| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Reviews |
Departments of 1 Pathology and 2 Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
Requests for reprints: Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Department of Pathology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Passeig Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035 Barcelona, Spain. Phone: 34-932746824; Fax: 34-934894015; E-mail: sramon{at}vhebron.net.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Background |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Since the description of human oncogenes, molecular characterization of tumors has been the main goal to understand the mechanisms of tumor formation and identify prognostic factors and therapeutic targets. However, molecular study of human tumors is an enormous job, and the huge puzzle that will integrate the continuous flow of new information is still under "construction." Earlier reports showed that oncogenic alterations are mediated by mutations, deletions, translocations, and amplifications of genes. Up to 300 mutated genes implicated in oncogenesis have been identified as human cancer genes (1). Now we know that gene methylation and the fascinating new world of microRNAs (2) can also orchestrate gene expression and play an important role in malignant transformation. Finally, taking into account that the real biochemical effectors are proteins, it is well established that increased activation or phosphorylation of proteins in signaling pathways mediated by various mechanisms is crucial in cancer. Therefore, the genetic landscape of human cancers, which has been recently elucidated in colon and breast carcinomas, with up to 189 mutated genes identified at significant frequency (3), should be incorporated to the functional information provided by expression arrays and proteomics. We know that there is not always a linear correlation among DNA alterations, RNA levels, and protein expression and that complex cross-talk between molecules and pathways may dictate the final effectors and the functional effect.
This intricate molecular background and its biochemical consequences must be responsible for inducing and mediating the malignancy of tumors, but how can we integrate this information? In their comprehensive review, Hanahan and Weinberg (4) proposed that six acquired capabilities are needed for malignant cellular growth: self-sufficiency in growth signals, insensitivity to anti–growth signals, limitless replicative potential, resistance to apoptosis, sustained angiogenesis, and, finally, the ability to infiltrate the surrounding tissue and metastasize. Each of these changes in cellular physiology can be brought about through dozens of signaling pathways or cascades, each implicating various genes or proteins. This cell transformation approach can help us to understand the great heterogeneity observed in tumors, where many different oncogenic alterations may be involved in each biochemical route.
Many oncologists and pathologists ask whether all this information is really important for the management of individual cancer patients. The answer is unknown because only a few molecular targets have been identified in a few tumor types. For example, ERBB2 amplification is seen in 25% to 30% of breast carcinomas, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in <10% of lung carcinomas, and c-KIT in the rare gastrointestinal stromal tumors; but in most carcinomas, there is no distinctive oncogenic target. In the near future, technological advances will allow us to study the complete genetic background, mRNA profile, and protein expression of individual tumors and identify a myriad of genetic and biochemical alterations. But even then, attempts to inhibit or counteract single genetic alterations with the use of multiple specific agents would probably be chaotic. Nevertheless, dissection of the biochemical pathways is progressing. We now know which factors are the final growth signaling effectors that can control transcription and protein synthesis. Then, it is logical to hypothesize that the level of expression of these final effectors, which channel the proliferation signal, can be associated with the real oncogenic role of a pathway in individual tumors.
| In Search of "Funnel Factors" |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We chose to investigate the funnel factor corresponding to the acquired capability of growth factor self-sufficiency, one of the most extensively studied characteristics of tumor cells and one that is constitutively activated in nearly all tumors. The process of converting extracellular signals into cellular responses, in this case cell growth and division, is called signal transduction. The growth signal transduction pathway is composed of growth factors, growth factor receptors, factors transmitting the growth signal, and the final effector factors, some of which are located in the nucleus to activate transcription factors and some in the ribosomes to activate protein synthesis. The neoplastic cell, however, may be able to generate signals for survival or proliferation through various mechanisms without depending on exogenous signals. These mechanisms include alterations in the growth factors or receptors, or in the signaling pathways, themselves. Among the latter, the most highly recognized and important are the RAS-RAF-mitogen-activated protein kinase [extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2)] and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-AKT pathways, which regulate mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Specific molecular alterations are detected in these signaling cascades in the majority of tumors. Usually, these are single alterations with an oncogenic effect, such as growth factor mutations or RAS mutations; other concomitant genetic alterations are not usually found in these biochemical pathways.
| Studies in Breast, Ovary, Prostate, and Colon Carcinomas |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In addition, we investigated correlations between the expression of all the proteins studied to detect possible cross-activations and activations by pathways or mechanisms that have not as yet been well defined. Most importantly, we examined the clinical characteristics associated with the tumors to correlate the factors studied with the tumor stage and patient survival.
| Breast and Ovary Tumors |
|---|
|
|
|---|
30% of tumors showed a higher amount of EIF4E than 4E-BP1 (EIF4E to 4E-BP1 ratio >1). Assuming that 4E-BP1 acts by sequestering EIF4E at a 1:1 ratio, some EIF4E would be free in these cases regardless of the amount of p-4E-BP1. Interestingly, these tumors included three of the five grade III cases with a p-4E-BP1 to 4E-BP1 ratio of 0 (Fig. 2
). Similarly, in ovarian tumors, we found that p-4E-BP1 expression correlated with tumor progression and an unfavorable prognosis regardless of the status of HER2/neu, EGFR, PTEN, or PI3K (6).
|
|
| Prostate Tumors |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Along this line, we designed a study in patients with HGPIN lesions and prostate carcinomas, analyzing signaling pathway factors in biopsy samples and surgical specimens from prostatectomies and cystoprostatectomies.3 Once again, we attempted to identify funnel factors through which several oncogenic signals converge and determine their association with the disease prognosis. Activation of the AKT/mTOR cascade was detected in prostate carcinomas and in the HGPIN areas around them, with similar phosphorylated AKT and phosphorylated p70S6K expression. p-4E-BP1 tended to be high in HGPIN. Interestingly, p-4E-BP1 expression in HGPIN adjacent to prostate carcinomas was higher than in HGPIN without carcinoma (P < 0.001). With the aim of determining whether p-4E-BP1 overexpression could identify HGPIN with higher risk of progressing to carcinoma, we analyzed the immunohistochemical expression of p-4E-BP1 in 76 HGPIN needle biopsies of patients who later underwent repeat biopsies. We found that p-4E-BP1 expression was significantly higher in HGPIN areas corresponding to cases that progressed to prostate cancer than in those that did not (P = 0.000), suggesting that this factor may help to identify patients at high risk for developing the disease.
| Colon Carcinomas |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
4E-BP1 is a EIF4E-binding protein that plays a critical role in the control of protein synthesis, survival, and cell growth (12, 13). During cap-dependent translation, EIF4E binds to the mRNA cap structure and promotes formation of the eIF4F initiation complex and ribosome binding. When 4E-BP1 is active (non-p-4E-BP1), it binds to EIF4E and impedes formation of the initiation complex; translation is then blocked, favoring apoptosis. However, when 4E-BP1 is phosphorylated, the affinity for EIF4E binding is reduced, EIF4E is released, and cap-dependent translation can initiate.
It is important to point out that 4E-BP1 has seven phosphorylation sites (7). It is likely that mTOR is the main phosphorylation pathway of 4E-BP1 (14), although other kinases may be implicated, such as cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (12, 15), ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM; ref. 16), PI3K-AKT (17, 18), ERK1/2 (19), and perhaps other, still unidentified, kinases. Therefore, 4E-BP1 phosphorylation can be the consequence of many different oncogenic events occurring in several biochemical pathways, including amplification or mutation of growth factor receptors, loss of function or mutations in PTEN, ATM, p53, PI3K, or RAS, or other collateral mechanisms of cellular oncogenic activation, such as activation of phospholipase D, which can activate the mTOR cascade, or other unknown kinases or phosphatases (Fig. 3 ). Because of the elevated number of genetic alterations that regulate 4E-BP1, we propose that the phosphorylated form of this protein can act as a "bottleneck" or funneling factor through which the transforming signals converge, channeling the oncogenic proliferative signal regardless of the upstream-specific oncogenic alteration. In fact, previous studies with a mutant 4E-BP1 in the phosphorylation sites showed a marked antitumor effect (10), and recently, we obtained similar results in some, but not all, breast and colon carcinoma cell lines.5
|
Extending the concept we propose, it is possible that there might be several funnel factors where the final biochemical effect converges for each of the oncogenic capabilities of tumor cells (e.g., in the apoptosis pathways, where the expression of certain proteins that inhibit apoptosis, such as survivin and livin, might be associated with resistance to apoptosis regardless of the activation of other antiapoptotic or proapoptotic genes that might be present).
Study of the expression profiles of funnel factors from all the cell transformation pathways would allow us to obtain an individual functional molecular signature for each tumor. This signature, combined with clinical and pathologic data, would help us to establish the malignant potential of each individual tumor and deduce its potential resistance to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Obviously, in addition to molecular characterization of tumors for prognostic purposes, it is necessary to study factors that might be potential therapeutic targets, currently one of the most promising areas in the field of cancer treatment. With this functional approach, it seems worthwhile to investigate whether these funnel factors can be critical targets for cancer treatment.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Dr. Nahum Sonenberg (McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) for critical reading of the manuscript, Teresa Osteso for her technical work, and Celine Cavallo for English language editing.
| Footnotes |
|---|
4 M. Cuatrecasas et al. P4E-BP1 in colorectal carcinomas. A surrogate of the real oncogenic role of the mTOR pathway, submitted for publication. ![]()
Received 3/ 6/07. Revised 5/28/07. Accepted 5/31/07.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. Lopez-Vicente, G. Armengol, B. Pons, L. Coch, E. Argelaguet, M. Lleonart, J. Hernandez-Losa, I. de Torres, and S. Ramon y Cajal Regulation of Replicative and Stress-Induced Senescence by RSK4, which is Down-regulated in Human Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2009; 15(14): 4546 - 4553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Y. Ko, H. Guo, N. Barengo, and H. Naora Inhibition of Ovarian Cancer Growth by a Tumor-Targeting Peptide That Binds Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Factor 4E Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2009; 15(13): 4336 - 4347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. L.B. Borden Tissue Targeting in Cancer: eIF4E's Tale Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2009; 15(13): 4254 - 4255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C.-J. Lin, R. Sukarieh, and J. Pelletier Silibinin inhibits translation initiation: implications for anticancer therapy Mol. Cancer Ther., June 1, 2009; 8(6): 1606 - 1612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. C. Rodriguez, E. W. Lai, S. Vissapragada, C. Cromelin, M. Avetian, P. Salinas, H. Ramos, B. Kallakury, M. Casimiro, M. P. Lisanti, et al. A Reduction in Pten Tumor Suppressor Activity Promotes ErbB-2-Induced Mouse Prostate Adenocarcinoma Formation through the Activation of Signaling Cascades Downstream of PDK1 Am. J. Pathol., June 1, 2009; 174(6): 2051 - 2060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Artero-Castro, F. B. Callejas, J. Castellvi, H. Kondoh, A. Carnero, P. J. Fernandez-Marcos, M. Serrano, S. Ramon y Cajal, and M. E. Lleonart Cold-Inducible RNA-Binding Protein Bypasses Replicative Senescence in Primary Cells through Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase 1 and 2 Activation Mol. Cell. Biol., April 1, 2009; 29(7): 1855 - 1868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. T. Ihle, R. Lemos Jr., P. Wipf, A. Yacoub, C. Mitchell, D. Siwak, G. B. Mills, P. Dent, D. L. Kirkpatrick, and G. Powis Mutations in the Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase Pathway Predict for Antitumor Activity of the Inhibitor PX-866 whereas Oncogenic Ras Is a Dominant Predictor for Resistance Cancer Res., January 1, 2009; 69(1): 143 - 150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Y. Choo, S.-O. Yoon, S. G. Kim, P. P. Roux, and J. Blenis Rapamycin differentially inhibits S6Ks and 4E-BP1 to mediate cell-type-specific repression of mRNA translation PNAS, November 11, 2008; 105(45): 17414 - 17419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Rong, M. Livingstone, R. Sukarieh, E. Petroulakis, A.-C. Gingras, K. Crosby, B. Smith, R. D. Polakiewicz, J. Pelletier, M. A. Ferraiuolo, et al. Control of eIF4E cellular localization by eIF4E-binding proteins, 4E-BPs RNA, July 1, 2008; 14(7): 1318 - 1327. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Pervin, A. H. Tran, S. Zekavati, J. M. Fukuto, R. Singh, and G. Chaudhuri Increased Susceptibility of Breast Cancer Cells to Stress Mediated Inhibition of Protein Synthesis Cancer Res., June 15, 2008; 68(12): 4862 - 4874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. R. Graff, B. W. Konicek, J. H. Carter, and E. G. Marcusson Targeting the Eukaryotic Translation Initiation Factor 4E for Cancer Therapy Cancer Res., February 1, 2008; 68(3): 631 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. C. Prendergast "Generalized" versus "individualized" medicine: Therapeutic and prognostic opportunities Cancer Reviews Online Content, August 31, 2007; 2007(6): 11 - 11. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |