Abstract
High‐grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most common and malignant histological type of epithelial ovarian cancer, the origin of which remains controversial. Currently, the secretory epithelial cells of the fallopian tube are regarded as the main origin and the ovarian surface epithelial cells as a minor origin. In tubal epithelium, these cells acquire TP53 mutations and expand to a morphologically normal ‘p53 signature’ lesion, transform to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and metastasize to the ovaries and peritoneum where they develop into HGSC. This shifting paradigm of the main cell of origin has revolutionarily changed the focus of HGSC research. Various cell lines have been derived from the two cellular origins by acquiring immortalization via overexpression of hTERT plus disruption of TP53 and the CDK4/RB pathway. Malignant transformation was achieved by adding canonical driver mutations (such as gain of CCNE1) revealed by The Cancer Genome Atlas or by noncanonical gain of YAP and miR181a. Alternatively, because of the extreme chromosomal instability, spontaneous transformation can be achieved by long passage of murine immortalized cells, whereas in humans, it requires ovulatory follicular fluid, containing regenerating growth factors to facilitate spontaneous transformation. These artificially and spontaneously transformed cell systems in both humans and mice have been widely used to discover carcinogens, oncogenic pathways and malignant behaviours in the development of HGSC. Here, we review the origin, aetiology and carcinogenic mechanism of HGSC and comprehensively summarize the cell models used to study this fatal cancer having multiple cells of origin and overt genomic instability.
The genetic alterations and known mechanism of transformation by ovulation and retrograde menstruation in the development of HGSC from the FTE.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. High‐grade serous carcinoma of the ovary, peritoneum and fallopian tube
Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is one of the most common malignant tumours in women, with approximately 21 750 new cases and 13 940 deaths estimated in the United States in 2020. 1 The 5 year survival rates have been <45% for many years, 2 which indicate that either the prevention or the treatment has not improved significantly over the past decades.
Among the different histological types of EOC, high‐grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is both the most prevalent and most fatal type, accounting for 30%‐60% of cases and 70%‐80% of the mortalities. 3 The prevalence and high mortality are mainly due to the difficulty of early diagnosis and propensity for recurrence because of resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. 4 , 5 , 6 Consequently, EOC is the 7th most common cause of cancer‐related deaths among women in the world. 1 Obvious impediments to progress include unclear aetiology, ambiguous tissue of origin and unknown mechanism of malignant transformation. 7 , 8 , 9 Besides the ovary, HGSCs are occasionally found in the fallopian tube and peritoneum as the main lesion. 10 These extraovarian HGSCs show identical characteristics to the ovarian counterpart, including genetic, molecular and histological features and clinical behaviours, 11 indicating they are the same disease of different localization.
1.2. Ovarian and tubal origin of HGSC, a debated and shifting paradigm
Ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) or cortical inclusion cysts have long been considered to be the orthodox origin of ovarian HGSC. 12 This dogma was challenged by findings showing that precursor lesions of HGSC termed ‘p53 signature’ and serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) were exclusively found in the epithelium of the fallopian tube, especially at the fimbria part, but not on the ovary. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 This shifting paradigm was further reinforced by intensive histopathological analyses, clonality assays of the driver mutations and the whole genome 17 , 18 , 19 of surgical specimens as well as by genetic manipulation in cellular and transgenic mouse models recapitulating the transformation from fallopian tube epithelial cells (FTECs). 20 , 21 , 22 The data from these various investigations point to the secretory cells in fimbrial epithelium as the main cell of origin of HGSC. 23 , 24 , 25 However, this conclusion does not suggest that all HGSCs have a fallopian tube origin. Nostalgic studies involving cellular transformation and a genetic‐engineered mouse model (GEM) keep providing pieces of evidence that HGSC can also arise from OSE. 26 , 27 , 28 The current consensus is that HGSC can arise from both OSE and the fallopian tube, with the fallopian tube epithelium (FTE) as the major origin. 27 , 29
1.3. Mechanism of transformation: Ovulation‐driven mutagenesis and clonal expansion with loss of progesterone protection
More and more epidemiological studies have supported the theory of incessant ovulation as the cause of HGSC. 30 , 31 The hypothesis that ovulation is associated with ovarian cancer was first raised in 1971 by MF Fathalla. 32 In numerous large‐scale epidemiological studies, the number of ovulations was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer in a dose‐dependent manner. 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 Factors that reduce the number of ovulation cycles, such as pregnancy, lactation and use of oral contraceptives, showed a protective effect on HGSC. 32 , 37
The underlying mechanisms of carcinogenesis caused by incessant ovulation were explored under different assumptions. The endocrine mechanism stating a carcinogenic role of gonadotropins and oestradiol, which peak during ovulation and exert a transformation effect, 37 , 38 , 39 was refuted by a study showing that FTECs did not proliferate or display increased DNA damage in response to either oestrogen or follicle‐stimulating hormone/luteinizing hormone. 31 Alternatively, the tear‐and‐repair hypothesis proposed by Fathalla 32 states a repetitive proliferation of the OSE after ovulation‐induced wounding, 40 which increases DNA damage and may enhance the transformation. 41 It was later noted that without a tearing, fallopian tube fimbria, bathed by follicular fluid (FF) during oocyte catch up, is also vulnerable to ovulation injury, such as inflammation and DNA damage. 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 Eventually, the focus turned to the contents in the FF that bath both the ovulatory wound and FTE after ovulation. FF contains high concentrations of growth factors, proteinases involving coagulation cascades and others, extracellular proteins, hormones, immune agents and reactive oxygen species (ROS). 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 Among them, ROS causes tissue injury and DNA double‐strand breaks on the epithelium of fallopian tube fimbria and was regarded as a mutagen in FF, 48 , 50 , 51 and some growth factors such as IGF2 cause clonal expansion and transformation of immortalized FTECs. 48 , 51 , 52
More than the DNA damage, FF also exerts stem cell activation and clonal expansion activity on FTECs. FF contains abundant insulin‐like growth factor (IGF)‐axis proteins, including IGF‐binding protein 2/6, IGF1/2 and the IGF‐binding proteolytic enzyme, pregnancy‐associated plasmatic protein A (PAPP‐A). The expression levels of these proteins increased with the growth of the ovarian follicle. 53 After ovulation, the IGFBP‐cleavage enzyme PAPP‐A is activated upon tethering to the membrane of FTECs. IGF2 is then released and binds to the adjacent membrane receptor IGF‐1R and activates the AKT/OCT2/ NANOG and AKT/mTOR pathways. These signals of stemness activation and clonal expansion, on the one hand, repair the injury caused by ovulation, and on the other, lead to expansion of cancer initiation cells and malignant transformation. 52 Thus, a regeneration mechanism is reserved in the ovarian follicle, which is timely and locally activated after ovulation. However, the cost is carcinogenesis of the exposed epithelium of the fimbria and the ovary, a justifiable price following the priorities of reproduction and evolution.
In addition to ovulation, the backflow of menstrual blood or retrograde menstruation may also promote development of ovarian cancer. The risk of ovarian cancer decreased after the retrograde route was blocked by tubal ligation. 54 , 55 , 56 Iron metabolites in menstrual blood exposed to the FTE and ovary may exert the Fenton reaction upon iron oxides by interacting with H2O2 released from ovulation. It was reported that iron‐transporter protein transferrin, via its receptor TfR1, facilitated formation of DNA double‐strand breaks in FTE. 57 Moreover, haemoglobin from retrograded menstrual blood readily quenched the excessive ROS released from ovulation and rescued the exposed FTE from the ROS‐induced apoptosis. The surviving FTE under this tolerable ROS stress still accumulates DNA double‐strand breaks and proceeds to transformation. 48 Therefore, ovulation and retrograde menstruation produce a repeated tolerable Fenton reaction on FTE and OSE, which may promote development of ovarian cancer. 58 , 59
Given that both ovulation and retrograde menstruation are almost regular events 60 but the prevalence of STIC (<1%) 61 and the lifetime risk of ovarian cancer (about 1 in 78 [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian‐cancer/about/key‐statistics.html]) are low, early and systemic protection against tubal carcinogenesis is expected. Plethoral pieces of evidence from epidemiological studies have suggested progesterone is the protector. Raised progesterone either from term pregnancy or from use of combine‐ or progestin‐only‐oral contraceptives 62 , 63 is associated with a rapid decline of ovarian cancer risk, with an extent far superior to what could be expected when considering ovulation inhibition alone. 64 A cleansing effect of progesterone specifically on the p53‐defective tubal epithelial cells with sparing of p53‐intact cells was confirmed in Trp53−/− mice and in p53‐mutated or p53‐deficient human FTECs. Progesterone receptor (PR) mediated this cleansing effect by inducing necroptosis via the TNF‐α/RIPK1/RIPK3/MLKL pathway. 65 Interestingly, PR is downregulated in the most majority of EOCs. 66 Two polymorphisms at the PGR gene contribute to ovarian cancer susceptibility. 67 Thus, either intrinsic or extrinsic progesterone protects the development of HGSC at early stage, and loss of PR may be a necessity for the carcinogenesis induced by ovulation and retrograde menstruation.
1.4. Molecular pathways involved in the development of HGSC and its precursors in the fallopian tube
Almost all HGSCs and their tubal precursor STICs harbour TP53 mutations, 25 , 68 , 69 , 70 which are considered to be the first step in the transformation. 71 The initial TP53 mutation lesion, p53 signature, is a cluster of histologically normal tubal secretory cells with accumulation of mutant p53 in the nucleus, which was estimated to occur about 10 years after the first ovulation. 64 DNA double‐strand breaks frequently occur in p53 signatures, indicating that it may be induced by ovulation‐ and retrograde menstruation‐related ROS. A more severely transformed tubal epithelial lesion is called STIC, which retains the expression of oviduct secretory cell marker PAX8, TP53 mutation and DNA damage, 72 and acquires high proliferative activity, cell atypia and loss of cellular polarity. After acquiring metastatic properties, STICs spread to peritoneal organs, including the ovary and peritoneum and becomes clinically evident HGSC. 73 Interestingly, while STIC has a propensity for intraperitoneal metastasis, it rarely invades deeply into the lamina propria to grow overt fallopian tube cancer. Thus, STIC is found either as an in situ carcinoma or microinvasive carcinoma. Clinically, HGSC mostly presents in the ovary as the primary site rather than in the fallopian tube. We reason that the stroma of fallopian tube must have evolved a mechanism to resist the implantation/invasion of embryo to prevent the fatal ectopic pregnancy. The same mechanism also impedes the invasive growth of STIC.
The molecular relationship among the tubal precursor lesions and HGSC has been clarified by targeted sequencing of the TP53 gene. Mutations were found in 57% of p53 signatures and almost all STICs and HGSCs. 27 , 74 Identical TP53 and other mutations were shown in all STIC/ovarian cancer pairs. A recent comprehensive genomic analysis by next‐generation sequencing (NGS) further provided striking evidence that the p53 signature or STIC had an ancestral clonal relationship with HGSC. They shared common driver mutations affecting TP53, PTEN, BRCA1 or BRCA2. Thus, p53 signatures and STICs are precursors of ovarian HGSC. An estimation of the time sequence of their development based on results from epidemiological, molecular and NGS studies suggests 10 years from the normal tubal epithelium to P53 signature, another 15 years from p53 signature to STIC and a final 6+ years from STIC to ovarian HGSC. 64 Meanwhile, two evolutionary analyses based on the molecular clock of driver mutations in synchronous STIC and HGSC lesions have consistently revealed the sojourn time between STIC and HGSC is 6‐7 years. 17 , 19
The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has globally characterized the genetic alterations in HGSC tumour samples from patients. A clear landscape of driver mutation involving genes and pathways, including TP53, RB signalling (CDKN2A, CCNE1, CCND1, CCND2 and RB1), PI3K/RAS signalling (PTEN, NF1, KRAS, PIK3CA and AKT), MYC transcription factor and DNA damage response (ATM, ATR and FA core complex) and homologous recombination repair pathways (BRCA1, BRCA2, EMSY and RAD51), has been unveiled. 75 Among them, TP53 mutation is the earliest universal hit. 76 , 77 , 78 In addition to cell cycle control, mutant p53 proteins may acquire gain of function (GOF) activity. These proteins can interact with new DNA targets and protein partners, promoting genomic instability, proliferation, invasion, metastasis, inflammation, angiogenesis and chemoresistance. 79 Clinical data have shown that the prognosis of HGSC patients with GOF p53 mutations was poorer than that of patients with loss of function p53. 80 Mutation or amplification of the RB pathway genes occurs in 2/3 of cases and early after TP53 change. This early dual disruption of p53 and Rb pathways underscores the DNA copy number variation and chromosomal instability phenotypes present in tubal precursor lesions early in HGSC development. 74 Additionally, BRCA1/2 and PTEN mutations also have been found in STIC lesions, 19 and the oncogenic roles of Yap 81 and loss of Pten 82 and NF1 83 have been confirmed in genetic‐engineered mouse model. Figure 1 summarizes these genetic alterations and known mechanism of transformation by ovulation and retrograde menstruation in the development of HGSC from the FTE.
FIGURE 1.
The genetic alterations and known mechanism of transformation by ovulation and retrograde menstruation in the development of HGSC from the FTE. High concentrations of ROS, Hb, IGF2 and HGF in FF are known etiological factors for inducing malignant transformation of FTECs. P53 is considered to be the first step in transformation, and the loss of RB is one of the conditions required for malignant transformation. The abnormality of PTEN often endows transformation of FTECs with the ability to form tumours in vivo. YAP and miR‐181a are the only two known independent non‐viral oncogenes that have been shown to promote tumour formation independently. Moreover, miRNA, such as miR‐181a/miR‐182, has also shown an increasingly important role in promoting malignant transformation of cells. Known etiological factors are shown in grey ovoid, overexpressed/amplified oncogene is shown in red squares, and downregulated tumour suppressor is shown in green squares. FF, ovulatory follicular fluid; FTEC, Fallopian tube epithelial cells; HGSC, high‐grade serous carcinoma; PR, progesterone receptor; STIC: serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma
2. CELL MODELS USED FOR THE STUDY OF THE GENETIC ALTERATION AND MECHANISM OF HGSC DEVELOPMENT
Given the shifting paradigm of cell origin, cell lines derived from the FTE with different severities of oncogenic alterations were established to explore the molecular mechanism of cell transformation, biomarkers for early detection and prevention methods. Herein, we summarize the immortalized and transformed cell lines derived from the oviduct of humans and mice and their applications in this rapidly evolving field of research.
2.1. Human HGSC cell lines
Cancer cell lines used as a tumour model in vitro have had a profound impact on cancer research and greatly promoted the development of new biomarkers and targeted cancer therapies. 84 , 85 , 86 However, before the molecular classification and binary stratification system was established, EOC cells could not be discerned in studies. In addition, misidentification and cross‐contamination of some cell lines have also hindered research progress. 87 The consequence has been a prolonged delay in discovery of targeted therapies and specific biomarkers in ovarian cancer. Another problem is that some ovarian cancer cell lines do not match the characteristics of homologous tumours. 88 , 89
Given the knowledge of the molecular characteristics of different EOC, particularly the unique features of HGSC, that is the universal TP53 mutation and profound DNA copy variation, researchers have revisited the commonly used EOC cell lines for precise classifications. Domcke et al 90 evaluated 47 existing ovarian cancer cell lines and compared the differences in DNA copy number changes, mutations and mRNA expression profiles with HGSC tumour samples. The researchers found that the most commonly used cell lines, such as SKOV3 and A2780, were actually not HGSCs. Instead, KURAMOCHI and OVSAHO cell lines, which were not classified as HGSC previously, had the highest correlation with molecular features of HGSC. Additionally, Anglesio et al 91 identified some cell lines, such as CAOV3, OVCAR3, OVCAR4, OVCAR5 and OVCAR8 as HGSC cell lines. Table 1 summarized the morphology, original annotation and key cancer‐driving genes of 29 cell lines confirmed with the molecular and histological features of HGSC.
TABLE 1.
HGSC cell lines (n = 29) with confirmed molecular and histological features of HGSC
Cell name | Morphology | Original annotation | TP53 | RB1 | CCNE1 | TPX2 | KRAS | MYC | ERBB2 | BRCA1 | BRCA2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
59M | S | Mixed | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT |
CAOV3 | E | AC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
CAOV4 | E | AC | Mu | WT | WT | WT | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT |
COV318 | E a /S b | AS a /SC c | Mu | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
COV362 | S | EC | Mu | De | WT | Un | WT | Am | WT | Mu | WT |
KURAMOCHI | E | AS | Mu | WT | WT | Un | Am | Am | WT | WT | Mu |
OAW28 | E | AS | Mu | WT | WT | Am | WT a /Am b | WT | WT | WT | WT |
OV17R | E | AS | Mu | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
OV90 | E | AS | Mu | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
OVSAHO | E | SC | Mu | De | WT | Un | WT | WT | WT | WT | Mu |
PEA1 | S | PE | Mu | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
PEA2 | E | AS | Mu | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
PEO1 | E | AS | Mu | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | Mu |
PEO14 | E | AS | Mu | WT | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
PEO4 | E | AS | Mu | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | Mu |
SKOV6 | E | Un | Mu | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
OVCAR3 | E | AS | Mu | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
OVCAR4 | Un | AC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
OVCAR5 | Un | AC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | ‐ | WT | WT |
OVCAR8 | S | AC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | Mu | WT | Mu | WT | WT |
FUOV1 | Un | SC | Mu | WT | Am | Un | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT |
JHOS2 | Un | SC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | WT | Mu | WT |
JHOS4 | Un | SC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
SNU119 | E | SC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | Am | WT | WT | WT |
TYKNU | Un | AS | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
ONCODG1 | Un | Un | Mu | WT | Am | Un | Am | WT | WT | WT | WT |
OVKATE | Un | SC | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | WT | WT | WT |
UWB1.289 + BRCA1 | E | Un | Mu | WT | WT | Un | WT | WT | ‐ | WT | WT |
OVSAYO | Un | Un | Mu | Un | Un | Un | Un | Un | Un | Un | Un |
Morphology: E, epithelial; S, spindle. Original annotation: AC, adenocarcinoma; As, ascites; EC, endometrioid cancer; PE, pleural effusion; SC, serous cancer. Gene alternation: Am, amplification, De: delete; Mu, mutation; Un: unknown; WT, white type.
PMID25230021.
PMID23839242.
MID29880891.
In addition to the genetic analysis, Papp et al 92 further provided an integrative characterization at genomic, epigenomic and expressional levels in 45 EOC cell lines. Francis Jacob et al summarized the characteristics of 39 ovarian cancer cell lines, including growth characteristics, mRNA/microRNA expression, exon sequences, drug response for clinically relevant therapeutics and the original clinical features and site of origin. The researchers then determined that only 14 cell lines, such as OVCAR3 and COV318, considered to be high‐grade serous types. The criteria for the putative high‐grade serous origin were presence of TP53 mutation and no MSI, or with TP53 mutation and amplification of CCNE1, MYC or TPX2. 93
Moreover, Mitra et al evaluated the tumourigenesis of 11 HGSC cell lines 90 days after subcutaneous (sc) (1 × 106 cells) and intraperitoneal (ip) (5 × 106 cells) injections in nude mice. 94 They found that OVCAR3, OVCAR4, OVCAR5 and OVCAR8 grew both ip and sc tumours; CAOV3 and OVSAHO grew ip tumours only; and only OVCAR8 formed ascites reliably. OVKATE and COV362 were tumourigenic only with sc injection. All tumours from the two sites had the histological features of HGSC. Among them, OVCAR3 formed the largest sc tumours and OVCAR8 formed the largest ip tumours. Interestingly, KURAMOCHI, although sharing the most molecular features with HGSC, did not grow tumours in nude mice, but it did grow tumours in the more severely immunodeficient mice, such as in SCID 95 and NSG. 96 Tumours from OVCAR3, OVCAR4 and OVKATE xenografts showed intense nuclear staining for p53, PAX8 and WT1, and those from OVSAHO, CAOV3 and OVCAR8 showed strong PAX8 and WT1 and weak p53. 94
Haley et al 97 systematically compared the migration, invasion, proliferation, clonogenicity, epithelial–mesenchymal transition phenotypes and cisplatin resistance of eight HGSC cell lines. They found that OVCAR5, OVCAR8 and KURAMOCHI cells exhibited the most robust invasion ability, whereas the SNU119 and OVSAHO cell lines had the lowest activity. Morphologically, SNU119 had the most epithelial‐like and OVCAR8 had the most mesenchymal‐like phenotypes. The CAOV3 cell was the most sensitive, whereas the COV362 cell was most resistant to cisplatin treatment.
2.2. Immortalized fallopian tube secretory cell lines
To explore the pathogenesis of a cancer, cell lines deriving from the cell of origin and representing the different transformative states are fundamental and have been established in cancers, such as lung adenocarcinoma, 98 head and neck cancer 99 and gastric cancer. 100 Similarly, to study the development of HGSC from the FTE, it is necessary to establish cell lines that reflect the characteristics of the original cell and the pre‐cancerous lesions. However, tubal pre‐cancerous lesions of HGSC are always minuscule and impossible to be cultured. The median size of STIC was found to be only 1.9 mm 101 and that of p53 signature, by its definition of >12 consecutive cells with nuclear p53 staining, was as small as <1 mm. Therefore, the alternative is to immortalize the primary cells from the tissue of origin and transform them in vitro. The fimbria part of the fallopian tube as the tissue of origin of HGSC has multiple folds of significance; it is the site that is mostly affected by ovulatory carcinogens, and thus, the site that most heavily bears the inflammatory injury and requires regenerates after ovulation. 64 Thus, it is also the site where stem cells most abundantly present and pre‐cancerous lesions are most frequently found. 102
Following the putative sequence of driver mutations in HGSC, that is TP53 mutation, CCNE1/RB aberration, 103 , 104 primary FTECs were immortalized and transformed stepwise by further genetic manipulation. Moreover, the human telomerase reverse transcriptase gene (hTERT) is routinely introduced to overcome the senescence crisis. Ronny Drapkin et al were the first to transduce hTERT to FTECs and established the FT33 cell line, which underwent senescence after ~10 passages. 105 Immortalization was achieved by turning down the TP53 and the CDK/CYCLIN/RB pathways. For instance, the large T antigen (TAg) and small T antigens of SV40 virus were transduced to FT33 cells to establish the FT33‐TAg cell line, and hTERT plus TAg was used to establish the FT194 and FT190 cell lines. 105 Unlike SV40 that infects both monkeys and humans and does not cause human tumours, human papillomavirus (HPV) infects humans as the only host and has higher tumourigenic activity. Thus, Chu TY et al used E6/E7 oncogenes of HPV to turn down TP53/RB and introduced hTERT to establish the FE25 cell line. 51 By sharing the same conserved motifs for the inactivation of TP53 and RB, both viruses used the same strategy to harness the host cell cycle for an unlimited proliferation, and this is exactly the same genetic changes for HGSC to initiated from the FTECs. Oncogenes of SV40 and HPV viruses have a diverse effect on host cells other than TP53 and RB downregulation. 106 , 107
For a more specific targeted mutagenesis, Karst et al introduced TP53 shRNA and a mutant cyclin‐dependent kinase CDK4R24C to establish FT237, FT240, FT246 and FT33‐shp53‐R24C cell lines. 105 , 108 The R24C mutation makes the CDK4 protein insensitive to CDKN2A/P16 inhibition, leading to activation of CCND1/2 and loss of pRb function. 109
To more specifically mimic GOF TP53 mutations in HGSOC, 110 the FT282 cell line was established by introducing hTERT and mutant TP53R175H to FTECs. 111 In a later study, TP53 mutations at codons R273, R248 and R175 were each introduced into FT240 cells, which harbour hTERT and CDKR24C, to establish FT240‐R175, FT240‐R248 and FT240‐R273 cells. These GOF‐mutant p53s had additional mutational activities. Among them, p53R175H promotes cell aggregation upon the detachment of FTECs by upregulating the expression of fibronectin, integrin α5 and TWIST1. 112 The mouse homolog of p53R175H promotes transformation, invasion and metastasis of EOC in mice, 113 p53R248W stimulates the invasion of ovarian cancer cells by binding to Rad21, 114 and p53R273H promotes HGSC through inhibiting lysophosphatidic acid phosphatase type six and increasing lipid secretion in FTECs. 115
Table 2 lists these immortalized FTECs, methods of immortalization and their genetic alterations. These immortalized FTECs showed phenotypes of fallopian tube secretory cells expressing markers, such as PAX8 and WT1, 116 and do not express ciliated cell markers, such as FOXJ1. 117 The majority of these cells do not grow colonies in soft agar, and some showed limited anchorage independent growth (AIG), suggesting evolution of early transformed clones. 96
TABLE 2.
Immortalized human fallopian tube fimbrial epithelial cell lines
Cell line name | Method of immortalization | Gene alterations | PMID |
---|---|---|---|
FT33‐TAg | FTE+hTERT+SV40 large T plus small T | hTERT gain, P53 and RB loss | 21502498 |
FT190 | FTE+hTERT+SV40 large T | hTERT gain, P53 and RB loss | 22936217 |
FT194 | FTE+hTERT+SV40 large T | hTERT gain, P53 and RB loss | 22936217 |
FE25 | FTE+HPV16 E6/E7+hTERT | P53 and RB loss, hTERT gain | 26363031 |
FT282 | FTE+hTERT+TP53R175H | hTERT gain, TP53 GOF mutation | 24366882 |
FT282‐c11 | FTE+hTERT+TP53R175H (Clonal) | hTERT gain, TP53 GOF mutation | 30459449 |
FT33‐shp53‐R24C | FTE+hTERT+p53 shRNA+CDK4R24C | TP53 knockdown, Rb pathway loss | 21502498 |
FT237 | FTE+hTERT+p53 shRNA+CDK4R24C | hTERT gain, TP53 knockdown, RB pathway loss | 22936217 |
FT240 | FTE+hTERT+p53 shRNA+CDK4R24C | hTERT gain, TP53 knockdown, RB pathway loss | 22936217 |
FT246 | FTE+hTERT+p53 shRNA+CDK4R24C | hTERT gain, TP53 knockdown, RB pathway loss | 22936217 |
FT240‐R175 | FTE+hTERT+TP53R175H+CDK4R24C | hTERT gain, TP53 GOF mutation, RB pathway loss | 32471985 |
FT240‐R248 | FTE+hTERT+TP53R248+CDK4R24C | hTERT gain, TP53 GOF mutation, RB pathway loss | 32471985 |
FT240‐R273 | FTE+hTERT+TP53R273+CDK4R24C | hTERT gain, TP53 GOF mutation, RB pathway loss | 32471985 |
Abbreviation: GOF, gain of function.
2.3. In vivo and in vitro transformed cell models
With immortalized FTECs available, driver mutations have been introduced and examined for their transformation capability. For example, inactivation of Rb but not Brca1, together with Trp53 inactivation, was found to be sufficient for mouse OSE transformation. 118 , 119 To explore the role of CCNE1, which is a negative regulator of RB and frequently amplified early in HGSC development, CCNE1 was overexpressed in TP53R175H‐mutated FT282 cells to derive the FT282‐CCNE1 and FT282‐V (vector control) cell pair. 112 Compared with FT282‐V, CCNE1 overexpression greatly promoted cell proliferation, 112 had a higher proportion of centrosome amplification 120 and increased transformed phenotypes, including induction of AIG and xenograft tumourigenesis by ovulatory FF. 52
A combination of Myc activation with Trp53 disruption had induced oncogenic transformation of OSE 121 as well as in oviductal epithelial cell lines. Transduction of MYCT58A or H‐RASV12 into immortalized human FT33‐TAg cells both resulted in transformation with AIG and tumourigenesis phenotypes. 105 The TP53/RB1‐disrupted cell line, FT33‐shp53‐R24C, was further transformed by knockdown of the B56γ subunit of protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A‐B56γ) 122 and c‐MYC, which led to the fully transformed FT33‐shp53‐R24C‐shPP2A‐Myc cell line. 105 By testing the combinations of more tumour genes, Robert et al concluded that mutations in TP53, RB1, PTEN and CDKN2A synergistically contributed to cellular transformation. 123 TP53 is universally disrupted in HGSOC. Rb1 and PTEN mutations frequently coexist in multiple cancers, such as HGOSC and metastatic prostate cancer. CDKN2A encoded p14ARF or p16INK4a by alternate reading frame. These two cell cycle regulating proteins activate TP53 and RB1, respectively. 124 , 125 , 126 Compared with TP53 mutations alone, Trp53/Rb1, Trp53/Cdkn2a and Trp53/PTEN combinations all improved the transformation efficiency (colony number) and colony size in OSE stem cells. The four genes, Trp53, Rb1, Cdkn2a and PTEN, had the greatest conversion efficiency when targeted simultaneously. The synergistic deficiency of Trp53, Rb1 and PTEN is considered to be a core state for the efficient translation of OSE‐SC in vitro. 123
Robert et al tested 20 oncogenes postulated by TCGA and found most of them (LRP1B, FANCM, CREBBP, RAD51C, FAT3, APC, FANCD2 and GABRA6) did not improve transformation rates, whereas several (FANCD2, APC, FAT3 and RAD51C) actually reduced transformation. Only two genes, Ankrd11 and Wwox, enhanced the transformation frequency of Trp53‐/Cdkn2a‐/PTEN‐OSE‐SC. 123 Deletions of both Ankrd11 and Wwox were found in genomic analysis of tumours from Trp53/Brca/PTEN‐deletion mouse models, suggesting that they may be involved in tumour initiation or progression. 22 Both Ankrd11 and Wwox are also involved in Trp53‐related pathways. ANKRD11 binds to TP53, promotes its transactivating activity and partially restores its ability to bind to the DNA of the CDKN1A promoter. 127 , 128 Wwox greatly affects the response of TP53 to genotoxic stress, and downregulation of Wwox abolishes p53‐dependent apoptosis. 129 , 130
Considering that actin cytoskeletal disorganization is vital in metastasis of STIC cells to the peritoneum metastasis, 131 calponin‐1 (CNN1) caught the eye of Wang et al. 132 They found that CNN1 was downregulated in HGSC from the ovaries and the fallopian tubes compared with normal ovaries, normal fallopian tubes and fallopian tube epithelial scrapings. Immunohistochemistry also showed high expression of CNN1 in FTE, but not in ovarian HGSC tissues. Knockdown of CNN1 induced transformation of the immortalized FE25 cell line, acquiring AIG and xenograft tumourigenesis in NSG mice. In an FE25‐RAS cell line, overexpression of CNN1 significantly reduced cell motility, invasion, AIG and xenograft tumourigenesis. The results indicated that downregulation of CNN1 was necessary for anoikis survival and cell transformation, the essential step for HGSC metastasis. 132
The YAP transcription activating protein, which mediates growth‐suppression signals downstream of various biological and environmental cues, was tested in FT194 cells. Xenograft of FT194‐YAP cells resulted in slow‐growing small subcutaneous tumours. As a comparison, FT194 carrying S127A mutant YAP resulted in rapid growing and larger tumours, which was consistent with the phenotype of HGSC. 81 , 133 At present, YAP signalling activation is the only known independent oncogene in non‐viral oncoproteins that have been shown to promote tumour formation by immortalizing FTSECs.
Some researchers have focused on the role of some miRNA in oncogenic transformation. Matthew Knarr et al found that miR‐181a could initiate intermittent large‐scale genomic instability and efficient tumourigenesis in FTSECs by simultaneously targeting RB1 and STING genes. Moreover, miR‐181a is believed to have the potential as a biomarker for early detection of HGSOC. 134 Indeed, FT194 cells transfected with miR‐182 induced tumour growth in 45% (9/20) of the mice, whereas only 10% (1/10) of the mice were detected in the control group. Similar data were repeated in the FT237 cell line. 135
Table 3 and Figure 1 present the above‐mentioned tumour‐promoting and tumour‐suppressing genes/molecules that are important for the development of HGSC and have been tested in the immortalized FTECs in vitro and in vivo.
TABLE 3.
Malignant transformation of immortalized human FTECs
Cell line name | Genetic alterations | Methods of transformation | Manipulation | Xenograft | Tumour rate | PMID |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FE25 | P53/RB loss | Add driver mutations | H‐RAS overExp | NSG sc/ip | 7/7, 6/6 | 28977852 |
shCNN1 | NSG sc/ip | 2/3, 2/2 | ||||
H‐RAS, CNN1 overExp | NSG sc/ip | 1/8, 1/6 | ||||
Promote clonal evolution | Control | NSG sc/ip | 0/11, 0/6 | 30852161 | ||
Local injection with FF | NSG sc/ip | 7/11, 4/9 | ||||
Local injection with IGF2‐depleted FF | NSG sc | 2/6 | ||||
Local injection with PAPP‐A‐depleted FF | NSG sc | 2/6 | ||||
Both | Local injection with FF, plus shIGF1R | NSG sc | 0/9 | |||
FT33‐TAg | P53/RB loss | Add driver mutations | H‐RAS overExp | Nude ip | 5/5 | 21502498 |
NSG ip | 2/2 | |||||
c‐MYC overExp | NSG ip | 2/5 | ||||
FT33‐shp53‐R24C | P53 loss, CDK4R24C | PP2A‐B56γ loss, c‐MYC overExp | NSG ip | 2/4 | ||
FT194 | P53/RB loss | Add driver mutations | Control | Nude, ib | 1/10 | 26472020 |
miR‐182 overExp | Nude, ib | 9/20 | ||||
Wild type YAP overExp | NSG sc | 6/8 | 26364602 | |||
YAPS127A overExp | NSG sc | 8/8 (larger) | ||||
FT237 | P53 loss, CDK4R24C | Add driver mutations | pscram‐miR | sc/ip | 0/10, 0/8 | 32591511 |
pmiR‐181a | sc/ip | 9/10, 3/8 | ||||
shRB | sc | 17/18 | ||||
pmiR‐181a+anti‐miR | sc | 1/10 | ||||
FT282‐CCNE1 | TP53R175H, CCNE1 overExp | Long passage | Control | NSG ip | 2/8 | 30852161 |
Promote clonal evolution | Local injection with FF | NSG ip | 6/8 | |||
Add driver mutations | Control | ND | (AIG colony = 4) | 27663592 | ||
AKT2 overExp | ND | (AIG colony = 7) | ||||
AKT3 overExp | ND | (AIG colony = 8) |
Abbreviations: FF, follicular fluid; PAPP‐A, pregnancy‐associated plasmatic protein A.
2.4. Immortalized murine oviduct epithelial cells and OSE cells
Unlike human cells that require transgenes, such as hTERT, to overcome senescence, murine cells are readily immortalized in culture and, upon long‐term passage, may transform spontaneously. As the natural origin of transformation, OSE cells have been immortalized and transformed. 136 , 137 After long‐term culture of the OSE cells from FVB/N female mice, 138 McCloskey et al established the STOSE cell line as the first spontaneous murine OSE model of HGSC. 139 By introducing SV40 T antigen DNA and by homozygous deletion of Trp53 gene in OSE from C3H/He mouse, Kido et al 140 constructed TAg‐MOSE and p53‐def‐MOSE cell lines, respectively. They showed that Trp53 deletion did not show any transformation phenotype, whereas TAg‐MOSE formed tumours in nude mice. The widely used ID8 cell line of C57B6 background was derived from OSE and spontaneously transformed by prolonged in vitro culture. 141 However, the ID8 cell line does not carry driver mutations of either HGSC (Trp53, Rb, Brca1/2 etc) or endometrioid and clear‐cell carcinoma (Arid1a, Ras et al). Walton et al 142 introduced Trp53 and Brca2 knockouts to the ID8 cells. As expected, loss of p53 markedly increased in vivo the tumour growth rate within the peritoneal cavity, whereas Brca2 knockouts introduced defective homologous recombination repair and rendered cells sensitive to PARP inhibitor‐mediated cytotoxicity.
After the discovery of oviduct as the main origin of HGSCs, murine oviductal epithelial (MOE) cell lines were established. In one successful example, MOE was pooled from multiple oviducts from 8‐week‐old female CD1 mice. 136 The cells were then continuously cultured for up to 130 passages to generate the MOElow (passages 5‐25) and MOEhigh (passages 85‐120) cells. The MOElow cells failed to develop tumours in either the sc or ip sites in syngeneic transplantation. In contrast, subcutaneous transplantation of MOEhigh cells developed tumours within an average of 117 ± 9 days. However, the tumours showed poorly differentiated sarcoma‐like features and failed to grow any tumours upon intraperitoneal injection. 137 The same team discovered over 100‐fold overexpression of Prl2c2 in MOEhigh cells and suggested Prl2c2 as a driver of tumourigenesis in this system. 143 By genetic manipulation of the driver mutations, the MOE‐based model of ovarian cancers of different histological types was established. Eddie et al 144 tested different combinations of driver mutations in MOE cells, including shPten, Trp53R273H, AKTMYR and KRASG12V. They found silencing of PTEN resulted in HGSC with wide intraperitoneal and ovarian spreading; addition of Trp53 mutation to PTEN silencing did not enhance the transformation, whereas addition of KRAS mutation promoted in vitro transformation and reduced survival in vivo. To create oviduct cells that phenocopy the most common patient‐relevant mutations, Iyer et al 145 introduced multiple genetic alterations to MOE cells according to human HGSC with deficient (HR‐D) or proficient (HR‐P) homologous recombination repair function. The HR‐D MOE was produced, under a Trp53−/−D background, through a combined loss of Trp53, Brca1, Pten and Nf1, plus overexpression of Myc and Trp53R172H. The HR‐P MOE was produced (also in Trp53−/− background) through overexpression of Ccne1, Akt2, Trp53R172H, plus KRASG12V, Brd4 or Smarca4 overexpression. Table 4 summarizes the tumourigenesis outcomes in these murine ovarian cancer models based on immortalization and transformation of cells derived from the oviduct epithelium and OSE.
TABLE 4.
Immortalized and transformed murine oviduct and ovarian surface epithelial cell lines
Cell name | Mouse strain | Methods of transformation | Altered driver genes | Tumourigenesis | PMID | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trans‐plant target | Tumour rate | Tumour type | |||||
Oviduct epithelial cell lines | |||||||
MOElow (5‐25 passages) | CD1 | Not transformed | None | Nude sc | 0/5 | Nil | 26236688 |
MOEhigh (85‐120 passages) | CD1 | Long passage | Unknown | Nude sc, ip | 5/5, 0/5 | Sarcoma‐like tumour with some PAX8 positivity | |
MOE shPTEN | FVB/N | Driver mutation | PTEN | FVB/N sc | 4/4 | HGSC‐like with intraperitoneal spreading | 25971410 |
MOE shPTEN, KRASG12V | FVB/N | Driver mutation | KRAS | FVB/N sc | 6/6 | HGSC‐like with higher tumour burden and lower survival | |
PPNM HR‐intact HGSC mimic | C57B6 | Driver mutation | Trp53R172HPten−/−Nf1−/−MycOE | C57Bl/6 ip | Nil | hosts recapitulated typical HGSC histopathology | 33158843 |
BPPNM HR‐defective HGSC mimic | C57B6 | Driver mutation | BRCA1−/−Trp53R172HPten−/−Nf1−/−MycOE | C57Bl/6 ip | Nil | ||
Ovarian surface epithelial cell lines | |||||||
STOSE | FVB/N | Long passage | Upregulated Ccnd1, loss Cdkn2a | FVB/N ip | 4/4 | HGSC‐likr | 24672774 |
TAg‐MOSE | C3H/HE | SV40 TAg | p53/Rb | Nude sc, ip | 3/8, 11/12 | Undifferentiated malignancy with heterogeneous tissues | 9820870 |
p53‐def‐MOSE | C3H/HE | Not transformed | p53 deficient | Nude sc, ip | 0/6, 0/6 | Nil | |
ID8 | C57BL/6 | Long passage | Low mutation burden, no driver mutation | C57Bl/6 ip | 12/12 | No molecular features of HGSC, or endometrioid/Clear‐cell Ca | 27530326 |
ID8 Trp53−/− | C57BL/6 | Long passage | Trp53 | C57Bl/6 ip | 22/22 (faster growth) | More HGSC‐like | |
ID8 Trp53−/−; Brca2−/− | C57BL/6 | Long passage | Trp53, Brca2 | C57Bl/6 ip | 18/18 (better survival) | More HGSC‐like |
Nil: unknown
2.5. IGF2 in FF promoted transformation of immortalized FTECs by inducing expansion of aneuploidic cell clones
While long‐term passage of murine cells typically results in spontaneous transformation, it rarely occurs in immortalized human cells. However, given the genomic instability caused by the p53 and Rb pathway disruptions, immortalized FTECs do have a chance to evolve transformed cell clones after long passage. For example, the HPV E6/E7 and hTERT‐immortalized FTE cells (FE25 cells) showed a subdiploid DNA and chromosome count at passage 31 with chromosome numbers ranging from 42 to 43. At passage 115, a polyploidic subpopulation with 74‐77 chromosomes arose in addition to the subdiploid population with 39‐40 chromosomes. A more extensive chromosomal polyploidy and aneuploidy were noted in both populations, especially in the polyploid one, suggesting a tendency towards transformation. Moreover, this evolution of chromosomal instability can be accelerated by the stemness activation and clonal expansion activities of IGF2; thus, the transformed clone can be selected and enriched. 47 This clonal selection activity of IGF2 as well as its binding protein and the PAPP‐A protease for its activation (the IGF‐axis proteins) were found abundantly present in human ovulatory FF, which was collected from women undertaking oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization. By adding 10% FF or pure IGF2 to FE25 cells, AIG was observed, and poorly differentiated Ca arose when FE25 cells and FF were co‐injected into NSG mice intraperitoneally or subcutaneously. 52 This transformation activity of FF was confirmed in another immortalized FTEC line FT282‐CCNE1. In agreement with the crucial role of the IGF‐axis pathway, the transformation was inhibited by shRNA or inhibitor of IGF‐1R or when IGF2 or PAPP‐A was depleted from FF.
2.6. Limitations and improvements of current cell models
On the one hand, the molecular and histological characteristics of the currently constructed cancer cell lines were inconsistent with the original tissues. 146 , 147 On the other hand, some people doubted if the cancer cell lines established in conventional media could reflect the diversity of human cancers accurately and if they could have a role in drug development. 148 , 149 Artificially engineered cells are difficult to construct. Under the existing cell‐culture system, primary cultured cell lines needed a long time 150 and were difficult to grow in vitro owing to the difference between the in vitro and in vivo growth environments and culture conditions. 151 , 152 Current 2D cell‐culture models lack the original tissue architecture and microenvironment, with consequent loss of the expression of important hormone receptors. Moreover, it is technically difficult to derive cell lines from the minute pre‐cancerous lesions. Therefore, we need to construct more realistic cell lines to meet severe scientific challenges. Firstly, regarding the origin of cancer, different stages of cell lines need to be constructed according to the pathological origin and aetiology of the disease to deal with different stages of research rather than a single cell line throughout all research. Secondly, cell‐culture systems with appropriate conditions also need to be constructed to maintain the most original characteristics of the cell lines and enable them to characterize the original tissue. 153 , 154 Considering the tissue microenvironment and cell‐environment interactions, 3D organoid culture, co‐culture and other new cultural technologies that more closely simulate the in vivo environment will provide possibilities for more realistic research. 27 , 155 , 156 Finally, genetic‐engineered mouse models would provide the closest genocopy and phenocopy to mimic tumorigenesis, tumour‐microenvironment and immune response to HGSC. 20 , 21 , 22 , 162
3. CONCLUSION
With more in‐depth research on the origin of ovarian HGSC, ovaries and FTE cells are increasingly considered to be the main origins of this cancer, and more cell lines and animal models have been constructed in the process. In this review, we summarized the currently available cell systems derived from these two origins and methods of transformation leading to the development of HGSC in both human and murine systems. These cell lines and transformation models provide a valuable basis for understanding the mechanism of malignant transformation and for research on disease prevention, early diagnosis and drug screening. Certainly, cell lines cultured in vitro or transplanted in vivo cannot fully simulate the process of disease occurrence. Different GEMs of HGSCs derived from the two tissues of origin are available. However, significant limitations still exist in the mouse in vivo model, such as the lack of menstruation and confinement of ovulatory FF within the ovarian bursa and need to be overcome.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no potential competing interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
TC and JM conceived the structure of manuscript and revised the manuscript. JM and HT made the figures and table. HH, CH and NW completed a large number of preliminary studies. YL and WZ revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Mei J, Tian H, Huang H‐S, et al. Cellular models of development of ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma: A review of cell of origin and mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Cell Prolif. 2021;54:e13029. 10.1111/cpr.13029
Funding information
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81874329, 82073945).
Contributor Information
Wei Zhang, Email: yjsd2003@163.com.
Tang‐Yuan Chu, Email: hidrchu@gmail.com.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
REFERENCES
- 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:7‐30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Webb PM, Jordan SJ. Epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;41:3‐14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Coburn SB, Bray F, Sherman ME, Trabert B. International patterns and trends in ovarian cancer incidence, overall and by histologic subtype. Int J Cancer. 2017;140:2451‐2460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Franier B, Thompson M. Early stage detection and screening of ovarian cancer: a research opportunity and significant challenge for biosensor technology. Biosens Bioelectron. 2019;135:71‐81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Smith LH, Morris CR, Yasmeen S, et al. Ovarian cancer: can we make the clinical diagnosis earlier? Cancer‐Am Cancer Soc. 2005;104:1398‐1407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Norouzi‐Barough L, Sarookhani MR, Sharifi M, et al. Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance in ovarian cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2018;233:4546‐4562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Lheureux S, Gourley C, Vergote I, Oza AM. Epithelial ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2019;393:1240‐1253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Hennessy BT, Coleman RL, Markman M. Ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2009;374:1371‐1382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Baldwin LA, Huang B, Miller RW, et al. Ten‐year relative survival for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:612‐618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Berek JS, Kehoe ST, Kumar L, Friedlander M. Cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;143(Suppl 2):59‐78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Singh N, Gilks CB, Wilkinson N, McCluggage WG. Assessment of a new system for primary site assignment in high‐grade serous carcinoma of the fallopian tube, ovary, and peritoneum. Histopathology. 2015;67:331‐337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Nik NN, Vang R, Shih I, Kurman RJ. Origin and pathogenesis of pelvic (ovarian, tubal, and primary peritoneal) serous carcinoma. Annu Rev Pathol. 2014;9:27‐45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Leeper K, Garcia R, Swisher E, et al. Pathologic findings in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens in high‐risk women. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87:52‐56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Callahan MJ, Crum CP, Medeiros F, et al. Primary fallopian tube malignancies in BRCA‐positive women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3985‐3990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Medeiros F, Muto MG, Lee Y, et al. The tubal fimbria is a preferred site for early adenocarcinoma in women with familial ovarian cancer syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:230‐236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Folkins AK, Jarboe EA, Saleemuddin A, et al. A candidate precursor to pelvic serous cancer (p53 signature) and its prevalence in ovaries and fallopian tubes from women with BRCA mutations. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:168‐173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Wu RC, Wang P, Lin SF, et al. Genomic landscape and evolutionary trajectories of ovarian cancer precursor lesions. J Pathol. 2019;248:41‐50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Ducie J, Dao F, Considine M, et al. Molecular analysis of high‐grade serous ovarian carcinoma with and without associated serous tubal intra‐epithelial carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2017;8:990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Labidi‐Galy SI, Papp E, Hallberg D, et al. High grade serous ovarian carcinomas originate in the fallopian tube. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Kim J, Coffey DM, Creighton CJ, et al. High‐grade serous ovarian cancer arises from fallopian tube in a mouse model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:3921‐3926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Sherman‐Baust CA, Kuhn E, Valle BL, et al. A genetically engineered ovarian cancer mouse model based on fallopian tube transformation mimics human high‐grade serous carcinoma development. J Pathol. 2014;233:228‐237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Perets R, Wyant GA, Muto KW, et al. Transformation of the fallopian tube secretory epithelium leads to high‐grade serous ovarian cancer in Brca;Tp53;Pten models. Cancer Cell. 2013;24:751‐765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Perets R, Drapkin R. It's totally tubular…riding the new wave of ovarian cancer research. Cancer Res. 2016;76:10‐17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Kurman RJ. Origin and molecular pathogenesis of ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 10):x16‐x21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:161‐169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646‐674. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Zhang S, Dolgalev I, Zhang T, et al. Both fallopian tube and ovarian surface epithelium are cells‐of‐origin for high‐grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Lo RP, Villa CE, Gasparoni G, et al. A cell‐of‐origin epigenetic tracer reveals clinically distinct subtypes of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer. Genome Med. 2020;12:94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Karnezis AN, Cho KR, Gilks CB, Pearce CL, Huntsman DG. The disparate origins of ovarian cancers: pathogenesis and prevention strategies. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17:65‐74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Gates MA, Rosner BA, Hecht JL, Tworoger SS. Risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer by histologic subtype. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171:45‐53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. King SM, Hilliard TS, Wu LY, et al. The impact of ovulation on fallopian tube epithelial cells: evaluating three hypotheses connecting ovulation and serous ovarian cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2011;18:627‐642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Fathalla MF. Incessant ovulation – a factor in ovarian neoplasia? Lancet. 1971;2:163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Casagrande JT, Louie EW, Pike MC, et al. “Incessant ovulation” and ovarian cancer. Lancet. 1979;2:170‐173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Purdie DM, Bain CJ, Siskind V, Webb PM, Green AC. Ovulation and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 2003;104:228‐232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Wu ML, Whittemore AS, Paffenbarger RJ, et al. Personal and environmental characteristics related to epithelial ovarian cancer. I. Reproductive and menstrual events and oral contraceptive use. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128:1216‐1227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Riman T, Nilsson S, Persson IR. Review of epidemiological evidence for reproductive and hormonal factors in relation to the risk of epithelial ovarian malignancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:783‐795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Backman S, Kollara A, Haw R, Stein L, Brown TJ. Glucocorticoid‐induced reversal of interleukin‐1beta‐stimulated inflammatory gene expression in human oviductal cells. PLoS One. 2014;9:e97997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Emori MM, Drapkin R. The hormonal composition of follicular fluid and its implications for ovarian cancer pathogenesis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Konishi I, Kuroda H, Mandai M. Review: gonadotropins and development of ovarian cancer. Oncology. 1999;57(Suppl 2):45‐48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Burdette JE, Kurley SJ, Kilen SM, Mayo KE, Woodruff TK. Gonadotropin‐induced superovulation drives ovarian surface epithelia proliferation in CD1 mice. Endocrinology. 2006;147:2338‐2345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Murdoch WJ, Townsend RS, McDonnel AC. Ovulation‐induced DNA damage in ovarian surface epithelial cells of ewes: prospective regulatory mechanisms of repair/survival and apoptosis. Biol Reprod. 2001;65:1417‐1424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Sapoznik S, Bahar‐Shany K, Brand H, et al. Activation‐induced cytidine deaminase links ovulation‐induced inflammation and serous carcinogenesis. Neoplasia. 2016;18:90‐99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Bahar‐Shany K, Brand H, Sapoznik S, et al. Exposure of fallopian tube epithelium to follicular fluid mimics carcinogenic changes in precursor lesions of serous papillary carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:322‐327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Brand H, Barnabas GD, Sapoznik S, et al. NF‐κB‐miR‐155 axis activation mediates ovulation‐induced oncogenic effects in fallopian tube epithelium. Carcinogenesis. 2020;41:1703‐1712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Brachova P, Alvarez NS, Van Voorhis BJ, Christenson LK. Cytidine deaminase Apobec3a induction in fallopian epithelium after exposure to follicular fluid. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:577‐583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Shen X, Liu X, Zhu P, et al. Proteomic analysis of human follicular fluid associated with successful in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Zamah AM, Hassis ME, Albertolle ME, Williams KE. Proteomic analysis of human follicular fluid from fertile women. Clin Proteomics. 2015;12:5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Huang HS, Hsu CF, Chu SC, et al. Haemoglobin in pelvic fluid rescues fallopian tube epithelial cells from reactive oxygen species stress and apoptosis. J Pathol. 2016;240:484‐494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Shkolnik K, Tadmor A, Ben‐Dor S, et al. Reactive oxygen species are indispensable in ovulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:1462‐1467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Lau A, Kollara A, St JE, et al. Altered expression of inflammation‐associated genes in oviductal cells following follicular fluid exposure: implications for ovarian carcinogenesis. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2014;239:24‐32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Huang HS, Chu SC, Hsu CF, et al. Mutagenic, surviving and tumorigenic effects of follicular fluid in the context of p53 loss: initiation of fimbria carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 2015;36:1419‐1428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Hsu CF, Huang HS, Chen PC, Ding DC, Chu TY. IGF‐axis confers transformation and regeneration of fallopian tube fimbria epithelium upon ovulation. Ebiomedicine. 2019;41:597‐609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Botkjaer JA, Pors SE, Petersen TS, et al. Transcription profile of the insulin‐like growth factor signaling pathway during human ovarian follicular development. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:889‐903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Gaitskell K, Coffey K, Green J, et al. Tubal ligation and incidence of 26 site‐specific cancers in the Million Women Study. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1033‐1037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Gaitskell K, Green J, Pirie K, Reeves G, Beral V. Tubal ligation and ovarian cancer risk in a large cohort: substantial variation by histological type. Int J Cancer. 2016;138:1076‐1084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. McNamara C, Abbott SE, Bandera EV, et al. Tubal ligation and ovarian cancer risk in African American women. Cancer Causes Control. 2017;28:1033‐1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Shigeta S, Toyoshima M, Kitatani K, et al. Transferrin facilitates the formation of DNA double‐strand breaks via transferrin receptor 1: the possible involvement of transferrin in carcinogenesis of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer. Oncogene. 2016;35:3577‐3586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Rockfield S, Kee Y, Nanjundan M. Chronic iron exposure and c‐Myc/H‐ras‐mediated transformation in fallopian tube cells alter the expression of EVI1, amplified at 3q26.2 in ovarian cancer. Oncogenesis. 2019;8:46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Kobayashi H, Ogawa K, Kawahara N, et al. Sequential molecular changes and dynamic oxidative stress in high‐grade serous ovarian carcinogenesis. Free Radic Res. 2017;51:755‐764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Halme J, Hammond MG, Hulka JF, Raj SG, Talbert LM. Retrograde menstruation in healthy women and in patients with endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;64:151‐154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Rabban JT, Garg K, Crawford B, Chen LM, Zaloudek CJ. Early detection of high‐grade tubal serous carcinoma in women at low risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome by systematic examination of fallopian tubes incidentally removed during benign surgery. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:729‐742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Whittemore AS, Harris R, Itnyre J. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case‐control studies. II. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancers in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136:1184‐1203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Rasmussen E, Hannibal CG, Dehlendorff C, et al. Parity, infertility, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy and the risk of ovarian serous borderline tumors: a nationwide case‐control study. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;144:571‐576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Wu NY, Fang C, Huang HS, Wang J, Chu TY. Natural history of ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma from time effects of ovulation inhibition and progesterone clearance of p53‐defective lesions. Mod Pathol. 2020;33:29‐37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Wu NY, Huang HS, Chao TH, et al. Progesterone prevents high‐grade serous ovarian cancer by inducing necroptosis of p53‐defective fallopian tube epithelial cells. Cell Rep. 2017;18:2557‐2565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Lau KM, Mok SC, Ho SM. Expression of human estrogen receptor‐alpha and ‐beta, progesterone receptor, and androgen receptor mRNA in normal and malignant ovarian epithelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:5722‐5727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Liao J, Ding D, Sun C, et al. Polymorphisms of progesterone receptor and ovarian cancer risk: a systemic review and meta‐analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41:178‐187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. McDaniel AS, Stall JN, Hovelson DH, et al. Next‐generation sequencing of tubal intraepithelial carcinomas. Jama Oncol. 2015;1:1128‐1132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Ahmed AA, Etemadmoghadam D, Temple J, et al. Driver mutations in TP53 are ubiquitous in high grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. J Pathol. 2010;221:49‐56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Kuhn E, Kurman RJ, Vang R, et al. TP53 mutations in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and concurrent pelvic high‐grade serous carcinoma–evidence supporting the clonal relationship of the two lesions. J Pathol. 2012;226:421‐426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Lee Y, Miron A, Drapkin R, et al. A candidate precursor to serous carcinoma that originates in the distal fallopian tube. J Pathol. 2007;211:26‐35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Carcangiu ML, Radice P, Manoukian S, et al. Atypical epithelial proliferation in fallopian tubes in prophylactic salpingo‐oophorectomy specimens from BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2004;23:35‐40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Bijron JG, Seldenrijk CA, Zweemer RP, et al. Fallopian tube intraluminal tumor spread from noninvasive precursor lesions: a novel metastatic route in early pelvic carcinogenesis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1123‐1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Eckert MA, Pan S, Hernandez KM, et al. Genomics of ovarian cancer progression reveals diverse metastatic trajectories including intraepithelial metastasis to the fallopian tube. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:1342‐1351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network . Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature. 2011;474:609‐615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Harlan BA, Nikitin AY. A quest for better mouse models of breast and ovarian cancers. EBioMedicine. 2015;2:1268‐1269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Bobbs AS, Cole JM, Cowden DK. Emerging and evolving ovarian cancer animal models. Cancer Growth Metastasis. 2015;8:29‐36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Kim J, Park EY, Kim O, et al. Cell origins of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2018;10:433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Kastenhuber ER, Lowe SW. Putting p53 in context. Cell. 2017;170:1062‐1078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Mandilaras V, Garg S, Cabanero M, et al. TP53 mutations in high grade serous ovarian cancer and impact on clinical outcomes: a comparison of next generation sequencing and bioinformatics analyses. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:346‐352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Hua G, Lv X, He C, et al. YAP induces high‐grade serous carcinoma in fallopian tube secretory epithelial cells. Oncogene. 2016;35:2247‐2265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Shi M, Whorton AE, Sekulovski N, et al. Inactivation of TRP53, PTEN, RB1, and/or CDH1 in the ovarian surface epithelium induces ovarian cancer transformation and metastasis. Biol Reprod. 2020;102:1055‐1064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Zhai Y, Wu R, Kuick R, et al. High‐grade serous carcinomas arise in the mouse oviduct via defects linked to the human disease. J Pathol. 2017;243:16‐25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Neve RM, Chin K, Fridlyand J, et al. A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell. 2006;10:515‐527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Voskoglou‐Nomikos T, Pater JL, Seymour L. Clinical predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft, and mouse allograft preclinical cancer models. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:4227‐4239. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Shoemaker RH. The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:813‐823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Jacob F, Nixdorf S, Hacker NF, Heinzelmann‐Schwarz VA. Reliable in vitro studies require appropriate ovarian cancer cell lines. J Ovarian Res. 2014;7:60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Noberini R, Osti D, Miccolo C, et al. Extensive and systematic rewiring of histone post‐translational modifications in cancer model systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:3817‐3832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Vargo‐Gogola T, Rosen JM. Modelling breast cancer: one size does not fit all. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:659‐672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Domcke S, Sinha R, Levine DA, Sander C, Schultz N. Evaluating cell lines as tumour models by comparison of genomic profiles. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Anglesio MS, Wiegand KC, Melnyk N, et al. Type‐specific cell line models for type‐specific ovarian cancer research. PLoS One. 2013;8:e72162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Papp E, Hallberg D, Konecny GE, et al. Integrated genomic, epigenomic, and expression analyses of ovarian cancer cell lines. Cell Rep. 2018;25:2617‐2633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Beaufort CM, Helmijr JC, Piskorz AM, et al. Ovarian cancer cell line panel (OCCP): clinical importance of in vitro morphological subtypes. PLoS One. 2014;9:e103988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Mitra AK, Davis DA, Tomar S, et al. In vivo tumor growth of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer cell lines. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:372‐377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Elias KM, Emori MM, Papp E, et al. Beyond genomics: critical evaluation of cell line utility for ovarian cancer research. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;139:97‐103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Hsu CF, Chen PC, Seenan V, Ding DC, Chu TY. Ovulatory follicular fluid facilitates the full transformation process for the development of high‐grade serous carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Haley J, Tomar S, Pulliam N, et al. Functional characterization of a panel of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer cell lines as representative experimental models of the disease. Oncotarget. 2016;7:32810‐32820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Shimada A, Kano J, Ishiyama T, et al. Establishment of an immortalized cell line from a precancerous lesion of lung adenocarcinoma, and genes highly expressed in the early stages of lung adenocarcinoma development. Cancer Sci. 2005;96:668‐675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. de Boer DV, Brink A, Buijze M, et al. Establishment and genetic landscape of precancer cell model systems from the head and neck mucosal lining. Mol Cancer Res. 2019;17:120‐130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Lin L, Wei H, Yi J, et al. Chronic CagA‐positive Helicobacter pylori infection with MNNG stimulation synergistically induces mesenchymal and cancer stem cell‐like properties in gastric mucosal epithelial cells. J Cell Biochem. 2019;120:17635‐17649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Seidman JD. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma localizes to the tubal‐peritoneal junction: a pivotal clue to the site of origin of extrauterine high‐grade serous carcinoma (ovarian cancer). Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2015;34:112‐120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Sowamber R, Nelson O, Dodds L, et al. Integrative transcriptome analyses of the human fallopian tube: fimbria and ampulla‐site of origin of serous carcinoma of the ovary. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:1090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Cordon‐Cardo C. p53 and RB: simple interesting correlates or tumor markers of critical predictive nature? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:975‐977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Sherr CJ, McCormick F. The RB and p53 pathways in cancer. Cancer Cell. 2002;2:103‐112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Karst AM, Levanon K, Drapkin R. Modeling high‐grade serous ovarian carcinogenesis from the fallopian tube. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:7547‐7552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Matsuyama M, WuWong DJ, Horvath S, Matsuyama S. Epigenetic clock analysis of human fibroblasts in vitro: effects of hypoxia, donor age, and expression of hTERT and SV40 largeT. Aging (Albany NY). 2019;11:3012‐3022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Alwin PAA, Gowri SS, Kokila VV. Immortalization of neuronal progenitors using SV40 large T antigen and differentiation towards dopaminergic neurons. J Cell Mol Med. 2012;16:2592‐2610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Karst AM, Drapkin R. Primary culture and immortalization of human fallopian tube secretory epithelial cells. Nat Protoc. 2012;7:1755‐1764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Rane SG, Cosenza SC, Mettus RV, Reddy EP. Germ line transmission of the Cdk 4(R24C) mutation facilitates tumorigenesis and escape from cellular senescence. Mol Cell Biol. 2002;22:644‐656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Brachova P, Thiel KW, Leslie KK. The consequence of oncomorphic TP53 mutations in ovarian cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14:19257‐19275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Karst AM, Jones PM, Vena N, et al. Cyclin E1 deregulation occurs early in secretory cell transformation to promote formation of fallopian tube‐derived high‐grade serous ovarian cancers. Cancer Res. 2014;74:1141‐1152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Ahn JH, Kim TJ, Lee JH, Choi JH. Mutant p53 stimulates cell invasion through an interaction with Rad21 in human ovarian cancer cells. Sci Rep. 2017;7:9076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Ren YA, Mullany LK, Liu Z, et al. Mutant p53 promotes epithelial ovarian cancer by regulating tumor differentiation, metastasis, and responsiveness to steroid hormones. Cancer Res. 2016;76:2206‐2218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Davidowitz RA, Selfors LM, Iwanicki MP, et al. Mesenchymal gene program‐expressing ovarian cancer spheroids exhibit enhanced mesothelial clearance. J Clin Invest. 2014;124:2611‐2625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Chryplewicz A, Tienda SM, Nahotko DA, et al. Mutant p53 regulates LPA signaling through lysophosphatidic acid phosphatase type 6. Sci Rep. 2019;9:5195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Bowen NJ, Logani S, Dickerson EB, et al. Emerging roles for PAX8 in ovarian cancer and endosalpingeal development. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:331‐337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Yu X, Ng CP, Habacher H, Roy S. Foxj1 transcription factors are master regulators of the motile ciliogenic program. Nat Genet. 2008;40:1445‐1453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Flesken‐Nikitin A, Choi KC, Eng JP, Shmidt EN, Nikitin AY. Induction of carcinogenesis by concurrent inactivation of p53 and Rb1 in the mouse ovarian surface epithelium. Cancer Res. 2003;63:3459‐3463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Haverty PM, Hon LS, Kaminker JS, Chant J, Zhang Z. High‐resolution analysis of copy number alterations and associated expression changes in ovarian tumors. BMC Med Genomics. 2009;2:21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Kuhn E, Wang TL, Doberstein K, et al. CCNE1 amplification and centrosome number abnormality in serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: further evidence supporting its role as a precursor of ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:1254‐1261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Orsulic S, Li Y, Soslow RA, et al. Induction of ovarian cancer by defined multiple genetic changes in a mouse model system. Cancer Cell. 2002;1:53‐62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Chen W, Possemato R, Campbell KT, et al. Identification of specific PP2A complexes involved in human cell transformation. Cancer Cell. 2004;5:127‐136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Yamulla RJ, Nalubola S, Flesken‐Nikitin A, Nikitin AY, Schimenti JC. Most commonly mutated genes in high‐grade serous ovarian carcinoma are nonessential for ovarian surface epithelial stem cell transformation. Cell Rep. 2020;32:108086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Zhao R, Choi BY, Lee MH, Bode AM, Dong Z. Implications of genetic and epigenetic alterations of CDKN2A (p16(INK4a)) in cancer. EBioMedicine. 2016;8:30‐39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Li J, Poi MJ, Tsai MD. Regulatory mechanisms of tumor suppressor P16(INK4A) and their relevance to cancer. Biochemistry. 2011;50:5566‐5582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Nielsen GP, Burns KL, Rosenberg AE, Louis DN. CDKN2A gene deletions and loss of p16 expression occur in osteosarcomas that lack RB alterations. Am J Pathol. 1998;153:159‐163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Noll JE, Jeffery J, Al‐Ejeh F, et al. Mutant p53 drives multinucleation and invasion through a process that is suppressed by ANKRD11. Oncogene. 2012;31:2836‐2848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Neilsen PM, Cheney KM, Li CW, et al. Identification of ANKRD11 as a p53 coactivator. J Cell Sci. 2008;121:3541‐3552. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Chang NS, Pratt N, Heath J, et al. Hyaluronidase induction of a WW domain‐containing oxidoreductase that enhances tumor necrosis factor cytotoxicity. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:3361‐3370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Schrock MS, Huebner K. WWOX: a fragile tumor suppressor. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2015;240:296‐304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Schmitz AA, Govek EE, Böttner B, Van Aelst L. Rho GTPases: signaling, migration, and invasion. Exp Cell Res. 2000;261:1‐12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Wang KH, Chu SC, Chu TY. Loss of calponin h1 confers anoikis resistance and tumor progression in the development of high‐grade serous carcinoma originating from the fallopian tube epithelium. Oncotarget. 2017;8:61133‐61145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. He C, Lv X, Hua G, et al. YAP forms autocrine loops with the ERBB pathway to regulate ovarian cancer initiation and progression. Oncogene. 2015;34:6040‐6054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Knarr M, Avelar RA, Sekhar SC, et al. miR‐181a initiates and perpetuates oncogenic transformation through the regulation of innate immune signaling. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Liu Y, Qiang W, Xu X, et al. Role of miR‐182 in response to oxidative stress in the cell fate of human fallopian tube epithelial cells. Oncotarget. 2015;6:38983‐38998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136. Quartuccio SM, Lantvit DD, Bosland MC, Burdette JE. Conditional inactivation of p53 in mouse ovarian surface epithelium does not alter MIS driven Smad2‐dominant negative epithelium‐lined inclusion cysts or teratomas. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137. Endsley MP, Moyle‐Heyrman G, Karthikeyan S, et al. Spontaneous transformation of murine oviductal epithelial cells: a model system to investigate the onset of fallopian‐derived tumors. Front Oncol. 2015;5:154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138. Gamwell LF, Collins O, Vanderhyden BC. The mouse ovarian surface epithelium contains a population of LY6A (SCA‐1) expressing progenitor cells that are regulated by ovulation‐associated factors. Biol Reprod. 2012;87:80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139. McCloskey CW, Goldberg RL, Carter LE, et al. A new spontaneously transformed syngeneic model of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer with a tumor‐initiating cell population. Front Oncol. 2014;4:53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140. Kido M, Shibuya M. Isolation and characterization of mouse ovarian surface epithelial cell lines. Pathol Res Pract. 1998;194:725‐730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141. Roby KF, Taylor CC, Sweetwood JP, et al. Development of a syngeneic mouse model for events related to ovarian cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2000;21:585‐591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142. Walton J, Blagih J, Ennis D, et al. CRISPR/Cas9‐mediated Trp53 and Brca2 knockout to generate improved murine models of ovarian high‐grade serous carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2016;76:6118‐6129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143. Karthikeyan S, Russo A, Dean M, et al. Prolactin signaling drives tumorigenesis in human high grade serous ovarian cancer cells and in a spontaneous fallopian tube derived model. Cancer Lett. 2018;433:221‐231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144. Eddie SL, Quartuccio SM, ÓhAinmhir E, et al. Tumorigenesis and peritoneal colonization from fallopian tube epithelium. Oncotarget. 2015;6:20500‐20512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145. Iyer S, Zhang S, Yucel S, et al. Genetically defined syngeneic mouse models of ovarian cancer as tools for the discovery of combination immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:384‐407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146. Gillet JP, Varma S, Gottesman MM. The clinical relevance of cancer cell lines. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:452‐458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147. Miserocchi G, Mercatali L, Liverani C, et al. Management and potentialities of primary cancer cultures in preclinical and translational studies. J Transl Med. 2017;15:229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148. Kamb A. What's wrong with our cancer models? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:161‐165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149. Liedtke C, Wang J, Tordai A, et al. Clinical evaluation of chemotherapy response predictors developed from breast cancer cell lines. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121:301‐309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150. Verschraegen CF, Hu W, Du Y, et al. Establishment and characterization of cancer cell cultures and xenografts derived from primary or metastatic Mullerian cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:845‐852. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151. Sugaya M, Takenoyama M, Osaki T, et al. Establishment of 15 cancer cell lines from patients with lung cancer and the potential tools for immunotherapy. Chest. 2002;122:282‐288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152. Cailleau R, Olive M, Cruciger QV. Long‐term human breast carcinoma cell lines of metastatic origin: preliminary characterization. Vitro. 1978;14:911‐915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153. Merritt MA, Bentink S, Schwede M, et al. Gene expression signature of normal cell‐of‐origin predicts ovarian tumor outcomes. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154. Ince TA, Sousa AD, Jones MA, et al. Characterization of twenty‐five ovarian tumour cell lines that phenocopy primary tumours. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155. Zhang S, Iyer S, Ran H, et al. Genetically defined, syngeneic organoid platform for developing combination therapies for ovarian cancer. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:362‐383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156. Lõhmussaar K, Kopper O, Korving J, et al. Assessing the origin of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer using CRISPR‐modification of mouse organoids. Nat Commun. 2020;11:2660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157. Kim J, Coffey DM, Ma L, Matzuk MM. The ovary is an alternative site of origin for high‐grade serous ovarian cancer in mice. Endocrinology. 2015;156:1975‐1981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158. Kim O, Park EY, Klinkebiel DL, et al. In vivo modeling of metastatic human high‐grade serous ovarian cancer in mice. Plos Genet. 2020;16:e1008808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159. Wu R, Zhai Y, Kuick R, et al. Impact of oviductal versus ovarian epithelial cell of origin on ovarian endometrioid carcinoma phenotype in the mouse. J Pathol. 2016;240:341‐351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160. Xing D, Orsulic S. A mouse model for the molecular characterization of brca1‐associated ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2006;66:8949‐8953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161. Kinross KM, Montgomery KG, Kleinschmidt M, et al. An activating Pik3ca mutation coupled with Pten loss is sufficient to initiate ovarian tumorigenesis in mice. J Clin Invest. 2012;122:553‐557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162. Szabova L, Yin C, Bupp S, et al. Perturbation of Rb, p53, and Brca1 or Brca2 cooperate in inducing metastatic serous epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2012;72:4141‐4153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.