4.6 Article

CD44 standard isoform is involved in maintenance of cancer stem cells of a hepatocellular carcinoma cell line

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 773-782

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1968

关键词

cancer stem cell; CD44; hepatocellular carcinoma; NOTCH3; oxidative stress

类别

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [JP16K09359]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have attracted attention as a novel therapeutic target for cancer because they play important roles in the development and aggravation of cancer. CD44 is expressed as a standard isoform (CD44s) and several variant isoforms. CD44v is a major isoform expressed on CSCs of a variety of tumors and has been extensively studied. However, HCC tissues dominantly express CD44s, whose function in CSCs remains unclear. In the present study, we investigated the roles of CD44s in CSCs of HCC. Knock-out of the CD44 gene in HuH7 HCC cells on which only CD44s is expressed resulted in decreased spheroid formation and increased drug sensitivity. The expression of CSC marker genes, including CD133 and EpCAM, was significantly downregulated in the spheroids of CD44-deficient cells compared with those in the spheroids of HuH7 cells. In addition, CD44 deficiency impaired antioxidant capacity, concomitant with downregulation of glutathione peroxidase 1 (GPX1) and thioredoxin. Because GPX1 uses the reduced form of glutathione (GSH) to regenerate oxidized cellular components, GSH levels were significantly increased in the CD44-deficient cells. We also found that NOTCH3 and its target genes were downregulated in the spheroids of CD44-deficient cells. NOTCH3 expression in HCC tissues was significantly increased compared with that in adjacent nontumor liver tissues and was correlated with CD44 expression. These results suggest that CD44s is involved in maintenance of CSCs in a HCC cell line, possibly through the NOTCH3 signaling pathway.

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