↓ Skip to main content

In Vitro Analysis of Breast Cancer Cell Line Tumourspheres and Primary Human Breast Epithelia Mammospheres Demonstrates Inter- and Intrasphere Heterogeneity

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In Vitro Analysis of Breast Cancer Cell Line Tumourspheres and Primary Human Breast Epithelia Mammospheres Demonstrates Inter- and Intrasphere Heterogeneity
Published in
PLoS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0064388
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chanel E. Smart, Brian J. Morrison, Jodi M. Saunus, Ana Cristina Vargas, Patricia Keith, Lynne Reid, Leesa Wockner, Marjan Askarian Amiri, Debina Sarkar, Peter T. Simpson, Catherine Clarke, Chris W. Schmidt, Brent A. Reynolds, Sunil R. Lakhani, J. Alejandro Lopez

Abstract

Mammosphere and breast tumoursphere culture have gained popularity as in vitro assays for propagating and analysing normal and cancer stem cells. Whether the spheres derived from different sources or parent cultures themselves are indeed single entities enriched in stem/progenitor cells compared to other culture formats has not been fully determined. We surveyed sphere-forming capacity across 26 breast cell lines, immunophenotyped spheres from six luminal- and basal-like lines by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry and compared clonogenicity between sphere, adherent and matrigel culture formats using in vitro functional assays. Analyses revealed morphological and molecular intra- and inter-sphere heterogeneity, consistent with adherent parental cell line phenotypes. Flow cytometry showed sphere culture does not universally enrich for markers previously associated with stem cell phenotypes, although we found some cell-line specific changes between sphere and adherent formats. Sphere-forming efficiency was significantly lower than adherent or matrigel clonogenicity and constant over serial passage. Surprisingly, self-renewal capacity of sphere-derived cells was similar/lower than other culture formats. We observed significant correlation between long-term-proliferating-cell symmetric division rates in sphere and adherent cultures, suggesting functional overlap between the compartments sustaining them. Experiments with normal primary human mammary epithelia, including sorted luminal (MUC1(+)) and basal/myoepithelial (CD10(+)) cells revealed distinct luminal-like, basal-like and mesenchymal entities amongst primary mammospheres. Morphological and colony-forming-cell assay data suggested mammosphere culture may enrich for a luminal progenitor phenotype, or induce reversion/relaxation of the basal/mesenchymal in vitro selection occurring with adherent culture. Overall, cell line tumourspheres and primary mammospheres are not homogenous entities enriched for stem cells, suggesting a more cautious approach to interpreting data from these assays and careful consideration of its limitations. Sphere culture may represent an alternative 3-dimensional culture system which rather than universally 'enriching' for stem cells, has utility as one of a suite of functional assays that provide a read-out of progenitor activity.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 114 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 28%
Researcher 28 23%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 8 7%
Other 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 12%
Unspecified 10 8%
Chemistry 4 3%
Other 13 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2013.
All research outputs
#535,375
of 12,089,123 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#10,205
of 132,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,143
of 135,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#371
of 3,791 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,089,123 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 132,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 135,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,791 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.