Liyang Xu1, Min Zhang1, Lihua Shi1, Xiaoli Yang1, Lu Chen1, Ning Cao1, Anhua Lei1, Ying Cao2. 1. MOE Key Laboratory of Model Animals for Disease Study, and Model Animal Research Center of the Medical School, Nanjing University, 12 Xuefu Road, Pukou High-Tech Zone, Nanjing, 210061, China. 2. MOE Key Laboratory of Model Animals for Disease Study, and Model Animal Research Center of the Medical School, Nanjing University, 12 Xuefu Road, Pukou High-Tech Zone, Nanjing, 210061, China. caoying@nju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated the dependence of cancer on nerve. Recently, a growing number of studies reveal that cancer cells share the property and regulatory network with neural stem/progenitor cells. However, relationship between the property of neural stemness and cell tumorigenicity is unknown. RESULTS: We show that neural stem/progenitor cells, but not non-neural embryonic or somatic stem/progenitor cell types, exhibit tumorigenicity and the potential for differentiation into tissue types of all germ layers when they are placed in non-native environment by transplantation into immunodeficient nude mice. Likewise, cancer cells capable of tumor initiation have the property of neural stemness because of their abilities in neurosphere formation in neural stem cell-specific serum-free medium and in differentiation potential, in addition to their neuronal differentiation potential that was characterized previously. Moreover, loss of a pro-differentiation factor in myoblasts, which have no tumorigenicity, lead to the loss of myoblast identity, and gain of the property of neural stemness, tumorigenicity and potential for re-differentiation. By contrast, loss of neural stemness via differentiation results in the loss of tumorigenicity. These suggest that the property of neural stemness contributes to cell tumorigenicity, and tumor phenotypic heterogeneity might be an effect of differentiation potential of neural stemness. Bioinformatic analysis reveals that neural genes in general are correlated with embryonic development and cancer, in addition to their role in neural development; whereas non-neural genes are not. Most of neural specific genes emerged in typical species representing transition from unicellularity to multicellularity during evolution. Genes in Monosiga brevicollis, a unicellular species that is a closest known relative of metazoans, are biased toward neural cells. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the property of neural stemness is the source of cell tumorigenicity. This is due to that neural biased unicellular state is the ground state for multicellularity and hence cell type diversification or differentiation during evolution, and tumorigenesis is a process of restoration of neural ground state in somatic cells along a default route that is pre-determined by an evolutionary advantage of neural state.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated the dependence of cancer on nerve. Recently, a growing number of studies reveal that cancer cells share the property and regulatory network with neural stem/progenitor cells. However, relationship between the property of neural stemness and cell tumorigenicity is unknown. RESULTS: We show that neural stem/progenitor cells, but not non-neural embryonic or somatic stem/progenitor cell types, exhibit tumorigenicity and the potential for differentiation into tissue types of all germ layers when they are placed in non-native environment by transplantation into immunodeficientnude mice. Likewise, cancer cells capable of tumor initiation have the property of neural stemness because of their abilities in neurosphere formation in neural stem cell-specific serum-free medium and in differentiation potential, in addition to their neuronal differentiation potential that was characterized previously. Moreover, loss of a pro-differentiation factor in myoblasts, which have no tumorigenicity, lead to the loss of myoblast identity, and gain of the property of neural stemness, tumorigenicity and potential for re-differentiation. By contrast, loss of neural stemness via differentiation results in the loss of tumorigenicity. These suggest that the property of neural stemness contributes to cell tumorigenicity, and tumor phenotypic heterogeneity might be an effect of differentiation potential of neural stemness. Bioinformatic analysis reveals that neural genes in general are correlated with embryonic development and cancer, in addition to their role in neural development; whereas non-neural genes are not. Most of neural specific genes emerged in typical species representing transition from unicellularity to multicellularity during evolution. Genes in Monosiga brevicollis, a unicellular species that is a closest known relative of metazoans, are biased toward neural cells. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the property of neural stemness is the source of cell tumorigenicity. This is due to that neural biased unicellular state is the ground state for multicellularity and hence cell type diversification or differentiation during evolution, and tumorigenesis is a process of restoration of neural ground state in somatic cells along a default route that is pre-determined by an evolutionary advantage of neural state.
Authors: Shinji Kohsaka; Neerav Shukla; Nabahet Ameur; Tatsuo Ito; Charlotte K Y Ng; Lu Wang; Diana Lim; Angela Marchetti; Agnes Viale; Mono Pirun; Nicholas D Socci; Li-Xuan Qin; Raf Sciot; Julia Bridge; Samuel Singer; Paul Meyers; Leonard H Wexler; Frederic G Barr; Snjezana Dogan; Jonathan A Fletcher; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Marc Ladanyi Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Mansi Srivastava; Oleg Simakov; Jarrod Chapman; Bryony Fahey; Marie E A Gauthier; Therese Mitros; Gemma S Richards; Cecilia Conaco; Michael Dacre; Uffe Hellsten; Claire Larroux; Nicholas H Putnam; Mario Stanke; Maja Adamska; Aaron Darling; Sandie M Degnan; Todd H Oakley; David C Plachetzki; Yufeng Zhai; Marcin Adamski; Andrew Calcino; Scott F Cummins; David M Goodstein; Christina Harris; Daniel J Jackson; Sally P Leys; Shengqiang Shu; Ben J Woodcroft; Michel Vervoort; Kenneth S Kosik; Gerard Manning; Bernard M Degnan; Daniel S Rokhsar Journal: Nature Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kar Wey Yong; Jane Ru Choi; Asdani Saifullah Dolbashid; Wan Kamarul Zaman Wan Safwani Journal: Regen Med Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.806
Authors: Mansi Srivastava; Emina Begovic; Jarrod Chapman; Nicholas H Putnam; Uffe Hellsten; Takeshi Kawashima; Alan Kuo; Therese Mitros; Asaf Salamov; Meredith L Carpenter; Ana Y Signorovitch; Maria A Moreno; Kai Kamm; Jane Grimwood; Jeremy Schmutz; Harris Shapiro; Igor V Grigoriev; Leo W Buss; Bernd Schierwater; Stephen L Dellaporta; Daniel S Rokhsar Journal: Nature Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Khalid O Alfarouk; Mohammed E A Shayoub; Abdel Khalig Muddathir; Gamal O Elhassan; Adil H H Bashir Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 6.639