| Literature DB >> 17092342 |
Rengaswami Rajaraman1, Duane L Guernsey, Murali M Rajaraman, Selva R Rajaraman.
Abstract
We describe the basic tenets of the current concepts of cancer biology, and review the recent advances on the suppressor role of senescence in tumor growth and the breakdown of this barrier during the origin of tumor growth. Senescence phenotype can be induced by (1) telomere attrition-induced senescence at the end of the cellular mitotic life span (MLS*) and (2) also by replication history-independent, accelerated senescence due to inadvertent activation of oncogenes or by exposure of cells to genotoxins. Tumor suppressor genes p53/pRB/p16INK4A and related senescence checkpoints are involved in effecting the onset of senescence. However, senescence as a tumor suppressor mechanism is a leaky process and senescent cells with mutations or epimutations in these genes escape mitotic catastrophe-induced cell death by becoming polyploid cells. These polyploid giant cells, before they die, give rise to several cells with viable genomes via nuclear budding and asymmetric cytokinesis. This mode of cell division has been termed neosis and the immediate neotic offspring the Raju cells. The latter inherit genomic instability and transiently display stem cell properties in that they differentiate into tumor cells and display extended, but, limited MLS, at the end of which they enter senescent phase and can undergo secondary/tertiary neosis to produce the next generation of Raju cells. Neosis is repeated several times during tumor growth in a non-synchronized fashion, is the mode of origin of resistant tumor growth and contributes to tumor cell heterogeneity and continuity. The main event during neosis appears to be the production of mitotically viable daughter genome after epigenetic modulation from the non-viable polyploid genome of neosis mother cell (NMC). This leads to the growth of resistant tumor cells. Since during neosis, spindle checkpoint is not activated, this may give rise to aneuploidy. Thus, tumor cells also are destined to die due to senescence, but may escape senescence due to mutations or epimutations in the senescent checkpoint pathway. A historical review of neosis-like events is presented and implications of neosis in relation to the current dogmas of cancer biology are discussed. Genesis and repetitive re-genesis of Raju cells with transient "stemness" via neosis are of vital importance to the origin and continuous growth of tumors, a process that appears to be common to all types of tumors. We suggest that unlike current anti-mitotic therapy of cancers, anti-neotic therapy would not cause undesirable side effects. We propose a rational hypothesis for the origin and progression of tumors in which neosis plays a major role in the multistep carcinogenesis in different types of cancers. We define cancers as a single disease of uncontrolled neosis due to failure of senescent checkpoint controls.Entities:
Year: 2006 PMID: 17092342 PMCID: PMC1664585 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2867-6-25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 5.722
Figure 1Fate of cells exposed to genotoxins: Immediate effect of exposure to genotoxins is the arrest of cell cycle progression. Cells with lethal damage will undergo necrotic death immediately or may commit immediate or delayed suicide by programmed cell death or apoptosis. Adaptation I. Some cells with minimal damage may re-enter cell cycle after some delay and repair of damage, and multiply normally without any immediate phenotypic changes. It is likely that some of these cells may carry epigenetic alterations and undergo neosis after a latent period of accumulation of additional damage to the genome. Adaptation Ii. Some cells become tetraploid due to cytokinesis failure. Some of them may commit apoptosis, or undergo mitotic catastrophe due to active mitotic checkpoint; such cells often form micronuclei during death. Some of them may undergo successfully multipolar mitosis, giving rise to aneuploid cells, which may not survive to give rise to clonal population of tumor cells. Adaptation III. A major fraction of cells enter a premature senescent phase due to genotoxin-induced DNA damage; by about a week or so, they express senescent markers such as SA-β-gal and SAHF in order to suppress tumor growth; they may become polyploid by endomitosis ad endoreduplication. Most of them may eventually die. Adaptation IV. By about second week after exposure to genotoxins, a few of the tetraploid and polyploid cells with genetic or epigenetic alterations in the senescence pathway may undergo neosis to give rise to aneuploid Raju cells with transient stemness. These are the precursors of primary tumor growth with extended MLS. They mature into tumor cells. At the end of their limited MLS, they reach senescent phase and undergo S/T-neosis and repeat the cycle of extended MLS, senescence, mitotic crisis and neosis several times, thus rejuvenating the supply of resistant (malignant) Raju cells in a highly non-synchronous fashion. (See the text for further details).
Similarities between trophoblast maturation and tumor cell self-renewal
| Properties | Trophoblast | Tumor cell |
| 1. Subject to ageing and senescence | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Polyploidization by endomitosis and endoreduplication | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Polyploid giant cell undergoes neosis | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Activation of telomerase | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Multiple neotic offspring | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Degradation and migration through extracellular matrix | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Secretion of proteases degrades extracellular matrix | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Invasive properties | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Proteolysis of thrombin receptor | Yes | Yes |
| 10. Stimulation of invasive properties | Yes | Yes |
| 11. Evasion of immune rejection | Yes | Yes |
| 12. Activation of protooncogenes | Yes | Yes |
| 13. Growth control by tumor suppressor genes | Yes. Under normal circumstances | No – Lost during neoplastic transformation |
| 14. MLS of Raju cells or their equivalent | Limited MLS and perish at the end of pregnancy | Limited. Can extend MLS via repetitive S/T-neosis. |
Neosis-like events reported in different cell systems of different species. N* = normal cells, T* = transformed or tumor cells, M* = Mutant cells.
| Species | Cell type N* or T* 0r M* | MN/PGs | P- or S/T-neosis | Trigger | Conseuence | Reference |
| 1. Snail | Primary cells N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Established cell line | Walen, 2004 |
| 2. Chicken | Monocytes N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Established cell line | Solari et al., 1965 |
| 3. Marsupial | Primary cells N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Established cell line | Walen, 2004 |
| 4. Mouse | B16F10 melanoma cells | Yes | S/T-neosis (?) | Methotrexate | Resistant cell growth | Baroja et al. 1998. |
| 5. Mouse | Embryonic stem cells M | Yes | P-neosis (?) | Parp-less | Teratocarcinoma | Nozaki et al., 1999 |
| 6. Mouse | C3H10T1/2 cells N | Yes | P-neosis | X-ray | Transformed foci | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 7. Mouse | C3H10T1/2 cells N | Yes | P-neosis | Etoposide | Transformed foci | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 8. Mouse | 1ET1-C3H cells T | Yes | S/T-neosis | Spontaneous | Progression | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 9. Mouse | 1ET1-C3H cells T | Yes | S/T-neosis | X-ray | Resistant cell growth | Sundaram et al 2004 |
| 10. Mouse | 1ET1-C3H cells T | Yes | S/T-neosis | Etoposide | Resistant cell growth | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 11. Mouse | P53-/- MEF/MGB N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Spont. Transformation | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 12. Mouse | P53+/+ MEF/MGB N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Non-viable Raju cells | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 13. Mouse | P53-/- MEF/129B N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Spont. Transformation | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 14. Mouse | P53+/+ MEF/129B N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Non-viable Raju cells | Sundaram et al., 2004 |
| 15. Mouse | L cells T | Yes | S/T-neosis(?) | Arginine | Resistant tumor growth | Wheatley, Persnl communication |
| 16. Armenian hamster | AHL cells N | Yes | P-neosis | X-ray | Transformed foci | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 17. Rat | REF N | Yes | P-neosis | X-ray | Transformed foci | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 18. Rat | X-REF23 N | Yes | P-neosis | X-ray | Transformed foci | Sundaram et al. 2004. |
| 19. Rat | Adenocarcinoma cells | Yes | S/T-neosis | Cisplatin | Resistant tumor growth | Martin F, Persnl.communication |
| 20. Mammals | Trophoblasts N | Yea | P-neosis (?) | Senescence | Non-viable Raju-like cells | Zybina et al., 1974, 1979 |
| 21. Human | Amniocytes N | Yes | P-neosis | Senescence | Estabished cell line | Zitcer and Dunnabecke, 1957 |
| 22. Human | HT 1080 cells T | Yes | S/T-Neosis | Chemical | Resistant tumor cells | Buikis et al., 1999 |
| 23. Human | Breast epithelial cells N | Yes | P-neosis (?) | Senescence | Transformed cell line | Romanov et al. q001. |
| 24. Human | Prostate cancer cell PC3 | Yes | S/t-Neosis | Doxotaxol | Resistant cell growth | Marakovskiy et al 2002 |
| 25. Human | Burkitt's lymphoma cells | Yes | S/T-neosis | Radiation | Resistant cell growth | Ivanov et al., 2003. |
| 26. Human | Amnion cells N | Yes | P-neosis | senescence | Established cell line | Walen, 2004 |
| 27. Human | Amnion cells N | Yes | P-neosis | SV40 | Transformed cells | Walen, 2004 |
| 28. Human | Adenocarcinoma cells | Yes | S/T-neosis | Spontaneous | Tumor progression | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 29. Human | FSK cells N | Yes | P-neosis | X-ray | Non-viable Raju cells | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 30. Human | MRC-5 cells N | Yes | P-neosis | X-ray | Non-viable Raju cells | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 31. Human | HTB11 cells T | Yes | S/T-neosis | Spontaneous | Tumor progression | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 32. Human | HTB11 cells T | Yes | S/T-neosis | X-ray | Tumor progression | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 33. Human | HeLa cells T | Yes | S/T-neosis | X-ray | Tumor progression | Sundaram et al. 2004 |
| 34. Human | Colon carcinoma HT116 | Yes | S/T-neosis | Doxorubicin | Tumor progression | Sikora E, Persnl communication |
Properties of Raju cells and their mitotic derivatives:
| 1. Short cell cycle duration of nascent Raju cells (before they undergo first mitosis) – an indication of lack of G1 phase? [5, 6]. |
| 2. Reactivation of telomerase conferring extended mitotic life span [139-141]. |
| 3. Is it possible to expand Raju cell population without differentiation under proper culture conditions such as EGF or FGF2 [43, 144-148]. |
| 4. Increase in cell size accompanied by increase in cell cycle duration-introduction of G1 phase in the cell cycle [Rajaraman, unpublished; 143]. |
| 5. Resistance to genotoxins – Expression of multidrug resistance genes? [192, 193]. |
| 6. Are they transiently expressing tissue stem cell specific surface markers? (e.g., CD34+ for hematopoietic cells [8]; CD133+ for brain cells [12, 13], CD44+, CD33-, LowLin- for breast cells [9-11]; CD20+ for skin cells [40]; CD44+,α 2β 1hi/CD133+ for prostate cancer cells [41]. |
| 7. Are they transiently expressing stem cell specific growth genes? (E.g. Nanog, Oct-4, Wnt, Bmi1 etc.) [188-191] |
| 8. Potential to differentiate, although aberrantly. |
| 1. Resumption of symmetric mitotic division. |
| 2. Increase in cell size – Introduction of G1 phase in the cell cycle? [143]. |
| 3. Progressive, but, aberrant differentiation. |
| 4. Loss of tissue specific stem cell surface markers due to differentiation during extended mitotic proliferation? |
| 5. Loss of expression of stem cell specific self-renewal genes? |
| 6. Loss of expression of multidrug resistance genes? |
| 7. They are subject to aging and associated senescence brought about by telomere attrition. |
| 8. Therefore, they have limited division potential. |
| 9. Telomere attrition, chromosome breakage-fusion-bridge cycle or genetic stress will result in senescent phase with MN/PG formation, mitotic crisis, and mitotic catastrophe. |
| 10. Absence of senescent check points constitutes a built-in mechanism for accumulation of additional mutations via breakage-fusion-bridge cycle, setting in motion the next cycle of S/T-neosis [66, 67]. |