Skip to main content

TGFβ signaling networks in ovarian cancer progression and plasticity

Abstract

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in women. Late-stage diagnosis with significant tumor burden, accompanied by recurrence and chemotherapy resistance, contributes to this poor prognosis. These morbidities are known to be tied to events associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in cancer. During EMT, localized tumor cells alter their polarity, cell–cell junctions, cell–matrix interactions, acquire motility and invasiveness and an exaggerated potential for metastatic spread. Key triggers for EMT include the Transforming Growth Factor-β (TGFβ) family of growth factors which are actively produced by a wide array of cell types within a specific tumor and metastatic environment. Although TGFβ can act as either a tumor suppressor or promoter in cancer, TGFβ exhibits its pro-tumorigenic functions at least in part via EMT. TGFβ regulates EMT both at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional levels as outlined here. Despite recent advances in TGFβ based therapeutics, limited progress has been seen for ovarian cancers that are in much need of new therapeutic strategies. Here, we summarize and discuss several recent insights into the underlying signaling mechanisms of the TGFβ isoforms in EMT in the unique metastatic environment of EOCs and the current therapeutic interventions that may be relevant.

Introduction

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a mechanism of trans-differentiation of epithelial cells into mesenchymal cells, wherein polarized epithelial cells alter their contacts with their neighboring cells, basement membrane and the surrounding tissues [1]. EMT is critical for embryogenesis and organ development as first reported in 1995 and since has been studied in great detail in both physiological and pathological conditions including wound healing, chronic disease with fibrotic changes and cancer progression [2, 3]. The presence of mesenchymal cells is associated with metastatic dissemination in cancer [4] as these cells can alter the extracellular matrix (ECM), and are more invasive and motile. On the opposite end of EMT is mesenchymal to epithelial transition (MET), which also occurs during development, wound healing, fibrosis and in cancer, where it may support metastatic outgrowth at distant sites [5]. Between EMT and MET, incomplete or partial EMT may occur, leading to hybrid states with simultaneous expression of epithelial (E) and mesenchymal (M) markers (E/M), observed in multiple cancer types [6, 7]. These intermediate E/M forms can differentiate into either mesenchymal cell types via EMT or revert back to an epithelial state by MET mechanisms providing a spectrum of plasticity opportunities to the cells [8]. The molecular and transcriptional networks regulating EMT are central to the process and are tightly regulated during both development and disease progression [2, 3]. Key transcription factors (TFs) that repress the epithelial phenotype act either directly (SNAI1, SNAI2, SNAI3/SMUC, ZEB1 and ZEB2) or indirectly (TWIST1, TWIST2 and E2.2, GSC, SIX1, and FOXC2) on E-box consensus sequences of E-cadherin’s promoter to repress E-cadherin expression [9,10,11] which has demonstrated itself to be a key event in EMT. As such, transcriptional control of EMT has been a subject of intense focus revealing multiple redundant, overlapping and tissue specific distinct roles for the TFs’ in this process. Most evident are studies on TWIST and ZEB1 that have different roles in breast versus pancreatic cancers [12,13,14,15,16]. It is also increasingly apparent that EMT regulation is facilitated at multiple non-transcriptional levels including epigenetic, post-translational modifications of the TFs and their associated proteins, and via non-coding RNAs. In recent years, in-depth examination of the EMT-TFs and their analysis in vivo and in cancer patients has helped resolve some of the earlier controversies around EMT’s role in metastatic dissemination even in cancer cells or clusters of cells that lack so called EMT hallmark morphological differences [17, 18]. EMT-TF expression, and their activities themselves are regulated by extracellular stimuli, including but not limited to growth factors such as TGFβ and stressors such as inflammation and hypoxia [19, 20]. Such stimuli are tightly coupled to the specific tumor microenvironment (TME). Given the array of cellular and non-cellular components in each TME, unifying principles are challenging to develop and can only emerge upon a complete understanding of all TME components and their roles in a cancer specific manner. Much has been written about EMT and its relationship to TGFβ in cancer metastasis in the past decade [20,21,22], however in light of significant emerging knowledge on the cellular and acellular factors in the unique cancer microenvironments, new analysis is warranted. Towards this end herein, we focus on the role of EMT and TGFβ in the unique metastatic environment of ovarian cancers. Ovarian cancer follows a metastatic trajectory quite distinct from most other cancers. Patients continue to suffer from a lack of effective targeted therapies, despite the surge in EMT and TGFβ based therapeutic approaches for multiple tumor types.

TGFβ family in ovarian and related cancers

TGFβ superfamily

The discovery of the TGFβs’ can be traced as far back as 1976 when De Larco and Todaro first published in Nature, the presence of a group of proteins isolated from conditioned media of malignant tumors, that can induce morphological transformation in fibroblasts and promote growth of cells in soft agar. These proteins were called Transforming Growth Factor (TGF) now widely known as the TGFβ family [23]. Later, three isoforms of TGFβ (TGFβ1, TGFβ2, and TGFβ3) were characterized from this mixture [24,25,26,27,28,29] and were found to be encoded from individual genes located on different chromosomes [30, 31].The TGFβ superfamily is a large and expanding group of regulatory polypeptides. TGFβ1 is the archetype [32] with over 50 new members including TGFβ1-3, bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), growth and differentiation factors (GDFs), activins/inhibins (INHBA-E,INHA), and glial-derived neurotrophic factors (GDNFs), as well as Müllerian inhibiting substance (MIS), also referred to as anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), nodal growth differentiation factor (Nodal), and left–right determination factor (Lefty) [33, 34] (Table 1).The TGFβ family members exist as either homo- or hetero-dimeric polypeptides, sharing a conserved cysteine knot structure [35]. All TGFβ isoforms are produced as a latent complex with an N-terminal latency-associated peptide (LAP) and secreted efficiently through interactions with latent TGFβ binding protein (LTBP) [36]. These complexes are rapidly stored in the ECM. Activation can then occur either by proteolytic removal of LAP or via cell-ECM generated forces by integrins (αvβ6 or αvβ8) interacting directly with conserved RGD motifs on the LAP of TGFβ1 and TGFβ3 [37,38,39,40,41] or indirectly via thrombospondin1 [42] and glycoprotein-A repetitions predominant (GARP) in platelets and regulatory T cells (Treg) [43]. Mature TGFβ dimers can then bind receptors to elicit signaling [44]. However not all TGFβs are created the same in terms of physiological functions and in pathologies. TGFβ1 knockout mice succumb to massive weight loss and death at three to five weeks of age due to uncontrolled systemic inflammation, causing lethal immune system defects and multiple inflammatory lesions [45]. Changes in endothelial cell differentiation and hematopoiesis was also reported in the yolk sac of TGFβ1 null mice [46]. The majority of TGFβ2 knockout mice also die before or shortly after birth due to developmental craniofacial defects and defects in the heart, lung, ear, eye, genitourinary tract, and skeleton. TGFβ3 null mice exhibit cleft palate and pulmonary developmental delays that result in early death [47, 48]. Although cleft palate and lung developmental delays were reported in both TGFβ2 and TGFβ3 null mice, the underlying mechanisms were shown to be different [49] with TGFβ3 specifically inducing EMT in the palate [50]. Evidence of cooperativity between the ligands also exists, as binding of TGFβ2 to its receptors is facilitated by TGFβ3 during certain physiological processes [51, 52] and in some contexts, TGFβ1 can cooperate with TGFβ2 to induce EMT [53].

Table 1 TGFβ receptors and SMADs’

Immunohistological and in situ hybridization studies show overlapping spatiotemporal expression of all TGFβ isoforms in mouse embryos in cartilage, bone, muscle, heart, kidney, ear, eye, blood vessels, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, central nervous system, liver, and skin. No TGFβ3 protein expression was found in adrenal glands [54] indicating tissue specific distribution of the different isoforms of TGFβ. In the blood vessels, TGFβ1/2 were observed only in smooth muscles while higher levels of TGFβ3 are present in both smooth muscles and the endothelium [54, 55]. In the ovary, TGFβ2 and 3 are present during embryonic development [56] with TGFβ3 mRNA highly expressed in the ovarian surface epithelium (OSE) indicative of its possible pivotal role in the pathophysiology of the OSE [57]. Additionally, ovaries express TGFβ2 in the surface epithelium as well as in the stroma [58]. Differential mRNA expression of all three isoforms were found in fallopian tube epithelial cells with TGFβ1 mostly detected in epithelial cells and TGFβ2/3 equally expressed in both epithelial and non-epithelial cells [59]. TGFβ1 and 2 have demonstrated roles in ovarian cancers, however, it is not clear if TGFβ3 plays a direct role in EOC despite a few lines of evidence indicating potential roles in ovarian angiogenesis [60]. While other members including BMPs, Activins and Inhibins’ have important physiological and pathological roles in the ovary and in ovarian cancer [61,62,63,64,65], here, we focus solely on the TGFβ isoforms.

Signal transduction mechanisms of TGFβ

Signaling and response to TGFβs’ is regulated at multiple levels, including ligand synthesis and activation [66, 67], presence of agonists and antagonists [68, 69] and cell surface receptors and co-receptors expression [44, 70]. The mature forms of TGFβ1-3 have 97% similarity and hence, exhibit redundancy in binding receptors [71, 72]. However, conformational differences exist between TGFβ3 and TGFβ1/2. TGFβ3 is structurally either open or exists as a mixture of closed and open conformations, which leads to more flexible ligand receptor interactions, while TGFβ1 and TGFβ2 are found largely in closed conformations. These differences are thought to play a role in differential biological functions of TGFβ3 as they may impact signal duration and amplitude, a key component in determining TGFβ signaling outcomes [73, 74].

The receptors and SMAD dependent transcriptional control

Cellular response to TGFβ occurs via an extensively characterized and defined cascade of events that are initiated upon binding of ligand to specific receptors [44, 75]. The TGFβ family kinase receptors are all single-pass membrane spanning serine-threonine kinase receptors, consisting of two subfamilies: Type I and Type II receptors (summarized in Table 1). Despite the large number of TGFβ superfamily members, the number of receptors is limited to five type II and seven type I (ALK1-7) receptors that are essential for signaling but can also exist in multiple heteromeric combinations [62, 75, 76]. An additional class of receptors are the co-receptors/Type III receptors (endoglin and betaglycan) that also bind ligand but act as either ligand reservoirs, modulate intracellular trafficking of internalized ligand and receptor, or increase affinity of the ligand for the serine threonine kinases [70] implicating them as critical for fine tuning signaling responses. Betaglycan and endoglin act as co-receptors for all three isoforms of TGFβ although betaglycan shows higher affinity to TGFβ2 and endoglin to TGFβ1 and 3 [77,78,79]. Within the heteromeric receptor complexes, the type II receptors phosphorylate and activate the type I receptors [80]. This activation initiates signaling via the SMAD-dependent pathways with the phosphorylated GS-domain on TGFβRI serving as a docking site for the receptor-regulated SMAD proteins (R-SMADs), allowing the specific recognition and phosphorylation of the R-SMADs at the SSXS motif in their carboxyl-termini (Fig. 1). The SMAD proteins can be classified as R-SMADs (SMAD1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9); common-partner SMAD (SMAD4), and the inhibitory SMADs (SMAD6 and 7). The inhibitory SMADs antagonize intracellular signaling through interactions with the activated receptors and R-SMADs and increasing their degradation (Fig. 1). SMAD6 preferentially inhibits BMP signaling [81] while SMAD7 inhibits both the TGFβ and BMP signaling axes [82].

Fig. 1
figure1

TGFβ signaling pathways in EMT. Cleavage of the pro-domain latency-associated peptide (LAP) releases active TGFβ that can bind cell surface receptors. Cell surface receptors include the Type III receptor (TGFβRIII/betaglycan), Type II receptor (TGFβRII) and the Type I receptor (TGFβRI) (also see Table 1). TGFβ elicits cellular responses by forming ligand-receptor ternary complexes. Constitutively active TGFβRII transphosphorylates TGFβRI on Ser-thr residues, activating its kinase activity, which in turn phosphorylates SMAD2/3 (blue). Phosphorylated SMAD2/3 forms heterocomplexes (heterotrimeric or dimeric) with SMAD4 and accumulates in the nucleus to regulate expression of genes associated with EMT. SMAD7 (red) terminates signaling by increasing turnover of the kinase receptors. TGFβ also mediates cellular responses via alternate signaling pathways including (from L-R) TAK1 activation by TGFβRI mediated TRAF6 ubiquitination that can induce NF-κB, JNK, p38MAP kinase signaling; induction of PI3K and AKT-mTOR signaling; TGFβ also regulates the WNT/β-catenin pathway via AKT inhibition of GSK-3β, releasing β-catenin for nuclear accumulation; TGFβ induces activation of RhoA-ROCK signaling; activates MEK/ERK pathway via phosphorylation of ShcA by TGFβRI leading to Ras activation and downstream MAP Kinases; TGFβ promotes interaction between CDC42/RAC1 and PAK2. Activation of TGFβ signaling either via SMAD or alternate pathways can induce expression of several EMT-TFs such as TWIST, SNAIL, ZEB to promote EMT and lead to repression of E-Cadherin. miRNAs and lncRNAs also play a role in TGFβ mediated EMT by either inhibiting or stimulating EMT. miR-34a, -324-5p antagonizes TGFβ-SMAD induction of EMT whereas miR-155, −9, −10b, −181a activate EMT

The type I receptor mediates signaling into either of two distinct R-SMAD pathways: TGF-β-SMAD pathway utilizes SMAD2/3 while the BMP-SMAD pathway utilizes SMAD1/5/8 [83]. However significant recent evidence [76, 84, 85] indicates that these SMADs are not exclusive to TGFβ or BMP respectively, adding to the complexity of responses. Phosphorylated complexes of SMAD2/3 or SMAD1/5/8 form a higher-order complex with the co-SMAD4 which then accumulates in the nucleus and binds to regions on the DNA to control transcription of several target genes (Fig. 1). The identification of the membrane receptors and SMAD proteins and analyses of the signaling kinetics in detail [86] have revealed that the diverse cellular responses generated by TGFβ in cells, do not necessarily connote the use of different signaling pathways, but rather, the different interpretation of outputs from the same signaling pathway.

Both the R-SMADs and the co-SMAD (SMAD4) have two conserved Mad homology domains (MH1 and MH2) at the amino and carboxyl terminus respectively [87] separated by a linker region. All R-SMADs except for SMAD2 can bind directly to DNA, via the MH1 domain, although their affinity for DNA is relatively low (Kd ≈ 1 × 10−7 M) [87] compared to other sequence specific transcription factors. SMADs bind to short sequences (SMAD-binding element SBEs) [87] and it is worth stating that a single SBE is not sufficient to recruit an activated SMAD complex. Due to this weak affinity of SMADs to the DNA, specificity of recruitment to DNA usually requires additional protein binding interacting partners via the MH2 domain including co-activators and co-repressors to drive the activation/repression transcriptional program [86, 88] thereby contributing to the contextual responses to TGFβs [89]. Both in the cytoplasm and in the nucleus, the SMAD proteins also undergo additional phosphorylation events in their linker regions that enables peak transcriptional activity including the phosphorylation by cyclin-dependent kinase 8/9 (CDK8/9) a component of the RNA POLII mediator complex and glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK3), resulting in the recruitment of YAP and PIN1 respectively to promote transcription and SMAD turnover [90,91,92]. Notably, CDK8 and YAP1 are required for EMT responses and TGFβ dependent metastasis in multiple models [93, 94]. Thus, TGFβ signals are interpreted in different ways resulting in the diverse responses depending on the cellular context, particularly relevant to the pathophysiology of cancer and EMT. Much has also been discussed about TGFβ and its co-operation with other signaling pathways including the Ras-MAPK and Wnt pathways in promoting EMT by increasing expression of the transcriptional repressors of E-cadherin TWIST, SNAIL and ZEB1 [20] (Fig. 1). Co-repressor complexes of SNAIL1 and SMAD4 can co-silence several tight junction proteins during EMT demonstrating SMAD dependency in EMT induction by TGFβ [95]. Much of the current research focus is on each individual TGFβ member, but the interplay between the different members in cancer and EMT remains to be fully elucidated.

SMAD dependent non-transcriptional mechanisms

Transcriptional control is the most investigated outcome of SMAD activation downstream of TGFβ, however significant SMAD functions in the cytoplasm have emerged particularly in RNA processing. SMADs have been implicated in RNA splicing, micro-RNA processing, as well as directly in miRNA mediated EMT (Fig. 1). For instance, miR-23a targets E-cadherin through the TGFβ/SMAD pathway to promote EMT [96]. Other miRNAs such as miR-155 [97], miR-9 [98] and miR10b [99] can also promote EMT via direct targeting of E-cadherin mRNA [100]. There are also numerous inhibitory miRNAs that counter the effect of TGFβ 1/2 on EMT; for example, miR-34a inhibits SMAD4 [101] and miR-324-5p suppresses TGFβ2 dependent EMT [102]. In ovarian cancer, the effect of a subset of miRNAs on EMT has also been well demonstrated as miR-181a promotes TGFβ mediated EMT via the repression of SMAD7 [103]. In contrast, miR-200s are highly expressed in ovarian cancer and correlate with an epithelial phenotype acting to inhibit EMT by targeting SMAD2 and SMAD3 [104]. A few additional mechanisms include roles for RNA binding proteins such as hnRNP E1(heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins) involved in mRNA processing events wherein, binding of a structural 33-nucleotide TGFβ-activated translation (BAT) element in the 3’Untranslated region of disabled-2 (Dab2) and interleukin-like EMT inducer (ILEI) transcript in response to TGFβ signaling promotes EMT [105].

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNA) have also emerged as key regulators of TGFβ mediated EMT (Fig. 1) including H19 [106, 107], LINK-A [108] DNM30S [109] MALAT1 [110, 111], PVT1 [112] PE [113], and BORG [114,115,116]. Many act as sponges for miRNAs as in the case of H19, MALAT1, LncRNA-ATB and lncRNA PTAR that sponge miR-370-3p, miR-30a, miR-200 and miR-101-3p respectively to enhance either ZEB1/2 or TWIST1 expression during EMT or during EMT mediated metastatic outgrowth as in the case of BORG [110, 114,115,116,117,118]. MALAT1, which is frequently upregulated in EOC, also partakes in EMT by interacting with EZH2 and by recruiting chromatin modifiers [119,120,121] and induces formation of a lncRNA-protein complex containing Smads, SETD2 and PPM1A phosphatase leading to dephosphorylation of Smad2/3 and termination of TGFβ/Smad signaling [111]. Lastly, an under investigated area of regulation of EMT by TGFβ in the cytoplasm is SMAD’s potential role in mitochondrial function [122] that has emerged as an important player in regulating ovarian cancer metastasis [123]. Specifically, SMAD2 interacts with mitofusin2 (MFN2) and Rab and Ras Interactor 1 (RIN1) to promote mitochondrial fusion [122]. Whether these specific interactions result in mitochondrial and /or metabolic alterations and EMT however remain to be tested.

SMAD independent pathways

TGFβs can also activate a series of non-SMAD signaling pathways with similar and/or delayed kinetics to the SMAD pathways in a context dependent manner [124]. Most commonly, these pathways are activated directly by the Type II and Type I receptors or through the Type III co- receptors [124,125,126,127]. In the context of EMT, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways Jun-N terminal kinase (JNK), extracellular-signal-regulated kinases 1/2 (ERK1/ERK2), p38 and PI3K kinases; AKT/PKB pathway, small GTP-binding proteins, RhoA, Rac1 and CDC42, and mTOR; protein tyrosine kinases such as PTK2, SRC and ABL, and the NF-κB pathway and Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway have been examined in TGFβ dependent EMT and are reviewed elsewhere in detail and are summarized in Fig. 1 [128,129,130]. An example is the activation of ERK MAP kinase by TGFβ1 via the phosphorylation of the scaffold protein ShcA by the Type I receptor ALK5 [131] or phosphorylation of the Type II receptor directly by Src [132] leading to Ras and MAPK activation [133]. Consistently, inhibition of ERK MAP kinases inhibits TGFβ induced EMT [134]. Other mechanisms include ubiquitination mechanisms that also depend on Type I receptor interactions with tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated factor 6 (TRAF6) and the subsequent activation of the MAPKKK TAK1 upstream activator of JNK and p38 [135, 136] which is required for TGFβ-induced EMT, in non-ovarian cancers [128, 137]. TGFβ2 has also been shown to utilize both SMAD and non SMAD mechanisms in a subset of cancers to promote EMT and invasion via autophagic responses [138, 139]. Much like the Type I receptor, the Type II receptor TGFβRII can also phosphorylate other proteins besides the TGFβ receptors to impact EMT. At the level of cell- cell junctions, TGFβ regulates RhoA activity through Par6 interactions with TGFβRI leading to TGFβRII mediated phosphorylation of Par6 [140] and subsequent RhoA degradation at tight junctions [140] (Fig. 1). Thus, the TGFβ serine threonine kinases can have substrates beyond the SMADs and TGFβ receptors and vice versa the receptors can be phosphorylated by a variety of kinases, that may be relevant during EMT and other process. Given that the Type II receptors of the TGFβ family have been identified in genomic studies as driver protein kinases in about 5–15% of cancers [141], identification of all their substrates will likely shed light on additional mechanisms including EMT in cancer.

TGFβ alterations and sources in epithelial ovarian cancer

Mutation hotspots exist in genes that encode a subset of TGFβ ligands and receptors (TGFβR2, AVCR2A, BMPR2), and SMADs (SMAD2, SMAD4) in many non-gynecological cancers [142]. In high grade serous EOCs’ (HGS), amplification frequency of the TGFβ pathway components listed above was found to be high, consistent with high genomic instability of these EOCs [142,143,144]. In the fallopian tube which is one of the sites of tumor initiation and early metastasis of HGS cancers, all three TGFβ isoforms and their receptors are expressed, with most reports indicating elevation of all three isoforms in primary, metastatic and recurrent EOCs compared to normal ovaries [58, 59]. However, a clear prognostic value for these changes has only recently emerged with increased access to genomic data, publicly available data sets and tools for investigators to analyze these including TCGA, KMplotter, Oncomine and DepMap to indicate a few. Such studies have revealed lack of a robust correlation between TGFβ1 expression and survival outcomes in women with ovarian cancer. However most notably, increased TGFβ2 and TGFβ3 mRNA expression were associated with poorer prognosis based on worse progression-free survival (PFS) and reduced overall survival (OS) [145]. While the utility of the TGFβ ligand expression as a biomarker continues to be debated, there is significant evidence that all isoforms are produced albeit at different locations and to different degrees. Indeed the source of TGFβ in ovarian cancers has been reported to be not just the tumor cells, but also the peritoneal mesothelium and tumor infiltrating cells [146]. Thus, understanding the specialized local sources and mechanisms of latent TGFβ activation during metastasis is likely more relevant to delineating specific TGFβ dependent outcomes in ovarian cancer.

EMT and metastasis in epithelial ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer subtypes and metastatic route

Ovarian cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths in women accounting for 4.4% mortality worldwide [147] in part due to inadequate prevention and detection methods, and ineffective and insufficient therapies for advanced stage patients (Stage III or Stage IV). Ovarian cancers can be classified based on their cell of origin as either epithelial, germ or stromal type [148]. Epithelial tumors are more common in the population and include low and high grade serous (HGS), endometrial, clear cell and mucinous subtypes. Within the epithelial tumors, significant genomic heterogeneity exists and an in depth understanding of the differences between the subtypes is in fact required to improve precision medicine for these cancers [149]. The most common and aggressive subtype are the HGS, marked by a p53 mutational signature, early genetic instability and genomic heterogeneity [150, 151]. Gene expression profiling and subsequent clustering of these HGS cancers has led to the establishment of additional molecular subclasses that have been evaluated by TCGA as well [152]. In accordance with gene expression signatures, specific clusters were identified and divided into mesenchymal, immunoreactive, differentiated, and proliferative. In comparing survival outcomes, the immunoreactive subclass showed the best survival outcomes among all [153]. Additional classifications have also been proposed based on lesion size and spread in the peritoneum [154]. Notably, comparing EMT gene signatures revealed that peritoneal spread made up primarily of bigger implants correlated significantly with a reduced epithelial status as compared to widespread smaller lesions [154]. Of all patients diagnosed with serous ovarian carcinoma, ~ 15% have germline BRCA mutations [155]. Although BRCA1 and BRCA2 are intimately involved in DNA damage repair, direct links to TGFβ related EMT in ovarian cancer are emerging. A recent study in ovarian cancer reported that loss of endogenous BRCA1 dampens the tumor suppressive/growth inhibitory effect of TGFβ [156]. Several studies in breast cancer have established links through either BRCA1 dependent transcriptional regulation of EMT transcription factors, cytoskeletal proteins or micro RNAs which may indirectly support TGFβ dependent EMT [97]. Whether these mechanisms are active in ovarian cancers is currently unknown. Identifying the precise site of origin (ovary versus fallopian tube) and mapping the discrete metastatic steps in ovarian cancer has been challenging as compared to other cancer types. However, significant genetic and whole exome sequencing data point to the involvement of p53 mutated serous tubal intraepithelial carcinomas (STIC) lesions in the fallopian tube early on, with subsequent or continued metastasis into the fallopian tube epithelium, ovaries, peritoneum, omentum, uterus, pelvic walls and occasionally to the rectum and bladder [157,158,159,160] (Fig. 2). EOC metastasis is thus largely transcoelomic, with some evidence of hematogenous and lymphatic spread [161, 162] (Fig. 2). However, the contributions of hematogenous and lymphatic spread of EOC metastasis remain limited and somewhat controversial.

Fig. 2
figure2

EMT events in ovarian cancer metastasis. In step 1. FTSECs in the fallopian tube develop STIC lesions with characteristic alterations in TP53 that develop into HGS cancers in the fallopian tube and the ovaries. Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) cells detach and shed into the peritoneal fluid for transcoelomic spread or enter the blood vessels leading to hematogenous metastasis. In Step 2, shed EOCs in the ascites retain epithelial characteristics, undergo EMT, or acquire mesenchymal characteristics, or enter a partial E/M state, forming anoikis resistant cell aggregates. Ascites flow facilitates aggregate attachment and spread throughout the peritoneal cavity leading to cell aggregate ‘adhesions’ to the peritoneal membrane that covers the visceral organs and pelvic and abdominal cavities. Such adhesions in Step 3 can undergo MET (reverse EMT) to acquire an epithelial phenotype enabling the cells to establish and grow at secondary sites including at the omentum. At the peritoneal interface, cancer cells invade PMCs facilitated by integrins and TGFβ, developing secondary tumors and metastasis. FTSEC - fallopian tube secretory epithelial cells, STIC - serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, HGSC - high grade serous cancer, EOC - epithelial ovarian cancer, MET - Mesenchymal to epithelial transition, PMCs - peritoneal mesothelial cells, TGFβ - Transforming growth factor-β

Role of EMT in initiation of HGS EOC metastasis

EMT is part of the normal ovarian physiology during oocyte release [163]. Thus, it is likely that EOC tumor cells retain the capacity to transform and convert into a more mesenchymal state naturally and thereby invade into the peritoneum. One accepted model of peritoneal spread involves the detachment and shedding of cells from the tumor, which would likely require weakening of some cell–cell junctions and cell-ECM interactions (a hallmark of EMT) followed by survival under anchorage independence, re-attachment to new locations and establishment of new colonies within the transcoelomic/intraperitoneal cavity (Fig. 2). The detachment/shedding can be as single cells or clusters of cells as both are detected in the ascites of advanced EOC patients [164] (Fig. 2). Both cell survival and invasion events are associated with a mesenchymal gene and protein expression profile as cells that are able to grow under anchorage independence (a critical step during metastasis) exhibit a more mesenchymal phenotype, expressing high N-cadherin and ZEB1, and low E-cadherin [165, 166]. Whether EMT is a driver for initiating shedding is somewhat unclear. Immuno-histological analysis of both primary and metastatic ovarian carcinoma however reveal that EMT is significantly associated with peritoneal metastasis and correlated with low survival outcomes for ovarian cancer patients [167, 168]. Most recently, miR-181a, that can promote EMT by inhibiting SMAD7 (Fig. 1) has been reported to promote oncogenic transformation by increasing genomic instability in fallopian tube epithelial cells, in part through effects on the tumor suppressive stimulator of interferon genes (STING) pathway [169]. STING and genome instability have in other cancers been reported to be associated with a mesenchymal signature and metastasis, wherein cells with high chromosome instability were enriched for EMT associated genes and pathways [170]. Thus, it is likely that the convergence of STING, chromosome instability and EMT factors, contribute both to cellular transformation and initiation of metastasis in ovarian cancers (Fig. 2). Here again, the precise source of TGFβ within the tumor in the fallopian tube or ovary, that may directly facilitate EMT needs to be defined as it may vary depending on the type of tumor, e.g., immunoreactive, versus mesenchymal or proliferative versus differentiated. Several lines of evidence indicate that within the tumor, local TGFβ secretion from infiltrating stromal cells, leukocytes, macrophages, and myeloid precursor cells could create a more favorable proinflammatory microenvironment for EMT [171]. For instance, release of active TGFβ via GARP produced from tolerogenic Treg cells has been shown to promote EMT and immune tolerance [172]. Similarly, TNF-α, which might be a result of infiltrating monocytes has been shown to promote EMT sensitivity as well [173]. A second environmental factor that could create an EMT conducive tumor is hypoxia, which either via HIF1/2, NFκB and/or changes in the redox environment has the potential to create and promote TGFβ dependent EMT leading to initiation of metastasis [174]. Similarly changes in the redox environment in the tumor has been shown to stimulate a p53/SMAD/p300 complex required for transcriptional increase in TGFβ itself which could be critical in HGS ovarian cancers that have a strong p53 mutational signature [175]. TGFβ has also been reported to be activated by mitochondria derived H2O2 both at the level of transcription and at the level of latent TGFβ activation in non-ovarian systems [176, 177]. While the roles for hypoxia inducible factors and changes in the redox environment in EMT and cooperation during metastasis is widely accepted, most of these studies as they relate to initiation of dissemination in ovarian cancer have been conducted in vitro and direct in vivo evidence at the stage of initiation of metastasis remains elusive.

TGFβ and EMT in the metastatic epithelial ovarian cancer environment

The peritoneum and the mesothelium

The peritoneum is a membrane of mesothelial cells, which lines the wall of the abdominal cavity, lying on abdominal and pelvic organs, including the omentum. The peritoneal mesothelial cells (PMCs) create a mechanical barrier for the abdominal organs. The peritoneal cavity acts as a rich “soil” of ECM proteins such as collagen I and other adhesion molecules that can support cell proliferation, migration and invasion. The peritoneum thus provides a site for EOC cells, aggregates, and clusters to attach and invade [178,179,180]. In this environment tumor cells have been shown to interact with the PMCs via TGFβ signaling, wherein cancer cell derived TGFβ1, via TGFβ1 receptor interactions on the PMCs’ activates a RAC1/SMAD pathway, leading to increased fibronectin expression and a mesenchymal phenotype in the PMCs [181]. Such studies establish the mesothelium as an active player in metastasis, with TGFβ and the mechanisms of EMT central to the invasion process. In this scenario, it is possible that cells, prior to attachment exist in mesenchymal or partial mesenchymal states (Fig. 2). These states could be acquired as a result of EMT during detachment from the primary tumor sites (Fig. 2) or acquired while under anchorage independence as a result of inter-cellular interactions (Fig. 3), thereby priming the cells for a complete EMT transition and effective peritoneal invasion. Kinetic models of EMT that incorporate multiple states of EMT [182] will be required to address this in detail in the future.

Fig. 3
figure3

Ovarian cancer metastatic environment. The peritoneal and ascites environment are tightly linked to each other as leakage through the peritoneal mesothelium drives malignant ascites accumulation. Malignant ascites is composed tumor cells (in E, M or partial E/M states), either alone or in aggregates composed additionally of immune cells (macrophages, T cells, B cells and neutrophils), fibroblasts, and endothelial cells. Additional non cellular components include multiple cytokines such as TGFβ, exosomes that carry TGFβ, its receptors and also noncoding RNAs, metabolites and proteoglycans that are secreted primarily by the peritoneal mesothelial cells. In the peritoneal mesothelium, TGFβ1 released from tumor cells and CAFs can stimulate TGFβ/SMAD signaling in PMCs driving MMT, that can potentiate vascular changes leading to leakage and altered angiogenesis. Cell aggregates via integrins adhere to MMCs promoting metastasis by ECM degradation and vascular changes. The omental environment supports cell aggregate attachment to the omental MMCs, and growth preferentially near “milky” spots composed of lymphocytes, macrophages, and adipocytes. ECM - Extra cellular matrix, MMT - Mesothelial mesenchymal transition, PMCs - Peritoneal mesothelial cells, MMCs - Mesothelial mesenchymal cells, CAF - cancer associated fibroblasts

A variation on the classic cancer EMT of tumor cells is mesothelial-mesenchymal transition (MMT) of the PMCs, wherein PMCs transition into mesenchymal cells (MCs), acquiring migratory and fibroblast like phenotypes [183], much like cancer associated fibroblast (CAFs). MMT has been extensively investigated in other tissues during fibrosis of the peritoneal membrane and in cancers such as mesothelioma [184]. The “activation”/MMT process could thus play an active role in facilitating metastasis as TGFβ is also produced by the peritoneum itself [185]. Partnering with EOC cells to invade the mesothelium are CAFs. CAFs have been shown to mediate invasion through the sub-mesothelial layer by producing ECM components and growth factors turning the peritoneal cavity into a metastasis conducive niche for EOC cell attachment and metastasis [186]. Additional mechanisms of peritoneal invasion utilize integrins. Of note CAFs in the ascites of EOC patients are present in aggregates with tumor cell clusters that express integrin α5 and are highly efficient as a unit at invading and metastasizing into the peritoneum as a result of TGFβ signaling activation [187]. Increased expression of β1-integrin has also been shown to result in direct cell–cell interactions between EOCs and PMCs as confirmed by electron microscopy and adhesion studies [186]. Thus, while several studies have demonstrated the role of mechanical ‘pushing’ forces where cell clusters in the form of spheroids can impose integrin and myosin generated forces to invade the mesothelial layer, destruction of the mesothelium may be a prerequisite for invasion. Indeed, tumor induced apoptosis of the mesothelium via the Fas/FasL pathway has been shown to promote PMC clearance and invasion at the initial stages of metastasis [188, 189]. Whether TGFβ plays a direct role in dictating both EMT and apoptosis in the mesothelium is worth speculating, as TGFβ can in fact concurrently induce both apoptosis and EMT as demonstrated in pancreatic and liver cancers [190, 191] and perhaps in other systems as well. Lastly, but far from the least, the role of the immune environment in peritoneal spread of EOCs is critical as depending on the number and size of peritoneal lesions, the peritoneal microenvironment can present either a more adaptive response or a more systemic inflammatory response [192].

The ascites

As EOC progresses, metastatic fluid (ascites) accumulates in the peritoneum. Increasing volumes of ascites are thought to generate a favorable tumor microenvironment, enabling transcoelomic tumor spread in a feed forward manner. As such ascitic volume and components have been used to grade, predict stage and survival outcomes including chemoresistance outcomes of EOC patients. Some studies also suggest ascites to be an independent prognostic factor in EOC [193,194,195]. Ascites can also contribute to morbidity due to gastrointestinal problems and while in most cases treating the underlying disease will reduce ascites, untreatable ascites can be a recurrent and frequent problem requiring drainage and paracentesis. Ascites accumulation in EOCs has been attributed to multiple factors including increased vascular permeability of vessels lining the peritoneum, lymphatic obstruction leading to reduced lymph drainage and also angiogenesis triggered by tumor cells and CAFs attached to the peritoneal wall [196, 197]. In this context, TGFβ blockade prevents destruction of the lymphatic vessels leading to control of ascites acting in part through VEGF inhibition [198]. TGFβ1 that has been reported to be elevated in the ascites of EOC patients [199, 200]. In-depth analysis of the other TGFβ isoforms is currently lacking and this may further shed light on TGFβ2/3’s role as well in the future.

The ascites constitutes its own environmental niche (Fig. 3) as it not only constitutes much of the same cellular components from the primary tumors such as the tumor cells, immune cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells and lymphocytes but also harbors mesothelial cells [201] and likely tumor cells shed from metastatic sites as a result of forces from the ascites current (Figs. 2, 3). In general, approximately 37% of the cellular composition of the ascites constitutes lymphocytes, about 30% macrophages and mesothelial cells and 0.1–0.5% constitutes carcinoma cells [201] and the remaining includes fibroblasts and endothelial cells. A recent single cell analysis that examined EMT signatures of single and aggregate tumor cells from the ascites not only confirmed the heterogeneous mix of the ascites, but also demonstrated a strong EMT program that was dependent on the CAFs and notably TGFβ [202]. These findings are also consistent with prior reports demonstrating the impact of the ascites on inducing EMT in cell line models [203]. Nevertheless, not just would EMT of the cells in the ascites promote peritoneal invasion and metastasis, but also contribute to anoikis resistance. While much has been debated on whether cells under anchorage independence in the ascites are truly matrix detached, survival in the ascites requires all the cells in the environment to have adapted to changes in matrix attachment. Nonetheless, anoikis resistance is an accepted pre- requisite of malignancy [204] and has been strongly linked to an EMT signature [166].

In addition to the heterogeneous cellular population in the ascites that can produce and respond to TGFβ, several recent studies have also characterized the presence of exosomes (Fig. 3) that have been proposed as biomarkers in EOC as they appear to correlate with tumor progression [205]. Notably TGFβ1 and receptors for TGFβ are known cargos of exosomes [206] and it is thus highly likely, that either TGFβ itself or components of the TGFβ signaling machinery may be delivered to tumor cells to impact EMT. Exosomes have also been shown to directly impact EMT in tumor cells [207] via miRNAs and lncRNAs [208] and hence can serve as a way to increase intracellular communication within the ascites [209] and thereby promote invasiveness. Another cargo of the exosomes includes proteoglycans [210] that are known regulators of TGFβ (e.g., decorin and biglycan) and are synthesized and secreted from the peritoneum [211], perhaps into the ascites where they can control TGFβ signaling (Fig. 3). Whether cells in the ascites undergo EMT at the primary tumor prior to shedding (Fig. 2) or acquire EMT characteristics in the ascites remains to be determined and exosomes could play pivotal roles in regulating this process.

The omentum

The omentum is a specialized adipose tissue in the peritoneal cavity and is also the most preferred metastatic site for HGS cancers [212]. Acquisition of EMT characteristics has been shown to depend on cells in the omentum in mouse models [213]. However, in clinical practice, performance of omentectomies in patients without bulky disease or a grossly normal omentum has not yet been definitively shown to improve survival [214]. The omental microenvironment is undoubtedly highly conducive for tumor growth via both metabolic and immunological factors as evidenced by advanced EOC patients exhibiting significant omental tumor load. The omentum has also emerged as a pre-metastatic niche for progression and development of invasive HGS cancers [215]. The omentum is a highly vascularized tissue and contains ‘milky spots’ (in both humans and mice) which are primarily aggregates of leukocytes referred to as fat-associated lymphoid clusters (FALCs) [216] (Fig. 3). The lymphatics of the omentum serve as a conduit for fluid drainage from the peritoneum making it an ideal spot for tumor cells to land. Recent studies have used 3D coculture models indicating that EOC tumor cells via TGFβ can stimulate activation and proliferation of omental resident fibroblasts that in turn stimulates cancer cell adhesion, invasion and peritoneal dissemination [217]. In a corollary fashion, a ten gene signature that includes collagen-remodeling genes regulated by TGFβ1 signaling has been correlated with increased metastasis and poor patient survival [218]. This is particularly significant as the omentum is collagen rich and serves as a robust site for tumor cell adhesion via integrins [219].

Analogous to the peritoneum, mesothelial cells in the omentum can also secrete TGFβ that impacts the fibroblasts and tumor cells, and also the immune state of the omentum [220]. The omentum also hosts a unique macrophage population, expressing CD163 and Tim4 that can interact with EOC cells to promote metastasis [213]. Tumor Associated macrophages (TAMs) are a significant source of TGFβ and other EMT mediators [221,222,223] playing key roles in creating an immune suppressive environment in the omentum [215, 220]. Thus several recent studies have focused on understanding the immune microenvironment of the milky spots in the omentum [220]. Adipocytes are the other cell type highly enriched in the omentum that have been shown to have a symbiotic relationship with EOCs, and are coined cancer associated adipocytes (CAA) [224] (Fig. 3).These CAAs can act as powerhouses during advanced disease, providing the necessary energy for rapidly growing tumor cells via FABP4 [212], a chaperone for free fatty acids. FABP4 levels are indicators of increased residual disease after primary debulking surgery of advanced HGS patients [225]. In some in vitro systems FABP4 has been shown to promote EMT via TGFβ [226].Other CAA derived chemokines have been shown to support tumor progression by inducing a partial EMT in breast cancer models [227] and can cooperate with endotrophin, a cleavage product of collagen VI α3 chain to promote EMT [228]. Worth noting is the role of TGFβ as a strong negative regulator of adipogenesis, acting via non-SMAD mechanisms in breast cancer [229]. In the same study [229] adipogenesis induction reduced invasiveness with the CAAs localized to tumor borders [229]. The interplay between adipogenesis and EMT in the omentum of metastasized HGS ovarian cancer patients remains to be determined.

Targeting TGFβ and EMT for EOC management

EOC specific challenges

Complete debulking surgery is commonly the first- line of treatment for EOCs, followed up with a carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy regimen. Most EOC patient tumors fall under one of two categories, either they are chemo-resistant at the outset, or will eventually become chemo-resistant. Thus, management of recurrent and resistant disease is one of the biggest challenges for EOC. Approximately 50% of EOC patients who have alterations in BRCA1/2, and/or alterations in other homologous recombination repair deficient pathways (HRD genes), are more likely to be carboplatin sensitive. For such patients, PARP inhibitors hold great promise with significant increases in PFS reported [230]. However, there is a dearth of treatment options for the remaining 50% of patients. Most of these patients respond well initially, but more than 70–80% of patients overall will relapse in less than 5 years [231] regardless of the original response status. Thus, disease management to improve and prolong survival remains a continuous challenge.

Chemo-resistant tumors express a more mesenchymal gene signature that also coincides with stem cell like features [232]. Notably, at the completion of primary platinum-based chemotherapy, HGS ovarian cancer patients were found to express high levels of cancer stem cell (CSCs) markers such as CD44 (a non-kinase transmembrane glycoprotein), CD133 or prominin-1, Aldehyde Dehydrogenase 1 Family Member A1 (ALDH1A1) as compared to primary tumors. Thus CSC enrichment during courses of chemotherapy may have contributed to resistance and relapse [233]. Several molecular mechanisms have been proposed for resistance acquisition by CSCs such as autophagy for survival by recycling metabolites [234], high expression of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters to increase drug efflux [235, 236] and increased DNA polymerase η (Pol η) synthesis to compensate for drug induced DNA damage [237]. Several of these mechanisms are in fact downstream of EMT [238] and EMT transcription factors. Specifically, the EMT transcription factor SNAIL has been shown to be required to maintain stem like features in multiple ovarian cancer models [239, 240] in part via tumor suppressor miRNA let-7 [239]. ZEB1 has also been shown to promote EMT and stemness by increasing SOX2, OCT4, NANOG, CD44, and CD117 expression resulting in resistance to cisplatin [241]. Such studies strongly suggest TGFβ induced EMT as a mechanism to promote stemness in ovarian cancers. In breast cancers, increased TGFβ signaling via increased cell surface receptor expression has been directly linked to chemoresistance [242]. These cells can be resensitized to chemotherapy using Galunisertib or LY21567299 (small molecule TGFβR1 inhibitor (Fig. 4 and [242]). Whether this approach is effective in EOCs remains to be determined.

Fig. 4
figure4

Therapeutic strategies targeting TGFβ signaling. Approaches both at the preclinical and clinical stage (see Table 2) are included to demonstrate points of inhibition. TGFβ signaling can be targeted using antibodies blocking TGFβ receptor-ligand interactions, TGFβ ligand neutralizing antibodies, soluble receptor ectodomain constructs to sequester ligands (ligand trap), small molecule inhibitors against TGFβRI receptor kinase activity, anti-integrin and anti-GARP, inhibition of TGFβ activation, RNA antisense oligonucleotides preventing TGFβ translation and at the transcriptional level using peptide inhibitors and CDK8 inhibitors

Targeting EMT

Being able to target EMT related pathways has been a landmark development for cancer therapies. Several approaches and therapeutic targets have been developed or are being evaluated [243] including in EOC (Table 2). EMT itself can be targeted at multiple levels including, (a) blocking signals that induce EMT (including TGFβ inhibitors (see section below)), (b) blocking downstream transducers (such as tyrosine kinases and miRNAs) [244] (c) blocking mesenchymal mediators such as fibronectin, vimentin and N- cadherin (such as Artemisinin that reduces vimentin expression and can reverse EMT) [245, 246] and (d) blocking the MET transition which has been shown to be mediated by other members of the TGFβ family particularly BMP7 [247, 248]. Additional approaches include exploiting tumor vulnerabilities that arise as a result of EMT. One example is the exploitation of the plasticity and programmability of cells undergoing EMT as seen in breast cancer models wherein cells were forced to transdifferentiate into adipocytes, which in turn reduced metastasis [249]. An additional dependency that has garnered significant attention is metabolic adaptation to meet increased energy demands during cancer metastasis [250, 251]. One candidate with promise in EOC, is metformin, which in preclinical models can inhibit EMT, stemness and reverse chemotherapy resistance. Most notably, in a recent Phase II study with HGS patients, metformin was found to be well tolerated and reduced the stem cell population in these patient tumors. Improved OS was also observed, prompting Phase III studies for the future [252]. Thus, targeting ovarian cancer with standard of care in combination with metabolic inhibitors could suppress EMT related progression and yield promising results.

Table 2 Summary of TGFβ targeting drugs in clinical trials

TGFβ specific targeting strategies and clinical progress

TGFβ specific targeting can occur at multiple steps (Fig. 4) including (a) at the level of TGFβ ligand activation and directly limiting ligand availability (b) at the level of receptor inhibition and blocking receptor kinase activity (c) inhibition of transcription regulation by SMADs (d) indirectly by immune based strategies. Several antibodies, peptides, small molecule inhibitors and receptor trap-based approaches have been developed many of which are in clinical trials (Fig. 4 and Table 2). However, given the discovery of TGFβs in the late 1970s, progress to the clinic has been relatively slow, in part due to the discovery of cardiac toxicity in dogs after continuous administration of a small molecule inhibitor to TGFβR1 [253] and the complex roles of TGFβ itself in cancer progression acting either as a tumor suppressor or tumor promoter in a context dependent manner. Defining the source and role of TGFβ particularly in the stroma to promote EMT and metastasis, and in the distinct immune cell types, including CD4+ , CD8+T cells, NK or dendritic cells [254], has provided much renewed faith in therapeutic targeting of TGFβ in cancer.

Ligand control

TGFβ ligand neutralizing antibodies and antibodies that block TGFβ receptor ligand interactions have received significant pharmaceutical and clinical attention, however with limited progress specifically in ovarian cancers. Fresolimumab ([255] (Sanofi, GC1008) is a high affinity fully human monoclonal antibody that is a pan neutralizing antibody for all three TGFβ isoforms with promising clinical findings in non-ovarian cancers and particularly breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy [255, 256]. Fresolimumab is also being explored for the treatment of Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI) as animal model studies indicate that silencing TGFβ increases bone mass [257]. The findings from the OI trials could have beneficial side effects for the management of ovarian cancer patients as well who are mostly menopausal and over time suffer significant bone mass loss [258].Trabedersen (AP12009 or OT-101) has also emerged as an alternative strategy, which is an antisense approach targeting TGFβ specifically and has shown significant promise in pre-clinical ovarian cancer models [259]. Another approach to block TGFβ at the ligand level is to block activation using anti-integrin approaches [260] and anti-GARP (ABBV151) approaches [261]. GARP is specifically required for TGFβ activation in regulatory T cells (Tregs) and platelets and ABBV151 is currently in clinical trials (Table 2) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Other approaches in the research and development phases that have or are being explored include the development of a high affinity engineered TGFβ monomer that acts as a dominant negative due to its inability to dimerize with TGFβR1 and activate signaling, and a peptide ligand trap based approach that utilizes a sequence of the Type III TGFβ receptor (betaglycan) [262, 263]. The use of betaglycan based approaches is quite attractive as the domains by which it binds the different TGFβ members has been well mapped [264] providing potential for selective inhibition of not just the TGFβ isoforms but also beyond for other TGFβ members including Inhibins, Activins and BMPs [265]. Current TGFβ isoform specific traps include AVID200 that blocks TGFβ1 and TGFβ3 and is currently in clinical trials (Table 2). Thus, delineating isoform specific effects remains important for the long-term success of such agents in EOC and other cancers.

Receptor activation and transcriptional inhibitors

Small molecule-based approaches (Table 2, Fig. 4) have historically been the favorite approach for targeting TGFβ signaling at the reception level due to their ease of administration despite limitations of non-specificity of the compounds in some cases. Several of these compounds target either both the Type I and II receptors including LY2109761 or just the Type I receptor such as LY2157299 (galunisertib) and showed significant promise in pre-clinical studies in ovarian and other cancers where they were found to suppress metastasis and/or reduce cisplatin resistance [266, 267]. However, acquired resistance to LY2109761 was observed via increased TGFβ signaling after long term exposure [268]. Several additional compounds are currently in development [269]. Despite the progress and promise of galunisertib, it was discontinued early in 2020 (Jan 2020, Eli Lily news) for undisclosed reasons. Approaches targeting the Type II receptor specifically have been limited. One synthetic F’ab based inhibitor that emerged from a phage display screen to TGFβRII, has been evaluated in EOC models and was found to suppress metastasis through inhibition of EMT suggesting that the Type II receptor is also a feasible target for EOCs [270].Targeting at the transcriptional level remains rather underdeveloped, likely because of the lower affinity of SMADs’ for DNA and several non- SMAD mechanisms that are active. Indirect mechanisms include a pyrrole-imidazole polyamide drug at the level of TGFβ target gene transcription and other RNA (antisense) based blocking approaches to the mRNA for the different isoforms [271,272,273,274,275]. Similarly, transcriptional inhibition specifically of the metastatic and EMT based responses can be secured by inhibition of CDK8 in preclinical studies [93] [94]. CDK8 inhibitors are rapidly approaching the clinic and could hold great promise for ovarian cancers as well.

Immune options

Mechanisms to re-activate the immune system and improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in cancers particularly ovarian cancers, is currently being actively explored as evidence in multiple other cancer studies indicates this may be an effective approach [276].

That the anti- metastatic effects of the TGFβ inhibitors are potentiated by this combination is also strongly based on prior studies that non-responders to checkpoint inhibitors have elevated levels of the central TGFβ pathway components (TGFβ1, Type I and II receptors) [277]. Supporting this, M7824 a bifunctional fusion protein composed of a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1 fused to the extracellular domain of TGFβRII, is preclinically effective at suppressing metastasis and also provided antitumor immunity [278]. M7824 is currently in clinical trials (Table 2) for multiple solid tumors. Preclinical studies using other approaches including the use of LY2109761 in adoptive T-cell therapy has also been proposed as a way to effectively increase immunotherapy efficacy [279]. Other approaches include whole cell vaccine based methods that use autologous tumor cells expressing an anti-sense to TGFβ2 [280] or tumor-specific CD8 + T cells modified to express a dominant-negative TGFβRII (non- ovarian cancers) [279]. Phase I trials of the vaccine approach have shown low toxicity and durable responses so far [281].

Future outlook with TGFβ based therapeutics in ovarian cancers.

Progress through the clinical pipelines for ovarian cancers has been slow with a major gap being lack of biomarkers to stratify patients and identify those who will benefit the most. This is a central issue for the progression of targeted therapies in EOC. With the acceptance that TGFβ inhibitors are likely to be most beneficial in combination therapy as opposed to as a monotherapy, either with immune checkpoint inhibitors or other approaches including anti- angiogenic strategies (not reviewed here), DNA intercalating agents and even with PARP inhibition, the outlook for the expanded use of TGFβ inhibitors in ovarian cancers remains positive.

Concluding remarks

TGFβ signaling mechanisms have been examined for several decades. Yet fundamental insights both into the mechanism of action and the context of action continue to emerge. The recent advances outlined here have revealed the broad impact of TGFβ signaling mechanisms in EMT and cancer. These combined with our growing understanding of unique disease environments (such as discussed here for ovarian cancer) have provided new contextual information and understanding the detailed mechanisms by which plasticity is dictated will be critical for the future. With the advent of several TGFβ approaches in the clinic, such momentum is prescient. Emphasis should also be laid on understanding the interplay between the multiple TGFβ members that have in recent years emerged as playing key roles in cancer progression.

Abbreviations

TGFβ :

Transforming growth factor beta

References

  1. 1.

    Nisticò P, Bissell MJ, Radisky DC (2012) Epithelial-mesenchymal transition: general principles and pathological relevance with special emphasis on the role of matrix metalloproteinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4(2):a011908

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hay ED (1995) An overview of epithelio-mesenchymal transformation. Cells Tissues Organs 154(1):8–20

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Micalizzi DS, Farabaugh SM, Ford HL (2010) Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer: parallels between normal development and tumor progression. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 15(2):117–134

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kalluri R, Weinberg RA (2009) The basics of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Clin Invest 119(6):1420–1428

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jeon H-M, Lee J (2017) MET: roles in epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer stemness. Ann Transl Med 5(1):5

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Aiello NM et al (2018) EMT subtype influences epithelial plasticity and mode of cell migration. Dev Cell 45(6):681–695

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pastushenko I, Blanpain C (2019) EMT transition states during tumor progression and metastasis. Trends Cell Biol 29(3):212–226

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chin VL, Lim CL (2019) Epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity-engaging stemness in an interplay of phenotypes. Stem Cell Investig 6:25–27

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Peinado H, Olmeda D, Cano A (2007) Snail, Zeb and bHLH factors in tumour progression: an alliance against the epithelial phenotype? Nature Rev Cancer 7(6):415–428

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Peinado H et al (2004) Snail and E47 repressors of E-cadherin induce distinct invasive and angiogenic properties in vivo. J Cell Sci 117(13):2827–2839

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Puisieux A, Brabletz T, Caramel J (2014) Oncogenic roles of EMT-inducing transcription factors. Nature Cell Biol 16(6):488–494

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Yang J et al (2004) Twist, a master regulator of morphogenesis, plays an essential role in tumor metastasis. Cell 117(7):927–939

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mani SA et al (2008) The epithelial-mesenchymal transition generates cells with properties of stem cells. Cell 133(4):704–715

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hotz B et al (2007) Epithelial to mesenchymal transition: expression of the regulators snail, slug, and twist in pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13(16):4769–4776

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Krebs AM et al (2017) The EMT-activator Zeb1 is a key factor for cell plasticity and promotes metastasis in pancreatic cancer. Nature Cell Biol 19(5):518–529

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Zheng X et al (2015) Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is dispensable for metastasis but induces chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer. Nature 527(7579):525–530

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Aceto N (2020) Bring along your friends: Homotypic and heterotypic circulating tumor cell clustering to accelerate metastasis. Biomed J 43(1):18–23

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Imani S et al (2016) Prognostic value of EMT-inducing transcription factors (EMT-TFs) in metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 6:28587

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lopez-Novoa JM, Nieto MA (2009) Inflammation and EMT: an alliance towards organ fibrosis and cancer progression. EMBO Mol Med 1(6–7):303–314

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lamouille S, Xu J, Derynck R (2014) Molecular mechanisms of epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15(3):178–196

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Morrison CD, Parvani JG, Schiemann WP (2013) The relevance of the TGF-beta paradox to EMT-MET programs. Cancer Lett 341(1):30–40

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hao Y, Baker D, Ten Dijke P (2019) TGF-β-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer metastasis. Int J Mol Sci 20(11):2767

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Todaro GJ, Fryling C, De Larco JE (1980) Transforming growth factors produced by certain human tumor cells: polypeptides that interact with epidermal growth factor receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci 77(9):5258–5262

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Todaro GJ et al (1977) MSA and EGF receptors on saroma virus transformed cells and human fibrosarcoma cells in culture. Nature 267(5611):526–528

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zhao B, Chen Y-G (2014) Regulation of TGF-β signal transduction. Scientifica 2014:874065

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Todaro GJ, De Larco JE, Cohen S (1976) Transformation by murine and feline sarcoma viruses specifically blocks binding of epidermal growth factor to cells. Nature 264(5581):26–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    de Larco JE, Todaro GJ (1978) Growth factors from murine sarcoma virus-transformed cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 75(8):4001–4005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Roberts AB et al (1981) New class of transforming growth factors potentiated by epidermal growth factor: isolation from non-neoplastic tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci 78(9):5339–5343

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Moses HL, Roberts AB, Derynck R (2016) The discovery and early days of TGF-β: a historical perspective. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 8(7):a021865

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Fujii D et al (1986) Transforming growth factor beta gene maps to human chromosome 19 long arm and to mouse chromosome 7. Somat Cell Mol Genet 12(3):281–288

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Barton DE et al (1988) Chromosomal mapping of genes for transforming growth factors beta 2 and beta 3 in man and mouse: dispersion of TGF-beta gene family. Oncogene Res 3(4):323–331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Assoian RK et al (1983) Transforming growth factor-beta in human platelets. Identification of a major storage site, purification, and characterization. J Biol Chem 258(11):7155–7160

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Heldin CH, Miyazono K, ten Dijke P (1997) TGF-beta signalling from cell membrane to nucleus through SMAD proteins. Nature 390(6659):465–471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Miyazono K, Maeda S, Imamura T (2005) BMP receptor signaling: transcriptional targets, regulation of signals, and signaling cross-talk. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 16(3):251–263

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hinck AP, Mueller TD, Springer TA (2016) Structural biology and evolution of the TGF-beta family. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 8(12):e022103

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Rifkin DB (2005) Latent transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) binding proteins: orchestrators of TGF-beta availability. J Biol Chem 280(9):7409–7412

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Annes JP et al (2004) Integrin alphaVbeta6-mediated activation of latent TGF-beta requires the latent TGF-beta binding protein-1. J Cell Biol 165(5):723–734

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Chen Y et al (2002) Latent TGF-beta binding protein-3 (LTBP-3) requires binding to TGF-beta for secretion. FEBS Lett 517(1–3):277–280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Fjellbirkeland L et al (2003) Integrin alphavbeta8-mediated activation of transforming growth factor-beta inhibits human airway epithelial proliferation in intact bronchial tissue. Am J Pathol 163(2):533–542

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Jenkins RG et al (2006) Ligation of protease-activated receptor 1 enhances alpha(v)beta6 integrin-dependent TGF-beta activation and promotes acute lung injury. J Clin Invest 116(6):1606–1614

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Shi M et al (2011) Latent TGF-β structure and activation. Nature 474(7351):343–349

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Crawford SE et al (1998) Thrombospondin-1 is a major activator of TGF-β1 in vivo. Cell 93(7):1159–1170

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Liénart S et al (2018) Structural basis of latent TGF-β1 presentation and activation by GARP on human regulatory T cells. Science 362(6417):952–956

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    de Caestecker M (2004) The transforming growth factor-beta superfamily of receptors. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 15(1):1–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kulkarni AB, Karlsson S (1993) Transforming growth factor-beta 1 knockout mice. A mutation in one cytokine gene causes a dramatic inflammatory disease. Am J Pathol 143(1):3

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Dickson MC et al (1995) Defective haematopoiesis and vasculogenesis in transforming growth factor-beta 1 knock out mice. Development 121(6):1845–1854

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Taya Y, O’Kane S, Ferguson M (1999) Pathogenesis of cleft palate in TGF-beta3 knockout mice. Development 126(17):3869–3879

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kaartinen V et al (1995) Abnormal lung development and cleft palate in mice lacking TGF–β3 indicates defects of epithelial–mesenchymal interaction. Nature Genet 11(4):415–421

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Sanford LP et al (1997) TGFbeta2 knockout mice have multiple developmental defects that are non-overlapping with other TGFbeta knockout phenotypes. Development 124(13):2659–2670

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Nawshad A et al (2007) TGFβ3 inhibits E-cadherin gene expression in palate medial-edge epithelial cells through a Smad2-Smad4-LEF1 transcription complex. J Cell Sci 120(9):1646–1653

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Brown CB et al (1996) Antibodies to the type II TGFβ receptor block cell activation and migration during atrioventricular cushion transformation in the heart. Dev Biol 174(2):248–257

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Boyer AS, Runyan RB (2001) TGFbeta type III and TGFbeta type II receptors have distinct activities during epithelial-mesenchymal cell transformation in the embryonic heart. Dev Dyn 221(4):454–459

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Salib A (2017) Regulation of TGFB2 expression during EMT in lung epithelial cells. Western Sydney University, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Pelton RW et al (1991) Immunohistochemical localization of TGF beta 1, TGF beta 2, and TGF beta 3 in the mouse embryo: expression patterns suggest multiple roles during embryonic development. J Cell Biol 115(4):1091–1105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Akhurst RJ et al (1990) Transforming growth factor betas in mammalian embryogenesis. Prog Growth Factor Res 2(3):153–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Memon MA et al (2008) Transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ1, TGFβ2 and TGFβ3) null-mutant phenotypes in embryonic gonadal development. Mol Cell Endocrinol 294(1–2):70–80

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Bristow RE et al (1999) Altered expression of transforming growth factor-β ligands and receptors in primary and recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 85(3):658–668

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Nilsson E et al (2001) Expression and action of transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ1, TGFβ2, TGFβ3) in normal bovine ovarian surface epithelium and implications for human ovarian cancer. Mol Cell Endocrinol 182(2):145–155

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Zhao Y, Chegini N, Flanders KC (1994) Human fallopian tube expresses transforming growth factor (TGF beta) isoforms, TGF beta type I-III receptor messenger ribonucleic acid and protein, and contains [125I] TGF beta-binding sites. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 79(4):1177–1184

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Dissen G et al (1994) Immature rat ovaries become revascularized rapidly after autotransplantation and show a gonadotropin-dependent increase in angiogenic factor gene expression. Endocrinology 134(3):1146–1154

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Singh P et al (2018) Inhibin is a novel paracrine factor for tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Cancer Res 78(11):2978–2989

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Varadaraj A et al (2015) Epigenetic regulation of GDF2 suppresses anoikis in ovarian and breast epithelia. Neoplasia 17(11):826–838

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Chang H-M, Leung PCK (2018) Physiological roles of activins in the human ovary. J Bio-X Res 1(3):111–119

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Woodruff TK et al (1996) Inhibin A and inhibin B are inversely correlated to follicle-stimulating hormone, yet are discordant during the follicular phase of the rat estrous cycle, and inhibin A is expressed in a sexually dimorphic manner. Endocrinology 137(12):5463–5467

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Hsueh AJ et al (1987) Heterodimers and homodimers of inhibin subunits have different paracrine action in the modulation of luteinizing hormone-stimulated androgen biosynthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84(14):5082–5086

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Zhang Y et al (1996) Receptor-associated mad homologues synergize as effectors of the TGF-beta response. Nature 383(6596):168–172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Robertson IB, Rifkin DB (2016) Regulation of the bioavailability of TGF-β and TGF-β-related proteins. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 8(6):a021907

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Bai S, Cao X (2002) A nuclear antagonistic mechanism of inhibitory smads in transforming growth factor-beta signaling. J Biol Chem 277(6):4176–4182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Chang C (2016) Agonists and antagonists of TGF-β family ligands. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 8(8):a021923

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Gatza CE, Oh SY, Blobe GC (2010) Roles for the type III TGF-beta receptor in human cancer. Cell Signal 22(8):1163–1174

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Cheifetz S et al (1987) The transforming growth factor-beta system, a complex pattern of cross-reactive ligands and receptors. Cell 48(3):409–415

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Mittl PR et al (1996) The crystal structure of TGF-beta 3 and comparison to TGF-beta 2: implications for receptor binding. Protein Sci 5(7):1261–1271

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Frick CL et al (2017) Sensing relative signal in the Tgf-beta/Smad pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(14):E2975–E2982

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Nayeem SM et al (2017) Residues of alpha helix H3 determine distinctive features of transforming growth factor β3. J Phys Chem B 121(22):5483–5498

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Heldin C-H, Moustakas A (2016) Signaling receptors for TGF-β family members. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 8(8):a022053

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Holtzhausen A et al (2013) Novel bone morphogenetic protein signaling through Smad2 and Smad3 to regulate cancer progression and development. FASEB J 28(3):1248–1267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Lyons RM et al (1991) Differential binding of transforming growth factor-β1,-β2, and-β3 by fibroblasts and epithelial cells measured by affinity cross-linking of cell surface receptors. Mol Endocrinol 5(12):1887–1896

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Shi Y, Massagué J (2003) Mechanisms of TGF-beta signaling from cell membrane to the nucleus. Cell 113(6):685–700

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Kirkbride KC, Ray BN, Blobe GC (2005) Cell-surface co-receptors: emerging roles in signaling and human disease. Trends Biochem Sci 30(11):611–621

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Wrana JL et al (1994) Mechanism of activation of the TGF-beta receptor. Nature 370(6488):341–347

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Goto K et al (2007) Selective inhibitory effects of Smad6 on bone morphogenetic protein type I receptors. J Biol Chem 282(28):20603–20611

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Hanyu A et al (2001) The N domain of Smad7 is essential for specific inhibition of transforming growth factor-beta signaling. J Cell Biol 155(6):1017–1027

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Massagué J (2012) TGFβ signalling in context. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13(10):616–630

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Ramachandran A et al (2018) TGF-beta uses a novel mode of receptor activation to phosphorylate SMAD1/5 and induce epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Elife 7:e31756

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Liu IM et al (2009) TGFbeta-stimulated Smad1/5 phosphorylation requires the ALK5 L45 loop and mediates the pro-migratory TGFbeta switch. EMBO J 28(2):88–98

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Hill CS (2016) Transcriptional control by the SMADs. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 8(10):a022079

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Shi Y et al (1998) Crystal structure of a Smad MH1 domain bound to DNA: insights on DNA binding in TGF-beta signaling. Cell 94(5):585–594

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Wu RY et al (1997) Heteromeric and homomeric interactions correlate with signaling activity and functional cooperativity of Smad3 and Smad4/DPC4. Mol Cell Biol 17(5):2521–2528

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Massague J (2012) TGFbeta signalling in context. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13(10):616–630

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Alarcon C et al (2009) Nuclear CDKs drive Smad transcriptional activation and turnover in BMP and TGF-beta pathways. Cell 139(4):757–769

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Gao S et al (2009) Ubiquitin ligase Nedd4L targets activated Smad2/3 to limit TGF-beta signaling. Mol Cell 36(3):457–468

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Aragón E et al (2011) A Smad action turnover switch operated by WW domain readers of a phosphoserine code. Genes Dev 25(12):1275–1288

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Liang J et al (2018) CDK8 selectively promotes the growth of colon cancer metastases in the liver by regulating gene expression of timp3 and matrix metalloproteinases. Cancer Res 78(23):6594–6606

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Serrao A et al (2018) Mediator kinase CDK8/CDK19 drives YAP1-dependent BMP4-induced EMT in cancer. Oncogene 37(35):4792–4808

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Vincent T et al (2009) A SNAIL1–SMAD3/4 transcriptional repressor complex promotes TGF-β mediated epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Nature Cell Biol 11(8):943–950

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Cao M et al (2012) MiR-23a regulates TGF-β-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition by targeting E-cadherin in lung cancer cells. Int J Oncol 41(3):869–875

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Johansson J et al (2013) MiR-155-mediated loss of C/EBPβ shifts the TGF-β response from growth inhibition to epithelial-mesenchymal transition, invasion and metastasis in breast cancer. Oncogene 32(50):5614–5624

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Ma L et al (2010) miR-9, a MYC/MYCN-activated microRNA, regulates E-cadherin and cancer metastasis. Nature Cell Biol 12(3):247–256

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Han X et al (2014) Critical role of miR-10b in transforming growth factor-β1-induced epithelial–mesenchymal transition in breast cancer. Cancer Gene Ther 21(2):60–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Song Q et al (2014) miR-483–5p promotes invasion and metastasis of lung adenocarcinoma by targeting RhoGDI1 and ALCAM. Cancer Res 74(11):3031–3042

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Sun C et al (2017) miR-34a mediates oxaliplatin resistance of colorectal cancer cells by inhibiting macroautophagy via transforming growth factor-β/Smad4 pathway. World J Gastroenterol 23(10):1816

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Zhang X et al (2020) miR-324–5p inhibits gallbladder carcinoma cell metastatic behaviours by downregulation of transforming growth factor beta 2 expression. Artificial Cells Nanomed Biotech 48(1):315–324

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Parikh A et al (2014) microRNA-181a has a critical role in ovarian cancer progression through the regulation of the epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Nature Commun 5:2977

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Choi P-W, Ng S-W (2017) The functions of microRNA-200 family in ovarian cancer: beyond epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Int J Mol Sci 18(6):1207

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Chaudhury A et al (2010) TGF-beta-mediated phosphorylation of hnRNP E1 induces EMT via transcript-selective translational induction of Dab2 and ILEI. Nature Cell Biol 12(3):286–293

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Matouk IJ et al (2016) The role of the oncofetal H19 lncRNA in tumor metastasis: orchestrating the EMT-MET decision. Oncotarget 7(4):3748

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Li J et al (2018) Long noncoding RNA H19 promotes transforming growth factor-β-induced epithelial–mesenchymal transition by acting as a competing endogenous RNA of miR-370-3p in ovarian cancer cells. OncoTargets Ther 11:427

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Ma J, Xue M (2018) LINK-A lncRNA promotes migration and invasion of ovarian carcinoma cells by activating TGF-β pathway. Biosci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20180936

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Mitra R et al (2017) Decoding critical long non-coding RNA in ovarian cancer epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Nat Commun 8(1):1604

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Wang Y et al (2018) TGF-β-induced STAT3 overexpression promotes human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma invasion and metastasis through malat1/miR-30a interactions. Cancer Lett 436:52–62

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Zhang J et al (2020) The long-noncoding RNA MALAT1 regulates TGF-β/Smad signaling through formation of a lncRNA-protein complex with Smads, SETD2 and PPM1A in hepatic cells. PLoS ONE 15(1):e0228160

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Zhang X et al (2018) Long non-coding RNA PVT1 promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition via the TGF-β/Smad pathway in pancreatic cancer cells. Oncology Rep 40(2):1093–1102

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Shen Y et al (2017) A long non-coding RNA lncRNA-PE promotes invasion and epithelial–mesenchymal transition in hepatocellular carcinoma through the miR-200a/b-ZEB1 pathway. Tumor Biology 39(5):1010428317705756

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Gooding AJ et al (2019) The IncRNA BORG: a novel inducer of TNBC metastasis, chemoresistance, and disease recurrence. J Cancer Metastasis Treat. https://doi.org/10.20517/2394-4722.2019.11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Gooding AJ et al (2019) The lncRNA BORG facilitates the survival and chemoresistance of triple-negative breast cancers. Oncogene 38(12):2020–2041

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Gooding AJ et al (2017) The lncRNA BORG drives breast cancer metastasis and disease recurrence. Sci Rep 7(1):1–18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Liang H et al (2018) LncRNA PTAR promotes EMT and invasion-metastasis in serous ovarian cancer by competitively binding miR-101–3p to regulate ZEB1 expression. Mol Cancer 17(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Yue B et al (2016) LncRNA-ATB mediated E-cadherin repression promotes the progression of colon cancer and predicts poor prognosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 31(3):595–603

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Qu D et al (2019) Long noncoding RNA MALAT1 releases epigenetic silencing of HIV-1 replication by displacing the polycomb repressive complex 2 from binding to the LTR promoter. Nucleic Acids Res 47(6):3013–3027

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Cheng J-T et al (2019) Insights into biological role of LncRNAs in epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Cells. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8101178

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Davidovich C, Cech TR (2015) The recruitment of chromatin modifiers by long noncoding RNAs: lessons from PRC2. RNA 21(12):2007–2022

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Kumar S et al (2016) Activation of Mitofusin2 by Smad2-RIN1 complex during mitochondrial fusion. Mol Cell 62(4):520–531

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Kim YS et al (2020) Context-dependent activation of SIRT3 is necessary for anchorage-independent survival and metastasis of ovarian cancer cells. Oncogene 39(8):1619–1633

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Derynck R, Zhang YE (2003) Smad-dependent and Smad-independent pathways in TGF-beta family signalling. Nature 425(6958):577–584

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Parvani JG, Taylor MA, Schiemann WP (2011) Noncanonical TGF-β signaling during mammary tumorigenesis. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 16(2):127–146

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Oh SY et al (2013) The type III TGFbeta receptor regulates filopodia formation via a Cdc42-mediated IRSp53-N-WASP interaction in epithelial cells. Biochem J 454(1):79–89

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Mythreye K, Blobe GC (2009) The type III TGF-beta receptor regulates epithelial and cancer cell migration through beta-arrestin2-mediated activation of Cdc42. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(20):8221–8226

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Bakin AV et al (2002) p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase is required for TGFbeta-mediated fibroblastic transdifferentiation and cell migration. J Cell Sci 115(15):3193–3206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Chapnick DA et al (2011) Partners in crime: the TGFβ and MAPK pathways in cancer progression. Cell Biosci 1:42

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Cha Y et al (2013) TCEA3 binds to TGF-beta receptor I and induces Smad-independent, JNK-dependent apoptosis in ovarian cancer cells. Cell Signal 25(5):1245–1251

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Lee MK et al (2007) TGF-beta activates Erk MAP kinase signalling through direct phosphorylation of ShcA. EMBO J 26(17):3957–3967

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Galliher AJ, Schiemann WP (2007) Src phosphorylates Tyr284 in TGF-beta type II receptor and regulates TGF-beta stimulation of p38 MAPK during breast cancer cell proliferation and invasion. Cancer Res 67(8):3752–3758

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Mulder KM (2000) Role of Ras and Mapks in TGFbeta signaling. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 11(1–2):23–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Xie L et al (2004) Activation of the Erk pathway is required for TGF-beta1-induced EMT in vitro. Neoplasia 6(5):603–610

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Sorrentino A et al (2008) The type I TGF-beta receptor engages TRAF6 to activate TAK1 in a receptor kinase-independent manner. Nat Cell Biol 10(10):1199–1207

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Yamashita M et al (2008) TRAF6 mediates Smad-independent activation of JNK and p38 by TGF-beta. Mol Cell 31(6):918–924

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Santibañez JF (2006) JNK mediates TGF-beta1-induced epithelial mesenchymal transdifferentiation of mouse transformed keratinocytes. FEBS Lett 580(22):5385–5391

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Dash S et al (2018) TGF-β2-induced EMT is dampened by inhibition of autophagy and TNF-α treatment. Oncotarget 9(5):6433–6449

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Zhang C et al (2017) TGF-β2 initiates autophagy via Smad and non-Smad pathway to promote glioma cells invasion. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 36(1):162

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Ozdamar B et al (2005) Regulation of the polarity protein Par6 by TGFbeta receptors controls epithelial cell plasticity. Science 307(5715):1603–1609

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Fleuren ED et al (2016) The kinome’ at large’in cancer. Nature Rev Cancer 16(2):83

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Donehower LA et al (2019) Integrated analysis of TP53 gene and pathway alterations in the cancer genome atlas. Cell Rep 28(5):1370–1384

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Wang ZC et al (2012) Profiles of genomic instability in high-grade serous ovarian cancer predict treatment outcome. Clin Cancer Res 18(20):5806–5815

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Korkut A et al (2018) A pan-cancer analysis reveals high-frequency genetic alterations in mediators of signaling by the TGF-beta superfamily. Cell Syst 7(4):422–437

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Junhan Zhou WJ, Huang W, Ye M, Zhu X (2020) Prognostic values of transforming growth factor-betasubtypes in ovarian cancer. BioMed Res Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2170606

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Abendstein B et al (2000) Regulation of transforming growth factor-β secretion by human peritoneal mesothelial and ovarian carcinoma cells. Cytokine 12(7):1115–1119

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Momenimovahed Z et al (2019) Ovarian cancer in the world: epidemiology and risk factors. Int J Womens Health 11:287–299

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Kurman RJ, Shih Ie M (2010) The origin and pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer: a proposed unifying theory. Am J Surg Pathol 34(3):433–443

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Masoodi T et al (2020) Genetic heterogeneity and evolutionary history of high-grade ovarian carcinoma and matched distant metastases. British J Cancer 122(8):1219–1230

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Coscia F et al (2016) Integrative proteomic profiling of ovarian cancer cell lines reveals precursor cell associated proteins and functional status. Nature Commun 7(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Ahmed AA et al (2010) Driver mutations in TP53 are ubiquitous in high grade serous carcinoma of the ovary. J Pathol 221(1):49–56

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Network CGAR (2011) Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474(7353):609

    Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Konecny GE et al (2014) Prognostic and therapeutic relevance of molecular subtypes in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. JNCI. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Auer K et al (2015) Peritoneal tumor spread in serous ovarian cancer-epithelial mesenchymal status and outcome. Oncotarget 6(19):17261–17275

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Risch HA et al (2001) Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 68(3):700–710

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Li D et al (2015) BRCA1 regulates transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β1) signaling through Gadd45a by enhancing the protein stability of Smad4. Mol Oncol 9(8):1655–1666

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Kindelberger DW et al (2007) Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol 31(2):161–169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Przybycin CG et al (2010) Are all pelvic (nonuterine) serous carcinomas of tubal origin? Am J Surg Pathol 34(10):1407–1416

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Perets R et al (2013) Transformation of the fallopian tube secretory epithelium leads to high-grade serous ovarian cancer in Brca;Tp53;Pten models. Cancer Cell 24(6):751–765

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Labidi-Galy SI et al (2017) High grade serous ovarian carcinomas originate in the fallopian tube. Nature Commun 8(1):1093

    Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Auersperg N et al (2001) Ovarian surface epithelium: biology, endocrinology, and pathology. Endocr Rev 22(2):255–288

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Coffman LG et al (2016) New models of hematogenous ovarian cancer metastasis demonstrate preferential spread to the ovary and a requirement for the ovary for abdominal dissemination. Transl Res 175:92-102.e2

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Irving-Rodgers HF, Harland ML, Rodgers RJ (2004) A novel basal lamina matrix of the stratified epithelium of the ovarian follicle. Matrix Biol 23(4):207–217

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Latifi A et al (2012) Isolation and characterization of tumor cells from the ascites of ovarian cancer patients: molecular phenotype of chemoresistant ovarian tumors. PLoS ONE 7(10):e46858

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Davidowitz RA et al (2014) Mesenchymal gene program–expressing ovarian cancer spheroids exhibit enhanced mesothelial clearance. J Clin Invest 124(6):2611–2625

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Huang RYJ et al (2013) An EMT spectrum defines an anoikis-resistant and spheroidogenic intermediate mesenchymal state that is sensitive to e-cadherin restoration by a src-kinase inhibitor, saracatinib (AZD0530). Cell Death Disease 4(11):e915

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Blechschmidt K et al (2008) The E-cadherin repressor Snail is associated with lower overall survival of ovarian cancer patients. British J Cancer 98(2):489–495

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Shim HS, Yoon BS, Cho NH (2009) Prognostic significance of paired epithelial cell adhesion molecule and E-cadherin in ovarian serous carcinoma. Human Pathol 40(5):693–698

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Knarr M et al (2020) miR-181a initiates and perpetuates oncogenic transformation through the regulation of innate immune signaling. Nature Commun 11(1):3231

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    Bakhoum SF et al (2018) Chromosomal instability drives metastasis through a cytosolic DNA response. Nature 553(7689):467–472

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Papageorgis P, Stylianopoulos T (2015) Role of TGFβ in regulation of the tumor microenvironment and drug delivery. Int J Oncol 46(3):933–943

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Metelli A et al (2016) Surface expression of TGFβ docking receptor GARP promotes oncogenesis and immune tolerance in breast cancer. Cancer Res 76(24):7106–7117

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Wang H et al (2013) Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) induced by TNF-α requires AKT/GSK-3β-mediated stabilization of snail in colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56664

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Joseph JV et al (2015) Hypoxia enhances migration and invasion in glioblastoma by promoting a mesenchymal shift mediated by the HIF1α–ZEB1 axis. Cancer Lett 359(1):107–116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Overstreet JM et al (2014) Redox control of p53 in the transcriptional regulation of TGF-β1 target genes through SMAD cooperativity. Cell Signal 26(7):1427–1436

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Jaffer OA et al (2015) Mitochondrial-targeted antioxidant therapy decreases transforming growth factor-β–mediated collagen production in a murine asthma model. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 52(1):106–115

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Pociask DA, Sime PJ, Brody AR (2004) Asbestos-derived reactive oxygen species activate TGF-β 1. Lab Invest 84(8):1013–1023

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Mikuła-Pietrasik J et al (2018) The peritoneal “soil” for a cancerous “seed”: a comprehensive review of the pathogenesis of intraperitoneal cancer metastases. Cell Mol Life Sci 75(3):509–525

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Wang E et al (2005) Peritoneal and subperitoneal stroma may facilitate regional spread of ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 11(1):113

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Burleson KM et al (2004) Ovarian carcinoma ascites spheroids adhere to extracellular matrix components and mesothelial cell monolayers. Gynecol Oncol 93(1):170–181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Kenny HA et al (2014) Mesothelial cells promote early ovarian cancer metastasis through fibronectin secretion. J Clin Invest 124(10):4614–4628

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. 182.

    He P, Qiu K, Jia Y (2018) Modeling of mesenchymal hybrid epithelial state and phenotypic transitions in EMT and MET processes of cancer cells. Sci Rep 8(1):14323

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. 183.

    López-Cabrera M (2014) Mesenchymal conversion of mesothelial cells is a key event in the pathophysiology of the peritoneum during peritoneal dialysis. Adv Med 2014:473134

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. 184.

    Strippoli R et al (2020) Caveolin1 and YAP drive mechanically induced mesothelial to mesenchymal transition and fibrosis. Cell Death Dis 11(8):647

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. 185.

    Young VJ et al (2014) The peritoneum is both a source and target of TGF-β in women with endometriosis. PLoS ONE 9(9):e106773

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. 186.

    Sandoval P et al (2013) Carcinoma-associated fibroblasts derive from mesothelial cells via mesothelial-to-mesenchymal transition in peritoneal metastasis. J Pathol 231(4):517–531

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. 187.

    Gao Q et al (2019) Heterotypic CAF-tumor spheroids promote early peritoneal metastatis of ovarian cancer. J Exp Med 216(3):688–703

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  188. 188.

    Heath RM et al (2004) Tumour-induced apoptosis in human mesothelial cells: a mechanism of peritoneal invasion by Fas Ligand/Fas interaction. British J Cancer 90(7):1437–1442

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  189. 189.

    Iwanicki MP et al (2011) Ovarian cancer spheroids use myosin-generated force to clear the mesothelium. Cancer Discov 1(2):144

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  190. 190.

    Liu Y et al (2017) YAP modulates TGF-β1-induced simultaneous apoptosis and EMT through upregulation of the EGF receptor. Sci Rep 7(1):45523

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  191. 191.

    Yang Y et al (2006) Transforming growth factor-beta1 induces epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and apoptosis via a cell cycle-dependent mechanism. Oncogene 25(55):7235–7244

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. 192.

    Lane D et al (2015) Inflammation-regulating factors in ascites as predictive biomarkers of drug resistance and progression-free survival in serous epithelial ovarian cancers. BMC Cancer 15(1):492

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  193. 193.

    Feigenberg T et al (2014) Molecular profiling and clinical outcome of high-grade serous ovarian cancer presenting with low- versus high-volume ascites. Biomed Res Int 2014:367103

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. 194.

    Ford CE et al (2020) The untapped potential of ascites in ovarian cancer research and treatment. British J Cancer 123(1):9–16

    Google Scholar 

  195. 195.

    Lee CK et al (2019) Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for overall survival in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 117:99–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. 196.

    Adam RA, Adam YG (2004) Malignant ascites: past, present, and future. J Am Coll Surg 198(6):999–1011

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. 197.

    Nagy JA et al (1993) Pathogenesis of malignant ascites formation: initiating events that lead to fluid accumulation. Cancer Res 53(11):2631–2643

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. 198.

    Liao S et al (2011) TGF-beta blockade controls ascites by preventing abnormalization of lymphatic vessels in orthotopic human ovarian carcinoma models. Clin Cancer Res 17(6):1415–1424

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  199. 199.

    Santin AD et al (2001) Increased levels of interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor-beta in the plasma and ascitic fluid of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. BJOG 108(8):804–808

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. 200.

    Yang L et al (2017) Ascites promotes cell migration through the repression of miR-125b in ovarian cancer. Oncotarget 8(31):51008–51015

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. 201.

    Sheid B (1992) Angiogenic effects of macrophages isolated from ascitic fluid aspirated from women with advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer Lett 62(2):153–158

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. 202.

    Kan T et al (2020) Single-cell EMT-related transcriptional analysis revealed intra-cluster heterogeneity of tumor cell clusters in epithelial ovarian cancer ascites. Oncogene 39(21):4227–4240

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. 203.

    Pakuła M et al (2019) A unique pattern of mesothelial-mesenchymal transition induced in the normal peritoneal mesothelium by high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancers 11(5):662

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  204. 204.

    Paoli P, Giannoni E (1833) Anoikis molecular pathways and its role in cancer progression. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) Mol Cell Res 12:3481–3498

    Google Scholar 

  205. 205.

    Li X, Wang X (2017) The emerging roles and therapeutic potential of exosomes in epithelial ovarian cancer. Mol Cancer 16(1):92

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  206. 206.

    Webber J et al (2010) Cancer exosomes trigger fibroblast to myofibroblast differentiation. Cancer Res 70(23):9621–9630

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. 207.

    Mashouri L et al (2019) Exosomes: composition, biogenesis, and mechanisms in cancer metastasis and drug resistance. Mol Cancer 18(1):75

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  208. 208.

    Cornell L et al (2019) MicroRNA-mediated suppression of the TGF-β pathway confers transmissible and reversible CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance. Cell Rep 26(10):2667–80.e7

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  209. 209.

    Graves LE et al (2004) Proinvasive properties of ovarian cancer ascites-derived membrane vesicles. Cancer Res 64(19):7045–7049

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. 210.

    Neill T et al (2013) Decorin induces rapid secretion of thrombospondin-1 in basal breast carcinoma cells via inhibition of Ras homolog gene family, member A/Rho-associated coiled-coil containing protein kinase 1. FEBS J 280(10):2353–2368

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  211. 211.

    Yung S et al (1995) Source of peritoneal proteoglycans. Human peritoneal mesothelial cells synthesize and secrete mainly small dermatan sulfate proteoglycans. Am J Pathol 146(2):520–529

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  212. 212.

    Nieman KM et al (2011) Adipocytes promote ovarian cancer metastasis and provide energy for rapid tumor growth. Nature Med 17(11):1498

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  213. 213.

    Etzerodt A et al (2020) Tissue-resident macrophages in omentum promote metastatic spread of ovarian cancer. J Exp Med 217(4):e20191869

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  214. 214.

    McNally L et al (2015) Does omentectomy in epithelial ovarian cancer affect survival? An analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25(4):607–615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. 215.

    Motohara T et al (2019) An evolving story of the metastatic voyage of ovarian cancer cells: cellular and molecular orchestration of the adipose-rich metastatic microenvironment. Oncogene 38(16):2885–2898

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  216. 216.

    Shimotsuma M et al (1993) Morpho-physiological function and role of omental milky spots as omentum-associated lymphoid tissue (OALT) in the peritoneal cavity. Lymphology 26(2):90–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  217. 217.

    Cai J et al (2012) Fibroblasts in omentum activated by tumor cells promote ovarian cancer growth, adhesion and invasiveness. Carcinogenesis 33(1):20–29

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. 218.

    Cheon DJ et al (2014) A collagen-remodeling gene signature regulated by TGF-β signaling is associated with metastasis and poor survival in serous ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 20(3):711–723

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  219. 219.

    Huang YL et al (2020) Collagen-rich omentum is a premetastatic niche for integrin α2-mediated peritoneal metastasis. Elife 9:e59442

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  220. 220.

    Meza-Perez S, Randall TD (2017) Immunological functions of the omentum. Trends Immunol 38(7):526–536

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  221. 221.

    Gratchev A (2017) TGF-beta signalling in tumour associated macrophages. Immunobiology 222(1):75–81

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. 222.

    Ho M-Y et al (2012) TNF-α induces epithelial–mesenchymal transition of renal cell carcinoma cells via a GSK3β-dependent mechanism. Mol Cancer Res 10(8):1109–1119

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  223. 223.

    Fu X-T et al (2015) Macrophage-secreted IL-8 induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition in hepatocellular carcinoma cells by activating the JAK2/STAT3/Snail pathway. Int J Oncol 46(2):587–596

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  224. 224.

    Nieman KM et al (1831) (2013) Adipose tissue and adipocytes support tumorigenesis and metastasis. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) Mol Cell Biol Lipids 10:1533–1541

    Google Scholar 

  225. 225.

    Tucker SL et al (2014) Molecular biomarkers of residual disease after surgical debulking of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 20(12):3280–3288

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  226. 226.

    Jin J et al (2018) Fatty acid binding protein 4 promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cervical squamous cell carcinoma through AKT/GSK3β/Snail signaling pathway. Mol Cell Endocrinol 461:155–164

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. 227.

    Dirat B et al (2011) Cancer-associated adipocytes exhibit an activated phenotype and contribute to breast cancer invasion. Cancer Res 71(7):2455–2465

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. 228.

    Park J, Morley TS, Scherer PE (2013) Inhibition of endotrophin, a cleavage product of collagen VI, confers cisplatin sensitivity to tumours. EMBO Mol Med 5(6):935–948

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  229. 229.

    Ishay-Ronen D, Christofori G (2019) Targeting cancer cell metastasis by converting cancer cells into fat. Cancer Res 79(21):5471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. 230.

    Ledermann J et al (2014) Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: a preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(8):852–861

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  231. 231.

    Bookman M, et al. (2017) Harmonising clinical trials within the gynecologic cancer intergroup: consensus and unmet needs from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. Ann Oncol 28(suppl_8):viii30-viii5

  232. 232.

    Deng J et al (2016) Targeting epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cells for chemoresistant ovarian cancer. Oncotarget 7(34):55771

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  233. 233.

    Steg AD et al (2012) Stem cell pathways contribute to clinical chemoresistance in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18(3):869–881

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  234. 234.

    Smith AG, Macleod KF (2019) Autophagy, cancer stem cells and drug resistance. J Pathol 247(5):708–718

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  235. 235.

    Naik PP et al (2018) Autophagy regulates cisplatin-induced stemness and chemoresistance via the upregulation of CD44, ABCB1 and ADAM17 in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cell Prolif. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpr.12411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  236. 236.

    Bhagyaraj E et al (2019) TGF-β induced chemoresistance in liver cancer is modulated by xenobiotic nuclear receptor PXR. Cell Cycle 18(24):3589–3602

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  237. 237.

    Srivastava AK et al (2015) Enhanced expression of DNA polymerase eta contributes to cisplatin resistance of ovarian cancer stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(14):4411–4416

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  238. 238.

    Saxena M et al (2011) Transcription factors that mediate epithelial-mesenchymal transition lead to multidrug resistance by upregulating ABC transporters. Cell Death Dis 2(7):e179

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  239. 239.

    Hojo N et al (2018) Snail knockdown reverses stemness and inhibits tumour growth in ovarian cancer. Sci Rep 8(1):8704

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  240. 240.

    Kurrey NK et al (2009) Snail and slug mediate radioresistance and chemoresistance by antagonizing p53-mediated apoptosis and acquiring a stem-like phenotype in ovarian cancer cells. Stem Cells 27(9):2059–2068

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  241. 241.

    Mitra T et al (2018) Stemness and chemoresistance are imparted to the OC cells through TGFβ1 driven EMT. J Cell Biochem 119(7):5775–5787

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  242. 242.

    Huang S et al (2012) MED12 controls the response to multiple cancer drugs through regulation of TGF-β receptor signaling. Cell 151(5):937–950

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  243. 243.

    Davis FM et al (2014) Targeting EMT in cancer: opportunities for pharmacological intervention. Trends Pharmacol Sci 35(9):479–488

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  244. 244.

    Yang D et al (2013) Integrated analyses identify a master microrna regulatory network for the mesenchymal subtype in serous ovarian cancer. Cancer Cell 23(2):186–199

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  245. 245.

    Liang W et al (2019) Artemisinin induced reversal of EMT affects the molecular biological activity of ovarian cancer SKOV3 cell lines. Oncol Lett 18(3):3407–3414

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  246. 246.

    Li X et al (2016) Preclinical efficacy and safety assessment of artemisinin-chemotherapeutic agent conjugates for ovarian cancer. EBioMedicine 14:44–54

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  247. 247.

    Buijs JT et al (2007) Bone morphogenetic protein 7 in the development and treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer. Cancer Res 67(18):8742–8751

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  248. 248.

    Buijs JT et al (2007) BMP7, a putative regulator of epithelial homeostasis in the human prostate, is a potent inhibitor of prostate cancer bone metastasis in vivo. Am J Pathol 171(3):1047–1057

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  249. 249.

    Ishay-Ronen D et al (2019) Gain fat—lose metastasis: converting invasive breast cancer cells into adipocytes inhibits cancer metastasis. Cancer Cell 35(1):17–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  250. 250.

    Mathow D et al (2015) Zeb1 affects epithelial cell adhesion by diverting glycosphingolipid metabolism. EMBO Rep 16(3):321–331

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  251. 251.

    Schwab A et al (2018) Polyol pathway links glucose metabolism to the aggressiveness of cancer cells. Cancer Res 78(7):1604–1618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  252. 252.

    Brown JR et al (2020) Phase II clinical trial of metformin as a cancer stem cell–targeting agent in ovarian cancer. JCI Insight 5(11):e143247

    Google Scholar 

  253. 253.

    Anderton MJ et al (2011) Induction of heart valve lesions by small-molecule ALK5 inhibitors. Toxicol Pathol 39(6):916–924

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  254. 254.

    Batlle E, Massagué J (2019) Transforming growth factor-β signaling in immunity and cancer. Immunity 50(4):924–940

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  255. 255.

    Morris JC et al (2014) Phase I study of GC1008 (fresolimumab): a human anti-transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ) monoclonal antibody in patients with advanced malignant melanoma or renal cell carcinoma. PLoS ONE 9(3):e90353

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  256. 256.

    Formenti SC et al (2018) Focal irradiation and systemic TGFβ blockade in metastatic breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 24(11):2493–2504

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  257. 257.

    Tauer JT, Abdullah S, Rauch F (2019) Effect of anti-TGF-beta treatment in a mouse model of severe osteogenesis imperfecta. J Bone Miner Res 34(2):207–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  258. 258.

    Lee SW et al (2016) Bone mineral density in women treated for various types of gynecological cancer. Asia-Pacific J Clin Oncol 12(4):e398–e404

    Google Scholar 

  259. 259.

    D’Cruz O et al (2017) Transforming growth factor-beta 2 (TGF-β2) antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) OT-101 synergizes with chemotherapy in preclinical tumor models. AACR. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-2800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  260. 260.

    Van Aarsen LA et al (2008) Antibody-mediated blockade of integrin alpha v beta 6 inhibits tumor progression in vivo by a transforming growth factor-beta-regulated mechanism. Cancer Res 68(2):561–570

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  261. 261.

    de Streel G et al (2020) Selective inhibition of TGF-beta1 produced by GARP-expressing tregs overcomes resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in cancer. Nat Commun 11(1):4545

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  262. 262.

    Kim SK et al (2017) An engineered transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) monomer that functions as a dominant negative to block TGF-β signaling. J Biol Chem 292(17):7173–7188

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  263. 263.

    Gallo-Oller G et al (2016) P144, a transforming growth factor beta inhibitor peptide, generates antitumoral effects and modifies SMAD7 and SKI levels in human glioblastoma cell lines. Cancer Lett 381(1):67–75

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  264. 264.

    Mendoza V et al (2009) Betaglycan has two independent domains required for high affinity TGF-β binding: proteolytic cleavage separates the domains and inactivates the neutralizing activity of the soluble receptor. Biochemistry 48(49):11755–11765

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  265. 265.

    Tao JJ et al (2019) First-in-human phase I study of the activin A inhibitor, STM 434, in patients with granulosa cell ovarian cancer and other advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 25(18):5458

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  266. 266.

    Sheen YY et al (2013) Targeting the transforming growth factor-β signaling in cancer therapy. Biomol Ther 21(5):323–331

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  267. 267.

    Zhang Q et al (2018) LY2157299 monohydrate, a TGF-βR1 inhibitor, suppresses tumor growth and ascites development in ovarian cancer. Cancers 10(8):260

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  268. 268.

    Connolly EC et al (2011) Outgrowth of drug-resistant carcinomas expressing markers of tumor aggression after long-term TβRI/II kinase inhibition with LY2109761. Cancer Res 71(6):2339–2349

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  269. 269.

    Spender LC et al (2019) Preclinical evaluation of AZ12601011 and AZ12799734, inhibitors of transforming growth factor β superfamily type 1 receptors. Mol Pharmacol 95(2):222–234

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  270. 270.

    Newsted D et al (2019) Blockade of TGF-β signaling with novel synthetic antibodies limits immune exclusion and improves chemotherapy response in metastatic ovarian cancer models. Oncoimmunology 8(2):e1539613

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  271. 271.

    Yao E-H et al (2009) A pyrrole–imidazole polyamide targeting transforming growth factor-β1 inhibits restenosis and preserves endothelialization in the injured artery. Cardiovasc Res 81(4):797–804

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  272. 272.

    Chen M et al (2010) Pretranscriptional regulation of Tgf-β1 by PI polyamide prevents scarring and accelerates wound healing of the cornea after exposure to alkali. Mol Ther 18(3):519–527

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  273. 273.

    Matsuda H et al (2011) Transcriptional inhibition of progressive renal disease by gene silencing pyrrole–imidazole polyamide targeting of the transforming growth factor-β1 promoter. Kidney Int 79(1):46–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  274. 274.

    Washio H et al (2011) Transcriptional inhibition of hypertrophic scars by a gene silencer, pyrrole–imidazole polyamide, targeting the TGF-β1 promoter. J Invest Dermatol 131(10):1987–1995

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  275. 275.

    Igarashi J et al (2015) Preclinical study of novel gene silencer pyrrole-imidazole polyamide targeting human TGF-β1 promoter for hypertrophic scars in a common marmoset primate model. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0125295

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  276. 276.

    Sow HS et al (2019) Combined inhibition of TGF-β signaling and the PD-L1 immune checkpoint is differentially effective in tumor models. Cells 8(4):320

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  277. 277.

    Mariathasan S et al (2018) TGFβ attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells. Nature 554(7693):544–548

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  278. 278.

    Lan Y et al (2018) Enhanced preclinical antitumor activity of M7824, a bifunctional fusion protein simultaneously targeting PD-L1 and TGF-beta. Sci Transl Med. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aan5488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  279. 279.

    Wang L et al (2010) Immunotherapy for human renal cell carcinoma by adoptive transfer of autologous transforming growth factor β–insensitive CD8+ T cells. Clin Cancer Res 16(1):164–173

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  280. 280.

    Fakhrai H et al (2006) Phase I clinical trial of a TGF-β antisense-modified tumor cell vaccine in patients with advanced glioma. Cancer Gene Ther 13(12):1052–1060

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  281. 281.

    Olivares J et al (2011) Phase I trial of TGF-β2 antisense GM-CSF gene-modified autologous tumor cell (TAG) vaccine. Clin Cancer Res 17(1):183–192

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  282. 282.

    Faivre S et al (2019) Novel transforming growth factor beta receptor I kinase inhibitor galunisertib (LY2157299) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int 39(8):1468–1477

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  283. 283.

    Morris JC et al (2014) Phase I study of GC1008 (fresolimumab): a human anti-transforming growth factor-beta (TGFbeta) monoclonal antibody in patients with advanced malignant melanoma or renal cell carcinoma. PLoS ONE 9(3):e90353

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  284. 284.

    Cohn A et al (2014) A phase I dose-escalation study to a predefined dose of a transforming growth factor-beta1 monoclonal antibody (TbetaM1) in patients with metastatic cancer. Int J Oncol 45(6):2221–2231

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  285. 285.

    Trials.gov c Phase I/Ib study of NIS793 in combination With PDR001 in patients with advanced malignancies. ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier: NCT02947165

  286. 286.

    Bogdahn U et al (2011) Targeted therapy for high-grade glioma with the TGF-beta2 inhibitor trabedersen: results of a randomized and controlled phase IIb study. Neuro Oncol 13(1):132–142

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  287. 287.

    Trials.gov C Study to determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and RP2D of ABBV-151 as a single agent and in combination with ABBV-181 in participants with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier: NCT03821935

  288. 288.

    Timothy Yap1 DA, Debra Wood3, Jean-François Denis3, Tina Gruosso3, Gilles Tremblay3, Maureen O’Connor-McCourt3, Ria Ghosh3, Sandra Sinclair3, Paul Nadler3, Lilian Siu2 and Nehal Lakhani4 P856 AVID200, first-in-class TGF-beta1 and beta3 selective inhibitor: results of a phase 1 monotherapy dose escalation study in solid tumors and evidence of target engagement in patients.

  289. 289.

    Vicki Leigh Keedy TMB, Jeffrey Melson Clarke, Herbert Hurwitz, Insun Baek, Ilho Ha, Chan-Young Ock, Su Youn Nam, Mina Kim, Neunggyu Park, Jung Yong Kim, Seong-Jin Kim Association of TGF-β responsive signature with anti-tumor effect of vactosertib, a potent, oral TGF-β receptor type I (TGFBRI) inhibitor in patients with advanced solid tumor. J Clin Oncol 36, no 15_suppl

  290. 290.

    Goff LW et al (2016) A phase I study of the anti-activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK-1) monoclonal antibody PF-03446962 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 22(9):2146–2154

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  291. 291.

    Nemunaitis J et al (2006) Phase II study of belagenpumatucel-L, a transforming growth factor beta-2 antisense gene-modified allogeneic tumor cell vaccine in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(29):4721–4730

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  292. 292.

    Olivares J et al (2011) Phase I trial of TGF-beta 2 antisense GM-CSF gene-modified autologous tumor cell (TAG) vaccine. Clin Cancer Res 17(1):183–192

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank members of Mythreye Karthikeyan’s laboratory particularly Eduardo Listik and Alex Seok Choi for useful feedback. We also want to acknowledge and apologize to the several investigators whose highly relevant studies could not be cited directly here due to space constraints. Figures were created with BioRender.com

Funding

For the work was partially supported by NIH Grants R01CA219495 and R01CA230628 to Mythreye Karthikeyan (KM), and NIH grant R01GM128055 to Nam Y Lee.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The manuscript was written and edited by all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karthikeyan Mythreye.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing financial interests or conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumari, A., Shonibare, Z., Monavarian, M. et al. TGFβ signaling networks in ovarian cancer progression and plasticity. Clin Exp Metastasis 38, 139–161 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-021-10077-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • EMT
  • TGFβ
  • Ovarian cancer
  • Tumor microenvironment
  • Metastasis