Correlations between reduced expression of the metastasis suppressor gene KAI-1 and accumulation of p53 in uterine carcinomas and sarcomas

Role of Tetraspanins in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is characterized by high prevalence, morbidity, and mortality. Liver cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide; and its subtype, HCC, accounts for nearly 80% of cases. HCC progresses rapidly, and to date, there is no efficacious treatment for advanced HCC. Tetraspanins belong to a protein family characterized by four transmembrane domains. Thirty-three known tetraspanins are widely expressed on the surface of most nucleated cells and play important roles in different biological processes. In our review, we summarize the functions of tetraspanins and their underlying mechanism in the life cycle of HCC, from its initiation, progression, and finally to treatment. CD9, TSPAN15, and TSPAN31 can promote HCC cell proliferation or suppress apoptosis. CD63, CD151, and TSPAN8 can also facilitate HCC metastasis, while CD82 serves as a suppressor of metastasis. TSPAN1, TSPAN8, and CD151 act as prognosis indicators and are inversely correlated to the overall survival rate of HCC patients. In addition, we discuss the potential of role of the tetraspanin family proteins as novel therapeutic targets and as an approach to overcome drug resistance, and also provide suggestions for further research.

FoxH1 represses miR-430 during early embryonic development of zebrafish via non-canonical regulation

BACKGROUND

FoxH1 is a forkhead transcription factor with conserved key functions in vertebrate mesoderm induction and left-right patterning downstream of the TGF-beta/Nodal signaling pathway. Binding of the forkhead domain (FHD) of FoxH1 to a highly conserved proximal sequence motif was shown to regulate target gene expression.

RESULTS

We identify the conserved microRNA-430 family (miR-430) as a novel target of FoxH1. miR-430 levels are increased in foxH1 mutants, resulting in a reduced expression of transcripts that are targeted by miR-430 for degradation. To determine the underlying mechanism of miR-430 repression, we performed chromatin immunoprecipitation studies and overexpression experiments with mutant as well as constitutive active and repressive forms of FoxH1. Our studies reveal a molecular interaction of FoxH1 with miR-430 loci independent of the FHD. Furthermore, we show that previously described mutant forms of FoxH1 that disrupt DNA binding or that lack the C-terminal Smad Interaction Domain (SID) dominantly interfere with miR-430 repression, but not with the regulation of previously described FoxH1 targets.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to identify the distinct roles of protein domains of FoxH1 in the regulation process of miR-430. We provide evidence that the indirect repression of miR-430 loci depends on the connection to a distal repressive chromosome environment via a non-canonical mode. The widespread distribution of such non-canonical binding sites of FoxH1, found not only in our study, argues against a function restricted to regulating miR-430 and for a more global role of FoxH1 in chromatin folding.

Gene expression signatures of primary and metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma

Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is the most common uterine sarcoma. Although the disease is relatively rare, it is responsible for considerable mortality due to frequent metastasis and chemoresistance. The molecular events related to LMS metastasis are unknown to date. The present study compared the global gene expression patterns of primary uterine LMSs and LMS metastases. Gene expression profiles of 13 primary and 15 metastatic uterine LMSs were analyzed using the HumanRef-8 BeadChip from Illumina. Differentially expressed candidate genes were validated using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunohistochemistry. To identify differently expressed genes between primary and metastatic tumors, we performed one-way analysis of variance with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. This led to identification of 203 unique probes that were significantly differentially expressed in the 2 tumor groups by greater than 1.58-fold with P < .01, of which 94 and 109 were overexpressed in primary and metastatic LMSs, respectively. Genes overexpressed in primary uterine LMSs included OSTN, NLGN4X, NLGN1, SLITRK4, MASP1, XRN2, ASS1, RORB, HRASLS, and TSPAN7. Genes overexpressed in LMS metastases included TNNT1, FOLR3, TDO2, CRYM, GJA1, TSPAN10, THBS1, SGK1, SHMT1, EGR2, and AGT. Quantitative real-time PCR confirmed significant anatomical site-related differences in FOLR3, OSTN, and NLGN4X levels; and immunohistochemistry showed significant differences in TDO2 expression. Gene expression profiling differentiates primary uterine LMSs from LMS metastases. The molecular signatures unique to primary and metastatic LMSs may aid in understanding tumor progression in this cancer and in providing a molecular basis for prognostic studies and therapeutic target discovery.

The complex biology of autocrine motility factor/phosphoglucose isomerase (AMF/PGI) and its receptor, the gp78/AMFR E3 ubiquitin ligase

Phosphoglucose isomerase (PGI) is a glycolytic enzyme that exhibits a dual function as an extracellular cytokine, under the name autocrine motility factor (AMF). Its cell surface receptor, gp78/AMFR, is also localized to the endoplasmic reticulum where it functions as an E3 ubiquitin ligase. Expression of both AMF/PGI and gp78/AMFR is associated with cancer and, in this review, we will discuss various aspects of the biology of this ligand-receptor complex and its role in tumor progression.

Tetraspanins: push and pull in suppressing and promoting metastasis

Tumours progress through a cascade of events that enable the formation of metastases. Some of the components that are required for this fatal process are well established. Tetraspanins, however, have only recently received attention as both metastasis suppressors and metastasis promoters. This late appreciation is probably due to their capacity to associate with various molecules, which they recruit into special membrane microdomains, and their abundant presence in tumour-derived small vesicles that aid intercellular communication. It is reasonable to assume that differences in the membrane and vesicular web components that associate with individual tetraspanins account for their differing abilities to promote and suppress metastasis.