Technical Report | Published:

Unlocking bone for proteomic analysis and FISH

Abstract

Bone tissue is critically lagging behind soft tissues and biofluids in our effort to advance precision medicine. The main challenges have been accessibility and the requirement for deleterious decalcification processes that impact the fidelity of diagnostic histomorphology and hinder downstream analyses such as fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH). We have developed an alternative fixation chemistry that simultaneously fixes and decalcifies bone tissue. We compared tissue morphology, immunohistochemistry (IHC), cell signal phosphoprotein analysis, and FISH in 50 patient matched primary bone cancer cases that were either formalin fixed and decalcified, or theralin fixed with and without decalcification. Use of theralin improved tissue histomorphology, whereas overall IHC was comparable to formalin fixed, decalcified samples. Theralin-fixed samples showed a significant increase in protein and DNA extractability, supporting technologies such as laser-capture microdissection and reverse phase protein microarrays. Formalin-fixed bone samples suffered from a fixation artifact where protein quantification of β-actin directly correlated with fixation time. Theralin-fixed samples were not affected by this artifact. Moreover, theralin fixation enabled standard FISH staining in bone cancer samples, whereas no FISH staining was observed in formalin-fixed samples. We conclude that the use of theralin fixation unlocks the molecular archive within bone tissue allowing bone to enter the standard tissue analysis pipeline. This will have significant implications for bone cancer patients, in whom personalized medicine has yet to be implemented.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Mosialou I, Shikhel S, Liu J-M, et al. MC4R-dependent suppression of appetite by bone-derived lipocalin 2. Nature. 2017;543:385–90.

  2. 2.

    Lee NK, Sowa H, Hinoi E, et al. Endocrine regulation of energy metabolism by the skeleton. Cell. 2007;130:456–69.

  3. 3.

    Ferron M, Wei J, Yoshizawa T, et al. Insulin signaling in osteoblasts integrates bone remodeling andenergy metabolism. Cell. 2010;142:296–308.

  4. 4.

    Bhattacharyya N, Chong WH, Gafni RI, Collins MT. Fibroblast growth factor 23: state of the field and future directions. Trends Endocrinol Metabol. 2012;23:610–8.

  5. 5.

    Mundy GR. Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:584–93.

  6. 6.

    Wu Q, Li J, Zhu S, et al. Breast cancer subtypes predict the preferential site of distant metastases: a SEER based study. Oncotarget. 2017;8:27990–6.

  7. 7.

    Morris RE, Benton RS. Studies on demineralization of bone. I. The basic factors of demineralization. Am J Clin Pathol. 1956;26:579–95.

  8. 8.

    Morris RE, Benton RS. Studies on demineralization of bone. II. The effect of electrolytic technics in demineralization. Am J Clin Pathol. 1956;26:596–603.

  9. 9.

    Morris RE, Benton RS. Studies on demineralization of bone. III. The effect of ion exchange resins and versenate in demineralization. Am J Clin Pathol. 1956;26:771–7.

  10. 10.

    Walsh L, Freemont AJ, Hoyland JA. The effect of tissue decalcification on mRNA retention within bone for in-situ hybridization studies. Int J Exp Pathol. 1993;74:237–41.

  11. 11.

    Alers JC, Krijtenburg P-J, Vissers KJ, van Dekken H. Effect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and comparative genomic hybridization: EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely usedacid decalcifier. J Histochem Cytochem. 1999;47:703–9.

  12. 12.

    Bass BP, Engel KB, Greytak SR, Moore HM. A review of preanalytical factors affecting molecular, protein, and morphological analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue: how well do you know your FFPE specimen? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1520–30.

  13. 13.

    Case NM. The use of a cation exchange resin in decalcification. Stain Technol. 1953;28:155–8.

  14. 14.

    Cleland TP, Vashishth D. Bone protein extraction without demineralization using principles from hydroxyapatite chromatography. Anal Biochem. 2015;472:62–6.

  15. 15.

    Morris RE, Benton RS, Smith L, Haskins J. Studies on demineralization of bone: IV. Evaluation of morphology and staining characteristics of tissues after demineralization. Am J Clin Pathol. 1956;26:882–98.

  16. 16.

    Bindhu P, Krishnapillai R, Thomas P, et al. Facts in artifacts. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2013;17:397–401.

  17. 17.

    Broxterman HJ, Georgopapadakou NH. New cancer therapeutics: target-specific in, cytotoxics out? Drug Resist Updat. 2004;7:79–87.

  18. 18.

    Perez-Fidalgo JA, Eroles P, Ferrer J, et al. An evaluation of the impact of technical bias on the concordance rate between primary and recurrent tumors in breast cancer. Breast. 2013;22:974–9.

  19. 19.

    Mueller C, Edmiston KH, Carpenter C, et al. One-step preservation of phosphoproteins and tissue morphology at room temperature for diagnostic and research specimens. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e23780.

  20. 20.

    Skinner RA, Hickmon SG, Lumpkin CK, et al. Decalcified bone: twenty years of successful specimen management. J Histotechnol. 1997;20:267–77.

  21. 21.

    Gallagher RI, Blakely SR, Liotta LA et al. Laser Capture Microdissection: ArcturusXT Infrared Capture and UV Cutting Methods. In Methods in Molecular Biology: NY, USA, Humana Press) 157–78, 2011.

  22. 22.

    Mueller C, Liotta LA, Espina V. Reverse phase protein microarrays advance to use in clinical trials. Mol Oncol. 2010;4:461–81.

  23. 23.

    Chiechi A, Mueller C, Boehm KM, et al. Improved data normalization methods for reverse phase protein microarray analysis of complex biological samples. BioTechniques. 2012;0:1–7.

  24. 24.

    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2012).

  25. 25.

    Becker KF, Schott C, Hipp S, et al. Quantitative protein analysis from formalin-fixed tissues: implications for translational clinical research and nanoscale molecular diagnosis. J Pathol. 2007;211:370–8.

  26. 26.

    Espina V, Mariani BD, Gallagher RI, et al. Malignant precursor cells pre-exist in human breast DCIS and requireautophagy forsurvival. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10240.

  27. 27.

    Bhattacharyya S, Byrum S, Siegel ER, et al. Proteomic analysis of bone cancer: a review of current and future developments. Expert Rev Proteom. 2007;4:371–8.

  28. 28.

    Kiernan JA. Formaldehyde, formalin, paraformaldehyde and Glutaraldehyde: what they are and what they do. Microsc Today. 2000;8:8–13.

  29. 29.

    Becker K-F, Mack H, Schott C, et al. Extraction of phosphorylated proteins from formalin-fixed cancer cells and tissues. Open Pathol J. 2008;2:46–52.

  30. 30.

    Ostasiewicz P, Zielinska DF, Mann M, et al. Proteome, phosphoproteome, and N-glycoproteome are quantitatively preserved in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue and analyzable by high-resolution mass spectrometry. J Proteome Res. 2010;9:3688–700.

  31. 31.

    Emmert-Buck MR, Bonner RF, Smith PD, et al. Laser capture microdissection. Science. 1996;274:998–1001.

  32. 32.

    Byrum S, Montgomery CO, Nicholas RW, et al. The promise of bone cancer proteomics. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1192:222–9.

  33. 33.

    Chatterjee S. Artefacts in histopathology. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2014;18:S111–6.

  34. 34.

    Khan S, Tijare M, Jain M, et al. Artifacts in histopathology: a potential cause of misinterpretation. Res Rev J Dent Sci. 2014;2:23–31.

  35. 35.

    Quach N, Goodman MF, Shibata D. In vitro mutation artifacts after formalin fixation and error prone translesion synthesis during PCR. BMC Clin Pathol. 2004;4:1.

  36. 36.

    Thavarajah R, Mudimbaimannar VK, Elizabeth J. et al. Chemical and physical basics of routine formaldehyde fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2012;16:400–5.

  37. 37.

    Ibrahim MF, Hilton J, Addison C, et al. Strategies for obtaining bone biopsy specimens from breast cancer patients - past experience and future directions. J Bone Oncol. 2016;5:180–4.

  38. 38.

    Amir E, Ooi WS, Simmons C, et al. Discordance between receptor status in primary and metastatic breast cancer: an exploratory study of bone and bone marrow biopsies. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2008;20:763–8.

  39. 39.

    Amir E, Miller N, Geddie W, et al. Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:587–92.

  40. 40.

    Aurilio G, Monfardini L, Rizzo S, et al. Discordant hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in bone metastases compared to primary breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1649–56.

  41. 41.

    Simmons C, Miller N, Geddie W. et al. Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases?. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1499–504.

  42. 42.

    Neat MJ, Moonim MT, Dunn RG, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation analysis of bone marrow trephine biopsy specimens; an additional tool in the diagnostic armoury. J Clin Pathol. 2013;66:54–57.

  43. 43.

    Zustin J, Boddin K, Tsourlakis MC. et al. HER-2/neu analysis in breast cancer bone metastases. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62:542–6.

  44. 44.

    Righi A, Gambarotti M, Benini S. et al. MDM2 and CDK4 expression in periosteal osteosarcoma. Hum Pathol. 2015;46:549–53.

  45. 45.

    Dujardin F, Binh MB, Bouvier C. et al. MDM2 and CDK4 immunohistochemistry is a valuable tool in the differential diagnosis of low-grade osteosarcomas and other primary fibro-osseous lesions of the bone. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:624–37.

  46. 46.

    Yoshida A, Ushiku T, Motoi T, et al. MDM2 and CDK4 immunohistochemical coexpression in high-grade osteosarcoma: correlation with a dedifferentiated subtype. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:423–31.

  47. 47.

    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:118–45.

  48. 48.

    Hanna W, O’Malley FP, Barnes P, et al. Updated recommendations from the Canadian National Consensus Meeting on HER2/neu testing in breast cancer. Curr Oncol. 2007;14:149–53.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jennifer Freeland, Sharmini Muralitharan, and Haiping Liu for their helpful guidance and discussions regarding FISH protocols. This work was supported in part by George Mason University, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, and two National Institutes of Health grants to LAL (R21CA125698-01A1 and R33CA157403-01) from the National Cancer Institute program “Innovations in cancer cample preparation”.

Author information

Correspondence to Lance Liotta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

LAL and VE are inventors of the fixation technology and, as university employees, may receive patent royalties per university policies related to US patent 8,460,859 B2: Tissue preservation and fixation method.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemental Figure 1

Supplemental Table S1

Supplemental Table S2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8