Unmutated proto-src coding region is tumorigenic if expressed from the promoter of Rous sarcoma virus: implications for the gene-mutation hypothesis of cancer

Gene therapy--why can it fail?

The success of reductionism in medicine has enabled the experimental expression of individual genes in complex living systems. The promise of gene therapy, permanent reversal or amelioration of disease symptoms without dependence on a long-lasting intake of drugs, has come within reach because of these conceptual and technical advances in molecular biology. However, there have been setbacks posing serious questions for the medical community. The incidents came at a time when technical advances in the manipulation of DNA had led to wide-spread testing of gene based therapies. In fact, the major limiting factor of this approach had been perceived to be gene delivery rather than toxicity. Here we discuss the hypothesis that knowledge of DNA sequences for relevant genes alone will not be sufficient to allow this promise to come to fruition, unless additional factors are recognized and addressed. The physiologic consequences of gene expression depend on gene dosage, transcriptional regulation by promoters, posttranscriptional editing, and interdependence among gene products, all of which vary among cells. The success of gene therapy will depend, in part, on insight into the factors summarized here, very much like successful drug therapy has depended on an understanding of the manifold influences of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. In principle, these considerations apply to all transfections, gene disruptions, and transgenic approaches and to potential clinical applications derived from them. Gaining insight and control over those factors may allow gene therapy to live up to current expectations.

Dominant transformation by mutated human ras genes in vitro requires more than 100 times higher expression than is observed in cancers

The gene-mutation-cancer hypothesis holds that mutated cellular protooncogenes, such as point-mutated proto-ras, "play a dominant part in cancer," because they are sufficient to transform transfected mouse cell lines in vitro [Alberts, B., Bray, D., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K. & Watson, J. D. (1994) Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, New York)]. However, in cells transformed in vitro mutated human ras genes are expressed more than 100-fold than in the cancers from which they are isolated. In view of the discrepancy between the very low levels of ras transcription in cancers and the very high levels in cells transformed in vitro, we have investigated the minimal level of human ras expression for transformation in vitro. Using point-mutated human ras genes recombined with different promoters from either human metallothionein-IIA or human fibronectin or from retroviruses we found dominant in vitro transformation of the mouse C3H cell line only with ras genes linked to viral promoters. These ras genes were expressed more than 120-fold higher than are native ras genes of C3H cells. The copy number of transfected ras genes ranged from 2-6 in our system. In addition, nondominant transformation was observed in a small percentage (2-7%) of C3H cells transfected with ras genes that are expressed less than 20 times higher than native C3H ras genes. Because over 90% of cells expressing ras at this moderately enhanced level were untransformed, transformation must follow either a nondominant ras mechanism or a non-ras mechanism. We conclude that the mutated, but normally expressed, ras genes found in human and animal cancers are not likely to "play a dominant part in cancer." The conclusion that mutated ras genes are not sufficient or dominant for cancer is directly supported by recent discoveries of mutated ras in normal animals, and in benign human tissue, "which has little potential to progress" [Jen, J., Powell, S. M., Papadopoulos, N., Smith, K. J., Hamilton, S. R., Vogelstein, B. & Kinzler, K. W. (1994) Cancer Res. 54, 5523-5526]. Even the view that mutated ras is necessary for cancer is hard to reconcile with (i) otherwise indistinguishable cancers with and without ras mutations, (ii) metastases of the same human cancers with and without ras mutations, (iii) retroviral ras genes that are oncogenic without point mutations, and (iv) human tumor cells having spontaneously lost ras mutation but not tumorigencity.

Avian erythroblastosis virus E26: only one (myb) of two cell-derived coding regions is necessary for oncogenicity

The oncogene hypothesis postulates that mutated cellular genes, termed proto-onc genes, function as cancer genes because they are related to retroviral onc genes. However, in contrast to retroviral onc genes, mutated proto-onc genes from cancers are not sufficient for carcinogenesis. Therefore, it has been proposed that mutated proto-onc genes depend on other proto-onc genes for carcinogenesis. Since the oncogene of the avian leukemia virus E26 includes coding regions derived from two cellular proto-onc genes, proto-myb and proto-ets, this hybrid gene has been proposed to be a model for two-gene-carcinogenesis. Here we set out to test this proposal. For this purpose myb and ets deletion mutants of cloned E26 provirus were prepared, and the corresponding viruses, produced by transfected primary chicken embryo cells, were tested for leukemogenicity in newborn chickens. It was found that an ets deletion mutant was just as leukemogenic as the wild-type virus and that a myb deletion mutant lacked leukemogenicity completely. To eliminate the possibility that our E26 myb deletion mutant failed to be leukemogenic because it failed to replicate, the virus was titered by a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. By this method, E26 from the plasma of infected chickens was first allowed to reverse-transcribe viral RNA to cDNA in vitro, and then the cDNA concentration was determined from the lowest dilution that gave a positive signal after amplification of E26 cDNA by the PCR method. Virus titers of about 10(5) per ml were found for wild type and for myb and ets deletion mutants of E26. It is concluded that the ets region is not essential for carcinogenesis, and E26 derives transforming function from overexpression of its proto-myb coding region via the retroviral promoter. Thus, E26 is a single-hit carcinogen and, like all other oncogenic retroviruses, is not a model for two-gene-carcinogenesis. Viral ets probably reflects a genetic accident that transduced sequences of proto-ets together with proto-myb in generating E26.

Transformation of avian fibroblasts overexpressing the c-rel proto-oncogene and a variant of c-rel lacking 40 C-terminal amino acids

The v-rel oncogene was derived from the c-rel proto-oncogene, which encodes a transcriptional activator. Expression of v-rel transforms avian hematopoietic cells and fibroblasts. Here we report that overexpression (via a replication-competent retroviral vector) of full-length c-Rel as well as a 40-amino-acid, carboxy-terminal deletion construct of c-Rel (c-Rel delta) resulted in the morphological transformation of chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEFs). Subcellular localization of Rel polypeptides in these transformed cells as determined by immunofluorescence and immunoprecipitation revealed their presence in both the nucleus and the cytoplasm, with the majority of Rel polypeptides showing cytoplasmic localization. Cytoplasmic localization could be due to interaction with I kappa B molecules, and in fact, the overexpression of c-Rel or the C-terminal deletion construct of c-Rel resulted in an increase in the levels of mRNA encoding the avian I kappa B protein pp40 and the avian homolog of the NF-kappa B protein, p105. However, expression of v-Rel resulted in the induction of pp40 mRNA only. While c-Rel was a weak activator of kappa B-mediated transcription of a reporter construct in transformed CEFs, v-Rel and c-Rel delta were transcriptional repressors. However, in spite of these differences, all of these proteins resulted in the transformation of CEFs.