Transcriptional Landscape of 3D vs. 2D Ovarian Cancer Cell Models

Simple Summary Ovarian cancer is one of the most lethal female cancers. Numerous investigations into the development and progression of this disease have resulted in the creation of numerous three-dimensional culture models to better reflect the natural microenvironment of these tumours. In this study, we leverage the available transcriptomics and clinical and novel experimental data to evaluate the impact of the growth conditions on various cancer cells and examine whether they better approximate the behaviour of tumour cells compared to the classical two-dimensional models. Our results show that variability in the growth conditions can impact key genes and biological processes that are hallmarks of cancer, highlighting the need for future studies to identify which is the most appropriate in vitro/preclinical model to study tumour microenvironments. Three-dimensional (3D) cancer models are revolutionising research, allowing for the recapitulation of an in vivo-like response through the use of an in vitro system, which is more complex and physiologically relevant than traditional monolayer cultures. Cancers such as ovarian (OvCa) are prone to developing resistance, are often lethal, and stand to benefit greatly from the enhanced modelling emulated by 3D cultures. However, the current models often fall short of the predicted response, where reproducibility is limited owing to the lack of standardised methodology and established protocols. This meta-analysis aims to assess the current scope of 3D OvCa models and the differences in the genetic profiles presented by a vast array of 3D cultures. An analysis of the literature (Pubmed.gov) spanning 2012-2022 was used to identify studies with paired data of 3D and 2D monolayer counterparts in addition to RNA sequencing and microarray data. From the data, 19 cell lines were found to show differential regulation in their gene expression profiles depending on the bio-scaffold (i.e., agarose, collagen, or Matrigel) compared to 2D cell cultures. The top genes differentially expressed in 2D vs. 3D included C3, CXCL1, 2, and 8, IL1B, SLP1, FN1, IL6, DDIT4, PI3, LAMC2, CCL20, MMP1, IFI27, CFB, and ANGPTL4. The top enriched gene sets for 2D vs. 3D included IFN-& alpha; and IFN-& gamma; response, TNF-& alpha; signalling, IL-6-JAK-STAT3 signalling, angiogenesis, hedgehog signalling, apoptosis, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, hypoxia, and inflammatory response. Our transversal comparison of numerous scaffolds allowed us to highlight the variability that can be induced by these scaffolds in the transcriptional landscape and identify key genes and biological processes that are hallmarks of cancer cells grown in 3D cultures. Future studies are needed to identify which is the most appropriate in vitro/preclinical model to study tumour microenvironments.