Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Proteolytic activity is perturbed in tumors and their microenvironment, and proteases also affect cancer stem cells (CSCs). CSCs are the therapy-resistant subpopulation of cancer cells with tumor-initiating capacity that reside in specialized tumor microenvironment niches. In this review, we briefly summarize the significance of proteases in regulating CSC activities with a focus on brain tumor glioblastoma. A plethora of proteases and their inhibitors participate in CSC invasiveness and affect intercellular interactions, enhancing CSC immune, irradiation, and chemotherapy resilience. Apart from their role in degrading the extracellular matrix enabling CSC migration in and out of their niches, we review the ability of proteases to modulate CSC properties, which prevents their elimination. When designing protease-oriented therapies, the multifaceted roles of proteases should be thoroughly investigated.

Keywords

angiogenesis cancer cancer stem cells epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition glioblastoma invasion proteases stemness tissue niches tumor heterogeneity tumor immune infiltrate tumor microenvironment

Introduction: Proteases and the Proteolytic System

To date, 884 known and putative protease genes have been annotated in the human genome (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/merops/).¹ According to the chemical mechanisms of catalysis, proteases are grouped into five major classes: serine proteases, cysteine proteases, threonine proteases, aspartic proteases, and metalloproteases. In addition, there are proteases of mixed and unknown catalytic types. Based on similarities in their primary amino acid sequences, proteases are grouped into families that are further combined into structural clans.¹

Metalloproteases are characterized by the presence of a catalytic metal ion in the active site of the enzyme and represent the largest protease group in humans. The family includes matrix metalloproteases (MMPs),^2
–4 a disintegrin and metalloproteases (ADAMs),⁵ and ADAMs with a thrombospondin motif (ADAMTSs).^6
–8 In humans, 24 MMPs have been characterized, some of which are secreted, whereas others are anchored in the cell membrane. MMPs are best known for their role in remodeling the extracellular matrix (ECM).^3,4 They degrade structural components of the ECM, including different types of native collagens, fibronectin, elastin, laminin, and proteoglycans, and proteolytically activate pro-MMPs. Their activity also results in the release and activation of matrix-bound growth factors and/or their precursors, for example, transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).⁹ Based on their protein structure and in relation to their substrate specificity, MMPs are divided into six groups: collagenases (MMP1, MMP8, MMP13), gelatinases (MMP2, MMP9), stromelysins (MMP3, MMP10, MMP11), matrylysins (MMP7, MMP26), membrane-type MMPs (MMP14, MMP15, MMP16, MMP17, MMP24), and other non-classified MMPs.^10,11

Half of the 22 known ADAMs possess enzymatic activity. These transmembrane proteins shed the ectodomains of other transmembrane proteins, including growth factor and cytokine precursors, their receptors, and adhesion proteins.^5,12 On the contrary, all 19 ADAMTSs are secreted enzymes involved in proteolytic processing of ECM proteoglycans, procollagens, and other substrates.^6
–8

Another important group of proteases are cathepsins, that is, lysosomal proteases primarily responsible for intracellular protein catabolism.^13,14 However, under certain conditions, cathepsins are released from lysosomes or even out of cells, where they perform other functions.^14,15 According to the catalytic amino acid residue, cathepsins are divided into cysteine proteases (cathepsins B, C, F, H, K, L, O, S, V, W, and X), aspartic proteases (cathepsins D and E), and serine proteases (cathepsins A and G).¹⁴

Proteases, their substrates, and endogenous protein inhibitors form a complex network called the degradome.^16
–18 Proteolytic processing is tightly regulated and both directly and indirectly involved in virtually all biological processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, death, and migration, and, importantly, in tissue remodeling.^16,17,19,20

Among the numerous functions of proteases, there is evidence on their role in specialized anatomically delineated tissue microenvironments called niches that host and sustain certain cell types, such as stem cells (SCs).^21
–23 Different cell types within SC niches provide a cocktail of cell-bound and secreted factors that, in concert with the niche ECM, shape the fate of resident SCs, either maintaining their quiescent state or inducing their proliferation and differentiation.²⁴ Among the best characterized SC niches is the bone marrow hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) niche,^24,25 where proteolysis by MMPs^23,26,27 and cathepsins^27,28 has been demonstrated. Proteases regulate SC functions by reshaping the extracellular scaffold of the niche, degrading cell surface adhesion molecules, and/or regulating the bioavailability and activity of cytokines and growth factors such as stromal cell–derived factor 1α (SDF-1α), SC factor, TGF-β, and VEGF (reviewed in Tay et al.,²⁴ Saw et al.,²⁶and Maurer et al.²⁷). SCs in the niches are mostly in a quiescent/dormant cellular state.²⁹ However, upon various endogenous cues, or cues from the microenvironment, several types of proteases are induced to release SCs from their niches. Secreted by SCs or from various niche-resident cells, such as neutrophil granulocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts in the HSC niche, MMP8³⁰ and MMP9^31,32 have been reported to mobilize HSCs via cleavage of the cytokine, SDF-1α, thus preventing its binding to C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4). The SDF-1α–CXCR4 axis and mobilization of HSCs are also affected by several cathepsins, including cathepsin X^28,33 and cathepsin K.³⁴

Role of Proteases in Cancer

To maintain the fine tuning of complex proteolytic networks, proteolytic activity is tightly regulated at the levels of protease expression, activation, posttranslational modifications, and intercellular and intracellular trafficking. Furthermore, protease regulation is enhanced by the presence of selective endogenous protease inhibitors.^19,35
–37 Dysregulated proteolysis underlies numerous pathologies, including cancer,^38,39 where proteases are most commonly upregulated and act as protumorigenic factors.^40
–42 However, some proteases are also involved in tumor suppression and are downregulated in cancer.^43
–45 By taking part in various proteolytic cascades and networks, proteases are involved in several processes of tumor development and progression,^39,46
–49 as summarized in Table 1. The primary function of proteases derived from either cancer or non-cancerous cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME)^38,39,60 is not only ECM degradation, as originally anticipated, but also the modulation of other pericellular events, in particular the activity and bioavailability of growth factors, cytokines, cell surface receptors, and adhesion molecules, as well as the modulation of intracellular signaling pathways.^39,49,50 Some proteases or their domains also possess non-enzymatic functions,⁵⁰ such as the inactive proform of cathepsin X⁷⁴ and several MMPs whose hemopexin domain is involved in protein–protein interactions.²³

Table 1.

Roles of Proteases in Cancer Development and Progression.

Protease/Protease Group	Processes in Cancer	Mechanism of Action	References
MMPs	Cancer cell migration, invasion, EMT, proliferation, angiogenesis, inflammation, immune responses	ECM remodeling; processing of cytokines, growth factors, and their receptors	42, 45, 50 –52
ADAMs	Cancer cell adhesion, migration and proliferation, inflammation, immune responses	Sheddase activity releasing extracellular regions of growth factors, cytokines and their receptors, and adhesion and signaling molecules	53 –57
ADAMTSs	Cancer cell adhesion, migration and proliferation, angiogenesis	Processing of ECM proteoglycans	7, 55, 58, 59
Cathepsins	Cancer cell growth, migration, invasion, metastasis, apoptosis and therapy resistance, angiogenesis, immune responses	ECM remodeling; release and processing of growth factors and their receptors; functions, independent of the enzymatic activity; activation of intracellular signaling pathways	36, 41, 47, 60 –66
Kallikreins	Cancer cell growth, migration, invasion and chemoresistance, angiogenesis	ECM remodeling; processing of adhesion molecules, cytokines, growth factors, and cell-surface receptors; signaling via proteinase-activated receptors	48, 67 –69
Urokinase-type plasminogen activator	Cancer cell proliferation, adhesion, migration and invasion	Initiation of proteolytic cascade leading to ECM degradation, release, and activation of growth factors and cytokines	70 –73

Abbreviations: MMPs, matrix metalloproteases; EMT, epithelial-to-mesenchymal-like transition; ECM, extracellular matrix; ADAMs, a disintegrin and metalloproteases; ADAMTSs, ADAMs with a thrombospondin motif.

Proteases in Cancer SCs and Their Niches

Cancer cells within a tumor are heterogeneous and occur in a variety of hierarchically organized and functionally distinct cell states. The modern concept of cancer stem cells (CSCs), which reside at the top of the tumor hierarchy or, alternatively, at the “bottom” of cancer evolution, was first introduced in leukemia⁷⁵ and later specified by the Eaves group.⁷⁶ The concept of a pool of CSCs with stemness characteristics has since been confirmed in many other malignancies,⁷⁷ for example, in breast,⁷⁸ colon,^79,80 pancreatic,⁸¹ and brain cancers,⁸² including glioblastoma⁸³ and medulloblastoma.⁸⁴ CSCs, also called tumor-initiating cells, are a small subpopulation of cells within tumors that exhibit characteristics reminiscent of normal adult SCs. The key common characteristic of normal SCs and CSCs is asymmetric division (i.e., the ability to self-renew, yet differentiate via generation of progenies to mature, functionally differentiated cell types). In cancer, these mature cells comprise the bulk of the tumor mass, being initiated and maintained by CSCs, enabling fast tumor growth.⁸⁵ CSCs, like normal SCs, are mostly present in a so-called dormant state. In the TME, CSCs may undergo epithelial-to-mesenchymal-like transition (EMT) that allows their migration and, through a plethora of proteases, also invasion into the surrounding parenchyma and metastasis.⁸⁶

Apart from sharing the characteristic “stemness,” both normal SCs and CSCs reside in distinct microenvironments called niches. The niche milieu contains different cell types, including endothelial cells, immune cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts, and mesenchymal SCs.^87
–89 In different cancer types, different types of niches have been identified.⁸⁸ They are best characterized in glioblastoma where perivascular, hypoxic, and invasive niches have been described.⁹⁰ A link between CSCs and the perivascular niche has also been reported in other brain tumors⁹¹ and in several other cancers,^92,93 for example, in colorectal cancer,⁹⁴ skin squamous cell carcinoma,⁹⁵ melanoma,⁹⁶ and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.⁹⁷

Intercellular crosstalk and physical components of a niche either maintain the quiescent state of CSCs or induce their proliferation and differentiation, influence their metastatic potential, and play a role in protecting CSCs against the immune system.^88
–90,98 Microenvi-ronmental conditions in the niche may also protect CSCs against therapeutic intervention. In medulloblastoma, CSCs display features imitating those of neural progenitor cells and SCs⁸⁴; they reside in perivascular niches and exhibit enhanced radioresistance compared with cells of the tumor bulk.⁹⁹ Similarly, slow-cycling perivascular tumor cells were shown to be therapy-resistant in a mouse model of glioma.¹⁰⁰ Due to their importance for disease progression and modulation of cancer-related processes such as inflammation and angiogenesis, stromal factors were proposed as molecular markers for diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment selection in prostate cancer.¹⁰¹

Proteases play an important role within the CSC niches. Expressed and/or released either by cancer (stem) cells or by other cells of the niche, some proteases, such as cathepsins, are activated by the hypoxic and acidified TME.^102
–106 In the following sections, we briefly summarize the ways in which proteases affect CSCs and their niches (Fig. 1). Specifically, we focus on primary brain tumor glioblastoma and glioblastoma stem cells (GSCs) that are commonly identified by the expression of a selected set of biomarkers [CD133, CD44, CD15 (SSEA-1), CD70 (CD27 L), Nestin, Olig2, SOX2, ALDH1A3, S100A4, Nanog, and OCT4].^107,108 We have localized GSCs in hypoxic periarteriolar niches^109,110 that closely resemble bone marrow HSC niches.¹¹¹

Figure 1.

Proteases affect CSC functions and their niches. Proteases degrade niche ECM and influence several CSC properties, including their retention in the niche, invasion, self-renewal, stemness, immune evasion, and therapy resistance. Proteases either support (+) or inhibit (−) CSC-related processes. Created with BioRender.com. Abbreviations: CSC, cancer stem cell; ECM, extracellular matrix.

Proteases and the ECM

As mentioned previously, proteases were first investigated as key enzymes remodeling the ECM, which is increasingly recognized as a functional physical and biochemically active component of the niche, also with direct impact on the regulation of CSCs.^112,113 Increased expression of several proteases in breast CSCs contributes to degradation of the ECM and invasion into their surroundings.^114
–116 On the contrary, ECM components provide physical support and CSC anchorage, assuring their self-renewal.^112,113,117 Furthermore, the ECM represents a reservoir of growth factor and cytokine precursors that are activated and released upon proteolysis and affect CSCs.^112,113 Among these, TGF-β,¹¹⁸ VEGF,¹¹⁹ and insulin-like growth factors¹²⁰ can be highly protumorigenic in neoplasia. In addition, partial proteolytic degradation of certain ECM components generates bioactive peptide fragments (so-called matrikines) that are able to regulate cellular activities.^121,122 Thus, besides their well-established roles in ECM degradation and direct promotion of cancer cell invasion, proteases also influence CSC self-renewal, EMT, chemoresistance, and immune evasion.^116,123,124

Proteases and CSC Migration Out of Niches

Components of the ECM serve as anchoring sites for CSC adherence. CSCs interact with the ECM through several cell surface receptors, including integrins, discoidin domain receptors, and CD44, which maintain CSCs by inducing intracellular stem and proliferative signaling pathways.¹¹² Cathepsin K is an atypical papain-clan cysteine cathepsin, originally reported as a collagenolytic protease produced by osteoclasts,¹²⁵ which appears to be overexpressed in several cancers, particularly glioblastoma.¹²⁶ In addition to various types of native collagens, cathepsin K can also hydrolyze various other fibrillar proteins and proteoglycans.¹²⁵ In glioblastoma, cathepsin K, along with cathepsins B and X, is colocalized with GSC markers CD133 and nestin, and GSC niche markers osteopontin and SDF-1α and its receptor CXCR4.^105,127 It was suggested that cathepsin K could induce GSCs to migrate out of their niches,^104,109 and this notion was later supported by Hira and coworkers who demonstrated the ability of cathepsin K to cleave and inactivate SDF-1α in vitro.¹²⁸ This mechanism was first observed in the HSC niche where interactions between SDF-1α, secreted by osteoblasts and endothelial cells, and CXCR4, expressed by HSCs, retain HSCs,^33,34 highlighting the similarity of the GSC niche and the physiological HSC niche.^110,111 In addition, Siney et al.¹²⁹ suggested a possible role of ADAM17 and ADAM10 in the retention of GSCs in the tumorigenic niche, as inhibition of both proteases increased CSC migration and differentiation.

Proteases and CSC Invasion

In response to signals from the TME, CSCs can undergo the EMT and acquire migratory capacity to initiate the first steps in metastasis.^86,130 CSCs also contribute to tumor spread via enhanced angiogenesis, that is, the formation of alternative vascular structures by vasculogenic mimicry, which is analogous to the mimicry of embryonic vasculogenesis by tumor cells first described by the Hendrix group in melanoma¹³¹ and later in other cancers.¹³² Vasculogenic mimicry requires activation of the transmembrane metalloproteases, MMP14 and MMP9, which support the proteolytic cascade in melanoma CSC invasion.¹³¹ In breast cancer, CSCs line vasculogenic mimicry channels and synergize their formation in the perivascular niche.¹³³

Westhoff et al.¹³⁴ showed that invasion of GSCs is enhanced by activation of MMPs involved in fibronectin processing, thus forming routes facilitating GSC migration. The invasiveness of GSCs was shown to be supported by several metalloproteases, such as MMP2, MMP9,¹³⁵ and MMP13,¹³⁶ as well as ADAM9 and ADAM17.^137,138 Invasion of GSCs is also directly supported by stromal cells proteases. Ye and coworkers have shown that tumor-associated microglia and macrophages enhance the invasiveness of GSCs via the release and activation of the TGF-β1 signaling pathway, leading to upregulation of MMP9,¹³⁹ whereas microglia-derived MMP14 activates GSC-derived MMP2.¹⁴⁰ The roles of urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR) and cathepsin B in GSCs were investigated by Alapati et al.¹⁴¹ who showed that simultaneous downregulation of both proteins inhibited irradiation-induced integrin signaling to the cytoskeleton and to the nucleus via protein kinase C. In addition, the complex of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 and phospho-c-jun N-terminal kinase was translocated from the cytosol to the nucleus, resulting in migratory arrest of GSCs.¹⁴²

In breast CSCs, MMP14 is one of the most upregulated proteases, especially under hypoxic conditions that trigger its relocalization to the cell surface.^143,144 This enzyme mediates the conversion of stationary CSCs into invasive CSCs—the mechanism thought to drive CSC metastasis.¹⁴⁴ MMP2,^145
–147 MMP9,^148,149 MMP14,¹⁴⁸ ADAM12,¹⁵⁰ and ADAM17¹⁵¹ have also been shown to govern CSC invasion in other cancers. However, as emphasized above, proteases can also act as tumor suppressors. For example, in lung adenocarcinoma, ADAM23 suppresses migration and metastasis of CSCs by inhibiting integrin αvβ3 function.¹⁵²

Proteases and CSC Self-renewal and Stemness

CSC characteristics are maintained by a plethora of microenvironmental cues, including autocrine and paracrine growth factors (TGF-β, fibroblast growth factor, epidermal growth factor, VEGF), cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1β, IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-α), and specific ligands that promote Hedgehog, Wnt, and Notch signaling pathways, leading to activation of NF-κB, JAK-STAT, GLI, β-catenin, LEF/TC, and NIC-CSL families of transcription factors.^153
–156 Proteases play a crucial role as part of the signaling cascades in CSCs that sustain their self-renewal and stemness.

Metalloproteases

The metalloprotease ADAM17 assists in processing of Notch1 receptors and solubilization of the Notch ligands, Jagged-1 and Jagged-2.¹⁵⁷ In glioblastoma, ADAM17 has been identified as a mediator of stemness¹⁵⁸ and invasion of U87 GSCs¹³⁷; similar effects were proposed in colorectal CSCs¹⁵⁷ and in colorectal carcinoma CSC crosstalk with endothelial cells.⁹⁴ ADAM17-mediated activation of Notch1 was also detected in liver CSCs where the enzyme was activated by overexpression of inducible nitric oxide synthase.¹⁵⁹ Another protease secreted by GSCs, a disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain–like protein decysin 1, has been linked recently to the maintenance of GSCs, primarily via activation of an autocrine fibroblast growth factor signaling loop.¹⁶⁰ In addition, the claudin-low breast CSC phenotype was promoted by ADAM12, a protease induced during the EMT.¹⁵⁰ ADAMTS1 was recently associated with induction of stemness in uveal melanoma.¹⁶¹ However, the tumor suppressor protease, ADAM23 (see above), was downregulated in the lung adenocarcinoma CSC subpopulation, which likely contributes to the stemness phenotype.¹⁵²

The maintenance of stemness of lung CSCs¹⁶² and epithelial ovarian CSCs¹⁶³ was associated with MMP10, which inhibited the non-canonical Wnt signaling ligand, Wnt5a, and activated the canonical Wnt signaling pathway. MMP14 promoted the EMT and induced CSC properties in an oral squamous cell carcinoma cell line.¹⁶⁴ Consistent with these results, knockdown of MMP14 strongly affected CSC properties in breast carcinoma SCs.¹⁴³ In conclusion, metalloproteases of different classes affect multiple intracellular signaling pathways that are central to the maintenance of CSCs.

Cysteine and Serine Proteases

Cathepsin B and uPAR play important roles in regulating symmetric GSC division and self-renewal. Their expression correlates with the expression of the Hedgehog signaling components, SOX2 and BMI1, which are regulated by GLI factors, although the mechanisms have not been fully explained.¹⁶⁵ Wang et al.¹⁶⁶ demonstrated downregulation of the GSC marker, CD133, after knockdown of cathepsin L. We and others found that, due to excessive mRNA splicing in cancer cells, N-terminally truncated cathepsin L diffuses into the nucleus^167,168 to proteolytically modify histones, thus affecting antiapoptotic gene expression and differentiation in cancer cells.¹⁶⁹

Proteases and SC Immune Evasion

The microenvironment around CSCs contains a broad spectrum of immune cells such as macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, natural killer (NK) cells, regulatory T-cells, cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), and T-helper cells.¹⁷⁰ However, CSCs have evolved several ways to avoid their recognition and destruction by the immune system and to shape the TME into an immunosuppressive landscape. For example, CSCs can transform infiltrating macrophages from the M1 phenotype into the tumor-supportive M2 phenotype or tumor-associated macrophages.^170,171 Among other factors, proteases and their endogenous inhibitors are involved in crosstalk between CSCs and immune cells in the TME.

An interesting example is NK cells, cytotoxic lymphocytes characterized by their ability to specifically recognize and eliminate target cells that lack the expression of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules normally involved in cell surface presentation of antigenic peptides to CTLs.¹⁷² GSCs have been shown to lack active serine cathepsin G, resulting in impaired cleavage of MHC class I molecules on these cells, thereby escaping recognition by NK cells.^173,174 On the contrary, cysteine cathepsins normally contribute to NK cell cytotoxicity by proteolytically activating effector granzymes and perforin that are released by activated NK cells to induce target cell death.¹⁷⁵ In NK cells cocultured with oral squamous carcinoma CSCs, decreased levels of mature cathepsins C and H, and an increased level of their inhibitor, cystatin F, were observed, promoting the anergic state of NK cells.^176,177 It has been proposed that CSCs or other stromal cells secrete cystatin F, which when internalized lowers the cytotoxic potential of NK and other cytotoxic cells in the TME.¹²³ Consistent with this suggestion, uptake of extracellular cystatin F by CTLs resulted in decreased activities of cathepsins C, H, and L, leading to impaired activation of granzymes A and B, and consequently lowered T-cell cytotoxicity.¹⁷⁸ High levels of proteinase inhibitor 9, a potent inhibitor of granzyme B, were detected in breast CSCs, most likely providing another means of CSC immune escape.¹⁷⁹ CSCs have also evolved mechanisms to evade γδ T-cells, a distinct subpopulation of T-cells that differ from the more commonly considered αβ T-cells in terms of their antigen recognition, activation, and effector functions.¹⁸⁰ In CSCs, increased ADAM10 and ADAM17 expression has been associated with increased shedding of the cell surface MHC class I polypeptide-related sequence A, which has been proposed as the main mechanism underlying CSC resistance to γδ T-cell cytotoxicity.¹⁸¹

Proteases and CSC Therapy Resistance

Aside from residing in a quiescent state, being by itself protective against drugs that target exposed DNA during mitosis, CSCs also exhibit high expression of multidrug resistance proteins and enzymatic DNA damage repair mechanisms. Safeguarded in the shelter of their niche, these cells often represent the main reason for treatment failure and cancer recurrence.^182
–184

As mentioned previously, active cathepsin B has been detected in GSC niches.¹⁰⁵ Using fluorogenic metabolic mapping, we detected cathepsin B activity in both non-irradiated and irradiated GSC NCH644 cells (Fig. 2). Expression of this enzyme was upregulated upon irradiation of glioblastoma U87 stem-like cells.¹⁸⁷ Apart from the role of cathepsin B and uPAR in maintaining the stemness characteristics of GSCs described above,¹⁶⁵ highly expressed cathepsin B and uPAR also protected these cells from irradiation-induced DNA damage, and this effect was reversed by silencing of the two genes.¹⁸⁷ Similarly, radiation resistance mediated by cathepsin L has been shown.¹⁶⁶ The well-known sheddase, ADAM10, marks CSCs with active Notch signaling that mediates chemoresistance. Targeted inhibition of active ADAM10 inhibited Notch activity and tumor growth in mouse models, particularly regrowth following chemotherapy. This suggests targeted inhibition of active ADAM10 is a potential therapy for ADAM10-dependent tumor development and drug resistance.¹⁸⁸ Colorectal CSC chemoresistance has been linked to another sheddase, ADAM17.¹⁵⁷ In oral carcinoma CSCs, overexpression of MMP20 supported stemness and was proposed to reduce the sensitivity of this cell population to chemotherapeutic agents.¹⁸⁹ Overall, these studies confirm the involvement of proteases in the therapeutic resistance of CSCs and support their therapeutic potential.

Figure 2.

Metabolic mapping of cathepsin B activity. Mapping was done in non-irradiated (A) and irradiated (2 Gy) (B) NCH644 cells, a glioblastoma stem cell line. Enzymatic activity was detected as green fluorescent dots (marked by white arrows). The method is based on the coupling of NSA with 4MbNA, which is cleaved from a protease-specific substrate. Enzymatic release of 4MbNA and its coupling with NSA result in the formation of a fluorescent green product. Background fluorescence occurs due to the nonspecific binding of NSA to protein NH₂ groups. The method was adapted from Van Noorden et al.¹⁸⁵ Cells were grown as floating spheres in supplemented NB medium as described by Podergajs et al.¹⁸⁶ Intact spheroids were irradiated with 2 Gy. Four hours after irradiation, the spheroids were washed with Ca²⁺- and Mg²⁺-free Hank’s balanced salt solution and with 100 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 6.0). Subsequently, spheroids were incubated in 100 mM phosphate buffer (pH 6.0) containing 1 mM dithiothreitol, 1.3 mM EDTA, 2.7 mM l-cysteine, 1 mM NSA, and 1 mg/ml of a specific substrate of cathepsin B (Z-Ala-Arg-Arg-4MbNA). After 30 min of incubation at room temperature, the cell suspension was transferred to a microscopy slide and covered with a coverslip. Images were taken using a FITC filter on an Eclipse Ti inverted microscope using NIS-Elements imaging software AR 4.13.04 and an Andor camera. Scale bar = 10 μm. Abbreviations: NSA, 2-hydroxy-5-nitrobenzaldehyde; 4MbNA, 4-methoxy-b-naphthylamide; NB, Neurobasal.

Proteases as Therapeutic Targets in Cancer

In anticancer therapies, targeting proteases has long been a promising therapeutic tool to counteract invasiveness of cancer cells. Selective targeting of CSCs in their specific niches has recently attracted much attention in the field of cancer therapy,^190,191 and the inclusion of proteases as therapeutic targets seems to be an option. However, several attempts at protease inhibition have failed to deliver the desired outcomes. To date, only three proteasome inhibitors have been approved in cancer therapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma (Table 2).^15,35,212 Reasons for the treatment failures with other protease inhibitors might, first, be due to inappropriate clinical trial designs, for example, including cancer patients with advanced disease where a hypermutated state was able to overcome single target therapy. Second, the lack of sufficient selectivity and specificity of the protease inhibitors may have led to undesired off-target effects by disturbing the normal physiological functions of these proteases in adjacent tissue or systemically. Finally, due to protease redundancy, the efficiency of selective inhibitors may hinder their effectiveness.^{15,40,212,213}

Table 2.

Protease Inhibitors and Protease-cleavable Conjugates in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Drug	Mechanism	Cancer Type	Clinical Study Identifier (Study Phase)	Clinical Study Recruitment Status	Results
Bortezomib	Proteasome inhibition	Multiple myeloma	NCT00048230 (phase 3)	Completed	Bortezomib is superior to high-dose dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma,¹⁹² FDA-approved in 2003
		Multiple myeloma	NCT00111319 (phase 3)	Completed	Bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone is superior to melphalan-prednisone alone in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma¹⁹³
		Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia	NCT01788020 (phase 3)	Active, not recruiting	No results posted
Carfilzomib	Proteasome inhibition	Multiple myeloma	NCT00511238 (phase 2)	Completed	Clinically significant responses in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma,¹⁹⁴ FDA-approved in 2012
			NCT01080391 (phase 3)	Completed	Addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly improves progression-free survival in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma¹⁹⁵
			NCT01568866 (phase 3)	Completed	Carfilzomib extends overall survival in the relapsed setting over bortezomib¹⁹⁶
Ixazomib	Proteasome inhibition	Multiple myeloma	NCT01564537 (phase 3)	Active, not recruiting	Addition of ixazomib to a regimen of lenalidomide and dexamethasone significantly prolongs progression-free survival,¹⁹⁷ FDA-approved in 2015
Doxycycline	MMP inhibition	Relapsed non-Hodgkin lymphomas	NCT02086591 (phase 2)	Terminated (lack of accrual)	No results posted
		Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma	NCT03076281 (phase 2)	Active, not recruiting	No results posted
		Metastatic breast cancer with bone metastases	NCT01847976 (phase 2)	Completed	No significant effects¹⁹⁸
Incyclinide	MMP inhibition	HIV-related Kaposi’s sarcoma	NCT00020683 (phase 2)	Terminated (termination of drug supply)	Active and well tolerated¹⁹⁹
Incyclinide	MMP inhibition	High-grade gliomas	NCT00004147 (phase 1, 2)	Completed	Poor single-agent activity²⁰⁰
Marimastat	MMP inhibition	Small-cell lung cancer	NCT00003011 (phase 3)	Completed	No improvement in survival²⁰¹
		Non–small-cell lung cancer	NCT00002911 (phase 3)	Completed	No results posted
		Breast cancer	NCT00003010 (phase 3)	Completed	No improvement in survival²⁰²
Prinomastat	MMP (MMPs 2, 3, 9, 13, 14) inhibition	Non–small-cell lung cancer	NCT00004199 (phase 3)	Completed	No improvement in survival²⁰³
		Prostate cancer	NCT00003343 (phase 3)	Completed	No results posted
		Glioblastoma	NCT00004200 (phase 2)	Completed	No results posted
Rebimastat	MMP inhibition	Prostate cancer	NCT00040755 (phase 2)	Completed	Well tolerated, but limited efficacy²⁰⁴
		Prostate cancer	NCT00039104 (phase 2)	Completed	No results posted
		Lung cancer	NCT00006229 (phase 2,3)	Completed	No results posted
		HIV-related Kaposi’s sarcoma	NCT00024024 (phase 1,2)	Completed	Inadequate efficacy²⁰⁵
Andecaliximab	MMP9 inhibition	Recurrent glioblastoma	NCT03631836 (phase 1)	Not yet recruiting	No results posted
		Gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma	NCT02864381 (phase 2)	Completed	No improvement in survival²⁰⁶
		Gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma	NCT02545504 (phase 3)	Completed	No improvement in survival²⁰⁷
Upamostat	Serine proteases (uPA) inhibition	Metastatic breast cancer	NCT00615940 (phase 2)	Completed	Improved response rate²⁰⁸
Upamostat	Serine proteases (uPA) inhibition	Pancreatic cancer	NCT00499265 (phase 2)	Completed	No improvement in survival²⁰⁹
BXCL701	Dipeptidyl peptidase 8/9 inhibition	Melanoma	NCT00083239 (phase 2)	Completed	No results posted
		Melanoma	NCT00083252 (phase 2)	Completed	No results posted
		Prostate cancer	NCT03910660 (phases 1 and 2)	Recruiting	No results posted
		Advanced solid cancers	NCT04171219 (phase 2)	Recruiting	No results posted
		Kidney cancer	NCT00489710 (phase 2)	Withdrawn (terminated for safety reasons)	No results posted
		Non–small-cell lung cancer	NCT00243204 (phase 3)	Terminated (FDA hold May 2007)	No results posted
		Adenocarcinoma of the pancreas	NCT00116389 (phase 2)	terminated (FDA hold May 2007)	No results posted
		Chronic lymphocytic leukemia	NCT00086203 (phase 2)	Completed	No results posted
Rovalpituzumab tesirine	Protease-cleavable antibody-drug conjugate	Small-cell lung cancer	NCT03061812 (phase 3)	Completed	Inferior overall survival²¹⁰
Rovalpituzumab tesirine	Protease-cleavable antibody-drug conjugate	Small-cell lung cancer	NCT03033511 (phase 3)	Terminated (independent data monitoring committee recommendation)	No improvement in survival²¹¹

Abbreviations: FDA, Food and Drug Administration; MMPs, matrix metalloproteases; uPA, urokinase-type plasminogen activator.

Despite the initial clinical disappointments, novel approaches have emerged in which proteases are not used as treatment targets, but instead as therapeutic triggers (Table 2). These technologies enable the delivery of anticancer therapeutics directly to the tumor site where their activation or release is mediated by proteases (e.g., MMPs, cathepsins, or uPA) within the TME.^213
–215

Based on current knowledge in the field, targeting or exploiting proteases in the CSC niches may contribute to the elimination of quiescent CSCs. This, arguably, represents the bottleneck in successful tumor eradication. Several examples of such approaches have already shown promising results,^190,216,217 providing hope for future cancer treatments. Nevertheless, deliberate target selection may be the key to success. On one hand, proteases bolster CSC proliferation and invasion, whereas, on the other hand, they can also induce CSC detachment and mobilization out of the niche by modulating cytokines.^104,109,128 This may lead to their differentiation and higher therapeutic sensitivity. However, CSC mobilization may not necessarily present the optimal therapeutic intervention because it may lead to enhanced aggressiveness of CSCs expressing hybrid phenotypes during the EMT.^130,218 Hence, continued efforts are needed to better characterize the heterogeneous and phenotypically distinct CSC pool, and the interplay of these cells with the TME in the niches. When designing CSC niche protease-oriented therapeutic applications, the multifaceted roles of the proteases should be thoroughly examined and modeled in experimental animals in terms of the complex and dynamic TME, before human studies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage () for English language editing.

Competing Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Contributions

BB and AH conceptualized the research. AH, MN, BM, and BB wrote the original draft of the manuscript. AH, TLT, and BB revised and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (grant program P1-0245, grant project J3-2526, post-doctoral project Z3-1870) and by the European Program of Cross-Border Cooperation for Slovenia-Italy Interreg TRANS-GLIOMA.

References

Rawlings

Barrett

Thomas

Huang

Bateman

Finn

RD.

The MEROPS database of proteolytic enzymes, their substrates and inhibitors in 2017 and a comparison with peptidases in the PANTHER database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D624–32. doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1134.

Yong

Power

Forsyth

Edwards

DR.

Metalloproteinases in biology and pathology of the nervous system. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2(7):502–11. doi:10.1038/35081571.

Klein

Bischoff

Physiology and pathophysiology of matrix metalloproteases. Amino Acids. 2011;41(2):271–90. doi:10.1007/s00726-010-0689-x.

Mittal

Patel

Debs

Nguyen

Patel

Grati

Mittal

Yan

Chapagain

Liu

XZ.

Intricate functions of matrix metalloproteinases in physiological and pathological conditions. J Cell Physiol. 2016; 231(12):2599–621. doi:10.1002/jcp.25430.

Edwards

Handsley

Pennington

CJ.

The ADAM metalloproteinases. Mol Aspects Med. 2008; 29(5):258–89. doi:10.1016/j.mam.2008.08.001.

Kelwick

Desanlis

Wheeler

Edwards

DR.

The ADAMTS (A Disintegrin and Metalloproteinase with Thrombospondin motifs) family. Genome Biol. 2015; 16(1):113. doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0676-3.

Cal

López-Otín

ADAMTS proteases and cancer. Matrix Biol. 2015;44–6:77–85. doi:10.1016/j.matbio.2015.01.013.

Apte

SS.

ADAMTS proteins: concepts, challenges, and prospects. Methods Mol Biol. 2020;2043:1–12. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9698-8_1.

Mott

Werb

Regulation of matrix biology by matrix metalloproteinases. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2004; 16(5):558–64. doi:10.1016/j.ceb.2004.07.010.

10.

Jabłońska-Trypuć

Matejczyk

Rosochacki

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), the main extracellular matrix (ECM) enzymes in collagen degradation, as a target for anticancer drugs. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2016;31(Suppl. 1):177–83. doi:10.3109/14756366.2016.1161620.

11.

Nagase

Visse

Murphy

Structure and function of matrix metalloproteinases and TIMPs. Cardiovasc Res. 2006;69(3):562–73. doi:10.1016/j.cardiores.2005.12.002.

12.

Mullooly

McGowan

Crown

Duffy

MJ.

The ADAMs family of proteases as targets for the treatment of cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2016;17(8):870–80. doi:10.1080/15384047.2016.1177684.

13.

Turk

Stoka

Vasiljeva

Renko

Sun

Turk

Cysteine cathepsins: from structure, function and regulation to new frontiers. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1824(1):68–88. doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2011.10.002.

14.

Yadati

Houben

Bitorina

Shiri-Sverdlov

The ins and outs of cathepsins: physiological function and role in disease management. Cells. 2020;9(7):1679. doi:10.3390/cells9071679.

15.

Turk

Targeting proteases: successes, failures and future prospects. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(9): 785–99. doi:10.1038/nrd2092.

16.

López-Otín

Overall

CM.

Protease degradomics: a new challenge for proteomics. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002;3(7):509–19. doi:10.1038/nrm858.

17.

López-Otín

Bond

JS.

Proteases: multifunctional enzymes in life and disease. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(45):30433–7. doi:10.1074/jbc.R800035200.

18.

Quesada

Ordóñez

Sánchez

Puente

López-Otín

The Degradome database: mammalian proteases and diseases of proteolysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):D239–43. doi:10.1093/nar/gkn570.

19.

Turk

Protease signalling: the cutting edge. EMBO J. 2012;31(7):1630–43. doi:10.1038/emboj.2012.42.

20.

Bond

JS.

Proteases: history, discovery, and roles in health and disease. J Biol Chem. 2019;294(5):1643–51. doi:10.1074/jbc.TM118.004156.

21.

Jones

Wagers

AJ.

No place like home: anatomy and function of the stem cell niche. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9(1):11–21. doi:10.1038/nrm2319.

22.

Morrison

Spradling

AC.

Stem cells and niches: mechanisms that promote stem cell maintenance throughout life. Cell. 2008;132(4):598–611. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.038.

23.

Kessenbrock

Wang

Werb

Matrix metalloproteinases in stem cell regulation and cancer. Matrix Biol. 2015;44–6:184–90. doi:10.1016/j.matbio.2015.01.022.

24.

Tay

Levesque

Winkler

IG.

Cellular players of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization in the bone marrow niche. Int J Hematol. 2017;105(2):129–40. doi:10.1007/s12185-016-2162-4.

25.

Man

Yao

Yang

Wang

Hematopoietic stem cell niche during homeostasis, malignancy, and bone marrow transplantation. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:621214. doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.621214.

26.

Saw

Weiss

Khokha

Waterhouse

PD.

Metalloproteases: on the watch in the hematopoietic niche. Trends Immunol. 2019;40(11):1053–70. doi:10.1016/j.it.2019.09.006.

27.

Maurer

Klein

Staudt

ND.

Assessment of proteolytic activities in the bone marrow microenvironment. Methods Mol Biol. 2019;2017:149–63. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9574-5_12.

28.

Staudt

Aicher

Kalbacher

Stevanovic

Carmona

Bogyo

Klein

Cathepsin X is secreted by human osteoblasts, digests CXCL-12 and impairs adhesion of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells to osteoblasts. Haematologica. 2010;95(9):1452–60. doi:10.3324/haematol.2009.018671.

29.

Luo

Yang

Zhang

Wang

Zheng

Zhou

JJ.

Stem cell quiescence and its clinical relevance. World J Stem Cells. 2020;12(11):1307–26. doi:10.4252/wjsc.v12.i11.1307.

30.

Steinl

Essl

Schreiber

Geiger

Prokop

Stevanović

Pötz

Abele

Wessels

Aicher

Klein

Release of matrix metalloproteinase-8 during physiological trafficking and induced mobilization of human hematopoietic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22(9):1307–18. doi:10.1089/scd.2012.0063.

31.

Jin

Zhai

Qiu

Meng

Zou

Wang

Han

Zhou

Degradation of BM SDF-1 by MMP-9: the role in G-CSF-induced hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;42(9):581–8. doi:10.1038/bmt.2008.222.

32.

Theodore

Hagedorn

Cortes

Natsuhara

Liu

Perlin

Yang

Daily

Zon

North

TE.

Distinct roles for matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 9 in embryonic hematopoietic stem cell emergence, migration, and niche colonization. Stem Cell Reports. 2017;8(5):1226–41. doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.03.016.

33.

Staudt

Maurer

Spring

Kalbacher

Aicher

Klein

Processing of CXCL12 by different osteoblast-secreted cathepsins. Stem Cells Dev. 2012;21(11):1924–35. doi:10.1089/scd.2011.0307.

34.

Kollet

Dar

Shivtiel

Kalinkovich

Lapid

Sztainberg

Tesio

Samstein

Goichberg

Spiegel

Elson

Lapidot

Osteoclasts degrade endosteal components and promote mobilization of hematopoietic progenitor cells. Nat Med. 2006;12(6):657–64. doi:10.1038/nm1417.

35.

Coussens

Fingleton

Matrisian

LM.

Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors and cancer: trials and tribulations. Science. 2002;295(5564):2387–92. doi:10.1126/science.1067100.

36.

Lah

Obermajer

Alonso

MBD

Kos

Cysteine cathepsins and cystatins as cancer biomarkers. In: Edwards

Høyer-Hansen

Blasi

Sloane

editors. The cancer degradome: proteases and cancer biology. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 587–625. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-69057-5_29.

37.

Breznik

Mitrović

Lah

Kos

Cystatins in cancer progression: more than just cathepsin inhibitors. Biochimie. 2019;166:233–50. doi:10.1016/j.biochi.2019.05.002.

38.

Mason

Joyce

JA.

Proteolytic networks in cancer. Trends Cell Biol. 2011;21(4):228–37. doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2010.12.002.

39.

Vizovisek

Ristanovic

Menghini

Christiansen

Schuerle

The tumor proteolytic landscape: a challenging frontier in cancer diagnosis and therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(5):2514. doi:10.3390/ijms22052514.

40.

Lah

Durán Alonso

Van Noorden

CJ.

Antiprotease therapy in cancer: hot or not?

Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2006;6(3):257–79. doi:10.1517/14712598.6.3.257.

41.

Rudzińska

Parodi

Soond

Vinarov

Korolev

Morozov

Daglioglu

Tutar

Zamyatnin

Jr.

The role of cysteine cathepsins in cancer progression and drug resistance. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(14):3602. doi:10.3390/ijms20143602.

42.

Roy

Morad

Jedinak

Moses

MA.

Metalloproteinases and their roles in human cancer. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2020;303(6):1557–72. doi:10.1002/ar.24188.

43.

López-Otín

Matrisian

LM.

Emerging roles of proteases in tumour suppression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7(10):800–8. doi:10.1038/nrc2228.

44.

López-Otín

Palavalli

Samuels

Protective roles of matrix metalloproteinases: from mouse models to human cancer. Cell Cycle. 2009;8(22):3657–62. doi:10.4161/cc.8.22.9956.

45.

Noël

Gutiérrez-Fernández

Sounni

Behrendt

Maquoi

Lund

Cal

Hoyer-Hansen

López-Otín

New and paradoxical roles of matrix metalloproteinases in the tumor microenvironment. Front Pharmacol. 2012;3:140. doi:10.3389/fphar.2012.00140.

46.

Egeblad

Werb

New functions for the matrix metalloproteinases in cancer progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2(3):161–74. doi:10.1038/nrc745.

47.

Levicar

Strojnik

Kos

Dewey

Pilkington

Lah

TT.

Lysosomal enzymes, cathepsins in brain tumour invasion. J Neurooncol. 2002;58(1):21–32. doi:10.1023/a:1015892911420.

48.

Filippou

Karagiannis

Musrap

Diamandis

EP.

Kallikrein-related peptidases (KLKs) and the hallmarks of cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2016;53(4):277–91. doi:10.3109/10408363.2016.1154643.

49.

Breznik

Motaln

Lah Turnšek

Proteases and cytokines as mediators of interactions between cancer and stromal cells in tumours. Biol Chem. 2017;398(7):709–19. doi:10.1515/hsz-2016-0283.

50.

Kessenbrock

Plaks

Werb

Matrix metalloproteinases: regulators of the tumor microenvironment. Cell. 2010;141(1):52–67. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.015.

51.

Turunen

Tatti-Bugaeva

Lehti

Membrane-type matrix metalloproteases as diverse effectors of cancer progression. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res. 2017;1864(11, Pt. A):1974–88. doi:10.1016/j.bbamcr.2017.04.002.

52.

Quintero-Fabián

Arreola

Becerril-Villanueva

Torres-Romero

Arana-Argáez

Lara-Riegos

Ramírez-Camacho

Alvarez-Sánchez

ME.

Role of matrix metalloproteinases in angiogenesis and cancer. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1370. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.01370.

53.

Mochizuki

Okada

ADAMs in cancer cell proliferation and progression. Cancer Sci. 2007;98(5):621–8. doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2007.00434.x.

54.

Duffy

McKiernan

O’Donovan

McGowan

PM.

Role of ADAMs in cancer formation and progression. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(4):1140–4. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1585.

55.

Turner

Blair-Zajdel

Bunning

RA.

ADAMs and ADAMTSs in cancer. Br J Biomed Sci. 2009;66(2):117–28. doi:10.1080/09674845.2009.11730257.

56.

Moss

Minond

Recent advances in ADAM17 research: a promising target for cancer and inflammation. Mediators Inflamm. 2017;2017:9673537. doi:10.1155/2017/9673537.

57.

Schumacher

Rose-John

ADAM17 activity and IL-6 trans-signaling in inflammation and cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(11):1736. doi:10.3390/cancers11111736.

58.

Sun

Huang

Yang

The roles of ADAMTS in angiogenesis and cancer. Tumour Biol. 2015;36(6):4039–51. doi:10.1007/s13277-015-3461-8.

59.

Binder

McCoombe

Williams

McCulloch

Ward

AC.

The extracellular matrix in cancer progression: role of hyalectan proteoglycans and ADAMTS enzymes. Cancer Lett. 2017;385:55–64. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2016.11.001.

60.

Mohamed

Sloane

BF.

Cysteine cathepsins: multifunctional enzymes in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6(10):764–75. doi:10.1038/nrc1949.

61.

Khaket

Kwon

Kang

SC.

Cathepsins: potent regulators in carcinogenesis. Pharmacol Ther. 2019;198:1–19. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.02.003.

62.

Tan

Peng

Tang

FQ.

Cathepsins mediate tumor metastasis. World J Biol Chem. 2013;4(4):91–101. doi:10.4331/wjbc.v4.i4.91.

63.

Kos

Werle

Lah

Brunner

Cysteine proteinases and their inhibitors in extracellular fluids: markers for diagnosis and prognosis in cancer. Int J Biol Markers. 2000;15(1):84–9.

64.

Zhang

Wang

Cathepsin S as a cancer target. Neoplasma. 2015;62(1):16–26. doi:10.4149/neo_2015_003.

65.

Liaudet-Coopman

Beaujouin

Derocq

Garcia

Glondu-Lassis

Laurent-Matha

Prébois

Rochefort

Vignon

Cathepsin D: newly discovered functions of a long-standing aspartic protease in cancer and apoptosis. Cancer Lett. 2006;237(2):167–79. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2005.06.007.

66.

Benes

Vetvicka

Fusek

Cathepsin D: many functions of one aspartic protease. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008;68(1):12–28. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2008.02.008.

67.

Kryza

Silva

Loessner

Heuzé-Vourc’h

Clements

JA.

The kallikrein-related peptidase family: dysregulation and functions during cancer progression. Biochimie. 2016;122:283–99. doi:10.1016/j.biochi.2015.09.002.

68.

Kontos

Scorilas

Kallikrein-related peptidases (KLKs): a gene family of novel cancer biomarkers. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012;50(11):1877–91. doi:10.1515/cclm-2012-0247.

69.

Oikonomopoulou

Diamandis

Hollenberg

MD.

Kallikrein-related peptidases: proteolysis and signaling in cancer, the new frontier. Biol Chem. 2010;391(4): 299–310. doi:10.1515/BC.2010.038.

70.

Mahmood

Mihalcioiu

Rabbani

SA.

Multifaceted role of the urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its receptor (uPAR): diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications. Front Oncol. 2018;8:24. doi:10.3389/fonc.2018.00024.

71.

Mekkawy

Pourgholami

Morris

DL.

Involvement of urokinase-type plasminogen activator system in cancer: an overview. Med Res Rev. 2014;34(5):918–56. doi:10.1002/med.21308.

72.

McMahon

Kwaan

HC.

The plasminogen activator system and cancer. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb. 2008;36(3–4):184–94. doi:10.1159/000175156.

73.

Santibanez

Krstic

Transforming growth factor-beta and urokinase type plasminogen interplay in cancer. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2018;19(12):1155–63. doi:10.2174/1389203718666171030103801.

74.

Kos

Vižin

Fonović

Pišlar

Intracellular signaling by cathepsin X: molecular mechanisms and diagnostic and therapeutic opportunities in cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;31:76–83. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2014.05.001.

75.

Bonnet

Dick

JE.

Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997;3(7):730–7. doi:10.1038/nm0797-730.

76.

Valent

Bonnet

De Maria

Lapidot

Copland

Melo

Chomienne

Ishikawa

Schuringa

Stassi

Huntly

Herrmann

Soulier

Roesch

Schuurhuis

Wöhrer

Arock

Zuber

Cerny-Reiterer

Johnsen

Andreeff

Eaves

Cancer stem cell definitions and terminology: the devil is in the details. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(11):767–75. doi:10.1038/nrc3368.

77.

Walcher

Kistenmacher

Suo

Kitte

Dluczek

Strauß

Blaudszun

Yevsa

Fricke

Kossatz-Boehlert

Cancer stem cells-origins and biomarkers: perspectives for targeted personalized therapies. Front Immunol. 2020;11:1280. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.01280.

78.

Al-Hajj

Wicha

Benito-Hernandez

Morrison

Clarke

MF.

Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(7):3983–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0530291100.

79.

Ricci-Vitiani

Lombardi

Pilozzi

Biffoni

Todaro

Peschle

De Maria

Identification and expansion of human colon-cancer-initiating cells. Nature. 2007;445(7123):111–5. doi:10.1038/nature05384.

80.

O’Brien

Pollett

Gallinger

Dick

JE.

A human colon cancer cell capable of initiating tumour growth in immunodeficient mice. Nature. 2007;445(7123):106–10. doi:10.1038/nature05372.

81.

Hermann

Huber

Herrler

Aicher

Ellwart

Guba

Bruns

Heeschen

Distinct populations of cancer stem cells determine tumor growth and metastatic activity in human pancreatic cancer. Cell Stem Cell. 2007;1(3):313–23. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2007.06.002.

82.

Singh

Hawkins

Clarke

Squire

Bayani

Hide

Henkelman

Cusimano

Dirks

PB.

Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature. 2004;432(7015):396–401. doi:10.1038/nature03128.

83.

Galli

Binda

Orfanelli

Cipelletti

Gritti

De Vitis

Fiocco

Foroni

Dimeco

Vescovi

Isolation and characterization of tumorigenic, stem-like neural precursors from human glioblastoma. Cancer Res. 2004;64(19):7011–21. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1364.

84.

Bahmad

Poppiti

RJ.

Medulloblastoma cancer stem cells: molecular signatures and therapeutic targets. J Clin Pathol. 2020;73(5):243–9. doi:10.1136/jclinpath-2019-206246.

85.

Batlle

Clevers

Cancer stem cells revisited. Nat Med. 2017;23(10):1124–34. doi:10.1038/nm.4409.

86.

Brabletz

Jung

Spaderna

Hlubek

Kirchner

Opinion: migrating cancer stem cells—an integrated concept of malignant tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(9):744–9. doi:10.1038/nrc1694.

87.

Borovski

De Sousa

Melo

Vermeulen

Medema

JP.

Cancer stem cell niche: the place to be. Cancer Res. 2011;71(3):634–9. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3220.

88.

Prager

Xie

Bao

Rich

JN.

Cancer stem cells: the architects of the tumor ecosystem. Cell Stem Cell. 2019;24(1):41–53. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2018.12.009.

89.

Oshimori

Guo

Taniguchi

An emerging role for cellular crosstalk in the cancer stem cell niche microenvironment. J Pathol. 2021;254(4):384–94. doi:10.1002/path.5655.

90.

Hambardzumyan

Bergers

Glioblastoma: defining tumor niches. Trends Cancer. 2015;1(4):252–65. doi:10.1016/j.trecan.2015.10.009.

91.

Calabrese

Poppleton

Kocak

Hogg

Fuller

Hamner

Gaber

Finklestein

Allen

Frank

Bayazitov

Zakharenko

Gajjar

Davidoff

Gilbertson

RJ.

A perivascular niche for brain tumor stem cells. Cancer Cell. 2007;11(1):69–82. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2006.11.020.

92.

Butler

Kobayashi

Rafii

Instructive role of the vascular niche in promoting tumour growth and tissue repair by angiocrine factors. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(2):138–46. doi:10.1038/nrc2791.

93.

Ping

Zhang

Bian

XW.

Cancer stem cells and their vascular niche: do they benefit from each other?

Cancer Lett. 2016;380(2):561–7. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2015.05.010.

94.

Fan

Xia

Bhattacharya

Bellister

Tozzi

Sceusi

Zhou

Tachibana

Maru

Hawke

Rak

Mani

Zweidler-McKay

Ellis

LM.

Endothelial cells promote the colorectal cancer stem cell phenotype through a soluble form of Jagged-1. Cancer Cell. 2013;23(2):171–85. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2012.12.021.

95.

Beck

Driessens

Goossens

Youssef

Kuchnio

Caauwe

Sotiropoulou

Loges

Lapouge

Candi

Mascre

Drogat

Dekoninck

Haigh

Carmeliet

Blanpain

A vascular niche and a VEGF-Nrp1 loop regulate the initiation and stemness of skin tumours. Nature. 2011;478(7369):399–403. doi:10.1038/nature10525.

96.

Lai

Schwartz

Hsu

MY.

CD133+ melanoma subpopulations contribute to perivascular niche morphogenesis and tumorigenicity through vasculogenic mimicry. Cancer Res. 2012;72(19):5111–8. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-0624.

97.

Krishnamurthy

Dong

Vodopyanov

Imai

Helman

Prince

Wicha

Nör

JE.

Endothelial cell-initiated signaling promotes the survival and self-renewal of cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. 2010;70(23):9969–78. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1712.

98.

Plaks

Kong

Werb

The cancer stem cell niche: how essential is the niche in regulating stemness of tumor cells?

Cell Stem Cell. 2015;16(3):225–38. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2015.02.015.

99.

Hambardzumyan

Becher

Rosenblum

Pandolfi

Manova-Todorova

Holland

EC.

PI3K pathway regulates survival of cancer stem cells residing in the perivascular niche following radiation in medulloblastoma in vivo. Genes Dev. 2008;22(4):436–48. doi:10.1101/gad.1627008.

100.

Jung

Osswald

Ratliff

Dogan

Xie

Weil

Hoffmann

Kurz

Kessler

Heiland

von Deimling

Sahm

Wick

Winkler

Tumor cell plasticity, heterogeneity, and resistance in crucial microenvironmental niches in glioma. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):1014. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21117-3.

101.

Bahmad

Jalloul

Azar

Moubarak

Samad

Mukherji

Al-Sayegh

Abou-Kheir

Tumor microenvironment in prostate cancer: toward identification of novel molecular biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy development. Front Genet. 2021;12:652747. doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.652747.

102.

Gatenby

Gawlinski

Gmitro

Kaylor

Gillies

RJ.

Acid-mediated tumor invasion: a multidisciplinary study. Cancer Res. 2006;66(10):5216–23. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4193.

103.

Rankin

Nam

Giaccia

AJ.

Hypoxia: signaling the metastatic cascade. Trends Cancer. 2016;2(6):295–304. doi:10.1016/j.trecan.2016.05.006.

104.

Verbovšek

Van Noorden

Lah

TT.

Complexity of cancer protease biology: cathepsin K expression and function in cancer progression. Semin Cancer Biol. 2015;35:71–84. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.08.010.

105.

Breznik

Limbaeck Stokin

Kos

Khurshed

Hira

VVV

Bošnjak

Lah

Van Noorden

CJF

. Cysteine cathepsins B, X and K expression in peri-arteriolar glioblastoma stem cell niches. J Mol Histol. 2018;49(5):481–97. doi:10.1007/s10735-018-9787-y.

106.

Vander Linden

Corbet

. Therapeutic targeting of cancer stem cells: integrating and exploiting the acidic niche. Front Oncol. 2019;9:159. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00159.

107.

Hassn Mesrati

Behrooz

Y Abuhamad

Syahir

. Understanding glioblastoma biomarkers: knocking a mountain with a hammer. Cells. 2020;9(5):1236. doi:10.3390/cells9051236.

108.

Ludwig

Kornblum

HI.

Molecular markers in glioma. J Neurooncol. 2017;134(3):505–12. doi:10.1007/s11060-017-2379-y.

109.

Hira

Ploegmakers

Grevers

Verbovšek

Silvestre-Roig

Aronica

Tigchelaar

Turnšek

Molenaar

Van Noorden

CJ.

CD133+ and nestin+ glioma stem-like cells reside around CD31+ arterioles in niches that express SDF-1α, CXCR4, osteopontin and cathepsin K. J Histochem Cytochem. 2015;63(7):481–93. doi:10.1369/0022155415581689.

110.

Hira

VVV

Wormer

Kakar

Breznik

van der Swaan

Hulsbos

Tigchelaar

Tonar

Khurshed

Molenaar

Van Noorden

CJF

. Periarteriolar glioblastoma stem cell niches express bone marrow hematopoietic stem cell niche proteins. J Histochem Cytochem. 2018;66(3):155–73. doi:10.1369/0022155417749174.

111.

Hira

VVV

Breznik

Vittori

Loncq de Jong

Mlakar

Oostra

Khurshed

Molenaar

Lah

Van Noorden

CJF

. Similarities between stem cell niches in glioblastoma and bone marrow: rays of hope for novel treatment strategies. J Histochem Cytochem. 2020;68(1):33–57. doi:10.1369/0022155419878416.

112.

Nallanthighal

Heiserman

Cheon

DJ.

The role of the extracellular matrix in cancer stemness. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019;7:86. doi:10.3389/fcell.2019.00086.

113.

Kesh

Gupta

Durden

Garrido

Mateo-Victoriano

Lavania

Banerjee

Therapy resistance, cancer stem cells and ECM in cancer: the matrix reloaded. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10):3067. doi:10.3390/cancers12103067.

114.

Raja

Zhuo

Tai

Sun

Welsch

Chen

Differential remodeling of extracellular matrices by breast cancer initiating cells. J Biophotonics. 2015;8(10):804–15. doi:10.1002/jbio.201400079.

115.

Hillebrand

Bengsch

Hochrein

Hülsdünker

Bender

Follo

Busch

Boerries

Reinheckel

Proteolysis—a characteristic of tumor-initiating cells in murine metastatic breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(36):58244–60. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.11309.

116.

Hillebrand

Reinheckel

Impact of proteolysis on cancer stem cell functions. Biochimie. 2019;166:214–22. doi:10.1016/j.biochi.2019.03.002.

117.

Ulrich

de Juan Pardo

Kumar

The mechanical rigidity of the extracellular matrix regulates the structure, motility, and proliferation of glioma cells. Cancer Res. 2009;69(10):4167–74. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-4859.

118.

Stamenkovic

Cell surface-localized matrix metalloproteinase-9 proteolytically activates TGF-beta and promotes tumor invasion and angiogenesis. Genes Dev. 2000;14(2):163–76. doi:10.1101/gad.14.2.163.

119.

Vempati

Popel

Mac Gabhann

Extracellular regulation of VEGF: isoforms, proteolysis, and vascular patterning. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2014;25(1):1–19. doi:10.1016/j.cytogfr.2013.11.002.

120.

Brahmkhatri

Prasanna

Atreya

HS.

Insulin-like growth factor system in cancer: novel targeted therapies. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:538019. doi:10.1155/2015/538019.

121.

Monboisse

Oudart

Ramont

Brassart-Pasco

Maquart

FX.

Matrikines from basement membrane collagens: a new anti-cancer strategy. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1840(8):2589–98. doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.12.029.

122.

Papadas

Arauz

Cicala

Wiesner

Asimakopoulos

Versican and versican-matrikines in cancer progression, inflammation, and immunity. J Histochem Cytochem. 2020;68(12):871–85. doi:10.1369/0022155420937098.

123.

Pišlar

Jewett

Kos

Cysteine cathepsins: their biological and molecular significance in cancer stem cells. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018;53:168–77. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.07.010.

124.

Mitschke

Burk

Reinheckel

The role of proteases in epithelial-to-mesenchymal cell transitions in cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2019;38(3):431–44. doi:10.1007/s10555-019-09808-2.

125.

Novinec

Lenarčič

Cathepsin K: a unique collagenolytic cysteine peptidase. Biol Chem. 2013;394(9):1163–79. doi:10.1515/hsz-2013-0134.

126.

Verbovšek

Motaln

Rotter

Atai

Gruden

Van Noorden

Lah

TT.

Expression analysis of all protease genes reveals cathepsin K to be overexpressed in glioblastoma. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e111819. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111819.

127.

Breznik

Limback

Porcnik

Blejec

Krajnc

Bosnjak

Kos

Van Noorden

CJF

Lah

TT.

Localization patterns of cathepsins K and X and their predictive value in glioblastoma. Radiol Oncol. 2018;52(4):433–42. doi:10.2478/raon-2018-0040.

128.

Hira

Verbovšek

Breznik

Srdič

Novinec

Kakar

Wormer

der Swaan

Lenarčič

Juliano

Mehta

Van Noorden

Lah

TT.

Cathepsin K cleavage of SDF-1α inhibits its chemotactic activity towards glioblastoma stem-like cells. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res. 2017;1864(3):594–603. doi:10.1016/j.bbamcr.2016.12.021.

129.

Siney

Holden

Casselden

Bulstrode

Thomas

Willaime-Morawek

Metalloproteinases ADAM10 and ADAM17 mediate migration and differentiation in glioblastoma sphere-forming cells. Mol Neurobiol. 2017;54(5):3893–905. doi:10.1007/s12035-016-0053-6.

130.

Celià-Terrassa

Jolly

MK.

Cancer stem cells and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020;10(7):a036905. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a036905.

131.

Seftor

Koshikawa

Meltzer

Gardner

Bilban

Stetler-Stevenson

Quaranta

Hendrix

MJ.

Cooperative interactions of laminin 5 gamma2 chain, matrix metalloproteinase-2, and membrane type-1-matrix/metalloproteinase are required for mimicry of embryonic vasculogenesis by aggressive melanoma. Cancer Res. 2001;61(17):6322–7.

132.

Wang

Gao

Liu

Gao

Fan

Jiang

Feng

Chen

Tang

Liang

XH.

CD133+ cancer stem-like cells promote migration and invasion of salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma by inducing vasculogenic mimicry formation. Oncotarget. 2016;7(20):29051–62. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.8665.

133.

Sun

Yao

Cheng

Liu

Yang

Shang

Zhang

Yao

Cancer stem-like cells directly participate in vasculogenic mimicry channels in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Biol Med. 2019;16(2):299–311. doi:10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2018.0209.

134.

Westhoff

Zhou

Nonnenmacher

Karpel-Massler

Jennewein

Schneider

Halatsch

Carragher

Baumann

Krause

Simmet

Bachem

Wirtz

Debatin

KM.

Inhibition of NF-κB signaling ablates the invasive phenotype of glioblastoma. Mol Cancer Res. 2013;11(12):1611–23. doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0435-T.

135.

Wang

Zhang

Yang

Qian

Zhang

Cui

Bian

XW.

Activation of toll-like receptor 2 promotes invasion by upregulating MMPs in glioma stem cells. Am J Transl Res. 2015;7(3):607–15.

136.

Inoue

Takahashi

Harada

Kohno

Ohue

Kobayashi

Yano

Tanaka

Ohnishi

Cancer stem-like cells of glioblastoma characteristically express MMP-13 and display highly invasive activity. Int J Oncol. 2010;37(5):1121–31. doi:10.3892/ijo_00000764.

137.

Chen

Gao

Xie

Wang

Yin

Wang

ADAM17 promotes U87 glioblastoma stem cell migration and invasion. Brain Res. 2013;1538:151–8. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2013.02.025.

138.

Sarkar

Zemp

Senger

Robbins

Yong

VW.

ADAM-9 is a novel mediator of tenascin-C-stimulated invasiveness of brain tumor-initiating cells. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(8):1095–105. doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou362.

139.

Xin

Ping

Chen

Xiao

Wang

Jiang

Yang

Zhang

Qian

Cui

Zhang

Bian

XW.

Tumor-associated microglia/macrophages enhance the invasion of glioma stem-like cells via TGF-β1 signaling pathway. J Immunol. 2012;189(1):444–53. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1103248.

140.

Markovic

Vinnakota

Chirasani

Synowitz

Raguet

Stock

Sliwa

Lehmann

Kälin

van Rooijen

Holmbeck

Heppner

Kiwit

Matyash

Lehnardt

Kaminska

Glass

Kettenmann

Gliomas induce and exploit microglial MT1-MMP expression for tumor expansion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(30):12530–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.0804273106.

141.

Alapati

Gopinath

Malla

Dasari

Rao

JS.

uPAR and cathepsin B knockdown inhibits radiation-induced PKC integrated integrin signaling to the cytoskeleton of glioma-initiating cells. Int J Oncol. 2012;41(2):599–610. doi:10.3892/ijo.2012.1496.

142.

Alapati

Kesanakurti

Rao

Dasari

VR.

uPAR and cathepsin B-mediated compartmentalization of JNK regulates the migration of glioma-initiating cells. Stem Cell Res. 2014;12(3):716–29. doi:10.1016/j.scr.2014.02.008.

143.

Hillebrand

Wickberg

Gomez-Auli

Follo

Maurer

Busch

Boerries

Reinheckel

MMP14 empowers tumor-initiating breast cancer cells under hypoxic nutrient-depleted conditions. FASEB J. 2019;33(3):4124–40. doi:10.1096/fj.201801127R.

144.

Zucker

Pulkoski-Gross

Kuscu

Karaayvaz

Yao

Song

Cao

Conversion of stationary to invasive tumor initiating cells (TICs): role of hypoxia in membrane type 1-matrix metalloproteinase (MT1-MMP) trafficking. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(6):e38403. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038403.

145.

Xin

Bian

Yang

Cui

Zhang

Bian

XW.

POU5F1 enhances the invasiveness of cancer stem-like cells in lung adenocarcinoma by upregulation of MMP-2 expression. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e83373. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083373.

146.

Chavali

Saini

Zhai

Vizlin-Hodzic

Venkatabalasubramanian

Hayashi

Johansson

Zeng

Mohlin

Påhlman

Hansford

Kaplan

Funa

TLX activates MMP-2, promotes self-renewal of tumor spheres in neuroblastoma and correlates with poor patient survival. Cell Death Dis. 2014;5(10):e1502. doi:10.1038/cddis.2014.449.

147.

You

Tan

Zhou

Huang

Wang

Zheng

Tg737 acts as a key driver of invasion and migration in liver cancer stem cells and correlates with poor prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Exp Cell Res. 2017;358(2):217–26. doi:10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.06.021.

148.

Annabi

Rojas-Sutterlin

Laflamme

Lachambre

Rolland

Sartelet

Béliveau

Tumor environment dictates medulloblastoma cancer stem cell expression and invasive phenotype. Mol Cancer Res. 2008;6(6):907–16. doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-07-2184.

149.

Long

Xie

Xiang

Zhao

Lin

Liang

Chen

Zhu

Autocrine CCL5 signaling promotes invasion and migration of CD133+ ovarian cancer stem-like cells via NF-κB-mediated MMP-9 upregulation. Stem Cells. 2012;30(10):2309–19. doi:10.1002/stem.1194.

150.

Duhachek-Muggy

Wise

Alyahya

Hodge

Zolkiewska

Metalloprotease-disintegrin ADAM12 actively promotes the stem cell-like phenotype in claudin-low breast cancer. Mol Cancer. 2017;16(1):32. doi:10.1186/s12943-017-0599-6.

151.

Hong

Hur

Choi

Kim

Hwang

Yoon

SK.

Role of ADAM17 in invasion and migration of CD133-expressing liver cancer stem cells after irradiation. Oncotarget. 2016;7(17):23482–97. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.8112.

152.

Ota

Mochizuki

Shimoda

Abe

Miyamae

Ishii

Kimura

Okada

ADAM23 is downregulated in side population and suppresses lung metastasis of lung carcinoma cells. Cancer Sci. 2016;107(4):433–43. doi:10.1111/cas.12895.

153.

Matsui

WH.

Cancer stem cell signaling pathways. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(1, Suppl. 1):S8–19. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000004765.

154.

Cabarcas

Mathews

Farrar

WL.

The cancer stem cell niche—there goes the neighborhood?

Int J Cancer. 2011;129(10):2315–27. doi:10.1002/ijc.26312.

155.

López de Andrés

Griñán-Lisón

Jiménez

Marchal

JA.

Cancer stem cell secretome in the tumor microenvironment: a key point for an effective personalized cancer treatment. J Hematol Oncol. 2020;13(1):136. doi:10.1186/s13045-020-00966-3.

156.

Yang

Shi

Zhao

Peng

Zhang

Wang

Dong

Chen

Cui

Targeting cancer stem cell pathways for cancer therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5(1):8. doi:10.1038/s41392-020-0110-5.

157.

Wang

Bhattacharya

Boulbes

Fan

Xia

Ellis

LM.

A disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain 17 regulates colorectal cancer stem cells and chemosensitivity via Notch1 signaling. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2016;5(3):331–8. doi:10.5966/sctm.2015-0168.

158.

Chen

Zhang

Yan

Jiang

Wang

ADAM17 regulates self-renewal and differentiation of U87 glioblastoma stem cells. Neurosci Lett. 2013;537:44–9. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2013.01.021.

159.

Wang

Tsung

Huang

Yang

Deng

Xiong

Wang

Zhang

Geller

Cheng

Billiar

TR.

iNOS promotes CD24+CD133+ liver cancer stem cell phenotype through a TACE/ADAM17-dependent Notch signaling pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(43):E10127–36. doi:10.1073/pnas.1722100115.

160.

Jimenez-Pascual

Hale

Kordowski

Pugh

Silver

Bayik

Roversi

Alban

Rao

Chen

McIntyre

Colombo

Taraboletti

Holmberg

Forsberg-Nilsson

Lathia

Siebzehnrubl

FA.

ADAMDEC1 maintains a growth factor signaling loop in cancer stem cells. Cancer Discov. 2019;9(11):1574–89. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1308.

161.

Peris-Torres

Plaza-Calonge

MDC

López-Domínguez

Domínguez-García

Barrientos-Durán

Carmona-Sáez

Rodríguez-Manzaneque

JC.

Extracellular protease ADAMTS1 is required at early stages of human uveal melanoma development by inducing stemness and endothelial-like features on tumor cells. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(4):801. doi:10.3390/cancers12040801.

162.

Justilien

Regala

Tseng

Walsh

Batra

Radisky

Murray

Fields

AP.

Matrix metalloproteinase-10 is required for lung cancer stem cell maintenance, tumor initiation and metastatic potential. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):e35040. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035040.

163.

Mariya

Hirohashi

Torigoe

Tabuchi

Asano

Saijo

Kuroda

Yasuda

Mizuuchi

Saito

Sato

Matrix metalloproteinase-10 regulates stemness of ovarian cancer stem-like cells by activation of canonical Wnt signaling and can be a target of chemotherapy-resistant ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7(18):26806–22. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.864.

164.

Yang

Zhu

Ning

Liu

LK.

Membrane type 1 matrix metalloproteinase induces an epithelial to mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cell-like properties in SCC9 cells. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:171. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-13-171.

165.

Gopinath

Malla

Alapati

Gorantla

Gujrati

Dinh

Rao

JS.

Cathepsin B and uPAR regulate self-renewal of glioma-initiating cells through GLI-regulated Sox2 and Bmi1 expression. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34(3):550–9. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgs375.

166.

Wang

Long

Wang

Tan

Fei

Chen

Huang

Liang

Knockdown of Cathepsin L promotes radiosensitivity of glioma stem cells both in vivo and in vitro. Cancer Lett. 2016;371(2):274–84. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2015.12.012.

167.

Kenig

Frangež

Pucer

Lah

Inhibition of cathepsin L lowers the apoptotic threshold of glioblastoma cells by up-regulating p53 and transcription of caspases 3 and 7. Apoptosis. 2011;16(7):671–82. doi:10.1007/s10495-011-0600-6.

168.

Goulet

Sansregret

Leduy

Bogyo

Weber

Chauhan

Nepveu

Increased expression and activity of nuclear cathepsin L in cancer cells suggests a novel mechanism of cell transformation. Mol Cancer Res. 2007;5(9):899–907. doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-07-0160.

169.

Duncan

Muratore-Schroeder

Cook

Garcia

Shabanowitz

Hunt

Allis

CD.

Cathepsin L proteolytically processes histone H3 during mouse embryonic stem cell differentiation. Cell. 2008;135(2):284–94. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.055.

170.

Vahidian

Duijf

PHG

Safarzadeh

Derakhshani

Baghbanzadeh

Baradaran

Interactions between cancer stem cells, immune system and some environmental components: friends or foes?

Immunol Lett. 2019;208:19–29. doi:10.1016/j.imlet.2019.03.004.

171.

Müller

Tunger

Plesca

Wehner

Temme

Westphal

Meier

Bachmann

Schmitz

Bidirectional crosstalk between cancer stem cells and immune cell subsets. Front Immunol. 2020;11:140. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.00140.

172.

Kärre

Natural killer cell recognition of missing self. Nat Immunol. 2008;9(5):477–80. doi:10.1038/ni0508-477.

173.

Palesch

Wagner

Meid

Molenda

Sienczyk

Burkhardt

Münch

Prokop

Stevanovic

Westhoff

Halatsch

Wirtz

Zimecki

Burster

Cathepsin G-mediated proteolytic degradation of MHC class I molecules to facilitate immune detection of human glioblastoma cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2016;65(3):283–91. doi:10.1007/s00262-016-1798-5.

174.

Bischof

Westhoff

Wagner

Halatsch

Trentmann

Knippschild

Wirtz

Burster

. Cancer stem cells: the potential role of autophagy, proteolysis, and cathepsins in glioblastoma stem cells. Tumour Biol. Epub 2017 Mar. doi:10.1177/1010428317692227.

175.

Perišić Nanut

Sabotič

Jewett

Kos

. Cysteine cathepsins as regulators of the cytotoxicity of NK and T cells. Front Immunol. 2014;5:616. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2014.00616.

176.

Magister

Tseng

Bui

Kos

Jewett

. Regulation of split anergy in natural killer cells by inhibition of cathepsins C and H and cystatin F. Oncotarget. 2015;6(26):22310–27. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.4208.

177.

Perišić Nanut

Sabotič

Švajger

Jewett

Kos

. Cystatin F affects natural killer cell cytotoxicity. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1459. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2017.01459.

178.

Prunk

Perišić Nanut

Jakoš

Sabotič

Švajger

Kos

Extracellular cystatin F is internalised by cytotoxic T lymphocytes and decreases their cytotoxicity. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(12):3660. doi:10.3390/cancers12123660.

179.

Lauricella

Carlisi

Giuliano

Calvaruso

Cernigliaro

Vento

D’Anneo

The analysis of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer stem-like cells unveils a high expression of the serpin proteinase inhibitor PI-9: possible regulatory mechanisms. Int J Oncol. 2016;49(1):352–60. doi:10.3892/ijo.2016.3495.

180.

Chien

Meyer

Bonneville

γδ T cells: first line of defense and beyond. Annu Rev Immunol. 2014;32:121–55. doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-032713-120216.

181.

Dutta

Dieters-Castator

Papatzimas

Medina

Schueler

Derksen

Lajoie

Postovit

Siegers

GM.

ADAM protease inhibition overcomes resistance of breast cancer stem-like cells to γδ T cell immunotherapy. Cancer Lett. 2021;496:156–68. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2020.10.013.

182.

Prieto-Vila

Takahashi

Usuba

Kohama

Ochiya

Drug resistance driven by cancer stem cells and their niche. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(12):2574. doi:10.3390/ijms18122574.

183.

Phi

LTH

Sari

Yang

Lee

Jun

Kim

Lee

Kwon

. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) in drug resistance and their therapeutic implications in cancer treatment. Stem Cells Int. 2018;2018:5416923. doi:10.1155/2018/5416923.

184.

Marzagalli

Fontana

Raimondi

Limonta

Cancer stem cells-key players in tumor relapse. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(3):376. doi:10.3390/cancers13030376.

185.

Van Noorden

CJF

Vogels

IMC

Everts

Beertsen

Localization of cathepsin B activity in fibroblasts and chondrocytes by continuous monitoring of the formation of a final fluorescent reaction product using 5-nitrosalicylaldehyde. Histochem J. 1987;19(9):483–7. doi:10.1007/bf01675418.

186.

Podergajs

Brekka

Radlwimmer

Herold-Mende

Talasila

Tiemann

Rajcevic

Lah

Bjerkvig

Miletic

Expansive growth of two glioblastoma stem-like cell lines is mediated by bFGF and not by EGF. Radiol Oncol. 2013;47(4):330–7. doi:10.2478/raon-2013-0063.

187.

Malla

Gopinath

Alapati

Gorantla

Gondi

Rao

JS.

uPAR and cathepsin B inhibition enhanced radiation-induced apoptosis in gliomainitiating cells. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(6):745–60. doi:10.1093/neuonc/nos088.

188.

Atapattu

Saha

Chheang

Eissman

Vail

Hii

Llerena

Liu

Horvay

Abud

Kusebauch

Moritz

Ding

Cao

Rafii

Ernst

Scott

Nikolov

Lackmann

Janes

PW.

An activated form of ADAM10 is tumor selective and regulates cancer stem-like cells and tumor growth. J Exp Med. 2016;213(9):1741–57. doi:10.1084/jem.20151095.

189.

Nikitakis

Gkouveris

Aseervatham

Barahona

Ogbureke

KUE

. DSPP-MMP20 gene silencing downregulates cancer stem cell markers in human oral cancer cells. Cell Mol Biol Lett. 2018;23:30. doi:10.1186/s11658-018-0096-y.

190.

Zhao

Dong

Zhang

Qin

Zhao

Sun

Wang

Wartmann

Jauch

Nelson

Qin

Bruns

Targeting cancer stem cells and their niche: perspectives for future therapeutic targets and strategies. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018;53:139–55. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.08.002.

191.

Ray

Mukherjee

Cancer stem cells: current status and therapeutic implications in cancer therapy—a new paradigm. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. Epub 2021 Feb. doi:10.2174/1574888X16666210203105800.

192.

Richardson

Sonneveld

Schuster

Irwin

Stadtmauer

Facon

Harousseau

Ben-Yehuda

Lonial

Goldschmidt

Reece

San-Miguel

Bladé

Boccadoro

Cavenagh

Dalton

Boral

Esseltine

Porter

Schenkein

Anderson

; Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions Investigators. Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(24):2487–98. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043445.

193.

San Miguel

Schlag

Khuageva

Dimopoulos

Shpilberg

Kropff

Spicka

Petrucci

Palumbo

Samoilova

Dmoszynska

Abdulkadyrov

Schots

Jiang

Mateos

Anderson

Esseltine

Liu

Cakana

van de Velde

Richardson

; VISTA Trial Investigators. Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(9):906–17. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0801479.

194.

Siegel

Martin

Wang

Vij

Jakubowiak

Lonial

Trudel

Kukreti

Bahlis

Alsina

Chanan-Khan

Buadi

Reu

Somlo

Zonder

Song

Stewart

Stadtmauer

Kunkel

Wear

Wong

Orlowski

Jagannath

A phase 2 study of single-agent carfilzomib (PX-171-003-A1) in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;120(14):2817–25. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-05-425934.

195.

Stewart

Rajkumar

Dimopoulos

Masszi

Špička

Oriol

Hájek

Rosiñol

Siegel

Mihaylov

Goranova-Marinova

Rajnics

Suvorov

Niesvizky

Jakubowiak

San-Miguel

Ludwig

Wang

Maisnar

Minarik

Bensinger

Mateos

Ben-Yehuda

Kukreti

Zojwalla

Tonda

Yang

Xing

Moreau

Palumbo

; ASPIRE Investigators. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(2):142–52. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1411321.

196.

Dimopoulos

Goldschmidt

Niesvizky

Joshua

Chng

Oriol

Orlowski

Ludwig

Facon

Hajek

Weisel

Hungria

Minuk

Feng

Zahlten-Kumeli

Kimball

Moreau

Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1327–37. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30578-8.

197.

Moreau

Masszi

Grzasko

Bahlis

Hansson

Pour

Sandhu

Ganly

Baker

Jackson

Stoppa

Simpson

Gimsing

Palumbo

Garderet

Cavo

Kumar

Touzeau

Buadi

Laubach

Berg

Lin

Di Bacco

Hui

van de Velde

Richardson

; TOURMALINE-MM1 Study Group. Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1621–34. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1516282.

198.

Addison

Simos

Wang

Pond

Smith

Robertson

Mazzarello

Singh

Vandermeer

Fernandes

Iyengar

Verma

Clemons

A phase 2 trial exploring the clinical and correlative effects of combining doxycycline with bone-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Bone Oncol. 2016;5(4):173–9. doi:10.1016/j.jbo.2016.06.003.

199.

Dezube

Krown

Lee

Bauer

Aboulafia

DM.

Randomized phase II trial of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor COL-3 in AIDS-related Kaposi’s sarcoma: an AIDS malignancy consortium study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(9):1389–94. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.04.2614.

200.

Rudek

New

Mikkelsen

Phuphanich

Alavi

Nabors

Piantadosi

Fisher

Grossman

SA.

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of COL-3 in patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol. 2011;105(2):375–81. doi:10.1007/s11060-011-0602-9.

201.

Shepherd

Giaccone

Seymour

Debruyne

Bezjak

Hirsh

Smylie

Rubin

Martins

Lamont

Krzakowski

Sadura

Zee

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of marimastat after response to first-line chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer: a trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(22):4434–9. doi:10.1200/JCO.2002.02.108.

202.

Sparano

Bernardo

Stephenson

Gradishar

Ingle

Zucker

Davidson

NE.

Randomized phase III trial of marimastat versus placebo in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have responding or stable disease after first-line chemotherapy: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E2196. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(23):4683–90. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.08.054.

203.

Bissett

O’Byrne

von Pawel

Gatzemeier

Price

Nicolson

Mercier

Mazabel

Penning

Zhang

Collier

Shepherd

FA.

Phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor prinomastat in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(4):842–9. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.03.170.

204.

Lara

Jr Stadler

Longmate

Quinn

Wexler

Van Loan

Twardowski

Gumerlock

Vogelzang

Vokes

Lenz

Doroshow

Gandara

DR.

A randomized phase II trial of the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BMS-275291 in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(5):1556–63. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2074.

205.

Brinker

Krown

Lee

Cesarman

Chadburn

Kaplan

Henry

Von Roenn

JH.

Phase 1/2 trial of BMS-275291 in patients with human immunodeficiency virus-related Kaposi sarcoma: a multicenter trial of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium. Cancer. 2008;112(5):1083–8. doi:10.1002/cncr.23108.

206.

Shah

Metges

Cunningham

Shiu

Wyrwicz

Thai

Brachmann

Bhargava

Catenacci

DVT

Wainberg

ZA.

A phase II, open-label, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of andecaliximab combined with nivolumab versus nivolumab alone in subjects with unresectable or recurrent gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(Suppl. 4):75. doi:10.1200/JCO.2019.37.4_suppl.75.

207.

Shah

Bodoky

Starodub

Cunningham

Yip

Wainberg

Bendell

Thai

Bhargava

Ajani

JA.

Phase III study to evaluate efficacy and safety of andecaliximab with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma (GAMMA-1). J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(9):990–1000. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.02755.

208.

Goldstein

Oliveira

Heinrich

Stemmer

Mala

Kastner

Bevan

Richters

Schmalfeldt

Harbeck

A randomized double-blind phase II study of the combination of oral WX-671 plus capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy in first-line HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl. 15):508.

209.

Heinemann

Ebert

Laubender

Bevan

Mala

Boeck

Phase II randomised proof-of-concept study of the urokinase inhibitor upamostat (WX-671) in combination with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with non-resectable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(4):766–70. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.62.

210.

Blackhall

Jao

Greillier

Cho

Penkov

Reguart

Majem

Nackaerts

Syrigos

Hansen

Schuette

Cetnar

Cappuzzo

Okamoto

Erman

Langer

Kato

Groen

Sun

Luo

Tanwani

Caffrey

Komarnitsky

Reinmuth

. Efficacy and safety of rovalpituzumab tesirine compared with topotecan as second-line therapy in DLL3-high SCLC: results from the phase 3 TAHOE study. J Thorac Oncol. Epub 2021 Feb. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2021.02.009.

211.

Johnson

Zvirbule

Laktionov

Helland

Cho

Gutierrez

Colinet

Lena

Wolf

Gottfried

Okamoto

van der Leest

Rich

Hung

Appenzeller

Sun

Maag

Luo

Nickner

Vajikova

Komarnitsky

Bar

. Rovalpituzumab tesirine as a maintenance therapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage-SCLC: results from the phase 3 MERU study. J Thorac Oncol. Epub 2021 Apr. doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2021.03.012.

212.

Winer

Adams

Mignatti

Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors in cancer therapy: turning past failures into future successes. Mol Cancer Ther. 2018;17(6):1147–55. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0646.

213.

Dudani

Warren

Bhatia

SN.

Harnessing protease activity to improve cancer care. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2018;2:353–76. doi:10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-030617-050549.

214.

Anderson

Cui

Protease-sensitive nanomaterials for cancer therapeutics and imaging. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2017;56(20):5761–77. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.7b00990.

215.

Raeeszadeh-Sarmazdeh

Hritz

BG.

Metalloproteinases and their inhibitors: potential for the development of new therapeutics. Cells. 2020;9(5):1313. doi:10.3390/cells9051313.

216.

Mamaeva

Niemi

Beck

Özliseli

Desai

Landor

Gronroos

Kronqvist

Pettersen

McCormack

Rosenholm

Linden

Sahlgren

Inhibiting notch activity in breast cancer stem cells by glucose functionalized nanoparticles carrying γ-secretase inhibitors. Mol Ther. 2016;24(5):926–36. doi:10.1038/mt.2016.42.

217.

Mohanty

Chen

Morais

Klockow

Yerneni

Pisani

Chin

Mitra

Cheshier

Chang

Gambhir

Rao

Loadman

Falconer

Daldrup-Link

HE.

A novel theranostic strategy for MMP-14-expressing glioblastomas impacts survival. Mol Cancer Ther. 2017;16(9):1909–21. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0022.

218.

Pastushenko

Brisebarre

Sifrim

Fioramonti

Revenco

Boumahdi

Van Keymeulen

Brown

Moers

Lemaire

De Clercq

Minguijón

Balsat

Sokolow

Dubois

De Cock

Scozzaro

Sopena

Lanas

D’Haene

Salmon

Marine

Voet

Sotiropoulou

Blanpain

Identification of the tumour transition states occurring during EMT. Nature. 2018;556(7702):463–8. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0040-3.

Proteases Regulate Cancer Stem Cell Properties and Remodel Their Microenvironment

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction: Proteases and the Proteolytic System

Role of Proteases in Cancer

Proteases in Cancer SCs and Their Niches

Proteases and the ECM

Proteases and CSC Migration Out of Niches

Proteases and CSC Invasion

Proteases and CSC Self-renewal and Stemness

Metalloproteases

Cysteine and Serine Proteases

Proteases and SC Immune Evasion

Proteases and CSC Therapy Resistance

Proteases as Therapeutic Targets in Cancer

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Competing Interests

Author Contributions

Funding

References