4.7 Article

CD44 AND CD24 CANNOT ACT AS CANCER STEM CELL MARKERS IN HUMAN LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA CELL LINE A549

期刊

CELLULAR & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 23-36

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.2478/s11658-013-0112-1

关键词

Cancer stem cells; Lung cancer; Cell line A549; Colony-formation assay; Sphere-formation assay; CD44; CD24; CD133; ALDH1; ABCG-2

资金

  1. Iran University of Medical Sciences [1030]
  2. Royan Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Technology [p-90-153]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are subpopulations of tumor cells that are responsible for tumor initiation, maintenance and metastasis. Recent studies suggested that lung cancer arises from CSCs. In this study, the expression of potential CSC markers in cell line A549 was evaluated. We applied flow cytometry to assess the expression of putative stem cell markers, including aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1), CD24, CD44, CD133 and ABCG2. Cells were then sorted according to the expression of CD44 and CD24 markers by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) Aria II and characterized using their clonogenic and sphere-forming capacity. A549 cells expressed the CSC markers CD44 and CD24 at 68.16% and 54.46%, respectively. The expression of the putative CSC marker ALDH1 was 4.20%, whereas the expression of ABCG2 and CD133 was 0.93%. Double-positive CD44/133 populations were rare. CD44(+)/24(+) and CD44(+)/CD24(-/low) subpopulations respectively exhibited 64% and 27.92% expression. The colony-forming potentials in the CD44(+)/CD24(+) and CD44(+)/CD24(-/low) subpopulations were 84.37 +/- 2.86% and 90 +/- 3.06%, respectively, while the parental A549 cells yielded 56.65 +/- 2.33% using the colony-formation assay. Both isolated subpopulations formed spheres in serum-free medium supplemented with basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and epidermal growth factor (EGF). CD44 and CD24 cannot be considered potential markers for isolating lung CSCs in cell line A549, but further investigation using in vivo assays is required.

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