4.8 Article

The mammary progenitor marker CD61/β3 integrin identifies cancer stem cells in mouse models of mammary tumorigenesis

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 19, 页码 7711-7717

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-1949

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
  3. National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia)
  4. Australian Stem Cell Centre
  5. Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
  6. Australian Research Council postdoctoral fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cells of origin and mechanisms that underpin tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer are poorly understood. Here, we have examined three mouse models of mammary tumorigenesis (MMTV-wnt-1, MMTV-neu, and p53(+/-)) for changes in their epithelial cell hierarchy during the preneoplastic and neoplastic stages of tumor progression. In preneoplastic tissue, only MMTV-wnt-1 mice showed a perturbation in their epithelial subpopulations. In addition to an expanded mammary stem cell pool, repopulating cells capable of yielding extensive mammary outgrowths in vivo were revealed in the committed luminal progenitor population. These findings indicate that wnt-1 activation induces the appearance of aberrant progenitor cells, and suggest that both mammary stem and progenitor cells can serve as the cellular targets of wnt-1-induced tumorigenesis. In tumors arising in MMTV-wnt-1 tumors, the luminal epithelial progenitor marker CD61/beta 3 integrin identified a cancer stem cell (CSC) population that was highly enriched for tumorigenic capability relative to the CD61(-) subset. CD61 expression also defined a CSC subset in 50% of p53(+/-)-derived tumors. No CSCs, however, could be identified in the more homogeneous MMTV-neu/erbB2 model, suggesting an alternative model of tumorigenesis. Overall, our findings show the utility of the progenitor marker CD61 in the identification of CSCs that sustain specific mammary tumors.

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

4.8
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