Establishment and characterization of urothelial carcinoma cell lines with and without BRAF mutation (V595E) in dogs

Abstract

Each 5 urothelial carcinoma (UC) cell lines with and without the v-Raf murine sarcoma virus oncogene homolog B (BRAF) gene mutation (V595E) were established and examined V595E-related tumorigenic characteristics in dogs. No typical morphological features were observed in cloned cells with and without V595E. The cell proliferation of both cloned cells showed logarithmic growth curve and those doubling time were 24.9 ± 4.1 h in V595E ( +) and 29.3 ± 11.3 h in V595E ( −). On the growth curve of xenotransplanted tumor in severe combined immunodeficiency mice, 3 out of 5 V595E ( +) and 2 out of 5 V595E ( −) cloned cells revealed gradually and remarkably increasing curve, indicating clearly tumorigenicity. The xenotransplanted tumors with V595E ( +) showed typical features of UC, such as solid proliferation of pleomorphic tumor cells, formation of papillary structure, and glandular structure. Additionally, various vascular formation was observed, probably indicating an advanced growth phase of UC. In mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway, cytoplasmic phosphorylated-BRAF (pBRAF) and cytoplasmic and nuclear phosphorylated-ERK1/2 (pERK1/2) were detected in all 4 tumors with V595E ( +), whereas only cytoplasmic and nuclear pERK1/2 was detected in tumors with V595E ( −). Since V595E can directly activate MAPK signaling pathway, coincidence of V595E with pBRAF (phosphor Thr598/Ser601) indicates acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors. These established UC cell lines, especially V595E ( +) cell lines, are useful tool for understanding pathophysiological states and controlling therapeutic manners of UC in dogs.

Effective detection of BRAFV595E mutation in canine urothelial and prostate carcinomas using immunohistochemistry

“…In contrast, Yamasaki and colleagues' recent investigation into the cytomorphological differences in UC cell lines with and without the BRAF V595E mutation found no significant variances. 36 This suggests that in vivo morphologies may be influenced by the tumour microenvironment or obscured in vitro by cell culture conditions.…”