Abstract
Metastasis is a multisequential process that allows tumor cells to migrate to tissues distant from the primary tumor. Only a small number of cells escape from the primary tumor; however, the metastases generated are responsible for more than 90% of cancer deaths. Many metastatic processes initially require the total or partial start‐up of a program for the transformation of tumor epithelial cells into mesenchymal cells (EMT). The launching of the EMT program is stimulated by cytokines and other elements produced by the diverse types of cells composing the tumor stroma. In parallel, a process of destabilization of the extracellular matrix (ECM) takes place by means of the synthesis of proteases of the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) family. EMC degradation allows the exportation of some tumor cells as mesenchymal cells to the circulatory system and their subsequent implantation in a tissue distant from the primary tumor. The blocking of these both processes appears as a hypothetical stop point in the metastatic mechanism. The present review deals with the different options to achieve the inhibition of MMPs, focusing on MMP7 as a target given its involvement in the metastatic processes of a wide variety of tumors.
Keywords: cancer, epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), extracellular matrix (ECM), matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), metastasis
Significance statement
The simultaneous implantation of the epithelial–mesenchymal program and the synthesis and activation of matrix metalloproteinases during the first phases of the metastasis process is known. The inhibition of proteases could constitute a possible blockage of the process. The review describes the evolution of the different inhibition mechanisms that could inform applicable therapeutic mechanisms for the paralysis of the metastatic process.
1. INTRODUCTION
Cancer comprises more than 180 different diseases which are the result of a wide variety of complex molecular interactions. The systematization of common features started in 2000 with the publication of “Hallmarks of Cancer” 1 allowed to identify the six characteristic features of a malignant tumor, among which the capacity to invade tissues and create metastasis stands out. In 2011, the same authors performed an update 2 which included two new features.
Although the use of innovative technologies has led to an increased knowledge of the biological mechanisms that result in the formation of a primary tumor; however, the knowledge of the invasion‐metastasis mechanism is limited by the lack of specific technologies able to differentiate each of the different stages of the process. 3
The capacity to invade the surrounding tissues and the spread of tumor cells to other organs, their settlement in those new tissues, and the formation of secondary tumor masses or metastasis is a multisequential process. 3 , 4 , 5 All the properties gained initially by tumor cells combine to furnish capacities that enable them to abandon the primary tumor and settle in another tissue. In this sense, it can be said that seven of the eight features acquired serve to provide tumor cells with the properties that will enable their evasion and the subsequent formation of metastasis. 1 , 2 Regardless of the way in which tumor cells evade, individually or forming clusters, only a reduced number of cells will be able to complete the process and settle on tissues away from the primary tumor. This process is rather ineffective 3 ; however, metastasizing of a tumor worsens notably the prognosis from the clinical point of view 6 ; it is known that the metastasis process is responsible for 90% of deaths by cancer. 7
The beginning of a metastatic process involves the activation of two apparently simultaneous mechanisms that have been the subject of study and interest. One of them refers to the transformation of tumor epithelial cells into a mesenchymal phenotype by the implantation of the molecular program termed epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT). 8 Many authors suggest that the EMT program is a prerequisite within the metastatic mechanism. 9 , 10 The other process is the degradation of the tissue adjacent to the tumor by the destruction of the extracellular matrix (ECM), which enables the evasion of the tumor cells to the lymphatic system in search of the metastasizing spread.
2. THE EMT PROGRAM
The EMT program is not only involved in the initial stages of metastatic processes where, apparently, it could be a prerequisite for intravasation. 9 Post EMT is also involved in embryogenesis, wound healing, fibrosis, and so on. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15
EMT is a process that leads neoplastic or normal epithelial cells to lose apico‐basal polarity, breaking the cell junctions (tight junctions, gap‐junction, and adherence‐junctions). 13 EMT implementation is promoted by the action of peptides and molecular signals synthesized in an autocrine way and by the different cell elements present in the tumor stroma. 16 , 17 Environmental hypoxia coupled with the presence of cytokines and growth factors 13 , 18 induces the expression of different and specific transcription factors (EMT‐TF; (Twist, Snail, ZEB1 and ZEB2, and others) that provoke a progressive loss of expression of the epithelial phenotype markers, such as E‐cadherin, claudins, occludins, cytokeratins α6β4, integrins, and others. 19 , 20 Simultaneously, ETM‐TFs also induce the increase of the expression of mesenchymal markers, like N‐cadherin, vimentin, fibronectin, or β1 and β3 integrins (Figure 1). 10 , 13
Figure 1.
(A) Phases of the full or partial implementation of the EMT program. (B) Relationship of EMT program with MMPs synthesis and subsequent remodeling of the extracellular matrix (ECM). Stromal cells: Cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAFs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and tumor‐associated macrophages (TAMs) release different cytokines that induce EMT implementation. 17 Both stromal and tumor cells generate micro RNAs (miRNAs) that get involved in MMPs synthesis too. EMT, epithelial–mesenchymal transition; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase.
In “in vitro” cultures, epithelial cells advance throughout the implementation of the EMT program turning progressively into a mesenchymal phenotype, losing the expression of E‐cadherin, main marker of the epithelial character. 21 However, the cells subjected “in vivo” to an EMT program seldom finish the program with a full conversion into mesenchymal cells. In most cases, the program proceeds through cells with mixed phenotypes that keep part of the epithelial character and of the structure typical of the mesenchymal cells. This is called partial EMT state. 21 , 22 These cells adopt a migratory phenotype characterized by its capacity to resist immunosuppression and drugs 23 , 24 , 25 and the evasion from apoptosis. 26 It was also observed to favor the inflammation associated with cancer progression and fibrosis. In this sense, some evidence suggests that some cells under the EMT program acquire properties of tumor stem cells (GSC). 27 , 28 The fact that some epithelial characters are preserved permits the reversible process (mesenchymal–epithelial transformation) (MET) that starts after the tumor cell has settled, enabling metastasis formation and the gain of effectiveness. 15 , 29
3. CONSEQUENCES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EMT PROGRAM
The EMT‐program implementation may induce the synthesis of different endo proteases that provoke ECM destabilization. 17 , 30 , 31 In this sense epithelial tumor cells partially converted into mesenchymal cells contribute to ECM destruction. Also, secrete vascularization factors that favor the synthesis of capillaries that may serve as an escape way for metastatic cells. 32 Angiogenesis is parallel to the development of the EMT program. It is a comprehensive program, because the production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and EGF‐receptor (EGFR) is associated with the Twist2 pathway and to the reduction of the E‐cadherin expression. 33 , 34 Also, the hypoxia and acidity of the tumor environment produced by the accumulation of lactic acid (Warburg effect) adds up to ECM destabilization. 35 , 36
ECM and basal membrane degradations are critical for invasion and metastasis and account for a poor prognosis in many types of cancer. 37 Simultaneously to the implementation of the EMT program, migration of the tumor cells occurs, favored by the production, secretion, and activation of the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). 38 , 39
4. MATRIX METALLOPROTEINASES
Excellent reviews have been published last years dealing with the structure and enzymatic activity of the different MMPs, which permitted their classification, and the knowledge of their specific cell location and substrates, an aspect that generates its own classification system. 40 , 41
In a basal situation, the presence and production of the different MMPs must be perfectly regulated, because the excess activity may cause cellular chaos. 30 , 42 In a natural way, the presence of the different MMPs is strictly regulated at various levels; in this sense, MMPs synthesis is modulated at transcription and transduction levels and by post‐transductional modifications. 41 Like nearly other peptidases, MMPs are synthesized as inactive pro‐enzymes and are activated by proteolysis when losing the peptidic element in the amino‐terminal end. 43 In their active center, MMPs have a highly preserved sequence next to the C‐terminal called “cysteine switch,” where cysteine residues bind in the catalytic site through Zn2+, transforming MMP into a latent protein. The rupture of the linkage means the pro‐domain loss and MMPs activation. 44 Full activation is achieved through autocatalysis or by the mutual and specific intervention of other MMPs. 30 , 45
MMPs proteolytic activity is controlled by four types of MMPs inhibiting proteins (TIMPs) that bind the catalytic site in a specific and reversible mode. 46 , 47 , 48 Other peptides like α2‐macroglobulin or thrombopodin1 can also inhibit the MMPs, but less effectively. 49
The overexpression of the different MMPs is well documented for many types of tumors, 50 , 51 , 52 with a positive correlation between tumor aggressiveness and protease expression. 53 The diverse cells composing tumor stroma secrete specifically the different MMPs; however, many tumor cells express MMP7, apparently in parallel with the implementation of EMT program. 54 The rest of cells present in the tumor stroma produce diverse MMPs that interact with each other in a complex net of proteolytic processes that seem to converge in the synthesis of MMP7, MMP2, and MMP9. 45 , 53 , 55
MMP7 is the smallest matrix metalloproteinase with a molecular weight of 27 kDa in its latent form and 19 kDa in its active form. This suggests that it might be an end‐protein that is the result of many of the MMPs‐activating mechanisms. In this sense, MMP7 is the most specific of all MMPs with respect to target substrate, with a particularly mighty action on MMP2 and MMP9. 45 , 56 MMP7, also known as Matrilysin, is a Zinc‐dependent endopeptidase consisting of 267 amino acids (Figure 2A). Unlike other MMPs, MMP7 lacks the Hemopexin domain in the C‐terminal, and MMP7 expression is regulated by the Wnt/β‐catenin pathway and can be stimulated by TFG‐β. 58 , 59 The implementation of EMT program by tumor cells and MMP7 synthesis share the Wnt/β‐catenin pathway, as proved by the simultaneous inhibition of the phenotype transformation and the inhibition of MMP7 direct production by hydroxysteroid sulfotransferase 2B1b (SULT2B1b) or Thymoquinone. 60 , 61 , 62
Figure 2.
(A) General structure of MMP family and MMP7. (B) Effect of MMP7 on ECM: MMP7 enhances the fibroblast isolation process through a direct action on the C‐type lectin domain family 3 member A (CLEC3A) on the tumor surface, destabilizing the adhesive activity of the cells. 57 ECM, extracellular matrix; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase.
The increase of MMP7 expression in diverse types of tumors has been shown in many studies. MMP7 can be considered a biomarker in tumors of the digestive tract like colon, 63 , 64 pancreas, 65 , 66 or gastric cancer. 67 It also showed its utility in different tumors on breast cancer, 68 urogenital cancer, 69 , 70 small cell lung cancer, 71 or melanoma. 72 In all cases, MMP7 appeared as a necessary element in invasion and metastasis mechanisms and may be considered not only a diagnostic biomarker for a variety of tumors, but also a marker of poor prognosis. This last suggestion can extend to postsurgical situations. 73
These results suggest that a setting capable of modulating the presence of MMP7 could be considered a therapeutic target, where the inhibition of the activity, the cancellation of the synthesis, or the expression of the protease could block metastasis process (Figure 2B).
5. MMPs INHIBITION SYSTEMS
As previously commented, MMPs activities are naturally modulated by the presence of a protein family known as tissue inhibitors of MMPs (TIMPs). In human tissues, four types of TIMPs with a wide MMPs inhibitory spectrum were detected. 46 , 74 TIMP gets into the active center, blocking the catalytic Zn2+ and removing the water bound to the cation. It is a classic natural chelation mechanism that blocks the proteolytic action of the different MMPs. 41 , 47 , 75 , 76
Other strategies consisting in the chelation of the Zn2+ atom present in MMPs active center served to design different chemicals that might inhibit different MMPs, such as molecules with hydroxamic acids, carboxylates, thiols, or phosphonic acids with the ability to block the endo protease activity. The highest inhibiting potential was obtained with agents containing hydroxamate and carboxylate‐based groups (Marimastat, Batimastat, and Ilomastat); however, the inhibiting potential is little specific in the blocking of the different MMPs, as happens with TIMPs. The cause is the structural similarity of the active centers of the different endopeptidases. Implemented clinical trials, some reaching level III, have been abandoned due to their adverse musculoskeletal side effects and poor oral bioavailability, but not due to their inhibiting effectiveness. 30 , 77
The use of anti‐MMPs specific antibodies was proposed as an alternative to Zn2+‐chelating agents and the blocking of MMPs active center by TIMPs. The few studies performed so far confirm a reduced specificity of the monoclonal antibodies used against MMPs antigenic elements that show little variability. 77 , 78
The simultaneity in the implementation of the EMT program and the synthesis of MMPs requires the activation of transcription factors that may be related or pass through common pathways. One strategy arises in the search or design of inhibitory molecules of one of the two programs that can also affect the other. It has been previously described that both situations share upstream the activation of the pathway Wnt/β‐catenin. In this sense, thymoquinone cancels the invasion and metastasis in bladder cancer through the inhibition of Wnt/β‐catenin. 63 Inhibition of the same pathway by cinobufacine and XAV939 is detected in colon cancer. 66 , 79 Besides the implication of Wnt/β‐catenin, apatinib appears as a potent inhibitor of invasion and metastasis in liver cancer by reducing the flow through NFkB signaling, 80 a mechanism collateral to Wnt/β‐catenin. These results are like those obtained with celastrol, which inhibits PI3/AKT signaling pathway, 64 another pathway adjacent to Wnt/β‐catenin.
Many microRNAs (miRNAs) and long non‐coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been related to cancer, and its aberrant expression has been detected in solid tumors and in hematological malignancies. 81 , 82 , 83 Many of miRNAs or lncRNAs genes are located in genomic regions associated with cancer or in fragile sites, which suggests an important role in the disease evolution. 84 , 85 In this sense, in recent years, the two types of RNAs have emerged as extremely useful in disease diagnosis. 80 , 86 Moreover, some of the miRNAs or lncRNAs studied are highly cross‐cutting, because their hyperproduction, and in some cases their use can involve different tumor types, as happens with miRNA‐21. 87 , 88 , 89 , 90
Some miRNAs or lncRNAs have a bifacial character because in addition to being shown as markers of malignancy in many tumors, some can block the action of the counterpart. This last action sheds light on the possibility of being used as blocking agents in the expression of mRNAs, and therefore of tumor processes. The actions can be through three different mechanisms: one would consist of the blockade exerted by a specific miRNA on a lncRNA responsible for tumor progress; another could be the use of a specific lncRNA as a reservoir of miRNAs and the third mechanism would involve a competition between lncRNA and miRNAs to bind to the target mRNA. 91 , 92 , 93 The use of miRNAs as blocking systems has been studied in “in vitro” assays with different tumors. Among the stages of cancer development, the involvement of miRNA as therapeutic remedy has been more clearly observed during the EMT implementation program and in the interruption of different functions of MMPs and ECM remodeling. 87 , 94 , 95 In this sense, it has been detected the inhibition of EFGR and PI3K by miRNA‐34a that are lateral pathways to Wnt/β‐catenin. 96 , 97 , 98 Gastric tumor cells reduce drastically their invasion capacity when treated with miRNA‐335‐5p, showing a remarkable decrease in MMP7 levels. 99 , 100 , 101 In hepatocellular cancer, there is a direct action of miRNA‐298 upon the transcription of elements of the Wnt/β‐catenin pathway, whose consequence is the full cancellation of evasion and metastasis. 102 The overexpression of miRNA‐335 causes the inhibition of migration and metastasis in osteosarcoma reducing MMP7 synthesis and EMT‐TF cancellation by inhibition of SN1P1. 103 Similar results are obtained by different miRNA in breast cancer, 104 esophageal cancer 105 or melanoma. 106
Most of the results mentioned above were obtained in tumor cell cultures and many of them have been confirmed in mouse models. Regardless of the action on the metastatic process, other miRNA families seem to verify similar inhibiting effects upon other tumor process triggers, such as the action of miRNAs‐34 or miRNA‐200, that act on tumor suppressors. 86 , 107
The delivery of miRNA to the specific tumor cell is resolved when its action is studied in cell cultures; however, study in whole animals or in human medicine requires the correct identification of the target. The first miRNA clinical trial on human patients used MRX34, a liposome containing miRNA‐34 for patients with advanced liver cancer. MRX34 is an RNA double helix identical to miRNA‐34 encapsulated in a liposomal nanoparticle. 86 , 108 In this sense, the recent advances developed with the vaccines against SARS‐COV‐2 have shed much light.
In the future, this technology can be assayed as the application of blockage processes in the implementation of metastasis. 57 , 109 , 110 , 111
6. CONCLUSIONS
From the present review, it is concluded that the processes of starting the EMT program and the synthesis of MMPs are simultaneous in some types of cancer and are the necessary requirement at the beginning of the metastasis mechanism. In many types of tumors, both processes share common signaling pathways, so an inhibitory process could affect the parallel. The inhibition of the synthesis of MPP7 may be an objective that would make it possible to control the metastatic phase of the disease. The review provides data on different or probable strategies to be carried out.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All the authors have contributed in a similar way to the elaboration of the article. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank María Mosquera for excellent technical assistance.
Alba J, Barcia R, Gutiérrez‐Berzal J, Ramos‐Martínez JI. Could inhibition of metalloproteinases be used to block the process of metastasis? Cell Biochem Funct. 2022;40:600‐607. 10.1002/cbf.3730
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the published article and references.
REFERENCES
- 1. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100(1):57‐70. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81683-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646‐674. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Massagué J, Obenauf AC. Metastatic colonization by circulating tumor cells. Nature. 2016;529(7586):298‐306. 10.1038/nature17038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Diepenbruck M, Christofori G. Epithelial‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) and metastasis: yes, no, maybe? Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2016;43:7‐13. 10.1016/j.ceb.2016.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Lambert AW, Pattabiraman DR, Weinberg RA. Emerging biological principles of metastasis. Cell. 2017;168(4):670‐691. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Davies KJ. The complex interaction of matrix metalloproteinases in the migration of cancer cells through breast tissue stroma. Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:839094. 10.1155/2014/839094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Gupta GP, Massagué J. Cancer metastasis: building a framework. Cell. 2006;127(4):679‐695. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Nieto MA, Huang RY‐J, Jackson RA, Thiery JP. EMT: 2016. Cell. 2016;166(1):21‐45. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Kalluri R, Weinberg RA. The basics of epithelial‐mesenchymal transition. J Clin Invest. 2009;119(6):1420‐1428. 10.1172/JCI39104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Brabletz T, Kalluri R, NietoMA, Weinberg RA. EMT in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18(2):128‐134. 10.1038/nrc.2017.118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Nieto MA. Epithelial‐Mesenchymal transitions in development and disease: old views and new perspectives. Int J Dev Biol. 2009;53(5‐10):1541‐1547. 10.1387/ijdb.072410mn [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Stone RC, Pastar I, Ojeh N, et al. Epithelial‐mesenchymal transition in tissue repair and fibrosis. Cell Tissue Res. 2016;365(3):495‐506. 10.1007/s00441-016-2464-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Dongre A, Weinberg RA. New insights into the mechanisms of epithelial‐mesenchimal transition and implication for cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2019;20(2):69‐84. 10.1038/s41580-018-0080-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Yang J, Antin P, Berx G, et al. EMT International Association (TEMTIA). Guidelines and definitions for research on epithelial‐mesenchymal transition. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21(6):341‐52. 10.1038/s41580-020-0237-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Ocaña OH, Córcoles R, Fabra A, et al. Metastatic colonization requires the repression of the epithelial‐mesenchymal transition inducer Prrx1. Cancer Cell. 2012;22(6):709‐724. 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Dalla Pozza E, Forciniti S, Palmieri M, Dando I. Secreted molecules inducing epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition in cancer development. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2018;78:62‐72. 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.06.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Quail DF, Joyce JA. Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis. Nature Med. 2013;19(11):1423‐1437. 10.1038/nm.3394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Batlle E, Massagué J. Transforming growth factor‐β signaling in immunity and cancer. Immunity. 2019;16(4):924‐940. 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.03.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Lin YT, Wu KJ. Epigenetic regulation of epithelial‐mesenchymal transition: focusing on hypoxia and TGF‐β signaling. J Biomed Sci. 2020;27(1):39‐49. 10.1186/s12929-020-00632-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Saxena K, Jolly MK, Balamurugan K. Hypoxia, partial EMT and collective migration: emerging culprits in metastasis. Trans Oncol. 2020;13(11):100845. 10.1016/j.tranon.2020.100845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Pastushenko I, Blanpain C. EMT transition states during tumor progression and metastasis. Trends Cell Biol. 2019;29(3):212‐26. 10.1016/j.tcb.2018.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Saitoh M. Involvement of partial EMT in cancer progression. J Biochem. 2018;164(4):257‐264. 10.1093/jb/mvy047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Fischer KR, Durrans A, Lee S, et al. Epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition is not required for lung metastasis but contributes to chemoresistance. Nature. 2015;527(7579):472‐476. 10.1038/nature15748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Zheng X, Carstens JL, Kim J, et al. Epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition is dispensable for metastasis but induces chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2015;527(7579):525‐530. 10.1038/nature16064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Van Staaldminen J, Baker D, Dijke P‐T, Van Dam H. Epithelial‐mesenchymal‐transition‐ inducing transcription factors: new targets for tackling chemoresistance in cancer? Oncogene. 2018;37(48):6195‐6211. 10.1038/s41388-018-0378-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Ricciardi M, Zanotto M, Malpeli G, et al. Epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) induced by inflammatory priming elicits mesenchymal stromal cell‐like immune‐modulatory properties in cancer cell. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(6):1067‐1075. 10.1038/bjc.2015.29 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Mani SA, Guo W, Liao MJ, et al. The epithelial‐mesenchymal transition generates cells with properties of stem cells. Cell. 2008;133(4):704‐715. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Singh A, Settleman J. EMT, cancer stem cells and drug resistance: an emerging axis of evil in the war on cancer. Oncogene. 2010;29(4):4741‐4751. 10.1038/onc.2010.215 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Tsai JH, Donaker JI, Murphy DA, Chau S, Yang J. Spatiotemporal regulation of epithelial‐mesenchymal transition is essential for squamous cell carcinoma metastasis. Cancer Cell. 2012;22(6):725‐736. 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.09.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Winer A, Adams S, Mignatti P. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors in cancer therapy: turning past failures into future successes. Mol Cancer Therapeutics. 2018;17(6):1147‐1155. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Guo S, Deng CH. Effect of stromal cells in tumor microenvironment of metastasis initiation. Int J Biol Sci. 2018;14(14):2083‐2093. 10.7150/ijbs.25720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Quintero‐Fabián S, Arreola R, Becerril‐Villanueva E, et al. Role of matrix metalloproteinases in angiogénesis and cancer. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1370. 10.3389/fonc.2019.01370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Sánchez‐García I. The crossroads of oncogenesis and metastasis. N Engl J Med. 2019;360(3):297‐299. 10.1056/NEJMcibr0808031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Rojas‐Puentes L, Cardona AF, Carranza H, et al. Epithelial‐mesenchymal transition, proliferation, and angiogenesis in locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Med. 2016;5(8):1989‐1999. 10.1002/cam4.751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Liberti MV, Locasale JW. The Warburg effect: how does it benefit cancer cells. Trends Biochem Sci. 2015;41(3):211‐218. 10.1016/j.tibs.2015.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Spencer NY, Stanton RC. The Warburg effect, lactate, and nearly a century of trying to cure cancer. Semin Nephrol. 2019;39(4):380‐393. 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2019.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Shen Z, Wang X, Yu X, Zhang Y, Qin L. MMP16 promotes tumor metastasis and indicates poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017;8(42):72197‐72204. 10.18632/oncotarget.20060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Nabeshima K, Inoue T, Shimao Y, Sameshima T. Matrix metalloproteinases in tumor invasion: role for cell migration. Pathol Int. 2002;52(4):255‐264. 10.1046/j.1440-1827.2002.01343.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Kapoor C, Vaidya S, Wadhwan V, Hitesh, Kaur G, Pathak A. Seesaw of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). J Cancer Res Ther. 1999;12(1):28‐35. 10.4103/0973-1482.157337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Kleiner DE, Stetler‐Stevenson WG. Matrix metalloproteinases and metastasis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1999;43:S42‐S51. 10.1007/s002800051097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Nagase H, Visse R, Murphy G. Structure and function of matrix metalloproteinases and TIMPs. Cardiovasc Res. 2006;69(3):562‐573. 10.1016/j.cardiores.2005.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Tallant H, Marrero A, Gomis‐Ruth FX. Matrix metalloproteinases fold and function of their catalytic domains. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res. 2010;1803(1):20‐28. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2009.04.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Gifford V, Itoh Y. MT1‐MMP‐dependent cell migration: proteolytic and non‐proteolytic mechanisms. Biochem Soc Trans. 2019;47(3):811‐826. 10.1042/BST20180363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Chakraborti S, Mandal M, Das S, Mandal A, Chakraborti T. Regulation of matrix metalloproteinases: an overview. Mol Cell Biochem. 2003;253(1‐3):269‐285. 10.1023/a:1026028303196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Scheau C, Badarau IA, Costache R, et al. The role of matrix metalloproteinases in the epithelial‐mesenchymal transition of hepatocellular carcinoma. Anal Cell Pathol. 2019;26:9423907. 10.1155/2019/9423907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Brew K, Nagase H. The tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs): an ancient family with structural and function diversity. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1803(1):55‐71. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.01.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Arpino V, Brock M, Gill SE. The role of TIMPs in regulation of extracellular matrix proteolysis. Matrix Biol. 2015;44‐46:247‐254. 10.1016/j.matbio.2015.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Vočka M, Langer D, Fryba V, et al. Serum levels of TIMP‐1 and MMP7 as potential biomarkers in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2019;34(3):292‐301. 10.1177/1724600819866202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Sarker H, Hardy EA, Haimour A, Maksymowych WP, Botto LD, Fernandez‐Patron C. Identification of fibrinogen as a natural inhibitor of MMP−2. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):4340. 10.1038/s41598-019-40983-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Mittal R, Patel AP, Debs LH, et al. Intricate functions of matrix metalloproteinases in physiological and pathological conditions. J Cell Physiol. 2016;231(12):2599‐2621. 10.1002/jcp.25430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Slapak EJ, Duitman J, Tekin C, Bijlsma MF, Spek CA. Matrix metalloproteases in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: key drivers of disease progression? Biology. 2020;9(4):80. 10.3390/biology9040080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Carey P, Low E, Harper E, Stack MS. Metalloproteinases in ovarian cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2012;22(7):3403. 10.3390/ijms22073403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Liao HY, Da CM, Liao B, Zhang HH. Roles of matrix metalloproteinase‐7 (MMP‐7) in cancer. Clin Biochem. 2021;92:9‐18. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2021.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Zhang Q, Liu S, Parajuli KR, et al. Interleukin‐17 promotes prostate cancer via MMP7‐induced epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition. Oncogene. 2017;36(5):687‐699. 10.1038/onc.2016.240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Rémy L, Trespeuch C. Matrilysine 1 et pathologie cancéreuse. Medicine/Science. 2005;21(5):498‐502. 10.1051/medsci/2005215498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Tan RJ, Liu Y. Matrix metalloproteinases in kidney homeostasis and diseases. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2012;302(11):F1351‐F1361. 10.1152/ajprenal.00037.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Wong JS, Cheah YK. Potential miRNAs for miRNA‐based therapeutics in breast cancer. Noncoding RNA. 2020;6(3):29. 10.3390/ncrna6030029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Ra HJ, Parks WC. Control of matrix metalloproteinase catalytic activity. Matrix Biol. 2007;26(8):587‐596. 10.1016/j.matbio.2007.07.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Cathcart J, Pulkoski‐Gross A, Cao J. Targeting matrix metalloproteinases in cancer: bringing new life to old ideas. Genes Dis. 2015;2(1):26‐34. 10.1016/j.gendis.2014.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Singh R, Mandhani A, Agrawal V, Garg M. Positive correlation between matrix metalloproteinases and epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition and its association with clinical outcome in bladder cancer patients. Cancer Microenviron. 2018;11(1):23‐39. 10.1007/s12307-017-0199-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Yang X, Du X, Sun L, et al. SULT2B1b promotes epithelial‐mesenchymal transition through activation of the beta‐catenin/MMP7 pathway in hepatocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2019;510(4):495‐500. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.01.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Zhang Y, Qin L, Ma X, Wang Y, Wu Y, Jiang J. Coexpression of matrix metalloproteinase‐7 and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase‐1 as a prognostic biomarker in gastric cancer. J Dis Markers. 2020;2020:8831466. 10.1155/2020/8831466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Klupp F, Neumann L, Kahlert C, et al. Serum MMP7, MMP10 and MMP12 level as negative prognostic markers in colon cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:494. 10.1186/s12885-016-2515-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Bufu T, Di X, Yilin Z, Gege L, Xi C, Ling W. Celastrol inhibits colorectal cancer cell proliferation and migration through suppression of MMP3 and MMP7 by the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway. Anticancer Drugs. 2018;29(6):530‐538. 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000621 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Miki M, Oono T, Fujimori N, et al. CLEC3A, MMP7, and LCN2 as novel markers for predicting recurrence in resected G1 and G2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Med. 2019;8(8):3748‐3760. 10.1002/cam4.2232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Resovi A, Bani MR, Porcu L, et al. Soluble stroma‐related biomarkers of pancreatic cancer. EMBO Mol Med. 2018;10(8):e8741. 10.15252/emmm.201708741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Wang J, Cai H, Liu Q, et al. Cinobufacini inhibits colon cancer invasion and metastasis via suppressing Wnt/β‐Catenin signaling pathway and EMT. Am J Chin Med. 2020;48(3):703‐718. 10.1142/S0192415X20500354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Han B, Zhou B, Qu Y, et al. FOXC1‐induced non‐canonical WNT5A‐MMP7 signaling regulates invasiveness in triple‐negative breast cancer. Oncogene. 2018;37(10):1399‐1408. 10.1038/s41388-017-0021-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Szarvas T, vom Dorp F, Ergün S, Rübben H. Matrix metalloproteinases and their clinical relevance in urinary bladder cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2011;8(5):241‐254. 10.1038/nrurol.2011.44 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Ghasemi A, Saeidi J, Azimi‐Nejad M, Hashemy SI. Leptin‐induced signaling pathways in cancer cell migration and invasion. Cell Oncol. 2019;42(3):243‐260. 10.1007/s13402-019-00428-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. He W, Zhang H, Wang Y, et al. CTHRC1 induces non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) invasion through upregulating MMP‐7/MMP‐9. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):400. 10.1186/s12885-018-4317-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Kawasaki K, Kawakami T, Watabe H, Itoh F, Mizoguchi M, Soma Y. Expression of matrilysin (matrix metalloproteinase‐7) in primary cutaneous and metastatic melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(4):613‐619. 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07678.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Rong W, Zhang Y, L. Yang L, et al. Post‐surgical resection prognostic value of combined OPN, MMP7, and PSG9 plasma biomarkers in hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Med. 2019;3(2):250‐258. 10.1007/s11684-018-0632-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Eckfeld C, Häußler D, Schoeps B, Hermann D, Krüger A. Functional disparities within the TIMP family in cancer: hints from molecular divergence. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2019;38(3):469‐481. 10.1007/s10555-019-09812-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Benjamin MM, R.A. Khalil RA. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors as investigative tools in the pathogenesis and management of vascular disease. Exp Suppl. 2012;103:209‐279. 10.1007/978-3-0348-0364-9_7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Jakubowska K, Pryczynicz A, Iwanowicz P, et al. Expressions of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP−2, MMP−7, and MMP−9) and their inhibitors (TIMP‐1, TIMP‐2) in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:2456179. 10.1155/2016/2456179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Zucker S, Cao J, Chen WT. Critical appraisal of the use of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors in cancer treatment. Oncogene. 2000;19(56):6642‐6650. 10.1038/sj.onc.1204097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Edman K, Furber M, Hemsley P, et al. The discovery of MMP7 inhibitors exploiting a novel selectivity trigger. Chem Med Chem. 2011;6(5):769‐773. 10.1002/cmdc.201000550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Pruijt JF, van Kooyk Y, Figdor CG, Willemze R, Fibbe WE. Murine hematopoietic progenitor cells with colony‐forming or radioprotective capacity lack expression of the beta 2‐integrin LFA‐1. Blood. 1999;93(1):107‐112. 10.1182/blood.V93.1.107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Martens E, Leyssen A, Van Aelst I, et al. Monoclonal antibody inhibits gelatinase B/MMP‐9 by selective binding to part of the catalytic domain and not to the fibronectin or zinc binding domains. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007;1770(2):178‐186. 10.1016/j.bbagen.2006.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Levin M, Udi Y, Solomonov I, Sagi I. Next generation matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors – novel strategies bring new prospects. Biochim Biophys Acta, Mol Cell Res. 2017;1864(11Pt‐A):1927‐1939. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2017.06.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Tao L, Gu Y, Zheng J, Yang J, Zhu Y. Weichang'an suppressed migration and invasion of HCT116 cells by inhibiting Wnt/β‐catenin pathway while upregulating ARHGAP25. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2019;66(5):787‐793. 10.1002/bab.1784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. He X, Huang Z, Liu P, et al. Apatinib inhibits the invasion and metastasis of liver cancer cells by downregulating MMP‐related proteins via regulation of the NF‐kappaB signaling pathway. BioMed Res Int. 2020;19:3126182. 10.1155/2020/3126182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Meltzer PS. Cancer genomics small RNAs with big impacts. Nature. 2005;435(7043):745‐746. 10.1038/435745a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Ma L, Weinberg RA. Micromanagers of malignancy: role of microRNAs in regulating metastasis. Trends Genet. 2008;24(9):448‐456. 10.1016/j.tig.2008.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Garzon R, Calin GA, Croce CM. MicroRNAs in cancer. Annu Rev Med. 2009;60:167‐179. 10.1146/annurev.med.59.053006.104707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Calin GA, Sevignani C, Dumitru CD, et al. Human microRNA genes are frequently located at fragile sites and genomic regions involved in cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(9):2999‐3004. 10.1073/pnas.0307323101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Lundstrom K. Micro‐RNA in disease and gene therapy. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2011;8(2):76‐86. 10.2174/157016311795563857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Abba ML, Patil N, Leupold JH, et al. MicroRNAs as novel targets and tools in cancer therapy. Cancer Lett. 2017;387:84‐94. 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.03.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Abba ML, Patil N, Allgayer H. MicroRNAs in the regulation of MMPs and metastasis. Cancers. 2014;6(2):625‐645. 10.3390/cancers6020625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Li J, Meng H, Bai Y, Wang K. Regulation of lncRNA and its role in cancer metastasis. Oncol Res. 2016;23:205‐217. 10.3727/096504016X14549667334007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Wong JS, Cheah YK. Potential miRNAs for miRNA‐Based therapeutics in breast cancer. Non‐coding RNA. 2020;6:29‐68. 10.3390/ncrna6030029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Chi Y, Wang D, Wang J, Yu W, Yang J. Long non‐coding RNA in the pathogenesis of cancers. Cells. 2019;8:1015‐1059. 10.3390/cells8091015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Selcuklu SD, Donoghue MT, Spillane C. miR‐21 as a key regulator of oncogenic processes. Biochem Soc Trans. 2009;37(Pt 4):918‐925. 10.1042/BST0370918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Krichevsky AM, Gabriely G. miR‐21: a small multi‐faceted RNA. J Cell Mol Med. 2009;13(1):39‐53. 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00556.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Bautista‐Sánchez D, Arriaga‐Canon C, Pedroza‐Torres A, et al. The promising role of miR‐21 as a cancer biomarker and its importance in RNA‐based therapeutics. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2020;20:409‐420. 10.1016/j.omtn.2020.03.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Abba ML, Patil N, Leupold JH, Allgayer H. MicroRNA regulation of epithelial to mesenchymal transition. J Clin Med. 2016;5(1):28. 10.3390/jcm5010008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Suzuki HI. MicroRNA control of TGF‐β signaling. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(7):1901. 10.3390/ijms19071901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Liu G, Jiang C, Li D, Wang R, Wang W. miRNA‐34a inhibits EGFR‐signaling‐dependent MMP7 activation in gastric cancer. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(10):9801‐9806. 10.1007/s13277-014-2273-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Yu B, Liu X, Chang H. MicroRNA‐143 inhibits colorectal cancer cell proliferation by targeting MMP7. Minerva Med. 2017;108(1):13‐19. 10.23736/S0026-4806.16.04651-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Sandoval‐Bórquez A, Polakovicova I, Carrasco‐Véliz N, et al. MicroRNA‐335‐5p is a potential suppressor of metastasis and invasion in gastric cancer. Clin Epigenetics. 2017;9:114. 10.1186/s13148-017-0413-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Cao N, Mu L, Yang W, Liu L, Liang L, Zhang H. MicroRNA‐298 represses hepatocellular carcinoma progression by inhibiting CTNND1‐mediated Wnt/β‐catenin signaling. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;106:483‐490. 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.06.135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Xie Y, Deng H, Wei R, et al. Overexpression of miR‐335 inhibits the migration and invasion of osteosarcoma by targeting SNIP1. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;133:137‐147. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.04.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Jiang Q, He M, Ma MT, et al. MicroRNA‐148a inhibits breast cancer migration and invasion by directly targeting WNT‐1. Oncol Rep. 2016;35(3):1425‐1432. 10.3892/or.2015.4502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Me LL, Wang WJ, Qiu YT, Xie XF, Bai J, Shi ZZ. miR‐145‐5p suppresses tumor cell migration, invasion and epithelial to mesenchymal transition by regulating the Sp1/NF‐βB signaling pathway in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(3):1833. 10.3390/ijms18091833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Zhao G, Yin Y, Zhao B. miR‐140‐5p is negatively correlated with proliferation, invasion, and tumorigenesis in malignant melanoma by targeting SOX4 via the Wnt/b‐catenin and NF‐kB cascades. J Cell Physiol. 2020;235(3):2161‐2170. 10.1002/jcp.29122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Cortez MA, Valdecanas D, Zhang X, et al. Therapeutic delivery of miR‐200c enhances radiosensitivity in lung cancer. Mol Ther. 2014;22(8):1494‐1503. 10.1038/mt.2014.79 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Di Martino MT, Campani V, Misso G, et al. In vivo activity of miR‐34a mimics delivered by stable nucleic acid lipid particles (SNALPs) against multiple myeloma. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e90005. 10.1371/journal.pone.0090005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Chauhan N, Dhasmana A, Jaggi M, Chauhan SC, Yallapu MM. miR‐205: a potential biomedicine for cancer therapy. Cells. 2020;25(9):1957. 10.3390/cells9091957 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Plantamura I, Cataldo A, Cosentino G, Iorio MV. miR‐205 in breast cancer: state of the art. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;22(1):27. 10.3390/ijms22010027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Tsunezumi J, Higashi S, Miyazaki K. Matrilysin (MMP‐7) cleaves C‐type lectin domain family 3 member A (CLEC3A) on tumor cell surface and modulates its cell adhesion activity. J Cell Biochem. 2009;106(4):693‐702. 10.1002/jcb.22062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the published article and references.