4.7 Article

E-liquid exposure induces bladder cancer cells to release extracellular vesicles that promote non-malignant urothelial cell transformation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-27165-z

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vaping of electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) has potential risks of bladder cancer (BC). BC-derived extracellular vesicles (BCEVs) can permanently transform urothelial cells, and smoking and E-cigarette related BCEVs can induce oxidative stress and DNA damage in recipient cells. Menthol flavored E-liquid-induced BCEVs significantly increase the transformation rate of malignant urothelial cells.
The vaping of electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) has recently emerged as a popular alternative to traditional cigarette smoking, but its association with bladder cancer (BC) risk remains to be established. BC patients exhibit high rates of recurrent disease, possibly as a consequence of the field cancerization effect. We have shown that BC-derived extracellular vesicles (BCEVs) can permanently alter recipient urothelial cells in predisposed fields such that they become fully transformed malignant cells. To model the role that BCEVs may play in this potentially oncogenic setting, we treated TCCSUP BC cells with cigarette smoke extract, unflavored E-liquid, or menthol flavored E-liquid. Those treated BCEVs were then tested for their tumorigenic potential. We found that these smoking- and E-cigarette-related BCEVs were able to promote oxidative stress, inflammatory signaling, and DNA damage in recipient SV-HUC urothelial cells. Strikingly, menthol E-liquid-induced BCEVs significantly increased rates of malignant urothelial cell transformation. While further in vivo validation of the simultaneous effects of E-liquid and E-liquid-induced BCEVs on field cancerization is needed, these data highlight the possibility that E-cigarettes may compound user risk in a manner that can contribute to higher rates of BC incidence or recurrence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据