Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 153–159 | Cite as

Cell dissociation techniques in human breast cancer — Variations in tumor cell viability and DNA ploidy

  • Britt-Marie Ljung
  • Brian Mayall
  • Chace Lottich
  • Cinda Boyer
  • Steven S. Sylvester
  • George S. Leight
  • Hilliard F. Siegler
  • Helene S. Smith
Report

Summary

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 words

breast cancer DNA ploidy viability enzymatic dissociation mechanical dissociation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Foulds L: Neoplastic Development II. Academic Press, New York, 1975Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Smith HS, Wolman SR, Hackett AJ: The biology of breast cancer at the cellular level. Biochim Biophys Acta 738: 103–123, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyer JS, McDivitt RW, Stone KR, Prey MU, Bauer WC: Practical breast carcinoma cell kinetics: Review and update. Breast Cancer Res Treat 4: 79–88, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Wolman SR, Smith HS, Stampfer M, Hackett AJ: Growth of diploid cells from breast cancers. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 16: 49–64, 1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chassevent A, Daver A, Bertrand G, Coic H, Geslin J, Bidabe M-CI, George P, Larra F: Comparative flow DNA analysis of different cell suspensions in breast carcinoma. Cytometry 5: 263–267, 1984PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    Stampfer MR: Isolation and growth of human mammary epithelial cells. J Tiss Cult Meth 9: 107–115, 1985Google Scholar
  10. 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. 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
  12. 12.
    Bhuyan BK, Loughman BE, Fraser TJ, Day KJ: Comparison of different methods of determining cell viability after exposure to cytotoxic compounds. Exp Cell Res 97: 275–280, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Britt-Marie Ljung
    • 1
  • Brian Mayall
    • 2
    • 6
  • Chace Lottich
    • 3
  • Cinda Boyer
    • 4
  • Steven S. Sylvester
    • 5
  • George S. Leight
    • 3
  • Hilliard F. Siegler
    • 3
  • Helene S. Smith
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Laboratory MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Peralta Cancer Research InstituteOaklandUSA
  6. 6.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryBiomedical Sciences DivisionLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations