4.5 Article

Efficacy of Using Cancer Stem Cell Markers in Isolating and Characterizing Liver Cancer Stem Cells

Journal

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
Volume 22, Issue 19, Pages 2655-2664

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2012.0703

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSW Cancer Institute [08/FRL/1-04]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council [APP1006200, APP1047417]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent evidence suggests that a subset of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) are derived from liver cancer stem cells (LCSCs). In order to isolate and characterize LCSCs, reliable markers that are specific to these cells are required. We evaluated the efficacy of a range of cancer stem cell (CSC) markers in isolating and characterizing LCSCs. We show that the most widely used CSC markers are not specific to LCSCs. By western analysis, protein expression of the common markers showed no significant difference between HCC tumor tissues and adjacent non-cancerous liver. Further, isolation of LCSCs from common HCC cell lines using FACScan and microbeads showed no consistent marker expression pattern. We also show that LCSCs have unique subtypes. Immunohistochemistry of HCC tissues showed that different HCCs express unique combinations of LCSC markers. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis showed that LCSCs isolated using different markers in the same HCC phenotype had different expression profiles. Likewise, LCSCs isolated from different HCC phenotypes with the same marker also had unique expression profiles and displayed varying resistance profiles to Sorafenib. Thus, using a range of commonly used CSC markers in HCCs and cell lines, we demonstrate that currently available markers are not specific for LCSCs. LCSCs have unique subtypes that express distinctive combinations of LCSC markers and altered drug resistance profiles, making their identification problematic.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available