Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23596563›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2013

Cancer Stem Cells: A Minor Cancer Subpopulation that Redefines Global Cancer Features.

Heiko Enderling, Lynn Hlatky, Philip Hahnfeldt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bioengineered adipose-derived stem cells for targeted enzyme-prodrug therapy of ovarian cancer intraperitoneal metastasis.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Biological noise and positional effects influence cell stemness.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Synergy of Dendritic Cell Vaccines and Avasimibe in Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer in Mice.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Heiko EnderlingCenter of Cancer Systems Biology, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine Boston, MA, USA.
Lynn Hlatky
Philip Hahnfeldt
Tufts University · US

Funding

Project 5 UC BerkleyU54CA149233 · NCI · STEWARD ST. ELIZABETH'S MEDICAL CENTER · PI HLATKY, LYNN · 2010 to 2014
$7.3M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA149233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years cancer stem cells (CSCs) have been hypothesized to comprise only a minor subpopulation in solid tumors that drives tumor initiation, progression, and metastasis; the so-called "cancer stem cell hypothesis." While a seemingly trivial statement about numbers, much is put at stake. If true, the conclusions of many studies of cancer cell populations could be challenged, as the bulk assay methods upon which they depend have, by, and large, taken for granted the notion that a "typical" cell of the population possesses the attributes of a cell capable of perpetuating the cancer, i.e., a CSC. In support of the CSC hypothesis, populations enriched for so-called "tumor-initiating" cells have demonstrated a corresponding increase in tumorigenicity as measured by dilution assay, although estimates have varied widely as to what the fractional contribution of tumor-initiating cells is in any given population. Some have taken this variability to suggest the CSC fraction may be nearly 100% after all, countering the CSC hypothesis, and that there are simply assay-dependent error rates in our ability to "reconfirm" CSC status at the cell level. To explore this controversy more quantitatively, we developed a simple cellular automaton model of CSC-driven tumor growth dynamics. Assuming CSC and non-stem cancer cells (CC) subpopulations coexist to some degree, we evaluated the impact of an environmentally dependent CSC symmetric division probability and a CC proliferation capacity on tumor progression and morphology. Our model predicts, as expected, that the frequency of CSC divisions that are symmetric highly influences the frequency of CSCs in the population, but goes on to predict the two frequencies can be widely divergent, and that spatial constraints will tend to increase the CSC fraction over time. Further, tumor progression times show a marked dependence on both the frequency of CSC divisions that are symmetric and on the proliferation capacities of CC. Together, these findings can explain, within the CSC hypothesis, the widely varying measures of stem cell fractions observed. In particular, although the CSC fraction is influenced by the (environmentally modifiable) CSC symmetric division probability, with the former converging to unity as the latter nears 100%, the CSC fraction becomes quite small even for symmetric division probabilities modestly lower than 100%. In the latter case, the tumor exhibits a clustered morphology and the CSC fraction steadily increases with time; more so on both counts when the death rate of CCs is higher. Such variations in CSC fraction and morphology are not only consistent with the CSC hypothesis, but lend support to it as one expected byproduct of the dynamical interactions that are predicted to take place among a relatively small CSC population, its CC counterpart, and the host compartment over time.

Indexed as

cancer stem cellcellular automatoninvasionmathematical modelmorphologysymmetric division

Identifiers

PMID23596563
PMCPMC3625721
OpenAlexW2087162196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.