4.6 Article

Evaluation of assays for drug efficacy in a three-dimensional model of the lung

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-016-2198-0

关键词

Three-dimensional model; Lung cancer; Drug testing; Hanging-drop; In vivo mimicking

类别

资金

  1. University of Innsbruck
  2. Medical University of Innsbruck
  3. Competence Center ONCOTYROL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The focus of the outlined work is the establishment of a three-dimensional lung model for various drug-screening applications. The non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell line Colo699 was cultivated as monolayer (2D) on plates for 5 days or as microtissues (3D) using a hanging-drop system for 5 and 10 days. Cells and microtissues were treated with afatinib (10-80 A mu M), cisplatin (100-800 A mu M) or vinorelbine (25-200 A mu M) for 24 or 48 hours (h). Cell proliferation and viability were analysed by intra-cellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and lactate dehydrogenase release (LDH) assays, annexin V/propidium iodide (PI) staining, and cell cycle determination. Microtissue morphology and size, as well as cell death were evaluated via phase contrast microscopy. Our results demonstrate the valid determination of viability and cell death using established assays in the 3D system for drug testing. The comparison of ATP, LDH and cytometry data showed moderate (0.40) to very strong (0.99) correlations. Thereby, we observed partially significant differences in drug efficacy between microtissues and 2D cultures dependent from the applied treatment and read-out method. Altogether, microtissues developed resistance to cisplatin and vinorelbine; but remained more vulnerable to afatinib. These findings were confirmed with microscopy. In summary, we established an NSCLC 3D test system with multiple assays compatible for drug-testing applications of substances with different mechanisms of action. In addition, our data support the usage of microtissues as more accurate tools for drug-efficacy testing with the possibility of long-term cultivation and treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据