Literature DB >> 14601636

The quest for a tumor suppressor gene phenotype.

Nadege Presneau1, Emily N Manderson, Patricia N Tonin.   

Abstract

Our current definitions of the tumor suppressor gene (TSG) have been guided by the identification of the prototypical gene, RB1, a TSG that is implicated in the development of both the inherited and sporadic forms of retinoblastoma. The hallmark feature of this TSG is loss of function in tumoral cells, which can be restored by reintroduction of a normally functioning protein with concomitant reversion of tumorigenicity. Key to this discovery was that loss of function is often achieved by deletion of a normal copy of the TSG and retention of a mutated allele, which was either inherited or acquired. Suppression of tumorigenicity and the loss-of-function concept of TSGs was also demonstrated in early studies where normal cellular growth was achieved when tumorigenic cells were fused with normal cells. Thus loss of genetic content and restoration of gene function has guided studies aimed at the discovery of novel TSGs. Here we review the successes of TSG discovery using three approaches that are based on the genetic analysis of inherited predisposition to cancer, tumors that display chromosome loss, and tumorigenic cells that display a suppression of tumorigenicity as a result of transfer of normal chromosomes. Based on a review of the literature we conclude that the discovery of TSGs has been highly successful in the genetic analysis of inherited predisposition to cancer with a dominant mode of inheritance. In contrast, the latter two approaches have yielded a paucity of TSGs that exhibit features similar to the prototypical RB1 in that they are rarely inactivated by somatic mutations in tumors displaying LOH, although decreased gene expression is observed. Nevertheless, some of these genes have been shown to suppress tumorigenicity when normal function is restored in tumorigenic cells consistent with the loss-of-function concept. These observations continue to challenge our current definition of TSG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14601636     DOI: 10.2174/1566524033479500

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Mol Med        ISSN: 1566-5240            Impact factor:   2.222


  6 in total

1.  The Cables gene on chromosome 18q is silenced by promoter hypermethylation and allelic loss in human colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Do Youn Park; Hideo Sakamoto; Sandra D Kirley; Shuji Ogino; Takako Kawasaki; Eunjeong Kwon; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Gregory Y Lauwers; Daniel C Chung; Bo R Rueda; Lawrence R Zukerberg
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.307

2.  STAT1-deficient mice spontaneously develop estrogen receptor α-positive luminal mammary carcinomas.

Authors:  Szeman Ruby Chan; William Vermi; Jingqin Luo; Laura Lucini; Charles Rickert; Amy M Fowler; Silvia Lonardi; Cora Arthur; Larry Jt Young; David E Levy; Michael J Welch; Robert D Cardiff; Robert D Schreiber
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 6.466

3.  Molecular cytogenetic characterization of canine histiocytic sarcoma: A spontaneous model for human histiocytic cancer identifies deletion of tumor suppressor genes and highlights influence of genetic background on tumor behavior.

Authors:  Benoit Hedan; Rachael Thomas; Alison Motsinger-Reif; Jerome Abadie; Catherine Andre; John Cullen; Matthew Breen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 4.  STRs: Ancient Architectures of the Genome beyond the Sequence.

Authors:  Jalal Gharesouran; Hassan Hosseinzadeh; Soudeh Ghafouri-Fard; Mohammad Taheri; Maryam Rezazadeh
Journal:  J Mol Neurosci       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 3.444

5.  Canine Mammary Tumours Are Affected by Frequent Copy Number Aberrations, including Amplification of MYC and Loss of PTEN.

Authors:  Kaja S Borge; Silje Nord; Peter Van Loo; Ole C Lingjærde; Gjermund Gunnes; Grethe I G Alnæs; Hiroko K Solvang; Torben Lüders; Vessela N Kristensen; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Frode Lingaas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Loss of heterozygosity: what is it good for?

Authors:  Georgina L Ryland; Maria A Doyle; David Goode; Samantha E Boyle; David Y H Choong; Simone M Rowley; Jason Li; David D L Bowtell; Richard W Tothill; Ian G Campbell; Kylie L Gorringe
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 3.063

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.