Melanoma transplants in "green" mice: Fluorescent cells in tumors are not equivalent to host-derived cells

Background: To examine the usefulness of green fluorescent protein (GFP) mice for studying the interactions between normal cells and tumor cells in a host, we used a melanoma model in such "green" mice [C57BL/6-Tg (CAG-EGFP)1Osb mice]. Mice were given a subcutaneous injection of B16-F10 cells, and the resultant primary tumors were removed. Then cells from individual tumors were cultured. Results: The proportion of EFGP+ cells was determined by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) and was 6.8% ± 3.2% (mean ± s.d.) on day 1 of culture, 0.6% ± 0.3% on day 2, and 0.02% ± 0.01% at day 7. In all cases, isolated cells grew at a constant rate, but fluorescence decreased over time and became undetectable on day 14. Cells were tested using PCR for the presence of an EGFP-specific sequence, and results were negative in all cases, thus indicating that the cells did not harbor the host's reporter gene. Cells were also tested for the presence of EGFP mRNA, which was consistently detected for 22 days after the start of culture. The tumorogenicity of the cultured cells was confirmed in GFP mice injected with cells from a selection of cultures. Conclusions: In a melanoma model in GFP mice, the detection of "green" cells in tumors was not equivalent to the detection of host-derived cells. Such "masking" was caused by a transient, but lasting, transfer of EGFP mRNA from the host's normal cells to tumor cells. Thus, an analysis of tumors postmortem by techniques that yield only a single snapshot can lead to incorrect interpretations and erroneous conclusions.

DNA from tissues of young mice is optimal for genotyping

Background Genotyping of mice is a common procedure in animal facilities. The aim of this study was to compare the quantity and quality of DNA extracted from samples obtained from young mice (YM; 10 d old) and adult mice (AM; 12 weeks old). We collected samples from the tail and ear of YM and AM. We also sampled blood, check cells (via buccal swabs), hair and fecal pellets of AM, and biopsied distal phalanx of YM. We isolated DNA using commercial kits and determined concentrations and purity by spectrophotometry. The integrity of DNA was evaluated by agarose-gel electrophoresis and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results DNA in all samples was amplified successfully but the intensities of bands after electrophoresis was heterogeneous. In general, tissues from YM yielded more DNA than those from AM, with differences being statistically significant for ear samples (38 ± 12 ng/μL for YM; 7 ± 3 ng/μL for AM; P = 0.006). In YM, the most DNA was obtained from ear and tail samples, with differences from the amounts obtained from phalanx samples being statistically significant (P = 0.02 and P = 0.005, respectively). In AM, the most DNA was obtained from tail and blood samples. Samples obtained by non-invasive sampling methods in adults resulted in a deficient DNA extraction. Conclusions The results of the present study do not support the previous recommendations for using non-invasive methods to genotype adult animals. The use of newborn tissue samples showed the highest efficiency for DNA extraction.

Stem cells: promises and realities in cancer research

No disponible

No disponible

Hipermetilación del promotor del gen reparador hMLH1 en la patogenia del carcinoma de células renales esporádico / Promoter hypermethylation status of the mismatch repair gene hMLH1 in patients with sporadic renal cell carcinoma

Fundamento y objetivo: La metilación de los islotes CpG (secuencias del genoma ricas en guanina y citosina) presentes en las regiones promotoras constituye la forma de inactivación epigenética más común y es una alteración en el mecanismo de regulación de los genes que no requiere cambios en la secuencia del ADN. Se ha descrito hipermetilación del promotor del gen hMLH1 en algunas líneas celulares procedentes de carcinoma de células renales (CCR). Nuestro objetivo ha sido determinar la existencia de hipermetilación en el promotor del gen hMLH1 en muestras de ADN tumoral de pacientes con CCR esporádico. Material y método: Se recogieron consecutivamente 65 muestras de tejido tumoral procedente de pacientes diagnosticados de CCR. Tras la obtención y purificación del ADN se procedió a su digestión con las enzimas de restricción HpaII y MspI, seguido de amplificación mediante reacción en cadena de la polimerasa de 3 regiones del promotor del gen hMLH1, electroforesis en gel de agarosa y análisis densitométrico de las bandas amplificadas. Resultados: La edad media de los pacientes fue de 63,7 años. El tipo celular más frecuente fue el carcinoma de células claras (67,7%). Un 73,9% de los tumores se diagnosticaron en estadios inferiores a pT2, un 9,3% tenían afectación ganglionar y un 20%, metástasis a distancia. No se detectó hipermetilación somática en la región promotora del gen hMLH1 en ninguno de los pacientes estudiados. Conclusiones: La hipermetilación del promotor del gen hMLH1 no parece intervenir en la patogenia del CCR esporádico, y es necesario analizar la existencia de otro tipo de mutaciones, inestabilidad de microsatélites y/o pérdida de heterocigosis para determinar el posible papel de este gen en la patogenia del CCR esporádico

Background and objective: Epigenetic inactivation is a gene function abnormality that produces no changes in the DNA sequence, with the most frequent epigenetic alteration being hypermethylation of CpG islands in the promoter regions of the genes. Based on recent indications of a potential relationship between mismatch repair genes and renal cell carcinoma (RCC), we were interested in investigating the existence of promoter hypermethylation of the hMLH1 gene in tumor DNA samples from patients with sporadic RCC. Material and method: Sixty-five tumor tissue specimens were collected consecutively. The DNA was first obtained and purified, then digested with the restriction enzymes Hpa II and Msp I, followed by polimerase chain reaction amplification of 3 promoter regions of the hMLH1 gene, agarose gel electrophoresis, and densitometric analysis of the images of the amplified bands. Results: Mean patient age was 63.7 years. The most frequent cell type was clear cell carcinoma (67.7%). 73.9% of tumors were diagnosed in stages below pT2, 9.3% had gland involvement and 20%, distant metastasis. No somatic hypermethylation was detected in the promoter region of the hMLH1 gene in any of the patients studied. Conclusions: Our data indicate that promoter hypermethylation of the hMLH1 gene is not implicated in the pathogenesis of sporadic RCC, and therefore the existence of another type of mutation, microsatellite instability and/or loss of heterozygosity should be examined to determine the possible role of this gene in sporadic RCC