A parallel-gradient microfluidic chamber for quantitative analysis of breast cancer cell chemotaxis
Growth factor-induced chemotaxis of cancer cells is believed to play a critical role in metastasis, directing the spread of cancer from the primary tumor to secondary sites in the body. Understanding the mechanistic and quantitative behavior of cancer cell migration in growth factor gradients would greatly help in future treatment of metastatic cancers. Using a novel microfluidic chemotaxis chamber capable of simultaneously generating multiple growth factor gradients, we examined the migration of the human metastatic breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 in various conditions. First, we quantified and compared the migration in two gradients of epidermal growth factor (EGF) spanning different concentrations: 0–50 ng/ml and 0.1–6 ng/ml. Cells showed a stronger response in the 0–50 ng/ml gradient. However, the fact that even a shallow gradient of EGF can induce chemotaxis, and that EGF can direct migration over a large dynamic range of gradients, confirms the potency of EGF as a chemoattractant. Second, we investigated the effect of antibody against the EGF receptor (EGFR) on MDA-MB-231 chemotaxis. Quantitative analysis indicated that anti-EGFR antibody impaired both motility and directional orientation (CI = 0.03, speed = 0.71 μm/min), indicating that cell motility was induced by the activation of EGFR. The ability to compare, in terms of quantitative parameters, the effects of different pharmaceutical inhibitors, as well as subtle differences in experimental conditions, will aid in our understanding of mechanisms that drive metastasis. The microfluidic chamber described in this work will provide a platform for cell-based assays that can be used to compare the effectiveness of different pharmaceutical compounds targeting cell migration and metastasis.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- F. Ciardiello and G. Tortora, Clin Cancer Res 7, 2958–2970 (2001).Google Scholar
- S. Dluz, S. Higashiyama, D. Damm, J. Abraham and M. Klagsbrun, J Biol Chem 268, 18330–18334 (1993).Google Scholar
- N.L. Jeon, H. Baskaran, S.K.W. Dertinger, G.M. Whitesides, L. Van De Water and M. Toner, Nat Biotechnol 20 826–830 (2002).Google Scholar
- M.D. Levine, L.A. Liotta and M.L. Stracke, EXS 74, 157–179 (1995).Google Scholar
- F. Lin, W. Saadi, S.W. Rhee, S.-J. Wang, S. Mittal and N.L. Jeon, Lab Chip 4, DOI: 10.1039/b313600k (2004).Google Scholar
- G. Peoples, S. Blotnick, K. Takahashi, M. Freeman, M. Klagsbrun and T. Eberlein, PNAS 92, 6547–6551 (1995).Google Scholar
- J.T. Price, T. Tiganis, A. Agarwal, D. Djakiew and E.W. Thompson, Cancer Research 59, 5475–5478 (1999).Google Scholar
- R. Radinsky, S. Risin, D. Fan, Z. Dong, D. Bielenberg, C. Bucana and I.J. Fidler, Clin Cancer Res 1, 19–31 (1995).Google Scholar
- T. Turner, M.V. Epps-Fung, J. Kassis and A. Wells, Clin Cancer Res 3, 2275–82 (1997).Google Scholar
- J.B. Wyckoff, J.G. Jones, J.S. Condeelis and J.E. Segall, Cancer Res 60, 2504–2511 (2000).Google Scholar
- J.B. Wyckoff, J.E. Segall and J.S. Condeelis, Cancer Res 60, 5401–4 (2000).Google Scholar
- X. Yang, J. Corvalan, P. Wang, C. Roy and C. Davis, J Leukoc Biol 66, 401–410 (1999).Google Scholar
- J.H. Zar, Biostatistical Analysis (Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, (1996)Google Scholar