BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer progression is concomitant with quantifiable nuclear structure and texture changes as compared to non-cancer tissue. Malignant progression is associated with an epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) program whereby epithelial cancer cells take on a mesenchymal phenotype and dissociate from a tumor mass, invade, and disseminate to distant metastatic sites. The objective of this study was to determine if epithelial and mesenchymal prostate cancer cells have different nuclear morphology. METHODS: Murine tibia injections of epithelial PC3 (PC3-Epi) and mesenchymal PC3 (PC3-EMT) prostate cancer cells were processed and stained with H&E. Cancer cell nuclear image data was obtained using commercially available image-processing software. Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis were used to compare the two phenotypes. Several non-parametric classifiers were constructed and permutation-tested at various training set fractions to ensure robustness of classification between PC3-Epi and PC3-EMT cells in vivo. RESULTS: PC3-Epi and PC3-EMT prostate cancer cells were separable at the single cell level in murine tibia injections on the basis of nuclear structure and texture remodeling associated with an EMT. Support vector machine and multinomial logistic regression models based on nuclear architecture features yielded AUC-ROC curves of 0.95 and 0.96, respectively, in separating PC3-Epi and PC3-EMT prostate cancer cells in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer cells that have undergone an EMT demonstrated an altered nuclear structure. The association of nuclear changes and a mesenchymal phenotype demonstrates quantitative morphometric image analysis may be used to detect cancer cells that have undergone EMT. This morphometric measurement could provide valuable prognostic information in patients regarding the likelihood of [future] metastatic disease.
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer progression is concomitant with quantifiable nuclear structure and texture changes as compared to non-cancer tissue. Malignant progression is associated with an epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) program whereby epithelial cancer cells take on a mesenchymal phenotype and dissociate from a tumor mass, invade, and disseminate to distant metastatic sites. The objective of this study was to determine if epithelial and mesenchymal prostate cancer cells have different nuclear morphology. METHODS:Murine tibia injections of epithelial PC3 (PC3-Epi) and mesenchymal PC3 (PC3-EMT) prostate cancer cells were processed and stained with H&E. Cancer cell nuclear image data was obtained using commercially available image-processing software. Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis were used to compare the two phenotypes. Several non-parametric classifiers were constructed and permutation-tested at various training set fractions to ensure robustness of classification between PC3-Epi and PC3-EMT cells in vivo. RESULTS:PC3-Epi and PC3-EMT prostate cancer cells were separable at the single cell level in murine tibia injections on the basis of nuclear structure and texture remodeling associated with an EMT. Support vector machine and multinomial logistic regression models based on nuclear architecture features yielded AUC-ROC curves of 0.95 and 0.96, respectively, in separating PC3-Epi and PC3-EMT prostate cancer cells in vivo. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancer cells that have undergone an EMT demonstrated an altered nuclear structure. The association of nuclear changes and a mesenchymal phenotype demonstrates quantitative morphometric image analysis may be used to detect cancer cells that have undergone EMT. This morphometric measurement could provide valuable prognostic information in patients regarding the likelihood of [future] metastatic disease.
Authors: Jing Yang; Sendurai A Mani; Joana Liu Donaher; Sridhar Ramaswamy; Raphael A Itzykson; Christophe Come; Pierre Savagner; Inna Gitelman; Andrea Richardson; Robert A Weinberg Journal: Cell Date: 2004-06-25 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Cameron S Osborne; Lyubomira Chakalova; Karen E Brown; David Carter; Alice Horton; Emmanuel Debrand; Beatriz Goyenechea; Jennifer A Mitchell; Susana Lopes; Wolf Reik; Peter Fraser Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2004-09-07 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Hernan Roca; James Hernandez; Savannah Weidner; Richard C McEachin; David Fuller; Sudha Sud; Taibriana Schumann; John E Wilkinson; Alexander Zaslavsky; Hangwen Li; Christopher A Maher; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Patrick N Healy; Kenneth J Pienta Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rebeca San Martin; Priyojit Das; Renata Dos Reis Marques; Yang Xu; Justin M Roberts; Jacob T Sanders; Rosela Golloshi; Rachel Patton McCord Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 8.077
Authors: Alexandr A Kalinin; Ari Allyn-Feuer; Alex Ade; Gordon-Victor Fon; Walter Meixner; David Dilworth; Syed S Husain; Jeffrey R de Wet; Gerald A Higgins; Gen Zheng; Amy Creekmore; John W Wiley; James E Verdone; Robert W Veltri; Kenneth J Pienta; Donald S Coffey; Brian D Athey; Ivo D Dinov Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 4.379