitive peptides) [25].
• Crosslinking Initiator: Photoinitiator (e.g., LAP for UV light) or chemical initiator, depending on PEG chemistry.

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Hydrogel Design: Select target hydrogel stiffness (elastic modulus) by calculating the required polymer concentration and crosslinking density. Independently define the concentration of adhesive ligands (e.g., RGD) and protease-sensitive crosslinkers.
• Pre-polymer Synthesis: Prepare the PEG pre-polymer solution in cell-compatible buffer. Incorporate the photoinitiator, adhesive peptides, and protease-sensitive crosslinkers at the designed concentrations.
• Cell Encapsulation: Mix the cell suspension with the pre-polymer solution. Transfer the mixture to a mold and expose to UV light (365 nm) of appropriate intensity and duration to achieve cytocompatible crosslinking, forming a solid hydrogel with encapsulated cells.
• Mechanical Stimulation: Culture the constructs. To probe mechanosensing, apply external mechanical forces (e.g., cyclic stretch, compression) using bioreactors, or utilize dynamic hydrogels whose stiffness can be altered in situ with light [22].
• Downstream Analysis: Fix and stain cells for focal adhesion proteins (e.g., vinculin, paxillin) and the actin cytoskeleton to visualize adhesion complex formation. Analyze changes in nuclear translocation of transcription factors (e.g., YAP/TAZ) or cell fate markers via immunofluorescence or qPCR.

Mechanotransduction Pathways: From Force to Function

In 3D microenvironments, cells perceive mechanical cues through specific pathways that convert physical signals into biochemical responses. The core 3D mechanotransduction pathway is illustrated below.

Core 3D Mechanotransduction Pathway:

Pathway Description:

• Mechanosensing: Cells sense mechanical cues from the ECM through two primary classes of sensors in 3D. Integrin-mediated sensing involves clusters of integrins binding to ECM ligands (e.g., in collagen, fibrin), which physically tether the external matrix to the internal actin cytoskeleton [20] [23]. Concurrently, mechanosensitive ion channels embedded in the cell membrane can open in response to membrane tension caused by 3D confinement or stretch, allowing ion flux (e.g., Ca²⁺) that initiates signaling cascades [20].
• Mechanotransduction: The mechanical signal is transduced into a biochemical one. Forces sensed by integrin adhesions lead to reinforcement of the actin cytoskeleton and activation of signaling proteins like Rho GTPases [24]. This cytoskeletal tension is transmitted to the nucleus via linker proteins, facilitating the nuclear translocation of mechanoresponsive transcription factors like YAP/TAZ [27] [24].
• Cellular Response: The culmination of this signaling is a change in cell phenotype. The specific outcome—whether a stem cell differentiates into a neuron or bone cell, a cancer cell becomes invasive, or an epithelial cell forms a polarized acinus—is dictated by the integration of these mechanical signals with other biochemical cues [20] [24].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful 3D culture and mechanobiology studies require a carefully selected toolkit. The following table catalogues essential research reagents and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for ECM and Mechanobiology Studies

Research Reagent / Tool	Function & Utility in 3D Culture	Example Application
Matrigel	A natural, tumor-derived ECM mixture rich in laminin, collagen-IV, and growth factors; promotes complex 3D structure formation [21] [26].	Generation of epithelial organoids and tubulogenesis assays; supports in vivo-like basal membrane environments [26] [28].
Type I Collagen	The most abundant fibrous protein in the human ECM; self-assembles into a 3D fibrillar network that supports cell adhesion and migration [20] [26].	Models of stromal invasion (cancer, fibroblasts), angiogenesis (endothelial sprouting), and connective tissue mechanics [20] [26].
PEG-based Hydrogels	Synthetic, chemically defined hydrogels that allow independent tuning of stiffness, ligand density, and degradability [22] [25].	Reductionist studies to dissect the specific role of a single mechanical property (e.g., stiffness) on stem cell differentiation [25].
RGD Peptide	A short peptide sequence (Arg-Gly-Asp) derived from fibronectin that is a primary ligand for many integrin receptors [21] [25].	Functionalization of synthetic hydrogels (e.g., PEG) to confer cell adhesiveness and enable integrin-mediated mechanosensing [25].
MMP-Sensitive Peptide Crosslinkers	Short peptide sequences that are cleaved by cell-secreted matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) [25].	Incorporation into synthetic hydrogels to make them degradable and remodellable by encapsulated cells, mimicking natural ECM turnover [25].

A Practical Guide to 3D Culture Techniques and Their Applications in Research

The natural cellular microenvironment is a complex, three-dimensional (3D) structure that provides critical biochemical and biophysical cues, profoundly influencing cell behavior, differentiation, and response to therapeutics [29] [30]. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture on flat, rigid plastic surfaces fails to recapitulate this complexity, often leading to data that poorly translates to clinical outcomes [29] [3]. This recognition has driven the adoption of 3D cell culture techniques, particularly those utilizing scaffolds, to bridge the gap between conventional in vitro models and in vivo physiology [29]. Scaffold-based techniques employ a supportive, biomimetic matrix to allow cells to organize and interact in a 3D context, more accurately modeling tissue architecture and function [3]. Among the most prominent scaffold materials are hydrogels—hydrated polymer networks that mimic the native extracellular matrix (ECM). These encompass naturally derived matrices like Matrigel, as well as a growing repertoire of synthetic polymers and peptide-based hydrogels [31] [30]. This Application Note details the properties, applications, and detailed protocols for these key scaffold-based systems, providing a framework for their implementation in advanced cell culture research, drug discovery, and tissue engineering.

Material Types and Properties

Scaffolds for 3D cell culture are designed to emulate key aspects of the native ECM. The choice of material fundamentally directs the biological outcomes of the culture system by influencing cell adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, and mechanotransduction.

Matrigel and Natural ECM-Based Hydrogels

Matrigel, a basement membrane matrix extracted from Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm (EHS) mouse sarcomas, is one of the most widely used natural matrices [32]. Its composition is rich in ECM proteins such as laminin (~60%), collagen IV (~30%), entactin (~8%), and heparin sulfate proteoglycans, and it contains various mouse-derived growth factors and enzymes [32]. This complex, biologically active composition makes it a potent substrate for supporting cell differentiation, angiogenesis, and complex 3D morphogenesis. For instance, a 3D culture system using Matrigel was shown to preserve the structure and function of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs), promoting neurite outgrowth and reducing apoptosis [33]. Similarly, glioblastoma (GBM) cells cultured in Matrigel recovered a patient-like immunosuppressive phenotype that was not evident in 2D cultures, making it a more relevant model for immunotherapy research [34].

However, Matrigel has significant limitations, including a complex, ill-defined, and variable composition that leads to batch-to-batch variability and experimental uncertainty [32]. Its tumor-derived, xenogenic nature also poses challenges for therapeutic cell manufacturing and clinical translation.

Other Natural Hydrogels include collagen, fibrin, alginate, and hyaluronic acid. These materials are generally biocompatible and bioactive, presenting innate cell-adhesion motifs. However, they often suffer from similar drawbacks as Matrigel, such as batch-to-batch variability and poor control over mechanical properties [30] [3].

Synthetic Polymer-Based Hydrogels

Synthetic hydrogels address many of the limitations of natural matrices. Materials such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyacrylamide (PAM), and polyisocyanide (PIC) offer a chemically defined, xeno-free environment with high reproducibility and tailorability [32] [35]. Their mechanical properties—including stiffness, porosity, and degradation kinetics—can be precisely tuned by adjusting the polymer chemistry, length, and cross-linking density [32] [30].

A key advantage of synthetic systems is the ability to functionalize them with specific bioactive ligands, such as RGD peptides (for cell adhesion) or MMP-sensitive peptides (to enable cell-mediated remodeling) [32]. For example, PIC hydrogels form a fibrous architecture that closely mimics the physical properties of natural biogels like collagen. They are thermoresponsive, forming a gel at 37°C and liquefying upon cooling, which facilitates easy cell encapsulation and subsequent extraction for analysis [35].

Table 1: Comparison of Key Scaffold Materials for 3D Cell Culture

Material Type	Key Examples	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Primary Applications
Natural Matrices	Matrigel, Collagen I, Fibrin	High bioactivity, rich in adhesion motifs, promotes complex morphogenesis [32] [33]	Ill-defined composition, batch-to-batch variability, animal-derived [32] [30]	Organoid assembly, angiogenesis assays, stem cell differentiation [32] [33]
Synthetic Hydrogels	PEG, PAM, PIC	Chemically defined, highly tunable, reproducible, xeno-free [32] [35]	Often lacks innate bioactivity; requires functionalization [32] [3]	Controlled stem cell culture, mechanobiology, reproducible drug screening [32] [35]
Peptide Hydrogels	Self-assembling peptides	Nanofibrous structure, highly designable, custom bioactivity [32]	Can be complex to synthesize and characterize	Neural tissue engineering, 3D bioprinting [32]
Hybrid Hydrogels	PEG-Collagen, PIC-HA	Balances tunability with bioactivity; synergistic effects [35] [30]	Optimization of composite blend can be complex [30]	Complex tissue modeling, enhanced tissue regeneration [30]

Application Notes and Experimental Protocols

The selection of a specific scaffold and protocol is dictated by the biological question, cell type, and desired outcome. Below are detailed protocols for foundational and advanced applications.

Protocol 1: Establishing 3D Glioblastoma Cultures in Matrigel

This protocol is adapted from a study demonstrating that GBM cultures in Matrigel recover a patient-like immunosuppressive phenotype, making it ideal for studying tumor-immune interactions [34].

Research Reagent Solutions

• Matrigel, Growth Factor Reduced (GFR): Provides the 3D scaffold. Store at -20°C; thaw on ice overnight before use.
• GBM Cell Line or Primary Cells: The model system. Maintain in standard 2D culture prior to experiment.
• Complete Cell Culture Medium: e.g., DMEM/F12 supplemented with 10% FBS, 1% GlutaMAX, 1% Sodium Pyruvate.
• Ice-cold PBS (without Ca2+/Mg2+): For washing and diluting cells.
• Cell Recovery Solution (e.g., Corning Cell Recovery Kit): For digesting the Matrigel scaffold after culture to retrieve cells.

Methodology

• Preparation: Pre-chill all tubes, pipette tips, and the culture plate on ice. Work rapidly to prevent premature gelation.
• Cell Harvest: Detach GBM cells from 2D culture using a standard method (e.g., trypsin-EDTA). Quench the reaction with complete medium, centrifuge, and resuspend the cell pellet in ice-cold PBS. Count cells and adjust concentration to (1-5 \times 10^5) cells/mL in ice-cold PBS or serum-free medium.
• Mixing with Matrix: On ice, gently mix the cell suspension with an equal volume of thawed, ice-cold Matrigel to achieve a final Matrigel concentration of 50% (v/v) and the desired cell density. Avoid introducing air bubbles.
• Plating and Gelation: Quickly pipette 50-100 µL of the cell-Matrigel mixture into the center of each well of a pre-chilled multi-well plate. Gently tilt the plate to spread the droplet.
  • Incubate the plate at 37°C, 5% CO₂ for 20-30 minutes to allow complete gelation.
• Culture Maintenance: After gelation, carefully overlay the gel with pre-warmed complete culture medium. Refresh the medium every 2-3 days.
• Downstream Analysis (Cell Recovery): For RNA sequencing, flow cytometry, or sub-culturing:
  • Aspirate the culture medium.
  • Add Cell Recovery Solution to cover the gel (e.g., 1 mL per 100 µL of gel).
  • Incubate at 4°C for 30-60 minutes with gentle agitation to dissolve the Matrigel.
  • Centrifuge the cell suspension to pellet cells and proceed with analysis.

The workflow for this protocol is outlined below.

Protocol 2: 3D Cell Encapsulation in Polyisocyanide (PIC) Synthetic Hydrogels

PIC hydrogels are a advanced synthetic platform that combines tunable, biomimetic mechanics with easy handling due to their thermoresponsive nature [35].

Research Reagent Solutions

• PIC Polymer Solution: A fully synthetic, fibrous polymer. Concentration determines hydrogel stiffness.
• Sterile, Filtered Cell Culture Medium: For diluting the PIC stock and preparing the cell suspension.
• Cell Suspension: High cell viability is critical for successful encapsulation.

Methodology

• PIC Solution Preparation: Prepare a sterile PIC polymer solution at the desired concentration (e.g., 4-10 mg/mL) in an appropriate buffer or culture medium as per manufacturer's instructions.
• Cell-PIC Mixture Preparation:
  • Harvest and count cells, creating a concentrated cell suspension in medium.
  • Mix the cell suspension with the PIC solution to achieve the final desired cell density and PIC concentration. Keep this mixture on ice to prevent premature gelation. The final solution should be homogeneous.
• Cell Encapsulation and Gelation:
  • Pipette the cell-PIC mixture into a well of a cell culture plate.
  • Transfer the plate to a 37°C, 5% CO₂ incubator for a minimum of 20 minutes. The PIC hydrogel will form instantly upon warming.
• Culture Maintenance: After gelation, carefully add pre-warmed culture medium on top of the hydrogel. Change the medium as required by the specific cell type.
• Cell Harvesting (for downstream analysis): To retrieve encapsulated cells, simply add an excess of cold cell culture medium or buffer to the hydrogel and incubate the culture vessel on ice or at 4°C for 15-30 minutes. The PIC gel will liquefy, allowing for easy collection of cells by pipetting or centrifugation.

Protocol 3: Functional Assays in Synthetic PEG-Based Hydrogels

Functionalized PEG hydrogels are ideal for reductionist studies where control over specific biochemical and mechanical inputs is required [32] [30].

Research Reagent Solutions

• PEG Precursor Macromer: e.g., PEG-dithiol (PEG-SH) or PEG-norbornene (PEG-NB).
• Protease-Degradable Crosslinker: e.g., MMP-sensitive peptide sequence (e.g., KCGPQG↓IWGQCK).
• Cell-Adhesion Ligand: e.g., RGDSP peptide (cyclic or linear).
• Photoinitiator: e.g., Irgacure 2959 or LAP, for light-mediated crosslinking.
• UV Light Source (365 nm): For photopolymerization.

Methodology

• Hydrogel Precursor Preparation: Prepare a sterile stock solution of the PEG macromer. In a separate tube, prepare a master mix containing the crosslinker, adhesion ligand (e.g., 2 mM RGD), and other desired functional peptides at the desired molar ratios.
• Cell-Precursor Mixing:
  • Harvest and concentrate cells.
  • Gently mix the cell pellet with the PEG macromer solution. Subsequently, add the crosslinker/ligand master mix and photoinitiator (e.g., 0.05% w/v). Mix thoroughly but gently to avoid bubbles.
• Polymerization:
  • Pipette the final cell-precursor mixture into the desired culture vessel (e.g., a mold or a well plate).
  • Expose the solution to low-intensity UV light (e.g., 5-10 mW/cm² at 365 nm) for 2-5 minutes to initiate crosslinking and form the hydrogel.
• Culture and Analysis: After polymerization, add pre-warmed culture medium. The MMP-sensitive and RGD-functionalized network will allow cells to adhere, spread, and remodel their microenvironment. Analyze cellular outcomes like vascular morphogenesis or stem cell differentiation [32].

Table 2: Key Functional Parameters for Tuning Synthetic Hydrogels

Parameter	Typical Range	Tuning Method	Biological Impact
Stiffness (Elastic Modulus)	0.1 kPa (brain-like) to 100 kPa (bone-like) [30]	Polymer concentration, crosslink density [32]	Directs stem cell differentiation, influences cancer cell invasion [30]
Ligand Density	0.5 - 4.0 mM (for RGD)	Molar ratio during functionalization [32]	Regulates integrin binding, cell adhesion, and survival [32]
Protease Degradation	N/A (Presence/Absence)	Incorporation of MMP-/uPA-sensitive sequences [32]	Enables cell migration and matrix remodeling within the gel [32]
Porosity	10 - 1000 nm mesh size	Crosslinking kinetics, polymer length [30]	Governs diffusion of nutrients, oxygen, and biological molecules [30]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of scaffold-based 3D culture relies on a core set of reagents and materials. The following table details essential components for a research laboratory.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Scaffold-Based 3D Culture

Reagent/Material	Function	Key Considerations
Basement Membrane Extract (BME/Matrigel)	Gold-standard natural matrix for organoid culture and angiogenesis assays [33] [34]	High batch-to-batch variability; requires cold handling; tumor-derived [32].
Type I Collagen	Major structural protein in ECM; used for tissues like dermis and bone.	Polymerization is pH- and temperature-sensitive; forms fibrous networks.
Fibrin	Natural polymer from blood clot; excellent for vascular and wound healing models.	Can contract significantly; contains innate bioactive signals.
PEG-based Kit (e.g., TrueGel3D)	Chemically defined, synthetic hydrogel for controlled studies [31].	Highly tunable and reproducible; often requires biofunctionalization [32].
Polyisocyanide (PIC) Hydrogels	Synthetic hydrogel with biomimetic fibrous structure and thermoresponsiveness [35].	Easy cell encapsulation and recovery; highly reproducible mechanics [35].
Peptide Hydrogels (e.g., RGD, IKVAV)	Provides specific cell-adhesion motifs to synthetic or natural matrices [32].	Can be expensive; concentration and presentation are critical for function.
MMP-Sensitive Peptide Crosslinkers	Enables cell-mediated degradation and migration through hydrogels [32].	Essential for modeling invasive processes like cancer metastasis.
Low-Adhesion / U-Shaped Bottom Plates	Facilitates scaffold-free spheroid formation.	Complements scaffold-based methods for specific applications.

Scaffold-based 3D cell culture, utilizing hydrogels ranging from biologically complex Matrigel to precisely engineered synthetic polymers, represents a cornerstone of modern biological research. Each material offers a distinct set of advantages: Matrigel provides high bioactivity for demanding applications like organogenesis, while synthetic hydrogels like PEG and PIC offer unparalleled control, reproducibility, and tunability for mechanistic studies and therapeutic development [32] [35]. The choice of scaffold is not merely a technical decision but a fundamental experimental variable that shapes cellular phenotype and function. As the field progresses, the trend is moving towards increasingly defined, synthetic, and patient-specific systems. The protocols and guidelines provided here offer a foundation for researchers to leverage these powerful technologies, enabling the development of more physiologically relevant models that will enhance the predictive power of in vitro research and accelerate the translation of basic science into clinical breakthroughs.

In the pursuit of more physiologically relevant in vitro models, three-dimensional (3D) cell culture has emerged as a transformative technology that bridges the gap between conventional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers and complex in vivo environments. Scaffold-free 3D cell culture represents a specific approach where cells are grown in a three-dimensional configuration without the use of artificial scaffolds or matrices, instead relying on the cells' innate ability to self-assemble into spheroids or organoids [36]. This method stands in contrast to scaffold-based techniques that employ biological or synthetic matrices to support 3D growth.

The fundamental principle underlying scaffold-free culture is that when deprived of attachment surfaces, many cell types will spontaneously aggregate and establish cell-cell contacts that mimic the natural tissue architecture [37] [38]. These self-assembled aggregates recapitulate intimate direct cell-cell adhesion architectures found in normal tissues, which profoundly influences cellular morphology, signaling, gene expression, and drug responses [37] [39] [40]. The technique has gained significant traction in biomedical research because it enhances cell-cell interactions, promotes more realistic cellular functions, and improves the predictive power of preclinical studies [41] [36].

Within the realm of scaffold-free technologies, several methods have been developed, with the hanging drop technique and ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates emerging as two prominent approaches. These methods enable researchers to generate consistent 3D models that more accurately reflect the chemical milieu and physical forces experienced by cells within actual tissues [37] [38]. As the field advances, scaffold-free 3D culture systems are rapidly becoming indispensable tools in cancer research, drug discovery, toxicology, and regenerative medicine [41].

Key Principles and Methodologies

The Hanging Drop Technique

The hanging drop method is a well-established, cost-effective technique for generating uniform 3D spheroids without requiring specialized equipment [37] [38] [39]. This approach leverages gravity to facilitate cell aggregation within suspended droplets of culture medium, allowing cells to naturally self-assemble into spheroids through direct cell-cell contacts.

The theoretical foundation of the hanging drop technique relies on gravity-enforced self-assembly, which promotes the formation of multicellular spheroids with controlled sizes [42]. The method creates a unique environment for studying cell behavior dynamics, including proliferation, differentiation, and cell sorting phenomena [42]. One of the distinctive advantages of this system is its ability to facilitate the formation of true 3D spheroids where cells establish intimate connections with multiple near-neighbors and with extracellular matrix components secreted by the cells themselves [37] [38].

A significant strength of the hanging drop technique is its adaptability for co-culture experiments. Researchers can mix different cell populations in precise ratios within the same droplet to elucidate cell-cell interactions and spatial relationships [38] [39]. This has proven particularly valuable for modeling tumor-stromal interactions, embryonic development, and tissue engineering applications [37]. Furthermore, the method can be adapted to include biological agents in very small quantities to study their effects on cell-cell or cell-ECM interactions [37] [39].

Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates

Ultra-low attachment plates represent a more recent innovation in scaffold-free 3D culture that has significantly increased the adoption and throughput capabilities of spheroid research [41]. These specialized plates feature unique surface coatings that minimize both specific and non-specific cell attachment, effectively forcing cells to remain in suspension and aggregate into spheroids through natural cell-cell adhesion mechanisms [43] [44].

The surface chemistry of ULA plates varies by manufacturer but typically involves hydrophilic hydrogel coatings or biocompatible synthetic polymers that prevent protein adsorption and subsequent cell attachment [41] [44]. This engineered surface property is crucial as it inhibits anchorage-dependent cell division and prevents the flattening process that occurs on traditional culture surfaces, thereby maintaining more physiological cellular phenotypes [43]. The Nunclon Sphera system, for example, employs a proprietary surface coating that helps prevent protein adsorption to the cultureware surface, significantly minimizing monolayer cell adhesion across various cell types [44].

One of the primary advantages of ULA plates is their compatibility with standard laboratory workflows and instrumentation, making them amenable to higher throughput screening applications [41] [44]. The plates are available in various formats, including U-bottom 96-well plates that promote the formation of a single, centered spheroid per well, which is particularly valuable for drug screening applications where consistency and reproducibility are paramount [44]. Additionally, the ability to control spheroid size through initial seeding densities provides researchers with a straightforward method to tailor their experimental models to specific research questions [44].

Comparative Analysis of Techniques

When selecting an appropriate scaffold-free method for specific research applications, understanding the comparative performance characteristics of different techniques is essential. Research has demonstrated that the method of spheroid generation significantly impacts resultant spheroid morphology, architecture, extracellular matrix deposition, and responses to therapeutic agents [40].

A comparative study investigating tumor spheroid generation techniques revealed notable differences between hanging drop arrays, ULA plates with static culture, and ULA plates with rotating mixing (nutation) [40]. The findings indicated that spheroids generated using hanging drop or ULA plates with nutation exhibited increased cellular compaction and more pronounced extracellular matrix remodeling compared to those formed on conventional ULA plates [40]. This structural difference translated to functionally significant variations in chemosensitivity, with spheroids generated on hanging drop arrays demonstrating enhanced chemoresistance to cisplatin treatment compared to those on ULA plates [40].

The table below summarizes key comparative findings from this investigation:

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Scaffold-Free Spheroid Generation Techniques

Parameter	Hanging Drop Array	ULA Plates with Nutation	ULA Plates (Static)
Spheroid Compaction	High compaction	High compaction	Moderate compaction
Extracellular Matrix	Significant remodeling	Significant remodeling	Limited remodeling
Size Consistency	High uniformity	Moderate uniformity	Variable uniformity
Chemoresistance to Cisplatin	Highest viability post-treatment	High viability post-treatment	Lowest viability post-treatment
Throughput Capacity	Moderate	High	High
Ease of Use	Moderate (requires technical skill)	Simple	Simple
Long-term Maintenance	More cumbersome	Straightforward	Straightforward

These comparative findings highlight that while ULA plates offer convenience and compatibility with standard laboratory equipment, the hanging drop method may provide superior spheroid compaction and microenvironmental characteristics that more closely mimic in vivo conditions [40]. The choice between techniques should therefore be guided by specific research objectives, with hanging drop methods potentially offering advantages for fundamental biological studies requiring high physiological relevance, and ULA plates being better suited for higher throughput screening applications where consistency and workflow integration are priorities.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Hanging Drop Protocol for 3D Spheroid Generation

The hanging drop technique represents one of the most historically significant and physiologically relevant methods for scaffold-free spheroid generation. Below is a comprehensive protocol adapted from established methodologies [38] [39]:

Materials Required:

• Single-cell suspension of desired cell type(s)
• Complete tissue culture medium
• 60 mm tissue culture dishes
• Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
• 0.05% trypsin-1 mM EDTA solution
• DNase stock solution (10 mg/ml)
• Pipettes and tips (capable of dispensing 10-20 µL volumes)
• Hemacytometer or automated cell counter
• Stereo microscope for monitoring aggregation
• Round-bottom glass shaker flasks (optional, for maturation)

Procedure:

• Preparation of Single Cell Suspension

  • Grow adherent cell cultures to approximately 90% confluence.
  • Rinse cell monolayers twice with PBS to remove serum proteins.
  • Add 2 mL of 0.05% trypsin-1 mM EDTA solution for a 100 mm culture plate.
  • Incubate at 37°C until cells detach (typically 3-10 minutes).
  • Neutralize trypsinization by adding 2 mL of complete medium.
  • Gently triturate the mixture using a 5 mL pipette until a single-cell suspension is achieved.
  • Transfer the suspension to a 15 mL conical tube.
  • Add 40 µL of DNase stock solution (10 mg/mL) and incubate for 5 minutes at room temperature to prevent cell clumping.
  • Centrifuge at 200 × g for 5 minutes, then discard supernatant.
  • Wash the cell pellet with 1 mL of complete tissue culture medium, repeat centrifugation.
  • Resuspend cells in 2 mL of complete tissue culture medium.
  • Count cells using a hemacytometer or automated cell counter and adjust concentration to 2.5 × 10^6 cells/mL [38] [39].

• Formation of Hanging Drops

  • Remove the lid from a 60 mm tissue culture dish and place 5 mL of PBS in the bottom of the dish to create a hydration chamber that prevents evaporation of the drops.
  • Invert the lid and use a 20 µL pipettor to deposit 10 µL drops of cell suspension onto the inner surface of the lid.
  • Ensure drops are sufficiently spaced to prevent merging (typically 20 drops per lid is achievable).
  • Carefully invert the lid and place it onto the PBS-filled bottom chamber, creating the "hanging drops."
  • Incubate at 37°C with 5% CO₂ and 95% humidity.
  • Monitor drops daily using a stereo microscope to assess aggregate formation.
  • Spheroid formation typically occurs within 24-48 hours, though timing may vary by cell type [38] [39].

• Spheroid Maturation (Optional)

  • Once initial cell sheets or aggregates have formed, they can be transferred to round-bottom glass shaker flasks containing 3 mL of complete medium.
  • Incubate in a shaking water bath at 37°C and 5% CO₂ until mature spheroids form.
  • This additional maturation step typically requires 2-3 days and promotes compaction and ECM reorganization [38].

Technical Notes and Modifications:

• Cell concentration may need adjustment based on cell size and aggregation propensity.
• Cells can be pre-stained with membrane-intercalating fluorescent dyes (e.g., PKH-2, PKH-26) for tracking in co-culture experiments.
• For co-culture studies, mix different cell types in desired ratios prior to drop formation.
• To preserve cadherin function during cell detachment, use 0.05% trypsin with 2 mM calcium [38] [39].
• Aggregate size can be quantified using image analysis software such as ImageJ by applying thresholding and particle analysis functions.

Ultra-Low Attachment Plate Protocol

The ULA plate method offers a more streamlined approach to spheroid generation that is compatible with higher throughput applications. The following protocol utilizes commercially available ULA plates:

Materials Required:

• Nunclon Sphera or similar ULA plates (U-bottom 96-well format recommended)
• Single-cell suspension of target cells
• Complete culture medium
• Multichannel pipettes
• Centrifuge with plate adapters
• Inverted microscope for monitoring

Procedure:

• Plate Preparation and Cell Seeding

  • Obtain ULA plates appropriate for your application. U-bottom 96-well plates are ideal for generating uniform, single spheroids per well.
  • Prepare a single-cell suspension as described in Steps 1-3 of the hanging drop protocol.
  • Adjust cell concentration based on desired spheroid size. The following seeding densities are recommended for various spheroid sizes:
    • 100 cells/well: ~150 μm diameter spheroids
    • 500 cells/well: ~300 μm diameter spheroids
    • 1,000 cells/well: ~450 μm diameter spheroids
    • 5,000 cells/well: ~600 μm diameter spheroids [44]
  • Seed cells in each well of the ULA plate in a volume of 100-200 μL complete medium.
  • Centrifuge the plate at 200 × g for 3 minutes to gently pellet cells at the bottom of the U-bottom wells, promoting consistent aggregation.

• Spheroid Formation and Culture

  • Incubate plates at 37°C with 5% CO₂.
  • Spheroid formation typically begins within 24 hours, with mature spheroids forming by 3-5 days.
  • Monitor spheroid formation and growth using an inverted microscope.
  • For long-term cultures (≥7 days), consider partial medium exchange (50-70%) every 2-3 days to replenish nutrients while minimizing disruption to spheroids.
  • When performing medium exchanges, carefully remove and add medium along the side of the well to avoid disturbing the spheroids.

• Spheroid Harvesting and Analysis

  • For analysis, spheroids can be carefully transferred using wide-bore pipette tips to prevent structural damage.
  • For histological processing, spheroids can be fixed directly in the wells or transferred to appropriate containers.
  • For drug screening applications, compounds can be added directly to the wells containing pre-formed spheroids [44].

Technical Notes and Optimization:

• The Nunclon Sphera system has demonstrated superior performance in maintaining cell suspension compared to standard TC-treated surfaces, with reported attachment reduction of up to 98% [43].
• Initial cell seeding density directly correlates with final spheroid size, enabling precise control over spheroid dimensions [44].
• For co-culture applications, mix cell types at the desired ratio before seeding into ULA plates.
• Hypoxic cores typically develop in spheroids larger than 400-500 μm in diameter, which can be visualized using hypoxia probes such as Image-iT Red Hypoxia Probe [44].

Research Reagent Solutions and Materials

Successful implementation of scaffold-free 3D culture methodologies requires specific reagents and materials optimized for these applications. The following table outlines essential solutions and their functions:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Scaffold-Free 3D Cell Culture

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes
Ultra-Low Attachment Plates	Prevents cell adhesion and promotes spheroid formation through cell-cell interactions	Available in various formats (96-well U-bottom most common); hydrophilic hydrogel or synthetic polymer coatings [43] [44]
Serum-Free Media Formulations	Provides optimized nutrients for 3D culture while minimizing uncontrolled differentiation	Essential for stem cell and organoid cultures; examples include Gibco Essential 6 medium [44]
Membrane-Intercalating Fluorescent Dyes (PKH-2, PKH-26)	Cell tracking in co-culture systems	Enables visualization of cell sorting behavior and population dynamics in heterogeneous spheroids [38] [39]
Viability Assay Reagents	Assessment of cell viability and cytotoxicity	Includes LIVE/DEAD assays, alamarBlue, ATP-based assays; require optimization for 3D structures [44] [40]
Extracellular Matrix Staining Kits	Visualization of ECM deposition and remodeling	Collagen staining demonstrates architectural differences between spheroid generation methods [40]
Hypoxia Detection Probes	Identification of hypoxic regions within spheroids	Critical for tumor spheroid characterization; example: Image-iT Red Hypoxia Probe [44]
Caspase Activity Reporters	Apoptosis detection in 3D cultures	Examples: CellEvent Caspase-3/7 green detection reagent; demonstrates drug-induced apoptosis [44]
Mitochondrial Function Probes	Evaluation of metabolic activity and mitochondrial membrane potential	Examples: MitoTracker Orange; reveals drug effects on mitochondrial function [44]

The selection of appropriate reagents should be guided by specific research objectives and cell types. For drug screening applications, viability assays and caspase reporters provide crucial information on compound efficacy. For developmental biology or tissue engineering applications, fluorescent tracking dyes and ECM staining reagents offer insights into morphological organization and differentiation.

Applications in Biomedical Research

Cancer Research and Drug Discovery

Scaffold-free spheroids have revolutionized cancer research by providing in vitro models that recapitulate critical features of solid tumors, including 3D architecture, nutrient and oxygen gradients, proliferative quiescence, and drug resistance mechanisms [41] [40]. The ability of spheroids to develop hypoxic cores and exhibit multicellular resistance makes them particularly valuable for preclinical drug evaluation [44] [40].

In comparative drug sensitivity studies, spheroids have consistently demonstrated different response profiles compared to 2D monolayers. Research has shown that spheroids generated using hanging drop or ULA plates with nutation exhibited significantly higher resistance to cisplatin treatment compared to those formed on standard ULA plates, with viability differences of 20-60% versus 10-20% respectively [40]. This enhanced resistance more closely mimics in vivo tumor responses, making spheroid models superior for predicting clinical efficacy.

The application of spheroids in high-throughput screening (HTS) has expanded significantly with the development of standardized ULA plate formats [41] [44]. These platforms enable the generation of uniform, size-controlled spheroids amenable to automated imaging and analysis systems. For instance, the Nunclon Sphera system has been successfully utilized for compound screening, demonstrating niclosamide-induced mitochondrial membrane depolarization and apoptosis in A549 and HeLa tumor spheroids [44].

Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine

In stem cell biology, scaffold-free techniques are indispensable for the generation of embryoid bodies (EBs) from embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) [44]. These 3D aggregates recapitulate early embryonic development and undergo spontaneous differentiation into derivatives of the three germ layers—ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm—providing powerful models for studying developmental processes and differentiation mechanisms.

The hanging drop method offers precise control over EB size and composition, which significantly influences differentiation outcomes [42]. Similarly, ULA plates support robust EB formation and maintenance, with demonstrated viability of human ESCs in embryoid bodies cultured in appropriate differentiation media [44]. The successful differentiation of these EBs into all three germ layers has been validated through expression of specific markers: beta-tubulin (ectoderm), alpha fetoprotein (endoderm), and smooth muscle actin (mesoderm) [44].

In neural stem cell research, scaffold-free cultures enable the formation of neurospheres—free-floating aggregates of neural stem and progenitor cells that can be expanded and differentiated into various neural lineages [44]. These neurospheres can be further differentiated into complex brain organoids with tissue-specific morphology and function, providing unprecedented opportunities for modeling human neurological development and disease [44].

Organoid Development and Disease Modeling

The advancement of scaffold-free techniques has catalyzed the development of sophisticated organoid models that mimic the complexity and functionality of native organs [36]. These self-organizing 3D structures are generated from stem cells or organ progenitors and recapitulate key aspects of organogenesis, tissue architecture, and disease pathogenesis.

Brain organoid culture represents a particularly promising application, with demonstrated success in generating complex neural structures from iPSC-derived neurospheres cultured in ULA plates [44]. The protocol typically involves multiple stages: formation of embryoid bodies (days 2-4), induction of differentiation (days 6-7), and amplification of neuroepithelial structures (days 9-10), ultimately yielding organoids with budding structures indicative of successful neurodevelopment [43].

Similar approaches have been applied to develop models of various tissues, including liver, pancreas, and prostate, enabling researchers to study tissue-specific functions, disease mechanisms, and therapeutic interventions in a more physiologically relevant context [42]. The ability to generate these complex structures without artificial scaffolds ensures that the resulting models more accurately reflect natural tissue organization and cell-cell communication pathways.

Scaffold-free techniques for generating spheroids represent a critical advancement in 3D cell culture technology, offering more physiologically relevant models that bridge the gap between conventional 2D cultures and complex in vivo environments. The hanging drop method and ultra-low attachment plates each present distinct advantages—the former providing superior control over spheroid size and microenvironment, the latter offering enhanced throughput and workflow compatibility.

The choice between these techniques should be guided by specific research objectives, with due consideration of their respective strengths and limitations. As the field continues to evolve, ongoing innovations in surface chemistry, imaging methodologies, and analytical techniques will further enhance the utility and applications of scaffold-free 3D models. By enabling more accurate representation of tissue architecture and function, these technologies are poised to accelerate discoveries in basic research, drug development, and regenerative medicine.

The field of biomedical research is undergoing a transformative shift from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures to sophisticated three-dimensional (3D) models that more accurately mimic human physiology. This evolution is driven by the critical need for more predictive models in drug discovery and disease modeling, as conventional 2D cultures and animal models present significant limitations. While 2D cultures lack tissue-specific architecture and physiological relevance [17], animal models exhibit species differences that often fail to predict human responses [45]. Advanced 3D cell culture techniques, primarily organoids, organs-on-chips (OoCs), and 3D bioprinting, have emerged to bridge this gap, offering unprecedented opportunities to model human biology and pathology with high fidelity.

Organoids are 3D structures that arise from stem cells or organ progenitors and self-organize to recapitulate aspects of the microanatomy and functionality of native organs [46] [45]. Organs-on-chips are microfluidic devices that contain bioengineered tissues and are designed to simulate organ-level functions by incorporating mechanical and biochemical cues, such as fluid flow and cyclic strain [47] [48]. 3D bioprinting employs additive manufacturing techniques to precisely deposit cells and biomaterials, known as bioinks, to fabricate complex, predefined tissue architectures [49] [50]. These technologies are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are increasingly being integrated to create more powerful and physiologically relevant models. For instance, organoids can be incorporated into OoC devices to provide a more complex cellular starting point, while bioprinting can be used to fabricate and pattern tissues directly within microfluidic chips [47] [48].

The implementation of these complex models is particularly crucial in oncology and drug development. Studies have demonstrated that cancer cells in 3D culture, such as colon cancer HCT-116 cells, show greater resistance to chemotherapeutic agents like oxaliplatin and irinotecan compared to 2D cultured cells, thereby more accurately reflecting the chemoresistance observed in vivo [46]. The ability to better predict drug efficacy and toxicity in humans before clinical trials has the potential to significantly lower the high attrition rate of new molecular medicines [46]. The following sections provide a detailed examination of each technology, their applications, and standardized protocols for their implementation in research settings.

Organoids: Self-Organizing Mini-Organs

Fundamental Principles and Applications

Organoids are defined as collections of organ-specific cell types that develop from stem cells or organ progenitors and self-organize through cell sorting and spatially restricted lineage commitment in a manner similar to in vivo processes [46]. They are classified based on their cellular origin: tissue-derived organoids are generated from adult stem cells or patient-derived tumor cells, while stem cell organoids are derived from pluripotent stem cells (PSCs), including both embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) [17] [46]. A key advantage of patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) is their ability to maintain genomic and transcriptomic stability, thus preserving the heterogeneity of the original tumor and serving as a bridge between 2D cancer cell lines and patient-derived xenografts (PDTX) [17].

The applications of organoid technology are vast and growing. They are extensively used for disease modeling, particularly in cancer research, where they retain the patient's genetic alterations and histological characteristics [17] [51]. In drug screening, organoids enable the high-throughput testing of compound efficacy and toxicity on human tissues, offering a more cost-effective and human-relevant alternative to animal models [46] [51]. Furthermore, the ability to generate organoids from individual patients positions this technology at the forefront of personalized medicine, allowing for the development of tailored treatment strategies [51]. The establishment of biobanks for tumor organoids further enhances their utility for large-scale drug discovery efforts [17].

Table 1: Characteristics of Organoid Models for Different Organs

Organ/Tissue	Available Cell Types	Key Functions Modeled	Current Limitations
Brain	Neural stem/progenitor cells, neurons, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes [45]	Cortical layering, neurogenesis, synaptic activity [45]	Limited size, absence of microglia, lacks complex neural connections [45]
Liver	Hepatocytes, cholangiocytes, Kupffer cells [45]	Albumin production, bile acid secretion, glycogen storage [45]	Limited bile duct formation, lacks full vascular network, incomplete metabolic complexity [45]
Kidney	Nephron progenitors, ureteric buds, stromal cells [45]	Glomerular filtration, tubular reabsorption [45]	Lack of functional vasculature, insufficient maturation of collecting ducts [45]
Intestine	Intestinal stem cells, enterocytes, goblet cells, Paneth cells [46] [45]	Mucus production, epithelial polarity and functionality [46] [45]	Lacks full immune cell complement, neural cells, and microbiota [45]
Heart	Cardiomyocytes, cardiac fibroblasts, endothelial cells [45]	Contractility, action potential propagation, cavity formation [45]	Incomplete chamber formation, limited electrical activity, lacks perfusion [45]

Standardized Protocol: Establishing Patient-Derived Tumor Organoids (PDTOs)

This protocol outlines the key steps for generating and validating patient-derived tumor organoids, based on established methodologies [17] [46] [51].

Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function/Purpose
Matrigel or Basement Membrane Extract	Provides a 3D scaffold rich in extracellular matrix proteins to support cell growth and self-organization.
Advanced DMEM/F12 Medium	Basal culture medium formulation.
Recombinant Growth Factors	Includes EGF, Noggin, R-spondin, and others to create a niche supporting stem cell maintenance and organoid growth.
Primocin or Penicillin/Streptomycin	Antibiotics to prevent microbial contamination in primary tissue cultures.
Y-27632 ROCK Inhibitor	Enhances survival of dissociated single cells by inhibiting apoptosis.
Collagenase/Dispase Enzymes	Enzymatic cocktail for digesting solid tumor tissue into smaller cell clusters or single cells.
Cell Recovery Solution	Used for liberating organoids from the Matrigel matrix for passaging or analysis.

Experimental Workflow:

• Tissue Processing and Dissociation:

  • Obtain fresh tumor tissue from surgical resection or biopsy, ensuring informed consent and ethical approval.
  • Wash the tissue thoroughly in cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing antibiotics (e.g., Primocin).
  • Mechanically mince the tissue using scalpels into fragments of approximately 1-2 mm³.
  • Incubate the fragments with a collagenase/dispase enzyme mixture (e.g., 1-2 mg/mL) at 37°C for 30-60 minutes with gentle agitation to digest the tissue.
  • Triturate the digestate periodically using a serological pipette to aid dissociation.
  • Pass the resulting cell suspension through a 70-100 µm cell strainer to remove undigested fragments and debris.
  • Centrifuge the filtrate and resuspend the cell pellet in cold basal medium.

• 3D Culture Initiation and Maintenance:

  • Mix the isolated cell suspension with ice-cold Matrigel or a similar basement membrane extract on ice to prevent premature polymerization.
  • Plate the cell-Matrigel mixture as small droplets (e.g., 20-50 µL per droplet) in a pre-warmed cell culture plate.
  • Incubate the plate at 37°C for 20-30 minutes to allow the Matrigel to solidify.
  • Carefully overlay the polymerized Matrigel droplets with pre-warmed complete culture medium, supplemented with the necessary growth factors and ROCK inhibitor for the first 2-3 days.
  • Culture the organoids at 37°C in a humidified 5% CO₂ incubator.
  • Refresh the culture medium every 2-3 days. Organoids should become visible within 1-2 weeks.

• Passaging and Expansion:

  • To passage, remove the culture medium and add cold Cell Recovery Solution to dissolve the Matrigel. Incubate on ice for 30-60 minutes.
  • Collect the released organoids and centrifuge gently.
  • Mechanically dissociate the organoid pellet by pipetting or using a enzymatic solution to generate smaller fragments or single cells.
  • Re-embed the dissociated cells in fresh Matrigel and continue culture as described in Step 2.

• Validation and Characterization:

  • Histology: Fix, paraffin-embed, and section organoids for Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining to assess morphology and structure. Perform immunohistochemistry (IHC) for tissue-specific and tumor markers.
  • Genomics: Extract DNA for sequencing (e.g., whole-exome or targeted panels) to confirm the retention of patient-specific genetic mutations.
  • Functional Assays: Utilize organoids for drug sensitivity tests (e.g., measuring cell viability via CCK-8 or ATP-based assays after drug exposure) to evaluate therapeutic responses [17].

Diagram 1: PDTO Generation Workflow

Organs-on-Chips: Microphysiological Systems

Organs-on-chips (OoCs) are microfluidic devices fabricated from flexible, biocompatible polymers (e.g., PDMS) that contain living human cells engineered to simulate organ-level structures and functions [47] [48] [52]. Unlike static organoid cultures, OoCs dynamically control the cellular microenvironment by incorporating fluid flow, mechanical forces (e.g., cyclic strain to simulate breathing in a lung-on-a-chip), and tissue-tissue interfaces (e.g., an epithelial-endothelial barrier) [48] [53]. This capability allows for the recreation of physiological gradients of nutrients, oxygen, and soluble signals, as well as the application of shear stress, which are critical for proper cellular differentiation and function [47] [48].

The primary applications of OoC technology are in drug discovery and toxicity testing. By providing human-relevant models, OoCs can improve the prediction of drug efficacy, absorption, and metabolism, as well as identify organ-specific toxicities early in the development pipeline [48] [52]. This can significantly reduce the reliance on animal models, which often poorly predict human responses [47] [45]. Furthermore, OoCs are powerful tools for disease modeling, as they can be used to recapitulate pathological conditions such as inflammation, infection, and genetic disorders in a controlled setting [48]. The technology also holds promise for personalized medicine when combined with patient-specific cells [52].

Table 2: Comparison of Primary 3D Cell Culture Technologies

Feature	Multicellular Spheroids	Organoids	Organs-on-Chips	3D Bioprinting
Architectural Complexity	Low (Spherical, simplified) [46]	High (In vivo-like microanatomy) [46] [45]	Moderate to High (Can include tissue interfaces) [48]	High (Custom-designed, predefined) [50]
Throughput	High (Amenable to HTS) [46]	Low to Moderate (Variable, less amenable to HTS) [46]	Low to Moderate (Difficult to adapt to HTS) [46]	Moderate to High (Potential for high-throughput production) [50] [46]
Vascularization	No (Diffusion-limited)	No (Lacks perfusable vasculature) [51] [45]	Yes (Can be engineered with endothelial channels) [48]	Can be designed, but challenging to create functional vasculature [50] [46]
Microenvironmental Control	Low (Static culture)	Low (Static culture, variable) [45]	High (Precise control of flow, mechanical cues) [47] [48]	Moderate (Control over structure, limited dynamic cues post-printing)
Key Advantage	Simplicity, cost-effectiveness, reproducibility for HTS [46]	Patient-specificity, in vivo-like complexity and architecture [17] [46]	Dynamic control, mechanical stimulation, organ-level functions [47] [48]	Custom-made architecture, spatial patterning of cells and matrices [50]
Primary Limitation	Simplified architecture, diffusion-limited size [46]	Batch-to-batch variability, lack of vasculature, limited maturity [46] [51] [45]	Lack of full organ complexity, difficult to scale for HTS [46] [48]	Challenges with cell viability, materials, and tissue maturation [50] [46]

Standardized Protocol: Operating a Basic Multi-Layer Organ-on-a-Chip

This protocol describes the general procedure for setting up and conducting an experiment using a commercially available multi-layer OoC device, such as those designed to model epithelial-endothelial barriers (e.g., lung, intestine) [48].

Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function/Purpose
PDMS or PS Microfluidic Chip	The physical device containing microchannels and membrane.
Extracellular Matrix (ECM) Proteins	e.g., Collagen IV, Fibronectin. Used to coat membranes/channels to promote cell adhesion.
Cell Culture Medium (Tissue-Specific)	Formulated to support the specific cell types used.
Serum / Growth Factor Supplements	To provide necessary signals for cell growth and function.
Trypsin/EDTA or Accutase	For detaching cells during seeding preparation.
Fluorescent Tracer Molecules	e.g., FITC-Dextran. Used to quantify barrier integrity (TEER).
Vacuum Manifold or Syringe Pumps	To control medium flow through the microfluidic channels.

Experimental Workflow:

• Device Sterilization and Coating:

  • Sterilize the OoC device, typically made of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) or polystyrene, using UV light or autoclaving.
  • Prepare a solution of the desired ECM protein (e.g., 50 µg/mL Collagen IV in PBS) and introduce it into the top and bottom channels of the chip using a pipette or syringe pump.
  • Incubate the device at 37°C for at least 1-2 hours to allow protein adsorption.
  • After incubation, aspirate the excess ECM solution and rinse the channels with sterile PBS.

• Cell Seeding and Initial Attachment:

  • Prepare single-cell suspensions of the relevant cell types (e.g., epithelial cells for the top channel, endothelial cells for the bottom channel).
  • Introduce the epithelial cell suspension into the top channel and the endothelial cell suspension into the bottom channel. Ensure no air bubbles are introduced.
  • Turn off any perfusion systems and place the device in a static incubator (37°C, 5% CO₂) for a specified period (e.g., 4-24 hours) to allow cells to adhere to the coated membrane.

• Initiation of Perfusion and Long-Term Culture:

  • After the static adhesion phase, connect the chip to a microfluidic perfusion system (e.g., syringe pumps or a pneumatic pump).
  • Initiate a slow, continuous flow of the appropriate culture medium through the top and bottom channels. Begin with a low shear stress (e.g., 0.1 dyn/cm²) to avoid detaching cells, and gradually increase to the desired physiological level over 24-48 hours.
  • Culture the chip under perfusion for the duration of the experiment, which can range from several days to weeks.

• Functional Assessment and Analysis:

  • Barrier Integrity (TEER): Measure Transepithelial/Transendothelial Electrical Resistance (TEER) using integrated or external electrodes to monitor the formation and integrity of the cellular barrier.
  • Permeability Assay: Introduce a fluorescent tracer molecule into one channel and collect effluent from the adjacent channel to calculate the apparent permeability coefficient (Papp).
  • Imaging and Endpoint Analysis: At the experiment endpoint, the device can be disassembled. Cells can be fixed for immunostaining and confocal microscopy, or lysed for molecular analyses (e.g., RNA sequencing, protein quantification).

Diagram 2: Basic Multi-Layer OoC Structure

3D Bioprinting: Engineering Biological Structures

Bioprinting Techniques and Strategic Implementation

3D bioprinting is an additive manufacturing process that uses bioinks—composites of living cells and biomaterials—to fabricate 3D tissue constructs layer-by-layer [50] [47]. The primary strategies are biomimicry, the precise reproduction of a tissue's cellular and extracellular components, and autonomous self-assembly, which leverages the inherent ability of cellular components to organize into functional tissues [47]. Several bioprinting technologies have been developed, each with distinct advantages and suitability for different bioinks and tissue types.

The main bioprinting techniques include:

• Micro-extrusion Bioprinting: Utilizes pneumatic or mechanical (piston/screw) actuators to continuously extrude a viscous bioink filament [50] [47]. It is valued for its high printing speed and ability to work with high cell density bioinks, but can subject cells to high shear stress.
• Inkjet Bioprinting: Generates bioink droplets thermally or piezoelectrically [47]. It is fast and offers good cell viability, but is typically limited to low-viscosity bioinks, resulting in structures with limited mechanical integrity.
• Light-Assisted Bioprinting: Includes Stereolithography (SLA) and Digital Light Processing (DLP), which use projected light patterns to crosslink photosensitive bioinks in a layer-by-layer fashion [47]. This technique provides high resolution and speed but requires bioinks that are photocrosslinkable, and the photoinitiators and UV light used can be cytotoxic.
• Laser-Induced Forward Transfer (LIFT): Uses a laser pulse to transfer bioink from a donor slide onto a receiving substrate [47]. It allows for high-resolution printing of sensitive cells and viscous materials, but the process can be complex and low-throughput.

The applications of 3D bioprinting in research are extensive. It is used to create high-fidelity disease models for studying cancer and other pathologies [50]. In drug screening, bioprinted tissues can provide reproducible, scalable platforms for toxicity and efficacy testing [50] [46]. A major long-term goal of the field is regenerative medicine, aiming to fabricate functional tissues for transplantation [50].

Standardized Protocol: Bioprinting a Vascularized Tissue Construct

This protocol outlines the steps for fabricating a simple 3D tissue construct with a rudimentary vascular network using a coaxial nozzle in a micro-extrusion bioprinter, a technique aimed at addressing the critical challenge of vascularization [50] [47].

Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function/Purpose
Bioink (Tissue-Specific)	A hydrogel precursor (e.g., GelMA, Alginate, Collagen) containing the primary parenchymal cells of interest.
Sacrificial Bioink	A material that can be easily removed (e.g., Pluronic F127, Gelatin) to create hollow, perfusable channels.
Crosslinking Agent	e.g., CaCl₂ for alginate, UV light for GelMA. Induces gelation of the bioink to solidify the structure.
Endothelial Cell Suspension	Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) or other endothelial cells to seed the lumen of the channels.
Coaxial Nozzle Printhead	A specialized nozzle with concentric inner and outer channels for simultaneous printing of the sacrificial core and tissue matrix.
Cell Culture Media	To maintain cell viability post-printing and during maturation.

Experimental Workflow:

• Bioink Preparation and Cell Encapsulation:

  • Prepare the tissue-specific bioink (e.g., 5% GelMA) according to manufacturer protocols and keep it sterile and on ice.
  • Trypsinize and centrifuge the primary parenchymal cells (e.g., hepatocytes for a liver model, fibroblasts for stroma).
  • Gently mix the cell pellet with the bioink solution to achieve a final cell density of 5-20 million cells/mL. Avoid introducing air bubbles.
  • Prepare the sacrificial bioink (e.g., 20% Pluronic F127) and load it into a separate, sterile syringe.

• Bioprinting Process with a Coaxial Nozzle:

  • Load the cell-laden bioink into the syringe for the outer channel of the coaxial nozzle. Load the sacrificial bioink into the syringe for the inner channel.
  • Mount the syringes onto the bioprinter and connect them to the coaxial nozzle.
  • Calibrate the printer, setting the temperature of the print bed to a temperature that supports the stability of the sacrificial bioink (e.g., 4-15°C for Pluronic F127).
  • Initiate the printing process. The printer will simultaneously extrude the cell-laden bioink as the outer shell and the sacrificial material as the inner core, forming a tubular structure.
  • Deposit the bioink in the desired 3D pattern (e.g., a simple grid or branching network) onto the print bed.

• Crosslinking and Sacrificial Removal:

  • Immediately after printing, expose the entire construct to the crosslinking stimulus. For a GelMA/Pluronic F127 system, this involves UV exposure (e.g., 365 nm, 5-10 mW/cm² for 30-60 seconds) to crosslink the GelMA shell.
  • After crosslinking, transfer the construct to a cell culture incubator. The increase in temperature to 37°C will cause the Pluronic F127 core to liquefy.
  • Gently flush the channels with cold cell culture medium to evacuate the liquefied sacrificial bioink, leaving behind hollow, perfusable channels within the gelated tissue construct.

• Endothelialization and Maturation:

  • Prepare a concentrated suspension of endothelial cells.
  • Slowly perfuse the endothelial cell suspension through the newly created channels, allowing the cells to adhere to the inner surface of the channel walls.
  • Connect the construct to a perfusion bioreactor system to provide continuous medium flow through the endothelialized channels. This flow provides shear stress cues that promote endothelial cell maturation and barrier formation.
  • Culture the construct under perfusion for several days to weeks to allow for tissue maturation before conducting functional assays.

Diagram 3: Bioprinting Vascularized Tissue

Integrated Models and Future Perspectives

The convergence of organoid, organ-on-chip, and 3D bioprinting technologies represents the cutting edge of 3D cell culture research. Integrated approaches, such as organoids-on-a-chip, leverage the strengths of each technology: the cellular fidelity and self-organization of organoids are combined with the dynamic control, mechanical stimulation, and perfusable vasculature offered by OoC devices [48] [45]. For example, placing a brain organoid into a microfluidic chip with controlled perfusion can enhance its maturation and reduce the formation of a necrotic core, while also allowing for the real-time analysis of secreted biomarkers [48]. Similarly, 3D bioprinting can be used to precisely position organoids within a microfluidic device, creating more complex and spatially organized multi-tissue systems, or "assembloids" [50] [48].

Despite rapid progress, significant challenges remain. Standardization is a major hurdle, as batch-to-batch variability in matrices like Matrigel and the inherent stochasticity of organoid self-organization can lead to reproducibility issues [51] [48]. Achieving full vascularization and immune system integration across all models is critical for studying systemic diseases, drug delivery, and immune-oncology [51] [45]. Furthermore, enhancing the maturity of these models, particularly those derived from PSCs, to better represent adult rather than fetal tissues is essential for modeling age-related diseases [51] [45]. Finally, the development of automated, non-invasive sensing and analytical methods is required for high-content screening and long-term monitoring of these complex systems [48].

Future development will focus on addressing these challenges through interdisciplinary collaboration. Key trends include the incorporation of sensors directly into OoCs for real-time monitoring [48], the use of artificial intelligence and deep learning for image analysis and experimental design [17] [48], the development of more advanced biomaterials to replace animal-derived matrices [50] [51], and the creation of human-on-a-chip systems that link multiple organ models to study systemic physiology and pharmacology [48]. As these technologies continue to mature and integrate, they are poised to fundamentally transform biomedical research, drug development, and ultimately, the practice of personalized medicine.

Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture techniques represent a transformative advancement in biomedical research, offering more physiologically relevant models for disease modeling and drug discovery compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) systems [54]. These models, including spheroids, organoids, and scaffold-based cultures, more closely replicate the in vivo microenvironment, incorporating essential cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions that significantly influence cellular behavior and drug responses [55]. The application of 3D models in high-throughput screening (HTS) platforms is revolutionizing the drug discovery pipeline by enabling more accurate assessments of drug efficacy, toxicity, and therapeutic potential during preclinical validation [56]. This application note details standardized protocols and analytical methodologies for implementing 3D in vitro models in high-throughput drug screening applications, providing researchers with practical frameworks to bridge the gap between laboratory findings and clinical outcomes [55].

Advantages of 3D Models in Drug Screening

The transition from 2D to 3D cell culture systems addresses fundamental limitations associated with conventional monolayer cultures. While 2D models are established in HTS due to their simplicity and compatibility with automated systems, they suffer from poor mimicking of cellular mechanisms, disturbance in environmental interaction, and changes in structural morphology [54]. These limitations contribute to the high failure rates observed in drug development, where promising preclinical results frequently fail to translate to clinical success [56].

In contrast, 3D cell culture models demonstrate superior pathophysiological relevance through several key advantages. They replicate the spatial organization and heterogeneous cell populations found in native tissues, establish physiologically relevant nutrient, oxygen, and metabolic waste gradients that influence cell viability and drug penetration, restore appropriate cell-ECM interactions that regulate key cellular functions including proliferation, differentiation, and survival, and better mimic the drug resistance mechanisms observed in vivo, including physical barriers to drug penetration and altered cellular signaling in compact 3D structures [54] [56] [55].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture Models in Drug Screening

Parameter	2D Models	3D Models
Physiological Relevance	Low; lacks tissue-like architecture and microenvironment	High; recapitulates tissue-specific characteristics and cell-ECM interactions [56]
Proliferation Rates	High and uniform	Slower and heterogeneous, mimicking in vivo conditions [56]
Gene Expression Patterns	Altered due to plastic surface adaptation	More closely resembles in vivo expression profiles [55]
Drug Sensitivity	Typically higher due to unrestricted drug access	Often reduced; models in vivo drug resistance mechanisms [54]
High-Throughput Compatibility	Excellent; easily automated	Improving with specialized platforms and automation [56]

3D Model Types for High-Throughput Screening

Various 3D culture systems have been adapted for HTS applications, each offering distinct advantages for specific research contexts.

Spheroids

Spheroids are self-assembled, compact cellular aggregates that represent the most widely utilized 3D model for HTS due to their relative simplicity and scalability [56]. They can be generated from multiple cell types, including cancer cells, stem cells, and primary cells, to model various tissues and diseases. The formation of nutrient and oxygen gradients within spheroids creates distinct proliferative, quiescent, and necrotic zones that mimic the microenvironment of tumors and other tissues [55].

Organoids

Organoids are more complex, self-organizing 3D structures derived from stem cells (embryonic, induced pluripotent, or adult stem cells) that recapitulate the organ-specific functionality and cellular heterogeneity of their in vivo counterparts [55]. While historically more challenging to scale, recent advances in automation technologies have made organoid-based HTS increasingly feasible for modeling complex diseases and performing targeted drug discovery [56].

Scaffold-Based Systems

These systems utilize natural or synthetic biomaterials (e.g., hyaluronic acid, gelatin, alginate) to provide structural support and biochemical cues that mimic the native extracellular matrix (ECM) [55]. Scaffold-based models are particularly valuable for studying cell-matrix interactions and their influence on drug responses. Their compatibility with HTS has been demonstrated through the development of standardized 3D micro-tumor arrays [56].

Microfluidic and Organ-on-a-Chip Systems

These advanced platforms incorporate continuous perfusion and microfluidic control to create dynamic microenvironments that more accurately simulate vascular flow and tissue-tissue interfaces [56]. While offering superior physiological relevance, their integration into true HTS formats remains technically challenging, though progress is being made with multiplexed systems [56].

High-Throughput Screening Protocols

Protocol 1: Spheroid Formation Using Low-Attachment Plates

The liquid overlay technique using low-attachment plates is a widely adopted method for generating uniform spheroids for HTS [57].

Materials:

• Nunclon Sphera plates or similar low-attachment surface plates
• Appropriate cell line (e.g., HepG2 for liver models, cancer cell lines for tumor models)
• Gibco cell culture media optimized for 3D culture
• Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
• Trypsin-EDTA solution for cell detachment
• Centrifuge
• Automated liquid handling system

Method:

• Cell Preparation: Harvest cells from 2D culture using standard trypsinization procedures. Terminate enzyme activity with complete media and centrifuge at 300 × g for 5 minutes.
• Cell Counting and Seeding: Resuspend cell pellet in fresh media and perform cell counting. Adjust cell concentration to the optimal density for the specific cell line (typically 5,000-25,000 cells per well for spheroid formation). Seed cells into low-attachment plates using automated liquid handlers for HTS applications.
• Spheroid Formation: Incubate seeded plates at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 3-5 days. Spheroid formation and compaction should be visible within 24-72 hours.
• Quality Control: Monitor spheroid formation daily using brightfield microscopy. Uniform, compact spheroids with smooth edges should form by day 3-5, ready for drug treatment.

Protocol 2: Drug Screening in 3D Models

This protocol outlines the procedure for compound screening using established 3D models.

Materials:

• Pre-formed 3D models (spheroids, organoids, or scaffold-based cultures)
• Compound library dissolved in DMSO or appropriate vehicle
• Dilution media (culture media with reduced serum)
• Automated liquid handling system
• Multi-channel pipettes
• Cell viability assay reagents (e.g., MTT, Alamar Blue, CellTiter-Glo)
• Microplate reader (compatible with fluorescence, luminescence, or absorbance detection)

Method:

• Model Preparation: Confirm the quality and uniformity of 3D models before drug addition. For spheroids, ensure consistent size and morphology across wells.
• Compound Addition: Prepare serial dilutions of test compounds in dilution media using automated systems. Final DMSO concentration should not exceed 0.1% to avoid cytotoxicity. Add compounds to 3D models using precision liquid handlers to ensure reproducibility.
• Incubation: Incubate compound-treated models for the desired duration (typically 72-120 hours) at 37°C with 5% CO₂.
• Viability Assessment:
  • For MTT assay: Add MTT reagent (0.5 mg/mL final concentration) and incubate for 2-4 hours. Dissolve formed formazan crystals with DMSO or SDS solution. Measure absorbance at 570 nm with a reference wavelength of 630-650 nm [56].
  • For Alamar Blue assay: Add Alamar Blue reagent (10% of total media volume) and incubate for 1-4 hours. Measure fluorescence (excitation 530-560 nm, emission 590 nm) or absorbance (570 nm with 600 nm reference) [56].
  • For ATP-based luminescence assays: Add CellTiter-Glo reagent (equal volume to media in well), mix thoroughly, and incubate for 10 minutes to stabilize luminescence signal. Record luminescence using a compatible plate reader [56].

Table 2: Comparison of Viability Assays for 3D Models in HTS

Assay	Principle	HTS Compatibility	Considerations for 3D Models
MTT	Metabolic reduction to formazan crystals	Moderate; requires additional solubilization step	Penetration can be limited in dense structures; may underestimate viability [56]
Alamar Blue	Resazurin reduction to fluorescent resorufin	High; homogeneous assay	Better penetration than MTT; suitable for real-time monitoring [56]
CellTiter-Glo	ATP quantification via luminescence	Excellent; homogeneous and sensitive	Requires model lysis; provides direct correlation with cell number [56]
Picogreen	DNA quantification	Moderate; requires complete digestion of 3D structure	Direct measure of cell number; not suitable for time-course studies [56]

The following workflow diagram illustrates the complete HTS process using 3D models:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of 3D cell culture for HTS requires specialized reagents and materials optimized for three-dimensional growth and analysis.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for 3D HTS

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Products/Composition
Low-Attachment Plates	Prevent cell adhesion, promote 3D self-assembly	Nunclon Sphera plates, ultra-low attachment surfaces with covalently bound hydrogel [57]
Basement Membrane Matrix	Provide biologically active substrate for organoid growth	Extracellular matrix extracts containing laminin, collagen, entactin, and growth factors [55]
Synthetic Hydrogels	Defined, tunable scaffolds for 3D culture	PEG-based, peptide-functionalized hydrogels with controlled mechanical properties [56]
Specialized 3D Media	Support stemness and differentiation in 3D models	Advanced media with specific growth factors (e.g., R-spondin, Noggin, Wnt-3a for intestinal organoids) [57]
Viability Assay Kits	Assess compound efficacy and toxicity in 3D structures	MTT, Alamar Blue, CellTiter-Glo 3D (optimized for penetration) [56]
Automated Imaging Systems	High-content analysis of 3D model morphology and complexity	Confocal microplate imagers, light sheet microscopy for rapid 3D reconstruction [56]

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Robust data analysis is critical for extracting meaningful information from 3D model-based HTS campaigns. Key considerations include:

Dose-Response Modeling: Calculate half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) values using four-parameter logistic curves to quantify compound potency. Notably, drugs typically show reduced potency (higher IC₅₀ values) in 3D models compared to 2D cultures due to limited penetration and microenvironment-mediated resistance [54] [56].

High-Content Analysis: Utilize automated imaging systems to extract multiparametric data from 3D models, including spheroid size, circularity, viability markers, and specific morphological features. Advanced platforms can perform 3D reconstruction and volumetric analysis for more accurate assessment of treatment effects [56].

Normalization Strategies: Include appropriate controls for assay normalization:

• Positive controls: Maximum inhibition (e.g., 100 µM staurosporine)
• Negative controls: Vehicle-treated (DMSO) 3D models
• Background controls: Media-only wells for signal subtraction

Z'-Factor Calculation: Determine assay quality and HTS suitability using the formula: Z' = 1 - (3σₚ + 3σₙ)/|μₚ - μₙ|, where σₚ and σₙ are the standard deviations of positive and negative controls, and μₚ and μₙ are their means. Assays with Z' > 0.5 are considered excellent for HTS [56].

The following diagram illustrates the key signaling pathways that are more accurately modeled in 3D cultures and influence drug responses:

The integration of 3D cell culture models into high-throughput screening represents a paradigm shift in drug discovery and development. These advanced systems provide superior predictive power for in vivo drug responses by faithfully recapitulating key aspects of the tissue microenvironment that influence therapeutic outcomes [54] [55]. While challenges remain in standardization, scalability, and data analysis, ongoing technological advancements are rapidly addressing these limitations [56]. The protocols and methodologies outlined in this application note provide a foundational framework for researchers to implement robust 3D-based screening platforms. As these models continue to evolve, they hold immense promise for enhancing the efficiency of the drug development pipeline, reducing late-stage failures, and ultimately delivering more effective therapeutics to patients [54] [55].

Solving Common Challenges: A Troubleshooting Guide for 3D Cultures

Ensuring Consistency and Reproducibility in Spheroid Formation

Three-dimensional (3D) spheroid cultures have become indispensable tools in biomedical research, offering a more physiologically relevant model than traditional two-dimensional (2D) cultures by better mimicking the cellular microenvironment, including cell-cell interactions, gradient formation, and drug penetration dynamics [58]. However, the transition from research-scale 3D models to robust, reproducible platforms suitable for drug screening and therapeutic applications requires standardized methodologies that ensure consistency in spheroid size, morphology, and viability [59]. This application note provides a comprehensive framework of optimized protocols and analytical techniques designed to address the critical challenges in reproducible spheroid generation, enabling researchers to reliably produce high-quality spheroids for both fundamental research and high-throughput screening applications.

Comparative Analysis of Spheroid Formation Platforms

The selection of an appropriate cultivation platform is fundamental to achieving consistent and reproducible spheroid formation. Different technologies offer distinct advantages tailored to specific research objectives, ranging from high-throughput drug screening to mechanistic studies of cellular heterogeneity.

Table 1: Performance Characteristics of Spheroid Formation Platforms

Platform/Method	Principle	Typical Spheroid Size	Uniformity (Circularity)	Throughput	Key Applications
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates [58]	Polymer-coated surface inhibits protein adsorption, forcing cell-cell interactions	Adjustable via seeding density (e.g., 100-3,000 cells/well)	High (defined edges, uniform shape)	High (96-well)	High-throughput drug screening, routine spheroid culture
Microwell Arrays (e.g., AggreWell, Elplasia) [60] [61]	Microwell geometry guides cell aggregation	88–142 µm (depends on seeding density)	High (CV <11%, circularity >0.86)	Very High (up to 1,200 spheroids/well)	Scalable production, screening, tissue engineering
Hanging Drop [62]	Gravity-enforced self-assembly in suspended droplets	Controlled by cell concentration	High (cost-effective, controlled size)	Medium	Co-culture studies, proliferation dynamics, hypoxic models
Reduced Gravity Rotation [63]	Slow horizontal rotation prevents cell settling	Consistent size and shape	High (avoids clumping, scalable)	Medium	Complex co-culture models, fundamental tumor biology

Diagram: A workflow to guide researchers in selecting the most appropriate spheroid formation method based on their specific experimental requirements and applications (HTS: High-Throughput Screening).

Standardized Protocols for Reproducible Spheroid Formation

High-Throughput Protocol Using ULA Plates

The use of Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) plates with a polymer-coated surface that minimizes extracellular matrix protein adsorption is a cornerstone of reproducible, high-throughput spheroid formation [58]. This method forces cells to aggregate through cell-cell interactions rather than adhering to the substrate.

Materials:

• Nunclon Sphera 96-Well U-Bottom Plates (Thermo Scientific, Cat. No. 174925) or equivalent [58]
• HCT 116 human colon carcinoma cells (or other relevant cell line) [58]
• Complete DMEM:
  • High glucose DMEM
  • 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS)
  • 1X MEM Non-Essential Amino Acids
  • 100 U/mL penicillin–streptomycin
  • 25 mM HEPES [58]
• Centrifuge (e.g., Eppendorf 5810R) [64]
• PrestoBlue Cell Viability Reagent [58]

Procedure:

• Cell Preparation: Harvest and resuspend HCT 116 cells in complete DMEM to create a single-cell suspension. Determine cell concentration and viability using trypan blue exclusion.
• Cell Seeding: Seed cells into Nunclon Sphera plates at densities ranging from 100 to 3,000 cells/well in a 200 µL volume [58]. For initial optimization, test a range of densities to determine the ideal spheroid size for your application.
• Centrifugation: Briefly centrifuge plates at 250 × g for 5 minutes to gently pellet cells at the bottom of the U-shaped wells, promoting consistent aggregation initiation [58] [64].
• Incubation: Incubate plates at 37°C and 5% CO₂ for up to 13 days. Spheroid formation typically occurs within 18 hours, with mature spheroids developing over several days [58].
• Medium Exchange: Carefully replace 100 µL of spent medium with fresh pre-warmed complete DMEM every 72 hours to maintain nutrient levels and remove waste products [58].
• Quality Assessment: Monitor spheroid growth, morphology, and size consistency using phase-contrast microscopy. Confirm viability using metabolic assays such as PrestoBlue [58].

Scalable Production Using Microwell Arrays

For applications requiring large numbers of highly uniform spheroids, such as high-content screening or tissue engineering, microwell arrays offer superior scalability and reproducibility [60] [61].

Materials:

• AggreWell Plates (STEMCELL Technologies) or Elplasia 96-Well Plates (Corning, Cat. No. 4442) [60] [61]
• Human Dermal Fibroblasts (HDF) or HaCaT keratinocytes [60] [61]
• Anti-adherence rinsing solution (for plate preparation) [64]
• Complete culture medium appropriate for cell type

Procedure:

• Plate Preparation: Add 50 µL of anti-adherence rinsing solution to each well of a 96-well round bottom hydrophobic plate. Incubate for 15 minutes, then discard the solution and wash each well with 50 µL of serum-free media [64]. For AggreWell plates, follow manufacturer's instructions for preparation.
• Cell Seeding Preparation: Create a single-cell suspension of HDFs or HaCaT cells. For HDFs in AggreWell plates, two initial seeding densities are recommended: 100 and 300 cells per microwell [60]. For HaCaT cells in Elplasia plates, resuspend at 1.0 × 10⁶ cells/mL and dispense 50 µL (5.0 × 10⁴ cells) per well [61].
• Centrifugation and Seeding: Seed cells into prepared plates and centrifuge at 2710 × g for 10 minutes to settle cells into the microwells [64].
• Incubation: Incubate plates undisturbed for 24-48 hours at 37°C, 5% CO₂ to allow spheroid formation [60] [61].
• Harvesting and Analysis: After spheroid formation, carefully harvest spheroids according to platform-specific protocols. Assess spheroid size distribution, circularity, and viability. HDF spheroids typically show diameters of 88-108 µm (100 cells/microwell) to 127-142 µm (300 cells/microwell) with a coefficient of variation under 11% and viability exceeding 90% [60].

Advanced Protocol: Incorporating Scaffold-Based Systems for Enhanced Physiological Relevance

While scaffold-free systems excel in reproducibility, scaffold-based approaches can provide extracellular matrix cues that enhance physiological relevance for regenerative medicine applications [61].

Materials:

• 6-well ULA plates (Corning, Cat. No. 3471) [61]
• HaCaT keratinocytes [61]
• ROCK1 inhibitor (Y-27632) [61]
• Growth factor-reduced Matrigel [61]

Procedure:

• Heterogeneous Spheroid Formation: Seed 8.0 × 10³ HaCaT cells in 2 mL complete DMEM into each well of ULA 6-well plates. For enhanced stemness, include ROCK1 inhibitor (Y-27632) in the treatment group [61].
• Incubation: Incubate for several days to allow formation of heterogeneous spheroid populations (holospheres, merospheres, paraspheres) with distinct size distributions (holospheres: ~408.7 μm², merospheres: ~99 μm², paraspheres: ~14.1 μm²) [61].
• Scaffold Embedding: Carefully embed formed spheroids in Matrigel to evaluate outgrowth capacity and migratory behavior [61].
• Assessment: Monitor spheroid behavior in the 3D matrix environment. Merospheres and paraspheres typically migrate outward forming epithelial sheets, while holospheres remain intact as BMI-1+ stem cell reservoirs [61].

Quantitative Assessment and Quality Control

Rigorous quality control is essential for ensuring spheroid consistency and reproducibility across experiments. Multiple parameters should be quantitatively assessed throughout the culture period.

Table 2: Key Quality Control Metrics for Spheroid Cultures

Parameter	Assessment Method	Acceptance Criteria	Significance
Size Distribution	Phase-contrast microscopy with image analysis (e.g., ImageJ, MetaXpress)	Coefficient of variation (CV) <15% [60]	Ensures uniform drug penetration and response kinetics
Morphology/Circularity	Automated image analysis (circularity = 4π × Area/Perimeter²)	Circularity >0.86 [60], Aspect ratio >0.90 [60]	Indicates proper cell-cell adhesion and structural integrity
Cell Viability	Live/Dead assays (calcein-AM/propidium iodide), PrestoBlue metabolic assay	Viability >85% after 14 days [60]	Confirms culture health and suitability for toxicology studies
Proliferation Gradient	Immunohistochemistry (Ki-67, pHH3), CFSE tracking	Proliferating cells in periphery, quiescent in core [64]	Validates physiological nutrient/oxygen gradient formation
Hypoxic Core Development	Hypoxia probes (pimonidazole), HIF-1α immunohistochemistry	Hypoxic core in spheroids >200-500 µm diameter	Confirms physiological architecture mimicking in vivo tumors

Diagram: A comprehensive quality control workflow for spheroid cultures, outlining key assessment timepoints and the critical metrics to evaluate at each stage to ensure experimental reproducibility.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The consistent production of high-quality spheroids requires carefully selected reagents and materials that minimize variability and support robust 3D culture formation.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Reproducible Spheroid Formation

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function	Protocol Considerations
Specialized Cultureware	Nunclon Sphera Plates [58], Corning Elplasia Plates [61], AggreWell Plates [60]	Provides ultra-low attachment surface or microwell geometry to guide reproducible spheroid formation	Pre-treatment with anti-adherence solution may be required; optimize cell seeding density per platform
Extracellular Matrix Supplements	Growth factor-reduced Matrigel [61], Collagen I [63], Alginate hydrogels [65]	Provides scaffold for embedded culture; enhances physiological relevance for specific tissue types	Concentration and polymerization time critically affect spheroid behavior and morphology
Cell Signaling Modulators	ROCK1 inhibitor (Y-27632) [61]	Enhances stemness potential, reduces anoikis, improves single-cell survival in suspension	Typically used at 10-20 µM concentration; essential for sensitive or primary cell types
Viability & Functional Assays	PrestoBlue Cell Viability Reagent [58], LIVE/DEAD Cell Imaging Kit [58], CellROX Oxidative Stress Probe [58]	Enables non-destructive monitoring of spheroid health and metabolic function over time	Adapt protocol for 3D structures; ensure adequate dye penetration; longer incubation may be needed
Image Analysis Software	MetaXpress High-Content Analysis [61], ImageJ with 3D plugins, Incucyte Spheroid Software [64]	Quantifies spheroid size, circularity, growth kinetics, and viability in high-throughput format	Validate analysis algorithms for specific spheroid morphology; threshold settings critical for accuracy

Troubleshooting Common Challenges

Even with standardized protocols, researchers may encounter challenges in spheroid formation. The following table addresses common issues and provides evidence-based solutions.

Table 4: Troubleshooting Guide for Spheroid Formation

Problem	Potential Causes	Solutions	Supporting Evidence
Irregular Spheroid Morphology	Inadequate cell number, improper surface treatment, cell clumping during seeding	Optimize seeding density; ensure single-cell suspension; use validated ULA plates [58]	Nunclon Sphera plates produce uniform shapes with defined edges vs. nontreated plates [58]
Size Variability Between Wells	Inconsistent cell seeding, edge effects in plates, medium evaporation	Use automated liquid handlers; include only interior wells in analysis; use medium reservoirs [59]	Microwell arrays provide CV <11% for size distribution [60]
Poor Viability in Core	Excessive spheroid size, inadequate nutrient diffusion, prolonged culture	Optimize seeding density to control size; refresh medium regularly; limit culture duration	Viability maintained >85% at day 14 with proper feeding schedules [60]
Inconsistent Drug Responses	Size variability, inadequate drug penetration, improper assay endpoints	Standardize spheroid size before treatment; extend drug exposure times; use 3D-optimized assays	3D cultures show different drug response profiles than 2D [66]
Spheroid Adhesion to Plate	Incomplete blocking, damaged plate coating, serum-containing media	Use fresh anti-adherence rinsing solution; avoid scraping well bottoms; use serum-free media	Properly treated surfaces show minimal collagen I and fibronectin adsorption [58]

The consistent and reproducible production of 3D spheroids is achievable through the implementation of standardized methodologies, rigorous quality control measures, and appropriate platform selection tailored to specific research objectives. The protocols and analytical frameworks presented in this application note provide researchers with a comprehensive toolkit for generating high-quality spheroids that reliably recapitulate in vivo physiology. As the field advances toward increasingly complex multicellular models and high-throughput screening applications, these foundational principles of reproducibility and consistency will remain paramount for generating biologically meaningful and translatable data.

Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture has revolutionized biological research by providing models that more accurately mimic the complex architecture of living tissues compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) systems [67] [5]. These advanced models offer more physiologically relevant insights into cell behavior, disease progression, and treatment responses, making them invaluable tools for cancer research, drug development, and tissue engineering [5]. However, ensuring optimal cell viability within 3D constructs presents unique challenges that require careful optimization of three critical parameters: cell concentration, scaffold crosslinking, and nutrient transport [68] [69].

This application note provides detailed protocols and data-driven guidance for researchers aiming to maximize cell viability in 3D culture systems. We summarize key quantitative findings on how these parameters influence cell survival and function, and provide step-by-step methodologies for implementing optimized conditions in laboratory practice.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Impact of Crosslinking Conditions on Cell Viability and Mechanical Properties

The crosslinking strategy employed in scaffold-based 3D cultures significantly affects both the mechanical properties of the matrix and the viability of encapsulated cells. The following table summarizes experimental data from a study investigating dual crosslinking of methacrylated collagen (CMA) hydrogels for human mesenchymal stem cell (hMSC) culture [68].

Table 1: Effects of crosslinking strategies on CMA hydrogel properties and hMSC outcomes

Crosslinking Condition	Compressive Modulus	Degradation Time	Cell Viability	Metabolic Activity
Uncrosslinked CMA	Baseline	Baseline	>80%	High
Photochemical Only (1% VA-086)	Increased vs. uncrosslinked	Moderate improvement	>80%	High
0.5 mM Genipin Only (Low)	Significantly improved	Significantly improved	>80%	High
1.0 mM Genipin Only (High)	Significantly improved	Significantly improved	Significant decrease (p<0.05)	Significant decrease (p<0.05)
Dual: Photo + 0.5 mM Genipin (Low)	Significantly improved	Significantly improved	>80%	High
Dual: Photo + 1.0 mM Genipin (High)	Significantly improved	Significantly improved	Significant decrease (p<0.05)	Significant decrease (p<0.05)

The data demonstrate that a dual crosslinking approach combining photochemical initiation with low-dose (0.5 mM) genipin chemical crosslinking achieves optimal balance, providing significantly improved mechanical properties and degradation stability while maintaining high cell viability and metabolic activity [68].

Optimization of Perfusion Flow Rates for Nutrient Transport

Nutrient transport in 3D cultures is critical for maintaining viability, particularly in the core regions of scaffolds where diffusion limitations can lead to hypoxia and waste accumulation [69]. The following table summarizes findings from a study investigating the relationship between perfusion flow rate, oxygen concentration, shear stress, and cell viability in a 3D tantalum scaffold culture system [69].

Table 2: Effects of perfusion flow rate on microenvironment and cell viability

Flow Rate (μL/min)	Oxygen Supply	Shear Stress	Overall Cell Viability	Viability Distribution
0 (Static)	Poor (Hypoxic core)	None	Low	High surface, low core
5	Moderate improvement	Minimal	Moderate	Improved in core
15	Good	Low	High	Even distribution
30	Excellent	Moderate	High	Even distribution
45	Excellent	High	Moderate	Reduced surface viability
60	Excellent	Very High	Low	Low surface viability

The results indicate that flow rates between 15-30 μL/min provide the optimal balance between nutrient supply and shear stress-induced damage in this specific scaffold system, highlighting the need for system-specific optimization [69].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Dual Crosslinking of Cell-Laden CMA Hydrogels

This protocol describes a method for creating mechanically robust, cell-laden collagen constructs through sequential photochemical and chemical crosslinking, adapted from established methodologies [68].

Materials and Reagents

• Acid-solubilized methacrylated collagen type I (Advanced BioMatrix, 3 mg/mL)
• VA-086 photoinitiator (Wako, Japan)
• Genipin (Challenge Bioproducts)
• 0.1N NaOH
• 50 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.4)
• Human MSCs (Lonza; PT-2501) or other relevant cell type
• Growth medium: Low glucose-DMEM with 10% FBS and 1% penicillin/streptomycin
• Circular rubber washers (7.5 mm diameter, 2.5 mm height)
• UV light source (365 nm; 17 mW/cm²)

Procedure

• Preparation of CMA solution:

  • Combine methacrylated collagen solution (3 mg/mL), 1% (w/v) VA-086 photoinitiator, and 0.1N NaOH to adjust pH to 7.4.
  • Maintain the solution on ice to prevent premature gelation.

• Cell encapsulation:

  • Trypsinize and count hMSCs (passage 5-7).
  • Centrifuge cells and resuspend in the CMA solution at desired density (e.g., 1-5 million cells/mL).
  • Gently mix to ensure even cell distribution without creating bubbles.

• Gelation and photochemical crosslinking:

  • Transfer the cell-CMA mixture into circular rubber washers placed in a culture plate.
  • Incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes to induce thermal gelation.
  • Perform photochemical crosslinking via UV exposure (365 nm; 17 mW/cm²) for 1 minute.

• Chemical crosslinking:

  • Prepare genipin solutions at 0.5 mM (low) and 1.0 mM (high) concentrations in 50 mM HEPES buffer.
  • Incubate photochemically crosslinked hydrogels in genipin solution for 1 hour at 37°C.
  • For cell-laden constructs, use only the 0.5 mM genipin concentration to maintain viability.

• Post-processing:

  • Rinse crosslinked hydrogels three times with sterile PBS to remove residual genipin.
  • Transfer to culture medium and maintain under standard culture conditions.

Validation and Quality Control

• Assess cell viability using live/dead staining (calcein AM/ethidium homodimer) after 24-48 hours.
• Evaluate mechanical properties through compressive modulus testing.
• Analyze print fidelity for bioprinting applications via geometric measurements of line widths and pore sizes.

Protocol: Optimizing Perfusion Culture for 3D Scaffolds

This protocol establishes a method for maintaining 3D cell cultures under perfusion, optimizing nutrient transport while minimizing shear stress [69].

Materials and Reagents

• Porous 3D scaffolds (tantalum, 14 mm radius, 5 mm thickness, ~80% porosity, ~550 μm pore size)
• Perfusion cell culture reactor (e.g., Cellynyzer, Institute for Polymer Technologies)
• Peristaltic pump (e.g., IPC-N 4, Ismatec)
• Gas permeable tubing (Fluidflex Silicon HG)
• Medium reservoir and waste container
• MG-63 osteoblastic cells (ATCC) or other relevant cell type
• Culture medium: DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS and 1% gentamicin

Procedure

• Scaffold preparation and sterilization:

  • Place tantalum scaffolds in a 6-well tissue culture plate.
  • Sterilize by autoclaving at 121°C steam for 30 minutes.

• Cell seeding:

  • Detach cells at near confluence using 0.05% trypsin/0.02% EDTA.
  • Count cells using CASY Model DT or similar counter.
  • Seed 1 × 10⁶ cells in 100 μL DMEM in a meandering pattern onto the pre-wetted Ta scaffolds.
  • Incubate at 37°C, 5% CO₂ for 6 hours to allow cell attachment.
  • Invert scaffolds and repeat seeding on the opposite side.
  • Incubate overnight to ensure complete cell attachment.

• Assembly of perfusion system:

  • Stack two seeded Ta scaffolds horizontally and fix within the titanium clamping ring.
  • Integrate the 3D module into the perfusion cell culture reactor.
  • Connect the reactor to the peristaltic pump, medium reservoir, and waste container using gas-permeable tubing.
  • Sterilize the fluidic path by rinsing with 70% ethanol, followed by sterile PBS and culture medium.

• Perfusion culture:

  • Set flow direction to bottom-up within the reactor.
  • Begin perfusion with a flow rate of 15 μL/min for initial experiments.
  • Culture for 7 days under continuous flow, monitoring medium consumption.
  • For optimization, test flow rates between 5-60 μL/min as outlined in Table 2.

• Static control culture:

  • Maintain control scaffolds in the same reactor without flow.
  • Replace medium every other day using a sterile syringe.

Analysis and Optimization

• After culture, demount the module and separate scaffolds for analysis at different levels (apical, medial, basal).
• Assess cell viability on each level using MTT assay or live/dead staining.
• Compare viability distribution to identify optimal flow rates for specific scaffold architectures.
• Use computational modeling to correlate local cell viability with simulated oxygen concentration and shear stress profiles.

Visualization of Workflows and Relationships

Dual Crosslinking Workflow

Nutrient Transport Optimization

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential materials for optimized 3D cell culture

Reagent/Equipment	Function	Examples/Specifications	Application Notes
Methacrylated Collagen	Bioink scaffold material	Type I, 3 mg/mL concentration	Retains natural collagen properties while allowing photochemical modification [68]
VA-086 Photoinitiator	Initiates photochemical crosslinking	1% (w/v) in CMA solution	Lower cytotoxicity compared to I-2959 for cell-laden constructs [68]
Genipin	Chemical crosslinking agent	0.5-1.0 mM in HEPES buffer	Natural alternative to glutaraldehyde with lower cytotoxicity [68]
HEPES Buffer	pH maintenance during crosslinking	50 mM, pH 7.4	Maintains physiological pH during chemical crosslinking steps [68]
Porous Tantalum Scaffolds	3D structural support for cells	80% porosity, 550 μm pore size	Optimal for bone cell ingrowth; architecture affects nutrient transport [69]
Perfusion Bioreactor	Dynamic culture system	Cellynyzer or similar with flow control	Enables continuous nutrient delivery and waste removal [69]
Gas-Permeable Tubing	Medium transport in perfusion systems	Fluidflex Silicon HG	Maintains pH and gas exchange during extended culture periods [69]
Low-Attachment Plates	Spheroid formation	U-bottom 96-well plates	Promotes cell aggregation for scaffold-free 3D models [70]

Optimizing cell viability in 3D culture systems requires a multifaceted approach that balances cell concentration, crosslinking strategies, and nutrient transport dynamics. The data and protocols presented here demonstrate that dual crosslinking with photochemical initiation and low-dose genipin (0.5 mM) produces constructs with enhanced mechanical properties while maintaining high cell viability. Furthermore, perfusion culture at optimized flow rates (15-30 μL/min for the specified system) ensures adequate nutrient transport to core regions without inducing shear stress-related damage.

These application notes provide researchers with practical methodologies for implementing these optimized conditions, supported by quantitative data and visual workflows. By systematically addressing these three critical parameters, scientists can enhance the physiological relevance and predictive power of their 3D culture models, advancing applications in drug discovery, disease modeling, and tissue engineering.

The transition from conventional two-dimensional (2D) to three-dimensional (3D) cell culture represents a significant milestone in cellular studies, offering a more authentic representation of in vivo environments [71]. However, this shift introduces substantial analytical challenges, primarily concerning the penetration of assay reagents and the adaptation of readout methodologies to three-dimensional microenvironments. Unlike 2D cultures where diffusion is relatively straightforward, the penetration of nutrients, gases, drugs, and assay reagents becomes inherently more complex in 3D cultures, leading to uneven gradients that significantly impact cellular behavior and assay outcomes [71]. This application note addresses these critical challenges by providing optimized protocols and analytical frameworks for obtaining reliable, physiologically relevant data from 3D culture systems, with particular emphasis on drug discovery and cancer research applications where predictive accuracy is paramount.

The fundamental limitation of traditional colorimetric assays in 3D environments stems from their inability to effectively penetrate dense matrices and accurately reflect cellular responses within tissue-like structures [71]. Furthermore, the inherent depth of 3D architectures poses significant challenges for imaging clarity, as traditional microscopy techniques optimized for shallow 2D layers encounter difficulties when visualizing cells situated deeper within these structures [71]. This technical gap necessitates a comprehensive reassessment of established assay principles and the adoption of specifically tailored approaches for 3D culture analysis, which we explore through detailed methodologies and experimental validation in the following sections.

Quantitative Comparison of 2D versus 3D Assay Performance

The selection of appropriate assay endpoints requires careful consideration of their compatibility with 3D architectural constraints. Table 1 summarizes the key limitations of conventional assays in 3D systems and presents optimized alternatives with superior performance characteristics for reliable assessment of cell viability, apoptosis, and metabolic activity.

Table 1: Assay Adaptation from 2D to 3D Culture Systems

Assay Type	Traditional 2D Method	Key Limitation in 3D	3D-Optimized Alternative	Advantage in 3D
Viability/Proliferation	MTT colorimetric assay	Formazan crystals do not solubilize effectively in dense 3D matrix [71]	ATP-based luminescence assays (e.g., CellTiter-Glo) [71]	Increased sensitivity, better penetration, linear relationship with cell number [71]
Apoptosis	Colorimetric caspase assays	Poor penetration and limited diffusion of substrates [71]	Fluorescence/luminescence-based caspase assays [71]	Enhanced clarity, sensitivity, and quantitative accuracy [71]
Metabolic Activity	Tetrazolium salt reduction (WST-1)	Gradient formation, uneven reduction throughout spheroid [71]	PrestoBlue or other resazurin-based assays [71]	More uniform penetration, reduced incubation times, compatible with real-time measurement

The transition from a traditional 2D experimental setup to a more complex 3D environment represents a fundamental shift in assay optimization philosophy, requiring complete reevaluation of the entire experimental process rather than mere protocol adjustments [71]. The data in Table 1 underscores the necessity of moving beyond conventional colorimetric approaches toward detection methods with enhanced penetration capabilities and distribution kinetics suited to the unique properties of 3D microenvironments.

Advanced Imaging Techniques for 3D Cultures

The three-dimensional architecture of advanced culture models demands equally sophisticated imaging approaches to extract meaningful biological data. Traditional widefield microscopy suffers from significant light scattering and out-of-focus blur in thick samples, necessitating the implementation of optical sectioning techniques [72] [73]. Table 2 compares the principal imaging modalities suitable for 3D cell culture analysis, detailing their respective operational parameters, capabilities, and optimal application scenarios.

Table 2: Imaging Techniques for 3D Cell Culture Analysis

Imaging Technique	Principle	Penetration Depth	Resolution	Best Uses in 3D Culture	Key Considerations
Confocal Microscopy	Point illumination with spatial filtering using a pinhole [73]	< 100 μm [73]	Sub-micrometer [73]	Fixed samples, high-resolution structural analysis [72]	Limited penetration in highly scattering samples; photobleaching possible [73]
Multiphoton Microscopy	Nonlinear excitation using near-infrared pulsed lasers [73]	Up to 1 mm (tissue-dependent) [73]	Sub-micrometer [73]	Live-cell imaging, deep tissue visualization [72] [73]	Reduced photobleaching and phototoxicity; superior for thick samples [73]
Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT)	Interferometric measurement of backscattered light [73]	Several millimeters [73]	1-10 μm [73]	Label-free structural assessment, scaffold integration, long-term monitoring [73]	No molecular specificity; contrast based on scattering properties [73]
Light Sheet Microscopy	Selective illumination of a single plane with orthogonal detection	Hundreds of micrometers	Sub-micrometer	Rapid imaging of large samples, live organoid tracking	Fast acquisition with minimal photobleaching; requires sample clearing for best results [72]

The selection of an appropriate imaging modality must be guided by specific experimental requirements, including sample thickness, need for live-cell capability, resolution requirements, and available instrumentation. For comprehensive analysis, correlative approaches combining multiple techniques often provide complementary insights into both structural and functional aspects of 3D cultures [72] [73].

Workflow for 3D Culture Imaging and Analysis

The following diagram illustrates a systematic workflow for imaging 3D cell cultures, from sample preparation to quantitative data analysis, highlighting critical decision points and methodological considerations at each stage.

Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Culture Assays

Successful implementation of 3D culture assays requires specialized reagents specifically formulated to address penetration limitations and matrix compatibility. The following table details essential solutions that form the foundation of reliable 3D assay systems.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Cell Culture Assays

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application	Key Characteristics
Scaffold/Matrix	Corning Matrigel matrix, collagen, synthetic hydrogels (e.g., VitroGel) [74] [75]	Provides 3D structural support mimicking extracellular matrix [71] [74]	Tunable stiffness, composition, biological functionalization [74]
Viability Assays	CellTiter-Glo 3D, RealTime-Glo MT Cell Viability Assay [71]	ATP quantification as metabolic indicator in 3D structures [71]	Luminescence-based, enhanced penetration, linear dynamic range [71]
Apoptosis Assays	Caspase-Glo, CellEvent Caspase-3/7 reagents [71]	Detection of programmed cell death in 3D environments [71]	Fluorogenic/lumogenic substrates, cell-permeable, low background [71]
Metabolic Probes	PrestoBlue, pH-Xtra Glycolysis Assay	Measurement of metabolic activity and glycolytic flux	Resazurin-based, non-toxic, real-time kinetic readings
Cell Labeling	CellTracker dyes, Cytopainter kits	Long-term tracking of cells in 3D structures	Cell-permeable, retained through cell divisions, minimal toxicity
Matrix Clearing	CUBIC, ScaleS, CLARITY-based protocols [72]	Tissue transparency for improved imaging depth	Reduces light scattering, enables antibody penetration [72]

The selection of appropriate reagents must align with both the 3D culture format (scaffold-based vs. scaffold-free) and the specific analytical endpoints required. Batch-to-batch consistency, particularly with biologically-derived matrices like Matrigel, remains a critical consideration for experimental reproducibility [74].

Experimental Protocol: ATP-Based Viability Assessment in 3D Cultures

Principle

This protocol adapts traditional viability assessment for 3D cultures by quantifying ATP content via bioluminescence, providing a superior alternative to colorimetric MTT assays which suffer from formazan crystal solubilization issues in dense 3D matrices [71]. Cellular ATP concentration serves as a direct indicator of metabolic competence and cell viability, with the luciferase reaction producing light proportional to the ATP present.

Materials

• 3D cell cultures (spheroids, organoids, or scaffold-based cultures)
• ATP-based viability assay kit (e.g., CellTiter-Glo 3D)
• White-walled, clear-bottom multiwell plates (e.g., 96-well format)
• Multichannel pipettes and reagent reservoirs
• Orbital shaker or plate shaker
• Luminescence plate reader

Procedure

• Plate Preparation: Transfer 3D cultures to white-walled assay plates, ensuring consistent distribution and minimal media carryover. Include blank wells containing culture medium only for background subtraction.

• Reagent Equilibration: Thaw and equilibrate the CellTiter-Glo 3D reagent to room temperature (approximately 30 minutes). Protect from light.

• Reagent Addition: Add a volume of CellTiter-Glo 3D reagent equal to the volume of media present in each well (typically 100 μL reagent to 100 μL media).

• Content Mixing: Secure the plate plate and mix contents thoroughly using an orbital shaker (200-500 rpm) for 5 minutes to induce cell lysis and ensure reagent penetration throughout the 3D structure.

• Signal Stabilization: Incubate the plate at room temperature for 25 minutes to stabilize the luminescent signal.

• Signal Detection: Measure luminescence using a plate reader with integration time between 0.1-1 second per well.

• Data Analysis: Subtract blank control values from sample readings. Normalize data to positive (untreated) and negative (completely non-viable) controls as appropriate.

Technical Notes

• Linearity Validation: Perform serial dilutions of a known cell number to confirm assay linearity with your specific 3D model.
• Penetration Time Course: For larger structures (>500 μm), conduct preliminary time course experiments to determine optimal lysis duration.
• Matrix Effects: Account for potential matrix-specific effects by including matrix-only controls.
• Normalization Strategy: For heterogeneous 3D cultures, consider DNA content normalization for cross-comparison.

Experimental Protocol: 3D Apoptosis Analysis via Caspase Activation

Principle

This protocol detects apoptosis in 3D cultures using fluorogenic caspase-3/7 substrates that penetrate the 3D matrix and produce fluorescence upon cleavage by activated caspases, key executioners of apoptotic cell death [71]. This approach overcomes limitations of colorimetric apoptosis assays which provide suboptimal results within intricate 3D matrices.

Materials

• 3D cell cultures
• Fluorogenic caspase-3/7 substrate (e.g., CellEvent Caspase-3/7 reagent)
• Nuclear counterstain (e.g., Hoechst 33342 or SYTOX Green)
• Clear-bottom black-walled multiwell plates
• Confocal or multiphoton microscope with environmental control
• Image analysis software (e.g., ImageJ, Imaris)

Procedure

• Staining Solution Preparation: Prepare working solution containing 2-5 μM CellEvent Caspase-3/7 reagent and appropriate nuclear counterstain in culture medium.

• Culture Staining: Remove existing culture medium and replace with staining solution. Incubate for 30-60 minutes at 37°C, 5% CO₂.

• Washing: Remove staining solution and wash gently with pre-warmed PBS or fresh culture medium to reduce background fluorescence.

• Image Acquisition: Image samples using confocal or multiphoton microscopy. For kinetic analysis, maintain temperature and CO₂ throughout imaging.

  • Acquire z-stacks at appropriate intervals (e.g., every 20-30 minutes for kinetic studies)
  • Set appropriate controls (untreated, apoptosis-induced) for signal normalization

• Image Analysis:

  • Perform 3D reconstruction from z-stack images
  • Apply intensity thresholding to identify caspase-positive cells
  • Quantify the percentage of caspase-positive cells relative to total cell number (from nuclear stain)

Technical Notes

• Penetration Optimization: For large spheroids (>300 μm), extend incubation time or mildly agitate during staining.
• Viability Correlation: Combine with membrane integrity dyes (e.g., propidium iodide) to distinguish apoptotic from necrotic cells.
• Fixation Compatibility: Some caspase substrates are compatible with fixation for endpoint analysis.
• Multiplexing Potential: Combine with mitochondrial membrane potential dyes for comprehensive cell death profiling.

The successful implementation of robust assay protocols for 3D cell cultures necessitates a fundamental reconsideration of established 2D methodologies. As detailed in this application note, addressing penetration limitations through the adoption of luminescence- and fluorescence-based detection systems, coupled with advanced imaging modalities, enables researchers to extract physiologically relevant data from complex 3D microenvironments. The standardized protocols presented here for viability assessment and apoptosis analysis provide a validated framework that can be adapted to various 3D culture formats, from simple spheroids to patient-derived organoids. As the field continues to evolve toward increasingly sophisticated multi-tissue systems and organ-on-a-chip platforms, these foundational principles of 3D-compatible assay design will remain essential for bridging the gap between in vitro models and in vivo physiology.

Within the broader context of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture research, the physiological relevance of 3D models such as spheroids, organoids, and bioprinted tissues is well-established. These models more accurately mimic in vivo tissue structure, polarity, and function compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers [76] [77]. However, this enhanced biological fidelity is accompanied by significant technical complexities. The transition from 2D to 3D culture introduces unique challenges in incubation and handling that, if unaddressed, can compromise experimental reproducibility and outcomes. This application note details these critical pitfalls and provides standardized protocols to mitigate them, ensuring the generation of robust and reliable data for drug development and basic research.

Critical Pitfalls in 3D Cell Culture

The Reproducibility Challenge in Scaffolds and Matrices

A primary source of variability stems from the biomimetic scaffolds and extracellular matrices (ECMs) essential for 3D culture.

• Batch-to-Batch Variability: Natural hydrogels like Matrigel, derived from mouse sarcoma, can exhibit significant batch-to-batch variations in composition, leading to inconsistent organoid or spheroid formation and maturation [76] [78]. This inconsistency can directly impact experimental results, making cross-study comparisons difficult.
• Scaffold-Driven Artifacts: Biological scaffolds contribute soluble growth factors and other unidentified components that can confound results by altering gene and protein expression in the cultured cells [78]. The physical properties of the scaffold, such as stiffness and porosity, also critically influence cell signaling and behavior [78].
• Spheroid Retrieval Complications: Retrieving spheroids or organoids from within scaffolds for downstream analysis often requires enzymatic digestion or the use of toxic chemicals, which can negatively impact cellular viability and RNA integrity [78]. The use of thermosensitive polymers (e.g., PNIPAM) that allow gentle, chemical-free release upon temperature change presents a viable alternative [78].

Nutrient and Metabolite Gradients and Their Consequences

The 3D architecture of cellular aggregates creates diffusion-based gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and waste products that are largely absent in 2D monolayers [79]. While physiologically representative, these gradients pose a significant handling challenge.

• Necrotic Core Formation: In larger spheroids and organoids, limited diffusion can lead to hypoxia and the accumulation of metabolic waste in the core, eventually causing central necrosis [76] [77]. This phenomenon is a key feature of multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) used in oncology research but must be carefully controlled to prevent uncontrolled cell death [78].
• Impact on Cellular Function: Gradient-driven effects alter global gene expression, metabolic profiles, and cell viability [76] [77]. For instance, proliferating cells are often found at the well-oxygenated periphery, while quiescent or apoptotic cells reside in the core, mirroring in vivo tumor biology [77]. These gradients also contribute to increased therapy resistance, as drugs may fail to penetrate the core effectively [80] [78].

The Cellular Cooperation Phenomenon in Clonogenic Assays

A critical and often overlooked pitfall in 3D culture analysis, particularly in clonogenic assays, is cellular cooperation. This refers to the paracrine and autocrine signaling between cells that enhances survival and proliferation in a density-dependent manner [81].

• Compromised Data Robustness: The standard plating efficiency (PE)-based analysis of clonogenic assays assumes a linear relationship between the number of cells seeded and the number of colonies formed. However, cellular cooperation violates this assumption, as the cell density seeded profoundly influences the extent and dynamics of clonogenic growth [81]. This leads to strongly underestimated assay-intrinsic errors.
• High Prevalence: This phenomenon is unexpectedly common, observed in 28 out of 50 (56%) cancer cell lines across various tumor entities [81]. Reliance on PE-based calculations in these cooperatively growing lines can produce misleading survival data.

Table 1: Key Differences Between 2D and 3D Cell Culture Environments

Parameter	2D Monolayer Culture	3D Cell Culture (Spheroids/Organoids)
Physiological Relevance	Low; does not accurately model in vivo state [77]	High; better mimic of tissue structure and function [76]
Cell-Matrix Interactions	Limited to flat, artificial substrate [79]	Natural, three-dimensional interactions with ECM [78]
Gradients (O₂, nutrients)	Largely absent; uniform environment [79]	Present; diffusion-limited, creating hypoxic cores [77]
Cell Proliferation	High and uniform [77]	Heterogeneous; often slower, with proliferation mainly at periphery [77]
Gene & Protein Expression	Altered; does not reflect in vivo phenotype well [77] [82]	More physiologically relevant genotype and phenotype [77]
Drug Response	Typically more sensitive; can overestimate efficacy [77]	More resistant; predictive of in vivo drug penetration and efficacy [80] [78]

Standardized Protocols for Robust 3D Culture

Protocol: 3D Clonogenic Assay with Automated Analysis

This protocol, adapted from a 2015 study, enables the determination of clonogenic survival and proliferation under 3D conditions that more reliably reflect in vivo cell response [80].

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Methodology:

• Cell-LrECM Mixture Preparation: Trypsinize asynchronous cells to create a single-cell suspension. Count viable cells using Trypan Blue exclusion [83]. Mix cells with culture medium containing 0.5 mg/ml laminin-rich ECM (lrECM, e.g., Matrigel) [80].
• 3D Plating: Plate 100 µl of the cell-lrECM mixture into 96-well plates pre-coated with 50 µl of 1% agarose. The agarose base prevents cell attachment, forcing 3D growth.
• Gel Consolidation and Media Overlay: Allow the cell-lrECM layer to consolidate for 2 hours at 37°C. Carefully overlay the gel with 100 µl of pre-warmed culture medium.
• Treatment Application: After 24 hours, apply experimental treatments (e.g., ionizing radiation at 4 Gy, cisplatin at 25 µM, or cetuximab at 5 µg/ml). For drugs like cisplatin, carefully remove and replace the medium 5 times after treatment to ensure complete withdrawal [80].
• Long-Term Culture and Analysis: Culture cells for 8-11 days, depending on the cell line. Image each well automatically in at least 7 different Z-levels. Use image analysis software (e.g., ImageJ/Fiji) for focus stacking, background subtraction, median filtering, and thresholding. Apply a watershed algorithm to separate overlapping colonies before automatic counting. Colonies are defined as cell clusters containing a minimum of 50 cells [80].

Protocol: Advanced Analysis Accounting for Cellular Cooperation

To address the pitfall of cellular cooperation, this protocol replaces standard PE-based analysis with a more robust mathematical approach [81].

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Methodology:

• Comprehensive Seeding: Seed single-cell suspensions across a wide range of densities (e.g., from 100 to 100,000 cells per well in a 6-well plate) for both untreated and treatment groups.
• Power Regression Modeling: After incubation and colony counting, model the data using power regression (C = a × S^b), where C is the number of colonies, S is the number of cells seeded, a is a coefficient, and b is the exponent. This model accommodates the non-linear growth behavior caused by cellular cooperation [81].
• Interpolation and Survival Calculation: For a given number of colonies (C), interpolate to find the number of cells that needed to be seeded to yield that count under untreated conditions (S₀) and after treatment (Sₓ). The survival fraction (SF) is then calculated as SF = S₀ / Sₓ. This process is repeated for a range of C values (e.g., 5 to 100) to generate robust survival curves [81].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Cell Culture

Reagent / Material	Function	Key Considerations
Laminin-rich ECM (lrECM)	Provides a biomimetic 3D scaffold for cell growth and organization [80].	High batch-to-batch variability; may contain undefined growth factors [76] [78].
Peptide Hydrogels	Synthetic or biologically derived scaffolds to mimic ECM [82].	Offers high biocompatibility; some types allow easy, non-toxic spheroid release via temperature change [78].
Agarose	Used to create a non-adhesive coating for plates, promoting scaffold-free spheroid formation [80].	Inert and defined composition; prevents cell attachment, forcing 3D aggregation.
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Surface-treated plates to minimize cell attachment, enabling scaffold-free spheroid formation [76] [78].	Promotes self-aggregation; critical for generating uniform spheroids.
Conditioned Medium	Cell culture medium collected from near-confluent cultures [81].	Contains secreted factors that can promote cellular cooperation and influence growth dynamics in clonogenic assays [81].

Mastering the techniques of 3D cell culture requires a critical understanding of its inherent incubation and handling pitfalls. The increased physiological relevance of 3D models comes with challenges in reproducibility, gradient formation, and complex cellular interactions like cooperation. By implementing the standardized protocols outlined here—particularly the advanced analytical methods that account for non-linear growth—researchers can significantly enhance the robustness, reliability, and predictive power of their 3D culture systems. This rigorous approach is fundamental for advancing drug discovery and achieving a more accurate understanding of human biology and disease.

Benchmarking Success: Validating and Comparing 3D Models for Predictive Power

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a fundamental shift in biomedical research, offering unprecedented ability to mimic the complex architecture and functionality of living tissues [84]. Unlike 2D monolayers where cells adhere to a flat, rigid surface, 3D cell culture systems allow cells to grow and interact in all three dimensions, recreating critical aspects of the native tissue microenvironment [6]. This advancement has proven particularly valuable in cancer research, regenerative medicine, and drug discovery, where physiological relevance directly impacts predictive accuracy [5]. The 3D cell culture market, projected to grow from USD 1,494.2 million in 2025 to USD 3,805.7 million by 2035, reflects the increasing adoption of these technologies across pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors [85].

The 3D cell culture landscape is primarily divided into two methodological approaches: scaffold-based and scaffold-free systems [3]. Scaffold-based techniques utilize supporting materials that mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM), providing structural support and biochemical cues that guide cell behavior [84]. In contrast, scaffold-free methods rely on the innate ability of cells to self-assemble into 3D aggregates without external support matrices [86]. Each paradigm offers distinct advantages and limitations, and the choice between them depends heavily on the specific research application, cell types involved, and desired outcomes [6]. This comparative analysis examines the technical principles, experimental outcomes, and practical applications of both approaches to guide researchers in selecting appropriate methodologies for their specific investigations.

Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-based systems utilize three-dimensional supporting matrices that replicate key aspects of the native extracellular matrix (ECM), providing both structural support and crucial biochemical signaling cues [84]. These scaffolds typically feature porous architectures that facilitate oxygen and nutrient transport while enabling waste removal, effectively supporting cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation [3]. The composition and physical properties of these scaffolds can be precisely tailored to match specific tissue requirements, making them exceptionally versatile for tissue engineering applications [84].

Scaffold materials are broadly categorized into natural and synthetic types, each with distinct characteristics. Natural scaffolds include hydrogel-forming materials such as collagen, Matrigel, alginate, and fibrin, which excel in biocompatibility and bioactivity but often suffer from batch-to-batch variability and limited mechanical control [3]. Synthetic scaffolds, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), polylactic acid (PLA), and polycaprolactone (PCL), offer superior control over mechanical properties, reproducibility, and customization but may lack inherent cell recognition sites [84] [3]. Composite scaffolds have emerged as an innovative solution, combining multiple materials to optimize both biological and mechanical properties [3]. For instance, the addition of ceramic materials like hydroxyapatite to polymeric PCL scaffolds has demonstrated enhanced mechanical properties and improved cell proliferation rates [3].

Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-free techniques leverage the innate tendency of cells to self-assemble into three-dimensional aggregates, typically generating spherical structures known as spheroids or organoids without external supporting matrices [86]. These systems eliminate potential complications associated with scaffold materials, including immune responses and variable degradation rates, while promoting robust cell-cell interactions and tissue-like organization [86]. The self-organization process in scaffold-free models more closely resembles developmental biology pathways, often resulting in structures that better recapitulate native tissue microarchitecture [6].

Common scaffold-free methodologies include forced floating, hanging drop, magnetic levitation, and agitation-based approaches [87]. The forced floating method employs low-adhesion or ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates coated with hydrophilic polymers to prevent cell attachment, forcing cells to aggregate into spheroids [87]. The hanging drop technique utilizes gravitational force to concentrate cells at the air-liquid interface of inverted droplets, promoting spheroid formation with high reproducibility [3]. Magnetic levitation uses nanoparticle-based assembly to create 3D structures through magnetic manipulation, while agitation-based methods like rotating wall bioreactors maintain cells in constant suspension to encourage aggregation [87]. Each technique offers distinct advantages in controlling spheroid size, uniformity, and throughput, with specific applications in high-throughput screening and cancer research [3].

Comparative Workflow Analysis

The fundamental differences between scaffold-based and scaffold-free approaches are visualized in the following experimental workflow diagram:

Figure 1: Experimental workflow comparison between scaffold-based and scaffold-free 3D cell culture methodologies, highlighting key procedural differences from experimental design through downstream analysis.

Quantitative Comparative Analysis

Market Adoption and Application Trends

The 3D cell culture market demonstrates distinct trends in the adoption and application of scaffold-based versus scaffold-free technologies, reflecting their respective strengths and limitations in research and development settings. Scaffold-based systems currently dominate the market with an 80.4% revenue share in 2025, attributed to their versatility, reproducibility, and ease of integration into automated screening pipelines [85]. These systems are particularly favored in tissue engineering and cancer research applications where ECM mimicry is essential [10]. In contrast, scaffold-free systems are experiencing accelerated growth at a CAGR of 9.1%, driven by increasing adoption in high-throughput drug screening and personalized medicine applications [10].

Table 1: Market Adoption and Application Profiles for 3D Cell Culture Technologies

Parameter	Scaffold-Based Systems	Scaffold-Free Systems
Market Share (2025)	80.4% revenue share [85]	Growing at 9.1% CAGR [10]
Leading Applications	Tissue engineering, cancer research, regenerative medicine [85]	High-throughput screening, cancer research, toxicology [10]
Cancer Research Adoption	32.2% revenue share in cancer research [85]	Used in 40% of cancer studies for drug resistance modeling [10]
Key Advantages	ECM mimicry, structural support, tunable properties [84]	Physiological cell-cell interactions, self-organization, high reproducibility [86]
Throughput Potential	Moderate, limited by scaffold preparation [3]	High, particularly with ULA plates and hanging drop methods [87]

Application-specific adoption rates further highlight technological preferences across research domains. In cancer research, which accounts for 32.2% of 3D culture applications, scaffold-based platforms are widely used for studying tumor-stroma interactions and metastatic processes [85]. Scaffold-free spheroids are utilized in approximately 40% of cancer studies, particularly for modeling drug resistance mechanisms and conducting high-throughput compound screening [10]. The regenerative medicine sector demonstrates strong growth for both technologies, with scaffold-based approaches preferred for structural tissue engineering and scaffold-free methods gaining traction for organoid development and cell-based therapies [10].

Technical Performance and Experimental Outcomes

Direct comparison of technical performance parameters reveals fundamental differences in the capabilities and limitations of scaffold-based versus scaffold-free 3D culture systems. These differences significantly influence their suitability for specific research applications and experimental requirements.

Table 2: Technical Performance Comparison Between Scaffold-Based and Scaffold-Free Systems

Performance Parameter	Scaffold-Based Systems	Scaffold-Free Systems
Structural Complexity	High (can engineer complex architectures) [84]	Moderate (limited to self-organization potential) [6]
Microenvironment Control	High (tunable biochemical/mechanical properties) [3]	Low (dependent on cell-secreted ECM) [86]
Reproducibility	Variable (batch-to-batch scaffold variations) [84]	High (with standardized protocols) [87]
Diffusion Limitations	100-200 μm without vascularization [87]	100-200 μm (necrotic cores in large spheroids) [87]
Culture Duration	Medium to long-term (weeks to months) [84]	Short to medium-term (days to weeks) [6]
Cell-Type Versatility	Broad (adherent cells require ECM) [3]	Selective (works best with self-aggregating cells) [86]
Drug Response Accuracy	Enhanced resistance prediction [5]	Better than 2D, but may lack ECM-barrier [5]

Biological outcomes significantly differ between these approaches due to their distinct microenvironments. Gene expression analyses reveal that cells in scaffold-based systems demonstrate upregulated expression of ECM receptors including α3, α5, and β1 integrins, enhancing cell-matrix interactions and mimicking in vivo signaling pathways [5]. Scaffold-free systems promote strong cell-cell interactions through tight junctions and cadherin-mediated adhesion, often resulting in more physiological polarization and lumen formation in epithelial organoids [86]. Drug response studies consistently show that both systems confer increased resistance to chemotherapeutic agents like paclitaxel compared to 2D cultures, but through different mechanisms: scaffold-based models incorporate ECM-mediated resistance, while scaffold-free spheroids replicate the diffusion barriers observed in solid tumors [5].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Using Hydrogel Matrices

Principle: This protocol establishes a robust methodology for creating 3D cell cultures within hydrogel-based scaffolds, which provide a tunable, biomimetic environment that closely resembles native extracellular matrix [84]. Hydrogels support cell proliferation, differentiation, and tissue organization by replicating key aspects of the natural cellular microenvironment, including mechanical cues and biochemical signaling [3].

Materials:

• Hydrogel precursor (e.g., collagen, Matrigel, synthetic peptides)
• Cell culture medium appropriate for cell type
• Cell suspension at appropriate density
• 24-well or 48-well culture plates
• Sterile pipettes and tips
• Incubator (37°C, 5% CO₂)

Procedure:

• Prepare hydrogel solution according to manufacturer's instructions, maintaining sterile conditions.
• Mix cell suspension with hydrogel precursor at a 1:1 to 1:3 ratio (cell suspension:hydrogel) to achieve final cell density of 0.5-2 × 10⁶ cells/mL.
• Plate cell-hydrogel mixture into culture plates (100-500 μL per well depending on well size).
• Polymerize hydrogel under appropriate conditions (e.g., 37°C for 30 minutes for thermosensitive gels).
• Carefully overlay with pre-warmed culture medium without disturbing the gel.
• Culture for desired duration (typically 3-28 days) with regular medium changes (every 2-3 days).
• Monitor cell growth and morphology regularly using microscopy.

Technical Notes:

• Optimize hydrogel concentration to balance mechanical stability and nutrient diffusion
• For composite scaffolds, ensure thorough mixing of components before cell addition
• For histological analysis, fix entire construct before processing and sectioning

Protocol 2: Scaffold-Free Spheroid Generation Using Hanging Drop Method

Principle: The hanging drop technique utilizes gravity to concentrate cells at the air-liquid interface of inverted droplets, promoting cell-cell adhesion and spontaneous aggregation into spheroids without external scaffolds [87]. This method generates highly uniform, reproducible 3D structures ideal for high-throughput screening and cancer biology applications [3].

Materials:

• Cell suspension at high density (2.5-7.5 × 10⁴ cells/mL)
• Hanging drop plates or standard culture plates with lids
• Sterile pipettes and tips
• PBS for humidity control
• Incubator (37°C, 5% CO₂)

Procedure:

• Prepare cell suspension at appropriate density in complete culture medium.
• Plate droplets of 20-50 μL cell suspension onto the inner surface of plate lids, spacing them evenly.
• Invert lid carefully and place over bottom chamber containing PBS to maintain humidity.
• Culture for 3-7 days to allow spheroid formation, minimizing disturbance.
• Collect spheroids by carefully washing droplets with medium into a collection vessel.
• Transfer spheroids to ULA plates for long-term culture or proceed directly to analysis.

Technical Notes:

• Spheroid size can be controlled by adjusting cell density in the initial suspension
• Maintain high humidity in chamber to prevent droplet evaporation
• For co-culture spheroids, mix cell types at desired ratios before plating droplets

Protocol 3: Cell Sheet Engineering Using Temperature-Responsive Surfaces

Principle: Cell sheet technology represents an advanced scaffold-free approach that utilizes temperature-responsive polymer surfaces to harvest intact cell monolayers with preserved cell-cell junctions and deposited ECM [86]. This methodology enables the creation of complex 3D structures through layering of individual sheets while maintaining native tissue architecture.

Materials:

• Temperature-responsive culture dishes (e.g., PIPAAm-coated)
• Cell suspension of interest
• Standard culture medium
• Reduced temperature incubator or room temperature facility

Procedure:

• Seed cells onto temperature-responsive dishes at standard densities.
• Culture until confluence is reached, typically 3-7 days depending on cell type.
• Reduce temperature to 20-25°C for 30-60 minutes to initiate detachment.
• Carefully transfer detached cell sheet to new substrate or onto another cell sheet.
• Repeat process to build multilayer constructs if desired.
• Culture layered sheets for additional time to promote integration.

Technical Notes:

• PIPAAm density should be 0.8-2.2 μg/cm² for optimal cell adhesion and detachment
• Each cell type requires optimization of culture time and detachment conditions
• Handling of cell sheets requires special care to maintain structural integrity

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for 3D Cell Culture Applications

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Applications
Natural Hydrogels (Collagen, Matrigel)	ECM-mimetic support for cell growth [3]	Tissue engineering, angiogenesis studies [84]
Synthetic Hydrogels (PEG, PLA-based)	Tunable scaffolds with defined properties [84]	Mechanobiology studies, drug screening [3]
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Prevent cell adhesion, force spheroid formation [87]	Cancer spheroid generation, toxicity screening [5]
Temperature-Responsive Dishes (PIPAAm-coated)	Harvest intact cell sheets without enzymatic digestion [86]	Tissue engineering, regenerative medicine [86]
Hanging Drop Plates	Facilitate spheroid formation through gravity [3]	High-throughput screening, developmental biology [87]
Bioreactors	Provide dynamic culture conditions with mixing [87]	Large-scale spheroid production, tissue engineering [10]

Decision Framework and Concluding Perspectives

The choice between scaffold-based and scaffold-free 3D culture methodologies should be guided by specific research objectives, technical requirements, and practical constraints. The following decision pathway provides a systematic approach for selecting the most appropriate technology:

Figure 2: Decision pathway for selecting between scaffold-based and scaffold-free 3D cell culture methodologies based on specific research requirements and applications.

Scaffold-based systems are recommended when research objectives require precise control over microenvironmental properties, including mechanical cues, biochemical signaling, and structural organization [84]. These systems are particularly advantageous for tissue engineering applications, mechanistic studies of cell-ECM interactions, and investigations of mechanobiology where tunable substrate properties are essential [3]. The ability to tailor scaffold composition, stiffness, and architecture makes these platforms ideal for creating disease-specific microenvironments and engineered tissues for regenerative medicine [84].

Scaffold-free systems excel in applications prioritizing physiological cell-cell interactions, self-organization processes, and high-throughput capabilities [86]. These approaches are particularly valuable in drug discovery pipelines, cancer biology research, and developmental studies where scalable, reproducible 3D models are required [5]. The simplicity of spheroid formation, combined with minimal manipulation of cellular natural behaviors, makes scaffold-free technologies ideal for predictive toxicology, personalized medicine applications using patient-derived cells, and fundamental studies of tissue morphogenesis [6].

Emerging hybrid approaches combine elements of both paradigms, leveraging advanced technologies such as 3D bioprinting, microfluidics, and organ-on-chip systems to create more physiologically relevant models [85]. These integrated platforms address critical limitations of both scaffold-based and scaffold-free methods, particularly regarding vascularization, scalability, and multi-tissue interactions [87]. The ongoing innovation in both domains continues to expand the applications of 3D cell culture across biomedical research, drug development, and clinical translation, with each approach offering complementary strengths for understanding and manipulating cellular behavior in three-dimensional contexts [10].

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major global health challenge, representing the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide [88]. The high mortality rate is particularly associated with metastatic CRC, which has a dismal 5-year survival rate of less than 15% [89]. Current preclinical drug testing relies heavily on traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture models, which suffer from significant limitations as they lack the physiological relevance of the complex tumor microenvironment (TME) [88] [11]. This gap in modeling contributes to the high failure rate of chemotherapeutic drugs in clinical trials, underscoring the urgent need for more physiologically relevant in vitro models [88].

Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models have emerged as a transformative approach that bridges the gap between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo animal models [90] [5]. Among these, multicellular tumor spheroids offer a system that better recapitulates the TME, including cell-cell interactions, nutrient and oxygen gradients, and areas of proliferation and quiescence [46]. This application note details the development and characterization of a novel, physiologically relevant tri-culture colorectal cancer spheroid model designed to improve the predictive accuracy of preclinical drug testing [88].

Background and Significance

The Limitations of 2D Cancer Models

Traditional 2D cell culture involves growing cells as a monolayer on rigid plastic surfaces, which fails to replicate the complex 3D architecture of human tumors [11] [5]. Cells cultured in 2D exhibit abnormal polarization, uniform exposure to nutrients and oxygen, and altered gene expression profiles that do not reflect the in vivo state [11]. Consequently, data obtained from 2D models can be misleading and non-predictive for in vivo applications, particularly in drug screening contexts [3] [11].

Comparative studies between 2D and 3D CRC cultures have demonstrated significant differences in cellular behavior and drug response. Cells grown in 3D spheroids display distinct patterns of cell proliferation over time, altered cell death phase profiles, and differential expression of tumorgenicity-related genes [11]. Furthermore, 3D cultures show remarkable resistance to chemotherapeutic agents like 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and doxorubicin compared to their 2D counterparts, better mirroring the chemoresistance observed in clinical settings [11] [46].

Advantages of 3D Spheroid Models

Three-dimensional spheroid models replicate key aspects of the in vivo TME, including:

• Physiological Gradients: Spheroids develop nutrient, oxygen, and metabolic waste gradients that create heterogeneous cell populations with proliferating, quiescent, and necrotic regions, similar to in vivo tumors [5] [46].
• Enhanced Cell-Cell and Cell-ECM Interactions: The 3D architecture facilitates more natural cell signaling, adhesion, and communication through direct cell contact and soluble factors [3].
• Pathophysiological Relevance: Spheroids mimic the structural and functional characteristics of in vivo tumors, including gene expression profiles, epigenetic patterns, and microRNA expression that more closely resemble patient tumors than 2D cultures [11].

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture Models

Feature	2D Culture	3D Spheroid Culture
Cell Morphology	Flat, stretched	Volumetric, tissue-like
Proliferation	Uniform, rapid	Heterogeneous, gradient-dependent
Cell-Cell Interactions	Limited to monolayer	Complex, multi-directional
Gene Expression	Altered, dedifferentiated	Physiological, tissue-specific
Drug Response	Typically more sensitive	More resistant, clinically relevant
Oxygen/Nutrient Gradients	Absent	Present, with hypoxic cores
Cost	Low	Moderate to high

Materials and Methods

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials for CRC Spheroid Formation

Category	Specific Reagent/Equipment	Function/Application
Cell Lines	Caco-2, HCT-116, SW48 [91] [92]	CRC epithelial components
Stromal Cells	Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs), Human Dermal Fibroblasts (HDFs) [88]	Recapitulation of tumor stroma
Culture Media	DMEM with L-alanyl-L-glutamine dipeptide [92]	Base nutrient medium
Supplements	Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS), Penicillin-Streptomycin [92]	Growth support and antibiotic protection
Matrix Materials	Basement membrane matrix (e.g., Matrigel) [88] [92]	ECM mimic for scaffold-based culture
Specialized Plates	Anti-adherence 24-well plate with 1200 microwells [92]	Scaffold-free spheroid formation
Cell Dissociation	Trypsin-EDTA solution [92]	Cell harvesting and passaging
Analysis Tools	37μm reversible strainer [92]	Spheroid harvesting and size selection

Protocol for Spheroid Formation and Culture

Spheroid Formation Using Microwell Plates

This protocol generates uniform, homogenous spheroids from Caco-2 colon adenocarcinoma cells, suitable for long-term culture and CSC biology studies [92].

Step 1: Preparation of Culture Media

• Prepare basal medium: Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 4mM L-alanyl-L-glutamine dipeptide.
• Prepare DMEM complete medium: basal medium with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin.
• Prepare DMEM/basement membrane matrix medium: basal medium with 2.5% basement membrane matrix, 10% FBS, and 1% Pen/Strep.

Step 2: Plate Pretreatment

• Warm basal and DMEM/basement membrane matrix medium to room temperature for approximately 20 minutes.
• Add 500μL of anti-adherence rinsing solution to each well of a 24-well plate with 1200 microwells.
• Centrifuge the plate at 1,200 × g for 5 minutes using a swinging bucket rotor with plate adaptors.
• Rinse each well with 2mL of warm basal medium, ensuring complete aspiration.
• Verify under microscope that no bubbles remain trapped in microwells. Repeat centrifugation if needed.
• Repeat the rinsing process.
• Add 1mL of warm DMEM/basement membrane matrix medium to each well.

Step 3: Cell Seeding and Spheroid Generation

• Culture Caco-2 cells in 2D monolayer in DMEM with 10% FBS and 1% Pen/Strep at 37°C with 5% CO₂.
• At 80% confluency, wash cells with PBS, add trypsin-EDTA, and incubate for 2-5 minutes at 37°C/5% CO₂.
• Neutralize trypsin with DMEM complete medium and count cells using a hemocytometer.
• Centrifuge cell suspension at 1,200 × g for 5 minutes, discard supernatant, and resuspend pellet in DMEM/basement membrane matrix medium.
• Calculate required cell number using: cells/well = desired cells/microwell × 1200.
• Add cell suspension to each well in a final volume of 1mL, then add an additional 1mL of DMEM/basement membrane matrix medium.
• Centrifuge plate immediately at 1,200 × g for 5 minutes to capture cells in microwells.
• Verify even cell distribution under microscope.
• Incubate plate at 37°C/5% CO₂ for 48 hours without disturbance.

Step 4: Spheroid Harvesting

• Warm basal and DMEM/basement membrane matrix medium to room temperature.
• Using a serological pipette, remove half of the culture medium (1mL) from each well.
• Gently add medium back onto the well surface to dislodge spheroids from microwells without trituration.
• Place a 37μm reversible strainer on a 15mL conical tube to collect spheroids.
• Gently aspirate dislodged spheroids and transfer to the strainer.
• Wash spheroids with basal medium and transfer to a new plate for experimentation.

Development of Tri-Culture Spheroid Model

To enhance physiological relevance, a tri-culture approach incorporating stromal components was developed [88].

Experiment 1: Optimization of Baseline Spheroid Formation

• Determine optimal cell density and culture duration to develop baseline tumor spheroids within targeted size range (typically 100-300μm).
• Culture spheroids for 5-7 days, monitoring size and morphology daily.

Experiment 2: Incorporation of HUVECs

• Investigate how addition of Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs) affects spheroid formation and endothelial network development.
• Use co-culture ratios between 1:5 and 1:10 (HUVECs:CRC cells).

Experiment 3: Incorporation of HDFs

• Explore how addition of Human Dermal Fibroblasts (HDFs) influences spheroid formation and structure.
• Test both mixed co-culture and "shell" plating methods where HDFs form an outer layer.

Experiment 4: Viability in Dense Matrigel

• Assess spheroid viability when embedded in dense Matrigel to simulate microfluidic device culture conditions.
• Evaluate impact of "shell-like" HDF plating method on model physiological relevance.

Experiment 5: Protocol Refinement

• Optimize number of days before transfer and effect of additional HUVECs and HDFs plated in extracellular matrix on spheroid development.

Analytical Methods

Spheroid Characterization

• Monitor spheroid size and morphology using brightfield microscopy.
• Assess cell viability using Live/Dead assays or MTS-based cell proliferation assays [11].
• Analyze apoptotic status using FITC Annexin V/PI staining with flow cytometry [11].

Gene Expression Analysis

• Extract RNA from spheroids and perform RNA sequencing to evaluate transcriptomic profiles [11].
• Compare gene expression patterns between 2D cultures, 3D spheroids, and patient-derived FFPE samples.

Drug Sensitivity Testing

• Treat spheroids with standard chemotherapeutic agents (5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, doxorubicin) [11].
• Assess drug response using viability assays and compare IC₅₀ values to 2D cultures.

Results and Discussion

Model Characterization and Validation

The developed tri-culture spheroid model demonstrated significant advances in physiological relevance for colorectal cancer research:

Successful Tri-Culture Spheroid Formation

• The optimized protocol generated spheroids with consistent size and morphology within the targeted range.
• Tri-culture spheroids best mimicked the tumor microenvironment compared to mono- or co-culture systems [88].
• The shell-like plating method for HDFs improved both spheroid shape and formation of angiogenic sprouts [88].

Enhanced Physiological Relevance

• Spheroids exhibited characteristic zoning with proliferating cells at the periphery and quiescent cells in the core, replicating the physiological gradients found in vivo [5].
• Gene expression analysis revealed significant differences between 2D and 3D cultures, with 3D models showing profiles more closely resembling patient tumors [11].
• Epigenetically, 3D cultures shared similar methylation patterns and microRNA expression with FFPE patient samples, while 2D cultures showed altered patterns [11].

Improved Drug Response Modeling

• 3D spheroids demonstrated greater resistance to chemotherapeutic agents compared to 2D cultures, better reflecting clinical drug responses [11] [46].
• Treatment with 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and doxorubicin showed distinct response profiles in 3D versus 2D models [11].

Table 3: Quantitative Comparison of 2D vs. 3D Cellular Characteristics

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Spheroid	Significance
Proliferation Rate	Rapid, uniform	Heterogeneous, follows gradient	p < 0.01 [11]
Apoptotic Profile	Homogeneous response	Zoned response (core vs. periphery)	p < 0.01 [11]
5-FU Resistance	Lower IC₅₀	Higher IC₅₀, clinically relevant	p < 0.01 [11]
Cisplatin Resistance	Lower IC₅₀	Higher IC₅₀, clinically relevant	p < 0.01 [11]
Doxorubicin Resistance	Lower IC₅₀	Higher IC₅₀, clinically relevant	p < 0.01 [11]
Gene Expression Concordance with Patient Tumors	Low	High	p-adj < 0.05 [11]

Signaling Pathways in CRC Spheroids

The development of physiologically relevant spheroids recapitulates key signaling pathways in colorectal cancer. The following diagram illustrates the major molecular pathways involved in CRC spheroid formation and progression:

Diagram 1: Key signaling pathways in colorectal cancer spheroids

Experimental Workflow for Spheroid Development

The comprehensive experimental approach for developing and characterizing the CRC spheroid model involves multiple stages, as illustrated in the following workflow:

Diagram 2: Experimental workflow for CRC spheroid development

Technical Challenges and Troubleshooting

Common Technical Issues and Solutions

Table 4: Troubleshooting Guide for CRC Spheroid Culture

Problem	Potential Cause	Solution
Irregular spheroid size and shape	Uneven cell distribution in microwells	Ensure proper centrifugation and resuspension; verify absence of bubbles
Poor spheroid formation	Suboptimal cell density	Titrate cell density; test range from 500-5000 cells/microwell
Low viability in core	Excessive spheroid size	Reduce initial cell density; limit culture duration to prevent necrotic core
Inconsistent stromal cell incorporation	Improper co-culture ratios	Systematically test different ratios of CRC:HUVEC:HDF cells
Minimal angiogenic sprouting	Inadequate endothelial stimulation	Incorporate pro-angiogenic factors; optimize HUVEC placement
High drug sensitivity	Poor spheroid compaction	Extend pre-treatment culture period; verify ECM composition

Limitations and Future Directions

While the developed tri-culture spheroid model represents a significant advancement over traditional 2D cultures, several limitations remain:

Current Limitations

• The model does not yet fully replicate the complex immune component of the TME, which plays a crucial role in tumor progression and therapy response [89].
• Angiogenic sprouts require further development to form perfusable vascular networks that can truly mimic the tumor vasculature [88].
• Protocol standardization across different CRC cell lines remains challenging, with variable spheroid formation efficiency [91].

Future Directions

• Incorporation of patient-derived cancer cells and immune components to create personalized medicine platforms [90].
• Integration with microfluidic systems to create dynamic, perfusable models that better mimic in vivo conditions [88] [46].
• Development of more complex ECM compositions that replicate the specific biochemical and biophysical properties of colorectal tumor stroma [89].
• Implementation of high-throughput screening compatible formats to enhance drug discovery applications [46].

This application note presents a comprehensive protocol for developing a novel tri-culture colorectal cancer spheroid model that significantly improves upon previous models in physiological relevance. The systematic approach to optimizing cell densities, culture conditions, and stromal cell incorporation results in a robust platform that better mimics the in vivo tumor microenvironment.

The validated model demonstrates key advantages over traditional 2D cultures, including more physiologically relevant architecture, gene expression profiles, and drug response patterns. By recapitulating critical aspects of CRC biology, such as heterogeneous cell proliferation, metabolic gradients, and chemoresistance mechanisms, this spheroid model provides a valuable tool for enhancing the predictive accuracy of preclinical drug testing.

As the field of 3D cancer modeling continues to evolve, the integration of additional TME components and advanced culture technologies will further bridge the gap between in vitro models and clinical reality. The protocols and methodologies described herein provide a foundation for researchers to develop increasingly sophisticated CRC models that will ultimately accelerate the development of more effective therapeutic strategies for colorectal cancer patients.

Within the paradigm of modern drug development, three-dimensional (3D) cell culture techniques have emerged as a transformative tool, bridging the critical translational gap between traditional two-dimensional (2D) in vitro models and in vivo human responses. The enhanced predictive power of 3D models stems from their ability to more accurately mimic the rich cellular microenvironment, including cell-cell interactions, cell-matrix adhesion, and the formation of physiochemical gradients (e.g., oxygen, nutrients, pH) that are characteristic of native tissues and solid tumors [93] [94]. This application note details how the validation of drug responses using 3D cell culture systems provides a more physiologically relevant platform for assessing clinical efficacy and toxicity, thereby de-risking and accelerating the drug development pipeline.

The high failure rate of investigational new drugs, often due to a lack of efficacy or unanticipated toxicity in late-stage clinical trials, underscores the limitations of conventional preclinical models [95] [96]. While 2D cell cultures are simple and high-throughput, they cannot simulate the complex processes observed in vivo. Conversely, animal studies present significant drawbacks with inherited species-specific differences and low throughput [93]. As noted in a joint FDA and University of Maryland workshop, 3D cell culture models offer great promise for assessing drug disposition and pharmacokinetics that influence drug safety and efficacy from an early stage of development [96]. By replicating the architecture and function of human tissues, 3D models, including spheroids, organoids, and organs-on-chips, yield drug response data with superior clinical translatability.

Quantitative Superiority of 3D Models in Drug Response Assessment

Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that 3D cell culture models elicit drug responses that are more representative of clinical outcomes compared to 2D models. The key differentiator is the development of multicellular resistance (MCR), a phenomenon observed in avascular tumors where cells within a 3D structure exhibit markedly lower drug sensitivity [97].

Table 1: Comparative Drug Response in 2D vs. 3D Cell Cultures

Cell Line / Model	Drug/Treatment	Response in 2D (IC₅₀ or similar)	Response in 3D (IC₅₀ or similar)	Clinical Correlation / Implication
Human Lung Carcinoma (A549) [97]	Vinblastine	0.008 µmol/L	53 µmol/L	Demonstrates strong multicellular resistance, mirroring in vivo tumor behavior.
Human Glioblastoma (U87) in Alginate Microfibers [98]	Temozolomide (TMZ)	Reduced viability, but lower resistance-related gene expression.	Reduced growth but more pronounced increase in drug resistance-related genes (MGMT, ABCB1).	Models acquired chemoresistance, a major challenge in glioblastoma therapy.
Microtumor Model (Fred Hutch) [99]	Kinase Inhibitors (e.g., Doramapimod)	Ineffective.	Effective, particularly when combined with chemo/immunotherapy.	Identifies "failed" 2D drugs with untapped clinical potential for combination therapies.
General Cancer Spheroids [97]	Basic Drugs (e.g., Doxorubicin)	Higher sensitivity.	Reduced uptake due to extracellular acidification, leading to higher resistance.	Accurately predicts reduced efficacy of certain chemotherapeutics in the tumor microenvironment.
General Cancer Spheroids [97]	Acidic Drugs (e.g., Chlorambucil)	Higher sensitivity.	Increased uptake due to extracellular acidification, leading to higher sensitivity.	Predicts enhanced potency for a subset of drugs, informing patient selection and dosing.

The data in Table 1 highlights that 3D models are not merely more resistant; they capture the complex heterogenic responses driven by the tumor microenvironment. The Fred Hutch study further revealed a surprising conclusion: their predictive model estimated that three times as many drugs are likely to be effective against 3D microtumors than against conventional 2D cell lines [99]. This suggests that traditional 2D screens may be systematically overlooking compounds with genuine therapeutic potential.

Key Methodologies and Protocols for Drug Response Validation in 3D Models

Protocol 1: Long-Term 3D Glioblastoma Model for Chemotherapy Evaluation

This protocol, adapted from a study using U87 cells, is designed for evaluating drug responses over a clinically relevant timeframe, including the development of chemoresistance [98].

Workflow Diagram: Long-Term 3D Glioblastoma Drug Testing

Detailed Procedure:

• Production of Alginate Microfibers:
  • Dissolve sodium alginate powder in deionized water to a concentration of 2% (w/w).
  • Sterilize the solution by boiling for 30 minutes under constant magnetic stirring.
  • Mix the sterile alginate solution with a U87 cell suspension to achieve a final concentration of 1.5% (w/v) alginate and a cell density between 2-4 x 10^6 cells/mL. Optimize density for specific applications.
  • Using a blunt-edge stainless steel needle (e.g., 22-28 gauge), manually extrude the cell-alginate mixture into a gelling bath containing 3% (w/v) calcium nitrate (Ca(NO₃)₂). The exchange of Na⁺ with Ca²⁺ ions will cause instantaneous gelling, forming insoluble microfibers.
  • Leave the microfibers in the gelling bath for 15 minutes to complete the cross-linking process, then wash with culture medium.

• Long-Term 3D Culture and Drug Treatment:

  • Distribute the microfibers (e.g., 0.5 g) into T25 flasks with appropriate medium (e.g., MEM supplemented with 10% FBS).
  • Maintain the culture for up to 28 days at 37°C in a humidified 5% CO₂ atmosphere. Replace half of the medium twice a week.
  • On day 7 of culture, initiate drug treatment. For example, treat with 100 µM Temozolomide (TMZ) for 3 consecutive days, followed by a recovery period in drug-free medium.

• Endpoint Analysis:

  • Viability Staining: At regular intervals (e.g., days 7, 14, 21, 28) and post-treatment, stain microfibers with Calcein-AM (CAM, 4 µM) and Propidium Iodide (PI, 5 µM). Incubate for 45 minutes at 37°C and image using confocal or fluorescent microscopy. Live cells fluoresce green, dead cells red.
  • MTT Assay: After 28 days, incubate microfibers with MTT solution (1 mg/mL) for 4 hours. Dissolve the formed formazan crystals in DMSO and measure absorbance at 540 nm.
  • Gene Expression Analysis (qPCR): After the recovery period, extract RNA from the microfibers and analyze the expression of drug resistance-related genes (e.g., MGMT, ABCB1). Compare the levels to 2D-cultured controls.

Protocol 2: High-Throughput Toxicity Assessment Using 3D Cell Microarrays

This protocol leverages miniaturized 3D cell culture on micropillar/microwell chip platforms for high-content screening (HCS) of mechanistic toxicity [100].

Workflow Diagram: High-Content Mechanistic Toxicity Screening

Detailed Procedure:

• 3D Cell Microarray Fabrication:
  • Prepare a suspension of human cells (e.g., hepatocytes, HepaRG) in a suitable biomimetic hydrogel, such as collagen or a synthetic matrix.
  • Using a robotic arrayer, spot the cell-hydrogel mixture onto the surface of a micropillar chip. The complementary microwell chip is used to create a mini-bioreactor for each micropillar.
  • Allow the hydrogel to polymerize, entrapping the cells in a 3D configuration. Culture the chip to allow for the formation of 3D microtissues.

• Compound Treatment and Staining:

  • Transfer the micropillar chip to a platform compatible with automated liquid handling.
  • Treat the 3D microtissues with a library of test compounds across a range of concentrations (e.g., 0.1 nM - 100 µM), typically for 24-72 hours.
  • After treatment, stain the microtissues with a panel of fluorescent dyes targeting key toxicity pathways:
    • Cell Membrane Integrity: Propidium Iodide (PI).
    • Mitochondrial Membrane Potential: Tetramethylrhodamine Methyl Ester (TMRM).
    • Intracellular Glutathione Levels: Monochlorobimane (MCB).
    • DNA Damage: Anti-γH2AX antibody.

• High-Content Imaging and Analysis:

  • Image the fluorescently labeled microtissues using an automated high-content imaging (HCI) system.
  • Use associated software to perform automated image analysis, quantifying fluorescence intensity for each parameter on a per-microtissue basis.
  • Generate dose-response curves and calculate IC₅₀ values for each mechanistic endpoint. Comparing the IC₅₀ values across parameters helps identify the primary mechanism of compound-induced toxicity (e.g., mitochondrial impairment vs. genotoxicity).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Technologies

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Drug Response Studies

Product Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application in 3D Culture
Scaffold/Matrix	Alginate Hydrogels [98], Collagen, Synthetic PeptiGels [10], Polymeric Scaffolds	Provides a biomimetic 3D structure for cell growth and immobilization. Mimics the extracellular matrix (ECM), enabling cell-matrix interactions and forming a diffusion barrier.
Scaffold-Free Platforms	Nunclon Sphera Plates [101], GravityPLUS/GravityTRAP Hanging Drop System [97], Elplasia Plates [10]	Prevents cell adhesion, promoting self-aggregation into spheroids or organoids. Enables high-throughput production and easy handling of uniform 3D models.
Specialized Culture Media	Gibco Media for 3D Culture [101], InSphero 3D Culture Kits [97]	Optimized formulations to support the viability and function of cells in a 3D configuration, often for specific tissue types like liver.
Viability/Toxicity Assays	ATP-based Assays (e.g., CellTiter-Glo) [97], Calcein-AM/PI Live/Dead Staining [98], MTT Assay [98]	Assess cell health, proliferation, and compound cytotoxicity in 3D structures. ATP assays are often preferred for their compatibility with lysing 3D models.
Advanced Systems	Microfluidic Chips (e.g., Organ-on-Chip) [93] [94] [10], 3D Bioreactors [10]	Introduces fluid flow (shear stress) and allows for multi-tissue integration (e.g., gut-liver axis). Provides a dynamic, more physiologically accurate environment for ADME and toxicity studies.

The strategic implementation of 3D cell culture models for drug response validation represents a significant leap forward in predictive preclinical science. By faithfully recapitulating critical features of the in vivo microenvironment, such as multicellular resistance, metabolic gradients, and complex cell-ECM interactions, these models provide efficacy and toxicity data with enhanced clinical correlation. The protocols and tools outlined herein offer researchers a roadmap to integrate these advanced models into their drug development workflows. As the technology evolves with trends in 3D bioprinting, AI-driven analysis, and the development of standardized organ-on-chip systems [95] [10], the reliance on 3D cultures is poised to increase, ultimately leading to a more efficient, ethical, and successful path to bringing new therapeutics to patients.

Drug development, particularly in oncology, remains a high-risk endeavor, with failure rates exceeding 90% [102]. A significant part of this attrition is attributed to translational failure, where results from preclinical animal models fail to predict human outcomes [103]. A systematic scoping review of animal-to-human translational success rates found an unpredictably wide range, from 0 to 100%, highlighting the inherent uncertainties in relying on animal data [103]. Furthermore, the ethical and economic imperatives to adhere to the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement of animal testing) are driving a paradigm shift in preclinical research [104] [102]. This application note details how advanced three-dimensional (3D) cell culture techniques are poised to address these challenges by providing more physiologically relevant and human-predictive models. These innovative approaches bridge the critical gap between traditional 2D cell cultures and in vivo animal studies, offering a pathway to more reliable drug screening and reduced clinical attrition.

Quantitative Comparison of Preclinical Models

The transition from traditional models to more advanced systems is supported by their ability to more accurately mimic human physiology. The table below summarizes the key characteristics of different preclinical models, illustrating the evolving landscape of preclinical research.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Preclinical Research Models

Model Type	Physiological Relevance	Key Advantages	Inherent Limitations	Reported Translational Concordance
2D Cell Culture	Low: Cells grow in a single, artificial layer [1].	Inexpensive, easy to use, standardized, high-throughput compatible [105].	Altered gene expression, increased drug sensitivity, poor representation of tissue architecture [1] [106].	Poor; ~95% of potential preclinical trials fail to result in effective human treatments [7].
Animal Models	Moderate to High: Captures systemic complexity of a living organism [104].	Provides data on complex whole-organism interactions; often required by regulators [104].	Costly, time-consuming, ethically challenging, and plagued by inter-species differences [104] [103].	Highly variable and unpredictable, with rates from 0% to 100% [103].
3D Cell Culture (Spheroids/Organoids)	High: Mimics 3D tissue structure, cell-cell, and cell-ECM interactions [1] [7].	More accurate drug response and gene expression; mimics natural tissue gradients (oxygen, nutrients) [1] [105].	Technical challenges in standardization, imaging, and scalability [107] [7].	Emerging as more predictive; enables patient-derived organoids for personalized therapy testing [105].

Advanced Application Notes & Protocols

The following section provides detailed methodologies for establishing key 3D culture techniques, which are critical for generating robust and reproducible data.

Protocol: Spheroid Generation via Ultra-Low Attachment Plates

This scaffold-free method promotes cell self-assembly into 3D spheroids, ideal for drug penetration and efficacy studies [7].

• Principle: Culture plates are coated with a hydrophilic polymer that prevents protein adsorption and cell adhesion, encouraging cells to aggregate and form spheroids via cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions [7].
• Materials:
  • Nunclon Sphera plates or similar ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates [8].
  • Appropriate cell culture medium (e.g., Gibco media) [8].
  • Cell line of interest (e.g., U-251MG, U-87 MG for glioblastoma research) [7].
• Step-by-Step Method:
  • Cell Seeding: Harvest and count cells. Prepare a single-cell suspension in complete medium.
  • Dispensing: Seed cells into the ULA plate at an optimized density (e.g., 1,000 - 10,000 cells per well for a 96-well plate). Optimal density is cell line-dependent and must be determined empirically [7].
  • Culture: Place the plate in a standard cell culture incubator (37°C, 5% CO₂).
  • Spheroid Formation: Spheroids typically form within 24-72 hours. Monitor formation using an inverted microscope.
  • Maintenance: Perform partial medium changes every 2-3 days by carefully removing half the medium and replacing it with fresh, pre-warmed medium to avoid disturbing the spheroids.
  • Analysis: Spheroids are ready for experimental use (e.g., drug treatment, imaging) once they have compacted and reached the desired size [7] [8].
• Key Considerations:
  • Advantages: Simple, efficient, and suitable for multicellular spheroids and co-cultures [7].
  • Limitations: Can lack uniformity between spheroids; ULA plates are more expensive than standard plates; not ideal for long-term culture or migration assays [7].

Protocol: Spheroid Generation via Hanging Drop Method

This technique is renowned for producing highly uniform spheroids, making it excellent for high-throughput screening applications [7].

• Principle: Drops of cell suspension are dispensed onto the lid of a culture dish. The lid is then inverted, and cells aggregate by gravity and surface tension within the hanging droplet to form a single spheroid [7].
• Materials:
  • Hanging drop plates or standard culture dish lids.
  • Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS).
  • Cell culture medium and cell line.
• Step-by-Step Method:
  • Cell Preparation: Create a concentrated single-cell suspension.
  • Droplet Formation: Pipette a small, consistent volume (e.g., 10-20 µL) of the cell suspension onto the inner surface of a Petri dish lid. The number of cells per droplet determines the final spheroid size [7].
  • Inversion: Carefully invert the lid and place it over the bottom of the dish, which is filled with PBS to maintain humidity and prevent evaporation.
  • Incubation: Culture the assembly in an incubator for 2-5 days. Spheroids will form in each droplet.
  • Harvesting: To retrieve spheroids, place a pipette tip into the droplet and aspirate. Alternatively, add an extra drop of media to the well to dislodge the spheroid for transfer [7].
• Key Considerations:
  • Advantages: Produces spheroids of highly uniform size and shape; low cost [7].
  • Limitations: Medium changes and different drug treatments over time are difficult; culture volume is limited; not ideal for long-term studies [7].

Protocol: 3D Culture Using Natural Scaffolds

Scaffold-based methods provide a physical support matrix that closely resembles the native extracellular matrix (ECM), promoting complex tissue-like growth [1] [7].

• Principle: Cells are embedded within a hydrogel or scaffold matrix (e.g., Matrigel, collagen, chitosan), which provides a physical 3D structure for cell growth, adhesion, and proliferation, mimicking the in vivo ECM [7].
• Materials:
  • Natural scaffold material (e.g., Matrigel, collagen I).
  • Pre-chilled pipettes and tips.
  • 24-well or 96-well culture plates.
• Step-by-Step Method:
  • Matrix Preparation: Thaw the scaffold material on ice and keep all tools pre-chilled to prevent premature polymerization.
  • Cell-Matrix Mix: Gently mix the cell suspension with the scaffold material on ice to achieve a homogeneous distribution. The final cell density and scaffold concentration should be optimized for the specific application.
  • Dispensing and Gelation: Pipette the cell-matrix mixture into the culture plate. Incubate the plate at 37°C for 15-30 minutes to induce gelation.
  • Overlaying Medium: Once the matrix has solidified, carefully add cell culture medium on top of the gel without disturbing it.
  • Culture and Maintenance: Culture the constructs in an incubator, changing the overlay medium every 2-4 days.
  • Analysis: 3D cultures can be analyzed through various methods, including confocal microscopy (after processing), or the scaffold can be digested to retrieve cells for downstream applications like flow cytometry [7].
• Key Considerations:
  • Advantages: Provides an environment highly similar to in vivo conditions, with excellent biocompatibility [7].
  • Limitations: Can be expensive and time-consuming; difficult to isolate cells from the scaffold for analysis; not ideal for large-scale manufacturing [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of 3D cell culture relies on a suite of specialized materials and reagents. The following table catalogs the key components of a 3D research toolkit.

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Materials for 3D Cell Culture

Item	Function/Application	Examples
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Prevents cell adhesion, forcing cell aggregation into spheroids in a scaffold-free manner [7].	Nunclon Sphera plates; Hydrophilic polymer-coated plates.
Natural Scaffolds/Matrices	Provides a biologically active 3D scaffold that mimics the native extracellular matrix for cell embedding [7].	Matrigel; Collagen I; Alginate; Chitosan.
Synthetic Scaffolds	Provides a highly controllable and reproducible 3D structure with tunable porosity, stiffness, and permeability [7].	Polycaprolactone (PCL); Polyethylene Glycol (PEG); Polystyrene (PS).
Hanging Drop Plates	Facilitates the formation of highly uniform spheroids through self-aggregation in hanging droplets of media [7].	Commercial hanging drop plates.
Specialized Culture Media	Supports the growth and maintenance of complex 3D structures and specialized cell types like organoids.	Gibco media; Cell type-specific organoid media.
Perfusion Bioreactors	Provides dynamic culture conditions with controlled nutrient supply and waste removal for large 3D constructs [106].	Commercially available bioreactor systems.

Visualizing the Integrated Workflow

The future of preclinical research lies in integrated, tiered workflows that leverage the strengths of multiple models. The following diagram illustrates a proposed strategy that combines the speed of 2D systems with the physiological relevance of 3D models and animal studies, ultimately aiming to reduce attrition.

Integrated Preclinical Workflow to Reduce Attrition

This workflow advocates for a strategy where 2D cultures are used for initial high-volume, low-cost screening of thousands of compounds [105]. Promising candidates are then advanced to 3D models (spheroids, organoids, organs-on-chip) for more physiologically relevant testing of efficacy, toxicity, and mechanism of action [102] [105]. The most promising leads from 3D screens then enter a final phase of focused in vivo confirmation, potentially using refined animal models with reduced numbers, such as the Single Mouse Trial design [102]. This tiered approach maximizes predictive power while minimizing the use of animals and resources.

The integration of advanced 3D cell culture models into preclinical pipelines represents a fundamental shift toward more ethical, efficient, and human-predictive drug development. By bridging the translational gap between traditional 2D cultures and animal models, these technologies directly address the dual crises of clinical attrition and animal testing. The future is not a choice between 2D, 3D, or animal models, but rather the strategic integration of all three within hybrid workflows [105]. As these technologies continue to standardize and gain regulatory acceptance, they promise to forge a new path in biomedical research—one that is faster, cheaper, and more likely to deliver safe and effective therapies to patients.

Conclusion

3D cell culture techniques represent a paradigm shift in biomedical research, providing indispensable tools that bridge the gap between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo models. By more accurately emulating human physiology through complex cell-cell interactions, physiological gradients, and tissue-specific architecture, these models offer superior predictive power for drug discovery and disease mechanism studies. Future directions will focus on standardizing protocols, integrating multiple cell types to better mimic the tumor microenvironment, and combining these advanced cultures with AI and microfluidic systems to create even more powerful 'clinical trials in a dish.' The continued evolution of 3D culture technology promises to significantly enhance the accuracy of preclinical studies, reduce reliance on animal models, and accelerate the development of effective new therapies.

References

• 1. and 2 Cell D Comparison 3 D Culture [https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/2D-and-3D-Cell-Culture-Comparison.aspx]
• 2. Cell 3 : Key Insights and Advantages D vs 2 D Culture [https://www.mimetas.com/resources/3d-cell-culture-vs-traditional-2d-cell-culture-explained]
• 3. 3D Cell Culture: Optimizing Your Research Methods - Elveflow [https://elveflow.com/microfluidic-reviews/3d-cell-culture-methods-and-applications-a-short-review/]
• 4. The relevance of using 3 cell D , in addition to cultures ... 2 D monolayer [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5216757/]
• 5. Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research | Journal of Biomedical Science | Full Text [https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-024-00994-y]
• 6. 3D Cell Culture Tools and Techniques [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/cell-culture-and-cell-culture-analysis/3d-cell-culture/3d-cell-culture-technology]
• 7. Three-Dimensional (3D) in vitro cell culture protocols to enhance glioblastoma research - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9907841/]
• 8. 3D Cell Culture Protocols | Thermo Fisher Scientific - US [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/protocols/cell-culture/3-d-cell-culture-protocol.html]
• 9. InCelligence - 3 -cell D culture [https://www.incelligence.de/en/cell-culture/3d-cell-culture]
• 10. Market: Comprehensive Analysis... - PharmiWeb.com 3 d Cell Culture [https://www.pharmiweb.com/press-release/2025-02-12/3d-cell-culture-market-comprehensive-analysis-and-forecast-2025-2035]
• 11. Comparative analysis between 2D and 3D colorectal cancer culture models for insights into cellular morphological and transcriptomic variations | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45144-w]
• 12. : Models and applications | Abcam 3 D cell culture [https://www.abcam.com/en-us/knowledge-center/cell-culture/3d-cell-culture]
• 13. Nondestructive, quantitative viability analysis of 3D tissue cultures using machine learning image segmentation - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10985731/]
• 14. 3D Cell Model Imaging and Analysis | Revvity [https://www.revvity.com/category/3d-cell-model-imaging-and-analysis]
• 15. 胃肠道 微 生态重塑 肿 影响 瘤 干 微 的 环 - PMC 境 肿 瘤 性 研 究 进 展 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10475420/]
• 16. 综述：克服癌症免疫治疗中的耐药机制――新方法与联合策略 - 生物通 [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-6/20250612054000987.htm]
• 17. Frontiers | Bridging the gap: the role of 3D cell cultures in mimicking tumor microenvironment for enhanced drug testing accuracy [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1498141/full]
• 18. Bridging the gap: the role of 3D cell cultures in mimicking tumor microenvironment for enhanced drug testing accuracy - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12378905/]
• 19. 3D 细 _ 胞 模型_3D 培 支持 | 康宁 养 三 维 细 胞 培 养 细 胞 培 养 应 用 [https://www.corning.com/cn/zh/products/life-sciences/applications/cell-culture/3D-cell-culture.html]
• 20. – Cell mechanotransduction in extracellular - PMC matrix 3 D [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10656994/]
• 21. The extracellular (ECM) is secreted by matrix and surrounds... cells [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/cell-culture-and-cell-culture-analysis/3d-cell-culture/extracellular-matrix]
• 22. Deconstructing the third dimension – how 3D culture microenvironments alter cellular cues - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3434846/]
• 23. – Cell mechanotransduction in extracellular | Nature... matrix 3 D [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41580-023-00583-1?error=cookies_not_supported]
• 24. Mechanics of Microenvironment as Instructive Cues Guiding Stem Cell Behavior | Current Stem Cell Reports [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40778-016-0033-9]
• 25. Hydrogels as Extracellular Mimics for Matrix - PMC 3 D Cell Culture [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2997742/]
• 26. & Extracellular Tissue Models Matrix 3 D [https://www.mimetas.com/en/blogs/346/extracellular-matrix-3d-tissue-models.html]
• 27. Mechanical cues in cellular signalling and communication | Cell and Tissue Research [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00441-012-1531-4]
• 28. The role of physical cues in the development of stem cell-derived organoids - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8964551/]
• 29. Tools and 3 D Cell Culture Techniques [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/IN/en/technical-documents/technical-article/cell-culture-and-cell-culture-analysis/3d-cell-culture/3d-cell-culture-technology]
• 30. Design approaches for 3D cell culture and 3D bioprinting platforms - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11101206/]
• 31. for Hydrogels 3 D Cell Culture [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/cell-culture-and-cell-culture-analysis/3d-cell-culture/3d-hydrogels]
• 32. alternatives to Synthetic - PMC Matrigel [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7500703/]
• 33. The Three-Dimensional Culture System with Matrigel and Neurotrophic Factors Preserves the Structure and Function of Spiral Ganglion Neuron In Vitro - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4736769/]
• 34. Scaffold-Based (Matrigel™) 3D Culture Technique of Glioblastoma Recovers a Patient-like Immunosuppressive Phenotype - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37508520/]
• 35. Fibrous polyisocyanide hydrogels for 3 D cell culture applications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41596-025-01159-3?error=cookies_not_supported&code=5389f372-70c6-4ddd-929f-3ed76ded888f]
• 36. What is Scaffold D Free ? Uses, How It Works & Top... 3 Cell Culture [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-scaffold-free-3d-cell-culture-uses-how-dh8cc]
• 37. A simple hanging protocol for generation of... drop cell culture [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21587162/]
• 38. A Simple Hanging for Generation of... Drop Cell Culture Protocol [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3197119/]
• 39. A Simple Hanging Drop Cell for Generation of... Culture Protocol [https://www.jove.com/t/2720/a-simple-hanging-drop-cell-culture-protocol-for-generation-3d]
• 40. Comparative analysis of tumor spheroid generation techniques for differential in vitro drug toxicity - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4941362/]
• 41. Spheroids Rapidly Becoming a Preferred 3D Cell Culture Format - Drug Discovery World (DDW) [https://www.ddw-online.com/spheroids-rapidly-becoming-a-preferred-3d-cell-culture-format-1635-201704/]
• 42. Principles of Hanging (Spheroid Formation) in Drop ... Method Cell [https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/7651_2024_527]
• 43. New Releases: Ultra-low Attachment Surfaces for efficient 3D Cell Culture [https://www.nest-biotech.com/news/new-releases-ultra-low-attachment-surfaces-for-efficient-3d-cell-culture-252751.html]
• 44. Low Attachment Cell Culture Plates, Dishes, and Flasks | Thermo Fisher Scientific - US [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cell-culture/organoids-spheroids-3d-cell-culture/3d-cell-culture-plates-dishes-flasks.html]
• 45. From organoids to organoids-on-a-chip: Current applications and challenges in biomedical research - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11970821/]
• 46. Three-Dimensional Cell in Drug Discovery and Development... Cultures [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5448717/]
• 47. Bioprinting on Organ-on-Chip: Development and Applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9775862/]
• 48. Integrating organoids and organ - on -a- chip devices [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-024-00207-z?error=cookies_not_supported&code=5a84fcff-2b68-4742-a6d4-efbefd65c0d8]
• 49. Developing 3D bioprinting for organs-on-chips - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39775492/]
• 50. for Engineering 3 and D - Bioprinting -a- Organoids ... Organ on Chip [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40452179/]
• 51. Trends: 2025 Organoids [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/genome-editing/2025-trends-organoids/]
• 52. - Organs - on (OoCs) Technology for disease... | Vision IAS chips [https://visionias.in/current-affairs/news-today/2024-09-17/science-and-technology/organs-on-chips-oocs-technology-for-disease-modeling-drug-development-and-personalized-medicine]
• 53. - Organs - on and Chip Models: Applications & Benefits 3 D [https://elveflow.com/organs-on-chip-3d-cell-culture/]
• 54. Role of three - dimensional in therapeutics and diagnostics... cell culture [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36971997/]
• 55. Frontiers in Life Sciences and Related Technologies » Submission »... [https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/flsrt/issue/89205/1488871]
• 56. Tissue-Engineered 3 D In Vitro Disease for Models - High ... Throughput [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13770-023-00522-3]
• 57. | Thermo Fisher Scientific - LR 3 D Cell Culture Protocols [https://www.thermofisher.com/lr/en/home/references/protocols/cell-culture/3-d-cell-culture-protocol.html]
• 58. of Uniform and Formation 3D Cancer Reproducible in... Spheroids [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/newsletters-and-journals/bioprobes-journal-of-cell-biology-applications/bioprobes-72/bioprobes-72-3d-cancer-spheroids.html]
• 59. Level Up Your 3D Cell Culture: From Research to High Throughput [https://www.slas.org/events-calendar/slas2025-international-conference-exhibition/learn/slas2025-short-course-program/level-up-your-3d-cell-culture-from-research-to-high-throughput/]
• 60. Facile, reproducible , and high-throughput production of human dermal... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13233-024-00348-5]
• 61. Standardized Methodology of Scaffold-Free and Scaffold-Based 3D Epithelial Spheroid Culture for Skin Regenerative Research [https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/8/5/123]
• 62. Principles of Hanging Drop Method (Spheroid Formation) in Cell Culture - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38411887/]
• 63. Protocol for generation of multicellular spheroids through reduced gravity - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10323117/]
• 64. Robust formation of optimal single spheroids towards cost‐effective in... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10315810/]
• 65. Advanced 3D Cell Culture Technologies and Formats - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12189072/]
• 66. Comparative analysis of 3D and 2D cell-culturing methods in hair follicle spheroid morphogenesis and drug responsiveness - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40730120/]
• 67. How 3 Works — In One Simple Flow ( D ) Cell Culture 2025 [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-3d-cell-culture-works-one-simple-flow-2025-z7mxe]
• 68. Dual Crosslinking Strategy to Generate Mechanically Viable ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6880877/]
• 69. Cellular Nutrition in Complex Three-Dimensional Scaffolds: A Comparison between Experiments and Computer Simulations - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4619933/]
• 70. Tips To 3 Your Workflow | Technology Networks D Cell Culture Optimize [https://www.technologynetworks.com/cell-science/how-to-guides/3d-cell-culture-tips-to-optimize-your-workflow-398326]
• 71. Unlocking the Potential of 3 : a Guide to d ... Cell Culture Assay [https://www.aatbio.com/resources/assaywise/2023-12-1/unlocking-the-potential-of-3d-cell-culture-a-guide-to-assay-optimization]
• 72. Imaging 3D cell cultures with optical microscopy | Nature Methods [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02647-w]
• 73. Imaging and Analysis of Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Models - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3699323/]
• 74. | SPT Labtech 3 D Cell Culture [https://www.sptlabtech.com/applications/drug-discovery/3d-cells]
• 75. Corning 2025 Summit 3 D Cell Culture [https://www.corning.com/worldwide/en/products/life-sciences/news-events/events/2025/09/3d-summit-2025.html]
• 76. Recent advances in microarray 3 for high-throughput... D bioprinting [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9270997/]
• 77. Three-Dimensional Cell Culture: A Breakthrough in Vivo [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/16/3/5517]
• 78. A New Dimension of Cell : The Rise of Culture ... Spheroid Culture [https://cellculturedish.com/cell-culture-spheroid-culture-systems/]
• 79. A Comparison of 2D vs 3D Cell Culture | Emulate Blog [https://emulatebio.com/2d-vs-3d-cell-culture-models/]
• 80. 3D matrix-based cell cultures: Automated analysis of tumor cell survival and proliferation - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734598/]
• 81. The clonogenic assay: robustness of plating efficiency-based analysis is strongly compromised by cellular cooperation | Radiation Oncology | Full Text [https://ro-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13014-020-01697-y]
• 82. 3D cell culture stimulates the secretion of in vivo like extracellular vesicles | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49671-3]
• 83. Cell Doubling Time Formula: Your Ultimate Guide to Perfect Confluency [https://www.clyte.tech/post/cell-doubling-time-formula-your-ultimate-guide-to-perfect-confluency]
• 84. Synthetic scaffolds for 3 and organoids: D ... cell cultures applications [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34187261/]
• 85. 3D Cell Culture Market Size, Share & Growth 2025 to 2035 [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/3d-cell-culture-market]
• 86. Scaffold-Free 3-D Cell Sheet Technique Bridges the Gap between 2-D Cell Culture and Animal Models - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6801996/]
• 87. Vascularization Strategies in 3 Models: From... D Cell Culture [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9737506/]
• 88. " Development of a Colorectal to Improve..." Cancer Spheroid Model [https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/3175/]
• 89. Frontiers | In vitro 3D modeling of colorectal cancer: the pivotal role of the extracellular matrix, stroma and immune modulation [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2025.1545017/full]
• 90. Organoid and Spheroid Tumor Models : Techniques and Applications ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7922036/]
• 91. Comparative analysis of 3 - D techniques for multicellular... culture [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40731083/]
• 92. A Three -dimensional Model of Spheroids to Study Colon ... Cancer [https://www.jove.com/t/61783/a-three-dimensional-model-spheroids-to-study-colon-cancer-stem]
• 93. 3D cell culture models: Drug pharmacokinetics, safety assessment, and regulatory consideration - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33982436/]
• 94. 2D versus 3D tumor-on-chip models to study the impact of tumor organization on metabolic patterns in vitro | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03504-8]
• 95. Frontiers | 3 bioprinting for the construction of D testing... drug [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1457872/full]
• 96. 3D Cell Culture Models for Drug PK, Safety, Efficacy Assessment | Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation [https://cersi.umd.edu/news/story/3d-cell-culture-models-for-drug-pk-safety-efficacy-assessment]
• 97. In vitro 3D Spheroids and Microtissues: ATP-based Cell Viability and Toxicity Assays - Assay Guidance Manual - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK343426/]
• 98. Development and Validation of a Long-Term 3 Glioblastoma D ... Cell [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8391761/]
• 99. Fred Hutch study finds new life for ‘ineffective’ drugs | Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center [https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2025/09/gujral-tumor-microenvironment-drugs-microtumors.html]
• 100. High-Throughput Assessment of Mechanistic Toxicity of Chemicals in Miniaturized 3D Cell Culture - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30387930/]
• 101. | Thermo Fisher Scientific - BZ 3 D Cell Culture Protocols [https://www.thermofisher.com/bz/en/home/references/protocols/cell-culture/3-d-cell-culture-protocol.html]
• 102. Advancing oncology drug : Innovative approaches to... development [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41046061/]
• 103. Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates | Journal of Translational Medicine | Full Text [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-019-1976-2]
• 104. Can biotechnology reduce in medicine? animal testing [https://www.labiotech.eu/in-depth/animal-testing-bioprinting-organoids/]
• 105. : Which Model Suits Your Lab in 3 ? D vs 2 D Cell Culture 2025 [https://www.pharmanow.live/knowledge-hub/research/3d-vs-2d-cell-culture-comparison]
• 106. Frontiers | Perspective of 3 in medicine: transforming disease... D culture [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1491669/full]
• 107. : a review of 3 approaches and D cell culture current techniques [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21042962/]