Next Article in Journal
ADAM12 is A Potential Therapeutic Target Regulated by Hypomethylation in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Next Article in Special Issue
A Link between Genetic Disorders and Cellular Impairment, Using Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells to Reveal the Functional Consequences of Copy Number Variations in the Central Nervous System—A Close Look at Chromosome 15
Previous Article in Journal
In Vitro Evaluation of Different Prebiotics on the Modulation of Gut Microbiota Composition and Function in Morbid Obese and Normal-Weight Subjects
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Emergence of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) as a Platform to Model Arrhythmogenic Diseases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 21
Issue 3
10.3390/ijms21030905
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Engineering Prostate Cancer from Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells—New Opportunities to Develop Preclinical Tools in Prostate and Prostate Cancer Studies

by
Anastasia C. Hepburn
1,*,†,
C. H. Cole Sims
1,†,
Adriana Buskin
1,† and
Rakesh Heer
1,2,*
1
Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Paul O’Gorman building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK
2
Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(3), 905; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21030905
Submission received: 16 December 2019 / Revised: 17 January 2020 / Accepted: 28 January 2020 / Published: 30 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue From hIPSCs to Adult Cells in a Dish: Promises and Pitfalls)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the key issues hampering the development of effective treatments for prostate cancer is the lack of suitable, tractable, and patient-specific in vitro models that accurately recapitulate this disease. In this review, we address the challenges of using primary cultures and patient-derived xenografts to study prostate cancer. We describe emerging approaches using primary prostate epithelial cells and prostate organoids and their genetic manipulation for disease modelling. Furthermore, the use of human prostate-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) is highlighted as a promising complimentary approach. Finally, we discuss the manipulation of iPSCs to generate ‘avatars’ for drug disease testing. Specifically, we describe how a conceptual advance through the creation of living biobanks of “genetically engineered cancers” that contain patient-specific driver mutations hold promise for personalised medicine.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The development of experimental models that accurately recapitulate cancer is crucial for the study of cancer biology and development of therapeutic treatments. This is a daunting challenge given the complexity and heterogeneity seen in many cancers, including prostate cancer, which results in variation in the curative effects from person to person [1,2]. Prostate cancer is the second commonest male cancer worldwide, accounting for 1.3 million new cases and 630,000 deaths in 2018 [3]. It is an androgen-dependent disease whose growth and progression depends on the transcriptional activity of the androgen receptor (AR), also a master regulator of normal prostate epithelial cell differentiation [4]. Therapeutic options for men with localised prostate cancer include active surveillance, surgery or radiotherapy with curative intent [5,6,7,8]. For men with advanced prostate cancer, the initial mainstay for many is androgen deprivation therapy [9,10]. Despite initial favourable response, most patients progress and succumb to lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), the second leading cause of male cancer deaths [3,11,12]. Though next-generation hormonal treatments, such as enzalutamide and abiraterone, and chemotherapeutics, such as docetaxel, have been demonstrated to extend survival, CRPC remains a major clinical problem [13,14,15,16].
Prostate cancer is a biologically heterogeneous disease and its complex nature provides a significant challenge for its clinical management. The nature of prostate cancer heterogeneity is characterised by interpatient, intertumoural (multifocal disease), intratumoural, genomic and epigenetic heterogeneity, which raises considerable challenges when developing therapies [17]. Nevertheless, several genomic landscape studies of primary and metastatic prostate cancer have identified distinct molecular subtypes and potentially actionable genomic driver events [18,19,20,21,22]. A recurring major event is the acquired treatment resistance to hormonal approaches due to reactivation of the AR signalling pathway through AR amplification, mutations, splice variants or bypass mechanisms [21,23,24,25]. Furthermore, 10–20% of these CRPC tumours can go on to lose AR dependence altogether and exhibit small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma characteristics (CRPC-NE) [26,27]. Therefore, development of preclinical models that can recreate this patient heterogeneity and resistance phenotypes is of upmost urgency to develop successful prostate cancer treatments.
Induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based disease modelling has proven to be a powerful tool in biomedical research and personalised regenerative medicine by improving the understanding of the disease pathophysiology of various human inherited disorders at the cellular level. The emergence of three-dimensional multi-layered organoids has attracted widespread interest and has presented a unique opportunity for high throughput drug discovery which, combined with genome editing, has become an attractive model for cancer research. This review focuses on current prostate cancer preclinical models and how recent developments and the potential manipulation of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) could hold promise for prostate disease modelling and personalised medicine.

2. Challenges in Current Preclinical Prostate Cancer Models

2.1. Cell Lines

A large proportion of basic cancer research today is still undertaken in cancer cell lines (Table 1). Whilst this method remains suitable for many basic research endeavours and particularly those studies focusing on molecular interactions, cell line models are not ideal for translational studies. Although many human cell lines have been propagated from clinical cancer, over time these lines accumulate multiple additional mutations that then move the genotype and phenotype away from those originally seen in the tissue from which the cells were derived [28,29]. In addition, for prostate cancer there are only a limited number of cell lines available (LNCaP, PC-3, LAPC-3, LAPC-4, VCaP. NCI-H660, MDA PCa 2a, MDA PCa 2b, CWR22Rv1, DU 145) [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Adding to the problems associated with prostate cancer cell lines is that some lack important characteristics that make their use difficult to generalise back into clinical practice. For example, PC-3 cells do not express AR [31] and NCI-H660 cells are the only line to express chromogranin A, a marker of neuroendocrine differentiation [34]. A step closer to more faithful in vitro modelling of prostate cancer may be found in using primary cultures from cells taken directly from patient tumours.

2.2. Primary Culture Cells

Primary benign human prostate cells can be cultured in vitro with relative ease from fresh patient biopsies. Isolating primary human epithelium (which grows from either acini structures or single cell digestions) and stroma (a mesenchymal cell mixture which supports the epithelial acini) has long been a mainstay of translational research scientists [38,39]. However, primary culture of prostate cancers is more challenging. Localised cancers are very difficult to grow, and it is those from metastatic disease that are most likely to be viable in vitro. These issues are further compounded by the small amounts of tissue available from cancer biopsies. Additionally, biopsy acquisition itself is not accessible for many researchers who lack contacts with clinical departments, and although biobanks (e.g., King’s Health Partners’ Prostate Cancer Biobank (KHP PCaBB)) are helping to provide non-clinical researchers with access to clinically relevant samples, access to fresh tissue remains difficult for most researchers [40]. In those cases where cancer primary cultures are established, ex vivo primary cells undergo spontaneous mutations in culture and deviate away from the initially derived patient genotype similar to the issue described in classical cell line models above [41]. Historically, primary prostate cells were grown in 2D and it had become recognised that their gene expression profiles and proliferation rates were different compared to counterparts grown in 3D [42]. This problem has been overcome with both 3D “tissue” like growth in xenografts and in vitro as organoids.

2.3. Patient-Derived Xenografts (PDXs)

Prostate cancer-derived xenografts (PDXs) involve implantations of cells or tissue from a patient into immuno-deficient mice. The efficiency is improved with co-engraftment with mesenchymal tissue (such as embryonic urogenital mesenchyme) and into a vascular niche (typically into the sub-renal capsule space) [43,44]. PDXs solve one of the limitations of conventional 2D culture as the prostate cells grow in 3D within the graft. Though PDXs are considered to be the gold standard for many cancers, their use in prostate cancer is more trying as there are low engraftment rates (15-20%) and is expensive [45]. Variability in the engraftment rate of PDXs is further compounded by location of grafting. Sub-renal, subcutaneous and orthotopic grafts have different growth yields but are also associated with increasing skill requirements and technical proficiency [46]. The process is also slow, as once the PDXs are implanted, there is a significant wait for tumour growth (median of 22 months [45]). Furthermore, growth of PDXs is determined by the type of sample engrafted, with metastatic prostate cancer cells more likely to result in successful engraftment than low-risk, non-metastasising cells [47]. In some cases, there can be a lack of serial transplantability of PDXs with engraftments remaining as first-generation [48]. Those that possess the ability of serial transplantation allow researchers to undertake modelling of disease (e.g., LTL331 tumour tissue line [49]). The problem of stochastic mutation accumulation with time, as described above, can lead to significant genotypic shifts away from the patient genome of which the model is designed to represent. Nevertheless, PDXs remain a major tool in the prostate cancer researcher’s armoury. Aside from PDXs, there are other additional complementary approaches to modelling 3D tissue architecture and the main advances have been around in vitro cultures as organoids.

2.4. Patient-Derived Organoids (PDOs)

Organoids are in vitro 3D structures which authentically recapitulate the in vivo architecture, molecular make-up and function of the tissue of origin [50]. Organoids differ from spheroids as there is at least pseudo-stratification of cell types within an organoid whereas spheroids are a mass of cells grown as a dense sphere that lack the organisation seen in vivo. Since the 2010s, organoids have emerged as a leading method for in vitro 3D modelling of various organs. Many cell types can be grown as organoids including intestine, stomach, lung and mammary gland [51,52,53]. The development of organoids from human prostate cells has similarly been shown [54,55,56]. This opened the door for a patient focussed, precision medicine approach to in vitro prostate cancer modelling. However, use of patient-derived organoids (PDOs) is limited by similar drawbacks described for primary culture. Whilst there is potential to create numerous prostate cancer lines at various stages of disease progression, organoid generation has low efficiencies and in cases where access to primary prostate cancer tissue/samples is limited this method may not be widely applicable. In established lines, intra-tumour diversification of genetic, epigenetic and transcriptome states evolve in a cell-autonomous fashion [57]. These differences can lead to markedly altered sensitivities to anticancer drugs between even closely related cells derived from the same tumour [57].
Failure to translate findings from preclinical models into the patient setting has been one of the factors contributing to the low success rate of anti-cancer drugs making it from the bench to the clinic, and highlights the need for more accurate experimental models [58]. The use of organoid technology to model cancer for drug discovery, drug testing and precision medicine has become of great interest to the cancer field [59]. The fundamental idea behind precision medicine is to tailor medical treatment to the genetic composition of each patient and cancer is a major focus of this initiative [60]. PDOs may be used to more precisely select patients for targeted therapy.
PDOs have served as a platform for cancer drug screening with studies demonstrating correlation between in vitro drug sensitivities and patient tumour molecular profiles. Gao et al. studied drug response in seven new human prostate cancer organoid lines derived from metastatic and circulating tumour cells expressing disease-specific mutations such as TMPRSS2-ERG fusion, PTEN loss, TP53 loss, SPOP mutations, FOXA1 mutations and CHD1 loss [55]. Correlation of response with the mutational landscape of the tumour was observed following treatment of the tumour organoids with antiandrogen enzalutamide and PI3K inhibitors currently in clinical trials for CRPC. A broad spectrum of AR levels was also observed recapitulating AR-dependent and AR-negative/neuroendocrine phenotypes. However, it was noted that the efficiency of generating organoids from metastatic samples was <20% and reproducibly maintained for only 1–2 months with many cultures overtaken by normal epithelial cells present in the biopsy samples. Van de Wetering et al. established a ‘living’ biobank of colorectal cancer organoids representative of the major molecular subtypes seen in colorectal cancer and performance of a drug screen of 83 compounds including drugs in clinical use detected gene-drug associations that could potentially facilitate personalised therapy [61]. For example, they confirmed resistance to anti-EGFR inhibitors in the setting of KRAS mutant organoids whilst loss-of function mutations of the tumour suppressor TP53 were associated with resistance to MDM2 inhibition. Interestingly, they found RNF43 mutant organoids to be exquisitely sensitive to Wnt secretion inhibitors, potentially identifying a treatment option for patients carrying this mutation. Another drug screen study performed on PDOs discovered novel therapeutic options for endometrial, uterine and colorectal cancer patients [62]. Such studies have paved the way for the development of precision medicine, but the limitations associated with access to primary cultures further highlight the need for additional approaches to improve the generation of PDOs.
Organoid cultures can be expanded long term relatively fast and cryopreserved enabling generation of organoid biobanks, such as the Hubrecht Organoid Technology (HUB) ‘‘living’’ biobank which generates organoids from a vast number of tumour specimens including prostate cancer aiding access to the scientific community [63]. This is a well-characterised library with genome sequencing, expression profiling and drug sensitivity screening data available. Recent studies of living biobanks of patient-derived tumour organoids have reported they retain the genetic landscape of the original tumour and drug responses correspond to patient outcomes. Generation of a “living biobank” of >100 primary and metastatic breast cancer organoid lines captured disease heterogeneity and aided assessment of drug response in a personalised fashion. These efforts highlight the potential of tumour organoid biobanks for high throughput drug screening and precision medicine approaches [61,64,65,66].
However, as advances in models for prostate biology have been hindered by the many challenges associated with primary prostate culture, use of iPSCs presents a promising complimentary approach. Yet, generation of prostate iPSCs has lagged behind that reported from other tissues. Therefore, we describe the significant advances made from using iPSCs to generate models in other systems to demonstrate how the prostate field could take lead from them.

3. Human iPSCs for Disease Modelling

In 2006, Takahashi and Yamanaka demonstrated that stem cells with the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells (ESCs) could be generated from adult somatic cells by the simultaneous introduction of just four transcription factors (Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, c-Myc), known as Yamanaka factors [67]. iPSCs have the ability to differentiate into almost every cell type of the body, making them powerful tools for disease modelling, regenerative medicine and drug screening [68]. Unlike primary cultures, iPSCs are capable of sustained self-renewal, providing unlimited cell source to investigate diseases, at molecular, cellular and functional levels. Successful reprogramming of prostate tissue and prostate-directed differentiation of iPSCs has been demonstrated, providing scope for such studies in the prostate field [69,70]. Many differentiation protocols towards 2D disease-relevant cell types have been described [71,72,73,74,75,76]. Furthermore, iPSCs are patient-specific and can mimic patients’ phenotypes. In addition to the possibility of genome editing, via knock-in or correction of disease-specific mutations, or knock-out of target genes, iPSCs are becoming one of the preferred choices for disease modelling and personalised medicine approaches.
Despite the huge advances in identifying cell-level phenotypes across a range of diseases, 2D models are restricted to cell culture-based systems and are mostly relevant to the cellular level, failing to represent complex diseases and tumour biology. Due to the significant interest in generating iPSCs from cancer cells to help elucidate the molecular mechanisms of cancer development, various cancer cell lines have been reprogrammed, including prostate cancer [77], melanoma [77,78], breast cancer [79], gastrointestinal cancer [80], chronic myeloid leukaemia [81], glioblastoma [82] and lung cancer [83]. Although reprogramming of cells with cancer genomes is not impossible, it is inefficient and it requires non-integrating methods to avoid increased tumourigenesis and a different combination of transcription factors, alternatively or in addition to the Yamanaka cocktail. Further barriers to generate iPSCs from cancer cell lines and in turn differentiate these cells into the cell-types of interest in 2D or 3D models include cancer-associated mutations, epigenetic modification and high levels of DNA damage [84].

3.1. Human iPSC-Derived Tissue and Organ Models

iPSCs have the potential to differentiate into multiple cell lineages and provide a promising source of specialised cells. The differentiation process to the target cell type is a pivotal step in the development of a model. Having gained insights from normal development, many strategies have been explored to guide the direct differentiation of iPSCs mainly by introducing cocktails of growth factors and/or small molecules at defined times and concentrations. In turn, iPSCs have provided models recapitulating single-cell and more complex multi-cell type tissues. For example, generation of human adipocytes (white, brown and beige) from iPSCs, exhibiting mature morphological and functional properties characteristic of in vivo fat tissue, has shed light on adipogenesis and provided a platform for the development of obesity- and diabetes- related therapies [85,86]. TGFβ-driven differentiation of human iPSCs into chondrocytes capable of forming cartilage has opened up new strategies for cartilage tissue engineering, disease modelling and pharmacological drug studies for osteoarthritis [87]. In contrast, the adult human heart harbours several different cell types. Functional cardiomyocytes generated from iPSCs hold significant promise as an autologous cell source for cardiac repair [88]. However, cardiomyocytes comprise only 25% of all cardiac cells even though they occupy approximately 75% of normal myocardial tissue volume, whilst atrial and ventricular cardiomyocytes have distinct action potentials [89]. As such, presently, generation of a fully beating heart is a long distance away. Although such studies have been informative, they also have limitations mainly that differentiation strategies are based on 2D cultures.
More recently, iPSC-derived cancer organoids have been described. Using standard iPSC differentiation techniques coupled with recent advances in bioengineering, xenotransplantation and genome editing, iPSCs present new opportunities for the study of human cancer [90]. These methods increase the generation of cells to undertake high throughput assessment that have otherwise been previously challenging, such as wide scale in vitro organoid drug testing and organ-on-chip assays. In this context, 3D iPSC-derived organoids (iDOs) have now been generated for multiple organs due to their resemblance to stratified cell organisation and organ structure, which better represents human physiology and development (Table 2). iDOs provide new tools for the study of human development, disease and drug testing from which the prostate field can learn from and are successfully generated in nearly every differentiation run.

3.1.1. Cerebral iDOs

The groundbreaking work described by Yoshiki Sasai and colleagues, in a seminal paper [103], demonstrated how serum-free suspension culture of embryoid bodies, and the temporal addition of small molecules to generate forebrain neural precursors, led to an in vitro model of brain-like organoids [91]. These 3D models, called cerebral organoids, contained regions that resembled various compartments of brain regions, such as cortical-like regions, similar to that of the human embryo cortex. The addition of temporal inductive signals to these 3D models in subsequent studies, was shown to drive dorsal and ventral fore-brain differentiation [104], containing a variety of cell types present in the human cerebral cortex [105]. Ventricular-like zones of cerebral organoids containing neural stem cells expressed markers of deep- and superficial-layer neurons and outer radial glial cells, only present in humans [106]. This has brought about a huge interest in organoid technology as a means to investigate human-specific conditions and the development of the human brain [92].

3.1.2. Retinal iDOs

Further work from Yoshiki Sasai described the self-organisation of pluripotent stem cells to form optic cup structures, via temporal application of small molecules [93], displaying features of multi-layered retinal architecture that resembled foetal human neural retinas. Importantly, some iPSC-derived retinal organoids have been shown to be light responsive, with immature signals simulating those observed in the neonatal retina [107]. Retinal organoids have been used to interrogate and treat a variety of eye-degenerating conditions as well as cancer [94,95,108].

3.1.3. Intestine iDOs

Intestine organoids can also be derived from iPSCs in a 3D culture system by the use of extracellular support matrix and culture medium supplemented with pro-intestine growth factors [96]. These organoids contained defined 3D structures reflecting the villus and crypts of the small intestine and were capable of self-renewal and self-organisation for prolonged cultures [109,110]. iPSC-derived colonic organoids have been used for the modelling of colorectal cancer [111].

3.1.4. Liver iDOs

iPSC-derived liver organoids have been generated by co-culture of iPSCs, mesenchymal and endothelial cells. Liver buds were formed by self-organisation and cell-to-cell contact combined with paracrine signalling, resulting in induction of hepatic genes and expression of bile salt export pumps [97]. More recently, generation of liver organoids on a 3D perfusable chip has been reported [98]. These organoids had higher cell viability and expressed endodermal and mature hepatic genes. Transplantation of liver buds in mouse models of liver failure partially rescued hepatic function [112].

3.1.5. Kidney iDOs

iPSCs can also be differentiated into kidney organoids using a mesoderm induction step followed by 3D culture to promote self-organisation leading to organoid formation. These kidney organoids contained segmented nephrons connected to collecting ducts, surrounded by renal interstitial cells. Proximal tubules within the organoids were able to carry out endocytosis, as evidence of functional maturity [99]. Kidney organoids can be used as a platform to develop new drugs to treat chronic kidney disease [113].

3.1.6. Lung iDOs

Lung organoids have also been successfully generated and used to study lung development and disease [114,115]. Lung organoids can be derived from iPSCs using an endoderm induction step followed by the addition of key defined growth factors, and further passage into a 3Ds system using extracellular support matrix, in order to promote branching morphogenesis, growth, and alveolar cell formation [96,100,101,102]. Those airway progenitors contain cell types and structures similar to those of bronchi/bronchioles of early lung development and express alveolar-cell markers. Importantly, the iPSC-derived models have been benchmarked with human foetal tissue and the transcriptomics of organoids have been shown to be similar to that of foetal lung [102].

4. Emerging Approaches in Preclinical Prostate Cancer Research

4.1. Transformation of Primary Prostate Cells

In a seminal paper, it was shown that primary benign human basal prostate epithelium can initiate prostate cancer in immune-deficient mice and that the derived tumours realistically recreate histology of in situ human prostate cancer [116]. This has been the basis for an interesting strategy to overcome some of the problems of primary prostate cancer culture, where researchers can now transform easier to grow benign prostate epithelium to generate prostate cancer organoids [117]. These studies lay the platform for a new paradigm, where benign cells are converted into “designer” cancers harbouring specific mutations of interest. These can be repeatedly generated whilst faithfully maintaining the genotypes of interest avoiding the ever evolving subclonal progressions affecting long term culture of primary derived cancers [57]. Despite the promise of this “tumour engineering” approach there are limitations to maintaining even benign prostate epithelial cultures and a more ready supply of cells to manipulate are ideally required. In this respect, the emergence of easy to expand and immortalised iPSCs and the ability to differentiate these in the tissue type of interest offers a new way forward.

4.2. Prostate iDOs

Recently, a high throughput model of generating human prostate organoids from iPSCs has also been described, involving co-culturing iPSCs with rodent urogenital sinus mesenchyme (UGM). This simple differentiation protocol results in glandular structures in vitro that faithfully mimic prostate tissue histology and express key prostate markers such as AR, prostate specific homeobox protein NKX3.1 and secretory prostate specific antigen (PSA) [69]. This approach built on previous data showing the generation of prostate tissue in xenograft studies from ESCs [118]. Differentiation from iPSCs avoids many ethical and regulatory restrictions relating to ESCs and enable greater access to organoid generation to groups worldwide culture [119,120]. Previous in vitro human prostate organoid approaches, from either tissue-derived cells or ESCs, do not recreate the full breadth of in situ prostate differentiation as they do not contain neuroendocrine cells particularly relevant in light of emerging data showing that neuroendocrine differentiation drives treatment-resistant prostate cancer [56,121,122]. Additionally, it would be of interest to determine whether following maturation of prostate iDOs there is a switch to a somatic stem cell mode of homeostasis, identified by the presence of DLK1-enriched basal stem cells, to sustain long-term culture [123]. High-throughput iPSC-derived human prostate tissue generation provides unparalleled scope for in vitro disease modelling and drug discovery without the constraints of tissue accessibility and long-standing difficulties associated with primary culture.

4.3. Genome Editing Technology and Precision Medicine

Genome editing technology has emerged as an extremely powerful tool that can greatly advance organoid-based research for the development of better targeted therapies [124]. CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces double-stranded DNA breaks at specific loci adjacent to a protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM) using a complementary single-guide RNA sequence (sgRNA) and Cas9 endonuclease [125]. DNA repair then takes place by either non-homologous end joining, resulting in insertions/deletions (INDELs) or homology-directed repair with a donor template. In 2013, Schwank et al. reported the first successful therapeutic CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in human tissue, by correcting the CFTR locus in intestinal organoids from patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), making CF treatment a possible reality [126]. Since then, CRISPR-Cas9 has further been used to reproduce genetic mutations that occur in cancers including prostate cancer. In 2017, for the first time, the use of CRISPR/Cas9 to create endogenous gene fusions in organoids was reported [127]. Mouse prostate organoids were modified to carry the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion, a genetic alteration present in more than 50% of prostate cancers that leads to high ERG expression driven from the androgen-responsive promoter of the TMPRSS2 gene [127,128,129]. Previously this fusion had been modelled by artificial ERG overexpression and studied in human prostate cancer cell lines and mouse models, but this approach for the first time allows investigation of its effect in a wildtype background [127,130].

5. Final Remarks

Effective treatment development for prostate cancer is hampered by the lack of patient-specific in vitro models that accurately recapitulate this disease. The prostate-derived iPSC generation of human prostate tissue both in vivo and in vitro is a new complimentary approach to established primary culture and PDX models [69]. Together with genome editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9, this model opens up new avenues to recreate the genetic make-up of individual patients and correlate drug sensitivity in vitro in a personalised fashion. Introduction of patient-specific mutations into iPSCs to generate “designer” cancer organoids could lead to the creation of organoid biobanks covering the spectrum of prostate cancer mutations and facilitate the design of powerful screening platforms. Proof of concept is already established showing that benign prostate cells can be transformed into prostate cancers [116]. This approach would overcome a major problem with the low efficiency of prostate cancer organoid culture, issues with significant genetic drift associated with long-term primary culture and has the ability to reproduce, with high fidelity, isogenic cultures time after time. In the future, routine genomic testing would define patient-specific profiles and the biobank would provide that reference genotype for new drug testing or known sensitivity to pre-tested standards of care to allow clinicians to tailor treatments options to improve outcomes in cancer patients.

Funding

We acknowledge funding from Prostate Cancer Foundation (Grand Challenge Award) and John Black Charitable Foundation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ARAndrogen receptor
CRPCCastration-resistant prostate cancer
CRPC-NECastration-resistant prostate cancer neuroendocrine
CFCystic fibrosis
ESCEmbryonic stem cells
iPSCsInduced-pluripotent stem cells
iDOsiPSC-derived organoids
PAMProtospacer-adjacent motif
PDOsPatient-derived organoids
PDXsPatient-derived xenografts
PSAProstate-specific antigen
sgRNASingle-guide RNA sequence
UGMUrogenital mesenchyme

References

  1. Boyd, L.K.; Mao, X.; Lu, Y.J. The complexity of prostate cancer: Genomic alterations and heterogeneity. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2012, 9, 652–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Meacham, C.E.; Morrison, S.J. Tumour heterogeneity and cancer cell plasticity. Nature 2013, 501, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Shen, M.M.; Abate-Shen, C. Molecular genetics of prostate cancer: New prospects for old challenges. Genes Dev. 2010, 24, 1967–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Bill-Axelson, A.; Holmberg, L.; Garmo, H.; Rider, J.R.; Taari, K.; Busch, C.; Nordling, S.; Haggman, M.; Andersson, S.O.; Spangberg, A.; et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 932–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Klotz, L.; Zhang, L.; Lam, A.; Nam, R.; Mamedov, A.; Loblaw, A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 28, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Wilt, T.J.; Brawer, M.K.; Jones, K.M.; Barry, M.J.; Aronson, W.J.; Fox, S.; Gingrich, J.R.; Wei, J.T.; Gilhooly, P.; Grob, B.M.; et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Hamdy, F.C.; Donovan, J.L.; Lane, J.A.; Mason, M.; Metcalfe, C.; Holding, P.; Davis, M.; Peters, T.J.; Turner, E.L.; Martin, R.M.; et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 1415–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Chen, Y.; Sawyers, C.L.; Scher, H.I. Targeting the androgen receptor pathway in prostate cancer. Curr. Opin. Pharm. 2008, 8, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Huggins, C.; Hodges, C.V. Studies on prostatic cancer: I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. 1941. J. Urol. 2002, 168, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mateo, J.; Fizazi, K.; Gillessen, S.; Heidenreich, A.; Perez-Lopez, R.; Oyen, W.J.G.; Shore, N.; Smith, M.; Sweeney, C.; Tombal, B.; et al. Managing nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2019, 75, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Nuhn, P.; De Bono, J.S.; Fizazi, K.; Freedland, S.J.; Grilli, M.; Kantoff, P.W.; Sonpavde, G.; Sternberg, C.N.; Yegnasubramanian, S.; Antonarakis, E.S. Update on systemic prostate cancer therapies: Management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in the era of precision oncology. Eur. Urol. 2019, 75, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Clarke, N.W.; Ali, A.; Ingleby, F.C.; Hoyle, A.; Amos, C.L.; Attard, G.; Brawley, C.D.; Calvert, J.; Chowdhury, S.; Cook, A.; et al. Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: Long-term survival results from the stampede trial. Ann. Oncol. 2019, 30, 1992–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. De Bono, J.S.; Logothetis, C.J.; Molina, A.; Fizazi, K.; North, S.; Chu, L.; Chi, K.N.; Jones, R.J.; Goodman, O.B.; Saad, F. Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011, 364, 1995–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hoyle, A.P.; Ali, A.; James, N.D.; Cook, A.; Parker, C.C.; de Bono, J.S.; Attard, G.; Chowdhury, S.; Cross, W.R.; Dearnaley, D.P.; et al. Abiraterone in “high-” and “low-risk” metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2019, 76, 719–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Scher, H.I.; Fizazi, K.; Saad, F.; Taplin, M.E.; Sternberg, C.N.; Miller, K.; de Wit, R.; Mulders, P.; Chi, K.N.; Shore, N.D.; et al. Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 1187–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Frame, F.M.; Noble, A.R.; Klein, S.; Walker, H.F.; Suman, R.; Kasprowicz, R.; Mann, V.M.; Simms, M.S.; Maitland, N.J. Tumor heterogeneity and therapy resistance—Implications for future treatments of prostate cancer. J. Cancer Metastasis Treat. 2017, 3, 302–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Armenia, J.; Wankowicz, S.A.M.; Liu, D.; Gao, J.; Kundra, R.; Reznik, E.; Chatila, W.K.; Chakravarty, D.; Han, G.C.; Coleman, I.; et al. The long tail of oncogenic drivers in prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 2018, 50, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cancer Genome Atlas Research. The molecular taxonomy of primary prostate cancer. Cell 2015, 163, 1011–1025. [Google Scholar]
  20. Grasso, C.S.; Wu, Y.M.; Robinson, D.R.; Cao, X.; Dhanasekaran, S.M.; Khan, A.P.; Quist, M.J.; Jing, X.; Lonigro, R.J.; Brenner, J.C.; et al. The mutational landscape of lethal castration-resistant prostate cancer. Nature 2012, 487, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Robinson, D.; Van Allen, E.M.; Wu, Y.M.; Schultz, N.; Lonigro, R.J.; Mosquera, J.M.; Montgomery, B.; Taplin, M.E.; Pritchard, C.C.; Attard, G.; et al. Integrative clinical genomics of advanced prostate cancer. Cell 2015, 161, 1215–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Taylor, B.S.; Schultz, N.; Hieronymus, H.; Gopalan, A.; Xiao, Y.; Carver, B.S.; Arora, V.K.; Kaushik, P.; Cerami, E.; Reva, B.; et al. Integrative genomic profiling of human prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 2010, 18, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Bluemn, E.G.; Coleman, I.M.; Lucas, J.M.; Coleman, R.T.; Hernandez-Lopez, S.; Tharakan, R.; Bianchi-Frias, D.; Dumpit, R.F.; Kaipainen, A.; Corella, A.N.; et al. Androgen receptor pathway-independent prostate cancer is sustained through fgf signaling. Cancer Cell 2017, 32, 474–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Dehm, S.M.; Schmidt, L.J.; Heemers, H.V.; Vessella, R.L.; Tindall, D.J. Splicing of a novel androgen receptor exon generates a constitutively active androgen receptor that mediates prostate cancer therapy resistance. Cancer Res. 2008, 68, 5469–5477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Visakorpi, T.; Hyytinen, E.; Koivisto, P.; Tanner, M.; Keinanen, R.; Palmberg, C.; Palotie, A.; Tammela, T.; Isola, J.; Kallioniemi, O.P. In vivo amplification of the androgen receptor gene and progression of human prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 1995, 9, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aggarwal, R.; Huang, J.; Alumkal, J.J.; Zhang, L.; Feng, F.Y.; Thomas, G.V.; Weinstein, A.S.; Friedl, V.; Zhang, C.; Witte, O.N.; et al. Clinical and genomic characterization of treatment-emergent small-cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer: A multi-institutional prospective study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 2492–2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Davies, A.H.; Beltran, H.; Zoubeidi, A. Cellular plasticity and the neuroendocrine phenotype in prostate cancer. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2018, 15, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gibas, Z.; Becher, R.; Kawinski, E.; Horoszewicz, J.; Sandberg, A.A. A high-resolution study of chromosome changes in a human prostatic carcinoma cell line (lncap). Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 1984, 11, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Esquenet, M.; Swinnen, J.V.; Heyns, W.; Verhoeven, G. Lncap prostatic adenocarcinoma cells derived from low and high passage numbers display divergent responses not only to androgens but also to retinoids. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1997, 62, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Horoszewicz, J.S.; Leong, S.S.; Kawinski, E.; Karr, J.P.; Rosenthal, H.; Chu, T.M.; Mirand, E.A.; Murphy, G.P. Lncap model of human prostatic carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1983, 43, 1809–1818. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaighn, M.E.; Lechner, J.F.; Narayan, K.S.; Jones, L.W. Prostate carcinoma: Tissue culture cell lines. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 1978, 49, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  32. Klein, K.A.; Reiter, R.E.; Redula, J.; Moradi, H.; Zhu, X.L.; Brothman, A.R.; Lamb, D.J.; Marcelli, M.; Belldegrun, A.; Witte, O.N.; et al. Progression of metastatic human prostate cancer to androgen independence in immunodeficient scid mice. Nat. Med. 1997, 3, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Korenchuk, S.; Lehr, J.E.; McLean, L.; Lee, Y.G.; Whitney, S.; Vessella, R.; Lin, D.L.; Pienta, K.J. Vcap, a cell-based model system of human prostate cancer. In Vivo 2001, 15, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mertz, K.D.; Setlur, S.R.; Dhanasekaran, S.M.; Demichelis, F.; Perner, S.; Tomlins, S.; Tchinda, J.; Laxman, B.; Vessella, R.L.; Beroukhimt, R.; et al. Molecular characterization of tmprss2-erg gene fusion in the nci-h660 prostate cancer cell line: A new perspective for an old model. Neoplasia 2007, 9, 200–IN203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Navone, N.M.; Olive, M.; Ozen, M.; Davis, R.; Troncoso, P.; Tu, S.M.; Johnston, D.; Pollack, A.; Pathak, S.; von Eschenbach, A.C.; et al. Establishment of two human prostate cancer cell lines derived from a single bone metastasis. Clin. Cancer Res. 1997, 3, 2493–2500. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sramkoski, R.M.; Pretlow, T.G.; Giaconia, J.M.; Pretlow, T.P.; Schwartz, S.; Sy, M.-S.; Marengo, S.R.; Rhim, J.S.; Zhang, D.; Jacobberger, J.W. A new human prostate carcinoma cell line, 22rv1. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 1999, 35, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Stone, K.R.; Mickey, D.D.; Wunderli, H.; Mickey, G.H.; Paulson, D.F. Isolation of a human prostate carcinoma cell line (du 145). Int. J. Cancer 1978, 21, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lechner, J.F.; Narayan, K.S.; Ohnuki, Y.; Babcock, M.S.; Jones, L.W.; Kaighn, M.E. Replicative epithelial cell cultures from normal human prostate gland: Brief communication2. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1978, 60, 797–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Niranjan, B.; Lawrence, M.G.; Papargiris, M.M.; Richards, M.G.; Hussain, S.; Frydenberg, M.; Pedersen, J.; Taylor, R.A.; Risbridger, G.P. Primary culture and propagation of human prostate epithelial cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 945, 365–382. [Google Scholar]
  40. Saifuddin, S.R.; Devlies, W.; Santaolalla, A.; Cahill, F.; George, G.; Enting, D.; Rudman, S.; Cathcart, P.; Challacombe, B.; Dasgupta, P.; et al. King’s health partners’ prostate cancer biobank (khp pcabb). BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kim, M.; Rhee, J.K.; Choi, H.; Kwon, A.; Kim, J.; Lee, G.D.; Jekarl, D.W.; Lee, S.; Kim, Y.; Kim, T.M. Passage-dependent accumulation of somatic mutations in mesenchymal stromal cells during in vitro culture revealed by whole genome sequencing. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Souza, A.G.; Silva, I.B.B.; Campos-Fernandez, E.; Barcelos, L.S.; Souza, J.B.; Marangoni, K.; Goulart, L.R.; Alonso-Goulart, V. Comparative assay of 2d and 3d cell culture models: Proliferation, gene expression and anticancer drug response. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2018, 24, 1689–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Toivanen, R.; Berman, D.M.; Wang, H.; Pedersen, J.; Frydenberg, M.; Meeker, A.K.; Ellem, S.J.; Risbridger, G.P.; Taylor, R.A. Brief report: A bioassay to identify primary human prostate cancer repopulating cells. Stem Cells 2011, 29, 1310–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wang, Y.; Wang, J.X.; Xue, H.; Lin, D.; Dong, X.; Gout, P.W.; Gao, X.; Pang, J. Subrenal capsule grafting technology in human cancer modeling and translational cancer research. Differentiation 2016, 91, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lin, D.; Wyatt, A.W.; Xue, H.; Wang, Y.; Dong, X.; Haegert, A.; Wu, R.; Brahmbhatt, S.; Mo, F.; Jong, L.; et al. High fidelity patient-derived xenografts for accelerating prostate cancer discovery and drug development. Cancer Res. 2014, 74, 1272–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Toivanen, R.; Taylor, R.A.; Pook, D.W.; Ellem, S.J.; Risbridger, G.P. Breaking through a roadblock in prostate cancer research: An update on human model systems. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2012, 131, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lin, D.; Bayani, J.; Wang, Y.; Sadar, M.D.; Yoshimoto, M.; Gout, P.W.; Squire, J.A.; Wang, Y. Development of metastatic and non-metastatic tumor lines from a patient’s prostate cancer specimen-identification of a small subpopulation with metastatic potential in the primary tumor. Prostate 2010, 70, 1636–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Risbridger, G.P.; Toivanen, R.; Taylor, R.A. Preclinical models of prostate cancer: Patient-derived xenografts, organoids, and other explant models. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 2018, 8, a030536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Lin, D.; Dong, X.; Wang, K.; Wyatt, A.W.; Crea, F.; Xue, H.; Wang, Y.; Wu, R.; Bell, R.H.; Haegert, A.; et al. Identification of dek as a potential therapeutic target for neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 1806–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Clevers, H. Modeling development and disease with organoids. Cell 2016, 165, 1586–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Barker, N.; Huch, M.; Kujala, P.; van de Wetering, M.; Snippert, H.J.; van Es, J.H.; Sato, T.; Stange, D.E.; Begthel, H.; van den Born, M.; et al. Lgr5+ve stem cells drive self-renewal in the stomach and build long-lived gastric units in vitro. Cell Stem Cell 2010, 6, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Desai, T.J.; Brownfield, D.G.; Krasnow, M.A. Alveolar progenitor and stem cells in lung development, renewal and cancer. Nature 2014, 507, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Linnemann, J.R.; Miura, H.; Meixner, L.K.; Irmler, M.; Kloos, U.J.; Hirschi, B.; Bartsch, H.S.; Sass, S.; Beckers, J.; Theis, F.J.; et al. Quantification of regenerative potential in primary human mammary epithelial cells. Development 2015, 142, 3239–3251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Chua, C.W.; Shibata, M.; Lei, M.; Toivanen, R.; Barlow, L.J.; Bergren, S.K.; Badani, K.K.; McKiernan, J.M.; Benson, M.C.; Hibshoosh, H.; et al. Single luminal epithelial progenitors can generate prostate organoids in culture. Nat. Cell Biol. 2014, 16, 951–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Gao, D.; Vela, I.; Sboner, A.; Iaquinta, P.J.; Karthaus, W.R.; Gopalan, A.; Dowling, C.; Wanjala, J.N.; Undvall, E.A.; Arora, V.K.; et al. Organoid cultures derived from patients with advanced prostate cancer. Cell 2014, 159, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Karthaus, W.R.; Iaquinta, P.J.; Drost, J.; Gracanin, A.; Van Boxtel, R.; Wongvipat, J.; Dowling, C.M.; Gao, D.; Begthel, H.; Sachs, N.; et al. Identification of multipotent luminal progenitor cells in human prostate organoid cultures. Cell 2014, 159, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Roerink, S.F.; Sasaki, N.; Lee-Six, H.; Young, M.D.; Alexandrov, L.B.; Behjati, S.; Mitchell, T.J.; Grossmann, S.; Lightfoot, H.; Egan, D.A.; et al. Intra-tumour diversification in colorectal cancer at the single-cell level. Nature 2018, 556, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rubin, E.H.; Gilliland, D.G. Drug development and clinical trials--the path to an approved cancer drug. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 9, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Drost, J.; Clevers, H. Organoids in cancer research. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2018, 18, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aronson, S.J.; Rehm, H.L. Building the foundation for genomics in precision medicine. Nature 2015, 526, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Van de Wetering, M.; Francies, H.E.; Francis, J.M.; Bounova, G.; Iorio, F.; Pronk, A.; van Houdt, W.; van Gorp, J.; Taylor-Weiner, A.; Kester, L.; et al. Prospective derivation of a living organoid biobank of colorectal cancer patients. Cell 2015, 161, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Pauli, C.; Hopkins, B.D.; Prandi, D.; Shaw, R.; Fedrizzi, T.; Sboner, A.; Sailer, V.; Augello, M.; Puca, L.; Rosati, R.; et al. Personalized in vitro and in vivo cancer models to guide precision medicine. Cancer Discov. 2017, 7, 462–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Weeber, F.; Ooft, S.N.; Dijkstra, K.K.; Voest, E.E. Tumor organoids as a pre-clinical cancer model for drug discovery. Cell Chem. Biol. 2017, 24, 1092–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Fujii, M.; Shimokawa, M.; Date, S.; Takano, A.; Matano, M.; Nanki, K.; Ohta, Y.; Toshimitsu, K.; Nakazato, Y.; Kawasaki, K.; et al. A colorectal tumor organoid library demonstrates progressive loss of niche factor requirements during tumorigenesis. Cell Stem Cell 2016, 18, 827–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Sachs, N.; de Ligt, J.; Kopper, O.; Gogola, E.; Bounova, G.; Weeber, F.; Balgobind, A.V.; Wind, K.; Gracanin, A.; Begthel, H.; et al. A living biobank of breast cancer organoids captures disease heterogeneity. Cell 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Yan, H.H.N.; Siu, H.C.; Law, S.; Ho, S.L.; Yue, S.S.K.; Tsui, W.Y.; Chan, D.; Chan, A.S.; Ma, S.; Lam, K.O.; et al. A comprehensive human gastric cancer organoid biobank captures tumor subtype heterogeneity and enables therapeutic screening. Cell Stem Cell 2018, 23, 882–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Takahashi, K.; Yamanaka, S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell 2006, 126, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Sayed, N.; Liu, C.; Wu, J.C. Translation of human-induced pluripotent stem cells: From clinical trial in a dish to precision medicine. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016, 67, 2161–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hepburn, A.; Curry, E.; Moad, M.; Steele, R.; Franco, O.; Wilson, L.; Singh, P.; Crawford, S.; Gaughan, L.; Mills, I. High-throughput propagation of human prostate tissue from induced-pluripotent stem cells. bioRxiv 2019, 637876. [Google Scholar]
  70. Moad, M.; Pal, D.; Hepburn, A.C.; Williamson, S.C.; Wilson, L.; Lako, M.; Armstrong, L.; Hayward, S.W.; Franco, O.E.; Cates, J.M.; et al. A novel model of urinary tract differentiation, tissue regeneration, and disease: Reprogramming human prostate and bladder cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. Eur. Urol. 2013, 64, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Jacob, A.; Morley, M.; Hawkins, F.; McCauley, K.B.; Jean, J.C.; Heins, H.; Na, C.L.; Weaver, T.E.; Vedaie, M.; Hurley, K.; et al. Differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into functional lung alveolar epithelial cells. Cell Stem Cell 2017, 21, 472–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kim, D.S.; Lee, J.S.; Leem, J.W.; Huh, Y.J.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, H.S.; Park, I.H.; Daley, G.Q.; Hwang, D.Y.; Kim, D.W. Robust enhancement of neural differentiation from human es and ips cells regardless of their innate difference in differentiation propensity. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 2010, 6, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Lam, A.Q.; Freedman, B.S.; Bonventre, J.V. Directed differentiation of pluripotent stem cells to kidney cells. Semin. Nephrol. 2014, 34, 445–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Spence, J.R.; Mayhew, C.N.; Rankin, S.A.; Kuhar, M.F.; Vallance, J.E.; Tolle, K.; Hoskins, E.E.; Kalinichenko, V.V.; Wells, S.I.; Zorn, A.M.; et al. Directed differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells into intestinal tissue in vitro. Nature 2011, 470, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Tohyama, S.; Fujita, J.; Fujita, C.; Yamaguchi, M.; Kanaami, S.; Ohno, R.; Sakamoto, K.; Kodama, M.; Kurokawa, J.; Kanazawa, H.; et al. Efficient large-scale 2d culture system for human induced pluripotent stem cells and differentiated cardiomyocytes. Stem Cell Rep. 2017, 9, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Xia, Y.; Carpentier, A.; Cheng, X.; Block, P.D.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Protzer, U.; Liang, T.J. Human stem cell-derived hepatocytes as a model for hepatitis b virus infection, spreading and virus-host interactions. J. Hepatol. 2017, 66, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Lin, S.L.; Chang, D.C.; Chang-Lin, S.; Lin, C.H.; Wu, D.T.; Chen, D.T.; Ying, S.Y. Mir-302 reprograms human skin cancer cells into a pluripotent es-cell-like state. RNA 2008, 14, 2115–2124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Utikal, J.; Maherali, N.; Kulalert, W.; Hochedlinger, K. Sox2 is dispensable for the reprogramming of melanocytes and melanoma cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. J. Cell Sci. 2009, 122, 3502–3510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Corominas-Faja, B.; Cufi, S.; Oliveras-Ferraros, C.; Cuyas, E.; Lopez-Bonet, E.; Lupu, R.; Alarcon, T.; Vellon, L.; Iglesias, J.M.; Leis, O.; et al. Nuclear reprogramming of luminal-like breast cancer cells generates sox2-overexpressing cancer stem-like cellular states harboring transcriptional activation of the mtor pathway. Cell Cycle 2013, 12, 3109–3124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Miyoshi, N.; Ishii, H.; Nagai, K.; Hoshino, H.; Mimori, K.; Tanaka, F.; Nagano, H.; Sekimoto, M.; Doki, Y.; Mori, M. Defined factors induce reprogramming of gastrointestinal cancer cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Carette, J.E.; Pruszak, J.; Varadarajan, M.; Blomen, V.A.; Gokhale, S.; Camargo, F.D.; Wernig, M.; Jaenisch, R.; Brummelkamp, T.R. Generation of ipscs from cultured human malignant cells. Blood 2010, 115, 4039–4042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Stricker, S.H.; Feber, A.; Engstrom, P.G.; Caren, H.; Kurian, K.M.; Takashima, Y.; Watts, C.; Way, M.; Dirks, P.; Bertone, P.; et al. Widespread resetting of DNA methylation in glioblastoma-initiating cells suppresses malignant cellular behavior in a lineage-dependent manner. Genes Dev. 2013, 27, 654–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Mathieu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, W.; Wang, A.J.; Heddleston, J.M.; Pinna, C.M.; Hubaud, A.; Stadler, B.; Choi, M.; Bar, M.; et al. Hif induces human embryonic stem cell markers in cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 4640–4652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Kim, J.J. Applications of ipscs in cancer research. Biomark Insights 2015, 10, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ahfeldt, T.; Schinzel, R.T.; Lee, Y.K.; Hendrickson, D.; Kaplan, A.; Lum, D.H.; Camahort, R.; Xia, F.; Shay, J.; Rhee, E.P.; et al. Programming human pluripotent stem cells into white and brown adipocytes. Nat Cell Biol. 2012, 14, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Su, S.; Guntur, A.R.; Nguyen, D.C.; Fakory, S.S.; Doucette, C.C.; Leech, C.; Lotana, H.; Kelley, M.; Kohli, J.; Martino, J.; et al. A renewable source of human beige adipocytes for development of therapies to treat metabolic syndrome. Cell Rep. 2018, 25, 3215–3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Diederichs, S.; Klampfleuthner, F.A.M.; Moradi, B.; Richter, W. Chondral differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells without progression into the endochondral pathway. Front Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 7, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Zhang, J.; Wilson, G.F.; Soerens, A.G.; Koonce, C.H.; Yu, J.; Palecek, S.P.; Thomson, J.A.; Kamp, T.J. Functional cardiomyocytes derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Circ. Res. 2009, 104, e30–e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Grandi, E.; Pandit, S.V.; Voigt, N.; Workman, A.J.; Dobrev, D.; Jalife, J.; Bers, D.M. Human atrial action potential and ca2+ model: Sinus rhythm and chronic atrial fibrillation. Circ. Res. 2011, 109, 1055–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Papapetrou, E.P. Patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells in cancer research and precision oncology. Nat. Med. 2016, 22, 1392–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lancaster, M.A.; Renner, M.; Martin, C.A.; Wenzel, D.; Bicknell, L.S.; Hurles, M.E.; Homfray, T.; Penninger, J.M.; Jackson, A.P.; Knoblich, J.A. Cerebral organoids model human brain development and microcephaly. Nature 2013, 501, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Gonzalez, C.; Armijo, E.; Bravo-Alegria, J.; Becerra-Calixto, A.; Mays, C.E.; Soto, C. Modeling amyloid beta and tau pathology in human cerebral organoids. Mol. Psychiatry 2018, 23, 2363–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Nakano, T.; Ando, S.; Takata, N.; Kawada, M.; Muguruma, K.; Sekiguchi, K.; Saito, K.; Yonemura, S.; Eiraku, M.; Sasai, Y. Self-formation of optic cups and storable stratified neural retina from human escs. Cell Stem Cell 2012, 10, 771–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Buskin, A.; Zhu, L.; Chichagova, V.; Basu, B.; Mozaffari-Jovin, S.; Dolan, D.; Droop, A.; Collin, J.; Bronstein, R.; Mehrotra, S.; et al. Disrupted alternative splicing for genes implicated in splicing and ciliogenesis causes prpf31 retinitis pigmentosa. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Saengwimol, D.; Rojanaporn, D.; Chaitankar, V.; Chittavanich, P.; Aroonroch, R.; Boontawon, T.; Thammachote, W.; Jinawath, N.; Hongeng, S.; Kaewkhaw, R. A three-dimensional organoid model recapitulates tumorigenic aspects and drug responses of advanced human retinoblastoma. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 15664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Aurora, M.; Spence, J.R. Hpsc-derived lung and intestinal organoids as models of human fetal tissue. Dev. Biol. 2016, 420, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Takebe, T.; Sekine, K.; Kimura, M.; Yoshizawa, E.; Ayano, S.; Koido, M.; Funayama, S.; Nakanishi, N.; Hisai, T.; Kobayashi, T.; et al. Massive and reproducible production of liver buds entirely from human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Rep. 2017, 21, 2661–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Deng, P.; Chen, W.; Guo, Y.; Tao, T.; Qin, J. In situ differentiation and generation of functional liver organoids from human ipscs in a 3d perfusable chip system. Lab Chip 2018, 18, 3606–3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Forbes, T.A.; Howden, S.E.; Lawlor, K.; Phipson, B.; Maksimovic, J.; Hale, L.; Wilson, S.; Quinlan, C.; Ho, G.; Holman, K.; et al. Patient-ipsc-derived kidney organoids show functional validation of a ciliopathic renal phenotype and reveal underlying pathogenetic mechanisms. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2018, 102, 816–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Chen, Y.W.; Huang, S.X.; de Carvalho, A.; Ho, S.H.; Islam, M.N.; Volpi, S.; Notarangelo, L.D.; Ciancanelli, M.; Casanova, J.L.; Bhattacharya, J.; et al. A three-dimensional model of human lung development and disease from pluripotent stem cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 2017, 19, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dye, B.R.; Hill, D.R.; Ferguson, M.A.; Tsai, Y.H.; Nagy, M.S.; Dyal, R.; Wells, J.M.; Mayhew, C.N.; Nattiv, R.; Klein, O.D.; et al. In vitro generation of human pluripotent stem cell derived lung organoids. Elife 2015, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Miller, A.J.; Dye, B.R.; Ferrer-Torres, D.; Hill, D.R.; Overeem, A.W.; Shea, L.D.; Spence, J.R. Generation of lung organoids from human pluripotent stem cells in vitro. Nat. Protoc. 2019, 14, 518–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Watanabe, K.; Kamiya, D.; Nishiyama, A.; Katayama, T.; Nozaki, S.; Kawasaki, H.; Watanabe, Y.; Mizuseki, K.; Sasai, Y. Directed differentiation of telencephalic precursors from embryonic stem cells. Nat. Neurosci. 2005, 8, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Kadoshima, T.; Sakaguchi, H.; Nakano, T.; Soen, M.; Ando, S.; Eiraku, M.; Sasai, Y. Self-organization of axial polarity, inside-out layer pattern, and species-specific progenitor dynamics in human es cell-derived neocortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 20284–20289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Velasco, S.; Kedaigle, A.J.; Simmons, S.K.; Nash, A.; Rocha, M.; Quadrato, G.; Paulsen, B.; Nguyen, L.; Adiconis, X.; Regev, A.; et al. Individual brain organoids reproducibly form cell diversity of the human cerebral cortex. Nature 2019, 570, 523–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hansen, D.V.; Lui, J.H.; Parker, P.R.; Kriegstein, A.R. Neurogenic radial glia in the outer subventricular zone of human neocortex. Nature 2010, 464, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hallam, D.; Hilgen, G.; Dorgau, B.; Zhu, L.; Yu, M.; Bojic, S.; Hewitt, P.; Schmitt, M.; Uteng, M.; Kustermann, S.; et al. Human-induced pluripotent stem cells generate light responsive retinal organoids with variable and nutrient-dependent efficiency. Stem Cells 2018, 36, 1535–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Gasparini, S.J.; Llonch, S.; Borsch, O.; Ader, M. Transplantation of photoreceptors into the degenerative retina: Current state and future perspectives. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2019, 69, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Barker, N. Adult intestinal stem cells: Critical drivers of epithelial homeostasis and regeneration. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2014, 15, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Sato, T.; Vries, R.G.; Snippert, H.J.; van de Wetering, M.; Barker, N.; Stange, D.E.; van Es, J.H.; Abo, A.; Kujala, P.; Peters, P.J.; et al. Single lgr5 stem cells build crypt-villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature 2009, 459, 262–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Crespo, M.; Vilar, E.; Tsai, S.Y.; Chang, K.; Amin, S.; Srinivasan, T.; Zhang, T.; Pipalia, N.H.; Chen, H.J.; Witherspoon, M.; et al. Colonic organoids derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells for modeling colorectal cancer and drug testing. Nat. Med. 2017, 23, 878–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Huch, M.; Dorrell, C.; Boj, S.F.; van Es, J.H.; Li, V.S.; van de Wetering, M.; Sato, T.; Hamer, K.; Sasaki, N.; Finegold, M.J.; et al. In vitro expansion of single lgr5+ liver stem cells induced by wnt-driven regeneration. Nature 2013, 494, 247–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Ramos, S.; Carlos, A.R.; Sundaram, B.; Jeney, V.; Ribeiro, A.; Gozzelino, R.; Bank, C.; Gjini, E.; Braza, F.; Martins, R.; et al. Renal control of disease tolerance to malaria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 5681–5686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Korogi, Y.; Gotoh, S.; Ikeo, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Sone, N.; Tamai, K.; Konishi, S.; Nagasaki, T.; Matsumoto, H.; Ito, I.; et al. In vitro disease modeling of hermansky-pudlak syndrome type 2 using human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived alveolar organoids. Stem Cell Rep. 2019, 13, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Leibel, S.L.; Winquist, A.; Tseu, I.; Wang, J.; Luo, D.; Shojaie, S.; Nathan, N.; Snyder, E.; Post, M. Reversal of surfactant protein b deficiency in patient specific human induced pluripotent stem cell derived lung organoids by gene therapy. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Goldstein, A.S.; Huang, J.; Guo, C.; Garraway, I.P.; Witte, O.N. Identification of a cell of origin for human prostate cancer. Science 2010, 329, 568–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Unno, K.; Roh, M.; Yoo, Y.A.; Al-Shraideh, Y.; Wang, L.; Nonn, L.; Abdulkadir, S.A. Modeling african american prostate adenocarcinoma by inducing defined genetic alterations in organoids. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 51264–51276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  118. Taylor, R.A.; Cowin, P.A.; Cunha, G.R.; Pera, M.; Trounson, A.O.; Pedersen, J.; Risbridger, G.P. Formation of human prostate tissue from embryonic stem cells. Nat. Methods 2006, 3, 179–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Robertson, J.A. Human embryonic stem cell research: Ethical and legal issues. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2001, 2, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Halevy, T.; Urbach, A. Comparing esc and ipsc-based models for human genetic disorders. J. Clin. Med. 2014, 3, 1146–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Bishop, J.L.; Thaper, D.; Vahid, S.; Davies, A.; Ketola, K.; Kuruma, H.; Jama, R.; Nip, K.M.; Angeles, A.; Johnson, F.; et al. The master neural transcription factor brn2 is an androgen receptor-suppressed driver of neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer. Cancer Discov. 2017, 7, 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  122. Calderon-Gierszal, E.L.; Prins, G.S. Directed differentiation of human embryonic stem cells into prostate organoids in vitro and its perturbation by low-dose bisphenol a exposure. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. Moad, M.; Hannezo, E.; Buczacki, S.J.; Wilson, L.; El-Sherif, A.; Sims, D.; Pickard, R.; Wright, N.A.; Williamson, S.C.; Turnbull, D.M.; et al. Multipotent basal stem cells, maintained in localized proximal niches, support directed long-ranging epithelial flows in human prostates. Cell Rep. 2017, 20, 1609–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Driehuis, E.; Clevers, H. Crispr/cas 9 genome editing and its applications in organoids. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2017, 312, G257–G265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Cong, L.; Ran, F.A.; Cox, D.; Lin, S.; Barretto, R.; Habib, N.; Hsu, P.D.; Wu, X.; Jiang, W.; Marraffini, L.A.; et al. Multiplex genome engineering using crispr/cas systems. Science 2013, 339, 819–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  126. Schwank, G.; Koo, B.K.; Sasselli, V.; Dekkers, J.F.; Heo, I.; Demircan, T.; Sasaki, N.; Boymans, S.; Cuppen, E.; van der Ent, C.K.; et al. Functional repair of cftr by crispr/cas9 in intestinal stem cell organoids of cystic fibrosis patients. Cell Stem Cell 2013, 13, 653–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  127. Driehuis, E.; Clevers, H. H. Crispr-induced tmprss2-erg gene fusions in mouse prostate organoids. JSM Biotechnol. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 4, 1076. [Google Scholar]
  128. Demichelis, F.; Fall, K.; Perner, S.; Andren, O.; Schmidt, F.; Setlur, S.R.; Hoshida, Y.; Mosquera, J.M.; Pawitan, Y.; Lee, C.; et al. Tmprss2:Erg gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene 2007, 26, 4596–4599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Tomlins, S.A.; Rhodes, D.R.; Perner, S.; Dhanasekaran, S.M.; Mehra, R.; Sun, X.W.; Varambally, S.; Cao, X.; Tchinda, J.; Kuefer, R.; et al. Recurrent fusion of tmprss2 and ets transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science 2005, 310, 644–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Tomlins, S.A.; Laxman, B.; Varambally, S.; Cao, X.; Yu, J.; Helgeson, B.E.; Cao, Q.; Prensner, J.R.; Rubin, M.A.; Shah, R.B.; et al. Role of the tmprss2-erg gene fusion in prostate cancer. Neoplasia 2008, 10, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of current models of prostate cancer.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of current models of prostate cancer.
ModelAdvantagesDisadvantages
Cancer cell linesEasy and cheap to grow; Useful for basic science; High throughput drug screeningLimited to 2D; Mutation accumulation over time; Limited number available
Primary cellsDerived from patients; Initial drug studies; Use for PDXs, PDOs and iPSCsDifficult to grow; Tissue accessibility; Limited to 2D; Mutation accumulation over time
Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs)Retain 3D tissue architecture; Intact endocrine system; Disease stage-specific models availableTime consuming and expensive; Low engraftment efficiencies; Mouse has deficient immunity and different microenvironment
Patient-derived organoids (PDOs)Retain 3D tissue architecture; Histological and molecular resemblance to tissue of origin; Drug testing responses more accurateAt present only established from aggressive prostate cancer specimens; Low establishment rate; Lack microenvironment and immune influence
iPSC-derived organoids (iDOs)Retain 3D tissue architecture; Unlimited source of iPSCs; Isogenic lines; Gene editing to introduce patient-specific mutations; High throughput drug screening; ‘avatar’ for precision medicineLack microenvironment and immune influence
Table
Table 2. Generation of iPSC-derived organoids.
Table 2. Generation of iPSC-derived organoids.
Tissue/OrganMethodKey Small MoleculesReferences
BrainSelf-organisation by embryoid bodies formation, and the addition of temporal small moleculesIWR1 and SB431542 [91,92]
EyeSelf-organisation by embryoid bodies formation, and the addition of temporal small moleculesBMP4 and IGF1[93,94,95]
IntestineExtracellular support matrix and culture medium supplemented with pro-intestine growth factorsActivin A, WNT3A and FGF4[96]
LiverCo-culture of iPSCs with mesenchymal and endothelial cells followed by self-organisation by cell-to-cell contact or self-organisation by embryoid bodies formation on 3D perfusable chipActivin-A, bFGF and HGF[97,98]
KidneyMesoderm induction step followed by self-organisation in 3D cultureCHIR99021 and FGF9 [99]
LungEndoderm induction, addition of temporal small molecules and culture in extracellular support matrix or transwell insertsActivin A, Noggin, SB431542, SAG, FGF4, CHIR99021 and FGF10[96,100,101,102]
Prostate Endoderm induction step and co-culture of iPSCs with rodent urogenital sinus mesenchyme (UGM), followed by self-organisation by cell-to-cell contact in extracellular support matrixActivin A, EGF, R-spondin1, Noggin, and A83-01 [69]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hepburn, A.C.; Sims, C.H.C.; Buskin, A.; Heer, R. Engineering Prostate Cancer from Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells—New Opportunities to Develop Preclinical Tools in Prostate and Prostate Cancer Studies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 905. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21030905

AMA Style

Hepburn AC, Sims CHC, Buskin A, Heer R. Engineering Prostate Cancer from Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells—New Opportunities to Develop Preclinical Tools in Prostate and Prostate Cancer Studies. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21(3):905. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21030905

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hepburn, Anastasia C., C. H. Cole Sims, Adriana Buskin, and Rakesh Heer. 2020. "Engineering Prostate Cancer from Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells—New Opportunities to Develop Preclinical Tools in Prostate and Prostate Cancer Studies" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21, no. 3: 905. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijms21030905

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop