The oncogene revolution that developed over the past 4 decades has been remarkably powerful in explaining cancer at the molecular level. These advances in cancer biology have not developed in a vacuum but rather evolved hand in hand with technological advancements in molecular biology and molecular genetics. We are now in an era of powerful postgenomic technologies. These technologies are being used successfully not only to further understand the etiology of cancer but also to develop viable weapons against it. Retrospectively, the origin of the oncogene revolution had a much earlier history than the 1970s, dating back to over a century ago and deeply rooted in the fields of bacteriophage biology and animal virology. Arguably, the seminal finding, made by Peyton Rous in 1911 while working at The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York City, was that of a virus that caused cancer. Molecular characterization of this transforming virus led to the realization that mutations in somatic genes could lead to cell transformation, the culprit being a constitutively active tyrosine kinase called Src. In 1989, almost 20 years after the discovery of v-Src, Mayer and Hanafusa, also working at The Rockefeller University (The Rockefeller Institute became The Rockefeller University in 1965), identified a different kind of retroviral oncogene, the gene product of the CT10 virus, which had molecular features similar to v-Src but was biologically and conceptually distinct. Curiously, v-Crk retained noncatalytic regulatory sequences of homology to Src (the so-called Src homology 2 [SH2] and Src homology 3 [SH3] domains) but lacked intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity. v-Crk was demonstrated to regulate tyrosine kinases in trans (and thereby named CT10 regulator of kinase), as opposed to the cis-acting type of regulation seen for Src, where the SH2 and SH3 domains regulate Src activity intramolecularly. Such distinctions in function are seen in a variety of other oncogenes, often adding complexity to a set of general rules. In looking back, the study of the relatively simple structure of v-Crk provided important conceptual foundations. First, in the years following the discovery of Crk, tremendous effort ensued to understand the biology of SH2 and SH3 domains, leading to realizations that signaling proteins possess modular protein interaction domains to build networks. Crk was the “tip of the iceberg” of this emerging field, as now a plethora of distinct protein interaction domains have evolved in metazoans, each with unique specificities. The logic of modular protein interaction domains and intracellular communication also deserves mention as it highlights many of the current principles in the study of signal transduction. These general paradigms, derived from studying Crk, and later Grb2, elegantly showed how tyrosine phosphorylation could be exquisitely localized within subcellular compartments (such as focal adhesions, plasma membranes, and endosomes). Finally, as the 3-dimensional structures of these proteins were solved, the versatility in SH2 and SH3 domain interactions became clear, showing noncanonical roles in regulating nonreceptor tyrosine kinases such as Src and Abl. At this quarter century mark after the discovery of v-Crk, I am privileged to organize a Genes & Cancer review issue dedicated to summarizing the extant progress on Crk research and related signaling pathways in cancer. When I started this project, my plan was to help those not yet captive of the field to evaluate the impact this work has as well as its historical importance in cancer biology. I therefore chose to ask scientists whom I consider, and thoughtful, and provocative to reflect on their areas of expertise. In this respect, our contributors have risen to the challenge and have brought forth analysis and observations that enable us to take a more global view of the field while appreciating where it is moving and its possible clinical relevance and application. The reviews presented in this special issue are organized into 3 general themes to emphasize how the Crk field has progressed over the past 25 years. In the first theme, Tsuda and Tanaka address the incidence of Crk in aggressive human cancers and raise provocative questions on whether Crk may be a biomarker for cancer. This theme is picked up again by Bell and Park, who describe the development of several mouse models for Crk and how these models help validate clinical expression data. Finally, Machida, Khenkhar, and Nollau take a more global position and describe translational research on how SH2 profiling can help decipher phosphotyrosine networks in cancer, which will likely become a major tool in functional proteomics in the decades to come. The second theme explores progress on the adaptor proteins that interact with Crk and how these fields themselves have advanced into dominant areas of cancer research. Deakin, Pignatelli, and Turner discuss recent advances on the paxillin family of proteins (paxillin, Hic-5, and leupaxin) and their emerging roles in invasion and metastasis. Guerrero, Parsons, and Boutin and Wallez, Mace, Pasquale, and Riedl discuss different aspects of the p130Cas/BCAR protein family. Guerrero et al. address the overlapping and distinct roles for Cas family proteins in malignancies and the unexpected role of BCAR in the resistance to antiestrogens. Wallez et al. elaborate on novel CAS interacting proteins and how they enhance Cas function in cancer. Finally, Matsui, Harada, and Sawada and colleagues discuss the role of p130Cas tyrosine phosphorylation in mechanotransduction and how tumor cells may use these unique properties to achieve cellular transformation. In the final section, the authors turn from the theme of adaptor proteins to the nonreceptor tyrosine kinases, exemplified by Abl and Src, which show highly dynamic and versatile interactions with Crk and adaptor proteins. Several of the reviews describe the complex and dynamic interactions between adaptor proteins and Abl and Src, which appear to be highly dysregulated in cancers. Kotula and colleagues provide an elegant example for how Abi1 and Crk compete for binding Abl but do so with apparent opposing biological effects. To extend this idea, Ganguly and Plattner describe an exciting new theme in cancer biology in which Abl appears to have equally important roles in solid cancers as it does in leukemia. However, unlike the situation with leukemias, where Bcr-Abl is frequently mutated, Abl is rarely mutated in solid cancers but rather activated indirectly by growth factor receptors. Finally, Krishnan, Miller, and Goldberg describe emerging research on Src in cancers and recent studies supporting a yet unrealized role for Src in cell migration and contact normalization. A theme raised by several of the contributors reflects the important point that tyrosine kinases transmit signals through adaptor proteins, but the converse is also true, where adaptor proteins engage activation loops and activate nonreceptor tyrosine kinases. Dysregulation of Crk and adaptor proteins may be as important in activating tyrosine kinase pathways as mutations are in enhancing the kinase activity. The final series ends with 2 articles that highlight the importance of Abl research for the development of new anticancer therapeutics. The review by Hantschel reveals how the SH2 and SH3 domains of Abl provide lock and key paradigms for how it is negatively regulated, while the review by Reddy and Aggarwal elegantly shows how different tyrosine kinase inhibitors are staying one step ahead of kinase domain driver mutations. These studies provided proof of principle for the approval of kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and a clear turning point in the field of translational oncology. I would like to finish with a short reflection about the history of Crk that in many ways draws parallels to the discovery of Src. Many years ago, when I was a postdoctoral fellow at The Rockefeller University in the laboratory of the late Hidesaburo Hanafusa, I asked Saburo (as a matter of fact) whether Src had anything to do with human cancer since Tyr527 mutations were seldom observed? Saburo, always short on words, frowned and gave a profound “Probably” before briskly walking away. At the same time, in the early 1990s, we had no idea that Crk and its prototypical signaling pathways via paxillin, p130Cas, and Abl would emerge as a major sentinel in human cancers. Clearly, by looking both forward and backward, the future of Crk and adaptor protein signaling is equally exciting as Src was and likely completes a new chapter in the ongoing oncogene revolution.