The Third Dimension in Cell Culture: From 2D to 3D Culture Formats

  • Verena CharwatEmail author
  • Dominik Egger
Part of the Learning Materials in Biosciences book series (LMB)


Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture does not represent the natural environment cells experience in their respective tissue or organ. In contrast, the cultivation of cells in a three-dimensional (3D) environment can help to generate a physiologic environment. This chapter describes the fundamental biological and technological differences of 2D to 3D cultivation and gives an overview on important 3D cell culture techniques. Different approaches for matrix-free and matrix-based cell culture as well as less conventional 3D cell culture approaches are described and discussed. Furthermore, the application of 3D cell culture in the field of tissue engineering and in vitro test models is presented.

Further Reading

  1. 1.
    Baker BM, Chen CS. Deconstructing the third dimension–how 3D culture microenvironments alter cellular cues. J Cell Sci. 2012;125:3015–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark J, Hirstenstein H, Gebb C. Critical parameters in the microcarrier culture of animal cells. Dev Biol Stand. 1980;46:117–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Costa M, Cerqueira MT, Santos TC, et al. Cell sheet engineering using the stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue as a vascularization strategy. Acta Biomater. 2017;55:131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ertl P, Sticker D, Charwat V, et al. Lab-on-a-chip technologies for stem cell analysis. Trends Biotechnol. 2014;32:245–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fatehullah A, Tan SH, Barker N. Organoids as an in vitro model of human development and disease. Nat Cell Biol. 2016;18:246–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fennema E, Rivron N, Rouwkema J, et al. Spheroid culture as a tool for creating 3D complex tissues. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31:108–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haisler WL, Timm DM, Gage JA, et al. Three-dimensional cell culturing by magnetic levitation. Nat Protoc. 2013;8:1940–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haycock JW. 3D cell culture: a review of current approaches and techniques. Cell Cult Methods Protoc. 2011;3D:1–15.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L'heureux N, Paquet S, Labbe R, et al. A completely biological tissue-engineered human blood vessel. FASEB J. 1998;12:47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laschke MW, Menger MD. Prevascularization in tissue engineering: current concepts and future directions. Biotechnol Adv. 2016;34:112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li B, Wang X, Wang Y, et al. Past, present, and future of microcarrier-based tissue engineering. J Orthop Transl. 2015;3:51–7.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macri-Pellizzeri L, Pelacho B, Sancho A, et al. Substrate stiffness and composition specifically direct differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A. 2015;21:1633–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mathur A, Loskill P, Shao KF, et al. Human iPSC-based cardiac microphysiological system for drug screening applications. Sci Rep. 2015:5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nath S, Devi GR. Three-dimensional culture systems in cancer research: focus on tumor spheroid model. Pharmacol Ther. 2016;163:94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pelham RJ, Jr., Wang Y (1997) Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:13661–13665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ravi M, Paramesh V, Kaviya S, et al. 3D cell culture systems: advantages and applications. J Cell Physiol. 2015;230:16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sakaguchi K, Shimizu T, Horaguchi S, et al. In vitro engineering of vascularized tissue surrogates. Sci Rep. 2013;3:1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmitz S. Der Experimentator: Zellkultur: Springer; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrader J, Gordon-Walker TT, Aucott RL, et al. Matrix stiffness modulates proliferation, chemotherapeutic response, and dormancy in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Hepatology. 2011;53:1192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vickers AE, Fisher RL. Organ slices for the evaluation of human drug toxicity. Chem Biol Interact. 2004;150:87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamato M, Okano T. Cell sheet engineering. Mater Today. 2004;7:42–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yao X, Peng R, Ding J. Cell-material interactions revealed via material techniques of surface patterning. Adv Mater. 2013;25:5257–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zheng FY, Fu FF, Cheng Y, et al. Organ-on-a-chip systems: microengineering to biomimic living systems. Small. 2016;12:2253–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zustiak S, Nossal R, Sackett DL. Multiwell stiffness assay for the study of cell responsiveness to cytotoxic drugs. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2014;111:396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Biotechnology, Cell and Tissue Culture TechnologyUniversity of Natural Resources and Life ScienceViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations