Ultrastructural Features of Gold Nanoparticles Interaction with HepG2 and HEK293 Cells in Monolayer and Spheroids

Three-Dimensional Spheroids for Cancer Research

In vitro cell culture is one of the most widely used tools used today for increasing our understanding of various things such as protein production, mechanisms of drug action, tissue engineering, and overall cellular biology. For the past decades, however, cancer researchers have relied heavily on conventional two-dimensional (2D) monolayer culture techniques to test a variety of aspects of cancer research ranging from the cytotoxic effects of antitumor drugs to the toxicity of diagnostic dyes and contact tracers. However, many promising cancer therapies have either weak or no efficacy in real-life conditions, therefore delaying or stopping altogether their translating to the clinic. This is, in part, due to the reductionist 2D cultures used to test these materials, which lack appropriate cell-cell contacts, have altered signaling, do not represent the natural tumor microenvironment, and have different drug responses, due to their reduced malignant phenotype when compared to real in vivo tumors. With the most recent advances, cancer research has moved into 3D biological investigation. Three-dimensional (3D) cultures of cancer cells not only recapitulate the in vivo environment better than their 2D counterparts, but they have, in recent years, emerged as a relatively low-cost and scientifically accurate methodology for studying cancer. In this chapter, we highlight the importance of 3D culture, specifically 3D spheroid culture, reviewing some key methodologies for forming 3D spheroids, discussing the experimental tools that can be used in conjunction with 3D spheroids and finally their applications in cancer research.

Pre-clinical 2D and 3D toxicity response to a panel of nanomaterials; comparative assessment of NBM-induced liver toxicity

Nanobiomaterials, or NBMs, have been used in medicine and bioimaging for decades, with wide-reaching applications ranging from their uses as carriers of genes and drugs, to acting as sensors and probes. When developing nanomedicine products, it is vitally important to evaluate their safety, ensuring that both biocompatibility and efficacy are achieved so their applications in these areas can be safe and effective. When discussing the safety of nanomedicine in general terms, it is foolish to make generalised statements due to the vast array of different manufactured nanomaterials, formulated from a multitude of different materials, in many shapes and sizes; therefore, NBM pre-clinical screening can be a significant challenge. Outside of their distribution in the various tissues, organs and cells in the body, a key area of interest is the impact of NBMs on the liver. A considerable issue for researchers today is accurately predicting human-specific liver toxicity prior to clinical trials, with hepatotoxicity not only the most cited reasons for withdrawal of approved drugs, but also a primary cause of attrition in pre-launched drug candidates. To date, no simple solution to adequately predict these adverse effects exists prior to entering human experimentation. The limitations of the current pre-clinical toolkit are believed to be one of the main reasons for this, with questions being raised on the relevance of animal models in pre-clinical assessment, and over the ability of conventional, simplified in vitro cell–based assays to adequately assess new drug candidates or NBMs. Common 2D cell cultures are unable to adequately represent the functions of 3D tissues and their complex cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions, as well as differences found in diffusion and transport conditions. Therefore, testing NBM toxicity in conventional 2D models may not be an accurate reflection of the actual toxicity these materials impart on the body. One such method of overcoming these issues is the use of 3D cultures, such as cell spheroids, to more accurately assess NBM-tissue interaction. In this study, we introduce a 3D hepatocellular carcinoma model cultured from HepG2 cells to assess both the cytotoxicity and viability observed following treatment with a variety of NBMs, namely a nanostructured lipid carrier (in the specific technical name = LipImage^™ 815), a gold nanoparticle (AuNP) and a panel of polymeric (in the specific technical name = PACA) NBMs. This model is also in compliance with the 3Rs policy of reduction, refinement and replacement in animal experimentation [1], and meets the critical need for more advanced in vitro models for pre-clinical nanotoxicity assessment.

Three-Dimensional Tumor Spheroids as a Tool for Reliable Investigation of Combined Gold Nanoparticle and Docetaxel Treatment

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are the gold standard for treating patients with cancer in the clinic but, despite modern advances, are limited by normal tissue toxicity. The use of nanomaterials, such as gold nanoparticles (GNPs), to improve radiosensitivity and act as drug delivery systems can mitigate toxicity while increasing deposited tumor dose. To expedite a quicker clinical translation, three-dimensional (3D) tumor spheroid models that can better approximate the tumor environment compared to a two-dimensional (2D) monolayer model have been used. We tested the uptake of 15 nm GNPs and 50 nm GNPs on a monolayer and on spheroids of two cancer cell lines, CAL-27 and HeLa, to evaluate the differences between a 2D and 3D model in similar conditions. The anticancer drug docetaxel (DTX) which can act as a radiosensitizer, was also utilized, informing future potential of GNP-mediated combined therapeutics. In the 2D monolayer model, the addition of DTX induced a small, non-significant increase of uptake of GNPs of between 13% and 24%, while in the 3D spheroid model, DTX increased uptake by between 47% and 186%, with CAL-27 having a much larger increase relative to HeLa. Further, the depth of penetration of 15 nm GNPs over 50 nm GNPs increased by 33% for CAL-27 spheroids and 17% for HeLa spheroids. These results highlight the necessity to optimize GNP treatment conditions in a more realistic tumor-life environment. A 3D spheroid model can capture important details, such as different packing densities from different cancer cell lines, which are absent from a simple 2D monolayer model.

Three-Dimensional Spheroids as In Vitro Preclinical Models for Cancer Research

Most cancer biologists still rely on conventional two-dimensional (2D) monolayer culture techniques to test in vitro anti-tumor drugs prior to in vivo testing. However, the vast majority of promising preclinical drugs have no or weak efficacy in real patients with tumors, thereby delaying the discovery of successful therapeutics. This is because 2D culture lacks cell–cell contacts and natural tumor microenvironment, important in tumor signaling and drug response, thereby resulting in a reduced malignant phenotype compared to the real tumor. In this sense, three-dimensional (3D) cultures of cancer cells that better recapitulate in vivo cell environments emerged as scientifically accurate and low cost cancer models for preclinical screening and testing of new drug candidates before moving to expensive and time-consuming animal models. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of 3D tumor systems and highlight the strategies for spheroid construction and evaluation tools of targeted therapies, focusing on their applicability in cancer research. Examples of the applicability of 3D culture for the evaluation of the therapeutic efficacy of nanomedicines are discussed.