Advertisement

Modified 2-Tumor (L1210, Colon 38) Assay to Screen for Solid Tumor Selective Agents

  • K. S. Smith
  • G. J. Badiner
  • E. G. Adams
  • D. K. Wilson
  • L. H. Li
  • B. K. Bhuyan
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 68)

Abstract

In 1983, the Cancer Research Department of The Upjohn Company and Dr. Tom Corbett (then at Michigan Cancer Foundation) initiated a collaborative effort to screen for agents selectively toxic to solid tumors. The need for this assay arose from the fact that the leukemic (L1210 and P388) cell lines used in vitro and in vivo as the primary screen for antitumor agents had produced substances that were primarily active against leukemias and lymphomas. This leukemia-oriented strategy had not generated agents significantly active against the common solid tumors such as lung, colon, pancreas, stomach, etc. For example, of more than 100 agents which were active against P388, only about 2% were active against Lewis lung carcinoma or colon 38 or human xenograft CX-1 (1,2). Corbett et al. (1,4) hypothesized that the vulnerability of P388 was different from that of the solid tumors. Therefore, they suggested that the specific vulnerability of tumor of a particular organ system would be detected only by models appropriate for that organ system (3). They proposed the 2-tumor assay to screen for compounds selectively toxic against solid tumors (4). In this assay, the lethality of the agent for L1210 cells was compared to lethality to cells from a drug-insensitive solid tumor (e.g. pancreatic adenocarcinoma 02, colon 38, etc.). The L1210 cells will identify agents toxic to rapidly growing cells, whereas the solid tumor cells will select new agents that are possibly solid tumor specific. This assay had two other advantages: (i) Primary expiants of tumor (instead of a cell line) were used in the assay. Cells from primary explants are much more likely to retain the characteristics of the original tumor than a cultured cell line, (ii) The ability of the cells to survive and form colonies was used as the end point. This is preferable to an indirect end point such as a colorimetric protein determination or a trypan-blue viability assay.

Keywords

L1210 Cell Coulter Counter Solid Tumor Cell LI210 Cell Upjohn Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Corbett TH, Valeriote FA, Baker LH: Is the P388 murine tumor no longer adequate as a drug discovery model. Invest. New Drugs 5:3–20, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staquet MJ, Byar DP, Green SB, Rozencweig M: Clinical predictivity of transplantable tumor systems in the selection of new drugs for solid tumors. Rationale for a three-stage strategy. Cancer Treat. Rep. 67:753–765, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corbett TH, Valeriote FA: Rodent models in cancer chemotherapy. In: Rodent Tumor Models in Experimental Cancer Chemotherapy. RE Kaillman (ed), Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corbett TH: A selective soft-agar assay for drug discovery. Proc. AACR 25:325, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith KS, Badiner GJ, Li LH et al: Modified in vitro two tumor assay for solid tumor selective drugs. Proc. AACR 30:613, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Courtney VC, Mills J: An in vitro colony assay for human tumors grown in immune-suppressed mice and treated in vivo with cytotoxic agents. Brit. J. Cancer 37:261–268, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams EG, Crampton SL, Bhuyan BK: Effect of 7-con-O-methylnogarol on DNA synthesis, survival, and cell cycle progression of Chinese hamster ovary cells. Cancer Res. 42:4981–4987, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly RC, Gebhard I, Wicnienski N et al: Coupling of cyclopropapyrroloindole (CPI) derivatives. The preparation of CC-1065, ent-CC-1065, and analogs. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 109:6837–6838, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin DG, Duchamp DJ, Chidester CC: The isolation, structure and absolute configuration of U-42126, a novel antibiotic. Tetrahedron Let. 27:2549–2552, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yoshida S, Takahasi N: Piercidins: Naturally occurring inhibitors against mitochondrial respiration. Heterocycles 10:425–467, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li LH, Bhuyan BK, Wallace TL: Comparison of cytotoxicity of a monolayer and spheroid system. Proc. AACR 30:612, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Durand RE: Chemosensitivity testing in V79 spheroids: Drug delivery and cellular microenvironment. JNCI 77:247, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krumdieck CL, DosSantos JE, Ho K: A new instrument for the rapid preparation of tissue slices. Anal. Biochem. 104:118–123, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horgan DJ, Ohno H, Singer TP: Studies on the respiratory chain-linked reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase. J. Biol Chem. 104:118–123, 1968.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. S. Smith
  • G. J. Badiner
  • E. G. Adams
  • D. K. Wilson
  • L. H. Li
  • B. K. Bhuyan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations