| Literature DB >> 26298849 |
Kozo Noguchi1,2, Hidetoshi Eguchi1, Masamitsu Konno2, Koichi Kawamoto1, Naohiro Nishida2, Jun Koseki3, Hiroshi Wada1, Shigeru Marubashi1, Hiroaki Nagano1, Yuichiro Doki1, Masaki Mori1, Hideshi Ishii2,3.
Abstract
Previous reports have indicated that reprogramming technologies may be useful for altering the malignant phenotype of cancer cells. Although somatic stem cells in normal tissues are more sensitive to reprogramming induction than differentiated cells, it remains to be elucidated whether any specific subpopulations are sensitive to reprogramming in heterogeneous tumor tissues. Here we examined the susceptibility of pancreatic cancer stem cells (CSC) and non-CSC to reprogramming. To characterize CSC populations, we focused on c-Met signaling, which has been identified as a marker of CSC in mouse experiments in vivo. Cells that expressed high levels of c-Met showed higher CSC properties, such as tumor-initiating capacity, and resistance to gemcitabine. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in cells expressing high levels of c-Met revealed endogenous expression of reprogramming factors, such as OCT3/4, SOX2, KLF4 and cMYC. Introduction of these four factors resulted in higher alkaline phosphatase staining in cells with high c-Met expression than in controls. Therefore, the study results demonstrate that cellular reprogramming may be useful for extensive epigenetic modification of malignant features of pancreatic CSC.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer stem cell; cancer therapy; induced pluripotent stem cell; pancreatic cancer; reprogramming
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26298849 PMCID: PMC4582987 DOI: 10.1111/cas.12734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Sci ISSN: 1347-9032 Impact factor: 6.716
Figure 1Induction of pluripotent cancer cells from PANC-1 cells. (a) Schematic representation of the reprogramming protocol. (b) RT-PCR analysis of transgenes for reprogramming. (c) Representative image of induced pluripotent stem (iPS)-like colonies. Phase, phase contrast. Bar = 500 μm. (d) Representative image of alkaline phosphatase (ALP)-positive colonies. Bar = 500 μm. (e) Immunofluorescence staining of ES cell markers in reprogrammed colonies. Right panels, Hoechst33342. (f) qRT-PCR of differentiation markers. n = 3. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed by two-tailed unpaired t-tests. (*P<0.05, **P<0.01, P-iC vs. NC), P-iC, Post-iPC; NC, Negative control.Bar = 500 μm. ALP, alkaline phosphatase; Ctrl, control; Day 3, post-transduced PANC-1 cells on day 3; iPS, induced pluripotent stem; SeV-cMYC, Sendai virus carrying cMYC; SeV-KOS, Sendai virus carrying polycistronic transgenes KLF4-OCT3/4-SOX2.
Figure 2c-Met (high) population among PANC-1 cells represents high CSC-like phenotypes. (a) Typical FACS plot showing c-Met (high) and CD44 (+) frequencies in PANC-1 cells. (b) Representative images of spheres. Bar = 50 μm. Total number of spheres. N = 6 per group. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed by two-tailed unpaired t-tests (**P < 0.01, c-Met [high] vs c-Met [low]). (c) Cell sensitivities to gemcitabine. n = 3. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed by two-way measures analysis of variance (**P < 0.01, c-Met [high] vs c-Met [low]). (d) qRT-PCR of endogenous reprogramming transcription factors. n = 3. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed by two-tailed unpaired t-tests (**P < 0.01, c-Met [high] vs c-Met [low]). (e) Quantitative RT-PCR of endogenous reprogramming transcription factors. n = 3. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed by two-tailed unpaired t-tests (**P < 0.01, c-Met [high] vs c-Met [low]). −, negative control; +, 500 nM SU11274 treatment. (f) 1 × 104 of c-Met (high) and c-Met (low) cells were transplanted in NOD/SCID mice, and the xenograft tumor volume was monitored up to week 5. n = 10. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed by two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (**P < 0.01, c-Met [high] vs c-Met [low]). (g) The weights of tumors were measured on week 5 after resection. n = 10. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-test (**P < 0.01, c-Met [high] vs c-Met [low]). CSC, cancer stem cell.
Figure 3Reprogramming efficiency in high c-Met–expressing cells. (a) Schematic representation of the experimental protocol. (b) Representative images of ALP staining. N = 3. Data are represented as the mean ± SD and were analyzed by two-tailed unpaired t-tests (**P < 0.01, c-Met [high] vs c-Met [low]). ALP, alkaline phosphatase; NC, negative control.