Štepán Novák1,2, Michal Kolář3, Arpád Szabó4, Zdena Vernerová4, Lukáš Lacina1,5,6, Hynek Strnad3, Jana Šáchová3, Miluše Hradilová3, Jan Havránek3,7, Michal Španko1,8, Matúš Čoma9,10, Lukáš Urban10,11, Miriam Kaňuchová11, Nikola Melegová11, Robert Gürlich12, Josef Dvořák13, Karel Smetana1,5, Peter Gál14,11,15, Pavol Szabo16,5,10. 1. Institute of Anatomy, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic. 3. Laboratory of Genomics and Bioinformatics, Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Pathology, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Královske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. 5. BIOCEV, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Vestec, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. 7. Department of Informatics and Chemistry, Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic. 8. Department of Stomatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. 9. Department of Pharmacology, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic. 10. Department of Biomedical Research, East-Slovak Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Košice, Slovak Republic. 11. Laboratory of Cell Interactions, Center of Clinical and Preclinical Research MediPark, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice, Slovak Republic. 12. Department of Surgery, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Královske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. 13. Department of Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Thomayer Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic. 14. Department of Biomedical Research, East-Slovak Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Košice, Slovak Republic; pavol.szabo@lf1.cuni.cz pgal@vusch.sk galovci@yahoo.com. 15. Prague Burn Centre, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Královske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. 16. Institute of Anatomy, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; pavol.szabo@lf1.cuni.cz pgal@vusch.sk galovci@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) still represents one of the most aggressive cancers. Understanding of the epithelial-mesenchymal crosstalk as a crucial part of the tumor microenvironment should pave the way for therapies to improve patient survival rates. Well-established cell lines present a useful and reproducible model to study PDAC biology. However, the tumor-stromal interactions between cancer cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are still poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied interactions between four PDAC cell lines (Panc-1, CAPAN-2, MIAPaCa-2, and PaTu-8902) and conditioned media derived from primary cultures of normal fibroblasts/PDAC-derived CAFs (PANFs). RESULTS: When the tested PDAC cell lines were stimulated by PANF-derived conditioned media, the most aggressive behavior was acquired by the Panc-1 cell line (increased number and size of colonies, remaining expression of vimentin and keratin 8 as well as increase of epithelial-to-mesenchymal polarization markers), whereas PaTu-8902 cells were rather inhibited. Of note, administration of the conditioned media to MIAPaCa-2 cells resulted in an inverse effect on the size and number of colonies, whereas CAPAN-2 cells were rather stimulated. To explain the heterogeneous pattern of the observed PDAC crosstalk at the in vitro level, we further compared the phenotype of primary cultures of cells derived from ascitic fluid with that of the tested PDAC cell lines, analyzed tumor samples of PDAC patients, and performed gene expression profiling of PANFs. Immuno-cyto/histo-chemical analysis found specific phenotype differences within the group of examined patients and tested PDAC cell lines, whereas the genomic approach in PANFs found the key molecules (IL6, IL8, MFGE8 and periostin) that may contribute to the cancer aggressive behavior. CONCLUSION: The desmoplastic patient-specific regulation of cancer cells by CAFs (also demonstrated by the heterogeneous response of PDAC cell lines to fibroblasts) precludes simple targeting and development of an effective treatment strategy and rather requires establishment of an individualized tumor-specific treatment protocol. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) still represents one of the most aggressive cancers. Understanding of the epithelial-mesenchymal crosstalk as a crucial part of the tumor microenvironment should pave the way for therapies to improve patient survival rates. Well-established cell lines present a useful and reproducible model to study PDAC biology. However, the tumor-stromal interactions between cancer cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are still poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied interactions between four PDAC cell lines (Panc-1, CAPAN-2, MIAPaCa-2, and PaTu-8902) and conditioned media derived from primary cultures of normal fibroblasts/PDAC-derived CAFs (PANFs). RESULTS: When the tested PDAC cell lines were stimulated by PANF-derived conditioned media, the most aggressive behavior was acquired by the Panc-1 cell line (increased number and size of colonies, remaining expression of vimentin and keratin 8 as well as increase of epithelial-to-mesenchymal polarization markers), whereas PaTu-8902 cells were rather inhibited. Of note, administration of the conditioned media to MIAPaCa-2 cells resulted in an inverse effect on the size and number of colonies, whereas CAPAN-2 cells were rather stimulated. To explain the heterogeneous pattern of the observed PDAC crosstalk at the in vitro level, we further compared the phenotype of primary cultures of cells derived from ascitic fluid with that of the tested PDAC cell lines, analyzed tumor samples of PDAC patients, and performed gene expression profiling of PANFs. Immuno-cyto/histo-chemical analysis found specific phenotype differences within the group of examined patients and tested PDAC cell lines, whereas the genomic approach in PANFs found the key molecules (IL6, IL8, MFGE8 and periostin) that may contribute to the cancer aggressive behavior. CONCLUSION: The desmoplastic patient-specific regulation of cancer cells by CAFs (also demonstrated by the heterogeneous response of PDAC cell lines to fibroblasts) precludes simple targeting and development of an effective treatment strategy and rather requires establishment of an individualized tumor-specific treatment protocol. Copyright
Authors: Andrew D Rhim; Paul E Oberstein; Dafydd H Thomas; Emily T Mirek; Carmine F Palermo; Stephen A Sastra; Erin N Dekleva; Tyler Saunders; Claudia P Becerra; Ian W Tattersall; C Benedikt Westphalen; Jan Kitajewski; Maite G Fernandez-Barrena; Martin E Fernandez-Zapico; Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue; Kenneth P Olive; Ben Z Stanger Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Matthew E Ritchie; Belinda Phipson; Di Wu; Yifang Hu; Charity W Law; Wei Shi; Gordon K Smyth Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Jan Plzák; Jan Bouček; Veronika Bandúrová; Michal Kolář; Miluše Hradilová; Pavol Szabo; Lukáš Lacina; Martin Chovanec; Karel Smetana Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Hai-Bo Xing; Meng-Ting Tong; Jing Wang; Hong Hu; Chong-Ya Zhai; Chang-Xin Huang; Da Li Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Etienne D Foucher; Clément Ghigo; Salem Chouaib; Jérôme Galon; Juan Iovanna; Daniel Olive Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Martin Vokurka; Lukáš Lacina; Jan Brábek; Michal Kolář; Yi Zhen Ng; Karel Smetana Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 5.923