摘要
目的:探讨不同细胞系在骨肉瘤动物模型中的成瘤差异性。方法:⑴对Mg-63和U-2 OS两系细胞分别行细胞划痕实验和transwell实验;⑵32只裸鼠随机分为Mg-63细胞悬液法、组织块法与U-2 OS细胞悬液法、组织块法4组,每组8只。两种细胞系分别采取细胞悬液法和组织块移植法进行股骨远端原位骨肉瘤重建,统计4组原位骨肉瘤模型成瘤率、瘤重以及肿瘤转移率等指标。结果:细胞划痕实验中,Mg-63和U-2 OS在划痕48 h后迁移距离分别为(381.2±23.6)、(591.9±35.1)μm。骨肉瘤细胞transwell实验中,Mg-63和U-2 OS 16 h后穿膜细胞数分别为24.0±2.6,81.9±3.1。骨肉瘤造模实验中,Mg-63悬液法组成瘤率、肺转移率、淋巴结转移率、4周瘤重分别为62.5%,10.4%,0,(2.1±0.1)g;Mg-63组织块法组分别为100%,76.8%,20.7%,(2.4±0.3)g;U-2 OS悬液法组分别为100%,45.8%,0,(2.4±0.6)g;U-2 OS组织块法组分别为100%,82.3%,41.1%,(2.6±0.4)g。结论:U-2 OS细胞系拥有较高的组织侵袭性和细胞增殖能力,是一种良好的骨肉瘤原位模型制作细胞系。
Objective To explore the differences in tumor formation of two osteosarcoma cell lines in nude mice. Methods ⑴wound healing assay and transwell test migration system were used to analyze invasive capacity of tumor cells; ⑵32 nude mice were inoculated in distal femur in situ with tumor cells or tissues of Mg-63 or U-2 OS to establish animal model bearing human osteosarcoma. Tumor formation rate,metastatis rate in lung and node and tumor weight were measured and analyzed.Results Migration distances of Mg-63 or U-2 OS cells were（ 381. 2 ± 23. 6）,（ 591. 9 ± 35. 1） μm in wound healing assay,numbers of ubder lower memebrane were 24. 0 ± 2. 6,81. 9 ± 3. 1 in transwell migration system. In the osteosarcoma animal model,tumor formation rate,metastatis rate in lung and node and tumor weight showed respectively as following： 62. 5%,10. 4%,0% and（ 2. 1 ± 0. 1） g in Mg-63 cell suspension group; 100%,76. 8%,20. 7% and（ 2. 4 ± 0. 3） g in Mg-63 tissue group; 100%,45. 8%,0% and（ 2. 4 ± 0. 6） g in U-2 OS suspension group; 100%,82. 3%,41. 1% and（ 2. 6 ± 0. 4） g in U-2 OS tissue group. Conclusion Compared with Mg-63 cell lines,U-2 OS cell lines,which have higher invasive and proliferation capacity,was better choice of tumor cells for tumor formation in situ of osteosarcoma in nude mice.
出处
《湖北医药学院学报》
CAS
2014年第4期327-331,F0002,共6页
Journal of Hubei University of Medicine
基金
湖北省教育厅科学技术研究项目(B20112102)
武汉大学研究生资助科研项目(201130302020006)
关键词
不同细胞系
骨肉瘤动物模型
成瘤
差异性
Different cell lines
Osteosarcoma animal model
Tumor formation
Difference
