Summary

Mammosphere Formation Assay from Human Breast Cancer Tissues and Cell Lines

Published: March 22, 2015
doi:

Summary

Floating mammosphere assays can investigate the subset of stem-like breast cancer cells that survive in suspension conditions and show enhanced tumorigenesis when implanted into mice. This protocol provides a convenient in vitro measure of sphere-forming ability, a proxy for in vivo tumorigenesis, while facilitating analysis of the stem-associated transcriptional landscape.

Abstract

Similar to healthy tissues, many blood and solid malignancies are now thought to be organised hierarchically, with a subset of stem-like cancer cells that self-renew while giving rise to more differentiated progeny. Understanding and targeting these cancer stem cells in breast cancer, which may possess enhanced chemo- and radio-resistance compared to the non-stem tumor bulk, has become an important research area. Markers including CD44, CD24, and ALDH activity can be assessed using fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) to prospectively isolate cells that display enhanced tumorigenicity when implanted into immunocompromised mice: the mammosphere assay has also become widely used for its ability to retrospectively identify sphere-forming cells that develop from single stem cell-like clones. Here we outline approaches for the appropriate culturing of mammospheres from cell lines or primary patient samples, their passaging, and calculations to estimate sphere forming efficiency (SFE). First we discuss key considerations and pitfalls in the appropriate planning and interpretation of mammosphere experiments.

Introduction

The existence of tumor cell lineages headed by stem-like cancer stem cells has greatly added to our understanding of tumor heterogeneity. While some phenotypic diversity in tumors does arise from the clonal outgrowth of genetically distinct clones, a substantial component appears to result from epigenetic differences: cancer cells can transition (sometimes reversibly) between stem, progenitor, and differentiated states via activation or repression of specific gene expression programs13. This may reflect cell intrinsic or extrinsic factors, reflecting the gene expression program currently being expressed in a cell with its resultant autocrine signalling in conjunction with paracrine signalling from neighboring cancer, stromal or immune cells delivering modulatory factors, and microenviromental conditions such as the degree of hypoxia2,4,5.

Although innovative lineage tracing approaches are advancing our ability to study putative cancer stem cells in their in vivo niche68, sphere-forming assays remain a popular and convenient approach to estimate breast cancer cells’ potential to behave like stem cells, at least under the assay conditions used. It is often used alongside retrospective methods for purifying cancer stem cells, by their expression of membrane markers CD44 and CD249, and activity levels of the enzyme ALDH (aldehyde dehydrogenase)10, markers that have been proposed to correspond to more mesenchymal- and epithelial-like cancer stem cells respectively11. The sphere formation approach was first developed as the neurosphere assay, enabling the growth of putative stem cells from single clones in non-adherent, serum free conditions with the addition of epithelial growth factor (EGF)12, later being usefully applied to normal and cancerous breast tissues.

The identity of the sphere-forming founder cell, and the mixed cell types making up the sphere mass, are relevant for the inferences that can be made from mammo-, or other-sphere forming assays. Long-term quiescent bone fide stem cells, thought to rest in G0 phase, will not experience the precise combination of factors that would favor activation in vivo. The mammosphere assay instead enables the growth of cells either poised for mitotic division or already dividing13. These progenitors, although not a truly quiescent cell, may be the cell stage that proliferates with the EGF and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) mitogens used in the assay. Nevertheless, they contain a range of activated stem cell-associated signalling pathways14. In addition, the rate of their formation relates to the tumorigenicity of the tissue they were taken from, when measured by their potency in limited dilution assays in mouse xenografts2,15,16.

Here we provide detailed protocols to isolate single cells and generate primary mammospheres from both human breast cancer cell lines and clinical samples of breast tumors. We also describe how to perform serial passages of primary mammospheres to assess self-renewal, and how to calculate sphere forming efficiency that allows comparison across different seeding densities (see scheme in Figure 1).

Protocol

The procedures below have been ethically approved by Imperial College, London. 1. Generation of Primary Mammospheres from Human Breast Cancer Cell Lines NOTE: Perform the following steps under a sterile culture hood. Prepare Mammosphere Media containing DMEM/F12 supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 U/ml streptomycin. Prepare complete media immediately before use by adding 20 ng/ml recombinant human epidermal growth factor (EGF; Si…

Representative Results

Different samples or those subjected to different treatments may vary in the number of mammospheres >40 µm that form after normalizing for initial cells seeded. Calculate mammosphere forming efficiency (MFE) for each treatment grown in triplicate. This enables experiments with different seeding densities to be compared. Data is best displayed on a bar graph, ideally with positive and negative controls, and displaying the standard deviation across the triplicate wells. Consistently transfer adherent cells into no…

Discussion

Successful assessment of primary and secondary mammospheres relies on cells being plated at sufficiently low densities that mammospheres form from single clones, with minimal sphere aggregation. However at densities that are too low, too few mammospheres may form to distinguish the effects of treatments statistically. Seeding density should be optimised for each cell line used since they can vary considerably in their sphere forming efficiencies (those expressing low E-cadherin may form less stable and shorter term mammo…

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Imperial BRC, the National Institute for Health Research, and Action Against Cancer with special mention to Hilary Craft and Sir Douglas Myers.

Materials

Name of Material/ Equipment Company Catalog Number Comments/Description
DMEM/F12 Lonza CC-3151
2mM L-Glutamine Sigma Aldrich G8540
100U/ml Penicillin & Streptomycin Sigma Aldrich P4083
20ng/ml recombinant human epidermal growth factor (EGF) Sigma Aldrich E9644
20ng/ml recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) R&D systems 233-FB-025
1x B27 supplement  Invitrogen 17504-044
Phosphate buffered saline (PBS); Thermo Scientific 12399902
 0.5% trypsin-0.2%EDTA; Sigma Aldrich 59418C
Fetal Calf Serum First Link UK 02-00-850
 Trypan Blue Sigma Aldrich 93595
 Low attachment 6 well plates Corning CLS3814
Collagenase type 1A Sigma Aldrich C9891
Hyaluronidase Sigma Aldrich H3506
Sterile razor blades Fisher Scientific 12443170
Sterile scalpel Fisher Scientific 11758353
Sterile micro-dissecting scissors Sigma Aldrich S3146

References

  1. Iliopoulos, D., Hirsch, H. a., Struhl, K. An epigenetic switch involving NF-kappaB, Lin28, Let-7 MicroRNA, and IL6. Cell. 139 (4), 693-706 (2009).
  2. Iliopoulos, D., Hirsch, H. a., Wang, G., Struhl, K. Inducible formation of breast cancer stem cells and their dynamic equilibrium with non-stem cancer cells via IL6 secretion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108 (4), 1397-1402 (2011).
  3. Visvader, J. E., Lindeman, G. J. Cancer stem cells: current status and evolving complexities. Cell stem cell. 10 (6), 717-728 (2012).
  4. Rosen, J. M., Jordan, C. T. The increasing complexity of the cancer stem cell paradigm. Science. 324 (5935), 1670-1673 (2009).
  5. Rokavec, M., Wu, W., Luo, J. -. L. IL6-mediated suppression of miR-200c directs constitutive activation of inflammatory signaling circuit driving transformation and tumorigenesis. Mol Cell. 45 (6), 777-789 (2012).
  6. Chen, J., Li, Y., et al. A restricted cell population propagates glioblastoma growth after chemotherapy. Nature. 488 (7412), 522-526 (2012).
  7. Driessens, G., Beck, B., Caauwe, A., Simons, B. D., Blanpain, C. Defining the mode of tumour growth by clonal analysis. Nature. 488 (7412), 527-530 (2012).
  8. Schepers, A. G., Snippert, H. J., et al. Lineage tracing reveals Lgr5+ stem cell activity in mouse intestinal adenomas. Science. 337 (6095), 730-735 (2012).
  9. Sheridan, C., Kishimoto, H., et al. CD44+/CD24- breast cancer cells exhibit enhanced invasive properties: an early step necessary for metastasis. Breast cancer research: BCR. 8 (5), R59 (2006).
  10. Ginestier, C., Hur, M. H., et al. ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell stem cell. 1 (5), 555-567 (2007).
  11. Liu, S., Cong, Y., et al. Breast Cancer Stem Cells Transition between Epithelial and Mesenchymal States Reflective of their Normal Counterparts. Stem cell reports. 2 (1), 78-91 (2014).
  12. Reynolds, B. A., Weiss, S. Generation of neurons and astrocytes from isolated cells of the adult mammalian central nervous system. Science. 255 (5052), 1707-1710 (1992).
  13. Pastrana, E., Silva-Vargas, V., Doetsch, F. Eyes wide open: a critical review of sphere-formation as an assay for stem cells. Cell stem cell. 8 (5), 486-498 (2011).
  14. Dontu, G., Abdallah, W. M., et al. In vitro propagation and transcriptional profiling of human mammary stem / progenitor cells. Genes Dev. , 1253-1270 (2003).
  15. Ponti, D., Costa, A., et al. Isolation and in vitro propagation of tumorigenic breast cancer cells with stem/progenitor cell properties. Cancer Res. 65 (13), 5506-5011 (2005).
  16. Grimshaw, M. J., Cooper, L., et al. Mammosphere culture of metastatic breast cancer cells enriches for tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res. 10 (3), R52 (2008).
  17. Pham, P. V., Phan, N. L. C., et al. Differentiation of breast cancer stem cells by knockdown of CD44: promising differentiation therapy. J Transl Med. 9 (1), 209 (2011).
  18. Manuel Iglesias, J., Beloqui, I., et al. Mammosphere formation in breast carcinoma cell lines depends upon expression of E-cadherin. PloS one. 8 (10), e77281 (2013).
  19. Coles-Takabe, B. L. K., Brain, I., et al. Don’t look: growing clonal versus nonclonal neural stem cell colonies. Stem Cells. 26 (11), 2938-2944 (2008).
  20. Stingl, J. Detection and analysis of mammary gland stem cells. J Pathol. 217 (2), 229-241 (2009).
  21. Kreso, A., Dick, J. E. Evolution of the cancer stem cell model. Cell stem cell. 14 (3), 275-291 (2014).
  22. Al-Hajj, M., Clarke, M. F. Self-renewal and solid tumor stem cells. Oncogene. 23 (43), 7274-7282 (2004).
  23. Yu, F., Yao, H., et al. let-7 regulates self renewal and tumorigenicity of breast cancer cells. Cell. 131 (6), 1109-1123 (2007).
check_url/cn/52671?article_type=t

Play Video

Cite This Article
Lombardo, Y., de Giorgio, A., Coombes, C. R., Stebbing, J., Castellano, L. Mammosphere Formation Assay from Human Breast Cancer Tissues and Cell Lines. J. Vis. Exp. (97), e52671, doi:10.3791/52671 (2015).

View Video