4.3 Article

Targeting the facilitative glucose transporter GLUT1 inhibits the self-renewal and tumor-initiating capacity of cancer stem cells

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 6, 期 2, 页码 651-661

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.2892

关键词

cancer initiating cell; glioma; tumorigenicity; xenograft analysis

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  2. Global COE Program of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  3. National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund [23-A-20]
  4. Japan Brain Foundation
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26830065] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased glucose metabolism is now recognized as an emerging hallmark of cancer. Recent studies have shown that glucose metabolism is even more active in cancer stem cells (CSCs), a rare population of cancer cells with the capacity to self-renew and initiate tumors, and that CSCs are dependent on glycolysis for their survival/growth. However, the role of glucose metabolism in the control of their self-renewal and tumor-initiating capacity per se still remains obscure. Moreover, much remains unknown as to which of the numerous molecules involved in the glucose metabolism is suitable as a target to control CSCs. Here we demonstrate that the facilitative glucose transporter GLUT1 is essential for the maintenance of pancreatic, ovarian, and glioblastoma CSCs. Notably, we found that WZB117, a specific GLUT1 inhibitor, could inhibit the self-renewal and tumor-initiating capacity of the CSCs without compromising their proliferative potential in vitro. In vivo, systemic WZB117 administration inhibited tumor initiation after implantation of CSCs without causing significant adverse events in host animals. Our findings indicate GLUT1-dependent glucose metabolism has a pivotal role not only in the growth and survival of CSCs but also in the maintenance of their stemness and suggest GLUT1 as a promising target for CSC-directed cancer therapy.

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

4.3
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