Tumorigenesis is a complex biological phenomenon that includes extensive genetic and phenotypic heterogeneities and complicated regulatory mechanisms. In the recent few years, our studies demonstrate that tumor-initiating cells are similar to neural stem/progenitor cells in regulatory networks, tumorigenicity and pluripotent differentiation potential. In the review, I will make further discussion on these observations and propose a rule of cell biology by integrating these findings with evidence from developmental biology, tumor biology and evolution, which suggests that neural stemness underlies two coupled cell properties, tumorigenicity and pluripotent differentiation potential. Tumorigenicity and phenotypic heterogeneity in tumor is a result of acquirement of neural stemness in cells. The neural stemness property of tumor-initiating cells can hopefully integrate different concepts/hypotheses underlying tumorigenesis. Neural stem cells/neural progenitors and tumor-initiating cells share regulatory networks; both exhibit neural stemness, tumorigenicity and differentiation potential; both are dependent on expression or activation of ancestral genes (the atavistic effect); both rely primarily on aerobic glycolytic metabolism; both can differentiate into various cells or tissues that are derived from three germ layers, resembling severely disorganized or more severely degenerated process of embryonic development; both are enriched in long genes with more splice variants that provide more plastic scaffolds for cell differentiation, etc. The property of neural stemness might be a key point to understand tumorigenesis and pluripotent differentiation potential, and possibly explain certain pathological observations in tumors that have been inexplicable. Therefore, behind the complexity of tumorigenesis might be a general rule of cell biology, i.e., neural stemness represents the ground state of cell tumorigenicity and pluripotent differentiation potential.

Characterization of cancer cells and neural stem cells indicates that tumorigenicity and pluripotency are coupled cell properties determined by neural stemness, and tumorigenesis represents a process of progressive loss of original cell identity and gain of neural stemness. This reminds of a most fundamental process required for the development of the nervous system and body axis during embryogenesis, i.e., embryonic neural induction. Neural induction is that, in response to extracellular signals that are secreted by the Spemann-Mangold organizer in amphibians or the node in mammals and inhibit epidermal fate in ectoderm, the ectodermal cells lose their epidermal fate and assume the neural default fate and consequently, turn into neuroectodermal cells. They further differentiate into the nervous system and also some non-neural cells via interaction with adjacent tissues. Failure in neural induction leads to failure of embryogenesis, and ectopic neural induction due to ectopic organizer or node activity or activation of embryonic neural genes causes a formation of secondary body axis or a conjoined twin. During tumorigenesis, cells progressively lose their original cell identity and gain of neural stemness, and consequently, gain of tumorigenicity and pluripotency, due to various intra-/extracellular insults in cells of a postnatal animal. Tumorigenic cells can be induced to differentiation into normal cells and integrate into normal embryonic development within an embryo. However, they form tumors and cannot integrate into animal tissues/organs in a postnatal animal because of lack of embryonic inducing signals. Combination of studies of developmental and cancer biology indicates that neural induction drives embryogenesis in gastrulating embryos but a similar process drives tumorigenesis in a postnatal animal. Tumorigenicity is the manifestation of aberrant occurrence of pluripotent state in a postnatal animal. Pluripotency and tumorigenicity are both but different manifestations of neural stemness in pre- and postnatal stage, respectively, of animal life. The unique property of neural stemness is derived from the evolutionary advantage of neural genes and the neural-biased state of the last common unicellular ancestors of metazoan. Based on these findings, I discuss about some confusion in cancer research, propose to distinguish the causality and associations and discriminate causal and supporting factors involved in tumorigenesis, and suggest revisiting the focus of cancer research.

Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) is defined as a cellular process during which epithelial cells acquire mesenchymal phenotypes and behavior following the downregulation of epithelial features. EMT and its reversed process, the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), and the special form of EMT, the endothelial-mesenchymal transition (EndMT), have been thought as a universal dogma controlling developmental and pathological processes. More than half a century of EMT study has made it a large research field and a mainstream concept. However, discrepancies and disputes over EMT and EMT research have also grown over time. Particularly, neither the epithelial and mesenchymal states/properties nor their regulatory networks nor specific markers have been defined, rendering the EMT, MET and EndMT concepts groundless. Moreover, EMT and MET effects should not be a cause, but rather a consequence of or an accompanying effect during developmental and pathological processes. EMT and MET represented by the change in cell shapes or adhesiveness or symbolized by EMT factors are biased interpretation of the overall change in cellular property and regulatory networks during development and cancer progression. The true meaning of EMT effects in some developmental and pathological processes, such as fibrosis, needs re-evaluation. But the core EMT factors are actually a few components of the regulatory networks of neural stemness, which determines tumorigenicity and pluripotency. The EMT effects in cancer progression and neural crest formation are wrong attribution of the role of neural stemness during cancer progression and the cell-intrinsic property of neural crest cells to the unknown mesenchymal state. It is time to reassess the significance of EMT and its related concepts in scientific research.

Single image deraining (SID) has shown its importance in many advanced computer vision tasks. Though many CNN based image deraining methods have been proposed, how to effectively remove raindrops while maintaining background structure remains a challenge that needs to be overcome. Most of the deraining work focuses on removing rain streaks, but in heavy rain images, the dense accumulation of rainwater or the rain curtain effect significantly interferes with the effective removal of rain streaks, and often introduces some artifacts that make the scene more blurry. In this paper, we propose a new network structure R-PReNet for single image deraining with good background structure maintaining. This framework fully utilizes the cyclic recursive structure of PReNet. Moreover, we introduce residual channel prior (RCP) and feature fusion modules for better deraining performance by focusing on background feature information. Compared with the previous methods, our method has significantly improvement effect on the rainstorm image with the artifacts removing and good visual detail restoring.