Cited by 118Cell death mechanisms and regulationCancer-related Molecular PathwaysCancer Cells and Metastasis

Two CD95 tumor classes with different sensitivities to antitumor drugs

Open access
Algeciras-Schimnich, Alicia, Pietras, Eric M., Barnhart, Bryan C., Legembre, Patrick, Vijayan, Shrijay, Holbeck, Susan L., Peter, Marcus E.·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

CD95 type I and II cells differ in their dependence on mitochondria to execute apoptosis, because antiapoptotic members of the Bcl-2 family render only type II cells resistant to death receptor-induced apoptosis. They can also be distinguished by a more efficient formation of the death-inducing signaling complex in type I cells. We have identified a soluble form of CD95 ligand (S2) that is cytotoxic to type II cells but does not kill type I cells. By testing 58 tumor cell lines of the National Cancer Institute's anticancer drug-screening panel for apoptosis sensitivity to S2 and performing death-inducing signaling complex analyses, we determined that half of the CD95-sensitive cells are type I and half are type II. Most of the type I cell lines fall into a distinct class of tumor cells expressing mesenchymal-like genes, whereas the type II cell lines preferentially express epithelium-like markers. This suggests that type I and II tumor cells represent different stages of carcinogenesis that resemble the epithelial–mesenchymal transition. We then screened the National Cancer Institute database of >42,000 compounds for reagents with patterns of growth inhibition that correlated with either type I or type II cell lines and found that actin-binding compounds selectively inhibited growth of type I cells, whereas tubulin-interacting compounds inhibited growth of type II cells. Our analysis reveals fundamental differences in programs of gene expression between type I and type II cells and could impact the way actin- and microtubule-disrupting antitumor agents are used in tumor therapy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.2034995100

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PU.1 is upregulated at the transcriptional and protein levels in HSC by chronic inflammatory signals such as IL-1β.

    “We and others have previously shown that the myeloid ‘master regulator’ transcription factor PU.1 (DeKoter et al., 1998; Singh et al., 1999) is upregulated at the transcriptional and protein levels in HSC by chronic inflammatory signals such as the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1β (Algeciras-Schimnich et al., 2003; Pietras et al., 2016; Hernandez et al., 2020; Rabe et al., 2020; Chavez et al., 2021”

    From PU.1 is required to restrain myelopoiesis during chronic inflammatory stress (2023) · cites this paper as Algeciras-Schimnich et al., 2003

    The Results and Discussion passages concern gene expression and drug sensitivity in CD95 tumor cell lines, not PU.1 regulation in hematopoietic stem cells. Searches for PU.1, HSC, IL-1β, and inflammatory signaling found no passage addressing the attributed claim; no page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [1]Peter, M. E. & Krammer, P. H. (2003) Cell Death Differ. 10, 26–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Scaffidi, C., Fulda, S., Srinivasan, A., Friesen, C., Li, F., Tomaselli, K. J., Debatin, K. M., Krammer, P. H. & Peter, M. E. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 1675–1687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Scaffidi, C., Schmitz, I., Zha, J., Korsmeyer, S. J., Krammer, P. H. & Peter, M. E. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 22532–22538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Barnhart, B. C., Alappat, E. & Peter, M. E. (2003) Semin. Immunol. 15, 185–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Algeciras-Schimnich, A., Shen, L., Barnhart, B. C., Murmann, A. E., Burkhardt, J. & Peter, M. E. (2002) Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 207–220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. [6]Algeciras-Schimnich, A. & Peter, M. E. (2003) FEBS Lett. 546, 185–188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [7]Schneider, P., Holler, N., Bodmer, J. L., Hahne, M., Frei, K., Fontana, A. & Tschopp, J. (1998) J. Exp. Med. 187, 1205–1213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [8]Tanaka, M., Itai, T., Adachi, M. & Nagata, S. (1998) Nat. Med. 4, 31–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. [9]Tanaka, M., Suda, T., Takahashi, T. & Nagata, S. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 1129–1135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [10]Stinson, S. F., Alley, M. C., Kopp, W. C., Fiebig, H. H., Mullendore, L. A., Pittman, A. F., Kenney, S., Keller, J. & Boyd, M. R. (1992) Anticancer Res. 12, 1035–1053. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. [11]Ross, D. T., Scherf, U., Eisen, M. B., Perou, C. M., Rees, C., Spellman, P., Iyer, V., Jeffrey, S. S., Van de Rijn, M., Waltham, M., et al. (2000) Nat. Genet. 24, 227–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. [12]Peter, M. E., Dhein, J., Ehret, A., Hellbardt, S., Walczak, H., Moldenhauer, G. & Krammer, P. H. (1995) Int. Immunol. 7, 1873–1877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. [13]Juo, P., Woo, M. S., Kuo, C. J., Signorelli, P., Biemann, H. P., Hannun, Y. A. & Blenis J. (1999) Cell Growth Differ. 10, 797–804. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. [14]Juo, P., Kuo, C. J., Yuan, J. & Blenis, J. (1998) Curr. Biol. 8, 1001–1008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. [15]Trauth, B. C., Klas, C., Peters, A. M., Matzku, S., Möller, P., Falk, W., Debatin, K. M. & Krammer, P. H. (1989) Science 245, 301–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. [16]Walczak, H., Degli-Esposti, M. A., Johnson, R. S., Smolak, P. J., Waugh, J. Y., Boiani, N., Timour, M. S., Gerhart, M. J., Schooley, K. A., Smith, C. A., et al. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 5386–5397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. [17]Schmitz, I., Walczak, H., Krammer, P. H. & Peter, M. E. (2000) Cell Death Differ. 7, 756–758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. [18]Aoki, K., Kurooka, M., Chen, J. J., Petryniak, J., Nabel, E. G. & Nabel, G. J. (2001) Nat. Immunol. 2, 333–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. [19]Dhein, J., Daniel, P. T., Trauth, B. C., Oehm, A., Moller, P. & Krammer, P. H. (1992) J. Immunol. 149, 3166–3173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. [20]Boyer, B., Valles, A. M. & Edme, N. (2000) Biochem. Pharmacol. 60, 1091–1099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. [21]Paull, K. D., Shoemaker, R. H., Hodes, L., Monks, A., Scudiero, D. A., Rubinstein, L., Plowman, J. & Boyd, M. R. (1989) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 81, 1088–1092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. [22]Ciruna, B. & Rossant, J. (2001) Dev. Cell 1, 37–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. [23]Huang, D. C., Tschopp, J. & Strasser, A. (2000) Cell Death Differ. 7, 754–755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. [24]Bakin, A. V., Tomlinson, A. K., Bhowmick, N. A., Moses, H. L. & Arteaga, C. L. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 36803–36810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. [25]Kulms, D., Dussmann, H., Poppelmann, B., Stander, S., Schwarz, A. & Schwarz, T. (2002) Cell Death Differ. 9, 598–608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. [26]Tan, M., Jing, T., Lan, K. H., Neal, C. L., Li, P., Lee, S., Fang, D., Nagata, Y., Liu, J., Arlinghaus, R., et al. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 993–1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Algeciras-Schimnich, A., Pietras, E. M., Barnhart, B. C., Legembre, P., Vijayan, S., Holbeck, S. L., & Peter, M. E.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-09-22
Volume
100
Issue
20
Pages
11445-11450
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2096714217
Cited by
118
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (5T32CA-09594, T32CA009594)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM61712, R01GM061712)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Cell death mechanisms and regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
Keywords
Fas, tumor cell classification, Bcl-2 family proteins, death-inducing signaling complex, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, anticancer drug sensitivity, mitochondrial apoptosis
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Cell Line, Drug Screening Assays, Antitumor, Humans, Neoplasms, Apoptosis, fas Receptor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review