Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis - 藏经阁干细胞之家



免疫细胞治疗专区	欢迎关注干细胞微信公众号

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29 下一页

返回列表

查看: 615906\|回复: 280	go Mesenchymal stem cells within tumour stroma promote breast cancer metastasis [复制链接]

gkshl

新手上路

Rank: 1

积分: 0
威望: 0
包包: 8

楼主

发表于 2012-5-17 17:15 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览 |打印

Mesenchymal stem cells have been recently described to localize to breast carcinomas, where they integrate into the
tumour-associated stroma. However, the involvement of mesenchymal stem cells (or their derivatives) in tumour, w2 \' x  _- M/ d% H3 d
pathophysiology has not been addressed. Here, we demonstrate that bone-marrow-derived humanmesenchymal stem cells,
when mixed with otherwise weakly metastatic human breast carcinoma cells, cause the cancer cells to increase their
metastatic potency greatly when this cell mixture is introduced into a subcutaneous site and allowed to form a tumour
xenograft. The breast cancer cells stimulate de novo secretion of the chemokine CCL5 (also called RANTES) from
mesenchymal stem cells, which then acts in a paracrine fashion on the cancer cells to enhance their motility, invasion and6 w9 I6 R) d, p' `/ y( u7 h
metastasis. This enhanced metastatic ability is reversible and is dependent on CCL5 signalling through the chemokine3 j: a0 s- i1 q! j) H" x" t
receptor CCR5. Collectively, these data demonstrate that the tumour microenvironment facilitates metastatic spread by, \. {; p7 ?$ u1 z5 e7 j" h# W- J
eliciting reversible changes in the phenotype of cancer cells.6 t$ ?9 w' q6 j7 x' k! v1 ~9 R
The origins of the invasive and metastatic phenotypes of carcinoma
cells have been the subjects of intense investigation. Whereas some6 z5 O0 f" @6 c
current models depict these phenotypes as cell-autonomous alterations
specified by the genomes of cancer cells, alternative views propose. u- C6 n4 f2 R4 y8 x: r
that metastatic traits are acquired through exposure of epithelial
cancer cells to paracrine signals that they receive from mesenchymal
cell types within the tumour-associated stroma. Although several1 N* F' z* a  Z5 F" X
lines of evidence demonstrate the contributions of stromal cells to
primary tumour growth1, direct experimental demonstration of the
influence of these various cells on the metastatic abilities of cancer
cells has been difficult to obtain. This is due, in part, to the complexity
of the mesenchymal cell types that are recruited into the stroma, and
to the elusive nature of the putative paracrine signals that are
exchanged between the mesenchymal and epithelial compartments
of a tumour. Recent reports proposed that the bone-marrow-derived0 J# Z$ [5 s, J8 i, Q! g" J! }$ w  a
mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) is a cell type that is recruited in large! U/ w5 q* ]9 D1 V/ m
numbers to the stroma of developing tumours2. To characterize better9 {3 N3 W2 x0 ~, c2 a
the role of this stromal cell in tumorigenesis, we set out to determine
whether MSCs could supply contextual signals that serve to' o- a! z$ g( T4 b* Y9 M3 b
promote cancer metastasis.
Mesenchymal stem cells are pluripotent progenitor cells that contribute. f1 R$ X+ ~# T" I8 ]
to the maintenance and regeneration of a variety of connective
tissues, including bone, adipose, cartilage and muscle3. Although
MSCs reside predominantly in the bone marrow, they are also distributed3 X4 t2 L  m/ C" m- y4 c4 B
throughout many other tissues, where they are thought to: l; O* W: d1 ]: Z* \
serve as local sources of dormant stem cells4,5. The contributions of1 l% }- R4 ?3 B9 s0 F2 ~8 C
MSCs to tissue formation become apparent only in cases of tissue
remodelling after injury or chronic inflammation. These conditions3 T" U( _8 k9 p' p  t
are typically accompanied by the release of specific endocrinal signals
from the injured or inflamed tissue that are then transmitted to the
bone marrow, leading to the mobilization of multi-potent MSCs and$ s7 B# E8 y) I2 A' y
their subsequent recruitment to the damage site6. For example, MSCs
have been shown to contribute to the formation of fibrous scars after
injury7.
The formation of breast carcinomas is often accompanied by a
well-orchestrated desmoplastic reaction, which involves the recruitment; X. A/ `4 ^4 R8 H( l$ e# I3 K
of a variety of stromal cells with both pro- and anti-tumorigenic! M2 S! C) F* p: {  H! J% `
activities1. Such response closely resembles wound healing and scar* m. o0 V( r( R3 X# w( N
formation, and entails the constant deposition of growth factors,
cytokines and matrix-remodelling proteins that render the tumour
site a ‘wound that never heals’8. This suggests that, similar to sites of* T& C9 Q3 R6 [. f8 ~
injury, actively growing tumours recruit MSCs through the release of: P# P8 t+ i0 D2 m4 A4 V
various endocrine and paracrine signals. Indeed, as we have found,, R9 [0 i8 u6 S8 t) `
mouse stroma prepared from developing human MCF7/Ras or% [- E6 ~, d  y2 e. H* N; ~
MDA-MB-231 breast cancer xenografts is rich in cells with an ability
to generate fibroblastoid colony-forming units (CFU-F) in vitro0 |" q2 D+ S+ o) Q1 e( A
(Supplementary Fig. 1a), a hallmark of MSCs3. The absence of such- {! h( L. {2 N, A) @6 @* {) I
colonies from control Matrigel plugs or from neighbouring tissues6 I5 B1 `' D# z8 N" R
(negative control; Supplementary Fig. 1a) suggested that endogenous8 }. X# f  S( S1 v: A* `
murine MSCs localize specifically to sites of neoplasia.. w( n! H2 `1 h! Z, t9 D
To investigate whether human breast cancer cells also have the  \0 ?  p2 w4 n* J; d# ]
ability to attract human MSCs, we established a transwell assay
in which bone-marrow-derived human MSCs were allowed to
migrate towards media derived from MCF7/Ras or MDA-MB-231( Y. D6 p  G, r6 R
cultures. We found that human MSCs migrated much more avidly
(,11-fold more) towards media derived from these cancer cells0 T" P9 }2 r! F6 B, \0 ?
than towards control media (Supplementary Fig. 1b). More importantly,4 v% A1 |* q$ Y9 W3 K2 ^7 m
green fluorescent protein (GFP)-labelled human MSCs
infused into the venous circulation of mice bearing MCF7/Ras
or MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer xenografts localized specifically$ q3 I2 f) C, d) @# @  Z6 w
to the developing tumours, with no observable accumulation
in other tissues, such as the kidneys (Supplementary Fig. 1c), liver2 `% ~8 e( ~* I4 i# X" w# I
and spleen (data not shown). Such findings indicated that MSCs* [2 w5 h; g) j/ H
are specifically recruited by subcutaneous breast xenografts, and corroborated
recent studies that described the localization of systemically
infused MSCs to other types of malignancy, such as gliomas9,10,
colon carcinomas11,12, ovarian carcinomas13, Kaposi’s sarcomas14 and" H7 N- r5 F) _
melanomas15.MSCs enhance breast cancer metastasis* |4 M+ e# l2 \& v! v/ v
To investigate the functional consequences of the heterotypic interactions# E4 \8 L' `  c, k8 @  ^! M
between MSCs and mammary carcinoma cells, we established
a xenograft model in which GFP-labelled MCF7/Ras, MDA-MB-231,
MDA-MB-435 and HMLER (see Methods) human breast cancer
cells (BCCs) were mixed with bone-marrow-derived human MSCs- [/ c8 }8 ?% v% t
(hereafter referred to as MSCs) and injected subcutaneously into- ?! G( l% r* I  k$ H5 T8 g
immunocompromised mice. The growth kinetics of the MSCcontaining+ t) L; e5 q. t# w8 t, o& v) U6 b) [
tumours (BCCs plus MSCs) were compared to those of
BCCs injected alone (BCCs) over the subsequent 8–12 weeks, after
which the histopathology of the resulting tumours was studied.
We found that MSCs accelerated the growth of MCF7/Ras  }0 F7 x5 \4 q
tumours without affecting the kinetics of MDA-MB-231-, MDAMB-) a( n6 o, @% h, V/ W
435- or HMLER-containing tumours (Fig. 1a). More importantly,& M) s: j$ I4 G8 S* `& P* B6 ^0 h
whereas mice carrying tumours composed only of BCCs% E  T) x" l/ x0 Q5 S8 k  ~: R- l
exhibited few microscopic metastases in the lungs (Fig. 1b, d), mice2 t3 T' x* Z: r* G; ^- ]
bearing the mixed MCF7/Ras1MSC, MDA-MB-2311MSC, MDAMB-) W& B; k, P* x8 d; i7 r, H# H: v
4351MSC and HMLER1MSC tumours displayed a marked
increase in the numbers of micro- and macroscopic lung metastases' {0 m. d2 H* y: T. S
(Fig. 1b, d). Normalized counts of the metastatic nodules in the lungs5 D  D% N/ |9 @
of BCC1MSC-bearing mice compared to their BCC-control littermates  e; P) q0 i( `
revealed two-, three-, four- and sevenfold enhancements in* R/ \. N9 Y# [3 w) o; I
the overall numbers of detectable HMLER, MDA-MB-435, MCF7/* j1 _/ R' A4 e2 F
Ras and MDA-MB-231 metastatic deposits, respectively (Fig. 1c).: s- N5 N9 c3 U/ h
Furthermore, in contrast to the MDA-MB-231-bearing mice, the2 O  S0 a1 @6 h
MDA-MB-2311MSC-bearing mice showed metastases to various
other tissues, including the mammary glands (Supplementary- @2 w) k& h- \& `4 U
Table 1). Although all four of the tested cell lines exhibited enhanced  `# d# g# w: C" M3 i+ a8 b* N
metastatic potential after admixture of MSCs, we chose to focus( L7 T6 E* E- m9 P! D% p1 D) T
further analysis on the MDA-MB-231 tumour model, because it
displayed the greatest relative increase in MSC-induced metastasis
without any concomitant effect on either tumour cell proliferation6 X; x1 s; J: y9 i0 p
(as revealed by Ki67 staining; Supplementary Fig. 2) or overall primary
tumour growth kinetics.
We note that admixture of other types of mesenchymal cells—( S' ^: s, I' S7 k% X
specifically WI-38 or BJ human fibroblasts (Supplementary Fig. 34 C9 ~9 x" ?9 {0 Y, j' K" j
and data not shown)—to MDA-MB-231 cancer cells before injection; ?* }6 U% \6 _9 m- O8 J; O) T9 l
into host mice did not result in either enhanced growth kinetics
(Supplementary Fig. 3a, b) or increased numbers of lung metastases
(Supplementary Fig. 3c, d). Taken together, these observations indicated4 m: c+ R2 K2 m, A
that the metastasis-enhancing powers were a specific property% z9 J3 @/ J9 \0 _5 ?* L$ z
of admixed MSCs or derivatives thereof., d, U' v9 y( \0 S  Y; ~7 p
Reversible metastasis
Implantation of MSCs either contralaterally to MDA-MB-231 cells or
in nearby separate sites of injection did not affect the metastatic
potential of the resulting primary tumours (data not shown), indicating
that MSCs could enhance cancer metastasis only when they! ?4 w4 R- U& s/ D% |
were in close proximity to the engrafted BCCs. This influence might
be ascribed to various effects that MSCs exert on the commingled
carcinoma cells. Thus, the MSCs might favour the outgrowth of rare
variants within the MDA-MB-231 cell populations that exhibit
unusually high metastatic powers. Alternatively, the MSCs might
cause otherwise weakly metastatic MDA-MB-231 cells to acquire% P5 U) x# S0 P8 Y0 `( g! X
enhanced metastatic abilities. This latter mechanism suggests the
possibility that the acquisition of the metastatic phenotype might$ N% O: y: X7 Z( s
be reversible, in that carcinoma cells might revert to a lower metastatic8 q9 \2 v) r8 c* n% e' M
state once they were no longer in close contact with MSCs., \( l: F1 X! C4 y$ F/ H
To resolve between these two mechanisms, explants of MDA-MB-2 e9 |' j) Z1 l
231 cells were prepared from BCC plus MSC primary tumours (Texplants)5 q0 g# F- B, m* H% r; j6 q/ z- R! T
as well as from their derived lung metastases (L-explants),8 J7 O' |8 a# v1 [7 V' S
expanded in vitro, cleared from contaminating stromal components,
and then re-injected into subcutaneous sites in host mice in order
to evaluate their respective metastatic powers (Fig. 2a). Although
the growth rate of the resulting L-explant primary tumours was
marginally enhanced compared to their T-explant counterparts) P. |8 }/ Z8 ]2 H2 k8 q
(Fig. 2b, c), these L-explant cells were no more metastatic than the
parental T-explant cancer cells (Fig. 2d). This suggested that the  F: B0 y+ e1 F
a. C+ z0 ?" A& ]. X- G
c d1 h2 h3 Y! S; Z, Q6 L1 B3 [+ \4 N
Days after injection# z& S9 \8 `- h: @' q# u6 A
Tumour volume (mm3)4 S( d! |. \$ @% u. @5 W) ^
10 17 24 31 38 46 72 80 89 13 19 26 33 40 47 54 61 68 75 81 10 19 24 31 38 46
b
1 mm 1 mm; m- C' t7 ]. \
1 mm 1 mm- a4 k7 j  W1 c9 W
300 μm
HMLER HMLER+MSC
MDA-MB-231 MDA-MB-231+MSC
MDA-MB-435 MDA-MB-435+MSC
MCF7/Ras MCF7/Ras+MSC
100 μm$ f! u, o4 g) ~) ~
300 μm
100 μm) [0 C# u$ E& h
MDA-MB-2319 M, `5 U; J9 z
MDA-MB-435" W/ L4 ?, }' N2 [$ P1 Z: A
MCF7/Ras
**
Metastasis index (fold)% X" y/ ~" U% P; g
08 Q; k3 y. }. |8 r& \- R
1
21 O3 P8 N- x# L- r! s
3$ m1 H1 e+ ]4 S  }) n/ U
4% M# s: \% U1 w' X/ f
5* E! n4 M, W" G0 ]+ s
6  l! q1 J. p+ J9 k+ n
78 |# {# ?  p5 u! I% {1 Y
8" f+ z8 n& a" Z' E2 n% X
9$ _' v9 x' W$ c6 F3 i' t
*4 D4 X% D# T# E
**1 [2 @7 X; S; R. y
**. m  b7 W9 W3 a
MSC – + – + – + – +
*
HMLER
700 1,200
1,000
800* D% s5 q+ y9 J& u
600
400. H) W$ r$ d/ d3 Z- F
200
0
800; W' k7 f/ c4 B+ W  @8 P# a
7001 c3 D$ ?* |* _- f6 R: [3 e" O
600
500
400% k' W8 s' q" ~, q( e
300
200$ Q1 Y3 L% }7 T! q
1007 a# a: a% q. Q7 ?6 G
0
3,500* z- B" I+ j" o0 e+ D9 r
0
500: G- g( K, {: t! H
1,000
1,500* m+ y- V2 \# m, ?- S4 |* @
2,000
2,500- h' T3 S! h4 ~8 j& L. E
600 3,000
5009 e: Y" E) n( Y  G  B  X2 v
400
3004 H+ O/ y" Q) S' B' L! [! N- e
200
100
0
0 21 31 38 49 56 63 70 78
MCF7/Ras alone8 L5 C9 G  k% }4 y1 K$ s& e( r
MCF7/Ras+MSC/ z7 \4 n% H6 K/ I8 G4 \# m
MDA-MB-231 alone4 Z3 c0 D( M1 C5 T: _
MDA-MB-231+MSC
MDA-MB-435 alone# _; v% }# U: l; W
MDA-MB-435+MSC
HMLER alone2 _0 F( t. F' D! Q$ n
HMLER+MSC
HMLER HMLER+MSC
MCF7/Ras MCF7/Ras+MSC) q; N4 B% l4 I
MDA-MB-231 MDA-MB-231+MSC
MDA-MB-435 MDA-MB-435+MSC
Figure 1 | MSCs promote breast cancer metastasis. a, Tumour volume
measurements (mean6s.e.m.) of 500,000 GFP-labelled BCCs injected- }2 c, v$ {8 |* R
subcutaneously into nude mice with or without 1.53106 MSCs.
Representative data from multiple experiments are shown. Diamonds, BCCs
alone, n55–7 mice per group; squares, BCCs plus MSCs, n55–8 mice per* Q* v- k6 i( C! W1 |: Y
group. b, Representative bright-field/fluorescence images of lungs of mice0 n+ P& W3 Z% D6 H% ~& S" A  a' ?4 X
bearing the indicated tumours. Cancer colonies are in green. MCF7/Rasbearing
mice were killed at approximately day 150 to allow these tumours to7 w% x0 c6 C( S3 ?: K# f; N
grow to comparable sizes to their MCF7/Ras1MSC counterparts. c, The* ?' W6 o* P! _$ L7 G( Y; `! }
lung metastasis indices pooled within each cohort of mice in a are expressed1 o: Q  x/ F( ~5 C+ B1 n
as fold increase (6s.e.m.) over controls. Data shown are representative of
multiple repeats. Asterisk, P,0.01, double asterisk, P,0.05 using onetailed
Student’s t-test. d, Representative haematoxylin-and-eosin-stained) r8 x5 x; U9 O  [6 O# \2 Q1 ^6 c
sections of lungs of mice bearing the indicated tumours. Metastases are8 F+ }# w4 x" E7 V; `0 w+ y
delineated by a dashed line.MSC-induced metastatic powers reflected a reversibly induced trait2 ^6 @, z% a- u* D3 I" U0 C
of the MDA-MB-231 cells, and that the ability of these cells to metastasize/ K. e% U" g. y$ _5 b
to the lungs was a consequence of their ‘education’ by MSCs in9 y6 e: A  d5 F" }; P+ y
the primary tumour rather than the selection of rare variants of* m5 E% m/ O/ j
MDA-MB-231 cells that display elevated metastatic potency in a
stable fashion.+ G+ \& {5 q4 F2 L3 {6 [( F
The effects that the MSCs exerted on the BCCs might have; z, o+ e% o( i' `
occurred within the site of primary tumour formation. Alternatively,% I9 ]1 G# O; E9 s0 z: M% ?
the MSCs might have accompanied the metastasizing BCCs
to sites of metastasis formation. To distinguish between these two0 Z, S# @6 a6 }8 Y
possibilities, we admixed ds-red-labelled MSCs to GFP-labelled
MDA-MB-231 cells and implanted the mixture subcutaneously in$ O( V. J2 ^. ~7 ?
host mice. We found that the tumour-derived lung metastases contained
green-labelled MDA-MB-231 cells but no detectable redlabelled$ ]* `, x! d- e0 i5 ?0 ], ?# X9 }
MSCs (or their derivatives; Supplementary Fig. 4a) when
scored 4, 5 or 6 weeks after primary tumour implantation. The7 d. p6 M8 Y0 d+ F# i: k
absence of red-labelled MSCs from the lung metastatic sites cannot
be ascribed to an inhospitable lung parenchyma, as MSCs that lodge* e: h& A2 A/ F% B7 }1 a
in the lungs of recipient animals after tail-vein infusion survive in that
environment for ,6 weeks after injection (Supplementary Fig. 4b).& a; h" m6 \8 A. z" b/ Y, p$ z
Hence, it appeared that the admixed MSCs do not migrate in large
numbers to the sites of metastasis, and that they exerted their prometastatic0 P  n# ~. A( \5 Q
effects on BCCs in the context of primary tumours.$ R1 d7 V  d6 ?0 q! X
CCL5 in MSC-induced metastasis
The aforementioned observations indicate that MSCs supply locally
acting paracrine cues that induce BCCs within primary tumours to" s  W& J1 X/ f" o( e) G
metastasize. To understand this crosstalk better, in vitro co-cultures: T# \2 T/ r& m6 e3 L5 w3 M1 Y
of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells and MSCs were established and7 I! E( Z1 E$ G& `
their conditioned media were screened for the levels of various cytokines,
chemokines and growth factors using the Luminex-based Bio-( F) }, Y7 N8 [0 W4 S5 V" z( o
Plex suspension array system (Fig. 3a). In some cases, the resulting
a
b c d& }5 \3 g0 ?: Y5 W/ r2 a6 J' ?+ Q
Days after injection0 Y3 G% c; b0 w# ?. ~- I
Tumour volume5 X+ n4 u/ v  u' @7 _
(× 100 mm3)
0& d0 Q  c* N: s  V* L, G
5
10
156 S- l; h2 V" o; K4 g+ d( i0 ]4 K
20. R3 m1 `" r- t
257 @% `. V: F# j0 w  L8 a
14 17 21 24 28 31 34 38 42 45 48 66 71 77: @# F6 P1 P: @/ {! l9 [
Primary tumour explants
Lung explants0 r. Q& ?' O: C
MDA-MB-2313 M8 X- z  @, u2 d* u: m) x
MSC
+
Lung explants/ V& [" M1 m- u- G. A. c, R( \" X) q
Primary tumour0 Q- e" a/ x  G4 `8 n3 I4 E8 o: P
explants
Antibiotic- Y: L' l: t& Z/ j+ m+ @
BCC selection" Y8 g' ^/ u& u( ]+ d- r4 X( |
T-explant/ u! H! }" B7 f7 b$ I( B+ @
L-explant
T-explant
L-explant
Tumour mass (g)/ N- B. h9 m7 e: q. ]4 A
3.0; D# {# M: m) [( o0 U: y
2.0* h3 M3 ], T" w
1.0
0 0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
#; J& z/ G" t# P, B$ G4 `  D' u
Metastasis index (fold)7 U9 Y: t) q% b7 l5 I
##( G. F% {* X3 M- {8 ^0 ^) s6 @
Figure 2 | MSC-induced increase in the metastasis of MDA-MB-231 cells3 M/ a9 ]: |/ Z! B
involves reversible mechanisms. a, BCCs were recovered from lung or4 \" E' s/ B6 t) T! ^; j, B
primary tumour tissues, cleared of stromal contaminants by culture in. j5 H" b4 C' @( O" u0 [) l6 F
blasticidin-containing media (5 mgml21), and re-injected as primary, f0 }) W* C0 d% y4 L
subcutaneous tumours in recipient animals. b, Tumour growth
(means6s.e.m.) of 500,000GFP-labelled lung-derived (L-explant) or primary
tumour-derived (T-explant) MDA-MB-231 cells inoculated subcutaneously.
Data shown are representative ofmultiple independent experiments in which- }  W9 N. {+ k  g7 P$ ]
four different paired batches of L-explant and T-explant cultures were assayed" h  F) h1 M. a! X/ b5 ^
in parallel. MDA-MB-231-T-explant (n58 mice); MDA-MB-231-L-explant6 h& p$ P1 V' {6 Y5 z7 m5 \) |1 w, W
(n510mice). c,Masses (means6s.e.m.) of tumours in b.Hash,P.0.4 using4 [0 @) k! f7 i+ m/ c+ W
one-tailed Student’s t-test and indicates no statistical significance. d, Lung
metastasis index of mice in c. Doublehash, P.0.3 using one-tailed Student’s
t-test and indicates no statistical significance.; O8 D0 L, C1 ~, S" u
a
CCL4- z% M2 d# v3 b$ W
bFGF, J6 i- h1 @- K& m5 Z8 U# Y) f
VEGF7 `- P) B# B% I- `" I! w
IFN-γ
TNF-α
G-CSF1 H# m) J* `" W7 Y2 A9 K
GM-CSF$ s7 A) Q$ j& k1 I
CCL3" f9 g3 a: \9 u) H
CCL5  b  [( L9 r) n9 Q6 C# i* T
MMP1& i/ _1 X, C% H9 z! I4 l9 U
MMP3
MMP9
MMP13
IL-1α! {. e& F* {+ K+ x% h6 u- A$ {7 z; ~
IL-1β
IL-4' }- Y- e) X8 G, \
IL-5% R/ ?1 y! O6 Y; M/ z' R2 b
IL-6# D( x& m, w! H# b
IL-70 S  t6 e1 m* r8 p; E; Y
IL-8
IL-10
IL-12
IL-13% C* b+ d5 @9 J$ L- x- n
IL-17
IL-2
TGF-β4 d' E: S5 e% v1 s7 |& a) j) K8 A
Fold induction- a- E# D! C. }# b5 Z
MSC alone
MDA alone
MDA+MSC (2:1 ratio)
1 * * * * * * * * *
3! j: J, p' N# U& P1 ~7 r' @( D
5% x) {6 E! [) R, j: c
75 l4 t; ~8 I( n8 O
9
11" e8 W, o( z2 r3 w# L6 W/ @2 E
13) \) u6 I) ~6 S  s
60/ H' ?( f3 Y4 m4 z
b c  D  U/ k7 v/ m8 \% i, p( Y
0.4 μm* c) Y) I6 P. [, x2 m
2.0+ _8 I7 b' z! L
1.8
1.6
1.4( k$ i( }# n. R- [8 B7 E  @0 q
1.28 r6 G/ z7 b6 o% b1 [' W
1.05 c/ {: I5 J/ L; I% O
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0
5
10
159 h: q% ^4 j/ H2 A3 _  Q$ r. g  H% _; [
20- Y( M4 s+ j4 B% r/ h5 {  i# h
25
306 v& W8 y, B& C  R  u) r; N
35
40
458 ]/ F$ q  `$ t: F* o
50
d1 d2 d3 d4
MDA alone
MSC alone; B; t5 s" L# B$ v$ P( ~
MDA+MSC2 b( e$ Z4 H: {6 E  K
CCL5 levels (pg ml–1)
Co-culture3 R# u; D, |5 L* c
Fold CCL5 induction( S  b0 R. T) F4 L' z% v( K
MDA alone
MSC alone8 M8 k* T# W8 \9 r: {+ i1 [, D/ D
MDA+MSC( F$ A% n  m9 O) b
d
CCL5 (A.U. × 100)4 B5 q8 O" `3 k/ {2 a2 l6 C4 e
303 V" x7 K1 U% w1 |: T
25
20
15- _9 Z) G/ V3 |8 [
10- Y1 v5 B( u! M) [
5
0
+% F! r) X! ?3 ^5 d
MSC.c: O1 ^0 u  |) ]$ Y& G5 I0 b7 v
+% |0 W: F! A" Q+ V* N
MSC.1" ?4 b" w, x6 m) k# n
+
MSC.51 c& q* y+ i" M* w9 C4 _
MDA1 s5 Y8 L5 Q2 p2 P: a$ W
MSC
MDA.1
MDA.c
MDA.5' z0 @" B$ f8 y' d( X' i
TC-MSC/ a! U! W1 z3 E2 w' ~( _' O. B
MSC (from MDA tumour)' O! Z& Z- t* K! @3 h
BCC (from MDA tumour)( H. ^! c% K* X5 J8 q% j
Control (MDA/CCL5)3 R8 k# Z7 E5 b- R9 a+ l
CCL5" _9 _6 x4 e5 Z+ [' l4 a
GAPDH
e
Figure 3 | The interaction of BCCs with MSCs causes a rise in the levels of
CCL5. a, MDA-MB-231, MSCs, or MDA-MB-2311MSCs were cultured in5 u: Z1 R) d8 e9 v. C6 W
completemedia for 3 days. The levels of various factors in the cell-free culture- L- Q. t2 l5 N
supernatants were measured by xMAP Bio-Plex cytokine arrays at day 3, and
were normalized to the levels observed in the media of BCCs cultured alone.
Data are expressed as fold induction6s.d. of triplicates. Asterisk indicates5 y: g3 L: k- ]2 n& \( x( i
undetectable levels. b, CCL5 ELISA on the media of MDA-MB-231,MSCs, or
MDA-MB-2311MSCcultures (1:3MDA:MSCs) at the indicated time points.5 T: j3 m8 [' S$ f7 Y
Data points representmeans6s.d. of quadruplicates. c,BCCs were separated
from co-cultured MSCs by a 0.4-mmmembrane. CCL5 levels were probed by
ELISA on the culture supernatants. Data are expressed as fold induction over% g/ E9 t- S5 P0 `+ Q( ^; X
levels seen inMDA-MB-231 culture supernatants (mean6s.d. of triplicates).
d, CCL5 ELISA on the supernatants of MSC-siluc (MSC.c), MSC-siCCL5.1
(MSC.1) and MSC-siCCL5.5 (MSC.5) co-cultured with MDA-MB-231-siluc4 d, U9 G) ]( ]# l/ K6 n- n
(MDA.c), MDA-MB-231-siCCL5.1 (MDA.1), or MDA-MB-231-siCCL5.58 ^3 Q& G8 {+ [1 N% M, |
(MDA.5). Data are expressed as means6s.d. of triplicates in arbitrary units
(A.U.). e, RT–PCR analyses of CCL5 in MSCs and BCCs sorted from
GFP–MSC1MDA-MB-231 tumours (3:1 ratio) 4 weeks after tumour
implantation. Tissue-cultured MSCs (TC-MSC) and MDA-MB-231/CCL5$ f7 l) F. ~3 T
cells were used as controls. GAPDH was used for equal loading.levels of certain released factors (for example, interferon-c or7 H& C# {+ U6 U7 G1 l2 _5 p8 ~5 x
tumour-necrosis factor-a) reflected the additive contributions of
the two cell types when cultured on their own. Notably, the levels, A! R0 h8 e' C( M
of only one cytokine, CCL5, reflected a synergistic interaction
between the MSCs and BCCs, as it accumulated to levels ,60-fold
higher than those produced by pure BCC cultures (Fig. 3a). This
cooperative induction of CCL5 was proportional to the numbers of
MSCs mixed with the BCCs (Supplementary Fig. 5a), and was apparent) K& m0 Y. P5 h2 W4 z
as early as the third day of co-culture (Fig. 3b). Moreover, this
induction required close physical contact between MSCs and cancer: N0 h  n1 V0 n- `0 U# Z, o
cells, because it failed to occur when the two cell populations were; A' z7 P# U7 o/ h- L4 }- z
separated by a permeable membrane (Fig. 3c).5 M* S2 P) [& A; J1 ?
We undertook to determine the source of the CCL5 produced9 E5 F. m& A+ p
under conditions of co-culture. To do so, we stably reduced the
expression of CCL5 in MDA-MB-231 cells by.80% using short  @% T2 K& ]& d5 w
hairpin (sh)RNA (variant siCCL5.1; Supplementary Fig. 6). Importantly,
however, subsequent co-culture of these MDA-MB-231.1 cells2 Y# F) E$ A+ D! r
with MSCs continued to allow accumulation of CCL5 in the culture' g. w; n7 G' @
supernatants to levels that were comparable to those observed in the
co-cultures of MSCs and control cancer cells (Fig. 3d). This suggested1 R1 l8 M" o% b8 z' x! {! F* a
that the source of CCL5 was the admixed neighbouring MSCs.# Y1 Q8 [; \3 ?, ?
Indeed, inhibition of CCL5 protein expression in MSCs using the+ `# |7 E2 z/ f3 W; p
same shRNA hairpin vector (MSC.1; Fig. 3d) resulted in more than
75% reduction of CCL5 protein levels in the co-cultures, indicating4 l. `6 W" \/ x
that the MSCs were the major source of the CCL5 observed on coculture
of the two cell types. In support of this conclusion, analysis of: \, H" a; c. X: W3 u; X
CCL5 levels in the media of MSCs or MDA-MB-231 cells separated
from one another after 3 days of co-culture indicated a strong induction) d0 Z& f0 y& I" W- K7 c9 T
of CCL5 in the culture of MSCs, but not that of BCCs (Supplementary2 }& |  x1 s  v  ?# i
Fig. 5b). Finally, polymerase chain reaction with reverse4 k# p/ b  I8 p  B
transcription (RT–PCR) analysis of the RNA prepared from these coculture-
derived MSCs (Supplementary Fig. 5c), as well as from the, n$ [/ t% `/ ]. f
MSCs isolated from MDA-MB-2311MSC tumours ,4 weeks after
tumour implantation (Fig. 3e), indicated a strong accumulation of
CCL5 messenger RNA, suggesting that an active signal transduction
pathway is triggered in MSCs by the nearby BCCs.2 n; b% ?, X1 x
A series of observations has linked CCL5 signalling and cancer. For0 N0 T% M' f$ H& g4 O, [
example, CCL5 levels in the plasma of breast cancer patients have
been correlated with the severity of the disease, and localized CCL5
protein expression was found to be elevated in invasive tumours
when compared to in situ ductal tumours or benign lesions16,17.% C9 U# @2 q9 f4 p" q4 U
However, the precise contributions of CCL5 to cancer development
and progression are poorly understood. To investigate further the& G, o/ a& P% v
possible causal role of CCL5 in cancer cell metastasis, we overexpressed6 j0 X& H/ j1 a3 p8 {- J4 J
this chemokine in the MDA-MB-231 BCCs (Supplementary- [7 w. }; Y% l
Fig. 7a) and analysed its effects on cancer cell growth and
tumorigenesis. The overexpressed CCL5 did not confer any proliferative+ H$ R0 ]  ?4 e' z
advantage on cultured cancer cells when compared with
those lacking such overexpression (Supplementary Fig. 7b), and had) e8 N2 J+ h8 w: R- q5 i$ i
no effect on the ability of BCCs either to grow in an anchorageindependent1 Y4 i$ `" b. e4 J; {
fashion in vitro (Supplementary Fig. 7c), or to form( ?* A$ G0 j9 u3 l" K: D
primary subcutaneous tumours in immunocompromised mice (Fig.; U6 C2 M2 V5 \) M/ J- Z
4a). However, these tumours exhibited a ,5-fold enhancement in
their metastatic potential when compared with control tumours
lacking ectopic CCL5 (Fig. 4a). Similarly, overexpression of CCL5
in WI-38 fibroblasts sufficed to enable these cells to promote the
metastasis of admixed MDA-MB-231 BCCs (Fig. 4b), indicating that9 S0 i# y0 o. P4 a( U/ ?* s
the actions ofCCL5 are responsible formuch, if not all, of the observed! S6 o. E0 u( n$ {- J- ^! c
MSC-induced metastasis by the BCCs.4 H7 w0 i' n# ]) f: {
CCL5 promotes lung colonization3 j) w6 {. _6 \: ^
Previous reports have described an important role for CCL5 as a
chemoattractant for stromal cells, such as macrophages, that express
one of the receptors for CCL5, CCR5 (refs 18, 19). Furthermore,! }8 K* Q; b# H: Y5 f
CCL5 expression has been associated with increased tumour neovascularization,
suggesting that endothelial cells, which express a variety
of chemokine receptors, may also be attracted by CCL5 to sites of+ f& k* D) E4 D' f
tumour formation, thereby enhancing tumour angiogenesis20. Such
observations suggest that CCL5 may contribute to breast cancer4 l( b7 J( K( g1 ^5 i" w1 p
metastasis through the recruitment of a number of stromal cell types
to sites of primary tumour growth.; S( c! C3 u/ u
However, immunohistochemical analyses indicated that the- W( I9 z+ q% K4 q  p/ e
MDA-MB-231 control and CCL5-overexpressing MDA-MB-231
(MDA-MB-231/CCL5) tumours exhibited comparable numbers of
tumour-infiltrating macrophages and had similar vessel densities (as- ]' M: p8 V3 A5 b" `
evident by F4/80 and MECA-32 staining for macrophages and, e( K+ K# K9 w5 T9 U
endothelial cells, respectively; Supplementary Fig. 8). In addition,6 E* }% H( h1 J9 e) W
we found that ectopicCCL5 expression did not cause an accumulation4 T/ p1 [: o: H; o
of other stromal cells, such as SMA-positive cells, in the examined
tumours (Supplementary Fig. 8a). Together, these data indicated that
the observed CCL5-induced metastasis could not be attributed to. u4 U$ X6 q0 q( r) l
significant effects on the numbers of the major constituents of the$ l- e  B  |  k/ q# u
stroma or to the vascularity of these tumour xenografts.* X) |/ f$ o# h8 {
Invasion and metastatic dissemination of carcinoma cells are often% K8 h' p0 J; Y+ M; l7 ]
facilitated by their transdifferentiation through the process termed
d f
Bcl-XL
Bcl-25 V' T# b& @7 E  L5 J
β-Actin0 V) N7 m. l6 J0 j# F; v; b
S473-Akt0 v9 i+ T9 F6 {8 C( [3 Z6 u4 h+ h% c3 W
Motility
0.5%→10%! j7 N1 {0 g: x/ n2 x8 T) [, N
LY – – + +( _+ w7 o" l% J! ^& \* T
g# p* T- y2 y8 Z8 N
Extravasated clusters (mean)& K/ ~3 z2 Z% _9 }# m3 `
Migration (fold)
*- D5 w- f& l' U# b- v
e
0- X: ]; K4 E# u+ _9 B1 n2 A
MDA/vector
MDA/CCL5
***  _" ~) i8 y# Z6 ^, n3 i8 H- |4 T6 [
Invasion
10%→10%
Invasion; s( o- B( M2 u+ U
0.5%→10%
Migration (fold)0 O# H/ I) J# T% ?$ y
**
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.07 u" ~; S1 I% V8 ^2 ^$ A" y$ V7 k8 K1 Z( W
2.5
3.0
3.5  y# ?; P& N/ O! H( ~
*
MDA/vector: q7 l, a. m+ Y4 F) u: n9 ]8 M
MDA/CCL5& Y; G% i: G& ^( |% ?" k
a b
*
Nodules per lung (mean)$ n2 v, o$ S* {3 D, r6 Q6 k4 v6 z0 H
c
30
25
20
15
106 b" n* K7 q! ~" ^9 Q3 \
5
0
Tumour mass (mg)1 Q) K/ [: W: }) V
30
25% J! _- _: M7 j/ Y7 m
201 i6 K' j! D/ B
15
10
5$ o# K+ ~2 x1 e- M: d+ Q
0 0
50
100
150
2004 }9 I& k& j" P9 f1 Z
250
0
50
100
1507 l; ]/ b: |, C7 z! j
2006 ]" p7 a9 m3 D: j
250( ?& a6 p, {1 D
300
350: B6 _- Z5 u7 c; u# D+ O) O1 `
Tumour mass (mg)
Ctrl5 |& L* ]9 y4 X
CCL5
Ctrl
CCL5
Ctrl8 R* r: j" h, L5 g7 P! E  D+ V/ N# R
CCL5% c! L- W1 A+ \& J
Metastasis index (fold)) ?9 G9 |# x2 y: O+ T$ |9 Q' P( E
Metastasis index (fold)
0
18 U& U( [  c/ @1 n/ t
2
31 ~; d. s- j4 O" N: Y
4
5
* 6
0$ j# u& \2 J! |
1$ I4 x- ~) B/ p& C7 k$ ]
27 t( V5 F% h% H
39 L/ {, u. {1 ]3 ~8 d. @
4
59 [% E+ J  |5 C7 x5 N- X& u4 |
6
7
* 8
MDA/vector
MDA/CCL5
MDA+WI-38/vector
MDA+WI-38/CCL5
1
2
3
4
*
Figure 4 | CCL5 enhances breast cancer cell migration, invasion and
metastasis. a, A total of 500,000 MDA-MB-231/vector (ctrl) or MDA-MB-; y4 S& q4 |+ X! D$ Y
231/CCL5 cells were injected subcutaneously in NOD/SCID mice. Tumour9 ^% v2 k  A3 X# R8 G
masses (mean6s.e.m., n56 each group) were taken at 10 weeks. Lung
metastasis indices are expressed as fold increase (6s.e.m.) over controls. Data+ ~: [4 u# ?; Q" S! V% H; c/ L
shown are representative of multiple repeats. Asterisk, P,0.01 in one-tailed0 A: g3 e, o! w1 y
Student’s t-test. b, A total of 500,000 MDA-MB-231 cells were admixed to
250,000WI-38 fibroblast controls (WI-38/vector) or WI-38 fibroblasts0 o" Q; [( K; V
overexpressing CCL5 (WI-38/CCL5) and were injected subcutaneously in
NOD/SCID mice. Tumours (n55 per group) were excised and weighed at
12weeks. Masses shown represent mean6s.e.m. Lung metastasis indices are
expressed as fold increase (6s.e.m.) over controls. Asterisk, P,0.01 in onetailed
Student’s t-test. c, A total of 800,000 indicated BCCs were introduced
into the circulation of NOD/SCID hosts. GFP-positive cancer colonies in the( P# e: n" R2 n, \; p, m8 x
lungs were counted 6.5weeks later. Bars representmeans6s.e.m. (MDA-MB-
231 controls, n516 mice; MDA-MB-231/CCL5, n518 mice). Asterisk,' S* H" h+ {/ m7 Q9 R4 u/ M
P,0.01 in one-tailed Student’s t-test. d, Western blot analysis of lysates of
MDA-MB-231 control or MDA-MB-231/CCL5 cells. b-Actin was used as a
loading control. e, Transwell migration orMatrigel invasion assays on 50,000! \% j4 E8 U8 \; u3 j* [# g
MDA-MB-231 control orMDA-MB-231/CCL5 cells.Data are representative of
multiple independent experiments and are expressed asmeans6s.d. Asterisk,
P,0.05; double asterisk, P,0.05; triple asterisk, P,0.01 in one-tailed! L' Q$ u# g5 A7 }
Student’s t-test. f, One million GFP-labelled BCCs were injected into the tail
vein of NOD/SCID mice. Lungs were processed 48 h later and examined for3 s$ r3 Q: b7 E* x: h
extravasated cells. Bars represent means6s.e.m. (MDA-MB-231 cells, n57/ P4 Q7 n7 g5 x, u
mice; MDA-MB-231/CCL5, n510 mice). Asterisk, P,0.01 in one-tailed; R0 N) {# r- R; b3 E; E1 F6 o
Student’s t-test. g, Transwellmigrationassays on50,000MDA-MB-231 control& ^9 n7 }  D" p
orMDA-MB-231/CCL5 cells plated with or without the phosphatidylinositol-
3-OH kinase inhibitor LY290042 (0.5 mM); representative experiment shown;
asterisk, P,0.01 in one-tailed Student’s t-test.the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), in which cells shed
their epithelial characteristics and acquire instead a series of mesenchymal& ]6 E9 O$ ?4 n3 c2 w5 ]' L* F
markers that enable their invasiveness and intravasation21.
Despite their lack of E-cadherin and their expression of detectable levels  A0 C, ?4 C6 a$ g* e6 M
of mesenchymal markers such as fibronectin (data not shown), the
MDA-MB-231 cells studied here exist in an intermediary phenotypic
state of ‘partial EMT’, as they retain a distinctive epithelialmorphology
in vitro and are still responsive to EMT-inducing stimuli in culture. In
fact, we observed that ectopic CCL5 expression did not cause MDAMB-
231 cells to undergo themorphological changes usually associated
with an EMT(Supplementary Fig. 9a), did not cause rearrangement of
their actin cytoskeleton (Supplementary Fig. 9b), and had no impact on
the expression of mesenchymal markers closely associated with the
EMT process, namely vimentin, N-cadherin (Supplementary Fig. 9c)
and fibronectin (data not shown). These data suggested thatCCL5 does
not directly promote the EMT programme of MDA-MB-231 cells.  v! `: H2 S8 R: M
We proceeded to explore an alternative possibility: that CCL5
expression affected some of the later, critical steps of the invasion–
metastasis cascade, namely the lodging of cancer cells in secondary
organs and the subsequent step of colonization. For that purpose,
MDA-MB-231/CCL5 cells were injected intravenously into host: S) _" c/ Z2 `& p5 c
mice, and the lungs of these hosts were examined ,6 weeks later3 w& A* @: A: C8 n) S' z1 d, J
using fluorescence microscopy. These experiments revealed that
CCL5-overexpressing cells indeed had a significant ,1.8-fold8 k# f8 {# j: H& i* _1 Y  i) y
advantage over their control counterparts in colonizing the lungs8 S1 {  ~( V( s2 g5 d* n1 m
(Fig. 4c), suggesting that CCL5 exposure has effects on later steps
of the invasion–metastasis cascade. We note once again that this4 {, x* H5 a& z$ B+ p" \7 K- `% u
enhanced tissue-colonizing ability was not due to CCL5’s effects on; [/ f! B9 z2 Z
cellular proliferation measured either in vitro (Supplementary Fig.. W: |1 l7 O; G; e/ P
7b) or in vivo (Supplementary Fig. 7g, Ki67 staining).4 {# `! Q0 Y% y4 ]+ t9 s9 Z
Because improved colonization can be due to enhanced cellular
survival, we tested whether CCL5 protects against apoptosis.
Notably, we found that MDA-MB-231/CCL5 cells exhibited higher  z2 E* q" C3 M7 R9 D6 H' F, o
levels of the Ser 473-phosphorylated, activated form of Akt, but( @1 k0 {- z3 I5 e7 `, G0 n
exhibited no difference in the levels of other pro-survival proteins,
such as Bcl-XL or Bcl-2 (Fig. 4d), or a reduction in the levels of
pro-apoptotic molecules such as BAX or BAD (data not shown).! x  p1 C/ L) i
Moreover, we found that overexpression of CCL5 had no effect on( }! T  m/ r. G
the ability of MDA-MB-231 cells to withstand serum deprivation
(Supplementary Fig. 7b), loss of substrate anchorage (Supplementary
Fig. 7d), or hyperoxia (data not shown). We also observed that
ectopic CCL5 expression did not protect MDA-MB-231 cells from! m4 I7 j$ h4 U
doxorubicin-induced apoptosis monitored using western blots for: H& M8 \- C3 f4 e5 }) W  t+ f
cleaved caspase-3 (CC3) and cleaved PARP (as markers of apoptosis;; s: C) M$ I% h/ A
Supplementary Fig. 7e), or TdT-mediated dUTP nick end labelling2 t6 _6 Q3 y; E5 l& Q
(TUNEL) assays (Supplementary Fig. 7f). Finally, immunohistochemical
analyses on control and CCL5-overexpressing tumours- j, e0 }. ^8 w" z8 i2 O5 X6 }/ t3 t
revealed only minor differences in the levels of apoptotic CC3-
positive cancer cells among the examined groups (Supplementary: U2 {6 |7 ]; M' Z4 `) N& k
Fig. 7g, h). Together, these observations suggested that CCL5 does6 h" z* q: f! Z; H, o3 q) V
not exert any detectable pro-survival functions in vitro or in vivo, and4 W: u% b6 X( H! k% j! a: e
that the observed enhancement of lung colonization was not a consequence4 _7 Q; E! Y. j6 d1 S& M
of significant anti-apoptotic activities of CCL5.
Akt serves as a key relay switch for upstream signals that promote
both cell survival as well as cellular motility22. Because CCL5-induced& n1 o8 h  ~) n8 H3 x1 Z  O
Akt phosphorylation did not correlate with enhanced protection
against apoptosis, we tested whether the CCL5-enhanced lung colonization+ F7 r  ?( y) T* w8 P8 n+ i9 [5 g
could be due to an increased ability of MDA-MB-231/. j- x* d6 z/ W: u: A) e, |$ U
CCL5 cells to invade from the microvasculature into the lung6 Y0 s8 Z+ P& h
parenchyma through the process of extravasation. Indeed, ectopic
expression of CCL5 enhanced the motility of MDA-MB-231 cells) ]2 D2 f$ q2 g7 W# ~9 W# E
through permeable Boyden chamber membranes by,1.5-fold as well
as the invasion of these cells through Matrigel layers by,1.6 or,2.5-; a+ i& c% m% R; E8 T- f
fold in either high or low serum conditions, respectively (Fig. 4e).
Notably, when we flushed the lungs of mice 48 h after BCC tail-vein* z: F$ U) @! [- w+ P
injection—in order to remove most cells that remained within the" P; z7 F2 o  U) f2 c. ~/ F9 d
microvasculature of the lungs and thus had not extravasated—we
found twice as many deposits in the MDA-MB-231/CCL5-injected9 J6 u, e. _; E$ t0 |8 s$ H' W
group than their control-injected littermates (Fig. 4f). This indicates a% Q; ^- T5 m1 i/ ?4 J* a  o
clear effect of CCL5 on cancer cell extravasation.
Finally, we investigated the role of Akt in mediating the actions of4 q- |+ m% v5 f# `- w/ J0 O, [& _$ W1 ~4 C
CCL5 on cellular motility by using the phosphatidylinositol-3-OH6 {8 j+ d: T  W( V
b silacZ- c9 k, c( t+ H  S; `' _
silacZ
si809
si809, U7 t- v0 s6 E0 V$ O
si186
si1866 z3 \( e$ f: Z3 f+ a" |
CCR5- Q# L. `  |, a- ~( C" d  r
β-Actin: H' F8 m( x9 p6 P9 {3 R$ l, \
a d0 ^0 V" J& T# L3 B
M, f5 o! m9 J# L% P4 C  F
+. A$ Y- J: W2 e, V( _( I
MDA+MSC
+ IgG
+Anti-CCL5 Ab: b/ z8 o$ A+ {6 _2 t' _2 M' {/ h% i( A
MDA
+Anti-CCL5 Ab& `8 z5 u5 z2 p( `; ?+ U; }% s# M
MDA+MSC' m+ \6 \/ m( \" v/ K  W
MDA& J. E0 C+ ~+ {# G4 k
IgG- m/ ?2 u& @7 a( M' ~# q5 j
<. V) b4 n3 ]( f; l" T
<
<
<
<
DAPI
CCR5
MSCs MDA MDA+MSC
DAPI DAPI/ H( ~; X; G" J' Z; Q. h
CCR5 CCR5
MSCs MDA MDA+MSC
*
c9 u; {$ q3 r6 \
Metastasis index (fold)" b) O' p2 {  c# E$ D
Metastasis index (fold)
*4 k) P1 @" |$ R. Z
Control siCCR5
MSC – + + +  ]8 x# o! Z5 J4 Y
0& _9 N/ u! B3 X& t9 v8 I
1
2
3
46 e# o" X* O, H
5 e
+ + – –
Anti-CCL59 d: a3 d1 [4 w! e" q- T7 n& F! D
03 U2 z( u; Z3 k3 N1 j) v2 D7 O& H: E
1# v* q" H9 b3 F; F
2
3! J* z0 K" ?3 q# J7 ^1 j# u
4% x% r) b: Q" A, S4 {3 a9 V4 L
5& L  c. ^  D, j# q! B
61 b  G. Z: |; H! {
– – + +" F" p! y4 p( @8 `2 u3 D, }
IgG
MDA
MDA+MSC
<0 X' S% K  K9 B4 `
Figure 5 | CCL5–CCR5 interaction is essential+ M* m8 ]4 V: {
for the MSC-induced metastasis.  r' K) d( T& W0 I5 \
a, Immunofluorescence analysis of CCR5) G7 {, N) X3 x
distribution in MDA-MB-231 cells cultured with
MSCs. DAPI (for nuclei staining) is in blue;
CCR5 detected in green. Arrowheads denote5 V% ]' @! s% v# l; ^" n9 E
MSCs. b, Western blot analysis showing CCR5
expression in MDA-MB-231/silacZ, MDA-MB-
231/siCCR5(809) and MDA-MB-231/! l) ]1 u5 ^% f
siCCR5(186) lysates. b-Actin was used as a
loading control. c, A total of 500,000 cells of the
MDA-MB-231 variants in b were co-mixed with4 r5 v7 c4 e3 A0 W1 l
1.53106 MSCs and injected subcutaneously into
nude mice. Mice were killed when tumours/ I( C, h$ d/ P# l$ _5 i. k
reached 1 cm in diameter and the metastasis
index was calculated for each cohort (n55 per
group). Results represent means6s.e.m.;
asterisk, P,0.05 using one-tailed Student’s* [3 Y4 E# y& O' H! p+ y( Z
t-test. d, Anti-CCL5 neutralizing antibody or6 N. u* K4 M( E& N9 I* m1 [" ?
control IgG was administered intraperitoneally: |# I! M5 n/ ?0 g# A+ Z
twice weekly in SCID mice bearing MDA-MB-231
(n59) or MDA-MB-2311MSC tumours" T" H' Z- ]8 \: F
(n511). Representative lung pictures of the
indicated cohorts are shown. e, Lung metastasis
indices of mice in d. Data shown are
representative of means6s.e.m. Asterisk,- r& ?% _. @7 \! n2 S
P,0.05 in one-tailed Student’s t-test.
kinase inhibitor LY294002. Drug concentrations that did not inhibit- s' P3 k3 W- Q/ O# T5 o# U
the basal motility levels of MDA-MB-231 cells blocked the elevation
of motility induced by ectopic CCL5 expression (Fig. 4g). These- g# {: |, U" W: n, U
results, when taken together, suggest that the observed CCL5-
enhanced lung colonization could be ascribed, in significant part,# \% L' u& Z+ D! g+ W* N+ e
to its ability to promote extravasation and/or motility of cancer cells4 t3 O. x, c3 y! w
at sites of dissemination rather than promoting the survival and/or
proliferation of these cells.& i  N8 I: [8 h0 Z0 k1 j; |: E
Essential role for the CCL5–CCR5 loop: f8 ]8 p4 c) T9 }
CCL5 acts through three G-protein-coupled receptors, termed' o/ ~* j5 M$ E, ]3 @
CCR1, CCR3 and CCR5 (ref. 23). CCR5 has been determined to be
the main receptor for CCL5 in MDA-MB-231 cells, as inhibition of its
surface expression through dominant-negative mutants abrogated' c8 K2 O: q  j- c$ L
the ability of these cells to respond to CCL5 chemotaxis24. We therefore
focused our efforts on evaluating the importance of the CCL5–
CCR5 interactions in MSC-induced metastasis.. P6 P0 ?. Q5 b% j5 z; M: \; D
We confirmed that CCR5 is expressed by MDA-MB-231 cells and
not by MSCs (Fig. 5a), supporting the notion that MSC-derived
CCL5 acts primarily in a paracrine fashion on MDA-MB-231 cells' y2 Q$ @5 v& M
in the BCC and MSC mixed cell populations described above. To
probe whether the observed MSC-induced metastasis required
CCL5–CCR5 interactions, we inhibited CCR5 expression in MDAMB-
231 cells by more than 85% through shRNA knockdown (ref. 25- v( n& F. l# x! ~& D2 X; w, a8 Q
and Fig. 5b), and mixed these cells with MSCs before implantation* @# E! Q6 E# o! I
into host mice. Indeed, inhibition of CCR5 expression in the BCCs,
achieved using either of two different shRNA constructs, abrogated, c- o6 L8 |2 U" o; M
the ability of MSCs to enhance the metastasis of MDA-MB-231 cells2 X; V  w  L) O2 H8 [
(Fig. 5c). Furthermore, neutralization of CCL5 protein using intraperitoneal
injections of an anti-human CCL5 monoclonal antibody
also abrogated the MSC-induced metastasis by MDA-MB-231 cells
(Fig. 5d, e). In addition, MSCs in which CCL5 expression was inhibited
by shRNA knockdown failed to promote metastasis of the# ~" f  u1 R3 @$ h
admixed MDA-MB-231 cells (data not shown). Taken together, these
results underscore the critical importance of the CCL5–CCR5 paracrine% a& k* o# w( G
interactions in enabling MSCs to induce metastasis of the8 X- S; V+ r9 y9 d
MDA-MB-231 cells.
Discussion
Certain models of metastatic progression propose that cancer cell
invasion and metastasis from the primary tumour site are strongly( j6 w# U8 x- O4 U) A
influenced by contextual signals emanating from the stroma of the
primary tumour. It follows that if carcinoma cells are subsequently9 O, O2 |. m' o7 y9 M
deprived of such signals, they may revert to an earlier phenotypic. {) {# {; E! v
state in which they no longer display the traits of high-grade malignancy.- ^6 C. F) S+ Y" |. f
Indeed, such a model has been proposed previously by others
on the basis of indirect evidence21. Here, we demonstrate that at least+ K) w# s* X* p. u# v5 \9 p
one mesenchymal cell type, the MSC, can expedite tumour metastasis,
and suggest that after primary human carcinomas recruit MSC- j) f* T7 Z1 b& v6 s6 I
populations into their midst, subsequent interactions between the
MSCs (or their derivatives) and the BCCs endow the latter with
invasive and metastatic properties.- f# T% ~6 l9 _( l- B# T( Y% B
Although the recruitment of labelled MSCs to tumour xenografts) H" [/ L5 G. m1 U
has been established in a variety of experimental models of tumorigenesis,
there is currently no available way to quantify with any accuracy" F' b/ B; W% w' V* l9 v5 n" f
the number ofMSCs in actual human tumours, in part because no set+ m# a: d, x7 U# V# ^4 |
of markers has been identified that can uniquely stain these cells without
concomitantly staining other mesenchymal types in the tumourassociated
stroma6. Our demonstration that the stroma derived from& [. I# [) y% K. d$ \" L
tumour xenografts contained appreciable numbers of murine MSCs  K3 W5 c" W6 ^; V5 e0 z; _
indicates that significant steady-state levels of these cells aremaintained
in developing tumours. Interestingly, the use of CD10—one of the) A5 Z1 B1 a) c* I
markers associated withhumanMSCs—to purify cells fromthe stroma( }; q3 H, I* y: X- i' A
of human primary invasive breast carcinomas yielded a population of
cells that expresses a number of other markers collectively used to* W/ N. R1 k+ j( G2 Q
characterize human MSCs (for example, CD44, CD105 and CD106;, O$ X5 R: g4 J9 K+ {. G2 c: J2 \7 `
Fig. 6a). This suggested that, similar to tumour xenografts, human8 X1 [1 b% _( o6 w( H
carcinomas also acquire significant numbers of MSCs. Furthermore,
we note that CCL5, which is prominent in the stromal gene expression
signature associated with poor prognosis of breast cancers26 (SFT;2 @. x- H, w9 A5 h2 v" d4 o
Fig. 6b, c), is also enriched in the leukocyte- and endothelial cell-free, L" }; J$ f  U
stroma of primary invasive ductal carcinomas (Fig. 6d), specifically in
the CD10-positive compartment27 (Fig. 6e). Collectively, these observations; c- \# r# m4 ?" o8 z! r' b- P: E
argue strongly for a significant association between stromal5 D2 t9 j3 I# S# U) b: w* s
CCL5 levels, MSCs and human invasive breast cancers./ n- l  C- D8 W4 O9 a. j3 F0 d
c
STT1969B7 M# h1 P) V8 R5 g7 e( V8 D2 Q; J
STT3126- t5 N5 L: S& v) G
STT3124
STT656B) h" z8 Z) X' q3 a4 N3 I: v
STT1968B) r$ l* ~* m4 p
STT3122
STT3053- _, ~, r" x$ A' U
STT1986B" O' R( y1 ^9 s
STT854! q4 t2 y1 \8 W, E& c" k% r
STT3125
STT1975, @# ~" S, t( c/ M/ _" A5 [+ L
STT1987B9 z4 D, x2 D' d
STT1079
STT638
STT17744 Z7 n9 Y, U+ T% B
STT1984/ v. o; x: `$ s: j4 X
STT1737C5 g% c$ l6 V! }' K4 c
STT3068
STT3120% S' c( w: |' O, |! a
STT850
STT417B
STT3119  a0 m/ u; z. c% @
STT1776! d! S3 o$ j- s$ h" f
STT1777B
STT689B- a$ {' U& m  Z+ z" {
STT1971
STT597" P0 o2 b6 b# L6 z' y
STT626$ w! `" o+ B. d; Z! J- q3 Z6 r7 e  U
STT154
STT2774: T0 i0 j' y# A& L+ K; m- _
STT19668 r- C8 ^5 V3 `7 s$ d3 c0 C
STT2776
STT2775
STT2772. b; J) U. T5 m. f
STT1637' m$ |8 v, k4 C& ?1 b# j
STT1220C
STT-094B-1- ^. D3 G0 q! W* ]
STT675* ~  K" g/ R4 B' ?4 @6 I
STT27708 j- M( d- J3 o# z
STT695B7 M: o8 a# f. q; {5 _) _7 d0 C
STT1771$ C9 r7 `4 p! m( o# E$ J
STT1778
STT491
STT1823& [2 f3 M2 m2 s7 `! i. a8 c
STT200C( k, M  H) q: ^! M
STT741B
STT335C
STT709B, h7 J6 i2 [+ M6 P3 X
STT516D( ?0 n( T5 `$ q- ]. C6 h, j
STT607B
STT680B1 O6 S8 m6 _+ o4 v5 K
STT1148B
STT523B
STT526E: G7 s8 f, N  Z6 Z5 D$ b
STT742F
e4 P9 b7 L& m  r
CD13
CD29
CD44. m1 f5 E2 ?. W# ?2 v" @
CD49e0 t! B/ @+ ]7 R: i; o
CD548 B- U+ M- _$ \" R
CD59: y8 s, g3 h! \1 T$ x
CD63* d- ?. `. Z9 e5 |
CD105
CD106
Nestin8 \5 m: W( ^5 W8 I2 Y
HAS2
IGF2& k- Z6 u6 Y2 k" |! c% E
PLAU  x4 C- }0 O9 [3 x4 C& Q5 p- j
TIMP1( ^9 L* L6 T* N( J6 O0 I5 d
CAV1
IDC-7
T112603
T3923034 z- v6 P, s! ^: ^# g1 {8 F
Normal Invasive
CCL5  L& v' p1 A/ X5 W
log2 ratios' O! ]& k3 l) |8 V( g
–2.0 –1.4 –0.9 –0.3 0.3 0.9 1.4 2.0+ Z6 P. e+ e8 `4 N9 Z, B
log2 ratios- }3 U1 @, Z' V$ {5 X
d
–2& {% P3 G' m6 S! n8 g# H5 k& P
–14 D& ~( d8 d6 S7 B; ?2 d$ @3 F/ e
0 1 2: ]/ r" \+ v2 M- |! [9 q! P9 e
–2.0# u( x9 e0 e1 j4 Z
–1.5
–1.0; P0 P0 Z6 r" s1 x/ c" q
–0.5
0.0' S# @# t4 |( H! a- Y( l
DTF SFT
DTF
SFT
a b' \+ C/ a' O* j
F
Figure 6 | Stromal fibroblastic cells of human invasive ductal carcinomas are! C4 i+ N1 F* U$ \6 T9 T5 @
rich in MSC markers and overexpress CCL5. a, SAGE TreeView display of& I% D2 D+ [# |+ a
MSC markers expressed in stromal CD10-positive cells from invasive5 U/ {" x, z4 b! g2 W8 \/ v
tumours27. b, Soft-tissue tumourswere ranked byCCL5 expression26, fromlow  u* P4 _$ o- B: p2 S- o
(green) to high (red). Wide blocks indicate expression ratios of tumours
classified as desmoid-type fibromatosis (DTF; yellow outline, n510) or. L% u0 N9 G; ?, z- R
solitary fibrous tumours (SFT; blue outline, n513); narrow blocks are other9 D. Q! w9 d$ ~5 Y% R# E
soft-tissue tumours (n532). c, Box plot showing that CCL5 expression is1 e2 N" r; a9 g0 _- w; S7 c
higher (P50.004) in SFT than inDTF. The difference in log2 expression ratios
between SFT and DTF was tested with the Welch’s test. d, CCL5 Affymetrix4 f/ `& `8 w: b3 W
gene expression in the stroma of human invasive ductal cancers compared to) Z# [9 E; _6 e/ i
that in normal cancer-free breast tissue (indicated as ‘Normal’; see Methods).$ o! P- q  M4 \+ T' q
e, CCL5 expression is mostly restricted to the CD10-positive fibroblastic cells
derived from invasive ductal cancers. The heatmap shown is a cluster of
CCL5.genelist obtained as in a.Details of thepurificationmethodologies of the& y" Q* y. a/ y# X0 f3 R
various groups indicated in a, d and e are found in ref. 27.Although we have focused here on CCL5 in the MSC–MDA-MB-
231 cell interactions, CCL5 seems to have an equally critical involvement
in the functional interaction of MSCs with MDA-MB-435$ N/ K7 E0 |3 m& D  _
human BCCs. CCL5 levels accumulate synergistically when the two
cell types are co-cultured together (Supplementary Fig. 10a), and3 F- f; v7 \% r! Q; K
MSCs in which CCL5 expression was compromised by shRNA knockdown* H# e. t9 z1 U% E3 S% a* h% f
failed to promote metastasis by MDA-MB-435 cells to which" O1 Z" m" ?: B# K# [+ j
theywere admixed (Supplementary Fig. 10b).With these facts in mind,
we point out that CCL5 does not seemto be involved in regulating the( A; @5 V1 T& Y
MSC-induced metastasis of MCF7/Ras or HMLER cells, which may
depend on other paracrine factors such as VEGF and interleukin-8.
Nevertheless, our observations highlight the recently discovered critical
roles of chemokine networks in malignant progression28,29 and suggest
the possible utility of a variety of CCL5 analogues and CCR5 antagonists
currentlyused in anti-HIVtherapy30 in treatingmetastatic disease.
Notably, we have observed that MSCs induce the metastasis of cells+ C! n9 G! n  e8 [9 B
to the lung that are, on isolation and re-injection into recipient mice,/ Z8 Y) L! W1 B3 Z+ W
no more metastatic than their predecessors in the primary tumour' u( z" c8 T. A! W  h
(Fig. 2e). This indicated that acquisition of increased metastatic* U, O0 {. d2 K9 b- M( \$ K  M4 `( J. E
powers by these tumour cells was reversible, and suggested that the
maintenance of this phenotype depends on continuing contact with! q3 k4 ]2 Z9 i: l
stromal cells. If extended to other tumour types, the present results6 v8 Q; ?+ k8 I
hold important implications for the molecular analysis of malignant
progression. They suggest that many of the cellular functions associated
with invasion and metastasis are often not expressed constitutively% `2 @+ Y) W2 ?; |. `! t! B
by carcinoma cells, but rather only transiently in response to
contextual signals that tumour cells receive from their stromal microenvironment., `- u! @! o2 D5 a4 |
If so, analysis of the gene expression patterns of bulk. h# t5 x* U0 n+ E+ [4 L8 U
primary tumour populations may fail to detect the expression of key
genes mediating invasiveness and metastasis, if only because they are
being transiently expressed in minor subpopulations of cells within
such tumours. Additionally, attempts at determining the metastatic" J: ~. P" ^8 F7 H5 s& c, C( O
propensities of tumours may need to be focused on the genes and
proteins that confer responsiveness of primary tumour cells to stromal0 _7 e0 M  s9 |
signals, rather than on the genes and proteins that directly mediate
the cellular phenotypes of invasion and metastasis.: b* L! U' s8 E
METHODS SUMMARY
Cells labelled with GFP or ds-red, or harbouring various overexpression or
shRNA constructs, were generated by viral transduction followed by FACS; W5 c9 F4 K. [5 E- E
enrichment or antibiotic selection. Xenograft experiments were conducted in
nude or NOD/SCID mice and metastasis was estimated using fluorescence
microscopy. The levels of cytokines, growth factors and chemokines were
assessed by immunoassays. Migration and invasion assays were conducted using
transwell chambers. Antibody treatment of tumour-bearing mice was conducted" H3 o9 S, K4 X- E/ a& R6 p9 o; g
by intraperitoneal injections. See Methods for detailed information regarding
cell culture, viral infections, in vivo colonization and extravasation assays, RT–
PCR, TUNEL and anoikis assays, immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence9 a4 h; t$ h6 g, B0 I
determinations, western blotting, and antibodies used.& o+ e& T" z! Y& z2 h+ ]6 k" H
Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of
the paper at www.nature.com/nature.

收藏0 分享0 顶0 踩0