Why MyoGel?
- 100% natural ECM — human tumor‑derived; no animal‑derived materials.
- Room‑temperature stable and ready‑to‑use — no strict temperature control required.
- Physiological relevance — more accurate cell behavior and improved drug testing.
- Neutral, stable pH and automation‑friendly for high‑throughput workflows.
- Ethically sourced — reduced ethical concerns with human‑specific functionality.
Using human tumor‑derived matrices can offer more representative in vitro conditions, enhancing the credibility of cancer research and drug testing.
Key differences vs. Matrigel
The protein profile differs by ~60% from Matrigel, reflecting a human‑specific matrix composition.
Key components
Human ECMCollagens
Collagen IV, XII, XIV
Basement membrane
Laminin, Nidogen, Heparan sulfate proteoglycans
Signals & modulators
EGF, Tenascin‑C, cytokines & growth factors
Product types
Ready‑to‑useLiquid MyoGel
Vials: 1 ml, 5 ml, 10 ml
Pre‑coated plates
12‑, 96‑, and 486‑well formats
Custom configurations
Tailor matrix density and format to your cell type and assay needs.
Cell culture methods with MyoGel
Versatile 2D/3DScratch wound assay
Supports invasion and migration studies with reproducible kinetics.
Spheroid invasion
Robust 3D models from cell lines or patient‑derived cells.
Hanging drop & co‑culture
Flexible formats to model cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions.
3D microfluidic chip
Enables tumor‑on‑chip and high‑throughput drug testing.
Comparison: MyoGel vs. Basement Membrane Matrix (Mouse)
Overview| Attribute | MyoGel (Human) | Mouse Basement Membrane Matrix |
|---|---|---|
| Stability | Room‑temperature stable | Requires cold chain |
| Biological relevance | Human tumor‑derived | Mouse‑derived |
| pH | Neutral & stable | Less stable |
| Automation | Automation‑friendly | Challenging |
| Predictive behavior | More accurate cell behavior | Often less predictive |
| Ethics | Reduced ethical concerns | Animal origin |
Cell lines used with MyoGel
Selected examples| Cell line | Cancer | Main results |
|---|---|---|
| HSC‑3 | Metastatic tongue | Faster invasion vs. Matrigel (scratch, hanging drop) |
| MDA‑MB‑231 | Breast | Invasive properties in scratch assay |
| Pa03c | Pancreatic | Faster invasion vs. Matrigel (scratch) |
| UT‑SCC‑24A | Primary tongue | Fastest invasion vs. collagen & fibrin; Matrigel not usable |
| Cell line | Cancer | Main results |
|---|---|---|
| UT‑SCC‑24B | Metastatic tongue | As above (vs. collagen & fibrin) |
| UT‑SCC‑42A | Laryngeal | Fastest invasion vs. collagen, Matrigel & fibrin (spheroid) |
| SK‑Mel | Melanoma | Faster invasion vs. Matrigel (transwell) |
References (selected)
2015 – 2024- Salo, T., et al., BMC Cancer, 2015.
- Tuomainen, K., et al., Cancers, 2019.
- Wahbi, W., et al., Exp Cell Res, 2020.
- Salo, T., et al., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2018.
- Korelin, K., et al., Biomed Pharmacother, 2024.
- Naakka, E., et al., J Vis Exp, 2019.
- Hyytiäinen, A., et al., Cancer Cell Int., 2023.
- von Hofsten, S., et al., Front Pharmacol., 2023.
- Koivikko, T., et al., Front Pharmacol., 2023.
- Wahbi, W., et al., Transl Oncol., 2023.
- Barmaki, S., et al., Biomater Biosyst., 2022.
- Sieviläinen, M., et al., Front Immunol., 2022.
- Lindfors, L., et al., Anal Chim Acta, 2022.
- Tuomainen, K., et al., Sci Rep, 2021.
- Tuominen, H., et al., Virol J, 2020.
- Aquino, I.G., et al., Arch Oral Biol., 2020.
- Peltonen, J., et al., Anticancer Res., 2020.
- Al‑Samadi, A., et al., Exp Cell Res, 2019.
- Charbonneau, A.M., et al., Biotechnol J, 2019.
- Hoornstra, D., et al., In Vivo, 2018.
- Väyrynen, O., et al., Exp Cell Res, 2018.
- Hoque Apu, E., et al., Exp Cell Res, 2018.
- Al‑Samadi, A., et al., Oncotarget, 2017.
Full citations available on request.
Contact
For orders, quotes, or technical details:
Email: info@humgel.com
Web: www.humgel.com
Available formats: Liquid vials (1, 5, 10 ml) and pre‑coated 12‑, 96‑, and 486‑well plates.