BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity within a given cancer arises from diverse cell types recruited to the tumor and from genetic and/or epigenetic differences amongst the cancer cells themselves. These factors conspire to create a disease with various phenotypes. There are 2 established models of cancer development and progression to metastatic disease. These are the clonal evolution and cancer stem cell models. CONTENT: The clonal evolution theory suggests that successive mutations accumulating in a given cell generate clonal outgrowths that thrive in response to microenvironmental selection pressures, dictating the phenotype of the tumor. The alternative cancer stem cell (CSC) model suggests that cancer cells with similar genetic backgrounds can be hierarchically organized according to their tumorigenic potential. Accordingly, CSCs reside at the apex of the hierarchy and are thought to possess the majority of a cancer's tumor-initiating and metastatic ability. A defining feature of this model is its apparent unidirectional nature, whereby CSCs undergo symmetric division to replenish the CSC pool and irreversible asymmetric division to generate daughter cells (non-CSCs) with low tumorigenic potential. However, evolving evidence supports a new model of tumorigenicity, in which considerable plasticity exists between the non-CSC and CSC compartments, such that non-CSCs can reacquire a CSC phenotype. These findings suggest that some tumors may adhere to a plastic CSC model, in which bidirectional conversions are common and essential components of tumorigenicity. SUMMARY: Accumulating evidence surrounding the plasticity of cancer cells, in particular, suggests that aggressive CSCs can be created de novo within a tumor. Given the current focus on therapeutic targeting of CSCs, we discuss the implications of non-CSC-to-CSC conversions on the development of future therapies.
BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity within a given cancer arises from diverse cell types recruited to the tumor and from genetic and/or epigenetic differences amongst the cancer cells themselves. These factors conspire to create a disease with various phenotypes. There are 2 established models of cancer development and progression to metastatic disease. These are the clonal evolution and cancer stem cell models. CONTENT: The clonal evolution theory suggests that successive mutations accumulating in a given cell generate clonal outgrowths that thrive in response to microenvironmental selection pressures, dictating the phenotype of the tumor. The alternative cancer stem cell (CSC) model suggests that cancer cells with similar genetic backgrounds can be hierarchically organized according to their tumorigenic potential. Accordingly, CSCs reside at the apex of the hierarchy and are thought to possess the majority of a cancer's tumor-initiating and metastatic ability. A defining feature of this model is its apparent unidirectional nature, whereby CSCs undergo symmetric division to replenish the CSC pool and irreversible asymmetric division to generate daughter cells (non-CSCs) with low tumorigenic potential. However, evolving evidence supports a new model of tumorigenicity, in which considerable plasticity exists between the non-CSC and CSC compartments, such that non-CSCs can reacquire a CSC phenotype. These findings suggest that some tumors may adhere to a plastic CSC model, in which bidirectional conversions are common and essential components of tumorigenicity. SUMMARY: Accumulating evidence surrounding the plasticity of cancer cells, in particular, suggests that aggressive CSCs can be created de novo within a tumor. Given the current focus on therapeutic targeting of CSCs, we discuss the implications of non-CSC-to-CSC conversions on the development of future therapies.
Authors: Martin Peifer; Lynnette Fernández-Cuesta; Martin L Sos; Julie George; Danila Seidel; Lawryn H Kasper; Dennis Plenker; Frauke Leenders; Ruping Sun; Thomas Zander; Roopika Menon; Mirjam Koker; Ilona Dahmen; Christian Müller; Vincenzo Di Cerbo; Hans-Ulrich Schildhaus; Janine Altmüller; Ingelore Baessmann; Christian Becker; Bram de Wilde; Jo Vandesompele; Diana Böhm; Sascha Ansén; Franziska Gabler; Ines Wilkening; Stefanie Heynck; Johannes M Heuckmann; Xin Lu; Scott L Carter; Kristian Cibulskis; Shantanu Banerji; Gad Getz; Kwon-Sik Park; Daniel Rauh; Christian Grütter; Matthias Fischer; Laura Pasqualucci; Gavin Wright; Zoe Wainer; Prudence Russell; Iver Petersen; Yuan Chen; Erich Stoelben; Corinna Ludwig; Philipp Schnabel; Hans Hoffmann; Thomas Muley; Michael Brockmann; Walburga Engel-Riedel; Lucia A Muscarella; Vito M Fazio; Harry Groen; Wim Timens; Hannie Sietsma; Erik Thunnissen; Egbert Smit; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Peter J F Snijders; Federico Cappuzzo; Claudia Ligorio; Stefania Damiani; John Field; Steinar Solberg; Odd Terje Brustugun; Marius Lund-Iversen; Jörg Sänger; Joachim H Clement; Alex Soltermann; Holger Moch; Walter Weder; Benjamin Solomon; Jean-Charles Soria; Pierre Validire; Benjamin Besse; Elisabeth Brambilla; Christian Brambilla; Sylvie Lantuejoul; Philippe Lorimier; Peter M Schneider; Michael Hallek; William Pao; Matthew Meyerson; Julien Sage; Jay Shendure; Robert Schneider; Reinhard Büttner; Jürgen Wolf; Peter Nürnberg; Sven Perner; Lukas C Heukamp; Paul K Brindle; Stefan Haas; Roman K Thomas Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2012-09-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jian Chen; Yanjiao Li; Tzong-Shiue Yu; Renée M McKay; Dennis K Burns; Steven G Kernie; Luis F Parada Journal: Nature Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Outhiriaradjou Benard; Xia Qian; Huizhi Liang; Zuen Ren; Kimita Suyama; Larry Norton; Rachel B Hazan Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Kamola Saydaminova; Robert Strauss; Min Xie; Jiri Bartek; Maximilian Richter; Ruan van Rensburg; Charles Drescher; Anja Ehrhardt; Sheng Ding; André Lieber Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 4.742