The pheochromocytomas are an important cause of secondary hypertension. Although pheochromocytoma susceptibility may be associated with germline mutations in the tumor-suppressor genes VHL and NF1 and in the proto-oncogene RET, the genetic basis for most cases of nonsyndromic familial pheochromocytoma is unknown. Recently, pheochromocytoma susceptibility has been associated with germline SDHD mutations. Germline SDHD mutations were originally described in hereditary paraganglioma, a dominantly inherited disorder characterized by vascular tumors in the head and the neck, most frequently at the carotid bifurcation. The gene products of two components of succinate dehydrogenase, SDHC and SDHD, anchor the gene products of two other components, SDHA and SDHB, which form the catalytic core, to the inner-mitochondrial membrane. Although mutations in SDHC and in SDHD may cause hereditary paraganglioma, germline SDHA mutations are associated with juvenile encephalopathy, and the phenotypic consequences of SDHB mutations have not been defined. To investigate the genetic causes of pheochromocytoma, we analyzed SDHB and SDHC, in familial and in sporadic cases. Inactivating SDHB mutations were detected in two of the five kindreds with familial pheochromocytoma, two of the three kindreds with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma susceptibility, and 1 of the 24 cases of sporadic pheochromocytoma. These findings extend the link between mitochondrial dysfunction and tumorigenesis and suggest that germline SDHB mutations are an important cause of pheochromocytoma susceptibility.

BackgroundBreast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) develop in about 20–30% of breast cancer (BC) patients. BCBM are associated with dismal prognosis not at least due to lack of valuable molecular therapeutic targets. The aim of the study was to identify new molecular biomarkers and targets in BCBM by using complementary state-of-the-art techniques.MethodsWe compared array expression profiles of three BCBM with 16 non-brain metastatic BC and 16 primary brain tumors (prBT) using a false discovery rate (FDR) p < 0.05 and fold change (FC) > 2. Biofunctional analysis was conducted on the differentially expressed probe sets. High-density arrays were employed to detect copy number variations (CNVs) and whole exome sequencing (WES) with paired-end reads of 150 bp was utilized to detect gene mutations in the three BCBM.ResultsThe top 370 probe sets that were differentially expressed between BCBM and both BC and prBT were in the majority comparably overexpressed in BCBM and included, e.g. the coding genes BCL3, BNIP3, BNIP3P1, BRIP1, CASP14, CDC25A, DMBT1, IDH2, E2F1, MYCN, RAD51, RAD54L, and VDR. A number of small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) were comparably overexpressed in BCBM and included SNORA1, SNORA2A, SNORA9, SNORA10, SNORA22, SNORA24, SNORA30, SNORA37, SNORA38, SNORA52, SNORA71A, SNORA71B, SNORA71C, SNORD13P2, SNORD15A, SNORD34, SNORD35A, SNORD41, SNORD53, and SCARNA22. The top canonical pathway was entitled, role of BRCA1 in DNA damage response. Network analysis revealed key nodes as Akt, ERK1/2, NFkB, and Ras in a predicted activation stage. Downregulated genes in a data set that was shared between BCBM and prBT comprised, e.g. BC cell line invasion markers JUN, MMP3, TFF1, and HAS2. Important cancer genes affected by CNVs included TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, ERBB2, IDH1, and IDH2. WES detected numerous mutations, some of which affecting BC associated genes as CDH1, HEPACAM, and LOXHD1.ConclusionsUsing complementary molecular genetic techniques, this study identified shared and unshared molecular events in three highly aberrant BCBM emphasizing the challenge to detect new molecular biomarkers and targets with translational implications. Among new findings with the capacity to gain clinical relevance is the detection of overexpressed snoRNAs known to regulate some critical cellular functions as ribosome biogenesis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12967-017-1370-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Previously we analysed overlapping homozygous deletions in lung and breast tumours/tumour lines and de®ned a small region of 120 kb (part of LCTSGR1) at 3p21.3 that contained putative lung and breast cancer tumour suppressor gene(s) (TSG). Eight genes including RASSF1 were isolated from the minimal region. However, extensive mutation analysis in lung tumours and tumour lines revealed only rare inactivating mutations. Recently, de novo methylation at a CpG island associated with isoform A of RASSF1 (RASS-F1A) was reported in lung tumours and tumour lines. To investigate RASSF1A as a candidate TSG for various cancers, we investigated: (a) RASSF1A methylation status in a large series of primary tumour and tumour lines; (b) chromosome 3p allele loss in lung tumours and (c) RASSF1 mutation analysis in breast tumours. RASSF1A promoter region CpG island methylation was detected in 72% of SCLC, 34% of NSCLC, 9% of breast, 10% of ovarian and 0% of primary cervical tumours and in 72% SCLC, 36% NSCLC, 80% of breast and 40% of ovarian tumour lines. In view of the lower frequency of RASSF1 methylation in primary breast cancers we proceeded to RASSF1 mutation analysis in 40 breast cancers. No mutations were detected, but six single nucleotide polymorphisms were identi®ed. Twenty of 26 SCLC tumours with 3p21.3 allelic loss had RASSF1A methylation, while only six out of 22 NSCLC with 3p21.3 allele loss had RASSF1A methylation (P=0.0012), one out of ®ve ovarian and none out of six cervical tumours with 3p21.3 loss had RASSF1A methylation. These results suggest that (a) RASSF1A inactivation by two hits (methylation and loss) is a critical step in SCLC tumourigenesis and (b) RASSF1A inactivation is of lesser importance in NSCLC, breast, ovarian and cervical cancers in which other genes within LCTSGR1 are likely to be implicated. Oncogene (2001) 20, 1509 ± 1518.

The high frequency with which the novel tumor suppressor RASSF1A is inactivated by promoter methylation suggests that it plays a key role in the development of many primary human tumors. Yet the mechanism of RASSF1A action remains unknown. We now show that RASSF1A associates with microtubules and that this association is essential for RASSF1A to mediate its growth inhibitory effects. Overexpression of RASSF1A promotes the formation of stable microtubules, whereas a dominant-negative fragment of RASSF1A destabilizes microtubule networks. The RASSF1 protein is expressed as two main isoforms, 1A and 1C. The smaller 1C isoform also associates with microtubules but is less effective at stabilizing them. Because RASSF1A and RASSF1C localize to the mitotic spindle, we examined their effects upon genomic instability. RASSF1A and RASSF1C block activated Ras-induced genomic instability. However, a point mutant of RASSF1C, identified in human tumors, was severely defective for stabilizing tubulin and was unable to block the genomic destabilizing effects of Ras. Thus, we identify a role for RASSF1A/C in the control of microtubule polymerization and potentially in the maintenance of genomic stability.

The candidate tumor suppressor gene RASSF1A is inactivated in many types of adult and childhood cancers. However, the mechanisms by which RASSF1A exerts its tumor suppressive functions have yet to be elucidated. To this end, we performed a yeast two-hybrid screen to identify novel RASSF1A-interacting proteins in a human brain cDNA library. Seventy percent of interacting clones had homology to microtubule-associated proteins, including MAP1B and VCY2IP1/C19ORF5. RASSF1A association with MAP1B and VCY2IP1/C19ORF5 was subsequently confirmed in mammalian cell lines. This suggested that RASSF1A may exert its tumor-suppressive functions through interaction with the microtubules. We demonstrate that RASSF1A associates with the microtubules, causing them to exist as hyperstabilized circular bundles. We found that two naturally occurring tumor-associated missense substitutions in the RASSF1A coding region, C65R and R257Q, perturb the association of RASSF1A with the microtubules. The C65R and R257Q in addition to VCY2IP1/C19ORF5 showed reduced ability to induce microtubule acetylation and were unable to protect the microtubules against the depolymerizing action of nocodazole. In addition, wild-type RASSF1A but not the C65R or the R257Q is able to block DNA synthesis. Our data identify a role for RASSF1A in the regulation of microtubules and cell cycle dynamics that could be part of the mechanism(s) by which RASSF1A exerts its growth inhibition on cancer cells.