A tumor suppressor function has been attributed to RUNX3, a member of the RUNX family of transcription factors. Here, we examined alterations in the expression of three members, RUNX1, RUNX2, and RUNX3, and their interacting partner, CBFb, in breast cancer. Among them, RUNX3 was consistently underexpressed in breast cancer cell lines and primary tumors. Fifty percent of the breast cancer cell lines (n = 19) showed hypermethylation at the promoter region and displayed significantly lower levels of RUNX3 mRNA expression (P < 0.0001) and protein (P < 0.001). In primary Singaporean breast cancers, 9 of 44 specimens showed undetectable levels of RUNX3 by immunohistochemistry. In 35 of 44 tumors, however, low levels of RUNX3 protein were present. Remarkably, in each case, protein was mislocalized to the cytoplasm. In primary tumors, hypermethylation of RUNX3 was observed in 23 of 44 cases (52%) and was undetectable in matched adjacent normal breast epithelium. Mislocalization of the protein, with or without methylation, seems to account for RUNX3 inactivation in the vast majority of the tumors. In in vitro and in vivo assays, RUNX3 behaved as a growth suppressor in breast cancer cells. Stable expression of RUNX3 in MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells led to a more cuboidal phenotype, significantly reduced invasiveness in Matrigel invasion assays, and suppressed tumor formation in immunodeficient mice. This study provides biological and mechanistic insights into RUNX3 as the key member of the family that plays a role in breast cancer. Frequent protein mislocalization and methylation could render RUNX3 a valuable marker for early detection and risk assessment.

Abbreviations: AIP4 (atrophin 1-interacting protein 4); BMP (bone morphogenetic protein); CHIP (carboxyl terminus of Hsc70-interacting protein); GSK3b (glycogen synthase kinase 3-b); HECT (homologous to E6-AP carboxyl terminus); MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase); NEDD4-2 (neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally downregulated 4-2); PIAS (protein inhibitor of activated Stat); Smurf (Smad ubiquitylation regulatory factor); STRAP (serine-threonine kinase receptorassociated protein); SUMO (small ubiquitin-like modifier); TbRI/TbRII (TGFb receptor type I and II); TGFb (transforming growth factor b); WWP1 (WW domain-containing protein 1); Ub (ubiquitin) npg Transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) controls cellular behavior in embryonic and adult tissues. TGFβ binding to serine/threonine kinase receptors on the plasma membrane activates Smad molecules and additional signaling proteins that together regulate gene expression. In this review, mechanisms and models that aim at explaining the coordination between several components of the signaling network downstream of TGFβ are presented. We discuss how the activity and duration of TGFβ receptor/Smad signaling can be regulated by post-translational modifications that affect the stability of key proteins in the pathway. We highlight links between these mechanisms and human diseases, such as tissue fibrosis and cancer. Regulating the stability of TGFβ receptors and Smads

No abstract

Signal transduction by the Smad pathway elicits critical biological responses to many extracellular polypeptide factors, including TGFβ and bone morphogenetic protein. Regulation of Smad signaling imparts several cytoplasmic and nuclear mechanisms, some of which entail protein phosphorylation. Previous work established a protein complex between Smad4 and the scaffolding protein LKB1-interacting protein 1 (LIP1). LKB1 is a well studied tumor suppressor kinase that regulates cell growth and polarity. Here, we analyzed the LKB1-LIP1 and the Smad4-LIP1 protein complexes and found that LIP1 can self-oligomerize. We further demonstrate that LKB1 is capable of phosphorylating Smad4 on Thr77 of its DNA-binding domain. LKB1 inhibits Smad4 from binding to either TGFβ- or bone morphogenetic protein-specific promoter sequences, which correlates with the negative regulatory effect LKB1 exerts on Smad4-dependent transcription. Accordingly, LKB1 negatively regulates TGFβ gene responses and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Thus, LKB1 and LIP1 provide negative control of TGFβ signaling.

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling exerts antitumor activities in glioblastoma; however, its precise mechanisms remain to be elucidated. Here, we demonstrated that the BMP type I receptor ALK-2 (encoded by the ACVR1 gene) has crucial roles in apoptosis induction of patient-derived glioma-initiating cells (GICs), TGS-01 and TGS-04. We also characterized a BMP target gene, Distal-less homeobox 2 (DLX2), and found that DLX2 promoted apoptosis and neural differentiation of GICs. The tumor-suppressive effects of ALK-2 and DLX2 were further confirmed in a mouse orthotopic transplantation model. Interestingly, valproic acid (VPA), an anti-epileptic compound, induced BMP2, BMP4, ACVR1 and DLX2 mRNA expression with a concomitant increase in phosphorylation of Smad1/5. Consistently, we showed that treatment with VPA induced apoptosis of GICs, whereas silencing of ALK-2 or DLX2 expression partially suppressed it. Our study thus reveals BMP-mediated inhibitory mechanisms for glioblastoma, which explains, at least in part, the therapeutic effects of VPA.

Background:The control of TGF␤ signaling depends on many not well understood regulators. Results: TGF␤ transcriptionally induces SIK1, which cooperates with the ubiquitin ligase Smurf2 to negatively regulate the signaling output. Conclusion: Transcriptional induction of SIK1 controls TGF␤ signaling together with Smurf2 and Smad7. Significance: The molecular interplay between SIK1 and Smurf2 provides new means for controlling TGF␤ signaling.

TGFβ signaling via SMAD proteins and protein kinase pathways up- or down-regulates the expression of many genes and thus affects physiological processes, such as differentiation, migration, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis, during developmental or adult tissue homeostasis. We here report that NUAK family kinase 1 (NUAK1) and NUAK2 are two TGFβ target genes. NUAK1/2 belong to the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) family, whose members control central and protein metabolism, polarity, and overall cellular homeostasis. We found that TGFβ-mediated transcriptional induction of NUAK1 and NUAK2 requires SMAD family members 2, 3, and 4 (SMAD2/3/4) and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activities, which provided immediate and early signals for the transient expression of these two kinases. Genomic mapping identified an enhancer element within the first intron of the NUAK2 gene that can recruit SMAD proteins, which, when cloned, could confer induction by TGFβ. Furthermore, NUAK2 formed protein complexes with SMAD3 and the TGFβ type I receptor. Functionally, NUAK1 suppressed and NUAK2 induced TGFβ signaling. This was evident during TGFβ-induced epithelial cytostasis, mesenchymal differentiation, and myofibroblast contractility, in which NUAK1 or NUAK2 silencing enhanced or inhibited these responses, respectively. In conclusion, we have identified a bifurcating loop during TGFβ signaling, whereby transcriptional induction of NUAK1 serves as a negative checkpoint and NUAK2 induction positively contributes to signaling and terminal differentiation responses to TGFβ activity.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.