In vitro studies of brain tumor cells are invaluable for dissecting molecular mechanisms driving growth, survival, migration, and invasion of cancer cells; cultured cell experiments can define signaling pathways, suggest potential therapeutic targets, and characterize cellular response to drug treatment. But in vitro systems are far too simplistic to predict organismal response to pharmaceuticals; they lack the physiological reactions, immune responses, cell microenvironment, and overall heterogeneity of living animal systems. Genetically engineered models can be invaluable, when available, but molecular differences exist between species and murine cells may not recapitulate events in human processes, resulting in significant discrepancies when comparing animal models to clinical observations1. Mouse xenograft models involving subcutaneous (SQ) injection of human brain tumor cell lines under the skin of the flank are easy to perform and measure; they can be used to address effects of gene modification and drug administration/delivery, metabolism and toxicity. Significant drawbacks, however, limit the utility of SQ models. The microenvironment does not recapitulate that of a naturally occurring brain tumor: the interactions of various cell types and tissues; the local vasculature, and myriad other factors unique to the brain cannot be replicated. To more accurately reproduce the unique milieu of a naturally occurring brain tumor and test the effects of pharmaceutical interventions, a mouse orthotopic model should be utilized. Furthermore, orthotopic techniques may be used as part of a genetically engineered approach in which human primary non-cancerous cells (differentiated or progenitor) are genetically modified and injected into the relevant site of a mouse, with or without human stroma cells, resulting in tumorigenesis similar to that seen in humans1.
This article describes a methodology to precisely and reproducibly create brain tumors in mice. Using this technique, the user can accurately inject a small aliquot of suspended cells into a specified location of the fronto-parieto-temporal region of the mouse cerebral cortex. Mouse mortality is extremely low; in our hands, no mice have died from surgical complications after 185 procedures. Characteristics of the resultant tumor can be compared with that of typical human clinical tumors; for example: rapidity of growth, degree of necrosis, extent of invasion, heterogeneity of cell type, presence of mitotic cells, markers of proliferation and apoptosis, etc. Cell lines or disaggregated human tissue or tumor samples can then be evaluated based on their ability to simulate actual clinical presentation. Pharmaceuticals, selected based on their performance in cell culture, can be tested in the context of a functioning metabolism, circulatory system, and blood-brain barrier as they exist in an animal burdened with a tumor, all in a relevant architectural context. Furthermore, the cells chosen for injection may be genetically modified to investigate the impact of specific knockdowns, deletions, knock-ins, mutations, etc. on tumor growth and survival.
A number of publications document tumors studies using a variety of intracranial techniques. Yamada et al. did a detailed study of the injection of dye and of U87 cells and found that minimizing volume and injection rate produced the best tumor2. Brooks et al. found superior reproducibility and efficiency using a microprocessor-controlled injector rather than a manual method to deliver viral vectors; their conclusions regarding optimal injection parameters are applicable to cell delivery3. Shankavaram et al. showed that glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) cell lines injected orthotopically (using a manual method) into the brain recapitulated the gene expression profile of the clinical tumors more closely than either in vitro or SQ xenografts, supporting the use of intracranial models for preclinical studies4. Giannini et al. injected cells from human surgical specimens that had been sustained in the flanks of nude mice by serial passaging into the brains of additional mice, and showed that this approach preserved patient tumor gene alterations in the model5. Similar results were reported by Yi et al6. Using a stereotaxic setup, carefully defined injection site, and a slow and steady injection rate, they obtained reproducible brain tumors with consistent growth rates and high (100%) engraftment rate. The validity of this technique has therefore been well established; a literature search suggests that the applications of this technique are extensive. Carty et al. used intracranial injections to successfully deliver viral vectors expressing therapeutic genes into the frontal cortex of transgenic model of Alzheimer’s disease7. Thaci et al. described the use of intracranial injections to deliver therapeutic oncolytic adenovirus in a neural stem cell based carrier into nude mice already carrying orthotopically injected GBM tumors8. Clearly, intracranial injections are a versatile and effective tool for preclinical research. Earlier publications in The Journal of Visualized Experiments describe fundamental approaches9-11, but we take the concept of intracranial tumor injection and orthotopic modeling to a higher level of precision using easy-to-master technology.