Cancer's culprit

Breast cancer's genetic profile calls the cancer stem cell hypothesis into question.

By | April 1, 2009

<figcaption>Breast cancer stem-like cells Credit: Courtesy of Kornelia Polyak</figcaption>
Breast cancer stem-like cells Credit: Courtesy of Kornelia Polyak

Fifteen years ago, John Dick, a molecular biologist at the University of Toronto, discovered that not all cancer cells are created equal. Specifically, he showed that only a small population of self-renewing leukemia cells could create tumors, dubbing these cancer stem cells (CSCs). So, scientists asked: Can we wipe out cancer by targeting just these few rogue cells?

The model really took off in 2003 when Michael Clarke, Max Wicha, Sean Morrison, and their colleagues at the University of Michigan discovered CSCs in breast cancer—the first evidence of the cancerous supervillains in a solid tumor.1 Since then, CSCs have been reported in various other human tumors, including brain, lung, colon, and pancreatic cancers. "You practically can't pick up a major science journal now without seeing an article about cancer stem cells," says Wicha.

In 2007, the CSC hypothesis was thrown for a loop, however, after a team led by Kornelia Polyak, of the Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, probed a bit deeper into the Michigan team's findings. In this month's Hot Paper,2 Polyak's team compared the genetic profiles of the putative breast CSCs with other more differentiated cells, and found several genetic differences between the two cell populations. This "raises doubts about whether they are direct descendents of one another," says Polyak.

<figcaption>Breast cancer cells without the stem-cell marker Credit: Courtesy of Kornelia Polyak</figcaption>
Breast cancer cells without the stem-cell marker Credit: Courtesy of Kornelia Polyak

The findings imply that cancer cells are moving targets, Polyak argues, which is more in line with the "clonal evolution" model of tumor generation—the long-standing idea that normal cells mutate to become cancerous, and abnormal descendants transform again, creating a mass of competing, genetically-varied cancer cells. Thus, eliminating the so-called CSCs might not be sufficient to halt cancer dead in its tracks, because the remaining cells might be able to fuel tumor growth and develop drug resistance, too.

From stem to stern

Despite the popularity of Polyak's paper, most researchers continue to believe the CSC hypothesis, though they acknowledge it may need some fine-tuning. "This so-called distinction between the two models of carcinogenesis is really a false dichotomy," says Wicha. "It's not all or none—there are parts of both [models] that are really correct."

"There's nothing about the cancer stem cell hypothesis that would preclude cells changing over time within the tumor," says Michael Lewis, a developmental biologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Indeed, Dick showed that CSCs in leukemia also mutate during disease progression,3 which can potentially give rise to more aggressive tumorigenic cells. "Cancer stem cells themselves aren't a homogeneous entity and they can evolve," Dick says.

The hierarchical CSC model also generally assumes that the ruling CSCs are vanishingly rare. Yet a recent study casts doubt on this prediction, as well. Last December, Morrison found that the number of tumor-initiating cells in human melanoma was about one in four in severely immune-compromised mice, compared to about one in a million as previously observed in standard assays.4 "Melanoma is not following a cancer stem-cell model, at least not in the way the model has been formulated so far," says Morrison.

Rarity, however, is beside the point, notes Lewis. "The relative frequency of [CSCs] can't be one of the criteria by which you assess if cells are cancer stem cells or not," he says. Instead, one needs to test for a subpopulation—no matter how frequent—that can reform tumors and is resistant to standard cancer treatments, he argues.

Notably, Baylor oncologist Jenny Chang, together with her colleague Jeffrey Rosen, compared breast tumors in patients before and after chemotherapy, and found a three-fold enrichment in cells resembling CSCs following treatment, signifying that tumorigenic cells are, indeed, more resilient.5 "There are different subpopulations of [cancer] cells that we need to target separately," says Chang. These results lend credibility to the CSC hypothesis where it really counts, adds Wicha. "It's a valid model because it actually predicts behavior in the clinic," he says.

Fashioning a model

The root cause of cancer remains fuzzy in part because the methods used to find the cells capable of regenerating tumors are flawed, says William Kaelin, a cancer geneticist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. "I'm definitely worried about the bioassays that we're using," because they involve injecting human cells into immune-compromised mice. In response, several researchers, including Jane Visvader of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia, are now turning to syngeneic mouse models of human breast and other cancers. "There is no doubt that the xenotransplantation system is far from perfect," Visvader says.

Last year, Visvader, Clarke, and Rosen all independently found evidence of CSCs in various mouse models of breast cancer. These studies "argue pretty strongly that it's a subset of the cells that are responsible for initiating tumor growth," says Lewis. Visvader, however, only found CSC markers in two of the three mouse models she tested.6  "Some, but not all, models of mammary tumorigenesis seem to be driven by cancer stem cell propagation," she notes.

Michail Shipitsin, the Hot Paper's first author, agrees. "Every cancer case is somewhat unique," he says. The CSC hypothesis may be relevant for some tumors, but "at this point it's unclear" if it applies to breast cancer. "There's a lack of data to support one opinion or the other," he says.

"Like all good things in science, I suspect that the rigid version of the cancer stem cell model is going to need some tweaking," says Dick. "It'll be interesting times to see what the data holds."

Data derived from the Science Watch/Hot Papers database and the Web of Science (Thomson ISI) show that Hot Papers are cited 50 to 100 times more often than the average paper of the same type and age. M. Shipitsin et al., "Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity," Cancer Cell, 11:259-73, 2007. (Cited in 95 papers)


1. M. Al-Hajj et al., "Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells," Proc Natl Acad Sci, 100:3983-8, 2003. 2. M. Shipitsin et al., "Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity," Cancer Cell, 11:259-73, 2007. 3. F. Barabe et al., "Modeling the initiation and progression of human acute leukemia in mice," Science, 316:600-4, 2007. 4. E. Quintana et al., "Efficient tumour formation by single human melanoma cells," Nature, 456:593-8, 2008. 5. X. Li et al., "Intrinsic resistance of tumorigenic breast cancer cells to chemotherapy," J Natl Cancer Inst, 100:672-9, 2008. 6. F. Vailliant et al., "The mammary progenitor marker CD61/beta3 integrin identifies cancer stem cells in mouse models of mammary tumorigenesis," Cancer Res, 68:7711-7, 2008.


April 1, 2009

CSC theory may hold for certain neoplasms, possibly those derived from the tissues for which a stem cell is known and recognizable. This is the case for hematopoietic stem cells; I can imagine one of them mutating towards a leukemic differentiation while retaining other stem cell properties. On the other hand, do we know for sure stem cells even exist in the mammary gland or among the melanocytes? Most probably these (if ever properly defined and detected) could - in theory - become the breast cancer or melanoma stem cells respectively. So, I would rather first look for putative non-neoplastic stem cells in the tissues that harbor these tumors. And - if such were never found - the 'old' cancerogenesis theory would hold - for these specific tumors.
Avatar of: M Dixon

M Dixon

Posts: 11

April 21, 2009

Do cancer cells originate at the time an embryo is rapidly dividing: cells are reabsorbed instead of developing into twin cells; they have the capacity to develop in tumours when the host weakens or are inherantly genetically dominant
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 125

April 21, 2009

Again, as I posted in another article, much of medical research is like putting a cart before the horse, because our knowledge of the basic biology is still too insufficient to formulate a reliable hypothesis of any cancer etiology, let alone an effective medical treatment for the disease.
Avatar of: Brent Neumann

Brent Neumann

Posts: 4

April 22, 2009

The cancer stem cell hypothesis was and remains so widely excepted because it appears to make so much sense. Personally, I was very excited by the theory when it first broke as it provides such a tremendous starting point for tackling cancer at its roots and also helps to explain remission and relapse of disease.\nIt has come with great disappointment that the theory appears flawed for many different cancer types. \nWhat a shame that great hypotheses do not always hold true!\n
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 2

April 22, 2009

It is a well-known fact that stem cells exist in the mammary gland. These stem cells differentiate into luminal epithelial and myoepithelial lineages. However, to this day, the ability of CSCs (from solid tumors) to produce tumors of different phenotypes (including hyperplasia, DCIS, etc.) has not been demonstrated. The word stem cell in CSC would imply that. Our endpoint of verifying CSCs based upon fuzzy markers and their ability to produce tumors with a very small number definitely needs re-examination. It is not surprising that the Hot paper found few similarities between breast CSCs and differentiated tumor cells. Heterogeneity is a hall mark of breast cancer!

Popular Now

  1. Broad Wins CRISPR Patent Interference Case
    Daily News Broad Wins CRISPR Patent Interference Case

    The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board has ruled in favor of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard retaining intellectual property rights covered by its patents for CRISPR gene-editing technology.

  2. Henrietta Lacks’s Family Seeks Compensation
  3. Cannibalism: Not That Weird
    Reading Frames Cannibalism: Not That Weird

    Eating members of your own species might turn the stomach of the average human, but some animal species make a habit of dining on their own.

  4. Can Plants Learn to Associate Stimuli with Reward?
Business Birmingham