Shai Rosenberg1,2, Maïté Verreault1, Charlotte Schmitt1, Justine Guegan1, Jeremy Guehennec3, Camille Levasseur1, Yannick Marie1,4, Franck Bielle1,5, Karima Mokhtari1,5, Khê Hoang-Xuan1,6, Keith Ligon7, Marc Sanson1,6, Jean-Yves Delattre1,6, Ahmed Idbaih1,6. 1. Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06 UMR S 1127, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, Paris, France. 2. Hadassah - Hebrew University Medical Center, Israel. 3. Bioinformatics/Biostatistics Core Facility, IHU-A-ICM, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, Paris, France. 4. Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière (ICM), Plateforme de Génotypage Séquençage, Paris, France. 5. AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière - Charles Foix, Service de Neuropathologie-Escourolle, Paris, France. 6. AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière - Charles Foix, Service de Neurologie 2-Mazarin, Paris, France. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the deadliest primary brain cancer in adults. Emerging innovative therapies hold promise for personalized cancer treatment. Improving therapeutic options depends on research relying on relevant preclinical models. In this line we have established in the setting of the GlioTex project (GBM and Experimental Therapeutics) a GBM patient-derived cell line (GBM-PDCL) library. A multi-omic approach was used to determine the molecular landscape of PDCL and the extent to which they represent GBM tumors. Methods: Single nucleotide polymorphism array, expression arrays, exome sequencing, and RNA sequencing were used to measure and compare the molecular landscapes of 20 samples representing 10 human GBM tumors and paired GBM-PDCLs. Results: Copy number variations were similar for a median of 85% of the genome and for 59% of the major focal events. Somatic point mutations were similar in a median of 41%. Mutations in GBM driver and "druggable" genes were maintained in 67% of events. Mutations that were not conserved in the PDCL were mainly low allelic fraction and/or non-driver mutations. Based on RNA expression profiling, PDCLs cluster closely to their parental tumor with overexpression of pathways associated with cancer progression in PDCL. Conclusions: Overall, PDCLs recapitulate pivotal molecular alterations of paired-parental tumors supporting their use as a preclinical model of GBM. However, some driver aberrations are lost or gained in the passage from tumor to PDCL. Our results support using PDCL as a relevant preclinical model of GBM. Further investigations of changes between PDCLs and their parental tumor may provide insights into GBM biology.
Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the deadliest primary brain cancer in adults. Emerging innovative therapies hold promise for personalized cancer treatment. Improving therapeutic options depends on research relying on relevant preclinical models. In this line we have established in the setting of the GlioTex project (GBM and Experimental Therapeutics) a GBM patient-derived cell line (GBM-PDCL) library. A multi-omic approach was used to determine the molecular landscape of PDCL and the extent to which they represent GBM tumors. Methods: Single nucleotide polymorphism array, expression arrays, exome sequencing, and RNA sequencing were used to measure and compare the molecular landscapes of 20 samples representing 10 humanGBM tumors and paired GBM-PDCLs. Results: Copy number variations were similar for a median of 85% of the genome and for 59% of the major focal events. Somatic point mutations were similar in a median of 41%. Mutations in GBM driver and "druggable" genes were maintained in 67% of events. Mutations that were not conserved in the PDCL were mainly low allelic fraction and/or non-driver mutations. Based on RNA expression profiling, PDCLs cluster closely to their parental tumor with overexpression of pathways associated with cancer progression in PDCL. Conclusions: Overall, PDCLs recapitulate pivotal molecular alterations of paired-parental tumors supporting their use as a preclinical model of GBM. However, some driver aberrations are lost or gained in the passage from tumor to PDCL. Our results support using PDCL as a relevant preclinical model of GBM. Further investigations of changes between PDCLs and their parental tumor may provide insights into GBM biology.
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: Andrea Sottoriva; Inmaculada Spiteri; Sara G M Piccirillo; Anestis Touloumis; V Peter Collins; John C Marioni; Christina Curtis; Colin Watts; Simon Tavaré Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jeongwu Lee; Svetlana Kotliarova; Yuri Kotliarov; Aiguo Li; Qin Su; Nicholas M Donin; Sandra Pastorino; Benjamin W Purow; Neil Christopher; Wei Zhang; John K Park; Howard A Fine Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Ash A Alizadeh; Victoria Aranda; Alberto Bardelli; Cedric Blanpain; Christoph Bock; Christine Borowski; Carlos Caldas; Andrea Califano; Michael Doherty; Markus Elsner; Manel Esteller; Rebecca Fitzgerald; Jan O Korbel; Peter Lichter; Christopher E Mason; Nicholas Navin; Dana Pe'er; Kornelia Polyak; Charles W M Roberts; Lillian Siu; Alexandra Snyder; Hannah Stower; Charles Swanton; Roel G W Verhaak; Jean C Zenklusen; Johannes Zuber; Jessica Zucman-Rossi Journal: Nat Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 53.440
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: Abel Gonzalez-Perez; Christian Perez-Llamas; Jordi Deu-Pons; David Tamborero; Michael P Schroeder; Alba Jene-Sanz; Alberto Santos; Nuria Lopez-Bigas Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2013-09-15 Impact factor: 28.547
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: Cyntanna C Hawkins; Amber B Jones; Emily R Gordon; Sarah E Williford; Yuvika Harsh; Julia K Ziebro; Catherine J Landis; Sajina Gc; David K Crossman; Sara J Cooper; Sasanka Ramanadham; Ninh Doan; Anita B Hjelmeland Journal: Cells Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 7.666