In vitro spheres assays are commonly used to identify cancer stem cells. Here we compare single with multi cell-based spheres assays. The more laborious single cell-based assays or methylcellulose supplementation give more accurate results while multi cell-based assays performed in liquid medium can be highly influenced by cell density.
Years of research indicates that ovarian cancers harbor a heterogeneous mixture of cells including a subpopulation of so-called “cancer stem cells” (CSCs) responsible for tumor initiation, maintenance and relapse following conventional chemotherapies. Identification of ovarian CSCs is therefore an important goal. A commonly used method to assess CSC potential in vitro is the spheres assay in which cells are plated under non-adherent culture conditions in serum-free medium supplemented with growth factors and sphere formation is scored after a few days. Here, we review currently available protocols for human ovarian cancer spheres assays and perform a side-by-side analysis between commonly used multi cell-based assays and a more accurate system based on single cell plating. Our results indicate that both multi cell-based as well as single cell-based spheres assays can be used to investigate sphere formation in vitro. The more laborious and expensive single cell-based assays are more suitable for functional assessment of individual cells and lead to overall more accurate results while multi cell-based assays can be strongly influenced by the density of plated cells and require titration experiments upfront. Methylcellulose supplementation to multi cell-based assays can be effectively used to reduce mechanical artifacts.
There is increasing evidence that ovarian carcinomas are comprised of heterogeneous mixtures of cells and harbor so-called “cancer stem cells” (CSCs) responsible for disease initiation, maintenance and relapse after conventional cytotoxic therapies1-3. Therefore, the development of molecular strategies targeting ovarian CSCs is an important goal and promises to improve the therapy of ovarian cancer patients.
A pre-requisite for the understanding of the molecular features of CSCs is their reliable isolation from the non-CSCs. However, identification of ovarian CSCs appears challenging. While CD133 expression and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity4,5 have been reported to mark ovarian CSCs, some data indicate that these markers are unstable6. Consistently, in ovarian cancer, other than for example in breast carcinoma7, expression of ALDH1 associates with favorable outcome8 and expression of the proposed stem cell marker CD44 variant has no prognostic value9. More recently, we have shown that expression of the embryonic stem cell protein SOX2 confers stemness to ovarian carcinoma cells10 and high SOX2 expression associates with clinically aggressive ovarian and breast carcinomas11,12. Therefore, in this report we use a lentiviral reporter construct containing a red fluorescence protein (RFP) whose expression is controlled by a SOX2 regulatory region, as a method to isolate putative ovarian CSCs.
By definition, CSCs can both self-renew and differentiate, giving rise to all tumor cell types. Putative CSC populations need to be analyzed in functional assays performed in vivo. For obvious reasons, in human cells such functional tests are confined to xenograft assays, comprising mostly transplantation of human tumor cells into immuno-compromised mice10,13.
An alternative in vitro method was offered by Brent Reynolds and Sam Weiss who firstly reported the so-called neurosphere assay as a surrogate assay evaluating stem potential in neural cells14. Dontu and colleagues later confirmed the use of this assay for evaluation of stem cell potential in breast cells15,16. Here, human mammary cells were plated in different numbers in serum-free medium supplemented with epidermal growth factor (EGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), B-27 and heparin and cultured under non-adherent conditions for seven to ten days before sphere formation was scored by microscopy. Following this protocol with some adjustments in cell numbers, growth medium and supplements, several groups have explored in vitro stem cell potential from several cancer types such as breast17, brain18, pancreas19 and colon20 tumors. In ovarian carcinoma, we have recently reported feasibility of the spheres assay and compared its results to those collected in in vivo murine xenograft models10. We found that overexpression of the stem cell protein SOX2 enhanced both in vitro sphere formation as well as in vivo tumorigenicity of human ovarian carcinoma cells10. However, the frequency of sphere-initiating cells was higher than the frequency of tumor-initiating cells measured in vivo10 suggesting that either the sphere assay may lead to false positive results due to technical reasons or, alternatively, the in vivo assay may be inefficient and result in false negative results.
In this report, we analyze multi cell-based ovarian spheres assays in more detail, review the different protocols available in the literature and compare them to a single cell-based assay. We show that the single cell-based assay provides more accurate and reproducible results than multi cell-based assays, which can be highly influenced by the density of plated cells unless methylcellulose is added to the cultures to immobilize cells. However, also in single cell-based assays, in vitro sphere-initiating potential is observed at higher frequency than in vivo tumor-initiating potential.
Сферы культуры являются широко используемый метод для анализа стволовых клеток рака потенциал и обогащения стволовых клеток, как в широком диапазоне человеческих опухолевых клетках 15,25,26. В этих условиях культивирования, раковые клетки, которые не имеют самообновления, как ожид…
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This study was supported by a grant from the Baden-Württemberg Stiftung (Adult Stem Cells Program II) awarded to C.L. We thank Dr. Martina Konantz for critical input and review of the manuscript. We thank Emmanuel Traunecker and Toni Krebs from the DBM FACS Facility (University Hospital Basel) for assistance with FACS sorting.
Name of Material/ Equipment | Company | Catalog Number | Comments/Description |
low-Attachment-plate | Corning | 3474 | |
MEGM | Lonza | CC-3151 | |
Insulin | Lonza | CC-4136 | SingleQuots™ Kit |
Hydrocortison | Lonza | CC-4136 | SingleQuots™ Kit |
EGF | Lonza | CC-4136 | SingleQuots™ Kit |
EGF | Sigma | E9644 | end concentration: 20 ng/ml |
FGF | PeproTech | 100-18B | end concentration: 20 ng/ml |
B-27 | Invitrogen/ Gibco | 17504-044 | end concentration: 1x |
Heparin-Natrium-25000 IE | Ratiopharm | N68542.02 | dilution 1:1000 |
Pen/Strep | Gibco | 15140-122 | |
FCS | Gibco | 10500-064 | |
RPMI 1640 | Gibco | 21875-034 | |
Trypsin-EDTA | Gibco | 25300-054 | |
Dulbecco’s PBS (1x) | Gibco | 14190-094 | |
Shield1 | Clontech | 632189 | dilution 1:1000 |
DMEM/F12 | Gibco | 21041-025 | |
DMEM/F12 (powder) | Gibco | 42400-010 | |
Methyl cellulose | Sigma | M0387 | |
Puromycin dihydrochloride | applichem | A2856 | |
cell sorter | BD | Aria III cell sorter | |
FACS analyser | BD | accuri c6 flow cytometer | |
microscope | Olympus | IX50 Osiris |