4.5 Article

Impairment of ubiquitylation by mutation in Drosophila E1 promotes both cell-autonomous and non-cell-autonomous Ras-ERK activation in vivo

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELL SCIENCE
卷 122, 期 9, 页码 1461-1470

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jcs.042267

关键词

Uba1; Ube1; Ras; ERK; Ubiquitin; Ubiquitylation; Tumor suppressors; Oncogenes; Tissue overgrowth

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5R24 CA095823-04, R01 CA140451] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [1 S10 RR0 9145-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ras signaling can promote proliferation, cell survival and differentiation. Mutations in components of the Ras pathway are found in many solid tumors and are associated with developmental disorders. We demonstrate here that Drosophila tissues containing hypomorphic mutations in E1, the most upstream enzyme in the ubiquitin pathway, display cell-autonomous upregulation of Ras-ERK activity and Ras-dependent ectopic proliferation. Ubiquitylation is widely accepted to regulate receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) endocytosis upstream of Ras. However, although the ectopic proliferation of E1 hypomorphs is dramatically suppressed by removing one copy of Ras, removal of the more upstream components Egfr, Grb2 or sos shows no suppression. Thus, decreased ubiquitylation may lead to growth-relevant Ras-ERK activation by failing to regulate a step downstream of RTK endocytosis. We further demonstrate that Drosophila Ras is ubiquitylated. Our findings suggest that Ras ubiquitylation restricts growth and proliferation in vivo. We also report our intriguing observation that complete inactivation of E1 causes non-autonomous activation of Ras-ERK in adjacent tissue, mimicking oncogenic Ras overexpression. We demonstrate that maintaining sufficient E1 function is required both cell autonomously and non-cell autonomously to prevent inappropriate Ras-ERK-dependent growth and proliferation in vivo and may implicate loss of Ras ubiquitylation in developmental disorders and cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据