OBJECT: Human tumors implanted as subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice are widely used for the study of tumor biology and therapy. Validation of these models requires knowledge of the genetic makeup of the xenografts. The aim of this study was to establish whether chromosomal imbalances in 11 xenograft lines derived from human glioblastomas multiforme (x-GBMs) are similar to those found in GBM biopsy samples. The authors also studied genetic stability during serial passaging of three xenograft lines. METHODS: Chromosomal imbalances in x-GBMs were detected using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). The authors compared the CGH results in x-GBMs with those in the original GBMs (o-GBMs) that were used to establish three of the xenograft lines and with the GBM biopsy results reported in the literature (1-GBMs). In three xenograft lines two different passages were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the chromosomal imbalances in x-GBMs are similar to those in o-GBMs and 1-GBMs, indicating that the GBM xenograft lines used were valid models from a genetic point of view. The CGH analysis of two different passages of three xenograft lines indicates that x-GBMs (like 1-GBMs) show intratumoral genetic heterogeneity and do not acquire chromosomal imbalances as a result of serial passaging.
OBJECT: Humantumors implanted as subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice are widely used for the study of tumor biology and therapy. Validation of these models requires knowledge of the genetic makeup of the xenografts. The aim of this study was to establish whether chromosomal imbalances in 11 xenograft lines derived from humanglioblastomas multiforme (x-GBMs) are similar to those found in GBM biopsy samples. The authors also studied genetic stability during serial passaging of three xenograft lines. METHODS: Chromosomal imbalances in x-GBMs were detected using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). The authors compared the CGH results in x-GBMs with those in the original GBMs (o-GBMs) that were used to establish three of the xenograft lines and with the GBM biopsy results reported in the literature (1-GBMs). In three xenograft lines two different passages were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the chromosomal imbalances in x-GBMs are similar to those in o-GBMs and 1-GBMs, indicating that the GBM xenograft lines used were valid models from a genetic point of view. The CGH analysis of two different passages of three xenograft lines indicates that x-GBMs (like 1-GBMs) show intratumoral genetic heterogeneity and do not acquire chromosomal imbalances as a result of serial passaging.
Authors: Caterina Giannini; Jann N Sarkaria; Atsushi Saito; Joon H Uhm; Evanthia Galanis; Brett L Carlson; Mark A Schroeder; C David James Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: H J Gilhuis; H J Bernse; J W Jeuken; P Wesselin; S H Sprenger; H M Kerstens; J Wiegant; R H Boerman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Lorin Dodbiba; Jennifer Teichman; Andrew Fleet; Henry Thai; Maud H W Starmans; Roya Navab; Zhuo Chen; Hala Girgis; Lawson Eng; Osvaldo Espin-Garcia; Xiaowei Shen; Bizhan Bandarchi; Joerg Schwock; Ming-Sound Tsao; Hala El-Zimaity; Sandy D Der; Wei Xu; Robert G Bristow; Gail E Darling; Paul C Boutros; Laurie E Ailles; Geoffrey Liu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shawn E Yost; Sandra Pastorino; Sophie Rozenzhak; Erin N Smith; Ying S Chao; Pengfei Jiang; Santosh Kesari; Kelly A Frazer; Olivier Harismendy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: P Leuraud; L Taillandier; L Aguirre-Cruz; J Medioni; E Crinière; Y Marie; A M Dutrillaux; M Kujas; A Duprez; J-Y Delattre; M-F Poupon; M Sanson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 7.640