Tissue Engineering Platforms to Replicate the Tumor Microenvironment of Multiple Myeloma

  • Wenting Zhang
  • Woo Y. Lee
  • Jenny ZilberbergEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1513)


We described here the manufacturing and implementation of two prototype perfusion culture devices designed primarily for the cultivation of difficult-to-preserve primary patient-derived multiple myeloma cells (MMC). The first device consists of an osteoblast (OSB)-derived 3D tissue scaffold constructed in a perfused microfluidic environment. The second platform is a 96-well plate-modified perfusion culture device that can be utilized to reconstruct several tissue and tumor microenvironments utilizing both primary human and murine cells. This culture device was designed and fabricated specifically to: (1) enable the preservation of primary MMC for downstream use in biological studies and chemosensitivity analyses and, (2) provide a high-throughput format that is compatible with plate readers specifically seeing that this system is built on an industry standard 96-well tissue culture plate.

Key words

Microenvironment Three-dimensional Microfluidics Perfusion Multiple myeloma 



Woo Y. Lee and Jenny Zilberberg are equal contributors in this work. We thank Dr. David Siegel at HUMC for providing MM patient biospecimens and Dr. Peter Tolias at Stevens for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Provost Office of the Stevens Institute of Technology (Stevens), the John Theurer Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center (HackensackUMC), and the National Institutes of Health grants (1R21CA174543 to J.Z. and W.Y.L.).


  1. 1.
    Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J (2014) Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol 32:40–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook D, Brown D, Alexander R et al (2014) Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov 13:419–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li A, Walling J, Kotliarov Y et al (2008) Genomic changes and gene expression profiles reveal that established glioma cell lines are poorly representative of primary human gliomas. Mol Cancer Res 6:21–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Domcke S, Sinha R, Levine DA et al (2013) Evaluating cell lines as tumour models by comparison of genomic profiles. Nat Commun 4:2126CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sandberg R, Ernberg I (2005) Assessment of tumor characteristic gene expression in cell lines using a tissue similarity index (TSI). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:2052–2057CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aggeler J, Park CS, Bissell MJ (1988) Regulation of milk protein and basement membrane gene expression: the influence of the extracellular matrix. J Dairy Sci 71:2830–2842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhat R, Bissell MJ (2014) Of plasticity and specificity: dialectics of the micro- and macro-environment and the organ phenotype. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Membr Transp Signal 3:147–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bissell MJ, Hall HG, Parry G (1982) How does the extracellular matrix direct gene expression? J Theor Biol 99:31–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang W, Gu Y, Sun Q et al (2015) Ex vivo maintenance of primary human multiple myeloma cells through the optimization of the osteoblastic niche. PLoS One 10:e0125995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125995 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang W, Lee WY, Siegel DS et al (2014) Patient-specific 3D microfluidic tissue model for multiple myeloma. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 20:663–670CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sachs N, Clevers H (2014) Organoid cultures for the analysis of cancer phenotypes. Curr Opin Genet Dev 24:68–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buske P, Przybilla J, Loeffler M et al (2012) On the biomechanics of stem cell niche formation in the gut—modelling growing organoids. FEBS J 279:3475–3487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gu Y, Zhang W, Qiaoling S et al (2015) Microbead-guided reconstruction of the 3D osteocyte network during microfluidic perfusion culture. J Mater Chem B 3:3625–3633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Damiano JS (2002) Integrins as novel drug targets for overcoming innate drug resistance. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2:37–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li ZW, Dalton WS (2006) Tumor microenvironment and drug resistance in hematologic malignancies. Blood Rev 20:333–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakagawa Y, Nakayama H, Nagata M et al (2014) Overexpression of fibronectin confers cell adhesion-mediated drug resistance (CAM-DR) against 5-FU in oral squamous cell carcinoma cells. Int J Oncol 44:1376–1384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidmaier R, Baumann P (2008) ANTI-ADHESION evolves to a promising therapeutic concept in oncology. Curr Med Chem 15:978–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tolias P, Toruner GA (2014) Personalized medicine. Future Med 7:461–464Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhatia SN, Ingber DE (2014) Microfluidic organs-on-chips. Nat Biotechnol 32:760–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benien P, Swami A (2014) 3D tumor models: history, advances and future perspectives. Future Oncol 10:1311–1327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang C, Tang Z, Zhao Y et al (2014) Three-dimensional in vitro cancer models: a short review. Biofabrication 6:022001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hickman JA, Graeser R, de Hoogt R et al (2014) Three-dimensional models of cancer for pharmacology and cancer cell biology: capturing tumor complexity in vitro/ex vivo. Biotechnol J 9:1115–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Birmingham E, Kreipke TC, Dolan EB et al (2015) Mechanical stimulation of bone marrow in situ induces bone formation in trabecular explants. Ann Biomed Eng 43:1036–1050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jaasma MJ, Plunkett NA, O'Brien FJ (2008) Design and validation of a dynamic flow perfusion bioreactor for use with compliant tissue engineering scaffolds. J Biotechnol 133:490–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plunkett N, O'Brien FJ (2011) Bioreactors in tissue engineering. Technol Health Care 19:55–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ferrarini M, Steimberg N, Ponzoni M et al (2013) Ex-vivo dynamic 3-D culture of human tissues in the RCCS bioreactor allows the study of multiple myeloma biology and response to therapy. PLoS One 8:e71613CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kwapiszewska K, Michalczuk A, Rybka M et al (2014) A microfluidic-based platform for tumour spheroid culture, monitoring and drug screening. Lab Chip 14:2096–2104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee JH, Gu Y, Wang H, Lee WY (2012) Microfluidic 3D bone tissue model for high-throughput evaluation of wound-healing and infection-preventing biomaterials. Biomaterials 33:999–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lei KF, Wu MH, Hsu CW, Chen YD (2014) Real-time and non-invasive impedimetric monitoring of cell proliferation and chemosensitivity in a perfusion 3D cell culture microfluidic chip. Biosens Bioelectron 51:16–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Polini A, Prodanov L, Bhise NS et al (2014) Organs-on-a-chip: a new tool for drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discovery 9:335–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ocio EM, Richardson PG, Rajkumar SV et al (2014) New drugs and novel mechanisms of action in multiple myeloma in 2013: a report from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Leukemia 28:525–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lonial S, Anderson KC (2014) Association of response endpoints with survival outcomes in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28:258–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neri P, Bahlis NJ (2012) Targeting of adhesion molecules as a therapeutic strategy in multiple myeloma. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 12:776–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neri P, Ren L, Azab AK et al (2011) Integrin beta7-mediated regulation of multiple myeloma cell adhesion, migration, and invasion. Blood 117:6202–6213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Damiano JS, Dalton WS (2000) Integrin-mediated drug resistance in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 38:71–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abdi J, Chen G, Chang H (2013) Drug resistance in multiple myeloma: latest findings and new concepts on molecular mechanisms. Oncotarget 4:2186–2207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yaccoby S, Epstein J (1999) The proliferative potential of myeloma plasma cells manifest in the SCID-hu host. Blood 94:3576–3582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yaccoby S, Barlogie B, Epstein J (1998) Primary myeloma cells growing in SCID-hu mice: a model for studying the biology and treatment of myeloma and its manifestations. Blood 92:2908–2913PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lawson MA, Paton-Hough JM, Evans HR et al (2015) NOD/SCID-GAMMA mice are an ideal strain to assess the efficacy of therapeutic agents used in the treatment of myeloma bone disease. PLoS One 10:e0119546CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reagan MR, Mishima Y, Glavey SV et al (2014) Investigating osteogenic differentiation in multiple myeloma using a novel 3D bone marrow niche model. Blood 124:3250–3259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kirshner J, Thulien KJ, Martin LD et al (2008) A unique three-dimensional model for evaluating the impact of therapy on multiple myeloma. Blood 112:2935–2945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang W, Gu Y, Hao Y et al (2015) Well plate-based perfusion culture device for tissue and tumor microenvironment replication. Lab Chip 15:2854–2863CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang X, Ogbolu KR, Wang H (2008) Multifunctional nanofibrous scaffold for tissue engineering. J Exp Nanosci 3:329–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceStevens Institute of TechnologyHobokenUSA
  2. 2.John Theurer Cancer CenterHackensack University Medical CenterHackensackUSA

Personalised recommendations