4.8 Article

Hydrophilic Agarose Macrobead Cultures Select for Outgrowth of Carcinoma Cell Populations That Can Restrict Tumor Growth

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 725-735

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2258

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Metromedia Bio-Science, LLC.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer cells and their associated tumors have long been considered to exhibit unregulated proliferation or growth. However, a substantial body of evidence indicates that tumor growth is subject to both positive and negative regulatory controls. Here, we describe a novel property of tumor growth regulation that is neither species nor tumor-type specific. This property, functionally a type of feedback control, is triggered by the encapsulation of neoplastic cells in a growth-restricting hydrogel composed of an agarose matrix with a second coating of agarose to form 6- to 8-mm diameter macrobeads. In a mouse cell model of renal adenocarcinoma (RENCA cells), this process resulted in selection for a stem cell-like subpopulation which together with at least one other cell subpopulation drove colony formation in the macrobeads. Cells in these colonies produced diffusible substances that markedly inhibited in vitro and in vivo proliferation of epithelial-derived tumor cells outside the macrobeads. RENCA cells in monolayer culture that were exposed to RENCA macrobead-conditioned media exhibited cell-cycle accumulation in S phase due to activation of a G(2)/M checkpoint. At least 10 proteins with known tumor suppression functions were identified by analysis of RENCA macrobead-conditioned media, the properties of which offer opportunities to further dissect the molecular basis for tumor growth control. More generally, macrobead culture may permit the isolation of cancer stem cells and other cells of the stem cell niche, perhaps providing strategies to define more effective biologically based clinical approaches to treat neoplastic disease. Cancer Res; 71(3); 725-35. (C)2011 AACR.

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

4.8
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