Skip to main content
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology logoLink to Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
editorial
. 2011 Dec;2(4):203–205. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2011.041

Tumor exosomes: a novel biomarker?

Jason M Aliotta 1,
PMCID: PMC3397621  PMID: 22811852

Colorectal cancer is diagnosed in approximately one million people worldwide each year, making it the third most common malignancy (1). Not unexpectedly, early diagnosis is associated with a better prognosis. Five-year survival rates of stage I and II colorectal cancer are in excess of 70%. However, in spite of advances in treatment, metastatic colorectal cancer has a five-year survival rate of less than 10% and is not considered a curative disease (2). Among the “holy grails” of cancer diagnostics is the discovery of novel, cost-effective biomarkers of sufficient sensitivity and specificity to permit detection in a more timely fashion. Additionally, biomarkers that provide prognostic information and help clinicians to tailor cancer treatment and monitor response to treatment would be of considerable value. For example, mutations of the K-Ras gene, which are present in 40% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, have been found to be predictive of a poor response to EGFR-targeted drugs (3). Cellular vesicles are among the newer biomarkers that have been described in the literature, not only for cancer, but for a variety of human diseases.

Cellular vesicles are shed from a variety of cell types and since they contain cell membrane and cytoplasm, their contents are reflections of their cell of origin. Vesicles arising from platelets and red blood cells were among the first to be described several decades ago, but their biological significance was not known initially. Chargaff and West were among the first to report the procoagulant properties of these entities as they observed that the high speed centrifugate of human cell and platelet-free plasma normalized clotting of blood from a patient with hemophilia (4). Since the early descriptions, many different subpopulations of cellular vesicles have been described, including exosomes (5), microvesicles (6), ectosomes (7), membrane particles (8), exosome-like particles (9) and apoptotic vesicles (10). Subpopulations can be distinguished from one another based on size, density, morphology by electron microscopy, sedimentation by ultracentrifugation, lipid composition, protein markers and mechanisms by which they are formed. Exosomes, the subpopulation of vesicles described in this edition of the Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology by Koga et al, are 30-100 nanometers in diameter and are derived from endocytic vesicles. They are released upon fusion of multivesicular bodies with plasma membranes (11). Although there is likely to be some overlap of surface proteins present in different vesicle subpopulations, the tetraspanins, which include CD9, CD81, CD 82 and CD63, are typical components of exosomes (11). Shedding of vesicles occurs in steady state but is increased under the influence of a variety of exogenous stressors including hypoxia, shear stress, irradiation, chemotherapeutic agents and cytokines (12). Conveniently, cellular vesicles can be detected in the circulation and are found in elevated levels in a variety of human diseases including cardiovascular disease, infections, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, Crohn's disease and cancer (13). Cellular vesicle subpopulations are now known to contain DNA (genomic and mitochondrial), mRNA, microRNA and membrane and secreted proteins, some of which help to identify which cell population(s) these vesicles originated from (14). As a result, many have begun to investigate the use of cellular vesicles as disease-specific biomarkers. Taylor et al (15) recently reported that more circulating exosomes could be isolated from patients with ovarian cancer compared with patients with benign ovarian disease and that higher levels were associated with more advanced disease. Several distinct microRNA species could be isolated from these exosomes, eight of which were also found in ex vivo tumor samples from the same patients. Importantly, the microRNA profile of these exosomes was different from those isolated from patients without ovarian cancer, suggesting that this profile could act as a “molecular fingerprint” capable of providing non-invasive diagnostic and prognostic information.

A natural extension of studies as such would be to examine patients with known colorectal cancer or those at high risk of developing colorectal cancer as up and down regulation of various microRNA species have been noted in colorectal cancer tissue samples compared with normal colonic tissue (16). In this edition of the Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Koga et al point out that one of the technical limitations of RNA-based assays is that RNases are fairly ubiquitous and can rapidly degrade RNA in clinical samples. In this study, the authors examine the durability of exosomes-based microRNA in the face of RNase digestion. Homogenates of feces from healthy volunteers and cultured HT-29 cells (human colorectal cancer cell line) were treated with RNase. Total RNA was extracted from RNase-treated cells (cultured HT-29 or colonic epithelial cells isolated from feces) and exosomes isolated from cell-free HT-29 culture media or feces. Additionally, free RNA from both conditions was isolated. Samples were then analyzed for the presence of selected microRNA species by real-time RT-PCR. Investigators found that free microRNA was completely degraded by the addition of RNase whereas cellular microRNA was resistant to RNase degradation. Interestingly, exosomal microRNAs were partially (HT-29 cell-derived) or completely (feces-derived) resistant to RNase degradation. Among the microRNA species analyzed in this study was miR-21, which has elevated levels in colorectal cancer tissue compared with normal colonic tissue; however, no differences have been noted with respect to early versus advanced stage colorectal cancer (17). Nonetheless, if validated in larger, appropriately-powered studies, findings as such could pave the way to the development of highly sensitive and specific and potentially cost-effective colorectal cancer screening tests, particularly in regions of the world with relatively scarce endoscopic resources.

In this context, exosomes may represent a biomarker of cellular injury or atypia. However, others have demonstrated that these and other cellular vesicles may provide important insights in the pathogenesis of certain diseases, including cancer. Recent interest has focused on their capacity to shuttle cellular components from one cell to another and alter cellular fate. Transfer of membrane receptors between cells has been reported as has transfer of HIV and prions (18)-(22). Our group has demonstrated that murine lung tissue-derived microvesicles induce co-cultured bone marrow cells to express pulmonary epithelial cell-specific mRNA and protein, likely through the transfer of a microRNA or protein-based transcription factor contained within microvesicles (14),(23). When transplanted into lethally-irradiated mice, microvesicle-modified marrow cells preferentially engraft the lung as functioning type II pneumocytes (unpublished findings). In vitro culture studies done by our group and others have demonstrated that tumor-derived microvesicles can transfer determinants to non-malignant cells (18) and that human prostate cancer tissue is capable of inducing tissue specific mRNA transcription in human bone marrow cells (24),(25). In a similar vein, Al-Nedawia et al. reported that microvesicles produced from human cancer cell lines can transfer EGFR to human umbilical vein endothelial cells, in vitro (26). Cancer cell line xenografts in SCID mice that were treated to block microvesicle production had reduced tumor angiogenesis and growth, suggesting a role of tumor-derived microvesicles in cancer progression.

Our understanding of cellular vesicles has grown substantially as evidenced by the number of published reports, which have seemingly grown at an exponential rate over the past decade. Once believed to be cellular cast offs, these intriguing entities are now being viewed as potentially important disease-specific biomarkers, contributors to tissue repair processes and mediators of disease pathogenesis. Their contents are not random but rather provide essential insights of the health status of the originator cell and, perhaps, clues if other cells will be impacted in a beneficial or detrimental fashion.

Footnotes

No potential conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Cunningham D, Atkin W, Lenz HJ, Lynch HT, Minsky B, Nordlinger B, et al. Colorectal cancer. Lancet. 2010;375:1030–47. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60353-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Aiello M, Vella N, Cannavò C, Scalisi A, Spandidos DA, Toffoli G, et al. Role of genetic polymorphisms and mutations in colorectal cancer therapy (Review) Mol Med Report. 2011;4:203–8. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2010.408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chargaff E, West R. The biological significance of the thromboplastic protein of blood. J Biol Chem. 1946;166:189–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Keller S, Sanderson MP, Stoeck A, Altevogt P. Exosomes: from biogenesis and secretion to biological function. Immunol. Lett. 2006;107:102–8. doi: 10.1016/j.imlet.2006.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fader CM, Colombo MI. Autophagy and multivesicular bodies: two closely related partners. Cell Death Differ. 2009;16:70–8. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2008.168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Morel O, Toti F, Hugel B, Freyssinet JM. Cellular microparticles: a disseminated storage pool of bioactive vascular effectors. Curr Opin Hematol. 2004;11:156–64. doi: 10.1097/01.moh.0000131441.10020.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Heijnen HF, Schiel AE, Fijnheer R, Geuze HJ, Sixma JJ. Activated platelets release two types of membrane vesicles: microvesicles by surface shedding and exosomes derived from exocytosis of multivesicular bodies and alpha-granules. Blood. 1999;94:3791–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nomura S, Nakamura T, Cone J, Tandon NN, Kambayashi J. Cytometric analysis of high shear-induced platelet microparticles and effect of cytokines on microparticle generation. Cytometry. 2000;40:173–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Janowska-Wieczorek A, Majka M, Kijowski J, Baj-Krzyworzeka M, Reca R, Turner AR, et al. Platelet-derived microparticles bind to hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells and enhance their engraftment. Blood. 2001;98:3143–9. doi: 10.1182/blood.v98.10.3143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Théry C, Ostrowski M, Segura E. Membrane vesicles as conveyors of immune responses. Nature Rev Immunol. 2009;9:581–93. doi: 10.1038/nri2567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ratajczak J, Wysoczynski M, Hayek F, Janowska-Wieczorek A, Ratajczak MZ. Membrane-derived microvesicles: important and underappreciated mediators of cell-to-cell communication. Leukemia. 2006;20:1487–95. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Boulanger CM, Amabile N, Tedgui A. Circulating microparticles: a potential prognostic marker for atherosclerotic vascular disease. Hypertension. 48:180–6. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000231507.00962.b5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Aliotta JM, Sanchez-Guijo FM, Dooner GJ, Johnson KW, Dooner MS, Greer KA, et al. Alteration of marrow cell gene expression, protein production, and engraftment into lung by lung-derived microvesicles: a novel mechanism for phenotype modulation. Stem Cells. 2007;25:2245–56. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Taylor DD, Gercel-Taylor C. MicroRNA signatures of tumor-derived exosomes as diagnostic biomarkers of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.04.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Koga Y, Yasunaga M, Moriya Y, Akasu T, Fujita S, Yamamoto S, et al. Exosome can prevent RNase from degrading microRNA in feces. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2011;2:215–22. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2011.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Koga Y, Yasunaga M, Takahashi A, Kuroda J, Moriya Y, Akasu T, et al. MicroRNA expression profiling of exfoliated colonocytes isolated from feces for colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2010;3:1435–42. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Baj-Krzyworzeka M, Szatanek R, Weglarczyk K, Baran J, Urbanowicz B, Brański P, et al. Tumour-derived microvesicles carry several surface determinants and mRNA of tumour cells and transfer some of these determinants to monocytes. Cancer Immunol Imunother. 2006;55:808–18. doi: 10.1007/s00262-005-0075-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rozmyslowicz T, Majka M, Kijowski J, Murphy SL, Conover DO, Poncz M, et al. Platelet- and megakaryocyte-derived microparticles transfer CXCR4 receptor to CXCR4-null cells and make them susceptible to infection by X4-HIV. AIDS. 2003;17:33–42. doi: 10.1097/00002030-200301030-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Graves LE, Ariztia EV, Navari JR, Matzel HJ, Stack MS, Fishman DA. Proinvasive properties of ovarian cancer ascites-derived membrane vesicles. Cancer Res. 2004;64:7045–49. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fackler OT, Peterlin BM. Endocytic entry of HIV-1. Curr Biol. 2000;10:1005–8. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00654-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fevrier B, Vilette D, Archer F, Loew D, Faigle W, Vidal M, et al. Cells release prions in association with exosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:9683–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0308413101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Aliotta JM, Pereira M, Johnson KW, de Paz N, Dooner MS, Puente N, et al. Microvesicle entry into marrow cells mediates tissue-specific changes in mRNA by direct delivery of mRNA and induction of transcription. Exp Hematol. 2010;38:233–45. doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2010.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Renzulli JF, 2nd, Del Tatto M, Dooner G, Aliotta J, Goldstein L, Dooner M, et al. Microvesicle induction of prostate specific gene expression in normal human bone marrow cells. J Urol. 2010;184:2165–71. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Del Tatto M, Ng T, Aliotta JM, Colvin GA, Dooner MS, Berz D, et al. Marrow Cell Genetic Phenotype Change Induced by Human Lung Cancer Cells. Exp Hematol. 2011 Aug 19; doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2011.08.008. [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Al-Nedawi K, Meehan B, Kerbel RS, Allison AC, Rak J. Endothelial expression of autocrine VEGF upon the uptake of tumor-derived microvesicles containing oncogenic EGFR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:3794–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804543106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology are provided here courtesy of AME Publications

RESOURCES