1
|
Sorokin M, Rabushko E, Rozenberg JM, Mohammad T, Seryakov A, Sekacheva M, Buzdin A. Clinically relevant fusion oncogenes: detection and practical implications. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2022; 14:17588359221144108. [PMID: 36601633 PMCID: PMC9806411 DOI: 10.1177/17588359221144108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Mechanistically, chimeric genes result from DNA rearrangements and include parts of preexisting normal genes combined at the genomic junction site. Some rearranged genes encode pathological proteins with altered molecular functions. Those which can aberrantly promote carcinogenesis are called fusion oncogenes. Their formation is not a rare event in human cancers, and many of them were documented in numerous study reports and in specific databases. They may have various molecular peculiarities like increased stability of an oncogenic part, self-activation of tyrosine kinase receptor moiety, and altered transcriptional regulation activities. Currently, tens of low molecular mass inhibitors are approved in cancers as the drugs targeting receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) oncogenic fusion proteins, that is, including ALK, ABL, EGFR, FGFR1-3, NTRK1-3, MET, RET, ROS1 moieties. Therein, the presence of the respective RTK fusion in the cancer genome is the diagnostic biomarker for drug prescription. However, identification of such fusion oncogenes is challenging as the breakpoint may arise in multiple sites within the gene, and the exact fusion partner is generally unknown. There is no gold standard method for RTK fusion detection, and many alternative experimental techniques are employed nowadays to solve this issue. Among them, RNA-seq-based methods offer an advantage of unbiased high-throughput analysis of only transcribed RTK fusion genes, and of simultaneous finding both fusion partners in a single RNA-seq read. Here we focus on current knowledge of biology and clinical aspects of RTK fusion genes, related databases, and laboratory detection methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elizaveta Rabushko
- Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology,
Dolgoprudny, Moscow Region, Russia,I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical
University, Moscow, Russia
| | | | - Tharaa Mohammad
- Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology,
Dolgoprudny, Moscow Region, Russia
| | | | - Marina Sekacheva
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical
University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Anton Buzdin
- Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology,
Dolgoprudny, Moscow Region, Russia,I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical
University, Moscow, Russia,Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic
Chemistry, Moscow, Russia,PathoBiology Group, European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rozenberg JM, Zvereva S, Dalina A, Blatov I, Zubarev I, Luppov D, Bessmertnyi A, Romanishin A, Alsoulaiman L, Kumeiko V, Kagansky A, Melino G, Ganini C, Barlev NA. The p53 family member p73 in the regulation of cell stress response. Biol Direct 2021; 16:23. [PMID: 34749806 PMCID: PMC8577020 DOI: 10.1186/s13062-021-00307-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
During oncogenesis, cells become unrestrictedly proliferative thereby altering the tissue homeostasis and resulting in subsequent hyperplasia. This process is paralleled by resumption of cell cycle, aberrant DNA repair and blunting the apoptotic program in response to DNA damage. In most human cancers these processes are associated with malfunctioning of tumor suppressor p53. Intriguingly, in some cases two other members of the p53 family of proteins, transcription factors p63 and p73, can compensate for loss of p53. Although both p63 and p73 can bind the same DNA sequences as p53 and their transcriptionally active isoforms are able to regulate the expression of p53-dependent genes, the strongest overlap with p53 functions was detected for p73. Surprisingly, unlike p53, the p73 is rarely lost or mutated in cancers. On the contrary, its inactive isoforms are often overexpressed in cancer. In this review, we discuss several lines of evidence that cancer cells develop various mechanisms to repress p73-mediated cell death. Moreover, p73 isoforms may promote cancer growth by enhancing an anti-oxidative response, the Warburg effect and by repressing senescence. Thus, we speculate that the role of p73 in tumorigenesis can be ambivalent and hence, requires new therapeutic strategies that would specifically repress the oncogenic functions of p73, while keeping its tumor suppressive properties intact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian M Rozenberg
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia.
| | - Svetlana Zvereva
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia
| | - Aleksandra Dalina
- The Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
| | - Igor Blatov
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia
| | - Ilya Zubarev
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia
| | - Daniil Luppov
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia
| | | | - Alexander Romanishin
- School of Biomedicine, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia.,School of Life Sciences, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia
| | - Lamak Alsoulaiman
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia
| | - Vadim Kumeiko
- School of Biomedicine, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia
| | - Alexander Kagansky
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia.,School of Biomedicine, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia
| | - Gerry Melino
- Department of Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - Carlo Ganini
- Department of Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - Nikolai A Barlev
- Cell Signaling Regulation Laboratory, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia. .,Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Science, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
| |
Collapse
|