4.6 Article

Establishment and Characterization of Primary Glioblastoma Cell Lines from Fresh and Frozen Material: A Detailed Comparison

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071070

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wilhelm Vaillant Stiftung
  2. Verein zur Forderung krebskranker Kinder Rostock, e.V.
  3. founding program of the university medicine Rostock (FORUN)
  4. state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Development of clinically relevant tumor model systems for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is important for advancement of basic and translational biology. High molecular heterogeneity of GBM tumors is well recognized, forming the rationale for molecular tests required before administration of several of the novel therapeutics rapidly entering the clinics. One model that has gained wide acceptance is the primary cell culture model. The laborious and time consuming process is rewarded with a relative high success rate (about 60%). We here describe and evaluate a very simple cryopreservation procedure for GBM tissue prior to model establishment that will considerably reduce the logistic complexity. Methods: Twenty-seven GBM samples collected ad hoc were prepared for primary cell culture freshly from surgery (#1) and after cryopreservation (#2). Results: Take rates after cryopreservation (59%) were as satisfactory as from fresh tissue (63%; p = 1.000). We did not observe any relevant molecular or phenotypic differences between cell lines established from fresh or vitally frozen tissue. Further, sensitivity both towards standard chemotherapeutic agents (Temozolomide, BCNU and Vincristine) and novel agents like the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor Imatinib did not differ. Conclusions: Our simple cryopreservation procedure facilitates collection, long-time storage and propagation (modeling) of clinical GBM specimens (potentially also from distant centers) for basic research, (pre-) clinical studies of novel therapies and individual response prediction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据