Testicular organoids are a pioneering technique for studying testicular development, spermatogenesis, and physiology in vitro1,2,3,4. Several methods have been explored for organoid generation; these include a variety of extracellular matrix (ECM) and ECM-free culture systems, in both two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) orientations. Different generation methods can promote distinct cellular assembly strategies; this results in a high level of morphological and functional variability between published organoid models. The purpose of this article is to discuss the current state of in vitro testicular models, and to serve as a template for future investigators, when designing testicular organoid experiments. Within the present study, four different culture system archetypes are defined and characterized in experimental process and biological outcome. These include: 2D ECM-Free, 2D ECM, 3D ECM-Free, and 3D ECM culture methods. The strategies presented herein are intended to be simple, accessible, and highly reproducible between different laboratories and research groups.
Historically for the testis, the designation “in vitro”, has been used for several different culture methods of testicular tissues and cells. These include organotypic tissue/organ culture methods (i.e., explant culture)5, isolated seminiferous tubule culture6, testicular cell culture7, and methods of de novo tissue morphogenesis (i.e., biological constructs and organoids)1. The first investigations into in vitro spermatogenesis were performed approximately 100 years ago, with the culture of rabbit testis explants in 19208, and later in 1937 with mouse explants9. Within these initial experiments spermatogonia were observed to largely degenerate across the first week of culture, though some meiotically differentiating cells were identified. Reminiscent of these historical reports, testis explant culture was revived and optimized in 2011 to become a feasible technique for studying the testis10. Since 2011, explant culture has produced fertility competent sperm in multiple reports11,12,13. Yet, due to explant culture’s reliance upon pre-existing native testis tubules, these recent advances are more accurately described as examples of “ex vivo” testicular function and spermatogenesis, tissue function that was maintained or resumed upon removal from an organism’s body. Despite its prevalence in the literature, long-term germ cell maintenance and differentiation within testicular explants is challenging to replicate14,15,16,17,18, especially over timeframes long enough to fully observe in vitro spermatogenesis (~35 days in mice19 and 74 in humans20). It is intriguing to appreciate that many of the same challenges experienced 100 years ago, are still experienced within ex vivo spermatogenesis today.
Different than ex vivo approaches, testicular organoids are de novo assembled microtissues generated entirely in vitro from cellular sources (i.e., primary testicular cells). Testicular organoids provide a creative strategy to circumvent the field’s historical reliance upon pre-existing native tissue, and to recapitulate testicular biology completely in vitro. There are multiple requirements shared by most organoid tissue models; these include (1) in vivo-mimetic tissue morphology or architecture, (2) multiple major cell types of the represented tissue, (3) self-assembly or self-organization in their generation, and (4) the ability to simulate some level of the represented tissue’s function and physiology21,22,23,24. For the testis, this can be captured in four major hallmarks: (1) the inclusion of major testicular cell types, germ, Sertoli, Leydig, peritubular, and other interstitial cells, (2) cell-directed tissue assembly, (3) appropriately-compartmentalized cell types into separate tubular compartments (germ and Sertoli) and interstitial regions (all other cell types), and (4) some degree of tissue function (e.g., reproductive hormone secretion or tissue responses, and germ cell maintenance and differentiation). Considering the historic challenges in maintaining germ cell differentiation ex vivo and in vitro, the recapitulation of in vivo-mimetic testicular architectures (i.e., structures resembling seminiferous tubules) with additional markers suggesting simulation of testicular physiology (e.g., endocrine function), are priority milestones towards generating organoids which might one day sustain in vitro spermatogenesis.
The majority of published testicular organoid methods take advantage of commercially available ECM (e.g., collagen or proprietary ECM formulations)25,26,27 or custom-sourced ECMs (i.e., decellularized testis ECM-derived hydrogels)28,29,30. Exogenous ECM promotes de novo tissue formation through providing an assembly-supportive scaffold for tissue generation. ECM methods have afforded an impressive level of tissue formation, including some germ cell presence and tissue-mimetic morphology25,28. However, the ECMs they utilize are not always universally available (i.e., decellularized ECM-derived hydrogels), and some methods require sophisticated gel and cell seeding orientations (e.g., 3-layer gradients of ECM and 3D printing)25,31,32. Scaffold-free methods (e.g., hanging drop and nonadherent culture plates)33,34,35 have also generated robust and highly reproducible organoids without the need of ECM gels or scaffolds. However, the tissue morphology of these scaffold-free organoids is often dissimilar to in vivo testes, and most of these reports incorporate a biochemical ECM additive to promote tissue formation33,34,36, or alternatively, rely upon centrifugation for forced cell aggregation and compaction34, making them less ideal for studying cell-directed migration and self-organization.
The four organoid generation methods presented in this manuscript include both ECM-dependent and independent strategies, each using simple cell seeding that enables the observation of cell-driven organoid self-assembly. All four techniques can be performed from the same cell suspensions or can make use of custom and cell-type enriched populations. A strength of these methods is the ability to observe organoids self-assemble in real-time, and to directly compare how testicular structures self-assemble between different culture microenvironments. The phenotypic differences between these four culture methods should be considered for their impact on the research question or subject of the investigator. Each method produces biological constructs or organoids within 24 h or less. In conclusion, the methods presented here provide a toolkit of organoid assembly techniques for studying testicular organoid assembly, tissue development, and testicular physiology in vitro.