Organotypic Collagen I Assay: A Malleable Platform to Assess Cell Behaviour in a 3-Dimensional Context

Cell migration is fundamental to many aspects of biology, including development, wound healing, the cellular responses of the immune system, and metastasis of tumor cells. Migration has been studied on glass coverslips in order to make cellular dynamics amenable to investigation by light microscopy. However, it has become clear that many aspects of cell migration depend on features of the local environment including its elasticity, protein composition, and pore size, which are not faithfully represented by rigid two dimensional substrates such as glass and plastic 1. Furthermore, interaction with other cell types, including stromal fibroblasts 2 and immune cells 3, has been shown to play a critical role in promoting the invasion of cancer cells. Investigation at the molecular level has increasingly shown that molecular dynamics, including response to drug treatment, of identical cells are significantly different when compared in vitro and in vivo 4. Ideally, it would be best to study cell migration in its naturally occurring context in living organisms, however this is not always possible. Intermediate tissue culture systems, such as cell derived matrix, matrigel, organotypic culture (described here) tissue explants, organoids, and xenografts, are therefore important experimental intermediates. These systems approximate certain aspects of an in vivo environment but are more amenable to experimental manipulation such as use of stably transfected cell lines, drug treatment regimes, long term and high-resolution imaging. Such intermediate systems are especially useful as proving grounds to validate probes and establish parameters required to image the dynamic response of cells and fluorescent reporters prior to undertaking imaging in vivo 5. As such, they can serve an important role in reducing the need for experiments on living animals.

[1]  A. Bohnert,et al.  Growth and differentiation characteristics of transformed keratinocytes from mouse and human skin in vitro and in vivo. , 1983, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[2]  M. Edward,et al.  Tumour regulation of fibroblast hyaluronan expression: a mechanism to facilitate tumour growth and invasion. , 2005, Carcinogenesis.

[3]  M. Stone,et al.  Development of a quantitative method to analyse tumour cell invasion in organotypic culture , 2005, The Journal of pathology.

[4]  M. Edward,et al.  Keratinocyte regulation of TGF‐β and connective tissue growth factor expression: A role in suppression of scar tissue formation , 2007, Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society.

[5]  E. Sahai,et al.  Fibroblast-led collective invasion of carcinoma cells with differing roles for RhoGTPases in leading and following cells , 2007, Nature Cell Biology.

[6]  Kenneth M. Yamada,et al.  Modeling Tissue Morphogenesis and Cancer in 3D , 2007, Cell.

[7]  Stephen J. Weiss,et al.  Protease-dependent versus -independent cancer cell invasion programs: three-dimensional amoeboid movement revisited , 2009, The Journal of cell biology.

[8]  Neil O Carragher,et al.  Real-time study of E-cadherin and membrane dynamics in living animals: implications for disease modeling and drug development. , 2009, Cancer research.

[9]  Jeffrey Wyckoff,et al.  Invasion of human breast cancer cells in vivo requires both paracrine and autocrine loops involving the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor. , 2009, Cancer research.

[10]  J. Quinn,et al.  4‐Methylumbelliferone inhibits tumour cell growth and the activation of stromal hyaluronan synthesis by melanoma cell‐derived factors , 2010, The British journal of dermatology.

[11]  N. Carragher,et al.  Spatial regulation of RhoA activity during pancreatic cancer cell invasion driven by mutant p53. , 2011, Cancer research.