1
|
Haddad AF, Young JS, Amara D, Berger MS, Raleigh DR, Aghi MK, Butowski NA. Mouse models of glioblastoma for the evaluation of novel therapeutic strategies. Neurooncol Adv 2021; 3:vdab100. [PMID: 34466804 PMCID: PMC8403483 DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdab100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Glioblastoma (GBM) is an incurable brain tumor with a median survival of approximately 15 months despite an aggressive standard of care that includes surgery, chemotherapy, and ionizing radiation. Mouse models have advanced our understanding of GBM biology and the development of novel therapeutic strategies for GBM patients. However, model selection is crucial when testing developmental therapeutics, and each mouse model of GBM has unique advantages and disadvantages that can influence the validity and translatability of experimental results. To shed light on this process, we discuss the strengths and limitations of 3 types of mouse GBM models in this review: syngeneic models, genetically engineered mouse models, and xenograft models, including traditional xenograft cell lines and patient-derived xenograft models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander F Haddad
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Jacob S Young
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Dominic Amara
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Mitchel S Berger
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - David R Raleigh
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Manish K Aghi
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Nicholas A Butowski
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
- Corresponding Author: Nicholas A. Butowski, MD, Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Ave Eighth Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA ()
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wouters R, Bevers S, Riva M, De Smet F, Coosemans A. Immunocompetent Mouse Models in the Search for Effective Immunotherapy in Glioblastoma. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 13:E19. [PMID: 33374542 PMCID: PMC7793150 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13010019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Revised: 12/19/2020] [Accepted: 12/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive intrinsic brain tumor in adults. Despite maximal therapy consisting of surgery and radio/chemotherapy, GBM remains largely incurable with a median survival of less than 15 months. GBM has a strong immunosuppressive nature with a multitude of tumor and microenvironment (TME) derived factors that prohibit an effective immune response. To date, all clinical trials failed to provide lasting clinical efficacy, despite the relatively high success rates of preclinical studies to show effectivity of immunotherapy. Various factors may explain this discrepancy, including the inability of a single mouse model to fully recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity of GBM. It is therefore critical to understand the features and limitations of each model, which should probably be combined to grab the full spectrum of the disease. In this review, we summarize the available knowledge concerning immune composition, stem cell characteristics and response to standard-of-care and immunotherapeutics for the most commonly available immunocompetent mouse models of GBM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roxanne Wouters
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (R.W.); (S.B.); (M.R.)
- Oncoinvent, A.S., 0484 Oslo, Norway
| | - Sien Bevers
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (R.W.); (S.B.); (M.R.)
- The Laboratory for Precision Cancer Medicine, Translational Cell and Tissue Research Unit, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
| | - Matteo Riva
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (R.W.); (S.B.); (M.R.)
- Department of Neurosurgery, Mont-Godinne Hospital, UCL Namur, 5530 Yvoir, Belgium
| | - Frederik De Smet
- The Laboratory for Precision Cancer Medicine, Translational Cell and Tissue Research Unit, Department of Imaging and Pathology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
| | - An Coosemans
- Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Department of Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (R.W.); (S.B.); (M.R.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Epple LM, Dodd RD, Merz AL, Dechkovskaia AM, Herring M, Winston BA, Lencioni AM, Russell RL, Madsen H, Nega M, Dusto NL, White J, Bigner DD, Nicchitta CV, Serkova NJ, Graner MW. Induction of the unfolded protein response drives enhanced metabolism and chemoresistance in glioma cells. PLoS One 2013; 8:e73267. [PMID: 24039668 PMCID: PMC3748289 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2012] [Accepted: 07/22/2013] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
The unfolded protein response (UPR) is an endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-based cytoprotective mechanism acting to prevent pathologies accompanying protein aggregation. It is frequently active in tumors, but relatively unstudied in gliomas. We hypothesized that UPR stress effects on glioma cells might protect tumors from additional exogenous stress (ie, chemotherapeutics), postulating that protection was concurrent with altered tumor cell metabolism. Using human brain tumor cell lines, xenograft tumors, human samples and gene expression databases, we determined molecular features of glioma cell UPR induction/activation, and here report a detailed analysis of UPR transcriptional/translational/metabolic responses. Immunohistochemistry, Western and Northern blots identified elevated levels of UPR transcription factors and downstream ER chaperone targets in gliomas. Microarray profiling revealed distinct regulation of stress responses between xenograft tumors and parent cell lines, with gene ontology and network analyses linking gene expression to cell survival and metabolic processes. Human glioma samples were examined for levels of the ER chaperone GRP94 by immunohistochemistry and for other UPR components by Western blotting. Gene and protein expression data from patient gliomas correlated poor patient prognoses with increased expression of ER chaperones, UPR target genes, and metabolic enzymes (glycolysis and lipogenesis). NMR-based metabolomic studies revealed increased metabolic outputs in glucose uptake with elevated glycolytic activity as well as increased phospholipid turnover. Elevated levels of amino acids, antioxidants, and cholesterol were also evident upon UPR stress; in particular, recurrent tumors had overall higher lipid outputs and elevated specific UPR arms. Clonogenicity studies following temozolomide treatment of stressed or unstressed cells demonstrated UPR-induced chemoresistance. Our data characterize the UPR in glioma cells and human tumors, and link the UPR to chemoresistance possibly via enhanced metabolism. Given the role of the UPR in the balance between cell survival and apoptosis, targeting the UPR and/or controlling metabolic activity may prove beneficial for malignant glioma therapeutics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura M. Epple
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
- Cell and Molecular Biology Program, Cancer Biology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Rebecca D. Dodd
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Andrea L. Merz
- Cancer Center Metabolomics Core, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Anjelika M. Dechkovskaia
- Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Matthew Herring
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Benjamin A. Winston
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Alex M. Lencioni
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Rae L. Russell
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Helen Madsen
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Meheret Nega
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Nathaniel L. Dusto
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Jason White
- Department of Neurosurgery, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Darell D. Bigner
- Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
- The Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Christopher V. Nicchitta
- Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Natalie J. Serkova
- Cancer Center Metabolomics Core, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
- Department of Anesthesiology, Anschutz Medical Center, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Michael W. Graner
- Cell and Molecular Biology Program, Cancer Biology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kramp TR, Camphausen K. Combination radiotherapy in an orthotopic mouse brain tumor model. J Vis Exp 2012:e3397. [PMID: 22415465 DOI: 10.3791/3397] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) are the most common and aggressive adult primary brain tumors. In recent years there has been substantial progress in the understanding of the mechanics of tumor invasion, and direct intracerebral inoculation of tumor provides the opportunity of observing the invasive process in a physiologically appropriate environment. As far as human brain tumors are concerned, the orthotopic models currently available are established either by stereotaxic injection of cell suspensions or implantation of a solid piece of tumor through a complicated craniotomy procedure. In our technique we harvest cells from tissue culture to create a cell suspension used to implant directly into the brain. The duration of the surgery is approximately 30 minutes, and as the mouse needs to be in a constant surgical plane, an injectable anesthetic is used. The mouse is placed in a stereotaxic jig made by Stoetling (figure 1). After the surgical area is cleaned and prepared, an incision is made; and the bregma is located to determine the location of the craniotomy. The location of the craniotomy is 2 mm to the right and 1 mm rostral to the bregma. The depth is 3 mm from the surface of the skull, and cells are injected at a rate of 2 μl every 2 minutes. The skin is sutured with 5-0 PDS, and the mouse is allowed to wake up on a heating pad. From our experience, depending on the cell line, treatment can take place from 7-10 days after surgery. Drug delivery is dependent on the drug composition. For radiation treatment the mice are anesthetized, and put into a custom made jig. Lead covers the mouse's body and exposes only the brain of the mouse. The study of tumorigenesis and the evaluation of new therapies for GBM require accurate and reproducible brain tumor animal models. Thus we use this orthotopic brain model to study the interaction of the microenvironment of the brain and the tumor, to test the effectiveness of different therapeutic agents with and without radiation.
Collapse
|