| Literature DB >> 28279221 |
Wei Xiao1, Zhiyong Gao2, Yixing Duan2, Wuxiong Yuan2, Yang Ke2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are correlated with the initiation, chemoresistance and relapse of tumors. Notch pathway has been reported to function in CSCs maintenance, but whether it is involved in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) CSCs maintaining stemness remain unclear. This study aims to explore the effect of Notch pathway on stemness of CSCs in RCC and the underlying mechanisms.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer stem cells; Chemotaxis; Notch pathway; Renal cell carcinoma; SDF-1/CXCR4; Stemness sustaining
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28279221 PMCID: PMC5345133 DOI: 10.1186/s13046-017-0507-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Primer sequences of genes
| Gene | Primer sequence |
|---|---|
| CTR2 | F: 5′- TCCAGGTAGTCATCAGCT -3′ |
| R: 5′- TGGCAGTGCTCTGTGATGTC -3′ | |
| BCL-2 | F: 5′- CTCCTGACGCTAAGAGCTTCG -3' |
| R: 5′- CCAGGCTGGAAGGGAAAGAC -3′ | |
| MDR1 | F: 5′- GGAAGACATGACCAGGTATGC -3′ |
| R: 5′- GCACATCAAACCAGCCTATCTC -3′ | |
| OCT-4 | F: 5′- TTCAGCCAAACGACCATCT -3′ |
| R: 5′- GCTTTGCATATCTCCTGAAGA -3′ | |
| KLF4 | F: 5′- CCCACATTAATGAGGCAGC -3′ |
| R: 5′- AGTCGCTTCATGTGGGAGAG -3′ | |
| Notch1 | F: 5′- CCCGCCAGAGTGGACAGGTCAGTA -3′ |
| R: 5′- TGTCGCAGTTGGAGCCCTCGTTA -3′ | |
| Notch2 | F: 5′- CCCACAATGGACAGGACA -3′ |
| R: 5′- GAGGCGAAGGCACAATCA -3′ | |
| Notch3 | F: 5′- TCTCAGACTGGTCCGAATCCAC -3′ |
| R: 5′- CCAAGATCTAAGAACTGACGAGCG -3′ | |
| Jagged1 | F: 5′- GACACCGTTCAACCTGACAGTATTA -3′ |
| R: 5′- GTCACAGGCATAGTGTCCAAAGA -3′ | |
| Jagged2 | F: 5′- TCGGGCAGGAACTGTGAGAAGGC -3′ |
| R: 5′- AATCACAGTAATAGCCGCCAATCAGGT -3′ | |
| DLL1 | F: 5′- AGGGGTGGAGAAGCATCTGAAA -3′ |
| R: 5′- AACCTGCTCGGTCTGAACTCG -3′ | |
| DLL3 | F: 5′- ACGCCTGGCCTGGCACCTT -3′ |
| R: 5′- CCCTCTAGGCATCGGCATTCACC -3′ | |
| DLL4 | F: 5′- ACAGTGAAAAGCCAGAGTGTCGG -3′ |
| R: 5′- TGAGCAGGGATGTCCAGGTAGG -3′ | |
| β-actin | F: 5′- AGGGGCCGGACTCGTCATACT -3′ |
| R: 5′- GGCGGCACCACCATGTACCCT -3′ | |
| Vimentin | F: 5′- CTTCCGCGCCTACGCCA -3′ |
| R: 5′- GCCCAGGCGAGGTACTCC -3′ | |
| Hey1 | F: 5′- CATACGGCAGGAGGGAAAG -3′ |
| R: 5′- GCATCTAGTCCTTCAATGATGCT -3′ | |
| Hes1 | F: 5′- AGTGAAGCACCTCCGGAAC -3′ |
| R: 5′- CGTTCATGCACTCGCTGA -3′ |
Fig. 1Identification of the purity of sorting CD133+/CD24+ cells and its stemness markers. The purity of sorting CD133+/CD24+ACHN a or Caki-1 cells b were detected by flow cytometry analysis. The relative mRNAs (c and d) and protein (e and f) expressions of stemness markers as indicated were determined by RT-PCR. Control (Con):parental ACHN or Caki-1 cells
Fig. 2Identification of stem-like features of CD133+/CD24+ cells. The clone formation efficiency of CD133+/CD24+ACHN a and Caki-1 b cells was determined in soft agar. The self-renewal efficiency of CD133+/CD24+ACHN c and Caki-1 d cells was detected by sphere formation assay. The migratory (e and f) and invasive (g and h) capability of CD133+/CD24+ cells were detected by transwell assay. The sensitivity of CD133+/CD24+cells to cisplatin (i and j) and sorafenib (k and l) was determined by MTT. * P < 0.05 VS. control; ** P < 0.01 VS. control;*** P < 0.001 VS. control; Control (Con):parental ACHN or Caki-1 cells)
Xenotransplantation of cells into NOD/SCID mice
| Cells + Treatment | Inoculum size | Tumor incidence | Tumor volume (mm3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACHN | Caki-1 | ACHN | Caki-1 | ||
| Parental cells | 1 × 105 | 6/6 | 6/6 | ||
| 1 × 104 | 4/6 | 5/6 | 501.17 ± 46.31 | 544.67 ± 62.26 | |
| 1 × 103 | 1/6 | 1/6 | |||
| CSCs | 1 × 105 | 6/6 | 6/6 | ||
| 1 × 104 | 6/6 | 6/6 | 774.67 ± 54.04 | 756.67 ± 70.32 | |
| 1 × 103 | 3/6 | 3/6 | |||
| CSCs + MRK003 | 1 × 105 | 5/6 | 5/6 | ||
| 1 × 104 | 2/6 | 3/6 | 306.17 ± 56.56 | 378.50 ± 38.34 | |
| 1 × 103 | 0/6 | 1/6 | |||
| CSCs + Numb | 1 × 105 | 5/6 | 5/6 | ||
| 1 × 104 | 3/6 | 3/6 | 317.17 ± 82.34 | 377.50 ± 51.93 | |
| 1 × 103 | 0/6 | 1/6 | |||
Fig. 3Identification of the expression of Notch pathway in RCC CSCs. The relative mRNA levels of notch1-3 (a and b), Jagged1/2 (c and d), DLL1, DLL3 and DLL4 (e and f) were detected using RT-PCR. (g and h) The up-regulation of notch1/2, Jagged1/2, DLL1/4 protein was validated by western blot analysis. * P < 0.05 VS. control; ** P < 0.01 VS. control;*** P < 0.001 VS. control; Control (Con):parental ACHN or Caki-1 cells
Fig. 4The effects of notch signaling on stemness of RCC CSCs. The pharmacological (MRK-003) and endogenous (Numb) notch inhibitor suppressed the expression of notch1, notch2, Hes1 and Hey1 mRNAs (a, b, c and d), and stemness markers mRNAs (e and g) and proteins (f and h), decreased the self-renewal efficiency (i and j), invasion (k and l), migration (m and n), and sensitivity to cisplatin (o and p) and sorafenib (q and r) in RCC CSCs. * P < 0.05 VS. control; ** P < 0.01 VS. control;*** P < 0.001 VS. control; Control (Con): the RCC CSCs treated without inhibitor)
Fig. 5The effects of notch signaling on proliferation of RCC CSCs in vivo. a The pharmacological (MRK-003) and endogenous (Numb) notch inhibitor suppressed the growth of RCC CSCs in NOD/SCID mice. (b and d) Immunohistochemistry analysis showed that increased actived-caspase-3 and decreased PCNA were detected in tumor tissue from RCC CSCst reated with RAK-003 or transfected with Numb vector.* P < 0.05 VS. control; ** P < 0.01 VS. control;*** P < 0.001 VS. control; Control (Con): the RCC CSCs treated without inhibitor)
Fig. 6The effects of overexpression of notch 1 on chemotaxis of RCC CSCs induced by SDF-1. (a and b) Increased SDF-1 and CXCR4 induced by overexpression of notch1 in RCC CSCs. CXCR4 inhibitor AMD3100 decreased invasion (c and d) and migration (e and f) of RCC CSCs overexpressed by notch1. (g and h) Addition of SDF-1α and AMD3100 affected the cell viability of RCC CSCs overexpressed by notch1. (i and k) Addition of SDF-1α in the lower well in transwell assay, AMD3100 reduced overexpression of notch1-mediated chemotaxis in RCC CSCs. (j and l) Suppression of notch 1 induced by its inhibitor decreased CXCR4 in RCC CSCs. * P < 0.05 VS. indicated group; ** P < 0.01 VS. indicated group;*** P < 0.001 VS. indicated group