Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25419568›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Differential in vivo tumorigenicity of distinct subpopulations from a luminal-like breast cancer xenograft.

Nirma Skrbo, Geir-Olav Hjortland, Alexandr Kristian, Ruth Holm, Silje Nord, Lina Prasmickaite, Olav Engebraaten, Gunhild M Mælandsmo, Therese Sørlie, Kristin Andersen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nirma SkrboDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute for Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Geir-Olav HjortlandDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Alexandr KristianDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute for Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Ruth HolmDepartment of Pathology, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Silje NordDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Lina PrasmickaiteDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Olav EngebraatenDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute for Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Gunhild M MælandsmoDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Cancer Stem Cell Innovation Centre, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway; K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Therese SørlieDepartment of Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Cancer Stem Cell Innovation Centre, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway; K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research, Institute for Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin AndersenDepartment of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Cancer Stem Cell Innovation Centre, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of Oslo · NONorwegian Cancer Society · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intratumor heterogeneity caused by genetic, phenotypic or functional differences between cancer cell subpopulations is a considerable clinical challenge. Understanding subpopulation dynamics is therefore central for both optimization of existing therapy and for development of new treatment. The aim of this study was to isolate subpopulations from a primary tumor and by comparing molecular characteristics of these subpopulations, find explanations to their differing tumorigenicity. Cell subpopulations from two patient derived in vivo models of primary breast cancer, ER+ and ER-, were identified. EpCAM+ cells from the ER+ model gave rise to tumors independently of stroma cell support. The tumorigenic fraction was further divided based on SSEA-4 and CD24 expression. Both markers were expressed in ER+ breast cancer biopsies. FAC-sorted cells based on EpCAM, SSEA-4 and CD24 expression were subsequently tested for differences in functionality by in vivo tumorigenicity assay. Three out of four subpopulations of cells were tumorigenic and showed variable ability to recapitulate the marker expression of the original tumor. Whole genome expression analysis of the sorted populations disclosed high similarity in the transcriptional profiles between the tumorigenic populations. Comparing the non-tumorigenic vs the tumorigenic populations, 44 transcripts were, however, significantly differentially expressed. A subset of these, 26 identified and named genes, highly expressed in the non-tumorigenic population, predicted longer overall survival (N = 737, p<0.0001) and distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) (N = 1379, p<0.0001) when performing Kaplan-Meier survival analysis using the GOBO online database. The 26 gene set correlated with longer DMFS in multiple breast cancer subgroups. Copy number profiling revealed no aberrations that could explain the observed differences in tumorigenicity. This study emphasizes the functional variability among cell populations that are otherwise genomically similar, and that the risk of breast cancer recurrence can only be eliminated if the tumorigenic abilities in multiple cancer cell subpopulations are inhibited.

Indexed as

CarcinogenesisCell Transformation, NeoplasticAnimalsAntigens, NeoplasmBreast NeoplasmsCD24 AntigenCell Adhesion MoleculesCluster AnalysisEpithelial Cell Adhesion MoleculeFemaleFlow CytometryGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansMammary Neoplasms, ExperimentalMice, NudeAntigens, NeoplasmCD24 AntigenCell Adhesion MoleculesEpithelial Cell Adhesion MoleculeReceptors, Estrogenstage-specific embryonic antigen-4Stage-Specific Embryonic Antigens

Identifiers

PMID25419568
PMCPMC4242648
OpenAlexW2165915252

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.