4.6 Article

Molecular and Phenotypic Characterisation of Paediatric Glioma Cell Lines as Models for Preclinical Drug Development

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005209

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Cancer Research UK [C309/A8274, A8318, C309/A2187, C1178/A10294] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Although paediatric high grade gliomas resemble their adult counterparts in many ways, there appear to be distinct clinical and biological differences. One important factor hampering the development of new targeted therapies is the relative lack of cell lines derived from childhood glioma patients, as it is unclear whether the well-established adult lines commonly used are representative of the underlying molecular genetics of childhood tumours. We have carried out a detailed molecular and phenotypic characterisation of a series of paediatric high grade glioma cell lines in comparison to routinely used adult lines. Principal Findings: All lines proliferate as adherent monolayers and express glial markers. Copy number profiling revealed complex genomes including amplification and deletions of genes known to be pivotal in core glioblastoma signalling pathways. Expression profiling identified 93 differentially expressed genes which were able to distinguish between the adult and paediatric high grade cell lines, including a number of kinases and co-ordinated sets of genes associated with DNA integrity and the immune response. Significance: These data demonstrate that glioma cell lines derived from paediatric patients show key molecular differences to those from adults, some of which are well known, whilst others may provide novel targets for evaluation in primary tumours. We thus provide the rationale and demonstrate the practicability of using paediatric glioma cell lines for preclinical and mechanistic studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available