Schultz-Hector S, Begg A C, Hofland I, Kummermehr J, Sund M
GSF Institut für Strahlenbiologie, Neuherberg, Munich, Germany.
Br J Cancer. 1993 Dec;68(6):1097-103. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1993.487.
The study was originally set up to measure accurate cell kinetic parameters in two murine squamous cell carcinomas (scc) for comparison with radiobiological data on proliferation during radiotherapy. The tumours, AT84 and AT478, were both moderately well differentiated aneuploid scc. In the course of the study, several comparisons of techniques were made in two different centres. This paper reports on the results of those comparisons involving two different detection methods (flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry), single vs double labelling, and in vivo and in vitro labelling, the latter using tissue slices incubated under high pressure oxygen. Pulse labelling studies with bromodeoxyuridine (BrdUrd) showed that the labelling indices (LI) were not significantly different after in vitro or in vivo labelling. In addition, the flow cytometry (FCM) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) methods also gave labelling indices which were not significantly different. Only tumour cells were analysed in these studies by selecting cells on the basis of aneuploidy (FCM) or morphology (IHC). The DNA synthesis time of the tumour cells were analysed by both techniques. For FCM, the Relative Movement method was used (Begg et al., 1985). For IHC, a double labelling method was used, employing BrdUrd and triated thymidine (3H-TdR) administered several hours apart, detected simultaneously using immunoperoxidase and autoradiography, respectively. When both labels were administered in vivo, there was good agreement for Ts between the FCM and IHC methods. Attempts were also made to measure Ts in vitro using both techniques. With double labelling, it was found that cells did not take up the second label, implying a failure of cycle progression. This was confirmed by FCM results, showing no movement of labelled cells through the S-phase, despite an initially high uptake. This could not be influenced by lowering the DNA precursor concentration or by adding foetal calf serum. This indicates that DNA synthesis times are difficult or impossible to measure in vitro in fresh tumour explants. Finally, the double labelling IHC method allowed intratumoural variations of both LI and Ts to be studied. Both parameters were found to vary markedly throughout the tumour volume, particularly for larger tumours (600 mg), giving calculated local potential doubling time values (Tpot) ranging from 1-7 days.
该研究最初旨在测量两种小鼠鳞状细胞癌(SCC)中准确的细胞动力学参数,以便与放射治疗期间增殖的放射生物学数据进行比较。肿瘤AT84和AT478均为中度分化良好的非整倍体SCC。在研究过程中,在两个不同中心对多种技术进行了几次比较。本文报告了这些比较的结果,涉及两种不同的检测方法(流式细胞术和免疫组织化学)、单标记与双标记以及体内和体外标记,后者使用在高压氧下孵育的组织切片。用溴脱氧尿苷(BrdUrd)进行的脉冲标记研究表明,体外或体内标记后的标记指数(LI)没有显著差异。此外,流式细胞术(FCM)和免疫组织化学(IHC)方法给出的标记指数也没有显著差异。在这些研究中,仅通过基于非整倍体(FCM)或形态学(IHC)选择细胞来分析肿瘤细胞。用两种技术分析肿瘤细胞的DNA合成时间。对于FCM,使用相对运动法(Begg等人,1985年)。对于IHC,使用双标记法,间隔数小时分别给予BrdUrd和氚标记胸腺嘧啶核苷(3H-TdR),分别使用免疫过氧化物酶和放射自显影同时检测。当两种标记均在体内给予时,FCM和IHC方法之间的Ts具有良好的一致性。还尝试使用两种技术在体外测量Ts。采用双标记时,发现细胞不摄取第二种标记,这意味着细胞周期进程失败。FCM结果证实了这一点,显示标记细胞没有通过S期移动,尽管最初摄取率很高。降低DNA前体浓度或添加胎牛血清对此没有影响。这表明在新鲜肿瘤外植体中很难或无法在体外测量DNA合成时间。最后,双标记IHC方法允许研究LI和Ts的肿瘤内变化。发现这两个参数在整个肿瘤体积中均有显著变化,特别是对于较大的肿瘤(600mg),计算出的局部潜在倍增时间值(Tpot)范围为1 - 7天。