Alyssa D. Schwartz

Comparative Study of Multicellular Tumor Spheroid Formation Methods and Implications for Drug Screening

Improved in vitro models are needed to better understand cancer progression and bridge the gap between in vitro proof-of-concept studies, in vivo validation, and clinical application. Multicellular tumor spheroids (MCTS) are a popular method for three-dimensional (3D) cell culture, because they capture some aspects of the dimensionality, cell-cell contact, and cell-matrix interactions seen in vivo. Many approaches exist to create MCTS from cell lines, and they have been used to study tumor cell invasion, growth, and how cells respond to drugs in physiologically relevant 3D microenvironments. However, there are several discrepancies in the observations made of cell behaviors when comparing between MCTS formation methods. To resolve these inconsistencies, we created and compared the behavior of breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer cells across three MCTS formation methods: in polyNIPAAM gels, in microwells, or in suspension culture. These methods formed MCTS via proliferation from single cells or passive aggregation, and therefore showed differential reliance on genes important for cell-cell or cell-matrix interactions. We also found that the MCTS formation method dictated drug sensitivity, where MCTS formed over longer periods of time via clonal growth were more resistant to treatment. Toward clinical application, we compared an ovarian cancer cell line MCTS formed in polyNIPAAM with cells from patient-derived malignant ascites. The method that relied on clonal growth (PolyNIPAAM gel) was more time and cost intensive, but yielded MCTS that were uniformly spherical, and exhibited the most reproducible drug responses. Conversely, MCTS methods that relied on aggregation were faster, but yielded MCTS with grapelike, lobular structures. These three MCTS formation methods differed in culture time requirements and complexity, and had distinct drug response profiles, suggesting the choice of MCTS formation method should be carefully chosen based on the application required.

Acetyl-CoA promotes glioblastoma cell adhesion and migration through Ca2+–NFAT signaling

The metabolite acetyl-coenzyme A (acetyl-CoA) is the required acetyl donor for lysine acetylation and thereby links metabolism, signaling, and epigenetics. Nutrient availability alters acetyl-CoA levels in cancer cells, correlating with changes in global histone acetylation and gene expression. However, the specific molecular mechanisms through which acetyl-CoA production impacts gene expression and its functional roles in promoting malignant phenotypes are poorly understood. Here, using histone H3 Lys27 acetylation (H3K27ac) ChIP-seq (chromatin immunoprecipitation [ChIP] coupled with next-generation sequencing) with normalization to an exogenous reference genome (ChIP-Rx), we found that changes in acetyl-CoA abundance trigger site-specific regulation of H3K27ac, correlating with gene expression as opposed to uniformly modulating this mark at all genes. Genes involved in integrin signaling and cell adhesion were identified as acetyl-CoA-responsive in glioblastoma cells, and we demonstrate that ATP citrate lyase (ACLY)-dependent acetyl-CoA production promotes cell migration and adhesion to the extracellular matrix. Mechanistically, the transcription factor NFAT1 (nuclear factor of activated T cells 1) was found to mediate acetyl-CoA-dependent gene regulation and cell adhesion. This occurs through modulation of Ca2+ signals, triggering NFAT1 nuclear translocation when acetyl-CoA is abundant. The findings of this study thus establish that acetyl-CoA impacts H3K27ac at specific loci, correlating with gene expression, and that expression of cell adhesion genes are driven by acetyl-CoA in part through activation of Ca2+-NFAT signaling.

Mechanosensing of Integrin α6 and EGFR Converges at Calpain 2

Cells sense and respond to mechanical cues from the extracellular matrix (ECM) via integrins. ECM stiffening is known to increase integrin clustering and sensitivity to epidermal growth factor (EGF), but we lack information on when or if these mechanosensitive growth factor receptors and integrins converge intracellularly. Towards closing this knowledge gap, we combined a biomaterial platform with transcriptomics, molecular biology, and functional assays to link integrin-mediated mechanosensing and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. We found that high integrin α6 expression controlled breast cancer cell adhesion and motility on soft, laminin-coated substrates, and this mimicked the response of cells to EGF stimulation. The mechanisms that drove both mechanosensitive cell adhesion and motility converged on calpain 2, an intracellular protease important for talin cleavage and focal adhesion turnover. EGF stimulation enhanced adhesion and motility on soft substrates, but required integrin α6 and calpain 2 signaling. In sum, we identified a new role for integrin α6 mechanosensing in breast cancer, wherein cell adhesion to laminin on soft substrates mimicked EGF stimulation. We identified calpain 2, downstream of both integrin α6 engagement and EGFR phosphorylation, as a common intracellular signaling node, and implicate integrin α6 and calpain 2 as potential targets to inhibit the migration of cancer cells in stiff tumor environments.Cells sense and respond to mechanical cues from the extracellular matrix (ECM) via integrins. ECM stiffness is known to enhance integrin clustering and response to epidermal growth factor (EGF), but we lack information on when or if these mechanosensitive receptors converge intracellularly. Towards closing this knowledge gap, we combined a biomaterial platform with transcriptomics, molecular biology, and functional assays to link integrin-mediated mechanosensing and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. We found that high integrin α6 expression controlled cell adhesion and motility on soft, laminin-coated substrates, and this mimicked the response of cells to EGF stimulation. Signaling pathways downstream of mechanosensitive cell adhesion and motility converged on calpain 2, an intracellular protease important for talin cleavage and focal adhesion turnover. Inhibiting calpain 2 shifted the biphasic dependence of cell migration on substrate stiffness. EGF stimulation enhanced both adhesion and motility on soft substrates, but required the presence of both integrin α6 and calpain 2. In sum, we identified a new role for integrin α6 mechanosensing, where high integrin α6 binding to laminin mimicked the effect of EGF stimulation. Downstream of both integrin α6 and EGFR, calpain 2 is known to control focal adhesion dynamics and motility, implicating integrin α6 and calpain 2 as potential targets to inhibit the migration of cancer cells in stiff tumor environments.

Biomaterials in Mechano-oncology: Means to Tune Materials to Study Cancer

ECM stiffness is emerging as a prognostic marker of tumor aggression or potential for relapse. However, conflicting reports muddle the question of whether increasing or decreasing stiffness is associated with aggressive disease. This chapter discusses this controversy in more detail, but the fact that tumor stiffening plays a key role in cancer progression and in regulating cancer cell behaviors is clear. The impact of having in vitro biomaterial systems that could capture this stiffening during tumor evolution is very high. These cell culture platforms could help reveal the mechanistic underpinnings of this evolution, find new therapeutic targets to inhibit the cross talk between tumor development and ECM stiffening, and serve as better, more physiologically relevant platforms for drug screening.

Tumor‐stroma interactions differentially alter drug sensitivity based on the origin of stromal cells

Due to tumor heterogeneity, most believe that effective treatments should be tailored to the features of an individual tumor or tumor subclass. It is still unclear, however, what information should be considered for optimal disease stratification, and most prior work focuses on tumor genomics. Here, we focus on the tumor microenvironment. Using a large‐scale coculture assay optimized to measure drug‐induced cell death, we identify tumor–stroma interactions that modulate drug sensitivity. Our data show that the chemo‐insensitivity typically associated with aggressive subtypes of breast cancer is not observed if these cells are grown in 2D or 3D monoculture, but is manifested when these cells are cocultured with stromal cells, such as fibroblasts. Furthermore, we find that fibroblasts influence drug responses in two distinct and divergent manners, associated with the tissue from which the fibroblasts were harvested. These divergent phenotypes occur regardless of the drug tested and result from modulation of apoptotic priming within tumor cells. Our study highlights unexpected diversity in tumor–stroma interactions, and we reveal new principles that dictate how fibroblasts alter tumor drug responses.

Integrin α6 and EGFR signaling converge at mechanosensitive calpain 2

Cells sense and respond to mechanical cues from the extracellular matrix (ECM) via integrins. ECM stiffness is known to enhance integrin clustering and response to epidermal growth factor (EGF), but we lack information on when or if these mechanosensitive growth factor receptors and integrins converge intracellularly. Towards closing this knowledge gap, we combined a biomaterial platform with transcriptomics, molecular biology, and functional assays to link integrin-mediated mechanosensing and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. We found that high integrin α6 expression controlled breast cancer cell adhesion and motility on soft, laminin-coated substrates, and this mimicked the response of cells to EGF stimulation. The mechanisms that drove both mechanosensitive cell adhesion and motility converged on calpain 2, an intracellular protease important for talin cleavage and focal adhesion turnover. EGF stimulation enhanced adhesion and motility on soft substrates, but required integrin α6 and calpain 2 signaling. In sum, we identified a new role for integrin α6 mechanosensing in breast cancer, wherein cell adhesion to laminin on soft substrates mimicked EGF stimulation. We identified calpain 2, downstream of both integrin α6 engagement and EGFR phosphorylation, as a common intracellular signaling node, and implicate integrin α6 and calpain 2 as potential targets to inhibit the migration of cancer cells in stiff tumor environments.

Anomalously Diffusing and Persistently Migrating Cells in 2D and 3D Culture Environments

Appropriately chosen descriptive models of cell migration in biomaterials will allow researchers to characterize and ultimately predict the movement of cells in engineered systems for a variety of applications in tissue engineering. The persistent random walk (PRW) model accurately describes cell migration on two-dimensional (2D) substrates. However, this model inherently cannot describe subdiffusive cell movement, i.e., migration paths in which the root mean square displacement increases more slowly than the square root of the time interval. Subdiffusivity is a common characteristic of cells moving in confined environments, such as three-dimensional (3D) porous scaffolds, hydrogel networks, and in vivo tissues. We demonstrate that a generalized anomalous diffusion (AD) model, which uses a simple power law to relate the mean square displacement to time, more accurately captures individual cell migration paths across a range of engineered 2D and 3D environments than does the more commonly used PRW model. We used the AD model parameters to distinguish cell movement profiles on substrates with different chemokinetic factors, geometries (2D vs 3D), substrate adhesivities, and compliances. Although the two models performed with equal precision for superdiffusive cells, we suggest a simple AD model, in lieu of PRW, to describe cell trajectories in populations with a significant subdiffusive fraction, such as cells in confined, 3D environments.

Fibroblasts from metastatic sites induce broad-spectrum drug desensitization via modulation of mitochondrial priming

Due to tumor heterogeneity, most believe that effective treatments should be tailored to the features of an individual tumor or tumor subclass. It is still unclear what information should be considered for optimal disease stratification, and most prior work focuses on tumor genomics. Here, we focus on the tumor micro-environment. Using a large-scale co-culture assay optimized to measure drug-induced cell death, we identify tumor-stroma interactions that modulate drug sensitivity. Our data show that the chemo-insensitivity typically associated with aggressive subtypes of breast cancer is not cell intrinsic, but rather a product of tumor-fibroblast interactions. Additionally, we find that fibroblast cells influence tumor drug response in two distinct and divergent manners, which were predicable based on the anatomical origin from which the fibroblasts were harvested. These divergent phenotypes result from modulation of “mitochondrial priming” of tumor cells, caused by secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL6 and IL8, from stromal cells.

Anomalous Diffusion as a Descriptive Model of Cell Migration

Appropriately chosen descriptive models of cell migration in biomaterials will allow researchers to characterize and ultimately predict the movement of cells in engineered systems for a variety of applications in tissue engineering. The persistent random walk (PRW) model accurately describes cell migration on two-dimensional (2D) substrates. However, this model inherently cannot describe subdiffusive cell movement, i.e. migration paths in which the root mean square displacement increases more slowly than the square root of the time interval. Subdiffusivity is a common characteristic of cells moving in confined environments, such as three-dimensional (3D) porous scaffolds, hydrogel networks, and in vivo tissues. We demonstrate that a generalized anomalous diffusion (AD) model, which uses a simple power law to relate the mean square displacement (MSD) to time, more accurately captures individual cell migration paths across a range of engineered 2D and 3D environments than does the more commonly used PRW model. We used the AD model parameters to distinguish cell movement profiles on substrates with different chemokinetic factors, geometries (2D vs 3D), substrate adhesivities, and compliances. Although the two models performed with equal precision for superdiffusive cells, we suggest a simple AD model, in lieu of PRW, to describe cell trajectories in populations with a significant subdiffusive fraction, such as cells in confined, 3D environments.