SUMMARY While recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEpo) has been widely used to treat anemia in cancer patients, concerns about its adverse effects on patient survival have emerged. A lack of correlation between expression of the canonical EpoR and rhEpo’s effects on cancer cells prompted us to consider the existence of an alternative Epo receptor. Here, we identified EphB4 as an Epo receptor that triggers downstream signaling via STAT3 and promotes rhEpo induced tumor growth and progression. In human ovarian and breast cancer samples, expression of EphB4 rather than the canonical EpoR correlated with decreased disease-specific survival in rhEpo-treated patients. These results identify EphB4 as a critical mediator of erythropoietin-induced tumor progression and further provide clinically significant dimension to the biology of erythropoietin.

SummaryInitiation of protein biosynthesis in bacteria requires three initiation factors: initiation factor 1, initiation factor 2 and initiation factor 3. The mechanism by which initiation factors form the 70S initiation complex with initiator fMet-tRNA fMet interacting with the initiation codon in the ribosomal P site and the second mRNA codon exposed in the A site is not yet understood. Here, we present a model for the function of initiation factors 1 and 2 that is based on the analysis of sequence homologies, biochemical evidence and the present knowledge of the three-dimensional structures of translation factors and ribosomes. The model predicts that initiation factors 1 and 2 interact with the ribosomal A site mimicking the structure of the elongation factor G. We present data that extend the mimicry hypothesis to initiation factors 1 and 2, originally postulated for the aminoacyl-tRNAؒelongation factor TuؒGTP ternary complex, elongation factor G and release factors.

Several GTPases participate in bacterial protein biosynthesis. Initiation factor 2 controls the formation of the ribosomal initiation complex and places initiator fMet-tRNAfMet in the ribosomal P-site. Elongation factors Tu and G are responsible for codon-specific binding of the aminoacyl-tRNA to the A-site, and peptidyl-tRNA to the P-site, respectively, during the elongation phase of protein biosynthesis. Release factor 3, a GTPase which is not ubiquitous, is involved in termination and release of the nascent polypeptide. Other translation factors, including initiation factors 1 and 3, elongation factor Ts, release factors 1 and 2, and ribosomal release factor do not belong to the family of GTP/GDP binding proteins. The guanosine nucleotide binding domains of the GTPases involved in translation are structurally related to the Galpha subunit of heterotrimeric G proteins and to the proteins of the Ras family. We have identified and sequenced all genes coding for translation factors in the extreme thermophile Thermus thermophilus. The proteins were overproduced in Escherichia coli, purified, biochemically characterised and used for crystallisation and structural analysis. Further biochemical investigations were aimed at gaining insight into the molecular mechanism underlying the regulation of the GTPase activity of the translation factors, and to elucidate the role of their ribosomal binding sites in this process.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a tumor with an extremely poor prognosis, predominantly as a result of chemotherapy resistance and numerous somatic mutations. Consequently, PDAC is a prime candidate for the use of sequencing to identify causative mutations, facilitating subsequent administration of targeted therapy. In a feasibility study, we retrospectively assessed the therapeutic recommendations of a novel, evidence‐based software that analyzes next‐generation sequencing (NGS) data using a large panel of pharmacogenomic biomarkers for efficacy and toxicity. Tissue from 14 patients with PDAC was sequenced using NGS with a 620 gene panel. FASTQ files were fed into treatmentmap. The results were compared with chemotherapy in the patients, including all side effects. No changes in therapy were made. Known driver mutations for PDAC were confirmed (e.g. KRAS,TP53). Software analysis revealed positive biomarkers for predicted effective and ineffective treatments in all patients. At least one biomarker associated with increased toxicity could be detected in all patients. Patients had been receiving one of the currently approved chemotherapy agents. In two patients, toxicity could have been correctly predicted by the software analysis. The results suggest that NGS, in combination with an evidence‐based software, could be conducted within a 2‐week period, thus being feasible for clinical routine. Therapy recommendations were principally off‐label use. Based on the predominant KRAS mutations, other drugs were predicted to be ineffective. The pharmacogenomic biomarkers indicative of increased toxicity could be retrospectively linked to reported negative side effects in the respective patients. Finally, the occurrence of somatic and germline mutations in cancer syndrome‐associated genes is noteworthy, despite a high frequency of these particular variants in the background population. These results suggest software‐analysis of NGS data provides evidence‐based information on effective, ineffective and toxic drugs, potentially forming the basis for precision cancer medicine in PDAC.

No abstract