TY - JOUR
AU - Kaplan, David L.
AB - Abstract Despite the decline in U.S. cancer incidence and mortality rates, cancer remains the number one cause of death for people under the age of 85 and one in four people in the U.S. will die of cancer, mainly because of metastasis. Recently, interest in mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) tumor-homing has led to inquires into: (a) why MSCs home to tumors, (b) what the inherent protumor and antitumor consequences are, and (c) how to best capitalize on MSC tumor-homing for cell-based diagnostics and therapy. Here, these questions are reviewed and method for addressing them using animal models and tracking methodologies (or, synonymously, detection methodologies) are discussed. First, MSCs in a regenerative and tumor-homing context are reviewed, followed by MSC delivery and genetic labeling methods for tissue model systems. Finally, the use of the nonoptical methods, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and single photon emission computed tomography, along with optical methods, fluorescence imaging and bioluminescent imaging, are reviewed related to tracking MSCs within disease model settings. The benefits and drawbacks of each detection method in animal models is reviewed along with the utility of each for therapeutic use. Mesenchymal stem cells, Diagnostic imaging, Neoplasm metastasis, Neoplasms, Disease models, Animal models Introduction Over the last decade, noninvasive imaging and cell detection technologies have undergone a revolution. This has allowed for a better grasp of the roles of stroma in cancer progression and improved designs of therapeutic and diagnostic methods based on tumor-host interactions. Tumors hijack normal, healthy cells in a multitude of ways including the recruitment of endothelial cells, use of tumor-associated macrophages and osteoclasts to degrade extracellular matrix and bone matrix, and, most important to this review, the multifaceted exploitation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Understanding and capitalizing on MSC tumor-homing requires accurate tracking methods in model systems and clinical settings where stem cell therapies are increasingly used. The accuracy of delivering therapeutic or diagnostic cells, or both (“theragnostic”) cells, to target tumors and the technological ability to assess this accuracy will determine the success of basic science model systems and clinical cell-based anticancer therapies. Tumor-homing is a complex, multistep process used by many cells to travel from a distant location to a tumor. Similar to tumor cells in the metastatic cascade, homing cells may become activated, intravasate, travel through circulation, extravasate, migrate, and undergo phenotypic changes. Importantly, much of this process is still unknown in terms of MSC tumor-homing. We have chosen to define “tumor-homing” as any action, where cells travel from a distant location to a tumor and reserve the term “migration” to define only active, filopodia-based motion through tumor or surrounding local microenvironment based on local chemoattractants. MSCs: Definition and Potential in Regenerative Medicine MSCs are a heterogeneous population of fibroblast-like cells found surrounding blood vessels, similar to pericytes, and are concentrated in the bone marrow and adipose tissue from where they are often isolated. They can also be isolated from cord blood and placental tissues including umbilical cord [1, 2]. Their heterogeneity may be the key to their diverse therapeutic effects, but the lack of consistent isolation methods for multipotent MSCs often complicates comparisons between studies. The following three criteria are agreed upon to identify MSCs: (a) plastic adherence; (b) expression of CD105, CD90, and CD73 and lack of expression of CD45, CD34, and CD14 or CD11b and CD79α or CD19 and HLA-DR surface markers; and (c) ability to differentiate into osteoblasts, adipocytes, and chondrocytes in vitro [3]. MSCs can also differentiate into ectodermal cells (i.e., neurons), cardiomyocytes, and hepatocytes [4]. They have potential for repair of diseased or damaged tissues and the regeneration of native tissues due to their differentiation potential, wound tropism, and production of soluble factors that stimulate healing, angiogenesis, growth, and cell recruitment, and inhibit inflammation [4]. These stem cell sources are also less prone to ethical debate than other sources, suggesting a more realistic path to therapeutic impact in the shorter term. MSCs may be predisposed to home to different locations and express different marker profiles depending on their source tissue (e.g., bone marrow, adipose, and umbilical cord) [4]. However, practically all types of MSCs are successful in animal and clinical trials [4] and they have been used in regeneration or treatment of damaged heart tissue, vascular disease, spinal cord injury, bone injury, cartilage injury, osteogenesis imperfecta, lung injury, kidney disease, diabetes, neurological disorders, and autoimmune diseases, among others [4]. MSCs: Potential in Tumor-Homing and Cancer Treatment MSCs are inherently tumor-homing and immunosuppressive and can be isolated, cultured, expanded, and transduced, making them viable candidates for cell therapy [5]. MSCs can also act as universal donor cells because of their immunocompatibility, making them useful for allogeneic transplantation [6]. MSCs can home specifically to tumors including gliomas [7] and breast [8–10], colon [11], ovarian [12], and lung carcinomas, among many other primary and metastatic tumors [13, 14]. In these models, MSCs have successfully homed to tumors from a large variety of administration routes including the carotid artery, femur, tail vein, tibia, and trachea. MSC tumor migration is motivated by many factors including tumor cell-specific receptors and soluble tumor-derived factors such as stromal cell-derived factor-1, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and interleukins, among other identified and unidentified inflammatory mediators [12, 15, 16]. Upon arrival in the tumor, MSCs display many protumor, or tumor-supporting, roles including immune response suppression [17], inhibition of tumor apoptosis [18], and stimulation of an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition [19], angiogenesis [11], proliferation [9], extravasation [20], migration [20], and metastasis [8]. MSCs can also differentiate into supportive stromal cells such as pericytes [21] and cancer-associated fibroblasts [15] and specifically support cancer stem cell populations [9]. Some reports find that paracrine signaling from MSCs may affect tumors even without MSC tumor engraftment [17]. In contrast to their protumor effects, MSCs also display a range of antitumor properties in sarcomas [22] and leukemias [18] and can decrease breast cancer cell growth and lung metastasis in vivo [23]. Certain immortalized MSCs can also inhibit primary tumor growth [24] and colony formation [25]. Fundamentally, MSCs have potential for anticancer gene delivery, but innate protumor effects present significant barriers for clinical therapies. The accurate tracking of transplanted stem cells is essential for understanding homing and differentiation patterns and cell clearance and designing effective treatments in terms of cell types used, administration timing and location, coadministered drugs, and side effects to monitor. Better understanding of cell fate is especially crucial now that stem cell therapy is being used increasingly to treat other diseases, often in patients who may have undetectable micrometastases. Genetic Modifications of MSC MSCs have been modified into anticancer vectors through transduction with genes such as TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) [26], interferon (IFN)-γ [27], IFN-beta (IFN-β), and CX3CL1 (fractalkine) [14] and soluble decoy receptors such as the type I insulin-like growth factor receptor [28]. MSCs are commonly transduced with viral vectors including adenoviruses [7], lentiviruses and other retroviruses [26, 28], or adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) for therapeutic and tracking purposes. Transfection allows cells to produce high concentrations of proteins in a spatially and temporally controllable manner using inherent tumor-homing properties and inducible promoters, respectively [29]. MSC tumor-homing can also be augmented by increasing the cells' expression of tumor-specific receptors [30]. In contrast to lentiviruses or AAVs, which insert genes into the host genome, adenoviruses insert genes that remain epichromosomal (meaning they are not inserted within the genome of host) and hence are not replicated upon cell division [31]. Still, adenovirally transfected MSCs expressing IFN-β have been effective at killing glioma cells in vitro and in vivo using intra-arterial injections [7]. Adenoviruses cause a large immune response, but they have the largest cloning capacity, up to 7.5 kb, when compared with 3 kb in AAV, and infect all cell types with close to 100% efficiency, while other transfection viruses may show cell type-specific infection efficiency [32]. AAVs, unlike adenoviruses, show low immunogenicity and pathogenicity and have integration competence into a known site, decreasing the chance for mutagenesis found in retrovirus infections. Counter to lentiviruses, AAVs are not replicated and their genes do not remain within target cells upon cell division, but studies have found MSCs capable of stable gene expression using AAV transfection from as little as 8 days to 1 month [33]. Lentivirus infection produces MSCs that continually express a gene of interest that is incorporated within the genome, replicated, and passed to all daughter cells. Lentiviruses have a cloning capacity intermediate between adenovirus and AAV and only have a transfection efficiency of approximately 30%. Although lentivirus vectors provide long-term stable expression, they can accidentally insert transgenes into genomic locations that cause destabilization, reversion of the virus to the wild-type, or proto-oncogene activation. However, newer generations of lentivectors are comparatively stable and less likely to generate wild-type virus or proto-oncogenes. Oncogenic risks depend on several variables including “the vector copy number, the target cell type, the proliferation and/or activation status of the target cells, the nature of the transgene itself, the vector design, the underlying disease and the possible selective advantage of rapidly growing cells, protocol-specific cofactors, and finally the intrinsic genotypic variation of the model animals and the treated patients,” as reviewed recently by Mátrai et al. [34]. Delivery Methods of MSC in Tumor-Homing Animal Models Tracking MSCs in animal models is crucial in understanding how normal or transplanted MSCs migrate. Clinically, most of the intravenously administered MSCs become trapped within capillary beds, often in the lungs, or are cleared from circulation by the liver and spleen. Despite this, MSC transfusions for disease achieve success by using high doses of MSCs, but more efficient MSC delivery remains a challenge [35]. In animal models, tumor-homing is typically assessed by injecting MSCs into circulation using intravenous (i.v.), usually tail vein, injections [16, 36] but can also be assessed with intratracheal [14], internal carotid artery [7], intraperitoneal [12], and subcutaneous injections [28]. Some glioma studies have been unable to detect MSC tumor-homing or effects from i.v. injections, but extensive MSC migration within glioma tumors upon intratumoral injection has been observed. These observations suggest different MSC-homing patterns and hence different treatments for glioma patients [21]. Our group has produced a tissue model demonstrating MSC breast tumor-homing from a bone-like environment, rather than from circulation, that may capture more steps of inherent bone marrow-derived MSC tumor-homing [10]. In Vivo Imaging of MSC Tumor-Homing Personalized treatment using autologous and allogeneic stem cells is a reality, and the need for noninvasive tracking methods is escalating. Tracking MSC fate in animal models is performed most often using optical techniques due to the noninvasiveness of light detection, the ability to section explants and retain optical signals, and the ease and simplicity of in vivo imaging. Nonoptical methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), which are already clinically used for cell tracking, may be developed for clinical stem cell tracking before optical methods [37]. A summary of these detection methods, which are often used in combination, and their associated benefits and limitations are found in Table 1. The following sections discuss advantages and disadvantages of nonoptical and optical methods for tracking MSCs within animal models and clinical settings. Table 1 Summary table of methods for tracking mesenchymal stem cell tumor migration Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tab Table 1 Summary table of methods for tracking mesenchymal stem cell tumor migration Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tabDownload slide Open in new tab Nonoptical Methods for Tracking MSCs MRI in Animal Models MRI is useful for tracking spatial and temporal homing of cells due to the high spatial resolution and three-dimensional (3D), whole-body imaging [38]. This noninvasive detection method uses magnetic fields and radio frequency waves to perturb these fields and detect labeled cells. Current model systems use MSCs prelabeled in vitro, but if a procedure for in vivo labeling was designed, it would probably be widely implemented. In direct labeling of MRI model systems, MSCs are labeled with magnetic nanoparticles such as superparamagnetic iron oxides (SPIOs), Mn, Eu, or Gd chelates, and perfluorocarbon nanoparticles [44, 45]. Contrast agents can enter cells using polycationic transfection agents, liposomes, “gene-guns,” microinjection, electroporation, or receptor-mediated endocytosis (as reviewed in [39]). MSCs may also be indirectly labeled for MRI tracking by stable transduction to express enzymes or proteins such as intracellular metalloproteins (e.g., transferrin and ferritin) that will produce unique MRI signatures from internal iron accumulation. Overexpressing ferritin in mouse myoblasts increased iron internalization and made them identifiable via MRI, and this technique could potentially be translated to human MSCs [46]. Another study found that swine stem cells can be transduced with human ferritin heavy chain and used as a reporter gene in a myocardial infarction model. They were able to identify this MRI signal for 4 weeks in vivo using a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner and a multiecho T*2 gradient echo sequence (clinical standards) and found no effects on cardioreparative or differentiation potential [47]. The toxicity of high iron concentrations, production of reactive oxygen species, and dilution of signal upon cell division may impede the clinical development of ferritin-based MRI imaging, and large animal studies are needed before clinical utility of this technique can be determined [40]. This indirect method may be better than direct labeling because of its dependence on gene expression, which is correlated much more tightly with cell viability and can provide more functional information. Indirect labeling, or using reporter gene expression to produce contrast, can be used in both nonoptical and optical labeling and is very versatile; this allows MSCs to be detected at any time, or only upon differentiation, if the enzyme is controlled by a transcription factor or promoter of interest [40]. The possibilities are nearly endless; reporter proteins could be driven by doxycycline-inducible promoters, controlling temporal expression, or by pathway-specific promoters to examine biological action after MSC tumor-homing. Although very high concentrations of certain contrast agents, such as ultrasmall SPIOs ((U)SPIOs) can be toxic to cells and released iron can damage metabolic pathways, most reports find that MRI contrast agents do not damage cell differentiation potential, proliferation, or function [39, 40]. MRI is sensitive enough to detect as few as 1,000 labeled MSCs in coinjection with breast cancer cells in subcutaneous tumors [13] and its resolution, 100–200 μm, allows for visualization of small-cell clusters. Imaging single cells is difficult due to blurring from intrinsic movements (e.g., breathing, muscle twitching) but a solution to this problem, called “white marker tracking,” has been developed [39, 48]. MRI can be combined with other modalities such as PET and SPECT to give greater insight into cell localization and function [49, 42]. Drawbacks of MRI include mislabeling of cells due to labeled-cell uptake by phagocytic cells, decreased signal-to-noise ratios as particles are diluted when cells divide, lack of information regarding cell survival or activity, and short physical and biological half-life of labels (by physical breakdown or natural exit from cells, respectively) [40]. Consequently, MRI is primarily a short-term monitoring technique. MSCs have been detected using MRI in many rat, mouse, rabbit, and swine models of damaged tissue and within glioma models [44]. MRI has also been used to detect human MSC-homing to pulmonary metastases using biocompatible SPIOs in mouse models of human metastatic breast cancer [13] (Fig. 1E). 1 Open in new tabDownload slide Imaging modalities for mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-tumor tropism. (A): Flow cytometry plot of cells from a single cell suspension of a digested primary tumor containing three populations of cells (tumor cells, MSCs, and residual mouse mammary cells). (B): eGFP fluorescent MSCs (green) and glioma tumor cells (red) identified using epifluorescence microscopy of tumor sections show colocalization within tumor. Scale bar = 100 μm. (C): Whole-chromosome fluorescent in situ hybridization painting identifies Y chromosomes (red) from male rat MSCs within female-derived glioma tumors. Nuclei are stained with by 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining (blue). Scale bar = 15 μm. (D): Xenogen images demonstrate the use of bioluminescent imaging to track fLuc-expressing MSC-homing from tail-vein specifically to primary orthotopic 4T1 breast tumors (below) when compared with noncancerous mammary fat pads (above). (E): Intravenously delivered superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO)-loaded MSCs localize to lung metastases and can be visualized by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). (1) Normal lung. (2, 5) Lung with MDA-MB-231 metastases. (3, 6) Same lung 1 hour after SPIO-loaded MSC injection shows decreased MRI signal in metastases signal. (4) H&E histologic sections. Scale bar = 100 μm. See references for more details: Figure 1A, unpublished data from our lab; Figure 1B, 1C from [21]; Figure 1D, 1E adapted and reprinted from [16] and [13], respectively, with permission from the American Association for Cancer Research Abbreviations: eGFP, enhanced green fluorescent protein; MSCs, mesenchymal stem cells; LU, left upper; RU, right upper; LL, left lower; RL, right lower. 1 Open in new tabDownload slide Imaging modalities for mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-tumor tropism. (A): Flow cytometry plot of cells from a single cell suspension of a digested primary tumor containing three populations of cells (tumor cells, MSCs, and residual mouse mammary cells). (B): eGFP fluorescent MSCs (green) and glioma tumor cells (red) identified using epifluorescence microscopy of tumor sections show colocalization within tumor. Scale bar = 100 μm. (C): Whole-chromosome fluorescent in situ hybridization painting identifies Y chromosomes (red) from male rat MSCs within female-derived glioma tumors. Nuclei are stained with by 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole staining (blue). Scale bar = 15 μm. (D): Xenogen images demonstrate the use of bioluminescent imaging to track fLuc-expressing MSC-homing from tail-vein specifically to primary orthotopic 4T1 breast tumors (below) when compared with noncancerous mammary fat pads (above). (E): Intravenously delivered superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO)-loaded MSCs localize to lung metastases and can be visualized by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). (1) Normal lung. (2, 5) Lung with MDA-MB-231 metastases. (3, 6) Same lung 1 hour after SPIO-loaded MSC injection shows decreased MRI signal in metastases signal. (4) H&E histologic sections. Scale bar = 100 μm. See references for more details: Figure 1A, unpublished data from our lab; Figure 1B, 1C from [21]; Figure 1D, 1E adapted and reprinted from [16] and [13], respectively, with permission from the American Association for Cancer Research Abbreviations: eGFP, enhanced green fluorescent protein; MSCs, mesenchymal stem cells; LU, left upper; RU, right upper; LL, left lower; RL, right lower. MRI in Clinical Settings The sensitivity, specificity, and current clinical use of MRI, along with its full tissue penetration, and high in vivo resolution may make MRI imaging the favorite for clinically tracking MSCs. MRI is currently used clinically to detect malignancies and many other diseases and injuries [50]. In terms of tumor-homing, clinical studies have revealed that autologous, immature dendritic cells can be labeled with 111In-oxine and SPIO and imaged using MRI during homing to lymph nodes in stage-III melanoma patients [38]. The study found MRI cell tracking using iron oxides to be clinically safe and well suited to monitor cellular therapy in humans. SPIOs are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, but transfection agents pose a problem in translating many animal model systems into human, until better methods of introducing SPIOs into nonphagocytic cells are developed [38]. The review by Budde and Frank [45] details MRI methods used to track cells and the potential and challenges for each in clinical translation. Detection of MSCs using MRI in humans is likely to develop once the health risks of MSCs are fully elucidated and standards for treatment and imaging are developed. To date, only four human clinical trials using SPIOs for cell tracking have been performed, all outside the U.S., as reviewed by Bulte [51]. Most FDA-approved SPIOs that were previously used in animal studies have now been discontinued from the market, so moving to clinics with SPIO-labeled cells will be difficult in the foreseeable future. Still, once stem cell therapy becomes mainstream and better MRI cellular imaging tools are developed, MRI cell tracking may become a vital tool in cell tracking. PET in Animal Models PET is arguably more sensitive than MRI in animal models but has a lower resolution (on the order of millimeter [52], compared to micrometer resolution in MRI [53]). Direct labeling of rat adipose-derived stem cells [42] and leukocytes [54] with copper and cobalt isotopes can provide longer term imaging capabilities than those found with MRI. For indirect labeling, MSCs can be transduced with a gene for mutant herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase (HSV1-tk), which increase their uptake of an injected radioactive substrate (18F-labeled 9-(4-fluoro-3-hydroxymethylbutyl)-guanine [[18F]-FHBG]) and causes increased PET signal [5]. However, the short half-life of 18F (110 minutes) considerably limits its use in clinical and model systems. Still, 18F-labeled MSC migration to subcutaneously implanted colon adenocarcinoma and self-renewal abilities were assessed over 1 month using PET in a mouse model [11]. MSCs can also be labeled with mutant dopamine receptors or transmembrane proteins such as the sodium iodide symporter (NIS), which can be used for PET or SPECT imaging when using tracers 124I (for PET) or 123I or 99Tc-pertechnetate [40]. PET in Clinical Settings Novel dual-modality (PET/MRI) contrast agent nanoparticles are currently being developed to label cells without transfection reagents; these may prove to be paramount in animal models and in the clinic based on their high cell-labeling efficiency and low cytotoxicity [42]. PET and PET/CT (computed tomography) scans are commonly used clinically to detect human malignancies and have been used to detect cytolytic T cells, or other therapeutic cells, labeled with HSV1-tk or mutant HSV1-sr39tk reporter genes. Reporter gene expression, detected by 18F-FHBG injection, can be used to image cell migration toward glioblastomas or other tumors [5, 50]. The clinical utility of PET scans makes them easily translatable to short-term or long-term MSC tracking applications in patients, depending on the contrast reagent used. SPECT in Animal Models and Clinical Settings SPECT uses the radioactive decay of radionuclides and gamma rays to provide 3D information on cell location using tomographic reconstruction. Most usable and FDA-approved SPECT isotopes are short-lived (e.g., Tc-99m [360 minutes], Ga-67 [4320 minutes], In-111 [4020 minutes], and I-123 [780 minutes]) [55]. SPECT can also be combined with PET and CT imaging and has been successful at imaging labeled leukocytes, human MSCs (hMSCs), and progenitor cells in rat, mice, and pig models, although the effects of SPECT contrast reagents on hMSC function remain debated [49, 54, 56–58]. Although SPECT has not been used to track MSCs or other therapeutic cells during tumor-homing in patients, it is clinically used for tracking leukocyte migration and could easily be expanded to track MSCs in tumor-homing applications. Table 1 summarizes the strengths and limitations of SPECT, specifically in comparison to PET. Notably, PET depends on active uptake by glucose transporters for cell labeling while SPECT contrast reagents such as [In-111]oxine can passively diffusive into cells due to their lipophilic nature [41]. Optical Methods for Tracking MSCs Endpoint tracking of MSC engraftment is done in models using histology, immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and even flow cytometry, but these techniques are not translatable to the clinic because of the lack of inherent MSC-specific markers and FDA approval for genetically modified MSCs or agents for optical labeling. Real-time tracking of MSCs using optical techniques is also unrealistic in clinical settings due low light penetration through the body. Noninvasive fluorescence-based approaches, which may prove to be relatively inexpensive, are being developed for clinical applications by redesigning FDA-approved fluorescent dyes and adapting quantum dots, antibody-conjugated labels, activatable fluorescent imaging probes, surface-enhanced Raman scattering nanoparticles, and target peptides as reviewed elsewhere [59]. In model systems, endpoint techniques are essential for validation of MSC engraftment and evaluation of spatial orientation, morphology, differentiation, and function within tumors. Histology can detect MSCs using anti-green fluorescent protein (GFP) [8], anti-firefly luciferase [16], or anti-human antibodies [27] and can identify differentiation of MSC into pericytes [11], endothelial cells, adipocytes, and osteoblasts [7, 11, 36] (Fig. 1B). FISH has been used to identify male MSCs within gliomas of female mice using the y-chromosome (Fig. 1C) [21]. Flow cytometry allows for quantification of MSCs within a tumor after digesting the tumor into a single cell suspension (Fig. 1A). Real-time MSC tracking is often done in models using fluorescent dyes and proteins as cell labels. Reporter genes, such as the GFP [8, 21] are considered indirect labels and produce a signal undiminished by proliferation, which can be detected using in vivo optical imaging [28], although the signal will diminish as it travels through tissue. Transgene expression may cause faster MSC clearance and immune response in immunocompetent animals [28], but recent data suggest that reporter genes do not significantly alter the biological properties and differentiation capacity of stem cells [40]. Still, untagged MSCs are more likely to be accepted clinically, necessitating other methods for MSC tracking in patients. Similarly, fluorescent dyes, such as Cell Tracker dyes, span a range of spectral properties and can directly label cells for weeks or longer for live in vivo imaging [7, 10]. However, dyes can be transferred to surrounding cells and are not preserved with formalin fixation. In vivo confocal microscopy (intravital microscopy) and two-photon video imaging have also been used to image individual progenitor cells using lipophilic dyes but have not been applied to MSC-homing to tumors likely because these are still relatively new techniques and are only capable of examining a small, superficial area within an animal [60]. Bioluminescent imaging (BLI) is noninvasive, nondestructive, quantitative, and commonly used in models of cell migration (Fig. 1D) [16, 30]. Different cell types may be distinguished by indirect labeling with different reporter gene luciferase enzymes that use unique substrates and whole animals. Single luciferase-transduced cells can be imaged using BLI technology, demonstrating its high sensitivity [43], and organ removal improves detection results and reduces noise in endpoint analysis. BLI is ideal for longitudinal studies and only improving in terms of resolution, sensitivity, and 3D imaging capacity [9, 36] Optical and Nonoptical Labeling Challenges Recent findings have demonstrated that many stem cells labeled with intracellular labels such as dextran-coated SPIOs, bromodeoxyuridine, or GFP can be taken up by resident tissue macrophages, complicating the interpretation of intracellular labels especially during direct implantation of cells, which can result in more than 70% cell death [61]. The study suggests that histology should be used in combination with MRI, fluorescence microscopy, or flow cytometry, as up to 15% of macrophages may be positive for the marker due to phagocytosis of labeled stem cells. Conclusions and Future Directions Evaluation of cellular therapy and the design of patient-specific care rely on real-time and endpoint assessment of cellular migration, proliferation, and overall function. Sophisticated animal models give researchers the ability to determine how therapeutic or diagnostic cells, such as MSCs, migrate to and engraft and differentiate within tumors. Regardless of model systems and components used, it is clear that the best clinical and basic research results derive from multimodal imaging systems that provide functional and anatomical data. This article outlined the characteristics of optical and nonoptical imaging using direct and indirect (gene expression) labeling techniques. The article discussed benefits and drawbacks of each in model and clinical settings. Although optical methods will likely remain at the forefront of MSC tracking in animal models, MRI, PET, and SPECT may become more prevalent as the technologies become less expensive and more widespread because of to their clinical utility. Still, these techniques will have to compete with novel fluorophores, bioluminescent enzymes, photon detection devices, and cell-labeling technologies that will continue to develop for optical model systems. Patients and clinicians are demanding better MSC tracking technologies clinically, and the potential use of MSC in many diseases supports the need for better MSC tracking technologies within animal models. The future of therapeutic MSCs will be the expression and delivery of novel proteins, normally expressed proteins, and small hairpin RNAs to help regenerate tissues and kill tumors. As we remain ignorant regarding many of the possible off-target effects inflicted by genetic or nongenetic modifications, we may want to incorporate suicide genes into MSCs driven by inducible promoters as a safety precaution against teratoma formation or other deleterious, unpredicted effects. We will continue to rely on model systems to elucidate the role of MSCs within diseased and healthy tissues and experimental designs that optimally combine real-time, endpoint, and multimodal tracking technologies to gain the greatest insight into cell homing, engraftment, and tumor-host interactions. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest The authors indicate no potential conflicts of interest. Acknowledgments This work was supported by NIH Tissue Engineering Resource Center (P41 EB002520), Susan Komen Breast Cancer Metastasis grant (BCTR0706887), and Department of Defense CDMRP Breast Cancer Research Program grant (W81XWH-10-1-0086). Views and opinions of and endorsements by the author(s) do not reflect those of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense. References 1 Zhang X , Hirai M, Cantero S et al. Isolation and characterization of mesenchymal stem cells from human umbilical cord blood: Reevaluation of critical factors for successful isolation and high ability to proliferate and differentiate to chondrocytes as compared to mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and adipose tissue . J Cell Biochem 2011 ; 112 : 1206 – 1218 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 2 Liang L , Dong C, Chen X et al. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate mice TNBS-induced colitis . Cell Transplant 2011 (in press). Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 3 Dominici M , Le Blanc K, Mueller I et al. Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement . Cytotherapy 2006 ; 8 : 315 – 317 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 4 Phinney DG , Prockop DJ. Concise review: Mesenchymal stem/multipotent stromal cells: The state of transdifferentiation and modes of tissue repair—Current views . Stem Cells 2007 ; 25 : 2896 – 2902 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 5 Yaghoubi SS , Gambhir SS. PET imaging of herpes simplex virus type 1 thymidine kinase (HSV1-tk) or mutant HSV1-sr39tk reporter gene expression in mice and humans using [18F]-FHBG . Nat Protoc 2006 ; 1 : 3069 – 3075 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 6 Chiu RCJ . “Stealth immune tolerance” in stem cell transplantation: Potential for “universal donors” in myocardial regenerative therapy . J Heart Lung Transplant 2005 ; 24 : 511 – 516 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7 Nakamizo A , Marini F, Amano T et al. Human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in the treatment of gliomas . Cancer Res 2005 ; 65 : 3307 – 3318 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 8 Karnoub AE , Dash AB, Vo AP et al. Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis . Nature 2007 ; 449 : 557 – 563 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9 Liu S , Ginestier C, Ou SJ et al. Breast cancer stem cells are regulated by mesenchymal stem cells through cytokine networks . Cancer Res 2011 ; 71 : 614 – 624 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 10 Goldstein RH , Reagan MR, Anderson K et al. Human bone marrow-derived MSCs can home to orthotopic breast cancer tumors and promote bone metastasis . Cancer Res 2010 ; 70 : 10044 – 10050 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 11 Hung S-C , Deng W-P, Yang WK et al. Mesenchymal stem cell targeting of microscopic tumors and tumor stroma development monitored by noninvasive in vivo positron emission tomography imaging . Clin Cancer Res 2005 ; 11 : 7749 – 7756 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 12 Komarova S , Roth J, Alvarez R et al. Targeting of mesenchymal stem cells to ovarian tumors via an artificial receptor . J Ovarian Res 2010 ; 3 : 12 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 13 Loebinger MR , Kyrtatos PG, Turmaine M et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of mesenchymal stem cells homing to pulmonary metastases using biocompatible magnetic nanoparticles . Cancer Res 2009 ; 69 : 8862 – 8867 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 14 Xin H , Sun R, Kanehira M et al. Intratracheal delivery of CX3CL1-expressing mesenchymal stem cells to multiple lung tumors . Mol Med 15 : 321 – 327 . Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 15 Gao H , Priebe W, Glod J et al. Activation of signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 and focal adhesion kinase by stromal cell-derived factor 1 is required for migration of human mesenchymal stem cells in response to tumor cell-conditioned medium . Stem Cells 2009 ; 27 : 857 – 865 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 16 Klopp AH , Spaeth EL, Dembinski JL et al. Tumor irradiation increases the recruitment of circulating mesenchymal stem cells into the tumor microenvironment . Cancer Res 2007 ; 67 : 11687 – 11695 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 17 Djouad F , Plence P, Bony C et al. Immunosuppressive effect of mesenchymal stem cells favors tumor growth in allogeneic animals . Stem Cells 2003 ; 102 : 3837 – 3844 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 18 Ramasamy R , Lam EW-F, Soeiro I et al. Mesenchymal stem cells inhibit proliferation and apoptosis of tumor cells: Impact on in vivo tumor growth . Leukemia 2007 ; 21 : 304 – 310 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 19 Martin FT , Dwyer RM, Kelly J et al. Potential role of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in the breast tumour microenvironment: Stimulation of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) . Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010 ; 124 : 317 – 326 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 20 Corcoran KE , Trzaska KA, Fernandes H et al. Mesenchymal stem cells in early entry of breast cancer into bone marrow . PloS One 2008 ; 3 : e2563 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 21 Bexell D , Gunnarsson S, Tormin A et al. Bone marrow multipotent mesenchymal stroma cells act as pericyte-like migratory vehicles in experimental gliomas . Mol Ther 2009 ; 17 : 183 – 190 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 22 Khakoo AY , Pati S, Anderson SA et al. Human mesenchymal stem cells exert potent antitumorigenic effects in a model of Kaposi's sarcoma . J Exp Med 2006 ; 203 : 1235 – 1247 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 23 Sun B , Roh K-H, Park J-R et al. Therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stromal cells in a mouse breast cancer metastasis model . Cytotherapy 2009 ; 11 : 289 – 298 , 1 p following 298. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 24 Ohlsson L . Mesenchymal progenitor cell-mediated inhibition of tumor growth in vivo and in vitro in gelatin matrix . Exp Mol Pathol 2003 ; 75 : 248 – 255 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 25 Qiao L , Xu Z-L, Zhao T-J et al. Dkk-1 secreted by mesenchymal stem cells inhibits growth of breast cancer cells via depression of Wnt signalling . Cancer Lett 2008 ; 269 : 67 – 77 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 26 Loebinger MR , Eddaoudi A, Davies D et al. Mesenchymal stem cell delivery of TRAIL can eliminate metastatic cancer . Cancer Res 2009 ; 69 : 4134 – 4142 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 27 Studeny M , Marini FC, Champlin RE et al. Advances in brief bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells as vehicles for interferon-gamma delivery into tumors 1 . Cancer Treat Res 2002 ; 62 : 3603 – 3608 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 28 Wang N , Fallavollita L, Nguyen L et al. Autologous bone marrow stromal cells genetically engineered to secrete an igf-I receptor decoy prevent the growth of liver metastases . Mol Ther 2009 ; 17 : 1241 – 1249 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 29 Porada CD , Almeida-Porada G. Mesenchymal stem cells as therapeutics and vehicles for gene and drug delivery . Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2010 ; 62 : 1156 – 1166 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 30 Svetlana Komarova JR . Targeting of mesenchymal stem cells to ovarian tumors via an artificial receptor . J Ovarian Res 2010 ; 3 : 12 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 31 Becker KL . Principles and Practice of Endocrinology and Metabolism . Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins , 2001 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC 32 Anon . Viral vector generation, Molecular biology services, cDNA libraries, cloning shRNA, Adenovirus amplification, Adenovirus purification, Transgenic animal generation, Recombinant lentiviral vector construction. Available at: http://www.nitanbiotech.com/viralvectors.php. Accessed January 19, 2011 . 33 Shakhbazau AV , Sevyaryn IN, Goncharova NV et al. Viral vectors for stable transduction of human mesenchymal stem cells: Systems based on adeno-associated viruses and lentiviruses . Bull Exp Biol Med 2009 ; 146 : 531 – 533 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 34 Mátrai J , Chuah MKL, VandenDriessche T. Recent advances in lentiviral vector development and applications . Mol Ther 2010 ; 18 : 477 – 490 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 35 Ankrum J , Karp JM. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy: Two steps forward, one step back . Trends Mol Med 2010 ; 16 : 203 – 209 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 36 Wang H , Cao F, De A et al. Trafficking mesenchymal stem cell engraftment and differentiation in tumor-bearing mice by bioluminescence imaging . Stem Cells 2009 ; 27 : 1548 – 1558 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 37 Kraitchman DL , Tatsumi M, Gilson WD et al. Dynamic imaging of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells trafficking to myocardial infarction . Circulation 2005 ; 112 : 1451 – 1461 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 38 de Vries IJ , Lesterhuis WJ, Barentsz JO et al. Magnetic resonance tracking of dendritic cells in melanoma patients for monitoring of cellular therapy . Nat Biotechnol 2005 ; 23 : 1407 – 1413 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 39 Webb GA , Hoehn M, Himmelreich U. In vivo molecular MR imaging: Potential and limit. In: Webb GA, ed. Modern Magnetic Resonance. Dordrecht , Netherlands : Springer , 2006 : 1087 – 1098 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 40 Rodriguez-Porcel M . In vivo imaging and monitoring of transplanted stem cells: clinical applications . Curr Cardiol Rep 2010 ; 12 : 51 – 58 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 41 Palestro CJ , Love C, Bhargava KK. Labeled leukocyte imaging: Current status and future directions . Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009 ; 53 : 105 – 123 . Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 42 Patel D , Kell A, Simard B et al. The cell labeling efficacy, cytotoxicity and relaxivity of copper-activated MRI/PET imaging contrast agents . Biomaterials 2011 ; 32 : 1167 – 1176 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 43 Kim J-B , Urban K, Cochran E et al. Non-invasive detection of a small number of bioluminescent cancer cells in vivo . PloS One 2010 ; 5 : e9364 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 44 Anderson SA , Glod J, Arbab AS et al. Noninvasive MR imaging of magnetically labeled stem cells to directly identify neovasculature in a glioma model . Blood 2005 ; 105 : 420 – 425 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 45 Budde MD , Frank JA. Magnetic tagging of therapeutic cells for MRI . J Nucl Med 2009 ; 50 : 171 – 174 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 46 Naumova AV , Reinecke H, Yarnykh V et al. Ferritin overexpression for noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging-based tracking of stem cells transplanted into the heart . Mol Imaging 2010 ; 9 : 201 – 210 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 47 Campan M , Lionetti V, Aquaro GD et al. Ferritin as a reporter gene for in vivo tracking of stem cells by 1.5T cardiac MRI in a rat model of myocardial infarction . Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2011 (in press). Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 48 Seppenwoolde J-H , Viergever MA, Bakker CJG. Passive tracking exploiting local signal conservation: The white marker phenomenon . Magn Res Med 2003 ; 50 : 784 – 790 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 49 Rad AM , Iskander ASM, Janic B et al. AC133+ progenitor cells as gene delivery vehicle and cellular probe in subcutaneous tumor models: A preliminary study . BMC Biotechnol 2009 ; 9 : 28 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 50 Yaghoubi SS , Jensen MC, Satyamurthy N et al. Noninvasive detection of therapeutic cytolytic T cells with 18F-FHBG PET in a patient with glioma . Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2009 ; 6 : 53 – 58 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 51 Bulte JWM . In vivo MRI cell tracking: Clinical studies . AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009 ; 193 : 314 – 325 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 52 Wernick MN , Aarsvold JN. Emission Tomography: The Fundamentals of PET and SPECT . London: Elsevier Academic Press , 2004 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC 53 Hinds KA , Hill JM, Shapiro EM et al. Highly efficient endosomal labeling of progenitor and stem cells with large magnetic particles allows magnetic resonance imaging of single cells . Blood 2003 ; 102 : 867 – 872 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 54 Korf J , Veenma-van der Duin L, Brinkman-Medema R et al. Divalent cobalt as a label to study lymphocyte distribution using PET and SPECT . J Nucl Med 1998 ; 39 : 836 – 841 . Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 55 Hans-Jurgen B , Freeman LM. Clinical Nuclear Medicine . Berlin: Springer , 2007 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC 56 Gildehaus FJ , Haasters F, Drosse I et al. Impact of indium-111 oxine labelling on viability of human mesenchymal stem cells in vitro, and 3D cell-tracking using SPECT/CT in vivo . Mol Imaging Biol 2010 (in press). Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 57 Bindslev L , Haack-Sørensen M, Bisgaard K et al. Labelling of human mesenchymal stem cells with indium-111 for SPECT imaging: Effect on cell proliferation and differentiation . Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006 ; 33 : 1171 – 1177 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 58 Chin BB , Nakamoto Y, Bulte JWM et al. 111In oxine labelled mesenchymal stem cell SPECT after intravenous administration in myocardial infarction . Nucl Med Commun 2003 ; 24 : 1149 – 1154 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 59 Singhal S , Nie S, Wang MD. Nanotechnology applications in surgical oncology . Annu Rev Med 2010 ; 61 : 359 – 373 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 60 Lo Celso C , Fleming HE, Wu JW et al. Live-animal tracking of individual haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells in their niche . Nature 2009 ; 457 : 92 – 96 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 61 Pawelczyk E , Jordan EK, Balakumaran A et al. In vivo transfer of intracellular labels from locally implanted bone marrow stromal cells to resident tissue macrophages . PloS One 2009 ; 4 : e6712 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Author notes Author contributions: M.R.R.: conception and design, collection and/or assembly of data, manuscript writing, data analysis and interpretation; D.L.K.: financial support, review and final approval of manuscript; N/A: provision of study material or patients. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article. First published online in STEM CELLS EXPRESS April 19, 2011 Telephone: 617-627-3251; Fax: 617-627-3231 Copyright © 2011 AlphaMed Press This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Concise Review: Mesenchymal Stem Cell Tumor-Homing: Detection Methods in Disease Model Systems
JF - Stem Cells
DO - 10.1002/stem.645
DA - 2011-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/concise-review-mesenchymal-stem-cell-tumor-homing-detection-methods-in-DGY3YqABKQ
SP - 920
EP - 927
VL - 29
IS - 6
DP - DeepDyve
ER -