From Rous sarcoma virus to plasminogen activator, src oncogene and cancer management

Abstract

Plasminogen activator (PLAU) is a serine protease that converts plasminogen to plasmin, a general protease, which promotes fibrinolysis and degradation of extracellular matrix. PLAU was reported in 1970s as one of the robustly induced enzymatic activities in Rous sarcoma virus (RSV)-transformed chicken cells. More than three decades later, with the completion of the sequencing of the chicken genome and the subsequent availability of Affymetrix GeneChip genome arrays, several laboratories have surveyed the transcriptional program affected by the RSV transformation. Interestingly, the PLAU gene was shown to be the most highly upregulated transcript. The induction of PLAU was a transformation-dependent process because viruses with deleted Src gene did not induce the transcription of the PLAU gene. Both Src and PLAU genes are associated with and contribute to the complex phenotype of human cancer. Although the activity and structures of these two enzymes are well characterized, the precise molecular function of these gene products in signaling networks is still not fully understood. Yet, the knowledge of their association with cancer is already translated into the clinical setting. Src kinase inhibitors are being tested in clinical trials of cancer therapy, and PLAU gene and its inhibitor have been included as biomarkers with strong prognostic and therapeutic predictive values. This vignette reviews the history of PLAU and Src discovery, and illuminates the complexity of their relationship, but also points to their emerging impact on public health.

Introduction

We are about to celebrate the centennial of the groundbreaking publication of Peyton Rous reporting on a virus-induced sarcoma in chickens (Rous, 1911). This is one of the seminal papers in biology, which marks the beginning of research that ultimately identified the first oncogene, Src (Stehelin et al., 1976; Brugge and Erikson, 1977; Hunter and Sefton, 1980).

Transformation of primary or established cells in vitro by Rous sarcoma virus (RSV) and RSV-induced tumor formation in animals continue to represent valuable experimental models of cancer (Martin, 2004). The transforming gene of RSV, the viral src oncogene (v-src), is an activated and overexpressed protein-tyrosine kinase responsible for a number of molecular events and phenotypic changes observed in transformed host cells and the virus-induced tumors (Jove and Hanafusa, 1987).

In the past, a number of laboratories reported identification of individual genes that were either induced or repressed by the v-src oncogene in transformed cells (Hendricks and Weintraub, 1981; Bedard et al., 1987; Sugano et al., 1987; Jahner and Hunter, 1991; Frankfort and Gelman, 1995). Plasminogen activator was reported in 1973 as one of the robustly induced enzymatic activities in RSV-transformed chicken cells, and the urokinase-type plasminogen activator (PLAU) gene was considered to encode the secreted enzyme (Unkeless et al., 1973). This work was reported by the laboratory of Edward Reich at The Rockefeller University in New York City, and later confirmed by numerous publications from various laboratories (Sudol, 1985; Bell et al., 1990; Leslie et al., 1990). More than three decades later, with the completion of the sequencing of mouse and chicken genomes and the subsequent availability of Affymetrix GeneChip genome arrays (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA, USA), several laboratories, including our team, have surveyed the transcriptional program affected by the RSV transformation (Masker et al., 2007; Maslikowski et al., 2010). We, and others, have confirmed the transcriptional induction of the PLAU gene and showed that it is the most highly upregulated transcript (Masker et al., 2007; Maslikowski et al., 2010). Now, we have decided to look at these data more closely, focusing on unique features and variations in the PLAU gene induction among different experimental models. Interestingly, we also observed several apparent paradoxes by examining viral Src-affected gene expression profiles. We discuss here several of these paradoxes, provide possible explanations, and suggest new experimental strategies that could solve them.

Both Src and PLAU genes are associated with and contribute to the complex phenotype of human cancer (Martin, 2004; Hildenbrand et al., 2010). Although the activity and structures of these two enzymes are relatively well characterized (Xu et al., 1997; Carriero et al., 2009), the precise molecular function of these gene products in signaling networks and physiology is still not fully understood. Yet, the knowledge of their association with cancer is already translated into the clinical setting. Src kinase inhibitors are being tested in clinical trials of cancer therapy (Hennequin et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2007; Jallal et al., 2007; Saad and Lipton, 2009; Mayer and Krop, 2010), and PLAU has been proposed as a biomarker with strong prognostic and therapeutic predictive values (Annecke et al., 2008).

I would also like to add a touch of history here and bring to light a relevant but unpublished work of Dr Fritz Lipmann on sarcoma implants and plasma clot liquefaction. As a graduate student in the laboratory of Dr Edward Reich in the early 1980s, I had a chance to re-examine original experiments leading to the discovery of the PLAU induction by RSV (Sudol, 1985), and participate in the protein purification (Sudol and Reich, 1984) and complementary DNA cloning (Nagamine et al., 1983, 1984) of the mammalian PLAU protein and gene, respectively. Through my work on the PLAU gene, I became interested in the Src oncogene itself, and joined the laboratory of Dr Hidesaburo Hanafusa as a postdoctoral fellow. During the exciting transition from the Reich Laboratory to the Hanafusa Laboratory, within The Rockefeller University, I had the privileged opportunity to discuss the phenomenon of plasminogen activation with Dr Fritz Lipmann, who, after attending my thesis defense, wrote me a letter discussing his unpublished work on Rous sarcoma implants and a putative plasminogen activator activity (Supplementary Figure 1). The letter prompted our meetings and discussions. In this short review, I would like to mention the excerpts of my discussions with Dr Lipmann and make the content of the letter available to the readers of ‘Oncogene’ (Supplementary Figure 1). The original letter was deposited in, and is available from the Rockefeller Archive Center.

In sum, in this advanced age of systems biology, which is further accelerated by the increasingly powerful ‘omic’ approaches to physiology and pathology, I would like to tell a story of two cancer-associated and functionally interacting genes in order to illuminate the complexity of their relationship, but also their emerging impact on public health. This vignette is also a minute glimpse into the rich past of my alma mater—The Rockefeller University.

Viral Src induces PLAU gene at the level of transcription

As expected, the PLAU gene was shown to be induced by RSV at the level of transcription (Bell et al., 1990), and two recent reports with Affymetrix Gene chip analyses showed that in wt RSV Schmidt–Ruppin-strain-group-A (RSV-SR-A)-transformed chick embryo fibroblasts (CEFs), PLAU transcript was on the very top of the list of upregulated genes, being at least 40-fold elevated over the level found in cells infected with the non-transforming, control viruses of RSV-SR-A strain (Masker et al., 2007; Maslikowski et al., 2010). In fact, our study showed that the PLAU transcript was upregulated 196 (+/− 69)-fold, using Affymetrix Gene Chip arrays. We confirmed this result by a more precise measurement using real-time PCR tests on two independently isolated RNA samples as 42 (+/−11)-fold upregulation (Masker et al., 2007). Independently from our group, the laboratory of Pierre-Andre Bedard also documented that the PLAU transcript was the most robustly upregulated gene in RSV-transformed CEFs, being more than 44-fold increased over the level detected in non-transformed controls (Maslikowski et al., 2010). The induction of the PLAU transcript was considered v-Src gene- and transformation-dependent process because RSV-SR-A with deleted Src (td106) and the temperature-sensitive mutant of RSV (NY315), at non-permissive temperature, did not induce PLAU gene.

Interestingly, the PLAU gene was also induced by RSV infection in other primary cells, namely chicken neuroretinal cells (Maslikowski et al., 2010).

Explaining variability in genes regulated by RSV transformation

A couple of surprises emerged when we examined the transcriptional profile of transformation of chicken cells by RSV-SR-A. Apart from a dozen of robustly regulated genes, such as PLAU or NOV, which were identified and confirmed in the arrays performed by independent laboratories, many other genes identified as v-src-modulated transcripts showed significant differences in terms of their relative levels (Malek et al., 2002; Paz et al., 2004; Masker et al., 2007; Maslikowski et al., 2010). This could be not only due to differences in the experimental conditions used but also due to the differing time points of RNA isolation from cells after they reached morphological transformation. Perhaps a better solution would be to use a non-leaky, temperature-sensitive mutant of RSV, with many experimental time points for RNA isolation during the switch from non-permissive to permissive temperature and full transformation. Such an approach would provide a dynamic profile of transcriptional changes and most likely could explain at least some of the apparent differences in the current reports. For example, certain transcripts would be changed transiently but others would be changed constitutively. More complex profiles of modulation are possible as well.

Although not directly related to PLAU, another surprise came from the analysis of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP)-like transcript in RSV-transformed CEFs (Masker et al., 2007). First, the transcript was present in normal CEFs at the same level as that in RSV-transformed CEFs. However, the VIP-like gene as we would like to name it, scored as a significantly induced transcript because the infection with RSV without v-src repressed the VIP-like transcript. The role of viral proteins, especially Env (Maeda et al., 2008) and possibly Gag per se, on the regulation of gene expression deserves attention and careful evaluation in RSV-modulated transcriptomes. The second surprise was that the VIP-like transcript detected in RSV-transformed cells was coding for a protein of very large molecular weight of 52 kDa (Masker et al., 2007). We could not reconcile this large size even with the sequence of the VIP precursor. The biological role of the gene product encoded by the VIP-like transcript is intriguing, and could illuminate a new facet of virus-mediated neoplastic transformation.

Finally, when we used LA90 ts RSV-transformed mouse 3T3 cells and evaluated the level of PLAU expression in these cells as a function of morphological transformation, we did not observe a significant change in the PLAU mRNA levels. Instead, matrix metalloproteinase 1b, also known as interstitial collagenase, was at least 30-fold upregulated, as if ‘replacing’ the upstream activity of PLAU (Kathy Masker, Mechthild Rosing, Angelika Barnekow and M Sudol, unpublished data). Matrix metalloproteinases are acting downstream of PLAU, and are essential for breaking the barrier of extracellular matrix and initiating metastasis (Kessenbrock et al., 2010). We do not know if this difference in PLAU and matrix metalloproteinase 1b induction is due to different modes by which RSV transforms chicken versus mouse cells or because 3T3 cells are immortalized and therefore reveal a different pattern and range of gene expression when challenged by viral Src.

Experiments of Albert Fischer and Fritz Lipmann with Rous sarcoma implants, the first glimpse of PLAU?

At the beginning of the last century, thanks to the initiatives of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carlsberg Brewery, the Carlsberg Biological Institute in Copenhagen was built primarily for exploration of organ implants and cells in culture (Bing, 2008). A former student of Alexis Carrel from the Rockefeller Institute in New York City, Albert Fischer was the director of the Carlsberg Biological Institute (Figure 1a, left panel). According to Fritz Lipmann, who worked with Fischer first in Berlin-Dahlem at the beginning of the 1930s, and later at the Carlsberg Biological Institute in Denmark from 1932 to 1939 (Lipmann, 1971) (Figure 2), Fischer was the first to discover the effect of Rous sarcoma on the stability of plasma clot; the clot being used routinely at that time to culture chicken fibroblasts (Fischer, 1925) (Supplementary Figure 1). The plasma clot on which Rous sarcoma implant was placed dissolved in a short time, making it impossible to grow the Rous sarcoma through this method (Figure 1b, right panel). In his article (Fischer, 1925), on page 251, where sarcoma implants are compared with normal control implants of chicken tissues, Fischer writes: ‘Die Sarkomzellen bilden sehr lose Verbindugen mit anderen Zellen und peptonisieren das Plasmakoagulum’. In direct translation: ‘The sarcoma cells build very loose junctions with the neighboring cells and peptonize the plasma-coagulum’. The use of the term peptonization of the plasma clot instead of liquefaction was interesting and intuitively correct in suggesting the action of a proteolytic enzyme in this process. Peptone was known at that time as the water soluble product of animal muscles digested by pepsin, and the resulting lysate was used for media to culture bacteria and fungi. It is most likely that while conducting this experiment, Albert Fischer was the first researcher who indirectly observed the RSV-induced PLAU gene via the enzymatic activity of its protein product toward fibrin, which was manifested in the liquefied plasma clot. Fritz Lipmann found this phenomenon interesting and decided to examine the plasma clot liquefaction by employing the Van Slyke method, which measured free amino groups. This was the only way at that time to detect relatively small effects of proteolysis. No change in free amino groups was detected by Lipmann in the dissolved plasma clots, compared with controls, and he argued that it was apparently only a small amount of fibrin that was digested and therefore the plasma was liquefied (Supplementary Figure 1). These experiments were not published, but the data and conclusions of Fritz Lipmann are in fine agreement with what we know about plasma clot, PLAU activity, release of plasmin from plasminogen substrate and the discrete targeting of fibrin by plasmin (D’Alessio and Blasi, 2009; Hildenbrand et al., 2010). More specifically, plasminogen is known to bind to fibrinogen and even more so to fibrin (Doolittle, 1984). Because of the concentrated and localized complex of the pro-enzyme (plasminogen) and its preferred substrate (fibrin), even a relatively small release of plasminogen activator should result in a restricted but efficient lysis of the area of the clot. In his letter (Supplementary Figure 1) and in our discussions, Lipmann also argued that when describing the activity of PLAU in general physiology, we should avoid the term ‘fibrinolysis’ because plasmin, which is released by PLAU from plasminogen, acts like a general proteolytic enzyme. Again, the work from the group of Edward Reich and from other laboratories provided ample evidence in support of this argument (Ossowski and Reich, 1983; Hildenbrand et al., 2010).

Figure 1
figure1

Albert Fischer and his experiments with Rous sarcoma. (a) Photo of Albert Fischer, who was the director of the Carlsberg Biological Institute in Copenhagen in the 1930s. The photograph is a courtesy of the Rockefeller Archive Center. According to Fritz Lipmann, who worked at the Institute in Denmark, Fischer was the first to discover the effect of Rous sarcoma on the stability of plasma clot. (b) A scheme of the experiment in which normal chicken muscle or Rous sarcoma implant was placed on solidified plasma clot that was supplemented with a ‘trace’ amount (Fischer, 1925) of chicken embryo extract. Rous sarcoma implant liquefied plasma clot in a short time, compared with a minimal lysis of the clot by normal tissue (see text).

Figure 2
figure2

Fritz Lipmann working in the Copenhagen Laboratory. Dr Lipmann employed the Van Slyke method, which measured free amino groups to detect proteolysis in the plasma clot liquefied by Rous sarcoma (see text). The photograph is a courtesy of the Rockefeller Archive Center.

Clinical trials with Src kinase inhibitors, and PLAU as a cancer biomarker with prognostic and predictive value

There are at least three Src kinase inhibitors, namely Dasatinib, Bosutinib and Saracatinib (known also as AZD0530) that are being tested now, in phase I and II of clinical trials, for treatment of invasive breast cancer (Hennequin et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2007; Jallal et al., 2007; Saad and Lipton, 2009). There is also an ongoing phase III clinical trial with Dasatinib for treatment of prostate cancer (Mayer and Krop, 2010). Other agents that inhibit Src, including XL999 and AZM475271, are in preclinical or early phase clinical development (Mayer and Krop, 2010). Although these inhibitors target Src, they also inhibit other protein-tyrosine kinases, notably Dasatinib effectively inhibits ABL kinase and was already approved for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (Hunter, 2007). Nevertheless, it is hoped that the results of these trials will be as positive as those obtained for inhibitors to other non-receptor and receptor protein-tyrosine kinases, which are now being used as drugs (for example, Imatinib, Gefitinib and Sunitinib) that target leukemias with activated ABL (BCR-ABL) and solid tumors with activated KIT or epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases (Hunter, 2007).

In contrast to Src, which is being targeted in cancer by inhibitory drugs, PLAU is being used as a diagnostic marker. Elevated levels of PLAU and PAI-1 (plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) in primary tumors of breast cancer patients correlate with tumor aggressiveness and poor clinical outcome (Harbeck et al., 2007). Namely, the patients with high content of PLAU and/or PAI-1 have a worse probability of overall survival than patients with low levels of both of the biomarkers. Initially, the clinical utility of the PLAU and PAI-1 have been proven on the highest level of confidence (so called level of evidence factor 1) by the European consortium of 18 countries (Schmitt et al., 1997, 2004). The Receptor and Biomarker Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RBG-EORTC) evaluated findings from the analysis of more that 8000 breast cancer patients (Schmitt et al., 2004). A prospective, randomized multi-center therapy trial in node-negative breast cancer patients showed that the patients with relatively high levels of PLAU and/or PAI-1 are at significantly higher risk of disease recurrence and worse probability of overall survival compared with the patients with low levels of both the biomarkers (Janicke et al., 2001; Schmitt et al., 2004; Harbeck et al., 2007; Annecke et al., 2008). Low levels of PLAU and PAI-1 are indicative of a very good prognosis, and the patients are spared the necessity of harsh treatment in the form of adjuvant chemotherapy. The subgroup of node-negative primary breast cancer patients with relatively high levels of PLAU and/or PAI-1 clearly benefits from the adjuvant chemotherapy. Because of the strong clinical data, the German Working Group of Gynecological Oncology (AGO) has recommended PLAU and PAI-1 as risk-group-classification markers in clinical evaluation of node-negative breast cancer patients. The clinical utility of PLAU and PAI-1 was directly demonstrated by a prospective clinical trial: Chemo-Node-Negative trail (Janicke et al., 2001). A more refined clinical trail is underway, Node Negative Breast Cancer Trial-3 trial that is centered in Germany and France (Harbeck et al., 2007; Annecke et al., 2008). There are also diligent efforts to evaluate feasibility of accurate measuring of the level of PLAU and PAI-1 in core needle biopsies of breast cancer patients (Thomssen et al., 2009). In 2007 guidelines, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended PLAU and PAI-1 as biomarkers to be used in practice (Annecke et al., 2008; Hildenbrand et al., 2010).

A brief clarification is appropriate here. It seems somewhat contradictory that when an enzyme and/or its inhibitor are coordinately or independently upregulated, this event leads to a specific single outcome. One has to emphasize that PAI-1 has multiple functions and, apart from the inhibitory activity directed toward the PLAU enzyme, has a crucial role in regulating cell adhesion processes, therefore contributing to the metastatic potential of the tumor (Stefansson et al., 2003). Interestingly, in RSV-transformed CEFs, both PLAU and PAI-1 are upregulated in unison (Masker et al., 2007; Maslikowski et al., 2010). However, the PAI-1 is upregulated only several fold and always less than the transcript of PLAU.

It is also important to place PLAU in a broader perspective of signaling and physiology. PLAU is one of the components of a serine protease system that is involved in the degradation of extracellular matrix, and therefore contributes to cancer cell adhesion, migration and metastasis (Blasi and Sidenius, 2010). The PLAU system, apart from the PLAU itself and PAI-1, also includes PLAU receptor and type-2 plasminogen activator inhibitor (Mekkawy et al., 2009). Members of the PLAU system, especially PLAU and PLAUR, are overexpressed in several malignant tumors. Therefore, the PLAU system has been widely explored as a target for anticancer drug therapy (Ulisse et al., 2009; Hildenbrand et al., 2010). Various strategies have been pursued, including ribozymes, RNA interference, soluble PLAU receptor, antagonist peptides that block PLAU–PLAU receptor complex and PLAU enzyme inhibitors to reduce or abrogate the expression or activity of PLAU and PLAUR in cancer cells (Mekkawy et al., 2009; Ulisse et al., 2009). All these strategies have been tested in cell culture and animal models, and some showed promising results, but they need confirmation in humans. The good news is that a few PLAU inhibitors have entered early clinical trials (Ulisse et al., 2009). On the basis of the tight transcriptional regulation of PLAU gene by activated Src, it is perhaps not too far-fetched to speculate that a select group of cancer patients could benefit in the future from the availability of drugs that would inhibit Src and PLAU, as the effect of such drugs could be synergistic.

The basic research on PLAU has been tightly connected with the research on RSV and its transforming gene Src. To better illustrate that connection, I depicted two parallel timelines of major research hallmarks and clinical developments in the Src and PLAU fields (Figure 3). The timelines are presented as closely parallel lines, but in reality they should be fused into one avenue of cancer research that started with the discovery of RSV.

Figure 3
figure3

Timelines of research hallmarks on Src and PLAU genes depicting a progression from bench to clinic. ca, Circa; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; TK, tyrosine kinase; other abbreviations are described in the text. The timeline of research on RSV and Src was patterned after a recently published example (Hunter, 2007). PLAU denotes the human plasminogen activator, whereas Plau denotes plasminogen activator from other species. For clarity of the scheme, I did not include one of the branches of research on plasminogen activator, namely the identification of tissue-type plasminogen activator, t-PA, which entered clinic much earlier than PLAU. A timely use of t-PA in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke results in positive outcomes and is widely discussed (Suzuki, 2010).

Interesting serendipities: WW domain and RSV budding, YAP oncogene

While studying Src and Yes oncogenes, my group has delineated a small modular protein domain known as the WW domain, which mediates specific protein–protein interactions (Bork and Sudol, 1994; Sudol et al., 1995). We also identified the specific peptide ligand that is cognate for WW domains and contains proline–proline–any-amino-acid–tyrosine (PPxY) consensus sequence (Chen and Sudol, 1995). Since the delineation of the WW domain–ligand complex, the research in my group has been on the signaling role of the WW domain in the human proteome, with a special focus on human diseases (Sudol and Harvey, 2010; Tapia et al., 2010). Two interesting and serendipitous developments connected the WW domain back to RSV biology and cancer. The WW domains of several proteins, including that of human YAP protein were shown to regulate the RSV budding process by interacting with viral Gag proteins through their PPxY motifs (Garnier et al., 1996). A lucid report from the laboratory of John Wills has described a successful interference of the RSV budding process by cis overexpression of the YAP WW domain that targeted PPxY motif on viral Gag (Patnaik and Wills, 2002). Most likely, the function of YAP WW domain is not specific here, and as a highly expressed module it competes with WW domains of NEDD4 family of E3 ubiquitin ligases that are known to form physiological complexes with avian sarcoma virus Gag protein to facilitate viral particle release (Pincetic et al., 2008).

Most recently, the YAP gene, whose cloning helped to identify the WW domain as a differentially spliced repeat of 38-amino-acid-long region (Bork and Sudol, 1994; Sudol, 1994), was shown to act as a bona fide oncogene and the main effector of the tumor suppressor pathway known as Hippo (Harvey and Tapon, 2007; Sudol and Harvey, 2010). Moreover, the WW domains of YAP were shown as critical elements in modulating the oncogenic potential of YAP (Grusche et al., 2010). Serendipities indeed.

Concluding remarks

Over time, the study of RSV has resulted in an avalanche of paradigm shifting discoveries (Martin, 2004; Vogt, 2010), which included the discovery of the first oncogene, Src (Stehelin et al., 1976; Brugge and Erikson, 1977), the identification of its protein-tyrosine kinase activity (Hunter and Sefton, 1980) and the purification of reverse transcriptase that broke the DNA–RNA–Protein dogma of molecular biology (Baltimore, 1970; Temin and Mizutani, 1970) The study of Src protein resulted in the delineation of first modular protein domains, such us SH2 (Sadowski et al., 1986), SH3 (Mayer et al., 1988; Ren et al., 1993) and WW domains (Bork and Sudol, 1994; Chen and Sudol, 1995), which led to the subsequent identification of new modules plus their ligands, and revolutionized our understanding of signal transduction at the level of proteomes. Current success in cancer therapy via drugs, which inhibit protein-tyrosine kinases could be traced directly to the Rous sarcoma virus (Hunter, 2007). So could be the PLAU gene that serves as a biomarker in the management of breast cancer patients (Annecke et al., 2008).

In 1979, as a graduate student at The Rockefeller University, I had a chance to participate in the symposium celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Peyton Rous. At the centennial held in the Caspary Auditorium, Lewis Thomas, Howard Temin and David Baltimore discussed eloquently the impact of the Rous virus discovery on the understanding of the molecular mechanisms of cancer (Supplementary Figure 2). They also summarized the current state of the RNA tumor virus research. According to Rene Dubos, who co-organized the symposium, Peyton Rous always strived for simplicity and was disturbed by complicated experiments that involved, in his words, ‘wheels within wheels’ (Dubos, 1979). Indeed, the experiments described in his two seminal papers on transmissible avian sarcoma (Rous, 1910, 1911) were relatively simple, if not elegant. And for some of us reading those papers is as exhilarating as reading the wrought iron prose of Samuel Beckett (Sudol, 2006).

References

  1. Annecke K, Schmitt M, Euler U, Zerm M, Paepke D, Paepke S et al. (2008). uPA and PAI-1 in breast cancer: review of their clinical utility and current validation in the prospective NNBC-3 trial. Adv Clin Chem 45: 31–45.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baltimore D . (1970). RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in virions of RNA tumour viruses. Nature 226: 1209–1211.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bedard PA, Alcorta D, Simmons DL, Luk KC, Erikson RL . (1987). Constitutive expression of a gene encoding a polypeptide homologous to biologically active human platelet protein in Rous sarcoma virus-transformed fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84: 6715–6719.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bell SM, Brackenbury RW, Leslie ND, Degen JL . (1990). Plasminogen activator gene expression is induced by the src oncogene product and tumor promoters. J Biol Chem 265: 1333–1338.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bing RJ . (2008). Matter at Heart. Dialogues in Cardiovasc Med 13: 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blasi F, Sidenius N . (2010). The urokinase receptor: focused cell surface proteolysis, cell adhesion and signaling. FEBS Lett 584: 1923–1930.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bork P, Sudol M . (1994). The WW domain: a signalling site in dystrophin? Trends Biochem Sci 19: 531–533.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brugge JS, Erikson RL . (1977). Identification of a transformation-specific antigen induced by an avian sarcoma virus. Nature 269: 346–348.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carriero MV, Longanesi-Cattani I, Bifulco K, Maglio O, Lista L, Barbieri A et al. (2009). Structure-based design of an urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor-derived peptide inhibiting cell migration and lung metastasis. Mol Cancer Ther 8: 2708–2717.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen HI, Sudol M . (1995). The WW domain of Yes-associated protein binds a proline-rich ligand that differs from the consensus established for Src homology 3-binding modules. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 7819–7823.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. D'Alessio S, Blasi F . (2009). The urokinase receptor as an entertainer of signal transduction. Front Biosci 14: 4575–4587.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Doolittle RF . (1984). Fibrinogen and Fibrin. Ann Rev Biochem 53: 195–229.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dubos R . (1979). Peyton Rous. J Exp Med 150: 733–735.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fischer A . (1925). Beitrag zur Biologie der Gewebezellen. Eine vergleichendbiologische Studie der normalen und malignen Gewebezellen in vitro. Arch Entwieklungsmech Org (Wilhelm Roux) 104: 210–261.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frankfort BJ, Gelman IH . (1995). Identification of novel cellular genes transcriptionally suppressed by v-src. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 206: 916–926.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Garnier L, Wills JW, Verderame MF, Sudol M . (1996). WW domains and retrovirus budding. Nature 381: 744–745.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grusche FA, Richardson HE, Harvey KF . (2010). Upstream regulation of the Hippo size control pathway. Curr Biol 20: R574–R582.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Harbeck N, Schmitt M, Paepke S, Allgayer H, Kates RE . (2007). Tumor-associated proteolytic factors uPA and PAI-1: critical appraisal of their clinical relevance in breast cancer and their integration into decision-support algorithms. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 44: 179–201.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harvey K, Tapon N . (2007). The Salvador-Warts-Hippo pathway - an emerging tumour-suppressor network. Nat Rev Cancer 7: 182–191.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hendricks M, Weintraub H . (1981). Tropomyosin is decreased in transformed cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78: 5633–5637.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hennequin LF, Allen J, Breed J, Curwen J, Fennell M, Green TP et al. (2006). N-(5-chloro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-7-[2-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)ethoxy]-5- (tetrahydro-2H-pyran-4-yloxy) quinazolin-4-amine, a novel, highly selective, orally available, dual-specific c-Src/Abl kinase inhibitor. J Med Chem 49: 6465–6488.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hildenbrand R, Allgayer H, Marx A, Stroebel P . (2010). Modulators of the urokinase-type plasminogen activation system for cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 19: 641–652.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang F, Reeves K, Han X, Fairchild C, Platero S, Wong TW et al. (2007). Identification of candidate molecular markers predicting sensitivity in solid tumors to dasatinib: rationale for patient selection. Cancer Res 67: 2226–2238.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hunter T . (2007). Treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia: the long road to imatinib. J Clin Invest 117: 2036–2043.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hunter T, Sefton BM . (1980). Transforming gene product of Rous sarcoma virus phosphorylates tyrosine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77: 1311–1315.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jahner D, Hunter T . (1991). The stimulation of quiescent rat fibroblasts by v-src and v-fps oncogenic protein-tyrosine kinases leads to the induction of a subset of immediate early genes. Oncogene 6: 1259–1268.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jallal H, Valentino ML, Chen G, Boschelli F, Ali S, Rabbani SA . (2007). A Src/Abl kinase inhibitor, SKI-606, blocks breast cancer invasion, growth, and metastasis in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Res 67: 1580–1588.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Janicke F, Prechtl A, Thomssen C, Harbeck N, Meisner C, Untch M et al. (2001). Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 913–920.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jove R, Hanafusa H . (1987). Cell transformation by the viral src oncogene. Annu Rev Cell Biol 3: 31–56.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kessenbrock K, Plaks V, Werb Z . (2010). Matrix metalloproteinases: regulators of the tumor microenvironment. Cell 141: 52–67.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leslie ND, Kessler CA, Bell SM, Degen JL . (1990). The chicken urokinase-type plasminogen activator gene. J Biol Chem 265: 1339–1344.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lipmann F . (1971). On my way to Copenhagen 1932–1939. In: ‘Wanderings of a Biochemist’. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (ISBN 0-471-54080-3), pp 20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Maeda N, Fan H, Yoshikai Y . (2008). Oncogenesis by retroviruses: old and new paradigms. Rev Med Virol 18: 387–405.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Malek RL, Irby RB, Guo QM, Lee K, Wong S, He M et al. (2002). Identification of Src transformation fingerprint in human colon cancer. Oncogene 21: 7256–7265.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Martin GS . (2004). The road to Src. Oncogene 23: 7910–7917.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Masker K, Golden A, Gaffney CJ, Mazack V, Schwindinger WF, Zhang W et al. (2007). Transcriptional profile of Rous Sarcoma Virus transformed chicken embryo fibroblasts reveals new signaling targets of viral-src. Virology 364: 10–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Maslikowski BM, Neel BD, Wu Y, Wang L, Rodrigues NA, Gillet G et al. (2010). Cellular processes of v-Src transformation revealed by gene profiling of primary cells-implications for human cancer. BMC Cancer 10: 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mayer BJ, Hamaguchi M, Hanafusa H . (1988). A novel viral oncogene with structural similarity to phospholipase C. Nature 332: 272–275.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mayer EL, Krop IE . (2010). Advances in Targeting Src in the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Other Solid Malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 16: 3526–3532.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mekkawy AH, Morris DL, Pourgholami MH . (2009). Urokinase plasminogen activator system as a potential target for cancer therapy. Future Oncol 5: 1487–1499.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nagamine Y, Pearson D, Altus MS, Reich E . (1984). cDNA and gene nucleotide sequence of porcine plasminogen activator. Nucleic Acid Res 12: 9525–9541.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nagamine Y, Sudol M, Reich E . (1983). Hormonal regulation of plasminogen activator mRNA production in porcine kidney cells. Cell 32: 1181–1190.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ossowski L, Reich E . (1983). Antibodies to plasminogen activator inhibit human tumor metastasis. Cell 35: 611–619.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Patnaik A, Wills JW . (2002). In vivo interference of Rous sarcoma virus budding by cis expression of a WW domain. J Virol 76: 2789–2795.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Paz K, Socci ND, van Nimwegen E, Viale A, Darnell JE . (2004). Transformation fingerprint: induced STAT3-C, v-Src and Ha-Ras cause small initial changes but similar established profiles in mRNA. Oncogene 23: 8455–8463.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pincetic A, Medina G, Carter C, Leis J . (2008). Avian sarcoma virus and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 use different subsets of ESCRT proteins to facilitate budding process. J Biol Chem 283: 29822–29830.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ren R, Mayer BJ, Cicchetti P, Baltimore D . (1993). Identification of a ten-amino acid proline-rich SH3 binding site. Science 259: 1157–1161.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rous P . (1910). A Transmissible Avian Neoplasm. (Sarcoma of the Common Fowl.). J Exp Med 12: 696–705.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rous P . (1911). A Sarcoma of the Fowl Transmissible by an Agent Separable from the Tumor Cells. J Exp Med 13: 397–411.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Saad F, Lipton A . (2009). SRC kinase inhibition: targeting bone metastases and tumor growth in prostate and breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 36: 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sadowski I, Stone JC, Pawson T . (1986). A noncatalytic domain conserved among cytoplasmic protein-tyrosine kinases modifies the kinase function and transforming activity of Fujinami sarcoma virus P130gag-fps. Mol Cell Biol 6: 4396–4408.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schmitt M, Harbeck N, Daidone MG, Brynner N, Duffy MJ, Foekens JA et al. (2004). Identification, validation, and clinical implementation of tumor-associated biomarkers to improve therapy concepts, survival, and quality of life of cancer patients: tasks of the Receptor and Biomarker Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Int J Oncol 25: 1397–1406.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schmitt M, Harbeck N, Thomssen C, Wilhelm O, Magdolen V, Reuning U et al. (1997). Clinical impact of the plasminogen activation system in tumor invasion and metastasis: prognostic relevance and target for therapy. Thromb Haemost 78: 285–296.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Stefansson S, McMahon GA, Petitclerc E, Lawrence DA . (2003). Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 in tumor growth, angiogenesis and vascular remodeling. Curr Pharm Des 9: 1545–1564.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stehelin D, Varmus HE, Bishop JM, Vogt PK . (1976). DNA related to the transforming gene(s) of avian sarcoma viruses is present in normal avian DNA. Nature 260: 170–173.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sudol M . (1985). Hormonal regulation of protein synthesis in cultured kidney cells. Mol Cell Endocrinol 40: 245–255.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sudol M . (1994). Yes-associated protein (YAP65) is a proline-rich phosphoprotein that binds to the SH3 domain of the Yes proto-oncogene product. Oncogene 9: 2145–2152.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sudol M . (2006). Blacksmith of words. Letter to the Editor on the centennial of the birth of Samuel Beckett. The Danville News (Pennsylvania), 16 August issue.

  59. Sudol M, Bork P, Einbond A, Kastury K, Druck T, Negrini M et al. (1995). Characterization of the mammalian YAP (Yes-associated protein) gene and its role in defining a novel protein module, the WW domain. J Biol Chem 270: 14733–14741.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sudol M, Harvey KF. (2010). Modularity in the Hippo signaling pathway. Trends Biochem Sci 35: 627–633.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sudol M, Reich E . (1984). Purification and characterization of a plasminogen activator secreted by a pig kidney cell line. Biochem J 219: 971–978.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sugano S, Stoeckle MY, Hanafusa H . (1987). Transformation by Rous sarcoma virus induces a novel gene with homology to a mitogenic platelet protein. Cell 49: 321–328.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Suzuki Y . (2010). Role of tissue-type plasminogen activator in ischemic stroke. J Pharmacol Sci 113: 203–207.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Tapia VE, Nicolaescu E, McDonald CB, Musi V, Oka T, Inayoshi Y et al. (2010). The Y65C missense mutation in the WW domain of the Golabi-Ito-Hall syndrome protein PQBP1 affects its binding activity and deregulates pre-mRNA splicing. J Biol Chem 285: 19391–19401.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Temin HM, Mizutani S . (1970). RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in virions of Rous sarcoma virus. Nature 226: 1211–1213.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Thomssen C, Harbeck N, Dittmer J, Abraha-Spaeth SR, Papendick N, Paradiso A et al. (2009). Feasibility of measuring the prognostic factors uPA and PAI-1 in core needle biopsy breast cancer specimens. J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 1028–1029.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ulisse S, Baldini E, Sorrenti S, D'Armiento M . (2009). The urokinase plasminogen activator system: a target for anti-cancer therapy. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 9: 32–71.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Unkeless JC, Tobia A, Ossowski L, Quigley JP, Rifkin DB, Reich E . (1973). An enzymatic function associated with transformation of fibroblasts by oncogenic viruses. I. Chick embryo fibroblast cultures transformed by avian RNA tumor viruses. J Exp Med 137: 85–111.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Vogt PK . (2010). Oncogenes and the revolution in cancer research: homage to Hidesaburo Hanafusa (1929–2009). Genes Cancer 1: 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Xu W, Harrison SC, Eck MJ . (1997). Three-dimensional structure of the tyrosine kinase c-Src. Nature 385: 595–602.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are to Mario Gimona for translating the 1925 publication of Fischer from German to English and for valuable comments on the text, Bethany Antos and Lee Hiltzik from the Rockefeller Archive Center for the photographs and information about 1979 Rous Centennial. Kathy Sheridan and Peter K Vogt are thanked for valuable comments on the early version of the manuscript, and Angelika Barnekow for a fruitful collaboration and permission to mention our unpublished data. I am grateful to my PhD mentors Ed Reich and Wolf-Dieter Schleuning, my senior colleagues Mary Rifkin, Tony Cerami, Sidney Strickland, Jean-Dominique Vassalli, Yoshi Nagamine, Michael W Young, and my peers Michael E Greenberg, Michael Yamin and Ned Waller for their guidance throughout my Rockefeller tenure. My postdoctoral mentor, the late Hidesaburo Hanafusa, is remembered with warmth. This work was supported by PA Breast Cancer Coalition grants and by Geisinger Clinic.

This mini-review is not meant to comprehensively discuss all relevant publications. The references are intentionally selective and the author apologizes for omission of many pertinent publications, and for the myopic focus of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Sudol.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary information accompanies the paper on the Oncogene website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sudol, M. From Rous sarcoma virus to plasminogen activator, src oncogene and cancer management. Oncogene 30, 3003–3010 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2011.38

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rous sarcoma virus
  • The Rockefeller University
  • Lipmann
  • Fischer
  • urokinase
  • Affymetrix

Further reading

Search