There is renewed interest in three-dimensional in vitro bioengineered models that replicate key aspects of the in vivo environment for the study of cellular behavior, with one key aspect being cell interactions with matrix interfaces. Here, we developed a dual-stiffness hydrogel-encapsulated glioblastoma (GBM) spheroid model to investigate GBM spreading along a stiffness interface. GBM is an aggressive brain cancer with a patient prognosis of 12–18 months, which is known to spread to distant brain regions by following stiffness interfaces. Our model consisted of a soft, 5% w/v, polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel to mimic the native brain tissue and a stiff, 10% w/v, PEG hydrogel to replicate the stiffer GBM microenvironment. To ensure spheroids fall along the boundary, we adjusted the gelation time of the gel by varying the pH of the gel precursor solution. Encapsulated spheroids were assessed for infiltration and viability for up to 7 days. Spheroids exhibited high viability in all hydrogels. Spheroids showed a higher infiltration index in the soft hydrogel, and migration across the stiffness interface occurred only from the soft to the stiff hydrogel in the dual-stiffness gels. The developed model has a simple, robust design for studying GBM behavior in vitro, a high degree of imageability, requires no specialized equipment to prepare, and is compatible with a multiwell plate format for easy handling and analysis.
Impact Statement
We developed a dual-stiffness three-dimensional cell culture model comprised of two hydrogels with independently tunable mechanical properties and a defined interface. The setup requires no specialized equipment to prepare and is compatible with a multiwell plate format. Such a format allows for easy handling, including automated high-throughput screening, and is compatible with most imaging equipment designed for cell culture. Although we used polyethylene glycol hydrogels, the model is compatible with any hydrogel that forms around cells without compromising viability. We focused on glioblastoma tumor spheroids, but the model is suitable for other cell types, spheroids, or dissociated cells and for cocultures.
RaoSS, LannuttiJJ, ViapianoMS, et al.Toward 3D biomimetic models to understand the behavior of glioblastoma multiforme cells. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2014; 20(4):314–327; doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2013.0227
2.
WuW, KlockowJL, ZhangM, et al.Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM): An overview of current therapies and mechanisms of resistance. Pharmacol Res, 2021; 171:105780; doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105780
3.
AlphandéryE. Glioblastoma treatments: An account of recent industrial developments. Front Pharmacol, 2018; 9:879; doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00879
4.
SivakumarH, DevarasettyM, KramDE, et al.Multi-cell type glioblastoma tumor spheroids for evaluating sub-population-specific drug response. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020; 8:538663; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.538663
5.
GrundyTJ, De LeonE, GriffinKR, et al.Differential response of patient-derived primary glioblastoma cells to environmental stiffness. Sci Rep, 2016; 6:23353; doi: 10.1038/srep23353
6.
WangC, SinhaS, JiangX, et al.Matrix stiffness modulates patient-derived glioblastoma cell fates in three-dimensional hydrogels. Tissue Eng Part A, 2021; 27(5–6):390–401; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2020.0110
7.
PogodaK, BuckiR, ByfieldFJ, et al.Soft substrates containing hyaluronan mimic the effects of increased stiffness on morphology, motility, and proliferation of glioma cells. Biomacromolecules, 2017; 18(10):3040–3051; doi: 10.1021/acs.biomac.7b00324
8.
RaoSS, BentilS, DeJesusJ, et al.Inherent interfacial mechanical gradients in 3D hydrogels influence tumor cell behaviors. PLoS One, 2012; 7(4):e35852; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035852
9.
WangC, TongX, YangF. Bioengineered 3D brain tumor model to elucidate the effects of matrix stiffness on glioblastoma cell behavior using PEG-based hydrogels. Mol Pharm, 2014; 11(7):2115–2125; doi: 10.1021/mp5000828
10.
BrunsJ, EganT, MercierP, et al.Glioblastoma spheroid growth and chemotherapeutic responses in single and dual-stiffness hydrogels. Acta Biomater, 2023; 163:400–414; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.05.048
11.
KimS-J, ByunH, LeeS, et al.Spatially arranged encapsulation of stem cell spheroids within hydrogels for the regulation of spheroid fusion and cell migration. Acta Biomater, 2022; 142:60–72; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2022.01.047
12.
LiangY, JeongJ, DeVolderRJ, et al.A cell-instructive hydrogel to regulate malignancy of 3D tumor spheroids with matrix rigidity. Biomaterials, 2011; 32(35):9308–9315; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.045
13.
BergsJ, MorrAS, SilvaRV, et al.The networking brain: How extracellular matrix, cellular networks, and vasculature shape the in vivo mechanical properties of the brain. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2024; 11(31):e2402338; doi: 10.1002/advs.202402338
14.
MairDB, AmesHM, LiR. Mechanisms of invasion and motility of high-grade gliomas in the brain. Mol Biol Cell, 2018; 29(21):2509–2515; doi: 10.1091/mbc.E18-02-0123
15.
DiksinM, SmithSJ, RahmanR. The molecular and phenotypic basis of the glioma invasive perivascular niche. Int J Mol Sci, 2017; 18(11):2342; doi: 10.3390/ijms18112342
16.
UrozM, StoddardAE, SutherlandBP, et al.Differential stiffness between brain vasculature and parenchyma promotes metastatic infiltration through vessel co-option. Nat Cell Biol, 2024; 26(12):2144–2153; doi: 10.1038/s41556-024-01532-6
17.
SunyerR, JinAJ, NossalR, et al.Fabrication of hydrogels with steep stiffness gradients for studying cell mechanical response. PLoS One, 2012; 7(10):e46107; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046107
18.
KimC, YoungJL, HolleAW, et al.Stem cell mechanosensation on gelatin methacryloyl (GelMA) stiffness gradient hydrogels. Ann Biomed Eng, 2020; 48(2):893–902; doi: 10.1007/s10439-019-02428-5
19.
BurdickJA, KhademhosseiniA, LangerR. Fabrication of gradient hydrogels using a microfluidics/photopolymerization process. Langmuir, 2004; 20(13):5153–5156; doi: 10.1021/la049298n
20.
PedronS, PeinadoC, BoschP, et al.Microfluidic approaches for the fabrication of gradient crosslinked networks based on poly(ethylene glycol) and hyperbranched polymers for manipulation of cell interactions. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2011; 96(1):196–203; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.32974
21.
SundararaghavanHG, BurdickJA. Gradients with depth in electrospun fibrous scaffolds for directed cell behavior. Biomacromolecules, 2011; 12(6):2344–2350; doi: 10.1021/bm200415g
22.
GaoF, XuZ, LiangQ, et al.Direct 3D printing of high strength biohybrid gradient hydrogel scaffolds for efficient repair of osteochondral defect. Adv Funct Materials, 2018; 28(13):1706644; doi: 10.1002/adfm.201706644
23.
ChalardAE, DixonAW, TabernerAJ, et al.Visible-light stiffness patterning of GelMA hydrogels towards in vitro scar tissue models. Front Cell Dev Biol, 2022; 10:946754; doi: 10.3389/fcell.2022.946754
24.
HillL, BrunsJ, ZustiakSP. Hydrogel matrix presence and composition influence drug responses of encapsulated glioblastoma spheroids. Acta Biomater, 2021; 132:437–447; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.05.005
25.
BrunsJ, McBride-GagyiS, ZustiakSP. Injectable and cell-adhesive polyethylene glycol cryogel scaffolds: Independent control of cryogel microstructure and composition. Macro Materials & Eng, 2018; 303(10):1800298; doi: 10.1002/mame.201800298
26.
LeeD, ZhangH, RyuS. Elastic modulus measurement of hydrogels. In: Cellulose-Based Superabsorbent Hydrogels. (MondalMIH., ed.) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2018; pp. 1–21.
27.
StealeyS, KhachaniM, ZustiakSP. Adsorption and sustained delivery of small molecules from nanosilicate hydrogel composites. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 2022; 15(1):56; doi: 10.3390/ph15010056
28.
ZustiakSP, LeachJB. Hydrolytically degradable poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogel scaffolds with tunable degradation and mechanical properties. Biomacromolecules, 2010; 11(5):1348–1357; doi: 10.1021/bm100137q
29.
NejatS. In vitro models to observe glioblastoma spheroids at stiffness interfaces. Saint Louis University; 2023.
30.
Marchand-BrynaertJ, DetraitE, NoisetO, et al.Biological evaluation of RGD peptidomimetics, designed for the covalent derivatization of cell culture substrata, as potential promotors of cellular adhesion. Biomaterials, 1999; 20(19):1773–1782; doi: 10.1016/s0142-9612(99)00072-1
31.
RuoslahtiE. RGD and other recognition sequences for integrins. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol, 1996; 12:697–715; doi: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.12.1.697
32.
PayneLS, HuangPH. The pathobiology of collagens in glioma. Mol Cancer Res, 2013; 11(10):1129–1140; doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0236
33.
LjubimovaJY, FujitaM, KhazenzonNM, et al.Changes in laminin isoforms associated with brain tumor invasion and angiogenesis. Front Biosci, 2006; 11:81–88; doi: 10.2741/1781
34.
MatherBD, ViswanathanK, MillerKM, et al.Michael addition reactions in macromolecular design for emerging technologies. Prog Polym Sci, 2006; 31(5):487–531; doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2006.03.001
35.
MettersA, HubbellJ. Network formation and degradation behavior of hydrogels formed by Michael-type addition reactions. Biomacromolecules, 2005; 6(1):290–301; doi: 10.1021/bm049607o
36.
GennariA, WedgwoodJ, LallanaE, et al.Thiol-based Michael-type addition. A systematic evaluation of its controlling factors. Tetrahedron, 2020; 76(47):131637; doi: 10.1016/j.tet.2020.131637
37.
YuF, CaoX, LiY, et al.Diels–Alder crosslinked HA/PEG hydrogels with high elasticity and fatigue resistance for cell encapsulation and articular cartilage tissue repair. Polym Chem, 2014; 5(17):5116–5123; doi: 10.1039/C4PY00473F
38.
HeS, SuY, JiC, et al.Some basic questions on mechanosensing in cell–substrate interaction. J Mech Phys Solids, 2014; 70:116–135; doi: 10.1016/j.jmps.2014.05.016
39.
TusanCG, ManY-H, ZarkoobH, et al.Collective cell behavior in mechanosensing of substrate thickness. Biophys J, 2018; 114(11):2743–2755; doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2018.03.037
40.
KondapaneniRV, GurungSK, NakodPS, et al.Glioblastoma mechanobiology at multiple length scales. Biomater Adv, 2024; 160:213860; doi: 10.1016/j.bioadv.2024.213860
41.
MiroshnikovaYA, MouwJK, BarnesJM, et al.Tissue mechanics promote IDH1-dependent HIF1α–tenascin C feedback to regulate glioblastoma aggression. Nat Cell Biol, 2016; 18(12):1336–1345; doi: 10.1038/ncb3429
42.
BuddayS, OvaertTC, HolzapfelGA, et al.Fifty shades of brain: A review on the mechanical testing and modeling of brain tissue. Arch Computat Methods Eng, 2020; 27(4):1187–1230; doi: 10.1007/s11831-019-09352-w
43.
BuddayS, NayR, de RooijR, et al.Mechanical properties of gray and white matter brain tissue by indentation. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater, 2015; 46:318–330; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.02.024
44.
BryantSJ, ChowdhuryTT, LeeDA, BaderDL, AnsethKS. Crosslinking density influences chondrocyte metabolism in dynamically loaded photocrosslinked poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogels. Ann Biomed Eng, 2004; 32(3):407–417; doi: 10.1023/b:abme.0000017535.00602.ca
45.
BrowningMB, WilemsT, HahnM, et al.Compositional control of poly(ethylene glycol) hydrogel modulus independent of mesh size. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2011; 98(2):268–273; doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.33109
46.
CanalT, PeppasNA. Correlation between mesh size and equilibrium degree of swelling of polymeric networks. J Biomed Mater Res, 1989; 23(10):1183–1193; doi: 10.1002/jbm.820231007
ZhouW, YuX, SunS, et al.Increased expression of MMP-2 and MMP-9 indicates poor prognosis in glioma recurrence. Biomed Pharmacother, 2019; 118:109369; doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2019.109369
49.
RiffleS, HegdeRS. Modeling tumor cell adaptations to hypoxia in multicellular tumor spheroids. J Exp Clin Cancer Res, 2017; 36(1):102; doi: 10.1186/s13046-017-0570-9
50.
Carrasco-MantisA, PamplonaR, OliverFJ, et al.A mechanobiological model for tumor spheroids evolution: Application to glioblastoma. Comput Biol Med, 2023; 159:106897; doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106897
51.
LeekR, GrimesDR, HarrisAL, et al.Methods: Using three-dimensional culture (spheroids) as an in vitro model of tumour hypoxia. In: Tumor Microenvironment: Study Protocols. (KoumenisC, CoussensLM, GiacciaA, et al. eds.) Springer: Cham; 2016; pp. 167–196; doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26666-4_10
52.
NirmalaC, RaoJS, RuifrokAC, et al.Growth characteristics of glioblastoma spheroids. Int J Oncol, 2001; 19(6):1109–1115; doi: 10.3892/ijo.19.6.1109
53.
MuntheS, PettersonSA, DahlrotRH, et al.Glioma cells in the tumor periphery have a stem cell phenotype. PLoS One, 2016; 11(5):e0155106; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155106
54.
CaloriIR, AlvesSR, BiH, et al.Type-I collagen/collagenase modulates the 3D structure and behavior of glioblastoma spheroid models. ACS Appl Bio Mater, 2022; 5(2):723–733; doi: 10.1021/acsabm.1c01138
55.
HeffernanJM, OverstreetDJ, LeLD, et al.Bioengineered scaffolds for 3D analysis of glioblastoma proliferation and invasion. Ann Biomed Eng, 2015; 43(8):1965–1977; doi: 10.1007/s10439-014-1223-1
56.
ConwayGE, ZizyteD, MondalaJRM, et al.Ursolic acid inhibits collective cell migration and promotes JNK-dependent lysosomal associated cell death in glioblastoma multiforme cells. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 2021; 14(2):91; doi: 10.3390/ph14020091
57.
OraiopoulouME, TzamaliE, PapamatheakisJ, et al.A 3D tumor spheroid model for the T98G glioblastoma cell line phenotypic characterization. Tissue Cell, 2019; 59:39–43; doi: 10.1016/j.tice.2019.05.007
58.
ZhongJ, PaulA, KellieSJ, et al.Mesenchymal migration as a therapeutic target in glioblastoma. J Oncol, 2010; 2010:430142; doi: 10.1155/2010/430142
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
