Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) have recently emerged as important mediators of intercellular communication. They are released in the extracellular space by a variety of normal and cancerous cell types and have been found in all human body fluids. Cancer-derived EVs have been shown to carry lipids, proteins, mRNAs, non-coding and structural RNAs and even extra-chromosomal DNA, which can be taken up by recipient cells and trigger diverse physiological and pathological responses. An increasing body of evidence suggests that cancer-derived EVs mediate paracrine signalling between cancer cells. This leads to the increased invasiveness, proliferation rate and chemoresistance, as well as the acquisition of the cancer stem cell phenotype. This stimulates angiogenesis and the reprogramming of normal stromal cells into cancer-promoting cell types. Furthermore, cancer-derived EVs contribute to the formation of the pre-metastatic niche and modulation of anti-tumour immune response. However, as most of these data are obtained by in vitro studies, it is not entirely clear which of these effects are recapitulated in vivo. In the current review, we summarize studies that assess the tissue distribution, trafficking, clearance and uptake of cancer-derived EVs in vivo and discuss the impact they have, both locally and systemically.

Keywords

Extracellular vesicles biodistribution trafficking tumour microenvironment immunosuppression metastatic niche

1. Introduction

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are a heterogeneous population of nanosized membrane vesicles that are released in the extracellular space by almost all normal and cancer cell types. Currently, three broad categories of EVs have been defined. These are based on the mode of biogenesis: (i) exosomes, (ii) microvesicles and (iii) apoptotic bodies [1]. Exosomes are EVs of endocytic origin, which range from 50-150 nm in diameter. These are released into the extracellular environment by a fusion of the multivesicular bodies (MVBs) with the plasma membrane. Microvesicles (sometimes also referred to as ectosomes or microparticles) are large EVs, ranging between 100-1000 nm in diameter, which are secreted by shedding or budding from the plasma membrane [2, 3]. Recently, some cancer cells have been found to secrete very large EVs (1-10 μm) called large oncosomes. These are due to the shedding of non-apoptotic plasma membrane blebs, which are characteristic of fast-migrating “aboeboid” tumour cells [4]. Currently, there is no consensus about whether these EVs represent a subclass of microvesicles or an entirely new class of EVs. Apoptotic bodies are heterogeneous EVs, which contain cytoplasm with condensed organelles and/or nuclear fragments. They are released into the surrounding extracellular space by apoptotic/dying cells [1]. In vivo, apoptotic bodies are quickly cleared by macrophages and other phagocytes [5]. Although they have been found to carry miRNAs, which can be functionally active in the recipient cells [6], they are structurally and functionally very different from live cell-derived EVs and will not be discussed in this review.

Although exosomes, microvesicles and oncosomes have distinct physical and biochemical properties, so far, no markers that can unambiguously distinguish these types of EVs have been identified. Furthermore, the current methods used for the fractionation of EVs cannot reliably separate various types of EVs [3]. Furthermore, recent studies have uncovered substantial differences in the EV biogenesis of various cell types. This suggests that discriminating these types of EVs could be more complex than initially thought [3, 7]. Therefore, in the current review, we will use the term EV to designate all types of live cell-secreted vesicles.

Cancer-derived EVs have been shown to carry a variety of lipids, proteins, mRNAs, non-coding and structural RNAs and even extra-chromosomal DNA [8]–[10]. The molecular content of EVs partially reflects that of the parent cells. However, studies have shown that they are enriched in certain molecules, indicating the existence of specific mechanisms that sort cargo into EVs [11, 12]. Overall, these mechanisms are poorly understood and are likely to be related to the mode of EV biogenesis. The sorting of specific proteins into EVs can be mediated by the endosomal sorting complex for transport (ESCRT) machinery [13] or ESCRT-independent mechanisms such as tetraspanin [14] or ceramide-dependent pathways [15]. The sorting of RNAs into EVs can be mediated by the interaction of specific RNA-binding proteins, such as hnRNPA2B1, with cis-acting elements in the RNA sequence [12, 16].

EVs can be taken up by recipient cells and trigger diverse biological effects. Therefore, they have emerged as important mediators of intercellular communication, both in normal physiological processes and in the development of various diseases [8, 9], [17]. In cancer, EVs have been shown to mediate paracrine signalling between cancer cells, crosstalk between tumour and microenvironment, contribute to the formation of the pre-metastatic niche and interfere with the anti-tumour immune response. However, most of the data regarding their role in cancer come from in vitro studies and it is not entirely clear which of the uptake mechanisms are recapitulated in vivo. Most data are concerned with the fate of EVs when they are internalized by various cell types, as well as what mechanisms govern the trafficking of EVs in the body. In this review, we summarize studies that aim to assess the tissue distribution, trafficking, clearance and uptake of cancer-derived EVs in vivo. We also discuss the impact that they have been shown to have, both locally and systemically.

2. Tissue Distribution of Cancer-derived EVs

EVs have been found in various biological fluids, including blood, milk, urine, saliva, etc. [18]. Here, they represent a heterogeneous mixture of EVs derived from various cell types. Several lines of evidence suggest that cancer-derived EVs can be released into the circulation or other biofluids of cancer patients. At first, cancer patients have been found to have higher levels of circulating EVs, compared to healthy controls [19]–[21]. Secondly, EVs isolated from the biofluids of cancer patients or tumour-bearing animals were shown to contain cancer-associated markers, such as Melan-A [19], TYRP2 [22] and CA19-9 [23], and amplified or mutated oncogenes [9, 24]. However, until recently, very little was known about the half-life, clearance, trafficking and tissue distribution of cancer-derived EVs in the body. Data from in vivo studies that address these issues have only started to accumulate over the last few years. The main findings of these studies are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Studies investigating EV biodistribution and functions in vivo

Cell Line	Animal Line	EV Labelling	Injection Site	Detection Method	Results	Ref.

Exogenously Administered EVs into Cancer-free Animals
TS/A murine mammary tumour	BALB/c	PKH67	i.v.	Flow cytometry	EVs are taken up by bone marrow CD11b ⁺Gr-1⁺ cells; suppress myeloid cell differentiation into DCs.	[26]

EL-4 mouse lymphoma	C57BL/6	IRDye800	i.p.	LI-COR imager	EVs detected in the liver, lung, kidney and spleen, taken up by CD11b⁺Gr-1⁺ cells.	[28]

B16-BL6 mouse melanoma	C57BL/6	gLuc-lactadherin	i.v. via tail vein	gLuc activity measurement	Half-life of EVs in the blood is ~2 minutes At 10 to 60 minutes after injection, EVs are distributed mainly to the liver and lungs; at 4 hours – lungs and spleen.	[30]

	BALB/c	gLuc- lactadherin	i.v. via tail vein	LAS3000 IVIS

	C57BL/6	PKH26	i.v. via tail vein	Fluorescent microscopy

HEK293T human embryonic kidney	Athymic nude mice	gLuc	i.v. via retro-orbital vein	Bioluminescence imaging	30 minutes after injection, EVs are distributed to the spleen, liver, lungs and kidneys; actively taken up by liver and lung cells but not spleen cells. EVs are eliminated via hepatic and renal routes.	[27]

		Biotin-Alexa680-streptavidin	i.v. via tail vein	FMT imaging

B16-F10 mouse melanoma	C57BL/6	SPION5	Footpad	In vivo MRI	EVs home to the subcapsular sinus of lymph nodes.	[33]

MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer	Nude mice	DiI	i.v. via tail vein	Flow cytometry, IF	EVs are internalized by macrophages in the lungs and brain, resulting in the activation of NF-κB pathway.	[32]

K562 human chronic myelogenous leukaemia	SD rats	n.a.	i.v. via tail vein	n.a.	EVs deliver hybrid BCR/ABL DNA to normal neutrophils; administration of EVs induce CML phenotype in mice and rats.	[36]

	NOD/SCID mice		i.v. via tail vein	n.a.

Exogenously Administered EVs into Cancer Bearing Animals

BSp73ASML BDX rat pancreatic adenocarcinoma	BDX rats	n.a.	Footpad – first EVs, then cells	n.a.	EVs from metastatic cells support the metastatic spread of non-metastatic cells to lymph nodes and lungs.	[37]

B16-F10 mouse melanoma	C57BL/6 albino; i.v. injection of melanoma cells	DiR	Footpad	IVIS	EVs home to sentinel lymph nodes and enhance migration of melanoma cells to EV-rich sites in lymph nodes.	[29]

B16-F10 and B16-F1 mouse melanoma	C57BL/6 mice with orthotopic B16-F10 tumours	PKH67	i.v.	Confocal microscopy	EVs home to the lungs, bone marrow, liver and spleen. EVs enhance metastasis by bone marrow education via the transfer of MET to the bone marrow progenitors.	[22]

HEK293T human embryonic kidney	RAG2^−/− mice with breast cancer (HCC70) xenografts	DiR	i.v. via tail vein	IVIS	EGFR-targeted EVs home to tumour microenvironment and can deliver miRNAs to EGFR-expressing breast cancer cells.	[31]

HEK293T human embryonic kidney	Athymic nude mice with glioma xenograft	gLuc	i.v. via tail vein	Bioluminescence imaging	Similar amounts of EVs are found in tumours, spleen and liver.	[27]

4T1 mouse mammary tumour	BALB/c with 4T1 orthotopic tumour	DiR	i.v., i.t.	IVIS200	EVs are taken up in the liver and spleen, very little amounts travel to the tumour. Slower uptake and clearance in mice with impaired innate immunity. Intratumourally administered EVs stay associated with tumour.	[38]

	Nude mice with 4T1 orthotopic tumour

	NOD.CB17-Prkdc^scid/J with 4T1 orthotopic tumour

Endogenously Produced EVs from Genetically Engineered Cancer Cell Lines

MMT-060562 mouse breast cancer; MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer	Nude mice with orthotopic MMT tumours or MDA-MB-231 xenografts	CD63-GFP	n.a.	CLSM imaging	Breast cancer cells secrete EVs in the primary and metastatic tumour microenvironment and blood circulation; EVs are taken up by cancer cells and CAFs.	[34]

MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer	Nude mice with MDA-MB-231 xenograft	Human CD63	n.a.	IHC	EVs are taken up by macrophages in the lung, brain and lymph nodes; induce inflammatory processes in tumour microenvironment and axillary lymph nodes.*	[32]

H460 human lung cancer	Nude mice with H460 xenograft	hCD63-GFP	n.a.	Immunomagnetic separation, RT-PCR	Human cancer-derived EVs carry mRNAs and are detectable in the blood and saliva.	[35]

gLuc – Gaussia luciferase; FMT – fluorescence mediated tomography; i.v. – intravenous; i.p. – intraperitoneal; EV – extracellular vesicle; DC – dendritic cell; BM – bone marrow; MDMC – monocyte derived myeloid cell; IVIS – In Vivo imaging system; SPION5 – super paramagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles; MRI – magnetic resonance imaging; PLN – Poplietal lymph node; IF – immunofluorescence; CLSM – confocal laser scanning microscopy; IHC – immunohistochemistry.

In these studies, two different approaches for studying the biodistribution of EVs have been exploited. One is based on administering exogenous EVs into the circulation of experimental animals, while the other is based on tumour models that produce labelled EVs endogenously. Most of the studies that used exogenously produced EVs isolated them from a cell culture medium by differential ultracentrifugation and sucrose gradient, as described by Thery et al. 2006 [25]. After the intravenous administration has been conducted, the EVs are tracked in vivo. This is carried out either by labelling the EVs with fluorescent membrane dyes, such as DiI, PKH67 and PKH26 [22, 26]–[32], and loading them with superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles (SPION5), allowing magnetic resonance tracking [33]; or by using EVs engineered to display a membrane reporter [27, 30], [34].

EV reporter systems have been created by the genetic engineering of cell lines that produce EVs with membrane-anchored Gaussia luciferase (gLuc), biotin acceptor peptide (BAP) [27] or green fluorescent protein (GFP) [34]. Studies that are based on endogenously produced EVs have used either genetically engineered cancer cell lines, which produced GFP-tagged CD63 [34, 35], or human cancer xenografts in mice, where cancer-derived EVs were located by detecting human CD63 [32]. The EV detection methods vary depending on the method of EV labelling and the specific aim of each study. In vivo imaging system (IVIS) is the method of choice for the analysis of EV tissue distribution. However, studies that focus on the specific effects caused by cancer-derived EVs in specific organs also used flow cytometry, microscopy, immunohistochemistry, gLuc activity measurements, magnetic resonance, etc.

In cancer-free animals, exogenously administered cancer-derived EVs were distributed mainly to the liver, lungs, kidneys and spleen [28, 30] and were also detected in the lymph nodes [29, 33] and bone marrow [22, 26]. EVs derived from human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293T) were predominantly localized in the spleen, followed by the liver, lungs and kidneys. Additionally, lower amounts of EVs were also detected in the brain, heart and muscle [27]. However, when the EV-injected animals were transcardially perfused with PBS before collecting the organs, the highest amount of EVs was detected in the kidneys and not the spleen, followed by the liver and lungs. This suggests that EVs are actively taken up by the kidney, liver and lung cells but not the spleen cells. It also indicates that the accumulation of EVs in the nonperfused spleen may be due to the uptake of EVs by circulating lymphocytes and macrophages [27]. In the liver and lungs, they are likely to be taken up and degraded by phagocytic cells such as Kuppfer cells and alveolar macrophages [27]. However, a portion of the EVs may also be internalized by the kidney cells and released into the urine [27]. A recent study by Cai et al. (2014) demonstrated that, when injected in rats eliciting some characteristics of CML, EVs derived from the CML cell line K562 transferred BCR-ABL hybrid gene to normal neutrophils. This suggests that EV-mediated transfer of oncogenes may represent a novel mechanism of tumourigenesis [36].

Considering that cancer patients have substantially higher levels of EVs in the blood than healthy individuals [19]–[21] and that cell-free RNAs, part of which are likely to be packaged into EVs, are remarkably stable in the patients' blood [39], it seemed plausible that EVs should be very stable in the biofluids. Unexpectedly, when injected in the blood circulation of immunocompetent mice, murine melanoma-derived EVs had a half-life of only approximately two minutes. Furthermore, they were cleared from the circulation within four hours [30]. Similarly, when injected into athymic nude mice [27], HEK293T-derived EVs had a half-life of less than 30 minutes in vivo in most tissues. Moreover, lymphoma-derived EVs were taken up by CD11b⁺Gr-1⁺ cells within one hour after the injection into immunocompetent mice [28]. Such a short half-life of exogenously administrated EVs was very surprising and has to be taken into account when designing studies for the identification of EV-associated cancer biomarkers.

In tumour-bearing animals, both the exogenously administered EVs and endogenously produced EVs have also been found to accommodate the tumour microenvironment, lymph nodes and bone marrow. However, in such studies, the largest part of intravenously administered EVs was rapidly cleared from the circulation. Exogenously administered HEK293T-derived EVs accumulated in xenograft tumours at similar levels than the liver and spleen at 60 minutes post-injection [27]. Nevertheless, it remained unclear which cell types bind or internalize the EVs. Several other studies suggest that, in the tumour microenvironment, cancer-derived EVs can be internalized by other cancer cells, as well as by surrounding cells like cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), endothelial cells and other stroma cells [31, 34], [40]. A number of studies have demonstrated that cancer-derived EVs are released into the blood circulation and are trafficked to the lymph nodes, bone marrow and lungs. Here, they promote metastatic niche formation and enhance the metastatic spread of cancer cells to these organs [22, 29], [34, 37]. Furthermore, when taken up by macrophages, cancer-derived EVs were shown to induce an inflammatory response [32]. Taken together, these studies provide a solid basis for the concept that cancer-derived EVs promote cancer development and progression in vivo by inducing various biological effects, both locally and systemically.

3. Uptake of EVs in Tumour Microenvironment

It has become clear that, within the tumour microenvironment, the cellular composition is complex. Furthermore, relationships between different cell types are no less sophisticated than those in any healthy organs [41]. Therefore, the role of intercellular communication in the acquisition of various cancer phenotypes, invasive growth and metastasis and drug resistance is increasingly recognized. It can be mediated by soluble signalling molecules, cell-cell or cell-matrix adhesion, gap junctions and EVs [42]. In the tumour microenvironment, cancer-derived EVs have been shown to be taken up by other cancer cells and stromal cells, such as fibroblasts, as well as endothelial cells and tumour-infiltrated immune cells. EVs can exert their effects in the recipient cells either by binding to the cell surface receptors or delivering their content inside the recipient cell. Contrary to the single-molecule signals, EVs have the potential to affect multiple signalling pathways inside the recipient cell. Hence, they provide more efficient means for phenotypic reprogramming or synchronizing the physiological state of the surrounding cells [43, 44]. Internalization can occur either through a fusion with the cell membrane [45], endocytosis and micropinocytosis [46, 47] or phagocytosis [48]. However, it is not yet entirely clear which of these mechanisms lead to the degradation of EV components and which, eventually, result in the release of EV content into the cytoplasm. Here, it can alter the physiological functions of the recipient cell. The recipient cell specificity is likely to be determined by the composition of adhesion molecules and lipid content on the surface of EVs and the respective ligands on the cellular surface [49]–[53]. For example, the internalization of glioblastoma-derived EVs was found to depend on the expression of heparan sulfate proteoglycans on the recipient cells [50]. Meanwhile, the uptake of rat tumour-derived EVs by specific cell types depended on the expression of tetraspanin Tspan8 and integrin α4 on the EVs [54]. Interestingly, low extracellular pH (pH 6.0) has also been shown to increase the release and uptake of melanoma-derived EVs [45]. This finding is particularly significant for understanding the EV function in the tumour microenvironment, as hypoxia and extracellular acidosis are common features of the vast majority of solid cancers. Extracellular acidosis arises by switching metabolism to glycolysis, resulting in the increased production and excretion of acidic metabolites, such as lactic and carbonic acids, and can be as low as 5.9 [55]. Recently, low pH-dependent EV-mediated elimination of cisplatin was also shown to serve as a mechanism of chemoresistance to cisplatin [56].

4. Paracrine Effects Caused by Cancer-derived EVs in the Tumour Microenvironment

4.1 Cancer Cell Cross-talk

The uptake of cancer-derived EVs by other cancer cells can lead to increased invasiveness and metastatic potential [57]–[60], anchorage-independent growth [24, 61], proliferation and chemoresistance [60, 62], [63], as well as inducing the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [59, 64] (Figure 1). Moreover, cancer-derived EVs are shown to drive the oncogenic conversion of non-tumourigenic cells [65, 66]. These effects can be mediated by the transfer of functionally active proteins, such as HIF1α [59], EGFRvIII [67], miRNAs [61, 63] and possibly, other non-coding RNAs, mRNAs and fragments of genomic DNA carrying various cancer genes and transposable elements [9, 68], [69].

Figure 1.

Local and systemic effects that are triggered by cancer-derived EVs. Locally cancer-derived EVs have been reported to promote proliferation, invasiveness and chemoresistance, and to induce EMT in cancer cells in a paracrine manner, and to stimulate angiogenesis and reprogramming of stromal cells into CAFs. Systemically, cancer-derived EVs have been shown to contribute to the generation of metastatic microenvironment by reprogramming BMDCs, regulating gene expression in the lungs and lymph nodes and modulating anti-tumour immune response. BMDCs, bone marrow-derived cells; ECM, extracellular matrix; EMT, epithelial-mesenchymal transition; CAF, cancer-associated fibroblast; DC, dendritic cells; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cell; NK, natural killer cell; TCR, T cell receptor.

In 1980, Poste and Nicolson provided the first experimental evidence that EVs, shed from highly metastatic melanoma cells, could increase the metastatic potential of poorly metastatic melanoma cells [57]. Later on, several independent studies confirmed these findings in vitro and in vivo. A study by Hao et al. (2006) demonstrated that, when i.v. was injected into C57BL/6 mice, the EVs released from highly metastatic melanoma cell line were taken up by poorly metastatic cells, which acquired the capacity to form metastatic colonies in the lungs. Similarly, EVs derived from highly invasive (but not from non-invasive) triple-negative breast cancer cells significantly increased the proliferation, migration and invasion capacity of other breast cancer cell lines [60]. In line with this, EVs from prostate cancer (PC) patients' sera have been found to enhance the proliferation and invasion of PC cell lines [62]. A study by Aga et al. (2014) demonstrated that EVs derived from EBV-infected nasopharyngeal carcinoma contained the functionally active transcription factor, HIF1α. Furthermore, the uptake of HIF1α-containing EVs (but not EVs containing mutant HIF1α) resulted in the downregulation of E-cadherin and upregulation of N-cadherin in recipient cells [59]. Changes in E- and N-cadherin expression are markers for EMT that confer mesenchymal properties to epithelial cells. This is associated with invasion and metastasis, as well as the acquisition of cancer stem cell phenotype [70]. Furthermore, EVs from drug-resistant cell line variants have been shown to confer resistance to non-resistant PC or breast cancer cells [62, 63].

Al-Nedawi et al. (2008) demonstrated that glioma cells with a mutated form of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRvIII) release it via EVs, which were taken up by indolent glioma cells [24]. This resulted in the activation of MAPK and Akt signalling pathways. It also led to changes in the expression of EGFRvIII-regulated genes, resulting in the morphological transformation and increase in anchorage-independent growth capacity [24]. Furthermore, breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) cells have been shown to release Amphiregulin (AREG), an EGFR ligand, via EVs [71]. When taken up by breast cancer cells, EV-packaged AREG displayed greater membrane stability and increased invasiveness. Interestingly, the AREG level in EVs correlated with the mutant KRAS status of the donor cells [71]. Later on, the same group demonstrated that mutant KRAS status affects the composition of the EV proteome. When taken up by CRC cells with wt KRAS, EVs derived from CRC cells with mutated KRAS contained many tumour-promoting proteins, including KRAS and EGFR, and enhanced colony formation [72]. Another study demonstrated that EVs derived from a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were enriched in specific miRNAs that could be taken up by other HCC cells. This resulted in the modulation of TAK1 signalling pathway and enhanced anchorage-independent growth [61].

A recent study by Melo et al. (2014) highlights a novel mechanism that could potentially impact our understanding of the physiological role of cancer-derived EVs. This study demonstrated that, in contrast to those produced by normal cells, breast cancer EVs bear a RISC-loading complex. This is associated with pre-miRNAs that are capable of cell-independent miRNA biogenesis. These EVs were able to mediate the rapid and efficient silencing of target mRNAs of recipient cells and, importantly, were shown to have a protumourigenic effect on non-tumourigenic epithelial cells. It was demonstrated that the impact was dependent on the presence of Dicer within cancer EVs [65]. The authors proposed that cancer EVs are capable of inducing an oncogenic “field effect” by subjugating neighbouring normal cells to cooperate in cancer progression. In addition, another excellent study by Abd Elmageed et al. (2014) showed, for the first time, that EVs produced by prostate cancer cells are capable of inducing a neoplastic transformation of tumour-trophic mesenchymal stem cells. The EV-primed adipose-derived tissue stem cells underwent a mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition, adopted genetic instability and oncogenic transformation, and were able to form tumours in vivo. This was achieved through the oncogenic factor transfer by prostate cancer cell-derived EVs, which included oncogenic miRNAs, K-ras and H-ras transcripts and oncoproteins [66].

However, several recent findings have challenged the paradigm of the pro-tumourigenic role of cancer-derived EVs, suggesting that cancer-derived EVs can also have opposite or, so far, unknown roles. For example, a recent study by Gabriel et al. (2013) demonstrated that EVs derived from various cancer cell lines and PC patients' plasma contained a functionally active tumour-suppressor protein PTEN that suppressed the proliferation of PTEN-deficient recipient cells [107]. As the authors did not detect it in the EVs derived from normal cells and plasma from healthy individuals, they suggested that this might represent a mechanism used by cancer cells to downregulate PTEN level [107]. Meanwhile, another study found a functional PTEN protein in EVs, produced by mouse embryonic fibroblasts and human embryonic kidney cells [108]. This suggests that this could be a more wide spread phenomenon, provoking questions regarding its biological significance in normal physiological processes and cancer. Moreover, it remains to be determined which cell types actively take up PTEN-containing EVs in vivo and whether they exert the same physiological effects in cancerous and normal cells.

Taken together, several lines of evidence strongly support the concept that cancer-derived EVs act paracrinally to synchronize the physiological state in subpopulations of cells. They do this by delivering signalling molecules that are not endogenously expressed in the recipient cells and thus, driving the cancer progression. Furthermore, they may even induce the acquisition of cancer cell phenotype in non-malignant cells. However, various EV subpopulations differ in their molecular content and may cause opposite effects in the recipient cells. Thus, further studies that dissect the heterogeneity of EVs and the recipient cell selectivity are urgently needed.

4.2 Promotion of Angiogenesis

Cancer-derived EVs have also been shown to promote angiogenesis. A number of independent studies have demonstrated that cancer-derived EVs can be taken up by the endothelial cells in vitro and in vivo. This results in morphological changes, migration and proliferation of endothelial cells, tube formation and neovascularization [40, 67], [73]–[78]. Apparently, these effects can be mediated by the transfer of angiogenic proteins [73] and oncogenic proteins [67], as well as various mRNAs and miRNAs [40, 78], [79]. While the angiogenic proteins, such as angiogenin, IL-6, IL-8, TIMP-1 and VEGF, are likely to impact in a paracrine manner, the delivery of oncogenic EGFR to the endothelial cells was shown to trigger the endogenous expression of VEGF, followed by the autocrine activation of VEGF receptor-2 signalling [67]. Several studies emphasize the role of EV-shuttled miRNAs in the endothelial cell migration and neovascularization. A study by Umezu et al. (2012) demonstrated that the uptake of leukaemia cell-derived EVs carrying miR-92a enhanced endothelial cell migration and tube formation [79]. Meanwhile, Zhuang et al. (2012) showed that tumour-secreted miR-9 triggered the activation of JAK-STAT pathway in the endothelial cells, resulting in enhanced migration and tumour angiogenesis [78]. Furthermore, the administration of anti-miR-9 or JAK inhibitors suppressed these effects in vitro and in vivo [78]. Likewise, the treatment of mice carrying human carcinoma xenografts with Diannexin, a drug that binds phosphatidilserine and blocks EV exchange, resulted in the reduction of tumour growth rate and microvascular density [67].

Collectively, these studies demonstrated, both in vitro and in vivo, that cancer-derived EVs have a pro-angiogenic capacity and therefore, might represent an attractive target for therapeutic intervention. However, to date, it is not entirely clear at what stages of maturation endothelial cells are targeted by cancer-derived EVs in vivo.

4.3 Acquisition of CAF Phenotype

Among the different components of the tumour stroma, cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are one of the main elements. CAFs are defined as all the fibroblastic, non-neoplastic, non-vascular, non-epithelial and non-inflammatory cells with a stable karyotype found in a tumour [80]. CAFs promote tumour progression by secreting soluble growth factors, cytokines and chemokines that stimulate proliferation and migration of cancer cells, induce angiogenesis, modify tumour metabolism, stimulate acquisition of cancer stem cell phenotype and modulate the immune response [80, 81]. CAFs can originate from resident tissue fibroblasts, mesenchymal stem cells, myofibroblasts and even epithelial and endothelial cells via EMT or EndMT, respectively [80]. This process is accompanied by persistent changes in their gene methylation pattern [82, 83]. Once the CAF phenotype is acquired, two autocrine signalling loops, mediated by TGF-β and SDF-1 cytokines, maintain them in this differentiation state in an autocrine manner [84].

A growing body of evidence suggests that cancer-derived EVs play a crucial role in the reprogramming of these cells into CAFs via the transfer of TGFβ. Thus, for instance, TGFβ1 containing PC-derived EVs was found to be taken up by primary lung fibroblasts, resulting in their differentiation into tumour-promoting CAFs [85, 86]. These cells supported angiogenesis in vitro and tumour growth in vivo. Interestingly, this effect could not be achieved by using soluble TGFβ1 and appeared to depend on heparan sulphate chains on the EV surface. Moreover, EV-deficient (Rab27a knock-down) cancer cells failed to achieve activation of the tumour stroma [86]. Likewise, gastric cancer-derived EVs were shown to trigger the differentiation of umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells into CAFs by the transfer of TGFβ and the subsequent activation of TGFβ/Smad pathway [87]. Furthermore, breast cancer-derived EVs were found to convert adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells into CAFs expressing various tumour-promoting factors [88].

Hence, cancer-derived EVs seem to play a crucial role in the induction of CAF phenotype via the transfer of TGFβ.

5. Systemic Effects Caused by Cancer-derived EVs

5.1 Formation of Pre-metastatic Niche

The first evidence that cancer-derived EVs can contribute to the generation of metastatic microenvironment was provided by Jung et al. (2009) [37]. In this study, rats received injections of a conditioned medium containing EVs and a soluble matrix obtained from highly metastatic pancreatic cancer cells, followed by the injection of the respective cancer cells. This showed that the conditioned medium promoted the settlement of a non-invasive variant of these cells in the lymph nodes and lungs. This suggested that highly metastatic cells deliver messages that elicit alterations in pre-metastatic organs. This allows the homing, settling and growing of poorly metastatic cells [37]. Another study demonstrated that, when injected in the mouse footpad, mouse melanoma-derived EVs, home to sentinel lymph nodes, enhance the migration of melanoma cells to the EV-rich sites in the lymph nodes. In the lymph nodes, EVs were found to regulate the expression of a variety of genes involved in migration, extracellular matrix deposition and vascular proliferation [29]. Moreover, EVs derived from putative renal cancer stem cells were found to increase the number of lung metastases, when intravenously injected in SCID mice [74]. An elegant study by Peinado et al. (2012) demonstrated that, when injected in mice, EVs derived from highly malignant mouse melanoma, home to the lungs and bone marrow, enhance endothelial permeability at pre-metastatic sites and promote the development of distant metastasis. These EVs were found to “educate” bone marrow-derived cells (BMDCs) by transferring the MET oncoprotein, resulting in the activation of the MET pathway in BMDCs. They become conditioned to support tumour vasculogenesis, invasion and metastasis. Furthermore, higher amounts of MET were found in circulating EVs isolated from patients with stage three and four melanoma than in healthy controls. This shows that this finding may also have relevance in a clinical setting [22].

A number of preclinical studies suggest that cancer-derived EVs have a systemic effect on the conditioning of a pre-metastatic niche and hence, set the basis for a new therapeutic strategy. However, it remains to be determined whether or not this type of signalling represents a common mechanism of metastasis in various human cancers.

5.2 Modulation of Anti-tumour Immune Response

Cancer-derived EVs have been reported to both stimulate and suppress anti-tumour immune responses [11]. They are shown to contain tumour-associated antigens, such as CEA and MART1, and are efficiently taken up by dendritic cells. In turn, these cross-present the antigens to CD8⁺ T cells, resulting in potent anti-tumour effects [89, 90]. Moreover, as they bear MHC class I molecules, it has been suggested that they could directly stimulate CD8⁺ T cells [11]. In fact, several pre-clinical and clinical studies based on the immunization with cancer-derived EVs, in combination with various cytokines, have shown the induction of beneficial tumour-specific CD8⁺ T cell responses. Such studies suggest that they may represent an attractive approach for cancer immunotherapy [91]–[94].

On the other hand, increasing evidence suggests that cancer-derived EVs can suppress the anti-tumour immune response in a variety of ways. For instance, melanoma-derived EVs have been shown to be enriched for FasL and induced Fas-mediated apoptosis in T cells [95]. Subsequent studies have described similar immune evasion mechanisms, mediated by FasL or TRAIL expression, on EVs in prostate and colorectal cancer and glioma [96]–[99]. Moreover, FasL expression can also lead to the TCR impairment due to the downregulation of CD3-ζ chain, which has been reported in ovarian [100, 101] and head and neck squamous carcinoma patients [98]. Contrary to the effector T cells, CD4⁺CD25^highTregs are resistant to FasL-induced apoptosis and cancer-derived EVs have been reported to stimulate the expansion and suppressive functions of Tregs [98, 102], [103]. Ovarian cancer-derived EVs have been shown to promote the proliferation of CD4⁺CD25⁺FOXP3⁺T cells, convert CD4⁺CD25^neg T cells into CD4⁺CD25⁺Tregs and upregulate Treg suppressor functions (e.g., production of perforin, Granzyme B, IL-10, etc.), when added to the culture of peripheral blood T cells obtained from healthy donors [102]. At least partially, this effect seems to be mediated by EV-transferred TGFβ1. This is because the pre-treatment of malignant-effusion derived EVs, with neutralizing antibodies against TGFβ1, reduced the expansion and suppressive functions of Tregs [104]. However, another recent study demonstrated that CD4⁺CD25^highTreg expansion and IL-10 secretion is promoted by cancer cell-secreted miR-214 that targets PTEN in CD4⁺ T cells [105].

Other EV-mediated immunosuppressive mechanisms include T cell inhibition via the production of extracellular adenosine by EV-expressed CD39 and CD73 [106], and the downregulation of the activating receptor NKG2D on NK and CD8⁺ T cells by EV-transferred TGFβ [103, 107]. Cancer-derived EVs have also been shown to suppress the cytotoxic activity of NK cells by expressing MICA, which triggers the downregulation of NKG2D from the cell surface and reduces NK cytotoxicity [108].

In addition, cancer-derived EVs have multiple effects on myeloid precursors, dendritic cells and macrophages. Cancer-derived EVs have been shown to block the differentiation of myeloid precursors into dendritic cells and promote the generation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells via Stat3 activation [26, 109], [110]. In turn, this results in the suppression of effector T cell proliferation, activation and cytolytic functions and the induction of Treg cells [109, 111]. In macrophages, melanoma and breast cancer-derived EVs (but not those from non-cancerous cells) have been reported to activate NF-κB signalling and to alter the cytokine and chemokine profile, favouring the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However these changes were complex and not consistent with M1 or M2 polarization [32, 112]. Hence, the role of cancer-derived EVs in the macrophage-mediated tumour-promoting or anti-tumour effects is not entirely clear and, presumably, may vary depending on their content and physiological state of their cell-of-origin.

6. Concluding Remarks and Future Directions

Collectively, these studies strongly support the paradigm of the cancer-promoting role of cancer-derived EVs. They suggest that inhibition of the formation or uptake of cancer-derived EVs or their components could be a novel therapeutic avenue. In fact, several studies have demonstrated that blocking the production or uptake of EVs or specific miRNAs carried by EVs reduced tumour growth and angiogenesis. This clearly shows a therapeutic benefit [67, 78], [113].

In addition, natural or genetically engineered EVs can be exploited as tools for delivery of virus-like particles or other gene therapy products, allowing to evade pre-existing neutralizing antibodies against the viral vectors and to increase transduction efficiency [114, 115].

Moreover, cancer-derived EVs seem to have very diverse effects on immune cells, which may lead to the stimulation or suppression of anti-tumour immune responses. Hence, a deeper understanding of mechanisms and how they impact the functions of various immune cell subsets could help to develop novel strategies for shifting the balance towards immunostimulatory tumour microenvironment.

However, it remains unclear whether it is possible to entirely stop cancer progression by inhibiting the formation or uptake of cancer-derived EVs. It seems likely that cancers differ in their ability to produce EVs and in the degree to which they depend on the EV-mediated signalling. However, to the best of our knowledge, the levels of EVs and their effects have not been systematically studied during the course of disease progression and compared among different cancer types. Another layer of complexity is added by the heterogeneity of EV biogenesis and the composition of their molecular cargo. Currently, there is great controversy regarding what types of EVs each cell type produces and which of them carry molecular cargo that are capable of eliciting biologically significant effects. For instance, many studies have reported that exosomes are enriched in miRNAs, suggesting that they function as vehicles for the intercellular transfer of miRNAs [8, 116]–[120]. Nonetheless, a recent study by Chevillet et al. (2014) has challenged this view by demonstrating that, on average, most exosomes harbour less than one molecule of a given miRNA. However, it remains unclear whether rare exosomes in the population carry many copies of a given miRNA or whether a larger fraction of exosomes carries a low concentration of miRNAs [121]. In this regard, a recent study by Thakur et al. (2014) demonstrated that exosomes carry dsDNA representing the whole genomic DNA. However, only a subset (~10%) of exosomes contained DNA [122]. Hence, the characterization of EV subpopulations carrying cancer-derived molecular cargo seems to be of paramount importance for designing studies aimed at the discovery of EV-associated biomarkers and therapeutic targeting of EVs.

7. Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

8. Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Latvian Council of Science (grant no. 625/2014).

References

Kalra

Simpson

Aikawa

Altevogt

Askenase

Bond

Borras

Breakefield

Budnik

Buzas

Camussi

Clayton

Cocucci

Falcon-Perez

Gabrielsson

Gho

Gupta

Harsha

Hendrix

Hill

Inal

Jenster

Kramer-Albers

Lim

Llorente

Lotvall

Marcilla

Mincheva-Nilsson

Nazarenko

Nieuwland

Nolte-'t Hoen

Pandey

Patel

Piper

Pluchino

Prasad

Rajendran

Raposo

Record

Reid

Sanchez-Madrid

Schiffelers

Siljander

Stensballe

Stoorvogel

Taylor

Thery

Valadi

van Balkom

Vazquez

Vidal

Wauben

Yanez-Mo

Zoeller

Mathivanan

(2012) Vesiclepedia: A Compendium for Extracellular Vesicles with Continuous Community Annotation. PLoS. Biol. 10 (12):e1001450.

Thery

Ostrowski

Segura

(2009) Membrane Vesicles as Conveyors of Immune Responses. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 9 (8):581–593.

Colombo

Raposo

Thery

(2014) Biogenesis, Secretion, and Intercellular Interactions of Exosomes and Other Extracellular Vesicles. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 30:255–289.

Morello

Minciacchi

de Candia

Yang

Posadas

Kim

Griffiths

Bhowmick

Chung

Gandellini

Freeman

Demichelis

di Vizio

(2013) Large Oncosomes Mediate Intercellular Transfer of Functional microRNA. Cell Cycle. 12 (22):3526–3536.

Weigert

Jennewein

Brune

(2009) The Liaison Between Apoptotic Cells and Macrophages– The End Programs the Beginning. Biol Chem. 390 (5-6):379–390.

Zernecke

Bidzhekov

Noels

Shagdarsuren

Gan

Denecke

Hristov

Koppel

Jahantigh

Lutgens

Wang

Olson

Schober

Weber

(2009) Delivery of MicroRNA-126 by Apoptotic Bodies Induces CXCL12-dependent Vascular Protection. Sci. Signal. 2 (100):ra81.

Colombo

van NG Moita

Kowal

Vigneron

Benaroch

Manel

Moita

Thery

Raposo

(2013) Analysis of ESCRT Functions in Exosome Biogenesis, Composition and Secretion Highlights the Heterogeneity of Extracellular Vesicles. J. Cell Sci. 126 (Pt 24):5553–5565.

Valadi

Ekstrom

Bossios

Sjostrand

Lee

Lotvall

(2007) Exosome-mediated Transfer of mRNAs and microRNAs is a Novel Mechanism of Genetic Exchange Between Cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 9 (6):654–659.

Balaj

Lessard

Dai

Cho

Pomeroy

Breakefield

Skog

(2011) Tumour Microvesicles Contain Retrotransposon Elements and Amplified Oncogene Sequences. Nat. Commun. 2:180.

10.

Ohshima

Kanto

Hatakeyama

Ide

Wakabayashi-Nakao

Watanabe

Sakura

Terashima

Yamaguchi

Mochizuki

(2014) Exosome-mediated Extracellular Release of Polyadenylate-binding Protein 1 in Human Metastatic Duodenal Cancer Cells. Proteomics. 14 (20):2297–2306.

11.

Robbins

Morelli

(2014) Regulation of Immune Responses by Extracellular Vesicles. Nat Rev Immunol. 14 (3):195–208.

12.

Villarroya-Beltri

Baixauli

Gutierrez-Vazquez

Sanchez-Madrid

Mittelbrunn

(2014) Sorting it Out: Regulation of Exosome Loading. Semin Cancer Biol. 28:3–13.

13.

Hurley

Hanson

(2010) Membrane Budding and Scission by the ESCRT Machinery: It's All in the Neck. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 11 (8):556–566.

14.

Yanez-Mo

Barreiro

Gordon-Alonso

Sala-Valdes

Sanchez-Madrid

(2009) Tetraspanin-enriched Microdomains: A Functional Unit in Cell Pplasma Membranes. Trends Cell Biol. 19 (9):434–446.

15.

Trajkovic

Hsu

Chiantia

Rajendran

Wenzel

Wieland

Schwille

Brugger

Simons

(2008) Ceramide Triggers Budding of Exosome Vesicles into Multivesicular Endosomes. Science. 319 (5867):1244–1247.

16.

Villarroya-Beltri

Gutierrez-Vazquez

Sanchez-Cabo

Perez-Hernandez

Vazquez

Martin-Cofreces

Martinez-Herrera

Pascual-Montano

Mittelbrunn

Sanchez-Madrid

(2013) Sumoylated hnRNPA2B1 Controls the Sorting of Mirnas into Exosomes Through Binding to Specific Motifs. Nat Commun. 4:2980.

17.

Raposo

Stoorvogel

(2013) Extracellular Vesicles: Exosomes, Microvesicles, and Friends. J. Cell Biol. 200 (4):373–383.

18.

Vlassov

Magdaleno

Setterquist

Conrad

(2012) Exosomes: Current Knowledge of Their Composition, Biological Functions, and Diagnostic and Therapeutic Potentials. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1820 (7):940–948.

19.

Eldh

Bagge

Lasser

Svanvik

Sjostrand

Mattsson

Lindner

Choi

Gho

Lotvall

(2014) MicroRNA in Exosomes Isolated Directly from the Liver Circulation in Patients with Metastatic Uveal Melanoma. BMC Cancer. 14 (1):962.

20.

Rabinowits

Gercel-Taylor

Day

Taylor

Kloecker

(2009) Exosomal microRNA: A Diagnostic Marker for Lung Cancer. Clin. Lung Cancer. 10 (1):42–46.

21.

de MA Logozzi

Lugini

Borghi

Calabro

Spada

Perdicchio

Marino

Federici

Iessi

Brambilla

Venturi

Lozupone

Santinami

Huber

Maio

Rivoltini

Fais

(2009) High Levels of Exosomes Expressing CD63 and Caveolin-1 in Plasma of Melanoma Patients. PLoS. One. 4 (4):e5219.

22.

Peinado

Aleckovic

Lavotshkin

Matei

Costa-Silva

Moreno-Bueno

Hergueta-Redondo

Williams

Garcia-Santos

Ghajar

Nitadori-Hoshino

Hoffman

Badal

Garcia

Callahan

Yuan

Martins

Skog

Kaplan

Brady

Wolchok

Chapman

Kang

Bromberg

Lyden

(2012) Melanoma Exosomes Educate Bone Marrow Progenitor Cells Toward a Pro-metastatic Phenotype Through MET. Nat Med. 18 (6):883–891.

23.

Javeed

Sagar

Dutta

Smyrk

Lau

Bhattacharya

Truty

Petersen

Kaufman

Chari

Mukhopadhyay

(2014) Pancreatic Cancer-derived Exosomes Causes Paraneoplastic Beta-cell Dysfunction. Clin Cancer Res.

24.

Al-Nedawi

Meehan

Micallef

Lhotak

May

Guha

Rak

(2008) Intercellular Transfer of the Oncogenic Receptor Egfrviii by Microvesicles Derived from Tumour Cells. Nat Cell Biol. 10 (5):619–624.

25.

Thery

Clayton

Amigorena

Raposo

(2006) Isolation and Characterisation of Exosomes from Cell Culture Supernatants and Biological Fluids. Current Protocols in Cell Biology. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; p. 3.22.21–23.22.29.

26.

Liu

Wang

Liu

Zhang

Cong

Kimberly

Grizzle

Falkson

Zhang

(2007) Tumor Exosomes Inhibit Differentiation of Bone Marrow Dendritic Cells. The Journal of Immunology. 178 (11):6867–6875.

27.

Lai

Mardini

Ericsson

Prabhakar

Maguire

Chen

Tannous

Breakefield

(2014) Dinamic Biodistribution of Extracellular Vesicles in Vivo Using a Ultimodal Imaging Reporter. American Chemical Society, Nano. 8 (1):483–494.

28.

Sun

Zhuang

Xiang

Liu

Zhang

Liu

Barnes

Grizzle

Miller

Zhang

(2010) A Novel Nanoparticle Drug Delivery System: The Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Curcumin is Enhanced When Encapsulated in Exosomes. Mol Ther. 18 (9):1606–1614.

29.

Hood

San

Wickline

(2011) Exosomes Released by Melanoma Cells Prepare Sentinel Lymph Nodes for Tumor Metastasis. Cancer Res. 71 (11):3792–3801.

30.

Takahashi

Nishikawa

Shinotsuka

Matsui

Ohara

Imai

Takakura

(2013) Visualization and in Vivo Tracking of the Exosomes of Murine Melanoma B16-BL6 Cells in Mice After Intravenous Injection. J Biotechnol. 165 (2):77–84.

31.

Ohno

Takanashi

Sudo

Ueda

Ishikawa

Matsuyama

Fujita

Mizutani

Ohgi

Ochiya

Gotoh

Kuroda

(2013) Systemically Injected Exosomes Targeted to EGFR Deliver Antitumor Microrna to Breast Cancer Cells. Mol Ther. 21 (1):185–191.

32.

Chow

Zhou

Liu

Fong

Champer

van Haute

Chin

Ren

Gugiu

Meng

Huang

Ngo

Kortylewski

Wang

(2014) Macrophage immunomodulation by Breast Cancer-derived Exosomes Requires Toll-like Receptor 2-mediated Activation of NF-kappaB. Sci Rep. 4:5750.

33.

Wickline

Hood

(2014) Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Melanoma Exosomes in Lymph Nodes. Magn Reson Med.

34.

Suetsugu

Honma

Saji

Moriwaki

Ochiya

Hoffman

(2013) Imaging Exosome Transfer from Breast Cancer Cells to Stroma at Metastatic Sites in Orthotopic Nude-Mouse Models. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 65 (3):383–390.

35.

Yang

Wei

Schafer

Wong

(2014) Detection of Tumor Cell-Specific Mrna and Protein in Exosome-like Microvesicles from Blood and Saliva. PLoS One. 9 (11):e110641.

36.

Cai

Tan

Han

Chen

Wang

Zou

Chen

Zhou

Jose

Zeng

(2014) Transferred BCR/ABL DNA from K562 Extracellular Vesicles Causes Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Immunodeficient Mice. PLoS One. 9 (8):e105200.

37.

Jung

Castellana

Klingbeil

Cuesta Hernandez

Vitacolonna

Orlicky

Roffler

Brodt

Zoller

(2009) CD44v6 Dependence of Premetastatic Niche Preparation by Exosomes. Neoplasia. 11 (10):1093–1105.

38.

Smyth

Kullberg

Malik

Smith-Jones

Graner

Anchordoquy

(2015) Biodistribution and Delivery Efficiency of Unmodified Tumor-Derived Exosomes. J Control Release. 199:145–155.

39.

Zandberga

Kozirovskis

Abols

Andrejeva

Purkalne

Line

(2013) Cell-free microRNAs as Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Biomarkers for Lung Cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 52 (4):356–369.

40.

Hong

Cho

Kim

Choi

Rho

Kim

Choi

Kim

Hwang

Gho

(2009) Colorectal Cancer Cell-derived Microvesicles are Enriched in Cell Cycle-related Mrnas that Promote Proliferation of Endothelial Cells. BMC Genomics. 10:556.

41.

Hanahan

D WR

(2011) Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation. Cell. 144:29.

42.

Brandner

Haass

(2013) Melanoma's Connections to the Tumour Microenvironment. Pathology. 45 (5):443–452.

43.

Lotvall

Valadi

(2007) Cell to Cell Signalling via Exosomes Through esRNA. Cell Adh Migr. 1 (3):156–158.

44.

Rak

(2013) Extracellular Vesicles – Biomarkers and Effectors of the Cellular Interactome in Cancer. Front Pharmacol. 4:21.

45.

Parolini

Federici

Raggi

Lugini

Palleschi

de Milito

Coscia

Iessi

Logozzi

Molinari

Colone

Tatti

Sargiacomo

Fais

(2009) Microenvironmental pH is a Key Factor for Exosome Traffic in Tumor Cells. J Biol Chem. 284 (49):34211–34222.

46.

Tian

Wang

Zhu

Xiao

(2010) Visualizing of the Cellular Uptake and Intracellular Trafficking of Exosomes by Live-cell Microscopy. J Cell Biochem. 111 (2):488–496.

47.

Tian

Zhu

Zhou

Liang

Wang

Xiao

(2014) Exosome Uptake Through Clathrin-mediated Endocytosis and Macropinocytosis and Mediating Mir-21 Delivery. J Biol Chem. 289 (32):22258–22267.

48.

Feng

Zhao

Bai

Liu

Chang

Zhou

Sui

(2010) Cellular Internalization of Exosomes Occurs Through Phagocytosis. Traffic. 11 (5):675–687.

49.

Smyth

Redzic

Graner

Anchordoquy

(2014) Examination of the Specificity of Tumor Cell Derived Exosomes with Tumor Cells in Vitro. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1838 (11):2954–2965.

50.

Christianson

Svensson

van Kuppevelt

Belting

(2013) Cancer Cell Exosomes Depend on Cell-surface Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans for Their Internalization and Functional Activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 110 (43): 17380–17385.

51.

Svensson

Christianson

Wittrup

Bourseau-Guilmain

Lindqvist

Svensson

Morgelin

Belting

(2013) Exosome Uptake Depends on ERK1/2-heat Shock Protein 27 Signaling and Lipid Raft-mediated Endocytosis Negatively Regulated by Caveolin-1. J Biol Chem. 288 (24): 17713–17724.

52.

Rana

Claas

Kretz

Nazarenko

Zoeller

(2011) Activation-induced Internalization Differs for the Tetraspanins CD9 and Tspan8: Impact on Tumor Cell Motility. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 43 (1):106–119.

53.

Morelli

Larregina

Shufesky

Sullivan

Stolz

Papworth

Zahorchak

Logar

Wang

Watkins

Falo

Jr. Thomson

(2004) Endocytosis, Intracellular Sorting, and Processing of Exosomes by Dendritic Cells. Blood. 104 (10):3257–3266.

54.

Rana

Yue

Stadel

Zoller

(2012) Toward Tailored Exosomes: The Exosomal Tetraspanin Web Contributes to Target Cell Selection. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 44 (9):1574–1584.

55.

Ivanova

Zandberga

Silina

Kalnina

Abols

Endzelins

Vendina

Romanchikova

Hegmane

Trapencieris

Eglitis

Line

(2014) Prognostic Relevance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression is Distinct in Various Subtypes of Breast Cancer and its Silencing Suppresses Self-Renewal Capacity of Breast Cancer Cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol.

56.

Federici

Petrucci

Caimi

Cesolini

Logozzi

Borghi

D'Ilio

Lugini

Violante

Azzarito

Majorani

Brambilla

Fais

(2014) Exosome Release and Low Ph Belong to a Framework of Resistance of Human Melanoma Cells to Cisplatin. PLoS One. 9 (2):e88193.

57.

Poste

Nicolson

(1980) Arrest and Metastasis of Blood-Borne Tumor Cells Are Modified by Fusion of Plasma Membrane Vesicles from Highly Metastatic Cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 77 (1):399–403.

58.

Hao

Meng

Qureshi

Yang

Xiang

(2006) Epigenetic Transfer of Metastatic Activity by Uptake of Highly Metastatic B16 Melanoma Cell-released Exosomes. Exp Oncol. 28 (2):126–131.

59.

Aga

Bentz

Raffa

Torrisi

Kondo

Wakisaka

Yoshizaki

Pagano

Shackelford

(2014) Exosomal HIF1alpha Supports Invasive Potential of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma-associated LMP1-positive Exosomes. Oncogene. 33 (37):4613–4622.

60.

O'Brien

Rani

Corcoran

Wallace

Hughes

Friel

McDonnell

Crown

Radomski

O'Driscoll

(2013) Exosomes from triple-negative breast cancer cells can transfer phenotypic traits representing their cells of origin to secondary cells. Eur J Cancer. 49 (8):1845–1859.

61.

Kogure

T LW

Yan

Braconi

Patel

(2011) Intercellular Nanovesicle-Mediated microRNA Transfer: A Mechanism of Environmental Modulation of Hepatocellular Cancer Cell Growth. HEPATOLOGY. 54 (4):1237–1248.

62.

Corcoran

C RS

O'Brien

O'Neill

Prencipe

Sheikh

Webb

MsDermott

Watson

Crown

O'Driscoll

(2012) Docetaxel-Resistance in Prostate Cancer: Evaluating Associated Phenotypic Changes and Potential for Resistance Transfer Via Exosomes. PLoS One. 7 (12): e50999.

63.

Chen

Liu

Chen

Zhao

Zhong

Luo

Tang

(2014) Exosomes from Drug-resistant Breast Cancer Cells Transmit Chemoresistance by a Horizontal Transfer of microRNAs. PLoS One. 9 (4):e95240.

64.

Galindo-Hernandez

Serna-Marquez

Castillo-Sanchez

Salazar

(2014) Extracellular vesicles from MDA-MB-231 Breast Cancer Cells Stimulated with Linoleic Acid Promote an EMT-like Process in MCF10A Cells. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 91 (6):299–310.

65.

Melo

Sugimoto

O'Connell

Kato

Villanueva

Vidal

Qiu

Vitkin

Perelman

Melo

Lucci

Ivan

Calin

Kalluri

(2014) Cancer Exosomes Perform Cell-independent Microrna Biogenesis and Promote Tumorigenesis. Cancer Cell. 26 (5):707–721.

66.

Abd Elmageed

Yang

Thomas

Ranjan

Mondal

Moroz

Fang

Rezk

Moparty

Sikka

Sartor

Abdel-Mageed

(2014) Neoplastic Reprogramming of Patient-Derived Adipose Stem Cells by Prostate Cancer Cell-associated Exosomes. Stem Cells. 32 (4):983–997.

67.

Al-Nedawi

Meehan

Kerbel

Allison

Rak

(2009) Endothelial Expression of Autocrine VEGF Upon the Uptake of Tumor-Derived Microvesicles Containing Oncogenic EGFR. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 106 (10):3794–3799.

68.

Lazaro-Ibanez

Sanz-Garcia

Visakorpi

Escobedo-Lucea

Siljander

Ayuso-Sacido

Yliperttula

(2014) Different gDNA Content in the Subpopulations of Prostate Cancer Extracellular Vesicles: Apoptotic Bodies, Microvesicles, and Exosomes. Prostate. 74 (14):1379–1390.

69.

Lee

Chennakrishnaiah

Audemard

Montermini

Meehan

Rak

(2014) Oncogenic Ras-driven Cancer Cell Vesiculation Leads to Emission of Double-Stranded DNA Capable of Interacting with Target Cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 451 (2):295–301.

70.

Scheel

Weinberg

(2012) Cancer Stem Cells and Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition: Concepts and Molecular Links. Semin Cancer Biol. 22 (5-6):396–403.

71.

Higginbotham

Demory Beckler

Gephart

Franklin

Bogatcheva

Kremers

Piston

Ayers

McConnell

Tyska

Coffey

(2011) Amphiregulin Exosomes Increase Cancer Cell Invasion. Curr Biol. 21 (9):779–786.

72.

Demory Beckler

Higginbotham

Franklin

Ham

Halvey

Imasuen

Whitwell

Liebler

Coffey

(2013) Proteomic Analysis of Exosomes from Mutant KRAS Colon Cancer Cells Identifies Intercellular Transfer of Mutant KRAS. Mol Cell Proteomics. 12 (2):343–355.

73.

Skog

Wurdinger

van Rijn

Meijer

Gainche

Sena-Esteves

Curry

Jr. Carter

Krichevsky

Breakefield

(2008) Glioblastoma Microvesicles Transport RNA and Proteins that Promote Tumour Growth and Provide Diagnostic Biomarkers. Nat Cell Biol. 10 (12):1470–1476.

74.

Grange

Tapparo

Collino

Vitillo

Damasco

Deregibus

Tetta

Bussolati

Camussi

(2011) Microvesicles Released from Human Renal Cancer Stem Cells Stimulate Angiogenesis and Formation of Lung Premetastatic Niche. Cancer Res. 71 (15):5346–5356.

75.

Taverna

S FA

Saieva

Kohn

Santoro

Meraviglia

de Leo

Alessandro

(2012) Role of Exosomes Released by Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Cells in Angiogenesis. International Journal of Cancer. 130 (9):2033–2043.

76.

Liu

Zhu

Zeng

Wang

Chen

(2014) Microvesicles Secreted from Human Multiple Myeloma Cells Promote Angiogenesis. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 35 (2):230–238.

77.

Hood

Pan

Lanza

Wickline

, Consortium for Translational Research in Advanced I, Nanomedicine (2009) Paracrine Induction of Endothelium by Tumor Exosomes. Lab Invest. 89 (11):1317–1328.

78.

Zhuang

Jiang

Kasman

Yao

Guan

Oeh

Modrusan

Bais

Sampath

Ferrara

(2012) Tumour-secreted miR-9 Promotes Endothelial Cell Migration and Angiogenesis by Activating the JAK-STAT Pathway. EMBO J.

79.

Umezu

Ohyashiki

Kuroda

Ohyashiki

(2012) Leukemia Cell to Endothelial Cell Communication Via Exosomal miRNAs. Oncogene.

80.

Öhlund

Elyada

E., D. T

(2014) Fibroblast Heterogeneity in the Cancer Wound. The Journal of Experimental Medicine; p. 1503–1523.

81.

Orimo

Gupta

Sgroi

Arenzana-Seisdedos

Delaunay

Naeem

Carey

Richardson

Weinberg

(2005) Stromal Fibroblasts Present in Invasive Human Breast Carcinomas Promote Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis Through Elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 Secretion. Cell. 121 (3):335–348.

82.

Mrazek

Carmical

Wood

Hellmich

Eltorky

Bohanon

Chao

(2014) Colorectal Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts are Genotypically Distinct. Curr Cancer Ther Rev. 10 (2):97–218.

83.

Jiang

Gonda

Gamble

Salas

Seshan

Twaddell

Hegyi

Lazar

Steele

Varro

Wang

Tycko

(2008) Global Hypomethylation of Genomic DNA in Cancer-Associated Myofibroblasts. Cancer Res. 68 (23):9900–9908.

84.

Kojima

Acar

Eaton

Mellody

Scheel

Ben-Porath

Onder

Wang

Richardson

Weinberg

Orimo

(2010) Autocrine TGF-beta and Stromal Cell-derived Factor-1 (SDF-1) Signaling Drives the Evolution of Tumor-Promoting Mammary Stromal Myofibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107 (46):20009–20014.

85.

Webber

Steadman

Mason

Tabi

Clayton

(2010) Cancer Exosomes Trigger Fibroblast to Myofibroblast Differentiation. Cancer Res. 70 (23):9621–9630.

86.

Webber

Spary

Sanders

Chowdhury

Jiang

Steadman

Wymant

Jones

Kynaston

Mason

Tabi

Clayton

(2014) Differentiation of Tumour-Promoting Stromal Myofibroblasts by Cancer Exosomes. Oncogene.

87.

J. QH

Shen

Zhang

Zhu

Huang

Yan

Mao

Zhao

Shi

(2012) Gastric Cancer Exosomes Trigger Differentiation of Umbilical Cord Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Carcinoma-Associated Fibroblasts through TGF-b/Smad Pathway. PLoS One. 7 (12).

88.

Cho

Park

Lim

Lee

(2012) Exosomes from Breast Cancer Cells Can Convert Adipose Tissue-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells into Myofibroblast-Like Cells. Int J Oncol. 40 (1):130–138.

89.

Andre

Andersen

Wolfers

Lozier

Raposo

Serra

Ruegg

Flament

Angevin

Amigorena

Zitvogel

(2001) Exosomes in Cancer Immunotherapy: Preclinical Data. Adv Exp Med Biol. 495:349–354.

90.

Wolfers

Lozier

Raposo

Regnault

Thery

Masurier

Flament

Pouzieux

Faure

Tursz

Angevin

Amigorena

Zitvogel

(2001) Tumor-derived Exosomes are a Source of Shared Tumor Rejection Antigens for CTL Cross-priming. Nat Med. 7 (3):297–303.

91.

Dai

Wan

Wang

Zhou

Xiu

Chen

Cao

(2005) More Efficient Induction of HLA-A*0201-Restricted and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA)-Specific CTL Response by Immunization with Exosomes Prepared from Heat-Stressed CEA-Positive Tumor Cells. Clin Cancer Res. 11 (20):7554–7563.

92.

Dai

Wei

Zhou

Wei

Huang

(2008) Phase I Clinical Trial of Autologous Ascites-derived Exosomes Combined with GM-CSF for Colorectal Cancer. Mol Ther. 16 (4):782–790.

93.

Dai

Zhou

Wang

Chen

Wan

Cao

(2006) Enhanced Induction of Dendritic Cell Maturation and HLA-A*0201-Restricted CEA-Specific CD8(+) CTL Response by Exosomes Derived from IL-18 Gene-Modified CEA-positive Tumor Cells. J Mol Med (Berl). 84 (12): 1067–1076.

94.

Xie

Bai

Zhang

Xiang

(2010) Tumor Necrosis Factor Gene-Engineered J558 Tumor Cell-released Exosomes Stimulate Tumor Antigen P1A-Specific CD8+ CTL Responses and Antitumor Immunity. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 25 (1):21–28.

95.

Andreola

Rivoltini

Castelli

Huber

Perego

Deho

Squarcina

Accornero

Lozupone

Lugini

Stringaro

Molinari

Arancia

Gentile

Parmiani

Fais

(2002) Induction of Lymphocyte Apoptosis by Tumor Cell Secretion of FasL-bearing Microvesicles. Journal of Experimental Medicine. 195 (10):1303–1316.

96.

Huber

Fais

Iero

Lugini

Canese

Squarcina

Zaccheddu

Colone

Arancia

Gentile

Seregni

Valenti

Ballabio

Belli

Leo

Parmiani

Rivoltini

(2005) Human Colorectal Cancer Cells Induce T-Cell Death Through Release of Proapoptotic Microvesicles: Role in Immune Escape. Gastroenterology. 128 (7):1796–1804.

97.

Abusamra

Zhong

Zheng

Ichim

Chin

Min

(2005) Tumor Exosomes Expressing Fas ligand Mediate CD8+ T-cell Apoptosis. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 35 (2):169–173.

98.

Wieckowski

Visus

Szajnik

Szczepanski

Storkus

Whiteside

(2009) Tumor-derived Microvesicles Promote Regulatory T Cell Expansion and Induce Apoptosis in Tumor-Reactive Activated CD8+ T Lymphocytes. J Immunol. 183 (6):3720–3730.

99.

Liu

Z-M

Wang

Y-B

Yuan

X-H

(2013) Exosomes from Murine-derived GL26 Cells Promote Glioblastoma Tumor Growth by Reducing Number and Function of CD8+T Cells. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 14 (1):309–314.

100.

Taylor

DD G-TC

Lyons

Stanson

Whiteside

(2003) T-Cell Apoptosis and Suppression of T-Cell Receptor/CD3 by Fas Ligand-containing Membrane Vesicles Shed fromOvarian Tumors. Clinical Cancer Research. 9:5113–5119.

101.

Taylor

Gercel-Taylor

(2005) Tumour-derived Exosomes and Their Role in Cancer-associated T-cell Signalling Defects. Br J Cancer. 92 (2):305–311.

102.

Szajnik

Czystowska

Szczepanski

Mandapathil

Whiteside

(2010) Tumor-derived Microvesicles Induce, Expand and Up-regulate Biological Activities of Human Regulatory T Cells (Treg). PLoS One. 5 (7):e11469.

103.

Clayton

Mitchell

Court

Mason

Tabi

(2007) Human Tumor-derived Exosomes Selectively Impair Lymphocyte Responses to Interleukin-2. Cancer Res. 67 (15):7458–7466.

104.

Wada

Onishi

Suzuki

Yamasaki

Nagai

Morisaki

Katano

(2010) Surface-bound TGF-beta1 on Effusion-derived Exosomes Participates in Maintenance of Number and Suppressive Function of Regulatory T-Cells in Malignant Effusions. Anticancer Res. 30 (9):3747–3757.

105.

Yin

Cai

Chen

Liang

Zhang

Wang

Zhang

Yokoyama

Wang

Hou

Dong

Hiroi

Yang

Zhang

Zen

Zhang

(2014) Tumor-secreted Mir-214 Induces Regulatory T Cells: A Major Link Between Immune Evasion and Tumor Growth. Cell Res. 24 (10):1164–1180.

106.

Clayton

Al-Taei

Webber

Mason

Tabi

(2011) Cancer Exosomes Express CD39 and CD73, Which Suppress T Cells Through Adenosine Production. J Immunol. 187 (2):676–683.

107.

Clayton

Mitchell

Court

Linnane

Mason

Tabi

(2008) Human Tumor-derived Exosomes Down-modulate NKG2D Expression. The Journal of Immunology. 180 (11):7249–7258.

108.

Ashiru

Boutet

Fernandez-Messina

Aguera-Gonzalez

Skepper

Vales-Gomez

Reyburn

(2010) Natural Killer Cell Cytotoxicity is Suppressed by Exposure to the Human NKG2D Ligand MICA*008 That is Shed by Tumor Cells in Exosomes. Cancer Res. 70 (2):481–489.

109.

Valenti

Huber

Filipazzi

Pilla

Sovena

Villa

Corbelli

Fais

Parmiani

Rivoltini

(2006) Human Tumor-released Microvesicles Promote the Differentiation of Myeloid Cells with Transforming Growth Factor-beta-mediated Suppressive Activity on T Lymphocytes. Cancer Res. 66 (18):9290–9298.

110.

Chalmin

F LS

Mignot

Vincent

Bruchard

Remy-Martin

Boireau

Rouleau

Simon

Lanneau

de Thonel

Multhoff

Hamman

Martin

Chauffert

Solary

Zitvogel

Garrido

Ryffel

Borg

Apetoh

Rébé

Ghiringhelli

(2010) Membrane-associated Hsp72 from Tumor-Derived Exosomes Mediates STAT3-dependent Immunosuppressive Function of Mouse and Human Myeloid-derived Suppressor Cells. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 120 (2):15.

111.

Gabrilovich

Nagaraj

(2009) Myeloid-derived Suppressor Cells as Regulators of the Immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. 9 (3):162–174.

112.

Marton

Vizler

Kusz

Temesfoi

Szathmary

Nagy

Szegletes

Varo

Siklos

Katona

Tubak

Howard

Duda

Minarovits

Buzas

(2012) Melanoma Cell-derived Exosomes Alter Macrophage and Dendritic Cell Functions in Vitro. Immunol Lett. 148 (1):34–38.

113.

Bobrie

Krumeich

Reyal

Recchi

Moita

Seabra

Ostrowski

Thery

(2012) Rab27a Supports Exosome-dependent and -Independent Mechanisms That Modify the Tumor Microenvironment and Can Promote Tumor Progression. Cancer Res. 72 (19):4920–4930.

114.

Gyorgy

Fitzpatrick

Crommentuijn

Maguire

(2014) Naturally Enveloped AAV Vectors for Shielding Neutralizing Antibodies and Robust Gene Delivery in Vivo. Biomaterials. 35 (26):7598–7609.

115.

Maguire

Balaj

Sivaraman

Crommentuijn

Ericsson

Mincheva-Nilsson

Baranov

Gianni

Tannous

Sena-Esteves

Breakefield

Skog

(2012) Microvesicle-associated AAV Vector as a Novel Gene Delivery System. Mol Ther. 20 (5):960–971.

116.

Ekstrom

Valadi

Sjostrand

Malmhall

Bossios

Eldh

Lotvall

(2012) Characterization of Mrna and Microrna in Human Mast Cell-derived Exosomes and Their Transfer to Other Mast Cells and Blood CD34 Progenitor Cells. J Extracell Vesicles. 1.

117.

Eldh

Ekstrom

Valadi

Sjostrand

Olsson

Jernas

Lotvall

(2010) Exosomes Communicate Protective Messages During Oxidative Stress; Possible Role of Exosomal Shuttle RNA. PLoS One. 5 (12):e15353.

118.

Lasser

O'Neil

Ekerljung

Ekstrom

Sjostrand

Lotvall

(2011) RNA-containing Exosomes in Human Nasal Secretions. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 25 (2):89–93.

119.

Cheng

Sharples

Scicluna

Hill

(2014) Exosomes Provide a Protective and Enriched Source of Mirna for Biomarker Profiling Compared to Intracellular and Cell-free Blood. J Extracell Vesicles. 3.

120.

Zeringer

Barta

Schageman

Cheng

Vlassov

(2014) Analysis of the RNA Content of the Exosomes Derived from Blood Serum and Urine and its Potential as Biomarkers. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 369 (1652).

121.

Chevillet

Kang

Ruf

Briggs

Vojtech

Hughes

Cheng

Arroyo

Meredith

Gallichotte

Pogosova-Agadjanyan

Morrissey

Stirewalt

Hladik

Higano

Tewari

(2014) Quantitative and Stoichiometric Analysis of the Microrna Content of Exosomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 111 (41):14888–14893.

122.

Thakur

Zhang

Becker

Matei

Huang

Costa-Silva

Zheng

Hoshino

Brazier

Xiang

Williams

Rodriguez-Barrueco

Silva

Zhang

Hearn

Elemento

Paknejad

Manova-Todorova

Welte

Bromberg

Peinado

Lyden

(2014) Double-stranded DNA in Exosomes: a Novel Biomarker in Cancer Detection. Cell Res. 24 (6):766–769.

Biodistribution,Uptake and Effects Caused by Cancer-Derived Extracellular Vesicles

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Tissue Distribution of Cancer-derived EVs

3. Uptake of EVs in Tumour Microenvironment

4. Paracrine Effects Caused by Cancer-derived EVs in the Tumour Microenvironment

4.1 Cancer Cell Cross-talk

4.2 Promotion of Angiogenesis

4.3 Acquisition of CAF Phenotype

5. Systemic Effects Caused by Cancer-derived EVs

5.1 Formation of Pre-metastatic Niche

5.2 Modulation of Anti-tumour Immune Response

6. Concluding Remarks and Future Directions

7. Conflict of Interest

Footnotes

8. Acknowledgements

References