Molecular heterogeneity of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is well recognized, forming the rationale for molecular tests required before administration of some of the novel targeted therapies that now are rapidly entering the clinics. For clinical research at least, but possibly even for future individualized tumor treatment on a routine basis, propagation of patients' CRC tissue may be highly desirable for detailed molecular, biochemical or functional analyses. However, complex logistics requiring close liaison between surgery, pathology, laboratory researchers and animal care facilities are a major drawback in this. We here describe and evaluate a very simple cryopreservation procedure for colorectal carcinoma tissue prior to xenografting that will considerably reduce this logistic complexity.
Methods
Fourty-eight CRC collected ad hoc were xenografted subcutaneously into immunodeficient mice either fresh from surgery (N = 23) or after cryopreservation (N = 31; up to 643 days).
Results
Take rates after cryopreservation were satisfactory (71%) though somewhat lower than with tumor tissues fresh from surgery (74%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Re-transplantation of cryopreserved established xenografts (N = 11) was always successful. Of note, in this series, all of the major molecular types of CRC were xenografted successfully, even after cryopreservation.
Conclusions
Our procedure facilitates collection, long-time storage and propagation of clinical CRC specimens (even from different centres) for (pre)clinical studies of novel therapies or for basic research.
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2407-10-362) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
ML conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript. CM performed the statistics and helped to draft the manuscript. CO carried out most of the molecular analyses. UK helped to analyze and interpret the data. MK performed the human-specific PCR. EK reviewed the manuscript. FP performed the morphological analyses and participated in the interpretation of the data, and the writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Abkürzungen
CIMP-H
CpG island methylator phenotype
CRC
colorectal carcinoma
HNPCC-type
hereditary non-polyposis-type CRC
spMSI-H
sporadic high-degree microsatellite instable CRC
spStdCRC
sporadic standard type CRC
Background
The last decade has witnessed a tremendous progress in understanding the molecular pathology and the pathogenesis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC). Chromosomal as well as microsatellite instability and the CpG island methylator phenotype have been defined as major molecular pathogenetic mechanisms, giving rise to the main molecular classes of CRC [1, 2]; and genome wide mutational analysis have shown that per individual cancer a limited number of signal transduction pathways are dysregulated by "driver" mutations in some (typically about 15) from a set of about 80 so-called candidate cancer genes [3, 4].
In the wake of this, targeted therapies for CRC are beginning to enter the clinics, EGF-receptor blockade (with the pre-requisite of K-Ras mutational analysis) being the first already to be used more generally among these [5, 6]. It may be expected for the near future that patient's tumor tissues, besides being subject to traditional histopathological examination, will be used for various additional molecular testings. While some of these can be done with conventional paraffin-embedded material, some will require frozen tumor tissue. But, conceivably, more elaborate molecular analyses or even functional tests eventually may be desirable, and for these analyses at least xenograft tumors may be prime choice [7‐9].
Anzeige
However, xenografting as a routine will pose considerable logistical difficulties as technical expertise of different fields (surgery, pathology, molecular biology and animal care) must be brought together. Clearly, separating location and occasion when the tumor specimen accrues, the molecular analyses are done, and the engraftings are performed would rigorously reduce this logistical complexity. In addition, at least for research purposes, it would allow preselection of tumor specimens with desired molecular features in advance of the technically demanding xenografting procedures.
We here report an easy and effective method to store CRC tissue by cryopreservation for use in xenografting at a later date. Specifically, we aimed to explore feasibility and success rate in a consecutive series of CRCs collected ad hoc, comparing xenografting of tumor tissue fresh from surgery with xenografting after cryopreservation. In addition, we demonstrate that cryopreservation of established xenograft tumors for re-xenografting is also feasible. And finally, we show that a balanced distribution of the different molecular classes of CRCs will be obtained.
Methods
Tumor specimen collection and cryopreservation
Resection specimens of primary tumors (N = 48; primary CRCs without previous chemo-or radiotherapy) were received fresh from surgery. Tumor tissue cubes (ca. 3 × 3 × 3 mm) were cut from the deep invasive parts with a sterile scalpel blade.
Mirror blocks for cryostat sections were prepared from the adjacent parts of the tumours. Alternatively, xenograft tumors were removed under sterile conditions and pieces were taken from the peripheral parts of the tumors. Again, adjacent tumour tissues were used for cryostat sections. Typically, 4 tumor pieces were transferred into sterile cryo-tubes (greiner-bio-one, Frickenhausen, Germany) in 1.5 ml freezing medium (foetal calf serum containing 10% DMSO), sealed in a Freezing Container (Nalgene, Rochester, NY, USA), and placed immediately at -80°C. Until transplantation tubes were kept at -80°C (for a maximum of 6 weeks) or, after overnight cooling, transferred into liquid nitrogen (for longer storage periods). For xenografting, cryopreserved tumor pieces were thawed at 37°C. Prior informed consent was obtained in written from all patients, and all procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Rostock (reference number II HV 43/2004) in accordance with generally accepted guidelines for the use of human material.
Anzeige
Tumor xenografting
Tumor xenograftings were done by one of the following approaches: (I) xenografting of primaries on the day of surgery (n = 23); (II) xenografting of primaries after cryopreservation (n = 31); and (III) re-transplantation of xenografts after cryopreservation (n = 11). Tumor pieces were implanted subcutaneously uni-or bilaterally into the flanks of six to eight week old female mice under ether anaesthesia for a short period of time. We used NOD-SCID (NOD.CB17-Prkdcscid/J in cases of HROC24 to HROC46 and nude mice (NMRI nu/nu) for the subsequent xenograftings. As assessed by cryostat sections from the mirror blocks, there was seen an area fraction of 30 - 80% of viable tumour in the tissues used for xenografting. The numbers of mice receiving grafts and the numbers of grafts for each animal are given for each individual tumor in Table 1. Mice were kept in the animal facilities of the medical faculty of the University of Rostock and maintained in specified pathogen-free conditions. Animals were exposed to 12-h light/12-h darkness cycles and standard food and water including antibiotics (Co-trimoxazol) ad libitum. Their care and housing were in accordance with guidelines as put forth by the German Ethical Committee and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Research Council; NIH Guide, vol.25, no.28, 1996). Growth of tumours to volumes of 1 - 1.5 cm3 was taken as evidence of successful xenografting, and the animals were then sacrificed for collection of tumour tissues for further studies.
Table 1
Details of xenograftings and outcomes.
Tumor-ID
Fresh
Cryopreserved
Days frozen
HROC24
M1(+); M2(-); M3*
HROC26
M1(-); M2(-); M3(-)
HROC29
M1(+); M2(+); M3(-)
HROC32
M2(+); M1*
HROC33
M1(-); M2(-); M3(-)
HROC37
M1(-); M2(-)
HROC38
M1(-); M2(-)
HROC39
M1(+); M2(+)
HROC40
M1(+); M2(+)
HROC45
M1(-); M2(-)
HROC46
M1(+); M2(+)
HROC48
M1(-;-); M2(-;-);M3(+;+); M4(+;-)
161/643
HROC50
M1(+;+); M2(-;+)
120
HROC51
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
117
HROC52
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
94
HROC53
M1(-;+); M2(-;-)
84
HROC54
M1(-;-); M2(-;+)
64
HROC55
M1(-;-); M2(-;-);M3(-;+); M4(-;-)
6/489
HROC56
M1(-); M2(-)
HROC57
M1(+); M2(-)
HROC59
M1(+;+); M2(-;+)
HROC60
M1(-;+); M2(-;-)
HROC61
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
58
HROC62
M1(-;-); M2(+;-)
51
HROC63
M1(-;+); M2(-;-)
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
88
HROC64
M1(+;-); M2(-;-)
78
HROC65
M1(+;-); M2(-;-)
M1(+;-); M2(-;-)
13
HROC66
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
47
HROC67
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
42
HROC68
M1(+;+); M2(+;+)
M1(-;+); M2(-;+)
38
HROC69
M1(+;+); M2(+;+)
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
28
HROC70
M1(-;-); M2(-;+)
M1(-;+); M2(-;-)
27
HROC71
M1(+;+); M2(-;+)
27
HROC72
M1(+;+); M2(-;-)
240
HORC73
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
238
HROC74
M1(+;+); M2(-;-)
230
HROC75
M1(-;+); M2(+;+)
223
HROC78
M1(+;+); M2(-;-)
188
HROC80
M1(-;+); M2(-;-)
119
HROC81
M1(-;-); M2(-;+)
118
HROC82
M1(+;+); M2(-;-)
118
HROC83
M1(-;-); M2(-;-)
87
HROC84
M1(-;+); M2(-;-)
73
HROC85
M1(-;+); M2(+;+)
HROC86
M1(-;+)
HROC87
M1(-;+); M2(-;+)
9
HROC88
M1(+;+); M2(-;+)
7
HROC89
M1(-;-); M2(+;-)
M1(+;+)
103
M denotes mice xenografted, the outcome is given in parentheses as index + or index -. One index is given for uni-and two indices for bilateral xenografts. * animals died due to problems with anaesthesia. Underlined: repetition of the xenografting procedure.
Morphological and molecular studies
Dissections and histopathological examination of the primary tumors were done according to standard protocols for surgical pathology reports of CRCs [10], and additional staging information was compiled from patients' clinical charts. Primary tumors and xenografts were embedded in paraffin, and 4 μm H&E sections were obtained as well as β-catenin and MLH1 and MSH2 immunostainings.
The molecular analyses were done as previously published in detail [2]. Briefly, the Bethesda panel of microsatellite markers was used to test for microsatellite instability, chromosomal instability was assessed by DNA-flow cytometry and LOH analyses with various dinucleotide markers (D5S1385, D5S346 (5q21); D8S1734, D8S1771, NEFL (8p21); D9S942, D9S1748 (9p21); D17S1832, D17S250 (17p23); D18S70 (18q23)), and mutation analyses of the APC gene as well as the K-Ras and B-Raf genes were done. Finally, DNA-methylation was assessed by the MethyLight technology with the marker panel originally published by Ogino et al. and modified by us [2]. Based on these molecular data, tumors in this series were classified as sporadic standard type CRC (spStdCRC), sporadic high-degree microsatellite instable CRC (spMSI-H), hereditary non-polyposis CRC-type (HNPCC-type), or CpG island methylator phenotype CRC (CIMP-type).
Verification of human origin of the xenograft tumors
A human specific PCR was performed by amplification of a portion of the human mitochondrial cytochrome b gene as previously described [11]. Briefly, the reaction mixture (25 μl) contained 25 ng of gDNA, 0.1 mM of each primer (L15674: TAGCAATAATCCCCATCCTCCATATAT, H15782: ACTTGTCCAATGATGGTAAAAGG), 200 μM dNTPs, 1 × standard reaction buffer and 0.1 U Taq DNA polymerase (Bioron, Ludwigshafen, Germany). PCR was performed in a standard thermal cycler for 40 cycles of 30 s at 96°C, 40 s at 59°C, and 1 min at 72°C. Products were separated on a 1% agarose gel and results were scored positive with the appearance of a band of 157 bp.
Statistics
All data were entered into a computerized data bank (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS version 13.0). Testing for significance of cross-tabulated data was done by two-sided Fisher's exact T-test. The criterion for significance was taken to be p < 0.05.
Results
Overall, 48 primary CRCs were collected for these xenografting experiments. 47 were adenocarcinomas, and 1 tumor was a large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (HROC 57). Information on histological and molecular types as well as staging information and patient characteristics are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Data of colorectal carcinomas used for xenografting experiments and overall results of outcomes.
Tumor-ID
Age/Gender
Site*
TNM-Stage
Molecular type†
Fresh
Cryo
HROC24
98/m
Right colon
G2T2N0M0
spMSI
Success
ND‡
HROC26
60/m
Left colon
G3T4N2M1
spStd
Failure
ND
HROC29
59/m
Right colon
G3T3N2M1
HNPCC
Success
ND
HROC32
82/f
Right colon
G2T4N2M1
spStd
Success
ND
HROC33
70/f
Left colon
G2T3N1M0
spStd
Failure
ND
HROC37
77/m
Right colon
G3T2N0M0
ND
Failure
ND
HROC38
67/f
Right colon
G2T3N0M0
spStd
Failure
ND
HROC39
69/m
Right colon
G3T4N0M0
spStd
Success
ND
HROC40
69/m
Left colon
G3T3N1M0
CIMP-H
Success
ND
HROC45
52/m
Right colon
G3T4N0M0
ND
Failure
ND
HROC46
66/m
Right colon
G3T3N0M1
spStd
Success
ND
HROC48
68/m
Right colon
G3T2N1M0
spMSI
ND
Success
HROC50
67/f
Right colon
G2T4N0M0
spMSI
ND
Success
HROC51
70/m
Left colon
G3T4N2M1
spStd
ND
Failure
HROC52
55/f
Left colon
G2T2N0M0
spStd
ND
Failure
HROC53
72/f
Right colon
G3T3N0M0
spMSI
ND
Success
HROC54
63/f
Left colon
G2T3N2M0
spStd
ND
Success
HROC55
81/f
Right colon
G3T2N0M0
spMSI
ND
Success
HROC56
70/m
Right colon
G1T3N0M0
ND
Failure
ND
HROC57
43/m
Right colon
G3T3N2M1
NA§
Success
ND
HROC59
76/m
Right colon
G2T3N1M1
spStd
Success
ND
HROC60
71/m
Right colon
G2T2N0M0
CIMP-H
Success
ND
HROC61
57/m
Rektum
G3T3N0M0
spStd
ND
Failure
HROC62
84/f
Right colon
G3T4N2M0
spStd
ND
Success
HROC63
81/f
Left colon
G2T4N0M0
spStd
Success
Failure
HROC64
71/m
Left colon
G2T2N0M0
spStd
ND
Success
HROC65
73/f
Right colon
G3T3N2M1
spStd
Success
Success
HROC66
75/m
Rektum
G2T3N2M0
spStd
ND
Failure
HROC67
54/m
Left colon
G2T3N1M0
spStd
ND
Failure
HROC68
84/m
Left colon
G2T4N2M0
spStd
Success
Success
HROC69
62/m
Right colon
G3T3N0M1
spStd
Success
Failure
HROC70
65/f
Right colon
G3T4N1M0
spStd
Success
Success
HROC71
52/m
Right colon
G2T3N0M0
HNPCC
ND
Success
HROC72
61/m
Right colon
G2T3N2M1
ND
Success
HORC73
69/m
Left colon
G2T3N0M0
ND
Failure
HROC74
80/m
Left colon
G2T4N0M0
spStd
ND
Success
HROC75
58/m
Left colon
G2T3N0M0
spStd
ND
Success
HROC78
75/m
Right colon
G3T3N0M0
CIMP-H
ND
Success
HROC80
72/m
Right colon
G2T3N2M1
ND
Success
HROC81
21/f
Right colon
G3T4N0M1
spStd
ND
Success
HROC82
62/m
Right colon
G2T3N0M0
ND
Success
HROC83
85/f
Right colon
G2T3N1M1
ND
Failure
HROC84
88/f
Left colon
G2T3N0M0
spStd
ND
Success
HROC85
65/m
Rektum
G2T3N0M0
spStd
Success
ND
HROC86
79/f
Left colon
G2T3N1M0
spStd
Success
ND
HROC87
76/f
Left colon
G3T3N0M0
spMSI
ND
Success
HROC88
69/f
Right colon
G2T3N1M0
ND
Success
HROC89
80/m
Rektum
G2T3N0M1
spStd
Success
Success
* Right colon (coecum to splenic flexure), left colon (descending colon and sigmoid), Rektum. † Abbreviations for molecular types of colorectal carcinomas. ‡ ND - not determined/not done. § NA - not applicable.
Xenografting of 23 tumors fresh from surgery was successful in 17 cases (74% take). By comparison, 31 tumors were xenografted after cryopreservation for 6 to 643 days, and this was successful in 22 cases (71% take - summarized in Table 2), Thus, there was not observed a statistically significant difference in the overall success rates between fresh (n = 17/23) and cryopreserved (n = 22/31) samples (p = 0.815, Fisher's exact T-test). As most animals received bilateral xenografts comparison between total numbers of fresh and cryopreserved xenografts could be made. Again, the difference was not statistically significant although a trend to reduced success after cryopreservation was observed (n = 34/68; 50% fresh, n = 40/130; 31% cryopreserved, p = 0,098; Table 1). In two cases, where xenografts did not grow successfully after cryopreservation, enough frozen tumor pieces were left to repeat xenografting at a much later date (643 and 489 days), this time with success (animals M3 and M4 of HROC48 and HROC55; Table 1, underlined).
For 6 of the 48 tumors, sufficient material was available to attempt both xenografting of tumor tissue fresh from surgery and xenografting of tumor tissues after cryopreservation (13 to 103 days). This was successful for all the tumor tissues xenografted fresh from surgery, and for 4 cases of cryopreserved tissues (67%; Table 2). Details on the xenograftings and their outcomes are given in Table 1.
Anzeige
Re-transplantation of xenograft tumors after cryopreservation was attempted for 11 tumors, and this could be carried out successfully in all cases. These tumor tissues were from passages 2 to 8 and had been cryopreserved for 56 to 455 days (Table 3). In terms of grafts, 47 of 54 grafts were accepted (87%; Table 3).
Table 3
Successful re-xenografting after cryopreservation.
Tumor-ID
Passage number
Days frozen
Success rate by grafts
HROC24
3
148
2/2
HROC29
6-8
147, 182, 189
7/10
HROC32
5
168
4/4
HROC39
2
164
4/4
HROC40
2
191
4/4
HROC46
2
455
7/8
HROC50
2, 3
120, 168
5/6
HROC53
2, 3
84, 168
6/6
HROC54
2
56
2/2
HROC59
2
119
2/2
HROC71
2
141
4/4
As expected, histologically the xenograft tumors closely resembled their primaries (Figure 1). PCR studies amplifying part of the human mitochondrial cytochrome b gene gave further proof of the human origin of these tumors (data not shown). Furthermore, the molecular analyses revealed that xenografting could be carried out successfully for all the molecular types of CRC without any evident bias. Specifically, xenografts were obtained for 27 spStdCRC, 6 spMSI-H tumors, 2 HNPCC-type tumors, and 3 CIMP tumors.
×
Generally, xenografting was well tolerated by the animals. No signs of superinfection or suppuration were seen in any of the cases and consequently, no death from infection occurred. This was even true for those cases where tumor samples contained bacteria as judged from infections observed in parallel cultures in vitro (data not shown). In this series, we never observed metastases.
Discussion
In this study, we were able to show that tumor tissue from primary CRC surgical resection specimens can be cryopreserved and successfully xenografted into mice even after prolonged periods of storage (up to 643 days). Even though take rates with this procedure seem to be lower than with tumor tissue used fresh from surgery (71% overall take for cryopreserved vs. 74% overall take for fresh tissues), this difference was not of statistical significance. Besides, it is still satisfactory and compares favourably to xenograft take rates reported by other groups [12‐15]. Not unlikely, take rates could even be improved by increasing the number of implantations or by Matrigel-soaking of tumor pieces before xenografting as suggested by Fujii et al. as well as by Sorio et al. [14, 15]. The latter group was also the first to report a successful cryopreservation technique for pancreatic cancers [14]. As a technically very simple method, cryopreservation of CRC tumor tissue prior to xenografting as reported here may be quite appealing to both clinical and basic researchers alike for the following reasons:
Anzeige
(1) Cryopreservation before xenografting considerably reduces logistic constraints. If tumor tissue is xenografted fresh from surgery the work-flow is very complex. At first liaison will have to be made with the surgical colleagues for the resection specimen to be brought to the pathology department. From there the tumor tissue is handed over to the xenograft-team, often past usual work-hours; and presuming in any case that there are animals ready for use in the breeding-facilities on the day of surgery. Obviously, putting a break into this will make the procedure much easier.
(2) Cryopreservation before xenografting facilitates collection of large numbers of tumor specimens, even from different centres. This may be important for pre-clinical studies addressing e.g. the effects of targeted therapies as it has been shown that human tumor xenografts can be used for prediction, especially when panels are used [16, 7‐9]. Conceivably, even, cryopreservation could allow post hoc analysis and propagation in xenografts of those patients' tumor tissue that have responded (or not responded) to specific therapies.
(3) Cryopreservation before xenografting allows preselection of frozen tumor samples out of a larger collection. This drastically reduces time and resources needed to obtain individual xenografts of a desired molecular type. Important to note in this respect is, apparantly by our procedure none of the major molecular types of CRC would be excluded.
(4) Finally, we observed that cryopreservation of established xenografts of CRC samples for later re-transplantation is particularly successful (100% take in terms of cases and 87% in terms of grafts). This may be interesting if low-passage xenografts are desired, as it has been shown that similar to cell lines xenografts may acquire additional mutations and changes in the karyotype [17, 12]; and it is very convenient in relieving laboratories from the necessity of continuous passaging. Moreover, it will greatly facilitate the exchange of well-characterized models between different institutions.
Anzeige
Conclusions
In the presented study we demonstrate the feasibility of xenografting of clinical CRC specimens after a transient cryopreservation step. A statistical comparison of the success rates with and without cryopreservation revealed no significant difference. In addition, we show that cryopreservation of established xenograft tumors for re-xenografting is particularly feasible. And finally, we show that a balanced distribution of the different molecular classes of colorectal carcinomas will be obtained using this procedure. These findings may have immediate impact on the improvement of preclinical drug testing procedures. To the best of our knowledge; this has never been done for CRC.
Acknowledgements
The authors kindly thank Karin Gerber and Kathrin Sievert-Küchenmeister for their excellent technical assistance in animal care. This work was substantially supported by grant number 2006/A29 from the Else-Kröner Fresenius Stiftung to ML and EK and by grant number 108446 "Norddeutsche Tumorbank kolorektales Karzinom" from Deutsche Krebshilfe.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
ML conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript. CM performed the statistics and helped to draft the manuscript. CO carried out most of the molecular analyses. UK helped to analyze and interpret the data. MK performed the human-specific PCR. EK reviewed the manuscript. FP performed the morphological analyses and participated in the interpretation of the data, and the writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Nach einer Prostatabiopsie treten häufig Probleme beim Wasserlassen auf. Ob sich das durch den periinterventionellen Einsatz von Alphablockern verhindern lässt, haben australische Mediziner im Zuge einer Metaanalyse untersucht.
Trastuzumab deruxtecan scheint auch jenseits von Lungenkrebs gut gegen solide Tumoren mit HER2-Mutationen zu wirken. Dafür sprechen die Daten einer offenen Pan-Tumor-Studie.
Frauen mit lokalem oder metastasiertem Brustkrebs, die Statine einnehmen, haben eine niedrigere krebsspezifische Mortalität als Patientinnen, die dies nicht tun, legen neue Daten aus den USA nahe.
Gerade bei aggressiven Malignomen wie dem duktalen Adenokarzinom des Pankreas könnte Früherkennung die Therapiechancen verbessern. Noch jedoch klafft hier eine Lücke. Ein Studienteam hat einen Weg gesucht, sie zu schließen.
Update Onkologie
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletterund bleiben Sie gut informiert.