4.6 Article

PTEN status is related to cell proliferation and self-renewal independent of CD133 phenotype in the glioma-initiating cells

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 349, 期 1-2, 页码 149-157

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11010-010-0669-1

关键词

PTEN; Proliferation and self-renewal; CD133; Glioma-initiating cell

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CD133 is extensively used as a surface marker to identify and isolate glioma-initiating cells (GICs) from malignant brain tumors; however, instances of CD133(-) cells exhibiting similar properties have also been reported. To clarify the availability of CD133 as the GIC marker, we first evaluated the ratio of CD13(+) cells and malignancy of glioma spheroids GIC1 and GIC2, respectively. GIC1, which showed a lower percentage of CD133(+) cells, exhibited a highly aggressive behavior in comparison with GIC2. The following experiments demonstrated that tumor suppressor PTEN was lost in GIC1, resulting in the activation of AKT pathway. Overexpression of recombinant PTEN in GIC1 suppressed its proliferation and self-renew without significant effect on CD133 expression level, indicating that the inconsistence between the ratio of CD133(+) cells and proliferation and self-renewal capacity of GIC1 and GIC2 was caused by PTEN deficiency. To further validate our conclusion, a series of GICs were analyzed and the percentages of CD133(+) cells could not reflect the degrees of cell proliferation and self-renewal characteristics in the PTEN deficient GICs, suggesting that the application of CD133 as the GIC maker was restricted by PTEN loss. Furthermore, down-regulation of PTEN in the PTEN-expressing GICs could break the positive correlation between the ratio of CD133(+) cells and proliferation and self-renewal capacity. Our results demonstrated that PTEN status is related to cell proliferation and self-renewal independent of CD133 phenotype in the glioma-initiating cells, resulting in the limitations of CD133 as a biomarker for PTEN deficient GICs.

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

4.6
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