Elsevier

Seminars in Cancer Biology

Volume 31, April 2015, Pages 28-35
Seminars in Cancer Biology

Review
Cancer stem cells, cancer cell plasticity and radiation therapy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2014.07.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Since the first prospective identification of cancer stem cells in solid cancers the cancer stem cell hypothesis has reemerged as a research topic of increasing interest. It postulates that solid cancers are organized hierarchically with a small number of cancer stem cells driving tumor growth, repopulation after injury and metastasis. They give rise to differentiated progeny, which lack these features. The model predicts that for any therapy to provide cure, all cancer stem cells have to be eliminated while the survival of differentiated progeny is less critical. In this review we discuss recent reports challenging the idea of a unidirectional differentiation of cancer cells. These reports provide evidence supporting the idea that non-stem cancer cells exhibit a remarkable degree of plasticity that allows them to re-acquire cancer stem cell traits, especially in the context of radiation therapy. We summarize conditions under which differentiation is reversed and discuss the current knowledge of the underlying mechanisms.

Introduction

In 2010, the estimated medical costs of cancer care in the United States exceeded $124 billion (source: National Cancer Institute). Yet, despite the enormous spending for cancer care, many cancers are still fatal and 5-year survival rates have not significantly changed over the decades. This raises the question as to whether current radiation treatment approaches can be technically further fine-tuned to improve cancer cure rates, or if cancer therapy in general needs a paradigm shift to substantially improve future outcome.

Aside from surgery, other current standard cancer therapies, such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and most targeted therapies have been designed, developed and evaluated for their effectiveness based on bulk tumor responses. This approach for developing novel anti-cancer therapies continues to be widely applied despite our broad knowledge of the undisputable heterogeneity of human tumors. It has been known for over a century that tumors exhibit a remarkable phenotypical heterogeneity, which extends to their radiosensitivity, drug resistance and genetic alterations of the individual cells composing a tumor mass. Employing bulk tumor responses as the primary end point for determining the effectiveness of novel treatments is certainly a very practical approach. However, such an approach will only be successful in yielding cures if the response of the bulk tumor represents the response of the most resistant subpopulation of cells within the heterogeneous tumor and this might hold true for only some cancers like advanced melanoma.

In this review we hope to add to the ongoing discussions about clinically relevant tumor heterogeneity and its potential roots [1], [2]. We will focus on the effects of ionizing radiation on the heterogeneity of solid tumors in the context of competing models of tumor organization, the cancer stem cell hypothesis and the clonal evolution model.

Section snippets

The cancer stem cell hypothesis

The cancer stem cell (CSC) concept was first formulated in the 1800s, and has its roots in Rudolf Virchow's Cellular Pathologie [3], and a case report by Julius Cohnheim in 1875 [4]. A seminal paper by Steven Paget in 1889 first gave rise to the “seed and soil hypothesis” for cancer, hypothesizing that cancer cells within a tumor have the intrinsic capability to “seed” a metastasis in a distant organ that has favorable conditions for secondary tumor growth (soil) [5]. In 1961 Pierce and Speers

The clonal evolution model

The clonal evolution model of cancer is an alternative model for the organizational structure of tumors initially described by Peter Nowell in 1976 [17]. Similar to the cancer stem cell hypothesis, the model assumes a clonal origin of cancers with the important distinction that it does not propose a hierarchical organization for tumors. The clonal evolution model postulates that the genetic instability of cancer cells leads to different clones of cells that contribute to the cellular

Cancer stem cell markers

The CSC hypothesis and the clonal evolution model are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both models agree on the existence of a subpopulation of cells with increased tumorigenicity in solid cancers. However, a disagreement arises from these models on whether the tumorigenic population of cells within a tumor is static and rare and exhibits stem cell traits, or whether increased tumorigenicity is a transient feature of competing cell populations that shifts from one cell population to another

Stem cells factors and plasticity

The stem cell state of pluripotent normal stem cells is governed by stem cell factors, which become silenced during differentiation as a consequence of DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling. This process is reversible and transfection of somatic cells with the four Yamanaka factors Sox2, Oct4, Klf4, and c-Myc [56] generates induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. All four-transcription factors are wired in an incompletely understood network with Nanog, a unique set of transcription factors,

Effect of tumor microenvironment on CSCs plasticity

As summarized above new evidence is emerging supporting the phenomenon of spontaneous and therapy-induced reprogramming of cancer cells into CSCs. The number of these studies is still small; nonetheless they have begun to uncover the mechanism behind the conversion of cancer cells into CSCs. In the case of radiation-induced reprogramming, the re-expression of stem cell factors correlates with the reprogramming events. Although radiation-induced reprogramming of non-stem cells into CSCs is

Concluding remarks

For most cancers, survival rates have remained unchanged for decades and systemic disease is almost always fatal. Experimental and clinical data provide a growing body of evidence supporting the hierarchical organization of cancers with a small number CSCs able to self-renew, repopulate a tumor after treatment and initiate metastatic growth. The resistance of CSCs to chemotherapy and their relative resistance to radiotherapy explain why macroscopic tumor response to anti-cancer treatments is

Conflict of interest

None.

References (115)

  • S. Liedtke et al.

    Oct4 and its pseudogenes confuse stem cell research

    Cell Stem Cell

    (2007)
  • L.A. Boyer et al.

    Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry in human embryonic stem cells

    Cell

    (2005)
  • K. Takahashi et al.

    Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors

    Cell

    (2006)
  • K. Arnold et al.

    Sox2(+) adult stem and progenitor cells are important for tissue regeneration and survival of mice

    Cell Stem Cell

    (2011)
  • S.M. Rodriguez-Pinilla et al.

    Sox2: a possible driver of the basal-like phenotype in sporadic breast cancer

    Modern Pathol

    (2007)
  • E.D. Lagadinou et al.

    BCL-2 inhibition targets oxidative phosphorylation and selectively eradicates quiescent human leukemia stem cells

    Cell Stem Cell

    (2013)
  • X. Chen et al.

    Transcriptional profiling of Kruppel-like factor 4 reveals a function in cell cycle regulation and epithelial differentiation

    J Mol Biol

    (2003)
  • X. Chen et al.

    Kruppel-like factor 4 (gut-enriched Kruppel-like factor) inhibits cell proliferation by blocking G1/S progression of the cell cycle

    J Biol Chem

    (2001)
  • J.M. Shields et al.

    Identification and characterization of a gene encoding a gut-enriched Kruppel-like factor expressed during growth arrest

    J Biol Chem

    (1996)
  • K. Salmina et al.

    Up-regulation of the embryonic self-renewal network through reversible polyploidy in irradiated p53-mutant tumour cells

    Exp Cell Res

    (2010)
  • N.D. Marjanovic et al.

    Cell plasticity and heterogeneity in cancer

    Clin Chem

    (2013)
  • M. Greaves et al.

    Clonal evolution in cancer

    Nature

    (2012)
  • R. Virchow

    Cellular-pathologie

    Arch Pathol Anat Physiol Klin Med

    (1855)
  • J. Cohneim

    Congenitales, quergestreiftes Muskelsarkom der Nieren

    Virch Arch Pathol Anat Physiol Klin Med

    (1875)
  • G.B. Pierce et al.

    Tumors as caricatures of the process of tissue renewal: prospects for therapy by directing differentiation

    Cancer Res

    (1988)
  • T. Lapidot et al.

    A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into SCID mice

    Nature

    (1994)
  • H.D. Hemmati et al.

    Cancerous stem cells can arise from pediatric brain tumors

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A

    (2003)
  • S.K. Singh et al.

    Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells

    Nature

    (2004)
  • T. Reya et al.

    Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells

    Nature

    (2001)
  • S.K. Singh et al.

    Identification of a cancer stem cell in human brain tumors

    Cancer Res

    (2003)
  • M. Al-Hajj et al.

    Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2003)
  • T. Schatton et al.

    Identification of cells initiating human melanomas

    Nature

    (2008)
  • E. Quintana et al.

    Efficient tumour formation by single human melanoma cells

    Nature

    (2008)
  • A.D. Boiko et al.

    Human melanoma-initiating cells express neural crest nerve growth factor receptor CD271

    Nature

    (2010)
  • P.C. Nowell

    The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations

    Science

    (1976)
  • R.A. Burrell et al.

    The causes and consequences of genetic heterogeneity in cancer evolution

    Nature

    (2013)
  • J. Cairns

    Mutation selection and the natural history of cancer

    Nature

    (1975)
  • K.L. Penney et al.

    Gleason grade progression is uncommon

    Cancer Res

    (2013)
  • S. Bidlingmaier et al.

    The utility and limitations of glycosylated human CD133 epitopes in defining cancer stem cells

    J Mol Med

    (2008)
  • V. Clement et al.

    Limits of CD133 as a marker of glioma self-renewing cells

    Int J Cancer

    (2009)
  • C.E. Griguer et al.

    CD133 is a marker of bioenergetic stress in human glioma

    PLoS ONE

    (2008)
  • J. Wang et al.

    CD133 negative glioma cells form tumors in nude rats and give rise to CD133 positive cells

    Int J Cancer

    (2007)
  • M. Jaksch et al.

    Cell cycle-dependent variation of a CD133 epitope in human embryonic stem cell, colon cancer, and melanoma cell lines

    Cancer Res

    (2008)
  • S. Bao

    Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response

    Nature

    (2006)
  • R. Pallini et al.

    Cancer stem cell analysis and clinical outcome in patients with glioblastoma multiforme

    Clin Cancer Res

    (2008)
  • F. Zeppernick et al.

    Stem cell marker CD133 affects clinical outcome in glioma patients

    Clin Cancer Res

    (2008)
  • J. Miki et al.

    Identification of putative stem cell markers, CD133 and CXCR4, in hTERT-immortalized primary nonmalignant and malignant tumor-derived human prostate epithelial cell lines and in prostate cancer specimens

    Cancer Res

    (2007)
  • T.M. Phillips et al.

    The response of CD24(−/low)/CD44+ breast cancer-initiating cells to radiation

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (2006)
  • C.M. Fillmore et al.

    Human breast cancer cell lines contain stem-like cells that self-renew, give rise to phenotypically diverse progeny and survive chemotherapy

    Breast Cancer Res

    (2008)
  • M.E. Prince

    Identification of a subpopulation of cells with cancer stem cell properties in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2007)
  • Cited by (230)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    FP was supported by a generous gift from Steve and Cathy Fink and grants from the National Cancer Institute (RO1CA137110, 1R01CA161294) and the Army Medical Research & Materiel Command's Breast Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-11-1-0531).

    View full text