Cells are the fundamental units of life, playing a crucial role in health and disease. However, scientists have observed significant differences between individual cell behavior in vitro (under laboratory conditions) and their activities in vivo (within the body). These differences not only reveal the complexity of biology but also pose challenges and opportunities for biomedical research.
Within the body, cells reside in a complex microenvironment composed of extracellular matrices, neighboring cells, and various growth factors. This environment regulates cell behavior through intricate signaling networks, affecting proliferation, differentiation, and migration. In contrast, in vitro culture conditions often struggle to replicate this diversity, leading to altered cellular behaviors.
In the body, cells communicate and coordinate their actions through direct contact and the secretion of factors. This finely tuned interaction among cells is often simplified in in vitro experiments, which can affect our understanding and study of cells in their natural state.
Systemic regulatory mechanisms, such as hormonal and neural signaling, play a vital role in regulating cellular functions and behaviors. These systemic influences are absent in in vitro environments, potentially causing observed cellular behaviors that do not fully reflect their natural states within the organism.
Cells in the body exist in three dimensions, interacting with other cells and the extracellular matrix to form tissues and organs. This contrasts with the traditional two-dimensional growth methods of in vitro culture, which may alter cellular behavior and physiological functions.
The analysis above highlights the complexity of the in vivo environment and the fact that cell behavior is influenced by multiple factors. This understanding is crucial for biomedical research, especially in areas such as disease modeling, drug screening, and regenerative medicine, where considering in vivo and in vitro discrepancies is essential for improving the accuracy and clinical relevance of research.
References:
1/
Huang, G., Li, F., Zhao, X., Ma, Y., Li, Y., Lin, M., Jin, G., Lu, T., Genin, G., & Xu, F. (2017). Functional and Biomimetic Materials for Engineering of the Three-Dimensional Cell Microenvironment.. Chemical reviews, 117 20, 12764-12850 . https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00094.
2/
Weaver, V. (2014). The microenvironment matters. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 25, 3254 - 3258. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E14-06-1080.
3/
Bloom, A., & Zaman, M. (2014). Influence of the microenvironment on cell fate determination and migration.. Physiological genomics, 46 9, 309-14 . https://doi.org/10.1152/physiolgenomics.00170.2013.
4/
Spill, F., Reynolds, D., Kamm, R., & Zaman, M. (2016). Impact of the physical microenvironment on tumor progression and metastasis.. Current opinion in biotechnology, 40, 41-48 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2016.02.007.
5/
Sharma, Y., Vargas, D., Pegoraro, A., Lepzelter, D., Weitz, D., & Zaman, M. (2015). Collective motion of mammalian cell cohorts in 3D.. Integrative biology : quantitative biosciences from nano to macro, 7 12, 1526-33 . https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ib00208g.
6/
Nagelkerke, A., Bussink, J., Rowan, A., & Span, P. (2015). The mechanical microenvironment in cancer: How physics affects tumours.. Seminars in cancer biology, 35, 62-70 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.09.001.
7/
Cukierman, E., Pankov, R., & Yamada, K. (2002). Cell interactions with three-dimensional matrices.. Current opinion in cell biology, 14 5, 633-9 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-0674(02)00364-2.
8/
Efremova, M., Vento-Tormo, M., Teichmann, S., & Vento-Tormo, R. (2020). CellPhoneDB: inferring cell–cell communication from combined expression of multi-subunit ligand–receptor complexes. Nature Protocols, 15, 1484 - 1506. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0292-x.
9/
Berrier, A., & Yamada, K. (2007). Cell–matrix adhesion. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 213. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.21237.
10/
Yamada, K., & Geiger, B. (1997). Molecular interactions in cell adhesion complexes.. Current opinion in cell biology, 9 1, 76-85 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-0674(97)80155-X.
11/
Jin, S., Guerrero-Juarez, C., Zhang, L., Chang, I., Ramos, R., Kuan, C., Myung, P., Plikus, M., & Nie, Q. (2020). Inference and analysis of cell-cell communication using CellChat. Nature Communications, 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21246-9.
12/
Lin, C., & Bissell, M. (1993). Multi-faceted regulation of cell differentiation by extracellular matrix. The FASEB Journal, 7, 737 - 743. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.7.9.8330681.
13/
Green, D., Galluzzi, L., & Kroemer, G. (2014). Metabolic control of cell death. Science, 345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250256.
14/
Conner, S., & Schmid, S. (2003). Regulated portals of entry into the cell. Nature, 422, 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01451.
15/
Albert, R. (2005). Scale-free networks in cell biology. Journal of Cell Science, 118, 4947 - 4957. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.02714.
16/
Pawson, T., & Nash, P. (2003). Assembly of Cell Regulatory Systems Through Protein Interaction Domains. Science, 300, 445 - 452. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1083653.
17/
Lecuit, T., & Lenne, P. (2007). Cell surface mechanics and the control of cell shape, tissue patterns and morphogenesis. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 8, 633-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2222.
18/
Duval, K., Grover, H., Han, L., Mou, Y., Pegoraro, A., Fredberg, J., & Chen, Z. (2017). Modeling Physiological Events in 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture.. Physiology, 32 4, 266-277 . https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00036.2016.
19/
Baker, B., & Chen, C. (2012). Deconstructing the third dimension – how 3D culture microenvironments alter cellular cues. Journal of Cell Science, 125, 3015 - 3024. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.079509.
20/
Jensen, C., & Teng, Y. (2020). Is It Time to Start Transitioning From 2D to 3D Cell Culture?. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2020.00033.
21/
Huh, D., Hamilton, G., & Ingber, D. (2011). From 3D cell culture to organs-on-chips.. Trends in cell biology, 21 12, 745-54 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2011.09.005.
22/
Bhatia, S., & Ingber, D. (2014). Microfluidic organs-on-chips. Nature Biotechnology, 32, 760-772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2989.
23/
Clevers, H. (2016). Modeling Development and Disease with Organoids. Cell, 165, 1586-1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.082.
● Knowledge Sharing
The innate immune system is our body's first line of defense from birth, capable of rapidly responding to invaders. Characterized by its swift and non-specific response, the innate immune system reacts to a broad range of pathogens without targeting specific ones. It includes several key components:
We are all linked by a fabric of unseen connections. This fabric is constantly changing and evolving. This field is directly structured and influenced by our behavior and by our understanding. -David Bohm-
The nervous system is one of the most complex systems in the human body, responsible for transmitting information from the body to the brain and conveying commands from the brain to the body.
