Brad Davis1, Yaoqing Shen1, Candice C Poon1, H Artee Luchman1, Owen D Stechishin1, Carly S Pontifex1, Wei Wu1, John J Kelly1, Michael D Blough1. 1. Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (B.D., Y. S.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (C.C.P., J.J.K.); Clark Smith Brain Tumour Research Centre, Southern Alberta Cancer Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (C.C.P., C.S.P., W.W., J.J.K., M.D.B.); Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (H.A.L., O.D.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a fatal cancer that has eluded major therapeutic advances. Failure to make progress may reflect the absence of a human GBM model that could be used to test compounds for anti-GBM activity. In this respect, the development of brain tumor-initiating cell (BTIC) cultures is a step forward because BTICs appear to capture the molecular diversity of GBM better than traditional glioma cell lines. Here, we perform a comparative genomic and genetic analysis of BTICs and their parent tumors as preliminary evaluation of the BTIC model. METHODS: We assessed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), genome-wide copy number variations (CNVs), gene expression patterns, and molecular subtypes of 11 established BTIC lines and matched parent tumors. RESULTS: Although CNV differences were noted, BTICs retained the major genomic alterations characteristic of GBM. SNP patterns were similar between BTICs and tumors. Importantly, recurring SNP or CNV alterations specific to BTICs were not seen. Comparative gene expression analysis and molecular subtyping revealed differences between BTICs and GBMs. These differences formed the basis of a 63-gene expression signature that distinguished cells from tumors; differentially expressed genes primarily involved metabolic processes. We also derived a set of 73 similarly expressed genes; these genes were not associated with specific biological functions. CONCLUSIONS: Although not identical, established BTIC lines preserve the core molecular alterations seen in their parent tumors, as well as the genomic hallmarks of GBM, without acquiring recurring BTIC-specific changes.
BACKGROUND:Glioblastoma (GBM) is a fatal cancer that has eluded major therapeutic advances. Failure to make progress may reflect the absence of a human GBM model that could be used to test compounds for anti-GBM activity. In this respect, the development of brain tumor-initiating cell (BTIC) cultures is a step forward because BTICs appear to capture the molecular diversity of GBM better than traditional glioma cell lines. Here, we perform a comparative genomic and genetic analysis of BTICs and their parent tumors as preliminary evaluation of the BTIC model. METHODS: We assessed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), genome-wide copy number variations (CNVs), gene expression patterns, and molecular subtypes of 11 established BTIC lines and matched parent tumors. RESULTS: Although CNV differences were noted, BTICs retained the major genomic alterations characteristic of GBM. SNP patterns were similar between BTICs and tumors. Importantly, recurring SNP or CNV alterations specific to BTICs were not seen. Comparative gene expression analysis and molecular subtyping revealed differences between BTICs and GBMs. These differences formed the basis of a 63-gene expression signature that distinguished cells from tumors; differentially expressed genes primarily involved metabolic processes. We also derived a set of 73 similarly expressed genes; these genes were not associated with specific biological functions. CONCLUSIONS: Although not identical, established BTIC lines preserve the core molecular alterations seen in their parent tumors, as well as the genomic hallmarks of GBM, without acquiring recurring BTIC-specific changes.
Authors: Martin Krzywinski; Jacqueline Schein; Inanç Birol; Joseph Connors; Randy Gascoyne; Doug Horsman; Steven J Jones; Marco A Marra Journal: Genome Res Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Cameron W Brennan; Roel G W Verhaak; Aaron McKenna; Benito Campos; Houtan Noushmehr; Sofie R Salama; Siyuan Zheng; Debyani Chakravarty; J Zachary Sanborn; Samuel H Berman; Rameen Beroukhim; Brady Bernard; Chang-Jiun Wu; Giannicola Genovese; Ilya Shmulevich; Jill Barnholtz-Sloan; Lihua Zou; Rahulsimham Vegesna; Sachet A Shukla; Giovanni Ciriello; W K Yung; Wei Zhang; Carrie Sougnez; Tom Mikkelsen; Kenneth Aldape; Darell D Bigner; Erwin G Van Meir; Michael Prados; Andrew Sloan; Keith L Black; Jennifer Eschbacher; Gaetano Finocchiaro; William Friedman; David W Andrews; Abhijit Guha; Mary Iacocca; Brian P O'Neill; Greg Foltz; Jerome Myers; Daniel J Weisenberger; Robert Penny; Raju Kucherlapati; Charles M Perou; D Neil Hayes; Richard Gibbs; Marco Marra; Gordon B Mills; Eric Lander; Paul Spellman; Richard Wilson; Chris Sander; John Weinstein; Matthew Meyerson; Stacey Gabriel; Peter W Laird; David Haussler; Gad Getz; Lynda Chin Journal: Cell Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Anoop P Patel; Itay Tirosh; John J Trombetta; Alex K Shalek; Shawn M Gillespie; Hiroaki Wakimoto; Daniel P Cahill; Brian V Nahed; William T Curry; Robert L Martuza; David N Louis; Orit Rozenblatt-Rosen; Mario L Suvà; Aviv Regev; Bradley E Bernstein Journal: Science Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Matthew E Ritchie; Benilton S Carvalho; Kurt N Hetrick; Simon Tavaré; Rafael A Irizarry Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: D Williams Parsons; Siân Jones; Xiaosong Zhang; Jimmy Cheng-Ho Lin; Rebecca J Leary; Philipp Angenendt; Parminder Mankoo; Hannah Carter; I-Mei Siu; Gary L Gallia; Alessandro Olivi; Roger McLendon; B Ahmed Rasheed; Stephen Keir; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Yuri Nikolsky; Dana A Busam; Hanna Tekleab; Luis A Diaz; James Hartigan; Doug R Smith; Robert L Strausberg; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; Sueli Mieko Oba Shinjo; Hai Yan; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Rachel Karchin; Nick Papadopoulos; Giovanni Parmigiani; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler Journal: Science Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Aiguo Li; Jennifer Walling; Yuri Kotliarov; Angela Center; Mary Ellen Steed; Susie J Ahn; Mark Rosenblum; Tom Mikkelsen; Jean Claude Zenklusen; Howard A Fine Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2008-01-09 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Rachael A Vaubel; Shulan Tian; Dioval Remonde; Mark A Schroeder; Ann C Mladek; Gaspar J Kitange; Alissa Caron; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Rebecca Grove; Sen Peng; Brett L Carlson; Daniel J Ma; Gobinda Sarkar; Lisa Evers; Paul A Decker; Huihuang Yan; Harshil D Dhruv; Michael E Berens; Qianghu Wang; Bianca M Marin; Eric W Klee; Andrea Califano; Daniel H LaChance; Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Roel G Verhaak; Erik P Sulman; Terry C Burns; Fredrick B Meyer; Brian P O'Neill; Nhan L Tran; Caterina Giannini; Robert B Jenkins; Ian F Parney; Jann N Sarkaria Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Yaoqing Shen; Cameron J Grisdale; Sumaiya A Islam; Pinaki Bose; Jake Lever; Eric Y Zhao; Natalie Grinshtein; Yussanne Ma; Andrew J Mungall; Richard A Moore; Xueqing Lun; Donna L Senger; Stephen M Robbins; Alice Yijun Wang; Julia L MacIsaac; Michael S Kobor; H Artee Luchman; Samuel Weiss; Jennifer A Chan; Michael D Blough; David R Kaplan; J Gregory Cairncross; Marco A Marra; Steven J M Jones Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Shota Tanaka; Samantha Luk; Juri Kiyokawa; Maristela L Onozato; A John Iafrate; Khalid Shah; Robert L Martuza; Samuel D Rabkin; Tracy T Batchelor; Daniel P Cahill; Andrew S Chi; Hiroaki Wakimoto Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 4.379