Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Spheroid formation and invasion capacity are differentially influenced by co-cultures of fibroblast and macrophage cells in breast cancer

  • Published:
Molecular Biology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interactions with stromal components influence the growth, survival, spread, and colonization capacities of tumor cells. Fibroblasts and macrophages which are responsible for the stroma production and maintenance are of the basic elements found in tumor microenvironment. Cellular density and ratio of stromal cells to tumor cells can also have modulatory effects in cancer. Here, the contribution of fibroblast and/or macrophage cells on the malignant behavior of breast cancer cells was modeled in co-culture systems. Co-cultures were established at different cell densities and ratios with 4T1 breast cancer, NIH/3T3 or 3T3-L1 fibroblast, and J774A.1 monocyte/macrophage cell lines. Flow cytometry-based proliferation, 3D growth on alginate matrix, and matrigel invasion assays were performed to determine the change in the malignant assets of tumor cells. The data were also supported by immunocytochemical and morphological analyses. Co-culturing with fibroblasts (especially, NIH/3T3 cells) significantly supported the proliferation, scattering, and invasiveness of 4T1 cells whereas inclusion of macrophages disrupted this positive influence. On the other hand, the invasion capacity of 4T1 cells was not enhanced in the co-cultures with fibroblasts whose motility were inhibited with pertussis toxin pretreatment. Particularly at low-density seeding in 3D cultures, 4T1 cells could form substantially more spheroids than that of in the co-cultures with fibroblasts. Only, increasing the amount of fibroblasts could restore the 3D-growth. Intriguingly, co-existence of macrophage, fibroblast, and tumor cells in 3D cultures provided a convenient stroma sustaining the spheroid formation and growth. In conclusion, fibroblasts can form a favorable environment for tumor cells’ spread and motility whereas restricting their 3D-growth capacity. On the other hand, presence of macrophages may disrupt the influence of fibroblasts and enhance the spheroid formation by the tumor cells.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mantovani A, Sica A, Allavena P, Garlanda C, Locati M (2009) Tumor-associated macrophages and the related myeloid-derived suppressor cells as a paradigm of the diversity of macrophage activation. Hum Immunol 70:325–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kalluri R, Zeisberg M (2006) Fibroblasts in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 6:392–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pietras A, Ostman A (2010) Hallmarks of cancer: interactions with the tumor stroma. Exp Cell Res 316:1324–1331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arendt LM, Rudnick JA, Keller PJ, Kuperwasser C (2010) Stroma in breast development and disease. Semin Cell Dev Biol 21:11–18

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu P, Weaver VM, Werb Z (2012) The extracellular matrix: a dynamic niche in cancer progression. J Cell Biol 196:395–406

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bissell MJ, Radisky D (2001) Putting tumours in context. Nat Rev Cancer 1:46–54

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Olsen CJ, Moreira J, Lukanidin EM, Ambartsumian NS (2010) Human mammary fibroblasts stimulate invasion of breast cancer cells in a three-dimensional culture and increase stroma development in mouse xenografts. BMC Cancer 10:444–460

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Casey T, Bond J, Tighe S, Hunter T, Lintault L, Patel O, Eneman J, Crocker A, White J, Tessitore J, Stanley M, Harlow S, Weaver D, Muss H, Plaut K (2009) Molecular signatures suggest a major role for stromal cells in development of invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114:47–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mendoza M, Khanna C (2009) Revisiting the seed and soil in cancer metastasis. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 41:1452–1462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sadlonova A, Novak Z, Johnson MR, Bowe DB, Gault SR, Page GP, Thottassery JV, Welch DR, Frost AR (2005) Breast fibroblasts modulate epithelial cell proliferation in three-dimensional in vitro co-culture. Breast Cancer Res 7:R46–R59

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shimoda M, Mellody KT, Orimo A (2010) Carcinoma-associated fibroblasts are a rate-limiting determinant for tumour progression. Semin Cell Dev Biol 21:19–25

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Orimo A, Weinberg RA (2006) Stromal fibroblasts in cancer: a novel tumor-promoting cell type. Cell Cycle 5:1597–1601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Radisky ES, Radisky DC (2007) Stromal induction of breast cancer: inflammation and invasion. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 8:279–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sugimoto H, Mundel TM, Kieran MW, Kalluri R (2006) Identification of fibroblast heterogeneity in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Biol Ther 5:1640–1646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rama D, Esendagli G, Guc D (2011) Expression of chemokine-like receptor 1 (CMKLR1) on J744A.1 macrophages co-cultured with fibroblast and/or tumor cells: modeling the influence of microenvironment. Cell Immunol 271:134–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shapiro L, Cohen S (1997) Novel alginate sponges for cell culture and transplantation. Biomaterials 18:583–590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fentiman I (1980) Cell communication in breast cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 62:280–286

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Casbas-Hernandez P, Fleming JM, Troester MA (2011) Gene expression analysis of in vitro cocultures to study interactions between breast epithelium and stroma. J Biomed Biotechnol 2011:520987

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Place AE, Jin Huh S, Polyak K (2011) The microenvironment in breast cancer progression: biology and implications for treatment. Breast Cancer Res 13:227–238

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Singer CF, Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Fink-Retter A, Haas C, Hudelist G, Czerwenka K, Kubista E (2008) Differential gene expression profile in breast cancer-derived stromal fibroblasts. Breast Cancer Res Treat 110:273–281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goralski KB, Sinal CJ (2009) Elucidation of chemerin and chemokine-like receptor-1 function in adipocytes by adenoviral-mediated shRNA knockdown of gene expression. Methods Enzymol 460:289–312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Manabe Y, Toda S, Miyazaki K, Sugihara H (2003) Mature adipocytes, but not preadipocytes, promote the growth of breast carcinoma cells in collagen gel matrix culture through cancer-stromal cell interactions. J Pathol 201:221–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jacob S, Shastry P, Sudhakaran P (2002) Monocyte-macrophage differentiation in vitro: modulation by extracellular matrix protein substratum. Mol Cell Biochem 233:9–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pampaloni F, Reynaud EG, Stelzer EHK (2007) The third dimension bridges the gap between cell culture and live tissue. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8:839–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Campbell JJ, Davidenko N, Caffarel MM, Cameron RE, Watson CJ (2011) A multifunctional 3D co-culture system for studies of mammary tissue morphogenesis and stem cell biology. PLoS One 6:e25661

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Li L, Lu Y (2011) Optimizing a 3D culture system to study the interaction between epithelial breast cancer and its surrounding fibroblasts. J Cancer 2:458–466

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hughes CS, Postovit LM, Lajoie GA (2010) Matrigel: a complex protein mixture required for optimal growth of cell culture. Proteomics 10:1886–1889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Taira M, Saitoh S, Sasaki K, Araki Y (2005) Three-dimensional culture of L929 and UMR106 cells in self-prepared alginate sponges. J Oral Tissue Eng 2:86–91

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stephan S, Johnson WE, Roberts S (2011) The influence of nutrient supply and cell density on the growth and survival of intervertebral disc cells in 3D culture. Eur Cell Mater 22:97–108

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silzle T, Kreutz M, Dobler MA, Cameron RE, Watson CJ (2003) Tumor-associated fibroblasts recruit blood monocytes into tumor tissue. Eur J Immunol 33:1311–1320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Hacettepe University Scientific Research Unit.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Dorina Rama-Esendagli

    Present address: Department of Chest Diseases, Medical Faculty, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    Dorina Rama-Esendagli, Gunes Esendagli & Dicle Guc

  2. Department of Pathology, Medical Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Guldal Yilmaz

Authors
  1. Dorina Rama-Esendagli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gunes Esendagli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guldal Yilmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dicle Guc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunes Esendagli.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 5913 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rama-Esendagli, D., Esendagli, G., Yilmaz, G. et al. Spheroid formation and invasion capacity are differentially influenced by co-cultures of fibroblast and macrophage cells in breast cancer. Mol Biol Rep 41, 2885–2892 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-014-3144-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-014-3144-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation