$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The most common primary intracranial malignant brain tumors are grade III astrocytomas and grade IV glioblastoma multiforme (glioblastoma or GBM). These tumors offer poor prognoses with median one-year survival between 12 - 15 months with current therapies for GBM in the US1-3. Multimodality therapies include surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy including temozolomide (TMZ) and kinase-targeted agents. Kinase signaling is frequently dysregulated in GBM, including subsets of tumors with amplification or activating mutations in the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR), increases in Platelet Derived Growth Factor Receptor (PDGFR) signaling, increased Phosphatidyl-Inositol-3 Kinase (PI3K) and tumor supporting angiogenic signaling through Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGFR) as well as other kinase driven pathways4-6. Current in vitro and in vivo models frequently lose these representative alterations7. Additionally, genetic profiling has not offered the anticipated benefits that may reflect the fact that genetic and epigenetic changes do not always predict changes at the level of protein activity, where most kinase targeting agents act directly, and where therapies with other mechanisms of action may act indirectly.
The traditional immortalized cell line that can be passaged ad infinitum has long been the standard for drug testing due to their ease of maintenance and reproducibility. However, this model suffers from a high nutrient (and artificial) growth environment that selects for fast growing cells that differ greatly from the original tumor. As such, there has been considerable interest in developing more realistic model systems that reflect a more complex tumor biological system as is present in the patient. Tumor xenografts developed directly from a primary tumor grown in mice ("xenoline," patient-derived xenograft or PDX) provide a more reflective model system, particularly in the setting of cancer therapeutics, as they are felt to more reliably predict clinical success.8 Despite the more reflective biology, these models are expensive and are difficult to establish and maintain. Moreover, they are not amenable to high-throughput studies. The need to better develop biologic models that more accurately reflect molecular alterations in the primary tumors, and to profile and test these models using direct measures of kinase activity, not surrogate genetic markers, is clear.
It is well recognized that unlike two-dimensional (2D) monolayer cultures, 3D or multicellular assay models can provide more physiologically relevant endpoints9-11. Common 3D culture approaches involve matrix-coated microcarriers and cell spheroid formation. Tumor spheroids can be generated via cellular aggregation using spinner flask, pHEMA plate and hanging drop techniques. Limitations for these approaches include: inability for some cells to form stable spheroids, variability in growth and challenges with mixed cell types. Alternatively, many synthetic (hydrogel, polymer) and animal-derived Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm (EHS) matrix from mouse sarcomas, bovine collagen) matrices have been developed for 3D culture studies12-14. Mouse EHS matrix is extensively used but known to promote cell growth and differentiation in vitro and in vivo15.
In order to replicate 3D tumor biology, a human biomatrix system was developed by Dr. Raj Singh et al.16. The natural, growth factor-free human biogel allows 3D culture scaffolds (beads, discs), which support long-term cultivation of multiple cell types. A series of 3D human biogel culture designs are established for studying tumor growth, adhesion, angiogenesis and invasion properties. Advantages and properties of human biogel as compared to common mouse EHS gels are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.
| Source: | Human Amnions (Pooled tissue)
Pathogen-free, IRB-exempt/approved |
| ECM nature: | Non-denatured Biogel (GLP-production) |
Key
Components: | Col-I (38%), Laminin (22%), Col-IV (20%), Col-III (7%), Entactin & HSPG (< 3%) |
| GF-free: | Undetectable EGF, FGF, TGF, VEGF, PDGF (Non-angiogenic, Non-toxic) |
Table 1: Properties of Human Biogel as Compared to Common EHS Gels.
| Human Biogel | EHS gels |
| Natural human matrix | Reconstituted mouse matrix |
| Controlled cell growth & differentiation | Can promote cell growth & differentiation |
| Physiologic gene expression | Variable gene expression |
| 3D tissue-like culture model | Plate-based culture model |
Table 2: Advantages of Human Biogel as Compared to Common EHS Gels.