Colorectal cancer is diagnosed in approximately one million
people worldwide each year, making it the third most
common malignancy ( 1). Not unexpectedly, early diagnosis
is associated with a better prognosis. Five-year survival
rates of stage I and II colorectal cancer are in excess of 70%.
However, in spite of advances in treatment, metastatic
colorectal cancer has a five-year survival rate of less than
10% and is not considered a curative disease ( 2). Among
the “holy grails” of cancer diagnostics is the discovery of
novel, cost-effective biomarkers of sufficient sensitivity
and specificity to permit detection in a more timely
fashion. Additionally, biomarkers that provide prognostic
information and help clinicians to tailor cancer treatment
and monitor response to treatment would be of considerable
value. For example, mutations of the K-Ras gene, which
are present in 40% of patients with metastatic colorectal
cancer, have been found to be predictive of a poor response
to EGFR-targeted drugs ( 3). Cellular vesicles are among the
newer biomarkers that have been described in the literature,
not only for cancer, but for a variety of human diseases.
Cellular vesicles are shed from a variety of cell types
and since they contain cell membrane and cytoplasm,
their contents are reflections of their cell of origin. Vesicles
arising from platelets and red blood cells were among
the first to be described several decades ago, but their
biological significance was not known initially. Chargaff and West were among the first to report the procoagulant
properties of these entities as they observed that the
high speed centrifugate of human cell and platelet-free
plasma normalized clotting of blood from a patient with
hemophilia ( 4). Since the early descriptions, many different
subpopulations of cellular vesicles have been described,
including exosomes ( 5), microvesicles ( 6), ectosomes
( 7), membrane particles ( 8), exosome-like particles
( 9) and apoptotic vesicles ( 10). Subpopulations can be
distinguished from one another based on size, density,
morphology by electron microscopy, sedimentation by
ultracentrifugation, lipid composition, protein markers
and mechanisms by which they are formed. Exosomes, the
subpopulation of vesicles described in this edition of the
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology by Koga et al, are 30-100
nanometers in diameter and are derived from endocytic
vesicles. They are released upon fusion of multivesicular
bodies with plasma membranes ( 11). Although there
is likely to be some overlap of surface proteins present
in different vesicle subpopulations, the tetraspanins,
which include CD9, CD81, CD 82 and CD63, are typical
components of exosomes ( 11). Shedding of vesicles occurs
in steady state but is increased under the inf luence of a
variety of exogenous stressors including hypoxia, shear
stress, irradiation, chemotherapeutic agents and cytokines
( 12). Conveniently, cellular vesicles can be detected in the
circulation and are found in elevated levels in a variety
of human diseases including cardiovascular disease,
infections, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, Crohn’s disease
and cancer ( 13). Cellular vesicle subpopulations are now
known to contain DNA (genomic and mitochondrial),
mRNA, microRNA and membrane and secreted proteins,
some of which help to identify which cell population(s)
these vesicles originated from ( 14). As a result, many have
begun to investigate the use of cellular vesicles as diseasespecific
biomarkers. Taylor et al ( 15) recently reported that
more circulating exosomes could be isolated from patients
with ovarian cancer compared with patients with benign ovarian disease and that higher levels were associated with
more advanced disease. Several distinct microRNA species
could be isolated from these exosomes, eight of which were
also found in ex vivo tumor samples from the same patients.
Importantly, the microRNA profile of these exosomes was
different from those isolated from patients without ovarian
cancer, suggesting that this profile could act as a “molecular
fingerprint” capable of providing non-invasive diagnostic
and prognostic information.
A natural extension of studies as such would be to
examine patients with known colorectal cancer or those
at high risk of developing colorectal cancer as up and
down regulation of various microRNA species have been
noted in colorectal cancer tissue samples compared with
normal colonic tissue ( 16). In this edition of the Journal
of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Koga et al point out that one
of the technical limitations of RNA-based assays is that
RNases are fairly ubiquitous and can rapidly degrade RNA
in clinical samples. In this study, the authors examine
the durability of exosomes-based microRNA in the face
of RNase digestion. Homogenates of feces from healthy
volunteers and cultured HT-29 cells (human colorectal
cancer cell line) were treated with RNase. Total RNA was
extracted from RNase-treated cells (cultured HT-29 or
colonic epithelial cells isolated from feces) and exosomes
isolated from cell-free HT-29 culture media or feces.
Additionally, free RNA from both conditions was isolated.
Samples were then analyzed for the presence of selected
microRNA species by real-time RT-PCR. Investigators
found that free microRNA was completely degraded by the
addition of RNase whereas cellular microRNA was resistant
to RNase degradation. Interestingly, exosomal microRNAs
were partially (HT-29 cell-derived) or completely (fecesderived)
resistant to RNase degradation. Among the
microRNA species analyzed in this study was miR-21, which
has elevated levels in colorectal cancer tissue compared
with normal colonic tissue; however, no differences have
been noted with respect to early versus advanced stage
colorectal cancer ( 17). Nonetheless, if validated in larger,
appropriately-powered studies, findings as such could pave
the way to the development of highly sensitive and specific
and potentially cost-effective colorectal cancer screening
tests, particularly in regions of the world with relatively
scarce endoscopic resources.
In this context, exosomes may represent a biomarker
of cellular injury or atypia. However, others have
demonstrated that these and other cellular vesicles may
provide important insights in the pathogenesis of certain
diseases, including cancer. Recent interest has focused on
their capacity to shuttle cellular components from one cell
to another and alter cellular fate. Transfer of membrane receptors between cells has been reported as has transfer
of HIV and prions ( 18-22). Our group has demonstrated
that murine lung tissue-derived microvesicles induce
co-cultured bone marrow cells to express pulmonary
epithelial cell-specific mRNA and protein, likely through
the transfer of a microRNA or protein-based transcription
factor contained within microvesicles ( 14, 23). When
transplanted into lethally-irradiated mice, microvesiclemodified
marrow cells preferentially engraft the lung as
functioning type II pneumocytes (unpublished findings).
In vitro culture studies done by our group and others
have demonstrated that tumor-derived microvesicles can
transfer determinants to non-malignant cells ( 18) and that
human prostate cancer tissue is capable of inducing tissue
specific mRNA transcription in human bone marrow cells
( 24, 25). In a similar vein, Al-Nedawia et al. reported that
microvesicles produced from human cancer cell lines can
transfer EGFR to human umbilical vein endothelial cells,
in vitro ( 26). Cancer cell line xenografts in SCID mice that
were treated to block microvesicle production had reduced
tumor angiogenesis and growth, suggesting a role of tumorderived
microvesicles in cancer progression.
Our understanding of cellular vesicles has grown
substantially as evidenced by the number of published
reports, which have seemingly grown at an exponential
rate over the past decade. Once believed to be cellular
cast offs, these intriguing entities are now being viewed
as potentially important disease-specific biomarkers,
contributors to tissue repair processes and mediators of
disease pathogenesis. Their contents are not random but
rather provide essential insights of the health status of
the originator cell and, perhaps, clues if other cells will be
impacted in a beneficial or detrimental fashion.
|
References
- Cunningham D, Atkin W, Lenz HJ, Lynch HT, Minsky B, Nordlinger B,
et al. Colorectal cancer. Lancet 2010;375:1030-47.[LinkOut]
- Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA
Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74-108.[LinkOut]
- Aiello M, Vella N, Cannavò C, Scalisi A, Spandidos DA, Toffoli G, et
al. Role of genetic polymorphisms and mutations in colorectal cancer
therapy (Review). Mol Med Report. 2011;4:203-8.[LinkOut]
- Chargaff E, West R. The biological significance of the thromboplastic
protein of blood. J Biol Chem 1946;166:189-97.[LinkOut]
- Keller S, Sanderson MP, Stoeck A, Altevogt P. Exosomes: from
biogenesis and secretion to biological function. Immunol. Lett
2006;107:102-8.[LinkOut]
- Fader CM, Colombo MI. Autophagy and multivesicular bodies: two
closely related partners. Cell Death Differ 2009;16:70-8.[LinkOut]
- Morel O, Toti F, Hugel B, Freyssinet JM. Cellular microparticles: a disseminated storage pool of bioactive vascular effectors. Curr Opin
Hematol 2004;11:156-64.[LinkOut]
- Heijnen HF, Schiel AE, Fijnheer R, Geuze HJ, Sixma JJ. Activated
platelets release two types of membrane vesicles: microvesicles
by sur face shedding and exosomes derived from exocytosis of
multivesicular bodies and alpha-granules. Blood 1999;94:3791-9.[LinkOut]
- Nomura S, Na k amura T, Cone J, Tandon NN, Kambaya shi J.
Cytometric analysis of high shear-induced platelet microparticles
and effect of cytokines on microparticle generation. Cytometr y
2000;40:173-81.[LinkOut]
- Janowska-Wieczorek A, Majka M, Kijowski J, Baj-Krzyworzeka M,
Reca R, Turner AR, et al. Platelet-derived microparticles bind to
hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and enhance their engraftment.
Blood 2001;98:3143-9.[LinkOut]
- Théry C, Ostrowski M, Segura E. Membrane vesicles as conveyors of
immune responses. Nature Rev Immunol 2009;9:581-93.[LinkOut]
- Ratajczak J, Wysoczynsk i M, Hayek F, Janowska-Wieczorek A,
Ratajczak MZ. Membrane-derived microvesicles: important and
underappreciated mediators of cell-to-cell communication. Leukemia
2006;20:1487-95.[LinkOut]
- Boulanger CM, Amabile N, Tedgui A. Circulating microparticles:
a potential prognostic marker for atherosclerotic vascular disease.
Hypertension;48:180-6.[LinkOut]
- Aliotta JM, Sanchez-Guijo FM, Dooner GJ, Johnson KW, Dooner
MS, Greer KA, et al. Alteration of marrow cell gene expression,
protein production, and engraftment into lung by lung-derived
microvesicles: a novel mechanism for phenotype modulation. Stem
Cells 2007;25:2245-56.[LinkOut]
- Taylor DD, Gercel-Taylor C. MicroRNA signatures of tumor-derived
exosomes as diagnostic biomarkers of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol
2008;110:13-21.[LinkOut]
- Koga Y, Yasunaga M, Moriya Y, Akasu T, Fujita S, Yamamoto S, et al.
Exosome can prevent RNase from degrading microRNA in feces. J
Gastrointest Oncol 2011; 2: XX-XX.
- Koga Y, Yasunaga M, Takahashi A, Kuroda J, Moriya Y, Akasu T, et
al. MicroRNA expression profiling of exfoliated colonocytes isolated from feces for colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila)
2010;3:1435-42.[LinkOut]
- Baj-Krzyworzeka M, Szatanek R, Weglarczyk K, Baran J, Urbanowicz
B, Brański P, et al. Tumour-derived microvesicles carr y several
surface determinants and mRNA of tumour cells and transfer some
of these determinants to monocytes. Cancer Immunol Imunother
2006;55:808-18.[LinkOut]
- Rozmyslowicz T, Majka M, Kijowski J, Murphy SL, Conover DO, Poncz
M, et al. Platelet- and megakaryocyte-derived microparticles transfer
CXCR4 receptor to CXCR4-null cells and make them susceptible to
infection by X4-HIV. AIDS 2003;17:33-42.[LinkOut]
- Graves LE, Ariztia EV, Navari JR, Matzel HJ, Stack MS, Fishman DA.
Proinvasive properties of ovarian cancer ascites-derived membrane
vesicles. Cancer Res 2004;64:7045-49.[LinkOut]
- Fack ler OT, Peterlin BM. Endocy tic entr y of HIV-1. Curr Biol
2000;10;1005-8.[LinkOut]
- Fevrier B, Vilette D, Archer F, Loew D, Faigle W, Vidal M, et al. Cells
release prions in association with exosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2004;101: 9683-8.[LinkOut]
- Aliotta JM, Pereira M, Johnson KW, de Paz N, Dooner MS, Puente
N, et al. Microvesicle entry into marrow cells mediates tissue-specific
changes in mRNA by direct delivery of mRNA and induction of
transcription. Exp Hematol 2010;38:233-45.[LinkOut]
- Renzulli JF 2nd, Del Tatto M, Dooner G, Aliotta J, Goldstein L, Dooner
M, et al. Microvesicle induction of prostate specific gene expression in
normal human bone marrow cells. J Urol 2010;184:2165-71.[LinkOut]
- Del Tatto M, Ng T, Aliotta JM, Colvin GA, Dooner MS, Berz D, et al.
Marrow Cell Genetic Phenotype Change Induced by Human Lung
Cancer Cells. Exp Hematol 2011 Aug 19. [Epub ahead of print][LinkOut]
- Al-Nedawi K, Meehan B, Kerbel RS, Allison AC, Rak J. Endothelial
expression of autocrine VEGF upon the uptake of tumor-derived
microvesicles containing oncogenic EGFR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2009;106:3794-9.[LinkOut]
Cite this article as:
Aliotta J. Tumor exosomes: a novel biomarker? J Gastrointest Oncol. 2011;2(4):203-205. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2011.041
|