BackgroundThis study was performed to investigate the effect of microRNA-203 (miR-203) and ΔNp63 on cell proliferation and the functional connection between miR-203 and ΔNp63 in ESCC.MethodsWe employed 2 human ESCC cell lines, Eca109 and TE-1, as the model system. The effect of miR-203 and ΔNp63 on cell proliferation was determined in cells transfected with miR-203 mimic and ΔNp63 small interfering RNA (siRNA), respectively. The regulation of ΔNp63 expression in ESCC cells by miR-203 was studied by luciferase reporter assay, RT-PCR and western blot analysis in cells transfected with miR-203. The effect of ΔNp63 re-expression on miR-203 induced inhibition of cell proliferation was studied by cell proliferation assay in cells cotransfected with miR-203 and pcDNA-ΔNp63 plasmid (without the 3'-UTR of ΔNp63).ResultsWe found that both miR-203 and ΔNp63 siRNA signicantly inhibited cell proliferation in ESCC. MiR-203 could down-regulate endogenous ΔNp63 expression at the posttranscriptional level. Moreover, re-expression of ΔNp63 in cells transfected with miR-203 significantly attenuated the miR-203 induced inhibition of cell proliferation.ConclusionsOur data implied that miR-203 could inhibit cell proliferation in human ESCC through ΔNp63-mediated signal pathway. Therefore, we propose that miR-203 might be used as a therapeutic agent for human ESCC.

BackgroundThe enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) was found to be overexpressed and associated with tumor metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). On the other hand, it was reported that miR-26a, miR-98, miR-101, miR-124, miR-138 and miR-214 could inhibit the expression of EZH2 in some tumors. However, the role of miRNAs in the regulation of EZH2 expression in human ESCC has not been documented. The aim of this study was to determine the role of these miRNAs in the regulation of tumor metastasis via EZH2 overexpression in human ESCC.Methods and resultsThe expression of these miRNAs and EZH2 mRNA were examined by qPCR and the expression of EZH2 protein was detected by western blot. The role of these miRNAs in migration and invasion was studied in ESCC cell line (Eca109) transfected with miRNA mimics or cotransfected with miRNA mimics and pcDNA-EZH2 plasmid (without the 3’-UTR of EZH2). Through clinical investigation, we found that miR-98 and miR-214 expression was significantly lower in ESCC tissues than in matched normal tissues, and the expression level of miR-98 and miR-214 was inversely correlated to EZH2 protein expression and the clinical features such as pathological grade, tumor stage and lymph node metastasis in ESCC. In Eca109 cells, overexpression of miR-98 and miR-214 significantly inhibited the migration and invasion of ESCC cells, which was reversed by transfection of EZH2.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that decreased expression of miR-98 and miR-214 might promote metastasis of human ESCC by inducing accumulation of EZH2 protein.

The cancer stem cell (CSC) model depicts that tumors are hierarchically organized and maintained by CSCs lying at the apex. CSCs have been “identified” in a variety of tumors through the tumor-forming assay, in which tumor cells distinguished by a certain cell surface marker (known as a CSC marker) were separately transplanted into immunodeficient mice. In such assays, tumor cells positive but not negative for the CSC marker (hereby defined as CSC+ and CSC− cells, respectively) have the ability of tumor-forming and generating both progenies. However, here we show that CSC+ and CSC− cells exhibit similar proliferation in the native states. Using a cell tracing method, we demonstrate that CSC− cells exhibit similar tumorigenesis and proliferation as CSC+ cells when they were co-transplanted into immunodeficient mice. Through serial single-cell derived subline construction, we further demonstrated that CSC+ and CSC− cells from CSC marker expressing tumors could invariably generate both progenies, and their characteristics are maintained among different generations irrespective of the origins (CSC+-derived or CSC−-derived). These findings demonstrate that tumorigenic cells cannot be distinguished by common CSC markers alone and we propose that cautions should be taken when using these markers independently to identify cancer stem cells due to the phenotypic plasticity of tumor cells.