Search

Several mutations in nuclear genes encoding for mitochondrial components have been associated with an increased cancer risk or are even causative, e.g. succinate dehydrogenase (SDHB, SDHC and SDHD genes) and iso-citrate dehydrogenase (IDH1 and IDH2 genes). Recently, studies have suggested an eminent role for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations in the development of a wide variety of cancers. Various studies associated mtDNA abnormalities, including mutations, deletions, inversions and copy number alterations, with mitochondrial dysfunction. This might, explain the hampered cellular bioenergetics in many cancer cell types. Germline (e.g. m.10398A>G; m.6253T>C) and somatic mtDNA mutations as well as differences in mtDNA copy number seem to be associated with cancer risk. It seems that mtDNA can contribute as driver or as complementary gene mutation according to the multiple-hit model. This can enhance the mutagenic/clonogenic potential of the cell as observed for m.8993T>G or influences the metastatic potential in later stages of cancer progression. Alternatively, other mtDNA variations will be innocent passenger mutations in a tumor and therefore do not contribute to the tumorigenic or metastatic potential. In this review, we discuss how reported mtDNA variations interfere with cancer treatment and what implications this has on current successful pharmaceutical interventions. Mutations in MT-ND4 and mtDNA depletion have been reported to be involved in cisplatin resistance. Pharmaceutical impairment of OXPHOS by metformin can increase the efficiency of radiotherapy. To study mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer, different cellular models (like ρ(0) cells or cybrids), in vivo murine models (xenografts and specific mtDNA mouse models in combination with a spontaneous cancer mouse model) and small animal models (e.g. Danio rerio) could be potentially interesting to use. For future research, we foresee that unraveling mtDNA variations can contribute to personalized therapy for specific cancer types and improve the outcome of the disease., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previously we demonstrated that an mRNA signature reflecting cellular proliferation had strong prognostic value. As clinical applicability of signatures can be controversial, we sought to improve our marker's clinical utility by validating its biological relevance, reproducibility in independent data sets and applicability using an independent technique., Methods: To facilitate signature evaluation with quantitative PCR (qPCR) a novel computational procedure was used to reduce the number of signature genes without significant information loss. These genes were validated in different human cancer cell lines upon serum starvation and in a 168 xenografts panel. Analyses were then extended to breast cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient cohorts., Results: Expression of the qPCR-based signature was dramatically decreased under starvation conditions and inversely correlated with tumour volume doubling time in xenografts. The signature validated in breast cancer (hazard ratio (HR)=1.63, P<0.001, n=1820) and NSCLC adenocarcinoma (HR=1.64, P<0.001, n=639) microarray data sets. Lastly, qPCR in a node-negative, non-adjuvantly treated breast cancer cohort (n=129) showed that patients assigned to the high-proliferation group had worse disease-free survival (HR=2.25, P<0.05)., Conclusion: We have developed and validated a qPCR-based proliferation signature. This test might be used in the clinic to select (early-stage) patients for specific treatments that target proliferation., (© 2012 Cancer Research UK)

Tumour proliferation is one of the main biological phenotypes limiting cure in oncology. Extensive research is being performed to unravel the key players in this process. To exploit the potential of published gene expression data, creation of a signature for proliferation can provide valuable information on tumour status, prognosis and prediction. This will help individualizing treatment and should result in better tumour control, and more rapid and cost-effective research and development. From in vitro published microarray studies, two proliferation signatures were compiled. The prognostic value of these signatures was tested in five large clinical microarray data sets. More than 1000 patients with breast, renal or lung cancer were included. One of the signatures (110 genes) had significant prognostic value in all data sets. Stratifying patients in groups resulted in a clear difference in survival (P-values <0.05). Multivariate Cox-regression analyses showed that this signature added substantial value to the clinical factors used for prognosis. Further patient stratification was compared to patient stratification with several well-known published signatures. Contingency tables and Cramer's V statistics indicated that these primarily identify the same patients as the proliferation signature does. The proliferation signature is a strong prognostic factor, with the potential to be converted into a predictive test. Furthermore, evidence is provided that supports the idea that many published signatures track the same biological processes and that proliferation is one of them.