Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jul 7.
Published in final edited form as: Discov Med. 2013 Mar;15(82):188–194.

Tumor Heterogeneity, Clonal Evolution, and Therapy Resistance: An Opportunity for Multitargeting Therapy

Stuart K Calderwood 1,
PMCID: PMC4083486  NIHMSID: NIHMS597141  PMID: 23545047

Abstract

Heterogeneity within the cell population is a feature of many tumors. This lack of cellular homogeneity may originate from a number of sources, including differential nutrient status due to the de novo microcirculations of tumors, to infiltration of normal cells into the tumor, and to the hierarchical natures of the cell populations from which cancers arise. Tumors are thought to arise from one or more tumor initiating cells (TIC) within the population and to found hierarchies of progenitors and more differentiated cancer cells. TIC are often derived from tissue stem cells and these cancer stem cells are characterized by resistance to most cytotoxic treatments and by a high metastatic rate. Many of the properties of tumor populations, including the ability to express mutated oncogenes and to evolve new features such as treatment resistance and invasive and metastatic potential appear to depend on the molecular chaperone Hsp90. We discuss the potential of targeting the heterogeneous cell population with Hsp90 inhibitory drugs and its potential ability to inactivate TIC and to block the evolution of new phenotypes in cancer.

Tumor Heterogeneity

Many solid cancers are characterized by heterogeneity within the cell population. In earlier studies, morphologically distinct zones were distinguished in many cancers with, particularly in larger tumors, cell necrosis occurring in central areas remote from the tumor microcirculation (Folkman, 2006; Fowler, 1967). Tumor cells tend to be particularly sensitive to nutrient deprivation due to their characteristically high rates of metabolism and to the utilization of oxidative glycolysis as a primary pathway of energy production (the Warburg effect) (Warburg, 1956; Zhao et al., 2009). Many cancers are thus highly demanding in terms of glucose and oxygen supply (Rohwer et al., 2012). In addition, when cancers arise, they are obliged to assemble an ad hoc microcirculation as they outgrow the tissue capillary network of the surrounding normal tissues (Hanahan and Weinberg, 2011). This newly assembled circulatory system tends to be inefficient in terms of vascular function and is itself asymmetrical, an effect that amplifies tumor heterogeneity (Folkman, 2006; Rohwer et al., 2012). Asymmetric nutrient deprivation in different zones in the tumor, due largely to differential perfusion rates is thus seen as a major driver of heterogeneity. A fraction of the nutrient deprived cells might be destined for necrotic death while some sub-populations such as transiently hypoxic cells might also develop resistance to treatment modalities such as radiotherapy (Brown, 2007).

Another connotation of the term tumor heterogeneity refers to populations of infiltrating cells that have been observed in a number of tumors. These normal cells may include immune effector cells such as immunosuppressive macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC), regulatory and cytotoxic T lymphocytes as well as mesenchymal cells, including fibroblasts and mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) (Colotta et al., 2009; Fridman et al., 2011; Mantovani, 2009). This infiltration cascade seen in many tumors is thought to be initiated by bone-marrow-derived MSC that are attracted to cancers in a similar manner to their role in wound healing (Stagg, 2008). MSC have been shown to differentiate into tumor-associated fibroblasts and such cells thus generate the cytokine milieu that may attract macrophages, MDSC, and regulatory T cells (Treg). Infiltrating normal cell populations are thought to provide tumor cells with growth-promoting cytokines and inhibit immune attack on cancer cells through the secretion of immunosuppressive cytokines.

However over the preceding ten years, the cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis has been supported by increasing amounts of evidence and appears to account for a different class of tumor heterogeneity (Reya et al., 2001; Visvader, 2009). It has become clear that, only a minority fraction of cancer cell populations is able to initiate tumors when limiting dilution transplantation studies are carried out in many tumors (Polyak and Weinberg, 2009; Reya et al., 2001; Visvader, 2009). CSC have been envisaged as the shadowy counterparts to the stem cells involved in the renewal of cell populations in normal tissues. In normal tissues, pluripotent stem cells are capable of self-renewal and give rise through cell division to hierarchical cell populations consisting of daughter stem cells, multipotent progenitors, transitamplifying cells, and differentiated cells (Reya et al., 2001; Shibata and Shen, 2012). The stem cell is maintained in its pristine, pluripotent state by signals emanating from the local tissue niche as well as through autoregulation by dedicated pluripotency transcription factors such as Oct4 and nanog (Dontu et al., 2003; Kashyap et al., 2009; Malanchi et al., 2012). In its simplest form one could propose a scheme whereby, when the tissue stem cell undergoes oncogenic mutation, it can give rise to the tumor initiating CSC as well as a hierarchical population of more differentiated cells each bearing the mutation. Such tumor initiating cells (TIC) would thus “breed true” as the single descendants of the mutated tissue stem cells and give rise to a stable hierarchy of daughter cells (Figure 1). Unfortunately, this agreeably simple model does not seem to hold for all tumors. It seems that many tumors contain multiple cell lineages and each of the lineages may be derived both from malignant transformation of the normal pluripotent stem cell as well as from more differentiated progenitors through clonal evolution (Greaves and Maley, 2012; Polyak and Weinberg, 2009; Shibata and Shen, 2012). In addition, TIC may undergo further mutations and epigenetic changes and become the founders of additional lineages within the tumor (Baylin and Jones, 2011; Greaves and Maley, 2012) (Figure 1). As TIC are characterized by resistance to cancer treatment, they also offer a significant challenge for cancer therapy. TIC may resist therapy due to characteristically slow rates of self renewal, to elevated expression of ABC family transporters that evict chemotherapeutic drugs, to the expression of Polycomb factors that protect cells against DNA damage and to the secretion of immunosuppressive cytokines that counteract the effects of immunotherapy (Ginestier et al., 2007; Lagadec et al., 2012; Schatton et al., 2010; Vissers et al., 2012). In addition, TIC/CSC have been implicated as important cells in invasion into the stroma and metastasis to distant sites (Malanchi et al., 2012; Weng et al., 2012).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Clonal evolution and hierarchical differentiation. In normal tissues, stem cells give rise to descendent cells including pluripotent progenitor, transit amplifying and ultimately cells with differentiated functions within the organ. In Scheme 1, a transforming mutation (X) is shown to give rise to a similar hierarchy of stem (CSC) and descendent cells, each bearing the mutation. In Scheme 2, we show clonal evolution induced by individual second mutations (Y, Z, A, B) in the CSC that already bear mutation X and that can be the founders of individual clones within the polyclonal tumor population. In addition second mutations in the progenitor and other downstream cell types may also give rise to cells with tumor initiating potential (small arrows). We show in the inset box the potential role of multitargeting Hsp90 drugs (Hsp90i) that can suppress the transforming ability of individual mutated oncoproteins (X, Y, Z, A, B), reduce clonal evolution, and potentially kill the cancer cells.

Molecular Chaperones, Mutation, and the Evolution of Tumor Heterogeneity

The major driver of oncogenesis and tumor heterogeneity is thought to be DNA mutation. Activating mutations in the open reading frames and regulatory regions of oncogenes and inactivating DNA damage in tumor suppressor genes are thought to be the primary events, and decrease in the potency of DNA repair is a major contributing factor (Hanahan and Weinberg, 2011). However, many such changes are likely to lead to elevated expression of proteins as well as to polypeptides with point mutations or domain fusions that are likely to be conformationally unstable (Kamal et al., 2003). Such proteins would be likely to be detected by the intracellular protein quality control pathways, polyubiquinated, and targeted to the proteasome for degradation and would thus lose their transforming potential (Calderwood et al., 2009). One way in which these deleterious consequences could be circumvented is through the ability of molecular chaperone complexes to recognize and stabilize client proteins such as aberrant oncoproteins (Trepel et al., 2010). Molecular chaperones tend to be expressed at high levels in cancer and appear to play the role of collaborators fostering the role of oncogenes in tumorigenesis by stabilizing the sensitive conformations of such proteins (Calderwood and Gong, 2012; Ciocca et al., 2013). Many cancers have thus come to be regarded as “addicted to chaperones” due to their dependence on elevated rates of protein folding for growth and survival (Kamal et al., 2003; Neckers and Lee, 2003). One chaperone in particular, heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) is known to bind and stabilize a wide range of proteins with activity in the cell cycle, in signal transduction and in transcription, many of which are widely implicated in cancer (Kamal et al., 2003; Neckers and Lee, 2003; Neckers and Workman, 2012). The availability of natural product compounds such as geldanomycin that inhibit Hsp90 chaperone function has permitted study of the significance of the “addicted to chaperones” theory and have provided a platform for development of chaper-one-based anti-cancer drugs (Trepel et al., 2010; Whitesell et al., 2012). As mentioned above, tumor heterogeneity and the existence of treatment resistant, highly metastatic TIC suggests the difficulties that may be associated with specific molecularly-targeted cancer therapeutics (O’Hare et al., 2006; Sawyers, 2005). Thus although the development of agents aimed at single oncogenic targets is highly desirable in terms of enhanced treatment specificity and reduced morbidity, many such agents have failed, probably at least partially due to the polyclonal nature of tumor cell populations (O’Hare et al., 2006; Sawyers, 2005). This may offer one explanation for the relative durability of cancer treatment approaches such as traditional chemotherapy and radiation therapy that are likely to have broad spectra of intracellular targets within the cancer cell population. Drugs aimed at inhibiting Hsp90 have been shown to possess multitargeting capacity and could potentially be active against more than one of the potentially multiple tumor cell lineages (Nicolini et al., 2011).

In addition to its role in chaperoning oncogenic proteins, Hsp90 appears to play an unusual role in evolution at the species and cellular levels (Queitsch et al., 2002; Rutherford and Lindquist, 1998). Under normal circumstances, Hsp90 has been shown to be involved in canalization, buffering against phenotypic changes despite the background development of sporadic mutations and the occurrence of environmental fluctuations, thus permitting the acquisition of developmental robustness (Sangster et al., 2008). In addition to canalization, Hsp90 is thought to permit the accumulation within cells of genetic variability, presumably by chaperoning the products of sporadic polymorphisms and mutations that occur continuously within cell populations (Sangster et al., 2008). The chaperone has thus been described a capacitor for phenotypic diversity (Queitsch et al., 2002). A mutator phenotype has been observed in many cancers and would be predicted to accelerate the generation of genetic diversity and the rate of evolution within tumors (Fishel and Kolodner, 1995; Hanahan and Weinberg, 2011). In addition to increased mismatch repair, other important pathways such as non-homologous end joining repair (NHEJ) also become inhibited during tumorigenesis (Lord and Ashworth, 2012). One would thus predict a priori the evolution of multiple tumor cell clones that have in fact been observed experimentally (Greaves and Maley, 2012; Polyak and Weinberg, 2009; Shibata and Shen, 2012). Cancer treatment with cytotoxic agents could select the fittest, most treatment resistant clones from the diverse malignant cell population maintained by Hsp90 and thus promote the evolution of resistance. The capacitor for evolution hypothesis was tested using Hsp90 inhibitors or heat shock to prevent the buffering of phenotypes and permit expression of altered proteins and new phenotypes (Queitsch et al., 2002; Rutherford and Lindquist, 1998). It is however not clear to what extent Hsp90 would inhibit treatment-induced evolution by cytotoxic therapy due to its role in canalization and prevention of expression of the diverse phenotype that it can buffer. One interesting property of Hsp90 that might relate to the cancer microenvironment and tumor heterogeneity is that the chaperone is exquisitely sensitive to energy deprivation. Hsp90 molecular chaperone function requires a relatively high intracellular ATP concentration and low ADP levels (Peng et al., 2005). Therefore in the energy-deprived cells remote from the microcirculation one might see the emergence of cells with novel phenotypes due to loss of Hsp90 activity. This effect might also be exaggerated by the increases in genetic instability and new phenotypes such as increased metastatic ability that have been observed in hypoxic cells in these areas remote from the blood supply (Bindra and Glazer, 2005). Indeed increases in cells with a surface CSC phenotype have also been observed in the hypoxic zones of tumors (Conley et al., 2012; Currie et al., 2012; Xing et al., 2011). The mechanisms underlying these effects of hypoxia are not entirely clear but may be at least in part due to upregulation of the transcription factor hypoxiainducible factor 1a (HIF1a) (Rohwer et al., 2012). HIF1a can influence DNA repair through multiple interactions including association with BRCA1 (breast cancer susceptibility gene 1) and DNA dependent protein kinase, a key regulator of NHEJ (Rohwer et al., 2012). Therefore, nutrient-generated tumor heterogeneity as well as cell hierarchy-generated heterogeneity appear to be mechanistically linked. In addition, hypoxia, through the induction of the hypoxia inducible transcription factors (HIF), can increase the responsiveness of breast cancer cells to cytokines secreted by infiltrating MSC (Chaturvedi et al., 2013).

Targeting Molecular Chaperones

Hsp90 has emerged as a major pharmaceutical target in cancer therapy. This molecular chaperone plays a broad role in cancer as described above, and drug targeting this molecule could offer the possibility of inhibiting multiple intracellular targets simultaneously; in addition the existence of natural product prototype drugs such as geldanomycin that effectively inhibit its function have accelerated progress in this area (Neckers and Workman, 2012; Whitesell and Lindquist, 2005). Thus multiple Hsp90 drugs have been synthesized in recent years, many of which are undergoing clinical trial for cancer treatment (Neckers, 2002; Neckers and Workman, 2012). The heterogeneous, polyclonal nature of many cancers mentioned above indicates the desirability of drugs such as Hsp90 inhibitors with multiple targets. However, CSC subpopulations, important TIC with powerful metastatic functions, are intrinsically resistant to many types of therapy and could be similarly resistant to Hsp90 inhibitory drugs. It has however been shown that the Hsp90 inhibitor IPI-504 can suppress leukemic stem cells expressing a mutant form of BCR-ABL resistant to kinase inhibitory drugs and sensitize the cells to imatinib (Peng et al., 2007). In addition, the Hsp90 inhibitor 17-AAG was shown to reduce the growth of glioma derived stem cells and to synergize with radiation therapy in the inhibition of growth of intracranial tumors in vivo (Sauvageot et al., 2009). Likewise Hsp90 inhibitors sensitized cancer side population cells with CSC function to chemotherapy and triggered apoptosis (Sobhan et al., 2012). Indeed when used at low concentrations 17-AAG was shown to selectively eliminate lymphoma and leukemic CSC compared to the population of rapidly growing progenitor cells by disrupting the activity of HIF1a (Newman et al., 2012). In addition, Hsp90 is required for the activity of the pluripotency transcription factors Oct4 and Nanog essential for maintaining stemness, indicating a fundamental requirement for the chaperone in the stem cell phenotype (Bradley et al., 2012). Thus CSC appear to be, at least in some circumstances selectively susceptible to Hsp90 inhibitors.

However, despite the versatility of Hsp90 inhibitors in terms of inactivating multiple molecular targets in tumor cells, it is still not clear that, at systemically tol erable doses, the drugs will be cytotoxic to commonly observed cancers in human patients. It has therefore been suggested by Whitesell et al. (2012) that Hsp90 inhibitors might be most effectively used in combination with other, more cytotoxic agents. The Hsp90 inhibitors would be envisaged as inhibiting the accumulation of variant phenotypes and clonal evolution within the tumor population and thus reducing the development of treatment resistant tumor sub-populations that are a complication in many protocols (Whitesell et al., 2012). In this context, the Hsp90 inhibitors could also potentially reduce tumor stem cell reprogramming, a treatment complication that has been shown to be induced by cytotoxic agents (Lagadec et al., 2012). Although the extent of treatment-induced CSC reprogramming is currently not clear, such an effect could be potentially limiting to cancer therapy by rapidly increasing levels of treatment resistant cells. In addition, CSC are often highly metastatic, compounding the potential problems of stem cell reprogramming (Weng et al., 2012). CSC reprogramming by radiation appears to involve similar processes to those involved in the generation of inducible pluripotent stem cells, with a prominent role for the transcription factor STAT3 in both processes (Ho et al., 2010; Lagadec et al., 2012; Tang et al., 2012). Interestingly, activation of STAT3 in multiple myeloma was associated with enhanced sensitivity to Hsp90 inhibitory drugs and the drugs effectively inhibited STAT3 activity (Lin et al., 2013).

Another area for novel drug development involving molecular chaperones is the potential targeting of cochaperones, co-factor proteins known to be required for protein folding by the primary chaperone (Cox and Johnson, 2011). Hsp90 can interact with a wide range of such co-chaperones and many of these proteins are essential for effective activity of Hsp90 in cells and for intracellular regulation. Expression of the Hsp90 cochaperones Hop, p23, Cdc37, and the immunophilin molecule FKBP is associated with enhanced tumorigenesis and these molecules may offer novel targets to be investigated in inhibiting tumor growth, clonal evolution, and treatment resistance (Calderwood, 2013; Gray et al., 2008). Cdc37 in particular is expressed to high levels in prostate cancer and could provide an important alternate target in this type of malignancy (Gray et al., 2007). In addition other molecular chaperones such as heat shock protein 70 may also be important in tumorigenesis and clonal evolution and are potential new targets for novel drug development (Powers et al., 2011).

Conclusion

In conclusion therefore, many tumors contain heterogeneous cell populations composed of multiple cell lineages that each might respond quite differently to therapies. In addition such populations may generate a cache of novel mutated proteins that can be utilized to evolve resistance against cytotoxic treatments. It appears, however, that such capacity to evolve is at least partially dependent on molecular chaperones to maintain these potential new traits. Utilization of drugs targeting molecular chaperones may thus be currently indicated in the face of such evolutionary potential. The development of future understanding of the mechanisms of evolution and the generation of phenotypic diversity could indicate whole new areas for study in cancer.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by NIH research grants RO-1CA047407, R01CA119045, and RO-1CA094397.

Footnotes

Disclosure

The author reports no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Baylin SB, Jones PA. A decade of exploring the cancer epigenome - biological and translational implications. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11(10):726–734. doi: 10.1038/nrc3130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bindra RS, Glazer PM. Genetic instability and the tumor microenvironment: towards the concept of microenvironment-induced mutagenesis. Mutat Res. 2005;569(1–2):75–85. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradley E, Bieberich E, Mivechi NF, Tangpisuthipongsa D, Wang G. Regulation of embryonic stem cell pluripotency by heat shock protein 90. Stem Cells. 2012;30(8):1624–1633. doi: 10.1002/stem.1143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown JM. Tumor hypoxia in cancer therapy. Methods Enzymol. 2007;435:297–321. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(07)35015-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Calderwood SK. Molecular co-chaperones, tumor growth and cancer treatment. Scientifica. 2013 doi: 10.1155/2013/217513. in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Calderwood SK, Gong J. Molecular chaperones in mammary cancer growth and breast tumor therapy. J Cell Biochem. 2012;113(4):1096–1103. doi: 10.1002/jcb.23461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Calderwood SK, Murshid A, Prince T. The shock of aging: molecular chaperones and the heat shock response in longevity and aging -- a mini-review. Gerontology. 2009;55(5):550–558. doi: 10.1159/000225957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaturvedi P, Gilkes DM, Wong CC, Luo W, Zhang H, Wei H, Takano N, Schito L, Levchenko A, Semenza GL. Hypoxia-inducible factor-dependent breast cancer-mesenchymal stem cell bidirectional signaling promotes metastasis. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(1):189–205. doi: 10.1172/JCI64993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ciocca DR, Arrigo AP, Calderwood SK. Heat shock proteins and heat shock factor 1 in carcinogenesis and tumor development: an update. Arch Toxicol. 2013;87(1):19–48. doi: 10.1007/s00204-012-0918-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Colotta F, Allavena P, Sica A, Garlanda C, Mantovani A. Cancer-related inflammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer: links to genetic instability. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30(7):1073–1081. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgp127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Conley SJ, Gheordunescu E, Kakarala P, Newman B, Korkaya H, Heath AN, Clouthier SG, Wicha MS. Antiangiogenic agents increase breast cancer stem cells via the generation of tumor hypoxia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(8):2784–2789. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018866109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cox MB, Johnson JL. The role of p23, Hop, immunophilins, and other co-chaperones in regulating Hsp90 function. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;787:45–66. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-295-3_4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Currie MJ, Beardsley BE, Harris GC, Gunningham SP, Dachs GU, Dijkstra B, Morrin HR, Wells JE, Robinson BA. Immunohistochemical analysis of cancer stem cell markers in invasive breast carcinoma and associated ductal carcinoma in situ: relationships with markers of tumor hypoxia and microvascularity. Hum Pathol. 2012;44(3):402–411. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2012.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dontu G, Abdallah WM, Foley JM, Jackson KW, Clarke MF, Kawamura MJ, Wicha MS. In vitro propagation and transcriptional profiling of human mammary stem/progenitor cells. Genes Dev. 2003;17(10):1253–1270. doi: 10.1101/gad.1061803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fishel R, Kolodner RD. Identification of mismatch repair genes and their role in the development of cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1995;5(3):382–395. doi: 10.1016/0959-437x(95)80055-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Folkman J. Angiogenesis. Annu Rev Med. 2006;57:1–18. doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.57.121304.131306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fowler J. Biological Foundations of Radiotherapy. The Netherlands: Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam; 1967. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fridman WH, Pages F, Sautes-Fridman C, Galon J. The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;12(4):298–306. doi: 10.1038/nrc3245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ginestier C, Hur MH, Charafe-Jauffret E, Monville F, Dutcher J, Brown M, Jacquemier J, Viens P, Kleer CG, Liu S, Schott A, Hayes D, Birnbaum D, Wicha MS, Dontu G. ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell. 2007;1(5):555–567. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2007.08.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gray PJ, Jr, Prince T, Cheng J, Stevenson MA, Calderwood SK. Targeting the oncogene and kinome chaperone CDC37. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(7):491–495. doi: 10.1038/nrc2420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gray PJ, Jr, Stevenson MA, Calderwood SK. Targeting Cdc37 inhibits multiple signaling pathways and induces growth arrest in prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67(24):11942–11950. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-3162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Greaves M, Maley CC. Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature. 2012;481(7381):306–313. doi: 10.1038/nature10762. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–674. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ho JN, Kang GY, Lee SS, Kim J, Bae IH, Hwang SG, Um HD. Bcl-XL and STAT3 mediate malignant actions of gamma-irradiation in lung cancer cells. Cancer Sci. 2010;101(6):1417–1423. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01552.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kamal A, Thao L, Sensintaffar J, Zhang L, Boehm MF, Fritz LC, Burrows FJ. A high-affinity conformation of Hsp90 confers tumour selectivity on Hsp90 inhibitors. Nature. 2003;425(6956):407–410. doi: 10.1038/nature01913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kashyap V, Rezende NC, Scotland KB, Shaffer SM, Persson JL, Gudas LJ, Mongan NP. Regulation of stem cell pluripotency and differentiation involves a mutual regulatory circuit of the NANOG, OCT4, and SOX2 pluripotency transcription factors with polycomb repressive complexes and stem cell microRNAs. Stem Cells Dev. 2009;18(7):1093–1108. doi: 10.1089/scd.2009.0113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lagadec C, Vlashi E, Della Donna L, Dekmezian C, Pajonk F. Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cancer cells. Stem Cells. 2012;30(5):833–844. doi: 10.1002/stem.1058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin H, Kolosenko I, Bjorklund AC, Protsyuk D, Osterborg A, Grander D, Tamm KP. An activated JAK/STAT3 pathway and CD45 expression are associated with sensitivity to Hsp90 inhibitors in multiple myeloma. Exp Cell Res. 2013;319(5):600–611. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2012.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lord CJ, Ashworth A. The DNA damage response and cancer therapy. Nature. 2012;481(7381):287–294. doi: 10.1038/nature10760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Malanchi I, Santamaria-Martinez A, Susanto E, Peng H, Lehr HA, Delaloye JF, Huelsken J. Interactions between cancer stem cells and their niche govern metastatic colonization. Nature. 2012;481(7379):85–89. doi: 10.1038/nature10694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mantovani A. Cancer: Inflaming metastasis. Nature. 2009;457(7225):36–37. doi: 10.1038/457036b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Neckers L. Hsp90 inhibitors as novel cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Trends Mol Med. 2002;8(4):S55–S61. doi: 10.1016/s1471-4914(02)02316-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Neckers L, Lee YS. Cancer: the rules of attraction. Nature. 2003;425(6956):357–359. doi: 10.1038/425357a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Neckers L, Workman P. Hsp90 molecular chaperone inhibitors: are we there yet? Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(1):64–76. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1000. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Newman B, Liu Y, Lee HF, Sun D, Wang Y. HSP90 inhibitor 17-AAG selectively eradicates lymphoma stem cells. Cancer Res. 2012;72(17):4551–4561. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Fini M, Borsari V, Fallahi P, Antonelli A, Carpi A, Miccoli P. Cancer stem cells: perspectives of new therapeutical approaches for breast cancer. Front Biosci (Schol Ed) 2011;3:1486–1499. doi: 10.2741/239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. O’Hare T, Corbin AS, Druker BJ. Targeted CML therapy: controlling drug resistance, seeking cure. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2006;16(1):92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2005.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Peng C, Brain J, Hu Y, Goodrich A, Kong L, Grayzel D, Pak R, Read M, Li S. Inhibition of heat shock protein 90 prolongs survival of mice with BCR-ABL-T315I-induced leukemia and suppresses leukemic stem cells. Blood. 2007;110(2):678–685. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-10-054098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Peng X, Guo X, Borkan SC, Bharti A, Kuramochi Y, Calderwood S, Sawyer DB. Heat shock protein 90 stabilization of ErbB2 expression is disrupted by ATP depletion in myocytes. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(13):13148–13152. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M410838200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Polyak K, Weinberg RA. Transitions between epithelial and mesenchymal states: acquisition of malignant and stem cell traits. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(4):265–273. doi: 10.1038/nrc2620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Powers MV, Jones K, Barillari C, Westwood I, Van Montfort RL, Workman P. Targeting HSP70: the second potentially druggable heat shock protein and molecular chaperone? Cell Cycle. 2011;9(8):1542–1550. doi: 10.4161/cc.9.8.11204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Queitsch C, Sangster TA, Lindquist S. Hsp90 as a capacitor of phenotypic variation. Nature. 2002;417(6889):618–624. doi: 10.1038/nature749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Reya T, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF, Weissman IL. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature. 2001;414(6859):105–111. doi: 10.1038/35102167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rohwer N, Zasada C, Kempa S, Cramer T. The growing complexity of HIF-1alpha’s role in tumorigenesis: DNA repair and beyond. Oncogene. 2012 Nov 19; doi: 10.1038/onc.2012.510. epub ahead of print. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rutherford SL, Lindquist S. Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature. 1998;396(6709):336–342. doi: 10.1038/24550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sangster TA, Salathia N, Undurraga S, Milo R, Schellenberg K, Lindquist S, Queitsch C. HSP90 affects the expression of genetic variation and developmental stability in quantitative traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(8):2963–2968. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0712200105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Sauvageot CM, Weatherbee JL, Kesari S, Winters SE, Barnes J, Dellagatta J, Ramakrishna NR, Stiles CD, Kung AL, Kieran MW, Wen PY. Efficacy of the HSP90 inhibitor 17-AAG in human glioma cell lines and tumorigenic glioma stem cells. Neuro Oncol. 2009;11(2):109–121. doi: 10.1215/15228517-2008-060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sawyers CL. Making progress through molecular attacks on cancer. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2005;70:479–482. doi: 10.1101/sqb.2005.70.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schatton T, Schutte U, Frank NY, Zhan Q, Hoerning A, Robles SC, Zhou J, Hodi FS, Spagnoli GC, Murphy GF, Frank MH. Modulation of T-cell activation by malignant melanoma initiating cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70(2):697–708. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Shibata M, Shen MM. The roots of cancer: Stem cells and the basis for tumor heterogeneity. Bioessays. 2012;35(3):253–260. doi: 10.1002/bies.201200101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sobhan PK, Seervi M, Joseph J, Chandrika BB, Varghese S, Santhoshkumar TR, Radhakrishna Pillai M. Identification of heat shock protein 90 inhibitors to sensitize drug resistant side population tumor cells using a cell based assay platform. Cancer Lett. 2012;317(1):78–88. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2011.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stagg J. Mesenchymal stem cells in cancer. Stem Cell Rev. 2008;4(2):119–124. doi: 10.1007/s12015-008-9030-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Tang Y, Luo Y, Jiang Z, Ma Y, Lin CJ, Kim C, Carter MG, Amano T, Park J, Kish S, Tian XC. Jak/Stat3 signaling promotes somatic cell reprogramming by epigenetic regulation. Stem Cells. 2012;30(12):2645–2656. doi: 10.1002/stem.1225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Trepel J, Mollapour M, Giaccone G, Neckers L. Targeting the dynamic HSP90 complex in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(8):537–549. doi: 10.1038/nrc2887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Vissers JH, Van Lohuizen M, Citterio E. The emerging role of Polycomb repressors in the response to DNA damage. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 17):3939–3948. doi: 10.1242/jcs.107375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Visvader JE. Keeping abreast of the mammary epithelial hierarchy and breast tumorigenesis. Genes Dev. 2009;23(22):2563–2577. doi: 10.1101/gad.1849509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123(3191):309–314. doi: 10.1126/science.123.3191.309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Weng D, Penzner JH, Song B, Koido S, Calderwood SK, Gong J. Metastasis is an early event in mouse mammary carcinomas and is associated with cells bearing stem cell markers. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(1):R18. doi: 10.1186/bcr3102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Whitesell L, Lindquist SL. HSP90 and the chaperoning of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(10):761–772. doi: 10.1038/nrc1716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Whitesell L, Santagata S, Lin NU. Inhibiting HSP90 to treat cancer: a strategy in evolution. Curr Mol Med. 2012;12(9):1108–1124. doi: 10.2174/156652412803306657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Xing F, Okuda H, Watabe M, Kobayashi A, Pai SK, Liu W, Pandey PR, Fukuda K, Hirota S, Sugai T, Wakabayshi G, Koeda K, Kashiwaba M, Suzuki K, Chiba T, Endo M, Mo YY, Watabe K. Hypoxia-induced Jagged2 promotes breast cancer metastasis and self-renewal of cancer stem-like cells. Oncogene. 2011;30(39):4075–4086. doi: 10.1038/onc.2011.122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhao YH, Zhou M, Liu H, Ding Y, Khong HT, Yu D, Fodstad O, Tan M. Upregulation of lactate dehydrogenase A by ErbB2 through heat shock factor 1 promotes breast cancer cell glycolysis and growth. Oncogene. 2009;28(42):3689–3701. doi: 10.1038/onc.2009.229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES