Combination of Flow with 3d Cell Culture Improves Metabolic Competency in Multiple Cell Types
Combination of flow with 3D cell culture improves metabolic competency in multiple cell types
Lewis ME,a* Gordon P,a Tholozan F,b Ciammaicella D,c Vinci B,c Przyborski S,b Krajewska E,a Darley K,a Wilkinson JM a
a. Kirkstall Ltd., Sheffield UK. b. Reinnervate Ltd., Durham UK. c. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. *Corresponding author. Kirkstall Ltd., 40 Leavygreave Rd, Sheffield, UK, S3 7RD
1. Introduction
• Growing cells in 2D under static conditions is the gold standard of cell culture. However, these conditions are not sufficiently representative of the complex in vivo environment, and encourage cells to behave differently than they would in the host organism. This discrepancy results in misleading data. • Often, experimentation on cells cultured in standard static 2D conditions is not sufficient to meet research requirements. In order to explore the complex interplay between cells and organs, and the effect of certain changes on those systems whether genomic, physiological or medical, animal models are required. Animal models are thought to provide a better representation of human physiology and biochemistry than can be achieved with the current gold standard of culture, and while true to a point, animal models cannot be relied upon for generating truly representative data. Indeed, there are many examples in the literature of highprofile failings of animal models to predict human toxicity[1-4]. • As such, there is a requirement in research for alternatives to both animal models and standard in vitro cell culture. • The Quasi-Vivo® culture system enables cell culture under laminar flow. This is designed to mimic the type of flow found in the body[5],[6] providing mechanical stimulation equivalent to blood and lymph movement, and ensuring constant delivery of nutrients/removal of metabolic by-products. The system recirculates, meaning that cells can condition the medium, and require medium change less frequently than cells in static plate wells.
Lewis ME,a* Gordon P,a Tholozan F,b Ciammaicella D,c Vinci B,c Przyborski S,b Krajewska E,a Darley K,a Wilkinson JM a
a. Kirkstall Ltd., Sheffield UK. b. Reinnervate Ltd., Durham UK. c. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. *Corresponding author. Kirkstall Ltd., 40 Leavygreave Rd, Sheffield, UK, S3 7RD
1. Introduction
• Growing cells in 2D under static conditions is the gold standard of cell culture. However, these conditions are not sufficiently representative of the complex in vivo environment, and encourage cells to behave differently than they would in the host organism. This discrepancy results in misleading data. • Often, experimentation on cells cultured in standard static 2D conditions is not sufficient to meet research requirements. In order to explore the complex interplay between cells and organs, and the effect of certain changes on those systems whether genomic, physiological or medical, animal models are required. Animal models are thought to provide a better representation of human physiology and biochemistry than can be achieved with the current gold standard of culture, and while true to a point, animal models cannot be relied upon for generating truly representative data. Indeed, there are many examples in the literature of highprofile failings of animal models to predict human toxicity[1-4]. • As such, there is a requirement in research for alternatives to both animal models and standard in vitro cell culture. • The Quasi-Vivo® culture system enables cell culture under laminar flow. This is designed to mimic the type of flow found in the body[5],[6] providing mechanical stimulation equivalent to blood and lymph movement, and ensuring constant delivery of nutrients/removal of metabolic by-products. The system recirculates, meaning that cells can condition the medium, and require medium change less frequently than cells in static plate wells.
References: [1] – McKenzie et al. (1995) B N Engl J Med. 333(17):1099-105 [2] – Gitlin et al. (1998) Ann Intern Med. 129:36-38 [3] – Smith et al. (1974) Chest. 61(6):587-8 [4] – Honjo et al. (1988) Res Commun Pathol Pharmacol. 61(2):149 – 65 [5] – Mazzei et al. (2010 Biotechnol Bioeng 106(1):127-37 [6] – Vinci et al. (2010) Biotechnol J 6, 554 – 564 [7] – Arias et al. (2001) The Liver: Biology and Pathology 1064p [8] – Wanf et al. (1997) Biochem J. 328 (Pt 3): 937 – 944 [9] – Bhatia et al. (1999) FASEB J. 13: 1883 - 1900 e) f)