Abstract
Background: Chemotherapeutics have been commonly used in cancer treatment.
Objective: In this study, the effects of Cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, Irinotecan, and Gemcitabine have been evaluated on two-dimensional (2D) (sensitive and resistance) cell lines and three dimensional (3D) spheroid structure of MDA-MB- 231. The 2D cell culture lacks a natural tissue-like structural so, using 3D cell culture has an important role in the development of effective drug testing models. Furthermore, we analyzed the ATP Binding Cassette Subfamily G Member 2 (ABCG2) gene and protein expression profile in this study. We aimed to establish a 3D breast cancer model that can mimic the in vivo 3D breast cancer microenvironment.
Methods: The 3D spheroid structures were multiplied (globally) using the three-dimensional hanging drop method. The cultures of the parental cell line MDA-MB-231 served as the controls. After adding the drugs in different amounts, we observed a clear and well-differentiated spheroid formation for 24 h. The viability and proliferation capacity of 2D (sensitive and resistant) cell lines and 3D spheroid cell treatment were assessed by the XTT assay.
Results: Cisplatin, Irinotecan, 5-Fu, and Gemcitabine-resistant MDA-MB-231 cells were observed to begin to disintegrate in a three-dimensional clustered structure at 24 hours. Additionally, RT-PCR and protein assay showed overexpression of ABCG2 when compared to the parental cell line. Moreover, MDA-MB-231 cells grown in 3D showed decreased sensitivity to chemotherapeutics treatment.
Conclusion: More resistance to chemotherapeutics and altered gene expression profile were shown in 3D cell cultures when compared with the 2D cells. These results might play an important role to evaluate the efficacy of anticancer drugs to explore the mechanisms of MDR in the 3D spheroid forms.
Keywords: Cisplatin, 5-Fu, irinotecan, gemcitabine, drug resistance, 3D spheroid formation, gene expression, breast cancer.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soin.2013.04.004] [PMID: 23878881]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2007.03.001] [PMID: 17512448]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4137/BCBCR.S32783] [PMID: 27042088]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.10-90003-20] [PMID: 16368868]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v5.i3.529] [PMID: 25114866]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/222385a0] [PMID: 5782119]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.57.6660] [PMID: 25847936]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd1691] [PMID: 15789122]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.07.025] [PMID: 25058905]
[PMID: 13537000]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61523-3] [PMID: 20004966]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1072-9] [PMID: 25885574]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08234.x] [PMID: 21740520]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1567201043480036] [PMID: 16305368]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1124/dmd.113.056358] [PMID: 24474736]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10120-012-0140-y] [PMID: 22395309]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/path.1203] [PMID: 12237881]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/14622416.9.1.105] [PMID: 18154452]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3791/2720] [PMID: 21587162]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/7972916] [PMID: 30105068]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11033-019-05017-w] [PMID: 31741260]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2004.11.004] [PMID: 15694832]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/17425255.4.1.1] [PMID: 18370855]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2012.01.002] [PMID: 22248732]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.118] [PMID: 18936753]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463356.2010.11883480]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bit.22361] [PMID: 19472329]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/adt.2014.573] [PMID: 24831787]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-984-0_1] [PMID: 21042962]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010431] [PMID: 20454659]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/or.2015.3767] [PMID: 25634491]