| Literature DB >> 32260145 |
Sarah Meneceur1,2, Annett Linge1,3,4,5,6, Matthias Meinhardt7, Sandra Hering8, Steffen Löck1,3,4, Rebecca Bütof1,5,6, Dietmar Krex9, Gabriele Schackert3,6,9, Achim Temme3,6,9, Michael Baumann1,4,5, Mechthild Krause1,2,3,4,5,6, Cläre von Neubeck1,3,4,10.
Abstract
Glioblastoma is an aggressive brain tumour with a patient median survival of approximately 14 months. The development of innovative treatment strategies to increase the life span and quality of life of patients is hence essential. This requires the use of appropriate glioblastoma models for preclinical testing, which faithfully reflect human cancers. The aim of this study was to establish glioblastoma patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) by heterotopic transplantation of tumour pieces in the axillae of NMRI nude mice. Ten out of 22 patients' samples gave rise to tumours in mice. Their human origin was confirmed by microsatellite analyses, though minor changes were observed. The glioblastoma nature of the PDXs was corroborated by pathological evaluation. Latency times spanned from 48.5 to 370.5 days in the first generation. Growth curve analyses revealed an increase in the growth rate with increasing passages. The methylation status of the MGMT promoter in the primary material was maintained in the PDXs. However, a trend towards a more methylated pattern could be found. A correlation was observed between the take in mice and the proportion of Sox2+ cells (r = 0.49, p = 0.016) and nestin+ cells (r = 0.55, p = 0.007). Our results show that many PDXs maintain key features of the patients' samples they derive from. They could thus be used as preclinical models to test new therapies and biomarkers.Entities:
Keywords: cancer stem cell markers; glioblastoma; growth data; patient-derived xenografts; preclinical models
Year: 2020 PMID: 32260145 PMCID: PMC7226316 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12040871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Patient cohort for the glioblastoma patient-derived xenograft (PDX) study. 1
| Cohort ID | Gender | Age | Methylation Status | Tumour Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DK26 | f | 67 | methylated | frontal |
| DK27 | f | 72 | methylated | frontal |
| DK28 | f | 74 | unmethylated | parieto-occipital |
| DK29 | f | 66 | unmethylated | multi-ocular/fronto-parietal |
| DK30 | m | 57 | methylated | opercular |
| DK32 | m | 66 | unmethylated | parieto-occipital |
| DK33 | f | 73 | methylated | frontal-temporal |
| DK34 | f | 82 | methylated | parieto-occipital |
| DK35 | f | 75 | unmethylated | parieto-occipital |
| DK36 | m | 85 | unmethylated | frontal |
| DK37 | m | 79 | unmethylated | temporal lobe |
| DK38 | m | 73 | unmethylated | frontal |
| DK39 | m | 63 | methylated | parieto-temporal to occipital |
| DK40 | f | 74 | methylated | frontal lobe |
| DK41 | m | 53 | unmethylated | frontal lobe |
| DK42 | m | 71 | unmethylated | frontal lobe |
| DK45 | m | 79 | unmethylated | temporal-occipital |
| DK51 | m | 67 | methylated | frontal lobe |
| DK54 | f | 78 | unmethylated | temporo-parietal |
| DK60 | m | 76 | unmethylated | temporo-parietal |
| DK63 | f | 76 | methylated | frontal |
| DK77 | f | 83 | methylated | temporal-occipital |
1. Clinical information were obtained from the RadPlanBio database [23]. m: male (50%), f: female (50%). Methylation status corresponds to the methylation status of the MGMT promoter. Mean age: 72.2 years old. All patients were diagnosed with primary glioblastoma.
Tumour take proportion of the primary material in the nude mice. 2
| Experiment | Take Proportion | Number of Passages |
|---|---|---|
| DK26 | 7/10 | 3 |
| DK28 | 2/10 | 1 |
| DK29 | 7/10 | 5 |
| DK30 | 2/10 | 2 |
| DK32 | 1/10 | 1 |
| DK33 | 7/10 | 3 |
| DK35 | 1/5 | 2 |
| DK39 | 5/10 | 3 |
| DK41 | 5/10 | 1 |
| DK42 | 3/10 | 1 |
2. Tumour samples were transplanted to the axillae of five NMRI nude mice with 1–2 transplantation sites/mouse depending on the amount of primary material. Mice were monitored weekly and tumours were measured with a calliper. Growing tumours were excised and further transplanted to a mouse cohort to perpetuate the model. The take proportion indicates the number of growing tumours per transplantation site. Multiple tumours growing per transplantation site were not considered for the calculation of the take rate. The take rate at the different passages is shown in supplementary Table S1.
Figure 1Experimental design for the establishment. Patients’ samples were obtained from the neurosurgery department of the Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. Blood and necrotic tissue were removed from the sample, and tumour chunks were prepared for transplantation. One sample was transplanted into each axilla of the mouse. Growing tumours were excised and (1) conserved for further transplantation (cryopreservation and direct transplantation); (2) stored in liquid nitrogen for e.g., DNA isolation; (3) FFPE fixed for e.g., histological analysis.
Figure 2Growth parameters in the first-generation glioblastoma PDXs. (A) The latency time is defined as the time after transplantation until observation of a 40 mm3 tumour. (B) The volume doubling time (VDT) was estimated for each first-generation PDX; the mean value is represented for each model. The latency time and the VDT correlate (r = 0.67, p < 0.0001). Models are sorted by increasing mean latency times. Each symbol represents a PDX in the respective model. DK35: data not available as the tumour did not reach the required size for calculation.
Figure 3Volume doubling time and latency time in the subsequent passages. For each passage, the VDT was compared with the VDT of the first passage and the previous passage. The y-axis scales are different. Comparisons were performed with the Mann–Whitney test n.s. non-significant; * p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001.
Figure 4The growth rate of the PDXs increases over time. (A) Cumulative growth curve in DK29, which was serially transplanted for five passages. (B) Cumulative growth curve in DK33, which was serially transplanted for three passages. The linear and quadratic model fits are represented as dotted lines. Each dot represents a tumour measurement of a growing tumour. Blue: passage one; red: passage two; green: passage three; yellow: passage four; pink: passage five. (C) Results of the ANOVA analysis, which was used to compare the two models (linear and quadratic) with R. AIC: Akaike Information Criterion. The model with the lowest AIC is considered the best-fitting model.
Figure 5Hematoxylin and eosin stainings of the patient sample and the corresponding PDX. Scale bar = 100 µm.
Figure 6Putative cancer stem cell markers in the patient material. (A) The stainings were evaluated by two independent observers. (B) The proportion of positive cells (0–100%) and the intensity of the staining (0–3) were assessed (negative: intensity score 0, white: intensity score 1, grey: intensity score 2, black: intensity score 3). (C) Association between the proportion of positive cells and the take in the first generation were analysed; results (p-value and coefficient of correlation (Spearman)) are presented in the graph.
Figure 7Comparison of the putative cancer stem cell markers in the patients’ samples and in the first-generation PDXs. The stainings were evaluated by two independent observers. The proportion of positive cells (0–100%) and the intensity of the staining (1–3) were assessed (white: intensity score 1, grey: intensity score 2, black: intensity score 3). (A) Immunohistochemistry images (Sox2, nestin, CD95) for two representative patients’ samples (DK39 and DK33) and their respective PDXs. (B) Bar graphs presenting the proportion of positive cells and the intensity of staining in the patients’ samples and the derived PDXs in DK29, DK33, and DK39.
Figure 8Semi-quantitative analysis of the MGMT promoter methylation. (A) Representative agarose gel with methylation-specific PCR (MSP). Blue square: fragment resulting from the amplification of a methylated template (M); red square: fragment resulting from the amplification of an unmethylated template (U). (B) Summary table of the semi-quantitative analysis of the MSP. For each sample, the M/U ratio was calculated. Samples were classified as unmethylated (M = 0), weakly methylated (0