HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (48) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Donnenberg, V. S. Articles by Donnenberg, A. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Donnenberg, V. S. Articles by Donnenberg, A. D. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Multiple Drug Resistance in Cancer Revisited: The Cancer Stem Cell Hypothesis

From the Department of Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery (Dr V. Donnenberg), and the Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology (Dr A. Donnenberg), University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania.

Address for reprints: Vera S. Donnenberg, PhD, Hillman Cancer Research Center, 5117 Centre Avenue, Suite 2.42, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 
The failure to eradicate cancer may be as fundamental as a misidentification of the target. Current therapies succeed at eliminating bulky disease but often miss a tumor reservoir that is the source of disease recurrence and metastasis. Recent advances in the understanding of tissue development and repair cause us to revisit the process of drug resistance as it applies to oncogenesis and tumor heterogeneity. The cancer stem cell hypothesis states that the cancer-initiating cell is a transformed tissue stem cell, which retains the essential property of self-protection through the activity of multiple drug resistance (MDR) transporters. This resting constitutively drug-resistant cell remains at low frequency among a heterogeneous tumor mass. In the context of this hypothesis, the authors review the discovery of MDR transporters in cancer and normal stem cells and the failure of MDR reversal agents to increase the therapeutic index of substrate antineoplastic agents.

Key Words: Cancer stem cell • multiple drug resistance • chemotherapy • oncogenesis

From a pharmacological perspective, where emphasis is placed on developing therapies and understanding treatment failure, the tumor stem cell hypothesis provides several new insights that may help us rethink strategies for cancer treatment. Understanding the central role played by multiple drug resistance (MDR) transporters in the protection and self-renewal of normal and cancer stem cells may allow us to identify differences that can be exploited therapeutically. Recognizing that normal stem cells in individual tissues differ with respect to damage tolerance and degree of multipotentiality may translate into differential drug susceptibilities and metastatic potentials of cancer stem cells, depending on the tissue of origin.

This review will attempt to elaborate on the tumor stem cell hypothesis by focusing on the discovery of MDR transporters in neoplastic cells and on the growing body of evidence that these transporters are also an essential feature that enables tumor stem cells to circumvent therapy.

	DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS AND IN VITRO STUDIES OF MDR

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 
Resistance to chemotherapy was recognized as an impediment to efficacious cancer treatment in the earliest stages of anticancer drug development.¹ Surprisingly, cancer cell lines selected for resistance to specific compounds frequently demonstrated cross-resistance to a broad spectrum of structurally unrelated agents.² In a first attempt to account for the mechanism of cross-resistance, Ling and Thompson showed that resistant cells displayed reduced plasma membrane permeability to cytotoxic compounds.³

The advent of molecular approaches led to the isolation of the first candidate genes for MDR. Roninson and colleagues hypothesized that resistance in drug-selected cancer cell lines arose from amplification of a gene product or gene products capable of altering the plasma membrane. Noting cytogenetic abnormalities common to resistant hamster cell lines, they cloned these amplified fragments and showed that the gene or genes encoded in these fragments were amplified in resistant but not susceptible cells. Removal of selective pressure led to reversion to the drug-sensitive phenotype and coincided with the loss of the amplified DNA.⁴ Further experiments revealed 2 genes, now recognized as the hamster homologs of the human MDR1 and MDR2.^5,6 In 1986, Gros and colleagues transfected the gene now known as MDR1 into drug-sensitive hamster cells. Importantly, they showed that gene duplication or mutations were not required for the acquisition of the multidrug-resistant phenotype.⁷ The MDR1 gene product is now known as P-glycoprotein (ABCB1). Twentyman and colleagues demonstrated that addition of verapamil (now recognized to be a competitive inhibitor of several MDR transporters) significantly increased the susceptibility of drug-resistant human lung cancer cell lines,⁸ at once providing a means of verifying MDR activity in vitro and a potential therapeutic avenue for increasing the sensitivity of cancer cells to MDR substrate drugs. ABCB1 did not account for all forms of multiple drug resistance, and additional transporters were identified, among them ABGG2, first described as mitoxantrone resistance⁹ and later as breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP).¹⁰ Today, ABCB1 and ABCG2 are recognized as belonging to a family of at least 48 human ABC transporters involved in a variety of essential cellular transport processes.

	ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS IN NORMAL TISSUE STEM CELLS

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 
The fluorescent dyes Hoechst 33342 and rhodamine 123 (R123) are now known to be substrates for the MDR transporters ABCG2 and ABCB1, respectively. This explains several important earlier findings: 1) Hoechst 33342 dim murine bone marrow cells are greatly enriched for high proliferative potential colony-forming cells;¹¹ R123 dim bone marrow cells protected mice after lethal irradiation;¹² and provided a 240-fold enrichment in long-term hematopoietic colony-initiating cells as compared to unfractionated bone marrow.¹³ However, the critical proof of constitutive upregulation of MDR transporters in primitive hematopoietic stem cells came from Goodell et al, who showed that 10% of Sca-1+, lineage-negative murine bone marrow cells (a phenotype used to define early hematopoietic stem cells) were also Hoechst 33342 dim.¹⁴ They termed this small cell subset the side population (SP), after their distinctive flow cytometric profile. Compared to whole bone marrow, SP cells, which composed only 0.1% of bone marrow cells, were 1000-fold enriched with respect to cells able to repopulate lethally irradiated mice. Goodell et al showed that the SP phenotype was abrogated by culturing cells with verapamil, an MDR inhibitor, thus demonstrating that a constitutively active MDR transporter was responsible for exclusion of the Hoechst dye. Sorrentino and colleagues elegantly worked out the details, showing that transfection of ABCB1 (P-glycoprotein) into normal murine marrow increased the SP phenotype by 2 orders of magnitude,¹⁵ ABCG2 knockout abrogated the side population,¹⁶ and both ABCB1 and ABCG2 are constitutively active in SP cells.¹⁷

Although hematopoiesis remains the leading paradigm for tissue differentiation and replacement, the study of adult tissue stem cells has gained momentum with the emergence of the field of regenerative medicine. The potentiality and plasticity of tissue stem cells that mediate tissue repair and maintenance constitute an area of intense study. MDR transporter activity, in the form of the SP, has provided the principal means to recognize and purify such tissue stem cells.¹⁸ Although little is known about the role of MDR transporters in adult tissue stem cells, we hypothesize that they follow the hematopoietic paradigm, affording resting stem cells a means of protection that allows them to survive toxic insults that destroy cycling progenitor cells and mature tissue.

	ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR INHIBITORS THERAPEUTICALLY

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 
The discovery of the molecular mechanism of cross-resistance led immediately to attempts to block MDR transporters with putative reversal agents. Reversal of MDR in vitro was easily attained with a variety of inhibitors. However, in vivo, MDR reversal in the clinical setting has proven to be much more difficult. Thus, intracellular concentrations of adriamycin, vincristine, and etoposide were all significantly increased in 7 human non-small-cell lung cancer cell lines co-cultured in the presence of verapamil (2.2-6.6 µm).¹⁹ Similarly, verapamil increased drug sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells lines rendered resistant by culture in the presence of doxorubicin. However, an early indication that in vitro drug selection provides a less than ideal model for in vivo cross-resistance was the observation that primary tumor cell lines isolated from patients with doxorubicin-refractory disease failed to demonstrate drug resistance in vitro.²⁰ This observation will be discussed further in the context of innate versus acquired resistance. Furthermore, in ovarian cancer patients receiving verapamil to plasma levels sufficient to cause inhibition of MDR-mediated adriamycin resistance in vitro (720-2767 ng/mL, = 1.5-5.6 µm), there was no evidence of enhanced response or toxicity of adriamycin coadministered at 50 mg/m².²⁰ Similarly, in a murine model of adriamycin resistance, continuous infusion of verapamil at the maximally tolerated dose failed to increase the sensitivity of resistant P388 lymphoma cells to adriamycin, despite a strong in vitro effect.²¹

Although there is still no clear-cut explanation for the failure of verapamil to act as a reversal agent in vivo, substantially different results were obtained with cyclosporine, an agent with a 10-fold higher affinity for the MDR on- and off-sites than the chemotherapeutic agent vinblastine.²² When cyclosporine was given to patients with a variety of refractory cancers in combination with etoposide, cyclosporine levels ranging from 297 to 5073 ng/mL (0.25-4.2 µm) were obtained. Cyclosporine administration had a marked effect on the pharmacokinetics of etoposide, with a doubling of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve. As a result of both decreased renal and nonrenal clearance, a 50% dose reduction was required in patients with normal renal and hepatic function. Toxicities were tolerable but consistent with down-modulation of MDR function in the blood-brain barrier, bone marrow, and biliary tract. Unfortunately, the most critical parameter, intratumor etoposide levels, could not be determined by these studies. Clinical results were modest in this phase I trial of refractory patients, with demonstrable tumor regression in 4 of the 25 patients who attained cyclosporine plasma concentrations in excess of 2000 ng/mL.²³

Convincing evidence that administration of an MDR reversal agent could increase the intratumor concentration of a chemotherapeutic agent was provided by Bates and colleagues,²⁴ who used the imaging agent Tc-99m sestamibi, an MDR1 substrate, to measure MDR activity in vivo. Using this technique, they demonstrated the efficacy of the nonimmunosuppressive cyclosporine analog PSC 833 (Valspodar) to reverse MDR activity in vivo. Ten patients with metastatic renal or adrenocortical carcinoma were imaged prior to therapy, 1 day after completing a course of vinblastine and on coadministration of vinblastine and PSC 833. Time activity curves and areas under the curve were obtained for tumor, liver, lung, and myocardium. Myocardium was used as a reference tissue to measure sestamibi uptake in the absence of MDR activity. During the coadministration of PSC 833, tumor visualization was markedly enhanced due to inhibition of MDR-mediated sestamibi efflux, suggesting that intratumor vinblastine concentrations were likewise increased.

Targeting MDR substrate drug directly to the tumor has been modeled using immunoliposomes loaded with doxorubicin and KG-1a leukemia cells. The liposomes were targeted to CD34 expressed on the leukemia cells using an anti-CD34 monoclonal antibody. Immunoliposomal doxorubicin showed a higher cytotoxicity against KG-1a cells than did nontargeted liposomal doxorubicin but failed to overcome doxorubicin resistance. Analysis of liposome-target cell interactions revealed that bound liposomes were not internalized. Thus, the increased cytotoxic effect may have been due to drug release proximal to the cells but not to a breach of membrane-associated MDR transporters.²⁵

Further trials of first-generation modulators such as verapamil, quinidine, and cyclosporine proved them to be either inefficacious or associated with unacceptable toxicities. The limited clinical utility of the second- and third-generation MDR inhibitors such as PSC 833, GF120918, VX-710 (Biricodar), and LY335979 for potentiating antineoplastic agents may also be explained in part by multiple and redundant cellular mechanisms of resistance, unfavorable alterations in the pharmacokinetics of cytotoxic agents, and attendant toxicities associated with the systemic inhibition of MDR function. Since MDR transporters are themselves redundant with overlapping activities, specific inhibition of 1 transporter may leave drug resistance essentially intact.¹⁷ The take-home message of these studies is that MDR reversal agents can be used to increase the plasma concentration of a variety of anti-neoplastic agents but not to increase their therapeutic index (reviewed by Tan et al²⁶). The hypothesis that cancer arises uniquely from the mutation of tissue stem cells provides a theoretical framework for understanding this important observation.

	CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 
The cancer stem cell was first proposed by Fiala in 1968.²⁷ Although modern concepts of stem cell biology were absent, the cancer-initiating cell was clearly hypothesized to be a "stem cell unable to differentiate." The cancer colony assay proposed by Hamburger and Salmon in the late 1970s introduced the concept that only a small proportion of cancer cells, cancer stem cells, are tumorigenic, and the authors identified these cells as the essential target of therapy.²⁸ However, recent advances in regenerative biology have allowed tumor growth to be understood in the context of the dysregulation of normal tissue replacement and wound healing.

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Constitutive and acquired multiple drug resistance (MDR) and the cancer stem cell hypothesis. The cancer stem cell hypothesis posits that the cancer-initiating cell is a tissue stem cell, where a stem cell is understood to be a cell that can self-renew, self-protect, and give rise to progenitors of high proliferative activity (amplifying or progenitor cells), which in turn produce mature progeny. The key features of a stem cell, as distinguished from a progenitor cell, are self-renewal, self-protection, damage tolerance, and a developmental state earlier than the highly proliferative progenitor cell that gives rise to fully differentiated daughters. The multistep process of neoplastic transformation begins with a mutation (yellow circle, hit 1) to a cycling tissue stem cell. Normally, tissue stem cells have constitutive MDR activity, but upon entry into the cell cycle, MDR is transiently downregulated, resulting in a window of vulnerability to DNA damage. In a process known as asymmetrical division, cycling stem cells self-replicate, giving rise to an MDR-protected resting stem cell and a drug-sensitive amplifying progenitor cell of high proliferative capacity. The damaged daughter stem cell reverts to an MDR-protected state when it exits the cell cycle, while the damaged progenitor proliferates and gives rise to drug-sensitive dysplastic cells. Additional mutations (hit N) and genetic instability accumulated by the damaged stem cell result in further growth dysregulation and the emergence of frank neoplasia. Throughout this process, the cancer stem cell remains protected and rarely enters the cell cycle. The bulk of the tumor mass is generated by mitotically active, drug-sensitive amplifying progenitor cells. Exposure to MDR substrate antineoplastic agents results in the elimination of drug-sensitive tumor but not resting tumor stem cells. It also imposes selective pressure for mutations that may result in overexpression of MDR transporters (red circle) and the acquired phenotype of drug resistance in tumor progenitor cells and their progeny. The most important concepts to emerge from his model are (1) MDR is constitutively expressed at high levels in tissue stem cells and therefore in the nascent cancer cell, (2) cancer results from accumulated mutations at the stem cell level, and (3) the cancer stem cell hypothesis posits that the clinically relevant target of therapy is a resting cell with drug resistance that is not dependent on therapy-induced gene duplication or translocation.

Given the central role of MDR transporters in protecting normal and neoplastic cells, the cancer stem cell hypothesis provides a unified explanation for the successes and failures of cytotoxic antineoplastic therapy (detailed in Figure 1). Namely, the most important target, the resting cancer stem cell, is spared along with its normal tissue stem cell counterparts. On a populational level, different malignancies may appear to be heterogeneous with respect to drug responsiveness. Cancers that respond to therapy initially may appear to acquire drug resistance during the course of treatment. Other cancers may appear to be intrinsically resistant. The cancer stem cell hypothesis posits that in both instances, the resting cancer stem cell, which is both the cancer-initiating cell and its source of replenishment under selective pressure, has innate drug resistance by virtue of its resting stem cell phenotype. Acquired drug resistance in more differentiated cancer cells, through gene amplification or rearrangement, may contribute to an aggressive phenotype, but it is not the primary reason for cancer recurrence or spread after therapy.

As detailed above, one of the defining characteristics of adult tissue stem cells is their constitutive resistance to environmental toxins, including most chemotherapeutic agents. In fact, dose-limiting toxicities of many antineoplastic agents occur precisely at drug concentrations that damage normal tissue stem cells. The constitutive drug resistance of normal tissue stem cells is mediated by MDR transporters and detoxifying enzymes. DNA repair mechanisms, tolerance to damage (ie, resistance to apoptosis), and telomerase activity also contribute to the stability of normal tissue stem cells.

	INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR IN TUMOR CELLS

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 
In light of the cancer stem cell hypothesis, it is worthwhile to reexamine issues of drug resistance, cross-resistance, and the failure of MDR reversal strategies. The compounds that have been the most studied clinically as reversal agents are verapamil and cyclosporine and its analogs. Despite some promising results in hematological malignancies, the outcomes achieved when MDR blockers were coadministered with substrate drugs have been disappointing. This failure may be partially explained by the redundancy of the individual transporters within the MDR phenotype together with several other resistance-related proteins expressed in solid tumors (eg, glutathione S-transferase, metallothionin, O6-alkylguanine-DNA-alkyltransferase, thymidylate synthase, dihydrofolate reductase, heat shock proteins) or other factors contributing indirectly to resistance such as vascularization.³¹ However, it follows from the cancer stem cell hypothesis that systemic administration of an efficacious reversal agent would render tumor and normal tissue stem cells equally susceptible to the chemotherapeutic agents, offering no net gain in therapeutic index.

As discussed above, the discovery of the first MDR transporter began with the observation of gene amplification in hamster cells selected in vitro for drug resistance.⁴ Removal of the drug used for selection resulted in the outgrowth of cells without amplified MDR genes and loss of the multiple-resistant phenotype. However, in vivo drug resistance is not dependent on prior drug exposure, as was demonstrated using the tumor cell culture assay to culture lung cancer cells.³² Current knowledge of regulation of MDR activity in stem cells and their progeny allows reconciliation of these findings. Drug resistance is an innate characteristic of the resting tumor stem cell but must be acquired by more differentiated tumor cells through gene amplification or rearrangement. The idea that transforming events in cancer lead to the juxtaposition of MDR and active genes through gene rearrangement is consistent with Roninson's findings in cell lines but is essentially an epiphenomenon according to the stem cell hypothesis. The cancer stem cell expresses constitutive MDR activity, which is independent of drug exposure, and is downregulated in more differentiated tumor progeny. It has been proposed that selective pressure imposed by chemotherapy leads to both mutation and secondary genetic changes, including MDR upregulation in the bulky tumor.³³ However, unless these changes occur in the self-renewing tumor stem cell compartment, the limited proliferative capacity of the bulky tumor ensures that they are self-limiting. Thus, the major barrier to therapy is the quiescent tumor stem cell with constitutive MDR.

	IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 
Hematologic malignancies stand out among the cancers that are sometimes susceptible to cure. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been particularly successful^34,35 because stem cell rescue with donor hematopoietic stem cells obviates the need to spare normal hematopoiesis. Although skin, gut, and other tissues with rapid turnover are acutely affected by high-dose therapy, their constitutively drug-resistant stem cells quickly replenish the damaged tissue. Even if the transformed leukemia stem cells have evolved mechanisms that render them more protected from toxic insults than normal hematopoietic stem cells, immune recognition of minor histocompatibility antigens expressed on leukemia stem cells, but not on repopulating donor hematopoietic stem cells, provides the coup de grace in a process now recognized as the graft versus leukemia effect.³⁶

Unfortunately, no analogous ability now exists to rescue nonhematopoietic stem cells following stem cell ablative therapy. If the proposed relationships between normal and neoplastic stem cells prove correct, the inescapable conclusion is that systemic cytotoxic therapies are doomed to failure because regimens that spare resting normal stem cells will also likely spare resting tumor stem cells. Successful therapy awaits the discernment of biological and immunological differences between the tumor and normal stem cells and the exploitation of the hypothesized window of vulnerability (Figure 1) that exists when the cancer stem cell is transiently recruited into the cell cycle.

DOI: 10.1177/0091270005276905

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT DISCOVERY OF MDR PUMPS... ROLE OF MDR TRANSPORTERS... ATTEMPTS TO USE MDR... CANCER STEM CELL HYPOTHESIS INNATE VERSUS ACQUIRED MDR... IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY REFERENCES

 

1. Kessel D, Botterill V, Wodinsky I. Uptake and retention of daunomycin by mouse leukemic cells as factors in drug response. Cancer Res. 1968;28: 938-941.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Biedler JL, Riehm H. Cellular resistance to actinomycin D in Chinese hamster cells in vitro: cross-resistance, radioautographic, and cytogenetic studies. Cancer Res. 1970;30: 1174-1184.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Ling V, Thompson LH. Reduced permeability in CHO cells as a mechanism of resistance to colchicine. J Cell Physiol. 1974;83(1): 103-116.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

4. Roninson IB, Abelson HT, Housman DE, Howell N, Varshavsky A. Amplification of specific DNA sequences correlates with multi-drug resistance in Chinese hamster cells. Nature. 1984;309: 626-628.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

5. Gros P, Croop J, Roninson I, Varshavsky A, Housman DE. Isolation and characterization of DNA sequences amplified in multidrug-resistant hamster cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986;83: 337-341.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

6. Roninson IB, Chin JE, Choi KG, et al. Isolation of human mdr DNA sequences amplified in multidrug-resistant KB carcinoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986;83: 4538-4542.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Gros P, Ben Neriah YB, Croop JM, Housman DE. Isolation and expression of a complementary DNA that confers multidrug resistance. Nature. 1986;323: 728-731.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

8. Twentyman PR, Fox NE, Bleehen NM. Drug resistance in human lung cancer cell lines: cross-resistance studies and effects of the calcium transport blocker, verapamil. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1986;12: 1355-1358.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

9. Harker WG, Slade DL, Dalton WS, Meltzer PS, Trent JM. Multidrug resistance in mitoxantrone-selected HL-60 leukemia cells in the absence of P-glycoprotein overexpression. Cancer Res. 1989;49: 4542-4549.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Doyle LA, Yang W, Abruzzo LV, et al. A multidrug resistance transporter from human MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95: 15665-15670.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

11. Baines P, Visser JW. Analysis and separation of murine bone marrow stem cells by H33342 fluorescence-activated cell sorting. Exp Hematol. 1983;11: 701-708.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

12. Mulder AH, Visser JW. Separation and functional analysis of bone marrow cells separated by rhodamine-123 fluorescence. Exp Hematol. 1987;15: 99-104.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

13. Udomsakdi C, Eaves CJ, Sutherland HJ, Lansdorp PM. Separation of functionally distinct subpopulations of primitive human hematopoietic cells using rhodamine-123. Exp Hematol. 1991;19: 338-342.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

14. Goodell MA, Brose K, Paradis G, Conner AS, Mulligan RC. Isolation and functional properties of murine hematopoietic stem cells that are replicating in vivo. JExp Med. 1996;183: 1797-1806.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15. Bunting KD, Zhou S, Lu T, Sorrentino BP. Enforced P-glycoprotein pump function in murine bone marrow cells results in expansion of side population stem cells in vitro and repopulating cells in vivo. Blood. 2000;96: 902-909.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

16. Zhou S, Morris JJ, Barnes Y, Lan L, Schuetz JD, Sorrentino BP. Bcrp1 gene expression is required for normal numbers of side population stem cells in mice, and confers relative protection to mitoxantrone in hematopoietic cells in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99: 12339-12344.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17. Zhou S, Schuetz JD, Bunting KD, et al. The ABC transporter Bcrp1/ABCG2 is expressed in a wide variety of stem cells and is a molecular determinant of the side-population phenotype. Nat Med. 2001;7: 1028-1034.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

18. Giangreco A, Shen H, Reynolds SD, Stripp BR. Molecular phenotype of airway side population cells. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2004;286: L624-L630.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19. Merry S, Courtney ER, Fetherston CA, Kaye SB, Freshney RI. Circumvention of drug resistance in human non-small cell lung cancer in vitro by verapamil. Br J Cancer. 1987;56: 401-405.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

20. Fojo A, Hamilton TC, Young RC, Ozols RF. Multidrug resistance in ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1987;60(suppl 8): 2075-2080.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

21. Rustum YM, Radel S, Campbell J, Mayhew E. Approaches to overcome in vivo anti-cancer drug resistance. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1986; 223: 187-202.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

22. Dey S, Ramachandra M, Pastan I, Gottesman MM, Ambudkar SV. Evidence for two nonidentical drug-interaction sites in the human P-glycoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94: 10594-10599.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

23. Lum BL, Fisher GA, Brophy NA, et al. Clinical trials of modulation of multidrug resistance: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Cancer. 72(suppl 11): 3502-3514.

24. Chen CC, Meadows B, Regis J, et al. Detection of in vivo P-glycoprotein inhibition by PSC 833 using Tc-99m sestamibi. Clin Cancer Res. 1997;3: 545-552.[Abstract]

25. Carrion C, de Madariaga MA, Domingo JC. In vitro cytotoxic study of immunoliposomal doxorubicin targeted to human CD34(+) leukemic cells. Life Sci. 2004;75: 313-328.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

26. Tan B, Piwnica-Worms D, Ratner L. Multidrug resistance transporters and modulation. Curr Opin Oncol. 2000;12: 450-458.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

27. Fiala S. The cancer cell as a stem cell unable to differentiate: a theory of carcinogenesis. Neoplasma. 1968;15: 607-622.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

28. Hamburger AW, Salmon SE. Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science. 1977;197: 461-463.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

29. Reya T, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF, Weissman IL. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature. 2001;414: 105-111.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

30. Spangrude GJ, Heimfeld S, Weissman IL. Purification and characterization of mouse hematopoietic stem cells. Science. 1988;241: 58-62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

31. Volm M. Multidrug resistance and its reversal. Anticancer Res. 1998;18: 2905-2917.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

32. Shoemaker RH, Curt GA, Carney DN. Evidence for multidrug-resistant cells in human tumor cell populations. Cancer Treat Rep. 1983;67: 883-888.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

33. Leonard GD, Fojo T, Bates SE. The role of ABC transporters in clinical practice. Oncologist. 2003;8: 411-424.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

34. Appelbaum FR, Fisher LD, Thomas ED. Chemotherapy v marrow transplantation for adults with acute nonlymphocytic leukemia: a five-year follow-up. Blood. 1988;72: 179-184.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

35. Burnett AK. Annotation: current controversies—which patients with acute myeloid leukaemia should receive a bone marrow transplantation? An adult treater's view. Br J Haematol. 2002;118: 357-364.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

36. Weiden PL, Flournoy N, Thomas ED, et al. Antileukemic effect of graft-versus-host disease in human recipients of allogeneic-marrow grafts. N Engl J Med. 1979;300: 1068-1073.[Abstract]
CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Abraham, M. Edgerly, R. Wilson, C. Chen, A. Rutt, S. Bakke, R. Robey, A. Dwyer, B. Goldspiel, F. Balis, et al. A Phase I Study of the P-Glycoprotein Antagonist Tariquidar in Combination with Vinorelbine Clin. Cancer Res., May 15, 2009; 15(10): 3574 - 3582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Tancred, A. R. Belch, T. Reiman, L. M. Pilarski, and J. Kirshner Altered Expression of Fibronectin and Collagens I and IV in Multiple Myeloma and Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance J. Histochem. Cytochem., March 1, 2009; 57(3): 239 - 247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Miele, N. Takebe, and S. P. Ivy The Cancer Stem Cell Hypothesis, Embryonic Signaling Pathways, and Therapeutics: Targeting an Elusive Concept ASCO Educational Book, January 1, 2009; 2009(1): 145 - 156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C.-l. Dai, A. K. Tiwari, C.-P. Wu, X.-d. Su, S.-R. Wang, D.-g. Liu, C. R. Ashby Jr., Y. Huang, R. W. Robey, Y.-j. Liang, et al. Lapatinib (Tykerb, GW572016) Reverses Multidrug Resistance in Cancer Cells by Inhibiting the Activity of ATP-Binding Cassette Subfamily B Member 1 and G Member 2 Cancer Res., October 1, 2008; 68(19): 7905 - 7914. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Riedel, A. Porrello, E. Pontzer, E. J. Chenette, D. S. Hsu, B. Balakumaran, A. Potti, J. Nevins, and P. G. Febbo A genomic approach to identify molecular pathways associated with chemotherapy resistance Mol. Cancer Ther., October 1, 2008; 7(10): 3141 - 3149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Kirshner, K. J. Thulien, L. D. Martin, C. Debes Marun, T. Reiman, A. R. Belch, and L. M. Pilarski A unique three-dimensional model for evaluating the impact of therapy on multiple myeloma Blood, October 1, 2008; 112(7): 2935 - 2945. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. B. Kaye Reversal of Drug Resistance in Ovarian Cancer: Where Do We Go From Here? J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2008; 26(16): 2616 - 2618. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Fan, J. Stanfield, Y. Guo, J. A. Karam, E. Frenkel, X. Sun, and J.-T. Hsieh Effect of Trans-2,3-Dimethoxycinnamoyl Azide on Enhancing Antitumor Activity of Romidepsin on Human Bladder Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., February 15, 2008; 14(4): 1200 - 1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. N. Shah, J. M. Summy, J. Zhang, S. I. Park, N. U. Parikh, and G. E. Gallick Development and Characterization of Gemcitabine-Resistant Pancreatic Tumor Cells Ann. Surg. Oncol., December 1, 2007; 14(12): 3629 - 3637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. d'Amato, R. J. Landreneau, W. Ricketts, W. Huang, R. Parker, E. Mechetner, I.-R. Yu, and J. D. Luketich Chemotherapy resistance and oncogene expression in non-small cell lung cancer J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 2007; 133(2): 352 - 363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Surowiak, V. Materna, I. Kaplenko, M. Spaczynski, B. Dolinska-Krajewska, E. Gebarowska, M. Dietel, M. Zabel, and H. Lage ABCC2 (MRP2, cMOAT) Can Be Localized in the Nuclear Membrane of Ovarian Carcinomas and Correlates with Resistance to Cisplatin and Clinical Outcome Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2006; 12(23): 7149 - 7158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. K. Selbo, A. Weyergang, A. Bonsted, S. G. Bown, and K. Berg Photochemical Internalization of Therapeutic Macromolecular Agents: A Novel Strategy to Kill Multidrug-Resistant Cancer Cells J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., November 1, 2006; 319(2): 604 - 612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. T. Jordan, M. L. Guzman, and M. Noble Cancer stem cells. N. Engl. J. Med., September 21, 2006; 355(12): 1253 - 1261. [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. Fan, W. Matsui, L. Khaki, D. Stearns, J. Chun, Y.-M. Li, and C. G. Eberhart Notch Pathway Inhibition Depletes Stem-like Cells and Blocks Engraftment in Embryonal Brain Tumors. Cancer Res., August 1, 2006; 66(15): 7445 - 7452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (48) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Donnenberg, V. S. Articles by Donnenberg, A. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Donnenberg, V. S. Articles by Donnenberg, A. D. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?