1
2
3

4
5

Jacob G Scott1,2∗ , Anita Hjelmeland3 , Prakash Chinnaiyan4 , Alexander R. A. Anderson1 &
David Basanta1∗
1

13

Integrated Mathematical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute,
Tampa, FL, USA
2
Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford,
UK
3
Department of Cell, Developmental and Integrative Biology, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
4
Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute,
Tampa, FL, USA

14

Abstract

6
7

arXiv:1301.3934v3 [q-bio.TO] 20 Aug 2013

Microenvironmental variables must influence intrinsic
phenotypic parameters of cancer stem cells to affect
tumourigenicity

8
9
10
11
12

Since the discovery of tumour initiating cells (TICs) in solid tumours, studies
focussing on their role in cancer initiation and progression have abounded. The
biological interrogation of these cells continues to yield volumes of information on
their pro-tumourigenic behaviour, but actionable generalised conclusions have been
scarce. Further, new information suggesting a dependence of tumour composition and
growth on the microenvironment has yet to be studied theoretically. To address this
point, we created a hybrid, discrete/continuous computational cellular automaton
model of a generalised stem-cell driven tissue with a simple microenvironment. Using
the model we explored the phenotypic traits inherent to the tumour initiating cells
and the effect of the microenvironment on tissue growth. We identify the regions in
phenotype parameter space where TICs are able to cause a disruption in homeostasis,
leading to tissue overgrowth and tumour maintenance. As our parameters and model
are non-specific, they could apply to any tissue TIC and do not assume specific
genetic mutations. Targeting these phenotypic traits could represent a generalizable
therapeutic strategy across cancer types. Further, we find that the
microenvironmental variable does not strongly effect the outcomes, suggesting a need
for direct feedback from the microenvironment onto stem-cell behaviour in future
modelling endeavours.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

33

∗

Corresponding authors: jacob.g.scott@gmail.com, david@CancerEvo.org

1

34

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

Author Summary:
In this paper, we present a mathematical/computational model of a tumour growing according to the canonical cancer stem-cell hypothesis with a simplified microenvironment. We
explore the parameters of this model and find good agreement between our model and other
theoretical models in terms of the intrinsic cellular parameters, which are difficult to study
biologically. We find, however, disagreement between novel biological data and our model
in terms of the microenvironmental changes. We conclude that future theoretical models
of stem-cell driven tumours must include specific feedback from the microenvironment onto
the individual cellular behavior. Further, we identify several cell intrinsic parameters which
govern loss of homeostasis into a state of uncontrolled growth.

2

44

Introduction

45

Heterogeneity among cancer cells within the same patient contributes to tumour growth and

46

evolution. A subpopulation of tumour cells, called Tumour Initiating cells (TICs), or cancer

47

stem cells, has recently been shown to be highly tumourigenic in xenograft models and have

48

some properties of normal stem cells. Although controversial, there is a growing body of

49

evidence that TICs can drive tumour growth and recurrence in many cancers, including, but

50

not limited to, brain [1], breast [2] and colon [3]. These tumour types can be broadly classed

51

as hierarchical tumours as they have been posited to follow some of the same hierarchical

52

organisation as healthy stem-cell (SC) driven tissues. In these hierarchical tumors, TICs can

53

differentiate to produce non-TIC cancer cells or self-renew to promote tumor maintenance.

54

As TICs have been demonstrated to be resistant to a wide variety of therapies including

55

radiation and chemotherapy, the TIC hypothesis has important implications for patient

56

treatments [4]. Specifically, the effect of current strategies on the tumor cell hierarchy should

57

be defined, and TIC specific therapies are likelyto provide strong benefit for cancer patients.

58

In a simplified view of the tumour cell hierarchy, TICs can divide symmetrically or

59

asymmetrically to, respectively, produce two TIC daughters or a TIC daughter and a more

60

differentiated progeny [5, 6]. More differentiated TIC progeny which still have the capability

61

of cell division and are similar to transient amplifying cells (TACs) in the standard stem-

62

cell model and are capable of several rounds of their own symmetric division before the

63

amplified population then differentiates into terminally differentiated cells (TDs) which are

64

incapable of further division. This mode of division and differentiation, which we will call

65

the Hierarchical Model (HM) is schematized in Fig 1.

66

In the HM, there are a number of cellular behaviours that govern the system. In this

67

study, we choose to study three: the rate of symmetric versus asymmetric division of the stem

68

cells (α), the number of ‘rounds’ of amplification that transient amplifying cell can undergo

3

symmetric
division
Probability α

TAC

TD

asymmetric
division
Probability (1-α)

{

STEM

β rounds of
transient
amplification

differentiation
and death
after Ɣ
timesteps

Figure 1: Cartoon representing the hierarchical model of stem-cell driven tissues. In this
formulation, each stem can undergo two types of division, either symmetric (with probability
α) or asymmetric (with probability 1−α). Each subsequently generated transient amplifying
cell (TAC) can then undergo a certain number (β) of round of amplification before differentiating into a terminally differentiated cell (TD) which will live for a certain amount of time
before dying (γ timesteps). It is these three parameters, which we assume are intrinsic to a
given stem cell, which we explore in this paper.
69

before terminal differentiation (β), and the relative lifespan of a terminally differentiated

70

cell (γ). While it is a simplification of reality to study only these three parameters and

71

leave out others (for example: differing proliferation rates for the different cell types [7]

72

or the differing metabolic demands of stem vs. non-stem cells [8]) rigorous quantification

73

of these parameters has been extremely difficult to pin down experimentally and so the

74

majority of the work to describe them has been in silico. Most germane to the loss of

75

homeostasis is the work by Enderling et al. [9] which showed the changes to the size of

76

a mutated tissue (tumour) as they varied the number of rounds of amplification of TACs.

4

77

Other recent work attempting to quantify the ratio of symmetric to asymmetric division in

78

putative glioma stem cells was presented by Lathia et al. [10], who showed that this ratio can

79

change depending on the medium, suggesting yet another method by which a tissue can lose

80

or maintain homeostasis: in reaction to microenvironmental change. A critical limitation

81

of in vivo lineage tracing performed to date is an inability to determine the impact of

82

microenvironmental heterogeneity on TIC symmetric division.

83

While the HM appears to be quite straight forward, there is growing evidence of complex-

84

ity to be further incorporated into the model. There are likely to be differences in the extent

85

of TIC maintenance or the ability of tumour cells to move toward a TIC state. TICs appear

86

to reside in distinct niches suggesting there may be differences in the biology of these cells,

87

but defining differences in TICs is limited by cell isolation and tumour initiation methods.

88

Prospective isolation of TICs relies on surface markers, including CD133, CD151 and CD24

89

which can be transient in nature [11], due to modulation by the tumour microenvironment

90

or methods of isolation [12]. Characterisation of these sorted cells then requires functional

91

assays including in vitro and in vivo limiting dilution assay as well as determination of

92

expression of stem cell factors including Oct4, Nanog and others [13].

93

As the importance of TICs becomes more and more evident as it pertains to aspects of

94

tumour progression like heterogeneity [14], treatment resistance [15, 16], recurrence [17] and

95

metastasis [18], the need for generalizable therapeutic strategies based on conserved motifs

96

in these cells grows. We therefore aim to understand how the phenotypic traits discussed

97

earlier (asymmetric division rate, allowed rounds of transient amplification and lifespan of

98

terminally differentiated cells) and microenvironmental changes (modelled as differences in

99

oxygen supply) effect resultant tissue growth characteristics.

100

To this end, we present a minimal spatial, hybrid-discrete/continuous mathematical

101

model of a hierarchical SC-driven tissue architecture which we have used to explore the

102

intrinsic, phenotypic, factors involved in the growth of TIC-driven tumours. We consider
5

103

parameters that involve the rates of division of the cells involved in the hierarchical cascade

104

as well as micro-environmental factors including space and competition between cell types

105

for oxygen. We present results suggesting that there are discrete regimes in the intrinsic

106

cellular parameter space which allow for disparate growth characteristics of the resulting

107

tumours, specifically: TICs that are incapable of forming tumours, TICs that are capable of

108

forming only small colonies (spheres), and TICs that are capable of forming fully invasive

109

tumours in silico, just as we see diversity in biological experiments (Fig 4).

110

Methods

111

Our model is based on a hybrid, discrete-continuous cellular automaton model (HCA) of

112

a hierarchically structured tissue. HCA models have been used to study cancer progres-

113

sion and evolutionary dynamics since they can integrate biological parameters and produce

114

predictions affecting different spatial and time scales [14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. As shown in

115

figure 2C, cells are modelled in a discrete fashion on a 500x500 2-D lattice. This comprises

116

approximately 1cm2 where we assume a cell diameter of 20 micrometers [24]. The domain

117

has periodic boundary conditions but the simulations are stopped when a cell reaches one

118

of the boundaries. Every time step, cells are iterated in a random fashion as to avoid any

119

bias in the way that cells are chosen. Figure 2A shows that, although all cells are assumed

120

to have the same size and shape, they can only be one of three different phenotypes: TICs

121

capable of infinite divisions, TACs which are capable of division into two daughters for a

122

certain number (β) of generations, and TDs which cannot divide but live and consume nu-

123

trients for a specified lifetime (γ). Modes of division for TICs include asymmetric division

124

(with probability 1 − α), which is division into one TIC daughter and one TAC daughter

125

and symmetric division, which is division into two TIC daughters (probability α).

126

The continuous portion of this model is made of up the distribution and consumption

6

127

of nutrients (in this case modelled only as oxygen). Vessels, which are modelled as point

128

sources and take up one lattice point (Vi,j in Equation 1), are placed randomly throughout

129

the grid at the intiation of a given simulation, in a specified density (Θ). Each of these vessels

130

supplies oxygen at a constant rate (λ) which then diffuses into the surrounding tissue. The

131

diffusion speed/distance is described by Equation 1, where O(x, y, t) is the concentration of

132

oxygen at a given time (t), and place (x, y), DO is the diffusion coefficient of oxygen, λ is the

133

rate of oxygen production from a blood vessel, µs , µp , and µt are the rates at which TIC,

134

TAC and TD cells consume oxygen. The difference in time scales that govern the diffusion of

135

nutrients and that at which cells operate is managed by updating the continuous part of the

136

model 100 times per time step. During each update the oxygen tension in a given grid point

137

is updated with the values of the surrounding cells using a von Neumann neighbourhood

138

modulated by the diffusionrate (DO ).
∂O(x, y, t)
= DO ∇2 O(x, y, t) + λVx,y − µS Sx,y − µP Px,y − µT Tx,y
∂t

(1)

139

Any simulation performed by this model can be characterised by the parameters found

140

in table 1. The most relevant parameters for the question we are trying to address are the

141

following:

142

• Symmetric/asymmetric division rate of stem cells (α)

143

• Vascular density of the tissue (Θ)

144

• Number of allowed divisions of TACs (β)

145

• Lifespan of TDs (γ)

146

In each case, as can be seen in figure 2, a simulation is seeded with one TIC with a given set

147

of intrinsic parameters (α, β, γ) governing its and its progeny’s behaviour, which is placed in

148

the centre of the computational domain. The domain is initialised with as many randomly
7

A
oxygen

SCs

B

TACs
age
TDs

C

consume
O2

divide

diff

space
and O2?

differentiate?
pdiff

basal
O 2?

start

consume
basal
O2

age?
apoptosis

Figure 2: Computational model description. (A) The model includes three different cell
types: stem, progenitor and differentiated. All cell types interact with the microenvironment
in the form of oxygen tension. (B) The behaviour of each cell type is captured by a flowchart.
The last segment with discontinuous arrows represents behaviour that is specific to the stem
cells. (C) The cells are represented as agents inhabiting points in a grid in a 2D space with
500x500 grid points. Stem cells are represented as red points, progenitor as green and fully
differentiated as blue. The vasculature is represented as oxygen source points in black.
149

placed oxygen source points (vasculature) as described by the vascular density parameter

150

(Θ).

151

Results

152

A systematic parameter exploration of the three key parameters relating to vascularisation

153

of the domain, symmetric vs. asymmetric division (α) and progenitor division potential (β)

154

was performed. We also explored the parameter determining the lifespan of differentiated

155

cells (γ) and found that the only impact of longer lifespans is an increase in the amount

156

of time before the simulations reach a steady state, but does not change the qualitative

157

nature of the results. These results are summarised in Figure 4. Each of the three panels

158

represents the results for a different degree of vascularisation (0.01, 0.05 and 0.1). A density

8

Table 1.
Model parameters.

Parameter

value

DO (Oxygen diffusion)

0.001728

λ (Rate of Oxygen production)

1

µs, µp, µT

0.0001

! (Ratio of SC symmetric

0.1, 0.3, 0.5

" (TAC proliferative potential)

1,5,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1
7,18,19,20,50,70,100

ɣ (Differentiated cell lifespan)

1

# (Vascularisation)

0.001, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5

division)

Any simulation performed
this model
can be characterised by the parameters found in table 1
Figure 3:byModel
parameters.
the most relevant parameters for the question we are trying to address are the following:
159

1. Symmetric/asymmetric
divisionoxygen
rate of sources
stem cells
of vascularisation
of 0.05 would mean 12,500
in (!)
the domain. To determine

160

3. Numberwe
of used
allowed
transient
amplifying
(")
the diffusion coefficient,
thedivisions
estimateofof
approximately
70cells
micrometers
of effective

161

oxygenation [25]. Each plot shows the total tissue size after 50,000 time steps as we change

162

parameters
(!, ", Ɣ)
governing
progeny’s
the proliferativeintrinsic
potential
of progenitor
cells.
Each its
of and
the its
lines
shows behaviour,
a differentwhich
ratio isofplaced in the

163

oxygen source
points (vasculature)
described
the vascular
density parameter.
symmetric vs asymmetric
divisions.
These resultsas
show
that allbythese
three parameters
have

164

a critical range Results:
where homeostasis is disrupted (tumourigenesis).

2. Vascular density in the tissue (#)

4. Lifespan of terminally differentiated cells (ɣ)

In each case, as can be seen in figure 3, a simulation is seeded with one TIC with a given set of
centre of the computational domain. The domain is initialised with as many randomly placed

165

Figure 4 shows
examples
the typical
results
by this by
model.
Although
Figure
3 showsof
examples
of the
typicalproduced
results produced
this model.
Figurethe
3a shows an

example of an unviable tissue (parameters: 0.001 for vascularisation, a ratio of symmetric vs

166

proliferation rates
of all the divisions
cells remain
theasame,
due toreplicative
space constraints
differences
asymmetric
of 0.3,
progenitor
potential and
of 50the
and
1 day of lifespan for

167

in α, the population
of TICs
notofgrow
at the
samethe
rate
as the
SC, resulting
in does
an area
hypoxia
affecting
region
thatnon-stem
contains population.
the SC. That leads to the

168

Figure 4A shows
example
of an symmetric
unviable tissue
(parameters:
= 0.001,homeostasis
α = 0.3, β =where
50 cell birth and
of an
slightly
increased
division,
resulting in Θ
a dynamic

169

and γ = 1 day)example
where the
vascularisation
does achieves
not support
potential tissue
that
where
the system never
truethe
homeostasis.
In this size
caseofthe
rate of symmetric

170

TIC, resulting in
an areavalue
of hypoxia
affecting
the region
TIC. That
leads
to
a critical
at which
overgrowth
occurs.that
Overcontains
time, thethe
number
of SCs
increases
allowing fo

171

the death of theperiphery
stem cellofand,
eventually,
theand
restkeep
of the
cells in
thethe
tissue.
Figure
shows
the blood
vessels
growing
until
take over
the4B
entire
domain.

172

a case of slightly
increased parameter
symmetricexploration
division, resulting
in key
a dynamic
homeostasis
A systematic
of the three
parameters
relating towhere
vascularisation of the

differentiated cells) where the vascularisation does not support the potential tissue size of that

death of the stem cell and, eventually, the rest of the cells in the tissue. Figure 3b shows a case
death is balanced so that tissue size remains relatively constant. Finally, figure 3c shows an

to asymmetric division is slightly higher when compared with the previous example, suggesting
a larger tissue to be possible. Although this leads to areas of hypoxia, cells survive in the

domain, symmetric vs. asymmetric division (!) and progenitor division potential (") was

9

Figure 4: Three different examples of simulations resulting from the computational model.
Each simulation represents one of the typical outcomes. Each begins with a single TIC
seeded in the middle of the computational domain and the same vascular density. In each
situation the phenotype parameters are slightly different, resulting in (A) An unsustainable
tissue (parameters: Θ = 0.001, α = 0.3, β = 50 and γ = 1 day), (B) A homeostatic tissue
where the balance of stem cell sell renewal and progenitor proliferation leads to a tissue
whose overall size remains relatively constant over time, possibly representing a dormant
tumor (parameters: Θ = 0.05, α = 0.3, β = 15 and γ = 1 day) and, (C) Neoplastic-like
tissue where the tissue overgrows the computational domain (parameters: Θ = 0.05, α = 0.3,
β = 5 and γ = 1 day). (D) Bright field images of clonal CD133+ patient derived glioblastoma
cell lines cultured in Neurobasal supplemented with EGF, FGF and B27, exhibiting similar
phenotypic variability to the computation model outcomes.
173

cell birth and death is balanced so that tissue size remains relatively constant - which could

174

represent the enigmatic dormant phase [9]. Finally, figure 4C shows an example where the

175

system never achieves true homeostasis. In this case α is slightly higher when compared with

176

the previous example, suggesting a critical value at which overgrowth occurs. Over time,

177

the number of TICs increases, allowing for the ‘tumour phenotype’: unconstrained growth.

178

Although this leads to areas of hypoxia, cells survive in the periphery of the blood vessels

179

and keep growing until they take over the entire domain.

180

Unsurprisingly, the higher the vascularisation of the domain the greater the tissue size
10

181

it can support. Past a certain threshold, however, the difference becomes negligible and

182

more remarkably, the qualitative dynamics are unchanged by any change in the microenvi-

183

ronment. The same effect is evident in the other two parameters, the ratio of symmetric vs

184

asymmetric division (α) of TICs and the proliferative potential of TACs (β). Regardless of

185

the vascularisation, disruption of homeostasis only occurs when the proliferative potential

186

of TACs (β) is below a maximum value of about 15. For values of symmetric division (α)

187

above 0.3, the values for β in which this overgrowth occurs becomes even more restrictive

188

with a range of approximately 10-15.

189

Interestingly, we observed a conserved decrease in overall tissue size for the highest value

190

of symmetric division, α = 0.5, when the progenitor cells were allowed only 5 divisions

191

(β = 5). We believe this phenomenon represents a situation where the tissue is not able to

192

grow to its potential as the stem cells themselves occupy too much space, and never allow

193

the progenitors to contribute as much as they could to the overall population. This is a

194

supposition however, and deserves closer study.

Figure 5: Size of tissues vs. progenitor proliferative potential achieved by simulations using
different levels of vascularisation and ratios of symmetric vs asymmetric divisions. Lines represent averages for each of the three realisations in each scenario. (Left). Low vascularisation
density of 0.01 (Centre) Normal vascularisation density of 0.05 (Right) High vascularisation
density of 0.1. In each of these cases, the maximum tissue size will depend on the right
combination of α and β.

11

195

Of note as well: in no simulation did we observe the ‘tumour phenotype’ for a value

196

of α < 0.3, suggesting something akin to a ‘phenotypic tumour suppressor’ function for

197

this parameter. As observed biologically [10], this ratio is highly susceptible to changes in

198

microenvironment, suggesting an extension of this minimal model to include the microenvi-

199

ronmental factors measured in that study. How to incorporate the changes observed in that

200

study into a mechanistic HCA model however, is not trivial, and we reserve it for a future

201

extension of this work.

202

Discussion

203

In this paper we have presented a simple computational model of the HM of a TIC-driven

204

tissue. Our results show that there are distinct regions in parameter space (that directly

205

correlate to the intrinsic TIC phenotype space) that encode vastly different behaviour in the

206

tissue (or tumour) arising from the TIC in question. These parameters represent different

207

TIC phenotypes, and therefore do not represent any specific genetic mutation. In this way,

208

we hope to generalise the intrinsic alterations which a TIC could undergo much in the same

209

way that the ‘hallmarks of cancer’ have generalised non TIC-specific alterations [26]: our

210

end goal being the identification of treatment strategies to target these phenotypes to slow

211

or stop the progression of TIC-driven cancers.

212

Because of the difficulties in understanding TIC specific traits in vivo, the biological data

213

to support these conclusions remains sparse. There have been some carefully undertaken

214

in vitro experiments on single TICs in glioblastoma, a highly invasive and malignant brain

215

tumour, which suggest that TIC specific division behaviour (α in our model) is variable

216

and changes based on environmental cues [10]. Further work has shown that the other

217

microenvironmental cues, such as acidity [13] and hypoxia [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33] can

218

also alter the prevalence of the stem phenotype by utilising functional markers of stemness,

12

219

but the mechanism for this increase is, as of yet, imperfectly understood.

220

Of note, our simulations do not show a significant TIC population dependence on vascular

221

density (Θ), a surrogate for hypoxia, or a change in stem composition (see supplemental

222

spreadsheet), suggesting a flaw in the model. To rectify this, future iterations of this model

223

should include direct feedback onto the cellular parameters from the microenvironment. We

224

aim to parameterize this dependence by specific in vitro experiments designed to quantify

225

this effect, rather than just elucidate its existence. Other future developments of this model

226

should take into consideration the emerging body of work suggesting that the proportion of

227

TICs within a tumour is directly affected by therapy and not just physiologic growth factor

228

controls [34]. There is now evidence in several cancers to suggest that radiation increases the

229

size of the TIC pool. Specifically, in breast cancer, it has been shown that radiation therapy

230

induces non-stem cancer cells to de-differentiate into TICs [35]. Further, experimental studies

231

have shown radiation increases the TIC pool in glioblastoma [36], which has often been

232

attributed to radiation resistance [15] alone. A new study by Gao et al. [37], however, has

233

shown in silico and in vitro that radiation can effect the symmetric to asymmetric division

234

ratio (our intrinsic parameter α), yielding further clues about the mechanism of this TIC

235

pool expansion.

236

This behaviour, dedifferentiation due to treatment related microenvironmental factors,

237

has not yet been considered in any spatial theoretical models. Dedifferentiation due to

238

‘niche’ specific factors was studied by Sottoriva et al. [23], whose findings were similar to

239

ours: that the microenvironment made no significant change to the overall tumour growth

240

dynamics. Beyond this single spatial study, the concept of SC dedifferentiation is gaining

241

more and more attention in conceptual theoretical treatments [38] and has been modelled

242

with a deterministic ordinary differential equation system for a well-mixed population of

243

cells [39].

244

We, as well as others, find that the HM of tissue growth does not completely capture all
13

245

the necessary dynamics that characterise cancer growth - but there is still a great deal of

246

understanding to be gained from studying this formalism. To this end, we have performed

247

a study of the factors related to TICs driving this dynamic and have identified several key

248

factors which promote increased growth of the resultant tumour. In the same way that

249

Hanahan and Weinberg [26] have simplified the myriad (epi)genetic alterations which a

250

tumour can undergo into the ‘hallmarks of cancer’ we seek to distill the traits of TICs in the

251

same way. Specifically, we have found that the number of allowed divisions of TACs exhibits

252

bounds outside of which tumour growth is unsustainable. This finding has been corroborated

253

independently by recent work from Morton and colleagues [40]. Further, there is a specific

254

balance of symmetric to asymmetric division which keeps tumours from overgrowing; almost

255

acting as a phenotypic ‘tumour suppressor’. Indeed, changes in this ratio have been recently

256

hypothesized to underlie the increasing stem pool in glioblastoma after irradiation [37], and

257

could also represent a key to understanding tumour dormancy [9].

258

In summary, we have presented a minimal spatial Hybrid Cellular Automaton model

259

of the HM of a TIC-driven tissue in which we have explored generalised TIC phenotypic

260

traits and have identified several key cellular parameters which influence the overall tissue

261

behaviour. While our model does capture a number of salient phenotypic characteristics of

262

TICs that seem to be conserved, it fails to capture the recently observed changes in stem

263

fraction secondary to microenvironmental perturbations. This is an indication that any com-

264

putational model of a stem-hierarchical tissue, or tumour, built from this point on must not

265

only include the physical microenvironment, but also feedback from the microenvironment

266

onto the specific cellular parameters encoded in the HM.

267

Therefore, this endeavour has identified the crucial point that the microenvironment

268

must effect the behaviour of the cells within the HM, and also several conserved phenotypic

269

‘hallmarks’, which could be the result of any number of (epi)genetic alterations or microen-

270

vironmental perturbations. By focussing on phenotype instead of genotype, and identifying
14

271

the key points of the HM of stem-cell driven tumour growth, we have provided a begin-

272

ning to identification of the therapeutic targets to a more tractable set as compared to the

273

panoply of possible mutations encoding similar traits. Only with this sort of distillation of

274

the biological complexity inherent to cancer initiation (and indeed progression) can we hope

275

to make progress against this disease.

276

References

277
278
279

280
281
282

283
284
285

286
287

288
289

290
291

292
293
294

295
296
297
298
299

[1] Sheila K Singh, Cynthia Hawkins, Ian D Clarke, Jeremy A Squire, Jane Bayani,
Takuichiro Hide, R Mark Henkelman, Michael D Cusimano, and Peter B Dirks. Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature, 432(7015):396–401, Nov 2004.
[2] Muhammad Al-Hajj, Max S Wicha, Adalberto Benito-Hernandez, Sean J Morrison, and
Michael F Clarke. Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, 100(7):3983–8, Apr 2003.
[3] Arnout G Schepers, Hugo J Snippert, Daniel E Stange, Maaike van den Born, Johan H
van Es, Marc van de Wetering, and Hans Clevers. Lineage tracing reveals lgr5+ stem
cell activity in mouse intestinal adenomas. Science, 337(6095):730–5, Aug 2012.
[4] Maximilian Diehn, Robert W Cho, and Michael F Clarke. Therapeutic implications of
the cancer stem cell hypothesis. Semin Radiat Oncol, 19(2):78–86, Apr 2009.
[5] Sean J Morrison and Judith Kimble. Asymmetric and symmetric stem-cell divisions in
development and cancer. Nature, 441(7097):1068–74, Jun 2006.
[6] T Reya, S J Morrison, M F Clarke, and I L Weissman. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer
stem cells. Nature, 414(6859):105–11, Nov 2001.
[7] Benjamin Werner, David Dingli, Tom Lenaerts, Jorge M Pacheco, and Arne Traulsen.
Dynamics of mutant cells in hierarchical organized tissues. PLoS Comput Biol,
7(12):e1002290, Dec 2011.
[8] Erina Vlashi, Chann Lagadec, Laurent Vergnes, Tomoo Matsutani, Kenta Masui, Maria
Poulou, Ruxandra Popescu, Lorenza Della Donna, Patrick Evers, Carmen Dekmezian,
Karen Reue, Heather Christofk, Paul S Mischel, and Frank Pajonk. Metabolic state of
glioma stem cells and nontumorigenic cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 108(38):16062–7,
Sep 2011.

15

300
301
302

303
304
305
306
307

308
309
310

311
312

313
314
315

316
317
318
319

320
321
322
323

324
325
326

327
328

329
330
331
332
333

334
335

[9] Heiko Enderling, Alexander R A Anderson, Mark A J Chaplain, Afshin Beheshti, Lynn
Hlatky, and Philip Hahnfeldt. Paradoxical dependencies of tumor dormancy and progression on basic cell kinetics. Cancer Res, 69(22):8814–21, Nov 2009.
[10] J D Lathia, M Hitomi, J Gallagher, S P Gadani, J Adkins, A Vasanji, L Liu, C E
Eyler, J M Heddleston, Q Wu, S Minhas, A Soeda, D J Hoeppner, R Ravin, R D G
McKay, R E McLendon, D Corbeil, A Chenn, A B Hjelmeland, D M Park, and J N
Rich. Distribution of cd133 reveals glioma stem cells self-renew through symmetric and
asymmetric cell divisions. Cell Death Dis, 2:e200, 2011.
[11] Piyush B Gupta, Christine M Fillmore, Guozhi Jiang, Sagi D Shapira, Kai Tao, Charlotte Kuperwasser, and Eric S Lander. Stochastic state transitions give rise to phenotypic equilibrium in populations of cancer cells. Cell, 146(4):633–44, Aug 2011.
[12] Paola Brescia, Cristina Richichi, and Giuliana Pelicci. Current strategies for identification of glioma stem cells: adequate or unsatisfactory? J Oncol, 2012:376894, 2012.
[13] A B Hjelmeland, Q Wu, J M Heddleston, G S Choudhary, J MacSwords, J D Lathia,
R McLendon, D Lindner, A Sloan, and J N Rich. Acidic stress promotes a glioma stem
cell phenotype. Cell Death Differ, 18(5):829–40, May 2011.
[14] Andrea Sottoriva, Joost J C Verhoeff, Tijana Borovski, Shannon K McWeeney, Lev
Naumov, Jan Paul Medema, Peter M A Sloot, and Louis Vermeulen. Cancer stem cell
tumor model reveals invasive morphology and increased phenotypical heterogeneity.
Cancer Res, 70(1):46–56, Jan 2010.
[15] Shideng Bao, Qiulian Wu, Roger E McLendon, Yueling Hao, Qing Shi, Anita B Hjelmeland, Mark W Dewhirst, Darell D Bigner, and Jeremy N Rich. Glioma stem cells
promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the dna damage response. Nature,
444(7120):756–60, Dec 2006.
[16] Jian Chen, Yanjiao Li, Tzong-Shiue Yu, Renée M McKay, Dennis K Burns, Steven G
Kernie, and Luis F Parada. A restricted cell population propagates glioblastoma growth
after chemotherapy. Nature, 488(7412):522–6, Aug 2012.
[17] David Dingli and Franziska Michor. Successful therapy must eradicate cancer stem cells.
Stem Cells, 24(12):2603–10, Dec 2006.
[18] Roberta Pang, Wai Lun Law, Andrew C Y Chu, Jensen T Poon, Colin S C Lam, Ariel
K M Chow, Lui Ng, Leonard W H Cheung, Xiao R Lan, Hui Y Lan, Victoria P Y Tan,
Thomas C Yau, Ronnie T Poon, and Benjamin C Y Wong. A subpopulation of cd26+
cancer stem cells with metastatic capacity in human colorectal cancer. Cell Stem Cell,
6(6):603–15, Jun 2010.
[19] Alexander R A Anderson. A hybrid mathematical model of solid tumour invasion: the
importance of cell adhesion. Math Med Biol, 22(2):163–86, Jun 2005.
16

336
337
338
339
340

341
342
343

344
345
346
347

348
349

350
351

352
353

354
355

356
357
358
359

360
361
362
363

364
365
366
367
368

369
370
371

[20] Alexander R A Anderson, Mohamed Hassanein, Kevin M Branch, Jenny Lu, Nichole A Lobdell, Julie Maier, David Basanta, Brandy Weidow, Archana Narasanna,
Carlos L Arteaga, Albert B Reynolds, Vito Quaranta, Lourdes Estrada, and Alissa M
Weaver. Microenvironmental independence associated with tumor progression. Cancer
Res, 69(22):8797–806, Nov 2009.
[21] Alexander R A Anderson, Alissa M Weaver, Peter T Cummings, and Vito Quaranta.
Tumor morphology and phenotypic evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment. Cell, 127(5):905–15, Dec 2006.
[22] David Basanta, Douglas W Strand, Ralf B Lukner, Omar E Franco, David E Cliffel,
Gustavo E Ayala, Simon W Hayward, and Alexander R A Anderson. The role of
transforming growth factor-beta-mediated tumor-stroma interactions in prostate cancer
progression: an integrative approach. Cancer Res, 69(17):7111–20, Sep 2009.
[23] Andrea Sottoriva, Peter M A Sloot, Jan Paul Medema, and Louis Vermeulen. Exploring
cancer stem cell niche directed tumor growth. Cell Cycle, 9(8):1472–9, Apr 2010.
[24] M M Melicow. The three steps to cancer: a new concept of cancerigenesis. J Theor
Biol, 94(2):471–511, Jan 1982.
[25] Eric J Hall and Amato J Giaccia. Radiobiology for the radiologist. Wolters Kluwer
Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, 7th ed edition, 2012.
[26] Douglas Hanahan and Robert A Weinberg. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.
Cell, 144(5):646–74, Mar 2011.
[27] John M Heddleston, Zhizhong Li, Roger E McLendon, Anita B Hjelmeland, and
Jeremy N Rich. The hypoxic microenvironment maintains glioblastoma stem cells and
promotes reprogramming towards a cancer stem cell phenotype. Cell Cycle, 8(20):3274–
84, Oct 2009.
[28] Zhizhong Li, Shideng Bao, Qiulian Wu, Hui Wang, Christine Eyler, Sith Sathornsumetee, Qing Shi, Yiting Cao, Justin Lathia, Roger E McLendon, Anita B Hjelmeland, and
Jeremy N Rich. Hypoxia-inducible factors regulate tumorigenic capacity of glioma stem
cells. Cancer Cell, 15(6):501–13, Jun 2009.
[29] Sascha Seidel, Boyan K Garvalov, Valtteri Wirta, Louise von Stechow, Anne Schänzer,
Konstantinos Meletis, Marietta Wolter, Daniel Sommerlad, Anne-Theres Henze, Monica
Nistér, Guido Reifenberger, Joakim Lundeberg, Jonas Frisén, and Till Acker. A hypoxic
niche regulates glioblastoma stem cells through hypoxia inducible factor 2 alpha. Brain,
133(Pt 4):983–95, Apr 2010.
[30] Eli E Bar, Alex Lin, Vasiliki Mahairaki, William Matsui, and Charles G Eberhart.
Hypoxia increases the expression of stem-cell markers and promotes clonogenicity in
glioblastoma neurospheres. Am J Pathol, 177(3):1491–502, Sep 2010.
17

372
373
374
375

376
377
378
379
380
381

382
383
384
385

386
387
388
389
390

391
392
393

394
395
396
397

398
399
400

401
402
403

404
405

406
407
408

[31] A Soeda, M Park, D Lee, A Mintz, A Androutsellis-Theotokis, R D McKay, J Engh,
T Iwama, T Kunisada, A B Kassam, I F Pollack, and D M Park. Hypoxia promotes expansion of the cd133-positive glioma stem cells through activation of hif-1alpha.
Oncogene, 28(45):3949–59, Nov 2009.
[32] Julie Mathieu, Zhan Zhang, Wenyu Zhou, Amy J Wang, John M Heddleston, Claudia
M A Pinna, Alexis Hubaud, Bradford Stadler, Michael Choi, Merav Bar, Muneesh
Tewari, Alvin Liu, Robert Vessella, Robert Rostomily, Donald Born, Marshall Horwitz,
Carol Ware, C Anthony Blau, Michele A Cleary, Jeremy N Rich, and Hannele RuoholaBaker. Hif induces human embryonic stem cell markers in cancer cells. Cancer Res,
71(13):4640–52, Jul 2011.
[33] Jesper Kolenda, Stine Skov Jensen, Charlotte Aaberg-Jessen, Karina Christensen, Claus
Andersen, Nils Brünner, and Bjarne Winther Kristensen. Effects of hypoxia on expression of a panel of stem cell and chemoresistance markers in glioblastoma-derived
spheroids. J Neurooncol, 103(1):43–58, May 2011.
[34] Louis Vermeulen, Felipe De Sousa E Melo, Maartje van der Heijden, Kate Cameron,
Joan H de Jong, Tijana Borovski, Jurriaan B Tuynman, Matilde Todaro, Christian
Merz, Hans Rodermond, Martin R Sprick, Kristel Kemper, Dick J Richel, Giorgio
Stassi, and Jan Paul Medema. Wnt activity defines colon cancer stem cells and is
regulated by the microenvironment. Nat Cell Biol, 12(5):468–76, May 2010.
[35] Chann Lagadec, Erina Vlashi, Lorenza Della Donna, Carmen Dekmezian, and Frank
Pajonk. Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cancer cells. Stem Cells, 30(5):833–
44, May 2012.
[36] Kaoru Tamura, Masaru Aoyagi, Hiroaki Wakimoto, Noboru Ando, Tadashi Nariai,
Masaaki Yamamoto, and Kikuo Ohno. Accumulation of cd133-positive glioma cells
after high-dose irradiation by gamma knife surgery plus external beam radiation. J
Neurosurg, 113(2):310–8, Aug 2010.
[37] Xuefeng Gao, J Tyson McDonald, Lynn Hlatky, and Heiko Enderling. Acute and fractionated irradiation differentially modulate glioma stem cell division kinetics. Cancer
Res, 73(5):1481–90, Mar 2013.
[38] Louis Vermeulen, Felipe de Sousa e Melo, Dick J Richel, and Jan Paul Medema. The
developing cancer stem-cell model: clinical challenges and opportunities. Lancet Oncol,
13(2):e83–9, Feb 2012.
[39] Kevin Leder, Eric C Holland, and Franziska Michor. The therapeutic implications of
plasticity of the cancer stem cell phenotype. PLoS One, 5(12):e14366, 2010.
[40] Charles I Morton, Lynn Hlatky, Philip Hahnfeldt, and Heiko Enderling. Non-stem
cancer cell kinetics modulate solid tumor progression. Theor Biol Med Model, 8:48,
2011.
18

