Kinase suppressor of Ras-1 (KSR1) facilitates signal transduction in Ras-dependent cancers, including pancreatic and lung carcinomas but its role in breast cancer has not been well studied. Here, we demonstrate for the first time it functions as a tumor suppressor in breast cancer in contrast to data in other tumors. Breast cancer patients (n>1000) with high KSR1 showed better disease-free and overall survival, results also supported by Oncomine analyses, microarray data (n=2878) and genomic data from paired tumor and cell-free DNA samples revealing loss of heterozygosity. KSR1 expression is associated with high breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1), high BRCA1-associated ring domain 1 (BARD1) and checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1) levels. Phospho-profiling of major components of the canonical Ras-RAF-mitogen-activated protein kinases pathway showed no significant changes after KSR1 overexpression or silencing. Moreover, KSR1 stably transfected cells formed fewer and smaller size colonies compared to the parental ones, while in vivo mouse model also demonstrated that the growth of xenograft tumors overexpressing KSR1 was inhibited. The tumor suppressive action of KSR1 is BRCA1 dependent shown by 3D-matrigel and soft agar assays. KSR1 stabilizes BRCA1 protein levels by reducing BRCA1 ubiquitination through increasing BARD1 abundance. These data link these proteins in a continuum with clinical relevance and position KSR1 in the major oncoprotein pathways in breast tumorigenesis.
Lemur tyrosine kinase 3 (LMTK3) is associated with cell proliferation and endocrine resistance in breast cancer. We found that, in cultured breast cancer cell lines, LMTK3 promotes the development of a metastatic phenotype by inducing the expression of genes encoding integrin subunits. Invasive behavior in various breast cancer cell lines positively correlated with the abundance of LMTK3. Overexpression of LMTK3 in a breast cancer cell line with low endogenous LMTK3 abundance promoted actin cytoskeleton remodeling, focal adhesion formation, and adhesion to collagen and fibronectin in culture. Using SILAC (stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture) proteomic analysis, we found that LMTK3 increased the abundance of integrin subunits α5 and β1, encoded by ITGA5 and ITGB1. This effect depended on the CDC42 Rho family guanosine triphosphatase, which was in turn activated by the interaction between LMTK3 and growth factor receptor-bound protein 2 (GRB2), an adaptor protein that mediates receptor tyrosine kinase-induced activation of RAS and downstream signaling. Knockdown of GRB2 suppressed LMTK3-induced CDC42 activation, blocked ITGA5 and ITGB1 expression promoted by the transcription factor serum response factor (SRF), and reduced invasive activity. Furthermore, abundance of LMTK3 positively correlated with that of the integrin β1 subunit in breast cancer patient's tumors. Our findings suggest a role for LMTK3 in promoting integrin activity during breast cancer progression and metastasis.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.