p63: oncogene or tumor suppressor?

p53, the original member of the family of genes now known to include p63 and p73, was first heralded as an oncogene because of its potent transformation capabilities and its robust expression in human tumors. However, it was later discovered that only mutant p53 was oncogenic, and that wild type p53 functioned as a tumor suppressor. Decades later, p63, the newest member of this gene family, is involved in a similar controversy: is p63 an oncogene or a tumor suppressor? Recent progress on understanding the in vivo role of p63 in cancer has focused primarily on investigating its involvement in the tumor-suppressive mechanism of apoptosis, by analyzing mouse models to assess its tumor-suppressive capabilities, and by assessing its expression in human cancers.     

Role of p73 in malignancy: tumor suppressor or oncogene?

The recently identified p53 family member, p73, shows substantial structural and functional homology with p53. However, despite the established role of p53 as a proto-type tumor suppressor, a similar function of p73 in malignancy is questionable. Overexpression of p73 can activate typical p53-responsive genes, and activation of p73 has been implicated in apoptotic cell death induced by aberrant cell proliferation and some forms of DNA-damage. These data together with the localization of TP73 on chromosome 1p36, a region frequently deleted in a variety of human tumors, led to the hypothesis that p73 has tumor suppressor activity just like p53. However, unlike p53-/- mice, p73 knockout mice do not develop tumors. Extensive studies on primary tumor tissues have revealed overexpression of wild-type p73 in the absence of p73 mutations instead, suggesting that p73 may augment, rather than inhibit tumor development. In contrast to p53, differential splicing of the TP73 gene locus gives rise to a complex pattern of interacting p73 isoforms with antagonistic functions. In fact, induction of apoptosis by increased levels of p73 can be blocked by both p53 mutants and the N-terminally truncated p73 isoforms, which were recently shown to possess oncogenic potential. In the light of these new findings the contradictory role of p73 in malignancy will be discussed.     

SIRT3 and cancer: tumor promoter or suppressor?

Sirtuins (SIRT1-7), the mammalian homologues of the Sir2 gene in yeast, have emerging roles in age-related diseases, such as cardiac hypertrophy, diabetes, obesity, and cancer. However, the role of several sirtuin family members, including SIRT1 and SIRT3, in cancer has been controversial. The aim of this review is to explore and discuss the seemingly dichotomous role of SIRT3 in cancer biology with particular emphasis on its potential role as a tumor promoter and tumor suppressor. This review will also discuss the potential role of SIRT3 as a novel therapeutic target to treat cancer.     

p27： tumor suppressor and oncogene ...？

The p27^Kipl protein was initially identified due to its ability to bind and inhibit cyclin/cdk2 complexes leading to an arrest in the G1-phase of the cell cycle. In line with the cyclin kinase inhibitory function of p27, knockout mice show a 30% increase in body size and a higher cyclin kinase activity in thymocytes leading to an accelerated passage through the cell cycle. The generation of p27 knockout mice helped to formally establish p27 function as a tumor suppressor protein.[第一段]     

Minireview: The androgen receptor in breast tissues: growth inhibitor, tumor suppressor, oncogene?

Androgen receptor (AR) signaling exerts an antiestrogenic, growth-inhibitory influence in normal breast tissue, and this role may be sustained in estrogen receptor α (ERα)-positive luminal breast cancers. Conversely, AR signaling may promote growth of a subset of ERα-negative, AR-positive breast cancers with a molecular apocrine phenotype. Understanding the molecular mechanisms whereby androgens can elicit distinct gene expression programs and opposing proliferative responses in these two breast cancer phenotypes is critical to the development of new therapeutic strategies to target the AR in breast cancer.     

Switching TGFβ from a tumor suppressor to a tumor promoter

TGFβ acts as a potent tumor suppressor and tumor promoter in a context dependent manner. Tumor suppressive functions include inhibition of cell proliferation, induction of apoptosis and regulation of autophagy. As tumors develop they switch their response to TGFβ and utilise this factor as a potent promoter of cell motility, invasion, metastasis and tumor stem cell maintenance. These multifactorial tumor influencing actions of TGFβ involve regulation of an increasing number of signal transduction pathways employing a diverse range of signaling molecules. Understanding the molecular mechanisms of how tumor cells respond to TGFβ and switch their response to this cytokine during disease progression is vital for both the development and the informed use of potentially powerful TGFβ targeted therapeutics.     

All along the watchtower: is the cilium a tumor suppressor organelle?

Cilia or flagella have been around since almost the beginning of life, and have now developed specialized cell-type specific functions from locomotion to acting as environmental sensors participating in cell signalling. Genetic defects affecting cilia result in a myriad of pathological instances, including infertility, obesity, blindness, deafness, skeletal malformations, and lung problems. However, the consistency in which the common kidney cyst is coupled with cilia dysfunction has raised interest in the possibility that ciliary dysfunction might contribute to other neoplasms as well. A suite of recent papers convincingly linking cilia to hedgehog signalling, platelet-derived growth factor signalling, Wnt signalling and the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein has rapidly expanded the knowledge base connecting cilia to cancer. We propose that these data support the notion of the cilium as a cellular Watchtower, whose absence can be an initiating event in neoplastic growth. Furthermore, we predict that we are just now seeing the tip of the iceberg, and that the list of cancers associated with altered ciliary signalling will grow exponentially in the next few years.     

Evolution of Xmrk: an oncogene,but also a speciation gene?

Genes that exert their function when they are introduced into a foreign genetic background pose many questions to our current understanding of the forces and mechanisms that promote either the maintenance or divergence of gene functions over evolutionary time. The melanoma inducing Xmrk oncogene of the Southern platyfish (Xiphophorus maculatus) is a stable constituent of the genome of this species. It displays its tumorigenic function, however, almost exclusively only after inter‐populational or, even more severely, interspecific hybridization events. The Xiphophorus hybrid melanoma system has gained attention in biomedical research as a genetic model for studying tumor formation. From an evolutionary perspective, a prominent question is: how could this gene persist over millions of years? An attractive hypothesis is that Xmrk, acting as a detrimental gene in a hybrid genome, could be a speciation gene that shields the gene pool of its species from mixing with other closely related sympatric species. In this article, I briefly review our current knowledge of the molecular genetics and biochemical functions of the Xmrk gene and discuss aspects of its evolutionary history and presence with respect to this idea. While Xmrk as a potentially injurious oncogene has clearly survived for millions of years, its role as a speciation gene has to be questioned. BioEssays 30:822–832, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Troponin-tropomyosin: an allosteric switch or a steric blocker?

The interaction of myosin subfragment 1 (S1) with actin-tropomyosin-troponin (regulated actin) is highly nucleotide dependent. The binding of S1 or S1-ADP (but not S1-ATP nor N,N'-rho-phenylenedimaleimide-modified S1-ATP) to regulated actin activates ATP hydrolysis even in the absence of Ca(2+). Investigations with S1 and S1-ADP have led to the idea that some actin sites are directly blocked toward the binding of S1 either by tropomyosin or troponin. The blocked state is thought to occur only at ionic strengths greater than 50 mM. The question is whether nonactivating S1 binding is blocked under the same conditions. We show that troponin inhibits binding of the nonactivating state, N,N'-rho-phenylenedimaleimide-S1-ATP, to actin but only when tropomyosin is absent. A lag in the rate of binding of activating S1 to actin (an indicator of the blocked state) occurs only in the presence of tropomyosin. Thus, tropomyosin inhibits binding of rigor S1 but not S1-ATP-like states. No evidence for an ionic strength-dependent change in the mechanism of regulation was observed either from measurements of the rate of activating S1 binding or from the equilibrium binding of nonactivating S1 to actin. At all conditions examined, N,N'-rho-phenylenedimaleimide-S1-ATP bound to regulated actin in the absence of Ca(2+). These results support the view of regulation in which tropomyosin movement is an allosteric switch that is modulated by activating myosin binding but that does not function solely by regulating myosin binding.