A distinct role for Lgr5+ stem cells in primary and metastatic colon cancer

  • Nature volume 543, pages 676680 (30 March 2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nature21713
  • Download Citation


Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have been hypothesized to represent the driving force behind tumour progression and metastasis, making them attractive cancer targets. However, conclusive experimental evidence for their functional relevance is still lacking for most malignancies. Here we show that the leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein-coupled receptor 5 (Lgr5) identifies intestinal CSCs in mouse tumours engineered to recapitulate the clinical progression of human colorectal cancer. We demonstrate that selective Lgr5+ cell ablation restricts primary tumour growth, but does not result in tumour regression. Instead, tumours are maintained by proliferative Lgr5 cells that continuously attempt to replenish the Lgr5+ CSC pool, leading to rapid re-initiation of tumour growth upon treatment cessation. Notably, CSCs are critical for the formation and maintenance of liver metastasis derived from colorectal cancers. Together, our data highlight distinct CSC dependencies for primary versus metastasic tumour growth, and suggest that targeting CSCs may represent a therapeutic opportunity for managing metastatic disease.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


Primary accessions

Gene Expression Omnibus


  1. 1.

    , & Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J. Clin. 64, 104–117 (2014)

  2. 2.

    & A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61, 759–767 (1990)

  3. 3.

    , , & A human colon cancer cell capable of initiating tumour growth in immunodeficient mice. Nature 445, 106–110 (2007)

  4. 4.

    et al. Identification and expansion of human colon-cancer-initiating cells. Nature 445, 111–115 (2007)

  5. 5.

    et al. Crypt stem cells as the cells-of-origin of intestinal cancer. Nature 457, 608–611 (2009)

  6. 6.

    et al. Targeting LGR5+ cells with an antibody-drug conjugate for the treatment of colon cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 314ra186 (2015)

  7. 7.

    et al. Monoclonal antibodies against LGR5 identify human colorectal cancer stem cells. Stem Cells 30, 2378–2386 (2012)

  8. 8.

    et al. Lineage tracing reveals Lgr5+ stem cell activity in mouse intestinal adenomas. Science 337, 730–735 (2012)

  9. 9.

    ., ., . & The developing cancer stem-cell model: clinical challenges and opportunities. Lancet Oncol. 13, e83–e89 (2012)

  10. 10.

    , , , & Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3983–3988 (2003)

  11. 11.

    et al. Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature 432, 396–401 (2004)

  12. 12.

    et al. A restricted cell population propagates glioblastoma growth after chemotherapy. Nature 488, 522–526 (2012)

  13. 13.

    et al. SOX2 controls tumour initiation and cancer stem-cell functions in squamous-cell carcinoma. Nature 511, 246–250 (2014)

  14. 14.

    et al. Lymph node-independent liver metastasis in a model of metastatic colorectal cancer. Nat. Commun. 5, 3530 (2014)

  15. 15.

    et al. A reserve stem cell population in small intestine renders Lgr5-positive cells dispensable. Nature 478, 255–259 (2011)

  16. 16.

    et al. In vitro expansion of single Lgr5+ liver stem cells induced by Wnt-driven regeneration. Nature 494, 247–250 (2013)

  17. 17.

    et al. Sequential cancer mutations in cultured human intestinal stem cells. Nature 521, 43–47 (2015)

  18. 18.

    et al. Modeling colorectal cancer using CRISPR–Cas9-mediated engineering of human intestinal organoids. Nat. Med. 21, 256–262 (2015)

  19. 19.

    et al. Functional repair of CFTR by CRISPR/Cas9 in intestinal stem cell organoids of cystic fibrosis patients. Cell Stem Cell 13, 653–658 (2013)

  20. 20.

    et al. Cancer stem cells—perspectives on current status and future directions: AACR workshop on cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. 66, 9339–9344 (2006)

  21. 21.

    . et al. Association of survival and disease progression with chromosomal instability: a genomic exploration of colorectal cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7131–7136 (2009)

  22. 22.

    , & Association between chromosomal instability and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Gut 57, 941–950 (2008)

  23. 23.

    et al. The Lgr5 intestinal stem cell signature: robust expression of proposed quiescent ‘+4’ cell markers. EMBO J. 31, 3079–3091 (2012)

  24. 24.

    et al. Single-cell transcript profiles reveal multilineage priming in early progenitors derived from Lgr5+ intestinal stem cells. Cell Reports 16, 2053–2060 (2016)

  25. 25.

    et al. Wnt activity defines colon cancer stem cells and is regulated by the microenvironment. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 468–476 (2010)

  26. 26.

    The cancer stem cell gamble. Science 347, 226–229 (2015)

  27. 27.

    et al. Focal adhesion kinase is required for intestinal regeneration and tumorigenesis downstream of Wnt/c-Myc signaling. Dev. Cell 19, 259–269 (2010)

  28. 28.

    et al. Intestinal crypt homeostasis revealed at single-stem-cell level by in vivo live imaging. Nature 507, 362–365 (2014)

  29. 29.

    et al. Krt19+/Lgr5 cells are radioresistant cancer-initiating stem cells in the colon and intestine. Cell Stem Cell 16, 627–638 (2015)

  30. 30.

    et al. Replacement of lost Lgr5-positive stem cells through plasticity of their enterocyte-lineage daughters. Cell Stem Cell 18, 203–213 (2016)

  31. 31.

    et al. Targeting PTPRK-RSPO3 colon tumours promotes differentiation and loss of stem-cell function. Nature 529, 97–100 (2016)

  32. 32.

    & Regulation and plasticity of intestinal stem cells during homeostasis and regeneration. Development 143, 3639–3649 (2016)

  33. 33.

    , , & Lgr5+ stem cells are indispensable for radiation-induced intestinal regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 14, 149–159 (2014)

  34. 34.

    et al. Targeting metastasis-initiating cells through the fatty acid receptor CD36. Nature 541, 41–45 (2017)

  35. 35.

    et al. The intraportal injection model: a practical animal model for hepatic metastases and tumor cell dissemination in human colon cancer. BMC Cancer 9, 29 (2009)

  36. 36.

    et al. Genomic analysis of smoothened inhibitor resistance in basal cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell 27, 327–341 (2015)

  37. 37.

    & Fast and SNP-tolerant detection of complex variants and splicing in short reads. Bioinformatics 26, 873–881 (2010)

  38. 38.

    , , & voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol. 15, R29 (2014)

  39. 39.

    et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e47 (2015)

  40. 40.

    et al. Untangling the brain’s neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative transcriptional responses. Nat. Commun. 7, 11295 (2016)

  41. 41.

    et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009)

  42. 42.

    et al. The genome analysis toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010)

  43. 43.

    et al. LoFreq: a sequence-quality aware, ultra-sensitive variant caller for uncovering cell-population heterogeneity from high-throughput sequencing datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 11189–11201 (2012)

  44. 44.

    et al. Integrative genomics viewer. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 24–26 (2011)

  45. 45.

    et al. Control-FREEC: a tool for assessing copy number and allelic content using next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 423–425 (2012)

  46. 46.

    , , & Quantitative set analysis for gene expression: a method to quantify gene set differential expression including gene–gene correlations. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e170 (2013)

  47. 47.

    et al. Molecular signatures database (MSigDB) 3.0. Bioinformatics 27, 1739–1740 (2011)

  48. 48.

    & ELDA: extreme limiting dilution analysis for comparing depleted and enriched populations in stem cell and other assays. J. Immunol. Methods 347, 70–78 (2009)

Download references


We thank M. Junttila and K. Leong for generation of the AKVL mouse model, A. Bruce for help designing schematic figures, J. Jian for tissue processing, J. Stinson and the NGS laboratory for RNA-sequencing, J. Paw, C. Poon, T. Ho and J. Borneo for flow cytometry support, members of Laboratory Animal Resources for animal care and de Sauvage laboratory members for comments on the manuscript.

Author information


  1. Molecular Oncology, Genentech, 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, California 94080, USA

    • Felipe de Sousa e Melo
    • , Antonina V. Kurtova
    • , Noelyn Kljavin
    • , Joerg D. Hoeck
    • , Elaine E. Storm
    • , Gerrit J. P. Dijkgraaf
    •  & Frederic J. de Sauvage
  2. Cancer Immunology, Genentech, 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, California 94080, USA

    • Jonathan M. Harnoss
  3. Research Pathology, Genentech, 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, California 94080, USA

    • Jeffrey Hung
    • , Jeffrey Eastham Anderson
    •  & Hartmut Koeppen
  4. Molecular Biology, Genentech, 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, California 94080, USA

    • Zora Modrusan
  5. Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Genentech, 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, California 94080, USA

    • Robert Piskol


  1. Search for Felipe de Sousa e Melo in:

  2. Search for Antonina V. Kurtova in:

  3. Search for Jonathan M. Harnoss in:

  4. Search for Noelyn Kljavin in:

  5. Search for Joerg D. Hoeck in:

  6. Search for Jeffrey Hung in:

  7. Search for Jeffrey Eastham Anderson in:

  8. Search for Elaine E. Storm in:

  9. Search for Zora Modrusan in:

  10. Search for Hartmut Koeppen in:

  11. Search for Gerrit J. P. Dijkgraaf in:

  12. Search for Robert Piskol in:

  13. Search for Frederic J. de Sauvage in:


F.d.S.M. and F.J.d.S. conceptualized the project and designed experiments. F.d.S.M. engineered and characterized all mutant organoid lines, produced concentrated lentivirus, optimized the orthotopic injection methodology and conducted bioluminescent imaging. F.d.S.M., A.V.K. and N.K. performed subcutaneous transplants, endoscopic imaging, DT treatment, tumour measurements and collected tissues. F.d.S.M. and A.V.K. conducted flow cytometry experiments. J.M.H. performed portal vein injections. G.J.P.D. modified pLKO-SHC201, cloned sgRNAs and designed pGEIL-tRFP. F.d.S.M., J.D.H., J.H., J.E.A. and E.E.S. either acquired or evaluated immunohistochemistry and/or immunofluorescence data. H.K. performed histopathological evaluation of tumour and liver tissues. Z.M. contributed next-generation sequencing data. R.P. provided bioinformatics support. F.d.S.M., G.J.P.D. and F.J.d.S. wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

All authors are employees of Genentech and own Roche shares.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederic J. de Sauvage.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks F. Greten, R. Shivdasani and the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Table 1

    Off-target prediction for Trp53 and Smad4 sgRNAs.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Table 2

    Time course analysis of transcriptional changes after DT treatment in vivo.

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Table 3

    Quantitative gene set analysis of expression changes in tumours after DT treatment.

  4. 4.

    Supplementary Table 4

    Quantitative gene set analysis of expression changes of selected gene sets.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.