Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2016, Article ID 7969286, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7969286
Review Article

The Hedgehog Signaling Networks in Lung Cancer: The Mechanisms and Roles in Tumor Progression and Implications for Cancer Therapy

Department of Molecular Oncology, Institute for Advanced Medical Sciences, Nippon Medical School, 1-396 Kosugi-cho, Nakahara-ku, Kawasaki 211-8533, Japan

Received 7 September 2016; Accepted 23 November 2016

Academic Editor: Daisuke Miyoshi

Copyright © 2016 Yoshinori Abe and Nobuyuki Tanaka. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide and is classified into small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several gene mutations that contribute to aberrant cell proliferation have been identified in lung adenocarcinoma, a part of NSCLC. Various anticancer drugs that target these mutated molecules have been developed for NSCLC treatment. However, although molecularly targeted drugs are initially effective for patients, the 5-year survival rate remains low because of tumor relapse. Therefore, more effective drugs for lung cancer treatment should be developed. The hedgehog (HH) signaling pathway contributes to organ development and stem cell maintenance, and aberrant activation of this signaling pathway is observed in various cancers including lung cancer. In lung cancer, HH signaling pathway upregulates cancer cell proliferation and maintains cancer stem cells as well as cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs). Furthermore, physical contact between CAFs and NSCLC cells induces HH signaling pathway activation in NSCLC cells to enhance their metastatic potential. Therefore, HH signaling pathway inhibitors could be a useful option for lung cancer therapy.

1. Introduction

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Lung cancer is classified into two major types: small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Figure 1). SCLC arises in the midlevel airway and is a very aggressive, highly metastasizing and lethal cancer type that comprises 15% of all lung cancers. NSCLC is the major type of lung cancer and comprises 85% of all lung cancers. NSCLC includes lung adenocarcinoma, lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC), and lung large cell carcinoma. Adenocarcinoma arises in the distal airway and its incidence is not related to smoking. LSCC arises in the proximal airway and is more aggressively and strongly associated with smoking than adenocarcinoma. Large cell carcinoma arises in the distal airway and the cancer cell mass is larger than the other two types of NSCLC. Large cell carcinoma is also an aggressive tumor [2]. Despite our current understanding of lung cancer, the precise molecular mechanisms underlying tumorigenesis in the lung have still not been completely determined.

Figure 1: Lung cancer. Lung cancer is mainly classified into small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is further classified into adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large cell carcinoma. Adenocarcinoma is the most common lung cancer and arises in the distal airway. Squamous cell carcinoma and SCLC arise in the proximal airway. Large cell carcinoma also arises in the distal airway.

Several signaling pathways are aberrantly activated in lung cancer cells. Key oncogenic mutations, so-called driver mutations, in components of these signaling pathways have been identified in lung adenocarcinoma. These include epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog GTPase (KRAS), a member of the rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (RAF) family, B-RAF (BRAF), and the fusion oncogene echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase (EML4-ALK) [3, 4]. Furthermore, gene amplifications of avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2 (ERBB2), MET, ROS1, Neuregulin 1 (NRG1), neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor 1 (NTRK1), and RET have also been found in lung adenocarcinoma [58]. In LSCC, discoidin domain-containing receptor 2 (DDR2), fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1), FGFR2, and FGFR3 and genes in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway seem to be more commonly mutated [9]. These gene mutations and gene amplifications induce activation of signaling pathways related to cell proliferation, such as the Ras-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway and the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) pathway. NSCLCs harboring EGFR mutations or ALK gene rearrangements have been successfully targeted with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) [10, 11]. However, these TKIs have not yet been shown to improve the overall survival in patients because of tumor recurrence [12]. Moreover, there are no effective drugs for SCLC, LSCC, and large cell carcinoma. Therefore, the 5-year survival rate of lung cancer is only 16% at present [1].

A number of morphogenic signaling pathways that regulate developmental processes and organ homeostasis play critical roles in lung tumorigenesis. Studies of cancer stem cells (CSCs) support the idea that tumors harbor hallmarks of early development in their gene expression repertoire [13]. Recently, remarkable findings from an early stage clinical trial of an inhibitor for the hedgehog (HH) signaling pathway have renewed hope that disruption of developmental signaling in tumors can be of therapeutic benefit [14, 15]. HH pathway inhibitors block both intrinsic signaling in cancer cells and extrinsic signaling to stromal cells to reduce tumor growth [16]. These two strategies exploit distinct oncogenic functions of the pathway. As the HH signaling pathway is activated in SCLC as well as NSCLC, HH pathway inhibitors are expected to become a useful tool for treatment of lung cancer.

In this review, we discuss the roles of the HH signaling pathway in tumor development in SCLC and NSCLC and components of the HH signaling pathway that represent viable lung cancer therapy targets.

2. The HH Signaling Pathway

The HH signaling pathway regulates morphogenesis of various organs during embryogenesis [17]. The HH signaling pathway also regulates stem cell renewal and organ homeostasis in the adult [18]. The molecular mechanisms of the HH pathway are complex, and several comprehensive reviews have been published describing the detailed mechanisms [1921]. In the canonical HH signaling pathway, three HH ligands have been identified: Sonic Hedgehog (SHH), Indian Hedgehog (IHH), and Desert Hedgehog (DHH). Each HH ligand has distinct spatial and temporal expression patterns and activates HH signaling by binding to Patched (PTCH), a 12-pass transmembrane-spanning receptor. In the absence of HH ligand, PTCH is localized to primary cilia and constitutively suppresses the activity of Smoothened (SMO), a 7-pass transmembrane-spanning protein, which is a member of the G-protein-coupled receptor superfamily [22] (Figure 2). In addition to PTCH, additional HH ligands binding cell surface proteins, such as CAM-related/downregulated by oncogenes (CDO), brother of Cdo (BOC), and growth-arrest-specific 1 (GAS1), have been identified, and these molecules function as HH ligand coreceptors to facilitate HH signal reception [23, 24]. Following binding of one of the three HH ligands to PTCH, SMO accumulates in the primary cilia and facilitates the activation of GLI transcriptional activators and their translocation into the nucleus to activate expression of HH target genes, including GLI1 and PTCH genes (Figure 2) [25, 26]. Suppressor of fused (SUFU) is a key negative regulator of the HH signaling pathway [27]. In the absence of HH ligands, SUFU inhibits HH signaling by sequestration of GLI proteins in the cytoplasm and by promoting the formation of the GLI3 repressor (GLI3R). A nuclear function for SUFU in chromatin has also been suggested.

Figure 2: HH signaling pathway during development. (a) In the absence of HH ligands, PTCH blocks ciliary localization of SMO and the GLI repressor form (mainly GLI3 repressor form [GLI3R]) suppresses induction of GLI target gene expression. (b) In the presence of HH ligands, the HH pathway is activated. Binding of HH ligand to PTCH prevents PTCH inhibition of SMO, and SMO is free to translocate into primary cilia and is fully activated. SMO then activates the GLI family, mainly GLI2. GLI2 upregulates expression of GLI1 as well as GLI target genes. GLI1 is also activated downstream of SMO. Activated GLI2 (GLI2A) and GLI1 further upregulate expression of various GLI target genes.

In vertebrates, the GLI family consists of three proteins, GLI1, GLI2, and GLI3 [21]. All GLI proteins contain an activator domain (GLI-A) at their C-terminus; GLI2 and GLI3 also have an N-terminal repressor domain (GLI-R) [28]. Studies in mutant mice suggest that GLI2 is the major activator of HH signaling pathway [29], whereas GLI3 is the major repressor [30, 31]. GLI1 most likely serves as a signal amplifier downstream of GLI2 [29, 32]. Gli2 knockout (KO) mice die at birth, whereas Gli1 KO mice show normal development, unless one copy of Gli2 is also defective [33]. Interestingly, experiments in mutant mice further suggest that GLI2 can rescue GLI1 protein function, whereas Gli1 knock-in into the Gli2 allele can rescue the Gli2 null phenotype [34]. Upon binding of the HH ligand to the receptor PTCH, followed by SMO activation, SUFU-GLI2 and SUFU-GLI3 complexes dissociate and GLI2 and GLI3 translocate into the nucleus, where they activate expression of HH target genes, including GLI1 and PTCH [35]. The balance between the activating and repressive forms of the GLI family transcription factors results in the expression of target genes [21].

The HH signaling pathway has critical roles during embryonic lung development as well as postnatal lung development [36]. During embryonic lung development, HH signaling pathway molecules dramatically change expression patterns and expression levels. The SHH expression pattern from embryonic day (E) 10 to 16.5 is important for branching and growing bronchi [37]. After E16.5, SHH expression is restricted to a subset of the epithelial cells [37]. PTCH expression pattern in growing bronchi mirrors the expression pattern of SHH [38]. PTCH is also expressed in mesenchyme around E11.5 [39]. Smo is reportedly expressed in epithelium and mesenchyme between E12.5 and E16.5 (pseudoglandular stage) [40]. GLI1, GLI2, and GLI3 are expressed in the mesenchyme during the pseudoglandular stage, and their levels decrease near birth [41]. Although SHH and PTCH expression levels are decreased at birth, they are still observed in epithelial cells [38]. Reduction of the HH signaling pathway in the postnatal lung induces abnormal lung maturation. Therefore, the HH signaling pathway is also involved in postnatal lung maturation [42, 43]. In the healthy adult lung, HH signaling maintains adult lung quiescence and regulates repair [44]. However, it is still currently unclear how HH signaling can promote quiescence on the one hand and tumorigenesis on the other.

Constitutive activation of HH signaling has been observed in many cancers (e.g., skin, lung, stomach, and colon) [45] and promotes cancer cell proliferation, metastasis, and CSC maintenance. Multiple mechanisms of HH signaling pathway activation in cancer have been proposed. Somatic mutations in HH pathway components and overproduction of HH ligands cause aberrant HH signaling pathway activation. Somatic mutations of PTCH1 and SMO were identified in patients with basal cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma [4649]. Other mutations in genes encoding HH pathway components have been reported, including SUFU in medulloblastoma [50] and GLI1 and GLI3 in pancreatic adenocarcinoma [51]. Moreover, GLI1 amplification was observed in glioblastoma [52]. HH ligand overproduction was observed in upper gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, colon, and metastatic prostate cancers, as well as SCLC, glioblastomas, and melanomas [5358]. Overproduction of HH ligands constitutively activates the HH pathway in HH ligand-producing cancer cells by autocrine signaling [53, 54] and in stroma cells such as cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) surrounding HH ligand-producing cancer cells by paracrine signaling [16, 59] (Figure 3). In addition, noncanonical HH signaling has been defined as ligand-dependent activation of SMO but independent of GLI activation [60] or as GLI activation independent of SMO. The noncanonical GLI activation pathway includes transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) [61], EGFR [62], Ras-Erk [63, 64], and PI3K-Akt-mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) [65] signaling pathways.

Figure 3: Modes of HH-GLI signaling pathway activation in cancer. (a) HH ligands constitutively activate the HH pathway in HH ligand-producing cancer cells by autocrine signaling. Cancer cells produce HH ligand, and secreted HH ligands activate the HH signaling pathway in these cancer cells. (b) Cancer cell-mediated production of HH ligands also activates the HH pathway in stroma cells (e.g., CAFs) to maintain cancer cells by paracrine signaling. (c) GLI family transcription factors are activated in a SMO-independent manner, called the noncanonical pathway. (d) SMO can also activate other signaling molecules in cancer cells.

3. HH Signaling Pathway in SCLC

Although mutation or amplification of genes involved in the HH pathway has not been found in SCLC, the HH signaling pathway was activated in many SCLC cases [66]. Watkins et al. found HH pathway activation in neuroendocrine cells in later lung development (E16.5) and the airway epithelium during repair of acute airway injury [53]. Neuroendocrine cells are considered candidates for the origin of SCLC. HH pathway activation was also observed in SCLC tissue and this observation was confirmed by analysis of SCLC cell lines. Moreover, a SCLC cell xenograft model using nude mice demonstrated that the HH pathway was activated in SHH-producing SCLC cells but not in surrounding non-SHH-producing cancer cells, suggesting that HH pathway activation was an autocrine and/or juxtacrine loop in SCLC. Analysis using a SCLC model mouse also revealed that HH pathway activation initiated and progressed mouse SCLC independent of the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, suppression of SMO in a SCLC mouse model strongly suppressed initiation and progression of SCLC [67]. In addition, immunohistochemistry analysis revealed upregulation of HH pathway components in SCLC patients, suggesting that the HH signaling pathway is also activated in SCLC patients [68].

A recent study reported a novel crosstalk between the HH pathway and bombesin- (BBS-) like neuropeptide-mediated signaling in SCLC [69]. SCLC cells secrete BBS, which acts as an autocrine growth factor. Expression of both SHH and gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR), a BBS-cognate receptor, was observed in 56% of SCLC. Analysis of SCLC cell lines revealed that BBS signaling activates GLI1 activity and that BBS-mediated GLI1 activation is suppressed by cyclopamine, a SMO inhibitor. Furthermore, GLI1 activation was mediated by BBS signaling-nuclear factor-B- (NF-B-) mediated production of SHH ligand in SCLC cells.

4. HH Signaling Pathway in NSCLC

Various studies have also demonstrated that the HH pathway is activated in NSCLC. The expressions of GLI1 target genes, such as Forkhead Box M1 (FOXM1), B cell-specific Moloney murine leukemia virus integration site 1 (BMI1), and NANOG, were elevated in NSCLC patients [70, 71]. Another study showed that 40 S ribosomal protein S6 kinase 2 (p70S6K2) regulates GLI1 activity in NSCLC cells. siRNA-mediated p70S6K2 knockdown suppressed cell viability and GLI1 activity, and p70S6K2 knockdown promoted GLI1 degradation through inhibition of glycogen synthase kinase 3β- (GSK3β-) mediated GLI1 phosphorylation. However, a SMO inhibitor, 3-keto-N-aminoethylaminocaproyldihydrocinnamoyl- (KAAD-) cyclopamine [72], did not affect GLI1 activity, and PI3K inhibitor treatment suppressed GLI1 activity [73].

CAFs are widely defined as all fibroblast cells within the tumor stroma and key players in the process of tumorigenesis through modulation of tumor microenvironment, CSC maintenance, and regulation of tumor metabolism [74]. CAF proliferation is maintained by various factors such as growth factors (e.g., TGF-β and platelet-derived growth factor [PDGF]) and cytokines (e.g., interleukin 1 [IL-1] and IL-6) [75]. Bermudez et al. showed that NSCLC cells can secrete SHH ligand, and secreted SHH ligand activates the HH signaling pathway in CAFs. This pathway activation induces CAF proliferation [76]. Huang et al. showed that PTCH, SMO, and GLI2 expressions were upregulated in LSCC-derived cell lines. However, SMO inhibitor treatment or SMO knockdown demonstrated only a minor inhibitory effect on cell proliferation, whereas GLI2 suppression significantly suppressed cell proliferation and induced extensive apoptosis. Therefore, GLI transcriptional activity would be regulated by a noncanonical (SMO-independent) pathway [77]. These reports suggest that the HH pathway is activated by the paracrine mechanism and GLI activation in NSCLC cells is regulated by the noncanonical (SMO-independent) pathway.

On the other hand, several studies have reported that HH signaling is activated by the autocrine pathway in NSCLC cells. The aggressiveness of NSCLC has been shown to be associated with the acquisition of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [78]. A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells that obtain mesenchymal phenotype (A549-M cells) show upregulated SHH ligand and GLI1 expression compared with A549 cells. In A549-M cells, the HH pathway was activated by autocrine signaling, and suppression of the HH pathway contributed to suppression of TGF-β signaling-induced cancer cell migration and metastatic characteristics [79].

CAFs can secrete various growth factors and cytokines. Secreted proteins induce extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling. Furthermore, CAFs interacts with cancer cells and CAF-secreted proteins activate various signaling pathway by paracrine signaling. ECM remodeling and CAFs-mediated paracrine signaling pathway activation could induce metastatic properties of cancer cells [75]. Choe et al. [80] showed that EMT-related gene expression and the HH signaling pathway was upregulated in adenocarcinoma cells by means of direct coculture of NSCLC cells and lung CAFs. The authors proposed that metastatic properties might be acquired by direct interaction of adenocarcinoma cells and CAFs and CAF-mediated paracrine HH signaling pathway activation in adenocarcinoma cells.

CSCs exhibit a self-renewing capacity and are responsible for tumor maintenance and relapse [81]. CSC maintenance in adenocarcinoma and LSCC are regulated by the autocrine HH signaling pathway. Several molecules and enzymatic activities such as CD44, CD133, and high aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity have been identified as CSC markers of NSCLC [8285]. The HH signaling pathway was activated in cancer cells harboring CSC properties [86]. Furthermore, CD133+ NSCLC cells also exhibit CSC properties and secrete SHH ligand, and HH pathway inhibition in CD133+ cells attenuated sphere formation, suggesting that the autocrine HH pathway is involved in CD133+ CSC maintenance [87]. Although CD133+ SCLC cells are identified as a CSC phenotype [88], there is no evidence that the HH pathway is involved in SCLC stem cell maintenance. Moreover, a previous report showed that GLI1 upregulated expression of the embryonic stem cell transcription factor SRY- (sex determining region Y-) box 2 (SOX2) by cooperation with EGF signaling in lung adenocarcinoma-derived cell lines [89]. As described above, the interaction of CAFs and NSCLC cells induces metastatic properties of NSCLC cells via CAF-mediated HH signaling pathway activation in NSCLC cells. Chen et al. showed that an interaction of CAFs and NSCLC cells and CAF-mediated HH signaling pathway activation in NSCLC cells are also involved in CSC maintenance [90]. We independently observed that GLI1 inhibition but not SMO inhibition attenuated sphere formation, suggesting that GLI1 activity was regulated by other signaling pathways for NSCLC stem cell maintenance (unpublished data).

SOX2 expression is upregulated in LSCC [91], and therefore SOX2 is used as one of the tumor markers for LSCC. Although SOX2 has critical roles in CSC maintenance, the precise mechanism of SOX2-mediated CSC maintenance is largely unknown. Justilien et al. reported that the SOX2-HH pathway has important roles for CSC maintenance in LSCC. Protein kinase C iota (PRKCI) phosphorylated Ser394 in SOX2, resulting in upregulated expression of hedgehog acyltransferase (HHAT). The SHH ligand is changed to its active form by HHAT, resulting in HH signaling pathway activation. The PRKCI-SOX2-HH signaling pathway plays important roles in CSC maintenance [92].

As described above, SMO inhibitor treatment suppressed EMT properties through remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton and motility of NSCLC cells [79]. Although SMO inhibition downregulated EMT-associated gene expression, expressions of GLI1 target genes were not affected [93]. These results suggest that SMO might activate other signaling molecules as well as GLI transcription factors in NSCLC cells harboring mesenchymal properties.

Many studies on the roles of the HH signaling pathway in NSCLC suggested that GLI1 and GLI2 play central roles in tumor progression, tumor metastasis, and CSC maintenance. The mechanisms of GLI activation are diverse in cancer cell types and the tumor microenvironment surrounding cancer cells, since GLI is activated by various pathways including the autocrine and paracrine HH pathways as well as canonical and noncanonical GLI activation pathway.

5. HH Signaling Pathway-Targeted Cancer Therapy in Lung Cancer

Previous studies have revealed that subsets of lung cancer patients harbor mutations in the key oncogenic drivers upon which tumor survival and progression are dependent. These include mutations in EGFR and the EML4-ALK fusion protein [3]. Therefore, various TKIs targeting EGFR and EML4-ALK have been developed. However, the clinical efficacy of TKIs differs among patients, and acquired resistance for chronic treatment often develops in most patients who are treated with TKIs [5, 94, 95]. Furthermore, there are no effective anticancer drugs for SCLC, LSCC, and large cell carcinoma.

Previous studies reported that tumor volume and tumor recurrence were suppressed by HH pathway inhibitor treatment or combination treatment of HH pathway inhibitors and other types of chemotherapeutic agents such as TKIs and platinum-containing drugs. Park et al. [67] demonstrated that combination treatment of etoposide and a SMO inhibitor (LDE225: Sonidegib) [96] attenuated tumor recurrence of SCLC using a mouse xenograft model. Moreover, LDE225 treatment attenuated the TKI-resistant NSCLC cell line HCC827-GR (gefitinib resistant) derived tumor growth. In addition, cotreatment of SMO inhibitor and MET inhibitor to HCC827-GR xenografted tumors further suppressed tumor volume, since constitutive MET activation was observed in HCC827-GR cells [97]. Moreover, RNAi-mediated GLI1 knockdown suppressed tumor formation and tumor sphere formation. Several SMO inhibitors and GLI inhibitors have been developed [14]. GDC-0449 (Vismodegib) [98] is approved for basal cell carcinoma therapy, and several SMO inhibitors including GDC-0449 are used in clinical investigations for SCLC. GLI inhibitors such as GLI-antagonist- (GANT-) 58, GANT-61, HH pathway inhibitor- (HPI-) 1, Genistein, and Glabrescione B (GlaB) have also been developed [43, 99101]. In addition, arsenic trioxide (ATO), which suppresses GLI1 transcriptional activity [102, 103], is used in clinical investigations as a GLI inhibitor (Table 1) [14]. However, other GLI inhibitors have not yet progressed to clinical trials. Since the HH pathway and GLI activity have important roles in lung cancer formation and lung CSC maintenance, these chemical compounds may be useful for lung cancer therapy.

Table 1: The HH signaling pathway inhibitors.

6. Conclusion

We have discussed the relationship between the HH signaling pathway and lung cancer and the mechanism of HH signaling pathway activation in lung cancer. As summarized in Figure 4, the GLI activation machinery and the role of the HH pathway in lung cancer are different in NSCLC and SCLC as well as among the types of NSCLC. Furthermore, the HH signaling pathway is involved in the interaction of cancer cells and CAFs for tumor maintenance. Various SMO inhibitors are used in clinical investigations for lung cancer. Results from in vitro and in vivo experiments have demonstrated that SMO inhibitor treatment is effective for lung tumor suppression. In fact, SMO inhibitors are used in clinical trials for SCLC. The HH signaling pathway is involved in CSC maintenance, tumor progression, and metastasis in NSCLC. Therefore, SMO inhibitors may be a better option for lung cancer therapy in the future. However, previous studies suggest that GLI transcription factors are activated by various mechanisms, including the SMO-independent pathway. In particular, dysregulated SMO-independent GLI activation pathway may cause SMO inhibitor resistance. Several GLI inhibitors have also been recently developed. Therefore, a HH-pathway-activated lung cancer therapy using GLI inhibitors would be an effective option. To develop the most effective HH pathway inhibitor for treatment of lung cancer, the current challenge is not only to accelerate HH inhibitor development but also to more deeply understand the regulatory mechanism of GLI-mediated transcription.

Figure 4: The role of the HH signaling pathway in lung cancer. (a) The HH signaling pathway in SCLC. The autocrine HH signaling pathway promotes cancer cell proliferation. (b) The HH signaling pathway in adenocarcinoma. The noncanonical GLI activation pathway would maintain cancer cell proliferation. CAF maintenance would be regulated by paracrine HH signaling pathway activation. CAF-secreted HH ligands would activate the HH signaling pathway in cancer cells and CSCs. CAFs-mediated paracrine HH pathway activation in cancer cells has important roles in acquisition of metastatic properties. Moreover, CAF-mediated HH signaling pathway activation might be involved in CSC maintenance. Cancer cells harboring metastatic properties and CSCs would be also maintained by autocrine HH signaling pathway activation. In addition, SMO might activate other signaling molecules in cancer cells harboring metastatic properties. (c) The HH signaling pathway in LSCC. Cancer cells would be maintained by the noncanonical GLI2 activation pathway. PRKCI-SOX2-HH signaling pathway has important roles in CSC maintenance.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to review.

Authors’ Contributions

Yoshinori Abe and Nobuyuki Tanaka contributed equally to this work.

References

  1. R. Siegel, D. Naishadham, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2013,” CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 11–30, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. M. R. Davidson, A. F. Gazdar, and B. E. Clarke, “The pivotal role of pathology in the management of lung cancer,” Journal of Thoracic Disease, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. S463–S478, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. C. J. Langer, B. Besse, A. Gualberto, E. Brambilla, and J.-C. Soria, “The evolving role of histology in the management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 36, pp. 5311–5320, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. Soda, Y. L. Choi, M. Enomoto et al., “Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer,” Nature, vol. 448, no. 7153, pp. 561–566, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. A. Engelman, K. Zejnullahu, T. Mitsudomi et al., “MET amplification leads to gefitinib resistance in lung cancer by activating ERBB3 signaling,” Science, vol. 316, no. 5827, pp. 1039–1043, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. K. Rikova, A. Guo, Q. Zeng et al., “Global survey of phosphotyrosine signaling identifies oncogenic kinases in lung cancer,” Cell, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 1190–1203, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. P. Stephens, C. Hunter, G. Bignell et al., “Lung cancer: intragenic ERBB2 kinase mutations in tumours,” Nature, vol. 431, no. 7008, pp. 525–526, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. A. Vaishnavi, M. Capelletti, A. T. Le et al., “Oncogenic and drug-sensitive NTRK1 rearrangements in lung cancer,” Nature Medicine, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1469–1472, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. T. C. G. A. R. Network, “Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers,” Nature, vol. 489, no. 7417, pp. 519–525, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. B. Hallberg and R. H. Palmer, “Mechanistic insight into ALK receptor tyrosine kinase in human cancer biology,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 685–700, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. W. Pao and J. Chmielecki, “Rational, biologically based treatment of EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 760–774, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. N. Spaans and G. D. Goss, “Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in early-stage nonsmall cell lung cancer,” Current Opinion in Oncology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 102–107, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. L. Strizzi, K. M. Hardy, E. A. Seftor et al., “Development and cancer: at the crossroads of Nodal and Notch signaling,” Cancer Research, vol. 69, no. 18, pp. 7131–7134, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. T. K. Rimkus, R. L. Carpenter, S. Qasem, M. Chan, and H.-W. Lo, “Targeting the sonic hedgehog signaling pathway: review of smoothened and GLI inhibitors,” Cancers, vol. 8, no. 2, article 22, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. A. Merchant and W. Matsui, “Targeting Hedgehog—a cancer stem cell pathway,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 3130–3140, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. R. L. Yauch, S. E. Gould, S. J. Scales et al., “A paracrine requirement for hedgehog signalling in cancer,” Nature, vol. 455, no. 7211, pp. 406–410, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. P. W. Ingham and A. P. McMahon, “Hedgehog signaling in animal development: paradigms and principles,” Genes & Development, vol. 15, no. 23, pp. 3059–3087, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. P. A. Beachy, S. S. Karhadkar, and D. M. Berman, “Tissue repair and stem cell renewal in carcinogenesis,” Nature, vol. 432, no. 7015, pp. 324–331, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. J. M. Y. Ng and T. Curran, “The Hedgehog's tale: developing strategies for targeting cancer,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 493–501, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. J. Brechbiel, K. Miller-Moslin, and A. A. Adjei, “Crosstalk between hedgehog and other signaling pathways as a basis for combination therapies in cancer,” Cancer Treatment Reviews, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 750–759, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. F. Aberger and A. Ruiz i Altaba, “Context-dependent signal integration by the GLI code: the oncogenic load, pathways, modifiers and implications for cancer therapy,” Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, vol. 33, pp. 93–104, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. R. Rohatgi, L. Milenkovic, and M. P. Scott, “Patched1 regulates hedgehog signaling at the primary cilium,” Science, vol. 317, no. 5836, pp. 372–376, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. B. L. Allen, T. Tenzen, and A. P. McMahon, “The Hedgehog-binding proteins Gas1 and Cdo cooperate to positively regulate Shh signaling during mouse development,” Genes and Development, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1244–1257, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. A. Okada, F. Charron, S. Morin et al., “Boc is a receptor for sonic hedgehog in the guidance of commissural axons,” Nature, vol. 444, no. 7117, pp. 369–373, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. K. C. Corbit, P. Aanstad, V. Singla, A. R. Norman, D. Y. R. Stainier, and J. F. Reiter, “Vertebrate Smoothened functions at the primary cilium,” Nature, vol. 437, no. 7061, pp. 1018–1021, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. C. J. Haycraft, B. Banizs, Y. Aydin-Son, Q. Zhang, E. J. Michaud, and B. K. Yoder, “Gli2 and Gli3 localize to cilia and require the intraflagellar transport protein polaris for processing and function,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 1, no. 4, article no. e53, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. Y. Lee, R. Kawagoe, K. Sasai et al., “Loss of suppressor-of-fused function promotes tumorigenesis,” Oncogene, vol. 26, no. 44, pp. 6442–6447, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. H. Sasaki, Y. Nishizaki, C.-C. Hui, M. Nakafuku, and H. Kondoh, “Regulation of Gli2 and Gli3 activities by an amino-terminal repression domain: implication of Gli2 and Gli3 as primary mediators of Shh signaling,” Development, vol. 126, no. 17, pp. 3915–3924, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. C. B. Bai, W. Auerbach, J. S. Lee, D. Stephen, and A. L. Joyner, “Gli2, but not Gli1, is required for initial Shh signaling and ectopic activation of the Shh pathway,” Development, vol. 129, no. 20, pp. 4753–4761, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. H. Masuya, T. Sagai, K. Moriwaki, and T. Shiroishi, “Multigenic control of the localization of the zone of polarizing activity in limb morphogenesis in the mouse,” Developmental Biology, vol. 182, no. 1, pp. 42–51, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. D. Büscher, B. Bosse, J. Heymer, and U. Rüther, “Evidence for genetic control of Sonic hedgehog by Gli3 in mouse limb development,” Mechanisms of Development, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 175–182, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. Q. Ding, J. Motoyama, S. Gasca et al., “Diminished Sonic hedgehog signaling and lack of floor plate differentiation in Gli2 mutant mice,” Development, vol. 125, no. 14, pp. 2533–2543, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. H. L. Park, C. Bai, K. A. Platt et al., “Mouse Gli1 mutants are viable but have defects in SHH signaling in combination with a Gli2 mutation,” Development, vol. 127, no. 8, pp. 1593–1605, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. C. B. Bai and A. L. Joyner, “Gli1 can rescue the in vivo function of Gli2,” Development, vol. 128, no. 24, pp. 5161–5172, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. H. Tukachinsky, L. V. Lopez, and A. Salic, “A mechanism for vertebrate Hedgehog signaling: recruitment to cilia and dissociation of SuFu-Gli protein complexes,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 191, no. 2, pp. 415–428, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. M. C. Kugler, A. L. Joyner, C. A. Loomis, and J. S. Munger, “Sonic hedgehog signaling in the lung: from development to disease,” American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. L.-A. D. Miller, S. E. Wert, and J. A. Whitsett, “Immunolocalization of sonic hedgehog (Shh) in developing mouse lung,” Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1593–1603, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. S. Bellusci, Y. Furuta, M. G. Rush, R. Henderson, G. Winnier, and B. L. M. Hogan, “Involvement of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) in mouse embryonic lung growth and morphogenesis,” Development, vol. 124, no. 1, pp. 53–63, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. M. Weaver, L. Batts, and B. L. M. Hogan, “Tissue interactions pattern the mesenchyme of the embryonic mouse lung,” Developmental Biology, vol. 258, no. 1, pp. 169–184, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. M. Zhang, H. Wang, H. Teng, J. Shi, and Y. Zhang, “Expression of SHH signaling pathway components in the developing human lung,” Histochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 134, no. 4, pp. 327–335, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. J. C. Grindley, S. Bellusci, D. Perkins, and B. L. M. Hogan, “Evidence for the involvement of the Gli gene family in embryonic mouse lung development,” Developmental Biology, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 337–348, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. L. Liu, M. C. Kugler, C. A. Loomis et al., “Hedgehog signaling in neonatal and adult lung,” American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 703–710, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. J. M. Hyman, A. J. Firestone, V. M. Heine et al., “Small-molecule inhibitors reveal multiple strategies for Hedgehog pathway blockade,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 33, pp. 14132–14137, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. T. Peng, D. B. Frank, R. S. Kadzik et al., “Hedgehog actively maintains adult lung quiescence and regulates repair and regeneration,” Nature, vol. 526, no. 7574, pp. 578–582, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. L. L. Rubin and F. J. de Sauvage, “Targeting the Hedgehog pathway in cancer,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 1026–1033, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. C. Raffel, R. B. Jenkins, L. Frederick et al., “Sporadic medulloblastomas contain PTCH mutations,” Cancer Research, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 842–845, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. Wolter, J. Reifenberger, C. Sommer, T. Ruzicka, and G. Reifenberger, “Mutations in the human homologue of the Drosophila segment polarity gene patched (PTCH) in sporadic basal cell carcinomas of the skin and primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the central nervous system,” Cancer Research, vol. 57, no. 13, pp. 2581–2585, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. J. Reifenberger, M. Wolter, R. G. Weber et al., “Missense mutations in SMOH in sporadic basal cell carcinomas of the skin and primitive neuroectodermal tumors of the central nervous system,” Cancer Research, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 1798–1803, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. J. Xie, M. Murone, S.-M. Luoh et al., “Activating Smoothened mutations in sporadic basal-cell carcinoma,” Nature, vol. 391, no. 6662, pp. 90–92, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. M. D. Taylor, L. Liu, C. Raffel et al., “Mutations in SUFU predispose to medulloblastoma,” Nature Genetics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 306–310, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. S. Jones, X. Zhang, D. W. Parsons et al., “Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses,” Science, vol. 321, no. 5897, pp. 1801–1806, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. A. J. Wong, S. H. Bigner, D. D. Bigner, K. W. Kinzler, S. R. Hamilton, and B. Vogelstein, “Increased expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in malignant gliomas is invariably associated with gene amplification,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 84, no. 19, pp. 6899–6903, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. D. N. Watkins, D. M. Berman, S. G. Burkholder, B. Wang, P. A. Beachy, and S. B. Baylin, “Hedgehog signalling within airway epithelial progenitors and in small-cell lung cancer,” Nature, vol. 422, no. 6929, pp. 313–317, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. D. M. Berman, S. S. Karhadkar, A. Maitra et al., “Widespread requirement for Hedgehog ligand stimulation in growth of digestive tract tumours,” Nature, vol. 425, no. 6960, pp. 846–851, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. F. Varnat, A. Duquet, M. Malerba 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 Molecular Medicine, vol. 1, no. 6-7, pp. 338–351, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. S. S. Karhadkar, G. S. Bova, N. Abdallah et al., “Hedgehog signalling in prostate regeneration, neoplasia and metastasis,” Nature, vol. 431, no. 7009, pp. 707–712, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. E. E. Bar, A. Chaudhry, A. Lin et al., “Cyclopamine-mediated Hedgehog pathway inhibition depletes stem-like cancer cells in glioblastoma,” STEM CELLS, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2524–2533, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. B. Stecca, C. Mas, V. Clement et al., “Melanomas require HEDGEHOG-GLI signaling regulated by interactions between GLI1 and the RAS-MEK/AKT pathways,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 14, pp. 5895–5900, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. J.-W. Theunissen and F. J. De Sauvage, “Paracrine hedgehog signaling in cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 69, no. 15, pp. 6007–6010, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. D. Jenkins, “Hedgehog signalling: emerging evidence for non-canonical pathways,” Cellular Signalling, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1023–1034, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. D. Javelaud, M.-J. Pierrat, and A. Mauviel, “Crosstalk between TGF-β and hedgehog signaling in cancer,” FEBS Letters, vol. 586, no. 14, pp. 2016–2025, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. M. Eberl, S. Klingler, D. Mangelberger et al., “Hedgehog-EGFR cooperation response genes determine the oncogenic phenotype of basal cell carcinoma and tumour-initiating pancreatic cancer cells,” EMBO Molecular Medicine, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 218–233, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. O. Nolan-Stevaux, J. Lau, M. L. Truitt et al., “GLI1 is regulated through Smoothened-independent mechanisms in neoplastic pancreatic ducts and mediates PDAC cell survival and transformation,” Genes & Development, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 24–36, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. T. Mazumdar, J. DeVecchio, A. Agyeman, T. Shi, and J. A. Houghton, “The GLI genes as the molecular switch in disrupting Hedgehog signaling in colon cancer,” Oncotarget, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 638–645, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. Y. Wang, Q. Ding, C.-J. Yen et al., “The crosstalk of mTOR/S6K1 and Hedgehog pathways,” Cancer Cell, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 374–387, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. J. Voortman, J.-H. Lee, J. K. Killian et al., “Array comparative genomic hybridization-based characterization of genetic alterations in pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 29, pp. 13040–13045, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. K.-S. Park, L. G. Martelotto, M. Peifer et al., “A crucial requirement for Hedgehog signaling in small cell lung cancer,” Nature Medicine, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1504–1508, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. J. Vestergaard, M. W. Pedersen, N. Pedersen et al., “Hedgehog signaling in small-cell lung cancer: frequent in vivo but a rare event in vitro,” Lung Cancer, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 281–290, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. M. D. Castellone, M. O. Laukkanen, H. Teramoto et al., “Cross talk between the bombesin neuropeptide receptor and Sonic hedgehog pathways in small cell lung carcinoma,” Oncogene, vol. 34, no. 13, pp. 1679–1687, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. I. P. Gialmanidis, V. Bravou, I. Petrou et al., “Expression of bmi1, FoxF1, nanog, and γ-catenin in relation to hedgehog signaling pathway in human non-small-cell lung cancer,” Lung, vol. 191, no. 5, pp. 511–521, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. I. P. Gialmanidis, V. Bravou, S. G. Amanetopoulou, J. Varakis, H. Kourea, and H. Papadaki, “Overexpression of hedgehog pathway molecules and FOXM1 in non-small cell lung carcinomas,” Lung Cancer, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64–74, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. J. Talpale, J. K. Chen, M. K. Cooper et al., “Effects of oncogenic mutations in Smoothened and Patched can be reversed by cyclopamine,” Nature, vol. 406, no. 6799, pp. 1005–1009, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. S. Mizuarai, A. Kawagishi, and H. Kotani, “Inhibition of p70S6K2 down-regulates Hedgehog/GLI pathway in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 8, article no. 44, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. D. Hanahan and R. A. Weinberg, “Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation,” Cell, vol. 144, no. 5, pp. 646–674, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. D. Öhlund, E. Elyada, and D. Tuveson, “Fibroblast heterogeneity in the cancer wound,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 211, no. 8, pp. 1503–1523, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. O. Bermudez, E. Hennen, I. Koch, M. Lindner, and O. Eickelberg, “Gli1 mediates lung cancer cell proliferation and sonic hedgehog-dependent mesenchymal cell activation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 5, Article ID e63226, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. L. Huang, V. Walter, D. N. Hayes, and M. Onaitis, “Hedgehog-GLI signaling inhibition suppresses tumor growth in squamous lung cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1566–1575, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. S. Thomson, E. Buck, F. Petti et al., “Epithelial to mesenchymal transition is a determinant of sensitivity of non-small-cell lung carcinoma cell lines and xenografts to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition,” Cancer Research, vol. 65, no. 20, pp. 9455–9462, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. M. Y. Maitah, S. Ali, A. Ahmad, S. Gadgeel, and F. H. Sarkar, “Up-regulation of sonic hedgehog contributes to TGF-β1-induced epithelial to mesenchymal transition in NSCLC cells,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 1, Article ID e16068, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. C. Choe, Y.-S. Shin, S.-H. Kim et al., “Tumor-stromal interactions with direct cell contacts enhance motility of non-small cell lung cancer cells through the hedgehog signaling pathway,” Anticancer Research, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 3715–3724, 2013. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. P. Valent, D. Bonnet, R. De Maria et al., “Cancer stem cell definitions and terminology: the devil is in the details,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 767–775, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. Y.-C. Chen, H.-S. Hsu, Y.-W. Chen et al., “Oct-4 expression maintained cancer stem-like properties in lung cancer-derived CD133-positive cells,” PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 7, Article ID e2637, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. V. Tirino, R. Camerlingo, R. Franco et al., “The role of CD133 in the identification and characterisation of tumour-initiating cells in non-small-cell lung cancer,” European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 446–453, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. E. L.-H. Leung, R. R. Fiscus, J. W. Tung et al., “Non-small cell lung cancer cells expressing CD44 are enriched for stem cell-like properties,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 11, Article ID e14062, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. M. Alamgeer, C. D. Peacock, W. Matsui, V. Ganju, and D. N. Watkins, “Cancer stem cells in lung cancer: evidence and controversies,” Respirology, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 757–764, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. J. Liu, Z. Xiao, S. K.-M. Wong et al., “Lung cancer tumorigenicity and drug resistance are maintained through ALDH(hi)CD44(hi) tumor initiating cells,” Oncotarget, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1698–1711, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. S. O. Lee, X. Yang, S. Duan et al., “IL-6 promotes growth and epithelial-mesenchymal transition of CD133+ cells of non-small cell lung cancer,” Oncotarget, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 6626–6638, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. S. Sarvi, A. C. Mackinnon, N. Avlonitis et al., “CD133+ cancer stem-like cells in small cell lung cancer are highly tumorigenic and chemoresistant but sensitive to a novel neuropeptide antagonist,” Cancer Research, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 1554–1565, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. N. Bora-Singhal, D. Perumal, J. Nguyen, and S. Chellappan, “Gli1-mediated regulation of Sox2 facilitates self-renewal of stem-like cells and confers resistance to EGFR inhibitors in non–small cell lung cancer,” Neoplasia, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 538–551, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  90. W.-J. Chen, C.-C. Ho, Y.-L. Chang et al., “Cancer-associated fibroblasts regulate the plasticity of lung cancer stemness via paracrine signalling,” Nature Communications, vol. 5, article 3472, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  91. P. Yuan, H. Kadara, C. Behrens et al., “Sex determining region Y-box 2 (SOX2) is a potential cell-lineage gene highly expressed in the pathogenesis of squamous cell carcinomas of the lung,” PLoS ONE, vol. 5, no. 2, Article ID e9112, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. V. Justilien, M. P. Walsh, S. A. Ali, E. A. Thompson, N. R. Murray, and A. P. Fields, “The PRKCI and SOX2 Oncogenes are coamplified and cooperate to activate hedgehog signaling in lung squamous cell carcinoma,” Cancer Cell, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 139–151, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. C. Choe, Y.-S. Shin, C. Kim et al., “Crosstalk with cancer-associated fibroblasts induces resistance of non-small cell lung cancer cells to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibition,” OncoTargets and Therapy, vol. 8, pp. 3665–3678, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. R. Katayama, A. T. Shaw, T. M. Khan et al., “Mechanisms of acquired crizotinib resistance in ALK-rearranged lung cancers,” Science translational medicine, vol. 4, no. 120, Article ID 120ra17, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. S. Kobayashi, T. J. Boggon, T. Dayaram et al., “EGFR mutation and resistance of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 352, no. 8, pp. 786–792, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. S. Pan, X. Wu, J. Jiang et al., “Discovery of NVP-LDE225, a potent and selective smoothened antagonist,” ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 130–134, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. C. M. Della Corte, C. Bellevicine, G. Vicidomini et al., “SMO gene amplification and activation of the hedgehog pathway as novel mechanisms of resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor drugs in human lung cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 21, no. 20, pp. 4686–4697, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. K. D. Robarge, S. A. Brunton, G. M. Castanedo et al., “GDC-0449-A potent inhibitor of the hedgehog pathway,” Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 19, no. 19, pp. 5576–5581, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. M. Lauth, Å. Bergström, T. Shimokawa, and R. Toftgård, “Inhibition of GLI-mediated transcription and tumor cell growth by small-molecule antagonists,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 20, pp. 8455–8460, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. P. Infante, M. Mori, R. Alfonsi et al., “Gli1/DNA interaction is a druggable target for Hedgehog-dependent tumors,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 200–217, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  101. L. Zhang, L. Li, M. Jiao et al., “Genistein inhibits the stemness properties of prostate cancer cells through targeting Hedgehog-Gli1 pathway,” Cancer Letters, vol. 323, no. 1, pp. 48–57, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. J. Kim, J. J. Lee, J. Kim, D. Gardner, and P. A. Beachy, “Arsenic antagonizes the Hedgehog pathway by preventing ciliary accumulation and reducing stability of the Gli2 transcriptional effector,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 30, pp. 13432–13437, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. K. Chang, M. Yang, J. Zheng et al., “Arsenic trioxide inhibits cancer stem-like cells via down-regulation of Gli1 in lung cancer,” American Journal of Translational Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1133–1143, 2016. View at Google Scholar