Multi-modal and multi-scale measurement of metabolism in breast cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo
Benjamin L Cox1,2,3, Joseph M Szulczewski4, Kai D Ludwig1, Erin B Adamson1, David R Inman4, Stephen A Graves1, Justin J Jeffery5, Jason D McNulty6, Patricia J Keely4, Kevin W Eliceiri2,3,7, and Sean B Fain1,7,8

1Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI, United States, 2Morgridge Institute for Research, Madison, WI, United States, 3Laboratory for Optical and Computational Instrumentation, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI, United States, 4Cell and Regenerative Biology, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI, United States, 5UW Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI, United States, 6Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI, United States, 7Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI, United States, 8Radiology, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI, United States

Synopsis

A system and workflow for spatially registered in vivo optical microscopy, MRI, and PET of breast tumor metabolism is described. The system is coupled with a bioreactor designed to compare cellular metabolism in vitro using both optical microscopy and MR spectroscopy with the behavior of tumor cells in the in vivo tumor microenvironment. Results from enzyme reactions are shown, demonstrating the temperature control capabilities of the bioreactor. A proof of concept in vivo experiment is also described, with optical microscopy data of a mammary tumor acquired in conjunction with MRI and PET data, on the same animal.

Purpose

Understanding tumor metabolism may aid in proper diagnosis and assessment of treatment response1. The gold standard of positron emission tomography (PET) using 18F labeled 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) utilizes the difference in glucose uptake of tumors and normal tissue to enhance the contrast of tumors2. However, new techniques have emerged that yield complementary metabolic information. Optical fluorescence lifetime imaging (FLIM), probes the chemical states of metabolites like nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) by comparing the relative lifetimes of their fluorescence in cells3,4. In addition, magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) of hyperpolarized 13C nuclei provides atomic information about pyruvate metabolism and lactate production5. Combining these techniques in a multi-modal platform would unite three imaging scales (Figure 1) and provide a more complete picture of tumor metabolism. Here, we present our work to develop multi-modal and multi-scale imaging platforms that are both in vitro, in a bioreactor, and in vivo, in a mouse model. Breast cancer has been well classified with the above techniques and was thus chosen as the cancer model.

Methods

The bioreactor design (Figure 2) for in vitro FLIM and MRS included precise temperature control, cell culture environmental control (media infusion, oxygen environment, etc.) and an optical imaging window. Temperature was controlled with flowing warm water through a channel that runs around the cell culture and an MR-compatible temperature probe fed into the cell culture volume (Figure 3A-B,4A-B). The optical window of the bioreactor was held in place with glass-filled nylon screws and sealed with two silicon gaskets (Figure 3D). The shape of the bioreactor allows for a 13C surface MR coil (Doty Scientific, Inc.) to conveniently fit around the sample volume for improved signal sensitivity.

Several in vitro experiments were performed to test the bioreactor. First, enzyme reactions tested the spectroscopic measurements consisting of approximately 20-U of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH, 5µL by volume of L-LDH from bovine heart, Sigma) and varying amounts, 12, 24 and 36µmol of NADH (Figure 4C-D) in 1mL Tris Buffer. 32µmol of [1-13C] pyruvic acid was polarized to ~20% and injected through ports on top of the bioreactor. Dynamic 13C spectra were acquired (global RF excitation, 5° FA, 10kHz BW) with a 3s temporal resolution. 13C-enriched pyruvic acid was hyperpolarized (HP) using a HyperSense DNP Polariser (Oxford Instruments). To demonstrate the viability of the optical window, an image of GFP-expressing MDA-231 human breast cancer cells6 was taken through the window (Figure 3C).

The mouse model used for in vivo experiments was the polyoma virus middle T oncoprotein (PyVT) breast cancer model7. In vivo optical imaging was performed through a subcutaneously implanted optical window over a growing mammary tumor (Figure 5A). The window consists of a small custom plastic frame, fabricated using a 3D printer, and a small cover glass. Materials used were MR compatible. All animal experiments complied with institutional IACUC regulations with the [PyVT] mouse anesthetized with 1.5% isoflurane. A 4.7T small animal MR system (Agilent Technologies) and an Inveon Hybrid microPET/CT (Siemens) were used for MR and PET acquisitions, respectively.

Results

For the in vitro enzyme reactions, the time-averaged spectra showed an increase in lactate signal as a function of NADH (Figure 4D), as expected. Once temperature control (37oC) was incorporated, optimal enzyme kinetics allowed for an enhanced 13C lactate signal (Figure 4D). A proof of concept in vivo multi-modal and multi-scale experiment was performed. Optical microscopy data related to extra-cellular matrix (second harmonic generation (SHG)) and metabolism (intrinsic fluorescence from flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) and NADH) were acquired in a mammary tumor through an implanted optical window (Figure 5C) and an 18F-FDG-PET scan with anatomy provided by T1-weighted gradient echo and T2-weighted fast spin echo MR scans (Figure 5B) were acquired in the same mouse for a total image session of 3hr.

Dicussion

Ongoing work will focus on two aims: adding media flow to the bioreactor to enable its use for cell culture studies and adding metabolic imaging techniques, HP 13C MRS and FLIM, to our in vivo studies. The completion of this work will yield two novel platforms capable of providing new insights into how tumor metabolism behaves at different imaging scales within both cell culture and the tumor microenvironment.

Conclusion

Feasibility is demonstrated for a system, including workflow, for spatially registered optical microscopy, MRI, and PET of breast tumor metabolism in vivo. The system is coupled with a bioreactor designed to compare cellular metabolism in vitro using both optical microscopy and MR spectroscopy with the macroscopic behavior of tumor cells in the in vivo tumor microenvironment.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Morgridge Institute for Research for their continued funding of this project. Funding was also provided by the Laboratory for Optical and Computational Instrumentation (LOCI) at the University of Wisconsin. This project was also supported in part by grant UL1TR000427 to UW ICTR from NIH/NCATS. Lastly, the authors would like to thank the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA014520.

References

1. L. M. Phan, S.-C. J. Yeung, and M.-H. Lee, “Cancer metabolic reprogramming: importance, main features, and potentials for precise targeted anti-cancer therapies,” Cancer Biol. Med., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–19, Mar. 2014.

2. P. Som, H. L. Atkins, D. Bandoypadhyay, J. S. Fowler, R. R. MacGregor, K. Matsui, Z. H. Oster, D. F. Sacker, C. Y. Shiue, H. Turner, C. N. Wan, A. P. Wolf, and S. V. Zabinski, “A fluorinated glucose analog, 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F-18): nontoxic tracer for rapid tumor detection,” J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med., vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 670–675, Jul. 1980.

3. C.-W. Chang, D. Sud, and M.-A. Mycek, “Fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy,” Methods Cell Biol., vol. 81, pp. 495–524, 2007.

4. D. S. Elson, I. Munro, J. Requejo-Isidro, J. McGinty, C. Dunsby, N. Galletly, G. W. Stamp, M. a. A. Neil, M. J. Lever, P. A. Kellett, A. Dymoke-Bradshaw, J. Hares, and P. M. W. French, “Real-time time-domain fluorescence lifetime imaging including single-shot acquisition with a segmented optical image intensifier,” New J. Phys., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 180, Nov. 2004.

5. F. A. Gallagher, S. E. Bohndiek, M. I. Kettunen, D. Y. Lewis, D. Soloviev, and K. M. Brindle, “Hyperpolarized 13C MRI and PET: in vivo tumor biochemistry,” J. Nucl. Med. Off. Publ. Soc. Nucl. Med., vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1333–1336, Sep. 2011.

6. R. Cailleau, M. Olivé, and Q. V. Cruciger, “Long-term human breast carcinoma cell lines of metastatic origin: preliminary characterization,” In Vitro, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 911–915, Nov. 1978.

7. E. Y. Lin, J. G. Jones, P. Li, L. Zhu, K. D. Whitney, W. J. Muller, and J. W. Pollard, “Progression to malignancy in the polyoma middle T oncoprotein mouse breast cancer model provides a reliable model for human diseases,” Am. J. Pathol., vol. 163, no. 5, pp. 2113–2126, Nov. 2003.

Figures

Figure 1: Schematic showing the relative scales of several methods to measure metabolism. MRS is capable of measuring at the molecular scale, FLIM can measure the chemical state of metabolites on the cellular scale and techniques like MRI and PET offer whole body anatomy and metabolism at the macroscopic scale.

Figure 2: Schematic showing the three stages of our bioreactor design. Stage 1, incorporating temperature control using heated water, allows for controlled enzyme reactions. Stage 2, adding media flow, will allow for imaging of cell cultures. Stage 3, the addition of an optical window, allows FLIM in addition to MRS.

Figure 3: 3D drawing and cutaway (A) and physical picture (B) of the temperature probe placement in the bioreactor for temperature monitoring. (C) Optical image of GFP-expressing MDA-231 human breast cancer cells taken in the bioreactor through the optical window assembly (D). Scale bar is 200 microns.

Figure 4: Schematic (A) and picture (B) of the bioreactor with heated water highlighted. (C) Sample summed spectra from enzyme reaction containing 32µmol pyruvate, 20-U LDH and 12µmol of NADH with peaks labeled. (D) Comparison of integrated lactate signal from the four reactions. Increased lactate signal observed with temperature control.

Figure 5: A) Design and picture of implanted window. B) Whole body data, T1-weighted gradient echo and T2-weighted fast spin echo MR data (left), FDG-PET data (right). Scale bar about 1 cm. C) SHG, NADH, FAD Optical data (through window) and an overlay (Left to Right). Scale bar 100 microns.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
3683