A short presentation about the differences between 2D and 3D culture models, why researchers are moving toward 3D models in anticancer drug screening, the methods used in doing so and a recent case study of 3D tumour model being used for drug screening.

2. In the quest of successfully launching a new drug, drug discovery in the preclinical phase, and
drug development in the clinical phase is crucial. Especially in the field of anti cancer drug
screening, researchers have been heavily involved in producing new drugs that bridge the gap
between experimental research and clinical trials (Meng et al., 2019).
Recent advancement in bioprinting, has thus produced several in vitro models such as 2D and
3D models that are widely used in drug screening. 2D models are traditionally used by
researchers to evaluate effectiveness of anti-cancer drugs towards cancer cell lines.
Additionally, it is to understand the molecular pathways of cell proliferation. 2D models are
also grown in either shake flasks or Petri dishes with growth medium as their source of
nutrients (Breslin & O’Driscoll, 2013).
Meanwhile, in this presentation, 3D models are used by researchers to mimic tumour
microenvironment and visualise the structure of cells (Breslin & O’Driscoll, 2013). This
presentation will be reviewing the differences between these two models, the recent preference
of researchers for 3D models, and case study that highlights the new direction for the future 3D
bioprinted models.
INTRODUCTION

3. COMPARISON OF 2D AND 3D MODELS
2D 3D

4. 3D models mimic in vivo physiology of organisms, such as the
histological architecture and heterogeneity (Jackson and Lu,
2016).
They mimic native matrixes and cell-cell interaction as well
as the interactions with the extracellular matrix (ECM) (Leong
and Ng, 2014).
Researchers prefer 3D models because 2D models are
unnatural while animal models are expensive and brings
about ethical issues (Gurski et al., 2010).
Cancer cells cultured in 3D models reflects the behaviour of
cancer cells in their native, in vivo environment (Gurski et al.,
2010)
An example would be where cancer cells cultured in 3D models
respond to chemotherapeutic treatments similarly to in vivo
cancer cells.
WHY RESEARCHERS ARE USING 3D MODELS
Source: (Bourré, 2018)

6. Other methods of generating 3D tumour models
Methods of anticancer drug screening from 3D tumour models
•Once the 3D tumour models have been cultured in anticancer drug supplied medium, different analysis
techniques are used to screen for the most efficient drug.

7. 3D bioprinted cancer model to
test anticancer drugs
A new direction in producing 3D bioprinted in vitro metastatic models via
reconstruction of tumor microenvironments
Source:National
Institute of
Biomedical Imaging
and Bioengineering
(NBIB),2019.
A NIBIB-funded research conducted recently
by a team of researchers from University of
Minnesota (UMN), has developed a newly
dynamic and efficient 3D bioprinted tumor
model for anticancer drug screening. The 3D
model was made in a laboratory dish, and
functions in studying the primary site, growth
and spread of cancer tumours in the body.
Thus, tackling the recurring problems in which
previous 2D models, could not replicate the
conditions and outcomes of tumor growth in
the human body. The 3D bioprinting
technology used in this project originated from
UMN lab through Michael McAlpine. Through
this research, 3D printed biochemical
capsules were combined with 3D bioprinted
tumor cells. Through 3D bioprinting
technology, melanoma cancer cells,lung cancer
cells, normal cells, and blood-vessel like
structures, are able to be precisely located in
the laboratory dish based on their individual
functions (Nibib.nih.gov, 2019).

8. Chemicals that guide cancer cell migration
or the growth of blood vessels, are as well
packed in the cores of hydrogels. They are
also encapsulated within an outer shell made
of gold nanorods. A time controlled release
of the capsules are activated by laser
light, which then creates a chemical
gradient that ultimately guides targeted cell
growth. Thus, these features provides a 4D
control over both space and time. “The
cells and capsules are precisely printed in
biologically relevant sites and the
chemical depots propel movement upon a
triggered release. This is a dynamic 3D
tissue engineering system giving the user
control over the diffusion process at some
later point after the printing process.”
emphasized McAlpine (Nibib.nih.gov, 2019). Figure above shows the schematics of the 3D bioprinted in vitro tumor
model, which demonstrates the integration of tumor cells, the blood-
vessel like structures, and chemical gradients
3D bioprinted cancer model to
test anticancer drugs
A new direction in producing 3D bioprinted in vitro metastatic models via
reconstruction of tumor microenvironments
Source:
Nibib.nih.
gov,
2019).

9. CONCLUSION
(Zanoni et al., 2019)
(Zanoni et al., 2019)

10. 3D cell culture and anticancer drug testing | Cherry Biotech 2019 Cherry Biotech. viewed 8 May 2019, <https://www.cherrybiotech.com/scientific-
note/organs-on-chip/3d-cell-culture-and-anticancer-drug-testing>.
Bing He, Guomin Chen, Yi Zeng, 2016: Three-dimensional cell culture models for investigating human viruses, Virologica Sinica, 31, 363-379.,
viewed 08 May 2019, <https://www.virosin.org/article/doi/10.1007/s12250-016-3889-z#bpampaloni2007>
Bourré, L., 2018. Facilitating Drug Discovery with 3D In Vitro Oncology Models. [online] Blog.crownbio.com. Available at:
https://blog.crownbio.com/in-vitro-3d-organoids-spheroids-oncology [Accessed 3 May 2019].
Breslin, S & O’Driscoll, L 2013, "Three-dimensional cell culture: the missing link in drug discovery", Drug Discovery Today, vol. 18, no. 5-6, pp.
240-249. viewed 1 May 2019, <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23073387>.
Duval, K., Grover, H., Han, L. H., Mou, Y., Pegoraro, A. F., Fredberg, J., & Chen, Z., 2017. “Modeling Physiological Events in 2D vs. 3D Cell
Culture.”, Physiology (Bethesda, Md.), 32(4), 266–277., viewed 08 May 2019,
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5545611/?report=classic>
Gurski, L.A., Petrelli, N.J., Jia, X. and Farach-Carson, M.C., 2010. 3D matrices for anti-cancer drug testing and development. Oncology Issues,
25(1), pp.20-25.
Huang, L, Holtzinger, A, Jagan, I, BeGora, M, Lohse, I, Ngai, N, Mutuswamy LB, Crawford, HC, Arrowsmith, C, Kalloger, SE, Renouf, DJ,
Connor, AA, Clearly, S, Schaeffer, DF, Roehrl, M, Tsao MS, Gallinger, S, Keller, G & Muthuswamy, SK 2015, “Ductal pancreatic cancer
modeling and drug screening using human pluripotent stem cell– and patient-derived tumor organoids.” Nature Medicine, vol. 21, no. 11, pp.
1364–1371, viewed 08 May 2019, <https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3973>
REFERENCES

11. Ivascu, A & Kubbies, M 2006, “Rapid Generation of Single-Tumor Spheroids for High-Throughput Cell Function and Toxicity Analysis”, SLAS
Discovery, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 922-932, viewed 08 May 2019, <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1087057106292763>
Jackson, E.L. and Lu, H., 2016. Three-dimensional models for studying development and disease: moving on from organisms to organs-on-a-
chip and organoids. Integrative Biology, 8(6), pp.672-683.
Jitcy Saji Joseph, Sibusiso Tebogo Malindisa and Monde Ntwasa, 2018, Two Dimensional (2D) and Three Dimensional(3D) Cell Culturing in
Drug Discovering”, Intechopen, viewed 08 May 2019, <https://www.intechopen.com/books/cell-culture/two-dimensional-2d-and-three-
dimensional-3d-cell-culturing-in-drug-discovery>
Kwapiszewska, K, Michalczuk, A, Rybka, M, Kwapiszewski, R & Brzózka, Z 2014, “A microfluidic-based platform for tumour spheroid culture,
monitoring and drug screening”, Lab Chip, vol. 14, pp. 2096-2104, <https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2014/lc/c4lc00291a>
Leong, D.T. and Ng, K.W., 2014. Probing the relevance of 3D cancer models in nanomedicine research. Advanced drug delivery reviews, 79,
pp.95-106.
Markovitz-Bishitz, Y, Tauber, Y, Afrimzon, E, Zurgil, N, Sobolev, M, Shafran, Y, Deutsch, A, Howitz, S, Deutsch, M 2010, “A polymer
microstructure array for the formation, culturing, and high throughput drug screening of breast cancer spheroids.” Biomaterials, vol. 31, no. 32,
pp. 8436–8444, viewed 08 May 2019, <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142961210008938>
Marta Kapałczyńska , Tomasz Kolenda, Weronika Przybyła, et al., 2016, “2D and 3D cell cultures – a comparison of different types of cancer cell
cultures”, 14, 4: 910–919, viewed 08 May 2019, <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6040128/pdf/AMS-14-28752.pdf>
Mellor, HR, Ferguson, DJ & Callaghan, R 2005, “A model of quiescent tumour microregions for evaluating multicellular resistance to
chemotherapeutic drugs”, British Journal of Cancer, vol. 93, pp. 302-309, viewed 08 May 2019, <https://www.nature.com/articles/6602710>

12. Nibib.nih.gov. (2019). 3D bioprinted cancer model to test anticancer drugs | National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and
Bioengineering. [online] Available at: https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/3d-bioprinted-cancer-model-test-anticancer-
drugs [Accessed 9 May 2019].
Souza, GR, Molina, JR, Raphael, RM, Ozawa, MG, Stark, DJ, Levin, CS, Bronk, LF, Ananta, JS, Mndelin, J, Georgescu, M, Bankson, JA,
Gelovani, JG, Killian, TC, Arap, W & Pasqualini, R 2010, “Three-dimensional tissue culture based on magnetic cell levitation.” Nature
Nanotechnology, vol. 5, no.4, pp. 291–296, viewed 08 May 2019, <https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2010.23>
Tung, YC, Hsiao, AY, Allen, SG, Torisawa, Y, Ho, M, & Takayama, S 2011, “High-throughput 3D spheroid culture and drug testing using a 384
hanging drop array.” The Analyst, vol. 136, no. 3, pp. 473–478, viewed 08 May 2019,
<https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2011/an/c0an00609b/unauth#!divAbstract>
Zanoni, M., Pignatta, S., Arienti, C., Bonafè, M. and Tesei, A., 2019. Anticancer drug discovery using multicellular tumor spheroid
models. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 14(3), pp.289-301.