Nestin<SUP>+</SUP>/CD31<SUP>+</SUP> cells in the hypoxic perivascular niche regulate glioblastoma chemoresistance by upregulating JAG1 and DLL4

Zong-Qing Zheng,Jin-Tao Chen,Ming-Cheng Zheng,Li-Juan Yang,Jun-Ming Wang,Quan-Li Liu,Lu-Fei Chen,Zu-Cheng Ye,Jin-Ming Lin,Zhi-Xiong Lin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noaa265
2021-01-01
Neuro-Oncology
Abstract:Background. Failure of glioblastoma (GBM) therapy is often ascribed to different types of glioblastoma stem-like cell (GSLC) niche; in particular, a hypoxic perivascular niche (HPVN) is involved in GBM progression. However, the cells responsible for HPVNs remain unclear. Methods. Immunostaining was performed to determine the cells involved in HPVNs. A hypoxic chamber and 3-dimensional (3D) microfluidic chips were designed to simulate a HPVN based on the pathological features of GBM. The phenotype of GSLCs was evaluated by fluorescence scanning in real time and proliferation and apoptotic assays. The expression of JAG1, DLL4, and Hes1 was determined by immunostaining, ELISA, Western blotting, and quantitative PCR. Their clinical prognostic significance in GBM HPVNs and total tumor tissues were verified by clinical data and The Cancer Genome Atlas databases. Results. Nestin(+)/CD31(+) cells and pericytes constitute the major part of microvessels in the HPVN, and the high ratio of nestin(+)/CD31(+) cells rather than pericytes are responsible for the poor prognosis of GBM. A more real HPVN was simulated by a hypoxic coculture system in vitro, which consisted of 3D microfluidic chips and a hypoxic chamber. Nestin(+)/CD31(+) cells in the HPVN were derived from GSLC transdifferentiation and promoted GSLC chemoresistance by providing more JAG1 and DLL4 to induce downstream Hes1 overexpression. Poor GBM prognosis correlated with Hes1 expression of tumor cells in the GBM HPVN, and not with total Hes1 expression in GBM tissues. Conclusions. These results highlight the critical role of nestin(+)/CD31(+) cells in HPVNs that acts in GBM chemoresistance and reveal the distinctive prognostic value of these molecular markers in HPVNs.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?