Cited by 1,471Cancer Cells and MetastasisHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisLiver physiology and pathology

Human primary liver cancer–derived organoid cultures for disease modeling and drug screening

Open access
Broutier, Laura, Mastrogiovanni, Gianmarco, Verstegen, Monique MA, Francies, Hayley E, Gavarró, Lena Morrill, Bradshaw, Charles R, Allen, George E, Arnes-Benito, Robert +14 more·2017·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Human liver cancer research currently lacks in vitro models that can faithfully recapitulate the pathophysiology of the original tumor. We recently described a novel, near-physiological organoid culture system, wherein primary human healthy liver cells form long-term expanding organoids that retain liver tissue function and genetic stability. Here we extend this culture system to the propagation of primary liver cancer (PLC) organoids from three of the most common PLC subtypes: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and combined HCC/CC (CHC) tumors. PLC-derived organoid cultures preserve the histological architecture, gene expression and genomic landscape of the original tumor, allowing for discrimination between different tumor tissues and subtypes, even after long-term expansion in culture in the same medium conditions. Xenograft studies demonstrate that the tumorogenic potential, histological features and metastatic properties of PLC-derived organoids are preserved in vivo. PLC-derived organoids are amenable for biomarker identification and drug-screening testing and led to the identification of the ERK inhibitor SCH772984 as a potential therapeutic agent for primary liver cancer. We thus demonstrate the wide-ranging biomedical utilities of PLC-derived organoid models in furthering the understanding of liver cancer biology and in developing personalized-medicine approaches for the disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nm.4438

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Greater genomic divergence between tumor organoids and the parent tumor may be due to intra-tumor spatial heterogeneity and sampling bias, because organoids from one portion may not represent distant regions.

    “A greater degree of divergence may be attributed to intra-tumor spatial heterogeneity and sampling bias: tumors can be spatially diverse, and organoids generated from a specific portion may lack the representativeness of distant regions130,131.”

    From Organoids (2022) · cites this paper as [131]

    The Results section, “Liver tumouroids retain the genetic alterations present in the original tumour tissue” (page unavailable), reports that some variants in the parent tissue were not retained in the corresponding organoids. Neither that section nor the Discussion attributes the difference to spatial heterogeneity or sampling bias, or assesses whether organoids from one portion represent distant tumour regions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent technological advancements (e.g. organoid models and conditionally reprogrammed cell lines) have led to a new generation of cancer cell models being derived to allow full representation of the histopathological and molecular diversity of tumours.

    “Furthermore, with recent technological advancements (e.g. organoid models and conditionally reprogrammed cell lines), a new generation of cancer cell models is being derived to allow full representation of the histopathological and molecular diversity of tumours (37–42).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Broutier, L., Mastrogiovanni, G., Verstegen, M. M., Francies, H. E., Gavarró, L. M., Bradshaw, C. R., Allen, G. E., Arnes-Benito, R., Sidorova, O., Gaspersz, M. P., Georgakopoulos, N., Koo, B.-K., Dietmann, S., Davies, S. E., Praseedom, R. K., Lieshout, R., IJzermans, J. N. M., Wigmore, S. J., Saeb-Parsy, K., Garnett, M. J., van der Laan, L. J., & Huch, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Wellcome/MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute (GB)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
Corresponding author
Huch, Meritxell
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2017-11-13
Volume
23
Issue
12
Pages
1424-1435
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2771057425
Cited by
1,471
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 151 · 2025: 163 · 2024: 203 · 2023: 182 · 2022: 204 · 2021: 243 · 2020: 151 · 2019: 99 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 2
FWCI
39.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (104151/Z/14/Z, C44943/A22536, 104151, 102696)
  • Cancer Research UK (102696, C44943/A22536, 22536)
  • University of Cambridge
  • European Commission (656193, 608180)
  • National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC/R001162/1)
  • ZonMw
  • Cambridge University Hospitals
  • National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC/R001162/1)
  • Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C-AACRDT1213)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (MSCA-IF-2014)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Liver physiology and pathology
Keywords
primary liver cancer, tumor organoids, hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, organoid culture, disease modeling, drug screening, xenografts, metastasis, biomarker discovery, ERK inhibitor, SCH772984, personalized medicine
MeSH terms
Animals, Antineoplastic Agents, Bile Duct Neoplasms, Drug Screening Assays, Antitumor, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Humans, Liver Neoplasms, Male, Organoids, Tumor Cells, Cultured, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Mice, SCID, Mice, Inbred NOD, Cholangiocarcinoma, Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays, Cell Proliferation, Mice, Precision Medicine, Transcriptome, Primary Cell Culture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review