Advertisement

Spontaneous Phenotypic Shifts from Low to High Metastatic Capacity

  • Volker Schirrmacher
  • Peter Altevogt
  • Klaus Bosslet
Part of the NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 57)

Abstract

Tumor progression from low to high malignancy is believed to occur in multiple steps (1). Analogous to mutation/selection the process of tumor progression is thought to have its basis in the continuous emergence of successive clones of tumor cell variants, one gradually replacing another, through the intervention of natural or artificial selection pressures (2). Highly malignant metastasizing tumor cells have been shown to differ from low malignant non-metastasizing ones in a number of properties such as plasma membrane enzyme activities (3), cell surface antigen shedding (4), tumor antigenicity and immunogenicity (5). A critical question is whether all these specific properties have been accumulated in the metastatic cell in a stepwise fashion. Is each new property the result of a process of random variation and host selection? How can a random process result in the generation of cells endowed with not just one but a number of very specific properties that enable them to cross the various biological barriers of the host, to survive and grow in different microenvironments?

Keywords

Tumor Antigen Tumor Line Tumor Variant Metastasize Tumor Cell High Malignancy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. C. Nowell, The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations, Science 194: 23 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. S. Kerbel, Implications of immunological heterogeneity of tumours, Nature 280: 358 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. K. Chatterjee, U. Kim and K. Bielot, Plasma membrane associated enzymes of mammary tumors as the biochemical indicators of metastasizing capacity. Analyses of enriched membrane fragments, Brit.J.Cancer 33: 15 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Alexander, Escape from immune destruction by the host through shedding of membrane antigens: is this a characteristic shared by malignant and embryonic cells? Cancer Res. 34: 2077 (1974).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. V. Sugarbaker and A. M. Cohen, Altered antigenicity in spontaneous pulmonary metastases from an antigenic murine sarcoma, Surgery 72: 155 (1972).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. T. Diamandopoulos, Microenvironmental influences on the in vivo behavior of neoplastic lymphocytes, Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci. 76: 6456 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Brouty-Boye, I. Gresser and C. Baldwin, Reversion of the transformed phenotype to the parental phenotype by subcultivation of x-ray transformed C3H/10 T 1/2 cells at low cell density, Int.J.Cancer 24: 253 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Brouty-Boye and I. Gresser, Reversibility of the transformed and neoplastic phenotype. I. Progressive reversion of the phenotype of X-ray transformed C3H/10 T 1/2 cells under pro-longed treatment with interferon, Int.J.Cancer 28: 165 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Minz and K. Illmensee, Normal genetically mosaic mice produced from malignant teratocarcinoma cells, Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci. 72: 3585 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. Parr, Response of syngeneic murine lymphomata to immunotherapy in relation to the antigenicity of the tumor, Brit.J.Cancer 26: 174 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Schirrmacher, G. Shantz, K. Clauer, D. Komitowski, H.-P. Zimmermann, M. L. Lohmann-Matthes, Tumor metastases and cell-mediated immunity in a model system in DBA/2 mice. I. Tumor invasiveness in vitro and metastases formation in vivo, Int.J.Cancer 23: 233 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Altevogt, J. T. Kurnick, A. K. Kimura, K. Bosslet and V. Schirrmacher, Different expression of Lyt differentiation antigens and cell surface glycoproteins by a murine T lymphoma line and its high metastatic variant, Eur. J. Immunol. (in press 1981).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.-L. Lohmann-Matthes, A. Schleich, G. Shantz and V. Schirrmacher, Tumor metastases and cell-mediated immunity in a model system in DBA/2 mice. VII. Interaction of metastasizing and non-metastasizing tumors with normal tissue in vitro, J.Natl. Cancer Inst. 64: 1413 (1980)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Schirrmacher, R. Cheingsong-Popov, and H. Arnheiter, Hepatocyte-tumor cell interaction in vitro. I. Conditions for rosette formation and inhibition by anti H-2 antibody, J.Exp.Med. 151: 984 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. Schirrmacher and W. Jacobs, Tumor metastases and cell-mediated immunity in a model system in DBA/2 mice. VIII. Expression and shedding of Fc receptors on metastatic tumor cell variants, J.Supramol.Struct. 11: 105 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Schirrmacher, K. Bosslet, G. Shantz, K. Clauer and D. Hiibsch, Tumor metastases and cell-mediated immunity in a model system in DBA/2 mice. IV. Antigenic differences between the parental tumor line and its metastasizing variant, Int.J.Cancer 23: 245 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Bosslet, V. Schirrmacher, and G. Shantz, Tumor metastases and cell-mediated immunity in a model system in DBA/2 mice. VI. Similar specificity patterns of protective anti-tumor immunity in vivo and of cytolytic T cells in vitro, Int.J.Cancer 24: 303 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. Schirrmacher and K. Bosslet, Tumor metastases and cell-mediated immunity in a model system in DBA/2 mice. X. Immuno-selection of tumor variants differing in tumor antigen expression and metastatic capacity, Int. J. Cancer 25: 781 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    V. Schirrmacher, D. Hiibsch and K. Clauer, Tumor metastases and cell-mediated immunity in a model system in DBA/2 mice. IX. Radioassay analysis of tumor cell spread from a local site to the blood and liver, in: “Metastatic Tumor Growth, Cancer Campaign,” E. Grundmann, ed., Gustav Fischer Verlag 4: 147 (1980).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Barz, K. Bosslet and V. Schirrmacher, Metastatic tumor cell variants with increased resistance to infection by Semliki Forest Virus, J.Immunology 127: 951 (1981).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. Schirrmacher, Shifts in tumor cell phenotypes induced by signals from the microenvironment: Relevance for the immune-biology of cancer metastasis, Immunobiology 157: 89 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Bosslet and V. Schirrmacher, Escape of metastasizing clonal tumor cell variants from tumor-specific cytolytic T lymphocytes, J.Exp.Med. 154: 557 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Poste and I. J. Fidler, The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis, Nature 283: 139 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. J. Fidler and M. L. Kripke, Metastasis results from preexisting variant cells within a malignant tumor, Science 197: 893 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. I. Nicolson, Cancer Metastasis, Scientific America 240: 50 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volker Schirrmacher
    • 1
  • Peter Altevogt
    • 1
  • Klaus Bosslet
    • 1
  1. 1.KrebsforschungszentrumInstitut für Immunologie und Genetik am DeutschenHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations