Next Article in Journal
AGE-RAGE Axis Involvement in Allergies and Autoimmunity: Cellular Signaling, Barrier Dysfunction and Immune Polarization
Previous Article in Journal
Suppressive Functions of Veratramine on PM2.5-Induced Oxidative Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomolecules
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/biom16020240
biomolecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Induced Tumor-Suppressing (iTS) Cell-Based Approach for Protecting the Bone from Advanced Prostate Cancer

by
Shengzhi Liu
1,2,*,
Di Wu
2,3,
Kazumasa Minami
4,
Jing Liu
5,
Sungsoo Na
2,
Uma K. Aryal
6,
Marxa L. Figueiredo
7,
Alexander G. Robling
8,9,
Bai-Yan Li
3 and
Hiroki Yokota
2,8,9,10,*
1
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100069, China
2
Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
3
Department of Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China
4
Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
5
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
6
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74075, USA
7
Interdisciplinary Biomedical Sciences Program, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
8
Department of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Physiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
9
Indiana Center for Musculoskeletal Health, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
10
Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomolecules 2026, 16(2), 240; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom16020240
Submission received: 12 December 2025 / Revised: 23 January 2026 / Accepted: 29 January 2026 / Published: 3 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Molecular Biology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Advanced prostate cancer frequently metastasizes to bone, but no effective therapy exists. To seek a novel treatment option and identify a new drug target, we took an induced tumor-suppressing (iTS) cell-based approach and produced tumor-suppressing proteins and conditioned medium (CM). Notably, the overexpression of Lrp5 and β-catenin, as well as the pharmacological Wnt activator, converted osteocytes, Murine mesenchymal stem cells, mononuclear cells, and monocytes into iTS cells. While Lrp5 conditional knockout mice presented severe bone loss, Lrp5-overexpressing osteocyte-derived CM rescued tumor-induced bone damage. Whole-genome proteomics analysis revealed that Moesin (MSN), which acted as an oncogene in tumor cells, was enriched in CM as an extracellular tumor-suppressing protein. Its anti-tumor action was mediated primarily by the interaction with CD44. Consistently, FRET live-cell imaging demonstrated that extracellular MSN reduced Src tyrosine kinase activity and nuclear localization of β-catenin. Collectively, we demonstrated herein the iTS cell-based approach to protect bone from prostate cancer and showed MSN as a potent extracellular tumor-suppressing protein.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, particularly those over the age of 50. The increased risk in this age group is associated with age-related hormonal changes, cumulative genetic mutations, and reduced immune surveillance [1,2]. Despite increased screening and a steady decline in mortality, it remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the US, with heart disease being the leading cause [3]. Bone provides a hospitable microenvironment, and advanced stages of the disease nearly always involve bone dissemination. Metastasized prostate cancer induces pain, pathological bone fractures, and spinal cord compression, significantly decreasing survival rates [4]. Treatment options include bisphosphonates to inhibit bone-resorbing osteoclasts, radiation therapy to alleviate pain and reduce tumor progression, and palliative surgery to stabilize collapsed bones [5]. Notably, metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy has shown promise in oligometastatic disease, offering a targeted approach to reduce tumor burden [6]. While these treatments can help reduce medical complications, an effective therapy that improves survival rates without inducing life-threatening side effects is still an unmet need.
Prostate and breast cancers preferentially metastasize to bone, but it is not well understood whether the same mechanism governs their seed-soil communications. Over 90% of prostate and breast cancers are adenocarcinomas, establishing a vicious cycle that exacerbates tumor-induced bone degradation [7]. A key distinction lies in the nature of bone lesions: most breast cancers induce osteolytic lesions, whereas prostate cancer is associated with osteoblastic lesions and reduced bone density [8,9]. Osteocytes orchestrate bone homeostasis, in which Wnt signaling is activated via Lrp5, a Wnt co-receptor [10], with β-catenin acting as a signal transducer. Wnt signaling is tightly associated with the progression of many types of cancer [11,12,13], but the role of Lrp5-mediated Wnt signaling in prostate cancer-associated bone destruction has not been fully elucidated.
In our previous cancer studies, we demonstrated that the overexpression of pro-tumorigenic genes can convert many types of tumor and non-tumor cells into induced tumor-suppressing (iTS) cells [14]. For example, the overexpression of Akt in PI3K signaling, Snail in the induction of EMT, and Lrp5 and β-catenin in Wnt signaling converted osteocytes and Murine mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) [15], as well as breast cancer cells, pancreatic cancer cells [16], and osteosarcoma cells [17], into iTS cells [15,18]. The whole-genome proteomics analysis and the subsequent cell culture assays identified the enrichment of unique tumor-suppressing proteins such as Hsp90ab1, Calreticulin, Enolase 1, Aldolase A, Histone H4, and polyubiquitin C [14,19,20]. The question herein was whether these iTS cell-derived tumor-suppressing proteins can effectively inhibit the progression of prostate cancer and its associated bone destruction.
Many lines of evidence indicate that iTS cells are competitive cells with a high level of survival fitness [21]. In Drosophila wing discs, iTS-like cells with a high rate of protein synthesis are reported to eliminate neighboring cells with a low rate of protein synthesis. Likewise, cells with higher Myc levels in mouse embryos eliminate those with lower Myc levels [22]. We have previously shown that the overexpression of c-Myc transformed MSCs into iTS cells [23]. These examples suggest the possibility of eliminating cancer cells with metabolically active iTS cells.
We examined the effects of iTS cell-derived CM on three processes: (a) bone degradation by prostate cancer cells, (b) bone resorption by osteoclasts, and (c) bone formation by osteoblasts. The goal herein was to inhibit tumor progression without blocking bone homeostasis by osteocytes, osteoclasts, and osteoblasts [24]. To cope with the potential differences in prostate and breast cancers, we employed both male and female mice as well as osteocyte-specific Lrp5 conditional knockout mice.
To determine the regulatory mechanism underlying the iTS cell-based approach, we conducted two sets of mass spectrometry-based proteomics analyses. We first identified a group of proteins that were enriched in Wnt-activated osteocyte-derived CM. Moesin (MSN) was identified as one of such tumor-suppressing protein candidates. MSN can regulate a variety of inflammation-related events to enhance immune lymphocyte infiltration [25]. Immuno-precipitation followed by in vitro assays, together with FRET (fluorescent resonance energy transfer)-based live-cell imaging, revealed that MSN interacted with CD44, a cell-adhesion molecule and cancer stem-cell marker. Although MSN is reported to be pro-tumorigenic in tumor cells [26], our findings demonstrate that it acted as an extracellular tumor-suppressing protein. A dichotomous role of MSN has already been reported [27], as other proteins such as high mobility group protein B1 are also reported to have both oncogenic and tumor-suppressing roles [28].
The generation of iTS cells can be achieved through the activation of proliferative signaling pathways such as PI3K and PKA [14], as well as biophysical stimulations like low-intensity vibration [29]. In this study, we highlight the dual role of Wnt signaling in both promoting the progression of prostate cancer and building the tumor-suppressive bone microenvironment via osteocytes. Additionally, we explore the potential of identifying druggable protein targets, such as CD44, which interacts with iTS cell-derived tumor-suppressing proteins.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cell Culture

TRAMP-C2ras prostate tumor cells (ATCC, CRL-2731) were cultured in DMEM/F-12 medium as described [30]. EO771 mouse mammary tumor cells (CH3 BioSystems, Amherst, NY, USA), 4T1.2 mouse mammary tumor cells (obtained from Dr. R. Anderson at Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Melbourne, Australia), MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA), and J774A.1 mouse monocytes were cultured in DMEM. MC3T3 osteoblast-like cells (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), MLO-A5 osteocytes (obtained from Dr. L. Bonewald at Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA), and RAW264.7 pre-osteoclast cells were grown in αMEM. PC-3 human prostate cancer cells (ATCC, CRL-1435), Jurkat T lymphocytes, and human monocytes were cultured in RPMI-1640 (Gibco, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Murine mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), isolated from the bone marrow of C57BL/6 mice (Envigo RMS, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA), were cultured in MesenCult medium (Stem Cell Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA). All culture media were supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and antibiotics (50 units/mL penicillin and 50 µg/mL streptomycin), and cells were maintained at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator. Recombinant TRAIL proteins (752904, BioLegend, San Diego, CA, USA) were administered to tumor cells.

2.2. Preparation of Conditioned Medium (CM)

CM for in vitro assays was prepared by centrifuging culture media at 2000 rpm for 10 min, and the cell-free supernate was further centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min, followed by filtration with a 0.22 µm polyethersulfone membrane (Sigma). CM for in vivo experiments was prepared in serum-free media. The centrifuged CM was cleaned by a filter with a cutoff molecular weight of 3 kDa and condensed in PBS 10-fold for intravenous injection from the tail vein.

2.3. Generating the CM from Human Peripheral Blood

The study to use human peripheral blood samples was approved by the ethics committee of Osaka University (protocol #21344, approval date 26 August 2022) and conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. All samples were collected with prospective informed consent from donors, and all participants were informed of the study purpose, procedures, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. From 5 healthy volunteers, 8 mL of peripheral blood was collected and diluted with an equal volume of 0.9% NaCl solution. Mononuclear cells were isolated using a lymphoprep kit (# 1114544, Abbott Diagnostics Technologies AS, Oslo, Norway). After centrifugation at 800× g for 30 min at room temperature, the mononuclear cell fractions were collected with a Pasteur pipette. The AlyS705 medium (Cell Science & Technology Institute, Inc., Tendō, Japan) was used to culture mononuclear cells in the presence of 0.2 µM BML284 for 1 day. The culture medium was then changed to a fresh medium, and cells were grown for 1 day. The supernatant was collected and subjected to sequential centrifugation steps (1000× g for 10 min, 14,000× g for 2 min, and 14,000× g for 60 min) to isolate CM. Using a centrifugal evaporator, CM was concentrated approximately 10-fold.

2.4. MTT Assay, EdU Assay, Transwell Invasion Assay, and Scratch Assay

Cell viability and proliferation were examined using an MTT assay and fluorescence-based EdU assay (Thermo-Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA). In the MTT assay, optical density for assessing cell metabolic activities was measured at 570 nm using a multi-well spectrophotometer. In the fluorescence-based EdU cell proliferation kit, we counted the number of fluorescently labeled cells and determined the ratio to the total number of cells [31]. A transwell invasion assay was conducted to detect cell motility, and a wound-healing scratch assay was utilized to evaluate 2-dimensional cell motility [32].

2.5. Western Blot Analysis

Cultured cells were lysed in a radio-immunoprecipitation assay buffer with protease inhibitors (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA, USA) and phosphatase inhibitors (Calbiochem, Billerica, MA, USA). The protein concentration was determined using a BCA Protein Assay kit (Thermo-Fisher). Proteins were fractionated by 10–15% SDS gels and electro-transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride transfer membranes (Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA). After blocking for 1 h with a blocking buffer (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA), the membrane was incubated overnight with primary antibodies and then with secondary antibodies conjugated with horseradish peroxidase for 45 min (Cell Signaling, Danvers, MA, USA). The level of proteins was determined using a SuperSignal west femto maximum sensitivity substrate (Thermo Scientific), and a luminescent image analyzer (LAS-3000, Fuji Film, Tokyo, Japan) was used to quantify signal intensities. We used antibodies against CD44 (37259T), cleaved caspase 3 (9661S), Lrp5 (5731S), MSN (3726T), Snail (3879S), TGFβ (3711S), Vimentin (5741T) (Cell Signaling), Fibronectin 1 (sc-271098), cathepsin K (sc-48353), MMP9 (sc-393859), NFATc1 (sc-7294) (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), LIMA1 (Nbp1-87947), TRAIL (NB500-220) (Novus, Centennial, CO, USA), ANXA6 (ab199422) (Abcam, Cambridge, UK), p53 (MA5-12557) (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), and β-actin (Sigma).

2.6. Plasmid Transfection, RNA Interference, and Cytokine Analysis

Using 2 × 106 cells, Lrp5, β-catenin, p53, and MSN plasmids (40 ng/µL) were transfected. Conditioned medium (CM, 9 mL) was prepared with antibiotics and a fraction of FBS consisting of factors with 3 kDa or smaller. After one day of incubation, the medium was ultra-centrifuged to remove exosomes and condensed 10-fold by filtering (Amicon, Sigma, Saint Louis, MO, USA) to collect proteins larger than 3 kDa. For overexpressing plasmids, Lrp5 (#115907, Addgene, Watertown, MA, USA), β-catenin (#31785, Addgene), p53 (#69003, Addgene), and MSN (#11637, Addgene) were transfected into A5 osteocytes and RAW264.7 pre-osteoclasts separately, while a blank plasmid vector (FLAG-HA-pcDNA3.1; Addgene) was used as a control. Osteocytes were treated with shRNA specific to Lrp5 (sc-149050-V, Santa Cruz), with control GFP shRNA (sc-108084, Santa Cruz). Cells were transfected with lipofectamine®3000 (L300015, Thermo Scientific) [33], and stable transfectants were selected using puromycin (Sigma). Using a Lipofectamine™ RNAiMAX transfection reagent (Thermo, 13778100) and the negative control siRNA (Thermo, 4390843), osteocytes were transfected with TRAIL siRNA (S75440, Thermo Scientific) and MSN siRNA (S70072, Thermo Scientific), RAW264.7 cells with TRAIL siRNA (S75440, Thermo Scientific), and TRAMP cells with CD44 siRNA (S63659, Thermo Scientific), and Vimentin siRNA (S75963, Thermo Fisher).

2.7. 3D Spheroid Assay and Ex Vivo Tissue Assay

Cells were cultured in ultra-low attachment 96-well plates (S-BIO, Hudson, NH, USA) at 1 × 104 cells/well for TRAMP cells. Spheroid images were captured every 24 h, and areas were quantified using Image J software (v1.52p). For the ex vivo tissue assay, the usage of human prostate cancer tissues was approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. A sample (~1 g), received from Simon Cancer Center Tissue Procurement Core, was manually fragmented with a scalpel into small pieces (0.5~0.8 mm in length). These pieces were grown in DMEM with 10% fetal bovine serum and antibiotics for a day. CMOy-Lrp5 was then added for two additional days, and changes in the fragment size were determined.

2.8. Live Cell Imaging

To evaluate tension force at a focal adhesion and migratory capacity of tumor cells in response to CMOy-Lrp5, a plasmid expressing a vinculin tension sensor (VinTS, #26019, Addgene) was transfected. The fluorescence lifetime images were acquired by a custom-made microscope built on a laser scanning confocal microscope (FluoView 1000, Olympus; Center Valley, PA, USA), using the procedures previously described [34]. Of note, a decrease in the tension force of the vinculin sensor implies an increase in fluorescence efficiency. To visualize Src activity, a Src biosensor (#78302, Addgene) based on fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) was used. FRET images were acquired by a Nikon Ti-E microscope equipped with a charge-coupled device camera (Evolve 312, Photometrics, Huntington Beach, CA, USA) using the procedures previously described [34]. An enhanced GFP-β-catenin (#16071, Addgene) was used to monitor the translocation of β-catenin to the nucleus. The GFP images were quantified by the procedures previously described [35].

2.9. Animal Models

The experimental procedures using animals were approved by the Indiana University Animal Care and Use Committee and complied with the Guiding Principles in the Care and Use of Animals endorsed by the American Physiological Society. C57BL/6 mice lacking Lrp5 in osteocytes (Dmp1-Cre; Lrp5f/f; conditional Lrp5 knockout mice) were created by breeding Dmp1-Cre transgenic mice with Lrp5 floxed mice, both of which have been described earlier [36]. Mice were housed in five per cage and provided with mouse chow and water ad libitum.
In the mammary tumor model, we conducted a proof-of-principle study, defined as an initial exploratory assessment to validate the therapeutic feasibility of osteocytes by injecting osteocyte cells into the mammary fat pads. This model was specifically selected for its utility in early-stage feasibility evaluation, enabling us to preliminarily confirm whether osteocytes can exert anti-tumor effects through their secreted factors. C57BL/6 female mice (~8 weeks, Envigo RMS, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA) received subcutaneous injections of TRAMP cells or EO771 cells (3.0 × 105 cells in 50 µL PBS) to the mammary fat pad. Also, Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes (3.0 × 105 cells) were co-injected at the seventh mammary fat pad, and osteocyte-derived CM was injected into the intraperitoneal cavity from day 2 to day 18. The mice were euthanized on day 18 for tumor weight measurement. For the osteolysis mouse model, ten C57BL/6 male mice per group received intra-tibial injections of TRAMP cells (3.0 × 105 cells in 20 µL PBS). CMOy with and without Lrp5 overexpression was also injected at the proximal tibia from day 2 to day 18. Roughness was calculated by fitting an ellipse to the spheroid and summing its non-overlapping areas. In the extravasation assay, EO771 cells (1.0 × 106 cells) were labeled with a green fluorescent dye and injected with and without CMiTSC via a lateral tail vein in C57BL/6 female mice (5 mice per group). Fluorescently labeled EO771 cells were prepared by culturing them with a green fluorescent dye (#4705, Sartorius, Gottingen, Germany) for 20 min at 37 °C. Cells were then centrifuged at 1000 rpm for 5 min to harvest the pellet. The pellet was re-suspended in PBS (placebo group) or CMOy. Mice were sacrificed after 48 h for histological identification of extravascular tumor cells in the lung.

2.10. X-Ray, CT Imaging, and Histology

A whole-body X-ray image was taken using the Faxitron radiographic system (Faxitron X-ray Co., Tucson, AZ, USA). The tibia was harvested for µCT imaging and histology. Micro-computed tomography was performed using Skyscan 1172 (Bruker-MicroCT, Kontich, Belgium) with a voxel size of 8.99 µm, and the images were reconstructed and analyzed using CTan v1.13 software. In histology, H&E staining was conducted as described previously.

2.11. Whole-Genome Proteomics

Q-exactive high-field hybrid quadrupole orbitrap mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher) was employed to identify proteins in CM with the Dionex UltiMate 3000 RSLC system. Using trypsin/LysC. Proteins were separated using a trap and 50-cm analytical columns. Raw data were processed using MaxQuant (v1.63.3) against the Uniprot mouse protein database at a 1% false discovery rate. Protein quantitation was based on MS/MS counts, and we analyzed proteins that were identified with at least 1 unique peptide and 2 MS/MS counts.
To evaluate the tumor-suppressing capability of the predicted candidates, we employed ten recombinant proteins, such as Actg1 (H00000071-P01, Novus), Aldoa, Eno1, Calm1, Eef1a1, Lmna, MSN, Pkm, Eef2, and Ywhaz (MBS8248528, MBS2009113, MBS2018713, MBS2033168, MBS143846, MBS2031729, MBS8249600, MBS1213669, MBS143242, MyBioSource, SanDiego, CA, USA). In the MTT assay, 5 µg/mL of each recombinant protein was added to assess tumor cell viability.

2.12. Immunoprecipitation

Immunoprecipitation was conducted with an immunoprecipitation starter pack kit (Cytiva, Marlborough, MA, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol. Briefly, 20 µL of protein A sepharose was washed twice with PBS and incubated with 2 µg of rabbit-raised antibodies for MSN. Rabbit IgG was prepared as a negative control. The antibody-cross-linked beads were incubated overnight with 600 µL protein samples on a shaker. The beads were collected by centrifugation, washed three times with PBS, and resuspended for Western blotting. The protein samples before immunoprecipitation were used as positive controls.

2.13. Statistical Analysis

For cell-based experiments, three or four independent experiments were conducted, and data were expressed as mean ± SD. In animal experiments, the sample size in the mouse model was chosen to achieve a power of 80% with p < 0.05. The primary experimental outcome was tumor weight for the mammary fat pad experiment and the bone volume ratio (BV/TV) for the tibia experiment. The secondary experimental outcome was tumor size for the mammary fat pad experiment and the trabecular number (Tb.N) for the tibia experiment. All data were tested for normality (Shapiro–Wilk normality test) before statistical tests. Statistical significance was evaluated using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Post hoc statistical comparisons with control groups were performed using Bonferroni correction with statistical significance at p < 0.05. A nonparametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to evaluate FRET efficiency in live-cell imaging. The single and double asterisks in the figures indicate p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Inhibition of TRAMP-C2ras Prostate Tumor Cells by CMOy-Lrp5

We first examined the response of TRAMP-C2ras (TRAMP) prostate tumor cells to MLO-A5 osteocyte-derived CM (CMOy). In the MTT-based viability, EdU-based proliferation, CMOy did not significantly alter tumor cell behaviors. When Lrp5 was overexpressed, however, CMOy-Lrp5 reduced the viability and proliferation of TRAMP cells (Figure 1a,b). Fluorescent live-cell imaging showed that CMOy-Lrp5 increased the FRET efficiency of the vinculin biosensor in TRAMP cells (Figure 1c). The observed increase implies a decrease in vinculin-mediated molecular force at focal adhesions, in agreement with the inhibition of migratory behaviors. Consistent with the suppression of cell motility, the scratch-based migration and transwell invasion of prostate cancer cells were also inhibited by CMOy-Lrp5 (Figure 1d,e). CMOy slightly but significantly inhibited the growth of 3-dimensional tumor spheroids, and CMOy-Lrp5 enhanced the growth inhibition (Figure 1f).

3.2. Inhibition of PC-3 Human Prostate Tumor Cells and Breast Cancer Cells by CMOy-Lrp5

Consistent with the response of TRAMP cells, the inhibitory effects of CMOy-Lrp5 were also detected in PC-3 human prostate tumor cells in the MTT-based viability, EdU-based proliferation (Figure 2a,b), scratch-based migration, transwell invasion, and tumor spheroid assays (Figure 2c–e). Besides the tumor-suppressing capability of CMOy-Lrp5 in prostate cancer cells, we employed freshly isolated human prostate cancer tissues to correlate with clinical significance. The tissue was manually fragmented, and the fragments were cultured in CMOy-Lrp5. The result revealed that compared to the placebo (control CMOy), the CMOy-Lrp5 group significantly reduced the size of cancer fragments (Figure 2f).
To compare the effects of CMOy-Lrp5 between prostate and breast cancer cells, EO771 mammary tumor cells, and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells were examined. Consistently, the overexpression of Lrp5 inhibited the proliferation and migration of EO771 and MDA-MB-231 cells (Figure S1a,c). To further evaluate the efficacy of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes, TRAMP cells were injected into the mammary fat pad of female C57BL/6 mice. Notably, the weight of tumor tissues was significantly reduced by a local injection of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes (Figure S2a).

3.3. Inhibition of the Tumor Progression in the Tibia by CMOy-Lrp5

We next examined the in vivo effect of CMOy-Lrp5 on the extravasation to the lung and osteolysis of the tibia. The intravenous injection of CMOy-Lrp5 with TRAMP cells markedly reduced the number of tumor cells that invaded into the lungs of C57BL/6 male mice (Figure 3a). In the male and female mouse models, tumor cells invaded the tibia by the inoculation of TRAMP and EO771 cells, respectively. In the TRAMP cell-invaded tibia and fibula, the tibia was swollen, and the fibula was enlarged with an increase in surface roughness (Figure 3b,c and Figure S2b). In response to the inoculation of EO771 cells in female mice, however, the tibia was not swollen, and the fibula was not enlarged, although the surface roughness of the fibula was elevated (Figure 3d,e).
Three-dimensional CT reconstruction of the proximal tibia and histological examination supported the tumor-suppressing action of CMOy-Lrp5 in male mice. Compared to the placebo that received the inoculation of TRAMP cells alone, the CMOy and CMOy-Lrp5 injected groups reduced trabecular bone loss in the proximal tibia with the elevation of bone mineral density, bone volume ratio, and trabecular number, with a decrease in trabecular separation (Figure 3f). H&E-stained histological sections revealed that the tumor-invaded area was markedly reduced by the local injection of CMOy and CMOy-Lrp5 (Figure 3g).

3.4. Increased Tumor-Driven Bone Loss in Lrp5-Deleted Mice

Consistent with the tumor-suppressing effects of the overexpression of Lrp5, Lrp5-deleted conditional knockout mice showed a more severe bone loss in trabecular bone in the TRAMP cell-inoculated tibia than their wild-type littermates (Figure 4a–c). Furthermore, the injection of CMOy-Lrp5 to the proximal tibia significantly improved the bone microstructure, with an increase in bone mineral density, bone volume ratio, and the trabecular number, together with a decrease in the trabecular separation (Figure 4d). H&E-stained histological sections also exhibited a notable increase in the tumor-invaded area in Lrp5-deleted mice and a pronounced decrease by the administration of CMOy-Lrp5 (Figure 4e).

3.5. Inhibition of Osteoclast Development by CMOy-Lrp5

The results obtained so far support the tumor-suppressing and bone-protective capability of CMOy-Lrp5. Since osteoclasts are bone-resorbing cells, we examined whether Lrp5 overexpression in osteocytes might affect the development of osteoclasts. The result showed that the RANKL-driven development of RAW264.7 pre-osteoclasts was inhibited by CMOy-Lrp5, with the downregulation of NFATc1 and cathepsin K (Figure 5a,b).

3.6. Generation of iTSCs from MSCs and Peripheral Blood Cells

Besides osteocytes, we examined whether MSCs and peripheral blood cells could be converted into induced tumor-suppressing cells (iTSCs) and generate tumor-suppressive CM by the activation of Wnt signaling. Notably, we observed that Lrp5-overexpressing MSC-derived CM (CMMSC-Lrp5) decreased the viability and invasion of TRAMP tumor cells (Figure 5c–e). Furthermore, β-catenin-overexpressing CM (CMMSC-βcat) reduced the viability and invasion of TRAMP tumor cells (Figure 5f,g). The inhibition was also observed in BML284-treated MSC-derived CM (CMMSC-BML), in which BML284 is a pharmacological activator of Wnt signaling.
Regarding peripheral blood cells, we examined three cell types: mononuclear cells isolated from human peripheral blood samples, two monocyte cell lines (J774A.1 and THP-1), and a Jurkat T lymphocyte cell line. Of note, mononuclear cells refer to blood cells that have a single, round nucleus, such as lymphocytes and monocytes. First, BM284-treated mononuclear cell-derived CMs (CMmononuclear-BML), which were generated from 5 independent sources, decreased the viability of PC-3 prostate cancer cells (Figure 5h). Second, CMJ774A.1-BML and CMTHP1-BML also suppressed the viability of PC-3 and TRAMP tumor cells (Figure 5i and Figure S3a,b). However, CMJurkat-BML did not present an inhibitory effect on these prostate cancer cells (Figure S3c).
We should note that the activation of Wnt signaling by Lrp5 or β-catenin is a double-edged sword. Their overexpression in TRAMP tumor cells presented two contrasting effects, which highlighted the tumorigenic role of Wnt signaling in tumor cells and the anti-tumorigenic role of Wnt-activated cell-derived CM. In TRAMP cells, the overexpression of Lrp5 elevated EdU-based proliferation, associated with the increase in MMP9, Snail, and TGFβ (Figure S4a). However, β-catenin-overexpressing TRAMP-derived CM (CMTRAMP-βcat) decreased MTT-based viability and transwell invasion of initial TRAMP tumor cells (Figure S4b,c).

3.7. Identification of Tumor-Suppressing Proteins

In vitro and in vivo results so far support the tumor-suppressing capability of CMOy-Lrp5. Western blot analysis revealed that the overexpression of Lrp5 in osteocytes elevated the levels of known tumor suppressors in both osteocytes and CMOy-Lrp5, including p53, ANXA6, and LIMA1, as well as TRAIL, an apoptosis-inducing factor (Figure S5a,b). As expected, CMOy-Lrp5 downregulated tumor-promoting proteins, including MMP9, Snail, and TGFβ, in TRAMP tumor cells, while this downregulation was suppressed by Lrp5-silenced CM (Figure S5c). The same trend of gene regulation was observed with breast cancer cell lines (Figure S5d).
We herein focused on 10 potential tumor suppressors based on our previous whole-genome proteomics analysis (Figure 6a) [18], and the viability of TRAMP tumor cells was evaluated in response to their recombinant proteins (Figure 6b). Among 10 candidates, we focused on the role of MSN since its administration induced a significant decrease in MMT-based viability. MSN is a cross-linker between plasma membranes and actin-based cytoskeletons. In response to the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant MSN proteins, MTT-based viability and transwell invasion were reduced, and MMP9, Snail, and TGFβ were downregulated, with the upregulation of cleaved caspase 3 (Figure 6c–e).

3.8. Dichotomous Role of Extracellular and Intracellular MSN

In agreement with the action of recombinant MSN protein, MSN-overexpressing osteocyte-derived CM (CMOy-MSN) showed anti-tumor capability by reducing MTT-based viability, transwell invasion, and reducing pro-tumorigenic proteins such as MMP9, Snail, and TGFβ (Figure 6f–h). Consistently, MSN-silenced CM reversed these responses (Figure 6i and Figure S6a,b). The level of MSN was increased in CMOy-Lrp5 (Figure 6j), and in CMOy-MSN the levels of p53, ANXA6, LIMA1, and TRAIL were elevated (Figure 6k). By contrast, the overexpression of MSN in TRAMP cells elevated MMP9, Snail, and TGFβ, and reduced cleaved caspase 3 in TRAMP cells (Figure 6l). We also observed the elevation of MTT-based viability and transwell invasion of MSN-overexpressing TRAMP prostate cancer cells (Figure S6c,d). Collectively, these results demonstrated that extracellular and intracellular MSN proteins acted oppositely, as tumor-suppressive and tumor-enhancing proteins, respectively.

3.9. Tumor Selectivity by CMOy-Lrp5 and MSN

We next examined whether CMOy-Lrp5 and MSN may selectively inhibit the progression of tumor cells without damaging non-tumor cells. The tumor selectivity, λ, was defined as the MTT-based ratio of the reduction in the viability of tumor cells to that of non-tumor cells. A value λ larger than one indicates that the inhibition is more selective to tumor cells than non-tumor cells. We observed that the tumor selectivity of CMOy, CMOy-Lrp5, and MSN was above 1 based on two tumor cell lines (TRAMP and EO771) and two non-tumor cell types (MSCs and MC3T3 osteoblasts) (Figure 7a). Although the MTT-based viability depends on the types of tumor and non-tumor cells, the result was consistent with the selective anti-tumor actions of CMOy, CMOy-Lrp5, and MSN.

3.10. Involvement of CD44 and Fibronectin 1 (FN1) in the Anti-Tumor Action of MSN

To assess the potential involvement of CD44 and FN1 in the tumor-suppressive action of MSN, we conducted an immunoprecipitation assay. CD44 is a transmembrane adhesion receptor and a cancer stem cell marker that acts as a regulator of the Wnt receptor complex, while FN1 is an extracellular matrix (ECM) protein. Western blotting revealed that CD44 and FN1 were co-immunoprecipitated with MSN using TRAMP protein extracts and TRAMP ECM protein extracts, respectively (Figure 7b). Notably, the anti-tumor effect of 1 μg/mL of recombinant MSN proteins on MTT-based viability was significantly suppressed when CD44 and FN1 were silenced (Figure 7c,d). Furthermore, the silencing of CD44 and FN1 in TRAMP cells suppressed MSN-mediated downregulation of MMP9, TGFβ, and Snail (Figure 7e). The results supported the notion that CD44 and FN1 were involved in MSN’s tumor-suppressive action.
Lastly, we conducted FRET-based imaging analysis to evaluate the role of MSN in the activity of Src, tyrosine kinase, and nuclear localization of β-catenin. The result showed that the administration of MSN decreased Src activity and β-catenin translocation to the nucleus in TRAMP cells. Consistent with the expected role of CD44, the silencing of CD44 reversed MSN-driven effects on Src and β-catenin (Figure 7f).
The survival analysis results showed that patients were divided into two groups based on the median transcript level of MSN (N = 4750 per group). Patients in the MSN high-transcript group (transcript level above the median) exhibited a significantly favorable overall survival outcome compared to those in the MSN low-transcript group (transcript level below the median) (p < 0.00001, Figure 8a). The MTT-based proliferation of PC3 prostate cancer cells and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells in response to 0.7, 1, 2, and 5 µg/mL MSN for 2 days (Figure 8b). We also detected the response of PC3 human prostate cells and MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells to MSN-overexpressing Jurkat-derived CM (CMJur-MSN), in the MTT-based viability, CMJur-MSN significantly altered tumor cell behaviors (Figure 8c). In response to the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant MSN proteins, MTT-based viability, and PDL1, p-Src were downregulated (Figure 8d).

4. Discussion

This study showed that Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes became tumor-suppressing, bone-protecting cells in the prostate tumor-invaded bone microenvironment. CMOy-Lrp5 inhibited the proliferation, migration, and invasion of prostate cancer cells, as well as the ex vivo growth of prostate cancer tissues. Lrp5 knockout mice exhibited severe tumor-induced bone destruction, while Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes rescued this phenotype. CMOy-Lrp5 also inhibited osteoclast development by downregulating NFATc1 and cathepsin K. Mechanistically, increased TRAIL stimulated tumor cell apoptosis, and p53 contributed to the anti-tumor action. Mass spectrometry identified extracellular MSN as a tumor suppressor interacting with CD44 and FN1. These results suggest that extracellular MSN inhibited tumor progression. Although its overexpression in tumor cells stimulated oncogenic behaviors has been reported [26,37]. Notably, Lrp5 and β-catenin overexpression in Wnt signaling generated anti-tumor proteomes, converting a bone-destructive microenvironment into a tumor-suppressive, bone-protective one. These secreted proteins act as signaling molecules that bind to receptors on or inside the tumor cell, thereby sending a signal to tumor cells to “stop growth” or “start apoptosis”. This profoundly reveals the complexity of cancer: whether a protein acting as a double-edged sword is “good” or “bad” cannot be judged in isolation, but must be combined with its specific molecular environment and functional state. This concept is emphasized in the revised Discussion. Of note, the study focused on the proteome.
Lrp5 and β-catenin in osteocytes activate canonical Wnt signaling, maintaining bone homeostasis [38]. Osteocytes, as mechanical sensors, stimulate bone formation by downregulating Sclerostin, an inhibitory Wnt ligand [39]. While Wnt signaling is known to promote tumor progression, this study showed that its function depends on the context, and overexpressing Lrp5 and β-catenin generates tumor-suppressive secretomes in osteocytes, MSCs, and monocytes. Unlike Lrp5, overexpressing Lrp6 and Fzd7 did not produce breast cancer-suppressive secretomes in osteocytes [14].
The anti-tumor actions of CMOy-Lrp5 involve TRAIL, p53 [40], ANXA6, and LIMA1 [41,42], known tumor suppressors. Proteomics analysis identified extracellular MSN as a unique tumor-suppressing protein. While intracellular MSN is pro-tumorigenic, high levels of extracellular MSN are linked to low metastasis potential [43]. Recombinant extracellular MSN inhibited prostate tumor cell proliferation and invasion. MSN interacted with CD44 and FN1, reducing tumor cell viability. CD44, a cell-adhesion receptor and cancer stem-cell marker, can both promote and suppress cancer growth [44]. FN1, an ECM glycoprotein, is involved in tumor growth and is upregulated in various cancers [45]. The study also found other tumor-suppressing proteins in the secretome, including Enolase 1 (Eno1) and eukaryotic translation elongation factor 2 (Eef2).
Besides its tumor-suppressing capability, CMOy-Lrp5 inhibited the differentiation of pre-osteoclasts to multinucleated osteoclasts, with TRAIL playing a role in this inhibition. CMOy-Lrp5 suppressed the expression of NFATc1 and cathepsin K in RANKL-stimulated osteoclasts. While this study focused on prostate cancer, CMOy-Lrp5 also showed tumor-suppressing effects on breast cancer. Notably, CM without Lrp5 overexpression inhibited the proliferation of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer and EO771 mammary tumor cells, but not TRAMP and PC-3 prostate cancer cells. Both cancers reduced bone mineral density in tumor-invaded trabecular bone, but prostate cancer cells induced ectopic bone formation on the cortical surface. The tumor-suppressing action of CMOy-Lrp5 may vary depending on the cancer subtype. Notably, the gender-specific bone responses observed (TRAMP-induced osteoblastic changes in males vs. EO771-induced osteolysis in females) reflect the interplay between tumor-intrinsic metastatic phenotypes and host hormonal/bone structural differences.
While the Lrp5-overexpressing osteocyte-derived proteome was mainly studied here, iTSCs were also generated by the overexpression of β-catenin from MSCs and tumor cells [46]. We previously reported that the overexpression of Akt in PI3K signaling [47] and Snail during the induction of EMT in MSCs can generate tumor-suppressive secretomes [14]. This inhibition was also observed in the administration of BML284, a Wnt activator, which generated tumor-suppressive secretomes from osteoclasts [48]. Regarding MSN’s dichotomous role, its extracellular tumor-suppressive function is driven by secretion from iTS cells and interaction with CD44/FN1, whereas intracellular MSN promotes oncogenic behaviors via cytoskeletal regulation—this switch may also be dependent on subcellular localization and post-translational modifications.
In summary, we demonstrated that Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes inhibit tumor progression and bone degradation, at least in part, via the MSN-CD44/FN1 regulatory axis. The curative applications and therapeutic properties of CM have been reported in regenerative medicine [49]. Building on the preclinical evidence of prostate tumor selectivity and bone-protective efficacy, the translational potential of iTSC-derived therapies for prostate cancer with bone metastasis could be realized through a phase-adaptive clinical trial. Specifically, standardized CMOy-Lrp5 or recombinant MSN protein could be injected intraosseously into the bone site of tumor invasion to achieve local tumor suppression and osteolysis reversal, while intravenous injection of CMOy-Lrp5 can resolve disseminated micrometastasis. MSN is an ECM-associated protein. One option is to use iTS cell-derived ECM as a therapeutic agent instead of CM, as ECM can be more readily approved by the FDA [50]. The anticancer capabilities of iTS cells have been shown in breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and osteosarcoma, as well as in bone metastasis and brain metastasis [18]. Furthermore, iTS cells are generated not only from bone cells such as osteocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts but also from MSCs and T lymphocytes [14,51]. Enhancing the anticancer capabilities of T cells is particularly interesting since T-cell-derived iTS cells do not need direct interaction with cancer cells to exert their anticancer actions. Three anticancer peptides, P04, P05, and P18, were also developed from tumor-suppressing proteins, which were enriched in iTS cell-derived CM [52,53,54].
iTSCs therapy is indeed a promising new concept, whose core idea is not to kill cells directly, but to alter the tumor microenvironment by “reprogramming” certain cells to secrete proteins that can inhibit the tumor. iTSCs and their derivatives (conditioned medium or key proteins) offer multiple actionable strategies for clinical use, including engineered cell therapy, exosome-based delivery, or recombinant protein infusion, et al. tumor selectivity is derived from signaling pathway targets and tumor microenvironment. However, other unmodified cells lack the hyperactivated signaling network targeted by its derived factors. Our study has limitations; the exploration of gender mechanisms is limited and needs to be further studied. In addition, the mammary tumor model was not designed to mimic bone metastasis directly, but rather to establish a quick proof-of-concept for the anti-tumor potential of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes before transitioning to more complex orthotopic bone models. Further studies are recommended to make iTS cells and their derivatives available as a novel option for cancer treatments.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that Wnt signaling activation via Lrp5 or β-catenin overexpression converts osteocytes, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and monocytes into induced tumor-suppressing (iTS) cells, which secrete a protective conditioned medium (CM) capable of inhibiting prostate cancer progression and preserving bone integrity. The iTS cell-derived CM, particularly from Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes (CMOy-Lrp5), significantly suppresses tumor cell viability, proliferation, migration, and invasion in vitro, and protects against bone destruction in vivo. Proteomic analysis identifies Moesin (MSN) as a key extracellular tumor-suppressing protein enriched in the CM, which exerts its anti-tumor effects primarily through interaction with CD44, leading to reduced Src kinase activity and β-catenin nuclear translocation. Notably, MSN plays a dichotomous role—acting as an oncogene intracellularly within tumor cells but functioning as a potent tumor suppressor when secreted extracellularly. Importantly, this therapeutic approach shows tumor-selective inhibition without harming non-tumor cells. These findings reveal a novel strategy to transform the bone microenvironment from tumor-permissive to tumor-suppressive, highlighting the potential of iTS cell-derived factors, especially MSN, as promising therapeutic agents for treating advanced prostate cancer and associated skeletal complications.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biom16020240/s1, Figure S1: Inhibitory effects of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocyte-derived CM on EO771 mammary tumor cells, and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells; Figure S2: Inhibition of the tumor progression in the tibia by CMOy-Lrp5; Figure S3: MTT-based viability of prostate tumor cells to monocyte-derived CM and lymphocyte-derived CM. CN = control, CM = conditioned medium, Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression, and BML = BML284 treatment; Figure S4: Tumor-promoting action of intracellular Lrp5 in TRAMP prostate cancer cells, and inhibitory effects of β-catenin overexpression CM on TRAMP prostate tumor cells; Figure S5: Responses of MDA-MB-231 (MDA), EO771, PC-3, and TRAMP cancer cells to Oy CM with the overexpression of Lrp5 and the silencing of Lrp5; Figure S6: Tumor-promoting action of intracellular moesin, and Lrp5 in TRAMP prostate cancer cells. Western blot original images can be found in Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

S.L.: data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, project administration, writing—review & editing, and validation. D.W.: data curation, formal analysis, methodology, software, writing—review & editing. K.M.: resources and methodology. J.L.: investigation and resources. S.N. and U.K.A.: data curation and methodology. M.L.F.: funding acquisition, project administration, and software. A.G.R.: funding acquisition, investigation, resources, and project administration. B.-Y.L.: project administration, writing review & editing, supervision, and methodology. H.Y.: methodology, investigation, resources, supervision, and writing—original draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82203641 to S.L.), the R&D Program of Beijing Municipal Education Commission (KM202310025024 to S.L.), the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR053237 to A.G.R., and R01AR069079 to M.L.F.), and the National Cancer Institute (R01CA196947 to M.L.F.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board (protocol code IN-1124, approval date 1 July 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate Xun Sun, Kexin Li, Rongrong Zha, Yan Feng, Misato Hase, Hudie Li, Keisuke Tamari, Kazuhiko Ogawa, and Kichul Park for collecting and interpreting data. The authors appreciate Tomohiko Sano for technical support in histology and Kazunori Hamamura for critically reviewing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ECMextracellular matrix
ANOVAone-way analysis of variance
BMDbone mineral density
BV/TVbone volume ratio
CMconditioned medium
Eef2eukaryotic translation elongation factor 2
FBSfetal bovine serum
iTSCsinduced tumor-suppressing cells
LASluminescent image analyzer
MSCsmesenchymal stem cells
Tb.Ntrabecular number
Tb.Sptrabecular separation

References

  1. Almeeri, M.N.E.; Awies, M.; Constantinou, C. Prostate Cancer, Pathophysiology and Recent Developments in Management: A Narrative Review. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2024, 26, 1511–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Raychaudhuri, R.; Lin, D.W.; Montgomery, R.B. Prostate Cancer: A Review. JAMA 2025, 333, 1433–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rawla, P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. World J. Oncol. 2019, 10, 63–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Layman, A.A.K.; Joshi, S.; Shah, S. Metastatic prostate cancer presenting as tumour-induced osteomalacia. BMJ Case Rep. 2019, 12, e229434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Fizazi, K.; Carducci, M.; Smith, M.; Damiao, R.; Brown, J.; Karsh, L.; Milecki, P.; Shore, N.; Rader, M.; Wang, H.; et al. Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: A randomised, double-blind study. Lancet 2011, 377, 813–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rogowski, P.; Roach, M.; Schmidt-Hegemann, N.S.; Trapp, C.; Bestenbostel, R.V.; Shi, R.; Buchner, A.; Stief, C.; Belka, C.; Li, M. Radiotherapy of oligometastatic prostate cancer: A systematic review. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 16, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Quayle, L.; Ottewell, P.D.; Holen, I. Bone Metastasis: Molecular Mechanisms Implicated in Tumour Cell Dormancy in Breast and Prostate Cancer. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2015, 15, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Janane, A.; Hajji, F.; Ismail, T.; Jawad, C.; Crepin-Elondo, J.; Ghadouane, M.; Ameur, A.; Abbar, M.; Albouzidi, A. Bone mineral density change: Comparison between prostate cancer patients with or without metastases and healthy men (a North African ethnic group). Actas Urol. Esp. 2011, 35, 414–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kakonen, S.M.; Mundy, G.R. Mechanisms of osteolytic bone metastases in breast carcinoma. Cancer 2003, 97, 834–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bullock, W.A.; Pavalko, F.M.; Robling, A.G. Osteocytes and mechanical loading: The Wnt connection. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2019, 22, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cui, Y.X.; Evans, B.A.; Jiang, W.G. New Roles of Osteocytes in Proliferation, Migration and Invasion of Breast and Prostate Cancer Cells. Anticancer. Res. 2016, 36, 1193–1201. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang, W.; Yang, X.; Dai, J.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Keller, E.T. Prostate cancer promotes a vicious cycle of bone metastasis progression through inducing osteocytes to secrete GDF15 that stimulates prostate cancer growth and invasion. Oncogene 2019, 38, 4540–4559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhan, T.; Rindtorff, N.; Boutros, M. Wnt signaling in cancer. Oncogene 2017, 36, 1461–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Li, K.; Huo, Q.; Li, B.; Yokota, H. Three unconventional maxims in the natural selection of cancer cells: Generation of induced tumor-suppressing cells (iTSCs). Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2023, 19, 1403–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Esperante, D.; Flisser, A.; Mendlovic, F. The many faces of parasite calreticulin. Front. Immunol. 2023, 14, 1101390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xu, W.; Yang, W.; Wu, C.; Ma, X.; Li, H.; Zheng, J. Enolase 1 Correlated with Cancer Progression and Immune-Infiltrating in Multiple Cancer Types: A Pan-Cancer Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2021, 10, 593706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yu, S.; Xue, Y.; Chen, Y.; Cao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Ge, X.; Cai, X. The multifaceted roles of aldolase A in cancer: Glycolysis, cytoskeleton, translation and beyond. Hum. Cell 2025, 38, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dhar, S.; Gursoy-Yuzugullu, O.; Parasuram, R.; Price, B.D. The tale of a tail: Histone H4 acetylation and the repair of DNA breaks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 372, 20160284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Suzuki, S.; Kulkarni, A.B. Extracellular heat shock protein HSP90beta secreted by MG63 osteosarcoma cells inhibits activation of latent TGF-beta1. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2010, 398, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Zhu, S.; Zhang, X.; Liu, W.; Zhou, Z.; Xiong, S.; Li, J.; Chen, X.; Peng, C. Ubiquitination in cancer: Mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. Cancer Commun. 2025, 45, 1128–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Parker, T.M.; Henriques, V.; Beltran, A.; Nakshatri, H.; Gogna, R. Cell competition and tumor heterogeneity. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2020, 63, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kajita, M.; Fujita, Y. EDAC: Epithelial defence against cancer-cell competition between normal and transformed epithelial cells in mammals. J. Biochem. 2015, 158, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, K.; Sun, X.; Zha, R.; Liu, S.; Feng, Y.; Sano, T.; Aryal, U.K.; Sudo, A.; Li, B.; Yokota, H. Counterintuitive production of tumor-suppressive secretomes from Oct4- and c-Myc-overexpressing tumor cells and MSCs. Theranostics 2022, 12, 3084–3103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Baron, R.; Kneissel, M. WNT signaling in bone homeostasis and disease: From human mutations to treatments. Nat. Med. 2013, 19, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Li, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Liu, Q.; Lu, X.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, H.; Dai, J.-G. Moesin as a prognostic indicator of lung adenocarcinoma improves prognosis by enhancing immune lymphocyte infiltration. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 19, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Barros, F.B.A.; Assao, A.; Garcia, N.G.; Nonogaki, S.; Carvalho, A.L.; Soares, F.A.; Kowalski, L.P.; Oliveira, D.T. Moesin expression by tumor cells is an unfavorable prognostic biomarker for oral cancer. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Faure, C.; Djerbi-Bouillié, R.; Domingot, A.; Bouzinba-Segard, H.; Taouji, S.; Saidi, Y.; Bernard, S.; Carallis, F.; Rothe-Walther, R.; Lenormand, J.-L.; et al. Allosteric Inhibition of HER2 by Moesin-Mimicking Compounds Targets HER2-Positive Cancers and Brain Metastases. Cancer Res. 2021, 81, 5464–5476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kang, R.; Zhang, Q.; Zeh, H.J., 3rd; Lotze, M.T.; Tang, D. HMGB1 in cancer: Good, bad, or both? Clin. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 4046–4057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lin, C.Y.; Song, X.; Ke, Y.; Raha, A.; Wu, Y.; Wasi, M.; Wang, L.; Geng, F.; You, L. Yoda1 Enhanced Low-Magnitude High-Frequency Vibration on Osteocytes in Regulation of MDA-MB-231 Breast Cancer Cell Migration. Cancers 2022, 14, 3395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, F.; Al-Amin, M.Y.; Utturkar, S.; Jiang, R.; Cresswell, G.; Alfar, R.; Ophaug-Johansen, I.; Bachman, G.; Srinivasarao, M.; Finnell, R.; et al. Folate receptor β performs an immune checkpoint function in activated macrophages. Front. Immunol. 2025, 16, 1638907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, H.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Du, X.; Xu, D.; Wen, J.; Jin, M.; Liu, J.; Jin, X.; Wang, M.; et al. Indole-3-propionic acid promotes Schwann cell proliferation following peripheral nerve injury by activating the PI3K/AKT pathway. Neurotherapeutics 2025, 22, e00578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fu, B.; Liu, W.; Zhu, C.; Li, P.; Li Wang, L.; Pan, L.; Li, K.; Cai, P.; Meng, M.; Wang, Y.; et al. Circular RNA circBCBM1 promotes breast cancer brain metastasis by modulating miR-125a/BRD4 axis. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 17, 3104–3117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, B.; Cao, J. Effects of transfection on inflammatory factor production in LPS-induced HBE cells. Histol. Histopathol. 2025, 40, 541–545. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Li, J.; Jo, M.H.; Yan, J.; Hall, T.; Lee, J.; López-Sánchez, U.; Yan, S.; Ha, T.; Springer, T.A. Ligand binding initiates single-molecule integrin conformational activation. Cell 2024, 187, 2990–3005.e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Algar, W.R.; Hildebrandt, N.; Vogel, S.S.; Medintz, I.L. FRET as a biomolecular research tool—Understanding its potential while avoiding pitfalls. Chem. A Eur. J. 2021, 27, 8946–8950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lau, K.H.; Baylink, D.J.; Zhou, X.D.; Rodriguez, D.; Bonewald, L.F.; Li, Z.; Ruffoni, D.; Müller, R.; Kesavan, C.; Sheng, M.H.-C. Osteocyte-derived insulin-like growth factor I is essential for determining bone mechanosensitivity. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2013, 305, E271–E281. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gu, J.; Zhou, J.; Chen, Q.; Xu, X.; Gao, J.; Li, X.; Shao, Q.; Zhou, B.; Zhou, H.; Wei, S.; et al. Tumor metabolite lactate promotes tumorigenesis by modulating MOESIN lactylation and enhancing TGF-β signaling in regulatory T cells. Cell Rep. 2022, 39, 110986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xiong, L.; Guo, H.H.; Pan, J.X.; Ren, X.; Lee, D.; Chen, L.; Mei, L.; Xiong, W.C. ATP6AP2, a regulator of LRP6/β-catenin protein trafficking, promotes Wnt/β-catenin signaling and bone formation in a cell type dependent manner. Bone Res. 2024, 12, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carpenter, K.A.; Ross, R.D. Sclerostin Antibody Treatment Increases Bone Mass and Normalizes Circulating Phosphate Levels in Growing Hyp Mice. J. Bone Min. Miner. Res. 2020, 35, 596–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Willms, A.; Schupp, H.; Poelker, M.; Adawy, A.; Debus, J.F.; Hartwig, T.; Krichel, T.; Fritsch, J.; Singh, S.; Walczak, H.; et al. TRAIL-receptor 2-a novel negative regulator of p53. Cell Death Dis. 2021, 12, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Qi, H.; Liu, S.; Guo, C.; Wang, J.; Greenaway, F.T.; Sun, M.Z. Role of annexin A6 in cancer. Oncol. Lett. 2015, 10, 1947–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ohashi, T.; Idogawa, M.; Sasaki, Y.; Tokino, T. p53 mediates the suppression of cancer cell invasion by inducing LIMA1/EPLIN. Cancer Lett. 2017, 390, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kobayashi, H.; Sagara, J.; Kurita, H.; Morifuji, M.; Ohishi, M.; Kurashina, K.; Taniguchi, S. Clinical significance of cellular distribution of moesin in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004, 10, 572–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Louderbough, J.M.; Schroeder, J.A. Understanding the dual nature of CD44 in breast cancer progression. Mol. Cancer Res. 2011, 9, 1573–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Spada, S.; Tocci, A.; Di Modugno, F.; Nistico, P. Fibronectin as a multiregulatory molecule crucial in tumor matrisome: From structural and functional features to clinical practice in oncology. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 40, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, S.; Sun, X.; Li, K.; Zha, R.; Feng, Y.; Sano, T.; Dong, C.; Liu, Y.; Aryal, U.K.; Sudo, A.; et al. Generation of the tumor-suppressive secretome from tumor cells. Theranostics 2021, 11, 8517–8534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sun, X.; Li, K.; Aryal, U.K.; Li, B.; Yokota, H. PI3K-activated MSC proteomes inhibit mammary tumors via Hsp90ab1 and Myh9. Mol. Ther. Oncolytics 2022, 26, 360–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, K.; Sun, X.; Li, B.Y.; Yokota, H. Conversion of Osteoclasts into Bone-Protective, Tumor-Suppressing Cells. Cancers 2021, 13, 5593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Jafarzadeh, A.; Mohammad, A.P.; Keramati, H.; Zeinali, R.; Khosravi, M.; Goodarzi, A. Regenerative medicine in the treatment of specific dermatologic disorders: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2024, 15, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Huang, J.; Zhang, L.; Wan, D.; Zhou, L.; Zheng, S.; Lin, S.; Qiao, Y. Extracellular matrix and its therapeutic potential for cancer treatment. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2021, 6, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, K.; Sun, X.; Minami, K.; Tamari, K.; Ogawa, K.; Li, H.; Ma, H.; Zhou, M.; Na, S.; Li, B.; et al. Proteomes from AMPK-inhibited peripheral blood mononuclear cells suppress the progression of breast cancer and bone metastasis. Theranostics 2023, 13, 1247–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Cui, C.; Huo, Q.; Xiong, X.; Li, K.; Ma, P.; Qiang, G.; Pandya, P.H.; Saadatzadeh, M.R.; Vishehsaraei, K.B.; Kacena, M.A.; et al. Anticancer peptides from induced tumor-suppressing cells for inhibiting osteosarcoma cells. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2023, 13, 4057–4072. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Ortega-Rivera, O.A.; Gallegos-Alcalá, P.; Jiménez, M.; Quintanar, J.L.; Torres-Juarez, F.; Rivas-Santiago, B.; del Toro-Arreola, S.; Salinas, E. Inhibition of Tumor Growth and Metastasis by Newcastle Disease Virus Strain P05 in a Breast Cancer Mouse Model. J. Breast Cancer 2023, 26, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cui, C.; Huo, Q.; Xiong, X.; Na, S.; Mitsuda, M.; Minami, K.; Li, B.; Yokota, H. P18: Novel Anticancer Peptide from Induced Tumor-Suppressing Cells Targeting Breast Cancer and Bone Metastasis. Cancers 2024, 16, 2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biomolecules 16 00240 g001
Figure 1. Inhibitory effects of CMOy-Lrp5 on TRAMP-C2ras prostate tumor cells. CN = control, CM = conditioned medium, Oy CM = osteocyte-derived CM, and Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression. The data are presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). The double asterisks indicate p < 0.01. (a) Inhibition of MTT-based viability of TRAMP-C2ras prostate tumor cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (b) Reduction in EdU-based proliferation by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm. (c) Increase in FRET efficiency in the vinculin biosensor by CMOy-Lrp5. The observed increase in FRET efficiency implies a decrease in vinculin-mediated molecular force at focal adhesions. Scale bar: 20 µm. (d) Inhibition of scratch-based migration of TRAMP-C2ras prostate tumor cells by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm. (e) Inhibition of transwell invasion by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm. (f) Reduction in the growth of 3D tumor spheroids by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm.
Figure 1. Inhibitory effects of CMOy-Lrp5 on TRAMP-C2ras prostate tumor cells. CN = control, CM = conditioned medium, Oy CM = osteocyte-derived CM, and Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression. The data are presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). The double asterisks indicate p < 0.01. (a) Inhibition of MTT-based viability of TRAMP-C2ras prostate tumor cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (b) Reduction in EdU-based proliferation by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm. (c) Increase in FRET efficiency in the vinculin biosensor by CMOy-Lrp5. The observed increase in FRET efficiency implies a decrease in vinculin-mediated molecular force at focal adhesions. Scale bar: 20 µm. (d) Inhibition of scratch-based migration of TRAMP-C2ras prostate tumor cells by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm. (e) Inhibition of transwell invasion by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm. (f) Reduction in the growth of 3D tumor spheroids by CMOy-Lrp5. Scale bar: 200 µm.
Biomolecules 16 00240 g001
Biomolecules 16 00240 g002
Figure 2. Inhibitory effects of CMOy-Lrp5 on PC-3 prostate cancer cells. CN = control, CM = conditioned medium, Oy CM = osteocyte-derived CM, and Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression. The data are presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Scale bar: 200 µm. (a) Inhibition of MTT-based viability of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (b) Inhibition of EdU-based proliferation of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (c) Inhibition of scratch-based migration of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (d) Reduction in transwell invasion of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (e) Reduction in the growth of PC-3 prostate cancer spheroids by CMOy-Lrp5. (f) Inhibition of the growth of prostate cancer tissue fragments by CMOy-Lrp5.
Figure 2. Inhibitory effects of CMOy-Lrp5 on PC-3 prostate cancer cells. CN = control, CM = conditioned medium, Oy CM = osteocyte-derived CM, and Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression. The data are presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Scale bar: 200 µm. (a) Inhibition of MTT-based viability of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (b) Inhibition of EdU-based proliferation of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (c) Inhibition of scratch-based migration of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (d) Reduction in transwell invasion of PC-3 prostate cancer cells by CMOy-Lrp5. (e) Reduction in the growth of PC-3 prostate cancer spheroids by CMOy-Lrp5. (f) Inhibition of the growth of prostate cancer tissue fragments by CMOy-Lrp5.
Biomolecules 16 00240 g002
Biomolecules 16 00240 g003
Figure 3. Protection of the TRAMP tumor cell-invaded proximal tibia by the co-injection of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes. CN = control (no tumor injection), pl = placebo, Oy = osteocytes, and Lrp5-Oy = Lrp5-overexpressing osteocyte. N = number of samples. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. (a) Tumor-invaded lungs in the extravasation assay. The black arrows in the placebo group indicate fluorescently labeled TRAMP tumor cells. The co-injection of CMOy-Lrp5 reduced tumor invasion to the lungs. Scale bar: 20 µm. (b,c) TRAMP prostate cancer cell-invaded tibia and fibula of C57BL/6 male mice. Scale bar: 100 mm. (d,e) EO771 mammary tumor cell-invaded tibia and fibula of C57BL/6 female mice. Scale bar: 100 mm. (f) Protection of trabecular bone in the proximal tibia by Oy CM and Lrp5-Oy CM. BMD = bone mineral density, BV/TV = bone volume ratio, Tb.N = trabecular number, and Tb.Sp = trabecular separation. Scale bar: 500 µm. (g) Reduction in the tumor-invaded area in the proximal tibia by the co-injection of Oy and Lrp5-Oy. The green dotted area indicates the tumor-invaded region. Scale bar: 20 µm.
Figure 3. Protection of the TRAMP tumor cell-invaded proximal tibia by the co-injection of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes. CN = control (no tumor injection), pl = placebo, Oy = osteocytes, and Lrp5-Oy = Lrp5-overexpressing osteocyte. N = number of samples. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. (a) Tumor-invaded lungs in the extravasation assay. The black arrows in the placebo group indicate fluorescently labeled TRAMP tumor cells. The co-injection of CMOy-Lrp5 reduced tumor invasion to the lungs. Scale bar: 20 µm. (b,c) TRAMP prostate cancer cell-invaded tibia and fibula of C57BL/6 male mice. Scale bar: 100 mm. (d,e) EO771 mammary tumor cell-invaded tibia and fibula of C57BL/6 female mice. Scale bar: 100 mm. (f) Protection of trabecular bone in the proximal tibia by Oy CM and Lrp5-Oy CM. BMD = bone mineral density, BV/TV = bone volume ratio, Tb.N = trabecular number, and Tb.Sp = trabecular separation. Scale bar: 500 µm. (g) Reduction in the tumor-invaded area in the proximal tibia by the co-injection of Oy and Lrp5-Oy. The green dotted area indicates the tumor-invaded region. Scale bar: 20 µm.
Biomolecules 16 00240 g003
Biomolecules 16 00240 g004
Figure 4. Severe tumor-induced bone loss in Lrp5 conditional knockout mice and the rescue by the injection of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes. WT = wildtype, KO = conditional knockout of Lrp5 in osteocytes, Oy = osteocytes, and Lrp5 CM = Lrp5-overexpressing Oy CM. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. (a) Presence of Dmp1-Cre and floxed Lrp5 in KO mice. Cx43 (connexin 43) was used as a control. (b) Mean age of the mice used in this study. (c,d) Micro-CT images of trabecular bone in the proximal tibia and bone parameters. BMD = bone mineral density, BV/TV = bone volume ratio, Tb.N = trabecular number, and Tb.Sp = trabecular separation. Scale bar: 500 µm. (e) H&E-stained histological images of the proximal tibia. The green dotted area indicates the tumor-invaded region.
Figure 4. Severe tumor-induced bone loss in Lrp5 conditional knockout mice and the rescue by the injection of Lrp5-overexpressing osteocytes. WT = wildtype, KO = conditional knockout of Lrp5 in osteocytes, Oy = osteocytes, and Lrp5 CM = Lrp5-overexpressing Oy CM. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. (a) Presence of Dmp1-Cre and floxed Lrp5 in KO mice. Cx43 (connexin 43) was used as a control. (b) Mean age of the mice used in this study. (c,d) Micro-CT images of trabecular bone in the proximal tibia and bone parameters. BMD = bone mineral density, BV/TV = bone volume ratio, Tb.N = trabecular number, and Tb.Sp = trabecular separation. Scale bar: 500 µm. (e) H&E-stained histological images of the proximal tibia. The green dotted area indicates the tumor-invaded region.
Biomolecules 16 00240 g004
Biomolecules 16 00240 g005
Figure 5. Inhibitory effects of CMs, derived from osteocytes, MSCs, mononuclear cells, and monocytes. CM = conditioned medium, Oy = osteocytes, Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression, shLrp5 = Lrp5 silencing, MSC = mesenchymal stem cells, β-cat = β-catenin overexpression, BML = BML284. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Scale bar: 200 µm. (a) Inhibition of RANKL-driven RAW264.7 osteoclast development by CMOy-Lrp5. (b) Downregulation of NFATc1 and cathepsin K by CMOy-Lrp5. (c–e) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion of TRAMP cells by CMMSC-Lrp5. (f,g) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion of TRAMP cells by CMMSC-βcat. (h) Reduction in MTT-based viability of PC-3 cells by BML284-treated mononuclear cell-derived CM (CMmononuclear-BML). (i) Reduction in MTT-based viability of PC-3 and TRAMP cells by BML284-treated monocyte-derived CM (CMJ774A.1-BML and CMTHP1-BML).
Figure 5. Inhibitory effects of CMs, derived from osteocytes, MSCs, mononuclear cells, and monocytes. CM = conditioned medium, Oy = osteocytes, Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression, shLrp5 = Lrp5 silencing, MSC = mesenchymal stem cells, β-cat = β-catenin overexpression, BML = BML284. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Scale bar: 200 µm. (a) Inhibition of RANKL-driven RAW264.7 osteoclast development by CMOy-Lrp5. (b) Downregulation of NFATc1 and cathepsin K by CMOy-Lrp5. (c–e) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion of TRAMP cells by CMMSC-Lrp5. (f,g) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion of TRAMP cells by CMMSC-βcat. (h) Reduction in MTT-based viability of PC-3 cells by BML284-treated mononuclear cell-derived CM (CMmononuclear-BML). (i) Reduction in MTT-based viability of PC-3 and TRAMP cells by BML284-treated monocyte-derived CM (CMJ774A.1-BML and CMTHP1-BML).
Biomolecules 16 00240 g005
Biomolecules 16 00240 g006
Figure 6. Tumor-suppressing action of extracellular moesin to TRAMP prostate cancer cells. CM = conditioned medium, Oy = osteocytes, Lrp5pl = Lrp5 overexpression, MSN = moesin, MSNpl = overexpression of moesin, siMSN = silencing of moesin. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Scale bar: 200 µm. (a) List of 10 tumor suppressor candidates identified by mass spectrometry-based proteomics analysis. (b) Reduction in MTT-based proliferation of TRAMP tumor cells by 10 recombinant proteins. (c,d) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion by the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant moesin proteins. (e) Downregulation of MMP9, Snail, TGFβ, and upregulation of cleaved caspase 3 by the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant moesin proteins. (f,g) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion by moesin-overexpressing CM. (h) Downregulation of MMP9, Snail, TGFβ, and upregulation of cleaved caspase 3 by moesin-overexpressing CM. (i) Upregulation of MMP9, Snail, TGFβ, and downregulation of cleaved caspase 3 by moesin-silenced CM. (j) Elevation of moesin in Lrp5 CM. (k) Elevation of moesin, p53, ANXA6, LIMA1, and TRAIL in CM, which was derived from moesin-overexpressing A5 osteocytes. (l) Elevation of MMP9, Snail, and TGFβ, and reduction in cleaved caspase 3 in moesin-overexpressing TRAMP cells.
Figure 6. Tumor-suppressing action of extracellular moesin to TRAMP prostate cancer cells. CM = conditioned medium, Oy = osteocytes, Lrp5pl = Lrp5 overexpression, MSN = moesin, MSNpl = overexpression of moesin, siMSN = silencing of moesin. The single and double asterisks indicate p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Scale bar: 200 µm. (a) List of 10 tumor suppressor candidates identified by mass spectrometry-based proteomics analysis. (b) Reduction in MTT-based proliferation of TRAMP tumor cells by 10 recombinant proteins. (c,d) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion by the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant moesin proteins. (e) Downregulation of MMP9, Snail, TGFβ, and upregulation of cleaved caspase 3 by the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant moesin proteins. (f,g) Reduction in MTT-based viability and transwell invasion by moesin-overexpressing CM. (h) Downregulation of MMP9, Snail, TGFβ, and upregulation of cleaved caspase 3 by moesin-overexpressing CM. (i) Upregulation of MMP9, Snail, TGFβ, and downregulation of cleaved caspase 3 by moesin-silenced CM. (j) Elevation of moesin in Lrp5 CM. (k) Elevation of moesin, p53, ANXA6, LIMA1, and TRAIL in CM, which was derived from moesin-overexpressing A5 osteocytes. (l) Elevation of MMP9, Snail, and TGFβ, and reduction in cleaved caspase 3 in moesin-overexpressing TRAMP cells.
Biomolecules 16 00240 g006
Biomolecules 16 00240 g007
Figure 7. Tumor selectivity and anti-tumor action of extracellular moesin. MSN = moesin, CN = control, CM = conditioned medium, MSC = mesenchymal stem cells, siFN1 = fibronectin 1 siRNA, siCD44 = CD44 siRNA, A5 = MLO-A5 osteocytes, EO = EO771 mammary tumor cells, and Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression. The double and triple asterisks indicate p < 0.01 and p < 0.001. Scale bar: 10 µm. (a) Tumor selectivity, λ, of A5 CM, A5 Lrp5 CM, and moesin. A value λ larger than 1 indicates that the MTT-based inhibition is greater in tumor cells (TRAMP prostate tumor cells and EO771 mammary tumor cells) than in non-tumor cells (MSCs and MC3T3 osteoblasts). (b) MSN immunoprecipitated CD44 from TRAMP protein extracts and FN1 from TRAMP ECM protein extracts. (c,d) Suppression of MSN-driven inhibition of MTT-based viability of TRAMP cells by silencing CD44 and FN1. (e) Suppression of the downregulation of MMP9, TGFβ, and Snail in TRAMP cells by silencing CD44 and FN1. (f) Decrease in Src activity and β-catenin nuclear localization in response to MSN in TRAMP cells, and the blockage of their MSN-driven inhibition by silencing CD44.
Figure 7. Tumor selectivity and anti-tumor action of extracellular moesin. MSN = moesin, CN = control, CM = conditioned medium, MSC = mesenchymal stem cells, siFN1 = fibronectin 1 siRNA, siCD44 = CD44 siRNA, A5 = MLO-A5 osteocytes, EO = EO771 mammary tumor cells, and Lrp5 = Lrp5 overexpression. The double and triple asterisks indicate p < 0.01 and p < 0.001. Scale bar: 10 µm. (a) Tumor selectivity, λ, of A5 CM, A5 Lrp5 CM, and moesin. A value λ larger than 1 indicates that the MTT-based inhibition is greater in tumor cells (TRAMP prostate tumor cells and EO771 mammary tumor cells) than in non-tumor cells (MSCs and MC3T3 osteoblasts). (b) MSN immunoprecipitated CD44 from TRAMP protein extracts and FN1 from TRAMP ECM protein extracts. (c,d) Suppression of MSN-driven inhibition of MTT-based viability of TRAMP cells by silencing CD44 and FN1. (e) Suppression of the downregulation of MMP9, TGFβ, and Snail in TRAMP cells by silencing CD44 and FN1. (f) Decrease in Src activity and β-catenin nuclear localization in response to MSN in TRAMP cells, and the blockage of their MSN-driven inhibition by silencing CD44.
Biomolecules 16 00240 g007
Biomolecules 16 00240 g008
Figure 8. FRET-based analysis of the MSN-CD44 regulatory axis. MSN = moesin, CN = control. The double asterisks indicate p < 0.01. (a) Significant reduction in the overall survival rate for patients with a high level of MSN. (b) MSN-driven stimulation of MTT-based proliferation of PC3 prostate cancer cells and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. (c) Downregulation of MTT-based viability of PC3 cells and MDA-MB-231 cells in response to MSN-overexpressing Jurkat-derived CM. (d) Downregulation of PDL1 and p-Src by the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant MSN proteins. (e) The putative mechanism of the anti-tumor action of Lrp5/β-catenin-overexpressing osteocyte-derived CM, which inhibits the progression of tumors and the development of osteoclasts.
Figure 8. FRET-based analysis of the MSN-CD44 regulatory axis. MSN = moesin, CN = control. The double asterisks indicate p < 0.01. (a) Significant reduction in the overall survival rate for patients with a high level of MSN. (b) MSN-driven stimulation of MTT-based proliferation of PC3 prostate cancer cells and MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. (c) Downregulation of MTT-based viability of PC3 cells and MDA-MB-231 cells in response to MSN-overexpressing Jurkat-derived CM. (d) Downregulation of PDL1 and p-Src by the application of 5 µg/mL recombinant MSN proteins. (e) The putative mechanism of the anti-tumor action of Lrp5/β-catenin-overexpressing osteocyte-derived CM, which inhibits the progression of tumors and the development of osteoclasts.
Biomolecules 16 00240 g008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, S.; Wu, D.; Minami, K.; Liu, J.; Na, S.; Aryal, U.K.; Figueiredo, M.L.; Robling, A.G.; Li, B.-Y.; Yokota, H. Induced Tumor-Suppressing (iTS) Cell-Based Approach for Protecting the Bone from Advanced Prostate Cancer. Biomolecules 2026, 16, 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom16020240

AMA Style

Liu S, Wu D, Minami K, Liu J, Na S, Aryal UK, Figueiredo ML, Robling AG, Li B-Y, Yokota H. Induced Tumor-Suppressing (iTS) Cell-Based Approach for Protecting the Bone from Advanced Prostate Cancer. Biomolecules. 2026; 16(2):240. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom16020240

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Shengzhi, Di Wu, Kazumasa Minami, Jing Liu, Sungsoo Na, Uma K. Aryal, Marxa L. Figueiredo, Alexander G. Robling, Bai-Yan Li, and Hiroki Yokota. 2026. "Induced Tumor-Suppressing (iTS) Cell-Based Approach for Protecting the Bone from Advanced Prostate Cancer" Biomolecules 16, no. 2: 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom16020240

APA Style

Liu, S., Wu, D., Minami, K., Liu, J., Na, S., Aryal, U. K., Figueiredo, M. L., Robling, A. G., Li, B.-Y., & Yokota, H. (2026). Induced Tumor-Suppressing (iTS) Cell-Based Approach for Protecting the Bone from Advanced Prostate Cancer. Biomolecules, 16(2), 240. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom16020240

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop