TABLE 2.
A brief comparison of the strengths and limitations of in vivo and in vitro cell culture techniques.
| Cell culture technology | Culture model | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2D Culture model | Monolayer culture | High repeatability Low cost High-throughput; Easy to operate |
Lack of tumor microenvironment; Monolayer cell culture | Duval et al. (2017) |
| 3D Culture model | Organoid | Simulate the in vivo environment; Long-term maintain; Preserve tumor heterogeneity | Lack of immune system and vascular network | Clevers (2016) |
| Autologous culture | Individualized | No standardized system | Tang et al. (2020a) | |
| Organotypic tissue slice culture | Retains some of the 3D anatomy intact; Fast modeling | Poor repeatability; Inefficiency | Willoughby et al. (1971) | |
| Organ-on-a-Chip | High-throughput; Microfluidic fine control; All-in-one study of multiple organs | High costs | Del Piccolo et al. (2021) | |
| 3D bioprinting | Accuracy and controllability High-throughput; Efficient |
Printing accuracy cannot be guaranteed Difficult to build complex tissues and organs |
Nwokoye and Abilez (2024), Shukla et al. (2024) | |
| Bioreactor | Precise control by multiple sensors High-throughput; Automation |
High costs Technically complex operation |
Ackermann et al. (2024), Chen et al. (2024) | |
| In vivo culture model | PDX | Provide in vivo environment; maintain tumor heterogeneity | Modeling takes a long time; High costs; Lacks immune system; Heterogeneous microenvironment | Yoshida (2020) |
| The humanized mouse | Provide in vivo environment; maintain tumor heterogeneity Simulating the human immune environment |
Modeling takes a long time; High costs Transplantation Rejection |
Walsh et al. (2017) |