Organoids have become valuable tools for disease modeling. The extracellular matrix (ECM) guides cell fate during organoid generation, and using a system that resembles the native tissue can improve model accuracy. This study compares the generation of induced pluripotent stem cells-derived human intestinal organoids in animal-derived ECM and xeno-free hydrogels.
Extracellular matrix (ECM) plays a critical role in cell behavior and development. Organoids generated from human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) are in the spotlight of many research areas. However, the lack of physiological cues in classical cell culture materials hinders efficient iPSC differentiation. Incorporating commercially available ECM into stem cell culture provides physical and chemical cues beneficial for cell maintenance. Animal-derived commercially available basement membrane products are composed of ECM proteins and growth factors that support cell maintenance. Since the ECM holds tissue-specific properties that can modulate cell fate, xeno-free matrices are used to stream up translation to clinical studies. While commercially available matrices are widely used in hiPSC and organoid work, the equivalency of these matrices has not been evaluated yet. Here, a comparative study of hiPSC maintenance and human intestinal organoids (hIO) generation in four different matrices: Matrigel (Matrix 1-AB), Geltrex (Matrix 2-AB), Cultrex (Matrix 3-AB), and VitroGel (Matrix 4-XF) was conducted. Although the colonies lacked a perfectly round shape, there was minimal spontaneous differentiation, with over 85% of the cells expressing the stem cell marker SSEA-4. Matrix 4-XF led to the formation of 3D round clumps. Also, increasing the concentration of supplement and growth factors in the media used to make the Matrix 4-XF hydrogel solution improved hiPSC expression of SSEA-4 by 1.3-fold. Differentiation of Matrix 2-AB -maintained hiPSC led to fewer spheroid releases during the mid-/hindgut stage compared to the other animal-derived basement membranes. Compared to others, the xeno-free organoid matrix (Matrix 4-O3) leads to larger and more mature hIO, suggesting that the physical properties of xeno-free hydrogels can be harnessed to optimize organoid generation. Altogether, the results suggest that variations in the composition of different matrices affect stages of IO differentiation. This study raises awareness about the differences in commercially available matrices and provides a guide for matrix optimization during iPSC and IO work.
The extracellular matrix (ECM) is a dynamic and multifunctional component of tissues that plays a central role in regulating cell behavior and development. As a complex network, it provides structural support, cell adhesive ligands1, and storage of growth factors and cytokines that regulate cell signaling. For example, during wound healing, the ECM serves as a scaffold for migrating cells and as a reservoir of growth factors involved in tissue repair2. Similarly, dysregulation in the ECM can lead to an increase in the severity of various diseases such as fibrosis and cancer3,4. During embryonic development, the ECM guides tissue morphogenesis. For example, in the development of the heart, ECM components play a role in creating the correct architecture and function of the heart tissue5. Over a decade of research has shown that the stiffness of the microenvironment alone6,7 can control stem cell lineage specification. Therefore, it is not surprising that during in vitro cell differentiation, ECM influences stem cell fate by providing signals for differentiation.
Organoids can be generated from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Starting with a properly characterized iPSC line is required to generate organoids successfully. However, the lack of physiological cues in classical cell culture materials hinders efficient iPSC differentiation and organoid generation. Moreover, recent research has emphasized the significance of the composition of the extracellular matrix (ECM), interactions between cells and the ECM8, as well as mechanical and geometrical cues9,10,11 in the context of organoid expansion and differentiation12. Advancing organoid technology by improving reproducibility will involve incorporating tissue-specific physical and chemical cues.
Organoids aim to recapitulate the native tissue within a physiologically similar microenvironment. Choosing an ECM system that closely mimics the native tissue ECM is crucial for achieving physiological relevance regarding cell behavior, function, and response to stimuli13. The choice of ECM components can influence the differentiation of stem cells into specific cell types within the organoid. Different ECM proteins and their combinations can provide cues that guide cell fate14. For example, studies have shown that using specific ECM components can promote the differentiation of intestinal stem cells into mature intestinal cell types, resulting in physiologically relevant intestinal organoids15. While organoids are a valuable tool during disease modeling and drug testing, selecting an appropriate ECM system is pivotal to this application. An appropriate ECM system can enhance the accuracy of disease modeling by creating a microenvironment that resembles the affected tissue16. Furthermore, tissue-specific ECM can help generate organoids that better recapitulate disease-associated phenotypes and drug responses17. Optimizing the ECM system used in organoid differentiation is critical for achieving desired differentiation outcomes.
Commercially available basement membrane systems derived from animal ECM sources (e.g., Matrigel, Cultrex) and xeno-free hydrogel (e.g., VitroGel) are widely used in iPSC and organoid research. Companies that commercialize them and researchers that use them have laid out many instructions for their specific products and applications over the years. Many of these instructions served as a guide for the generation of this protocol. Furthermore, the benefits and setbacks associated with their intrinsic properties have been individually noted by many18,19,20,21. However, there is no systematic workflow to guide the selection of optimal systems for iPSC and organoid work. Here, a workflow to systematically evaluate the equivalency of ECM systems from various sources for iPSC and organoid work is provided. This is a comparative study of the maintenance of two different human iPSC lines (hiPSC) and human intestinal organoids (hIO) generation in four different matrices: Matrigel (Matrix 1-AB), Geltrex (Matrix 2-AB), Cultrex (Matrix 3-AB), and VitroGel (Matrix 4-XF). For organoid culture, four versions of the xeno-free matrix VitroGel that were previously optimized for organoid culture were used: ORGANOID 1 (Matrix 4-O1), ORGANOID 2 (Matrix 4-O2), ORGANOID 3 (Matrix 4-O3), ORGANOID 4 (Matrix 4-O4). Also, animal-derived matrices optimized for organoids were used: Matrigel High Concentration (Matrix 1-ABO) and Cultrex Type 2 (Matrix 3-ABO). Commercially available stem cell culture media (mTeSR Plus) and organoid differentiation kit (STEMdiff intestinal organoid kit) were used. This protocol combines the individual instructions from the products' manufacturers with lab experiences to guide the reader toward a successful optimization of ECM for their specific iPSC and organoid work. Altogether, this protocol and representative results emphasize the importance of selecting the optimal microenvironment for stem cell work and organoid differentiation.
1. hiPSC maintenance
CAUTION: All work is done in a Biosafety Cabinet (BSC) following standard aseptic techniques. Must follow OSHA safety standards for laboratories, including proper use of personal protective equipment such as lab coats, gloves, and goggles.
Figure 1: Optimal clump size. Images of clumps of iPSC cell line SCTi003A depicting an example of optimal clump size. Scale bar = 200 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
2. hiPSC differentiation and intestinal organoid generation
CAUTION: All work is done in a Biosafety Cabinet (BSC) following standard aseptic techniques. Must follow OSHA safety standards for laboratories, including proper use of personal protective equipment such as lab coats, gloves, and goggles.
Figure 2. Schematic of technique recommended for dome formation. The schematic describes the step-by-step process recommended for successful dome formation for all systems. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
3. IO size characterization
NOTE: The size of the organoids was characterized by brightfield images taken at 4x and 10x. The image processing analysis was automated using MATLAB. The overall steps of the process are described below, and a sample of the code is included in Supplementary File 1.
Following this protocol, commercially available basement membranes and a xeno-free hydrogel system were successfully utilized to cultivate hiPSC cells and differentiate them into hIO. The main objective of these experiments was to systematically evaluate the equivalency of matrices from various sources for hiPSC and hIO work. The first section of this protocol focused on the maintenance and characterization of a healthy iPSC culture that yields an efficient intestinal organoid generation. The process of coating the culture ware with animal-derived matrices Matrix 1-AB, Matrix 2-AB, and Matrix 3-AB was described and compared with a xeno-free hydrogel system Matrix 4-XF.
As shown in Figure 3A, the hiPSCs BXS 0116 (CD34+ derived) show comparable morphology when cultured on the three animal-derived matrices. Nevertheless, comparing the cell line BXS 0116 with SCTi003-A (PBMC derived) cultured on Matrix 1-AB-coated wells emphasizes that intrinsic differences between cell lines (shown in Table 6) can lead to variation regarding cell proliferation, differentiation, and morphology. For example, while it took 3 days to generate DE for the SCTi003-A cell lines, it took 5 days for the BXS0116 line. Moreover, as shown in Figure 3B-C, culturing hiPSCs in Matrix 4-XF hydrogel systems lead to colonies forming in a partially embedded 3D colony that is drastically different from the flat morphology of hiPSC culture on plates coated with Matrix 1-AB or equivalent systems. Also, one of the key aspects to note from these experiments is that making a xeno-free hydrogel system using 3x growth factors can considerably improve cell viability and expression of stem cell markers. Altogether, hiPSC cultures on animal-derived matrices and xeno-free Matrix 4-XF made with 3x growth factors concentration led to an equivalent expression of SSEA-4 (stem cell marker)22; however, the hydrogel system promotes the formation of partially embedded 3D colonies.
The second section of this protocol focuses on the differentiation of hiPSCs to generate hIO. Here, a commercially available kit developed based on Spence et al.23 was used to differentiate into definite endoderm (DE), then midgut/hindgut (MH), and finally collect spheroid to mature into IO (Figure 4C). For an efficient generation of IO, examining that the hiPSC culture has minimal spontaneous differentiation before starting the differentiation protocol is crucial. As shown in Figure 4A, the lower the expression of stem cell markers such as SSEA-4 when starting the DE differentiation, the less efficient the process will be at every stage (i.e., lower expression of MH markers) and subsequent poor generation of hIO. Utilizing a compact benchtop flow cytometry device facilitated quick access to flow cytometry results and deciding about the quality of differentiation before moving to the next stage. A peculiar observation was that Matrix 2-AB-maintained hiPSC resulted in fewer spheroid releases during midgut/hindgut stage compared to the other animal-derived systems. Another key aspect to note is that because colonies of hiPSC maintained in Matrix 4-XF already had a 3D structure at the beginning of the differentiation, these systems led to larger spheroids.
Spheroids were embedded into Matrix 1-ABO, Matrix 3-ABO, and Matrix 4-XFO1- Matrix 4-XFO4 and were matured into hIO using a kit. After maturing spheroids for 7 days, they were passaged and embedded into their respective matrices systems. The growth of the organoid on each system was tracked for 7 days from brightfield images. While the culture started with relatively similar-sized organoids, after 5 days, hIO size varied as a function of the matrix in which they were embedded (Figure 5). Of the four Matrix 4-XFO, the formulation that resulted in larger organoids was Matrix 4-XFO3. The Matrix 4-XFO systems are formulated with different ligands and mechanical properties to fit a variety of applications24. Specifically, Matrix 4-XFO3 stiffness25 is closer to human gut stiffness26 than the other Matrix 4-XFO formulations, which supports recent findings about the role of ECM mechanical properties on organoid expansion12,27,28. Our representative results indicate that Matrix 1-ABO and Matrix 3-ABO equally facilitate the growth and expansion of intestinal organoids.
Figure 3: Selecting matrix system for iPSC maintenance. (A) Representative images of two cell lines grown on culture ware coating with the three different animal-derived matrix systems. (B) Representative images comparing the use of Matrix 4-XF with 1x vs. 3x growth factor supplementation show that increasing growth factor supplementations improves the viability of hiPSC on Matrix 4-XF hydrogel. (C) Flow cytometry comparison of SSEA-4 expression of Matrix 1-AB, Matrix 3-AB, Matrix 4-XF (3X) shows equivalent expression while Matrix 4-XF (1X) led to lower expression of SSEA-4. Bars represent mean ± SD of n = 5; two-way ANOVA, and post-hoc testing with nonparametric Wilcoxon method was used for significance testing. Scale bar = 200 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Differentiating iPSC into definite endoderm (DE) and midgut/hindgut (MH). (A) Representative images of iPSC differentiation into DE starting with different levels of SSEA4 marker highlight the importance of starting differentiation with a hiPSC population with high expression of stem cell markers. The red arrows point to areas of spontaneous differentiation prior to starting DE. (B) Example of flow cytometry analysis of the stem cell marker SSEA4 expression before starting differentiation and DE marker FOXA2 after 3 days of DE differentiation for a poor DE differentiation (left) and a good differentiation (right). Each graph represents the analysis of cells extracted from 1; for statistical analysis, it is recommended to average the results from at least 3 flow cytometry runs. (C) Representative images of iPSC differentiation into hIO on all matrices studied. Scale bar = 200 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Selecting matrix system for spheroid embedding and hIO maturation. (A) Sample images of maturation of hIO embedded in Matrix 4-XFO 1-4. The elastic modulus of the Matrix 4-XFO systems is around 50-300 Pa, with the highest for Matrix 4-XFO3 > Matrix 4-XFO4 > Matrix 4-XFO2 > Matrix 4-XFO1. Matrix 1-ABO and Matrix 3-ABO stiffness range from 440-800 Pa depending on the batch. (B) Sample images of the maturation of hIO were embedded in Matrix 1-ABO, Matrix 3-ABO, and Matrix 4-XFO3 on the day of embedding (Day 0) and after 1 week of culture (Day 7). (C) Data showing size comparison of hIO matured on the different matrix systems. Bars represent mean ± SD of n = 7; two-way ANOVA, and post-hoc testing with nonparametric Wilcoxon method was used for significance testing. Scale bar = 200 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 6: Representative immunofluorescence images of intestinal organoids grown in the different matrices confirm the epithelial cell population. Whole intestinal organoids grown in the different matrices were fixed and stained with epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) (green) and counterstained for cell nuclei DAPI (blue). All the organoids show EpCAM-positive cells, confirming the epithelial cell population localized on the exterior surface of the organoids. Scale bar = 200 µm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Table 1: Summary of aliquot preparation, storage, and dilution of matrices used to coat culture ware used for iPSC. * For accurate dilution factor, check the Dilution factor recommended and/or protein concentrations in the Certificate of Analysis of each lot. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 2: Reference table of the volume of coating solutions per surface area of culture ware and mTeSR Plus Medium. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 3: Reference table of the volume of Matrix 4-XF precursor solutions per surface area of culture ware and complete stem cell medium. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 4: List of common markers recommended to characterize hiPSC and hIO during the process. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 5: Summary of media needed during hiPSC differentiation into Intestinal Organoids. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 6: Specific details about the two hiPSC lines used in this study. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary File 1: General MATLAB Code to modify according to specific image type. Please click here to download this File.
Selecting the optimal microenvironment for stem cell and organoid work is a pivotal early step when using these platforms for a wide range of applications. Our representative results show that Matrix 4-XFO3, in combination with a higher concentration of growth factors, leads to larger organoids, suggesting that the physical properties of xeno-free hydrogels can be harnessed to optimize organoid generation using these systems. It has been previously shown that the unique characteristics of the extracellular matrix (ECM) are closely intertwined with the identity of the cells within the organ12. Because cells sense external forces via integrins and other receptors, the mechanical characteristics of the ECM profoundly influence stem cells, and in response, stem cells can generate internal forces12. Interactions between the stem cells and their microenvironment are key in initiating diverse signaling pathways12. Additionally, it has been shown that the ECM can serve as a reservoir for storing and releasing growth factors and other signaling molecules that impact cell behavior. Hence, our representative results and decades of research emphasize the importance of considering biochemical and physical aspects of the native cell microenvironment and tissue properties when selecting matrix systems for in vitro investigations29,30.
Several critical steps and recommendations were explained through the protocol to advise the users of potential issues and ways to avoid them. Nevertheless, two critical steps are presented in these methods that are pivotal for successfully implementing this protocol. First, checking for specific markers associated with the stem cell population is crucial to determining the optimal coating system to maintain the stem cell population ready for efficient controlled differentiation. Similarly, confirming the expression of markers associated with each differentiation step is essential to deciding when to proceed to the next stage. This protocol provides a general guideline regarding the minimum time required at each stage. Nevertheless, the optimal time at each stage will vary for different cell lines and experimental conditions (e.g., genotype, stiffness). Therefore, characterizing multiple stage-specific markers is the best approach to improve the efficiency of hIO generation.
The second critical step was incorporating a higher concentration of growth factors when using the xeno-free Matrix 4-XF system, which is of utmost importance. One frequently highlighted limitation of xeno-free biomaterial systems is the lack of growth factors31. However, this weakness can become a strength: full control of growth factors in the systems to improve reproducibility. While this protocol describes using a commercially available media and growth factor supplementation kit, the same rationale can be used when making the complete media in-house with individual components. The specific ratio hydrogel/media guides how much higher needs to be the concentration of growth factors; for example, a 2:1 ratio might require 3x concentration of growth factors to end up with a concentration representative of the standard complete media used. The full control of growth factors present in the system is beneficial to answering mechanistic questions and avoiding regulatory issues for many applications.
The image processing steps described in step 3 are limited by the quality of the images and the type of images taken. It might require refinement to suit the specific requirements of each image type and quality. However, the overall steps of the process and a sample of MATLAB code of the basic framework for organoid size analysis from brightfield images help to define a workflow that can be further optimized and expanded. Furthermore, access to a brightfield microscope is more common than other types of microscopes. While lack of access and familiarity with MATLAB might limit the use of this code, the general steps of the process are compatible with open-source software such as Fiji by Image J. Organoid size alone is not a recommended metric to assess maturation; it is encouraged to follow with an evaluation of specific markers representative of the target organ; some of these markers for intestinal tissue are included in Table 4. Figure 6 shows an example of immunofluorescence staining of whole organoids with the epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), which is localized to the exterior surface (basolateral) of the organoids. While EpCAM was visualized in the organoids cultured in all the ECM systems, there were differences in the size of these organoids. Thus, information about organoid size helps to optimize the culturing conditions. Furthermore, in drug response studies, organoid size serves as a metric of the response to the tested compound; changes in size can reflect the effectiveness or toxicity of the tested compounds. Importantly, generating multiple batches of organoids with standardized size is a current challenge in the field, but it is an important metric of experimental reproducibility so results can be compared across different experiments or laboratories. Altogether, an automated workflow that allows the extraction of important information about organoids from brightfield images is a beneficial tool for many researchers.
Both systems, animal-derived matrices, and xeno-free hydrogels, have their advantages and disadvantages. Matrix 2-AB leading to fewer spheroid releases during the MH stage than the other animal-derived matrices could result from lot-to-lot variations, a widely known characteristic of commercially available animal-derived matrices. It is important to note the concentration of the commercially available ECM systems varies; for example, the dilution factors in the product specification sheets were used to prepare the coating solutions which might lead to slightly different concentrations in the case of the animal-derived matrices. These differences in protein concentration can significantly impact differentiation leading to variation in differentiation efficiency when using the same product from different lots. To select between these systems, consider factors such as specific experimental goals, ethical considerations, and regulatory requirements. For example, in cases of comparing in vitro experimental results with a mouse animal model to answer tumor and cancer biology questions, using matrices derived from the Engelbreth-Holm Swarm EHS mouse can be a great choice. Also, because products such as Matrigel have been used for decades, there are many protocols, data, and references. However, using well-defined xeno-free matrices that allow the customization of physical and chemical properties might be a more suitable option when the research question is associated with human diseases or therapies. Also, most xeno-free hydrogel systems are designed to meet regulatory standards, which makes them a suitable choice for research that requires compliance with good manufacturing practices (GMP) or other regulatory guidelines.
In summary, while animal-derived matrices have been widely used for iPSC maintenance and organoid generation due to their biocompatibility, xeno-free hydrogel systems offer advantages in terms of reproducibility, cost-effectiveness, regulatory compliance, and ethical considerations. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the research or clinical application. Xeno-free hydrogel systems are gaining popularity as a more versatile and sustainable alternative that can support the utilization of organoids and microphysiological systems for the pre-clinical shortlist of therapeutic candidates. This application can significantly improve early drug development and help tackle current clinical translation challenges in the pharmaceutical industry.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The authors acknowledge previous training and general recommendations regarding starting hiPSC and organoid work from Drs. Christina Pacak, Silveli Susuki-Hatano, and Russell D'Souza. They thank Dr. Chelsey Simmons for her guidance in using hydrogel systems for in vitro cell culture work. Also, the authors would like to thank Drs. Christine Rodriguez and Thomas Allison from STEMCELL Technologies for their guidance on hiPSC culture. The authors also thank TheWell Bioscience for covering the publication costs.
24-Well Plate (Culture treated, sterile) | Falcon | 353504 | |
37 °C water bath | VWR | ||
96-well plate | Fisher Scientific | FB012931 | |
Advanced DMEM/F12 | Life Technologies | 12634 | |
Anti-adherence Rinsing Solutio | STEMCELL Technologies | 7010 | |
Biological safety cabinet (BSC) | Labconco | Logic | |
Brightfield Microscope | Echo Rebel | REB-01-E2 | |
BXS0116 | ATCC | ACS-1030 | |
Centrifuge with temperature control (4 °C capabilities) | ThermoScientific | 75002441 | |
Conical tubes, 15 mL, sterile | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 339650 | |
Conical tubes, 50 mL, sterile | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 339652 | |
Cultrex RGF BME, Type 2 | Bio-techne | 3533-005-02 | |
Cultrex Stem Cell Qualified RGF BME | Bio-techne | 3434-010-02 | |
D-PBS (Without Ca++ and Mg++) | Thermo Fisher Scientific | 14190144 | |
GeltrexLDEV-Free, hESC-Qualified Reduce Growth Factor | Gibco | A14133-02 | |
GlutaMAX Supplement | Thermo Fischer Scientific | 35050-061 | |
Guava Muse Cell Analyzer or another flow cytometry equipment (optional) | Luminex | 0500-3115 | |
HEPES buffer solution | Thermo Fischer Scientific | 15630-056 | |
Heralcell Vios Cell culture incubator (37 °C, 5% CO2) | Thermo Scientific | 51033775 | |
JMP Software | SAS Institute | JMP 16 | |
MATLAB | MathWorks, Inc | R2022b | |
Matrigel Growth Factor Reduced (GFR) Basement Membrane Matrix LDEV free | Corning | 356231 | |
Matrigel Matrix High Concentration (HC), Growth Factor Reduced (GFR) LDEV-free | Corning | 354263 | |
mTeSR Plus Medium | STEMCELL Technologies | 100-0276 | |
Nunclon Delta surface treated 24-well plate | Thermo Scientific | 144530 | |
PE Mouse Anti-human CD326 (EpCAM) | BD Pharmingen | 566841 | |
PE Mouse Anti-human CDX2 | BD Pharmingen | 563428 | |
PE Mouse Anti-human FOXA2 | BD Pharmingen | 561589 | |
PerCP-Cy 5.5 Mouse Anti-human SSEA4 | BD Pharmingen | 561565 | |
ReLeSR | STEMCELL | 5872 | |
SCTi003-A | STEMCELL Technologies | 200-0510 | |
Serological pipettes (10 mL) | Fisher Scientific | 13-678-11E | |
Serological pipettes (5 mL) | Fisher Scientific | 13-678-11D | |
STEMdiff Intestinal Organoid Growth Medium | STEMCELL Technologies | 5145 | |
STEMdiff Intestinal Organoid Kit | STEMCELL Technologies | 5140 | |
Vitrogel Hydrogel Matrix | TheWell Bioscience | VHM01 | |
VitroGel ORGANOID Discovery Kit | TheWell Bioscience | VHM04-K |