4.7 Article

A paired comparison between glioblastoma stem cells and differentiated cells

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 138, 期 7, 页码 1709-1718

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29908

关键词

glioblastoma; brain tumour; cancer stem cell

类别

资金

  1. Forderkreis fur tumor- und leukamiekranke Kinder Ulm e.V.
  2. Bausteinforderung of Ulm University
  3. German Cancer Aid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer stem cells (CSC) have been postulated to be responsible for the key features of a malignancy and its maintenances, as well as therapy resistance, while differentiated cells are believed to make up the rapidly growing tumour bulk. It is therefore important to understand the characteristics of those two distinct cell populations in order to devise treatment strategies which effectively target both cohorts, in particular with respect to cancers, such as glioblastoma. Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain tumour in adults, with a mean patient survival of 12-15 months. Importantly, therapeutic improvements have not been forthcoming in the last decade. In this study we compare key features of three pairs of glioblastoma cell populations, each pair consisting of stem cell-like and differentiated cells derived from an individual patient. Our data suggest that while growth rates and expression of key survival-and apoptosis-mediating proteins are more similar according to differentiation status than genetic similarity, we found no intrinsic differences in response to standard therapeutic interventions, namely exposure to radiation or the alkylating agent temozolomide. Interestingly, we could demonstrate that both stem celllike and differentiated cells possess the ability to form stem cell-containing tumours in immunocompromised mice and that differentiated cells could potentially be dedifferentiated to potential stem cells. Taken together our data suggest that the differences between tumour stem cell and differentiated cell are particular fluent in glioblastoma.

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