A Participant’s View: Goodbye Flat Biology 2018

Home institution and country: University of Southampton, UK

My research seeks to understand how interactions between different cells impact their function and contribute to cancer. Cancers are comprised of multiple cell types in addition to the mutated cancer cells themselves. Perhaps surprisingly, the normal (non-mutated) cells found in cancers have a profound impact on patient survival rates and response to treatment. Understanding how these cells interact allows the development of new therapies, which can be personalised to specific patient’s tumours and improve survival rates.

The conference is unique in terms of the topic.

What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?

The conference debate was a personal highlight. It was really interesting to hear the two debaters, and other conference participants, discuss the pros and cons of different model systems used for biomedical research. It provided a wide-range of perspectives on this topic: including implications for translating scientific discoveries to the clinic; how the different approaches are viewed by the research community -and what this means in terms of publishing; and the ethical considerations for designing experiments.

Were there any social/networking highlights you want to tell us about? (e.g. you found a potential collaborator, or got to meet a favourite speaker)

The conference had two main social/networking highlights for me.

1) It is the second time I have attended the GFB conference. It was a great chance to re-connect with contacts made at the previous meeting and discuss how they are progressing in this work and learn from each other’s mistakes or successes. It is amazing how much the field has changed over 2 years and this topic focussed conference was a great way to see what other researchers are doing in this area.

2) I have also met a potential collaborator and following discussions at the conference I am in the process of writing a grant on which we will be working together.

How was this conference different from others you have attended?

I think the conference is unique in terms of the topic, which brings together a particular group of researchers who are really changing the way that routine cell biology experiments are performed. Also this conference prioritises networking and career development opportunities for early career researchers, with dedicated events during the conference and really high levels of engagement in the poster sessions.

Did you take part in any interesting local/cultural activities in your free time outside of the conference?

I had a currywurst and a few local beers, which I think ticks a couple of boxes but unfortunately it had to be a fleeting visit.

When you got home, is there anything from the conference that you immediately wanted to tell your colleagues about? What was it?

Yes lots, I gave a lab meeting presentation summarising the talks that I had seen when I got back. Hans Clevers’ and Don Ingber’s talks were particular highlights in this regard. They are paving the way for saying “Goodbye flat biology”.

Home institution and country: Gastrointestinal Cancer Biology and Genomics Group, The Institute of Cancer Research, United Kingdom

My research is focused on new emerging areas for the applications of 3D cell culture technologies and the generation of novel human tissue models that can be used in oncology, and personalized medicine. My current project is aimed to explore the functional impact of metabolic genes regulation in metastatic colorectal cancer progression, using a combination of miniature replicas tumour from patients and mice. I am trying to understanding how cancer cells adapt to nutrient deprivation, which may shed light in identifying metabolic vulnerabilities and new target pathways for its therapy.

What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?

I personally enjoyed smart microenvironment sessions II and I. Furthermore, the poster spotlights as well as poster viewing sessions were arranged wisely for both timing and location. Having around two hours for lunch and poster viewing and locating the exhibitor’s booths next to poster boards allowed more interactions during viewing sessions.

I welcomed the opportunity to learn about new developments and 3D technology advances at this meeting.

Were there any social/networking highlights you want to tell us about? (e.g. you found a potential collaborator, or got to meet a favourite speaker).

I think the most popular speakers were Hans Clevers and Don Ingber. However, comparing to other meetings, in this conference the opportunities to interact and talk with these speakers were provided easier. The icebreaker introductions was also the most successful networking event in this meeting in my opinion.

I had a dinner on our free night with Nexcelom Bioscience people and I also met the InSphero presenter from Switzerland in both EACR 50^th and this meeting, which may lead to some collaborations.

How was this conference different from others you have attended?

The beauty of this conference was bringing together researchers who have a common interest. Sessions may have different themes but the underlying principle of 3D culture was common throughout. Although the concept of 3D cell culture is not new and has been around for a while, what has changed more recently is the ease of access to new innovative technologies on the market such as aggregate/spheroid methods, hydrogels/extracellular matrix, and physical scaffold products that enable us as researchers to more readily practice 3D cell culture. Therefore, it helped attendees to have an insight of how to build better in vitro models representing the structure and function of human tissues, which can lead to the reduction and replacement of animals in research.

Have you brought back any specific knowledge that has benefited your research? Tell us about it.

In my current project I work with metastatic cancer model. Cancer metastasis is typically associated with the migration of cells through adjacent extracellular matrix.  At this meeting, I have learnt about a 3D model to study cell spheroids invasiveness and further testing it on organoids in culture. It is important to use an extracellular matrix environment and material with right percentages, stiffness and amount of necessary growth factors to have a reliable tissue model that can sustain in vivo like invasion.

Home institution and country: Istituto di Ricerca Pediatrica Fondazione Città della Speranza

My research focuses on the study of colorectal cancer and its metastatic diffusion through the liver, which is the primary cause of death in these patients. In details, my goal is to establish a three-dimensional culture model using the biopsy directly coming from patients; collected at the time of surgery. We process the biopsy in order to produce a cell-free scaffold in which cancer cells can growth again. In this way, we can study, for every patients, the mechanism of cancer cell diffusion, their aggressiveness and response to different chemotherapy drugs.

Were there any social/networking highlights you want to tell us about?

I found the conference extremely focused on the topic proposed and all the speakers and participants were at high level of preparation and knowledge. I had a poster presentation and an oral spotlight presentation, I received many constructive comments and I had the opportunity to create a collaboration with a researcher who, through a complementary approach, will increase the significance of my research.

How was this conference different from others you have attended?

The conference have been at same time informal and educational/didactical. There have been many opportunities to create collaborative networks. The most relevant speakers were always available for comparison. During all the days of the conference, there was always an air of cordiality and desire for collaboration. A special mention must be made to the organization that has always been present and made sure that everything took place perfectly.

How has the conference inspired you in your research?

The speakers were all first level experts. I have never seen such a high concentration of presentations with data not yet published and extremely advanced on the hottest topics of the moment. Surely, from this conference I reported in my lab a great enthusiasm and many ideas to continue my research. Experiences like this remind you how good our work is when done at high levels.

I received many constructive comments and I had the opportunity to create a collaboration with a researcher.

When you got home, is there anything from the conference that you immediately wanted to tell your colleagues about? What was it?

The first thing that I reported to my colleagues was my great satisfaction with the feedback I had during the presentation of my work. Furthermore, I could not hold back my happiness in having participated in such a high-level scientific event. Aside, the Harnack house conference centre is a beautiful place, the rooms are welcoming and the staff very kind and prepared. Worthy of note is undoubtedly one of the last oral presentations in which we used 3D glasses to see images obtained with an advanced imaging technique. Really exciting and amazing!

Home institution and country: Erasmus MC The Netherlands

My research is about visualising the kinetics of DNA double strand break repair in a 3D cancer model using live cell imaging. This means that I am interested in looking at how fast breaks, that occur in the DNA when it is damaged for instance by irradiation or a chemotherapeutic drug, can be repaired and which pathways are involved. Further, I am also interested in how repair may be different in cancer cells cultured as a cell layer compared to a 3D model, which is more representative of a tumour.

What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?

To explain my poster to other researchers that were interested in the topic and to exchange ideas on how to proceed with my research. It was my personal highlight of the conference, because I really enjoy speaking to other researchers about my research topic. It makes you think more carefully about what you are doing and why you make certain choices. For me nothing helps better to think than talking out loud.

I was inspired by the talk about career prospects.

Were there any social/networking highlights you want to tell us about? (e.g. you found a potential collaborator, or got to meet a favourite speaker)

The first day I arrived I met Hans Clevers outside in the sun on the grass. My supervisor, my colleague, Hans Clevers and I we enjoyed the sun and he was taking a trip down memory lane, talking about one of his earlier discoveries. I realized then that science progressed a lot over the years in terms of technology. In the early days it was much more labour-intensive and difficult to obtain certain results that now a machine or service can easily give you.

One day at the breakfast table I met Don Ingber. He is a very well-known researcher in the field of microfluidics. It was a very special occasion for me as part of my research project is to setup a cancer on chip model and probably would not have happened if the meeting would have been larger.

Did you take part in any interesting local/cultural activities in your free time outside of the conference?

My colleagues and I went to the city centre of Berlin and explored its history, culture, shopping opportunities and food. Although we did not have much time, I actually saw already a lot just because Berlin is packed with history. We saw the Brandenburger Tor, the Reichstag, the Potsdamer Platz, the Holocaust monument and remnants of the Berlin Wall. It was so mind-blowing when you think about that we walked where not so long ago there was a large wall. It was an environment that inspired us to talk more about Berlin’s history as it was before the Wall came down.On a different and maybe more lighter note we also had very nice Vietnamese food and explored the many food wonders of the ‘Kaufhaus des Westens’ (KaDeWe).

How has the conference inspired you in your research? (e.g. inspiration from the people, lectures, attitudes or ideas you encountered)

Although not all lectures during the meeting were directly related to my research topic, the lectures triggered my brain to come up with all kinds of new ideas to try for my project I am working on. Sometimes I got some ideas by a certain technique other people used and sometimes it was more the idea of using a certain idea in a different field. Furthermore, I was also inspired by the talk about career prospects, it made me think about what I would like to and can do in the future to reach my personal career goals.

When you got home, is there anything from the conference that you immediately wanted to tell your colleagues about? What was it?

At the conference I was very much inspired by the talk from Anne Rios about imaging breast cancer in 3D as I am very interested in imaging of 3D cell cultures. I actually told one of my colleagues about it and she told me that she just had a meeting with someone about imaging of tissue slices. We realized that both Anne Rios and the other person were from the same lab. What a coincidence, or maybe meant to be.

Home institution and country: Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla, Seville, Spain

My current laboratory research focuses on the identification of new genes involved in cancer, its characterization and translation to clinic, and the identification and validation of new targets for anticancer drug discovery. My laboratory work in the group is focused in searching new diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers in cancer, especially in sarcoma and colorectal cancer. To this aim we have generated a large number of Patients Derived Xenografts  models (PDX) of sarcomas and colorectal cancer that allow me to identify new treatment approach and  biomarkers for cancer sensitivity.

What was a personal highlight of the conference for you?

The highlight for me has been the talk of Ellen Van Obberghen-Schilling: ECM landscape and tumor progression. The approaches with 3D model to investigate the networking between the matrix produced by carcinoma associated fibroblast and the malignant tumor cells were very interesting.

How was this conference different from others you have attended?

Differently from other conference that I have attended, it was a focused conference. Every speaker provided interesting data about the relevance of 3D models as model for pre-clinical studies. The conference also had a sufficient rest time that allowed exchange with other researchers.

When you got home, is there anything from the conference that you immediately wanted to tell your colleagues about? What was it?

In my laboratory I have recently started to establish a large number of 3D model from our PDX models. At the moment in my laboratory everyone is performing its preclinical studies with PDX model. I would like to discuss with them about the possibility to reduce the number of animal used, substituting some of the experiment planned with 3D models. It would be an ethical and convenient choice.

Have you brought back any specific knowledge that has benefited your research? Tell us about it.

The topic discussed in the symposium, and in general every aspect related to 3D models as preclinical model in cancer are directly linked to my current project, focused in the identification and validation of new targets for anticancer drug discovery. In my home laboratory we have generated a large number of PDX models of sarcomas and colorectal cancer. Attending to this symposium gave me the opportunity to know the most advanced approaches related to 3D model in cancer and its utility as preclinical model for the replacement of the in vivo models. I am confident that that the knowledge acquired at the symposium will help me to direct better my project focused in searching new drug combination in my preclinical models.