4.6 Article

Characterization and comparison of human glioblastoma models

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09910-9

Keywords

Glioblastoma; U87-luc2; U251-RedFLuc; Invasiveness; ABC transporters

Categories

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01NS10754]
  2. University of Kentucky
  3. University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy
  4. PhRMA Foundation Pre-Doctoral Fellowship
  5. University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center
  6. Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati UK Alumni Club Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study characterized two human GBM models (U87-luc2, U251-RedFLuc) and found that they recapitulate different aspects of GBM disease, with U251-RedFLuc cells showing higher invasiveness. The findings highlight the importance of considering GBM heterogeneity in preclinical research.
Glioblastoma (GBM) is one of the deadliest cancers. Treatment options are limited, and median patient survival is only several months. Translation of new therapies is hindered by a lack of GBM models that fully recapitulate disease heterogeneity. Here, we characterize two human GBM models (U87-luc2, U251-RedFLuc). In vitro, both cell lines express similar levels of luciferase and show comparable sensitivity to temozolomide and lapatinib exposure. In vivo, however, the two GBM models recapitulate different aspects of the disease. U87-luc2 cells quickly grow into large, well-demarcated tumors; U251-RedFLuc cells form small, highly invasive tumors. Using a new method to assess GBM invasiveness based on detecting tumor-specific anti-luciferase staining in brain slices, we found that U251-RedFLuc cells are more invasive than U87-luc2 cells. Lastly, we determined expression levels of ABC transporters in both models. Our findings indicate that U87-luc2 and U251-RedFLuc GBM models recapitulate different aspects of GBM heterogeneity that need to be considered in preclinical research.

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