DOCSLIB.ORG

Clonogenicity and Stem Cells

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Clonogenicity and Stem Cells Charlotte Mary Beaver Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to University College London Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, UCL March 2013 1 I, Charlotte Beaver, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Abstract Primary keratinocytes form 3 types of colony with different morphologies termed holoclones, meroclones and paraclones, thought to be derived from stem, early and late stage precursor cells respectively (Barrandon and Green, 1987b, Rochat et al., 1994). Cancer cell lines produce colonies with morphologies analogous to those of holoclones, meroclones and paraclones, and consequently holoclone morphology is used as a surrogate marker for stem cell colonies. The aim of this study was to elucidate the relationship between clonogenicity, colony morphology and stem cells. Colonies formed by primary prostate epithelial cells and prostate cancer cell lines (DU145, PC3, LNCaP) were characterised. The proportions of colonies were not altered significantly by modification of culture conditions. In contrast to cancer cells, primary prostate epithelial cells form only two types of colony, termed types 1 and 2, which are analogous to holoclones and paraclones. Only type 1 colonies were highly proliferative, able to self-renew and express putative stem cell markers. Paradoxically, cells from DU145 meroclones formed holoclones and had self- renewal capacity (by serial cloning and xenografting). It is concluded that the major difference between holoclone and meroclone colonies from the cancer cell line DU145 is the proportion of stem cells within each colony, not the presence or absence of stem cells. Phage display was used to look for targets on the surface of cells in Type 1 colonies. Various experimental protocols were tested, but no targets were identified. 3 Acknowledgements To my supervisors Professor John Masters and Dr Aamir Ahmed for their guidance and support. To Dr Stephen Hart for his help and knowledge of phage display. To Ben Challacombe at Guy’s hospital for providing tissue, even when he was on holiday on the other side of the world. To those at the Prostate Cancer Research Centre and the Cecil Pilkington Charitable Trust who generously funded this work (2009-2013). To all my friends PCRC. Thanks for all the help, support and friendship. It’s been a great few years. To my family and especially my parents who have supported by ambitions. I wouldn’t be here without you. To Mark who has supported me all these years and made me lots of cups of tea. 4 Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ 4 List of Figures .............................................................................................. 13 List of Tables................................................................................................ 17 Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 19 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 24 1.1 The Prostate and it’s Diseases ....................................................... 24 1.1.1 Prostate Anatomy ..................................................................... 24 1.1.1 Prostate Histology .................................................................... 26 1.1.2 Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia ................................................... 27 1.1.3 Prostate Cancer ....................................................................... 28 1.2 Adult Stem Cells ............................................................................. 30 1.2.1 The Adult Stem Cell Hierarchy ................................................. 30 1.2.2 Stem Cells in the Haematopoietic System ............................... 32 1.2.3 Adult Stem Cell Identification ................................................... 34 1.3 Prostate Stem Cells ........................................................................ 37 1.3.1 Prostate Stem Cell Identification .............................................. 37 1.4 Cancer Stem Cells .......................................................................... 39 1.4.1 Models of Tumour Heterogeneity ............................................. 39 1.4.2 Cancer Stem Cell Definition ..................................................... 43 1.4.3 Identification of Cancer Stem Cells .......................................... 43 5 1.4.4 Identification of CSCs: In Vivo Tumourigenicity ........................ 45 1.5 Prostate Cancer Stem Cells ............................................................ 50 1.5.1 Cellular Origin of Prostate Cancer ............................................ 50 1.5.2 Prostate Cancer Stem Cell Identification .................................. 51 1.6 Clonogenicity .................................................................................. 52 1.6.1 The Clonogenic Assay ............................................................. 52 1.6.2 The Human Tumour Stem Cell Assay (HTSCA)....................... 54 1.6.3 Non-adherent Colonies ............................................................ 56 1.6.4 Barrandon and Green: Holoclones, Meroclones and Paraclones 57 1.6.5 Cancer Colony Morphology ...................................................... 59 1.7 Drug Discovery by Phage Display .................................................. 62 1.7.1 Bacteriophages ........................................................................ 62 1.7.2 Bacteriophage Infection of an E.coli Host ................................. 63 1.7.3 Peptide phage display .............................................................. 64 1.7.4 Targeting Tumours by Phage Display ...................................... 66 1.8 Experimental Aims .......................................................................... 68 1.8.1 Hypothesis ............................................................................... 68 1.8.2 Objectives ................................................................................ 69 2 Materials and Methods ......................................................................... 70 2.1 Prostate Cancer Cell Lines ............................................................. 70 2.2 Primary Human Prostate Epithelial Cells ........................................ 71 6 2.2.1 Tissue Collection ...................................................................... 71 2.2.2 Tissue Digestion ....................................................................... 71 2.2.3 Single Cell Suspension ............................................................ 72 2.3 Clonogenic Assays ......................................................................... 72 2.3.1 Cell Lines ................................................................................. 72 2.3.2 Primary Prostate Epithelial Cells .............................................. 73 2.3.3 Analysis .................................................................................... 74 2.4 Effect of Culture Conditions on Clonogenicity ................................. 76 2.4.1 Seeding Density ....................................................................... 76 2.4.2 FBS Concentration ................................................................... 76 2.5 Secondary Cloning ......................................................................... 80 2.5.1 Cell Lines ................................................................................. 80 2.5.2 Primary Prostate Epithelial Cells .............................................. 81 2.6 Serial Cloning ................................................................................. 81 2.7 Serial Passage ................................................................................ 82 2.7.1 Cell Lines ................................................................................. 82 2.7.2 Prostate Epithelial Cells ........................................................... 83 2.8 Sphere Formation ........................................................................... 83 2.8.1 Cell Lines ................................................................................. 84 2.8.2 Analysis .................................................................................... 85 2.9 Tumourigenicity .............................................................................. 85 2.9.1 Primary Tumourigenicity ........................................................... 87 7 2.9.2 Clonogenicity of Xenografts ..................................................... 88 2.9.3 Secondary Tumourigenicity ...................................................... 89 2.10 Immunocytochemistry .................................................................. 90 2.10.1 Sample Preparation .............................................................. 90 2.10.2 Staining ................................................................................. 91 2.10.3 Two Colour Staining .............................................................. 92 2.10.4 Image analysis ...................................................................... 93 2.11 Incucyte Analysis of Clonal Growth ............................................. 94 2.12 Peptide Phage Display
Recommended publications
  • Application of Human CFU-Mk Assay to Predict Potential Thrombocytotoxicity of Drugs

    Application of Human CFU-Mk Assay to Predict Potential Thrombocytotoxicity of Drugs

    Toxicology in Vitro 23 (2009) 194–200 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Toxicology in Vitro journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/toxinvit Application of human CFU-Mk assay to predict potential thrombocytotoxicity of drugs A. Pessina a,*, D. Parent-Massin b, B. Albella c, R. Van Den Heuvel d, S. Casati e, C. Croera e, I. Malerba e, Y. Sibiril b, S. Gomez c, A. de Smedt d, L. Gribaldo e a Department of Public Health-Microbiology-Virology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Milan, Via Pascal 36, 20133 Milan, Italy b ESMISAB/ISAMOR, Universitè de Bretagne Occidentale, Technopole Brest-Iroise, 29280 Plouzané, France c CIEMAT, Hematopoiesis Project, 28040 Madrid, Spain d VITO, Flemish Institute for Technological Research, 2400 Mol, Belgium e ECVAM, Institute for the Health and Consumer Protection, JRC, 21027 Ispra, Italy article info abstract Article history: Megakaryocytopoiesis gives rise to platelets by proliferation and differentiation of lineage-specific pro- Received 2 April 2008 genitors, identified in vitro as Colony Forming Unit-Megakaryocytes (CFU-Mk). The aim of this study Accepted 13 November 2008 was to refine and optimize the in vitro Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the CFU-Mk assay for Available online 3 December 2008 detecting drug-induced thrombocytopenia and to prevalidate a model for predicting the acute exposure levels that cause maximum tolerated decreases in the platelets count, based on the correlation with the Keywords: maximal plasma concentrations (C max) in vivo. The assay was linear under the SOP conditions, and the Thrombocytotoxicity in vitro endpoints (percentage of colonies growing) were reproducible within and across laboratories.
  • A Hierarchical Bayesian Approach to Calibrating the Linear-Quadratic Model from Clonogenic Survival Assay Data

    A Hierarchical Bayesian Approach to Calibrating the Linear-Quadratic Model from Clonogenic Survival Assay Data

    A hierarchical Bayesian approach to calibrating the linear-quadratic model from clonogenic survival assay data Collis, J., Hill, M. R., Nicol, J. R., Paine, P. J., & Coulter, J. A. (2017). A hierarchical Bayesian approach to calibrating the linear-quadratic model from clonogenic survival assay data. Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 124(3), 541-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.015 Published in: Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Copyright 2017 Elsevier. This manuscript is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits distribution and reproduction for non-commercial purposes, provided the author and source are cited. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected].
  • A Combination of Radiotherapy and Photodynamic Therapy Geoffrey D

    A Combination of Radiotherapy and Photodynamic Therapy Geoffrey D

    Theranostics 2016, Vol. 6, Issue 13 2295 Ivyspring International Publisher Theranostics 2016; 6(13): 2295-2305. doi: 10.7150/thno.16141 Research Paper X-Ray Induced Photodynamic Therapy: A Combination of Radiotherapy and Photodynamic Therapy Geoffrey D. Wang1*, Ha T. Nguyen2*, Hongmin Chen1, Phillip B. Cox3, Lianchun Wang4, Koichi Nagata5, Zhonglin Hao6, Andrew Wang7, Zibo Li8 and Jin Xie1 1. Department of Chemistry, Bio-Imaging Research Center, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA; 2. National Exposure Research Lab, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia 30605, USA; 3. Department of Cellular Biology, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA; 4. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA; 5. College of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA; 6. Section of Hematology and Oncology, Georgia Cancer Center, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia 30912, USA; 7. Laboratory of Nano- and Translational Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Carolina Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA; 8. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Research Imaging Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. *Equal contribution Corresponding author: [email protected] Or [email protected]. © Ivyspring International Publisher. Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited. See http://ivyspring.com/terms for terms and conditions. Received: 2016.05.12; Accepted: 2016.06.20; Published: 2016.10.01 Abstract Conventional photodynamic therapy (PDT)’s clinical application is limited by depth of penetration by light.
  • A High Content Clonogenic Survival Drug Screen Identifies MEK Inhibitors As Potent Radiation Sensitizers for KRAS Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

    A High Content Clonogenic Survival Drug Screen Identifies MEK Inhibitors As Potent Radiation Sensitizers for KRAS Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

    ORIGINAL ARTICLE A High Content Clonogenic Survival Drug Screen Identifies MEK Inhibitors as Potent Radiation Sensitizers for KRAS Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Steven H. Lin, MD, PhD,* Jing Zhang, PhD,* Uma Giri, PhD,† Clifford Stephan, PhD,‡ Mary Sobieski, BS,‡ Ling Zhong, BS,‡ Kathy A. Mason, MS,§ Jessica Molkentine, BS,§ Howard D. Thames, PhD,‖ Stephen S. Yoo, PhD,¶ and John V. Heymach, MD, PhD† cells to radiation. Furthermore, the potent MEK1/2 inhibitor trame- Introduction: Traditional clonogenic survival and high throughput nitib selectively enhanced radiation effects in KRAS mutant but not colorimetric assays are inadequate as drug screens to identify novel wild-type lung cancer cells. radiation sensitizers. We developed a method that we call the high Conclusions: Drug screening for novel radiation sensitizers is fea- content clonogenic survival assay (HCSA) that will allow screening sible using the HCSA approach. This is an enabling technology that of drug libraries to identify candidate radiation sensitizers. Methods: Drug screen using HCSA was done in 96 well plates. will help accelerate the discovery of novel radiosensitizers for clini- After drug treatment, irradiation, and incubation, colonies were cal testing. stained with crystal violet and imaged on the INCell 6000 (GE Key Words: Drug screen, Radiation, Clonogenic survival assay, Health). Colonies achieving 50 or more cells were enumerated using KRAS, Lung cancer the INCell Developer image analysis software. A proof-of-principle screen was done on the KRAS mutant lung cancer cell line H460 and (J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9: 965–973) a Custom Clinical Collection (146 compounds). Results: Multiple drugs of the same class were found to be radia- tion sensitizers and levels of potency seemed to reflect the clini- adiation plays an important role in the treatment of can- cal relevance of these drugs.
  • High Complexity Cellular Barcoding and Clonal Tracing Reveals Stochastic and Deterministic Parameters of Radiation Resistance

    High Complexity Cellular Barcoding and Clonal Tracing Reveals Stochastic and Deterministic Parameters of Radiation Resistance

    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.13.337519; this version posted October 16, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license. High complexity cellular barcoding and clonal tracing reveals stochastic and deterministic parameters of radiation resistance Anne Wursthorn1,2,3,9, Christian Schwager1,2,3,9, Ina Kurth4,9, Claudia Peitzsch5,6,7, Christel Herold-Mende8,9, Michael Baumann4,9 Jürgen Debus1,2,3,9, Amir Abdollahi 1,2,3,9 and Ali Nowrouzi 1,2,3,9 1Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg Germany, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg Germany, 3Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 4Department of Radiooncology and Radiobiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg Germany, 5OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden,6National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden Germany, 7German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner side Dresden, Germany, 8Department of Neurosurgery, Division of Experimental Neurosurgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany .9German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Core Center Heidelberg, Germany Characters: 49,992 Correspondence: Dr. Ali Nowrouzi University Hospital Heidelberg (UKHD) German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Im Neuenheimer Feld 280 69120 Heidelberg Email: [email protected] Email list: [email protected] 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.13.337519; this version posted October 16, 2020.
  • Gold Nanoparticles Radio-Sensitize and Reduce Cell Survival in Lewis Lung Carcinoma

    Gold Nanoparticles Radio-Sensitize and Reduce Cell Survival in Lewis Lung Carcinoma

    nanomaterials Article Gold Nanoparticles Radio-Sensitize and Reduce Cell Survival in Lewis Lung Carcinoma Arvind Pandey 1 , Veronica Vighetto 2,3, Nicola Di Marzio 2,4, Francesca Ferraro 2,3, Matteo Hirsch 2,3 , Nicola Ferrante 2,5, Sankar Mitra 1, Alessandro Grattoni 1,2,6 and Carly S. Filgueira 2,7,* 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA; [email protected] (A.P.); [email protected] (S.M.); [email protected] (A.G.) 2 Department of Nanomedicine, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA; [email protected] (V.V.); [email protected] (N.D.M.); [email protected] (F.F.); [email protected] (M.H.); [email protected] (N.F.) 3 Department of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino, Italy 4 Department of Electronic and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino, Italy 5 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino, Italy 6 Department of Surgery, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA 7 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX 77030, USA * Correspondence: csfi[email protected]; Tel.: +1-713-441-1996 Received: 29 July 2020; Accepted: 27 August 2020; Published: 30 August 2020 Abstract: It has been suggested that particle size plays an important role in determining the genotoxicity of gold nanoparticles (GNPs). The purpose of this study was to compare the potential radio-sensitization effects of two different sized GNPs (3.9 and 37.4 nm) fabricated and examined in vitro in Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) as a model of non-small cell lung cancer through use of comet and clonogenic assays.
  • RIG-I–Like Receptor LGP2 Protects Tumor Cells from Ionizing Radiation

    RIG-I–Like Receptor LGP2 Protects Tumor Cells from Ionizing Radiation

    RIG-I–like receptor LGP2 protects tumor cells from ionizing radiation Ryan C. Widaua,1, Akash D. Parekha,1, Mark C. Rancka,1, Daniel W. Goldena,1, Kiran A. Kumara, Ravi F. Sooda, Sean P. Pitrodaa, Zhengkai Liaoa, Xiaona Huanga, Thomas E. Dargaa, David Xua, Lei Huangb, Jorge Andradeb, Bernard Roizmanc,2,3, Ralph R. Weichselbauma,2, and Nikolai N. Khodareva,2 aDepartment of Radiation and Cellular Oncology and Ludwig Center for Metastasis Research, bCenter for Research Informatics, and cThe Marjorie B. Kovler Viral Oncology Laboratories, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 Contributed by Bernard Roizman, December 13, 2013 (sent for review November 13, 2013) An siRNA screen targeting 89 IFN stimulated genes in 14 different from malignant gliomas, lung, breast, colon, head and neck, pros- cancer cell lines pointed to the RIG-I (retinoic acid inducible gene I)– tate, and bladder cancers. like receptor Laboratory of Genetics and Physiology 2 (LGP2) as The most significant finding from this screen was that the RNA playing a key role in conferring tumor cell survival following cyto- helicase Laboratory of Genetics and Physiology 2 (LGP2) encoded toxic stress induced by ionizing radiation (IR). Studies on the role by DHX58 [DEXH (Asp-Glu-X-His) box polypeptide 58] confers of LGP2 revealed the following: (i) Depletion of LGP2 in three survival and mediates the response to IR of multiple tumor cell lines. cancer cell lines resulted in a significant increase in cell death fol- LGP2 acts as a suppressor of the RNA-activated cytoplasmic RIG-I lowing IR, (ii) ectopic expression of LGP2 in cells increased resis- RIG-I (retinoic acid inducible gene I)–like receptor’s pathway (20, tance to IR, and (iii) IR enhanced LGP2 expression in three cell lines 21).
  • Improving the Predictive Value of Preclinical Studies in Support of Radiotherapy Clinical

    Improving the Predictive Value of Preclinical Studies in Support of Radiotherapy Clinical

    Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst on May 6, 2016; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0069 Author manuscripts have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but have not yet been edited. Improving the Predictive Value of Preclinical Studies in Support of Radiotherapy Clinical Trials C. Norman Coleman1, Geoff S. Higgins2, J. Martin Brown3, Michael Baumann4, David G. Kirsch5, Henning Willers6, Pataje G.S. Prasanna1, Mark W. Dewhirst7, Eric J. Bernhard1, and Mansoor M. Ahmed1 1Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, 2Cancer Research UK/Medical Research Council, Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, 4OncoRay National Center for Radiation Research, Technische Universität Dresden/Helmholtz-Zenrtum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany and German Cancer Consortium, Dresden/ German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 5Departments of Radiation Oncology and Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 6Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, 7Departments of Radiation Oncology, Pathology and Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/). Running title: Preclinical Methods in Radiobiology Corresponding author: C. Norman Coleman, Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 3W102, Bethesda, MD 20892-9727. Phone: 240-276-5690; Fax: 240-276-5827; E- mail: [email protected] Downloaded from clincancerres.aacrjournals.org on September 26, 2021.
  • 1263.Full.Pdf

    1263.Full.Pdf

    [CANCER RESEARCH 46, 1263-1274, March 1986] Drug and Radiation Sensitivity Measurements of Successful Primary Monolayer Culturing of Human Tumor Cells Using Cell-adhesive Matrix and Supplemented Medium1 Fraser L. Baker,2 Gary Spitzer,3 Jaffer A. Ajani, William A. Brock, John Lukeman, Sen Pathak, Barbara Tomasovic, Diva Thielvoldt, Marcia Williams, Charlotte Vines, and Philip Tofilon Departments of Hematology [G. S., B. T., D. T.], Gastroenterology [J. A. A.], Pathology [J. L], Genetics [S. P.], Experimental Radiotherapy [W. A. B., M. W., C. V., P. T.], and the Division ol Medicine, The University of Texas at Houston, M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, Houston, Texas 77030 ABSTRACT tumor cell culturing is the agar suspension culture method (2). The main feature of this method is its selection of transformed The limitations of the agar suspension culture method for cells for growth (3), although agar suspension cultures also primary culturing of human tumor cells prompted development support growth of normal hematopoietic cells (4), benign tumors of a monolayer system optimized for cell adhesion and growth. (5), and anchorage-dependent cells if the medium is supple This method grew 83% of fresh human tumor cell biopsy speci mented with high serum levels (6) or transforming growth factor mens, cultured and not contaminated, from a heterogeneous (7). group of 396 tumors including lung cancer (93 of 114, 82%); Culturing primary human tumor cells in soft agar has problems. melanoma (54 of 72, 75%); sarcoma (46 of 59, 78%); breast More than 50% of tumors cannot be cultured adequately to cancer (35 of 39, 90%); ovarian cancer (16 of 21, 76%); and a enable routine testing of drug sensitivity (8, 9).
  • Comparison of Clonogenic Survival Data Obtained by Pre- and Post-Irradiation Methods

    Comparison of Clonogenic Survival Data Obtained by Pre- and Post-Irradiation Methods

    Journal of Personalized Medicine Communication Comparison of Clonogenic Survival Data Obtained by Pre- and Post-Irradiation Methods Takahiro Oike 1,2,*, Yuka Hirota 1, Narisa Dewi Maulany Darwis 1,3, Atsushi Shibata 4 and Tatsuya Ohno 1,2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma University, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; [email protected] (Y.H.); [email protected] (N.D.M.D.); [email protected] (T.O.) 2 Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma University, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia—Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jl. P. Diponegoro no. 71, Jakarta 10430, Indonesia 4 Initiative for Advanced Research (GIAR), Gunma University, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi 371-8511, Japan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-27-220-8383 Received: 22 September 2020; Accepted: 14 October 2020; Published: 15 October 2020 Abstract: Clonogenic assays are the gold standard to measure in vitro radiosensitivity, which use two cell plating methods, before or after irradiation (IR). However, the effect of the plating method on the experimental outcome remains unelucidated. By using common cancer cell lines, here we demonstrate that pre-IR and post-IR plating methods have a negligible effect on the clonogenic assay-derived photon sensitivity as assessed by SF2, SF4, SF6, SF8,D10, or D50 (N.B. SFx indicates the survival at X Gy; Dx indicates the dose providing X% survival). These data provide important biological insight that supports inter-study comparison and integrated analysis of published clonogenic assay data regardless of the plating method used.