UV-B induces cytoplasmic survivin expression in mouse epidermis

Aberrant localization of signaling proteins in skin cancer: Implications for treatment

Aberrant subcellular localization of signaling proteins can provide cancer cells with advantages such as resistance to apoptotic cell death, increased invasiveness and more rapid proliferation. Nuclear to cytoplasmic shifts in tumor-promoting proteins can lead to worse patient outcomes, providing opportunities to target cancer-specific processes. Herein, we review the significance of dysregulated protein localization with a focus on skin cancer. Altered localization of signaling proteins controlling cell cycle progression or cell death is a common feature of cancer. In some instances, aberrant subcellular localization results in an acquired prosurvival function. Taking advantage of this knowledge reveals novel targets useful in the development of cancer therapeutics.

FGF9/FGFR2 increase cell proliferation by activating ERK1/2, Rb/E2F1, and cell cycle pathways in mouse Leydig tumor cells

Fibroblast growth factor 9 (FGF9) promotes cancer progression; however, its role in cell proliferation related to tumorigenesis remains elusive. We investigated how FGF9 affected MA‐10 mouse Leydig tumor cell proliferation and found that FGF9 significantly induced cell proliferation by activating ERK1/2 and retinoblastoma (Rb) phosphorylations within 15 minutes. Subsequently, the expressions of E2F1 and the cell cycle regulators: cyclin D1, cyclin E1 and cyclin‐dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) in G₁ phase and cyclin A1, CDK2 and CDK1 in S‐G₂/M phases were increased at 12 hours after FGF9 treatment; and cyclin B1 in G₂/M phases were induced at 24 hours after FGF9 stimulation, whereas the phosphorylations of p53, p21 and p27 were not affected by FGF9. Moreover, FGF9‐induced effects were inhibited by MEK inhibitor PD98059, indicating FGF9 activated the Rb/E2F pathway to accelerate MA‐10 cell proliferation by activating ERK1/2. Immunoprecipitation assay and ChIP‐quantitative PCR results showed that FGF9‐induced Rb phosphorylation led to the dissociation of Rb‐E2F1 complexes and thereby enhanced the transactivations of E2F1 target genes, Cyclin D1, Cyclin E1 and Cyclin A1. Silencing of FGF receptor 2 (FGFR2) using lentiviral shRNA inhibited FGF9‐induced ERK1/2 phosphorylation and cell proliferation, indicating that FGFR2 is the obligate receptor for FGF9 to bind and activate the signaling pathway in MA‐10 cells. Furthermore, in a severe combined immunodeficiency mouse xenograft model, FGF9 significantly promoted MA‐10 tumor growth, a consequence of increased cell proliferation and decreased apoptosis. Conclusively, FGF9 interacts with FGFR2 to activate ERK1/2, Rb/E2F1 and cell cycle pathways to induce MA‐10 cell proliferation in vitro and tumor growth in vivo.

Role of mTOR, Bad, and Survivin in RasGAP Fragment N-Mediated Cell Protection

Partial cleavage of p120 RasGAP by caspase-3 in stressed cells generates an N-terminal fragment, called fragment N, which activates an anti-apoptotic Akt-dependent survival response. Akt regulates several effectors but which of these mediate fragment N-dependent cell protection has not been defined yet. Here we have investigated the role of mTORC1, Bad, and survivin in the capacity of fragment N to protect cells from apoptosis. Neither rapamycin, an inhibitor of mTORC1, nor silencing of raptor, a subunit of the mTORC1 complex, altered the ability of fragment N from inhibiting cisplatin- and Fas ligand-induced death. Cells lacking Bad, despite displaying a stronger resistance to apoptosis, were still protected by fragment N against cisplatin-induced death. Fragment N was also able to protect cells from Fas ligand-induced death in conditions where Bad plays no role in apoptosis regulation. Fragment N expression in cells did neither modulate survivin mRNA nor its protein expression. Moreover, the expression of cytoplasmic survivin, known to exert anti-apoptotic actions in cells, still occurred in UV-B-irradiated epidermis of mouse expressing a caspase-3-resistant RasGAP mutant that cannot produce fragment N. Additionally, survivin function in cell cycle progression was not affected by fragment N. These results indicate that, taken individually, mTOR, Bad, or Survivin are not required for fragment N to protect cells from cell death. We conclude that downstream targets of Akt other than mTORC1, Bad, or survivin mediate fragment N-induced protection or that several Akt effectors can compensate for each other to induce the pro-survival fragment N-dependent response.