Abstract
The critical role of migration and invasion in cancer metastasis warrants new therapeutic approaches targeting the machinery regulating cell migration and invasion. While 2-dimensional (2D) models have helped identify a range of adhesion molecules, cytoskeletal components and regulators that are potentially important for cell migration, the use of models that better mimic the 3-dimensional (3D) environment has yielded new insights into the physiology of cell movement. For example, studying cells in 3D models has revealed that invading cancer cells may switch between heterogeneous invasion modes and thus evade pharmacological inhibition of invasion. Here we summarize published data in which the role of cell adhesion molecules in 2D vs. 3D migration have been directly compared and discuss mechanisms that regulate migration speed and persistence in 2D and 3D. Finally we discuss limits of 3D culture models to recapitulate the in vivo �situation.
Keywords: migration, invasion, metastasis, adhesion, 3D, 2D
Introduction
Nearly all adherent cells are able to crawl and migrate under standard 2D cell culture conditions. Time-lapse recordings of migrating cells never fail to excite a sense of awe about the complexity of the migration process, as lamellipodia and filopodia form, extend and make contact with the matrix, as cells change their shape, lunge forward, contract and detach. Cell migration depends on a variety of temporally and spatially orchestrated parameters, with several hundreds of proteins involved. Although changes in cell migration after knockout or mutation of a protein may not be the ultimate proof of a causal relationship; watching cells migrate and measuring parameters of cell speed and directional persistence have proven invaluable in elucidating the functional components regulating intrinsic cell migration in 2D. A number of studies have now begun to examine these same parameters using 3D culture �systems.
Interstitial �Dissemination
The ability of cancer cells to invade tissue surrounding the primary tumor site, leading to the development of metastatic tumors, is one of the hallmarks of cancer.1 Disseminating tumor cells encounter a variety of tissue architectures through which they must transmigrate. While the majority of tumor cells are confronted by collagen-rich connective tissue found around most organs in the body, invasion in the brain represents a specialized form of transmigration due to the unique makeup of the brain interstitium. For more detail we direct readers to an excellent, recent review that provides a comprehensive description of tissue structures through which cancer cells transmigrate in vivo.2 The structure and composition of the interstitial tissues determines the mechanisms that must be employed by the cancer cells for successful navigation. Gritsenko and colleagues2 suggest three generic mechanisms employed by invasive cancer cells: contact guidance along stiff matrix elements through integrin mediated mechanisms, directed migration toward chemokines and growth factors and physical pushing through small �spaces.
Cell Migration In �Vivo
The process of cell migration and invasion is, of course, not restricted to metastatic cancer. Cell migration and invasion occurs during embryonic development and continues throughout adulthood as it is critical for the correct execution of a variety of biological programs. During embryonic development there are precise migration and invasion events that are necessary for the final correct organization of the adult tissue. A particularly well-studied example of this is during the development of the mammalian brain, where cells undergo precisely timed migration events that are essential for the final tissue organization and wiring of the fully developed brain (for review, see ref. 3). The migration speed and persistence of distinct cell populations appear to be important parameters for determining their final destination in the maturing brain tissue. Moreover, cell populations change speed as they migrate throughout different zones of the brain.4 Mutations that alter speed and directional persistence of migrating neuronal cell populations can therefore perturb the organization of the brain tissue into discrete �layers.5,6
The consequences for changes in speed and persistence of invasive cancer cells are currently less well known. Approaches that abrogate cell movement in environments that mimic the tissue organization of the in vivo tumor are generally considered to be strong candidates for novel therapies to treat metastatic cancer. Similarly, approaches that do not completely abrogate movement but instead slow down the rate of cell migration are expected to restrict the dissemination of cells from the primary tumor and increase the window of opportunity for localized and targeted delivery of therapies. In the particular case of highly invasive primary brain tumors such as the deadly grade IV gliomas (also known as glioblastoma), there is extensive collateral damage to the brain tissue as a result of the invading tumor cells, leading to significant loss of quality of life.7 Thus, even a partial reduction of tumor invasion may ameliorate some of the collateral damage that occurs in the brains of these patients. Moreover, targeting the cell’s migration machinery may in turn sensitize the cells to different therapies. One example of such sensitization is tumor cells lacking expression of the invasion/metastasis promoter NEDD9. These cells appear to concomitantly become sensitized to the effects of Src kinase inhibition.8 Similarly, decreasing the persistence of the cancer cell movement will necessarily decrease the numbers of successful escapers from the primary tumor site. But to confirm these speculations and expectations, any anti-invasive therapy must first demonstrate its effectiveness in models that mimic the natural in vivo 3D organization of the relevant tissue surrounding a particular �tumor.
3D Culture �Models
The interactions between cells and the external environment, either with the ECM or with neighboring cells, are in a literal sense vitally important. Once thought to solely provide physical and structural support, the ECM is now known to regulate and influence survival,9 proliferation,9 migration and adhesion,10,11 morphology,12 internal cellular structures13 and signaling pathways.11 During tumorigenesis, cellular interaction with the ECM can become deregulated not only as a result of altered integrin and focal adhesion protein expression, but also because tumor cells can rearrange the local native tissue architecture, alter its chemical composition, structure and stiffness, which in turn often promotes cell migration and invasion.14,15 For example, in breast carcinomas the formation of the distinctive palpable “lump,” known as desmoplasia, is attributed to tumor cell secretion of platelet derived growth factor (PDGF). This induces the deposition of large quantities of collagen and collagen cross-linkers by surrounding fibroblasts, thus increasing local tissue stiffness and �rigidity.16,17
In vivo, most invading cancer cells encounter two major ECM groups. The first is the basement membrane that directly interacts with both the epithelium and endothelium layers. The second is the interstitial matrix. It harbors numerous collagen isoforms and fibronectin and is thought to contribute to the overall mechanical strength of the tissue. In vitro, the extracellular matrix is most commonly planar, tissue culture-treated plastic or sometimes glass coated with collagen, fibronectin or other ECM-derived proteins. Even then, comparative analysis of cell migration and morphology has revealed striking inconsistencies between cells grown on 2D surfaces vs. those seeded within 3D matrices.13,18 Therefore, in attempting to recreate a cell’s in vivo environment, it is not sufficient to only consider which ECM group the cell type in question is most likely to interact with; it is equally important that the 3D structure and mechanical properties of the matrix closely mirror that of the in vivo environment. Three of the most commonly used in vitro 3D matrix models—fibrous gels, basement membrane extracts (or matrigel) and cell-derived matrices—are discussed in the following �sections.
Fibrous �gels
Fibrous gels, namely reconstituted collagen and fibrin gels, aim to replicate the major architectural and structural components of the extracellular matrix. Collagen and fibrin emerged as ideal candidates for single-protein 3D matrix models as both are major structural components of the extracellular matrix. It is worth noting, however, that interstitial tissue is composed of heterogenous mixtures of ECM components, which these gels do not recapitulate.19 Nevertheless, due to the abundance of collagen and fibrin in vivo, reconstituted fibrous gels are physiologically compatible with numerous cells types. Fibrin gels are particularly suitable to study migratory events involved in wound healing,20,21 while collagen gels are more suitable to study interstitial cell migration and metastatic �invasion.10,22,23
Not all fibrous gels are created alike, however. Seemingly minor protocol variations can have major effects on the gel properties. For instance, an increase in fiber concentration enhances fiber density,24,25 resulting in an overall increase in the mechanical strength of the gel.26 Additionally, the effective pore size of the fibrous meshwork decreases at higher fiber concentrations,27 thus increasing steric hindrance for migrating cells.28,29 The gelation temperature will also affect the mechanical and structural details of the gel; for instance, the pore size and fibril diameter decreases and the number of fibrils formed increases at higher polymerization �temperatures.27,30
The production details of harvesting, dissolving and purifying collagen or fibrin from different animal tissues are also a source of substantial variability. This is especially true in the case of collagen, where fibers harvested for example from bovine Achilles tendon demonstrate a higher denaturation temperature and a thicker fiber diameter when compared with collagen harvested from rat tail tendon.27,31,32 The method for dissolving the collagen, whether with acid or by proteolytic digestion (i.e., pepsin or trypsin) similarly influences the structure and polymerization kinetics of the reconstituted gels. Acid-dissolved collagen will begin the fibrillogenesis process more rapidly,31,33,34 showing characteristic fiber lengths and diameters that closely resemble those observed in vivo.35 In comparison, collagen extracted by proteolytic enzyme digestion shows significantly smaller fiber diameters and reduced fibril formation, thus reducing the gels’ strength and �rigidity.30,31,36
Basement membrane �extracts
Matrigel is a reconstituted basement membrane matrix product extracted from Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm (EHS) mouse sarcoma cells. When polymerized, matrigel mimics the microenvironment of in vivo extracellular basement membrane.37-39 Composed chiefly of laminin, collagen IV isoforms and heparan sulfate proteoglycans, basement membranes provide a unique signaling platform for cells that adhere to it.40,41 Matrigel 3D substrates can restore the normal morphological characteristics and specific cell functions that would otherwise be lost under standard cell culture conditions, especially in epithelial-,42,43 endothelial-44 and Schwan-derived cells.45 But this is not generally true for all cells; for instance fibroblasts that are not normally in contact with a basement membrane in vivo adopt a noticeably uncharacteristic rounded morphology and exhibit a non-migratory phenotype when cultured in �matrigel.12,39
Cell-derived �matrix
When cultured at high density, fibroblasts “bioengineer” their own extracellular matrix.46 This cell-derived matrix (CDM) is composed of fibronectin,47 collagen types I and II,48 hyaluronic acid49 and heparin sulfate proteoglycans.49,50 CDMs mirror the flexibility and malleability of an in vivo ECM, as cells seeded onto a CDM can reorganize and modulate the matrix, recapitulating the migration and invasion events of both physiological and metastatic processes observed in vivo.11,12,51 However, as with all protocols, there are limitations to this method also. Somewhat problematic is the poorly defined and highly variable composition of fibroblastic CDMs. Moreover, although CDMs display a 3D matrix organization, these matrices are typically thin and therefore subject to the rigidity of the underlying 2D surface. Regardless, the use of CDM has permitted insights into the signaling pathways that govern proliferation, morphology, cell-matrix attachments and individual cell migration, all of which impact and promote �tumorigenesis.11,12,51
Cell �Adhesion
The role of focal adhesions has been thoroughly studied in 2D cultures and has provided important insight into the mechanisms of cell movement in 2D. However, as investigators have turned to the analysis of focal adhesions in 3D, there has been conflicting reports regarding their presence and detection in 3D.12,52,53 We direct readers to the excellent review by Harunaga54 for a comprehensive analysis of the issue of cell-ECM adhesions in 3D culture models. The upshot of which is that focal adhesions do exist in 3D, but the composition, mechanical properties and structure of the 3D matrix profoundly affects the appearance and distribution of focal �adhesions.12
In Table 1 we summarize data from studies in which migration parameters of speed and persistence have been directly compared between 2D and 3D culture conditions in the same cell background. Treatments that are expected to promote invasion and metastasis in vivo such as stimulation with EGF, complete oncogenic transformation following combined expression of ErbB2 and 14-3-3ζ and high α5β1 expression all promoted faster migration speed in 3D cultures, yet had variable effects in 2D (Table 1). For example, breast epithelial cells induced to undergo oncogenic transformation displayed reduced migration speed in 2D,55 while EGF treatment of glioblastoma cells increased 2D speed.56 Similarly, cells from a metastatic progression series showed increasing speeds in 3D collagen gels, but decreasing speeds in 2D.57 Without exception, the knock-down or loss of cytoplasmic members of focal adhesion sites (p130Cas, NEDD9, vinculin, talin, FAK, VASP, paxillin and Hic-5) inhibited cell migration speed in 3D cultures, yet again varied results are seen in 2D cultures. Depletion of these molecules variously increased 2D speed (p130Cas, NEDD9 and vinculin knockout fibroblasts), decreased 2D speed (talin and FAK) or did not alter speed relative to controls (vinculin shRNA in HT1080 fibroblasts and VASP). With the exception of EGF stimulation and high α5β1 expression, all treatments resulted in reduced intrinsic persistence of migration in 3D. As was seen for the speed data, there is no clear correlation between effects on migration persistence in 2D and effects seen in �3D.
Table 1. Studies reporting cell speed and persistence in 3D cultures compared with 2D migration parameters in the same cell �background.
Adhesion molecule |
Cell line | 2D |
3D |
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Speed | Persistence | Speed | Persistence | ||
p130Cas shRNA52 |
HT1080 fibrosarcoma |
↑ |
↑ |
3D collagen ↓ |
↓ |
NEDD9 knockout60,† |
Fibroblast |
↑ |
ND |
3D collagen ↓ |
↓ |
Vinculin knockout87 |
Fibroblast |
↑ |
↑ |
3D collagen ↓ |
ND |
Vinculin shRNA52 |
HT1080 fibrosarcoma |
— |
— |
3D collagen No change |
↓ |
β3 integrin knockout59,* |
Fibroblast |
↑ |
↓ |
CDM# ↑ |
↓ |
EGF stimulation56 |
U87MG glioblastoma |
↑ |
↓ |
3D collagen|| ↑ |
3D collagen ↑ |
β1 integrin inhibition52 |
DU-145 prostate cancer |
Biphasic |
ND |
Low matrigel %: ↑ High matrigel %: ↓ |
ND |
Talin shRNA52 |
HT1080 fibrosarcoma |
↓ |
↑ |
3D collagen ↓ |
↓ |
FAK shRNA52 |
HT1080 fibrosarcoma |
↓ |
↑ |
3D collagen ↓ |
↓ |
VASP shRNA52 |
HT1080 fibrosarcoma |
— |
— |
3D collagen ↓ |
↓ |
Transformation progression series:55 (1) +ErbB2 (2) +14-3-3ζ (3) +ErbB2+14-3-3ζ |
MCF10a non-transformed breast epithelia |
(1) ↑ (2) ↓ (3) ↓ |
(1) ↓ (2) ↓ (3) ↓ |
“Compliant” 3D collagen‡: (1) — (2) — (3) ↑ “Stiff” 3D collagen§: (1) ↓ (2) ↓ (3) ↑ |
“Compliant” 3D collagen‡: (1) — (2) — (3) ↓ “Stiff” 3D collagen§: (1) ↓ (2) ↓ (3) ↓ |
Metastasis progression series:57 (1) 67NR—tumorigenic (2) 168FARN—micrometastases (3) 4T07—secondary micrometastases (4) 66c14—secondary Tumors |
NmuMg mouse breast epithelial line |
↓ (relative to 67NR) |
↓ (relative to NmuMG) |
Collagen gel: ↑ (relative to 67NR) |
Collagen gel: 66c14 ↓ |
Paxillin siRNA94,¶ |
MDA-MB-231 breast cancer |
ND |
ND |
CDM# ↓ |
↓ |
Hic-5 siRNA94 |
MDA-MB-231 breast cancer |
ND |
ND |
CDM# ↓ |
↓ |
High α5β162 | MDA-MB-231 breast cancer |
ND | ND | 3D collagen ↑ |
↑ |
Reduced focal adhesion length and increased rates of focal adhesion turnover; †increased rates of focal adhesion disassembly; ‡elastic modulus = 103 Pa; §elastic modulus = 391 Pa; ||effects were compared across a range of collagen concentrations (2, 3 and 4 mg/mL); ¶measured dynamics of GFP-tagged talin adhesions in CDM and showed multiple roles—paxillin depletion caused increased numbers of highly dynamic, peripheral, short-lived adhesions, increased stability of more centrally located adhesions accompanied by reduced rates of adhesion assembly and disassembly. #cell-derived matrix; ND, not determined; —, no change.
Forces in Cell �Migration
The disparate results for 2D and 3D speed and persistence in exactly the same cell background highlight critical differences between these different model systems. Cell migration in 2D differs in one fundamental aspect from 3D migration in that steric hindrance is absent. In 2D, the cell needs to overcome only the frictional (drag) forces from the surrounding liquid and the 2D surface. At a speed of only a few microns per minute, liquid drag can be neglected, as the force of a single myosin motor would be sufficient to propel the cell forward. Thus, the better a cell adheres to its substrate, the greater the contractile force needed to overcome the adhesive friction from cell-matrix adhesions; as a general rule, a cell with poorer adhesion can migrate faster on a 2D surface. Poorer adhesion can either be a consequence of a lower matrix protein density on the surface,58 or a consequence of a reduced expression level of adhesion proteins on the cell (for examples, see Table 1). Of course, a minimum amount of adhesion is essential for cell movement as otherwise the cell cannot polarize or activate its contractile machinery.58 Thus, in a 2D context, changes in focal adhesion dynamics59,60 dominantly effect cell migration speed and likely explain the disparate effects on 2D cell migration seen following depletion of focal adhesion-associated molecules (Table �1).
In 3D, in addition to frictional forces, the cell also has to overcome forces that arise from the steric hindrance of the matrix network, provided that the pores and crevices through which the cell migrates are smaller than the cell itself. Here, the cell has two options. It can either deform itself until it can fit through the pores; or it can deform the network until the pores are large enough for passage. Switching between cell body deforming vs. matrix deforming migration strategies is evidenced by changes in cell morphology from rounded cell shapes to elongated cell shapes.61 Deforming the cell body sufficiently to squeeze through small pores requires forces for overcoming the elastic and frictional forces of the cytoskeleton. The cell can decrease cytoskeletal elasticity (stiffness) and friction by depolymerizing cytoskeletal filaments, but although this would reduce the forces necessary to deform the cell until it fits through a pore, it also reduces the force-generating capacity of the acto-myosin contractile �apparatus.
Analogously, deforming the matrix network requires forces for overcoming the elastic and frictional forces of the matrix. By secreting matrix-digesting enzymes, the cell can soften the network structure or increase its porosity, thereby reducing the necessary forces for deforming the matrix network until the cell can fit through. But at the same time this also limits the ability of the cell to adhere to the matrix, which is a prerequisite for contractile force generation. Therefore, does the speed of intrinsic cell migration in 3D give clues as to whether cells are using the rounded (cell body deforming) vs. elongated (matrix deforming) cell migration strategies? Initial descriptions suggested that there is no loss of cell speed between the two modes.10 However, absolute cell speed depends on the make-up of the surrounding matrix. While partial transformation of breast epithelial cells (Erb2 or 14-3-3ζ overexpression) did not affect cell speed in “compliant” collagen gels (103 Pa elastic modulus), cells had reduced migration speed in “stiff” collagen gels (391 Pa elastic modulus).55 Similarly, increasing steric hindrance at high collagen concentrations can inhibit cell invasion.62 Thus the concentration of the matrix, extent of cross-linking and matrix pore size all critically determine cell speed and moreover, whether a matrix deforming or cell body deforming mode of invasion is possible. Given the ultimate goal of determining the molecular mechanisms that promote cancer cell invasion and metastasis, it will be increasingly important to adopt a range of 3D culture models that can mimic the various different extracellular environments encountered by invading cancer cells in vivo. Two examples from recent studies with opposing findings highlight the problem in interpreting data that are measured under only a single condition: Several studies have reported that invasive, metastatic cancer cells are softer than their nonmetastatic counterparts derived from the same tissue63,64 when measured under non-adherent conditions. By contrast, in adherent cancer cells, the opposite behavior is seen, with more invasive cells tending to be more contractile and consequently �stiffer.65,66
Predictive Power of 3D Invasion Models for Cancer �Metastasis
The goal of the 3D cell migration models is to better mimic the physiological environment. An important question in cancer research therefore is how successfully data from the 3D models predicts in vivo metastatic behavior. To address this question we have searched the literature for examples where adhesion molecules that have been directly compared in 2D vs. 3D models (Table 1) have been analyzed using in vivo models of metastasis and invasion (Table 2). There is an extensive literature on mouse models of cancer cell invasion, but for our purposes we have limited our analysis to studies where adhesion molecules from Table 1 have been manipulated by overexpression or knockdown. It is noticeable that surprisingly few studies have been performed to directly test the effects of these molecules on in vivo tumor invasion and metastasis—the bulk of studies have focused on tumor initiation. Our search yielded examples for FAK, p130Cas, NEDD9, vinculin, talin, β1 integrin and α5β1 and αvβ3 integrin receptors (Table �2).
Table 2. Summary of in vivo metastasis data, targeting the adhesion molecules described in Table �1.
Adhesion molecule |
In vivo model | Metastasis phenotype |
---|---|---|
FAK |
Intravenous injection of FAK−/− tumor cells82 |
Failed to form lung tumors; cells retained in the lung capillary bed were rounded and lacked membrane extensions into the vessel |
Activated ErbB2 mammary tumor model with epithelial-specific FAK deletion69 |
Metastatic lung tumors all negative for cells with homozygous deletion of FAK |
|
Mammary epithelium-specific deletion of FAK in MMTV-PyVmT Mouse Tumor Model70 |
Metastatic lung tumors all negative for cells with homozygous deletion of FAK |
|
Mammary epithelium-specific deletion of FAK in MMTV-PyVmT Mouse Tumor Model71 |
Reduced lung tumor metastases |
|
Orthotopic injection of pancreatic cancer cells treated with FAK siRNA73 |
Prevented formation of liver metastases |
|
p130Cas |
Mammary tumor model—injection of cells expressing inducible p130Cas shRNA77 |
Inhibits lung colonization |
Athymic nude mice injected sub-cutaneously with p130Cas−/− fibroblasts transformed with oncogenic Src and expressing p130Cas78 |
Exogenous p130Cas expression increased formation of metastatic lung tumors after surgical removal of primary tumors; authors comment that “the capacity of the cells to invade through matrigel was strongly correlated with their capacity to invade and metastasize in vivo” |
|
Vinculin |
Exogenous vinculin expression in highly metastatic rat adenocarcinoma injected into foot pad80 |
Highest levels of vinculin expression suppressed formation of lung metastases, low to moderate expressors formed tumors in lymph nodes close to injection site but failed to form lung metastases |
NEDD9 |
Mammary epithelium-specific deletion of NEDD9 in MMTV-PyVmT Mouse Tumor Model67 |
Trend to fewer lung metastases |
Tail vein injection of NEDD9-null primary tumors8 |
Tumors formed of null-cell lines exhibited increased aggressiveness, with all injected mice generating secondary tumors |
|
Talin |
Tail vein injections of prostate cancer cell lines treated with talin shRNA84 |
Reduced numbers of metastatic lung lesions |
αvβ3 |
Orthotopic injection into mammary fat pad with mammary carcinoma cell line expressing exogenous β376 |
Drove unique formation of bone metastases; authors show increased haptotactic and chemotactic response to bone-matrix proteins and soluble factors |
MDA-MB-435 breast cancer cells expressing constitutively active αvβ3 injected into mouse tail vein81 |
Enhanced lung colonization |
|
Intravenous injection of metastatic αvβ3 negative melanoma cells expressing exogenous β391 |
Re-expression of β3 in metastatic, β3 negative lines reduced lung colonization |
|
β1 integrin |
Conditional deletion of β1 integrin from mammary epithelia, crossed with MMTV/activated erbB272 |
Significantly reduced formation of lung metastases |
Orthotopic injection of pancreatic cancer cells treated with β1 integrin siRNA74 |
Absence of any metastatic tumors; controls treated with α2 or α3 integrin subunit siRNA displayed metastatic tumors |
|
Conditional deletion of β1 integrin from pancreatic β cells crossed with Rip1Tag2 mice68 |
Loss of β1 expression induced increased tumor cell emboli in the lymphatic vasculature but no metastasis formation; similarly, tail vein injections of β tumor cells lacking β1 integrin expression did not form metastases |
|
Ras-myc transformed β1 null ES cells injected sub-cutaneously79 |
Reduced numbers and size of metastatic foci in the lung |
|
α5β1 integrin | HT-29 colon cancer cells expressing exogenous α5 integrin injected intravenously85 |
Significantly reduced lung and extrapulmonary metastases |
Lewis Lung Carcinoma cells expressing α5 shRNA injected into tail vein83 | Fewer lung tumors |
The in vivo models used in the summarized studies can be divided into three categories: (1) tissue-specific neo-oncogenesis that recapitulates carcinoma progression seen in human disease67-72 and orthotopic injection: both have the advantage of mimicking the correct tissue context of the human disease,73-77 (2) sub-cutaneous injection at non-orthotopic sites78-80 and (3) intravenous injection.8,81-85 In the case of the first two categories successful metastasis requires the tumor cells to invade locally, intravasate into blood or lymph vessels, extravasate at secondary sites and form new tumors. Conversely, intravenous injection does not depend on the formation of a primary tumor, thus allowing separation of the effects of primary tumor formation from dissemination into secondary tissues. This approach is frequently used when the molecule or pathway of interest inhibits initial tumor formation. A limitation is that this does not address initial migration and invasion away from primary tumor sites. A further important caveat to all of these models is that none measure migration and invasion alone. The ability of the tumor cells to disseminate and form secondary tumors is a multifactorial process, which additionally requires survival in the circulation, adhesion to vessel endothelial layers and transmigration through the endothelium. Below we compare data for 3D migration speed and persistence with in vivo metastasis results in response to altered adhesion molecule expression and �activities.
FAK, p130Cas, talin and �vinculin
To date, a large number of studies have focused on the role of FAK for in vivo metastasis. FAK has long been known to be upregulated in a wide variety of invasive cancer types (reviewed in ref. 86). Cancer cells in which FAK is either homozygously deleted or downregulated via expression of a dominant negative form of FAK universally display reduced metastatic tumor formation (Table 2), matching the findings that FAK depletion reduces 3D cell migration speed (Table 1). FAK depletion inhibited metastatic tumor formation in all three categories of in vivo invasion models (see above). Congruent results were also seen between 3D culture migration speed and in vivo metastases for p130Cas and talin (Tables 1 and 2). However, the data are not so clear for vinculin. The depletion or absence of vinculin had no effect52 or led to reduced migration speed87 in 3D models. In contrast, a high level of exogenous vinculin expression reduced lung tumor formation in �vivo.80
NEDD9
NEDD9 overexpression promotes invasion and metastasis in a range of cancer cell types.88 In apparent concordance with this, NEDD9 depletion reduces fibroblast migration in 3D collagen gels (Table 1). However, while NEDD9−/− tumor cells in a model of oncogenic transformation of mammary epithelia had a tendency to form fewer metastatic tumors,67 tail vein injection of these isolated cells revealed aggressive lung tumor formation.8 Potentially, this may represent a switch to the amoeboid/cell deforming invasion mode that occurs following NEDD9 depletion,22 which may promote lung colonization. By contrast, the dense, rigid matrix that is reported to characteristically surround breast tumors,89 which is presumably present in the transformed breast epithelia model, may obviate the rounded/cell deforming mode of invasion. Alternatively, increased metastatic lesions following tail vein injection may reflect changes in survival in circulation, adhesion and transmigration of the endothelial cell layer of the �vessel.
β1 �integrin
The effects of β1 integrin depletion on migration in matrigel are dependent on the matrigel concentration; at high concentrations when the gel is less deformable, the loss of β1 impaired the ability of the cells to invade.90 These results are in agreement with in vivo data where β1 depletion also caused reduced metastatic lesions (Table 2). In one of the studies, increased numbers of tumor emboli in the lymphatic vasculature were noted.68 This suggests that the cells in this model were competent to locally invade and intravasate, but were not able to execute the final stages required for secondary tumor �formation.
α5β1 and αvβ3 integrin �receptors
The finding that high level α5β1 is associated with enhanced migration speed and persistence of breast cancer cells in 3D collagen gels62 appears to agree with reports that α5 depletion reduced lung colonization in a tail vein injection model.83 However, when α5 and β1 are analyzed separately, the findings are conflicting. Exogenous α5 expression was shown to significantly reduce lung and extrapulmonary metastases arising from injected colon cancer cells.85 Upregulation of β3 expression increased bone and lung metastases,76,81 yet decreased lung tumor formation in an invasive melanoma model.91 Fibroblasts lacking β3 integrin expression have significantly faster migration speeds and reduced migration persistence in a 3D CDM assay.59 It is difficult to estimate to what degree the usage of different cell types has contributed to the disparate findings. For instance, the differential expression of other integrin receptors in different cell types may have influenced the invasion and metastasis behavior. In particular, it has been suggested that cross-talk between recycling α5β1 and αVβ3 receptors may be an important mechanism of regulating migration persistence.92 These data highlight the need for direct comparison between 3D culture models and in vivo metastasis models for �validation.
Conclusion
Our comparison of the effects of a handful of studies that have investigated adhesion proteins in 2D vs. 3D culture models with in vivo measurements of metastasis has revealed a complex picture. For instance, it is notable that without exception, the depletion of the adhesion molecules summarized in Table 1 resulted in decreased migration persistence in 3D models but not always in reduced metastasis formation in vivo (Table 2). To accurately predict in vivo invasion behavior, 3D model systems are required that faithfully replicate the physical characteristics of the environments encountered by transmigrating cancer cells. In particular it will be critical to develop model systems mimicking the interstitial tissue organization both at the primary tumor site and at the metastatic niches that characterize different tumors. Such tailored 3D models to map the journey taken by metastasizing cancer cells are still lacking for interactions with the vasculature, host immune responses and other cell-cell interactions, and can generally mimic only short-term (< 1 week) conditions.93 But even with these limitations, 3D models are essential for gaining a basic understanding of cell migration and invasion through tissue and will ultimately lead to novel cancer therapies. Invasion away from the primary tumor site fundamentally underpins metastatic progression, and treatments that target invasion therefore hold the promise of significantly improving survival rates for most �cancers.
Acknowledgments
Work in the authors’ labs is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia grant 632515 (G.M.O.), NSW Cancer Council grant RG 12-06 (G.M.O. and B.F.), and grants from the German Science Foundation (D.F.G. and �B.F.).
Glossary
Abbreviations:
- 2D
2-dimensional
- 3D
3-dimensional
- ECM
extracellular �matrix
- CDM
cell-derived �matrix
Footnotes
Previously published online: www.landesbioscience.com/journals/celladhesion/article/21559
References
- 1.Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100:57–70. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81683-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gritsenko PG, Ilina O, Friedl P. Interstitial guidance of cancer invasion. J Pathol. 2012;226:185–99. doi: 10.1002/path.3031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kulesa PM, Bailey CM, Kasemeier-Kulesa JC, McLennan R. Cranial neural crest migration: new rules for an old road. Dev Biol. 2010;344:543–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.04.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cameron DB, Kasai K, Jiang Y, Hu T, Saeki Y, Komuro H. Four distinct phases of basket/stellate cell migration after entering their final destination (the molecular layer) in the developing cerebellum. Dev Biol. 2009;332:309–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.05.575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Britto JM, Tait KJ, Johnston LA, Hammond VE, Kalloniatis M, Tan SS. Altered speeds and trajectories of neurons migrating in the ventricular and subventricular zones of the reeler neocortex. Cereb Cortex. 2011;21:1018–27. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Simó S, Jossin Y, Cooper JA. Cullin 5 regulates cortical layering by modulating the speed and duration of Dab1-dependent neuronal migration. J Neurosci. 2010;30:5668–76. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0035-10.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Furnari FB, Fenton T, Bachoo RM, Mukasa A, Stommel JM, Stegh A, et al. Malignant astrocytic glioma: genetics, biology, and paths to treatment. Genes Dev. 2007;21:2683–710. doi: 10.1101/gad.1596707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Singh MK, Izumchenko E, Klein-Szanto AJ, Egleston BL, Wolfson M, Golemis EA. Enhanced genetic instability and dasatinib sensitivity in mammary tumor cells lacking NEDD9. Cancer Res. 2010;70:8907–16. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chen CS, Mrksich M, Huang S, Whitesides GM, Ingber DE. Geometric control of cell life and death. Science. 1997;276:1425–8. doi: 10.1126/science.276.5317.1425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wolf K, Müller R, Borgmann S, Bröcker EB, Friedl P. Amoeboid shape change and contact guidance: T-lymphocyte crawling through fibrillar collagen is independent of matrix remodeling by MMPs and other proteases. Blood. 2003;102:3262–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-12-3791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cukierman E, Pankov R, Stevens DR, Yamada KM. Taking cell-matrix adhesions to the third dimension. Science. 2001;294:1708–12. doi: 10.1126/science.1064829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hakkinen KM, Harunaga JS, Doyle AD, Yamada KM. Direct comparisons of the morphology, migration, cell adhesions, and actin cytoskeleton of fibroblasts in four different three-dimensional extracellular matrices. Tissue Eng Part A. 2011;17:713–24. doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Elsdale T, Bard J. Collagen substrata for studies on cell behavior. J Cell Biol. 1972;54:626–37. doi: 10.1083/jcb.54.3.626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Wetzels RH, Holland R, van Haelst UJ, Lane EB, Leigh IM, Ramaekers FC. Detection of basement membrane components and basal cell keratin 14 in noninvasive and invasive carcinomas of the breast. Am J Pathol. 1989;134:571–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Levental KR, Yu H, Kass L, Lakins JN, Egeblad M, Erler JT, et al. Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell. 2009;139:891–906. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shao ZM, Nguyen M, Barsky SH. Human breast carcinoma desmoplasia is PDGF initiated. Oncogene. 2000;19:4337–45. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1203785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Walker RA. The complexities of breast cancer desmoplasia. Breast Cancer Res. 2001;3:143–5. doi: 10.1186/bcr287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Yamada KM, Pankov R, Cukierman E. Dimensions and dynamics in integrin function. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2003;36:959–66. doi: 10.1590/S0100-879X2003000800001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sabeh F, Shimizu-Hirota R, Weiss SJ. Protease-dependent versus -independent cancer cell invasion programs: three-dimensional amoeboid movement revisited. J Cell Biol. 2009;185:11–9. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200807195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Geer DJ, Swartz DD, Andreadis ST. Fibrin promotes migration in a three-dimensional in vitro model of wound regeneration. Tissue Eng. 2002;8:787–98. doi: 10.1089/10763270260424141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Brower J, Blumberg S, Carroll E, Pastar I, Brem H, Chen W. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy and delivery systems in nonhealing wounds. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2011;24:524–32, quiz 533-4. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000407648.89961.a6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sanz-Moreno V, Gadea G, Ahn J, Paterson H, Marra P, Pinner S, et al. Rac activation and inactivation control plasticity of tumor cell movement. Cell. 2008;135:510–23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lees JG, Bach CT, O’Neill GM. Interior decoration: tropomyosin in actin dynamics and cell migration. Cell Adh Migr. 2011;5:181–6. doi: 10.4161/cam.5.2.14438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kotlarchyk MA, Shreim SG, Alvarez-Elizondo MB, Estrada LC, Singh R, Valdevit L, et al. Concentration independent modulation of local micromechanics in a fibrin gel. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Zhu YK, Umino T, Liu XD, Wang HJ, Romberger DJ, Spurzem JR, et al. Effect of initial collagen concentration on fibroblast mediated contraction of collagen gels. Chest. 2000;117(Suppl 1):234S–5S. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.5_suppl_1.234S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Miron-Mendoza M, Seemann J, Grinnell F. The differential regulation of cell motile activity through matrix stiffness and porosity in three dimensional collagen matrices. Biomaterials. 2010;31:6425–35. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Yang YL, Leone LM, Kaufman LJ. Elastic moduli of collagen gels can be predicted from two-dimensional confocal microscopy. Biophys J. 2009;97:2051–60. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.07.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Gobeaux F, Mosser G, Anglo A, Panine P, Davidson P, Giraud-Guille MM, et al. Fibrillogenesis in dense collagen solutions: a physicochemical study. J Mol Biol. 2008;376:1509–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.12.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mickel W, Münster S, Jawerth LM, Vader DA, Weitz DA, Sheppard AP, et al. Robust pore size analysis of filamentous networks from three-dimensional confocal microscopy. Biophys J. 2008;95:6072–80. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.108.135939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.McPherson JM, Wallace DG, Sawamura SJ, Conti A, Condell RA, Wade S, et al. Collagen fibrillogenesis in vitro: a characterization of fibril quality as a function of assembly conditions. Coll Relat Res. 1985;5:119–35. doi: 10.1016/S0174-173X(85)80034-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zeugolis DI, Paul RG, Attenburrow G. Factors influencing the properties of reconstituted collagen fibers prior to self-assembly: animal species and collagen extraction method. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;86:892–904. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Raub CB, Suresh V, Krasieva T, Lyubovitsky J, Mih JD, Putnam AJ, et al. Noninvasive assessment of collagen gel microstructure and mechanics using multiphoton microscopy. Biophys J. 2007;92:2212–22. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.106.097998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bannister DW, Burns AB. Pepsin treatment of avian skin collagen. Effects on solubility, subunit composition and aggregation properties. Biochem J. 1972;129:677–81. doi: 10.1042/bj1290677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Snowden JM, Swann DA. The formation and thermal stability of in vitro assembled fibrils from acid-soluble and pepsin-treated collagens. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1979;580:372–81. doi: 10.1016/0005-2795(79)90149-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Forgacs G, Newman SA, Hinner B, Maier CW, Sackmann E. Assembly of collagen matrices as a phase transition revealed by structural and rheologic studies. Biophys J. 2003;84:1272–80. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74942-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Notbohm H, Mosler S, Müller PK, Brinckmann J. In vitro formation and aggregation of heterotypic collagen I and III fibrils. Int J Biol Macromol. 1993;15:299–304. doi: 10.1016/0141-8130(93)90030-P. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Timpl R, Martin GR, Bruckner P, Wick G, Wiedemann H. Nature of the collagenous protein in a tumor basement membrane. Eur J Biochem. 1978;84:43–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1978.tb12139.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Orkin RW, Gehron P, McGoodwin EB, Martin GR, Valentine T, Swarm R. A murine tumor producing a matrix of basement membrane. J Exp Med. 1977;145:204–20. doi: 10.1084/jem.145.1.204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kleinman HK. Preparation of basement membrane components from ehs tumors. Curr Protoc Cell Biol 2001; Chapter 10:Unit 10 2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Kleinman HK, McGarvey ML, Liotta LA, Robey PG, Tryggvason K, Martin GR. Isolation and characterization of type IV procollagen, laminin, and heparan sulfate proteoglycan from the EHS sarcoma. Biochemistry. 1982;21:6188–93. doi: 10.1021/bi00267a025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.McGuire PG, Seeds NW. The interaction of plasminogen activator with a reconstituted basement membrane matrix and extracellular macromolecules produced by cultured epithelial cells. J Cell Biochem. 1989;40:215–27. doi: 10.1002/jcb.240400210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Li ML, Aggeler J, Farson DA, Hatier C, Hassell J, Bissell MJ. Influence of a reconstituted basement membrane and its components on casein gene expression and secretion in mouse mammary epithelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987;84:136–40. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.1.136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Li W, Machule D, Gao C, DenBesten PK. Growth of ameloblast-lineage cells in a three-dimensional Matrigel environment. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006;114(Suppl 1):159–63, discussion 164-5, 380-1. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2006.00308.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kubota Y, Kleinman HK, Martin GR, Lawley TJ. Role of laminin and basement membrane in the morphological differentiation of human endothelial cells into capillary-like structures. J Cell Biol. 1988;107:1589–98. doi: 10.1083/jcb.107.4.1589. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Carey DJ, Todd MS, Rafferty CM. Schwann cell myelination: induction by exogenous basement membrane-like extracellular matrix. J Cell Biol. 1986;102:2254–63. doi: 10.1083/jcb.102.6.2254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Porter KR, Vanamee P. Observations on the formation of connective tissue fibers. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1949;71:513–6. doi: 10.3181/00379727-71-17241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Hedman K, Vaheri A, Wartiovaara J. External fibronectin of cultured human fibroblasts is predominantly a matrix protein. J Cell Biol. 1978;76:748–60. doi: 10.1083/jcb.76.3.748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Vaheri A, Kurkinen M, Lehto VP, Linder E, Timpl R. Codistribution of pericellular matrix proteins in cultured fibroblasts and loss in transformation: fibronectin and procollagen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978;75:4944–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.75.10.4944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hedman K, Kurkinen M, Alitalo K, Vaheri A, Johansson S, Höök M. Isolation of the pericellular matrix of human fibroblast cultures. J Cell Biol. 1979;81:83–91. doi: 10.1083/jcb.81.1.83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Narayanan K, Leck KJ, Gao S, Wan AC. Three-dimensional reconstituted extracellular matrix scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2009;30:4309–17. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.04.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Pankov R, Endo Y, Even-Ram S, Araki M, Clark K, Cukierman E, et al. A Rac switch regulates random versus directionally persistent cell migration. J Cell Biol. 2005;170:793–802. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200503152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Fraley SI, Feng Y, Krishnamurthy R, Kim DH, Celedon A, Longmore GD, et al. A distinctive role for focal adhesion proteins in three-dimensional cell motility. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12:598–604. doi: 10.1038/ncb2062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Kubow KE, Horwitz AR. Reducing background fluorescence reveals adhesions in 3D matrices. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13:3–5, author reply 5-7. doi: 10.1038/ncb0111-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Harunaga JS, Yamada KM. Cell-matrix adhesions in 3D. Matrix Biol. 2011;30:363–8. doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2011.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Baker EL, Srivastava J, Yu D, Bonnecaze RT, Zaman MH. Cancer cell migration: integrated roles of matrix mechanics and transforming potential. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20355. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Kim HD, Guo TW, Wu AP, Wells A, Gertler FB, Lauffenburger DA. Epidermal growth factor-induced enhancement of glioblastoma cell migration in 3D arises from an intrinsic increase in speed but an extrinsic matrix- and proteolysis-dependent increase in persistence. Mol Biol Cell. 2008;19:4249–59. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E08-05-0501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Indra I, Undyala V, Kandow C, Thirumurthi U, Dembo M, Beningo KA. An in vitro correlation of mechanical forces and metastatic capacity. Phys Biol. 2011;8:015015. doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/8/1/015015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.DiMilla PA, Stone JA, Quinn JA, Albelda SM, Lauffenburger DA. Maximal migration of human smooth muscle cells on fibronectin and type IV collagen occurs at an intermediate attachment strength. J Cell Biol. 1993;122:729–37. doi: 10.1083/jcb.122.3.729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Worth DC, Hodivala-Dilke K, Robinson SD, King SJ, Morton PE, Gertler FB, et al. Alpha v beta3 integrin spatially regulates VASP and RIAM to control adhesion dynamics and migration. J Cell Biol. 2010;189:369–83. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200912014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Zhong J, Baquiran JB, Bonakdar N, Lees J, Ching YW, Pugacheva E, et al. NEDD9 stabilizes focal adhesions, increases binding to the extra-cellular matrix and differentially effects 2D versus 3D cell migration. PLoS One. 2012;7:e35058. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Sanz-Moreno V, Marshall CJ. The plasticity of cytoskeletal dynamics underlying neoplastic cell migration. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2010;22:690–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2010.08.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Mierke CT, Frey B, Fellner M, Herrmann M, Fabry B. Integrin α5β1 facilitates cancer cell invasion through enhanced contractile forces. J Cell Sci. 2011;124:369–83. doi: 10.1242/jcs.071985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Guck J, Schinkinger S, Lincoln B, Wottawah F, Ebert S, Romeyke M, et al. Optical deformability as an inherent cell marker for testing malignant transformation and metastatic competence. Biophys J. 2005;88:3689–98. doi: 10.1529/biophysj.104.045476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Remmerbach TW, Wottawah F, Dietrich J, Lincoln B, Wittekind C, Guck J. Oral cancer diagnosis by mechanical phenotyping. Cancer Res. 2009;69:1728–32. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-4073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Koch TM, Münster S, Bonakdar N, Butler JP, Fabry B. 3D Traction forces in cancer cell invasion. PLoS One. 2012;7:e33476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Kraning-Rush CM, Califano JP, Reinhart-King CA. Cellular traction stresses increase with increasing metastatic potential. PLoS One. 2012;7:e32572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Izumchenko E, Singh MK, Plotnikova OV, Tikhmyanova N, Little JL, Serebriiskii IG, et al. NEDD9 promotes oncogenic signaling in mammary tumor development. Cancer Res. 2009;69:7198–206. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Kren A, Baeriswyl V, Lehembre F, Wunderlin C, Strittmatter K, Antoniadis H, et al. Increased tumor cell dissemination and cellular senescence in the absence of beta1-integrin function. EMBO J. 2007;26:2832–42. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Lahlou H, Sanguin-Gendreau V, Frame MC, Muller WJ. Focal adhesion kinase contributes to proliferative potential of ErbB2 mammary tumour cells but is dispensable for ErbB2 mammary tumour induction in vivo. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R36. doi: 10.1186/bcr3131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Lahlou H, Sanguin-Gendreau V, Zuo D, Cardiff RD, McLean GW, Frame MC, et al. Mammary epithelial-specific disruption of the focal adhesion kinase blocks mammary tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:20302–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710091104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Provenzano PP, Inman DR, Eliceiri KW, Beggs HE, Keely PJ. Mammary epithelial-specific disruption of focal adhesion kinase retards tumor formation and metastasis in a transgenic mouse model of human breast cancer. Am J Pathol. 2008;173:1551–65. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.080308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Huck L, Pontier SM, Zuo DM, Muller WJ. beta1-integrin is dispensable for the induction of ErbB2 mammary tumors but plays a critical role in the metastatic phase of tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:15559–64. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003034107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Duxbury MS, Ito H, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Whang EE. Focal adhesion kinase gene silencing promotes anoikis and suppresses metastasis of human pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells. Surgery. 2004;135:555–62. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2003.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Grzesiak JJ, Tran Cao HS, Burton DW, Kaushal S, Vargas F, Clopton P, et al. Knockdown of the β(1) integrin subunit reduces primary tumor growth and inhibits pancreatic cancer metastasis. Int J Cancer. 2011;129:2905–15. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Hsu MY, Shih DT, Meier FE, Van Belle P, Hsu JY, Elder DE, et al. Adenoviral gene transfer of beta3 integrin subunit induces conversion from radial to vertical growth phase in primary human melanoma. Am J Pathol. 1998;153:1435–42. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65730-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Sloan EK, Pouliot N, Stanley KL, Chia J, Moseley JM, Hards DK, et al. Tumor-specific expression of alphavbeta3 integrin promotes spontaneous metastasis of breast cancer to bone. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R20. doi: 10.1186/bcr1398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Cabodi S, Tinnirello A, Bisaro B, Tornillo G, del Pilar Camacho-Leal M, Forni G, et al. p130Cas is an essential transducer element in ErbB2 transformation. FASEB J. 2010;24:3796–808. doi: 10.1096/fj.10-157347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Brábek J, Constancio SS, Siesser PF, Shin NY, Pozzi A, Hanks SK. Crk-associated substrate tyrosine phosphorylation sites are critical for invasion and metastasis of SRC-transformed cells. Mol Cancer Res. 2005;3:307–15. doi: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-05-0015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Brakebusch C, Wennerberg K, Krell HW, Weidle UH, Sallmyr A, Johansson S, et al. Beta1 integrin promotes but is not essential for metastasis of ras-myc transformed fibroblasts. Oncogene. 1999;18:3852–61. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1202770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Rodríguez Ferńndez JL, Geiger B, Salomon D, Sabanay I, Zöller M, Ben-Ze’ev A. Suppression of tumorigenicity in transformed cells after transfection with vinculin cDNA. J Cell Biol. 1992;119:427–38. doi: 10.1083/jcb.119.2.427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Felding-Habermann B, O’Toole TE, Smith JW, Fransvea E, Ruggeri ZM, Ginsberg MH, et al. Integrin activation controls metastasis in human breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:1853–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.4.1853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Pylayeva Y, Gillen KM, Gerald W, Beggs HE, Reichardt LF, Giancotti FG. Ras- and PI3K-dependent breast tumorigenesis in mice and humans requires focal adhesion kinase signaling. J Clin Invest. 2009;119:252–66. doi: 10.1172/JCI37160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Roman J, Ritzenthaler JD, Roser-Page S, Sun X, Han S. alpha5beta1-integrin expression is essential for tumor progression in experimental lung cancer. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2010;43:684–91. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2009-0375OC. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Sakamoto S, McCann RO, Dhir R, Kyprianou N. Talin1 promotes tumor invasion and metastasis via focal adhesion signaling and anoikis resistance. Cancer Res. 2010;70:1885–95. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-2833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Schirner M, Herzberg F, Schmidt R, Streit M, Schöning M, Hummel M, et al. Integrin alpha5beta1: a potent inhibitor of experimental lung metastasis. Clin Exp Metastasis. 1998;16:427–35. doi: 10.1023/A:1006581424490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.McLean GW, Carragher NO, Avizienyte E, Evans J, Brunton VG, Frame MC. The role of focal-adhesion kinase in cancer—a new therapeutic opportunity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:505–15. doi: 10.1038/nrc1647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Mierke CT, Kollmannsberger P, Zitterbart DP, Diez G, Koch TM, Marg S, et al. Vinculin facilitates cell invasion into three-dimensional collagen matrices. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:13121–30. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.087171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.O’Neill GM, Seo S, Serebriiskii IG, Lessin SR, Golemis EA. A new central scaffold for metastasis: parsing HEF1/Cas-L/NEDD9. Cancer Res. 2007;67:8975–9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Paszek MJ, Zahir N, Johnson KR, Lakins JN, Rozenberg GI, Gefen A, et al. Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell. 2005;8:241–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2005.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Zaman MH, Trapani LM, Sieminski AL, Mackellar D, Gong H, Kamm RD, et al. Migration of tumor cells in 3D matrices is governed by matrix stiffness along with cell-matrix adhesion and proteolysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:10889–94. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604460103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Danen EH, van Kraats AA, Cornelissen IM, Ruiter DJ, van Muijen GN. Integrin beta 3 cDNA transfection into a highly metastatic alpha v beta 3-negative human melanoma cell line inhibits invasion and experimental metastasis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1996;226:75–81. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1996.1313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.White DP, Caswell PT, Norman JC. alpha v beta3 and alpha5beta1 integrin recycling pathways dictate downstream Rho kinase signaling to regulate persistent cell migration. J Cell Biol. 2007;177:515–25. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200609004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Yamada KM, Cukierman E. Modeling tissue morphogenesis and cancer in 3D. Cell. 2007;130:601–10. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Deakin NO, Turner CE. Distinct roles for paxillin and Hic-5 in regulating breast cancer cell morphology, invasion, and metastasis. Mol Biol Cell. 2011;22:327–41. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E10-09-0790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]