Abstract
Metastases arise from subsets of cancer cells that disseminate from the primary tumour1,2. The ability of cancer cells to thrive in a new tissue site is influenced by genetic and epigenetic changes that are important for disease initiation and progression, but these factors alone do not predict if and where cancers metastasize3,4. Specific cancer types metastasize to consistent subsets of tissues, suggesting that primary tumour-associated factors influence where cancers can grow. We find primary and metastatic pancreatic tumours have metabolic similarities and that the tumour-initiating capacity and proliferation of both primary-derived and metastasis-derived cells is favoured in the primary site relative to the metastatic site. Moreover, propagating cells as tumours in the lung or the liver does not enhance their relative ability to form large tumours in those sites, change their preference to grow in the primary site, nor stably alter aspects of their metabolism relative to primary tumours. Primary liver and lung cancer cells also exhibit a preference to grow in their primary site relative to metastatic sites. These data suggest cancer tissue of origin influences both primary and metastatic tumour metabolism and may impact where cancer cells can metastasize.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Source data are provided with this paper. Any associated Extended Data Figures and Supplementary Tables are provided.
References
Yang, D. et al. Lineage tracing reveals the phylodynamics, plasticity, and paths of tumor evolution. Cell 185, 1905–1923 (2022).
Celià-Terrassa, T. & Kang, Y. Distinctive properties of metastasis-initiating cells. Genes Dev. 30, 892–908 (2016).
Boutin, A. T. et al. Oncogenic Kras drives invasion and maintains metastases in colorectal cancer. Genes Dev. 31, 370–382 (2017).
Makohon-Moore, A. P. et al. Limited heterogeneity of known driver gene mutations among the metastases of individual patients with pancreatic cancer. Nat. Genet. 49, 358–366 (2017).
Muir, A. & Vander Heiden, M. G. The nutrient environment affects therapy. Science 360, 962–963 (2018).
Abbott, K. L. et al. Screening in serum-derived medium reveals differential response to compounds targeting metabolism. Cell Chem. Biol. 30, 1156–1168 (2023).
Altea‐Manzano, P., Cuadros, A. M., Broadfield, L. A. & Fendt, S. Nutrient metabolism and cancer in the in vivo context: a metabolic game of give and take. EMBO Rep. 21, e50635 (2020).
Mayers, J. R. et al. Tissue of origin dictates branched-chain amino acid metabolism in mutant Kras-driven cancers. Science 353, 1161–1165 (2016).
Yuneva, M. O. et al. The metabolic profile of tumors depends on both the responsible genetic lesion and tissue type. Cell Metab. 15, 157–170 (2012).
Sullivan, M. R. et al. Quantification of microenvironmental metabolites in murine cancers reveals determinants of tumor nutrient availability. Elife 8, e44235 (2019).
Reinfeld, B. I. et al. Cell-programmed nutrient partitioning in the tumour microenvironment. Nature 593, 282–288 (2021).
Ferraro, G. B. et al. Fatty acid synthesis is required for breast cancer brain metastasis. Nat. Cancer 2, 414–428 (2021).
Schild, T., Low, V., Blenis, J. & Gomes, A. P. Unique metabolic adaptations dictate distal organ-specific metastatic colonization. Cancer Cell 33, 347–354 (2018).
Lehúede, C., Dupuy, F., Rabinovitch, R., Jones, R. G. & Siegel, P. M. Metabolic plasticity as a determinant of tumor growth and metastasis. Cancer Res. 76, 5201–5208 (2016).
Bartman, C. R. et al. Slow TCA flux and ATP production in primary solid tumours but not metastases. Nature 614, 349–357 (2023).
Basnet, H. et al. Flura-seq identifies organ-specific metabolic adaptations during early metastatic colonization. Elife 8, e43627 (2019).
Piskounova, E. et al. Oxidative stress inhibits distant metastasis by human melanoma cells. Nature 527, 186–191 (2015).
Gaude, E. & Frezza, C. Tissue-specific and convergent metabolic transformation of cancer correlates with metastatic potential and patient survival. Nat. Commun. 7, 13041 (2016).
Hu, J. et al. Heterogeneity of tumor-induced gene expression changes in the human metabolic network. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 522–529 (2013).
Fidler, I. J. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: The ‘seed and soil’ hypothesis revisited. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 453–458 (2003).
Hingorani, S. R. et al. Trp53R172H and KrasG12D cooperate to promote chromosomal instability and widely metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in mice. Cancer Cell 7, 469–483 (2005).
Kim, M. Y. et al. Tumor self-seeding by circulating cancer cells. Cell 139, 1315–1326 (2009).
Gejman, R. S. et al. Rejection of immunogenic tumor clones is limited by clonal fraction. Elife 7, e41090 (2018).
Obenauf, A. C. & Massagué, J. Surviving at a distance: organ-specific metastasis. Trends Cancer 1, 76–91 (2015).
Maddipati, R. & Stanger, B. Z. Pancreatic cancer metastases harbor evidence of polyclonality. Cancer Discov. 5, 1086–1097 (2015).
Lambert, A. W., Pattabiraman, D. R. & Weinberg, R. A. Emerging biological principles of metastasis. Cell 168, 670–691 (2017).
Simeonov, K. P. et al. Single-cell lineage tracing of metastatic cancer reveals selection of hybrid EMT states. Cancer Cell 39, 1150–1162 (2021).
Elia, I., Doglioni, G. & Fendt, S. M. Metabolic hallmarks of metastasis formation. Trends Cell Biol. 28, 673–684 (2018).
Lau, A. N. et al. Dissecting cell-type-specific metabolism in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Elife 9, e56782 (2020).
Ariston Gabriel, A. N. et al. Differences between KC and KPC pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma mice models, in terms of their modeling biology and their clinical relevance. Pancreatology 20, 79–88 (2020).
Pérez-Mancera, P. A., Guerra, C., Barbacid, M. & Tuveson, D. A. What we have learned about pancreatic cancer from mouse models. Gastroenterology 142, 1079–1092 (2012).
Faubert, B., Solmonson, A. & DeBerardinis, R. J. Metabolic reprogramming and cancer progression. Science 368, eaaw5473 (2020).
Yamaguchi, N. et al. PCK1 and DHODH drive colorectal cancer liver metastatic colonization and hypoxic growth by promoting nucleotide synthesis. Elife 8, e52135 (2019).
Minn, A. J. et al. Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to lung. Nature 436, 518–524 (2005).
Bos, P. D. et al. Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to the brain. Nature 459, 1005–1009 (2009).
DuPage, M., Dooley, A. L. & Jacks, T. Conditional mouse lung cancer models using adenoviral or lentiviral delivery of Cre recombinase. Nat. Protoc. 4, 1064–1072 (2009).
Kapanadze, T. et al. Regulation of accumulation and function of myeloid derived suppressor cells in different murine models of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 59, 1007–1013 (2013).
Zender, L. et al. Generation and analysis of genetically defined liver carcinomas derived from bipotential liver progenitors. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 70, 251–261 (2005).
Raphael, B. J. et al. Integrated genomic characterization of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell 32, 185–203 (2017).
Aguirre, A. J. et al. Real-time genomic characterization of advanced pancreatic cancer to enable precision medicine. Cancer Discov. 8, 1096–1111 (2018).
Schug, Z. T. et al. Acetyl-CoA synthetase 2 promotes acetate utilization and maintains cancer cell growth under metabolic stress. Cancer Cell 27, 57–71 (2015).
Elia, I. et al. Breast cancer cells rely on environmental pyruvate to shape the metastatic niche. Nature 568, 117–121 (2019).
Rinaldi, G. et al. In Vivo evidence for serine biosynthesis-defined sensitivity of lung metastasis, but not of primary breast tumors, to mTORC1 inhibition. Mol. Cell 81, 386–397 (2021).
Elia, I. et al. Proline metabolism supports metastasis formation and could be inhibited to selectively target metastasizing cancer cells. Nat. Commun. 8, 15267 (2017).
Chi, Y. et al. Cancer cells deploy lipocalin-2 to collect limiting iron in leptomeningeal metastasis. Science 369, 276–282 (2020).
Klein, C. A. Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases. Nat. Rev. Cancer 9, 302–312 (2009).
Oda, T. et al. Growth rates of primary and metastatic lesions of renal cell carcinoma. Int. J. Urol. 8, 473–477 (2001).
Boj, S. F. et al. Organoid models of human and mouse ductal pancreatic cancer. Cell 160, 324–338 (2015).
Gocheva, V. et al. Quantitative proteomics identify Tenascin-C as a promoter of lung cancer progression and contributor to a signature prognostic of patient survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E5625–E5634 (2017).
Davidson, S. M. et al. Environment impacts the metabolic dependencies of ras-driven non-small cell lung cancer. Cell Metab. 23, 517–528 (2016).
Acknowledgements
We thank the MIT Division of Comparative Medicine (DCM) staff and K. Pait for help with colony maintenance and animal care, the Koch Institute’s Robert A. Swanson (1969) Biotechnology Center for technical support, specifically the Hope Babette Tang Histology Core, the Flow Cytometry Core, and the Preclinical Imaging and Testing Core Facility. This work was supported in part by the Koch Institute Support (Core) Grant P30CA014051 from the National Cancer Institute. We also thank all members of the laboratory of M.G.V.H. for helpful discussions and feedback. S.S. acknowledges support from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRG-2367-19). K.L.A. acknowledges support from National Science Foundation (DGE-1122374) and National Institutes of Health (F31CA271787, T32GM007287). L.V.D. was supported by F32CA21042. A.N.L. was a Robert Black Fellow of the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (DRG-2241-15) and was supported by K99CA234221. A.M.D. acknowledges support from a Jane Coffin Childs Postdoctoral Fellowship. B.T.D. was supported by F30HL156404 from NHLBI and T32GM007753 from NIGMS. S.M. received a postdoctoral fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the MGH Fund for Medical Discovery Fundamental Research Fellowship Award. M.G.V.H. acknowledges support from the Lustgarten Foundation, a Faculty Scholar grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the MIT Center for Precision Cancer Medicine, the Ludwig Center at MIT, the Emerald Foundation, Stand Up To Cancer, and the National Cancer Institute (R35CA242379, R01CA201276, R01CA259253).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.S.: conceptualization, investigation, visualization, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. Y.G., P.S.W., S.Y.V., K.L.A., A.J., F.G., K.M.T., L.V.D., B.T.D., K.C., T.K., A.N.L., A.M.D. and C.A.L.: methodology, investigation, writing—review and editing. S.M., D.G.D., L.M., N.H., V.S., D.J.I. and O.H.Y: methodology. D.V., B.M.W., A.K.S. and A.J.A.: supervision. M.G.V.H.: conceptualization, supervision, visualization, funding acquisition, project administration, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
M.G.V.H. is a scientific advisor for Agios Pharmaceuticals, iTeos Therapeutics, Faeth Therapeutics, Sage Therapeutics, Lime Therapeutics, Pretzel Therapeutics and Auron Therapeutics. A.N.L. is a current employee of Pfizer. K.C. is a current employee of Thermo Fisher Scientific. D.G.D. is a consultant for Innocoll and has research grants from Exelixis, Bayer, BMS and Surface Oncology. A.J.A. has consulted for Anji Pharmaceuticals, Affini-T Therapeutics, Arrakis Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kestrel Therapeutics, Merck & Co., Inc., Mirati Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Oncorus, Inc., Plexium, Quanta Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Reactive Biosciences, Riva Therapeutics, Servier Pharmaceuticals, Syros Pharmaceuticals, T-knife Therapeutics, Third Rock Ventures and Ventus Therapeutics; holds equity in Riva Therapeutics and Kestrel Therapeutics; and has research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deerfield, Inc., Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Ventures, Revolution Medicines and Syros Pharmaceuticals. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Metabolism thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Alfredo Giménez-Cassina, in collaboration with the Nature Metabolism team.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Proliferation of primary and metastatic pancreatic cancer cells in culture and cell competition experiments in mice.
(a-c) Proliferation rate (doublings/day) of cells in culture that were isolated from primary tumors, or from liver or lung metastases, as indicated. Data shown were obtained from three independently derived paired cell lines; mean +/− stdev, n=4 technical replicates (a and b), or 3 technical replicates (c) per cell line; representative data from independent biological replicates of at least n=3 per cell line. (d) Representative western blot analysis assessing mutant Kras expression in protein lysates obtained from the indicated pancreatic cell lines and established human cell line controls and pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs). Mutant Kras G12D expression was only validated once per cell line at the time of generating the cell lines, (e) Schematic of experimental procedure where primary or liver metastatic pancreatic cancer cells (liver met) labeled with mCherry or GFP were injected into the pancreas, liver, or subcutaneous flank; either implanted individually or as a 50:50 mixture of the indicated cells. Representation of each cell population in the final tumor was analyzed by flow cytometry or by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Created with BioRender.com. (f) Flow cytometry of individually labeled cell populations (top) and a mixed population (bottom left). Approximately equal representation of each labeled cancer cell population in a mixed population was confirmed prior to injection (representative data shown bottom right). (g) Tumor weight post injection of individually labeled cancer cells (n=3) or a mixed cell population containing equal numbers of both primary (prim) and liver metastasis (met)-derived pancreatic cancer cells (n=8). Mean +/− stdev. (h) Representation of GFP-labeled primary or mCherry-labeled liver metastatic cells in a tumor derived from injection of a mixed population containing equal numbers of labeled primary and liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the pancreas as determined by flow cytometry. Each data point represents one mouse; the numbers associated with each mouse indicate animal ID with each animal being injected with the same mixed population of cells. (i) Representation of mCherry-labeled primary or GFP-labeled liver metastatic cells in a tumor derived from injection of a mixed population containing equal numbers of labeled primary and liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the pancreas as determined by flow cytometry. Each data point represents one mouse; the numbers associated with each mouse indicate animal ID with each animal being injected with the same mixed population of cells. (j) Immunohistochemistry to assess GFP and mCherry expression in a tumor derived from injection of a mixed population containing equal numbers of primary and liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the pancreas as in (h) Scale bar, 250 μm. (k) Representation of GFP-labeled primary or mCherry-labeled liver metastatic cells in a tumor derived from injection of a mixed population containing equal numbers of primary and metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the liver as determined by flow cytometry. Each data point represents one mouse; the numbers associated with each mouse indicate animal ID with each animal being injected with the same mixed population of cells. (l) Immunohistochemistry to assess GFP and mCherry expression in three different tumors derived from injection of a mixed population containing equal numbers of a primary and liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the liver as in (k), although the mixed population of cells were from an independent experiment where the primary tumor cells were labeled with mCherry, and the liver metastasis cells were labeled with GFP. Scale bar, ~2500 μm. (m) Immunohistochemistry to assess GFP, mCherry, or Cytokeratin-19 (Ck19) expression in whole mount liver tissue sections from a mouse from an independent experiment where a mixed population containing equal numbers of primary, and liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells were implanted into the liver as in (m). (n) Representation of GFP-labeled primary or mCherry-labeled liver metastatic cells in a tumor derived from subcutaneous injection of mixed population containing equal numbers of labeled primary and liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the flank. Each data point represents one mouse; the numbers associated with each mouse indicate animal ID with each animal being injected with the same mixed population of cells. (o) Representation of mCherry-labeled primary or GFP-labeled liver metastatic cells in a tumor derived from subcutaneous injection of mixed population containing equal numbers of labeled primary and liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the flank. Each data point represents one mouse; the numbers associated with each mouse indicate animal ID with each animal being injected with the same mixed population of cells.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Assessment of glucose and glutamine fate and amino acid levels in primary pancreatic tumors and liver metastases.
(a) Plasma enrichment of U13C-glucose as determined by GC-MS after a 6-hour U13C-glucose infusion at a rate of 0.4 mg/min29 in mice with a primary pancreatic tumor (pancreas; n=2 female mice) or with a liver metastatic pancreatic tumor (liver; n=4 female mice). (b-i) Fractional labeling of each indicated metabolite in the indicated tissue harvested from aged-matched control mice (pancreas, liver) or from mice harboring a primary pancreatic tumor, a subcutaneous pancreatic tumor, or a liver metastatic tumor that was infused with U13C-glucose as measured by GC-MS. In all cases tumors were generated by implanting pancreatic cancer cells derived from a primary tumor arising in the KP−/−C model. Mean +/− stdev; **p= 0.0088, *p=0.0224 (panel b); *p=0.0237; n.s.- not significant. Comparisons between groups were made using a two-tailed Student’s t-test (b and c). n=6 mice were used for the normal tissues (both pancreas and liver), n=4 mice were used for the pancreatic tumor, n=5 mice were used for the liver tumor, and n=5 mice were used for the subcutaneous tumors. (j-o) Fractional labeling of each indicated metabolite in pancreatic cancer primary or liver metastasis tumors as measured by GC-MS following a 6-hour infusion of U13C-glutamine at a rate of 3.7 mg/kg/min into mice. In all cases tumors were generated by implanting pancreatic cancer cells derived from a primary tumor arising in the KP−/−C mouse model. Mean +/− stdev; n=4 mice/group. (p) Levels of amino acids measured by LC-MS from primary pancreatic tumors and matched liver metastases arising in KPC mice; Mean +/− stdev (n=4 mice/condition).
Extended Data Fig. 3 Metabolic characterization of primary pancreatic cancer and liver metastatic cells in culture.
(a) Heatmap representation of unsupervised clustering of relative metabolite levels measured by LC-MS from paired primary and liver metastatic cells cultured in standard DMEM conditions; data is shown in triplicate per cell line from three independently derived cell lines. (b-j) Fractional labeling of each indicated metabolite in cells derived from a primary pancreatic tumor or a liver metastasis after being cultured with U-13C glucose for 24 hours. mean +/− stdev; data is shown from three independently derived cell lines; n=3.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Characterization of pancreatic tumor transplants into the pancreas, liver, and lung.
(a) Weights of pancreatic tumor tissue or liver tissue containing liver metastases (liver met) 4 weeks after implanting the same number of primary tumor- or liver metastasis-derived pancreatic cancer cells into the pancreas or the liver as indicated. Tissue weight +/− stdev; n=3-5 mice/condition. (b) Calculated tumor tissue weight (pancreas and liver) and tumor weight (subcutaneous) corresponding to data shown in Fig. 2b; tumor weight is calculated as the difference in tissue weight between the tumor-bearing organ and normal age-matched tissue from a non-tumor bearing mouse. For both pancreatic tumors and liver tumors, the normal tissue weight of the pancreas or the liver was subtracted to determine the calculated tumor weight, despite the observation that the entire pancreas was transformed with no macroscopic evidence of normal tissue. Subcutaneous (s.c.) tumors represent actual tumor weight. Mean+/− stdev; *p=0.045 (comparing primary cells in the pancreas vs. liver); **p=0.0011 (comparing liver met cells in the pancreas vs. liver); **p=0.0057 (comparing primary cells in the pancreas vs. the subcutaneous); **p=0.0036 (comparing liver met cells in the pancreas vs. the subcutaneous); n=3 (subcutaneous and liver), n=4 (pancreas; primary cells) n=5 (pancreas; liver met) mice per condition. Comparisons between groups were made using a two-tailed Student’s t-test. Multiple comparisons were done using 2way ANOVA and corrected for multiple comparisons using the Tukey test; cell line effect (p=0.3496), location effect (p < 0.0001). (c) Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining of tissue sections involving tumors arising from primary pancreas or liver metastatic cancer cells implanted in the pancreas or liver as indicated. The boundary between normal tissue and tumor is indicated. Scale bar- 3700 μm (lower magnification; 0.3x); 500 μm (higher magnification; 2x); Histological assessment was done for each mouse once for each independent experiment. (d) H&E staining and immunohistochemistry staining for CK19 in tumor tissue derived from primary or liver metastatic cancer cells that were implanted into the pancreas or the liver as indicated. scale bar, 50 μm. (e) Schematic depicting transplantation experiments to quantitatively assess pancreatic cancer cell proliferation in different tissue sites. Created with BioRender.com. (f) H&E staining of naturally arising KPC tumors (primary, liver and lung metastases (mets)) (top) or tumors resulting from transplantation of cells derived from cells isolated from the indicated primary, liver or lung metastatic tumors into each indicated site (bottom); scale bar, 50 μm.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Assessment of proliferation and cell death in tumors.
(a-c) Ki67 staining of tumor tissue derived from primary or liver metastatic (Liver Met) pancreatic cancer cells that were implanted into the pancreas (left) or the liver (right) (a) or staining of tumor tissue from primary or lung metastatic (Lung Met) pancreatic cancer cells implanted into the pancreas (b), or lung (c) as indicated. scale bar, 50 μm. (d) Immunohistochemistry stain for BrdU in a representative tumor obtained from primary or liver metastatic pancreatic cancer cells injected in either the pancreas (left) or liver (right). scale bar, 20 μm. (e-g) Immunohistochemistry staining for cleaved caspase 3 in tumor sections derived from primary, liver, or lung metastatic pancreatic cancer cells injected in either the pancreas (e), liver (f) or lung (g). Representative region per section is shown with higher magnification image shown in the bottom right inset; scale bar for panels e-g: lower magnification- 200 μm, inset- 20 μm. For panels a-f, each image is a representative region from full scan of the entire section from 1 mouse.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Independent assessment of tumor growth in pancreas and liver in immunocompetent and Nu/J mice.
(a) Weights of the indicated tissues harvested from immunocompetent C57BL/6J mice where primary, or liver metastatic pancreatic cancer cells were implanted into the pancreas, liver, or subcutaneous space on the flank. Weight of age-matched normal pancreatic and liver tissue is also shown. n=5 (pancreas, primary and normal tissues), n=6 (pancreas, liver met); n=4 (liver), n=3 (subcutaneous) male and female mice; Mean+/− stdev; n.s.- not significant. ***p=0.0001. Also shown (right) is the calculated tumor weight (pancreas and liver) and tumor weight (subcutaneous; s.c.) for these data with tumor weight calculated as the difference in tissue weight between the tumor-bearing organ and the normal age-matched tissue from a non-tumor bearing mouse. For both pancreatic tumors and liver tumors, the normal tissue weight of the pancreas or the liver was subtracted to determine the calculated tumor weight, despite the observation that the entire pancreas was transformed with no macroscopic evidence of normal tissue. Subcutaneous (s.c.) tumors represent actual tumor weight. mean+/− stdev; ***p=0.0038. Multiple comparisons were done (right panel) using 2way ANOVA and corrected for multiple comparisons using the Tukey test; cell line effect (p=0.0520), location effect (p=0.0005). (b) Calculated tumor weight represented as the difference in tissue weight between tumor-bearing organ and normal age-matched tissue from non-tumor bearing age-matched immunocompromised nude (NU/J) mice; (n=3 (all samples except normal tissues (n=4)) mean+/− stdev is reported (c) Tissue weight from Fig. 2h, normalized to mouse body weight. (n=3 (all samples except normal tissues (n=4)) mice/group); ***p=0.0006, *p=0.0119, n.s.- not significant; mean+/− stdev (left); calculated tumor weight (as in (a)) normalized to body weight (n=3-4 mice/group); *p<0.05, n.s.- not significant; mean+/− stdev (right). Comparisons between groups were made using a two-tailed Student’s t-test (a-c). (d) Weight of NU/J mice 4 weeks post-implantation of the indicated cancer cells (primary or liver met; tumor bearing mice) or sham injection (non-tumor bearing mice) into the pancreas (left) or liver (right) as indicated; n=4 (non-tumor bearing) or 3 (tumor bearing) mice/group; mean+/− stdev.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Characterization of pancreatic tumor transplants into the pancreas, liver, and lung.
(a) Weights of the indicated tissues harvested from mice where primary pancreatic cancer cells, or liver or lung metastatic pancreatic cancer cells were implanted into the pancreas (pancreatic tumor), liver (liver+tumor), or lung (lung+tumor). Tissue weight +/− stdev. n=3-5 mice. (b) Calculated tumor weight (pancreas, liver, and lung) and tumor weight (subcutaneous) corresponding to data shown in Fig. 2k; tumor weight is calculated as the difference in tissue weight between the tumor-bearing organ and normal age-matched tissue from a non-tumor bearing mouse. For pancreatic tumors, liver tumors, and lung tumors the normal tissue weight of the pancreas, the liver, or the lung was subtracted to determine the calculated tumor weight, despite the observation that the entire pancreas was transformed with no macroscopic evidence of normal tissue. Subcutaneous tumors (s.c.) represent actual tumor weight. mean+/− stdev; *p<0.05, *p<0.01, ***p< 0.001. n=3-5 mice. Comparisons between individual groups were made using a two-tailed Student’s t-test. Multiple comparisons were done using 2way ANOVA and corrected for multiple comparisons using the Tukey test; cell line effect (p=0.0256), location effect (p < 0.0001). (c) Macroscopic images of liver (left) or lung (right) four weeks post injection of cancer cells derived from a primary pancreatic tumor (primary >) or from a liver or lung metastasis (liver met > or lung met >, respectively) into the indicated organ. N- normal tissue; T- tumor; arrows indicate tumor nodules in the lung. Each macroscopic image is from one mouse. (d-f) Whole mount H&E-stained liver or lung tissue from mice where primary pancreatic cancer cells (d), liver (e), or lung (f) metastatic cancer cells were implanted into the indicated site. Scale bars are indicated in the figure panels; higher magnification images are shown for smaller tumors; tumors in the liver are indicated. Histological images are shown for each individual mouse (g) Macroscopic images of lung four weeks post tail vein injection of pancreatic liver metastasis-derived cells. (h) Weights of age-matched normal lung (n=2 mice) or weights of lungs with tumors (n=3 mice) from female mice described in (g). Mean +/− stdev (left); Tumor weight is calculated as the difference in tissue weight between the tumor-bearing lung and normal age-matched lung from a non-tumor bearing mouse. Mean +/− stdev (right). (i) Whole mount H&E-stained lung tissue from mice injected with pancreatic liver metastases via tail vein. Scale bar- 2 mm. Higher magnification is shown on the bottom; scale bar- 100 μM. Histological image is from each mouse and is an independently repeated experiment from an independently derived cell line to accompany data shown in Fig. 2k and Extended Data Fig. 7b.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Passaging pancreatic tumors in the lung or liver of mice selects for increased seeding of the metastatic tissue and analysis of primary liver and primary lung cancer cells.
(a) Macroscopic tissue images and histology assessing that tissue after each passage where cells from a lung metastasis (top) or liver metastasis (bottom) were serially implanted to from tumors in each organ. P1-P3 refers to each passage. Tumor areas indicated by boundary or arrows. (b) Quantification of lung metastases generated when parental (P0) or P3 lung metastatic pancreatic cancer cells were injected into the tail vein of wild type mice (left). Tumor area was calculated as the area of the tumor divided by the total area of tissue for all lung sections as assessed by H&E staining. Mean +/− stdev; n=3 mice/condition. (c) Quantification of the number of lung nodules generated when parental (P0) or P3 lung metastatic pancreatic cancer cells were implanted to form a tumor in the pancreas (right). Mean +/− stdev; n=3 (all conditions except P0 (n=4)) mice/condition. (d) Quantification of liver metastases generated when parental (P0) or P3 liver metastatic pancreatic cancer cells were injected into the liver. Tumor area was calculated as the area of the tumor divided by the total area of tissue for all liver sections as assessed by H&E staining; Mean +/− stdev; n=3 (P0) and n=4 (P3) mice. (e) Macroscopic images of liver (top) or lung and liver (bottom) after implantation of P3 liver metastatic pancreatic cancer cells (Liver Met P3 >) into the Liver (top) or the tail vein (bottom) as indicated. N- normal tissue; T- tumor; arrows indicate tumor nodules in the lung or liver. (f) Calculated tumor tissue weight (pancreas, liver, and lung) and tumor weight (subcutaneous) corresponding to data shown in Fig. 3b–e; tumor weight is calculated as the difference in tissue weight between the tumor-bearing organ and normal age-matched tissue from a non-tumor bearing mouse. Subcutaneous tumors represent actual tumor weight. For pancreatic tumors, liver tumors, and lung tumors the normal tissue weight of the pancreas, the liver, or the lung was subtracted to determine the calculated tumor weight, despite the observation that the entire pancreas was transformed with no macroscopic evidence of normal tissue. Mean+/− stdev; n=4 (pancreas; all cells except Lung Met P0 (n=5)), n=4 (liver), n=3 (lung, all cells except Liver Met P3 (n=4), n=3 (subcutaneous) mice/condition *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; n.s.- not significant. Comparisons between groups were made using a two-tailed Student’s t-test (g) Calculated tumor weight corresponding to relevant data shown in Fig. 3b–d and Fig. 4a. Tumor weight is calculated as the difference in tissue weight between the tumor-bearing organ and normal age-matched tissue from a non-tumor bearing mouse. For pancreatic tumors, liver tumors, and lung tumors the normal tissue weight of the pancreas, the liver, or the lung was subtracted to determine the calculated tumor weight. Mean+/− stdev; n=3 mice/condition *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; n.s.- not significant. Comparisons between groups were made using a two-tailed Student’s t-test. (h) Histology of tumor sections corresponding to intratracheal injection of indicated cancer cells into the lung that relate to data shown in Fig. 4b. (i) Ultrasound guided injection (USGI) of primary lung cancer cells or pancreatic cancer lung metastases into the lung and quantification of tumor area. Each data point represents one mouse and n=3 (lung primary cells) and n=6 (pancreas primary cells) mice; mean +/− stdev (j) Representative histology of tumor sections that related to data shown in (c) showing single tumor nodule formation in the lung following UGSI. Scale bar is 2 mm. (k) Calculated tumor weight corresponding to data shown in Fig. 4c as well as data in Fig. 3b–d. Tumor weight is calculated as the difference in tissue weight between the tumor-bearing organ and normal age-matched tissue from a non-tumor bearing mouse. For pancreatic tumors and liver tumors the normal tissue weight of the pancreas and the liver was subtracted to determine the calculated tumor weight. Mean+/− stdev; n=3 (liver primary, pancreas and liver) and n=4 (liver metastases, pancreas and liver) mice/condition *p<0.05. Comparisons between groups were made using a two-tailed Student’s t-test.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Histology images of primary lung and primary liver tumors and assessment of metabolite levels in tissues.
(a-b) H&E stained histology sections of tumors obtained from injection of primary lung cancer cells into either the lung (top) or liver (bottom) (a) or from injection of primary liver cancer cells (HCC) into the lung (top) or liver (bottom) (b). n=3 mice/condition; data accompany tumor area data shown in Fig. 4d, e. (c) Principal component analysis (PCA) plot showing the separation of metabolite levels measured in pooled in interstitial fluid form indicated organs or plasma from wild-type non-tumor bearing animals. (d) Proliferation rate of primary lung cancer cells (human A549 cells or mouse KP primary lung cancer cells) and cells from a KPC pancreatic cancer lung metastasis (lung met) in media formulated to mimic metabolite levels measured in lung interstitial fluid (lung media); average of n=3 biological replicates were used for A549 cells and pancreatic lung met cells and average of n=2 biological replicates were used for the lung primary cells; mean +/− stdev.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Analysis of metabolic gene expression from mouse and human tissues.
(a-c) Metabolic gene expression derived from scRNA-seq data27 that is another representation of the data presented in Fig. 4g, h. Data represented as entire cell populations and comparing primary pancreatic cancer (PDAC) and liver metastases (liver met) arising in the mouse KPC PDAC model (a); A cross correlation of metabolic gene expression between pairs of single cells are plotted ordered by either site (b), or barcode (c); within a given barcode, pairs of cells tend to have high correlations in their metabolic expression, whereas there are subsets of cells within sites that have different metabolic gene expression but these subsets of cells do not separate based on tissue site; that is a given barcode across has similar metabolic gene expression across metastatic sites. (d) PCA of a human RNA-seq dataset39,40 comparing metabolic gene expression in primary pancreatic tumors (Primary PDAC; green), liver metastatic PDAC (yellow), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; purple), and healthy liver (blue) as indicated. (e) Average Pearson correlation comparing metabolic similarity between pancreatic liver metastases (Met PDAC; yellow data points) to primary tumors (Primary PDAC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or healthy liver. Liver metastatic PDAC with higher Pearson correlation to HCC and healthy liver contains a higher degree of hepatocyte contamination (circled yellow data points) in (d) and (e). The p-value was determined using paired two-tailed Student t-test comparing Primary PDAC to HCC for the Met PDAC tumors.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Tables 1–6
Supplementary Table 1: Normalized data depicting the relative metabolite levels of paired primary pancreatic tumors and liver metastases obtained from KPC mice and normal tissues. Supplementary Table 2: Normalized data depicting relative metabolite levels in cells derived from paired primary and liver metastatic KPC tumors and cultured in standard culture media. Supplementary Table 3: Histological characterization of tumor grade for KPC pancreatic primary tumors, liver metastases and lung metastases as well as tumors derived from transplanting cancer cells from primary pancreatic cancers or liver metastases from the KPC mouse model into different sites as indicated. Supplementary Table 4: Normalized data depicting the relative metabolite levels of tumors derived from injection of primary, lung metastatic and in vivo adapted lung metastatic cell lines into the pancreas as well as normal lung tissues. Supplementary Table 5: Histological characterization of primary lung cancer cells or primary liver cancer cells transplanted in either the lung or the liver as indicated. Supplementary Table 6: Absolute concentrations of metabolites measured in interstitial fluid isolated from the indicated mouse tissues or plasma.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 1
Unprocessed western blots.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sivanand, S., Gultekin, Y., Winter, P.S. et al. Cancer tissue of origin constrains the growth and metabolism of metastases. Nat Metab 6, 1668–1681 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-024-01105-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-024-01105-9
This article is cited by
-
Advances in molecular pathology and therapy of non-small cell lung cancer
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (2025)
