4.7 Article

Induction of cancer-associated fibroblast-like cells by carbon nanotubes dictates its tumorigenicity

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep39558

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-ES022968, R01-EB018857]
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET-1434503]
  3. NIH [P30 GM103488, P20 RR016440, P30 RR032138/GM103488, P20 RR016477]
  4. West Virginia University Cancer Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tumor microenvironment has been recognized as a key determinant of tumor formation and metastasis, but how tumor microenvironment is affected by nanomaterials is essentially unknown. Here, we investigated whether carbon nanotubes (CNTs), a widely used nanomaterial with known carcinogenic potential, can affect cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), which are a key component of tumor microenvironment that provides necessary support for tumor growth. We show for the first time that single-walled CNT and to a lesser extent multi-walled and its COOH-functionalized form induced CAF-like cells, which are non-tumorigenic in animals, but promote tumor growth of human lung carcinoma and CNT-transformed lung epithelial cells. The mechanism by which CNT-induced CAF-like cells promote tumor growth involved the acquisition of cancer stem cells (CSCs) in cancer population. Gene knockdown experiments showed that an expression of podoplanin on CAF-like cells is essential for their effects, indicating the functional role of CAF-like cells and podoplanin in CNT tumorigenic process. Our findings unveil a novel mechanism of CNT-induced carcinogenesis through the induction of CAFlike cells that support CSCs and drive tumor formation. Our results also suggest the potential utility of podoplanin as a mechanism-based biomarker for rapid screening of carcinogenicity of CNTs and related nanomaterials for their safer design.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available