Talk:Cancer stem cell

Possible Improvements

It would make the article seem more complete if the tags that do not link to articles were removed (e.g. tumor-regenerative capacity, self renew, cell of origin). Unless those articles are currently under construction, the links are unnecessary as they do not provide any explanatory information. Rglastet (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

what does tagged mean? -- 214.1.101.252, 17:53, 23 August 2005

I didn't add the tag, but I'd guess that this article was cleanup-tagged for the following reasons:

1. no bolded article title in first "paragraph"
2. incompete sentence
3. no sentence capitalization
4. no explanation or proper citation of references
5. incredibly short text (what some call a "sub-stub")

I've addressed all but the last issue, making this a tiny but reasonably formatted stub. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Write-up

I will try to write up a comprehensive article on this subject. I have therefore removed the stub tag. Feel free to contribute in the mean time and I will incorporate your edits into my text. Peter Znamenskiy 10:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You've done a good job so far, but there still needs some work done (adding citations etc.) I've added to the MCB WikiProject. Dr Aaron 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for additions

I think this article is already quite informative. Although I don't agree with the 'low importance' rating. The subject has received significant public media attention to warrant a higher rating.

I have some thoughts on additions to the article:

CSCs in different tumor types
Maybe we should include some more specific examples for tumors where a population of cancer stem cells have been found in the 'evidence for cancer stem cells' section?
There is some pretty solid published evidence now for a CSC population in glioblastoma, colon cancer and breast cancer.

How CSCs are identified
Maybe add methods for purification, identification and culture of CSCs?

I will add a brief secion on this now, but my experience is limited to the brain. --Dante Marx (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the cancer stem cell
The theory of the origin of the cancer stem cell is still debated. While the oncogenic transformation of a stem cell is one possibility, there is still a lot of discussion surrounding this issue. Possible progenitors of the CSCs are either pluripotent stem cells, multipotent progenitor cells (in certain cancers 'transiently amplifying cells') or even a differentiated cell which regains some 'stem-like' properties due to mutations.

This is a subtle point that a lot of the researchers in the field miss. At present there are several camps. I will try to put in a paragraph detailing major viewpoints. If someone would care to review it, that would be great. --Dante Marx (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cancer stem cell niche
Another topic which might be added is the theory of a 'cancer stem cell niche', stating that like normal stem cells also cancer stem cells need a specific environment to keep up their stem-like state.

This heading can also refer to the propensity of certain cancers to colonize specific tissues. For example, the breast cancer - osteoclast positive feedback loop functions as a niche. Dr d12 (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature
The debate about the origin and existence of a cancer stem cells is also reflected in the nomenclature used. Some scientists and articles refer to these cells as 'tumor progenitor cells' or 'tumor initiating cells'. Maybe these terms should also included.

Any thoughts? --Loopback007 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Case Against

Have to agree that a "low rating" for this subject is pretty strange. There should be some mention of a recent experiment published in Science which challenges the cancer stem cell hypothesis. Summary and link to the paper can be found here ...

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/07/19/cancer-stem-cell-results-may-be-due-to-experimental-design

Khaj 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence, this time challenging cancer stem cells in breast cancer ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070312152224.htm

Khaj 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

MCB defines "low importance" as meaning "Obscure subjects that are known only to researchers in the specific field." "Mid" importance means that it's graduate student material. "High" is for college textbooks, and "Top" is for things that teenagers (and younger students) might encounter in school. I don't think it's intended as a commentary on how important the subject is to the future of cancer research; it seems to be a rating system that primarily answers the question, "How likely is it that an entire classroom of students will be looking at this page?"

It could also be a typo. On the WPMED project (which has a very different rating standard, despite using the same words), my default assessment is set to low, and there are probably a few "mid" level articles which were accidentally tagged as low. You could ask someone at the MCB project to reconsider the assessment if you think that cancer stem cells are a common topic in a lower level biology class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance of cancer stem cells

I deleted a paragraph from this section as I felt the data were inadequate and not supported by the references. It states that chemotherapy may promote cancer growth. This is clearly inaccurate. Multiple randomised control trials have clearly demonstrated that chemotherapy (incl paclitaxel for ovarian cancer) INCREASES survival. This is level 1 evidence and trumps any preclinical laboratory data. I have made no changes to the preceding paragraph which states that chemo that does not target CSC will ultimately fail. This is theoretically correct (although it would be nice if this can be referenced) but clearly a very different statement from "chemotherapy may promote cancer growth". --Serenity forest (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that the statement "chemotherapy may promote cancer growth" is definitely flawed (in more ways than one). Such a statement implies that chemotherapy (Paclitaxel in this specific case), acts as a carcinogen whilst the truth is quite the contrary. With that said, however, Paclitaxel does indeed induce chemoresistance, with prolonged and extensive use in the patient, which leads to relapse and remission when the therapy fails which means that Paclitaxel (and all current conventional chemotherapeutics) play in a role in inducing chemoresistance. While chemoresistance is by no means equivalent to stating it "chemotherapy promotes cancer growth" it definitely equips the cancer with an additional mode of resistance (which is worth noting and keeping in the article). For this reason, I have reverted your edit and also edited out and replaced the section that stated "promotes cancer growth" with something more appropriate and accurate.BioMedV (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added to this with a summary of 5 properties that help make CSCs inherently chemoresistant under "Treatment." These properties do not rely on previous chemotherapy inducing the resistance. CSCs are more adapted to survive chemotherapy, and can thus repopulate the tumor and lead to relapse. This, of course, has implications in the effectiveness of various cancer therapies. Kschach2, 20:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Tumor stem cells versus cancer stem cells

I think the concept of cancer stem cells (CSCs) should be defined as one of the developmental stages of tumor stem cells (TSCs). Expeimental data have implicated that a tumor cell can develop from tumor-initiating cells (TICs)to precancerous stem cells (pCSCs) to CSCs. This concept will be well incorporated into pathlogical/clinical concepts of cancer development: aytpical hyperplasia/benign proliferation, dysplasia and carcinoma in situ/precancer and malignanat or invasive carcinoma/cancer and metastatic cancer. This concept will facilitate cancer research unifying molecular, cellular, histopathological and clinical characteristics of tumor.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000293

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001652

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75D8-4VJS6WJ-1&_user=3366836&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000058403&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3366836&md5=6c4203283b4b7dee2fffb8a1ad7a89c8

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v7/n1/full/nrg1748.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W7J-4T0M622-2&_user=3366836&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000058403&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3366836&md5=b1201aea0819bca28e8ab4198ee6a11c

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119424043/abstract

I think that, although the model you are presenting has merit, this is not a scientific forum. Therefore, it is not wise to present a biased description of such a preliminary model. If the model becomes better developed, then it would make sense to describe it in Wikipedia. I do not dispute that there are several models, but the issue is that the models are not yet certain. An unbiased account is required for an encyclopaedia.--141.214.44.61 (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. However, website Encyclopedia should not exclude the models which are debatable. For example, cancer stem cell model itself is not firmly supported by experimental data. This does not exclude the inclusion of the model in this forum. It has nothing to do with the wise of a presenter. What I suggested is that the presenter of the cancer stem cell model may update most recent progress in this area to stimulate readers to think broadly. Curret cancer stem cell model has obvious defficiency. The concept of precancerous stem cells does not contradict the concept of cancer stem cell model but complement and strenthen the model. How one can explain the tumorigenesis of cancer cells without stem-like properties? However, it is still wise to put the cancer stem cell model into this forum(乐圣 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)).

Reference added

No. 19 for an article that nicely discusses the concept in brief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.214.164 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What does paclitaxel have to do with cancer stem cells?

The paragraph on paclitaxel and resistance is interesting, but it doesn't have anything to do with cancer stem cells, and maybe should be deleted. Billgordon1099 (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tumor entities

For what reason were the items "melanoma" "multiple myeloma" and their references deleted from the evidence section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.196.134 (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

enrichment, enriched in cell and stem cell biology

The term enriched or enrichment is used freely many times in this article and others on cells and stem cells in particular. But it is never explained or referred further. Does it simply mean that there are many cells of this type found in the discussed tissue or in the resulting experimental cell culture? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Blebbishield emergency program

I'm moving the content of this interpolated edit to the talk page, per WP:UNDUE (I think). As a search term, "blebbishield" currently gets just 8 hits on Google Scholar.

Cancer stem cells are also capable of resurrection after morphological and biochemical apoptosis by evoking blebbishield emergency program

109.158.8.201 (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cancer stem cells spheroids (3D module): Incoherent, no context, no citations, and what purpose does this section intend to serve?

Here is the section in its entirety:

"The monolayer of CSCs grown as spheroids showed better growth rate than MDA-MB 231 cells, which shows the efficacy of the 3D spheroid format of CSCs. CD44 shows increased expression in spheroids compared to 2D culture of MDA-MB 231. ALDH1 iskey marker of breast stem cells wa.sIt highly expressed in BCSCs and MDA-MB 231 grown in 3D, while they are absent in CSCs and MDA-MB 231 cells grown in 2D."

I say "thanks, but no thanks" to this appended snippet of research findings. Would somebody kindly excise it?--97.120.35.87 (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cancer stem cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505102002/http://www.umdnj.edu/gsbsnweb/stemcell/scofthemonth/CSCsci.htm to http://www.umdnj.edu/gsbsnweb/stemcell/scofthemonth/CSCsci.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cancer stem cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106090713/http://beaker.sanfordburnham.org/?p=1772 to http://beaker.sanfordburnham.org/?p=1772

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Terribly inconsistent article

The article is horrendously inconsistent on whether CSCs actually exist.

• The lede says they definitely exist: "Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are cancer cells..." (Note: it doesn't say "hypothesized", etc.).
• The Debate section says that their existence is under debate: "The existence of CSCs is under debate."
• The Evidence section says that they certainly exist: "The first conclusive evidence for CSCs came in 1997." But if the evidence is "conclusive", then there can be no debate... "Conclusive" means that the matter is closed.

This article needs to be reviewed in its entirety and edited for consistency, stressing that the weight of evidence is in favour of CSCs but that there are still some researchers who question their existence. Presumably this is what is meant by the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)