4.7 Article

Exosomes from differentially activated macrophages influence dormancy or resurgence of breast cancer cells within bone marrow stroma

期刊

CELL DEATH & DISEASE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41419-019-1304-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Defense [W81XWH-11-1-0276]
  2. New Jersey Commission on Cancer Research (NJCCR) pre-doctoral fellowship [DFHS15PPC049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Breast cancer (BC) cells (BCCs) can retain cellular quiescence for decades, a phenomenon referred to as dormancy. BCCs show preference for the bone marrow (BM) where they can remain dormant for decades. Targeting BCCs within the BM is a challenge since the dormant BCCs reside within BM stroma, also residence for hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Dormant BCCs could behave as cancer stem cells (CSCs). The CSCs and HSCs are similar by function and also, by commonly expressed genes. The method by which dormant BCCs transition into clinically metastatic cells remains unclear. This study tested the hypothesis that macrophages (MFs) within BM stroma, facilitates dormancy or reverse this state into metastatic cells. M Phi s exhibiting an M2 phenotype constitute similar to 10% of cultured BM stroma. The M2 M Phi s form gap junctional intercellular communication (GJIC) with CSCs, resulting in cycling quiescence, reduced proliferation and carboplatin resistance. In contrast, M Phi s expressing the M1 phenotype reversed BC dormancy. Activation of M2a M Phi s via the toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) switched to M1 phenotype. The switch can occur by direct activation of M2a M Phi s, or indirectly through activation of mesenchymal stem cells. M1 M Phi-derived exosomes activated NF kappa B to reverse quiescent BCCs to cycling cells. Using an in vivo model of BC dormancy, injected Mi MOs sensitized BCCs to carboplatin and increased host survival. In summary, we have shown how BM stromal M Phi s, through exosomes, regulate the behavior of BCCs, by either inducing or reversing dormancy.

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

4.7
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