Sandro L Pereira1, Ana Sofia Rodrigues2, Maria Inês Sousa1, Marcelo Correia3, Tânia Perestrelo3, João Ramalho-Santos4. 1. Biology of Reproduction and Stem Cell Group, CNC - Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Largo Marquês de Pombal, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal. 2. Biology of Reproduction and Stem Cell Group, CNC - Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Largo Marquês de Pombal, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal PhD Programme in Experimental Biology and Biomedicine, CNC - Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 3. Biology of Reproduction and Stem Cell Group, CNC - Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Largo Marquês de Pombal, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal PhD Programme in Experimental Biology and Biomedicine, CNC - Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Institute for Interdisciplinary Research (IIIUC), University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 4. Biology of Reproduction and Stem Cell Group, CNC - Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Largo Marquês de Pombal, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3004-517 Coimbra, Portugal jramalho@ci.uc.pt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) and cancer cells have been described as having similar metabolic pathways, most notably a penchant for favoring glycolysis even under aerobiosis, suggesting common themes that might be explored for both stem cell differentiation and anti-oncogenic purposes. METHODS: A search of the scientific literature available in the PubMed/Medline was conducted for studies on metabolism and mitochondrial function related to gametogenesis, early development, stem cells and cancers in the reproductive system, notably breast, prostate, ovarian and testicular cancers. RESULTS: Both PSCs and some types of cancer cells, particularly reproductive cancers, were found to obtain energy mostly by glycolysis, often reducing mitochondrial activity and oxidative phosphorylation. This strategy links proliferating cells, allowing for the biosynthesis reactions necessary for cell division. Interventions that affect metabolic pathways, and force cells to change their preferences, can lead to shifts in cell status, increasing either pluripotency or differentiation of stem cells, and causing cancer cells to become more or less aggressive. Interestingly metabolic changes in many cases seemed to lead to cell transformation, not necessarily follow it, suggesting a direct role of metabolic choices in influencing the (epi)genetic program of different cell types. CONCLUSIONS: There are uncanny similarities between PSCs and cancer cells at the metabolic level. Furthermore, metabolism may also play a direct role in cell status and targeting metabolic pathways could therefore be a promising strategy for both the control of cancer cell proliferation and the regulation of stem cell physiology, in terms of manipulating stem cells toward relevant phenotypes that may be important for tissue engineering, or making cancer cells become less tumorigenic.
BACKGROUND: Both pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) and cancer cells have been described as having similar metabolic pathways, most notably a penchant for favoring glycolysis even under aerobiosis, suggesting common themes that might be explored for both stem cell differentiation and anti-oncogenic purposes. METHODS: A search of the scientific literature available in the PubMed/Medline was conducted for studies on metabolism and mitochondrial function related to gametogenesis, early development, stem cells and cancers in the reproductive system, notably breast, prostate, ovarian and testicular cancers. RESULTS: Both PSCs and some types of cancer cells, particularly reproductive cancers, were found to obtain energy mostly by glycolysis, often reducing mitochondrial activity and oxidative phosphorylation. This strategy links proliferating cells, allowing for the biosynthesis reactions necessary for cell division. Interventions that affect metabolic pathways, and force cells to change their preferences, can lead to shifts in cell status, increasing either pluripotency or differentiation of stem cells, and causing cancer cells to become more or less aggressive. Interestingly metabolic changes in many cases seemed to lead to cell transformation, not necessarily follow it, suggesting a direct role of metabolic choices in influencing the (epi)genetic program of different cell types. CONCLUSIONS: There are uncanny similarities between PSCs and cancer cells at the metabolic level. Furthermore, metabolism may also play a direct role in cell status and targeting metabolic pathways could therefore be a promising strategy for both the control of cancer cell proliferation and the regulation of stem cell physiology, in terms of manipulating stem cells toward relevant phenotypes that may be important for tissue engineering, or making cancer cells become less tumorigenic.
Authors: Kaitlen Samse; Jacqueline Emathinger; Nirmala Hariharan; Pearl Quijada; Kelli Ilves; Mirko Völkers; Lucia Ormachea; Andrea De La Torre; Amabel M Orogo; Roberto Alvarez; Shabana Din; Sadia Mohsin; Megan Monsanto; Kimberlee M Fischer; Walter P Dembitsky; Åsa B Gustafsson; Mark A Sussman Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Piul S Rabbani; Marc A Soares; Sophia G Hameedi; Rohini L Kadle; Adnan Mubasher; Maria Kowzun; Daniel J Ceradini Journal: Diabetes Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Ana Sofia Rodrigues; Marcelo Correia; Andreia Gomes; Sandro L Pereira; Tânia Perestrelo; Maria Inês Sousa; João Ramalho-Santos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marcelo Correia; Maria I Sousa; Ana S Rodrigues; Tânia Perestrelo; Sandro L Pereira; Marcelo F Ribeiro; João Ramalho-Santos Journal: Data Brief Date: 2016-04-04
Authors: Klementina Fon Tacer; Marhiah C Montoya; Melissa J Oatley; Tessa Lord; Jon M Oatley; Jonathon Klein; Ramya Ravichandran; Heather Tillman; MinSoo Kim; Jon P Connelly; Shondra M Pruett-Miller; Angie L Bookout; Emily Binshtock; Marcin M Kamiński; Patrick Ryan Potts Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Ana Sofia Rodrigues; Sandro L Pereira; Marcelo Correia; Andreia Gomes; Tânia Perestrelo; João Ramalho-Santos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 3.240