4.7 Article

Multi-Cell Type Glioblastoma Tumor Spheroids for Evaluating Sub-Population-Specific Drug Response

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.538663

关键词

glioblastoma; spheroid; organoid; drug response; tumor heterogeneity

资金

  1. Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute Open Pilot Program
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health [UL1TR001420]
  3. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute [R21CA229027]
  4. Brain Tumor Center of Excellence at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center
  5. Ohio State University College of Engineering
  6. Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a lethal, incurable form of cancer in the brain. Even with maximally aggressive surgery and chemoradiotherapy, median patient survival is 14.5 months. These tumors infiltrate normal brain tissue, are surgically incurable, and universally recur. GBMs are characterized by genetic, epigenetic, and microenvironmental heterogeneity, and they evolve spontaneously over time and as a result of treatment. However, tracking such heterogeneity in real time in response to drug treatments has been impossible. Here we describe the development of anin vitroGBM tumor organoid model that is comprised of five distinct cellular subpopulations (4 GBM cell lines that represent GBM subpopulations and 1 astrocyte line), each fluorescently labeled with a different color. These multi-cell type GBM organoids are then embedded in a brain-like hyaluronic acid hydrogel for subsequent studies involving drug treatments and tracking of changes in relative numbers of each fluorescently unique subpopulation. This approach allows for the visual assessment of drug influence on individual subpopulations within GBM, and in future work can be expanded to supporting studies using patient tumor biospecimen-derived cells for personalized diagnostics.

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