| Literature DB >> 22672897 |
Kentaro Shima1, Masamichi Mizuma, Hiroki Hayashi, Kei Nakagawa, Takaho Okada, Naoaki Sakata, Noriyuki Omura, Yo Kitamura, Fuyuhiko Motoi, Toshiki Rikiyama, Yu Katayose, Shinichi Egawa, Naoto Ishii, Akira Horii, Michiaki Unno.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is still technically difficult to collect high purity cancer cells from tumor tissues, which contain noncancerous cells. We hypothesized that xenograft models of NOG mice expressing enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP), referred to as NOG-EGFP mice, may be useful for obtaining such high purity cancer cells for detailed molecular and cellular analyses.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22672897 PMCID: PMC3444339 DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-31-55
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Figure 1Confirmation of eGFP expression in NOG-EGFP mice.A) NOG-EGFP mice were fluorescently visualized under a hand-held UV lamp. B) Representative photos of internal organs of NOG-EGFP mice. The fluorescence was detected in all internal organs with IVIS® spectrum system. C) Skin fibroblasts of NOG-EGFP mice cultured on the dishes were fluorescent under the fluorescence microscope. D) Histology of patients-derived pancreatic cancer xenografts in NOG-EGFP mice. D-a) H&E staining. D-b) immunohistochemistry of the anti-eGFP antibody. eGFP-expressing cells are seen in the stroma. D-c) eGFP positive cells visualized under the fluorescence microscope are seen in the stroma, concordant with of Figure 1Db.
Figure 2Tumorigenicity was compared between NOG-EGFP mice and NOD/SCID mice using the pancreato-biliary cancer cell lines.A) TFK-1, B) HuCCT1, C) MIAPaCa2 and D) AsPC-1. A total of 5.0 × 105 cells was injected into each mouse (n = 6). ** denotes P < 0.01. NOG-EGFP mice showed a significantly higher tumorigenic potential than that of NOD/SCID mice in all cell lines ( p < 0.01).
Figure 3The FACS analysis was performed after single-cell suspension obtained by enzymatic dissociation from xenografted tumors of NOG-EGFP mice.A) Two subpopulations indicating the cancer cells and eGFP-expressing cells were clearly distinguished. The collected cancer cells were dyed with phenotypic markers to evaluate the contamination rate of host cells in the collected cancer cells. Results of CD11c are shown as representative data of the phenotypic markers. B) The contamination rates of the phenotypic markers for murine stromal cells among the collected cancer cells are summarized as a table; note that only a few host cells are contaminated.
Figure 4In order to determine the cell viability, the cancer cells were cultured on dishes after FACS sorting and subsequently reimplanted into NOG-EGFP mice.A) Left panel (experimental): The fluorescent cells were invisible among the collected cancer cells cultured on the dishes under the fluorescent microscope. Right panel (control): Directly cultured cells from the xenografted TFK-1 tumors. Fluorescent cells were detectable in some areas under the fluorescent microscope. Black arrows indicate eGFP-expressing cells. B) TFK-1 cells cultured after FACS sorting were able to grow in the NOG-EGFP mice. Tumorigenicity of the sorted TFK-1 cells was directly compared with that of the unsorted TFK-1 cells shown in Figure 2A. A total amount of 5.0 × 105 cells was injected into each mouse (n = 6).