Session VI - Extracellular vesicles
Vol. 99 No. s1 (2026): Abstract Book del 98° Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di...
https://doi.org/10.4081/jbr.2026.15377

125 | Impact of 2D and 3D in vitro culture models on extracellular vesicles in human ovarian cancer

Giulia Di Fazio1, Giuseppina Poppa1, Giuseppe Cammarata2, Sandra D’Ascenzo1, Vincenza Dolo1, Simona Taverna2, Ilaria Giusti1 | 1Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy; 2Institute of Translational Pharmacology IFT, National Research Council of Italy CNR, Palermo, Italy.

Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Received: 31 March 2026
Published: 31 March 2026
43
Views

Authors

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) and their molecular cargo have garnered significant attention as potential biomarkers. Nevertheless, the identification of reliable candidate molecules necessitates comprehensive preliminary in vitro investigations. Historically, in vitro studies on EVs have primarily used two-dimensional (2D) culture models due to their ease of use and high reproducibility. However, these 2D systems have significant drawbacks, as they do not accurately replicate the complex structural organization and physiological features of tumors as seen in vivo. As a result, there has been a growing interest in three-dimensional (3D) culture models, including spheroids. Unlike traditional 2D approaches, 3D systems more closely resemble tumor architecture and allow for better interaction between cells and the surrounding extracellular matrix. Despite this advancement, the isolation of EVs from these 3D models still lacks standardized procedures, making consistent and comparable analyses challenging.[1,2] The present study aimed to analyze and compare EVs released by the ES-2 ovarian carcinoma cell line cultured in 2D and 3D models. Their molecular composition was assessed, and functional assays were performed using fibroblasts as target cells. The results revealed both molecular and functional differences between the two models. Proliferation assays were performed on fibroblasts treated with EVs derived from ES-2 cells cultured in 2D or 3D, showing increased proliferative activity following treatment with EVs from the 3D model. Western blot analysis of EV molecular content also revealed higher levels of TGF-β in EVs isolated from the 3D model. Fibroblast activation was further confirmed by Western blot analysis of α-SMA expression, a typical marker of cancer-associated fibroblasts, which was higher in fibroblasts treated with EVs from the 3D model. In parallel, analysis of circRNAs in EVs was initiated to evaluate their potential as tumor biomarkers. Differential expression of specific circRNAs was observed between EVs from the two culture models. Overall, these results indicate that EVs derived from 2D and 3D human ovarian cancer models exhibit distinct characteristics depending on the experimental system used. This highlights the importance of carefully selecting the culture model, as it can influence both functional study outcomes and the identification of novel biomarkers.
This work was supported by the Funding Program PRIN 2022 under grant agreement N°20224XB79P, funded by European Union, Next-generation EU, PNRR, M.4-C2-1.1.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

1. Cook K, Li H. Advancing extracellular vesicle production: improving physiological relevance and yield with 3D cell culture. Nanoscale 2025;17:15110-15131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D5NR00707K

2. Giusti I, Di Francesco M, D'Ascenzo C, et al. Extracellular vesicles in Alzheimer's disease: friends or foes? Int J Mol Sci 2022;23:11782.

How to Cite



125 | Impact of 2D and 3D in vitro culture models on extracellular vesicles in human ovarian cancer: Giulia Di Fazio1, Giuseppina Poppa1, Giuseppe Cammarata2, Sandra D’Ascenzo1, Vincenza Dolo1, Simona Taverna2, Ilaria Giusti1 | 1Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy; 2Institute of Translational Pharmacology IFT, National Research Council of Italy CNR, Palermo, Italy. (2026). Journal of Biological Research - Bollettino Della Società Italiana Di Biologia Sperimentale, 99(s1). https://doi.org/10.4081/jbr.2026.15377