Three-Dimensional Cultures in Fungal Pathogenesis: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ana Marisa Fusco-Almeida
,
Samanta de Matos Silva
,
Kelvin Sousa dos Santos
,
Marcos William de Lima Gualque
,
Carolina Orlando Vaso
,
Angélica Romão Carvalho
,
Kaila Petrolina Medina-Alarcón
,
Ana Carolina Moreira da Silva Pires
,
Jenyffie Araújo Belizario
,
Lígia de Souza Fernandes
,
Andrei Moroz
,
Luis R. Martinez
,
Orville Hernandez Ruiz
,
Ángel González
,
Maria José Soares Mendes-Giannini

Three-dimensional (3D) cultures are pivotal in vitro studies as an alternative model that curtails research expenses. Three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures are extensively employed for novel drug screening of antifungals. Several advantages are tied to obtaining more precise toxicity and efficacy results than in vivo models, along with host–pathogen interactions closely mimicking reality.

  • cell cultures
  • three-dimensional (3D) cultures
  • fungal pathogenesis

1. Cell Culture

In recent decades, cell culture has emerged as one of the most extensively employed techniques for substituting, preceding, or complementing the use of animals in research. In the 20th century, cell culture was developed to study animal cell behavior outside the body in a controlled environment. Initially, it employed crude extracts and animal lymph as culture mediums. However, it has since evolved into an indispensable tool for investigating degenerative diseases, cell therapy, stem cell research, testing the toxicity and efficacy of novel compounds, and understanding pathogenesis, among other applications [1][2].
The predominant cell culture model employed in examining fungal pathogenesis is the monolayer (2D) culture due to its convenient alteration of culture mediums, subculturing, analysis, and standardization. Through phagocytosis assays involving macrophages [3], multiple researchers have discovered that phagocytic cells are more inclined to engulf planktonic cells as opposed to cells originating from biofilms, such as Cryptococcus neoformans and Candida albicans [3][4]. Some investigations have centered around elucidating the behavior of exocytosed macromolecules from fungi during cellular infection. For instance, exoantigens extracted from the fungus P. brasiliensis stimulated the proliferation of pulmonary fibroblasts in vitro. In contrast, a mannoprotein extracted from the cell wall of C. albicans induced alterations in the cell cycle and inhibited apoptosis in human keratinocyte cells (HaCat) [5]. Cell cultures also offer insights into interaction studies. For example, some researchers have demonstrated the relevance of the Gmp1 binding protein in immune evasion, cell adhesion, invasion, and colonization of C. albicans in human umbilical vein endothelial (HUVEC) and HaCat host cells. The utilization of primary or lineage-specific cells from human and mammalian hosts (macrophages, neutrophils, dendritic, endothelial, epithelial, and stem cells, among others) has facilitated comprehension of the fungus–host relationship and the pursuit of prospective therapeutic targets [6][7][8].
Nevertheless, this kind of culture model has limitations due to its simplistic architecture, leading to diminished physiological functionality caused by the decline of characteristics during culturing. Despite its close resemblance to natural conditions, the in vitro process still presents challenges for cell development. Its cell–cell and cell–matrix adhesion is diminished, and it lacks the attributes (such as heterogeneity and three-dimensional architecture) of an in vivo tissue since its nutritional and hormonal environment undergo modification [2][9].
Thus, three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures are extensively employed for novel drug screening of antifungals. Several advantages are tied to obtaining more precise toxicity and efficacy results than in vivo models, along with host–pathogen interactions closely mimicking reality [10][11]. Recently, pulmonary spheroids have been employed to screen broad-spectrum antifungal drugs, yielding outcomes that indicate three-dimensional cell cultures are less susceptible to the toxic effects of drug treatment compared to monolayer cultures. Furthermore, it was observed that monolayer cell cultures are approximately ten times more sensitive than their 3D counterparts, underscoring that 3D cell cultures better resemble in vivo models. Consequently, three-dimensional (3D) cultures have emerged as a viable alternative for replicating the in vivo environment [11].

2. Three-Dimensional Cultures

Three-dimensional (3D) cultures are pivotal in vitro studies as an alternative model that curtails research expenses [9][12]. Although exploration of 3D culture began around the 1970s, historical records indicate that early 20th-century approaches to cell differentiation and aggregate models were already underway [12][13][14]. Nonetheless, during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, 3D cultures gained prominence, notably following an article by Weaver et al. in 1997 [15], followed by subsequent publications that underscored the significance of 3D culture, particularly in advancing tumor research [15][16][17].
Numerous researchers demonstrated that specific antibodies could hinder a surface receptor for β1-integrin, causing cancer cells to mimic normal cells, a phenomenon not observed in a 2D environment. This event marked the continued attention on 3D cultures, initially for tumor studies and subsequently in fields such as toxicology, pathogenesis, disease physiology, and other applications [18][19].
Evidence indicates that 3D cultures can create a microenvironment more akin to that of animals than 2D cultures: cells in 3D settings exhibit distinct morphology and physiology from their 2D counterparts. Moreover, cellular responses, proliferation rates, gene and protein expression levels, and susceptibility to molecules render 3D cultures more akin to responses obtained within an in vivo environment, differing from those witnessed in 2D models [9][18][20][21].
Diverse methodologies exist for creating 3D cultures, although not all techniques have been validated for studying fungal pathogenesis. The principal methodologies include scaffold-free spheroids; spheroids formed using scaffolds, organoids, and skin/mucosa models. The scaffold-free spheroid approach requires no material to form 3D cultures; cells autonomously organize and naturally connect [22][23][24]. The established methodologies include suspended droplet microplates, magnetic levitation, and spheroid microplates with ultra-low fixation coating [25]. This approach is straightforward, demanding less economic investment and time than animal experiments and obviating the need for ethical committee approval. Consequently, spheroids facilitate cell interaction, aggregation, and the establishment of 3D cultures [26][27].
Conversely, spheroids formed through scaffolds necessitate hydrogels, polymeric materials characterized by varying physical, chemical, and biological attributes [28][29]. Prominent hydrogels in 3D cultures include alginate, collagen, agarose, and natural polymers. However, some scaffolds can be fashioned from synthetic hydrogels. These hydrogels enclose cells in the culture medium, forming miniature pearls through their pores. This arrangement permits the entry of nutrients and waste products exit alongside favorable biocompatibility with the culture medium [18][19][28].
Organoids entail multilayered cell structures enveloped by an extracellular matrix that safeguards cellular connections and delineates tissue functions and structures. Organoids are self-arranging cells that closely mimic human organs. For sustained organoid function and differentiation, a culture medium is necessary. Two types of stem cells—embryonic pluripotent stem cells (ESCs), governing embryonic organ development, and adult somatic stem cells (ASCs), specific to maintaining homeostasis and regenerating mature organs—give rise to organoids. The culture platform can reside on a biopolymer surface where cells are distributed in culture flasks coated with extracellular matrix molecules like collagen I and Matrigel. Alternatively, cells are encapsulated within a natural or synthetic biopolymer gel to facilitate more physiological 3D organization. Culture on mechanical supports, organs, or organ fragments is maintained at the liquid–air interface to facilitate gas exchange, and cells are grown on a porous membrane at this interface [30][31].
Skin 3D models, also called artificial skin or reconstructed skin, replicate the layers constituting human skin—a complex structure encompassing three layers: the epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis [31][32][33]. The epidermis predominantly comprises keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and melanocytes that contribute to microbial defense, melanin synthesis for radiation protection, and endocrine functions. The dermis houses fibroblasts, synthesizing the extracellular matrix, in addition to endothelial cells, macrophages, and various components such as blood vessels, sebaceous glands, sweat glands, hair follicles, and nerves, collectively upholding physiological activities. The hypodermis, rich in adipocytes, offers mechanical protection and energy storage alongside playing a pivotal role in temperature regulation [33][34][35].
Skin 3D cultures effectively recreate the epidermal and dermal components via cells and biopolymers for skin reconstruction. A frequently utilized methodology involves employing biopolymers to construct skin layers, enabling the incorporation of fibroblasts, keratinocytes, stem/progenitor cells, or reprogrammed cells, thereby mimicking the tissue’s morphological and biological characteristics. Alternatively, 3D printers can assemble the cellular layers [31][33][34][36]. In recent years, the burgeoning demand for skin models has propelled the rapid expansion of the market, resulting in commercially available skin models such as EpiDermTM (MatTek, Ashland, MA, USA) and EpiskinTM (formerly by Episkin, Chaponost, France; now by L’Oreal, SkinEthic, Nice, France), among others [37][38][39][40][41].
Aside from skin models, 3D mucosal cultures have also been reported, particularly in models concerning oral mucosa and other mucous membranes encompassing the organism [42]. The oral mucosa comprises stratified epithelium that safeguards against physical and chemical harm, microorganisms, and dehydration. It also encompasses a basement membrane composed of thin layers of extracellular matrix, type IV collagen, and laminin, contributing to protection and homeostasis [43][44][45]. Analogous to skin models, these cultures exhibit organizational complexity, effectively simulating an in vivo environment [42].
3D mucosal cultures, similar to skin models, can also be created through scaffolds to generate cellular layers or procured commercially. At least two available models include one featuring oral squamous cell carcinoma (Skinethic Laboratory, Nice, France) and another comprising primary oral keratinocytes (MaTek Corporation, Ashland, MA, USA). These models are cultured in chemically defined mediums in an air–liquid interface configuration to mimic oral epithelial tissue, with or without keratinization [42]. Each 3D cultivation method presents advantages and disadvantages, contingent on the desired experimental outcomes. The employment of 3D cultures fosters a highly physiological environment characterized by direct cell–cell contact and interactions with extracellular matrix components, including collagen I, collagen III, and fibronectin, which are principal constituents [1][20].

3. Three-Dimensional Cultures in Fungal Pathogenesis

3.1. Organoids

One of the primary attributes of organoid models is their capacity to replicate pathogen–host interactions, with current studies primarily centered on virology, particularly in the context of brain organoid models and the Zika virus [46][47][48]. Moreover, recent research has explored the application of organoid brain technology to develop drugs for preventing or treating Zika infections [49][50][51][52]. Organoids derived from intestinal and gastrointestinal tissues have also found utility in investigating pathogen–host interactions for various pathogens, including rotavirus, enteric bacteria, Clostridium difficile, Helicobacter pylori [53][54], and norovirus [55][56][57].
However, a paucity of literature addresses the utilization of organoid models for studying fungal–host interactions. Demonstrations have been made that the pulmonary and intestinal organoid model exhibited cytokine release evaluation after infection with heat-inactivated A. fumigatus and other strains. Moreover, a notable rise in the expression of biologically significant Toll-like receptors elicited a range of pro-inflammatory mediators, signifying the model’s efficacy in scrutinizing and quantifying immune responses [58].
Employing organoids derived from esophageal and gastric cancer cells to explore the interaction of fungal plaques revealed that the microenvironment favored the growth and invasive fungal infection by Candida spp. [58]. The use of explant culture from murine intestinal mucosa exhibited a highly prismatic epithelium with specific cell-to-cell epithelial connections, a basal lamina, and diverse types of connective tissue cells. This approach evaluated the infection process with C. albicans, revealing its capacity to adhere, penetrate, and infiltrate the epithelial barrier [59].
Lung organoids have been harnessed to probe Pneumocystis spp. infections; organisms predominantly confined to the alveolar lumen. This study extracted type 1 and 2 lung epithelial cells through lung digestion, followed by organoid development. The insights garnered facilitated establishing a mean organoid size standard for introducing target microorganisms; smaller organoids tended to collapse during the infection [60].
However, akin to any model, organoids possess limitations. Notably, they lack innervation, blood vessels, and immune system cells, and the disease processes they replicate might not fully parallel those observed in the human body [61]. The self-organizing characteristics of organoids present the prospect of incorporating additional cellular or microbial elements, and although their exploration has increased due to their human-organ-like resemblance, there are still gaps in understanding many approaches. Particularly in studies employing organoids as models for fungal infections, substantial avenues remain unexplored [60][61][62].

3.2. Skin and Mucous Membrane Model

Comprehending the conduct and adaptation of fungal pathogens within the human body has surged in importance, given the escalating prevalence of fungal infections. Recent investigations have led to the development of 3D models representing epithelial tissues designed to scrutinize fungal infections of the respiratory and oral mucosal regions.
A 3D epithelial model using a transwell scaffold was deployed to investigate upper and lower respiratory tract infections. Infection with A. fumigatus within this model revealed the detection of pathogens, phagocytosis, and migratory characteristics, illustrating the functionality of this in vitro system in simulating the in vivo environment [63].
Creating a reconstituted oral mucosa model utilizing fibroblasts, type IV collagen, and keratinocytes extracted from gingival biopsies facilitated infections with C. albicans and S. aureus, simulating co-infections within the oral mucosa. The model exhibited surface damage upon C. albicans infection alone and invasion of the subepithelial collagen matrix in the case of co-infection [45].
This reconstituted oral mucosa model further highlighted fungal infection behavior, both with and without the addition of polymorphonuclear cells. Including immune cells exhibited protective effects and reduced epithelial damage, implying a Th1-linked immune response [64].
A recent study featuring a 3D co-culture model of oral mucosa infected with Candida spp. investigated the efficacy of silver microcrystals. This model demonstrated satisfactory biocompatibility, and the tested compound exhibited promising effectiveness in treating fungal infections [64].
These investigations are pivotal for comprehending the host’s defense mechanisms against pathogens. Nonetheless, the validation of 3D models as reliable predictors of biological responses is necessary, and a demand persists for more robust models capable of mimicking the in vivo environment while diminishing the need for mammalian usage in research, aligning with the principles of the 3Rs.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jof9090943

References

  1. Grässer, U.; Bubel, M.; Sossong, D.; Oberringer, M.; Pohlemann, T.; Metzger, W. Dissociation of Mono- and Co-Culture Spheroids into Single Cells for Subsequent Flow Cytometric Analysis. Ann. Anat. Anat. Anz. 2018, 216, 1–8.
  2. Braz, J.D.; Sardi, J.d.C.O.; Pitangui, N.d.S.; Voltan, A.R.; Almeida, A.M.F.; Mendes-Giannini, M.J.S. Gene Expression of Paracoccidioides Virulence Factors after Interaction with Macrophages and Fibroblasts. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 2021, 116, e200592.
  3. Alonso, M.; Gow, N.; Erwig, L.; Bain, J. Macrophage Migration Is Impaired within Candida albicans Biofilms. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 31.
  4. Chandra, J.; McCormick, T.S.; Imamura, Y.; Mukherjee, P.K.; Ghannoum, M.A. Interaction of Candida albicans with Adherent Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Increases C. Albicans Biofilm Formation and Results in Differential Expression of Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Cytokines. Infect. Immun. 2007, 75, 2612–2620.
  5. Almeida Donanzam, D.d.F.; Donato, T.A.G.; dos Reis, K.H.; da Silva, A.P.; Finato, A.C.; dos Santos, A.R.; Cavalcante, R.S.; Mendes, R.P.; Venturini, J. Exoantigens of Paracoccidioides spp. Promote Proliferation and Modulation of Human and Mouse Pulmonary Fibroblasts. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 590025.
  6. Lopez, C.M.; Wallich, R.; Riesbeck, K.; Skerka, C.; Zipfel, P.F. Candida albicans Uses the Surface Protein Gpm1 to Attach to Human Endothelial Cells and to Keratinocytes via the Adhesive Protein Vitronectin. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e90796.
  7. Hernández-Santos, N.; Wiesner, D.L.; Fites, J.S.; McDermott, A.J.; Warner, T.; Wüthrich, M.; Klein, B.S. Lung Epithelial Cells Coordinate Innate Lymphocytes and Immunity against Pulmonary Fungal Infection. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 23, 511–522.e5.
  8. Rodríguez-Echeverri, C.; Gómez, B.L.; González, Á. Histoplasma capsulatum Activates Hematopoietic Stem Cells and Their Progenitors through a Mechanism Dependent on TLR2, TLR4, and Dectin-1. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 1108.
  9. Friedrich, J.; Seidel, C.; Ebner, R.; Kunz-Schughart, L.A. Spheroid-Based Drug Screen: Considerations and Practical Approach. Nat. Protoc. 2009, 4, 309–324.
  10. dos Santos, K.S.; Oliveira, L.T.; de Lima Fontes, M.; Migliato, K.F.; Fusco-Almeida, A.M.; Mendes Giannini, M.J.S.; Moroz, A. Alginate-Based 3D A549 Cell Culture Model to Study Paracoccidioides Infection. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 634.
  11. Vaso, C.O.; Bila, N.M.; Pandolfi, F.; De Vita, D.; Bortolami, M.; Bonatti, J.L.C.; De Moraes Silva, R.A.; Gonçalves, L.N.C.; Tudino, V.; Costi, R.; et al. Evaluation of the Anti-Histoplasma capsulatum Activity of Indole and Nitrofuran Derivatives and Their Pharmacological Safety in Three-Dimensional Cell Cultures. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1043.
  12. Cardoso, B.D.; Castanheira, E.M.S.; Lanceros-Méndez, S.; Cardoso, V.F. Recent Advances on Cell Culture Platforms for In Vitro Drug Screening and Cell Therapies: From Conventional to Microfluidic Strategies. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2023, 12, e2202936.
  13. Justice, B.A.; Badr, N.A.; Felder, R.A. 3D Cell Culture Opens New Dimensions in Cell-Based Assays. Drug. Discov. Today 2009, 14, 102–107.
  14. DesRochers, T.M.; Palma, E.; Kaplan, D.L. Tissue-Engineered Kidney Disease Models. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2014, 69–70, 67–80.
  15. Weaver, V.M.; Petersen, O.W.; Wang, F.; Larabell, C.A.; Briand, P.; Damsky, C.; Bissell, M.J. Reversion of the Malignant Phenotype of Human Breast Cells in Three-Dimensional Culture and In Vivo by Integrin Blocking Antibodies. J. Cell Biol. 1997, 137, 231–245.
  16. Wilson, H.V. A New Method by Which Sponges May Be Artificially Reared. Science 1907, 25, 912–915.
  17. Elsdale, T.; Bard, J. Collagen Substrata for Studies on Cell Behavior. J. Cell Biol. 1972, 54, 626–637.
  18. Nature, J. Goodbye, Flat Biology? Nature 2003, 424, 861.
  19. Abbott, A. Biology’s New Dimension. Nature 2003, 424, 870–872.
  20. Fennema, E.; Rivron, N.; Rouwkema, J.; van Blitterswijk, C.; de Boer, J. Spheroid culture as a tool for creating 3D complex tissues. Trends Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 108–115.
  21. Ravi, M.; Paramesh, V.; Kaviya, S.R.; Anuradha, E.; Solomon, F.D.P. 3D Cell Culture Systems: Advantages and Applications. J. Cell Physiol. 2015, 230, 16–26.
  22. Gurski, L.A.; Petrelli, N.J.; Jia, X.; Farach-Carson, M.C. 3D Matrices for Anti-Cancer Drug Testing and Development. Oncol. Issues 2010, 25, 20–25.
  23. Xu, X.; Gurski, L.A.; Zhang, C.; Harrington, D.A.; Farach-Carson, M.C.; Jia, X. Recreating the Tumor Microenvironment in a Bilayer, Hyaluronic Acid Hydrogel Construct for the Growth of Prostate Cancer Spheroids. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 9049–9060.
  24. Edmondson, R.; Broglie, J.J.; Adcock, A.F.; Yang, L. Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Systems and Their Applications in Drug Discovery and Cell-Based Biosensors. Assay Drug Dev. Technol. 2014, 12, 207–218.
  25. Marei, I.; Abu Samaan, T.; Al-Quradaghi, M.A.; Farah, A.A.; Mahmud, S.H.; Ding, H.; Triggle, C.R. 3D Tissue-Engineered Vascular Drug Screening Platforms: Promise and Considerations. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 9, 847554.
  26. Ryu, N.-E.; Lee, S.-H.; Park, H. Spheroid Culture System Methods and Applications for Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Cells 2019, 8, 1620.
  27. Decarli, M.C.; Amaral, R.; dos Santos, D.P.; Tofani, L.B.; Katayama, E.; Rezende, R.A.; da Silva, J.V.L.; Swiech, K.; Suazo, C.A.T.; Mota, C.; et al. Cell Spheroids as a Versatile Research Platform: Formation Mechanisms, High Throughput Production, Characterization and Applications. Biofabrication 2021, 13, 032002.
  28. El-Sherbiny, I.M.; Yacoub, M.H. Hydrogel Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering: Progress and Challenges. Glob. Cardiol. Sci. Pract. 2013, 2013, 38.
  29. Lee, S.H.; Shim, K.Y.; Kim, B.; Sung, J.H. Hydrogel-based Three-dimensional Cell Culture for Organ-on-a-chip Applications. Biotechnol. Prog. 2017, 33, 580–589.
  30. Pezzulo, A.A.; Starner, T.D.; Scheetz, T.E.; Traver, G.L.; Tilley, A.E.; Harvey, B.-G.; Crystal, R.G.; McCray, P.B.; Zabner, J. The Air-Liquid Interface and Use of Primary Cell Cultures Are Important to Recapitulate the Transcriptional Profile of in Vivo Airway Epithelia. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2011, 300, L25–L31.
  31. Ramasamy, S.; Davoodi, P.; Vijayavenkataraman, S.; Teoh, J.H.; Thamizhchelvan, A.M.; Robinson, K.S.; Wu, B.; Fuh, J.Y.H.; DiColandrea, T.; Zhao, H.; et al. Optimized Construction of a Full Thickness Human Skin Equivalent Using 3D Bioprinting and a PCL/Collagen Dermal Scaffold. Bioprinting 2021, 21, e00123.
  32. Chambers, E.S.; Vukmanovic-Stejic, M. Skin Barrier Immunity and Ageing. Immunology 2020, 160, 116–125.
  33. Gao, C.; Lu, C.; Jian, Z.; Zhang, T.; Chen, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Tai, Z.; Liu, Y. 3D Bioprinting for Fabricating Artificial Skin Tissue. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2021, 208, 112041.
  34. Singh, D.; Singh, D.; Han, S. 3D Printing of Scaffold for Cells Delivery: Advances in Skin Tissue Engineering. Polymers 2016, 8, 19.
  35. Wang, X.; Zhang, X.; Dai, X.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Diao, J.; Xu, T. Tumor-like Lung Cancer Model Based on 3D Bioprinting. 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 501.
  36. Jiang, H.; Wang, D. The Microbial Zoo in the C. Elegans Intestine: Bacteria, Fungi and Viruses. Viruses 2018, 10, 85.
  37. Wange, R.L.; Brown, P.C.; Davis-Bruno, K.L. Implementation of the Principles of the 3Rs of Animal Testing at CDER: Past, Present and Future. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021, 123, 104953.
  38. Brohem, C.A.; da Silva Cardeal, L.B.; Tiago, M.; Soengas, M.S.; de Moraes Barros, S.B.; Maria-Engler, S.S. Artificial Skin in Perspective: Concepts and Applications. Pigment. Cell Melanoma Res. 2011, 24, 35–50.
  39. Kim, H.S.; Sun, X.; Lee, J.-H.; Kim, H.-W.; Fu, X.; Leong, K.W. Advanced Drug Delivery Systems and Artificial Skin Grafts for Skin Wound Healing. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2019, 146, 209–239.
  40. Low, Z.W.K.; Li, Z.; Owh, C.; Chee, P.L.; Ye, E.; Dan, K.; Chan, S.Y.; Young, D.J.; Loh, X.J. Recent Innovations in Artificial Skin. Biomater. Sci. 2020, 8, 776–797.
  41. Wang, M.; Luo, Y.; Wang, T.; Wan, C.; Pan, L.; Pan, S.; He, K.; Neo, A.; Chen, X. Artificial Skin Perception. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2003014.
  42. Dongari-Bagtzoglou, A.; Kashleva, H. Development of a Novel Three-Dimensional in Vitro Model of Oral Candida Infection. Microb. Pathog. 2006, 40, 271–278.
  43. Rouabhia, M.; Deslauriers, N. Production and Characterization of an in Vitro Engineered Human Oral Mucosa. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2002, 80, 189–195.
  44. Claveau, I.; Mostefaoui, Y.; Rouabhia, M. Basement Membrane Protein and Matrix Metalloproteinase Deregulation in Engineered Human Oral Mucosa Following Infection with Candida albicans. Matrix Biol. 2004, 23, 477–486.
  45. de Carvalho Dias, K.; de Sousa, D.L.; Barbugli, P.A.; Cerri, P.S.; Salih, V.M.; Vergani, C.E. Development and Characterization of a 3D Oral Mucosa Model as a Tool for Host-Pathogen Interactions. J. Microbiol. Methods 2018, 152, 52–60.
  46. Lancaster, M.A.; Renner, M.; Martin, C.-A.; Wenzel, D.; Bicknell, L.S.; Hurles, M.E.; Homfray, T.; Penninger, J.M.; Jackson, A.P.; Knoblich, J.A. Cerebral Organoids Model Human Brain Development and Microcephaly. Nature 2013, 501, 373–379.
  47. Driggers, R.W.; Ho, C.-Y.; Korhonen, E.M.; Kuivanen, S.; Jääskeläinen, A.J.; Smura, T.; Rosenberg, A.; Hill, D.A.; DeBiasi, R.L.; Vezina, G.; et al. Zika Virus Infection with Prolonged Maternal Viremia and Fetal Brain Abnormalities. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 2142–2151.
  48. Li, H.; Saucedo-Cuevas, L.; Shresta, S.; Gleeson, J.G. The Neurobiology of Zika Virus. Neuron 2016, 92, 949–958.
  49. Garcez, P.P.; Loiola, E.C.; Madeiro da Costa, R.; Higa, L.M.; Trindade, P.; Delvecchio, R.; Nascimento, J.M.; Brindeiro, R.; Tanuri, A.; Rehen, S.K. Zika Virus Impairs Growth in Human Neurospheres and Brain Organoids. Science 2016, 352, 816–818.
  50. Xu, M.; Lee, E.M.; Wen, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Huang, W.-K.; Qian, X.; TCW, J.; Kouznetsova, J.; Ogden, S.C.; Hammack, C.; et al. Identification of Small-Molecule Inhibitors of Zika Virus Infection and Induced Neural Cell Death via a Drug Repurposing Screen. Nat. Med. 2016, 22, 1101–1107.
  51. Watanabe, M.; Buth, J.E.; Vishlaghi, N.; de la Torre-Ubieta, L.; Taxidis, J.; Khakh, B.S.; Coppola, G.; Pearson, C.A.; Yamauchi, K.; Gong, D.; et al. Self-Organized Cerebral Organoids with Human-Specific Features Predict Effective Drugs to Combat Zika Virus Infection. Cell Rep. 2017, 21, 517–532.
  52. Zhou, T.; Tan, L.; Cederquist, G.Y.; Fan, Y.; Hartley, B.J.; Mukherjee, S.; Tomishima, M.; Brennand, K.J.; Zhang, Q.; Schwartz, R.E.; et al. High-Content Screening in HPSC-Neural Progenitors Identifies Drug Candidates That Inhibit Zika Virus Infection in Fetal-like Organoids and Adult Brain. Cell Stem Cell 2017, 21, 274–283.e5.
  53. Finkbeiner, S.R.; Zeng, X.-L.; Utama, B.; Atmar, R.L.; Shroyer, N.F.; Estes, M.K. Stem Cell-Derived Human Intestinal Organoids as an Infection Model for Rotaviruses. mBio 2012, 3, e00159-12.
  54. Yin, Y.; Bijvelds, M.; Dang, W.; Xu, L.; van der Eijk, A.A.; Knipping, K.; Tuysuz, N.; Dekkers, J.F.; Wang, Y.; de Jonge, J.; et al. Modeling Rotavirus Infection and Antiviral Therapy Using Primary Intestinal Organoids. Antivir. Res. 2015, 123, 120–131.
  55. McCracken, K.W.; Catá, E.M.; Crawford, C.M.; Sinagoga, K.L.; Schumacher, M.; Rockich, B.E.; Tsai, Y.-H.; Mayhew, C.N.; Spence, J.R.; Zavros, Y.; et al. Modelling Human Development and Disease in Pluripotent Stem-Cell-Derived Gastric Organoids. Nature 2014, 516, 400–404.
  56. Bertaux-Skeirik, N.; Feng, R.; Schumacher, M.A.; Li, J.; Mahe, M.M.; Engevik, A.C.; Javier, J.E.; Peek, R.M., Jr.; Ottemann, K.; Orian-Rousseau, V.; et al. CD44 Plays a Functional Role in Helicobacter Pylori-Induced Epithelial Cell Proliferation. PLoS Pathog. 2015, 11, e1004663.
  57. Ettayebi, K.; Crawford, S.E.; Murakami, K.; Broughman, J.R.; Karandikar, U.; Tenge, V.R.; Neill, F.H.; Blutt, S.E.; Zeng, X.-L.; Qu, L.; et al. Replication of Human Noroviruses in Stem Cell-Derived Human Enteroids. Science 2016, 353, 1387–1393.
  58. Jose, S.S.; De Zuani, M.; Tidu, F.; Hortová Kohoutková, M.; Pazzagli, L.; Forte, G.; Spaccapelo, R.; Zelante, T.; Frič, J. Comparison of Two Human Organoid Models of Lung and Intestinal Inflammation Reveals Toll-like Receptor Signalling Activation and Monocyte Recruitment. Clin. Transl. Immunol. 2020, 9, e1131.
  59. Nam, S.Y.; Lee, S.J.; Lim, H.J.; Park, J.Y.; Jeon, S.W. Clinical Risk Factors and Pattern of Initial Fungal Contamination in Endoscopic Biopsy-Derived Gastrointestinal Cancer Organoid Culture. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2021, 36, 878–887.
  60. Tisdale-Macioce, N.; Green, J.; Perl, A.-K.T.; Ashbaugh, A.; Wiederhold, N.P.; Patterson, T.F.; Cushion, M.T. The Promise of Lung Organoids for Growth and Investigation of Pneumocystis Species. Front. Fungal Biol. 2021, 2, 740845.
  61. Zhao, Z.; Chen, X.; Dowbaj, A.M.; Sljukic, A.; Bratlie, K.; Lin, L.; Fong, E.L.S.; Balachander, G.M.; Chen, Z.; Soragni, A.; et al. Organoids. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2022, 2, 94.
  62. Corrò, C.; Novellasdemunt, L.; Li, V.S.W. A Brief History of Organoids. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2020, 319, C151–C165.
  63. Chandorkar, P.; Posch, W.; Zaderer, V.; Blatzer, M.; Steger, M.; Ammann, C.G.; Binder, U.; Hermann, M.; Hörtnagl, P.; Lass-Flörl, C.; et al. Fast-Track Development of an in Vitro 3D Lung/Immune Cell Model to Study Aspergillus Infections. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11644.
  64. Pimentel, B.N.A.d.S.; Marin-Dett, F.H.; Assis, M.; Barbugli, P.A.; Longo, E.; Vergani, C.E. Antifungal Activity and Biocompatibility of α-AgVO3, α-Ag2WO4, and β-Ag2MoO4 Using a Three-Dimensional Coculture Model of the Oral Mucosa. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 826123.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback