Survival and self-renewing capacity of breast cancer initiating cells during fractionated radiation treatment
- Chann Lagadec†1,
- Erina Vlashi†1,
- Lorenza Della Donna1,
- YongHong Meng1,
- Carmen Dekmezian1,
- Kwanghee Kim1 and
- Frank Pajonk2Email author
© Lagadec et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 3 December 2009
Accepted: 16 February 2010
Published: 16 February 2010
Recent data indicate a hierarchical organization of many solid cancers, including breast cancer, with a small number of cancer initiating cells (CICs) that have the ability to self-renew and exhibit multi-lineage potency. We, and others, have demonstrated that CICs in breast cancer and glioma are relatively resistant to ionizing radiation if compared to their non-tumorigenic counterparts. However, the extent of the remaining self-renewing capacity of CICs after fractions of radiation is currently unknown. We hypothesized that CICs, in contrast to their non-tumorigenic counterparts, not only survive fractions of ionizing radiation but also retain the CIC phenotype as defined by operational means.
We used two marker systems to identify breast CICs (CD24-/low/CD44high, or lack of proteasome activity) and performed sphere-forming assays after multiple clinical fractions of radiation. Lineage tracking was performed by membrane staining. Cell cycle distribution and RNA content were assessed by flow cytometry and senescence was assessed via β-galactosidase staining.
We demonstrated that irradiated CICs survived and retained their self-renewal capacity for at least four generations. We show that fractionated radiation not only spared CICs but also mobilized them from a quiescent/G0 phase of the cell cycle into actively cycling cells, while the surviving non-tumorigenic cells were driven into senescence.
The breast CIC population retains increased self-renewal capacity over several generations and therefore, we conclude that increases in the number of CICs after sublethal doses of radiation have potential clinical importance. Prevention of this process may lead to improved clinical outcome.
Recent experimental data provide evidence for a hierarchical structure of many solid cancers [1–7] including breast cancer . Using surface markers, a small population of highly tumorigenic breast cancer initiating cells (CICs) has been prospectively identified, which exhibits a cancer stem cell phenotype, thus being able to self-renew and to give rise to progeny of multiple different lineages of differentiated cells . We previously demonstrated that this population of cells was relatively resistant against ionizing radiation if compared to their non-tumorigenic counterparts . Two other groups have confirmed our data [10, 11]. Additionally, Han and Crowe recently identified a side population in MCF7 and T47D breast cancer cells , which initiated tumors in vivo and was more resistant to ionizing radiation than the non-side population. Furthermore, we, and others, have reported that the population of CICs increases during the course of fractionated radiation [9, 13]. However, the extent of the remaining self-renewing capacity of this CIC population after fractions of radiation is currently unknown. This information is crucial for evaluating the significance of radiation resistance of CICs.
Breast CICs were first prospectively identified in patient derived samples by Al-Hajj et al. using antibodies against ESA, CD24, and CD44 , and later validated for established breast cancer cell lines . The labeling of CICs using antibodies or enzyme substrates  has been an invaluable tool to study the features of CICs. Nevertheless, both techniques have disadvantages, which make it difficult to study living CICs in-situ or in-vivo. To overcome this problem, we recently developed an imaging system for breast and glioma CICs that allows for identification and tracking of CICs without the need for antibodies or exogenous enzyme substrates . It is based on the observation that CICs lack 26S proteasome function. In cell lines engineered to express a fusion protein between the fluorescent protein ZsGreen and the C-terminal degron of murine ornithine decarboxylase (cODC), CICs can be identified via fluorescent imaging due to the accumulation of ZsGreen-cODC protein while non-tumorigenic cells degrade this protein immediately after translation.
In the present study, we hypothesized that CICs, in contrast with their non-tumorigenic counterparts, not only survive fractions of ionizing radiation but also retain the CIC phenotype as defined by operational means and may even become more aggressive than populations of non-irradiated control CICs. Using two distinct marker systems to identify breast CICs (CD24-/low/CD44high, or lack of proteasome activity) and sphere forming assays, developed by Dontu et al., to enrich for normal mammary stem cells/progenitors , we demonstrated that cycling cell populations were enriched for CICs after irradiation with fractions of 2 or 3 Gray (Gy). Irradiated CICs not only survived but also retained their self-renewal capacity for at least four generations. CICs were resistant to radiation-induced apoptosis and were arrested in the G2 phase of the cell cycle, while non-tumorigenic cells were prone to radiation-induced apoptosis. Finally, in lineage-tracking experiments we observed that fractionated radiation not only spared CICs but also mobilized CICs from a quiescent/G0 phase of the cell cycle into actively cycling cells, while the surviving non-tumorigenic cells were driven into senescence.
Materials and methods
Human MCF-7 and T47D breast cancer cell lines were purchased from American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA). MCF-7-ZsGreen-cODC and T47D-ZsGreen-cODC were obtained as described in Vlashi et al. . All cells were cultured in log-growth phase in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) (supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) and penicillin and streptomycin cocktail (Sigma Aldrich)) and were grown in a humidified incubator at 37°C with 5% CO2.
Cells were irradiated at room temperature with a 137Cs laboratory irradiator (Mark I, JL Shephard, San Fernando, CA, USA) at a dose rate of 4.95 Gy/minute for the time required to apply a prescribed dose. For fractionated radiation of 2 or 3 Gy, cells were irradiated on eight or five consecutive days, respectively. The single dose was applied at the same time as the last dose of fractionated radiation. Corresponding controls were sham irradiated. Cell proliferation, number of stem cells, and sphere forming assays were performed 48 h after the last fraction of radiation.
After fractionated radiation, CD24 and CD44 expression was analyzed in cells derived from monolayer cultures following incubation with trypsin-EDTA and passage through a 40 μm sieve. At least 105 cells were pelleted by centrifugation at 500 × g for five minutes at 4°C, resuspended in 10 μL of monoclonal mouse anti-human CD24-fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) antibody (BD Pharmingen, San Jose, CA, USA) and a monoclonal mouse anti-human CD44-phytoerythrin (PE) antibody (BD Pharmingen), and incubated for 20 minutes at 4°C. Corresponding isotype control APC-conjugated antibodies (BD Pharmingen) and isotype control PE-conjugated antibodies (BD Pharmingen) were used as controls (Additional file 1). Three independent experiments were performed.
We had previously shown  that breast cancer stem cells could be identified via their low proteasome activity, which can be assessed by analyzing ZsGreen-cODC protein accumulation. For 48 h after the last fraction of radiation, cells were trypsinized and ZsGreen-cODC expression was assessed by flow cytometry. Cells were defined as ZsGreen-cODC positive if the fluorescence in the FL-1H channel exceeded the fluorescence level of 99.9% of the empty vector-transfected control cells (Additional file 2).
Six day-old MCF-7-ZsGreen-cODC mammospheres were transferred on glass slides by centrifugation in a cytocentrifuge (Cytospin, Shandon Elliot, London, UK) and fixed with 4% formaldehyde. The cells were incubated in blocking buffer (2% Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA), in phosphate buffer saline (PBS)) and antibodies (anti-CD44 APC-conjugated antibody (BD Pharmingen) and anti-CD24 PE-conjugated antibody (BD Pharmingen)) were added for one hour at room temperature. Hoechst 33342 (5 μg/mL, Invitrogen) solution was added for nuclear staining. The slides were visualized with an Olympus IX71 inverted fluorescent microscope. Grayscale images were merged using the ImageJ software  and displayed in false colors.
Sphere forming capacity
After irradiation, cells were trypsinized and plated in selection media (pheno-red free DMEM-F12, 0.4% BSA (Sigma), 10 ml of B27 supplement (Invitrogen)/500 ml of media, 5 μg/ml bovine insulin (Sigma), 4 μg/ml heparin (Sigma), 20 ng/ml fibroblast growth factor 2 (bFGF, Sigma) and 20 ng/ml epidermal growth factor (EGF, Sigma)) into 96-well plates, ranging from 1 to 256 cells/well. Growth factors, EGF, bFGF and heparin, were added every three days, and the cells were allowed to form spheres for 20 days. The number of spheres formed per well was then counted and expressed as a percentage of the initial number of cells plated. Cells were also plated in selection media into 100 mm suspension dishes at 10,000 cells/ml, and allowed to form spheres for 15 days, these cells were used for secondary sphere forming experiments. The same protocol was used after the secondary sphere forming assays, in order to plate cells for analyzing the formation of tertiary and quaternary spheres. Three independent experiments were performed.
Determining the number of cell divisions
Cell cycle and G0 phase analysis
After fractionated radiation, cells were stained according to Darzynkiewicz et al. . Briefly, cells were trypsinized and rinsed with HBSS/1 mM HEPES/10% FBS. DNA was stained with 1 μg/ml Hoechst 33342 in HBSS/1 mM HEPES/10% FBS solution/50 μM Verapamil, 45 minutes at 37°C, followed by RNA staining with 3.3 μM pyronin Y (PY) for 45 minutes at 37°C. Finally, cells were rinsed with HBSS/1 mM HEPES/10% FBS solution, and resuspended in PBS. At least 100,000 cells were analyzed by flow cytometry. ZsGreen-cODC expression was analyzed in FL-1H, PY in FL-2H and Hoechst 33342 in FL-5A.
β-galactosidase staining for cellular senescence
β-galactosidase-positive cells were detected by the method of Dimri et al. . Briefly, cells were washed two times with PBS and then fixed with PBS/2% formaldehyde/0.2% glutaraldehyde solution for five minutes. Cells were then washed again two times with PBS. After the last wash, staining solution was added (1 mg/ml 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-inolyl-β-D-galactoside (X-gal) (20 mg/ml stock, in dimethyformamide), 40 mM citric acid/sodium phosphate, pH 6.0, 5 mM potassium ferrocyanide, 5 mM potassium ferricyanide, 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM MgCl2) and cells were incubated in a 37°C for 18 h. After incubation, cells were washed two times with PBS and visualized with an Olympus IX71 inverted fluorescent microscope. The percentage of β-galactosidase-positive cells was counted in 10 random fields at 20× magnification.
All data are represented as means +/- standard error means (SEMs). A P-value of ≤ 0.05 in a paired two-sided Student's t-test was considered to indicate statistically significant differences.
CICs population in breast cancer retain self-renewal capacity and multi-lineage potency after fractionated radiation
Comparison of fractionated irradiation effect on CIC population, CICs markers and corresponding sphere forming capacity.
% of CICs (+/- SEM)
Sphere forming capacity
Sphere forming capacity
% of CICs (+/- SEM)
3.01 (+/- 0.61),
9.4 (+/- 0.5),
12.32 (+/- 2.01),
2.17 (+/- 0.47),
6.54 (+/- 1.95),
P = 0.095
13.49 (+/- 1.32),
P = 0.01
15.25 (+/- 3.2),
P = 0.661
3.70 (+/- 0.52),
P = 0.051
2 × 2
8.04 (+/- 1.47),
P = 0.036
10.76 (+/- 0.96),
P = 0.137
17.54 (+/- 4.15),
P = 0.096
3.13 (+/- 0.53),
P = 0.252
2 × 3
4 × 2
8.56 (+/- 1.21),
P = 0.020
11.85 (+/- 1.81),
P = 0.198
17.93 (+/- 2.33),
P = 0.051
6.73 (+/- 1.33),
P = 0.141
3 × 3
6 × 2
9.10 (+/- 1.04),
P = 0.029
11.85 (+/- 1.48),
P = 0.035
24.52 (+/- 4.50),
P = 0.048
11.26 (+/- 2.06),
P = 0.091
4 × 3
8 × 2
4.78 (+/- 0.34)
P = 0.229
11.85 (+/- 1.27),
P = 0.002
25.37 (+/- 5.2),
P = 0.039
12.64 (+/- 1.91),
P = 0.044
5 × 3
CD24 Low/- /CD44Hight
% of CICs (+/- SEM)
Sphere forming capacity
Sphere forming capcity
% of CICs (+/- SEM)
0.35 (+/- 0.06),
9.46 (+/- 2.20),
3.35 (+/- 2.01),
2.47 (+/- 0.88),
0.34 (+/- 0.03),
P = 0.868
6.74 (+/- 1.31),
P = 0.014
3.13 (+/- 2.69),
P = 0.231
4.31 (+/- 1.13),
P = 0.029
2 × 2
0.43 (+/- 0.08),
P = 0.471
13.76 (+/- 4.01),
P = 0.146
6.48 (+/- 3.14),
P = 0.091
9.72 (+/- 2.81),
P = 0.068
2 × 3
4 × 2
2.04 (+/- 0.12),
P = 0.001
12.74 (+/- 4.58),
P = 0.157
9.96 (+/- 2.33),
P = 0.049
16.09 (+/- 5.57),
P = 0.103
3 × 3
6 × 2
0.68 (+/- 0.04),
P = 0.007
17.99 (+/- 5.17),
P = 0.027
12 (+/- 2.66),
P = 0.033
24.06 (+/- 4.15),
P = 0.025
4 × 3
8 × 2
0.29 (+/- 0.01),
P = 0.449
18.92 (+/- 5.83),
P = 0.018
7.65 (+/- 2.55),
P = 0.055
21.133 (+/- 1.87),
P = 0.015
5 × 3
In contrast to the biphasic pattern of the primary sphere formation in irradiated MCF-7 cells (Figure 2A), we observed a dose-dependent increase in primary sphere formation in T47D cells, with a two-fold (P = 0.018) maximum increase at the highest dose of 8 × 2 Gy (Figure 2B). T47D secondary sphere-formation was also dose-dependent. In contrast to MCF-7 cells, which achieved a maximal effect in secondary sphere formation at 2 × 2 and 8 × 2 Gy (1.9- and 1.8-fold increase respectively), sphere formation in T47D was maximal after 6 × 2 Gy (2.2-fold increase, P = 0.037) (Figure 2B).
Interestingly, even though the primary sphere-forming capacity was comparable for non-irradiated control cells from both cell lines, we failed to propagate spheres from MCF-7 cells beyond the second generation (Figure 2A, C). However, we were able to generate tertiary and quaternary spheres from the T47D cells. Tertiary sphere formation in this cell line continued to show a significant increase when cells were treated with 2 × 2 or 4 × 2 Gy (P = 0.001 and P = 0.006 respectively). All other radiation treatments had no effect on tertiary sphere formation (Figure 2B). Finally, in the fourth generation of spheres, radiation-induced increases in the number of CICs were lost and the mean frequency of CICs was 2.16% regardless of the radiation dose applied (Figure 2B).
Low proteasome activity characterizes a sub-population of CD24-/low/CD44highbreast CICs
Recently, we demonstrated that glioma and breast cancer initiating cells present a lack of 26S proteasome activity . Therefore, the MCF-7 and T47D cell lines were engineered to express the fusion protein between the green fluorescent protein ZsGreen and the C-terminus of the murine orthinine decarboxylase (cODC). The latter is recognized by the 26S proteasome in an ubiquitin-independent manner, leading to instant degradation of the fusion protein in cells with proteasome activity but accumulates in CICs, which lack proteasome activity.
In the following studies, we used this intrinsic property of breast CICs to accumulate fluorescent ZsGreen-cODC protein to identify and track breast CICs.
Fractionated radiation increases the population of CICs with low proteasome activity in breast cancer
In order to confirm the effect of fractionated radiation on CICs observed using CD24-/low/CD44high CICs markers, we used the intrinsic low proteasome activity of CICs to re-evaluate the effect of fractionated radiation on CICs in a heterogeneous monolayer population.
MCF-7 and T47D monolayer cultures, stably expressing ZsGreen-cODC protein were treated with daily fractions of 3 Gy for a total dose of 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, or 15 Gy or a single dose of 8.5 Gy, corresponding to the biological equivalent for 5 × 3 Gy, and the percentage of ZsGreen-cODC+ CICs was analyzed 48 hours after the last dose.
To compare the effect of 5 × 3 Gy with a biological equivalent single dose, we also irradiated cells with a single dose of 8.5 Gy at the same time the last fraction of radiation was applied. Interestingly, while a fractionated regimen of 5 × 3 Gy increased the CICs population, the biologically equivalent single dose of 8.5 Gy did not affect this population (MCF-7: P = 0.5; T47D: P = 0.12) (Figure 4B, D), indicating that tumorigenic (CICs) and non-tumorigenic cells have the same sensitivity to single high doses of radiation.
Next, in order to compare the effect of daily 2 Gy and 3 Gy fractions treatment on CICs population, we performed sphere-forming capacity assays with cells irradiated with 3 Gy daily fractions or a single dose of 8.5 Gy. Forty-eight hours after the last dose of radiation, cells were trypsinized and plated at clonal densities in serum-free conditions. After three weeks, mammospheres were counted to evaluate the effect of 3 Gy daily fractions on sphere formation/number of CICs. Again, 4 × 3 or 5 × 3 Gy induced a maximum increase in MCF-7 sphere formation by 3.6-fold (P = 0.033) and a two-fold increase in T47D (P = 0.039) (Figure 4C, E, Table 1). In contrary, a single dose of 8.5 Gy did not affect sphere formation in MCF-7 (P = 0.134) or in T47D (P = 0.098) (Figure 4C, E).
Fractionated radiation induced proliferation of a subpopulation of CICs
In untreated cells (0 Gy), PKH26 mean fluorescence analysis of the total population indicated that MCF-7 and T47D underwent 4.3 (+/- 0.46) and 4.85 (+/- 0.58) divisions respectively (Figure 5B, E, red bars at 0 Gy) in a seven-days time period, which compares well to the published doubling times of these cell lines . Non-tumorigenic ZsGreen-cODC- cells on average divided 4.88 (+/- 0.58) and 5.03 (+/- 0.54) times in seven days, in MCF-7 and T47D respectively (Figure 5B, E, blue bars at 0 Gy), while the population of CICs ZsGreen-cODC+ showed a much lower number of divisions in this time period with a mean of 2.16 (+/- 0.45) and 2.3 (+/- 0.5) divisions in MCF-7 and T47D respectively (Figure 5B, E, green bars at 0 Gy), during the seven days of the experiment, which was consistent with the slow-cycling nature of CICs .
Treatment with fractionated radiation resulted in a dose-dependent increase in the mean fluorescence (Figure 5A, D) indicating declining numbers of cell divisions, from 4.3 (+/- 0.46) and 4.85 (+/- 0.58) divisions at 0 Gy to 2.22 (+/- 0.44, P = 0.012) and 3.14 (+/- 0.62, P = 0.009) divisions at 5 × 3 Gy in MCF-7 and T47D, respectively (Figure 5B, E). While the decrease in the number of divisions of non-tumorigenic ZsGreen-cODC- cells mostly reflected the decrease in proliferation of the total population of cells (MCF-7: P = 0.028; T47D: P = 0.008) (Figure 5B, E, red and blue bars), the proliferation of CICs was not significantly affected by fractionated irradiation, with 1.4 (+/- 0.34, P = 0.052) divisions occurring in MCF-7 cells, and 2.2 (+/- 0.71, P = 0.67) divisions in T47D (Figure 5B, E, green bars).
To further understand how the CICs population could increase after radiation, while their proliferation rate remained the same, we analyzed the radiation response of non-dividing CICs (less than or equal to one division) by evaluating the number of ZsGreen-cODC+ cells which did not lose the PKH26 staining after radiation by flow cytometry (Figure 5C, F). While the non-dividing MCF-7 CICs population remained unchanged with a non-significant increase from 11.64% to 15.23% (P = 0.11) (Figure 5C), the non-dividing T47D CICs population increased from 9.99% to a maximum of 36.23% (P = 0.003) in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 5F), thus indicating a differential radiation responses of CICs of different origin.
Fractionated radiation eliminates non-tumorigenic cells and mobilizes CICs from G0 phase into the cell cycle
Cells in the G0 phase can be distinguished from cells in the G1 phase of the cell cycle based on their RNA content. Cells in G0 phase have the same quantity of DNA as cells in G1 phase but lower amounts of RNA, indicating lower transcriptional cell activity. In order to assess the number of cells in G0, cells were stained with a specific dye for DNA, Hoechst 33342, and a specific dye for RNA (pyronin Y), 48 h after the last dose of radiation and analyzed by flow cytometry.
Fractionated radiation induces senescence of non-tumorigenic cells but not of CICs
Cells in G0 phase can be in a quiescent or senescent state. While CICs left the G0 state after radiation to enter the cell cycle, the proportion of surviving non-tumorigenic cells in the G0 phase of the cell cycle increased after radiation. In order to distinguish between senescence of non-tumorigenic cells and quiescence, we performed a specific senescence staining via a β-galactosidase activity assay . Therefore, cells were stained for β-galactosidase activity using the X-Gal substrate 48 h after the last dose of fractionated radiation.
In this study we used two different, and independent, CICs markers (CD24-/low/CD44high and lack of proteasome activity) to confirm our previous observation  that breast cancer cells are highly enriched for CICs after fractionated radiation. We demonstrated an increase in sphere forming capacity, an operational measure of the number of CICs , in cells derived from irradiated breast cancer cultures from two different cell lines, MCF-7 and T47D (Figures 1 and 2; Figure 4B, C, E, F). Since introduced by Dontu et al. , sphere forming capacity assays have been widely used to assess self-renewal capacity of cancer stem cells. In theory, a growing sphere derives from a single stem cell. Nevertheless, initially spheres may also derive in part from early progenitors and clumping, thereby introducing errors in the determination of the absolute number of CICs. In order to make our results more accurate, we performed subsequent generations of sphere forming assays. Importantly, in T47D cells the radiation-induced increase in self-renewal capacity was maintained for at least three generations. This ability of breast CICs to retain self-renewal capacity after fractionated radiation was in agreement with our previous studies reporting that fractionated radiation of U87MG xenographs in nude mice increased the Ki-67 labeling index of glioma CICs and increased the ratio of CICs/non-tumorigenic cells in tumors 72 h after the last radiation dose . Our data are also consistent with a previous study demonstrating that glioma CICs were responsible for the re-growth of glioma xenographs after radiation treatment, and that the surviving CD133+ glioma CICs maintained self-renewal capacity .
We previously reported that the relative radioresistance of breast CICs resulted from their increased ability to scavenge radiation-induced free radicals, which ultimately cause DNA damage after irradiation , an observation reproduced by others independently . While this relative radioresistance can explain relative increases in CICs after radiation, it fails to provide an explanation for absolute increases in CIC numbers. To address this question we focused on the effects of fractionated radiation on proliferation and cell cycle distribution of breast CICs. Here we demonstrate that, consistent with a radiation-induced cell cycle arrest, the mean number of divisions performed by non-tumorigenic breast cancer cells decreased after fractionated radiation, while fractionated radiation did not affect the overall proliferation rate of CICs. Instead, the proliferation rate of the CICs population remained constant regardless of the radiation dose applied (Figure 5B, E). There were two possible explanations for this observation: 1) all the CICs divided at the same rate, and this rate is not affected by fractionated radiation, and 2) one sub-population of CICs stopped to divide after fractionated radiation, while the other sub-population divided faster, resulting in a constant overall proliferation rate of the entire CIC population. Our results indicate that breast CICs of different origin show differential responses to fractionated irradiation with MCF-7 CICs being homogenously radioresistant (Figure 5C), while CICs from the T47D cell line respond heterogeneously (Figure 5F). Furthermore, cell cycle analyses revealed that a substantial number of non-tumorigenic cells were apoptotic after a 5 × 3 Gy (Figure 6) and that a large proportion of the surviving non-tumorigenic cells underwent senescence (Figure 8). In contrast, CICs did not show radiation-induced apoptosis. A sub-population of CICs was arrested in the G2 phase of the cell cycle after fractionated radiation (Figure 6A, B), explaining the increase in the number of non-dividing CICs (Figure 5F). Additionally, the percentage of CICs in the G0 phase significantly decreased after radiation treatment. This indicated that induction of quiescence or senescence was not an explanation for the radiation-induced increase of the non-dividing sub-population of CICs. Furthermore, our data suggest that after radiation treatment a sub-population of CICs, which were initially quiescent (G0), were recruited into the cell cycle. Sham and Durand have previously demonstrated that fractionated irradiation of spheroid cells (now recognized to be enriched for CICs) presented an un-modified growth fraction but a dramatic decrease of cell loss factor, 48 h after the last dose . Considering our observations this decrease of cell loss factor, at the 48 h time point, could be explained by the enrichment for and the dramatic increase in proliferation of the CIC population, which could mask the loss of non-tumorigenic cells caused by induction of apoptosis.
While we and others previously described the radiation resistance phenotype of CICs, the extent of the remaining self-renewal capacity of the CIC population after fractions of radiation was unknown. In this study, we demonstrated that radiation resistant CICs in breast cancer are not only viable after treatment with fractionated radiation, but retain their self-renewal capacity over several generations. Most importantly, the increase of their self-renewal capacity indicated that irradiated CICs may become more aggressive than populations of non-irradiated CICs. Therefore, since the breast CIC population contains a population of cells with the capacity to re-populate a tumor, which could be more tumorigenic and metastatic after treatment, it would be very important that this population of breast cancer cells be targeted during fractionated radiation. Such a strategy may offer a novel approach to improve patient outcome in the future.
Bovine Serum Albumin
cancer initiating cells
Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium
epidermal growth factor
fetal bovine serum
fibroblast growth factor 2
Hank's buffered salt solution
Phosphate Buffer Saline
standard error means
fused ZsGreen fluorescent protein and C-terminal degron of ornithine decarboxylase.
EV was supported by a training grant from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioEngineering (2 T32 EB002101-31). This work was supported by grants from the California Breast Cancer Research Program (13IB-0003, 15NB-0153) to FP.
- Eramo A, Lotti F, Sette G, Pilozzi E, Biffoni M, Di Virgilio A, Conticello C, Ruco L, Peschle C, De Maria R: Identification and expansion of the tumorigenic lung cancer stem cell population. Cell Death Differ. 2008, 15: 504-514. 10.1038/sj.cdd.4402283.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fang D, Nguyen TK, Leishear K, Finko R, Kulp AN, Hotz S, Van Belle PA, Xu X, Elder DE, Herlyn M: A tumorigenic subpopulation with stem cell properties in melanomas. Cancer Res. 2005, 65: 9328-9337. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1343.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hemmati HD, Nakano I, Lazareff JA, Masterman-Smith M, Geschwind DH, Bronner-Fraser M, Kornblum HI: Cancerous stem cells can arise from pediatric brain tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 15178-15183. 10.1073/pnas.2036535100.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ricci-Vitiani L, Lombardi DG, Pilozzi E, Biffoni M, Todaro M, Peschle C, De Maria R: Identification and expansion of human colon-cancer-initiating cells. Nature. 2007, 445: 111-115. 10.1038/nature05384.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schatton T, Murphy GF, Frank NY, Yamaura K, Waaga-Gasser AM, Gasser M, Zhan Q, Jordan S, Duncan LM, Weishaupt C, Fuhlbrigge RC, Kupper TS, Sayegh MH, Frank MH: Identification of cells initiating human melanomas. Nature. 2008, 451: 345-349. 10.1038/nature06489.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Singh SK, Clarke ID, Terasaki M, Bonn VE, Hawkins C, Squire J, Dirks PB: Identification of a cancer stem cell in human brain tumors. Cancer Res. 2003, 63: 5821-5828.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Singh SK, Hawkins C, Clarke ID, Squire JA, Bayani J, Hide T, Henkelman RM, Cusimano MD, Dirks PB: Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature. 2004, 432: 396-401. 10.1038/nature03128.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Al-Hajj M, Wicha MS, Benito-Hernandez A, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF: Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 3983-3988. 10.1073/pnas.0530291100.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Phillips TM, McBride WH, Pajonk F: The response of CD24(-/low)/CD44+ breast cancer-initiating cells to radiation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006, 98: 1777-1785.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Diehn M, Cho RW, Lobo NA, Kalisky T, Dorie MJ, Kulp AN, Qian D, Lam JS, Ailles LE, Wong M, Joshua B, Kaplan MJ, Wapnir I, Dirbas FM, Somlo G, Garberoglio C, Paz B, Shen J, Lau SK, Quake SR, Brown JM, Weissman IL, Clarke MF: Association of reactive oxygen species levels and radioresistance in cancer stem cells. Nature. 2009, 458: 780-783. 10.1038/nature07733.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Woodward WA, Chen MS, Behbod F, Alfaro MP, Buchholz TA, Rosen JM: WNT/beta-catenin mediates radiation resistance of mouse mammary progenitor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007, 104: 618-623. 10.1073/pnas.0606599104.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Han JS, Crowe DL: Tumor initiating cancer stem cells from human breast cancer cell lines. Int J Oncol. 2009, 34: 1449-1453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vlashi E, Kim K, Lagadec C, Donna LD, McDonald JT, Eghbali M, Sayre JW, Stefani E, McBride W, Pajonk F: In vivo imaging, tracking, and targeting of cancer stem cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009, 101: 350-359. 10.1093/jnci/djn509.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Fillmore CM, Kuperwasser C: Human breast cancer cell lines contain stem-like cells that self-renew, give rise to phenotypically diverse progeny and survive chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2008, 10: R25-10.1186/bcr1982.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Ginestier C, Hur MH, Charafe-Jauffret E, Monville F, Dutcher J, Brown M, Jacquemier J, Viens P, Kleer CG, Liu S, Schott A, Hayes D, Birnbaum D, Wicha MS, Dontu G: ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell. 2007, 1: 555-567. 10.1016/j.stem.2007.08.014.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Cos S, Sanchez-Barcelo EJ: Melatonin inhibition of MCF-7 human breast-cancer cells growth: influence of cell proliferation rate. Cancer Lett. 1995, 93: 207-212. 10.1016/0304-3835(95)03811-A.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dontu G, Abdallah WM, Foley JM, Jackson KW, Clarke MF, Kawamura MJ, Wicha MS: In vitro propagation and transcriptional profiling of human mammary stem/progenitor cells. Genes Dev. 2003, 17: 1253-1270. 10.1101/gad.1061803.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- ImageJ software. [http://rbs.info.nih-gov/ij/]
- Darzynkiewicz Z, Juan G, Srour EF: Differential staining of DNA and RNA. Curr Protoc Cytom. 2004, Chapter 7 (Unit 7): 3-PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dimri GP, Campisi J: Molecular and cell biology of replicative senescence. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1994, 59: 67-73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vlashi E, McBride WH, Pajonk F: Radiation responses of cancer stem cells. J Cell Biochem. 2009, 108: 339-342. 10.1002/jcb.22275.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bao S, Wu Q, McLendon RE, Hao Y, Shi Q, Hjelmeland AB, Dewhirst MW, Bigner DD, Rich JN: Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response. Nature. 2006, 444: 756-760. 10.1038/nature05236.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sham E, Durand RE: Cell kinetics and repopulation mechanisms during multifraction irradiation of spheroids. Radiother Oncol. 1998, 46: 201-207. 10.1016/S0167-8140(97)00193-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.