For many types of cells, behavior in two-dimensional (2D) culture differs from that in three-dimensional (3D) culture. Among biologists, 2D culture on treated plastic surfaces is currently the most popular method for cell culture. In 3D, no analogous standard method--one that is similarly convenient, flexible, and reproducible--exists. This paper describes a soft-lithographic method to encapsulate cells in 3D gel objects (modules) in a variety of simple shapes (cylinders, crosses, rectangular prisms) with lateral dimensions between 40 and 1000 microm, cell densities of 10(5)-10(8) cells/cm(3), and total volumes between 1x10(-7) and 8x10(-4) cm(3). By varying (i) the initial density of cells at seeding, and (ii) the dimensions of the modules, the number of cells per module ranged from 1 to 2500 cells. Modules were formed from a range of standard biopolymers, including collagen, Matrigel, and agarose, without the complex equipment often used in encapsulation. The small dimensions of the modules allowed rapid transport of nutrients by diffusion to cells at any location in the module, and therefore allowed generation of modules with cell densities near to those of dense tissues (10(8)-10(9) cells/cm(3)). This modular method is based on soft lithography and requires little special equipment; the method is therefore accessible, flexible, and well suited to (i) understanding the behavior of cells in 3D environments at high densities of cells, as in dense tissues, and (ii) developing applications in tissue engineering.

Background

ET-743 (trabectedin, Yondelis) and PM00104 (Zalypsis) are marine derived compounds that have antitumor activity. ET-743 and PM00104 exposure over sustained periods of treatment will result in the development of drug resistance, but the mechanisms which lead to resistance are not yet understood.

Methodology/principal findings

Human chondrosarcoma cell lines resistant to ET-743 (CS-1/ER) or PM00104 (CS-1/PR) were established in this study. The CS-1/ER and CS-1/PR exhibited cross resistance to cisplatin and methotrexate but not to doxorubicin. Human Affymetrix Gene Chip arrays were used to examine relative gene expression in these cell lines. We found that a large number of genes have altered expression levels in CS-1/ER and CS-1/PR when compared to the parental cell line. 595 CS-1/ER and 498 CS-1/PR genes were identified as overexpressing; 856 CS-1/ER and 874 CS-1/PR transcripts were identified as underexpressing. Three zinc finger protein (ZNF) genes were on the top 10 overexpressed genes list. These genes have not been previously associated with drug resistance in tumor cells. Differential expressions of ZNF93 and ZNF43 genes were confirmed in both CS-1/ER and CS-1/PR resistant cell lines by real-time RT-PCR. ZNF93 was overexpressed in two ET-743 resistant Ewing sarcoma cell lines as well as in a cisplatin resistant ovarian cancer cell line, but was not overexpressed in paclitaxel resistant cell lines. ZNF93 knockdown by siRNA in CS-1/ER and CS-1/PR caused increased sensitivity for ET-743, PM00104, and cisplatin. Furthermore, ZNF93 transfected CS-1 cells are relatively resistant to ET-743, PM00104 and cisplatin.

Conclusions/significance

This study suggests that zinc finger proteins, and ZNF93 in particular, are involved in resistance to ET-743 and PM00104.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.