Cargando…

Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model

DiI is a lipophilic fluorescent dye frequently used to label and trace cells in cell cultures and xenograft models. However, DiI can also transfer from labeled to unlabeled cells, including host organism cells, and label dead cells obscuring interpretation of the results. These limitations of DiI la...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dryer, Yaal, Berghausen, Joos, Creswell, Karen, Glasgow, Eric, Brelidze, Tinatin I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10353338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37455418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15384047.2023.2234140
_version_ 1785074693730992128
author Dryer, Yaal
Berghausen, Joos
Creswell, Karen
Glasgow, Eric
Brelidze, Tinatin I.
author_facet Dryer, Yaal
Berghausen, Joos
Creswell, Karen
Glasgow, Eric
Brelidze, Tinatin I.
author_sort Dryer, Yaal
collection PubMed
description DiI is a lipophilic fluorescent dye frequently used to label and trace cells in cell cultures and xenograft models. However, DiI can also transfer from labeled to unlabeled cells, including host organism cells, and label dead cells obscuring interpretation of the results. These limitations of DiI labeling in xenograft models have not been thoroughly investigated. Here we labeled green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing MDA-MB-231 cells with DiI to directly compare tumor growth assessment in zebrafish xenografts using the DiI labeling and GFP fluorescence. Our results indicate that the DiI based assessment significantly overestimated tumor growth in zebrafish xenograft models compared to the GFP fluorescence based assessment. The imaging of DiI labeled GFP-expressing MDA-MB-231 cell cultures indicated that the DiI labeling of the membrane is uneven. Analysis of the DiI labeled GFP-expressing MDA-MB-231 cell cultures with flow cytometry indicated that the DiI labeling varied over time while the GFP fluorescence remained unchanged, suggesting that the GFP fluorescence is a more reliable signal for monitoring tumor progression than the DiI labeling. Taken together, our results demonstrate limitations of using DiI labeling for xenograft models and emphasize the need for validating the results based on DiI labeling with other orthogonal methods, such as the ones utilizing genetically encoded fluorophores.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10353338
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103533382023-07-19 Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model Dryer, Yaal Berghausen, Joos Creswell, Karen Glasgow, Eric Brelidze, Tinatin I. Cancer Biol Ther Research Paper DiI is a lipophilic fluorescent dye frequently used to label and trace cells in cell cultures and xenograft models. However, DiI can also transfer from labeled to unlabeled cells, including host organism cells, and label dead cells obscuring interpretation of the results. These limitations of DiI labeling in xenograft models have not been thoroughly investigated. Here we labeled green fluorescent protein (GFP)-expressing MDA-MB-231 cells with DiI to directly compare tumor growth assessment in zebrafish xenografts using the DiI labeling and GFP fluorescence. Our results indicate that the DiI based assessment significantly overestimated tumor growth in zebrafish xenograft models compared to the GFP fluorescence based assessment. The imaging of DiI labeled GFP-expressing MDA-MB-231 cell cultures indicated that the DiI labeling of the membrane is uneven. Analysis of the DiI labeled GFP-expressing MDA-MB-231 cell cultures with flow cytometry indicated that the DiI labeling varied over time while the GFP fluorescence remained unchanged, suggesting that the GFP fluorescence is a more reliable signal for monitoring tumor progression than the DiI labeling. Taken together, our results demonstrate limitations of using DiI labeling for xenograft models and emphasize the need for validating the results based on DiI labeling with other orthogonal methods, such as the ones utilizing genetically encoded fluorophores. Taylor & Francis 2023-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10353338/ /pubmed/37455418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15384047.2023.2234140 Text en © 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Dryer, Yaal
Berghausen, Joos
Creswell, Karen
Glasgow, Eric
Brelidze, Tinatin I.
Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model
title Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model
title_full Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model
title_fullStr Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model
title_short Comparison of tumor growth assessment using GFP fluorescence and DiI labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model
title_sort comparison of tumor growth assessment using gfp fluorescence and dii labeling in a zebrafish xenograft model
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10353338/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37455418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15384047.2023.2234140
work_keys_str_mv AT dryeryaal comparisonoftumorgrowthassessmentusinggfpfluorescenceanddiilabelinginazebrafishxenograftmodel
AT berghausenjoos comparisonoftumorgrowthassessmentusinggfpfluorescenceanddiilabelinginazebrafishxenograftmodel
AT creswellkaren comparisonoftumorgrowthassessmentusinggfpfluorescenceanddiilabelinginazebrafishxenograftmodel
AT glasgoweric comparisonoftumorgrowthassessmentusinggfpfluorescenceanddiilabelinginazebrafishxenograftmodel
AT brelidzetinatini comparisonoftumorgrowthassessmentusinggfpfluorescenceanddiilabelinginazebrafishxenograftmodel