PO.TB04.08 · 肿瘤生物学

利用成像、细胞毒性检测和流式细胞术,对胶质母细胞瘤神经球与单层培养中的治疗反应及干细胞标志物表达进行比较分析

Comparative analysis of therapy responses and stem cell marker expression in glioblastoma neurospheres verus monolayer cultures using imaging, cytotoxicity assays, and flow cytometry

海报缩略图:利用成像、细胞毒性检测和流式细胞术,对胶质母细胞瘤神经球与单层培养中的治疗反应及干细胞标志物表达进行比较分析
编号 7530 展板 11 时间 4/22 09:00–12:00 区域 Section 32 主讲 Joseph Kolb, PhD
分会场 Tumor Models and Assays: In Vitro, In Vivo
查看 PDF 下载 PDF 🔒 查看 / 下载完整 PDF 需登录并开通下载套餐 · 查看套餐 / 开通 AACR 官方页面

作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations

Daniel S. Costa, Joseph P. Kolb, Olivia Mankos, Karsten E. Fynboe, Stephanie M. Fogerson, William D. Culp, Kathryn R. Meshaw

Powered Research LLC, Durham, NC

摘要 Abstract

中文摘要
背景:胶质母细胞瘤(GBM)是一种侵袭性强且致命的原发性脑肿瘤,对传统治疗具有耐药性。尽管治疗策略取得了进展,但近二十年来标准治疗方案和患者中位生存期基本未发生改变。治疗进展的一个主要障碍是GBM肿瘤微环境的复杂性,而当大多数GBM细胞系用于动物模型和体外筛选检测时,这种微环境难以被很好地重现。GBM细胞系的三维(3D)神经球培养被认为通过富集胶质母细胞瘤干细胞样细胞(GSC),从而相较于传统的二维(2D)单层培养系统改善了模型性能;这些细胞在原位植入后,可产生更接近人类疾病的肿瘤。因此,使用神经球进行的体外药物筛选能更准确地反映空间结构、细胞间相互作用及扩散梯度,从而提高此类研究的预测价值。在本研究中,我们旨在进一步表征以2D方式或以神经球方式培养的U-87 MG-Luc2细胞的表型,并评估其在体外及作为异种移植物时的药物敏感性。 方法:将以2D方式或以神经球方式培养的U-87 MG-Luc2细胞单独及联合使用替莫唑胺、洛莫司汀和硼替佐米进行处理,以评估其体外药物敏感性。此外,在颅内植入前后,对这些细胞进行GSC标志物CD133、CD15、CD49f和CD44染色,并通过流式细胞术分析。通过IVIS成像追踪原位细胞生长情况。 结果:细胞毒性检测显示,与单层培养相比,神经球对治疗的敏感性显著降低,这与3D结构和GSC所支持的耐药机制增强相一致。流式细胞术表明两种模型在细胞大小、颗粒度及GSC标志物方面存在差异。重要的是,两种培养类型均成功植入并在小鼠原位异种移植中增殖。 结论:这些发现提示,3D神经球模型能更准确地反映体内肿瘤环境和药物反应,而2D单层培养仍是初步治疗筛选的宝贵工具。神经球培养条件影响了U-87 MG-Luc2 GSC表面标志物的表达。追踪药物处理后GSC标志物频率和表达的变化,可能有助于筛选有前景的候选药物。这种头对头比较凸显了模型选择在GBM临床前研究中的重要性。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive and lethal primary brain tumor that is resistant to conventional therapies. Despite advances in treatment strategies, the standard of care and median patient survival have remained largely unchanged for nearly two decades. One major obstacle to therapeutic progress is the complexity of the GBM tumor microenvironment, which is poorly recapitulated by most GBM cell lines when used in animal models and in vitro screening assays. Three-dimensional (3D) neurosphere cultures of GBM cell lines are thought to improve model performance over traditional two-dimensional (2D) monolayer systems by enriching for glioblastoma stem-like cells (GSC), which, when implanted orthotopically, produce tumors that more closely resemble human disease. Consequently, in vitro drug screens using neurospheres more accurately reflect the spatial architecture, cell-cell interactions, and diffusion gradients improving predictive values of these types of studies. Here, we sought to further characterize the phenotype of U-87 MG-Luc2 cells grown in 2D or as neurospheres and to assess their drug sensitivity in vitro and as xenografts. Methods: U-87 MG-Luc2 cells grown in 2D or as neurospheres were treated with temozolomide, lomustine, and bortezomib, individually and in combination, to assess drug sensitivity in vitro. In addition, these cells were stained for the GSC markers CD133, CD15, CD49f, and CD44 and analyzed by flow cytometry before and after intracranial implant. Orthotopic cell growth was tracked by IVIS imaging. Results: Cytotoxicity assays revealed that neurospheres were significantly less sensitive to treatment compared to monolayers, consistent with enhanced resistance mechanisms supported by 3D architecture and GSC. Flow cytometry indicated differences in cell size, granularity, and GSC markers between the two models. Importantly, both culture types successfully engrafted and proliferated as murine orthotopic xenografts. Conclusion: These findings suggest that 3D neurosphere models more accurately reflect the in vivo tumor environment and drug response, while 2D monolayers remain a valuable tool for initial therapeutic screening. Neurosphere culture conditions impacted U-87 MG-Luc2 GSC surface marker expression. Tracking changes in frequency and expression of GSC markers after drug treatment may be useful for selecting promising drug candidates. Head-to-head comparisons underscore the importance of model selection in preclinical GBM research.
利益披露 Disclosure
D. S. Costa, None.. J. P. Kolb, None.. O. Mankos, None.. K. E. Fynboe, None.. S. M. Fogerson, None.. W. D. Culp, None.. K. R. Meshaw, None.

← 返回 AACR 2026 检索