Biological materials composed of extracellular matrix (ECM) or its components have been successfully used for tissue repair and reconstruction. Preclinical studies, along with a cohort study following stage T1A esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) resection, have shown that ECM biomaterials can restore esophageal mucosa and submucosa without cancer recurrence. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying these effects remain largely unexplored. The present study investigates the in vitro effects of ECM degradation products from nonmalignant esophageal (eECM) and urinary bladder (ubECM) sources on EAC cell proliferation, migration, and associated signaling pathways. Both eECM and ubECM significantly inhibited OE33 cell proliferation, with eECM exhibiting a stronger effect—reducing proliferation to 25% at 24 h and 7% at 72 h compared with pepsin control (p < 0.001). A high-throughput cell surface marker screen followed by gene and protein expression analysis revealed that both ECM sources downregulated CD164 and CXCR4, reducing CXCR4 protein levels by approximately 50% (p = 0.006 for eECM, p = 0.007 for ubECM). Notably, only eECM significantly suppressed OE33 cell migration (p ≤ 0.0001) and downregulated bone morphogenetic protein 4 BMP4 expression, along with its downstream targets pSMAD1/5/8, ID2, and SNAI2, thereby reducing epithelial–mesenchymal transition. These findings support the concept that biochemical cues from nonmalignant ECM modulate neoplastic cell behavior. Given the involvement of PI3K-Akt and BMP4 signaling in EAC progression, ECM-based strategies may warrant further investigation as potential therapeutic approaches following esophageal cancer resection.
Impact Statement
The extracellular matrix (ECM) and degradation products thereof have been shown to promote a healthy homeostatic state in both normal and injured tissues. Similarly, various formulations of ECM have been shown to mitigate metaplastic and neoplastic transformation of cells in certain types of cancer, including esophageal adenocarcinoma. The molecular mechanisms responsible for these effects are largely unknown. The present study investigated the in vitro effects of ECM degradation products on esophageal cancer cell proliferation and migration and associated signaling pathways.
SotoAM, SonnenscheinC. The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory. Bioessays, 2011; 33(5):332–340; doi: 10.1002/bies.201100025
2.
PrevelCD, EppleyBL, SummerlinDJ, et al.Small intestinal submucosa: Utilization for repair of rodent abdominal wall defects. Ann Plast Surg, 1995; 35(4):374–380.
3.
GilbertTW, WognumS, JoyceEM, et al.Collagen fiber alignment and biaxial mechanical behavior of porcine urinary bladder derived extracellular matrix. Biomaterials, 2008; 29(36):4775–4782; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.08.022
4.
CareyLE, DearthCL, JohnsonSA, et al.In vivo degradation of 14C-labeled porcine dermis biologic scaffold. Biomaterials, 2014; 35(29):8297–8304; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.06.015
5.
NaranjoJD, SaldinLT, SobieskiE, et al.Esophageal extracellular matrix hydrogel mitigates metaplastic change in a dog model of Barrett’s esophagus. Sci Adv, 2020; 6(27):eaba4526; doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba4526
6.
GilbertTW, SellaroTL, BadylakSF. Decellularization of tissues and organs. Biomaterials, 2006; 27(19):3675–3683; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.02.014
7.
CrapoPM, GilbertTW, BadylakSF. An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials, 2011; 32(12):3233–3243; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.057
BadylakS, KokiniK, TulliusB, et al.Morphologic study of small intestinal submucosa as a body wall repair device. J Surg Res, 2002; 103(2):190–202; doi: 10.1006/jsre.2001.6349
10.
ValentinJE, Stewart-AkersAM, GilbertTW, et al.Macrophage participation in the degradation and remodeling of extracellular matrix scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A, 2009; 15(7):1687–1694; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.0419
11.
TakanariK, HongY, HashizumeR, et al.Abdominal wall reconstruction by a regionally distinct biocomposite of extracellular matrix digest and a biodegradable elastomer. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2016; 10(9):748–761; doi: 10.1002/term.1834
12.
KroppBP, RippyMK, BadylakSF, et al.Regenerative urinary bladder augmentation using small intestinal submucosa: Urodynamic and histopathologic assessment in long-term canine bladder augmentations. J Urol, 1996; 155(6):2098–2104; doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)66117-2
13.
BadylakSF, KroppB, McPhersonT, et al.Small intestinal submucosa: A rapidly resorbed bioscaffold for augmentation cystoplasty in a dog model. Tissue Eng, 1998; 4(4):379–387; doi: 10.1089/ten.1998.4.379
14.
SabetkishS, SabetkishN, KajbafzadehA-M. Regeneration of muscular wall of the bladder using a ureter matrix graft as a scaffold. Biotech Histochem, 2022; 97(3):207–214; doi: 10.1080/10520295.2021.1931448
15.
TurnerNJ, BadylakJS, WeberDJ, et al.Biologic scaffold remodeling in a dog model of complex musculoskeletal injury. J Surg Res, 2012; 176(2):490–502; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.11.1029
16.
SicariBM, RubinJP, DearthCL, et al.An acellular biologic scaffold promotes skeletal muscle formation in mice and humans with volumetric muscle loss. Sci Transl Med, 2014; 6(234):234ra58; doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008085
17.
DzikiJ, BadylakS, YabroudiM, et al.An acellular biologic scaffold treatment for volumetric muscle loss: Results of a 13-patient cohort study. NPJ Regen Med, 2016; 1:16008; doi: 10.1038/npjregenmed.2016.8
18.
DzikiJL, GiglioRM, SicariBM, et al.The effect of mechanical loading upon extracellular matrix bioscaffold-mediated skeletal muscle remodeling. Tissue Eng Part A, 2018; 24(1–2):34–46; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2017.0011
19.
BadylakSF, VorpDA, SpievackAR, et al.Esophageal reconstruction with ECM and muscle tissue in a dog model. J Surg Res, 2005; 128(1):87–97; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2005.03.002
20.
BadylakSF, HoppoT, NieponiceA, et al.Esophageal preservation in five male patients after endoscopic inner-layer circumferential resection in the setting of superficial cancer: A regenerative medicine approach with a biologic scaffold. Tissue Eng Part A, 2011; 17(11–12):1643–1650; doi: 10.1089/ten.tea.2010.0739
21.
HoppoT, BadylakSF, JobeBA. A novel esophageal-preserving approach to treat high-grade dysplasia and superficial adenocarcinoma in the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. World J Surg, 2012; 36(10):2390–2393; doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1698-6
22.
NieponiceA, CiotolaFF, NachmanF, et al.Patch esophagoplasty: Esophageal reconstruction using biologic scaffolds. Ann Thorac Surg, 2014; 97(1):283–288; doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.08.011
23.
BadylakSF, KochupuraPV, CohenIS, et al.The use of extracellular matrix as an inductive scaffold for the partial replacement of functional myocardium. Cell Transplant, 2006; 15(Suppl 1):S29–S40; doi: 10.3727/000000006783982368
24.
WainwrightJM, HashizumeR, FujimotoKL, et al.Right ventricular outflow tract repair with a cardiac biologic scaffold. Cells Tissues Organs, 2012; 195(1–2):159–170; doi: 10.1159/000331400
25.
DzikiJL, BadylakSF. Extracellular matrix for myocardial repair. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2018; 1098:151–171; doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97421-7_8
26.
CobbMA, BadylakSF, JanasW, et al.Histology after dural grafting with small intestinal submucosa. Surg Neurol, 1996; 46(4):389–393; doi: 10.1016/S0090-3019(96)00202-9
27.
CobbMA, BadylakSF, JanasW, et al.Porcine small intestinal submucosa as a dural substitute. Surg Neurol, 1999; 51(1):99–104; doi: 10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00475-8
28.
SaldinLT, CramerMC, VelankarSS, WhiteLJ, BadylakSF. Extracellular matrix hydrogels from decellularized tissues. Structure and Function. Acta Biomater, 2017; 49:1–15; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.11.068
29.
HurstRE, KykerKD, BonnerRB, et al.Matrix-dependent plasticity of the malignant phenotype of bladder cancer cells. Anticancer Res, 2003; 23(4):3119–3128.
30.
HoddeJP, SuckowMA, WolterWR, et al.Small intestinal submucosa does not promote PAIII tumor growth in Lobund-Wistar rats. J Surg Res, 2004; 120(2):189–194; doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2003.10.022
31.
HurstRE, HauserPJ, KykerKD, et al.Suppression and activation of the malignant phenotype by extracellular matrix in xenograft models of bladder cancer: A model for tumor cell “dormancy. PLoS One, 2013; 8(5):e64181; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064181
32.
WolfMT, GangulyS, WangTL, et al.A biologic scaffold-associated type 2 immune microenvironment inhibits tumor formation and synergizes with checkpoint immunotherapy. Sci Transl Med, 2019; 11(477):eaat7973; doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aat7973
33.
SaldinLT, PatelS, ZhangL, et al.Extracellular matrix degradation products downregulate neoplastic esophageal cell phenotype. Tissue Eng Part A, 2019; 25(5–6):487–498; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2018.0105
34.
MurdockMH, HusseyGS, ChangJT, et al.A liquid fraction of extracellular matrix inhibits glioma cell viability in vitro and in vivo. Oncotarget, 2022; 13(1):426–438.
35.
FreytesDO, MartinJ, VelankarSS, et al.Preparation and rheological characterization of a gel form of the porcine urinary bladder matrix. Biomaterials, 2008; 29(11):1630–1637; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.12.014
36.
KeaneTJ, LondonoR, CareyRM, et al.Preparation and characterization of a biologic scaffold from esophageal mucosa. Biomaterials, 2013; 34(28):6729–6737; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.05.052
37.
MoravcikovaE, MeyerEM, CorselliM, et al.Proteomic profiling of native unpassaged and culture-expanded Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSC). Cytometry A, 2018; 93(9):894–904; doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.23574
38.
DonnenbergVS, CorselliM, NormolleDP, et al.Flow cytometric detection of most proteins in the cell surface proteome is unaffected by trypsin treatment. Cytometry A, 2018; 93(8):803–810; doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.23525
39.
DonnenbergAD, MeyerEM, RubinJP, et al.The cell-surface proteome of cultured adipose stromal cells. Cytometry A, 2015; 87(7):665–674; doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.22682
40.
DonnenbergVS, ZhangJJ, MoravcikovaE, et al.Antibody-based cell-surface proteome profiling of metastatic breast cancer primary explants and cell lines. Cytometry A, 2018; 93(4):448–457; doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.23300
41.
BissellMJ, HallHG, ParryG. How does the extracellular matrix direct gene expression? J Theor Biol, 1982; 99(1):31–68; doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(82)90388-5
42.
FordeS, TyeBJ, NeweySE, et al.Endolyn (CD164) modulates the CXCL12-mediated migration of umbilical cord blood CD133+ cells. Blood, 2007; 109(5):1825–1833; doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-05-023028
43.
PingY, YaoX, JiangJ, et al.The chemokine CXCL12 and its receptor CXCR4 promote glioma stem cell-mediated VEGF production and tumour angiogenesis via PI3K/AKT signalling. J Pathol, 2011; 224(3):344–354; doi: 10.1002/path.2908
44.
van BaalJWPM, MilanaF, RygielAM, et al.A comparative analysis by SAGE of gene expression profiles of esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cell Oncol, 2008; 30(1):63–75; doi: 10.1155/2008/328529
45.
KestensC, SiersemaPD, OfferhausGJA, et al.BMP4 signaling is able to induce an epithelial-mesenchymal transition-like phenotype in Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal adenocarcinoma through induction of SNAIL2. PLoS One, 2016; 11(5):e0155754.
46.
VillarejoA, Cortés-CabreraA, Molina-OrtízP, et al.Differential role of Snail1 and Snail2 zinc fingers in E-cadherin repression and epithelial to mesenchymal transition. J Biol Chem, 2014; 289(2):930–941; doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.528026
47.
LinEW, KarakashevaTA, HicksPD, et al.The tumor microenvironment in esophageal cancer. Oncogene, 2016; 35(41):5337–5349; doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.34
48.
ColemanHG, XieS-H, LagergrenJ. The epidemiology of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology, 2018; 154(2):390–405; doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.046
49.
SaldinLT, KlimakM, HillRC, et al.The effect of normal, metaplastic, and neoplastic esophageal extracellular matrix upon macrophage activation. J Immunol Regen Med, 2021; 13:100037; doi: 10.1016/j.regen.2020.100037
50.
BornsteinP, McPhersonJ, SageH. Pathobiology of the endothelial cell. Pathobiol Endothel Cell, 1982; doi: 10.1016/c2013-0-07460-9
51.
TheocharisAD, SkandalisSS, GialeliC, et al.Extracellular matrix structure. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 2016; 97:4–27; doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2015.11.001
52.
PalumboAJ, Meireles Da CostaN, PontesB, et al.Esophageal cancer development: Crucial clues arising from the extracellular matrix. Cells, 2020; 9(2):455; doi: 10.3390/cells9020455
53.
BosoD, MaghinE, CarraroE, et al.Extracellular matrix-derived hydrogels as biomaterial for different skeletal muscle tissue replacements. Materials (Basel), 2020; 13(11):2483; doi: 10.3390/ma13112483
54.
TheocharisAD, ManouD, KaramanosNK. The extracellular matrix as a multitasking player in disease. Febs J, 2019; 286(15):2830–2869; doi: 10.1111/febs.14818
55.
BeraK, KiepasA, GodetI, et al.Extracellular fluid viscosity enhances cell migration and cancer dissemination. Nature, 2022; 611(7935):365–373; doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05394-6
56.
MarçalH, AhmedT, BadylakSF, et al.A comprehensive protein expression profile of extracellular matrix biomaterial derived from porcine urinary bladder. Regen Med, 2012; 7(2):159–166; doi: 10.2217/rme.12.6
57.
BissellMJ, RamTG. Regulation of functional cytodifferentiation and histogenesis in mammary epithelial cells: Role of the extracellular matrix. Environ Health Perspect, 1989; 80:61–70; doi: 10.1289/ehp.898061
58.
BrennanEP, TangX-H, Stewart-AkersAM, et al.Chemoattractant activity of degradation products of fetal and adult skin extracellular matrix for keratinocyte progenitor cells. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2008; 2(8):491–498; doi: 10.1002/term.123
59.
TurnerNJ, QuijanoLM, HusseyGS, et al.Matrix bound nanovesicles have tissue-specific characteristics that suggest a regulatory role. Tissue Eng Part A, 2022; 28(21–22):879–892; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2022.0091
60.
CrapoPM, MedberryCJ, ReingJE, et al.Biologic scaffolds composed of central nervous system extracellular matrix. Biomaterials, 2012; 33(13):3539–3547; doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.01.044
61.
HuangA-F, ChenM-W, HuangS-M, et al.CD164 regulates the tumorigenesis of ovarian surface epithelial cells through the SDF-1α/CXCR4 axis. Mol Cancer, 2013; 12(1):115; doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-12-115
62.
NivY, FassR. The role of mucin in GERD and its complications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2011; 9(1):55–59; doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2011.211
63.
GlickmanJN, ChenYY, WangHH, et al.Phenotypic characteristics of a distinctive multilayered epithelium suggests that it is a precursor in the development of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol, 2001; 25(5):569–578; doi: 10.1097/00000478-200105000-00002
64.
HoxhajG, ManningBD. The PI3K-AKT network at the interface of oncogenic signalling and cancer metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer, 2020; 20(2):74–88; doi: 10.1038/s41568-019-0216-7
65.
SagatysE, GarrettCR, BoulwareD, et al.Activation of the serine/threonine protein kinase Akt during the progression of Barrett neoplasia. Hum Pathol, 2007; 38(10):1526–1531; doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2007.03.003
66.
ChenJ, CrawfordR, ChenC, et al.The key regulatory roles of the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway in the functionalities of mesenchymal stem cells and applications in tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2013; 19(6):516–528; doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2012.0672
MilanoF, van BaalJWPM, ButtarNS, et al.Bone morphogenetic protein 4 expressed in esophagitis induces a columnar phenotype in esophageal squamous cells. Gastroenterology, 2007; 132(7):2412–2421; doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.026
BissellMJ, HinesWC. Why don’t we get more cancer? A proposed role of the microenvironment in restraining cancer progression. Nat Med, 2011; 17(3):320–329; doi: 10.1038/nm.2328
71.
BurnetFM. The concept of immunological surveillance. Prog Exp Tumor Res, 1970; 13:1–27; doi: 10.1159/000386035
DzikiJL, BadylakSF. Acellular biologic scaffolds in regenerative medicine: Unacceptable variability with acceptable results. Regen Eng Transl Med, 2019; 5(4):414–419; doi: 10.1007/s40883-019-00106-5
74.
PeránM, MarchalJA, GarcíaMA, et al.In vitro treatment of carcinoma cell lines with pancreatic (pro)enzymes suppresses the EMT programme and promotes cell differentiation. Cell Oncol (Dordr), 2013; 36(4):289–301; doi: 10.1007/s13402-013-0134-8
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
