Quantitation of a “Malignancy Index” of the Relationship between Glioblastoma Microtumor Mass and Invasive Potential Using A Chicken Egg Albumen Matrix to Define Biomechanical Density Parameters that Promote Malignant Progression Malignancy Index Quantitation

Main Article Content

Sarah Adelaide Crawford Brielle Hayward-Piatkovskyi

Abstract

Although many factors contribute to the low translational success of pre-clinical data into human trials, one major factor is the failure of pre-clinical models to recapitulate essential physiological components of malignant tumors. An important body of clinical research indicates that the surrounding cellular microenvironment involving stromal tissue, matrix and the resident immune system play a critical role in the genesis of brain tumors of many diverse types.  The research presented in this paper specifically addresses the role of biomechanical components in the brain extracellular matrix that may play a critical role in the development and spread of central nervous system malignancies, specifically gliomas. The data suggest that unfertilized chicken egg albumen, as a novel three-dimensional culture medium, provides a biologically relevant microenvironment that can support dynamic tumor formation and growth. Chicken egg albumen supplemented culture media produced compaction effects on tumor density that varied inversely with invasion zone expansion parameters. Based on this observed relationship, a ratio was extrapolated from primary data measurements to assess more quantitatively the relationship between microtumor spheroid surface area and invasion zone diameter. The ratio of microtumor invasion zone diameter divided by microtumor surface area was calculated and designated a “Malignancy Index” based on the premise that the relationship between the peripheral invasion zone diameter relative to surface area changes reflecting changing compaction parameters of the tumor mass represents a relevant assessment of tumor invasiveness, a fundamental hallmark of malignancy.

Article Details

How to Cite
CRAWFORD, Sarah Adelaide; HAYWARD-PIATKOVSKYI, Brielle. Quantitation of a “Malignancy Index” of the Relationship between Glioblastoma Microtumor Mass and Invasive Potential Using A Chicken Egg Albumen Matrix to Define Biomechanical Density Parameters that Promote Malignant Progression. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 9, sep. 2022. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/3002>. Date accessed: 21 nov. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v10i9.3002.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012; 483:531-533.
2. Pampaloni F, Reynaud EG, Stetzer EHK. The third dimension bridges the gap between cell culture and live tissue. Nat Rev. 2007; 8:839-845.
3. Yamada KM, Cukierman, E. 2007. Modeling tissue morphogenesis and cancer in 3D. Cell 2007; 130:601-610.
4. Chiquet M, Gelman L, Lutz R, Maier S. From mechanotransduction to extracellular matrix gene expression in fibroblasts. Biochim Biophys Acta 2009; 1793:911-920.
5. Bissell MJ, Jones, PL. Extracellular matrix and integrin signalling: The shape of things to come. Biochem J. 1999; 339(3):481-488.
6. Chandrasekaran S, King MR. Gather round: In vitro tumor spheroids as improved models of in vivo tumors. J Bioeng Biomed Sci. 2012; 2(4):e109.
7. Yokota J. Tumor progression and metastasis. Carcinogen. 2000; 21(3):497-503.
8. Alves TR, Lima FRS, Kahn SA, et al. Glioblastoma cells: A heterogeneous and fatal tumor interacting with the parenchyma. Life Sci. 2011; 89:532-539.
9. Holland EC. Glioblastoma multiforme: The terminator. P Natl Acad Sci. 2000; 97(12):6242-6244.
10. Bissell MJ, Barcellos-Hoff MH. The influence of extracellular matrix on gene expression: Is structure the message? J Cell Sci. 1987; 8:327-343.
11. Weiswald L, Guinebretiere J, Richon S, Bellet D, Saubamea B, Dangles-Marie V. In situ protein expression in tumour spheres: Development of an immunostaining protocol for confocal microscopy. BMC Cancer 2010;10: 106-117.
12. Kerbel RS. 2003. Human tumor xenografts as predictive preclinical models for anticancer drug activity in humans: Better than commonly perceived—But they can be improved. Cancer Biol Ther. 2003; 2(4):S134-S139.
13. Zanoni M, Piccinini F, Arienti C et al. 2016. 3D tumor spheroid models for in vitro therapeutic screening: A systematic approach to enhance the biological relevance of data obtained. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:19103.
14. Brown MC, Staniszewska I, Lazarovici P, Tuszynski GP, Valle LD, Marcinkiewicz C. Regulatory effect of nerve growth factor in α9β1 integrin-dependent progression of glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2008; 10(6):968-980.
15. Burger PC, Green SB. Patient age, histologic features, and length of survival in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer 1987: 59:1617-1625.
16. Grobben B, De Deyn PP, Slegers H. Rat C6 glioma as experimental model system for the study of glioblastoma growth and invasion. Cell Tissue Res. 2002; 310:257-270.
17. Kaipparettu BA, Kuiatse I, Chan BT, Kaipparettu MB, Lee AV, Oesterreich S. Novel egg white-based 3-D cell culture system. BioTechniques 2008; 45:165-171.
18. Mousseau Y, Mollard S, Qiu H et al. In vitro 3D angiogenesis assay in egg white matrix: Comparison to Matrigel, compatibility to various species, and suitability for drug testing. Lab Invest. 2014 94:340-349.
19. Kovacs-Nolan J, Phillips M, Mine Y. 2005. Advances in the value of eggs and egg components for human health. J Agr Food Chem. 2005; 53:8421-8431.
20. Tse J, Cheng G, Tyrrell J, et al. Mechanical compression drives cancer cells toward invasive phenotype. PNAS 2011;109 (3) 911-916.
21. Spencer A, Sligar AD, Chavarria D et al. 2021. Biomechanical regulation of breast cancer metastasis and progression. Sci Rep 2021; 11, 9838.