Rui V Simoes1, Rafael N Henriques1, Beatriz M Cardoso1, Tania Carvalho1, and Noam Shemesh1
1Champalimaud Research, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal
Synopsis
The dynamic interplay between cancer cells and their
microenvironment impacts progression. We used dynamic glucose-enhanced deuterium MRS (DGE 2H-MRS) to investigate the association between functional metabolic
heterogeneity and cell proliferation in a syngeneic mouse model of GBM. Taking a stepwise approach,
from cell culture studies to in vivo mouse MRI/MRS and post-mortem
analysis, our results suggest a potential role for glucose oxidation rate as a
marker of cell proliferation and vascular stability. Extending this methodology to other GBM models
and/or molecular subtypes could create new opportunities for non-invasive phenotyping of the
disease.
INTRODUCTION
Cancer metabolic
heterogeneity and adaptability are associated with malignant phenotypes [1,2]. Specifically,
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM),
the most aggressive form of primary brain tumors in adults, can use both
glycolysis – Warburg effect, (hallmark
of cancer) – and oxidation pathways, from preclinical models to patients [3,4].
As we unravel the
differences in biology and clinical outcomes among GBM subtypes [5], exploring this
heterogeneity from a metabolic standpoint could impact diagnosis and
clinical decision-making. We previously showed a novel application of Marchenko–Pastur
PCA denoising (MP-PCA) to dynamic glucose-enhanced deuterium MRS
(DGE 2H-MRS) [6], and its ability to assess glycolytic and oxidative metabolism in
mouse glioma [7]. Here, we used this methodology to investigate the association between functional metabolic
heterogeneity and cell proliferation in a syngeneic mouse model of GBM, using a stepwise approach
from in vitro, to in vivo, to post-mortem studies.METHODS
Fig 1 summarizes the experimental
design.
Cell
Culture
GL261
cells (2E4/well) were seeded overnight on Seahorse XFp plates. Experiments were
performed using the Mito Stress Test to assess mitochondrial respiration
based on oxygen
consumption rate (OCR), while also measuring extracellular acidification rate (ECAR).
Animals
All animal experiments were preapproved by
institutional and national authorities, and carried out according to European
Directive 2010/63. High-grade gliomas were induced in n=4 mice by intracranial stereotactic
injection of 1E5 GL261 cells in the caudate nucleus [8] and studied 2-3 weeks post-inoculation
(18-21g). MRI/MRS experiments were performed on
a 9.4 T scanner (Bruker BioSpec), using a customized 2H/1H
transmit-receive surface coilset (NeosBiotec). Fasted mice (4-6h) were
cannulated in the tail vein and placed in the animal holder (1-2% isoflurane in
29% O2; rectal temperature 36-37ºC; breathing 60-80BPM. After T2-RARE imaging, pulse-acquire 2H-MRS was prepared (175ms
TR, 256 points, 1749 Hz, 51º flip angle)
with 6 OVS pulses (10mm slab each) to select only the tumor region [7]. DGE 2H-MRS was acquired with 6,6′-2H2-glucose
i.v. bolus (2 g/Kg). Finally, animals
underwent DCE-T1 FLASH (8º flip-angle, 16ms TR, 4 averages, 150 repetitions,
1mm slice thickness, 140μm resolution) with Gd-DOTA i.v. bolus (0.1mmol/Kg). After MR examination, animals were sacrificed (pentobarbital 200mg/Kg i.p.), the brains removed, washed in
PBS and immersed in 4% PFA until paraffin embedding, 1 week later. Samples were
sectioned for H&E staining and ki67 immunostaining, and the slices digitalized
(Nanozoomer, Hamamatsu).
Data analyses
Seahorse data were processed
with Wave Desktop 2.6 (Agilent) and
normalized according to total protein content (PierceTM BCA Protein
kit, ThermoFisher Scientific). DGE 2H-MRS
data were processed in MATLABR R2018b and jMRUI 6.0b as detailed by
the authors [7]. This included Marchenko–Pastur
PCA denoising [9], individual
peak fitting using AMARES, quantification based on DHO natural abundance (13.88
mM) with T1 and labeling-loss correction [10,11], and fitting time-course
changes with a modified version of a previous model [12] to estimate the maximum rate of glucose consumption for glutamate-glutamine and lactate
synthesis (VmaxGlx and VmaxLac, respectively). DCE T1-MRI data were processed with
DCE@urLab [13], manually delineating each tumor from 3 slices and deriving Ktrans
(volume transfer constant between plasma and extracellular tumor space) with
the Extended Tofts model, which were then averaged for each tumor. Histopathological analyses (H&E) were performed
independently by an experimental pathologist. Ki67 images were analyzed with QuPath
0.2.3 [14], blindly from DGE 2H-MRS results. For each tumor, at least 6
slices representative of the whole lesion were used for semi-automated counting
of ki67+/- cells, the labeling index (LI, +%) calculated for each
slice and averaged for each tumor. This was further used to estimate the total
cell number for each tumor, based on the total volume (measured by manual
delineation of T2-RARE data, using ImageJ) and estimated cell radius of 10um (reported
in mouse gliomas [15]), which in turn enabled Vmax normalization.RESULTS
GL261 cells rely on aerobic
glycolysis and mitochondrial respiration to proliferate in 2D culture (Fig 2).
Accordingly, GL261 gliomas show glucose turnover to lactate (VmaxLac,
glycolysis) and glutamate-glutamine (VmaxGlx, oxidation) (Fig 3),
the latter in remarkable close range to the basal respiration measured in cell
culture. While VmaxLac was similar across the different tumors
examined, VmaxGlx demonstrates more variability and consistency
with ki67 LI, revealing a strong correlation (Fig 4) not observed for
other MRI metrics, such as total tumor volume or perfusion (Ktrans).
Histopathological analysis classified the tumors into 4 progression stages,
according to indicators of vascular stability and stroma composition, which precisely
matched the proliferation index and glucose oxidation rates (Fig 5).DISCUSSION
The GL261 model relies on
glycolysis and mitochondrial oxidation, both in cell culture and in vivo.
Unlike glycolytic turnover (VmaxLac), tumor volume or perfusion (Ktrans),
our results suggest a role for glucose oxidation rate (VmaxGlx) as a
potential marker for GBM staging in this model, according to cell proliferation (Ki67) and vascular stability (H&E) measurements. We are currently validating these
results on a larger animal cohort.CONCLUSION
Non-invasive assessment of glucose oxidation rate in
GBM holds promise for staging these lesions according to histologic and
immunohistochemical markers of progression and proliferation, respectively.
Extending this methodology
to other GBM models or molecular subtypes could open a new window for in
vivo phenotyping of the
disease.Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ms. Francisca Fernandes for
periodic MRI monitoring of glioma-bearing mice, Dr. Joana Rodrigues for help
with the histology, Dr. Alfredo Caro for facilitating the Seahorse XFp
experiments, and Dr. Bruno Costa-Silva for access to the protein quantification
protocol. This
work was developed with support from the vivarium of the Champalimaud Centre
for the Unknown, a research infrastructure of CONGENTO co-financed by Lisboa
Regional Operational Programme (Lisboa2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020
Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal), under the project
LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-022170. Funding Support: Champalimaud Foundation;
H2020-MSCA-IF-2018, ref. 844776.References
1. DeNicola et al. Mol Cell. 2015. 60(4): p. 514-23.
2. Lehuédé C et al. Cancer Res. 2016; 76:5201-08.
3.
Mashimo et al. Cell. 2014; 159:
603-14.
4.
Tardito et al. Nat Cell Biol. 2015; 17: 1556-68.
5. Wang et al. Cancer Cell. 2017; 32: 42-56.
6. Simões et al. Proc ISMRM 2020: 475.
7. Simões et al. [Proc ISMRM 2021: submitted].
8. Simões et al. NMR Biomed. 2008; 21: 251-264,
9. Veraart et al. Magn Reson
Med. 2016; 76: 1582-1593.
10. de Feyter et al. Sci Adv. 2018; 4: eaat7314.
11. de Graaf et
al. Proc ISMRM 2020: 1959.
12. Kreis et al. Radiology. 2019; 294: 289-96
13. Ortuño et al. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;
14: 316.
14. Bankhead et al. Sci Rep. 2017: 7: 16878.
15. Robert set al. Sci Rep. 2020: 10: 9223
16. Simões et al. Neoplasia. 2015; 17: 671-84