* These authors contributed equally
We describe detailed protocols to use patient-derived organoids for medium-throughput therapy sensitivity screenings. Therapies tested include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and chemo-radiotherapy. Adenosine triphosphate levels are used as a functional readout.
Patient-derived organoid (PDO) models allow for long-term expansion and maintenance of primary epithelial cells grown in three dimensions and a near-native state. When derived from resected or biopsied tumor tissue, organoids closely recapitulate in vivo tumor morphology and can be used to study therapy response in vitro. Biobanks of tumor organoids reflect the vast variety of clinical tumors and patients and therefore hold great promise for preclinical and clinical applications. This paper presents a method for medium-throughput drug screening using head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and colorectal adenocarcinoma organoids. This approach can easily be adopted for use with any tissue-derived organoid model, both normal and diseased. Methods are described for in vitro exposure of organoids to chemo- and radiotherapy (either as single-treatment modality or in combination). Cell survival after 5 days of drug exposure is assessed by measuring adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels. Drug sensitivity is measured by the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50), area under the curve (AUC), and growth rate (GR) metrics. These parameters can provide insight into whether an organoid culture is deemed sensitive or resistant to a particular treatment.
Organoid models established from adult stem cells and grown in a three-dimensional (3D) extracellular matrix (ECM) and a specific growth factor cocktail (also known as HUB Organoids) are gaining traction as preclinical oncological screening platforms. Patient-derived organoid (PDO) cultures can be established from both normal and diseased tissue biopsies within 1-2 weeks and can be expanded for a minimum of 1-2 months up to unlimited timespans. Cryopreservation allows for long-term usage of well-characterized cultures. Unlike traditional two-dimensional cell line models that are clonally derived, PDO models closely recapitulate the original tumor tissue, both phenotypically and genetically, and preserve tumor heterogeneity. Medium-throughput drug screens on PDOs, testing a wide range of therapies, provide a unique platform for personalized medicine.
Previous studies have described the use of organoid models for therapy screening, specifically drugs and radiotherapy, in models established from different types of tumors and show the predictive potential of organoids to guide clinical decision-making1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. This paper describes the methods of oncological therapy screening using PDOs in a medium-throughput capacity (Figure 1A). This protocol is set up in a 384-well plate format with semi-automation, allowing therapy testing for up to eight organoid models, 16 compounds, and up to eight 384-well plates. Besides compound drug screens, this paper also describes methods to assay radiotherapy sensitivity and sensitization. Moreover, the use of high-throughput robotics to upscale the drug screen to full-automation is discussed. Importantly, organoids from different tissues may require different media and different handling.
Here, a general drug screening assay protocol is described, which may need adaptation depending on the organoid of interest. Starting points and suggestions for optimization are included in the discussion, as well as general recommendations regarding experimental setup and organoid practice. Examples are given using head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) organoids, which typically have a dense morphology, and colorectal cancer (CRC) organoids which can have either a cystic or dense morphology. Please note that primary organoid establishment and expansion culture methods are not covered in this protocol; for basic organoid techniques, the reader should refer to other protocols (e.g.,12). This visual protocol will provide insight into the process of medium-throughput drug screening using organoid models.
NOTE: Before using this protocol, please ensure that the guidelines of the institution's human research ethics committee are followed. Collection of patient tissue and data described in this protocol has been performed following EUREC guidelines and following European, national and local law. All organoids were derived from consenting patients, and consent can be withdrawn at any time.
1. Prior to screening
2. Reagent preparation
3. Day 0: Preparation of organoids
NOTE: Volumes indicated below start from a full well-grown 6-well plate of organoids, equivalent to 1200 µL of organoids/ECM (200 µL organoids/ECM per well).
4. Day 2 (range: days 1 - 3): Organoid dispensing
NOTE: Depending on the organoid GR, this can also occur at day 1 or 3. Throughout the drug screen, organoids are kept in suspension. For this purpose, they are dispensed in a low concentration of ECM (5-10%) at which organoid growth is maintained, but where no solidification of the ECM occurs. This allows for automated dispensing, optimal organoid-compound interaction, and reproducible cell-lysis, but also limits the opportunity to change the medium.
5. Day 2 (range: days 1 - 3): Drug Dispensing using a drug dispenser (e.g ., D300e)
NOTE: .Depending on the research question, drug printing can also be done one day after seeding.
6. Day 2 (range: days 2 - 4): Treatment of organoids using photon beam radiation
NOTE: The following steps describe irradiation of organoids. To assess the radio-sensitizing effects of drug compounds, irradiation is done 24 h after the organoids are exposed to chemotherapy. The same protocol is used for assessing the effects of irradiation alone, wherein organoids are seeded and irradiated 24 h after seeding. This may require some optimization depending on the hypothesis and the organoid cultures. The following steps describe the process used to irradiate organoids using specifically generated 6 MV photon beams (Table of Materials). This machine is optimized for clinical applications and therefore reflects real clinical practice. Different machines may require a different setup and may also require optimization of dosing as efficient dose may differ from that which is selected.
7. Day 2. Optional: CellTiter-Glo 3D Cell Viability Assay (CTG) measurement plate T=0 (required for GR analysis)
8. One day before drug screening readout: preparation
9. Day 7 (range: days 7 - 14): Drug screening readout: CTG Assay
10. CTG bioluminescence measurements
11. Data analysis
The aim of this experiment was to examine the sensitivity of HNSCC organoids to chemotherapy and radiotherapy as single agents. We also tested the reproducibility of the results by executing the experiment multiple times with a week's interval, resulting in several biological replicates (experiments 1-3) (Figure 2). Following the protocol, on day 0, HNSCC PDOs were harvested from 6 wells of a 6-well plate and enzymatically and mechanically sheared to single cells (or small organoids < 70 µm) and replated in 80% (v/v) ECM at a split ratio of 1:2. On day 2, organoids were harvested using dispase, filtered to retain organoids < 70 µm, and seeded at 1000 organoids per well in two rows of seven 384-well plates, using one tube of the reagent dispenser. One plate included cisplatin only as the unirradiated plate (0 Gy); the other six plates were used for irradiation (1-10 Gy).
For the non-irradiated plate, a dose titration of cisplatin was used ranging from 40 to 0.1 µM in triplicate using the D300e digital dispenser. As cisplatin is water-soluble, PBS-Tween-20 (final 0.03%) was dispensed in normalization wells, while 5 µM staurosporine was dispensed in triplicate as the positive control. Negative control wells, with medium only, were also included for irradiation. The plates were sealed with plate seals and placed in the incubator at 37 °C, 5% CO2 for 24 h. Radiotherapy plates were irradiated on day 3 at the following doses: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 Gy. The 0 Gy plate was removed from the incubator for the same length of time.
On day 7, the CTG assay was performed as described. Z-scores and cell viability were calculated and plotted. For irradiated organoids, cell viability of each dosage of Gy was calculated by normalizing to the negative control wells of the 0 Gy (non-irradiated) plate. Two organoid cultures screened with radiotherapy showed differential responses, with organoid culture 2 displaying a more sensitive phenotype (Figure 2A). Both cultures showed a similar intermediate sensitivity for cisplatin treatments (Figure 2B). In Figure 2C, Z' was calculated for the 0 Gy plate. As can be observed, experiment 1 for organoid culture 2 treated with cisplatin displayed a Z' of -0.48, indicating overlap in the results from the negative and positive controls, which was due to a large standard deviation of the negative control.
Because of this result, the experiment was repeated a third time (Experiment 3), resulting in a higher Z'. IC50 and AUC values calculated for each experiment and each organoid culture showed similarity between the biological replicate experiments, again demonstrating high reproducibility. Compared to other head and neck organoid cultures screened10, organoid culture 2 is sensitive to both radiotherapy and cisplatin, whereas organoid culture 1 is more resistant. All organoid cultures screened should be 'ranked' against each other in terms of their IC50 and/or AUC values, from the most sensitive to the least sensitive. This will provide an indication whether an organoid culture is most or least sensitive.
Figure 1: Organoids before and after dissociation, dispensing, and drug screening. (A) Typical schedule for PDO drug screening experiment. Depending on the experimental question and proliferation behavior of organoid models, this may require adaptation. (B) Representative brightfield (10x) images of organoids with cystic, dense, and grape-like morphology, prepared for screening purposes. Scale bars = 100 µm. (C-F) Representative brightfield (2.5x) images. (C) Cystic normal colorectal PDOs; (D) dense CRC PDOs; (E) cystic CRC PDOs; and (F) HNSCC PDOs. From left to right: day 0 (D0): before split; D0: after splitting (high density, 50% ECM); D2: before filtering and dispensing; D2: after filtering and dispensing into 384-well plate (250 organoids/well, 5% ECM); and after 5 days incubation in either 0.8% DMSO or 5 µM staurosporine, respectively, as negative and positive controls. Scale bars = 500 µm. Abbreviations: PDO = patient-derived organoid; CRC = colorectal carcinoma; HNSCC = head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; ECM = extracellular matrix; CTG = CellTiter-Glo 3D Cell Viability Assay; DMSO = dimethyl sulfoxide. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Representative results of a chemo- irradiation- therapy screen using HNSCC organoids. (A) Radiotherapy sensitivity in two HNSCC organoid cultures, where Y-axis displays % of viable organoids normalized to non-irradiated; X-axis displays increasing dosage of radiation (Gy). Error bars represent triplicate wells expressed as SEM; two biological repeat experiments were performed for experiment 1 (continuous line) and experiment 2 (dotted line). (B) Chemotherapy sensitivity to cisplatin of the same organoid cultures from (A), where Y-axis displays % viable organoids normalized to vehicle-only; X-axis displays increasing concentrations of cisplatin (µM). Error bars represent triplicate wells expressed as SEM; two biological repeat experiments were performed for experiment 1 (continuous line) and experiment 2 (dotted line). For experiment 2, organoid 2, one outlier (112.7%) of the triplicate wells was present for 0.1 µM cisplatin and was excluded from the analysis. (C) Table depicting the Z' for radiation and cisplatin screens. AUC and IC50 values generated from the irradiation (a) and cisplatin (b) treatments for each experiment and each organoid culture. (D) Representative images of organoid culture 1 illustrate tumor identity of the culture. From left to right: H&E stain, CK5, proliferative marker MIB1 (Ki67), wildtype p53 expression, and basal expression of p63. Scale bars = 20 µm. Abbreviation: E = experiment; SEM = standard error of the mean; HNSCC = head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; AUC = area under the curve; IC50 = concentration that results in 50% inhibition of organoid viability; H&E = hematoxylin & eosin; CK5 = Cytokeratin 5. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Morphology | Dissociation method | Org. size (µm) | # orgs/ well 384-plate | # orgs per mL for 40 µL per well | # orgs per in 25 mL (full 384-well plate) |
Cystic | Mechanical shearing | 20-100 | 250 | 6250 | 156250 |
Compact | TryplE + mechanical shearing | 20-40/70 | 500 | 12500 | 321500 |
Grapelike | Gentle shearing | <40 | 1000 | 25000 | 625000 |
Org.: short for organoid |
Table 1: Recommended starting points for screen optimization.
Supplemental Figure S1: Example of experimental setup. Example of a 384-well drug screening plate layout, using the D300e software. In this example, 4 organoid cultures (rows A-D, E-H, I-L, M-P) are exposed to 10-step concentration gradients of cisplatin (red), carboplatin (green), and a fixed dose of staurosporine (yellow). Black triangles in bottom left corner of each well represent normalization wells to the highest-class concentration of drug, in this case Tween-20, as both cisplatin and carboplatin are aqueous solutions dissolved in Tween-20 for dispensing. In this example, 8 positive control wells (yellow) and 28 negative control wells (white) are included for each organoid line. As all wells are in use, edge-effects should be avoided by using permeable plate seals. Please click here to download this File.
This article and video describe how to perform medium-throughput drug screening using PDOs. This protocol can, with optimization, be adopted to screen organoids derived from different tissue types from those described here. Determining the ideal passage timeframe prior to the screen is important as this will vary for individual organoid cultures and depend on the tissue type. The density and size of organoids seeded per well is an important factor to optimize as faster growing models will require more space within the well, and size differences may result in more variation. To ensure that only the test compounds affect organoid viability, it is important to make sure that untreated (negative control) organoids do not suffer from any deprivation during the course of the experiment. As untreated organoids will increase unhampered in volume compared to the treated populations, this assay assesses both treatment-induced cell death as well as inhibition of cell proliferation. Using this method, compounds and treatments, such as radiotherapy, can therefore be applied to organoid models to investigate in vitro responses in a three-dimensional format.
In this protocol, we make use of the CTG assay that uses ATP levels as a proxy for cell viability. Although this assay, in most instances, robustly reports the number of viable cells at the end of the experiment, it is important to realize that this assay could also be affected by severe changes in cell metabolism. Other viability assays are available that are dependent on, e.g., total DNA, protease activity, or leakage of lactate dehydrogenase, and may function as alternative or additive readouts in this assay.
Here, we discuss some additional recommendations and steps for optimization and upscaling of organoid drug screening experiments, as well as some considerations for drug screen analysis.
First, a challenge to performing (larger) drug screening is expanding the organoid culture enough to obtain a sufficient number of organoids to perform the experiment. It is therefore important to realize that many organoids tend to stick to untreated plastic, resulting in potential loss of critical cell mass. We recommend using low-retention plastics wherever possible and pre-wetting pipets/filters with aDF+++ or washing buffer prior to using them with concentrated organoid suspension.
Second, as increasing the handling time of organoids can be detrimental to their viability, we recommend working as efficiently as possible. In our experience, prolonged incubation of organoids in suspension while preparing them for dispensing negatively impacts their viability to a greater degree when kept on ice as compared to when kept at room temperature. Adding ROCK inhibitor during organoid preparation increases their viability. Moreover, in our experience, a healthy culture at the start of an experiment is absolutely required for a meaningful outcome.
Third, when processing multiple organoid models at once, there is a risk of swapping and contaminating the cultures. We therefore recommend only handling a single organoid model at a time. This could mean that multiple researchers need to work in parallel when processing larger amounts of organoid models or larger volumes of fewer organoid models. The identity of the organoid models should be verified through SNP analysis15 prior to and after screens and comparing the data to early passage and/or patient blood SNP data.
Some (targeted) therapies/compounds potentially interact/compete with growth factors/ECM present in the medium. Ideally, these potential interactions need to be identified, and the concentrations of these growth factors need to be minimized and tightly controlled to ensure that results are consistent. An example of such an interaction is epidermal growth factor (EGF)- and EGF receptor (EGFR)-targeting therapies, such as Cetuximab and Panitumumab, wherein high EGF concentrations in the medium potentially suppress EGFR expression16 or can compete with compound-EGFR binding. Ways to identify these interactions include performing a titration of the compound and a control compound against a titration of ECM or growth factors intended for the drug screen, or if the compound targets a membrane receptor (e.g., EGFR), using flow cytometry to assess receptor expression and confirm whether the ECM or compound affects antibody binding. Adjust the growth factor or ECM concentration such that there is no specific inhibition by the targeting compound compared to inhibition by the control compound.
In addition, we make the following recommendations regarding the experimental (plate) setup. First, use at least three technical replicates in each plate and ideally, two biological replicates for each screen. As seeding by most liquid handlers happens per row, we suggest putting replicates in columns to allow the detection of potential seeding issues. Second, we suggest including at least 6 (ideally >9) negative (vehicle) control wells and at least 3 (ideally >6) positive control wells on each plate. Lower numbers will likely negatively impact the Z' of the experiment. If multiple organoid models and/or solvents are used throughout the plate, include controls for each one. Ideally, the maximum concentration of solvent is 0.8% v/v for DMSO and 3% v/v for PBS/0.3% Tween. Greater than 1% and 5% solvent, respectively, will induce cell death and thus decrease the quality of screening results. Third, for accurate IC50 calculations, it is recommended to measure the organoid response to at least 9 drug concentrations, of which 2 fall in the upper plateau and 2 in the lower plateau, leaving 5 concentrations in the sigmoid phase17.
Users must note that the 384-well (or any multi-well) plate setup is sensitive to edge-effects (i.e., different results in the edges of the plate due to evaporation of medium). Practices to prevent this from affecting the results are the following: ensure a good humidification of the CO2 incubator (>85%), place the plates in the back of the incubator and prevent repetitive opening and closing, fill the outer wells with (cell-less) medium (water/PBS does not prevent the effect), or use permeable plate seals. Note that dispensing machines can only select per two rows in a 384-well format, meaning 4 rows are lost when dismissing the outer two tubes.
Recommendations for optimization for screening using novel organoid models are as follows. First, different organoid cultures have different growth kinetics and different basal ATP levels, resulting in different CTG readings. We therefore recommend optimizing the number of organoids per well for each organoid type (recommended range: 100-1,000 organoids/well), using Table 1 for reference. For optimization, assess Z' by measuring negative and positive controls with different organoid numbers.
Moreover, monitor the morphology of the organoids at the end of the screening period, and ensure the protocol results in healthy-looking organoids in the negative controls; any sign of deprivation during the course of the experiment should be avoided. It is important to note that different numbers of organoids/well can affect drug sensitivity. Further, different compound incubation times can affect the optimal amount of organoids/well. If organoids tend to fuse, using a higher percentage of ECM (v/v, up to 10%) could be beneficial. Additionally, some organoid models do not cope well with low ECM concentrations. If negative controls do not show regular proliferation or exhibit a changed morphology compared to normal expansion conditions, one should consider using 10% (v/v) ECM instead. It is worth mentioning that high ECM concentration can influence compound/antibody binding and effectiveness, lysis efficiency, and therefore activity in the CTG assay and subsequently, IC50 values. Once the screening assay performs well in smaller (pilot) screens, it is possible to increase the throughput of the assay.
Considerations to take into account when upscaling the screening assay are as follows. First, proliferation and differentiation of organoids are influenced not only by handling, but also by batch differences in ECM and growth factors. For screens performed over time to be comparable, it is important to ensure that sufficient amounts of growth factors, medium, and ECM from the same batch (comparable quality) are available to perform the complete screen. Additionally, we recommend including 1-2 organoid cultures that are used in every drug screen. These organoid cultures can act as controls to check and ensure reproducibility across drug screens. Shearing of organoids becomes less efficient in the presence of high concentrations of organoids and extracellular ECM. Increasing the number of organoids in a tube can therefore lead to a more than proportional increase in handling time. As prolonged handling of the organoids is often detrimental to their viability, the use of a dispase at critical steps can greatly improve the quality of the resulting organoid cultures. The D300e drug dispenser described in this protocol is a very flexible system and suited for smaller screens with only a few screening plates and a limited number of compounds. The software is however limited to drug addition to four screening plates per run, and the stock compounds need to be manually added to the cassette for each run.
When performing a screen with large numbers of plates or large compound libraries, it could be worthwhile using a liquid handler instead. Within the described protocol, there is space to add up to 5 µL of compound diluted in medium to each well without compromising the readout (taking solvent limits into account).
Downscaling of throughput is possible as well. This protocol can easily be adapted to a lower-throughput screen using a 96-well plate format. Both the cell dispenser and the robot drug printer described here are adaptable to dispense in a 96-well plate format. Manual pipetting is possible, but should be accompanied by careful quality assurance as there are higher chances of mistakes and of organoids being less evenly dispensed. Where the 384-well plate format uses 40 µL per well, doubling this in a 96-well plate format would serve as a good starting point; however, this should be further optimized prior to the screen.
The following points should be considered regarding drug screen data analysis. First, we recommend always taking a quick glance at the data by colorizing the raw data min/max, as seeding and edge-effects will become easily apparent this way. Second, to reiterate, Z' is an important metric to assess the dynamic range of each drug screen assay13 and should be calculated for each plate. Excluding drug screen results with a Z' lower than 0.3 and using data with a Z' > 0.5 is recommended. For the Z' to be informative, it is important that all organoids in the positive control wells have died. Third, it is recommended to always check curve-fitting after IC50 calculations. If curve-fitting appears difficult, the AUC parameter should be analyzed instead. Both IC50 and AUC reflect the effects of the tested drugs on both cell proliferation and cell death. Alternatively, organoid growth can be taken out of this equation by calculating the proliferation rate for normalization. The so-called GR metric requires an extra measurement at day 2 (described in section 7) and allows for easier comparison between fast- and slow-growing organoid line responses. However, for many drugs, proliferation effects are also to be expected, and these are dismissed by looking at this metric. Therefore, careful analysis of multiple metrices allows for the best output of this type of experiments.
MP and QXL are full-time employees of Crown Bioscience. RO and SB are full-time employees of Hubrecht Organoid Technology (HUB). HC is inventor on several patents related to organoid technology; his full disclosure is given at https://www.uu.nl/staff/JCClevers/. ED is inventor on a patent related to HN organoid technology. HC is founder of OrganoidZ, which employs organoids for drug development.
We thank Annemarie Buijs, Xiaoxi Xu, and Federica Parisi for discussions and valuable input, and Ingrid Boots and Marjolijn Gross for technical assistance.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Required equipment | |||
384-well bioluminescence platereader; e.g. Tecan Spark 10M plate reader | Tecan | ||
Brightfield microscope with large field of view lens (2.5x) | |||
Digital dispenser; e.g. Tecan D300e | Tecan | Drug dispensing | |
6 MV photon beam irradiator | Elekta model Synergy, Elekta Sweden | ||
Liquid handler with large nozzle (“standard tube”) cassettes; | |||
e.g. Multidrop Combi Reagent Dispenser | Thermo Scientific | ||
Plastic container with plate holder insert for radiotherapy | Home-made | ||
Spark control method editor software | |||
Standard tissue culturing equipment (LAF cabinet, incubator, centrifuge, waterbath, etc) | |||
Required materials | |||
1.5 mL plastic tubes | |||
15- and 50-mL plastic tubes | |||
5, 10- and 25-mL sterile plastic pipets | |||
6-well cell culture plates | |||
Black 384-well ultra-low-attachment clear-bottom plate; e.g.. Corning 384 flat black | Corning | 4588 | |
Breathe-Easy sealing membrane | Merck | pre-cut polyurethane medical-grade membrane with acrylic adhesive | |
Glasstic slide | 10-chambered slide with hemocytometer grid | ||
Multidrop Combi Reagent Dispenser standard tube dispensing cassette | Thermo Scientific | ||
Plugged Pasteur’s pipet of which the tip has been tightened in a flame | |||
Reversible 20/40/70/100 µm filters: PluriStrainer | Pluriselect | e.g. 43-50020-03 | |
Sterile P1000, P200, P20 and P2 pipet tips and low-retention filter tips ( e.g. Sapphire tips) | Greiner | 750266 | |
T8 Plus and D4 Plus casettes | HP/Tecan | ||
Required reagents | |||
100 x Glutamax | L-glutamine substitute | ||
1 M HEPES | |||
30% (v/v) Tween-20 diluted in PBS | |||
70% EtOH | |||
Advanced-DMEM/F12 | Thermo Scientific | 12634-010 | |
CellTiter-Glo 3D cell viability assay | Promega | G9681 | |
Compounds to test screen, including Staurosporin or other positive control | |||
Dispase II | Sigma-Aldrich | D4693 | |
DMSO | |||
ECM for CRC: growth-factor reduced Matrigel, phenol-free | Corning | 356231 | |
ECM for HNSCC PDOs: BME, Cultrex RGF Basement membrane extract, Type R1 | R&D Systems | 3433-005-R1 | |
Expansion growth medium (specific for each organoid type) | |||
Organoid growth factors (specific for each organoid type) | |||
PBS | |||
Pen/Strep (100 U/mL) | |||
ROCK inhibitor: Y-27632 | Abmole | M1817 | |
TrypLE | |||
Required Software Packages: | |||
GraphPad Prism | |||
Microsoft Excel |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved