Conventional and molecular cytogenetics of human non-medullary thyroid carcinoma: characterization of eight cell line models and review of the literature on clinical samples.

BACKGROUND: Cell lines are often poorly characterized from a genetic point of view, reducing their usefulness as tumor models. Our purpose was to assess the genetic background of eight commonly used human thyroid carcinoma models and to compare the findings with those reported for primary tumors of the gland. METHODS: We used chromosome banding analysis and comparative genomic hybridization to profile eight non-medullary thyroid carcinoma cell lines of papillary (TPC-1, FB2, K1 and B-CPAP), follicular (XTC-1) or anaplastic origin (8505C, C643 and HTH74). To assess the representativeness of the findings, we additionally performed a thorough review of cytogenetic (n = 125) and DNA copy number information (n = 270) available in the literature on clinical samples of thyroid carcinoma. RESULTS: The detailed characterization of chromosomal markers specific for each cell line revealed two cases of mistaken identities: FB2 was shown to derive from TPC-1 cells, whereas K1 cells have their origin in cell line GLAG-66. All cellular models displayed genomic aberrations of varying complexity, and recurrent gains at 5p, 5q, 8q, and 20q (6/7 cell lines) and losses at 8p, 13q, 18q, and Xp (4/7 cell lines) were seen. Importantly, the genomic profiles were compatible with those of the respective primary tumors, as seen in the meta-analysis of the existing literature data. CONCLUSION: We provide the genomic background of seven independent thyroid carcinoma models representative of the clinical tumors of the corresponding histotypes, and highlight regions of recurrent aberrations that may guide future studies aimed at identifying target genes. Our findings further support the importance of routinely performing cytogenetic studies on cell lines, to detect cross-contamination mishaps such as those identified here.

Molecular and genotypic characterization of human thyroid follicular cell carcinoma-derived cell lines.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize the molecular and genotypic profile of eight thyroid carcinoma-derived cell lines-TPC1, FB2, B-CPAP, K1, XTC-1, C643, 8505C, and Hth74-in order to use them as in vitro models of thyroid carcinogenesis. DESIGN: We evaluated the expression of five thyroid-specific genes (Tg, TSHr, TPO, PAX8, and TTF-1) to establish the cell lineage and to assess the differentiation status of each of the cell lines. We screened for mutations in the most relevant oncogenes/tumor suppressor genes affected in thyroid carcinogenesis: RAS, BRAF, CTNNB1, and TP53 along with RET/PTC rearrangements. Considering the putative relevance in general carcinogenesis, we have also studied other molecules such as EGFR, PI3K, RAF-1, and THRB. To determine the genetic identity of the cell lines, we performed genotypic analysis. MAIN OUTCOME: The panel of cell lines we have studied displayed activation of several oncogenes (BRAF, RAS, RET/PTC) and inactivation of tumor suppressor genes (TP53) known to be important for thyroid carcinogenesis. Two of the cell lines-TPC1 and FB2-shared the same genotypic profile, probably representing clones of an ancestor cell line (TPC1). CONCLUSION: Due to their different molecular alterations, these cell lines represent a valuable tool to study the molecular mechanisms underlying thyroid carcinogenesis. We suggest that genotypic analyses should be included as a routine procedure to guarantee the uniqueness of each cell line used in research.

Type and prevalence of BRAF mutations are closely associated with papillary thyroid carcinoma histotype and patients' age but not with tumour aggressiveness.

A high prevalence of the BRAF(V600E) somatic mutation was recently reported in several series of papillary thyroid carcinomas (PTC). This mutation appears to be particularly prevalent in PTC with a predominantly papillary architecture. Another BRAF mutation (K601E) was detected in a follicular adenoma and in some cases of the follicular variant of PTC. The few studies on record provided controversial data on the relationship between the occurrence of BRAF mutations and clinicopathologic parameters such as gender, age and tumour staging. In an attempt to clarify such controversies we decided to enlarge our previous series to 315 tumours or tumour-like lesions diagnosed in 280 patients, including a thorough analysis of several clinicopathologic features. The BRAF(V600E) mutation was exclusively detected in PTC with a papillary or mixed follicular/papillary architecture both of the conventional type (46%) and of other histotypes, such as microcarcinoma (43%), Warthin-like PTC (75%) and oncocytic variant of PTC (55%). The BRAF(K601E) mutation was detected in four of the 54 cases of the follicular variant of PTC (7%). The mean age of patients with conventional PTC harbouring BRAF(V600E) (46.7 years) was significantly higher (P<0.0001) than that of patients with conventional PTC without BRAF(V600E) (29.5 years). The BRAF (BRAF(V600E)) mutated PTC did not exhibit signs of higher aggressiveness (size, vascular invasion, extra-thyroid extension and nodal metastasis) and were in fact less often multicentric than PTC without the mutation.