Automated quantitative image analysis for ex vivo metastasis assays reveals differing lung composition requirements for metastasis suppression by KISS1.

Imaging is broadly used in biomedical research, but signal variation complicates automated analysis. Using the Pulmonary Metastasis Assay (PuMA) to study metastatic colonization by the metastasis suppressor KISS1, we cultured GFP-expressing melanoma cells in living mouse lung ex vivo for 3 weeks. Epifluorescence images of cells were used to measure growth, creating large datasets which were time consuming and challenging to quantify manually due to scattering of light from outside the focal plane. To address these challenges, we developed an automated workflow to standardize the measurement of disseminated cancer cell growth by applying statistical quality control to remove unanalyzable images followed and a filtering algorithm to quantify only in-focus cells. Using this tool, we demonstrate that expression of the metastasis suppressor KISS1 does not suppress growth of melanoma cells in the PuMA, in contrast to the robust suppression of lung metastasis observed in vivo. This result may suggest that a factor required for metastasis suppression is present in vivo but absent in the PuMA, or that KISS1 suppresses lung metastasis at a step in the metastatic cascade not tested by the PuMA. Together, these data provide a new tool for quantification of metastasis assays and further insight into the mechanism of KISS1 mediated metastasis suppression in the lung.

Assessment of Multifactor Gene-Environment Interactions and Ovarian Cancer Risk: Candidate Genes, Obesity, and Hormone-Related Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Many epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk factors relate to hormone exposure and elevated estrogen levels are associated with obesity in postmenopausal women. Therefore, we hypothesized that gene-environment interactions related to hormone-related risk factors could differ between obese and non-obese women. METHODS: We considered interactions between 11,441 SNPs within 80 candidate genes related to hormone biosynthesis and metabolism and insulin-like growth factors with six hormone-related factors (oral contraceptive use, parity, endometriosis, tubal ligation, hormone replacement therapy, and estrogen use) and assessed whether these interactions differed between obese and non-obese women. Interactions were assessed using logistic regression models and data from 14 case-control studies (6,247 cases; 10,379 controls). Histotype-specific analyses were also completed. RESULTS: SNPs in the following candidate genes showed notable interaction: IGF1R (rs41497346, estrogen plus progesterone hormone therapy, histology = all, P = 4.9 × 10(-6)) and ESR1 (rs12661437, endometriosis, histology = all, P = 1.5 × 10(-5)). The most notable obesity-gene-hormone risk factor interaction was within INSR (rs113759408, parity, histology = endometrioid, P = 8.8 × 10(-6)). CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the feasibility of assessing multifactor interactions in large genetic epidemiology studies. Follow-up studies are necessary to assess the robustness of our findings for ESR1, CYP11A1, IGF1R, CYP11B1, INSR, and IGFBP2 Future work is needed to develop powerful statistical methods able to detect these complex interactions. IMPACT: Assessment of multifactor interaction is feasible, and, here, suggests that the relationship between genetic variants within candidate genes and hormone-related risk factors may vary EOC susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(5); 780-90. ©2016 AACR.