Article

Involvement of RB gene family in tumor angiogenesis.

Experimental Chemotherapy Laboratory, Regina Elena Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Oncogene (Impact Factor: 8.56). 09/2006; 25(38):5326-32. DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1209631
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Angiogenesis, the development of new blood vessels from pre-existing vessels, represents a fundamental step in tumor progression and metastatization. The induction of vasculature is required for growth of the tumor mass, to ensure an adequate supply of oxygen and metabolites to the tumor beyond a critical size. Tumor angiogenesis is a highly regulated process that is controlled physiologically by the tumor microenvironment and genetically by alteration of several oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. We will focus on recent demonstrations regarding the involvement of the retinoblastoma family proteins (phosphorylated retinoblastoma (pRb), p107 and pRb2/p130) at different levels of the angiogenic process. pRb and its homologs can regulate the expression of pro- and antiangiogenic factors, such as the vascular endothelial growth factor, through an E2F-dependent mechanism. Moreover, pRb is able to modulate also the transcriptional activity of several angiogenesis-related factors like HIF-1, Id2 and Oct-1. pRb2/p130 is required for both differentiation and mobilization of bone marrow-derived endothelial cell precursors and endothelial sprouting from neighboring vessels. The involvement of the pRb pathway in the angiogenesis process has also been demonstrated by different cellular models expressing viral oncoproteins, like human papilloma virus. Moreover, some natural and synthetic compounds demonstrate their antiangiogenetic activity with a mechanism of action involving pRb. Finally, the possible prognostic value of immunohistochemical evaluation of pRb and/or pRb2/p130 expression can represent a useful tool for the characterization of the angiogenic phenotype of specific tumor histotypes.

Full-text

Available from: Chiara Gabellini, Apr 19, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Highly conserved Inhibitor of DNA Binding (ID1-4) genes encode multi-functional proteins whose transcriptional activity is based on dominant negative inhibition of basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factors. Initial animal models indicated a degree of compensatory overlap between ID genes such that deletion of multiple ID genes was required to generate easily recognizable phenotypes. More recently, new model systems have revealed alterations in mice harboring deletions in single ID genes suggesting complex gene and tissue specific functions for members of the ID gene family. Because ID genes are highly expressed during development and their function is associated with a primitive, proliferative cellular phenotype there has been significant interest in understanding their potential roles in neoplasia. Indeed, numerous studies indicate an oncogenic function for ID1, 2 and 3. In contrast, the inhibitor of differentiation 4 (ID4) presents a paradigm shift in context of well-established role of ID1, 2 and 3 in development and cancer. Apart from some degree of functional redundancy such as HLH dependent interactions with bHLH protein E2A, many of the functions of ID4 are distinct from ID1, 2 and 3: ID4 proteins a) regulate distinct developmental processes and tissue expression in the adult, b) promotes stem cell survival, differentiation and/or timing of differentiation, c) epigenetic inactivation/ loss of expression in several advanced stage cancers and d) increased expression in some cancers such as those arising in the breast and ovary. Thus, in spite of sharing the conserved HLH domain, ID4 defies the established model of ID protein function and expression. The underlying molecular mechanism responsible for the unique role of ID4 as compared to other ID proteins still remains largely un-explored. This review will focus on the current understanding of ID4 in context of development and cancer. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.bbcan.2014.12.002 · 7.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:The purpose of this study was to confirm that RRM2 as a novel target of HPVE7 involved in cervical cancer angiogenesis.Methods:Gene expression was analysed by RT-qPCR, western blot and immunohistochemistry in cervical cancer tissue and cell lines. Luciferase reporter assay was used to determine the activities of various RRM2 promoters. Secreted VEGF was measured by ELISA. RRM2-mediated capillary tube formation induced by HPVE7 in cervical cancer cells were evaluated using human umbilical vein endothelial cells in vitro. ROS induced by RRM2 in cercal cancer cells was confirmed by flow cytometry. The growth of cervical cancer cell overexpression RRM2 was examined by nude mouse xenograft.Results:RRM2 as a novel downstream target for HPVE7 was upregulated by it at the transcriptional level through the E7-pRb interaction and binding of E2F to the RRM2 promoter region. Immunohistochemical analysis showed that the level of RRM2 positively correlated with the HPVE7 level in human cervical cancer. Functionally, overexpression of RRM2 enhanced the expression of HIF-1α and VEGF via activation of the ERK1/2 signalling pathway in cervical cancer cells, and significantly associated with increased microvessel densities in cervical cancer tissues. In vitro, HPVE7 stimulated RRM2-dependent capillary tube formation by HUVECs, and RRM2-enhanced angiogenesis was VEGF dependent. RRM2-activated ERK1/2 pathway was mediated through production of ROS. In the xenograft mouse model, overexpression of RRM2 in cervical cancer cells enhanced tumour growth as well as microvessel densities.Conclusion:HPVE7 induces upregulation of RRM2, which then promotes cervical carcinogenesis via ROS-ERK1/2-HIF-1α-VEGF-induced angiogenesis. Thus, the inhibition of RRM2 activity may be a novel therapeutic strategy for human cervical cancer.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication: 14 January 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.817 www.bjcancer.com.
    British Journal of Cancer 01/2014; 110(4). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.817 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The evasion of anti-growth signaling is an important characteristic of cancer cells. In order to continue to proliferate, cancer cells must somehow uncouple themselves from the many signals that exist to slow down cell growth. Here, we define the anti-growth signaling process, and review several important pathways involved in growth signaling: p53, phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), retinoblastoma protein (Rb), Hippo, growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), AT-rich interactive domain 1A (ARID1A), Notch, insulin-like growth factor (IGF), and Krüppel-like factor 5 (KLF5) pathways. Aberrations in these processes in cancer cells involve mutations and thus the suppression of genes that prevent growth, as well as mutation and activation of genes involved in driving cell growth. Using these pathways as examples, we prioritize molecular targets that might be leveraged to promote anti-growth signaling in cancer cells. Interestingly, naturally-occurring phytochemicals found in human diets (either singly or as mixtures) may promote anti-growth signaling, and do so without the potentially adverse effects associated with synthetic chemicals. We review examples of naturally-occurring phytochemicals that may be applied to prevent cancer by antagonizing growth signaling, and propose one phytochemical for each pathway. These are: epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) for the Rb pathway, luteolin for p53, curcumin for PTEN, porphyrins for Hippo, genistein for GDF15, resveratrol for ARID1A, withaferin A for Notch and diguelin for the IGF1-receptor pathway. The coordination of anti-growth signaling and natural compound studies will provide insight into the future application of these compounds in the clinical setting. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Seminars in Cancer Biology 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.02.005 · 9.14 Impact Factor