Breast cancer stem cells (BCSCs, defined by the cell-surface marker phenotype CD44⁺CD24⁻) constitutively express higher levels of the multidrug-resistance ABC transporters MDR1 (ABCB1/P-glycoprotein) and BCRP (ABCG2) than the differentiated tumor-cell bulk, and both the BCSC fraction and their transporter expression rise further after cytotoxic chemotherapy. Whether this reflects selection of pre-existing high-expressing clones, inducible transcriptional regulation, or acquired genetic/epigenetic alteration — and whether it can be safely intercepted in patients to prevent relapse — remains an open, mechanistically and clinically central problem in breast cancer therapy resistance.

Background

Multidrug resistance in breast cancer is mediated in part by ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, membrane pumps that extrude structurally unrelated cytotoxic drugs. Two of these, MDR1 (gene ABCB1, protein P-glycoprotein) and BCRP (breast cancer resistance protein, gene ABCG2), export many mainstay agents or their metabolites, and both are overexpressed in drug-resistant tumors. A second strand of work established the cancer-stem-cell (CSC) model of breast cancer: a small tumorigenic subpopulation, prospectively isolated by flow cytometry as CD44⁺CD24⁻/low cells (cells bearing the surface marker CD44 but little or no CD24), can regenerate the heterogeneous tumor while bulk differentiated cells cannot, and is relatively spared by chemotherapy. The confluence of these strands — transporter-mediated efflux concentrated in the tumor-initiating compartment — was quantified at the subpopulation level by Li, Liu, He, Zhang and Huang (Chinese-German Journal of Clinical Oncology 7(9):538–541, 2008; doi:10.1007/s10330-008-0074-3). Using fluorescence-activated cell sorting of 19 primary human breast tumors and MCF-7 cultures followed by real-time quantitative PCR, they showed that MDR1 mRNA was 14.28–23.16-fold higher in CD44⁺CD24⁻ stem cells than in matched differentiated cells in the 11 primary tumors expressing it in both fractions (detectable only in the stem fraction in 5 more), and BCRP was similarly stem-cell-biased in three expression patterns. In MCF-7 cultures exposed for 60 hours to five chemotherapeutics, the CD44⁺CD24⁻ fraction rose from 32.62% to 58.79–89.21%, and MDR1 and BCRP transcripts in the surviving stem cells increased up to 20.62-fold and 32.77-fold respectively. The authors proposed these subpopulation-resolved expression differences as one key to chemotherapy failure and relapse, and even speculated that the three primary-tumor expression patterns correspond to ineffective chemotherapy, high-relapse-risk partial remission, and low-relapse-risk complete remission. The study's design, however, could not decide among three mechanistic accounts of the post-treatment elevation — (i) selective survival of pre-existing high-expressing clones, (ii) inducible transcriptional upregulation triggered by drug exposure, or (iii) acquisition of genetic or epigenetic alterations in the survivors — because it measured unreplicated mRNA fold-changes in whole sorted fractions without lineage information, functional efflux assays, in vivo treatment models, or any patient follow-up. An independent study the same year (Li X. et al., J Natl Cancer Inst 100(9):672–679, 2008) confirmed in paired patient biopsies that neoadjuvant chemotherapy enriches CD44⁺CD24⁻/low mammosphere-forming cells (mammospheres being floating colonies that stem-like cells form in non-adherent culture), and Creighton et al. (PNAS 106(33):13820–13825, 2009) found residual tumors after docetaxel or letrozole enriched for the same stem/mammosphere gene signature of the claudin-low subtype (a breast-cancer molecular subtype with low expression of claudin tight-junction proteins and mesenchymal traits) — establishing that the enrichment phenomenon itself is real in patients. Subsequent work complicated the original dichotomy: non-stem mammary and cancer cells can spontaneously convert to a stem-like state (Chaffer et al., PNAS 108(19):7950–7955, 2011); taxane chemotherapy in patients elevates the chemokine CCL20, which through NF-κB (nuclear factor-κB, a pro-inflammatory transcription-factor pathway) both expands BCSCs and transcriptionally induces ABCB1 (Chen et al., PLoS Biology 16(7):e2005869, 2018); and ABCB1/ABCG2 expression is itself subject to epigenetic control by histone acetylation, DNA methylation, and microRNAs (Arrigoni et al., Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 12(12):1419–1432, 2016; You, Richardson and Aleksunes, Drug Metab Dispos 48(6):459–480, 2020). On the therapeutic side, clinical inhibition of P-glycoprotein by tariquidar showed only limited ability to restore sensitivity to anthracycline/taxane chemotherapy in resistant advanced breast cancer (Pusztai et al., Cancer 104(4):682–691, 2005), and BCSC-directed strategies remain preclinical or early phase (Saha et al., Transl Res 165(5):558–577, 2015; Palomeras, Ruiz-Martínez and Puig, Molecules 23(9):2193, 2018). Single-cell and spatial profiling of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is now mapping the surviving cell states at high resolution (Seo et al., Cell Rep Med 6(6):102164, 2025; Zhang et al., Genome Medicine 18, 2026), but no study has quantified the relative contributions of selection, inducible transcription, and acquired genetic/epigenetic change specifically to MDR1/BCRP elevation in surviving BCSCs, nor validated a therapeutic interception of it.

Problem Statement

The problem, as left open by Li et al. (2008) and still standing, has one overarching objective — to explain and ultimately intercept the chemotherapy-driven enrichment of multidrug-resistant breast cancer stem cells. Its three jointly necessary components are: (1) Mechanism. Determine, at the molecular level, which of (i) clonal selection of pre-existing high-expressing CD44⁺CD24⁻ cells, (ii) inducible transcriptional upregulation of ABCB1/MDR1 and ABCG2/BCRP triggered by cytotoxic drug exposure, and (iii) acquisition of genetic or epigenetic alterations in the surviving cells the available evidence supports as contributors to the elevated MDR1 and BCRP expression observed in BCSCs that survive chemotherapy, and their relative contributions so far as the evidence can separate them, stating explicitly where it cannot (no precise quantitative split is required) — including whether and how far non-stem cells convert to a drug-resistant stem-like state under treatment. (2) Clinical validity. Establish, so far as the existing in vivo and patient evidence allows, whether these transporter-level, subpopulation-resolved changes observed in vitro and ex vivo are reproduced in treated tumors in vivo, and whether they predict patient treatment response and relapse, replacing the source study's unvalidated speculation that MDR1/BCRP expression patterns map onto complete remission, high-risk partial remission, and chemorefractory disease. (3) Therapeutic interception. On that mechanistic basis, determine, so far as the available evidence allows, whether directly targeting the CD44⁺CD24⁻ compartment or its ABC-transporter-mediated resistance (alone or combined with chemotherapy) is a feasible and safe way to prevent relapse in patients — the question that the clinical failure of transporter inhibitors and the persistence of unvalidated CSC-targeting strategies leave open. The mechanistic attribution in (1) is the basis from which the targeting strategy in (3) is derived.

References

  1. Li Z, Liu C, He Y, Zhang J, Huang T (2008). The expression and significance of multi-drug resistance genes in breast cancer stem cells. The Chinese-German Journal of Clinical Oncology 7(9):538–541. doi:10.1007/s10330-008-0074-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10330-008-0074-3
  2. Li X, Lewis MT, Huang J, Gutierrez C, Osborne CK, Wu M-F, Hilsenbeck SG, Pavlick A, Zhang X, Chamness GC, Wong H, Rosen J, Chang JC (2008). Intrinsic resistance of tumorigenic breast cancer cells to chemotherapy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100(9):672–679. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn123. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn123
  3. Creighton CJ, Li X, Landis M, Dixon JM, Neumeister VM, Sjolund A, Rimm DL, Wong H, Rodriguez A, Herschkowitz JI, Fan C, Zhang X, He X, Pavlick A, Gutierrez MC, Renshaw L, Larionov AA, Faratian D, Hilsenbeck SG, Perou CM, Lewis MT, Rosen JM, Chang JC (2009). Residual breast cancers after conventional therapy display mesenchymal as well as tumor-initiating features. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106(33):13820–13825. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905718106. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905718106
  4. Calcagno AM, Salcido CD, Gillet J-P, Wu C-P, Fostel JM, Mumau MD, Gottesman MM, Varticovski L, Ambudkar SV (2010). Prolonged drug selection of breast cancer cells and enrichment of cancer stem cell characteristics. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102(21):1637–1652. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq361. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq361
  5. Chaffer CL, Brueckmann I, Scheel C, Kaestli AJ, Wiggins PA, Rodrigues LO, Brooks M, Reinhardt F, Su Y, Polyak K, Arendt LM, Kuperwasser C, Bierie B, Weinberg RA (2011). Normal and neoplastic nonstem cells can spontaneously convert to a stem-like state. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(19):7950–7955. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102454108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102454108
  6. Chen W, Qin Y, Wang D, Zhou L, Liu Y, Chen S, Yin L, Xiao Y, Yao X-H, Yang X, Ma W, Chen W, He X, Zhang L, Yang Q, Bian X, Shao Z-M, Liu S (2018). CCL20 triggered by chemotherapy hinders the therapeutic efficacy of breast cancer. PLoS Biology 16(7):e2005869. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2005869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005869
  7. You D, Richardson JR, Aleksunes LM (2020). Epigenetic regulation of multidrug resistance protein 1 and breast cancer resistance protein transporters by histone deacetylase inhibition. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 48(6):459–480. doi:10.1124/dmd.119.089953. https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.119.089953
  8. Arrigoni E, Galimberti S, Petrini M, Danesi R, Di Paolo A (2016). ATP-binding cassette transmembrane transporters and their epigenetic control in cancer: an overview. Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology 12(12):1419–1432. doi:10.1080/17425255.2016.1215423. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425255.2016.1215423
  9. Pusztai L, Wagner P, Ibrahim N, Rivera E, Theriault R, Booser D, Symmans FW, Wong F, Blumenschein G, Fleming DR, Rouzier R, Boniface G, Hortobagyi GN (2005). Phase II study of tariquidar, a selective P-glycoprotein inhibitor, in patients with chemotherapy-resistant, advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer 104(4):682–691. doi:10.1002/cncr.21227. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21227
  10. Palomeras S, Ruiz-Martínez S, Puig T (2018). Targeting breast cancer stem cells to overcome treatment resistance. Molecules 23(9):2193. doi:10.3390/molecules23092193. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23092193
  11. Saha S, Mukherjee S, Mazumdar M, Manna A, Khan P, Adhikary A, Kajal K, Jana D, Sa G, Mukherjee S, Sarkar DK, Das T (2015). Mithramycin A sensitizes therapy-resistant breast cancer stem cells toward genotoxic drug doxorubicin. Translational Research 165(5):558–577. doi:10.1016/j.trsl.2014.10.011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2014.10.011
  12. Seo ES, Park S, Cho EY, Lee JE, Jung HH, Hyeon J, An S, Kim SW, Shin J, Ahn JS, Park YH, Im Y-H, Kim H, Lee S, Park W-Y, Kim J-Y (2025). Spatial and genomic profiling of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy unveil divergent fates for each breast cancer subtype. Cell Reports Medicine 6(6):102164. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.102164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.102164
  13. Zhang Y, Ahmadi Moughari F, Mavrommati I, Doleschall NJ, Moore K, Muirhead G, Srinivasan RR, Gong P, Lei JT, Fleming A, Khoo HM, Guppy N, Elshtein G, Inayatullah M, Tiwari VK, Dobrolecki LE, Lewis MT, Haider S, Natrajan R (2026). Co-occurrence of transcriptionally distinct persister cell states underpins neoadjuvant therapy resistance in triple-negative breast cancer. Genome Medicine 18(1). doi:10.1186/s13073-026-01643-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-026-01643-9