Kenan Izgi1,2, Halit Canatan3,2, Banu Iskender4,5. 1. Department of Medical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, Erciyes University, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey. 2. Betul-Ziya Eren Genome and Stem Cell Centre, Erciyes University, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey. 3. Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Erciyes University, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey. 4. Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Erciyes University, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey. banu.iskender@yahoo.com. 5. Betul-Ziya Eren Genome and Stem Cell Centre, Erciyes University, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey. banu.iskender@yahoo.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The technology of reprogramming a terminally differentiated cell to an embryonic-like state uncovered the possibility of reprogramming a malignant cell back to a more manageable stem cell-like state. Since the current cancer models suffer from reflecting heterogeneous tumour structure and limited to express the late-stage markers, the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology could provide an alternative model to recapitulate the early stages of cancer. Generation of iPSCs from cancer cells could offer a tool for understanding the mechanisms of tumour initiation-progression in vitro, a platform for studying tumour heterogeneity and origin of cancer stem cells and a source for cancer type-specific drug discovery studies. METHODS: In this review, we discussed the recent findings in reprogramming cancer cells with a special emphasis on similarities between cancer cells and pluripotent cells. We presented the basis of challenges in cancer cell reprogramming including the current problems in reprogramming, cancer-specific epigenetic state and chromosomal aberrations. RESULTS: Cancer epigenetics represent the major hurdle before the prospective use of cancer iPSCs as a model system and for biomarker research. When the reprogramming process is optimised for cancer cell types, it might serve for two purposes: identification of the specific epigenetic state of cancer as well as reversion of the malignant phenotype to a potentially malignant but manageable state. CONCLUSIONS: Reprogramming cancer cells would serve for our understanding of cancer-specific epigenome and elucidation of overlapping mechanisms shared by cancer-initiating cells and pluripotent cells.
PURPOSE: The technology of reprogramming a terminally differentiated cell to an embryonic-like state uncovered the possibility of reprogramming a malignant cell back to a more manageable stem cell-like state. Since the current cancer models suffer from reflecting heterogeneous tumour structure and limited to express the late-stage markers, the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology could provide an alternative model to recapitulate the early stages of cancer. Generation of iPSCs from cancer cells could offer a tool for understanding the mechanisms of tumour initiation-progression in vitro, a platform for studying tumour heterogeneity and origin of cancer stem cells and a source for cancer type-specific drug discovery studies. METHODS: In this review, we discussed the recent findings in reprogramming cancer cells with a special emphasis on similarities between cancer cells and pluripotent cells. We presented the basis of challenges in cancer cell reprogramming including the current problems in reprogramming, cancer-specific epigenetic state and chromosomal aberrations. RESULTS:Cancer epigenetics represent the major hurdle before the prospective use of cancer iPSCs as a model system and for biomarker research. When the reprogramming process is optimised for cancer cell types, it might serve for two purposes: identification of the specific epigenetic state of cancer as well as reversion of the malignant phenotype to a potentially malignant but manageable state. CONCLUSIONS: Reprogramming cancer cells would serve for our understanding of cancer-specific epigenome and elucidation of overlapping mechanisms shared by cancer-initiating cells and pluripotent cells.
Authors: Laurie A Boyer; Tong Ihn Lee; Megan F Cole; Sarah E Johnstone; Stuart S Levine; Jacob P Zucker; Matthew G Guenther; Roshan M Kumar; Heather L Murray; Richard G Jenner; David K Gifford; Douglas A Melton; Rudolf Jaenisch; Richard A Young Journal: Cell Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Henry H Q Heng; Steven W Bremer; Joshua B Stevens; Karen J Ye; Guo Liu; Christine J Ye Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: Clifford D L Folmes; Timothy J Nelson; Almudena Martinez-Fernandez; D Kent Arrell; Jelena Zlatkovic Lindor; Petras P Dzeja; Yasuhiro Ikeda; Carmen Perez-Terzic; Andre Terzic Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Sebastián L Vega; Er Liu; Varun Arvind; Jared Bushman; Hak-Joon Sung; Matthew L Becker; Sophie Lelièvre; Joachim Kohn; Pierre-Alexandre Vidi; Prabhas V Moghe Journal: Exp Cell Res Date: 2016-12-27 Impact factor: 3.905
Authors: Kelsie L Becklin; Garrett M Draper; Rebecca A Madden; Mitchell G Kluesner; Tomoyuki Koga; Miller Huang; William A Weiss; Logan G Spector; David A Largaespada; Branden S Moriarity; Beau R Webber Journal: CRISPR J Date: 2022-08
Authors: Jin Seok Bang; Na Young Choi; Minseong Lee; Kisung Ko; Yo Seph Park; Kinarm Ko Journal: Int J Stem Cells Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 2.500