Abstract

Abstract Background: Traditional cell culture methods involve growing cells on flat surfaces, which do not fully replicate the human physiological conditions. In contrast, 3D cell cultures accurately reproduce aspects of the in-vitro malignant and non-malignant cell behavior. However, differences in tumor sensitivity platforms between 2D vs. 3D models might be relevant for some, but not for other drugs. Methods: The colorectal cancer cell line HCT-116 was cultured and plated in flat bottom well plates for the 2D condition and in Ultra Low Attachment round-bottom plates for the 3D condition. After plating, cells were treated with chemotherapies and targeted therapies for four days; cellular sensitivity was assessed through a viability assay. Four-parameter logistic (4PL) dose response curves were generated and IC50s were quantified to understand the differences in responses between 2D and 3D cellular environments. Results: HCT-116 exhibited similar responses to platinum drugs, taxanes, and several other tested drugs in both platforms, with the exception of gemcitabine (2D IC50 0.04 mcM; 3D IC50 12.8 mcM), lapatinib (2D IC50 23; 3D IC50 418), tucatinib (2D IC50 23.3; 3D IC50 79.3), and palbociclib (2D IC50 7.0; 3D IC50 24.0). Interestingly, these drugs share a common mechanism of action, which is the inhibition of cell cycle progression from G1 to S phase. Hence, we hypothesize that this shared mechanism may account for the observed differences in drug efficacy between the two environments. Conclusions: Similar dose responses have been observed with various drugs on both platforms, yet drugs that inhibit cell cycle progression from G1 to S phase, revealed higher sensitivity in 2D and more resistance in the 3D platform. Confirmatory cell-cycle results analyses are in progress. Further research is needed to understand if this applies to patient samples. Citation Format: Jahanvi Kumar, Chiara Maestri, Rajeshwar Nitiyanandan, Ivan Trus, Ricardo J. Parker, Brigitte Apfel, Christian Apfel. Cell-cycle inhibition may influence differences in 2D vs 3D tumor sensitivity profiles [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 512.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call