4.7 Article

Bilateral murine tumor models for characterizing the response to immune checkpoint blockade

期刊

NATURE PROTOCOLS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 1628-1648

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41596-020-0299-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [1103980]
  2. Cancer Council of Western Australia
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1103980] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this protocol, mice are inoculated with two separate tumors derived from the same cell line. One tumor is removed and assessed before treatment; the other is used to assess the effect of treatment. The therapeutic response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is highly variable, not only between different cancers but also between patients with the same cancer type. The biological mechanisms underlying these differences in response are incompletely understood. Identifying correlates in patient tumor samples is challenging because of genetic and environmental variability. Murine studies usually compare different tumor models or treatments, introducing potential confounding variables. This protocol describes bilateral murine tumor models, derived from syngeneic cancer cell lines, that display a symmetrical yet dichotomous response to ICB. These models enable detailed analysis of whole tumors in a highly homogeneous background, combined with knowledge of the therapeutic outcome within a few weeks, and could potentially be used for mechanistic studies using other (immuno-)therapies. We discuss key considerations and describe how to use two cell lines as fully optimized models. We discuss experimental details, including proper inoculation technique to achieve symmetry and one-sided surgical tumor removal, which takes only 5 min per mouse. Furthermore, we outline the preparation of bulk tissue or single-cell suspensions for downstream analyses such as bulk RNA-seq, immunohistochemistry, single-cell RNA-seq and flow cytometry.

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

4.7
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