Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Methods Mol Biol. 2025;2860:353–360. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-4160-6_22

Testing oncolytic myxoma virus in immunocompetent mouse model for cancer therapy

Yasmin Shakiba 1, Masmudur M Rahman 2,3
PMCID: PMC11724751  NIHMSID: NIHMS2044484  PMID: 39621278

Abstract

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) have emerged as a class of novel cancer immunotherapeutic. Members of both DNA and RNA viruses developed as OVs for treating diverse types of human cancers. Preclinical research assessing immunotherapeutic efficacy is an essential step toward further development of these OVs. Mice tumor model systems are widely used in preclinical oncolytic viral therapies for evaluating the treatment regimens’ efficacy. However, choosing the most appropriate model for a study can be challenging. Here, we described a simple method of establishing subcutaneous tumors in immunocompetent mice for pre-clinical studies of oncolytic myxoma virus (MYXV).

Keywords: Myxoma virus, Oncolytic virotherapy, Oncolytic virus, B16F10, cancer cells, preclinical mouse model

1. Introduction

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) preferentially infect and kill cancer cells while sparing their normal cellular counterparts. Members from diverse families of viruses have been developed as OV[13]. Overall, OVs mediate antitumor activity through multiple mechanisms such as direct cytolytic effects (also known as oncolysis) on infected cancer cells, releasing of tumor-associated antigens, activation of the antitumor innate and adaptive immune response, recruitment of activated immune cells into the tumor microenvironment (TME) [4, 5]. Moreover, these antitumor activities can be further potentiated by making engineered OVs expressing different types of transgenes [68].

Oncolytic myxoma virus (MYXV) is a member of the Leporipoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family of DNA viruses. The natural hosts of MYXV are rabbits of the Sylvilagus genus, such as the American brush rabbits and Brazilian tapeti, where the virus has co-evolved and only causes benign cutaneous lesions. In stark contrast to Sylvilagus rabbits, MYXV causes a lethal disease called myxomatosis in the Oryctolagus cuniculus (European rabbit) species [9, 10]. Because of the extreme lethality against European rabbits, MYXV was released in the 1950s to control the feral European rabbit populations in Australia and Europe [11, 12]. During this time, it was demonstrated that MYXV was nonpathogenic for all nonrabbit animals, including humans [12, 13]. However, the virus can infect and kill most cancer cell types originating from humans, mice, or other species [1416]. Thus, the very restrictive natural host tropism of MYXV ensures its safety for oncolytic virotherapy in humans and preclinical cancer models without modifications. The oncolytic activity of MYXV has been tested in multiple animal models for cancers, including melanoma, gliomas, gallbladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, and hematological malignancies [14, 1720]. These preclinical studies demonstrated the efficacy of oncolytic MYXV against diverse types of cancers.

Different types of preclinical models for determination of the oncolytic efficiency exist: syngeneic mouse tumor model, cell line derived xenografts, patient-derived xenografts, genetically engineered mouse model, humanized mouse model, and more recently, tumor spheroids/organoids [21, 22]. However, syngeneic mouse models are the most used in immuno-oncology [23]. These models are established by transplanting immortalized mouse cell lines or tumor tissues to the same immunocompetent mouse strain, which enables researchers to assess the impact of the oncolytic virus in the context of a complete immune response [24]. These models are easy to develop, are practical for screening many virus candidates, understanding their mechanisms of action, and can reflect the tumor microenvironment comprehensively. At the same time, the risk of tissue rejection is reduced [25]. Transplantable tumor cells may be injected either orthotopically (in the tissue/organ of the origin) or ectopically (not in the origin site), usually by subcutaneous injection in the hind flanks of the mice. Choosing the most appropriate tumor model for a specific research objective is essential for a successful study. Here, we describe a method for evaluating the oncolytic efficacy of MYXV using a subcutaneous tumor model in mice (Fig. 1). This method can be used for both immunocompetent and immunodeficient allografts or xenografts.

Fig. 1:

Fig. 1:

Diagram of experimental setup to test oncolytic MYXV in a B16-F10 immunocompetent murine melanoma tumor model. Bilateral flank tumor models are established by subcutaneously injecting C57BL/6 mice with 1×106 B16-F10 cells in the right and left flanks. After tumors reach a volume of 50–100 mm3, virus is injected intratumorally only into one of the flanks. Measure tumors volume using a caliper. Euthanize mice when tumors reach the maximum volume or meet any other criteria based on the IACUC protocol.

2. Materials

2.1. General Reagents

  1. 1x Phosphate buffer saline (PBS)

  2. Fetal Bovine serum (FBS)

  3. Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle (DMEM) medium

  4. 1x Trypsin + 0.25% Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)

  5. 1x L-glutamine

  6. 1x Penicillin and streptomycin solution

  7. Cancer cells: In this protocol, we used murine B16F10 melanoma cells (ATCC, CRL-6475).

  8. Complete DMEM media for growing and maintaining B16F10 cells: 1x DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, 1x L-glutamine, and 1x penicillin and streptomycin

  9. Oncolytic MYXV: In this protocol, we used a wild-type MYXV construct expressing reporter green fluorescence protein (GFP) under a poxvirus synthetic early/late promoter and TdTomato (TdT) Red protein under a poxvirus late promoter (vMyx-GFP-TdT) [26]. Virus stock is purified using sucrose gradient method [27].

  10. Mouse strain: C57BL/6 mice 6–8 weeks old.

  11. Trypan blue

2.2. Instruments and Materials

  1. Water bath at 37°C

  2. Cell counter or hemocytometer

  3. Biosafety cabinet for cell culture

  4. Incubator for cell culture

  5. Tabletop centrifuge

  6. Sterile syringes or insulin syringes (0.5 – 1 ml)

  7. Vortex mixer

  8. Microcentrifuge tubes (1.5 ml)

  9. Centrifuge tubes (15 ml or 50 ml)

  10. Sonicator for virus

  11. Cell culture flasks/dishes

  12. Digital caliper

  13. Inverted microscope for cell culture

3. Methods

As an immunocompetent cancer model system, the murine B16F10 melanoma tumor derived from C57BL/6 mice is widely used for preclinical evaluation of anticancer therapies [2831]. Here, to assess the therapeutic efficacy of oncolytic MYXV both in the treated tumor and the nontreated tumor, a bilateral flank model of B16F10 melanoma is established to study the local and abscopal effect. Once tumors are generated and treated with intratumoral injections of MYXV, both the treated and the untreated tumors are measured, as a readout for OV efficacy. Furthermore, these tumors can be analyzed for infiltration of active immune cells or histology (these methods are not described in this chapter).

C57BL/6 mice 6–8 weeks old are used for the experiments described in this protocol. Before any animal studies the protocol must be approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). After receiving mice from an approved vendor (Charles River or The Jackson Laboratory), mice are first acclimated in the animal facility for at least 1 week. The number of cancer cells implanted in the mice depends on the cancer model and cancer cell types. For subcutaneous tumors, 1×105 to 1×106 cancer cells are usually injected in one of the flanks. Before the cancer implantation, cryopreserved cancer cell lines should be grown in appropriate medium for few passages and check for mycoplasma contamination, proliferation and viability of cells.

3.1. Tumor implantation

  • 1

    Maintain the B16-F10 cells in complete DMEM media (see Note 1).

  • 2

    Two days prior to implantation, split cells and expand into several T175 cm2 flasks or T150 cm2 dishes to achieve 60–80% confluency on the day of implantation. The number of flasks/dishes depends on the number of mice to be implanted with cancer cells.

  • 3

    On the day of implantation, remove growth media from the cells in culture and wash with 1x PBS.

  • 4

    Aspirate PBS, add 3 ml of trypsin and incubate at 37 °C until the cells detach.

  • 5

    Once the cells have lifted off, add 7 ml of 2% FBS containing growth medium and pipet up and down to get single cell suspension (see Note 2).

  • 6

    Collect cells from all the flasks/dishes into a 50 ml conical tube and pellet the cells by centrifugation for 5 min at 250 × g at room temperature (see Note 3).

  • 7

    Aspirate medium, wash cells by adding 10 ml of 1% PBS into the tube, pipette gently to resuspend the pellet.

  • 8

    Count the viable cells on a hemocytometer or an automated cell counter using Trypan blue (see Note 4).

  • 9

    Centrifuge the cell suspension for 5 min at 250 × g at room temperature.

  • 10

    Aspirate PBS, resuspend cells in fresh 1% PBS in a volume that will give cells concentration of 1 ×107 cells / ml. Count the viable cells again, to confirm desired cell concentration. This final cell suspension is stored on ice throughout the process of implantation (see Note 5).

  • 11

    Transfer cells in sterile Eppendorf tubes.

  • 12

    Use 0.5 – 1 ml insulin syringe to pull up and inject 1 × 106 cells into the back flanks of the mice. To do this, by index finger and thumb pinch and pull skin of the mice away from its body. Inject smoothly into the pouch created by the fingers, this creates a bubble of cells under the skin. It is important to avoid spread of the cells beneath the skin. Repeat the injection on the other side of the flank and for all the mice (see Note 6).

  • 13

    Place the mice back in the cage and allow them to recover.

  • 14

    Monitor mice every two/three days by palpation until the tumor emerges. Typically, after 7–10 days post inoculation of 1 × 106 tumor cells it is possible to measure tumor volume using a caliper.

  • 15

    Using caliper to measure tumor progression is a simple way; width (W) and length (L) of the tumor is measured, then volume can be estimated by the formula: π/6 × W2 × L or simply 1/2 × W2 × L. These formulas derived from oblate spheroid volume formula [32] (see Note 7).

3.2. Intratumoral injection of tumors with virus

  • 16

    While tumors reach a volume of around 50–100 mm3 randomize mice in among the different treatment cohorts, initially it is important that all groups to have same average of tumor volumes for a precise comparison.

  • 17

    Thaw out the purified virus stock on ice and sonicate briefly for 30 seconds to break any clumps. Prepare a diluted virus stock with a titer between 1×107–1×108 FFU (Foci Forming Unit) in 50 μl of 1x PBS. However, the optimum dose of the virus to have a therapeutic effect should be determined by injecting different amounts of virus (see Note 8).

  • 18

    For intratumoral injection in one of the tumors, hold the mice firmly, then directly inject the needle into the tumor and administer the virus. It has shown using multi side needle increase the outcome of the therapy comparing with conventional needles [33]. If using the conventional needles, it is better to inject the virus in multiple sites of the tumor.

  • 19

    To improve therapy, it is recommended to repeat virus administration multiple times. Repeat steps 17 and 18 every 2–3 days for 3 additional times.

  • 20

    Measure both tumors volume on every other day until the mice reach the maximum tumor volume permitted by the animal welfare regulations. Compare the tumor volumes of the treated group with the control mice which only had received PBS or unmodified viruses, or in case mice received tumor cells on both flanks, compare them with each other. Survival rates can be determined through this experiment, as well (see Note 9).

Funding:

This work is supported by National Institute of Health (NIH) grants R01 AI080607, R21 CA249517, Arizona Biomedical Research (ABRC) Investigator Award RFGA2022-010-22, and an Arizona State University (Tempe, Arizona, USA) start-up grant to M.M.R.

Notes:

1.

Maintain cancer cells lines at a low passage number for efficient implantation.

2.

After pipetting up and down several times, check the cells under a microscope to make sure cells are not clumped together.

3.

To pellet cells, it is recommended to use lower relative centrifugal force (RCF) than usual to avoid aggregation of the cells.

4.

Make sure the viability of the cancer cells to be implanted is >90%.

5.

The required number of cells depends on the tumor model and can vary by the aggressiveness of the selected tumor model. To find an optimal number of cells that will allow tumor formation without aggressiveness, a tumor implantation study with different number of cells is required.

6.

Anesthetizing the mice, for instance by isoflurane, can be considered to make the injection process less painful for the mice, as well as more convenient injection for the researcher. Avoid injecting the underlying muscle and gently withdraw the needle.

7.

Depending on the laboratory facilities there are other means of tumor measurement such as MRI, ultrasonography, etc., which can provide more accurate estimation of the tumor volume.

8.

The volume of the virus for injection should not exceed the volume of the tumor.

9.

It is important to limit the pain and distress that animals may experience during the research. If mice had remission of the tumor, re-challenge experiment can be done by injecting the tumor cells again in the same mice to find out if VV could induce immunity against the tumor.

References

  • 1.Lawler SE, et al. , Oncolytic Viruses in Cancer Treatment: A Review. JAMA Oncol, 2017. 3(6): p. 841–849. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kelly E and Russell SJ, History of oncolytic viruses: genesis to genetic engineering. Mol Ther, 2007. 15(4): p. 651–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Russell SJ, et al. , Advances in oncolytic virotherapy. Commun Med (Lond), 2022. 2: p. 33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rahman MM and McFadden G, Oncolytic Viruses: Newest Frontier for Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel), 2021. 13(21). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhang S and Rabkin SD, The discovery and development of oncolytic viruses: are they the future of cancer immunotherapy? Expert Opin Drug Discov, 2020: p. 1–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Enow JA, Sheikh HI, and Rahman MM, Tumor Tropism of DNA Viruses for Oncolytic Virotherapy. Viruses, 2023. 15(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tian Y, Xie D, and Yang L, Engineering strategies to enhance oncolytic viruses in cancer immunotherapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther, 2022. 7(1): p. 117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hamdan F, Fusciello M, and Cerullo V, Personalizing Oncolytic Virotherapy. Hum Gene Ther, 2023. 34(17–18): p. 870–877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Stanford MM, Werden SJ, and McFadden G, Myxoma virus in the European rabbit: interactions between the virus and its susceptible host. Vet Res, 2007. 38(2): p. 299–318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bertagnoli S and Marchandeau S, Myxomatosis. Rev Sci Tech, 2015. 34(2): p. 549–56, 539–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kerr PJ, Myxomatosis in Australia and Europe: a model for emerging infectious diseases. Antiviral Res, 2012. 93(3): p. 387–415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fenner F and Woodroofe GM, The pathogenesis of infectious myxomatosis; the mechanism of infection and the immunological response in the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Br J Exp Pathol, 1953. 34(4): p. 400–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fenner F, Evolutionary aspects of Myxomatosis in Australia. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, 1956. 54(1): p. 271–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rahman MM and McFadden G, Oncolytic Virotherapy with Myxoma Virus. J Clin Med, 2020. 9(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rahman MM and McFadden G, Myxoma Virus-Encoded Host Range Protein M029: A Multifunctional Antagonist Targeting Multiple Host Antiviral and Innate Immune Pathways. Vaccines (Basel), 2020. 8(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rahman MM, et al. , Identification of host DEAD-box RNA helicases that regulate cellular tropism of oncolytic Myxoma virus in human cancer cells. Sci Rep, 2017. 7(1): p. 15710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rahman MM, et al. , Oncolytic viral purging of leukemic hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells with Myxoma virus. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev, 2010. 21(2–3): p. 169–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chan WM, Rahman MM, and McFadden G, Oncolytic myxoma virus: the path to clinic. Vaccine, 2013. 31(39): p. 4252–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Villa NY, Franco LS, and McFadden G, Ex Vivo Virotherapy with Myxoma Virus to Treat Cancer. Methods Mol Biol, 2020. 2058: p. 95–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rahman MM, et al. , A novel anti-cancer therapy with nuclear export inhibitor Selinexor in combination with oncolytic myxoma virus. bioRxiv, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Franklin MR, et al. , Immuno-oncology trends: preclinical models, biomarkers, and clinical development. J Immunother Cancer, 2022. 10(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wakefield L, Agarwal S, and Tanner K, Preclinical models for drug discovery for metastatic disease. Cell, 2023. 186(8): p. 1792–1813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Olson B, et al. , Mouse Models for Cancer Immunotherapy Research. Cancer Discov, 2018. 8(11): p. 1358–1365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sitta J, Claudio PP, and Howard CM, Virus-Based Immuno-Oncology Models. Biomedicines, 2022. 10(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chulpanova DS, et al. , Mouse Tumor Models for Advanced Cancer Immunotherapy. Int J Mol Sci, 2020. 21(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bartee E, et al. , The addition of tumor necrosis factor plus beta interferon induces a novel synergistic antiviral state against poxviruses in primary human fibroblasts. J Virol, 2009. 83(2): p. 498–511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Smallwood SE, et al. , Myxoma virus: propagation, purification, quantification, and storage. Curr Protoc Microbiol, 2010. Chapter 14: p. Unit 14A 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Stanford MM, et al. , Myxoma virus oncolysis of primary and metastatic B16F10 mouse tumors in vivo. Mol Ther, 2008. 16(1): p. 52–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hamilton JR, Vijayakumar G, and Palese P, A Recombinant Antibody-Expressing Influenza Virus Delays Tumor Growth in a Mouse Model. Cell Rep, 2018. 22(1): p. 1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Koellhoffer EC, et al. , Inactivated Cowpea Mosaic Virus in Combination with OX40 Agonist Primes Potent Antitumor Immunity in a Bilateral Melanoma Mouse Model. Mol Pharm, 2022. 19(2): p. 592–601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Uche IK, et al. , Novel Oncolytic Herpes Simplex Virus 1 VC2 Promotes Long-Lasting, Systemic Anti-melanoma Tumor Immune Responses and Increased Survival in an Immunocompetent B16F10-Derived Mouse Melanoma Model. J Virol, 2021. 95(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Faustino-Rocha A, et al. , Estimation of rat mammary tumor volume using caliper and ultrasonography measurements. Lab Anim (NY), 2013. 42(6): p. 217–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Muñoz NM, et al. , Influence of injection technique, drug formulation and tumor microenvironment on intratumoral immunotherapy delivery and efficacy. J Immunother Cancer, 2021. 9(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES