4.6 Article

Heterogeneity of Tumor Endothelial Cells Comparison between Tumor Endothelial Cells Isolated from High- and Low-Metastatic Tumors

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 180, 期 3, 页码 1294-1307

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.11.035

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Japan [20390506]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23659930, 23390457, 21592566, 20390506] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An important concept in tumor angiogenesis is that tumor endothelial cells (TECs) are genetically normal and homogeneous. However, we previously reported that TECs differ from normal ECs. Whether the characteristics of TECs derived from different tumors differ remains unknown. To elucidate this, in this study, we isolated two types of TECs from high-metastatic (HM) and low-metastatic (LM) tumors and compared their characteristics. HM tumor-derived TECs (HM-TECs) showed higher proliferative activity and invasive activity than LM tumor-derived TECs (LM-TECs). Moreover, the mRNA expression levels of pro-angiogenic genes, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1 and 2, VEGF, and hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha, were higher in HM-TECs than in LM-TECs. The tumor blood vessels themselves and the surrounding area in HM tumors were exposed to hypoxia. Furthermore, HM-TECs showed higher mRNA expression levels of the sternness-related gene stem cell antigen and the mesenchymal marker CD90 compared with LM-TECs. HM-TECs were spheroid, with a smoother surface and higher circularity in the stem cell spheroid assay. HM-TECs differentiated into osteogenic cells, expressing activated alkaline phosphatase in an osteogenic medium at a higher rate than either LM-TECs or normal ECs. Furthermore, HM-TECs contained more aneuploid cells than LM-TECs. These results indicate that TECs from HM tumors have a more pro-angiogenic phenotype than those from LM tumors. (Am J Pathol 2012,180:1294-1307; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.11.035)

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