The Volume of Three-Dimensional Cultures of Cancer Cells InVitro Influences Transcriptional Profile Differences and Similarities with Monolayer Cultures and Xenografted Tumors

Improving the congruity of preclinical models with cancer as it is manifested in humans is a potential way to mitigate the high attrition rate of new cancer therapies in the clinic. In this regard, three-dimensional (3D) tumor cultures in vitro have recently regained interest as they have been acclaimed to have higher similarity to tumors in vivo than to cells grown in monolayers (2D). To identify cancer functions that are active in 3D rather than in 2D cultures, we compared the transcriptional profiles (TPs) of two non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines, NCI-H1650 and EBC-1 grown in both conditions to the TP of xenografted tumors. Because confluence, diameter or volume can hypothetically alter TPs, we made intra- and inter-culture comparisons using samples with defined dimensions. As projected by Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA), a limited number of signal transduction pathways operational in vivo were better represented by 3D than by 2D cultures in vitro. Growth of 2D and 3D cultures as well as xenografts induced major changes in the TPs of these 3 modes of culturing. Alterations of transcriptional network activation that were predicted to evolve similarly during progression of 3D cultures and xenografts involved the following functions: hypoxia, proliferation, cell cycle progression, angiogenesis, cell adhesion, and interleukin activation. Direct comparison of TPs of 3D cultures and xenografts to monolayer cultures yielded up-regulation of networks involved in hypoxia, TGF and Wnt signaling as well as regulation of epithelial mesenchymal transition. Differences in TP of 2D and 3D cancer cell cultures are subject to progression of the cultures. The emulation of the predicted cell functions in vivo is therefore not only determined by the type of culture in vitro but also by the confluence or diameter of the 2D or 3D cultures, respectively. Consequently, the successful implementation of 3D models will require phenotypic characterization to verify the relevance of applying these models for drug development.

[1]  L. Kunz-Schughart,et al.  Multicellular tumor spheroids: an underestimated tool is catching up again. , 2010, Journal of biotechnology.

[2]  K. Wittrup,et al.  Effect of antigen turnover rate and expression level on antibody penetration into tumor spheroids , 2008, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

[3]  Christilyn P. Graff,et al.  Theoretical analysis of antibody targeting of tumor spheroids: importance of dosage for penetration, and affinity for retention. , 2003, Cancer research.

[4]  V. Virador,et al.  In vitro three‐dimensional (3D) models in cancer research: An update , 2013, Molecular carcinogenesis.

[5]  A. Atala,et al.  Scaffold technologies for controlling cell behavior in tissue engineering. , 2013, Biomedical materials.

[6]  Rebecca L. Siegel Mph,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2016 , 2016 .

[7]  Alan Ruttenberg,et al.  Computational knowledge integration in biopharmaceutical research , 2003, Briefings Bioinform..

[8]  Hans Clevers,et al.  Organoid cultures for the analysis of cancer phenotypes. , 2014, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[9]  P. Workman,et al.  Discovery of small molecule cancer drugs: Successes, challenges and opportunities , 2012, Molecular oncology.

[10]  W. Mueller‐Klieser Three-dimensional cell cultures: from molecular mechanisms to clinical applications. , 1997, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.

[11]  D. Quail,et al.  Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis , 2014 .

[12]  V. Lemmens,et al.  Does long-term survival exist in pancreatic adenocarcinoma? , 2016, Acta oncologica.

[13]  A. Mes-Masson,et al.  Influence of monolayer, spheroid, and tumor growth conditions on chromosome 3 gene expression in tumorigenic epithelial ovarian cancer cell lines , 2008, BMC Medical Genomics.

[14]  R. Sutherland Cell and environment interactions in tumor microregions: the multicell spheroid model. , 1988, Science.

[15]  Sami Blom,et al.  Capturing tumor complexity in vitro: Comparative analysis of 2D and 3D tumor models for drug discovery , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Alexander Kamb,et al.  What's wrong with our cancer models? , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[17]  A. Zauber,et al.  Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  A. Maxmen Translational research: The American way , 2011, Nature.

[19]  R. Herbst,et al.  Lung Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine , 2015, Clinical Cancer Research.

[20]  J. Yuhas,et al.  A simplified method for production and growth of multicellular tumor spheroids. , 1977, Cancer research.

[21]  John D. Storey,et al.  Statistical significance for genomewide studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  M. Ghert,et al.  Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. , 2014, American journal of translational research.

[23]  Nastaran Zahir,et al.  Death in the third dimension: apoptosis regulation and tissue architecture. , 2004, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[24]  Mina J Bissell,et al.  The organizing principle: microenvironmental influences in the normal and malignant breast. , 2002, Differentiation; research in biological diversity.

[25]  J. Salk Clonal evolution in cancer , 2010 .

[26]  Giulio Draetta,et al.  Oncology drug discovery: planning a turnaround. , 2014, Cancer discovery.

[27]  Matthias Gutekunst,et al.  Three‐dimensional models of cancer for pharmacology and cancer cell biology: Capturing tumor complexity in vitro/ex vivo , 2014, Biotechnology journal.

[28]  Simon T Barry,et al.  Modelling the tumour microenvironment in long-term microencapsulated 3D co-cultures recapitulates phenotypic features of disease progression. , 2016, Biomaterials.

[29]  Robert V Farese,et al.  Cellular fatty acid metabolism and cancer. , 2013, Cell metabolism.

[30]  C. Ries,et al.  Comparison of 3D and 2D tumor models reveals enhanced HER2 activation in 3D associated with an increased response to trastuzumab , 2009, Oncogene.

[31]  I. Tannock,et al.  Drug penetration in solid tumours , 2006, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[32]  A. Mikos,et al.  Modeling Ewing sarcoma tumors in vitro with 3D scaffolds , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[33]  John D. Storey,et al.  A network-based analysis of systemic inflammation in humans , 2005, Nature.

[34]  Darren Finlay,et al.  3-Dimensional Culture Systems for Anti-Cancer Compound Profiling and High-Throughput Screening Reveal Increases in EGFR Inhibitor-Mediated Cytotoxicity Compared to Monolayer Culture Systems , 2014, PloS one.

[35]  I. Fidler,et al.  Murine models to evaluate novel and conventional therapeutic strategies for cancer. , 2007, The American journal of pathology.

[36]  W. Bodmer,et al.  Cancer cell lines for drug discovery and development. , 2014, Cancer research.

[37]  Andreas Krämer,et al.  Causal analysis approaches in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis , 2013, Bioinform..

[38]  A. Balmain,et al.  Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research , 2010, British Journal of Cancer.

[39]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2016 , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[40]  S. Barry,et al.  Capturing complex tumour biology in vitro: histological and molecular characterisation of precision cut slices , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[41]  Catarina Brito,et al.  Adaptable stirred-tank culture strategies for large scale production of multicellular spheroid-based tumor cell models. , 2016, Journal of biotechnology.