4.5 Article

Tumor-derived microvesicles: The metastasomes

期刊

MEDICAL HYPOTHESES
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 75-82

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2012.10.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of G. D'Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara, Italy
  2. Consorzio Interuniversitario Nazionale per la Bio-Oncologia (CINBO), Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metastasis is the leading cause of cancer death, yet it is mechanistically considered a very inefficient process suggesting the presence of some sort of (e.g. systemic) routes for fuelling the process. The pre-metastatic niche formation is described as one such metastasis promoting route. Now, the emerging potentials of tumor-derived microvesicles (TDMVs), not only in formulating the pre-metastatic niche, but also conferring neoplastic phenotypes onto normal cells, has integrated new concepts into the field. Here, we note as an ancillary proposition that, exerting functional disturbances in other sites, TDMVs (we have termed them metastasomes) may aid foundation of the secondary lesions via two seemingly interrelated models: (i) tumor-organ-training (TOTr), training a proper niche for the growth of the disseminated tumor cells; (ii) tumor-organ-targeting (TOTa), contribution to the propagation of the transformed phenotype via direct or indirect (TOTr-mediated disturbed stroma) transformation and/or heightened growth/survival states of the normal resident cells in the secondary organs. Respecting the high content of the RNA molecules (particularly microRNAs) identified in the secretory MVs, they may play crucial parts in such malignant trait spreading system. That is, the interactions between tumor tissue-specific RNA signatures, being transferred via metastasomes, and the cell-type/tissue-specific RNA stockrooms in other areas may settle a unique outcome in each organ. Thus, serving as tumor-organ matchmakers, the RNA molecules may also play substantial roles in the seeding and tropism of the process. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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