Unexpected functional similarities between gatekeeper tumour suppressor genes and proto-oncogenes revealed by systems biology

The secret identities of TMPRSS2: Fertility factor, virus trafficker, inflammation moderator, prostate protector and tumor suppressor

The human TMPRSS2 gene is pathogenetically implicated in both coronaviral lung infection and prostate cancer, suggesting its potential as a drug target in both contexts. SARS-COV-2 spike polypeptides are primed by the host transmembrane TMPRSS2 protease, triggering virus fusion with epithelial cell membranes followed by an endocytotic internalisation process that bypasses normal endosomal activation of cathepsin-mediated innate immunity; viral co-opting of TMPRSS2 thus favors microbial survivability by attenuating host inflammatory responses. In contrast, most early hormone-dependent prostate cancers express TMPRSS2:ERG fusion genes arising from deletions that eliminate the TMPRSS2 coding region while juxtaposing its androgen-inducible promoter and the open reading frame of ERG, upregulating pro-inflammatory ERG while functionally disabling TMPRSS2. Moreover, inflammatory oxidative DNA damage selects for TMPRSS2:ERG-fused cancers, whereas patients treated with antiinflammatory drugs develop fewer of these fusion-dependent tumors. These findings imply that TMPRSS2 protects the prostate by enabling endosomal bypass of pathogens which could otherwise trigger inflammation-induced DNA damage that predisposes to TMPRSS2:ERG fusions. Hence, the high oncogenic selectability of TMPRSS2:ERG fusions may reflect a unique pro-inflammatory synergy between androgenic ERG gain-of-function and fusogenic TMPRSS2 loss-of-function, cautioning against the use of TMPRSS2-inhibitory drugs to prevent or treat early prostate cancer.

A periodic table for cancer

ABSTRACT 

Cancers exhibit differences in metastatic behavior and drug sensitivity that correlate with certain tumor-specific variables such as differentiation grade, growth rate/extent and molecular regulatory aberrations. In practice, patient management is based on the past results of clinical trials adjusted for these biomarkers. Here, it is proposed that treatment strategies could be fine-tuned upfront simply by quantifying tumorigenic spatial (cell growth) and temporal (genetic stability) control losses, as predicted by genetic defects of cell-cycle-regulatory gatekeeper and genome-stabilizing caretaker tumor suppressor genes, respectively. These differential quantifications of tumor dysfunction may in turn be used to create a tumor-specific ‘periodic table’ that guides rational formulation of survival-enhancing anticancer treatment strategies.

The unpluggable in pursuit of the undruggable: tackling the dark matter of the cancer therapeutics universe

The notion that targeted drugs can unplug gain-of-function tumor pathways has revitalized pharmaceutical research, but the survival benefits of this strategy have so far proven modest. A weakness of oncogene-blocking approaches is that they do not address the problem of cancer progression as selected by the recessive phenotypes of genetic instability and apoptotic resistance which in turn arise from loss-of-function – i.e., undruggable – defects of caretaker (e.g., BRCA, MLH1) or gatekeeper (e.g., TP53, PTEN) suppressor genes. Genetic instability ensures that rapid cell kill is balanced by rapid selection for apoptotic resistance and hence for metastasis, casting doubt on the assumption that cytotoxicity (“response”) remains the best way to identify survival-enhancing drugs. In the absence of gene therapy, it is proposed here that caretaker-defective (high-instability) tumors may be best treated with low-lethality drugs inducing replicative (RAS-RAF-ERK) arrest or dormancy, causing “stable disease” rather than tumorilytic remission. Gatekeeper-defective (death-resistant) tumors, on the other hand, may be best managed by combining survival (PI3K-AKT-mTOR) pathway blockade with metronomic or sequential pro-apoptotic drugs.

Cellular hyperproliferation and cancer as evolutionary variables

Technological advances in biology have begun to dramatically change the way we think about evolution, development, health and disease. The ability to sequence the genomes of many individuals within a population, and across multiple species, has opened the door to the possibility of answering some long-standing and perplexing questions about our own genetic heritage. One such question revolves around the nature of cellular hyperproliferation. This cellular behavior is used to effect wound healing in most animals, as well as, in some animals, the regeneration of lost body parts. Yet at the same time, cellular hyperproliferation is the fundamental pathological condition responsible for cancers in humans. Here, I will discuss why microevolution, macroevolution and developmental biology all have to be taken into consideration when interpreting studies of both normal and malignant hyperproliferation. I will also illustrate how a synthesis of evolutionary sciences and developmental biology through the study of diverse model organisms can inform our understanding of both health and disease.