$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Cell culture is an indispensable tool to uncover fundamental biological mechanisms involved in tissue and organ development, function, regeneration and disruption, and disease. Although monolayered 2D cell culture has predominated, recent research has shifted towards cultures generating 3D structures more reflective of in vivo cellular responses, owing notably to additional spatial organization and cell-cell contacts that influence gene expression and cellular behavior and could thus provide more predictive data7. Nevertheless, many challenges remain, including the need for user-friendly staining and imaging techniques for detailed microscopic visualization and evaluation of complex 3D structures at the cellular and subcellular levels. In that context, detailed, robust, and complementary protocols have been provided to perform staining and cellular and subcellular resolution imaging of fixed in vitro 3D cell culture models ranging from 100 µm to several millimeters in size.
This procedure presents two different strategies to deal with a large variety of sizes and types of in vitro 3D cell culture models. The choice of one (3D whole-mount analysis) or the other (2D sectioning analysis) will depend on the model used and issue investigated. 3D whole-mount analysis by confocal microscopy enables the visualization of cells with a field of depth of up to 200 µm, irrespective of the overall size of the 3D structure, whereas 2D sectioning is applicable to samples of any size, but visualization remains 2D dimensional. Below are some suggestions for troubleshooting and technical considerations.
Loss of 3D structures during the workflow is the most common drawback. They can remain adherent to the tips and tubes, which is why precoating tips and tubes with PBS-BSA 0.1% solution is key. Moreover, it is crucial to let the 3D structures sediment between reagent changes and to perform all pipetting very carefully. As mentioned in the procedure, for all steps, if 3D structure sedimentation is too long, cells can be gently spun at 50 × g for 5 min at RT. Depending on the aim of the study, the advantages/disadvantages of such a spinning step should be considered as centrifugation can compromise the shape of the 3D structures. Moreover, care should be taken to preserve this morphology during the fixation step because cystic organoids tend to collapse. Fixing structures under 400 µm in size should prevent structural changes.
For optimal immunolabeling, recovery of organoids from their 3D matrices is a crucial step. The 3D matrix can impede adequate antibody penetration or lead to high background staining because of non-specific binding to the matrix. ECM removal may alter the morphology of the outer segments of organoids (notably in case of small cellular protrusions extending from studied 3D structures) and partially hamper analyses. For such 3D structures, the matrix can be retained throughout the procedure; however, culture conditions should be carefully adapted to grow cells in a minimum amount of matrix to prevent insufficient penetration of solutions and antibodies and to avoid successive washing steps aimed at reducing excessive background noise6,8.
The optical clearing step described in this protocol in the 3D whole mount staining section is pertinent for the imaging of 3D structures up to 150-200 µm in depth instead of 50-80 µm without clearing. Compared to other clearing methodologies that often requiring several weeks and using toxic clearing agents, a previously published fast and safe clearing step was used in this protocol4,9. In addition, this clearing step is reversible, and new antibodies can be added to the initial staining with no loss of resolution or brightness4. Nevertheless, depending on the 3D cell culture model studied, a depth of 150-200 µm might not be sufficient to image the 3D structure in an informative way, and this clearing protocol can cause changes in the general morphology of spherical, monolayered organoids with large lumens4. Users should carefully design their experiment, and if necessary, optimize the timing of the permeabilization/blocking step (to allow penetration of antibodies and solution), the clearing step (to penetrate deeper than 200 µm, specimens should be totally cleared), and image acquisition. The two most prevalent technologies available in core facilities would be light sheet and confocal microscopy. Users will need to carefully choose a technology based on the size of their 3D structures and their biological question10. However, compared to confocal microscopy, light sheet microscopy resolution obtained for such deep structures remains suboptimal for obtaining subcellular resolution.
Here, a detailed and robust process has been reported that is dedicated to paraffin embedding of single samples. Interestingly, Gabriel et al. recently developed a protocol embedding 3D cell cultures in paraffin with an increased throughput. They used a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) mold to confine 96 3D structures in a microarray pattern in one block, providing novel perspectives for studies on 3D tumor models encompassing more groups, time points, treatment conditions, and replicates11. However, this method requires extensive skills and machinery, notably for the fabrication of the premold used to created PDMS molds.
In summary, this paper describes two different, complementary, and adaptable approaches enabling the acquisition of accurate and quantitative information on architectural and cellular composition of 3D cellular models. Both parameters are crucial for studying biological processes such as intratumoral cellular heterogeneity and its role in resistance to treatments.