Biological characterization of soft tissue sarcomas.

Soft tissue sarcomas are neoplastic malignancies that typically arise in tissues of mesenchymal origin. The identification of novel molecular mechanisms leading to mesenchymal transformation and the establishment of new therapies and diagnostic biomarker has been hampered by several critical factors. First, malignant soft tissue sarcomas are rarely observed in the clinic with fewer than 15,000 newly cases diagnosed each year in the United States. Another complicating factor is that soft tissue sarcomas are extremely heterogeneous as they arise in a multitude of tissues from many different cell lineages. The scarcity of clinical materials coupled with its inherent heterogeneity creates a challenging experimental environment for clinicians and scientists. Faced with these challenges, there has been extremely limited advancement in clinical treatment options available to patients as compared to other malignant tumours. In order to glean insight into the pathobiology of soft tissue sarcomas, scientists are now using mouse models whose genomes have been specifically tailored to carry gene deletions, gene amplifications, and somatic mutations commonly observed in human soft tissue sarcomas. The use of these model organisms has been successful in increasing our knowledge and understanding of how alterations in relevant oncogenic and/or tumour suppressive signal cascades, i.e., interferon-γ (IFN-γ), tumour protein 53 (TP53) and/or retinoblastoma (RB) pathway directly impact sarcomagenesis. It is the goal of many in the physiological community that the use of several mouse models will serve as powerful in vivo tools for further understanding of sarcomagenesis and potentially identify new diagnostic biomarker and therapeutic strategies against human soft tissue sarcomas.

[1]  N. Yaegashi,et al.  Uterine Leiomyosarcoma Tumorigenesis in Lmp2-deficient Mice: Involvement of Impaired Anti-oncogenic Factor IRF1. , 2015, Anticancer research.

[2]  S. Chanock,et al.  Germline TP53 variants and susceptibility to osteosarcoma. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[3]  H. Aburatani,et al.  Potential role of LMP2 as an anti‐oncogenic factor in human uterine leiomyosarcoma: Morphological significance of calponin h1 , 2012, FEBS letters.

[4]  J. Seddon,et al.  Increased risk of secondary uterine leiomyosarcoma in hereditary retinoblastoma. , 2012, Gynecologic oncology.

[5]  H. Aburatani,et al.  Potential role of LMP2 as tumor-suppressor defines new targets for uterine leiomyosarcoma therapy , 2011, Scientific reports.

[6]  Marc Ladanyi,et al.  Advances in sarcoma genomics and new therapeutic targets , 2011, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[7]  S. Tonegawa,et al.  Molecular Approach to Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: LMP2-Deficient Mice as an Animal Model of Spontaneous Uterine Leiomyosarcoma , 2011, Sarcoma.

[8]  David M. Thomas,et al.  Comprehensive Mapping of p53 Pathway Alterations Reveals an Apparent Role for Both SNP309 and MDM2 Amplification in Sarcomagenesis , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[9]  J. Boyle Molecular biology of the cell, 5th edition by B. Alberts, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and P. Walter , 2008 .

[10]  J. Lasota,et al.  Genetics for the diagnosis and treatment of mesenchymal tumors. , 2007, Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology.

[11]  P. Pandolfi,et al.  The AKT-mTOR pathway plays a critical role in the development of leiomyosarcomas , 2007, Nature Medicine.

[12]  O. Mariani,et al.  JUN oncogene amplification and overexpression block adipocytic differentiation in highly aggressive sarcomas. , 2007, Cancer cell.

[13]  P. Hinds,et al.  The retinoblastoma protein in osteoblast differentiation and osteosarcoma. , 2006, Current molecular medicine.

[14]  M. Maldonado,et al.  The ubiquitin-proteasome system and its role in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. , 2006, Cellular & molecular immunology.

[15]  Y. Iwamoto,et al.  Frequent alteration of p16INK4a/p14ARF and p53 pathways in the round cell component of myxoid/round cell liposarcoma: p53 gene alterations and reduced p14ARF expression both correlate with poor prognosis , 2005, The Journal of pathology.

[16]  Lisa L. Wang Biology of osteogenic sarcoma. , 2005, Cancer journal.

[17]  A. Levine,et al.  Surfing the p53 network , 2000, Nature.

[18]  Takuma Hayashi,et al.  Reply to 'LMP2 expression and proteasome activity in NOD mice' , 2000, Nature Medicine.

[19]  D. Hanahan,et al.  The Hallmarks of Cancer , 2000, Cell.

[20]  S. Tonegawa,et al.  Altered peptidase and viral-specific T cell response in LMP2 mutant mice. , 1994, Immunity.

[21]  J. Kleinschmidt,et al.  Distinct 19 S and 20 S subcomplexes of the 26 S proteasome and their distribution in the nucleus and the cytoplasm. , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[22]  Bert Vogelstein,et al.  Oncoprotein MDM2 conceals the activation domain of tumour suppressor p53 , 1993, Nature.

[23]  J. Nevins,et al.  E2F: a link between the Rb tumor suppressor protein and viral oncoproteins. , 1992, Science.

[24]  P. Meltzer,et al.  Amplification of a gene encoding a p53-associated protein in human sarcomas , 1992, Nature.

[25]  G. Lozano,et al.  Transcriptional activation by wild-type but not transforming mutants of the p53 anti-oncogene. , 1990, Science.

[26]  Yusuke Nakamura,et al.  Preferential mutation of paternally derived RB gene as the initial event in sporadic osteosarcoma , 1989, Nature.

[27]  A. Tsimokha,et al.  Role of proteasomes in cellular regulation. , 2008, International review of cell and molecular biology.

[28]  Takuma Hayashi,et al.  Development of spontaneous uterine tumors in low molecular mass polypeptide-2 knockout mice. , 2002, Cancer research.

[29]  J. Levine,et al.  Surfing the p53 network , 2000, Nature.