Characterization of twenty-five ovarian tumour cell lines that phenocopy primary tumours

Nature Communications

Volumn 6, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Ince, Tan A ^a   Sousa, Aurea D ^a   Jones, Michelle A ^a   Harrell, J Chuck ^b   Agoston, Elin S ^c   Krohn, Marit ^d   Selfors, Laura M ^e   Liu, Wenbin ^d   Chen, Ken ^d   Yong, Mao ^d   Buchwald, Peter ^a   Wang, Bin ^a   Hale, Katherine S ^d   Cohick, Evan ^c   Sergent, Petra ^f   Witt, Abigail ^a   Kozhekbaeva, Zhanna ^a   Gao, Sizhen ^e   Agoston, Agoston T ^c   Merritt, Melissa A ^c   Foster, Rosemary ^f   Rueda, Bo R ^f   Crum, Christopher P ^c   Brugge, Joan S ^e   Mills, Gordon B ^d   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MESSENGER RNA; MITOCHONDRIAL DNA; CISPLATIN; CULTURE MEDIUM; PACLITAXEL;

GENOME; GERM CELL; MOLECULAR ANALYSIS; PATHOLOGY; PHENOTYPE; TUMOR;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CANCER RECURRENCE; CARCINOGENICITY; CELL DEATH; CELL PROLIFERATION; COPY NUMBER VARIATION; EPITHELIAL MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION; FEMALE; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; GENOMICS; HETEROZYGOSITY LOSS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVARY CELL CULTURE; OVARY TUMOR; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PHENOTYPE; PRIMARY TUMOR; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; SHORT TANDEM REPEAT; TUMOR XENOGRAFT; UPREGULATION; CARCINOMA; CULTURE MEDIUM; DRUG SCREENING; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; PATHOLOGY; TUMOR CELL LINE; XENOGRAFT;

CARCINOMA; CELL LINE, TUMOR; CISPLATIN; CULTURE MEDIA; DRUG SCREENING ASSAYS, ANTITUMOR; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; HETEROGRAFTS; HUMANS; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PACLITAXEL; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 84935894028     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8419     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Gey, G. O., Coffman, W. D. & Kubicek, M. T. Tissue culture studies of the proliferative capacity of cervical carcinoma and normal epithelium. Cancer Res. 12, 264 (1952).
2. Voskoglou-Nomikos, T., Pater, J. L. & Seymour, L. Clinical predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft, and mouse allograft preclinical cancer models. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 4227-4239 (2003).
3. Shoemaker, R. H. The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 813-823 (2006).
4. Neve, R. M. et al. A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 10, 515-527 (2006).
5. Verschraegen, C. F. et al. Establishment and characterization of cancer cell cultures and xenografts derived from primary or metastatic Mullerian cancers. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 845-852 (2003).
6. Kamb, A. What's wrong with our cancer models? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 161-165 (2005).
7. Liedtke, C. et al. Clinical evaluation of chemotherapy response predictors developed from breast cancer cell lines. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 121, 301-309 (2010).
8. Lasfargues, E. Y. & Ozzello, L. Cultivation of human breast carcinomas. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 21, 1131-1147 (1958).
9. Cailleau, R., Olive, M. & Cruciger, Q. V. Long-term human breast carcinoma cell lines of metastatic origin: preliminary characterization. In Vitro 14, 911-915 (1978).
10. Amadori, D. et al. Establishment and characterization of a new cell line from primary human breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 28, 251-260 (1993).
11. McCallum, H. M. & Lowther, G. W. Long-term culture of primary breast cancer in defined medium. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 39, 247-259 (1996).
12. Gazdar, A. F. et al. Characterization of paired tumor and non-tumor cell lines established from patients with breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer 78, 766-774 (1998).
13. Domcke, S., Sinha, R., Levine, D. A., Sander, C. & Schultz, N. Evaluating cell lines as tumour models by comparison of genomic profiles. Nat. Commun. 4, 2126 (2013).
14. Liu, X. et al. ROCK inhibitor and feeder cells induce the conditional reprogramming of epithelial cells. Am. J. Pathol. 180, 599-607 (2012).
15. Sato, T. et al. Long-term expansion of epithelial organoids from human colon, adenoma, adenocarcinoma, and Barrett's epithelium. Gastroenterology 141, 1762-1772 (2011).
16. Ince, T. A. et al. Transformation of different human breast epithelial cell types leads to distinct tumor phenotypes. Cancer Cell 12, 160-170 (2007).
17. Sauder, C. A. et al. Phenotypic plasticity in normal breast derived epithelial cells. BMC Cell Biol. 15, 20 (2014).
18. Merritt, M. A. et al. Gene expression signature of normal cell-of-origin predicts ovarian tumor outcomes. PLoS ONE 8, e80314 (2013).
19. Sebbagh, M. et al. Caspase-3-mediated cleavage of ROCK I induces MLC phosphorylation and apoptotic membrane blebbing. Nat. Cell Biol. 3, 346-352 (2001).
20. Watanabe, K. et al. A ROCK inhibitor permits survival of dissociated human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 681-686 (2007).
21. Bueno, C., Montes, R. & Menendez, P. The ROCK inhibitor Y-27632 negatively affects the expansion/survival of both fresh and cryopreserved cord bloodderived CD34+ hematopoietic progenitor cells: Y-27632 negatively affects the expansion/survival of CD34+HSPCs. Stem Cell Rev. 6, 215-223 (2010).
22. Lamas, N. J., Serra, S. C., Salgado, A. J. & Sousa, N. Failure of Y-27632 to improve the culture of adult human adipose-derived stem cells. Stem Cells Clonings 8, 15-26 (2015).
23. Routhier, A. et al. Pharmacological inhibition of Rho-kinase signaling with Y-27632 blocks melanoma tumor growth. Oncol. Rep. 23, 861-867 (2010).
24. Duailibi, M. T. et al. Cytogenetic instability of dental pulp stem cell lines. J. Mol. Histol. 43, 89-94 (2011).
25. Aubele, M. et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity in breast carcinoma revealed by laser-microdissection and comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 110, 94-102 (1999).
26. Navin, N. et al. Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 472, 90-94 (2011).
27. Navin, N. et al. Inferring tumor progression from genomic heterogeneity. Genome Res. 20, 68-80 (2010).
28. Cancer Genome Atlas Research, Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474, 609-615 (2011).
29. Alston-Roberts, C. et al. Cell line misidentification: the beginning of the end. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 441-448 (2010).
30. Cho, K. R. Ovarian cancer update: lessons from morphology, molecules, and mice. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 133, 1775-1781 (2009).
31. Schwartz, D. R. et al. Gene expression in ovarian cancer reflects both morphology and biological behavior, distinguishing clear cell from other poorprognosis ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res. 62, 4722-4729 (2002).
32. Zorn, K. K. et al. Gene expression profiles of serous, endometrioid, and clear cell subtypes of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 6422-6430 (2005).
33. Hennessy, B. T. et al. A technical assessment of the utility of reverse phase protein arrays for the study of the functional proteome in non-microdissected human breast cancers. Clin. Proteomics 6, 129-151 (2010).
34. McCluggage, W. G. Morphological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma: a review with emphasis on new developments and pathogenesis. Pathology 43, 420-432 (2011).
35. Vaughan, S. et al. Rethinking ovarian cancer: recommendations for improving outcomes. Nat. Rev. Cancer 11, 719-725 (2011).
36. Kobel, M. et al. Ovarian carcinoma histotype determination is highly reproducible, and is improved through the use of immunohistochemistry. Histopathology 64, 1004-1013 (2014).
37. Kalloger, S. E. et al. Calculator for ovarian carcinoma subtype prediction. Mod. Pathol. 24, 512-521 (2011).
38. Anglesio, M. S. et al. Type-specific cell line models for type-specific ovarian cancer research. PLoS ONE 8, e72162 (2013).
39. Wu, J. N. & Roberts, C. W. ARID1A mutations in cancer: another epigenetic tumor suppressor? Cancer Discov. 3, 35-43 (2013).
40. Liliac, L. et al. The value of PAX8 and WT1 molecules in ovarian cancer diagnosis. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 54, 17-27 (2013).
41. Crum, C. P. et al. The distal fallopian tube: a new model for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 19, 3-9 (2007).
42. Nonaka, D., Chiriboga, L. & Soslow, R. A. Expression of pax8 as a useful marker in distinguishing ovarian carcinomas from mammary carcinomas. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 32, 1566-1571 (2008).
43. Woodard, A. H. et al. NY-BR-1 and PAX8 immunoreactivity in breast, gynecologic tract, and other CK7+ carcinomas: potential use for determining site of origin. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 136, 428-435 (2011).
44. Sieh, W. et al. Hormone-receptor expression and ovarian cancer survival: an Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium study. Lancet Oncol. 14, 853-862 (2013).
45. Orr, G. A., Verdier-Pinard, P., McDaid, H. & Horwitz, S. B. Mechanisms of taxol resistance related to microtubules. Oncogene 22, 7280-7295 (2003).
46. L'Esperance, S. et al. Gene expression profiling of paired ovarian tumors obtained prior to and following adjuvant chemotherapy: molecular signatures of chemoresistant tumors. Int. J. Oncol. 29, 5-24 (2006).
47. Koensgen, D. et al. Overexpression of the plasminogen activator inhibitor type- 1 in epithelial ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res. 26, 1683-1689 (2006).
48. Samarakoon, R., Higgins, C. E., Higgins, S. P. & Higgins, P. J. Differential requirement for MEK/ERK and SMAD signaling in PAI-1 and CTGF expression in response to microtubule disruption. Cell. Signal. 21, 986-995 (2009).
49. Priulla, M. et al. Preferential chemosensitization of PTEN-mutated prostate cells by silencing the Akt kinase. Prostate 67, 782-789 (2007).
50. Choijamts, B. et al. CD133+ cancer stem cell-like cells derived from uterine carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Mullerian tumor). Stem Cells 29, 1485-1495 (2011).
51. Shen, D. W., Pouliot, L. M., Hall, M. D. & Gottesman, M. M. Cisplatin resistance: a cellular self-defense mechanism resulting from multiple epigenetic and genetic changes. Pharmacol. Rev. 64, 706-721 (2012).
52. Reginato, M. J. et al. Integrins and EGFR coordinately regulate the proapoptotic protein Bim to prevent anoikis. Nat. Cell Biol. 5, 733-740 (2003).
53. Ley, R., Balmanno, K., Hadfield, K., Weston, C. & Cook, S. J. Activation of the ERK1/2 signaling pathway promotes phosphorylation and proteasomedependent degradation of the BH3-only protein, Bim. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 18811-18816 (2003).
54. Luciano, F. et al. Phosphorylation of Bim-EL by Erk1/2 on serine 69 promotes its degradation via the proteasome pathway and regulates its proapoptotic function. Oncogene 22, 6785-6793 (2003).
55. Marani, M. et al. Role of Bim in the survival pathway induced by Raf in epithelial cells. Oncogene 23, 2431-2441 (2004).
56. Tothill, R. W. et al. Novel molecular subtypes of serous and endometrioid ovarian cancer linked to clinical outcome. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5198-5208 (2008).
57. Verhaak, R. G. et al. Prognostically relevant gene signatures of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. J. Clin. Invest. 123, 517-525 (2013).
58. Riester, M. et al. Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106, dju048 (2014).
59. Waldron, L. et al. Comparative meta-analysis of prognostic gene signatures for late-stage ovarian cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106, dju049 (2014).
60. Harrell, J. C. et al. Endothelial-like properties of claudin-low breast cancer cells promote tumor vascular permeability and metastasis. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 31, 33-45 (2014).
61. Taube, J. H. et al. Core epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition interactome geneexpression signature is associated with claudin-low and metaplastic breast cancer subtypes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 15449-15454 (2010).
62. Davidowitz, R. A. et al. Mesenchymal gene program-expressing ovarian cancer spheroids exhibit enhanced mesothelial clearance. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 2611-2625 (2014).
63. Wu, R. et al. Mouse model of human ovarian endometrioid adenocarcinoma based on somatic defects in the Wnt/beta-catenin and PI3K/Pten signaling pathways. Cancer Cell 11, 321-333 (2007).
64. Yost, A. J. et al. Defined, serum-free conditions for in vitro culture of primary human T-ALL blasts. Leukemia 27, 1437-1440 (2013).
65. Tibes, R. et al. Reverse phase protein array: validation of a novel proteomic technology and utility for analysis of primary leukemia specimens and hematopoietic stem cells. Mol. Cancer Ther. 5, 2512-2521 (2006).
66. Hu, J. et al. Non-parametric quantification of protein lysate arrays. Bioinformatics 23, 1986-1994 (2007).
67. Bolstad, B. M., Irizarry, R. A., Astrand, M. & Speed, T. P. A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics 19, 185-193 (2003).
68. Irizarry, R. A. et al. Summaries of Affymetrix GeneChip probe level data. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, e15 (2003).
69. Heinrichs, S., Li, C. & Look, A. T. SNP array analysis in hematologic malignancies: avoiding false discoveries. Blood 115, 4157-4161 (2010).
70. Hardenbol, P. et al. Multiplexed genotyping with sequence-tagged molecular inversion probes. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 673-678 (2003).