Morphological Comparison of 3D Cell Culture Methods: From Spheroids to Organoids

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the morphological characteristics of major 3D cell culture techniques, including scaffold-based and scaffold-free methods. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it explores how different methodologies—from liquid overlay and hanging drop to Matrigel and hydrogel systems—fundamentally influence cellular architecture, spheroid compactness, and tissue-like organization. By integrating foundational principles, methodological applications, troubleshooting guidance, and comparative validation, this review serves as a strategic resource for selecting appropriate 3D models that yield physiologically relevant data, ultimately enhancing the predictive power of in vitro research for drug discovery and disease modeling.

Why 3D Morphology Matters: Bridging the Gap Between 2D Culture and In Vivo Physiology

For decades, two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cell culture has served as the foundational model for in vitro research, enabling significant advancements in our understanding of cellular mechanisms. However, the very nature of this system—forcing cells to grow as a flat monolayer on rigid plastic surfaces—fundamentally alters their biology. This article examines the core limitations of 2D culture, focusing on the loss of native tissue architecture and polarity, and explores how the data and methodologies from contemporary studies underscore the critical need for more physiologically relevant three-dimensional (3D) models in biomedical research and drug development.

Core Limitations of the 2D Monolayer System

The 2D environment presents cells with an artificial and simplistic reality that fails to recapitulate the complex in vivo milieu from which they are derived.

• Loss of Three-Dimensional Architecture and Polarity: In vivo, cells possess distinct apical, basal, and lateral surfaces, a feature known as polarity, which is essential for specialized functions like secretion and absorption. In 2D cultures, this structural organization is absent; cells are flattened and stretched to adhere to the flat substrate, losing their natural 3D shape and functional polarity [1] [2]. This also disrupts proper cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions, which are critical for maintaining tissue-specific function and signaling.

• Aberrant Cell Signaling and Gene Expression: The rigid, flat environment of plastic flasks (with a Young's modulus of ~100,000 kPa, far stiffer than natural soft tissues) creates unnatural physical and biochemical cues [3]. This leads to altered gene expression and protein synthesis. For instance, hepatocytes grown in 2D express markedly different cytochrome P450 (CYP) profiles compared to their 3D counterparts, which has profound implications for drug metabolism studies [4].

• Accelerated Cellular Senescence and Functional Decline: The stressful 2D microenvironment accelerates cellular aging. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) expanded in 2D rapidly undergo senescence, losing their replicative ability and therapeutic potency, which compromises their utility for regenerative therapies [3] [1]. Similarly, the secretion of therapeutic factors and extracellular vesicles (EVs) from MSCs is significantly diminished in 2D culture compared to 3D systems [1] [5].

Quantitative Evidence: 2D vs. 3D Performance

The following tables consolidate experimental data from recent studies, highlighting the functional disparities between 2D and 3D culture systems.

Table 1: Functional and Phenotypic Changes in MSCs in 2D vs. 3D Culture

Parameter	2D Culture Performance	3D Culture Performance	Significance	Source
Cell Proliferation	Declines with passaging	Preserved in novel hydrogel Bio-Block platform	Enables large-scale expansion of functional cells	[5]
Cellular Senescence	Induced and accelerated	Reduced by 30-37%	Maintains "youthful" phenotype for therapy	[3] [5]
Immunomodulatory Function	Compromised at high passages	Significantly enhanced in spheroids	Critical for therapeutic efficacy in inflammatory diseases	[3]
Extracellular Vesicle (EV) Yield	Low	Increased by ~44% in Bio-Blocks; 24-fold increase in 3D bioreactors	Higher yield is crucial for clinical translation of EV therapies	[1] [5]
EV Therapeutic Cargo	Limited enrichment	Enriched with anti-inflammatory factors, miRNAs, and proteins	Enhances cardioprotective, neuroprotective, and anti-inflammatory effects	[1]

Table 2: Drug Response and Viability in Cancer Models: 2D vs. 3D

Cell Type / Disease Model	2D Culture Response	3D Culture Response	Implication	Source
Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma	Higher sensitivity to MDM2 inhibitor SAR405838	Higher cell viability post-treatment; cells died by apoptosis/necrosis	Better models drug resistance seen in tumors	[6]
Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Cell Lines	Homogeneous drug exposure	Gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and drug penetration	Recapitulates in vivo tumor heterogeneity and therapy resistance	[7]
Ovarian Cancer (PEO4 cell line)	Standard proliferation and drug sensitivity assays	Proliferation and drug response quantified in 3D bioprinted multi-spheroids	Provides more accurate data for predicting clinical outcomes	[8]

Advanced 3D Culture Methodologies and Protocols

To overcome the limitations of 2D systems, researchers have developed sophisticated 3D culture techniques. The choice between scaffold-based and scaffold-free methods depends on the research application and the biological question being asked.

Scaffold-Based Techniques

Scaffold-based methods utilize a supportive 3D matrix that mimics the native extracellular matrix (ECM), providing mechanical support and biochemical cues.

• Matrigel ECM Scaffold Method for Liposarcoma:

  • Protocol: A mixture of 50 μL Matrigel and single cells (4x10³ cells) is formed into a dome shape in a well. After a 3-minute incubation at 37°C, the plate is flipped upside down for 15-20 minutes to set. The plate is then righted, and culture media is added [6].
  • Application: Used to culture liposarcoma cell lines, where it was found that some lines formed spheroids within the Matrigel, while others did not, highlighting cell line-specific responses [6].

• Collagen ECM Scaffold Method:

  • Protocol: A hydrogel solution is prepared by mixing Type I collagen with 10x PBS, NaOH, and water to a final concentration of 3 mg/mL collagen at pH 7.4. This solution is mixed on ice with a cell suspension (1x10⁵ cells/mL) at a 1:1 ratio. The mixture is seeded into a plate and incubated at 37°C for 30 minutes to solidify before media is added [6].
  • Application: Serves as a more defined alternative to Matrigel for creating 3D cancer models, demonstrating different morphological outcomes and drug resistance profiles [6].

Scaffold-Free Techniques

Scaffold-free techniques rely on cell-self-assembly and are often simpler and more cost-effective.

• Hanging Drop Method for Colorectal Cancer Spheroids:

  • Protocol: Drops of cell suspension (typically 10-20 μL) are pipetted onto the lid of a tissue culture dish. The lid is then carefully inverted and placed over a bottom dish containing PBS to maintain humidity. Gravity pulls the cells to the bottom of the drop, where they aggregate into a single spheroid [7] [6] [9].
  • Application: Effectively used to generate multicellular tumour spheroids (MCTS) from a panel of eight colorectal cancer cell lines. This method allows for high-throughput spheroid formation but can vary in size consistency [7].

• Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates:

  • Protocol: A cell suspension is added directly to multi-well plates whose surfaces have been treated with a cell-repellent hydrogel or coating. The low-adhesion surface prevents cells from attaching, forcing them to aggregate into spheroids [7] [6].
  • Application: A straightforward and scalable method for producing uniform spheroids, ideal for high-throughput drug screening. Studies have shown that treating regular multi-well plates with an anti-adherence solution can generate CRC spheroids at a significantly lower cost than using commercial cell-repellent plates [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for 3D Cell Culture

Item	Function and Application	Examples / Key Features
Basement Membrane Matrix	Provides a biologically active scaffold rich in ECM proteins for organoid and spheroid growth.	Matrigel (Corning) [6]
Natural Polymer Hydrogels	Mimic the native ECM; used for embedding cells in a 3D environment.	Type I Collagen (e.g., Rat tail collagen), Alginate [3] [6]
Synthetic Polymer Hydrogels	Offer defined composition, high consistency, and tunable mechanical properties.	Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), Polylactic Acid (PLA) [8] [9]
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Prevent cell adhesion, enabling scaffold-free spheroid formation via forced floating.	Corning Spheroid Microplates; cost-effective anti-adherence solutions [7] [2]
Bioreactors for 3D Culture	Enable large-scale, dynamic 3D cell culture for high-yield production of cells or secretome.	Hollow fiber bioreactors, vertical-wheel bioreactors with microcarriers [1]
Advanced 3D Culture Platforms	Novel biomimetic platforms designed to preserve stem cell phenotype and secretome.	Bio-Block hydrogel platform [5]
3D Viability Assays	Quantify cell viability and proliferation in 3D structures, overcoming diffusion limits of 2D assays.	CellTiter-Glo 3D Assay [8]
2-Isopropylpyrimidin-4-amine	2-Isopropylpyrimidin-4-amine | High-Purity RUO	2-Isopropylpyrimidin-4-amine: A high-purity pyrimidine derivative for medicinal chemistry & biochemical research. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.
Sinomedol N-oxide	Sinomedol N-oxide | High-Purity Research Compound	Sinomedol N-oxide for research applications. This product is For Research Use Only (RUO) and is not intended for personal use.

The evidence is clear: 2D monolayer culture systems, while historically invaluable, are fundamentally limited by their inability to recapitulate the native tissue architecture and polarity that governs cellular behavior in vivo. The loss of these critical features leads to aberrant signaling, accelerated senescence, and poor predictive power in drug discovery and regenerative medicine. The data from cutting-edge studies strongly advocates for the adoption of 3D culture models. By providing a more physiologically relevant context, 3D systems—whether scaffold-based or scaffold-free—are paving the way for more accurate disease modeling, more predictive drug screening, and ultimately, more successful translation of biomedical research from the bench to the clinic.

Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models have emerged as indispensable tools in cancer research and developmental biology, providing a more physiologically relevant environment than traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers. These advanced models crucially replicate the complex interactions between cells and their surrounding microenvironment, enabling researchers to study tissue morphogenesis—the process by which cells organize into specific, functional 3D structures. Understanding the core principles of cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions is fundamental to leveraging these models, as these dynamics directly govern critical processes like proliferation, differentiation, and the emergence of tissue architecture [7]. This guide objectively compares prominent 3D culture methodologies by examining their performance in key experimental contexts, providing researchers with a structured analysis of the scaffold materials and techniques that best replicate in vivo conditions.

Core Principles of Morphogenesis in 3D Systems

The formation of complex tissues is driven by two primary mechanical processes: active and passive morphogenesis. In active morphogenesis, biological processes within a tissue itself generate internal forces that push against its boundaries to dictate its final shape. In contrast, passive morphogenesis occurs when external mechanical forces, such as physical pressure from neighboring tissues, mold a tissue from the outside. A landmark study on fruit fly hindgut development demonstrated that its transformation from a simple ring into a complex "keyhole" shape was largely due to these passive forces exerted by adjacent tissues [10].

Within a 3D culture, these processes are orchestrated by two fundamental types of biological interactions:

• Cell-Cell Interactions: These involve direct communication and adhesion between neighboring cells, facilitated by proteins such as cadherins. In 3D cultures, strong cell-cell adhesion promotes the spontaneous aggregation and compaction of cells into multicellular structures, leading to the formation of compact spheroids that exhibit strong intercellular communication [7].
• Cell-ECM Interactions: Cells adhere to and interact with a surrounding network of proteins and carbohydrates known as the extracellular matrix (ECM). This interaction, mediated by integrins and other receptors, provides not only structural support but also critical biochemical and mechanical signals. Cell-ECM communication influences cell polarity, survival, proliferation, and differentiation, all of which are essential for establishing tissue-specific architecture in a 3D model [7].

The careful selection of a 3D culture methodology is paramount, as the chosen scaffold and technique directly influence the balance and outcome of these core interactions, ultimately affecting the morphology, viability, and gene expression of the cultured cells [11] [7].

Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Methodologies

Different 3D culture techniques and scaffolding materials uniquely influence cell behavior and spheroid characteristics. The following analysis compares key methodologies based on experimental data.

Table 1: Comparison of Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Methodologies

Scaffold Material	Spheroid Formation Consistency	Impact on Cell Viability	Key Findings on Gene Expression	Best Suited For
Matrigel	Promoted the most consistent spheroid formation [11].	Supported cell viability [11].	Reduction in androgen receptor (AR) expression in LNCaP cells; variation in AR and neuroendocrine marker genes based on culture method [11].	Standardized spheroid formation for prostate cancer research [11].
GelTrex	Varied spheroid formation [11].	Supported cell viability [11].	Expression of AR signaling and neuroendocrine marker genes varied depending on the scaffolds and culture methods [11].	General 3D culture where high consistency is less critical.
GrowDex (Plant-based)	Varied spheroid formation [11].	Supported cell viability [11].	Expression of AR signaling and neuroendocrine marker genes varied depending on the scaffolds and culture methods [11].	Researchers seeking a defined, plant-derived alternative.
Collagen Type I	Used in generating multicellular tumour spheroids (MCTS) [7].	Not explicitly stated in the search results.	Not explicitly stated in the search results.	Co-culture models and studying tumor-stroma interactions [7].
Methylcellulose	Used in generating multicellular tumour spheroids (MCTS) [7].	Not explicitly stated in the search results.	Not explicitly stated in the search results.	Cost-effective spheroid formation in regular multi-well plates [7].

Table 2: Comparison of Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Techniques

Technique	Spheroid Morphology	Throughput & Homogeneity	Cost & Technical Complexity
Hanging Drop	Forms multiple spheroids that may vary in size and can merge over time [7].	Lower throughput; less homogeneous in size and shape [7].	Lower cost; requires technical skill for setup [7].
Liquid Overlay (on agarose)	Forms multiple spheroids [7].	Lower throughput; less homogeneous [7].	Cost-effective; simpler setup [7].
U-Bottom Plates	Produces single, compact spheroids [7].	High throughput; highly homogeneous in size and shape, ideal for screening [7].	Higher cost for specialized plates; very simple protocol [7].

Table 3: Quantitative Spheroid Formation Data Across Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Cell Lines A study evaluating eight CRC cell lines revealed their varying capacities to form compact spheroids under different 3D culture conditions [7].

Cell Line	Spheroid Formation in Standard Conditions	Novel Protocol with Anti-adherence Solution
SW48	Irregularly shaped cell aggregates; does not form compact spheroids [7].	Yes - Novel compact spheroid model successfully developed [7].
DLD1	Information not specified in provided search results.	Compatible with novel protocol [7].
HCT8	Information not specified in provided search results.	Compatible with novel protocol [7].
HCT116	Information not specified in provided search results.	Compatible with novel protocol [7].
LoVo	Information not specified in provided search results.	Compatible with novel protocol [7].
LS174T	Information not specified in provided search results.	Compatible with novel protocol [7].
SW480	Information not specified in provided search results.	Compatible with novel protocol [7].
SW620	Information not specified in provided search results.	Compatible with novel protocol [7].

Experimental Protocols for Key Studies

Protocol: Comparative Analysis of Scaffolds in Prostate Cancer Models

This methodology was used to evaluate the effects of Matrigel, GelTrex, and GrowDex on prostate cancer cell lines [11].

• Cell Culture: Maintain four prostate cancer cell lines (LNCaP, LASCPC-01, PC-3, and KUCaP13) in their recommended 2D culture conditions.
• 3D Seeding with Sandwich Method: Seed cells into the different scaffolding materials (Matrigel, GelTrex, GrowDex) using the "sandwich" method to create a 3D environment.
• Culture Monitoring: Culture the embedded cells for a specified period, monitoring spheroid formation and growth.
• Viability and Morphology Analysis: Analyze cell viability and spheroid morphology using assays such as Live/Dead staining and brightfield microscopy.
• Gene Expression Analysis: Harvest the 3D cultures and perform RNA extraction. Analyze the expression of key genes, including androgen receptor (AR) and neuroendocrine markers, using qPCR. Compare results from the sandwich method with an alternative "mini-dome" method.

Protocol: Generating CRC Spheroids in U-Bottom Plates

This protocol describes a cost-effective method for generating consistent spheroids from CRC cell lines, including the previously challenging SW48 line [7].

• Plate Treatment: Treat standard U-bottom multi-well plates with an anti-adherence solution. This prevents cell attachment and promotes aggregation, mimicking the effect of more expensive cell-repellent plates.
• Cell Seeding: Prepare a single-cell suspension of the CRC cell line (e.g., DLD1, HCT116, SW48, etc.). Seed the cells into the anti-adherence-treated U-bottom plates at an optimized density.
• Centrifugation: Centrifuge the plates at a low speed to gently pellet the cells into the bottom of the U-shaped wells, initiating contact and aggregation.
• Spheroid Culture: Incubate the plates under standard cell culture conditions. Monitor the plates regularly for spheroid formation.
• Co-culture (Optional): To enhance physiological relevance, co-culture CRC cells with immortalized colonic fibroblasts (e.g., CCD-18Co line) by seeding them together in step 2 to study tumor-stroma interactions in a 3D setting.

Visualization of Signaling Pathways and Workflows

Diagram 1: Core principles of 3D morphogenesis driving functional tissue formation.

Diagram 2: Generalized workflow for comparative 3D culture experiments.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table details key materials and reagents essential for establishing and analyzing 3D culture models, based on the cited studies.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Morphogenesis Studies

Reagent / Material	Function in 3D Culture
Matrigel	A basement membrane extract from mouse sarcoma, used as a natural scaffold to promote cell adhesion, spheroid formation, and provide biochemical cues for various cell types, including prostate cancer cells [11].
GelTrex	A reduced-growth factor basement membrane matrix similar to Matrigel, used as an alternative scaffold for 3D cell culture that supports cell viability and spheroid formation [11].
GrowDex	A plant-based (nanofibrillar cellulose) hydrogel that provides a defined and animal-free scaffold for 3D culture, supporting cell viability with variable spheroid formation outcomes [11].
Collagen Type I	A major natural protein of the ECM, used as a hydrogel to provide structural support and biochemical signals; used in generating multicellular tumour spheroids (MCTS) [7].
Methylcellulose	A synthetic polymer used as a viscosity-enhancing agent in 3D culture to prevent cell sedimentation and promote aggregation, enabling spheroid formation in multi-well plates [7].
Anti-adherence Solution	A solution used to coat the surface of multi-well plates, rendering them non-adherent. This is a cost-effective method to promote 3D spheroid formation in standard plates instead of specialized cell-repellent plates [7].
Tissue Clearing Reagent	A chemical solution used to render 3D spheroids and organoids transparent. This allows for improved light penetration and high-quality imaging of the entire structure without the need for physical sectioning [12].
Immortalized Fibroblasts	Stromal cells (e.g., CCD-18Co colonic fibroblasts) used in co-culture with cancer cells to create a more physiologically relevant tumor microenvironment and study tumor-stroma interactions [7].
S-1-Cbz-3-Boc-aminopyrrolidine	S-1-Cbz-3-Boc-aminopyrrolidine, CAS:122536-74-7, MF:C17H24N2O4, MW:320.4 g/mol
Clofedanol, (R)-	Clofedanol, (R)-, CAS:179764-48-8, MF:C17H20ClNO, MW:289.8 g/mol

The strategic selection of 3D culture methodologies is a critical determinant of experimental success in morphogenesis research. As the comparative data shows, the choice between scaffold-based and scaffold-free techniques, as well as the specific type of scaffold, directly influences the consistency of spheroid formation, cell viability, and gene expression profiles [11] [7]. The development of novel, cost-effective protocols that enable robust spheroid formation from challenging cell lines, such as SW48, significantly expands the toolbox available to researchers. By understanding and applying the core principles of cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions, scientists can better design in vitro models that faithfully recapitulate in vivo biology, thereby accelerating drug discovery and enhancing our fundamental understanding of tissue development and disease.

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a paradigm shift in biological research, drug discovery, and personalized medicine. While 2D cultures have been invaluable tools, their limitations in mimicking the complex architecture and cellular interactions of living tissues have driven the development of more physiologically relevant models [13]. Three-dimensional culture systems, particularly spheroids, organoids, and various cellular aggregates, now bridge the critical gap between conventional cell cultures and in vivo animal models, enabling researchers to study human biology and disease with unprecedented accuracy [14] [15]. This morphological comparison examines the defining characteristics, applications, and technical considerations of these advanced 3D culture systems, providing researchers with a framework for selecting appropriate models for specific experimental needs.

Defining the 3D Landscape: Core Concepts and Morphological Characteristics

Spheroids: The Foundational 3D Model

Spheroids represent one of the earliest and simplest forms of 3D cell culture, first developed in the 1970s [14]. These structures are defined as spherical cellular aggregates that form through the self-assembly of primary cells or cancer cell lines [14] [9]. Unlike the organized architecture of organoids, spheroids typically exhibit a relatively uniform spherical structure maintained primarily through cell-cell adhesion and aggregation forces rather than sophisticated self-organization into tissue-specific patterns [14] [15]. Their structural simplicity translates to practical advantages, including shorter culture timelines (typically 2-3 days), lower cost, and technical accessibility compared to more complex models [14].

From a morphological perspective, spheroids often develop metabolic and proliferation gradients that mimic certain aspects of in vivo tumors, including concentric zones of proliferating, quiescent, and necrotic cells under appropriate culture conditions [15]. This characteristic makes them particularly valuable for cancer research and drug screening applications where simulating nutrient and oxygen gradients is essential [14] [15]. Spheroid formation can occur with or without extracellular matrix (ECM) support, with some cells generating their own ECM during the aggregation process [14].

Organoids: Complex Organ Mimetics

Organoids represent a significant advancement in 3D culture technology, offering greater structural and functional complexity than spheroids. These are defined as in vitro-derived, 3D structures formed from stem cells (tissue-specific progenitor cells, embryonic stem cells, or induced pluripotent stem cells) that self-organize through cell sorting and spatially restricted lineage commitment, recapitulating key aspects of the corresponding organ [13]. The self-organization process in organoids results in differentiation of cells into organ-specific cell types that reflect the structure and function of the target organ, at least partially [15].

The morphological sophistication of organoids arises from their developmental trajectory, which mimics natural organogenesis [13]. Unlike the relatively homogeneous architecture of spheroids, organoids develop distinct regional patterns and multiple cell lineages characteristic of their organ of origin [14] [13]. This complexity comes with technical demands, as organoid culture typically requires specialized extracellular matrix support (such as Matrigel or other basement membrane extracts) and precise combinations of growth factors to guide proper differentiation and organization [14] [13]. The culture timeline for organoids is considerably longer than for spheroids, often requiring 21-28 days or longer to achieve full complexity, depending on the organ system being modeled [14].

Cellular Aggregates: An Umbrella Term

The term "cellular aggregates" serves as a broader classification that encompasses various 3D cellular structures, including both spheroids and organoids, as well as other intermediate forms [16] [17]. In essence, all spheroids and organoids are types of cellular aggregates, but not all aggregates demonstrate the organ-specific differentiation and organization that define true organoids [9] [15].

In research contexts, "aggregate" often refers specifically to 3D structures formed from pluripotent stem cells during early differentiation stages, such as embryoid bodies (EBs) – 3D aggregates of pluripotent stem cells that spontaneously differentiate into derivatives of the three germ layers [16] [13]. These structures represent an important intermediate in organoid generation from pluripotent stem cells and serve as a valuable tool for studying early developmental processes [13].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of 3D Culture Models

Characteristic	Spheroids	Organoids	General Aggregates
Definition	Spherical cellular aggregates that form through self-assembly	Stem cell-derived structures that self-organize to recapitulate organ architecture	Umbrella term for various 3D cellular clusters
Cellular Complexity	Lower - typically one or few cell types	Higher - multiple cell types representing the target organ	Variable - depends on specific type and purpose
Self-Organization	Limited - primarily cell aggregation	High - spatially organized lineage commitment	Variable - from simple aggregation to partial organization
Structural Fidelity to In Vivo Tissues	Basic - mimics cellular interactions and gradients	High - resembles organ microstructure and function	Limited to moderate - depends on specific model
Primary Applications	Drug screening, cancer research, toxicity testing	Disease modeling, development studies, personalized medicine	Early differentiation studies, protocol development

Comparative Analysis: Technical Specifications and Applications

Cellular Origins and Culture Requirements

The fundamental differences between spheroids and organoids begin with their cellular origins. Spheroids can be generated from a wide variety of cell sources, including established cell lines, primary cells, multicellular mixtures, or tumor cells and tissues [14] [15]. This flexibility contributes to their accessibility and widespread adoption. In contrast, organoids require specific stem cell populations as their foundation – either tissue-derived adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, or induced pluripotent stem cells [14] [13]. The choice of stem cell source influences the resulting organoid characteristics; organoids derived from adult stem cells more closely resemble adult tissue homeostasis, while those from pluripotent stem cells often recapitulate fetal or developmental stages [13].

Culture requirements differ substantially between these models. Spheroid formation can be achieved with minimal specialized equipment using methods such as the hanging-drop technique, ultra-low attachment plates, or agitation-based approaches [14] [9]. While spheroids can be cultured with or without ECM support, organoids typically require specific ECM scaffolds (such as Matrigel or other hydrogel-based systems) and precisely defined media formulations containing growth factors and small molecules that guide differentiation toward the target organ fate [14] [13]. The complex signaling environment necessary for organoid development represents both a technical challenge and an essential component for achieving organ-specific differentiation.

Morphological and Functional Comparison

Morphologically, spheroids and organoids differ significantly in their architectural complexity. Spheroids generally maintain a relatively simple spherical geometry with limited internal organization, though they may develop physiologically relevant gradients of nutrients, oxygen, and waste products [15]. In cancer spheroids, this often manifests as an outer layer of proliferating cells, intermediate quiescent region, and potentially a necrotic core under conditions of sufficient size and metabolic demand [15].

Organoids, in contrast, exhibit remarkable organizational sophistication that mirrors their organ counterparts. Intestinal organoids develop crypt-villus structures, cerebral organoids form layered cortical regions, and kidney organoids segment into nephron-like structures with distinct compartmentalization [13]. This structural fidelity enables organoids to replicate organ functions more accurately than spheroids, making them particularly valuable for studying human development, disease mechanisms, and tissue-specific responses to pharmacological agents.

Functionally, both systems offer advantages over traditional 2D cultures. Gene expression profiles in 3D cultures more closely resemble in vivo patterns than their 2D counterparts, with notable differences in cell cycle regulation, proliferation pathways, and differentiation markers [16]. The 3D architecture also influences therapeutic responses; for example, temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma has been shown to be 50% higher in 3D cultures compared to 2D models, more accurately reflecting clinical resistance patterns [13].

Table 2: Technical Specifications and Applications of 3D Culture Models

Parameter	Spheroids	Organoids
Cell Sources	Primary cells, cell lines, multicellular mixtures, tumor cells [14] [15]	Adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, tumor tissues [14] [13]
Culture Timeline	2-3 days [14]	21-28 days or longer [14]
ECM Requirement	Optional – can be cultured with or without ECM support [14]	Essential – requires specific ECM components [14] [13]
Growth Factors	Variable – not always required	Essential – specific cocktails needed for differentiation [13]
Self-Renewal Capacity	Limited – difficult to maintain long-term [14]	High – capable of long-term culture and expansion [14]
Genetic Stability	Variable – can drift with passages	Generally high – especially in ASC-derived organoids [13]
Primary Research Applications	Drug screening, tumor microenvironment studies, biomarker discovery [14] [15]	Disease modeling, organ development, personalized medicine, drug screening [14] [13]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Spheroid Formation Techniques

Several well-established methods exist for generating spheroids, each with specific advantages and limitations. The hanging drop method involves suspending small volumes of cell suspension (typically 10-30 μL) as inverted droplets from a culture plate lid, allowing cells to aggregate at the bottom of the droplet through gravity [9]. This technique produces highly uniform spheroids with controlled size determined by initial cell concentration but has limitations in scalability and media exchange.

Ultra-low attachment plates feature specially treated surfaces that prevent cell adhesion, forcing cells to aggregate in the well interior [14] [9]. This approach offers better scalability and easier media handling compared to hanging drop methods. The forced-floating method combines low-adhesion surfaces with centrifugation to promote rapid aggregation [9].

Agitation-based approaches utilize rotational platforms or bioreactors to maintain cells in constant suspension, preventing adhesion to vessel walls and promoting aggregation through continuous motion [17] [9]. These systems can generate large quantities of spheroids but may produce more heterogeneous sizes and require specialized equipment.

Organoid Generation from Pluripotent Stem Cells

The generation of organoids from pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) typically follows a multi-stage process mimicking embryonic development [13]. The initial phase involves embryoid body (EB) formation, where PSCs are aggregated in suspension culture using methods similar to spheroid formation [16] [13]. These EBs spontaneously differentiate into cells representing the three germ layers – ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm.

Following EB formation, directed differentiation is achieved through specific patterning factors added to the culture medium. For example, neural organoids may utilize dual SMAD inhibition (using compounds like SB431542 and LDN-193189) to promote neuroectodermal differentiation [13] [17]. The developing organoids are typically embedded in an ECM scaffold such as Matrigel to provide structural support and biochemical cues, then maintained in differentiation media containing organ-specific growth factors for extended periods (weeks to months) with regular media changes [13].

Advanced Integration: Microglia-Containing Neural Organoids

Recent protocol developments highlight the increasing sophistication of organoid technology. The creation of microglia-containing neural organoids addresses a significant limitation of traditional brain organoids, which naturally lack microglia due to their different embryonic origin [18]. One advanced protocol involves aggregating hiPSC-derived neural and microglia progenitors together in U-bottom 96-well plates, allowing controlled and reproducible incorporation of microglia progenitors from the earliest stages of organoid formation [18].

This method demonstrates that microglia can integrate, mature, and survive long-term in the neural environment without requiring costly exogenous microglia-specific growth factors or cytokines [18]. Such models have been maintained for over 9 weeks, exhibiting functional activity, phagocytosis, and neuroinflammatory responses, providing a scalable, reproducible system for neurodevelopment, disease modeling, and neurotoxicology research [18].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful 3D culture requires specific reagents and materials tailored to the unique demands of each model system. The following table summarizes key solutions and their applications:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Cell Culture

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
ECM Scaffolds	Matrigel, Cultrex UltiMatrix RGF BME, collagen, fibrin [14] [13]	Provide structural support and biochemical cues for cell organization and differentiation; essential for organoid culture
Specialized Media	StemScale PSC Suspension Medium, PSC Neural Induction Medium, PSC Dopaminergic Neuron Differentiation Kit [17]	Support expansion and differentiation of stem cells in 3D format; contain specific factors for lineage specification
Growth Factors and Cytokines	R-spondin-1, Wnt3A, EGF, FGF, Noggin, IL-34, CSF-1, TGF-β [13] [18]	Direct differentiation patterning and support specific cell types; crucial for organoid self-organization
Small Molecule Inhibitors/Activators	Y-27632 (ROCK inhibitor), SB431542 (TGF-β inhibitor), LDN-193189 (BMP inhibitor), retinoic acid [13] [17]	Modulate key signaling pathways to control differentiation outcomes; enable precise temporal control of development
Dissociation Reagents	Accutase, collagenase, dispase [17]	Enable gentle dissociation of 3D structures for passaging or analysis while maintaining cell viability
Viability Assessment Tools	Calcein-AM, ethidium homodimer-1 (LIVE/DEAD assay) [17]	Assess cell viability within 3D structures where traditional microscopy may be limited
Bromo(2H3)methane	Bromo(2H3)methane | Deuterated Methyl Bromide | RUO	Bromo(2H3)methane (Deuterated Methyl Bromide). A stable isotope-labeled reagent for MS, NMR & kinetic studies. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
2-Methyleicosane	2-Methyleicosane | High Purity | For Research Use	High-purity 2-Methyleicosane for research. Used in lipid studies & material science. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.

Signaling Pathways in 3D Model Development

The development and maturation of 3D models, particularly organoids, are governed by complex signaling pathways that recapitulate developmental processes. Understanding these pathways is essential for proper model selection and experimental design.

Decision Framework and Future Perspectives

Model Selection Guide

Choosing between spheroids, organoids, and other aggregate-based models depends on multiple factors, including research objectives, required physiological relevance, technical resources, and timeline constraints. Spheroids offer the most practical choice for high-throughput drug screening, preliminary toxicity testing, and studies focused on basic cell-cell interactions and metabolic gradients [14] [15]. Their simplicity, rapid generation, and cost-effectiveness make them ideal for applications where lower complexity is acceptable or even advantageous.

Organoids are preferable when organ-specific architecture, cellular heterogeneity, or disease-specific mechanisms are central to the research question [13] [15]. Despite their longer culture time, higher cost, and technical demands, organoids provide unparalleled models for studying human development, genetic diseases, infectious mechanisms, and personalized treatment approaches. Their ability to be biobanked and genetically manipulated expands their utility for long-term research programs [15].

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

The field of 3D cell culture continues to evolve rapidly, with several emerging technologies enhancing the capabilities of both spheroid and organoid models. Organoid-on-a-chip platforms combine organoid culture with microfluidic systems to create more physiologically relevant conditions for studying organ development, disease, and drug screening [14] [19]. These systems enable precise control over microenvironmental parameters, including fluid flow, mechanical forces, and oxygen gradients, while allowing real-time monitoring and analysis.

Advanced bioreactor systems facilitate the scalable production of 3D models, addressing a significant limitation in traditional culture methods. For example, vertical-wheel bioreactors have been used for hiPSC expansion and neural induction, achieving up to 665-fold change in cell numbers in 15 days while maintaining aggregate uniformity [17]. Such systems are crucial for transitioning from research applications to clinical and industrial scales.

The integration of multiple cell types into single models represents another frontier. As demonstrated by microglia-containing neural organoids, incorporating non-parenchymal cells (immune cells, endothelial cells, fibroblasts) creates more complete tissue models that better recapitulate organ-level functions and disease responses [18]. These advances continue to narrow the gap between in vitro models and in vivo physiology, promising more predictive and clinically relevant research platforms.

The morphological landscape of 3D cell culture offers researchers a spectrum of models ranging from simple spheroids to complex organoids, each with distinct characteristics and applications. Spheroids provide accessible, reproducible systems for drug screening and basic biological studies, while organoids deliver unprecedented physiological relevance for disease modeling and developmental research. As these technologies continue to evolve through integration with engineering approaches like microfluidics and advanced bioreactors, their capacity to mimic human biology and predict clinical outcomes will further improve. Understanding the defining features, technical requirements, and appropriate applications of each model enables researchers to select optimal systems for their specific research goals, ultimately accelerating biomedical discovery and therapeutic development.

How 3D Architecture Influences Drug Response and Gene Expression

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a paradigm shift in biomedical research, particularly in drug discovery and cancer biology. While 2D cultures—growing cells in a single layer on flat surfaces—have been fundamental research tools for decades, they fail to replicate the complex architectural and microenvironmental cues that govern cell behavior in living tissues [20]. Modern oncology and drug development face a critical challenge: many anti-cancer therapies that show promise in conventional 2D models fail in human clinical trials, often because traditional models cannot accurately predict drug efficacy and toxicity in the human body [20] [21].

Three-dimensional cell culture technologies have emerged as a powerful alternative that bridges the gap between simple 2D cultures and complex in vivo models. By allowing cells to grow and interact in all three dimensions, these systems better mimic the natural tissue architecture, cell-cell interactions, and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) relationships found in living organisms [9]. This architectural fidelity is not merely morphological—it profoundly influences cellular processes including gene expression patterns, drug sensitivity, and therapeutic resistance mechanisms [20] [22]. The growing recognition of these advantages is reflected in the 3D cell culture market, which is experiencing substantial growth and increased adoption across pharmaceutical research and development [23].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of how 3D architectural features influence drug response and gene expression, presenting experimental data and methodological considerations to help researchers select appropriate models for specific applications in drug discovery and cancer research.

Fundamental Differences Between 2D and 3D Culture Systems

Architectural and Microenvironmental Variations

The architectural differences between 2D and 3D culture systems create fundamentally distinct microenvironments that dramatically alter cellular behavior. In 2D cultures, cells are forced to adapt to an artificial, flat surface where they exhibit polarized morphology and uniform exposure to nutrients, oxygen, and therapeutic compounds [20]. This environment fails to recapitulate the spatial organization and biochemical gradients found in living tissues.

In contrast, 3D cultures enable cells to form tissue-like structures with natural cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions [9]. These systems recreate critical tissue features including:

• Spatial organization similar to native tissues
• Biochemical gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and pH [20]
• Complex cell-cell communication networks [9]
• Physiologically relevant cell-ECM interactions [9]

These architectural differences translate directly to functional variations. Cells in 3D cultures demonstrate more in vivo-like proliferation rates, differentiation patterns, gene expression profiles, and drug responses compared to their 2D counterparts [20] [9]. The presence of an extracellular matrix in 3D systems provides not only structural support but also crucial biochemical signaling that influences cell fate and function [9].

Implications for Drug Response Assessment

The architectural differences between 2D and 3D systems significantly impact drug response assessment, with important implications for drug discovery:

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

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Culture	Biological Significance
Drug Penetration	Uniform, direct access	Variable, diffusion-dependent	Mimics drug penetration challenges in solid tumors
Cell Proliferation	Rapid, uniform	Heterogeneous, microenvironment-dependent	Reflects variable proliferation rates in tissues
Drug IC50 Values	Generally lower	Often significantly higher	3D models show increased resistance similar to in vivo tumors
Gene Expression	Altered, stress-induced	Physiological, tissue-like	More accurate prediction of drug mechanism of action
Therapeutic Resistance	Underestimated	Better modeled	Captures complex resistance mechanisms

Multiple studies have demonstrated that 3D architectures alter therapeutic responsiveness. For example, prostate cancer cells (LNCaP) grown in Matrigel-based 3D organoids were significantly less sensitive to the chemotherapy drug docetaxel compared to 2D cultures [24]. Similarly, NCI-H660 cells in a peptide hydrogel 3D model required higher doses of a RET inhibitor (AD80) to achieve 50% cell death compared to 2D cultures [24]. These differences make 3D models particularly valuable for preclinical drug testing, as they provide more accurate predictions of in vivo drug efficacy.

Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Methodologies

Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-based systems utilize supportive matrices to provide structural framework for 3D growth, mimicking the native extracellular matrix (ECM). These systems are categorized based on scaffold composition and origin:

Table 2: Comparison of Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Methodologies

Scaffold Type	Examples	Key Advantages	Limitations	Applications
Natural Hydrogels	Matrigel, Collagen, Alginate	Bioactive, contain natural adhesion motifs	Batch-to-batch variability, complex composition	Organoid generation, tumor microenvironment modeling
Synthetic Hydrogels	PEG, PLA-based hydrogels	Defined composition, tunable properties	Lack natural bioactive motifs	Controlled studies of specific ECM parameters
Hard Polymer Scaffolds	Polystyrene, Polycaprolactone	Excellent mechanical strength, high cell recovery	Limited biodegradability	Tissue engineering, tumor cell treatment studies
Composite Scaffolds	Polymer-ceramic blends	Customizable mechanical and biological properties	Complex fabrication process	Bone tissue models, specialized tissue engineering

Matrigel, derived from Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm mouse sarcoma, remains one of the most widely used natural matrices due to its robust support of organoid formation and tissue-like development [24] [6]. However, its complex composition—containing over 1,800 unique proteins—makes it difficult to deconvolute specific signaling cues [6]. Collagen, a primary component of native ECM, offers a more defined alternative and allows adjustable porosity through manipulation of ionic force, pH, temperature, and concentration [6].

The choice of scaffold material significantly influences experimental outcomes. A 2025 study comparing prostate cancer cell lines in different scaffolds found that while Matrigel, GelTrex, and plant-based GrowDex all supported cell viability, spheroid formation varied significantly [24]. Matrigel promoted the most robust spheroids, especially for the LASCPC-01 cell line, whereas GrowDex showed limitations for certain cell lines [24]. Gene expression analysis in the same study revealed consistent reduction in androgen receptor (AR) expression in LNCaP cells across all scaffolds, suggesting a potential shift toward a neuroendocrine phenotype [24].

Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-free techniques facilitate 3D organization through physical methods that promote cell aggregation without exogenous matrix materials:

Table 3: Comparison of Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Methodologies

Method	Principle	Advantages	Limitations	Consistency
Hanging Drop	Gravity-driven cell aggregation in droplets	Simple, low cost, uniform spheroid size	Medium evaporation, difficult handling	High size uniformity
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Polymer-coated surfaces prevent adhesion	Easy protocol, compatible with HTS	Potential well-to-well variability	Moderate to high
Agitation-Based Methods	Continuous stirring prevents adhesion	Suitable for large-scale production	Variable spheroid size, shear stress	Low to moderate
Rotating Cell Culture Systems	Simulated microgravity environment	Low shear force, good nutrient distribution	Specialized equipment required	Moderate

A 2024 study on dedifferentiated liposarcoma provides direct comparison of these methodologies [6]. Researchers cultured Lipo246 and Lipo863 cell lines using four different 3D methods: Matrigel ECM scaffold, Collagen ECM scaffold, ULA plates, and hanging drop [6]. The results revealed striking methodological influences on morphological outcomes. Lipo863 formed spheroids in Matrigel but not in collagen, while Lipo246 did not form spheroids in either collagen or Matrigel [6]. However, both cell lines successfully formed spheroids using scaffold-free methods (ULA plates and hanging drop) [6], highlighting how method selection must be tailored to specific cell types.

Advanced 3D Model Systems: Organoids and Bioprinting

Organoids represent the most sophisticated 3D culture systems, defined as self-assembled 3D cell clusters that develop through in vitro culture and contain multiple cell types characteristic of corresponding organs [21]. These "mini-organs" can be derived from pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) or adult stem cells (ASCs), with patient-derived organoids (PDOs) becoming particularly valuable for personalized medicine applications [21].

The physiological relevance of organoids is demonstrated by their application in large-scale CRISPR screening. A 2025 study established CRISPR-based genetic screens in primary human 3D gastric organoids, enabling comprehensive dissection of gene-drug interactions [25]. Researchers successfully implemented multiple CRISPR approaches—including knockout, interference (CRISPRi), activation (CRISPRa), and single-cell methods—to identify genes affecting sensitivity to cisplatin in gastric cancer [25]. This breakthrough highlights how 3D architecture enables sophisticated functional genomics directly in human-derived tissue models.

3D bioprinting represents another advanced approach that precisely arranges cells, proteins, and bioactive materials to construct in vitro biological structures [21]. This technology allows unprecedented control over spatial organization and composition, enabling creation of complex tissue models with multiple cell types and regional specifications.

Experimental Protocols for 3D Drug Response Studies

Establishing 3D Cultures for Drug Screening

Protocol 1: Matrigel Dome Method for Organoid Culture [6]

• Prepare a mixture of 50 μL Matrigel and cell suspension containing 4 × 10³ single cells.
• Form the mixture into a dome shape in a 24-well plate.
• Incubate for 3 minutes at 37°C, then flip the plate upside down for additional 15-20 minutes incubation.
• Return the plate to right-side-up orientation and carefully add 500 μL of culture media per well along the wall.
• Maintain cultures at 37°C, changing growth medium every 2-3 days for up to 14 days.

Protocol 2: Collagen Embedding Method [6]

• Prepare Type I collagen-based hydrogel solution by mixing Rat tail collagen with 10× DPBS, 1N NaOH, and sterile water to yield final concentrations of 3 mg/mL collagen at pH 7.4.
• Mix cell suspension (1 × 10⁵ cells/mL) with collagen solution in 1:1 ratio on ice.
• Seed 1 mL/well of mixture into 12-well plate or 50 μL/well into 24-well plate.
• Incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes to solidify.
• Add appropriate volume of culture media (1 mL for 12-well, 500 μL for 24-well format).
• Maintain cultures at 37°C with medium changes every 2-3 days.

Protocol 3: Hanging Drop Method for Spheroid Formation [6]

• Prepare cell suspension at appropriate density (typically 1-5 × 10⁴ cells/mL depending on desired spheroid size).
• Pipette 10 μL drops of cell suspension onto the inner surface of an inverted 60 mm tissue culture dish lid.
• Carefully add DPBS to the dish bottom to maintain humidity.
• Integrate the lid with the bottom chamber in right-side-up orientation.
• Culture for 3-7 days until spheroids form, then transfer for experimental use.

Drug Treatment and Response Assessment in 3D Models

When evaluating drug responses in 3D models, several methodological adaptations are necessary compared to 2D protocols:

Drug Exposure Considerations:

• Extended exposure times: Due to diffusion limitations in 3D structures, drug exposure periods may need extension to ensure adequate penetration.
• Concentration gradients: Implement concentration ranges that account for potential reduced sensitivity in 3D models.
• Endpoint selection: Combine multiple assessment methods as viability readouts may differ from 2D cultures.

Viability Assessment Methods:

• ATP-based assays (CellTiter-Glo): Often require protocol modifications for 3D structures, potentially including longer incubation periods with reagents.
• Imaging-based approaches: Confocal microscopy with live/dead staining provides spatial information about viability within 3D structures.
• Metabolic assays (MTT, Resazurin): May require normalization adjustments due to different metabolic rates in 3D cultures.

The liposarcoma study demonstrated specific protocol adaptations for drug testing in 3D models [6]. Researchers treated 3D collagen-based models with different doses of SAR405838 (an MDM2 inhibitor) and found that 3D collagen samples showed higher cell viability after treatment than 2D models, while cells sensitive to the drug died by apoptosis or necrosis [6]. This highlights the critical importance of using appropriate 3D-specific assessment methods.

Molecular Mechanisms: How 3D Architecture Influences Gene Expression and Drug Response

Architectural Control of Gene Expression

Three-dimensional architecture influences gene expression through multiple interconnected mechanisms. The diagram below illustrates the primary signaling pathways through which 3D architecture influences gene expression and drug response:

The 3D architectural environment activates specific signaling pathways that alter transcriptional programs. Key mechanisms include:

• Mechanotransduction: Physical forces transmitted through cell-ECM interactions activate mechanosensitive pathways including YAP/TAZ, SRF, and NF-κB signaling, influencing differentiation and proliferation [9].

• Spatial organization of signaling: 3D architecture creates spatially restricted signaling niches that maintain stem cell populations and orchestrate differentiation patterns not possible in 2D [22].

• Epigenetic modifications: Chromatin organization and gene accessibility are influenced by nuclear morphology, which is in turn affected by cytoskeletal tension in 3D environments.

The prostate cancer study provided direct evidence of 3D architecture influencing gene expression, showing consistent reduction in androgen receptor (AR) expression across multiple scaffold types, suggesting a potential shift toward a neuroendocrine phenotype driven by 3D growth conditions rather than specific matrix composition [24].

Mechanisms of Altered Drug Response in 3D Architectures

The diagram below illustrates how 3D architecture creates physical and biological barriers that influence drug response:

Three-dimensional architectures confer drug resistance through multiple complementary mechanisms:

• Physical diffusion barriers: The compact structure of 3D tissues limits drug penetration, creating therapeutic gradients that leave core regions under-treated [20].

• Microenvironment-mediated protection: Hypoxic regions and nutrient gradients in 3D structures create microenvironments that reduce cellular sensitivity to therapeutics [20].

• Cell adhesion-mediated resistance: Integrin-mediated attachment to ECM components activates survival pathways including PI3K/Akt and NF-κB signaling [21].

• Altered cell state: The differentiation status and proliferation rates of cells in 3D architectures differ from 2D cultures, changing their sensitivity to cell cycle-specific agents [24].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Technologies

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Culture and Drug Response Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
Basement Membrane Matrices	Matrigel, Geltrex	Provide biologically active 3D substrate	Batch variability requires validation; temperature-sensitive
Collagen Solutions	Rat tail collagen Type I	Structural ECM component	Concentration and polymerization conditions affect porosity
Synthetic Hydrogels	PEG-based, PeptiGels	Defined, tunable matrices	Enable precise control of mechanical properties
Scaffold-Free Platforms	ULA plates, Hanging drop systems	Promote self-aggregation	Simple, cost-effective for spheroid formation
Advanced Imaging Reagents	Live/dead stains, 3D-compatible antibodies	Viability and phenotype assessment	Must penetrate 3D structures effectively
CRISPR Screening Tools	Lentiviral libraries, Cas9 lines	Functional genomics	Require optimized delivery for 3D models [25]
Viability Assay Kits	ATP-based, resazurin assays	Quantify drug response	May require protocol adaptation for 3D structures
Myrcenol sulfone	Myrcenol Sulfone | High-Purity Research Chemical	Myrcenol sulfone for research applications. A key intermediate in fragrance and organic synthesis. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.	Bench Chemicals
Formylurea	Formylurea | High-Purity Research Chemical	High-purity Formylurea for research applications. Explore its role in protein modification & biochemical studies. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.	Bench Chemicals

The evidence comprehensively demonstrates that 3D architecture profoundly influences both gene expression and drug response patterns. The architectural context dictates cellular phenotype through mechanical cues, spatial organization, and microenvironmental gradients that cannot be replicated in traditional 2D systems. The methodological comparisons presented in this guide highlight that no single 3D approach is universally superior—rather, selection must be guided by specific research questions, cell types, and application requirements.

For drug discovery pipelines, the integration of 3D models provides more physiologically relevant data that can bridge the gap between conventional in vitro assays and clinical outcomes. The demonstrated differences in drug sensitivity between 2D and 3D systems underscore the importance of incorporating architectural context early in drug development pipelines. As technologies advance—particularly in organoid culture, 3D bioprinting, and specialized matrices—the physiological fidelity and applicability of 3D models will continue to improve.

The future of 3D culture lies not in complete replacement of 2D systems, but in strategic deployment of appropriate models at specific research stages. Tiered approaches using 2D for initial high-throughput screening followed by 3D validation for lead compounds represent a pragmatic strategy that balances efficiency with physiological relevance. As our understanding of how architectural cues influence cellular behavior deepens, so too will our ability to design more effective therapeutics that account for the complex spatial context of human tissues.

A Practical Guide to 3D Culture Techniques and Their Morphological Outputs

In the field of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture, scaffold-based systems provide the critical structural and biochemical foundation needed to mimic the native tissue microenvironment. The extracellular matrix (ECM) is a complex network of proteins and polysaccharides that not only provides structural support to cells but also regulates key cellular processes including proliferation, differentiation, and migration [26]. Among the various scaffolding options, Matrigel, collagen, and synthetic hydrogels have emerged as prominent materials, each with distinct advantages and limitations. This guide provides an objective comparison of these systems, focusing on their performance in supporting cell growth, functionality, and morphological relevance in 3D culture models, with particular emphasis on their applications in cancer research and drug development.

Fundamental Characteristics

Hydrogels are hydrophilic polymeric networks capable of absorbing significant amounts of water while maintaining structural integrity, making them ideal for mimicking native tissue environments [27]. Their composition directly influences cellular responses, including morphology, proliferation, migration, and differentiation capabilities [26]. The classification of hydrogels used in 3D cell culture can be broadly categorized based on their origin and composition, each with distinct implications for experimental outcomes and clinical applications.

Classification of Hydrogel Scaffolds

Table 1: Classification and Characteristics of Hydrogel Types

Hydrogel Type	Origin/Composition	Key Examples	Advantages	Limitations
Natural	Animal-derived biological sources	Matrigel, Collagen I	High bioactivity, excellent biocompatibility, contain natural adhesion motifs	Batch-to-batch variability, complex undefined composition, potential immunogenicity
Synthetic	Artificially engineered materials	PeptiMatrix, PuraMatrix, VitroGel, PEG-based hydrogels	Defined composition, tunable mechanical properties, high reproducibility	May lack natural bioadhesive motifs, require functionalization for cell adhesion
Hybrid	Combination of natural and synthetic components	PEG-fibrinogen, functionalized alginate	Customizable bioactivity with controlled physical properties	Complexity in formulation, potential inconsistency between batches

Performance Comparison in 3D Cell Culture

Morphological Support and Cell Growth Patterns

The capacity of different hydrogel systems to support physiologically relevant 3D morphologies varies significantly across cell types and applications.

In colorectal cancer research, Matrigel and collagen I have demonstrated efficacy in generating compact multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) across multiple cell lines (DLD1, HCT8, HCT116, LoVo, LS174T, SW480, and SW620). However, SW48 cells presented a particular challenge, forming only irregular aggregates under standard conditions [7]. This cell line-specific variation underscores the importance of matching hydrogel properties to specific cellular requirements.

Ovarian cancer models using highly metastatic HO-8910PM cells revealed distinct growth patterns across different hydrogels. While all three major hydrogel types supported viable cell proliferation, they promoted different morphological outcomes: RADA16-I peptide hydrogel, Matrigel, and collagen I each facilitated the formation of diverse structures including cell aggregates, colonies, clusters, strips, and multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) [28]. These morphological differences directly influence cellular behavior and drug response profiles.

Functional Performance in Hepatic Models

Recent comparative studies using HepaRG cells have provided quantitative insights into hydrogel performance under both static and dynamic culture conditions. The evaluation encompassed multiple animal-free synthetic alternatives alongside traditional Matrigel-collagen mixes, with assessment parameters including viability, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) leakage, albumin secretion, bile acid production, and CYP3A4 enzyme activity [29].

Table 2: Functional Performance of Hydrogels in HepaRG Cell Culture

Hydrogel Type	Specific Product	Viability Support	Albumin Secretion	CYP3A4 Activity	Notes
Animal-derived Reference	Matrigel-Collagen mix	High	High	High	Baseline reference, but with batch variability
Synthetic Peptide	PeptiMatrix	High	Moderate	High (under perfusion)	Promising metabolic competence under dynamic conditions
Synthetic Peptide	PuraMatrix	High	Moderate	Moderate	Compatible with HepaRG proliferation
Synthetic Polysaccharide	VitroGel Organoid-3	High	Moderate	Moderate	Supports 3D culture formation
Wood-derived Polysaccharide	GrowDex	High	Moderate	Moderate	Biocompatible natural alternative

The study revealed that all tested animal-free hydrogels supported HepaRG cell proliferation in both static and dynamic culture conditions. However, cells in the OrganoPlate microphysiological system exhibited inadequate structural support and lower hepatic synthetic capacity compared to static conditions. Notably, PeptiMatrix at 7.5 mg/mL concentration demonstrated particularly promising metabolic competence under perfusion, positioning it as a potential candidate for xenobiotic metabolism studies after further optimization [29].

Drug Response and Chemoresistance

A critical application of 3D culture models lies in their capacity to mimic in vivo drug responses. Research using ovarian cancer HO-8910PM cells demonstrated that 3D-cultured cells in RADA16-I hydrogel, Matrigel, and collagen I all exhibited significantly higher chemoresistance to cisplatin and paclitaxel compared to conventional 2D cultures [28]. This heightened resistance more accurately reflects clinical response patterns, enhancing the predictive value of preclinical drug screening.

The expression of cell adhesion proteins, including integrin β1, E-cadherin, and N-cadherin, was quantitatively different in 3D-cultured MCTS compared to 2D cultures across all hydrogel types [28]. These molecular differences contribute to the enhanced drug resistance observed in 3D models and underscore the importance of cell-matrix interactions in therapeutic response.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

HepaRG Culture in Animal-Free Hydrogels

Objective: To evaluate the biocompatibility and functionality of animal-free hydrogels for HepaRG cell culture under static and dynamic conditions [29].

Materials:

• Cell Line: HepaRG cells
• Hydrogels: PeptiMatrix Core, PuraMatrix (synthetic peptides); VitroGel Organoid-3 (synthetic polysaccharide); GrowDex (wood-derived polysaccharide); Matrigel-collagen mix (animal-derived reference)
• Platforms: 96-well plates (static), OrganoPlate 3-lane device (dynamic)
• Assessment Methods: Viability assays, LDH leakage, albumin/bile acid secretion measurements, CYP3A4 enzyme activity analysis, qPCR for gene expression

Procedure:

• Hydrogel Preparation: Reconstitute each hydrogel according to manufacturer specifications.
• Cell Seeding: Seed HepaRG cells at standardized density in both 96-well plates and OrganoPlate devices.
• Culture Maintenance: Maintain cultures under appropriate conditions with regular medium changes.
• Functional Assessment: Measure key hepatic functionality markers at predetermined timepoints.
• Gene Expression Analysis: Extract RNA and perform qPCR for albumin, CYP3A4, CYP27A1, CYP7B1, KRT18, and KRT19.
• Immunofluorescence: Evaluate cell population and distribution in the OrganoPlate system.

Vascular Organoid Differentiation in Matrigel-Free Systems

Objective: To establish a completely animal-free protocol for hiPSC-derived blood vessel organoid culture using Vitronectin and fibrin-based hydrogels [30].

Materials:

• Cell Source: Human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs)
• Coating Substrate: Vitronectin XF (xeno-free matrix)
• 3D Hydrogel: Fibrin-based hydrogel (fibrinogen + thrombin)
• Differentiation Media: Defined differentiation factors
• Assessment Tools: Brightfield imaging, gene expression analysis (OCT4, TWIST, CD31, PDGFrβ), immunohistochemistry

Procedure:

• hiPSC Culture: Maintain hiPSCs on Vitronectin-coated substrates for 5 days.
• Pluripotency Verification: Confirm pluripotency markers (Nanog, OCT3/4) via immunostaining.
• Vascular Organoid Differentiation: Initiate differentiation protocol following established timelines (18-21 days).
• 3D Embedding: Transfer developing organoids to fibrin-based hydrogel at day 13.
• Maturation Monitoring: Track organoid development using brightfield imaging and molecular markers.
• Functional Validation: Assess endothelial (CD31) and mural cell (PDGFrβ) marker expression.

Multicellular Tumor Spheroid Formation in Colorectal Cancer

Objective: To generate consistent multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) from various colorectal cancer cell lines using different hydrogel methodologies [7].

Materials:

• Cell Lines: DLD1, HCT8, HCT116, LoVo, LS174T, SW48, SW480, SW620 CRC cells
• Hydrogels: Matrigel, collagen type I, methylcellulose, agarose
• Platforms: U-bottom plates, hanging drop systems, overlay methods
• Assessment Methods: Morphological analysis, viability assays, co-culture capabilities

Procedure:

• Technique Evaluation: Compare overlay on agarose, hanging drop, and U-bottom plates with/without matrix.
• Spheroid Formation: Seed cells at optimized densities in selected hydrogel systems.
• Morphological Analysis: Classify spheroid structures as compact spheroids or loose aggregates.
• Viability Assessment: Quantify cell viability using standardized assays.
• Co-culture Establishment: Incorporate immortalized colonic fibroblasts (CCD-18Co) to enhance physiological relevance.
• Protocol Optimization: Adjust hydrogel concentrations and cell densities for challenging cell lines (e.g., SW48).

Signaling Pathways in Hydrogel-Cell Interactions

Diagram 1: Hydrogel-Mediated Signaling Pathways in 3D Cell Culture. This diagram illustrates the key signaling mechanisms through which hydrogel scaffolds influence cellular behavior, highlighting the integration of biochemical and mechanical signaling pathways.

The signaling cascade begins with hydrogel properties influencing both ECM protein presentation and mechanical cues. Natural hydrogels like Matrigel provide complex ECM proteins including laminin, collagen, and entactin, while synthetic hydrogels can be functionalized with specific adhesion motifs [29]. Mechanical properties including stiffness and porosity directly influence mechanotransduction pathways [26]. These inputs converge to activate integrin signaling, initiating focal adhesion kinase (FAK) pathways that ultimately trigger downstream cellular responses including proliferation, differentiation, migration, and drug resistance [31] [32].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

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

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Considerations
Natural Hydrogels	Matrigel, Collagen I, fibrin	Gold standards for organoid culture, angiogenesis studies, tumor spheroid formation	Batch variability, animal origin, complex composition
Synthetic Peptide Hydrogels	RADA16-I, PeptiMatrix, PuraMatrix	Defined composition, tunable nanostructure, reproducible 3D microenvironments	May require functionalization for specific cell types
Polysaccharide Hydrogels	GrowDex (wood-derived), VitroGel (synthetic), alginate	Biocompatible alternatives, wood-derived or synthetic sources, reduced batch variation	May lack native adhesion motifs, mechanical properties may require optimization
Specialized Culture Platforms	OrganoPlate 3-lane, hanging drop systems, U-bottom plates	Enable dynamic flow conditions, gravity-driven perfusion, controlled spheroid formation	Platform-specific compatibility with different hydrogel types
Functional Assessment Tools	Albumin ELISA kits, LDH assay kits, CYP450 activity assays, qPCR primers for tissue-specific markers	Quantification of tissue-specific functionality, cytotoxicity assessment, metabolic competence evaluation	Assay compatibility with hydrogel systems must be validated
Disperse red 86	Disperse Red 86 | High-Purity Dye Reagent	Disperse Red 86 is a high-purity azo dye for textile and materials science research. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.	Bench Chemicals
Disodium phosphonate	Disodium Phosphonate|Research-Chemical	High-purity Disodium Phosphonate for agricultural research. For Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human, veterinary, or household use.	Bench Chemicals

The comparative analysis of scaffold-based systems reveals a complex landscape where no single hydrogel type universally outperforms others across all applications. Matrigel remains a powerful option for its bioactivity, particularly in demanding differentiation protocols, despite concerns regarding batch variability and animal origin. Collagen I offers a more defined natural alternative but may not provide the comprehensive basement membrane components essential for certain epithelial models. Synthetic hydrogels address key limitations of natural options through defined composition, tunable properties, and enhanced reproducibility, though they may require additional functionalization to match the bioactivity of their natural counterparts.

The choice between these systems should be guided by specific research objectives, with consideration of the trade-offs between biological complexity and experimental reproducibility. As the field advances, the development of hybrid systems that combine the definability of synthetic materials with the bioactivity of natural components represents a promising direction for creating more predictive and physiologically relevant 3D culture models.

Scaffold-free three-dimensional (3D) cell culture has emerged as a powerful methodology for generating more physiologically relevant in vitro models that better mimic the in vivo cellular microenvironment. Unlike traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers, scaffold-free techniques enable cells to self-assemble into 3D aggregates through cell-to-cell adhesion, preserving crucial intercellular interactions and extracellular matrix support without exogenous biomaterials [33] [34]. These approaches have gained significant traction in cancer research, drug discovery, and regenerative medicine by providing models that more accurately recapitulate tissue structure and function [35] [32].

The scaffold-free paradigm addresses critical limitations of both conventional 2D culture and scaffold-based 3D systems. While 2D culture oversimplifies key in vivo features including microenvironment, intercellular communication, and cell morphology [33], scaffold-based approaches sometimes introduce concerns about untoward immune responses and biosafety issues related to scaffold degradation [34]. Scaffold-free methods circumvent these challenges while promoting the formation of 3D microtissues that exhibit enhanced cell-cell communication, greater resistance to apoptosis, and upregulation of progenitor markers compared to their 2D counterparts [36] [9].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of three principal scaffold-free techniques: hanging drop, ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates, and agitation-based methods. We objectively evaluate their technical performance, experimental outcomes, and practical applications through synthesized experimental data and standardized protocols, focusing specifically on their morphological outputs within 3D culture research.

Scaffold-free 3D culture techniques leverage different physical principles to promote cell aggregation and spheroid formation. Hanging drop methods utilize surface tension to suspend cell-laden droplets from a surface, forcing cells to accumulate at the liquid-air interface and form spheroids [9] [37]. ULA plates employ specially treated surfaces with hydrophilic polymers or other cell-repellent coatings that prevent cell attachment, enabling cells to spontaneously aggregate into spheroids through gravitational settling [36] [9]. Agitation-based approaches use dynamic culture conditions, typically in rotating bioreactors, to maintain cells in constant suspension, preventing adhesion and promoting aggregation through continuous movement [9].

The table below summarizes the core characteristics, advantages, and limitations of each technique:

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Techniques

Characteristic	Hanging Drop	ULA Plates	Agitation-Based Methods
Core Mechanism	Surface tension creates pendant droplets for cell aggregation [9] [37]	Cell-repellent surface coating prevents attachment [36] [9]	Continuous motion maintains suspension state [9]
Spheroid Uniformity	High homogeneity and consistent circularity [37]	Variable (High in microcavity plates, heterogeneous in standard ULA) [36]	Broad size distribution, non-uniform spheroids [9]
Throughput Potential	Low to medium (manual), scalable with specialized plates [37]	High (especially 96-well microcavity formats) [36]	Medium (batch process generates many spheroids) [9]
Technical Complexity	Moderate (requires careful handling) [37]	Low (similar to standard cell culture) [36]	Moderate (requires specialized equipment) [9]
Evaporation Concerns	Significant (requires humidity control) [37]	Minimal (closed system) [36]	Minimal (closed bioreactor) [9]
Culture Duration	Up to several weeks with media changes [37]	Typically 5-14 days [36] [6]	Long-term culture possible [9]
Direct Imaging	Challenging (inverted geometry) [37]	Excellent (standard plate format) [36]	Requires transfer to imaging vessel [9]
Cost Considerations	Low (basic materials) to High (commercial kits)	Moderate to High (specialized plates) [38]	High (bioreactor equipment) [9]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Hanging Drop Technique

The hanging drop method creates 3D spheroids by suspending cells in droplets from a surface, most commonly using well plates. The following protocol adapts the innovative well-plate flip (WPF) approach described by Tahara et al. (2024) and the flipped well-plate technique for enhanced usability and reduced evaporation [37].

Key Materials:

• Standard 96-well plates (e.g., Corning, Thermo Scientific)
• Humidified chamber (commercial or 3D-printed prototype)
• Cell suspension in complete medium

Procedure:

• Prepare a single-cell suspension of HaCaT keratinocytes or other cell types at appropriate density (2.0×10⁴ to 3.0×10² cells per well recommended for HCT116 cells) [37].
• Add cell suspension to wells, overfilling each well with approximately 440μL total volume to enable meniscus formation upon inversion [37].
• Carefully flip the plate in one smooth motion to generate hanging droplets suspended from what was formerly the well bottom.
• Place the inverted plate in a humidity control chamber maintained at 37°C, 5% COâ‚‚ to prevent droplet evaporation.
• Culture for 3-7 days, monitoring spheroid formation daily via inverted microscopy.
• For media changes, carefully return plate to upright position, replace media, and reinvert to continue culture.

Technical Considerations: The WPF method addresses traditional hanging drop limitations by providing larger working volumes (up to 1mL per well) and better evaporation control, enabling generation of millimeter-scale spheroids (>1.5mm diameter) with high morphological homogeneity [37].

ULA Plate Methodology

Ultra-low attachment plates provide a user-friendly platform for scaffold-free spheroid culture by employing covalently bound hydrogels or other polymer coatings that minimize protein adsorption and cell attachment.

Key Materials:

• ULA plates (e.g., Corning Elplasia 96-well microcavity plates, BIOFLOAT 96-well U-bottom plates)
• Complete cell culture medium

Procedure (High-Throughput Microcavity System):

• Pre-incubate ULA plates with complete medium for 30 minutes at 37°C to equilibrate temperature and surface properties [36].
• Prepare HaCaT keratinocytes or other cells as single-cell suspension.
• For Elplasia 96-well microcavity plates: Resuspend cells at 1.0×10⁶ cells/mL and dispense 50μL (5.0×10⁴ cells) into each well [36].
• For BIOFLOAT 96-well U-bottom plates: Resuspend cells at 1.0×10⁵ cells/mL and dispense 50μL (5.0×10³ cells) into each well [36].
• Incubate plates undisturbed for 48 hours at 37°C, 5% COâ‚‚ to allow spheroid formation.
• Image spheroids using automated microscopy systems (e.g., ImageXpress Micro 4) with 4× magnification [36].

Procedure (Low-Throughput Heterogeneity Studies):

• Seed 8.0×10³ HaCaT cells in 2mL complete medium per well of 6-well ULA plates [36].
• For stemness enhancement studies, include ROCK1 inhibitor (Y-27632) at 5μM final concentration [36].
• Culture for 5 days without medium change to allow development of heterogeneous spheroid populations [36].
• Classify spheroids by morphology and size using inverted microscopy (e.g., EVOS system) with 20× objective [36].

Agitation-Based Approaches

Agitation methods utilize dynamic culture conditions to maintain cells in suspension, promoting aggregation through continuous movement in specialized bioreactors.

Key Materials:

• Rotating wall vessel bioreactors or spinner flasks
• Standard cell culture vessels with orbital shakers

Procedure:

• Prepare single-cell suspension at appropriate density (typically 0.5-5.0×10⁵ cells/mL depending on application) [9].
• Transfer cell suspension to bioreactor or culture vessel placed on orbital shaker.
• Maintain constant agitation at speeds sufficient to prevent sedimentation but low enough to avoid shear stress (typically 50-100 rpm for orbital shakers) [9].
• Culture for 3-10 days, monitoring aggregation daily.
• Harvest spheroids for analysis or further experimentation.

Technical Considerations: This approach generates a broad range of spheroid sizes and is particularly suitable for large-scale production, though it may result in less uniformity compared to other methods [9].

Performance Comparison and Morphological Analysis

Spheroid Size and Uniformity Metrics

Experimental data from direct comparisons reveals significant differences in morphological outcomes between scaffold-free techniques. The table below synthesizes quantitative metrics from multiple studies:

Table 2: Quantitative Morphological Comparison of Scaffold-Free Techniques

Method	Typical Spheroid Size Range	Size Distribution	Circularity/Uniformity	Reproducibility	Experimental Evidence
Hanging Drop	Up to >1.5mm diameter [37]	Narrow distribution	High sphericity	High with standardized technique	HCT116 colorectal carcinoma cells formed spheroids with excellent morphological homogeneity [37]
ULA (Microcavity)	Consistent, platform-dependent [36]	Very narrow	High circularity	Excellent, compatible with HTS	HaCaT keratinocytes formed uniform spheroids with consistent circularity in Elplasia and BIOFLOAT plates [36]
ULA (Standard Well)	Heterogeneous subpopulations [36]	Wide distribution	Variable morphology	Moderate	HaCaT cultures produced distinct subtypes: holospheres (408.7μm²), merospheres (99μm²), paraspheres (14.1μm²) [36]
Agitation-Based	Broad, size-dependent on conditions [9]	Very wide	Irregular shapes	Variable	Non-uniform spheroids generated due to stochastic aggregation [9]

Cellular and Functional Characteristics

Beyond morphology, scaffold-free techniques influence fundamental cellular characteristics and functionality:

Table 3: Cellular Characteristics Across Scaffold-Free Platforms

Parameter	Hanging Drop	ULA Plates	Agitation-Based Methods
Cell Viability	Enhanced viability maintained over weeks [37]	Enhanced viability in 3D format [34]	Varies with oxygen/nutrient diffusion [9]
Proliferation Rate	Decreased proliferation compared to 2D [34]	Decreased proliferation, heterogeneous zones [36]	Limited proliferation in core regions [9]
Stemness Markers	Preserved differentiation potential [34]	ROCK1 inhibition enhanced holosphere formation and stemness markers [36]	Varies with culture conditions
ECM Deposition	Enriched endogenous ECM production [34]	Enriched ECM, distinct subtypes [36]	Cell-derived matrix production [6]
Oxygen/Nutrient Gradients	Established in larger spheroids [37]	Form necrotic, hypoxic, and proliferative zones [32]	Diffusion limitations in larger aggregates [9]
Drug Response	More physiologically relevant resistance [37]	Enhanced resistance compared to 2D [6]	Gradient-dependent response patterns

Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of scaffold-free 3D culture requires specific materials and reagents optimized for each technique:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Scaffold-Free 3D Culture

Product Category	Specific Examples	Key Applications/Functions
ULA Plates	Corning Elplasia 96-well microcavity plates [36]	High-throughput uniform spheroid formation via micro-molding
	BIOFLOAT 96-well U-bottom plates [36]	Reproducible spheroid production with floating membrane
	Corning ULA 6-well plates [36]	Generation of heterogeneous spheroid populations
Specialized Media	Exosome-depleted FBS [33]	EV studies without serum-derived contaminating vesicles
	ROCK1 inhibitor (Y-27632) [36]	Enhances stemness and holosphere formation in keratinocytes
Analysis Tools	ImageXpress Micro 4 [36]	Automated high-content spheroid imaging and analysis
	MetaXpress High-Content Software [36]	Quantification of spheroid number, diameter, circularity
Hydrogel Supports	Matrigel (for embedded culture) [36]	Scaffold-based outgrowth studies from pre-formed spheroids
Humidity Chambers	3D-printed prototype chambers [37]	Evaporation control for hanging drop cultures

Experimental Workflow and Technical Pathways

The following workflow diagrams illustrate the standardized experimental processes for the three scaffold-free techniques, highlighting critical decision points and morphological outcomes.

Hanging Drop Workflow

ULA Plate Workflow

Agitation-Based Workflow

Applications in Biomedical Research

The selection of appropriate scaffold-free techniques depends heavily on research objectives and required outcomes:

Drug Discovery and Screening: ULA microcavity plates offer the highest compatibility with high-throughput screening workflows, providing uniform spheroids that enable standardized drug response assessment [36] [39]. The enhanced physiological relevance of 3D spheroids compared to 2D models yields more predictive data for in vivo translation, with spheroids frequently demonstrating drug resistance patterns analogous to solid tumors [39] [32].

Cancer Biology and Tumor Modeling: Standard ULA plates excel in generating heterogeneous spheroid populations that mirror the cellular diversity of actual tumors, with distinct subpopulations exhibiting varied proliferative capacity and stemness characteristics [36] [32]. The presence of oxygen and nutrient gradients in larger spheroids creates microenvironments with proliferative, hypoxic, and necrotic zones that closely simulate in vivo tumor conditions [32].

Stem Cell Research and Regenerative Medicine: Hanging drop and ULA methods both support the formation of stem cell spheroids with enhanced paracrine signaling, increased secretion of therapeutic factors, and improved viability compared to 2D cultures [34]. MSC spheroids demonstrate increased expression of immunomodulatory factors including TSG-6, PGE2, and TGF-β1, enhancing their therapeutic potential [34].

Extracellular Vesicle (EV) Production: 3D culture systems significantly influence EV yield and composition, with spheroids generating higher quantities of EVs enriched with specific miRNAs and proteins compared to 2D cultures [33]. This makes scaffold-free systems valuable tools for EV biomarker discovery and therapeutic EV production.

Scaffold-free 3D culture techniques represent complementary rather than competing approaches, each offering distinct advantages for specific research applications. Hanging drop methods provide exceptional control over spheroid size and high morphological homogeneity, particularly valuable for fundamental studies of cell aggregation and signaling. ULA plate systems deliver practical flexibility, with high-throughput microcavity formats enabling uniform spheroid production for screening applications, while standard well formats generate heterogeneous populations that better reflect biological complexity. Agitation-based approaches facilitate large-scale spheroid production despite less uniform outputs.

The methodological framework presented in this comparison guide enables researchers to make informed decisions based on experimental requirements, throughput needs, and morphological considerations. As the field advances, integration of these scaffold-free techniques with advanced imaging modalities [39] and microengineering approaches will further enhance their physiological relevance and research utility, accelerating progress in drug development, disease modeling, and regenerative medicine.

The pursuit of physiologically relevant in vitro models has positioned three-dimensional (3D) cell culture, particularly multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS), as an indispensable tool in cancer research and drug development. These models bridge the critical gap between traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers and in vivo systems by better recapitulating the complex tumor microenvironment, including 3D spatial architecture, gradients of oxygen and nutrients, and robust cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions [40] [41]. Among the various methods for generating spheroids, the Liquid Overlay Technique (LOT) is widely adopted due to its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and reliability. LOT utilizes non-adhesive surfaces—created by coatings like agarose or poly-HEMA—to prevent cell attachment, thereby forcing cells to aggregate and form spheroids [42] [43].

The formation of morphologically consistent and reproducible spheroids is not trivial and is governed by several critical experimental parameters. Seeding density and incubation time are two of the most pivotal factors, directly influencing spheroid size, compactness, structural integrity, and the development of internal physiological gradients. This guide objectively compares the effects of these parameters across different cell lines, providing a structured overview of optimized conditions to enhance the reliability and adoption of LOT in preclinical research.

Comparative Analysis of Spheroid Formation Parameters

The following tables synthesize experimental data from recent studies, summarizing the impact of seeding density and incubation time on spheroid attributes across various cancer cell lines.

Table 1: Impact of Seeding Density on Spheroid Morphology in LOT

Cell Line	Cancer Type	Seeding Density (cells/well)	Resulting Spheroid Size & Morphology	Key Findings
MCF-7 [44]	Breast Cancer	2,000 - 7,000 (96-well)	Size increased with density; instability at 6-7k	Spheroids from 6000 cells showed lowest compactness and sphericity; structural rupture at higher densities.
HCT 116 [44]	Colorectal Cancer	2,000 - 7,000 (96-well)	Size increased with density	Exhibited different growth kinetics than MCF-7; instability observed at 6000-7000 cells.
A549, LnCaP, MNNG/HOS, U251 [42]	Lung, Prostate, Osteosarcoma, Glioblastoma	20,000 (96-well)	Highly repeatable morphology	Round-bottom plates were crucial for obtaining repeatable spheroid morphology.
SW48 [7]	Colorectal Cancer	Optimized for compact spheroids	Novel compact spheroid model developed	Successful development required specific optimization of culture conditions.

Table 2: Impact of Incubation Time and Other Critical Culture Parameters

Parameter	Experimental Condition	Impact on Spheroid Attributes	Citation
Incubation Time	6 days vs. 19 days (MCF-7)	Progressive morphological changes; high expression of ECM genes (COL18A1, MUC5B) on day 19.	[44]
Serum Concentration	0% to 20% FBS	Higher concentrations (10-20%) promoted denser spheroids with distinct necrotic and proliferative zones.	[44]
Oxygen Level	3% Oâ‚‚ vs. Ambient	3% Oâ‚‚ resulted in reduced spheroid size, decreased cell viability, and increased necrosis.	[44]
Culture Platform	ULA Plates vs. Poly-HEMA	ULA plates generally promoted larger, more cohesive, and more drug-resistant spheroids.	[45]

Experimental Protocols for Key Studies

Protocol: Standardized LOT for Drug Response Testing

This methodology, derived from a 2023 study, highlights the protocol used to demonstrate enhanced drug resistance in 3D spheroids compared to 2D cultures [42].

• Cell Lines: Human A549 lung adenocarcinoma, LnCaP prostate adenocarcinoma, MNNG/HOS osteosarcoma, and U251 glioblastoma.
• Surface Preparation: Used commercially available low-adherence round-bottom 96-multiwell plates (e.g., Thermo Scientific 174926 or Corning Costar 4116 for 384-well plates). This replaces the traditional practice of coating plates with agar/agarose to create a non-adhesive surface.
• Seeding and Culture: Cells were seeded at a density of 20,000 cells in 100 µL of complete medium per well of a 96-well plate. After 24 hours of culture, an additional 50 µL of complete media was added to each well. The culture media was changed every 2-3 days by replacing two-thirds of the initial volume.
• Drug Treatment (Doxorubicin): MNNG/HOS spheroids were treated with increasing concentrations of doxorubicin (0.001 to 100 µM) for 72 hours. Cell viability was assessed using an LDH-Glo Cytotoxicity Assay.
• Key Outcome: The study reported that the IC50 of doxorubicin was 18.8 times higher in 3D spheroids (IC50 = 15.07 ± 0.3 µM) than in 2D monolayers (IC50 = 0.8 ± 0.4 µM), underscoring the critical role of 3D morphology in drug resistance.

Protocol: Systematic Analysis of Culture Parameters

A large-scale 2025 study analyzed 32,000 spheroid images to quantify the effects of seeding density, media, serum, and oxygen, providing actionable guidelines for standardization [44].

• Cell Lines: Included MCF-7 (breast cancer) and HCT 116 (colorectal cancer), among others.
• Seeding Density Experiment: Spheroids were established with initial cell numbers ranging from 2,000 to 7,000 cells in 96-well plates. Morphological metrics (size, compactness, sphericity) and cell death were tracked over time using automated image analysis.
• Time Course Analysis: MCF-7 spheroids were cultured for up to 19 days, with samples taken for single-cell RNA sequencing at day 6 and day 19 to analyze transcriptomic changes.
• Serum and Oxygen Modulation: Spheroids were cultured in media containing 0% to 20% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) and under oxygen concentrations of 3% and 21% (ambient) to assess their impact on spheroid architecture and viability.

Signaling Pathways and Workflow in Spheroid Maturation

The formation and maturation of spheroids are driven by a well-defined sequence of cellular events and signaling pathways. The diagram below illustrates the logical workflow from initial seeding to the formation of a mature spheroid with characteristic internal gradients.

Figure 1: Logical workflow of spheroid maturation. The process begins with cell aggregation, primarily driven by E-cadherin mediated cell-cell adhesion [41]. This is followed by compaction, involving integrin-mediated attachment to extracellular matrix (ECM) molecules [40] [41]. As the spheroid grows, diffusion limitations create internal gradients, leading to the formation of three distinct zones: an outer proliferative zone with high oxygen and nutrient access, a middle quiescent zone where cells are dormant due to stress, and a central necrotic core caused by severe hypoxia and metabolite accumulation [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The consistent production of spheroids using LOT relies on a set of key materials and reagents. The following table details these essential components and their functions in the spheroid formation process.

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for the Liquid Overlay Technique

Reagent/Material	Function in Spheroid Formation	Examples & Notes
Low-Adherence Plates	Provides a non-adhesive surface to force cell-cell aggregation instead of surface attachment.	Round-bottom ULA plates (e.g., Corning Costar, Thermo Scientific) ensure consistent, centered spheroid formation [42] [7].
Poly-HEMA/Agarose	Cost-effective alternative for creating non-adhesive surfaces on standard plates.	Poly-HEMA is dissolved in ethanol and coated onto plates [45]. Agarose is a traditional hydrogel option [43].
Basal Culture Media	Provides essential nutrients, vitamins, and ions for cell survival and growth.	DMEM, RPMI-1640; compositions vary and can significantly affect spheroid viability and growth kinetics [44].
Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS)	Supplies growth factors, hormones, and adhesion factors critical for cell proliferation and spheroid compaction.	Concentrations of 10-20% often promote denser spheroid formation with defined zones [44].
Cell Dissociation Agents	Used to harvest and create single-cell suspensions from 2D culture for seeding.	Trypsin-EDTA or enzyme-free cell dissociation buffers.
Viability/Cytotoxicity Assays	Quantifies cell death and metabolic activity in response to therapeutic agents.	LDH-based assays (e.g., LDH-Glo) and ATP-based assays (e.g., CellTiter-Glo) are commonly used, though protocols may require optimization for 3D cultures [42] [45].
Calcium sulfamate	Calcium sulfamate, CAS:13770-92-8, MF:CaH4N2O6S2, MW:232.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Copper iron oxide	Copper Iron Oxide (CuFeO)

The Liquid Overlay Technique stands as a robust and accessible method for generating multicellular tumor spheroids, effectively mimicking key aspects of in vivo tumor biology. The empirical data consolidated in this guide unequivocally demonstrates that seeding density and incubation time are not mere procedural details but are fundamental determinants of spheroid morphology, architecture, and physiology. Furthermore, other culture conditions such as serum concentration, oxygen tension, and the physical format of the culture vessel significantly contribute to the outcome and must be carefully controlled.

The successful implementation of LOT requires cell line-specific optimization of seeding density and allowing sufficient incubation time for the development of mature, gradient-containing spheroids. Adherence to the detailed protocols and guidelines provided, alongside the use of appropriate reagents, will significantly enhance the reproducibility and physiological relevance of 3D models. This standardization is a critical step forward in leveraging LOT for more predictive high-throughput drug screening and advancing our understanding of cancer biology.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a complex ecosystem where cancer cells coexist and interact with various stromal components, including immune cells, vascular cells, and fibroblasts. Within this intricate network, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) have emerged as critical drivers of tumor progression, therapy resistance, and immune evasion [46] [47]. Advanced co-culture models that incorporate fibroblasts represent a significant evolution beyond traditional two-dimensional (2D) monocultures, enabling researchers to more accurately mimic the physiological conditions found in human tumors [48]. These sophisticated experimental systems capture essential cell-cell interactions and cell-matrix interactions that dictate tumor behavior, drug penetration, and therapeutic responses [49] [9].

The transition from simple 2D cultures to three-dimensional (3D) co-culture systems marks a paradigm shift in cancer research. While 2D cultures grow cells in a single layer on flat surfaces, 3D models allow cells to expand in all directions, forming structures that better resemble natural tissues [20]. When fibroblasts are incorporated into these 3D systems, they actively remodel the extracellular matrix (ECM), secrete signaling factors, and establish metabolic relationships with cancer cells that closely mirror the in vivo TME [50] [48]. This physiological relevance makes fibroblast-enhanced co-culture models particularly valuable for studying tumor biology and conducting more predictive drug screening.

Methodological Approaches: Establishing Fibroblast-Enhanced Co-culture Models

Scaffold-Based Co-culture Systems

Scaffold-based systems utilize biomaterials to provide structural support that mimics the native extracellular matrix. These systems dominate the 3D cell culture market, accounting for approximately 48.85% of revenue in 2024 [23]. The scaffolds facilitate cell adhesion, proliferation, and tissue organization through porous structures that enable transport of oxygen, nutrients, and waste products [9].

Natural hydrogels, including Matrigel, collagen, alginate, and hyaluronic acid, are widely employed for their biocompatibility and bioactivity. Matrigel, derived from basement membrane extracts, contains adhesive proteins, proteoglycans, and collagen IV that provide essential structural and biochemical cues for organoid development [46]. In recent innovations, researchers have developed sodium alginate-hyaluronic acid (Alg-HA) hydrogel microbeads with storage modulus of 12 kPa, matching the mechanical properties of lung tumor tissue and demonstrating excellent biocompatibility for 3D co-culture models [48].

Synthetic polymers such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polylactide-co-glycolide (PLG), and polycaprolactone (PCL) offer greater control over mechanical properties and construct architecture. These materials provide higher consistency and reproducibility but often require modification to improve cell affinity due to inherent hydrophobicity and lack of cell recognition sites [49] [9]. Composite scaffolds that combine multiple materials have emerged as a sophisticated solution to address individual material limitations, optimizing both mechanical support and cellular attachment [9].

Scaffold-Free Co-culture Systems

Scaffold-free approaches generate 3D structures through cell self-assembly, eliminating potential complications from animal-derived matrix components. The hanging drop method allows cell suspension aliquots to aggregate at the bottom of micro trays, forming spheroids with controlled size determined by cell suspension density and drop volume [7] [9]. The forced-floating technique utilizes low-adhesion polymer-coated well plates, where cell suspension is centrifuged to promote aggregation into spheroids [9]. Agitation-based approaches using rotating bioreactors maintain cells in constant suspension, preventing attachment to container walls and enabling aggregate formation through continuous stirring [9].

Multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) represent a prominent scaffold-free model that spontaneously forms when cancer cells and fibroblasts are co-cultured under non-adherent conditions. These structures develop physiological gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and pH, creating distinct microenvironments with proliferating cells at the periphery and quiescent or necrotic cells in the core [7]. A 2025 study systematically compared 3D culture methodologies across eight colorectal cancer cell lines, providing optimized protocols for generating consistent MCTS with incorporated fibroblasts [7].

Microfluidic and Organ-on-Chip Platforms

Advanced microfluidic systems enable precise control over the cellular microenvironment, facilitating the creation of spatially patterned co-cultures that mimic the architectural organization of real tumors. These platforms allow continuous perfusion of nutrients and oxygen while removing waste products, maintaining long-term culture viability [51] [23]. The integration of microfluidic channels with 3D matrices enables researchers to establish concentration gradients of signaling molecules and drugs, providing valuable insights into fibroblast-mediated mechanisms of therapeutic resistance [23].

Table 1: Comparison of Co-culture System Methodologies

Method Type	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations	Common Applications
Scaffold-Based (Natural)	Matrigel, collagen, alginate, hyaluronic acid	High biocompatibility, bioactive	Batch variability, potential immunogenicity	Organoid generation, stromal co-culture
Scaffold-Based (Synthetic)	PEG, PVA, PLG, PCL	Tunable properties, high reproducibility	Limited bioactivity, may require functionalization	High-throughput screening, mechanistic studies
Scaffold-Free	Hanging drop, low-adhesion plates, bioreactors	No matrix interference, self-assembly	Limited control over size, heterogeneity in shape	Drug penetration studies, metabolism research
Microfluidic	Chip-based systems, continuous perfusion	Precise microenvironment control, spatial patterning	Technical complexity, higher cost	Metastasis studies, immune cell trafficking

Experimental Protocols: Key Methodologies for Fibroblast Co-culture

Establishing a 3D Tri-culture Model for Lung Cancer

A groundbreaking 2025 study developed a sophisticated 3D-3 co-culture model incorporating patient-derived lung cancer cells, CAFs, and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) using sodium alginate-hyaluronic acid hydrogel microbeads [48]. The experimental workflow proceeded as follows:

• Cell Isolation and Preparation: Conditionally reprogrammed lung cancer cells (CRLCs) and CAFs were isolated from lung cancer patient tissues using conditional reprogramming (CR) technology. HUVECs were obtained from commercial sources.

• Hydrogel Preparation: Sodium alginate and hyaluronic acid solutions were prepared at specific concentrations and sterilized. The two solutions were mixed at a predetermined ratio to create the Alg-HA hydrogel precursor.

• Cell Encapsulation: CRLCs, CAFs, and HUVECs were combined in a defined ratio (typically 2:1:1) and mixed with the Alg-HA solution. The cell-hydrogel mixture was extruded through a microfluidic device to generate uniform microbeads approximately 200μm in diameter.

• Cross-linking: The microbeads were cross-linked using calcium chloride solution to form stable 3D structures with mechanical properties matching native lung tumor tissue.

• Culture Maintenance: The encapsulated tri-culture microbeads were maintained in specialized medium supporting all three cell types, with medium changes every 2-3 days.

• Drug Testing: After 7 days of culture, the microbeads were treated with chemotherapeutic agents (cisplatin, paclitaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine) or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib) for 72 hours to assess treatment response.

This protocol resulted in a robust model that successfully replicated key aspects of the lung TME, including ECM remodeling, stemness enhancement, and drug resistance mechanisms [48].

Generating Multicellular Tumor Spheroids with Fibroblasts

A comprehensive 2025 study compared different 3D culture techniques for generating colorectal cancer spheroids with incorporated fibroblasts [7]. The optimized protocol for compact spheroid formation included:

• Cell Line Selection: Eight colorectal cancer cell lines (DLD1, HCT8, HCT116, LoVo, LS174T, SW48, SW480, SW620) were evaluated alongside immortalized colonic fibroblasts (CCD-18Co).

• Co-culture Ratio Optimization: Cancer cells and fibroblasts were combined in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 10:1 to determine optimal spheroid formation conditions for each cell line.

• Method Comparison: Four techniques were systematically evaluated:

  • Overlay on agarose: Cell suspension seeded on 1.5% agarose-coated plates
  • Hanging drop: 20μL drops containing 1000-5000 cells suspended from plate lids
  • U-bottom plates without matrix: Standard low-adhesion U-bottom plates
  • U-bottom plates with matrix support: Methylcellulose, Matrigel, or collagen type I hydrogels

• Morphological Analysis: Spheroid compactness, circularity, and diameter were quantified using brightfield microscopy and image analysis software.

• Viability Assessment: Cell viability within spheroids was evaluated using live/dead staining and metabolic activity assays.

The study successfully established a novel protocol for generating compact SW48 spheroids, which had previously proven challenging, by incorporating specific matrix components and optimizing cell seeding density [7].

Diagram 1: Fibroblast Co-culture Model Development Workflow. This flowchart illustrates the key steps in establishing advanced co-culture models incorporating fibroblasts, from initial sample collection to experimental applications.

Functional Outcomes: Quantitative Assessment of Co-culture Models

Morphological and Phenotypic Changes

Integrating fibroblasts into 3D cancer models induces significant morphological alterations that enhance physiological relevance. In the tri-culture lung cancer model, RNA sequencing analysis revealed that co-culture with CAFs and HUVECs upregulated pathways related to ECM remodeling, cell adhesion molecules, ECM-receptor interactions, and the PI3K-Akt signaling pathway [48]. These transcriptional changes corresponded with structural developments more closely resembling in vivo tumors.

The 2025 colorectal cancer spheroid study demonstrated that fibroblast incorporation promoted spheroid compaction and enhanced viability in multiple cell lines. The presence of fibroblasts facilitated the formation of more organized structures with distinct cancer cell and fibroblast compartments, mimicking the spatial relationships observed in actual tumors [7]. Importantly, this study established the first successful protocol for generating compact SW48 spheroids by optimizing culture conditions and incorporating supportive matrices.

Drug Response and Resistance Mechanisms

Fibroblast-enhanced co-culture models demonstrate markedly different drug responses compared to monoculture systems, better replicating clinical resistance patterns. In the lung cancer tri-culture model, the cytotoxicity induced by both chemotherapeutic agents (cisplatin, paclitaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib) was significantly reduced compared to monoculture conditions [48]. This protective effect was mediated through multiple mechanisms:

• Stemness Enhancement: Protein expression analysis confirmed that cells in the 3D-3 co-culture model significantly overexpressed stemness promoters including ALDH1A1, NANOG, and SOX9 compared to monoculture.

• ECM-Mediated Protection: The fibroblast-generated matrix created a physical barrier that impeded drug penetration and distribution throughout the spheroid.

• Metabolic Adaptation: Fibroblasts induced metabolic reprogramming in cancer cells, enhancing their resistance to stress and chemical insults.

Table 2: Quantitative Drug Response Data in 3D Co-culture vs. Monoculture Systems

Drug Class	Specific Agents	Reduction in Cytotoxicity in Co-culture	Proposed Resistance Mechanisms	Experimental Model
Chemotherapy	Cisplatin	45-60%	Enhanced stemness, ECM barrier	Lung cancer tri-culture [48]
Chemotherapy	Paclitaxel	50-65%	PI3K-Akt signaling, survival pathways	Lung cancer tri-culture [48]
Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors	Gefitinib, Afatinib	40-55%	Metabolic reprogramming, reduced drug uptake	Lung cancer tri-culture [48]
Various Agents	5-FU, Oxaliplatin	30-50%	Fibroblast-mediated paracrine signaling	Colorectal cancer spheroids [7]

Fibroblast-Mediated Immune Modulation

Single-cell and spatial transcriptomic analyses of renal cell carcinoma have revealed that FAP+ fibroblasts are enriched in aggressive tumors with tumor thrombus and demonstrate spatial contiguity with aggressive cancer cells [50]. These specialized fibroblasts orchestrate immunosuppressive niches through multiple mechanisms:

• NK Cell Inhibition: FAP+ fibroblast abundance inversely correlates with functional NK cells, suggesting their role in immune evasion [50].

• Cytokine Network Manipulation: CAFs utilize complex cytokine networks to establish immunosuppressive microenvironments that limit antitumor immunity [47].

• Metabolic Reprogramming: Fibroblasts alter nutrient availability in the TME, creating metabolic competition that suppresses immune cell function [47].

• Immune Checkpoint Regulation: CAFs contribute to the upregulation of various immune checkpoints, further enhancing immune resistance [47].

Diagram 2: Fibroblast-Mediated Therapy Resistance Mechanisms. This diagram illustrates the key pathways through which cancer-associated fibroblasts promote treatment resistance in the tumor microenvironment.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of fibroblast-enhanced co-culture models requires specific reagents and specialized materials. The following table details essential components for establishing these advanced experimental systems:

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

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Key Functions	Application Notes
Extracellular Matrices	Matrigel, Cultrex BME, Collagen I, Alginate-HA hydrogels	Provide 3D structural support, biochemical cues	Matrigel optimal for organoid culture; Alg-HA offers tunable stiffness [46] [48]
Specialized Media	Growth factor-reduced media, Stem cell media	Support co-culture of multiple cell types	Often require supplementation with Wnt3A, R-spondin-1, Noggin [46]
Cell Culture Platforms	Ultra-low attachment plates, Hanging drop plates, Microfluidic chips	Enable 3D structure formation	U-bottom plates cost-effective for high-throughput screening [7]
Fibroblast Sources	Primary CAFs, Immortalized fibroblasts (CCD-18Co), Conditionally reprogrammed CAFs	Recapitulate stromal interactions	Patient-derived CAFs best preserve in vivo characteristics [7] [48]
Analysis Reagents	Live/dead viability assays, ALDH1A1 antibodies, Spheroid imaging dyes	Assess model viability and function	Critical for quantifying treatment responses [48]

The integration of fibroblasts into advanced 3D co-culture systems represents a significant advancement in tumor microenvironment modeling, offering unprecedented physiological relevance for cancer research and drug development. These sophisticated models successfully replicate critical aspects of the stromal compartment, including ECM remodeling, therapeutic resistance, and immune modulation. As the field progresses, the convergence of 3D culture technologies with artificial intelligence, high-content imaging, and multi-omics approaches will further enhance the predictive power of these systems [51] [23].

Future developments will likely focus on increasing model complexity through incorporation of additional stromal components, including immune cells and vascular networks, to create even more comprehensive TME replicas. The integration of patient-derived cells from diverse cancer types will facilitate personalized therapy testing and biomarker discovery. As these advanced co-culture systems become more standardized and accessible, they will play an increasingly central role in bridging the gap between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo models, ultimately accelerating the development of more effective cancer therapeutics.

Optimizing 3D Culture Consistency: Overcoming Morphological Challenges

In the field of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture, spheroids have emerged as a critical model system that more accurately mimics the in vivo tumor microenvironment and tissue morphology compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers [52] [53]. Among the various parameters influencing spheroid development, initial seeding density stands out as a fundamental experimental variable that researchers can control to directly manipulate spheroid size, structural integrity, and physiological relevance. This guide provides an objective comparison of how seeding density impacts spheroid attributes across different cell types and culture systems, supported by recent experimental data to inform method selection for drug development and basic research.

The relationship between seeding density and spheroid architecture is not merely linear but involves complex interactions with culture conditions. Proper control over seeding density enables researchers to standardize spheroid production for high-throughput screening applications while ensuring that resulting structures exhibit physiologically relevant characteristics such as nutrient gradients, proliferative zones, and necrotic cores [54] [55]. Understanding these relationships is essential for generating reproducible, reliable 3D culture models that can bridge the gap between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo studies.

Quantitative Impact of Seeding Density on Spheroid Attributes

Direct Correlation Between Cell Number and Spheroid Size

Multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that initial seeding density directly governs final spheroid dimensions. Systematically increasing the number of cells plated results in proportionally larger spheroids, though this relationship varies across cell lines and culture platforms.

Table 1: Seeding Density Impact on Spheroid Size and Morphology

Cell Line	Seeding Density (cells)	Resulting Spheroid Size	Morphological Observations	Source
HCT 116 (Colon cancer)	100 cells/well	~200 μm diameter at 112 hours	Controlled, uniform spheroids	[56]
HCT 116 (Colon cancer)	1,000 cells/well	~400 μm diameter at 112 hours	Controlled, uniform spheroids	[56]
MCF-7 (Breast cancer)	2,000-6,000 cells	Size decreased over time	Gradual reduction in dimensions	[57] [55]
HCT 116	2,000-6,000 cells	Size increased over time	Opposite trend to MCF-7	[57] [55]
MCF-7	6,000 cells	Largest diameter	Lowest compactness, solidity, and sphericity	[57]
MCF-7	7,000 cells	Smaller than 6,000 cell spheroids	Reduced cell death	[57]

Structural Integrity and Compactness Considerations

While increasing cell numbers typically produces larger spheroids, there exists a critical threshold beyond which structural stability becomes compromised. Evidence indicates that very high seeding densities can lead to irregular structures with reduced compactness.

Large-scale analysis of spheroid attributes revealed that spheroids formed from 6,000 cells exhibited the lowest levels of compactness, solidity, and sphericity despite having the largest diameters [57]. When HCT 116 cells were seeded at high densities (6,000-7,000 cells), some spheroids exhibited structural instability, rupturing and releasing areas of necrosis and proliferation outside the spheroid boundaries [57]. Interestingly, MCF-7 spheroids demonstrated self-repair capabilities, with structural normalization observed after 6 days of culture following initial instability [57] [55].

Cell-Type Specific Growth Kinetics

Different cell types display distinct growth patterns in response to identical seeding conditions, highlighting the importance of optimizing density parameters for specific experimental models.

Table 2: Cell-Type Specific Responses to Seeding Density

Cell Line	Origin	Response to Increasing Seeding Density	Notable Characteristics
MCF-7	Breast cancer	Gradual decrease in spheroid size over time	Forms dense, compact spheroids
HCT 116	Colorectal carcinoma	Progressive increase in spheroid size over time	Tendency toward structural instability at high density
Lipo246 & Lipo863	Dedifferentiated liposarcoma	Formed spheroids in scaffold-free but not scaffold-based methods	Method-dependent morphology
HEK 293T	Embryonic kidney	Significant media-dependent growth variations	Affected by glucose/calcium levels

Experimental Protocols for Seeding Density Optimization

Low-Attachment Plate Method

The ultra-low attachment (ULA) plate technique represents one of the most accessible and reproducible approaches for generating spheroids through controlled seeding density.

Protocol:

• Obtain commercially available low-attachment plates with proprietary surface coatings that minimize protein adsorption and cell attachment (e.g., Nunclon Sphera, Corning Costar) [56].
• Prepare single-cell suspensions at varying densities relevant to your cell type (typically 100-10,000 cells/well for 96-well U-bottom formats).
• Seed 100-200 μL of cell suspension per well using multichannel pipettes for consistency.
• Centrifuge plates at low speed (100-400 × g for 1-5 minutes) to concentrate cells at the well bottom and promote uniform aggregation.
• Maintain cultures at appropriate temperature and COâ‚‚ conditions, changing medium carefully every 2-3 days to avoid disrupting formed spheroids.
• Monitor spheroid formation and growth daily using brightfield microscopy.

This method produces uniform, size-controlled spheroids suitable for high-throughput screening applications, with spheroid size directly proportional to initial seeding density [56]. The proprietary hydrogel coatings prevent cell attachment while facilitating natural cell-cell interactions through secreted extracellular matrices.

Hanging Drop Technique

The hanging drop method provides an alternative scaffold-free approach that offers high uniformity through gravitational concentration of cells.

Protocol:

• Prepare cell suspensions at desired densities (typically 1,000-10,000 cells/mL in routine culture medium).
• Dispense 10-30 μL droplets of cell suspension onto the inner surface of a culture dish lid.
• Carefully invert the lid and place over a reservoir containing PBS or culture medium to maintain humidity.
• Incubate for 24-72 hours to allow spheroid formation through gravitational settling and natural aggregation.
• Collect formed spheroids by washing with culture medium or carefully pipetting droplets.

While this method produces highly uniform spheroids without specialized equipment, it presents limitations in throughput and handling ease compared to ULA plates [53] [6]. The technique works well for co-culture systems and applications requiring precise initial aggregate formation.

Scaffold-Based Methods

Scaffold-based systems, including Matrigel and collagen hydrogels, provide extracellular matrix support that influences spheroid formation through both proliferation and aggregation mechanisms.

Protocol (Collagen ECM Scaffold):

• Prepare Type I collagen solution (3 mg/mL final concentration) on ice by mixing rat tail collagen with 10× PBS, NaOH, and sterile water to achieve physiological pH [6].
• Combine cell suspension (1 × 10⁵ cells/mL) with collagen solution at 1:1 ratio on ice.
• Seed 50 μL (24-well plate) or 1 mL (12-well plate) of the cell-collagen mixture per well.
• Incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes to facilitate gel polymerization.
• Add culture medium carefully without disrupting the gel matrix.
• Change medium every 2-3 days, monitoring spheroid formation over 7-14 days.

Scaffold-based methods typically require longer culture periods (up to 14 days) but generate spheroids that exhibit more physiologically relevant cell-matrix interactions and often demonstrate enhanced drug resistance profiles compared to scaffold-free approaches [58] [6].

Signaling Pathways and Biological Mechanisms

The process of spheroid formation and the impact of seeding density on final architecture involve coordinated activation of specific molecular pathways that regulate cell adhesion, aggregation, and tissue organization.

The molecular mechanisms underlying spheroid formation begin with initial cell seeding, which determines the concentration of cells available for aggregation. Higher seeding densities accelerate the formation process through several interconnected mechanisms:

• ECM Secretion and Integrin Activation: Cells in close proximity rapidly secrete extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins containing RGD (arginine-glycine-aspartic acid) motifs that bind to cell-surface integrins [53]. This binding upregulates cadherin expression, particularly E-cadherin in epithelial cells.

• Focal Adhesion Kinase (FAK) Signaling: Integrin binding activates FAK, a cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase that regulates multiple aspects of cell adhesion, migration, and growth [53]. FAK overexpression associates with invasive tumor phenotypes, while FAK knockout models show prevention of breast carcinoma progression.

• Cadherin-Mediated Aggregation: Upregulated cadherins accumulate on cell membranes and facilitate homophilic cadherin-cadherin binding between neighboring cells, enabling tight intercellular connections and aggregate stabilization [53].

• Cytoskeletal Rearrangement: FAK signaling induces reorganization of actin filaments and microtubules, which is crucial for mediating cell shape changes, migration, and the compaction processes essential for dense spheroid formation [53].

Higher seeding densities promote more rapid activation of these pathways, leading to faster aggregation but potentially compromising structural integrity if compaction mechanisms cannot adequately stabilize the larger structures.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Spheroid Culture

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Spheroid Research
Low-Attachment Plates	Nunclon Sphera, Corning Ultra-Low Attachment	Prevent cell-surface attachment, forcing 3D aggregation via cell-cell contacts
Extracellular Matrices	Matrigel, Collagen Type I, Synthetic PEG-based hydrogels	Provide scaffold for embedded culture, mimicking in vivo ECM environment
Cell Viability Assays	CellTiter-Glo 3D, LIVE/DEAD staining, ATP-based assays	Quantify metabolic activity and viability in dense 3D structures
Cell Lines	MCF-7, HCT 116, patient-derived organoids	Model specific tissue types and disease states for drug testing
Image Analysis Software	AnaSP, ReViSP	Quantify spheroid size, circularity, compactness from microscopy data
Specialized Media	DMEM, RPMI-1640, organoid-specific formulations	Provide nutrients, growth factors tailored to cell type needs

Initial seeding density represents a fundamental, easily manipulated parameter that directly controls spheroid size, structural integrity, and physiological relevance. The experimental data compiled in this guide demonstrates that while general principles apply across culture methods, optimal seeding conditions must be determined empirically for specific cell types and research applications. The growing toolbox of low-attachment platforms, scaffold materials, and analysis software continues to enhance researchers' ability to precisely engineer spheroid models with defined characteristics. By systematically optimizing seeding density alongside other critical parameters such as media composition and oxygen tension, researchers can generate more reproducible, physiologically relevant 3D models that better predict therapeutic responses and bridge the gap between conventional 2D culture and in vivo systems.

The adoption of three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures represents a significant advancement in cancer research, drug development, and disease modeling, as these systems better mimic the complex architectural and functional properties of in vivo tissues compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) cultures [32]. However, the accurate analysis of 3D models is heavily dependent on appropriate fixation protocols that preserve native morphology without introducing artifacts. Aldehyde-based fixatives, particularly paraformaldehyde (PFA) and glutaraldehyde, remain the most widely used agents for structural preservation across microscopy and imaging techniques. These fixatives function primarily by creating covalent cross-links between protein amine groups via methylene bridges, rendering tissues metabolically and structurally stable [59]. Despite their widespread use, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that these aldehydes significantly alter the morphological and functional properties of 3D cultures, potentially compromising experimental outcomes and data interpretation.

The fixation process presents a particular challenge for 3D models due to their increased spatial complexity, which includes heterogeneous cell populations, extracellular matrix (ECM) components, and intricate cell-cell interactions that are absent in 2D systems [32]. The dense structure of 3D cultures can impede fixative penetration, leading to uneven preservation and potential core degradation. Furthermore, the cross-linking activity of aldehydes can modify antigen accessibility, alter fluorescent protein properties, and induce structural changes that affect both qualitative assessments and quantitative measurements. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of aldehyde fixation effects on 3D morphology, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies to inform researchers' experimental design and interpretation.

Comparative Analysis of Aldehyde Fixatives

Chemical Properties and Mechanisms of Action

Aldehyde fixatives preserve cellular structure through distinct yet complementary chemical mechanisms. Paraformaldehyde (PFA), which depolymerizes to formaldehyde in aqueous solution, primarily forms methylene bridges between primary amine groups (e.g., lysine residues) and other nitrogen atoms in proteins, creating a stable protein network [59]. This cross-linking occurs relatively slowly and can be reversed with washing, which explains why PFA fixation generally preserves better antigenicity but provides less robust structural reinforcement. Glutaraldehyde, containing two reactive aldehyde groups, creates more extensive and irreversible cross-links between proteins, resulting in superior ultrastructural preservation but potentially greater epitope masking [60]. Mixed aldehyde solutions, such as Karnovsky's fixative (a combination of formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde), attempt to balance the rapid penetration of formaldehyde with the superior cross-linking of glutaraldehyde [59].

The efficacy of aldehyde fixation is influenced by multiple factors including concentration, duration, temperature, pH, and penetration depth. For 3D cultures, these parameters require careful optimization as the dense ECM and cellular organization can significantly impede fixative diffusion compared to monolayer cultures or thin tissue sections. Studies have demonstrated that standard fixation protocols developed for 2D cultures often require substantial modification for 3D systems to ensure complete preservation without introducing artifacts.

Quantitative Effects on Morphological Parameters

Table 1: Comparative Effects of Aldehyde Fixatives on 3D Morphology

Fixative Type	Concentration	Effect on Size/Morphology	Effect on Antigenicity	Recommended Applications
Paraformaldehyde (PFA)	4%	21% reduction in T1, 81% reduction in T2 relaxation times [59]; Alters spheroid roundness based on cell number and culture age [60]	Significant epitope masking with prolonged fixation; PLP formulation improves detection of surface glycoproteins [61]	Standard immunohistochemistry; light microscopy; when antigen preservation is priority
Glutaraldehyde	0.1-4%	Increased extracellular apparent diffusion coefficient (88%) and apparent restriction size (30%) [59]; induces indented aggregate formation in spheroids [60]	Strong epitope masking even at low concentrations; requires antigen retrieval methods [61]	Electron microscopy; when superior ultrastructural preservation is essential
Karnovsky's Solution	2% PFA + 2% glutaraldehyde	Changes similar to formaldehyde but with distinct effects on water exchange rates [59]	Moderate to strong epitope masking; balanced preservation	Specialized applications requiring balance between structure and antigenicity
PLP Fixative	4% PFA + 0.1M lysine + 0.01M periodate	Better preservation of fine cellular processes [61]	Enhanced detection of cell surface glycoproteins (PDGFRα, NG2) [61]	Detection of cell surface markers; OPC morphology studies

Table 2: Fixation-Induced Artifacts in Different 3D Model Systems

3D Model Type	Fixation Artifacts	Impact on Data Interpretation	Optimization Strategies
Neural Tissue Slices	239% increased transmembrane water exchange rate indicating membrane permeability changes [59]	Alters diffusion MRI measurements; may affect assessment of tissue integrity	Limit fixation duration; consider PBS washing after fixation to remove unbound aldehydes [59]
Cancer Spheroids	Reduction in round spheroids; increased indented aggregates [60]	May skew morphological classification; affects high-content imaging analyses	Standardize cell numbers, culture age, and fixation parameters [60]
Engineered Intestinal Villi	Potential disruption of 3D architecture during ECM immobilization steps involving glutaraldehyde [62]	Compromises assessment of tissue organization and differentiation	Optimize glutaraldehyde concentration and exposure time [62]
Mammary Epithelial Acini	Disruption of basal polarity in stiff ECM conditions [63]	Obscures native tissue organization and polarity assessment	Combine with mechanical tuning approaches; validate with multiple markers

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Fixation Effects

Protocol 1: Evaluation of Fixation Effects on MRI Properties in Nervous Tissue

This protocol is adapted from studies investigating how aldehyde fixatives alter the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) properties of nervous tissue, which provides insights into structural changes at the microstructural level [59].

Materials and Reagents:

• Rat cortical brain slices (500μm thickness)
• Aldehyde fixative solutions: 4% formaldehyde, 4% glutaraldehyde, Karnovsky's solution (2% formaldehyde + 2% glutaraldehyde) in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
• Artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF)
• Perfusion chamber system
• High-field MRI system (e.g., 17.6-T vertical magnet)

Methodology:

• Tissue Preparation: Prepare rat cortical slices using a vibratome and maintain in ice-cold ACSF for 1 hour post-sacrifice to minimize ischemic damage.
• Fixation Procedure: Immerse slices in excess volume of respective aldehyde fixative solutions (>100:1 volume ratio) at room temperature for 3-4 hours, then store in fresh fixative at 4°C for 10+ days to complete fixation reactions.
• Post-Fixation Processing: Gradually equilibrate fixed slices to room temperature. For some samples, wash over 12 hours with 4-5 PBS solution changes to remove free formaldehyde.
• MRI Acquisition: Place slices in perfusion chamber and acquire T1 and T2 relaxation measurements using appropriate pulse sequences. Perform diffusion MRI with multiple diffusion times (10, 20, 35, 50 ms) and b-values (7-15,000 s/mm²).
• Data Analysis: Analyze water diffusion using a two-compartment analytical model to calculate extracellular apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCEX), apparent restriction size, and transmembrane water exchange rate.

Key Parameters for Comparison:

• Quantitative changes in T1 and T2 relaxation times
• Alterations in extracellular apparent diffusion coefficient
• Changes in apparent restriction size and water exchange rates
• Structural preservation quality

Protocol 2: Assessment of Fixation-Induced Morphological Changes in 3D Spheroids

This protocol evaluates how aldehyde fixatives affect the morphology of 3D spheroids, with applications in cancer research and toxicology studies [60].

Materials and Reagents:

• Normal Human Dermal Fibroblasts or relevant cell line
• Ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates
• Aldehyde fixatives: 4% paraformaldehyde or glutaraldehyde in PBS
• Light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and digital light microscopy systems
• Image analysis software (e.g., ImageJ)

Methodology:

• Spheroid Generation: Seed 10,000-200,000 cells in 96-well ULA plates with appropriate culture media. Allow spheroid formation for 1-3 days.
• Fixation Conditions: Fix spheroids with 4% PFA or glutaraldehyde for varying durations (1-24 hours) at room temperature or 4°C.
• Morphological Analysis:
  • Light Microscopy: Capture brightfield images to assess overall spheroid morphology and size.
  • Scanning Electron Microscopy: Process fixed spheroids through graded ethanol series, critical point drying, and sputter coating for ultrastructural analysis.
  • Height Profile Measurement: Use digital light microscopy to generate 3D reconstructions and measure spheroid dimensions.
• Quantitative Assessment: Classify spheroids as round or indented aggregates. Measure size reduction over time and calculate the percentage of round spheroids under different fixation conditions.

Key Parameters for Comparison:

• Spheroid circularity/roundness index
• Size reduction measurements
• Percentage of indented versus round spheroids
• Surface ultrastructure features

Figure 1: Aldehyde-Induced Morphological Alterations in 3D Models. This diagram illustrates the primary pathways through which aldehyde fixatives affect 3D cellular morphology, from initial chemical interactions to final morphological outcomes.

Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Fixation Effects

Signaling Pathways and Cellular Responses

Aldehyde fixatives initiate complex cellular responses that extend beyond simple protein cross-linking. Research using 3D human bronchial epithelial tissues (EpiAirway) exposed to aldehyde-containing aerosols has revealed that acetaldehyde and methylglyoxal induce mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and cytoskeletal disruption through specific molecular pathways [64]. These alterations directly impact cellular morphology and must be considered when interpreting fixed samples.

The mechanism begins with aldehyde penetration into cells, where these reactive compounds form adducts with cellular proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids. Proteomic analyses of aldehyde-exposed 3D bronchial epithelial tissues have identified 51 overlapping differentially expressed proteins following acetaldehyde and methylglyoxal exposure, indicating conserved cellular responses to aldehyde stress [64]. Pathway analysis reveals significant enrichment in mitochondrial dysfunction, fatty acid metabolism, G2/M DNA damage checkpoint regulation, and mitochondrial biogenesis pathways. These molecular changes correlate with functional impairments, including reduced ALDH activity, increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and cytoskeletal reorganization.

The cytoskeletal alterations are particularly relevant for morphological studies, as aldehyde-induced actin depolymerization can dramatically change cell shape and spatial organization within 3D cultures. Studies demonstrate that these effects are partially mediated through TRPA1 and TRPM8 channels, as pharmacological inhibition of these channels attenuates aldehyde-induced mitochondrial dysfunction and actin depolymerization [64]. This suggests that the morphological changes observed after aldehyde fixation may reflect both structural preservation artifacts and genuine cellular stress responses activated during the initial fixative contact.

Figure 2: Molecular Pathways of Aldehyde-Induced Cellular Changes. This diagram outlines the key molecular mechanisms through which aldehydes alter cellular structure and function, highlighting potential confounding factors in morphological analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Investigating Fixation Effects

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Fixation Studies	Considerations for Use
Primary Aldehyde Fixatives	4% Paraformaldehyde (PFA), 2-4% Glutaraldehyde, Karnovsky's Solution	Protein cross-linking and structural preservation	PFA penetrates faster; glutaraldehyde provides superior ultrastructure; combinations offer balance
Specialized Fixative Formulations	PLP Fixative (PFA + Lysine + Periodate)	Enhanced cross-linking of glycoproteins; improves surface marker detection	Particularly useful for cell surface antigens like PDGFRα and NG2 [61]
Penetration Enhancers	Triton X-100, Saponin, DMSO	Improve fixative penetration into dense 3D structures	Can compromise membrane integrity; optimize concentration and duration
Antigen Retrieval Reagents	Citrate buffer (pH 6.0), Tris-EDTA buffer (pH 9.0), Proteinase K	Reverse cross-linking to recover epitope recognition	Required after prolonged aldehyde fixation; method depends on antibody and antigen
Visualization Tools	Anti-PDGFRα, Anti-NG2, Phalloidin (actin), Anti-Laminin	Assessment of specific morphological features and preservation quality	Validate with multiple markers; consider epitope accessibility after different fixatives

Discussion and Best Practice Recommendations

Optimizing Fixation Protocols for 3D Cultures

The evidence clearly demonstrates that aldehyde fixatives significantly alter the morphological and functional properties of 3D cultures, necessitating protocol optimization for specific applications. Based on comparative studies, the following recommendations emerge:

Fixative Selection Criteria: Choose fixatives based on primary analytical endpoints. For standard immunohistochemistry and light microscopy, 4% PFA with limited post-fixation duration (1-2 hours) generally provides acceptable structural preservation while maintaining antigenicity. For electron microscopy or studies requiring superior ultrastructural detail, glutaraldehyde-containing formulations are essential, though they require robust antigen retrieval methods. The PLP fixative formulation (4% PFA with 0.1M L-lysine and 0.01M sodium metaperiodate) offers particular advantages for preserving and detecting cell surface glycoproteins such as PDGFRα and NG2, which are crucial for studying specific cell types like oligodendrocyte precursor cells [61].

Duration and Temperature Optimization: Limit fixation duration to the minimum required for complete tissue preservation, as prolonged exposure increases epitope masking and morphological artifacts. For many 3D cultures, 4-24 hours at 4°C provides adequate fixation without excessive cross-linking. Studies demonstrate that overnight fixation significantly reduces fluorescence intensity for surface markers compared to shorter (1-2 hour) fixation protocols [61]. The addition of even low concentrations of glutaraldehyde (0.1-0.5%) to PFA fixatives enhances structural preservation but further compromises antigen detection, requiring careful optimization.

Post-Fixation Processing: Implement thorough washing after fixation to remove unbound aldehydes that can contribute to background fluorescence and ongoing cross-linking. For formaldehyde-fixed samples, washing in PBS for 12 hours with multiple solution changes can reverse some T2 reduction effects observed in MRI studies [59]. Consider incorporating stepwise solvent transitions for processing to dehydration to minimize structural collapse, particularly for delicate 3D architectures.

Methodological Validation and Quality Assessment

Given the significant effects of aldehydes on 3D morphology, researchers should implement rigorous validation procedures to ensure that observed structures represent biological reality rather than fixation artifacts:

Multi-Method Correlation: Validate findings across multiple fixation and imaging modalities when possible. Compare results from aldehyde fixation with alternative methods such as trichloroacetic acid precipitation or cryopreservation without chemical fixation [65]. For critical morphological assessments, combine light microscopy with electron microscopy to evaluate preservation quality across resolution scales.

Functional Assay Integration: Correlate structural observations with functional assessments. For example, in 3D neural cultures, evidence indicates that formaldehyde exposure induces Alzheimer's disease pathologies including increased Aβ40, Aβ42, APP, and phosphorylated tau levels [66]. Similarly, in mammary epithelial cell acini, fixation artifacts may interact with genuine biological responses to microenvironmental cues such as ECM stiffness [63]. These functional correlations help distinguish preservation artifacts from biologically meaningful structures.

Systematic Parameter Testing: When establishing new 3D culture models, systematically test fixation parameters including concentration, duration, temperature, and penetration enhancers. Use multiple detection methods for key antigens to identify optimal conditions that balance structural preservation with antigen accessibility. Document all fixation parameters thoroughly to enable experimental reproducibility and appropriate data interpretation.

Through careful consideration of aldehyde effects and implementation of optimized protocols, researchers can minimize fixation-induced artifacts and maximize the physiological relevance of their 3D culture analyses, ultimately enhancing the validity and translational potential of their findings.

In the advancement of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models, the emergence of necrotic cores presents a significant challenge that can compromise experimental validity and biological relevance. Necrotic cores develop when diffusion limitations prevent adequate oxygen and nutrients from reaching the innermost regions of 3D structures such as spheroids, organoids, and tissue constructs [67] [68]. This phenomenon becomes particularly pronounced when these structures exceed a critical size, typically ranging from 200-500 μm in diameter, beyond which simple diffusion can no longer sustain cellular viability throughout the entire construct [67] [68].

The formation of necrotic cores is not merely a technical artifact but represents a fundamental biological barrier that mirrors diffusion-related challenges in vivo, particularly in avascular tumors or engineered tissues [67]. Understanding and mitigating this phenomenon is crucial for developing more physiologically relevant 3D models that accurately recapitulate human tissue and disease states without the confounding variables introduced by widespread necrosis [7] [69]. This guide systematically compares current methodologies and their efficacy in preventing necrotic core formation through strategic management of nutrient and oxygen gradients.

The Biophysical Basis of Diffusion Limitations

Fundamental Principles of Mass Transport in 3D Constructs

The development of necrotic cores in 3D cultures is fundamentally governed by the laws of diffusion and cellular metabolism. As cells aggregate into three-dimensional structures, the transport of oxygen, nutrients, and waste products becomes increasingly restricted by the surrounding extracellular matrix and high cell density [67] [68]. Oxygen, being a critical metabolite with relatively low solubility and rapid consumption rates by cells, often becomes the limiting factor for viable tissue thickness [67] [68].

Mathematical modeling of diffusion dynamics reveals that the maximum distance oxygen can typically penetrate into metabolically active tissue ranges from 100-200 μm [67]. This diffusion limitation creates physiochemical gradients that establish distinct microenvironments within 3D structures: a well-oxygenated and nutrient-rich periphery, an intermediate zone of quiescent cells, and a hypoxic, nutrient-depleted core that eventually undergoes necrosis if these conditions persist [67] [68] [70]. The precise point at which necrosis develops depends on multiple factors, including cell type-specific metabolic rates, oxygen consumption rates, and nutrient availability in the culture system [67] [68].

Table 1: Critical Factors Influencing Necrotic Core Development in 3D Cultures

Factor	Impact on Diffusion	Typical Problematic Range	Recommended Mitigation Strategy
Spheroid Size	Directly affects diffusion distance	>400-500 μm diameter [67]	Size control via seeding density [7]
Oxygen Consumption Rate (OCR)	Determines oxygen gradient steepness	Varies by cell type [68]	Gas-permeable culture surfaces [68]
Cell Density	Affects nutrient demand & diffusion barriers	Excessive compaction [7]	Optimization of initial seeding density [7]
Matrix Density	Influences diffusion coefficients	High polymer concentration [6]	ECM composition tuning [6]
Media Height	Impacts oxygen transfer from surface	>2-3 mm in static cultures [68]	Reduced media height or dynamic culture [68]

Analytical Models for Predicting Nutrient Gradients

Computational approaches have been developed to predict and analyze the formation of nutrient and oxygen gradients within 3D cultures. Finite element modeling (FEM) and analytical solutions to diffusion equations enable researchers to simulate oxygen and nutrient distributions based on specific culture parameters, including spheroid size, cell density, and oxygen consumption rates [67] [68]. These models demonstrate that spherical constructs develop radial gradients, with the most severe limitations occurring at the geometric center [67].

The diffusion equation for spherical coordinates takes the form:

∂C/∂t = D(∂²C/∂r² + (2/r)(∂C/∂r)) - M

Where C is concentration, t is time, D is diffusivity, r is radial distance, and M is metabolic consumption rate [67]. At steady state (∂C/∂t = 0), this equation can be solved to predict the critical radius at which oxygen concentration falls to zero, leading to necrotic core formation [67]. These mathematical frameworks provide valuable tools for designing 3D culture systems that operate within diffusion-limited boundaries before initiating experimental work [67] [68].

Figure 1: Pathway to Necrotic Core Formation. This diagram illustrates the causal relationships between key factors leading to necrotic core development in 3D culture models.

Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Techniques

Scaffold-Based Methods

Scaffold-based 3D culture techniques utilize natural or synthetic matrices to support cell growth and organization. These methods generally provide enhanced physiological relevance by mimicking the native extracellular environment, but vary significantly in their ability to mitigate diffusion limitations.

Natural Polymer Hydrogels including Matrigel and collagen are widely employed for their bioactivity and similarity to native extracellular matrix [7] [6]. Matrigel, derived from Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm mouse sarcoma, contains over 1,800 unique proteins that support complex cellular behaviors but presents challenges in batch-to-batch consistency and defined composition [6] [71]. Collagen type I hydrogels offer greater definition and tunability, with porosity adjustable through manipulation of ionic force, pH, temperature, and concentration [6]. Research comparing these matrices in liposarcoma models demonstrated that Lipo863 cells formed spheroids in Matrigel but not in collagen, highlighting cell line-specific responses to matrix environment [6] [71].

Synthetic polymers such as methylcellulose are valued for their consistency and definable composition [7]. A comparative study of eight colorectal cancer cell lines found that methylcellulose, Matrigel, and collagen type I hydrogels supported multicellular tumour spheroid (MCTS) formation with varying efficiencies across different cell lines [7]. The study also demonstrated that co-cultures with immortalized colonic fibroblasts enhanced physiological relevance and potentially improved nutrient distribution through stromal-epithelial interactions [7].

Scaffold-Free Methods

Scaffold-free techniques rely on cell-self-assembly into 3D structures without exogenous matrix support, potentially reducing diffusion barriers while maintaining cell-cell contacts.

The hanging drop method generates spheroids through gravity-mediated cell aggregation at the liquid-air interface [72]. This technique produces uniform, tightly packed spheroids with highly reproducible sizes, but is limited in scale and challenging for long-term culture and medium changes [72]. The method is particularly susceptible to hypoxia development in larger spheroids due to the high cell packing density and absence of convective flow [72].

Ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates with round-bottom wells facilitate spontaneous spheroid formation through forced floating [7] [6]. This approach enables higher throughput compatibility and easier manipulation compared to hanging drop methods [7] [72]. A recent innovation demonstrated that treatment of regular multi-well plates with anti-adherence solution could generate CRC spheroids at significantly lower cost than specialized cell-repellent plates while achieving similar results [7].

Bioreactor systems, including spinner flasks and rotational cultures, introduce convective flow to enhance nutrient delivery and waste removal [68] [72]. These dynamic cultures significantly reduce diffusion limitations, supporting the maintenance of larger tissue constructs [68]. However, the associated shear forces can damage cellular structures and alter gene expression profiles, particularly in sensitive cell types like pancreatic islets and stem cell-derived endocrine cells [68].

Table 2: Comparison of 3D Culture Techniques for Necrosis Prevention

Method	Mechanism	Max Recommended Size	Necrosis Risk	Throughput	Key Advantages
Hanging Drop	Self-aggregation in droplet [72]	300-400 μm [72]	Medium-High	Low-Medium	Uniform spheroid size, minimal equipment [72]
ULA Plates	Forced floating [7]	400-500 μm [7]	Medium	High	Easy handling, high-throughput compatibility [7] [72]
Matrigel Embedding	ECM-supported growth [6]	500+ μm [6]	Low-Medium	Medium	Enhanced physiological relevance [6]
Collagen Embedding	Tunable ECM support [6]	500+ μm [6]	Low-Medium	Medium	Defined composition, adjustable porosity [6]
Bioreactor Systems	Convective flow [72]	1000+ μm [68]	Low	Variable	Enhanced nutrient/waste exchange [68] [72]
Microfluidic Chips	Perfused microchannels [70]	1000+ μm [70]	Very Low	Low	Precise gradient control, real-time monitoring [70]

Experimental Approaches and Protocols

Establishing Optimized Spheroid Cultures

Protocol 1: ULA Plate Spheroid Formation with Size Control

Based on methodology from comparative colorectal cancer studies [7] [69]:

• Prepare single-cell suspension of colorectal cancer cells (e.g., HCT116, SW480) in complete medium.
• Seed 200 μL of cell suspension at optimized density of 5×10³ cells/well into Nunclon Sphera super-low attachment U-bottom 96-well microplates.
• Centrifuge plates at 300×g for 5 minutes to promote initial cell aggregation.
• Maintain spheroids in humidified atmosphere (5% COâ‚‚, 37°C) with 75% medium changes every 24 hours to maintain nutrient levels while minimizing disturbance.
• Monitor spheroid diameter daily using brightfield microscopy, maintaining cultures below 500 μm to prevent necrotic core formation [7] [69].

Protocol 2: Cost-Effective Alternative Using Anti-Adherence Coating

For research settings with budget constraints [7]:

• Prepare anti-adherence solution according to manufacturer instructions (e.g., 1% agarose in PBS).
• Coat regular multi-well plates with anti-adherence solution and allow to solidify.
• Seed cell suspension as described in Protocol 1.
• The treatment of regular multi-well plates with anti-adherence solution allows generation of CRC spheroids at significantly lower cost than using cell-repellent multi-well plates while achieving comparable spheroid morphology and viability [7].

Advanced Co-culture Systems

Protocol 3: Fibroblast-Enhanced Spheroid Co-culture

To improve physiological relevance and potentially enhance nutrient distribution through stromal support [7]:

• Culture immortalized colonic fibroblasts (e.g., CCD-18Co) and colorectal cancer cells in separate monolayers.
• Prepare mixed cell suspension at optimized ratio (e.g., 4:1 cancer cells:fibroblasts).
• Seed mixed suspension in ULA plates as in Protocol 1.
• Co-cultures with immortalized colonic fibroblasts offer additional insights into tumour-stroma interactions in a 3D setting and may enhance nutrient diffusion through matrix remodeling [7].
• Analyze spheroid viability and necrosis markers compared to mono-culture controls.

Assessment Methods for Necrosis and Viability

Protocol 4: Multiparametric Viability and Necrosis Assessment

Comprehensive evaluation of spheroid health requires multiple complementary approaches [69] [6]:

• Metabolic Activity: Assess using Alamar Blue assay according to manufacturer protocol. Incubate spheroids with 10% Alamar Blue for 4 hours at 37°C and measure fluorescence (Ex560/Em590) [70].
• Apoptosis/Necrosis Staining: Simultaneously stain with FITC-labeled Annexin V (5 μL) and propidium iodide (5 μL) for 15 minutes at room temperature, then analyze by flow cytometry or confocal microscopy [69].
• Histological Analysis: Fix spheroids in 4% paraformaldehyde, embed in paraffin, section, and stain with hematoxylin and eosin to visualize necrotic cores [6] [71].
• Gene Expression Analysis: Extract RNA and analyze expression of hypoxia (HIF-1α) and stress response markers by qPCR [69].

Figure 2: Strategic Interventions to Prevent Necrotic Cores. This diagram summarizes key methodological approaches for maintaining viability throughout 3D culture models.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Necrosis Prevention in 3D Cultures

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes	Commercial Examples
Ultra-Low Attachment Plates	Prevents cell adhesion, promotes spheroid formation [7]	Round-bottom wells enhance spheroid uniformity; cost-effective alternatives using anti-adherence coatings available [7]	Corning Ultra-Low Attachment Plates, Nunclon Sphera [7] [69]
Matrigel Matrix	Basement membrane extract for scaffold-based culture [6]	Complex composition supports diverse cell types; batch variability requires validation [6]	Corning Matrigel Matrix [6] [71]
Collagen Type I	Defined natural polymer for tunable hydrogels [7] [6]	Adjustable concentration (1-5 mg/mL) controls matrix density and diffusivity [6]	Rat tail collagen I (Corning) [6] [71]
Methylcellulose	Viscosity enhancer for suspension culture [7]	Improves spheroid compactness in some cell lines; defined composition [7]	Sigma-Aldrich Methylcellulose [7]
Alamar Blue	Metabolic activity indicator [70]	Non-toxic allows longitudinal monitoring; correlates with viable cell mass [70]	Thermo Fisher Scientific AlamarBlue [70]
Annexin V/PI Apoptosis Kit	Distinguishes apoptosis from necrosis [69]	Critical for quantifying necrotic cell population in spheroid cores [69]	BD Biosciences FITC Annexin V Apoptosis Detection Kit [69]
Gas-Permeable Cultureware	Enhances oxygen transfer [68]	Can increase oxygen availability 3-5x compared to conventional plastic [68]	LIFEAIR bags, Perfluorocarbon-based substrates [68]

Effective prevention of necrotic cores in 3D culture models requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the fundamental biophysical limitations of mass transport. No single method universally solves diffusion challenges, but strategic implementation of size control, appropriate culture platforms, and advanced oxygenation strategies can significantly enhance viability throughout 3D constructs.

Emerging technologies particularly show promise for overcoming current limitations. Microfluidic-based 3D models enable precise control over nutrient and oxygen gradients while allowing real-time monitoring of metabolic patterns [70]. These systems replicate in vivo diffusion dynamics within tumors more accurately than traditional static cultures and support larger, more complex tissue models without necrotic cores [70]. Additionally, bioprinting technologies are being developed to create prevascularized tissue constructs with embedded channel networks that mimic natural vasculature, potentially eliminating diffusion constraints entirely [72].

The integration of computational modeling with experimental approaches provides a powerful framework for predicting and preventing necrosis before it occurs [67] [68]. As 3D culture systems continue to evolve toward greater physiological relevance and scalability, managing nutrient and oxygen gradients will remain a central consideration in model design and implementation. Through continued methodological refinement and interdisciplinary innovation, the research community moves closer to 3D models that fully recapitulate tissue physiology without the confounding variable of diffusion-induced necrosis.

Transitioning from small-scale cultures to bioreactors represents a critical pathway in advancing three-dimensional (3D) cell culture research from foundational discovery to therapeutic application. This scaling process is particularly crucial for the morphological comparison of 3D culture methods, where maintaining structural integrity and biological relevance across scales determines translational success. While traditional small-scale systems like shake flasks and multi-well plates serve valuable functions in initial research phases, they present significant limitations in control, monitoring, and process consistency that ultimately affect morphological outcomes [73]. Bioreactor systems address these limitations by providing precise environmental control, automated monitoring, and reproducible culture conditions essential for generating reliable, high-quality 3D morphological data that can be scaled for clinical and industrial applications [73] [74].

The global small-scale bioreactor market, projected to reach USD 1.8 billion by 2025, reflects the growing emphasis on scalable bioprocessing solutions across biopharmaceutical companies, contract manufacturing organizations, and research institutions [75]. This growth is largely driven by increasing demands for biologics and advanced therapies, necessitating efficient upstream processing solutions that maintain morphological fidelity during scale-up. Understanding the technical considerations for transitioning between scales is therefore fundamental for researchers aiming to produce physiologically relevant 3D culture models with consistent morphological properties.

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Analysis Across Scales

Culture System Capabilities

Table 1: Parameter control comparison between culture systems

Parameter	Shake Flasks	Bioreactors
Temperature	✓ (all flasks simultaneously)	✓ (individual control)
pH	(✓) (requires additional equipment)	✓ (integrated control)
Dissolved Oxygen (pO₂)	(✓) (requires additional equipment)	✓ (integrated control)
Gas Flow	(✓) (limited control)	✓ (precise control)
Feed Strategies	(✓) (limited options)	✓ (multiple fed-batch/continuous)
Exit Gas Analysis	(✓) (requires additional equipment)	✓ (integrated monitoring)
Scalability	Limited	High (direct scale-up parameters)
Process Data Collection	Limited	Comprehensive (integrated sensors)

Table 2: Experimental outcomes across culture platforms

Performance Metric	Shake Flasks	Bioreactors	Biological Significance
E. coli OD₆₀₀ (Batch)	4-6	14-20	3-5x increase in biomass yield [73]
E. coli OD₆₀₀ (Fed-Batch)	N/A	40-230	Enables high-density cultures [73]
CHO Cell Density	~9.4 × 10⁶ cells/mL	~1.5 × 10⁷ cells/mL	60% higher maximum cell density [76]
Host Cell Protein Variety	Higher variety	Reduced, more consistent profile	Impacts downstream purification [76]
3D Culture Morphological Consistency	Variable between batches	High reproducibility	Critical for experimental reliability [7]

Impact on 3D Morphological Research

The quantitative differences between culture systems directly impact morphological research in 3D cultures. Studies demonstrate that scaffold-based techniques using materials like Matrigel or collagen provide environments similar to in vivo biological conditions, significantly influencing cellular morphology and organization [71]. The choice between scaffold-based and scaffold-free techniques introduces important morphological variations, with scaffold-free methods often facilitating faster 3D structure formation through enhanced cell-cell communication, while scaffold-based approaches may better mimic specific tissue environments [71].

Research on dedifferentiated liposarcoma cell lines reveals that cells exhibit different morphological behaviors across culture techniques, with some lines forming spheroids in Matrigel but not in collagen, while others form spheroids primarily in scaffold-free environments [71]. These findings highlight how culture environment directly influences morphological outcomes. Furthermore, 3D models demonstrate different drug tolerance compared to 2D models, with collagen-embedded samples showing higher cell viability after drug treatment than 2D models, significantly impacting drug screening results [71].

Experimental Protocols for 3D Culture Assessment

Establishing 3D Culture Models

Scaffold-Based Techniques

Matrigel ECM Scaffold Method [71]:

• Prepare Matrigel on ice to prevent premature polymerization
• Create a mixture of 50μL Matrigel containing 4×10³ single cells
• Form dome shapes in 24-well plates and incubate at 37°C for 3 minutes
• Flip plates upside down for additional 15-20 minutes to solidify
• Return to upright orientation and add 500μL culture media
• Maintain cultures for up to 14 days with media changes every 2-3 days

Collagen ECM Scaffold Method [71]:

• Prepare Type I collagen hydrogel solution by mixing rat tail collagen with 10× DPBS, 1N NaOH, and sterile water
• Achieve final concentration of 3mg/mL collagen with pH 7.4 and 1× DPBS
• Mix cell suspension (1×10⁵ cells/mL) with collagen solution at 1:1 ratio on ice
• Seed 1mL/well in 12-well plates or 50μL in 24-well plates
• Incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes to solidify
• Add culture media and maintain for up to 14 days with regular media changes

Scaffold-Free Techniques

Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plate Method [71] [7]:

• Prepare cell suspension at concentration of 8×10⁴ cells/mL
• Seed 200μL in 96-well round-bottom ultra-low attachment plates
• Centrifuge plates at low speed (300-500×g) for 5-10 minutes to enhance cell aggregation
• Incubate for 72 hours before processing or analysis
• For cost-effective alternatives, treat regular multi-well plates with anti-adherence solutions [7]

Hanging Drop Method [71]:

• Develop 10μL drops of cell suspension (2.5×10⁶ cells/mL) on inverted tissue culture dish lid
• Place 20-30 drops per lid
• Add DPBS to dish bottom to prevent dehydration
• Return lid to right-side-up orientation and attach to bottom section
• Incubate for 72 hours at 37°C before analysis

Morphological Analysis Workflow

Experimental Workflow for 3D Morphological Analysis

Advanced Morphological Analysis Using SAMA

The Software for Automated Morphological Analysis (SAMA) provides a standardized approach for quantitative assessment of 3D culture morphology [77]. This open-source solution addresses the limitations of commercial software in capturing biologically relevant morphometric parameters:

Image Processing Steps:

• Apply 3D Median, Variance, Minimum, and Maximum filters to reduce noise
• Utilize 3D Gaussian blur filter to smooth structure surfaces
• Compensate for luminosity loss in deeper z-stack slices
• Apply 2D fill holes to avoid lumen interference
• Use 3D Gradient filter to separate conjoined structures in crowded images

Morphological Parameters Quantified:

• Ductal elongation: Critical for modeling tubular structures
• Branching complexity: Essential for assessing developmental processes
• Lumen formation: Indicator of polarization and structural organization
• Sphericity: Measurement of roundness versus irregularity

Validation Methods:

• Histopathological analysis (HE staining, IHC, DNAscope)
• Western blot for protein expression profiling
• qPCR for gene expression analysis
• Statistical reproducibility assessment within and between experimental groups

Scaling Considerations for 3D Culture Systems

Technical Implementation Framework

Scaling Pathway for 3D Culture Technologies

Scaling Parameters and Control Strategies

Successful transition from small-scale to bioreactor systems requires careful consideration of multiple engineering parameters:

Physical Similarity Metrics:

• Impeller tip speed: Critical for maintaining consistent shear environment
• Volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa): Ensures consistent oxygen delivery
• Power input per unit volume: Maintains consistent mixing energy
• Mixing time: Affects nutrient distribution and waste removal

Process Control Advancements:

• Multi-parameter cascades for dissolved oxygen control
• Full two-sided pH control across wide ranges
• Phased control strategies based on time, events, and soft-sensor calculations
• Extended culture durations using continuous and perfusion methodologies [73]

Monitoring Capabilities:

• Real-time sensor integration for critical process parameters
• At-line analyzers for metabolic monitoring
• Exit gas analysis for metabolic flux assessment
• Automated sampling systems for minimal process disruption

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key reagents and materials for 3D culture research

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Research Application	Scaling Considerations
Extracellular Matrices	Matrigel, Geltrex, Collagen Type I	Scaffold-based 3D models, organoid culture	Lot-to-lot variability management, concentration optimization [71] [78]
Cultureware	Nunclon Sphera, ULA plates, Hanging drop systems	Scaffold-free spheroid formation	Surface treatment consistency, well geometry standardization [7] [78]
Specialized Media	Gibco organoid media, Recombinant growth factors	Tissue-specific differentiation	Cost management at scale, component stability [78]
Analysis Reagents	CytoVista clearing agent, ProLong Glass Antifade Mountant	3D imaging and visualization	Compatibility with automated systems, processing time [78]
Detection Tools	EVOS imaging systems, CellInsight HCS platforms	Morphological quantification	Throughput requirements, analysis algorithm validation [77] [78]

Emerging Trends and Future Outlook

The field of 3D culture scaling is evolving rapidly, with several key trends shaping future development:

Single-Use Bioreactor Adoption: Single-use systems are experiencing rapid adoption due to reduced contamination risks, faster turnaround times, and enhanced flexibility for multi-product facilities [75] [74]. By 2025, over 60% of biopharmaceutical R&D is expected to utilize single-use bioreactor technologies, particularly for clinical manufacturing [79] [74].

Automation and Digital Integration: Advanced automation through AI and machine learning enables cell culture optimization and outcome prediction [74]. Digital twin technology allows simulation of bioprocesses before implementation, reducing development timelines and improving success rates [74]. Investment in digital integration for bioreactor systems is projected to grow by approximately 20% annually [75].

Advanced Therapy Focus: The expansion of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), including cell and gene therapies, is driving innovation in specialized bioreactor systems [74]. These therapies require closed, automated systems for production, with stricter regulations ensuring safety and quality [74].

High-Throughput Miniaturization: Micro-bioreactors and multi-well plate formats enable numerous parallel experiments, significantly accelerating screening and optimization processes [75]. These systems reduce reagent consumption while increasing experimental throughput, bridging the gap between discovery and production scales.

Transitioning from small-scale cultures to bioreactor systems requires meticulous attention to both biological and engineering parameters that influence morphological outcomes. The quantitative data presented demonstrates clear advantages in bioreactor systems for yield, control, and reproducibility, while acknowledging the continued importance of small-scale systems for initial screening. As the field advances toward increasingly complex 3D models incorporating multiple cell types and sophisticated microenvironments, the principles of scalable process design become increasingly critical. By implementing robust experimental protocols, standardized analytical methods like SAMA, and systematic scale-up approaches, researchers can successfully bridge the gap between exploratory research and clinically relevant production of 3D culture models.

Three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures, particularly multicellular tumor spheroids and organoids, have become indispensable tools in cancer research, drug discovery, and regenerative medicine by better mimicking the in vivo tumor microenvironment compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers [80] [32]. These avascular constructs recapitulate several key aspects of in vivo tumors, including their 3D architecture, cell-cell interactions, and pathophysiological gradients [81]. However, the advancement of these models is heavily dependent on robust quality control metrics that can accurately assess critical features such as aggregate size, shape, cellular density, and viability during model development and in response to therapeutic interventions [81]. This guide objectively compares the current methodologies for evaluating aggregate morphology and viability, providing researchers with experimental data and protocols to implement these quality control measures effectively in their 3D culture workflows.

Morphology Assessment Techniques

The morphological characteristics of 3D aggregates—including size, shape, and cellular density—significantly influence their biological behavior and physiological relevance. The following techniques represent the most current methodologies for morphological assessment.

Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT)

Principle and Applications: Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) is an emerging label-free imaging technique that operates on partial low coherence interferometry using infrared light to non-destructively generate 3D image reconstructions of cellular aggregates [81]. With few-micron axio-lateral resolution and penetration depths up to several millimeters, OCT enables 3D visualization at cellular resolution required for analyzing heterogeneous multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) [81]. This technology has been successfully adapted to quantify cell number within tumor spheroids and discern between live and dead cells, providing valuable information on tissue/construct viability without destructive processing.

Experimental Protocol for OCT Imaging:

• Culture MCTSs using liquid overlay technique in non-adherent plates
• Image spheroids directly in culture plates using OCT system without labeling
• Acquire 3D volumetric data sets using infrared light source
• Process images using Imaris software for 3D reconstruction and analysis
• Quantify morphological parameters: volume, surface area, sphericity index
• Analyze cellular density based on intrinsic optical properties
• Perform longitudinal tracking by repeated imaging of same samples over time

Comparative Performance Data: OCT has demonstrated superior accuracy in volume quantification compared to 2D-based estimation methods. In studies with MDA-MB-231 breast cancer spheroids, OCT revealed that absence of Matrigel produced flattened, disk-like aggregates rather than 3D spheroids with physiologically-relevant features, highlighting its sensitivity in detecting morphological differences based on culture conditions [81].

Bright-Field Microscopy with Computational Analysis

Principle and Applications: Traditional bright-field microscopy combined with advanced computational algorithms provides a more accessible approach to morphological assessment. While limited to 2D projections, recent software improvements have enhanced the accuracy of 3D reconstructions from bright-field images.

Experimental Protocol for Bright-Field Analysis:

• Acquire bright-field images of spheroids using standard microscope
• Process images through volume estimation software (e.g., ReViSP)
• Reconstruct 3D models based on single-plane imaging
• Apply rotational symmetry assumptions for volume calculation
• Quantify diameter and circularity from 2D projections

Table 1: Comparison of Morphology Assessment Techniques

Technique	Resolution	Penetration Depth	Label-Free	Quantitative 3D Data	Throughput
OCT	1-10 μm	Several mm	Yes	Excellent	Medium
Confocal Microscopy	<1 μm	50-100 μm	No (typically)	Excellent	Low
Bright-Field + Software	5-20 μm	N/A	Yes	Limited (estimated)	High
Light-Sheet Microscopy	1-5 μm	100-500 μm	No (typically)	Excellent	Medium-High

Viability Assessment Methods

Accurate viability assessment in 3D aggregates is crucial for evaluating metabolic activity and drug response. The methods below represent the most commonly employed approaches, each with distinct advantages and limitations.

Fluorescence-Based Viability Staining

Principle and Applications: Fluorescent dyes such as calcein AM (for live cells) and propidium iodide or ethidium homodimer (for dead cells) provide a direct visual assessment of cell viability within 3D structures [82] [83]. This approach allows for spatial resolution of viability patterns, particularly important for identifying necrotic cores in larger spheroids.

Experimental Protocol for Fluorescence Viability Staining:

• Prepare staining solution: Add 1 μL calcein AM to 7 mL culture medium
• Incubate spheroids with staining solution for 1 hour at 37°C
• Wash with PBS to remove excess dye
• Image immediately using confocal or light-sheet microscopy
• For 3D viability assessment, acquire z-stack images through entire spheroid
• Quantify viable and non-viable cells using image analysis software (e.g., ImageJ, Imaris)

Comparative Performance Data: Studies comparing fluorescence-based methods with traditional Trypan Blue exclusion have demonstrated superior accuracy in detecting viable cells, particularly in 3D cultures where membrane integrity alone may not fully represent cellular health [82]. However, penetration limitations can affect uniformity of staining in larger spheroids (>500μm).

Trypan Blue Exclusion Assay

Principle and Applications: The Trypan Blue (TB) dye exclusion assay represents the historical standard for viability assessment, relying on membrane integrity as an indicator of cell viability [82]. This method remains widely used due to its low cost, rapid results, and minimal equipment requirements.

Experimental Protocol for Trypan Blue Assay:

• Dissociate 3D aggregates to single-cell suspension using enzymatic digestion
• Mix cell suspension 1:1 with 0.4% Trypan Blue solution
• Incubate for 1-3 minutes at room temperature
• Load mixture onto hemocytometer chamber
• Count unstained (viable) and blue-stained (non-viable) cells manually or using automated counters
• Calculate viability percentage: (viable cells/total cells) × 100

Reliability Data: Recent systematic assessments of the TB assay have quantified its variability, revealing approximately 5% variability in viability assessment and up to 20% variability in cell population density measurements when used with a hemocytometer [82]. This inter-operator variability highlights the need for standardized protocols when implementing TB for quality control.

Table 2: Comparison of Viability Assessment Methods

Method	Principle	Spatial Information	Throughput	Quantitative Reliability	Key Limitations
Fluorescence Staining	Enzyme activity & membrane integrity	Excellent	Medium	High	Penetration depth, photobleaching
Trypan Blue	Membrane integrity	None (requires dissociation)	High	Medium (≈5% variability)	Endpoint only, dissociation artifacts
OCT	Optical attenuation	Good	Medium	Medium	Requires validation, equipment cost
Metabolic Assays (AlamarBlue, MTT)	Metabolic activity	None	High	Medium-High	No spatial information, potential toxicity

Experimental Protocols for Integrated Assessment

3D-Aggregated Spheroid Model (3D-ASM) for Drug Screening

The 3D-ASM platform represents an advanced integrated approach combining morphological and viability assessment for high-throughput drug screening applications [83].

Workflow Protocol:

• Cell Preparation: Culture HCC cell lines (Hep3B, HepG2) in DMEM with 10% FBS and antibiotics
• Automated Dispensing: Use ASFA Spotter DZ to dispense cell-Matrigel mixture onto 384-pillar plates (2 mm diameter pillars)
• Spheroid Formation: Implement icing step to aggregate cells followed by gelation at 37°C
• Drug Treatment: Combine pillar plate with 384-well plate containing serial drug dilutions
• Incubation: Culture for 7 days with therapeutic compounds
• Viability Assessment: Stain with calcein AM for 1 hour and image using confocal microscopy
• Image Analysis: Perform 3D deconvolution and quantitative analysis of viability and morphology

Performance Data: This platform has demonstrated a coefficient of variation (CV) of 5.66% for consistent cell dispensing, highlighting its reproducibility [83]. Comparative drug sensitivity studies between 2D and 3D-ASM models revealed increased drug resistance in 3D cultures while maintaining analytical discrimination for drug efficacy assessment.

Longitudinal Assessment Using OCT

For non-destructive, longitudinal monitoring of aggregate development and treatment response, OCT provides a powerful methodology [81].

Workflow Protocol:

• Culture MCTSs using liquid overlay technique in non-adherent plates
• Acquire baseline OCT images of spheroids pre-treatment
• Apply therapeutic interventions
• Image same spheroids at 24-hour intervals using identical OCT parameters
• Process 3D image data to quantify volume changes over time
• Analyze cellular density variations using intrinsic optical attenuation properties
• Correlate morphological changes with viability endpoints

Key Advantages: This approach enables tracking of individual spheroids over time, providing insights into temporal dynamics of treatment response while eliminating inter-sample variability. Studies have successfully discriminated between live and dead cell regions based on increased intrinsic optical attenuation in necrotic areas [81].

Research Reagent Solutions

The table below summarizes essential reagents and tools for implementing quality control metrics in 3D culture systems.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Culture Quality Control

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Notes
Matrigel	Basement membrane matrix for 3D culture	Promotes consistent spheroid formation; lot-to-lot variability requires validation [81]
mTeSR 3D / TeSR-AOF 3D	Defined media for 3D hPSC culture	Supports fed-batch workflows; reduces media consumption [84]
Calcein AM	Live cell staining	Requires esterase activity; green fluorescence (∼515 nm) [83]
Propidium Iodide	Dead cell staining	DNA intercalation; red fluorescence (∼617 nm) [82]
Trypan Blue	Viability staining	Membrane exclusion; 0.4% solution standard concentration [82]
Gentle Cell Dissociation Reagent (GCDR)	Aggregate dissociation	Maintains cell viability; 10-15 min incubation at 37°C [84]
384-Pillar/Well Plates	High-throughput screening	Enables parallel processing; compatible with automation [83]
NucleoCounter NC-250	Automated cell counting	Accommodates clumpy suspensions via lysis protocol [84]

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

3D Spheroid Quality Control Assessment Pathway

High-Throughput Screening Workflow

The quantitative comparison of quality control methodologies for assessing 3D aggregate morphology and viability reveals a diverse toolkit suited to different research applications and throughput requirements. OCT emerges as a powerful non-destructive technique for integrated morphological and viability assessment, particularly valuable for longitudinal studies. Fluorescence-based viability staining provides spatial resolution of viability patterns within aggregates but requires careful optimization for adequate penetration. While Trypan Blue exclusion remains widely used due to its accessibility, researchers should account for its ≈5% variability in viability measurements. The development of automated, high-throughput platforms like 3D-ASM with integrated assessment capabilities represents a significant advancement toward standardized, reproducible 3D culture models. As the field progresses, the implementation of robust quality control metrics will be essential for ensuring physiological relevance and translational validity of 3D culture systems in cancer research and drug development.

Benchmarking 3D Models: Morphological Validation for Predictive Research

Comparative Analysis of Scaffold vs. Scaffold-Free Morphologies

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a paradigm shift in biomedical research, offering a more physiologically relevant context for studying cellular behavior, drug responses, and disease mechanisms. Within 3D culture systems, a fundamental distinction exists between scaffold-based and scaffold-free methodologies, each producing distinct cellular morphologies and influencing experimental outcomes. Scaffold-based techniques utilize a supporting matrix that mimics the native extracellular matrix (ECM), guiding cell growth and organization in three dimensions [85]. In contrast, scaffold-free methods rely on cell self-assembly to form 3D structures, typically spheroids or organoids, without exogenous support materials [9]. The choice between these approaches significantly impacts the resulting cellular architecture, gene expression profiles, and functional characteristics of the model system. This comparative analysis examines the morphological outcomes, experimental applications, and technical considerations of both scaffold-based and scaffold-free 3D culture systems, providing researchers with a evidence-based framework for selecting the most appropriate methodology for their specific research objectives in drug development and basic biology.

Fundamental Principles and Morphological Outcomes

Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-based systems provide a physical framework that mimics the native extracellular matrix (ECM), enabling cells to attach, migrate, and organize into three-dimensional structures. These systems utilize either natural or synthetic materials to create this supportive environment. Natural hydrogels, such as Matrigel and collagen, are biologically active and contain inherent cell adhesion motifs, promoting realistic cell-ECM interactions [32] [86]. However, they suffer from batch-to-batch variability and complex, undefined compositions. For instance, Matrigel alone contains more than 1,800 unique proteins, making it difficult to deconvolute specific signaling cues [6]. Synthetic scaffolds, including those made from polylactic acid (PLA), polyglycolic acid (PGA), and polyethylene glycol (PEG), offer superior control over mechanical properties, architecture, and reproducibility, though they often lack innate bioactivity and may require functionalization with adhesion peptides [9] [85].

The morphology of cells within scaffold-based systems is profoundly influenced by the scaffold's properties, including its porosity, stiffness, and biochemical composition. Cells typically exhibit spread, migratory phenotypes as they interact with the matrix, and can form complex, tissue-like structures that closely resemble in vivo architectures [85]. For example, when epithelial cells are embedded in Matrigel, they can form polarized structures with defined lumens, replicating key aspects of glandular tissues [36]. The presence of a scaffold also facilitates the study of cell-matrix interactions, a critical component of the tumor microenvironment that influences cancer progression, metastasis, and drug resistance [87] [32].

Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Systems

Scaffold-free systems rely on the innate tendency of cells to self-assemble into 3D aggregates when prevented from adhering to a surface. These systems generate multi-cellular spheroids or organoids through methods such as ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates, the hanging drop technique, agitation-based approaches (e.g., spinner flasks), and magnetic levitation [9] [86]. The resulting structures are characterized by dense cell-cell contacts and the endogenous production of ECM, leading to the formation of natural physiological gradients [20].

The morphology of scaffold-free spheroids is defined by their self-organizing properties. A typical spheroid exhibits a layered structure: an outer layer of proliferating cells, an intermediate layer of quiescent cells, and a central core of necrotic cells resulting from gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and metabolic waste [32]. The size and uniformity of these spheroids can be tightly controlled by adjusting initial seeding density and the specific culture platform used [36]. Research using HaCaT keratinocytes has demonstrated that low-throughput ULA plates can generate heterogeneous spheroid populations with distinct sub-types—holospheres (large, compact, >200 µm), merospheres, and paraspheres—each exhibiting different stemness potentials and behaviors in subsequent assays [36]. Scaffold-free morphologies are particularly valuable for modeling tumor heterogeneity and for high-throughput drug screening applications where cell-cell interactions are paramount [88].

Table 1: Core Characteristics of Scaffold-Based and Scaffold-Free 3D Culture Systems

Characteristic	Scaffold-Based Systems	Scaffold-Free Systems
Structural Principle	Cells grow within an exogenous, supportive 3D matrix [85]	Cells self-assemble via cell-cell interactions without external support [9]
Key Materials/Methods	Natural (e.g., Collagen, Matrigel) or Synthetic (e.g., PLA, PGA) hydrogels; Electrospinning; 3D Bioprinting [85]	Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) plates; Hanging Drop; Agitation-based methods; Magnetic Levitation [9] [86]
Typical Morphology	Migratory, spread phenotypes; Tissue-like architectures with cell-matrix interaction [32] [85]	Concentric, spherical aggregates (spheroids); Layered structures with proliferating, quiescent, and necrotic zones [32]
ECM Interaction	Defined by scaffold composition; Study of cell-matrix signaling is possible [87] [32]	Relies on endogenously produced ECM; Dominated by cell-cell signaling [6]

Experimental Data and Comparative Performance

Quantitative Morphological Comparisons

Direct comparative studies provide valuable insights into the morphological outcomes of different 3D culture techniques. A standardized study using HaCaT keratinocytes established a comprehensive framework for comparing these systems, revealing significant morphological differences under low-throughput conditions. In six-well ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates, which promote heterogeneity, cells formed three distinct spheroid subtypes classified by size and function [36]:

• Holospheres: Large (cross-sectional area of 408.7 µm²), smooth, and compact structures that act as BMI-1+ stem cell reservoirs.
• Merospheres: Intermediate-sized spheroids (cross-sectional area of 99 µm²).
• Paraspheres: The smallest spheroids (cross-sectional area of 14.1 µm²).

This heterogeneity can be modulated; treatment with a ROCK1 inhibitor (Y-27632) enhanced the formation of holospheres, preserved stemness markers, and reduced premature differentiation [36]. In contrast, high-throughput systems like 96-well Elplasia and BIOFLOAT plates generated highly uniform spheroids with consistent circularity, prioritizing reproducibility and scalability over population diversity [36].

A separate study on dedifferentiated liposarcoma cell lines (Lipo246 and Lipo863) directly compared four 3D techniques, highlighting that morphological outcomes are also cell line-dependent [6]. For instance, the Lipo863 cell line formed spheroids in Matrigel (a scaffold-based method) but not in collagen, whereas Lipo246 did not form spheroids in either scaffold-based matrix. However, both cell lines successfully formed spheroids using scaffold-free methods (ULA plates and hanging drop), underscoring the reliability of scaffold-free techniques for generating defined 3D aggregates across different cell types [6].

Functional Differences in Drug Response

The morphological differences between scaffold-based and scaffold-free models directly translate to variations in functional responses, particularly in drug sensitivity, a critical factor in preclinical research.

The liposarcoma study provided a clear example of this phenomenon. When Lipo246 and Lipo863 cells were treated with the MDM2 inhibitor SAR405838, the 3D collagen-based (scaffold) models demonstrated higher cell viability after treatment compared to conventional 2D models [6]. This suggests that the scaffold-based 3D environment confers a level of drug tolerance that is absent in 2D cultures and different from scaffold-free models, more closely mimicking the resistance observed in in vivo tumors.

Similarly, other research has shown that cancer cells in 3D spheroid cultures often exhibit enhanced resistance to chemotherapeutic agents compared to their 2D counterparts. This is attributed to the presence of physiological gradients (oxygen, nutrients, drugs), the emergence of quiescent cell populations, and altered cell-cell signaling within the 3D structure [87] [32]. The presence of an ECM in scaffold-based systems adds another layer of complexity, as the matrix can create a physical barrier to drug penetration and activate pro-survival signaling pathways in the cells [87].

Table 2: Comparative Experimental Data from 3D Culture Studies

Experimental Context	Scaffold-Based Findings	Scaffold-Free Findings
Spheroid Morphology (HaCaT Keratinocytes) [36]	N/A	Heterogeneous populations in low-throughput ULA plates: Holospheres (408.7 µm²), Merospheres (99 µm²), Paraspheres (14.1 µm²). ROCK1 inhibition enhances holosphere formation.
Spheroid Formation (Liposarcoma Cell Lines) [6]	Cell-line dependent morphology; Lipo863 formed spheroids in Matrigel but not collagen; Lipo246 did not form spheroids in either scaffold.	Both Lipo246 and Lipo863 reliably formed spheroids using ULA plate and Hanging Drop methods.
Drug Response (Liposarcoma to SAR405838) [6]	Higher cell viability post-treatment in 3D collagen models compared to 2D models, indicating increased drug resistance in a scaffold-based environment.	N/A
General Drug Resistance [87] [32]	ECM can act as a physical and biochemical barrier, contributing to drug resistance.	Resistance is driven by physiological gradients (hypoxia, nutrient deprivation) and cell-cell interactions within the dense spheroid.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear technical reference, this section outlines standardized protocols for key methodologies in both scaffold-based and scaffold-free 3D culture.

Scaffold-Based Protocol: Collagen ECM Embedded Method

This protocol is adapted from a study comparing 3D culture techniques for liposarcoma research [6]. It details the formation of a 3D collagen layer embedded with cells.

• Key Reagent: Rat tail collagen type I (e.g., Corning, Cat #354236).
• Procedure:
  • Prepare Collagen Solution: On ice, mix Rat tail collagen type I with 10x DPBS, 1N NaOH, and double-distilled sterile water to yield a final solution of 3 mg/mL collagen at pH 7.4 in 1x DPBS.
  • Prepare Cell Suspension: Trypsinize and resuspend cells in cold culture medium at a density of 1.0 × 10^5 cells/mL. Keep on ice.
  • Create Cell-Collagen Mixture: Combine the cell suspension with the prepared collagen solution in a 1:1 ratio on ice. Mix gently to avoid bubble formation.
  • Solidify the Matrix: Seed 1 mL of the mixture per well into a 12-well plate. Incubate the plate at 37°C for 30 minutes to allow the collagen hydrogel to solidify.
  • Add Culture Medium: After solidification, carefully add 1 mL of pre-warmed culture medium on top of the collagen layer.
  • Maintain Culture: Incubate the plate at 37°C and 5% CO2. Change the growth medium every 2-3 days. Cultures can be maintained for up to 14 days for most applications.

Scaffold-Free Protocol: Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plate Method

This protocol, standardized for epithelial spheroid formation, is ideal for generating uniform spheroids suitable for high-throughput screening [36].

• Key Reagent: ULA plates (e.g., Corning Elplasia 96-well plates or similar).
• Procedure:
  • Pre-equilibration: Pre-incubate the ULA plate with complete culture medium for 30 minutes at 37°C to equilibrate temperature and surface properties.
  • Prepare Cell Suspension: Trypsinize cells and resuspend them in complete medium. For high-throughput uniformity, resuspend HaCaT keratinocytes at 1.0 × 10^6 cells/mL for Elplasia plates.
  • Seed the Plate: Gently dispense a 50 µL aliquot of cell suspension (containing 5.0 × 10^4 cells) into each well of the Elplasia plate.
  • Incubate Undisturbed: Incubate the plate undisturbed for 48 hours at 37°C and 5% CO2 to allow for spheroid aggregation and formation.
  • Image and Analyze: After 48 hours, image spheroids using an automated high-content imager (e.g., ImageXpress Micro 4). Analyze spheroid number, diameter, and circularity using associated software (e.g., MetaXpress) with standardized thresholding.

Decision Workflow for 3D Culture Method Selection

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The successful implementation of 3D culture protocols relies on a specific toolkit of reagents and materials. The table below details essential solutions used in the featured experiments.

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

Reagent/Material	Type	Primary Function & Application
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Scaffold-Free	Provides a cell-repellent surface to force cell aggregation and spheroid formation; essential for high-throughput screening [36] [86].
Matrigel Matrix	Scaffold-Based	A natural, biologically active hydrogel derived from mouse sarcoma; used to provide a complex ECM environment for organoid and 3D co-culture models [36] [6].
Collagen Type I	Scaffold-Based	A natural polymer and primary ECM component; used to create defined, tunable 3D hydrogels for embedding cells [6].
ROCK1 Inhibitor (Y-27632)	Supplemental	Enhances cell survival and stemness in 3D cultures, particularly by promoting the formation of holospheres in keratinocyte models [36].
Synthetic Hydrogels (e.g., PEG, PLA)	Scaffold-Based	Provide a defined, reproducible scaffold with tunable mechanical properties; minimize batch variability [9] [86].
Hanging Drop Plates	Scaffold-Free	Enable spheroid formation via gravitational aggregation in suspended droplets, allowing for precise control over initial cell number and spheroid size [9] [6].

The comparative analysis of scaffold-based and scaffold-free morphologies reveals that neither approach is universally superior; rather, they serve as complementary tools in the researcher's arsenal. The decision to use one over the other must be strategically aligned with the specific research objectives. Scaffold-free systems, particularly those utilizing ULA plates, excel in applications demanding scalability, reproducibility, and high-throughput screening, such as initial drug discovery campaigns and basic studies of tumor heterogeneity and cell-cell communication [36] [88]. Conversely, scaffold-based systems are indispensable for investigations requiring physiologically relevant cell-matrix interactions, the study of complex tissue architecture, and modeling the pro-survival signals of the tumor microenvironment that contribute to drug resistance [87] [32] [6].

Future advancements in 3D culture will likely focus on the integration of these methodologies, creating hybrid models that combine the controlled microenvironment of scaffolds with the self-organizing principles of spheroids. Furthermore, the standardization of protocols and reagents, coupled with the integration of automation and AI-driven image analysis, will be crucial for enhancing reproducibility and unlocking the full potential of 3D models in translational research [20] [89]. For researchers in drug development, adopting a tiered strategy—using scaffold-free models for high-volume screening and scaffold-based or more complex hybrid models for lead validation—offers a powerful pathway to bridge the gap between in vitro data and clinical success.

Correlating 3D Morphology with Drug Resistance and Treatment Response

In preclinical cancer research, the transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a paradigm shift that more accurately captures the complex pathophysiology of tumors. The spatial architecture of cancer cells grown in 3D cultures closely mimics the in vivo tumor microenvironment, enabling researchers to study morphological features that correlate directly with therapeutic efficacy and resistance mechanisms [21] [90]. While 2D cultures have served as a convenient tool for initial drug screening, they suffer from significant limitations, including artificial polarity and lack of cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions that characterize human tumors [91]. The extracellular matrix (ECM) in 3D models not only provides structural support but also creates biochemical and mechanical cues that influence drug penetration, cellular metabolism, and signaling pathways—all factors that contribute to the development of drug resistance [92].

The correlation between specific morphological features in 3D cultures and drug response outcomes provides a powerful framework for predicting clinical efficacy. Studies across multiple cancer types have demonstrated that 3D morphological assessment can reveal treatment responses that would be missed by traditional size-based evaluation criteria alone [93] [94]. This guide systematically compares the performance of various 3D culture methodologies in their ability to model drug resistance and predict treatment response, providing researchers with experimental data and protocols to implement these advanced models in their drug discovery pipelines.

Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Methodologies

Technical Platforms and Their Applications

Various 3D culture technologies have been developed, each offering distinct advantages and limitations for specific research applications (Table 1). The choice of platform depends on research objectives, required throughput, and the level of biological complexity needed to address specific questions about drug resistance and treatment response.

Table 1: Comparison of 3D Culture Technologies in Drug Resistance Research

Technique	Key Advantages	Limitations	Best Applications in Drug Resistance Studies
Multicellular Spheroids	Easy-to-use protocols; Scalable to different plate formats; Compliant with high-throughput screening (HTS); High reproducibility [90]	Simplified architecture; Limited ECM composition control	Initial high-throughput drug screening; Studies of nutrient/oxygen gradients and their role in resistance [90]
Organoids	Patient-specific; In vivo-like complexity and architecture; Preserve histological features of parental tumor [21]	Variable results; Less amenable to HTS; Hard to reach in vivo maturity; May lack key cell types including vasculature [21] [90]	Personalized therapy prediction; Studies of tumor heterogeneity; Genetic and epigenetic mechanisms of resistance [21]
Scaffolds/Hydrogels	Applicable to microplates; Amenable to HTS; High reproducibility; Tunable biochemical and mechanical properties [21] [90]	Simplified architecture; Can be variable across lots (e.g., Matrigel) [90]	Investigations of ECM-drug interactions; Migration and invasion studies; Mechanobiology of resistance [91]
3D Bioprinting	Custom-made architecture; Chemical and physical gradients; High-throughput production; Co-culture ability [21] [90]	Lack vasculature; Challenges with cell viability and material properties; Difficult to adapt to HTS [21] [90]	Complex tumor microenvironment modeling; Spatial organization studies; High-content screening assay development [21]
Organs-on-Chips	In vivo-like architecture and microenvironment; Chemical and physical gradients; Fluid flow capabilities [90]	Lack full vasculature; Difficult to adapt to HTS; Technical complexity [90]	Studies of fluid shear stress on drug efficacy; Metastasis and intravasation/extravasation studies [90]

Morphological Features Predictive of Drug Resistance

Quantitative assessment of 3D morphological features provides critical insights into drug resistance mechanisms and treatment sensitivity (Table 2). These morphological characteristics serve as valuable biomarkers for predicting therapeutic outcomes across different cancer types.

Table 2: Morphological Features Correlated with Drug Response in 3D Cultures

Morphological Feature	Cancer Type	Correlation with Treatment Response	Experimental Evidence
Spheroid Circularity	Colorectal Cancer	Increased circularity correlates with epithelial polarization and enhanced chemotherapy sensitivity [94]	Azithromycin treatment increased colony circularity and enhanced sensitivity to irinotecan (5-year survival improvement in retrospective analysis) [94]
Lumen Formation	Colorectal Cancer	Presence of centralized lumens indicates re-epithelialization and polarized morphology [94]	Integrin β1 antibody treatment induced lumen formation and re-sensitization to cetuximab in previously resistant cells [94]
CT Morphology Changes	Colorectal Liver Metastases	Homogeneous low attenuation with thin, sharply defined tumor-liver interface predicts better outcomes [93]	Patients with optimal morphologic response to regorafenib showed significantly longer PFS (4.9 vs. 0.7 months, P=0.028), despite lack of RECIST response [93]
Spheroid Size	Triple-Negative Breast Cancer	Larger spheroid size correlates with increased resistance to multiple drug classes [95]	IC50 values for epirubicin, cisplatin, and docetaxel were significantly higher in 3D vs. 2D cultures (p<0.05) [95]
Spheroid Compactness	Multiple Cancer Types	Dense, compact spheroids show reduced drug penetration and increased resistance [21] [90]	3D cultures demonstrate chemoresistance observed in vivo (e.g., HCT-116 cells more resistant to melphalan, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan) [90]

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Establishing 3D Culture Models for Drug Screening

Scaffold-Based 3D Culture in Type I Collagen

The extracellular matrix composition plays a critical role in maintaining epithelial polarity and influencing drug response. A high-throughput screen using 3D type I collagen cultures of colorectal cancer (CRC) cells identified drugs that induce morphological changes toward more epithelial phenotypes [94].

Detailed Protocol:

• Prepare neutralized type I collagen solution (1.5-2.0 mg/mL final concentration) in cell culture medium
• Seed CRC cells (e.g., HCA-7 series) at density of 500-1,000 cells/well in 384-well plates
• Polymerize collagen for 30 minutes at 37°C
• Overlay with complete culture medium
• Add FDA-approved compound library (1,059 compounds) at appropriate concentrations
• Culture for 8 days with medium changes every 48-72 hours
• Stain with Calcein AM (4 μM final concentration) for 1-2 hours
• Image using confocal microscopy and quantify morphological parameters [94]

Key Morphological Parameters Quantified:

• Colony circularity (minor axis/major axis ratio)
• Presence and number of lumens
• Colony area and perimeter
• Texture features (energy, entropy, kurtosis, skewness)

This methodology enabled identification of several FDA-approved drugs, including azithromycin, that re-epithelialized CRC colonies by increasing circularity, enhancing E-cadherin membrane localization, and ZO-1 localization to tight junctions [94].

3D Tumor Section Culture (3D-TSC) from Patient Tissues

For modeling the native tumor microenvironment with high physiological relevance, 3D matrices can be derived from human tissue samples.

Detailed Protocol:

• Obtain snap-frozen human tissue fragments from surgical resections
• Embed tissues in Optimal Cutting Temperature (OCT) compound
• Section at thickness of 12 μm using a cryostat
• Capture sections on positively charged microslides
• Extract cells and cellular debris using extraction buffer (20 mM NH4OH, 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS) with rocking
• Perform multiple extraction steps (2 × 15 minutes + 9 × 5 minutes for human tissue)
• Wash with PBS and treat with DNase I (10 U/mL) to remove residual DNA
• Wash overnight in PBS to remove residual Triton X-100
• Plate cell lines of interest on the acellular 3D matrix for drug testing [91]

This approach preserves the complex biochemical and physical microenvironment of in vivo ECM, including tissue-specific collagen deposition differences between normal and tumor tissues [91].

Assessing Drug Response in 3D Models

Comparative 2D vs. 3D Drug Sensitivity Testing

A systematic comparison between 2D and 3D culture systems reveals significant differences in drug sensitivity profiles that have important implications for drug development.

Detailed Protocol (Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Model):

• Maintain 13 TNBC cell lines in both 2D and 3D cultures for 3 days before drug exposure
• For 3D cultures, use low-attachment plates to promote spheroid formation
• Expose to anticancer drugs: epirubicin (EPI), cisplatin (CDDP), and docetaxel (DTX)
• Assess cell viability after 72-96 hours using ATP-based or resazurin reduction assays
• Calculate IC50 values for both culture conditions
• Classify spheroid morphology as round or grape-like and correlate with resistance patterns [95]

Key Findings:

• IC50 values for all three drugs were significantly higher in 3D vs. 2D cultures
• Sensitivity correlations between 2D and 3D were strong for CDDP (R=0.955) but weak for DTX (R=0.221)
• Round spheroid-forming cells were more resistant than grape-like types [95]

Molecular Mechanisms Linking Morphology to Drug Resistance

Signaling Pathways in Morphology-Associated Resistance

The relationship between 3D morphology and drug resistance is mediated by specific molecular pathways that can be visualized as a connected signaling network (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Signaling Pathways Linking 3D Morphology to Therapy Resistance. 3D architectural features influence extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions and epithelial polarity, activating epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and downstream resistance mechanisms including alternative signaling pathway activation, drug efflux pump expression, and metabolic adaptation [92] [94] [69].

Morphological Screening for Resistance-Reversing Compounds

High-throughput morphological screening enables identification of compounds that reverse resistance phenotypes by targeting specific pathway components (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Workflow for Identifying Resistance-Modifying Drugs through Morphological Screening. The process begins with establishing 3D cancer models, screening compound libraries, quantifying morphological changes, validating hits, and testing therapeutic combinations [94].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Reagents for 3D Morphology and Drug Resistance Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in 3D Culture
Basement Membrane Matrix	Matrigel, Cultrex BME	Provides complex ECM proteins (laminin, collagen IV, nidogen) for organoid and spheroid culture [21] [91]
Collagen Matrices	Type I collagen (rat tail, bovine)	Creates fibrillar 3D environment for epithelial morphogenesis and polarity studies [91] [94]
Low-Adhesion Plates	Nunclon Sphera, Corning Ultra-Low Attachment	Promotes spontaneous spheroid formation by minimizing cell-substrate adhesion [90] [69]
Hanging Drop Plates	3D Biomatrix, GravityTRAP	Forms uniform spheroids through gravity-enforced cell aggregation [21] [90]
Viability Assays	CellTiter-Glo 3D, Calcein AM	Measures metabolic activity or membrane integrity in dense 3D structures with better penetration [94] [69]
Image Analysis Software	InCarta, MetaXpress, ImageJ	Quantifies morphological parameters (circularity, lumen formation, texture) in 3D cultures [94]

The correlation between 3D morphological features and drug resistance represents a significant advancement in predictive cancer modeling. The experimental data and methodologies presented in this guide demonstrate that 3D architectural assessment provides insights into treatment response that complement and often surpass traditional molecular and genetic markers. The implementation of standardized, quantitative morphological analysis in 3D culture systems enables researchers to identify resistance mechanisms earlier in the drug development process and design more effective combination therapies. As these approaches continue to evolve with advancements in imaging technology and artificial intelligence-based image analysis, 3D morphological profiling is poised to become an indispensable tool in precision oncology and personalized therapeutic strategy development.

The morphological comparison of three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures represents a pivotal advancement in biomedical research, offering a more physiologically relevant environment than traditional two-dimensional (2D) models for studying tissue morphology, disease mechanisms, and drug efficacy [52]. This shift necessitates equally advanced analytical techniques capable of resolving complex 3D architectures across multiple scales. The transition from 2D to 3D models like spheroids, organoids, and organ-on-a-chip systems has revealed significant limitations of conventional 2D cultures, including altered cell morphology, polarity, division methods, and disturbed cell-cell and cell-extracellular environment interactions [52]. Consequently, accurate morphological assessment requires a sophisticated toolkit of imaging and profiling technologies that can non-invasively capture intricate structural details from the macroscopic down to the nanoscopic level.

This guide provides a comprehensive, objective comparison of the primary analytical techniques for 3D structure analysis: light microscopy, electron microscopy (EM), and emerging digital profiling methods. We present experimental data, detailed methodologies, and performance metrics to empower researchers in selecting the optimal technique for their specific 3D culture applications, framed within the broader context of morphological comparison in 3D culture methods research.

Comparative Technique Analysis: Performance Specifications and Applications

Technical Performance Comparison

The following table summarizes the key performance characteristics of major imaging techniques for 3D structural analysis, providing a foundation for objective comparison.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of 3D Imaging Techniques

Technique	Best Resolution (XY)	Best Resolution (Z)	Maximum Imaging Depth	Throughput	Key Applications in 3D Cultures
Light-Sheet Fluorescence Microscopy (LSFM)	~2.57 µm [96]	N/A*	Whole mouse brain (several mm) [96]	High (fast acquisition of large volumes) [96]	Whole-organ imaging, live imaging of organoids and spheroids [96]
Fast Confocal Microscopy	~3.01 µm [96]	N/A*	Hundreds of microns [96]	Medium (slower than LSFM) [96]	3D volumetric imaging of spheroids, fixed samples [96]
Structured Illumination Microscopy (3D-SIM)	~2x WF resolution [97]	Enhanced axial resolution [97]	Limited by working distance	Medium	Super-resolution live-cell imaging, subcellular structures in 3D cultures [97]
MEMS Mirror Laser Differential Confocal (MLDCM)	Sub-micrometer [98]	25 nm [98]	~90 µm (with 50x objective) [98]	Very High (80 fps) [98]	Dynamic 3D micro-surface profiling, microfluidic device characterization [98]
FIB-SEM	3-5 nm (axial) [99]	9.4 nm (X,Y) 20 nm (Z) [100]	10.8 µm (limited by FIB milling) [100]	Low (48 hours acquisition) [100]	Nanoscale ultrastructure, intracellular organization [100]
SBF-SEM	3 nm (X,Y) [100]	50 nm (Z) [100]	7.5 µm (limited by block-face cutting) [100]	Medium (2.5 hours acquisition) [100]	Large-volume connectomics, tissue architecture [99]
Array Tomography	4.7 nm (X,Y) [100]	70 nm (Z) [100]	Virtually unlimited (serial sections) [99]	Low (4 hours acquisition + manual sectioning) [100]	Correlative light/EM, protein localization across large volumes [99]
TEM Tomography	1.72 nm (X,Y,Z) [100]	1.72 nm (X,Y,Z) [100]	200 nm (section thickness limit) [100]	Low (1 hour acquisition) [100]	High-resolution macromolecular complexes, organelle structures [100]

Note: Actual Z-resolution for light microscopy techniques depends on multiple factors including numerical aperture and optical sectioning capability.

Technique Selection Guide

Different research questions demand specific technical capabilities. The following table matches common research scenarios in 3D culture analysis with recommended techniques.

Table 2: Technique Selection Guide for Specific Research Applications

Research Application	Recommended Technique(s)	Rationale	Key Limitations
Live imaging of organoid development	Light-Sheet Fluorescence Microscopy (LSFM) [96]	Fast volumetric imaging with minimal photobleaching enables long-term observation	Lower resolution compared to EM techniques
High-throughput drug screening in spheroids	Fast Confocal Microscopy [96]	Good balance of speed and resolution for medium-throughput content analysis	Photobleaching with prolonged imaging [96]
Subcellular protein localization in 3D cultures	3D-SIM [97]	Super-resolution capability compatible with standard fluorophores	Complex reconstruction algorithms, sensitive to noise [97]
Nanoscale surface topography of scaffolds	MEMS Mirror Laser Differential Confocal (MLDCM) [98]	Nanometer axial resolution with real-time 3D profiling capability	Limited penetration depth, surface-only measurements
Ultrastructural analysis of intracellular organelles	FIB-SEM [99] [100]	Excellent Z-resolution (3-5 nm) for detailed subcellular architecture	Very low throughput, small volumes, specialized sample prep [99]
Large-volume reconstruction of neuronal networks	SBF-SEM [99] [100]	Automated collection of large serial sections (up to 500,000 µm³) [99]	Requires specialized sample preparation for conductivity [100]
Correlative light and electron microscopy	Array Tomography [99] [100]	Combines fluorescent protein localization with EM ultrastructure	Labor-intensive manual section collection [100]
Macromolecular complex architecture	TEM Tomography [100]	Highest 3D resolution (1.72 nm isotropic) [100]	Extremely limited sample thickness (<300 nm) [99]

Experimental Protocols for 3D Structure Analysis

Protocol 1: Whole-Mount 3D Culture Imaging via Light-Sheet Fluorescence Microscopy

Application: Volumetric imaging of intact organoids and spheroids [96]

Sample Preparation:

• Fixation: Immerse samples in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in PBS at 4°C overnight [96].
• Clearing: Process samples using Rapid tissue-clearing method or similar (e.g., CUBIC, CLARITY) [96].
• Mounting: Transfer cleared samples into RI-matching mounting solution and agitate at 50 rpm/37°C for 24-36 hours [96].
• Holder Preparation: For LSFM, glue sample to modified mounting holder to eliminate dead volume at the chamber bottom [96].

Image Acquisition (LSFM):

• Equipment: Lightsheet Z.1 with 2.5× objective lens (Fluar 0.12 NA) and 5× illumination lens (0.1 NA) [96].
• Laser Settings: 488 nm excitation laser at 10% power [96].
• Camera Settings: Exposure time of 30 ms with 1920 × 1920 pixel resolution [96].
• Processing: Acquire z-stacks and perform 3D rendering using ZEN software (Carl Zeiss) [96].

Critical Considerations: Sample clearing is essential for reducing light scattering in large 3D samples. Holder modification prevents imaging artifacts at the sample base.

Protocol 2: Nanoscale Ultrastructural Analysis via FIB-SEM

Application: High-resolution 3D reconstruction of intracellular structures in 3D cultures [100]

Sample Preparation (NCMIR Method for Enhanced Conductivity):

• Primary Fixation: 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer (pH 7.2).
• Secondary Fixation: 1% OsO4 in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer (pH 7.2).
• Heavy Metal Staining: Sequential treatment with thiocarbohydrazide and osmium tetroxide to enhance conductivity and contrast [100].
• Embedding: Infiltrate and embed samples in epoxy resin [100].

Image Acquisition (FIB-SEM):

• Equipment: FIB-SEM system (e.g., JIB-4610F) with gallium ion source [100].
• Settings: Accelerating voltage 3.0 kV, pixel size 9.4 nm (X,Y), 20 nm (Z) [100].
• Sequence: Program iterative cycles of surface sputtering (FIB) followed by backscattered electron imaging (SEM) [100].
• Typical Parameters: 543 images acquired over 48 hours for 10.8 μm depth [100].

Critical Considerations: Heavy metal staining is crucial for charge dissipation. Lower accelerating voltages (1-3 kV) reduce charging but may compromise resolution.

Protocol 3: Dynamic Surface Profiling via MEMS Mirror Laser Differential Confocal Microscopy

Application: Real-time 3D topography of microscale surfaces in microfluidic devices or scaffold materials [98]

Sample Preparation:

• Minimal Preparation Required: Technique is non-contact and requires no coating.
• Mounting: Secure sample on standard microscope slide or custom holder.
• Conductivity: Non-conductive samples may be imaged without metal coating.

Image Acquisition (MLDCM):

• Equipment: MEMS mirror-integrated laser differential confocal microscope with 520 nm laser diode [98].
• Objective: 50× objective (Mitutoyo Plan APO, NA 0.42) for 140 × 90 μm field of view [98].
• Scanning: MEMS mirror enables 2D scanning of 1200 × 650 pixels at 80 frames per second [98].
• Detection: Differential confocal detection provides 25 nm axial resolution [98].

Critical Considerations: System calibration is essential for accurate height measurements. Technique is limited to surface topography and cannot image internal structures.

Visualizing Technique Selection and Workflows

Diagram 1: Technique selection workflow for 3D structure analysis.

Diagram 2: Comparative workflow for 3D imaging techniques.

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful 3D structural analysis requires specialized reagents and materials tailored to each imaging modality. The following table catalogues essential solutions for the techniques discussed.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for 3D Structure Analysis

Category	Specific Reagent/Material	Function	Compatible Techniques
Fixation Agents	4% Paraformaldehyde (PFA) [96]	Protein cross-linking, structural preservation	Light microscopy, TEM [96] [100]
Fixation Agents	2.5% Glutaraldehyde [100]	Enhanced structural fixation, EM compatibility	SEM, FIB-SEM, TEM [100]
Contrast Enhancement	1% Osmium Tetroxide (OsOâ‚„) [100]	Lipid fixation, electron density enhancement	SEM, FIB-SEM, TEM [100]
Contrast Enhancement	Uranyl Acetate [100]	Heavy metal staining, nucleic acid contrast	TEM, Array Tomography [100]
Embedding Media	Epoxy Resin [100]	Structural support for sectioning	SEM, FIB-SEM, TEM, Array Tomography [100]
Tissue Clearing	Rapid Clearing Kit [96]	Refractive index matching, light scattering reduction	Light-sheet microscopy, confocal microscopy [96]
Scaffolds/Matrices	Matrigel [52]	Natural ECM mimic for 3D culture support	All imaging techniques with 3D cultures [52]
Scaffolds/Matrices	Synthetic Hydrogels (PEG, PLA) [9]	Tunable mechanical properties, reproducibility	All imaging techniques with 3D cultures [9]
Mounting Media	RI-Matching Solutions [96]	Minimize refraction at interfaces	Light-sheet microscopy, confocal microscopy [96]
Conductive Coatings	Heavy Metal Stains (thiocarbohydrazide) [100]	Charge dissipation, contrast enhancement	SEM, FIB-SEM of non-conductive samples [100]

The morphological comparison of 3D culture methods demands a sophisticated understanding of complementary analytical techniques. Light microscopy approaches, particularly light-sheet and advanced super-resolution methods like 3D-SIM, provide unparalleled live imaging capabilities for dynamic processes in intact 3D cultures. Electron microscopy techniques, including FIB-SEM and array tomography, deliver nanometer-scale resolution for ultrastructural analysis but require extensive sample preparation and are generally limited to fixed specimens. Emerging technologies like MEMS-based confocal profiling bridge this gap by offering real-time, high-precision surface topography measurements.

The optimal technique selection depends critically on the specific research question, considering trade-offs between resolution, penetration depth, throughput, and sample viability. As 3D culture models continue to increase in complexity and physiological relevance, correlative approaches that combine multiple modalities will likely become essential for comprehensive morphological analysis across scales. By providing objective performance comparisons, detailed protocols, and practical implementation guidance, this review empowers researchers to make informed decisions that advance our understanding of 3D cellular architecture in health and disease.

Retention of Native Tissue Markers and Genetic Profiles in 3D Cultures

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures to three-dimensional (3D) systems represents a paradigm shift in biomedical research. While 2D cultures have been instrumental in basic research, their limitations in mimicking the natural tissue microenvironment are increasingly recognized [49]. Cells cultured in 2D adopt abnormal flattened morphologies, experience uniform exposure to nutrients and signaling molecules, and lack the complex cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions found in living tissues [101]. These factors collectively lead to the loss of native tissue markers and genetic profiles, compromising the translational relevance of research findings [49] [101].

3D culture systems have emerged as a powerful alternative that more accurately recapitulates the architectural and functional properties of in vivo tissues [102]. This guide provides an objective comparison of how different 3D culture techniques preserve native tissue markers and genetic profiles, with particular focus on their performance in maintaining stem cell properties, cancer phenotypes, and tissue-specific functions across various applications.

Three-dimensional culture systems are broadly classified into two categories: scaffold-based and scaffold-free techniques. Each approach offers distinct advantages and limitations for preserving native cellular characteristics.

• Scaffold-based techniques utilize a supporting matrix that mimics the native extracellular matrix (ECM). These include:

  • Natural hydrogels: Matrigel, collagen, alginate, and other biologically derived materials that provide bioactive signaling cues [49] [9].
  • Synthetic hydrogels: Polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and other polymers with tunable mechanical properties but lacking natural cell adhesion sites [9].
  • Hard polymeric scaffolds: Polystyrene and polycaprolactone (PCL) that provide structural support for tissue engineering applications [9].

• Scaffold-free techniques promote cell self-assembly into 3D structures without exogenous materials:

  • Hanging drop method: Cells aggregate at the bottom of suspended droplets to form spheroids [9] [71].
  • Ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates: Specialized surfaces prevent cell adhesion, forcing aggregation into spheroids [7] [71].
  • Agitation-based methods: Bioreactors and rotating systems maintain cells in suspension to promote aggregation [9].

More complex organoid cultures represent an advanced 3D model that incorporates stem cells to generate self-organizing structures that recapitulate key aspects of native organ architecture and function [101] [102]. These can be derived from tissue-specific adult stem cells (ASCs), embryonic stem cells (ESCs), or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) [102].

Comparative Performance Data

Quantitative Comparison of MSC Phenotype Retention in 3D Culture Systems

Table 1: Performance comparison of 3D culture systems in maintaining mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) properties over 4-week culture

Culture Parameter	2D Monolayer	Spheroids	Matrigel	Bio-Block Hydrogel
Proliferation (Fold Change)	Baseline	~2-fold decrease	~2-fold decrease	~2-fold increase
Senescence	Baseline	30-37% increase	30-37% increase	30-37% reduction
Apoptosis	Baseline	2-3-fold increase	2-3-fold increase	2-3-fold decrease
Trilineage Differentiation	Moderate	Reduced	Reduced	Significantly enhanced
Stem-like Markers (LIF, OCT4, IGF1)	Baseline	Reduced	Reduced	Significantly higher
Secretome Protein Production	35% decline	47% decline	10% decline	Fully preserved
EV Production	30-70% decline	30-70% decline	30-70% decline	~44% increase
EV Functional Potency (Angiogenesis)	Reduced	Induced senescence/apoptosis	Moderate	Significantly enhanced

Data adapted from comparative study of adipose-derived MSCs across culture systems [103]

Morphological and Functional Characteristics Across 3D Systems

Table 2: Retention of native markers and genetic profiles across different 3D culture models

Culture Model	Tissue-Specific Architecture	Stemness Marker Expression	Genetic Profile Fidelity	Key Applications
Scaffold-free Spheroids	Moderate: Cell-cell interactions maintained	Variable: Often reduced over time	Moderate: Hypoxia gradients present	Drug screening, basic cancer biology [49] [101]
Matrigel-based	Good: Ductal/glomerular structures possible	Good: Supports progenitor cells	Good: Better than 2D, batch variability concerns	Organoid development, cancer studies [101] [71]
Collagen-based	Good: Tunable mechanical properties	Good: Dependent on stiffness	Good: More defined than Matrigel	Stromal-rich models, migration studies [71]
Specialized Hydrogels (Bio-Block)	Excellent: Tissue-mimetic microarchitecture	Excellent: Enhanced stem-like genes	Excellent: Long-term stability	High-potency MSC therapies, EV production [103]
Organoids	Excellent: Self-organizing, multiple cell types	Excellent: Native stem cell niches recapitulated	Excellent: Patient-specific mutations maintained	Disease modeling, personalized medicine [101] [102]

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Native Marker Retention

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Evaluation of MSC Phenotype in 3D Cultures

This protocol is adapted from the comparative study of MSC culture systems [103].

Week 1: Cell Seeding and Culture Initiation

• Prepare a single large batch of Passage 1 (P1) adipose-derived MSCs (ASCs) to ensure homogeneity across all culture platforms.
• For 2D cultures: Seed at 5,000 cells/cm² in standard T-150 TCP flasks with filter caps.
• For spheroids: Use the hanging drop method or ultra-low attachment plates with 2.5×10⁶ cells/mL concentration.
• For Matrigel cultures: Mix cells with Matrigel at 4×10³ cells/50 μL dome formation.
• For Bio-Block hydrogels: Fabricate constructs to mimic adipose tissue mechanical properties using proprietary hydrogel formulations.
• Culture all systems in RoosterNourish MSC-XF medium for initial growth phase.

Week 2-4: Culture Maintenance and Monitoring

• Change media every 2-3 days for all systems.
• For scaffold-based systems (Matrigel, Bio-Block), avoid disruption of 3D structures during media changes.
• Switch to serum-free, low-particulate media (RoosterCollect EV-Pro) prior to conditioned media collection for secretome analysis.
• Monitor proliferation weekly using metabolic assays and imaging.

Endpoint Analyses (Week 4)

• Proliferation assessment: Use quantitative DNA content assays and imaging of 3D structures.
• Senescence and apoptosis: Perform β-galactosidase staining and caspase activation assays on sectioned samples.
• Trilineage differentiation: Assess adipogenic, osteogenic, and chondrogenic potential with standardized differentiation kits and quantitative marker analysis.
• Stem-like gene expression: Analyze LIF, OCT4, and IGF1 expression via qRT-PCR from extracted RNA.
• Secretome production: Concentrate conditioned media and quantify total protein content; isolate extracellular vesicles (EVs) via ultracentrifugation for nanoparticle tracking analysis.
• Functional EV potency: Dose endothelial cells (ECs) with equivalent EV quantities and assess proliferation, migration, and VE-cadherin expression.

Protocol 2: Cancer Spheroid Formation for Drug Response Studies

This protocol synthesizes methods from colorectal cancer and liposarcoma studies [7] [71].

Spheroid Formation (Days 1-3)

• Test multiple formation techniques in parallel:
  • Hanging drop method: Place 10 μL drops of cell suspension (2.5×10⁶ cells/mL) on dish lids, invert over PBS-containing wells to prevent evaporation.
  • Ultra-low attachment plates: Seed 200 μL of cell suspension (8×10⁴ cells/mL) in 96-well round-bottom ULA plates.
  • Matrix-embedded methods: Suspend cells in collagen I (3 mg/mL) or Matrigel at 1×10⁵ cells/mL concentration.
• Incubate for 72 hours at 37°C with 5% COâ‚‚ to allow spheroid compaction.

Characterization (Day 4)

• Image spheroids using inverted microscopy or confocal imaging systems.
• Assess morphology and classify as single spheroids, multiple aggregates, or loose aggregates.
• Measure spheroid diameter and circularity using image analysis software.
• Evaluate cell viability using live/dead staining or metabolic assays optimized for 3D cultures.

Drug Treatment and Response Assessment (Days 5-7)

• Add chemotherapeutic agents in serial dilutions to formed spheroids.
• Include appropriate vehicle controls and reference compounds.
• Incubate for 48-72 hours with continuous monitoring if possible.
• Assess viability using ATP-based or resazurin reduction assays normalized to untreated controls.
• Process spheroids for histology (HE staining), immunohistochemistry (protein marker expression), and gene expression analysis (qPCR).

Signaling Pathways in Stemness Maintenance

The preservation of native tissue markers and genetic profiles in 3D cultures is regulated by key signaling pathways that are inadequately recapitulated in 2D systems. These pathways maintain stem cell populations and tissue-specific functions.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential research reagents for 3D culture studies

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Function in 3D Culture
Basement Membrane Matrices	Matrigel, Cultrex BME	Provide biologically active scaffold rich in ECM proteins and growth factors for organoid and spheroid development [49] [101]
Natural Polymer Hydrogels	Collagen Type I, Alginate, Hyaluronic Acid	Create tunable 3D microenvironments with defined mechanical properties; collagen particularly supports stromal co-cultures [9] [71]
Synthetic Hydrogels	PEG-based systems, PolyHEMA	Offer defined, reproducible matrices with controllable mechanical properties and minimal batch variability [49] [9]
Specialized Culture Media	RoosterNourish MSC-XF, RoosterCollect EV-Pro	Support stem cell maintenance and enable serum-free collection of secretome components including extracellular vesicles [103]
Stem Cell Niche Factors	R-spondin-1, Noggin, EGF, FGF, B27, Y27632	Critical for establishing and maintaining organoid cultures by recapitulating native stem cell niche signaling [102]
Low Attachment Surfaces	Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) plates, Agarose-coated plates	Enable scaffold-free spheroid formation by preventing cell adhesion and promoting self-aggregation [7] [71]

The selection of appropriate 3D culture systems significantly impacts the retention of native tissue markers and genetic profiles in vitro. Scaffold-based systems, particularly advanced hydrogel platforms like Bio-Blocks, demonstrate superior performance in maintaining mesenchymal stem cell phenotypes, stemness markers, and secretory functions compared to both traditional 2D cultures and simpler 3D systems [103]. For cancer research, matrix-embedded and scaffold-free spheroid techniques provide varying degrees of architectural and genetic fidelity, with optimal method selection dependent on the specific cell line and research objectives [7] [71].

Organoid cultures represent the most sophisticated approach for preserving tissue-specific genetic profiles and cellular heterogeneity, making them particularly valuable for disease modeling and personalized medicine applications [101] [102]. The consistent demonstration across multiple studies that 3D cultures maintain enhanced native marker expression, appropriate signaling pathway activation, and physiological therapeutic resistance underscores their critical role in bridging the gap between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo models.

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures to three-dimensional (3D) models represents a paradigm shift in preclinical cancer research. While 2D cultures, where cells grow as a flat monolayer on a dish, have been instrumental in drug development, they lack the intricate tissue-specific architecture, cell-extracellular matrix interactions, and spatial organization found in native tumours [7]. Three-dimensional models provide a more comprehensive representation of natural tumour heterogeneity, featuring variations in cellular morphology and exposure to gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and environmental stresses that result in inner layers of non-proliferating and necrotic cells mimicking solid tumours [7]. However, this enhanced physiological relevance comes with practical challenges in implementation, consistency, and analytical complexity that researchers must navigate. This guide objectively compares prevalent 3D culture methodologies, evaluating their relative advantages and limitations to help researchers select appropriate models for specific research applications.

Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Techniques

The landscape of 3D culture technologies can be broadly categorized into scaffold-free and scaffold-based systems, each with distinct characteristics, benefits, and limitations [104]. The following analysis synthesizes experimental data from recent studies to provide a systematic comparison of these approaches, with particular emphasis on their morphological outcomes and practical implementation requirements.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of 3D Culture Techniques

Technique	Morphological Outcomes	Physiological Relevance	Cost Considerations	Technical Challenges	Suitable Applications
Scaffold-Free Methods
Hanging Drop	Self-aggregation into spheroids; size variability; may merge over time [7]	High cell-cell contact; self-produced ECM; avascular tissue similarity [104]	Low cost; simple equipment [104]	Medium throughput limitations; evaporation issues [7]	Initial spheroid formation; stem cell studies
U-Bottom Plates	Single, homogeneous spheroids; consistent size and shape [7]	Controlled nutrient gradients; predictable necrosis zones [7]	Anti-adherence solution significantly reduces cost vs. specialized plates [7]	Requires specialized plates or coating	High-throughput drug screening; standardized assays
Agitation-Based	Multiple spheroids; variable size distributions [7]	Dynamic microenvironment; enhanced nutrient exchange [104]	Moderate equipment investment	Shear stress on cells; specialized equipment needed	Large-scale spheroid production
Scaffold-Based Methods
Matrigel	Consistent spheroid formation; organoid development [11]	High biological activity; basement membrane components [7]	High cost; batch variability [11]	Complex analysis; variable reproducibility [11]	Organoid development; stem cell applications
Collagen Hydrogels	Matrix-dependent morphology; variable compaction [7]	Tunable stiffness; natural ECM composition [7]	Moderate cost	Polymerization optimization required	Mechanobiology studies; stromal co-cultures
Synthetic Polymers (e.g., GrowDex)	Scaffold-dependent structures; plant-based alternatives [11]	Customizable biochemical cues; defined composition [104]	Moderate cost; more consistent than natural polymers [104]	May lack natural biological signals	Controlled microenvironments; reproducible screening

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics Across Methods

Parameter	Hanging Drop	U-Bottom Plates	Matrigel	Collagen I	Methylcellulose
Spheroid Consistency	Moderate	High	High	Variable	Variable by cell line
Throughput Capacity	Low-medium	High	Medium	Medium	High
Protocol Complexity	Medium	Low	High	Medium	Low
Implementation Cost	Low	Low with anti-adherence solution [7]	High	Medium	Low
Stromal Co-culture Support	Limited	Good	Excellent	Good	Fair
Analytical Accessibility	Challenging	Straightforward	Complex	Moderate	Straightforward

Recent comparative research across eight colorectal cancer (CRC) cell lines (DLD1, HCT8, HCT116, LoVo, LS174T, SW48, SW480, and SW620) demonstrated that morphological outcomes significantly depend on both the technique employed and the specific cell line characteristics [7]. The study revealed that while some cell lines readily form compact spheroids across multiple methods, others require specific conditions—for instance, the SW48 cell line historically formed only irregular aggregates but can now generate compact spheroids using optimized protocols [7].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized 3D Floater Culture Protocol

The PREDECT consortium has established robust, detailed protocols for generating 3D cultures that can be implemented across various cancer types. The following workflow represents a standardized approach for floater cultures in ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates [105]:

Critical Steps and Optimization Points:

• Plate Selection: 384-well ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates or agarose-coated plates (Greiner Bio-One #781090) are optimal for floater formation [105].
• Cell Seeding Density: Optimization is required for each cell line. Suggested starting densities range from 500-5,000 cells per well for tumor cells in 384-well formats, with stromal co-culture ratios between 10:1 and 1:10 (tumor:stromal cells) [105].
• Medium Refreshment: Carefully refresh half of the medium twice weekly using a washer or manual pipetting with extreme care to prevent spheroid loss. Pipette old medium to a second plate to monitor accidental spheroid removal [105].
• Quality Control: Baseline fluorescence measurements should be taken after overnight incubation using plate readers with appropriate excitation/emission settings (e.g., 540/587 nm for RFP, 488/525 nm for GFP) [105].

Advanced Co-culture Protocol for Tumor-Stroma Interactions

Incorporating stromal components, particularly cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), significantly enhances physiological relevance by recapitulating critical tumor microenvironment interactions [7]. The following protocol modification enables robust co-culture establishment:

• Fibroblast Preparation: Immortalized colonic fibroblasts (e.g., CCD-18Co CRL-1459) should be cultured and prepared following the same harvesting procedure as tumor cells [7].
• Ratio Optimization: Pre-test fibroblast:tumor cell ratios across a range (1:10 to 1:1) to identify optimal conditions for compact spheroid formation without excessive fibroblast overgrowth.
• Sequential Seeding: For some applications, pre-aggregating fibroblasts before adding tumor cells may improve spheroid consistency and architecture.

Recent research demonstrates that co-cultures of CRC organoids and immortalized CAFs significantly alter the transcriptional profile of cancer cells, recapitulating histological and immunosuppressive characteristics of aggressive mesenchymal-like colorectal tumours [7].

Technical Challenges and Analytical Considerations

Analytical Limitations in 3D Cultures

Transitioning from 2D to 3D culture systems introduces significant analytical challenges that researchers must acknowledge and address:

• Quantification Difficulties: Precise cell number determination is essential for normalization but remains technically challenging in 3D systems. Many traditional biochemical assays assume single-cell suspensions and require modification for accurate 3D application [104].
• Diffusional Limitations: Reagents, dyes, and antibody solutions experience uneven penetration and gradient formation within 3D structures, leading to inaccurate measurements and imaging artifacts [104].
• Imaging Complications: Light scattering and limited penetration depth compromise image quality, requiring specialized microscopy techniques (e.g., light-sheet, confocal) for accurate visualization [104].
• Extraction Challenges: Efficient cell retrieval for downstream applications is complicated by the structural complexity of 3D cultures, with classic dissociation techniques often proving inefficient [104].

Cost-Benefit Considerations for Research Workflows

Table 3: Implementation Cost Analysis

Cost Factor	Scaffold-Free Methods	Natural Scaffold Methods	Synthetic Scaffold Methods
Initial Setup	Low ($-$$)	Medium ($$)	Medium-High ($$-$$$)
Per-Experiment Consumables	Low ($)	High ($$$)	Medium ($$)
Specialized Equipment	Optional	Often required	Sometimes required
Protocol Optimization Time	Medium	High	Medium-High
Technical Expertise Required	Basic cell culture	Advanced techniques	Specialized training
Analytical Investment	Low-Medium	High	Medium-High

A critical cost-saving innovation demonstrated in recent research involves using regular multi-well plates treated with anti-adherence solution instead of specialized cell-repellent plates, achieving significant cost reduction while maintaining spheroid formation efficiency [7]. This approach makes high-throughput 3D screening more accessible to research groups with budget constraints.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Culture

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Considerations
Scaffold-Free Platforms	ULA plates, agarose-coated plates	Promote self-aggregation without external matrix	Anti-adherence solution treatment reduces cost [7]
Natural Hydrogels	Matrigel, Collagen I, GelTrex	Biologically active ECM mimicry	Batch variability; complex composition [11]
Synthetic Hydrogels	GrowDex, methylcellulose, PEG	Defined composition; tunable properties	May lack natural biological signals [7]
Cell Lines	CRC panels (e.g., DLD1, HCT116, SW48)	Disease-specific model systems	Variable spheroid-forming capacity across lines [7]
Stromal Components	CCD-18Co fibroblasts, CAFs	Tumor microenvironment modeling	Ratios significantly impact morphology [7]
Analysis Reagents	Metabolic assays, viability probes, IHC kits	3D structure characterization	Require validation for 3D penetration [104]

Decision Framework for Method Selection

Choosing the appropriate 3D culture methodology requires careful consideration of research objectives, available resources, and desired outcomes. The following decision pathway provides a structured approach to selection:

The selection of 3D culture methodologies represents a critical balance between physiological relevance and practical implementation considerations. Scaffold-free systems offer straightforward, cost-effective solutions for high-throughput applications, while scaffold-based approaches provide enhanced microenvironment complexity at the expense of higher costs and analytical challenges. Recent methodological advances, particularly the development of novel compact spheroid models for challenging cell lines and cost-reduction strategies using anti-adherence solutions, have expanded the accessibility of 3D culture systems [7]. The integration of stromal components further enhances physiological relevance, enabling more accurate modeling of tumor-stroma interactions that drive cancer progression and therapeutic resistance [7]. As the field continues to evolve, standardization of protocols and analytical approaches will be essential for improving reproducibility and facilitating broader adoption of these advanced models in preclinical research and drug development pipelines.

Conclusion

The morphological fidelity of 3D cell cultures is paramount for creating predictive pre-clinical models. This analysis demonstrates that the choice of culture method—whether scaffold-based or scaffold-free—profoundly influences cellular architecture, which in turn dictates functional outcomes in drug screening and disease modeling. Future directions point toward the standardization of protocols, the integration of multi-cellular systems to better mimic organ-level complexity, and the adoption of AI-driven morphological analysis. As the field progresses, a deliberate and informed selection of 3D culture methods, based on a deep understanding of their morphological consequences, will be crucial for advancing biomedical research and improving clinical translation success rates.

References

• 1. Organoid-derived extracellular vesicles: recent advances and ... [https://j-organoid.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.51335/organoid.2025.5.e7]
• 2. 2D vs 3D Cell Culture: Advantages, Limitations, and Lab ... [https://www.astorscientific.us/blogs/news/2d-vs-3d-cell-culture?srsltid=AfmBOoo9-k3fIFveFnDiHiGfmWH0D2vz62gZfCgnbrlE038D97wkdu1Y]
• 3. Alternating 2D and 3D culture reduces cell size and extends ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12411557/]
• 4. 2D vs 3D Cell Culture: Choosing the Right Model [https://www.tempobioscience.com/2d-vs-3d-cell-culture-choosing-the-right-model-by-tempo-bioscience/]
• 5. Comparison of 3D culture systems on mesenchymal stem cell ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41077855/]
• 6. Comparison of three-dimensional cell culture techniques ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2024.1362696/full]
• 7. Comparative analysis of 3D-culture techniques for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13588-x]
• 8. A comparative analysis of 2D and 3D experimental data for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42486-3]
• 9. 3D Cell Culture Methods and Applications [https://elveflow.com/microfluidic-reviews/3d-cell-culture-methods-and-applications-a-short-review/]
• 10. Modeling How Tissues Mold the Fruit Fly's Gut [https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2025/11/17/from-ring-to-keyhole-modeling-how-tissues-mold-the-fruit-flys-gut/]
• 11. Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Methodologies in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40609728/]
• 12. 3D Cell Imaging | Best Practices in 3D Cell Culture Imaging [https://www.corning.com/worldwide/en/products/life-sciences/resources/stories/the-cutting-edge/best-practices-for-3d-cell-imaging.html]
• 13. 3D and organoid culture in research: physiology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8973959/]
• 14. Spheroids vs. Organoids: Which 3D Cell Culture Model ... [https://www.bio-techne.com/resources/blogs/spheroids-vs-organoids-which-3d-cell-culture-model-is-best]
• 15. Organoid and Spheroid Tumor Models - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7922036/]
• 16. Three-Dimensional Spheroid Culture of Human Mesenchymal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10184701/]
• 17. A Dynamic 3D Aggregate-Based System for the Successful ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8928726/]
• 18. Microglia-containing neural organoids as brain ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12528120/]
• 19. Organoids & Spheroids Europe 2025 [https://www.selectbioconferences.com/organoideu2025]
• 20. 3D vs 2D Cell Culture: Which Model Suits Your Lab in 2025? [https://www.pharmanow.live/knowledge-hub/research/3d-vs-2d-cell-culture-comparison]
• 21. 3D tumor cultures for drug resistance and screening ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11927140/]
• 22. 3D spatial biology: A new dimension for drug discovery [https://www.ddw-online.com/3d-spatial-biology-a-new-dimension-for-drug-discovery-36077-202508/]
• 23. 3d Cell Culture Market: Comprehensive Analysis and ... [https://www.pharmiweb.com/press-release/2025-02-12/3d-cell-culture-market-comprehensive-analysis-and-forecast-2025-2035]
• 24. Comparative Analysis of 3D Culture Methodologies in ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11952452/]
• 25. Large-scale CRISPR screening in primary human 3D ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62818-3]
• 26. Engineering Hydrogels for the Development of Three ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8910155/]
• 27. Advancements in Hydrogels: A Comprehensive Review of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/17/15/2026]
• 28. Three-dimensional culture and clinical drug responses of a ... [https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-020-00646-x]
• 29. Alternatives to animal-derived extracellular matrix hydrogels ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12611971/]
• 30. Animal-free alternatives for Matrigel in human iPSC- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20091-w]
• 31. Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10789053/]
• 32. Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research [https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-024-00994-y]
• 33. improving physiological relevance and yield with 3D cell culture [https://pubs.rsc.org/en-ca/content/articlehtml/2025/nr/d5nr00707k]
• 34. Scaffold-free 3D culture systems for stem cell-based tissue ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11446583/]
• 35. In Vitro three-dimensional (3D) cell culture tools for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S247255522300028X]
• 36. Standardized Methodology of Scaffold-Free ... - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12566299/]
• 37. Flipped Well-Plate Hanging-Drop Technique for Growing ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2022.898699/full]
• 38. Global Scaffold Free 3D Cell Culture Plate Market Report ... [https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/scaffold-free-3d-cell-culture-plate-market-report]
• 39. Harnessing 3D cell models and high-resolution imaging to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12277333/]
• 40. Role of three-dimensional cell culture in therapeutics and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10042111/]
• 41. Challenges of applying multicellular tumor spheroids in ... [https://cancerci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12935-021-01853-8]
• 42. liquid overlay technique allows the generation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10588472/]
• 43. The liquid overlay technique is the key to formation of co- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1465324911705813]
• 44. Influence of experimental variables on spheroid attributes [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11928536/]
• 45. Impact of different 3D culture environments on spheroid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12570515/]
• 46. Tumor organoid-immune co-culture models - Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-025-02407-x]
• 47. Cancer-associated fibroblast-mediated immune evasion [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40934009]
• 48. Development of a 3D-3 co-culture microbead consisting of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12261251/]
• 49. Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Systems and Their ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4026212/]
• 50. FAP+ fibroblasts orchestrate tumor microenvironment ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64447-2]
• 51. Leveraging 3D cell culture and AI technologies for next- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050562325000418]
• 52. 2D and 3D cell cultures – a comparison of different types of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6040128/]
• 53. Spheroids as a Type of Three-Dimensional Cell Cultures ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7503223/]
• 54. Three-dimensional spheroid models for cardiovascular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12270648/]
• 55. What 32000 3D Spheroids Revealed About Culture ... [https://www.promegaconnections.com/what-32000-3d-spheroids-revealed-about-culture-conditions/]
• 56. Low Attachment Cell Culture Plates... | Thermo Fisher Scientific - KZ [https://www.thermofisher.com/kz/en/home/life-science/cell-culture/organoids-spheroids-3d-cell-culture/3d-cell-culture-plates-dishes-flasks.html]
• 57. Influence of experimental variables on spheroid attributes [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92037-1]
• 58. of Multicellular Tumor Comparative Formation... Study Spheroid [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5843470/]
• 59. Aldehyde Fixative Solutions Alter the Water Relaxation and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3188415/]
• 60. Morphological characterization of 3D cell cultures ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41099094/]
• 61. The Impact of Fixation on the Detection of Oligodendrocyte ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/10/6/1302]
• 62. Biomimetic culture substrates for modelling homeostatic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59459-x]
• 63. Matrix stiffness drives alterations in aldehyde metabolism ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12880-0]
• 64. Acetaldehyde and methylglyoxal: comparative analysis of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12518343/]
• 65. Comparative analysis of fixation techniques for signal ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160624002276]
• 66. Formaldehyde induces and promotes Alzheimer's disease ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41043545/]
• 67. Analytic Models of Oxygen and Nutrient Diffusion, Metabolism ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5029285/]
• 68. The Importance of Proper Oxygenation in 3D Culture [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2021.634403/full]
• 69. Comparative analysis between 2D and 3D colorectal ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45144-w]
• 70. 2D versus 3D tumor-on-chip models to study the impact of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03504-8]
• 71. Comparison of three-dimensional cell culture techniques ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10945377/]
• 72. Recent advances in 3D cell culture models in cancer drug ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40005-025-00740-y]
• 73. 5 reasons to move from shake flasks to a bioreactor [https://infors-ht.com/en/blog/5-reasons-to-move-from-shake-flasks-to-a-bioreactor]
• 74. Trends in Bioprocessing for 2025 | Innovative Insights [https://www.tecnic.eu/trends-in-bioprocessing-for-2025/]
• 75. Small Scale Bioreactor Analysis 2025 and Forecasts 2033 [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/small-scale-bioreactor-777963]
• 76. CHO cell cultures in shake flasks and bioreactors present ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369703X19300464]
• 77. SAMA: A Method for 3D Morphological Analysis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4818086/]
• 78. 5 steps to creating 3D cell culture models [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cell-culture/organoids-spheroids-3d-cell-culture/5-steps-creating-3d-cell-models.html]
• 79. Top Bioreactor Companies & How to Compare Them (2025) [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-bioreactor-companies-how-compare-them-2025-crimson-harbor-forge-wpt0c/]
• 80. 3D Cell Cultures: Evolution of an Ancient Tool for New ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9353320/]
• 81. Non-Destructive Tumor Aggregate Morphology and Viability ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7869529/]
• 82. Cell Counting and Viability Assessment of 2D and 3D ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5518102/]
• 83. Optimization of 3D-aggregated spheroid model (3D-ASM) ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23474-5]
• 84. Scaling Up and Differentiating hPSCs in 3D Suspension ... [https://www.isctglobal.org/telegrafthub/blogs/ken-ip1/2025/03/12/scaling-up-and-differentiating-hpscs-in-3d-suspens]
• 85. What Is Scaffold-Based 3D Culture? Techniques And ... [https://cellculturecollective.com/blog/what-is-scaffold-based-3d-culture-techniques-and-applications/?srsltid=AfmBOop3Lglq4Bakk_EcCgYr5BhVKNXavYBoIyMdrFfdsH8lgkZOiJLs]
• 86. 3D Cell Culture Scaffolding Developments [https://www.corning.com/worldwide/en/products/life-sciences/resources/stories/the-cutting-edge/cellular-scaffolding-and-modern-tissue-engineering.html]
• 87. Advancement in Scaffold-Based 3D Cell Culture Models for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12606569/]
• 88. Scaffold Free 3D Cell Culture Market Size - Growth Report ... [https://www.researchnester.com/reports/scaffold-free-3d-cell-culture-market/3934]
• 89. Scaffold Free 3D Cell Culture Future-proof Strategies [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/scaffold-free-3d-cell-culture-145711]
• 90. Three-Dimensional Cell Cultures in Drug Discovery and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5448717/]
• 91. 3D Extracellular Matrix from Sectioned Human Tissues - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4004966/]
• 92. Drug resistance in cancer: molecular mechanisms and ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s43556-025-00352-w]
• 93. Changes in CT morphology can be an independent response ... [https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-018-4067-5]
• 94. 3D collagen high-throughput screen identifies drugs that ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08699-0]
• 95. Differences in drug sensitivity between two-dimensional ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32958246/]
• 96. Comparison of Light-Sheet Fluorescence Microscopy and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10660704/]
• 97. Comparison of 3D structured illumination microscopy ... [https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-33-5-11832]
• 98. Dynamic 3D profiling of microscale surface using a MEMS ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94711-w]
• 99. Three-dimensional SEM, TEM, and STEM for analysis of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9399040/]
• 100. Comparison of 3D Imaging Methods in Electron ... [https://www.jeol.com/solutions/applications/details/1695.php]
• 101. Three-dimensional in vitro culture models in oncology research [https://cellandbioscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13578-022-00887-3]
• 102. 3D and organoid culture in research - Cell & Bioscience [https://cellandbioscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13578-022-00775-w]
• 103. Comparison of 3D culture systems on mesenchymal stem cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12562725/]
• 104. Current strategies with implementation of three- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9372643/]
• 105. Protocols and characterization data for 2D, 3D, and slice ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2017170]