Genes & Cancer

The advent of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has brought the goal of using patient-derived cells for tissue repair closer to reality. However, the mechanisms involved in reprogramming to a pluripotent state are still not clear. It is understood that reprogramming to pluripotency involves epigenetic remodeling and the reactivation of “core” pluripotency factors. However, little is known about the mechanisms involved in overcoming senescence while avoiding oncogenesis, the maintenance of self-renewal, and the regulation of the balance between pluripotency and differentiation. Here, we review recent advances in reprogramming technology and what is currently known about the mechanism of reprogramming to pluripotency. Work with patient-derived iPSCs is already providing new insights into the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in human disease. Further advances in reprogramming technology should result in efficient methods to reprogram patient-derived cells into iPSCs for use in regenerative medicine.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, noncoding RNAs that influence diverse biological outcomes through the repression of target genes during normal development and pathological responses. In particular, the alteration of miRNA expression has dramatic consequences for the progression of tumorigenesis. miRNAs undergo two processing steps that transform a long primary transcript into the mature miRNA. Although the general miRNA biogenesis pathway is well established, it is clear that not all miRNAs are created equally. Recent studies show that miRNA expression is controlled by diverse mechanisms in response to cellular stimuli. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms that govern the regulation of miRNA biogenesis with particular focus on how these mechanisms are perturbed in cancer.

The Hippo tumor suppressor pathway regulates the size of organs by controlling 2 opposing processes: proliferation and apoptosis. The pathway was originally defined in Drosophila, but it is well conserved in mammals. One of the unique features of Hippo signaling is the unusually wide occurrence of WW domains and its cognate PPxY ligand motifs within components of this pathway. Recently, it was proposed that the prevalence of WW domain–mediated complexes in the Hippo signaling pathway should facilitate its molecular analysis and help in the identification of new components of the Hippo-centered network. Indeed, several new members of the Hippo pathway, which form functional complexes with WW domains of YAP and TAZ effectors, were recently described. We focus here on 2 families of such proteins, angiomotins and SMADs, plus 1 regulatory factor, WBP-2, which together shed new light on the rapidly expanding Hippo network. Since the Hippo pathway acts as a tumor suppressor pathway, the complexes described here, which assemble on WW domains of YAP and TAZ, represent potential targets of cancer therapy.

Ligands and their tyrosine kinase (TK) receptors regulate a variety of biological systems in animals. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (Flt/VEGFR family) system play a crucial role not only in physiological but also in most parts of pathological angiogenesis including cancer. Flt-1/VEGFR-1 and KDR/VEGFR-2 bind VEGF-A but have different functions on angiogenesis at early embryogenesis: Flt-1 has a negative role by trapping ligands, whereas KDR (Flk1 in mice) exerts a strong positive signal, resulting in a balance in blood vessel formation. At adult stages, however, both VEGFRs contribute to pathological angiogenesis either directly or through stimulation of migration/activation of macrophage lineage cells and stimulate tumor growth, metastasis, and inflammation. VEGFRs activate downstream signaling of the phospholipase Cγ–protein kinase C–MAP kinase pathway but not Ras pathway for cell proliferation. The VEGF-C/D and Flt-4/VEGFR-3 system regulates lymphangiogenesis. Thus, VEGFs as well as these receptor TKs are attractive targets for suppressing pathological angiogenesis.

Most genetic changes that promote tumorigenesis involve dysregulation of G1 cell cycle progression. A key regulatory site in G1 is a growth factor–dependent restriction point (R) where cells commit to mitosis. In addition to the growth factor–dependent “R,” which maps to a site about 3.5 hours after mitosis, there is another checkpoint later in G1 that is dependent on nutritional sufficiency that has also been referred to as R. However, this second site in late G1 can be distinguished both temporally and genetically from R. We are proposing that the late G1 regulatory site be more appropriately referred to as a “cell growth” checkpoint to distinguish it from R. This checkpoint, which likely has an evolutionary relationship to the yeast cell cycle checkpoint START, is regulated by signals governed by mTOR, the mammalian target of rapamycin. This review summarizes evidence that distinguishes R from the proposed cell growth checkpoint. Since both checkpoints are dysregulated in most, if not all, human cancers, distinguishing between these 2 distinct G1 regulatory checkpoints has significance for rational therapeutic strategies targeting oncogenic signals.

Adaptor proteins are named for their function in assembling complexes of cellular proteins to execute and facilitate transmission of signals. The Crk family of adaptors consists of 2 members, Crk and CrkL. Crk, which was originally isolated as an oncogene, v-Crk, that transforms CEFs, has at least 2 splice variants, CrkI and CrkII, with differing biological activities. All Crk family proteins serve to act as molecular bridges between tyrosine kinases and their substrates and also modulate the specificity and stoichiometry of signaling processes. Signaling via CrkII and CrkL can be negatively regulated via tyrosine phosphorylation–mediated autoinhibition, while such a mechanism is not known to exist for CrkI. Although v-Crk clearly functions as a bona fide oncogene, in recent years, an emerging body of evidence suggests that cellular Crk proteins are overexpressed in human tumors and the expression levels correlate with aggressive and malignant behavior of cancer cells. These properties of Crk proteins make them potential cancer prognosis markers and therapeutic targets.

The cell’s ability to sense and respond to specific stimuli is a complex system derived from precisely regulated protein-protein interactions. Some of these protein-protein interactions are mediated by the recognition of linear peptide motifs by protein modular domains. BRCT (BRCA1 C-terminal) domains and their linear motif counterparts, which contain phosphoserines, are one such pair-wise interaction system that seems to have evolved to serve as a surveillance system to monitor threats to the cell’s genetic integrity. Evidence indicates that BRCT domains found in tandem can cooperate to provide sequence-specific binding of phosphorylated peptides as is the case for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 and the PAX transcription factor–interacting protein PAXIP1. Particular interest has been paid to tandem BRCT domains as “readers” of signaling events in the form of phosphorylated serine moieties induced by the activation of DNA damage response kinases ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK. However, given the diversity of tandem BRCT-containing proteins, questions remain as to the origin and evolution of this domain. Here, we discuss emerging views of the origin and evolving roles of tandem BRCT domain repeats in the DNA damage response.

Emerging data suggest that SSeCKS/Gravin/AKAP12 (“AKAP12”), originally identified as an autoantigen in cases of myasthenia gravis, controls multiple biological processes through its ability to scaffold key signaling proteins such as protein kinase (PK) C and A, calmodulin, cyclins, phosphoinositides, “long” β-1,4 galactosyltransferase (GalTase) isoform, Src, as well as the actin cytoskeleton in a spatiotemporal manner. Specialized functions attributed to AKAP12 include the suppression of cancer malignancy, especially aspects of metastatic progression, regulation of blood-brain and blood-retina barrier formation, and resensitization of β2-adrenergic pain receptors. Recent data identify a direct role for AKAP12 in cytokinesis completion, further suggesting a function as a negative regulator of cell senescence. The current review will discuss the emerging knowledge base of AKAP12-related biological roles and how the factors that affect AKAP12 expression or that interact with AKAP12 at the protein level control cancer progression and blood-tissue barrier formation.