Beyond the Dish: How 3D Culture is Reshaping Our Understanding of Macrophage Biology and Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparison between traditional 2D and advanced 3D culture systems for macrophages, crucial innate immune cells. Tailored for researchers and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational principles of macrophage plasticity, details cutting-edge 3D methodological approaches like bioprinting and organotypic cultures, and addresses key challenges in model optimization. By validating 3D systems against traditional models through functional and phenotypic analyses, we highlight their superior ability to recapitulate the in vivo tumor microenvironment, ultimately advocating for their adoption to enhance the predictive accuracy of therapeutic screening and mechanistic studies in immunology and oncology.

Macrophage Fundamentals: Unraveling Plasticity and Origin-Specific Responses in the TME

The classical dichotomy of macrophage polarization into pro-inflammatory M1 and anti-inflammatory M2 phenotypes has provided a valuable framework for understanding immune function in health and disease. However, emerging evidence from advanced transcriptomic analyses and three-dimensional (3D) culture systems reveals that this binary classification represents an oversimplification of macrophage biology in vivo. Macrophages exist along a dynamic functional spectrum, with their phenotype shaped by a complex interplay of tissue-specific cues, metabolic reprogramming, and biomechanical forces from their microenvironment [1] [2]. This paradigm shift has profound implications for cancer immunology, drug development, and our fundamental understanding of macrophage function.

Traditional two-dimensional (2D) culture systems on rigid plastic substrates have limited ability to recapitulate this complexity, often forcing macrophages into artificial polarization states that poorly mirror their behavior in physiological contexts [3] [4]. The advent of 3D culture technologies now enables researchers to model the tissue microenvironment with greater fidelity, revealing unprecedented insights into macrophage plasticity and functional heterogeneity. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of traditional versus 3D culture systems for studying macrophage polarization, with supporting experimental data and methodologies to inform research design in immunology and drug development.

Redefining Macrophage Polarization: From Dichotomy to Spectrum

Molecular Mechanisms Beyond M1/M2

The traditional M1/M2 classification centers on specific signaling pathways and transcriptional regulators. M1 polarization is predominantly triggered via Toll-like receptor (TLR) pathways by stimuli such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and interferon-γ (IFN-γ), activating the JAK/STAT signaling cascade and enhancing production of pro-inflammatory cytokines including TNF-α and IL-12 [1]. In contrast, M2 polarization is induced by cytokines including IL-4 and IL-13, which activate STAT6 and PI3K/AKT pathways, driving expression of anti-inflammatory factors and promoting tissue repair functions [1]. Metabolic reprogramming is also crucial, with M1 macrophages predominantly utilizing glycolysis while M2 macrophages rely more on oxidative phosphorylation and fatty acid oxidation [1].

However, single-cell transcriptomic and spatial multi-omics technologies have fundamentally transformed our understanding, demonstrating that macrophage phenotypes in vivo exist along a dynamic continuum rather than discrete categories [1]. This continuum is shaped by local microenvironmental cues including metabolic signaling, extracellular matrix composition, developmental origins distinguishing tissue-resident from monocyte-derived populations, and disease-specific pathological contexts [1].

Empirical Evidence Challenging the Binary Model

Clinical evidence increasingly challenges the simplistic M1/M2 framework. In human bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, approximately 25% of macrophages lack classical M1 (CD40) or M2 (CD163) surface markers, with this "double-negative" population significantly enriched in COPD patients compared to non-COPD patients (46.7% vs. 14.5%) [2]. Transcriptomic analysis of these double-negative macrophages revealed 1,886 differentially expressed genes compared to other subtypes, with up-regulated genes enriched in inflammatory responses and mitochondrial function [2]. This population exhibits a pro-inflammatory gene signature that falls outside traditional classification systems, suggesting distinct functional states relevant to human disease.

Similarly, in tumor microenvironments, certain macrophage populations can co-express both classical M1 markers and M2 markers, demonstrating unprecedented capacity for rapid functional switching between antimicrobial defense and tissue repair processes [1]. This remarkable plasticity fundamentally challenges the explanatory power of traditional classification systems and highlights the need for more nuanced frameworks.

Comparative Analysis: 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems

Technical Specifications and Methodological Considerations

Table 1: Comparison of 2D and 3D Macrophage Culture Systems

Parameter	Traditional 2D Culture	Advanced 3D Culture
Substrate	Rigid tissue culture plastic [4]	Soft hydrogels, bioscaffolds (0.2-5 kPa) [4] [5]
Cell Morphology	Flat, spread morphology [4]	Elongated, tissue-like morphology [4]
Polarization Response	Exaggerated polarization; strong M1/M2 dichotomy [4]	Attenuated polarization; mixed/spectrum phenotypes [4]
Metabolic Activity	Standardized glycolytic/OXPHOS balance [1]	Enhanced metabolic plasticity; tissue-specific profiles [1]
Gene Expression	Canonical M1/M2 gene signatures [6]	Unique transcriptomic profiles; tissue-relevant genes [6] [5]
Drug Screening Relevance	Limited predictive value for in vivo efficacy [6]	Enhanced clinical translatability [3] [6]
Throughput	High-throughput screening compatible [3]	Medium throughput; technical challenges remain [3]
Reproducibility	High reproducibility [3]	Batch variability; standardization challenges [3]

Functional Differences in Macrophage Behavior

Comparative studies demonstrate profound functional differences between macrophages cultured in 2D versus 3D environments. When evaluating response to Mycobacterium infection, macrophages in 3D environments showed significantly increased production of reactive species, enhanced motility, and altered cellular volume compared to their 2D counterparts [7] [8]. These differences extend to fundamental cellular processes including proliferation, apoptosis, and gene expression profiles [6].

In tumor microenvironment research, 3D co-culture models demonstrate that macrophages exhibit different polarization patterns and functional outputs compared to 2D systems. Specifically, macrophages in 3D cultures show less pronounced polarization in compliant, soft materials compared to 2D culture on rigid tissue culture plastic, suggesting that biomechanical cues significantly modulate polarization responses [4]. The biomechanical properties of 3D environments, including stiffness and composition, more closely mimic physiological conditions and elicit more representative macrophage behavior [3] [5].

Table 2: Quantitative Differences in Macrophage Responses in 2D vs. 3D Cultures

Functional Attribute	2D Culture Performance	3D Culture Performance	Experimental Evidence
Migration Capacity	Limited, directional migration [8]	Enhanced, multi-directional motility [8]	4D confocal imaging of BMDMs in RBM matrix [8]
Reactive Species Production	Standard response to stimulation [8]	Significantly increased production [8]	Fluorescence quantification in infected BMDMs [8]
Transcriptomic Diversity	Canonical M1/M2 signatures [6]	Thousands of differentially expressed genes [6]	RNA sequencing of colorectal cancer models [6]
Drug Response	Hypersensitivity to chemotherapeutics [6]	Physiologically relevant resistance [6]	Dose-response to 5-FU, cisplatin, doxorubicin [6]
Phenotype Plasticity	Limited repolarization capacity [4]	Enhanced plasticity and adaptation [4]	Flow cytometry of surface markers post-stimulation [4]
Cell Survival	Higher baseline apoptosis [6]	Enhanced viability; tissue-like survival [6]	Annexin V/PI staining and flow cytometry [6]

Experimental Protocols for 3D Macrophage Culture

3D Hydrogel System for Primary Macrophage Culture

Purpose: To establish a physiologically relevant 3D microenvironment for studying macrophage polarization dynamics [5].

Materials:

• Type I collagen solution (3 mg/mL concentration)
• Bone marrow-derived hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) or primary macrophages
• IMDM medium supplemented with 10% FBS
• Cytokine cocktail: SCF (50 ng/mL), TPO (20 ng/mL), Flt-3L (20 ng/mL)
• Neutralization solution: NaOH and PBS buffer
• Type IV collagenase for cell recovery

Methodology:

• Prepare collagen hydrogels by diluting stock collagen to 3 mg/mL with culture medium
• Adjust pH to 7.4 using 1N NaOH and buffer with PBS
• Resuspend freshly isolated HSCs or primary macrophages in collagen solution
• Plate mixture in culture vessels and incubate at 37°C for 30 minutes for gel polymerization
• Add complete IMDM medium supplemented with cytokine cocktail
• Maintain cultures at 37°C in 5% CO2 humidified incubator for 7-14 days
• For analysis, liberate cells using Type IV collagenase treatment (1-2 hours at 37°C)

Key Applications: This system generates specialized '3D-macrophages' that express unique chemokine profiles (e.g., Cxcl2, Cd14) and demonstrate enhanced recruitment of neutrophils, providing a more physiologically relevant model for studying immune cell crosstalk [5].

3D Bioprinting of Macrophage-Containing Constructs

Purpose: To create spatially patterned macrophage cultures with controlled architecture for high-content screening [4].

Materials:

• Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based hydrogel precursors
• Adhesive peptides (RGD, GFOGER, DYIGSR)
• Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-sensitive crosslinkers
• RASTRUM bioprinter or equivalent bioprinting system
• Immortalized or primary macrophage cells

Methodology:

• Formulate PEG hydrogel precursors with adhesive peptides and MMP-sensitive crosslinkers
• Mix macrophage suspension with hydrogel precursor solution at 5-10×10^6 cells/mL density
• Load cell-hydrogel mixture into bioprinter cartridge
• Print 3D constructs into multiwell plates using predefined geometric patterns
• Expose constructs to UV light (365 nm) for 60-90 seconds for crosslinking
• Culture bioprinted constructs in macrophage-specific medium
• Monitor cell viability and polarization over time via confocal microscopy

Key Applications: This approach enables high-throughput generation of consistent 3D macrophage cultures for drug screening and hypothesis testing about cell-microenvironment interactions [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Macrophage Polarization Research

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Considerations
Polarization Inducers	LPS (100 ng/mL) + IFN-γ (20 ng/mL) for M1; IL-4 (20 ng/mL) + IL-13 (20 ng/mL) for M2 [1]	Directing macrophage polarization toward classic phenotypes	Concentration and timing critically affect phenotype purity [1]
3D Scaffold Materials	Collagen (3 mg/mL), PEG-based hydrogels, reconstituted basement membrane (RBM) [3] [5]	Providing physiological mechanical microenvironment	Stiffness (0.2-5 kPa), porosity, and degradability influence polarization [3]
Cell Sources	Primary BMMs, peritoneal macrophages, immortalized lines (RAW 264.7, MH-S, IC-21) [4]	In vitro modeling of macrophage function	Origin significantly impacts baseline marker expression and polarization capacity [4]
Analysis Tools	Flow cytometry panels (CD86, MHCII, CD206, EGR2), scRNA-seq, cytokine multiplex assays [4] [2]	Phenotypic and functional characterization	Multi-modal approaches needed to capture polarization spectrum [2]
Specialized Media	Cytokine cocktails (SCF, TPO, Flt-3L), metabolic modifiers [1] [5]	Maintaining viability and function in 3D culture	Metabolic requirements differ between 2D and 3D contexts [1]
1-Methylcytosine	1-Methylcytosine | High-Purity Reference Standard	High-purity 1-Methylcytosine for epigenetic research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.	Bench Chemicals
7-Methylisatin	7-Methylisatin | High-Purity Research Compound	7-Methylisatin, a versatile biochemical tool for research. Explore its applications in kinase inhibition & organic synthesis. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.	Bench Chemicals

The transition from a binary M1/M2 paradigm to a spectrum model of macrophage polarization represents a fundamental shift in immunology with far-reaching implications for basic research and therapeutic development. The limitations of traditional 2D culture systems in recapitulating the complexity of tissue microenvironments have become increasingly apparent, driving the adoption of 3D culture technologies that better capture macrophage plasticity and functional heterogeneity.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these advances offer both challenges and opportunities. While 3D culture systems require more specialized expertise and present technical hurdles for standardization and high-throughput applications, they provide unprecedented physiological relevance for studying macrophage biology in health and disease. The integration of transcriptomic profiling, spatial analysis, and functional assays in 3D contexts will be essential for fully elucidating the macrophage polarization spectrum and developing more effective immunotherapies that account for this complexity.

As the field continues to evolve, the adoption of standardized 3D culture protocols, reproducible scaffold systems, and analytical frameworks capable of capturing continuous phenotypic states will be critical for advancing our understanding of macrophage biology and translating these insights into clinical applications.

The Critical Role of Tissue Origin and Developmental Ontogeny in Shaping Macrophage Function

Macrophages, once viewed through a simplistic lens of pro-inflammatory M1 and anti-inflammatory M2 activation states, are now recognized as exquisitely complex immune cells whose functional capabilities are profoundly shaped by two fundamental factors: their tissue origin and developmental ontogeny. The traditional M1/M2 paradigm fails to capture the remarkable diversity of macrophage phenotypes observed in physiological and pathological contexts [4] [9]. Instead, a more nuanced understanding has emerged, recognizing that macrophages exhibit complex and diverse functions imprinted by their resident tissue, with tissue-specific transcriptional programs essential for maintaining their phenotype and function [9].

The origin of tissue-resident macrophages has been a subject of significant scientific evolution. While early dogma postulated that macrophages were continually replenished by circulating bone marrow-derived monocytes, pioneering research has revealed that many tissue-resident macrophages (TRMs) originate from embryonic precursors that seed tissues during development and maintain themselves through local self-renewal [9] [10]. Mammalian embryos produce several transient waves of hematopoietic cells before establishing hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in the bone marrow. These include primitive hematopoiesis in the yolk sac, producing the first macrophages, and definitive hematopoiesis, which generates erythro-myeloid progenitors (EMPs) that migrate to the fetal liver and give rise to fetal monocytes [10]. These embryonic precursors colonize specific tissue sites, where they differentiate and mature into long-lasting self-renewing macrophage populations [10].

This review comprehensively compares how tissue origin and developmental pathways fundamentally shape macrophage function, polarization, and therapeutic responses, with particular emphasis on advances enabled by three-dimensional (3D) culture systems that more accurately recapitulate physiological microenvironments.

The Developmental Landscape of Macrophage Ontogeny

Embryonic Origins and Tissue Seeding

Macrophage development follows a complex, multi-wave process during embryogenesis with high similarity between humans and mice [9]. Fate-mapping studies have revealed that yolk sac-derived EMPs generate at least two distinct waves of macrophages: the first wave at embryonic day 7.5 (E7.5) produces primitive macrophages that migrate into the brain rudiment to become microglia, while the second wave at E8.25 generates EMPs that give rise to the majority of other adult macrophages [9]. These embryonic precursors colonize tissues through sequential seeding, where their identity becomes imprinted by the resident tissue environment [9].

The following diagram illustrates the key developmental pathways in macrophage ontogeny:

Macrophage Developmental Ontogeny

Self-Renewal Versus Monocyte-Dependent Maintenance

The maintenance mechanisms for macrophage populations vary significantly by tissue type and developmental origin. Self-renewing TRMs—including microglia, Kupffer cells in the liver, and Langerhans cells in the skin—maintain themselves primarily through local proliferation with minimal contribution from circulating monocytes under steady-state conditions [10]. In contrast, certain macrophage populations in tissues like the dermis, gut, and heart receive continuous replenishment from bone marrow-derived monocytes [10]. This fundamental difference in maintenance strategy has profound implications for understanding macrophage turnover in homeostasis and disease, and for designing targeted therapeutic interventions.

Comparative Functional Analysis: Tissue Origin Dictates Macrophage Responses

Baseline Phenotypic and Functional Differences Across Tissues

Recent investigations have revealed significant differences in baseline marker expression and functional capacity among macrophages derived from different tissues, highlighting the importance of cell source selection for specific research applications.

Table 1: Baseline Marker Expression Across Macrophage Types

Macrophage Type	Tissue Origin	Developmental Origin	Key Baseline Markers	Functional Characteristics
Microglia	Brain	Yolk sac primitive macrophages	TMEM119, P2RY12, SIGLEC-H	Specialized synaptic pruning, neuroprotection
Alveolar Macrophages	Lung	Fetal liver monocytes	CD206, MARCO, SIGLEC-F	Surfactant catabolism, airborne pathogen defense
Kupffer Cells	Liver	Yolk sac EMPs	CLEC4F, TIM4, ID3	Iron recycling, endotoxin clearance
Peritoneal Macrophages	Peritoneal cavity	Fetal liver monocytes	F4/80, GATA6, TIM4	Serosal cavity defense, lipid metabolism
Adipose Tissue Macrophages	Adipose tissue	Embryonic yolk-sac precursors	CD206, TIMD4, LYVE1	Metabolic homeostasis, lipid storage regulation
Bone Marrow-Derived Macrophages	Bone marrow	Adult HSC-derived monocytes	CD86, MHC-II, CD11b	Phagocytosis, antigen presentation

Research comparing immortalized macrophage cell lines from different origins (RAW 264.7 from blood, MH-S from alveolar, and IC-21 from peritoneal) has demonstrated significant differences in baseline expression of markers including CD86, MHCII, CD206, and EGR2 [4]. These inherent differences further influence both polarization capacity and repolarization potential of the cells, in addition to their phagocytic functionality [4]. Interestingly, while RAW 264.7 cells behave similarly to primary bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs), noticeable phenotypic and functional differences exist between IC-21 cell lines and primary peritoneal macrophages, highlighting tissue-specific differences in macrophage response [4].

Functional Consequences in Physiological and Pathological Contexts

The tissue-specific programming of macrophages directly translates to specialized functional capabilities relevant to both homeostasis and disease:

• Adipose Tissue Macrophages: Play critical roles in maintaining tissue homeostasis, expansion, and remodeling under physiological conditions [11]. Distinct subsets exist, with resident AT-macrophages considered metabolically advantageous, while bone marrow-derived macrophages can negatively impact AT function by promoting inflammation, insulin resistance, and fibrosis [11].

• Tumor-Associated Macrophages (TAMs): Represent a key component of the tumor microenvironment, accounting for approximately 50% of hematopoietic cells in many tumors [9]. TAMs exhibit both anti-tumor and pro-tumor properties, with their functional status determined by local tissue signals that can promote tumor progression by supporting cancer cell proliferation, invasion, angiogenesis, and immunosuppression [9].

• Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Response: Macrophages in skin infection sites are exposed to the dynamic environment of interstitial fluid, where flow rates significantly influence their phagocytic capacity and response to infectious agents [12].

Methodological Approaches: 2D vs 3D Culture Systems

Technical Limitations of Traditional 2D Culture

Traditional two-dimensional (2D) culture on tissue-culture plastic (TCP) has been the standard practice for macrophage studies but presents significant limitations. 2D systems fail to replicate the three-dimensional architecture, cell-ECM interactions, and physiochemical gradients that cells experience in vivo [13] [14]. These systems lack continuous nutrient and waste exchange, mechanical forces, and fluid flow that significantly influence cellular functions and interactions [12]. The rigid, flat surface of TCP also fails to mimic the compliant, complex microenvironment of native tissues, potentially altering macrophage polarization and function [4].

Advancements in 3D Culture Systems

Three-dimensional culture systems have emerged as powerful tools that better recapitulate the physiological microenvironment. These systems enable spatial cell growth and more accurately reproduce natural tissue conditions, facilitating stronger intercellular and cell-ECM communication [14]. Multiple 3D approaches have been developed:

• Scaffold-Based Systems: Utilizing natural polymers (Matrigel, collagen, alginate) or synthetic polymers (PEG, PLGA) to mimic extracellular matrix conditions [14]. PEG-based hydrogels are particularly valuable due to their bioinert nature and tunability, allowing integration of bioactive ligands for cell adhesion and presentation of biochemical cues [4].

• Spheroid Systems: Including multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) formed by aggregation and compaction of multiple cells [14]. The hanging drop technique, overlay on agarose, and U-bottom plates represent common methods for spheroid formation.

• Bioprinted Systems: Employing technologies like the RASTRUM bioprinter for creating well-defined 3D cultures with combinations of adhesive peptides (RGD, GFOGER, DYIGSR) and enzyme-degradable linkers inspired by native ECM [4].

• Perfusion Systems: Utilizing platforms like the Quasi Vivo 900 medium perfusion system to simulate physiological fluid flow, allowing researchers to mimic interstitial fluid dynamics encountered by macrophages in various tissue contexts [12].

Table 2: Comparison of 2D vs 3D Culture Systems for Macrophage Research

Parameter	2D Culture Systems	3D Culture Systems
Physiological Relevance	Low; lacks tissue architecture and gradients	High; recapitulates tissue dimensionality and gradients
Cell-ECM Interactions	Limited to flat surface	Native-like; multi-directional interactions
Polarization Responses	More pronounced M1/M2 polarization	More nuanced; resembles in vivo spectra
Oxygen/Nutrient Gradients	Uniform distribution	Physiological gradients forming hypoxic cores
Macrophage Infiltration	Not applicable	Enables study of migration through ECM
Cost & Technical Barrier	Low cost; established protocols	Higher cost; requires specialized expertise
Throughput & Standardization	High; easily standardized	Variable; method-dependent standardization challenges
Transcriptomic Profiles	Does not fully mimic in vivo signatures	Closer resemblance to in vivo transcriptional states

Impact of Culture Dimension on Macrophage Function

Comparative studies have demonstrated significant functional differences between macrophages cultured in 2D versus 3D systems:

• Polarization Capacity: Macrophages exhibited less pronounced polarization during 3D culture in compliant, soft hydrogel-based synthetic ECMs compared to 2D culture on rigid tissue culture plastic plates [4].

• Metabolic Activity and Motility: Macrophages in 3D environments demonstrated increased production of reactive species, enhanced motility, and altered cellular volume compared to 2D cultures [13].

• Phagocytosis and Macropinocytosis: Under dynamic flow conditions simulating interstitial fluid movement (1.45 × 10⁻⁹ m/s and 1.23 × 10⁻⁷ m/s), phagocytosis decreased by approximately 42-57% in peritoneal macrophages, 42-56% in BMMs, and 50-63% in THP-1 cells compared to static cultures [12]. Similarly, macropinocytosis decreased by approximately 35-62% across these cell types under flow conditions [12].

• Drug Efficacy Assessment: Nanoparticle-based drug formulations exhibited significantly different efficacy profiles in dynamic versus static culture systems. After 72 hours of medium perfusion, chitosan-based amphotericin B nanoparticles showed a 30-50% reduction in antileishmanial activity under slow flow conditions and 60-80% reduction under faster flow conditions, while pure amphotericin B showed 40% and 67% decreases, respectively [12].

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Macrophage Function

Protocol 1: 3D Culture of Adipose Tissue-Resident Macrophages

This protocol adapts an efficient method for generating functional mature macrophages from adipose tissue that recapitulate in vivo resident macrophage characteristics [11]:

• Stromal Vascular Fraction (SVF) Isolation:

  • Collect subcutaneous adipose tissue (sc-AT) from 6-8 week-old mice and remove lymph nodes
  • Mechanically dissociate tissue and enzymatically digest with collagenase NB4 (1.7 U/mL) at 37°C for 30 minutes
  • Filter and centrifuge to isolate stromal vascular fraction (SVF)
  • Perform red blood cell lysis using NHâ‚„Cl (155 mM), Kâ‚‚HPOâ‚„ (5.7 mM), EDTA (0.1 mM)

• 3D Spheroid Culture:

  • Seed SVF cells on ultra-low adherence 96-well round bottom plates at 10⁵ cells/well
  • Culture in RPMI medium supplemented with Glutamax, 10% Heat Inactivated Newborn Calf Serum, penicillin/streptomycin, and M-CSF (10 ng/mL)
  • Centrifuge plates briefly and incubate at 37°C with 5% COâ‚‚
  • After 4 days, cells spontaneously aggregate to form spheroids
  • Around day 7, macrophages begin to migrate out of spheroids and adhere to culture plates

• Characterization:

  • Analyze transcriptomic profiles comparing 3D-cultured AT-macrophages to bone marrow-derived macrophages
  • Assess metabolic activity and polarization capacity in response to stimulation
  • Evaluate phagocytic capacity and surface marker expression (F4/80, CD206, TIMD4, LYVE1)

Protocol 2: Dynamic Culture System for Assessing Macrophage-Pathogen Interactions

This protocol utilizes the Quasi Vivo 900 perfusion system to simulate physiological fluid flow during macrophage infection studies [12]:

• System Setup:

  • Connect all six chambers of QV900 in series with 3D-printed Nylon 12 inserts in the last three chambers to control effective chamber depth
  • Use a peristaltic pump located outside the COâ‚‚ incubator to continuously circulate culture medium
  • Calculate fluid speeds using mathematical modeling to achieve desired interstitial flow rates (1.45 × 10⁻⁹ m/s and 1.23 × 10⁻⁷ m/s)

• Macrophage Infection Under Flow:

  • Isolate peritoneal macrophages, bone marrow-derived macrophages, or culture THP-1 cells
  • Seed cells in QV900 chambers and allow adherence under static conditions for 4-6 hours
  • Initiate medium perfusion at calculated flow rates
  • Infect with Leishmania major amastigotes at appropriate multiplicity of infection
  • Maintain infection under flow conditions for desired duration (typically 24-72 hours)

• Functional Assessment:

  • Evaluate phagocytosis and macropinocytosis using fluorescent tracers
  • Assess antileishmanial efficacy of drug formulations under flow versus static conditions
  • Analyze macrophage polarization markers via flow cytometry (CD86, MHCII, CD206)

Protocol 3: Bioprinting Macrophages in Synthetic ECMs

This protocol employs bioprinting technology to create well-defined 3D macrophage cultures within tunable hydrogel systems [4]:

• Hydrogel Preparation:

  • Prepare PEG-based hydrogel precursors with integrin-binding peptides (RGD, GFOGER, DYIGSR)
  • Incorporate matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-sensitive crosslinkers for degradability
  • Adjust polymer concentration to achieve desired mechanical properties (typically 1-5 kPa)

• Cell Encapsulation and Bioprinting:

  • Mix macrophages (primary BMMs or cell lines) with hydrogel precursor solution at 5-20 × 10⁶ cells/mL
  • Load cell-hydrogel mixture into RASTRUM bioprinter cartridge
  • Print 3D structures into multiwell plates using predefined geometries
  • Crosslink hydrogels via photopolymerization or enzymatic conjugation

• Culture and Analysis:

  • Maintain 3D cultures in complete media with appropriate polarization stimuli
  • Monitor cell viability, morphology, and migration over time
  • Compare polarization profiles to 2D cultures using flow cytometry for surface markers (CD86, MHCII, CD206, EGR2)
  • Assess cytokine secretion profiles in response to polarization cues

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key methodological approaches for studying macrophage biology:

Macrophage Research Methodologies

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Macrophage Studies

Reagent/Solution	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Collagenase Enzymes	Tissue dissociation for primary macrophage isolation	Collagenase NB4 (1.7 U/mL) for adipose tissue digestion [11]
M-CSF (Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor)	Differentiation and maintenance of macrophage populations	10 ng/mL for primary culture; 2500 IU/mL for GMP-compliant Mreg production [11] [15]
PEG-Based Hydrogels	Synthetic ECM for 3D culture; tunable mechanical properties	PEG with RGD, GFOGER, DYIGSR peptides; MMP-sensitive crosslinkers [4]
Polarization Cytokines	Directing macrophage polarization states	IFN-γ (50 ng/mL) for M1; IL-4 (10 ng/mL) for M2a [11] [16]
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Phenotypic characterization of macrophage subsets	CD86, MHC-II, CD206, F4/80, CD11b, TIMD4, LYVE1 [4] [11]
Perfusion Systems	Mimicking physiological fluid flow in vitro	Quasi Vivo 900 system with controlled flow rates [12]
Hypoxia Induction Systems	Simulating ischemic microenvironments	Enzymatic model (catalase 120 U/mL + glucose oxidase 2 U/mL) [15]
Bioprinting Systems	Creating 3D architectures for macrophage culture	RASTRUM bioprinter with peptide-modified hydrogels [4]
2,6-Difluoropyridine	2,6-Difluoropyridine, CAS:1513-65-1, MF:C5H3F2N, MW:115.08 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Disperse orange 25	Disperse orange 25, CAS:12223-22-2, MF:C17H17N5O2, MW:323.35 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The critical role of tissue origin and developmental ontogeny in shaping macrophage function has profound implications for both basic research and therapeutic development. The evidence clearly demonstrates that macrophages are not a one-size-fits-all cell type but rather exhibit remarkable specialization based on their tissue microenvironment and developmental history. Researchers must carefully consider these factors when selecting macrophage sources for specific applications, whether for biomaterial evaluation, hypothesis testing, or therapeutic screening [4].

The emergence of sophisticated 3D culture systems represents a significant advancement in macrophage research, enabling more physiologically relevant studies that bridge the gap between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo models. These systems better recapitulate the tissue architecture, cell-ECM interactions, and physicochemical gradients that shape macrophage behavior in physiological contexts. As the field continues to evolve, integrating considerations of tissue origin, developmental ontogeny, and physiological culture conditions will be essential for developing more accurate models of macrophage function in health and disease, and for designing effective macrophage-targeted therapies.

For decades, two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cultures have served as the standard workhorse in biological research, providing a simple and cost-effective platform for cellular investigation. However, growing evidence reveals that the flat, rigid surfaces of traditional culture flasks fundamentally distort cell architecture and function, limiting their ability to predict in vivo behavior. This is particularly relevant in macrophage research, where the tissue microenvironment profoundly influences cellular identity and function [4]. As the scientific community strives for more physiologically relevant models, three-dimensional (3D) culture systems have emerged as powerful tools that better recapitulate the structural complexity and signaling networks found in living tissues. This guide objectively compares these two culture platforms, providing researchers with the experimental data and methodological details needed to make informed decisions for their specific applications.

How Culture Environment Dictates Cellular Architecture and Function

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental architectural and functional differences between 2D and 3D culture systems, which underlie the divergent cellular behaviors observed in each platform.

Comparative Analysis: 2D vs. 3D Cellular Characteristics

The architectural differences between 2D and 3D environments lead to profound functional consequences. The table below summarizes key comparative findings from recent studies examining both cancer models and macrophage behavior across these culture platforms.

Characteristic	2D Monolayer Findings	3D Model Findings	Experimental Evidence
Proliferation Rate	Artificially high and uniform proliferation [17]	Reduced, heterogeneous proliferation with distinct zones (proliferative, quiescent, necrotic) [17] [18]	Quantitative growth kinetics in glioblastoma and lung adenocarcinoma cells [17]
Glucose Metabolism	Consistent consumption patterns [17]	Elevated per-cell glucose consumption and lactate production (enhanced Warburg effect) [17]	Microfluidic chip monitoring of metabolites (glucose, glutamine, lactate) [17]
Gene Expression	Altered expression profiles distant from in vivo states [18]	Expression of genes related to hypoxia, EMT, and stemness closer to in vivo profiles [18]	Transcriptomic analysis of colorectal, lung, and breast cancer models [18]
Response to Stress	Acute sensitivity to glucose deprivation; rapid cell death [17]	Activation of alternative metabolic pathways; survival under glucose deprivation [17]	Culture of U251-MG and A549 cells in glucose-free medium [17]
Drug Sensitivity	Higher compound efficacy; poor clinical translation (∼10% success rate) [17] [19]	Increased therapeutic resistance; better predicts clinical outcomes [14] [19]	Drug screening across multiple CRC cell lines in 3D spheroids [14]
Macrophage Phenotype	Exaggerated pro-inflammatory (M1) polarization on rigid TCP [4]	More moderate, physiologically relevant polarization in soft hydrogels [4]	Flow cytometry analysis of CD86, MHCII, CD206 in 2D vs. 3D PEG hydrogels [4]

Methodological Insights: Establishing 3D Culture Systems

Generating 3D Macrophage Models from Adipose Tissue

A 2024 study detailed a protocol for generating functional resident macrophages from adipose tissue using a 3D spheroid system [20]:

• Isolation: Obtain stromal vascular fraction (SVF) from murine subcutaneous adipose tissue via mechanical dissociation and enzymatic digestion with collagenase.
• Culture Setup: Seed SVF cells on ultra-low adherence 96-well round-bottom plates at 10^5 cells/well in RPMI medium supplemented with 10% serum and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF; 10 ng/mL).
• Spheroid Formation: Centrifuge plates briefly and culture at 37°C with 5% COâ‚‚. Cells spontaneously aggregate into spheroids within 4 days.
• Macrophage Generation: Between days 7-13, mature macrophages migrate out from the spheroids, exhibiting distinct transcriptomic and phenotypic profiles matching in vivo resident macrophages [20].

Comparing Macrophage Responses in 2D vs. 3D

A 2025 investigation developed methods to directly compare macrophage responses to Mycobacterium infection in 2D and 3D environments [8] [7]:

• Cell Source: Use bone-marrow-derived macrophages (BMDMs) from transgenic C57BL/6-Tg(CAG-EGFP) or wild-type mice.
• 3D Matrix: Embed infected BMDMs within a reconstituted basement membrane (RBM) hydrogel, optimizing gel height to ensure adequate oxygen and nutrient diffusion.
• Data Collection: Employ time-lapse confocal imaging, 4D quantitative image analysis, and standard biochemical assays on dissolved gel extracts.
• Key Findings: Macrophages in 3D environments demonstrated increased production of reactive species, enhanced motility, and altered cellular volumes compared to 2D cultures, highlighting the profound impact of culture dimensionality on immune responses [8].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for 3D Culture

The table below catalogues key materials and their applications for establishing physiologically relevant 3D culture models, particularly for immunology and cancer research.

Research Reagent / Material	Function and Application in 3D Models
Ultra-Low Adherence Plates	Prevents cell attachment, enabling spontaneous spheroid formation via cell-cell adhesion [14] [20].
Natural Hydrogels (e.g., Collagen, Matrigel)	Mimics the biochemical and physical properties of the native extracellular matrix (ECM) for cell embedding [17] [14].
Synthetic PEG-Based Hydrogels	Provides a tunable, bioinert scaffold; can be modified with adhesive peptides (e.g., RGD) for controlled cell-ECM interactions [4].
Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor (M-CSF)	Essential cytokine for the differentiation and survival of macrophages in 3D culture systems [20].
Microfluidic Chips	Creates microbioreactors that permit continuous, real-time monitoring of metabolite fluxes and gradient formation [17].
Methylcellulose	Synthetic polymer used as a viscosity-enhancing agent to promote compact spheroid formation in some CRC cell lines [14].

Implications for Drug Development and Disease Modeling

The transition to 3D culture models represents more than a technical refinement—it constitutes a fundamental shift in how researchers approach disease modeling and therapeutic development. The enhanced biological relevance of 3D systems addresses a critical bottleneck in drug discovery: the high failure rate of compounds that show promise in traditional 2D screens but prove ineffective in clinical trials [17] [19]. By incorporating crucial microenvironmental factors such as cell-ECM interactions, nutrient gradients, and spatial organization, 3D models provide more accurate platforms for evaluating drug efficacy and safety, potentially accelerating the development of successful therapies [18] [19].

This is particularly evident in macrophage research, where the functional properties and polarization states of these immune cells are exquisitely sensitive to their mechanical and biochemical surroundings [4]. The ability of 3D culture systems to more faithfully mirror the tissue context makes them indispensable tools for unraveling macrophage biology in health and disease, ultimately contributing to more effective immunotherapeutic strategies.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) represents a complex ecosystem where dynamic interactions between cancer cells and stromal components dictate disease progression and therapeutic efficacy. Among these components, tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) serve as pivotal regulators of tumor biology, functioning as a double-edged sword that can either inhibit or promote malignancy depending on their phenotypic polarization and spatial distribution [21]. For decades, traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell culture has served as the foundational platform for investigating these interactions. However, the growing recognition that 2D systems cannot recapitulate the physiological architecture and cellular crosstalk of living tissues has driven the adoption of three-dimensional (3D) culture models that better mimic the in vivo TME [22].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison between traditional and 3D culture systems for studying macrophage-tumor cell interactions, offering objective performance data and detailed methodologies to inform research design in oncology and drug development.

Macrophage Diversity in the TME: Beyond the M1/M2 Dichotomy

Origins and Phenotypic Spectrum

TAMs originate from either circulating monocytes recruited to tumor sites via chemotactic signals (CCL2, CSF-1) or embryonic-derived tissue-resident macrophages [23] [21]. Functionally, they exhibit remarkable plasticity along a spectrum of activation states:

• Pro-inflammatory (M1-like) TAMs: Enhance antitumor immunity through secretion of IL-12, TNF-α, and direct tumor cell cytotoxicity [21]
• Immunosuppressive (M2-like) TAMs: Promote tumor progression via angiogenesis, metastasis, and suppression of cytotoxic T cells through IL-10, TGF-β, and metabolic mediators [24] [21]

The traditional M1/M2 classification represents an oversimplification of a functional continuum, with recent single-cell RNA sequencing revealing distinct TAM subpopulations (C1Q+ macrophages in hepatocellular carcinomas, FN1+ TAMs in gliomas) that defy traditional categorization [21].

Key Mechanisms of Tumor Promotion

TAMs facilitate tumor progression through multiple mechanisms:

• Secretory factors: VEGF promotes angiogenesis; MMPs facilitate ECM remodeling and metastasis [21]
• Metabolic reprogramming: M2-like TAMs preferentially utilize oxidative phosphorylation and fatty acid oxidation; their glucose consumption often exceeds that of cancer cells, supporting pro-angiogenic activities [21]
• Immune suppression: Upregulation of PD-L1, arginase-1, and IL-10 inhibits cytotoxic T lymphocyte function [24] [21]

Model Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Macrophage Culture Platforms

Primary Macrophages vs. Immortalized Cell Lines

Table 1: Comparison of Macrophage Model Systems

Feature	Primary Macrophages	Immortalized Cell Lines
Origin	Directly isolated from humans or animals (BMDMs, PBMCs) [25]	Genetically altered to prevent senescence (THP-1, RAW264.7) [25]
Physiological Relevance	High, closely mimic in vivo states [25]	Moderate, may exhibit genetic drift with passage [25]
Proliferative Capacity	Limited, non-proliferative mature cells [25]	Unlimited, suitable for long-term studies [25]
Experimental Reproducibility	Lower due to donor variability [25]	Higher, more standardized [25]
Key Applications	Validation studies, metabolic assays, genetic knockout models [25]	High-throughput screening, mechanistic studies [25]
Technical Challenges	Short survival, complex isolation, no long-term subculture [25]	Potential phenotypic alterations from primary cells [25]

2D vs. 3D Culture Systems: Functional Differences

Table 2: Performance Comparison of 2D vs. 3D Culture Models

Parameter	2D Culture	3D Culture
Cell Morphology	Flat, stretched [6]	In vivo-like, spherical or structural [6]
Cell Growth	Rapid proliferation with contact inhibition [22]	Slower proliferation with physiological gradients [22]
Cell Function	Simplified functionality [22]	Closer to in vivo function [22]
Cell Communication	Limited cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions [22]	Complex interactions mimicking TME [22]
Gene Expression	Altered patterns, mutation accumulation [22] [6]	Physiological patterns, genomic stability [22] [6]
Drug Response	Often overestimates efficacy [6]	Better predicts clinical resistance [6]
Oxygen/Nutrient Gradients	Uniform distribution [6]	Physiological gradients creating hypoxic cores [6]

Experimental Platforms: Methodologies for 3D Co-Culture Systems

Scaffold-Based 3D Co-Culture Systems

Animal-Free Adipocyte-Macrophage Co-Culture Protocol [26]:

• Matrix Material: Gellan gum (GG) hydrogel as animal-free scaffold
• Cells: Primary human mature adipocytes (ACs) encapsulated in GG + monocytic cell lines (MM6 or THP-1)
• Culture Medium: Defined, serum-free medium to eliminate batch variations
• Polarization: PMA + LPS activation for inflammatory polarization
• Duration: Functional within 72 hours
• Output Measurements: Cytokine profiling (IL-6, IL-1β, TNF-α), viability assays, lipid content analysis

Macrophage-Augmented Intestinal Organoids (MaugOs) [27]:

• Base Structure: Intestinal organoids derived from primary tissue
• Immune Component: THP-1-derived macrophages, PBMC-derived primary macrophages, or iPSC-derived macrophages
• Integration Method: Seeding macrophages and fragmented organoids on low-concentration Matrigel base
• Key Feature: Macrophages integrate into multiple organoid layers within 24 hours
• Validation: Transcriptomic sequencing confirms hybrid gene expression profile
• Application: Modeling virus-host interactions and inflammatory responses

Scaffold-Free 3D Models

• Multicellular Tumor Spheroids: Self-assemble in low-attachment plates [22]
• Patient-Derived Tumor Organoids (PDTOs): Retain original tumor heterogeneity and genomic stability [22]

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for TME Modeling

Table 3: Key Reagents for 3D Macrophage-Tumor Co-Culture Systems

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Scaffold Materials	Gellan gum, Matrigel, collagen, alginate, hyaluronan, polyethylene glycol [26]	Provide 3D structural support mimicking ECM
Cell Sources	Primary mature adipocytes, THP-1 cells, MM6 cells, PBMC-derived macrophages, iPSC-derived macrophages [26] [27]	Provide cellular components for co-culture
Polarization Inducers	PMA, LPS, IFN-γ (M1), IL-4/IL-13 (M2) [26] [25]	Direct macrophage phenotypic polarization
Culture Media	Defined serum-free media [26]	Support cell growth while eliminating serum batch variations
Analytical Tools	RNA-seq, scRNA-seq, cytokine ELISA, immunofluorescence, metabolic assays [6] [27]	Assess model performance and cellular responses

Signaling Pathways in Macrophage-Tumor Interactions

Diagram 1: Signaling network between tumor cells, TAMs, and T cells. Tumor cells recruit and polarize macrophages via secreted factors (CCL2, CSF-1, lactate). M1 TAMs promote anti-tumor immunity, while M2 TAMs facilitate immunosuppression and progression [28] [24] [21].

Therapeutic Applications: Targeting TAMs in Cancer Treatment

Strategic Approaches

• TAM Depletion: CSF-1R inhibitors, CCL2 antagonists to block recruitment [28] [21]
• Reprogramming: Nanoparticle-mediated polarization from M2 to M1 phenotype [28] [21]
• Phagocytosis Enhancement: CD47-blocking antibodies to overcome "don't eat me" signals [21]
• Metabolic Modulation: Targeting TAM metabolic pathways (glycolysis, OXPHOS) [28]
• Combination Therapies: TAM-targeting agents with existing immunotherapy to overcome resistance [28] [24]

Clinical Translation Challenges

Therapeutic targeting of TAMs faces several hurdles:

• Plasticity: TAMs can adapt to targeted interventions [24]
• Heterogeneity: Diverse TAM subpopulations across cancer types [21]
• Spatial Distribution: Differential TAM phenotypes in tumor core vs. margin [21]
• Biomarker Identification: CD206, CD163 show prognostic potential but require validation [21]

Experimental Workflow for 3D TME Modeling

Diagram 2: Experimental workflow for establishing 3D macrophage-tumor co-culture models, from system selection to therapeutic application [22] [26] [27].

The transition from traditional 2D cultures to sophisticated 3D models represents a paradigm shift in cancer research and drug development. Three-dimensional culture systems significantly outperform their 2D counterparts in recapitulating the complex cellular interactions, metabolic gradients, and therapeutic responses characteristic of the in vivo TME. The integration of macrophages into these 3D platforms enables more accurate modeling of critical tumor-immune interactions, providing enhanced predictive value for preclinical drug testing.

Future directions in TME modeling will likely focus on increasing system complexity through incorporation of additional stromal components (CAFs, endothelial cells), implementing dynamic fluid flow through microfluidic systems, and enhancing translational applicability through patient-derived organoid biobanks. These advanced platforms will accelerate the development of novel TAM-targeting therapeutics and combination strategies designed to overcome treatment resistance in solid tumors. As 3D culture technologies continue to evolve, they will undoubtedly play an increasingly central role in bridging the gap between experimental discovery and clinical application in oncology.

Building Better Models: A Guide to 3D Macrophage Culture Systems and Their Applications

The study of macrophage biology has traditionally relied on two-dimensional (2D) cell culture systems, which involve growing cells on flat, rigid plastic surfaces. While these methods have provided a wealth of foundational knowledge, they inadequately portray the complex three-dimensional environments in which cells reside in vivo [3]. Macrophages are innate immune cells present in all human tissues, with their phenotype and function being critically shaped by local environmental cues, including interactions with the extracellular matrix (ECM) [3]. The disparity between conventional 2D culture and physiological conditions has driven the development of three-dimensional (3D) culture systems that more accurately mimic the architectural and biochemical complexity of native tissues.

This shift is particularly crucial for macrophage research, as these cells exhibit a vast range of functions important for tissue homeostasis and host immunity [3]. The transition to 3D models enables researchers to investigate fundamental biological questions about whether homeostatic tissue-resident macrophage function is genetically instructed or steered by tissue microenvironments [3]. Scaffold-based 3D cultures, specifically those utilizing synthetic hydrogels and natural ECM mimetics, have emerged as powerful tools to bridge this gap, offering more physiologically relevant platforms for studying macrophage biology, screening potential therapeutic compounds, and modeling disease states.

Technical Comparison: Synthetic Hydrogels vs. Natural ECM Mimetics

The selection of an appropriate 3D culture system requires careful consideration of the research objectives and the biological questions being addressed. Below is a detailed technical comparison of the two primary scaffold-based approaches.

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of Natural and Synthetic Hydrogel Platforms

Characteristic	Natural ECM Mimetics (e.g., Collagen, Matrigel)	Synthetic Hydrogels (e.g., PEG, PA)
Biochemical Composition	Defined or complex mixtures of native ECM proteins (e.g., collagen, laminin) [29] [30]	Well-defined synthetic polymers (e.g., Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), Polyacrylamide (PA)) [31] [30]
Bioactivity	Inherently bioactive; contains natural cell-adhesion ligands and may contain growth factors [30]	Inert backbone; bioactivity must be engineered through incorporation of peptides (e.g., RGD) [31] [30]
Mechanical Tunability	Limited and challenging to control independently of biochemistry [31] [32]	Highly tunable stiffness (elasticity) and viscoelasticity [31] [32] [30]
Reproducibility	High batch-to-batch variability, particularly with Matrigel [31] [32]	High reproducibility and lot-to-lot consistency [31] [32] [30]
Degradation Profile	Cell-mediated and enzymatic degradation; can be too rapid [30]	Tunable degradation via incorporation of hydrolytically or enzymatically cleavable cross-linkers [30]
Cost & Accessibility	Generally moderate to high cost; widely commercially available [33]	Can be more costly to develop; commercially available platforms increasing [33]
Key Advantages	Provides a biologically promoting environment; excellent for cell viability and complex morphogenesis [30]	Precise control over mechanical and biochemical cues; reduced risk of xenogenic contamination [31] [32] [30]
Primary Limitations	Ill-defined composition; difficult to decouple individual cues; potential immunogenicity [30]	Requires sophisticated design and functionalization; can lack necessary complexity [30]

Evolution from Matrigel to Defined Synthetic Systems

Matrigel, a basement membrane extract derived from mouse sarcoma, has been a cornerstone of 3D culture due to its rich composition of ECM proteins like laminin, collagen IV, and entactin [31] [32]. It provides a biologically active environment that supports cell adhesion, differentiation, and organoid formation [31]. However, its significant drawbacks—including batch-to-batch variability, undefined composition, poor mechanical tunability, and ethical concerns as a tumor-derived animal product—hinder experimental reproducibility and clinical translation [31] [32]. These limitations have driven the development of ECM-mimetic hydrogels designed to replicate key features of the native ECM while offering improved control and reproducibility [31] [32].

A cutting-edge advancement in this field is the integration of nanomaterials into hydrogels to create ECM-mimetic hydrogel nanocomposites. These systems address the functional limitations of conventional synthetic hydrogels by incorporating nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes, gold nanoparticles, and magnetic nanocomposites. This integration enhances mechanical strength, enables electrical conductivity, and introduces dynamic responsiveness to external stimuli like magnetic fields or light, thereby allowing for precise, spatiotemporal control over the cellular microenvironment [31] [32].

Experimental Data and Performance Comparison

The theoretical advantages of 3D culture systems are substantiated by a growing body of experimental evidence demonstrating their superior performance in mimicking in vivo conditions compared to traditional 2D cultures.

Table 2: Experimental Outcomes in 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems

Experimental Parameter	Performance in 2D Culture	Performance in 3D Scaffold-Based Culture	Supporting Evidence
Cell Morphology & Polarity	Unnatural, flattened morphology; forced apical-basal polarity [30]	Complex, physiologically relevant shapes; natural polarity [30]	Cells in 3D revert to normal growth behavior vs. tumor-like in 2D [30]
Proliferation & Gradients	Homogeneous exposure to nutrients and factors [34]	Establishment of physiological oxygen/nutrient gradients [34]	Spheroids show outer proliferating cells and inner quiescent/hypoxic core [34]
Gene & Protein Expression	Altered expression profiles due to unnatural adhesion [34]	In vivo-like expression profiles and signaling activation [34]	Upregulation of chemokine receptors (CXCR7, CXCR4) and integrins in 3D [34]
Drug Response	Often overestimates efficacy; fails to model penetration [35] [34]	More predictive of in vivo chemoresistance and efficacy [35] [34]	3D OS spheroids showed higher survival after paclitaxel exposure vs. 2D [34]
Stemness Maintenance	Rapid differentiation and loss of stemness [36]	Enhanced maintenance of stem cell properties [36]	3D AL-HA hydrogels upregulated OCT-4, NANOG, SOX2 in hMSCs [36]

Case Study: Alginate-Hyaluronic Acid Hydrogels for Stemness Maintenance

A compelling example of the benefits of 3D culture comes from a study using alginate-hyaluronic acid (AL-HA) hydrogels for the 3D culture of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs). The experimental workflow and key findings are summarized in the diagram below.

This study demonstrated that the 3D AL-HA hydrogel environment not only supported high cell viability (77.36%) over 14 days but also significantly enhanced the stemness properties of hMSCs. Researchers observed upregulation of stemness-related genes (OCT-4, NANOG, SOX2, SIRT1), tissue growth genes (YAP, TAZ), and the cell proliferation gene Ki67 compared to 2D monolayer cultures. Furthermore, telomere activity was enhanced, as indicated by the upregulation of the human telomerase reverse transcriptase gene (hTERT) and an increase in relative telomere length [36]. These findings underscore the capacity of specific 3D microenvironments to maintain primitive cell states, a critical factor in regenerative medicine and macrophage differentiation studies.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and facilitate the adoption of these methods, below are detailed protocols for establishing scaffold-based 3D macrophage cultures using both natural and synthetic hydrogel systems.

Protocol 1: Establishing 3D Macrophage Cultures in Natural ECM (Collagen) Hydrogels

This protocol is adapted from methods used to create 3D tissue models that mimic the native extracellular matrix [29].

• Hydrogel Preparation:

  • Thaw a stock solution of type I collagen on ice.
  • Mix the following components in a pre-chilled tube on ice to prevent premature polymerization:
    • Appropriate volume of collagen stock to achieve final desired concentration (e.g., 2-4 mg/mL).
    • 10X Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS).
    • Neutralization solution (e.g., 1M NaOH) to adjust pH to ~7.4. Monitor color change (pink to orange/yellow) in phenol-red containing media.
    • Cell culture medium or deionized water to reach the final volume.
  • Keep the mixture on ice until cells are added.

• Cell Encapsulation:

  • Suspend macrophages or their precursors (e.g., monocytes) in cold culture medium.
  • Gently mix the cell suspension with the neutralized collagen solution on ice. Avoid introducing air bubbles.
  • Quickly pipette the cell-collagen mixture into the desired culture vessel (e.g., multi-well plate).
  • Incubate the plate at 37°C in a humidified COâ‚‚ incubator for 30-45 minutes to allow for complete gelation, forming a solid hydrogel.

• Culture Maintenance:

  • Once polymerized, carefully overlay the hydrogel with pre-warmed complete culture medium.
  • Change the culture medium every 2-3 days, taking care not to disrupt the gel.

Protocol 2: Establishing 3D Macrophage Cultures in Synthetic PEG-Based Hydrogels

This protocol leverages the high tunability of synthetic polymer systems [31] [30].

• Polymer Solution Preparation:

  • Dissolve PEG-based macromers (e.g., PEG-diacrylate) in a suitable buffer.
  • Add a photoinitiator (e.g., Irgacure 2959 or LAP) to the solution at a recommended working concentration.
  • If desired, incorporate bioactive peptides (e.g., RGD for cell adhesion, MMP-sensitive peptides for degradability) into the macromer solution.

• Cell Encapsulation and Crosslinking:

  • Suspend macrophages in the macromer-photoinitiator solution.
  • Pipette the cell-polymer mixture into the culture vessel.
  • Expose the solution to UV or visible light (wavelength and intensity dependent on the photoinitiator) for a specified duration to initiate crosslinking and form the hydrogel. Optimize light exposure to ensure cell viability.

• Culture Maintenance:

  • After crosslinking, add culture medium to the well.
  • Maintain the culture as described in the natural hydrogel protocol, monitoring macrophage phenotype and function over time.

Signaling Pathways in the 3D Microenvironment

The enhanced physiological relevance of 3D cultures arises from the recapitulation of critical biochemical and mechanical signaling pathways that govern cell behavior. The following diagram illustrates the key signaling mechanisms activated within a 3D hydrogel microenvironment.

The 3D hydrogel microenvironment presents a complex combination of mechanical cues (e.g., matrix stiffness), biochemical cues (e.g., immobilized adhesion ligands like RGD, growth factors), and structural cues (e.g., matrix topography and porosity) [34] [30]. These cues are sensed by cell surface receptors, such as integrins and mechanoreceptors. This engagement triggers intracellular signaling cascades (e.g., MAPK, PI3K/Akt, and the hippo pathway effectors YAP/TAZ) that ultimately lead to changes in nuclear gene expression, driving macrophage phenotype and function in a way that more closely mirrors in vivo behavior [34] [36]. The ability of 3D cultures to engage these coordinated signaling pathways is a fundamental reason for their superior biological relevance.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Selecting the appropriate materials is paramount for successfully implementing scaffold-based 3D cultures. The table below catalogs key reagent solutions and their applications in this field.

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Scaffold-Based 3D Cell Culture Research

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application Notes
Natural Hydrogels	Matrigel/ECM Gel [29] [33]: Tumor-derived basement membrane extract.	Provides a complex, biologically active environment. Ideal for organoid cultures and tumor models, but has batch variability [31] [29].
	Collagen I [29] [33]: Major structural protein of native ECM.	Excellent for angiogenesis assays and general 3D culture; supports cell adhesion and migration [29].
	Alginate [36] [33]: Polysaccharide derived from seaweed.	Biocompatible and inert; mechanical properties tuned via crosslinking; often modified with peptides for bioactivity [36].
Synthetic Hydrogels	Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)-based [31] [30] [33]: "Blank slate" synthetic polymer.	Highly tunable and reproducible backbone; biofunctionality is engineered via incorporation of peptides and crosslinkers [30].
	Hystem (HA-based) [33]: Chemically defined HA platform.	Mimics glycosaminoglycan-rich environments; can be blended with collagen and other factors to guide cell behavior [33].
	TrueGel3D HTS Plates [33]: Pre-formed PEG-based hydrogel plates.	Enables high-throughput screening; no hydrogel preparation required [33].
Functional Additives	Adhesion Peptides (e.g., RGD) [31] [30]: Short peptide sequences.	Engineered into synthetic hydrogels to promote integrin-mediated cell adhesion and survival [31].
	Protease-Sensitive Peptides [30]: e.g., MMP-degradable crosslinkers.	Incorporated into hydrogels to allow for cell-mediated remodeling and migration [30].
Specialized Kits & Tools	PhotoGel Kits [33]: Methacrylated collagen, gelatin, or HA with photoinitiators.	Enable user-controlled, light-activated crosslinking for high-fidelity 3D culture and bioprinting [33].
	Decellularized ECM (dECM) [33]: Tissue-specific native ECM.	Provides a highly physiologically relevant scaffold that retains tissue-specific biochemical composition [33].
Xylenol Blue	Xylenol Blue, CAS:125-31-5, MF:C23H22O5S, MW:410.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Phenylbiguanide	Phenylbiguanide, CAS:102-02-3, MF:C8H11N5, MW:177.21 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The evolution from traditional 2D cultures to advanced, scaffold-based 3D systems represents a paradigm shift in cell biology research. For the field of macrophage immunology, this transition is particularly critical, as these models finally provide the necessary architectural, mechanical, and biochemical context needed to accurately dissect macrophage function in health and disease. The choice between natural ECM mimetics and synthetic hydrogels is not a matter of one being universally superior, but rather depends on the specific research goals. Natural hydrogels offer biological complexity, while synthetic systems provide unmatched control and reproducibility. The ongoing development of hybrid and nanocomposite hydrogels promises to combine the benefits of both, offering bioactive, responsive, and mechanically robust platforms. By adopting these more physiologically relevant 3D models, researchers in drug development and basic science can significantly enhance the predictive power of their in vitro studies, thereby accelerating the discovery of novel therapeutics and improving the translation of basic research findings into clinical applications.

The pursuit of physiologically relevant in vitro models has driven the adoption of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture systems, which bridge the critical gap between traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayers and in vivo animal models. Within this domain, scaffold-free models have emerged as powerful tools for studying cellular aggregates by enabling cells to self-assemble into 3D structures without the support of an external extracellular matrix (ECM) scaffold [37] [38]. These systems rely on the innate ability of cells to create their own cell-to-cell contacts and endogenous matrix, often resulting in more consistent and reproducible microtissues that better mimic key aspects of in vivo tissue organization [39]. The two predominant scaffold-free models—spheroids and organoids—each offer distinct advantages and limitations, making them suitable for different research applications in cancer biology, drug screening, and fundamental studies of cellular behavior.

The fundamental distinction between these models lies in their complexity and self-organization capacity. Spheroids are generally defined as simple, spherical clusters of cells that form through self-aggregation, typically displaying a simplistic architecture with proliferating cells at the periphery and quiescent or necrotic cells in the core due to nutrient and oxygen gradients [40] [41]. In contrast, organoids are more complex structures that demonstrate self-organization and can recapitulate some organ-specific functionality and microanatomy, often containing multiple cell types that reflect the tissue of origin [39] [37] [38]. This comparative guide will objectively examine the performance characteristics of these scaffold-free models, with particular emphasis on their application in macrophage research, where the preservation of native cellular interactions is paramount for understanding immune function in health and disease.

Key Distinctions Between Spheroids and Organoids

Fundamental Characteristics and Definitions

Spheroids and organoids represent different points along the spectrum of 3D cellular models, with varying levels of biological complexity and technical requirements. Understanding their core characteristics is essential for selecting the appropriate model for specific research applications, particularly in the context of macrophage studies where cellular origin and microenvironment significantly influence function [4].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Spheroids and Organoids

Characteristic	Spheroids	Organoids
Definition	Spherical cellular aggregates that form through self-aggregation [37]	Self-organizing 3D structures that recapitulate organ-specific features [39] [38]
Cellular Source	Cell lines, primary cells, multicellular mixtures [37] [41]	Adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells [37] [38]
Self-Organization	Self-assembly with limited organization [37]	Self-organization into organ-like structures [39] [38]
Complexity	Simplified architecture with metabolic gradients [40] [42]	Complex, heterogeneous structures with multiple cell types [39] [38]
ECM Requirements	Scaffold-free (can be cultured without ECM) [37] [38]	Often require ECM scaffold for growth (though some scaffold-free methods exist) [39] [38]
Physiological Relevance	Recapitulates some tumor features like nutrient gradients [40] [6]	Closely mimics organ microanatomy and function [39] [37]
Reproducibility	High with standardized protocols [39] [42]	Can be variable between batches [42] [37]

Comparative Advantages and Limitations

Each model system presents a unique balance of strengths and weaknesses that researchers must consider when designing experiments. This balance is particularly crucial in macrophage research, where maintaining relevant phenotypic states is essential for generating meaningful data [4].

Table 2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Spheroids and Organoids

Aspect	Spheroids	Organoids
Advantages	- Simple, cost-effective protocols [42]- Amenable to high-throughput screening [42] [37]- High reproducibility [39] [42]- Recapitulate nutrient/oxygen gradients [40] [6]- Suitable for co-culture systems [42]	- Patient-specific modeling [42] [37]- In vivo-like complexity and architecture [39] [38]- Retain genetic and histological features of source tissue [37] [6]- Long-term expansion potential [37]
Disadvantages	- Simplified architecture [42]- Limited cellular heterogeneity [37]- May lack key tissue-specific functions [41]	- Technical complexity in culture [42] [41]- Higher variability between batches [42] [37]- Lengthy establishment protocols [37] [41]- Challenges in high-throughput screening [42]- May lack vasculature and immune components [42]

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Established Protocols for Scaffold-Free Culture

Several well-established techniques enable the generation of scaffold-free spheroids and organoids, each with specific procedural requirements and applications. The hanging drop method has proven particularly valuable for creating highly uniform structures, as demonstrated in mammary gland research where it produced organoids of 900-1200 μm diameter with hollow lumen and secondary acini structures [39]. This technique leverages gravity to concentrate cells at the bottom of a media droplet, promoting consistent aggregation into a single spheroid per drop [39] [40]. The methodology typically involves preparing a cell suspension at appropriate density (often 5,000-20,000 cells per droplet depending on cell type and desired spheroid size), pipetting droplets of this suspension onto the lid of a culture dish, inverting the lid to create hanging drops, and maintaining the culture for several days to weeks with regular media changes [39]. For macrophage studies, this approach allows precise control over the cellular composition, enabling the incorporation of specific macrophage populations into the developing aggregates to study their interactions with other cell types [4].

Ultra-low attachment plates provide an alternative, higher-throughput approach by using specially treated surfaces that minimize cell adhesion, forcing cells to aggregate in well-defined geometries [42] [37]. These plates are particularly valuable for drug screening applications where consistency and scalability are essential [42] [6]. The experimental workflow typically involves seeding cells at optimized densities in plates with round or V-bottom wells to encourage single spheroid formation per well, then maintaining the cultures with periodic media changes [42]. Research comparing 2D versus 3D colorectal cancer models has demonstrated that spheroids formed using these methods show significant differences in proliferation patterns, cell death profiles, and gene expression compared to their 2D counterparts, along with enhanced resistance to chemotherapeutic agents like 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and doxorubicin [6]. For macrophage research, the choice between these methods depends on the specific research question—hanging drop offers superior uniformity for mechanistic studies, while ultra-low attachment plates provide the scalability needed for therapeutic screening [4].

Experimental Workflow for Scaffold-Free Model Generation

The following diagram illustrates the general experimental workflow for establishing scaffold-free models, integrating key decision points and methodological considerations:

Research Reagent Solutions for Scaffold-Free Cultures

Successful establishment of scaffold-free models requires specific reagents and materials that support 3D aggregation while maintaining cell viability and function. The following table details essential research reagent solutions used in scaffold-free culture systems:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Scaffold-Free Models

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples
Ultra-Low Attachment Plates	Prevents cell adhesion to plate surface, forcing cell-cell aggregation into spheroids [42] [37]	High-throughput spheroid formation for drug screening; co-culture models with immune cells [42] [6]
Hanging Drop Plates	Enables gravity-mediated cell aggregation in individual droplets for uniform spheroid formation [39] [42]	Production of highly consistent organoids; studies requiring precise control over initial cell numbers [39]
Methylcellulose	Macromolecular crowding agent that promotes cell aggregation by reducing diffusion and increasing cell-cell contacts [39]	Enhancement of spheroid compactness and uniformity in hanging drop and other suspension cultures [39]
Specific Growth Factor Cocktails	Directs cell differentiation and organization toward desired phenotypes [37] [38]	Organoid establishment and maintenance; polarization of macrophages within 3D cultures [4] [38]
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)-Based Hydrogels	Synthetic, bioinert matrices for 3D culture that can be modified with adhesive peptides [3] [4]	Macrophage encapsulation studies; investigation of cell-ECM interactions in defined environments [3] [4]

Performance Comparison in Research Applications

Modeling Tumor Microenvironments and Drug Responses

Scaffold-free models have demonstrated significant utility in cancer research, where they bridge the gap between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo models. Comparative studies between 2D and 3D culture systems have revealed profound differences in cellular behavior and drug responsiveness. Research using colorectal cancer cell lines showed that cells grown in 3D spheroids exhibited significantly different proliferation patterns, cell death profiles, and expression of tumorgenicity-related genes compared to 2D cultures [6]. Importantly, 3D models demonstrated increased resistance to chemotherapeutic agents including 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and doxorubicin, mirroring the drug resistance often observed in clinical settings [6]. This enhanced resistance is attributed to several factors: the presence of proliferating, quiescent, and necrotic cell populations; development of nutrient and oxygen gradients; and altered cell-cell signaling—all features that more closely mimic in vivo tumor conditions [40] [6].

The application of scaffold-free models extends beyond simple monocultures to more complex systems incorporating multiple cell types. For instance, researchers have successfully co-cultured mammary epithelial organoids with mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSC) to study neoplastic progression, observing reproducible phenotypic and morphological changes in response to microenvironmental stimuli [39]. Similarly, macrophage incorporation into 3D models has provided insights into immune-tumor interactions, with studies showing that macrophage polarization and function within 3D environments differ significantly from their behavior in 2D cultures [4]. These sophisticated co-culture approaches allow researchers to deconstruct the complex interactions between cancer cells and their microenvironment, enabling more predictive assessment of therapeutic efficacy before advancing to animal models or clinical trials.

Advancements in Macrophage Research Using 3D Models

The transition from 2D to 3D culture systems has proven particularly valuable in macrophage research, where the tissue microenvironment profoundly influences cellular phenotype and function [4]. Macrophages exhibit marked differences in baseline marker expression (e.g., CD86, MHCII, CD206, EGR2) depending on their tissue origin, and these differences further influence both polarization capacity and functional responses to stimuli [4]. Studies comparing immortalized macrophage cell lines (RAW 264.7, MH-S, IC-21) with primary macrophages (bone marrow-derived and peritoneal macrophages) have revealed significant origin-specific variations in polarization profiles, repolarization capacity, and phagocytic functionality [4]. These findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting macrophage sources that appropriately model the specific tissue microenvironment under investigation.

When macrophages are encapsulated within 3D hydrogel-based synthetic extracellular matrices, they exhibit less pronounced polarization responses compared to traditional 2D cultures on rigid tissue culture plastic [4]. This moderated response may more accurately reflect in vivo macrophage behavior, as the compliant, soft mechanical properties of 3D matrices better mimic physiological tissue environments than rigid 2D substrates. The development of 3D bioprinting platforms, such as the RASTRUM bioprinter, has further advanced this field by enabling the creation of well-defined 3D cultures with controlled spatial organization of multiple cell types within tunable synthetic ECMs [4]. These technological advances provide unprecedented opportunities to study macrophage interactions with other cells in microenvironments that closely resemble in vivo conditions, potentially leading to more translatable research outcomes in cancer immunology and immunotherapy development.

Scaffold-free spheroid and organoid models represent significant advancements in our ability to study cellular aggregates in physiologically relevant contexts. The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that these models offer complementary strengths—spheroids provide simplicity, reproducibility, and scalability ideal for high-throughput drug screening, while organoids offer unprecedented physiological relevance for disease modeling and personalized medicine applications [42] [37] [38]. In macrophage research, where cellular origin and microenvironment critically determine function, both model types provide valuable insights that cannot be obtained through traditional 2D culture systems [4].

The strategic implementation of these technologies requires careful consideration of research objectives, technical capabilities, and resource constraints. As the field continues to evolve, ongoing advancements in biofabrication techniques, such as 3D bioprinting and microfluidic systems, promise to further enhance the reproducibility and physiological relevance of scaffold-free models [3] [4] [38]. By selecting appropriate model systems based on well-defined performance characteristics and adhering to robust methodological protocols, researchers can leverage these powerful tools to accelerate discovery and improve the translatability of preclinical research in cancer biology, immunology, and therapeutic development.

Advanced Bioprinting for High-Throughput and Reproducible 3D Microenvironments

The natural habitat of most cells, including macrophages, consists of complex and disordered three-dimensional (3D) microenvironments with spatiotemporally dynamic material properties [43]. However, for decades, traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cultures on rigid plastic surfaces have served as the standard tool for in vitro research. While these 2D systems have provided a wealth of fundamental biological knowledge, they suffer from significant limitations in replicating the physiological cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions that dictate cellular behavior in living tissues [42] [44]. This discrepancy is particularly relevant for immune cells like macrophages, whose phenotype and function are profoundly influenced by their tissue-specific microenvironment [3] [4].

The advent of 3D cell culture technologies promises to bridge this gap by providing more physiologically relevant models that better mimic in vivo conditions. Among these technologies, 3D bioprinting has emerged as a particularly powerful approach, enabling precise spatial control over multiple cell types and matrix components to create complex tissue architectures [45] [46]. This capability is especially valuable for studying the tumor microenvironment (TME), which plays a pivotal role in tumor progression, metastasis, and treatment resistance [47]. By offering unprecedented precision in reconstructing these complex microenvironments, advanced bioprinting platforms are revolutionizing how researchers model biological systems for drug discovery and basic research.

Comparative Analysis: Traditional vs. 3D Bioprinted Microenvironments

Technical and Performance Comparisons

The following tables summarize key differences between traditional culture methods and advanced 3D bioprinting approaches, with specific performance data from recent technological innovations.

Table 1: Performance comparison of spheroid production techniques

Technique	Throughput	Cell Viability	Positional Precision	Key Limitations
Aspiration-Assisted Bioprinting (AAB)	~20 sec/spheroid [48]	>90% [48]	~11% wrt spheroid size [48]	Processes one spheroid at a time [48]
HITS-Bio (Nozzle Array)	10x faster than AAB [48]	>90% [48]	High (simultaneous multi-spheroid placement) [48]	Requires specialized DCNA equipment [48]
Hanging Drop Plates	Medium	High	Limited	Requires transfer for assays; no ECM interactions [3]
Ultra-Low Attachment Plates	High	High	Limited	No cell-ECM interactions; difficult to standardize [3]
Magnetic Levitation	Low to Medium	Medium	Limited	Requires magnetic particles; may affect spheroid biology [48]

Table 2: Architecture and microenvironment control in cancer models

Feature	Traditional 3D Models	3D Bioprinted Models
Spatial Control	Limited self-organization [46]	Precise placement of cells and matrix components [45]
Matrix Properties	Homogeneous or limited gradients [43]	Tunable stiffness (0.9-5.5 MPa) and biochemical gradients [46]
Vascularization	Limited or self-assembled [42]	Precisely engineered perfusable networks [46]
Throughput	Variable; often low [3]	High-throughput potential (e.g., 384-well formats) [46]
Reproducibility	Batch-to-batch variability [43]	High consistency through automated deposition [46]

Table 3: Macrophage response in 2D vs. 3D culture systems

Parameter	2D Culture on TCP	3D Bioprinted Hydrogels
Polarization	Pronounced M1/M2 polarization [4]	Less pronounced polarization [4]
Mechanical Environment	Rigid, non-physiological stiffness [4]	Compliant, soft materials tunable to tissue-specific stiffness [4]
Morphology	Spread, adherent phenotype [4]	Variable, more physiological morphology [4]
Cell-Matrix Interactions	Limited to 2D plane [44]	Native-like 3D interactions with synthetic ECM [4]

Impact on Research Outcomes

The technological differences between traditional and bioprinted models translate directly to varied research outcomes. In cancer research, 3D bioprinted models recapitulate the complex tumor microenvironment with greater fidelity, including heterogeneous cell populations, oxygen and nutrient gradients, and physiological drug resistance patterns that are absent in 2D models [47] [46]. For instance, colon cancer HCT-116 cells in 3D culture demonstrate significantly greater resistance to chemotherapeutic agents like melphalan, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan compared to 2D cultures—mimicking the chemoresistance observed in vivo [42].

For immunology research, particularly macrophage studies, the 3D microenvironment significantly influences phenotypic outcomes. Macrophages encapsulated in bioprinted PEG-peptide synthetic ECMs exhibit less pronounced polarization compared to those cultured on 2D tissue culture plastic, suggesting that the compliant, soft materials provide more physiologically relevant mechanical cues [4]. This is critical as macrophage origin (tissue-resident vs. monocyte-derived) and local microenvironment jointly determine phenotypic and functional responses [3] [4].

Experimental Protocols for 3D Bioprinted Microenvironment Research

High-Throughput Spheroid Bioprinting Using HITS-Bio

The HITS-Bio (High-throughput Integrated Tissue Fabrication System for Bioprinting) platform represents a significant advancement in rapid bioprinting of spheroids for scalable tissue fabrication [48]. Below is the detailed methodology:

Equipment and Reagents:

• Digitally-controlled nozzle array (DCNA) with selective aspiration control
• High-precision XYZ linear stage
• Bioink for substrate deposition (e.g., gelatin-based hydrogels)
• Spheroids suspended in culture medium
• 405 nm LED light source for crosslinking

Procedure:

• Platform Setup: Assemble the HITS-Bio platform inside a biosafety hood, ensuring sterile conditions. The system should include microscopic cameras for isometric, bottom, and side views for real-time monitoring.
• Spheroid Aspiration: Move the DCNA to the Petri dish containing spheroids in culture medium. Apply aspiration pressure to selectively open nozzles and pick up multiple spheroids simultaneously. Confirm successful aspiration using the bottom view camera.
• Substrate Deposition: Extrude a bioink substrate onto the printing surface using the extrusion head.
• Spheroid Positioning: Transfer the DCNA loaded with spheroids over the substrate. Precisely position the array using the XYZ linear stage.
• Spheroid Deposition: Once spheroids contact the substrate, cut off aspiration pressure to deposit them in the predefined pattern.
• Encapsulation: Deposit another layer of bioink on top of the bioprinted spheroids to envelop them.
• Crosslinking: Photo-crosslink the entire construct using a 405 nm LED light source for 1 minute.

Applications: This protocol has been successfully used for calvarial bone regeneration in a rat model, achieving near-complete defect closure (bone coverage area of ~91% in 3 weeks and ~96% in 6 weeks), and for fabricating scalable cartilage constructs (1 cm³) containing ~600 chondrogenic spheroids in under 40 minutes per construct [48].

3D Macrophage Culture in Bioprinted Synthetic ECMs

This protocol details the encapsulation of macrophages within bioprinted PEG-peptide synthetic extracellular matrices to study phenotype and function in a well-defined 3D microenvironment [4]:

Equipment and Reagents:

• RASTRUM bioprinter or comparable bioprinting system
• PEG-based hydrogel precursors
• Adhesive peptides (RGD, GFOGER, DYIGSR)
• Enzyme-degradable linkers
• Primary bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMs) or RAW 264.7 cell line
• Macrophage culture media (RPMI 1640 with 10% FBS and 1% penicillin/streptomycin)

Procedure:

• Hydrogel Preparation: Formulate PEG-based hydrogels with incorporated adhesive peptides at physiologically relevant densities. Include enzyme-degradable crosslinkers to enable cell-mediated remodeling.
• Cell Preparation: Harvest primary BMMs from BALB/c or C57BL/6 mice (6-12 weeks old) or culture RAW 264.7 cells. Keep cells in suspension at appropriate density for encapsulation.
• Cell-Hydrogel Mixing: Gently mix macrophages with the PEG-peptide hydrogel precursor solution to achieve uniform cell distribution without damaging cells.
• Bioprinting: Using the RASTRUM bioprinter, deposit cell-laden hydrogels into multiwell plate formats according to predefined architectures. Maintain sterile conditions throughout the process.
• Crosslinking: Initiate crosslinking through appropriate mechanism (photoinitiation for PEG-based systems) to form stable 3D constructs.
• Culture Maintenance: Culture bioprinted constructs in macrophage media, changing media every 2-3 days as appropriate.
• Analysis: After culture period, analyze macrophage phenotype using flow cytometry for surface markers (CD86, MHCII, CD206, EGR2), imaging for morphological assessment, and functional assays for phagocytic capacity.

Key Considerations: The tunability of PEG-based synthetic ECMs allows systematic investigation of how specific microenvironmental cues (stiffness, adhesive ligand presentation, degradability) influence macrophage polarization and function [4].

Visualization of Experimental Workflows and Signaling Relationships

3D Bioprinting Workflow for Tumor Microenvironment Modeling

Macrophage Microenvironment Signaling Network

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential research reagents for advanced 3D bioprinting applications

Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Bioprinting Platforms	HITS-Bio (High-throughput Integrated Tissue Fabrication System) [48]	Simultaneous multi-spheroid positioning	Digitally-controlled nozzle array enables order-of-magnitude speed increase
Hydrogel Systems	PEG-based hydrogels [43] [4]	Synthetic ECM with tunable properties	Bioinert backbone allows controlled incorporation of bioactive cues
Natural Polymers	Collagen, Alginate, Hyaluronic Acid, Fibrin [43]	Naturally-derived ECM components	Biocompatible but batch-to-batch variability
Synthetic Polymers	Polyethylene glycol (PEG), Polycaprolactone (PCL) [43]	Precisely controllable scaffold materials	Require functionalization for cell adhesion
Adhesive Ligands	RGD, GFOGER, DYIGSR peptides [4]	Promote cell adhesion to synthetic matrices	Critical for macrophage integration in PEG hydrogels
Cell Sources	Primary tissue macrophages, RAW 264.7, iPSC-derived cells [4]	Biologically relevant cell models	Origin significantly influences phenotypic response
Characterization Tools	Flow cytometry, confocal microscopy, metabolic assays [4]	Assessment of phenotype and function	Require optimization for 3D constructs
Resorufin butyrate	Resorufin butyrate, CAS:15585-42-9, MF:C16H13NO4, MW:283.28 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
cis-Verbenol	(S)-cis-Verbenol|High-Purity Enantiomer for Research	Explore the bioactive (S)-cis-Verbenol, a chiral insect pheromone and plant metabolite. This enantiopure standard is For Research Use Only (RUO).	Bench Chemicals

Advanced bioprinting technologies have revolutionized the creation of high-throughput and reproducible 3D microenvironments for biomedical research. By enabling precise spatial control over multiple cell types and matrix components, these platforms address critical limitations of traditional 2D and earlier 3D culture methods. The integration of synthetic biomaterials with tunable properties further enhances the physiological relevance of these models, particularly for immune cell studies where microenvironmental cues dictate phenotypic and functional responses.

For macrophage research specifically, 3D bioprinted systems provide unprecedented opportunities to investigate how tissue-specific niches influence polarization, plasticity, and function in health and disease. The emerging convergence of 3D bioprinting with artificial intelligence for design optimization and data analysis promises to further accelerate the development of predictive tissue models [47]. As these technologies continue to mature, they are poised to transform drug discovery and fundamental biological research by providing more physiologically relevant and scalable platforms for studying cellular behavior in contextually appropriate microenvironments.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is a dynamic ecosystem surrounding tumor cells, consisting of various cellular and non-cellular components whose properties and composition significantly impact tumor progression and treatment response [1]. Among the key immune cell components within the TME, macrophages play a particularly profound role in influencing tumor processes [1]. These versatile immune cells exhibit remarkable plasticity, allowing them to differentiate into distinct functional subsets in response to various microenvironmental stimuli, primarily the pro-inflammatory M1 type and the anti-inflammatory M2 type [1].

Macrophages polarized to the M2 phenotype, often termed tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), become induced in the TME and promote tumor angiogenesis, immune evasion, tumor cell proliferation, and metastasis by secreting factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) [1]. In contrast, classically activated M1 macrophages orchestrate anti-tumor immunity by secreting pro-inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-12 (IL-12), which collectively activate cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses, induce tumor cell apoptosis, and enhance immune surveillance [1].

Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures, while offering simplicity and reproducibility, fundamentally lack the cellular interactions and three-dimensional architecture essential for replicating in vivo immune environments [49]. This limitation creates a critical gap in our ability to accurately model human immune pathogenesis and predict therapeutic responses. Innovative co-culture systems that integrate macrophages with three-dimensional cancer organoids have emerged as a groundbreaking platform in immunology, offering a physiologically relevant and controllable environment to model human immune responses and evaluate immunotherapeutic strategies [49]. These advanced systems provide an essential bridge between conventional 2D cultures and in vivo models, enabling more accurate study of tumor-immune interactions and supporting the development of more effective cancer immunotherapies.

Comparative Analysis: Traditional vs. 3D Co-Culture Systems

Technical and Physiological Comparison

Table 1: Comprehensive comparison of macrophage culture systems

Feature	Traditional 2D Monoculture	Advanced 3D Co-culture Systems
Spatial Architecture	Flat, monolayer organization lacking tissue context	Three-dimensional structure mimicking in vivo tissue organization [50]
Cell-Cell Interactions	Limited to horizontal contacts on rigid substrate	Complex, multi-directional interactions resembling natural tissue [50]
Macrophage Polarization	Often driven by artificial cytokine cocktails	Contextual polarization influenced by 3D matrix and tumor cell signals [1]
TME Representation	Lacks crucial microenvironmental components	Recapitulates complex TME including ECM and multiple cell types [51]
Drug Response Prediction	Poor clinical correlation due to simplified environment	Enhanced predictive value for therapeutic outcomes [49]
Heterogeneity Capture	Limited capacity to model tumor diversity	Preserves patient-specific tumor heterogeneity [52]
Scalability	High for simple assays	Moderate, though advancing with automation [49]
Technical Complexity	Low, standardized protocols	High, requires specialized expertise and materials [50]

Functional Outcomes in Cancer Research

Table 2: Functional differences in macrophage behavior across culture systems

Functional Aspect	2D Culture Observations	3D Co-culture Findings
Infiltration Capacity	Not applicable in monolayer systems	Demonstrates active migration through matrix toward tumor cells [52]
Cytokine Secretion Profile	Polarized to extreme M1 or M2 states	Reveals spectrum of activation states with mixed phenotypes [1]
Metabolic Adaptation	Uniform nutrient access creates artificial metabolism	Gradients of oxygen/nutrients drive physiologically relevant metabolism [1]
Immunosuppressive Function	Limited modeling of immune suppression	Recapitulates T cell suppression via arginase-1 and other mechanisms [1]
Therapeutic Response	Exaggerated efficacy in targeted therapies	More clinically relevant resistance patterns emerge [51]
Spatial Organization	Random distribution without tissue context	Forms organized niches within tumor-stroma interfaces [51]

Established Co-Culture Methodologies: Protocols and Applications

Direct Co-Culture System in Matrix

The direct submerged substrate gel culture represents a cornerstone technique in organoid-macrophage co-culture research, with origins tracing back to seminal work on Lgr5+ intestinal stem cells [51]. This method involves embedding both tumor organoids and macrophages within a laminin-rich basement membrane extract, typically Matrigel, which provides structural support and biologically relevant signaling cues.

Protocol Implementation:

• Organoid Generation: Mechanically or enzymatically dissociate fresh tumor tissues into small fragments or single cells [52]. Seed these cells in Matrigel domes and culture with tissue-specific media supplemented with defined growth factors (e.g., EGF, Noggin, R-spondin) [53].
• Macrophage Incorporation: Differentiate macrophages from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) using GM-CSF (for M1-like) or M-CSF (for M2-like) priming [1]. After 5-7 days of differentiation, harvest macrophages and resuspend in cold Matrigel.
• Co-culture Establishment: Combine pre-formed organoids with macrophages in fresh Matrigel at recommended ratios (typically 1:10 to 1:5 macrophage:organoid ratio). Culture in specialized media that supports both cell types.
• Maintenance: Refresh media every 2-3 days, monitoring for macrophage survival and organoid growth. Most co-cultures remain viable for 7-14 days, depending on the specific tumor type.

This system has been successfully employed to study macrophage infiltration capacity and their effects on organoid growth. For instance, Dijkstra et al. developed a similar co-culture platform combining peripheral blood lymphocytes with tumor organoids to assess T cell-mediated killing, demonstrating the potential for adapting this approach to macrophage studies [53].

Air-Liquid Interface (ALI) Method

The air-liquid interface (ALI) method, introduced by Calvin J Kuo's group, involves cultivating tissue fragments combined with Matrigel in an upper chamber exposed to air, while a serum-containing medium in the lower chamber provides nutrients [52]. This method is particularly advantageous for preserving native immune populations, including macrophages.

Protocol Implementation:

• Tissue Processing: Rather than fully dissociating tissue, maintain small tumor fragments (100-500 μm) to preserve endogenous stromal and immune components [52].
• Matrix Embedding: Mix tumor fragments with collagen/Matrigel solution and plate in transwell inserts.
• ALI Culture Conditions: Place the matrix-containing insert into a well with culture medium, ensuring the medium contacts the bottom of the matrix without submerging it.
• Macrophage Monitoring: Native macrophages within tumor fragments typically survive and function for 7-21 days. For additional macrophage incorporation, exogenous macrophages can be added to the matrix mixture before gelling.

The ALI method's key advantage lies in its non-enzymatic processing and biphasic design, which optimally preserves native immune components, positioning it as a gold standard for in situ TME modeling [51]. This method has been particularly valuable for studying the spatial relationships between macrophages and tumor cells in their native context.

Microfluidic 3D Culture Platforms

Microfluidic 3D culture platforms employ specialized chips featuring a central gel chamber flanked by bilateral perfusion channels, enabling precise control over the cellular microenvironment and gradient formation [51].

Protocol Implementation:

• Chip Preparation: Treat microfluidic chips with appropriate coatings to ensure matrix stability.
• Cell Loading: Inject a mixture of tumor cells, macrophages, and matrix (typically Matrigel or synthetic hydrogels) into the central chamber.
• Perfusion Establishment: Flow culture media through adjacent channels to provide nutrients and remove waste, simulating vascular function.
• Real-time Monitoring: Utilize integrated imaging capabilities to track macrophage migration and tumor-organoid interactions over time.

These systems enable microscale modeling and functional integration through high-density tumor cell seeding within microporous architectures [51]. The continuous perfusion better mimics blood flow in tissues and allows for the establishment of chemokine gradients that guide macrophage migration.

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for establishing macrophage-organoid co-cultures, showing three primary methodological approaches.

Molecular Insights: Signaling Pathways in Macrophage-Organoid Interactions

Key Signaling Pathways in Macrophage Polarization

The molecular mechanisms of macrophage polarization are intricate, encompassing various signaling pathways, transcription factors, and metabolic regulation [1]. In the context of tumor organoid co-cultures, these pathways are activated through direct cell-cell contact and paracrine signaling.

M1 Polarization Signaling:

• TLR/NF-κB Pathway: Triggered by exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) secreted by tumor cells or other immune components in the co-culture system [1].
• JAK/STAT1 Pathway: Activated by IFN-γ, driving expression of pro-inflammatory genes including iNOS and IL-12 [1].
• HIF-1α Activation: Under hypoxic conditions that naturally develop in dense organoid regions, stabilizing HIF-1α promotes glycolytic metabolism and M1-like features [1].

M2 Polarization Signaling:

• IL-4/IL-13-STAT6 Pathway: Th2-derived cytokines activate STAT6, inducing expression of M2 markers like Arg-1 and CD206 [1].
• PI3K/AKT Signaling: Activated by various tumor-derived factors, contributing to M2 polarization through metabolic reprogramming [1].
• TGF-β/SMAD Pathway: Tumor-derived TGF-β promotes SMAD2/3 phosphorylation, driving M2 polarization and associated immunosuppressive functions [1].

These polarization states are not fixed but exist along a dynamic continuum, with co-culture models uniquely positioned to capture the plasticity and transitional states that occur in response to therapeutic interventions [1].

Metabolic Cross-Talk in Co-Culture Systems

Metabolic regulation is crucial for macrophage polarization and function within co-culture systems [1]. The spatial organization in 3D co-cultures creates nutrient and oxygen gradients that drive physiologically relevant metabolic adaptations:

• Glycolytic Programming: M1 macrophages predominantly utilize glycolysis, generating substantial amounts of nitric oxide (NO) and pro-inflammatory cytokines [1]. In co-culture systems, this can be visualized using fluorescent glucose analogs, revealing heightened glycolytic activity at the organoid periphery.
• Oxidative Metabolism: M2 macrophages preferentially rely on oxidative phosphorylation and fatty acid oxidation to produce anti-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-10 [1]. These metabolic preferences create functional niches within co-cultures that can be mapped using spatial transcriptomics.
• Lactate Shuttling: Tumor-derived lactate can be taken up by macrophages via MCT1 transporters, promoting M2 polarization through HIF-1α stabilization - a process readily observable in co-culture systems but absent in 2D models [1].

Diagram 2: Signaling pathways regulating macrophage polarization in tumor organoid co-cultures, showing key triggers, intracellular signaling, and functional outputs.

Essential Research Tools for Co-Culture Systems

Critical Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential research reagents for macrophage-organoid co-culture systems

Category	Specific Products	Function and Application
Extracellular Matrices	Corning Matrigel Matrix [54]	Provides structural support and biological cues for 3D growth
	Synthetic hydrogels (Hyaluronic acid, peptide) [52]	Defined alternatives to Matrigel with batch-to-batch consistency
	Collagen Type I [14]	Mimics stromal ECM components, suitable for invasion studies
Cell Culture Media	Advanced DMEM/F12 [53]	Base medium for most organoid cultures
	Growth factor cocktails (Wnt3A, R-spondin, Noggin) [53]	Maintains stemness and promotes organoid formation
	Cytokines (M-CSF, GM-CSF, IL-4) [1]	Directs macrophage differentiation and polarization
Specialized Equipment	Microfluidic chips (Organ-on-chip platforms) [52]	Enables perfusion culture and gradient formation
	Low-attachment plates (Corning spheroid microplates) [54]	Facilitates spheroid formation without matrix
	Transwell inserts [51]	Supports air-liquid interface culture method
Analysis Tools	Spectral flow cytometry (Cytek) [52]	High-dimensional immune phenotyping with minimal spectral overlap
	Live-cell imaging systems [52]	Real-time monitoring of cellular interactions and migration
	Single-cell RNA sequencing kits [52]	Reveals heterogeneity and transcriptional states in co-cultures

Applications in Preclinical Drug Development

Immunotherapy Screening and Personalized Medicine

Tumor organoid-macrophage co-culture systems have demonstrated significant value in preclinical drug development, particularly for screening immunotherapies and developing personalized treatment strategies. These advanced models provide a more physiologically relevant platform for assessing therapeutic efficacy and resistance mechanisms.

Key Applications:

• Checkpoint Inhibitor Evaluation: Co-culture systems enable testing of immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., anti-PD-1, anti-CTLA-4) in a human-relevant context, allowing researchers to observe how these therapies reactivate T cells and modulate macrophage function within the TME [49]. For instance, Dijkstra et al. developed a co-culture platform combining peripheral blood lymphocytes and tumor organoids to enrich tumor-reactive T cells and assess their cytotoxic efficacy, demonstrating the potential for individualized immunotherapy testing [53].

• CAR-Macrophage Development: Emerging cellular immunotherapies involving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-macrophages can be optimized using co-culture systems that test their infiltration capacity, tumoricidal activity, and phenotypic stability in a realistic TME context [49].

• Combinatory Therapy Screening: The systems allow for testing drug combinations that simultaneously target tumor cells and reprogram TAMs. For example, CSF-1R inhibitors that deplete or reprogram TAMs can be evaluated in combination with chemotherapy or targeted therapies to identify synergistic effects [1].

• Resistance Mechanism Studies: Co-culture models help elucidate how macrophages contribute to therapy resistance through immune suppression, metabolic adaptation, or pro-survival signal delivery to cancer cells [51]. This application is particularly valuable for understanding why certain patients fail to respond to immunotherapies.

Biomarker Discovery and Patient Stratification

These co-culture systems also serve as powerful tools for identifying predictive biomarkers and developing patient stratification strategies:

• Response Correlations: By creating matched co-cultures from patient samples and testing multiple therapeutic agents, researchers can correlate specific TAM phenotypes, spatial distributions, or secretory profiles with treatment responses [52].
• Spatial Biomarkers: Advanced imaging of co-cultures can reveal how macrophage localization relative to tumor cells (e.g., perivascular vs. invasive front) influences treatment efficacy, suggesting potential spatial biomarkers for clinical evaluation [52].
• Metabolic Profiling: Metabolic characterization of co-cultures can identify dependencies and vulnerabilities that inform targeted therapy selection, particularly for metabolism-modulating agents [1].

Future Perspectives and Concluding Remarks

The integration of macrophages with cancer organoids in sophisticated co-culture systems represents a significant advancement in cancer research methodology. These models successfully bridge critical gaps between traditional 2D cultures and in vivo models, offering enhanced physiological relevance while maintaining experimental controllability. As the field progresses, several emerging trends and future directions deserve emphasis.

Technological Innovations on the Horizon:

• Vascularization Integration: Next-generation co-culture systems are increasingly incorporating endothelial cells to form primitive vasculature, enabling better nutrient delivery and more accurate modeling of immune cell trafficking [52].
• Multi-tissue Systems: Linking tumor-organoid co-cultures with other tissue organoids (e.g., liver for metabolism studies, lymphoid organoids for immune context) creates more comprehensive models of systemic anti-tumor responses [49].
• Advanced Biomaterials: Development of tunable synthetic matrices with precisely controlled mechanical and biochemical properties will help standardize co-culture systems while allowing researchers to systematically dissect how specific ECM parameters influence macrophage-tumor interactions [52].
• Automation and High-Throughput Screening: Implementation of automated platforms for co-culture establishment, maintenance, and analysis will enhance reproducibility and enable larger-scale drug screening applications [14].

Standardization and Validation Needs: Despite their considerable promise, macrophage-organoid co-culture systems require further standardization and validation to maximize their impact. Current challenges include batch-to-batch variability in natural matrices like Matrigel, differences in macrophage derivation protocols across laboratories, and the absence of universal readouts for model validation [50]. Addressing these limitations through community-led standardization efforts and rigorous benchmarking against clinical data will be essential for broader adoption.

In conclusion, innovative co-culture systems integrating macrophages with cancer organoids have transformed our ability to model human-specific tumor-immune interactions. These advanced platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for mechanistic studies, drug discovery, and personalized therapy development. As technology continues to evolve, these systems are poised to become indispensable tools in the oncologist's arsenal, accelerating the development of more effective immunotherapies and improving outcomes for cancer patients.

Organotypic and iPSC-Derived Models for Tissue-Resident Macrophage (TRM) Studies

Tissue-resident macrophages (TRMs) are crucial immune sentinels that maintain homeostasis, coordinate immune responses, and facilitate tissue repair. Their study has been revolutionized by the development of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived models, which provide unprecedented access to human-specific macrophage biology. These models stand in contrast to traditional macrophage sources, such as primary monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) and immortalized cell lines, offering distinct advantages and limitations that researchers must carefully consider for experimental design.

The fundamental distinction between primitive (yolk-sac derived) and monocyte-derived macrophages is critical for TRM studies. iPSC-derived macrophages (iPSMs) demonstrate ontogenetic fidelity by sharing an MYB-independent erythroid-myeloid progenitor (EMP) origin with major TRM populations, such as Kupffer cells in the liver and microglia in the brain [55] [56]. This developmental similarity enables iPSMs to model the biological characteristics of tissue-resident populations more accurately than monocyte-derived alternatives, which originate from bone marrow hematopoietic progenitors [25].

Organotypic models incorporating iPSMs represent a significant advancement, allowing researchers to reconstruct human tissue microenvironments in vitro. These systems facilitate the study of immune-epithelial interactions, inflammatory responses, and disease processes with human-specific biology [57]. When framed within the broader thesis of traditional versus 3D culture systems, iPSM-based models provide a critical bridge between simplified 2D monocultures and the complex, often inaccessible, in vivo environment.

Comparative Analysis of Macrophage Models

Phenotypic and Functional Characterization Across Model Systems

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Primary, Immortalized, and iPSC-Derived Macrophage Models

Feature	Primary Human MDMs	Immortalized Cell Lines (THP-1)	iPSC-Derived Macrophages (iPSMs)
Origin	Peripheral blood monocytes	Leukemic monocytes	Embryonic-like hematopoietic progenitors
Proliferative Capacity	Limited, terminally differentiated	Unlimited proliferation	Limited, but renewable via iPSC source
Key Markers	CD11b+ CD14+ CD45+ HLA-DR+	CD11b+ CD14+ CCR2+	CD11b+ CD45+ CD14+ CD163+ CD206+
Developmental Origin	Bone marrow (MYB-dependent)	Cancerous derivation	Yolk-sac like (MYB-independent)
Tissue Residency Modeling	Limited, circulating counterpart	Poor representation	Strong model for tissue-resident macrophages
Genetic Manipulability	Challenging	Moderate	High (editing at iPSC stage)
Donor Variability	High	None (clonal)	Moderate (depends on iPSC donor)
Typical Yield	Limited by blood draw	Unlimited	High, scalable
Physiological Relevance	Good for circulating monocytes	Poor, transformed phenotype	Excellent for tissue-resident populations

iPSC-derived macrophages exhibit a distinctive phenotypic signature that aligns closely with tissue-resident populations. They consistently express pan-macrophage markers (CD11b, CD45, CD14) while demonstrating elevated expression of tissue-resident-associated markers including CD163 and CD206 [55]. Notably, iPSMs display a baseline activation state characterized as "naïve-like" or minimally polarized, with co-expression of both M1 (CD80, CD86, CCR5) and M2 (CD163, CD206) associated markers, though with a bias toward higher expression of the latter [55]. This relatively undifferentiated state provides a clean slate for polarization experiments, allowing researchers to direct macrophages toward specific functional phenotypes using appropriate cytokine stimuli.

Functionally, iPSMs demonstrate robust phagocytic capability and antibacterial activity, restricting Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth by over 75% in infection models [55]. They also exhibit characteristic secretory profiles, producing both pro-inflammatory (IL-6, CXCL8, CCL2, CCL4, CXCL1, CXCL10) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10, IL-1RA, CCL22) cytokines with a high IL-10/IL-12p70 index exceeding 20, indicating a regulatory bias [55]. When exposed to polarizing stimuli, iPSMs demonstrate appropriate responsiveness, upregulating HLA-DR and producing TNF-α in response to LPS, with IFN-γ priming enhancing their reactivity to inflammatory triggers [55].

Technical Performance Metrics Across Model Systems

Table 2: Experimental Performance and Practical Considerations of Macrophage Models

Parameter	Primary MDMs	iPSC-Derived Macrophages	Immortalized Lines
Differentiation Timeline	5-7 days	25-35 days	3-5 days (PMA stimulation)
Scalability	Limited by donor availability	High with optimized protocols	Virtually unlimited
Batch-to-Batch Variation	High (donor-dependent)	Moderate (protocol-dependent)	Low (clonal consistency)
Cost Considerations	Moderate (isolation costs)	High initially (iPSC maintenance)	Low
Genetic Engineering	Difficult (low efficiency)	Highly efficient (at iPSC stage)	Moderate
Cryopreservation Recovery	Moderate	Variable (protocol-dependent)	Excellent
Physiological Function	Good, but reflects blood origin	Excellent for tissue-resident modeling	Poor, transformed phenotype
Drug Screening Compatibility	Moderate (donor variability)	High (reproducibility)	High (throughput)
Complex Co-culture Systems	Challenging (limited numbers)	Excellent (scalability)	Moderate (non-physiological)

The differentiation timeline for iPSMs represents a significant investment, typically requiring 25-35 days from iPSC to functional macrophage [58] [56]. This process generally progresses through three defined phases: mesoderm commitment, hemogenic endothelium specification, and finally macrophage maturation. While substantially longer than the 5-7 days required to differentiate MDMs from peripheral blood monocytes, this timeline provides access to developmentally distinct macrophages with superior modeling capacity for tissue-resident populations.

Regarding scalability, iPSM systems offer significant advantages once established. Recent advances in bioreactor-based production platforms enable the continuous generation of iPSMs, with standardized human iPSC-derived hematopoietic organoids (hemanoids) producing macrophages that can be harvested weekly for multiple weeks [59]. This approach addresses the critical limitation of primary macrophage sources, which are constrained by donor availability and the finite expansion capacity of blood-derived monocytes.

Methodological Deep Dive: iPSC-Derived Macrophage Generation

Core Protocol Comparison and Optimization Strategies

Table 3: Comparison of iPSC-Derived Macrophage Generation Protocols

Method Aspect	Embryoid Body (EB) Method	Monolayer Method	Bioreactor Platform
Complexity	Moderate	High	Moderate (after setup)
Key Cytokines	IL-3, M-CSF	BMP4, VEGF, SCF, IL-3, IL-6, M-CSF	BMP4, VEGF, M-CSF, IL-3
EB Formation	Central requirement (AggreWell)	Not required	Automated aggregation
Typical Yield	High	Moderate	Very high
Standardization	Moderate (EB size variation)	High	Very high
Specialized Equipment	AggreWell plates	Standard tissue culture	Benchtop bioreactor
Protocol Duration	~30 days	~30 days	~30 days (with continuous production)
Scalability	Moderate	Limited	Excellent
GMP Compatibility	Challenging	Possible	High

The embryoid body-based method has been widely adopted for iPSM generation due to its reduced complexity compared to monolayer approaches. This method leverages the innate potential of iPSCs to form three-dimensional aggregates that recapitulate aspects of embryonic development. Recent protocol refinements have addressed the issue of EB size variability—a significant source of batch-to-batch variation—through the implementation of engineered microwell plates (AggreWell) that standardize EB dimensions [58]. This approach typically employs a simplified cytokine cocktail, often focusing on IL-3 and M-CSF (CSF1) to drive monocytic differentiation and macrophage maturation [55].

In contrast, the monolayer method employs a more complex, stage-wise differentiation approach using defined media and precise cytokine sequences. This typically begins with BMP4, VEGF, and activin A to induce mesodermal commitment, progresses through hematopoietic progenitor specification with VEGF, bFGF, and SCF, and culminates in macrophage differentiation with M-CSF and IL-3 [56]. While more labor-intensive and technically demanding, this approach offers greater precision in controlling differentiation milestones and may yield more developmentally synchronized populations.

Emerging bioreactor platforms represent the cutting edge in iPSM production, combining standardized differentiation with scalable output. These systems typically utilize rotating wall vessels or similar technologies to maintain cells in suspension under controlled conditions, enabling the generation of standardized hematopoietic organoids that continuously produce macrophages for extended periods [59]. This approach demonstrates the feasibility of intermediate-scale macrophage manufacturing, addressing the significant demand for consistent, high-quality iPSMs in both academic and industrial settings.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Standardized iPSM Generation

The following protocol represents an optimized, three-phase method for iPSM generation that balances reproducibility, yield, and practical implementation:

Phase 1: Embryoid Body Formation (Days 0-4)

• Culture iPSCs to approximately 50% confluence on Matrigel-coated plates in mTeSR Plus medium [58].
• Dissociate iPSCs using Accutase to create a single-cell suspension.
• Seed cells into AggreWell 800 microwell plates (300 micropits/well) pre-treated with Anti-Adherence Rinsing Solution at 1300× g for 5 minutes to remove bubbles [58].
• Centrifuge plates to capture cells in microwells (300× g for 3 minutes) to form standardized EBs.
• Culture EBs in differentiation medium with daily medium changes for 4 days.

Phase 2: Macrophage Progenitor Generation (Days 5-18)

• Transfer EBs to low-attachment plates in macrophage progenitor medium containing IL-3 (25 ng/mL) and M-CSF (50 ng/mL) [58] [59].
• Refresh medium completely every 3-4 days, monitoring for the emergence of non-adherent, spherical progenitor cells.
• Around day 14-18, collect non-adherent macrophage progenitors by gentle pipetting and filtration through 70μm strainers.

Phase 3: Macrophage Maturation (Days 19-30)

• Plate macrophage progenitors on tissue culture-treated surfaces at 2-5×10^5 cells/cm² in macrophage maturation medium containing M-CSF (50 ng/mL) [58].
• Culture for 10-14 days, with partial medium changes every 3-4 days.
• Harvest mature iPSMs using enzyme-free cell dissociation buffers or gentle scraping.
• Validate iPSM identity via flow cytometry for CD11b, CD14, CD45, CD163, and CD206, with typical yields exceeding 50 mature iPSMs per input iPSC [58].

Figure 1: Workflow for standardized generation of iPSC-derived macrophages

Signaling Pathways in Macrophage Differentiation and Function

The differentiation of iPSCs into functional macrophages recapitulates embryonic hematopoietic development through precisely orchestrated signaling pathways. Understanding these pathways is essential for both protocol optimization and the interpretation of experimental results.

Figure 2: Key signaling pathways in macrophage differentiation and polarization

The mesodermal patterning phase initiates the hematopoietic program through BMP4 and activin signaling, establishing the primitive streak-like population that gives rise to all blood lineages [60] [56]. Subsequently, hematopoietic specification is driven by VEGF and BMP4 signaling, promoting the emergence of hemogenic endothelial cells that express characteristic markers like CD235 and KDR [60]. The transition to myeloid commitment depends critically on M-CSF (CSF1R) signaling, working in concert with IL-3 to expand and specify macrophage progenitors [58] [59]. Finally, macrophage maturation occurs under continued M-CSF exposure, with some protocols incorporating bFGF to enhance developmental progression and functional maturation [60].

In their baseline state, iPSMs display a distinct polarization bias, expressing both M1 and M2 associated markers but with elevated levels of CD163 and CD206, suggesting a predisposition toward alternative activation [55]. This "naïve-like" state demonstrates plasticity when exposed to polarizing stimuli, with LPS and IFN-γ driving classical activation (M1), and IL-4/IL-13 promoting alternative activation (M2) [55] [25]. The resulting phenotypes exhibit characteristic functional differences, with M1-polarized iPSMs producing pro-inflammatory cytokines like TNF-α and demonstrating enhanced bactericidal activity, while M2-polarized iPSMs secrete anti-inflammatory mediators like IL-10 and contribute to tissue repair processes [55].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for iPSC-Derived Macrophage Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
Lineage Specification Cytokines	BMP4, VEGF, bFGF, Activin A	Direct mesoderm and hematopoietic specification	Critical concentration and timing requirements
Myeloid Commitment Factors	M-CSF (CSF1), IL-3, SCF	Promote macrophage progenitor development	IL-3 enhances yield; M-CSF essential for survival
Extracellular Matrix	Matrigel, Geltrex, Vitronectin	Support iPSC attachment and embryoid body formation	Lot variability requires testing
Cell Dissociation Reagents	Accutase, Enzyme-free buffers	Gentle dissociation for passaging and harvesting	Avoid trypsin for mature iPSMs
Polarization Inducers	LPS, IFN-γ, IL-4, IL-13	Direct functional macrophage polarization	Concentration and duration determine phenotype
Characterization Antibodies	CD11b, CD14, CD45, CD163, CD206, HLA-DR	Phenotypic validation by flow cytometry	Multi-color panels recommended
Functional Assay Reagents	pHrodo-labeled particles, IFN-γ, IL-1β ELISA	Assess phagocytosis, cytokine secretion	Standardized protocols essential
Specialized Media	X-VIVO 15, RPMI-1640 + B27, mTeSR Plus	Support differentiation and maintenance	Serum-free options reduce variability
Sodium Formate	Sodium Formate, CAS:141-53-7, MF:HCOONa, MW:68.007 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
(Z)-8-Dodecen-1-ol	(Z)-8-Dodecen-1-ol, CAS:40642-40-8, MF:C12H24O, MW:184.32 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The cytokine cocktail represents the most critical component for successful iPSM generation, with precise concentrations and temporal application driving appropriate developmental progression. BMP4 initiates mesodermal commitment at concentrations typically ranging from 5-50 ng/mL, while VEGF (50 ng/mL) and bFGF (10 ng/mL) promote hemogenic endothelial specification [60] [56]. The myeloid commitment phase depends on M-CSF (50 ng/mL) and IL-3 (25 ng/mL), with these factors also supporting terminal macrophage maturation [58] [59].

For functional characterization, a comprehensive panel of assessment tools is essential. Phagocytic capacity can be quantified using pHrodo-labeled E. coli bioparticles or FITC-dextran, while cytokine secretion profiles are typically assessed via ELISA or multiplex assays following stimulation with LPS (100 ng/mL) and IFN-γ (20 ng/mL) [55] [58]. Antimicrobial activity can be evaluated through infection models with pathogens like Mycobacterium tuberculosis or Streptococcus pneumoniae, with bacterial growth quantified over time [55] [56].

Applications in Disease Modeling and Drug Screening

iPSC-derived macrophage models have demonstrated particular utility in infectious disease research, cancer immunology, and regenerative medicine applications. Their capacity to model human-specific responses provides valuable insights not readily obtainable through traditional models.

In infectious disease modeling, iPSMs have been employed to study host-pathogen interactions with clinically relevant organisms including HCV, SARS-CoV-2, and Streptococcus pneumoniae [56]. Transcriptomic analyses reveal that iPSMs activate distinct gene networks in response to different pathogens, with viral challenges triggering interferon response pathways, while bacterial pathogens induce more pronounced inflammatory programming [56]. This pathogen-specific response signature highlights the physiological relevance of iPSMs for modeling human infectious diseases.

In the context of cardiac regeneration, iPSMs have demonstrated remarkable therapeutic potential. Primitive iPSC-derived macrophages (hiPMs) and their conditioned medium promote adult cardiomyocyte proliferation through the activation of multiple pro-proliferative pathways [60]. This regenerative effect, demonstrated in both 2D and 3D culture systems, significantly increases the percentage of Ki67-positive cardiomyocytes and enhances cardiac function in injured adult mouse hearts, suggesting promising therapeutic applications for ischemic heart disease [60].

The drug screening applications of iPSMs leverage their human origin, genetic manipulability, and scalability. Recent studies have successfully utilized iPSM platforms to evaluate immunomodulatory compounds like dexamethasone, demonstrating expected anti-inflammatory effects on cytokine secretion profiles [59]. The implementation of bioreactor-based production systems enables the generation of sufficient iPSMs for high-content screening campaigns, positioning these models as valuable tools for both basic research and pharmaceutical development.

The selection of appropriate macrophage models requires careful consideration of research objectives, technical constraints, and physiological relevance. Traditional primary MDMs remain valuable for studying circulating monocyte-derived populations but demonstrate limited capacity for modeling tissue-resident macrophages. Immortalized cell lines offer practical advantages for high-throughput screening but suffer from transformed phenotypes that may not reflect physiological responses.

iPSC-derived macrophages represent a transformative model system that combines developmental relevance with experimental tractability. Their embryonic-like origin, capacity for genetic engineering, and scalability position them as ideal tools for studying tissue-resident macrophage biology in human-specific contexts. While the extended differentiation timeline and technical complexity present implementation challenges, continued protocol refinements are addressing these limitations through standardized, reproducible methods.

As the field advances, the integration of iPSMs into complex organotypic systems will further enhance their utility, enabling the reconstruction of human tissue microenvironments for studying immune interactions in health and disease. When framed within the broader thesis of traditional versus advanced culture systems, iPSM-based models clearly represent the future of tissue-resident macrophage research, offering unprecedented access to human immunobiology with direct translational relevance.

Navigating 3D Complexity: Strategies for Overcoming Technical Challenges and Enhancing Model Fidelity

In macrophage research, the transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) to three-dimensional (3D) culture systems represents a paradigm shift toward greater physiological relevance. However, this advancement introduces critical challenges in standardizing three fundamental parameters: cell sources, matrix stiffness, and oxygen levels. Traditional 2D cultures, where macrophages are grown on flat, rigid plastic surfaces, have long been the standard despite creating a hyperoxic environment that profoundly rewires macrophage gene expression and fails to recapitulate in vivo conditions [61] [62]. In contrast, 3D culture systems—including spheroids, scaffold-based cultures, and organoids—offer a more native tissue-like environment but require meticulous standardization to ensure experimental reproducibility and meaningful data interpretation. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these systems, offering standardized protocols and quantitative data to enhance reproducibility in macrophage research.

Comparative Analysis: 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems

Quantitative Comparison of Culture Environments

Table 1: Key Parameter Comparison Between 2D and 3D Macrophage Culture Systems

Parameter	Traditional 2D Culture	3D Culture Systems	Physiological Relevance & Practical Implications
Oxygen Levels	~18% Oâ‚‚ (hyperoxic) [62]	2-6% Oâ‚‚ (physioxic) achievable [62]	High Relevance: Physioxia (2-6% Oâ‚‚) mimics human tissue conditions; hyperoxia (18% Oâ‚‚) increases ROS, causes oxidative damage, and alters drug responses [62].
Matrix Stiffness/Physical Environment	Rigid plastic (~100,000 kPa) [63]	Tunable hydrogels (150-5,700 Pa) [54]	High Relevance: 2D stiffness is non-physiological; 3D stiffness can be calibrated to match target tissue (e.g., normal breast: 150-320 Pa; stiff tumors: 1,100-5,700 Pa) [54].
Cell Source & Co-culture Potential	Limited, primarily monoculture [61]	High, enables complex heterocellular co-cultures [14] [26]	High Relevance: Macrophage monoculture on plastic is a poor surrogate; co-culture with stromal partners (e.g., fibroblasts, cardiomyocytes) induces in vivo-like phenotypes [61].
Spatial Organization & Cell-Cell Interaction	Planar, limited to peripheral contact	3D architecture with omnidirectional signaling	High Relevance: Essential for modeling structures like granulomas and spheroids, and for studying cell migration and invasion [8].
Cost & Accessibility	Low cost, highly accessible, standardized	Higher cost, requires specialized materials and protocols	Practical Consideration: U-bottom plates treated with anti-adherence solution offer a lower-cost alternative to cell-repellent plates for spheroid formation [14].
Reproducibility & Standardization	High, well-established protocols	Variable, emerging protocols, requires rigorous standardization	Practical Consideration: Standardized, reproducible protocols for consistent size/structure are essential for widespread adoption and reducing animal use [14].

Impact on Macrophage Characteristics and Function

The culture environment directly shapes fundamental macrophage biology. Research demonstrates that touching and sensing the plastic dish in 2D culture profoundly rewires macrophage gene expression, making the common in vitro classification into inflammatory M1 and non-inflammatory M2 subsets of limited value when considering macrophages in living organisms [61]. The M1/M2 paradigm ignores crucial ontogenic heterogeneity and tissue-specific cues that shape cellular phenotype in vivo.

Conversely, 3D culture systems better preserve these native characteristics. A 2024 study successfully generated functional mature macrophages from adipose tissue via 3D spheroid culture that presented distinct genic and phenotypic profiles compared to bone marrow-derived macrophages and closely mirrored the traits of in vivo AT resident macrophages [11]. Furthermore, incorporating macrophages into 3D co-culture models with their in vivo neighbors, such as cardiomyocytes and fibroblasts, enables them to assume phenotypes resembling tissue-resident macrophages, expressing typical tissue-specific markers at 100-fold higher levels compared to macrophages cultured by themselves on plastic [61].

Standardizing Critical Parameters for Reproducibility

Standardizing cell sources is paramount for reproducible macrophage research. While primary human macrophages offer physiological relevance, their donor variability complicates reproducibility. Macrophage cell lines (e.g., THP-1, Mono Mac-6) provide consistency and are effectively used in defined, animal-free 3D co-culture systems [26]. For increased physiological relevance, 3D systems enable the generation of tissue-resident-like macrophages from stromal vascular fractions [11] and facilitate critical heterocellular crosstalk.

Table 2: Standardized Macrophage Co-culture Protocol for 3D Systems (Adapted from Hamidzada et al.)

Step	Component	Specification	Function & Rationale
1. Macrophage Generation	Human Embryonic Stem Cell (hESC)-derived macrophages	Co-differentiate with target tissue cell types	Generates macrophages pre-conditioned by relevant tissue microenvironment.
2. Co-culture Setup	Stromal Partners (e.g., Cardiomyocytes, Fibroblasts)	Combined in 3D culture system	Recreates in vivo cell circuits; induces tissue-specific macrophage markers (e.g., CSFR1, LYVE1).
3. Functional Validation	Phagocytosis/Efferocytosis Machinery	Assess MERTK, ABCA1, ABCG1 expression	Confirms functional maturation; critical for metabolic support roles.
4. Outcome Assessment	Target Cell Function	e.g., Cardiomyocyte contraction, neuronal firing	Quantifies functional impact of macrophages on tissue maturation and stability.

Matrix Stiffness: Engineering the Mechanical Microenvironment

Matrix stiffness directly influences macrophage behavior and must be standardized to match target tissues. Naturally derived (e.g., Matrigel, collagen, gellan gum) and synthetic (e.g., PEG, alginate) polymers are used to create 3D scaffolds with tunable mechanical properties [14] [26]. Gellan gum has emerged as a promising animal-free alternative for 3D co-culture models, supporting adipocyte-macrophage interactions in a defined environment [26].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for standardizing matrix stiffness in 3D cultures

Oxygen Levels: Achieving Physiologically Relevant Conditions

Standard cell culture incubators maintain ~18% Oâ‚‚, creating a hyperoxic environment compared to most human tissues (2-6% Oâ‚‚) [62]. This supraphysiological oxygen disrupts redox homeostasis, increases reactive oxygen species production, causes oxidative damage to biomolecules, and alters cellular responses to drugs and hormones [62]. For reproducible results, researchers should maintain physioxia in cell culture to better replicate in vivo-like tissue physiology and pathology.

Table 3: Protocol for Implementing and Validating Physioxic (2-6% Oâ‚‚) Culture Conditions

Step	Parameter	Protocol Details	Validation & Quality Control
1. System Setup	Oxygen-Regulated Incubator	Set to 5% COâ‚‚ and 3-5% Oâ‚‚; allow 4+ hours for stabilization before use.	Continuous monitoring with calibrated Oâ‚‚ sensor; humidified environment.
2. Hypoxia Modeling	Enzymatic Oxygen Deprivation (for acute hypoxia models)	Culture medium with 120 U/mL catalase + 2 U/mL glucose oxidase for 3 hours (pO₂ <10 mmHg) [15].	Measure pO₂, pH, and glucose levels; confirm HIF-1α stabilization via Western blot.
3. Redox Homeostasis Assessment	ROS & Antioxidant Defenses	Measure Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ production (Amplex Red), GSH/GSSG ratio, protein carbonyls (DNPH assay), lipid peroxidation (MDA, 4-HNE) [62].	Compare to 18% Oâ‚‚ controls; expect lower ROS and oxidative damage in physioxia.
4. Functional Validation	HIF Pathway Activation	Assess HIF-1α protein stabilization (Western) and target gene expression (e.g., VEGF, GLUT1 via qPCR) [62].	HIF-1α should be degraded in physioxia (vs. hypoxia) but stable vs. normoxia.
5. Phenotypic Confirmation	Macrophage Polarization & Function	Profile surface markers (CD80, CD206), cytokine secretion (IL-6, TNF-α, IL-10), and phagocytic capacity [15].	Response to polarizing stimuli (IFN-γ, LPS, IL-4) should be enhanced in physioxia.

Diagram 2: Macrophage signaling pathways regulated by oxygen levels

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Reagents for Standardized 3D Macrophage Culture

Reagent Category	Specific Products & Formats	Key Function in 3D Culture
3D Culture Platforms	U-bottom ultra-low attachment plates [14] [11]; Corning Spheroid Microplates [54]	Promote spontaneous cell aggregation and spheroid formation by inhibiting substrate adhesion.
Extracellular Matrices	Corning Matrigel Matrix [54]; Gellan Gum (animal-free) [26]; Collagen Type I [14]; RGD-functionalized Alginate [63]	Provide tunable 3D scaffold that mimics native extracellular matrix; support cell-matrix interactions.
Cytokines & Differentiation Factors	Recombinant M-CSF (10-50 ng/mL) [11]; IFN-γ, IL-4 [15]	Direct macrophage differentiation, survival, and polarization in 3D environments.
Culture Media Supplements	Methylcellulose [14]; Defined, serum-free media formulations [26]	Enhance spheroid compactness; replace animal serum to reduce variability and improve reproducibility.
Activation & Polarization Agents	Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) [15] [26]; Phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) [26]	Induce pro-inflammatory (M1-like) polarization; model inflammatory responses in 3D systems.
Rapacuronium Bromide	Rapacuronium Bromide	Rapacuronium bromide is a neuromuscular blocking agent for research. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.
(S)-mandelic acid	(S)-(+)-Mandelic Acid|High-Purity Research Chemical

The integration of standardized 3D culture systems represents the future of physiologically relevant macrophage research. By systematically addressing the critical parameters of cell sources, matrix stiffness, and oxygen levels, researchers can significantly enhance the reproducibility and translational potential of their findings. The experimental data and protocols provided herein offer a roadmap for implementing these standardized approaches, ultimately contributing to more predictive in vitro models that bridge the gap between traditional cell culture and in vivo physiology. As the field advances, continued refinement of these parameters will be essential for unlocking the full potential of macrophage research in drug development and therapeutic discovery.

Optimizing Macrophage Infiltration and Viability within Dense 3D Structures

The study of macrophages, crucial innate immune cells, has traditionally relied on two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cultures. While these models have been instrumental in foundational discoveries, they lack the intricate spatial, biochemical, and cellular interactions found in native tissues, leading to aberrant cellular responses and poor translation to in vivo outcomes [64]. The transition to three-dimensional (3D) culture systems, particularly dense spheroids, represents a paradigm shift in immunology and cancer research. These models more accurately mimic the physiological tumor microenvironment (TME), featuring gradients of oxygen, nutrients, and cellular density that influence macrophage recruitment, polarization, and function [14] [65]. However, a significant challenge persists: the efficient infiltration and maintenance of macrophage viability within the dense core of these 3D structures. This guide provides a comparative analysis of 2D versus 3D systems and details optimized experimental protocols to overcome this hurdle, enabling researchers to build more physiologically relevant models for drug screening and mechanistic studies.

Comparative Analysis: 2D Monolayers vs. 3D Spheroid Models

A clear understanding of the fundamental differences between 2D and 3D systems is prerequisite to optimizing macrophage co-cultures. The table below summarizes key comparative characteristics that directly impact macrophage biology.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of 2D vs. 3D Macrophage Cultures

Characteristic	2D Monolayer Culture	3D Spheroid Co-culture
Spatial Architecture	Flat, monolayer; forced apical-basal polarity [64]	Spherical, multi-layered; recapitulates in vivo tissue organization [14] [66]
Cell-Cell/ECM Interactions	Limited to a single plane; lacks complex ECM [64]	Enhanced, multi-directional interactions; can incorporate natural or synthetic ECM [14] [13]
Macrophage Infiltration	Not applicable (co-culture is mixed in 2D)	A critical parameter; can be limited by spheroid density [65] [66]
Metabolic Environment	Homogeneous	Heterogeneous, with oxygen and nutrient gradients creating hypoxic and necrotic cores [14] [65]
Macrophage Phenotype & Function	Altered by rigid plastic substrate; does not fully mimic in vivo states [64]	More accurate polarization towards Tumor-Associated Macrophages (TAMs); exhibits metabolic reprogramming (e.g., Warburg effect) [65]
Drug Response	Often overestimates efficacy; fails to model penetration barriers [64]	Better predicts in vivo efficacy and resistance; models physical barrier to drug penetration [65] [64]
Transcriptional Profile	Rapidly changes and deviates from native tissue [64]	More closely preserves the transcriptional profile of parental tissue [66]

Quantitative data further underscores these differences. Studies comparing macrophage behavior report that in 3D environments, macrophages demonstrate increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and enhanced motility compared to their 2D counterparts [13]. Furthermore, when co-cultured with cancer cells in 3D spheroids, macrophages undergo a metabolic shift and upregulate key pathways such as HIF-1α and HSP70, which are involved in extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling—a phenomenon poorly observed in 2D [65].

Table 2: Quantitative Differences in Macrophage Behavior in 2D vs. 3D Cultures

Parameter	2D Culture Findings	3D Spheroid Co-culture Findings	Significance
Motility	Standard, confined to a plane	Significantly increased motility [13]	Impacts ability to infiltrate tumor core
Reactive Species Production	Baseline levels	Increased production [13]	Influences tumor cell killing and TME signaling
Metabolic Reprogramming	Less pronounced	Shift towards aerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect); lactate production [65]	Supports M2-like TAM polarization and tumor progression
ECM Degradation	Limited	Upregulation of HIF-1α, HSP70, and cysteine proteases (e.g., Cathepsin B/L) [65]	Facilitates tumor invasion and metastasis
Polarization to TAMs	Does not fully recapitulate the in vivo TAM phenotype	Effective shift of M0 macrophages towards TAMs [65]	Creates a more immunosuppressive, pro-tumoral microenvironment

Optimized Experimental Protocols for 3D Co-culture

Successful integration of macrophages into dense spheroids requires meticulous protocol optimization. Below are detailed methodologies for generating spheroids and establishing co-cultures, compiled from recent studies.

Protocol 1: Establishing Multicellular Tumor Spheroids (MCTS)

This protocol is adapted from a 2025 Scientific Reports study that compared various 3D culture techniques for colorectal cancer cell lines [14].

• Step 1: Spheroid Formation. Seed cancer cells (e.g., CRC cell lines like SW48, HCT116) in ultra-low attachment (ULA) 96-well round-bottom plates at a density of 3,000–5,000 cells/well. Centrifuge the plate at 1,500 rpm for 15 minutes to encourage aggregate formation at the well bottom.
• Step 2: Culture and Maturation. Culture the plates in appropriate media on an orbital shaker at 65 rpm to prevent irregular adhesion. Allow spheroids to form and compact over 3–5 days. Compact spheroids with smooth, regular boundaries indicate successful formation.
• Step 3: Cost-Effective Alternative. As an alternative to commercial ULA plates, treat standard multi-well plates with an anti-adherence solution. This method generates consistent spheroids at a significantly lower cost [14].

Protocol 2: Macrophage Incorporation via Co-culture Infiltration

This protocol is based on a 2023 study that successfully established macrophage-infiltrated spheroids to mimic the TME [65].

• Step 1: Macrophage Differentiation. Differentiate human THP-1 monocytes into M0 macrophages by treating them with 150 ng/mL of Phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) for 48 hours in complete RPMI-1640 medium.
• Step 2: Co-culture Setup. Once tumor spheroids are formed (from Protocol 1), carefully add the differentiated M0 macrophages to the spheroid-containing wells. A macrophage-to-tumor cell ratio of 1:5 is a common starting point, but this should be optimized for specific cell lines.
• Step 3: Co-culture Maintenance. Maintain the co-culture for several days to allow for macrophage infiltration and interaction. The study confirmed that under these conditions, M0 macrophages successfully infiltrate the spheroid and shift their polarity towards TAMs [65].

Signaling Pathways in the 3D Spheroid Microenvironment

The 3D architecture creates a unique biochemical landscape that directly influences macrophage signaling and function. The following diagram illustrates the key pathways involved in macrophage-spheroid interactions, particularly the interplay between hypoxia, metabolism, and ECM remodeling.

Key Pathway Interactions in 3D Co-cultures

The co-culture of macrophages within dense spheroids initiates critical signaling cascades. The hypoxic core of the spheroid stabilizes Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α), which drives metabolic reprogramming in cancer cells towards aerobic glycolysis (the Warburg effect) [65]. This shift results in lactate production, which in turn promotes the polarization of macrophages into tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) with an M2-like, pro-tumoral phenotype [65]. Concurrently, both HIF-1α and the stress-response protein HSP70 contribute to the upregulation of cysteine proteases (such as Cathepsin B and L). These enzymes facilitate ECM degradation, a process essential for tumor invasion and metastasis that is uniquely observed in 3D models [65].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Building and analyzing a robust 3D macrophage-spheroid model requires a carefully selected set of reagents and tools. The following table details the essential components for such experiments.

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for 3D Macrophage-Spheroid Co-cultures

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Examples / Notes
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Prevents cell adhesion, forcing self-assembly into spheroids.	U-bottom 96-well plates (e.g., Greiner Bio-One, InSphero) are ideal for uniform, high-throughput spheroid formation [65] [66].
Anti-Adherence Solution	Cost-effective treatment for standard plates to create non-adherent surfaces.	An alternative to commercial ULA plates [14].
Basement Membrane Matrix	Provides a physiological 3D extracellular matrix (ECM) for embedding cells.	Reconstituted Basement Membrane (RBM) supports macrophage motility and mimics in vivo ECM interactions [13].
Cell Line & Culture Media	Supports growth of specific cell types.	Cancer cells (e.g., CAL33, CRC lines); THP-1 monocytes for macrophages; specialized media like Neurobasal/B-27 for neural cultures [65] [67].
Polarization Agents	Differentiates and polarizes macrophages into specific phenotypes.	PMA for M0 differentiation; IFN-γ+LPS for M1; IL-4 for M2a [65] [68].
Viability & Staining Dyes	Assesses cell health and visualizes cellular structures.	DAPI (viability); CalcineAM (live-cell); Antibodies for CD68, CD206, CD163 (M2 markers) [65] [69] [68].
High-Content Imaging System	Captures detailed 3D structure and cell infiltration.	Confocal-capable systems like the Thermo Scientific CellInsight CX7 LZR HCA Platform [67].

The migration from 2D to 3D culture systems is essential for advancing our understanding of macrophage biology within tissue-like environments. While 3D spheroid models present distinct challenges, particularly in ensuring consistent macrophage infiltration and viability, the protocols and data presented here provide a roadmap for overcoming these obstacles. By adopting optimized co-culture techniques, employing relevant reagents, and leveraging high-content analysis, researchers can build more predictive models. These advanced systems are crucial for unraveling the complex dynamics of the tumor microenvironment and for developing more effective immunotherapeutic strategies, ultimately improving the translation of in vitro findings to clinical outcomes.

The study of macrophages, key orchestrators of immune response and tissue homeostasis, is undergoing a paradigm shift. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) culture on rigid plastic substrates has provided foundational knowledge but fails to recapitulate the complex microenvironment that macrophages encounter in vivo. The emerging field of mechanobiology has revealed that physical cues are as critical as biochemical signals in directing macrophage phenotype and function [70] [71]. Biomimetic approaches that incorporate physiological topography and mechanical forces are therefore revolutionizing macrophage research by providing more predictive models for drug development and therapeutic discovery.

Macrophages are profoundly influenced by their physical surroundings. In native tissues, they reside within a three-dimensional (3D) extracellular matrix (ECM) with defined architectural features, stiffness, and dynamic forces [71] [3]. Conventional 2D culture models lack these critical features, potentially explaining the limited translational success of many drug candidates identified through traditional screening methods [72]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of traditional versus 3D biomimetic culture systems, offering researchers a objective evaluation of their performance characteristics, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies.

Comparative Analysis: Traditional 2D vs. 3D Biomimetic Macrophage Cultures

The following tables synthesize quantitative and qualitative differences between culture systems, drawing from recent experimental findings.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Macrophage Culture Systems in Key Functional Assays

Functional Assay	Traditional 2D Culture	3D Biomimetic Culture	Supporting Experimental Evidence
Phenotype Polarization	Extreme, forced M1/M2 states; lower plasticity [73]	Blunted, spectrum-like polarization; higher plasticity [73]	Softer 3D PEG hydrogels reduced polarization intensity vs. 2D plastic [73]
Cytokine Secretion Profile	High pro-inflammatory cytokine output (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6) upon stimulation [74]	More balanced, physiologically representative secretome [74]	3D models showed altered secretion of 43 soluble factors vs. 2D [75]
Gene Expression	Standard macrophage markers	Upregulation of tissue-remodeling & chemokine genes [5]	3D-macrophages uniquely expressed Saa3, Cxcl2, Cd14, Tnf, Nfkbiz [5]
Functional Capacity (e.g., Recruitment)	Standard phagocytosis	Enhanced specific functions like neutrophil recruitment [5]	3D-macrophages secreted CXCL2, effectively recruiting neutrophils in vivo [5]
Drug Response	May overestimate efficacy/toxicity [72]	Better predicts in vivo drug effects [75]	CSF1R inhibitor and CD40 ligand showed differential effects in 2D vs. 3D MCTS [75]

Table 2: Characteristics of Common 3D Biomimetic Culture Platforms

3D Platform	Key Features	Advantages	Disadvantages / Challenges
Scaffold-Based (Natural)(e.g., Collagen, Matrigel)	Fibrillar architecture mimicking native ECM; tunable biophysical properties (pore size, stiffness) [3] [74]	High biocompatibility; inherent cell adhesion motifs; physiologically relevant stiffness (e.g., 85 Pa for collagen) [74]	Batch-to-batch variability; complex decellularization for analysis [14] [3]
Scaffold-Based (Synthetic)(e.g., PEG, PA hydrogels)	Highly tunable and reproducible structure; modular biofunctionalization [70] [73]	"Bio-inert" base allows controlled incorporation of cues (RGD, GFOGER); defined mechanical properties [73] [3]	May lack natural complexity; requires expertise in polymer chemistry [3]
Spheroid/Aggregate(e.g., MCTS, Hanging Drop)	Cell-dense aggregates formed by self-assembly [14] [3]	Simple, low-cost; good for high-throughput screening; models nutrient/oxygen gradients [14]	Lacks ECM interactions; difficult to standardize size/shape [3]
3D Bioprinting	Precise spatial patterning of cells and materials; customizable architecture [73] [3]	High consistency and reproducibility; enables complex co-culture models [73] [3]	Requires specialized, costly equipment; optimization of bioinks is complex [3]

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Protocol 1: Establishing a 3D Collagen Hydrogel for Macrophage Generation

This protocol is adapted from studies generating functional "3D-macrophages" from hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) [5] and modeling macrophage-fibroblast interactions [74].

Key Research Reagent Solutions:

• Collagen I: Isolated from rat tail; primary structural component of the hydrogel.
• HSCs or Macrophage Precursors: Primary mouse bone marrow HSCs or human THP-1 monocytic cells.
• Differentiation/Culture Media: IMDM with cytokines (SCF, TPO, Flt-3L) for HSCs [5]; RPMI-1640 with PMA for THP-1 differentiation [74].

Methodology:

• Hydrogel Preparation: Dilute stock Collagen I solution to a final concentration of 3 mg/mL in culture medium. Neutralize the pH to approximately 7.4 using 1N NaOH and buffer with PBS [5].
• Cell Encapsulation: Resuspend freshly isolated HSCs or differentiated macrophages in the neutralized collagen solution at the desired density (e.g., 1-5 x 10^6 cells/mL).
• Gelation: Pipet the cell-collagen mixture into the desired culture vessel (e.g., multi-well plate). Incubate at 37°C in a 5% CO2 atmosphere for 30-60 minutes to initiate polymerization and form a stable hydrogel.
• Culture Maintenance: After gelation, carefully overlay the hydrogel with complete culture media supplemented with necessary cytokines or polarizing agents (e.g., IL-4/IL-13 for M2a, IL-10 for M2c) [74]. Refresh the media every 2-3 days.
• Cell Harvesting (Endpoint Analysis): To retrieve cells for downstream analysis (e.g., flow cytometry, RNA sequencing), digest the hydrogel using collagenase solution (e.g., Type IV collagenase) [5].

Protocol 2: Generating Multicellular Tumor Spheroids (MCTS) for TAM Studies

This protocol outlines the creation of a co-culture spheroid model containing cancer cells, fibroblasts, and macrophages to study tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) [14] [75].

Key Research Reagent Solutions:

• Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates: Surface-treated plates to inhibit cell adhesion, forcing aggregation.
• Cell Lines: CRC cell lines (e.g., DLD1, HCT116), immortalized fibroblasts (e.g., CCD-18Co for CRC models), and macrophage cell lines (e.g., THP-1 derived) or primary monocytes [14] [75].
• Methylcellulose: A synthetic polymer used in some protocols to promote compact spheroid formation [14].

Methodology:

• Cell Coating with Magnetic Nanoparticles (Optional): Incubate cells with magnetic nanoparticles (e.g., NanoShuttle-PL) according to manufacturer's instructions. This enables magnetic levitation for spheroid formation [3].
• Cell Seeding for Spheroid Formation:
  • ULA Plate Method: Seed a pre-mixed suspension of cancer cells, fibroblasts, and macrophages at the desired ratio (e.g., 10:5:1) into U-bottom ULA plates. Centrifuge the plates at low speed (e.g., 300 x g for 5 minutes) to promote cell aggregation at the well bottom [14].
  • Hanging Drop Method: Place the mixed cell suspension as hanging drops from the lid of a culture dish. Gravity causes cells to aggregate and form a single spheroid at the bottom of each drop [14] [3].
• Spheroid Maturation: Culture the plates for 3-5 days, allowing the spheroids to compact and mature.
• Drug Treatment & Analysis: Treat mature spheroids with TAM-targeting compounds (e.g., CSF1R inhibitor, CD40 ligand). Analysis can include:
  • Viability Assays: ATP-based luminescence (e.g., CellTiter-Glo 3D).
  • Phenotyping: Flow cytometry after spheroid dissociation for surface markers (CD206, CD86, MHC II) [75].
  • Cytokine Profiling: Multiplex ELISA of conditioned media for 40+ analytes [75].
  • Imaging: Confocal microscopy of immunostained whole spheroids.

Signaling Pathways and Mechanotransduction in Macrophages

The response of macrophages to biomimetic cues is governed by complex mechanotransduction pathways. The following diagram synthesizes the key signaling events triggered by physical cues from the microenvironment, leading to changes in gene expression and phenotype.

Mechanotransduction Pathway in Macrophages

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successfully implementing biomimetic macrophage models requires specific reagents and tools. The following table details key solutions for building these advanced culture systems.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Biomimetic Macrophage Culture

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Key Characteristics & Considerations
PEG-Based Hydrogels	Synthetic, tunable scaffold for 3D culture; bio-inert base [73]	High reproducibility; modifiable with adhesive peptides (RGD, GFOGER); stiffness tunable via crosslinking [70] [73]
Type I Collagen	Natural bioscaffold derived from rat tail or other sources [5] [74]	Forms fibrillar architecture mimicking native ECM; typical working concentration 2-3 mg/mL; stiffness ~85 Pa [74]
Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) Plates	Generation of spheroids and cellular aggregates by preventing adhesion [14] [75]	U-bottom plates ideal for single spheroid/well; cost-effective alternative: treat standard plates with anti-adherence solution [14]
Polarizing Cytokines	Directing macrophage phenotype in vitro [71] [74]	IL-4/IL-13: induces M2a-like phenotype; IL-10: induces M2c-like phenotype; LPS/IFN-γ: induces M1 phenotype [71] [74]
Mechanobiology Modulators	Investigate specific pathways (e.g., ROCK, Myosin II) [70]	Blebbistatin: Myosin II inhibitor; Y-27632: ROCK inhibitor; used to dissect role of actomyosin contractility in mechanotransduction [70]
CD14 Antibody	Key surface marker for identifying a subset of macrophages derived in 3D mechanical microenvironments [5]	Used for flow cytometry sorting and characterization of "3D-macrophages" which show high CD14 expression and specific functionality [5]

2D vs. 3D Showdown: A Direct Comparison of Phenotype, Function, and Predictive Power

Macrophages, as pivotal innate immune cells, exhibit remarkable phenotypic plasticity, dynamically altering their surface marker expression and functional profiles in response to environmental cues—a process known as polarization [25] [76]. This process is crucial for their role in maintaining tissue homeostasis, orchestrating immune responses, and driving disease pathogenesis. The M1/M2 paradigm provides a foundational framework for understanding macrophage polarization, where M1 macrophages typically exert pro-inflammatory, antimicrobial functions, and M2 macrophages promote anti-inflammatory, tissue-repair processes [25]. However, recent research underscores that this classification represents a simplified view of a complex continuum of functional states influenced by cellular origin and tissue microenvironment [25] [76] [73].

The in vitro culture system profoundly impacts macrophage biology. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) culture on rigid plastic surfaces fails to recapitulate the physiological three-dimensional (3D) microenvironment, potentially altering phenotypic expression [42] [73]. Emerging 3D culture models—including spheroids, organoids, and hydrogel-based systems—provide more in vivo-like conditions by restoring critical cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions, mechanical cues, and biochemical gradients [42] [77] [11]. This guide systematically compares surface marker expression and polarization profiles of macrophages in traditional versus 3D culture systems, providing researchers with objective data and methodologies to inform model selection for drug discovery and immunology research.

Macrophage Models and Polarization Fundamentals

Macrophage Origins and Model Systems

Macrophages studied in vitro originate from two primary sources, each with distinct advantages and limitations [25] [76]:

• Primary Macrophages: Isolated directly from organisms (e.g., from bone marrow, peripheral blood, or tissues), these cells closely resemble in vivo physiological states but have limited proliferative capacity, functional heterogeneity, and short survival periods. Common types include:

  • Bone Marrow-Derived Macrophages (BMDMs): Differentiated from precursors using M-CSF over 5-7 days; valued for high physiological relevance, polarization plasticity, and comprehensive receptor expression [25] [76].
  • Peritoneal Macrophages (PMs): Directly isolated from the peritoneal cavity [73].
  • Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell (PBMC)-derived: Differentiated from monocytes isolated from blood [25].

• Immortalized Cell Lines: Genetically altered to enable long-term proliferation, offering ease of culture, stability, and reproducibility for large-scale studies. However, they may exhibit genotypic/phenotypic drift and often possess molecular phenotypes distinct from primary cells [25] [76]. Common lines include:

  • Murine: RAW 264.7, J774A.1, IC-21, P388D1, MH-S [25] [73].
  • Human: THP-1, U-937 [25] [77].

The Polarization Spectrum

Macrophage polarization is a reversible process where macrophages acquire specific functional capacities in response to microenvironmental signals [25]. The classic activation states are:

• M1 (Pro-inflammatory): Induced by IFN-γ and LPS (Lipopolysaccharide). They are characterized by pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion (e.g., IL-1β, TNF-α), high pathogen phagocytosis, and involvement in antimicrobial responses [25] [78]. Key surface markers include CD86 and MHC-II [73].
• M2 (Anti-inflammatory): A collective category for alternative activation, further subdivided. M2a, induced by IL-4/IL-13, is associated with tissue repair and fibrosis, marked by high CD206 and CD105 [77]. M2c, induced by IL-10, is involved in immune suppression and matrix remodeling, expressing high levels of CD163 and CD14 [77].

It is critical to note that the M1/M2 distinction is a helpful simplification; in reality, macrophages exist in a broad spectrum of functional states, including specialized populations like regulatory macrophages (Mregs) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) [25] [76].

Comparative Analysis of 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems

Surface Marker Expression

The following table summarizes quantitative differences in key macrophage surface markers between 2D and 3D culture environments, based on flow cytometry data (geometric mean fluorescence intensity, gMFI) [77] [73].

Table 1: Surface Marker Expression in 2D vs. 3D Culture

Surface Marker	Associated Polarization State	Expression in 2D Culture (Relative gMFI)	Expression in 3D Culture (Relative gMFI)	Functional Significance
CD206	M2a (IL-4/IL-13)	High in M2a [77]	Significantly higher in adipose tissue-derived 3D models; mirrors resident macrophages [11]	Scavenger receptor; endocytosis, tissue remodeling
CD163	M2c (IL-10)	High in M2c [77]	Maintained or elevated [11]	Hemoglobin scavenger receptor, anti-inflammatory
CD86	M1	High in M1 [73]	Reduced baseline expression [73]	Co-stimulatory molecule; T-cell activation
HLA-DR (MHC-II)	M1 > M2	Higher in M1 vs. M2c [77]	Generally lower [73]	Antigen presentation
CD14	M2c (IL-10)	High in M2c [77]	Data limited	Co-receptor for LPS sensing
CD105	M2a (IL-4/IL-13)	High in M2a [77]	Data limited	Role in TGF-β signaling and angiogenesis

Functional Polarization and Plasticity

Table 2: Functional Polarization Capacity in 2D vs. 3D Systems

Polarization Parameter	Response in 2D Culture	Response in 3D Culture	Implications
Polarization Strength	Strong, distinct M1/M2 phenotypes [73]	Attenuated response; less pronounced polarization on stiff (>1 kPa) 2D plastic [73]	3D may better model nuanced in vivo polarization
Cytokine Secretion	M1: High IL-1β, TNF-α [78]M2a: Promotes TGF-β1 [77]	M2a: Sustained TGF-β1 secretion [77]M2c: Sustained IL-10 secretion [77]	3D models maintain key functional cytokine profiles
Functional Plasticity	High repolarization capacity [73]	Data limited; microenvironment likely restricts plasticity	2D useful for plasticity studies; 3D may reflect in vivo stability
Tissue-Specific Phenotype	Often lost or altered [25]	Better preserved; e.g., 3D adipose model generates LYVE1+ Timd4+ resident-like macrophages [11]	3D critical for studying tissue-resident macrophage biology

Experimental Protocols for 2D and 3D Macrophage Culture

Protocol 1: 2D Polarization of THP-1 Macrophages

This is a standard protocol for generating and polarizing human monocyte-derived macrophages on tissue culture plastic [77].

• Cell Line: THP-1 human monocytic cell line.
• Differentiation to M0 Macrophages:
  • Seed THP-1 cells in culture plates.
  • Treat with Phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) at a typical concentration of 100 nM for 24-48 hours.
  • Replace medium with fresh PMA-free medium and rest for 24 hours. Adherent, differentiated M0 macrophages are obtained.
• Polarization to M1/M2 Subtypes:
  • M1 Polarization: Stimulate M0 macrophages with LPS (e.g., 100 ng/mL) and/or IFN-γ (e.g., 20 ng/mL) for 24-48 hours.
  • M2a Polarization: Stimulate M0 macrophages with IL-4 (e.g., 20 ng/mL) and IL-13 (e.g., 20 ng/mL) for 24-48 hours [77].
  • M2c Polarization: Stimulate M0 macrophages with IL-10 (e.g., 20 ng/mL) for 24-48 hours [77].
• Validation: Confirm polarization states via flow cytometry (CD86 for M1; CD206 for M2a; CD163 for M2c) and cytokine secretion profiling (ELISA).

Protocol 2: 3D Spheroid Model for Adipose Tissue Macrophages

This protocol generates functional adipose tissue (AT)-resident macrophages from a stromal vascular fraction, mimicking the in vivo niche [11].

• Source Material: Isolate the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) from murine subcutaneous adipose tissue via mechanical dissociation and enzymatic digestion with collagenase (e.g., NB4, 1.7 U/mL) at 37°C for 30-40 minutes [11].
• 3D Culture Setup:
  • Seed SVF cells on ultra-low adherence round-bottom 96-well plates at 10^5 cells/well.
  • Culture in RPMI medium supplemented with M-CSF (10 ng/mL) to support macrophage differentiation and survival.
  • Centrifuge plates briefly to encourage cell contact.
• Spheroid Formation and Macrophage Generation:
  • Incubate cells at 37°C with 5% CO2. After ~4 days, cells spontaneously aggregate to form a single spheroid per well.
  • Around day 7, macrophages begin to migrate out of the spheroid and adhere to the plate surface.
  • Macrophages can be harvested from day 13 onwards for experiments.
• Characterization: The resulting macrophages express F4/80 and display a transcriptomic and phenotypic profile matching in vivo AT-resident macrophages (e.g., CD206+, Lyve1+) [11].

Protocol 3: 3D Hydrogel Co-culture Model for Wound Healing

This protocol establishes a biomimetic 3D model to study macrophage-fibroblast interactions during tissue repair [77].

• 3D Matrix Preparation: Prepare a 3D collagen matrix by reconstituting type I collagen at 2 mg/mL. This creates a matrix with pore size ~8.1 µm, fibril diameter ~652 nm, and an elastic modulus of ~85.5 Pa, mimicking native tissue softness [77].
• Macrophage Generation and Activation:
  • Differentiate and polarize THP-1 cells into M2a (MIL-4/IL-13) and M2c (MIL-10) subtypes using the 2D protocol outlined in 4.1.
• Co-culture Establishment:
  • Embed target cells (e.g., fibroblasts or myofibroblasts) within the 3D collagen matrix.
  • Seed the pre-activated macrophages on top of or within the same matrix.
• Analysis:
  • Assess fibroblast-to-myofibroblast differentiation (via α-SMA expression), matrix synthesis (Collagen I, EDA-Fibronectin), and contraction.
  • Analyze macrophage-mediated effects, such as M2a-promoted matrix synthesis via TGF-β1 and M2c-driven resolution via IL-10 [77].

Diagram 1: Experimental Workflow for Macrophage Culture and Analysis

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Macrophage Polarization Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research
Polarizing Cytokines	IFN-γ, LPS (for M1); IL-4, IL-13 (for M2a); IL-10 (for M2c) [77] [78]	Directs macrophage differentiation into specific functional phenotypes.
Growth/Differentiation Factors	Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor (M-CSF/CSF1) [11]	Essential for survival, proliferation, and differentiation of primary macrophages (BMDMs, AT-macrophages).
Cell Lines	THP-1 (human), RAW 264.7 (mouse), U-937 (human) [25] [77]	Provide a reproducible, scalable source of macrophages; reduce donor variability.
3D Culture Matrices	Type I Collagen (e.g., Rat tail), Matrigel, Synthetic PEG-based Hydrogels [42] [77] [73]	Provide a biomimetic 3D scaffold that recapitulates tissue mechanics and architecture.
Specialized Cultureware	Ultra-Low Attachment Plates (round-bottom for spheroids) [42] [11]	Prevents cell adhesion, forcing cells to self-assemble into 3D spheroids.
Analysis Tools	Flow Cytometry Antibodies (vs. CD86, CD206, CD163, MHC-II) [77] [73]	Enables quantification of surface marker expression to define polarization states.

The choice between 2D and 3D macrophage culture models is fundamental and should be dictated by the specific research question. 2D systems remain a powerful tool for high-throughput screening, mechanistic studies of signaling pathways, and investigations requiring strong, discrete polarization due to their simplicity, reproducibility, and ease of access [42] [73]. In contrast, 3D culture systems—including spheroids, organoids, and hydrogel-based models—offer superior physiological relevance by preserving tissue-specific phenotypes, mimicking native mechanical softness, and restoring critical cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions [42] [77] [11]. This makes them indispensable for studying complex processes like wound healing, fibrosis, and tissue residency, and for pre-clinical drug efficacy and safety testing where in vivo predictability is paramount [42] [77].

A key finding from comparative studies is that macrophage polarization is context-dependent. Markers like CD206 and CD163, often associated with general M2 activation, can define specific subpopulations (M2a vs. M2c) in 2D but may also signify tissue-resident identity in 3D models [77] [11]. Furthermore, the polarization response itself is often attenuated in 3D environments compared to the stark M1/M2 divide often observed on stiff 2D plastic, likely reflecting a more nuanced in vivo reality [73]. Therefore, researchers must carefully select their model system, acknowledging that data from 2D and 3D cultures can be complementary, together providing a more complete understanding of macrophage biology in health and disease.

Macrophages are versatile innate immune cells essential for host defense, tissue homeostasis, and immune regulation. Their functional capacity—encompassing phagocytosis, cytokine secretion, and metabolic reprogramming—varies significantly based on origin, polarization state, and microenvironmental cues [79] [25]. Understanding these functional dimensions is critical for both basic research and therapeutic development, particularly in areas like cystic fibrosis, cancer, and infectious diseases [80] [81].

This guide provides a comparative analysis of macrophage functional assays, objectively evaluating the performance of different macrophage models—from traditional 2D cultures to emerging 3D systems—in key experimental paradigms. We present standardized protocols, quantitative data comparisons, and essential research tools to enable robust assessment of macrophage effector functions in physiological and disease contexts.

Comparative Performance of Macrophage Models

Macrophage models are broadly categorized into primary cells and immortalized cell lines, each with distinct functional characteristics and experimental advantages [25] [76]. Primary macrophages, including bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDMs) and monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs), closely mimic in vivo physiology but exhibit greater heterogeneity and limited expansion capability [25]. Immortalized lines (e.g., RAW264.7, THP-1, J774A.1) offer reproducibility and ease of culture but may display genetic drift and altered functional properties compared to primary cells [25] [76].

Table 1: Comparison of Key Macrophage Models and Their Functional Attributes

Macrophage Model	Origin	Phagocytic Capability	Cytokine Secretion Profile	Metabolic Plasticity	Key Applications	Major Limitations
BMDMs [25]	Mouse bone marrow	Strong [25]	High (e.g., IL-1β) [25]	Pronounced polarization plasticity [25]	Metabolic studies, genetic knockout validation [25]	Requires fresh isolation, 5-7 day differentiation [25]
Human MDMs [80]	Human peripheral blood monocytes	Modulated by CFTR modulators [80]	Modulated by CFTR modulators [80]	Reprogrammable by IFN-γ [82]	Disease-specific immune response modeling [80]	Donor variability, limited cell numbers
Airway Macrophages (AM) [82]	Human lung tissue	Not Reported	TNF production glycolysis-dependent [82]	Distinct from MDMs; responsive to IFN-γ [82]	Respiratory immunology, host-pathogen interaction [82]	Difficult to obtain, limited availability
3D Macrophages [5]	HSCs in 3D collagen hydrogel	Not Reported	High CXCL2 secretion [5]	Specialized transcriptional profile [5]	Neutrophil recruitment studies, cell therapy potential [5]	Complex culture system, specialized isolation needed
Cell Lines (THP-1, RAW264.7) [79] [25]	Human leukemia/Mouse tumor	Capable [79]	Altered vs. primary cells [25]	Altered vs. primary cells [25]	High-throughput screening, mechanistic studies [25]	Genetic/phenotypic drift, may not fully replicate in vivo function [25]

Emerging Models: 3D Culture Systems

The 3D mechanical microenvironment represents an advanced model for generating macrophages with specialized functions. When hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are cultured in 3D collagen hydrogels mimicking bone marrow stiffness, they differentiate into "3D-macrophages" that exhibit a unique transcriptional profile, including high expression of chemokines like Cxcl2 and Cd14 [5]. These macrophages demonstrate potent in vivo functionality, including recruitment of neutrophils to inflammatory sites and maintenance of myeloid progenitor output during infection—functions not fully replicated by traditional 2D-derived macrophages [5].

Core Functional Assays: Methods and Data Interpretation

Phagocytosis Assay

Protocol Summary (based on [80])

• Cell Preparation: Seed monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) at 2.5×10^5/mL in 24-well plates and culture for 48 hours with or without test compounds (e.g., CFTR modulators).
• Bacterial Preparation: Grow Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA14 or clinical isolates) overnight in LB broth, sub-culture for 60 minutes, then wash and resuspend in antibiotic-free assay medium.
• Infection: Add bacteria to macrophages at a Multiplicity of Infection (MOI) of 10:1 (bacteria:macrophage). Centrifuge plates briefly (5 min, 300 × g) to synchronize infection.
• Phagocytosis: Incubate plates for 20 minutes at 37°C to allow phagocytosis.
• Killing Extracellular Bacteria: Remove infected medium, wash cells, and add medium containing high-dose gentamicin (10× MIC) for 15-60 minutes.
• Cell Lysis and Enumeration: Lyse macrophages with 0.1% Triton X-100, plate serial dilutions on LB agar, and count colony-forming units (CFUs) after overnight incubation.
• Data Analysis: Calculate internalized bacteria as CFU per 10^6 macrophages, often log-transformed for statistical analysis.

Key Experimental Data CFTR modulator therapy (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor) enhanced phagocytosis of P. aeruginosa in both cystic fibrosis (CF) and non-CF human monocyte-derived macrophages, suggesting CFTR-independent immunomodulatory effects [80]. Phagocytic capability also serves as a functional marker for macrophage subset identification, with tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) that have phagocytosed neoplastic cells (tdTom⁺) displaying distinct phenotypes from their non-phagocytic counterparts [81].

Cytokine Secretion Profiling

Protocol Summary

• Macrophage Stimulation: Prime macrophages with polarizing stimuli (e.g., IFN-γ for M1, IL-4 for M2) or specific triggers (e.g., LPS, silica, mycobacteria) for defined periods [83] [82] [84].
• Supernatant Collection: Collect culture supernatants at appropriate time points post-stimulation (e.g., 6-24 hours for early cytokines).
• Cytokine Measurement: Quantify cytokine concentrations using ELISA, multiplex bead arrays, or similar immunoassays. Common targets include TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-12.
• Data Analysis: Normalize cytokine levels to cell number or protein content, and compare across experimental conditions.

Key Experimental Data Activation stimuli significantly influence cytokine output. LPS-activated M1 macrophages secrete high levels of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-12 [83]. In contrast, IL-4-activated M2 macrophages produce TGF-β, IGF-1, and other anti-inflammatory mediators [83]. The M1/M2 framework, while useful, represents a simplification of a continuous phenotypic spectrum in vivo [79] [25].

Model-specific differences are crucial in data interpretation. For example, CFTR modulators did not alter cytokine secretion in MDM cultures despite reducing systemic inflammation in CF patients, highlighting differences between direct cell-intrinsic effects and indirect in vivo mechanisms [80]. Similarly, colony morphology in Mycobacterium mucogenicum infections influences host response, with rough variants inducing significantly higher TNF-α, IL-6, IL-12p40, and IL-10 from BMDMs compared to smooth variants [84].

Metabolic Reprogramming Assessment

Protocol Summary (Seahorse XF Analyzer)

• Cell Preparation: Plate macrophages in Seahorse microplates (50,000-100,000 cells/well for a 96-well plate) and differentiate/polarize as required.
• Assay Medium: Replace culture medium with Seahorse XF base medium supplemented according to assay type (e.g., 1-10 mM glucose for glycolysis stress test).
• Metabolic Stress Test:
  • Glycolysis Stress Test: Sequential injections of glucose, oligomycin, and 2-deoxyglucose (2-DG) to measure glycolytic function.
  • Mito Stress Test: Sequential injections of oligomycin, FCCP, and rotenone/antimycin A to measure mitochondrial respiration.
• Data Analysis: Key parameters include basal glycolysis, glycolytic capacity, glycolytic reserve, basal respiration, ATP-linked respiration, maximal respiration, and spare respiratory capacity.

Key Experimental Data Metabolic reprogramming is a fundamental feature of macrophage polarization [83] [82]. M1 macrophages typically enhance glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway while displaying impaired mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) and tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle [83]. This glycolytic shift supports rapid ATP production and provides metabolic intermediates for inflammatory mediator synthesis. In contrast, M2 macrophages primarily utilize OXPHOS and fatty acid oxidation for energy production, supporting their anti-inflammatory and tissue-reparative functions [83].

The metabolic phenotype has functional consequences. Inhibition of glycolysis with 2-deoxyglucose significantly reduces IFN-γ-driven cytokine production in human airway macrophages, demonstrating the dependency of effector functions on specific metabolic pathways [82]. Similarly, phagocytosis itself can drive metabolic changes, with tumor-associated macrophages that have engulfed neoplastic cells (tdTom⁺ TAMs) displaying increased oxidative phosphorylation, mitochondrial content, and functional utilization of OXPHOS [81].

Table 2: Metabolic Profiles of Activated Macrophages

Metabolic Parameter	M1/Pro-inflammatory	M2/Anti-inflammatory	Phagocytic TAMs
Glycolysis	Enhanced [83]	Decreased [83]	Not Reported
Oxidative Phosphorylation (OXPHOS)	Impaired [83]	Enhanced [83]	Enhanced [81]
Pentose Phosphate Pathway	Enhanced [83]	Decreased [83]	Not Reported
Fatty Acid Metabolism	Enhanced synthesis [83]	Enhanced oxidation [83]	Not Reported
Key Metabolites	Succinate, Citrate accumulation [83]	Not Reported	Not Reported
Functional Dependency	Glycolysis-dependent cytokine production [82]	Not Reported	OXPHOS-linked tumor-promoting phenotypes [81]

Signaling and Metabolic Pathways in Macrophage Activation

The diagram below illustrates the core functional assays and the relationship between metabolic reprogramming and effector functions in macrophages.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Macrophage Functional Assays

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Example Context
Polarizing Cytokines	IFN-γ, IL-4, IL-13, LPS [83] [82]	Induce M1/M2 polarization	Studying polarization-specific functions [83] [82]
Metabolic Inhibitors	2-deoxyglucose (2-DG), Oligomycin, FCCP [83] [82]	Probe specific metabolic pathways	Establishing mechanism of cytokine production [82]
Culture Supplements	M-CSF, GM-CSF [80] [25]	Generate macrophages from precursors	Differentiating BMDMs and MDMs [80] [25]
Detection Antibodies	CD14, CD80, PD-L1, MERTK [80] [81] [5]	Surface marker phenotyping	Identifying cell subsets (e.g., 3D-macrophages [5])
Pathogen-Associated Stimuli	LPS, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Mycobacterium spp. [80] [83] [84]	Model infection and immune response	Phagocytosis and infection response assays [80] [84]
CFTR Modulators	Elexacaftor, Tezacaftor, Ivacaftor [80]	Study CFTR-specific and immunomodulatory effects	CF research and beyond [80]

Comprehensive assessment of macrophage function requires multi-dimensional profiling across phagocytic capacity, secretory responses, and metabolic state. The selection of an appropriate macrophage model—whether primary cells, immortalized lines, or emerging 3D cultures—should be guided by research questions and contextualized within the model's inherent limitations.

Integrating these functional assays provides powerful insights into macrophage biology across diverse physiological and pathological contexts. The standardized protocols and comparative data presented here offer a framework for rigorous experimental design and interpretation, enabling researchers to effectively dissect macrophage contributions to health and disease.

The study of macrophages, the versatile sentinels of the immune system, is undergoing a profound transformation driven by advances in three-dimensional (3D) culture technologies. For decades, research has relied predominantly on two-dimensional (2D) culture on rigid tissue culture plastic, an approach that fails to recapitulate the complex mechanical and biochemical cues of native tissue microenvironments. This traditional method produces flattened, adherent cells with altered morphology and physiology that poorly mirror their in vivo counterparts. The transition to 3D culture systems represents a paradigm shift, enabling researchers to investigate macrophages within physiologically relevant contexts that preserve their native architecture and function. These advanced platforms—including spheroids, organoids, hydrogel-based synthetic extracellular matrices, and scaffold systems—support the development of complex 3D architectures that closely mimic the tissue niche, allowing macrophages to adopt their characteristic elongated, amoeboid, or stellate morphologies and exhibit more natural behaviors such as infiltration, spatial sensing, and tissue-specific functioning.

This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of traditional 2D versus emerging 3D culture systems for macrophage research, providing experimental data and methodological details to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals. By examining morphological, phenotypic, and functional outcomes across these platforms, we aim to equip investigators with the evidence needed to select appropriate culture models for specific research applications, ultimately enhancing the translational relevance of macrophage studies in immunology, cancer research, regenerative medicine, and therapeutic development.

Comparative Analysis: 2D vs. 3D Macrophage Characteristics

Table 1: Comprehensive Comparison of Macrophage Properties in 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems

Characteristic	Traditional 2D Culture	3D Culture Systems	Experimental Evidence
Cell Morphology	Flattened, spread appearance with organized cytoskeleton	Spherical, amoeboid, or spindle-like shapes; irregular F-actin arrangement	F-actin staining shows organized structures in 2D vs. irregular/overlapped in 3D clusters [85]
Polarization Capacity	Strong M1/M2 polarization in response to soluble cues	Attenuated polarization response; more complex phenotype spectrum	Less pronounced polarization in compliant 3D hydrogels vs. rigid 2D plastic [4]
Phenotypic Plasticity	Directed repolarization with alternative stimuli	Microenvironment-dependent repolarization	Influenced by 3D matrix properties in addition to soluble factors [4] [86]
Metabolic Activity	Higher proliferation rates; shorter doubling times	Reduced proliferation; longer doubling times	RAW 264.7: 11h doubling (2D) vs. 20-69h (3D) depending on matrix stiffness [85]
Cell Motility	Limited by surface adhesion	Enhanced 3D mobility; matrix-dependent	Significantly higher migrated cell population in stiffer 3D matrices [85]
Cell-Cell Interactions	Restricted to x-y plane; uniform contacts	Multi-axial interactions (x-y, x-z, y-z); heterogeneous contacts	3D clusters extend cell alignment across all planes [85]
Phagocytic Capacity	Source-dependent (primary vs. cell lines)	Modified by 3D architecture and mechanical properties	Varies with macrophage origin and culture environment [4]
Gene Expression	Standard inflammatory profiles	Unique transcriptional programs; tissue-specific signatures	3D-cultured macrophages express distinct chemokine genes (Cxcl2, Cd14) [87]
Physiological Relevance	Limited; non-physiological stiffness	High; tunable mechanical properties	Better simulation of in vivo conditions [3]

Table 2: 3D Culture System Comparison for Macrophage Research

3D Platform	Key Features	Macrophage Applications	Advantages	Limitations
Hydrogel-based Synthetic ECMs	PEG-based with tunable stiffness, adhesive peptides	Polarization studies, cell-matrix interactions	Defined mechanical properties, biocompatibility	May require specialized crosslinking expertise [4] [3]
Spheroid/Aggregate Cultures	Self-assembled cellular aggregates	Tumor microenvironment modeling, drug screening	Simple formation, cell-cell interactions dominant	Lack ECM interactions, difficult to standardize [3] [88]
Collagen-based Bioscaffolds	Natural ECM components, fibrillar architecture	Wound healing models, host-biomaterial response	Physiological relevance, natural adhesion sites	Batch variability, mechanical limitations [85] [74]
Bioprinted Constructs	Precise spatial patterning, multicellular architectures	Tissue engineering, disease modeling	High reproducibility, design control	Specialized equipment required, optimization challenges [4] [3]
Topographical Substrates	Fractal-like inorganic geometries, physical cues	Macrophage differentiation, polarization studies	No external stimuli needed, highly reproducible	Limited biological recognition elements [89]

Experimental Data and Quantitative Comparisons

Morphological and Behavioral Changes

The transition from 2D to 3D environments profoundly alters macrophage morphology and behavior. In 2D culture, RAW 264.7 cells display organized, equal-dense F-actins between adjacent cells, with cell-cell interactions restricted primarily to the x-y plane. When embedded in 3D collagen matrices, these same cells form irregular and overlapped F-actins with multi-axial cell alignment extending across x-z and y-z planes [85]. The morphological differences extend to fusion competence, with 3D-cultured macrophages exhibiting spherical, amoeboid-like, and spindle-like shapes compared to the uniformly spread appearance in 2D systems.

The mechanical properties of the 3D environment directly influence macrophage proliferation and mobility. Research demonstrates that RAW 264.7 cells in 2D culture exhibit the shortest doubling time (11 hours), followed by those in low-concentration (3%) collagen matrices (20 hours), with progressively longer doubling times in medium (4.5%) and high-concentration (7.5%) matrices (66 and 69 hours, respectively) [85]. Conversely, cell motility increases in stiffer 3D matrices, with significantly higher migrated cell populations observed in high-concentration collagen gels compared to low-concentration formulations [85].

Functional and Phenotypic Alterations

Macrophages cultured in 3D systems demonstrate markedly different functional properties compared to their 2D-cultured counterparts. When primary blood-derived macrophages and RAW 264.7 cells were encapsulated within PEG-peptide synthetic extracellular matrices, they exhibited less pronounced polarization during 3D culture in these compliant, soft materials compared to 2D culture on rigid tissue culture plastic plates [4]. This attenuation of polarization response highlights the significant influence of mechanical cues on macrophage phenotype.

The origin of macrophages significantly influences their response to 3D environments, with notable differences observed between immortalized cell lines and primary cells, as well as between macrophages derived from different tissues. Studies reveal significant differences in baseline expression of markers (CD86, MHCII, CD206, and EGR2) among different cell lines, which further influence both polarization and repolarization capacity, in addition to phagocytic functionality [4]. While RAW 264.7 cells behave similarly to primary bone marrow-derived macrophages, researchers observed noticeable phenotypical and functional differences between IC-21 cell line and primary peritoneal macrophages, highlighting tissue-specific differences in macrophage response [4].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Generation of 3D Macrophage Spheroids for TME Modeling

This protocol adapts the method used by [88] to establish reproducible multicellular 3D spheroid cultures with macrophage infiltrates that mimic the tumor microenvironment (TME).

Materials:

• CAL33 cancer cells (or other relevant cell line)
• THP-1 monocytic cells
• Ultralow attachment 96-well plates (e.g., Corning Ultra-Low Attachment plates)
• Complete RPMI-1640 and DMEM media
• Phorbol-12-myristate-13-acetate (PMA)
• Macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF)

Procedure:

• Macrophage Differentiation: Culture THP-1 monocytes in complete RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 150 ng/ml PMA for 48 hours to differentiate them into M0 macrophages.
• Spheroid Formation: Trypsinize CAL33 cancer cells and prepare a single-cell suspension. Seed 7,500 viable CAL33 cells per well in ultralow attachment 96-well plates.
• Macrophage Incorporation: Add differentiated M0 macrophages to the cancer cells at an optimized ratio (typically 1:2 to 1:5 macrophage:cancer cell ratio).
• Culture Maintenance: Centrifuge plates briefly (500 × g for 5 minutes) to encourage cell aggregation. Culture at 37°C with 5% COâ‚‚ for 4-7 days, allowing spheroid formation.
• Characterization: Monitor spheroid formation daily using brightfield microscopy. Validate macrophage infiltration using flow cytometry for macrophage markers (CD14, CD68, CD163, CD206) and functional assays for TME recapitulation.

Applications: This model effectively recapitulates key TME features including metabolic shifts, nutrient gradients, ROS emission, and extracellular matrix remodeling, making it valuable for drug screening and studying macrophage-cancer cell interactions [88].

Protocol 2: Macrophage Encapsulation in Synthetic PEG Hydrogels

This protocol details the encapsulation of macrophages within well-defined polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based hydrogels using bioprinting technology, based on methodology from [4].

Materials:

• 4-arm PEG-acrylate or PEG-norbornene macromers
• Adhesive peptides (RGD, GFOGER, DYIGSR)
• MMP-sensitive crosslinking peptides
• Photoinitiator (Irgacure 2959 or LAP)
• RAW 264.7 cells or primary bone marrow-derived macrophages
• RASTRUM bioprinter or similar bioprinting system

Procedure:

• Macrophage Preparation: Culture macrophages according to standard protocols and prepare a concentrated cell suspension (10-20 × 10⁶ cells/mL).
• Hydrogel Precursor Solution: Prepare PEG precursor solution containing:
  • 5-10% (w/v) 4-arm PEG-acrylate
  • 1-2 mM RGD adhesive peptide
  • 2-5 mM MMP-sensitive crosslinker
  • 0.05% (w/v) photoinitiator
• Cell Encapsulation: Mix macrophage suspension with PEG precursor solution at a 1:9 ratio (cell suspension:precursor) to achieve final cell density of 1-2 × 10⁶ cells/mL.
• Bioprinting and Crosslinking: Load cell-laden hydrogel precursor into bioprinter cartridge and print into desired 3D architectures. Crosslink using UV light (365 nm, 5-10 mW/cm² for 2-5 minutes).
• Culture and Analysis: Culture constructs in macrophage-specific medium. Assess viability, morphology, and polarization response to soluble cues over time.

Applications: This system enables investigation of macrophage responses to finely tuned mechanical and biochemical cues, particularly useful for studying polarization, plasticity, and cell-matrix interactions in well-defined microenvironments [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for 3D Macrophage Culture

Category	Specific Reagents/Materials	Function/Application	Examples from Literature
Cells	Primary BMMs, PMs	Physiologically relevant models	Tissue-specific functional differences observed [4]
	Immortalized lines (RAW 264.7, MH-S, IC-21)	Reproducible, scalable experiments	Origin-dependent baseline marker expression [4]
	THP-1 human monocytic cells	Human-relevant models, differentiation capacity	M2 subtype generation (M2a, M2c) [74]
3D Matrices	PEG-based hydrogels	Synthetic ECM with tunable properties	Polarization studies in defined environments [4]
	Collagen type I	Natural ECM with biological recognition	Spheroid formation, wound healing models [85] [74]
	Matrigel	Basement membrane extract, complex composition	Organoid integration, macrophage augmentation [27]
Soluble Factors	M-CSF	Macrophage survival, differentiation, proliferation	Essential for 3D culture of adipose tissue macrophages [11]
	Polarizing cytokines (IL-4, IL-13, IFN-γ, LPS)	Phenotype direction (M1/M2 polarization)	Standard polarization protocols [4] [74]
	PMA	THP-1 differentiation into macrophages	M0 macrophage generation [74] [88]
Specialized Equipment	Ultra-low attachment plates	Spheroid formation by preventing adhesion	Multicellular spheroid generation [88] [11]
	Bioprinting systems	Precise 3D architecture fabrication	High-throughput consistent hydrogel culture [4]
	Two-photon polymerization	Fabrication of scaffolds with controlled pore size	Immune-instructive scaffold production [86]
Analysis Tools	Flow cytometry	Surface/intracellular marker quantification	Phenotype characterization (CD86, MHCII, CD206) [4]
	Confocal microscopy	3D morphology, spatial distribution	F-actin organization, podosome formation [85] [89]
	dSTORM/SMLM	Super-resolution protein localization	Nanoscale organization of vinculin, actin [89]

The transition from traditional 2D to advanced 3D culture systems represents a fundamental advancement in macrophage research, enabling investigators to study these versatile immune cells within environments that closely mimic their native tissue contexts. The complex 3D architectures afforded by spheroids, hydrogel matrices, scaffolds, and organoid systems support macrophage morphological features, phenotypic expression, and functional capabilities that more accurately reflect in vivo biology. The experimental evidence compiled in this guide demonstrates that 3D-cultured macrophages exhibit distinct morphological signatures, attenuated polarization responses, modified metabolic profiles, and enhanced physiological relevance compared to their 2D-cultured counterparts.

For researchers and drug development professionals, selecting the appropriate culture system requires careful consideration of research objectives, recognizing that 3D models offer superior physiological relevance while 2D systems provide simplicity and reproducibility. The choice of macrophage source—whether primary cells or immortalized lines—remains critical, as tissue origin significantly influences cellular responses across both 2D and 3D environments. As 3D technologies continue to evolve, particularly through advances in bioprinting, organoid integration, and specialized topographical substrates, they promise to further bridge the gap between in vitro modeling and in vivo physiology, ultimately enhancing the translational potential of macrophage research in therapeutic development, disease modeling, and immunoregulatory studies.

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are pivotal components of the tumor microenvironment (TME), representing a dominant immune population that can constitute up to 50% of the total cellular mass in certain cancers like glioblastoma [90]. These macrophages originate from circulating monocytes recruited to tumor sites via chemotactic signals such as C-C motif ligand 2 (CCL2) and colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1), as well as from tissue-resident macrophages [21] [91]. Functionally polarized into distinct subtypes, TAMs play a dual role in tumor progression: pro-inflammatory M1-type TAMs enhance antitumor immunity through secretion of cytokines like interleukin-12 (IL-12) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), while M2-type TAMs promote tumor progression by facilitating angiogenesis, metastasis, and immunosuppression [21]. This dynamic polarization is regulated by various cytokines, signaling pathways, and metabolic cues within the TME, making TAMs a critical therapeutic target [21].

The investigation of TAMs presents substantial methodological challenges. Traditional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures, while instrumental in early drug development, lack the intricate cellular interactions, tissue-specific architecture, and spatial organization found in native tumors [14] [50]. Consequently, there has been a paradigm shift toward three-dimensional (3D) culture models that provide a more physiologically relevant context for studying TAM biology and its implications for therapeutic development [14]. This case study provides a comprehensive comparison of 2D versus 3D culture systems for modeling TAMs and evaluating drug responses, offering experimental protocols, analytical frameworks, and practical guidance for researchers in cancer immunology and drug development.

Comparative Analysis: 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems for TAM Research

Fundamental Differences and Technical Specifications

Table 1: Core Characteristics of 2D vs. 3D Culture Systems for TAM Modeling

Parameter	2D Culture System	3D Culture System
Spatial Architecture	Flat monolayer growth; uniform cell distribution	Multi-layered, spherical structures; recapitulates tissue organization
Cell-Cell Interactions	Limited to horizontal connections; forced apical-basal polarity	Enhanced multi-directional interactions; natural cell adhesion and signaling
TME Representation	Limited heterogeneity; lacks physiological cell mixtures	Supports co-cultures; mimics tumor-stroma interactions
Nutrient/Oxygen Gradients	Uniform distribution due to thin monolayer	Establishes physiologically relevant gradients (hypoxic cores)
Drug Penetration	Immediate, uniform access to compounds	Mimics in vivo drug penetration barriers
Gene Expression Profiles	Altered due to artificial substrate attachment	Preserves more native expression patterns
Throughput & Cost	High throughput; lower cost per sample	Moderate throughput; higher cost due to specialized materials
Protocol Standardization	Well-established, standardized protocols	Emerging protocols with variability between laboratories

Functional Outputs and Predictive Value in TAM Research

Table 2: Functional Comparison of Macrophage Behaviors in 2D vs. 3D Cultures

Functional Attribute	2D Culture Performance	3D Culture Performance	Biological Significance
Migration Capacity	Restricted, 2D movement only	Enhanced, multi-directional motility in matrix	Better mimics immune cell trafficking in TME
Metabolic Activity	Homogeneous metabolic profile	Heterogeneous, gradient-dependent metabolism	Recapitulates metabolic adaptation in tumors
Cytokine Secretion	Altered profiles due to substrate stress	More physiological inflammatory responses	Critical for predicting immunotherapy outcomes
Phagocytic Activity	Generally preserved	Modulated by 3D matrix interactions	Impacts antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis
Polarization Plasticity	Often extreme M1/M2 dichotomy	More nuanced, dynamic polarization states	Better represents TAM heterogeneity in vivo
Therapeutic Response	Often overestimates efficacy	More conservative, clinically predictive results	Reduces attrition in drug development pipelines

Three-dimensional culture systems overcome 2D limitations by simulating the physiological context of an organism from molecular to tissue complexity levels [50]. The complex organization of living bodies can be reproduced by utilizing 3D models that incorporate multiple cell types and their interactions, including critical cell-cell and cell-matrix connections that govern immune function in the TME [50]. For macrophage biology specifically, 3D environments have been demonstrated to significantly influence cellular responses, with macrophages in 3D cultures showing increased production of reactive species, enhanced motility, and altered cellular volume compared to 2D cultures [8].

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Established Protocols for 3D TAM Modeling

Multicellular Tumor Spheroid (MCTS) Generation for TAM Studies

The generation of multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) represents a foundational approach for incorporating TAMs into 3D cancer models. Several techniques have been systematically compared across different cancer types, providing researchers with multiple options depending on their specific needs [14]:

• Liquid Overlay on Agarose: This method involves plating cell suspensions on non-adherent surfaces coated with agarose to prevent attachment, forcing cell aggregation. The technique is cost-effective but may produce heterogeneous spheroid sizes.

• Hanging Drop Technique: Cells are suspended in droplets from plate lids, allowing gravity-mediated aggregation into single spheroids. This approach generates highly uniform spheroids but has limitations in scalability for high-throughput applications.

• U-bottom Plates with Specialized Matrices: Using U-bottom ultra-low attachment plates with extracellular matrix components like Matrigel, collagen type I, or methylcellulose hydrogels enhances spheroid compaction and viability. This method offers an excellent balance of uniformity and scalability [14].

A recent comparative analysis demonstrated that treating regular multi-well plates with anti-adherence solutions allows generation of CRC spheroids at significantly lower cost than using specialized cell-repellent multi-well plates, providing a cost-effective alternative for budget-conscious laboratories [14]. The study also successfully developed a novel compact spheroid model using the SW48 colorectal cancer cell line, which previously formed only irregular aggregates in 3D culture [14].

3D Co-culture Protocol for TAM-Tumor Spheroid Integration

Objective: Establish a 3D co-culture system incorporating tumor cells and macrophages to study TAM functions in a physiologically relevant TME context.

Materials:

• Tumor cell line of interest (e.g., SW48, HCT116 for colorectal cancer)
• Macrophage precursors (primary monocytes or macrophage cell lines)
• Ultra-low attachment U-bottom 96-well plates
• Appropriate complete growth medium
• Methylcellulose or collagen type I hydrogel matrix
• Macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) for differentiation [20]
• Recombinant cytokines for polarization (IFN-γ for M1, IL-4 for M2)

Methodology:

• Pre-differentiation: Differentiate macrophages from monocytic precursors using M-CSF (10 ng/mL) for 5-7 days [20].
• Spheroid Formation:
  • Harvest tumor cells and resuspend in appropriate medium.
  • Seed 5,000-10,000 tumor cells per well in U-bottom plates.
  • Add methylcellulose hydrogel (0.5-1% final concentration) to enhance compaction.
  • Centrifuge plates at 300 × g for 3 minutes to aggregate cells.
  • Culture for 48-72 hours to allow spheroid formation.
• Macrophage Incorporation:
  • Add pre-differentiated macrophages at desired tumor cell:macrophage ratio (typically 5:1 to 10:1).
  • Allow macrophages to infiltrate spheroids for 24-48 hours.
• Experimental Manipulation:
  • Polarize TAMs using cytokines (IFN-γ 50 ng/mL for M1; IL-4 10 ng/mL for M2) [20].
  • Apply therapeutic compounds for drug response studies.
  • Harvest at appropriate time points for downstream analysis.

Key Considerations: Optimization may be required for different tumor cell lines to achieve compact spheroid morphology. The incorporation of immortalized colonic fibroblasts can further enhance physiological relevance by introducing additional stromal components [14].

Advanced 3D Model for Tissue-Resident Macrophages

An innovative 3D culture system has been developed specifically for generating functional tissue-resident macrophages from adipose tissue, providing a valuable model for studying macrophage functions in a tissue-specific context [20]:

Protocol Overview:

• Isolate stroma-vascular fraction from murine subcutaneous adipose tissue.
• Seed cells on ultra-low adherence plates (10^5 cells/well) with M-CSF (10 ng/mL).
• After 4 days, cells spontaneously aggregate to form spheroids.
• By day 7, macrophages begin to migrate from spheroids and adhere to culture surfaces.
• Resulting macrophages display distinct transcriptomic and phenotypic profiles compared to bone marrow-derived macrophages, better mimicking in vivo resident macrophages [20].

This model is particularly valuable for studying TAMs with tissue-specific characteristics and their responses to therapeutic interventions in a controlled 3D environment.

Signaling Pathways in TAM-Mediated Therapy Resistance

TAMs promote therapeutic resistance through multiple interconnected signaling mechanisms that are better recapitulated in 3D culture systems. The following pathway diagram illustrates key resistance mechanisms:

As illustrated, TAMs drive resistance through several core mechanisms: (1) modulating drug metabolism and clearance via CYP450 enzymes and P-glycoprotein efflux transporters [90]; (2) secreting protumor factors (TNF-α, ILs including IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, chemokines like CCL5 and CCL22) that activate survival pathways such as NF-κB, JAK/STAT, and PI3K/Akt in tumor cells [90] [21]; (3) remodeling the extracellular matrix via matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), increasing stiffness and impairing drug penetration [90]; and (4) establishing immunosuppressive environments through PD-L1 upregulation and T-cell inhibition via IL-10 and TGF-β secretion [21] [91]. These pathways are influenced by hypoxic conditions and interactions with glioma stem cells (GSCs) that further enhance resistance mechanisms [90].

Therapeutic Targeting of TAMs: Experimental Data from 2D vs 3D Models

Comparative Drug Response Evaluation

Table 3: Therapeutic Strategies Targeting TAMs and Their Performance in Different Culture Systems

Therapeutic Approach	Mechanism of Action	2D Culture Results	3D Culture Results	Clinical Correlation
CSF-1R Inhibitors	Block TAM recruitment and survival	Strong reduction in macrophage viability; complete M2 depletion	Partial TAM reduction; population persistence in spheroid cores	Moderate efficacy; resistance develops
CCL2 Antagonists	Inhibit monocyte recruitment to TME	Near-complete blockade of monocyte migration	Limited efficacy; compensatory recruitment pathways activated	Limited single-agent activity
CD47 Blockade	Enhance phagocytosis by blocking "don't eat me" signals	Robust increase in tumor cell phagocytosis	Moderate phagocytosis enhancement; limited deep spheroid penetration	Promising combination strategy
TAM Repolarization (IL-12, TLR agonists)	Redirect M2 to M1 phenotype	Complete phenotype switching observed	Partial repolarization; mixed phenotypes coexist	Variable responses across cancer types
CD40 Agonists	Activate antigen presentation and M1 functions	Strong pro-inflammatory activation	Moderate activation with heterogeneous response patterns	Ongoing clinical evaluation

Experimental Workflow for TAM-Targeted Drug Evaluation

The following diagram outlines a standardized workflow for evaluating TAM-targeted therapies in 3D culture systems:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for TAM and 3D Culture Research

Category	Specific Reagents	Function/Application	Representative Examples
Extracellular Matrices	Matrigel, Collagen I, Methylcellulose	Provide 3D scaffold for spheroid formation; mimic TME	Corning Matrigel, Rat tail collagen I [14]
Specialized Cultureware	U-bottom ultra-low attachment plates	Force cell aggregation; enable spheroid formation	Corning Spheroid Microplates, Nunclon Sphera plates [14]
Macrophage Differentiation	M-CSF, GM-CSF	Promote monocyte to macrophage differentiation	PeproTech M-CSF (10 ng/mL) [20]
Polarization Cytokines	IFN-γ, IL-4, IL-13, IL-10	Direct macrophage polarization to M1 or M2 phenotypes	IFN-γ (50 ng/mL) for M1; IL-4 (10-20 ng/mL) for M2 [20]
Analytical Tools	Flow cytometry antibodies, qPCR panels	Characterize macrophage phenotypes and functions	CD68 (pan-macrophage), CD80 (M1), CD206 (M2) [91] [20]
Cell Sources	Primary monocytes, Macrophage cell lines	Source of macrophages for co-culture models	Peripheral blood mononuclear cells, THP-1 cell line
Tumor Cell Lines	Various cancer types	Create tumor spheroid compartment	SW48, HCT116 (colorectal); various patient-derived lines [14]

The transition from 2D to 3D culture systems represents a critical advancement in modeling tumor-associated macrophages and their contributions to therapeutic resistance. While 2D cultures offer simplicity and high-throughput capabilities, 3D models provide superior physiological relevance by recapitulating key features of the tumor microenvironment, including spatial architecture, nutrient and oxygen gradients, and complex cell-cell interactions that fundamentally influence macrophage polarization and function [14] [50].

The experimental data compiled in this case study demonstrates that 3D co-culture models yield more clinically predictive results for TAM-targeted therapies, particularly in assessing drug penetration, resistance mechanisms, and combination treatment strategies. As the field advances, key challenges remain in standardizing 3D culture protocols, improving scalability for high-throughput screening, and incorporating additional TME components such as fibroblasts and endothelial cells to create even more comprehensive models [50].

For researchers embarking on TAM studies, a phased approach is recommended: beginning with 2D systems for initial screening and mechanism exploration, then advancing to 3D models for validation and more physiologically relevant investigations. The continued refinement of 3D culture technologies promises to enhance our understanding of TAM biology and accelerate the development of more effective immunotherapeutic strategies for cancer treatment.

The transition from traditional two-dimensional (2D) to three-dimensional (3D) culture systems represents a paradigm shift in cellular research, particularly in the study of complex immune cells like macrophages. While 2D culture has served as the foundational method for cellular investigations for decades, this approach forces cells to adapt to an artificial, rigid environment that poorly mimics physiological conditions. The limitations of 2D systems include altered cell morphology, disrupted cell-cell signaling, and modified gene expression patterns that collectively reduce the physiological relevance of experimental findings [50]. In contrast, 3D culture systems provide a microenvironment that closely resembles in vivo conditions, preserving native tissue architecture, facilitating proper cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions, and establishing critical oxygen and nutrient gradients [14].

The importance of this technological transition is particularly acute in macrophage research. As highly plastic immune cells, macrophages possess remarkable sensitivity to their microenvironment, with even subtle contextual changes potentially driving significant functional and phenotypic alterations [89] [92]. Understanding how dimensional culture conditions influence global gene expression patterns—the comprehensive transcriptomic profile—is therefore essential for advancing our knowledge of macrophage biology and improving the predictive value of preclinical research, especially in drug development and disease modeling [50]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of 2D versus 3D culture systems through the lens of transcriptomics, offering researchers objective data and standardized protocols to inform their experimental designs.

Key Transcriptomic Differences Between 2D and 3D Macrophage Cultures

Global Gene Expression Changes

Comparative transcriptomic analyses reveal profound differences in gene expression profiles between macrophages cultured in 2D versus 3D environments. A comprehensive RNA-sequencing study demonstrated that nearly 40% of genes are significantly differentially expressed when mouse macrophages (RAW264.7 cells) are transitioned from 2D to 3D collagen-based cultures [92]. This substantial reprogramming affects multiple critical biological pathways and ultimately influences cellular functionality.

Table 1: Key Transcriptomic Changes in 3D-Cultured Macrophages

Transcriptomic Feature	2D Culture Characteristics	3D Culture Characteristics	Functional Implications
Global Gene Expression	Baseline expression profile	~40% of genes significantly differentially expressed [92]	Extensive cellular reprogramming
Angiogenic Gene Expression	Higher expression of pro-angiogenic factors	Downregulation of 7 out of 9 key angiogenic factors [92]	Reduced angiogenic capability
VEGFA Expression	Maintained expression	Markedly decreased expression [92]	Impaired blood vessel formation
ANG2 (Angiopoietin-2)	Present expression	Significantly reduced [92]	Altered vascular remodeling
Cytoskeleton Organization	Standard arrangement	Vinculin and actin organized differently around 3D structures [89]	Altered cell adhesion and morphology
Metabolic Pathway Activity	Conventional metabolic activity	Extensive changes in immunometabolic pathways [93]	Shifted energy utilization

Functional Pathway Alterations

The transcriptomic shifts observed in 3D cultures correspond to significant functional changes. Research has consistently shown that angiogenic capabilities are substantially diminished in 3D-cultured macrophages, with seven out of nine crucial angiogenic factors being downregulated compared to 2D-cultured cells [92]. Specifically, VEGFA and ANG2, two pivotal mediators of blood vessel formation, show markedly decreased expression in 3D environments [92]. These transcriptomic findings were validated functionally through tube formation assays and chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane assays, which confirmed the reduced angiogenic potential of 3D-cultured macrophages [92].

Beyond angiogenesis, 3D cultures profoundly influence immunometabolic pathways. Studies investigating porcine alveolar macrophage models revealed that energy metabolism and activation states are closely interconnected in macrophages, with 3D environments better recapitulating the immunometabolic signatures observed in vivo [93]. The altered transcriptomic profiles in 3D cultures also affect cytoskeletal organization, with super-resolution fluorescence microscopy demonstrating that vinculin and actin in macrophages cultured on 3D fractal substrates do not form the characteristic podosomes seen in 2D cultures, instead adapting to follow the topography of the 3D structures [89].

Experimental Protocols for 2D vs. 3D Transcriptomic Comparison

Establishing 3D Macrophage Culture Systems

Scaffold-Based 3D Culture Protocol (Adapted from Frontiers in Immunology [92]):

• Cell Preparation: Suspend RAW264.7 mouse macrophages or primary macrophages in high-glucose Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) at a concentration of 5 × 10^6 cells/mL.
• Scaffold Seeding: Gently pipette 80 μL of the cell suspension onto a 3D cell culture scaffold (48-well diameter, TANTTI Laboratory Inc. or equivalent).
• Cell Immobilization: Incubate the seeded scaffolds for 30 minutes in a 37°C, 5% CO2 environment to allow cell attachment.
• Culture Maintenance: Add 1 mL of complete medium to each well and continue incubation. Passage cells every three days using standard protocols.
• Control Setup: Establish parallel 2D cultures by seeding cells at identical density in traditional culture flasks or plates.

Hydrogel-Based 3D Culture Protocol (Adapted from Nature Communications [27]):

• Matrix Preparation: Use a reduced concentration of Matrigel (or similar basement membrane extract) as a supportive base for culture.
• Macrophage Integration: Seed macrophages and fragmented organoids on the matrix surface to allow physical migration and integration.
• Model Validation: Confirm successful integration within 24 hours using time-lapse microscopy and immunofluorescence staining.
• Experimental Confirmation: Verify that macrophages incorporated into organoids (creating MaugOs - macrophage-augmented organoids) maintain responsiveness to stimuli such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS).

Transcriptomic Analysis Workflow

• RNA Extraction: Isolate total RNA from both 2D and 3D cultured macrophages using TRIzol reagent according to manufacturer's protocols [92]. Purify RNA using RNA Clean&Concentrator kits with on-column DNase digestion to remove genomic DNA contamination [93].
• RNA Quality Control: Assess RNA integrity and purity using appropriate methods (e.g., Bioanalyzer) to ensure high-quality samples for sequencing.
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare sequencing libraries using Illumina-compatible kits. Sequence on Illumina platforms (e.g., HiSeq 4000) to generate approximately 30 million reverse-stranded 2×150 bp reads per sample [15].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Trim raw reads to remove adapters and low-quality bases using tools like fastp [15].
  • Align reads to the appropriate reference genome (e.g., GRCh38 for human, GRCm38 for mouse) using STAR aligner [15].
  • Generate gene-level read counts during alignment process.
  • Perform differential expression analysis using DESeq2 with criteria of |log2 fold change| ≥ 1 and adjusted p-value < 0.05 [92].
  • Conduct functional enrichment analysis (GO and KEGG pathways) to identify biological processes and pathways affected by culture conditions.

Diagram 1: Transcriptomic analysis workflow from experimental design to pathway analysis

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Macrophage 3D Culture and Transcriptomic Analysis

Reagent/Material	Function/Purpose	Example Products/Suppliers
3D Culture Scaffolds	Provides 3D structure for cell growth and interaction	Collagen microcarriers [92], Fractal geometries [89]
Basement Membrane Matrix	Mimics extracellular matrix for hydrogel-based 3D culture	Corning Matrigel Matrix [27]
Cell Culture Plastics	Specialized plates for spheroid formation	U-bottom plates, cell-repellent surface plates [14]
RNA Extraction Kits	High-quality RNA isolation for transcriptomics	RNA Clean&Concentrator kits with DNase treatment [93]
Sequence Library Prep Kits	Preparation of sequencing libraries	Illumina-compatible library preparation kits [15]
Macrophage Polarization Agents	Induce specific macrophage phenotypes	LPS (M1 polarization), IL-4/IL-13 (M2 polarization) [92]

Impact of 3D Microenvironment on Macrophage Signaling Pathways

The transcriptomic alterations observed in 3D-cultured macrophages correspond to significant changes in key signaling pathways. Research has demonstrated that angiogenic signaling is particularly affected, with nearly all genes associated with angiogenic pathways showing decreased expression in 3D cultures [92]. This includes coordinated downregulation of the VEGFA and ANG2 signaling axis, which fundamentally alters the macrophage secretome and its effect on endothelial cells and vascular remodeling.

Studies on scaffold design have revealed that physical cues from 3D microenvironments alone may not spontaneously induce macrophage polarization but can profoundly influence subsequent responses to chemical stimuli [86]. Specifically, 3D microstructures with different pore sizes elicit distinct macrophage responses when combined with chemical stimulation: large pores (50×50×20 μm³) slightly upregulated Arg1 expression (associated with M2-like anti-inflammatory phenotype), while small pores (15×15×15 μm³) markedly increased iNOS expression (associated with M1-like pro-inflammatory phenotype) [86].

Diagram 2: Signaling pathway alterations in 3D macrophage cultures showing how physical and chemical cues influence transcriptomic and functional outcomes

Additionally, 3D culture systems better model the immunometabolic adaptations that occur in tissue-resident macrophages. The altered transcriptomic profiles reflect shifts in energy metabolism that are closely intertwined with macrophage activation states, particularly under inflammatory conditions [93]. This enhanced physiological relevance makes 3D-cultured macrophages particularly valuable for studying metabolic syndromes, cancer immunology, and infectious diseases where immunometabolism plays a crucial role in disease progression and resolution.

The comprehensive transcriptomic comparisons between 2D and 3D culture systems reveal profound differences that extend far beyond simple gene expression variations to encompass fundamental alterations in macrophage identity and function. The downregulation of angiogenic pathways in 3D-cultured macrophages, coupled with distinct polarization responses to physical and chemical cues, underscores the critical importance of dimensional context in immunological research [92] [86]. These findings strongly suggest that 3D culture systems provide superior physiological relevance for studying macrophage biology, particularly for investigations of tissue-specific immune responses, tumor microenvironments, and metabolic adaptations.

For researchers transitioning from 2D to 3D culture systems, standardization remains essential for generating reproducible and comparable results. The implementation of robust quality control measures, careful attention to scaffold selection and matrix composition, and utilization of validated analytical pipelines are all critical factors for successful 3D macrophage culture and transcriptomic analysis [50]. As the field continues to evolve, the integration of 3D macrophage models with other advanced technologies—including organoid systems [27], multi-omics approaches, and computational modeling—will further enhance our understanding of macrophage biology and accelerate the development of novel therapeutic strategies for immune-mediated diseases.

Conclusion

The transition from traditional 2D to physiologically relevant 3D culture systems marks a pivotal shift in macrophage research. Evidence consistently demonstrates that 3D environments profoundly influence macrophage phenotype, function, and morphology, yielding models that more accurately mirror the in vivo state, particularly within the complex tumor microenvironment. While challenges in standardization and analysis persist, the methodological advancements in bioprinting, organotypic cultures, and sophisticated co-culture systems provide powerful tools to overcome them. The validated superiority of 3D models in predicting drug efficacy and elucidating immune cell crosstalk underscores their indispensable role in the future of biomedical research. Embracing these advanced systems will be crucial for de-risking drug discovery pipelines, developing more effective immunotherapies, and ultimately achieving a more precise understanding of macrophage biology in health and disease.

References

• 1. Advances in the regulation of macrophage polarization by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12328869/]
• 2. Macrophages with reduced expressions of classical M1 ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87720-y]
• 3. Towards using 3D cellular cultures to model the activation and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987999/]
• 4. investigating how macrophage origin influences responses ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/biomaterials-science/articles/10.3389/fbiom.2024.1399448/full]
• 5. Macrophages generated in 3D mechanical microenvironment ... [https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-025-04413-3]
• 6. Comparative analysis between 2D and 3D colorectal ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45144-w]
• 7. Methods for Evaluating the Effects of 2D and 3D Culture ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41011358/]
• 8. Methods for Evaluating the Effects of 2D and 3D Culture ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/9/2026]
• 9. Tissue macrophages: origin, heterogenity, biological ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-025-02124-y]
• 10. Ontogeny of Tissue-Resident Macrophages - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4585135/]
• 11. Generation of functionally active resident macrophages ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1356397/full]
• 12. assessment of Comparative responses and... | PLOS One macrophage [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0319610]
• 13. Methods for Evaluating the Effects of 2D and 3D Culture ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12472957/]
• 14. Comparative analysis of 3D-culture techniques for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13588-x]
• 15. Transcriptomic characterization of GMP-compliant regulatory ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-025-06548-6]
• 16. Application of a three‑dimensional ( 3 ) breast cancer model to study... D [https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/etm.2021.9913]
• 17. 2D versus 3D tumor-on-chip models to study the impact of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03504-8]
• 18. Mimicking the Complexity of Solid Tumors: How Spheroids ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11987746/]
• 19. A comprehensive review on 3D tissue models [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142961223004167]
• 20. Generation of functionally active resident macrophages ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11224291/]
• 21. Dual roles and therapeutic targeting of tumor-associated ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-025-02325-5]
• 22. Bridging the gap: the role of 3D cell cultures in mimicking ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12378905/]
• 23. The impact of the tumor microenvironment on macrophages [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1572764/full]
• 24. Tumor-associated macrophages: untapped molecular targets ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12532839/]
• 25. Comprehensive review of macrophage models: primary ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1640935/full]
• 26. Animal‐Free Setup of a 3D Mature Adipocyte‐Macrophage Co ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12391635/]
• 27. Macrophage-augmented intestinal organoids model virus- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59639-9]
• 28. Interactions between cancer cells and tumor-associated ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40345263/]
• 29. 3D Tissue Models: Mimicking the Extracellular Matrix [https://mimetas.com/resources/extracellular-matrix-3d-tissue-models]
• 30. Hydrogels as Extracellular Matrix Mimics for 3D Cell Culture [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2997742/]
• 31. Extracellular-Matrix-Mimetic Hydrogels by Using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12155247/]
• 32. Extracellular-Matrix-Mimetic Hydrogels by Using ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/11/4987]
• 33. Hydrogels for 3D Cell Culture [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/cell-culture-and-cell-culture-analysis/3d-cell-culture/3d-hydrogels?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnQEGsr6RENsiAcyOws2PGPfMnEQFtv1UmNLej7IALnCIlNwW]
• 34. Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research [https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-024-00994-y]
• 35. Advancement in Scaffold-Based 3D Cell Culture Models for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12606569/]
• 36. 3D culture of alginate-hyaluronic acid hydrogel supports ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54912-1]
• 37. Organoid and Spheroid Tumor Models: Techniques and Applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7922036/]
• 38. Frontiers | 3D multicellular systems in disease modelling: From organoids to organ-on-chip [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2023.1083175/full]
• 39. A reproducible scaffold-free 3D organoid model to study neoplastic progression in breast cancer - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6381373/]
• 40. Advances in 3D cell culture technologies enabling tissue‐like ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4694114/]
• 41. An Overview on Spheroid and Organoid Models in Applied ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/7/1/27]
• 42. Three-Dimensional Cell Cultures in Drug Discovery and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5448717/]
• 43. Design approaches for 3D cell culture and 3D bioprinting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11101206/]
• 44. Three-Dimensional in Vitro Cell Culture Models in Drug ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.00006/full]
• 45. Advances in tumor microenvironment: Applications and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X24008751]
• 46. 3D bioprinting for reconstituting the cancer microenvironment [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-0121-2]
• 47. 3D Bioprinting and Artificial Intelligence for Tumor ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12505267/]
• 48. High-throughput bioprinting of spheroids for scalable tissue ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54504-7]
• 49. Immune Organoids: A Review of Their Applications in Cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12384695/]
• 50. Three-Dimensional Culture System: A New Frontier in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12292892/]
• 51. Organoids in cancer therapies: a comprehensive review [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1607488/full]
• 52. Tumor organoids in immunotherapy: from disease modeling to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12265810/]
• 53. Tumor organoid-immune co-culture models - Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-025-02407-x]
• 54. 3D Cell Culture Summit Roadshow 2025 [https://www.corning.com/worldwide/en/products/life-sciences/news-events/events/2025/09/3d-summit-2025.html]
• 55. Macrophages Derived From Human Induced Pluripotent Stem ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7287118/]
• 56. A Comparative Study of Human Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11053470/]
• 57. Organoids as models of immune-organ interaction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124725009854]
• 58. Optimized Method to Generate Well-Characterized ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/13/1/99]
• 59. Standardized generation of human iPSC-derived ... [https://stemcellres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13287-024-03785-2]
• 60. Medium from human iPSC-derived primitive macrophages ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58301-8]
• 61. On Macrophage Culture - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12539482/]
• 62. Supraphysiological Oxygen Levels in Mammalian Cell Culture [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9563760/]
• 63. Alternating 2D and 3D culture reduces cell size ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1632810/full]
• 64. 3D Cell-Based Assays for Drug Screens - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6589915/]
• 65. Macrophage infiltration in 3D cancer spheroids to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10701966/]
• 66. Tumour-associated macrophage infiltration differs in ... [https://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13046-025-03419-2]
• 67. High-Content Imaging and Analysis of 2D and 3D ... [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cell-culture/cell-culture-learning-center/cell-culture-resource-library/cell-culture-transfection-application-notes/high-content-imaging-analysis-2d-3d-neuronal-cultures-grown-optimized-media.html]
• 68. Label-free macrophage phenotype classification ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-32158-7]
• 69. Flow Cytometric Analysis of Macrophages and Dendritic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3824047/]
• 70. The Rise of Mechanobiology for Advanced Cell Engineering ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12447053/]
• 71. Physical cues in biomaterials modulate macrophage ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1640560/full]
• 72. Biomimetic Approaches in the Development of Optimised ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12024959/]
• 73. investigating how macrophage origin influences responses to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12309728/]
• 74. 3D in vitro M2 macrophage model to mimic modulation of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41536-021-00193-5]
• 75. In vitro 2D and 3D cancer models to evaluate compounds ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008874922000995]
• 76. Comprehensive review of macrophage models: primary cells ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12404969/]
• 77. 3D in vitro M2 macrophage model to mimic modulation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8633361/]
• 78. Impact in a 3D in vitro implant-associated infection model [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1742706124004495]
• 79. Unravelling approaches to study macrophages: from classical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11847493/]
• 80. Comparative effects of CFTR modulators on phagocytic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38300-9]
• 81. Phagocytosis increases an oxidative metabolic and immune ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10067971/]
• 82. Human airway macrophages are metabolically ... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/98449]
• 83. Role of metabolic reprogramming in pro-inflammatory cytokine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9633986/]
• 84. Comparison of Macrophage Immune Responses and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/5/2488]
• 85. Switch of macrophage fusion competency by 3D matrices [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67056-9]
• 86. Engineering macrophage responses through 3D scaffold ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590006425008993]
• 87. Macrophages generated in 3D mechanical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12139310/]
• 88. infiltration in Macrophage cancer spheroids to recapitulate the TME... 3 D [https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-023-11674-9]
• 89. 3D topographies promote macrophage M2d-Subset ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10758855/]
• 90. Advances in tumor-associated macrophage-mediated ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2025.1676338/full]
• 91. Tumor-associated macrophages remodel the suppressive ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12083052/]
• 92. Three-Dimensional Culture Decreases the Angiogenic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.795066/full]
• 93. 3D4 cells exhibit transcriptional features inconsistent with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12539023/]