| Literature DB >> 33008481 |
Shuichi Fujiwara1, Teruya Kawamoto2,3, Yohei Kawakami1, Yasufumi Koterazawa4,5,6, Hitomi Hara1, Toshiyuki Takemori1, Kazumichi Kitayama1, Shunsuke Yahiro1, Kenichiro Kakutani1, Tomoyuki Matsumoto1, Takehiko Matsushita1, Takahiro Niikura1, Michiyo Koyanagi-Aoi4,5,7, Takashi Aoi4,5,7, Ryosuke Kuroda1, Toshihiro Akisue1,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are considered to be responsible for tumor initiation, formation, and poor prognosis of cancer patients. However, the rarity of CSCs in clinical samples makes it difficult to elucidate characteristics of CSCs, especially in osteosarcoma (OS). The aim of this study is to verify whether it is possible to generate CSC-like cells by transducing defined factors into an OS cell line.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer stem cells; Chemoresistance; Osteosarcoma; Sarcosphere; Tumorigenicity
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33008481 PMCID: PMC7532109 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-020-01944-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
Fig. 1The transduction of OKS induced CSC properties in MG-63 cells in vitro. a qRT-PCR of previously reported markers related to CSCs of various cancers in the transduced MG-63 cells. The mRNA expression levels were normalized to those of β-actin. The mRNA expression level of MG-parental cells was set to 1. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean: SEM. *P < 0.05. b The morphology of the transduced MG-63 cells was evaluated at 4 days after transduction by phase contrast microscopy. The transduction of OKS led to distinct morphological changes (arrows). Scale bars represent 20 μm. c Immunoblot analyses of EMT markers (E-cadherin and vimentin)
Fig. 2Cell proliferation of the transduced and parental MG-63 cells in vitro. a The cell number of transduced MG-63 cells was counted every 4 days from day 10 to day 22 after transduction. b Cell proliferation was examined by WST-8 assay. The proliferation rate of MG-parental cells was set to 1. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean: SEM. *P < 0.05. c Representative images of wound healing assays at 0 and 24 h. d The effects of transduction on the migration ability of MG-63 cells were determined by a wound healing assay. The migration distance (MD) in each group was calculated according to the following equation: MD = the width of the scratch at 0 h − the width of the scratch at 24 h. The MD value of the MG-parental population was used as a reference. The relative cell migration ability was determined by the following equation: relative cell migration ability = MD (MG-OKS) or MD (MG-GFP)/MD (MG-parental). e Doxorubicin-chemoresistance analysis. The viability of cells in the presence of doxorubicin was measured by WST-8 assay. The viability of the MG-parental cells at each concentration was set to 1. f mRNA level of ABCB1 was assessed by qPCR. The mRNA expression levels were normalized to those of β-actin, and the mRNA expression level of MG-parental cells was set to 1. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean: SEM. *P < 0.05
Fig. 3Osteogenic differentiation of MG-63 cells cultured in osteogenic induction medium. a Representative images of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) staining and Alizarin Red S staining (inset: macroscopic images). b qRT-PCR of markers related to bone formation (osteocalcin and BMP-2, BMP-4, and BMP-6). The mRNA expression levels were normalized to those of β-actin, and the mRNA expression level of MG-parental cells was set to 1. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean: SEM. *P < 0.05
Fig. 4The sphere formation ability in vitro and tumorigenicity in vivo. a Representative images of sphere formation assay after culturing on low attachment dishes with serum-free medium for 10 days. b The number of spheres was counted under microscopy. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean: SEM. Scale bars represent 100 μm. c Representative μCT images of mice 8 weeks after implantation and tumors derived from each cell group (dotted white line in upper panel). Photographs of representative mice and tumors (lower panel). d The tumorigenicity of the cells after implantation in the subcutaneous regions of immunodeficient nude mice. A total of 2 × 106 cells were subcutaneously injected into flank of immunodeficient nude mice on day 13. The volume of the tumors was calculated by the formula 0.5 × (length) × (width)2. The red bars indicate the median tumor volume. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean: SEM. *P < 0.05
Fig. 5The histology of the xenografts derived from the transduced and parental MG-63 cells. a–c Representative images of immunofluorescence analysis (left panel). The tumors derived from MG-OKS were positive for Ki-67, osteocalcin, and HIF-1α (red). Nuclei were stained with blue fluorescent DAPI. Positive areas were assessed by software, 4 fields were randomly selected, and means were calculated (right panel). Scale bars 100 μm. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean: SEM. *P < 0.05
Fig. 6Gene expression microarray analysis of the transduced and parental MG-63 cells. a Scatter plot showing the 10-fold upregulated genes (the pink dots). b Venn diagram showing the number of the 10-fold upregulated genes in the comparison between MG-OKS vs MG-parental (left), MG-OKS vs MG-GFP (right), and the number of genes that are differential expression in both comparisons (center). c GO analysis result of upregulated 219 genes in MG-OKS cells. The enriched GO terms are ranked according to a P value. Categories of each GO term (BP: biological process, CC: cellular component) were shown in parentheses. d Heatmap showing the normalized gene signal intensity related to cell proliferation transformed into Z-score. e Heatmap showing the normalized gene signal intensity related to EMT and migration transformed into Z-score. f Heatmap showing the normalized gene signal intensity related to epithelial differentiation transformed into Z-score
The top 10 differentially expressed genes, which were upregulated in the MG-OKS cells
| Gene name | Fold change | |
|---|---|---|
| MG-parental vs MG-OKS | MG-OKS vs MG-GFP | |
| KRT6A | 15.2 | − 15.3 |
| SPRR2A | 12.4 | − 12.6 |
| IGF2 | 13.5 | − 12.4 |
| KRT6C | 11.5 | − 12.3 |
| NCF2 | 11.4 | − 11.5 |
| CALB1 | 11.0 | − 11.1 |
| LINC02582 | 11.0 | − 11.1 |
| GJB4 | 10.2 | − 10.3 |
| LINC00520 | 10.1 | − 10.2 |
| KRT6B | 10.1 | − 10.2 |
MG-parental vs MG-OKS: Log2 (signal intensity of MG-OKS/signal intensity of MG-parental)
MG-OKS vs MG-GFP: Log2 (signal intensity of MG-GFP/signal intensity of MG-OKS)
Abbreviations: KRT6A keratin 6A, SPRR2A small proline-rich protein 2A, IGF2 insulin-like growth factor 2, KRT6C keratin 6C, NCF2 neutrophil cytosol factor 2, CALB1 Calbindin 1, GJB4 gap junction beta-4 protein, KRT6B keratin 6B