This research compares scaffold-free and scaffold-based epithelial spheroid cultures, highlighting distinct size distributions and regenerative potential.
Background: Extensive skin injuries from severe burns or chronic non-healing ulcers overwhelm the body’s natural repair mechanisms, while current therapeutic approaches relying on autologous skin grafting are limited by donor site availability. Three-dimensional epithelial spheroid cultures enhance stem cell regenerative potential, but standardized comparative methodologies are lacking. Methods: We established a comprehensive framework comparing scaffold-free and scaffold-based epithelial spheroid systems using HaCaT keratinocytes. High-throughput approaches utilized BioFloat and ELPLASIA 96-well platforms, while low-throughput 6-well ULA plates generated heterogeneous populations (holospheres, merospheres, paraspheres). Scaffold-based studies embedded spheroids in Matrigel to evaluate outgrowth capacity. ROCK1 inhibitor treatment was assessed for stemness enhancement. Results: High-throughput systems generated uniform spheroids with high reproducibility and consistent circularity. Low-throughput cultures produced heterogeneous populations with distinct size distributions (holospheres: 408.7 μm2, merospheres: 99 μm2, paraspheres: 14.1 μm2). In Matrigel scaffolds, merospheres and paraspheres migrated outward, forming epithelial sheets, while holospheres remained intact as BMI-1+ stem cell reservoirs. ROCK1 inhibition enhanced holosphere formation, preserved stemness markers, and reduced premature differentiation. Conclusions: This standardized toolbox demonstrates scaffold-free systems optimize scalability for screening while scaffold-based approaches enable physiologically relevant regenerative studies. Integration of both methodologies provides flexibility matching experimental design to scientific objectives, accelerating translation to clinical applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramos-Pinto et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: