1
|
Segatto NV, Simões LD, Bender CB, Sousa FS, Oliveira TL, Paschoal JDF, Pacheco BS, Lopes I, Seixas FK, Qazi A, Thomas FM, Chaki S, Robertson N, Newsom J, Patel S, Rund LA, Jordan LR, Bolt C, Schachtschneider KM, Schook LB, Collares TV. Oncopig bladder cancer cells recapitulate human bladder cancer treatment responses in vitro. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1323422. [PMID: 38469237 PMCID: PMC10926022 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1323422] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2023] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 03/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction Bladder cancer is a common neoplasia of the urinary tract that holds the highest cost of lifelong treatment per patient, highlighting the need for a continuous search for new therapies for the disease. Current bladder cancer models are either imperfect in their ability to translate results to clinical practice (mouse models), or rare and not inducible (canine models). Swine models are an attractive alternative to model the disease due to their similarities with humans on several levels. The Oncopig Cancer Model has been shown to develop tumors that closely resemble human tumors. However, urothelial carcinoma has not yet been studied in this platform. Methods We aimed to develop novel Oncopig bladder cancer cell line (BCCL) and investigate whether these urothelial swine cells mimic human bladder cancer cell line (5637 and T24) treatment-responses to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and gemcitabine in vitro. Results Results demonstrated consistent treatment responses between Oncopig and human cells in most concentrations tested (p>0.05). Overall, Oncopig cells were more predictive of T24 than 5637 cell therapeutic responses. Microarray analysis also demonstrated similar alterations in expression of apoptotic (GADD45B and TP53INP1) and cytoskeleton-related genes (ZMYM6 and RND1) following gemcitabine exposure between 5637 (human) and Oncopig BCCL cells, indicating apoptosis may be triggered through similar signaling pathways. Molecular docking results indicated that swine and humans had similar Dg values between the chemotherapeutics and their target proteins. Discussion Taken together, these results suggest the Oncopig could be an attractive animal to model urothelial carcinoma due to similarities in in vitro therapeutic responses compared to human cells.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natália V. Segatto
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Lucas D. Simões
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Camila B. Bender
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Fernanda S. Sousa
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Thais L. Oliveira
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Júlia D. F. Paschoal
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Bruna S. Pacheco
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Isadora Lopes
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Fabiana K. Seixas
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Aisha Qazi
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
| | - Faith M. Thomas
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
| | - Sulalita Chaki
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
| | | | | | - Shovik Patel
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
| | - Laurie A. Rund
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
| | - Luke R. Jordan
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
- Sus Clinicals Inc., Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Courtni Bolt
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
- Sus Clinicals Inc., Chicago, IL, United States
| | | | - Lawrence B. Schook
- Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States
- Sus Clinicals Inc., Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Tiago V. Collares
- Technology Development Center, Laboratory of Cancer Biotechnology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|