Advertisement
CCR Focus

Targeting Hedgehog — a Cancer Stem Cell Pathway

Akil A. Merchant and William Matsui
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2846 Published June 2010

Abstract

The Hedgehog (Hh) pathway has been implicated in a wide variety of human tumors, and early clinical trials with pathway antagonists have validated Hh signaling as a bona fide anticancer target. Despite these encouraging results, several issues surrounding the basic biology of the Hh pathway in human cancers remain unclear. These include the influence of specific oncogenic events on Hh signal transduction, the precise mode of Hh signaling (i.e., autocrine or paracrine) that occurs within human tumors, and the best means to inhibit aberrant pathway activity in the clinical setting. The cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis may explain a number of clinical phenomena, such as unchecked self-renewal and the development of metastatic disease, and to some extent, the Hh signaling pathway has been implicated in all of these processes. Therefore, Hh pathway inhibitors may also represent some of the first agents to formally examine the CSC hypothesis in the clinical setting. The diverse nature of Hh signaling in human cancers suggests that disease-specific factors must be carefully considered to identify the optimal use of novel pathway inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res; 16(12); 3130–40. ©2010 AACR.

Development and Hedgehog Pathway Signal Transduction

The Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway was initially identified in Drosophila as a critical mediator of segmental patterning during embryonic development, and it regulates the proliferation, migration, and differentiation of target cells in a spatial, temporal, and concentration dependent manner (1–3). Hh signaling is conserved in vertebrates and highly active during mammalian development, especially within the neural tube and skeleton, but subsequently silenced in most adult tissues. However, some postnatal organs, such as the central nervous system and the lung, rely on continued Hh signaling for tissue homeostasis and repair following injury (4–6).

Pathway activation is initiated by binding of one of the three secreted and lipid-modified ligands found in mammals, Sonic (SHh), Desert (DHh), and Indian Hedgehog (IHh), to Patched (Ptch1), a 12-pass transmembrane-spanning receptor (Fig. 1A, B). In the absence of ligand, Ptch constitutively represses the activity of Smoothened (Smo), a 7-pass transmembrane-spanning protein with homology to G-protein-coupled receptors. Following Hh ligand binding to Ptch, the repression of Smo is released, and the expression and/or post-translational processing of the three Gli zinc-finger transcription factors is modulated. Gli1 acts as a transcriptional activator and Gli3 as a repressor, whereas Gli2 can either activate or repress gene expression depending on post-transcriptional and post-translational modifications (7). The balance between the activating and repressive forms of the Glis results in the expression of target genes, including Ptch1 and Gli1 (8, 9).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Hh signaling. A schematic of Hh pathway signal transduction derived from developmental and cancer models. A, in the absence of Hh ligand, Ptch is located in the cilium and blocks Smo entry. Gli transcription factors exist in repressor forms that prevent transcription of target genes. B, three mammalian homologs of Hh (SHh, IHh, DHh) bind Ptch at the cell surface and allow it to move out of the primary cilium. Smo is derepressed and moves into the primary cilium where it can activate Gli transcription factors. During this process, the Gli transcription factors are processed to activator forms and translocated to the nucleus to induce the transcription of Hh target genes. Antibodies against the Hh ligands (5E1) and robotnikinin block pathway activation by preventing the interaction of Hh ligand with Ptch. Cyclopamine and novel antagonists of Smo directly bind and inhibit its function. Compounds such as HPI 2,3,4 block the transport of components in the signaling cascade. Direct Gli antagonists, such as GANT, block binding of Gli transcription factors to DNA.

Within this simplified schema, several other cellular components are required for Hh pathway activity. These include proteins involved in Hh ligand modification and cell surface binding [Hedgehog interacting protein (Hip), Hedgehog acyltransferase (Hhat), growth arrest-specific 1 (Gas1), and CDO], and Gli processing and localization [Suppressor of fused (SuFu), Protein kinase A (PKA), glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), casein kinase 1 (CK1), G-protein-coupled receptor kinase 2 (GRK2), and βTRCP; refs. 10–14]. Moreover, increasing evidence has suggested that the subcellular localization of Hh pathway components is a major regulator of its activity. The examination of developmental defects arising in mice showed that mutations within the intraflagellar transport proteins Kif3a and IFT88 produce patterning defects that mimic Hh loss-of-function mutations (15). These proteins are required for the assembly and maintenance of primary cilia that are present on most cells of the body during interphase and involved in a wide variety of cellular processes including mechanosensation and the transduction of several signaling pathways. A number of studies have subsequently shown that pathway components translocate during activation, and in the absence of ligand, Ptch, but not Smo, is located within the primary cilia (16–20). Upon ligand binding, Ptch moves out and Smo moves into primary cilia to interact with Glis and their associated proteins that subsequently enter the nucleus to regulate gene expression (Fig. 1B).

Studies from a variety of experimental systems have identified the major components involved in Hh signal transduction, but extension of these results to human cancers should be approached with caution for several reasons. Many genetic studies have determined the role of specific pathway components by examining the effects of mutations on normal developmental programs, but the precise similarities between development and carcinogenesis are not fully understood. Meanwhile, detailed biochemical and cell biology studies have typically studied immortalized and nonmalignant embryonic fibroblasts (e.g., NIH 3T3 or CH310T1/2 cells) that exhibit robust pathway activity compared with most cancers. Additionally, these cells are mesenchymal in origin and can differentiate into mature cartilage, bone, and adipose cells. Thus, their relevance to Hh signaling within cancers derived from epithelial or hematopoietic tissues is unclear. Both genetic and epigenetic events underlie the formation and progression of human cancers, but the influence of these factors on Hh pathway signaling is largely unknown either in general or within specific tumors. Activating mutations in KRAS are found in a wide variety of epithelial carcinomas and may cause Gli1 activation and Hh target gene expression in a Smo-independent manner (21, 22), therefore, oncogenic events may directly induce pathway activity. The Hh signaling pathway has also been found to interact with other signaling pathways commonly activated in human cancers, such as PI3K/AKT (23, 24), and it is possible those also alter classical Hh signal transduction. It is also unclear whether primarily cilia are absolutely required for Hh signaling in human cancers because they are absent in Drosophila cells that are fully capable of pathway activation and may or may not be found at a high frequency within primary human basal cell carcinomas (BCC; ref. 25). Moreover, recent studies examining the role of primary cilia and aberrant Hh signaling in the formation of BCC and medulloblastoma have shown that mutations within Smo are not tumorigenic in the absence of cilia (25, 26). However, a constitutively activated form of Gli2 paradoxically induced tumor formation when cilia formation was blocked. Therefore, Hh signaling seems to be complex in cancers, and although several aspects of Hh signal transduction remain unclear, a better understanding of the mechanisms mediating pathogenic pathway activity within human cancer cells may identify additional therapeutic strategies.

Hedgehog Signaling in Cancer

The identification of somatic PTCH1 mutations in patients with Gorlin syndrome and basal cell nevus syndrome first implicated a role for the Hh pathway in cancer as these individuals are highly predisposed to developing advanced BCC, medulloblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma (27, 28). Additional evidence that aberrant Hh pathway activity may play a causal role in human cancers was provided by the identification of PTCH1 and SMO mutations in sporadic BCCs and medulloblastomas (29–31). Definitive proof that aberrant Hh signaling can induce cancers has come from transgenic mouse studies in which conditional loss of function of Ptch or gain of function of Smo or the Glis can recapitulate medulloblastoma and BCC (reviewed in ref. 32). Other Hh pathway components may also be genetically altered in human cancers including SUFU mutations in medulloblastoma, GLI1 and GLI3 mutations in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as well as GLI1 gene amplification in glioblastoma (33–35).

In contrast to tumors harboring activating mutations, several human cancers display aberrant pathway activity in response to increased levels of HH ligand (Table 1). Within these ligand-dependent tumors, several modes of pathway activation have been described (Fig. 2). The simplest is autocrine and/or juxacrine signaling in which tumor cells both produce and respond to HH ligand (Fig. 2B). This mode of pathogenic HH activity has been described in a wide variety of human tumors including small cell lung, pancreatic, colon, and metastatic prostate cancers as well as glioblastomas and melanomas (5, 24, 36–40). Increased HH pathway activity either from mutational activation or autocrine signaling may induce the expression of genes affecting proliferation (Cyclin D1, Cyclin D2, N-Myc, Igf2, Hes1), cell survival (Bcl2), angiogenesis (Vegf), and genetic instability (p53; refs. 41–51). Moreover, HH ligand blocking antibodies (in the case of ligand-dependent signaling), pharmacologic SMO antagonists, or small interfering RNA (siRNA) directed against SMO or GLI1 have been shown to inhibit tumor growth.

View this table:
Table 1.

Cancers associated with Hedgehog signaling

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Models of Hh signaling in cancer. A, non—ligand-mediated signaling (mutational activation). Mutations in PTCH1, SMO, SUFU, or amplification of GLI1 have all been reported in human cancers. (i) Loss of PTCH1 activity may increase Hh pathway activity. (ii) Overexpression or activating mutations in SMO are also depicted. B, ligand-mediated autocrine signaling. Tumor cells produce Hh ligand that stimulates Hh pathway activity in tumor cells. C, ligand-mediated paracrine signaling. Nonmalignant stromal cells produces Hh ligand required by tumor cells for growth and survival. D, ligand-mediated paracrine signaling. Tumor cells produce Hh ligand that activates Hh signaling in nonmalignant stromal and endothelial cells; this results in the production of unknown factors within the microenvironment that ultimately support tumor cell growth and survival as well as angiogenesis.

Hh signaling may act in a paracrine fashion during embryonic development in which cells secreting Hh ligands are distinct from those responding with pathway activation, and several recent studies have shown that pathologic Hh signaling may also occur in a similar manner that involves the tumor microenvironment (52–54). In a recent report examining B-cell lymphomas and multiple myeloma, HH ligand was found to be primarily produced by stromal cells derived from the bone marrow, spleen, or lymph nodes, rather than tumor cells (Fig. 2C; ref. 52). However, the activation of HH signaling within tumor cells was found to act as an important survival factor because treatment with SMO antagonists induced cell death and decreased BCL2 expression in vitro as well as inhibited tumor growth in vivo. This effect was specifically mediated by HH signaling as the expression of GLI1 or a constitutively activated form of SMO abrogated these effects.

An alternative mode of paracrine Hh signaling has been recently described in which tumor cells secrete HH ligands that induce pathway activity within stromal cells (Fig. 2D; refs. 53–55). In a study examining human pancreatic and colon primary tumors and cell lines grown as xenografts in mice, the expression of HH ligand by tumor cells did not correlate with their expression of target genes, but rather was associated with canonical pathway activity by tumor infiltrating stromal cells derived from the murine host (53). Decreased tumor growth was observed following administration of a pharmacologic SMO antagonist or HH-neutralizing monoclonal antibody and correlated with decreased expression of mouse Gli1 expression, whereas human GLI1 expression remained unchanged. Further studies using a transgenic mouse model of pancreatic cancer similarly failed to identify canonical Hh pathway activity within epithelial tumor cells despite expression of a constitutively activated form of Smo in these cells (54). These results strongly suggest that tumor derived HH ligand primarily induces pathway activity within infiltrating stromal cells that in turn influences tumor growth. Although the precise factors generated by stromal cells that modulate tumor growth are unknown, HH pathway activation may induce the secretion of soluble factors, such as insulin growth factor 2 (IGF2) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), that influence tumor cell proliferation and survival (43, 48, 49).

Conflicting data about the precise mode of Hh signaling in specific tumors, such as pancreatic and colon carcinoma (see below), may be due to differences in experimental systems. Given the spatial restriction of Hh signaling during normal development, the study of human tumors may require three-dimensional models to precisely determine the role HH plays in cancer biology and the antitumor effects of pathway inhibitors. It is also likely that the exact role of Hh signaling will be dependent on the specific tumor type as well as distinct clinical and biological factors, such as disease stage or genetic lesions. For example, intact Hh signaling, specifically Smo expression, is required for myeloid leukemia arising from the BCR-ABL, but not the MLL-AF9, fusion gene (56–58). Although delineating disease specific information will likely require extensive studies, it is likely required to optimize the clinical use of Hh pathway inhibitors.

Hedgehog Signaling in Cancer Stem Cells

Emerging data from many human tumors including glioblastoma, breast cancer, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, multiple myeloma, and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) have suggested that Hh signaling regulates cancer stem cells (CSC; refs. 39, 40, 56, 59–62). CSCs have been functionally defined by their capacity to undergo self-renewal and give rise to differentiated progeny that recapitulates the original tumor in an ectopic setting (63). Self-renewal is required for maintenance of the malignant clone, and reports examining mouse models of CML have provided evidence that Hh signaling regulates this property (56, 62). In these studies, the loss of Hh signaling by genetically disrupting Smo resulted in the inhibition of BCR-ABL expressing leukemic stem cells and prolonged survival. Active Hh signaling pathway has also been identified in glioblastoma CSCs, and pathway inhibition with cyclopamine or siRNA directed against pathway components results in the loss of tumorigenic potential (39, 40). In breast cancer, pathway activation in CSCs using Hh ligand and GLI1 or GLI2 expression or inhibition with cyclopamine or siRNA directed against GLI1 or GLI2 alters the expression of BMI-1, a central regulator of self-renewal in normal stem cells, and tumorigenic potential in vitro and in vivo (59). In multiple myeloma, CSCs that phenotypically resemble normal memory B cells have been found to display relatively higher levels of Hh signaling than the mature plasma cells constituting the tumor bulk (61). Pathway activation with SHH ligand resulted in CSC self-renewal and expansion, whereas the SMO antagonist cyclopamine or the ligand-neutralizing antibody 5E1 induced terminal differentiation and loss of clonogenic growth potential (Fig. 3A and B). Thus, HH signaling may dictate CSC fate decisions that include self-renewal and differentiation possibly by generation of a malignant niche (64). Data from multiple myeloma demonstrate that Hh signaling can act through multiple signaling modes within the same cancer and can mediate interactions between CSCs, differentiated tumor cells and the microenvironment (Fig. 3C).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Hh signaling in multiple myeloma. Regulation of multiple myeloma CSC by the HH signaling pathway. A, the inhibition of HH signaling inhibits multiple myeloma CSC displaying the side population phenotype by, B, inducing terminal plasma cells differentiation of multiple myeloma CSC as indicated by the expression of CD138. C, multiple modes of signaling seem to be active in multiple myeloma. Experimental data suggest that differentiated plasma cells can produce the ligand necessary for CSC survival and proliferation. Blocking signaling leads to CSC differentiation. Normal bone marrow stromal cells can also produce ligand and signal to myeloma cells to support their growth and survival. A possible role for tumor-to-stroma paracrine signaling may also take occur. A and B are reproduced with permission from Peacock et al. (61).

In addition to tumor formation, CSCs have been implicated in disease progression and the development of metastasis in solid tumors (Fig. 4; refs. 65, 66), and Hh signaling may play a critical role in this process similar to the Notch and Wnt pathways in cancer (67, 68). In colon carcinomas derived from primary clinical specimens, Hh signaling has been found to be preferentially activated within CSCs as evidenced by relatively higher expression of GLI1, GLI2, PTCH1, and HIP within this cellular compartment (37). Moreover, the relative expression of these pathway components as well as the target gene SNAIL1, which is associated with the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and implicated in metastasis, increases in CSCs with disease stage. Inhibition of Hh pathway activity with cyclopamine or siRNA against SMO, GLI1, and GLI2, or expression of the repressive form of GLI3 reduced tumor cell proliferation and induced apoptosis. Moreover, cyclopamine reduced tumor regrowth in vivo and small hairpin RNA (shRNA) directed against SMO eliminated the formation of metastatic disease. The relationship between EMT and clonogenic growth potential has also been examined in pancreatic CSCs, and cyclopamine has been found to inhibit each of these functional properties and the formation of metastatic disease (60).

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Hh signaling induces EMT and metastasis formation. Cells undergoing EMT under the influence of Hh signaling and become more motile and invasive as they acquire mesenchymal cell properties. This allows cells to escape from the primary tumor and circulate to distant sites. Once established at a distant site, Hh may be required for the clonogenic growth and self-renewal.

Clinically Targeting Aberrant Hedgehog Signaling

Initial evidence that Hh signaling could be pharmacologically inhibited arose from the identification of cyclopamine, a steroidal alkyloid derived from Veratrum californicum, as an active compound capable of producing congenital defects in sheep (69). Recognition that SHh loss-of-function mutations recapitulate the neural defects seen with Veratrum teratogenicity led to findings that cyclopamine inhibits pathway activity by directly binding and inactivating Smo (70–72). Several pathway antagonists have been subsequently identified in compound screens that inhibit Gli-dependent reporter activity (73–77). Despite the unbiased nature of these screens against any one component of the Hh signaling pathway, the vast majority of compounds have been found to bind to and inhibit Smo despite being structurally distinct from one another and cyclopamine (reviewed in ref. 78). It is possible that these whole cell screens have primarily identified SMO antagonists because of its location on the cell surface, the central role it plays in Hh signal transduction, and the relative ease with which inhibitors of other 7-pass transmembrane proteins have been identified. An alternative approach to identifying novel Hh inhibitors has involved chemically modifying cyclopamine to improve its specificity, bioavailability, and pharmacokinetics (79).

The first clinical data reported using a SMO antagonist have involved GDC-0449 that was originally identified in a chemical compound screen and further modified and developed through a collaborative agreement by Curis and Genentech (74). The initial phase I trial examining the safety and tolerability of GDC-0449 enrolled a total of 68 solid tumor patients (80). Early data suggested efficacy in patients with advanced BCC, presumably because of the high frequency of aberrant Hh signaling, and the trial was expanded to further examine this group of patients. Of a total of 33 patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC, 55% showed clinical responses that included two complete remissions. Although efficacy data have not yet been reported from the other 35 patients without BCC enrolled in the trial, a published abstract indicated that a single patient with adenocystic carcinoma experienced stable disease (81). Reported toxicities were mild, and the most common events were mild loss of taste, hair loss, weight loss, and hyponatremia. Importantly, biopsies of noninvolved skin showed in vivo inhibition of HH signaling evidenced by downregulation of GLI1 expression following drug administration. A transient subjective tumor response was also reported in a single medulloblastoma patient treated with GDC-0449 under compassionate use (82). Early results from another SMO antagonist, BMS-833923 (XL139), codeveloped by Exelixis and Bristol-Myers Squibb have been recently reported and shown clinical benefit in patients with medulloblastoma and basal cell nevus syndrome (83). On the basis of the safety and efficacy data generated in the early phase clinical trial, multiple phase II trials examining GDC-0449 in combination with standard agents in solid tumors have been initiated (Table 2). Moreover, early phase clinical testing of alternative SMO antagonists have been undertaken by several other companies including Exelixis/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Infinity, and Pfizer (Table 2). Although all these agents target SMO, they are chemically distinct and no comparative studies have been carried out. It is possible that differences in SMO binding may lead to efficacy against some mutations that may arise during treatment (82), or that differences in pharmacokinetic properties may influence tissue distribution that provides more favorable inhibition of specific tumors, such as those in the central nervous system, or attenuation of side effects.

View this table:
Table 2.

Novel Hedgehog pathway antagonists in clinical testing

Theses early results provide critical proof-of-concept that inhibiting HH pathway activity has antitumor activity in humans, but they also generate several questions. For example, the majority of BCC tumor specimens from patients treated with GDC-0449 displayed increased levels of GLI1 expression consistent with the nature of the disease, but slightly more than half of the patients experienced clinical responses despite circulating levels of drug that were well above the concentration required to inhibit Hh signaling in vitro (74, 80). Additionally, the examination of pretreatment specimens for the presence of primary cilia or HH pathway activity within tumor stromal cells may have correlated with responses and validated the importance of these factors in the clinical setting. Similarly, serial tumor biopsies were not required, but it would have been interesting to correlate the degree of intratumoral pathway inhibition with clinical responses to draw a conclusive relationship between pathway activity and human cancers. Finally, the rapid loss of response and finding of an acquired mutation in SMO in the medulloblastoma patient treated with GCD-0449 suggest that loss of response in BCC patients may have occurred in a similar manner (82, 84), and isolation of tumor tissue at disease progression could have explored this possibility.

Alternative Strategies to Inhibit Hedgehog Signaling

Initial results with SMO antagonists are encouraging, but the development of alternative means to inhibit Hh signaling may be desirable for several reasons. First, several genetic lesions acting downstream of SMO have been detected in human cancers, such as mutations or loss of heterozygosity of the negative pathway regulators SUFU or RENKCTD11 or amplifications in GLIs (33, 35, 85). Moreover, GLI1 activity may be induced in a SMO-independent manner by transforming events, such as EWS-FLI in Ewing sarcoma or mutant KRAS in pancreatic cancer (21, 22, 86, 87). Because Hh signal transduction ultimately activates the GLI transcription factors, inhibitors modulating GLI may be useful, similar to therapeutic strategies being developed to target Wnt/β-catenin signaling in cancer (68). A screen for compounds capable of inhibiting Gli-mediated transcription identified Gli-antagonist (GANT)-58 and GANT-61 (88). Both of these compounds act downstream of Smo and SuFu and inhibit tumor growth both in vitro and in vivo. The precise inhibitory mechanism of these compounds is unclear, but GANT-61 limits Gli1 DNA binding. A screen designed to identify molecules capable of inhibiting Gli1 transcriptional activity without targeting Smo identified four distinct Hh pathway inhibitors (HPI; ref. 89). Each of these compounds inhibits Gli at a level epistatic to SuFu, but their precise mechanisms are unknown. HPI-1 inhibits both Gli1 and Gli2, perhaps by altering their post-translational modification, HPI-4 seems to partially inhibit ciliogenesis, and HPI-2 and 3 may inhibit the conversion of Gli2 from a repressive to an activated form. Although less specific, GLI activity may also be inhibited by modulating the activity of other pathways known to interact with Hh signaling, such as phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β; refs. 23, 24, 90–92).

Mutations in Hh pathway components have not been described in most cancers displaying aberrant signaling. Therefore, the inhibition of ligand binding may inhibit pathway activation, and the ligand neutralizing monoclonal antibody 5E1 has been shown to have clear antitumor activity in several diseases (see above). More recently, robotnikinin, was identified as a compound that binds to SHh and blocks its ability induce pathway activity at the level of Ptch (93). It is also possible that specific on-target side effects attributable to the inhibition of Hh pathway activity in some cells, such as defects in bone growth seen in young mice treated with a Smo antagonist (94), may be avoided by blocking the activity of a specific Hh ligand.

Clinical Translation of Hedgehog Inhibitors

It is likely that the effective clinical use of Hh inhibitors will require a precise understanding of the role that the pathway plays in a specific tumor. In cancers with mutational pathway activation affecting all tumor cells, pathway inhibition may impact the growth and survival of all tumor cells evident as reduction in disease burden as observed in BCC patients receiving GDC-0449 (80). Alternatively, Hh may be required early in carcinogenesis or in the formation of precancerous lesions, but once tumors are established, it may not be needed for tumor maintenance or progression. In these cases, Hh inhibitors may be active chemo-preventative agents in high-risk patients, but would be ineffective in treating established disease. Alternatively, the Hh pathway may be activated in response to chemotherapy or during regrowth of minimal residual disease, perhaps by regulating CSCs (95). In this case Hh inhibitors would be most effective as maintenance therapy following tumor debulking with surgery or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Hh signaling has also been implicated in mediating chemoresistance (96, 97), therefore, inhibitors may act as potent chemo-sensitizers and require the simultaneous administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Given the diverse biological effects of Hh activity, accurately measuring the activity of Hh inhibitors may also require context-dependent indicators of clinical response. The Hh pathway may regulate EMT and the formation of metastatic disease (37, 38, 60). In this case, treatment with Hh inhibitors may not result in clinically significant inhibition of the primary tumor, but could prevent the formation of new metastasis and prolong progression free survival. Similarly, if Hh signaling is primarily active in CSCs, clinical responses to Hh inhibitors may be delayed in patients with extensive disease. Effective inhibition of CSCs should lead to improved overall survival, but most early phase trials are not designed or powered to detect differences in long-term outcomes (98). Therefore, reliable biomarkers that accurately quantify CSCs may be useful endpoints within early clinical testing. Finally, patient selection is likely to be a critical factor in establishing the clinical efficacy of Hh pathway antagonists similar to most targeted therapies. Because mutations seem to drive only a minority of Hh-related cancers, selection of patients will not be possible by simply genotyping tumor specimens, but better understanding of the specific role the Hh signaling pathway plays in each tumor type is likely to be valuable during the development of these novel agents. It is clear that several issues in the precise role of the Hh signaling pathway in human cancer remain unresolved, including the precise mechanisms of signal transduction, the exact mode of signaling between tumor cells and the microenvironment, and the role of signaling in the regulation of CSCs. However, it is clear that the Hh pathway can play an important role in tumor cell growth and survival, and these functions are likely to be broadly applicable across a variety of malignancies. As several novel inhibitors have entered clinical testing, precise correlative studies may allow many of these conflicts to be resolved within the most relevant system, the patients themselves.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

W. Matsui, commercial research grant, Merck; patent interest, Infinity Pharmaceuticals; consultant, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer.

Acknowledgments

We thank Craig Peacock, Karen McGovern, and Sarah Brennan for helpful comments and critical review of the manuscript.

Grant Support: NIH R01CA127574, P01CA15396, K23CA107040; the Gabrielle's Angel Foundation for Cancer Research; the Sidney Kimmel Foundation for Cancer Research; the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation; and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

  • Received December 31, 2009.
  • Revision received March 31, 2010.
  • Accepted April 9, 2010.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Nusslein-Volhard C,
    2. Wieschaus E
    . Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature 1980;287:795–801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ingham PW,
    2. McMahon AP
    . Hedgehog signaling in animal development: paradigms and principles. Genes Dev 2001;15:3059–87.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Varjosalo M,
    2. Taipale J
    . Hedgehog: functions and mechanisms. Genes Dev 2008;22:2454–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Ahn S,
    2. Joyner AL
    . In vivo analysis of quiescent adult neural stem cells responding to Sonic Hedgehog. Nature 2005;437:894–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Watkins DN,
    2. Berman DM,
    3. Burkholder SG,
    4. Wang B,
    5. Beachy PA,
    6. Baylin SB
    . Hedgehog signalling within airway epithelial progenitors and in small-cell lung cancer. Nature 2003;422:313–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Beachy PA,
    2. Karhadkar SS,
    3. Berman DM
    . Tissue repair and stem cell renewal in carcinogenesis. Nature 2004;432:324–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Sasaki H,
    2. Nishizaki Y,
    3. Hui C,
    4. Nakafuku M,
    5. Kondoh H
    . Regulation of Gli2 and Gli3 activities by an amino-terminal repression domain: implication of Gli2 and Gli3 as primary mediators of Shh signaling. Development 1999;126:3915–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  8. ↵
    1. Ruiz i Altaba A,
    2. Mas C,
    3. Stecca B
    . The Gli code: an information nexus regulating cell fate, stemness and cancer. Trends Cell Biol 2007;17:438–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Stecca B,
    2. Ruiz I,
    3. Altaba A
    . Context-dependent regulation of the GLI code in cancer by HEDGEHOG and Non-HEDGEHOG signals. J Mol Cell Biol 2010;2:84–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Buglino JA,
    2. Resh MD
    . Hhat is a palmitoylacyltransferase with specificity for N-palmitoylation of Sonic Hedgehog. J Biol Chem 2008;283:22076–88.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Allen BL,
    2. Tenzen T,
    3. Mcmahon AP
    . The Hedgehog-binding proteins Gas1 and Cdo cooperate to positively regulate Shh signaling during mouse development. Genes Dev 2007;21:1244–57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Chen W,
    2. Ren X,
    3. Nelson C,
    4. et al
    . Activity-dependent internalization of smoothened mediated by {β}-Arrestin 2 and GRK2. Science 2004;306:2257–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Pearse RV 2nd.,
    2. Collier LS,
    3. Scott MP,
    4. Tabin CJ
    . Vertebrate homologs of Drosophila suppressor of fused interact with the gli family of transcriptional regulators. Dev Biol 1999;212:323–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Wang B,
    2. Li Y
    . Evidence for the direct involvement of {β}TrCP in Gli3 protein processing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:33–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Huangfu D,
    2. Liu A,
    3. Rakeman AS,
    4. Murcia NS,
    5. Niswander L,
    6. Anderson KV
    . Hedgehog signalling in the mouse requires intraflagellar transport proteins. Nature 2003;426:83–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Haycraft CJ,
    2. Banizs B,
    3. Aydin-Son Y,
    4. Zhang Q,
    5. Michaud EJ,
    6. Yoder BK
    . Gli2 and Gli3 localize to cilia and require the intraflagellar transport protein polaris for processing and function. PLoS Genet 2005;1:e53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Corbit KC,
    2. Aanstad P,
    3. Singla V,
    4. Norman AR,
    5. Stainier DYR,
    6. Reiter JF
    . Vertebrate Smoothened functions at the primary cilium. Nature 2005;437:1018–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rohatgi R,
    2. Milenkovic L,
    3. Scott MP
    . Patched1 regulates Hedgehog signaling at the primary cilium. Science 2007;317:372–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Wilson CW,
    2. Chen M-H,
    3. Chuang P-T
    . Smoothened adopts multiple active and inactive conformations capable of trafficking to the primary cilium. PLoS ONE 2009;4:e5182.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Kim J,
    2. Kato M,
    3. Beachy PA
    . Gli2 trafficking links Hedgehog-dependent activation of Smoothened in the primary cilium to transcriptional activation in the nucleus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:21666–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Ji Z,
    2. Mei FC,
    3. Xie J,
    4. Cheng X
    . Oncogenic KRAS activates Hedgehog signaling pathway in pancreatic cancer cells. J Biol Chem 2007;282:14048–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Nolan-Stevaux O,
    2. Lau J,
    3. Truitt ML,
    4. et al
    . GLI1 is regulated through Smoothened-independent mechanisms in neoplastic pancreatic ducts and mediates PDAC cell survival and transformation. Genes Dev 2009;23:24–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Riobo NA,
    2. Lu K,
    3. Ai X,
    4. Haines GM,
    5. Emerson CP Jr.
    . Phosphoinositide 3-kinase and AKT are essential for Sonic Hedgehog signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006;103:4505–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Stecca B,
    2. Mas C,
    3. Clement V,
    4. et al
    . Melanomas require HEDGEHOG-GLI signaling regulated by interactions between GLI1 and the RAS-MEK/AKT pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:5895.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Wong SY,
    2. Seol AD,
    3. So P-L,
    4. et al
    . Primary cilia can both mediate and suppress Hedgehog pathway-dependent tumorigenesis. Nat Med 2009;15:1055–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Han Y,
    2. Kim H,
    3. Dlugosz A,
    4. Ellison D,
    5. Gilbertson R,
    6. Alvarez-Buylla A
    . Dual and opposing roles of primary cilia in medulloblastoma development. Nat Med 2009;15:1062–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Hahn H,
    2. Wicking C,
    3. Zaphiropoulous PG,
    4. et al
    . Mutations of the human homolog of Drosophila patched in the nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome. Cell 1996;85:841–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Johnson RL,
    2. Rothman AL,
    3. Xie J,
    4. et al
    . Human homolog of patched, a candidate gene for the basal cell nevus syndrome. Science 1996;272:1668–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  29. ↵
    1. Xie J,
    2. Johnson RL,
    3. Zhang X,
    4. et al
    . Mutations of the PATCHED gene in several types of sporadic extracutaneous tumors. Cancer Res 1997;57:2369–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Xie J,
    2. Murone M,
    3. Luoh SM,
    4. et al
    . Activating Smoothened mutations in sporadic basal-cell carcinoma. Nature 1998;391:90–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Pietsch T,
    2. Waha A,
    3. Koch A,
    4. et al
    . Medulloblastomas of the desmoplastic variant carry mutations of the human homologue of Drosophila patched. Cancer Res 1997;57:2085–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Pasca di Magliano M,
    2. Hebrok M
    . Hedgehog signalling in cancer formation and maintenance. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:903–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Taylor MD,
    2. Liu L,
    3. Raffel C,
    4. et al
    . Mutations in SUFU predispose to medulloblastoma. Nat Genet 2002;31:306–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jones S,
    2. Zhang X,
    3. Parsons DW,
    4. et al
    . Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science 2008;321:1801–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Wong AJ,
    2. Bigner SH,
    3. Bigner DD,
    4. Kinzler KW,
    5. Hamilton SR,
    6. Vogelstein B
    . Increased expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in malignant gliomas is invariably associated with gene amplification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1987;84:6899–903.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Berman DM,
    2. Karhadkar SS,
    3. Maitra A,
    4. et al
    . Widespread requirement for Hedgehog ligand stimulation in growth of digestive tract tumours. Nature 2003;425:846–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Varnat F,
    2. Duquet A,
    3. Malerba M,
    4. et al
    . Human colon cancer epithelial cells harbour active HEDGEHOG-GLI signalling that is essential for tumour growth, recurrence, metastasis and stem cell survival and expansion. Embo Mol Med 2009;1:338–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Karhadkar SS,
    2. Bova GS,
    3. Abdallah N,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog signalling in prostate regeneration, neoplasia and metastasis. Nature 2004;431:707–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Clement V,
    2. Sanchez P,
    3. de Tribolet N,
    4. Radovanovic I,
    5. Altaba A
    . HEDGEHOG-GLI1 signaling regulates human glioma growth, cancer stem cell self-renewal, and tumorigenicity. Curr Biol 2007;17:165–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Bar EE,
    2. Chaudhry A,
    3. Lin A,
    4. et al
    . Cyclopamine-mediated Hedgehog pathway inhibition depletes stem-like cancer cells in glioblastoma. Stem Cells 2007;25:2524–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Duman-Scheel M,
    2. Weng L,
    3. Xin S,
    4. Du W
    . Hedgehog regulates cell growth and proliferation by inducing Cyclin D and Cyclin E. Nature 2002;417:299–304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Berman DM,
    2. Karhadkar SS,
    3. Hallahan AR,
    4. et al
    . Medulloblastoma growth inhibition by Hedgehog pathway blockade. Science 2002;297:1559–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Ingram WJ,
    2. Wicking CA,
    3. Grimmond SM,
    4. Forrest AR,
    5. Wainwright BJ
    . Novel genes regulated by Sonic Hedgehog in pluripotent mesenchymal cells. Oncogene 2002;21:8196–205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ingram WJ,
    2. McCue KI,
    3. Tran TH,
    4. Hallahan AR,
    5. Wainwright BJ
    . Sonic Hedgehog regulates Hes1 through a novel mechanism that is independent of canonical Notch pathway signalling. Oncogene 2008;27:1489–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Wall D,
    2. Mears A,
    3. McNeill B,
    4. et al
    . Progenitor cell proliferation in the retina is dependent on Notch-independent Sonic Hedgehog/Hes1 activity. J Cell Biol 2009;184:101–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Regl G,
    2. Kasper M,
    3. Schnidar H,
    4. et al
    . Activation of the BCL2 promoter in response to Hedgehog/GLI signal transduction is predominantly mediated by GLI2. Cancer Res 2004;64:7724–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kenney AM,
    2. Rowitch DH
    . Sonic Hedgehog promotes G1 cyclin expression and sustained cell cycle progression in mammalian neuronal precursors. Mol Cell Biol 2000;20:9055–67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Pola R,
    2. Ling L,
    3. Silver M,
    4. et al
    . The morphogen Sonic hedgehog is an indirect angiogenic agent upregulating two families of angiogenic growth factors. Nat Med 2001;7:706–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Kanda S,
    2. Mochizuki Y,
    3. Suematsu T,
    4. Miyata Y,
    5. Nomata K,
    6. Kanetake H
    . Sonic hedgehog induces capillary morphogenesis by endothelial cells through phosphoinositide 3-kinase. J Biol Chem 2003;278:8244–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Stecca B,
    2. Ruiz i Altaba AA
    . GLI1-p53 inhibitory loop controls neural stem cell and tumour cell numbers. EMBO J 2009;28:663–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Abe Y,
    2. Oda-Sato E,
    3. Tobiume K,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog signaling overrides p53-mediated tumor suppression by activating Mdm2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:4838–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Dierks C,
    2. Grbic J,
    3. Zirlik K,
    4. et al
    . Essential role of stromally induced Hedgehog signaling in B-cell malignancies. Nat Med 2007;13:944–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Yauch RL,
    2. Gould SE,
    3. Scales SJ,
    4. et al
    . A paracrine requirement for Hedgehog signalling in cancer. Nature 2008;455:406–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Tian H,
    2. Callahan CA,
    3. DuPree KJ,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog signaling is restricted to the stromal compartment during pancreatic carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:4254–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Theunissen J-W,
    2. de Sauvage FJ
    . Paracrine Hedgehog signaling in cancer. Cancer Res 2009;69:6007–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Dierks C,
    2. Beigi R,
    3. Guo GR,
    4. et al
    . Expansion of Bcr-Abl-positive leukemic stem cells is dependent on Hedgehog pathway activation. Cancer Cell 2008;14:238–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Zhao C,
    2. Blum J,
    3. Chen A,
    4. et al
    . Loss of [β]-catenin impairs the renewal of normal and CML stem cells in vivo. Cancer Cell 2007;12:528–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Hofmann I,
    2. Stover EH,
    3. Cullen DE,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog signaling is dispensable for adult murine hematopoietic stem cell function and hematopoiesis. Cell Stem Cell 2009;4:559–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Liu S,
    2. Dontu G,
    3. Mantle ID,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog signaling and Bmi-1 regulate self-renewal of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells. Cancer Res 2006;66:6063–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Feldmann G,
    2. Dhara S,
    3. Fendrich V,
    4. et al
    . Blockade of hedgehog signaling inhibits pancreatic cancer invasion and metastases: a new paradigm for combination therapy in solid cancers. Cancer Res 2007;67:2187–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Peacock CD,
    2. Wang Q,
    3. Gesell GS,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog signaling maintains a tumor stem cell compartment in multiple myeloma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:4048–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Zhao C,
    2. Chen A,
    3. Jamieson CH,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog signalling is essential for maintenance of cancer stem cells in myeloid leukaemia. Nature 2009;458:776–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. O'Brien C,
    2. Kreso A,
    3. Jamieson C
    . Cancer stem cells and self-renewal. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:3113–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. LaBarge M
    . The difficulty of targeting cancer stem cell niches. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:3121–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Mani SA,
    2. Guo W,
    3. Liao MJ,
    4. et al
    . The epithelial-mesenchymal transition generates cells with properties of stem cells. Cell 2008;133:704–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Rasheed ZA,
    2. Yang J,
    3. Wang Q,
    4. et al
    . Prognostic significance of tumorigenic cells with mesenchymal features in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:340–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Pannuti A,
    2. Foreman K,
    3. Rizzo P,
    4. et al
    . Targeting Notch to target cancer stem cells. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:3141–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Takahashi-Yanaga F,
    2. Kahn M
    . Targeting Wnt signaling: can we safely eradicate cancer stem cells? Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:3153–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Binns W,
    2. Keeler RF,
    3. Balls LD
    . Congenital deformities in lambs, calves, and goats resulting from maternal ingestion of Veratrum californicum: hare lip, cleft palate, ataxia, and hypoplasia of metacarpal and metatarsal bones. Clin Toxicol 1972;5:245–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Cooper MK,
    2. Porter JA,
    3. Young KE,
    4. Beachy PA
    . Teratogen-mediated inhibition of target tissue response to Shh signaling. Science 1998;280:1603–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Taipale J,
    2. Chen JK,
    3. Cooper MK,
    4. et al
    . Effects of oncogenic mutations in Smoothened and Patched can be reversed by cyclopamine. Nature 2000;406:1005–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Chen JK,
    2. Taipale J,
    3. Cooper MK,
    4. Beachy PA
    . Inhibition of Hedgehog signaling by direct binding of cyclopamine to Smoothened. Genes Dev 2002;16:2743–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Chen JK,
    2. Taipale J,
    3. Young KE,
    4. Maiti T,
    5. Beachy PA
    . Small molecule modulation of Smoothened activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:14071–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Robarge KD,
    2. Brunton SA,
    3. Castanedo GM,
    4. et al
    . GDC-0449-a potent inhibitor of the Hedgehog pathway. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2009;19:5576–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gendreau SB,
    2. Hawkins D,
    3. Ho C-P,
    4. et al
    . Preclinical characterization of BMS-833923 (XL139), a Hedgehog (HH) pathway inhibitor in early clinical development. Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8:B192.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Frank-Kamenetsky M,
    2. Zhang XM,
    3. Bottega S,
    4. et al
    . Small-molecule modulators of Hedgehog signaling: identification and characterization of Smoothened agonists and antagonists. J Biol 2002;1:10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Williams JA,
    2. Guicherit OM,
    3. Zaharian BI,
    4. et al
    . Identification of a small molecule inhibitor of the Hedgehog signaling pathway: effects on basal cell carcinoma-like lesions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:4616–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Mahindroo N,
    2. Punchihewa C,
    3. Fujii N
    . Hedgehog-Gli signaling pathway inhibitors as anticancer agents. J Med Chem 2009;52:3829–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Tremblay MR,
    2. Nevalainen M,
    3. Nair SJ,
    4. et al
    . Semisynthetic cyclopamine analogues as potent and orally bioavailable Hedgehog pathway antagonists. J Med Chem 2008;51:6646–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Von Hoff DD,
    2. Lorusso PM,
    3. Rudin CM,
    4. et al
    . Inhibition of the Hedgehog pathway in advanced basal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1164–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Von Hoff DD,
    2. Rudin CM,
    3. LoRusso PM,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy data of GDC-0449, a systemic Hedgehog pathway antagonist, in a first-in-human, first-in-class Phase I study with locally advanced, multifocal or metastatic basal cell carcinoma patients. AACR Meeting Abstracts 2008:LB-138.
  82. ↵
    1. Rudin CM,
    2. Hann CL,
    3. Laterra J,
    4. et al
    . Treatment of medulloblastoma with Hedgehog pathway inhibitor GDC-0449. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1173–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Siu LL,
    2. Papadopoulos KP,
    3. Alberts SR,
    4. et al
    . A first-in-human, phase I study of an oral Hedgehog pathway antagonist, BMS-833923 (XL139), in subjects with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Mol Cancer Ther 2009;8:A55.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  84. ↵
    1. Yauch RL,
    2. Dijkgraaf GJP,
    3. Alicke B,
    4. et al
    . Smoothened mutation confers resistance to a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor in medulloblastoma. Science 2009;326:572–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    1. Di Marcotullio L,
    2. Ferretti E,
    3. De Smaele E,
    4. et al
    . REN(KCTD11) is a suppressor of Hedgehog signaling and is deleted in human medulloblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:10833–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. ↵
    1. Zwerner JP,
    2. Joo J,
    3. Warner KL,
    4. et al
    . The EWS/FLI1 oncogenic transcription factor deregulates GLI1. Oncogene 2008;27:3282–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Beauchamp E,
    2. Bulut G,
    3. Abaan O,
    4. et al
    . GLI1 is a direct transcriptional target of EWS-FLI1 oncoprotein. J Biol Chem 2009;284:9074–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    1. Lauth M,
    2. Bergström A,
    3. Shimokawa T,
    4. Toftgård R
    . Inhibition of GLI-mediated transcription and tumor cell growth by small-molecule antagonists. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:8455–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Hyman JM,
    2. Firestone AJ,
    3. Heine VM,
    4. et al
    . Small-molecule inhibitors reveal multiple strategies for Hedgehog pathway blockade. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:14132–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    1. Kasper M,
    2. Schnidar H,
    3. Neill G,
    4. et al
    . Selective modulation of Hedgehog/GLI target gene expression by epidermal growth factor signaling in human keratinocytes. Mol Cell Biol 2006;26:6283.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Dennler S,
    2. André J,
    3. Alexaki I,
    4. et al
    . Induction of Sonic Hedgehog mediators by Transforming Growth Factor-β: Smad3-dependent activation of Gli2 and Gli1 expression in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Res 2007;67:6981–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Dennler S,
    2. André J,
    3. Verrecchia F,
    4. Mauviel A
    . Cloning of the human GLI2 Promoter: transcriptional activation by Transforming Growth Factor-β via SMAD3/β-Catenin cooperation. J Biol Chem 2009;284:31523–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. ↵
    1. Stanton BZ,
    2. Peng LF,
    3. Maloof N,
    4. et al
    . A small molecule that binds Hedgehog and blocks its signaling in human cells. Nat Chem Biol 2009;5:154–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. ↵
    1. Kimura H,
    2. Ng JMY,
    3. Curran T
    . Transient inhibition of the Hedgehog pathway in young mice causes permanent defects in bone structure. Cancer Cell 2008;13:249–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Travaglione V,
    2. Peacock C,
    3. MacDougall J,
    4. et al
    . A novel HH pathway inhibitor, IPI-926, delays recurrence post-chemotherapy in a primary human SCLC xenograft model. AACR Meeting Abstracts 2008:4611.
  96. ↵
    1. Bar EE,
    2. Chaudhry A,
    3. Farah MH,
    4. Eberhart CG
    . Hedgehog signaling promotes medulloblastoma survival via BclII. Am J Pathol 2007;170:347–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Olive KP,
    2. Jacobetz MA,
    3. Davidson CJ,
    4. et al
    . Inhibition of Hedgehog signaling enhances delivery of chemotherapy in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Science 2009;324:1457–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. ↵
    1. Huff CA,
    2. Matsui W,
    3. Smith BD,
    4. Jones RJ
    . The paradox of response and survival in cancer therapeutics. Blood 2006;107:431–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. ↵
    1. Romer JT,
    2. Kimura H,
    3. Magdaleno S,
    4. et al
    . Suppression of the Shh pathway using a small molecule inhibitor eliminates medulloblastoma in Ptc1(±)p53(−/−) mice. Cancer Cell 2004;6:229–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Thayer SP,
    2. di Magliano MP,
    3. Heiser PW,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog is an early and late mediator of pancreatic cancer tumorigenesis. Nature 2003;425:851–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pasca di Magliano M,
    2. Sekine S,
    3. Ermilov A,
    4. Ferris J,
    5. Dlugosz AA,
    6. Hebrok M
    . Hedgehog/Ras interactions regulate early stages of pancreatic cancer. Genes Dev 2006;20:3161–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Li C,
    2. Heidt DG,
    3. Dalerba P,
    4. et al
    . Identification of pancreatic cancer stem cells. Cancer Res 2007;67:1030–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  103. ↵
    1. Bailey JM,
    2. Mohr AM,
    3. Hollingsworth MA
    . Sonic hedgehog paracrine signaling regulates metastasis and lymphangiogenesis in pancreatic cancer. Oncogene 2009;28:3513–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Das S,
    2. Harris LG,
    3. Metge BJ,
    4. et al
    . The Hedgehog pathway transcription factor GLI1 promotes malignant behavior of cancer cells by up-regulating Osteopontin. J Biol Chem 2009;284:22888–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. ↵
    1. Ehtesham M,
    2. Sarangi A,
    3. Valadez JG,
    4. et al
    . Ligand-dependent activation of the hedgehog pathway in glioma progenitor cells. Oncogene 2007;26:5752–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Fiaschi M,
    2. Rozell B,
    3. Bergstrom A,
    4. Toftgard R
    . Development of mammary tumors by conditional expression of GLI1. Cancer Res 2009;69:4810–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  107. ↵
    1. Bhattacharya R,
    2. Kwon J,
    3. Ali B,
    4. et al
    . Role of Hedgehog signaling in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:7659–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Liao X,
    2. Siu MKY,
    3. Au CWH,
    4. et al
    . Aberrant activation of Hedgehog signaling pathway in ovarian cancers: effect on prognosis, cell invasion and differentiation. Carcinogenesis 2009;30:131–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. ↵
    1. Sanchez P,
    2. Hernandez AM,
    3. Stecca B,
    4. et al
    . Inhibition of prostate cancer proliferation by interference with SONIC HEDGEHOG-GLI1 signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:12561–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. ↵
    1. Singh RR,
    2. Cho-Vega JH,
    3. Davuluri Y,
    4. et al
    . Sonic Hedgehog signaling pathway Is activated in ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Cancer Res 2009;69:2550–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  111. ↵
    1. Hegde GV,
    2. Munger CM,
    3. Emanuel K,
    4. et al
    . Targeting of Sonic Hedgehog-GLI signaling: a potential strategy to improve therapy for mantle cell lymphoma. Mol Cancer Ther 2008;7:1450–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. ↵
    ClinicalTrials.gov. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/.
View Abstract
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 16 (12)
June 2010
Volume 16, Issue 12

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Targeting Hedgehog — a Cancer Stem Cell Pathway
Akil A. Merchant and William Matsui
Clin Cancer Res June 15 2010 (16) (12) 3130-3140; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2846
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement