scholarly journals In vitro Models of Breast Cancer Metastatic Dormancy

Author(s):  
Marco Montagner ◽  
Erik Sahai
Cancers ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Bray ◽  
Constanze Secker ◽  
Berline Murekatete ◽  
Jana Sievers ◽  
Marcus Binner ◽  
...  

Bone is the most common site for breast-cancer invasion and metastasis, and it causes severe morbidity and mortality. A greater understanding of the mechanisms leading to bone-specific metastasis could improve therapeutic strategies and thus improve patient survival. While three-dimensional in vitro culture models provide valuable tools to investigate distinct heterocellular and environmental interactions, sophisticated organ-specific metastasis models are lacking. Previous models used to investigate breast-to-bone metastasis have relied on 2.5D or singular-scaffold methods, constraining the in situ mimicry of in vitro models. Glycosaminoglycan-based gels have demonstrated outstanding potential for tumor-engineering applications. Here, we developed advanced biphasic in vitro microenvironments that mimic breast-tumor tissue (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 in a hydrogel) spatially separated with a mineralized bone construct (human primary osteoblasts in a cryogel). These models allow distinct advantages over former models due to the ability to observe and manipulate cellular migration towards a bone construct. The gels allow for the binding of adhesion-mediating peptides and controlled release of signaling molecules. Moreover, mechanical and architectural properties can be tuned to manipulate cell function. These results demonstrate the utility of these biomimetic microenvironment models to investigate heterotypic cell–cell and cell–matrix communications in cancer migration to bone.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Therina Du Toit ◽  
Amanda C Swart

Abstract The metabolism of 11β-hydroxyandrostenedione (11OHA4), a major adrenal C19 steroid, was first characterised in our in vitro prostate models showing that 11OHA4, catalysed by 11βHSDs, 17βHSDs and 5α-reductases, yields potent androgens, 11keto-testosterone (11KT) and 11keto-dihydrotestosterone (11KDHT) in the 11OHA4-pathway [1]. Findings have since led to the analysis of C11-oxy steroids in PCOS, CAH and 21OHD. However, the only circulating C11-oxy steroids included to date have been 11OHA4, 11keto-androstenedione (11KA4), 11β-hydroxytestosterone (11OHT) and 11KT, with 11KT reported as the only potent androgen produced from 11OHA4. We have identified higher levels of 11KDHT compared to 11KT in prostate cancer tissue and benign prostatic hyperplasia tissue and serum, with data suggesting impeded glucuronidation of the C11-oxy androgens [2,3]. The assessment of 11KDHT and the inactivation/conjugation of the C11-oxy steroids in clinical conditions is therefore crucial. We investigated the metabolism of testosterone, 11KT, 11OHT, dihydrotestosterone, 11KDHT and 11OHDHT in JEG-3 placenta choriocarcinoma, MCF-7 BUS and T-47D breast cancer cells, focusing on glucuronidation and sulfation. Steroids were assayed at 1 µM and metabolites were quantified using UPC2-MS/MS. Conjugated steroids were not detected in JEG-3 cells with DHT (0.6 µM remaining) metabolised to 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol and androsterone (AST), and 11KDHT (0.9 µM remaining) to 11OHAST and 11KAST. 11OHA4 was converted to 11KA4 (12%) and 11KT (2.5%); and 11KT to 11KDHT (14%). In MCF-7 BUS cells, DHT was significantly glucuronidated, whereas 11KDHT was not. 11KAST was the only steroid in the MCF-7 BUS and T-47D cells that was significantly sulfated (p<0.05). In parallel we investigated sulfation in the LNCaP prostate model. Comparing sulfated to glucuronidated levels, only DHT was sulfated, 26%. Analysis showed that C19 steroids were significantly conjugated (glucuronidated + sulfated) compared to the C11-oxy C19 steroids. As there exists an intricate interplay between steroid production and inactivation, impacting pre- and post-receptor activation, efficient conjugation would limit adverse downstream effects. Our data demonstrates the production and impeded conjugation of active C11-oxy C19 steroids, allowing the prolonged presence of androgenic steroids in the cellular microenvironment. Identified for the first time is the 11OHA4-pathway in placenta and breast cancer cells, and the sulfation of 11KAST. Characterising steroidogenic pathways in in vitro models paves the direction for in vivo studies associated with characterising clinical disorders and disease, which the C11-oxy C19 steroids and their intermediates, including inactivated and conjugated end-products, have highlighted. [1] Bloem, et al. JSBMB 2015, 153; [2] Du Toit & Swart. MCE 2018, 461; [3] Du Toit & Swart, JSBMB 2020, 105497.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. AB071-AB071
Author(s):  
Amira F. Mahdi ◽  
Beatrice Malacrida ◽  
Aoife J. Lowery ◽  
Patrick A. Kiely

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching Hui Chen ◽  
David A. Cavazos ◽  
Shruti A. Apte ◽  
Carol Fabian ◽  
Stephen Hursting ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 2773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coralie Poulard ◽  
Julien Jacquemetton ◽  
Olivier Trédan ◽  
Pascale A. Cohen ◽  
Julie Vendrell ◽  
...  

Endocrine therapies targeting oestrogen signalling have significantly improved breast cancer management. However, their efficacy is limited by intrinsic and acquired resistance to treatment, which remains a major challenge for oestrogen receptor α (ERα)-positive tumours. Though many studies using in vitro models of endocrine resistance have identified putative actors of resistance, no consensus has been reached. We demonstrated previously that oestrogen non-genomic signalling, characterized by the formation of the ERα/Src/PI3K complex, is activated in aggressive breast cancers (BC). We wondered herein whether the activation of this pathway is also involved in resistance to endocrine therapies. We studied the interactions between ERα and Src or PI3K by proximity ligation assay (PLA) in in-vitro and in-vivo endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer models. We reveal an increase in ERα/Src and ERα/PI3K interactions in patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) with acquired resistance to tamoxifen, as well as in tamoxifen-resistant MCF-7 cells compared to parental counterparts. Moreover, no interactions were observed in breast cancer cells resistant to other endocrine therapies. Finally, the use of a peptide inhibiting the ERα–Src interaction partially restored tamoxifen sensitivity in resistant cells, suggesting that such components could constitute promising targets to circumvent resistance to tamoxifen in BC.


2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Eduardo Costa ◽  
Tânia Ferreira-Gonçalves ◽  
Gonçalo Chasqueira ◽  
António S. Cabrita ◽  
Isabel V. Figueiredo ◽  
...  

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, which makes it a very impactful malignancy in the society. Breast cancers can be classified through different systems based on the main tumor features and gene, protein, and cell receptors expression, which will determine the most advisable therapeutic course and expected outcomes. Multiple therapeutic options have already been proposed and implemented for breast cancer treatment. Nonetheless, their use and efficacy still greatly depend on the tumor classification, and treatments are commonly associated with invasiveness, pain, discomfort, severe side effects, and poor specificity. This has demanded an investment in the research of the mechanisms behind the disease progression, evolution, and associated risk factors, and on novel diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. However, advances in the understanding and assessment of breast cancer are dependent on the ability to mimic the properties and microenvironment of tumors in vivo, which can be achieved through experimentation on animal models. This review covers an overview of the main animal models used in breast cancer research, namely in vitro models, in vivo models, in silico models, and other models. For each model, the main characteristics, advantages, and challenges associated to their use are highlighted.


2021 ◽  
pp. 105214
Author(s):  
Mindaugas Žukauskas ◽  
Birutė Grybaitė ◽  
Paulina Šlimaitė ◽  
Rita Vaickelionienė ◽  
Paulius Gibieža ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly M Morgan ◽  
Linda A Schuler ◽  
Jordan C Ciciliano ◽  
Brian P Johnson ◽  
Elaine T Alarid ◽  
...  

Abstract Accumulating evidence suggests that our ability to predict chemical effects on breast cancer is limited by a lack of physiologically relevant in vitro models; the typical in vitro breast cancer model consists of the cancer cell and excludes the mammary microenvironment. As the effects of the microenvironment on cancer cell behavior becomes more understood, researchers have called for the integration of the microenvironment into in vitro chemical testing systems. However, given the complexity of the microenvironment and the variety of platforms to choose from, identifying the essential parameters to include in a chemical testing platform is challenging. This review discusses the need for more complex in vitro breast cancer models and outlines different approaches used to model breast cancer in vitro. We provide examples of the microenvironment modulating breast cancer cell responses to chemicals and discuss strategies to help pinpoint what components should be included in a model.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document