4.8 Article

Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is not required for lung metastasis but contributes to chemoresistance

期刊

NATURE
卷 527, 期 7579, 页码 472-+

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/nature15748

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Defense CDMRP LCRP [LC110643]
  2. NIH [1 F31 CA186510-01]
  3. National Cancer Institute [U54 CA149196-05]
  4. WCMC Meyer Cancer Center Pilot Funding
  5. Neuberger Berman Foundation Lung Cancer Research Center
  6. Arthur and Myra Mahon Donor-Advised Fund
  7. Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation
  8. Douglas AMP
  9. Katherine McCormick Family Foundation
  10. R. AMP
  11. M. Goldberg Family Foundation
  12. P. AMP
  13. C. Collins Fund
  14. Eliot Stewart 'Wren' Fund
  15. William and Shelby Modell Family Foundation Trust
  16. Division of Thoracic Surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in metastasis is a longstanding source of debate, largely owing to an inability to monitor transient and reversible EMT phenotypes in vivo. Here we establish an EMT lineage-tracing system to monitor this process in mice, using a mesenchymal-specific Cre-mediated fluorescent marker switch system in spontaneous breast-to-lung metastasis models. We show that within a predominantly epithelial primary tumour, a small proportion of tumour cells undergo EMT. Notably, lung metastases mainly consist of non-EMT tumour cells that maintain their epithelial phenotype. Inhibiting EMT by overexpressing the microRNA miR-200 does not affect lung metastasis development. However, EMT cells significantly contribute to recurrent lung metastasis formation after chemotherapy. These cells survived cyclophosphamide treatment owing to reduced proliferation, apoptotic tolerance and increased expression of chemoresistance-related genes. Overexpression of miR-200 abrogated this resistance. This study suggests the potential of an EMT-targeting strategy, in conjunction with conventional chemotherapies, for breast cancer treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据