Enzymatic Dissociation, Flow Cytometric Analysis, and Culture of Normal Mouse Mammary Tissue

  • Michael Prater
  • Mona Shehata
  • Christine J. Watson
  • John StinglEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 946)


Evidence is emerging that the mouse mammary epithelium is arranged as a hierarchy that spans from stem cells to lineage-restricted progenitor cells to differentiated luminal and myoepithelial cells. The use of fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) in combination with quantitative functional clonal assays represents a powerful tool for studying the properties of mouse mammary stem and progenitor cells. This chapter outlines the experimental procedures for generating single viable cell suspensions of mouse mammary epithelial cells, immunostaining cells for flow cytometry, in vitro assays for the detection and enumeration of mouse mammary progenitor cells, and in vivo assays for the detection and enumeration of mouse mammary stem cells.

Key words

Mouse mammary gland Stem cells Flow cytometry Cell culture 



MP, MS, and JS are funded by Cancer Research UK, The University of Cambridge, and Hutchison Whampoa Limited. MP and JS are also funded by the Breast Cancer Campaign. CJW is funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council (UK), and the Breast Cancer Campaign.


  1. 1.
    Daniel CW, Silberstein GB (1987) Postnatal development of the rodent mammary gland. In: Neville MC, Daniel CW (eds) The mammary gland: development, regulation and function. Plenum, New York, pp 3–36Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor-Papadimitriou J, Lane EB (1987) Keratin expression in the mammary gland. In: Neville MC, Daniel CW (eds) The mammary gland: development, regulation and function. Plenum, New York, pp 181–215Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smalley MJ, Titley J, O’Hare MO (1998) Clonal characterization of mouse mammary luminal epithelial and myoepithelial cells separated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim 34:711–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shackleton M, Vaillant F, Simpson KJ, Stingl J, Smyth GK, Asselin-Labat ML, Wu L, Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE (2006) Generation of a functional mammary gland from a single stem cell. Nature 439:84–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stingl J, Eirew P, Ricketson I, Shackleton M, Vaillant F, Choi D, Li HI, Eaves CJ (2006) Purification and unique properties of mammary epithelial stem cells. Nature 439:993–997PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sleeman KE, Kendrick H, Ashworth A, Isacke CM, Smalley MJ (2006) CD24 staining of mouse mammary gland cells defines luminal epithelial, myoepithelial/basal and non-epithelial cells. Breast Cancer Res 8:R7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moraes RC, Chang H, Harrington N, Landua JD, Prigge JT, Lane TF, Wainwright BJ, Hamel PA, Lewis MT (2009) Ptch1 is required locally for mammary gland morphogenesis and systemically for ductal elongation. Development 136:1423–1432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoshino K (1964) Regeneration and growth of quantitatively transplanted mammary glands of normal female mice. Anat Rec 150: 221–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniel CW, DeOme KB, Young JT, Blair PB, Faulkin LJ (1968) The in vivo life span of normal and preneoplastic mouse mammary glands: a serial transplantation study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 61:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith GH (1996) Experimental mammary epithelial morphogenesis in an in vivo model: evidence for distinct cellular progenitors of the ductal and lobular phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat 39:21–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kordon EC, Smith GH (1998) An entire functional mammary gland may comprise the progeny from a single cell. Development 125:1921–1930PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skalli O, Ropraz P, Trzeciak A, Benzonana G, Gillessen D, Gabbiani G (1986) A monoclonal antibody against α-smooth muscle actin: a new probe for smooth muscle differentiation. J Cell Biol 103:2787–2796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pemberton L, Taylor-Papadimitriou J, Gendler SJ (1992) Antibodies to the cytoplasmic domain of the MUC1 mucin show conservation throughout mammals. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 185:167–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barbareschi M, Pecciarini L, Cangi MG, Macrì E, Rizzo A, Viale G, Doglioni C (2001) p63, a p53 homologue, is a selective nuclear marker of myoepithelial cells of the human breast. Am J Surg Pathol 25: 1054–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alexander CM, Puchalski J, Klos KS, Badders N, Ailles L, Kim CF, Dirks P, Smalley MJ (2009) Separating stem cells by flow cytometry: reducing variability for solid tissues. Cell Stem Cell 5:579–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asselin-Labat ML, Sutherland KD, Barker H, Thomas R, Shackleton M, Forrest NC, Hartley L, Robb L, Grosveld FG, van der Wees J, Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE (2007) Gata-3 is an essential regulator of mammary-gland morphogenesis and luminal-cell differentiation. Nat Cell Biol 9:201–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young LJT (2000) The cleared mammary fat pad and the transplantation of mammary gland morphological structures and cells. In: Ip MM, Asch BB (eds) Methods in mammary gland biology and breast cancer research. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, pp 67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Prater
    • 1
  • Mona Shehata
    • 2
  • Christine J. Watson
    • 3
  • John Stingl
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Cancer ResearchUK Cambridge Research InstituteCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Cancer Research UKCambridge Research InstituteCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of PathologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations