Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23750209›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

In vitro analysis of breast cancer cell line tumourspheres and primary human breast epithelia mammospheres demonstrates inter- and intrasphere heterogeneity.

Chanel E Smart, Brian J Morrison, Jodi M Saunus, Ana Cristina Vargas, Patricia Keith, Lynne Reid, Leesa Wockner, Marjan Askarian-Amiri, Marjan Askarian Amiri, Debina Sarkar and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Overcoming biological barriers to improve solid tumor immunotherapy.Drug delivery and translational research · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. 3D Cell Culture Systems: Tumor Application, Advantages, and Disadvantages.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    Amiri, Marjan Askarian [corrected to Askarian-Amiri, Marjan]
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Chanel E SmartUQ Centre for Clinical Research (UQCCR), The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. c.smart@uq.edu.au
Brian J Morrison
Jodi M Saunus
Ana Cristina Vargas
Patricia Keith
Lynne Reid
Leesa Wockner
Marjan Askarian-Amiri
Marjan Askarian Amiri
Debina Sarkar
Peter T Simpson
Catherine Clarke
Chris W Schmidt
Brent A Reynolds
Sunil R Lakhani
J Alejandro Lopez

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammosphere and breast tumoursphere culture have gained popularity as in vitro assays for propagating and analysing normal and cancer stem cells. Whether the spheres derived from different sources or parent cultures themselves are indeed single entities enriched in stem/progenitor cells compared to other culture formats has not been fully determined. We surveyed sphere-forming capacity across 26 breast cell lines, immunophenotyped spheres from six luminal- and basal-like lines by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry and compared clonogenicity between sphere, adherent and matrigel culture formats using in vitro functional assays. Analyses revealed morphological and molecular intra- and inter-sphere heterogeneity, consistent with adherent parental cell line phenotypes. Flow cytometry showed sphere culture does not universally enrich for markers previously associated with stem cell phenotypes, although we found some cell-line specific changes between sphere and adherent formats. Sphere-forming efficiency was significantly lower than adherent or matrigel clonogenicity and constant over serial passage. Surprisingly, self-renewal capacity of sphere-derived cells was similar/lower than other culture formats. We observed significant correlation between long-term-proliferating-cell symmetric division rates in sphere and adherent cultures, suggesting functional overlap between the compartments sustaining them. Experiments with normal primary human mammary epithelia, including sorted luminal (MUC1(+)) and basal/myoepithelial (CD10(+)) cells revealed distinct luminal-like, basal-like and mesenchymal entities amongst primary mammospheres. Morphological and colony-forming-cell assay data suggested mammosphere culture may enrich for a luminal progenitor phenotype, or induce reversion/relaxation of the basal/mesenchymal in vitro selection occurring with adherent culture. Overall, cell line tumourspheres and primary mammospheres are not homogenous entities enriched for stem cells, suggesting a more cautious approach to interpreting data from these assays and careful consideration of its limitations. Sphere culture may represent an alternative 3-dimensional culture system which rather than universally 'enriching' for stem cells, has utility as one of a suite of functional assays that provide a read-out of progenitor activity.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCell AdhesionCell Line, TumorFlow CytometryHumansMammary Glands, HumanPhenotypeSpheroids, Cellular

Identifiers

PMID23750209
PMCPMC3672101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.