Single-cell transcriptomic sequencing identifies subcutaneous patient-derived xenograft recapitulated medulloblastoma

Abstract

Background: Medulloblastoma (MB) is one of the most common malignant brain tumors that mainly affect children. Various approaches have been used to model MB to facilitate investigating tumorigenesis. This study aims to compare the recapitulation of MB between subcutaneous patient-derived xenograft (sPDX), intracranial patient-derived xenograft (iPDX), and genetically engineered mouse models (GEMM) at the single-cell level.

Methods: We obtained primary human sonic hedgehog (SHH) and group 3 (G3) MB samples from six patients. For each patient specimen, we developed two sPDX and iPDX models, respectively. Three Patch+/− GEMM models were also included for sequencing. Single-cell RNA sequencing was performed to compare gene expression profiles, cellular composition, and functional pathway enrichment. Bulk RNA-seq deconvolution was performed to compare cellular composition across models and human samples.

Results: Our results showed that the sPDX tumor model demonstrated the highest correlation to the overall transcriptomic profiles of primary human tumors at the single-cell level within the SHH and G3 subgroups, followed by the GEMM model and iPDX. The GEMM tumor model was able to recapitulate all subpopulations of tumor microenvironment (TME) cells that can be clustered in human SHH tumors, including a higher proportion of tumor-associated astrocytes and immune cells, and an additional cluster of vascular endothelia when compared to human SHH tumors.

Conclusions: This study was the first to compare experimental models for MB at the single-cell level, providing value insights into model selection for different research purposes. sPDX and iPDX are suitable for drug testing and personalized therapy screenings, whereas GEMM models are valuable for investigating the interaction between tumor and TME cells.

Keywords

experimental models / medulloblastoma / single-cell sequencing / sPDX

References

[1] Northcott PA, Robinson GW, Kratz CP, et al. Medulloblastoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019; 5(1): 11.

[2] Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 2007; 114(2): 97-109.

[3] Taylor MD, Northcott PA, Korshunov A, et al. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: the current consensus. Acta Neuropathol. 2012; 123(4): 465-472.

[4] Northcott PA, Korshunov A, Witt H, et al. Medulloblastoma comprises four distinct molecular variants. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(11): 1408-1414.

[5] Juraschka K, Taylor MD. Medulloblastoma in the age of molecular subgroups: a review. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019; 24(4): 353-363.

[6] Ramaswamy V, Remke M, Adamski J, et al. Medulloblastoma subgroup-specific outcomes in irradiated children: who are the true high-risk patients? Neuro-Oncology. 2016; 18(2): 291-297.

[7] Gajjar A, Chintagumpala M, Ashley D, et al. Risk-adapted craniospinal radiotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and stem-cell rescue in children with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma (St Jude Medulloblastoma-96): long-term results from a prospective, multicentre trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7(10): 813-820.

[8] Packer RJ, Gajjar A, Vezina G, et al. Phase III study of craniospinal radiation therapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed average-risk medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(25): 4202-4208.

[9] Neumann JE, Swartling FJ, Schüller U. Medulloblastoma: experimental models and reality. Acta Neuropathol. 2017; 134(5): 679-689.

[10] Kawauchi D, Robinson G, Uziel T, et al. A mouse model of the most aggressive subgroup of human medulloblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2012; 21(2): 168-180.

[11] Roussel MF, Stripay JL. Modeling pediatric medulloblastoma. Brain Pathol. 2020; 30(3): 703-712.

[12] Sandén E, Dyberg C, Krona C, et al. Establishment and characterization of an orthotopic patient-derived group 3 medulloblastoma model for preclinical drug evaluation. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 46366.

[13] Ben-David U, Ha G, Tseng YY, et al. Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution. Nat Genet. 2017; 49(11): 1567-1575.

[14] Goodrich LV, Milenković L, Higgins KM, Scott MP. Altered neural cell fates and medulloblastoma in mouse patched mutants. Science. 1997; 277(5329): 1109-1113.

[15] Fults D, Pedone C, Dai C, Holland EC. MYC expression promotes the proliferation of neural progenitor cells in culture and in vivo. Neoplasia. 2002; 4(1): 32-39.

[16] Riemondy KA, Venkataraman S, Willard N, et al. Neoplastic and immune single-cell transcriptomics define subgroup-specific intra-tumoral heterogeneity of childhood medulloblastoma. Neuro-Oncology. 2022; 24(2): 273-286.

[17] Hovestadt V, Smith KS, Bihannic L, et al. Resolving medulloblastoma cellular architecture by single-cell genomics. Nature. 2019; 572(7767): 74-79.

[18] Wang X, Ramaswamy V, Remke M, et al. Intertumoral and intratumoral heterogeneity as a barrier for effective treatment of medulloblastoma. Neurosurgery. 2013; 60(Suppl 1): 57-63.

[19] Ellis T, Smyth I, Riley E, et al. Patched 1 conditional null allele in mice. Genesis. 2003; 36(3): 158-161.

[20] Liu Y, Yuelling LW, Wang Y, et al. Astrocytes promote medulloblastoma progression through hedgehog secretion. Cancer Res. 2017; 77(23): 6692-6703.

[21] Mo J, Liu F, Sun X, et al. Inhibition of the FACT complex targets aberrant hedgehog signaling and overcomes resistance to smoothened antagonists. Cancer Res. 2021; 81(11): 3105-3120.

[22] Li M, Han Y, Wang C, et al. Dissecting super-enhancer driven transcriptional dependencies reveals novel therapeutic strategies and targets for group 3 subtype medulloblastoma. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022; 41(1): 311.

[23] McGinnis CS, Murrow LM, Gartner ZJ. DoubletFinder: doublet detection in single-cell RNA sequencing data using artificial nearest neighbors. Cell Syst. 2019; 8(4): 329-337.e4.

[24] Chu T, Wang Z, Pe'er D, Danko CG. Cell type and gene expression deconvolution with BayesPrism enables Bayesian integrative analysis across bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing in oncology. Nat Cancer. 2022; 3(4): 505-517.

[25] Sun D, Guan X, Moran AE, et al. Identifying phenotype-associated subpopulations by integrating bulk and single-cell sequencing data. Nat Biotechnol. 2022; 40(4): 527-538.

[26] Cheng Y, Liao S, Xu G, et al. NeuroD1 dictates tumor cell differentiation in medulloblastoma. Cell Rep. 2020; 31(12): 107782.

[27] Leskoske KL, Garcia-Mansfield K, Sharma R, et al. Subgroup-enriched pathways and kinase signatures in medulloblastoma patient-derived xenografts. J Proteome Res. 2022; 21(9): 2124-2136.

[28] Collier LS, Largaespada DA. Hopping around the tumor genome: transposons for cancer gene discovery. Cancer Res. 2005; 65(21): 9607-9610.

[29] He C, Xu K, Zhu X, et al. Patient-derived models recapitulate heterogeneity of molecular signatures and drug response in pediatric high-grade glioma. Nat Commun. 2021; 12(1): 4089.

[30] Smith KS, Xu K, Mercer KS, et al. Patient-derived orthotopic xenografts of pediatric brain tumors: a St. Jude resource. Acta Neuropathol. 2020; 140(2): 209-225.

[31] Huang M, Tailor J, Zhen Q, et al. Engineering genetic predisposition in human neuroepithelial stem cells recapitulates medulloblastoma tumorigenesis. Cell Stem Cell. 2019; 25(3): 433-446.e7.

[32] Cho YJ, Tsherniak A, Tamayo P, et al. Integrative genomic analysis of medulloblastoma identifies a molecular subgroup that drives poor clinical outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(11): 1424-1430.

[33] Northcott PA, Buchhalter I, Morrissy AS, et al. The whole-genome landscape of medulloblastoma subtypes. Nature. 2017; 547(7663): 311-317.

[34] Pan Y, Yu Y, Wang X, Zhang T. Tumor-associated macrophages in tumor immunity. Front Immunol. 2020; 11: 583084.

[35] Margol AS, Robison NJ, Gnanachandran J, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages in SHH subgroup of medulloblastomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 21(6): 1457-1465.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Authors. Animal Models and Experimental Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Chinese Association for Laboratory Animal Sciences.