The knowledge accumulating on the occurrence and mechanisms of the activation of oncogenes in human neoplasia necessitates an increasingly detailed understanding of their systemic interactions. None of the known oncogenic drivers work in isolation from the other oncogenic pathways. The cooperation between these pathways is an indispensable element of a multistep carcinogenesis, which apart from inactivation of tumor suppressors, always includes the activation of two or more proto-oncogenes. In this review we focus on representative examples of the interaction of major oncogenic drivers with one another. The drivers are selected according to the following criteria: (1) the highest frequency of known activation in human neoplasia (by mutations or otherwise), (2) activation in a wide range of neoplasia types (universality) and (3) as a part of a distinguishable pathway, (4) being a known cause of phenotypic addiction of neoplastic cells and thus a promising therapeutic target. Each of these universal oncogenic factors—mutant p53, KRAS and CMYC proteins, telomerase ribonucleoprotein, proteasome machinery, HSP molecular chaperones, NF-κB and WNT pathways, AP-1 and YAP/TAZ transcription factors and non-coding RNAs—has a vast network of molecular interrelations and common partners. Understanding this network allows for the hunt for novel therapeutic targets and protocols to counteract drug resistance in a clinical neoplasia treatment.

BackgroundDNA repair of alkylation damage is defective in various cancers. This occurs through somatically acquired inactivation of the MGMT gene in various cancer types, including breast cancers. In addition to MGMT, the two E. coli AlkB homologs ALKBH2 and ALKBH3 have also been linked to direct reversal of alkylation damage. However, it is currently unknown whether ALKBH2 or ALKBH3 are found inactivated in cancer.MethodsMethylome datasets (GSE52865, GSE20713, GSE69914), available through Omnibus, were used to determine whether ALKBH2 or ALKBH3 are found inactivated by CpG promoter methylation. TCGA dataset enabled us to then assess the impact of CpG promoter methylation on mRNA expression for both ALKBH2 and ALKBH3. DNA methylation analysis for the ALKBH3 promoter region was carried out by pyrosequencing (PyroMark Q24) in 265 primary breast tumours and 30 proximal normal breast tissue samples along with 8 breast-derived cell lines. ALKBH3 mRNA and protein expression were analysed in cell lines using RT-PCR and Western blotting, respectively. DNA alkylation damage assay was carried out in cell lines based on immunofluorescence and confocal imaging. Data on clinical parameters and survival outcomes in patients were obtained and assessed in relation to ALKBH3 promoter methylation.ResultsThe ALKBH3 gene, but not ALKBH2, undergoes CpG promoter methylation and transcriptional silencing in breast cancer. We developed a quantitative alkylation DNA damage assay based on immunofluorescence and confocal imaging revealing higher levels of alkylation damage in association with epigenetic inactivation of the ALKBH3 gene (P = 0.029). In our cohort of 265 primary breast cancer, we found 72 cases showing aberrantly high CpG promoter methylation over the ALKBH3 promoter (27%; 72 out of 265). We further show that increasingly higher degree of ALKBH3 promoter methylation is associated with reduced breast-cancer specific survival times in patients. In this analysis, ALKBH3 promoter methylation at >20% CpG methylation was found to be statistically significantly associated with reduced survival (HR = 2.3; P = 0.012). By thresholding at the clinically relevant CpG methylation level (>20%), we find the incidence of ALKBH3 promoter methylation to be 5% (13 out of 265).ConclusionsALKBH3 is a novel addition to the catalogue of DNA repair genes found inactivated in breast cancer. Our results underscore a link between defective alkylation repair and breast cancer which, additionally, is found in association with poor disease outcome.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3453-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of genotypes in polymorphic sites in TNFα and TGFβ genes with their expression concentrations showed that the presence of polymorphic alleles could predispose to increased production of their proteins. Patients with prolonged non-healing wounds should have their genotypes studied, and in cases of mutation, long-term antibiotic and immune protein supply should be considered.