Explore the vast range of titles available.

MicroRNA (miR)-126 is frequently downregulated in malignancies, including breast cancer (BC). Despite its tumor-suppressive role, the mechanisms underlying miR-126 deregulation in BC remain elusive. Through silencing experiments, we identified Early B Cell Factor 1 (EBF1), ETS Proto-Oncogene 2 (ETS2), and Krüppel-Like Factor 2 (KLF2) as pivotal regulators of miR-126 expression. These transcription factors were found to be downregulated in BC due to epigenetic silencing or a “poised but not transcribed” promoter state, impairing miR-126 expression. Gene Ontology analysis of differentially expressed miR-126 target genes in the Cancer Genome Atlas: Breast Invasive Carcinoma (TCGA-BRCA) cohort revealed their involvement in cancer-related pathways, primarily signal transduction, chromatin remodeling/transcription, and differentiation/development. Furthermore, we defined interconnections among transcription factors, miR-126, and target genes, identifying a potential feed-forward loop (FFL) crucial in maintaining cellular identity and preventing the acquisition of stemness properties associated with cancer progression. Our findings propose that the dysregulation of the EBF1/ETS2/KLF2/miR-126 axis disrupts this FFL, promoting oncogenic transformation and progression in BC. This study provides new insights into the molecular mechanisms of miR-126 downregulation in BC and highlights potential targets for therapeutic intervention. Further research is warranted to clarify the role of this FFL in BC, and to identify novel therapeutic strategies aimed at modulating this network as a whole, rather than targeting individual signals, for cancer management.

Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) is defined as a cellular process during which epithelial cells acquire mesenchymal phenotypes and behavior following the downregulation of epithelial features. EMT and its reversed process, the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), and the special form of EMT, the endothelial-mesenchymal transition (EndMT), have been considered as mainstream concepts and general rules driving developmental and pathological processes, particularly cancer. However, discrepancies and disputes over EMT and EMT research have also grown over time. EMT is defined as transition between two cellular states, but it is unanimously agreed by EMT researchers that (1) neither the epithelial and mesenchymal states nor their regulatory networks have been clearly defined, (2) no EMT markers or factors can represent universally epithelial and mesenchymal states, and thus (3) EMT cannot be assessed on the basis of one or a few EMT markers. In contrast to definition and proposed roles of EMT, loss of epithelial feature does not cause mesenchymal phenotype, and EMT does not contribute to embryonic mesenchyme and neural crest formation, the key developmental events from which the EMT concept was derived. EMT and MET, represented by change in cell shapes or adhesiveness, or symbolized by EMT factors, are biased interpretation of the overall change in cellular property and regulatory networks during development and cancer progression. Moreover, EMT and MET are consequences rather than driving factors of developmental and pathological processes. The true meaning of EMT in some developmental and pathological processes, such as fibrosis, needs re-evaluation. EMT is believed to endow malignant features, such as migration, stemness, etc., to cancer cells. However, the core property of cancer (tumorigenic) cells is neural stemness, and the core EMT factors are components of the regulatory networks of neural stemness. Thus, EMT in cancer progression is misattribution of the roles of neural stemness to the unknown mesenchymal state. Similarly, neural crest EMT is misattribution of intrinsic property of neural crest cells to the unknown mesenchymal state. Lack of basic rationale in EMT and related concepts urges re-evaluation of their significance as general rules for understanding developmental and pathological processes, and re-evaluation of their significance in scientific research.

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.

Our studies have demonstrated that cell tumorigenicity and pluripotent differentiation potential stem from neural stemness or a neural ground state, which is defined by a regulatory network of higher levels of machineries for basic cell physiological functions, including cell cycle, ribosome biogenesis, protein translation, spliceosome, epigenetic modification factors, reprogramming factors, etc., in addition to the neural stemness specific factors. These machineries and neural stemness factors mostly play cancer-promoting roles. It can be deduced that differentiation requires the repression of neural ground state and causes the reduction or loss of neural ground state and thus tumorigenicity in tumorigenic cells. Formerly, we showed that neuronal differentiation led to reduced tumorigenicity in tumorigenic cells. In the present study, we show that non-neural pro-differentiation factors, such as GATA3, HNF4A, HHEX, and FOXA3 that specify mesodermal or/and endodermal tissues during vertebrate embryogenesis, suppress tumorigenicity via repression of neural stemness and promotion of non-neural property in tumorigenic cells. Mechanistically, these transcription factors repress the transcription of neural enriched genes and meanwhile activate genes that specify non-neural properties via direct binding to the promoters of these genes. We also show that combined expression of HHEX and FOXA3 suppresses tumorigenesis effectively in the AOM/DSS model of colitis-associated cancer. We suggest that targeting the property of neural stemness could be an effective strategy for cancer therapy.

Characterization of cancer cells and neural stem cells indicates that tumorigenicity and pluripotency are coupled cell properties determined by neural stemness, and tumorigenesis represents a process of progressive loss of original cell identity and gain of neural stemness. This reminds of a most fundamental process required for the development of the nervous system and body axis during embryogenesis, i.e., embryonic neural induction. Neural induction is that, in response to extracellular signals that are secreted by the Spemann-Mangold organizer in amphibians or the node in mammals and inhibit epidermal fate in ectoderm, the ectodermal cells lose their epidermal fate and assume the neural default fate and consequently, turn into neuroectodermal cells. They further differentiate into the nervous system and also some non-neural cells via interaction with adjacent tissues. Failure in neural induction leads to failure of embryogenesis, and ectopic neural induction due to ectopic organizer or node activity or activation of embryonic neural genes causes a formation of secondary body axis or a conjoined twin. During tumorigenesis, cells progressively lose their original cell identity and gain of neural stemness, and consequently, gain of tumorigenicity and pluripotency, due to various intra-/extracellular insults in cells of a postnatal animal. Tumorigenic cells can be induced to differentiation into normal cells and integrate into normal embryonic development within an embryo. However, they form tumors and cannot integrate into animal tissues/organs in a postnatal animal because of lack of embryonic inducing signals. Combination of studies of developmental and cancer biology indicates that neural induction drives embryogenesis in gastrulating embryos but a similar process drives tumorigenesis in a postnatal animal. Tumorigenicity is by nature the manifestation of aberrant occurrence of pluripotent state in a postnatal animal. Pluripotency and tumorigenicity are both but different manifestations of neural stemness in pre- and postnatal stages of animal life, respectively. Based on these findings, I discuss about some confusion in cancer research, propose to distinguish the causality and associations and discriminate causal and supporting factors involved in tumorigenesis, and suggest revisiting the focus of cancer research.

Tumorigenic cells are similar to neural stem cells or embryonic neural cells in regulatory networks, tumorigenicity and pluripotent differentiation potential. By integrating the evidence from developmental biology, tumor biology and evolution, I will make a detailed discussion on the observations and propose that neural stemness underlies two coupled cell properties, tumorigenicity and pluripotent differentiation potential. Neural stemness property of tumorigenic cells can hopefully integrate different observations/concepts underlying tumorigenesis. Neural stem cells and tumorigenic cells share regulatory networks; both exhibit neural stemness, tumorigenicity and pluripotent differentiation potential; both depend on expression or activation of ancestral genes; both rely primarily on aerobic glycolytic metabolism; both can differentiate into various cells/tissues that are derived from three germ layers, leading to tumor formation resembling severely disorganized or more degenerated process of embryonic tissue differentiation; both are enriched in long genes with more splice variants that provide more plastic scaffolds for cell differentiation, etc. Neural regulatory networks, which include higher levels of basic machineries of cell physiological functions and developmental programs, work concertedly to define a basic state with fast cell cycle and proliferation. This is predestined by the evolutionary advantage of neural state, the ground or initial state for multicellularity with adaptation to an ancient environment. Tumorigenesis might represent a process of restoration of neural ground state, thereby restoring a state with fast proliferation and pluripotent differentiation potential in somatic cells. Tumorigenesis and pluripotent differentiation potential might be better understood from understanding neural stemness, and cancer therapy should benefit more from targeting neural stemness.

Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) is a leading cause of cancer‐related deaths, and improving prognostic accuracy is vital for personalised treatment approaches, especially in the context of immunotherapy. In this study, we constructed an artificial intelligence (AI)‐driven stemness‐related gene signature (SRS) that deciphered LUAD prognosis and immunotherapy response. CytoTRACE analysis of single‐cell RNA sequencing data identified genes associated with stemness in LUAD epithelial cells. An AI network integrating traditional regression, machine learning, and deep learning algorithms constructed the SRS based on genes associated with stemness. Subsequently, we conducted a comprehensive exploration of the connection between SRS and both intrinsic and extrinsic immune environments using multi‐omics data. Experimental validation through siRNA knockdown in LUAD cell lines, followed by assessments of proliferation, migration, and invasion, confirmed the functional role of CKS1B, a top SRS gene. The SRS demonstrated high precision in predicting LUAD prognosis and likelihood of benefiting from immunotherapy. High‐risk groups classified by the SRS exhibited decreased immunogenicity and reduced immune cell infiltration, indicating challenges for immunotherapy. Conversely, in vitro experiments revealed CKS1B knockdown significantly impaired aggressive cancer phenotypes like proliferation, migration, and invasion of LUAD cells, highlighting its pivotal role. These results underscore a close association between stemness and tumour immunity, offering predictive insights into the immune landscape and immunotherapy responses in LUAD. The newly established SRS holds promise as a valuable tool for selecting LUAD populations likely to benefit from future clinical stratification efforts.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) possesses a small but significant population of cancer stem cells (CSCs) thought to play a role in its invasiveness, recurrence, and metastasis. The CSCs display transcriptional profiles for multipotency, self-renewal, tumorigenesis, and therapy resistance. There are two possible theories regarding the origin of CSCs in the context of neural stem cells (NSCs); i.e., NSCs modify cancer cells by conferring them with cancer-specific stemness, or NSCs themselves are transformed into CSCs due to the tumor environment created by cancer cells. To test the theories and to investigate the transcriptional regulation of the genes involved in CSC formation, we cocultured NSC and GBM cell lines together. Where genes related to cancer stemness, drug efflux, and DNA modification were upregulated in GBM, they were downregulated in NSCs upon coculture. These results indicate that cancer cells shift the transcriptional profile towards stemness and drug resistance in the presence of NSCs. Concurrently, GBM triggers NSCs differentiation. Because the cell lines were separated by a membrane (0.4 µm pore size) to prevent direct contact between GBM and NSCs, cell-secreted signaling molecules and extracellular vesicles (EVs) are likely involved in reciprocal communication between NSCs and GBM, causing transcription modification. Understanding the mechanism of CSC creation will aid in the identification of precise molecular targets within the CSCs to exterminate them, which, in turn, will increase the efficacy of chemo-radiation treatment.

Ewing tumors (ET) are highly malignant, localized in bone or soft tissue, and are molecularly defined by ews/ets translocations. DNA microarray analysis revealed a relationship of ET to both endothelium and fetal neural crest. We identified expression of histone methyltransferase enhancer of Zeste, Drosophila, Homolog 2 (EZH2) to be increased in ET. Suppressive activity of EZH2 maintains stemness in normal and malignant cells. Here, we found EWS/FLI1 bound to the EZH2 promoter in vivo, and induced EZH2 expression in ET and mesenchymal stem cells. Down-regulation of EZH2 by RNA interference in ET suppressed oncogenic transformation by inhibiting clonogenicity in vitro. Similarly, tumor development and metastasis was suppressed in immunodeficient Rag2⁻/⁻γC⁻/⁻ mice. EZH2-mediated gene silencing was shown to be dependent on histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity. Subsequent microarray analysis of EZH2 knock down, HDAC-inhibitor treatment and confirmation in independent assays revealed an undifferentiated phenotype maintained by EZH2 in ET. EZH2 regulated stemness genes such as nerve growth factor receptor (NGFR), as well as genes involved in neuroectodermal and endothelial differentiation (EMP1, EPHB2, GFAP, and GAP43). These data suggest that EZH2 might have a central role in ET pathology by shaping the oncogenicity and stem cell phenotype of this tumor.

Stemness and apoptosis may highlight the dichotomy between regeneration and demise in the complex pathway proceeding from ontogenesis to the end of life. In the last few years, the concept has emerged that the same microRNAs (miRNAs) can be concurrently implicated in both apoptosis-related mechanisms and cell differentiation. Whether the differentiation process gives rise to the architecture of brain areas, any long-lasting perturbation of miRNA expression can be related to the occurrence of neurodevelopmental/neuropathological conditions. Moreover, as a consequence of neural stem cell (NSC) transformation to cancer stem cells (CSCs), the fine modulation of distinct miRNAs becomes necessary. This event implies controlling the expression of pro/anti-apoptotic target genes, which is crucial for the management of neural/neural crest-derived CSCs in brain tumors, neuroblastoma, and melanoma. From a translational point of view, the current progress on the emerging miRNA-based neuropathology therapeutic applications and antitumor strategies will be disclosed and their advantages and shortcomings discussed.