4.6 Article

Isolation of stem-like cells from spontaneous feline mammary carcinomas: Phenotypic characterization and tumorigenic potential

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 318, 期 7, 页码 847-860

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2012.02.008

关键词

Tumor-initiating cells; Mammary cancer; Comparative oncology; Feline

资金

  1. CARIGE Foundation
  2. Ricerca corrente IZS-PLV

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current carcinogenesis theory states that only a small subset of tumor cells, the cancer stem cells or tumor initiating cells (TICs), are responsible for tumor formation and progression. Human breast cancer-initiating cells have been identified as CD44-expressing cells, which retain tumorigenic activity and display stem cell like properties. Spontaneous feline mammary carcinoma (FMC) is an aggressive cancer, which shows biological similarities to the human tumor counterpart. We report the isolation and phenotypic characterization of FMC-derived stem/progenitor cells, showing in vitro self-renewal, long-lasting proliferation and in vivo tumorigenicity. Twenty-one FMC samples were collected, histologically classified and characterized for the expression of Ki67, EGFR, ER-alpha and CD44, by immunohistochemistry. By culture in stem cell permissive conditions, we isolated, from 13 FMCs, a CD44-positive subpopulation able to survive and proliferate in vitro as mammospheres of different sizes and morphologies. When injected in NOD/SCID mice, FMC stem-like cells initiate tumors, generating cell heterogeneity and recapitulating the original histotype. In serum-containing medium, spheroid cells showed differentiation properties as shown by morphological changes, the loss of CD44 expression and tumorigenic potential. These data show that stem-defined culture of FMC enriches for TICs and validate the use of these cells as a suitable model for comparative oncology studies of mammary biology and testing therapeutic strategies aimed at eradicating TICs. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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