| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Reviews |
1 Burnham Institute for Medical Research and 2 Pathology Department, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California
Requests for reprints: Elena B. Pasquale, Burnham Institute for Medical Research, 10901 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037. Phone: 858-646-3131; Fax: 858-646-3199; E-mail: elenap{at}burnham.org.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| EphB4/Ephrin-B2 Interaction Promotes an Epithelial Phenotype |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Given that activation of receptors of the EphA class has also been reported to promote epithelial characteristics in cells of the mammary gland, kidney, and somites (1, 8), it will be important to determine whether other Eph receptors also regulate the Abl/Crk pathway. The finding that EphB4 Fc, which should not interfere with EphA signaling, greatly inhibits Crk phosphorylation suggests that EphA receptors may signal predominantly through other pathways in mammary epithelial cells. For example, ligand-stimulated EphA2 inhibits the Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway (9, 10). It should be noted that the ligand ephrin-B2 also has the ability to generate signals through its cytoplasmic domain, which are known as reverse signals (1). These signals can be stimulated by endogenous EphB4 or by EphB4 Fc (1, 11) and may contribute to maintain an epithelial phenotype (12), but their identity in epithelial cells is unknown (Fig. 1B).
| EphB4 Signaling Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Tumorigenicity |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Surprisingly, despite the substantial levels of EphB4 expression, EphB4 tyrosine phosphorylation is much lower in breast cancer cell lines compared with nontransformed MCF-10A epithelial cells (6). Furthermore, in breast cancer cells, Abl kinase activity is lower, and Crk is less tyrosine phosphorylated and therefore better able to function as an adaptor protein (Fig. 1C). The silencing of EphB4 signaling in breast cancer cells is consistent with the low expression of ephrin-B2 in these cells. Loss of ephrin-B2 has also been reported in mouse mammary tumor models (4), and ephrin-B2 is down-regulated by the Wnt/ß-catenin/Tcf4 pathway in colorectal cancer cells (14). Furthermore, allelic losses have been described in various cancers for the chromosome 13q33 region, where the ephrin-B2 gene is located (16).
The low EphB4 tyrosine phosphorylation in mammary tumor cells suggested that ligand-stimulated signaling through the EphB4 cytoplasmic domain may be detrimental to tumor development. Indeed, EphB4 inhibits breast cancer cell tumorigenicity both in vitro and in vivo when its tyrosine kinase activity is stimulated by a soluble form of the ligand, ephrin-B2 Fc (6). Treatment of several breast cancer cell lines with ephrin-B2 Fc inhibited proliferation and increased apoptosis. Furthermore, ephrin-B2 Fc inhibits breast cancer cell motility and invasion, concomitant with decreased expression of the matrix metalloprotease MMP2. Increased activity not only of Abl but also the related Arg kinase contributes to Crk phosphorylation in breast cancer cells activated with ephrin-B2 Fc. A series of experiments using Abl and Crk mutants, RNA interference, and the Abl/Arg kinase inhibitor Gleevec showed that restoration of the EphB4/Abl/Crk pathway is responsible for the anti-oncogenic effects of ephrin-B2 Fc in cell culture and in vivo in a breast cancer mouse xenograft model (6).
Oncogenic forms of Abl, such as BCR-Abl, have dysregulated kinase activity and aberrant subcellular localization and thus mediate inappropriate signaling pathways (17). In contrast, the activities of cellular Abl downstream of EphB4 in breast cancer cells are consistent with previous reports that Abl can inhibit cell motility and invasion as well as promote apoptosis through inhibitory phosphorylation of Crk (18, 19). A likely mediator of the effects of Crk in breast cancer cells is the Rac1 GTPase (refs. 7, 18; Fig. 1C). Crk can promote Rac1 activation by forming signaling complexes with the scaffolding protein Cas and the Rac1 exchange factor DOCK180, and ephrin-B2 Fc treatment does indeed disrupt Crk/Cas complexes in breast cancer cells (6, 18). Additional pathways that are operational in epithelial cells involve complexes of Crk with the scaffolding protein paxillin, the ARF-GAP GIT2, and the Rac1 exchange factor ß-PIX or with the scaffolding protein Gab1. Thus, a decrease in EphB4 activation and the resulting up-regulation of Crk downstream signaling pathways leading to Rac1 activation may contribute to breast cancer initiation and progression (Fig. 1C). In contrast, the Rap1 GTPase, which is also activated downstream of Crk in complex with Cas, does not seem to play a critical role (7, 19).
Increasing evidence shows that oncogenic signaling pathways also up-regulate the expression of other Eph receptors, including EphA2, EphB2, and EphB3, in cancer cells (9, 10, 14, 15). However, like EphB4, these receptors have been shown to inhibit tumorigenesis in at least some cancer types. For example, EphA2 inhibits cell proliferation and promotes epithelial cell morphology when activated by the ligand ephrin-A1 (810). In the case of EphA2 in skin tumors and of several EphB receptors in colorectal tumors, it has also been proposed that interactions between the Eph receptorpositive tumor cells and the surrounding ephrin-positive normal epithelial cells compartmentalizes the tumor and prevents tumor cells from expanding and infiltrating the normal tissue (10, 14). Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest that the tumors overexpressing Eph receptors may be the less malignant ones, and that Eph receptor expression is lost in the more advanced stages (e.g., through promoter methylation or gene mutations; refs. 2, 9, 10, 14, 15, 20). One study indicates that this may also be the case for EphB4 in breast cancer (2). Thus, cancer cells may elude the tumor suppressor activities of Eph receptors by down-regulating ephrin or Eph receptor expression. Additionally, mutations that impair Eph receptor signaling ability or up-regulation of tyrosine phosphatases that dephosphorylate Eph receptors may also promote tumorigenesis (20, 21). Taken together, the available information suggests that Eph-ephrin interactions and signaling in normal epithelial tissues help maintain tissue homeostasis, and that their disruption may be a factor in the development and progression of cancer.
| Tumor-Promoting Effects of EphB4 |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Additional tumor-promoting effects of EphB4 that are independent of angiogenesis have also been identified by down-regulating EphB4 using RNA interference and antisense oligonucleotide approaches. EphB4 knockdown was found to reduce survival, proliferation, migration, and invasion of breast cancer cells and many other types of cancer cells (ref. 13 and other articles by the same group). In these cells, EphB4 was generally found to be poorly tyrosine phosphorylated, suggesting that the tumor-promoting ability of this receptor is independent of ligand-mediated kinase activation (1). Similarly, the EphA2 receptor overexpressed in MCF-10A cells is poorly tyrosine phosphorylated and promotes oncogenic transformation, an effect that is reversed by treatment of the cells with the ligand ephrin-A1 Fc (8). In addition, the low molecular weight tyrosine phosphatase promotes transformation of MCF-10A cells by dephosphorylating EphA2 (21). Whether signaling pathways that are independent of ephrin-mediated Eph receptor phosphorylation and crosstalk with oncogenic or apoptotic signaling pathways may explain the tumor-promoting effects of Eph receptors remains to be determined.
Further adding to the complexity of EphB4 function in cancer cells, it has also been reported that in some types of cancers, such as melanoma, ephrin-B2dependent EphB4 signaling enhances the migratory and invasive ability of the cells (23). These effects require EphB4 signaling and activation of the RhoA GTPase. In addition, signaling by another Eph receptor (EphB2) has been shown to promote the invasive ability of human glioma cells through phosphorylation of the R-Ras GTPase (24). Interestingly, however, the EphB2/R-Ras pathway inhibits glioma cell proliferation. Hence, the cellular context also seems to play an important role in determining the tumor-promoting or tumor-suppressing effects of Eph receptors in cancer.
| EphB4 as a Breast Cancer Target |
|---|
|
|
|---|
A soluble monomeric form of the EphB4 extracellular domain, which can inhibit both EphB4 signaling and ephrin-B2 reverse signaling, has also been useful for decreasing tumor growth in several mouse tumor xenograft models, including a breast cancer model (25, 26). This suggests that peptides and small molecules that inhibit EphB4/ephrin-B2 interaction (27), which may have more desirable therapeutic properties and cost-effectiveness than the large EphB4 extracellular domain, represent promising agents to inhibit tumor angiogenesis. Furthermore, they could inhibit EphB4 tumorigenic signaling pathways in certain cancers such as melanoma (23). Down-regulation of EphB4 expression with antisense oligonucleotides has also been an effective strategy to inhibit the growth of breast and other types of tumor xenografts expressing high levels of EphB4 (13). This approach can both inhibit EphB4-dependent angiogenesis and counteract possible kinase-independent EphB4 signaling pathways.
Inhibition of EphB4 kinase activity using ATP analogues will be useful against those tumors, such as melanoma, where EphB4 kinase activity promotes tumorigenesis. Kinase inhibitors may instead be ineffective or even detrimental for the treatment of breast cancer and other types of cancer where EphB4 signaling suppresses tumorigenesis. This is also the case for the Abl kinase inhibitor Gleevec, although Gleevec has proven to be a very effective therapy for targeting oncogenic BCR-Abl in chronic myelogenous leukemia patients (17). Tumor xenograft studies show that Gleevec can counteract the anti-oncogenic effects of EphB4 agonists in breast cancer and should therefore not be used in combination with them (6). On the other hand, chemotherapeutic agents that target ErbB receptors or taxol may enhance the effects of EphB4-targeted therapies (13, 28). Finally, antibodies, peptides, and small molecules that bind to EphB4 but lack intrinsic biological activity could be coupled to toxic substances to selectively kill tumor cells that overexpress the receptor.
Our understanding of the complex roles of EphB4 and other Eph receptors in cancer is still evolving, and more information is needed to resolve the many confusing and controversial issues. Future research will determine whether EphB4-based therapeutic strategies can be effective for the treatment of cancers that overexpress EphB4 and in which types of cancer different therapeutic approaches may be most appropriate. It will also be important to examine the effects of EphB4-targeting agents on normal epithelial cells in vivo. New insights into Eph signaling pathways in normal and tumor cells will be important not only for the development of new cancer therapies but also for the optimal use of existing therapies.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank members of the Pasquale laboratory and Amy Howes for helpful comments on the manuscript.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received 2/ 6/07. Accepted 3/ 2/07.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S.-T. Chiu, K.-J. Chang, C.-H. Ting, H.-C. Shen, H. Li, and F.-J. Hsieh Over-expression of EphB3 enhances cell-cell contacts and suppresses tumor growth in HT-29 human colon cancer cells Carcinogenesis, September 1, 2009; 30(9): 1475 - 1486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. Salvucci, D. Maric, M. Economopoulou, S. Sakakibara, S. Merlin, A. Follenzi, and G. Tosato EphrinB reverse signaling contributes to endothelial and mural cell assembly into vascular structures Blood, August 20, 2009; 114(8): 1707 - 1716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Wykosky and W. Debinski The EphA2 Receptor and EphrinA1 Ligand in Solid Tumors: Function and Therapeutic Targeting Mol. Cancer Res., December 1, 2008; 6(12): 1795 - 1806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Noberini, M. Koolpe, S. Peddibhotla, R. Dahl, Y. Su, N. D. P. Cosford, G. P. Roth, and E. B. Pasquale Small Molecules Can Selectively Inhibit Ephrin Binding to the EphA4 and EphA2 Receptors J. Biol. Chem., October 24, 2008; 283(43): 29461 - 29472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Lackmann and A. W. Boyd Eph, a Protein Family Coming of Age: More Confusion, Insight, or Complexity? Sci. Signal., April 15, 2008; 1(15): re2 - re2. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. C. Prendergast Biological research in cancer: Convergent versus divergent problems Cancer Reviews Online Content, June 1, 2007; 2007(3): 5 - 6. [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 |