4.6 Article

Identification and characterization of cancer stem cells in human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-173

关键词

HNSCC (head & neck squamous cell carcinoma); Stem-like cells; CD24; CD44; Salivary gland malignant neoplasms

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Current evidence suggests that initiation, growth, and invasion of cancer are driven by a small population of cancer stem cells (CSC). Previous studies have identified CD44+ cells as cancer stem cells in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, CD44 is widely expressed in most cells in HNSCC tumor samples and several cell lines tested. We previously identified a small population of CD24+/CD44+ cells in HNSCC. In this study, we examined whether this population of cells may represent CSC in HNSCC. Methods: CD24+/CD44+ cells from HNSCC cell lines were sorted by flow cytometry, and their phenotype was confirmed by qRT-PCR. Their self-renewal and differentiation properties, clonogenicity in collagen gels, and response to anticancer drugs were tested in vitro. The tumorigenicity potential of CD24+/CD44+ cells was tested in athymic nude mice in vivo. Results: Our results show that CD24+/CD44+ cells possessed stemness characteristics of self-renewal and differentiation. CD24+/CD44+ cells showed higher cell invasion in vitro and made higher number of colonies in collagen gels compared to CD24-/CD44+ HNSCC cells. In addition, the CD24+/CD44+ cells were more chemo-resistant to gemcitabine and cisplatin compared to CD24-/CD44+ cells. In vivo, CD24+/CD44+ cells showed a tendency to generate larger tumors in nude mice compared to CD24-/CD44+ cell population. Conclusion: Our study clearly demonstrates that a distinct small population of CD24+/CD44+ cells is present in HNSCC that shows stem cell-like properties. This distinct small population of cells should be further characterized and may provide an opportunity to target HNSCC CSC for therapy.

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