[Frontiers in Bioscience 16, 815-837, January 1, 2011]
Epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypic switchings modulate cell motility in metastasis
Alan Wells1, Yvonne L Chao1, Jelena Grahovac1, Qian Wu1, Douglas A Lauffenburger2
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ABSTRACT
The most ominous stage of cancer progression is metastasis, or the dissemination of carcinoma cells from the primary site into distant organs. Metastases are often resistant to current extirpative therapies and even the newest biological agents cure only a small subset of patients. Therefore a greater understanding of tumor biology that integrates properties intrinsic to carcinomas with tissue environmental modulators of behavior is needed. In no aspect of tumor progression is this more evident than the acquisition of cell motility that is critical for both escape from the primary tumor and colonization. In this overview, we discuss how this behavior is modified by carcinoma cell phenotypic plasticity that is evidenced by reversible switching between epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes. The presence or absence of intercellular adhesions mediate these switches and dictate the receptivity towards signals from the extracellular milieu. These signals, which include soluble growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular matrix embedded with matrikines and matricryptines will be discussed in depth. Finally, we will describe a new mode of discerning the balance between epithelioid and mesenchymal moevement.
2. INTRODUCTION
Acquisition of a mesenchymal-like cell phenotype is one of the striking hallmarks of progression to dissemination of most all carcinomas. The one exception is ovarian carcinoma wherein spread throughout the peritoneal cavity occurs with an epithelial cell phenotype, but seeding of distant organs does coincide with cell dedifferentiation. This cancer-associated Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) has been strongly correlated with metastasis and shortened life expectancy of many carcinomas (1). As a number of interventions in animal models of tumor dissemination show, at least partially, a causal role for EMT in dissemination (2, 3), the question arises as to the cell behavior enabled. Herein, we will discuss the evidence that this EMT promotes tumor cell motility as the key event in progression.
Carcinogenesis involves a combination of mainly genetic events that generate a tumor cell. Though the source of that cancer is still uncertain for most carcinomas-for instance, whether the cancer derives from a stem cell compartment or by alteration of a differentiated epithelial cell- but a series of mutations endows the cell with an ability to proliferate inappropriately to the situation. However, these intrinsic changes do not make the tumor cell fully autonomous. It is now appreciated that the tumor is a multicellular tissue in which non-cancer cells and the matrix modulate carcinoma behavior.
Further changes are needed for the cancer cell to disseminate from its origin. Despite many queries, the transition to this morbid and mortal stage appears not to be mutational. Rather, epigenetic events, possibly driven by the tumor microenvironment, provide the cellular changes needed for dissemination. This suggests that unlike the mutational events that mark carcinogenesis, the alterations for dissemination are potentially reversible (4). Thus, we need to review the cellular aspects that mark escape from the ectopic site.
Carcinoma cell dissemination requires the acquisition of cellular properties and behaviors that enable the cells to escape from the original site, breach the surrounding barrier basement membranes, and survive in ectopic locales. There are both qualitative and quantitative distinctions between localized invasion and distant metastasis. In the former, the cancer and support cells in the tumor may move together as a syncytium into the adnexia, providing not only for contiguous vascular support but also for a quasi-orthotopic signaling environment. However, in metastasis the cancer cells are generally accepted as solo travelers that must fully break from the primary mass and establish themselves in a truly foreign milieu; this is in addition to surviving the stresses of transiting vascular conduits. For cell intrinsic properties this dissemination requires quantitative degrees of changes.
The acquisition of the mesenchymal phenotype in carcinoma-associated EMT is a hallmark of carcinoma dissemination. Central to this is the downregulation of cell-cell adhesions mediated by E-cadherin (though N-cadherin is often found upregulated in many carcinomas allowing for cell heterotypic adhesion to endothelial cells for extravasation). This loss of cell adhesion may be partial to continue to provide syncytial behavior such as in localized invasion noted often in prostate carcinoma (5), or it may be complete to generate distant metastases such as in breast carcinomas (6).
The behaviors common to both forms of dissemination involve breachment of the basement membrane and active migration into an ectopic milieu. The initial steps involve recognition and remodeling of the matrix. While proteolytic activity is required for transmigrating this barrier (7, 8), it appears not to be a wholesale degradation but rather a selective processing (9, 10). Further, most carcinoma cells, whether invasive or not, present copious levels of proteases so that the regulation appears to be more of activation or localized effect rather than de novo production (11, 12).
What is qualitatively different is autocrine and paracrine stimulation of cell motility. The loss of E-cadherin during EMT not only allows for cells to move away from the tumor mass but also is accompanied by a breakdown in the apical-basal polarity that separated apically secreted growth factors, often those for the EGFR and c-Met receptors, from their cognate receptors presented on the basolateral faces (Figure 1). This allows for autocrine stimulation of these motogenic receptors. This intrinsic cell behavior, by and large restricted to invasive and metastatic carcinoma cells (and cells during wound repair), is the focus of our discussion of the role of cell migration in carcinoma progression and how that reciprocally ties in with phenotypic switching.
3. DISRUPTION OF CELL ADHESION IN EMT ENABLES CELL MOTILITY
One of the main distinguishing characteristics between epithelial and mesenchymal cells is that epithelial cells are linked by cell adhesion molecules to form contiguous sheets. These intercellular physical interactions not only limit motility away from the connected cells but also establish apico-basal polarity that regulates signaling between cells and with the surrounding environment. In contrast, mesenchymal cells exhibit transient and changeable front-back polarity and present loose and readily tractable intercellular contacts. This dictates that epithelioid cells act within a tissue whereas the cells in the mesenchymal state may disseminate.
There are four main types of cell-cell junctional molecules that connect epithelial cells. Tight junctions provide a barrier for solutes and small molecules along the apical surface of cells. Adherens junctions provide strong mechanical cohesion through connection to the actin cytoskeleton, but also control key signaling pathways through sequestration of catenins. Desmosomes also mediate intercellular contacts, but through anchorage to intermediate filaments. Gap junctions form intercellular junctions that allow the passage of ions and small molecules. In addition, integrins are cell-substratum adhesion molecules that are located on the basal surface of epithelial cells and facilitate interactions between the ECM and the cytoskeleton. Members of all these different families of cell adhesion molecules act in concert to contribute to a fully polarized epithelial phenotype.
3.1. EMT and aberrant regulation of adhesion molecules at the primary site
Loss of cell-cell adhesions is a critical step during EMT that allows for physical detachment of individual or groups of cancer cells from the primary tumor. This also allows for autocrine activation of signaling pathways that enable migration (Figure 2). EMT is most discernable at the invasive front of primary carcinomas and has been visualized as individual or a group of cells migrating into the surrounding tissue (13). Downregulation of cell adhesion molecules has been repeatedly documented to be associated with invasion and poor prognosis in many carcinomas. Therefore, cell adhesion molecules are an important mediator of the transformation between epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes during EMT in metastasis. The disruption of cell adhesion and consequent induction of motility is a critical step in metastatic progression.
3.1.1. Tight Junctions
Tight Junctions maintain the apical-basal polarity of epithelial sheets. Epithelial cells are most commonly found as sheets of cells that line the surfaces of organs. An important function of epithelia is to serve as a barrier to maintain tissue homeostasis. The apical distribution of tight junctions serves as a "gate" to limit the transport of ions, pathogens and small molecules and as a "fence" to restrict lipid and membrane proteins along the apico-basolateral axis (14). The net result is that most growth factor receptors are restricted to the basolateral surfaces while the epithelial-expressed growth factors are secreted through the apical side, with the tight junctions preventing autocrine activation.
A fully polarized epithelial phenotype requires the cooperation of tight junctions, adherens junctions, and desmosomes. Dissolution of tight junctions is an early event in EMT so it is not surprising that several tight junction components are disregulated in cancer progression. Expression of occludin in breast cancer cells decreases invasion and migration in vitro and in vivo (15). Similarly, levels of claudins are downregulated in invasive carcinomas and exogenous introduction of claudins increases adhesion and prevents migration and invasion (16, 17). The Par complex regulates tight junction signaling and its expression is also altered in invasive carcinomas. Not only is complex member Par6 required for TGFbeta-dependent EMT but also disruption of this complex perturbs apico-basal polarity and stimulates chemotactic migration by stabilizing front-back polarity (18, 19).
3.1.2. Cadherins
Cadherins are a family of transmembrane glycoproteins that mediate calcium-dependent homophilic interactions. The classical members most widely studied are E-cadherin, expressed in epithelial cells; N-cadherin, R-cadherin, P-cadherin, and OB-cadherin (cadherin-11), expressed by mesenchymal cells; and VE-cadherin, expressed by endothelial cells. The structures of these cadherins differ mainly in the extracellular domain, which is responsible for the adhesive function. However, the cytoplasmic domain is highly conserved and binds to beta-catenin and p120, which through binding to alpha-catenin link the cadherins to the actin cytoskeleton. Importantly, beta-catenin is a nuclear transcriptional co-activator for the mitogenic LEF/TCF family of transcription factors, so sequestration of this molecule by cadherins prevents activation of downstream signaling pathways (20).
As the only cadherin expressed by epithelial cells, E-cadherin has been described as the "caretaker" of the epithelial phenotype and thus loss of E-cadherin is central to EMT (21). Downregulation of E-cadherin expression has also been correlated to the progression of most carcinomas (22, 23). Loss of E-cadherin is sufficient to increase the metastatic behavior of noninvasive breast cancer cells and is a rate-limiting step of the transition from adenoma to invasive carcinoma (24, 25). However, in this mouse model a complete EMT was not necessary, as vimentin and other mesenchymal markers were not expressed. Furthermore, use of a dominant-negative E-cadherin that resulted in the subcellular localization and prevented intercellular contacts was sufficient to induce the invasive phenotype, but expression of a constitutively active beta-catenin was not (26).
E-cadherin is considered an invasion suppressor, as transfection of invasive E-cadherin-negative carcinoma cell lines with E-cadherin cDNA decreases invasiveness, which can be reversed after treating transfected cells with an anti-E-cadherin function blocking antibody (27). Perturbation of E-cadherin expression can promote cell motility in several ways. Physical adhesion promoted by E-cadherin prevents the dissociation and migration of cells. Alternatively, E-cadherin down-regulation results in release of beta-catenin from the membrane, where it can then act as a transcription co-activator in signaling pathways such as Wnt. Studies using E-cadherin mutants suggest that the beta-catenin binding function and not adhesion is responsible for the invasion suppression (28). In addition, loss of E-cadherin alone is not sufficient to drive beta-catenin signaling, so it is likely that E-cadherin regulates the threshold of beta-catenin signaling (29).
Although down-regulation of E-cadherin has been shown to be sufficient to induce the changes in cell behavior downstream of EMT, in some cases expression of the mesenchymal cadherins can be sufficient or dominant. Downregulation of E-cadherin is often, but not always, accompanied by an upregulation of N-cadherin suggesting a cadherin switch in EMT (30). However, colocalization of both E-cadherin and N-cadherin has been observed (31). In addition, forced expression of N-cadherin in the absence of changes in E-cadherin has been shown to induce migration and invasiveness of cancer cells either through FGFR signaling or through interactions with N-cadherin expressed by the surrounding stromal cells. Similarly, expression of R-cadherin in BT-20 breast cancer cells leads to downregulation of E- and P-cadherins and induction of cell motility through sustained activation of Rho GTPases (32). Although seemingly contradictory, these studies suggest that E-cadherin and the mesenchymal cadherins may induce motility via different mechanisms intrinsic to the disparate functions of the cadherins.
3.1.3. Desmosomes
Desmosomes define the third class of cell-cell adhesion junctions. Desmosomal components are also commonly downregulated in carcinomas and associated with the presentation of distant metastases, especially in cancers of the head and neck (32). Desmosomes are intercellular adhesion molecules that are anchored to the intermediate filaments in the cytoskeleton. They are composed of the desmosomal cadherins that have an extracellular domain, which mediates cell-cell adhesion, and a cytoplasmic domain, which interacts with plaque proteins that bind to intermediate filaments. Loss of the plaque proteins plakophilin-1 and -3 has been shown to increase cell motility and metastasis of carcinoma cells (33, 34). Transfection of desmosomal components desmocollin, desmoglein, and plakoglobin into L929 fibroblasts resulted in intercellular adhesion and suppression invasion into collagen gels even in the absence of the assembly of full desmosome complexes with linkage to intermediate filaments (35). These studies suggest that desmosomes mainly act to prevent cell motility through physical cohesion.
3.1.4. Gap Junctions
Gap Junctions are cell adhesion complexes that mediate intercellular communication, rather than adhesion, through the exchange of ions and small molecules. These aqueous pores are composed of hexamers of connexins (Cx), which form a membrane-spanning pore. There are over 20 subtypes of connexins, with most variability in the subtypes occurring in the cytoplasmic domain (36). There is evidence that gap junctions may perform channel-independent functions, including effects on cell migration. Inhibition of cell motility of prostate carcinoma and melanoma cells is correlated with increased localization of Cx43 at cell-cell contacts (37). In contrast, transfection of Cx43 into HeLa and glioma cells increases invasion in vitro and metastasis of melanoma cells in vivo (38-40). There is still much controversy over whether connexin expression is pro- or anti-migratory and whether the function of gap junctions differs depending on the stage of the tumor.
3.1.5. Integrins
Integrins are cellular adhesion molecules that couple the cell to the extracellular matrix. Not only do they provide anchorage to the actin cytoskeleton but also transmit signals, based on both clustering and integrin isoforms. Integrins are composed of alpha and beta subunits that form a heterodimeric complex to determine specificity to ligands. Some integrin heterodimers exhibit great promiscuity by binding to several different ECM components while others may recognize only unique ligands. Epithelial cells typically express the beta1 subunit, which recognizes collagen and laminin, and the epithelial-specific alpha6beta4, alphavbeta3 integrins (41). The integrins are critical for providing the substratum adhesion during motility. When integrins are knocked down, motility commensurate with the mesenchymal transformation is abrogated demonstrating the enabling function of these "adhesion" molecules.
Several studies have documented the differential expression, distribution, and ligand affinity of integrins in preneoplastic lesions and carcinomas. Expression of integrins and therefore adhesion to ECM is regulated by TGF-beta, which is a potent inducer of EMT (42). Induction of TGF-beta in carcinoma cells activates the mesenchymal gene expression profile and promotes tumor invasion and spread (43, 44). TGF-beta downstream targets Smads activate the expression of integrins and focal adhesion-associated proteins. Integrin signaling, through both alphav, beta1 and beta5 integrins, has been shown to be necessary for TGF-beta induction of EMT in mammary epithelial cells as addition of a beta1 neutralizing antibody or beta5 siRNA prevented invasion in vitro (45, 46). Beta5 integrin blockade did not influence mesenchymal gene expression such as the downregulation of E-cadherin, but prevented the formation of actin stress fibers with two-point focal attachment. The formation of these stress fibers may be necessary for the generation and maintenance of tension and force needed for cell migration (46). Transformation of mammary epithelial cells with the Fas oncogene induces EMT and the upregulation of integrins alpha2, alpha3, alpha5, alpha6, and beta1 and consequently increased adhesion to matrix components collagen, fibronectin and laminin 1. EMT and integrin expression changes in these Ras transformed cells is maintained by an autocrine TGFbeta1 loop (47). Besides changes in expression level, localization of integrins can also contribute to the capacity for cell migration in EMT. For example, expression of the alpha6beta4 integrin in normal mammary epithelial cells is localized in hemidesmosomes to connect intermediate filaments with laminin in the basement membrane. However, in invasive breast carcinoma cells, alpha6beta4 is localized to the lamellopodia of invading cells (48).
3.2. Loss of cell polarity leads to dysfunctional growth factor signaling
As described in the preceding sections, besides tethering cells together to prevent the detachment and migration of individual cells, tight and adherens junctions also serve to establish tissue polarity. This is a critical regulatory mechanism, as most all epithelial cells secrete growth factors from their apical surfaces, and also express the cognate receptors, but on their basolateral surfaces (Figure 1). When cell adhesion molecules are disrupted in carcinoma-associated EMT, this organization is lost, and the growth factor receptors that are located basolaterally can now come into unrestricted contact with their ligands. Furthermore, the growth factors now have access to the basement membrane, and stromal compartment, and can affect changes in the tumor microenvironment to further promote motility. For example, induction of EMT through TGFbeta1 expression normally leads to increased ECM production and deposition and reformation of the basement membrane that stops the autocrine loop. However, in tumors this feedback loop is disrupted and TGFbeta1 is produced continuously.
4. MOTILITY IN ESCAPE FROM PRIMARY SITE
Following the loss of cellular adhesion that allows for detachment from the primary tumor mass, tumor cells must penetrate through the surrounding tissue and basement membrane in order to disseminate. Intravital imaging has revealed that within primary tumors there are two categories of cells-very motile single cells and slower collectively moving cells-and the mode of the cell motility determines spread through the blood or lymphatic system (49). Induction of EMT leads to a program of epigenetic changes to confer a migratory and invasive phenotype (50). In addition, tumor-surrounding stroma is actively remodeled by proteolytic degradation of the extracellular matrix (ECM), which causes the release of growth factors and other molecules that provide feedback signals for further active cell migration (Figure 3). Dysregulation of matrix metalloproteinases contributes to tumor cell migration through multiple mechanisms: releasing individual cells by cleaving junction proteins, cleaving ECM to allow movement of the cells, unmasking cryptic sites with new roles in tumor cell migration, and releasing growth factors 'deposited' within the ECM, such as b-FGF, TGF-beta1, PDGF, HB-EGF/Amphiregulin, and IFN-gamma (51). Signaling towards motility is achieved both by receptors that modulate adhesion and provide basal traction and receptors for cytokines and growth factors (52).
4.1. Motility signaled from soluble factors
Cancer cells accumulate intrinsic/autonomous behaviors that allow for dysregulated growth, but despite these genetic mutations, they remain responsive to external signals in the form of growth factors. It appears that it is these signals that drive both EMT and the subsequent migration leading to dissemination that occurs after neoplastic transformation generates the primary tumor growth. In cancer invasion, growth factor-induced autocrine, paracrine, and matricrine loops (Figure 3) coordinately contribute to tumor progression. Paracrine loops function in both directions, with cancer cells driving stromal cells to alter the microenvironment and subsequent signals released by the stromal cells promoting cancer cell migration. In vitro, a large number of growth factors alone can induce both EMT and cell migration (EGF, VEGF, TGF-beta, SDF) (53). Below, we will highlight a few growth factors and other soluble factors that are unequivocally implicated in cancer cell invasion.
4.1.1. EGF
EGF and its receptor system is the most-extensively described growth factor system for induced cell motility. Autocrine EGFR activating loops are present in most all carcinomas, with the produced ligand being EGR or TGFalpha, depending on quantiative balance between receptor and ligand (54, 55). The motogenic pathways activated by EGFR activity have been delineated (56). PLC-gamma is immediately downstream of the EGFR motogenic pathway (57) and cancer cell migration in response to EGF is promoted by PI3K and PLC dependent mechanisms (58). Phosphorylation and inactivation of FAK (59) and increase in urokinase and MMP9 are just some of the downstream effectors in this cascade.
4.1.2. HGF
HGF, mesenchymal derived cytokine and its receptor c-Met are overexpressed or amplified in many types of human cancer. This is a second receptor tyrosine kinase that not only drives cell scattering and induces EMT, but also actuates motility. Activation of c-Src, PI3K and PKC are crucial for HGF-induced cell motility and are accompanied by increased MMP activity (60). In breast cancer, activated c-Met receptor can even activate EGFR through c-Src activation (61). The role of HGF signaling in cancer motility is further underscored by presence of somatic c-Met mutations in metastatic carcinomas that confer a motile-invasive phenotype in cancer cells (62). Of interest, HGF is a pro-growth factor that is activated only upon cleavage in the extracellular milieu. The uPA system that activates HGF is upregulated by EGFR signaling in prostate carcinoma, suggesting a further amplification of cell dissemination (63).
4.1.3. IGF-1
The Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) receptor axis promotes cell motility by activating AKT and MAPK pathways (64). In addition to the above pathways, IGF-1 also promotes cell migration by phosphorylation of FAK and paxilin. It has been shown that IGF-1 stimulates cell migration coordinately with ECM integrin stimulation: IGF-1 can bind to vitronectin, which is upregulated at the leading edge of migrating cells, and IGF-1-VN- IGF-Binding protein complexes promote cell migration by sustained activation of the PI3K/AKT pathway (65). IGF-1 induced migration is mediated by an increase in MMP-9 activity and alphavbeta5 integrin activation (66). IGF-1 induced PI3K/AKT signaling axis also promotes expression of MT1-MMP and synthesis of MMP2 and facilitates invasion of tumor cells (67).
4.1.4. TGF-beta
TGF-beta is another growth factor that alone can induce epithelial to mesenchymal transition. TGF-beta may have a role in the initial dissemination process. Fast moving single cells that are able to intravasate express high levels of TGFbeta (49). It is believed that transient high TGFbeta activity in the primary tumor enables high metastatic efficiency at the primary site and that decreased TGFbeta activity at the secondary site allows the resumption of the cell proliferation program (68). In addition, paracrine TGF-beta1 signaling induces ECM deposition (collagens, fibronectin, tenascin, elastin) by myofibroblasts, thus promoting a pro-migratory microenvironment. This signaling system is distinct from the classical growth factor receptors noted above as it signals via serine/threonine kinases and SMAD intermediaries. There are three ligand isoforms with TGF-beta1 being the isoform linked to cancer dissemination.
4.1.5. Cytokines/chemokines
Cytokines/chemokines are soluble factors most often implicated in the inflammatory response, though they also signal to and from formed elements of tissues. Many cancers show evidence of active inflammation that appears to be supportive rather than anti-neoplastic (69-71). Cytokines, small proteins originally found secreted by specific cells of the immune system, carry signals locally between cells to trigger inflammation and respond to infections, and have also been revealed to be involved in tumor initiation and progression. In this section, the discussion will be mainly focused on migration signals from the primary site via cytokine receptors. One of the best described examples is that of the tumor associated macrophages (TAM) that appear to chemotax breast cancer cells in a reciprocal paracrine signaling with the cancer cells involving CSF-1 and EGF.
4.1.6. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha)
Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) was firstly identified as an anti-tumor cytokine by inducing immune-mediated necrosis of cancers (71). In recent years, evidence has indicated that TNF-alpha can also play an important role in promoting cancer cell migration and invasion (72). TNF-alpha is expressed in a variety of cancers, including lymphoma, breast, ovarian, pancreatic, renal, colon and prostate cancers (73-79). TNF-alpha induces breast and ovarian cancer cell invasion through activation of the NF-kappaB and JNK signaling pathways, following by elevation of MMP production in cancer cells (80, 81). Studies in ovarian cancer cells indicate that TNF-alpha also enhances cell migration and metastasis through induction of CXCR4 chemokine receptor via a NF-kappaB-dependent-manner (82). How CXCR4 regulates cancer cell migration will be discussed in the following context. Furthermore, TNF-alpha can also promote breast cancer cell trans-endothelial migration through upregulation of endothelial lectin-like oxidized-low-density lipoprotein receptor-1 (LOX-1) (83). Interestingly, both tumor- and macrophage-produced TNF-alpha play an important role in the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) via repression of E-cadherin expression (84, 85).
4.1.7. SDF-1/CXCL12
SDF-1/CXCL12, the homeostatic chemokine stromal cell-derived factor-1, is the only chemokine for the widely expressed cell surface receptor CXCR4 (86). The CXCR4-CXCL12 axis regulates the migration of cancer cells to metastatic sites in many carcinomas (87-92). Blockade of CXCR4 signals using chemical antagonists, antibodies, or interfering RNAs inhibits tumor dissemination and metastasis in animal models (87, 93-96). The expression of CXCR4 can be regulated by VEGF and TNF in many cancers (82, 97). With binding of CXCL12 to CXCR4, the receptor activates phospholipase C (PLC) and phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K) and inhibits adenylyl cyclase by different G-protein subunits (98). Signaling from PI3K induces the activation of PAK, Akt and RhoGTPase, which play important roles in cell polarization and actin polymerization involved in cell migration. On the other hand, PLC activates calcium release and protein kinase C (PKC), followed by Erk activation leading to cell migration (99-101). In addition, CXCR4-CXCL12 signals also direct invasion of human basal carcinoma cells and prostate cancer cells by the up-regulation of MMP-13 and MMP-9 respectively (102, 103). Cancer cell survival signals induced by CXCR4-CXCL12 axis will not be discussed here.
4.2. Motility signaled from the matrix
The functional connection between properties of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and normal cell behavior in tissue homeostasis is well documented (104). Though cancer cells are mutated and their responses dysregulated, they remain responsive to these same signals. Tumor progression is characterized by changes in ECM structure and composition and these changes influence the type of cell migration by providing ligands and a structural frame (105). Apart from growth factors embedded within the ECM, modulation of migrational mode is achieved by varying the expression of adhesive and anti adhesive ECM proteins and proteolytic cleavage of the present ECM components.
Various ECM proteins with potential pro-migratory roles are upregulated in cancerous tissues: collagens I and IV, laminins, tenascin C, fibronectin and vitronectin. The ability to alter the stromal microenvironment correlates with the tumor invasive potential (106, 107). Cancer cells induce gene expression changes in fibroblast and other stromal cells to produce ECM molecules that promote tumor migration and increase MMP production to loosen the stiffness of the matrix (108,109). Depending on the cell surface receptors present, cancer cells may utilize different ECM components to improve migration (110, 111). In addition, proteolytically cleaved fibronectin, laminin and collagen compete with their non-cleaved counterparts for adhesion sites and facilitate cell detachment (112).
While ECM signaling through integrins provides a sensor for the mechanical properties of the ECM and basal adhesion and traction upon which growth factor pro-migratory signaling can function, another class of ECM molecules - matrikines and matricryptines - has emerged as crucial to cancer motility (113). Matrikines posses low binding affinity for growth factor receptors but are often present in high valency, which increases avidity for the receptor and enables signaling. These domains, to-date, are found in collagen, laminin, decorin and tenascin C and they enable persistent non-degradable signals. Presentation of growth factor-like sequences within constrained ECM results in unique signaling with preferentially activating pro-migratory cascades compared to soluble ligands (114).
Below, we will highlight a few of the ECM proteins that are dysregulated during epithelial to mesenchymal transition and contribute to cell motility signaling through both integrin signaling and tyrosine kinase receptors.
4.2.1. Collagen I
Collagen I is one of the main structural components of ECM, but fibrillar collagen not only serves as a substratum for integrins but also signals via DDR receptors. Up-regulation of collagen I in metastatic adenocarcinomas is mainly derived from the tumor stroma (115) and contributes to the increased stiffness of the tissue (116). Cancer cells tend to migrate toward the regions of the increased stromal stiffness (117), but loosening of the fibrilar collagen enables cancer invasion (118). MT1-MMP expression levels, the matrix-metalloproteinase mainly responsible for collagen I degradation, correlate with tumor invasiveness. The enhanced migration of cultured tumor cells in the presence of collagen degradation products and not intact collagen suggests a role for collagen fragmentation in tumor invasion (119, 120). This dual nature of collagen function is still to be understood, but it likely relates to quantitative balances of signals.
Collagen I can promote migration via alpha1beta2, alpha5beta3 or alphavbeta3 integrin signaling and via discoidin domain receptors (DDR), a class of tyrosine kinase receptors (121, 122). DDRs are upregulated in many types of cancer (123) and in vitro overexpression of DDRs increases migration of cancer cells (124, 125). It has been shown that collagen I overexpression promotes motility by upregulation of N-cadherin expression through alpha2beta1 and DDR1 signaling, which underlies the role of collagen I in EMT (126, 127).
4.2.2. Laminin 5
Laminin 5 (Ln-5) is one of the major components of the basement membrane. While epithelial cell adhesion to basement membrane occurs via integrin adhesion to laminin-5 (Ln-5), cleavage of Ln-5 by MT1-MMP (128) and MMP-2, both upregulated in tumors, reveals cryptic pro-migratory sites (129). These pro-migratory sites were shown to be EGF-like repeats that stimulate breast cancer cell migration in an EGFR-dependent manner (130). Upregulation of Ln-5 was observed in many carcinomas, especially at the invasive front (131), which further supports role of the Ln-5 in dissemination from the primary site.
4.2.3. Tenascin C
Tenascin C (TN-C) upregulation in invasive carcinomas recalls the similarities of cancer with embryogenesis and wound repair (onco-fetal-wound connection). In normal physiological TN-C establishes interactions between the epithelium and the mesenchyme during embryonic development, tissue differentiation and wound repair and its expression is transient and strictly regulated (132). Persistent high levels of TN-C are present in various tumor tissues, including brain, bone, prostate, intestine, lung, skin, and breast (133) and are produced by both epithelial tumor and stromal cells (134). TN-C expression can be induced by various growth factors and cytokines (EGF, TGF-beta, TNF-alpha, IFN-gamma, IL) and by mechanical stress and hypoxia, all present in the tumor environment and its upregulation coincides with situations requiring either proliferation or migration (135).
TN-C is a multidomain molecule, and FNIII-like repeats of TN-C can interfere with integrin signaling, thereby enhancing cell proliferation (136), but soluble TN-C induces loss of focal adhesions and increase in cell migration by binding to annexin II on cell surface through an alternatively spliced FNIII- like domain (137). In glioma cells, tenascin C promotes migration via alpha2beta1 integrins and has a positive effect on cell migration on fibronectin (138). Another way in which TN-C promotes invasion is by stimulating the production of matrix metalloproteinases: in chondrosarcoma, breast cancer and glioblastoma exogenous addition of the large splice variant of TN-C or induction of its endogenous expression increases production of matrix metalloproteinases and invasion in in vitro assays (139-141).
Most recently, it has been shown that tenascin C possesses a novel mode of matricrine signaling via cryptic growth factor receptor ligands in its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like repeats that are able to bind to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (142, 143) as well as subsequently activate EGFR-signaled pro-migratory cascades in fibroblasts (144). Unlike in the case of soluble EGFR ligands where binding induces internalization and degradation upon binding to receptor (145), the EGF-like repeats of TN-C cannot be internalized and constantly signal from the cell membrane (144). EGF-like domains of TN-C can be released by MMP cleavage (146), and in the face of increased MMP activity during epithelial to mesenchymal transition TN-C mediated EGFR motogenic signaling is very possible.
4.3. Avoidance of stop signals
The migration of tumor cells from their primary mass to ectopic sites not only requires positive signals as noted above, but also avoidance of inhibitor signals. This takes two steps. The first of which is to down-regulate the molecules/structures that maintain organ structure through EMT. However, this just sets the stage for motility and the question remains of whether there are 'stop motility' signals that need to be overcome.
Recently, a 'stop motility' axis has been described for physiological cell migration during wound healing (147-149). This operates via the CXCR3 receptor for the family of ELR-negative CXC chemokines. CXCR3 is activated by specific binding of the ligands, CXCL4/PF4, CXCL9/MIG, CXCL10/IP10, CXCL11/IP9/I-TAC, and the activation induces diverse cellular responses, including chemotactic migration and cell proliferation, or inhibition of migration and even endothelial death depending on the cell type (150). CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11 can be induced by INF while CXCL4 is released from alpha-granules of activated platelets during platelet aggregation (86). There are two splice variants of CXCR3: CXCR3A and CXCR3B, with CXCR3B containing a longer extracellular domain at N-terminus (151). CXCR3A mainly functions in promoting cell proliferation and motility (151, 152). However, CXCR3B, primarily found expressed on fibroblasts, endothelial and epithelial cells, inhibits cell growth and migration (151, 153). Some studies suggest that CXCR3A and CXCR3B play reciprocal roles through different G-protein coupling and lead distinct signaling transduction pathways (151, 154-156). Chemokines CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL11 bind to both CXCR3 isoforms, while CXCL4 only associates with CXCRB variant, possibly due to the extended extracellular domain of CXCR3B (151).
CXCR3 expression has been shown in melanoma, breast, colorectal and renal carcinomas (157-165). Several groups have reported that CXCR3 promotes breast, colon and melanoma cell metastasis, but has no effect on tumor growth in murine models (161, 164-166), suggesting that CXCR3 plays a more important role in tumor metastasis than in localized expansion in these types of cancers. However, how CXCR3 regulates tumor growth and metastasis remains unclear. Since the CXCR3B isoform was identified recently, only a few studies have focused on the functions of two CXCR3 splice variants in cancers. Renal cells treated with calcineurin inhibitors developed bigger tumors in nude mice by downregulation of CXCR3B, the expression of which correlates with tumor necrosis in renal cell carcinoma indicating that CXCR3A and CXCR3B may differentially influence cancer progression in vivo (160, 162),. The studies of CXCR3 isoforms in keratinocytes, fibroblasts and endothelial cells suggest that in CXCR3 pathways, both CXCR3A and CXCR3B activate PLCbeta by G proteins. PLCbeta hydrolyzes the highly phosphorylated lipid phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2), generating two products: inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP3), a universal calcium-mobilizing second messenger; and diacylglycerol (DAG), an activator of protein kinase C (PKC). IP3 induces intracellular calcium flux, which activates mu-calpain and results in cell motility induction. In addition to PLCbeta activation, there is another unique signal transduction path via CXCR3B through an accumulation of cAMP. With CXCR3B signals, PKA, known as cAMP-dependent protein kinase, is activated which inhibits m-calpain activation and blocks cell migration (151, 153-155, 167). Therefore, in these cells, CXCR3A is likely to play a role of pro-migratory and CXCR3B signals as an anti-migratory signal for cell migration. However, how these two CXCR3 splicing variants regulate cell migration and invasion in cancers remains unclear. Our recent results suggest that prostate cancer cells increase CXCR3A and reduce CXCR3B expressions to subvert a stop signal to a promotion signal in cell motility and regulation of invasion (168) (Figure 4).
5. MOTILITY AND PHENOTYPE AT THE TARGET ORGAN
Extravasation from the vascular conduit and ectopic seeding are necessary for metastatic dissemination. Both of these steps require not only cell motility or at least transmigration but also cell-cell interactions that enable the cancer cell to interact with its new and foreign milieu. Carcinoma cells, unlike hematopoietic cells, are arrested due to size prior to extravasation, allowing more time for interactions and juxtacrine signaling that enables the carcinoma cell to squeeze between the endothelial lining. Further, once the vascular wall is breached, carcinoma cells have been noted to move towards the post-capillary spaces of the tissue, as if seeking a lower oxygen environment. This may reflect the glycolytic metabolism of carcinomas. The mesenchymal phenotype of disseminating carcinomas promotes all these steps. However, ectopic seeding may be a unique situation that will be discussed below.
5.1. Expression of adhesion molecules during extravasation
Once a cancer cell has undergone EMT to enable migration and dissemination from the primary tumor, a new set of challenges must be overcome in order to establish metastatic foci at a secondary organ site. Although mechanical entrapment of circulating tumor cells occurs, tumor cells must then actively adhere to the vascular and extravasate, or migrate through the endothelium into organ parenchyma. The process of extravasation is similar to diapedesis, or transendothelial migration, exhibited by leukocytes in inflammation. During diapedesis, leukocytes adhere to and roll along the vasculature and then migrate between endothelial cells. The initial attachment of cells to the endothelium is mediated by a class of cell adhesion molecules called selectins, followed by stronger adhesions facilitated by immunoglobulin adhesion molecules, integrins and cadherins. Expression of many of these cell adhesion molecules are necessary for extravasation of disseminated carcinoma cells (169). These are not merely attachments, as signals between the endothelial and extravasating cells also direct retraction of endothelial cells that allows for active movement of invading cells through the vascular lining.
Selectins are a family of adhesion receptors that bind to carbohydrate ligands. E-selectins are expressed primarily by endothelial cells, P-selectins by platelets, and L-selectins by leukocytes. Presentation of selectin ligands on cancer cells is believed to be critical to extravasation. Interactions of circulating cancer cells with platelets and leukocytes via P- and L-selectins may support tumor cell embolic arrest and immune evasion in the vasculature (170). Cancer cell binding to E-selectin on endothelial cells is critical to the extravasation of colon cancer cells in metastatic colonization of the liver. Attachment of cancer cells to the endothelium and subsequent formation of liver metastases can be inhibited by addition of antibodies against E-selectin (171). Furthermore, selectin-dependent adhesion to endothelial cells results in morphology changes, reorganization of the cytoskeleton, and tyrosine phosphorylation, suggesting that these interactions are not limited to adhesion and may have downstream signaling effects (172). Differential expression of selectin ligands can also influence the site of metastastic colonization and account for organotropism (173).
Following the attachment initiated by selectin binding, adhesion between cancer cells and endothelial cells may be further strengthened by other adhesion molecules. Expression of immunoglobulin cell adhesion molecule (IgCAM) family members ICAM and VCAM has been observed in distant metastases of colorectal cancer but not in benign lesions, suggesting that these adhesion molecules are part of the EMT. The attachment of metastatic cells to endothelial cells and to extracellular matrix has been shown to be necessary for metastasis (174). The cadherin switch that occurs during EMT results in the down-regulation of E-cadherin and the upregulation of N-cadherin. Endothelial cells have been shown to express N-cadherin, so this switch may facilitate the heterotypic binding of cancer cells to endothelial cells. Indeed, N-cadherin has been shown to mediate attachment of MCF-7 breast cancer cells to endothelial monolayers as well as the transendothelial migration of melanoma cells (31, 175). Exogenous expression of Cx43 into MDA-MET, a breast cancer cell line variant that is highly metastatic to bone, results in increased adhesion to endothelial cells. Others have also shown similar heterophilic binding between cancer cells and endothelial cells in melanoma and lung cancer (39, 176). Finally, engagement of integrins expressed on cancer cells also contributes to adhesion to the microvasculature, as antibodies against beta1, alpha2, and alpha6 integrins inhibit adhesion to and migration through sinusoids in colorectal metastases to the liver (177). Although cancer cells may arrest in capillaries due to size-restriction, these studies show that adhesion to endothelial cells is nonetheless a required step of extravasation.
5.2. Adhesion molecules during colonization
Despite the wealth of studies describing EMT in carcinoma cells in vitro, and the strong clinical association between loss of expression of adhesion molecules and invasion and poor prognosis, metastases often present a well-differentiated, epithelial phenotype, bringing into question whether EMT is reversible. It is well described that signals from the primary tumor microenvironment greatly contribute to induction of EMT at the primary tumor, so dissemination not only removes cancer cells from these signals but also exposes them to new ones at the secondary organ site. Furthermore, post-extravasation survival has been shown to be the rate-limiting step of metastasis (178) and most cancers seem to display a propensity to metastasize to a set of organs that cannot be explained by circulation alone. Just as adhesion impacts the intravascular survival of a circulating cancer cell, intercellular adhesion between cancer cells and parenchymal cells can influence survival at the ectopic site (179).
While the mesenchymal phenotype that results from EMT may promote invasion and dissemination, there is evidence that metastatic colonization favors an epithelial phenotype. In bladder carcinoma, cell lines selected in vivo for increasing metastatic ability reacquire epithelial morphology and gene expression. When these cells are injected orthotopically, they show a decreased ability to colonize the lung when compared to the more mesenchymal parental cell line. However, when they are injected via intracardiac or intratibial inoculation, they show an increased ability to colonize the lung compared to the parental cell line (180). Therefore, while induction of EMT through loss of E-cadherin may promote tumor invasion and dissemination, MET through E-cadherin re-expression may allow the metastatic cancer cell to complete the last steps of the metastatic process and survive in the new organ (4, 6). When queried by pathology, a number of studies have shown that E-cadherin-expression metastases may derive from dedifferentiated, E-cadherin-negative primary carcinomas (181-185). Similarly, changes in beta-catenin localization have been documented (186) and a study of breast cancer found increased expression of Cx26 and Cx46 in metastatic lymph nodes compared to the primary tumors, with even positive foci originating from connexin-negative primaries (187).
The question remains whether the well-differentiated phenotype observed in metastases is the result of an expansion of epitheloid cells or from reversion of EMT - a transition back to an epithelial phenotype from a mesenchymal state (MErT). As E-cadherin down-regulation in invasive carcinomas is largely the result of promoter methylation and transcriptional repression, cancer cells can easily switch between epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes. Promoter hypermethylation leading to E-cadherin suppression is dynamic and reversible and therefore re-expression in response to changes in the microenvironment is possible (188). As evidence of the phenotypic plasticity of cancer cells, PC3 prostate cancer cells cultured in 3D Matrigel form cell-cell contacts, tight junctions, and decrease in mesenchymal gene expression, suggesting that a change in tissue architecture is enough to induce such morphological changes (189). Work in our lab has shown that coculture of breast and prostate carcinoma cells with hepatocytes results in the re-expression of E-cadherin (6). In vivo, mice inoculated with E-cadherin-negative MDA-MB-231 cells also form E-cadherin-positive lung metastatic foci (190, 191). The basement membrane component laminin-1 may participate in re-expression of E-cadherin at the metastatic site (192). While these studies show that reversion through MErT is possible, they do not rule out the possibility of expansion of epithelial cells that have detached from the primary tumor.
Selective cellular adhesion may account for some of the organotropism exhibited by cancers. For example, breast cancer typically metastasizes to the lung, liver, bone, and brain, while colorectal cancer may metastasize to a different set of organs. Mechanical entrapment in the first capillary bed encountered does not explain the characteristic pattern of metastases (169, 193). E-cadherin re-expression could explain the propensity for breast cancer cells to metastasize to lung and liver, both lined with epithelia. Aberrant expression of osteoblast cadherin, also known as OB-cadherin and cadherin-11, on breast and prostate cancer cells, increases metastases to the bone by increasing migration and intercalation with osteoblasts (194, 195). Furthermore, there may be changes in integrin profiles of metastatic cancer cells to adapt to the new ECM compositions of the target organ. One group has shown that human melanoma cells express alphavbeta3 integrins to adhere to lymph node vitronectin, while breast carcinoma cells utilize alpha3beta1 integrins to bind lymph node fibronectin (196). The alphavbeta3 integrin combination when expressed in breast and prostate cancer cells also contributes to bone-specific metastasis (197, 198). While selective growth and chemotactic honing are also critical mechanisms that contribute to site-specific metastasis, selective adhesion facilitated by these cell adhesion molecules is certainly important.
6. MIGRATION IN MESENCHYMAL AND EPITHELIAL PHENOTYPES
It is generally considered that EMT is associated with a significant gain in cell motility, due to loss of stable E-cadherin-based cell-cell junctions (199-201). However, disparities in motility behavior between epithelial and mesenchymal forms of a carcinoma tissue may be more nuanced and context-dependent than this dichotomous notion. Epithelia can exhibit efficient migratory behavior even while maintaining integrity of cell-cell interactions (202), and some invasive carcinomas penetrate adjacent connective tissue as multi-cellular aggregates (203). Thus, the issue at hand likely more concerns quantitative differences in key characteristics and molecular regulation of motility behavior for mesenchymal versus epithelial phenotypes rather than residing in a qualitative "on/off" motility switch. One interesting model, in fact, suggests that cooperation between epithelial and mesenchymal subpopulations of a tumor enhances distal metastasis because contributions of motility from both are needed in order to meet diverse challenges inherent in intravasation and extravasation (3).
The mechanistic basis for mesenchymal and epithelial motility must emphasize different balances among the underlying biophysical processes of membrane (lamellipod, filopod, and/or invadopod) protrusion, cell/matrix attachment formation, cytoskeletal contraction, cell deformation, and cell/matrix detachment, along with cell/cell adhesive interactions. Cell/cell adhesive interactions are more important for coordinated epithelial cell aggregate motility, whereas lamellipod protrusion should have greater influence on individual mesenchymal cell motility; in both cases, nonetheless, net cell locomotion can only arise from an appropriate balance of forces associated with the cohort of biophysical processes involved. Indeed, computational models have been proposed for purposes of quantifying the relevant balance of forces generating net locomotion in each of the categories (204, 205), although a direct comparison has not yet been undertaken.
With respect to particularly vital processes, invadopodia associated with focal proteolysis of the extracellular matrix are believed to be generally vital for tissue penetration and highly prevalent in mesenchymal cells (206, 207). Nonetheless, at least some mesenchymal cell types appear to undertake locomotion in an amoeboid manner independent of matrix proteolysis under certain circumstances (208). Detailed quantitative biophysical and biochemical analyses of cell and matrix properties are beginning to elucidate the conditions under which proteolysis is critical or not (10, 207, 209). As with motility per se, the role of proteolysis in mesenchymal versus epithelial migration may not be categorical, with it contributing to both kinds of invasion (210). A very recent study has identified a set of pseudopod-specific proteins associated with metastatic tumor cell lines, with a subset (AHNAK, septin-9, eIF4E, S100A11) found to be essential for actin polymerization and pseudopod protrusion related to in vitro invasiveness (211). More established promoters of carcinoma invasion and metastasis involved in control of lamellipod and invadopod formation, at least in breast tumors, include a splicing isoform of the Ena-VASP protein Mena (212, 213), cofilin (214), and cortactin (215), among others. Motility and invasion can be governed not only by processes occurring at the cell front, of course, but also by other processes transpiring at the cell rear; calcium-independent calpain-mediated deadhesion of cell/matrix attachments has been found to be a process rate-limiting for migration and invasion of prostate tumor cells (216). It should be noted that calpain activity may also be involved in another biophysical processes involved in invasive motility, by regulation of invadopodia (217).
Coordination of the underlying biophysical processes to produce cell migration depends intricately on integration of receptor-mediated signals distributed across multiple pathways in both a temporal and spatial manner (218), so it can be expected that mesenchymal and epithelial motility modes should exhibit diverse dependencies on various intracellular signals. Unfortunately, there are few literature reports bearing on this issue. We note that the question of signals driving motility of mesenchymal cells versus epithelial cells is not the same as the question of signals inducing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition; the latter question has been intensely investigated (e.g., (200, 219)) whereas the former question has seen little address to date. An intriguing clinical observation highlighting the point is the resistance of mesenchymal carcinomas to tyrosine kinase inhibitors of EGFR in contrast to the sensitivity of epithelial carcinomas to this set of drugs (53, 220-222). Since EGFR remains substantively expressed on the mesenchymal tumor cells, a major challenge is to determine how the signaling network governing motility becomes "rewired" during EMT. An analogous challenge for HER2-overexpressing breast epithelial cells has been addressed using quantitative phospho-proteomic measurement across multiple signaling pathways coupled with computational modeling to ascertain the key network differences between normal and overexpressing cells (223). A number of differences were elucidated, and computational modeling showed that quantitative combinations of a subset of pathway activities could predict the change in motility behavior as well as in response to various kinase inhibitors (224, 225). Some of us (AW, DL) have recently applied a similar approach to explore differences in motility-related signaling in mesenchymal versus epithelial forms of human mammary epithelial cells with EMT induced by the transcription factor Twist. This study has found that at least a half-dozen intracellular kinase pathway activities are differentially influential for mesenchymal versus epithelial motility across stimulation by a variety of growth factors including EGF, HRG, HGF, IGF, and PDGF, demonstrating the complexity of signaling network "rewiring" downstream of EMT induction (HD Kim, A Wells, FB Gertler, DA Lauffenburger; unpublished data).
7. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
It is too early in our investigations of how the microenvironment interacts with carcinoma intrinsic changes to dictate tumor behavior and progression to propose interventions. Due to limitations of focus and space we have discussed only cell migration, which has been shown to be a critical step in the stage of tumor dissemination. We have not delved into proliferation or death (apoptotic, necrotic, or autophagic) as the cancer-associated dysregulation of these behaviors arises well before dissemination at the earliest stages of carcinogenesis. Also, the foregoing, while quite extensive, did not deal with critical aspects of immune response, systemic hormonal/cytokine signaling, and angiogenesis. Each of these whole organism responses impact upon tumor outcome in nuanced and situation-dependent manners, and hold avenues for successful interventions. Still, we posit that better examination of the local tumor microenvironment, at both the primary and ectopic sites, can highlight key regulatory, and possible targetable, events in the transition to dissemination.
It is evident that more systematic approaches to these questions are needed. The variety of signals and possibilities of behavioral outcomes make it evident that no one signal is required and thus models must account for redundancy. Further, quantitative aspects will dictate the resultant behavior; a glaring example of this is collagen, which provides substratum traction for migration with higher concentrations providing a stiffer matrix that promotes mesenchymal phenotypic behaviors, yet collagen can also serve as a barrier to dissemination. Further, the systematic approaches need to account for higher levels of regulation. Tissue- and site-specific signals determine which cell behaviors promote tumor progression. For instance, EMT, resulting in mesenchymal-like single cells, enables escape from the primary tumor mass but a reversion to epithelioid syncytial properties may be critical for ectopic survival once a distant site is involved. Further, invasion into adjacent tissues may be accomplished as a mass of mixed carcinoma and orthotopic stroma whereas distant metastases most likely involve isolated cells adapting to the foreign environment.
Even within such consideration of multiple levels of control, and quantitative and nuanced analysis of the data, there remain areas for reductionist examination. One aspect that is only now becoming approachable is how the tumor cells escape from the physiological controls that maintain differentiation and prevent epithelial mislocalization. While avoidance of the immune response has been appreciated for half a century, the signaling focus for the past decades has mainly highlighted acquisition of signaling capabilities that promote carcinoma progression. Yet, these carcinoma cells must overcome the physiological 'stop' signals that efficiently prevent the transient EMT of wound repair or embryogenesis from leading to dysplasia, and even in the most aggressive appearing carcinomas make dissemination a rare event at the cellular level. Yet, this is not likely to simply be avoidance by negation, but rather a switch in receptivity, as noted by the well-described dual nature of TGF-beta signaling, a paradigm being seen again in early studies on the chemokine receptor CXCR3.
In sum, the understanding of carcinoma cell events that lead to the migration that enables dissemination is ripe for explorations at system and reductionist levels. These studies will likely yield not only fundamental insights into the multicellular and multicompartment tissue we refer to as a tumor, but also suggest avenues for interventions that target distinct stages in carcinoma progression to dissemination.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank members of the Wells and Lauffenburger laboratories for discussions that enriched this review. The concepts behind this were supported currently and over the years by grants from the Veterans Administration, DoD Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs in Breast and Prostate Cancer, and the National Institutes of Health (USA).
9. REFERENCES
1. E. W. Thompson and D. F. Newgreen: Carcinoma invasion and metastasis: a role for epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Cancer Research, 65(14), 5991-5995 (2005)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0616
2. J. J. Christiansen and A. K. Rajasekaran: Reassessing epithelial to mesenchymal transition as a prerequisite for carcinoma invasion and metastasis. Cancer Research, 66(17), 8319-8326 (2006)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0410
3. T. Tsuji, S. Ibaragi and G.-f. Hu: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cell cooperativity in metastasis. Cancer Research, 69(15), 7135-7139 (2009)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1618
4. A. Wells, C. Yates and C. R. Shepard: E-cadherin as an indicator of mesenchymal to epithelial reverting transitions during the metastatic seeding of disseminated carcinomas. Clinical & Experimental Metastasis, 25, 621-628 (2008)
doi:10.1007/s10585-008-9167-1
5. C. C. Yates, C. R. Shepard, D. B. Stolz and A. Wells: Co-culturing human prostate carcinoma cells with hepatocytes leads to increased expression of E-cadherin. British Journal of Cancer, 96, 1246-1252 (2007)
doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603700
6. Y. L. Chao, C. R. Shepard and A. Wells: Breast carcinoma cells re-express E-cadherin during mesenchymal to epithelial reverting transition. Mol Cancer, 9(1), 179 (2010)
7. C. Chang and Z. Werb: The many faces of metalloproteases: cell growth, invasion, angiogenesis and metastasis. Trends in Cell Biology, 11(11), S37-43 (2001)
doi:10.1016/S0962-8924(01)02122-5
8. A. Page-McCaw, A. J. Ewald and Z. Werb: Matrix metalloproteinases and the regulation of tissue remodelling. Nature Reviews - Molecular Cell Biology, 8, 221-233 (2007)
doi:10.1038/nrm2125
9. K. Wolf, I. Mazo, H. Leung, K. Engelke, U. H. vonAndrian, E. I. Deryugina, A. Y. Strongin, E.-B. Brocker and P. Friedl: Compensation mechanism in tumor cell migration: mesenchymal-amoeboid transition after blocking of pericellular proteolysis. Journal of Cell Biology, 160(2), 267-277 (2003)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200209006
10. M. H. Zaman, L. M. Trapani, A. Siemeski, K. McKeller, H. Gong, R. D. Kamm, A. Wells, D. A. Lauffenburger and P. Matsudaira: Migration of tumor cells in three-dimensional matrices in governed by matrix stiffness along with cell-matrix adhesion and proteolysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 103, 10889-10894 (2006)
doi:10.1073/pnas.0604460103
11. H. Xie, T. Turner, M.-H. Wang, R. K. Singh, G. P. Siegal and A. Wells: In vitro invasiveness of DU-145 human prostate carcinoma cells is modulated by EGF receptor-mediated signals. Clinical and Experimental Metastasis, 13(6), 407-419 (1995)
doi:10.1007/BF00118180
12. J. S. Rao: Molecular mechanisms of glioma invasiveness: the role of proteases. Nature Reviews - Cancer, 3, 489-501 (2003)
doi:10.1038/nrc1121
13. J. S. Condeelis, J. Wyckoff and J. E. Segall: Imaging of cancer invasion and metastasis using green fluorescent protein. European Journal of Cancer, 36, 1671-1680 (2000)
doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00155-6
14. M. Itoh and M. J. Bissell: The organization of tight junctions in epithelia: implications for mammary gland biology and breast tumorigenesis. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia, 8(4), 449-62 (2003)
doi:10.1023/B:JOMG.0000017431.45314.07
15. M. Osanai, M. Murata, N. Nishikiori, H. Chiba, T. Kojima and N. Sawada: Epigenetic silencing of occludin promotes tumorigenic and metastatic properties of cancer cells via modulations of unique sets of apoptosis-associated genes. Cancer Res, 66(18), 9125-33 (2006)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1864
16. T. A. Martin, G. M. Harrison, G. Watkins and W. G. Jiang: Claudin-16 reduces the aggressive behavior of human breast cancer cells. J Cell Biochem, 105(1), 41-52 (2008)
doi:10.1002/jcb.21797
17. M. Osanai, M. Murata, H. Chiba, T. Kojima and N. Sawada: Epigenetic silencing of claudin-6 promotes anchorage-independent growth of breast carcinoma cells. Cancer Sci, 98(10), 1557-62 (2007)
doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2007.00569.x
18. B. Ozdamar, R. Bose, M. Barrios-Rodiles, H. R. Wang, Y. Zhang and J. L. Wrana: Regulation of the polarity protein Par6 by TGFbeta receptors controls epithelial cell plasticity. Science, 307(5715), 1603-9 (2005)
doi:10.1126/science.1105718
19. D. M. Pegtel, S. I. Ellenbroek, A. E. Mertens, R. A. van der Kammen, J. de Rooij and J. G. Collard: The Par-Tiam1 complex controls persistent migration by stabilizing microtubule-dependent front-rear polarity. Curr Biol, 17(19), 1623-34 (2007)
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.08.035
20. G. Agiostratidou, J. Hulit, G. R. Phillips and R. B. Hazan: Differential cadherin expression: potential markers for epithelial to mesenchymal transformation during tumor progression. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia, 12(2-3), 127-33 (2007)
doi:10.1007/s10911-007-9044-6
21. M. Takeichi: Cadherin cell adhesion receptors as a morphogenetic regulator. Science, 251(5000), 1451-5 (1991)
doi:10.1126/science.2006419
22. M. Takeichi: Cadherins in cancer: implications for invasion and metastasis. Curr Opin Cell Biol, 5(5), 806-11 (1993)
doi:10.1016/0955-0674(93)90029-P
23. H. Peinado, F. Portillo and A. Cano: Transcriptional regulation of cadherins during development and carcinogenesis. Int J Dev Biol, 48(5-6), 365-75 (2004)
doi:10.1387/ijdb.041794hp
24. A. K. Perl, P. Wilgenbus, U. Dahl, H. Semb and G. Christofori: A causal role for E-cadherin in the transition from adenoma to carcinoma. Nature, 392(6672), 190-3 (1998)
doi:10.1038/32433
25. K. Vleminckx, L. Vakaet, Jr., M. Mareel, W. Fiers and F. van Roy: Genetic manipulation of E-cadherin expression by epithelial tumor cells reveals an invasion suppressor role. Cell, 66(1), 107-19 (1991)
26. M. Herzig, F. Savarese, M. Novatchkova, H. Semb and G. Christofori: Tumor progression induced by the loss of E-cadherin independent of beta-catenin/Tcf-mediated Wnt signaling. Oncogene, 26(16), 2290-8 (2007)
doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210029
27. U. H. Frixen, J. Behrens, M. Sachs, G. Eberle, B. Voss, A. Warda, D. Lochner and W. Birchmeier: E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion prevents invasiveness of human carcinoma cells. J Cell Biol, 113(1), 173-85 (1991)
doi:10.1083/jcb.113.1.173
28. A. S. Wong and B. M. Gumbiner: Adhesion-independent mechanism for suppression of tumor cell invasion by E-cadherin. J Cell Biol, 161(6), 1191-203 (2003)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200212033
29. A. Jeanes, C. J. Gottardi and A. S. Yap: Cadherins and cancer: how does cadherin dysfunction promote tumor progression? Oncogene, 27(55), 6920-9 (2008)
doi:10.1038/onc.2008.343
30. F. Lehembre, M. Yilmaz, A. Wicki, T. Schomber, K. Strittmatter, D. Ziegler, A. Kren, P. Went, P. W. Derksen, A. Berns, J. Jonkers and G. Christofori: NCAM-induced focal adhesion assembly: a functional switch upon loss of E-cadherin. Embo J, 27(19), 2603-15 (2008)
doi:10.1038/emboj.2008.178
31. R. B. Hazan, G. R. Phillips, R. F. Qiao, L. Norton and S. A. Aaronson: Exogenous expression of N-cadherin in breast cancer cells induces cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. J Cell Biol, 148(4), 779-90 (2000)
doi:10.1083/jcb.148.4.779
32. J. Depondt, A. H. Shabana, S. Florescu-Zorila, P. Gehanno and N. Forest: Down-regulation of desmosomal molecules in oral and pharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas as a marker for tumour growth and distant metastasis. Eur J Oral Sci, 107(3), 183-93 (1999)
doi:10.1046/j.0909-8836.1999.eos1070305.x
33. S. T. Kundu, P. Gosavi, N. Khapare, R. Patel, A. S. Hosing, G. B. Maru, A. Ingle, J. A. Decaprio and S. N. Dalal: Plakophilin3 downregulation leads to a decrease in cell adhesion and promotes metastasis. Int J Cancer, 123(10), 2303-14 (2008)
doi:10.1002/ijc.23797
34. T. Sobolik-Delmaire, D. Katafiasz, S. A. Keim, M. G. Mahoney and J. K. Wahl, 3rd: Decreased plakophilin-1 expression promotes increased motility in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells. Cell Commun Adhes, 14(2-3), 99-109 (2007)
doi:10.1080/15419060701463082
35. C. Tselepis, M. Chidgey, A. North and D. Garrod: Desmosomal adhesion inhibits invasive behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 95(14), 8064-9 (1998)
doi:10.1073/pnas.95.14.8064
36. S. Olk, G. Zoidl and R. Dermietzel: Connexins, cell motility, and the cytoskeleton. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton, 66(11), 1000-16 (2009)
doi:10.1002/cm.20404
37. A. Daniel-Wojcik, K. Misztal, I. Bechyne, J. Sroka, K. Miekus, Z. Madeja and J. Czyz: Cell motility affects the intensity of gap junctional coupling in prostate carcinoma and melanoma cell populations. Int J Oncol, 33(2), 309-15 (2008)
38. J. H. Lin, T. Takano, M. L. Cotrina, G. Arcuino, J. Kang, S. Liu, Q. Gao, L. Jiang, F. Li, H. Lichtenberg-Frate, S. Haubrich, K. Willecke, S. A. Goldman and M. Nedergaard: Connexin 43 enhances the adhesivity and mediates the invasion of malignant glioma cells. J Neurosci, 22(11), 4302-11 (2002)
39. A. Ito, F. Katoh, T. R. Kataoka, M. Okada, N. Tsubota, H. Asada, K. Yoshikawa, S. Maeda, Y. Kitamura, H. Yamasaki and H. Nojima: A role for heterologous gap junctions between melanoma and endothelial cells in metastasis. J Clin Invest, 105(9), 1189-97 (2000)
doi:10.1172/JCI8257
40. S. H. Graeber and D. F. Hulser: Connexin transfection induces invasive properties in HeLa cells. Exp Cell Res, 243(1), 142-9 (1998)
doi:10.1006/excr.1998.4130
41. K. S. Matlin, B. Haus and A. Zuk: Integrins in epithelial cell polarity: using antibodies to analyze adhesive function and morphogenesis. Methods, 30(3), 235-46 (2003)
doi:10.1016/S1046-2023(03)00030-6
42. R. A. Ignotz and J. Massague: Cell adhesion protein receptors as targets for transforming growth factor-beta action. Cell, 51(2), 189-97 (1987)
43. V. Ganapathy, R. Ge, A. Grazioli, W. Xie, W. Banach-Petrosky, Y. Kang, S. Lonning, J. McPherson, J. M. Yingling, S. Biswas, G. R. Mundy and M. Reiss: Targeting the transforming growth factor-beta pathway inhibits human basal-like breast cancer metastasis. Mol Cancer, 9(1), 122 (2010)
doi:10.1186/1476-4598-9-122
44. M. A. Huber, N. Kraut and H. Beug: Molecular requirements for epithelial-mesenchymal transition during tumor progression. Curr Opin Cell Biol, 17(5), 548-58 (2005)
doi:10.1016/j.ceb.2005.08.001
45. N. A. Bhowmick, R. Zent, M. Ghiassi, M. McDonnell and H. L. Moses: Integrin beta 1 signaling is necessary for transforming growth factor-beta activation of p38MAPK and epithelial plasticity. J Biol Chem, 276(50), 46707-13 (2001)
doi:10.1074/jbc.M106176200
46. A. Bianchi, M. E. Gervasi and A. V. Bakin: Role of beta5-integrin in epithelial-mesenchymal transition in response to TGFbeta. Cell Cycle, 9(8) (2010)
47. S. Maschler, G. Wirl, H. Spring, D. V. Bredow, I. Sordat, H. Beug and E. Reichmann: Tumor cell invasiveness correlates with changes in integrin expression and localization. Oncogene, 24(12), 2032-41 (2005)
doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1208423
48. I. Rabinovitz, A. Toker and A. M. Mercurio: Protein kinase C-dependent mobilization of the alpha6beta4 integrin from hemidesmosomes and its association with actin-rich cell protrusions drive the chemotactic migration of carcinoma cells. J Cell Biol, 146(5), 1147-60 (1999)
doi:10.1083/jcb.146.5.1147
49. S. Giampieri, C. Manning, S. Hooper, L. Jones, C. S. Hill and E. Sahai: Localized and reversible TGFbeta signalling switches breast cancer cells from cohesive to single cell motility. Nat Cell Biol, 11(11), 1287-96 (2009)
doi:10.1038/ncb1973
50. N. Dumont, M. B. Wilson, Y. G. Crawford, P. A. Reynolds, M. Sigaroudinia and T. D. Tlsty: Sustained induction of epithelial to mesenchymal transition activates DNA methylation of genes silenced in basal-like breast cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 105(39), 14867-72 (2008)
doi:10.1073/pnas.0807146105
51. E. S. Radisky and D. C. Radisky: Matrix Metalloproteinase-Induced Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Breast Cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia in press (2010)
doi:10.1007/s10911-010-9177-x
52. A. Wells: Tumor invasion: role of growth factor-induced cell motility. Adv Cancer Res, 78, 31-101 (2000)
doi:10.1016/S0065-230X(08)61023-4
53. S. Barr, S. Thomson, E. Buck, S. Russo, F. Petti, I. Sujka-Kwok, A. Eyzaguirre, M. Rosenfeld-Franklin, N. W. Gibson, M. Miglarese, D. Epstein, K. K. Iwata and J. D. Haley: Bypassing cellular EGF receptor dependence through epithelial-to-mesenchymal-like transitions. Clin Exp Metastasis, 25(6), 685-93 (2008)
doi:10.1007/s10585-007-9121-7
54. C. C. Reddy, S. K. Niyogi, A. Wells, H. S. Wiley and D. A. Lauffenburger: Re-engineering epidermal growth factor for enhanced potency. Nature Biotechnology, 14(12), 1696-1699 (1996)
doi:10.1038/nbt1296-1696
55. C. C. Reddy, A. Wells and D. A. Lauffenburger: Receptor-mediated effects on ligand availability influence relative mitogenic potencies of epidermal growth factor and transforming growth factor α. Journal of Cellular Physiology, 166, 512-522 (1996)
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4652(199603)166:3<512::AID-JCP6>3.0.CO;2-S
56. A. Wells, J. Kassis, J. Solava, T. Turner and D. A. Lauffenburger: Growth factor-induced cell motility in tumor invasion. Acta Oncol, 41(2), 124-30 (2002)
doi:10.1080/028418602753669481
57. P. Chen, H. Xie, M. C. Sekar, K. Gupta and A. Wells: Epidermal growth factor receptor-mediated cell motility: phospholipase C activity is required, but mitogen-activated protein kinase activity is not sufficient for induced cell movement. J Cell Biol, 127(3), 847-57 (1994)
doi:10.1083/jcb.127.3.847
58. J. T. Price, T. Tiganis, A. Agarwal, D. Djakiew and E. W. Thompson: Epidermal growth factor promotes MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell migration through a phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase and phospholipase C-dependent mechanism. Cancer Res, 59(21), 5475-8 (1999)
59. Z. Lu, G. Jiang, P. Blume-Jensen and T. Hunter: Epidermal growth factor-induced tumor cell invasion and metastasis initiated by dephosphorylation and downregulation of focal adhesion kinase. Mol Cell Biol, 21(12), 4016-31 (2001)
doi:10.1128/MCB.21.12.4016-4031.2001
60. S. Kermorgant, T. Aparicio, V. Dessirier, M. J. Lewin and T. Lehy: Hepatocyte growth factor induces colonic cancer cell invasiveness via enhanced motility and protease overproduction. Evidence for PI3 kinase and PKC involvement. Carcinogenesis, 22(7), 1035-42 (2001)
doi:10.1093/carcin/22.7.1035
61. K. L. Mueller, L. A. Hunter, S. P. Ethier and J. L. Boerner: Met and c-Src cooperate to compensate for loss of epidermal growth factor receptor kinase activity in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res, 68(9), 3314-22 (2008)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-0132
62. A. Lorenzato, M. Olivero, S. Patane, E. Rosso, A. Oliaro, P. M. Comoglio and M. F. Di Renzo: Novel somatic mutations of the MET oncogene in human carcinoma metastases activating cell motility and invasion. Cancer Res, 62(23), 7025-30 (2002)
63. A. Mamoune, J. Kassis, S. Kharait, S. Kloeker, E. Manos, D. A. Jones and A. Wells: DU145 human prostate carcinoma invasiveness is modulated by urokinase receptor (uPAR) downstream of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. Experimental Cell Research, 299, 91-100 (2004)
doi:10.1016/j.yexcr.2004.05.008
64. D. Metalli, F. Lovat, F. Tripodi, M. Genua, S. Q. Xu, M. Spinelli, L. Alberghina, M. Vanoni, R. Baffa, L. G. Gomella, R. V. Iozzo and A. Morrione: The Insulin-Like Growth Factor Receptor I Promotes Motility and Invasion of Bladder Cancer Cells through Akt- and Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase-Dependent Activation of Paxillin. Am J Pathol in press (2010)
doi:10.2353/ajpath.2010.090904
65. B. G. Hollier, J. A. Kricker, D. R. Van Lonkhuyzen, D. I. Leavesley and Z. Upton: Substrate-bound insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I-IGF binding protein-vitronectin-stimulated breast cell migration is enhanced by coactivation of the phosphatidylinositide 3-Kinase/AKT pathway by alphav-integrins and the IGF-I receptor. Endocrinology, 149(3), 1075-90 (2008)
doi:10.1210/en.2007-0740
66. E. Mira, S. Manes, R. A. Lacalle, G. Marquez and A. C. Martinez: Insulin-like growth factor I-triggered cell migration and invasion are mediated by matrix metalloproteinase-9. Endocrinology, 140(4), 1657-64 (1999)
doi:10.1210/en.140.4.1657
67. D. Zhang and P. Brodt: Type 1 insulin-like growth factor regulates MT1-MMP synthesis and tumor invasion via PI 3-kinase/Akt signaling. Oncogene, 22(7), 974-82 (2003)
doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1206197
68. S. Giampieri, S. Pinner and E. Sahai: Intravital imaging illuminates transforming growth factor beta signaling switches during metastasis. Cancer Res, 70(9), 3435-9 (2010)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0466
69. F. Balkwill and A. Mantovani: Cancer and inflammation: implications for pharmacology and therapeutics. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 87(4), 401-6
doi:10.1038/clpt.2009.312
70. G. Lazennec and A. Richmond: Chemokines and chemokine receptors: new insights into cancer-related inflammation. Trends Mol Med, 16(3), 133-44
doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2010.01.003
71. A. Mantovani, P. Allavena, A. Sica and F. Balkwill: Cancer-related inflammation. Nature, 454(7203), 436-44 (2008)
doi:10.1038/nature07205
72. F. Balkwill: Tumour necrosis factor and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer, 9(5), 361-71 (2009)
doi:10.1038/nrc2628
73. S. Bousserouel, H. Kauntz, F. Gosse, M. Bouhadjar, L. Soler, J. Marescaux and F. Raul: Identification of gene expression profiles correlated to tumor progression in a preclinical model of colon carcinogenesis. Int J Oncol, 36(6), 1485-90
74. J. Pfitzenmaier, R. Vessella, C. S. Higano, J. L. Noteboom, D. Wallace, Jr. and E. Corey: Elevation of cytokine levels in cachectic patients with prostate carcinoma. Cancer, 97(5), 1211-6 (2003)
doi:10.1002/cncr.11178
75. D. Spriggs, K. Imamura, C. Rodriguez, J. Horiguchi and D. W. Kufe: Induction of tumor necrosis factor expression and resistance in a human breast tumor cell line. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 84(18), 6563-6 (1987)
doi:10.1073/pnas.84.18.6563
76. S. Beissert, M. Bergholz, I. Waase, G. Lepsien, A. Schauer, K. Pfizenmaier and M. Kronke: Regulation of tumor necrosis factor gene expression in colorectal adenocarcinoma: in vivo analysis by in situ hybridization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 86(13), 5064-8 (1989)
doi:10.1073/pnas.86.13.5064
77. M. S. Naylor, S. T. Malik, G. W. Stamp, T. Jobling and F. R. Balkwill: In situ detection of tumour necrosis factor in human ovarian cancer specimens. Eur J Cancer, 26(10), 1027-30 (1990)
doi:10.1016/0277-5379(90)90043-S
78. A. J. Karayiannakis, K. N. Syrigos, A. Polychronidis, M. Pitiakoudis, A. Bounovas and K. Simopoulos: Serum levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha and nutritional status in pancreatic cancer patients. Anticancer Res, 21(2B), 1355-8 (2001)
79. N. Yoshida, S. Ikemoto, K. Narita, K. Sugimura, S. Wada, R. Yasumoto, T. Kishimoto and T. Nakatani: Interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-1beta in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer, 86(9), 1396-400 (2002)
doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600257
80. R. Montesano, P. Soulie, J. A. Eble and F. Carrozzino: Tumour necrosis factor alpha confers an invasive, transformed phenotype on mammary epithelial cells. J Cell Sci, 118(Pt 15), 3487-500 (2005)
doi:10.1242/jcs.02467
81. T. Hagemann, J. Wilson, H. Kulbe, N. F. Li, D. A. Leinster, K. Charles, F. Klemm, T. Pukrop, C. Binder and F. R. Balkwill: Macrophages induce invasiveness of epithelial cancer cells via NF-kappa B and JNK. J Immunol, 175(2), 1197-205 (2005)
82. H. Kulbe, T. Hagemann, P. W. Szlosarek, F. R. Balkwill and J. L. Wilson: The inflammatory cytokine tumor necrosis factor-alpha regulates chemokine receptor expression on ovarian cancer cells. Cancer Res, 65(22), 10355-62 (2005)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0957
83. M. Liang, P. Zhang and J. Fu: Up-regulation of LOX-1 expression by TNF-alpha promotes trans-endothelial migration of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. Cancer Lett, 258(1), 31-7 (2007)
doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2007.08.003
84. H. L. Chua, P. Bhat-Nakshatri, S. E. Clare, A. Morimiya, S. Badve and H. Nakshatri: NF-kappaB represses E-cadherin expression and enhances epithelial to mesenchymal transition of mammary epithelial cells: potential involvement of ZEB-1 and ZEB-2. Oncogene, 26(5), 711-24 (2007)
doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1209808
85. M. J. Chuang, K. H. Sun, S. J. Tang, M. W. Deng, Y. H. Wu, J. S. Sung, T. L. Cha and G. H. Sun: Tumor-derived tumor necrosis factor-alpha promotes progression and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in renal cell carcinoma cells. Cancer Sci, 99(5), 905-13 (2008)
doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.00756.x
86. J. Vandercappellen, J. Van Damme and S. Struyf: The role of CXC chemokines and their receptors in cancer. Cancer Lett, 267(2), 226-44 (2008)
doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2008.04.050
87. M. C. Smith, K. E. Luker, J. R. Garbow, J. L. Prior, E. Jackson, D. Piwnica-Worms and G. D. Luker: CXCR4 regulates growth of both primary and metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res, 64(23), 8604-12 (2004
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1844
88. R. J. Phillips, M. D. Burdick, M. Lutz, J. A. Belperio, M. P. Keane and R. M. Strieter: The stromal derived factor-1/CXCL12-CXC chemokine receptor 4 biological axis in non-small cell lung cancer metastases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 167(12), 1676-86 (2003)
doi:10.1164/rccm.200301-071OC
89. R. S. Taichman, C. Cooper, E. T. Keller, K. J. Pienta, N. S. Taichman and L. K. McCauley: Use of the stromal cell-derived factor-1/CXCR4 pathway in prostate cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer Res, 62(6), 1832-7 (2002)
90. C. J. Scotton, J. L. Wilson, K. Scott, G. Stamp, G. D. Wilbanks, S. Fricker, G. Bridger and F. R. Balkwill: Multiple actions of the chemokine CXCL12 on epithelial tumor cells in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Res, 62(20), 5930-8 (2002)
91. J. Pan, J. Mestas, M. D. Burdick, R. J. Phillips, G. V. Thomas, K. Reckamp, J. A. Belperio and R. M. Strieter: Stromal derived factor-1 (SDF-1/CXCL12) and CXCR4 in renal cell carcinoma metastasis. Mol Cancer, 5, 56 (2006)
doi:10.1186/1476-4598-5-56
92. H. Geminder, O. Sagi-Assif, L. Goldberg, T. Meshel, G. Rechavi, I. P. Witz and A. Ben-Baruch: A possible role for CXCR4 and its ligand, the CXC chemokine stromal cell-derived factor-1, in the development of bone marrow metastases in neuroblastoma. J Immunol, 167(8), 4747-57 (2001)
93. E. H. Huang, B. Singh, M. Cristofanilli, J. Gelovani, C. Wei, L. Vincent, K. R. Cook and A. Lucci: A CXCR4 antagonist CTCE-9908 inhibits primary tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer. J Surg Res, 155(2), 231-6 (2009)
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.06.044
94. H. Kajiyama, K. Shibata, M. Terauchi, K. Ino, A. Nawa and F. Kikkawa: Involvement of SDF-1alpha/CXCR4 axis in the enhanced peritoneal metastasis of epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Int J Cancer, 122(1), 91-9 (2008)
doi:10.1002/ijc.23083
95. Y. Yoon, Z. Liang, X. Zhang, M. Choe, A. Zhu, H. T. Cho, D. M. Shin, M. M. Goodman, Z. G. Chen and H. Shim: CXC chemokine receptor-4 antagonist blocks both growth of primary tumor and metastasis of head and neck cancer in xenograft mouse models. Cancer Res, 67(15), 7518-24 (2007)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2263
96. Y. X. Sun, A. Schneider, Y. Jung, J. Wang, J. Dai, K. Cook, N. I. Osman, A. J. Koh-Paige, H. Shim, K. J. Pienta, E. T. Keller, L. K. McCauley and R. S. Taichman: Skeletal localization and neutralization of the SDF-1(CXCL12)/CXCR4 axis blocks prostate cancer metastasis and growth in osseous sites in vivo. J Bone Miner Res, 20(2), 318-29 (2005)
doi:10.1359/JBMR.041109
97. D. Zagzag, Y. Lukyanov, L. Lan, M. A. Ali, M. Esencay, O. Mendez, H. Yee, E. B. Voura and E. W. Newcomb: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 and VEGF upregulate CXCR4 in glioblastoma: implications for angiogenesis and glioma cell invasion. Lab Invest, 86(12), 1221-32 (2006)
doi:10.1038/labinvest.3700482
98. J. D. Holland, M. Kochetkova, C. Akekawatchai, M. Dottore, A. Lopez and S. R. McColl: Differential functional activation of chemokine receptor CXCR4 is mediated by G proteins in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res, 66(8), 4117-24 (2006)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1631
99. R. K. Ganju, S. A. Brubaker, J. Meyer, P. Dutt, Y. Yang, S. Qin, W. Newman and J. E. Groopman: The alpha-chemokine, stromal cell-derived factor-1alpha, binds to the transmembrane G-protein-coupled CXCR-4 receptor and activates multiple signal transduction pathways. J Biol Chem, 273(36), 23169-75 (1998)
doi:10.1074/jbc.273.36.23169
100. M. Zhao, R. G. Discipio, A. G. Wimmer and I. U. Schraufstatter: Regulation of CXCR4-mediated nuclear translocation of extracellular signal-related kinases 1 and 2. Mol Pharmacol, 69(1), 66-75 (2006)
101. M. Monterrubio, M. Mellado, A. C. Carrera and J. M. Rodriguez-Frade: PI3Kgamma activation by CXCL12 regulates tumor cell adhesion and invasion. Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 388(2), 199-204 (2009)
doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.07.153
102. S. R. Chinni, S. Sivalogan, Z. Dong, J. C. Filho, X. Deng, R. D. Bonfil and M. L. Cher: CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling activates Akt-1 and MMP-9 expression in prostate cancer cells: the role of bone microenvironment-associated CXCL12. Prostate, 66(1), 32-48 (2006)
doi:10.1002/pros.20318
103. C. Y. Chu, S. T. Cha, C. C. Chang, C. H. Hsiao, C. T. Tan, Y. C. Lu, S. H. Jee and M. L. Kuo: Involvement of matrix metalloproteinase-13 in stromal-cell-derived factor 1 alpha-directed invasion of human basal cell carcinoma cells. Oncogene, 26(17), 2491-501 (2007)
doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210040
104. D. T. Butcher, T. Alliston and V. M. Weaver: A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer, 9(2), 108-22 (2009)
doi:10.1038/nrc2544
105. P. Friedl and K. Wolf: Plasticity of cell migration: a multiscale tuning model. J Cell Biol, 188(1), 11-9 (2010)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200909003
106. L. Li, B. Dragulev, P. Zigrino, C. Mauch and J. W. Fox: The invasive potential of human melanoma cell lines correlates with their ability to alter fibroblast gene expression in vitro and the stromal microenvironment in vivo. Int J Cancer, 125(8), 1796-804 (2009)
doi:10.1002/ijc.24463
107. J. Soikkeli, P. Podlasz, M. Yin, P. Nummela, T. Jahkola, S. Virolainen, L. Krogerus, P. Heikkila, K. von Smitten, O. Saksela and E. Holtta: Metastatic Outgrowth Encompasses COL-I, FN1, and POSTN Up-Regulation and Assembly to Fibrillar Networks Regulating Cell Adhesion, Migration, and Growth. Am J Pathol (2010)
108. B. Adam, L. Toth, G. Pasti, M. Balazs and R. Adany: Contact stimulation of fibroblasts for tenascin production by melanoma cells. Melanoma Res, 16(5), 385-91 (2006)
doi:10.1097/01.cmr.0000205022.25397.86
109. P. G. Gallagher, Y. Bao, A. Prorock, P. Zigrino, R. Nischt, V. Politi, C. Mauch, B. Dragulev and J. W. Fox: Gene expression profiling reveals cross-talk between melanoma and fibroblasts: implications for host-tumor interactions in metastasis. Cancer Res, 65(10), 4134-46 (2005)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0415
110. B. B. Tysnes, L. F. Larsen, G. O. Ness, R. Mahesparan, K. Edvardsen, I. Garcia-Cabrera and R. Bjerkvig: Stimulation of glioma-cell migration by laminin and inhibition by anti-alpha3 and anti-beta1 integrin antibodies. Int J Cancer, 67(6), 777-84 (1996)
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960917)67:6<777::AID-IJC5>3.0.CO;2-O
111. R. Mahesparan, B. B. Tysnes, T. A. Read, P. O. Enger, R. Bjerkvig and M. Lund-Johansen: Extracellular matrix-induced cell migration from glioblastoma biopsy specimens in vitro. Acta Neuropathol, 97(3), 231-9 (1999)
doi:10.1007/s004010050979
112. E. Cukierman and D. E. Bassi: Physico-mechanical aspects of extracellular matrix influences on tumorigenic behaviors. Semin Cancer Biol (2010)
113. K. T. Tran, P. Lamb and J. S. Deng: Matrikines and matricryptins: Implications for cutaneous cancers and skin repair. J Dermatol Sci, 40(1), 11-20 (2005)
doi:10.1016/j.jdermsci.2005.05.001
114. K. T. Tran, L. Griffith and A. Wells: Extracellular matrix signaling through growth factor receptors during wound healing. Wound Repair Regen, 12(3), 262-8 (2004)
doi:10.1111/j.1067-1927.2004.012302.x
115. S. Ramaswamy, K. N. Ross, E. S. Lander and T. R. Golub: A molecular signature of metastasis in primary solid tumors. Nat Genet, 33(1), 49-54 (2003)
doi:10.1038/ng1060
116. K. R. Levental, H. Yu, L. Kass, J. N. Lakins, M. Egeblad, J. T. Erler, S. F. Fong, K. Csiszar, A. Giaccia, W. Weninger, M. Yamauchi, D. L. Gasser and V. M. Weaver: Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell, 139(5), 891-906 (2009)
117. C. M. Lo, H. B. Wang, M. Dembo and Y. L. Wang: Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys J, 79(1), 144-52 (2000)
doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(00)76279-5
118. F. Sabeh, I. Ota, K. Holmbeck, H. Birkedal-Hansen, P. Soloway, M. Balbin, C. Lopez-Otin, S. Shapiro, M. Inada, S. Krane, E. Allen, D. Chung and S. J. Weiss: Tumor cell traffic through the extracellular matrix is controlled by the membrane-anchored collagenase MT1-MMP. J Cell Biol, 167(4), 769-81 (2004)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200408028
119. H. Sato, T. Takino and H. Miyamori: Roles of membrane-type matrix metalloproteinase-1 in tumor invasion and metastasis. Cancer Sci, 96(4), 212-7 (2005)
doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2005.00039.x
120. K. Nabeshima, H. Kataoka and M. Koono: Enhanced migration of tumor cells in response to collagen degradation products and tumor cell collagenolytic activity. Invasion Metastasis, 6(5), 270-86 (1986)
121. Y. Takada, X. Ye and S. Simon: The integrins. Genome Biol, 8(5), 215 (2007)
doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-5-215
122. P. Vihinen, T. Riikonen, A. Laine and J. Heino: Integrin alpha 2 beta 1 in tumorigenic human osteosarcoma cell lines regulates cell adhesion, migration, and invasion by interaction with type I collagen. Cell Growth Differ, 7(4), 439-47 (1996)
123. W. F. Vogel, R. Abdulhussein and C. E. Ford: Sensing extracellular matrix: an update on discoidin domain receptor function. Cell Signal, 18(8), 1108-16 (2006)
doi:10.1016/j.cellsig.2006.02.012
124. H. S. Park, K. R. Kim, H. J. Lee, H. N. Choi, D. K. Kim, B. T. Kim and W. S. Moon: Overexpression of discoidin domain receptor 1 increases the migration and invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma cells in association with matrix metalloproteinase. Oncol Rep, 18(6), 1435-41 (2007)
125. R. Ram, G. Lorente, K. Nikolich, R. Urfer, E. Foehr and U. Nagavarapu: Discoidin domain receptor-1a (DDR1a) promotes glioma cell invasion and adhesion in association with matrix metalloproteinase-2. J Neurooncol, 76(3), 239-48 (2006)
doi:10.1007/s11060-005-6874-1
126. Y. Shintani, Y. Fukumoto, N. Chaika, R. Svoboda, M. J. Wheelock and K. R. Johnson: Collagen I-mediated up-regulation of N-cadherin requires cooperative signals from integrins and discoidin domain receptor 1. J Cell Biol, 180(6), 1277-89 (2008)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200708137
127. Y. Shintani, M. J. Wheelock and K. R. Johnson: Phosphoinositide-3 kinase-Rac1-c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase signaling mediates collagen I-induced cell scattering and up-regulation of N-cadherin expression in mouse mammary epithelial cells. Mol Biol Cell, 17(7), 2963-75 (2006)
doi:10.1091/mbc.E05-12-1123
128. N. Koshikawa, G. Giannelli, V. Cirulli, K. Miyazaki and V. Quaranta: Role of cell surface metalloprotease MT1-MMP in epithelial cell migration over laminin-5. J Cell Biol, 148(3), 615-24 (2000)
doi:10.1083/jcb.148.3.615
129. G. Giannelli, J. Falk-Marzillier, O. Schiraldi, W. G. Stetler-Stevenson and V. Quaranta: Induction of cell migration by matrix metalloprotease-2 cleavage of laminin-5. Science, 277(5323), 225-8 (1997)
doi:10.1126/science.277.5323.225
130. S. Schenk, E. Hintermann, M. Bilban, N. Koshikawa, C. Hojilla, R. Khokha and V. Quaranta: Binding to EGF receptor of a laminin-5 EGF-like fragment liberated during MMP-dependent mammary gland involution. J Cell Biol, 161(1), 197-209 (2003)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200208145
131. C. Pyke, J. Romer, P. Kallunki, L. R. Lund, E. Ralfkiaer, K. Dano and K. Tryggvason: The gamma 2 chain of kalinin/laminin 5 is preferentially expressed in invading malignant cells in human cancers. Am J Pathol, 145(4), 782-91 (1994)
132. P. L. Jones and F. S. Jones: Tenascin-C in development and disease: gene regulation and cell function. Matrix Biol, 19(7), 581-96 (2000)
doi:10.1016/S0945-053X(00)00106-2
133. J. Pas, E. Wyszko, K. Rolle, L. Rychlewski, S. Nowak, R. Zukiel and J. Barciszewski: Analysis of structure and function of tenascin-C. Int J Biochem Cell Biol, 38(9), 1594-602 (2006)
doi:10.1016/j.biocel.2006.03.017
134. G. Orend and R. Chiquet-Ehrismann: Tenascin-C induced signaling in cancer. Cancer Lett, 244(2), 143-63 (2006)
doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2006.02.017
135. R. Chiquet-Ehrismann and M. Chiquet: Tenascins: regulation and putative functions during pathological stress. J Pathol, 200(4), 488-99 (2003)
doi:10.1002/path.1415
136. W. Huang, R. Chiquet-Ehrismann, J. V. Moyano, A. Garcia-Pardo and G. Orend: Interference of tenascin-C with syndecan-4 binding to fibronectin blocks cell adhesion and stimulates tumor cell proliferation. Cancer Res, 61(23), 8586-94 (2001)
137. C. Y. Chung, J. E. Murphy-Ullrich and H. P. Erickson: Mitogenesis, cell migration, and loss of focal adhesions induced by tenascin-C interacting with its cell surface receptor, annexin II. Mol Biol Cell, 7(6), 883-92 (1996)
138. E. I. Deryugina and M. A. Bourdon: Tenascin mediates human glioma cell migration and modulates cell migration on fibronectin. J Cell Sci, 109 (Pt 3), 643-52 (1996)
139. K. A. Galoian, N. Garamszegi, S. P. Garamszegi and S. P. Scully: Molecular mechanism of tenascin-C action on matrix metalloproteinase-1 invasive potential. Exp Biol Med (Maywood), 232(4), 515-22 (2007)
140. R. A. Hancox, M. D. Allen, D. L. Holliday, D. R. Edwards, C. J. Pennington, D. S. Guttery, J. A. Shaw, R. A. Walker, J. H. Pringle and J. L. Jones: Tumour-associated tenascin-C isoforms promote breast cancer cell invasion and growth by matrix metalloproteinase-dependent and independent mechanisms. Breast Cancer Res, 11(2), R24 (2009)
doi:10.1186/bcr2251
141. S. Sarkar, R. K. Nuttall, S. Liu, D. R. Edwards and V. W. Yong: Tenascin-C stimulates glioma cell invasion through matrix metalloproteinase-12. Cancer Res, 66(24), 11771-80 (2006)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0470
142. C. S. Swindle, K. T. Tran, T. D. Johnson, P. Banerjee, A. M. Mayes, L. Griffith and A. Wells: Epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like repeats of human tenascin-C as ligands for EGF receptor. J Cell Biol, 154(2), 459-68 (2001)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200103103
143. A. K. Iyer, K. T. Tran, C. W. Borysenko, M. Cascio, C. J. Camacho, H. C. Blair, I. Bahar and A. Wells: Tenascin cytotactin epidermal growth factor-like repeat binds epidermal growth factor receptor with low affinity. J Cell Physiol, 211(3), 748-58 (2007)
doi:10.1002/jcp.20986
144. A. K. Iyer, K. T. Tran, L. Griffith and A. Wells: Cell surface restriction of EGFR by a tenascin cytotactin-encoded EGF-like repeat is preferential for motility-related signaling. J Cell Physiol, 214(2), 504-12 (2008
doi:10.1002/jcp.21232
145. A. Wells: EGF receptor. Int J Biochem Cell Biol, 31(6), 637-43 (1999)
doi:10.1016/S1357-2725(99)00015-1
146. K. Wallner, C. Li, P. K. Shah, K. J. Wu, S. M. Schwartz and B. G. Sharifi: EGF-Like domain of tenascin-C is proapoptotic for cultured smooth muscle cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 24(8), 1416-21 (2004)
doi:10.1161/01.ATV.0000134299.89599.53
147. C. C. Yates, P. Krishna, D. Whaley, R. Bodnar, T. Turner and A. Wells: Lack of CXC chemokine receptor 3 (CXCR3) signaling leads to hypertrophic and hypercellular scarring. American Journal of Pathology, in press (2010)
doi:10.2353/ajpath.2010.090564
148. C. C. Yates, D. Whaley, P. Kulasekeran, W. W. Hancock, B. Lu, R. Bodnar, J. Newsome, P. A. Hebda and A. Wells: Delayed and deficient dermal maturation in mice lacking the CXCR3 ELR-negative CXC chemokine receptor. American Journal of Pathology, 171, 484-495 (2007)
doi:10.2353/ajpath.2007.061092
149. C. C. Yates, D. Whaley, A. Yen, P. Kulesekaran, P. A. Hebda and A. Wells: ELR-negative CXC chemokine CXCL11(IP-9/I-TAC) facilitates dermal and epidermal maturation during wound repair. American Journal of Pathology, 173, 643-652 (2008)
doi:10.2353/ajpath.2008.070990
150. M. Dagan-Berger, R. Feniger-Barish, S. Avniel, H. Wald, E. Galun, V. Grabovsky, R. Alon, A. Nagler, A. Ben-Baruch and A. Peled: Role of CXCR3 carboxyl terminus and third intracellular loop in receptor-mediated migration, adhesion and internalization in response to CXCL11. Blood, 107(10), 3821-31 (2006)
doi:10.1182/blood-2004-01-0214
151. L. Lasagni, M. Francalanci, F. Annunziato, E. Lazzeri, S. Giannini, L. Cosmi, C. Sagrinati, B. Mazzinghi, C. Orlando, E. Maggi, F. Marra, S. Romagnani, M. Serio and P. Romagnani: An alternatively spliced variant of CXCR3 mediates the inhibition of endothelial cell growth induced by IP-10, Mig, and I-TAC, and acts as functional receptor for platelet factor 4. J Exp Med, 197(11), 1537-49 (2003)
doi:10.1084/jem.20021897
152. P. Romagnani, F. Annunziato, E. Lazzeri, L. Cosmi, C. Beltrame, L. Lasagni, G. Galli, M. Francalanci, R. Manetti, F. Marra, V. Vanini, E. Maggi and S. Romagnani: Interferon-inducible protein 10, monokine induced by interferon gamma, and interferon-inducible T-cell alpha chemoattractant are produced by thymic epithelial cells and attract T-cell receptor (TCR) alphabeta+ CD8+ single-positive T cells, TCRgammadelta+ T cells, and natural killer-type cells in human thymus. Blood, 97(3), 601-7 (2001)
doi:10.1182/blood.V97.3.601
153. R. J. Bodnar, C. C. Yates and A. Wells: IP-10 blocks vascular endothelial growth factor-induced endothelial cell motility and tube formation via inhibition of calpain. Circ Res, 98(5), 617-25 (2006)
doi:10.1161/01.RES.0000209968.66606.10
154. P. Romagnani, F. Annunziato, L. Lasagni, E. Lazzeri, C. Beltrame, M. Francalanci, M. Uguccioni, G. Galli, L. Cosmi, L. Maurenzig, M. Baggiolini, E. Maggi, S. Romagnani and M. Serio: Cell cycle-dependent expression of CXC chemokine receptor 3 by endothelial cells mediates angiostatic activity. J Clin Invest, 107(1), 53-63 (2001)
doi:10.1172/JCI9775
155. A. Kouroumalis, R. J. Nibbs, H. Aptel, K. L. Wright, G. Kolios and S. G. Ward: The chemokines CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 differentially stimulate G alpha i-independent signaling and actin responses in human intestinal myofibroblasts. J Immunol, 175(8), 5403-11 (2005)
156. L. Satish, D. Yager and A. Wells: Glu-Leu-Arg-negative CXC chemokine interferon gamma inducible protein-9 as a mediator of epidermal-dermal communication during wound repair. J Invest Dermatol, 120(6), 1110-7 (2003)
doi:10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12230.x
157. T. Engl, B. Relja, C. Blumenberg, I. Muller, E. M. Ringel, W. D. Beecken, D. Jonas and R. A. Blaheta: Prostate tumor CXC-chemokine profile correlates with cell adhesion to endothelium and extracellular matrix. Life Sci, 78(16), 1784-93 (2006)
doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2005.08.019
158. C. Rubie, O. Kollmar, V. O. Frick, M. Wagner, B. Brittner, S. Graber and M. K. Schilling: Differential CXC receptor expression in colorectal carcinomas. Scand J Immunol, 68(6), 635-44 (2008)
159. L. Goldberg-Bittman, E. Neumark, O. Sagi-Assif, E. Azenshtein, T. Meshel, I. P. Witz and A. Ben-Baruch: The expression of the chemokine receptor CXCR3 and its ligand, CXCL10, in human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines. Immunol Lett, 92(1-2), 171-8 (2004)
doi:10.1016/j.imlet.2003.10.020
160. M. Gacci, S. Serni, A. Lapini, G. Vittori, M. Alessandrini, G. Nesi, D. Palli and M. Carini: CXCR3-B expression correlates with tumor necrosis extension in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol, 181(2), 843-8 (2009)
doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.063
161. X. Ma, K. Norsworthy, N. Kundu, W. H. Rodgers, P. A. Gimotty, O. Goloubeva, M. Lipsky, Y. Li, D. Holt and A. Fulton: CXCR3 expression is associated with poor survival in breast cancer and promotes metastasis in a murine model. Mol Cancer Ther, 8(3), 490-8 (2009)
doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-08-0485
162. D. Datta, A. G. Contreras, M. Grimm, A. M. Waaga-Gasser, D. M. Briscoe and S. Pal: Calcineurin inhibitors modulate CXCR3 splice variant expression and mediate renal cancer progression. J Am Soc Nephrol, 19(12), 2437-46 (2008)
doi:10.1681/ASN.2008040394
163. N. Giuliani, S. Bonomini, P. Romagnani, M. Lazzaretti, F. Morandi, S. Colla, S. Tagliaferri, L. Lasagni, F. Annunziato, M. Crugnola and V. Rizzoli: CXCR3 and its binding chemokines in myeloma cells: expression of isoforms and potential relationships with myeloma cell proliferation and survival. Haematologica, 91(11), 1489-97 (2006)
164. K. Kawada, H. Hosogi, M. Sonoshita, H. Sakashita, T. Manabe, Y. Shimahara, Y. Sakai, A. Takabayashi, M. Oshima and M. M. Taketo: Chemokine receptor CXCR3 promotes colon cancer metastasis to lymph nodes. Oncogene, 26(32), 4679-88 (2007)
doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210267
165. K. Kawada, M. Sonoshita, H. Sakashita, A. Takabayashi, Y. Yamaoka, T. Manabe, K. Inaba, N. Minato, M. Oshima and M. M. Taketo: Pivotal role of CXCR3 in melanoma cell metastasis to lymph nodes. Cancer Res, 64(11), 4010-7 (2004)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-1757
166. T. C. Walser, S. Rifat, X. Ma, N. Kundu, C. Ward, O. Goloubeva, M. G. Johnson, J. C. Medina, T. L. Collins and A. M. Fulton: Antagonism of CXCR3 inhibits lung metastasis in a murine model of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res, 66(15), 7701-7 (2006)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0709
167. L. Satish, H. C. Blair, A. Glading and A. Wells: Interferon-inducible protein 9 (CXCL11)-induced cell motility in keratinocytes requires calcium flux-dependent activation of mu-calpain. Mol Cell Biol, 25(5), 1922-41 (2005)
doi:10.1128/MCB.25.5.1922-1941.2005
168. Q. Wu, R. Dhir and A. Wells: CXCR3 isoform expression modulates prostate cancer cell migration and invasion. submitted (2010)
169. O. V. Glinskii, V. H. Huxley, G. V. Glinsky, K. J. Pienta, A. Raz and V. V. Glinsky: Mechanical entrapment is insufficient and intercellular adhesion is essential for metastatic cell arrest in distant organs. Neoplasia, 7(5), 522-7 (2005)
doi:10.1593/neo.04646
170. K. A. Paschos, D. Canovas and N. C. Bird: The role of cell adhesion molecules in the progression of colorectal cancer and the development of liver metastasis. Cell Signal, 21(5), 665-74 (2009)
doi:10.1016/j.cellsig.2009.01.006
171. P. Brodt, L. Fallavollita, R. S. Bresalier, S. Meterissian, C. R. Norton and B. A. Wolitzky: Liver endothelial E-selectin mediates carcinoma cell adhesion and promotes liver metastasis. Int J Cancer, 71(4), 612-9 (1997)
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19970516)71:4<612::AID-IJC17>3.0.CO;2-D
172. M. A. Di Bella, A. M. Flugy, D. Russo, M. D'Amato, G. De Leo and R. Alessandro: Different phenotypes of colon carcinoma cells interacting with endothelial cells: role of E-selectin and ultrastructural data. Cell Tissue Res, 312(1), 55-64 (2003)
173. S. Gout, P. L. Tremblay and J. Huot: Selectins and selectin ligands in extravasation of cancer cells and organ selectivity of metastasis. Clin Exp Metastasis, 25(4), 335-44 (2008)
doi:10.1007/s10585-007-9096-4
174. R. Schmidmaier and P. Baumann: ANTI-ADHESION evolves to a promising therapeutic concept in oncology. Curr Med Chem, 15(10), 978-90 (2008)
doi:10.2174/092986708784049667
175. M. Sandig, E. B. Voura, V. I. Kalnins and C. H. Siu: Role of cadherins in the transendothelial migration of melanoma cells in culture. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton, 38(4), 351-64 (1997)
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0169(1997)38:4<351::AID-CM5>3.0.CO;2-6
176. M. E. el-Sabban and B. U. Pauli: Adhesion-mediated gap junctional communication between lung-metastatatic cancer cells and endothelium. Invasion Metastasis, 14(1-6), 164-76 (1994)
177. A. Enns, P. Gassmann, K. Schluter, T. Korb, H. U. Spiegel, N. Senninger and J. Haier: Integrins can directly mediate metastatic tumor cell adhesion within the liver sinusoids. J Gastrointest Surg, 8(8), 1049-59; discussion 1060 (2004)
doi:10.1016/j.gassur.2004.08.016
178. K. J. Luzzi, I. C. MacDonald, E. E. Schmidt, N. Kerkvliet, V. L. Morris, A. F. Chambers and A. C. Groom: Multistep nature of metastatic inefficiency: dormancy of solitary cells after successful extravasation and limited survival of early micrometastases. Am J Pathol, 153(3), 865-73 (1998)
179. A. Wells, C. Yates and C. R. Shepard: E-cadherin as an indicator of mesenchymal to epithelial reverting transitions during the metastatic seeding of disseminated carcinomas. Clin Exp Metastasis, 25(6), 621-8 (2008)
doi:10.1007/s10585-008-9167-1
180. C. L. Chaffer, J. P. Brennan, J. L. Slavin, T. Blick, E. W. Thompson and E. D. Williams: Mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition facilitates bladder cancer metastasis: role of fibroblast growth factor receptor-2. Cancer Res, 66(23), 11271-8 (2006)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2044
181. P. J. Kowalski, M. A. Rubin and C. G. Kleer: E-cadherin expression in primary carcinomas of the breast and its distant metastases. Breast Cancer Res, 5(6), R217-22 (2003)
doi:10.1186/bcr651
182. I. K. Bukholm, J. M. Nesland and A. L. Borresen-Dale: Re-expression of E-cadherin, alpha-catenin and beta-catenin, but not of gamma-catenin, in metastatic tissue from breast cancer patients. J Pathol, 190(1), 15-9 (2000)
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(200001)190:1<15::AID-PATH489>3.0.CO;2-L
183. M. A. Rubin, N. R. Mucci, J. Figurski, A. Fecko, K. J. Pienta and M. L. Day: E-cadherin expression in prostate cancer: a broad survey using high-density tissue microarray technology. Hum Pathol, 32(7), 690-7 (2001)
doi:10.1053/hupa.2001.25902
184. B. Mayer, J. P. Johnson, F. Leitl, K. W. Jauch, M. M. Heiss, F. W. Schildberg, W. Birchmeier and I. Funke: E-cadherin expression in primary and metastatic gastric cancer: down-regulation correlates with cellular dedifferentiation and glandular disintegration. Cancer Res, 53(7), 1690-5 (1993)
185. B. Saha, B. Chaiwun, S. S. Imam, D. D. Tsao-Wei, S. Groshen, W. Y. Naritoku and S. A. Imam: Overexpression of E-cadherin protein in metastatic breast cancer cells in bone. Anticancer Res, 27(6B), 3903-8 (2007)
186. T. Brabletz, A. Jung, S. Reu, M. Porzner, F. Hlubek, L. A. Kunz-Schughart, R. Knuechel and T. Kirchner: Variable beta-catenin expression in colorectal cancers indicates tumor progression driven by the tumor environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 98(18), 10356-61 (2001)
doi:10.1073/pnas.171610498
187. L. Kanczuga-Koda, S. Sulkowski, A. Lenczewski, M. Koda, A. Wincewicz, M. Baltaziak and M. Sulkowska: Increased expression of connexins 26 and 43 in lymph node metastases of breast cancer. J Clin Pathol, 59(4), 429-33 (2006)
doi:10.1136/jcp.2005.029272
188. J. R. Graff, E. Gabrielson, H. Fujii, S. B. Baylin and J. G. Herman: Methylation patterns of the E-cadherin 5' CpG island are unstable and reflect the dynamic, heterogeneous loss of E-cadherin expression during metastatic progression. J Biol Chem, 275(4), 2727-32 (2000)
doi:10.1074/jbc.275.4.2727
189. S. H. Lang, R. M. Sharrard, M. Stark, J. M. Villette and N. J. Maitland: Prostate epithelial cell lines form spheroids with evidence of glandular differentiation in three-dimensional Matrigel cultures. Br J Cancer, 85(4), 590-9 (2001)
doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.1967
190. C. C. Yates, C. R. Shepard, D. B. Stolz and A. Wells: Co-culturing human prostate carcinoma cells with hepatocytes leads to increased expression of E-cadherin. Br J Cancer, 96(8), 1246-52 (2007)
doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603700
191. C. Yates, C. R. Shepard, G. Papworth, A. Dash, D. Beer Stolz, S. Tannenbaum, L. Griffith and A. Wells: Novel three-dimensional organotypic liver bioreactor to directly visualize early events in metastatic progression. Adv Cancer Res, 97, 225-46 (2007)
doi:10.1016/S0065-230X(06)97010-9
192. G. Benton, E. Crooke and J. George: Laminin-1 induces E-cadherin expression in 3-dimensional cultured breast cancer cells by inhibiting DNA methyltransferase 1 and reversing promoter methylation status. Faseb J, 23(11), 3884-95 (2009)
doi:10.1096/fj.08-128702
193. D. Tarin and J. E. Price: Influence of microenvironment and vascular anatomy on "metastatic" colonization potential of mammary tumors. Cancer Res, 41(9 Pt 1), 3604-9 (1981)
194. C. F. Huang, C. Lira, K. Chu, M. A. Bilen, Y. C. Lee, X. Ye, S. M. Kim, A. Ortiz, F. L. Wu, C. J. Logothetis, L. Y. Yu-Lee and S. H. Lin: Cadherin-11 increases migration and invasion of prostate cancer cells and enhances their interaction with osteoblasts. Cancer Res, 70(11), 4580-9
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-3016
195. Z. Li, Z. Zhou and H. J. Donahue: Alterations in Cx43 and OB-cadherin affect breast cancer cell metastatic potential. Clin Exp Metastasis, 25(3), 265-72 (2008)
doi:10.1007/s10585-007-9140-4
196. N. J. Tawil, V. Gowri, M. Djoneidi, J. Nip, S. Carbonetto and P. Brodt: Integrin alpha3beta1 can promote adhesion and spreading of metastatic breast carcinoma cells on the lymph node stroma. Int J Cancer, 66(5), 703-10 (1996)
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960529)66:5<703::AID-IJC20>3.0.CO;2-3
197. E. K. Sloan, N. Pouliot, K. L. Stanley, J. Chia, J. M. Moseley, D. K. Hards and R. L. Anderson: Tumor-specific expression of alphavbeta3 integrin promotes spontaneous metastasis of breast cancer to bone. Breast Cancer Res, 8(2), R20 (2006)
doi:10.1186/bcr1398
198. N. P. McCabe, S. De, A. Vasanji, J. Brainard and T. V. Byzova: Prostate cancer specific integrin alphavbeta3 modulates bone metastatic growth and tissue remodeling. Oncogene, 26(42), 6238-43 (2007)
doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210429
199. A. Voulgari and A. Pintzas: Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis: mechanisms, markers and strategies to overcome drug resistance in the clinic. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1796(2), 75-90 (2009)
200. J. P. Thiery, H. Acloque, R. Y. Huang and M. A. Nieto: Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in development and disease. Cell, 139(5), 871-90 (2009)
201. M. Guarino: Src signaling in cancer invasion. Journal of Cell Physiology, 223(1), 14-26 (2010)
PMid:15037300
202. P. Friedl: Prespecification and plasticity: shifting mechanisms of cell migration. Curr Opin Cell Biol, 16(1), 14-23 (2004)
doi:10.1016/j.ceb.2003.11.001
203. P. Friedl and K. Wolf: Tumour-cell invasion and migration: diversity and escape mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer, 3(5), 362-74 (2003)
doi:10.1038/nrc1075
204. M. H. Zaman, R. D. Kamm, P. Matsudaira and D. A. Lauffenburger: Computational model for cell migration in three-dimensional matrices. Biophys J, 89(2), 1389-97 (2005)
doi:10.1529/biophysj.105.060723
205. S. Y. Wong, K. H. Chiam, C. T. Lim and P. Matsudaira: Computational model of cell positioning: directed and collective migration in the intestinal crypt epithelium. J R Soc Interface, 7 Suppl 3, S351-63 (2010)
doi:10.1098/rsif.2010.0018.focus
206. A. M. Weaver: Invadopodia: specialized cell structures for cancer invasion. Clin Exp Metastasis, 23(2), 97-105 (2006)
doi:10.1007/s10585-006-9014-1
207. K. Wolf and P. Friedl: Mapping proteolytic cancer cell-extracellular matrix interfaces. Clin Exp Metastasis, 26(4), 289-98 (2009)
doi:10.1007/s10585-008-9190-2
208. K. Wolf and P. Friedl: Molecular mechanisms of cancer cell invasion and plasticity. Br J Dermatol, 154 Suppl 1, 11-5 (2006)
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07231.x
209. F. Sabeh, R. Shimizu-Hirota and S. J. Weiss: Protease-dependent versus -independent cancer cell invasion programs: three-dimensional amoeboid movement revisited. J Cell Biol, 185(1), 11-9 (2009)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200807195
210. K. Wolf, Y. I. Wu, Y. Liu, J. Geiger, E. Tam, C. Overall, M. S. Stack and P. Friedl: Multi-step pericellular proteolysis controls the transition from individual to collective cancer cell invasion. Nat Cell Biol, 9(8), 893-904 (2007)
doi:10.1038/ncb1616
211. J. Shankar, A. Messenberg, J. Chan, T. M. Underhill, L. J. Foster and I. R. Nabi: Pseudopodial actin dynamics control epithelial-mesenchymal transition in metastatic cancer cells. Cancer Res, 70(9), 3780-90 (2010)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4439
212. U. Philippar, E. T. Roussos, M. Oser, H. Yamaguchi, H. D. Kim, S. Giampieri, Y. Wang, S. Goswami, J. B. Wyckoff, D. A. Lauffenburger, E. Sahai, J. S. Condeelis and F. B. Gertler: A Mena invasion isoform potentiates EGF-induced carcinoma cell invasion and metastasis. Dev Cell, 15(6), 813-28 (2008)
doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2008.09.003
213. S. Goswami, U. Philippar, D. Sun, A. Patsialou, J. Avraham, W. Wang, F. Di Modugno, P. Nistico, F. B. Gertler and J. S. Condeelis: Identification of invasion specific splice variants of the cytoskeletal protein Mena present in mammary tumor cells during invasion in vivo. Clin Exp Metastasis, 26(2), 153-9 (2009)
doi:10.1007/s10585-008-9225-8
214. W. Wang, R. Eddy and J. Condeelis: The cofilin pathway in breast cancer invasion and metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer, 7(6), 429-40 (2007)
doi:10.1038/nrc2148
215. A. M. Weaver: Cortactin in tumor invasiveness. Cancer Lett, 265(2), 157-66 (2008)
doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2008.02.066
216. A. Mamoune, J. H. Luo, D. A. Lauffenburger and A. Wells: Calpain-2 as a target for limiting prostate cancer invasion. Cancer Res, 63(15), 4632-40 (2003)
217. C. L. Cortesio, K. T. Chan, B. J. Perrin, N. O. Burton, S. Zhang, Z. Y. Zhang and A. Huttenlocher: Calpain 2 and PTP1B function in a novel pathway with Src to regulate invadopodia dynamics and breast cancer cell invasion. J Cell Biol, 180(5), 957-71 (2008)
doi:10.1083/jcb.200708048
218. A. J. Ridley, M. A. Schwartz, K. Burridge, R. A. Firtel, M. H. Ginsberg, G. Borisy, J. T. Parsons and A. R. Horwitz: Cell migration: integrating signals from front to back. Science, 302(5651), 1704-9 (2003)
doi:10.1126/science.1092053
219. R. Kalluri and R. A. Weinberg: The basics of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Clin Invest, 119(6), 1420-8 (2009)
doi:10.1172/JCI39104
220. S. Thomson, E. Buck, F. Petti, G. Griffin, E. Brown, N. Ramnarine, K. K. Iwata, N. Gibson and J. D. Haley: Epithelial to mesenchymal transition is a determinant of sensitivity of non-small-cell lung carcinoma cell lines and xenografts to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition. Cancer Res, 65(20), 9455-62 (2005)
doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1058
221. B. A. Frederick, B. A. Helfrich, C. D. Coldren, D. Zheng, D. Chan, P. A. Bunn, Jr. and D. Raben: Epithelial to mesenchymal transition predicts gefitinib resistance in cell lines of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther, 6(6), 1683-91 (2007)
doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0138
222. P. C. Black, G. A. Brown, T. Inamoto, M. Shrader, A. Arora, A. O. Siefker-Radtke, L. Adam, D. Theodorescu, X. Wu, M. F. Munsell, M. Bar-Eli, D. J. McConkey and C. P. Dinney: Sensitivity to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor requires E-cadherin expression in urothelial carcinoma cells. Clin Cancer Res, 14(5), 1478-86 (2008)
doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1593
223. A. Wolf-Yadlin, N. Kumar, Y. Zhang, S. Hautaniemi, M. Zaman, H. D. Kim, V. Grantcharova, D. A. Lauffenburger and F. M. White: Effects of HER2 overexpression on cell signaling networks governing proliferation and migration. Mol Syst Biol, 2, 54 (2006)
doi:10.1038/msb4100094
224. N. Kumar, R. Afeyan, H. D. Kim and D. A. Lauffenburger: Multipathway model enables prediction of kinase inhibitor cross-talk effects on migration of Her2-overexpressing mammary epithelial cells. Mol Pharmacol, 73(6), 1668-78 (2008)
doi:10.1124/mol.107.043794
225. N. Kumar, A. Wolf-Yadlin, F. M. White and D. A. Lauffenburger: Modeling HER2 effects on cell behavior from mass spectrometry phosphotyrosine data. PLoS Comput Biol, 3(1), e4 (2007)
doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030004
Key words: Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition, EMT, Mesenchymal Epithelial reverting Transition, MErT, Growth Factor Receptors, Tumor Microenvironment, Migration, Tumor Dissemination, Review
Send correspondence to: Alan Wells, University of Pittsburgh,Department of Pathology,3550 Terrace St,Scaife Hall, S-711,Pittsburgh, PA 15261,Tel: 412-624-0973,Fax: 412-624-8946, E-mail:wellsa@upmc.edu