4.8 Article

Three-dimensional porous silk tumor constructs in the approximation of in vivo osteosarcoma physiology

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 32, 期 26, 页码 6131-6137

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.04.084

关键词

Scaffold; Angiogenesis; Silk; Cell signalling; Cell culture

资金

  1. Academic Research Fund [T13-1001-P04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of good preclinical models has hampered anticancer drug discovery. Standard preclinical protocols require the growth of cells in high throughput two-dimensional (2D) culture systems. However, such in vitro drug testing methods yield drug efficacy results that differ greatly from animal models. Conversely, it is much more difficult and expensive to use animal models for large-scale molecular biology research. It is conceivable that three-dimensional (3D) growth may be responsible for some of these changes. Porous silk sponges were fabricated through freeze drying and seeded with 143.98.2 osteosarcoma cells. Molecular profiles were obtained by carrying out real-time polymerase chain reaction for angiogenic growth factors and proliferation markers for osteosarcoma cells grown under 2D, 3D, and SCID mouse xenograft conditions. The angiogenic factor expression profiles for cells grown in 2D differed greatly from the 3D silk scaffold model (P < 0.05 for bEGF, HIF-1 alpha, IL-8, and VEGF-A), whereas 3D tumor model profiles were found to be able to approximate that for the in vivo tumor better with no statistically different expression of HIF-1 alpha and VEGF-A between the two. Immunohistochemistry staining for HIF-1, VEGF-A, and VEGF receptor on osteosarcoma cells grown on the scaffolds validated the results obtained with the gene expression profiles. The results suggest that 3D tumor models could be used to bridge the gap between in vitro and in vivo tumor studies, and aid in the study of mechanisms activated during tumorigenesis for the development of novel targeted chemotherapy. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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