Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution

Nature Genetics

Volumn 49, Issue 11, 2017, Pages 1567-1575

  Ben David, Uri ^a   Ha, Gavin ^a,b   Tseng, Yuen Yi ^a   Greenwald, Noah F ^a,b,c   Oh, Coyin ^a   Shih, Juliann ^a,b   McFarland, James M ^a   Wong, Bang ^a   Boehm, Jesse S ^a   Beroukhim, Rameen ^a,b,c,d   Golub, Todd R ^a,b,d,e  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUPARLISIB; DACARBAZINE; GEMCITABINE; PACLITAXEL; SONIDEGIB; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; DNA;

ANEUPLOIDY; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIOACCUMULATION; CLONE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENETIC HETEROGENEITY; GENOMIC INSTABILITY; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PANCREAS CANCER; PRIMARY TUMOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN CANCER; TUMOR XENOGRAFT; ANIMAL; CELL CLONE; CLASSIFICATION; CLONAL EVOLUTION; COPY NUMBER VARIATION; DISEASE MODEL; DRUG EFFECTS; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; METABOLISM; NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TUMOR CELL CULTURE; XENOGRAFT;

ANEUPLOIDY; ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CLONAL EVOLUTION; CLONE CELLS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DNA COPY NUMBER VARIATIONS; DNA, NEOPLASM; HETEROGRAFTS; HUMANS; MICE; NEOPLASMS; SELECTION, GENETIC; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TUMOR CELLS, CULTURED;

EID: 85032458608     PISSN: 10614036     EISSN: 15461718     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ng.3967     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Tentler, J.J. et al. Patient-derived tumour xenografts as models for oncology drug development. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9, 338-350 (2012).
2. Siolas, D. & Hannon, G.J. Patient-derived tumor xenografts: transforming clinical samples into mouse models. Cancer Res. 73, 5315-5319 (2013).
3. Gao, H. et al. High-throughput screening using patient-derived tumor xenografts to predict clinical trial drug response. Nat. Med. 21, 1318-1325 (2015).
4. Hidalgo, M. et al. Patient-derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Discov. 4, 998-1013 (2014).
5. Zhang, X. et al. A renewable tissue resource of phenotypically stable, biologically and ethnically diverse, patient-derived human breast cancer xenograft models. Cancer Res. 73, 4885-4897 (2013).
6. Hodgson, J.G. et al. Comparative analyses of gene copy number and mRNA expression in glioblastoma multiforme tumors and xenografts. Neuro-oncol. 11, 477-487 (2009).
7. Eirew, P. et al. Dynamics of genomic clones in breast cancer patient xenografts at single-cell resolution. Nature 518, 422-426 (2015).
8. Bruna, A. et al. A biobank of breast cancer explants with preserved intra-tumor heterogeneity to screen anticancer compounds. Cell 167, 260-274.e22 (2016).
9. Kresse, S.H., Meza-Zepeda, L.A., Machado, I., Llombart-Bosch, A. & Myklebost, O. Preclinical xenograft models of human sarcoma show nonrandom loss of aberrations. Cancer 118, 558-570 (2012).
10. DeRose, Y.S. et al. Tumor grafts derived from women with breast cancer authentically refect tumor pathology, growth, metastasis and disease outcomes. Nat. Med. 17, 1514-1520 (2011).
11. Lin, D. et al. High fdelity patient-derived xenografts for accelerating prostate cancer discovery and drug development. Cancer Res. 74, 1272-1283 (2014).
12. Huynh, H. et al. Bevacizumab and rapamycin induce growth suppression in mouse models of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 49, 52-60 (2008).
13. Zhang, X. et al. SRRM4 expression and the loss of REST activity may promote the emergence of the neuroendocrine phenotype in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 4698-4708 (2015).
14. Oakes, S.R. et al. Sensitization of BCL-2-expressing breast tumors to chemotherapy by the BH3 mimetic ABT-737. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2766-2771 (2012).
15. Jäger, W. et al. Patient-derived bladder cancer xenografts in the preclinical development of novel targeted therapies. Oncotarget 6, 21522-21532 (2015).
16. Monsma, D.J. et al. Using a rhabdomyosarcoma patient-derived xenograft to examine precision medicine approaches and model acquired resistance. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 61, 1570-1577 (2014).
17. Wong, N.C. et al. Stability of gene expression and epigenetic profles highlights the utility of patient-derived paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia xenografts for investigating molecular mechanisms of drug resistance. BMC Genomics 15, 416 (2014).
18. Gu, Q. et al. Genomic characterization of a large panel of patient-derived hepatocellular carcinoma xenograft tumor models for preclinical development. Oncotarget 6, 20160-20176 (2015).
19. Smith, K.B. et al. Novel dedifferentiated liposarcoma xenograft models reveal PTEN down-regulation as a malignant signature and response to PI3K pathway inhibition. Am. J. Pathol. 182, 1400-1411 (2013).
20. Ma, C.X. et al. Targeting Chk1 in p53-defcient triple-negative breast cancer is therapeutically benefcial in human-in-mouse tumor models. J. Clin. Invest. 122, 1541-1552 (2012).
21. Morisot, S. et al. High frequencies of leukemia stem cells in poor-outcome childhood precursor-B acute lymphoblastic leukemias. Leukemia 24, 1859-1866 (2010).
22. Peng, S. et al. Tumor grafts derived from patients with head and neck squamous carcinoma authentically maintain the molecular and histologic characteristics of human cancers. J. Transl. Med. 11, 198 (2013).
23. Chou, J. et al. Phenotypic and transcriptional fdelity of patient-derived colon cancer xenografts in immune-defcient mice. PLoS One 8, e79874 (2013).
24. Ben-David, U., Mayshar, Y. & Benvenisty, N. Virtual karyotyping of pluripotent stem cells on the basis of their global gene expression profles. Nat. Protoc. 8, 989-997 (2013).
25. Ben-David, U. et al. The landscape of chromosomal aberrations in breast cancer mouse models reveals driver-specific routes to tumorigenesis. Nat. Commun. 7, 12160 (2016).
26. Fehrmann, R.S. et al. Gene expression analysis identifes global gene dosage sensitivity in cancer. Nat. Genet. 47, 115-125 (2015).
27. Zack, T.I. et al. Pan-cancer patterns of somatic copy number alteration. Nat. Genet. 45, 1134-1140 (2013).
28. Carter, S.L., Eklund, A.C., Kohane, I.S., Harris, L.N. & Szallasi, Z. A signature of chromosomal instability inferred from gene expression profles predicts clinical outcome in multiple human cancers. Nat. Genet. 38, 1043-1048 (2006).
29. Clappier, E. et al. Clonal selection in xenografted human T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia recapitulates gain of malignancy at relapse. J. Exp. Med. 208, 653-661 (2011).
30. Andor, N. et al. Pan-cancer analysis of the extent and consequences of intratumor heterogeneity. Nat. Med. 22, 105-113 (2016).
31. Bakker, B. et al. Single-cell sequencing reveals karyotype heterogeneity in murine and human malignancies. Genome Biol. 17, 115 (2016).
32. Mroz, E.A., Tward, A.D., Hammon, R.J., Ren, Y. & Rocco, J.W. Intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity and mortality in head and neck cancer: analysis of data from the Cancer Genome Atlas. PLoS Med. 12, e1001786 (2015).
33. Gibson, W.J. et al. The genomic landscape and evolution of endometrial carcinoma progression and abdominopelvic metastasis. Nat. Genet. 48, 848-855 (2016).
34. Kim, T.M. et al. Subclonal genomic architectures of primary and metastatic colorectal cancer based on intratumoral genetic heterogeneity. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 4461-4472 (2015).
35. Bai, H. et al. Integrated genomic characterization of IDH1-mutant glioma malignant progression. Nat. Genet. 48, 59-66 (2016).
36. Hedberg, M.L. et al. Genetic landscape of metastatic and recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Invest. 126, 1606 (2016).
37. Um, S.W. et al. Molecular evolution patterns in metastatic lymph nodes refect the differential treatment response of advanced primary lung cancer. Cancer Res. 76, 6568-6576 (2016).
38. Sveen, A. et al. Intra-patient inter-metastatic genetic heterogeneity in colorectal cancer as a key determinant of survival after curative liver resection. PLoS Genet. 12, e1006225 (2016).
39. Lee, S.Y. et al. Comparative genomic analysis of primary and synchronous metastatic colorectal cancers. PLoS One 9, e90459 (2014).
40. Lim, B. et al. Genome-wide mutation profles of colorectal tumors and associated liver metastases at the exome and transcriptome levels. Oncotarget 6, 22179-22190 (2015).
41. Daniel, V.C. et al. A primary xenograft model of small-cell lung cancer reveals irreversible changes in gene expression imposed by culture in vitro. Cancer Res. 69, 3364-3373 (2009).
42. Günther, H.S. et al. Glioblastoma-derived stem cell-enriched cultures form distinct subgroups according to molecular and phenotypic criteria. Oncogene 27, 2897-2909 (2008).
43. Schulte, A. et al. A distinct subset of glioma cell lines with stem cell-like properties refects the transcriptional phenotype of glioblastomas and overexpresses CXCR4 as therapeutic target. Glia 59, 590-602 (2011).
44. Cifola, I. et al. Renal cell carcinoma primary cultures maintain genomic and phenotypic profle of parental tumor tissues. BMC Cancer 11, 244 (2011).
45. Hollingshead, M.G. et al. Gene expression profling of 49 human tumor xenografts from in vitro culture through multiple in vivo passages-strategies for data mining in support of therapeutic studies. BMC Genomics 15, 393 (2014).
46. Gillet, J.P., Varma, S. & Gottesman, M.M. The clinical relevance of cancer cell lines. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 105, 452-458 (2013).
47. Birkbak, N.J. et al. Paradoxical relationship between chromosomal instability and survival outcome in cancer. Cancer Res. 71, 3447-3452 (2011).
48. Zhang, W. et al. Centromere and kinetochore gene misexpression predicts cancer patient survival and response to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Nat. Commun. 7, 12619 (2016).
49. Silk, A.D. et al. Chromosome missegregation rate predicts whether aneuploidy will promote or suppress tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, E4134-E4141 (2013).
50. Zasadil, L.M. et al. Cytotoxicity of paclitaxel in breast cancer is due to chromosome missegregation on multipolar spindles. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 229ra43 (2014).
51. Janssen, A., Kops, G.J. & Medema, R.H. Elevating the frequency of chromosome mis-segregation as a strategy to kill tumor cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19108-19113 (2009).
52. Burrell, R.A. et al. Targeting chromosomal instability and tumour heterogeneity in HER2-positive breast cancer. J. Cell. Biochem. 111, 782-790 (2010).
53. Tempest, H.G. et al. Sperm aneuploidy frequencies analysed before and after chemotherapy in testicular cancer and Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. Hum. Reprod. 23, 251-258 (2008).
54. Khan, F., Sherwani, A.F. & Afzal, M. Analysis of genotoxic damage induced by dacarbazine: an in vitro study. Toxin Rev. 29, 130-136 (2010).
55. Ben-David, U. et al. Aneuploidy induces profound changes in gene expression, proliferation and tumorigenicity of human pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Commun. 5, 4825 (2014).
56. Cai, Y. et al. Loss of chromosome 8p governs tumor progression and drug response by altering lipid metabolism. Cancer Cell 29, 751-766 (2016).
57. Chen, G. et al. Targeting the adaptability of heterogeneous aneuploids. Cell 160, 771-784 (2015).
58. Barretina, J. et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483, 603-607 (2012).
59. Rees, M.G. et al. Correlating chemical sensitivity and basal gene expression reveals mechanism of action. Nat. Chem. Biol. 12, 109-116 (2016).
60. Tsherniak, A. et al. Defning a cancer dependency map. Cell 170, 564-576.e16 (2017).
61. Brastianos, P.K. et al. Genomic characterization of brain metastases reveals branched evolution and potential therapeutic targets. Cancer Discov. 5, 1164-1177 (2015).
62. Liu, W. et al. Copy number analysis indicates monoclonal origin of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nat. Med. 15, 559-565 (2009).
63. Carter, S.L. et al. Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 413-421 (2012).
64. Liberzon, A. et al. The Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB) hallmark gene set collection. Cell Syst. 1, 417-425 (2015).
65. Ben-Porath, I. et al. An embryonic stem cell-like gene expression signature in poorly differentiated aggressive human tumors. Nat. Genet. 40, 499-507 (2008).
66. Roschke, A.V. et al. Karyotypic complexity of the NCI-60 drug-screening panel. Cancer Res. 63, 8634-8647 (2003).
67. Ritchie, M.E. et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e47 (2015).
68. Larson, J.L. & Owen, A.B. Moment based gene set tests. BMC Bioinformatics 16, 132 (2015).
69. Bi, W.L. et al. Genomic landscape of high-grade meningiomas. NPJ Genom. Med. 2, 15 (2017).