Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Clinical oncology is in need of therapeutic innovation. New hypotheses and concepts for translation of basic
research to novel diagnostics and therapeutics are called for. In this context, the cancer stem cell (CSC)
hypothesis rests on the premise that tumors comprise tumor cells and a subset of tumor-initiating cells, CSCs, in
a quiescent state characterized by slow cell cycling and expression of specific stem cell surface markers with the
capability to maintain a tumor in vivo. The CSCs have unlimited self-renewal abilities and propagate tumors
through division into asymmetric daughter cells. This differentiation is induced by both genetic and environmental factors. Another characteristic of CSCs is their therapeutic resistance, which is due to their quiescent
state and slow dividing. Notably, the CSC phenotype differs greatly between patients and different cancer types.
The CSCs may differ genetically and phenotypically and may include primary CSCs and metastatic stem cells
circulating within the blood system. Targeting CSCs will require the knowledge of distinct stem cells within the
tumor. CSCs can differentiate into nontumorigenic cells and this has been touted as the source of heterogeneity
observed in many solid tumors. The latter cannot be fully explained by epigenetic regulation or by the clonal
evolution theory. This heterogeneity markedly influences how tumors respond to therapy and prognosis. The
present expert review offers an analysis and synthesis of the latest research and concepts on CSCs, with a view
to truly disruptive innovation for future diagnostics and therapeutics in clinical oncology.
Keywords: cancer stem cells, biomarkers, tumour initiating cells, heterogeneity, stem cell markers, therapeutics, disruptive innovation, innovation systems
Introduction
here is a need for new hypotheses and conceptual approaches for discovery and translational research on novel
diagnostics and therapeutics in support of precision medicine
in clinical oncology (Ren et al., 2014). The heterogeneity observed in solid tumors has traditionally led scientists to speculate that there is a hierarchical organization within tumors
where some cells are less differentiated than others (Furth et al.,
1937; Hewitt, 1958; Lapidot et al., 1994; Makino, 1956). The
idea of less differentiated cells in tumors gave birth to the
concept of tumor-initiating cells (TICs) (Hermann et al., 2007).
1
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), Cape Town Component, Wernher and Beit Building (South),
UCT Medical Campus, Anzio Road, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa.
2
Division of Medical Biochemistry and Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, Department of Integrative Biomedical
Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
3
Pharmacogenetics Research Group, Division of Human Genetics, Department of Pathology and Institute of Infectious Disease and
Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
4
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Clinical Pharmacy, Albaha University, Albaha, Saudi Arabia.
681
682
cells. This is termed the clonal evolution theory as hypothesized by Nowell in 1976 (Nowell, 1976). The clonal evolution
theory, however, failed to explain the heterogeneous nature of
some tumors and why tumors recur after periods of dormancy.
Further studies focusing on leukemia sparked renewed interest in the CSC theory after it was shown that there is so
much heterogeneity in leukemia and that there are specific
cell surface markers that differentiate the tumorigenic cancer
cells from the nontumorigenic cancer cells (Bonnet and Dick,
1997; Spangrude and Scollay, 1990; Spangrude et al., 1988;
Szilvassy et al., 1990).
That no tumor is similar to another has been proven beyond
any doubt and this is partly due to different genetic mutations
and the contribution of the tumor microenvironment (Dalerba
and Clarke, 2007; Kreso and Dick, 2014; Pece et al., 2010;
Stingl and Caldas, 2007; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012).
Several studies show that CSCs play a crucial part in tumor
initiation and development (Bonnet and Dick, 1997; Stingl
and Caldas, 2007). According to the CSC model, a portion of
the stem cells is responsible for maintaining tumorigenesis
and results in the heterogeneity found in many tumors
(Hermann et al., 2007; Kreso and Dick, 2014; Pece et al.,
2010; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012). The source of CSCs is
plagued with controversy (Clarke and Fuller, 2006; Kim
et al., 2005; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012).
Although CSCs have the ability to self-renew and differentiate, it is known that they can also originate from normal
cells other than adult stem cells (Clarke and Fuller, 2006;
Kreso and Dick, 2014; Stingl and Caldas, 2007; Visvader and
Lindeman, 2012). CSCs have been identified in many types of
tumors, although they might behave differently in different
tumors (Clarke and Fuller, 2006; Hermann et al., 2007; Pece
et al., 2010; Stingl and Caldas, 2007; Tirino et al., 2008).
Depending on the source of information, CSCs can also be
called TICs. CSCs are distinguished from nontumorigenic
cancer cells by two main properties: their ability to self-renew
and their ability to differentiate into many cell types, meaning
they can initiate or maintain a tumor (Bonnet and Dick, 1997;
Lapidot et al., 1994; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012).
The idea that cancers arise from stem cells did not start
with the CSC theory. Before the CSC theory was the embryonal rest theory of cancer (Conheim, 1875; Durante,
1874). This theory suggested that cancers are a result of
remnants of embryonic tissue, pluripotent stem cells, and
signaling from early development that acquired malignant
DZOBO ET AL.
There are two hypotheses that attempt to explain the intratumoral heterogeneity as seen in solid tumors (Hamburger
and Salmon, 1977; Nowell, 1976). The first hypothesis to be
proposed is the clonal evolution theory, which states that
most tumors originated from a single cell (Nowell, 1976).
According to the clonal evolution theory, the development of
a tumor is therefore a result of an accumulation of mutations
within the original clone. The second hypothesis is the CSC
model, which proposes that CSCs are a small subset of the
tumor, but have the ability to self-renew and start new tumors
(Bonnet and Dick, 1997; Lapidot et al., 1994; Rocco et al.,
2012; Thenappan et al., 2009) (Fig. 1).
Each of these hypotheses has its merit. Through the use of
flow cytometry, it was shown that some human acute myeloid
leukemias and colon, pancreatic, brain, ovarian, and breast
cancers follow the CSC model (Bonnet and Dick, 1997; Lapidot
et al., 1994; Li et al., 2007; Piccirillo et al., 2006; Tominaga
et al., 2016). This strongly implies that some cancers are organized into tumorigenic and nontumorigenic components
(Bonnet and Dick, 1997; Lapidot et al., 1994; Magee et al.,
2012). The nontumorigenic cells can be of different phenotypes.
The CSC model is largely dependent on the isolation of
TICs and transplantation limiting dilution assays (Behnan
et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2015; Leon et al., 2016; Moghbeli
et al., 2014). The CSC model is also dependent on the use of
cell surface markers for the identification of cells (Bonnet and
Dick, 1997; Clarke and Fuller, 2006; Lapidot et al., 1994;
Quintana et al., 2008). CSCs have been isolated using cell
sorting technologies that use antibodies against various surface
markers such as CD44, CD24, CD133, ALDH1, and CD166
(Al-Hajj et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2005; Prince et al., 2007;
Ricci-Vitiani et al., 2007; Schatton et al., 2008; Singh et al.,
2003; Szotek et al., 2006) Surface markers, however, do not
adequately differentiate CSCs from non-CSCs. Of late, studies
have shown that CSCs are a tumorigenic reservoir that can
initiate relapse in certain cancers (Dalerba and Clarke, 2007;
FIG. 1. The CSC Model. Solid tumors comprise both tumorigenic cancer cells (therefore CSCs) (red) and nontumorigenic cancer
cells (green and blue). The tumorigenic cells and therefore CSCs, normally a minority, can divide into cancer cells of different
phenotypes. The tumorigenic cells give rise to the phenotypic heterogeneity seen in many solid tumors. CSC, cancer stem cell.
Hermann et al., 2007; Tirino et al., 2008). However, the observation that cancers driven by CSCs such as in the case of
leukemia also show clonal evolution when tyrosine kinase inhibitors are used in treatment illustrates that the clonal evolution model and the CSC model are not exclusive (Pece et al.,
2010; Stingl and Caldas, 2007; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012).
Evaluation of the existence of CSCs started through the
use of cultured tumor cells (Bonnet and Dick, 1997;
Hermann et al., 2007; Kemper et al., 2010; Kreso and Dick,
2014). However, the approach has shifted with the use of tumor
samples that are freshly obtained and less passaged cancer cells
for transplantation studies being considered the norm (Dalerba
and Clarke, 2007; Fargeas et al., 2003; Lathia et al., 2011; Pece
et al., 2010). This review is an attempt to highlight developments in the field of CSCs. We attempt to show the diversity
involved in CSC pools and the possibility of non-CSCs obtaining the CSC-like phenotype. This has huge implications on
therapeutic strategies to treat cancer as all CSC pools within the
tumor will have to be taken into consideration when designing
drugs. Therefore, future therapies will have to target both CSCs
and non-CSCs for effective treatment of cancer.
CSC Markers
CSC markers are not universal for all cancer types. In different cancers, a variety of markers have been used to isolate
and identify subsets enriched for CSCs and these include
CD44, CD24, CD 133, EpCAM, and ALDH activity (Dalerba
and Clarke, 2007; Hermann et al., 2007; Ko et al., 2013; Kreso
and Dick, 2014; Read et al., 2009; Scatena et al., 2013; Suszynska et al., 2014; Tirino et al., 2008; Verma et al., 2016;
Visvader and Lindeman, 2012). Surface markers such as CD44
and CD24 are the most useful markers for isolation of subsets
enriched for CSCs (Kim et al., 2005, 2016; Leon et al., 2016;
MacDonagh et al., 2016; Prince et al., 2007; Schatton et al.,
2008; Szotek et al., 2006; Yang and Rycaj, 2015).
However, these markers are also expressed by other cells and
are not exclusively expressed by CSCs (Du et al., 2016). It has
been observed that the CSC phenotype differs from patient to
patient even for the same tumor type (Kreso and Dick, 2014;
Lathia et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2004; Ward et al., 2009). Many
of these markers are modulated or controlled by extrinsic factors. For example, CD133 has been reported to be specifically
expressed by tumorigenic brain cancer cells, yet further studies
showed that both CD133+ and CD133- brain tumor cells can
form tumors (Beier et al., 2007; Joo et al., 2008).
Additional CSC markers for specific tumors such as brain
tumors are SSEA-1, CD15, and a6 integrin (Lathia et al., 2011;
Son et al., 2009; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012). The best way
to refine the CSC phenotype is through the use of a combination
of markers. Differences observed in terms of CSC markers
could also be due to differences among cancer patients and
different methods used in the isolation of CSCs. It has also been
observed that some markers such as CD133 are diminished in
some cancers during passaging (Stewart et al., 2011).
Beside the use of antibodies to isolate CSCs based on cell
surface markers, another strategy employed by many researchers to isolate CSCs involves the use of side population
cells. Side population cells in tumors are a small subpopulation of cancer cells with stem cell-like properties and can be
isolated and identified by dual-wavelength FACS analysis
(Zhang et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2014). The problem with
683
684
DZOBO ET AL.
FIG. 2. CSC involvement in metastasis. Several theories have been put forward to explain the involvement of CSCs in
metastasis. The primary tumor contains cancer cells, CSCs, and normal tissue cells. (1) CSCs can metastasize to distant
organs; (2) CSCs undergo EMT and circulate the body through the blood or the lymphatic system; (3) Both cancer cells and
CSCs can metastasize to distant organs. EMT, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition.
specific microenvironment to be able to self-renew and differentiate (Beck et al., 2011; Gilbertson and Rich, 2007;
Wang et al., 2010). The relationship between all cells, including CSCs, and the local environment is bidirectional. The
cellular niche has been shown to alter the behavior of different cells, including CSCs (Clarke and Fuller, 2006; Dzobo
et al., 2015, 2016; Heddleston et al., 2009; Hjelmeland et al.,
2011; Kise et al., 2016; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012). CSCs
are also known to secrete growth factors that can alter the
environment and encourage tumor vasculature growth
(Clarke and Fuller, 2006; Gilbertson and Rich, 2007; Hermann et al., 2007). Microenvironmental cues play a critical
part in deciding the fate of many cells, including CSCs (Beck
et al., 2011; Dzobo et al., 2015, 2016; Gilbertson and Rich,
2007; Wang et al., 2010). A lot of effort is therefore being
directed at the CSC niche as a therapeutic target (Beachy
et al., 2004; Beck et al., 2011; Calvi et al., 2003; Dalerba and
Clarke, 2007; Pece et al., 2010).
Many cells within the tumor microenvironment such as
myofibroblasts play significant roles in modulating CSC
status in several tumors (Kreso and Dick, 2014; Vermeulen
et al., 2010; Visvader and Lindeman, 2012; Wei et al., 2008).
CSCs are known to secrete IL6 to attract cells such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to the tumor. In turn, MSCs
upregulate signaling pathways, such as NF-kb and Wnt,
necessary for stemness maintenance in CSCs. TGF-b is also
known to interact with NF-kb signaling to promote cancer
stemness. Thus, the tumor microenvironment can govern
tumor cell stemness. Therefore, when it comes to the CSC
phenotype, there are niche-induced changes and these point
to the tumor stroma as being a potential target to eventually
kill CSCs (Vermeulen et al., 2010; Wei et al., 2008).
CSCs can also hijack the normal stem cell niche established by cells such as fibroblasts and MSCs. This niche is
rich in factors such TNF-a and TGF-b and these enhance the
stemness of CSCs and promote EMT. Cancer-associated fibroblasts produce matrix metalloproteases and these can
promote ECM remodeling, thereby promoting EMT and CSC
stemness. Recent studies have focused on the tumor stroma
and its possible role in tumor progression (Dzobo et al., 2015,
2016; Malanchi et al., 2012; Raaijmakers et al., 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2010; Wei et al., 2008). These studies have
attempted to include tumor stroma components, cells, and the
ECM in their experimental setups so as to recapitulate the
in vivo tumor environment (Dzobo et al., 2015, 2016; Malanchi et al., 2012; Raaijmakers et al., 2010).
In addition, several cancers have been associated with inflammatory diseases (Cabodi and Taverna, 2010; Greer and
Whitcomb, 2009). This is partly because most carcinogenic
agents and viruses are known to induce inflammation (Orr
et al., 2013; Schwitalla et al., 2013). Many solid tumors are
associated with elevated levels of reactive oxygen species and
inflammation (Schetter et al., 2010). Inflammation results in
the release of many factors such as growth factors and cytokine
signaling molecules and these modify the tumor microenvironment and affect/transform especially cells such as fibroblasts, macrophages, neutrophils, and lymphocytes. Most
importantly, cytokines can activate signaling pathways required by CSCs to undergo EMT. Whether inflammation is
pro- or antitumor depends on many factors such as the abundant cell type within the tissue, the degree of inflammation,
and the extracellular matrix (Grivennikov et al., 2010).
685
Current therapies fail to prevent cancer relapse and metastasis partly due to the presence of therapy-resistant tumor
stem cells (Cabrera et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2010; Devesa
et al., 1998; Gangopadhyay et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2016;
Lawrence et al., 2015; Maugeri-Sacca et al., 2011; Nie et al.,
2015; Rice et al., 1997; Shen et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2013).
Many studies focused on the biochemical and genetic involvement in CSC drug resistance (Kreso and Dick, 2014). In
several studies, one of the major mechanisms for posttherapeutic recurrence of esophageal, colorectal, and breast
cancer has been suggested to be through CSCs (Castagnoli
et al., 2016; Islam et al., 2015; Masuda et al., 2016; MaugeriSacca et al., 2011; Rice et al., 1997; Shen et al., 2016; Tominaga et al., 2016). Resistance to current therapies has been
used to define CSCs, but the sensitivity of TICs and nontumorigenic cells depends on the type of cancer and the
therapy used (Gedye et al., 2016; Kim and Dirks, 2008;
Najumudeen et al., 2016) (Fig. 3).Therapy resistance has also
been known to arise from genetic mechanisms not related to
CSCs. CSCs have been noted for their increased efflux capacity especially that of drugs.
Several membrane transporter proteins known as the ATPbinding cassette (ABC) proteins are known to play critical
roles in CSC drug resistance through promotion of drug efflux (Di and Zhao, 2015). ABC proteins are implicated in the
development of multidrug resistance and this gives CSCs the
ability to resist many therapeutic drugs. Chief among these
ABC transporters are the ABCB1, ABCC1, and breast cancer
resistance protein (BCRP) (Di and Zhao, 2015). ABCB1, also
known as P-glycoprotein, is normally expressed at low levels
in normal cells and plays a role in transporting toxins and
xenobiotics out of the cell. In many cancers, including lung,
liver, prostate, brain, and ovarian cancers, there is an observed increase in the expression of the ABC proteins.
Many studies have shown that the overexpression of BCRP
and ABCB1 in tumors correlates with poor response to drug
treatment (Tannock et al., 2002). In addition, chemotherapeutic drugs induce DNA lesions and these result in activation
of DNA damage response pathways in cancer cells. Several
studies have shown that CSCs can activate checkpoint response through several proteins, including checkpoint kinases
1 and 2 (Bao et al., 2006; Venkatesha et al., 2012). In many
cancers, including pancreatic, liver, and glioblastoma, CSCs
686
DZOBO ET AL.
FIG. 3. Solid tumor response to conventional chemotherapy and CSC-targeted therapy. Conventional chemotherapy kills most
cancer cells within the solid tumor with the exception of CSCs. The CSCs survive and give rise to new and chemoresistant tumors.
A combination of both conventional and CSC-targeted therapies can eradicate all cancer cells, resulting in tumor shrinkage.
show increased expression of DNA repair-associated genes
such as the BRCA1 (Chen et al., 2016b; Liu et al., 2006;
Mathews et al., 2011). Another important characteristic of
CSCs is their ability to evade programmed cell death. Many
antiapoptotic genes such as Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL are reported to be
overexpressed in many cancers (Chen et al., 2016b; Furnari
et al., 2007; Hata et al., 2015; Tagscherer et al., 2008).
For novel and alternative therapies to be developed, there
is need to elucidate the mechanisms involved in controlling
self-renewal and differentiation of CSCs. Many signaling
pathways appear to be common in both CSCs and normal
stem cells (Dzobo et al., 2015; Hsu et al., 2016; Jamieson
et al., 2004; Krivtsov et al., 2006; Leon et al., 2016; Pece
et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2010). These
pathways include Wnt, Notch, NF-kb, JAK/STAT, PTEN,
and the Hedgehog (Fig. 4). The gene signature activated
during self-renewal in cells, including CSCs and normal
cells, appears to be different in some ways and this is good
news for drug discovery (Chen et al., 2016a; Cordenonsi
et al., 2011; Malanchi et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2009). Recent
data suggest that self-renewal pathways are important in
maintaining CSCs and targeting such pathways might be one
of the most effective strategies available to eradicate the
CSCs (Chen et al., 2016a; Dalerba and Clarke, 2007; Leon
et al., 2016; Pece et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2016).
Many studies have focused on signaling pathways such as
the Notch/Jagged signaling pathway as a possible source of
therapeutic targets for cancer (Li et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014;
Wei et al., 2014). The Notch/Jagged 1 signaling pathway is
known to play a significant role in tumorigenesis, cancer cell
proliferation, metastasis, and drug resistance. The Notch/Jagged 1 signaling pathway has also been shown to be required for
cancer renewal (Li et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Wei et al.,
2014; Yabuuchi et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2011). Notch/Jagged1
receptors are commonly overexpressed in many tumors (Li
et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Wei et al., 2014; Yabuuchi et al.,
2013; Zhao et al., 2011). The Notch/Jagged 1 signaling has
been shown to be important in both CSC maintenance and selfrenewal (Li et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Wei et al., 2014;
Yabuuchi et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2011). Notch 1 activity is
known to be highly enriched in human breast CSC populations
687
FIG. 5. Proposed therapeutic strategies against CSCs. Elimination of CSCs can be achieved through the destruction of the
CSC tumor niche, thereby making CSC growth impossible, for example, through surface marker inhibition or blockage
using either monoclonal or small molecules, targeting cellular signaling pathways associated with CSC self-renewal and
differentiation, and last, targeting ABC transporters that are associated with drug resistance. ABC, ATP-binding cassette.
cancers and well-studied functions, are attractive targets for
cancer therapy (Li et al., 2014). Targeting Notch ligands such
as Jagged 1 offers the opportunity to selectively block specific elements of the pathway important only to tumor biology (Li et al., 2014; Purow, 2012).
The use of targeted therapy in combination with a typical
chemotherapeutic treatment strategy is the ultimate answer to
providing a more durable cure for many cancers, including liver, ovarian, and esophageal cancer. Jagged1 is one of the Notch
ligands shown to be overexpressed in many cancer types, including neck, ovarian, and esophageal cancer (Li et al., 2014;
Purow, 2012; Scott et al., 2012). The expression of Jagged1 can
be induced by several other pathways important in cancers such
as Wnt/b-catenin, NF-kb, and TGF-b (Li et al., 2014; Scott
et al., 2012). Jagged1 is directly implicated in the promotion of
CSC self-renewal in breast cancer and drives Notch signaling in
stem cells (Li et al., 2014; Purow, 2012; Scott et al., 2012).
Many reports have indicated Jagged1 as an important
player in deciding the fate of stem cells in different cancers
and thus show that tumor Jagged1 expression is a relevant
target for CSCs (Li et al., 2014; Purow, 2012; Scott et al.,
2012). Jagged1 is also implicated in the inhibition of apoptosis, metastasis, and therapy resistance in many cancers (Li
et al., 2014; Purow, 2012). CSCs have also been shown to
have increased invasive potential and are thought to be largely responsible for cancer metastasis (Kim et al., 2005,
2016; Prince et al., 2007; Schatton et al., 2008; Szotek et al.,
2006). Thus, CSCs are an emerging target for cancer therapy
and any therapy targeting CSCs holds great potential for
improving cancer treatment and outcome (Fig. 5). Studies
688
DZOBO ET AL.
689
Kim CF, and Dirks PB. (2008). Cancer and stem cell biology:
How tightly intertwined? Cell Stem Cell 3, 147150.
Kim CF, Jackson EL, Woolfenden AE, et al. (2005). Identification of bronchioalveolar stem cells in normal lung and lung
cancer. Cell 121, 823835.
Kim DK, Seo EJ, Choi EJ, et al. (2016). Crucial role of
HMGA1 in the self-renewal and drug resistance of ovarian
cancer stem cells. Exp Mol Med 48, e255.
Kise K, Kinugasa-Katayama Y, and Takakura N. (2016). Tumor
microenvironment for cancer stem cells. Adv Drug Deliv Rev
99, 197205.
Kleinsmith LJ, and Pierce GB Jr. (1964). Multipotentiality of
single embryonal carcinoma cells. Cancer Res 24, 15441551.
Ko CH, Cheng CF, Lai CP, et al. (2013). Differential proteomic
analysis of cancer stem cell properties in hepatocellular carcinomas by isobaric tag labeling and mass spectrometry. J
Proteome Res 12, 35733585.
Kreso A, and Dick JE. (2014). Evolution of the cancer stem cell
model. Cell Stem Cell 14, 275291.
Krivtsov AV, Twomey D, Feng Z, et al. (2006). Transformation
from committed progenitor to leukaemia stem cell initiated
by MLL-AF9. Nature 442, 818822.
Kuo TC, Chen CT, Baron D, et al. (2011). Midbody accumulation
through evasion of autophagy contributes to cellular reprogramming and tumorigenicity. Nat Cell Biol 13, 12141223.
Lapidot T, Sirard C, Vormoor J, et al. (1994). A cell initiating
human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into
SCID mice. Nature 367, 645648.
Lathia JD, Gallagher J, Myers JT, et al. (2011). Direct in vivo
evidence for tumor propagation by glioblastoma cancer stem
cells. PLoS One 6, e24807.
Lawrence RT, Perez EM, Hernandez D, et al. (2015). The
proteomic landscape of triple-negative breast cancer. Cell
Rep 11, 630644.
Leon G, MacDonagh L, Finn SP, Cuffe S, and Barr MP. (2016).
Cancer stem cells in drug resistant lung cancer: Targeting cell surface markers and signaling pathways. Pharmacol Ther 158, 7190.
Li C, Heidt DG, Dalerba P, et al. (2007). Identification of
pancreatic cancer stem cells. Cancer Res 67, 10301037.
Li D, Masiero M, Banham AH, and Harris AL. (2014). The
notch ligand JAGGED1 as a target for anti-tumor therapy.
Front Oncol 4, 254.
Liu G, Yuan X, Zeng Z, et al. (2006). Analysis of gene expression and chemoresistance of CD133+ cancer stem cells in
glioblastoma. Mol Cancer 5, 67.
Liu H, Patel MR, Prescher JA, et al. (2010). Cancer stem cells
from human breast tumors are involved in spontaneous metastases in orthotopic mouse models. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A 107, 1811518120.
MacDonagh L, Gray SG, Breen E, et al. (2016). Lung cancer
stem cells: The root of resistance. Cancer Lett 372, 147156.
Magee JA, Piskounova E, and Morrison SJ. (2012). Cancer stem
cells: Impact, heterogeneity, and uncertainty. Cancer Cell 21,
283296.
Makino S. (1956). Further evidence favoring the concept of the stem
cell in ascites tumors of rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci 63, 818830.
Malanchi I, Peinado H, Kassen D, et al. (2008). Cutaneous
cancer stem cell maintenance is dependent on beta-catenin
signalling. Nature 452, 650653.
Malanchi I, Santamaria-Martinez A, Susanto E, et al. (2012).
Interactions between cancer stem cells and their niche govern
metastatic colonization. Nature 481, 8589.
Masuda M, Uno Y, Ohbayashi N, et al. (2016). TNIK inhibition
abrogates colorectal cancer stemness. Nat Commun 7, 12586.
690
Mathews LA, Cabarcas SM, Hurt EM, Zhang X, Jaffee EM, and
Farrar WL. (2011). Increased expression of DNA repair genes in
invasive human pancreatic cancer cells. Pancreas 40, 730739.
Maugeri-Sacca M, Vigneri P, and De Maria R. (2011). Cancer stem
cells and chemosensitivity. Clin Cancer Res 17, 49424947.
Meyer MJ, Fleming JM, Lin AF, Hussnain SA, Ginsburg E, and
Vonderhaar BK. (2010). CD44posCD49fhiCD133/2hi defines
xenograft-initiating cells in estrogen receptor-negative breast
cancer. Cancer Res 70, 46244633.
Moghbeli M, Moghbeli F, Forghanifard MM, and Abbaszadegan MR. (2014). Cancer stem cell detection and isolation.
Med Oncol 31, 69.
Najumudeen AK, Jaiswal A, Lectez B, et al. (2016). Cancer
stem cell drugs target K-ras signaling in a stemness context.
Oncogene 35, 52485262.
Nie S, McDermott SP, Deol Y, Tan Z, Wicha MS, and Lubman
DM. (2015). A quantitative proteomics analysis of MCF7
breast cancer stem and progenitor cell populations. Proteomics 15, 37723783.
Nowell PC. (1976). The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 194, 2328.
Orr WS, Denbo JW, Saab KR, et al. (2013). Curcumin potentiates rhabdomyosarcoma radiosensitivity by suppressing NFkappaB activity. PLoS One 8, e51309.
Pallini R, Ricci-Vitiani L, Banna GL, et al. (2008). Cancer stem
cell analysis and clinical outcome in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Clin Cancer Res 14, 82058212.
Pece S, Tosoni D, Confalonieri S, et al. (2010). Biological and
molecular heterogeneity of breast cancers correlates with
their cancer stem cell content. Cell 140, 6273.
Peter ME. (2010). Regulating cancer stem cells the miR way.
Cell Stem Cell 6, 46.
Piccirillo SG, Reynolds BA, Zanetti N, et al. (2006). Bone
morphogenetic proteins inhibit the tumorigenic potential of
human brain tumour-initiating cells. Nature 444, 761765.
Pierce GB, and Wallace C. (1971). Differentiation of malignant
to benign cells. Cancer Res 31, 127134.
Prince ME, Sivanandan R, Kaczorowski A, et al. (2007).
Identification of a subpopulation of cells with cancer stem
cell properties in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104, 973978.
Purow B. (2012). Notch inhibition as a promising new approach
to cancer therapy. Adv Exp Med Biol 727, 305319.
Quintana E, Shackleton M, Sabel MS, Fullen DR, Johnson TM,
and Morrison SJ. (2008). Efficient tumour formation by single human melanoma cells. Nature 456, 593598.
Raaijmakers MH, Mukherjee S, Guo S, et al. (2010). Bone
progenitor dysfunction induces myelodysplasia and secondary leukaemia. Nature 464, 852857.
Read TA, Fogarty MP, Markant SL, et al. (2009). Identification
of CD15 as a marker for tumor-propagating cells in a mouse
model of medulloblastoma. Cancer Cell 15, 135147.
Ren G, Zhang Y, Mao X, et al. (2014). Transcription-mediated
chimeric RNAs in prostate cancer: Time to revisit old hypothesis? Omics 18, 615624.
Ricci-Vitiani L, Lombardi DG, Pilozzi E, et al. (2007). Identification and expansion of human colon-cancer-initiating cells.
Nature 445, 111115.
Rice TW, Adelstein DJ, Zuccaro G, Falk GW, and Goldblum
JR. (1997). Advances in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Gastroenterologist 5, 278294.
Rocco A, Compare D, and Nardone G. (2012). Cancer stem cell
hypothesis and gastric carcinogenesis: Experimental evidence
and unsolved questions. World J Gastrointest Oncol 4, 5459.
DZOBO ET AL.
Scatena R, Bottoni P, and Giardina B. (2013). Circulating tumour cells and cancer stem cells: A role for proteomics in
defining the interrelationships between function, phenotype
and differentiation with potential clinical applications. Biochim Biophys Acta 1835, 129143.
Schatton T, Murphy GF, Frank NY, et al. (2008). Identification
of cells initiating human melanomas. Nature 451, 345349.
Schetter AJ, Heegaard NH, and Harris CC. (2010). Inflammation and cancer: Interweaving microRNA, free radical, cytokine and p53 pathways. Carcinogenesis 31, 3749.
Schober M, and Fuchs E. (2011). Tumor-initiating stem cells of
squamous cell carcinomas and their control by TGF-beta and
integrin/focal adhesion kinase (FAK) signaling. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 108, 1054410549.
Schwitalla S, Ziegler PK, Horst D, et al. (2013). Loss of p53 in
enterocytes generates an inflammatory microenvironment
enabling invasion and lymph node metastasis of carcinogeninduced colorectal tumors. Cancer Cell 23, 93106.
Scott AM, Wolchok JD, and Old LJ. (2012). Antibody therapy
of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 12, 278287.
Shackleton M, Quintana E, Fearon ER, and Morrison SJ.
(2009). Heterogeneity in cancer: Cancer stem cells versus
clonal evolution. Cell 138, 822829.
Shen S, Xia JX, and Wang J. (2016). Nanomedicine-mediated
cancer stem cell therapy. Biomaterials 74, 118.
Shiozawa Y, Nie B, Pienta KJ, Morgan TM, and Taichman RS.
(2013). Cancer stem cells and their role in metastasis. Pharmacol Ther 138, 285293.
Singh SK, Clarke ID, Hide T, and Dirks PB. (2004). Cancer stem
cells in nervous system tumors. Oncogene 23, 72677273.
Singh SK, Clarke ID, Terasaki M, et al. (2003). Identification of
a cancer stem cell in human brain tumors. Cancer Res 63,
58215828.
Son MJ, Woolard K, Nam DH, Lee J, and Fine HA. (2009).
SSEA-1 is an enrichment marker for tumor-initiating cells in
human glioblastoma. Cell Stem Cell 4, 440452.
Song IY, and Balmain A. (2015). Cellular reprogramming in
skin cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 32, 3239.
Spangrude GJ, Heimfeld S, and Weissman IL. (1988). Purification and characterization of mouse hematopoietic stem
cells. Science 241, 5862.
Spangrude GJ, and Scollay R. (1990). A simplified method for
enrichment of mouse hematopoietic stem cells. Exp Hematol
18, 920926.
Sparmann A, and Bar-Sagi D. (2004). Ras-induced interleukin8 expression plays a critical role in tumor growth and angiogenesis. Cancer Cell 6, 447458.
Sparmann A, and Bar-Sagi D. (2005). Ras oncogene and inflammation: Partners in crime. Cell Cycle 4, 735736.
Stewart JM, Shaw PA, Gedye C, Bernardini MQ, Neel BG, and
Ailles LE. (2011). Phenotypic heterogeneity and instability of
human ovarian tumor-initiating cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A 108, 64686473.
Stingl J, and Caldas C. (2007). Molecular heterogeneity of
breast carcinomas and the cancer stem cell hypothesis. Nat
Rev Cancer 7, 791799.
Suszynska M, Poniewierska-Baran A, Gunjal P, et al. (2014).
Expression of the erythropoietin receptor by germline-derived
cellsFurther support for a potential developmental link
between the germline and hematopoiesis. J Ovarian Res 7, 66.
Szilvassy SJ, Humphries RK, Lansdorp PM, Eaves AC, and
Eaves CJ. (1990). Quantitative assay for totipotent reconstituting hematopoietic stem cells by a competitive repopulation strategy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87, 87368740.
691