Author:
Stordal Britta,Farrelly Angela M.,Hennessy Bryan T.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The mutational status of ovarian cancer cell line IGROV-1 is inconsistent across the literature, suggestive of multiple clonal populations of the cell line. IGROV-1 has previously been categorised as an inappropriate model for high-grade serous ovarian cancer.
Methods
IGROV-1 cells were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Institute (IGROV-1-NKI) and the MD Anderson Cancer Centre (IGROV-1-MDA). Cell lines were STR fingerprinted and had their chromosomal copy number analysed and BRCA1/2 genes sequenced. Mutation status of ovarian cancer-related genes were extracted from the literature.
Results
The IGROV-1-NKI cell line has a tetraploid chromosomal profile. In contrast, the IGROV-1-MDA cell line has pseudo-normal chromosomes. The IGROV-1-NKI and IGROV-MDA are both STR matches (80.7% and 84.6%) to the original IGROV-1 cells isolated in 1985. However, IGROV-1-NKI and IGROV-1-MDA are not an STR match to each other (78.1%) indicating genetic drift. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequences are 100% identical between IGROV-1-MDA and IGROV-1-NKI, including a BRCA1 heterozygous deleterious mutation. The IGROV-1-MDA cells are more resistant to cisplatin and olaparib than IGROV-1-NKI. IGROV-1 has a mutational profile consistent with both Type I (PTEN, PIK3CA and ARID1A) and Type II ovarian cancer (BRCA1, TP53) and is likely to be a Type II high-grade serous carcinoma of the SET (Solid, pseudo-Endometroid and Transitional cell carcinoma-like morphology) subtype.
Conclusions
Routine testing of chromosomal copy number as well as the mutational status of ovarian cancer related genes should become the new standard alongside STR fingerprinting to ensure that ovarian cancer cell lines are appropriate models.
Funder
Irish Cancer Society
European Research Executive Agency
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference53 articles.
1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H et al (2024) Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 74:229–263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834
2. Kosary CL (2007) Cancer of the ovary. In: Ries LAG, Young JL, Keel GE et al (eds) SEER Program, NIH Pub. No. 07-6215. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, pp 133–144
3. Suzuki S, Moore DH, Ginzinger DG et al (2000) An approach to analysis of large-scale correlations between genome changes and clinical endpoints in ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 60:5382–5385
4. Kurman RJ, Shih I-M (2016) The dualistic model of ovarian carcinogenesis: revisited, revised, and expanded. Am J Pathol 186:733–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.11.011
5. Shih IM, Kurman RJ (2004) Ovarian tumorigenesis: a proposed model based on morphological and molecular genetic analysis. Am J Pathol 164:1511–1518