ABSTRACT No current in vitro tumor model replicates a tumor’s in vivo microenvironment. A culturing technique that better preserves a tumor’s pathophysiological conditions is needed for some

important clinical applications, including personalized drug-sensitivity/resistance assays. In this study, we utilized autologous serum or body fluid to build a 3D scaffold and grow a

patient’s tumor. We named this technique “3D-ACM” (autologous culture method). Forty-five clinical samples from biopsies, surgically removed tumor tissues and malignant body fluids were

cultured with 3D-ACM. Traditional 3D-FBS (fetal bovine serum) cultures were performed side-by-side for comparison. The results were that cells cultured in 3D-ACM rebuilt tissue-like

improve the accuracy of drug-testing for personalized cancer treatment. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS 3D ENGINEERED SCAFFOLD FOR LARGE-SCALE VIGIL IMMUNOTHERAPY PRODUCTION Article

Open access 05 July 2024 PATIENT-DERIVED SCAFFOLDS AS A DRUG-TESTING PLATFORM FOR ENDOCRINE THERAPIES IN BREAST CANCER Article Open access 25 June 2021 COST-REDUCTION STRATEGY TO CULTURE

PATIENT DERIVED BLADDER TUMOR ORGANOIDS Article Open access 04 February 2025 INTRODUCTION Cancer patients are highly individualized in their responses to anti-cancer regimens, so it is

important to tailor a cancer treatment to a particular patient. Each tumor has its own physiological and biological characteristics; to retain these properties in vitro, an individualized

tumor culture is necessary. No tumor grows in two-dimensional (2D) form in a host, so three-dimensional (3D) culture techniques are being vigorously pursued to improve cancer research and

provide higher accuracy in drug discovery1. However, current 3D in vitro cancer models poorly replicate the native environment of a patient’s tumor, often resulting in the use of drugs that

perform well in these models but fail in clinical trials2,3. One of the significant weaknesses is that most cultures are performed on single cell populations (cloned cells or commercial cell

lines), even though in vivo tumor cells are surrounded by matrix cells and grow as tissues. Accordingly, scientists developed co-culture systems to rebuild cell-to-ECM (extra-cellular

matrix) communication environment. However, the stromal cells (e.g., fibroblasts and endothelial cells) used in such systems are either from immortalized cell lines4,5,6 or exogenous hosts7.

Thus, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether tumor cells in these artificial microenvironments function as they do in their native states. Today, the most advanced in vitro cancer

model is the tumor organoid8. Because it is derived from cancer stem cells that retain the original tumor’s heterogeneity9, tumor organoids have been used to study the occurrence,

development and treatment of tumors10,11,12. However, the organoid model also has some limitations. The major challenge is the lack of a native microenvironment (e.g., ECM composition and

growth factor gradients). Furthermore, the development of organoids relies on the addition of exogenous growth factors and cell-signaling pathway regulators, and these may change the

physiological conditions significantly from the tumor’s original microenvironment. When grown in these artificial cultures, tumor organoids are prone to cell division errors—resulting in

much slower growth rates than the parental tumors in vivo2,13,14. An ideal in vitro model for cancer study would closely replicate a tumor-specific physiological or pathophysiological

microenvironment, thereby maintaining native cell-to-cell and cell-to-ECM interactions and signal transduction paths that rely on specific tissue structures1. As a consequence, current

pre-clinical drug-sensitivity/resistance assays are not reliable, so they are not widely used in oncology practice. To achieve a more individualized in vitro tumor model, we used a patient’s

own serum or body fluid to build the 3D scaffold and serve as the culture medium. We named this technique “3D-ACM” (autologous culture method). Traditional 3D-FBS (fetal bovine serum)

cultures were used for comparisons. 3D-ACM was significantly better in preserving the parental tumor’s histopathology, immune phenotype expressions and cytokine productions. In addition,

tumors in 3D-ACM were much less sensitive to chemo drugs than in 3D-FBS. RESULTS A total of forty-five clinical cancer samples (Table 1) were cultured with the 3D-ACM technique; all samples

survived in autologous cultures and formed tissue-like structures therein. The culture duration for solid tumors averaged 15 days (range of 7–24 days), depending on the volume of serum

donated by the patient (we usually obtained 10–20 ml whole blood). The rate of solid tumor growth was estimated by the change in tumor size under microscope, as shown in Supplementary Fig.

S1a. Liquid sample cultures had longer durations—weeks or even months (over 3–4 passages), because of the large volume of body fluid that was available (we typically obtained 500–800 ml).

3D-FBS cultures were also performed for these samples, side-by-side. Compared to 3D-ACM cultures, all tumors grew more slowly in 3D-FBS (Supplementary Fig. S1b,c), and no liquid samples in

FBS survived the passage process. Tumor samples from both solid tissues and body fluids contained multiple types of cells; in addition to cancer cells, there were stromal cells and

infiltrated lymphocytes in solid tissues and mesothelial and various blood cells in body fluid samples (Supplementary Fig. S1d). TISSUE-LIKE STRUCTURES ONLY DEVELOPED IN 3D-ACM CULTURES The

two culture conditions, 3D-ACM and 3D-FBS (hereafter "ACM" and "FBS"), produced different growth patterns in all samples tested. Representative examples are provided in

Fig. 1a,b. For solid tumors, paired images of breast ductal carcinoma (BDC), lung adenocarcinoma (LAC) and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) are shown in Fig. 1a. In ACM cultures, cells migrated

from implanted tumors (IT) and formed globular (BDC), glandular (LAC), or trabecula with small glandular (GAC) structures (see arrows) as early as six days after implantation (upper row).

However, no such structures formed when the same tissues were implanted in FBS cultures; instead, fibroblast-like cells dominated in those culture wells (lower row). Similar results were

observed in liquid sample cultures (Fig. 1b), wherein mixed cell suspensions isolated from cancerous body fluids were seeded onto autologous 3D scaffolds. Self-organized, tissue-like

structures—tubulars in BDC, globules in LAC and trabecula forms in GAC—appeared in ACM wells as early as four days in culture (upper row), but not in any FBS wells where fibroblast-like

cells again dominated (lower row). Live/dead cells viability stain showed that the tissue-like structure that formed in the BDC sample was not simply cellular aggregation, but had a tubular

architecture (see insert image of BDC in Fig. 1b). Video images showing the process of cells self-organizing in ACM are provided in Supplementary Videos 1 and 2. Video 1 shows a gastric

adenocarcinoma growing in ACM: when large, round cells (possibly epithelial cells) migrated out from the implanted tissue, a connective tissue-like structure (composed of crossed spindle

cells) followed behind. Video 2 shows isolated cells from a LAC in ACM culture. After self-organization, single cells in the suspension contacted each other and formed a net. To better

compare the differences in growth patterns between ACM and FBS, daily images showing changes of tissue or cells in these two cultures are provided in Supplementary Fig. S2. The differences

in growth patterns between ACM and FBS cultures became more obvious with longer culture durations (≥ 15 days). Cancer cells from both solid and liquid samples formed tumor masses in ACM—but

not in FBS, where the domination of fibroblast-like cells continued (Fig. 1c). In hematoxylin and eosin stains, the newly formed structures in ACM resembled the histopathology of their

parental cancers in both solid tumors (Fig. 2a) and body fluid samples (Fig. 2b). In the solid tumors, histopathology showed irregular glands in both LAC and GAC parental tissues. Similar

glandular structures formed in ACM cultures. The BDC is a breast-invasive ductal carcinoma with no glandular or tubular structures in the original tumor by histopathology. In ACM culture,

this sample grew with non-specific structures. In the body fluid samples, although these cultures were initiated with liquid cellular suspensions, tubular structures were observed in BDC,

glandular structures were found in GAC, and cellular nests appeared in LSC (lung squamous carcinoma). In contrast, in FBS cultures, almost all original structures in solid tumor implants

disappeared; only a few matrix cells remained in cultures of both solid and liquid samples (Fig. 2a,b). Replacing autologous culture media with other types of human sera in our 3D cultures

had a negative impact on tumor growth. The use of commercial human serum resulted in tumor death within three days (n = 3; solid tumor tissues). Using exogenous culture medium (ECM) to

replace ACM produced slower tumor growth or cell death: In breast cancer cultures (solid tumor sample), two ECMs (sera from two different breast cancer patients) that were used individually

caused slower growth of the implants relative to ACM (Supplementary Fig. S3a). In LAC cultures, three ECMs (pleural effusions from three different LAC patients) were used to grow a LAC tumor

individually. More cell death occurred, and fewer tissue-like structures formed in the ECM cultures than in ACM (Supplementary Fig. S3b). ACM BETTER-MAINTAINED IMMUNO-PHENOTYPES IN NEW

GROWTHS OF CANCER TISSUES AND CELLS Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed for lung cancers (n = 13), breast cancers (n = 4) and gastric cancers (n = 2). Parental immune phenotypes were

retained much better in ACM cultures than in FBS. Representative results for LAC are shown in Fig. 3. The markers that are routinely used by pathologists for LAC diagnoses—CK, Napsin-A and

TTF-1—were well-expressed in new growths of LAC in ACM, for both solid (Fig. 3a) and liquid samples (Fig. 3b). However, in FBS cultures these markers were either negative (in solid tumors)

or poorly expressed (in liquid samples). The similarity of a new growth to its parental gastric adenocarcinoma (ascites sample) is shown in Supplementary Fig. S4. IHC studies, using Abs

against bFGF and CD105, indicated that the dominant cells in FBS cultures were mainly mesenchymal. Almost all cells in the FBS cultures were strongly positive for these two markers. However,

in ACM-cultured tissue, they were only detected in the matrix areas between tumor nests (Fig. 3a,b). GROWTH FACTORS IN CULTURE MEDIA WERE DIFFERENT BETWEEN ACM AND FBS To understand the

mechanism for the different morphologies described above, using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISA), we compared the concentrations of EGF (epidermal growth factor), TGF-β

(transforming growth factor beta), and bFGF (basic fibroblast growth factor) between the ACM and FBS media. Four pleural effusion samples of LAC were analyzed; the results are shown in Fig. 

4. After 10–15 days in culture, the EGF and TGF-β in ACM-culture media were both significantly higher than those in FBS. The average concentration of EGF in ACM was 82.67 ± 13.96 pg/ml,

while in FBS it was 11.29 ± 4.45 pg/ml. For TGF-β the average level in ACM was 12.96 ± 0.83 ng/ml, but in FBS it was 3.69 ± 0.14 ng/ml. In contrast, higher bFGF concentrations were detected

in FBS (51.26 ± 5.32 pg/ml) than in ACM (26.33 ± 1.97 pg/ml). Using one way ANOVA analysis, significant differences between ACM and FBS were found (_p_ ≤ 0.001) in most samples for the three

growth factors. The insert table in Fig. 4 provides the concentrations of these cytokines in the intact media (i.e., before cultures). There was no EGF and significantly lower TGF-β (3.22 

ng/ml) in the original FBS, but these two cytokines were detected in all four fresh ACM media, 149.04 ± 26.14 pg/ml for EGF, and 10.00 ± 1.46 ng/ml for TGF-β. The bFGF was nearly the same in

the original ACM and FBS media (15.30 ± 1.33 vs. 12.3 pg/ml). We also compared the concentrations of EGF, TGF-β, and bFGF between the ACM and FBS media from solid tumor cultures of breast

cancers (n = 6). Similar to the results for pleural effusion of LAC, significantly higher levels of EGF and TGF-β were detected in ACM before and after cultures. But in FBS, the EGF was

absent and the level of TGF-β was much lower before and after cultures (Supplementary Fig. S5a,b). The bFGF in ACM and FBS were similar in the intact media; for these breast cancer samples,

an elevated concentration was only detected in FBS (Supplementary Fig. S5c). TUMORS IN ACM WERE MORE RESISTANT TO CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS To investigate whether the morphological differences in

ACM and FBS cultures had any impact on cellular behaviors, drug-sensitivity assays were performed on three pleural effusion samples of LAC. Freshly isolated cell suspensions were stabilized

in ACM and FBS culture wells for 24 h before drugs were applied. The chemo drugs Paclitaxel (PTX) and Cisplatin (CIS) were used in these assays; both are recommended by the NCI (National

Cancer Institute) for non-small cell lung cancer. Two-way ANOVA analyses indicated that, for all three samples, cells under the FBS condition were much more sensitive to both PTX (_p_ = 

0.002) and CIS (_p_ = 0.018) than in ACM cultures. No obvious differences in results were found between samples incubated for 24- or 48-h with these drugs. The cell toxicities at the 24 h

time-point are shown in Fig. 5a. Morphologically, cell spheres can be seen in ACM cultures for all three concentrations of PTX, but they became fragmented or resembled debris in FBS, even at

the lowest concentration (Fig. 5b). DISCUSSION This study demonstrated the effects of using ACM for primary tumor cultures, as compared to the traditional FBS technique. ACM provides an

ecosystem for tumor cells that is very similar to their native condition, including the 3D environment and autologous culture medium (≥ 50% for autologous serum and 100% for autologous body

fluids). No commercial or exogenous bio-reagents are used in the ACM cultures because the culture environment, prepared with autologous serum or body fluids, contains all the nutrients,

hormones, cytokines/chemokines and growth factors that an individual tumor needs—and at their in vivo physiological concentrations. With commercial products, it would be nearly impossible to

provide such an individualized ecosystem for a patient’s tumor. ACM maximally preserved the natural heterogeneity of a tumor and its surrounding tissues, cells and matrix—including some

infiltrated lymphocytes (Supplementary Fig. S1d). No enzyme digestion was employed for either solid or liquid samples, nor were particular cell populations selected before cultures. A solid

tumor was implanted in culture as tissue pieces, such that the original microenvironment of the tumor was well-preserved in vitro. For body fluids, all cell-types (except red blood cells) in

the original liquid were seeded onto the autologous 3D scaffold, which enabled all of them to participate in the reconstruction of tissue-like structures. The results of our experiments

were that tumor cells quickly adapted to the ACM environment, rebuilt the histological structures (Figs. 1and 2), retained the immune phenotypes (Fig. 3) and cytokine productions (Fig. 4),

and possibly preserved the drug sensitivities of the original tumors (Fig. 5). Our study also revealed that the FBS-complemented 3D technique for primary cultures mainly encouraged

mesenchymal cell proliferation. In all FBS cultures, fibroblast-like cells were dominant and strongly positive to bFGF and CD105 (Fig. 3C). In addition, no tissue-like structures were

observed in any FBS-cultured solid or liquid samples. We also varied the type and concentration of serum used in some of our cultures. Commercial human serum was employed in two 3D cultures

of solid tumors; the tumors in these cultures died within three days. Different concentrations of autologous serum—10%, 25%, 50%, and 100%—were tested in three breast cancer samples for

their effects on tumor growth. The results were that a higher concentration of autologous serum produced faster tumor growth combined with better-formed tissue-like structures. Varying the

concentration of FBS-complemented culture medium—100%, 50% and 10%—did not show morphological differences in the cultured cells. Due to the limited number of samples, the above data are not

presented in this report. The drawbacks we observed when using exogenous sera or body fluids in the cultures (Supplementary Fig. S3a,b) further confirmed the advantage of the ACM technique

for maintaining a tumor’s biological characteristics. The differences in growth factor productions between ACM and FBS media may be at least partially responsible for the differences in

growth patterns and morphologies between these two cultures. The EGF and TGF-β levels were significantly higher in all ACM media before and after cultures, relative to in FBS, which had no

EGF and very low TGF-β. EGF is a ligand for the EGF receptor (EGFR). EGF and EGFR control important processes in carcinogenesis, and this signaling pathway is very common in certain types of

cancers15,16. The TGF-β family proteins possess a relatively complex nature. TGF-β plays a predominant role in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)17. Previous reports also indicate that

TGF-β is a bifunctional regulator that can either promote or inhibit growth of the same cell type, depending on the experimental conditions18. Some evidence supports the view that increased

TGF-β expression in cancer promotes tumor progression by enhancing migration, invasion and the survival of tumor cells during tumorigenesis19. A later study by Hao et al. found that TGF-β

acted as a tumor suppressor during the early stages of tumorigenesis, although at later stages it functioned as a tumor promoter by stimulating cancer cells to undergo EMT, and by activating

tumor angiogenesis and cancer-associated fibroblasts20. We were unable to determine the functions of these cytokines in our ACM cultures, so that we refrain from drawing any conclusions as

to their effects on our results. Further investigation is needed to fully understand the roles of EGF and TGF-β in primary cultures of cancer tissue. Among the three growth factors tested,

only bFGF had a higher level in FBS after cultures. FGF was originally identified as a protein capable of promoting fibroblast proliferation, and is a growth factor having potential effects

on wound repair and tissue regeneration21. Accordingly, FGFs are utilized for the regeneration of damaged tissues, including skin, blood vessel, muscle, adipose, tendon/ligament, cartilage,

bone, tooth, and nerve22,23,24,25. In all our FBS cultures, uniform fibroblast-like cells dominated and, unlike the results with ACM, there were no tissue-like structures. Based on our

culture images, histopathology and IHC results, we surmise that primary cultures using FBS medium promote the growth of mesenchymal cells, rather than epithelial cancer cells. The

differences in morphology and biochemistry between ACM and FBS cultures correlated with differences in the biological behaviors of the tumor cells. In our preliminary drug sensitivity

assays, a much higher toxicity was associated with FBS-cultured cells at the tested concentrations of the two drugs employed. This result might be due to the failure of FBS to fully satisfy

nutritional and other physiological needs, such that tumor cells in FBS were not as healthy as those in ACM when the drugs were applied. In addition, cells in FBS lost the ability to form

tissue-like structures, so they were more directly exposed to the chemo drugs. In contrast, ACM cultures provided the tumor cells with an environment that was much closer to their native

condition, which apparently made them more robust and enabled them to grow together into their original form. Accordingly, with ACM culture, we expect drug sensitivity results to more

closely represent clinical outcomes. Using autologous serum (20%) to grow primary tumors for drug sensitivity/resistant assays was first reported in 1961 under a 2D culture condition26. In

that study, Dr. Cobb et al. found that tumors survived much better in the autologous serum-complemented medium than in heterologous (horse) or homologous (pooled normal human)

serum-complemented media. Consistent with our results, they also observed reduced sensitivity to chemo drugs with the autologous serum, as compared to the other sera. However, under their 2D

conditions, no tissue-like structures formed in their autologous cultures. Interestingly, unlike the assays in our FBS cultures, the cellular toxicities in ACM were not proportional to the

drug concentrations (Fig. 5 insert table). The drug-sensitivity assays were repeated 3–4 times and, in all ACM cultures, the low doses induced higher cytotoxicity than the medium doses. We

speculate that this might be due to the greater variety of cell-types that survived in ACM cultures, but a definitive explanation must await further studies. The rearrangement and

self-organization of cells into tissue-like structures were observed in all ACM cultures. We noted that some of these structures resembled “organoids” as described in some previous

studies27,28,29,30. However, the organoid-like structures in our ACM cultures did not rely on any additional growth factors or gene inducers. Instead, the autologous serum or body fluid

enabled spontaneous self-organization of the tumor cells and their own surrounding matrix cells. In our experiments, ACM-cultured cells generally formed structures within 3–5 days (liquid

samples) and grew into tissue-like structures or tumor masses after about 7–10 days (solid tumor tissues). This is much faster than current organoid cultures from stem cells, which typically

take weeks, or even months, to grow such structures31. In general, clinical drug-sensitivity assays need to be timely, as well as inexpensive and reliable. The ACM appears to have the

potential to meet these requirements. To summarize, we developed a novel culture technique that is based on the use of autologous serum or body fluids in a 3D condition. This method provided

an autologous ecosystem for primary cancer cultures and resulted in the reliable and rapid growth of a variety of individual cancers in vitro. Biological characteristics of the parental

cancers were much better-retained in ACM, as compared to traditional FBS cultures or other non-autologous media. Preliminary drug tests indicated that cancer cells were much more vulnerable

to chemo drugs in FBS cultures than in ACM. Accordingly, the 3D-ACM technique may have potential for improving the accuracy of clinical drug-sensitivity assays. METHODS COLLECTION OF

CLINICAL SAMPLES Patients' samples were provided by three hospitals during 2015–2018: Dalian Municipal Central Hospital, Dalian, China; Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical

College, Shantou, China, and Shantou Central Hospital, Shantou, China. The study was approved and monitored by the Research Ethics Committees of Dalian Municipal Central Hospital

(YN2014-023–01), the Research Ethics Committees of Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College (YN201728), and the Research Ethics committees of Shantou Central Hospital

(KY2018010) respectively. All procedures were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. The clinical

materials included 28 solid tumors (24 surgically removed cancers and 4 biopsies) and 17 cancer-induced body fluids: ascites (n = 8) and pleural effusion (n = 9), with no limitations on sex

or age (Table 1). Tumors were from eight different organs or tissues: lung (n = 18), stomach (n = 11), breast (n = 9), pancreas (n = 2), ovary (n = 2), lymph node (metastatic gastric

adenocarcinoma; n = 1), endometrial membrane (n = 1) and pleural mesothelium (n = 1) (Table 1). Tumor diagnoses were confirmed by pathologists from participating hospitals. Patients who had

undergone chemotherapy within three months prior to sample collection were excluded. AUTOLOGOUS CULTURES The detailed procedure for autologous cultures is illustrated in Supplementary Fig.

S6. For solid tumor cultures, the autologous medium (AM) was the patient’s serum. Generally, 10–20 ml of fresh blood was collected from each patient. This yielded 5–10 ml of serum, which was

then 1:1 diluted in RPMI-1640 (50%). The AM for body fluid samples was pure ascites/pleural effusion (100%), which was first centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 10 min to precipitate cells, then

filtered through a 0.45µ filter-unit (Fisher Scientific, Cat# 09-740-24B, USA). To prepare the autologous 3D scaffold, Matrigel (BD Biosciences, Cat# 356243, USA) was well-mixed with 100%

autologous serum (AS) or body fluid at a 1:1 ratio; we named this "AM-matrigel". Solid tumor tissues were cut into pieces (≤ 0.5 mm in diameter), then placed onto AM-matrigel

pre-coated wells at 3–4 pieces/well in a 12- or 24-well plate; 4–6 wells were used per tumor sample (Supplementary Fig. S6a). After incubation at 37 °C for 30 min, these tissues were covered

with AM-matrigel to complete the 3D environment. AM was then added into the well after the AM-matrigel polymerized. For liquid sample cultures, the cell-pellet from the original spin (see

above) was loaded onto Percoll gradient centrifugation solution (TBD, China, Cat# LTS0770125) to remove red blood cells. Cells from the enriched layer were collected and washed in PBS twice,

then re-suspended in autologous body fluid. They were then counted and seeded in the AM-matrigel pre-coated wells at 1 × 106 in 10 ml per 100-mm dish, and 5 × 105 in five ml per 60-mm dish

(Supplementary Fig. S6b). All AM and AM-matrigel contained Cefoperazone (Pfizer Dalian Pharmaceutical Plant, China) at a final concentration of 20 µg/ml. To maintain a multicellular

condition, only half of the AM was refreshed 2–3 days following the start of the culture. After all cells either adhered or self-organized in the culture well, the entire volume of AM was

refreshed every 3–4 days. CULTURES USED FOR CONTROLS For comparison purposes, FBS (fetal bovine serum)-complemented 3D cultures were performed side-by-side with the autologous cultures. For

the FBS cultures, the “AM-matrigel” was replaced with FBS-matrigel (matrigel 1:1 diluted with 20% FBS medium) and autologous culture medium was replaced with 10% FBS-complemented RPMI-1640

medium. Both the FBS-matrigel and -medium contained Cefoperazone at the same concentration as in the 3D-ACM cultures. This procedure was named “3D-FBS” culture. In addition, normal human

serum (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) and exogenous serum or body fluids—collected from different patients having the same type of cancer—were also used in some tumor cultures for comparison to ACM. We

called this ‘exogenous culture medium’ (ECM). A procedure similar to that using FBS was followed in preparing these cultures. TISSUE CULTURE HARVEST Cells and tissues were harvested when a

well or dish was more than 80% confluent with new growths, or when no more AM was available. Tissues/cells were then scraped from culture wells and were either frozen at – 80 °C or fixed

with 4% paraformaldehyde for future use. HISTOPATHOLOGY AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY (IHC) Partial parental solid tumor tissue and a small amount cells freshly isolated from body fluid (see

Autologous culture section) were directly fixed in 4% formalin. Tissues/cells from culture wells were washed with PBS solution and spun at 1000 rpm for 10 min before fixation. Routine

paraffin embed, slide section and hematoxylins/eosin (H&E) stain were performed for all samples tested. DAKO Autostainer Link48 was utilized for IHC stains following the company’s

instructions. The antibodies employed included: CK (AE1/AE3) and TTF-1 (8G7G3/1) from DAKO Agilent Pathology Solutions (Santa Clara, CA US); Napsin-A (ZM11) and CEA (12/140/10) from ZETA

Corporation (CA, USA); CD105 and Calretinin (CR) from Abcam (Cambridge, MA USA); bFGF from Abgent (San Diego, CA USA) and PCNA (Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen) from ZSGB-Bio (ZM-0213,

Beijing, China). The second antibody used was a poly-horseradish peroxidase anti-mouse/rabbit IgG detection system (PV-9000, ZSGB-Bio, Beijing, China). ELISA ACM and FBS media were collected

individually from 4–6 wells of each tumor sample on the same day after culture. Corresponding intact media (before culture) were first stored at – 80 °C then tested simultaneously with

media post culture. ELISA kits for human TGF-β1, EGF and bFGF (Biotech Co. Ltd, Beijing, China) were used following the manufacturer’s instructions. DRUG-SENSITIVITY ASSAY Two chemo drugs,

Paclitaxel (PTX) and Cisplatin (CIS), were purchased from Hospira Australia (VIC3170; Australia) and Haosen Pharmaceutical (Lianyungang, China) respectively. Each drug’s toxicity was

pre-tested in two cancer cell lines (A549 and MCF7) using serial dilution, starting with a dose close to clinical intravenous use. A concentration close to the IC50 results from cell line

tests was used as the medium dose, then the high and low doses were calculated by multiplying or dividing the medium concentration by a factor of 4–5. Fresh pleural effusion was obtained

from a patient with lung adenocarcinoma (LAC). Cells were then isolated from the effusion and seeded immediately into wells pre-coated with AM-matrigel or FBS-matrigel (see Autologous

Cultures above) in a 96-well plate, at 1 × 105/ml, 100 µl/well. After cells had stabilized in culture for 24 h, drugs of three different dosages were added into the corresponding wells in

triplicate per dose, and the culture was incubated another 24 or 48 h. Cytotoxicity was measured with CCK-8 kit (Dojindo Co. LLC, Shanghai, China) and calculated with the formula provided by

the manufacturer. This assay was repeated 3–4 times with similar results. IMAGING SYSTEM Cell/tissue growth was imaged every two to three days using microscopy (AE2000, Motic, China). For

some samples, motion pictures were recorded with CytoSMART™ (Lonza, USA). STATISTICAL ANALYSES The multiple comparison procedures for drug-sensitivity assays were performed using the two-way

ANOVA method, employing SigmaPlot software. The quantitative data for ELISA were analyzed with both student t-test and one way ANOVA analysis, and graphed by GraphPad Prism 8.0. Data were

presented as mean ± SEM (standard error), and a value of _p_ ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. ETHICS ISSUE The study was approved and monitored by the ethics committees of the hospitals in

China that participated. These are the Research Ethics Committee of Dalian Municipal Central Hospital (YN2014-023-01), the Research Ethics Committee of Cancer Hospital of Shantou University

Medical College (YN201728), and the Research Ethics committee of Shantou Central Hospital (KY2018010). REFERENCES * Langhans, S. A. Three-dimensional in vitro cell culture models in drug

discovery and drug repositioning. _Front. Pharmacol._ 9, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00006 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Drost, J. & Clevers,

H. Organoids in cancer research. _Nat. Rev. Cancer_ 18, 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0007-6 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Volm, M. & Efferth, T.

Prediction of cancer drug resistance and implications for personalized medicine. _Front. Oncol._ 5, 282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00282 (2015). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  * Krause, S., Maffini, M. V., Soto, A. M. & Sonnenschein, C. A novel 3D in vitro culture model to study stromal-epithelial interactions in the mammary gland. _Tissue Eng.

C Methods_ 14, 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2008.0030 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Xu, R. & Richards, F. M. Development of in vitro co-culture model in

anti-cancer drug development cascade. _Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen._ 20, 451–457. https://doi.org/10.2174/1386207320666170202093538 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Yang, C. C. & Burg, K. J. Designing a tunable 3D heterocellular breast cancer tissue test system. _J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med._ 9, 310–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1660 (2015).

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Majumder, B. _et al._ Predicting clinical response to anticancer drugs using an ex vivo platform that captures tumour heterogeneity. _Nat. Commun._ 6,

6169. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7169 (2015). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Clevers, H. Modeling development and disease with organoids. _Cell_ 165, 1586–1597.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.082 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * McCracken, K. W. _et al._ Modelling human development and disease in pluripotent stem-cell-derived

gastric organoids. _Nature_ 516, 400–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13863 (2014). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Boj, S. F. _et al._ Organoid models of

human and mouse ductal pancreatic cancer. _Cell_ 160, 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.12.021 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Gao, D. _et al._ Organoid cultures

derived from patients with advanced prostate cancer. _Cell_ 159, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.08.016 (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  *

Vlachogiannis, G. _et al._ Patient-derived organoids model treatment response of metastatic gastrointestinal cancers. _Science_ 359, 920–926. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2774 (2018).

Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Drost, J. _et al._ Sequential cancer mutations in cultured human intestinal stem cells. _Nature_ 521, 43–47.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14415 (2015). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Verissimo, C. S. _et al._ Targeting mutant RAS in patient-derived colorectal cancer organoids by

combinatorial drug screening. _eLife_ https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18489 (2016). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Cacina, C. _et al._ Analyses of EGF A61G gene variation

and serum EGF level on gastric cancer susceptibility and clinicopathological parameters. _Anticancer Res._ 35, 2709–2713 (2015). CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Chen, J. C. _et al._

Expression and function of the epidermal growth factor receptor in physiology and disease. _Physiol. Rev._ 96, 1025–1069. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00030.2015 (2016). Article  ADS  CAS

  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lamouille, S., Xu, J. & Derynck, R. Molecular mechanisms of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. _Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol._ 15, 178–196.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3758 (2014). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Roberts, A. B. _et al._ Type beta transforming growth factor: a bifunctional regulator of

cellular growth. _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA_ 82, 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.82.1.119 (1985). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Morikawa, M., Derynck,

R. & Miyazono, K. TGF-beta and the TGF-beta family: context-dependent roles in cell and tissue physiology. _Cold Spring Harbor Perspect. Biol._

https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a021873 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Hao, Y., Baker, D. & ten Dijke, P. TGF–mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer metastasis.

_Int. J. Mol. Sci._ https://doi.org/10.3390/Ijms20112767 (2019). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Yun, Y. R. _et al._ Fibroblast growth factors: biology, function, and

application for tissue regeneration. _J. Tissue Eng._ 2010, 218142. https://doi.org/10.4061/2010/218142 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Hankemeier, S. _et

al._ Modulation of proliferation and differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells by fibroblast growth factor 2: potential implications for tissue engineering of tendons and ligaments.

_Tissue Eng._ 11, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.2005.11.41 (2005). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Martin, I. _et al._ Enhanced cartilage tissue engineering by sequential

exposure of chondrocytes to FGF-2 during 2D expansion and BMP-2 during 3D cultivation. _J. Cell. Biochem._ 83, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.1203 (2001). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Delgado-Rivera, R. _et al._ Increased FGF-2 secretion and ability to support neurite outgrowth by astrocytes cultured on polyamide nanofibrillar matrices. _Matrix Biol. J. Int.

Soc. Matrix Biol._ 28, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matbio.2009.02.001 (2009). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Rophael, J. A. _et al._ Angiogenic growth factor synergism in a murine

tissue engineering model of angiogenesis and adipogenesis. _Am. J. Pathol._ 171, 2048–2057. https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2007.070066 (2007). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google

Scholar  * Cobb, J. P. & Walker, D. G. Effect of heterologous, homologous, and autologous serums on human normal and malignant cells in vitro. _J. Natl Cancer Inst._ 27, 1–15 (1961). CAS

  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Chakradhar, S. Put to the test: organoid-based testing becomes a clinical tool. _Nat. Med._ 23, 796–799. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0717-796 (2017). Article  CAS 

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dutta, D., Heo, I. & Clevers, H. Disease modeling in stem cell-derived 3d organoid systems. _Trends Mol. Med._ 23, 393–410.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2017.02.007 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Duttal, D. & Clevers, H. Organoid culture systems to study host-pathogen interactions. _Curr.

Opin. Immunol._ 48, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coi.2017.07.012 (2017). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Fleischer, S., Feiner, R. & Dvir, T. Cutting-edge platforms in cardiac

tissue engineering. _Curr. Opin. Biotech._ 47, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2017.05.008 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Jung, J., Seol, H. S. & Chang, S. The

generation and application of patient-derived xenograft model for cancer research. _Cancer Res. Treat._ 50, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.307 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google

Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are very grateful for the extensive collaboration with, and the assistance provided by, the doctors, nurses and administrative

officers of the participating hospitals. FUNDING This study was supported by the following grants: 1. The Li Kashing Foundation (Hong Kong, China) to Dr. Jiang Gu, the Department of

Pathology and Pathophysiology of Shantou University School of Medicine, Shantou, Guangdong Province, China (2017); 2. The Finance and Education Foundation of Shantou (Shantou government,

China; 242-62, 2017) to Dr. Wenhe Huang, The Breast Center of Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong Province, China; 3. The Soft-power Elevation Fund of

Mayor’s Office (Dalian, China; 2015) to Dalian Municipal Central Hospital, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China. AUTHOR INFORMATION Author notes * These authors contributed equally: Yao Tang and

Qian Xu. AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Provincial Key Laboratory of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Immunopathology, Department of Pathology and Pathophysiology, Shantou University Medical

College, Shantou, 515041, Guangdong, China Yao Tang, Qian Xu, Meiling Yan, Yimin Zhang, Ping Zhu, Shuming Zhang & Jiang Gu * Department of Pathology, Beijing University Cancer Hospital,

Beijing, 100142, China Xianghong Li * Dalian Municipal Central Hospital, Dalian, 116033, Liaoning, China Yao Tang, Limin Sang, Ming Zhang, Yue Xin & Li Zhang * Cancer Hospital of Shantou

University Medical College, Shantou, 515041, Guangdong, China Wenhe Huang & Jundong Wu * Shantou Central Hospital, Shantou, 515041, Guangdong, China Lianxing Lin & Junhui Fu *

Jinxin Research Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Chengdu Jinjiang Hospital for Maternal and Child Health Care, Chengdu, 610066, Sichuan, China Jiang Gu Authors * Yao Tang

View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Qian Xu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Meiling

Yan View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Yimin Zhang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

Ping Zhu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Xianghong Li View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * Limin Sang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ming Zhang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Wenhe Huang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Lianxing Lin View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Jundong Wu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Yue Xin View author publications You can also search for this

author inPubMed Google Scholar * Junhui Fu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Li Zhang View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Shuming Zhang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Jiang Gu View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Y.T.: Conceived technique, designed and directed experiment, trained others, drafted article. Q.X.: Co-1st author. Principle

hands-on researcher. Participated in all experiments and discussions of results, and assisted in manuscript writing. M.Y.: Processed solid tumor samples and supported program discussions,

data analyses and presentations. Y.Z.: Processed drug-sensitivity assays and supported program discussions, data analyses and presentations. P.Z.: Processed solid tumor samples and

participated in program discussions, data analyses and presentations. X.L.: Pathology specialist responsible for diagnoses. Participated in article editing, program discussions, data

analyses and presentations. L.S.: Processed some liquid tumor samples. M.Z.: Processed some solid tumor samples. W.H.: Key clinical collaborator and financial supporter of the project.

Participated in selection of patients and collection of solid tumor samples. L.L.: Key clinical collaborator, participated in selection of patients and collection of liquid samples. J.W.:

Key clinical collaborator, participated in selection of patients and collection of solid tumor samples. Y.X.: Pathologist. Participated in some diagnoses of tumor samples. J.F.: Key clinical

collaborator, participated in selection of patients and collection of solid tumor samples. L.Z.: Central Laboratory Director, Dalian Municipal Central Hospital. Participated in project

organization and management. S.Z.: Participated in cell cultures, analyses of results, and discussions. J.G.: Co-responding author. Director of the Department of Pathology and

Pathophysiology, Shantou University Medical College. The main financial supporter. Participated in program discussions and article editing. All authors reviewed this manuscript.

CORRESPONDING AUTHORS Correspondence to Yao Tang or Jiang Gu. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 1. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE

2. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 3. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 4. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 5. SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE 6. SUPPLEMENTARY LEGENDS. Supplementary Video 1. Supplementary Video 2. RIGHTS AND

PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any

medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The

images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is

not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission

directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Tang, Y.,

Xu, Q., Yan, M. _et al._ Autologous culture method improves retention of tumors’ native properties. _Sci Rep_ 10, 20455 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77238-0 Download citation

* Received: 15 February 2020 * Accepted: 02 November 2020 * Published: 24 November 2020 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77238-0 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following

link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature

SharedIt content-sharing initiative