The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture

Abstract Background Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is a powerful technique for preserving female fertility, as it can restore fertility and endocrine function. To increase the longevity of the transplant and decrease the risk of reimplantation of neoplastic cells, several studies have been carri...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ana Sofia Pais, Sandra Reis, Mafalda Laranjo, Francisco Caramelo, Fátima Silva, Maria Filomena Botelho, Teresa Almeida-Santos
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Alginate Ovary Fertility preservation Tissue culture techniques Gynecology and obstetrics RG1-991
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/0a89b9f03ebd4a0da4b9b8ba323c9d5f
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:0a89b9f03ebd4a0da4b9b8ba323c9d5f
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:0a89b9f03ebd4a0da4b9b8ba323c9d5f2021-11-08T11:03:56ZThe challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture10.1186/s13048-021-00892-z1757-2215https://doaj.org/article/0a89b9f03ebd4a0da4b9b8ba323c9d5f2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-021-00892-zhttps://doaj.org/toc/1757-2215Abstract Background Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is a powerful technique for preserving female fertility, as it can restore fertility and endocrine function. To increase the longevity of the transplant and decrease the risk of reimplantation of neoplastic cells, several studies have been carried out with culture of ovarian tissue. The aim of this study was to compare a conventional (2D) culture with an alginate matrix three-dimensional (3D) model for ovarian tissue culture. Results The ovarian tissue culture within the alginate matrix (3D) was similar to 2D culture, regarding follicular density and cell apoptosis in follicles and stroma. The proliferation rate remained stable in both models for follicles, but for stromal cell proliferation it decreased only in 3D culture (p = 0.001). At 24 h of culture, cytotoxicity was lower in the 3D model (p = 0.006). As culture time increased, cytotoxicity seemed similar. Degradation of the tissue was suggested by the histological score analysis of tissue morphology after 72 h of culture. Tissue injury was greater (p = 0.01) in 3D culture due to higher interstitial oedema (p = 0.017) and tissue necrosis (p = 0.035). Conclusion According to our results, 3D culture of ovarian tissue has no advantage over 2Dculture; it is more time consuming and difficult to perform and has worse reproducibility.Ana Sofia PaisSandra ReisMafalda LaranjoFrancisco CarameloFátima SilvaMaria Filomena BotelhoTeresa Almeida-SantosBMCarticleAlginateOvaryFertility preservationTissue culture techniquesGynecology and obstetricsRG1-991ENJournal of Ovarian Research, Vol 14, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Alginate Ovary Fertility preservation Tissue culture techniques Gynecology and obstetrics RG1-991
spellingShingle	Alginate Ovary Fertility preservation Tissue culture techniques Gynecology and obstetrics RG1-991 Ana Sofia Pais Sandra Reis Mafalda Laranjo Francisco Caramelo Fátima Silva Maria Filomena Botelho Teresa Almeida-Santos The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture
description	Abstract Background Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is a powerful technique for preserving female fertility, as it can restore fertility and endocrine function. To increase the longevity of the transplant and decrease the risk of reimplantation of neoplastic cells, several studies have been carried out with culture of ovarian tissue. The aim of this study was to compare a conventional (2D) culture with an alginate matrix three-dimensional (3D) model for ovarian tissue culture. Results The ovarian tissue culture within the alginate matrix (3D) was similar to 2D culture, regarding follicular density and cell apoptosis in follicles and stroma. The proliferation rate remained stable in both models for follicles, but for stromal cell proliferation it decreased only in 3D culture (p = 0.001). At 24 h of culture, cytotoxicity was lower in the 3D model (p = 0.006). As culture time increased, cytotoxicity seemed similar. Degradation of the tissue was suggested by the histological score analysis of tissue morphology after 72 h of culture. Tissue injury was greater (p = 0.01) in 3D culture due to higher interstitial oedema (p = 0.017) and tissue necrosis (p = 0.035). Conclusion According to our results, 3D culture of ovarian tissue has no advantage over 2Dculture; it is more time consuming and difficult to perform and has worse reproducibility.
format	article
author	Ana Sofia Pais Sandra Reis Mafalda Laranjo Francisco Caramelo Fátima Silva Maria Filomena Botelho Teresa Almeida-Santos
author_facet	Ana Sofia Pais Sandra Reis Mafalda Laranjo Francisco Caramelo Fátima Silva Maria Filomena Botelho Teresa Almeida-Santos
author_sort	Ana Sofia Pais
title	The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture
title_short	The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture
title_full	The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture
title_fullStr	The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture
title_full_unstemmed	The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture
title_sort	challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2d versus 3d culture
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/0a89b9f03ebd4a0da4b9b8ba323c9d5f
work_keys_str_mv	AT anasofiapais thechallengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT sandrareis thechallengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT mafaldalaranjo thechallengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT franciscocaramelo thechallengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT fatimasilva thechallengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT mariafilomenabotelho thechallengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT teresaalmeidasantos thechallengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT anasofiapais challengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT sandrareis challengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT mafaldalaranjo challengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT franciscocaramelo challengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT fatimasilva challengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT mariafilomenabotelho challengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture AT teresaalmeidasantos challengeofovariantissueculture2dversus3dculture
_version_	1718442398106779648

The challenge of ovarian tissue culture: 2D versus 3D culture

Ejemplares similares