Cytotoxic responses of carnosic acid and doxorubicin on breast cancer cells in butterfly-shaped microchips in comparison to 2D and 3D culture

WOS: 000398104900012PubMed ID: 28191587Two dimensional (2D) cell culture systems lack the ability to mimic in vivo conditions resulting in limitations for preclinical cell-based drug and toxicity screening assays and modelling tumor biology. Alternatively, 3D cell culture systems mimic the specificity of native tissue with better physiological integrity. In this regard, microfluidic chips have gained wide applicability for in vitro 3D cancer cell studies. The aim of this research was to develop a 3D biomimetic model comprising culture of breast cancer cells in butterfly-shaped microchip to determine the cytotoxicity of carnosic acid and doxorubicin on both estrogen dependent (MCF-7) and independent (MDAMB231) breast cancer cells along with healthy mammary epithelial cells (MCF-10A) in 2D, 3D Matrigel (TM) and butterfly-shaped microchip environment. According to the developed mimetic model, carnosic acid exhibited a higher cytotoxicity towards MDAMB 231, while doxorubicin was more effective against MCF-7. Although the cell viabilities were higher in comparison to 2D and 3D cell culture systems, the responses of the investigated molecules were different in the microchips based on the molecular weight and structural complexity indicating the importance of biomimicry in a physiologically relevant matrix

HER-2 intratumoral heterogeneity

HER-2 intratumoral heterogeneit

The Pathologist’s Guide to Fixatives

Proper tissue fixation is essential to ensure the highest level of specimen evaluation. Pathologists and laboratory staff are frequently consulted by clinical counterparts regarding what fixative should be used for different tissues or to enable a diagnosis of a specific condition. It is vital for the patient that the pathologist provides accurate information to ensure proper fixation. Frequently, once a tissue has been fixed inadequately or inappropriately, remedial changes may no longer be possible. Most often formalin is an adequate choice, if not the optimal one; however, there are certain situations when placing the tissue in formalin may limit the ability to reach a definitive diagnosis. It is imperative for pathologists to have the knowledge to communicate which fixative is optimal. Furthermore, as we move into a world of personalized medicine, where ancillary testing has both diagnostic and specific therapeutic implications, knowledge about how different fixatives affect immunohistochemistry, cytogenetics, and molecular studies becomes even more significant. This chapter provides practical information regarding common fixatives, their mechanism of action and optimal uses