Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Clin Exp Metastasis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 November 25.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2991638

Imaging and quantifying the dynamics of tumor-associated proteolysis


The roles of proteases in cancer are dynamic. Furthermore, the roles or functions of any one protease may differ from one stage of cancer to another. Proteases from tumor-associated cells (e.g., fibroblasts, inflammatory cells, endothelial cells) as well as from tumor cells make important contributions to ‘tumor proteolysis’. Many tumors exhibit increases in expression of proteases at the level of transcripts and protein; however, whether those proteases play causal roles in malignant progression is known for only a handful of proteases. What the critical substrate or substrates that are cleaved in vivo by any given protease is also known for only a few proteases. Therefore, the recent development of techniques and reagents for live cell imaging of protease activity, in conjunction with informed knowledge of critical natural substrates, should help to define protease functions. Here we describe live cell assays for imaging proteolysis, protocols for quantifying proteolysis and the use of such assays to follow the dynamics of proteolysis by tumor cells alone and tumor cells interacting with other cells found in the tumor microenvironment. In addition, we describe an in vitro model that recapitulates the architecture of the mammary gland, a model designed to determine the effects of dynamic interactions with the surrounding microenvironment on ‘tumor proteolysis’ and the respective contributions of various cell types to ‘tumor proteolysis’. The assays and models described here could serve as screening platforms for the identification of proteolytic pathways that are potential therapeutic targets and for further development of technologies and imaging probes for in vivo use.

Keywords: Imaging probes, Invasion, Malignant progression, Proteolytic pathways, Tumor microenvironment


The roles of proteases in cancer are dynamic as is described in a recent book dedicated to this area of investigation [1]. The myriad roles include degradation of extracellular matrices as tumors invade into adjacent tissues or endothelial cells form neovessels, activation of growth factors, inactivation of protease inhibitors, apoptosis, etc. The roles of any one protease or protease class may vary from one type of cancer to another and within a single type of cancer from one stage of malignant progression to another. Furthermore, multiple classes of proteases and thus proteolytic pathways appear to be involved. The cellular source of tumor proteases may be tumor-associated cells (e.g., fibroblasts, inflammatory cells, endothelial cells) as well as tumor cells. Expression of proteases may also be affected by the interactions of tumor cells with other cells in the surrounding stroma (e.g., see [2-5]). Proteases are generally thought of as promoting malignant progression. Thus, it is of interest that there are more examples of proteases that suppress progression, with many of those proteases originating in tumor-associated cells [6]. In order to define the various functions of proteases in tumors and the relevance of those functions to malignant progression, we need to be able to assess protease activity and to determine what are the critical substrates cleaved by the proteases [7, 8]. The recent development of functional imaging techniques has provided investigators with probes and methodologies to both measure and localize protease activity [9-11]. By using selective probes or protease inhibitors, one can discriminate the activity of one class of protease from another. In this review, we discuss assays for imaging the proteolysis associated with tumor cells and tumor cells in the context of their microenvironment. We describe an in vitro assay that our laboratory has developed for imaging and quantifying proteolysis by live cells and model systems that we have designed in an effort to recapitulate the architecture of the tumor and its microenvironment. These in vitro assays and models can serve as screening platforms for: (1) the identification of proteases and proteolytic pathways that are potential therapeutic targets, (2) the testing of reagents such as inhibitors that abrogate protease activity, and (3) further development of imaging probes for in vivo use.

Live cell imaging of proteolysis or protease activity

Functional roles for proteases in cancer, other disease processes and normal development can only be defined if we have methods by which to analyze protease activity in live cells and tissues (for review, see [12]). Smith and van Frank [13] were pioneers in optimizing histochemical techniques for the measurement of protease activities against small synthetic substrates. Such substrates while allowing one to assess the activity of a single protease do not indicate whether protein substrates that are critical for cancer progression are cleaved by this protease. Thus, many investigators have used fluorescently-tagged protein substrates to assess protease activity, using primarily proteins that might be degraded by migrating or invading tumor cells such as fibronectin, laminin and various collagens including denatured collagen (gelatin). Indeed, the identification of invadopodia, a protease-rich structure involved in invasion of tumor cells, is based on their ability to degrade fluorescently (FITC)-labeled fibronectin or gelatin in distinct spots beneath the cells (for a recent review, see [14]). The spots of degradation are somewhat difficult to visualize as they are small areas of reduced fluorescence in a field of bright fluorescence. Kindelskii et al. [15] have also used fluorescently-labeled proteins, i.e., FITC-casein and Bodipy FL-bovine serum albumin, to assess proteolytic activity associated with single cells, in this case human neutrophils, HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cells, T47D human breast carcinoma cells and mouse macrophages. FITC-casein and Bodipy FL-bovine serum albumin, in contrast to FITC-fibronectin, FITC-laminin or FITC-gelatin, are weakly fluorescent and become strongly fluorescent upon cleavage. This property allowed Kindelskii et al. [15] to: (1) image sequential areas of proteolysis beneath single live cells as they migrated on labeled matrices, (2) show that pericellular proteolytic activity is not uniformly distributed along the cell surface, and (3) demonstrate an association of uPA with the pericellular proteolysis of casein and albumin. Others, including ourselves, have used quenched fluorescent (DQ)-protein substrates for imaging substrate degradation or proteolysis. DQ-protein substrates, which are commercially available from Invitrogen, do not fluoresce until they are cleaved by a protease at which point they fluoresce green. As a result, proteolytic activity is seen as an increase in fluorescence on a background that is not fluorescent. This is much easier to visualize than the loss in fluorescence discussed above. As an example, one can image pericellular proteolysis of either FITC-collagen IV or DQ-collagen IV, but one cannot image an intracellular loss of fluorescence due to proteolysis of FITC-collagen IV. Our laboratory has used a number of the DQ-protein substrates in a confocal microscopy assay for imaging of proteolysis by live cells grown in monolayer or 3D monocultures or organotypic cocultures [8], as will be described in more detail below. Wolf et al. [16] have used DQ-collagen I to localize the sites of degradation of fibrillar collagen by single HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cells migrating in 3D collagen lattices. Interestingly, the cells have an anterior degradation-free region that coincides with the pseudopods. Such an observation was only made possible through use of the DQ-substrate that allows one to localize proteolytic activity produced by live cells. DQ-substrates, however, have been used to localize proteolytic activity in tissue sections. For example, Mook et al. [17] used DQ-gelatin as a substrate for in situ zymography of unfixed cryostat sections of colon cancer metastases in rat liver. They observed that the areas of degradation of DQ-gelatin corresponded to regions of staining for MMP-2 and collagen IV.

An advantage of a live cell proteolysis assay with DQ-substrates is that one can localize proteolytic activity while cellular processes are ongoing. In the case of cell migration, this allowed Wolf et al. [16] to identify regions on the cell surface where proteolysis of collagen I occurs. In our laboratory, we have found that the ability of live cells to endocytose substrates in conjunction with the use of DQ-substrates has allowed us to image cleavage fragments of the DQ-substrates intracellularly as well as extracellularly [18]. There had been static images showing collagen fragments within the lysosomes of cells, but this had been presumed to be the result of phagocytosis [19]. By using a live cell proteolysis assay and a DQ-substrate, we have demonstrated that some cells endocytose undigested DQ-substrates and degrade those substrates in the endolysosomal compartment, whereas other cells endocytose partially degraded DQ-substrates and degrade them further in the endolysosomal compartment [18, 20] (Cavallo-Medved and Sloane, unpublished data]. We have distinguished between these two pathways with cell-permeable inhibitors that target lysosomal cysteine cathepsins or cell-impermeable inhibitors of cysteine cathepsins, serine proteases and MMPs [18, 21]. We confirmed that the cysteine cathepsins degrade the DQ-substrate in vitro in a ‘test tube’ fluorometric assay, in which we used the DQ-substrates in place of the conventional synthetic substrate [18].

Components of the live cell proteolysis assays as performed in our laboratory are illustrated in panels a and b of Fig. 1. We do not use the DQ-substrates alone, but rather incorporate them into an ECM. For example, we mix DQ-collagen IV into rBM, DQ-collagen I into collagen I, or DQ-gelatin into gelatin. We then use these mixtures to coat coverslips or culture dishes. For collagen I, we use plastic to improve the adherence of the matrices to the coverslips or dishes. We then plate either single cells, cellular spheroids or organotypic co-culture models on top of the ECM mixture and cover the cells with culture media appropriate for the cells being studied. The exceptions are: (1) rBM overlay cultures such as those described by Brugge and colleagues [22, 23] in which the media covering the cells includes 2% rBM and (2) analyses of stromal cells such as fibroblasts in which the cells are embedded in type I collagen containing DQ-collagen I. In all cases, fluorescent degradation fragments are generated and can be imaged over time, either sequentially at various intervals over a period of days or continuously.

Fig. 1
Diagrammatic representation of the components of a 3D rBM ‘overlay culture’ grown on rBM containing a DQ-substrate (a) and of the tripartite MAME model (b). Green, red and dark blue represent the fluorescent cleavage fragments of the DQ-substrate, ...

In earlier proof-of-principle studies for this live cell proteolysis assay, we incorporated DQ-protein substrates into gelatin [18, 24]. The processes of degradation, migration and invasion observed with a gelatin matrix are comparable to those observed with either rBM or type I collagen, but occur over a shorter timescale due to the ease of digestion of gelatin. Nonetheless, a gelatin matrix does not reflect the in vivo situation so we only employ this matrix for comparison with rBM in regard to cord formation by endothelial cells [25]. Our goal is to develop models for analysis of proteolysis in vitro, models that mimic in vivo architecture such as the tripartite MAME model (shown in the cartoon of Fig. 1b and described below) and models that use matrices and substrates that are relevant to ECM degradation in vivo.

Imaging dynamics of proteolysis by tumor cells and by tumor cells interacting with cells found in the tumor microenvironment

We have previously shown that interactions of stromal cells with breast and colon tumor cells enhance degradation of ECM proteins [21]. To further study these interactions and the associated proteolysis, we used confocal/multiphoton microscopy to analyze in 4D (3D + time) degradation of DQ-collagen IV in rBM under live cell conditions. The cells used for these studies were BT20 and BT549 human breast carcinoma cells and HCT 116 human colon carcinoma cells alone or in co-culture with WS-12Ti human breast fibroblasts and CCD-112CON human colon fibroblasts, respectively, in the presence and absence of protease inhibitors. Fibroblasts were prestained with Cell Tracker Orange or Cell Tracker Far Red to distinguish them from tumor cells. We first assessed proteolysis by the tumor cells in the absence of stromal cells. Live cells were imaged at intervals over a 24-h period by confocal microscopy. Initially, HCT 116 and BT549 cells were motile and migrated together to form spheroids/aggregates; fluorescent cleavage products of DQ-collagen IV were present intracellularly (Fig. 2a1 and b1, respectively). By 24 h, fluorescent cleavage products were found pericellularly, particularly around the BT549 aggregates (Fig. 2b2). In contrast, the cleavage products associated with BT20 cells were pericellular at all timepoints (Fig. 2c1 and c2). Degradation of DQ-collagen IV was increased when tumor cells were cocultured with fibroblasts (Fig. 2a3, b3 and c3). Quantification of the proteolysis per cell in a three-dimensional stack of images of the cultures was performed using methodology described in detail in Current Protocols in Cell Biology [26]. This revealed a 4-fold increase in HCT 116/CCD-112CON cocultures [21], 3-fold in BT549/ WS12Ti cocultures (Fig. 3) and 15-fold in BT20/WS12Ti cocultures [21]. Inhibitors of three classes of proteases reduced the proteolysis to levels below that in cultures of the tumor cell alone, as illustrated here for the BT549/ WS12Ti cocultures (Fig. 3). In the BT549/WS-12Ti co-cultures, degradation was reduced with a broad-spectrum MMP inhibitor (25 μM GM6001), cathepsin B-selective cysteine protease inhibitors (10 μM CA074 + 10 μM CA074Me) or a broad-spectrum serine protease inhibitor (2 μM aprotinin) (Fig. 3). These findings support the contention that stromal cells contribute significantly to overall tumor proteolysis. Furthermore, several catalytic-types of proteases participate, suggesting that targeting multiple classes of proteases may be a more effective strategy than targeting a single class such as the MMPs. Whether this contributed to the failure of MMP inhibitors in clinical trials is an open question as are other possibilities for the failure of these clinical trials [27-30].

Fig. 2
Tumor cell degradation of ECM is increased when the tumor cells are co-cultured with fibroblasts. Images illustrate degradation fragments of DQ-collagen IV (green fluorescence) in live 3D cultures of HCT 116 human colon carcinoma cells (a1–3), ...
Fig. 3
Inhibitors of MMPs (GM6001), cysteine cathepsins (CA074/CA0Me) and serine proteases (aprotinin) reduce degradation of DQcollagen IV (green fluorescence) in co-cultures of BT549 breast carcinoma cells and WS-12Ti fibroblasts to levels below that in cultures ...

Imaging dynamics of proteolysis by migrating endothelial cells

Angiogenesis is critical to tumor growth and metastasis and therefore it is not surprising that angiogenesis inhibitors are proving to be efficacious in the clinic [31, 32]. Pericellular proteases and degradation of ECM are required for angiogenesis [33, 34] so we were interested in seeing whether proteolysis could be imaged as endothelial cells form cord-like structures in vitro (Fig. 4a). We plated HUVECs on rBM containing DQ-collagen IV and imaged cultures maintained on a Zeiss LSM 510 microscope in a controlled environmental chamber. Images were acquired every 20 min over a 16 h period (Fig. 4b, c). Pericellular degradation products were observed as early as 2 h, i.e., at a time when the cells first began to form multi-cellular clusters and to align into small cord-like structures (Fig. 4b), and were extensive at 6 h (Fig. 4c). The extent of degradation products was reduced by 14 h when the cells had coalesced into larger cord-like structures (Fig. 4d). Degradation products also were observed around individual HUVECs migrating toward and becoming incorporated into the structures (not illustrated). These observations are consistent with ECM degradation being required for formation of cord-like structures by endothelial cells (for review, see [35, 36]).

Fig. 4
DQ-collagen IV is degraded as HUVECs migrate in vitro into cord-like structures. HUVEC were grown for 18 h on glass coverslips coated with rBM containing 25 μg/ml DQ-collagen IV. Panel a illustrates a DIC image of the HUVEC cord-like structures ...

MAME: an in vitro model designed to facilitate studies on how dynamic interactions with the surrounding microenvironment impact tumor proteolysis

Epithelial/carcinoma cells in 3D laminin-rich, rBM: We have extended an established model for analyzing morphogenesis and oncogenic transformation of human breast epithelial cells, i.e., 10A cells, in a 3D laminin-rich, rBM overlay culture system [22, 23] to include isogenic premalignant (AT1, DCIS1) and malignant (CA1d) variants of the pseudodiploid, parental MCF-10A cells, hereafter referred to as 10A [37-42]. The 10A cells were obtained from a reduction mammoplasty of a woman diagnosed with fibrocystic breast disease and have previously been characterized in 3D rBM overlay culture as a model for normal mammary epithelia. This model recapitulates apicobasal polarity, cell–cell junctions, strict control of cell proliferation and apoptosis, and formation of functional glandular structures [22, 23, 43]. When single 10A cells are grown in 3D rBM overlay cultures, they proliferate and form spheroids that over time develop into polarized acini with lumens, as illustrated in Fig. 5a by staining for the basal polarity marker, α6 integrin (red). In contrast, when the isogenic 10A variants are grown in 3D rBM overlay culture [44], they form structures that exhibit abnormalities as compared to normal acini such that they model the stages of atypical hyperplasia, dysplasia and carcinoma (Fig. 5b). Indeed, the morphologies of the isogenic variants in 3D rBM overlay cultures are comparable to those observed when these cells are grown as xenografts in immunodeficient mice [37, 40]. Staining for cleaved caspase 3 (Fig. 5b, green) reveals that apoptotic cells are common in the central region of 10A structures, increasingly scattered in AT1 and DCIS1 structures and rare in CA1d structures. The CA1d cells invade into the rBM, forming large invasive structures in which staining for α6 integrin is absent (Fig. 5b, red). Thus, we now have in hand an isogenic breast model system that represents stages in the transition from non-invasive through pre-invasive to invasive and that can be used to delineate causal roles of proteases in the progression to invasive carcinomas.

Fig. 5
Isogenic MCF-10A variants model premalignant progression when grown in 3D rBM overlay cultures. a Polarized 10A acinus; bar, 10 μm. b Stages of normal, atypical hyperplasia, dysplasia and carcinoma; bar, 50 μm. At 12 days, the structures ...

Cells of tumor microenvironment in a collagenous stroma: There is a body of literature [45-52], including a series of recent reviews in Breast Cancer Research [53-59] on the role of the tumor microenvironment in promoting breast tumor progression. There is also striking evidence from mouse transgenic models of mammary carcinoma that the tumor microenvironment, including cellular constituents that are present in normal mammary tissue or that infiltrate as a consequence of angiogenic or inflammatory processes, contributes to progression of these tumors (e.g., see [60-66]). Although increases in expression of proteases have long been associated with tumors, many of those proteases originate from cells that infiltrate the tumors rather than the tumor cells themselves (e.g., see [66, 67]). Using the live cell imaging assay described above [12, 18, 21, 26, 68], we have shown that co-culturing fibroblasts (see above) and/or macrophages with breast carcinoma cells [21] increases degradation of the basement membrane protein type IV collagen. Polyak and colleagues [69] have found dramatic changes in gene expression in the myoepithelial cells/[myo]fibroblasts of DCIS lesions, suggesting that the microenvironment affects preneoplastic progression as well as later stages of breast cancer progression. In the normal breast, the breast fibroblasts are present in a stroma consisting of type I collagen. We had previously established that breast fibroblasts degrade DQ-collagen I [21] (Fig. 6 and Supplemental Fig. 6 movie). To provide a better matrix context for the cells, we developed the MAME 3D triple-layer or tripartite co-culture system that is depicted in the cartoon of Fig. 1b. The bottom layer is type I collagen, containing DQ-collagen I, in which we embed breast fibroblasts. The middle and top layers are the two layers of the 3D laminin-rich, rBM overlay cultures using either the 10A isogenic variants described above or a variety of human breast cancer cell lines. In these tripartite MAME cultures, we have observed that the fibroblasts migrate toward the carcinoma cells, eventually infiltrating into the carcinoma structure over a period of 7 days (data not shown). The breast carcinoma cells migrate towards the lower layer of fibroblasts, but more slowly over a period of 3 weeks, and in so doing generate fluorescent degradation products pericellularly (data not shown). In contrast, extensive diffuse fluorescence is associated with the bottom layer of fibroblasts. To date, we have maintained the tripartite MAME cultures for as long as 24 days and imaged live cultures at intervals over that period. Although we ourselves are primarily interested in using MAME cultures for studying proteolysis, the tripartite and other modifications of the MAME cultures provide an experimental system in which one can test other aspects of the tumor microenvironment as it affects the progression of human breast cancer.

Fig. 6
2D imaging in real-time of breast fibroblasts degrading DQ-collagen I (green fluorescence) as they migrate on a matrix of collagen I containing DQ-collagen I. Note trail of fluorescent cleavage products (denoted in panel b and the inset by arrows) left ...

Quantifying tumor-associated proteolysis

The live cell proteolysis assay can be used in MAME cultures of the 10A isogenic variants (described above) to identify proteases that are causal in the transition from pre-invasive to invasive. As such proteases might be therapeutic targets, it is critical that we be able to quantify the proteolysis in order to accurately monitor the efficacy of drugs/inhibitors. With this in mind, we developed methods for quantifying the fluorescent degradation products on a per cell basis, as illustrated in Fig. 7 and also in Fig. 3. Detailed protocols for quantifying the fluorescent degradation products per cell in three-dimensional stacks of images have been described [26]. We illustrate in Fig. 7 and also in Fig. 3 the quantification of total proteolysis and in Fig. 7 the quantification of both intracellular and pericellular proteolysis based on fluorescent intensity. By pre-labeling the cells with a cytoplasmic dye or by expression of mRFP, we can define the entire volume of the cell and/or 3D cellular structure under study. This information is used to mask the intracellular proteolysis so that only pericellular proteolysis is considered in the initial determination. Once pericellular proteolysis is measured, the value obtained can be subtracted from the total proteolysis to determine the value for intracellular proteolysis. This allows us to directly compare the intracellular and pericellular proteolysis. Note that in Fig. 7 single confocal sections at the equatorial plane are illustrated for reference. The actual quantification is, however, performed on the entire Z-stack and thus proteolysis of a 3D structure is determined.

Fig. 7
Quantification of DQ-collagen IV degradation products, including extracellular and intracellular products, generated by live HCT 116 human colon carcinoma cells in 3D rBM culture. Total proteolysis of DQ-collagen IV in all optical sections throughout ...


Having assays that allow one to image protease activity in the context of proteolytic pathways is important for defining the roles of proteases in biological and pathological processes. We anticipate that assays to image protease activity may serve as surrogate markers for therapies that target signaling pathways upstream of proteases. As with any assay, however, there are advantages and disadvantages. Major advantages of the live cell imaging assay and the tripartite MAME model described here are: (1) the dynamic nature due to the use of live cells; (2) the increase in signal or ‘gain-of-function’ that allows one to localize discrete areas of proteolysis; (3) the ability to quantify the proteolytic products generated on a per cell basis; (4) the system can be engineered to include different cell types, matrices and substrates; (5) the cells can be engineered to reduce or increase expression of a protease or protease inhibitor of interest; (6) proteolysis can be monitored in ‘real-time’ over time periods up to weeks; (7) the components of the assay can be fixed and processed so that the fluorescent degradation products can be colocalized with markers for subcellular compartments and membrane microdomains; and (8) other selective protease probes can be employed at the same time to identify and localize active proteases. We have established that DQ-substrates and activity-based probes for cysteine cathepsins [70] can be used simultaneously (Jedeszko and Sloane, unpublished data). Perhaps the most important advantage is that in this system one can assess proteolysis in an all-human system, e.g., human tumor cells, human stromal cells, human endothelial cells, human inflammatory cells and human ECMs, or for that matter in an all-mouse system that would allow the use of cells isolated from mice deficient in given proteases or protease inhibitors. There are also disadvantages such as: (1) the system is in vitro so any roles for in vivo processes such as blood flow cannot be evaluated; (2) the DQ-substrates used may be less resistant to proteolysis as a result of labeling; and (3) at present only FITC is used for labeling the commercial DQ-substrates, yet FITC is labile at acidic pHs such as found in endolysosomal compartments. This means that we may be underestimating intracellular proteolysis. Despite some limitations, the live cell imaging assay offers a unique system for dynamic imaging of proteolysis. Furthermore, the tripartite MAME model, which was designed to mimic the architecture of the human breast, provides a system that, in conjunction with the live cell imaging assay, can be used to assess the contribution of various breast cells and cell:cell interactions to proteolysis. Comparable models could be developed for the study of proteolysis in other tissues of interest.


This work was supported by U.S. Public Health Service Grant CA 56586 and the following awards from the Department of Defense: a Breast Cancer Center of Excellence (DAMD17-02-1-0693) and BC051230 predoctoral fellowship (CJ). The Microscopy and Imaging Resources Laboratory is supported by National Institutes of Health Center Grants P30ES06639 and P30CA22453 and a Roadmap Grant U54RR020843.


MCF-10A human breast epithelial cell line
Three dimensions
Three dimensions + time
MCF10.AT1 atypical hyperplastic cell line
Bovine serum albumin
MCF10.CA1d breast carcinoma cell line
MCF10.DCIS breast ductal carcinoma in situ cell line
Extracellular matrix
Fluorescein isothiocyanate
Human umbilical vein endothelial cells
Mammary architecture and microenvironment engineering
Matrix metalloproteinase
MCF-10AneoT ras-transfected breast epithelial cell line
Reconstituted basement membrane
Urokinase plasminogen activator


Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10585-008-9218-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contributor Information

Mansoureh Sameni, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Dora Cavallo-Medved, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Julie Dosescu, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Christopher Jedeszko, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Kamiar Moin, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Stefanie R. Mullins, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Mary B. Olive, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Deborah Rudy, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

Bonnie F. Sloane, Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA, ude.enyaw.dem@enaolsb, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.


1. Edwards DR, Hoyer-Hansen G, Blasi F, Sloane BF, editors. The cancer degradome—proteases and cancer biology. Springer; New York: 2008.
2. Bogenrieder T, Herlyn M. Axis of evil: molecular mechanisms of cancer metastasis. Oncogene. 2003;22:6524–6536. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1206757. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Kataoka H, Tanaka H, Nagaike K, Uchiyama S, Itoh H. Role of cancer cell-stroma interaction in invasive growth of cancer cells. Hum Cell. 2003;16:1–14. [PubMed]
4. Radisky ES, Radisky DC. Stromal induction of breast cancer: inflammation and invasion. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2007;8:279–287. doi: 10.1007/s11154-007-9037-1. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Mohamed MM, Cavallo-Medved D, Sloane BF. Human monocytes augment invasiveness and proteolytic activity of inflammatory breast cancer. Biol Chem. 2008;389:1117–1121. doi: 10.1515/BC.2008.117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
6. Lopez-Otin C, Matrisian LM. Emerging roles of proteases in tumour suppression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:800–808. doi: 10.1038/nrc2228. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. Enoksson M, Li J, Ivancic MM, Timmer JC, Wildfang E, Eroshkin A, et al. Identification of proteolytic cleavage sites by quantitative proteomics. J Proteome Res. 2007;6:2850–2858. doi: 10.1021/pr0701052. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Schilling O, Overall CM. Proteomic discovery of protease substrates. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2007;11:36–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2006.11.037. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. Fonović M, Bogyo M. Activity based probes for proteases: applications to biomarker discovery, molecular imaging and drug screening. Curr Pharm Des. 2007;13:253–261. doi: 10.2174/138161207779313623. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
10. Barglow KT, Cravatt BF. Activity-based protein profiling for the functional annotation of enzymes. Nat Methods. 2007;4:822–827. doi: 10.1038/nmeth1092. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
11. Funovics M, Weissleder R, Tung CH. Protease sensors for bioimaging. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2003;377:956–963. doi: 10.1007/s00216-003-2199-0. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
12. Moin K, Sameni M, Jedeszko C, et al. Images of cleavage: tumor proteases in action. In: Edwards DR, Hoyer-Hansen GF, Blasi F, Sloane BF, editors. The cancer degradome—proteases and cancer biology. Springer; New York: 2008.
13. Smith RE, van Frank RM. The use of amino acid derivatives of 4-methoxy-beta-naphthylamine for the assay and subcellular localization of tissue proteinases. Front Biol. 1975;43:193–249. [PubMed]
14. Stylli SS, Kaye AH, Lock P. Invadopodia: at the cutting edge of tumour invasion. J Clin Neurosci. 2008;15:725–737. [PubMed]
15. Kindzelskii AL, Amhad I, Keller D, Zhou MJ, Haugland RP, Garni-Wagner BA, et al. Pericellular proteolysis by leu-kocytes and tumor cells on substrates: focal activation and the role of urokinase-type plasminogen activator. Histochem Cell Biol. 2004;121:299–310. doi: 10.1007/s00418-004-0639-3. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
16. Wolf K, Wu YI, Liu Y, Geiger J, Tam E, Overall C, et al. Multi-step pericellular proteolysis controls the transition from individual to collective cancer cell invasion. Nat Cell Biol. 2007;9:893–904. doi: 10.1038/ncb1616. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
17. Mook OR, Van Overbeek C, Ackema EG, Van Maldegem F, Frederiks WM. In situ localization of gelatinolytic activity in the extracellular matrix of metastases of colon cancer in rat liver using quenched fluorogenic DQ-gelatin. J Histochem Cytochem. 2003;51:821–829. [PubMed]
18. Sameni M, Moin K, Sloane F. Imaging proteolysis by living human breast cancer cells. Neoplasia. 2000;2:406–504. doi: 10.1038/sj.neo.7900116. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
19. Levine AM, Reddick R, Triche T. Intracellular collagen fibrils in human sarcoma. Lab Invest. 1978;39:531–540. [PubMed]
20. Ahram M, Sameni M, Qiu RG, et al. Rac1-induced endocytosis is associated with intracellular proteolysis during migration through a 3-dimensional matrix. Exp Cell Res. 2000;260:292–303. doi: 10.1006/excr.2000.5031. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
21. Sameni M, Dosescu J, Moin K, et al. Functional imaging of proteolysis: stromal and inflammatory cells increase tumor proteolysis. Mol Imaging. 2003;2:159–175. doi: 10.1162/153535003322556903. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. Debnath J, Muthuswamy SK, Brugge JS. Morphogenesis and oncogenesis of MCF-10A mammary epithelial acini grown in three-dimensional basement membrane cultures. Methods. 2003;30:256–268. doi: 10.1016/S1046-2023(03)00032-X. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
23. Debnath J, Brugge JS. Modeling glandular epithelial cancers in three-dimensional cultures. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:675–688. doi: 10.1038/nrc1695. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
24. Sameni M, Dosescu J, Sloane BF. Imaging proteolysis by living human glioma cells. Biol Chem. 2001;382:785–788. doi: 10.1515/BC.2001.094. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
25. Davis GE, Senger DR. Endothelial extracellular matrix: biosynthesis, remodeling, and functions during vascular morphogenesis and neovessel stabilization. Circ Res. 2005;97:1093–1107. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.0000191547.64391.e3. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
26. Jedeszko C, Sameni M, Olive MB, et al. Visualizing protease activity in living cells: from 2D to 4D. Curr Protoc Cell Biol. 2008;39:4.20.1–4.20.15.
27. Zucker S, Cao J, Chen WT. Critical appraisal of the use of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors in cancer treatment. Oncogene. 2000;19:6642–6650. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1204097. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
28. Coussens LM, Fingleton B, Matrisian LM. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors and cancer: trials and tribulations. Science. 2002;295:2387–2392. doi: 10.1126/science.1067100. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
29. Mannello F, Tonti G, Papa S. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors as anticancer therapeutics. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2005;5:285–298. doi: 10.2174/1568009054064615. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
30. Overall CM, Kleifeld O. Tumour microenvironment—opinion: validating matrix metalloproteinases as drug targets and anti-targets for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:227–239. doi: 10.1038/nrc1821. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
31. Folkman J. Role of angiogenesis in tumor growth and metastasis. Semin Oncol. 2002;29:15–18. [PubMed]
32. Folkman J. Angiogenesis inhibitors: a new class of drugs. Cancer Biol Ther. 2003;2:S127–S1233. [PubMed]
33. van Hinsbergh VW, Engelse MA, Quaz PH. Pericellular proteases in angiogenesis and vasculogenesis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26:716–728. doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000209518.58252.17. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
34. Roy R, Zhang B, Moses MA. Making the cut: protease-mediated regulation of angiogenesis. Exp Cell Res. 2006;312:608–622. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2005.11.022. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
35. Sottile J. Regulation of angiogenesis by extracellular matrix. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004;1654:13–22. [PubMed]
36. Davis GE, Koh W, Stratman AN. Mechanisms controlling human endothelial lumen formation and tube assembly in three-dimensional extracellular matrices. Birth Defects Res Part C Embryo Today. 2007;81:270–285. doi: 10.1002/bdrc.20107. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
37. Miller FR, Santner SJ, Tait L, et al. xenograft model of human comedo ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1185–1186. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.14.1185A. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
38. Santner SJ, Dawson PJ, Tait L, et al. Malignant MCF10CA1 cell lines derived from premalignant human breast epithelial MCF10AT cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;65:101–110. doi: 10.1023/A:1006461422273. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
39. Soule HD, Maloney TM, Wolman SR, et al. Isolation and characterization of a spontaneously immortalized human breast epithelial cell line, MCF-10. Cancer Res. 1990;50:6075–6086. [PubMed]
40. Miller FR. Xenograft models of premalignant breast disease. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2000;5:379–391. doi: 10.1023/A:1009577811584. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
41. Basolo F, Elliott J, Tait L, et al. Transformation of human breast epithelial cells by c-Ha-ras oncogene. Mol Carcinog. 1991;4:25–35. doi: 10.1002/mc.2940040106. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
42. Dawson PJ, Wolman SR, Tait L, et al. MCF10AT: a model for the evolution of cancer from proliferative breast disease. Am J Pathol. 1996;148:313–319. [PubMed]
43. Debnath J, Mills KR, Collins NL, et al. The role of apoptosis in creating and maintaining luminal space within normal and oncogene-expressing mammary acini. Cell. 2002;111:29–40. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)01001-2. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
44. Li Q, Mullins SR, Sloane BF, et al. p21-activated kinase 1 coordinates aberrant cell survival and pericellular proteolysis in a three-dimensional culture model for premalignant progression of human breast cancer. Neoplasia. 2008;10(4):314–329. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. Elenbaas B, Weinberg RA. Heterotypic signaling between epithelial tumor cells and fibroblasts in carcinoma formation. Exp Cell Res. 2001;264:168–184. doi: 10.1006/excr.2000.5133. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
46. Roskelley CD, Bissell MJ. The dominance of the microenvironment in breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2002;12:97–204. doi: 10.1006/scbi.2001.0417. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
47. Wiseman BS, Werb Z. Stromal effects on mammary gland development and breast cancer. Science. 2002;296:1046–1049. doi: 10.1126/science.1067431. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
48. Erickson AC, Barcellos-Hoff MH. The not-so innocent bystander: the microenvironment as a therapeutic target in cancer. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2003;7:71–88. [PubMed]
49. Polyak K, Hu M. Do myoepithelial cells hold the key for breast tumor progression? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2005;10:231–247. doi: 10.1007/s10911-005-9584-6. review. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
50. Condeelis J, Pollard JW. Macrophages: obligate partners for tumor cell migration, invasion and metastasis. Cell. 2006;124:263–266. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.007. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
51. Lewis CE, Pollard JW. Distinct role of macrophages in different tumor microenvironments. Cancer Res. 2006;66:605–612. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4005. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
52. Nelson CM, Bissell MJ. Modeling dynamic reciprocity: engineering three-dimensional culture models of breast architecture, function, and neoplastic transformation. Semin Cancer Biol. 2005;15:342–352. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2005.05.001. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
53. Ben-Baruch A. Host microenvironment in breast cancer development: inflammatory cells, cytokines and chemokines in breast cancer progression: reciprocal tumor-microenvironment interactions. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5:31–36. doi: 10.1186/bcr554. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
54. Boudreau N, Myers C. Breast cancer-induced angiogenesis: multiple mechanisms and the role of the microenvironment. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5:140–146. doi: 10.1186/bcr589. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
55. Schedinn P, Elias A. Multistep tumorigenesis and the microenvironment. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6:93–101. doi: 10.1186/bcr772. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
56. Haslam SC, Woodward TL. Breast cancer-induced angiogenesis: multiple mechanisms and the role of the microenvironment. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;5:140–146. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Shekhar MP, Pauley R, Heppner G. Host microenvironment in breast cancer development: extracellular matrix-stromal cello contribution to neoplastic phenotype of epithelial cells in the breast. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5:130–135. doi: 10.1186/bcr580. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
58. Vincent-Salomon A, Theiry JP. Host microenvironment in breast cancer development: epithelial-mesenchymal transition in breast cancer development. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5:101–106. doi: 10.1186/bcr578. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
59. Yu JL, Rak JW. Host microenvironment in breast cancer development: inflammatory cells, cytokines and chemokines in breast cancer progression: reciprocal tumor-microenvironment interactions. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5:31–36. doi: 10.1186/bcr573. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
60. Curino AC, Engelholm LH, Yamada SS, et al. Intracellular collagen degradation mediated by uPARAP/Endo180 is a major pathway of extracellular matrix turnover during malignancy. J Cell Biol. 2005;169:977–985. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200411153. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
61. Vasiljeva O, Papazoglou A, Kruger A, et al. Tumor cell-derived and macrophage-derived cathepsin B promotes progression and lung metastasis of mammary cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66:5242–5250. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4463. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
62. Tynan JA, Wen F, Muller WJ, et al. Ets2-dependent microenvironment support of mouse mammary tumors. Oncogene. 2005;24:6870–6876. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1208856. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
63. Iyengar P, Espina V, Williams TW, et al. Adipocyte-derived collagen VI affects early mammary tumor progression in vivo, demonstrating a critical interaction in the tumor/stroma microenvironment. J Clin Invest. 2005;115:1163–1176. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. Lin EY, Li JF, Gnatovskiy L, et al. Macrophages regulate the angiogenic switch in a mouse model of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66:11238–11246. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1278. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
65. Duelli D, Lazebnik Y. Cell fusion: a hidden enemy? Cancer Cell. 2003;3:445–448. doi: 10.1016/S1535-6108(03)00114-4. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
66. Almholt K, Green KA, Juncker-Jensen A, et al. Extracellular proteolysis in transgenic mouse models of breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2007;12:83–97. doi: 10.1007/s10911-007-9040-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
67. Nielsen BS, Rank F, Illemann M, et al. Stromal cells associated with early invasive foci in human mammary ductal carcinoma in situ coexpress urokinase and urokinase receptor. Int J Cancer. 2007;20:2086–2095. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22340. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
68. Sloane BF, Sameni M, Podgorski I, et al. Functional imaging of tumor proteolysis. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;46:301–315. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.45.120403.095853. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
69. Allinen M, Beroukhim R, Cai L. Molecular characterization of the tumor microenvironment in breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2004;6:17–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2004.06.010. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
70. Blum G, Mullins SR, Keren K, Fonovic M, Jedeszko C, Rice MJ, et al. Dynamic imaging of protease activity with fluorescently quenched activity-based probes. Nat Chem Biol. 2005;1:203–209. doi: 10.1038/nchembio728. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]