Abstract
Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) are one of the most frequent forms of human malignancy, but, other than TP53 mutations, few causative somatic aberrations have been identified. We identified NOTCH1 or NOTCH2 mutations in ∼75% of cutaneous SCCs and in a lesser fraction of lung SCCs, defining a spectrum for the most prevalent tumor suppressor specific to these epithelial malignancies. Notch receptors normally transduce signals in response to ligands on neighboring cells, regulating metazoan lineage selection and developmental patterning. Our findings therefore illustrate a central role for disruption of microenvironmental communication in cancer progression. NOTCH aberrations include frameshift and nonsense mutations leading to receptor truncations as well as point substitutions in key functional domains that abrogate signaling in cell-based assays. Oncogenic gain-of-function mutations in NOTCH1 commonly occur in human T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma and B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The bifunctional role of Notch in human cancer thus emphasizes the context dependency of signaling outcomes and suggests that targeted inhibition of the Notch pathway may induce squamous epithelial malignancies.
Keywords: cancer genetics, genomic, cellular signaling
Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) collectively are the most common ectodermal cancers, resulting in >300,000 deaths per year (1, 2). SCCs arise from renewable squamous epithelial cells that serve to create an environmental barrier in the skin, esophagus, lung, and cervix. In normal squamous epithelia, basal progenitors give rise to more superficial daughter cells that terminally differentiate into keratinized cells as they migrate toward the surface, coupling terminal differentiation with microanatomic position. An early feature of squamous neoplasia of all types is disrupted differentiation to variable degrees, typically associated with thickening of the epithelium and increased proliferation. Therefore, although SCCs from different sites demonstrate varying epidemiologic associations—UV radiation in skin cancers, alcohol and tobacco exposure in esophageal cancers, and human papillomavirus infection in cervical and head and neck cancers—they likely share disruption of pathways that coordinate microenvironment-dependent squamous differentiation (3).
Although emerging targeted therapies show promise in epithelial cancers, few recurrent genetic aberrations have been identified in lung SCCs or cutaneous SCCs (cSCCs) (4). Activating HRAS mutations are highly prevalent in murine SCC-like malignancies but rare in their human counterparts (5, 6). Fewer than 10% of head and neck SCCs and cSCCs carry EGFR and PIK3CA gain-of-function mutations (7–9), and the oncogenic kinase DDR2 is activated in ∼5% of lung SCC primary tumors and cell lines (10). In fact, most SCCs lack an identifiable classical driver mutation, stalling deployment of targeted treatments. Although virtually all SCCs harbor TP53 mutations, additional tumor suppressors have proved elusive. Recent studies have implicated loss of function in NOTCH1, IRF6, and TP53 in head and neck SCCs (11, 12). Several models suggest that inactivation of Smad proteins up-regulates TGF signaling, but somatic mutations have not been detected in primary cancers (13).
We recently integrated whole-exome DNA sequence and allele-specific copy number data to examine somatically acquired genomic aberrations in eight primary cSCCs (14). Given the very high mutation burdens in these cancers, we sought to increase specificity for genes with a causative role in tumorigenesis. A search for mutations accompanied by loss of the wild-type allele—a pattern shared by known tumor suppressors in our series, including TP53 and CDKN2A—identified multiple mutations in Notch receptors.
Notch receptors participate in a highly conserved signal transduction pathway that regulates many aspects of development through context-dependent effects on cell fate determination (15, 16), growth (17), and survival (18). Cognate ligands expressed on the surface of signal-sending cells bind the EGF-like repeats of the Notch ectodomain on signal-receiving cells, initiating a series of proteolytic cleavage events that allow the Notch intracellular domain (NICD) to translocate to the nucleus and form a transcription activation complex with the DNA binding factor RBPJ (also known as CSL) and coactivators of the Mastermind-like (MAML) family (19). Although activating mutations in Notch1 occur in the majority of T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (20) and are also often present in poor-prognosis B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (21–23), loss of Notch activity can also produce basal cell carcinoma-like cancers (24) or squamous cancers (25) in mice, suggesting that the consequence of specific somatic Notch aberrations in cancer is strongly influenced by epigenetic context. Current models propose that Notch transcriptional down-regulation, possibly due to loss of p53 function, is a causative event in human epithelial malignancies (26), but disabling somatic aberrations have not been reported in cSCCs or lung SCCs. Here, we describe and functionally characterize frequent Notch loss-of-function mutations in these malignancies.
Results
Identification of Notch Mutations.
Three additional cSCCs were sequenced on the whole-exome level, in addition to the eight originally reported (14). For these 11 samples, ∼1,300 mutations per genome were identified; >85% were made up of G>A transitions consistent with UV damage. Nine samples showed at least one NOTCH1 or NOTCH2 mutation, including two samples, cSCCs P8 and P10, derived from solid organ transplantation patients exposed to long-term immune suppression (Fig. 1 and Table 1; ref. 14). Six of these mutations were duplicated truncations with loss of the wild-type allele. One additional primary tumor and 14 cSCC cell lines were Sanger sequenced for 30/34 exons of NOTCH1 and 30/34 exons of NOTCH2, revealing 15 additional missense mutations and yielding an overall nonsynonymous mutation prevalence of NOTCH1 or NOTCH2, per sample, of 19/26 (∼75%). Thirty-three of 43 total missense or nonsense mutations in Notch genes resulted from a G>A transition. By contrast, exome or transcriptome sequencing of five primary basal cell cancers (BCCs) and directed Sanger sequencing of three BCCs did not identify missense mutations in NOTCH1 or NOTCH2 (Table S1). No association with clinical subtype or TP53 status was noted (Table S2).
Fig. 1.
Structural distribution of missense (blue) and nonsense (red) mutations in NOTCH1, organized by exon and protein domain. Below the domain graph, circles represent mutations in cSCCs, and squares represent mutations in lung SCCs. NOTCH1 driver mutations from hematologic malignancies (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer database) are displayed above the exon graph. In these activating changes, missense mutations clustered in the NRR domain, promoting ligand-independent processing, whereas truncations in the C-terminal PEST domain enhanced protein half-life. In contrast, mutations depicted below the graph, from SCCs, appeared in EGF repeats, the juxtamembrane heterodimerization domain, and the intracellular RAM domain.
Table 1.
Identified amino acid substitution mutations in Notch receptors and pathway genes in primary and immortalized cSCCs
![]() |
Shaded regions were not assessed (cell lines were Sanger sequenced for 30/34 exons each of NOTCH1 and NOTCH2 only). *denotes stop codons; bold/italicized changes are homozygous. RBJP, MAML1-3, and JAG1 mutations were not identified in any samples (data not shown).
Recent exome-sequencing data from 40 lung SCCs acquired by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project were also examined. Three missense mutations and one splice site mutation were identified in NOTCH1, as well as one missense and one nonsense mutation in NOTCH2—a combined mutation frequency of 5/40 samples or 12.5% (Table S1). Sanger sequencing for NOTCH1 and NOTCH2 in lung SCC cell lines SW900 and HCC95, esophageal SCC lines TT and TE10, and lung adenocarcinoma lines H549 and A549 revealed a single heterozygous nonsense NOTCH1 mutation in TE10.
Analysis of Unique Notch1 Loss-of-Function Mutants.
Amino acid (missense) changes were analyzed by PolyPhen-2 (http://genetics.bwh.harvard.edu/pph2/) for potential structural effects. Eighteen of 27 mutations were identified as “probably damaging” with the remainder being labeled “probably benign” (Table S3). Besides overt loss-of-function frameshift and nonsense mutations, NOTCH1 point mutations involved the extracellular EGF-like repeats, the juxtamembrane heterodimerization domain, and the intracellular RAM domain. To exclude the possibility that the observed changes are nonpathogenic passenger events, we tested the functional consequence of mutations involving each of these domains. An EGF-like repeat mutation (D469G) and a unique heterodimerization domain mutation (R1594Q) interfered with ligand-mediated activation of Notch1 (Fig. 2A). D469, a residue within EGF repeat 12 (Fig. 2B), contributed to binding of a Ca2+ ion (27), which fixed the orientation of EGF repeat 11 with respect to repeat 12 (28). Prior genetic studies have shown that EGF repeats 11–12 are necessary and sufficient for ligand binding by Drosophila Notch (29), and biochemical studies have implicated D469G in binding of recombinant Notch1 EGF repeats 11–14 to the human Delta-like-1 ligand (30).
Fig. 2.
Effects and structural context of various Notch1 ectodomain mutations found in cSCC. (A) Reporter gene assay. U2OS cells lines were transfected with a Gal4-responsive luciferase reporter plasmid and with chimeric receptors that contained the indicated wild-type or mutated Notch1 extracellular domain and an intracellular Notch1/Gal4 chimera that activates transcription under the control of Gal4 binding sites. Receptors were activated by coculture with 3T3 feeder cells lacking (−) or expressing (+) the ligand Jagged2 in the absence (−) or presence (+) of a gamma secretase inhibitor (GSI). Reporter gene activity was measured after 24 h. (B) Structural context of the D469G mutation. Ribbon representation of the structure of EGF repeats 11–13 from human Notch1 (Protein Data Bank ID code 2VJ3). EGF11, blue; EGF12, green; EGF13, orange. Calcium ions are yellow; coordinating residues and interdomain contact residues are labeled and rendered as sticks; D469 is boxed. (C) Structural context of the R1594Q mutation. The Notch1 NRR is rendered in ribbon representation, with the LNRs in different shades of pink and the HD domain in either turquoise (before the S1 site), or light blue (after the S1 site). The R1594 side chain and residues within 4 Å are rendered as sticks. Right shows a magnified region of R1594 and identifies the side chains of D15343 and E1555, both of which are close enough to form charged hydrogen bonds to the R1594 side chain.
P1770S is a mutation in the Notch1 RAM domain, a region that binds the downstream transcription factor RBPJ and thereby contributes to the assembly of Notch transcription complexes (31–33). The P1770S substitution greatly diminished signaling when scored in ΔEGFΔLNR, a truncated form of Notch1 that signals in a ligand-independent fashion (Fig. 3A). This mutation also prevented formation of stable ICN1/RBPJ complexes on DNA (Fig. 3B). Thus, P1770S appears to interfere with Notch signaling at the level of transcription complex assembly.
Fig. 3.
Functional characterization of the P1770S mutation. (A) Reporter gene assay. U2OS cells lines were cotransfected with a Notch-responsive luciferase reporter plasmid and plasmids encoding a constitutively processed form of the wild-type or P1770S Notch1 receptor. Reporter gene activity was measured after 24 h. (B) Electrophoretic mobility shift assay. Purified RBPJ and purified polypeptides corresponding to the RAM and ankyrin-repeat (ANK) regions of either wild-type or P1770S Notch1 were incubated in the presence of radiolabeled Hes-1 cognate DNA, as described (55).
Discussion
We describe here a spectrum of inactivating somatic mutations of Notch receptors in lung and skin cancers, indicating that Notch loss of function plays a prominent role in multiple variants of SCC. These aberrations apparently occur significantly more often in cSCCs than in SCCs arising in the lung and occur in patients with and without a history of immunosuppression. cSCCs accumulate >100,000 nucleotide substitutions as a result of sun damage (14), perhaps more frequently inactivating tumor suppressors than their visceral counterparts. Indeed, 85% of Notch mutations in cSCCs resulted from the G>A transitions induced by UV radiation after homozygous TP53 loss, consistent with evidence for a role in tumor progression rather than initiation, possibly through evasion of inhibitory stromal signaling (25).
Attenuated expression of Notch transcripts is well established in skin cancers (26). The high frequency of truncation mutations in our study suggests that some of these instances may represent nonsense-mediated decay. The distribution of missense changes in NOTCH1 and NOTCH2 also reflects abrogated function. Whereas gain-of-function mutations found in leukemias cluster in the negative regulatory region (34) and the C-terminal PEST domain (20–23), the disabling mutations identified in our study span Notch ectodomains and the N-terminal portion of the intracellular domains (Fig. 1).
All of the nonsense mutations lie within or N-terminal of the Notch ankyrin repeats, which are required for all known Notch functions (19). Truncations such as Q610* in Notch1 and W330* in Notch2 prevent expression of the EGF repeats 11–13 required for ligand interaction (35); thus, these mutations probably ablate signaling. Other mutations likely produce either secreted (e.g., E1446* in Notch1 and Q1634* in Notch2) or membrane-tethered (e.g., Q1924* in Notch1 and R1838* in Notch2) truncated polypeptides that retain ligand-binding EGF repeats and therefore have the potential for dominant negative activity (36). Similar truncated polypeptides have dominant negative activity in vivo when expressed from transgenes (29).
Our functional studies suggest that the D469G substitution causes loss-of-function by disrupting the structure of EGF repeats required for productive Notch1–ligand engagement. It is less clear how R1594Q, which lies in the activation switch of the receptor, might affect ligand-mediated Notch1 activation. This arginine residue lies in an α-helix within the heterodimerization domain that packs against the preceding LNR-C module, forming two charged hydrogen bonds to residues D1533 and E1555 (Fig. 2C). The most likely explanation for the observed loss of function is that the mutation interferes with proper folding of the receptor in a manner that prevents efficient delivery to the cell surface. Consistent with the folding defect idea, mutations of nearby residues in this α-helix identified in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (e.g., F1592S, L1593P, L1596H, R1598P) produce gain of function by destabilizing the heterodimerization domain, leading to ligand-independent cleavage of Notch1 at site S2 and subsequent receptor activation (37). Alternative possibilities, such as stabilization of the autoinhibited conformation of the receptor, seem less likely.
The majority of the identified mutations are heterozygous. Notch proteins demonstrate haploinsufficiency in tissue patterning (38), suggesting that loss of a single copy functionally impedes signaling and therefore could plausibly impact tumorigenesis. Specific aberrations, such as the P1770S mutant involving the RAM domain, have the potential to form nonproductive complexes with ligands and thereby act in a dominant-negative fashion. Our observation of inactivation of multiple Notch receptors in the same tumor aligns with data from compound knockout mice, in which conditional deletion of multiple Notch genes (e.g., NOTCH1 and NOTCH2) or of RBPJ, the single downstream mediator of canonical Notch signaling, yields more profound differentiation and barrier function defects than deletion of any single gene (25, 39). Multiple mutations may act in concert to progressively disable a common downstream set of signaling targets. Alternatively, different Notch receptors might each suppress tumor progression through distinct mechanisms that have yet to be delineated, as the functional interchangeability of individual Notch receptors has not been established.
The high prevalence of somatic aberration adds context to noncell autonomous models in which Notch loss is theorized to compromise skin barrier function and promote chronic injury in adjacent cells (25). We cannot exclude the possibility that primary cancers arose in fields of Notch-disabled cells, analogous to patches of p53-mutant cells in sun-damaged skin (40). However, such field mutations have not yet been described for Notch, and the substantial mutant allele frequency in cSCCs suggests at least some cell-autonomous function.
Notably, recurrent mutations were not identified in genes encoding Notch ligands, RBPJ, or Mastermind-like coactivators, other key components of the canonical Notch signaling pathway. This absence may simply stem from the limited number of tumors analyzed. However, some components of the canonical Notch signaling pathway, particularly RBPJ (41) and MAMLs (42), may execute Notch-independent functions required for effective oncogenesis. Finally, genetic evidence suggests that noncanonical Notch functions in skin may also contribute to carcinogenesis (25).
Notch transcription complexes transactivate via multiple mechanisms, including directly through monomeric and dimeric complexes (as for CD25 and Hes1). The most consequential direct targets of Notch transcription complexes in leukemic cells appear to be Myc (43–45) and Hes1 (46), and Notch signaling enhances PI3-kinase/Akt and mTOR signaling (47, 48). The mechanism of tumor suppression in epithelial cells is less well defined. In mouse skin, Notch tumor suppression has been hypothesized to occur downstream of RBPJ-dependent expression of p21WAF1/Cip1, possibly through down-regulation of Wnt proteins (49, 50). However, p21WAF1/Cip1 up-regulation is not seen in human skin cancers. Other evidence implicates a distinct pathway involving Hes1-dependent derepression of ROCK1/2 and MRCK-α kinases, which normally activate the RhoA and CDC42 GTPases (26). Activation of this pathway (often via loss of suppression) appears to generate the dedifferentiation and increased motility characteristic of epithelial malignancies. Discriminating among these possibilities awaits sequencing of additional tumors and a more detailed knowledge of the mechanisms of tumor suppression in squamous epithelia, which should be aided by the study of Notch-inactivated cSCC cell lines identified in this report.
Gamma-secretase inhibitors now in development to treat hematologic malignancies associated with oncogenic increases in Notch signaling may induce some characteristics of somatic loss of function in squamous epithelia (34). Our results suggest that vigilant screening for epithelial malignancies is warranted upon use of these agents.
Materials and Methods
Sample Acquisition.
Tumor and matched normal tissue samples were obtained as part of an established skin cancer study protocol, with all subjects providing informed consent according to procedures approved by the University of California, San Francisco Committee on Human Research. Samples were either immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen or deposited in RNAlater preservative (Qiagen). Diagnosis of either cSCC or BCC was confirmed for all tumors through histological examination of a standard biopsy specimen by a board-certified dermatopathologist. Patient information and genomic profiling for lung SCCs analyzed here were obtained from sequencing completed by TCGA and deposited in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes. Further details are provided in SI Materials and Methods.
Isolation and culture details, as well as detailed characterization of cSCC lines SCCRDEB2-4, SCCT1-3, and -8 and SCCIC1, have been described (51). Two additional lines sequenced here, SCCIC8 and SCCIC12, were established from female immunocompetent patients aged 51 and 87, respectively. The tumor sites were, respectively, buttock (poorly differentiated spindle cell) and left calf (moderately to poorly differentiated SCC).
Sequencing.
For exome sequencing of 11 cSCCs and matching normal tissue, ∼40 megabases of coding region were selected from each genomic DNA sample by using oligonucleotide-based hybrid capture and sequenced by using the Illumina sequencing-by-synthesis platform. Three primary BCCs were similarly sequenced on the whole-exome level, and two additional samples were sequenced for transcribed sequences only. Standard methods for alignment, PCR duplicate removal, recalibration of base scores, and mutation calling were applied (detailed description is provided in SI Materials and Methods).
Three primary BCCs and 1 additional primary cSCC and matching tissue, as well as 14 cSCC cell lines, were capillary PCR-sequenced (Sanger) for NOTCH1 and NOTCH2 mutations. Thirty of 34 exons of NOTCH1 and 30/34 exons of NOTCH2 were reliably PCR amplified. Coverage of coding sequence was assessed by computing sequenced bases per exon with Phred-scaled quality scores, Q, ≥20. For the targeted exons of NOTCH1, a minimum of 64% exons met this threshold with a median of 93%; for NOTCH2, a minimum of 83% of exons met threshold with a median of 96%.
For cSCC cell lines, matching normal lines were not available; therefore, some variants discovered in these samples are likely germ-line in origin. To minimize inclusion of germ-line variants in the final results, all variants exhibiting overlap with markers from the dbSNP build 131 database (52) were filtered out, and three amino acid substitutions also present in other mammalian organisms were excluded.
Site-Directed Mutagenesis.
QuikChange site-directed mutagenesis was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions (Stratagene), and mutagenized cDNA sequences were confirmed by resequencing.
Reporter Gene Assays.
Notch1 reporter gene assays were as described (37, 53). Briefly, to assess ligand-mediated Notch1 activation, pcDNA3 plasmids encoding Notch1–Gal4 DNA binding domain fusion receptors (100 ng) were transfected into U2OS cells along with Gal4–firefly luciferase and human thymidine kinase Renilla luciferase reporter genes. After 24 h, transfected cells were split onto control NIH 3T3 cell feeders or feeders expressing the Notch ligand Jagged2 in the presence or absence of the gamma-secretase inhibitor compound E (1 μM). After an additional 24 h, cells were harvested, and dual luciferase assays were carried out. Results were normalized to the internal Renilla luciferase control and expressed relative to empty vector control, which was arbitrarily set to a value of 1. To assess effects of mutations on ligand-independent Notch1 activity, U2OS cells were cotransfected with the vector pcDNA3 encoding ΔEGFΔLNR, a form of Notch1 lacking the EGF and LNR repeats that is subject to constitutive ADAM metalloprotease and gamma-secretase cleavages, along with an artificial RBPJ–firefly luciferase and the internal control Renilla luciferase reporter genes, as described (54). Normalized luciferase activities were measured 48 h after transfection as described above.
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays.
Recombinant RBPJ and ICN1 polypeptides were expressed and purified to homogeneity from Escherichia coli as described (55). Electrophoretic mobility shift assays were performed in nondenaturing polyacrylamide gels as described (55).
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We thank Andrew J. Cassidy, Karin J. Purdie, Zohreh AkhavanAghdam, Catherine Chu, Sonia A. Mirza, Gad Getz, Kristian Cibulskis, and Rebecca Terrell for technical expertise and assistance. J.C.A. and S.C.B. were supported by Leukemia and Lymphoma Society grants and by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants P01 CA119070 and R01 CA092433. I.M.L. was supported by program grants from the European Research Council and Cancer Research-UK. J.W.G. was supported by Department of Energy Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231, NIH/National Cancer Institute (NCI) Grants P50 CA 58207 and U54 CA 112970, National Human Genome Research Institute Grant U24 CA 126551, US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity Award W81XWH-07-1-0663, and Stand Up To Cancer–American Association for Cancer Research Dream Team Translational Cancer Research Grant SU2C-AACR-DT0409. J.E.C. was supported by the University of California Cancer Research Campaign and the Dickson Emeritus Professorship. P.T.S. was supported by NIH/NCI Grant U24 CA1437991. A.E.B. and P.B.G. were supported by the Yale SPORE in Skin Cancer funded by the National Cancer Institute Grant P50 CA121974. T.M.M. was supported by NIH Grants AR051930 and R01AG028492 and by the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Research Service. E.A.C. was supported by NIH/NCI Grant KO8 CA137153. W.L. was supported by NIH/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Grant 5KO8AR057763. R.J.C. was supported by a Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology unrestricted gift grant and a Career Development Award from the Dermatology Foundation.
Footnotes
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1114669108/-/DCSupplemental.
References
- 1.Goon PK, et al. HPV & head and neck cancer: A descriptive update. Head Neck Oncol. 2009;1:36. doi: 10.1186/1758-3284-1-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Madan V, Lear JT, Szeimies R-M. Non-melanoma skin cancer. Lancet. 2010;375:673–685. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61196-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Janes SM, Watt FM. New roles for integrins in squamous-cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:175–183. doi: 10.1038/nrc1817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shigematsu H, et al. Clinical and biological features associated with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in lung cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:339–346. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kemp CJ, Donehower LA, Bradley A, Balmain A. Reduction of p53 gene dosage does not increase initiation or promotion but enhances malignant progression of chemically induced skin tumors. Cell. 1993;74:813–822. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90461-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hollstein MC, et al. Genetic analysis of human esophageal tumors from two high incidence geographic areas: Frequent p53 base substitutions and absence of ras mutations. Cancer Res. 1991;51:4102–4106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lee JW, et al. Somatic mutations of EGFR gene in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:2879–2882. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ridd K, Bastian BC. Somatic mutation of epidermal growth factor receptor in a small subset of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130:901–903. doi: 10.1038/jid.2009.312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Qiu W, et al. PIK3CA mutations in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:1441–1446. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hammerman PS, et al. Mutations in the DDR2 kinase gene identify a novel therapeutic target in squamous cell lung cancer. Cancer Discovery. 2011;1:78–89. doi: 10.1158/2159-8274.CD-11-0005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Agrawal N, et al. Exome sequencing of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma reveals inactivating mutations in NOTCH1. Science. 2011;333:1154–1157. doi: 10.1126/science.1206923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Stransky N, et al. The mutational landscape of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Science. 2011;333:1157–1160. doi: 10.1126/science.1208130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Leemans CR, Braakhuis BJM, Brakenhoff RH. The molecular biology of head and neck cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11:9–22. doi: 10.1038/nrc2982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Durinck S, et al. Temporal dissection of tumorigenesis in primary cancers. Cancer Discovery. 2011;1:137–143. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jen WC, Wettstein D, Turner D, Chitnis A, Kintner C. The Notch ligand, X-Delta-2, mediates segmentation of the paraxial mesoderm in Xenopus embryos. Development. 1997;124:1169–1178. doi: 10.1242/dev.124.6.1169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Washburn T, et al. Notch activity influences the alphabeta versus gammadelta T cell lineage decision. Cell. 1997;88:833–843. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81929-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Aster J, et al. Functional analysis of the TAN-1 gene, a human homolog of Drosophila notch. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1994;59:125–136. doi: 10.1101/sqb.1994.059.01.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Swiatek PJ, Lindsell CE, del Amo FF, Weinmaster G, Gridley T. Notch1 is essential for postimplantation development in mice. Genes Dev. 1994;8:707–719. doi: 10.1101/gad.8.6.707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kopan R, Ilagan MXG. The canonical Notch signaling pathway: Unfolding the activation mechanism. Cell. 2009;137:216–233. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.03.045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Weng AP, et al. Activating mutations of NOTCH1 in human T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Science. 2004;306:269–271. doi: 10.1126/science.1102160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Di Ianni M, et al. A new genetic lesion in B-CLL: A NOTCH1 PEST domain mutation. Br J Haematol. 2009;146:689–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07816.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Fabbri G, et al. Analysis of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia coding genome: role of NOTCH1 mutational activation. J Exp Med. 2011;208:1389–1401. doi: 10.1084/jem.20110921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Puente XS, et al. Whole-genome sequencing identifies recurrent mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Nature. 2011;475:101–105. doi: 10.1038/nature10113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Nicolas M, et al. Notch1 functions as a tumor suppressor in mouse skin. Nat Genet. 2003;33:416–421. doi: 10.1038/ng1099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Demehri S, Turkoz A, Kopan R. Epidermal Notch1 loss promotes skin tumorigenesis by impacting the stromal microenvironment. Cancer Cell. 2009;16:55–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.05.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Lefort K, et al. Notch1 is a p53 target gene involved in human keratinocyte tumor suppression through negative regulation of ROCK1/2 and MRCKalpha kinases. Genes Dev. 2007;21:562–577. doi: 10.1101/gad.1484707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Handford PA, et al. Key residues involved in calcium-binding motifs in EGF-like domains. Nature. 1991;351:164–167. doi: 10.1038/351164a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hambleton S, et al. Structural and functional properties of the human notch-1 ligand binding region. Structure. 2004;12:2173–2183. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2004.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Rebay I, et al. Specific EGF repeats of Notch mediate interactions with Delta and Serrate: Implications for Notch as a multifunctional receptor. Cell. 1991;67:687–699. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90064-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Cordle J, et al. Localization of the delta-like-1-binding site in human Notch-1 and its modulation by calcium affinity. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:11785–11793. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M708424200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Nam Y, Sliz P, Song L, Aster JC, Blacklow SC. Structural basis for cooperativity in recruitment of MAML coactivators to Notch transcription complexes. Cell. 2006;124:973–983. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.12.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wilson JJ, Kovall RA. Crystal structure of the CSL-Notch-Mastermind ternary complex bound to DNA. Cell. 2006;124:985–996. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Johnson SE, Ilagan MXG, Kopan R, Barrick D. Thermodynamic analysis of the CSL x Notch interaction: Distribution of binding energy of the Notch RAM region to the CSL beta-trefoil domain and the mode of competition with the viral transactivator EBNA2. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:6681–6692. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.019968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Aster JC, Blacklow SC, Pear WS. Notch signalling in T-cell lymphoblastic leukaemia/lymphoma and other haematological malignancies. J Pathol. 2011;223:262–273. doi: 10.1002/path.2789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Xu A, Lei L, Irvine KD. Regions of Drosophila Notch that contribute to ligand binding and the modulatory influence of Fringe. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:30158–30165. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M505569200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Rebay I, Fehon RG, Artavanis-Tsakonas S. Specific truncations of Drosophila Notch define dominant activated and dominant negative forms of the receptor. Cell. 1993;74:319–329. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90423-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Malecki MJ, et al. Leukemia-associated mutations within the NOTCH1 heterodimerization domain fall into at least two distinct mechanistic classes. Mol Cell Biol. 2006;26:4642–4651. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01655-05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Garg V, et al. Mutations in NOTCH1 cause aortic valve disease. Nature. 2005;437:270–274. doi: 10.1038/nature03940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Dumortier A, et al. Atopic dermatitis-like disease and associated lethal myeloproliferative disorder arise from loss of Notch signaling in the murine skin. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9258. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Jonason AS, et al. Frequent clones of p53-mutated keratinocytes in normal human skin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:14025–14029. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.24.14025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Hori K, et al. A nonclassical bHLH Rbpj transcription factor complex is required for specification of GABAergic neurons independent of Notch signaling. Genes Dev. 2008;22:166–178. doi: 10.1101/gad.1628008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.McElhinny AS, Li J-L, Wu L. Mastermind-like transcriptional co-activators: emerging roles in regulating cross talk among multiple signaling pathways. Oncogene. 2008;27:5138–5147. doi: 10.1038/onc.2008.228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Klinakis A, et al. Myc is a Notch1 transcriptional target and a requisite for Notch1-induced mammary tumorigenesis in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:9262–9267. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0603371103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Palomero T, et al. NOTCH1 directly regulates c-MYC and activates a feed-forward-loop transcriptional network promoting leukemic cell growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:18261–18266. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606108103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Weng AP, et al. c-Myc is an important direct target of Notch1 in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma. Genes Dev. 2006;20:2096–2109. doi: 10.1101/gad.1450406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Wendorff AA, et al. Hes1 is a critical but context-dependent mediator of canonical Notch signaling in lymphocyte development and transformation. Immunity. 2010;33:671–684. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Chan SM, Weng AP, Tibshirani R, Aster JC, Utz PJ. Notch signals positively regulate activity of the mTOR pathway in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2007;110:278–286. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-08-039883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Palomero T, et al. Mutational loss of PTEN induces resistance to NOTCH1 inhibition in T-cell leukemia. Nat Med. 2007;13:1203–1210. doi: 10.1038/nm1636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Devgan V, Mammucari C, Millar SE, Brisken C, Dotto GP. p21WAF1/Cip1 is a negative transcriptional regulator of Wnt4 expression downstream of Notch1 activation. Genes Dev. 2005;19:1485–1495. doi: 10.1101/gad.341405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Rangarajan A, et al. Notch signaling is a direct determinant of keratinocyte growth arrest and entry into differentiation. EMBO J. 2001;20:3427–3436. doi: 10.1093/emboj/20.13.3427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Watt SA, et al. Integrative mRNA profiling comparing cultured primary cells with clinical samples reveals PLK1 and C20orf20 as therapeutic targets in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Oncogene. May 23, 2011 doi: 10.1038/onc.2011.180. 10.1038/onc.2011.180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Sherry ST, et al. dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:308–311. doi: 10.1093/nar/29.1.308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Li K, et al. Modulation of Notch signaling by antibodies specific for the extracellular negative regulatory region of NOTCH3. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:8046–8054. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M800170200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Chiang MY, et al. Leukemia-associated NOTCH1 alleles are weak tumor initiators but accelerate K-ras–initiated leukemia. J Clin Invest. 2008;118:3181–3194. doi: 10.1172/JCI35090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Arnett KL, et al. Structural and mechanistic insights into cooperative assembly of dimeric Notch transcription complexes. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2010;17:1312–1317. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.




