Dominant transformation by mutated human ras genes in vitro requires more than 100 times higher expression than is observed in cancers.

Abstract

The gene-mutation-cancer hypothesis holds that mutated cellular protooncogenes, such as point-mutated proto-ras, "play a dominant part in cancer," because they are sufficient to transform transfected mouse cell lines in vitro [Alberts, B., Bray, D., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K. & Watson, J. D. (1994) Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, New York)]. However, in cells transformed in vitro mutated human ras genes are expressed more than 100-fold than in the cancers from which they are isolated. In view of the discrepancy between the very low levels of ras transcription in cancers and the very high levels in cells transformed in vitro, we have investigated the minimal level of human ras expression for transformation in vitro. Using point-mutated human ras genes recombined with different promoters from either human metallothionein-IIA or human fibronectin or from retroviruses we found dominant in vitro transformation of the mouse C3H cell line only with ras genes linked to viral promoters. These ras genes were expressed more than 120-fold higher than are native ras genes of C3H cells. The copy number of transfected ras genes ranged from 2-6 in our system. In addition, nondominant transformation was observed in a small percentage (2-7%) of C3H cells transfected with ras genes that are expressed less than 20 times higher than native C3H ras genes. Because over 90% of cells expressing ras at this moderately enhanced level were untransformed, transformation must follow either a nondominant ras mechanism or a non-ras mechanism. We conclude that the mutated, but normally expressed, ras genes found in human and animal cancers are not likely to "play a dominant part in cancer." The conclusion that mutated ras genes are not sufficient or dominant for cancer is directly supported by recent discoveries of mutated ras in normal animals, and in benign human tissue, "which has little potential to progress" [Jen, J., Powell, S. M., Papadopoulos, N., Smith, K. J., Hamilton, S. R., Vogelstein, B. & Kinzler, K. W. (1994) Cancer Res. 54, 5523-5526]. Even the view that mutated ras is necessary for cancer is hard to reconcile with (i) otherwise indistinguishable cancers with and without ras mutations, (ii) metastases of the same human cancers with and without ras mutations, (iii) retroviral ras genes that are oncogenic without point mutations, and (iv) human tumor cells having spontaneously lost ras mutation but not tumorigencity.