4.6 Review

It takes two to tango, a dance between the cells of origin and cancer stem cells in the Drosophila larval brain

Journal

SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue -, Pages 63-69

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.03.006

Keywords

Neuroblast; Brain tumor; Numb; Intermediate progenitor; Earmuff; SWI/SNF; Cancer stem cell; Cell of origin

Funding

  1. NIH [R01-GM092818]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During malignant transformation the cells of origin give rise to cancer stem cells which possess the capacity to undergo limitless rounds of self-renewing division, regenerating themselves while producing more tumor cells. Within normal tissues, a limitless self-renewal capacity is unique to the stem cells, which divide asymmetrically to produce more restricted progenitors. Accumulating evidence suggests that misregulation of the self-renewal machinery in stem cell progeny can lead to tumorigenesis, but how it influences the properties of the resulting tumors remains unclear. Studies of the type II neural stem cell (neuroblast) lineages in the Drosophila larval brain have identified a regulatory cascade that promotes commitment to a progenitor cell identity by restricting their response to the self-renewal machinery. Brain tumor (Brat) and Numb initiate this cascade by asymmetrically extinguishing the activity of the self-renewal factors. Subsequently, Earmuff (Erm) and the SWI/SNF complex stably restrict the competence of the progenitor cell to respond to reactivation of self-renewal mechanisms. Together, this cascade programs the progenitor cell to undergo limited rounds of division, generating exclusive differentiated progeny. Here we review how defects in this cascade lead to tumor initiation and how inhibiting the self-renewal mechanisms may be an effective strategy to block CSC expansion. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available