Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1992 May 1;89(9):4183–4186. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.9.4183

High rate of diversification and reversal among subclones of neoplastically transformed NIH 3T3 clones.

A L Rubin 1, A Sneade-Koenig 1, H Rubin 1
PMCID: PMC525657  PMID: 1570346

Abstract

NIH 3T3 cells undergo neoplastic transformation when exposed to conditions of moderate physiological growth constraint. One of several characteristics of this transformation that indicates its adaptational nature is its gradual reversibility under conditions of unconstrained growth. We explored the origins of reversibility by isolating cells from each of three highly transformed foci and comparing their focus-forming capacity with that of derivative clones and subclones. A high proportion of the parental cells made dense foci. Six of the nine clones obtained from the three foci produced foci, though the percentage varied widely. The other three clones produced no foci at all. The transformed clones were subcloned and analyzed to evaluate the possibility that the negative clones were genuine revertants, rather than being derived from a small minority of nontransformed cells surrounding or underlying the original foci. In each case the subclones varied widely in the percentage of focus-forming cells and the average was much lower than the parental clone from which they were derived. Indeed, 15 of the 53 subclonal populations produced no foci. The high degree of heterogeneity, including complete reversal of focus-forming capacity, provides additional support for the hypothesis that "spontaneous" transformation is driven by an adaptive response to moderate growth constraint rather than by one or more effectively irreversible mutations.

Full text

PDF
4183

Images in this article

4184Image
on p.4184
4184Image
on p.4184
4185Image
on p.4185

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Aaronson S. A., Todaro G. J. Basis for the acquisition of malignant potential by mouse cells cultivated in vitro. Science. 1968 Nov 29;162(3857):1024–1026. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3857.1024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brouty-Boyé D., Gresser I., Baldwin C. Reversion of the transformed phenotype to the parental phenotype by subcultivation of X-ray-transformed C3H/10T1/2 cells at low cell density. Int J Cancer. 1979 Aug;24(2):253–260. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910240218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark W. H. Tumour progression and the nature of cancer. Br J Cancer. 1991 Oct;64(4):631–644. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Farber E. Cellular biochemistry of the stepwise development of cancer with chemicals: G. H. A. Clowes memorial lecture. Cancer Res. 1984 Dec;44(12 Pt 1):5463–5474. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Farber E., Rubin H. Cellular adaptation in the origin and development of cancer. Cancer Res. 1991 Jun 1;51(11):2751–2761. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Grundel R., Rubin H. Effect of interclonal heterogeneity on the progressive, confluence-mediated acquisition of the focus-forming phenotype in NIH-3T3 populations. Cancer Res. 1991 Feb 1;51(3):1003–1013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Heim S., Mandahl N., Mitelman F. Genetic convergence and divergence in tumor progression. Cancer Res. 1988 Nov 1;48(21):5911–5916. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. JONES H. B. Demographic consideration of the cancer problem. Trans N Y Acad Sci. 1956 Feb;18(4):298–333. doi: 10.1111/j.2164-0947.1956.tb00453.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lavrovsky V. A., Guvakova M. A., Lavrovsky Y. V. High frequency of tumour cell reversion to non-tumorigenic phenotype. Eur J Cancer. 1992;28(1):17–21. doi: 10.1016/0959-8049(92)90375-c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rabinowitz Z., Sachs L. Reversion of properties in cells transformed by polyoma virus. Nature. 1968 Dec 21;220(5173):1203–1206. doi: 10.1038/2201203a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rubin A. L., Arnstein P., Rubin H. Physiological induction and reversal of focus formation and tumorigenicity in NIH 3T3 cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Dec;87(24):10005–10009. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.24.10005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rubin A. L., Ellison B. J. Induction of transformation in NIH3T3 cells by moderate growth constraint: evidence that neoplasia is driven by adaptational change. Carcinogenesis. 1991 Oct;12(10):1801–1806. doi: 10.1093/carcin/12.10.1801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rubin A. L. Suppression of transformation by and growth adaptation to low concentrations of glutamine in NIH-3T3 cells. Cancer Res. 1990 May 1;50(9):2832–2839. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rubin A. L., Yao A., Rubin H. Relation of spontaneous transformation in cell culture to adaptive growth and clonal heterogeneity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Jan;87(1):482–486. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.1.482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rubin H. Adaptive evolution of degrees and kinds of neoplastic transformation in cell culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Feb 1;89(3):977–981. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.3.977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rubin H. Cancer as a dynamic developmental disorder. Cancer Res. 1985 Jul;45(7):2935–2942. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. WADDINGTON C. H. Genetic assimilation. Adv Genet. 1961;10:257–293. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2660(08)60119-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Yao A., Rubin A. L., Rubin H. Progressive state selection of cells in low serum promotes high density growth and neoplastic transformation in NIH 3T3 cells. Cancer Res. 1990 Aug 15;50(16):5171–5176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES