| Literature DB >> 32665796 |
Maho Morimatsu1, Erika Yamashita1,2,3, Shigeto Seno4, Takao Sudo1,2,3, Junichi Kikuta1,2,3, Hiroki Mizuno1,2, Daisuke Okuzaki2,5, Daisuke Motooka5, Masaru Ishii1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dormant chemotherapy-resistant leukemia cells can survive for an extended period before relapse. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying the development of chemoresistance in vivo remain unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Bone marrow; Cancer therapy; Cell migration; Cell motility; Chemoresistance; In vivo imaging; Leukemia; Microscopic imaging; Serum response factor (SRF)
Year: 2020 PMID: 32665796 PMCID: PMC7336645 DOI: 10.1186/s41232-020-00127-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Inflamm Regen ISSN: 1880-8190
Fig. 1Dynamics of AML cells in bones during chemotherapy. a Representative intravital two-photon maximum-intensity projection (MIP) skull images at 21 and 28 days after AML cell transplantation. Images from untreated AML-transplanted mice at day 21, treated AML-transplanted mice at day 21 and treated AML-transplanted mice at day 28 are shown. Green, GFP-expressing AML cells; red, blood vessels (Alexa Fluor 594); blue, bone tissues (second harmonic generation; SHG). Scale bar, 50 μm. See also Video 2. b Representative images showing AML cell area. Scale bar, 50 μm. c Scatter plots showing displacement area ratio. Data are presented as mean ± SD; n = 3 mice per group; ****P < 0.0001 (one-way ANOVA). d Representative images of migrating AML cell trajectories. Scale bar, 50 μm. e Scatter plots showing the mean track speed of all cells analyzed in (d). Data from three mice per group from independent experiments are shown. Untreated (21 days), n = 461; treated (21 days), n = 108; treated (28 days), n = 243. Data are presented as mean ± SD. ****P < 0.0001; NS, not significant (one-way ANOVA)
Fig. 2Localization of chemoresistant AML cells in the bone. a Representative intravital two-photon 3D skull images of AML control mice and AML mice treated with chemotherapy. Green spots, AML cells; red, surface of blood vessels; blue, surface of bone tissues. See also Video 2. b, d Distribution of distance between AML cells and the bone surface (b) or blood vessels (d). Pooled data from three mice per group are shown. Control, n = 400; treated, n = 235. c, e Mean distance between AML cells and the bone surface (c) or blood vessels (e). NS, not significant (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test)
Fig. 3The effect of CCG treatment during chemotherapy on AML cells. a Predicted activity of the top five upstream regulators based on the gene expression profiles of AML cells isolated from cytarabine-treated and untreated mice (21 days after AML cell transplantation). b Network analysis of the upstream regulators of MRTFA and its target genes. MRTFA activation led to SRF and MRTFB upregulation. c Kaplan–Meier plot showing survival of AML-injected mice treated with 200 μg CCG in 50 μL DMSO in addition to 20 μg cytarabine in 200 μL PBS. −CCG, n = 5; +CCG, n = 9; data from two experiments; **P < 0.0332 (log-rank test). d Representative intravital two-photon MIP skull images of AML control mice and AML CCG-treated mice. Green, EGFP-expressing AML cells; red, blood vessels (Alexa Fluor 594); blue, bone tissues (SHG). Scale bar, 50 μm. See also Video 3. e Representative images showing displacement area (left) and trajectories (right) of AML cells analyzed in (d). Scale bar, 50 μm. f, g Scatter plots showing displacement area ratio (f) and mean track speed (g) of all analyzed cells. The data were pooled from three or four mice per condition from independent experiments. −CCG, n = 80 (f), n = 119 (g); +CCG, n = 80 (f), n = 54 (g). Data are presented as mean ± SD. ****P < 0.0001 (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test)