Kevin M Elias1, Megan M Emori2, Eniko Papp3, Emily MacDuffie4, Gottfried E Konecny5, Victor E Velculescu3, Ronny Drapkin6. 1. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 2. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. 3. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. 4. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 5. University of California Los Angeles, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. 6. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: rdrapkin@mail.med.upenn.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparisons of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) with high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) cell lines used in research reveal that many common experimental models lack defining genomic characteristics seen in patient tumors. As cell lines exist with higher genomic fidelity to TCGA, this study aimed to evaluate the utility of these cell lines as tools for preclinical investigation. METHODS: We compared two HGSOC cell lines with supposed high genomic fidelity to TCGA, KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO, with the most commonly cited ovarian cancer cell line, SKOV3, which has poor genomic fidelity to TCGA. The lines were analyzed for genomic alterations, in vitro performance, and growth in murine xenografts. RESULTS: Using targeted next generation sequencing analyses, we determined that each line had a distinct mutation profile, including alterations in TP53, and copy number variation of specific genes. KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO better recapitulated serous carcinoma morphology than SKOV3. All lines expressed PAX8 and stathmin, but KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO did not express CK7. KURAMOCHI was significantly more platinum sensitive than OVSAHO and SKOV3. Unlike SKOV3, KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO engrafted poorly in subcutaneous xenografts. KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO grew best after intraperitoneal injection in SCID mice and recapitulated miliary disease while SKOV3 grew in all murine systems and formed oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: The research utility of HGSOC cell line models requires a comprehensive assessment of genomic as well as in vitro and in vivo properties. Cell lines with closer genomic fidelity to human tumors may have limitations in performance for preclinical investigation.
OBJECTIVE: Comparisons of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) with high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) cell lines used in research reveal that many common experimental models lack defining genomic characteristics seen in patienttumors. As cell lines exist with higher genomic fidelity to TCGA, this study aimed to evaluate the utility of these cell lines as tools for preclinical investigation. METHODS: We compared two HGSOC cell lines with supposed high genomic fidelity to TCGA, KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO, with the most commonly cited ovarian cancer cell line, SKOV3, which has poor genomic fidelity to TCGA. The lines were analyzed for genomic alterations, in vitro performance, and growth in murine xenografts. RESULTS: Using targeted next generation sequencing analyses, we determined that each line had a distinct mutation profile, including alterations in TP53, and copy number variation of specific genes. KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO better recapitulated serous carcinoma morphology than SKOV3. All lines expressed PAX8 and stathmin, but KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO did not express CK7. KURAMOCHI was significantly more platinum sensitive than OVSAHO and SKOV3. Unlike SKOV3, KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO engrafted poorly in subcutaneous xenografts. KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO grew best after intraperitoneal injection in SCIDmice and recapitulated miliary disease while SKOV3 grew in all murine systems and formed oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: The research utility of HGSOC cell line models requires a comprehensive assessment of genomic as well as in vitro and in vivo properties. Cell lines with closer genomic fidelity to humantumors may have limitations in performance for preclinical investigation.
Authors: Siân Jones; Valsamo Anagnostou; Karli Lytle; Sonya Parpart-Li; Monica Nesselbush; David R Riley; Manish Shukla; Bryan Chesnick; Maura Kadan; Eniko Papp; Kevin G Galens; Derek Murphy; Theresa Zhang; Lisa Kann; Mark Sausen; Samuel V Angiuoli; Luis A Diaz; Victor E Velculescu Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Anirban K Mitra; David A Davis; Sunil Tomar; Lynn Roy; Hilal Gurler; Jia Xie; Daniel D Lantvit; Horacio Cardenas; Fang Fang; Yueying Liu; Elizabeth Loughran; Jing Yang; M Sharon Stack; Robert E Emerson; Karen D Cowden Dahl; Maria V Barbolina; Kenneth P Nephew; Daniela Matei; Joanna E Burdette Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Hannah K Weir; Helena Carreira; Rhea Harewood; Devon Spika; Xiao-Si Wang; Finian Bannon; Jane V Ahn; Christopher J Johnson; Audrey Bonaventure; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Charles Stiller; Gulnar Azevedo e Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Bernard Rachet; Matthew J Soeberg; Hui You; Tomohiro Matsuda; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Hans Storm; Thomas C Tucker; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Karuppaiyah Selvendiran; Shabnam Ahmed; Alex Dayton; Yazhini Ravi; M Lakshmi Kuppusamy; Anna Bratasz; Brian K Rivera; Tamás Kálai; Kálmán Hideg; Periannan Kuppusamy Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Michael S Anglesio; Kimberly C Wiegand; Nataliya Melnyk; Christine Chow; Clara Salamanca; Leah M Prentice; Janine Senz; Winnie Yang; Monique A Spillman; Dawn R Cochrane; Karey Shumansky; Sohrab P Shah; Steve E Kalloger; David G Huntsman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simon A Forbes; David Beare; Prasad Gunasekaran; Kenric Leung; Nidhi Bindal; Harry Boutselakis; Minjie Ding; Sally Bamford; Charlotte Cole; Sari Ward; Chai Yin Kok; Mingming Jia; Tisham De; Jon W Teague; Michael R Stratton; Ultan McDermott; Peter J Campbell Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Lidia Hernandez; Marianne K Kim; L Tiffany Lyle; Kristen P Bunch; Carrie D House; Franklin Ning; Anne M Noonan; Christina M Annunziata Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: George Au-Yeung; Franziska Lang; Walid J Azar; Chris Mitchell; Kate E Jarman; Kurt Lackovic; Diar Aziz; Carleen Cullinane; Richard B Pearson; Linda Mileshkin; Danny Rischin; Alison M Karst; Ronny Drapkin; Dariush Etemadmoghadam; David D L Bowtell Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joyce F Liu; Sangeetha Palakurthi; Qing Zeng; Shan Zhou; Elena Ivanova; Wei Huang; Ioannis K Zervantonakis; Laura M Selfors; Yiping Shen; Colin C Pritchard; Mei Zheng; Vilmos Adleff; Eniko Papp; Huiying Piao; Marian Novak; Susan Fotheringham; Gerburg M Wulf; Jessie English; Paul T Kirschmeier; Victor E Velculescu; Cloud Paweletz; Gordon B Mills; David M Livingston; Joan S Brugge; Ursula A Matulonis; Ronny Drapkin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kevin M Elias; Megan M Emori; Thomas Westerling; Henry Long; Anna Budina-Kolomets; Fugen Li; Emily MacDuffie; Michelle R Davis; Alexander Holman; Brian Lawney; Matthew L Freedman; John Quackenbush; Myles Brown; Ronny Drapkin Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2016-08-18
Authors: Brittney S Harrington; Yaowu He; Claire M Davies; Sarah J Wallace; Mark N Adams; Elizabeth A Beaven; Deborah K Roche; Catherine Kennedy; Naven P Chetty; Alexander J Crandon; Christopher Flatley; Niara B Oliveira; Catherine M Shannon; Anna deFazio; Anna V Tinker; C Blake Gilks; Brian Gabrielli; Donal J Brennan; Jermaine I Coward; Jane E Armes; Lewis C Perrin; John D Hooper Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 7.640