Review ArticleReview

Comprehensive understanding of glioblastoma molecular phenotypes: classification, characteristics, and transition

Can Xu, Pengyu Hou, Xiang Li, Menglin Xiao, Ziqi Zhang, Ziru Li, Jianglong Xu, Guoming Liu, Yanli Tan and Chuan Fang
Cancer Biology & Medicine May 2024, 20230510; DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2023.0510

Abstract

Among central nervous system-associated malignancies, glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and has the highest mortality rate. The high heterogeneity of GBM cell types and the complex tumor microenvironment frequently lead to tumor recurrence and sudden relapse in patients treated with temozolomide. In precision medicine, research on GBM treatment is increasingly focusing on molecular subtyping to precisely characterize the cellular and molecular heterogeneity, as well as the refractory nature of GBM toward therapy. Deep understanding of the different molecular expression patterns of GBM subtypes is critical. Researchers have recently proposed tetra fractional or tripartite methods for detecting GBM molecular subtypes. The various molecular subtypes of GBM show significant differences in gene expression patterns and biological behaviors. These subtypes also exhibit high plasticity in their regulatory pathways, oncogene expression, tumor microenvironment alterations, and differential responses to standard therapy. Herein, we summarize the current molecular typing scheme of GBM and the major molecular/genetic characteristics of each subtype. Furthermore, we review the mesenchymal transition mechanisms of GBM under various regulators.

keywords

Introduction

Gliomas are malignant primary tumors in the brain and/or spinal cord of the central nervous system (CNS); they have the highest rate of incidence and the poorest prognosis among CNS-associated malignancies. Among the clinical subtypes of glioma, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 4 glioma, also called glioblastoma (GBM), is the most lethal. In GBM, conventional treatment with surgery and chemotherapy (CT) leads to a 5-year survival rate of only 5.5%, possibly because of the carcinoma’s high molecular heterogeneity and chemoresistance, and the strongly invasive nature1. Notably, high inter- and intra-tumor heterogeneity are believed to cause chemo-resistance of GBM after long-term treatment with standard chemotherapeutics, thus resulting in poor patient prognosis and survival2,3. Attempts to classify the molecular characteristics of gliomas include subgroup classification schemes based on IDH, 1p/19q status, MGMT promoter methylation, or G-CIMP phenotype4,5. Other studies have reported GBM risk stratification by correlating the genome methylation status and corresponding transcriptomic changes, to improve the prognosis of patients with GBM6,7. However, none of these classifications are sufficient to characterize the molecular characteristics of GBM at the level of the whole gene expression profile. The studies of Phillips, Verhaak, and Wang et al. have proposed a GBM molecular subtyping scheme based on the expression profiles of GBM-associated genes; this scheme has been widely accepted for determining the molecular characteristics of GBM pathology8-10.

GBM phenotypes show elevated plasticity during and after CT, thus leading to a stage called proneural-mesenchymal transition (PMT), which is synonymous with the epithelial-mesenchymal transformation (EMT) in tumors of epithelial origin. We collectively refer to both PMT and EMT as mesenchymal transition (MT). Malignant phenotypes and chemo-resistant GBM have been associated with MT, and pose a substantial roadblock to the treatment response and tumor recurrence11,12. Because of differences in transcriptomic expression, tumor tissue characteristics, and immune cell infiltration levels across GBM phenotypes, sensitivity to CT and the prognosis also vary substantially among GBM subtypes13. The mesenchymal (MES) subtype is more aggressive than the proneuronal (PN) subtype and is strongly associated with poorer prognosis; even patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) and/or CT can progress from PN to MES over the long term14.

Several clinical investigations have been conducted to understand the specific molecular characteristics and malignant behavior of the immune microenvironment, energy metabolism, tumor localization, and the presence of cancer stem cells in glioma. This review summarizes current research progress in exploration of the underlying pathomechanisms regulating the transition of a GBM subtype from early to malignant and recurrent phenotypes. The findings may provide avenues to novel CTs for preventing the recurrence of GBM tumors, thus providing more accurate targeted therapy strategies for patients with GBM.

Molecular classification of GBM

In 2006, Phillips et al. categorized high-grade gliomas (HGGs) into 3 subtypes: PN, MES, and proliferative (Prolif), according to the gene expression profiles of 76 astrocytoma tissues and 35 characteristic genes. Under this categorization, highly expressed PN and MES biomarkers are mutually exclusive, and the survival of the PN phenotype is significantly longer than that of the MES and Prolif phenotypes. For PN and MES subtyping, the expression profiles of DLL3 and YKL40 genes have high diagnostic and prognostic potential, independently of the tumor grade and tissue necrosis properties. Most HGGs follow one of these 3 subtype characteristics, and GBM with a dual subtype is clinically rare. Importantly, patients with HGG-PN tend to be younger than those with MES and/or Prolif subtypes. Patients with post-treatment relapsing HGG exhibit significantly elevated expression of MES markers, including YKL40, CD44, STAT3, and Vimentin (typical markers of mesenchymal tissue), and diminished expression of PN-associated OLIG2. Furthermore, the MES subtype shows elevated expression of angiogenic factors, including VEGF, VEGFR1/2, and PECAM1 (an endothelial marker). In the PN subgroup, loss of PTEN expression and significant activation of the Notch pathway are frequently detected, whereas the MES subgroup exhibits high AKT activation8.

In 2010, Verhaak and colleagues proposed 4 canonical subtypes of GBM—PN, neural (NE), classical (CL), and MES—on the basis of a cluster analysis of 200 gene expression profiles associated with GBM on 3 independent sequencing platforms. High EGFR expression was observed in 97% of CL subtype cases; EGFR expression and CDKN2A deletion were observed in 94% of cases, and significantly high expression of the Notch and Sonic hedgehog (SHH) pathway-linked genes was observed in the CL subtype. Oncogenic mutations in 6 of the 7 major tumor suppressor genes, including NF1 and PTEN, all of which are associated with AKT activation, have been reported in the MES subtype, thus adding to the previously identified upregulation of YKL40 and MET in that subtype. Interestingly, a combined expression profile of MES and the astrocyte markers CD44 and MERTK appears to represent active crosstalk between the MES subtype and EMT. Furthermore, TNF-α and NF-κB pathway-associated factors are highly expressed in the MES subtype. Three main features of the PN subtype are PDGFRA expression, mutations in IDH1 and TP53, and loss of heterozygosity. The PN subtype also exhibits high expression of oligodendrocyte maturation-associated genes such as PDGFRA, OLIG2, and NKX2-2, as well as pre-neurodevelopmental genes including DCX, SOX, ASCL1, DLL3, and TCF4. In contrast, the NE subtype shows elevated expression of neuronal markers such as NEFL, SYT1, GABRA1, and SLC12A5. On the basis of histological classification, the PN subtype is enriched in oligodendrocyte markers, whereas the MES subtype shows elevated expression of astrocyte and microglial markers. The CL subtype is closely associated with mouse astrocyte characteristics, and the NE type is associated with oligodendrocytes and astrocyte differentiation9.

In 2017, Wang et al. revisited deep molecular typing analysis of GBM subtypes. After exclusion of the mutant IDH1 phenotype, cluster analysis of the BFG/U133A collection reclassified the GBM with WT IDH1 into 3 subtypes: PN, CL, and MES10. All three isoforms have different characteristics from the NE isoform defined by Verhaak et al.9, thus suggesting that the NE subtype might not be tumor specific. The investigators of this study assumed that the NE subtype might have included contaminating normal tissue from the tumor periphery in the brain, thus further explaining why the NE subtype is the only subtype lacking the characteristic gene abnormalities. Wang et al. further observed lower tumor homogeneity in the MES subtype than the other subtypes. However, higher expression profiles of microglia, M1 and M2 macrophages, and glial cell infiltration markers were found in the MES subtype; this enhanced immune cell infiltration might be associated with NF1 gene deletion in this subtype. In addition, GBM has high cellular plasticity, such that GBM of the non-MES subtype tends to transform to the MES subtype after recurrence, and consequently exhibits enhanced immune cell infiltration, diminished tumor homogeneity, and elevated M2 macrophage infiltration scores. Notably, M2 macrophage infiltration plays an important role in the development of RT resistance in patients with GBM10.

The GBM tri-isotyping proposed by Wang et al. is now widely accepted because of its high consistency and stability. The tripartite scheme excludes the influence of IDH (mut) GBM10, in agreement with the most recent WHO classification of GBM15. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of subtype-specific marker genes (EGFR, PDGFRA, NF1, IDH1, P53, CD44, MERTK, and PTEN) can indicate the degree of malignancy in patients with glioma and aid in predicting their clinical prognosis. Likewise, simple IHC staining of GBM markers can help distinguish tumor subtypes in clinical samples and may facilitate analysis of large sample sizes16-18. Furthermore, 2 independent studies have reported the development of radiomics-based assays to better predict molecular subtypes and prognosis in patients with GBM19,20.

Molecular and clinical characteristics of GBM subtypes

PN-GBM subtype

Most non-GCIMP MES GBMs originate and evolve from PN-like precursor cells21. Likewise, glioblastoma stem cells (GSCs) reside on a single axis of variation, ranging from PN to MES22. The main marker genes of the PN subtype include DLL3, PDGFRA, OLIG2, SOX, DCX, ASCL1, and TCF4, which are also characteristic of oligodendrocytes and PN cells8-10. Although the prognosis of patients with PN subtype GBM is relatively good, Verhaak et al. have found that this subtype shows the least response to treatment. Importantly, Verhaak et al. do not believe that the subtype transition from PN to MES is part of the natural progression of GBM tumors9. Relatively higher brain volume in infiltrative peripheral edema may be associated with PN-GBM; therefore, the PN subtype might possess underlying vascular pathology23. PDGFA plays a crucial role in development of the PN subtype; moreover, the PN-GBM subtype can be modeled by induction of PDGFA expression in mice. In addition, PTEN downregulation facilitates tumorigenesis, and NF1 knockdown induces the transition of the PN subtype to the MES on a background of PDGFA knockdown21,24. Insulin receptor-insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IR-IGF1R) signaling plays an important role in the recurrence of GBM with high PDGF-PDGFR expression25. Moreover, expression of PATZ1 and DRP5 is specifically upregulated in PN-GSC and consequently promotes the maintenance of the PN-GSC stemness26,27. LGALS3 is an independent biomarker for patients with PN-GBM, who have relatively short overall survival (OS)28. Notably, Wee1 kinase is considered a potential therapeutic target in PN-GBM29. Moreover, Notch1 activation has been reported to promote the survival of GBM cells via the NF-κB pathway in CL-GBM and PN-GBM subtypes30.

CL-GBM subtype

The main features of the CL-GBM subtype are amplification of EGFR and loss of CDKN2A expression on the background of hyperactivation of Notch and SHH pathway-associated factors. In addition, the characteristic features of the CL-GBM subtype may be associated with those of mouse astrocytes9. Interestingly, although the PN and MES subtypes exhibit stemness properties, no solid evidence supports that the CL subtype also has cancer stemness features31. Most studies have focused on the 2 relatively mutually exclusive phenotypes between PN and MES subtypes, and have rarely investigated the CL subtype. The most likely reason is that the CL subtype does not possess the distinctive features of the other two subtypes. In one study, we first identified several candidate genes for different molecular subtypes, and then found that the radio- and chemo-resistant gene signatures were present only in the PN subtype described by Verhaak et al., but not in the PN subtype reported by Phillips et al. Next, we observed that the MES-GBM cells were under endoplasmic reticulum stress, and both angiogenesis and immuno-inflammatory responses were significantly elevated. Furthermore, we revealed that genes associated with alternative RNA splicing were significantly upregulated in the CL-GBM subtype, whereas the expression of genes associated with energy production was significantly elevated in the NE subtype32.

MES-GBM subtype

The major characteristics of the MES-GBM subtype include dominant NF1 gene mutation; NF-κB and AKT pathway activation; and elevated expression of YKL40, MET, and other signature markers in MES, angiogenic, and astrocyte cells. Significantly elevated heterogeneous and drug-resistant cancer cells, in addition to infiltrating immune cells, are also important hallmarks of this subtype8-10. Recent studies have shown significantly elevated endoplasmic reticulum stress in the MES subtype; moreover, MES-GBM might have similar characteristics to those of reactive astrocytes32,33. Whole transcriptome analysis of MES-GBM cells has revealed a characteristic competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) network that distinguishes the MES phenotype from other isotypes. Genes including RUNX1, TGFBR2, PPARG, GIT2, ACSL1, and RAP1B interact with protein factors in a ceRNA-regulated manner and have been identified as markers of the MES subtype34. In another study, C/EBPβ, C/EBPδ, FOSL2, STAT3, RUNX1, and bHLHE40 have been identified as transcription factors (TFs) in the MES subgroup35. Moreover, the RUNX1, FMNL1, and TGFBI genes have been reported to correlate with glioma staging and patient prognosis, respectively, and to serve as molecular markers for MES subtypes36-38.

Tumor microenvironment (TME)

The complexity of the TME is an important factor in GBM heterogeneity. Non-tumor cells, particularly brain-resident microglia and infiltrating monocyte-derived macrophages, are strongly associated with the MES-GBM phenotype39. Compared with the CL and PN subtypes, the MES subtype has high infiltration by non-tumor cells and shows high immune heterogeneity. Interestingly, although patients with MES-GBM show inflammatory and aggressive malignancy, they respond better to immunotherapy than patients with other subtypes10,40. IHC-based comparisons of characteristic immune factors have shown significant variation across GBM subtypes, with the MES subtype having the highest content of immune cells and the CL subtype appearing to be less conducive to immune cell infiltration41,42. The low OS of the MES subtype may be associated with its high immune and matrix infiltration43. Analysis of the regulatory transcription profiles of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) has suggested an association between TME components and MES-GBM pathogenesis44. Another study has indicated that RT might induce TAM infiltration into the TME, as observed in a pre-clinical GBM mouse model45. Furthermore, Dumas et al. have reported that GBM tumorigenesis is modulated by the mTOR-dependent STAT3 and NF-κB signaling pathways in microglia, thereby promoting an immunosuppressive microglial phenotype, particularly in the MES-GBM subgroup46.

Energy metabolism

In recent years, the metabolic differences uncovered among GBM subtypes have indicated that MES-GBM cells have significantly higher glycolytic activity than PN-GBM cells. Moreover, ALDH1A3 plays a key role in this context: significantly elevated expression of ALDH1A3 in MES-GBM cells enables rapid metabolism of glucose to lactic acid (LA), thereby stabilizing HIF-1α, activating the NF-κB signaling cascade, and inducing VEGF secretion by tumor-associated stromal cells—all of which are characteristics of MES-GBM. Inhibition of ALDH1A3 attenuates the MES subtype but not the growth of PN-GSCs47-49. Furthermore, MES-GBM cells exhibit a stronger necrotic phenotype than non-MES cells. Because LA accumulation typically occurs in and around necrotic areas, necrotic MES-GBM cells may serve as an additional source of LA molecules in the TME50. GBM metabolomics and transcriptome sequencing analyses by Heiland et al. have revealed that metabolites, including choline and LA, are closely associated with the immune and hypoxic microenvironments, which are strongly enriched in MES-GBM. That study has provided further support for the relevance of LA in MES characterization51. In addition, glutamine levels are significantly higher in MES-GBM cells than non-MES GBM cells; consequently, energy metabolism and tumor growth may be promoted by conversion of glutamate to pyruvate in mitochondria. Therefore, decreased glutamine levels suppress proliferation of the MES-GBM cell type52. Metabolomic analysis has indicated significantly increased triglycerides, phosphatidylcholine, and other types of phospholipids in the MES subtype. The proneural-like subtype is enriched in very long chain fatty acid lipids and glycerophospholipids with long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids. Moreover, the PN subtype exhibits elevated creatinine and homocysteine levels but diminished levels of L-cysteine and palatinitol. In addition, the PN-like subtype shows higher expression of ACSL6 and phospholipids carrying docosahexaenoic acid than the MES-like subtype. Regarding docosahexaenoic acid metabolism, normal tissues have a phospholipid composition comparable to that in the PN subtype but markedly different from that in the MES subtype53. Transcriptomic and metabolomic studies of various glycorecombinant subgroups of GSCs have indicated abundant L-fucose and aberrant fucosylation activation in MES-GSC compared with PN-GSC. These features are present in both subtype-specific xenografts and patient samples, thus suggesting that L-fucose may be a potential GBM subtype-specific biomarker. In the MES-GBM pre-clinical model, pharmacological or genetic inhibition of fucosylation significantly decreases tumor growth. Mass spectrometry screening of glycans has indicated that the major fucosylated proteins are involved in extracellular matrix interaction, integrin-mediated signaling, and cell adhesion in treatment-associated GBM recurrence54.

Organizational positioning

Puchalski et al. have analyzed the anatomical transcriptional map of GBM through in situ hybridization, laser microdissection, and RNA sequencing, and have demonstrated that the heterogeneous transcriptional status of GBM cells in the TME can be explained by the anatomical heterogeneity in histology samples55. Local tissue biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, compared with the molecular expression profiles of GBM-associated factors from different anatomical sites of tumors, have indicated that the molecular typing depends primarily on the sample tissue localization, such that PN-GBM-linked genes are expressed primarily in the periphery, MES-associated genes are expressed in the center, and CL-associated genes are expressed in the middle of tumors. Moreover, the non-enhanced region in PN-GBM tumors is enriched in progenitor oligodendrocyte-specific proteins, whereas the non-enhanced region in MES-GBM tumors shows enrichment of astrocyte and microglia-specific proteins56,57. A study using laser microdissection to isolate RNA from the necrotic regions of GBM tumors has demonstrated that several important MES-associated factors, including TNF-α, HIF-1α, cell migration, and immune-related pathways, are enriched in perinecrotic or pseudopalisadation regions. Likewise, intensification of the necrotic process affects the transcription profile of GBM, such that the non-MES features become comparable to MES phenotypes34. However, more single-cell studies are warranted to determine whether these perinecrotic GBM cells have intrinsic MES signatures, given that these anatomical regions have been suggested to contain larger populations of TAMs than other tumor regions58.

Glioma stem cells

GSCs are a class of cells that maintain self-renewal, continue to proliferate, can propagate into multiple lineages, and can initiate tumorigenesis after secondary transplantation59. The heterogeneity of GBM-GSCs has been observed in recent studies60, and at least 2 distinct GSC subtypes, PN and MES, can be found in tumors61-63 distinctly expressing CD133 on PN-GBM cells and CD44 on MES-GBM cells64. Beyond differences in protein expression profiles, MES-GSCs show higher proliferation rates in vitro and in vivo than PN subtype cells after xenografting in the mouse brain. In addition, the MES-GSC phenotype is associated with a relatively shorter OS than other subtypes65,66. MES-GSCs are more angiogenic, invasive, and RT-resistant than the PN-GSC subtype48. However, whether the subtype specificity of GSCs is associated with common tumor cell subtypes remains to be demonstrated67. Compared with tumors of parental origin, GSCs differ in their transcriptomic and epigenetic profiles. Bhat et al. have assessed gene expression profiles of GSCs and xenografts in reference to their parental GBM profiles. Unexpectedly, most GSCs induced by the MES-GBM lost their MES signatures and exhibited higher expression of PN-GBM-associated genes. In contrast, all PN-GSCs maintained their PN status when examined in xenografts11. The main characteristics of the different GBM subtypes are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Schematic diagram of the 3 classifications of GBM. GBM is classified into PN, CL, and MES subtypes, which express different characteristic genes. PN-GBM cells tend to have oligodendrocyte characteristics, CL-GBM cells have astrocyte characteristics, and MES-GBM subtypes show high immune cell infiltration (figure generated in Figdraw).

Mesenchymal transition regulators of GBM

Direct regulators

The phenotypic and genotypic plasticity of GBM cells is not only the major driver of intratumor heterogeneity but also a characteristic feature of the dynamic tumorigenesis process68. Cancer-associated primary transcriptional regulators are crucial for tumor growth and therefore may have therapeutic value69. The six major regulator networks of MES gene expression are ZNF238, STAT3, C/EBPβ, BHLH-B2β, FOSL2, and RUNX1, with C/EBPβ and STAT3 at the top of the network hierarchy order. Specifically, C/EBPβ and STAT3 are responsible for the reprogramming of neuronal stem cells to the MES subtype and conferring metastatic ability on glioma cells70. Transcriptional coactivators with a PDZ-binding motif (TAZ) trigger the expression of MES-associated factors in the PN-GSC in a transcription-enhancing association domain (TEAD)-dependent manner. Interestingly, the predicted TAZ downstream gene was not found to overlap with the target genes for STAT3 and C/EBPβ. Thus, TAZ might serve as an independent regulator of the MES characteristics and promote MT in GBM in multiple pathways71,72. NF-κB controls the expression of 3 important TFs, C/EBPβ, STAT3, and TAZ, thus enhancing MT in pre-glioma spheroid cultures, and leading to enrichment in CD44 subsets and radio-resistant phenotypes73,74. Furthermore, S100A4 is an upstream regulator of the primary EMT factors ZEB and Snail2, as well as other MT regulators in GBM75. The TF FOSL1 has been identified as a key regulator of the MES subtype, and its depletion can lead to loss of MES gene markers, and diminished stem cell characteristics and tumorigenic potential in vivo76.

Indirect regulators

Deubiquitinase and ubiquitin-binding enzymes play key roles in the regulation of cellular protein levels. Several studies have demonstrated that these enzymes promote MT in GBM. The deubiquitinases USP9X, USP21, and USP3 have been found to promote the MES transformation of GBM by stabilizing the expression of ALDH1A3, FOXD1, and Snail2, respectively, in the MES phenotype. These enzymes are also associated with GBM malignancy and poor prognosis. The USP9X inhibitor WP1130 and the USP21 inhibitor disulfiram have shown good therapeutic efficacy in MES-GSC-derived GBM xenograft models77-80. Furthermore, PRL1 promotes GBM progression by activating the USP36-mediated deubiquitination of Snail281. The ubiquitin-binding enzyme UBE2T regulates MT and GBM recurrence through the UBE2T/GRP78/EMT regulatory axis82.

FOXM1 is a member of the FOX TF family, and the FOXM1/ADAM17 feedback loop controls MT and regulates GBM progression via the EGFR/AKT/GSK3β signaling pathway83. The sialyltransferase ST3GAL1 regulates MT in GBM by targeting FOXM1 protein degradation via APC/C-Cdh184. GSCs with low CD90 expression show enhanced FOXS6 expression in glioma cells through IL-1 secretion, thereby activating the EMT pathway and promoting resistance to TMZ therapy in glioma cells85. Sortilin promotes GBM cell migration, invasion, and EMT through the GSK-3β/β-catenin signaling pathway. AF38469 (a novel sortilin inhibitor) may be a selective antineoplastic agent for sortilin overexpressing MES-GBM cells86,87. Nrf2 is overactivated in MES-GBM via a positive feedback loop between the SQSTM1/p62 and Nrf2 axes, thus promoting GBM proliferation, invasion, and MT88. RBPJ, a key TF in the Notch signaling pathway, promotes PMT in GBM by activating the IL-6/STAT3 pathway89. STAT3 directly modulates the expression of SLUG, thereby promoting MES conversion of GSCs90. DRR1 induces EMT activation through AKT phosphorylation, thus participating in GBM invasion and progression91. The IL-6 family cytokine OSM promotes both transcription and translation of YKL40 and fibronectin while decreasing expression of DLL3 and OLIG2 in GBM cells. OSM-regulated MES phenotypes are associated with enhanced MMP-9 activity, and cell migration, and invasion92. The PBX3-MEK-ERK1/2-LIN28-let-7b positive feedback loop promotes the MES phenotype, and PBX3 is a key modulator and potential therapeutic target for MT93. IMP1 induces activation of YAP/TAZ signaling by m6A modification, thereby facilitating MT of GSCs94. SRPX2 supports EMT via the MAPK signaling pathway, thereby promoting GBM transformation95. Finally, genes such as NKCC1, ESTRADIOL, and DUSP6 have been reported to play important roles in MT and developing invasive properties of GBM cells96-98.

NF-κB pathway-associated regulators

NF-κB is a ubiquitous TF with critical roles in the aggressive MES differentiation process in almost all types of cancers, including GBM. NF-κB is an upstream factor in the MES-GBM regulatory network and is known to promote MT in GBM by regulating STAT3, C/EBPβ, and TAZ expression74. Furthermore, NF-κB directly induces the expression of MES proteins (e.g., Twist1, CD44, N-cadherin, and Vimentin)99-101. The extracellular matrix glycoprotein tenascin C (TNC) mediates MT in GBM through NF-κB-dependent activation102. Hypoxia-induced hyperexpression of PLOD1 promotes the malignant phenotype of GBM through NF-κB signaling103. The chemokine CXCL1 is highly enriched in GBM and is positively correlated with poor patient prognosis. Elevated CXCL1 levels can confer RT resistance on GBM cells by activating NF-κB signaling, thus promoting the MT in GBM cells104. NUDT21 is an upstream regulator of the NF-κB pathway and a potential molecular target for MT in GBM105. ARPC1B expression supports the maintenance of MES-GBM phenotypic status as well as RT resistance by inhibiting TRIM21-mediated degradation of IFI16 and HuR, which activate NF-κB and STAT3 signaling, respectively, in GBM. AZD6738 inhibition by expression of ARPC1B in combination with RT has demonstrated excellent anti-GSC activity106. Chemerin-regulated paracrine and autocrine networks have been found to promote the MES features of GBM by inhibiting the ubiquitin-proteasome degradation of CMKLR1, a chemokine receptor expressed primarily on TAMs and partially on GBM cells. Elevated levels of CMKLR1 induce NF-κB pathway activation and MT107. The cell adhesion molecule CD146 stimulates cell survival signaling by inhibiting p53 expression and activating NF-κB by phosphorylation, thereby supporting GBM stemness properties, MT, and the development of radio resistance. CD146 has also been identified as an inducer of the oncogenic YAP108. The serine/threonine kinase MLK4 promotes MT in GBM by binding and phosphorylating NF-κB109. The high expression of GPX8 is associated with MES features and is negatively correlated with anterior PN features, thus suggesting that GPX8 may promote PMT in GBM. Correlation analysis has shown that GPX8 expression modulation is associated with the IL1-MYD88-IRAK-NF-κB pathway and immune infiltration in GBM110. Furthermore, the TGF-β-induced CLDN4/TNF-α/NF-κB signaling axis plays a key role in EMT in gliomas111. TGM2 is highly expressed in GBM necrotic regions, and, under regulation by the NF-κB signaling pathway, triggers MT in GBM-GSCs via modulating TFs including C/EBPβ, STAT3, and TAZ112.

Other independent regulators

LIF and CCL2 expression are strongly associated with malignant GBM intermediate subtypes and predict the survival of patients with GBM. In vitro expression of LIF and CCL2 induces the transcription of genes associated with MT in GBM cells113. Moreover, ALDH1A3, a major contributor to aldehyde activity, is a well-characterized driver of MT in GBM114. In addition, the NFAT2-HDAC1 pathway may also play important roles in maintaining malignant phenotypes and promoting the MT of GSCs, thus providing potential molecular targets for GBM therapy115. ME2 is positively correlated with MES-GBM characteristics, and it promotes the proliferation, migration, and invasion of glioma cells. ME2 induces the expression of MES markers, including MET, N-cadherin, YKL40, and Vimentin, while inhibiting expression of the PN gene OLIG2; consequently, ME2 may promote PMT in GBM116. In addition, CDCP1 is a transmembrane glycoprotein and a novel regulator of PMT in GBM117. The coding genes and their mechanisms of promoting MT are detailed in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1

Coding genes of MT regulators

Non-coding RNAs

MicroRNAs (miRNAs)

miRNAs are non-coding RNAs that negatively regulate gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. Some miRNAs modulate the expression of genes, such as E-CADHERIN, MMP9, MMP14, SLUG, MMP2, and SNAIL, that are associated with GBM invasion and PMT118. In contrast, miRNAs can inhibit MT by directly targeting and inhibiting the expression of factors such as the FZD6 and FZD7 receptors119,120; the transcription inhibitors ZEB1 and ZEB2121,122; proteins such as Smad2, LHFPL3, and ADAM19123–125; and factors associated with TGF-β126,127 and NF-κB128,129 pathways. Furthermore, some miRNAs are involved in cell-to-cell communication and intercellular interactions mediating MT in GBM130.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs)

lncRNAs, such as PDIA3P1, bind proteins, such as C/EBPβ, and consequently prevent ubiquitination-mediated degradation, thus acting as master regulators of the MT process. The small-molecule therapeutic NEF specifically targets p38α in brain cells and has excellent blood-brain barrier permeability. NEF at specific concentrations blocks upregulation of PDIA3P1 and confers synergistic synthetic lethality in TMZ therapy. The combination therapy of TMZ and NEF has demonstrated excellent synergistic antitumor effects both in vitro and in vivo131. LINC01057 interacts with IKKα, stabilizes its nuclear localization, and promotes chromatin accessibility at NF-κB responsive promoters through histone modification and NF-κB activation. IKKα knockdown disrupts the effect of LINC01057 overexpression on the PMT in GBM132. Our research group has shown that dysregulation of the lncRNA PRADX in GBM promotes MT by recruiting histone H3 trimethylated at lysine27 to chromatin through binding the EZH2 domain of the PRC2 complex and epigenetically regulating the STAT3 pathway133. Moreover, lncRNA regulates MT through ceRNA; downregulates the expression of TGF-β and NF-κB pathway-associated factors134,135; or exerts a sponging effect on Snail, and ZEB1, thereby promoting MT in GBM136,137. The molecular sponge mechanisms of lncRNAs also play roles in MT of GSCs138. Furthermore, some lncRNAs have been reported to participate in the MT in GBM cells by regulating the NF-κB and Wnt pathways; however, their specific regulatory mechanisms have not been explored139-141.

Circular RNA (circRNAs)

Recently published studies have shown that circRNAs regulate MT in GBM cells by acting as miRNA sponges142,143.

Radiotherapy

RT has been found to induce PMT in recurrent GBM144. Notably, NF-κB activation is a critical step in PMT initiation. Bhat et al. have demonstrated that the PN-GBM subtype can be transformed into the MES-like subtype after RT, as evidenced by the high expression of CD44 on the MES-GBM cell surface. Together, NF-κB activation and CD44 overexpression predict the treatment outcomes of CT and RT in GBM11. Additionally, STAT3 and C/EBPβ are key players mediating therapy-induced PMT. Thus, blocking STAT3 activation has been shown to suppress RT-induced PMT, thereby prolonging survival in PN-GBM mice. Ionizing radiation can transition GSCs initially enriched in CD133 PN characteristics to the CD109 expressing MES subtype in a C/EBPβ-dependent manner56,145. Furthermore, ionizing radiation treatment significantly increases PAK4 expression and nuclear localization. A novel nuclear PAK4/PPARγ complex is recruited to the Nox1 promoter, thereby upregulating Nox1 expression and activating MT in GBM cells146.

RT-treated GBM cells produce soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), which stimulates macrophage infiltration, thereby enriching the TME in inflammatory macrophages. As a paracrine factor, tumor-derived sICAM-1 activates macrophage secretion of WNT3A, which in turn promotes MT in GBM cells147.

Alternative splicing

Alternative splicing (AS) patterns are another form of intra-tumoral heterogeneity in GBM. Recent studies have shown that the GBM phenotype has a unique AS pattern148. Proteomic, transcriptomic, and functional analyses have confirmed that RSRP1 regulates AS in the MES-GBM subtype by modulating spliceosome assembly. RSRP1-regulated AS events result in skipping of PARP6 exon 18, thus forming a truncated oncogenic PARP6 variant that does not effectively inhibit NF-κB activation. Combined treatment of cultured GBM cells and GBM-tumor-bearing mice with spliceosomes and NF-κB inhibitors has shown synergistic effects on MES-GBM growth149.

Inflammatory factors and the immune microenvironment

Macrophages and microglia together constitute an integral part of the PMT in GSCs. RT-induced intratumor PMT is associated with NF-κB activation and macrophagic/microglial involvement in GBM11. The expression profiles of inflammatory genes are highly heterogeneous across molecular subtypes of GBM, and are enriched in the MES subtype but moderately downregulated in the PN phenotype. Other inflammation-associated processes, such as the TAM signature, are upregulated in the MES subtype and result in poor prognosis. We have found that several GBM tumor-associated proteins, such as IL-6, IL-8, and CCL2, are actively expressed in GBM cell lines and have differential and synergistic roles in promoting proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion, and macrophage polarization in vitro150. The inflammatory chemokine CXCR4 is a predictor of poor prognosis in patients with GBM and can be used as a biomarker for the MES-GBM subtype. Moreover, CXCR4 mediates MAPK signaling pathway activation, specifically in patients with MES-GBM151. CXCR4 signaling promotes PMT and shortens the OS in patients with GBM, thus suggesting its inhibitory role as a potential therapeutic strategy152.

Abnormal vascularization

Resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy is associated with MT in patients with GBM153. Compared with the PN and CL subtypes, the MES subtype expresses higher levels of angiogenic markers8,35. A robust transformation of vascular endothelial cells into MES-GSC-like cells in GBM has been reported to induce chemoresistance through Wnt-β-catenin signaling activation154. Another study has identified that the PDGF/NF-κB/Snail axis induces MT by decreasing VEGFR2 expression in ECs. The dual inhibition of VEGFR and PDGFR eliminates tumor-associated ECs and prolongs OS in mice with GBM. Collectively, these findings shed light on the plasticity of ECs in controlling resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy, and suggest that vascular deconversion may be a promising treatment option for anti-angiogenic therapy155.

Exosomes

The molecular subtypes of GBM and GSCs differ in the expression of extracellular vesicle (EV)-associated genes, and GSCs with the PN or MES subtype, thereby producing EVs with significantly different characteristics, marker profiles, proteomics, and endothelium stimulating activities61.

GBM and EC-secreted exosomes have been shown to promote PMT in GBM and GSC cells by activating NF-κB and STAT3 pathways, thus upregulating MMP expression, and inhibiting the Notch pathway156,157. These findings further suggest that macrophage-derived EVs may be key regulators of PMT in GSCs by delivering miRNAs and promoting the MT of GSCs by targeting CHD7158.

Hypoxia

Hypoxic cells activate pro-angiogenic factors, including VEGF/VEGFR, PDGFR, and TGF-β, by stabilizing HIF-1/2α and consequently inducing transcriptional changes leading to the recruitment of inflammatory cells and facilitating PMT159. Joseph et al. have revealed that hypoxia aggravates the invasive nature of GBM cells by promoting ZEB1-HIF1α axis-mediated MT160. EPHB2 is epigenetically overexpressed in hypoxia, a common condition in malignant tumors. In addition, HIF-2α is required to stabilize EPHB2 during hypoxic shock. Finally, we have found that overexpression of EPHB2 promotes GBM invasion through phosphorylation of paxillin in hypoxia. These findings establish the HIF2α-EPHB2-paxillin axis as a regulatory mechanism for EMT161. Other MT regulators and their mechanisms are shown in Table 2. The schematic diagram of the occurrence of MT in GBM under the influence of various regulators is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Schematic diagram of MT in GBM. Under the influence of many regulators represented by NF-κB, as well as many microenvironmental factors such as hypoxia, exosomes, and macrophages, GBM cells undergo mesenchymal transformation (figure generated in Figdraw).

View this table:
Table 2

Other mesenchymal transition regulators

Conclusions

The GBM molecular subtype is not a stable phenotype but a dynamic state with spontaneous changes in the TME74. Many studies have examined the PN and MES subtypes; however, data on the CL subtype are scarce. Importantly, the CL-GBM subtype accounts for a considerable proportion of GBM that has high EGFR expression and undergoes rapid proliferation, thus leading to poor prognosis; this subtype resembles the Prolif-GBM subtype identified by Phillips et al8. Because factors including hypoxia, angiogenesis, RT, and the immune microenvironment are associated with the MES phenotype, specific inhibitors of the MES phenotype in combination with other regimens should be considered to synergistically inhibit GBM progression and recurrence. However, caution is warranted, because polypharmacy may be associated with therapeutic complications. For example, the combination of TMZ with bevacizumab results in high toxicity and intracranial hemorrhage in patients with GBM162.

IHC detection of expression of GBM-specific genes is currently routinely used in clinical practice for patients with GBM, and the WHO 2016 classification of CNS tumors is used as a reference beyond histology to define the staging of solid tumors. This approach proposes a concept of how to construct a diagnostic model for CNS-specific tumors in the molecular era163. The most recent WHO classification, the 2021 edition, further emphasizes the significance of the determination of molecular characteristics of GBM subtypes, tissue typing and treatment regimen selection, and histological classification. However, the specificity of these histological subgroups based on the expression profiles of single or multiple factors is not sufficient to fully represent the complexity of GBM histology at the molecular level. Therefore, future research is required to establish clearer histological and molecular parameters15. The stability of the GBM molecular typing scheme has been fully validated by Wang et al.10; therefore, we believe that the molecular typing of GBM has great potential in guiding GBM diagnosis and therapy in clinical practice.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Chuan Fang, Yanli Tan, Can Xu.

Collected the data: Xiang Li, Menglin Xiao, Ziqi Zhang, Ziru Li.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Jianglong Xu, Guoming Liu.

Performed the analysis: Pengyu Hou, Xiang Li.

Wrote the paper: Can Xu, Pengyu Hou.

Footnotes

  • ↵*These authors contributed equally to this work.

  • Received December 27, 2023.
  • Accepted March 28, 2024.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.↵
    2. Uddin MS,
    3. Mamun AA,
    4. Alghamdi BS,
    5. Tewari D,
    6. Jeandet P,
    7. Sarwar MS, et al.
    Epigenetics of glioblastoma multiforme: from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic approaches. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022; 83: 100–20.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    2. Cui X,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Zhou J,
    5. Wang Q,
    6. Kang C.
    Expert opinion on translational research for advanced glioblastoma treatment. Cancer Biol Med. 2023; 20: 344–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    2. Dunn GP,
    3. Rinne ML,
    4. Wykosky J,
    5. Genovese G,
    6. Quayle SN,
    7. Dunn IF, et al.
    Emerging insights into the molecular and cellular basis of glioblastoma. Genes Dev. 2012; 26: 756–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    2. Olar A,
    3. Aldape KD.
    Using the molecular classification of glioblastoma to inform personalized treatment. J Pathol. 2014; 232: 165–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    2. Noushmehr H,
    3. Weisenberger DJ,
    4. Diefes K,
    5. Phillips HS,
    6. Pujara K,
    7. Berman BP, et al.
    Identification of a CpG island methylator phenotype that defines a distinct subgroup of glioma. Cancer Cell. 2010; 17: 510–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    2. Dejaegher J,
    3. Solie L,
    4. Hunin Z,
    5. Sciot R,
    6. Capper D,
    7. Siewert C, et al.
    DNA methylation based glioblastoma subclassification is related to tumoral T-cell infiltration and patient survival. Neuro Oncol. 2021; 23: 240–50.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    2. Ma H,
    3. Zhao C,
    4. Zhao Z,
    5. Hu L,
    6. Ye F,
    7. Wang H, et al.
    Specific glioblastoma multiforme prognostic-subtype distinctions based on DNA methylation patterns. Cancer Gene Ther. 2020; 27: 702–14.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    2. Phillips HS,
    3. Kharbanda S,
    4. Chen R,
    5. Forrest WF,
    6. Soriano RH,
    7. Wu TD, et al.
    Molecular subclasses of high-grade glioma predict prognosis, delineate a pattern of disease progression, and resemble stages in neurogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2006; 9: 157–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    2. Verhaak RG,
    3. Hoadley KA,
    4. Purdom E,
    5. Wang V,
    6. Qi Y,
    7. Wilkerson MD, et al.
    Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010; 17: 98–110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    2. Wang Q,
    3. Hu B,
    4. Hu X,
    5. Kim H,
    6. Squatrito M,
    7. Scarpace L, et al.
    Tumor evolution of glioma-intrinsic gene expression subtypes associates with immunological changes in the microenvironment. Cancer Cell. 2017; 32: 42–56.e6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    2. Bhat KPL,
    3. Balasubramaniyan V,
    4. Vaillant B,
    5. Ezhilarasan R,
    6. Hummelink K,
    7. Hollingsworth F, et al.
    Mesenchymal differentiation mediated by NF-kappaB promotes radiation resistance in glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2013; 24: 331–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    2. Behnan J,
    3. Finocchiaro G,
    4. Hanna G.
    The landscape of the mesenchymal signature in brain tumours. Brain. 2019; 142: 847–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    2. Azam Z,
    3. To ST,
    4. Tannous BA.
    Mesenchymal transformation: the rosetta stone of glioblastoma pathogenesis and therapy resistance. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2020; 7: 2002015.
  14. 14.↵
    2. Segerman A,
    3. Niklasson M,
    4. Haglund C,
    5. Bergstrom T,
    6. Jarvius M,
    7. Xie Y, et al.
    Clonal variation in drug and radiation response among glioma-initiating cells is linked to proneural-mesenchymal transition. Cell Rep. 2016; 17: 2994–3009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    2. Louis DN,
    3. Perry A,
    4. Wesseling P,
    5. Brat DJ,
    6. Cree IA,
    7. Figarella-Branger D, et al.
    The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021; 23: 1231–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    2. Jankowska S,
    3. Lewandowska M,
    4. Masztalewicz M,
    5. Sagan L,
    6. Nowacki P,
    7. Urasinska E.
    Molecular classification of glioblastoma based on immunohistochemical expression of EGFR, PDGFRA, NF1, IDH1, p53 and PTEN proteins. Pol J Pathol. 2021; 72: 1–10.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.
    2. Le Mercier M,
    3. Hastir D,
    4. Moles Lopez X,
    5. De Neve N,
    6. Maris C,
    7. Trepant AL, et al.
    A simplified approach for the molecular classification of glioblastomas. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e45475.
  18. 18.↵
    2. Popova SN,
    3. Bergqvist M,
    4. Dimberg A,
    5. Edqvist PH,
    6. Ekman S,
    7. Hesselager G, et al.
    Subtyping of gliomas of various WHO grades by the application of immunohistochemistry. Histopathology. 2014; 64: 365–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    2. Le NQK,
    3. Hung TNK,
    4. Do DT,
    5. Lam LHT,
    6. Dang LH,
    7. Huynh TT.
    Radiomics-based machine learning model for efficiently classifying transcriptome subtypes in glioblastoma patients from MRI. Comput Biol Med. 2021; 132: 104320.
  20. 20.↵
    2. Yang D,
    3. Rao G,
    4. Martinez J,
    5. Veeraraghavan A,
    6. Rao A.
    Evaluation of tumor-derived MRI-texture features for discrimination of molecular subtypes and prediction of 12-month survival status in glioblastoma. Med Phys. 2015; 42: 6725–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    2. Ozawa T,
    3. Riester M,
    4. Cheng YK,
    5. Huse JT,
    6. Squatrito M,
    7. Helmy K, et al.
    Most human non-GCIMP glioblastoma subtypes evolve from a common proneural-like precursor glioma. Cancer Cell. 2014; 26: 288–300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    2. Wang L,
    3. Babikir H,
    4. Muller S,
    5. Yagnik G,
    6. Shamardani K,
    7. Catalan F, et al.
    The phenotypes of proliferating glioblastoma cells reside on a single axis of variation. Cancer Discov. 2019; 9: 1708–19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    2. Chelebian E,
    3. Fuster-Garcia E,
    4. Alvarez-Torres MDM,
    5. Juan-Albarracin J,
    6. Garcia-Gomez JM.
    Higher vascularity at infiltrated peripheral edema differentiates proneural glioblastoma subtype. PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0232500.
  24. 24.↵
    2. Rahme GJ,
    3. Luikart BW,
    4. Cheng C,
    5. Israel MA.
    A recombinant lentiviral PDGF-driven mouse model of proneural glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2018; 20: 332–42.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    2. Almiron Bonnin DA,
    3. Ran C,
    4. Havrda MC,
    5. Liu H,
    6. Hitoshi Y,
    7. Zhang Z, et al.
    Insulin-mediated signaling facilitates resistance to PDGFR inhibition in proneural hPDGFB-driven gliomas. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017; 16: 705–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    2. Park MG,
    3. Seo S,
    4. Ham SW,
    5. Choi SH,
    6. Kim H.
    Dihydropyrimidinase-related protein 5 controls glioblastoma stem cell characteristics as a biomarker of proneural-subtype glioblastoma stem cells. Oncol Lett. 2020; 20: 1153–62.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    2. Guadagno E,
    3. Vitiello M,
    4. Francesca P,
    5. Cali G,
    6. Caponnetto F,
    7. Cesselli D, et al.
    PATZ1 is a new prognostic marker of glioblastoma associated with the stem-like phenotype and enriched in the proneural subtype. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 59282–300.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    2. He X,
    3. Zhang S,
    4. Chen J,
    5. Li D.
    Increased LGALS3 expression independently predicts shorter overall survival in patients with the proneural subtype of glioblastoma. Cancer Med. 2019; 8: 2031–40.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    2. Lescarbeau RS,
    3. Lei L,
    4. Bakken KK,
    5. Sims PA,
    6. Sarkaria JN,
    7. Canoll P, et al.
    Quantitative phosphoproteomics reveals Wee1 kinase as a therapeutic target in a model of proneural glioblastoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016; 15: 1332–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    2. Hai L,
    3. Zhang C,
    4. Li T,
    5. Zhou X,
    6. Liu B,
    7. Li S, et al.
    Notch1 is a prognostic factor that is distinctly activated in the classical and proneural subtype of glioblastoma and that promotes glioma cell survival via the NF-kappaB(p65) pathway. Cell Death Dis. 2018; 9: 158.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    2. Jin X,
    3. Kim LJY,
    4. Wu Q,
    5. Wallace LC,
    6. Prager BC,
    7. Sanvoranart T, et al.
    Targeting glioma stem cells through combined BMI1 and EZH2 inhibition. Nat Med. 2017; 23: 1352–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    2. Pan YB,
    3. Wang S,
    4. Yang B,
    5. Jiang Z,
    6. Lenahan C,
    7. Wang J, et al.
    Transcriptome analyses reveal molecular mechanisms underlying phenotypic differences among transcriptional subtypes of glioblastoma. J Cell Mol Med. 2020; 24: 3901–16.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    2. Niklasson M,
    3. Bergstrom T,
    4. Jarvius M,
    5. Sundstrom A,
    6. Nyberg F,
    7. Haglund C, et al.
    Mesenchymal transition and increased therapy resistance of glioblastoma cells is related to astrocyte reactivity. J Pathol. 2019; 249: 295–307.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    2. Wang Q,
    3. Cai J,
    4. Fang C,
    5. Yang C,
    6. Zhou J,
    7. Tan Y, et al.
    Mesenchymal glioblastoma constitutes a major ceRNA signature in the TGF-beta pathway. Theranostics. 2018; 8: 4733–49.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    2. Cooper LA,
    3. Gutman DA,
    4. Chisolm C,
    5. Appin C,
    6. Kong J,
    7. Rong Y, et al.
    The tumor microenvironment strongly impacts master transcriptional regulators and gene expression class of glioblastoma. Am J Pathol. 2012; 180: 2108–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    2. Zhao K,
    3. Cui X,
    4. Wang Q,
    5. Fang C,
    6. Tan Y,
    7. Wang Y, et al.
    RUNX1 contributes to the mesenchymal subtype of glioblastoma in a TGFbeta pathway-dependent manner. Cell Death Dis. 2019; 10: 877.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    2. Higa N,
    3. Shinsato Y,
    4. Kamil M,
    5. Hirano T,
    6. Takajo T,
    7. Shimokawa M, et al.
    Formin-like 1 (FMNL1) is associated with glioblastoma multiforme mesenchymal subtype and independently predicts poor prognosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20: 6355.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    2. Pan YB,
    3. Zhang CH,
    4. Wang SQ,
    5. Ai PH,
    6. Chen K,
    7. Zhu L, et al.
    Transforming growth factor beta induced (TGFBI) is a potential signature gene for mesenchymal subtype high-grade glioma. J Neurooncol. 2018; 137: 395–407.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    2. Wu L,
    3. Chai R,
    4. Lin Z,
    5. Wu R,
    6. Yao D,
    7. Jiang T, et al.
    Evolution-driven crosstalk between glioblastoma and the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Biol Med. 2023; 20: 319–24.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    2. Li H,
    3. He J,
    4. Li M,
    5. Li K,
    6. Pu X,
    7. Guo Y.
    Immune landscape-based machine-learning-assisted subclassification, prognosis, and immunotherapy prediction for glioblastoma. Front Immunol. 2022; 13: 1027631.
  41. 41.↵
    2. Martinez-Lage M,
    3. Lynch TM,
    4. Bi Y,
    5. Cocito C,
    6. Way GP,
    7. Pal S, et al.
    Immune landscapes associated with different glioblastoma molecular subtypes. Acta Neuropathol Commun. 2019; 7: 203.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    2. Kaffes I,
    3. Szulzewsky F,
    4. Chen Z,
    5. Herting CJ,
    6. Gabanic B,
    7. Velazquez Vega JE, et al.
    Human Mesenchymal glioblastomas are characterized by an increased immune cell presence compared to Proneural and Classical tumors. Oncoimmunology. 2019; 8: e1655360.
  43. 43.↵
    2. Jeanmougin M,
    3. Havik AB,
    4. Cekaite L,
    5. Brandal P,
    6. Sveen A,
    7. Meling TR, et al.
    Improved prognostication of glioblastoma beyond molecular subtyping by transcriptional profiling of the tumor microenvironment. Mol Oncol. 2020; 14: 1016–27.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    2. Sa JK,
    3. Chang N,
    4. Lee HW,
    5. Cho HJ,
    6. Ceccarelli M,
    7. Cerulo L, et al.
    Transcriptional regulatory networks of tumor-associated macrophages that drive malignancy in mesenchymal glioblastoma. Genome Biol. 2020; 21: 216.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    2. Akkari L,
    3. Bowman RL,
    4. Tessier J,
    5. Klemm F,
    6. Handgraaf SM,
    7. de Groot M, et al.
    Dynamic changes in glioma macrophage populations after radiotherapy reveal CSF-1R inhibition as a strategy to overcome resistance. Sci Transl Med. 2020; 12: eaaw7843.
  46. 46.↵
    2. Dumas AA,
    3. Pomella N,
    4. Rosser G,
    5. Guglielmi L,
    6. Vinel C,
    7. Millner TO, et al.
    Microglia promote glioblastoma via mTOR-mediated immunosuppression of the tumour microenvironment. EMBO J. 2020; 39: e103790.
  47. 47.↵
    2. Agnihotri S,
    3. Zadeh G.
    Metabolic reprogramming in glioblastoma: the influence of cancer metabolism on epigenetics and unanswered questions. Neuro Oncol. 2016; 18: 160–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    2. Mao P,
    3. Joshi K,
    4. Li J,
    5. Kim SH,
    6. Li P,
    7. Santana-Santos L, et al.
    Mesenchymal glioma stem cells are maintained by activated glycolytic metabolism involving aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110: 8644–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    2. Vegran F,
    3. Boidot R,
    4. Michiels C,
    5. Sonveaux P,
    6. Feron O.
    Lactate influx through the endothelial cell monocarboxylate transporter MCT1 supports an NF-kappaB/IL-8 pathway that drives tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2011; 71: 2550–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    2. Kennedy KM,
    3. Dewhirst MW.
    Tumor metabolism of lactate: the influence and therapeutic potential for MCT and CD147 regulation. Future Oncol. 2010; 6: 127–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    2. Heiland DH,
    3. Worner J,
    4. Gerrit Haaker J,
    5. Delev D,
    6. Pompe N,
    7. Mercas B, et al.
    The integrative metabolomic-transcriptomic landscape of glioblastome multiforme. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 49178–90.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    2. Oizel K,
    3. Chauvin C,
    4. Oliver L,
    5. Gratas C,
    6. Geraldo F,
    7. Jarry U, et al.
    Efficient mitochondrial glutamine targeting prevails over glioblastoma metabolic plasticity. Clin Cancer Res. 2017; 23: 6292–304.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    2. Wang LB,
    3. Karpova A,
    4. Gritsenko MA,
    5. Kyle JE,
    6. Cao S,
    7. Li Y, et al.
    Proteogenomic and metabolomic characterization of human glioblastoma. Cancer Cell. 2021; 39: 509–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    2. Pieri V,
    3. Gallotti AL,
    4. Drago D,
    5. Cominelli M,
    6. Pagano I,
    7. Conti V, et al.
    Aberrant L-fucose accumulation and increased core fucosylation are metabolic liabilities in mesenchymal glioblastoma. Cancer Res. 2023; 83: 195–218.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    2. Puchalski RB,
    3. Shah N,
    4. Miller J,
    5. Dalley R,
    6. Nomura SR,
    7. Yoon JG, et al.
    An anatomic transcriptional atlas of human glioblastoma. Science. 2018; 360: 660–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    2. Minata M,
    3. Audia A,
    4. Shi J,
    5. Lu S,
    6. Bernstock J,
    7. Pavlyukov MS, et al.
    Phenotypic plasticity of invasive edge glioma stem-like cells in response to ionizing radiation. Cell Rep. 2019; 26: 1893–905.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    2. Gill BJ,
    3. Pisapia DJ,
    4. Malone HR,
    5. Goldstein H,
    6. Lei L,
    7. Sonabend A, et al.
    MRI-localized biopsies reveal subtype-specific differences in molecular and cellular composition at the margins of glioblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111: 12550–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    2. Kvisten M,
    3. Mikkelsen VE,
    4. Stensjoen AL,
    5. Solheim O,
    6. Van Der Want J,
    7. Torp SH.
    Microglia and macrophages in human glioblastomas: a morphological and immunohistochemical study. Mol Clin Oncol. 2019; 11: 31–6.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    2. Lathia JD,
    3. Mack SC,
    4. Mulkearns-Hubert EE,
    5. Valentim CL,
    6. Rich JN.
    Cancer stem cells in glioblastoma. Genes Dev. 2015; 29: 1203–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    2. Halliday J,
    3. Helmy K,
    4. Pattwell SS,
    5. Pitter KL,
    6. LaPlant Q,
    7. Ozawa T, et al.
    In vivo radiation response of proneural glioma characterized by protective p53 transcriptional program and proneural-mesenchymal shift. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111: 5248–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    2. Spinelli C,
    3. Montermini L,
    4. Meehan B,
    5. Brisson AR,
    6. Tan S,
    7. Choi D, et al.
    Molecular subtypes and differentiation programmes of glioma stem cells as determinants of extracellular vesicle profiles and endothelial cell-stimulating activities. J Extracell Vesicles. 2018; 7: 1490144.
  62. 62.
    2. Lottaz C,
    3. Beier D,
    4. Meyer K,
    5. Kumar P,
    6. Hermann A,
    7. Schwarz J, et al.
    Transcriptional profiles of CD133+ and CD133-glioblastoma-derived cancer stem cell lines suggest different cells of origin. Cancer Res. 2010; 70: 2030–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    2. Marziali G,
    3. Signore M,
    4. Buccarelli M,
    5. Grande S,
    6. Palma A,
    7. Biffoni M, et al.
    Metabolic/proteomic signature defines two glioblastoma subtypes with different clinical outcome. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 21557.
  64. 64.↵
    2. Brown DV,
    3. Daniel PM,
    4. D’Abaco GM,
    5. Gogos A,
    6. Ng W,
    7. Morokoff AP, et al.
    Coexpression analysis of CD133 and CD44 identifies proneural and mesenchymal subtypes of glioblastoma multiforme. Oncotarget. 2015; 6: 6267–80.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    2. Garnier D,
    3. Renoult O,
    4. Alves-Guerra MC,
    5. Paris F,
    6. Pecqueur C.
    Glioblastoma stem-like cells, metabolic strategy to kill a challenging target. Front Oncol. 2019; 9: 118.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    2. Steponaitis G,
    3. Tamasauskas A.
    Mesenchymal and proneural subtypes of glioblastoma disclose branching based on GSC associated signature. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22: 4964.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    2. Richards LM,
    3. Whitley OKN,
    4. MacLeod G,
    5. Cavalli FMG,
    6. Coutinho FJ,
    7. Jaramillo JE, et al.
    Gradient of Developmental and Injury Response transcriptional states defines functional vulnerabilities underpinning glioblastoma heterogeneity. Nat Cancer. 2021; 2: 157–73.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    2. Wang J,
    3. Cazzato E,
    4. Ladewig E,
    5. Frattini V,
    6. Rosenbloom DI,
    7. Zairis S, et al.
    Clonal evolution of glioblastoma under therapy. Nat Genet. 2016; 48: 768–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    2. Sikdar S,
    3. Datta S.
    A novel statistical approach for identification of the master regulator transcription factor. BMC Bioinformatics. 2017; 18: 79.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    2. Carro MS,
    3. Lim WK,
    4. Alvarez MJ,
    5. Bollo RJ,
    6. Zhao X,
    7. Snyder EY, et al.
    The transcriptional network for mesenchymal transformation of brain tumours. Nature. 2010; 463: 318–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    2. Bhat KP,
    3. Salazar KL,
    4. Balasubramaniyan V,
    5. Wani K,
    6. Heathcock L,
    7. Hollingsworth F, et al.
    The transcriptional coactivator TAZ regulates mesenchymal differentiation in malignant glioma. Genes Dev. 2011; 25: 2594–609.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    2. Yee PP,
    3. Wei Y,
    4. Kim SY,
    5. Lu T,
    6. Chih SY,
    7. Lawson C, et al.
    Neutrophil-induced ferroptosis promotes tumor necrosis in glioblastoma progression. Nat Commun. 2020; 11: 5424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    2. Yamini B.
    NF-kappaB, mesenchymal differentiation and glioblastoma. Cells. 2018; 7: 125.
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    2. Fedele M,
    3. Cerchia L,
    4. Pegoraro S,
    5. Sgarra R,
    6. Manfioletti G.
    Proneural-mesenchymal transition: phenotypic plasticity to acquire multitherapy resistance in glioblastoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2019; 20: 2746.
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.↵
    2. Chow KH,
    3. Park HJ,
    4. George J,
    5. Yamamoto K,
    6. Gallup AD,
    7. Graber JH, et al.
    S100A4 is a biomarker and regulator of glioma stem cells that is critical for mesenchymal transition in glioblastoma. Cancer Res. 2017; 77: 5360–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    2. Marques C,
    3. Unterkircher T,
    4. Kroon P,
    5. Oldrini B,
    6. Izzo A,
    7. Dramaretska Y, et al.
    NF1 regulates mesenchymal glioblastoma plasticity and aggressiveness through the AP-1 transcription factor FOSL1. Elife. 2021; 10: e64846.
  77. 77.↵
    2. Cheng P,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Waghmare I,
    5. Sartini S,
    6. Coviello V,
    7. Zhang Z, et al.
    FOXD1-ALDH1A3 signaling is a determinant for the self-renewal and tumorigenicity of mesenchymal glioma stem cells. Cancer Res. 2016; 76: 7219–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.
    2. Zhang Q,
    3. Chen Z,
    4. Tang Q,
    5. Wang Z,
    6. Lu J,
    7. You Y, et al.
    USP21 promotes self-renewal and tumorigenicity of mesenchymal glioblastoma stem cells by deubiquitinating and stabilizing FOXD1. Cell Death Dis. 2022; 13: 712.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.
    2. Chen Z,
    3. Wang HW,
    4. Wang S,
    5. Fan L,
    6. Feng S,
    7. Cai X, et al.
    USP9X deubiquitinates ALDH1A3 and maintains mesenchymal identity in glioblastoma stem cells. J Clin Invest. 2019; 129: 2043–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.↵
    2. Fan L,
    3. Chen Z,
    4. Wu X,
    5. Cai X,
    6. Feng S,
    7. Lu J, et al.
    Ubiquitin-specific protease 3 promotes glioblastoma cell invasion and epithelial-mesenchymal transition via stabilizing snail. Mol Cancer Res. 2019; 17: 1975–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    2. Qiu W,
    3. Cai X,
    4. Xu K,
    5. Song S,
    6. Xiao Z,
    7. Hou Y, et al.
    PRL1 promotes glioblastoma invasion and tumorigenesis via activating USP36-mediated Snail2 deubiquitination. Front Oncol. 2021; 11: 795633.
  82. 82.↵
    2. Huang P,
    3. Guo Y,
    4. Zhao Z,
    5. Ning W,
    6. Wang H,
    7. Gu C, et al.
    UBE2T promotes glioblastoma invasion and migration via stabilizing GRP78 and regulating EMT. Aging (Albany NY). 2020; 12: 10275–89.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    2. Zhang C,
    3. Han X,
    4. Xu X,
    5. Zhou Z,
    6. Chen X,
    7. Tang Y, et al.
    FoxM1 drives ADAM17/EGFR activation loop to promote mesenchymal transition in glioblastoma. Cell Death Dis. 2018; 9: 469.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.↵
    2. Chong YK,
    3. Sandanaraj E,
    4. Koh LW,
    5. Thangaveloo M,
    6. Tan MS,
    7. Koh GR, et al.
    ST3GAL1-associated transcriptomic program in glioblastoma tumor growth, invasion, and prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108: djv326.
  85. 85.↵
    2. Xue BZ,
    3. Xiang W,
    4. Zhang Q,
    5. Wang HF,
    6. Zhou YJ,
    7. Tian H, et al.
    CD90(low) glioma-associated mesenchymal stromal/stem cells promote temozolomide resistance by activating FOXS1-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition in glioma cells. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021; 12: 394.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.↵
    2. Sha Z,
    3. Zhou J,
    4. Wu Y,
    5. Zhang T,
    6. Li C,
    7. Meng Q, et al.
    BYSL promotes glioblastoma cell migration, invasion, and mesenchymal transition through the GSK-3β/β-catenin signaling pathway. Front Oncol. 2020; 10: 565225.
  87. 87.↵
    2. Yang W,
    3. Wu PF,
    4. Ma JX,
    5. Liao MJ,
    6. Wang XH,
    7. Xu LS, et al.
    Sortilin promotes glioblastoma invasion and mesenchymal transition through GSK-3β/β-catenin/twist pathway. Cell Death Dis. 2019; 10: 208.
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    2. Polonen P,
    3. Jawahar Deen A,
    4. Leinonen HM,
    5. Jyrkkanen HK,
    6. Kuosmanen S,
    7. Mononen M, et al.
    Nrf2 and SQSTM1/p62 jointly contribute to mesenchymal transition and invasion in glioblastoma. Oncogene. 2019; 38: 7473–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    2. Zhang G,
    3. Tanaka S,
    4. Jiapaer S,
    5. Sabit H,
    6. Tamai S,
    7. Kinoshita M, et al.
    RBPJ contributes to the malignancy of glioblastoma and induction of proneural-mesenchymal transition via IL-6-STAT3 pathway. Cancer Sci. 2020; 111: 4166–76.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.↵
    2. Chesnelong C,
    3. Hao X,
    4. Cseh O,
    5. Wang AY,
    6. Luchman HA,
    7. Weiss S.
    SLUG directs the precursor state of human brain tumor stem cells. Cancers (Basel). 2019; 11: 1635.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    2. Ma YS,
    3. Wu ZJ,
    4. Bai RZ,
    5. Dong H,
    6. Xie BX,
    7. Wu XH, et al.
    DRR1 promotes glioblastoma cell invasion and epithelial-mesenchymal transition via regulating AKT activation. Cancer Lett. 2018; 423: 86–94.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    2. Natesh K,
    3. Bhosale D,
    4. Desai A,
    5. Chandrika G,
    6. Pujari R,
    7. Jagtap J, et al.
    Oncostatin-M differentially regulates mesenchymal and proneural signature genes in gliomas via STAT3 signaling. Neoplasia. 2015; 17: 225–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    2. Xu X,
    3. Bao Z,
    4. Liu Y,
    5. Jiang K,
    6. Zhi T,
    7. Wang D, et al.
    PBX3/MEK/ERK1/2/LIN28/let-7b positive feedback loop enhances mesenchymal phenotype to promote glioblastoma migration and invasion. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2018; 37: 158.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.↵
    2. Yang J,
    3. Wu X,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Guo X,
    6. Chen J,
    7. Yang X, et al.
    Feedforward loop between IMP1 and YAP/TAZ promotes tumorigenesis and malignant progression in glioblastoma. Cancer Sci. 2022; 114: 2053–62.
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.↵
    2. Tang H,
    3. Zhao J,
    4. Zhang L,
    5. Zhao J,
    6. Zhuang Y,
    7. Liang P.
    SRPX2 Enhances the epithelial-mesenchymal transition and temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma cells. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2016; 36: 1067–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    2. Sun H,
    3. Long S,
    4. Wu B,
    5. Liu J,
    6. Li G.
    NKCC1 involvement in the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is a prognostic biomarker in gliomas. PeerJ. 2020; 8: e8787.
  97. 97.
    2. Zuchegna C,
    3. Di Zazzo E,
    4. Moncharmont B,
    5. Messina S.
    Dual-specificity phosphatase (DUSP6) in human glioblastoma: epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) involvement. BMC Res Notes. 2020; 13: 374.
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.↵
    2. Hernandez-Vega AM,
    3. Del Moral-Morales A,
    4. Zamora-Sanchez CJ,
    5. Pina-Medina AG,
    6. Gonzalez-Arenas A,
    7. Camacho-Arroyo I.
    Estradiol induces epithelial to mesenchymal transition of human glioblastoma cells. Cells. 2020; 9: 1930.
    OpenUrl
  99. 99.↵
    2. Li CW,
    3. Xia W,
    4. Huo L,
    5. Lim SO,
    6. Wu Y,
    7. Hsu JL, et al.
    Epithelial-mesenchymal transition induced by TNF-alpha requires NF-kappaB-mediated transcriptional upregulation of Twist1. Cancer Res. 2012; 72: 1290–300.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. 100.
    2. Mikheeva SA,
    3. Mikheev AM,
    4. Petit A,
    5. Beyer R,
    6. Oxford RG,
    7. Khorasani L, et al.
    TWIST1 promotes invasion through mesenchymal change in human glioblastoma. Mol Cancer. 2010; 9: 194.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.↵
    2. De Craene B,
    3. Berx G.
    Regulatory networks defining EMT during cancer initiation and progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013; 13: 97–110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    2. Angel I,
    3. Pilo Kerman O,
    4. Rousso-Noori L,
    5. Friedmann-Morvinski D.
    Tenascin C promotes cancer cell plasticity in mesenchymal glioblastoma. Oncogene. 2020; 39: 6990–7004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  103. 103.↵
    2. Wang Z,
    3. Shi Y,
    4. Ying C,
    5. Jiang Y,
    6. Hu J.
    Hypoxia-induced PLOD1 overexpression contributes to the malignant phenotype of glioblastoma via NF-kappaB signaling. Oncogene. 2021; 40: 1458–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  104. 104.↵
    2. Alafate W,
    3. Li X,
    4. Zuo J,
    5. Zhang H,
    6. Xiang J,
    7. Wu W, et al.
    Elevation of CXCL1 indicates poor prognosis and radioresistance by inducing mesenchymal transition in glioblastoma. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2020; 26: 475–85.
    OpenUrl
  105. 105.↵
    2. Lou JC,
    3. Lan YL,
    4. Gao JX,
    5. Ma BB,
    6. Yang T,
    7. Yuan ZB, et al.
    Silencing NUDT21 attenuates the mesenchymal identity of glioblastoma cells via the NF-kappaB pathway. Front Mol Neurosci. 2017; 10: 420.
    OpenUrl
  106. 106.↵
    2. Gao Z,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Fan Y,
    5. Zhang Z,
    6. Wang H,
    7. Qian M, et al.
    ARPC1B promotes mesenchymal phenotype maintenance and radiotherapy resistance by blocking TRIM21-mediated degradation of IFI16 and HuR in glioma stem cells. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022; 41: 323.
    OpenUrl
  107. 107.↵
    2. Wu J,
    3. Shen S,
    4. Liu T,
    5. Ren X,
    6. Zhu C,
    7. Liang Q, et al.
    Chemerin enhances mesenchymal features of glioblastoma by establishing autocrine and paracrine networks in a CMKLR1-dependent manner. Oncogene. 2022; 41: 3024–36.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.↵
    2. Liang Y,
    3. Voshart D,
    4. Paridaen J,
    5. Oosterhof N,
    6. Liang D,
    7. Thiruvalluvan A, et al.
    CD146 increases stemness and aggressiveness in glioblastoma and activates YAP signaling. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2022; 79: 398.
    OpenUrl
  109. 109.↵
    2. Kim SH,
    3. Ezhilarasan R,
    4. Phillips E,
    5. Gallego-Perez D,
    6. Sparks A,
    7. Taylor D, et al.
    Serine/threonine kinase MLK4 determines mesenchymal identity in glioma stem cells in an NF-kappaB-dependent manner. Cancer Cell. 2016; 29: 201–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    2. Li S,
    3. Jiang X,
    4. Guan M,
    5. Zhang Y,
    6. Cao Y,
    7. Zhang L.
    The overexpression of GPX8 is correlated with poor prognosis in GBM patients. Front Genet. 2022; 13: 898204.
  111. 111.↵
    2. Yan T,
    3. Tan Y,
    4. Deng G,
    5. Sun Z,
    6. Liu B,
    7. Wang Y, et al.
    TGF-beta induces GBM mesenchymal transition through upregulation of CLDN4 and nuclear translocation to activate TNF-alpha/NF-kappaB signal pathway. Cell Death Dis. 2022; 13: 339.
    OpenUrl
  112. 112.↵
    2. Yin J,
    3. Oh YT,
    4. Kim JY,
    5. Kim SS,
    6. Choi E,
    7. Kim TH, et al.
    Transglutaminase 2 inhibition reverses mesenchymal transdifferentiation of glioma stem cells by regulating C/EBPbeta signaling. Cancer Res. 2017; 77: 4973–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  113. 113.↵
    2. Lv SQ,
    3. Fu Z,
    4. Yang L,
    5. Li QR,
    6. Zhu J,
    7. Gai QJ, et al.
    Comprehensive omics analyses profile genesets related with tumor heterogeneity of multifocal glioblastomas and reveal LIF/CCL2 as biomarkers for mesenchymal subtype. Theranostics. 2022; 12: 459–73.
    OpenUrl
  114. 114.↵
    2. Li G,
    3. Li Y,
    4. Liu X,
    5. Wang Z,
    6. Zhang C,
    7. Wu F, et al.
    ALDH1A3 induces mesenchymal differentiation and serves as a predictor for survival in glioblastoma. Cell Death Dis. 2018; 9: 1190.
    OpenUrl
  115. 115.↵
    2. Song Y,
    3. Jiang Y,
    4. Tao D,
    5. Wang Z,
    6. Wang R,
    7. Wang M, et al.
    NFAT2-HDAC1 signaling contributes to the malignant phenotype of glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2020; 22: 46–57.
    OpenUrl
  116. 116.↵
    2. Yang M,
    3. Chen X,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Xiong E,
    6. Wang Q,
    7. Fang W, et al.
    ME2 promotes proneural-mesenchymal transition and lipogenesis in glioblastoma. Front Oncol. 2021; 11: 715593.
  117. 117.↵
    2. Lin Z,
    3. Zhang Z,
    4. Zheng H,
    5. Xu H,
    6. Wang Y,
    7. Chen C, et al.
    Molecular mechanism by which CDCP1 promotes proneural-mesenchymal transformation in primary glioblastoma. Cancer Cell Int. 2022; 22: 151.
    OpenUrl
  118. 118.↵
    2. Yachi K,
    3. Tsuda M,
    4. Kohsaka S,
    5. Wang L,
    6. Oda Y,
    7. Tanikawa S, et al.
    miR-23a promotes invasion of glioblastoma via HOXD10-regulated glial-mesenchymal transition. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2018; 3: 33.
    OpenUrl
  119. 119.↵
    2. Liu Q,
    3. Guan Y,
    4. Li Z,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Liu Y,
    7. Cui R, et al.
    miR-504 suppresses mesenchymal phenotype of glioblastoma by directly targeting the FZD7-mediated Wnt-beta-catenin pathway. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 38: 358.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    2. Huang T,
    3. Alvarez AA,
    4. Pangeni RP,
    5. Horbinski CM,
    6. Lu S,
    7. Kim SH, et al.
    A regulatory circuit of miR-125b/miR-20b and Wnt signalling controls glioblastoma phenotypes through FZD6-modulated pathways. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 12885.
  121. 121.↵
    2. Xu R,
    3. Zhou F,
    4. Yu T,
    5. Xu G,
    6. Zhang J,
    7. Wang Y, et al.
    MicroRNA-940 inhibits epithelial-mesenchymal transition of glioma cells via targeting ZEB2. Am J Transl Res. 2019; 11: 7351–63.
    OpenUrl
  122. 122.↵
    2. Chen W,
    3. Kong KK,
    4. Xu XK,
    5. Chen C,
    6. Li H,
    7. Wang FY, et al.
    Downregulation of miR-205 is associated with glioblastoma cell migration, invasion, and the epithelial-mesenchymal transition, by targeting ZEB1 via the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. Int J Oncol. 2018; 52: 485–95.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  123. 123.↵
    2. Chen W,
    3. Huang B,
    4. Wang E,
    5. Wang X.
    MiR-145 inhibits EGF-induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition via targeting Smad2 in human glioblastoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2019; 12: 3099–107.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.
    2. Li Z,
    3. Qian R,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Shi X.
    MiR-218-5p targets LHFPL3 to regulate proliferation, migration, and epithelial-mesenchymal transitions of human glioma cells. Biosci Rep. 2019; 39: BSR20180879.
  125. 125.↵
    2. Wang X,
    3. Wang E,
    4. Cao J,
    5. Xiong F,
    6. Yang Y,
    7. Liu H.
    MiR-145 inhibits the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition via targeting ADAM19 in human glioblastoma. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 92545–54.
    OpenUrl
  126. 126.↵
    2. Ma C,
    3. Wei F,
    4. Xia H,
    5. Liu H,
    6. Dong X,
    7. Zhang Y, et al.
    MicroRNA-10b mediates TGF-beta1-regulated glioblastoma proliferation, migration and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Int J Oncol. 2017; 50: 1739–48.
    OpenUrl
  127. 127.↵
    2. He X,
    3. Liu Z,
    4. Peng Y,
    5. Yu C.
    MicroRNA-181c inhibits glioblastoma cell invasion, migration and mesenchymal transition by targeting TGF-beta pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2016; 469: 1041–8.
    OpenUrl
  128. 128.↵
    2. Yang F,
    3. Liu X,
    4. Liu Y,
    5. Liu Y,
    6. Zhang C,
    7. Wang Z, et al.
    miR-181d/MALT1 regulatory axis attenuates mesenchymal phenotype through NF-kappaB pathways in glioblastoma. Cancer Lett. 2017; 396: 1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  129. 129.↵
    2. Wang W,
    3. Hao Y,
    4. Zhang A,
    5. Yang W,
    6. Wei W,
    7. Wang G, et al.
    miR-19a/b promote EMT and proliferation in glioma cells via SEPT7-AKT-NF-kappaB pathway. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2021; 20: 290–305.
    OpenUrl
  130. 130.↵
    2. Bier A,
    3. Hong X,
    4. Cazacu S,
    5. Goldstein H,
    6. Rand D,
    7. Xiang C, et al.
    miR-504 modulates the stemness and mesenchymal transition of glioma stem cells and their interaction with microglia via delivery by extracellular vesicles. Cell Death Dis. 2020; 11: 899.
    OpenUrl
  131. 131.↵
    2. Gao Z,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Fan Y,
    5. Qi Y,
    6. Wang S,
    7. Zhao S, et al.
    PDIA3P1 promotes Temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma by inhibiting C/EBPbeta degradation to facilitate proneural-to-mesenchymal transition. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022; 41: 223.
    OpenUrl
  132. 132.↵
    2. Tang G,
    3. Luo L,
    4. Zhang J,
    5. Zhai D,
    6. Huang D,
    7. Yin J, et al.
    lncRNA LINC01057 promotes mesenchymal differentiation by activating NF-kappaB signaling in glioblastoma. Cancer Lett. 2021; 498: 152–64.
    OpenUrl
  133. 133.↵
    2. Xu C,
    3. Zhao J,
    4. Song J,
    5. Xiao M,
    6. Cui X,
    7. Xin L, et al.
    lncRNA PRADX is a mesenchymal glioblastoma biomarker for cellular metabolism targeted therapy. Front Oncol. 2022; 12: 888922.
  134. 134.↵
    2. Cai J,
    3. Zhang J,
    4. Wu P,
    5. Yang W,
    6. Ye Q,
    7. Chen Q, et al.
    Blocking LINC00152 suppresses glioblastoma malignancy by impairing mesenchymal phenotype through the miR-612/AKT2/NF-kappaB pathway. J Neurooncol. 2018; 140: 225–36.
    OpenUrl
  135. 135.↵
    2. Li C,
    3. Zheng H,
    4. Hou W,
    5. Bao H,
    6. Xiong J,
    7. Che W, et al.
    Long non-coding RNA linc00645 promotes TGF-beta-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition by regulating miR-205-3p-ZEB1 axis in glioma. Cell Death Dis. 2019; 10: 717.
    OpenUrl
  136. 136.↵
    2. Shree B,
    3. Tripathi S,
    4. Sharma V.
    Transforming growth factor-Beta-regulated LncRNA-MUF promotes Invasion by modulating the miR-34a Snail1 Axis in Glioblastoma Multiforme. Front Oncol. 2021; 11: 788755.
  137. 137.↵
    2. Dong N,
    3. Guo J,
    4. Han S,
    5. Bao L,
    6. Diao Y,
    7. Lin Z.
    Positive feedback loop of lncRNA HOXC-AS2/miR-876-5p/ZEB1 to regulate EMT in glioma. Onco Targets Ther. 2019; 12: 7601–9.
    OpenUrl
  138. 138.↵
    2. Brodie S,
    3. Lee HK,
    4. Jiang W,
    5. Cazacu S,
    6. Xiang C,
    7. Poisson LM, et al.
    The novel long non-coding RNA TALNEC2, regulates tumor cell growth and the stemness and radiation response of glioma stem cells. Oncotarget. 2017; 8: 31785–801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. 139.↵
    2. Wang H,
    3. Li L,
    4. Yin L.
    Silencing LncRNA LOXL1-AS1 attenuates mesenchymal characteristics of glioblastoma via NF-kappaB pathway. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018; 500: 518–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. 140.
    2. Yin T,
    3. Wu J,
    4. Hu Y,
    5. Zhang M,
    6. He J.
    Long non-coding RNA HULC stimulates the epithelial-mesenchymal transition process and vasculogenic mimicry in human glioblastoma. Cancer Med. 2021; 10: 5270–82.
    OpenUrl
  141. 141.↵
    2. Zhu H,
    3. Chen Z,
    4. Shen L,
    5. Tang T,
    6. Yang M,
    7. Zheng X.
    Long noncoding RNA LINC-PINT suppresses cell proliferation, invasion, and EMT by blocking Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in glioblastoma. Front Pharmacol. 2020; 11: 586653.
  142. 142.↵
    2. Chen WL,
    3. Jiang L,
    4. Wang JS,
    5. Liao CX.
    Circ-0001801 contributes to cell proliferation, migration, invasion and epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) in glioblastoma by regulating miR-628-5p/HMGB3 axis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019; 23: 10874–85.
    OpenUrl
  143. 143.↵
    2. Zhou F,
    3. Wang B,
    4. Wang H,
    5. Hu L,
    6. Zhang J,
    7. Yu T, et al.
    circMELK promotes glioblastoma multiforme cell tumorigenesis through the miR-593/EphB2 axis. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2021; 25: 25–36.
    OpenUrl
  144. 144.↵
    2. Gupta K,
    3. Burns TC.
    Radiation-induced alterations in the recurrent glioblastoma microenvironment: therapeutic implications. Front Oncol. 2018; 8: 503.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  145. 145.↵
    2. Lau J,
    3. Ilkhanizadeh S,
    4. Wang S,
    5. Miroshnikova YA,
    6. Salvatierra NA,
    7. Wong RA, et al.
    STAT3 blockade inhibits radiation-induced malignant progression in glioma. Cancer Res. 2015; 75: 4302–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  146. 146.↵
    2. Kesanakurti D,
    3. Maddirela D,
    4. Banasavadi-Siddegowda YK,
    5. Lai TH,
    6. Qamri Z,
    7. Jacob NK, et al.
    A novel interaction of PAK4 with PPARgamma to regulate Nox1 and radiation-induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in glioma. Oncogene. 2017; 36: 5309–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  147. 147.↵
    2. Yoo KC,
    3. Kang JH,
    4. Choi MY,
    5. Suh Y,
    6. Zhao Y,
    7. Kim MJ, et al.
    Soluble ICAM-1 a pivotal communicator between tumors and macrophages, promotes mesenchymal shift of glioblastoma. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2022; 9: e2102768.
  148. 148.↵
    2. Li Y,
    3. Ren Z,
    4. Peng Y,
    5. Li K,
    6. Wang X,
    7. Huang G, et al.
    Classification of glioma based on prognostic alternative splicing. BMC Med Genomics. 2019; 12: 165.
    OpenUrl
  149. 149.↵
    2. Li Y,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Qi S,
    5. Gao L,
    6. Huang G,
    7. Ren Z, et al.
    Spliceosome-regulated RSRP1-dependent NF-kappaB activation promotes the glioblastoma mesenchymal phenotype. Neuro Oncol. 2021; 23: 1693–708.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  150. 150.↵
    2. Zanotto-Filho A,
    3. Goncalves RM,
    4. Klafke K,
    5. de Souza PO,
    6. Dillenburg FC,
    7. Carro L, et al.
    Inflammatory landscape of human brain tumors reveals an NFkappaB dependent cytokine pathway associated with mesenchymal glioblastoma. Cancer Lett. 2017; 390: 176–87.
    OpenUrl
  151. 151.↵
    2. Yi L,
    3. Tong L,
    4. Li T,
    5. Hai L,
    6. Abeysekera IR,
    7. Tao Z, et al.
    Bioinformatic analyses reveal the key pathways and genes in the CXCR4 mediated mesenchymal subtype of glioblastoma. Mol Med Rep. 2018; 18: 741–8.
    OpenUrl
  152. 152.↵
    2. Khan AB,
    3. Lee S,
    4. Harmanci AS,
    5. Patel R,
    6. Latha K,
    7. Yang Y, et al.
    CXCR4 expression is associated with proneural-to-mesenchymal transition in glioblastoma. Int J Cancer. 2023; 152: 713–24.
    OpenUrl
  153. 153.↵
    2. Piao Y,
    3. Liang J,
    4. Holmes L,
    5. Henry V,
    6. Sulman E,
    7. de Groot JF.
    Acquired resistance to anti-VEGF therapy in glioblastoma is associated with a mesenchymal transition. Clin Cancer Res. 2013; 19: 4392–403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  154. 154.↵
    2. Huang M,
    3. Zhang D,
    4. Wu JY,
    5. Xing K,
    6. Yeo E,
    7. Li C, et al.
    Wnt-mediated endothelial transformation into mesenchymal stem cell-like cells induces chemoresistance in glioblastoma. Sci Transl Med. 2020; 12: eaay7522.
  155. 155.↵
    2. Liu T,
    3. Ma W,
    4. Xu H,
    5. Huang M,
    6. Zhang D,
    7. He Z, et al.
    PDGF-mediated mesenchymal transformation renders endothelial resistance to anti-VEGF treatment in glioblastoma. Nat Commun. 2018; 9: 3439.
    OpenUrl
  156. 156.↵
    2. Adnani L,
    3. Kassouf J,
    4. Meehan B,
    5. Spinelli C,
    6. Tawil N,
    7. Nakano I, et al.
    Angiocrine extracellular vesicles impose mesenchymal reprogramming upon proneural glioma stem cells. Nat Commun. 2022; 13: 5494.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  157. 157.↵
    2. Schweiger MW,
    3. Li M,
    4. Giovanazzi A,
    5. Fleming RL,
    6. Tabet EI,
    7. Nakano I, et al.
    Extracellular vesicles induce mesenchymal transition and therapeutic resistance in glioblastomas through NF-kappaB/STAT3 signaling. Adv Biosyst. 2020; 4: e1900312.
  158. 158.↵
    2. Zhang Z,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Chen Z,
    5. Wang H,
    6. Xue H,
    7. Yang C, et al.
    Transfer of MicroRNA via macrophage-derived extracellular vesicles promotes proneural-to-mesenchymal transition in glioma stem cells. Cancer Immunol Res. 2020; 8: 966–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  159. 159.↵
    2. Monteiro AR,
    3. Hill R,
    4. Pilkington GJ,
    5. Madureira PA.
    The role of hypoxia in glioblastoma invasion. Cells. 2017; 6: 45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. 160.↵
    2. Joseph JV,
    3. Conroy S,
    4. Pavlov K,
    5. Sontakke P,
    6. Tomar T,
    7. Eggens-Meijer E, et al.
    Hypoxia enhances migration and invasion in glioblastoma by promoting a mesenchymal shift mediated by the HIF1alpha-ZEB1 axis. Cancer Lett. 2015; 359: 107–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  161. 161.↵
    2. Qiu W,
    3. Song S,
    4. Chen W,
    5. Zhang J,
    6. Yang H,
    7. Chen Y.
    Hypoxia-induced EPHB2 promotes invasive potential of glioblastoma. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2019; 12: 539–48.
    OpenUrl
  162. 162.↵
    2. Batchelor TT,
    3. Sorensen AG,
    4. di Tomaso E,
    5. Zhang WT,
    6. Duda DG,
    7. Cohen KS, et al.
    AZD2171, a pan-VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, normalizes tumor vasculature and alleviates edema in glioblastoma patients. Cancer Cell. 2007; 11: 83–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  163. 163.↵
    2. Louis DN,
    3. Perry A,
    4. Reifenberger G,
    5. von Deimling A,
    6. Figarella-Branger D,
    7. Cavenee WK, et al.
    The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016; 131: 803–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords