| Literature DB >> 32523078 |
Amira Abugomaa1,2, Mohamed Elbadawy1,3, Megumi Yamanaka1, Yuta Goto1, Kimika Hayashi1, Takashi Mori4,5, Tsuyoshi Uchide6, Daigo Azakami7, Ryuji Fukushima8, Toshinori Yoshida9, Makoto Shibutani9, Risako Yamashita9, Mio Kobayashi9, Hideyuki Yamawaki10, Yuta Shinohara1,11, Masahiro Kaneda12, Tatsuya Usui13, Kazuaki Sasaki1.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) organoid culture holds great promises in cancer precision medicine. However, Matrigel and stem cell-stimulating supplements are necessary for culturing 3D organoid cells. It costs a lot of money and consumes more time and effort compared with 2D cultured cells. Therefore, the establishment of cheaper and Matrigel-free organoid culture that can maintain the characteristics of a part of 3D organoids is demanded. In the previous study, we established a dog bladder cancer (BC) 3D organoid culture system by using their urine samples. Here, we successfully isolated cells named "2.5D organoid" from multiple strains of dog BC 3D organoids using 2.5 organoid media. The cell proliferation speed of 2.5D organoids was faster than parental 3D organoid cells. The expression pattern of stem cell markers was close to 3D organoids. Injection of 2.5D organoid cells into immunodeficient mice formed tumors and showed the histopathological characteristics of urothelial carcinoma similar to the injection of dog BC 3D organoids. The 2.5D organoids had a similar sensitivity profile for anti-cancer drug treatment to their parental 3D organoids. These data suggest that our established 2.5D organoid culture method might become a reasonable and useful tool instead of 3D organoids in dog BC research and therapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32523078 PMCID: PMC7287130 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66229-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
The difference of media components between 2.5D and 3D organoid culture.
| Supplement | 2.5D organoid | 3D organoid |
|---|---|---|
| Wnt, Noggin and R-Spondin | − | + |
| FBS | + | − |
| EGF | + | + |
| GlutaMax | + | + |
| N-Acetyl-l-cysteine | + | + |
| Nicotinamide | + | + |
| A83-01 | + | + |
| HEPES | + | + |
| Antibiotics | + | + |
Sample information.
| Case ID | Age | Breed | Sex | Sample Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC18004 (used as BC1) | 12 | Miniature Dachshund | Female (spayed) | 2018/5/2 |
| BC18005 (used as BC2) | 11 | Mix | Female (spayed) | 2018/5/11 |
| BC19004 (used as BC3) | 11 | Maltese | Female (not spayed) | 2019/8/2 |
Primers for real-time quantitative PCR analysis.
| Gene name | Primer | Sequence |
|---|---|---|
| SOX2 | Forward | 5′-GCCCTGCAGTACAACTCCAT-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-GGAGTGGGAGGAGGAGGTAA-3′ | |
| CD44 | Forward | 5′-CCAAGACAGTTCCAGGGTGT-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-TTGAGGTTTCCGCATAGGAC-3′ | |
| GAPDH | Forward | 5′-AACTCCCTCAAGATTGTCAGCAA-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-CATGGATGACTTTGGCTAGAGGA-3′ |
Figure 1Generation of dog bladder cancer (BC) 2.5D organoids. Schematic experimental design of a procedure for isolation of 2.5D organoid cells from 3D organoids and the analysis overview (A). Representative bright-field images of the process of generation of 2.5D organoids from 3D ones and serially passaged cells (B). Scale bar: 500 μm. Representative images and enlarged ones (Scale bar: 200 μm) for three different strains of 2.5D organoid cells and their parental 3D organoids (C). Comparison of cell attachment and proliferation between the 2.5D organoid media and 2D cell line media (D). Representative images at passage 0 and 1 and enlarged ones at passage 1 were shown. Scale bar: 500 μm.
Figure 2Characterization of BC 2.5D organoids. Expression of urothelial cell markers, CK7, CK20, and UPK3A in 2.5D organoid cells at early (4–8) and late passages (15–20) (A, n = 4). Scale bar: 50 μm. Comparison of cell proliferation at day 1, 3, and 5 between 2.5D organoid at the early and late passage and their original 3D organoid. Cell proliferation was assayed by Prestoblue cell viability reagent and shown as fold increase relative to day 1 (B, n = 6). Results were expressed as mean ± S.E.M. *P < 0.05 vs. 3D organoid. Expression of a basal cell marker, CK5 in the 2.5D organoid cells and parental 3D organoids (C, n = 4). Scale bar: 50 μm. Plasticity of BC 2.5D organoids. Representative bright-field images of the reverted 3D organoids from 2.5D ones (D). Scale bar: 200 μm.
Figure 3Comparison of cancer stem cell markers, SOX2 and CD44 between BC 2.5D organoid at the early and late passage and their original BC 3D organoids. Dog urothelial carcinoma cells were used as 2D cell lines. Expression level of SOX2 and CD44 in 3D and 2.5D organoids from different strains (BC1; A and BC2; B) and 2D cell lines was analyzed by quantitative real-time PCR (n = 4) and quantified based on the ratio of expression level to GAPDH. Data were expressed as mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05 vs. 3D organoid.
Figure 4Tumorigenesis induced by BC 2.5D organoids. The trypsinized 2.5D cells (1×106) were subcutaneously injected into the back of NSG mice (n = 4). Six weeks later, the formed tumors were isolated and sectioned for H&E and immunofluorescence staining. Representative image of the formed tumors and their sizes (A). Representative images of H&E staining of the tumor tissue sections. The enlarged image is shown on the right. Scale bar: 500 and 100 μm (B). Characterization of the cellular components of the formed tumors. Expression of CK7, CK20, and UPK3A in the tumor tissues (C). Representative photomicrographs were shown. Scale bar: 50 μm.
Figure 5Comparison of the anti-cancer drug sensitivity between BC 2.5D organoids at the early and late passage and their original 3D organoids. After the 2.5D organoids were trypsinized and seeded into 96 well plates, they were treated with vinblastine, mitoxantrone, and carboplatin for 72 h. Representative phase-contrast images of the treated 2.5D organoid cells at early passage were shown (A). Scale bar: 500 μm. Cell viability was assayed by the Prestoblue cell viability kit and 100% represents the cell viability of each control (B, n = 6). Data were presented as mean ± S.E.M.