Varun Subramaniam Venkatesh1, Emil Lou1. 1. Division of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of tumour heterogeneity is not novel but is fast becoming a paradigm by which to explain part of the highly recalcitrant nature of aggressive malignant tumours. Glioblastoma is a prime example of such difficult-to-treat, invasive, and incurable malignancies. With the advent of the post-genomic age and increased access to next-generation sequencing technologies, numerous publications have described the presence and extent of intratumoural and intertumoural heterogeneity present in glioblastoma. Moreover, there have been numerous reports more directly correlating the heterogeneity of glioblastoma to its refractory, reoccurring, and inevitably terminal nature. It is therefore prudent to consider the different forms of heterogeneity seen in glioblastoma and how to harness this understanding to better strategize novel therapeutic approaches. One of the most central questions of tumour heterogeneity is how these numerous different cell types (both tumour and non-tumour) in the tumour mass communicate. RECENT FINDINGS: This chapter provides a brief review on the variable heterogeneity of glioblastoma, with a focus on cellular heterogeneity and on modalities of communication that can induce further molecular diversity within the complex and ever-evolving tumour microenvironment. We provide particular emphasis on the emerging role of actin-based cellular conduits called tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs) and tumour microtubes (TMs) and outline the perceived current problems in the field that need to be resolved before pharmacological targeting of TNTs can become a reality. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that TNTs and TMs provide a new and exciting avenue for the therapeutic targeting of glioblastoma and that numerous inroads have already made into TNT and TM biology. However, to target TMs and TNTs, several advances must be made before this aim can become a reality.
BACKGROUND: The concept of tumour heterogeneity is not novel but is fast becoming a paradigm by which to explain part of the highly recalcitrant nature of aggressive malignant tumours. Glioblastoma is a prime example of such difficult-to-treat, invasive, and incurable malignancies. With the advent of the post-genomic age and increased access to next-generation sequencing technologies, numerous publications have described the presence and extent of intratumoural and intertumoural heterogeneity present in glioblastoma. Moreover, there have been numerous reports more directly correlating the heterogeneity of glioblastoma to its refractory, reoccurring, and inevitably terminal nature. It is therefore prudent to consider the different forms of heterogeneity seen in glioblastoma and how to harness this understanding to better strategize novel therapeutic approaches. One of the most central questions of tumour heterogeneity is how these numerous different cell types (both tumour and non-tumour) in the tumour mass communicate. RECENT FINDINGS: This chapter provides a brief review on the variable heterogeneity of glioblastoma, with a focus on cellular heterogeneity and on modalities of communication that can induce further molecular diversity within the complex and ever-evolving tumour microenvironment. We provide particular emphasis on the emerging role of actin-based cellular conduits called tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs) and tumour microtubes (TMs) and outline the perceived current problems in the field that need to be resolved before pharmacological targeting of TNTs can become a reality. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that TNTs and TMs provide a new and exciting avenue for the therapeutic targeting of glioblastoma and that numerous inroads have already made into TNT and TM biology. However, to target TMs and TNTs, several advances must be made before this aim can become a reality.
Authors: Diane J Aum; David H Kim; Thomas L Beaumont; Eric C Leuthardt; Gavin P Dunn; Albert H Kim Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: S G M Piccirillo; R Combi; L Cajola; A Patrizi; S Redaelli; A Bentivegna; S Baronchelli; G Maira; B Pollo; A Mangiola; F DiMeco; L Dalprà; A L Vescovi Journal: Oncogene Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Daniel J Brat; Amilcar A Castellano-Sanchez; Stephen B Hunter; Marcia Pecot; Cynthia Cohen; Elizabeth H Hammond; Sarojini N Devi; Balveen Kaur; Erwin G Van Meir Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-02-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Xuebing Ding; Mingming Ma; Junfang Teng; Robert K F Teng; Shuang Zhou; Jingzheng Yin; Ekokobe Fonkem; Jason H Huang; Erxi Wu; Xuejing Wang Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-09-15
Authors: Ivana Manini; Federica Caponnetto; Anna Bartolini; Tamara Ius; Laura Mariuzzi; Carla Di Loreto; Antonio Paolo Beltrami; Daniela Cesselli Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Johan Skog; Tom Würdinger; Sjoerd van Rijn; Dimphna H Meijer; Laura Gainche; Miguel Sena-Esteves; William T Curry; Bob S Carter; Anna M Krichevsky; Xandra O Breakefield Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2008-11-16 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Ilaria Ottonelli; Riccardo Caraffi; Giovanni Tosi; Maria Angela Vandelli; Jason Thomas Duskey; Barbara Ruozi Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Deniz Caylioglu; Rieke Johanna Meyer; Dana Hellmold; Carolin Kubelt; Michael Synowitz; Janka Held-Feindt Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 5.923