4.6 Article

c-KIT regulates stability of cancer stemness in CD44-positive colorectal cancer cells

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.05.024

关键词

Cancer stem cell; CD44; Colorectal cancer; Plasticity; c-KIT

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [18K07337, 19H03523]
  2. Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [JP19ck0106476h0001]
  3. Nippon Foundation
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19H03523, 18K07337] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are subpopulations of cancer cells with high self-renewal potential that are involved in tumor progression and recurrence. It has been postulated that CSCs and non-stem cancer cells are inter-convertible. However, precise mechanisms for the plasticity and stability of cancer stemness remain elusive. Here, we demonstrate that CD44-positive colorectal CSC fractions contain two types of cancer cells: CD44-stable cells, in which CD44 expression is stably sustained, and CD44trasnsient cells, which are rapidly converted to CD44-negative cells. CD44-stable cells expressed higher levels of c-KIT tyrosine kinase than CD44-transient cells. c-KIT knockdown by siRNAs converted the CD44-positive cells to CD44-negative cells, which expressed lower levels of stem cell markers such as ASCL2 and EPCAM. In the CD44-positive cells, c-KIT phosphorylation level was very low whereas stem cell factor, a c-KIT ligand, elevated c-KIT phosphorylation without affecting stem cell marker expression. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated knockout of the c-KIT gene in CD44 stable cells attenuated the CSC properties including expression of CD44 and other stem cell markers, clonogenicity and in vivo tumorigenic potential in a mouse xenograft model. These observations suggest that the colorectal CSC fractions contain cancer cells with differential plasticity, which is determined by c-KIT. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.6
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