Cell dissociation techniques in human breast cancer — Variations in tumor cell viability and DNA ploidy
- 176 Downloads
Approximately 70% of breast cancers contain cell populations with hyperdiploid (>G0/G1) DNA content; however, cells cultured from breast cancers have only diploid DNA contents and karyotypes. Mechanically dissociated cells rarely, if ever, grow in culture, while enzymatically dissociated cells do grow in most cases. To determine if cell dissociation techniques used to prepare cells for culture and other laboratory procedures select for cells with specific features, and if tumor cells are killed in the process, breast cancer cells obtained by mechanical dissociation and by enzymatic dissociation were examined for DNA content and cell viability (measured by dye exclusion). Mechanical dissociation yielded more dead cells and cells with hyperdiploid (>G0/G1) DNA than did enzymatic dissociation. Hyperdiploid cells were also found in the dye-excluding population with each dissociation technique, suggesting that the hyperdiploid cells were not always dead.
We conclude that,in vivo, tumors contain cellular subpopulations with low viability and hyperdiploid (>G0/G1) DNA patterns. The extent to which these subpopulations are present in a sample depends on the dissociation technique employed. That only diploid cells are found in cultures of primary breast cancers may be because enzymatic dissociation, used to prepare cells for culture, yields predominantly diploid cells. These observations also have important implications for interpreting measurements made on dispersed cells,e.g., viability, DNA content, and other cytochemical markers.
Key wordsbreast cancer DNA ploidy viability enzymatic dissociation mechanical dissociation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Foulds L: Neoplastic Development II. Academic Press, New York, 1975Google Scholar
- 2.Heppner G: The challenge of tumor heterogeneity. In: Bulbrook R, Taylor DJ (eds) Commentaries on Research in Breast Disease, Vol 1. Plenum Press, New York, 1979, pp 177–191Google Scholar
- 5.Smith HS, Liotta LA, Hancock MC, Wolman SR, Hackett AJ: Invasiness and ploidy of human mammary carcinomas in short term culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 82: 1805–1809, 1985Google Scholar
- 8.Weisenthal LM, Dill PL, Kurnick NB, Lippman ME: Comparison of dye exclusion assays with a clonogenic assay in the determination of drug-induced cytotoxicity. Cancer Res 45: 258–264, 1983Google Scholar
- 9.Stampfer MR: Isolation and growth of human mammary epithelial cells. J Tiss Cult Meth 9: 107–115, 1985Google Scholar
- 10.Mayall BH, Chew KL, Malone R: Semiautomatic cytometric analysis of cell nuclei in tissue sections and in isolated whole cells using the TAS+. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of Analytical Cytology X, June 3–8, 1984, Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hiddemann W, Schumann J, Andreef M, Barlogie B, Herman CJ, Leif RC, Mayall BH, Murphy RF, Sandberg AA: Convention on nomenclature for DNA cytometry. Cytometry 5: 445–446, 1984Google Scholar
- 13.Lowhagen T, Willems JS, Lundell G, Sunblad R, Granberg PO: Aspiration biopsy cytology in diagnosis of thyroid cancer. World J Surg 5: 71–73, 1981Google Scholar