11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The GDNF Family: a Role in Cancer?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The glial cell line–derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) family of ligands (GFLs) comprising of GDNF, neurturin, artemin, and persephin plays an important role in the development and maintenance of the central and peripheral nervous system, renal morphogenesis, and spermatogenesis. Here we review our current understanding of GFL biology, and supported by recent progress in the area, we examine their emerging role in endocrine-related and other non–hormone-dependent solid neoplasms. The ability of GFLs to elicit actions that resemble those perturbed in an oncogenic phenotype, alongside mounting evidence of GFL involvement in tumor progression, presents novel opportunities for therapeutic intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references232

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Stromal gene expression predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer.

          Although it is increasingly evident that cancer is influenced by signals emanating from tumor stroma, little is known regarding how changes in stromal gene expression affect epithelial tumor progression. We used laser capture microdissection to compare gene expression profiles of tumor stroma from 53 primary breast tumors and derived signatures strongly associated with clinical outcome. We present a new stroma-derived prognostic predictor (SDPP) that stratifies disease outcome independently of standard clinical prognostic factors and published expression-based predictors. The SDPP predicts outcome in several published whole tumor-derived expression data sets, identifies poor-outcome individuals from multiple clinical subtypes, including lymph node-negative tumors, and shows increased accuracy with respect to previously published predictors, especially for HER2-positive tumors. Prognostic power increases substantially when the predictor is combined with existing outcome predictors. Genes represented in the SDPP reveal the strong prognostic capacity of differential immune responses as well as angiogenic and hypoxic responses, highlighting the importance of stromal biology in tumor progression.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            X chromosomal abnormalities in basal-like human breast cancer.

            Sporadic basal-like cancers (BLC) are a distinct class of human breast cancers that are phenotypically similar to BRCA1-associated cancers. Like BRCA1-deficient tumors, most BLC lack markers of a normal inactive X chromosome (Xi). Duplication of the active X chromosome and loss of Xi characterized almost half of BLC cases tested. Others contained biparental but nonheterochromatinized X chromosomes or gains of X chromosomal DNA. These abnormalities did not lead to a global increase in X chromosome transcription but were associated with overexpression of a small subset of X chromosomal genes. Other, equally aneuploid, but non-BLC rarely displayed these X chromosome abnormalities. These results suggest that X chromosome abnormalities contribute to the pathogenesis of BLC, both inherited and sporadic.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Genetic reclassification of histologic grade delineates new clinical subtypes of breast cancer.

              Histologic grading of breast cancer defines morphologic subtypes informative of metastatic potential, although not without considerable interobserver disagreement and clinical heterogeneity particularly among the moderately differentiated grade 2 (G2) tumors. We posited that a gene expression signature capable of discerning tumors of grade 1 (G1) and grade 3 (G3) histology might provide a more objective measure of grade with prognostic benefit for patients with G2 disease. To this end, we studied the expression profiles of 347 primary invasive breast tumors analyzed on Affymetrix microarrays. Using class prediction algorithms, we identified 264 robust grade-associated markers, six of which could accurately classify G1 and G3 tumors, and separate G2 tumors into two highly discriminant classes (termed G2a and G2b genetic grades) with patient survival outcomes highly similar to those with G1 and G3 histology, respectively. Statistical analysis of conventional clinical variables further distinguished G2a and G2b subtypes from each other, but also from histologic G1 and G3 tumors. In multivariate analyses, genetic grade was consistently found to be an independent prognostic indicator of disease recurrence comparable with that of lymph node status and tumor size. When incorporated into the Nottingham prognostic index, genetic grade enhanced detection of patients with less harmful tumors, likely to benefit little from adjuvant therapy. Our findings show that a genetic grade signature can improve prognosis and therapeutic planning for breast cancer patients, and support the view that low- and high-grade disease, as defined genetically, reflect independent pathobiological entities rather than a continuum of cancer progression.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Neoplasia
                Neoplasia
                Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.)
                Neoplasia Press
                1522-8002
                1476-5586
                12 December 2017
                January 2018
                12 December 2017
                : 20
                : 1
                : 99-117
                Affiliations
                [* ]University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
                []The Centre for Biomedical and Chemical Sciences, School of Science, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
                []Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
                [§ ]Cancer Science Institute of Singapore and Department of Pharmacology, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Tsinghua Berkeley Shenzhen Institute, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, P. R. China
                Author notes
                [* ]Address all correspondence to: Dong-Xu Liu, The Centre for Biomedical and Chemical Sciences, School of Science, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, C-42, Private Bag 92006, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.The Centre for Biomedical and Chemical SciencesSchool of Science, Faculty of Health and Environmental SciencesAuckland University of TechnologyC-42, Private Bag 92006, Victoria Street WestAuckland1142New Zealand dong-xu.liu@ 123456aut.ac.nz
                [1]

                Both authors have contributed equally to this review.

                [2]

                Current address: 11 Wairere Road, The Gardens, Auckland 2105, New Zealand.

                [3]

                Current address: Flat 2, 241A Railton Road, London SE24 0LY, UK.

                Article
                S1476-5586(17)30447-5
                10.1016/j.neo.2017.10.010
                5730419
                29245123
                4e221dbd-a793-4b93-a805-57d1b24ea363
                © 2017 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 4 October 2017
                : 31 October 2017
                : 31 October 2017
                Categories
                Review article

                Comments

                Comment on this article