3D tumor model - A platform for anticancer drug development
Physical Sciences Reviews, ISSN: 2365-659X, Vol: 8, Issue: 8, Page: 1835-1860
2023
- 5Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures5
- Readers5
Article Description
While still attractive, the currently available 2D cell culture models present several limitations and if possible should be supplemented with their 3D counterparts, that is with spheroids/organoids or bio-printed structures. Those alternatives can sometimes show widely different results compared to the simpler 2D cell culture, especially during cytotoxicity testing that is often used during cancer drug development and in the rising field of personalized medicine. Although some of the methods like spheroid formation and basic alginate based bio-prints were already available for years, they still require huge amounts of optimization and troubleshooting to be used effectively. Proficient use of dedicated tools and software can help to overcome some of the difficulties associated with those seemingly well described models. In this article we compare the most popular and currently available methods of acquiring 3D bio-models while describing their limitations and shortcomings as well as technical hurdles that one has to overcome to succeed in the use of this complex model.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know