Cancer Heterogeneity and Plasticity ISSN 2818-7792

Cancer Heterogeneity and Plasticity 2024;1(2):0010 | https://doi.org/10.47248/chp2401020010

Review Open Access

The molecular determinants of phenotypic plasticity in homeostasis and neoplasia

Bradley Balk 1 , David W. Goodrich 1,2

  • Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA
  • Department of Urology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA

Correspondence: David W. Goodrich

Academic Editor(s): Amina Zoubeidi

Received: Oct 10, 2024 | Accepted: Nov 14, 2024 | Published: Dec 13, 2024

© 2024 by the author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is correctly credited.

Cite this article: Balk B, Goodrich D. The molecular determinants of phenotypic plasticity in homeostasis and neoplasia. Cancer Heterog Plast 2024;1(2):0010. https://doi.org/10.47248/chp2401020010

Abstract

Phenotypic plasticity, the capacity of cells to transition between distinct phenotypic and lineage states over time, is a genetically and epigenetically encoded trait essential for normal development and adult tissue homeostasis. In cancer, phenotypic plasticity programs can be deployed aberrantly to enable disease progression and acquired therapeutic resistance. Cancer phenotypic plasticity is a current barrier to achieving cures for advanced cancers using available molecularly targeted therapies. This review summarizes the complex and interconnected molecular pathways implicated in phenotypic plasticity, both in the context of normal tissue homeostasis and cancer. Molecular pathways convergent between these contexts are highlighted while pathways enabling plasticity are distinguished from those that specify the phenotype of already plastic cells. Key unresolved questions in the field are discussed along with emerging technologies that may be used to help answer them.

Keywords

cancer, plasticity, heterogeneity, epigenetics, homeostasis, therapeutic resistance

1. Introduction

Waddington’s landscape model for cell fate commitment during differentiation depicts cells as marbles rolling down a figurative hill of differentiation towards a committed cell state (Figure 1) [1]. This metaphorical hill has many forking paths meant to represent the multitude of different cell fates totipotent stem cells can assume. Waddington’s metaphor implies that cellular differentiation is generally unidirectional and stable once cells assume a committed differentiated state at the bottom of the hill. In 2006, Takahashi and Yamanaka turned Waddington’s hill upside down by demonstrating that differentiated cells can be reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells [2]. The creation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) is mediated by the induction of four key transcription factors (TF)s: Oct3/4, Sox2, C-Myc and Klf4. This seminal discovery has led to a greater appreciation for the phenotypic plasticity of cells, the ability of committed differentiated cells to change to an alternative committed cell state. Extending Waddington’s metaphor, changes in committed cell state can occur through three general routes, de-differentiation to a less committed multipotent state, de-differentiation and redifferentiation to a different committed state, or direct transdifferentiation between different committed states [3]. These different routes of cell state change have now been documented in multiple tissue types, often in response to tissue damage and injury [4–7]. Phenotypic plasticity is now recognized as an essential component of normal development and tissue homeostasis.

Figure 1. Waddington’s landscape model of cell state commitment. Waddington’s metaphor for cell fate commitment describes cells as marbles rolling down a hill, becoming increasingly differentiated as they reach valleys at the bottom. Valleys represent stable phenotypes. Arrows in black depict cellular differentiation toward a committed cell state while arrows in red depict routes by which committed cells can change cell state due to phenotypic plasticity. This metaphor is applied to normal tissue homeostasis on the right, where damaged cells of lineage B can be regenerated from cells of lineage A. On the left, the metaphor is applied to cancer cells where cancer lineage A is targeted therapeutically, and these cancer cells can convert to a therapeutically resistant cancer lineage B by deploying phenotypic plasticity programs. Created using BioRender.com

There is a growing body of data demonstrating that, in certain contexts, cancer cells can also exhibit phenotypic plasticity during disease progression and as a means to acquire therapeutic resistance [8,9]. Evidence of cancer cell plasticity has been documented in multiple cancer types [10–14]. This evidence has led to the recognition of phenotypic plasticity as a cancer hallmark [15,16]. The molecular machinery facilitating cancer phenotypic plasticity involves a complex interplay between genetic alterations, lineage-defining TFs, epigenetic regulators, metabolic pathways, and crosstalk within the tumor microenvironment [17–20]. Research within this growing field is complicated further by observations suggesting these interactions are often context dependent. The molecular basis of cancer cell plasticity thus remains incompletely defined.

The definition of phenotypic plasticity remains vague and also context dependent. Whiting et al. recently proposed refining the term to mean a change in cellular phenotype induced by environmental stimuli as opposed changes in phenotype that arise stochastically due to transcriptional noise [21]. However, it is often not possible to rule out environmental stimuli in the context of a complex normal or tumor tissue environment. This review, therefore, does not distinguish between stochastic or induced cell state changes, and it defines phenotypic plasticity as the capacity of a cell to transition from one meta-stable phenotypic state to another. This use of phenotypic plasticity also encompasses lineage state changes that are often referred to as lineage plasticity. This review is also focused on transcriptional states as a proxy for phenotype because transcriptional states are heritable through cell division and because the technology for measuring transcriptional states at the single cell level has been available for a sufficient length of time to generate a robust body of published literature. The goal of this review is to highlight convergent molecular pathways that influence cellular plasticity in normal and tumor tissue, to identify key unresolved questions, and to briefly note emerging technologies that may help answer those questions.

2. Plasticity in Tissue Homeostasis

2.1 Facultative stem cells

Maintaining a balance of multiple cell types is a key part of normal tissue homeostasis. To maintain homeostasis in response to damage, some tissues contain committed differentiated cells that de-differentiate to a less committed multipotent state to assist in the regeneration of damaged cell types (Figure 2) [22]. Such facultative stem cells (FSCs) have unique chromatin dynamics that enable more facile de-differentiation under certain conditions like tissue injury and regeneration [23–25]. Identifying the molecular drivers important for FSC function may yield greater insights into molecular drivers that are also involved in a cancer plasticity discussed below.

Figure 2. Phenotypic plasticity in normal tissue homeostasis. (A) Evidence for phenotypic plasticity and FSC in normal tissue are highlighted by examples in the liver (top left), lung (top right), intestine (bottom left) and pancreas (bottom right). When tissue damage occurs, adjacent differentiated cell populations can act as FSCs to replace damaged cell types and maintain homeostasis. (B) Evidence for phenotypic plasticity in skin wound healing is depicted including (1) EMP of adjacent keratinocytes, (2) transdifferentiation of cells from the hair follicle niche and (3) transdifferentiation of adipocytes to new myofibroblasts. FSC, facultative stem cell; EMP, epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity; BEC, biliary endothelial cell; TLPC, transitional liver progenitor cells; HC, hepatocyte; CBC, crypt base columnar cells. Created using BioRender.com

Pancreatic islets are small glands comprised of different endocrine cells responsible for regulating blood glucose levels. β cells are the main producers of insulin and the loss of β islet cells is directly associated with the development of diabetes mellitus [26]. In response to injury, it has been demonstrated that multiple other islet cell types act as FSCs to replace lost β cell populations, although the significance of FSC-based repopulation is still debated (Figure 2A) [27,28]. There are many TFs that influence the lineage fate of β islet cells. An extensive review of the various TFs at play in β cell de-differentiation has been published previously [26]. In brief, de-differentiation of β cells is associated with decreased activity of traditional β cell lineage drivers such as PDX1 and NEUROD1 alongside changing activity in stemness associated TFs like Nanog, Hes1 and FoxO1 [29–31]. Previous work suggested that de-differentiation of β cells is also regulated epigenetically by the PRC2 complex, among other epigenetic regulatory complexes [32].

Lung alveoli are an essential epithelial barrier chronically exposed to environmental and pathogenic insults. As a result, homeostasis in this tissue requires robust means to replace damaged alveolar cell types. Alveoli are comprised of two major cell types: alveolar type I (AT1) cells and alveolar type II (AT2) cells [33,34]. AT1 cells account for the majority of alveolar surface area and thus are prone to damage. AT2 cells function to secrete surfactant proteins and maintain fluid balance in the lung, but they can also act as FSCs to replace lost AT1 cells after tissue damage (Figure 2A) [35–37]. Single-cell transcriptomics analysis has revealed that AT2 cell mediated tissue repair occurs in three distinct phases: (1) active cell proliferation (expansion), (2) cell cycle arrest and (3) AT2 to AT1 transdifferentiation [38]. Several signaling pathways have been implicated in coordinating AT2-to-AT1 transdifferentiation including Wnt/β-catenin and Hippo signaling [39–42], pathways that have also been implicated in liver FSC function (below). Kaiser et al. recently found that p53 also influences AT2/AT1 cell plasticity [43].

The intestine is another tissue chronically exposed to the environment and is characterized by rapid cell and tissue turnover. LRIG5+ adult stem cells at the base of intestinal crypts help support this turnover to maintain homeostasis [44–46]. Crypt base columnar (CBC) stem cells undergo asymmetric division producing one daughter stem cell and one daughter cell destined for differentiation. There remains some debate about the main mechanism contributing to regeneration of lost CBC populations (i.e., quiescent reserve stem cells, de-differentiation and, more recently, isthmus progenitor cells) [47]. Regardless, it has been shown previously that various differentiated cells within the intestinal epithelial lining can act to replenish lost CBCs following injury (Figure 2A) [6,48–50]. Plasticity can be partly attributed to rapid epigenetic reprogramming of various secretory and epithelial cells following crypt injury [51]. The plasticity of the intestinal lining is also maintained through a complex intestinal niche that relies on multiple signaling pathways and crosstalk with the immune system. Wnt/β-catenin signaling through Sox9 and Tcf4 has been shown to be essential for the maintenance of CBC stemness [52–54]. Murata et al. also identified ASCL2 as an important TF responsible for mediating the replenishment of lost CBCs through de-differentiation [55].

One of the main functions of the liver is to detoxify blood collected from the digestive system, thus the liver has extensive regeneration capabilities to maintain homeostasis during chronic exposure to potential toxicants. The liver’s regenerative capacity is attributed to two cell types: Hepatocytes (HCs) and Biliary Endothelial Cells (BECs) [44,56,57]. There is good evidence to suggest that transdifferentiation between HCs and BECs is a critical component of liver regeneration (Figure 2B) [58–60]. In particular, Pu et al. has recently demonstrated the existence of transitional liver progenitor cells which arise from BECs in response to liver injury. Signaling pathways identified as crucial to the plasticity of HCs and BECs include TGF-β, Notch, and Hippo signaling among others [61–63].

2.2 Skin wound healing

The skin is the major epithelial barrier to the environment and maintenance of the skin’s integrity is paramount. When the skin is injured, an elaborate dance of epithelial skin cells, immune cells, and multiple signaling pathways is triggered to restore homeostasis. The process of skin wound healing consists of four general phases: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation and remodeling [64]. These phases occur over different time scales and overlap each other. Excellent reviews on wound healing can be found elsewhere [65,66]. Phenotypic plasticity plays a major role in skin wound healing, particularly the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). EMT allows epithelial cells to shed many of their intercellular connections (tight junctions, desmosomes, etc.) to acquire greater cell motility required for wound healing [67]. EMT has broad impacts on tissue biology beyond the skin, including normal embryonic development [68]. While the term EMT implies two distinct cell states, there is now significant evidence to suggest EMT actually exists as a spectrum of cellular states characterized by varying degrees of epithelial and mesenchymal features [69,70]. This is commonly referred to as Epithelial-Mesenchymal Plasticity (EMP). As part of the wound healing process, keratinocytes at the wound edge need to mobilize and quickly migrate to seal the open wound, beginning the process of re-epithelialization (Figure 2B). To do so, keratinocytes under these conditions activate an EMP program. Previous work shows that deficiencies in the EMP core TF Slug compromises wound closure [71]. The role of other major EMP TFs such as Twist1 and Snail are still under investigation. There is evidence to suggest that endothelial to mesenchymal plasticity (EndMP, a process analogous to EMP) also plays a significant role in mediating wound healing [72,73].

The importance of phenotypic plasticity in wound healing extends beyond EMP and EndMP. The skin houses several unique structures like hair follicles (HF), sebaceous glands, and sweat glands that carry out skin functions beyond barrier integrity. Cells originating within these structures also play an important role in the resolution of wound healing [74]. In particular, cells originating within the HF, the interfollicular epidermis, and other skin cell niches have been shown to act as reservoirs of FSC from which additional keratinocytes can be produced [75–78]. RNA data indicates cells from these different skin niches have distinct transcriptional profiles, but their transcriptional state converges as they assume the FSC phenotype, supporting the existence of substantial plasticity within skin cells [79]. Beyond epithelial cells, Shook et al. noted that adipocytes localized to the wound edge also alter their lineage to a myofibroblastic state that contribute to extracellular matrix remodeling (Figure 2B) [80]. However, the validity of this property of adipocytes is still under debate [81]. In a similar vein, Parfejevs et al. found that Schwann cells of peripheral glia exhibit significant plasticity, facilitating new growth from damaged nerves within the wound site [82]. These findings highlight the importance of phenotypic plasticity in reepithelialization and remodeling during wound healing.

Many interconnected signaling pathways work together to co-ordinate recruitment of immune cells, keratinocyte proliferation and increased cellular plasticity during skin would healing (Table 1). EMP is driven by multiple signaling pathways including TGFβ, Notch, and Hedgehog signaling [83]. EndMP is driven by many of the same signaling pathways including TGFβ, Notch, and activation of core EMP TFs like Slug and Twist1 [67,73,84–87]. TFs like KLF5 and Sox9 are implicated in enabling plasticity amongst skin cells, with Sox9 playing a major role in promoting partial lineage transitions in multiple skin cell niches [88,89]. To date, transcriptional/epigenetic characterization of wound healing has been limited due to the complexity of analyzing chromatin changes at a single cell resolution. However, recent studies have highlighted that both the proliferative and remodeling phases are characterized by distinct chromatin states within different skin cell niches [89,90]. As single cell analysis approaches expand to include chromatin and spatial information, the major molecular drivers of cellular plasticity in wound healing will likely be revealed in time.

Table 1. Phenotypic plasticity in homeostatic maintenance.

3. Plasticity in Neoplasia

Plasticity plays a crucial role in maintaining homeostasis within normal tissues. Plasticity is also exploited in diseased tissue, cancer in particular. Phenotypic plasticity is now recognized as a cancer hallmark [15,16]. Plasticity can endow cancer cells with robust adaptability, a useful trait for advanced cancers that experience unpredictable and highly selective environmental pressures during disease progression. For example, plasticity can arise in response to therapy, providing a means for some cancer cells to adapt and survive therapy to seed acquired resistance. Many molecularly targeted cancer therapies are directed towards molecules that play some role in normal lineage specification and commitment. Inhibiting these molecules in sufficiently plastic cancer cells may induce or select for loss of differentiation. In extreme cases, such treated cancer cells may reprogram into an alternative lineage state no longer dependent on the therapeutic target, rendering those cells resistant. Current evidence suggests cancer plasticity may increase as more potent molecularly targeted cancer therapies are deployed in the clinic [91]. Treatment-associated phenotypic plasticity has now been documented in several different cancer types (Table 2). Select examples are reviewed below.

Table 2. Molecular pathways implicated in cancer phenotypic plasticity.

3.1 Prostate cancer

Treatment for metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma (PCa) relies on targeting androgen receptor (AR) signaling that PCa depends on for growth and viability. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) reduces the levels of circulating androgens that serve as activating ligands for AR. Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) like enzalutamide target AR itself to block its activation. ADT and ARSIs are effective in treating most PCa patients, but they are not curative. While multiple genetic mechanisms mediate acquired therapeutic resistance, up to 20–25% of PCa progressing through AR targeted therapies show evidence of phenotypic plasticity, in particular transdifferentiation to neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) lineage variants [127–129]. NEPC is highly aggressive and NEPC patient prognosis is dismal because effective therapies are not available. Development of NEPC has been linked to the loss of tumor suppressor genes such as RB1, TP53 and PTEN [92]. More recently, other key NEPC drivers have also been identified including ASCL1 and N-Myc [103,130,131]. AR independent lineage variants that lack neuroendocrine differentiation, referred to as double negative prostate cancer (DNPC), have also been detected clinically. Recent work has identified several key TFs like Sox2, FOXA2, ZNF263 and KLF5 that drive DNPC [104–106].

3.2 Lung cancer

Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene account for about 27% of lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) cases [132,133]. Oncogenic mutations in EGFR lead to constitutive activation of this receptor kinase which drives increased cell proliferation and survival [134]. EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) are a suite of drugs designed to target EGFR tyrosine kinase activity. First line therapy for patients with EGFR-mutant LUAD is currently treatment with the third generation EGFR TKI Osimertinib [135]. While an effective therapy, virtually all patients eventually acquire resistance through multiple on- and off-target mechanisms (bypass mutations, additional EGFR mutations, etc.) [136]. In a smaller subset of cases, resistance to Osimertinib has been linked to phenotypic plasticity. In these patients, therapeutic resistance is associated with reprogramming of LUAD cells into neuroendocrine lineage variants similar to de novo small cell lung cancer (SCLC) [14,108,137]. As in PCa, these treatments associated neuroendocrine lineage variants exhibit recurrent mutations in the RB1, TP53, and PTEN tumor suppressor genes [14,107]. Furthermore, ASCL1, Sox2 and Myc have been identified as possible drivers of neuroendocrine plasticity in LUAD [96,99,115]. Additional lung cancer lineage variants identified include adeno-to-squamous and adeno-to-mesenchymal variants [110,113,116]. Loss of functional LBK1 has been directly associated with adeno-to-squamous transdifferentiation (AST) [109,114]. Myc, AKT and JAK/STAT signaling have also been implicated in facilitating AST [110,111]. Hu et al. demonstrated that the neuroendocrine TF ASCL1 leads to Osimertinib resistance by promoting a more permissive cellular chromatin state and supporting an EMP-gene expression program [115]. Recent evidence suggests that EMP-based cell states act as intermediate stepping stones to other variant lineage states [138]. ASCL1 promotion of an EMP-gene program may thus be an initial step towards neuroendocrine reprogramming. Work by Hu et al. and others also highlighted the importance of altered chromatin dynamics in mediating phenotypic plasticity in both PCa and LUAD [97,101,115,139–141].

3.3 Other cancers

Some of the earliest evidence for cancer phenotypic plasticity has come from the study of patients with melanoma. Advanced melanoma cells can exhibit a phenotype that mimics endothelial cells in blood vessels, expressing key endothelial cell specific genes and contributing to tumor vascularization. This phenomenon is termed ‘vasculogenic mimicry’ (VM) and has since been observed in other cancers as well [12,117]. Recent studies suggest β-catenin signaling through Tcf-4 drives melanoma VM through increased expression of EMP and pluripotency TFs [118]. Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the absence of HER2, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor expression. Certain subsets of TNBC display remarkable capacity for lineage infidelity. For example, metaplastic breast cancer often exhibits phenotypic plasticity in the form of EMP and increased stemness [142]. More recently, Stevens et al. identified a luminal-to-mesenchymal/basal lineage shift in inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) facilitated by JAK-STAT signaling and Sox10 [119,143]. In neuroblastoma, adrenergic-mesenchymal transdifferentiation was found to be dependent on the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex [121]. Xu et al. demonstrated that targeting ATPases in the SWI/SNF complex causes displacement of several core TFs including N-Myc. This suggests a permissive chromatin state allows for elaboration of new transcriptional programs to expand phenotypic plasticity. Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is known for its considerable heterogeneity that makes it refractory to treatment. Work by Murakami et al. has identified rare PDAC cells marked by reactivation of pluripotent TFs, and this reactivation is coupled to increased EMP [122]. These stem-like PDAC cells are less dependent of oncogenic Yap signaling, suggesting that increased stemness and plasticity in a subset of PDAC cells may contribute to disease progression in the presence of therapy. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) stem cells have previously been implicated in therapeutic resistance [144]. More recent work suggests that HCC cancer stem cells arise through de-differentiation of bulk HCC tumor cells and that this de-differentiation is dependent on the transcriptional activity of SPINK1 [123]. In bladder cancer, Warrick et al. determined that urothelial and squamous cell states are derived from a common precursor [124]. They also identify FOXA1 as a critical lineage TF maintaining lineage fidelity. Loss of FOXA1 was found to promote epigenetic reprogramming leading to the squamous phenotype, supporting the idea that phenotypic plasticity contributes to heterogeneity in bladder cancer.

In summary, phenotypic plasticity and lineage infidelity have clear and widespread roles in cancer progression and therapeutic resistance (Table 2). As a relatively new cancer hallmark that has only come under intense study recently, additional examples of cancer phenotypic plasticity are likely to be found in the future. One reason for this is the increasing deployment of single cell technologies that can measure heterogeneity between cancer cells within a given tumor, potentially over time and space. These technologies are likely to uncover new phenotypic cancer cell variants that would otherwise go undetected by routine analysis of tissue section histopathology, particularly if they only exist transiently. For example, phenotypic plasticity is inherent in the drug tolerant persistor (DTP) cells that have been described in numerous experimental models of cancer. DTPs are rare cells within a homogeneous cancer cell population that survive therapy while the bulk of the cancer cells don’t. While these cells exist transiently, they are required to facilitate acquired therapeutic resistance by both genetic and non-genetic mechanisms. Transient changes in phenotypic states have also been detected by single cell approaches in patient tumors as they progress from residual disease to progressive disease, mirroring dynamic phenotypic plasticity in experimental models [145]. For a more in-depth exploration of the DTP field, see the review from Russo et al. [146]. As single cell technologies expand further to measure an increasingly broader array of molecular changes, dramatic advances in our understanding of the molecular basis of phenotypic plasticity are likely to be made.

4. Molecular Determinants of Cancer Plasticity

Although a great deal has been learned about the molecular mechanisms influencing cancer phenotypic plasticity, there remain many unanswered questions. Chief among them is which molecular pathways control the extent of plasticity itself, as opposed to the pathways that direct the phenotype/lineage that plastic cells are likely to assume. In the context of cancer this is an important question if the goal is to manipulate or target cancer phenotypic plasticity for durable therapeutic benefit. The following section is a summary of molecular pathways that have been implicated in cancer phenotypic plasticity.

4.1 Loss of tumor suppressor genes

Tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) have long been known to play a fundamental role in protecting cellular integrity and mitigating dysregulated cell proliferation. Of the known TSGs, some appear to have context specific roles while others have widespread roles across many cancer types. Among the many molecular aberrations that have been linked to phenotypic plasticity, loss of key TSG functions is one of the most recurrent across different solid cancers (Table 2, Figure 3).

Figure 3. Molecular determinants of cancer phenotypic plasticity. Phenotypic reprogramming of cancer cells is associated with dramatic transcriptional changes, often following the loss of key TSGs. The top cell shows a non-plastic, stable cancer cell state in which functional TSGs maintain transcriptional stability. The bottom cell shows a TSG-deficient cancer cell with heightened phenotypic plasticity. Such cells are sensitized to the effects of increased lineage specific TF activity, like EMP and pluripotency TFs. These TF can now drive the cancer cell to a new phenotypic state. Progressive evolution of phenotypic states promotes increasing invasiveness and treatment resistance. TSG, tumor suppressor gene; TF, transcription factor; EMP, epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity. Created using Biorender.com

TP53 encodes the protein p53, a TF whose main function is to regulate the cell cycle and programmed cell death in response to various stresses, including DNA damage. In this respect, p53 is considered the “guardian of the genome” [147]. There is significant evidence to suggest, however, that the loss of functional p53 also promotes increased lineage infidelity in multiple cancer types. In both PCa and LUAD, loss of p53 is associated with lineage reprogramming [14,92,108]. Notably, p53 plays an important role in regulating the activity of pluripotent TFs, such as Nanog and Sox2, and in regulating DNA methylation of the genome [148]. In the absence of p53, increased activity of pluripotency TFs and dysregulated DNA methylation contribute to greater phenotypic plasticity [148]. p53-mediated regulation of pluripotency TFs is further supported by prior evidence indicating p53 restricts reprogramming of iPSCs [149]. Previous work from Ku et al. shows a clear role for p53 loss in amplifying PCa plasticity [92]. Prostate specific deletion of Pten and Rb1 in the mouse PCa that responds to castration, but relapses as NEPC with acquisition of spontaneous inactivating Trp53 mutations. Engineered mutations of Pten, Rb1 and Trp53 cause PCa that rapidly progresses to NEPC. Analogous findings are observed with similarly engineered human PCa cell lines [92,95]. More recent work by Chan et al. highlights additional lineage states that develop in these mice beyond NEPC [93]. As mentioned previously, p53 has also been implicated in AT2-to-AT1 transdifferentiation during alveolar injury repair [43]. Kaiser et al. also demonstrated that when p53 is lost, there is subsequent accumulation of cells with a hybrid AT2-AT1 cancer cell state. This data, alongside earlier evidence from the literature, support a role for p53 in regulating cancer phenotypic plasticity in addition to its canonical roles as a stress responsive regulator of the cell cycle and programmed cell death [150,151].

The TSG RB1 encodes a transcriptional repressor protein Rb1 and is mutated recurrently across a wide variety of cancer types. Rb1’s canonical function is cell cycle regulation. Rb1 binds to the E2F family of TFs, switching them from transcriptional activators to transcriptional repressors, and blocking the expression of genes required for the cell cycle. This function is mediated by Rb1’s ability to recruit histone deacetylases (HDACs), histone methyltransferases (HMTs), and DNA methyltransferase (DNMTs) to E2F target genes and altering chromatin near these genes to more transcriptionally repressive states [152]. Rb1, like p53, has a variety of additional non-canonical functions that have been reviewed elsewhere [153,154] including a role in cancer phenotypic plasticity. Rb1 loss of function mutations are highly recurrent in treatment associated neuroendocrine cancers that arise through reprogramming of PCa and LUAD tumors [14,92,108]. Multiple Rb1 molecular functions potentially explain why loss of function drives increased plasticity. Rb1 is a central epigenetic hub interacting with many complexes that regulate chromatin structure (e.g., SUV39H1, EZH2, etc., reviewed by Guzman et al.) [152,155]. Rb1 has been shown to maintain both constitutive heterochromatin (e.g., pericentric and telomeric regions, repetitive elements) and facultative heterochromatin [156–159]. Since the epigenome must be reconstituted after every S phase of the cell division cycle, loss of Rb1-mediated cell cycle control may also destabilize the epigenome. Sanidas et al. demonstrated that Rb1 interacts with chromatin insulators like CTCF to facilitate chromatin organization [160]. Rb1 is also known to repress pluripotency signaling networks [161]. Widespread dysregulation of chromatin organization and increased activity of pluripotency TFs (e.g., Sox2) in the wake of Rb1 loss are likely major contributors driving phenotypic plasticity in PCa and LUAD [95]. Dean et al. previously showed that Rb1 is responsible for repressing the activity of the EMP TF Zeb1 in invasive LUAD [162]. Increased Zeb1 activity following Rb1 loss, promoted by a positive feedback loop between Ets1 and Zeb1, likely plays a role in exacerbating EMP in LUAD. Given recent implications about the contribution of EMP in the progression to different cell states, Rb1-mediated repression of EMP may be an important safeguard against broader plasticity [138].

PTEN encodes a phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate 3-phosphatase whose canonical function is to negatively regulate the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway [163,164]. PI3K phosphorylates phosphatidylinositol bisphosphate (PIP2) to phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-triphosphate (PIP3), and PIP3 subsequently facilitates activating phosphorylation of AKT, a major intracellular protein kinase that regulates cell growth. PTEN is a phosphatase that acts in opposition to PI3K, catalyzing the conversion of active PIP3 to inactive PIP2. In doing so, PTEN suppresses continuous growth and survival signaling facilitated by active AKT. Loss of function PTEN mutations are recurrent in many different types of cancer [165,166]. Pertinent to this review, PTEN loss has more recently been shown to promote greater phenotypic plasticity. Zhang et al. has found that Pten knockout amplifies in vivo tumor heterogeneity of LUAD developing in genetically engineered mice lacking functional p53 and Rb1 [107]. Transcriptomic profiling of genetically engineered mouse model (GEMM) lung tumors deficient for Pten revealed greater inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity, suggesting PTEN plays a role in suppressing phenotypic plasticity. Work from another group implicates PTEN in regulating the plasticity of hematopoietic lineages and progression to leukemia [167]. Xu et al. demonstrated that PTEN enforces B-cell lineages by negatively regulating the activity of PU.1, a TF known to regulate chromatin accessibility during the course of hematopoiesis [168]. PTEN-null mice exhibit defective B-cell lineage differentiation and greater T- and Myeloid-lineage differentiation which was found to be mediated through PU.1-altered chromatin accessibility. Most importantly, Xu and colleagues identify PTEN-null prepro-B cells as a potential precursor to T-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia, highlighting the significance of PTEN-mediated lineage fidelity in tumor suppression. The study also underlines the importance of PTEN’s non-canonical roles in guarding against plasticity. PTEN localized to the nucleus has been demonstrated to facilitate chromatin condensation (through interactions with histone H1), participate in DNA damage repair, and promote centromere stability (see Yang and Yin for review) [164]. PTEN is also notable in that it forms a positive feedback loop with p53 whereby PTEN stabilizes p53 and p53 TF activity promotes increased production of PTEN [169,170]. Finally, PTEN activity is negatively regulated by core EMP TFs such as Zeb1 and Snail1 [163]. Considering PTEN’s role in suppressing plasticity, down regulation of PTEN activity by EMP suggest PTEN loss is a potent catalyst for greater plasticity.

4.2 Transcription factors

The loss of TSGs appears to be a major factor influencing phenotypic plasticity in cancer cells, but not all cancers lacking these TSGs undergo detectable phenotypic or lineage state changes. This suggests loss of these TSG may enable increased plasticity, but they may not directly determine the phenotype or lineage state these plastic cancer cells assume. There is extensive evidence to suggest that key lineage promoting TFs activate transcriptional programs that determine cell state changes and/or lineage stability in the context of phenotypic plasticity (Table 2).

The Myc family of TFs are well established oncogenes. The family consists of three members: MYC (C-Myc), MYCN (N-Myc) and MYCL (L-Myc). In depth reviews on the history of the Myc family and its functions can be found elsewhere [171,172]. In brief, Myc TFs play an important role in assembling multi-protein complexes at multiple stages of the transcription cycle suggesting Myc TFs are transcriptional amplifiers. Upregulation of Myc TFs can promote high transcriptional activity that many cancers rely upon for their growth and proliferation [173,174]. More recent literature suggests Myc TFs are important regulators of phenotypic plasticity. Berger and colleagues have previously shown that N-Myc promotes significant transcriptomic and epigenetic rewiring in PCa that contributes to NEPC reprogramming [100]. In the therapeutic context of castration, N-Myc binds at neural lineage genes, alters bivalent H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 histone marks, and promotes expression of neural lineage genes. Berger et al. also demonstrated functional divergence between C-Myc and N-Myc within PCa, suggesting individual members of the Myc family may have distinct roles during cancer progression. Work by Wei et al. further cements the role of Myc TFs in controlling chromatin dynamics through interactions with the key structural organizer CTCF. C-Myc significantly repressed the expression of neuroendocrine lineage genes via disruption of enhancer-promoter chromatin looping [175]. This finding is corroborated by the observation from Berger et al., that C-Myc expression decreased as PCa progresses towards NEPC. However, another study has demonstrated that overexpression of both C-Myc and AKT in normal prostate epithelial cells is sufficient to induce neuroendocrine differentiation [176]. Furthermore, Quintanal-Villalonga et al. recently has shown that proteasomal degradation of C-Myc by CDC7 inhibits neuroendocrine differentiation in LUAD and PCa [99]. The conflicting roles of C-Myc in promoting or hindering neuroendocrine differentiation requires further study. Recent work by Gardner et al. demonstrates how C-Myc upregulation promotes reprogramming of AT2 cells to a neuroendocrine phenotype [177]. However, C-Myc is not sufficient for neuroendocrine reprogramming because concomitant deletion of p53, Rb1 and PTEN is required. This study highlights the co-operative interactions between TSG loss and TFs like C-Myc in promoting cancer phenotypic plasticity, with TSG loss potentially enabling greater transcriptional heterogeneity that sensitizes cells to the effects of increased C-Myc activity. Similar roles for C-Myc have been identified in other lineage variants (e.g., AST) and in other cancer types (e.g., liver, PDAC) [11,110,178].

Another major TF that has been connected to phenotypic plasticity is Sox2. Like C-Myc, Sox2 is one of the core TFs that together can reprogram differentiated cells to iPSCs [2]. Sox2 plays a major role in normal development, but can also drive stemness, EMP and chemoresistance in cancer [179,180]. Increased Sox2 expression in the context of Rb1 and p53 loss has been previously linked to neuroendocrine lineage reprogramming in PCa [95]. Importantly, Sox2 is known to be a pioneer TF, a class of TF that can alter chromatin accessibility to facilitate new transcriptional programs (reviewed in Hagey et al.) [181]. As such, increased Sox2 activity could open previously inaccessible chromatin to enable a wider range of potential transcriptional programs, perhaps accounting for its role in iPSC reprogramming. In this case, SOX2 can be thought of as a stem-like lineage specifying transcription factor that directly enables phenotypic plasticity. Given the role of SOX2 in neuronal lineage specification, it may also function to influence the phenotype of plastic cells. Consistent with this potential role, inhibition of the nuclear transport protein Exportin 1 decreases Sox2 protein levels and inhibits neuroendocrine reprogramming [96].

ASCL1 is an important neuronal lineage specifying pioneer TF during normal development [182]. ASCL1 has also been implicated in the neuroendocrine reprogramming of PCa cells [183] and in defining SCLC subtypes [184]. More recent evidence suggests ASCL1 TF activity is functionally required for neuroendocrine reprogramming of cancer cells. Nouruzi et al. has demonstrated that suppressing ASCL1 expression reverses neuroendocrine differentiation; this reversal was linked to chromatin alterations after loss of EZH2 activity downstream of the UHFR1/AMPK axis [185]. Work from two separate groups indicate that abrogation of ASCL1 significantly hinders the progression of PCa to NEPC [94,103]. Rodarte et al. noted that tumors with genetic deletion of ASCL1 do not undergo neuroendocrine reprogramming, but instead assume a more basal epithelial phenotype. Interestingly, Romero et al. found that ablation of ASCL1 in organoids prior to implantation yields adenocarcinoma tumors with increased AR activity. Conversely, ablation of ASCL1 in developed NEPC tumors led to a modest but temporary tumor regression. Evidence from these papers suggest ASCL1 is a functional driver of neuroendocrine differentiation in NEPC. As mentioned earlier, Hu and colleagues have indicated that ASCL1 drives plasticity in EGFR-mutant LUAD by increasing chromatin accessibility at core EMP TFs like Zeb1 [115]. ASCL1 activity is upregulated during therapy, but a mechanism linking treatment to increased ASCL1 has not been identified definitively. One potential mechanism identified in PCa suggests therapy induces ROR2 signaling that upregulates ASCL1 expression through CREB signaling [186]. Whether a similar mechanism drives ASCL1 expression in LUAD remains to be determined. These observations highlight the role of ASCL1 in regulating both transcription and chromatin to effect phenotypic plasticity.

A number of other lineage-defining TFs have been implicated in reprogramming of cancer cells to alternative phenotypic and lineage states (Table 2). Lineage TF FOXA2 is known to drive neuroendocrine differentiation in PCa, both through promotion of KIT pathway activity and chromatin rewiring in collaboration with JUN [97,98]. FOXA2 and FOXA1 have been shown to promote phenotypic plasticity in NKX2-1+ LUAD [187,188]. ONECUT2 is functionally linked to phenotypic plasticity in both PCa and breast cancer [101,120]. AST plasticity has been connected to the increased activity of the TF p63 in both LUAD and PDAC [112,114,189,190]. Zeb1/2, Snail, Slug and Twist are core EMP TFs that can drive phenotypic plasticity and therapeutic resistance [70]. Several studies support the notion that EMP TFs contribute to an intermediate, high plasticity state that can subsequently evolve beyond EMP to assume other lineage states like neuroendocrine [13,191,192].

4.3 Signaling pathways

The Janus kinase (JAK) / signal transduction and transcription activation (STAT) signaling axis is a major molecular signaling pathway responsible for many important functions including regulation of inflammation and immunity. IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signaling has also been implicated in tumorigenesis for its impact on chronic inflammation, metastasis, and immune suppression [193]. Recent evidence suggests JAK/STAT signaling also plays an important role in modulating cancer phenotypic plasticity. In PCa, JAK/STAT activation increases during intermediate stages of lineage reprogramming [93,194]. Furthermore, inhibition of JAK and fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) increases AR expression, decreases expression of alternative lineage markers like vimentin, and re-sensitizes PCa cells to ARSIs [93]. Notably, JAK/STAT activity declines once PCa cells undergo reprogramming to a neuroendocrine phenotype, suggesting JAK/STAT activation coincides with development of a high plasticity intermediate state that enables reprogramming to alternative lineages. In lung cancer, JAK/STAT activation in ELM4-ALK condensates is essential for mediating the AST [111]. Inhibition of JAK activity decreases expression of squamous lineage markers and increases the sensitivity of ALK-driven tumors to lorlatinib. Specifically, STAT3 activation is responsible for driving AST in EML4-ALK driven lung cancer. A JAK/STAT dependent cell state has also recently been identified in IBC [119]. Phospho-STAT3 ChIP sequencing of paclitaxel/doxorubicin resistant IBC lines shows a significant enrichment of EMP-related genes including ZEB2 and BCL3. Furthermore, treatment-resistant IBC cell lines express a mesenchymal transcriptional program indicative of a luminal to mesenchymal switch. Progression to this mesenchymal cell state is hindered both by JAK inhibition alone and combined with chemotherapy [119]. JAK/STAT signaling also promotes increased stemness following the inactivation of Notch signaling in oral cancer cells [195]. In gastric cancer, JAK/STAT signaling has been identified as an important driver of ADAR1-based RNA editing which is itself associated with greater chemotherapeutic resistance and stemness [196]. Leukemia Inhibitory Factor (LIF) has been shown recently to inhibit gastric cancer EMP and stemness in a JAK/STAT dependent manner [197]. Intriguingly, Chan et al. found that the LIF-LIFR ligand-receptor pair is one of the most enriched in PCa organoids exhibiting phenotypic plasticity. These observations indicate inflammatory signaling, particularly JAK/STAT activation, is recurrently associated with phenotypic plasticity across a range of different cancers. How JAK/STAT activation enables this transcriptional plasticity is not entirely understood.

Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) is a potent cytokine that regulates early development, induces plasticity through EMP, and can have major effects on the immune system [198]. TGF-β is known to play a crucial role in normal wound healing, suppressing initial inflammation and mediating the repair of injured tissue [199,200]. TGF-β signaling also impacts numerous cancer types including those arising in the pancreas, liver, breast, and lung among others [201–203]. Some work suggests a direct role for TGF-β signaling in a phenotypic plasticity. TGF-β signaling silences the expression of the histone methyltransferase KMT2D via the upregulation of miR-147b [204]. Lu et al. has found that loss of KMT2D expression leads to increased production of activin A, another member of the TGF-β cytokine family. Activin A activates non-canonical p38-MAPK signaling, promoting pancreatic tumor cell plasticity and greater metastatic potential. Thus, multiple members of the TGF-β cytokine superfamily may influence phenotypic plasticity. Blockade of TGF-β in pancreatic cancer suppresses the basal phenotypic state in favor of the classical phenotypic state [205]. In breast cancer, TGF-β works in tangent with AURKA to mediate increased activity of ALDH1, a known marker of stemness [206–208]. SNAI1 expression downstream of TGF-β and AURKA activity induces ALDH1, promoting greater chemoresistance and increased capacity for self-renewal. Fan et al. determined that TGF-β signaling is negatively regulated by lncRNA LITATS1-mediated proteasomal degradation of type I TGF-β receptors [209]. Additionally, when LITATS1 is depleted, a dramatic increase in invasiveness and EMP ensues, suggesting TGF-β signaling is driving greater plasticity. In PCa, loss of FOXA1 leads to increased TGF-β3 production, promoting EMP and a more basal-like lineage state [210,211]. However, another group has demonstrated that prostate tumors lacking the TGF-β type II receptor (Tgfbr2) express increased levels of stem cell and basal epithelial marker genes [212]. Furthermore, mutations in PTEN and Tgfbr2 lead to an increase in metastatic burden, suggesting that loss of TGF-β signaling does not hinder EMP in the PCa setting. These studies suggest a more complex and potentially context dependent role for TGF-β signaling in PCa plasticity that requires further study.

Notch signaling is a major architect of development and repair and its numerous functions have been reviewed elsewhere [213]. Notch signaling plays an important role in plasticity-mediated repair of several normal tissue types including lung alveoli and intestinal crypts [214,215]. Recent evidence indicates a role for Notch signaling in cancer lineage reprogramming. Ku et al. found that Notch signaling is downregulated during reprogramming of PCa to NEPC [216]. Furthermore, forced Notch signaling suppressed NEPC development while maintaining PCa tumors in a more inflammatory state with significant effects on the tumor immune microenvironment. This is potentially consistent with the known roles of Notch signaling in the immune system [217]. These observations suggest the lineage state assumed by plastic cancer cells may significantly impact the tumor microenvironment. Similar findings have been made in breast cancer showing that Notch signaling influences cancer phenotypic plasticity [218]. In this case, FRMD3 mediated activation of Notch signaling promotes basal-to-luminal differentiation. Consequently, loss of FRMD3 in mammary epithelial cells leads to decreased Notch signaling and increasing stemness that promotes TNBC development.

4.4 Other mediators of plasticity

DNMTs and HMTs are the major enzymatic writers of DNA and histone modifications, respectively, that regulate chromatin structure and accessibility. Several of these epigenetic regulatory enzymes are implicated in phenotypic plasticity. EZH2 encodes the major catalytic protein of the PRC2 complex that tri-methylates histone H3 at K27, a chromatin mark associated with transcriptional repression. This complex has been prominently implicated in cancer progression (for review see Liu and Yang) [219]. EZH2 mediated regulation of chromatin accessibility has also been implicated in phenotypic plasticity. Berger et al. shows that EZH2-inhibition can rescue luminal gene expression that has been suppressed by N-Myc activity [100]. EZH2 has also been shown to interact with ASCL1 to promote chromatin remodeling [185]. Recent work from Venkadakrishnan and colleagues show many TFs associated with neuroendocrine differentiation, such as ASCL1 and NEUROD1, are silenced via H3K27me3 in PCa but not in NEPC. Furthermore, EZH2 inhibition upregulates NEPC TF activity at promoters that are normally bivalent in the absence of EZH2 inhibition [220]. Modulation of EZH2 activity through phosphorylation is an important means of regulating EZH2-associated plasticity, highlighted in work by Nouruzi et al. [18,185]. A mechanism linking ADT and increased EZH2 activity has been described by Kaarijärvi et al. [221]. DPYSL5, a protein involved in neuronal differentiation, is actively suppressed by androgen signaling. When androgen signaling is lost, increased DPYSL5 promotes increased EZH2 activity and subsequent upregulation of NEPC-linked TFs like ASCL1 and Sox2. Contrasting roles for EZH2 in inhibiting or promoting NEPC TFs proposed by Venkadakrishnan et al. and Kaarijärvi et al., respectively, suggest a nuanced role for EZH2 in progression towards NEPC that requires further study.

LSD1 (also known as KDM1A) is a well-known histone demethylase that has been implicated in cancer phenotypic plasticity [222]. Han et al. has demonstrated that LSD1 activity is essential for full elaboration of the E2F1 mediated transcriptional program in Rb1 deficient PCa [223]. This study implicates LSD1 as an important regulator of chromatin interactions in the progression from PCa to NEPC. FOXA2-driven plasticity in AR-independent PCa is also dependent on LSD1 activity [97]. Mandl et al. recently has shown that LSD1 inhibition decreases ASCL1 dependent transcriptional activity through de-repression of YAP1. This suggests functional LSD1 is important for the ability of ASCL1 to promote neuroendocrine differentiation [224]. LSD1 activity has also been found to mediate plasticity in breast cancer [225,226]. In general, the effectiveness of LSD1 inhibitors in treating cancers seems to correlate with their plasticity [227].

DNMT1 is an important DNMT that is responsible for maintenance of methylation during DNA replication of the genome [228]. DNMT1 activity is perhaps even more important for the transcriptional stability of cancer cells undergoing continuous cell division cycles. Expression of DNMT1 often increases during cancer progression, including during the transition from PCa to NEPC. DNMT1 has also been implicated functionally in PCa phenotypic plasticity, suggesting that targeting DNMT1 activity and the aberrant DNA methylation it produces is a potential therapeutic strategy for treating NEPC [229,230]. DNMT1 activity has also been functionally implicated in breast and pancreatic cancer plasticity [231–233].

Mucin-1 (MUC1-C) is a transmembrane cell surface protein that plays an important role in maintaining the mucosal barrier of epithelial cells. Aberrant glycosylation of MUC1-C in cancer has been implicated in cancer invasion and metastasis [234]. Evidence from the literature suggest that MUC1-C can play an important role in neuroendocrine plasticity [102,235]. MUC1-C suppresses p53 activity, promotes activity of pluripotent TFs downstream of BRN2, and upregulates the activity of the Baf chromatin remodeling complex [235–237]. MUC1-C has recently been implicated in Osimertinib resistance, promoting EMP and proliferative signaling in EGFR-mutant NSCLC [238]. MUC1-C also promotes plasticity in TNBC [239,240]. A recent review highlights that chronic activation of MUC1-C in wound healing is an impetus for epigenetic rewiring and progression towards cancer [241]. Given that MUC1-C is a surface protein, MUC1-C may be a useful target for suppressing cancer phenotypic plasticity through a number of immunotherapeutic approaches currently in development.

5. Discussion

This review highlights the extensive crosstalk that exists between genetic alterations, TFs, signaling pathways (cancer cell intrinsic and extrinsic), and epigenetic regulators that complicate our understanding of cancer phenotypic plasticity (Figure 3). Despite this complexity, a comparison of pathways involved in normal and neoplastic tissue reveals some convergence. The TF ASCL1 plays a direct role in maintenance of CBC cells in intestinal crypts during normal homeostasis and is also important for neuroendocrine lineage reprogramming in several cancer types. Notch signaling modulates plasticity to facilitate repair of damaged normal tissues while also suppressing neuroendocrine reprogramming in cancer. Major pluripotency TFs like Sox2 are important for facultative stem cell plasticity in normal tissue while also driving cancer phenotypic plasticity. Inflammatory signaling is involved in normal cell plasticity during tissue repair and has also been functionally linked to phenotypic plasticity in multiple cancer contexts. MUC1-C activity connects plasticity in normal wound healing with cancer phenotypic plasticity, recapitulating the idea that cancer is a “wound that does not heal” [242]. This convergence highlights the notion that cancer cells use genetically programmed plasticity programs in aberrant ways to adapt to the unpredictable and highly selective pressures they face.

One major difference between normal and neoplastic cell plasticity is that cancer cells frequently acquire somatic genetic alterations. This raises the possibility that some genetic alterations recurrent in advanced cancers may be selected because they facilitate aberrant activation of phenotypic plasticity programs. Using Waddington’s metaphor, phenotypic plasticity associated genetic alterations can be classified in two non-mutually exclusive categories. Some mutations may flatten the epigenetic landscape overall, driving increased phenotypic plasticity by making transitions between different phenotypic states more likely. Other genetic alterations may change the landscape by increasing or decreasing the depth of valleys specifying individual phenotypic states, decreasing or increasing the probability a cancer cell will assume a specific phenotypic state. Loss of TSGs like RB1, TP53, and PTEN seem to fall in the first category. Clinical data indicate loss of these TSGs are highly recurrent in treatment associated neuroendocrine cancer lineage variants, but TSG loss is not sufficient because not all affected cancers undergo detectable lineage reprogramming. Further, loss of these TSG in GEMMs of prostate cancer develop adenocarcinomas along with rare cells undergoing reprogramming into multiple lineage variants, including NEPC that expands the fastest to yield lethal disease. Other genetic alterations may fall closer to the second category. C-Myc, for example, can drive SCLC to a unique lineage state, but only in collaboration with plasticity afforded by TSG loss [243,244].

A number of incompletely resolved questions remain for the cancer phenotypic plasticity field. Related to the discussion above, one question is how do genetic alterations recurrent in advanced cancer actually contribute to phenotypic plasticity at the molecular level. Phenotypic plasticity is defined here by transcriptional heterogeneity and instability. The molecular basis of this transcriptional heterogeneity is not well defined, but by analogy to observations with iPSCs may involve an increase in bivalent, stem cell-like chromatin state. Another unresolved question is how inflammatory signaling drives phenotypic plasticity. Loss of TSGs often result in elevated cancer cell intrinsic inflammatory signaling, so it is possible effects on TSG loss in phenotypic plasticity are mediated by inflammatory signaling, at least in part. Currently, it is unclear how this inflammatory signaling causes the transcriptional instability associated with phenotypic plasticity. Another important question yet to be resolved is the relationship between cancer phenotypic variants detected in both clinical samples and experimental models. Do these different variants represent different stages of progression across a common, lineage phenotypic evolutionary path? In some experimental models, there is evidence to support this conclusion. Or do they represent independent evolutionary paths that may yield cancers with very different clinical outcomes? The answers to these questions will help clarify the molecular basis of cancer phenotypic plasticity, information that will be critical for developing therapeutic approaches to effectively target phenotypic plasticity for clinical benefit.

Robust quantitative measures of phenotypic plasticity are needed to resolve these questions. An ideal measure would monitor the phenotype of individual live cells over time in an unbiased manner, quantitating how stable a phenotype is to stochastic fluctuation or environmental perturbation. The primary approach used today, however, is based on inference from single cell-transcriptomic data. The transcriptome of a population of individual cells is measured at a given timepoint, and their transcriptional heterogeneity is quantitated using existing diversity indices. Transcriptional heterogeneity at a given point in time is assumed to be positively correlated with phenotypic plasticity of cells within the population. As the types of single cell phenotypic measures expands to include protein, chromatin, DNA methylation, etc., these inferences will undoubtedly become more sophisticated in deciphering the molecular underpinnings of this transcriptional diversity. Coupling these single cell measures with cell lineage barcoding or CRISPR based time recording approaches promise to allow phenotypic measurements in clonal lineages of cells over time, getting nearer to the ideal of unbiased live cell recording. Finally, there is clear evidence that the growth environment can influence the phenotype of plastic cancer cells. For example, mouse prostate organoid models of TSG deletion exhibit phenotypic plasticity but do not undergo neuroendocrine reprogramming in vitro. They do undergo neuroendocrine reprogramming when transplanted in vivo, demonstrating unique features of the in vivo tumor microenvironment contribute to NEPC reprogramming. Spatial transcriptomics at the single cell level will increasingly be used to assess the effects of the tumor growth environment on the phenotype assumed by plastic cancer cells, and vice versa.

Somatic genetic evolution clearly drives intratumoral heterogeneity that enables cancer progression and acquired therapeutic resistance. Given the varied, unpredictable, and highly selective pressures cancer cells face during disease progression, metastasis, and therapy, somatic genetic evolution alone may be insufficient to account for their remarkable adaptability. It is increasingly appreciated that epigenetic plasticity, a genetically encoded trait essential for normal development and homeostasis, can be aberrantly deployed by cancer cells to increase their adaptability. The next generation of precision and molecularly targeted therapies will need to address this plasticity to improve cancer patient outcomes and make further progress toward cures.

Declarations

Funding

This study was funded by NOTCH signaling controls transformation to androgen independent neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NCI; R01 CA234162); Developing and Translating Innovative Strategies to Therapeutically Target Prostate Cancer Lineage Plasticity (Prostate Cancer Foundation; 22CHAL13); Coordinating and Data Management Center for Acquired Resistance to Therapy Network (NCI; U24 CA274159).

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations

AST: 
adeno-to-squamous transdifferentiation
AT1: 
alveolar type I
AT2: 
alveolar type II
AR: 
androgen receptor
ARSI: 
androgen receptor signaling inhibitors
ADT: 
androgen-deprivation therapy
BEC: 
biliary endothelial cells
CBC: 
crypt base columnar
DNPC: 
double negative prostate cancer
DNMT: 
DNA methyltransferase
DTP: 
drug tolerant persistor
EGFR TKI: 
EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors
EGFR: 
epidermal growth factor receptor
EndMP: 
endothelial-mesenchymal plasticity
EMT: 
epithelial-mesenchymal transition
EMP: 
epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity
FSC: 
facultative stem cells
FGFR: 
fibroblast growth factor receptor
GEMM: 
genetically engineered mouse model
HF: 
hair follicle
HC: 
hepatocytes
HCC: 
hepatocellular carcinoma
HDAC: 
histone deacetylases
HMT: 
histone methyltransferases
IBC: 
inflammatory breast cancer
IPSCs: 
induced pluripotent stem cells
JAK: 
janus kinase
LIF: 
leukemia inhibitory factor
LUAD: 
lung adenocarcinoma
NEPC: 
neuroendocrine prostate cancer
PDAC: 
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
PCa: 
prostate adenocarcinoma
STAT: 
signal transduction and transcription activation
SCLC: 
small cell lung cancer
TF: 
ranscription factor
TGF-β:: 
transforming growth factor beta
TNBC: 
triple negative breast cancer
TSG: 
tumor suppressor genes
VM:: 
vasculogenic mimicry

References

1 Waddington CH. The Strategy of the Genes: A Discussion of Some Aspects of Theoretical Biology. London: George Allen & Unwin; 1957. [Google Scholar]
2 Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126(4):663-676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3 Merrell AJ, Stanger BZ. Adult cell plasticity in vivo: de-differentiation and transdifferentiation are back in style. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016;17(7):413-425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4 Zhou Q, Brown J, Kanarek A, Rajagopal J, Melton DA. In vivo reprogramming of adult pancreatic exocrine cells to β-cells. Nature. 2008;455(7213):627-632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5 Tarlow BD, Pelz C, Naugler WE, Wakefield L, Wilson EM, Finegold MJ, et al. Bipotential adult liver progenitors are derived from chronically injured mature hepatocytes. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;15(5):605-618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6 van Es JH, Sato T, van de Wetering M, Lyubimova A, Yee Nee AN, Gregorieff A, et al. Dll1+ secretory progenitor cells revert to stem cells upon crypt damage. Nat Cell Biol. 2012;14(10):1099-1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7 Juul NH, Stockman CA, Desai TJ. Niche Cells and Signals that Regulate Lung Alveolar Stem Cells In Vivo. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2020;12(12). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8 Davies A, Zoubeidi A, Beltran H, Selth LA. The Transcriptional and Epigenetic Landscape of Cancer Cell Lineage Plasticity. Cancer Discov. 2023;13(8):1771-1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9 Pitarresi JR, Stanger BZ. Cellular Origins and Lineage Plasticity in Cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2024;14(6). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10 Zou M, Toivanen R, Mitrofanova A, Floch N, Hayati S, Sun Y, et al. Transdifferentiation as a Mechanism of Treatment Resistance in a Mouse Model of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(7):736-749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11 Farrell AS, Joly MM, Allen-Petersen BL, Worth PJ, Lanciault C, Sauer D, et al. MYC regulates ductal-neuroendocrine lineage plasticity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma associated with poor outcome and chemoresistance. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12 Hendrix MJ, Seftor EA, Hess AR, Seftor RE. Vasculogenic mimicry and tumour-cell plasticity: lessons from melanoma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3(6):411-421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13 Chaffer CL, Marjanovic ND, Lee T, Bell G, Kleer CG, Reinhardt F, et al. Poised chromatin at the ZEB1 promoter enables breast cancer cell plasticity and enhances tumorigenicity. Cell. 2013;154(1):61-74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14 Offin M, Chan JM, Tenet M, Rizvi HA, Shen R, Riely GJ, et al. Concurrent RB1 and TP53 Alterations Define a Subset of EGFR-Mutant Lung Cancers at risk for Histologic Transformation and Inferior Clinical Outcomes. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(10):1784-1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15 Hanahan D. Hallmarks of Cancer: New Dimensions. Cancer Discov. 2022;12(1):31-46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16 Mehta A, Stanger BZ. Lineage Plasticity: The New Cancer Hallmark on the Block. Cancer Res. 2024;84(2):184-191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17 Zhang Y, Wu MJ, Lu WC, Li YC, Chang CJ, Yang JY. Metabolic switch regulates lineage plasticity and induces synthetic lethality in triple-negative breast cancer. Cell Metab. 2024;36(1):193-208 e198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18 Nouruzi S, Tabrizian N, Zoubeidi A. Beyond Expression: Role of Phosphorylated Residues of EZH2 in Lineage Plasticity in Prostate Cancer. Endocrinology. 2023;164(4):bqad023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19 Sreekumar A, Saini S. Role of transcription factors and chromatin modifiers in driving lineage reprogramming in treatment-induced neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2023;11:1075707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20 Haerinck J, Goossens S, Berx G. The epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity landscape: principles of design and mechanisms of regulation. Nat Rev Genet. 2023;24(9):590-609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21 Whiting FJH, Househam J, Baker AM, Sottoriva A, Graham TA. Phenotypic noise and plasticity in cancer evolution. Trends Cell Biol. 2024;34(6):451-464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22 Yanger K, Stanger BZ. Facultative stem cells in liver and pancreas: fact and fancy. Dev Dyn. 2011;240(3):521-529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23 Jadhav U, Saxena M, O'Neill NK, Saadatpour A, Yuan GC, Herbert Z, et al. Dynamic Reorganization of Chromatin Accessibility Signatures during Dedifferentiation of Secretory Precursors into Lgr5+ Intestinal Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2017;21(1):65-77.e65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24 Long Y, Hwang T, Gooding AR, Goodrich KJ, Rinn JL, Cech TR. RNA is essential for PRC2 chromatin occupancy and function in human pluripotent stem cells. Nat Genet. 2020;52(9):931-938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25 Rispal J, Escaffit F, Trouche D. Chromatin Dynamics in Intestinal Epithelial Homeostasis: A Paradigm of Cell Fate Determination versus Cell Plasticity. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2020;16(6):1062-1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26 Ghasemi Gojani E, Rai S, Norouzkhani F, Shujat S, Wang B, Li D, et al. Targeting β-Cell Plasticity: A Promising Approach for Diabetes Treatment. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2024;46(7):7621-7667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27 Gutiérrez GD, Bender AS, Cirulli V, Mastracci TL, Kelly SM, Tsirigos A, et al. Pancreatic β cell identity requires continual repression of non-β cell programs. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(1):244-259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28 Papizan JB, Singer RA, Tschen SI, Dhawan S, Friel JM, Hipkens SB, et al. Nkx2.2 repressor complex regulates islet β-cell specification and prevents β-to-α-cell reprogramming. Genes Dev. 2011;25(21):2291-2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29 Amsterdam A, Raanan C, Schreiber L, Polin N, Givol D. LGR5 and Nanog identify stem cell signature of pancreas beta cells which initiate pancreatic cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2013;433(2):157-162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30 Jiang Z, Tian J, Zhang W, Yan H, Liu L, Huang Z, et al. Forkhead Protein FoxO1 Acts as a Repressor to Inhibit Cell Differentiation in Human Fetal Pancreatic Progenitor Cells. J Diabetes Res. 2017;2017:6726901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31 Marui S, Nishikawa Y, Shiokawa M, Yokode M, Matsumoto S, Muramoto Y, et al. Context-Dependent Roles of Hes1 in the Adult Pancreas and Pancreatic Tumor Formation. Gastroenterology. 2022;163(6):1613-1629 e1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32 Lu TT, Heyne S, Dror E, Casas E, Leonhardt L, Boenke T, et al. The Polycomb-Dependent Epigenome Controls β Cell Dysfunction, Dedifferentiation, and Diabetes. Cell Metab. 2018;27(6):1294-1308 e1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33 Wang Y, Wang L, Ma S, Cheng L, Yu G. Repair and regeneration of the alveolar epithelium in lung injury. Faseb J. 2024;38(8):e23612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34 Chan M, Liu Y. Function of epithelial stem cell in the repair of alveolar injury. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13(1):170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35 Evans MJ, Cabral LJ, Stephens RJ, Freeman G. Transformation of alveolar type 2 cells to type 1 cells following exposure to NO2. Exp Mol Pathol. 1975;22(1):142-150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36 Barkauskas CE, Cronce MJ, Rackley CR, Bowie EJ, Keene DR, Stripp BR, et al. Type 2 alveolar cells are stem cells in adult lung. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(7):3025-3036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37 Liu Y, Kumar VS, Zhang W, Rehman J, Malik AB. Activation of Type II Cells into Regenerative Stem Cell Antigen-1+ Cells during Alveolar Repair. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2015;53(1):113-124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38 Riemondy KA, Jansing NL, Jiang P, Redente EF, Gillen AE, Fu R, et al. Single-cell RNA sequencing identifies TGF-β as a key regenerative cue following LPS-induced lung injury. JCI Insight. 2019;5(8):e123637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39 Nabhan AN, Brownfield DG, Harbury PB, Krasnow MA, Desai TJ. Single-cell Wnt signaling niches maintain stemness of alveolar type 2 cells. Science. 2018;359(6380):1118-1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40 LaCanna R, Liccardo D, Zhang P, Tragesser L, Wang Y, Cao T, et al. Yap/Taz regulate alveolar regeneration and resolution of lung inflammation. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(5):2107-2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41 Chen X, Zhang C, Wei T, Chen J, Pan T, Li M, et al. α7nAChR activation in AT2 cells promotes alveolar regeneration through WNT7B signaling in acute lung injury. JCI Insight. 2023;8(15). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42 Chung MI, Bujnis M, Barkauskas CE, Kobayashi Y, Hogan BLM. Niche-mediated BMP/SMAD signaling regulates lung alveolar stem cell proliferation and differentiation. Development. 2018;145(9):dev163014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43 Kaiser AM, Gatto A, Hanson KJ, Zhao RL, Raj N, Ozawa MG, et al. p53 governs an AT1 differentiation programme in lung cancer suppression. Nature. 2023;619(7971):851-859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44 Kim M, Park Y, Kim YS, Ko S. Cellular Plasticity in Gut and Liver Regeneration. Gut Liver. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45 Colozza G, Park SY, Koo BK. Clone wars: From molecules to cell competition in intestinal stem cell homeostasis and disease. Exp Mol Med. 2022;54(9):1367-1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46 Hu X, Yuan X, Zhang G, Song H, Ji P, Guo Y, et al. The intestinal epithelial-macrophage-crypt stem cell axis plays a crucial role in regulating and maintaining intestinal homeostasis. Life Sci. 2024;344:122452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47 Malagola E, Vasciaveo A, Ochiai Y, Kim W, Zheng B, Zanella L, et al. Isthmus progenitor cells contribute to homeostatic cellular turnover and support regeneration following intestinal injury. Cell. 2024;187(12):3056-3071.e3017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48 Meyer AR, Brown ME, McGrath PS, Dempsey PJ. Injury-Induced Cellular Plasticity Drives Intestinal Regeneration. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;13(3):843-856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49 de Sousa EMF, de Sauvage FJ. Cellular Plasticity in Intestinal Homeostasis and Disease. Cell Stem Cell. 2019;24(1):54-64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50 Tetteh PW, Basak O, Farin HF, Wiebrands K, Kretzschmar K, Begthel H, et al. Replacement of Lost Lgr5-Positive Stem Cells through Plasticity of Their Enterocyte-Lineage Daughters. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18(2):203-213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51 Singh PNP, Madha S, Leiter AB, Shivdasani RA. Cell and chromatin transitions in intestinal stem cell regeneration. Genes Dev. 2022;36(11-12):684-698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52 Fevr T, Robine S, Louvard D, Huelsken J. Wnt/β-Catenin Is Essential for Intestinal Homeostasis and Maintenance of Intestinal Stem Cells. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(21):7551-7559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53 van Es JH, Haegebarth A, Kujala P, Itzkovitz S, Koo BK, Boj SF, et al. A critical role for the Wnt effector Tcf4 in adult intestinal homeostatic self-renewal. Mol Cell Biol. 2012;32(10):1918-1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54 Bastide P, Darido C, Pannequin J, Kist R, Robine S, Marty-Double C, et al. Sox9 regulates cell proliferation and is required for Paneth cell differentiation in the intestinal epithelium. J Cell Biol. 2007;178(4):635-648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55 Murata K, Jadhav U, Madha S, van Es J, Dean J, Cavazza A, et al. Ascl2-Dependent Cell Dedifferentiation Drives Regeneration of Ablated Intestinal Stem Cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2020;26(3):377-390.e376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56 Ko S, Russell JO, Molina LM, Monga SP. Liver Progenitors and Adult Cell Plasticity in Hepatic Injury and Repair: Knowns and Unknowns. Annu Rev Pathol. 2020;15:23-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57 Liu Q, Wang S, Fu J, Chen Y, Xu J, Wei W, et al. Liver regeneration after injury: Mechanisms, cellular interactions and therapeutic innovations. Clin Transl Med. 2024;14(8):e1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58 Gracz AD, Fuller MK, Wang F, Li L, Stelzner M, Dunn JC, et al. Brief report: CD24 and CD44 mark human intestinal epithelial cell populations with characteristics of active and facultative stem cells. Stem Cells. 2013;31(9):2024-2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59 Michalopoulos GK, Barua L, Bowen WC. Transdifferentiation of rat hepatocytes into biliary cells after bile duct ligation and toxic biliary injury. Hepatology. 2005;41(3):535-544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60 Pu W, Zhu H, Zhang M, Pikiolek M, Ercan C, Li J, et al. Bipotent transitional liver progenitor cells contribute to liver regeneration. Nat Genet. 2023;55(4):651-664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61 Yimlamai D, Christodoulou C, Galli GG, Yanger K, Pepe-Mooney B, Gurung B, et al. Hippo pathway activity influences liver cell fate. Cell. 2014;157(6):1324-1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62 Schaub JR, Huppert KA, Kurial SNT, Hsu BY, Cast AE, Donnelly B, et al. De novo formation of the biliary system by TGFβ-mediated hepatocyte transdifferentiation. Nature. 2018;557(7704):247-251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63 Tang D, Chen Y, Fu GB, Yuan TJ, Huang WJ, Wang ZY, et al. EpCAM inhibits differentiation of human liver progenitor cells into hepatocytes in vitro by activating Notch1 signaling. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;525(1):238-243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64 Enoch S, Leaper DJ. Basic science of wound healing. Surgery (Oxford). 2008;26(2):31-37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65 Peña OA, Martin P. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of skin wound healing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2024;25(8):599-616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
66 Fernández-Guarino M, Hernández-Bule ML, Bacci S. Cellular and Molecular Processes in Wound Healing. Biomedicines. 2023;11(9):2526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
67 Vu R, Dragan M, Sun P, Werner S, Dai X. Epithelial-Mesenchymal Plasticity and Endothelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Cutaneous Wound Healing. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2023;15(8):a041237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68 Huang Y, Hong W, Wei X. The molecular mechanisms and therapeutic strategies of EMT in tumor progression and metastasis. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15(1):129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
69 Yang J, Antin P, Berx G, Blanpain C, Brabletz T, Bronner M, et al. Guidelines and definitions for research on epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21(6):341-352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70 Yao W, Wang Z, Ma H, Lin Y, Liu X, Li P, et al. Epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity (EMP) in wound healing: Exploring EMT mechanisms, regulatory network, and therapeutic opportunities. Heliyon. 2024;10(14):e34269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71 Hudson LG, Newkirk KM, Chandler HL, Choi C, Fossey SL, Parent AE, et al. Cutaneous wound reepithelialization is compromised in mice lacking functional Slug (Snai2). J Dermatol Sci. 2009;56(1):19-26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72 Gurevich DB, David DT, Sundararaman A, Patel J. Endothelial Heterogeneity in Development and Wound Healing. Cells. 2021;10(9):2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
73 Zhao J, Patel J, Kaur S, Sim SL, Wong HY, Styke C, et al. Sox9 and Rbpj differentially regulate endothelial to mesenchymal transition and wound scarring in murine endovascular progenitors. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):2564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
74 Sun X, Joost S, Kasper M. Plasticity of Epithelial Cells during Skin Wound Healing. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2023;15(5):a041232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
75 Brownell I, Guevara E, Bai CB, Loomis CA, Joyner AL. Nerve-derived sonic hedgehog defines a niche for hair follicle stem cells capable of becoming epidermal stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8(5):552-565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76 Vagnozzi AN, Reiter JF, Wong SY. Hair follicle and interfollicular epidermal stem cells make varying contributions to wound regeneration. Cell Cycle. 2015;14(21):3408-3417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77 Huang S, Kuri P, Aubert Y, Brewster M, Li N, Farrelly O, et al. Lgr6 marks epidermal stem cells with a nerve-dependent role in wound re-epithelialization. Cell Stem Cell. 2021;28(9):1582-1596.e1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78 Donati G, Rognoni E, Hiratsuka T, Liakath-Ali K, Hoste E, Kar G, et al. Wounding induces dedifferentiation of epidermal Gata6+ cells and acquisition of stem cell properties. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(6):603-613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79 Joost S, Zeisel A, Jacob T, Sun X, La Manno G, Lönnerberg P, et al. Single-Cell Transcriptomics Reveals that Differentiation and Spatial Signatures Shape Epidermal and Hair Follicle Heterogeneity. Cell Syst. 2016;3(3):221-237.e229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
80 Shook BA, Wasko RR, Mano O, Rutenberg-Schoenberg M, Rudolph MC, Zirak B, et al. Dermal Adipocyte Lipolysis and Myofibroblast Conversion Are Required for Efficient Skin Repair. Cell Stem Cell. 2020;26(6):880-895.e886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81 Kalgudde Gopal S, Dai R, Stefanska AM, Ansari M, Zhao J, Ramesh P, et al. Wound infiltrating adipocytes are not myofibroblasts. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82 Parfejevs V, Debbache J, Shakhova O, Schaefer SM, Glausch M, Wegner M, et al. Injury-activated glial cells promote wound healing of the adult skin in mice. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
83 Gonzalez DM, Medici D. Signaling mechanisms of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Sci Signal. 2014;7(344):re8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84 Patel J, Baz B, Wong HY, Lee JS, Khosrotehrani K. Accelerated Endothelial to Mesenchymal Transition Increased Fibrosis via Deleting Notch Signaling in Wound Vasculature. J Invest Dermatol. 2018;138(5):1166-1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85 Lee WJ, Park JH, Shin JU, Noh H, Lew DH, Yang WI, et al. Endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition induced by Wnt 3a in keloid pathogenesis. Wound Repair Regen. 2015;23(3):435-442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
86 Li C, Dong F, Jia Y, Du H, Dong N, Xu Y, et al. Notch signal regulates corneal endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Am J Pathol. 2013;183(3):786-795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87 Yoshida M, Okubo N, Chosa N, Hasegawa T, Ibi M, Kamo M, et al. TGF-β-operated growth inhibition and translineage commitment into smooth muscle cells of periodontal ligament-derived endothelial progenitor cells through Smad- and p38 MAPK-dependent signals. Int J Biol Sci. 2012;8(7):1062-1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88 Ge Y, Gomez NC, Adam RC, Nikolova M, Yang H, Verma A, et al. Stem Cell Lineage Infidelity Drives Wound Repair and Cancer. Cell. 2017;169(4):636-650.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
89 Adam RC, Yang H, Ge Y, Infarinato NR, Gur-Cohen S, Miao Y, et al. NFI transcription factors provide chromatin access to maintain stem cell identity while preventing unintended lineage fate choices. Nat Cell Biol. 2020;22(6):640-650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
90 Gonzales KAU, Polak L, Matos I, Tierney MT, Gola A, Wong E, et al. Stem cells expand potency and alter tissue fitness by accumulating diverse epigenetic memories. Science. 2021;374(6571):eabh2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91 Bluemn EG, Coleman IM, Lucas JM, Coleman RT, Hernandez-Lopez S, Tharakan R, et al. Androgen Receptor Pathway-Independent Prostate Cancer Is Sustained through FGF Signaling. Cancer cell. 2017;32(4):474-489.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
92 Ku SY, Rosario S, Wang Y, Mu P, Seshadri M, Goodrich ZW, et al. Rb1 and Trp53 cooperate to suppress prostate cancer lineage plasticity, metastasis, and antiandrogen resistance. Science. 2017;355(6320):78-83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
93 Chan JM, Zaidi S, Love JR, Zhao JL, Setty M, Wadosky KM, et al. Lineage plasticity in prostate cancer depends on JAK/STAT inflammatory signaling. Science. 2022;377(6611):1180-1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
94 Rodarte KE, Nir Heyman S, Guo L, Flores L, Savage TK, Villarreal J, et al. Neuroendocrine Differentiation in Prostate Cancer Requires ASCL1. Cancer Res. 2024;84(21):3522-3537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
95 Mu P, Zhang Z, Benelli M, Karthaus WR, Hoover E, Chen CC, et al. SOX2 promotes lineage plasticity and antiandrogen resistance in TP53- and RB1-deficient prostate cancer. Science. 2017;355(6320):84-88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
96 Quintanal-Villalonga A, Durani V, Sabet A, Redin E, Kawasaki K, Shafer M, et al. Exportin 1 inhibition prevents neuroendocrine transformation through SOX2 down-regulation in lung and prostate cancers. Sci Transl Med. 2023;15(707):eadf7006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
97 Wang Z, Townley SL, Zhang S, Liu M, Li M, Labaf M, et al. FOXA2 rewires AP-1 for transcriptional reprogramming and lineage plasticity in prostate cancer. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):4914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
98 Han M, Li F, Zhang Y, Dai P, He J, Li Y, et al. FOXA2 drives lineage plasticity and KIT pathway activation in neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Cancer cell. 2022;40(11):1306-1323.E8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
99 Quintanal-Villalonga A, Kawasaki K, Redin E, Uddin F, Rakhade S, Durani V, et al. CDC7 inhibition impairs neuroendocrine transformation in lung and prostate tumors through MYC degradation. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2024;9(1):189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
100 Berger A, Brady NJ, Bareja R, Robinson B, Conteduca V, Augello MA, et al. N-Myc-mediated epigenetic reprogramming drives lineage plasticity in advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(9):3924-3940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
101 Qian C, Yang Q, Rotinen M, Huang R, Kim H, Gallent B, et al. ONECUT2 acts as a lineage plasticity driver in adenocarcinoma as well as neuroendocrine variants of prostate cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52(13):7740-7760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
102 Kufe D. Dependence on MUC1-C in Progression of Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(4):3719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
103 Romero R, Chu T, Gonzalez Robles TJ, Smith P, Xie Y, Kaur H, et al. The neuroendocrine transition in prostate cancer is dynamic and dependent on ASCL1. Nat Cancer. 2024;5:1641-1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
104 Cheng S, Li L, Yeh Y, Shi Y, Franco O, Corey E, et al. Unveiling novel double-negative prostate cancer subtypes through single-cell RNA sequencing analysis. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2024;8(1):171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
105 Lundberg A, Zhang M, Aggarwal R, Li H, Zhang L, Foye A, et al. The Genomic and Epigenomic Landscape of Double-Negative Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Cancer Res. 2023;83(16):2763-2774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
106 Shrestha R, Chesner LN, Zhang M, Zhou S, Foye A, Lundberg A, et al. An Atlas of Accessible Chromatin in Advanced Prostate Cancer Reveals the Epigenetic Evolution during Tumor Progression. Cancer Res. 2024;84(18):3086-3100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
107 Zhang L, Liu C, Zhang B, Zheng J, Singh PK, Bshara W, et al. PTEN Loss Expands the Histopathologic Diversity and Lineage Plasticity of Lung Cancers Initiated by Rb1/Trp53 Deletion. J Thorac Oncol. 2023;18(3):324-338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
108 Mc Leer A, Foll M, Brevet M, Antoine M, Novello S, Mondet J, et al. Detection of acquired TERT amplification in addition to predisposing p53 and Rb pathways alterations in EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinomas transformed into small-cell lung cancers. Lung Cancer. 2022;167:98-106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
109 Tong X, Patel AS, Kim E, Li H, Chen Y, Li S, et al. Adeno-to-squamous transition drives resistance to KRAS inhibition in LKB1 mutant lung cancer. Cancer Cell. 2024;42(3):413-428.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
110 Quintanal-Villalonga A, Taniguchi H, Zhan YA, Hasan MM, Chavan SS, Meng F, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of lung tumors implicates AKT and MYC signaling in adenocarcinoma to squamous cell transdifferentiation. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14(1):170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
111 Qin Z, Yue M, Tang S, Wu F, Sun H, Li Y, et al. EML4-ALK fusions drive lung adeno-to-squamous transition through JAK-STAT activation. J Exp Med. 2024;221(3):e20232028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
112 Gao Y, Zhang W, Han X, Li F, Wang X, Wang R, et al. YAP inhibits squamous transdifferentiation of Lkb1-deficient lung adenocarcinoma through ZEB2-dependent DNp63 repression. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
113 Schoenfeld AJ, Chan JM, Kubota D, Sato H, Rizvi H, Daneshbod Y, et al. Tumor Analyses Reveal Squamous Transformation and Off-Target Alterations As Early Resistance Mechanisms to First-line Osimertinib in EGFR-Mutant Lung Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(11):2654-2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
114 Zhang H, Fillmore Brainson C, Koyama S, Redig AJ, Chen T, Li S, et al. Lkb1 inactivation drives lung cancer lineage switching governed by Polycomb Repressive Complex 2. Nature communications. 2017;8:14922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
115 Hu B, Wiesehöfer M, de Miguel FJ, Liu Z, Chan LH, Choi J, et al. ASCL1 Drives Tolerance to Osimertinib in EGFR Mutant Lung Cancer in Permissive Cellular Contexts. Cancer Res. 2024;84(8):1303-1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
116 Chung JH, Rho JK, Xu X, Lee JS, Yoon HI, Lee CT, et al. Clinical and molecular evidences of epithelial to mesenchymal transition in acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs. Lung Cancer. 2011;73(2):176-182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
117 Fernández-Cortés M, Delgado-Bellido D, Oliver FJ. Vasculogenic Mimicry: Become an Endothelial Cell "But Not So Much". Front Oncol. 2019;9:803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
118 Delgado-Bellido D, Zamudio-Martínez E, Fernández-Cortés M, Herrera-Campos AB, Olmedo-Pelayo J, Perez CJ, et al. VE-Cadherin modulates β-catenin/TCF-4 to enhance Vasculogenic Mimicry. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14(2):135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
119 Stevens LE, Peluffo G, Qiu X, Temko D, Fassl A, Li Z, et al. JAK-STAT Signaling in Inflammatory Breast Cancer Enables Chemotherapy-Resistant Cell States. Cancer Res. 2023;83(2):264-284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
120 Zamora I, Gutiérrez M, Pascual A, Pajares MJ, Barajas M, Perez LM, et al. ONECUT2 is a druggable driver of luminal to basal breast cancer plasticity. Cell Oncol (Dordr). 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
121 Xu M, Hong JJ, Zhang X, Sun M, Liu X, Kang J, et al. Targeting SWI/SNF ATPases reduces neuroblastoma cell plasticity. EMBO J. 2024;43(20):4522-4541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
122 Murakami S, White SM, McIntosh AT, Nguyen CDK, Yi C. Spontaneously evolved progenitor niches escape Yap oncogene addiction in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
123 Man KF, Zhou L, Yu H, Lam KH, Cheng W, Yu J, et al. SPINK1-induced tumor plasticity provides a therapeutic window for chemotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):7863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
124 Warrick JI, Hu W, Yamashita H, Walter V, Shuman L, Craig JM, et al. FOXA1 repression drives lineage plasticity and immune heterogeneity in bladder cancers with squamous differentiation. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):6575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
125 Somasundaram R, Strid T, Sigvardsson M. Cellular plasticity in B-cell leukemia. Cell Cycle. 2017;16(6):495-496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
126 Somasundaram R, Åhsberg J, Okuyama K, Ungerbäck J, Lilljebjörn H, Fioretos T, et al. Clonal conversion of B lymphoid leukemia reveals cross-lineage transfer of malignant states. Genes Dev. 2016;30(22):2486-2499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
127 Imamura J, Ganguly S, Muskara A, Liao RS, Nguyen JK, Weight C, et al. Lineage plasticity and treatment resistance in prostate cancer: the intersection of genetics, epigenetics, and evolution. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1191311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
128 Zamora I, Freeman MR, Encío IJ, Rotinen M. Targeting Key Players of Neuroendocrine Differentiation in Prostate Cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(18):13673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
129 de Kouchkovsky I, Chan E, Schloss C, Poehlein C, Aggarwal R. Diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Prostate. 2024;84(5):426-440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
130 Dardenne E, Beltran H, Benelli M, Gayvert K, Berger A, Puca L, et al. N-Myc Induces an EZH2-Mediated Transcriptional Program Driving Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer. Cancer Cell. 2016;30(4):563-577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
131 Ji Y, Zhang W, Shen K, Su R, Liu X, Ma Z, et al. The ELAVL3/MYCN positive feedback loop provides a therapeutic target for neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):7794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
132 Herbst RS, Morgensztern D, Boshoff C. The biology and management of non-small cell lung cancer. Nature. 2018;553(7689):446-454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
133 Ruiz-Cordero R, Devine WP. Targeted Therapy and Checkpoint Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer. Surg Pathol Clin. 2020;13(1):17-33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
134 Levantini E, Maroni G, Del Re M, Tenen DG. EGFR signaling pathway as therapeutic target in human cancers. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;85:253-275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
135 Lorenzi M, Ferro A, Cecere F, Scattolin D, Del Conte A, Follador A, et al. First-Line Osimertinib in Patients with EGFR-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Outcome and Safety in the Real World: FLOWER Study. Oncologist. 2022;27(2):87-e115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
136 Blaquier JB, Ortiz-Cuaran S, Ricciuti B, Mezquita L, Cardona AF, Recondo G. Tackling Osimertinib Resistance in EGFR-Mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2023;29(18):3579-3591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
137 Hao L, Chen H, Wang L, Zhou H, Zhang Z, Han J, et al. Transformation or tumor heterogeneity: Mutations in EGFR, SOX2, TP53, and RB1 persist in the histological rapid conversion from lung adenocarcinoma to small-cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. 2023;14(11):1036-1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
138 França GS, Baron M, King BR, Bossowski JP, Bjornberg A, Pour M, et al. Cellular adaptation to cancer therapy along a resistance continuum. Nature. 2024;631(8022):876-883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
139 Reyes-Castro RA, Chen SY, Seemann J, Kundu ST, Gibbons DL, Arur S. Phosphorylated nuclear DICER1 promotes open chromatin state and lineage plasticity of AT2 tumor cells in lung adenocarcinomas. Sci Adv. 2023;9(30):eadf6210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
140 Wang D, Du G, Chen X, Wang J, Liu K, Zhao H, et al. Zeb1-controlled metabolic plasticity enables remodeling of chromatin accessibility in the development of neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Cell Death Differ. 2024;31(6):779-791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
141 Jing N, Du X, Liang Y, Tao Z, Bao S, Xiao H, et al. PAX6 promotes neuroendocrine phenotypes of prostate cancer via enhancing MET/STAT5A-mediated chromatin accessibility. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2024;43(1):144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
142 Hennessy BT, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Stemke-Hale K, Gilcrease MZ, Krishnamurthy S, Lee JS, et al. Characterization of a naturally occurring breast cancer subset enriched in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and stem cell characteristics. Cancer Res. 2009;69(10):4116-4124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
143 Mohamed GA, Mahmood S, Ognjenovic NB, Lee MK, Wilkins OM, Christensen BC, et al. Lineage plasticity enables low-ER luminal tumors to evolve and gain basal-like traits. Breast Cancer Res. 2023;25(1):23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
144 Ma S, Lee TK, Zheng BJ, Chan KW, Guan XY. CD133+ HCC cancer stem cells confer chemoresistance by preferential expression of the Akt/PKB survival pathway. Oncogene. 2008;27(12):1749-1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
145 Maynard A, McCoach CE, Rotow JK, Harris L, Haderk F, Kerr DL, et al. Therapy-Induced Evolution of Human Lung Cancer Revealed by Single-Cell RNA Sequencing. Cell. 2020;182(5):1232-1251.e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
146 Russo M, Chen M, Mariella E, Peng H, Rehman SK, Sancho E, et al. Cancer drug-tolerant persister cells: from biological questions to clinical opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2024;24(10):694-717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
147 Lane DP. Cancer. p53, guardian of the genome. Nature. 1992;358(6381):15-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
148 Koifman G, Aloni-Grinstein R, Rotter V. p53 balances between tissue hierarchy and anarchy. J Mol Cell Biol. 2019;11(7):553-563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
149 Rasmussen MA, Holst B, Tümer Z, Johnsen MG, Zhou S, Stummann TC, et al. Transient p53 suppression increases reprogramming of human fibroblasts without affecting apoptosis and DNA damage. Stem Cell Rep. 2014;3(3):404-413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
150 Tschaharganeh DF, Xue W, Calvisi DF, Evert M, Michurina TV, Dow LE, et al. p53-dependent Nestin regulation links tumor suppression to cellular plasticity in liver cancer. Cell. 2014;158(3):579-592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
151 Morris JPt, Yashinskie JJ, Koche R, Chandwani R, Tian S, Chen CC, et al. α-Ketoglutarate links p53 to cell fate during tumour suppression. Nature. 2019;573(7775):595-599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
152 Venkadakrishnan VB, Yamada Y, Weng K, Idahor O, Beltran H. Significance of RB Loss in Unlocking Phenotypic Plasticity in Advanced Cancers. Mol Cancer Res. 2023;21(6):497-510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
153 Yao Y, Gu X, Xu X, Ge S, Jia R. Novel insights into RB1 mutation. Cancer Lett. 2022;547:215870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
154 Knudsen ES, Pruitt SC, Hershberger PA, Witkiewicz AK, Goodrich DW. Cell Cycle and Beyond: Exploiting New RB1 Controlled Mechanisms for Cancer Therapy. Trends Cancer. 2019;5(5):308-324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
155 Guzman F, Fazeli Y, Khuu M, Salcido K, Singh S, Benavente CA. Retinoblastoma Tumor Suppressor Protein Roles in Epigenetic Regulation. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10):2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
156 Gonzalo S, García-Cao M, Fraga MF, Schotta G, Peters AH, Cotter SE, et al. Role of the RB1 family in stabilizing histone methylation at constitutive heterochromatin. Nat Cell Biol. 2005;7(4):420-428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
157 Nielsen SJ, Schneider R, Bauer UM, Bannister AJ, Morrison A, O'Carroll D, et al. Rb targets histone H3 methylation and HP1 to promoters. Nature. 2001;412(6846):561-565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
158 Narita M, Nunez S, Heard E, Narita M, Lin AW, Hearn SA, et al. Rb-mediated heterochromatin formation and silencing of E2F target genes during cellular senescence. Cell. 2003;113(6):703-716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
159 Ishak CA, Marshall AE, Passos DT, White CR, Kim SJ, Cecchini MJ, et al. An RB-EZH2 Complex Mediates Silencing of Repetitive DNA Sequences. Mol Cell. 2016;64(6):1074-1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
160 Sanidas I, Lee H, Rumde PH, Boulay G, Morris R, Golczer G, et al. Chromatin-bound RB targets promoters, enhancers, and CTCF-bound loci and is redistributed by cell-cycle progression. Mol Cell. 2022;82(18):3333-3349.E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
161 Kareta MS, Gorges LL, Hafeez S, Benayoun BA, Marro S, Zmoos AF, et al. Inhibition of pluripotency networks by the Rb tumor suppressor restricts reprogramming and tumorigenesis. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;16(1):39-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
162 Dean KC, Huang L, Chen Y, Lu X, Liu Y. An Rb1-dependent amplification loop between Ets1 and Zeb1 is evident in thymocyte differentiation and invasive lung adenocarcinoma. BMC Mol Biol. 2015;16:8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
163 Fedorova O, Parfenyev S, Daks A, Shuvalov O, Barlev NA. The Role of PTEN in Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(15):3786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
164 Yang J, Yin Y. PTEN in Chromatin Remodeling. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020;10(2):a036160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
165 Papa A, Pandolfi PP. The PTEN⁻PI3K Axis in Cancer. Biomolecules. 2019;9(4):153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
166 Ding Y, Li N, Dong B, Guo W, Wei H, Chen Q, et al. Chromatin remodeling ATPase BRG1 and PTEN are synthetic lethal in prostate cancer. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(2):759-773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
167 Xu Z, He L, Wu Y, Yang L, Li C, Wu H. PTEN regulates hematopoietic lineage plasticity via PU.1-dependent chromatin accessibility. Cell Rep. 2023;42(8):112967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
168 van Riel B, Rosenbauer F. Epigenetic control of hematopoiesis: the PU.1 chromatin connection. Biol Chem. 2014;395(11):1265-1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
169 Stambolic V, MacPherson D, Sas D, Lin Y, Snow B, Jang Y, et al. Regulation of PTEN transcription by p53. Mol Cell. 2001;8(2):317-325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
170 Tang Y, Eng C. PTEN autoregulates its expression by stabilization of p53 in a phosphatase-independent manner. Cancer Res. 2006;66(2):736-742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
171 Das SK, Lewis BA, Levens D. MYC: a complex problem. Trends Cell Biol. 2023;33(3):235-246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
172 Jha RK, Kouzine F, Levens D. MYC function and regulation in physiological perspective. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2023;11:1268275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
173 Dang CV. MYC on the path to cancer. Cell. 2012;149(1):22-35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
174 Dhanasekaran R, Deutzmann A, Mahauad-Fernandez WD, Hansen AS, Gouw AM, Felsher DW. The MYC oncogene - the grand orchestrator of cancer growth and immune evasion. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2022;19(1):23-36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
175 Wei Z, Wang S, Xu Y, Wang W, Soares F, Ahmed M, et al. MYC reshapes CTCF-mediated chromatin architecture in prostate cancer. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
176 Kwon OJ, Zhang L, Jia D, Zhou Z, Li Z, Haffner M, et al. De novo induction of lineage plasticity from human prostate luminal epithelial cells by activated AKT1 and c-Myc. Oncogene. 2020;39(48):7142-7151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
177 Gardner EE, Earlie EM, Li K, Thomas J, Hubisz MJ, Stein BD, et al. Lineage-specific intolerance to oncogenic drivers restricts histological transformation. Science. 2024;383(6683):eadj1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
178 D'Artista L, Moschopoulou AA, Barozzi I, Craig AJ, Seehawer M, Herrmann L, et al. MYC determines lineage commitment in KRAS-driven primary liver cancer development. J Hepatol. 2023;79(1):141-149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
179 Novak D, Hüser L, Elton JJ, Umansky V, Altevogt P, Utikal J. SOX2 in development and cancer biology. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020;67(Pt 1):74-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
180 Mamun MA, Mannoor K, Cao J, Qadri F, Song X. SOX2 in cancer stemness: tumor malignancy and therapeutic potentials. J Mol Cell Biol. 2020;12(2):85-98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
181 Hagey DW, Bergsland M, Muhr J. SOX2 transcription factor binding and function. Development. 2022;149(14):dev200547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
182 Vasconcelos FF, Castro DS. Transcriptional control of vertebrate neurogenesis by the proneural factor Ascl1. Front Cell Neurosci. 2014;8:412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
183 Yamada Y, Beltran H. Clinical and Biological Features of Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2021;23(2):15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
184 Baine MK, Hsieh MS, Lai WV, Egger JV, Jungbluth AA, Daneshbod Y, et al. SCLC Subtypes Defined by ASCL1, NEUROD1, POU2F3, and YAP1: A Comprehensive Immunohistochemical and Histopathologic Characterization. J Thorac Oncol. 2020;15(12):1823-1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
185 Nouruzi S, Ganguli D, Tabrizian N, Kobelev M, Sivak O, Namekawa T, et al. ASCL1 activates neuronal stem cell-like lineage programming through remodeling of the chromatin landscape in prostate cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
186 Tabrizian N, Nouruzi S, Cui CJ, Kobelev M, Namekawa T, Lodhia I, et al. ASCL1 is activated downstream of the ROR2/CREB signaling pathway to support lineage plasticity in prostate cancer. Cell Rep. 2023;42(8):112937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
187 Orstad G, Fort G, Parnell TJ, Jones A, Stubben C, Lohman B, et al. FoxA1 and FoxA2 control growth and cellular identity in NKX2-1-positive lung adenocarcinoma. Dev Cell. 2022;57(15):1866-1882.E10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
188 Tang S, Xue Y, Qin Z, Fang Z, Sun Y, Yuan C, et al. Counteracting lineage-specific transcription factor network finely tunes lung adeno-to-squamous transdifferentiation through remodeling tumor immune microenvironment. Natl Sci Rev. 2023;10(4):nwad028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
189 Han X, Li F, Fang Z, Gao Y, Li F, Fang R, et al. Transdifferentiation of lung adenocarcinoma in mice with Lkb1 deficiency to squamous cell carcinoma. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
190 Somerville TDD, Xu Y, Miyabayashi K, Tiriac H, Cleary CR, Maia-Silva D, et al. TP63-Mediated Enhancer Reprogramming Drives the Squamous Subtype of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Cell Rep. 2018;25(7):1741-1755.E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
191 McKeithen D, Graham T, Chung LW, Odero-Marah V. Snail transcription factor regulates neuroendocrine differentiation in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. Prostate. 2010;70(9):982-992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
192 Bery F, Cancel M, Guéguinou M, Potier-Cartereau M, Vandier C, Chantôme A, et al. Zeb1 and SK3 Channel Are Up-Regulated in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Promote Neuroendocrine Differentiation. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(12):2947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
193 Huang B, Lang X, Li X. The role of IL-6/JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway in cancers. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1023177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
194 Deng S, Wang C, Wang Y, Xu Y, Li X, Johnson NA, et al. Ectopic JAK-STAT activation enables the transition to a stem-like and multilineage state conferring AR-targeted therapy resistance. Nat Cancer. 2022;3(9):1071-1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
195 Ghosh S, Mitra P, Saha U, Nandi R, Jena S, Ghosh A, et al. NOTCH pathway inactivation reprograms stem-like oral cancer cells to JAK-STAT dependent state and provides the opportunity of synthetic lethality. Transl Oncol. 2023;32:101669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
196 Wong TL, Loh JJ, Lu S, Yan HHN, Siu HC, Xi R, et al. ADAR1-mediated RNA editing of SCD1 drives drug resistance and self-renewal in gastric cancer. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
197 Seeneevassen L, Zaafour A, Sifré E, Genevois C, Nguyen TL, Pobiedonoscew Y, et al. Targeting metastasis-initiating cancer stem cells in gastric cancer with leukaemia inhibitory factor. Cell Death Discov. 2024;10(1):120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
198 Massagué J, Sheppard D. TGF-β signaling in health and disease. Cell. 2023;186(19):4007-4037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
199 Lee JH, Massagué J. TGF-β in developmental and fibrogenic EMTs. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;86(Pt 2):136-145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
200 Lichtman MK, Otero-Vinas M, Falanga V. Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) isoforms in wound healing and fibrosis. Wound Repair Regen. 2016;24(2):215-222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
201 Saito A, Horie M, Nagase T. TGF-β Signaling in Lung Health and Disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(8):2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
202 Shukla N, Naik A, Moryani K, Soni M, Shah J, Dave H. TGF-β at the crossroads of multiple prognosis in breast cancer, and beyond. Life Sci. 2022;310:121011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
203 Gough NR, Xiang X, Mishra L. TGF-β Signaling in Liver, Pancreas, and Gastrointestinal Diseases and Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2021;161(2):434-452.E15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
204 Lu S, Kim HS, Cao Y, Bedi K, Zhao L, Narayanan IV, et al. KMT2D links TGF-β signaling to noncanonical activin pathway and regulates pancreatic cancer cell plasticity. Int J Cancer. 2023;153(3):552-570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
205 Qiang L, Hoffman MT, Ali LR, Castillo JI, Kageler L, Temesgen A, et al. Transforming Growth Factor-β Blockade in Pancreatic Cancer Enhances Sensitivity to Combination Chemotherapy. Gastroenterology. 2023;165(4):874-890.E10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
206 Jalalirad M, Haddad TC, Salisbury JL, Radisky D, Zhang M, Schroeder M, et al. Aurora-A kinase oncogenic signaling mediates TGF-β-induced triple-negative breast cancer plasticity and chemoresistance. Oncogene. 2021;40(14):2509-2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
207 Douville J, Beaulieu R, Balicki D. ALDH1 as a functional marker of cancer stem and progenitor cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2009;18(1):17-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
208 Wei D, Peng JJ, Gao H, Zhang T, Tan Y, Hu YH. ALDH1 Expression and the Prognosis of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Heart Lung Circ. 2015;24(8):780-788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
209 Fan C, Wang Q, Kuipers TB, Cats D, Iyengar PV, Hagenaars SC, et al. LncRNA LITATS1 suppresses TGF-β-induced EMT and cancer cell plasticity by potentiating TβRI degradation. Embo j. 2023;42(10):e112806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
210 Song B, Park SH, Zhao JC, Fong KW, Li S, Lee Y, et al. Targeting FOXA1-mediated repression of TGF-β signaling suppresses castration-resistant prostate cancer progression. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(2):569-582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
211 He MX, Cuoco MS, Crowdis J, Bosma-Moody A, Zhang Z, Bi K, et al. Transcriptional mediators of treatment resistance in lethal prostate cancer. Nat Med. 2021;27(3):426-433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
212 Hao Y, Bjerke GA, Pietrzak K, Melhuish TA, Han Y, Turner SD, et al. TGFβ signaling limits lineage plasticity in prostate cancer. PLoS Genet. 2018;14(5):e1007409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
213 Zhou B, Lin W, Long Y, Yang Y, Zhang H, Wu K, et al. Notch signaling pathway: architecture, disease, and therapeutics. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
214 Choi J, Jang YJ, Dabrowska C, Iich E, Evans KV, Hall H, et al. Release of Notch activity coordinated by IL-1β signalling confers differentiation plasticity of airway progenitors via Fosl2 during alveolar regeneration. Nat Cell Biol. 2021;23(9):953-966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
215 Bohin N, Keeley TM, Carulli AJ, Walker EM, Carlson EA, Gao J, et al. Rapid Crypt Cell Remodeling Regenerates the Intestinal Stem Cell Niche after Notch Inhibition. Stem Cell Rep. 2020;15(1):156-170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
216 Ku SY, Wang Y, Garcia MM, Yamada Y, Mizuno K, Long MD, et al. Notch signaling suppresses neuroendocrine differentiation and alters the immune microenvironment in advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Invest. 2024;134(17):e175217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
217 Li X, Yan X, Wang Y, Kaur B, Han H, Yu J. The Notch signaling pathway: a potential target for cancer immunotherapy. J Hematol Oncol. 2023;16(1):45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
218 Ma J, Gong Y, Sun X, Liu C, Li X, Sun Y, et al. Tumor suppressor FRMD3 controls mammary epithelial cell fate determination via notch signaling pathway. Sci Adv. 2024;10(27):eadk8958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
219 Liu Y, Yang Q. The roles of EZH2 in cancer and its inhibitors. Med Oncol. 2023;40(6):167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
220 Venkadakrishnan VB, Presser AG, Singh R, Booker MA, Traphagen NA, Weng K, et al. Lineage-specific canonical and non-canonical activity of EZH2 in advanced prostate cancer subtypes. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):6779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
221 Kaarijärvi R, Kaljunen H, Nappi L, Fazli L, Kung SHY, Hartikainen JM, et al. DPYSL5 is highly expressed in treatment-induced neuroendocrine prostate cancer and promotes lineage plasticity via EZH2/PRC2. Commun Biol. 2024;7(1):108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
222 Hino S, Kohrogi K, Nakao M. Histone demethylase LSD1 controls the phenotypic plasticity of cancer cells. Cancer Sci. 2016;107(9):1187-1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
223 Han W, Liu M, Han D, Li M, Toure AA, Wang Z, et al. RB1 loss in castration-resistant prostate cancer confers vulnerability to LSD1 inhibition. Oncogene. 2022;41(6):852-864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
224 Mandl A, Jasmine S, Krueger T, Kumar R, Coleman IM, Dalrymple SL, et al. LSD1 inhibition suppresses ASCL1 and de-represses YAP1 to drive potent activity against neuroendocrine prostate cancer. bioRxiv. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
225 Garcia-Martinez L, Adams AM, Chan HL, Nakata Y, Weich N, Stransky S, et al. Endocrine resistance and breast cancer plasticity are controlled by CoREST. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2022;29(11):1122-1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
226 Feng J, Xu G, Liu J, Zhang N, Li L, Ji J, et al. Phosphorylation of LSD1 at Ser112 is crucial for its function in induction of EMT and metastasis in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159(3):443-456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
227 Wang J, Lu F, Ren Q, Sun H, Xu Z, Lan R, et al. Novel histone demethylase LSD1 inhibitors selectively target cancer cells with pluripotent stem cell properties. Cancer Res. 2011;71(23):7238-7249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
228 Mohan KN. DNMT1: catalytic and non-catalytic roles in different biological processes. Epigenomics. 2022;14(10):629-643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
229 Reina-Campos M, Linares JF, Duran A, Cordes T, L'Hermitte A, Badur MG, et al. Increased Serine and One-Carbon Pathway Metabolism by PKCλ/ι Deficiency Promotes Neuroendocrine Prostate Cancer. Cancer Cell. 2019;35(3):385-400.E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
230 Yamada Y, Venkadakrishnan VB, Mizuno K, Bakht M, Ku SY, Garcia MM, et al. Targeting DNA methylation and B7-H3 in RB1-deficient and neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2023;15(722):eadf6732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
231 Liu H, Song Y, Qiu H, Liu Y, Luo K, Yi Y, et al. Downregulation of FOXO3a by DNMT1 promotes breast cancer stem cell properties and tumorigenesis. Cell Death Differ. 2020;27(3):966-983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
232 Liu X, Li C, Zhang R, Xiao W, Niu X, Ye X, et al. The EZH2- H3K27me3-DNMT1 complex orchestrates epigenetic silencing of the wwc1 gene, a Hippo/YAP pathway upstream effector, in breast cancer epithelial cells. Cell Signal. 2018;51:243-256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
233 Zagorac S, Alcala S, Fernandez Bayon G, Bou Kheir T, Schoenhals M, González-Neira A, et al. DNMT1 Inhibition Reprograms Pancreatic Cancer Stem Cells via Upregulation of the miR-17-92 Cluster. Cancer Res. 2016;76(15):4546-4558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
234 Chen W, Zhang Z, Zhang S, Zhu P, Ko JK, Yung KK. MUC1: Structure, Function, and Clinic Application in Epithelial Cancers. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(12):6567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
235 Yasumizu Y, Rajabi H, Jin C, Hata T, Pitroda S, Long MD, et al. MUC1-C regulates lineage plasticity driving progression to neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
236 Hagiwara M, Fushimi A, Yamashita N, Bhattacharya A, Rajabi H, Long MD, et al. MUC1-C activates the PBAF chromatin remodeling complex in integrating redox balance with progression of human prostate cancer stem cells. Oncogene. 2021;40(30):4930-4940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
237 Hagiwara M, Yasumizu Y, Yamashita N, Rajabi H, Fushimi A, Long MD, et al. MUC1-C Activates the BAF (mSWI/SNF) Complex in Prostate Cancer Stem Cells. Cancer Res. 2021;81(4):1111-1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
238 Haratake N, Ozawa H, Morimoto Y, Yamashita N, Daimon T, Bhattacharya A, et al. MUC1-C Is a Common Driver of Acquired Osimertinib Resistance in NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2024;19(3):434-450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
239 Yamashita N, Kufe D. Addiction of Cancer Stem Cells to MUC1-C in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Progression. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(15):8219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
240 Yamashita N, Withers H, Morimoto Y, Bhattacharya A, Haratake N, Daimon T, et al. MUC1-C integrates aerobic glycolysis with suppression of oxidative phosphorylation in triple-negative breast cancer stem cells. iScience. 2023;26(11):108168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
241 Kufe DW. Chronic activation of MUC1-C in wound repair promotes progression to cancer stem cells. J Cancer Metastasis Treat. 2022;8:12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
242 Dvorak HF. Tumors: wounds that do not heal. Similarities between tumor stroma generation and wound healing. N Engl J Med. 1986;315(26):1650-1659. [Google Scholar]
243 Ireland AS, Micinski AM, Kastner DW, Guo B, Wait SJ, Spainhower KB, et al. MYC Drives Temporal Evolution of Small Cell Lung Cancer Subtypes by Reprogramming Neuroendocrine Fate. Cancer cell. 2020;38(1):60-78.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
244 Mollaoglu G, Guthrie MR, Bohm S, Bragelmann J, Can I, Ballieu PM, et al. MYC Drives Progression of Small Cell Lung Cancer to a Variant Neuroendocrine Subtype with Vulnerability to Aurora Kinase Inhibition. Cancer cell. 2017;31(2):270-285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Download PDF

Share this article

About Us Journals Join Us Submit Fees Contact