Current Science

Maddaly Ravi ¹, Aishwarya Subramaniyan ¹

Affiliations
1 Department of Human Genetics, Sri Ramachandra University, Porur, Chennai - 600116, IN

Abstract

Methods to utilize cell lines as research material are evolving continuously as with the parallel advancement in instrumentation and analysis technologies. One such advancement in culture methodology of particular significance is the 3-dimensional (3D) way of culturing cells. It is now clear that 3D cultured cells behave differently from their monolayer (2D) counterparts and provide meaningful insights into complex cellular mechanisms that are rather difficult to study using 2D cultured cells. We take a step further and describe 3D-reverts, an extension of the ‘2D to 3D’ culture methodology. We demonstrate that 2D, 3D and 3DRs express cytokines differently and also that such differences extend to the culture stages of 3D and 3DRs, in a time-dependent manner. This approach of analysing differences between 3D and 3DRs as a timedependent or culture stage-dependent manner will surely enhance the utility of cells that will augment the 3D culture systems.

Keywords

Agarose Hydrogels, BMG-1, 3D Aggregates, 3D Reverts, Cytokines, Differential Expression.

Full Text

   

Pargaonkar Aishwarya ¹, Gatika Agrawal ¹, Jennifer Sally ¹, Maddaly Ravi ¹

Affiliations
1 Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Technology and Research, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai 600 116, IN

Abstract

The advent of dynamic three-dimensional cell cultures has transformed the field of biological research as they bridge the gap between in vitro and in vivo systems. 3D cell-culture techniques can be categorized into two types: static and dynamic culture systems. Traditional cell-culture models are considered to be ‘static’ in nature, as the cells are grown on matrices or scaffolds with little focus given to the complexity of the growth conditions that exist in the in vivo tissue microenvironments (presence of continuous blood supply for the development of tumour vasculature). Thus, static 3D cultures do not accurately mimic in vivo cellular architecture and function. The development of a ‘dynamic’ culture environment has offered 3D culture models with the potential to improve the ‘naturalness’ of the cells being cultured and thereby have more in vivo relevance for translational research. This makes them relatively more superior than single cell-type static 3D cell cultures. Dynamic systems include magnetic- and acoustic-based assembly devices, micropocket cultures, dielectrophoretic and microfluidic platforms. Microfluidic devices might be the most versatile of these culture platforms, considering their engineering diversity, their potential to improve molecular crosstalk among culture elements and their prospective range of applications.

Keywords

In Vitro Applications, Scaffold-Based and Scaffold-Free Systems, Static and Dynamic Culture Systems, Three-dimensional Cell Culture.

Full Text