2D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo

Abstract Cell motility is a critical aspect of several processes, such as wound healing and immunity; however, it is dysregulated in cancer. Current limitations of imaging tools make it difficult to study cell migration in vivo. To overcome this, and to identify drivers from the microenvironment tha...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sualyneth Galarza, Hyuna Kim, Naciye Atay, Shelly R. Peyton, Jennifer M. Munson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-01-01
Series:Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10148
_version_ 1811326500621778944
author Sualyneth Galarza
Hyuna Kim
Naciye Atay
Shelly R. Peyton
Jennifer M. Munson
author_facet Sualyneth Galarza
Hyuna Kim
Naciye Atay
Shelly R. Peyton
Jennifer M. Munson
author_sort Sualyneth Galarza
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Cell motility is a critical aspect of several processes, such as wound healing and immunity; however, it is dysregulated in cancer. Current limitations of imaging tools make it difficult to study cell migration in vivo. To overcome this, and to identify drivers from the microenvironment that regulate cell migration, bioengineers have developed 2D (two‐dimensional) and 3D (three‐dimensional) tissue model systems in which to study cell motility in vitro, with the aim of mimicking elements of the environments in which cells move in vivo. However, there has been no systematic study to explicitly relate and compare cell motility measurements between these geometries or systems. Here, we provide such analysis on our own data, as well as across data in existing literature to understand whether, and which, metrics are conserved across systems. To our surprise, only one metric of cell movement on 2D surfaces significantly and positively correlates with cell migration in 3D environments (percent migrating cells), and cell invasion in 3D has a weak, negative correlation with glioblastoma invasion in vivo. Finally, to compare across complex model systems, in vivo data, and data from different labs, we suggest that groups report an effect size, a statistical tool that is most translatable across experiments and labs, when conducting experiments that affect cellular motility.
first_indexed 2024-04-13T14:51:16Z
format Article
id doaj.art-14719e1c73cd472698ef8af654294217
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2380-6761
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-13T14:51:16Z
publishDate 2020-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
spelling doaj.art-14719e1c73cd472698ef8af6542942172022-12-22T02:42:35ZengWileyBioengineering & Translational Medicine2380-67612020-01-0151n/an/a10.1002/btm2.101482D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivoSualyneth Galarza0Hyuna Kim1Naciye Atay2Shelly R. Peyton3Jennifer M. Munson4Department of Chemical Engineering University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst MassachusettsMolecular and Cellular Biology Program University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst MassachusettsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg VirginiaDepartment of Chemical Engineering University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst MassachusettsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg VirginiaAbstract Cell motility is a critical aspect of several processes, such as wound healing and immunity; however, it is dysregulated in cancer. Current limitations of imaging tools make it difficult to study cell migration in vivo. To overcome this, and to identify drivers from the microenvironment that regulate cell migration, bioengineers have developed 2D (two‐dimensional) and 3D (three‐dimensional) tissue model systems in which to study cell motility in vitro, with the aim of mimicking elements of the environments in which cells move in vivo. However, there has been no systematic study to explicitly relate and compare cell motility measurements between these geometries or systems. Here, we provide such analysis on our own data, as well as across data in existing literature to understand whether, and which, metrics are conserved across systems. To our surprise, only one metric of cell movement on 2D surfaces significantly and positively correlates with cell migration in 3D environments (percent migrating cells), and cell invasion in 3D has a weak, negative correlation with glioblastoma invasion in vivo. Finally, to compare across complex model systems, in vivo data, and data from different labs, we suggest that groups report an effect size, a statistical tool that is most translatable across experiments and labs, when conducting experiments that affect cellular motility.https://doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10148breast cancercell migrationeffect sizeglioblastomainvasionmetastasis
spellingShingle Sualyneth Galarza
Hyuna Kim
Naciye Atay
Shelly R. Peyton
Jennifer M. Munson
2D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo
Bioengineering & Translational Medicine
breast cancer
cell migration
effect size
glioblastoma
invasion
metastasis
title 2D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo
title_full 2D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo
title_fullStr 2D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo
title_full_unstemmed 2D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo
title_short 2D or 3D? How cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo
title_sort 2d or 3d how cell motility measurements are conserved across dimensions in vitro and translate in vivo
topic breast cancer
cell migration
effect size
glioblastoma
invasion
metastasis
url https://doi.org/10.1002/btm2.10148
work_keys_str_mv AT sualynethgalarza 2dor3dhowcellmotilitymeasurementsareconservedacrossdimensionsinvitroandtranslateinvivo
AT hyunakim 2dor3dhowcellmotilitymeasurementsareconservedacrossdimensionsinvitroandtranslateinvivo
AT naciyeatay 2dor3dhowcellmotilitymeasurementsareconservedacrossdimensionsinvitroandtranslateinvivo
AT shellyrpeyton 2dor3dhowcellmotilitymeasurementsareconservedacrossdimensionsinvitroandtranslateinvivo
AT jennifermmunson 2dor3dhowcellmotilitymeasurementsareconservedacrossdimensionsinvitroandtranslateinvivo