Osteogenic Response of MC3T3-E1 and Raw264.7 in the 3D-Encapsulated Co-Culture Environment

Abstract

Background:

Three-dimensional (3D) in vitro cultures recapitulate the physiological microenvironment and exhibit high concordance with in vivo conditions. Improving co-culture models with different kind of cell types cultured on a 3D scaffold can closely mimic the in vivo environment. In this study, we examined the osteogenic response of pre-osteoblast MC3T3-E1 cells and Raw264.7 mouse monocytes in a 3D-encapsulated co-culture environment composed of the Cellrix® 3D culture system, which provides a physiologically relevant environment.

Methods:

The Cellrix® 3D Bio-Gel scaffolds were used to individually culture or co-culture two type cells in 3D microenvironment. Under 3D culture conditions, osteoblastic behavior was evaluated with an ALP assay and staining. ACP assay and TRAP staining were used as osteoclastic behavior indicator.

Results:

Treatment with osteoblastic induction factors (+3F) and RANKL had on positively effect on alkaline phosphatase activity but significantly inhibited to acid phosphatase activity during osteoclastic differentiation in 3D co-culture. Interestingly, alkaline phosphatase activity or acid phosphatase activity in 3D co-culture was stimulated with opposite differentiation factors at an early stage of differentiation. We guess that these effects may be related to RANK–RANKL signaling, which is important in osteoblast regulation of osteoclasts.

Conclusion:

In this study, the osteogenic response of 3D encapsulated pre-osteoblast MC3T3-E1 cells and mouse monocyte Raw264.7 cells was successfully demonstrated. Our 3D culture conditions will be able to provide a foundation for developing a high-throughput in vitro bone model to study the effects of various drugs and other agents on molecular pathways.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Scheme. 1
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. 1.

    Rijal G, Bathula C, Li W. Application of synthetic polymeric scaffolds in breast cancer 3D tissue cultures and animal tumor models. Int J Biomater. 2017;2017:8074890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Torricelli P, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Giardino R. In vitro models to test orthopedic biomaterials in view of their clinical application in osteoporotic bone. Int J Artif Organs. 2004;27:658–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chinta MS, des Jardins-Park HE, Wan DC, Longaker MT. “Tissues in a dish”: a review of organoids in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8:e2787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Elliott NT, Yuan F. A review of three-dimensional in vitro tissue models for drug discovery and transport studies. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100:59–74.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Huang G, Li F, Zhao X, Ma Y, Li Y, Lin M, et al. Functional and biomimetic materials for engineering of the three-dimensional cell microenvironment. Chem Rev. 2017;117:12764–850.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Gevaert M. Engineering 3D tissue systems to better mimic human biology. Bridge. 2012;42:48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Weigelt B, Lo AT, Park C, Gray JW, Bissell MJ. HER2 signaling pathway activation and response of breast cancer cells to HER2-targeting agents is dependent strongly on the 3D microenvironment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;122:35–43.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sieni E, Dettin M, De Robertis M, Bazzolo B, Conconi MT, Zamuner A, et al. The efficiency of gene electrotransfer in breast-cancer cell lines cultured on a novel collagen-free 3D scaffold. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:1043.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Prestwich GD. Simplifying the extracellular matrix for 3-D cell culture and tissue engineering: a pragmatic approach. J Cell Biochem. 2007;101:1370–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sharma A, Lee MG, Won M, Koo S, Arambula JF, Sessler JL, et al. Targeting heterogeneous tumors using a multifunctional molecular prodrug. J Am Chem Soc. 2019;141:15611–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Koo S, Bobba KN, Cho MY, Park HS, Won M, Velusamy N, et al. Molecular theranostic agent with programmed activation for hypoxic tumors. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2019;2:4648–55.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Song HK, Noh EM, Kim JM, You YO, Kwon KB, Lee YR. Reversine inhibits MMP-3, IL-6 and IL-8 expression through suppression of ROS and JNK/AP-1 activation in interleukin-1β-stimulated human gingival fibroblasts. Arch Oral Biol. 2019;108:104530.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Cukierman E, Pankov R, Stevens DR, Yamada KM. Taking cell-matrix adhesions to the third dimension. Science. 2001;294:1708–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bokhari M, Carnachan RJ, Cameron NR, Przyborski SA. Culture of HepG2 liver cells on three dimensional polystyrene scaffolds enhances cell structure and function during toxicological challenge. J Anat. 2007;211:567–76.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sethi T, Rintoul RC, Moore SM, MacKinnon AC, Salter D, Choo C, et al. Extracellular matrix proteins protect small cell lung cancer cells against apoptosis: a mechanism for small cell lung cancer growth and drug resistance in vivo. Nat Med. 1999;5:662–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Prestwich GD. Evaluating drug efficacy and toxicology in three dimensions: using synthetic extracellular matrices in drug discovery. Acc Chem Res. 2008;41:139–48.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Labarbera DV, Reid BG, Yoo BH. The multicellular tumor spheroid model for high-throughput cancer drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2012;7:819–30.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Davidenko N, Schuster CF, Bax DV, Farndale RW, Hamaia S, Best SM, et al. Evaluation of cell binding to collagen and gelatin: a study of the effect of 2D and 3D architecture and surface chemistry. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016;27:148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Han SH, Cha M, Jin YZ, Lee KM, Lee JH. BMP-2 and hMSC dual delivery onto 3D printed PLA-Biogel scaffold for critical-size bone defect regeneration in rabbit tibia. Biomed Mater. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-605X/aba879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Czekanska EM, Stoddart MJ, Richards RG, Hayes JS. In search of an osteoblast cell model for in vitro research. Eur Cell Mater. 2012;24:1–17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Quarles LD, Yohay DA, Lever LW, Caton R, Wenstrup RJ. Distinct proliferative and differentiated stages of murine MC3T3-E1 cells in culture: an in vitro model of osteoblast development. J Bone Miner Res. 1992;7:683–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tevlek A, Hosseinian P, Ogutcu C, Turk M, Aydin HM. Bi-layered constructs of poly(glycerol-sebacate)-β-tricalcium phosphate for bone-soft tissue interface applications. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017;72:316–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hotokezaka H, Sakai E, Kanaoka K, Saito K, Matsuo K, Kitaura H, et al. U0126 and PD98059, specific inhibitors of MEK, accelerate differentiation of RAW264.7 cells into osteoclast-like cells. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:47366–72.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Roeder I, Loeffler M, Glauche I. Towards a quantitative understanding of stem cell-niche interaction: experiments, models, and technologies. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2011;46:308–17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Mercatali L, Spadazzi C, Miserocchi G, Liverani C, De Vita A, Bongiovanni A, et al. Development of a human preclinical model of osteoclastogenesis from peripheral blood monocytes co-cultured with breast cancer cell lines. J Vis Exp. 2017;127:56311.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Penolazzi L, Lolli A, Sardelli L, Angelozzi M, Lambertini E, Trombelli L, et al. Establishment of a 3D-dynamic osteoblasts–osteoclasts co-culture model to simulate the jawbone microenvironment in vitro. Life Sci. 2016;152:82–93.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Iwamoto Y, Nishikawa K, Imai R, Furuya M, Uenaka M, Ohta Y, et al. Intercellular communication between keratinocytes and fibroblasts induces local osteoclast differentiation: a mechanism underlying cholesteatoma-induced bone destruction. Mol Cell Biol. 2016;36:1610–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kang YK, Zhang MC. IL-23 promotes osteoclastogenesis in osteoblast–osteoclast co-culture system. Genet Mol Res. 2014;13:4673–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mukherjee A, Rotwein P. Selective signaling by Akt1 controls osteoblast differentiation and osteoblast-mediated osteoclast development. Mol Cell Biol. 2012;32:490–500.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Yao Z, Xing L, Qin C, Schwarz EM, Boyce BF. Osteoclast precursor interaction with bone matrix induces osteoclast formation directly by an interleukin-1-mediated autocrine mechanism. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:9917–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Jones GL, Motta A, Marshall MJ, El Haj AJ, Cartmell SH. Osteoblast: osteoclast co-cultures on silk fibroin, chitosan and PLLA films. Biomaterials. 2009;30:5376–84.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Orlandini SZ, Formigli L, Benvenuti S, Lasagni L, Franchi A, Masi L, et al. Functional and structural interactions between osteoblastic and preosteoclastic cells in vitro. Cell Tissue Res. 1995;281:33–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (NRF-2018R1D1A1B07040482) and by Grant No. 03-2016-0190 from the SNUH Research Fund.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jae Hyup Lee or Misun Cha.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

There are no animal experiments carried out for this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 238 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J., Lyu, HZ., Jung, C. et al. Osteogenic Response of MC3T3-E1 and Raw264.7 in the 3D-Encapsulated Co-Culture Environment. Tissue Eng Regen Med (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-020-00321-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • 3D culture system
  • Co-culture
  • Encapsulation
  • Osteoblast
  • Osteoclast