$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
We have provided step by step instructions for a fast and easy approach to progress from a novel cell line to its analysis. We start with the over expression of a fluorescent tracer using a lentiviral overexpression cassette (steps 3 and 4). This is followed by cell preparation to ensure the least possible dead volume while injecting, allowing to inject high cell numbers into both doC and retro-orbital space (steps 6 and 7). Subsequently, we perform semi-high throughput data acquisition using stereo-fluorescent microscopy and higher magnification confocal microscopy for qualitative analysis of whole-body cancer cell dissemination (Figure 2 and steps 10, 11 and 12). Care has to be taken when acquiring data, as to ensure the reproducibility for both stereo and confocal microscopic imaging, the generic settings and standardization are delineated (steps 11 and 12). Data analysis is discussed (using imageJ/Fiji) 16, along with standardization using imageJ macros (step 13).
In step 3 we mentioned the transient labelling of (cancer) cells to perform a quick pre-screening to assess the tumorigenic potential of a new cancer cell line. One important caveat is that although easy to use and long living, the transient stain described herein has the possibility to form artefacts (i.e., care has to be taken to ensure that cell fragments can be distinguished from whole cells as was performed extensively by Fior and colleagues 9). In our experience the formation of these artefacts is directly linked to the extreme stability of the stain and the brightness (even after cell death), where cell fragments are dispersed and taken up by immune cells, which could subsequently be falsely concluded to derive from active metastasis.
In both described models, the systemic engraftment through the doC and the localized engraftment in the retro-orbital space, thorough screening of the larvae one day after injection is of paramount importance. As shown in Figure 2B all larvae that display mechanical displacement of the engrafted cells into the head area (beyond the retro-orbital site) in the retro-orbital model and cells in the yolk sac, or displaying an edema in the doC injected pool should be removed. All negatively selected phenotypes are displayed as high-resolution confocal stitches in Figure 2, but can be readily seen and removed through stereo microscopical observation.
Over time cells will both migrate and proliferate. For the retro-orbital model, we observed infiltration into neighboring tissues for CRMM1, but we observed less proliferation for CRMM2. We strikingly did observe distant metastasis arising between 2-4 dpi in some individuals (20%), where we measured a significant difference at 6 dpi, as shown in Figure 4. For both cell lines, we tested the proliferative potential when injected in both sites. For CRMM1 there was a significant (p<0.0001) increase in cancer cell number for or at the injection sites, when displayed as normalized tumor cell burden, normalizing to day one for each model (7.8-fold increase, ±3.2 for the RO model and an increase of 15-fold ±8,8 for the doC model). CRMM2 did not display significant growth when normalized to day one for each individual model (2.4-fold increase, ±1.9- and 2.3-fold increase, ±1.14 for the RO and doC). CRMM1 was found to readily proliferate in both retro-orbital tissue and the caudal hematopoietic tissue after engraftment. Cell line CRMM2 was less proliferative in both models, but interestingly was found to be capable of distant metastasis when injected in the retro-orbital space as shown in Figure3B,C.
After screening the injected larvae at 1 dpi and randomly assigning the individuals to either treatment or control groups, the fish were treated for 6 days, changing the water containing Vemurafenib (this inhibitor can readily be interchanged for any other titrated antitumor compound). We chose to elaborate upon the previously published hematogenous conjunctival melanoma dissemination model engrafting CRMM114, by testing Vemurafenib's efficacy on orthotopically engrafted CRMM1. CRMM1 showed a strong significant reduction of the Vemurafenib treated ectopically engrafted group (P<0.0001) and a stunted yet significant response for the orthotopically engrafted model (p<0.05) as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 2. Phenotypic assessment and screening after injection. A) Schematic depiction of zebrafish xenograft confocal stitch generation, yielding seamless, high resolution images after integration of subsequent confocal projection. Here zebrafish xenografts are embedded in 1% low melting agarose and mounted on a glass bottom confocal dish (as described in step 11.3). B) All possible outcomes of retro-orbital and duct of Cuvier engraftment are displayed injected in green fluorescent blood vessel reporter zebrafish (TG:fli:GFP), with cells stained through lentiviral over expression of tdTomato). We denote the correct engraftment at 1 dpi (RO panel) and the unwanted phenotypes (both brain leakage and blood vessel leakage). The latter two populations must be removed to ensure they do not confound downstream experimental findings. C) The unwanted phenotypes for the hematogenous engraftment through the duct of Cuvier (doC) are outlines where cardiac edematous larvae (Cardiac edema) and larvae with cells leaking into the yolk sac (Yolk injection) must be removed to prevent interference with downstream measurements. The correctly injected larvae are entered into experimental groups as described in step 7.1. (All images acquired at 1 dpi, using a confocal microscope, scale bars 200 µm. Yellow boxes indicate metastatic sites for both RO and doC engraftments, head region and caudal hematopoietic tissue, respectively). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3. Comparative analysis of conjunctival melanoma cell lines CRMM1 and CRMM2 show differential metastatic and growth capacity. A) Schematic representation of injection models, retro-orbital model (RO) and hematogenous engraftment model (doC) the fish used are TG(fli:GFP) green blood vessel reporters, with cells over expressing tdTomato shown in red. B) Representative phenotypes of fish engrafted with CRMM1 and CRMM2, CRMM1 displays efficient engraftment (both RO and doC) and small scale invasion into the tissue surrounding the RO engraftment site (RO, yellow arrowheads). CRMM2 exhibits a remarkably lower engraftment efficiency for both engraftment models, but shows distant metastasis when injected retro-orbitally (as shown in RO, denoted by the arrowheads). (All images acquired at 6 dpi, a confocal microscope, scale bars 200 µm. Yellow arrowheads indicate metastatic sites for both RO and doC engraftments, head region and caudal hematopoietic tissue respectively). C) Kinetic engraftment plots for both CRMM1 and CRMM2, comparing both engraftment models to day 1 (normalizing to day 1), there is a significant (p<0.0001) increase in normalized tumor burden for cell line CRMM1(between 1 dpi and 6 dpi) where there is a (non-significant) upward trend for CRMM2. CRMM1 reveals a significant difference between RO and doC growth, where the doC model shows a higher tumor expansion rate (approximately 2-fold higher for the doC engrafted larvae). Graphs display the mean and standard error of the mean (SEM). All groups were normalized to 1 dpi for each individual condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4. BRAF V600E inhibitor Vemurafenib significantly inhibits both RO and doC conjunctival melanoma engrafted zebrafish larvae. A) Schematic representation of zebrafish phenotypes, RO and doC models. B) Both RO and doC engrafted larvae, injected with conjunctival melanoma cell line CRMM1 display a significant reduction of normalized tumor burden (p<0.05 and P<0.001 respectively). The doC engrafted zebrafish models indicate an enhanced drug response and a dose independent relationship to drug inhibition, indicating a possible saturation of inhibition). Graphs show the mean and standard error of the mean (SEM), All groups were normalized to control for each individual cell line. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Reagent | Volume |
| psPAX2 | 1.71 pmol (12.14µg) |
| pMD2.G | 0.94 pmol (3.66µg) |
| Transfer Plasmid* | 1.64 pmol (calculate exact volume) |
Table 1.