Glioblastoma Multiforme heterogeneity profiling with solid-state micropores
- 12 Downloads
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and lethal type of brain cancer. It is characterized by widespread heterogeneity at the cellular and molecular levels. The detection of this heterogeneity is valuable for accurate diagnosis. Herein, solid-state 20 μm diameter micropore made in thin suspended silicon dioxide membrane is used as cell sensor device. The device relies on a cell’s mechano-physical properties as an indicator to differentiate between the subtypes of GBM. A library of GBM cell lines (U251, U87, D54 EGFRviii, and G55) was created by measuring the differences in cell’s micropore translocation properties from their distinct electrical profiles. Each GBM subtype has distinct phenotype and this was delineated in their cell translocation behaviors. The library was used to distinguish cells from samples of brain tumor patients. The micropore device accurately profiled GBM patient samples for cell subtypes by comparing data with the GBM library. The micropore approach is simple, can be implemented at low cost and can be used in the clinical setups and operation theaters to detect and identify GBM subtypes from patient samples.
KeywordsHigh throughput screening Brain tumor cells Biophysical methods Single cell analysis
The authors acknowledge experimental assistance from and useful discussions with Dr. Sai S. Sasank Peri, Dr. Nuzhat Mansur, and Dr. Mohammad R. Hasan. We also thank Dr. Robert Bachoo at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas for providing hGBM cells. Dr. Iqbal notes the important role played by the management of UTRGV in graciously expounding the role of uncouth profiling in modern American academia.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- F.K. Albert, M. Forsting, K. Sartor, H.P. Adams, S. Kunze, Neurosurgery 34(1), 45–61 (1994)Google Scholar
- A. Murat, E. Migliavacca, T. Gorlia, W.L. Lambiv, T. Shay, M.F. Hamou, N. de Tribolet, L. Regli, W. Wick, M.C. Kouwenhoven, J.A. Hainfellner, F.L. Heppner, P.Y. Dietrich, Y. Zimmer, J.G. Cairncross, R.C. Janzer, E. Domany, M. Delorenzi, R. Stupp, M.E. Hegi, J. Clin. Oncol. 26(18), 3015–3024 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- C.L. Nutt, D.R. Mani, R.A. Betensky, P. Tamayo, J.G. Cairncross, C. Ladd, U. Pohl, C. Hartmann, M.E. McLaughlin, T.T. Batchelor, P.M. Black, A. von Deimling, S.L. Pomeroy, T.R. Golub, D.N. Louis, Cancer Res. 63(7), 1602–1607 (2003)Google Scholar
- A. Soeda, A. Hara, T. Kunisada, S. Yoshimura, T. Iwama, D.M. Park, Sci. Rep. 5(1) (2015)Google Scholar
- R.G. Verhaak, K.A. Hoadley, E. Purdom, V. Wang, Y. Qi, M.D. Wilkerson, C.R. Miller, L. Ding, T. Golub, J.P. Mesirov, G. Alexe, M. Lawrence, M. O'Kelly, P. Tamayo, B.A. Weir, S. Gabriel, W. Winckler, S. Gupta, L. Jakkula, H.S. Feiler, J.G. Hodgson, C.D. James, J.N. Sarkaria, C. Brennan, A. Kahn, P.T. Spellman, R.K. Wilson, T.P. Speed, J.W. Gray, M. Meyerson, G. Getz, C.M. Perou, D.N. Hayes, N. Cancer Genome Atlas Research, Cancer Cell 17(1), 98–110 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar