Bridging the Gap: How 3D Cell Culture Accurately Mimics the Tumor Microenvironment for Advanced Cancer Research

Abstract

This article explores the pivotal role of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture technologies in replicating the complex tumor microenvironment (TME), addressing a critical gap in preclinical cancer research. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) models fail to recapitulate the physiological architecture, cell-cell interactions, and diffusion gradients found in vivo, contributing to high drug attrition rates. We examine how advanced 3D models—including spheroids, organoids, bioprinted constructs, and organ-on-chip systems—overcome these limitations by preserving tumor heterogeneity, stromal components, and extracellular matrix interactions. Targeting researchers and drug development professionals, this review synthesizes foundational principles, methodological applications, optimization strategies, and validation frameworks, highlighting the transformative potential of 3D cultures in improving drug screening accuracy, understanding resistance mechanisms, and advancing personalized cancer medicine.

The Tumor Microenvironment: Why 2D Models Fall Short and the 3D Imperative

The tumor microenvironment (TME) represents a complex and dynamic ecosystem that plays a critical role in cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, and therapeutic resistance. Far from being a mere collection of malignant cells, the TME comprises a sophisticated network of cellular components, extracellular matrix (ECM), signaling molecules, and physical forces that collectively influence tumor behavior [1]. This intricate milieu presents a formidable challenge in oncological research, as traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures fail to recapitulate its complexity, often leading to unreliable preclinical data and high drug attrition rates in clinical trials [2] [3].

The transition to three-dimensional (3D) culture systems marks a paradigm shift in cancer research, bridging the critical gap between conventional 2D monolayers and in vivo models [4]. These advanced platforms preserve the 3D architecture and multicellular complexity of cancer tissue, enabling more accurate investigation of cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions that dictate tumor dynamics [1]. By mimicking the pathophysiological features of in vivo tumors, 3D cultures have emerged as indispensable tools for unraveling TME complexity and accelerating therapeutic development [2] [3]. This technical guide examines the core components of the TME and explores how 3D culture technologies successfully recapitulate this ecosystem for advanced cancer research.

Cellular Components of the TME

The cellular compartment of the TME consists of malignant cells and various non-malignant cell types that collectively influence tumor progression and treatment response.

Malignant Cells

Cancer cells within the TME exhibit remarkable heterogeneity, with distinct subpopulations demonstrating varied proliferative capacities, metabolic preferences, and metastatic potential. Spatial transcriptomic analyses of human tumors have revealed that malignant cells organize into discrete "tumor microregions" – spatially distinct cancer cell clusters separated by stromal components [5]. These microregions vary considerably in size and density across cancer types, with metastatic samples typically containing the largest microregions [5]. Within these structures, cancer cells exist in different metabolic states: highly proliferative cells dominate the outer layers, while quiescent cells occupy intermediate zones, and necrotic or hypoxic cells localize to the inner core [2].

Genetic heterogeneity further complicates the malignant compartment, with spatial subclones exhibiting distinct copy number variations and mutations that drive differential oncogenic activities [5]. For instance, studies have identified subclonal variations in metabolic pathway activation, with increased metabolic activity at the center of microregions and enhanced antigen presentation along the leading edges [5]. This architectural and genetic complexity contributes significantly to treatment resistance and disease recurrence.

Non-Malignant Cellular Constituents

Mesenchymal Cells

• Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts (CAFs): As key orchestrators of the TME, CAFs remodel the extracellular matrix, secrete pro-tumorigenic growth factors, and modulate immune cell activity [6]. In colorectal cancer models, co-cultures of CRC organoids and immortalized CAFs significantly alter the transcriptional profile of cancer cells, recapitulating the histological and immunosuppressive characteristics of aggressive mesenchymal-like tumors [6]. CAF-derived signals including transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) promote cancer cell proliferation, invasion, and therapy resistance [1].

Immune Cells

• Tumor-Associated Macrophages (TAMs): These macrophages predominantly reside at tumor boundaries and exhibit paradoxical functions [5]. While some subsets support anti-tumor immunity, most TAMs acquire an immunosuppressive M2-like phenotype that promotes angiogenesis, matrix remodeling, and T-cell exhaustion [1].
• T Lymphocytes: The distribution and functional status of T cells within the TME significantly impact disease outcomes. Spatial analyses have identified variable T-cell infiltration within tumor microregions, with both immune-hot and immune-cold neighborhoods observed in distinct TME regions [5]. T-cells in the TME often display an exhausted phenotype characterized by upregulated checkpoint receptor expression [5].
• Other Immune Populations: Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), tumor-associated neutrophils (TANs), and dendritic cells further contribute to the immune landscape by modulating adaptive immunity, promoting angiogenesis, and facilitating metastasis [1].

Vascular Cells

• Endothelial Cells: Tumor vasculature differs markedly from normal blood vessels, exhibiting structural abnormalities, enhanced permeability, and heterogeneous perfusion [1]. Endothelial cells support tumor growth through angiogenesis and facilitate immune cell trafficking into the TME. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a key pro-angiogenic factor produced by both cancer cells and TAMs, promotes the formation of dysfunctional, leaky neo-vessels that sustain tumor survival [1].

Table 1: Major Cellular Components of the Tumor Microenvironment

Cell Type	Subtypes	Key Functions	Pro-tumorigenic Signals
Malignant Cells	Proliferative, Quiescent, Hypoxic	Tumor growth, invasion, metastasis	Autocrine growth factors
Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts	Myofibroblastic, Inflammatory	ECM remodeling, growth factor secretion, therapy resistance	TGF-β, FGF, PDGF, CXCL12
Tumor-Associated Macrophages	M1-like, M2-like	Immunosuppression, angiogenesis, matrix remodeling	IL-10, TGF-β, VEGF, EGF
T Lymphocytes	CD8+, CD4+ Tregs	Immune surveillance, immunosuppression	IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-10, TGF-β
Endothelial Cells	Arterial, Venous, Capillary	Angiogenesis, nutrient delivery, immune cell trafficking	VEGF, Angiopoietins, PDGF

Non-Cellular Components of the TME

The non-cellular compartment of the TME provides structural support and biochemical cues that profoundly influence tumor behavior.

Extracellular Matrix (ECM)

The ECM is a dynamic network of structural proteins, glycoproteins, and proteoglycans that provides both biochemical and biomechanical signals to resident cells [2] [7]. In solid tumors, aberrant cross-linking of matrix proteins and collagen accumulation leads to increased stiffness, which alters tumor cell behavior through mechanotransduction pathways [2]. Key ECM components include:

• Collagens: The most abundant ECM proteins, collagens provide structural integrity and binding sites for cellular receptors. Increased collagen deposition and alignment facilitate cancer cell invasion [2].
• Fibronectin: This glycoprotein promotes cell adhesion, migration, and survival through interactions with integrin receptors.
• Hyaluronic Acid: A non-sulfated glycosaminoglycan that regulates hydration, osmotic pressure, and cell motility within the TME.
• Laminins: These basement membrane components support epithelial polarity and survival while influencing differentiation and migration.

The physicochemical and biomechanical features of the ECM drive cancer cell morphology, signaling, growth, and functional properties [2]. Matrix stiffness, primarily mediated by enzymes such as lysyl oxidases, affects various aspects of cell functional properties within the TME [2].

Soluble Factors

The TME contains a complex mixture of signaling molecules that regulate cellular crosstalk and functional responses:

• Growth Factors: VEGF, FGF, EGF, TGF-β, and PDGF regulate proliferation, survival, angiogenesis, and immune modulation [1]. These factors are produced by both malignant and stromal cells, creating complex paracrine signaling networks.
• Cytokines and Chemokines: Inflammatory mediators including TNF-α, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17, and CXCL families regulate immune cell recruitment, polarization, and function within the TME [1].
• Extracellular Vesicles (EVs): These membrane-bound particles transfer bioactive cargoes (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids) between cells, influencing numerous aspects of tumor progression and therapy resistance [1].

Physical and Metabolic Features

The TME exhibits distinct physical and metabolic properties that differentiate it from normal tissues:

• Hypoxia: Oxygen deprivation in poorly vascularized regions activates HIF-1α signaling, driving angiogenesis, metabolic adaptation, and invasive behavior [2].
• Acidosis: Glycolytic metabolism in hypoxic regions generates lactic acid, creating an acidic microenvironment that suppresses immune function and promotes invasion [2].
• Interstitial Pressure: Elevated pressure resulting from vascular leakiness and ECM compression impedes drug delivery and promotes heterogeneity [2].

3D Culture Systems: Mimicking the TME Complexity

3D culture technologies have emerged as powerful tools that bridge the gap between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo models, offering more physiologically relevant platforms for studying the TME.

3D Culture Modalities

Scaffold-Based Systems

Scaffold-based techniques utilize natural or synthetic matrices to mimic the native ECM, providing structural support and biochemical cues that influence cell behavior [4]. These systems include:

• Natural Polymer Scaffolds: Materials such as collagen, Matrigel, hyaluronic acid, and alginate provide biocompatible microenvironments with inherent biological recognition sites [4] [3]. For example, in 3D cultures of triple-negative breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231, cells adapt their characteristics through interactions with major ECM components such as collagen type I and Matrigel as a means of survival in different microenvironments [2].
• Synthetic Polymer Scaffolds: Polymers including polycaprolactone, polyglycolide, and polylactide offer controlled physicochemical properties, reproducibility, and tunable degradation rates [4].
• Hydrogel Systems: These water-swollen networks (e.g., Matrigel, collagen, PEG-based hydrogels) allow nutrient diffusion and cell migration while permitting mechanical property manipulation [3].

Scaffold-Free Systems

Scaffold-free platforms rely on cell self-assembly to form 3D structures, promoting natural cell-cell interactions and endogenous ECM deposition [2]:

• Multicellular Tumor Spheroids (MCTS): These self-assembled aggregates recapitulate the architectural and functional features of microtumors, including radial nutrient/oxygen gradients, proliferation heterogeneity, and drug penetration barriers [2] [6]. MCTS can be generated using various techniques:
  • Hanging Drop: Cells aggregate at the bottom of gravity-stabilized droplets, producing uniform spheroids with minimal equipment requirements [4] [3].
  • Liquid Overlay: Ultra-low attachment surfaces prevent cell adhesion, promoting spontaneous aggregation into spheroids [2] [6].
  • Agitation-Based Methods: Spinner flasks and rotating wall vessels maintain cells in suspension through constant motion, enabling large-scale spheroid production [4].

Advanced 3D Model Systems

• Organoids: These self-organizing 3D structures derived from pluripotent stem cells or adult stem cells contain multiple cell types and recapitulate functional aspects of native organs [3] [7]. Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) maintain genomic and transcriptomic stability while preserving the heterogeneity of the original tumor, bridging the gap between cancer cell lines and patient-derived xenografts [7].
• Organs-on-Chips: Microfluidic devices that culture cells in continuously perfused, micrometer-sized chambers simulating tissue-tissue interfaces and vascular perfusion [4].
• 3D Bioprinting: Additive manufacturing techniques that precisely position cells, biomolecules, and biomaterials to create complex, spatially controlled tissue constructs [8]. This technology enables personalized studies with high precision, providing essential experimental flexibility [8].

Table 2: Comparison of Major 3D Culture Platforms for TME Modeling

Culture Platform	Key Advantages	Limitations	TME Components Recapitulated
Scaffold-Based Systems	Accurate tissue recapitulation, tunable properties	Expensive, variability in natural polymer composition	ECM structure, biomechanical cues, cell-matrix interactions
Scaffold-Free Spheroids	Simple, inexpensive, high reproducibility, suitable for high-throughput screening	Limited ECM control, variability in size	Cell-cell interactions, nutrient gradients, proliferation heterogeneity
Organoids	Patient-specific, preserve tumor heterogeneity, long-term expansion	Technically challenging, variable success across cancer types	Cellular heterogeneity, tissue architecture, drug response
Organs-on-Chips	Dynamic flow, mechanical stimulation, multi-tissue integration	Specialized equipment, low-throughput	Vascular perfusion, immune cell trafficking, metabolic gradients
3D Bioprinting	Precise spatial control, customizable architecture, high resolution	Limited biomaterial options, requires specialized expertise	Structured TME, cellular organization, vascular networks

Recapitulating TME Properties in 3D Cultures

3D culture systems successfully mimic critical TME features that are absent in traditional 2D models:

Architectural Complexity

Spheroids and organoids recreate the 3D organization of tumors, including distinct cellular zones similar to in vivo solid tumors [2]. Spheroids typically consist of: (a) an outer layer of highly proliferative cells, (b) an intermediate layer containing quiescent cells, and (c) an inner core characterized by hypoxic and acidic conditions that promote necrosis [2]. This spatial architecture generates critical gradients of nutrients, oxygen, pH, and therapeutic agents that influence tumor behavior and drug response [2].

Cell-Cell and Cell-ECM Interactions

3D cultures restore proper cell adhesion molecule expression and signaling, including cadherin-mediated cell-cell contacts and integrin-mediated ECM engagement [1]. These interactions activate inside-out and outside-in signaling pathways that regulate cell survival, proliferation, and migration. For instance, the shift from E-cadherin to N-cadherin expression during epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) – a critical process in cancer progression – is more accurately modeled in 3D cultures [1].

Signaling and Gene Expression

Gene expression analyses have demonstrated that 3D models more closely resemble in vivo transcriptional profiles compared to 2D cultures [2]. Significant differences in gene and protein expression have been observed between 2D and 3D cultures across various cancer types. For example:

• Lung cancer cells in 3D Matrigel cultures show upregulation of genes associated with hypoxia signaling, EMT, and tumor microenvironment regulation [2].
• 3D patient-derived head and neck squamous cell carcinoma spheroids exhibit differential protein expression profiles of EGFR, EMT, and stemness markers [2].
• Breast cancer cells in 3D bioscaffolds display significant alterations in the expression of genes implicated in cancer progression and metastasis, particularly cell cycle regulators and matrix organization molecules [2].

Therapeutic Response and Drug Resistance

3D models more accurately predict drug efficacy and resistance mechanisms due to their recreation of penetration barriers, cellular heterogeneity, and appropriate cell signaling contexts [3]. Studies have consistently demonstrated that cells in 3D cultures exhibit increased resistance to chemotherapeutic agents and radiation compared to 2D cultures, better mirroring clinical responses [2] [3]. For instance, patient-derived head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells grown in 3D conditions demonstrated greater viability following treatment with escalating doses of cisplatin and cetuximab compared to 2D cultures [2].

Experimental Methodologies for TME Analysis in 3D Cultures

Protocol for Generating Multicellular Tumor Spheroids

Liquid Overlay Technique using Ultra-Low Attachment Plates

This protocol enables robust spheroid formation across multiple cell lines with high reproducibility [2] [6]:

• Surface Preparation: Coat standard 96-well plates with 50 μL of 1.5% agarose in complete medium and allow to solidify under sterile conditions.
• Cell Seeding: Trypsinize and resuspend cells in complete medium at appropriate density (500-10,000 cells/well depending on cell line and desired spheroid size).
• Spheroid Formation: Plate 100-200 μL cell suspension per well in agarose-coated plates.
• Centrifugation: Centrifuge plates at 300-500 × g for 10 minutes to promote initial cell aggregation.
• Culture Maintenance: Incubate at 37°C with 5% CO₂, replacing 50% of medium every 2-3 days without disturbing formed spheroids.
• Quality Control: Monitor spheroid formation daily using brightfield microscopy. Compact spheroids typically form within 24-72 hours.

Notes: For co-culture spheroids, seed different cell types at desired ratios. Methylcellulose (0.24-1.2%) can be added to the medium to promote compact spheroid formation in cell lines prone to forming loose aggregates [6].

Protocol for Establishing Patient-Derived Organoids

Embedding Method for Tumor Organoid Culture [3] [7]

• Tumor Tissue Processing: Mechanically dissociate and enzymatically digest fresh tumor samples (1-2 mm³ fragments) using collagenase/hyaluronidase solution at 37°C for 30-60 minutes.
• Cell Isolation: Filter suspension through 70-100 μm strainers, centrifuge at 300 × g for 5 minutes, and resuspend in basal medium.
• Matrix Embedding: Mix cell suspension with cold Matrigel or similar basement membrane extract (1:1 ratio) and plate 20-40 μL drops in pre-warmed culture plates.
• Polymerization: Incubate at 37°C for 20-30 minutes to solidify Matrigel drops.
• Culture Initiation: Overlay with organoid culture medium containing appropriate growth factors (e.g., EGF, Noggin, R-spondin, Wnt3A) and small molecule inhibitors.
• Passaging: For expansion, dissociate organoids mechanically or enzymatically every 1-3 weeks and re-embed in fresh matrix.

Research Reagent Solutions for TME Modeling

Table 3: Essential Reagents for 3D TME Modeling

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Natural Scaffolds	Matrigel, Collagen I, Hyaluronic Acid, Alginate	Mimic native ECM, support 3D structure, provide biological cues
Synthetic Scaffolds	PEG-based hydrogels, PLGA, Polycaprolactone	Customizable mechanical properties, reproducible composition
Cell Culture Supplements	Methylcellulose, Agarose	Promote spheroid compaction, prevent cell adhesion
Pro-inflammatory Cytokines	TNF-α, IL-6, IL-1β, IFN-γ	Model inflammatory TME, study immune cell recruitment
Growth Factors	VEGF, FGF, EGF, TGF-β, HGF	Recapitulate autocrine/paracrine signaling in TME
Matrix Modifying Enzymes	Lysyl oxidase, MMP inhibitors, Hyaluronidase	Study ECM remodeling, mechanotransduction
Cell Tracking Reagents	CellTracker dyes, GFP/RFP lentiviruses	Monitor cell migration, invasion, and interactions in co-cultures

Signaling Pathways in the TME: Visualization and Analysis

The following diagrams illustrate key signaling pathways and experimental workflows relevant to TME studies in 3D cultures.

Key Signaling Networks in the TME

Diagram 1: TME Signaling Network. This diagram illustrates key signaling pathways activated by ECM components, growth factors, and cytokines in the tumor microenvironment, leading to pro-tumorigenic cellular responses.

3D Culture Workflow for TME Studies

Diagram 2: 3D Culture Workflow. This diagram outlines the key steps in establishing and utilizing 3D culture models for TME research, from cell source selection to data analysis.

The tumor microenvironment represents a sophisticated ecosystem where cellular and non-cellular components engage in dynamic interactions that dictate cancer progression and treatment outcomes. The limitations of traditional 2D culture systems in recapitulating this complexity have driven the development of advanced 3D models that more faithfully mimic key TME features. From self-assembling spheroids that model nutrient and oxygen gradients to patient-derived organoids that preserve tumor heterogeneity, these platforms provide unprecedented opportunities to investigate TME biology and therapeutic responses in physiologically relevant contexts.

As 3D culture technologies continue to evolve—incorporating advanced biomaterials, microfluidics, and precision manufacturing techniques—their capacity to simulate the intricate dynamics of the TME will further improve. These innovations promise to accelerate drug discovery, enable personalized therapy prediction, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing more predictive preclinical models that bridge the gap between conventional in vitro systems and clinical reality.

The foundational tool of in vitro cancer research—the two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cell culture—presents significant limitations that constrain its physiological relevance. While 2D cultures offer simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and high-throughput capabilities, they fundamentally fail to recapitulate the three-dimensional (3D) architecture and complex microenvironment of in vivo tumors [9] [10]. This discrepancy leads to altered cellular morphology, distorted gene expression profiles, and aberrant signaling pathways, ultimately compromising the translational value of experimental findings [9] [11]. Within the context of tumor microenvironment research, these limitations become particularly problematic, as the microenvironment exerts critical influence on cancer progression, drug resistance, and cellular behavior [2] [12]. This technical review delineates the specific deficiencies of 2D monolayers and frames them against the emerging capabilities of 3D culture systems that more faithfully mimic pathophysiological conditions.

Morphological and Architectural Disparities

The Artificial Nature of 2D Morphology

In 2D monolayers, cells adopt a flattened, spread-out morphology unnatural to their in vivo state, forced by rigid, high-stiffness plastic or glass surfaces [13]. This artificial geometry disrupts fundamental cellular characteristics, including cell polarity, which is crucial for proper cell function and signaling [9]. The unconstrained access to nutrients, oxygen, and signaling molecules in 2D culture further distorts metabolic and proliferative behaviors, creating a culture environment that diverges significantly from the nutrient and oxygen gradients present in solid tumors [9].

3D Culture as a Morphological Corrective

Three-dimensional culture systems restore a physiologically relevant architecture. Cells in 3D cultures exhibit natural morphology, division patterns, and phenotypic diversity [9]. A key advantage is their ability to form multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) that replicate the structural complexity of in vivo tumors, often featuring a proliferative outer layer, an intermediate quiescent zone, and a hypoxic, necrotic core [2]. This spatial organization reestablishes critical cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions absent in 2D monocultures [9] [2].

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Morphological and Microenvironmental Features in 2D vs. 3D Cultures

Feature	2D Monolayer Culture	3D Culture Models	In Vivo Relevance of 3D
Cell Morphology	Flattened, spread, unnatural shape [13]	Natural, tissue-like morphology [9]	High
Cell Polarity	Disrupted polarity [9]	Preserved apical-basal polarity [13]	High
Proliferation	Uniform, high proliferation rate [11]	Heterogeneous, with non-proliferating regions [2]	High
Nutrient/Oxygen Access	Unlimited, uniform access [9]	Diffusion-limited, creating gradients [2]	High
Cell-Cell/ECM Interactions	Deprived or significantly altered [9]	Proper, physiologically relevant interactions [9] [12]	High

Diagram 1: Morphological and Microenvironmental Progression from 2D to In Vivo

Molecular Alterations: Gene Expression and Signaling Pathways

Transcriptomic Divergence in 2D Cultures

Comparative transcriptomic analyses reveal profound differences between 2D and 3D cultures. A 2023 study on colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines demonstrated significant dissimilarity in gene expression profiles involving thousands of up/down-regulated genes across multiple pathways when compared to 3D cultures and patient-derived FFPE samples [11]. Specifically, 3D cultures and patient tissues shared similar methylation patterns and microRNA expression, whereas 2D cells showed elevated methylation rates and altered microRNA expression, indicating 2D cultures undergo rapid epigenetic drift away from in vivo states [11].

Research on lung cancer cells embedded in Matrigel showed an upregulation of genes associated with hypoxia signaling, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and tumor microenvironment regulation in 3D models compared to their 2D counterparts [2]. Similarly, breast cancer cells cultured in a 3D bioscaffold exhibited significant alterations in the expression of genes implicated in cancer progression and metastasis, particularly cell cycle regulators and matrix organization molecules [2].

Signaling Pathway Dysregulation

The distorted cellular architecture in 2D monolayers disrupts integral signaling pathways. The absence of proper ECM interactions alters mechanotransduction signals, as cells in 2D are exposed to supraphysiological mechanical signals from high-stiffness surfaces [13]. This affects adhesion, spreading, migration, and differentiation. Furthermore, signaling pathways regulated by cell density and polarity, such as those involving Hippo signaling and contact inhibition, are aberrant in 2D [9] [13].

In 3D cultures, the restoration of physiological cell-ECM interactions allows for proper outside-in signaling through integrins and other adhesion molecules. The sequestration of growth factors by the ECM in 3D cultures also creates concentration gradients that guide cell fate and morphogenesis, a phenomenon absent in the homogeneous environment of 2D culture [13].

Table 2: Impact of Culture Dimensions on Gene Expression and Drug Response

Molecular & Functional Aspect	Findings in 2D vs. 3D Culture	Experimental Evidence
Global Gene Expression	"Significant (p-adj < 0.05) dissimilarity" involving thousands of genes; 2D shows altered patterns vs. 3D/FFPE [11].	RNA-seq of 5 CRC cell lines [11]
Epigenetic Patterns (Methylation)	2D shows elevated methylation rate; 3D shares same pattern as patient FFPE samples [11].	Analysis of 50 CRC patient FFPE blocks [11]
Pathway-Specific Expression	3D upregulates genes for hypoxia, EMT, matrix organization; 2D alters cell cycle regulators [2].	Lung & breast cancer models in Matrigel [2]
Drug Response	3D spheroids show higher viability post-treatment; 2D monolayers overestimate efficacy [2] [11].	Treatment with 5-FU, cisplatin, doxorubicin [11]
Proliferation & Cell Death	Significant (p < 0.01) differences in proliferation pattern and cell death phase profile [11].	MTS and Annexin V/PI assays [11]

The 3D Alternative: Mimicking the Tumor Microenvironment

Key Technologies in 3D Culture

Advanced 3D culture technologies bridge the gap between simple 2D monolayers and complex in vivo tumors. These systems are broadly classified into scaffold-based and scaffold-free methods [10] [14].

• Scaffold-Based Cultures: These utilize a supporting matrix to provide a 3D structure for cells. Natural hydrogels (e.g., Matrigel, collagen) contain endogenous bioactive ingredients that influence structure formation, while synthetic hydrogels (e.g., PEG) offer tunable properties and reduced lot variability [9] [13].
• Scaffold-Free Cultures: These rely on cell self-assembly into structures like spheroids. Techniques include suspension cultures on non-adherent plates, hanging drop methods, and magnetic levitation [9] [10]. These methods are simple, cost-effective, and suitable for high-throughput drug screening [2].
• Organoids and Advanced Systems: Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) are complex, self-organizing 3D structures that closely mimic the original tumor's architecture and genetic profile [12] [3]. Organ-on-a-chip systems incorporate microfluidics to simulate fluid flow and mechanical forces [14].

Recapitulating the Tumor Microenvironment

The strength of 3D cultures lies in their ability to mimic critical aspects of the tumor microenvironment (TME). They replicate the cellular heterogeneity found in vivo by supporting co-cultures of cancer cells with stromal cells like fibroblasts and immune cells [6]. They reestablish biochemical gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and metabolic waste products, leading to the formation of distinct cellular zones—proliferative, quiescent, and necrotic—as found in patient tumors [2]. Furthermore, 3D models restore physiological cell-ECM interactions, allowing for the study of ECM remodeling, matrix stiffness effects, and related signaling pathways that influence tumor progression and drug resistance [2] [12].

Diagram 2: Classification of 3D Culture Technologies

Experimental Protocols and Research Toolkit

Establishing 3D Spheroid Cultures

Protocol 1: Spheroid Formation using Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates [11]

• Cell Preparation: Harvest cells from 2D culture and create a single-cell suspension.
• Seeding: Aliquot 200 µL of cell suspension (at 5 × 10³ cells/well) into individual wells of a Nunclon Sphera super-low attachment U-bottom 96-well microplate.
• Culture Maintenance: Maintain spheroids in a complete medium at 37°C with 5% CO₂.
• Medium Changes: Perform three consecutive 75% medium changes every 24 hours to support spheroid formation and growth.
• Monitoring: Spheroid structures are typically observed within 3 days of culture [9].

Protocol 2: Spheroid Formation using Hanging Drop Method [3]

• Droplet Creation: Place droplets of cell suspension (typically 20-40 µL) on the underside of a culture plate lid.
• Inversion: Carefully invert the lid and place it over the bottom chamber filled with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) to maintain humidity.
• Aggregation: Allow cells to aggregate by gravity at the bottom of the droplet over 24-72 hours.
• Harvesting: Gently wash the formed spheroids from the droplets for further experimentation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

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

Reagent/Material	Function and Application	Key Characteristics
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Prevents cell attachment, forcing 3D aggregation into spheroids [11].	U-bottom wells standardize spheroid location; cost-effective for HTS.
Matrigel	Basement membrane extract for scaffold-based 3D culture [2].	Contains ECM proteins; influences cell signaling and structure.
Collagen Type I	Natural hydrogel scaffold mimicking stromal ECM [6].	Major component of in vivo ECM; tunable stiffness.
Methylcellulose	Synthetic polymer added to medium to increase viscosity and promote aggregation [6].	Defined composition; reduces lot-to-lot variability.
Hanging Drop Plates	Platform for scaffold-free spheroid formation via gravity [10] [3].	Forms uniform, size-controlled spheroids.
Alginates	Natural polymers from seaweed for encapsulation and scaffold formation [9].	Biocompatible, form gentle gels with calcium ions.

The evidence is compelling: 2D monolayer cultures induce significant alterations in cell morphology, gene expression, and signaling pathways that limit their translational predictive power. These systems cannot replicate the critical cell-ECM interactions, nutrient and oxygen gradients, and complex cellular heterogeneity that define the in vivo tumor microenvironment [9] [2] [11]. The adoption of 3D culture technologies—ranging from simple spheroids to complex patient-derived organoids—provides a path toward more physiologically relevant cancer models [12] [3]. While 2D cultures retain utility for specific, high-throughput applications, the research community's strategic transition to 3D systems is essential for enhancing the accuracy of preclinical drug screening, improving our understanding of tumor biology, and ultimately accelerating the development of more effective cancer therapies [10] [14].

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex ecosystem comprising cancer cells, stromal cells, immune components, and extracellular matrix (ECM) in a three-dimensional (3D) architecture. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture models fail to recapitulate this complexity, leading to a significant translation gap between preclinical findings and clinical outcomes. Two-dimensional cultures lack the 3D growth environment and physiological conditions, cannot reproduce cell-cell communication or cell-matrix interactions, and often select for more aggressive subclones during cell line establishment [7]. Advanced 3D culture technologies have emerged as transformative tools that bridge this gap by mimicking key physiological features of native tumors, enabling more accurate study of tumor biology, drug screening, and personalized treatment strategies [7] [15]. These models preserve the complex tissue architecture, biochemical gradients, and cellular heterogeneity of human cancers, providing a more physiologically relevant platform for investigating tumor development, progression, and therapeutic responses [16] [15]. This technical guide examines how 3D models replicate three fundamental physiological features—architecture, gradients, and heterogeneity—within the context of TME research.

Replicating 3D Architecture and Cell-ECM Interactions

The architectural organization of cells within their ECM context fundamentally influences cellular behavior, signaling, and drug sensitivity. Three-dimensional models recreate this structural complexity through various technological approaches.

Comparative Analysis of 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems

Table 1: Key parameter comparisons between 2D and 3D culture systems [7]

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Culture
Cell morphology	Flat	Close to in vivo morphology
Cell growth	Rapid cell proliferation; Contact inhibition	Slow cell proliferation
Cell function	Functional simplification	Close to in vivo cell function
Cell communication	Limited cell-cell communication	Cell-cell communication, cell-matrix communication
Cell polarity and differentiation	Lack of polarity or even disappearance; incomplete differentiation	Maintain polarity; Normal differentiation

Methodologies for Establishing 3D Architectural Models

The establishment of physiologically relevant 3D architecture involves two primary approaches: scaffold-based and scaffold-free techniques. Scaffold-free methods cultivate cells in suspension, enabling self-assembly into multicellular spheroids through intrinsic cellular interactions without external support structures [7]. Scaffold-based approaches provide biocompatible carriers (natural materials like collagen, Matrigel, and chitosan, or synthetic polymers such as polycaprolactone) that facilitate cell adhesion, proliferation, and migration [7]. Organoid culture and 3D bioprinting typically utilize scaffold-based systems, with Matrigel being particularly common as a culture substrate [7] [16].

For patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs), the establishment process begins with mechanical dissociation and enzymatic digestion of tumor samples, followed by seeding the cell suspension onto biomimetic scaffolds like Matrigel [16]. Matrigel provides structural support through its composition of adhesive proteins, proteoglycans, and collagen IV [16]. Culture media for maintaining tumor organoids typically include specific growth factors such as Wnt3A, R-spondin-1, TGF-β receptor inhibitors, epidermal growth factor, and Noggin, with exact combinations and concentrations depending on the tumor type being cultured [16].

Technical Considerations for Architectural Fidelity

Achieving architectural fidelity requires careful consideration of several parameters. Scaffold porosity and mechanical properties must mimic the native tissue, with synthetic materials like poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) offering better control over biochemical and mechanical properties compared to natural matrices [17]. The mesh size of hydrogel networks critically influences molecular diffusivity; for PEGDA hydrogels, increasing concentration from 5% w/v to 10% w/v decreases average mesh size from 11.7±0.2nm to 8.3±0.2nm, directly affecting biomolecule mobility [17]. Architectural dimensions should approximate in vivo structures—for intestinal models, villus-like microstructures of 350±44μm height with a density of 16 villi/mm² effectively mimic anatomical villi (20-40 villi/mm²) [17].

Diagram 1: 3D Architecture Replication Pathways

Modeling Biochemical Gradients in the Tumor Microenvironment

Biochemical gradients are fundamental organizing principles in tissue homeostasis and tumor development, regulating cellular compartmentalization, differentiation, and function along spatial dimensions.

Gradient Formation and Control Methodologies

Advanced microengineered platforms enable precise control over spatiotemporal gradient formation. One established approach utilizes hydrogel-based scaffolds positioned in Transwell inserts where biochemical gradients form through free diffusion from a source chamber (lower compartment) to a sink chamber (upper compartment) [17]. This system provides apical access and controlled mesh size with native tissue mechanical properties. Verification of gradient establishment employs light-sheet fluorescence microscopy combined with in-silico modeling to confirm spatiotemporal control [17].

For intestinal models, the recreation of crypt-villus axis gradients demonstrates the physiological relevance of these systems. Biochemical factors essential for intestinal stem cell (ISC) niche maintenance—Wnt, R-Spondin, and EGF—are established with activity primarily in crypt compartments, decreasing toward villi regions [17]. These gradients originate from multiple sources: Paneth cells at crypt bases produce Wnt3a and EGF, while subepithelial myofibroblasts (ISEMFs) in the lamina propria secrete Wnt2b, R-Spondins, and BMP antagonists [17].

Technical Implementation of Gradient Systems

Implementation requires careful engineering of both physical and biological parameters. The microfabrication process for 3D villus-like structures employs photolithography-based dynamic photopolymerization of PEGDA-AA prepolymer solutions on flexible porous PET membranes [17]. Diffusion parameters are controlled by adjusting hydrogel mesh size through PEGDA concentration (5-10% w/v), which directly impacts biomolecule mobility [17]. Gradient validation combines experimental measurement with computational modeling to predict profiles of specific ISC niche factors under different conditions [17].

Table 2: Quantitative parameters for engineered gradient systems [17]

Parameter	Specification	Biological Relevance
Hydrogel mesh size (5% PEGDA)	11.7 ± 0.2 nm	Controls diffusivity of biochemical factors
Hydrogel mesh size (10% PEGDA)	8.3 ± 0.2 nm	Restricted diffusion for larger molecules
Villus-like structure height	350 ± 44 μm	Matches anatomical dimensions of intestinal villi
Structure density	16 villi/mm²	Comparable to in vivo density (20-40 villi/mm²)
Base thickness	185 ± 24 μm	Provides structural support while allowing diffusion

Experimental Workflow for Gradient Establishment

Diagram 2: Gradient System Workflow

Recapitulating Tumor Heterogeneity and Cellular Diversity

Tumor heterogeneity encompasses both genetic diversity among cancer cells and the multicellular composition of the TME, including immune, stromal, and vascular components.

Patient-Derived Models Preserving Genetic Heterogeneity

Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) maintain greater similarity to original tumors than 2D-cultured cells while preserving genomic and transcriptomic stability [7]. These models bridge the gap between 2D cancer cell lines and patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDTX) in vivo [7]. PDTOs retain patient-specific genetic alterations and can detect clonal heterogeneity with higher sensitivity than whole-tumor sequencing [7]. Extensive characterization demonstrates that PDTO models maintain genomic and transcriptomic stability during expansion, enabling generation of biobanks for high-throughput screening [7] [16].

Immune-Stromal-Vascular Co-culture Systems

Advanced co-culture models incorporate non-tumor cellular components to recreate the complete TME. Tumor organoid-immune co-culture models represent a significant advancement, enabling study of dynamic interactions between tumors and immune system components [16]. For example, Dijkstra et al. developed a co-culture platform combining peripheral blood lymphocytes and tumor organoids to enrich tumor-reactive T cells from patients with mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer and non-small cell lung cancer [16]. This system demonstrated effective cytotoxic activity against matched tumor organoids and established methodology to assess tumor cell sensitivity to T cell-mediated attacks at individual patient levels [16].

Methodologies for Establishing Heterogeneous Co-culture Systems

Establishing physiologically relevant co-cultures requires careful component selection and integration. Immune cell incorporation typically involves co-culturing peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) or specific immune cell subsets with established tumor organoids [16]. Tsai et al. constructed a pancreatic cancer organoid model co-cultured with PBMCs, observing activation of myofibroblast-like cancer-associated fibroblasts and tumor-dependent lymphocyte infiltration [16]. Stromal component integration can be achieved through simultaneous culture of stromal cells or use of conditioned media from stromal cultures to provide essential paracrine signaling [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key research reagents and materials for 3D tumor microenvironment models

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Specific Examples
Extracellular Matrix Substitutes	Provides 3D structural support and biochemical cues	Matrigel, collagen, chitosan [7] [16]
Synthetic Hydrogels	Tunable scaffolds with controlled mechanical properties	Poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) [17]
Growth Factors & Cytokines	Direct cell fate, proliferation, and differentiation	Wnt3A, R-spondin-1, EGF, Noggin [16]
Culture Media Supplements	Support specific cell types and maintenance	TGF-β receptor inhibitors, BMP antagonists [16] [17]
Primary Cell Sources	Provides physiological relevance and patient specificity	Patient-derived tumor cells, PBMCs, tissue-resident immune cells [16]
Microfabrication Materials	Create structured environments with architectural features	PEGDA-AA prepolymer, porous PET membranes [17]

Signaling Pathways Recapitulated in 3D Microenvironment Models

Diagram 3: Key Signaling in 3D Models

Three-dimensional models successfully replicate key physiological features of the tumor microenvironment through architectural fidelity, biochemical gradient formation, and preservation of cellular heterogeneity. These advanced systems bridge critical gaps between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo models, enabling more physiologically relevant investigation of tumor biology, drug screening, and personalized therapeutic development. As these technologies continue evolving with integration of microfluidic systems, multi-omics approaches, and standardized protocols, they promise to accelerate translational cancer research and precision medicine applications.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex ecosystem comprising cancer cells, stromal cells, immune components, and the extracellular matrix (ECM), all of which interact through biochemical and biophysical signaling to influence tumor progression, metastasis, and therapeutic response [4]. For decades, traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture has served as the foundational platform for cancer biology research and drug discovery. However, the inherent limitations of growing cells as monolayers on rigid plastic surfaces have become increasingly apparent, particularly in their failure to recapitulate the three-dimensional (3D) architecture and cellular interactions found in vivo [9] [18]. This discrepancy has significant implications for translational research, as drug response data generated from 2D models often poorly predict clinical outcomes, contributing to high attrition rates in oncology drug development [7] [19].

The transition to three-dimensional (3D) cell culture systems represents a paradigm shift in cancer modeling, offering innovative approaches to bridge the gap between conventional 2D cultures and animal models. These advanced platforms can more accurately mimic the pathophysiological characteristics of native tumors, including cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions, nutrient and oxygen gradients, and the development of heterogeneous cell populations [4] [20]. This review provides a comprehensive technical analysis of how 3D culture technologies overcome the specific shortfalls of 2D systems in TME mimicry, with a focus on their applications in mechanistic studies and drug development.

Fundamental Limitations of 2D Culture Systems in TME Recapitulation

Simplified Cellular Architecture and Signaling

In traditional 2D monolayers, cancer cells adopt flattened, stretched morphologies that do not reflect their in vivo geometry. This altered shape disrupts normal cell polarity and cytoskeletal organization, leading to changes in intracellular signaling and gene expression patterns that ultimately affect cell behavior and drug sensitivity [9] [18]. The absence of proper 3D architecture eliminates crucial spatial cues that govern fundamental cellular processes, including differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis. Furthermore, 2D systems typically lack the biomechanical forces present in native tissues, such as compression and tension, which have been shown to influence tumor progression and metastasis [20].

Inadequate Cell-Cell and Cell-ECM Interactions

The TME is characterized by extensive, multi-faceted interactions between various cell types and their surrounding ECM. In 2D cultures, cell-cell contacts are limited primarily to lateral associations within a single plane, failing to replicate the complex paracrine signaling and direct contact mechanisms that occur in solid tumors [4]. Similarly, cell-ECM interactions are fundamentally different on 2D surfaces compared to 3D environments. In vivo, cells interact with the ECM in three dimensions, receiving biochemical and mechanical signals that regulate gene expression, differentiation, and malignant progression [7] [20]. The simplified adhesion to a flat, rigid substrate in 2D culture alters integrin expression and signaling, leading to aberrant cellular behavior that does not accurately reflect tumor biology.

Absence of Physiological Gradients

In solid tumors, the uneven distribution of nutrients, oxygen, and metabolic waste products creates spatial gradients that profoundly influence cellular behavior and therapeutic response. These gradients give rise to distinct regional subpopulations, including proliferative, quiescent, hypoxic, and necrotic cells [4] [20]. In contrast, 2D monolayers provide uniform exposure to nutrients and oxygen, eliminating these critical microenvironmental influences. This absence of gradients prevents the formation of physiological tumor heterogeneity and fails to model the hypoxic regions that often drive therapeutic resistance and aggressive behavior in human cancers [19].

Table 1: Key Comparative Parameters Between 2D and 3D Culture Systems

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Culture	Biological Significance
Cell Morphology	Flat, stretched	In vivo-like, 3D structure	Affects polarity, differentiation, and signaling pathways [7]
Proliferation Rate	Rapid, contact-inhibited	Slower, similar to in vivo	Influences drug sensitivity and cell cycle regulation [7]
Cell-Cell Communication	Limited to lateral contacts	Extensive, multi-directional	Critical for signaling, invasion, and metastasis [7] [4]
Cell-ECM Interactions	Single plane adhesion	Natural 3D engagement	Alters gene expression, mechanotransduction, and drug response [18] [20]
Nutrient/Oxygen Access	Uniform, unlimited	Gradient-dependent, limited	Creates heterogeneous microenvironments with hypoxic regions [9] [19]
Gene Expression Profile	Altered, simplified	Physiologically relevant	Better predicts in vivo behavior and drug targets [19]
Drug Penetration	Immediate, direct	Limited, gradient-dependent	Models in vivo drug distribution challenges [4]
Predictive Value for Drug Response	Low (~10% clinical translation)	Higher, more clinically relevant	Reduces attrition in drug development [19]

3D Culture Technologies: Bridging the Gap Between 2D and In Vivo Models

Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-based approaches utilize natural or synthetic biomaterials to create 3D structures that mimic the native ECM, providing mechanical support and biochemical cues that guide cellular organization and function.

Hydrogels and Natural Polymer Scaffolds

Natural hydrogels derived from ECM components such as collagen, Matrigel, hyaluronic acid, and chitosan offer high biocompatibility and bioactivity. These materials contain inherent adhesion motifs and protease-sensitive degradation sites that facilitate cell migration, proliferation, and tissue organization [4] [18]. Matrigel, a basement membrane extract, has been widely used for establishing patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) that maintain genomic stability and recapitulate the histological features of original tumors [7]. However, batch-to-batch variability in natural polymers can affect experimental reproducibility, leading to increased interest in defined synthetic alternatives [21].

Synthetic Polymer Scaffolds and 3D Bioprinting

Synthetic polymers such as polycaprolactone (PCL), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) offer precise control over mechanical properties, degradation rates, and architecture [20]. These materials can be fabricated into porous scaffolds using techniques including electrospinning, gas foaming, and lyophilization. Advanced 3D bioprinting technologies enable the precise deposition of cells and biomaterials in predefined patterns, creating complex, spatially organized tissue constructs with vascular networks and multiple cell types [7] [20]. This precision facilitates the creation of customized TME models for studying specific aspects of tumor biology and drug delivery.

Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-free methods rely on the innate ability of cells to self-assemble into 3D structures, typically resulting in multicellular spheroids or organoids that exhibit tissue-like organization and cell-cell interactions.

Multicellular Tumor Spheroids

Spheroids are dense, spherical aggregates of cancer cells that form through self-assembly under conditions that prevent adhesion to culture surfaces. Common techniques for generating spheroids include:

• Liquid Overlay Technique: Cells are seeded on non-adherent surfaces coated with agarose or poly-HEMA to promote aggregation [9].
• Hanging Drop Method: Cell suspensions are dispensed as droplets on the lid of a culture dish; gravity causes cells to accumulate at the bottom of the droplet, forming a spheroid [4].
• Agitation-Based Methods: Continuous stirring in spinner flasks or rotating wall vessels maintains cells in suspension, allowing aggregation while preventing adhesion [4].

Spheroids develop concentric layers of proliferating (outer layer), quiescent (middle layer), and necrotic (core) cells, mimicking the microenvironments of avascular tumor nodules or micrometastases [9] [20].

Patient-Derived Tumor Organoids (PDTOs)

Organoids are more complex, self-organizing 3D structures that recapitulate key aspects of tumor architecture, heterogeneity, and function. Generated from patient-derived tumor stem cells, PDTOs maintain the genetic and phenotypic diversity of the original tumor and can be expanded long-term for biobanking and high-throughput drug screening [7]. Extensive characterization has demonstrated that PDTO models preserve greater similarity to the original tumor than 2D-cultured cells, making them valuable tools for personalized medicine approaches and preclinical drug testing [7].

Advanced Integrated Systems: Microfluidics and Organ-on-Chip

Microfluidic platforms, often referred to as "organ-on-chip" technology, incorporate 3D culture within precisely controlled microenvironments that simulate physiological fluid flow, mechanical forces, and multi-tissue interactions [4] [19]. These systems enable real-time monitoring of cellular behavior and allow for the establishment of human-relevant disease models that better predict drug efficacy and toxicity. A recent study utilizing tumor-on-chip technology demonstrated distinct metabolic profiles in 3D cultures, including elevated glutamine consumption under glucose restriction and higher lactate production, indicating an enhanced Warburg effect not observed in 2D cultures [19].

Diagram 1: 3D Culture Technologies for TME Mimicry. This diagram illustrates the main categories of 3D culture systems and their contributions to replicating key features of the tumor microenvironment.

Experimental Evidence: Comparative Studies Between 2D and 3D Models

Metabolic Differences in 2D vs 3D Cultures

Recent research utilizing microfluidic-based 3D models has revealed profound metabolic differences between 2D and 3D cultures. A 2025 study comparing 2D and 3D tumor-on-chip models demonstrated that 3D cultures exhibit reduced proliferation rates but distinct metabolic profiles, including elevated glutamine consumption under glucose restriction and higher lactate production, indicating an enhanced Warburg effect [19]. The continuous monitoring capability of microfluidic chips revealed increased per-cell glucose consumption in 3D models, highlighting the presence of fewer but more metabolically active cells compared to 2D cultures [19].

Table 2: Metabolic and Phenotypic Differences Between 2D and 3D Cultures

Parameter	2D Culture Findings	3D Culture Findings	Experimental Model
Proliferation Rate	Rapid, reaches confluence quickly	Slower, more controlled growth	U251-MG glioblastoma and A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells [19]
Glucose Dependence	High; proliferation ceases without glucose	Moderate; cells survive longer without glucose	Microfluidic tumor-on-chip [19]
Lactate Production	Lower	Higher, indicating enhanced Warburg effect	Metabolic flux analysis [19]
Glutamine Consumption	Standard levels	Elevated under glucose restriction	Metabolite monitoring [19]
Gene Expression	Basic expression patterns	Upregulation of stemness markers (OCT4, SOX2) and chemokine receptors (CXCR7, CXCR4) [19] [20]	Prostate cancer cell lines (LNCaP, PC3) [20]
Drug Sensitivity	Higher sensitivity to chemotherapeutics	Increased resistance, better mimicking in vivo response	Paclitaxel exposure in ovarian cancer models [20]
Cellular Heterogeneity	Uniform cell population	Distinct zones: proliferating, quiescent, hypoxic, necrotic	Multicellular tumor spheroids [20]

Gene Expression and Signaling Alterations

Comparative transcriptomic analyses have revealed significant differences in gene expression profiles between 2D and 3D cultures. Studies using prostate cancer cell lines demonstrated that 3D cultured cells exhibit upregulation of genes associated with stemness (OCT4, SOX2) and chemokine receptors (CXCR7, CXCR4) involved in cell adhesion and migration [20]. Similarly, research on hepatocellular carcinoma models showed altered expression of drug metabolism genes (CYP2D6, CYP2E1) in 3D cultures compared to their 2D counterparts [19]. These expression changes contribute to the enhanced physiological relevance of 3D models and their improved predictive capacity for drug response.

Drug Response and Resistance Mechanisms

Perhaps the most clinically significant difference between 2D and 3D models lies in their response to therapeutic agents. Multiple studies have demonstrated that cancer cells cultured in 3D systems exhibit increased resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs compared to 2D cultures, better reflecting the treatment responses observed in patients [20]. This enhanced resistance can be attributed to several factors:

• Limited drug penetration through the 3D structure creates chemical gradients and protected niches [4]
• Altered cell cycle distribution with higher proportions of quiescent cells in 3D models [20]
• Upregulation of survival pathways and drug efflux transporters in response to 3D cell-cell contacts [7]
• Activation of microenvironment-mediated resistance mechanisms through ECM interactions [18]

Technical Approaches: Protocols for Establishing 3D TME Models

Protocol 1: Generation of Multicellular Tumor Spheroids Using Hanging Drop Method

The hanging drop technique generates highly uniform spheroids through gravitational aggregation and is particularly suitable for high-throughput screening applications.

Materials:

• Cancer cells of interest (e.g., U251-MG glioblastoma, A549 adenocarcinoma)
• Complete cell culture medium
• 384-well low attachment microplates or hanging drop plates
• Inverted phase-contrast microscope
• Centrifuge

Methodology:

• Prepare a single-cell suspension at a concentration of 1-5 × 10^4 cells/mL in complete medium.
• Dispense 20-40 μL droplets of cell suspension into each well of a hanging drop plate or the lid of a tissue culture dish.
• Carefully invert the plate/lid and place over a reservoir containing PBS to maintain humidity.
• Incubate at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 3-5 days to allow spheroid formation.
• Monitor spheroid formation daily using light microscopy. Mature spheroids typically form within 72-96 hours.
• For experimental use, transfer spheroids to low-attachment plates by washing with PBS or medium.

Technical Considerations:

• Cell concentration must be optimized for each cell line to achieve desired spheroid size
• Higher cell densities accelerate spheroid formation but may increase size variability
• Regular medium changes (every 2-3 days) maintain nutrient availability [9] [4]

Protocol 2: Establishment of Patient-Derived Tumor Organoids in Matrigel

PDTO cultures preserve tumor heterogeneity and lineage plasticity, making them valuable for personalized medicine applications.

Materials:

• Fresh tumor tissue from surgical resection or biopsy
• Digestion medium: Advanced DMEM/F12 containing collagenase/hyaluronidase
• Basal culture medium: Advanced DMEM/F12 with HEPES, GlutaMAX
• Growth factor supplements: EGF, Noggin, R-spondin, Wnt3A
• Matrigel or other basement membrane extract
• 24-well tissue culture plates

Methodology:

• Mechanically dissociate tumor tissue into small fragments (1-2 mm³) using scalpel or razor.
• Enzymatically digest tissue fragments in collagenase/hyaluronidase solution for 30-60 minutes at 37°C with agitation.
• Centrifuge digested tissue at 300 × g for 5 minutes and resuspend in basal medium.
• Filter cell suspension through 70 μm strainer to remove undigested fragments.
• Mix dissociated cells with cold Matrigel at a 1:1 ratio and plate 40-50 μL drops in pre-warmed 24-well plates.
• Polymerize Matrigel for 20-30 minutes at 37°C, then overlay with complete organoid medium.
• Culture at 37°C with 5% CO₂, replacing medium every 2-3 days.
• Passage organoids every 1-2 weeks by mechanical dissociation and re-embedding in fresh Matrigel.

Technical Considerations:

• Optimization of growth factor combinations may be necessary for different tumor types
• Initial establishment may require 2-4 weeks before experimental use
• Cryopreservation in freezing medium containing DMSO enables long-term biobanking [7] [20]

Diagram 2: Experimental Workflow for 3D TME Models. This diagram outlines the key steps for establishing scaffold-free spheroids and scaffold-based organoids for tumor microenvironment research.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Technologies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Technologies for 3D TME Models

Reagent/Technology	Function	Examples/Specifications
Basement Membrane Matrices	Provides ECM mimicry for 3D cell growth and signaling	Matrigel, collagen I, fibrin, hyaluronic acid hydrogels [18] [20]
Synthetic Hydrogels	Defined, reproducible scaffolds with tunable properties	PEG-based, peptide-functionalized hydrogels [21] [20]
Low-Adhesion Plates	Promotes cell aggregation for spheroid formation	U-bottom, round-bottom plates with covalently bound hydrogel coatings [9]
Microfluidic Platforms	Enables perfusion, co-culture, and real-time monitoring	OrganoPlate, tumor-on-chip systems [4] [19]
Advanced Imaging Systems	3D visualization and quantification of complex models	Confocal microscopy, light-sheet microscopy, quantitative volumetric Raman imaging (qVRI) [22]
Metabolic Assay Kits	Assessment of metabolic activity and viability in 3D	Alamar Blue, ATP-based assays, Seahorse XF Analyzer [7] [19]
Dissociation Reagents	Recovery of cells from 3D matrices for analysis	Enzyme combinations (collagenase, dispase, accutase) [21]

The transition from 2D to 3D cell culture systems represents a critical advancement in cancer research, addressing fundamental limitations in tumor microenvironment mimicry. Through more accurate recapitulation of cell-ECM interactions, physiological gradients, and spatial organization, 3D models provide enhanced predictive value for drug screening and mechanistic studies. While technical challenges remain in standardization, scalability, and analysis, ongoing innovations in biomaterials, microfluidics, and imaging technologies continue to improve the physiological relevance and accessibility of these platforms. As 3D culture methodologies become increasingly sophisticated and widely adopted, they promise to accelerate the development of more effective, personalized cancer therapies by providing human-relevant models that better bridge the gap between traditional in vitro systems and clinical applications.

Engineered Microenvironments: Techniques for Building Physiologically-Relevant 3D Tumor Models

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex and dynamic ecosystem comprising cancer cells, stromal cells, immune cells, signaling molecules, and the extracellular matrix (ECM). This intricate network plays a critical role in tumor progression, metastasis, and response to therapeutic interventions [20] [23]. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture models, while useful for high-throughput screening, fail to recapitulate the three-dimensional architecture and cell-cell interactions found in vivo, leading to altered gene expression, metabolism patterns, and drug responses that poorly predict clinical outcomes [12] [7]. Scaffold-free three-dimensional (3D) cell culture systems have emerged as powerful tools to bridge this gap, enabling researchers to model the TME with greater physiological relevance without the introduction of exogenous matrix materials that can complicate experimental interpretation [20] [24].

Scaffold-free techniques rely on the innate ability of cells to self-assemble into 3D structures, primarily through cell-cell interactions, forming multi-cellular aggregates known as spheroids [7] [24]. These spheroids mimic key aspects of in vivo tumors, including the development of nutrient, oxygen, and metabolic gradients that result in heterogeneous cellular populations with proliferating cells at the periphery and quiescent or necrotic cells in the core [20]. This review provides an in-depth technical examination of three principal scaffold-free methods—hanging drop, forced floating, and bioreactor systems—detailing their methodologies, applications, and specific utility in TME research for drug development professionals.

Core Principles of Scaffold-Free 3D Culture

Scaffold-free 3D culture operates on the principle of cellular self-assembly, where cells are prevented from adhering to a rigid substrate, thereby encouraging them to cohere to one another and form complex 3D structures [24]. The major advantage of these systems is the absence of animal-derived or synthetic matrices, which eliminates potential batch-to-batch variability and compositional uncertainty, allowing for a more direct study of cell-cell interactions and paracrine signaling within the TME [25]. The resulting spheroids are spherical cell units that can self-organize, but the term does not imply the recapitulation of tissue-like behavior or organization found in more complex organoid models [24].

Within these 3D structures, cells exhibit morphological and physiological characteristics much closer to in vivo conditions than 2D cultures. Genes promoting undesired cell proliferation can be repressed, avoiding the anarchic proliferation encountered in 2D cell cultures [24]. Furthermore, the 3D architecture influences cellular responses to drugs; for instance, cells in 3D spheroids often show reduced susceptibility to chemotherapeutic agents like 5-fluorouracil and doxorubicin compared to 2D monolayers, attributed to decreased drug penetration to the spheroid core and the presence of quiescent cell populations—a feature difficult to simulate in 2D but critical for accurate drug efficacy testing [26] [23].

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between 2D and 3D Scaffold-Free Cell Cultures

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Scaffold-Free Culture
Cell Morphology	Flat, stretched	Round, close to in vivo morphology
Cell Growth	Rapid proliferation; Contact inhibition	Slow proliferation; No contact inhibition
Cell Communication	Limited cell-cell communication	Rich cell-cell communication and signaling
TME Mimicry	Poor representation of tissue architecture	Recapitulates nutrient/oxygen gradients and cell heterogeneity
Drug Response	Often overestimates efficacy	Better models drug penetration and resistance mechanisms
Mechanical Cues	Uniform stiffness of plastic surface	Tissue-like stiffness arising from cell-cell interactions

Methodological Deep Dive: Techniques and Protocols

Hanging Drop Method

The hanging drop technique is a cornerstone scaffold-free method for generating uniform, tightly packed spheroids. Its principle involves suspending droplets of cell suspension from the lid of a culture dish, using gravity and surface tension to concentrate cells at the liquid-air interface, thereby promoting aggregation and spheroid formation [27] [23].

Detailed Experimental Protocol:

• Cell Preparation: Harvest and resuspend cells in complete culture medium supplemented with serum or other necessary growth factors. The cell density must be optimized for the specific cell type; a common starting concentration is between 1.0 × 10^4 and 1.0 × 10^5 cells/mL [27] [23].
• Dispensing Droplets: Pipette a small aliquot of the cell suspension (typically 20-50 µL) onto the underside of a sterile culture dish lid or a specialized hanging drop plate [27].
• Inversion and Incubation: Carefully invert the lid and place it over a bottom chamber containing phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) or culture medium to maintain humidity and prevent droplet evaporation. Incubate the setup undisturbed at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 48-72 hours to allow spheroid formation [27].
• Spheroid Harvesting: After incubation, gently invert the lid and pipette the spheroids from the individual droplets for downstream applications like drug screening or implantation.

Technical Considerations:

• Advantages: This method produces spheroids of highly reproducible size and shape, as the volume of the droplet directly controls the final spheroid size. It does not require specialized coatings or scaffolds, making it a cost-effective option [26] [23].
• Disadvantages: The method is labor-intensive for large-scale studies, and medium changes or drug treatment additions are challenging without disturbing the droplets. The size of spheroids is limited by droplet volume, and the technique lacks cell-ECM interactions unless hydrogels are incorporated into the droplet [23]. It is also less amenable to high-throughput screening with standard plate readers [23].

Forced Floating Method

The forced floating method, also known as the liquid-overlay technique, generates spheroids by seeding cells onto non-adherent surfaces, preventing attachment and forcing cells to aggregate in suspension [26] [23].

Detailed Experimental Protocol:

• Surface Preparation: Use commercially available ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates, whose surfaces are covalently modified with a hydrogel to prevent protein adsorption and cell attachment. Alternatively, coat standard culture plates with a thin layer of non-adhesive polymer like poly-2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (poly-HEMA) [26] [23].
• Cell Seeding: Trypsinize, count, and prepare a single-cell suspension. Seed the cells into the ULA plates at the desired density. Optimal densities vary by cell line; for RT4 bladder cancer cells, densities of 0.5 × 10^4 to 1.25 × 10^4 cells/mL have been used to achieve spheroids of 300-500 µm in diameter [26].
• Centrifugation (Optional): A brief, low-speed centrifugation (e.g., 500 × g for 5-10 minutes) can be applied to gently pellet the cells and initiate contact, promoting more uniform and faster spheroid formation [24].
• Incubation: Incubate the plates undisturbed at 37°C with 5% CO₂. Spheroids typically form within 48-96 hours, depending on the cell type and seeding density.

Technical Considerations:

• Advantages: The forced floating method is significantly less laborious than the hanging drop technique and is more scalable. It allows for easy medium changes and drug additions. Furthermore, a wide range of cell-based assays (e.g., MTS, CCK-8) can be conducted directly in the plate, making it suitable for medium- to high-throughput drug screening [26] [23].
• Disadvantages: While spheroid size can be controlled by seeding density, there can be more variability in size and shape within a well compared to the hanging drop method. Like the hanging drop technique, it does not incorporate native cell-ECM interactions [23].

Bioreactor Systems

Bioreactor systems, including spinner flasks and rotational bioreactors, use constant agitation to maintain cells in suspension, promoting collisions that lead to aggregation and spheroid formation in a dynamic environment [24] [23].

Detailed Experimental Protocol:

• System Setup: Fill a spinner flask or a rotating wall vessel with pre-warmed culture medium.
• Cell Seeding: Introduce a single-cell suspension into the bioreactor. The initial cell concentration must be optimized for the specific bioreactor type and volume.
• Agitation and Culture: Initiate agitation.
  • For spinner flasks, a magnetic stirrer rotates at a low speed (e.g., 50-100 rpm) to keep cells in suspension without generating excessive shear stress [23].
  • For rotational bioreactors, the entire vessel rotates, creating a constant free-fall state that minimizes shear forces and facilitates spheroid formation in a simulated microgravity environment [23].
• Maintenance: Culture the cells for several days to weeks, with periodic medium changes. Spheroids can be harvested at desired time points by allowing them to settle and pipetting them out.

Technical Considerations:

• Advantages: Bioreactors are ideal for generating large quantities of spheroids for extensive biobanking or large-scale screening campaigns. They support long-term culture, allowing for the study of chronic drug treatments or slow-growing tumor models. The constant mixing ensures uniform distribution of nutrients and gases [23].
• Disadvantages: This method often produces spheroids with significant size heterogeneity, which may require manual sorting or filtering after harvest. The equipment is more expensive than static methods, and the shear forces in spinner flasks, if not carefully controlled, can damage cells [23].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Techniques

Feature	Hanging Drop	Forced Floating (ULA)	Bioreactor
Principle	Gravity-assisted aggregation in droplets	Aggregation on non-adherent surfaces	Agitation-induced collision and aggregation
Spheroid Uniformity	High	Moderate to High	Low to Moderate
Throughput	Low to Medium	Medium to High	High (Volume Scalability)
Ease of Use	Low ( tedious setup & harvest)	High	Medium (requires equipment)
Cost	Low	Medium	High
Ability to Add Drugs/Change Media	Difficult	Easy	Easy
Compatibility with HTS	Low	High	Medium
Physiological Relevance (TME)	Cell-cell interactions, gradients	Cell-cell interactions, gradients	Cell-cell interactions, gradients, long-term culture
Typical Spheroid Size Range	Defined by droplet volume (e.g., 150-500 µm)	Density-dependent (e.g., 300-500 µm) [26]	Highly variable

Mimicking the Tumor Microenvironment: Signaling and Applications

Scaffold-free spheroids excel at modeling critical aspects of the TME. The 3D architecture naturally leads to the formation of physiological gradients. The outer layers of spheroids are proliferative and well-oxygenated, while the core develops gradients of oxygen and nutrients, resulting in zones of quiescence, hypoxia, and even necrosis—a hallmark of advanced solid tumors that significantly influences drug delivery and efficacy [20]. This hypoxic core can upregulate pro-angiogenic proteins and activate survival pathways, driving aggressive behavior and chemoresistance [20].

Research using these models has provided profound insights into tumor biology and therapy. For instance, a study comparing 2D and 3D-cultured RT4 bladder cancer cells demonstrated that 3D spheroids exhibited higher resistance to doxorubicin (IC50 of 0.83-1.00 µg/mL) compared to 2D monolayers (IC50 of 0.39-0.43 µg/mL), underscoring the importance of 3D models in accurately assessing drug potency [26]. Beyond cancer cells, the co-culture of multiple cell types within spheroids—such as cancer cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts, and immune cells—is a powerful approach to deconstruct the complex cellular crosstalk within the TME, enabling the study of immune evasion and the screening of immunotherapies [12] [20].

The following diagram illustrates the key signaling pathways and biological processes that are active in different regions of a scaffold-free spheroid, mimicking the tumor microenvironment:

Diagram 1: Signaling and Functional Zones in a Scaffold-Free Spheroid. This diagram illustrates how different regions of a spheroid mimic the tumor microenvironment, showing the proliferative outer layer and the hypoxic, quiescent core with its associated drug-resistant and stem-like phenotypes.

The experimental workflow for utilizing these systems in TME research, from spheroid formation to analysis, can be visualized as follows:

Diagram 2: Generalized Workflow for Scaffold-Free Spheroid TME Studies. This outlines the key steps in a typical experiment, from initial spheroid formation using one of the three main methods to final analysis of TME-relevant characteristics.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold-Free 3D Culture

Item	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Culture plates with covalently attached hydrogel surface to inhibit cell attachment, forcing cell aggregation.	Forced floating method for medium-to-high-throughput spheroid formation and drug screening [26].
Hanging Drop Plates	Specialized plates with micro-wells or rails designed for the easy setup of multiple hanging drops.	High-throughput generation of uniform-sized spheroids for screening applications [25].
Poly-HEMA	A non-adhesive polymer used to coat standard culture plates to create a non-adherent surface.	A cost-effective alternative to commercial ULA plates for forced floating assays [23].
Spinner Flasks & Bioreactors	Vessels with integrated agitation systems (magnetic stirrers, rotating walls) for dynamic cell culture.	Large-scale production of spheroids for biobanking, long-term studies, or harvesting large biomass [23].
ROCK Inhibitor (Y-27632)	A small molecule inhibitor of Rho-associated kinase that reduces apoptosis in single cells, enhancing cell survival and aggregation post-trypsinization.	Added to the medium in low-throughput ULA assays to improve spheroid formation efficiency and viability, particularly in sensitive cells [25].
Viability Assay Kits (e.g., CCK-8, MTS, ATP-based)	Colorimetric or luminescent assays adapted for 3D cultures to measure cell viability and proliferation.	Quantifying drug response in spheroids cultured in ULA plates; may require spheroid disruption or specialized protocols for penetration [12].

Scaffold-free approaches—hanging drop, forced floating, and bioreactor systems—provide indispensable and complementary tools for modeling the complex biology of the tumor microenvironment. By enabling the formation of 3D spheroids that recapitulate critical features such as physiological gradients, cell-cell interactions, and emergent drug resistance, these techniques offer a more physiologically relevant platform than traditional 2D cultures for preclinical cancer research and drug development. The choice of method depends heavily on the research objectives, balancing the need for uniformity, throughput, scalability, and biological complexity. As the field advances, the integration of these scaffold-free models with other technologies like microfluidics, high-content imaging, and multi-omics will further deepen our understanding of tumor biology and accelerate the development of effective anticancer therapies.

In oncological research, the transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a paradigm shift aimed at bridging the gap between in vitro experiments and clinical reality. Traditional 2D models, where cells grow as monolayers on plastic surfaces, fail to recapitulate the complex architecture and cellular interactions of human tumors, leading to a high failure rate where at least 95% of drugs that show promise in 2D models prove ineffective in clinical trials [28]. Similarly, animal models, while more sophisticated, often poorly predict human immune responses and raise ethical concerns [29] [3]. The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a dynamic ecosystem comprising cancer cells, stromal cells, immune cells, and a dense extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM provides not just structural support but also biochemical and mechanical cues that profoundly influence tumor progression, metastasis, and drug resistance [28] [20]. Scaffold-based 3D technologies have therefore emerged as indispensable tools, providing a physiologically relevant context to study tumor behavior and response to therapies by mimicking key aspects of this TME [20].

The Role of the Tumor Microenvironment in 3D Modeling

The extracellular matrix (ECM) within the TME is far from an inert scaffold. It is a biologically active network of proteins, glycoproteins, and polysaccharides that undergoes significant remodeling during cancer progression. Key changes include:

• Increased Stiffness and Density: Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) drive excessive deposition of collagen types I, III, and V, which is further cross-linked by enzymes like lysyl oxidase (LOX), leading to a stiffer matrix [28].
• Altered Composition: Elevated levels of hyaluronic acid (HA), fibronectin, and specific proteoglycans are common, creating a pro-malignant biochemical environment [29] [30].
• Architectural Shifts: Collagen fibers transition from a relaxed, parallel arrangement to a rigid, radially oriented configuration that facilitates tumor cell migration [28].

This remodeled ECM directly impacts therapeutic efficacy. For instance, the dense matrix can act as a physical barrier, excluding immune cells like Natural Killer (NK) cells and CAR-T cells from the tumor parenchyma, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of immunotherapies [29]. Scaffold-based 3D models are specifically designed to replicate these critical features, enabling the investigation of cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions that govern cancer biology and treatment response [20].

Hydrogel-Based Scaffolds: Engineered Microenvironments

Hydrogels, water-swollen networks of hydrophilic polymers, are among the most widely used materials for creating 3D tumor models due to their high water content and biocompatibility, which closely mimic native tissues [31]. They serve as synthetic ECMs, allowing researcher control over mechanical and biochemical properties. The table below summarizes the primary material classes used in hydrogel-based tumor models.

Table 1: Key Biomaterial Classes for Hydrogel-based Tumor Models

Material Class	Examples	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Applications in Cancer Research
Natural Polymers	Collagen, Matrigel, Fibrin [31] [28]	High bioactivity, inherent cell adhesion and enzymatic degradation motifs [31]	Batch-to-batch variability, limited tunability, coupled biochemical/mechanical properties [30]	Baseline 3D culture; angiogenesis studies [28]
Synthetic Polymers	PEG, PVA, PAA [31] [30]	High tunability, excellent batch-to-batch consistency, decoupling of properties [30]	Lack innate bioactivity; requires functionalization (e.g., with RGD peptides) [30]	Reductionist studies to probe specific TME parameters [30]
Semi-Synthetic/Hybrid Polymers	GelMA, HA-MA, NorHA [30]	Good balance of bioactivity and tunability, temperature-independent covalent crosslinking [30]	Not fully decoupled mechanical and biochemical cues [30]	Brain and breast cancer metastasis models; studies on tumor vasculature and immunity [30]
Decellularized ECM (dECM)	Patient-derived scaffolds (PDS) from breast, prostate tissue [32] [33]	Highest physiological relevance, preserves tissue-specific ECM composition and structure [33]	Complex processing, potential residual immunogenicity, donor variability [32]	Studying patient-specific mechanisms of invasion and drug resistance [33]

Experimental Workflow for Hydrogel-Based 3D Culture

A generalized protocol for establishing a hydrogel-based 3D cancer model involves several critical steps:

• Hydrogel Preparation and Cell Encapsulation: A cell-polymer suspension is prepared. For natural hydrogels like collagen, gelation is often triggered by a temperature shift to 37°C. For synthetic and semi-synthetic polymers like PEG or GelMA, gelation is typically initiated via photoinitiators (e.g., LAP) and exposure to visible or UV light at specific intensities (e.g., 2-5 mW/cm² for 1-5 minutes) to form a stable network [30].
• Culture Maintenance: The cell-laden hydrogels are cultured in standard medium, which can be supplemented with specific factors to induce angiogenesis (e.g., VEGF) or recruit immune cells. The medium is refreshed every 2-3 days.
• Endpoint Analysis: After a culture period (e.g., 7-21 days), the models are analyzed. This includes:
  • Viability/ proliferation assays: Using reagents like AlamarBlue or MTT [33].
  • Histology: Samples are fixed, paraffin-embedded, sectioned, and stained (e.g., H&E, trichrome) to assess morphology and ECM deposition [33].
  • Gene/Protein Expression: RNA can be extracted for qPCR analysis of target genes (e.g., CAV1, TGFB1 [33]), and proteins can be localized via immunohistochemistry (e.g., for collagen IV, vimentin [33]).
  • Imaging: Confocal microscopy is used for 3D reconstruction of cell networks and structures.

Diagram 1: Workflow for 3D Hydrogel-Based Tumor Models.

Microcarriers and Dynamic Culture Systems

For large-scale expansion and culture of cells in a 3D format, microcarriers are a critical technology. These are typically small (100-300 µm diameter), spherical beads that provide a high surface-area-to-volume ratio for anchorage-dependent cells to attach and grow [3] [34]. They are particularly valuable in stirred-tank bioreactors, enabling scalable biomanufacturing for therapeutic applications.

Key Applications and Considerations

• Scalable Cell Expansion: Microcarrier-based bioreactor systems can produce large quantities of cells, such as human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs), needed for clinical doses in cell therapy [34].
• Dynamic Microenvironment: Cells on microcarriers experience a dynamic microenvironment characterized by fluid shear stress, particle collisions, and enhanced nutrient/waste exchange. This can significantly influence cell properties, including morphology, proliferation, differentiation potential, and secretome profile, compared to static planar cultures [34].
• Material Composition: Microcarriers can be made from various natural (e.g., gelatin, collagen) or synthetic (e.g., polystyrene, glass) materials, and may be solid or porous [3] [34]. Surface coatings (e.g., with ECM proteins) are often used to improve cell adhesion.

Table 2: Microcarrier Culture System Parameters and Their Impact

Parameter	Description	Impact on Cell Behavior
Shear Stress	Fluid forces from stirring/agitation	Can affect cell viability, morphology, and gene expression; requires optimization for each cell type [34]
Particle Collision	Contact between microcarriers in suspension	Can cause cell damage or detachment if too vigorous [34]
Oxygen & Nutrient Diffusion	Mass transfer within the culture medium	More homogeneous than static cultures, preventing central necrosis and supporting uniform cell growth [34]
Surface Topography & Chemistry	Microcarrier smoothness, roughness, porosity, and coating	Directly governs initial cell adhesion, spreading, migration, and overall growth efficiency [34]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

The following table catalogues key reagents and materials essential for establishing scaffold-based 3D cancer models, as evidenced by the cited literature.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold-Based 3D Models

Item	Function/Application	Specific Examples
Matrigel	Basement membrane extract from murine sarcoma; used for organoid cultures and angiogenesis assays. Provides a complex, biologically active matrix. [28]	Corning Matrigel, Growth Factor Reduced (GFR) Matrigel [28]
GelMA	Methacryloyl-modified gelatin; crosslinkable hydrogel balancing bioactivity (RGD, MMP sites) with tunable mechanical properties. [30]	Cellink GelMA, Advanced BioMatrix GelMA [30]
HA-MA / NorHA	Methacrylate- or norbornene-modified hyaluronic acid; used for models of brain cancer and metastasis where HA is a major ECM component. [30]	Glycosan BioHA-MA [30]
PEG-based Crosslinkers	Synthetic, bio-inert backbone for creating highly tunable hydrogels; requires functionalization with adhesive peptides and protease-sensitive crosslinkers. [30]	PEG-dithiol, PEG-norbornene, PEG-acrylate [30]
RGD Peptide	Integrin-binding peptide (Arginine-Glycine-Aspartic Acid); grafted onto synthetic hydrogels (e.g., PEG, HA) to promote cell adhesion. [30]	Custom synthetic peptides from suppliers like GenScript [30]
MMP-Sensitive Peptide	Peptide crosslinker degraded by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs); enables cell-mediated remodeling and invasion in synthetic hydrogels. [30]	Peptide sequences (e.g., GPQGIWGQ) [30]
Photoinitiators	Chemicals that generate radicals upon light exposure to crosslink modified polymers (e.g., GelMA, PEG).	Lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate (LAP) [30]
Cytodex Microcarriers	Dextran-based microcarriers for scalable cell culture in stirred-tank bioreactors.	Cytodex 1, 2, 3 [34]
Patient-Derived Scaffolds (PDS)	Decellularized human tumor tissue providing the most physiologically relevant ECM for culture.	Custom-processed from patient samples [33]

Scaffold-based technologies, including hydrogels and microcarriers, have fundamentally enhanced our ability to model the complex and dynamic tumor microenvironment in vitro. By providing a 3D context that recapitulates critical cell-ECM interactions, biochemical gradients, and mechanical properties, these platforms offer a powerful and more predictive alternative to traditional 2D cultures [20]. The ongoing refinement of biomaterials—from fully synthetic, reductionist systems to complex patient-derived dECM scaffolds—allows researchers to ask increasingly specific questions about tumor biology and therapy resistance.

Future directions in the field point toward increased complexity and personalization. This includes the integration of these scaffolds with microfluidic organ-on-chip platforms to introduce dynamic fluid flow and multi-tissue interactions [29] [8]. Furthermore, 3D bioprinting is emerging as a transformative technology, enabling the precise spatial patterning of multiple cell types and matrix components to create anatomically realistic tumor models [3] [8]. As these technologies mature and standardization improves, scaffold-based 3D models are poised to become indispensable in accelerating drug discovery and advancing the era of personalized cancer medicine.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a crucial role in cancer progression, treatment response, and the development of drug resistance [35]. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture models fail to accurately replicate the complexities of the TME, as they lack three-dimensional architecture, proper cell-cell interactions, and cell-matrix communication [7]. This limitation hinders progress in cancer research and drug development, creating an urgent need for advanced models that better mimic in vivo conditions.

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting has emerged as a transformative technology that addresses these limitations by enabling the precise spatial arrangement of multiple cell types and extracellular matrix (ECM) components. This advanced biofabrication approach allows researchers to create complex, biomimetic tissue constructs that recapitulate key features of the native TME, providing more physiologically relevant platforms for studying tumor biology and screening therapeutic compounds [36]. By offering unprecedented control over the spatial distribution of TME components, 3D bioprinting bridges the gap between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo models, potentially accelerating the development of more effective cancer treatments.

Fundamental Limitations of Traditional Cancer Models

The Inadequacy of 2D Culture Systems

Traditional 2D cell culture systems, while cost-effective and easy to manipulate, suffer from significant limitations in TME research. In these monolayer systems, cells are grown on flat surfaces where they maintain direct contact with nutrients and growth factors in the culture medium but lack the three-dimensional structure necessary for maintaining proper cell polarity and shape [7]. This simplified environment cannot recreate the complex tumor microenvironment, leading to altered gene expression and metabolism patterns that are critical factors in antitumor drug sensitivity testing [7].

The table below summarizes the key differences between 2D and 3D culture systems:

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems for TME Research

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Culture
Cell Morphology	Flat	Close to in vivo morphology
Cell Growth	Rapid cell proliferation; Contact inhibition	Slow cell proliferation
Cell Function	Functional simplification	Close to in vivo cell function
Cell Communication	Limited cell-cell communication	Cell-cell communication, cell-matrix communication
Cell Polarity and Differentiation	Lack of polarity or even disappearance; incomplete differentiation	Maintain polarity; Normal differentiation
ECM Deposition	Minimal or absent	Significant, organized deposition
Drug Response	Often inaccurate	More predictive of clinical outcomes
Gene Expression	Altered patterns	Closer to in vivo profiles

Advantages of 3D Models in Mimicking TME

3D tumor culture models overcome many limitations of 2D systems by mimicking the extracellular matrix (ECM) of native tissue [7]. The ECM is a dynamic protein network that maintains tissue homeostasis and cellular organization, providing structural and biochemical support for cells while participating in critical processes such as proliferation, adhesion, cell communication, and cell death [7]. The ability of 3D models to recreate this complex microenvironment makes them invaluable for TME research.

Studies have demonstrated that fibroblast inclusion in 3D models is essential for ECM deposition, which is absent in spheroids composed only of tumor cells [35]. These co-cultured spheroids exhibit more organized structure, enhanced ECM deposition (such as type-VI collagen), and closer resemblance to the morphology of native tumors compared to monocultures [35]. Perhaps most importantly, RNA sequencing analysis has revealed that the gene expression profile of 3D co-culture spheroids closely matches that of in vivo tumors, with hundreds of genes involved in critical pathways such as "pathways in cancer" and those linked to drug resistance [35].

3D Bioprinting Technologies for Spatial Patterning

Core Bioprinting Approaches

3D bioprinting encompasses several distinct technological approaches for creating spatially organized tissue constructs. The main approaches include:

• Biomimicry: This approach seeks to create fabricated structures identical or similar to natural biological structures by duplicating the shape, framework, and microenvironment of organs and tissues [36]. Successful biomimicry requires thorough knowledge and understanding of the microenvironment, structural arrangement, biological factors, and composition of the target tissue.

• Autonomous self-assembly: This approach utilizes embryonic organ development as a model, where cells direct the composition, patterning, and functional properties of the developing tissue [36]. It relies on the cells' inherent ability to create their own ECM and appropriate tissue microarchitecture.

• Mini-tissue building blocks: This approach combines aspects of both biomimicry and self-assembly by creating small, functional tissue units that can be assembled into larger tissue constructs [36].

Advanced Bioprinting Platforms

Recent advancements have led to the development of sophisticated bioprinting platforms that address the challenges of manipulating delicate cellular structures. The Spatially Patterned Organoid Transfer (SPOT) platform represents one such innovation, specifically designed to handle the challenges associated with neural organoids, which exhibit large diameters, relatively weak surface tension, and a propensity to undergo plastic deformation [37].

The SPOT platform employs a magnetic nanoparticle (MNP)-laden cellulose nanofiber (CNF) hydrogel, a CNF support scaffold enclosed within a custom-designed reservoir, and a magnetized 3D printer to control the spatial arrangement of organoid building blocks (OBBs) [37]. This system overcomes the limitations of aspiration-assisted bioprinting (AAB), which can cause substantial local distension and irreversible plastic deformation in neural organoids, potentially disrupting their internal cytoarchitecture [37].

Table 2: Comparison of Bioprinting Techniques for TME Components

Technique	Mechanism	Advantages	Limitations	Spatial Control
SPOT	Magnetic actuation of MNP-coated OBBs	Preserves organoid integrity; Fine spatial control	Specialized equipment required	High
Aspiration-Assisted Bioprinting (AAB)	Vacuum pressure manipulation	Individual OBB positioning	Causes deformation in neural organoids	Medium
Continuous Bioprinting	OBBs encapsulated in bioink	Thick, patterned tissue structures	Cannot address individual OBB positioning	Low
Scaffold-Based Bioprinting	Cells embedded in biocompatible carriers	Enhanced cell organization; Drug delivery capability	Scaffold materials may influence cell behavior	Medium to High

Experimental Framework for TME Modeling

Reagent Solutions and Material Toolkit

Successful bioprinting of TME models requires careful selection of materials and reagents. The following table outlines essential components for creating biomimetic tumor environments:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Bioprinting of TME Models

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Example
Cellulose Nanofiber (CNF) Hydrogel	Shear-thinning, self-healing support hydrogel	Maintaining spatial positioning of organoids in SPOT platform [37]
Magnetic Nanoparticles (MNPs)	Enable magnetic actuation of organoids	Controlled lifting and deposition in SPOT platform [37]
Matrigel	Basement membrane matrix providing biological cues	Support for organoid growth and differentiation [7]
Collagen-based Bioinks	Natural ECM material providing structural support	Recreation of tumor-stroma interactions [7]
Synthetic Polymers (e.g., PCL)	Tunable mechanical properties	Control of scaffold stiffness to influence cell behavior [7]
Patient-Derived Tumor Organoids (PDTOs)	Maintain tumor heterogeneity and genetics	Personalized medicine applications [7]
Fibroblasts (e.g., NIH/3T3)	ECM deposition and TME modeling	Recreation of tumor-stroma interactions [35]

Protocol for Establishing Bioprinted TME Models

Based on recent studies, the following detailed protocol can be employed to create advanced 3D-bioprinted TME models:

Phase 1: Cell Preparation and Expansion

• Culture tumor cells (e.g., B16F10 mouse melanoma) in appropriate medium (RPMI supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum and antibiotics) [35]
• Culture stromal cells (e.g., NIH/3T3 mouse fibroblasts) in complete Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium with 10% fetal calf serum [35]
• For patient-specific models, establish patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) from cancer tissue samples in a 3D matrix [7]

Phase 2: Bioink Preparation

• For SPOT platform: Prepare MNP-laden CNF hydrogel by embedding magnetic nanoparticles within cellulose nanofiber ink [37]
• For scaffold-based approaches: Mix cells with appropriate biomaterial (e.g., collagen, Matrigel, or synthetic polymers) at optimized concentrations [7]
• Encapsulate cells in hydrogel precursors at densities appropriate for the specific application (e.g., 1:4 ratio of tumor cells to fibroblasts for co-culture models) [35]

Phase 3: Bioprinting Process

• For SPOT platform: Encase organoids in MNP-CNF composite; use magnetized 3D printer for controlled lifting, transport, and deposition [37]
• Set printing parameters (pressure, speed, temperature) optimized for the specific bioink and cell type
• Deposit cells in predefined architectures that mimic native TME organization
• For multilayer structures, implement crosslinking between layers (using UV light, ionic solutions, or temperature changes)

Phase 4: Post-Printing Culture and Maturation

• Transfer bioprinted constructs to appropriate culture conditions
• Change medium regularly (e.g., starting from day 5-7 of culture) [35]
• Allow tissue maturation for 2-3 weeks to enable proper ECM deposition and cell-cell interactions [35]
• Monitor morphological development using confocal laser scanning microscopy and image analysis software (e.g., ImageJ) [35]

Phase 5: Validation and Characterization

• Assess cell viability and distribution using fluorescence markers (e.g., PKH26, carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester) [35]
• Evaluate ECM deposition through immunohistochemistry (e.g., type-VI collagen staining) [35]
• Analyze gene expression profiles through RNA sequencing to verify similarity to in vivo tumors [35]
• Test drug response compared to 2D models and in vivo results

Signaling Pathways and Analytical Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate key signaling pathways and experimental workflows relevant to 3D-bioprinted TME models:

Experimental Workflow for 3D-Bioprinted TME Model Establishment

Key Signaling Pathways in the Tumor Microenvironment

Applications in Cancer Research and Drug Development

Enhanced Drug Screening Platforms

3D-bioprinted TME models significantly improve the predictive accuracy of drug sensitivity testing compared to traditional 2D models. These advanced platforms better replicate the physiological barriers to drug delivery, including complex ECM structures, spatial heterogeneity, and cell-matrix interactions that influence drug penetration and efficacy [7]. Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) established through 3D bioprinting maintain greater similarity to the original tumor than 2D-cultured cells while preserving genomic and transcriptomic stability, effectively bridging the gap between conventional in vitro models and patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDTX) in vivo [7].

The ability of 3D models to recapitulate gene expression profiles similar to in vivo tumors makes them particularly valuable for drug screening. Studies have demonstrated that 3D co-culture spheroids exhibit gene expression patterns involving hundreds of genes in critical pathways such as "pathways in cancer" and those linked to drug resistance [35]. This enhanced biological relevance allows for more accurate prediction of patient-specific treatment responses and facilitates the development of personalized therapeutic strategies.

Personalized Medicine and Disease Modeling

The integration of patient-specific cells into 3D-bioprinted models opens new possibilities for personalized medicine in oncology. Patient-derived tumor organoids can be expanded and cryopreserved, enabling the generation of biobanks that capture the heterogeneity of cancer across different patients [7]. These resources provide valuable platforms for testing multiple treatment regimens on a patient's own cells before clinical implementation, potentially improving outcomes while reducing unnecessary treatment toxicity.

Furthermore, 3D-bioprinted TME models enable the investigation of specific disease mechanisms with unprecedented spatial control. For example, the SPOT platform has been leveraged to create tissues in which human brain tumor organoids are integrated into neural organoids, facilitating studies of tumor-host interactions with controlled juxtacrine and paracrine signaling within the tumor microenvironment [37]. This precise spatial control allows researchers to dissect the complex cellular crosstalk that drives cancer progression and treatment resistance.

3D bioprinting represents a paradigm shift in our ability to model the tumor microenvironment with unprecedented spatial precision and biological complexity. By enabling the controlled arrangement of multiple cell types within biomimetic ECM scaffolds, these advanced fabrication techniques bridge critical gaps between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo models, offering more physiologically relevant platforms for cancer research and drug development.

The continued refinement of bioprinting technologies, combined with advances in bioink development and stem cell biology, promises to further enhance the fidelity and utility of these models. As these platforms become more sophisticated and accessible, they are poised to accelerate the discovery of novel therapeutic targets, improve the predictive accuracy of drug screening, and ultimately contribute to the development of more effective, personalized cancer treatments. The integration of complementary technologies such as organ-on-chip systems and advanced imaging modalities will further expand the capabilities of 3D-bioprinted TME models, solidifying their role as indispensable tools in oncology research.

Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures present significant limitations in replicating the intricate architecture and microenvironment of in vivo solid tumors, which is essential for accurately studying cancer initiation, growth, progression, and metastasis [2]. These models fail to capture critical dynamic microenvironmental interactions, including cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions, nutrient gradients, and hypoxia, which profoundly influence tumor behavior and therapeutic response [2] [19]. Consequently, there exists an urgent need to develop advanced preclinical models that can accelerate research outcomes and improve the predictive value of drug testing. Emerging three-dimensional (3D) cell culture systems, particularly patient-derived organoids (PDOs) and sophisticated co-culture models, provide a more realistic representation of solid tumor properties by preserving the genetic, proteomic, and histological characteristics of the original patient tumor [38]. This whitepaper explores how these innovative models closely mimic the tumor microenvironment (TME), their application in personalized drug screening, and the detailed protocols enabling their implementation in modern cancer research pipelines.

How 3D Models Superiorly Mimic the Tumor Microenvironment

Three-dimensional cell culture platforms have emerged as a promising approach, bridging the gap between traditional cell cultures and animal models in preclinical studies [2]. Unlike 2D monolayers where cells receive nutrients uniformly, 3D models incorporate architectural complexity that leads to the formation of distinct metabolic and proliferative gradients, thereby creating heterogeneous microenvironments that more faithfully represent in vivo conditions [19].

Architectural and Microenvironmental Fidelity

Spheroids and organoids exhibit topography, metabolism, signaling, and gene expression levels that closely resemble those of cancer cells in multilayered in vivo solid tumors [2]. Regarding their spatial organization, spheroids consist of three distinct cellular zones: (a) an outer layer consisting of highly proliferative cells, (b) an intermediate layer containing quiescent, less metabolic cells, and (c) an inner core, characterized by hypoxic and acidic conditions [2]. This cellular heterogeneity creates critical gradients of nutrients and signaling molecules, O₂ or CO₂, pH, and drug penetration, properties that make spheroids an invaluable tool for tumor progression and drug resistance studies [2].

Gene expression analyses have indicated significant similarities in the number of transcripts between 3D models and in vivo groups compared to respective 2D cultures [2]. For instance, Espinoza et al. reported an upregulation of genes associated with lung cancer progression in 3D models, particularly those involved in hypoxia signaling, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and tumor microenvironment regulation [2]. Similarly, 3D patient-derived head and neck squamous cell carcinoma spheroids showed differential protein expression profiles of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), EMT, and stemness markers [2].

Metabolic Differences Between 2D and 3D Cultures

Comparative analyses between 2D and 3D tumor models reveal profound differences in metabolic profiles and growth kinetics, underscoring how dimensionality modulates cancer cell behavior [19]. Research demonstrates that 3D cultures show distinct metabolic profiles, including elevated glutamine consumption under glucose restriction and higher lactate production, indicating an enhanced Warburg effect [19]. Microfluidic-based monitoring has revealed increased per-cell glucose consumption in 3D models, highlighting fewer but more metabolically active cells than in 2D cultures [19].

Table 1: Key Functional Differences Between 2D and 3D Culture Models

Parameter	2D Models	3D Models
Proliferation	Uniformly high proliferation rates	Reduced proliferation with heterogeneity (proliferative outer zone, quiescent intermediate zone) [19]
Metabolic Profile	Lower lactate production; less pronounced Warburg effect	Elevated lactate production; enhanced Warburg effect [19]
Nutrient Availability	Uniform nutrient distribution	Diffusion-limited, creating nutrient and oxygen gradients [2] [19]
Gene Expression	Does not recapitulate in vivo expression profiles	Closer resemblance to in vivo transcripts; upregulation of hypoxia, EMT, and stemness genes [2]
Drug Response	Higher sensitivity; fails to predict clinical efficacy	Increased resistance; better correlation with clinical outcomes [2] [38]
Cellular Heterogeneity	Primarily proliferative population	Multiple cell states (proliferation, quiescence, apoptosis, hypoxia) [19]

Patient-Derived Organoids: Bridging the Gap Between Patients and Preclinical Models

Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) represent a transformative advancement in cancer modeling, as they can be established directly from patient tumor tissues and maintain the histological and genetic characteristics of the original tumor [38]. These models have demonstrated remarkable fidelity in preserving patient-specific tumor heterogeneity, making them invaluable for personalized drug screening applications.

Establishment and Characterization of PDO Biobanks

Recent studies have successfully established living biobanks of PDOs across various cancer types. In gastric cancer (GC), researchers successfully established 57 organoids from 73 patients with an overall success rate of 78% (57/73), derived from various sites of the stomach and across different tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stages [38]. These organoids retained specific glandular features observed in their corresponding primary tumors, including glandular, discohesive, or solid growth patterns and nuclear stratification [38]. Immunohistochemical analysis confirmed that GC organoids displayed similar presence and intensity of protein markers (CK7 and CEA) compared to their corresponding primary tumors [38].

RNA sequencing analyses have demonstrated a high degree of similarity in gene expression patterns between organoids and their corresponding primary tumor tissues (average ρ: 0.785, average R²: 0.64) [38]. Organoids can be categorized based on growth characteristics, with high-growth-rate organoids exhibiting upregulated expression of proliferation- and stemness-related genes (REG4, KLF4, ERBB3, HRAS, NOTCH1, and MYC) and downregulation of cell growth inhibition genes (BAX, DKK3, TNFSF12) [38].

Predictive Value in Drug Screening

The primary application of PDOs lies in their ability to predict patient-specific responses to chemotherapeutic agents. In gastric cancer, PDOs show varied responses to different chemotherapeutics, and through RNA sequencing, researchers have identified gene expression biomarker panels that could distinguish sensitive and resistant patients to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and oxaliplatin with an area under the dose-response curve (AUC) >0.8 [38]. Most importantly, drug-response results in PDOs have been validated in patient-derived organoid-based xenograft (PDOX) mice and were consistent with the actual clinical response in 91.7% (11/12) of patients with GC [38].

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of Patient-Derived Organoids in Drug Response Prediction

Cancer Type	Number of PDOs	Chemotherapeutic Agents Tested	Prediction Accuracy	Validation Method
Gastric Cancer [38]	57	5-FU, oxaliplatin, others	AUC >0.8 for biomarker panels	91.7% concordance with clinical response (11/12 patients)
Various Cancers [39]	100+ cell lines	Library of 236 drugs	High correlation (Rpearson = 0.85, Rspearman = 0.84)	Machine learning validation

Incorporating Complexity: Co-Culture Systems for TME Recapitulation

While PDOs alone represent a significant advancement, the tumor microenvironment contains diverse cell types that critically influence cancer progression and therapeutic response. Co-culture systems that incorporate additional TME components provide even more physiologically relevant models for personalized drug testing.

Organoid-T Cell Co-Culture Models

Organoid-T cell co-cultures are emerging as practical in vitro models for evaluating novel therapeutics for immuno-oncology [40]. These systems enable the study of T cell reactivity under physiological conditions while simultaneously supporting organoid culture. In such models, tumor reactivity relies on endogenously processed and presented peptide concentration rather than exogenous peptide-loaded PDO models, providing a more authentic representation of immune-tumor interactions [40].

A key application of these co-culture systems involves using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) paired to patient-derived organoids to evaluate the capacity of blended media systems to support both T cell reactivity and organoid culture [40]. This approach allows researchers to assess parameters such as T cell-mediated organoid killing, cytokine secretion (e.g., IFN-γ), and activation of apoptosis pathways through caspase-3/7 measurement [40].

Organoid-Macrophage Co-Culture Systems

Current tumor organoid models often lack critical components of the tumor microenvironment, particularly tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) [41]. Researchers have developed co-culture systems where monocytes are induced into TAMs by cytokine and conditioned medium, then co-cultured with tumor organoids [41]. Comprehensive analysis confirms that such co-culture models can better capture intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity while retaining specific mutations of the original tumor [41].

Drug sensitivity data from cholangiocarcinoma co-culture models revealed that while gemcitabine and cisplatin are effective drugs for this cancer type, TAMs in the tumor microenvironment promote organoid growth and chemotherapy resistance [41]. This highlights the critical importance of incorporating relevant TME components when screening for therapeutic efficacy.

Experimental Protocols for Establishing Patient-Derived Co-Culture Models

Protocol: Co-Culturing Colorectal Cancer Organoids and T Cells

This protocol describes the establishment of a co-culture system using colorectal cancer-derived PDOs and T cells, adapted from published methodologies [40]:

• Establish Organoid and T Cell Cultures:

  • Prepare media and establish intestinal organoid cultures from patient-derived colorectal tumor tissues using appropriate growth media (e.g., IntestiCult Organoid Growth Medium). For cancer-derived organoids, use basal medium mixed with an equal volume of DMEM/F-12 with 15 mM HEPES [40].
  • Expand intestinal organoids through serial passaging, growing them for 1-2 days after passage before use in co-culture.
  • Obtain T cells by isolating cells from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) using immunomagnetic separation kits. Expand T cells for 1-2 days after passage or thawing in T cell expansion medium before co-culture [40].

• Prepare Co-Culture Medium:

  • Combine equal volumes of organoid growth medium (complete or basal depending on whether organoids are cancer-derived) and T cell expansion medium [40].
  • Keep the mixture on ice and add cold Matrigel (50 µL per 950 µL cold co-culture medium). Keep on ice until ready for use [40].

• Release and Rinse Organoids from Matrigel:

  • Add 1 mL of room temperature Gentle Cell Dissociation Reagent (GCDR) on top of each Matrigel dome.
  • Incubate for 1 minute at room temperature, then thoroughly scrape the Matrigel dome free using a pre-wetted pipette tip.
  • Gently pipette the GCDR in the well up and down 2-3 times to break up the dome and organoids, ensuring all pieces of Matrigel have been rinsed free.
  • Transfer the organoid mixture to a 15 mL conical tube and repeat the rinsing step for each well.
  • Incubate the tubes at room temperature on a rocking platform (~40 rpm) for 10 minutes.
  • Centrifuge at 290 × g for 5 minutes at 2-8°C and discard supernatant.
  • Add 5 mL of ice-cold DMEM + 1% BSA to each tube and gently resuspend [40].

• Seed Co-Cultures:

  • Quantify organoids per 100 µL and calculate volume needed for 1700 organoids.
  • Centrifuge again, discard supernatant, and resuspend organoids in co-culture media (50 µL per 1700 organoids).
  • Add cultured T cells to organoid suspension (50,000 cells per 50 µL).
  • Add 100 µL of organoid-T cell suspension to each well of a 96-well plate.
  • Incubate at 37°C, 5% CO₂ and begin co-culture timepoints [40].

• Functional Assays:

  • Measure organoid viability over time (e.g., Day 0, 3, 5) using CellTiter-Glo 3D as per manufacturer's instructions.
  • Assess T cell viability by flow cytometry using viability dyes (e.g., GloCell Fixability Viability Dye) over the same timepoints.
  • Measure IFN-γ secretion by ELISA at co-culture endpoints.
  • Evaluate apoptosis by measuring Caspase-3/7 activity at specified time points [40].

Protocol: Establishing Organoid Co-Cultures with Tumor-Associated Macrophages

For co-culture systems involving macrophages [41]:

• Collect peripheral blood and tumor samples from patients.
• Isolate monocytes from peripheral blood and induce them into tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) using cytokine and conditioned medium.
• Establish patient-derived tumor organoids from tumor samples.
• Co-culture induced TAMs with established tumor organoids.
• Validate that the co-culture model retains histopathological and genomic characteristics of the original tumor through comprehensive analysis.
• Perform drug sensitivity testing to evaluate how TAMs influence organoid growth and chemotherapy resistance.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Patient-Derived Model Workflows

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Organoid Growth Medium	Supports establishment and expansion of patient-derived organoids	IntestiCult Organoid Growth Medium; Basal medium for Wnt-independent tumors [40]
T Cell Expansion Medium	Maintains T cell viability and functionality in co-culture	ImmunoCult-XF T Cell Expansion Medium [40]
Extracellular Matrix	Provides 3D scaffold for organoid growth	Corning Matrigel Matrix, Growth Factor Reduced (GFR) [40]
Dissociation Reagents	Gentle release of organoids from matrix for passaging or analysis	Gentle Cell Dissociation Reagent (GCDR) [40]
Viability Assays	Measures cell viability in 3D cultures	CellTiter-Glo 3D Cell Viability Assay [40]
Cytokine Detection	Quantifies immune activation in co-cultures	Human IFN-γ ELISA Kit [40]
Apoptosis Detection	Measures programmed cell death	Caspase-3/7 Activity Assay Kits [40]
Cell Separation Kits	Isolation of specific immune cell populations	EasySep Cell Separation Kit for T cells or monocytes [40]

Visualizing Workflows and Signaling Pathways

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for establishing patient-derived organoid co-culture systems for drug screening, depicting the parallel processes of organoid development from tumor tissue and immune cell isolation from blood, culminating in functional co-culture assays.

Diagram 2: Molecular signaling pathways underlying differential chemotherapy response in patient-derived organoids, showing the divergence into sensitive and resistant phenotypes based on activation of distinct gene expression programs.

Patient-derived organoids and advanced co-culture systems represent a transformative approach in preclinical cancer research by faithfully mimicking the complex tumor microenvironment and maintaining patient-specific tumor characteristics. The demonstrated accuracy of these models in predicting clinical drug responses, with validation studies showing up to 91.7% concordance with patient outcomes, underscores their potential to revolutionize personalized cancer therapy selection [38]. As these technologies continue to evolve—incorporating additional TME components, leveraging microfluidic platforms for enhanced analysis, and integrating machine learning approaches for data interpretation—they promise to bridge the critical gap between traditional preclinical models and clinical efficacy, ultimately accelerating the development of more effective, personalized cancer treatments.

Navigating Technical Challenges: Standardization, Reproducibility, and Model Refinement

Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models, particularly multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTSs), have emerged as indispensable tools in cancer research for their ability to bridge the gap between conventional two-dimensional (2D) cultures and in vivo models. These systems uniquely recapitulate key aspects of the tumor microenvironment (TME), including 3D tumor architecture, cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions, and the development of physiological gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and therapeutic agents [42] [4]. However, the translational potential of these advanced models is critically dependent on overcoming significant consistency challenges, particularly regarding spheroid uniformity and protocol standardization.

The absence of standardized protocols has resulted in considerable variability in spheroid characteristics, complicating data interpretation and inter-laboratory comparisons. A worldwide survey revealed that despite over 80% of researchers recognizing the importance of 3D models, the majority do not regularly implement them primarily due to lack of experience and cost concerns [6]. Furthermore, an analysis of breast cancer spheroid protocols found that only 23.3% presented data about spheroid morphology, with less than 1% assessing spheroid shape parameters such as circularity [43]. This standardization gap undermines the physiological relevance of 3D models and their predictive value in drug screening applications. This technical review examines the core challenges in spheroid consistency, presents standardized methodological frameworks, and provides practical tools for researchers aiming to implement robust, reproducible 3D tumor models in their TME research.

The Impact of Spheroid Morphology on TME Recapitulation

Spheroid morphology directly influences critical TME features that affect drug response and tumor biology. Variations in size, shape, and cellular density alter internal gradient formation, hypoxia development, and proliferative characteristics—all essential elements of in vivo tumor physiology [42] [1].

Morphological Parameters and Their Biological Significance

• Size and Gradient Formation: Spheroid diameter directly impacts nutrient and oxygen diffusion capabilities. Larger spheroids (typically >500μm) develop distinct concentric zones—an outer proliferating zone, intermediate quiescent zone, and hypoxic/necrotic core—that mimic the pathophysiological gradients found in avascular tumors [42]. This gradient influences therapeutic response as drugs must penetrate these layers to reach all target cells.

• Shape and Structural Integrity: Circularity and roundness parameters indicate spheroid compactness and structural stability. Higher circularity values (closer to 1.0) suggest more uniform cell-cell contacts and ECM deposition, which affects mechanical signaling and drug penetration resistance [43]. Irregular shapes may indicate unstable aggregates with variable cell-cell adhesion, potentially skewing drug response data.

• Cellular Density and Viability: The spatial distribution of viable and necrotic cells within spheroids affects their metabolic activity and therapeutic resistance. Compact spheroids with defined necrotic cores better replicate the treatment-resistant regions of solid tumors, while loose aggregates may overestimate drug efficacy [6].

Table 1: Quantitative Morphological Characteristics of Breast Cancer Spheroid Models Across Cell Lines

Cell Line	Molecular Subtype	Average Area (μm²)	Average Diameter (μm)	Circularity	Roundness	Viability After 7 Days
MDA-MB-231	Triple-negative	386,381	701.92	0.189	0.226	>90%
SK-BR-3	HER2-enriched	309,006	627.15	0.201	0.241	>90%
T47D	Luminal A	342,897	660.45	0.215	0.258	>90%
BT474	HER2-enriched	317,542	568.76	0.234	0.281	>90%

Data adapted from tetraculture spheroid characterization studies [43]

Standardized Methodological Frameworks for Spheroid Generation

Multiple techniques exist for generating 3D tumor spheroids, each with distinct advantages, limitations, and suitability for specific research applications. Selection of an appropriate method should align with experimental objectives, available resources, and required throughput.

Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Techniques

Table 2: Technical Comparison of Primary Spheroid Generation Methods

Method	Throughput	Cost	Spheroid Uniformity	Technical Complexity	Compatibility with Stromal Cells	Key Limitations
Hanging Drop	Low-Moderate	Low	High	Moderate	Limited	Medium volume restriction, difficult handling
U-bottom/Low Attachment Plates	High	Moderate	High	Low	Excellent	Plate cost, potential well-to-well variability
Agitation-based Methods	High	Moderate-High	Low-Moderate	Moderate	Good	Shear stress, specialized equipment required
Liquid Overlay (Agarose)	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Multiple spheroid formation, merging issues
Scaffold-based Systems	Variable	High	Moderate	High	Excellent	Matrix batch effects, composition variability
Microfluidic Platforms	Moderate-High	High	High	High	Excellent	Specialized expertise, high initial investment

Data synthesized from multiple comparative studies [4] [6] [3]

Protocol for Reproducible Multicellular Tumor Spheroid Generation

The following protocol outlines a standardized approach for generating consistent tetraculture spheroids incorporating cancer cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), endothelial cells, and macrophages, adapted from established methodologies [43]:

Materials and Reagents

• Ultra-low attachment (ULA) U-bottom 96-well plates
• Appropriate cell culture medium (serum-free or reduced serum recommended)
• Dissociation reagent (enzyme-free preferred)
• Primary cells or cell lines: Cancer cells (e.g., BT474, T47D, MDA-MB-231, SK-BR-3), CAFs, endothelial cells (Ea.hy926), macrophages (THP-1)
• Centrifuge and counting equipment

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Cell Preparation and Counting:

  • Harvest and count each cell type separately using standardized protocols
  • Prepare co-culture suspension with optimized ratio (e.g., cancer cells:CAFs:endothelial cells:macrophages at 10:3:2:1 ratio)
  • Adjust final cell density based on desired spheroid size (typically 1,000-5,000 cells/spheroid)

• Spheroid Formation:

  • Dispense 100-200μL of cell suspension into each well of ULA plates
  • Centrifuge plates at 300-500 × g for 10 minutes to enhance initial cell contact
  • Maintain cultures at 37°C, 5% CO₂ with high humidity

• Culture Maintenance:

  • Monitor spheroid formation daily using brightfield microscopy
  • Perform partial medium exchange (50-70%) every 2-3 days without disturbing spheroids
  • Document morphological development and any irregularities

• Quality Assessment:

  • At day 3-5, assess spheroid morphology, circularity, and size uniformity
  • Exclude outliers exceeding ±15% of mean diameter from experimental cohorts
  • Confirm viability using live/dead staining if required

Figure 1: Standardized workflow for reproducible multicellular tumor spheroid generation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of standardized 3D tumor models requires careful selection of reagents and materials to minimize batch-to-batch variability and ensure experimental reproducibility.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Standardized 3D Tumor Spheroid Culture

Category	Specific Product/Type	Function	Standardization Considerations
Culture Vessels	Ultra-low attachment plates with U-bottom	Promote cell aggregation while preventing surface adhesion	Consistent polymer coating, well geometry, and surface energy between batches
Basal Media	Defined, serum-free formulations	Provide essential nutrients without unknown variables	Lot-to-lot consistency in components; predefined composition
ECM Components	Matrigel, collagen I, synthetic hydrogels	Mimic tumor extracellular matrix for scaffold-based models	Protein concentration standardization; minimal batch variation
Dissociation Reagents	Enzyme-free cell dissociation buffers	Retrieve cells from 3D structures for analysis	Gentle action preserving membrane integrity; consistent activity
Viability Assays	ATP-based, resazurin reduction, live/dead staining	Assess spheroid health and cytotoxicity	Validation for 3D culture penetration and linearity
Characterization Tools	Calcein AM/EthD-1, histological stains, IHC antibodies	Visualize spatial organization and marker expression	Confirmed penetration throughout 3D structure; optimized concentrations

Quantitative Morphological Assessment Framework

Systematic quantification of spheroid morphological parameters is essential for quality control and experimental standardization. The following framework outlines key parameters and measurement approaches.

Figure 2: Comprehensive morphological assessment framework for quality control

Advanced Strategies for Enhanced Reproducibility

Incorporating Tumor Microenvironment Complexity

While homospheroids (comprising only cancer cells) offer simplicity, they lack critical TME interactions. Incorporating stromal components through tetraculture systems significantly enhances physiological relevance but introduces additional standardization challenges [43] [1]. Key considerations include:

• Cell Ratio Optimization: Maintain consistent ratios between cancer cells, CAFs, endothelial cells, and immune cells. Documented ratios (e.g., 10:3:2:1 for breast cancer models) provide starting points that require validation for specific applications [43].

• Spatial Organization Monitoring: Different cancer cell lines promote distinct spatial organization patterns of stromal components. Immunofluorescence tracking of cellular distribution (e.g., CD31 for endothelial cells, CD68 for macrophages, CD90 for CAFs) ensures consistent TME recapitulation across experimental batches [43].

Protocol Adaptation for Challenging Cell Lines

Certain cancer cell lines, such as colorectal cancer SW48 cells, present particular challenges for spheroid formation, typically forming loose aggregates rather than compact spheroids under standard conditions [6]. Successful approaches include:

• Matrix Supplementation: Incorporation of low-concentration methylcellulose (0.5-1.0%) or collagen type I hydrogels can promote cell aggregation in recalcitrant lines.

• Centrifugation-Assisted Compaction: Initial low-speed centrifugation (300-500 × g for 10 minutes) immediately after plating significantly enhances compact spheroid formation across multiple CRC cell lines [6].

Addressing consistency hurdles in spheroid uniformity and protocol standardization is fundamental to advancing 3D cancer models that faithfully recapitulate the tumor microenvironment. The implementation of standardized methodological frameworks, quantitative assessment parameters, and quality control measures detailed in this review provides a pathway toward enhanced reproducibility and translational relevance. As the field progresses, emerging technologies including microfluidic systems, 3D bioprinting, and automated imaging platforms offer promising avenues for further standardization while increasing physiological complexity [3] [44]. By adopting these rigorous approaches, researchers can maximize the predictive power of 3D tumor models, ultimately accelerating therapeutic development and improving clinical translation.

The pursuit of novel therapies has encouraged the development of advanced model approaches in cancer research, with three-dimensional (3D) culture systems emerging as a transformative technology that overcomes the limitations of traditional two-dimensional (2D) cultures [45]. The critical foundation of any effective 3D cancer model lies in the careful selection of biomaterials that provide the physical and biochemical microenvironment necessary to accurately mimic in vivo conditions. Biomaterials serve as the synthetic extracellular matrix (ECM), creating a three-dimensional architecture that enables cells to interact with their environment in a physiologically relevant manner [46]. This biomaterial scaffold is fundamental to recapitulating the complex ecosystem of the tumor microenvironment (TME), which includes diverse cellular components, biochemical gradients, and physical forces that collectively influence tumor behavior and drug response [47].

The selection of appropriate biomaterials represents a critical strategic decision in cancer research and drug development, requiring careful balancing of competing priorities. While traditional 2D culture systems are simple and cost-effective, they lack the three-dimensional growth environment and physiological conditions present in native tissues [7] [12]. For instance, 2D cell culture cannot reproduce critical cell-cell communication or cell-matrix interactions, and it often leads to altered gene expression and metabolism patterns—critical factors in antitumor drug sensitivity testing [7]. Advanced 3D culture technologies—including multicellular spheroids, organoids, organ-on-chip, and 3D bioprinting—can better mimic the native TME and more accurately reflect tumor biological behavior, gene expression, and signaling pathways [7] [12]. The biomaterials that support these technologies must simultaneously provide structural support, biochemical cues, and appropriate mechanical properties while maintaining biocompatibility and cost-effectiveness for practical research applications.

Key Biomaterial Selection Criteria for 3D Cancer Models

Biocompatibility and Host Response

Biocompatibility represents the fundamental requirement for any biomaterial used in biomedical applications, ensuring that the material performs with an appropriate host response in a specific situation [48]. In the context of 3D cancer models, biocompatibility encompasses more than just the absence of cytotoxicity; it involves creating an environment that supports normal cell behavior, function, and signaling. The biological response to biomaterials plays a crucial role in selecting suitable materials for the formulation and development of tissue engineering platforms [49]. An inappropriate selection of a biomedical material may result in premature biomedical implant failure, the need for repeated surgery, cell death, chronic inflammation, prolongation of the healing period, and an increase in overall healthcare costs [48].

The foreign body response to implanted biomaterials traditionally involves a series of reactions including protein adsorption, inflammatory cell recruitment, and fibroblast encapsulation [50]. Quantitative assessment methods for biocompatibility have evolved to include measurements of encapsulation thickness, leukocyte cell counts and density, lymphocyte assays, cell infiltration distance, capillary counting, and histological scoring systems [50]. For cancer research applications, the ideal biomaterial should not only minimize inflammatory responses but also actively support the specific cellular interactions characteristic of the native TME.

Functional Performance in Mimicking TME

The functional requirements for biomaterials in 3D cancer modeling extend beyond basic structural support to actively facilitating the recreation of key TME characteristics. The extracellular matrix in native tissue is a dynamic protein network that maintains tissue homeostasis and cellular organization [7] [12]. It provides not only structural and biochemical support for cells but also participates in critical processes including proliferation, adhesion, cell communication, and cell death [7]. The major difference between 3D culture and 2D culture lies in the ability of 3D culture models to mimic this native ECM [7] [12].

Different biomaterials offer varying capabilities to replicate specific TME features. Hypoxic niches within tumors arise from uncontrolled proliferation of cancer cells and limited vascularization, creating oxygen-restricted areas that influence tumor progression and treatment resistance [47]. Similarly, the acidic microenvironment resulting from elevated glycolysis in tumor cells leads to lactate accumulation and extracellular acidification, which promotes aggressive tumor behavior and impairs immunosurveillance [47]. Biomaterial selection must consider these complex microenvironmental factors to create clinically relevant models.

Table 1: Key Functional Requirements for Biomaterials in TME Modeling

Functional Requirement	Impact on TME Modeling	Biomaterial Considerations
Structural Architecture	Influences cell migration, invasion, and metastasis	Pore size, porosity, degradation rate, mechanical stability
Biochemical Composition	Affects cell signaling, differentiation, and drug response	Presence of bioactive motifs, growth factor binding sites
Mechanical Properties	Impacts cell proliferation, stemness, and therapy resistance	Stiffness, elasticity, viscoelastic properties
Mass Transport	Governs nutrient distribution, drug penetration, and gradient formation	Permeability, diffusion characteristics, vascularization potential
Dynamic Remodeling	Enables ECM modification and cancer cell adaptation	Enzyme-sensitive degradation, cell-mediated remodeling capability

Degradation Characteristics

Biodegradation—the biological catalytic reaction of reducing complex macromolecules into smaller, less complex molecular structures—represents a critical property for biomaterials used in 3D cancer models [49]. The degradation process is crucial in the chemical absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) process of biomaterials and small molecules in the body [49]. Desirable degradation properties include appropriate degradation timing that matches the experimental timeframe, non-toxic byproducts that can be metabolized and cleared, and maintenance of mechanical properties during the degradation process.

Assessment of biomaterial degradation involves multiple complementary approaches. Physical characterization includes surface morphology assessment via SEM, mass and molecular balance transitions after exposure to simulated body fluid, and changes in mechanical properties [49]. Chemical characterization employs specialized equipment such as Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and mass spectrometry to confirm degradation and identify byproducts [49]. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) provides guidelines for degradation testing, though current standards have limitations in assessing real-time degradation and non-invasive monitoring [49].

Cost-Effectiveness and Accessibility

The economic considerations of biomaterial selection significantly impact the practical implementation and scalability of 3D cancer models in research settings. While 3D models generally offer superior biological relevance compared to 2D systems, they are typically more expensive and technically demanding [45]. Overall, 3D models are more expensive than 2D models; their assembly may require the purchasing of new laboratory products like hydrogels, scaffolds, and plastic ware as well as equipment, especially regarding imaging [45].

Cost-effectiveness analysis must consider not only the direct material costs but also associated expenses including specialized equipment, technical expertise requirements, and protocol standardization efforts. Scalability presents a particular challenge—expanding these models for high-throughput drug screening or population-level studies often requires sophisticated bioreactors and automation technologies that are not yet widely accessible [45]. The selection process should therefore balance technical performance with practical implementation constraints to ensure sustainable research programs.

Table 2: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Common Biomaterial Categories for 3D Cancer Models

Biomaterial Category	Relative Cost	Technical Requirements	Typical Applications	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Natural Polymers (e.g., Collagen, Matrigel)	Moderate	Standard cell culture facilities	Organoid culture, Spheroid formation	Biological activity, High biocompatibility	Batch-to-batch variability, Complex composition
Synthetic Polymers (e.g., PLA, PEG)	Low to Moderate	Chemical synthesis capability	3D bioprinting, Scaffold-based models	Reproducibility, Tunable properties	Limited bioactivity, May require functionalization
Hybrid Systems	High	Advanced fabrication expertise	Complex TME models, Vascularized models	Customizable properties, Enhanced functionality	Complex development, Higher cost
Decellularized ECM	High	Specialized processing equipment	Patient-specific models, Disease modeling	Tissue-specific cues, Native complexity	Limited scalability, Variable composition

Experimental Protocols for Biomaterial Evaluation

Biocompatibility Assessment Protocol

Comprehensive evaluation of biomaterial biocompatibility requires a multi-faceted approach combining in vitro and in vivo assessments. The following protocol outlines a standardized method for evaluating candidate materials for 3D cancer models:

Materials and Methods:

• Test Materials: Prepare biomaterial samples in relevant forms (scaffolds, hydrogels, or coatings) with standardized dimensions (e.g., 6 mm cylinders for subcutaneous implantation) [50].
• Sterilization: Employ ethylene oxide gas sterilization under vacuum for 24 hours (12 hours sterilization followed by 12 hours outgassing) at 22°C [50].
• In Vitro Assessment: Conduct cytotoxicity testing using direct contact assays, extract assays, and indirect contact assays according to ISO 10993-5 standards. Include cell viability assessment (CCK-8, MTS assays), apoptosis analysis, and inflammatory cytokine profiling.
• In Vivo Assessment: Utilize subcutaneous implantation models in immunocompetent mice (e.g., C3H strain). Administer appropriate analgesia pre- and post-operatively (e.g., ketoprofen/saline cocktail) [50].
• Histological Analysis: After predetermined time points (e.g., 2, 4, 8 weeks), explant samples and process for histological evaluation including H&E staining, Masson's trichrome for collagen deposition, and immunohistochemistry for immune cell markers (CD68 for macrophages, CD3 for T-cells).
• Quantitative Metrics: Apply geometric models to quantify encapsulation thickness, cross-sectional area, and shape changes of explanted biomaterials [50].

Data Interpretation: Biocompatibility is demonstrated by minimal fibrous encapsulation (typically <100μm thickness), limited inflammatory cell infiltration, and absence of necrotic tissue at the material-tissue interface. Quantitative scores should be compared against established positive and negative controls.

Functional Performance Evaluation in TME Modeling

Evaluating how effectively biomaterials support key TME characteristics requires specialized protocols that assess both structural and functional outcomes:

TME-Mimicking Capacity Assessment:

• Hypoxic Niche Formation: Measure oxygen gradients using needle-type oxygen microsensors or oxygen-sensitive fluorescent probes (e.g., Image-iT Hypoxia Reagent). Confirm HIF-1α stabilization via immunostaining.
• Acidic Microenvironment: Assess extracellular pH distribution using pH-sensitive fluorescent dyes (e.g., SNARF-1) or fluorescent protein-based pH sensors.
• Drug Penetration Testing: Evaluate chemotherapeutic agent penetration through the 3D biomaterial matrix using fluorescently tagged drugs (e.g., doxorubicin) and confocal microscopy with z-stack imaging.
• Cell-ECM Interactions: Characterize integrin binding and focal adhesion formation using immunostaining for integrin subtypes (β1, β3, β4) and focal adhesion kinase (FAK).
• Mechanical Property Mapping: Assess local stiffness variations using atomic force microscopy (AFM) with spherical probes to map Young's modulus across the biomaterial structure.

Validation Criteria: Successful TME replication is confirmed by demonstration of physiological oxygen gradients (0.5-7% O₂), acidic regions (pH 6.5-6.9), limited drug penetration mimicking in vivo barriers, and appropriate mechanotransduction signaling.

Decision Framework for Biomaterial Selection

Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Approach

The material selection process can be viewed as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem with multiple objectives, which are often conflicting and of different importance [48]. The selection of the most suitable biomaterial is considered a very complex, important, and responsible task that is influenced by many factors [48]. Formalized MCDM methods provide a systematic approach to navigate this complexity.

The MCDM framework for biomaterial selection involves two primary stages: initial screening based on absolute "strict" requirements, followed by detailed ranking based on "fine" criteria [48]. In the selection of biomaterials, biocompatibility represents a strict criterion that eliminates all materials that are not biocompatible [48]. Subsequent ranking considers conditional requirements including functional performance, degradation characteristics, and cost-effectiveness.

Several MCDM methods have been adapted for biomaterial selection applications:

• TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution): Selects alternatives that have the shortest geometric distance from the positive ideal solution and the longest geometric distance from the negative ideal solution [48].
• VIKOR (VIšekriterijumsko KOmpromisno Rangiranje): Focuses on selecting and ranking from a set of alternatives in the presence of conflicting criteria, determining compromise solutions [48].
• Extended WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment): A combination of Weighted Sum Model and Weighted Product Model that has been extended to accommodate target-based criteria common in biomaterial selection [48].

Table 3: MCDM Criteria Weights for Biomaterial Selection in TME Modeling

Selection Criterion	Sub-Criteria	Relative Weight	Measurement Method	Target Values
Biocompatibility (30%)	Cytotoxicity	10%	ISO 10993-5	>80% cell viability
	Inflammatory Response	10%	Histological scoring	Minimal immune cell infiltration
	Long-term Stability	10%	Encapsulation thickness	<100μm fibrous capsule
Functionality (40%)	TME Mimicry	15%	Hypoxia/acidification grading	Physiological gradients established
	Mechanical Properties	10%	Rheology/AFM	Tissue-matched stiffness (0.1-20 kPa)
	Degradation Profile	15%	Mass loss/Molecular weight	Match experimental timeframe
Practicality (30%)	Cost	10%	Material/processing costs	<$100/standard experiment
	Reproducibility	10%	Batch-to-batch variation	<10% variability between batches
	Technical Feasibility	10%	Protocol complexity	Standard laboratory equipment

Application to Specific Cancer Models

The optimal biomaterial selection varies significantly depending on the specific cancer type and research application. Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs), established by culturing patient cancer cells in a 3D matrix, require specific biomaterial properties to maintain similarity to the original tumor while preserving genomic and transcriptomic stability [7] [51]. The 3D architecture of organoids more accurately recapitulates the histological and phenotypic characteristics of native tumors [7].

For immunooncology applications, organoid-immune co-culture models have emerged as powerful tools for studying the TME and evaluating immunotherapy responses [51]. These models can be broadly categorized into innate immune microenvironment models (which retain native immune cells from tumor tissue) and reconstituted immune microenvironment models (where immune components are added to tumor organoids) [51]. The biomaterial requirements for these applications include enhanced capabilities for immune cell survival and function, as well as appropriate presentation of immune-modulatory factors.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of 3D cancer models requires access to specialized reagents and materials that support the complex culture systems. The following table details key research reagent solutions essential for biomaterial-based TME modeling:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for 3D TME Models

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
ECM Scaffolds	Matrigel, Collagen I, Fibrin	Provide 3D structural support and biological cues	Matrigel exhibits batch variability; consider defined alternatives for screening
Synthetic Hydrogels	PEG-based, PLA, PLGA	Reproducible, tunable mechanical properties	Enable precise control over stiffness and degradation
Specialized Media Supplements	Growth factors (EGF, FGF), Noggin, B27, R-spondin	Support stem cell maintenance and differentiation	Optimize combinations for specific cancer types [51]
Degradation Assessment Tools	ELISA kits for degradation products, fluorescent tags	Monitor biomaterial breakdown and byproduct formation	Combine multiple methods for comprehensive assessment [49]
Oxygen Control Systems	Portable oxygen meters, hypoxia chambers	Establish and maintain physiological oxygen gradients	Critical for hypoxic niche modeling [47]
Viability/Cytotoxicity Assays	CCK-8, MTS, Live/Dead staining	Assess cell health and function in 3D environments	Adapt protocols for 3D structure penetration
Immune Cell Culture Supplements	IL-2, GM-CSF, immune cell activation markers	Support immune cell survival and function in co-culture	Essential for immuno-oncology applications [51]

Visualizing Biomaterial Selection Workflows and Signaling Pathways

Biomaterial Selection Workflow

Biomaterial-Driven TME Signaling

The field of biomaterial development for 3D cancer models continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging trends shaping future research directions. Integration of advanced technologies including artificial intelligence (AI) for predictive biomaterial design, multi-omics approaches for comprehensive characterization, and high-throughput screening platforms for accelerated evaluation represent promising developments [51] [45]. These advancements are expected to enhance the predictive power of organoid models and accelerate the clinical translation of immunotherapy findings [51].

The growing emphasis on standardization and reproducibility in 3D culture systems necessitates continued refinement of biomaterial specifications and quality control measures [45]. Currently, many focuses are on harmonizing protocols for scaffold fabrication, bioprinting, cell sourcing, and analytical readouts [45]. Best practices for batch-to-batch consistency, sterility, and validated functional assays are critical to minimize variability and enable cross-laboratory comparisons [45]. This standardization is essential both for selection of natural hydrogels, such as ECM, and to acquire cell culture media as well as growth factors [45].

In conclusion, biomaterial selection represents a critical determinant of success in 3D tumor microenvironment modeling, requiring careful balancing of biocompatibility, functionality, and cost-effectiveness. By applying systematic selection frameworks, employing comprehensive evaluation protocols, and leveraging emerging technologies, researchers can develop increasingly sophisticated models that bridge the gap between in vitro studies and clinical reality. The ongoing refinement of biomaterials for cancer research holds significant promise for advancing our understanding of tumor biology, improving drug development efficiency, and ultimately enhancing patient outcomes through more personalized therapeutic approaches.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex and dynamic ecosystem comprising not only cancer cells but also various non-malignant elements, including cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), immune cells, vascular networks, and extracellular matrix (ECM) components. These elements engage in constant crosstalk, influencing tumor initiation, progression, metastasis, and response to therapy [16]. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture models fail to recapitulate this complexity, as they lack three-dimensional structure, cell-ECM interactions, and the heterogeneous cell-cell communications that define the in vivo TME [7] [3]. Consequently, data from 2D models often poorly predict clinical drug responses, with most in-vivo drug screening results failing to align with clinical trial outcomes [3].

Three-dimensional (3D) culture systems have emerged as crucial tools for bridging this gap. By providing a platform that better mimics the in vivo physiological environment, 3D models enable researchers to study tumors in a context that more closely resembles human physiology [7] [52]. Incorporating stromal cells, specifically fibroblasts and immune cells, into these 3D models is essential for creating biologically relevant systems that can accurately simulate the intricate interactions within the TME. These advanced co-culture models are transforming cancer research by providing unprecedented insights into tumor biology and enabling more predictive drug screening and personalized therapy development [16] [3].

3D Culture Foundations for TME Reconstitution

3D culture technologies provide the structural and biochemical framework necessary to support the complex interactions between different cell types within the TME. These systems can be broadly categorized into scaffold-based and scaffold-free methods, each offering distinct advantages for TME reconstitution [7].

Scaffold-based cultures utilize biocompatible materials that provide a substrate for cell adhesion, proliferation, and migration. These scaffolds can be derived from natural materials (e.g., collagen, Matrigel, chitosan) or synthetic polymers (e.g., polycaprolactone) [7]. The ECM-like environment provided by these scaffolds is crucial for maintaining proper cell polarity, differentiation, and signaling pathways that are lost in 2D cultures [7]. Organoid culture and 3D bioprinting typically utilize scaffold-based systems, making them particularly suitable for incorporating multiple cell types.

Scaffold-free approaches, such as hanging drop and rotating cell culture systems, rely on cell self-assembly to form 3D structures. The hanging drop method involves cultivating cells in suspended droplets, allowing them to aggregate into spheroids through intrinsic cellular interactions [3]. Rotating cell culture systems, such as the Rotary Cell Culture System (RCCS), maintain cells in suspension through gentle rotation, promoting the formation of tissue-like 3D structures with minimal shear stress [3]. While these methods are simpler and avoid potential scaffold-related artifacts, they may offer less control over the spatial organization of different cell types.

The Extracellular Matrix as a Foundation

The ECM serves as the foundational scaffold for 3D cultures, providing both structural support and biochemical cues that direct cell behavior. It is a dynamic network of proteins, including fibronectin, proteoglycans, and collagen, that participates in essential processes such as cell differentiation, proliferation, and response to damage [7]. In native tissue, the ECM maintains tissue homeostasis and cellular organization [7].

Matrigel, a basement membrane extract rich in laminin, collagen IV, and growth factors, remains the most widely used ECM substitute for 3D cultures, particularly for organoid generation [16]. However, researchers are increasingly exploring synthetic alternatives to improve reproducibility and reduce batch-to-batch variability [3]. Synthetic hydrogels offer tunable properties, such as adjustable pore size and biodegradation rates, making them suitable for various tumor cell types [3]. These advanced materials can be functionalized with specific peptides and signaling molecules to better mimic the native TME.

Incorporating Fibroblasts into 3D Tumor Models

Biology of Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts (CAFs)

Cancer-associated fibroblasts are among the most abundant stromal cells in the TME and play multifaceted roles in tumor progression. Unlike normal fibroblasts, CAFs exhibit an activated phenotype characterized by increased proliferation and enhanced ECM remodeling capabilities. They secrete various growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines that directly promote cancer cell proliferation, invasion, and metastasis [53]. Additionally, CAFs contribute to the physical restructuring of the TME by depositing and cross-linking collagen fibers, which can create barriers to drug delivery and facilitate cancer cell migration.

CAFs also engage in complex bidirectional signaling with tumor cells. For instance, they can express high levels of cytokines like CXCL12, which binds to CXCR4 receptors on cancer cells, activating survival pathways and promoting stemness [53]. Understanding these interactions is crucial for developing effective strategies to incorporate fibroblasts into 3D tumor models in a physiologically relevant manner.

Technical Approaches for Fibroblast Incorporation

Pre-conditioning and Activation

Before incorporation into 3D models, normal fibroblasts often require activation to acquire CAF-like properties. This can be achieved through several methods:

• Direct Co-culture Pre-conditioning: Fibroblasts are cultured in conditioned media from cancer cell lines or in direct contact with cancer cells in 2D settings for 5-7 days prior to 3D model assembly. This exposure induces transcriptional and phenotypic changes resembling CAF activation.
• Cytokine-mediated Activation: Treatment with TGF-β (5-10 ng/mL) over 72 hours effectively induces myofibroblast differentiation, characterized by increased α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) expression [53].
• Genetic Engineering: Introduction of specific oncogenes or silencing of tumor suppressor genes can create consistently activated fibroblast populations for long-term studies.

Co-culture Model Assembly

Multiple technical approaches exist for integrating fibroblasts into 3D tumor models, each offering different levels of control over spatial organization:

• Random Mixture Models: The simplest approach involves mixing pre-activated fibroblasts with tumor cells in a single suspension before embedding in ECM. This method is straightforward but results in uncontrolled spatial distribution. Typical ratios range from 1:5 to 1:1 (fibroblasts:tumor cells) depending on the tumor type being modeled.
• Stromal Barrier Models: More advanced systems create structured architectures that better mimic in vivo organization. As demonstrated in recent studies, a multilayered 3D stromal barrier can be engineered where fibroblasts self-assemble into tissue-like structures, with tumor cells positioned either within or adjacent to this barrier [53]. This configuration allows for quantitative analysis of tumor cell invasion through the fibroblast layer.
• 3D Bioprinting: This approach offers the highest spatial precision, allowing researchers to position different cell types in specific patterns within bioinks. Fibroblasts can be printed in concentric layers around tumor cores or in gradient patterns to recreate the in vivo spatial relationships observed in actual tumors.

Table 1: Technical Approaches for Incorporating Fibroblasts into 3D Models

Method	Spatial Control	Complexity	Best Applications	Typical Fibroblast:Tumor Cell Ratio
Random Mixture	Low	Low	High-throughput screening, Drug response studies	1:5 to 1:1
Stromal Barrier	High	Medium	Invasion studies, Metastasis modeling, Barrier function analysis	2:1 to 5:1 in barrier
3D Bioprinting	Highest	High	Spatial organization studies, Microenvironment patterning, Vascular invasion models	Customizable based on design

Functional Validation of Fibroblast Incorporation

Successful incorporation of fibroblasts into 3D tumor models should be validated through both phenotypic and functional assessments:

• Phenotypic Markers: Immunofluorescence staining for CAF markers (α-SMA, FAP, PDGFR-β) should show increased expression compared to normal fibroblasts. The local deposition of ECM proteins (collagen I, fibronectin) should be evident through second harmonic generation imaging or specific staining.
• Functional Assays:
  • Invasion Capacity: Measure tumor cell invasion into fibroblast-rich areas or through stromal barriers over 72-96 hours.
  • Contractility: Assess collagen gel contraction over 24-48 hours as an indicator of CAF functionality.
  • Drug Response: Compare resistance to chemotherapeutics (e.g., 5-FU, gemcitabine) in models with and without fibroblasts. Co-culture models typically show significantly enhanced resistance, better mimicking in vivo responses.

Incorporating Immune Cells into 3D Tumor Models

Immune Cell Diversity in the TME

The tumor immune landscape comprises diverse cell populations with specialized functions, broadly categorized into innate and adaptive immunity. Innate immune cells include macrophages, natural killer (NK) cells, neutrophils, and dendritic cells, which provide initial, non-specific defense mechanisms [16]. Adaptive immune cells, primarily T lymphocytes and B cells, mount antigen-specific responses and develop immunological memory [16]. Within the TME, these cells can exhibit both anti-tumor and pro-tumor activities, with their polarization and function being shaped by continuous crosstalk with cancer cells and other stromal components.

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) often adopt an M2-like, immunosuppressive phenotype that promotes angiogenesis, matrix remodeling, and T-cell inhibition [16]. Similarly, T cells can range from highly cytotoxic CD8+ T cells to regulatory T cells (Tregs) that suppress immune responses. This diversity must be considered when designing immune cell-tumor organoid co-culture models, as different immune populations require specific activation signals and culture conditions to maintain their viability and functionality in vitro.

Technical Approaches for Immune Cell Incorporation

Source and Isolation of Immune Cells

Immune cells for co-culture models can be obtained from multiple sources:

• Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells (PBMCs): Isolated from patient or donor blood via density gradient centrifugation (e.g., Ficoll-Paque), PBMCs provide a diverse immune population containing T cells, B cells, NK cells, and monocytes. PBMCs are particularly valuable for autologous co-culture systems when derived from the same patient as the tumor organoids [16].
• Isolated Immune Subsets: Specific immune populations can be purified from PBMCs using magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) or fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, or NK cells are commonly isolated for focused functional studies.
• In Vitro Differentiation: Monocytes can be differentiated into macrophages (M0) using GM-CSF or M-CSF (50 ng/mL, 6 days), which can subsequently be polarized to M1 (IFN-γ + LPS) or M2 (IL-4 + IL-13) phenotypes [16].
• Engineered Immune Cells: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells or T cells with engineered T cell receptors (TCRs) can be incorporated to study specific antigen recognition.

Co-culture System Design

Establishing successful immune cell-tumor organoid co-cultures requires careful system design:

• Direct Co-culture: Immune cells are added directly to the tumor organoid culture embedded in ECM. This allows direct cell-cell contact and paracrine signaling, ideal for studying immune cell infiltration and cytotoxic killing. For T cells, addition of IL-2 (50-100 IU/mL) and IL-15 (10 ng/mL) helps maintain viability and function [16].
• Transwell Systems: Immune cells and tumor organoids are cultured in separate compartments divided by a semi-permeable membrane. This setup allows exchange of soluble factors while preventing direct contact, useful for studying paracrine signaling without cytotoxicity.
• Microfluidic Organ-on-Chip Platforms: These systems provide precise control over fluid flow and spatial arrangement, enabling more physiological modeling of immune cell trafficking and tumor-immune interactions. They can incorporate endothelial barriers to study extravasation processes.

Table 2: Immune Cell Co-culture Methods and Applications

Method	Cell-Cell Contact	Advantages	Optimal Immune Cell Types	Key Cytokines/Additives
Direct Co-culture	Yes	Studies cytotoxicity, infiltration, immune synapse formation	T cells, NK cells, macrophages	IL-2 (50-100 IU/mL), IL-15 (10 ng/mL) for T cells/NK cells
Transwell System	No	Analysis of paracrine signaling, cytokine profiling, migration assays	All immune cell types, particularly for soluble factor studies	System-dependent, typically same as direct co-culture
Microfluidic Platforms	Controlled	Physiological flow, spatial patterning, recruitment studies, extravasation models	T cells, monocytes, neutrophils	Inclusion of chemokine gradients (CXCL9, CXCL10, CCL2)

Functional Validation of Immune Cell Incorporation

Validating successful immune cell incorporation and functionality is essential for meaningful experimental outcomes:

• Immune Cell Viability and Phenotype: Flow cytometry analysis of immune cell markers (CD3, CD4, CD8 for T cells; CD56 for NK cells; CD14/CD68 for monocytes/macrophages) and activation markers (CD69, CD25, HLA-DR) after co-culture confirms maintenance of immune identity and function.
• Cytotoxic Assays: Measurement of tumor organoid killing through:
  • Live/Dead Staining: Using fluorescent dyes (calcein-AM for live cells, propidium iodide or ethidium homodimer for dead cells) to quantify viability.
  • Caspase Activation: Detection of cleaved caspase-3 in tumor cells indicates apoptosis induction.
  • Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) Release: Quantifies plasma membrane damage as a surrogate for cell death.
• Cytokine Profiling: Multiplex ELISA or Luminex assays of co-culture supernatants for IFN-γ, TNF-α, granzymes, perforin (indicative of cytotoxic response), and IL-10, TGF-β (immunosuppressive factors).
• Imaging-Based Assessment: Time-lapse microscopy to visualize immune cell tracking, conjugation with tumor cells, and dynamic killing events. Multiplex immunofluorescence can reveal spatial relationships between immune cells and tumor cells within the 3D structure.

Advanced Multi-Cellular Co-culture Systems

Integrating Multiple Stromal Components

The most physiologically relevant 3D TME models incorporate both fibroblasts and immune cells alongside tumor cells, recreating the complex multicellular interactions observed in vivo. The sequential assembly is typically most effective:

• Fibroblast-Tumor Matrix Establishment: First, embed pre-activated fibroblasts and tumor cells in ECM to allow initial matrix remodeling and establishment of pro-tumor signaling networks (3-5 days).
• Immune Cell Introduction: Subsequently, add immune cells (PBMCs or isolated subsets) to the pre-established stroma-tumor culture. This approach prevents immediate overwhelming cytotoxicity and allows development of immunosuppressive mechanisms.
• Conditioned Media Supplementation: Use conditioned media from the established fibroblast-tumor culture (25-50% v/v) when adding immune cells to preserve soluble factors and maintain signaling continuity.

This multi-step process more accurately mimics the natural sequence of TME evolution, where stromal elements are often established before extensive immune infiltration occurs.

Engineering Challenges and Solutions

Creating complex multi-cellular 3D models presents several technical challenges:

• Differential Media Requirements: Fibroblasts, tumor cells, and immune cells often have divergent nutrient and growth factor needs. Solutions include:
  • Using basal media that support all cell types (e.g., Advanced DMEM/F12) with specialized supplements for each compartment.
  • Implementing sequential media changes tailored to different culture phases.
  • Utilizing microfluidic systems to establish separate nutrient domains.
• Cell Ratio Optimization: Maintaining physiological stromal:immune:tumor cell ratios is crucial. While these vary by tumor type, starting ratios of 5:2:1 (tumor:fibroblast:immune) often provide balanced systems that can be adjusted based on specific research questions.
• Spatial Control: Advanced techniques like 3D bioprinting enable precise positioning of different cell types. For instance, creating a fibroblast-rich periphery around tumor organoids with immune cells distributed throughout better mimics pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma architecture.

Analytical Methods for Co-culture Systems

Label-Free Viability Assessment

Traditional endpoint viability assays like CellTiter-Glo 3D require cell lysis, preventing longitudinal monitoring of the same sample. Recent advances in image analysis algorithms now enable non-destructive viability assessment, particularly valuable for co-culture systems. The Segmentation Algorithm to Assess the ViabilitY (SAAVY) represents one such approach, analyzing brightfield images to quantify viability based on morphological features like spheroid transparency and circularity [54]. This method reduces analysis time by approximately 97% compared to manual expert analysis and allows continuous monitoring of individual spheroids throughout experiments [54].

For immune co-cultures, label-free imaging can track both tumor viability and immune cell behavior simultaneously. Phase-contrast or brightfield time-lapse microscopy can capture immune cell motility, tumor organoid contraction (indicative of cytotoxicity), and changes in organoid morphology without fluorescent labeling [54].

Multiplexed Immunophenotyping

Comprehensive characterization of multi-cellular 3D models requires simultaneous assessment of multiple cell types. Multiplex immunofluorescence (e.g., CODEX, CyCIF) enables visualization of 10+ markers in the same sample, revealing spatial relationships between different cell populations. This approach can identify immune cell infiltration into tumor regions, fibroblast distribution, and expression of activation markers while preserving 3D architecture information when combined with light-sheet or confocal microscopy.

Molecular Analysis

Transcriptomic and secretomic profiling provide deeper insights into cellular crosstalk:

• Single-Cell RNA Sequencing: Reveals cell-type-specific responses to co-culture conditions and identifies novel signaling pathways activated in stromal and immune compartments.
• Spatial Transcriptomics: Maps gene expression patterns within the 3D structure, correlating molecular profiles with spatial organization.
• Cytokine Array Analysis: Quantifies secreted factors in co-culture supernatants to understand paracrine signaling networks.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for TME Co-culture Models

Reagent/Material	Function	Examples/Specifications
Basement Membrane Matrix	Provides ECM scaffold for 3D growth	Matrigel (Corning), Cultrex BME (R&D Systems), synthetic hydrogels (PEG-based)
Stem Cell Media Supplements	Supports stemness and growth in organoids	Wnt3A, R-spondin-1, Noggin, EGF, TGF-β inhibitors [16]
Cytokines for Immune Cell Maintenance	Maintains immune cell viability and function	IL-2 (50-100 IU/mL for T cells), IL-15 (10 ng/mL for NK cells), GM-CSF/M-CSF (for macrophages) [16]
Cell Isolation Kits	Purifies specific immune populations	CD8+ T cell isolation kit (Miltenyi), NK cell isolation kit (STEMCELL Technologies)
Viability Assay Kits	Measures cell viability and cytotoxicity	CellTiter-Glo 3D (Promega), calcein-AM/propidium iodide live-dead staining
Activation Cocktails	Induces CAF phenotype in fibroblasts	TGF-β (5-10 ng/mL, 72 hours) [53]
Microfluidic Chips	Enables advanced co-culture with spatial control	Organ-on-chip platforms (Emulate, Mimetas)

Signaling Pathways in Multi-Cellular TME Models

TME Signaling Network

Experimental Workflow for Co-culture Establishment

Co-culture Setup Workflow

The strategic incorporation of fibroblasts and immune cells into 3D tumor models represents a significant advancement in our ability to study the complex dynamics of the TME. By moving beyond monoculture systems, these multi-cellular approaches capture critical cellular interactions that influence tumor progression, drug resistance, and response to immunotherapy. As these technologies continue to evolve, they promise to enhance the predictive accuracy of preclinical models, accelerate drug development, and ultimately facilitate the creation of more effective, personalized cancer therapies. The ongoing refinement of co-culture methodologies, coupled with advanced analytical techniques, will further bridge the gap between in vitro models and human pathophysiology, offering unprecedented insights into the intricate ecosystem of tumors.

In modern cancer research, the establishment of reliable in vitro experimental models that faithfully mimic the complexity of the tumor microenvironment (TME) remains a paramount challenge. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures, while simple and inexpensive, fall short in replicating the original in vivo tumor architecture and provide limited cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions [2]. The critical limitation of these conventional systems extends to their use of media containing animal-derived components (xeno-components), which introduces unpredictable variables, immunogenicity, and barriers to clinical translation. The transition to xeno-free media represents a necessary evolution in cancer model systems, particularly as three-dimensional (3D) cultures emerge as physiologically relevant platforms that bridge the gap between traditional 2D cultures and animal models [2] [7].

The tumor microenvironment is a complex and dynamic mixture of cancer cells, endothelial cells, immune cells, mesenchymal stromal cells, extracellular matrix (ECM), fibroblasts, and secreted substances, all playing significant roles in tumor development and response to chemo- and immunotherapy [6]. Within this ecosystem, the ECM serves not only structural functions but also regulates crucial cellular processes through multiple inside-out or outside-in signals under both physiological and pathological conditions [2]. The aberrant crosslinking of key matrix proteins and collagen accumulation leads to increased stiffness in solid tumors, altering tumor cell behavior and phenotype [2]. Three-dimensional culture systems, particularly those employing xeno-free conditions, provide an ideal platform to investigate these complex interactions while maintaining clinical relevance and reducing unwanted variables introduced by animal-derived components.

The Limitations of Conventional 2D Culture and Xeno-Containing Media

Two-dimensional cell culture systems, widely used since the early 20th century, provide a flat-plate-supported monolayer cell culture environment [7]. While these systems offer simplicity, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness for high-throughput screening, they fundamentally lack the three-dimensional architecture necessary for maintaining proper cell polarity and shape, and cannot recreate the complex tumor microenvironment [7]. The limitations of 2D systems extend beyond structural considerations to encompass significant functional deficiencies.

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

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Culture
Cell morphology	Flat	Close to in vivo morphology
Cell growth	Rapid cell proliferation; Contact inhibition	Slow cell proliferation
Cell function	Functional simplification	Close to in vivo cell function
Cell communication	Limited cell-cell communication	Cell-cell communication, cell-matrix communication
Cell polarity and differentiation	Lack of polarity or even disappearance; incomplete differentiation	Maintain polarity; Normal differentiation
Drug response	Altered gene expression and metabolism patterns	More accurate reflection of in vivo drug sensitivity
Predictive value for clinical outcomes	Limited	Enhanced physiological relevance

In 2D cell culture, cells maintain direct contact with nutrients and growth factors in the culture medium, but lack three-dimensional structures necessary for maintaining proper cell polarity and shape [7]. These limitations lead to altered gene expression and metabolism patterns - critical factors in antitumor drug sensitivity testing [7]. The problem is compounded by the use of media containing animal-derived components such as fetal bovine serum (FBS), which introduces significant batch-to-batch variability, immunogenicity concerns, and ethical considerations [7] [3]. Moreover, the presence of undefined xeno-components creates a significant barrier for clinical translation of findings, as these conditions do not represent the human metabolic environment.

Fundamentals of 3D Culture Systems in Tumor Microenvironment Mimicry

Three-dimensional cell culture platforms have emerged as a promising approach that effectively bridges the gap between traditional cell cultures and animal models in preclinical studies [2]. The development and application of innovative in vitro 3D cellular models are crucial for unraveling the complex dynamics of cancer biology and translational cancer research [2]. Among various 3D platforms, tumor spheroids represent a simple yet advanced model that effectively mimics the structural and functional characteristics of in vivo solid tumors [2].

Spatial Organization and Gradient Formation

A defining feature of 3D culture systems is their capacity to recreate the spatial organization and metabolic gradients found in in vivo tumors. Spheroids exhibit distinct topography, metabolism, signaling, and gene expression levels that closely resemble those of cancer cells in multilayered in vivo solid tumors [2]. Regarding their spatial organization, spheroids consist of three distinct cellular zones: (a) an outer layer consisting of highly proliferative cells, (b) an intermediate layer containing quiescent, less metabolic cells, and (c) an inner core, characterized by hypoxic and acidic conditions [2]. This cellular heterogeneity creates critical gradients of nutrients and signaling molecules, O₂ or CO₂, pH, and drug penetration, properties that make spheroids an invaluable tool for tumor progression and drug resistance studies [2].

Extracellular Matrix Interactions

The extracellular matrix represents a crucial component of the tumor microenvironment, playing a pivotal role in cancer progression. Platforms for spheroid development are classified into matrix-based and matrix-independent systems, based on whether or not bioscaffolds are used to embed the 3D cell culture models [2]. Matrix-based platforms offer a 3D artificial microenvironment that is similar to native tissues, allowing for dynamic cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions within spheroids [2]. Importantly, the physicochemical and biomechanical features of the utilized bioscaffolds drive the morphology, signaling, growth, and functional properties of cancer cells [2].

Figure 1: Signaling Pathways in 3D Tumor Microenvironment. This diagram illustrates the key molecular and cellular events in 3D cultures that mimic in vivo tumor conditions, particularly highlighting the hypoxia-induced AP-1 upregulation and stromal reprogramming that drive therapy resistance.

Xeno-Free Media Formulation: Components and Rationale

The transition to xeno-free media requires systematic replacement of animal-derived components with defined human-derived or synthetic alternatives. This transition is essential for enhancing clinical relevance, reducing variability, and enabling regulatory approval for therapeutic applications.

Base Medium Composition

Xeno-free media begin with a defined basal medium that provides essential nutrients, vitamins, amino acids, and minerals. Unlike conventional media that are often supplemented with fetal bovine serum (FBS), xeno-free formulations utilize defined combinations of growth factors, hormones, and signaling molecules of recombinant human origin. This approach eliminates the undefined components present in serum while providing a more physiologically relevant environment for human cell culture.

Matrix Substitutes and Scaffolds

In scaffold-based 3D culture systems, the replacement of animal-derived matrices such as Matrigel represents a critical step in xeno-free transition. Defined synthetic hydrogels or human-derived ECM components provide alternatives that offer controllable physicochemical properties while maintaining biocompatibility. These scaffolds must possess certain porosity, have good surface activity, and possess suitable mechanical strength to promote cell-cell adhesion and proliferation [3]. Natural polymers used in xeno-free applications include collagen, gelatin, and alginate, while synthetic polymers include poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) [6].

Table 2: Xeno-Free Components for 3D Cell Culture Systems

Component Category	Traditional Xeno-Component	Xeno-Free Alternative	Function
Base Medium Supplement	Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS)	Defined growth factor cocktails (rhEGF, rhFGF)	Provides essential growth factors and hormones
3D Scaffold Material	Matrigel (mouse sarcoma)	Synthetic hydrogels (PEG, PLGA), human collagen	Provides structural support for 3D organization
Cell Adhesion Support	Animal-derived adhesion factors	Recombinant human adhesion proteins (fibronectin, vitronectin)	Facilitates cell-matrix interactions
Matrix for Organoid Culture	Basement membrane extracts	Defined synthetic polymers, human ECM components	Supports stem cell differentiation and organization
Media Additives	Animal-sourced proteins (BSA)	Human serum albumin, synthetic replacements	Carrier proteins, antioxidant functions

Technical Approaches for Xeno-Free 3D Culture Systems

Multiple technical platforms support the establishment of xeno-free 3D culture systems, each with distinct advantages and applications in cancer research. These approaches can be broadly categorized into scaffold-based and scaffold-free methods.

Scaffold-Free Techniques

Scaffold-free platforms enable cells to self-assemble through specialized culture techniques that promote cell-cell interactions without external supporting matrices. Three-dimensional cell cultures in scaffold-free platforms are able to deposit their own ECM, thereby developing intricate cell-to-cell and cell-to-matrix interactions [2]. Interestingly, studies show that the de novo matrix deposition is generated in a cell line- and culture-dependent manner [2].

• Liquid Overlay Technique: This method relies on culture plates with ultra-low adhesive properties, preventing cell attachment and forcing aggregation into spheroids. The protocol involves seeding cell suspensions onto these non-adherent surfaces, allowing cells to naturally aggregate over 24-72 hours. Regular monitoring and medium exchange are required until spheroids reach the desired size and compactness [2].

• Hanging Drop Method: This technique involves placing droplets of cell suspension on the underside of a culture plate lid, utilizing surface tension. The culture is then inverted, allowing cells to aggregate at the bottom of the droplet through gravity and intercellular adhesion. This method is straightforward and does not require special instruments or equipment, but is limited in scale and throughput [3].

• Rotating Cell Culture Systems: These systems utilize culture vessels that rotate around a horizontal axis, maintaining cells in constant suspension. This rotation facilitates uniform distribution of nutrients and oxygen while preventing cell sedimentation, allowing cells to aggregate into tissue-like 3D structures [3]. The rotating cell culture system generates very low shear force, causing minimal damage to cells.

Scaffold-Based Techniques with Defined Matrices

Scaffold-based approaches provide physical support for 3D growth using defined, xeno-free materials that mimic the native extracellular matrix.

• Hydrogel Scaffolds: These consist of hydrophilic polymer chains forming a 3D network structure in a water-rich environment [3]. Synthetic hydrogels can be tailored by adjusting molecular weight and cross-linking density to control properties like pore size and biodegradation rate. This customization makes synthetic hydrogels suitable for the 3D culture of various tumor cells [3].

• 3D Bioprinting: This technology uses cells, proteins, and other biologically active materials as fundamental units for constructing in vitro biological structures [3]. A key focus of 3D bioprinting is the creation of biomimetic objects that replicate the extracellular matrix (ECM) [3]. Through 3D bioprinting, specific ECM can be precisely replicated in vitro by controlling the presentation of functional materials [3].

• Microcarrier Scaffolds: These soluble microcarriers provide initial support for cells while serving as a medium for the diffusion of soluble factors [3]. This facilitates better adhesion, migration, proliferation, differentiation, and long-term cell growth by enhancing the interaction between cells and the materials [3].

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

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Xeno-Free 3D Cultures

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in 3D Culture
Defined Media Formulations	StemMACS, StemPro, mTeSR	Provide essential nutrients and defined growth factors without animal components
Recombinant Growth Factors	rhEGF, rhFGF-basic, recombinant Noggin	Replace serum-derived factors; support proliferation and stemness
Synthetic Hydrogels	PEG-based hydrogels, peptide nanofibers	Provide definable, reproducible 3D scaffold with tunable mechanical properties
Human-Derived Matrix Components	Human collagen, fibronectin, laminin	Provide physiological cell adhesion and signaling cues
Cell Dissociation Reagents	Recombinant trypsin, accutase	Enable gentle dissociation of 3D structures for passaging and analysis
Metabolic Assay Kits	3D cell viability assays, ATP-based kits	Enable quantification of cell viability and metabolism in 3D structures

Experimental Protocols for Establishing Xeno-Free 3D Cultures

Protocol 1: Generating Spheroids Using Ultra-Low Attachment Plates

This scaffold-free liquid overlay technique relies on culture plates with ultra-low adhesive properties to generate 3D cancer cell-derived spheroids [2].

• Cell Preparation: Harvest cells using xeno-free dissociation reagents and resuspend in defined xeno-free medium at a concentration of 1×10⁵ to 5×10⁵ cells/mL.
• Plate Seeding: Transfer 100-200 μL of cell suspension per well into 96-well ultra-low attachment round-bottom plates.
• Centrifugation: Centrifuge plates at 300×g for 5 minutes to encourage initial cell contact.
• Incubation: Culture plates at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 24-72 hours.
• Monitoring: Observe daily for spheroid formation using brightfield microscopy. Most cell lines form compact spheroids within 48 hours.
• Medium Exchange: Carefully replace 50% of medium every 2-3 days without disrupting formed spheroids.

Protocol 2: Establishing Patient-Derived Organoids in Defined Matrix

This protocol describes the embedding method for generating patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) in a defined, xeno-free environment [7] [3].

• Tissue Processing: Mechanically dissociate fresh tumor tissue into small fragments (<1 mm³) using xeno-free enzymes (collagenase, dispase).
• Cell Embedding: Mix dissociated cells with defined, xeno-free hydrogel (such as synthetic PEG-based hydrogels) at a ratio of 1:1.
• Polymerization: Plate 30-50 μL droplets of the cell-matrix mixture in pre-warmed culture plates and incubate at 37°C for 20-30 minutes to polymerize.
• Medium Overlay: Carefully add defined xeno-free medium supplemented with appropriate growth factors (EGF, Noggin, R-spondin) over the polymerized droplets.
• Culture Maintenance: Refresh medium every 2-3 days, monitoring organoid formation and growth.
• Passaging: For expansion, dissociate organoids using xeno-free dissociation reagents and repeat embedding process.

Applications in Drug Screening and Therapeutic Development

Three-dimensional tumor culture technology that effectively simulates the in vivo physiological environment has gained increasing attention in tumor drug resistance research and clinical applications [3]. By mimicking the in vivo cellular microenvironment, 3D tumor culture technology not only recapitulates cell-cell interactions but also more faithfully reproduces the biological effects of therapeutic agents [3].

Drug Resistance Studies

The spatial organization and heterogeneity of 3D cultures create microenvironments that closely mimic the drug resistance observed in clinical tumors. For instance, in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) models, 3D approaches investigating spatially defined, mutual direct cell–cell interactions between CLL B cells, autologous T cells, and BMSCs form complex scaffold-like structures reminiscent of in vivo conditions [55]. Research reveals that CLL B cells localized in the core regions of 3D structures upregulate the AP-1 transcription factor complex, which confers significant protection against therapy-induced cell death [55]. This core-specific resistance mechanism would be impossible to observe in traditional 2D cultures.

High-Throughput Drug Screening

Three-dimensional models offer significant advantages for preclinical drug evaluation. Establishing accurate preclinical drug screening models is essential prior to administering antitumor therapies [3]. Compared to animal experiments, 3D culture systems offer significant cost reductions in drug screening while considerably shortening the screening timeline [3]. This is particularly important as approximately most of in-vivo results from drug screening do not align with clinical trial outcomes [3]. The treatment of regular multi-well plates with anti-adherence solution allows researchers to generate CRC spheroids at significantly lower cost than using cell-repellent multi-well plates [6].

Figure 2: Xeno-Free 3D Culture Workflow for Personalized Medicine. This workflow illustrates the process from patient tumor sample to personalized therapy selection using xeno-free 3D culture platforms, enabling clinically relevant drug response prediction.

The transition to xeno-free media for 3D cancer models represents a critical advancement in preclinical cancer research. These defined systems eliminate the variability and clinical irrelevance associated with animal-derived components while better recapitulating the human tumor microenvironment. As 3D culture technologies continue to evolve—encompassing multicellular tumor spheroids, organoids, organ-on-chip, and 3D bioprinting—their integration with xeno-free conditions will enhance their predictive value for clinical outcomes [7].

Future developments in this field will likely focus on increasing complexity through incorporation of multiple cell types (immune cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells) within xeno-free systems, ultimately creating more comprehensive models of the tumor microenvironment [6]. Additionally, standardization of protocols and matrices will be essential for improving reproducibility across laboratories [6]. As these technologies mature, xeno-free 3D culture systems are poised to become the gold standard for preclinical drug evaluation, personalized medicine approaches, and fundamental cancer biology research, ultimately accelerating the development of more effective cancer therapies.

Benchmarking Success: How 3D Models Predict Clinical Outcomes and Advance Discovery

The study of cancer biology and the efficacy of anti-cancer therapeutics have long relied on two-dimensional (2D) cell culture systems. However, the recognition that the tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a critical role in cancer progression and treatment response has highlighted the limitations of these traditional models. Metabolic and proliferation profiling directly quantifies the significant physiological differences between cells grown in 2D monolayers and those in three-dimensional (3D) cultures, which better mimic the complex in vivo TME. This technical guide explores the core methodologies, quantitative findings, and experimental protocols that enable researchers to accurately characterize these differences, providing a crucial framework for advancing preclinical cancer research.

Core Differences Between 2D and 3D Cultures

The architectural and microenvironmental disparities between 2D and 3D culture systems fundamentally alter cell behavior, gene expression, and drug response. The table below summarizes the key differentiating factors.

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between 2D and 3D Cell Culture Systems

Characteristic	2D Culture	3D Culture	Biological Implication
Spatial Organization	Monolayer; forced apical-basal polarity [9]	Multi-layered structures; natural cell polarity [9]	Preserves in vivo-like tissue architecture and morphology [9]
Cell-ECM/ Cell-Cell Interactions	Limited, aberrant interactions with artificial substrate [9]	Natural, high-fidelity interactions with ECM and neighboring cells [4] [9]	Critical for proper cell differentiation, signaling, and survival [9]
Nutrient & Oxygen Access	Uniform, unlimited access [9]	Diffusion-limited, creates metabolic gradients [4] [19]	Generates heterogeneous microenvironments with proliferative, quiescent, and necrotic zones [19]
Gene Expression & Splicing	Altered topology and biochemistry [9]	In vivo-like expression profiles and splicing patterns [9]	Affects drug metabolism genes and stemness markers, influencing therapy response [19]
Proliferation Kinetics	High, uniform proliferation rate [19]	Reduced, heterogeneous proliferation [19]	Better models in vivo tumor growth and dormancy [19]
Drug Penetration & Response	Homogeneous, direct drug exposure [4]	Limited diffusion, mimics in vivo drug penetration barriers [4]	More accurately predicts chemoresistance and drug efficacy [56] [4]

Quantitative Profiling of Metabolic Differences

Metabolic reprogramming is a hallmark of cancer, and the culture environment profoundly influences the metabolic phenotype of cancer cells. Advanced analytical techniques, such as the Seahorse XF Analyzer, allow for real-time, quantitative assessment of metabolic fluxes.

Key Metabolic Findings

Table 2: Quantitative Metabolic Differences Between 2D and 3D Cultures

Metabolic Parameter	2D Culture Findings	3D Culture Findings	Experimental Context
Basal Oxygen Consumption Rate (OCR)	Relatively uniform across sample [56]	Higher heterogeneity between microtissues; correlates with tumor region histology [56]	Metabolic profiling of HCT116 colon cancer cells and tumor-derived microtissues [56]
Response to ATP Synthase Inhibition	Rapid decrease in OCR upon Oligomycin addition [56]	Delayed and reduced sensitivity to Oligomycin and DCCD [56]	Mitochondrial Stress Test on HCT116 cells [56]
Glucose Dependency	High proliferation dependency; cessation of growth and cell death under deprivation [19]	Reduced dependency; survival and proliferation via alternative pathways under deprivation [19]	Proliferation assay with U251-MG and A549 cells under glucose restriction [19]
Per-Cell Metabolite Consumption/Production	Lower per-cell consumption [19]	Increased per-cell glucose consumption and higher lactate production in 3D [19]	Microfluidic monitoring of A549 and U251-MG cells [19]
Metabolic Heterogeneity	Low intra-sample variance [56]	Significant heterogeneity, even within microtissues from the same tumor [56]	Profiling of 26 microtissues from a single MiaPaCa2 tumor [56]

Experimental Protocols for Metabolic and Proliferation Profiling

This section provides detailed methodologies for key experiments quantifying the differences between 2D and 3D models.

Protocol 1: Mitochondrial Stress Test in 3D Spheroids

This protocol adapts the standard Agilent Seahorse XF Cell Mito Stress Test for 3D spheroids, a key tool for assessing mitochondrial function [56].

• 3D Model Generation: Generate spheroids using a method such as the hanging drop technique to ensure uniformity and minimal inter-spheroid metabolic heterogeneity (Coefficient of Variance <10%) [56].
• Tool Preparation: Utilize a custom micro-chamber tool designed to hold a single spheroid in each well of a 96-well Seahorse plate. This prevents movement during measurements and creates a consistent micro-environment for OCR and ECAR readings [56].
• Spheroid Loading: Carefully transfer individual spheroids into the indented wells of the prepared tool.
• Sensor Cartridge Calibration: Hydrate the Seahorse XF Sensor Cartridge in XF Calibrant solution at 37°C in a non-CO2 incubator for at least 12 hours before the assay.
• Assay Medium Replacement: Prior to the assay, replace the growth medium with Seahorse XF Base Medium, supplemented according to the cell type's requirements (e.g., 1 mM pyruvate, 2 mM glutamine, and 10 mM glucose). Adjust the pH to 7.4.
• Inhibitor Preparation: Prepare the metabolic inhibitors in the assay medium:
  • Oligomycin (ATP synthase inhibitor): 1.5 µM final concentration in port A.
  • FCCP (Uncoupler): 2.0 µM final concentration in port B.
  • Rotenone/Antimycin A (Electron transport chain inhibitors): 0.5 µM final concentration each in port C.
• Metabolic Flux Analysis: Load the cartridge into the Seahorse XFe96 Analyzer and run the standard Mito Stress Test program. Note the delayed OCR response to oligomycin in 3D spheroids compared to 2D monolayers, which is indicative of intrinsic differences in ATP synthase sensitivity and not solely due to diffusion limitations [56].

Protocol 2: Establishing 3D Spheroids for Drug Screening

This protocol outlines a scaffold-free, cost-effective method for generating multicellular tumour spheroids (MCTS) for high-throughput drug screening, based on a 2025 study on colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines [6].

• Surface Treatment: To avoid expensive cell-repellent plates, treat standard U-bottom 96-well plates with an anti-adherence solution. A common method is to coat wells with a 1% (w/v) solution of poly-2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (poly-HEMA) in 95% ethanol, allowing it to air dry under sterile conditions [6] [57].
• Cell Seeding: Prepare a single-cell suspension of the chosen CRC cell line (e.g., SW48, HCT116, DLD1). Seed cells into the coated U-bottom plates at an optimized density (e.g., 1,000 - 5,000 cells/well in 100-200 µL of complete medium). Centrifuge the plate at low speed (e.g., 300 x g for 3 minutes) to aggregate cells at the bottom of the well.
• Spheroid Formation: Incubate the plate at 37°C in a 5% CO2 incubator. Compact spheroids typically form within 24-72 hours. For cell lines like SW48 that historically form loose aggregates, this method has been shown to successfully produce compact spheroids [6].
• Co-culture Setup (Optional): To enhance physiological relevance, establish co-cultures by seeding cancer cells together with immortalized colonic fibroblasts (e.g., CCD-18Co cells) at a defined ratio (e.g., 1:1) [6]. This allows for the study of tumor-stroma interactions.
• Drug Treatment & Viability Assay: After spheroid formation (typically 3-5 days), add chemotherapeutic agents. Following an appropriate incubation period (e.g., 72 hours), assess cell viability using 3D-optimized assays like CellTiter-Glo 3D. This assay measures ATP levels, correlating with metabolically active cells, and is suitable for the complex architecture of spheroids [6] [19].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for 2D vs. 3D Profiling Experiments

Item	Function/Application	Example Products / Components
Extracellular Matrix (ECM) Scaffolds	Provides a biologically relevant 3D scaffold for cell adhesion, migration, and signaling; mimics the native TME [4] [12].	Matrigel, collagen type I, hyaluronic acid, synthetic hydrogels (e.g., PEG, PLGA) [4] [6] [57].
Non-Adherent Surfaces	Prevents cell attachment, forcing cell-cell interaction and promoting spheroid self-assembly in scaffold-free methods [6].	Poly-HEMA-coated plates, agarose-coated plates, commercial ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates [9] [6].
Metabolic Flux Analyzer	Real-time, simultaneous measurement of Oxygen Consumption Rate (OCR) and Extracellular Acidification Rate (ECAR) in live cells [56] [12].	Agilent Seahorse XF Analyzer with customized tooling for 3D microtissues [56].
Metabolic Inhibitors	Key reagents for the Mitochondrial Stress Test to probe specific aspects of mitochondrial function [56].	Oligomycin, FCCP, Rotenone, Antimycin A [56].
3D-Viable Cell Viability Assays	Quantifies the number of metabolically active cells within 3D structures; more reliable than standard assays designed for 2D monolayers [19].	CellTiter-Glo 3D, Alamar Blue (Resazurin) assay [19].
Microfluidic "Organ-on-Chip" Systems	Creates dynamic, perfused 3D cultures that allow for controlled gradients, mechanical cues, and real-time monitoring of metabolites [4] [19].	Commercial or custom-designed microfluidic chips for embedding cells in collagen or other hydrogels [19].

Signaling and Workflow Visualization

The following diagrams, generated using Graphviz DOT language, illustrate the core experimental workflow for metabolic profiling and the key interactions within the 3D tumor microenvironment that drive physiological differences.

Metabolic Profiling Workflow

3D TME Interactions

Therapeutic resistance represents a defining challenge in clinical oncology, directly contributing to disease relapse and poor patient outcomes [58]. It is a primary cause of treatment failure, affecting approximately 90% of chemotherapy patients and more than 50% of those receiving targeted therapies or immunotherapy [58]. This resistance manifests through complex, dynamic mechanisms that operate across multiple biological scales—from genetic mutations to microenvironmental adaptations—creating formidable barriers to successful treatment.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a pivotal role in driving resistance mechanisms through its intricate network of cellular components, extracellular matrix (ECM), and signaling molecules [4] [1] [59]. Within this complex ecosystem, three-dimensional architecture and cell-cell interactions create physiological barriers that significantly impair drug penetration and efficacy [59] [60]. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures have proven insufficient for modeling these complex interactions, as they fail to recapitulate critical TME features such as oxygen and nutrient gradients, cell-ECM interactions, and spatial organization of diverse cell populations [4] [7].

Advanced 3D culture systems have emerged as powerful tools that bridge the gap between simplistic 2D monolayers and complex in vivo models [1] [61]. By better mimicking the pathophysiological conditions of human tumors, these platforms enable more accurate investigation of drug penetration barriers and resistance mechanisms, providing critical insights for developing more effective therapeutic strategies [4] [7].

3D Culture Systems: Mimicking the Tumor Microenvironment

The Critical Role of the Tumor Microenvironment in Drug Resistance

The tumor microenvironment represents a complex ecosystem comprising both cellular and non-cellular components that collectively influence tumor behavior and therapeutic response [1] [61]. The cellular compartment includes cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), immune cells, endothelial cells, and adipocytes, while the non-cellular compartment consists of the extracellular matrix, growth factors, cytokines, and physicochemical gradients [1] [59]. This dynamic network establishes bidirectional communication with tumor cells, significantly influencing cancer progression, metastasis, and drug resistance [1] [60].

Cell-cell interactions within the TME are mediated through adhesion molecules such as cadherins, selectins, and integrins, which regulate cell signaling, survival, and migratory capacity [1]. Simultaneously, cell-ECM interactions modulate cellular polarity, differentiation, and mechanotransduction pathways [1]. The TME also exhibits distinct biochemical gradients, including oxygen, nutrients, and pH, which create heterogeneous microdomains with varying proliferative capacity and drug sensitivity [4] [60]. This spatial heterogeneity represents a fundamental challenge to effective drug delivery, as therapeutic agents must penetrate these complex biological barriers to reach all tumor cell populations [59].

3D Culture Technologies for TME Modeling

Several 3D culture platforms have been developed to recapitulate specific aspects of the TME, each offering distinct advantages and limitations for drug resistance studies [4] [7].

Table 1: Comparison of Major 3D Culture Platforms for TME Modeling

Technique	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations	Applications in Drug Resistance Studies
Scaffold-based Systems	Natural (collagen, Matrigel) or synthetic polymers providing ECM support	Accurate tissue recapitulation; Tunable stiffness	Expensive; Variability in natural polymer composition	Studying ECM-mediated resistance; Migration assays
Spheroids	Self-assembled cell aggregates; Scaffold-free	Easy to perform; Inexpensive; Appropriate for multicellular systems	Variability in spheroid size; ECM not addable	Drug penetration studies; Hypoxia models
Organoids	Stem cell-derived 3D structures with self-organization	Preserve tumor heterogeneity; Long-term expansion	Technically challenging; Time-consuming	Personalized medicine; Biobanking for drug screening
Organ-on-a-Chip	Microfluidic perfusion systems with multiple cell types	Rapid spheroid formation; Size uniformity; Constant perfusion	Expensive; Specialized equipment needed	Metastasis studies; Vascular permeability
3D Bioprinting	Precision deposition of cells and biomaterials	Digital design; Personalized architecture; High precision	Limited biomaterial options; Printing accuracy constraints	Custom TME models; Spatial control of components

These advanced 3D culture systems demonstrate superior biomimicry compared to traditional 2D models, preserving critical in vivo characteristics such as appropriate cell morphology, proliferation kinetics, cell-cell communication, and cell polarity [7]. The enhanced biological relevance of 3D models makes them particularly valuable for investigating drug resistance mechanisms and screening therapeutic candidates [4] [61].

Modeling Drug Resistance Mechanisms in 3D Systems

Physiological Barriers to Drug Penetration

The three-dimensional architecture of tumors creates substantial physical and physiological barriers that significantly limit drug penetration and distribution [4] [60]. In 3D spheroid models, distinct concentric zones emerge that mirror in vivo tumor conditions: a proliferative outer zone with adequate nutrient access, a quiescent middle region, and a necrotic core under severe hypoxia and nutrient deprivation [60]. This compartmentalization establishes diffusion gradients for oxygen, nutrients, and waste products that directly influence cellular behavior and drug sensitivity [4].

The extracellular matrix composition significantly impacts drug penetration through direct binding and sequestration of therapeutic compounds [59]. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, for example, the dense fibrous stroma can constitute up to 90% of tumor volume, dramatically increasing interstitial fluid pressure and impairing vascularization, thereby creating a substantial physical barrier to drug delivery [58]. Cancer-associated fibroblasts further exacerbate this problem by secreting abundant ECM proteins and activating matrix-remodeling enzymes that alter tissue stiffness and porosity [59] [60].

Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance

Beyond physical barriers, 3D culture systems reveal complex cellular and molecular adaptations that drive therapeutic resistance. Tumor heterogeneity represents a fundamental challenge, as subpopulations of cancer cells with diverse genetic, epigenetic, and phenotypic characteristics exhibit differential sensitivity to treatments [59]. This heterogeneity enables Darwinian selection under therapeutic pressure, where pre-existing resistant clones expand or new resistance mechanisms emerge through adaptive evolution [58] [59].

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) represent a particularly resilient subpopulation characterized by enhanced DNA repair capacity, multidrug transporter expression, and dormant states that collectively confer resistance to conventional therapies [59]. These cells can be maintained and studied more effectively in 3D culture systems, which provide appropriate niche signals and cell-cell contacts essential for preserving stemness properties [7].

At the molecular level, resistance mechanisms include genetic alterations such as target gene mutations, epigenetic reprogramming that establishes drug-tolerant persister states, and post-translational modifications that alter protein function and stability [58] [59]. Additionally, 3D cultures demonstrate how therapy-induced secretion of resistance factors (e.g., IGF, HGF) into the microenvironment creates paracrine survival signals that protect both sensitive and resistant cell populations [62].

Experimental Modeling of Drug Penetration and Response

Protocol for Establishing 3D Co-culture Models

To effectively model the TME and drug resistance mechanisms, researchers can establish sophisticated 3D co-culture systems that incorporate multiple cell types and extracellular matrix components [60]. The following protocol outlines the key steps for creating a representative liver cancer microenvironment model, adaptable to other cancer types:

Materials and Reagents:

• Cancer cell line (e.g., HepG2 for hepatocellular carcinoma)
• Stromal cells (e.g., SV-80 human fibroblasts)
• Appropriate culture medium (e.g., high-glucose DMEM with 10% FBS)
• Poly-HEMA coated ultra-low attachment flasks or plates
• 3D scaffold systems (e.g., Alvetex strata inserts for fibroblasts)
• ECM components (e.g., collagen, Matrigel) for scaffold-based cultures

Methodology:

• Preparation of 3D Cancer Cell Spheroids:
  • Harvest cancer cells using standard trypsinization and create a single-cell suspension
  • Seed cells at a density of 1×10^6 cells in poly-HEMA coated ultra-low attachment flasks
  • Incubate at 37°C in 5% CO2 humidified incubator for 3-5 days
  • Monitor spheroid formation daily using inverted microscopy
  • Harvest spheroids once they reach diameters of 200-500 μm for experimentation

• Establishment of 3D Fibroblast Culture:

  • Prepare Alvetex inserts by washing sequentially with 70% ethanol and growth media
  • Seed fibroblasts at a density of 0.5-1×10^6 cells in the prepared inserts
  • Culture for 5-7 days to allow ECM deposition and tissue maturation

• Assembly of Co-culture System:

  • Transfer mature cancer spheroids to standard culture plates
  • Place fibroblast-containing inserts into the same wells, establishing a two-way communication system
  • Maintain co-cultures for specific experimental durations with regular medium changes

This co-culture approach enables direct investigation of tumor-stroma interactions and their contribution to drug resistance mechanisms, providing a more physiologically relevant platform than monoculture systems [60].

Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Drug Resistance Studies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Drug Resistance Modeling

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in 3D Models	Application in Resistance Studies
Scaffold Materials	Collagen I, Matrigel, Hyaluronic Acid, Synthetic polymers (PCL, PLA)	Provide 3D structural support; Mimic native ECM mechanics	Study ECM-mediated drug resistance; Cell-ECM interaction blockade
Oxygen Manipulation	Cobalt(II) Chloride (CoCl₂), Dimethyloxallylglycine (DMOG)	Chemical induction of hypoxia; Stabilize HIF-1α	Hypoxia-induced resistance; HIF pathway inhibition
Cell Viability Assays	CellTiter-Glo 3D, AlamarBlue, ATP-based luminescence assays	Quantify cell viability in 3D structures; Penetrate spheroids	Drug efficacy screening; IC50 determination in 3D context
Matrix Degradation Enzymes	Collagenase, Hyaluronidase, MMP inhibitors	Modulate ECM density and composition	Test whether ECM disruption enhances drug penetration
Cytokine/Antibody Panels	TGF-β, FGF, EGF, VEGF neutralizing antibodies	Block specific signaling pathways	Target microenvironment-mediated resistance mechanisms

Quantitative Assessment of Drug Response in 3D Models

Drug sensitivity testing in 3D cultures requires specialized approaches that account for the additional diffusion barriers and cellular heterogeneity not present in 2D systems [7]. Key methodological considerations include:

Treatment Protocol:

• Establish baseline viability measurements before drug exposure
• Apply therapeutic compounds across a concentration range (typically 0.1-100 μM)
• Include appropriate vehicle controls and reference compounds
• Maintain treatment for 3-7 days to capture both immediate and adaptive responses
• Refresh drugs and medium every 2-3 days to maintain consistent concentrations

Response Assessment:

• Utilize ATP-based viability assays (e.g., CellTiter-Glo 3D) optimized for spheroid penetration
• Perform immunohistochemical analysis of marker expression (e.g., Ki-67, cleaved caspase-3)
• Assess compound penetration using fluorescently-labeled drugs or analogous compounds
• Measure gene expression changes in resistance-related pathways via RT-qPCR
• Analyze spatial distribution of cell death within spheroids using confocal microscopy

Data Analysis:

• Calculate IC50 values specific to the 3D culture context
• Determine penetration efficiency through concentration gradient measurements
• Assess heterogeneity in response across different spheroid regions
• Compare 3D vs. 2D responses to identify microenvironment-specific resistance

Mathematical Modeling of Drug Resistance and Treatment Response

Computational Frameworks for Predicting Resistance Dynamics

Mathematical modeling provides powerful complementary approaches to experimental systems for understanding and predicting drug resistance dynamics [62] [63]. These computational frameworks integrate quantitative data from 3D culture systems to simulate tumor growth, treatment response, and resistance evolution under various conditions.

Stochastic differential equation (SDE) models can describe the dynamics of heterogeneous cell populations while accounting for microenvironmental adaptations [62]. A representative model structure includes:

Cellular Population Dynamics:

• dCₛ/dt = rₛCₛ(1 - (Cₛ + Cᵣ)/K) - μCₛ - δₛDCₛ + σ₁dW₁/dt + λₛCₛdN/dt
• dCᵣ/dt = rᵣCᵣ(1 - (Cₛ + Cᵣ)/K) + μCₛ + σ₂dW₂/dt + λᵣCᵣdN/dt

Where Cₛ and Cᵣ represent drug-sensitive and resistant cell populations, r denotes growth rates, K is carrying capacity, μ is mutation rate, δ reflects drug-induced death, D is drug concentration, σ represents stochastic fluctuations, and λ accounts for dissemination rates [62].

Microenvironmental Adaptations: The secretion of drug-induced resistance factors (DIRFs) by tumor cells under therapeutic pressure can be modeled as:

• dF/dt = (Vₘₐₓ × D/(Kₘ + D)) × Cₛ - kd × F

Where F represents DIRF concentration, Vₘₐₓ is maximal secretion rate, Kₘ is the Michaelis constant, and kd is degradation rate [62]. This formulation captures how therapy itself can activate pro-survival signaling that protects resistant cell populations.

Integration of Experimental Data with Computational Predictions

The true power of mathematical modeling emerges when these computational frameworks are parameterized with experimental data from 3D culture systems [63]. Key parameters that can be quantified experimentally include:

• Growth rates (rₛ, rᵣ) from longitudinal size measurements of 3D structures
• Mutation rates (μ) from sequencing of drug-resistant clones
• Drug sensitivity (δₛ) from dose-response curves in 3D contexts
• Secretion kinetics (Vₘₐₓ, Kₘ) from cytokine measurements in conditioned media
• Diffusion coefficients from drug penetration studies in spheroids

This integrated approach enables researchers to simulate treatment outcomes, identify critical resistance nodes, and optimize combination therapies before advancing to more resource-intensive in vivo studies [62] [63]. Models can predict distinct patterns of dose-dependent synergy for different drug combinations, providing valuable insights for clinical translation [62].

Three-dimensional culture systems have fundamentally transformed our approach to modeling drug penetration and therapeutic resistance by providing physiologically relevant platforms that bridge the gap between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo models [4] [1] [61]. These advanced tools capture critical features of the tumor microenvironment—including 3D architecture, cell-cell interactions, ECM composition, and metabolic gradients—that collectively influence drug response and resistance development [7] [60].

The integration of 3D experimental systems with computational modeling approaches represents a particularly promising direction for future research [62] [63]. This combined methodology enables researchers to not only observe resistance phenomena but also to predict their dynamics under different therapeutic strategies, potentially accelerating the identification of effective combination therapies that prevent or overcome resistance [58] [59].

As 3D technologies continue to evolve—with advancements in organoid culture, microfluidic systems, 3D bioprinting, and high-content imaging—their predictive power for clinical outcomes is expected to increase significantly [8] [61]. These improvements will further establish 3D models as indispensable tools in the drug development pipeline, enabling more efficient identification of effective therapeutic strategies and ultimately improving patient outcomes in the ongoing battle against cancer drug resistance [4] [7].

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a paradigm shift in cancer research. These advanced in vitro systems significantly improve the preservation of original tumor genetic and transcriptomic signatures, thereby offering more clinically predictive models for drug discovery and personalized medicine. This technical guide explores the capacity of various 3D culture technologies—including spheroids, organoids, and tumor-on-a-chip devices—to maintain the pathological fidelity of native tumors. We detail rigorous validation methodologies focused on authenticating in vitro models against patient tumor benchmarks, with emphasis on standardization protocols that address critical technical variables influencing transcriptomic reproducibility. For research and drug development professionals, this whitepaper provides essential frameworks for establishing biomimetic tumor models that faithfully recapitulate in vivo biology.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex ecosystem comprising malignant cells, stromal components, immune cells, and extracellular matrix (ECM) elements that collectively influence disease progression and therapeutic response [1] [64]. Traditional 2D cell culture systems, while valuable for high-throughput screening, fundamentally fail to recapitulate this complexity, leading to poor clinical translation of preclinical findings [65]. Notably, only approximately 5% of new anticancer compounds successfully achieve clinical approval, with many failures attributed to toxicity and efficacy issues not predicted by conventional models [65].

A significant limitation of 2D cultures is their inability to maintain the original genetic and molecular signatures of patient tumors. Cells cultured as monolayers experience unnatural stiffness, altered cell polarity, and homogeneous nutrient exposure, which collectively drive genotypic and phenotypic divergence from the original tumor biology [65]. This divergence manifests in altered gene expression profiles, signaling pathways, and drug sensitivity patterns that reduce the predictive value of preclinical studies.

Three-dimensional culture technologies have emerged as powerful alternatives that bridge the gap between simplistic 2D systems and complex in vivo environments [4]. By preserving tissue architecture, cell-ECM interactions, and spatial organization, 3D models provide a more physiologically relevant context for studying tumor biology and therapeutic response [64]. The central thesis of this work posits that the biomimetic properties of 3D culture systems significantly enhance the preservation of original tumor genetic and transcriptomic signatures, thereby creating more faithful preclinical platforms for drug development and personalized medicine approaches.

3D Culture Technologies: Bridging the Fidelity Gap

Various 3D culture platforms have been developed with distinct advantages for preserving tumor biology. Understanding their technical specifications enables appropriate model selection for specific research applications.

Table 1: Comparison of Major 3D Culture Technologies

Technology	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations	Tumor Signature Preservation
Multicellular Spheroids	Cell aggregates formed via forced floating or hanging drop methods [4]	Simple protocol, low cost, recapitulates cell-cell interactions, establishes nutrient/oxygen gradients [1]	Limited ECM component integration, variability in size uniformity, static culture environment	Maintains basic tumor architecture and gradient-dependent gene expression patterns
Organoids	3D structures derived from stem cells or patient tissues with self-organization capacity [12]	Preserves patient-specific genetic alterations, long-term expandability, recapitulates histological features [12]	Technically challenging, time-consuming establishment, variable success rates across cancer types	High fidelity to original tumor genomics and transcriptomics; suitable for biobanking
Scaffold-Based Systems	Utilizes natural (e.g., collagen, Matrigel) or synthetic polymers to provide structural support [4]	Customizable biomechanical properties, enables cell-ECM interactions, improved biomimicry	Batch-to-batch variability with natural polymers, potential immunogenicity	Enhances microenvironment-specific gene expression through biomechanical signaling
Tumor-on-a-Chip	Microfluidic platforms integrating 3D culture with continuous perfusion [4] [64]	Recreates physiological fluid flow, enables vascularization studies, permits real-time monitoring	Specialized equipment required, technical complexity, limited throughput	Maintains dynamic TME interactions and shear stress-responsive gene expression

Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) deserve particular emphasis for their exceptional capacity to preserve original tumor characteristics. Extensive characterization demonstrates that PDTO models maintain greater similarity to original tumors than 2D-cultured cells while preserving genomic and transcriptomic stability [12]. These models bridge the gap between 2D cancer cell lines and patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDTX), enabling the establishment of biobanks that capture inter-patient heterogeneity [12].

Decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) scaffolds represent another advanced approach that provides tissue-specific biochemical and biomechanical cues. These scaffolds retain complex ECM compositions and numerous growth factors, creating a more native microenvironment that supports authentic cell behavior and signaling [66]. The use of liver dECM scaffolds (dLECMs) has demonstrated particular success in maintaining hepatocellular carcinoma cell phenotypes and drug response profiles [66].

Validating Genetic and Transcriptomic Fidelity: Methodological Frameworks

Robust validation is essential to confirm that in vitro models faithfully preserve the genetic and transcriptomic features of original tumors. Multiple complementary approaches provide comprehensive assessment of model fidelity.

Genetic Stability Assessment

DNA-level validation ensures preservation of genomic alterations driving tumor pathogenesis:

• Copy Number Variation (CNV) Analysis: Spatial subclones within tumor microregions can be identified by clustering based on CNV similarity, with validation against whole-exome sequencing data [5]. This approach has detected 1-3 subclones per section in analyses of 125 tumor sections across multiple cancer types [5].
• Somatic Mutation Tracking: Mapping somatic mutations from original tumors to in vitro models confirms maintenance of clonal architecture. Studies have successfully mapped 1-98 mutations specifically to tumor regions in spatially distinct samples [5].
• Long-term Genetic Stability: Periodic genomic characterization throughout culture duration monitors drift from original profiles. Organoid models have demonstrated particularly strong genetic stability across multiple passages [12].

Transcriptomic Preservation Analysis

RNA-level validation assesses functional molecular phenotypes:

• Gene Expression Profiling: NanoString nCounter Technology enables targeted analysis of metabolism-related pathways using minimal sample input, as demonstrated in endometrial cancer studies [67]. This method identified 11 deregulated genes (FDR ≤ 0.05; |FC|≥ 1.5) associated with 'central carbon metabolism in cancer' [67].
• Bulk and Single-Cell RNA Sequencing: Comprehensive transcriptome assessment validates maintenance of original expression patterns, particularly for critical pathways like proliferation, hypoxia response, and stemness [5] [68].
• Pathway Activity Mapping: Gene set enrichment analysis determines whether biological processes observed in original tumors are preserved in vitro. Studies have revealed overlapping processes in radiation-treated and untreated patients, including proliferation and immune responses [69].

Table 2: Key Analytical Methods for Transcriptomic Validation

Method	Key Applications	Sensitivity	Throughput	Implementation Considerations
NanoString nCounter	Targeted gene expression without amplification, validation of signature panels [67]	High (detects low-abundance transcripts)	Medium (800+ genes simultaneously)	Minimal sample input requirements, excellent for FFPE samples
RNA Sequencing	Genome-wide expression profiling, novel transcript discovery, splicing analysis [68]	Very high (with sufficient depth)	Variable (targeted to whole transcriptome)	Requires bioinformatics expertise, higher sample quality needs
qRT-PCR	High-confidence validation of specific targets, rapid screening [67]	Very high for targeted genes	Low to medium (dozens to hundreds of genes)	Gold standard for validation, requires pre-defined targets
Spatial Transcriptomics	Mapping gene expression to tissue architecture, preserving spatial context [5]	Increasing with newer platforms	Low to medium (developing rapidly)	Preserves spatial information, technically complex

Technical Standardization for Reproducibility

Technical variability significantly impacts transcriptomic data interpretation. Multiple factors require standardization:

• Normalization Methods: Preprocessing algorithms profoundly influence calculated gene expression values. Research demonstrates that limits of agreement between radiosensitivity index (RSI) values can exceed 20% with different normalization approaches (MAS5, RMA, IRON) [69].
• Batch Effect Control: Incorporation of multiple datasets with appropriate correction methods minimizes technical artifacts. Studies have successfully implemented tissue/tumor-specific mean correction across 14 datasets to mitigate batch effects while preserving biological signals [68].
• Reference Standards: Implementation of internal controls and reference samples enables cross-experiment normalization and quality control.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful establishment and validation of 3D tumor models requires specialized reagents and materials that support complex culture systems.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Culture and Validation

Category	Specific Examples	Function	Considerations
Matrix Scaffolds	Matrigel, collagen, decellularized ECM (dECM) [66], synthetic polymers (PEG, PLA) [4]	Provides 3D structural support, biomechanical cues, and biochemical signals	Natural matrices offer bioactivity but have batch variability; synthetic polymers provide consistency but may lack native ligands
Culture Media	Stem cell media, defined organoid media, conditioned media [66]	Supports proliferation and maintenance of stemness/differentiation balance	Must be optimized for specific tumor types; may require growth factor supplementation
Cell Sources	Patient-derived tumor cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), immune cells [66] [1]	Recapitulates cellular heterogeneity of TME	Primary cells have limited lifespan; immortalized lines offer consistency but may lack authenticity
Analysis Kits	Live/dead staining (Calcein-AM/PI) [66], DNA quantification, ECM component assays	Assess viability, composition, and basic characteristics	Standardized kits improve reproducibility across experiments
Molecular Analysis	NanoString panels [67], RNA extraction kits, single-cell RNAseq reagents	Genetic and transcriptomic characterization	Choice depends on required resolution, throughput, and sample quality/quantity

The implementation of robust genetic and transcriptomic validation frameworks ensures that 3D in vitro models faithfully preserve original tumor signatures, thereby enhancing their predictive value in drug development and personalized medicine. As these technologies continue evolving, several frontiers promise further improvements:

• Integration of Artificial Intelligence: Deep learning approaches can identify subtle transcriptomic patterns that distinguish tumor states. Neural networks trained on 13,461 RNA-seq samples successfully recognized consistent cancer signatures across diverse tumor types, revealing features under strong evolutionary constraints [68].
• Advanced Spatial Profiling: Technologies combining transcriptomic data with spatial context provide unprecedented resolution of tumor microregional organization. The identification of spatial subclones with distinct CNVs and differential oncogenic activities highlights intratumoral heterogeneity previously obscured in bulk analyses [5].
• Multi-omic Integration: Combining genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data creates comprehensive molecular portraits of tumor models, enabling systems-level validation.
• Standardization Initiatives: Community efforts to establish reference standards, protocols, and benchmarking criteria will improve reproducibility and cross-study comparisons.

The strategic implementation of validated 3D tumor models represents a transformative approach in cancer research, offering more physiologically relevant systems that bridge the gap between traditional in vitro models and clinical reality. Through rigorous attention to genetic and transcriptomic fidelity, these advanced platforms accelerate the development of more effective, personalized cancer therapies.

The drug discovery process remains lengthy and costly, characterized by a notably low success ratio during clinical trials. At least 75% of novel drugs that demonstrate efficacy during preclinical testing fail in clinical phases due to insufficient efficacy or poor safety profiles [70] [71]. This failure is particularly pronounced in oncology, where the clinical success rate of new drugs is only 3.4% compared to 20.9% for other disease areas [72]. A primary contributor to this high attrition rate is the poor predictive power of traditional preclinical models, especially two-dimensional (2D) cell culture systems, which fail to accurately recapitulate the complex tumor microenvironment (TME) [7] [72].

The limitations of these conventional models have created an urgent need for more physiologically relevant platforms that can better bridge the gap between preclinical findings and clinical outcomes. Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models have emerged as promising tools to address this challenge, offering enhanced biological relevance while remaining suitable for drug screening applications [7] [70]. This technical review examines how 3D culture systems mimic critical aspects of the tumor microenvironment and their potential to transform the predictive accuracy of preclinical cancer drug testing.

Limitations of Traditional Models

Two-Dimensional Cell Culture Systems

Traditional 2D cell culture, where cells grow as monolayers on flat, rigid plastic surfaces, has been the standard for drug screening due to cost-effectiveness and streamlined processes [70] [71]. However, these systems lack the three-dimensional architecture and cellular interactions present in living tissues. Key limitations include:

• Altered Cell Morphology and Polarity: Cells in 2D culture adopt flattened morphologies with partial or lost polarity, unlike their in vivo counterparts [7].
• Simplified Cell Communication: Limited cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions fail to replicate the complex signaling networks found in tumors [7].
• Altered Gene Expression and Metabolism: The unnatural growth environment leads to fundamental changes in gene expression patterns and metabolic profiles [7] [19].
• Uniform Nutrient Exposure: Unlike tumors in vivo, all cells in 2D cultures receive equal nutrient access, preventing the formation of metabolic gradients [19].

Animal Models

While animal models provide a whole-organism context, they present other challenges for drug discovery:

• Species-Specific Differences: Non-human cells and pathogens may not faithfully mimic human pharmacological responses [73].
• Compromised Immune Systems: Humanized mouse models often require immunocompromised hosts, limiting study of immunotherapeutic approaches [73].
• Time and Cost Intensive: Animal studies are expensive, time-consuming, and not practical for high-throughput screening [7].
• Ethical Considerations: Growing ethical concerns and regulatory pressures encourage alternatives to animal testing [74] [73].

Table 1: Comparison of Preclinical Model Systems

Parameter	2D Models	Animal Models	3D Models
Physiological Relevance	Low	High (but species-specific)	Medium-High
Throughput Capability	High	Low	Medium-High
Cost Effectiveness	High	Low	Medium
Microenvironment Complexity	Limited	Complete but non-human	Tunable human-specific
Predictive Value for Clinical Efficacy	10% success rate [19]	10% success rate [73]	Emerging evidence of improved predictivity
Regulatory Acceptance	Established	Established	Growing

How 3D Models Mimic the Tumor Microenvironment

Three-dimensional cancer models bridge critical gaps between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo tumors by recapitulating key aspects of the tumor microenvironment through multiple mechanisms:

Architectural and Physical Cues

The 3D architecture of tumors significantly influences cellular behavior and drug response. Unlike 2D systems, 3D models enable:

• Three-Dimensional Cell Morphology: Cells in 3D culture adopt shapes and orientations closer to their in vivo counterparts, maintaining proper polarity and differentiation [7].
• Extracellular Matrix (ECM) Interactions: Scaffold-based 3D systems provide biochemical and biophysical cues through ECM components like collagen, fibronectin, and laminin, which activate important signaling pathways affecting cell survival, proliferation, and drug resistance [7] [71].
• Mechanical Forces: Cells in 3D environments experience mechanical stresses similar to those in tissues, influencing gene expression and cellular behavior [19].

Biochemical Gradients

The three-dimensional organization in tumor spheroids and organoids establishes diffusion gradients that mirror those in poorly vascularized tumors:

• Oxygen Gradients: 3D models develop hypoxic cores similar to those found in avascular tumors, activating hypoxia-inducible factors and related pathways [19].
• Nutrient Gradients: Differential access to nutrients like glucose and glutamine creates metabolic heterogeneity, with cells in outer layers exhibiting different metabolic profiles than those in the core [19].
• Metabolic Waste Accumulation: Byproducts like lactate accumulate in core regions, creating acidic microenvironments that influence drug efficacy and resistance mechanisms [19].

Cellular Heterogeneity and Interactions

Advanced 3D models better replicate the cellular complexity of tumors through:

• Cell-Cell Interactions: Enhanced cadherin-mediated junctions and other intercellular contacts in 3D models facilitate more authentic signaling and communication networks [7] [70].
• Multiple Cell Type Incorporation: Co-culture systems within 3D matrices allow incorporation of stromal cells, immune cells, and endothelial cells to model tumor-stroma interactions [74].
• Cancer Stem Cell Maintenance: The 3D environment better supports cancer stem cell populations, which are crucial for understanding tumor initiation, metastasis, and recurrence [7].

3D Culture Technologies and Methodologies

Scaffold-Based Systems

Scaffold-based approaches provide structural support that mimics the extracellular matrix, representing approximately 80.4% of the 3D cell culture market share [74]. These include:

Natural Hydrogels and Derivatives:

• Collagen: Type I collagen is widely used as an ECM protein in 3D culture platforms. Its chemical and physical properties can be altered by changing concentration and gelation temperature, modulating cell proliferation and drug response [71].
• Matrigel: Basement membrane extract from mouse chondrosarcoma containing naturally occurring cytokines and growth factors that influence cell signaling and drug response [71].
• Fibrin: Natural polymer formed during wound healing, used in angiogenesis and biomechanics research, though limited for long-term culture due to high sensitivity to protease-mediated degradation [71].

Synthetic Polymers: Synthetic materials like polycaprolactone offer tunable mechanical properties and reproducibility, though they may lack natural biological cues [7].

Scaffold-Free Systems

Scaffold-free methods rely on cell self-assembly without external supporting structures:

• Spheroids: Self-assembled cellular aggregates that mimic key aspects of tumor microenvironment including 3D cell-to-cell interactions and nutrient/oxygen gradients [72]. Formation techniques include:

  • Hanging Drop Method: Cells aggregate in liquid droplets suspended from culture plate lids [70] [71].
  • Low-Attachment Plates: Specialized plates with ultra-low attachment surfaces promote cell aggregation [72].
  • Magnetic Levitation: Cells incubated with magnetic nanoparticles form spheroids under magnetic fields [70] [71].

• Organoids: More complex structures that recapitulate functional and structural aspects of organs, typically derived from adult stem cells or patient-derived tumor cells [7]. Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) maintain greater similarity to original tumors than 2D-cultured cells while preserving genomic and transcriptomic stability [7].

Advanced Biofabrication Technologies

Emerging technologies enable more precise construction of 3D models:

• Microfluidic Systems and Organs-on-Chips: These platforms integrate microscale fluid control to create dynamic microenvironments with continuous nutrient supply and waste removal, more closely mimicking in vivo conditions [19] [74].
• 3D Bioprinting: Layer-by-layer deposition of cells and biomaterials to create complex, spatially controlled tissue architectures with precise cellular positioning [70] [74].
• Bioreactors: Hollow chambers that control perfusion, temperature, humidity, and gas exchange to support larger 3D tissue constructs [70].

Table 2: 3D Culture Technology Comparison

Technology	Key Features	Applications	Throughput Potential
Scaffold-Based Hydrogels	ECM-mimetic environment, tunable stiffness	Drug screening, migration studies, stem cell differentiation	Medium
Spheroids	Simple formation, gradient development	High-throughput drug screening, metabolic studies	High
Organoids	High physiological relevance, patient-specific	Personalized medicine, disease modeling, mechanism studies	Medium
Microfluidic Chips	Dynamic flow, mechanical stimulation	Metastasis studies, vascular integration, ADME testing	Medium
3D Bioprinting	Precise spatial control, multicellular architecture	Complex tissue modeling, tissue engineering	Low-Medium

Experimental Protocols for 3D Culture Applications

Protocol 1: Spheroid Formation for Drug Screening

Materials:

• CellCarrier Spheroid ULA microplates (Revvity) or other ultra-low attachment U-bottom plates [72]
• Single cell suspension of tumor cell lines
• Appropriate cell culture medium with serum
• ATPlite 3D viability assay reagent or similar 3D-optimized assays [72]

Method:

• Prepare single cell suspension using standard trypsinization techniques.
• Seed cells at optimized density (e.g., 750 cells/well for HT-29 in 384-well U-bottom ULA plates) [72].
• Centrifuge plates at low speed (100-200 × g for 1-2 minutes) to aggregate cells at bottom of wells.
• Culture for 1-8 days, allowing spheroid formation and maturation.
• Monitor spheroid growth using brightfield microscopy (10× magnification recommended) [72].
• Treat with compound libraries diluted in appropriate medium.
• Assess viability using 3D-optimized ATP-based assays like ATPlite 3D, which penetrate spheroid structures more effectively than standard MTS/CCK-8 assays [72].

Protocol 2: Micro-CT Visualization of Cells in Collagen Scaffolds

Materials:

• Collagen scaffolds (porous sponges, hydrogels)
• 3% aqueous phosphotungstic acid (PTA) solution in distilled water [75]
• Micro-CT imaging system
• Cell culture reagents

Method:

• Seed cells onto collagen scaffolds using standard cell seeding techniques.
• Culture for appropriate duration to allow cell distribution throughout scaffold.
• Fix samples with appropriate fixative (e.g., paraformaldehyde).
• Contrast with 3% PTA solution for 24 hours to enhance X-ray attenuation [75].
• Image using micro-CT with optimized parameters for soft tissue (voxel size 1-5 μm³) [75].
• Analyze 3D distribution of cells within scaffold architecture using segmentation software.
• Correlate with confocal microscopy for multimodal validation when needed [75].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Culture

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Prevents cell adhesion, promotes spheroid formation	Essential for scaffold-free spheroid culture; available in 96-, 384-well formats [72]
Matrigel	Basement membrane matrix providing ECM components	Contains growth factors; requires low-temperature handling [71]
Type I Collagen	Natural ECM hydrogel for 3D encapsulation	Tunable mechanical properties; neutralization required before use [71]
Phosphotungstic Acid (PTA)	Contrast agent for micro-CT imaging of soft tissues	3% aqueous solution effective for collagen scaffolds; 24-hour incubation [75]
ATPlite 3D	Viability assay optimized for 3D structures	Enhanced penetration compared to standard 2D viability assays [72]
CellTracker Dyes	Fluorescent cell labeling for live imaging	Enables tracking of multiple cell types in co-culture systems [76]

Applications in Drug Development Pipeline

Target Identification and Validation

Three-dimensional models provide more physiologically relevant contexts for studying novel drug targets:

• Gene Expression Analysis: 3D cultures demonstrate significant differences in gene expression compared to 2D, with alterations in genes like ANXA1, CD44, OCT4, SOX2, and ALDH1 that may better reflect in vivo target relevance [19].
• Pathway Activation Studies: Signaling pathways in 3D models more accurately represent in vivo states, improving confidence in target selection [7].

Compound Screening and Lead Optimization

The enhanced biological relevance of 3D models makes them valuable for early drug screening:

• High-Throughput Screening (HTS): Spheroid-based assays in U-bottom plates enable screening of compound libraries with add-and-read viability assays [72].
• Combination Therapy Discovery: 3D spheroid screening identified effective drug combinations for pancreatic cancer that were not apparent in 2D screens [72].
• Dose Response Assessment: 3D models often show different dose-response curves than 2D models, potentially more predictive of clinical efficacy [71].

Predictive Biomarker Development

Patient-derived organoids and spheroids facilitate biomarker discovery:

• Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers: Integrative analysis of drug transcriptomics in 3D models can identify gene expression profiles that capture variation in pharmacological responses [7].
• Biobanks for Biomarker Validation: Large collections of patient-derived organoids enable correlation of genomic features with drug sensitivity patterns [7].

Current Challenges and Future Perspectives

Technical and Standardization Challenges

Despite their promise, 3D models face several implementation challenges:

• Protocol Standardization: Lack of standardized protocols and reproducibility concerns hinder large-scale adoption, with variability in methods leading to inconsistent experimental outcomes [74].
• Complexity in Imaging and Analysis: Traditional imaging techniques struggle with 3D structures, though advancements in micro-CT with contrast agents like phosphotungstic acid are addressing these limitations [75].
• Scalability and Throughput: While improving, 3D models generally remain more complex and lower throughput than 2D systems, particularly for advanced models like organoids and bioprinted tissues [70].

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

Several emerging technologies and approaches show promise for enhancing 3D model utility:

• Integration of Artificial Intelligence: Deep learning applications for image analysis of 3D cultures enable automated quantification of complex morphological features and drug responses [7] [77].
• Multiplexed Imaging Technologies: Advanced microscopy techniques including light sheet fluorescence microscopy and multicolor real-time imaging allow dynamic monitoring of cellular behavior and drug distribution in 3D models [76].
• Vascularization Strategies: Incorporation of endothelial cells and microfluidic perfusion systems to create vascularized models that better mimic nutrient and drug delivery in tissues [70] [76].
• Immuno-Oncology Applications: Co-culture of tumor organoids with immune cells to model response to immunotherapies like checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cells [74].

Three-dimensional cell culture models represent a transformative technology for bridging the critical gap between preclinical discovery and clinical success in oncology drug development. By better mimicking key features of the tumor microenvironment—including three-dimensional architecture, biochemical gradients, cellular heterogeneity, and stromal interactions—these models provide more physiologically relevant contexts for assessing drug efficacy and safety. The growing toolbox of 3D technologies, from simple spheroids to complex patient-derived organoids and organs-on-chips, offers researchers multiple options tailored to specific applications throughout the drug development pipeline.

While challenges in standardization, scalability, and data analysis remain, rapid advancements in biofabrication, imaging, and computational analysis are steadily addressing these limitations. As the field matures and validation studies accumulate, 3D models are poised to significantly improve the predictive accuracy of preclinical testing, potentially reducing the high failure rates that have long plagued oncology drug development. With the global 3D cell culture market projected to grow from $1,494.2 million in 2025 to $3,805.7 million by 2035 [74], substantial investment and innovation in this space will likely accelerate its impact on drug discovery and development in the coming years.

Conclusion

3D cell culture technologies represent a paradigm shift in cancer modeling, successfully bridging the critical gap between simplistic 2D monolayers and complex in vivo physiology. By faithfully replicating the tumor microenvironment's architecture, cellular interactions, and metabolic gradients, these advanced platforms provide unprecedented insights into tumor biology and drug resistance mechanisms. The methodological progress in scaffold design, bioprinting, and patient-derived organoids has enabled more accurate preclinical drug screening and personalized therapeutic strategies. However, widespread adoption requires addressing standardization, reproducibility, and cost challenges. Future directions will focus on integrating adaptive immunity, developing multi-organ systems, and leveraging artificial intelligence for data analysis. As these models continue to evolve, they hold immense potential to accelerate oncology drug development, reduce animal testing, and ultimately improve patient outcomes through more predictive and personalized cancer medicine.

References

• 1. Modelling the complex nature of the tumor microenvironment [https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-024-00997-9]
• 2. Mimicking the Complexity of Solid Tumors: How Spheroids ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11987746/]
• 3. 3D tumor cultures for drug resistance and screening ... [https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-025-02281-2]
• 4. In Vitro 3D Cultures to Model the Tumor Microenvironment [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8231786/]
• 5. Tumour evolution and microenvironment interactions in 2D ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08087-4]
• 6. Comparative analysis of 3D-culture techniques for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13588-x]
• 7. Bridging the gap: the role of 3D cell cultures in mimicking ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12378905/]
• 8. Advances in tumor microenvironment: Applications and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X24008751]
• 9. 2D and 3D cell cultures – a comparison of different types of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6040128/]
• 10. Is It Time to Start Transitioning From 2D to 3D Cell Culture? [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2020.00033/full]
• 11. Comparative analysis between 2D and 3D colorectal ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45144-w]
• 12. Bridging the gap: the role of 3D cell cultures in mimicking ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1498141/full]
• 13. 3D vs 2D Cell Culture: Key Insights and Advantages [https://www.mimetas.com/en/blogs/345/3d-cell-culture-vs--traditional-2d-cell-culture-explained.html]
• 14. 3D vs. 2D Culture Systems: A Comprehensive Comparison ... [https://www.creative-biolabs.com/3d-biology/3d-vs-2d-culture-systems.htm]
• 15. Organoid models in oncology: advancing precision cancer ... [https://www.cancerbiomed.org/content/early/2025/07/24/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0127]
• 16. Tumor organoid-immune co-culture models - Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-025-02407-x]
• 17. Modeling Biochemical Gradients In Vitro to Control Cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11468757/]
• 18. 3D Cell Culture Systems: Tumor Application, Advantages, ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34830082/]
• 19. 2D versus 3D tumor-on-chip models to study the impact of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03504-8]
• 20. Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research [https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-024-00994-y]
• 21. Current strategies with implementation of three- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9372643/]
• 22. Quantitative volumetric Raman imaging of three ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14843]
• 23. Recent advances in 3 cell D in cancer drug development culture models [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40005-025-00740-y]
• 24. 3D Cell Culture Methods and Applications [https://elveflow.com/microfluidic-reviews/3d-cell-culture-methods-and-applications-a-short-review/]
• 25. Standardized Methodology of Scaffold-Free ... - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12566299/]
• 26. Comparative Analysis of 3 Bladder D Spheroids Obtained by... Tumor [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28878686/]
• 27. Hanging drop culture reprograms mesenchymal stem cell ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13346-025-01927-4]
• 28. Scaffolds Mimicking the Tumor Microenvironment for In Vitro ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12562159/]
• 29. Tumor Microenvironment and Hydrogel-Based 3D Cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8870468/]
• 30. Reductionist Three-Dimensional Tumor Microenvironment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8909517/]
• 31. Synthetic and natural polymer hydrogels: A review of 3D ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0141813024069356]
• 32. Exploring cell dynamics and tumor ... microenvironments [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41245788/]
• 33. Tumor extracellular matrix enhances invasive gene ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12196-z]
• 34. Frontiers | Influence of Microenvironment on Mesenchymal Stem Cell... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00640/full]
• 35. An early-stage 3D fibroblast-featured tumor model mimics ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1572315/full]
• 36. 3D bioprinting and its innovative approach for biomedical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9790048/]
• 37. Spatially controlled construction of assembloids using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40006-5]
• 38. Personalized drug screening using patient-derived ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11293329/]
• 39. Establishing predictive machine learning models for drug ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-00937-2]
• 40. -Culturing Colorectal Co and T Cells using IntestiCult™ and... Organoids [https://www.stemcell.com/co-culture-colorectal-organoids-and-t-cells.html]
• 41. Construction and drug screening of Co-culture system ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024124085]
• 42. 3D Cell Culture Models as Recapitulators of the Tumor ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8749977/]
• 43. Development of tetraculture spheroids as a versatile 3D ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12556-9]
• 44. Exploring Cancer Cell Culture in 2025: Emerging Models ... [https://cellculturecompany.com/exploring-cancer-cell-culture-advances-and-applications/]
• 45. A New Frontier in Cancer Research, Drug Discovery, and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/7/875]
• 46. for biomimetic Functional in vitro biomaterials ... 3 D tumor [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11756483/]
• 47. : barrier or opportunity towards Tumor ... microenvironment effective [https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-022-00866-3]
• 48. Development of a Decision Support System for Biomaterial ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/16/9198]
• 49. A review of biomaterial degradation assessment ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41529-024-00487-1]
• 50. Quantitative Evaluation of the In vivo Biocompatibility and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6954349/]
• 51. Breakthroughs and challenges of organoid models for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-025-02505-w]
• 52. Advancing cancer research through 3D cell culture models [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41103502/]
• 53. Engineering a Multilayered 3D Stromal Barrier Model for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742706125006774]
• 54. Nondestructive, quantitative viability analysis of 3D tissue ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10985731/]
• 55. 3D Tumor microenvironment interaction reveals AP‐1 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12348881/]
• 56. Metabolic Profiling of healthy and cancerous tissues in 2D ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15325-5]
• 57. 3D approaches to model the tumor microenvironment of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7163433/]
• 58. Drug resistance in cancer: molecular mechanisms and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12623568/]
• 59. Unveiling the mechanisms and challenges of cancer drug ... [https://biosignaling.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12964-023-01302-1]
• 60. Modelling liver cancer microenvironment using a novel 3D ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11641-7]
• 61. Breaking the mold: 3D cell cultures reshaping the future of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2024.1507388/full]
• 62. Mathematical Modeling of Therapy-induced Cancer Drug ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22498]
• 63. Advancing Cancer Drug Development with Mechanistic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11795844/]
• 64. : From 2 Tumor ... | Technology Networks Microenvironment D Cultures [https://www.technologynetworks.com/cancer-research/articles/optimizing-cell-culture-models-to-mimic-the-tumor-microenvironment-397706]
• 65. 3D Cell Culture Models as Recapitulators of the Tumor ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/14/1/190]
• 66. Construction of 3 in vitro models with an immune... D tumor [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/bm/d4bm00754a]
• 67. Identification and subsequent validation of transcriptomic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40994-w]
• 68. Identifying common transcriptome signatures of cancer by ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-022-02681-3]
• 69. Validation of In Vitro Trained Transcriptomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10340371/]
• 70. A comprehensive review on 3D tissue models [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142961223004167]
• 71. A Comprehensive Review on 3D Tissue Models [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10843844/]
• 72. Why you should use 3D cell models for high throughput ... [https://www.revvity.com/blog/why-you-should-use-3d-cell-models-high-throughput-screening]
• 73. 3D cell culture: market and industrial needs [https://elveflow.com/microfluidic-reviews/3d-cell-culture-market-industrial-needs/]
• 74. 3D Cell Culture Market Size, Share & Growth 2025 to 2035 [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/3d-cell-culture-market]
• 75. Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Micro-CT Visualization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11311787/]
• 76. Visualization of micro-agents and surroundings by real ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17297-7]
• 77. Light and electron microscopy continuum-resolution ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1534580723000928]