A Comparative Study of 3D Culture Methods in Lung Cancer Research: Finding the Optimal Path for Spheroid Formation

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: Cancer, characterized by uncontrolled cell proliferation and invasion into surrounding tissues, is a leading cause of global mortality. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture systems fail to adequately replicate the tumor microenvironment (TME). In contrast, three-dimensional (3D) culture systems, which better simulate cell–cell and cell–extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions, have become powerful tools in biomedical research. This study aims to compare the spheroid formation capacity of A549 lung cancer cells using three different 3D culture methods: ultra-low attachment (ULA) plates, agarose hydrogel, and the hanging drop technique. The primary objective is to identify the most effective spheroid formation method for A549 cells and to provide findings that can guide future biomedical research, particularly in cancer modeling, drug screening studies, and investigations of the tumor microenvironment. Materials and Methods: A549 cells were cultured using three different 3D culture methods: ultra-low attachment plates, agarose hydrogel, and the hanging drop method. In the ultra-low attachment method, spheroid formation was observed at cell densities of 5,000, 10,000, and 30,000 cells/ml. In the agarose hydrogel method, agarose concentrations of 1%, 1.5%, and 2% were used to evaluate cell aggregation and spheroid stability. In the hanging drop method, cells aggregated under the influence of gravity. Spheroid diameter and area were analyzed using ImageJ software. Results: In this study, the spheroid formation capacity of A549 lung cancer cells was evaluated using three different three-dimensional (3D) culture methods. The ultra-low attachment (ULA) plate method allowed cell aggregation; however, the resulting structures were not large or compact enough to be classified as spheroids. The hanging drop method showed that cells formed small clusters by day 3 but failed to develop a compact and stable spheroid structure by day 7. The agarose hydrogel method, particularly at a 2% agarose concentration, demonstrated the highest spheroid formation capacity compared to the other methods. In this method, spheroid formation began at 72 hours depending on cell density, with significant growth observed at a density of 30,000 cells/ml (p < 0.0001). Trypan Blue staining results indicated that 2% agarose and cell densities of 10,000–30,000 cells/ml provided the highest cell viability. Specifically, 4,800 viable cells were counted at a density of 30,000 cells/ml, while 3,600 viable cells were observed at 10,000 cells/ml. These findings suggest that the agarose hydrogel method, especially at 2% agarose concentration and higher cell densities, offers optimal spheroid formation and cell viability for A549 lung cancer cells. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the agarose hydrogel method effectively promoted stable and organized spheroid formation in A549 lung cancer cells. Notably, the 2% agarose concentration was identified as the most effective condition for maintaining cell viability and optimizing spheroid size. In contrast, the ultra-low attachment (ULA) plate and hanging drop methods exhibited limited spheroid formation capacity, resulting in less compact and disorganized structures. These findings emphasize the critical role of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture methods in biomedical research, particularly for experimental tumor modeling and drug screening studies. In this context, the agarose hydrogel method, with its high spheroid formation capacity and ability to support cell viability, emerges as a promising 3D culture model that warrants further exploration in cancer research.

Keywords

• Lung Cancer
• 3D Cell Culture
• Spheroid

Akciğer Kanseri Araştırmalarında 3 Boyutlu Kültür Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırmalı İncelemesi: Sferoid Oluşumu için En Uygun Yöntemin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Kanser, kontrolsüz hücre proliferasyonu ve çevre dokulara invazyon ile karakterize edilen, küresel ölçekte önemli bir mortalite nedenidir. Geleneksel iki boyutlu (2B) hücre kültürü sistemleri, tümör mikroçevresini (tumor microenvironment, TME) yeterince taklit edemezken, üç boyutlu (3B) kültür sistemleri, hücre-hücre ve hücre-ekstraselüler matriks (ECM) etkileşimlerini daha gerçekçi bir şekilde modelleyerek biyomedikal araştırmalarda önemli bir araç haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmada, A549 akciğer kanseri hücrelerinin sferoid oluşturma kapasiteleri, üç farklı 3B kültür yöntemi — ultra düşük yapışma (ULA) yüzeyli kültür plakası, agaroz hidrojel ve asılı damla (hanging drop) teknikleri kullanılarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın temel amacı, A549 hücreleri için en etkili sferoid oluşturma yöntemini belirleyerek elde edilen bulguların gelecek biyomedikal araştırmalara özellikle kanser modelleme, ilaç tarama çalışmaları ve tümör mikroçevresi araştırmaları gibi uygulamalara rehberlik etmesini sağlamaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: A549 hücreleri ultra düşük tutunma plakası, agaroz hidrojel ve asılı damla yöntemleri kullanılarak kültüre edilmiştir. Ultra düşük tutunma plakası yönteminde 5 x 103, 1 x 104 ve 3 x 104 hücre/ml yoğunluklarında sferoid oluşumu gözlemlenmiştir. Agaroz hidrojel yönteminde 1%, 1.5% ve 2% agaroz konsantrasyonları kullanılarak hücre agregasyonu ve sferoid stabilitesi değerlendirilmiştir. Asılı damla yönteminde hücreler yerçekimi etkisiyle kümelenmiş, sferoid çapı ve alanı ImageJ yazılımı ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Bu çalışmada, üç farklı üç boyutlu (3B) kültür yöntemi kullanılarak A549 akciğer kanseri hücrelerinin sferoid oluşturma kapasiteleri değerlendirilmiştir. Ultra düşük tutunma (ULA) plakası yöntemi, hücre agregasyonuna olanak sağlamış ancak oluşan yapılar sferoid olarak sınıflandırılacak kadar büyük ve kompakt bir yapı oluşturamamıştır. Asılı damla (hanging drop) yöntemi, hücrelerin 3. günde küçük kümeler oluşturduğunu, ancak 7. güne kadar kompakt ve stabil bir sferoid yapısı geliştiremediğini göstermiştir. Agaroz hidrojel yöntemi ise özellikle %2 agaroz konsantrasyonunda, diğer yöntemlere kıyasla en yüksek sferoid oluşturma kapasitesini sergilemiştir. Bu yöntemde sferoid oluşumu hücre yoğunluğuna bağlı olarak 72. saatte başlamış ve 30.000 hücre/ml yoğunluğunda anlamlı bir büyüme gözlenmiştir (p < 0.0001). Trypan Blue boyama sonuçları, %2 agaroz ve 1 x 104 – 3 × 104 hücre/ml yoğunluklarında en yüksek hücre canlılığının elde edildiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu bağlamda, 30.000 hücre/ml yoğunluğunda 4.800 canlı hücre, 10.000 hücre/ml yoğunluğunda ise 3.600 canlı hücre sayılmıştır. Bu bulgular A549 akciğer kanseri hücreleri için agaroz hidrojel yönteminin, özellikle %2 agaroz konsantrasyonu ve yüksek hücre yoğunluğunda optimum sferoid oluşumu ve hücre canlılığı sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, agaroz hidrojel yönteminin A549 akciğer kanseri hücrelerinde stabil ve organize sferoid oluşumu sağladığını göstermiştir. Özellikle %2 agaroz konsantrasyonu, hem hücre canlılığını koruma hem de sferoid büyüklüğünü optimize etme açısından en etkili koşul olarak belirlenmiştir. Ultra düşük tutunma (ULA) plakası ve asılı damla (hanging drop) yöntemleri ise sferoid oluşumu açısından sınırlı bir kapasite göstermiş ve daha az kompakt yapılar üretmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, üç boyutlu (3B) hücre kültürü yöntemlerinin, özellikle deneysel tümör modellemesi ve ilaç tarama çalışmaları gibi biyomedikal araştırmalarda kritik bir rol oynadığını vurgulamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, agaroz hidrojel yöntemi, yüksek sferoid oluşum kapasitesi ve hücre canlılığı sağlaması nedeniyle, kanser araştırmalarında etkili bir 3B kültür modeli olarak değerlendirilmeye açık bir yöntem olarak öne çıkmaktadır.

Keywords

• Akciğer Kanseri
• 3B Hücre Kültürü
• Sferoid

References

1. 1. Brown TJ, Reiss KA, O'Hara MH. Advancements in systemic therapy for pancreatic cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2023; 43:e397082.
2. 2. Dela Cruz CS, Tanoue LT, Matthay RA. Lung cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med 2011; 32(4):605-44.
3. 3. Giard DJ, Aaronson SA, Todaro GJ, Arnstein P, Kersey JH, Dosik H, Parks WP. In vitro cultivation of human tumors: establishment of cell lines derived from a series of solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1973; 51(5):1417-23.
4. 4. Nazari M. Use of cell lines in cancer research. Cell Biol Rev 2020; 9(1):45-50.
5. 5. Dominiak A, Chełstowska B, Olejarz W, Nowicka G. Communication in the cancer microenvironment as a target for therapeutic interventions. Cancers 2020; 12(5):1232.
6. 6. Hoang T, Landi MT. Molecular pathogenesis of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2022; 165:23-35.
7. 7. Bennati C, Paglialunga L, Ricciuti B, Metro G, Marcomigni L, Gili A, Crinò L. Targeting EGFR and ALK in NSCLC: current evidence and future perspective. Lung Cancer Manag 2016; 5(2):79-90.
8. 8. Atat OE, Farzaneh Z, Pourhamzeh M, Taki F, Abi-Habib R, Vosough M, El-Sibai M. 3D modeling in cancer studies. Hum Cell 2022; 35(1):23-36.

9. 9. Poornima K, Francis AP, Hoda M, Eladl MA, Subramanian S, Veeraraghavan VP, Rajagopalan R. Implications of three-dimensional cell culture in cancer therapeutic research. Front Oncol 2022; 12:891673.
10. 10. Duval K, Grover H, Han LH, Mou Y, Pegoraro AF, Fredberg J, Chen Z. Modeling physiological events in 2D vs. 3D cell culture. Physiology 2017; 32(4):266-77.
11. 11. Jubelin C, Muñoz-Garcia J, Griscom L, Cochonneau D, Ollivier E, Heymann MF, Vallette FM, Oliver L, Heymann D. Three-dimensional in vitro culture models in oncology research. Cell Biosci 2022; 12(1):155.
12. 12. Pinto M, Alves PM, Cardoso C. 3D models for studying cancer and drug resistance. Cancer Cell Int 2020; 20(1):123-34.
13. 13. Yun C, Kim SH, Kim KM, Yang MH, Byun MR, Kim JH, Jung YS. Advantages of using 3D spheroid culture systems in toxicological and pharmacological assessment for osteogenesis research. Int J Mol Sci 2024; 25(5):2512.
14. 14. El Harane S, Zidi B, El Harane N, Krause KH, Matthes T, Preynat-Seauve O. Cancer spheroids and organoids as novel tools for research and therapy: state of the art and challenges to guide precision medicine. Cells 2023; 12(7):1001.
15. 15. Abuwatfa WH, Pitt WG, Husseini GA. Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research. J Biomed Sci 2024; 31(7):1-12.
16. 16. Dutta D, Heo I, Clevers H. Organoids: an in vitro model for cancer research. Cell 2017; 173(6):1310-25.
17. 17. Chehelgerdi M, Behdarvand Dehkordi F, Chehelgerdi M, Kabiri H, Salehian-Dehkordi H, Abdolvand M, Ranjbarnejad T. Exploring the promising potential of induced pluripotent stem cells in cancer research and therapy. Mol Cancer 2023; 22(1):189.
18. 18. Thakur G, Bok EY, Kim SB, Jo CH, Oh SJ, Baek JC, Rho GJ. Scaffold-free 3D culturing enhances pluripotency, immunomodulatory factors, and differentiation potential of Wharton’s jelly-mesenchymal stem cells. Eur J Cell Biol 2022; 101(3):151245.
19. 19. Kim W, Gwon Y, Park S, Kim H, Kim J. Therapeutic strategies of three-dimensional stem cell spheroids and organoids for tissue repair and regeneration. Bioact Mater 2023; 19:50-74.
20. 20. Demirel G, Koltuk G. The importance of 3D cell culture in drug discovery and development. Front Life Sci Relat Technol 2024; 5(3):224-30.
21. 21. Nazari SS. Generation of 3D tumor spheroids with encapsulating basement membranes for invasion studies. Curr Protoc Cell Biol 2020; 87(1):e105.
22. 22. Ivascu A, Kubbies M. Rapid generation of single-tumor spheroids for high-throughput cell function and toxicity analysis. J Biomol Screen 2006; 11(8):922-32.
23. 23. Saleh F, Harb A, Soudani N, Zaraket H. A three-dimensional A549 cell culture model to study respiratory syncytial virus infections. J Infect Public Health 2020; 13(8):1142-7.
24. 24. Horning JL, Sahoo SK, Vijayaraghavalu S, Dimitrijevic S, Vasir JK, Jain TK, Labhasetwar V. 3-D tumor model for in vitro evaluation of anticancer drugs. Mol Pharm 2008; 5(5):849-62.
25. 25. Lee JM, Dedhar S, Kalluri R, Thompson EW. The epithelial–mesenchymal transition: new insights in signaling, development, and disease. J Cell Biol 2006; 172(7):973-81.
26. 26. Kelm JM, Timmins NE, Brown CJ, Fussenegger M, Nielsen LK. Method for generation of homogeneous multicellular tumor spheroids applicable to a wide variety of cell types. Biotechnol Bioeng 2003; 83(2):173-80.
27. 27. Fennema E, Rivron N, Rouwkema J, van Blitterswijk C, De Boer J. Spheroid culture as a tool for creating 3D complex tissues. Trends Biotechnol 2013; 31(2):108-15.
28. 28. Froehlich K, Haeger JD, Heger J, Pastuschek J, Photini SM, Yan Y, Schmidt A. Generation of multicellular breast cancer tumor spheroids: comparison of different protocols. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2016; 21:89-98.
29. 29. Vitacolonna M, Bruch R, Agaci A, Nuernberg E, Cesetti T, Keller F, Rudolf R. A multiparametric analysis reveals differential behavior of spheroid cultures on distinct ultra-low attachment plate types. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2024; 12: 1422235.
30. 30. Langhans SA. Three-dimensional in vitro cell culture models in drug discovery and drug repositioning. Front Pharmacol 2018; 9:6.
31. 31. Nath S, Devi GR. Three-dimensional culture systems in cancer research: Focus on tumor spheroid model. Pharmacol Ther 2016; 163:94-108.
32. 32. Park K, Nam Y, Choi Y. An agarose gel-based neurosphere culture system leads to enrichment of neuronal lineage cells in vitro. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 2015; 51:455-62.
33. 33. Tanaka N, Moriguchi H, Sato A, Kawai T, Shimba K, Jimbo Y, Tanaka Y. Microcasting with agarose gel via degassed polydimethylsiloxane molds for repellency-guided cell patterning. RSC Adv 2016; 6(60):54754-62.
34. 34. Wang X, June RK, Pierce DM. A 3-D constitutive model for finite element analyses of agarose with a range of gel concentrations. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021; 114:104150.
35. 35. López-Marcial GR, Zeng AY, Osuna C, Dennis J, García JM, O’Connell GD. Agarose-based hydrogels as suitable bioprinting materials for tissue engineering. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 2018; 4(10):3610-16.
36. 36. Ma R, Mandell J, Lu F, Heim T, Schoedel K, Duensing A, Weiss KR. Do patient-derived spheroid culture models have relevance in chondrosarcoma research? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2021; 479(3):477-90.
37. 37. Nath S, Devi GR. Three-dimensional culture systems in cancer research: Focus on tumor spheroid model. Pharmacol Ther 2016; 163:94-108.
38. 38. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2024; 74(3):229-63.
39. 39. Tomasetti C, Vogelstein B. Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions. Science 2015; 347(6217):78-81.
40. 40. Fang Y, Eglen RM. Three-dimensional cell cultures in drug discovery and development. SLAS Discov 2017; 22(5):456-72.
41. 41. Tevis KM, Colson YL, Grinstaff MW. Embedded spheroids as models of the cancer microenvironment. Adv Biosyst 2017; 1(10):1700083.
42. 42. Edmondson R, Broglie JJ, Adcock AF, Yang L. Three-dimensional cell culture systems and their applications in drug discovery and cell-based biosensors. Assay Drug Dev Technol 2014; 12(4):207-18.
43. 43. Friedrich J, Seidel C, Ebner R, Kunz-Schughart LA. Spheroid-based drug screen: considerations and practical approach. Nat Protoc 2009; 4(3):309-24.
44. 44. Vinci M, Gowan S, Boxall F, Patterson L, Zimmermann M, Court W, Eccles SA. Advances in establishment and analysis of three-dimensional tumor spheroid-based functional assays for target validation and drug evaluation. BMC Biol 2012; 10:1-21.
45. 45. Timmins NE, Nielsen LK. Generation of multicellular tumor spheroids by the hanging-drop method. Tissue Eng 2007; 141-51.
46. 46. Long L, Huang G, Zhu H, Guo Y, Liu Y, Huo J. Down-regulation of miR-138 promotes colorectal cancer metastasis via directly targeting TWIST2. J Transl Med 2013; 11:1-10.
47. 47.Quarta A, Gallo N, Vergara D, Salvatore L, Nobile C, Ragusa A, Gaballo A. Investigation on the composition of agarose–collagen I blended hydrogels as matrices for the growth of spheroids from breast cancer cell lines. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(7):963.