A Scaffold-Free 3-D Co-Culture Mimics the Major Features of the Reverse Warburg Effect In Vitro.
Adenocarcinoma
/ metabolism
Autophagy
Coculture Techniques
Colonic Neoplasms
/ metabolism
Fibroblasts
/ metabolism
Glucose
/ metabolism
Glycolysis
HT29 Cells
Humans
Membrane Potential, Mitochondrial
Microtubule-Associated Proteins
/ metabolism
Mitochondria
/ metabolism
Monocarboxylic Acid Transporters
/ metabolism
Muscle Proteins
/ metabolism
Spheroids, Cellular
/ metabolism
Stromal Cells
/ metabolism
Tumor Microenvironment
Warburg Effect, Oncologic
LC3
MCT4
fibroblasts
mitochondria
optical tissue clearing
reverse Warburg effect
Journal
Cells
ISSN: 2073-4409
Titre abrégé: Cells
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101600052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 08 2020
13 08 2020
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
revised:
31
07
2020
accepted:
09
08
2020
entrez:
23
8
2020
pubmed:
23
8
2020
medline:
20
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most tumors consume large amounts of glucose. Concepts to explain the mechanisms that mediate the achievement of this metabolic need have proposed a switch of the tumor mass to aerobic glycolysis. Depending on whether primarily tumor or stroma cells undergo such a commutation, the terms 'Warburg effect' or 'reverse Warburg effect' were coined to describe the underlying biological phenomena. However, current in vitro systems relying on 2-D culture, single cell-type spheroids, or basal-membrane extract (BME/Matrigel)-containing 3-D structures do not thoroughly reflect these processes. Here, we aimed to establish a BME/Matrigel-free 3-D microarray cancer model to recapitulate the metabolic interplay between cancer and stromal cells that allows mechanistic analyses and drug testing. Human HT-29 colon cancer and CCD-1137Sk fibroblast cells were used in mono- and co-cultures as 2-D monolayers, spheroids, and in a cell-chip format. Metabolic patterns were studied with immunofluorescence and confocal microscopy. In chip-based co-cultures, HT-29 cells showed facilitated 3-D growth and increased levels of hexokinase-2, TP53-induced glycolysis and apoptosis regulator (TIGAR), lactate dehydrogenase, and: translocase of outer mitochondrial membrane 20 (TOMM20), when compared with HT-29 mono-cultures. Fibroblasts co-cultured with HT-29 cells expressed higher levels of mono-carboxylate transporter 4, hexokinase-2, microtubule-associated proteins 1A/1B light chain 3, and ubiquitin-binding protein p62 than in fibroblast mono-cultures, in both 2-D cultures and chips. Tetramethylrhodamin-methylester (TMRM) live-cell imaging of chip co-cultures revealed a higher mitochondrial potential in cancer cells than in fibroblasts. The findings demonstrate a crosstalk between cancer cells and fibroblasts that affects cellular growth and metabolism. Chip-based 3-D co-cultures of cancer cells and fibroblasts mimicked features of the reverse Warburg effect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32823793
pii: cells9081900
doi: 10.3390/cells9081900
pmc: PMC7463893
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
MAP1LC3A protein, human
0
Microtubule-Associated Proteins
0
Monocarboxylic Acid Transporters
0
Muscle Proteins
0
SLC16A4 protein, human
0
Glucose
IY9XDZ35W2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
SLAS Discov. 2017 Jun;22(5):456-472
pubmed: 28520521
Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2018 Nov 30;3:31
pubmed: 30510778
Cancers (Basel). 2015 Dec 11;7(4):2443-58
pubmed: 26690480
J Cell Sci. 2017 Jan 1;130(1):203-218
pubmed: 27663511
Front Oncol. 2018 Aug 24;8:333
pubmed: 30197878
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Aug 31;5:234
pubmed: 30234115
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):799-807
pubmed: 25162886
Semin Cancer Biol. 2014 Apr;25:47-60
pubmed: 24486645
Int J Cancer. 2011 Apr 15;128(8):1751-7
pubmed: 21344372
Exp Cell Res. 2019 Apr 15;377(1-2):109-114
pubmed: 30794801
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 25;15(2):e0229407
pubmed: 32097436
J Cell Physiol. 2018 Jan;234(1):181-191
pubmed: 30277557
Antioxid Redox Signal. 2012 Jun 1;16(11):1264-84
pubmed: 21883043
Arch Med Sci. 2018 Jun;14(4):910-919
pubmed: 30002710
Semin Oncol. 2017 Jun;44(3):198-203
pubmed: 29248131
Nat Rev Cancer. 2004 Nov;4(11):839-49
pubmed: 15516957
Oncotarget. 2017 May 25;8(34):57813-57825
pubmed: 28915713
Cell Cycle. 2016;15(1):72-83
pubmed: 26636483
J Cell Sci. 2020 Apr 21;133(8):
pubmed: 32317312
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:242437
pubmed: 26779534
Nat Rev Cancer. 2004 Nov;4(11):891-9
pubmed: 15516961
Cancer Cell. 2018 Mar 12;33(3):463-479.e10
pubmed: 29455927
Cell. 2016 Jul 28;166(3):555-566
pubmed: 27471965
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 May 6;67(3):177-193
pubmed: 28248415
Autophagy. 2016;12(1):1-222
pubmed: 26799652
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2018 Oct;52:117-122
pubmed: 30261425
World J Stem Cells. 2019 Dec 26;11(12):1065-1083
pubmed: 31875869
Adv Sci (Weinh). 2019 Feb 10;6(8):1801531
pubmed: 31016107
Cancer Metab. 2016 Mar 08;4:5
pubmed: 26962452
Cell Res. 2018 Mar;28(3):265-280
pubmed: 29219147
Sci Adv. 2018 Apr 27;4(4):eaas8998
pubmed: 29719868
Cancer. 2010 Jan 15;116(2):451-8
pubmed: 19924789
Front Oncol. 2019 Feb 05;9:36
pubmed: 30805306
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 May;37(5):694-701
pubmed: 29733705
Cell Cycle. 2010 Sep 1;9(17):3534-51
pubmed: 20864819
J Cancer. 2019 Aug 7;10(19):4574-4587
pubmed: 31528221
Neoplasia. 2019 Jun;21(6):615-626
pubmed: 31078067
Br J Cancer. 2013 Feb 19;108(3):662-7
pubmed: 23322207
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2016 Feb 12;4:12
pubmed: 26904541
Mol Cell Proteomics. 2009 Mar;8(3):443-50
pubmed: 18952599
Biotechnol Bioeng. 2019 Jan;116(1):206-226
pubmed: 30367820
Nutr J. 2012 Mar 26;11:18
pubmed: 22449145
Cell Cycle. 2011 Jun 1;10(11):1772-83
pubmed: 21558814
Front Med (Lausanne). 2019 Jun 27;6:139
pubmed: 31316988
Am J Cancer Res. 2017 May 01;7(5):1107-1135
pubmed: 28560061
Am J Cancer Res. 2018 Oct 01;8(10):1967-1976
pubmed: 30416849
J Vis Exp. 2014 Jul 08;(89):
pubmed: 25046278
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Oct;12(10):685-98
pubmed: 23001348
Cell Cycle. 2010 Jun 15;9(12):2423-33
pubmed: 20562526
Front Oncol. 2014 Mar 27;4:62
pubmed: 24734219
Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Feb 21;7:20
pubmed: 32154265