28. DIY tumours Flashcards
what properties about cells from the embryo make them look like cancer cells?
easy to isolate, culture and proliferate well
what did a paper in the 80s try and do with rat embryo fibroblasts?
try to turn normal cells into tumour cells
what do embryonic fibroblasts not do that cancer cells can?
form foci in soft agar or grow out of the monolayer of tissue culture dish
what two classic oncogenes known at the time were transfected into MEF? what two plasmids were used?
ras and myc
>plasmid containing ras
>plasmid containing ras and myc
what happens when ras is transfected along into REF?
ras was not sufficient to form colonies on soft agar
what happened when ras was transfected into REF with myc? and what does this show?
reasonably number of colonies were formed in soft agar
>this shows the two oncogenes are cooperating in some way
the same experiment using ras and myc was done on MEF, what was concluded from this?
a single oncogene had no effect whereas two oncogenes did, they cooperated to give a phenotype
the same experiment using ras and myc was done on human embryo fibroblasts, what was concluded from this?
this did not work as cancer is harder to instigate in these cells
two papers were published in 1999 and 2001, what did each of them manage to achieve?
they both achieved transformation of human adult tissue into cancerous like state tissue
what did the 2001 paper show? and what three distinct elements did they look at?
human breast cancer cells generated by oncogenic transformation of primary mammary epithelial cells
>tHERT
>activated Ras
>SV40 T antigen
describe activated Ras
it is locked in the active state as it cannot hydrolyse GTP for GDP and so is constitutively active
in what order did these factors need to be introduced? (2001) and why is this the case?
> hTERT
T antigen
activated Ras
if ras is put in too early it will activated p16 pathway - p53 needs to be inhibited first by T antigen
what two assays did the 2001 paper do? and what did they see? and what did this show?
colony formation assays in soft agar and tumour formation assays in nude mice
>reasonable number of colonies
>reasonable number of tumour formed
there were less colonies and no tumour in the controls
>this showed that all three factors were needed for transformation
what were control cells transfected with in the 2001 paper?
hTERT and large T antigen and not ras - ras was needed for proliferative capacity
what was noticed about the colony formation assay and the tumour formation in the 2001 paper?
> given the 10^4 cells were plated in soft agar, a limited number of colonies formed (~150)
in breast tissue, only about 50% pf cells led to tumour formation - we would have expect tumour formation to be an all or nothing response
what was concluded from the 2001 paper?
these three factors were not sufficient to cause breast cancer and further mutations in the genome were required - often this is myc
describe what happens when you plate 1 million cells and what happens when you take a colony from this soft agar assay and do a second soft agar assay? and what does this suggest?
> about 1 in 10^2 – 10^5 cells will form colonies are formed from the first 1 million cells
about 1 in 10-10^2 cells will form a colony - we would expect all cells to give rise to colonies as they came from a colon
this suggests that not all cells in a colony are the same
what is seen when foci form a focus formation assay are re-plated?
low number of foci in new population when re-plated
half a million tumour cells are injected into nude mice, what happens? and what does this tell us?
mice develop 1 to 3 tumours
tumour formation is a very inefficient process
tumour cells are taken from mice tumours and re-injected into mice, what happens?
not very many tumours are formed from cells derived from tumours in mice