Morphologies of Breast Cancer Cell Lines

Erin Mark^*
*Correspondence: Erin Mark, Department of Organic Chemistry, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain, Email:

Introduction

Our knowledge of breast cancer has greatly improved as a result of in vivo and in vitro research using cell lines. These give you an endless supply of homogeneous self-replicating material that is free of stromal cells that can be harmful and can frequently be grown in simple standard medium. In 1958, the first known line, BT-20, was developed. A startlingly low number of permanent lines have been acquired since then, despite ongoing efforts. BCC cultivation from primary tumors has typically failed. Despite the stated success rate, only 18 of 177 primaries produced cell lines [1].

Description

This low efficacy was frequently attributed to technical difficulties in removing live tumor cells from the stroma they were in. The majority of readily available BCC lines originate from pleural effusion-primarily metastatic tumors. The effusions produced a significant number of viable, dissociated tumor cells that were free of fibroblasts or other tumor stroma cells. However, long-term propagation success has been limited, even with metastatic samples. For instance, and proliferated tumor cells successfully in just 10%, 2%, and 25% of cases, respectively.

The late 1970s saw the creation of many of the current BCC lines. A Medline-based survey found that just a few of them, MCF-7, T-47D, and MDA-MB-231 in particular, are responsible for more than two-thirds of all abstracts that report investigations on the indicated BCC lines. It is doubtful that data obtained from such a small number of cell lines can be applied to tumors. We gathered and examined a wide range of data on tumors and BCC lines, particularly from the past decade, to address the issue of representativeness.

For a normal, short-lived somatic epithelial cell to become an immortalized, metastatic cell, many cellular processes must be deregulated, including genome stability, proliferation, apoptosis, motility, and angiogenesis. The identification of recurring aberrations has revealed a plethora of essential oncogenes and tumor suppressors, and changes in genomic copy number and/or structure are especially important as deregulating events in the development of cancer. In point of fact, it has been demonstrated that over a thousand genes are deactivated by recurrent genomic abnormalities in breast cancer alone.

The utilitarian examination of a portion of these qualities in cell lines and xenografts has offered fundamental experiences into their contribution in cell physiology. However, understanding how well the cell lines mimic the abnormalities found in the original tumors is necessary for interpreting these findings in the context of the pathogenesis of breast cancer. In order to accomplish this, we present a comprehensive comparison of the measured biological and molecular characteristics of 51 breast cancer cell lines and actual breast cancers.

They carry nearly all of the recurrent genomic abnormalities associated with poor outcomes in primary cancers and have the same copy quantity and expression abnormalities as primary tumors. In addition, just like primary tumors, breast cancer cell lines are divided into basal-like and luminal expression subgroups. However, the division of genomic aberrations between these subsets is slightly different from that of basal-like and luminal primary tumors. Clinical observations are reflected in the collection's diverse reactions to specific medications.

Based on these studies, we have come to the conclusion that the ensemble of cell lines accurately reflects how these genes contribute to the pathophysiologies of breast cancer, and that this ensemble reflects the majority of the significant genomic and transcriptional abnormalities found in primary breast tumors. In addition, we demonstrate how genetic markers that can be used to predict response in particular patients can be found by correlating the various responses to therapeutic drugs that target these genes [2].

Breast cancer is a very diverse disease with a variety of unique genetic and epigenetically inherited clinical features. A significant amount of the information that is currently available on breast carcinomas can be attributed to in vivo and in vitro studies that make use of breast cancer cell lines. These studies have provided an inexhaustible supply of homogeneous self-replicating materials that can be replicated using simple but standard conditions and methods. Before developing therapeutically useful results, it is essential to determine whether these cell lines accurately capture the molecular characteristics and heterogeneity of the underlying cancers.

Although it has been determined that breast cancer cell lines are, in large part, representative of breast carcinoma, with ER and HER2 serving as important stratifiers for their classification, ongoing evidence suggests that the initial cell line establishment and subsequent serial passaging underwent significant genetic and epigenetic changes, suggesting that the resulting cell lines may have evolved significantly from the primary tumors [3]. Our understanding of cell line classification and its connection to cancers is further complicated by the fact that a number of studies divide breast cancer cell lines into distinct categories.

Due to inconsistent nomenclatures, categorization, and even contradictory molecular characterization in various publications, we are overwhelmed with cell lines that lack systematic feature recording and consistent subtyping. MCF7, T47D, and MDAMB231 account for more than two-thirds of the cell lines utilized in the associated studies; however, the number of cell lines utilized in breast cancer research is relatively small. This raises the question of how representative these few cell lines are of the many different kinds of breast cancer that have varying effects on the patient's health. In order to make it easier to model breast cancer using the right cell lines, we are therefore motivated to determine the molecular characteristics and tumor subtypes that each cell line represents. Since the creation of the first breast cancer cell line [4], very few cell lines have been established because of the technical difficulties involved in collecting viable tumor cells from the surrounding stroma and the impediment to long-term growth during culturing. The vast majority of cell lines were created towards the end of the 1970s.

In most cases, cell line nomenclature does not indicate a phenotypic relationship but rather how they are produced, such as whether they are obtained from the same patient, the same laboratory, or isolated by serial subculture from the same original population. "HCC series" cell lines, for instance, were isolated at the Hamon Cancer Center; At M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, cell lines for the MDA series were created; M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute established the "21 series" cell lines. The "HMT series" underwent sequential subcultivation under a variety of conditions during their development, including P53 mutation, MYC amplification, EGF-independence with tumorigenicity in nude mice, and EGFR and HER2 overexpression [5]. SUM series were created by isolating various tumor tissues from the same selective medium. There are no set guidelines for how each cell line, especially those that do not belong to any series, is referred to because the scientist who developed them frequently refers to them as cell lines.

Conclusion

Even though the majority of studies do not further stratify luminal cell lines into luminal A and B subtypes based on HER2 status, we support such differentiation not only to meet the requirement of drug response assays based on ER and HER2 status but also to achieve consistent categorization with tumour subtyping to facilitate easy tumor modeling. MCF7 has traditionally been utilized for the purpose of evaluating tamoxifen-induced cell responsiveness, whereas a study utilizing BT474 demonstrated the synergistic benefit of tamoxifen and Herceptin in the treatment of breast cancer.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Dubey, R.S and S. N. Upadhyay. "Microbial corrosion monitoring by an amperometric microbial biosensor developed using whole cell of Pseudomonas sp." Biosens Bioelectron 16 (2001): 995-1000.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

2. Mulchandani, Priti, Wilfred Chen, Ashok Mulchandani and Joseph Wang, et al. "Amperometric microbial biosensor for direct determination of organophosphate pesticides using recombinant microorganism with surface expressed organophosphorus hydrolase." Biosens Bioelectron 16 (2001): 433-437.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Xu, Xia and Yibin Ying. "Microbial biosensors for environmental monitoring and food analysis." Food Rev Int 27 (2011): 300-329.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Jia, Jianbo, Mingyu Tang, Xu Chen and Li Qi, et al. "Co-immobilized microbial biosensor for BOD estimation based on sol–gel derived composite material." Biosens Bioelectron 18 (2003): 1023-1029.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Schmidt, A., C. Standfuss gabisch and U. Bilitewski. "Microbial biosensor for free fatty acids using an oxygen electrode based on thick film technology." Biosens Bioelectron 11 (1996): 1139-1145.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at