Cell morphology best predicts tumorigenicity and metastasis in vivo across multiple TNBC cell lines of different metastatic potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metastasis is the leading cause of death in breast cancer patients. For metastasis to occur, tumor cells must invade locally, intravasate, and colonize distant tissues and organs, all steps that require tumor cell migration. The majority of studies on invasion and metastasis rely on human breast cancer cell lines. While it is known that these cells have different properties and abilities for growth and metastasis, the in vitro morphological, proliferative, migratory, and invasive behavior of these cell lines and their correlation to in vivo behavior is poorly understood. Thus, we sought to classify each cell line as poorly or highly metastatic by characterizing tumor growth and metastasis in a murine model of six commonly used human triple-negative breast cancer xenografts, as well as determine which in vitro assays commonly used to study cell motility best predict in vivo metastasis. METHODS: We evaluated the liver and lung metastasis of human TNBC cell lines MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468, BT549, Hs578T, BT20, and SUM159 in immunocompromised mice. We characterized each cell line's cell morphology, proliferation, and motility in 2D and 3D to determine the variation in these parameters between cell lines. RESULTS: We identified MDA-MB-231, MDA-MB-468, and BT549 cells as highly tumorigenic and metastatic, Hs578T as poorly tumorigenic and metastatic, BT20 as intermediate tumorigenic with poor metastasis to the lungs but highly metastatic to the livers, and SUM159 as intermediate tumorigenic but poorly metastatic to the lungs and livers. We showed that metrics that characterize cell morphology are the most predictive of tumor growth and metastatic potential to the lungs and liver. Further, we found that no single in vitro motility assay in 2D or 3D significantly correlated with metastasis in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide an important resource for the TNBC research community, identifying the metastatic potential of 6 commonly used cell lines. Our findings also support the use of cell morphological analysis to investigate the metastatic potential and emphasize the need for multiple in vitro motility metrics using multiple cell lines to represent the heterogeneity of metastasis in vivo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".