| Literature DB >> 26459277 |
Jinliang Wan1,2, Duo Wen3, Lili Dong4, Jun Tang5, Dongli Liu6, Yang Liu7, Zhonghua Tao8, Dongmei Gao9, Huichuan Sun10, Ya Cao11, Jia Fan12,13, Weizhong Wu14,15.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organ site-specific metastasis is an ominous feature for most poor-prognostic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Cancer cell lines and animal models are indispensable for investigating the molecular mechanisms of organ specific tropism. However, till now, little is known about the drivers in HCC metastatic tropism, and also no effective way has been developed to block the process of tropistic metastasis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26459277 PMCID: PMC4603809 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1692-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Schematical diagrams of LM-1 and LnM-1 establishments and their metastatic tropisms. a & c Establishing approaches of LM-1 and LnM-1 cells from HCCLM3-R xenograft models. b & d Representative images of HCC metastatic patterns in LM-1 and LnM-1 orthotropic xenograft models (left). Quantitative analyses of HCC metastases in lung and lymph node with foci number as well as fluorescence area (right). Data are presented as mean ± SEM, Wilcoxon rank testing was used
Fig. 2Metastatic tropisms and lung colonizing abilities of monoclonal HCC cell lines. a Representative images of the screening processes of monoclonal cell line under bright field (top) and red fluorescence field (bottom, ×100). b Metastatic foci in lung (top, ×1.25) and celiac lymph node (middle, ×0.63) visualized via fluorescence microscope; lung metastasis (bottom, ×200) verified in H&E-stained sections. c Lung colonies of monoclonal HCC cells in the recipient mice at 72 h after tail vein injection (left); Quantification of colonizing cells in frozen sections of lung (right). Data are presented as mean ± SEM, Kruskal-Wallis was used
Incidence rate of lung and lymph node metastases of monoclonal HCC cell lines
| Lung metastasis | Lymph node metastasis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| LM1-S3 | 8/8 | 0/8 | 0.0002 |
| LM1-S4 | 8/8 | 0/8 | 0.0002 |
| LM1-S5 | 8/8 | 0/8 | 0.0002 |
| LM1-S11 | 6/8 | 0/8 | 0.0070 |
| LnM1-S11 | 8/8 | 8/8 | — |
| LnM1-S13 | 2/8 | 2/8 | 1.000 |
Forty-eight nude mice were divided randomly into 6 groups with 8 ones in each group. Qualitative variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. Kruskal-Wallis was used to analyze qualitative variables among these six cell lines
Metastatic tropisms of monoclonal cell lines gauged by fluorescence area (pixel)
| Lung metastasis area | Lymph node metastasis area | Z value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LM1-S3 | 176820 ± 13120 | 0 | −2.521 | 0.012 |
| LM1-S4 | 1296000 ± 524228 | 0 | −2.521 | 0.012 |
| LM1-S5 | 34676 ± 7388 | 0 | −2.521 | 0.012 |
| LM1-S11 | 499011 ± 133568 | 0 | −2.521 | 0.012 |
| LnM1-S11 | 486529 ± 180184 | 884586 ± 442968 | −1.820 | 0.069 |
| LnM1-S13 | 41132 ± 23599 | 21873 ± 4712 | −1.820 | 0.069 |
|
| 40.71 | 46.39 | ||
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
Pixel represented the fluorescence area. Wilcoxon rank test was used to test the same cell line metastasis variables. Kruskal-Wallis was used to analyze qualitative variables among these six cell lines
Fig. 3Proliferation, migration and invasion abilities of monoclonal HCC cells. a Cell proliferation curves of monoclonal HCC cells and their parental cells. b & c Representative images (left) and their statistical results (right) of monoclonal HCC cells using migration and invasion assays
Fig. 4Tropism-related genes in HCC metastasis. a The endogenous mRNA levels of ITGA1, VCAM1, SPARC and ANGPTL4 in monoclonal HCC cells analyzed by Real-time PCR analysis. b The protein levels of ITGA1, VCAM1, SPARC and ANGPTL4 of monoclonal HCC cells quantified by Western blot. GAPDH was included as loading control. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, One-way ANOVA was used
Fig. 5Protein levels of ITGA1, VCAM1, SPARC and ANGPTL4 in xenograft tissues. Representative images (a, ×100) and Quantitative results (b) of ITGA1, VCAM1, SPARC and ANGPTL4 protein levels in primary xenograft tissues using immunohistochemical staining analyses. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, One-way ANOVA was used