Journal of Oncology

Journal of Oncology / 2015 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 |Article ID 106517 | 13 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/106517

Dissecting the Potential Interplay of DEK Functions in Inflammation and Cancer

Academic Editor: Valentina Di caro
Received02 Jan 2015
Accepted05 Mar 2015
Published06 Sep 2015

Abstract

There is a long-standing correlation between inflammation, inflammatory cell signaling pathways, and tumor formation. Understanding the mechanisms behind inflammation-driven tumorigenesis is of great research and clinical importance. Although not entirely understood, these mechanisms include a complex interaction between the immune system and the damaged epithelium that is mediated by an array of molecular signals of inflammation—including reactive oxygen species (ROS), cytokines, and NFκB signaling—that are also oncogenic. Here, we discuss the association of the unique DEK protein with these processes. Specifically, we address the role of DEK in chronic inflammation via viral infections and autoimmune diseases, the overexpression and oncogenic activity of DEK in cancers, and DEK-mediated regulation of NFκB signaling. Combined, evidence suggests that DEK may play a complex, multidimensional role in chronic inflammation and subsequent tumorigenesis.

1. Introduction

Chronic inflammation has been linked to cancer for decades with several epidemiologic reports suggesting causation. In fact, several infectious and noninfectious known causes of cancer, such as viral infection (human papilloma virus, HPV, and Epstein Barr virus, EBV), Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and asbestos exposure to name a few, can induce inflammation prior to tumor formation. Additionally, upregulation through polymorphisms of the proinflammatory cytokines, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), and interleukin-1 (IL-1) has been associated with poor prognoses and disease severity in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and gastric cancer, respectively [1, 2]. Conversely, administration of known anti-inflammatory medications and herbs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), curcumin, and ginseng has been associated with a decreased risk of cancer, leading to several clinical studies investigating these agents as possible adjunct treatments [35]. However, the exact mechanisms of causation have remained unclear and in some instances, anti-inflammatory medications have been associated with a higher risk of cancer, making the association more complicated than initially proposed [6].

In general, inflammation and innate immunity are felt to be protumorigenic whereas adaptive immunity is antitumorigenic. In fact, tumor associated macrophages (TAMs), which are recruited during the inflammatory response, are indicators of a poor prognosis when identified in tumor tissue [7] while high levels of cytotoxic T (CD8+) cells, as part of adaptive immunity, correlate with a good prognosis [8, 9]. However, the presence of T cells in the microenvironment of tumors alone may not be sufficient to confer an immune response as they often are not active in recognizing the tumor as nonself. Therefore, a focus on negative regulators of the immune system, such as T regulatory (Treg) cells and other inhibitory molecules, is under investigation as a possible explanation for tumor immune escape. Multiple immune checkpoint molecules such as cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and “programmed death-1” (PD-1) and its ligands (PD-L1 and PD-L2) are upregulated during the immune response in an attempt to prevent autoimmune damage to normal tissue. However, PD-1 is also induced on T cells after activation by immune stimulation, either by infection or by tumor progression and, therefore, is felt to be a mechanism of immune resistance. Additionally, high levels of PD-1 in the tumor microenvironment and PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) expression have been found in many tumors and are correlated with poor prognoses in multiple tumor types [1013]. Targeting of these pathways has proved to be exciting and effective, resulting in FDA approval of several agents (ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) for melanoma with expectations for approval for other tumors in the near future [1416]. However, not all tumors respond to these immune therapies, requiring a better understanding of the mechanism of failure and the complex interactions of the immune response to tumors.

Several proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines such as IL-1, IL-6, TNF, and IL-8 are often upregulated in response to cancer and are associated with tumor development and progression in mice [17]. Interestingly, it has been demonstrated that the classical IKK-β-dependent NFκB pathway may be the link to inflammation and cancer as activation results in upregulation of proinflammatory cytokines as well as several antiapoptotic factors [18]. Targeting the NFκB pathway may, therefore, be another promising approach to antitumor therapy either alone or in combination with traditional therapies or checkpoint blockade.

2. DEK Structure and Functions

One protein recently found to control NFκB activity is the DEK oncogene. DEK is a highly conserved chromatin-associated, nonhistone phosphoprotein (43 kDa) that was originally identified as part of a fusion protein (DEK-CAN) in an acute myeloid leukemia (AML) subtype with translocation t(6;9), a balanced translocation, which confers a poor prognosis [1921]. The presence of DEK in vitro was originally noted for its ability to partially correct cell sensitivity to mutagens and radiation in ATM-deficient fibroblasts [22]. Although it has no known enzymatic activity nor known homologs, it dynamically interacts with RNA, DNA, chromatin, and associated proteins to alter transcription, mRNA processing, DNA replication and repair, and chromatin topology [2327]. DEK has three DNA binding domains: a central SAF-box, pseudo-SAF/SAP-box, and a C-terminal unique binding domain. The SAF-box domain enables DEK to preferentially bind cruciform and four-way junction structures and induce positive supercoiling; however, the C-terminal binding domain can facilitate DNA-DEK-DEK interactions that may facilitate regulatory processes [20, 2830].

Nonetheless, other DEK domains participate in important molecular functions. Specifically, the acidic domains of DEK bind chromatin-bound histones and prevent optimal PCAF and p300-mediated histone acetyltransferase activity (HAT). This causes hypoacetylation of DEK-bound regions of nucleosomes and can result in inhibition of HAT-mediated transcriptional activation [31]. Also, the physical interaction between DEK with Daxx and HDACII can assist in transcriptional repression by promoting histone deacetylation [25]. Additional structure-function studies have identified the SAP domain for its importance in DEK function. When the SAP domain of DEK interacts with casein kinase 2 (CK2) in the presence of ATP, DEK is phosphorylated. This DEK-CK2 complex displays an affinity for histone H3.3, a histone variant associated with active chromatin, and limits its placement on chromatin by protecting it from other potential histone chaperones that redistribute H3.3 in a DAAX/ATRX-dependent manner from PML nuclear bodies [32, 33]. Furthermore, DEK is also necessary for optimal binding of heterochromatin protein 1-α (HP1-α) to the repressive chromatin mark, H3K9me3. This interaction facilitates silencing loops that prevent histone acetylation and protect heterochromatin integrity [34]. Finally, DEK binding to chromatin was found to limit access of the transcriptional machinery to chromatin, which could be disrupted by PARP1 and another histone chaperone, SET [35]. These functions suggest that DEK has the capacity to modify chromatin, via regulating histone acetylation and placement, in a manner that silences the expression of particular regions while also promoting general genomic stability.

However, it is also worth mentioning that some reports indicate that DEK can function as a positive transcriptional cofactor to induce gene expression [33, 36, 37]. In Drosophila, DEK was associated with more transcriptionally active regions of chromatin and coactivated the nuclear ecdysone receptor, promoting its functions as a transcriptional activator [33]. In murine breast tumor models, DEK also drives expression of Wnt ligands, resulting in the promotion of β-catenin transcriptional activity, which has also been noted in human breast cancer cells [38, 39]. Chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-Seq) results have also revealed that DEK preferentially binds areas of euchromatin near transcription start sites of highly expressed genes, many of which include motifs for common transcriptional regulators such as SP1 and RNA polymerase II [37].

Although the specific physical interactions are unknown, the molecular functions of DEK also extend to roles in DNA damage and stress response. DEK expression is necessary for proper DNA-PK mediated recruitment of DNA damage repair proteins Ku70/80 during nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) and prevents DNA damage accumulation that results in ATM mediated apoptosis [40]. This also supports evidence of DEK complementation in ataxia-telangiectasia cells, in which DEK fragments remedied the DNA damage phenotypes of ATM deficient fibroblasts [22]. DEK overexpression can also cause the destabilization of p53, resulting in the inhibition of normal p53-dependent apoptosis in cancer cells [41]. DEK also has a role in preventing p53-independent apoptosis by promoting the transcription of MCL-1, an antiapoptotic member of the BCL-2 family [42].

The molecular functions of DEK can be regulated by an array of protein modifications. Phosphorylation of DEK by CK2 weakens DEK-DNA binding [43] and has been linked to the secretion of DEK [44]. Other modifications that change DEK localization and function include acetylation by p300 [45], poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation by PARP1 [46], and truncation by DPP4 [47]. These posttranslational modifications of DEK are crucial for understanding the molecular functions that could contribute to pathogenesis. Phosphorylation by CK2 and poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation by PARP1 can induce the release of DEK from chromatin, enabling it to function beyond chromatin remodeling [35]. Nonchromatin bound DEK can contribute to mRNA splicing events by interacting with the serine/arginine repeats of splicing complexes, while phosphorylation of DEK serines enables it to associate with U2AF and facilitate intron excision; there is evidence that the role of DEK in mRNA splicing may play a role in alternative splicing events of transcripts from genes such as tropomyosin TPM1 [4851]. The function of DEK in the cytoplasm, if present, has not been determined; however, there are several different functions for DEK as a secretory molecule. These include inducing white blood cell migration as a chemoattractant [36], interacting with anti-DEK antibodies that trigger autoimmune responses [52], and possibly promoting chromatin remodeling and prosurvival functions by being taken up by neighboring cells [53]. Interestingly, it is currently unknown what conditions induce the posttranslational modifications of DEK that result in its delocalization from chromatin and secretion, resulting in pathological activities.

The ubiquitous and pleiotropic nature of DEK mandates that the expression and modification of DEK are tightly regulated in order to avoid pathology. The dysregulation of DEK can disturb normal cell functions and potentiate pathogenesis resulting in transformation, chemoresistance, inflammation, and tumor development. In this review, we postulate that DEK may be a crucial link between inflammation and tumorigenesis. We will discuss the role of DEK in viral infection and epitope presentation, which may provide mechanisms for both promoting intracellular viral oncogenesis and for eliciting T cell mediated immune responses that induce proinflammatory cytokines. These cytokines, such as IL-8, can further contribute to chronic inflammation, promote growth signaling in neighboring cells, and stimulate DEK secretion by macrophages. As a secretory molecule, DEK can be recognized by anti-DEK antibodies or be taken up as a functional exogenous protein by neighboring cells. The first function can exacerbate chronic inflammation and induce more proinflammatory factors that create favorable tumor microenvironments. The second secretory DEK function allows for excess DEK to amplify its normal intracellular, often prooncogenic, functions such as chromatin remodeling, transcriptional repression/activation, DNA damage repair, promoting cell proliferation, and silencing apoptotic pathways. These cellular consequences also have been observed when DEK expression is transcriptionally upregulated within a cell by other mechanisms. One potentially intracellular oncogenic function of DEK is its role as a transcription cofactor for NFκB activity. This regulation of the NFκB signaling pathway, as well as the other chromatin modifying and cell signaling roles of DEK, may provide a mechanistic link between inflammation and tumorigenesis.

3. DEK Expression and Function during Tumorigenesis and Inflammation

As a well-established oncogene, DEK overexpression has been documented in a continually expanding list of malignant neoplasms, including hepatocellular carcinoma, brain cancer, bladder cancer, retinoblastoma, T cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia, breast cancer, cervical cancer, melanoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, colon cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, and prostate cancer [42, 5465]. DEK overexpression is most frequently caused by aberrant transcription via E2F [66], YY1, NF-Y [67], and ER-α transcription factors [68]. Increased DEK copy number as a result of gains on 6p22 is also observed in bladder cancer and retinoblastoma [57, 69]. DEK protein degradation can be induced by SPOP and FBXW7-alpha ubiquitin ligases, both of which are tumor suppressors and frequently experience loss-of-function mutations in cancers [49, 65, 70]. High DEK expression, and the presence of the DEK-CAN fusion gene, often correlates with higher grade, aggressive tumors [42, 71], chemoresistance [42, 60, 68, 72, 73], invasion [38, 39, 60], and poor patient prognosis [7478]. DEK may contribute to these oncogenic activities by an array of different molecular mechanisms. In keratinocytes, DEK overexpression can inhibit senescence and apoptosis by promoting p53 destabilization [41, 79]. DEK overexpression also promotes keratinocyte proliferation while delaying differentiation and can contribute to keratinocyte transformation whereas the DEK-CAN fusion also induces transformation in hematopoietic stem cells [8082]. In breast cancer cell lines, DEK overexpression promotes cell growth and mobility by inducing β-catenin nuclear translocation and enhances tumor growth and metastasis by activating Wnt/β-catenin autocrine and paracrine signaling loops [38, 39]. DEK depletion in transformed epithelial cells results in DNA damage, senescence, and apoptosis and can reduce ΔNp63 mediated cell growth [38, 41, 64, 82]. mice also demonstrate greatly diminished tumor formation, growth, and metastasis in both genetic and chemically induced tumorigenesis models [39, 64, 82]. Given its numerous functions in cancer cells, it is no surprise that DEK expression could be used as a biomarker for colorectal and bladder cancers and possibly other solid tumors as well [63, 83]. Of future clinical importance, RNA interference-mediated loss of DEK expression causes dramatic apoptosis or senescence of cancer cells whereas differentiated and nontransformed cells remain relatively unharmed [41, 79, 82].

In addition to gene amplification and overexpression in cancers, DEK expression and secretion are also induced in response to inflammation. In BEAS-2B human bronchial epithelial cells, DEK mRNA was upregulated in response to exposure to TiO2 particles, which are fine particles found in industrial workplaces that are known to cause airway inflammation and respiratory symptoms in both acute and chronic exposure situations [84]. In addition, microarray analyses of livers from rats fed crude fish oil, which contained high levels of persistent organic pollutants, showed moderately elevated DEK expression [85]. In rodents, prolonged exposure to persistent organic pollutants has been shown to cause insulin resistance and was associated with chronic low-grade inflammation [85, 86]. Although the molecular mechanism for this transcriptional regulation is unknown, DEK upregulation in response to inflammatory signals is supported by the presence of multiple putative AP-1 (c-Fos/c-Jun), Ets-1, NF-AT, NFκB, STAT4, and C/EBP-β transcription factor consensus binding sites in the DEK promoter, which are known downstream transcription factors induced by proinflammatory signals (data not shown) [8789]. Furthermore, secretion of phosphorylated DEK by monocyte-derived macrophages (MDM) is induced by the proinflammatory chemokine interleukin-8 (IL-8) where it becomes a chemotactic factor, attracting neutrophils, CD8+ T lymphocytes, and natural killer cells [44]. Immunosuppressive agents, such as dexamethasone and cyclosporine A, could block the secretion of DEK in MDM cells. This suggests that DEK expression, modification, and secretion are induced during inflammation, possibly to mediate cell survival, transcriptional responses, and/or migration of immune cells, which can ultimately result in transformation due to the intracellular oncogenic functions of DEK.

4. The Role of DEK during Infection with Cancer-Associated Viruses

Viral infection results in an inflammatory response and many cancers are known to be driven by oncogenic viruses. Examples of cancers linked to viral infection include cervical and other anogenital cancers, oropharyngeal carcinomas, hepatocellular carcinomas, Kaposi’s sarcomas, lymphomas, and T cell leukemia. In many instances, oncogenesis is thought to result from persistent, latent infections in which cell signaling processes are perturbed by either viral proteins or the chronic activation of inflammatory processes.

Cervical cancer and, more recently, head and neck cancer have been found to be associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection [90, 91]. Although HPV infection is quite common, in many individuals, the immune system clears the virus. However, in a select few, viral infection becomes persistent likely through the inability of infected cells to present antigenic epitopes to the host’s adaptive immune system [92]. Upon additional multiple mutations and carcinogenic events often linked to the viral life cycle, some of these chronically infected individuals will develop epithelial carcinomas. Although in normal HPV infection viral DNA remains episomal, in cancer, HPV is often found to be integrated into the host DNA. Integration leads to loss of the normal viral repressor HPV E2 resulting in uninhibited expression of the viral oncogenes E6 and E7. HPV E6 causes degradation of the tumor suppressor p53 while HPV E7 causes inhibition of the retinoblastoma (Rb) family of proteins, effectively halting major tumor suppressor pathways. Expression of HPV E6 and HPV E7 is required for maintenance of the malignant phenotype. Interestingly, DEK was found to be upregulated by HPV E7 and the suppression of DEK in HPV infected cells resulted in senescence [79, 93]. Additional studies demonstrated that DEK was an E2F transcription factor target gene, explaining its upregulation in response to retinoblastoma protein inhibition by E7 [66]. Dek knockout () mice are resistant to HPV E6 and HPV E7 driven squamous cell carcinomas, supporting a critical role for DEK function in HPV-induced tumors [64]. Furthermore, DEK mRNA and protein upregulation are present in both cervical and head and neck cancer specimens, further supporting the importance of continued DEK expression in these cancers [59, 79, 94]. Even more intriguing is that although HPV tumors often carry a higher metastatic potential, HPV+ head and neck cancers confer a better prognosis than their HPV− counterparts, due to enhanced responses to treatment [95, 96]. Some have argued that the adaptive immune response associated with HPV infection is the reason for better responses to therapy [97].

Similar to HPV infection, DEK expression is also differentially regulated during EBV infections [98]. DEK was one of three genes differentially regulated across two EBV+ tumor types and also differentially regulated between nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells with latent and recurrent EBV infections. DEK expression was downregulated in recurrent EBV-infected cells but upregulated in latent EBV-infected nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) cells. This provides evidence for DEK as a potential viral oncogenic mediator that links EBV latency-reactivation dynamics and cell transformation [98]. This may be the result of a well-documented latent infection response mediated by the Rb-controlled activity of E2F, a known activator of DEK expression [66, 99]. This CDK2-Rb/E2F-DEK pathway may be a crucial step in EBV-associated transformation of epithelial cells as seen in EBV+ NPC. Furthermore, small DNA tumor viruses, like HPV and EBV, exhibit a common molecular mechanism to inhibit the Rb family of proteins, especially pRb, to drive cellular proliferation, viral replication, and eventually oncogenesis. Therefore, DEK upregulation is likely a common event in virally induced tumors.

In addition to being transcriptionally regulated in response to viral infection, DEK also controls the use and maintenance of viral genetic material during human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) infections. Although HIV is not oncogenic, the immune suppression and chronic inflammation it causes dramatically increases the risk of cancer due to coinfection with oncogenic viruses like KSHV, EBV, Hepatitis B and C viruses, and HPV. In addition to binding eukaryotic chromatin, DEK also has unique binding properties that facilitate the use or maintenance of viral genetic material. In the case of HIV, DEK can bind to specific sequences of HIV-2 enhancer regions. These sequences, peri-ets (pets) sites, are one of several different cis-acting elements of the HIV-2 enhancer that stimulates transcription of viral genes in activated T lymphocytes. Within the HIV-2 enhancer region, the pets site contains a TTGGTCAGGG sequence that is found between the two Elf-1 binding sites, PuB1 and PuB2 [100]. DEK specifically binds these pets sites in human T lymphocytes, suggesting that DEK can regulate HIV-2 transcription and may be a downstream effector of T cell receptor activation [24]. Further investigation revealed that, upon phorbol ester 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) treatment to activate T cells, DEK is replaced on the pets site, in a protein phosphatase-2A (PP2A) dependent manner, with another factor to induce HIV-2 promoter activation. The process is stymied by PKC inhibitors and/or PP2A inhibitors (such as Okadaic acid), suggesting that PKC mediates the catalytic activity of PP2A, which alters the stability or DNA-binding activity of DEK, possibly via dephosphorylation. This change activated HIV-2 LTR and promotes HIV-2 transcription, assisting in the maintenance of HIV-2 infections [101]. However, it is unclear if the same mechanism exists in HIV-1 infected cells because Okadaic acid, which permits DEK retention on the pets sites and inhibits HIV-2 transcription, actually activates HIV-1 transcription.

While the presence of DEK in HIV-infected cells primarily controls viral transcriptional activity in T lymphocytes, the presence of DEK in two herpesvirus family infections (EBV and KSHV) has more implications on the occurrence of viral oncogenesis. In both cases, the virus must maintain genetic material during latency but also ensure that viral genomes are passed during mitosis. In KSHV infections, the latency-associated nuclear antigen (LANA) facilitates the association between mitotic chromosomes and viral genomes so that viral genomes are distributed to host daughter cells during latent infections [102]. Two studies have documented LANA-DEK binding that could have implications on KSHV infections and associated oncogenesis. Verma et al. demonstrated that DEK interacts with LANA in vitro [103]. Through GST affinity and immunoprecipitation assays, Krithivas et al. determined that DEK binds to the C-terminus of LANA and that a GFP-DEK fusion protein can be seen specifically localized to chromosomes of mouse cells [102]. These studies suggest that DEK-LANA interactions provide a secondary tethering opportunity for KSHV genomes that enable KSHV latency and DEK-driven oncogenesis. Combined, DEK is an important cellular protein that can regulate the transcription and retention of viral genomes while promoting proliferation to facilitate the viral life cycle. Nonetheless, it is unclear what links these persistent viral infections that require or increase DEK expression and the host’s inflammatory responses to the viruses.

5. DEK Is an Autoantigen in Inflammatory Autoimmune Diseases and Cancer

Nearly two dozen autoimmune diseases have been correlated with increased risk for cancer [104]. DEK autoantibodies have been found in the serum and synovial fluid of patients with many different autoimmune disorders including juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), sarcoidosis, and rheumatoid arthritis [52]. JIA, formerly juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, is characterized by chronic inflammation in one or more joints and is the most common childhood rheumatoid-related condition [105]. SLE primarily affects women and is characterized by severe inflammation that is believed to be caused by a type I interferon mediated positive feedback loop with active B and T lymphocytes [106]. Sarcoidosis usually occurs in the lungs of patients suffering with this systemic granulomatous disease that is characterized by noncaseating granulomas that result from persistent inflammation of unknown origins [107].

DEK was first described as an autoantigen in JIA patients when the presence of DEK specific antibodies correlated with different subtypes of the condition, most frequently seen in pauciarticular onset JIA in 77% of tested patients. The presence of DEK antibodies in JIA patient serum and synovial fluid was later confirmed by several other groups; one revealed a similar percentage of anti-DEK(+) JIA patients at 57% [108, 109]. In addition to anti-DEK autoantibodies, which are produced by B cells, T cells may also become falsely activated in autoimmune diseases through the presentation of DEK peptides by HLA-A molecules. Specific DEK amino acid sequences (72–80, 163–171, and 155–153) can bind the HLA-A0201 subclass associated with the pauciarticular subtype of JIA. This suggests that DEK may form complexes with class I MHC molecules which may provide a mechanism by which antigen presenting cells induce CD8+ stimulation to elicit inflammation events seen in JIA patients [110]. This is further supported in patients with the correlation between positivity for DEK antibodies and the presence of the class I HLA-A2 allele [108]. Furthermore, DEK can also be secreted by synovial macrophages, further compounding inflammatory pathogenesis. The C-terminal region of the secreted form of DEK, which is often acetylated, is recognized by IgG2 antibody complexes. These interactions demonstrate a second potential role for DEK in IgG-complement activation in the mediation of immune responses [111]. Additionally, multiallelic marker genotyping and SNP genotyping revealed that the 3′ UTR of DEK was associated with rheumatoid arthritis susceptibility, further supporting evidence that DEK may be a crucial component of arthritis related chronic inflammation [112].

Several early studies discovered anti-DEK antibodies in the serum of patients with SLE and/or sarcoidosis [108, 113, 114]. Wichmann et al. found that 10.4% of tested SLE patients had DEK specific autoantibodies in their serum. The presence of the anti-DEK antibodies was associated with older patients and fewer cutaneous manifestations [115]. Dong et al. provided a broad screening of sera from patients with an array of inflammation-related conditions. They identified elevated frequency of anti-DEK positivity not only in JIA, SLE, sarcoidosis, and rheumatoid arthritis patient sera but also in systemic sclerosis, polymyositis, and tuberculosis patient sera [52]. These studies illuminate the potentially broad role of DEK in inflammation-related functions and interactions during infection and immune responses. However, the role of DEK in these interactions can also have substantial implications in cancer biology and tumor microenvironments.

The multifunctionality of DEK in immune cells and cancer cells suggests a paradoxical outcome in tumor biology. As previously discussed, elevated DEK can promote oncogenic activities in infected and uninfected cells; however, DEK also displays an affinity for inducing immune responses in local areas of expression. There are several mechanisms by which DEK may mediate inflammation and tumor immunity responses in tumor microenvironments. These include (1) transcriptional regulation of antigen presenting molecules [116], (2) stimulation of T cells by epitope presentation [117, 118], and (3) secretion into extracellular matrix [44, 53]. First, DEK has the potential to regulate class II MHC expression by interacting with NF-Y and binding Y-box promoter elements unique to MHC class II alleles [116]. This role as a transcriptional regulator could influence the presentation of tumor-related antigens to CD4+ T cells and thus contribute to adaptive immune responses targeting tumor cells. Second, DEK may be a tumor-associated antigen. Dendritic cells loaded with DEK-CAN AML associated fusion proteins can present DEK epitopes via class II MHC molecules and stimulate specific CD4+ T-cells in coculture [118]. The capacity of DEK to stimulate CD8+ T cells was also documented in vivo and in vitro [117]. In this study, DEK was the only oncogenic transcript identified multiple times in a screening of genes possibly involved in an immune response against neuroblastoma. In subsequent experiments, mice received a T cell stimulant and a Treg inhibitor to enable self-antigen specific immune responses. In vivo, this combination increases DEK-specific IgG antibodies found in the serum. In vitro, CD8+ T cells from these mice showed elevated activity when cocultured with DEK-loaded macrophages or neuroblastoma cells. Together these three studies implicate DEK as a tumor-associated antigen that may mediate interactions between lymphocytes and tumor cells. Third, and finally, DEK secretion by macrophages also has two major implications on potential tumor microenvironments. As a proinflammatory chemoattractant, secreted DEK can stimulate white blood cell migration, including neutrophils, CD8+ lymphocytes, and natural killer (NK) cells [44]. The implications for this activity in the context of tumorigenic microenvironments are poorly understood. While tumor-associated macrophages and neutrophils are primarily known to promote tumorigenesis [119], CD8+ T cells and NK cells are likely antitumorigenic [120, 121]. Secreted DEK can also be internalized by DEK-deficient HeLa cells, in a heparan sulfate-dependent process, where it can function as a nuclear oncoprotein and rescue DEK depletion-induced DNA-damage repair and heterochromatin integrity [53]. Interestingly, macrophages are not the only cells to secrete DEK; conditioned media from HepG2 hepatocellular carcinoma cells were also found to contain DEK peptides [122, 123]. These results illuminate the potential role for extracellular DEK to stimulate tumor-associated immunological responses and promote intracellular oncogenic activity in neighboring epithelial cells within the tumor microenvironment.

6. DEK Regulates NFκB Transcriptional Activity

Through multiple mechanisms, DEK can regulate the activity of numerous oncogenic signal transduction pathways. These include p53 family members, p53 and ΔNp63, to inhibit apoptosis and promote proliferation, respectively, Wnt/β-catenin signaling to drive proliferation and invasion, Rho signaling to promote migration, mTOR activity to enhance cellular proliferation, and the NFκB pathway [38, 39, 41, 64, 124127]. The nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NFκB) family of transcription factors regulates gene expression in response to a variety of external stress and inflammatory stimuli. The NFκB family includes RelA (p65), RelB, c-Rel, p100/p52 (NFκB2), and p105/p50 (NFκB1). These transcription factors are activated as a result of environmental stimuli that include cytokines like tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), markers of microbial infection like lipopolysaccharide (LPS), T cell and B cell antigen receptors, and genotoxic stress including radiation and reactive oxygen species. The acute presence of these stress signals rapidly activates cell surface receptors, which eventually result in the activation of IκB kinase (IKK2) in a NEMO-dependent mechanism. IKK then phosphorylates IκB, which triggers its ubiquitination and degradation. The degradation of IκB thus releases its inhibitory binding of NFκB/RelA, permitting the nuclear translocation of the transcription factor complex, where it then binds to transcription cofactors to direct gene expression. In response to these acute stress stimuli, NFκB/Rel family members transcribe genes such as growth factors, inhibitors of apoptosis, and cytokines, primarily through RelA:RelA, c-Rel:p50, and RelA:p50 dimers [128]. This canonical NFκB pathway thus promotes cellular proliferation, inflammation, and immunity to survive the environmental stress. In contrast, the noncanonical NFκB pathway utilizes a NEMO-independent kinase complex that includes IKK1 and NFκB-inducing kinase (NIK) to respond to sustained developmental signals. This noncanonical pathway primarily utilizes RelB:p50 or RelB:p52 complexes, although RelA:p50 dimers may also be involved, to cause cell differentiation during development [129].

NFκB signaling is a crucial pathway involved in both inflammation and tumorigenesis, which is underscored by the finding that patients with chronic inflammatory conditions have an increased risk for developing cancer. The prosurvival functions of NFκB signaling promote tumor cell viability whereas the cytokines that are produced by NFκB transcriptional activity will alter the antitumor immune response. Furthermore, NFκB activity can promote angiogenesis and metastasis and has implications for genome stability [130]. Thus, the proproliferative and prosurvival canonical NFκB signaling pathway may be oncogenic if constitutively activated, which can occur through either activating mutations within the pathway or chronic exposure to cytokines from tumor associated macrophages within the microenvironment [130, 131]. However, the prodifferentiation function of NFκB signaling may be tumor suppressive. In fact, the oncogenic versus tumor suppressive functions of NFκB signaling may be context- and tissue-specific. For example, activated NFκB signaling has been documented in lymphoid malignancies and inflammation-associated colon cancer and other solid tumors. However, inactivated NFκB signaling through the loss of IKK proteins has also been linked to tumorigenesis, suggesting some tumor suppressive functions. These include genetic and chemically induced mouse tumor models and studies of squamous cell carcinomas of the skin, lungs, and head and neck [132, 133]. Interestingly, a recent report by Wang et al. suggests that NFκB signaling may begin as a tumor suppressive pathway in mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), by promoting cell senescence and maintaining genome stability, as determined using p65 MEFs. NFκB signaling can then switch to a tumor promoting pathway as cells undergo transformation, such as the introduction of mutant into the MEFs, by allowing the transformed cells to avoid macrophage-induced cell death and evading other antitumor immunity activities in vivo [134]. Thus, the role of NFκB signaling in tumorigenesis is complex and dynamic.

DEK has been identified as a downstream target of noncanonical NFκB signaling. In normal human dermal fibroblasts, the loss of noncanonical pathway members NFκB2 and RelB by siRNA resulted in decreased DEK mRNA and protein levels, which was associated with cellular senescence, in a p53-dependent mechanism [135]. The loss of p53 by shRNA restored DEK expression in NFκB2 and RelB-deficient cells and prevented senescence induced by the DEK depletion [135]. This suggests that p53 and noncanonical NFκB signaling converge on the DEK promoter to decide cell fate.

Previous reports have demonstrated that DEK can function as both transcription factor coactivator and corepressor [33, 125, 136138]. Sammons et al. were the first to report on DEK-mediated regulation of canonical NFκB signaling using MEFs, HEK293T, and HeLa cells. It was found that MEFs had elevated baseline and TNFα-induced levels of the NFκB inhibitor, IκBα, although the phosphorylation status of IκBα was not investigated. MEFs also had increased luciferase expression from a NFκB-reporter construct and enhanced TNFα-induced transcription of the NFκB target gene and inflammatory chemokine monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1/CCL-2). Furthermore, MEFs demonstrated increased TNFα-induced p65 (RelA) localization to the MCP-1 and IκBα promoters [125].

In transformed cells, including Caski and HeLa cervical carcinomas, the loss of DEK by shRNA caused increased phosphorylation of IκBα. This was accompanied by the subsequent nuclear translocation and DNA-binding of p65 and increased luciferase reporter activity [124, 139]. Furthermore, in HeLa cells, DEK and p65 colocalized to multiple NFκB target gene promoters, including 1-cys-peroxiredoxin, c-IAP2, and IL-8 [125, 139]. Interestingly, TNFα treatment induced endogenous DEK-p65 colocalization at c-IAP2 and IL-8 promoters. This was accompanied by an increase in c-IAP2 and IL-8 mRNA levels [125]. However, when DEK was overexpressed in HeLa cells, there was a gradual dose-dependent inhibition of p65 transcriptional activity [125, 139]. In particular, overexpression of the C-terminal DEK DNA binding domain demonstrated inhibitory activity based on 1-cys-peroxiredoxin luciferase reporter activity. In contrast, overexpression of the N-terminal 200 amino acids of DEK, which includes the SAP/ΨSAP DNA binding domains, were capable of activating reporter expression [139]. It is worth mentioning that there is a dose-effect observed with DEK expression and cell viability. Optimal cellular proliferation is observed at DEK levels slightly (2–5 fold) over those observed in normal cells, similar to the endogenous levels of DEK in HeLa cells. Both the loss of DEK by shRNA and the gross overexpression of DEK are detrimental and cause caspase-dependent apoptosis [38, 4042, 140, 141] (and data not shown). Since the mechanism of apoptosis induced by extreme changes in DEK expression is unclear, studies regarding the activity of specific transcription factors in response to DEK expression levels should be approached with caution. However, the data still supports a role for DEK in modulating RelA transcriptional activity in canonical NFκB signaling.

Combined, the data suggest that DEK may provide a dose-dependent mechanism for controlling p65/RelA transcriptional activity in the canonical NFκB pathway (Figure 1). In extreme excess, DEK inhibits NFκB signaling, which may lead to decreased survival. However, tumorigenic (modestly upregulated) levels of DEK may promote NFκB transcriptional activity through direct interactions with p65/RelA on gene promoters to induce expression of antiapoptotic genes like c-IAP2 and prometastasis genes like IL-8. In contrast, the loss of DEK can upregulate NFκB activity through upstream regulation of IκBα, which may correlate with an inflammatory or immune response as suggested by MCP-1 expression. Taken together, DEK is an important regulator of NFκB signaling to direct expression of both tumorigenic and proinflammatory target genes.

7. Summary

There is a growing understanding of the complex relationship between the immune system, inflammation, and tumorigenesis. Chronic inflammation is a well-known risk factor for tumor development, especially with epithelial tissues. This is likely due to either the highly oxidative environment during inflammation that can cause DNA damage and/or the creation of a highly vascularized growth factor-rich microenvironment resulting in a tumor-promoting stroma [142]. Various factors induce chronic inflammation including persistent bacterial and viral infections, exposure to environmental pollutants, and inflammatory autoimmune diseases. In addition to the creation of the tumor-promoting environment due to the immune response described above, the molecules produced by the immune system, like ROS and TNFα, can activate intracellular signaling pathways in the neighboring epithelial cells. One such example is the NFκB pathway, which responds to inflammatory signals and promotes cell survival. When constitutively activated, such as what may occur with chronic inflammation, NFκB signaling can promote tumorigenesis.

Here, we describe an oncogenic protein that is critically involved in infection, inflammation, and tumorigenesis. The chromatin modeling DEK protein has numerous roles that promote inflammation. These include (1) promoting the life cycles and latent infection with oncogenic viruses like HPV and EBV, (2) increased expression upon exposure to environmental pollutants, potentially to promote DNA repair or cell survival, (3) being a potent self-antigen in chronic inflammatory autoimmune diseases like arthritis and lupus, and (4) functioning as a proinflammatory chemoattractant to promote the migration of white blood cells when secreted by activated macrophages. These functions, whether they result in DEK overexpression or the internalization of excess secreted DEK by neighboring epithelial cells, can promote DEK-induced tumorigenesis (Figure 2). Elevated intracellular DEK levels are oncogenic, resulting in increased proliferation, migration, and resistance to genotoxic agents via the perturbation of several signal transduction pathways. It is unclear how DEK mediates these pathogenic and oncogenic cellular and molecular functions, although it is likely due, in part, to its ability to alter chromatin accessibility and transcription factor function, thus deregulating the expression of numerous target genes. The downstream pathways that are affected by DEK protein levels and DEK-induced transcriptional deregulation include p53, Wnt/β-catenin, mTor, Rho, and NFκB signaling. Importantly, DEK can modulate the transcriptional activity of the NFκB pathway in response to proinflammatory signals like TNFα in what may be a dose- or context-specific mechanism. Combined, DEK can promote both chronic inflammation and tumorigenesis in a multifaceted manner and has been implicated in numerous disease processes. This suggests that limiting DEK levels may be a desirable way to treat both chronic inflammation, due to viral infection or autoimmune disease, and cancer.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. K. Warzocha, P. Ribeiro, J. Bienvenu et al., “Genetic polymorphisms in the tumor necrosis factor locus influence non-Hodgkin's lymphoma outcome,” Blood, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 3574–3581, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  2. E. M. El-Omar, M. Carrington, W. H. Chow et al., “Interleukin-1 polymorphisms associated with increased risk of gastric cancer,” Nature, vol. 404, no. 6776, pp. 398–402, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. W. H. Wang, J. Q. Huang, G. F. Zheng, S. K. Lam, J. Karlberg, and B. C.-Y. Wong, “Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and the risk of gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 95, no. 23, pp. 1784–1791, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. C. Hur, N. S. Nishioka, and G. S. Gazelle, “Cost-effectiveness of aspirin chemoprevention for Barrett's esophagus,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 316–325, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. E. T. Chang, T. Zheng, E. G. Weir et al., “Aspirin and the risk of Hodgkin's lymphoma in a population-based case-control study,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 305–315, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. E. S. Schernhammer, J.-H. Kang, A. T. Chan et al., “A prospective study of aspirin use and the risk of pancreatic cancer in women,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 22–28, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. L. M. Duncan, L. A. Richards, and M. C. Mihm Jr., “Increased mast cell density in invasive melanoma,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 11–15, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. A. Näsman, M. Romanitan, C. Nordfors et al., “Tumor infiltrating CD8+ and Foxp3+ lymphocytes correlate to clinical outcome and human papillomavirus (HPV) status in tonsillar cancer,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 6, Article ID e38711, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. X. Guo, Y. Fan, R. Lang et al., “Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes differ in invasive micropapillary carcinoma and medullary carcinoma of breast,” Modern Pathology, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1101–1107, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. R. Kim, Y. J. Moon, K. S. Kwon et al., “Tumor infiltrating PD1-positive lymphocytes and the expression of PD-L1 predict poor prognosis of soft tissue sarcomas,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 12, Article ID e82870, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. M. J. Kang, K. M. Kim, J. S. Bae et al., “Tumor-infiltrating PD1-positive lymphocytes and FoxP3-positive regulatory T cells predict distant metastatic relapse and survival of clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” Translational Oncology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 282–289, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. T. S. Malaspina, T. H. Gasparoto, M. R. S. N. Costa et al., “Enhanced programmed death 1 (PD-1) and PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) expression in patients with actinic cheilitis and oral squamous cell carcinoma,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 965–974, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. R. Hino, K. Kabashima, Y. Kato et al., “Tumor cell expression of programmed cell death-1 ligand 1 is a prognostic factor for malignant melanoma,” Cancer, vol. 116, no. 7, pp. 1757–1766, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. C. Robert, G. V. Long, B. Brady et al., “Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 372, pp. 320–330, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. R. M. Poole and R. T. Dungo, “Ipragliflozin: first global approval,” Drugs, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 611–617, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. F. S. Hodi, S. J. O'Day, D. F. McDermott et al., “Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 363, no. 8, pp. 711–723, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. F. Balkwill and A. Mantovani, “Inflammation and cancer: back to Virchow?” Lancet, vol. 357, no. 9255, pp. 539–545, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. M. Karin and F. R. Greten, “NF-κB: linking inflammation and immunity to cancer development and progression,” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 749–759, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Fornerod, J. Boer, S. van Baal et al., “Relocation of the carboxyterminal part of CAN from the nuclear envelope to the nucleus as a result of leukemia-specific chromosome rearrangements,” Oncogene, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1739–1748, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  20. F. Kappes, I. Scholten, N. Richter, C. Gruss, and T. Waldmann, “Functional domains of the ubiquitous chromatin protein DEK,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 24, no. 13, pp. 6000–6010, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. von Lindern, M. Fornerod, S. van Baal et al., “The translocation (6;9), associated with a specific subtype of acute myeloid leukemia, results in the fusion of two genes, dek and can, and the expression of a chimeric, leukemia-specific dek-can mRNA,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1687–1697, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  22. M. S. Meyn, J. M. Lu-Kuo, and L. B. K. Herzing, “Expression cloning of multiple human cDNAs that complement the phenotypic defects of ataxia-telangiectasia group D fibroblasts,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1206–1216, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  23. V. Alexiadis, T. Waldmann, J. Andersen, M. Mann, R. Knippers, and C. Gruss, “The protein encoded by the proto-oncogene DEK changes the topology of chromatin and reduces the efficiency of DNA replication in a chromatin-specific manner,” Genes & Development, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1308–1312, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  24. G. K. Fu, G. Grosveld, and D. M. Markovitz, “DEK, an autoantigen involved in a chromosomal translocation in acute myelogenous leukemia, binds to the HIV-2 enhancer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1811–1815, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. A. D. Hollenbach, C. J. McPherson, E. J. Mientjes, R. Iyengar, and G. Grosveld, “Daxx and histone deacetylase II associate with chromatin through an interaction with core histones and the chromatin-associated protein Dek,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 115, no. 16, pp. 3319–3330, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  26. F. Kappes, K. Burger, M. Baack, F. O. Fackelmayer, and C. Gruss, “Subcellular localization of the human proto-oncogene protein DEK,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 28, pp. 26317–26323, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. T. Waldmann, C. Eckerich, M. Baack, and C. Gruss, “The ubiquitous chromatin protein DEK alters the structure of DNA by introducing positive supercoils,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 277, no. 28, pp. 24988–24994, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. F. Böhm, F. Kappes, I. Scholten et al., “The SAF-box domain of chromatin protein DEK,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1101–1110, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. H.-G. Hu, H. Illges, C. Gruss, and R. Knippers, “Distribution of the chromatin protein DEK distinguishes active and inactive CD21/CR2 gene in pre- and mature B lymphocytes,” International Immunology, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 789–796, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. T. Waldmann, M. Baack, N. Richter, and C. Gruss, “Structure-specific binding of the proto-oncogene protein DEK to DNA,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 31, no. 23, pp. 7003–7010, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. S.-I. Ko, I.-S. Lee, J.-Y. Kim et al., “Regulation of histone acetyltransferase activity of p300 and PCAF by proto-oncogene protein DEK,” FEBS Letters, vol. 580, no. 13, pp. 3217–3222, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. K. Ivanauskiene, E. Delbarre, J. D. McGhie, T. Küntziger, L. H. Wong, and P. Collas, “The PML-associated protein DEK regulates the balance of H3.3 loading on chromatin and is important for telomere integrity,” Genome Research, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1584–1594, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. S. Sawatsubashi, T. Murata, J. Lim et al., “A histone chaperone, DEK, transcriptionally coactivates a nuclear receptor,” Genes & Development, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 159–170, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. F. Kappes, T. Waldmann, V. Mathew et al., “The DEK oncoprotein is a Su(var) that is essential to heterochromatin integrity,” Genes & Development, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 673–678, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. M. J. Gamble and R. P. Fisher, “SET and PARP1 remove DEK from chromatin to permit access by the transcription machinery,” Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 548–555, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. H.-G. Hu, I. Scholten, C. Gruss, and R. Knippers, “The distribution of the DEK protein in mammalian chromatin,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 358, no. 4, pp. 1008–1014, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. C. Sandén, L. Järvstråt, A. Lennartsson, P. Brattås, B. Nilsson, and U. Gullberg, “The DEK oncoprotein binds to highly and ubiquitously expressed genes with a dual role in their transcriptional regulation,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 13, no. 1, article 215, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. L. M. Privette Vinnedge, R. McClaine, P. K. Wagh, K. A. Wikenheiser-Brokamp, S. E. Waltz, and S. I. Wells, “The human DEK oncogene stimulates Β-catenin signaling, invasion and mammosphere formation in breast cancer,” Oncogene, vol. 30, no. 24, pp. 2741–2752, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  39. L. M. Privette Vinnedge, N. M. Benight, P. K. Wagh et al., “The DEK oncogene promotes cellular proliferation through paracrine Wnt signaling in Ron receptor-positive breast cancers,” Oncogene, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. G. M. Kavanaugh, T. M. Wise-Draper, R. J. Morreale et al., “The human DEK oncogene regulates DNA damage response signaling and repair,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 7465–7476, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. T. M. Wise-Draper, H. V. Allen, E. E. Jones, K. B. Habash, H. Matsuo, and S. I. Wells, “Apoptosis inhibition by the human DEK oncoprotein involves interference with p53 functions,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 26, no. 20, pp. 7506–7519, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. M. S. Khodadoust, M. Verhaegen, F. Kappes et al., “Melanoma proliferation and chemoresistance controlled by the DEK oncogene,” Cancer Research, vol. 69, no. 16, pp. 6405–6413, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. F. Kappes, C. Damoc, R. Knippers, M. Przybylski, L. A. Pinna, and C. Gruss, “Phosphorylation by protein kinase CK2 changes the DNA binding properties of the human chromatin protein DEK,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 24, no. 13, pp. 6011–6020, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. N. Mor-Vaknin, A. Punturieri, K. Sitwala et al., “The DEK nuclear autoantigen is a secreted chemotactic factor,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 26, no. 24, pp. 9484–9496, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. J. Cleary, K. V. Sitwala, M. S. Khodadoust et al., “p300/CBP-associated factor drives DEK into interchromatin granule clusters,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280, no. 36, pp. 31760–31767, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. F. Kappes, J. Fahrer, M. S. Khodadoust et al., “DEK is a poly(ADP-ribose) acceptor in apoptosis and mediates resistance to genotoxic stress,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 3245–3257, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. H. E. Broxmeyer, N. Mor-Vaknin, F. Kappes et al., “Concise review: role of DEK in stem/progenitor cell biology,” Stem Cells, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1447–1453, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. T. McGarvey, E. Rosonina, S. McCracken et al., “The acute myeloid leukemia-associated protein, DEK, forms a splicing- dependent interaction with exon-product complexes,” Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 150, no. 2, pp. 309–320, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. R. Babaei-Jadidi, N. Li, A. Saadeddin et al., “FBXW7 influences murine intestinal homeostasis and cancer, targeting Notch, Jun, and DEK for degradation,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 208, no. 2, pp. 295–312, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. H. le Hir, D. Gatfield, E. Izaurralde, and M. J. Moore, “The exon-exon junction complex provides a binding platform for factors involved in mRNA export and nonsense-mediated mRNA decay,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 20, no. 17, pp. 4987–4997, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. L. M. M. Soares, K. Zanier, C. Mackereth, M. Sattler, and J. Valcárcel, “Intron removal requires proofreading of U2AF/3′ splice site recognition by DEK,” Science, vol. 312, no. 5782, pp. 1961–1965, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. X. Dong, J. Wang, F. N. Kabir et al., “Autoantibodies to DEK oncoprotein in human inflammatory disease,” Arthritis & Rheumatology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 85–93, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  53. A. K. Saha, F. Kappes, A. Mundade et al., “Intercellular trafficking of the nuclear oncoprotein DEK,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 110, no. 17, pp. 6847–6852, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  54. N. Kondoh, T. Wakatsuki, R. Akihide et al., “Identification and characterization of genes associated with human hepatocellular carcinogenesis,” Cancer Research, vol. 59, no. 19, pp. 4990–4996, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  55. R. A. Kroes, A. Jastrow, M. G. McLone et al., “The identification of novel therapeutic targets for the treatment of malignant brain tumors,” Cancer Letters, vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 191–198, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. M. Sanchez-Carbayo, N. D. Socci, J. J. Lozano et al., “Gene discovery in bladder cancer progression using cDNA microarrays,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 163, no. 2, pp. 505–516, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. C. Grasemann, S. Gratias, H. Stephan et al., “Gains and overexpression identify DEK and E2F3 as targets of chromosome 6p gains in retinoblastoma,” Oncogene, vol. 24, no. 42, pp. 6441–6449, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. M. C. Abba, H. Sun, K. A. Hawkins et al., “Breast cancer molecular signatures as determined by SAGE: correlation with lymph node status,” Molecular Cancer Research, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 881–890, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. Q. Wu, Z. Li, H. Lin, L. Han, S. Liu, and Z. Lin, “DEK overexpression in uterine cervical cancers,” Pathology International, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 378–382, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. H. A. Sansing, A. Sarkeshik, J. R. Yates et al., “Integrin αβ1, αvβ, α6β effectors p130Cas, Src and talin regulate carcinoma invasion and chemoresistance,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 406, no. 2, pp. 171–176, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. F. Kappes, M. S. Khodadoust, L. Yu et al., “DEK expression in melanocytic lesions,” Human Pathology, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 932–938, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. Y. Aalto, W. El-Rifai, L. Vilpo et al., “Distinct gene expression profiling in chronic lymphocytic leukemia with 11q23 deletion,” Leukemia, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1721–1728, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. L. Lin, J. Piao, W. Gao et al., “DEK over expression as an independent biomarker for poor prognosis in colorectal cancer,” BMC Cancer, vol. 13, article 366, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. A. K. Adams, G. E. Hallenbeck, K. A. Casper et al., “DEK promotes HPV-positive and -negative head and neck cancer cell proliferation,” Oncogene, vol. 34, pp. 868–877, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. J.-P. P. Theurillat, N. D. Udeshi, W. J. Errington et al., “Ubiquitylome analysis identifies dysregulation of effector substrates in SPOP-mutant prostate cancer,” Science, vol. 346, no. 6205, pp. 85–89, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. M. S. Carro, F. M. Spiga, M. Quarto et al., “DEK expression is controlled by E2F and deregulated in diverse tumor types,” Cell Cycle, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 1202–1207, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. K. V. Sitwala, K. Adams, and D. M. Markovitz, “YY1 and NF-Y binding sites regulate the transcriptional activity of the dek and dek-can promoter,” Oncogene, vol. 21, no. 57, pp. 8862–8870, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. L. M. Privette Vinnedge, S. M. Ho, K. A. Wikenheiser-Brokamp, and S. I. Wells, “The DEK oncogene is a target of steroid hormone receptor signaling in breast cancer,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 10, Article ID e46985, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. A. J. Evans, B. L. Gallie, M. A. S. Jewett et al., “Defining a 0.5-mb region of genomic gain on chromosome 6p22 in bladder cancer by quantitative-multiplex polymerase chain reaction,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 164, no. 1, pp. 285–293, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. C. C. Chang, H. H. Lin, J. K. Lin et al., “FBXW7 mutation analysis and its correlation with clinicopathological features and prognosis in colorectal cancer patients,” The International Journal of Biological Markers, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. e88–e95, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. S. Liu, X. Wang, F. Sun, J. Kong, Z. Li, and Z. Lin, “DEK overexpression is correlated with the clinical features of breast cancer,” Pathology International, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 176–181, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. A. Deutzmann, M. Ganz, F. Schönenberger, J. Vervoorts, F. Kappes, and E. Ferrando-May, “The human oncoprotein and chromatin architectural factor DEK counteracts DNA replication stress,” Oncogene, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. E. Riveiro-Falkenbach and M. S. Soengas, “Control of tumorigenesis and chemoresistance by the DEK oncogene,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 2932–2938, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  74. J. Piao, Y. Shang, S. Liu et al., “High expression of DEK predicts poor prognosis of gastric adenocarcinoma,” Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 9, no. 1, article 67, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. X. Wang, L. Lin, X. Ren et al., “High expression of oncoprotein DEK predicts poor prognosis of small cell lung cancer,” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, vol. 7, pp. 5016–5023, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  76. H. C. Yi, Y. L. Liu, P. You et al., “Overexpression of DEK gene is correlated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma,” Molecular Medicine Reports, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1318–1323, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  77. L. Garçon, M. Libura, E. Delabesse et al., “DEK-CAN molecular monitoring of myeloid malignancies could aid therapeutic stratification,” Leukemia, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1338–1344, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. T. Shibata, A. Kokubu, M. Miyamoto et al., “DEK oncoprotein regulates transcriptional modifiers and sustains tumor initiation activity in high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung,” Oncogene, vol. 29, no. 33, pp. 4671–4681, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. T. M. Wise-Draper, H. V. Allen, M. N. Thobe et al., “The human DEK proto-oncogene is a senescence inhibitor and an upregulated target of high-risk human papillomavirus E7,” Journal of Virology, vol. 79, no. 22, pp. 14309–14317, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. T. M. Wise-Draper, R. J. Morreale, T. A. Morris et al., “DEK proto-oncogene expression interferes with the normal epithelial differentiation program,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 174, no. 1, pp. 71–81, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. C. Oancea, B. Rüster, R. Henschler, E. Puccetti, and M. Ruthardt, “The t(6;9) associated DEK/CAN fusion protein targets a population of long-term repopulating hematopoietic stem cells for leukemogenic transformation,” Leukemia, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1910–1919, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. T. M. Wise-Draper, A. R. Mintz-Cole, A. T. Morris et al., “Overexpression of the cellular DEK protein promotes epithelial transformation in vitro and in vivo,” Cancer Research, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 1792–1799, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  83. A. Datta, M. E. Adelson, Y. Mogilevkin, E. Mordechai, A. A. Sidi, and J. P. Trama, “Oncoprotein DEK as a tissue and urinary biomarker for bladder cancer,” BMC Cancer, vol. 11, article 234, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. T.-H. Kim, S.-W. Shin, J.-S. Park, and C.-S. Park, “Genome wide identification and expression profile in epithelial cells exposed to TiO2 particles,” Environmental Toxicology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 293–300, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. J. Ruzzin, R. Petersen, E. Meugnier et al., “Persistent organic pollutant exposure leads to insulin resistance syndrome,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 465–471, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  86. M. M. Ibrahim, E. Fjære, E.-J. Lock et al., “Chronic consumption of farmed salmon containing persistent organic pollutants causes insulin resistance and obesity in mice,” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 9, Article ID e25170, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. V. Poli, “The role of C/EBP isoforms in the control of inflammatory and native immunity functions,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 273, no. 45, pp. 29279–29282, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. D. A. Brenner, M. O'Hara, P. Angel, M. Chojkier, and M. Karin, “Prolonged activation of jun and collagenase genes by tumour necrosis factor-alpha,” Nature, vol. 337, no. 6208, pp. 661–663, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. R. Grenningloh, B. Y. Kang, and I.-C. Ho, “Ets-1, a functional cofactor of T-bet, is essential for Th1 inflammatory responses,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 201, no. 4, pp. 615–626, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. E.-M. de Villiers, L. Gissmann, and H. Z. Hausen, “Molecular cloning of viral DNA from human genital warts,” Journal of Virology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 932–935, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  91. M. L. Gillison, W. M. Koch, R. B. Capone et al., “Evidence for a causal association between human papillomavirus and a subset of head and neck cancers,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 92, no. 9, pp. 709–720, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  92. C. B. J. Woodman, S. I. Collins, and L. S. Young, “The natural history of cervical HPV infection: unresolved issues,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 11–22, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. K. Johung, E. C. Goodwin, and D. DiMaio, “Human papillomavirus E7 repression in cervical carcinoma cells initiates a transcriptional cascade driven by the retinoblastoma family, resulting in senescence,” Journal of Virology, vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 2102–2116, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. T. M. Wise-Draper, D. J. Draper, J. S. Gutkind, A. A. Molinolo, K. A. Wikenheiser-Brokamp, and S. I. Wells, “Future directions and treatment strategies for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas,” Translational Research, vol. 160, no. 3, pp. 167–177, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. M. L. Gillison, Q. Zhang, R. Jordan et al., “Tobacco smoking and increased risk of death and progression for patients with p16-positive and p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 17, pp. 2102–2111, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. K. K. Ang and E. M. Sturgis, “Human papillomavirus as a marker of the natural history and response to therapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” Seminars in Radiation Oncology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 128–142, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. A. S. Andersen, A. S. K. Sølling, T. Ovesen, and M. Rusan, “The interplay between HPV and host immunity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 134, no. 12, pp. 2755–2763, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. X. Chen, S. Liang, W. L. Zheng, Z. J. Liao, T. Shang, and W. L. Ma, “Meta-analysis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma microarray data explores mechanism of EBV-regulated neoplastic transformation,” BMC Genomics, vol. 9, article 322, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. J. S. Knight, N. Sharma, and E. S. Robertson, “Epstein-Barr virus latent antigen 3C can mediate the degradation of the retinoblastoma protein through an SCF cellular ubiquitin ligase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 51, pp. 18562–18566, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. J. M. Hilfinger, N. Clark, M. Smith, K. Robinson, and D. M. Markovitz, “Differential regulation of the human immunodeficiency virus type 2 enhancer in monocytes at various stages of differentiation,” Journal of Virology, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 4448–4453, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  101. N. E. Faulkner, J. M. Hilfinger, and D. M. Markovitz, “Protein phosphatase 2A activates the HIV-2 promoter through enhancer elements that include the pets site,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 276, no. 28, pp. 25804–25812, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. A. Krithivas, M. Fujimoro, M. Weidner, D. B. Young, and S. D. Hayward, “Protein interactions targeting the latency-associated nuclear antigen of Kaposi's sarcoma associated herpesvirus to cell chromosomes,” Journal of Virology, vol. 76, no. 22, pp. 11596–11604, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  103. S. C. Verma, Q. Cai, E. Kreider, J. Lu, and E. S. Robertson, “Comprehensive analysis of LANA interacting proteins essential for viral genome tethering and persistence,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 9, Article ID e74662, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. A. L. Franks and J. E. Slansky, “Multiple associations between a broad spectrum of autoimmune diseases, chronic inflammatory diseases and cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1119–1136, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  105. R. E. Petty, T. R. Southwood, P. Manners et al., “International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: second revision, Edmonton, 2001,” The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 390–392, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  106. M. Wahren-Herlenius and T. Dörner, “Immunopathogenic mechanisms of systemic autoimmune disease,” The Lancet, vol. 382, no. 9894, pp. 819–831, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. S. Ringkowski, P. S. Thomas, and C. Herbert, “Interleukin-12 family cytokines and sarcoidosis,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 5, article 233, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. K. J. Murray, W. Szer, A. A. Grom et al., “Antibodies to the 45 kDa DEK nuclear antigen in pauciarticular onset juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and iridocyclitis: selective association with MHC gene,” The Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 560–567, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  109. H. Sierakowska, K. R. Williams, I. S. Szer, and W. Szer, “The putative oncoprotein DEK, part of a chimera protein associated with acute myeloid leukaemia, is an autoantigen in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis,” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 435–439, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  110. L. Forero, N. W. Zwirner, C. W. Fink, M. A. Fernández-Viña, and P. Stastny, “Juvenile arthritis, HLA-A2 and binding of DEK oncogene-peptides,” Human Immunology, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 443–450, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  111. N. Mor-Vaknin, F. Kappes, A. E. Dick et al., “DEK in the synovium of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: characterization of DEK antibodies and posttranslational modification of the DEK autoantigen,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 556–567, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. W. Brintnell, E. Zeggini, A. Barton et al., “Evidence for a novel rheumatoid arthritis susceptibility locus on chromosome 6p,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3823–3830, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. I. Wichmann, J. R. Garcia-Lozano, N. Respaldiza, M. F. Gonzalez-Escribano, and A. Nuñez-Roldan, “Autoantibodies to transcriptional regulation proteins DEK and ALY in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus,” Human Immunology, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 57–62, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. X. Dong, M. A. Michelis, J. Wang, R. Bose, T. DeLange, and W. H. Reeves, “Autoantibodies to DEK oncoprotein in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus and sarcoidosis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1505–1510, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. I. Wichmann, N. Respaldiza, J. R. Garcia-Lozano, M. Montes, J. Sanchez-Roman, and A. Nuñez-Roldan, “Autoantibodies to DEK oncoprotein in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE),” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 530–532, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. B. S. Adams, H. C. Cha, J. Cleary et al., “DEK binding to class II MHC Y-box sequences is gene- and allele-specific,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. R226–R233, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. J. Zheng, M. E. Kohler, Q. Chen et al., “Serum from mice immunized in the context of Treg inhibition identifies DEK as a neuroblastoma tumor antigen,” BMC Immunology, vol. 8, article 4, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. M. Makita, T. Azuma, H. Hamaguchi et al., “Leukemia-associated fusion proteins, dek-can and bcr-abl, represent immunogenic HLA-DR-restricted epitopes recognized by fusion peptide-specific CD4+ T lymphocytes,” Leukemia, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 2400–2407, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. Z. G. Fridlender and S. M. Albelda, “Tumor-associated neutrophils: friend or foe?” Carcinogenesis, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 949–955, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. I. Langers, V. M. Renoux, M. Thiry, P. Delvenne, and N. Jacobs, “Natural killer cells: role in local tumor growth and metastasis,” Biologics: Targets and Therapy, vol. 6, pp. 73–82, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  121. R. Noy and J. W. Pollard, “Tumor-associated macrophages: from mechanisms to therapy,” Immunity, vol. 41, pp. 49–61, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. S. Choi, S.-Y. Park, J. Jeong et al., “Identification of toxicological biomarkers of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in proteins secreted by HepG2 cells using proteomic analysis,” Proteomics, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1831–1846, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. S. Choi, S.-Y. Park, D. Kwak et al., “Proteomic analysis of proteins secreted by HepG2 cells treated with butyl benzyl phthalate,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A: Current Issues, vol. 73, no. 21-22, pp. 1570–1585, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. K. Liu, T. Feng, J. Liu, M. Zhong, and S. Zhang, “Silencing of the DEK gene induces apoptosis and senescence in CaSki cervical carcinoma cells via the up-regulation of NF-κB p65,” Bioscience Reports, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 323–332, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  125. M. Sammons, S. W. Shan, N. L. Vogel, E. J. Mientjes, G. Grosveld, and B. P. Ashburner, “Negative regulation of the RelA/p65 transactivation function by the product of the DEK proto-oncogene,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 281, no. 37, pp. 26802–26812, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  126. C. Sandén, M. Ageberg, J. Petersson, A. Lennartsson, and U. Gullberg, “Forced expression of the DEK-NUP214 fusion protein promotes proliferation dependent on upregulation of mTOR,” BMC Cancer, vol. 13, article 440, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. J. Wang, L. Sun, M. Yang et al., “DEK depletion negatively regulates Rho/ROCK/MLC pathway in non-small cell lung cancer,” Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 510–521, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. A. Oeckinghaus and S. Ghosh, “The NF-kappaB family of transcription factors and its regulation,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 1, no. 4, Article ID a000034, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  129. V. F.-S. Shih, R. Tsui, A. Caldwell, and A. Hoffmann, “A single NFκB system for both canonical and non-canonical signaling,” Cell Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 86–102, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. M. M. Chaturvedi, B. Sung, V. R. Yadav, R. Kannappan, and B. B. Aggarwal, “NF-kappaB addiction and its role in cancer: one size does not fit all,” Oncogene, vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 1615–1630, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  131. B. Hoesel and J. A. Schmid, “The complexity of NF-κB signaling in inflammation and cancer,” Molecular Cancer, vol. 12, no. 1, article 86, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. G. Maeda, T. Chiba, S. Kawashiri, T. Satoh, and K. Imai, “Epigenetic inactivation of IκB kinase-A in oral carcinomas and tumor progression,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 13, no. 17, pp. 5041–5047, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. N. D. Perkins, “NF-κB: tumor promoter or suppressor?” Trends in Cell Biology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 64–69, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. D. J. Wang, N. M. Ratnam, J. C. Byrd, and D. C. Guttridge, “NF-kappaB functions in tumor initiation by suppressing the surveillance of both innate and adaptive immune cells,” Cell Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 90–103, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  135. A. Iannetti, A. C. Ledoux, S. J. Tudhope et al., “Regulation of p53 and Rb links the alternative NF-κB pathway to EZH2 expression and cell senescence,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 10, no. 9, Article ID e1004642, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. M. Karam, M. Thenoz, V. Capraro et al., “Chromatin redistribution of the DEK oncoprotein represses hTERT transcription in leukemias,” Neoplasia, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 21–30, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. M. Campillos, M. A. García, F. Valdivieso, and J. Vázquez, “Transcriptional activation by AP-2α is modulated by the oncogene DEK,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1571–1575, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. R. I. Koleva, S. B. Ficarro, H. S. Radomska et al., “C/EBPα and DEK coordinately regulate myeloid differentiation,” Blood, vol. 119, no. 21, pp. 4878–4888, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. D. W. Kim, J. I. Y. Kim, S. Choi, S. Rhee, Y. Hahn, and S.-B. Seo, “Transcriptional regulation of 1-cys peroxiredoxin by the proto-oncogene protein DEK,” Molecular Medicine Reports, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 877–881, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. K.-S. Lee, D.-W. Kim, J.-Y. Kim, J.-K. Choo, K. Yu, and S.-B. Seo, “Caspase-dependent apoptosis induction by targeted expression of DEK in Drosophila involves histone acetylation inhibition,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 1283–1293, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. S. Waidmann, B. Kusenda, J. Mayerhofer, K. Mechtler, and C. Jonak, “A DEK domain-containing protein modulates chromatin structure and function in arabidopsis,” The Plant Cell Online, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 4328–4344, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. S. A. Eming, T. Krieg, and J. M. Davidson, “Inflammation in wound repair: molecular and cellular mechanisms,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 514–525, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2015 Nicholas A. Pease et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

2075 Views | 502 Downloads | 13 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.