Review Special Issues

Receptor tyrosine kinase structure and function in health and disease

  • Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are membrane proteins that control the flow of information through signal transduction pathways, impacting on different aspects of cell function. RTKs are characterized by a ligand-binding ectodomain, a single transmembrane α-helix, a cytosolic region comprising juxtamembrane and kinase domains followed by a flexible C-terminal tail. Somatic and germline RTK mutations can induce aberrant signal transduction to give rise to cardiovascular, developmental and oncogenic abnormalities. RTK overexpression occurs in certain cancers, correlating signal strength and disease incidence. Diverse RTK activation and signal transduction mechanisms are employed by cells during commitment to health or disease. Small molecule inhibitors are one means to target RTK function in disease initiation and progression. This review considers RTK structure, activation, and signal transduction and evaluates biological relevance to therapeutics and clinical outcomes.

    Citation: Oleg A. Karpov, Gareth W. Fearnley, Gina A. Smith, Jayakanth Kankanala, Michael J. McPherson, Darren C. Tomlinson, Michael A. Harrison, Sreenivasan Ponnambalam. Receptor tyrosine kinase structure and function in health and disease[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(4): 476-502. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.4.476

    Related Papers:

    [1] Emmanuel Reyes-Uribe, Nathalia Serna-Marquez, Eduardo Perez Salazar . DDRs: receptors that mediate adhesion, migration and invasion in breast cancer cells. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(3): 303-317. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.3.303
    [2] Jacques Fantini, Francisco J. Barrantes . How membrane lipids control the 3D structure and function of receptors. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(1): 22-35. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.1.22
    [3] Angel Rivera-Calzada, Andrés López-Perrote, Roberto Melero, Jasminka Boskovic, Hugo Muñoz-Hernández, Fabrizio Martino, Oscar Llorca . Structure and Assembly of the PI3K-like Protein Kinases (PIKKs) Revealed by Electron Microscopy. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(2): 36-57. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.2.36
    [4] Sweta Raikundalia, Ling Ling Few, Siti Asma' Hassan, Get Bee Yvonne-Τee, Wei Cun See Too . Choline kinase and miR-32-5p: A crucial interaction promoting apoptosis and delaying wound repair in cervical cancer cells. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(3): 281-295. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024016
    [5] Alyssa D. Lokits, Julia Koehler Leman, Kristina E. Kitko, Nathan S. Alexander, Heidi E. Hamm, Jens Meiler . A survey of conformational and energetic changes in G protein signaling. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(4): 630-648. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.4.630
    [6] José Luis Alonso, Wolfgang H. Goldmann . Cellular mechanotransduction. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(1): 50-62. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.1.50
    [7] Satoru Ito, Kishio Furuya, Masahiro Sokabe, Yoshinori Hasegawa . Cellular ATP release in the lung and airway. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(4): 571-584. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.4.571
    [8] Anna Kahler, Heinrich Sticht . A modeling strategy for G-protein coupled receptors. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(2): 211-231. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.2.211
    [9] Michael L. Akenhead, Hainsworth Y. Shin . The Contribution of Cell Surface Components to the Neutrophil Mechanosensitivity to Shear Stresses. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(3): 318-335. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.3.318
    [10] Eda Suku, Alejandro Giorgetti . Common evolutionary binding mode of rhodopsin-like GPCRs: Insights from structural bioinformatics. AIMS Biophysics, 2017, 4(4): 543-556. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2017.4.543
  • Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are membrane proteins that control the flow of information through signal transduction pathways, impacting on different aspects of cell function. RTKs are characterized by a ligand-binding ectodomain, a single transmembrane α-helix, a cytosolic region comprising juxtamembrane and kinase domains followed by a flexible C-terminal tail. Somatic and germline RTK mutations can induce aberrant signal transduction to give rise to cardiovascular, developmental and oncogenic abnormalities. RTK overexpression occurs in certain cancers, correlating signal strength and disease incidence. Diverse RTK activation and signal transduction mechanisms are employed by cells during commitment to health or disease. Small molecule inhibitors are one means to target RTK function in disease initiation and progression. This review considers RTK structure, activation, and signal transduction and evaluates biological relevance to therapeutics and clinical outcomes.


    1. Introduction

    Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are membrane glycoproteins that regulate many cellular processes including cell migration, organ development, cell proliferation and differentiation. The human genome encodes 58 RTKs which are further divided into 20 subfamilies. The seminal study by Cohen et al. in 1965 [1] postulated that a membrane receptor was responsible for the proliferative response of epithelial cells to a soluble ligand, namely epidermal growth factor (EGF). Subsequently, in the mid-1980’s, two different groups elucidated the primary sequence of this membrane receptor that was called epidermal growth factor receptor or EGFR [2,3], triggering intensive research on these and other RTKs over the past 3 decades. This review evaluates the structural differences between distinct RTKs through assessment of specific models, as well as the implications for signal transduction, cell function and disease.

    2. Structure

    The majority of RTKs exhibit a similar structure (Figure 1), comprising a ligand-binding extracellular domain followed by a single transmembrane domain, juxtamembrane region, cytosolic tyrosine kinase domain (TKD), and a flexible C-terminal tail [4]. RTK extracellular domains vary between subfamilies, with different binding motifs and modules that specify ligand recognition and assembly. Through such diversity, the receptors are able to bind ligands with high specificity, thus preventing unwanted signal amplification and increasing signal precision. Extracellular regions dimerize upon ligand binding, forming higher order complexes through multiple electrostatic interactions [4,5,6]. The classical model of RTK activation consists of monomeric receptor polypeptides assembled into an active signaling homodimeric complex upon ligand interaction, with conformational changes occurring which activate the intracellular tyrosine kinase domain [7].

    Figure 1. Structural examples of distinct RTK subfamilies. The intracellular tyrosine kinase domains are relatively conserved between RTK subfamilies whereas the ligand-interacting ectodomains differ substantially owing to the specificity of ligand-receptor interactions. These RTK subfamilies were chosen since they illustrate high diversity as well as exhibit radically distinct extracellular binding mechanisms. (L1 and L2, leucine-rich repeat domains; CR, cysteine-rich; Fn, fibronectin Type III domains).

    There are multiple forms of ligand recognition and RTK complex formation. The VEGF system is typified through ligand recognition by seven extracellular immunoglobulin-like domains, which promote VEGFR dimerization. Here, the VEGFligand exists in a dimeric state that promotes recruitment of two monomeric VEGFR-like polypeptides into a tetrameric complex. In contrast, activation of the epidermal growth factor-related RTK family (ErbB) involves a different oligomerization mechanism, whereby a single epidermal growth factor (EGF) molecule binds a single EGFR polypeptide; this interaction stimulates EGFR dimerization and the formation of an EGFR-EGF tetramer complex. Furthermore, there is evidence that EGFR may exist in an inactive but dimeric state prior to encountering EGF [8]. Based on these and other findings, a kinetic intermediate state has been proposed where the binding of one EGF molecule highly increases the affinity of this complex for a second EGF to bind [9].

    The EGFR-related (ErbB) family includes EGFR (ErbB1/Her1), ErbB2 (Her2), ErbB3 (Her3), and ErbB4 (Her4), which play key roles inepithelial cell growth and proliferation [5]. The ErbB family may have evolved separately from other RTKs, since the TKD displays higher sequence similarity to Ack1, a non-receptor soluble tyrosine kinase [10]. Mouse knockouts carrying deletions in the EGFR, ErbB2, ErbB3 or ErbB4 genes all confer embryonic lethality [11]. EGFR/ErbB1 gene duplication events can give rise to gene products with impaired ligand-binding and altered TK activity [12,13].

    The EGFR/ErbB1 extracellular domain is composed of ~600 residues, which mediate interactions with diverse ligands e.g. EGF, transforming growth factor α (TGFα) and betacellulin (BTC) [5]. This ectodomain consists of four distinct domains where domains I and III exhibit a β-helical fold, and domains II and IV contain cysteine-rich motifs [14]. EGF does not bind at the EGFR monomer interface with its partner, only at the ‘external’ or outward pointing surface (Figure 2C). Hence it is likely that conformational shifts within the EGFR monomer triggered by EGF binding drive monomer-monomer association and formation of a dimeric complex. Interaction interfaces are largely present within extracellular domain II on one of the monomers, wherein a rigid loop is projected onto the cysteine-rich motif, thus promoting dimer stabilization. Subsequently, the dimerizing arm from a monomer projects outwards and interacts with an adjacent EGFR monomer. As such, ligand binding creates a ~130° rotation of domains I and II with respect to domains III and IV [6]. These domains are the target of certain humanized monoclonal antibody-based therapies such as cetuximab: this antibody binds to EGFR domain III, thereby preventing ligand interaction and active state conformation [15]. In this context, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) can cleave the extracellular EGFR domains, leaving the kinase and juxtamembrane domains intact and a constitutively active TKD [16,17]. The ErbB extracellular domains are heavily glycosylated, with EGFR/ErbB1 alone displaying ~40 kDa of complex carbohydrates; N-glycosylation is critical for EGFR/ErbB1 maturation and export to the c ell surface [18,19]. Interestingly, ErbB homo- and heterodimerization along with overexpression are frequently linked to epithelial cancer initiation and progression.

    Figure 2. Models of RTK-ligand interactions. (A) Domains 2 & 3 of VEGFR2 (shaded teal) interacting with a VEGF-A dimer (green) (PDB: 3V2A). The VEGFR2/VEGF-A heterotetramer has been fitted onto the 3-D reconstruction of the c-KIT receptor dimer generated from negative stain electron microscopy data (EMDB ID: 2468). In receptors of the VEGFR type, the bridging position of the ligand is likely to play a role in driving dimerization. Note that the KIT receptor contains two fewer Ig-like ectodomains than VEGFR2. (B) Higher magnification of VEGFR-VEGF-A model. (C) Two EGFR extracellular domains (light/dark blue shading) binding to monomeric EGF (red) viewed from directly above the complex (C-terminal residue of the second cysteine-rich domain to the bottom of the image) (PDB: 1IVO). EGF forms a tight fit to the ligand-binding site created at the interface of individual domains in each receptor polypeptide, but makes no contacts with the partner monomer. Therefore activation is mediated solely via receptor-receptor interactions.

    The vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) bind to VEGFR family members [20]. VEGFR gene products include both soluble and membrane-bound isoforms which regulate many aspects of vascular physiology including angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. Mammalian VEGFR2 has seven immunoglobulin (Ig)-like domains in the extracellular region, a short transmembrane region, a juxtamembrane domain, and a split tyrosine kinase domain (Figure 1) [21]. Biosynthetic immature VEGFR2 transits the ER and Golgi compartments, undergoing N-linked glycosylation to produce a ~230 kDa polypeptide [22,23]. This mature, glycosylated VEGFR2 is then displayed on the cell surface where binding to VEGF-related ligands activates signal transduction [24].

    VEGF-A binding to Ig-like domains 2 and 3 on the VEGFR2 ectodomain [25] mediates RTK dimerization. This is an example of a fully “ligand-dependent” receptor dimerization mechanism as modeled in Figure 2A-B. The VEGFR2-VEGF-A complex is further stabilized by low-affinity homotypic interactions between Ig-like domain 7 [26]. Interestingly, deletion of Ig-like domains 4-7 causes ~1000-fold decrease in VEGFR2 affinity for VEGF-A [25] suggesting complexity in this RTK-ligand interaction for maximal ligand binding and TKD activation. VEGF-A-mediated dimerization of the VEGFR2 ectodomains causes positioning and contact alignment of adjacent TKDs in the cytoplasm, resulting in torsional rotation and exposure of an ATP-binding site. In another closely related RTK subfamily, the c-KIT receptor binds to stem cell factor (SCF) via Ig-like domains 1, 2, and 3, causing RTK dimerization and creating critical interactional interfaces through conformational changes. A similar mechanism has been proposed for another closely related RTK subfamily containing the platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs): in PDGFR-β, a mutation within such interacting interfaces impairs downstream RTK activation and signal transduction [27,28].

    The insulin-like growth factor receptor subfamily includes the insulin receptor (INSR) and defines a conserved set of genes found in many higher eukaryotes [29]. This subfamily is unique in that the RTK is displayed as a pre-assembleddisulfide-linked heterotetramer: the α2β2 complex is derived from a single polypeptide that undergoes post-translational cleavage to generate a soluble extracellular α domain, which is linked by a disulfide bond to the membrane-spanning β polypeptide [30,31] (Figure 1). Cells that express both INSR and IGF1R gene products can express mixed or hybrid tetramers. Interestingly, these hybrid RTKs display high affinity for IGF-1 but low affinity for insulin [32].

    Monitoring insulin binding to INSR suggests the existence of multiple high and low affinity binding sites. Each INSRα subunit contains two distinct low affinity sites for insulin. Ligand binding to one low affinity binding site on INSR, promotes a second ligand molecule to bind to the other low affinity site on the adjacent INSRα subunit. However, this is a model of allosteric inhibition where initial ligand binding to each INSRα subunitinhibits further binding to the second binding site on the same subunit [31]. Furthermore, the subfamily of discoidin domain receptors (DDR1, DDR2) that bind collagen can exhibit similar pre-assembled oligomeric states, albeit via non-covalent interactions between different polypeptide chains [33].

    The presence of complex carbohydrates can frequently modulate the nature of RTK-ligand interactions and signal transduction. The fibroblastgrowth factor receptor (FGFR) subfamily requires the presence of heparan sulphate proteoglycans (HSPGs) as co-factors for maximal FGF-mediated signal transduction and cellular responses. An impaired HSPG biosynthesis pathway can have adverse effects on FGFR function during development [34]. Although controversial, a consensus view is that a FGF-FGFR-HSPG complex with a 2:2:1 stoichiometry is needed for maximal TKD activation [35]. Furthermore, it has been implied that HSPGs can also act as VEGFR co-receptors to modulate VEGF-A-stimulated signal transduction and endothelial responses [36].

    3. RTK Activation and Signal Transduction

    3.1. Auto-inhibition

    In the resting or basal state, each RTK still displays residual or basal enzymatic kinase activity. The resting RTK complex is postulated to ‘breathe’ or fluctuate between dynamic states; even in the absence of ligand, soluble tyrosine kinases (e.g. c-Src) could phosphorylate the TKD and thus trigger basal signal transduction [4]. To prevent spontaneous trans-autophosphorylation, RTKs contain a number of auto-inhibitory elements, with most TKDs inhibited in a unique way [37]. Phosphorylation sites that promote TKD activation are present within the juxtamembrane domain, activation loop and C-terminal tail of RTKs. The activation loop resides within the active site of the TKD thus sterically hindering access by ATP to the nucleotide-binding pocket. Phosphorylation of the activation loop promotes conformational changes, inducing swinging out of the activation loop which releases auto-inhibition effects as well as stabilizing the activated TKD [37]. In the resting RTK state, the juxtamembrane domain and C-terminal tail both make contacts with the TKD to prevent activation; nonetheless, basal kinase activity may still be present [38].

    3.2. Activation

    Ligand-stimulated RTK dimerization stimulates trans-autophosphorylation of auto-inhibitory elements, promoting a conformational change within the TKD that opens the nucleotide and substrate-binding sites (Figure 3). The cytoplasmic TKD can be divided into an N-lobe and a C-lobe with the active ATP-binding site in the center (Figure 3). RTK activation requires trans-autophosphorylation on specific tyrosine residues: such events can dramatically reduce auto-inhibitory effects and stimulate the active site to hydrolyze ATP and transfer g-phosphate onto the hydroxyl group within the tyrosine side chain. The phosphorylated tyrosine side chains subsequently act as recruitment sites for adaptors and enzymes containing Src homology 2 (SH2) or phosphotyrosine-binding (PTB) domains. INSR was the first RTK exemplifying cis-auto-inhibition, where cytoplasmic Y1162 residue occludes the ATP-binding site within the inactive TKD. INSR activation of the adjacent b subunit promotes dissociation of this inhibitory loop, thus promoting a ‘relaxed state’ with an ‘open’ nucleotide-binding site that can now bind ATP [38]. EGFR/ErbB1 is unique in that it does not require trans-autophosphorylation for dimerization and removal of intramolecular inhibition: the activator C-lobe of one EGFR/ErbB1 monomer physically interacts with a receiver N-lobe on a second EGFR/ErbB1. In this way, a conformational change is implemented, promoting active site opening of the receiver TKD through the activation loop swinging out [9]. RTKs may be activated through varying mechanisms but the activated signal transduction complexes share many common features [39].

    Figure 3. Classical mode of RTK activation. The juxtamembrane, activation loop and the C-terminal tail all play a part in inhibition of the active site. However upon RTK activation and trans-autophosphorylation, the juxtamembrane domain, activation loop and the C-terminal tail are displaced away from the kinase active site, thereby allowing ATP binding and phosphorylation to occur.

    There are additional inhibitory elements present within the juxtamembrane domain. The juxtamembrane sequence protrudes outwards and interacts with the TKD and activation loop, further occluding the binding site for ATP [38]. Upon tyrosine phosphorylation, this loop swings away from the TKD, thus opening access to the kinase active site; juxtamembrane auto-inhibition has been identified in Eph receptors, KIT, MuSK, and Flt3 [40,41,42,43]. Notably, naturally occurring mutations within the juxtamembrane domain have been identified in constitutively active c-KIT and PDGFR gene products associated with certain cancers [44]. Peculiarly, the EGFR/ErbB1 juxtamembrane domain contains activating rather than inhibitory properties. T654 and T669 residues within the EGFR/ErbB1 juxtamembrane domain undergo phosphorylation and are implicated in RTK trafficking [45,46,47]. Mutation of the carboxy-proximal portion of this juxtamembrane region causes loss of TK activity likely due to disruption of the EGFR/ErbB1 unique donor/acceptor lobe conformation. Furthermore, 19 residues within this juxtamembrane domain are postulated to be part of an activation motif that interacts with the C-lobe of the donor TKD; such interactions are necessary to spatially align the activator C-lobe for maximal activity [48]. In this context, certain mutations in EGFR/ErbB1can promote activating stability of juxtamembrane domain interactions, thereby negating inhibitory effects that promote lung cancer development [49].

    Trans-autophosphorylation events appear to occur in a specific order, where the sequence of events specifies marked conformational changes and intermolecular interactions within the RTK complex. In IGF1R, the initial tyrosine phosphorylation event leads to an increased Vmax in TK activity due to destabilization of inhibitory effects. Each tyrosine autophosphorylation event in IGF1R increases enzyme turnover number and reduces the Km for ATP and specific peptide substrate binding [50].

    Within the VEGFR complex, dimerization induces conformational changes which promote the TKD to move into an ‘open state’, which favors catalytic activity. This conformation enables ADP/ATP exchange at the nucleotide-binding site and subsequent transfer of the ATP g-phosphate onto specific cytoplasmic tyrosine side chains e.g. Y801, Y951, Y996, Y1054, Y1059, Y1175, Y1214 [51,52]. Notably, Y801 lies within the VEGFR2 juxtamembrane region, indicating that phosphorylation removes auto-inhibitory effects contributed by this loop to the TKD. The role of VEGF-A isoform diversity in eliciting different cellular responses is highlighted by the finding that binding of anti-angiogenic VEGF-A165b splice isoform to VEGFR2 causes insufficient torsional rotation of the complex, resulting in rapid closure of the nucleotide-binding site and reduced TK activity [53,54]. Similar to the ErbB family, Ret subfamily members do not require trans-autophosphorylation for activation; instead they contain allosteric mechanisms and specific intracellular domains responsible for mediating receptor activation [55,56].

    3.3. RTK Signal Transduction

    A recurring theme in RTK activation and communication into the cell interior is generation of phosphorylated cytoplasmic domain tyrosine residues that serve as communication nodes in the signal transduction process. The binding of proteins containing SH2 or PTB domains is a critical feature in the propagation of signals along different pathways that modulate cellular function [57,58]. A unique example are adaptor molecules such as fibroblast growth factor receptor substrates i.e. FRS family members such as FRS2α and FRS2β, which contain PTB domains that enable binding to different phosphotyrosine residues within FGFR juxtamembrane regions to facilitate signal transduction. In contrast, FGFR1 activation and Y766 phosphorylation within the C-terminal tail enables PLCγ1 recruitment [59].

    In general, proteins and lipids involved in signal propagation are spatially configured to facilitate effective signal transduction. For instance, in the case of PLCγ1, two different SH2 domains enable phosphotyrosine recognition within the RTK complex; the C2 domain facilitates calcium-dependent binding to the phospholipid bilayer. The pleckstrin homology (PH) domains bind to phosphoinositides such as PtdIns(4, 5)P2, which enables the catalytic domain to hydrolyze this membrane-bound lipid to Ins(1, 4, 5)P3 and diacylglycerol (DAG). These latter molecules are small diffusible substances that act as second messengers to further propagate signal transduction and modulate cell function. Therefore, in PLCγ1 recruitment and activation, multivalent and cooperative binding effects must be integrated with spatial orientation of these different binding sites and be preserved for optimal signal transduction [57,60,61,62]. Interaction of SH2 or PTB modules with activated RTKs promotes conformational changes within both the RTK and recruited adaptor/enzyme; moreover, such molecular communications promote specific interactions with other downstream factors in signal transduction pathways [63].

    3.4. The SH2 domain

    Binding specificity of the SH2 domain partially depends on residues at positions +1 and +3 around the central phosphotyrosine in the binding motif [64,65]. PLCγ1 interaction with activated RTK is mediated via two SH2 domains (N-SH2 and C-SH2) [66]. Binding affinity and phosphotyrosine selectivity of the two SH2 domains within PLCγ1 are highly similar when interacting with activated EGFR (Figure 4) [67]. It was discovered that the N-SH2 domain binds to the C-lobe within FGFR1 with relatively high affinity (Kd ~30 nM) independent of tyrosine phosphorylation. PLCγ1 recruitment was compromised when the residues within the FGFR1 C-lobe were mutated [68]. However, it has been suggested that N-SH2 interaction with this novel binding site is responsible for target specificity, whilst the classical SH2:phosphotyrosine interaction is responsible for temporal specificity [68].

    Figure 4. Ligand-activated signal transduction by RTK complexes. Interaction of the cytosolic proteins carrying an SH2 domain enables interaction with phosphorylated tyrosine (pY) residues on RTKs (Y, blue). Notably, interaction of cytosolic factors with different pY epitopes within the activated RTK suggest that differential generation of pY epitopes could lead to different signaling complexes depending on the mechanism of activation. In this way assembly of different RTK complexes (e.g. with different ligands) could lead to different cellular responses that modulate animal physiology.

    3.5. Signal Transduction Complexity

    RTKs can contain 5-12 sites for tyrosine phosphorylation that vary depending on the ligand, RTK and cellular context. Each phosphotyrosine site thus has a potentially unique capability in recruiting signaling proteins containing SH2 or PTB domains. Considering that each signaling adaptor or enzyme is able to interact with multiple downstream factors, there is an exponential increase in the strength and complexity of various signals [4,58]. Such pathways can incorporate positive and negative feedback loops to modulate length and duration of the signal [69]. Systems biology has postulated that several key RTK signal transduction regulators are present centrally in the overall signaling cascade, being part of an “hourglass model”. A few select RTK cytosolic regulators, largely kinases, are responsible for deciphering incoming signals associated with RTK activation, and the interpretation of such signals triggers diverse outputs that shape the cellular response [70]. Central processing influences critical feedback mechanisms in the form of kinase-dependent phosphorylation/dephosphorylation, ubiquitination, trafficking and GTPase communication [71].

    Protein tyrosine phosphatase (PTP) activity controls activated RTK status and signal duration by dephosphorylating activated phosphotyrosines on RTKs [72]. Another example of a feedback mechanism is the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). EGFR/ErbB1 activation can trigger hydrogen peroxide production leading to elevated ROS levels as a byproduct of PtdIns3K recruitment and activation at the plasma membrane. ROS inhibit PTP activity; however, ROS have a short half-life so effects on PTP activity (and thus RTK status) are relatively short-lived [73]. ROS-mediated inhibition of MAPK activity occurs through direct modulation of Sos and Raf activity, thus limiting availability for participation in signal transduction [74].

    3.6. Trafficking

    RTKs undergo co-translational insertion into the endoplasmic reticulum and transport through the Golgi apparatus prior to reaching the plasma membrane. Most RTKs are largely localized to distal compartments (i.e. plasma membrane, endosomes). However, some RTKs such as VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 display significant association with the Golgi apparatus under steady-state conditions [75].

    It is relatively well-known that many RTKs undergo internalization at the plasma membrane: both clathrin-dependent (CDE) and clathrin-independent (CIE) endocytosis pathways have been implicated [76]. It is still unclear how resting or activated RTKs are selected as cargo for inclusion into such routes; this is complicated by the relatively large cytoplasmic domains and motifs (500-1000 residues) present within each RTK. EGFR/ErbB1 [77], FGFR1 [78] and VEGFR2 [79] undergo CDE; however, CIE has been implicated in EGFR/ErbB1 [80] and VEGFR2 [79,81,82] internalization. The RTK-ligand complexes are likely to undergo dissociation within the low pH environment of the endosome lumen [4], thus facilitating growth factor release for subsequent lysosomal degradation. Furthermore, the endosome-associated unoccupied RTK can follow various routes including lysosomal degradation or recycling back to the plasma membrane [83].

    RTK ubiquitination is an important feature of activation, trafficking and down-regulation. The temporal sequence of EGFR/ErbB1 and VEGFR2 ubiquitination suggests that RTK activation recruits ubiquitination enzymes such as the c-Cbl or b-TrcP E3 ligases [81,84,85]. It is unclear as to whether RTK ubiquitination occurs at the plasmamembrane or endosomal stages. Other studies suggest the participation of a complex web of heat-shock proteins (HSPs), 26S proteasome and ubiquitin-linked enzymes in RTK signal transduction, trafficking and proteolysis [86,87,88,89,90].

    Neurotrophin RTKs such as TrkA and TrkB expressed on sensory neurons bind to ligands such as NGF or BDGF and undergo endocytosis and unique signal transduction outcomes. In TrkA, a unique motif within the juxtamembrane domainregulates plasma membrane recycling whereas TrkB complexes are predominantly targeted for proteolysis after activation [91,92,93]. Interestingly, introduction of the TrkA recycling motif into the TrkB juxtamembrane region caused preferential plasma membrane recycling rather than degradation [93]. The Eph subfamily also regulates many key decisions in development of the neural network. Eph interactions with cognate ligands such as membrane-associated ephrins present on target cells regulate bidirectional internalization of the Eph-ephrin complex, thereby modulating cytoskeletal dynamics and cell-cell contacts [94]. Specific ephrin: Eph ectodomain cleavage preceding Rho GTPase activation modulates cell adhesion and migration in neurons [95].

    It has additionally been proposed that EGFR/ErbB1, ErbB4 or proteolytic fragments are present within the nucleus, regulating gene expression and other activities [96,97,98,99]. Nuclear localization of tyrosine kinase receptors was first identified in primary adrenocortical carcinomas and regenerating hepatocytes [100,101]. Members of the EGFR, FGFR, and VEGFR familieslocalize to the nucleus in their phosphorylated forms in a number of cancer cell lines; higher nuclear expression levels of EGFR correlate with a worse patient outcome [102,103,104]. Although EGFR contains no nuclear localization motifs, it is able to interact with a number of cancer-promoting gene products, and has been co-localized in the nucleus in patients undergoing ionizing radiation or cisplatin cancer therapies [103]. Wang et al. proposed a mechanism of retroactive EGFR transport to the nucleus following RTK activation and CDE [105]. Retrograde transport via endocytic vesicles returns EGFR to the Golgi rather than the ER via a COPI-dependent pathway [105]. ErbB family members are postulated to contain an arginine-rich nuclear localization signal within the juxtamembrane region tripartite sequence (residues 645-657), which requires initial interaction with α1 and β1 integrins prior to nuclear import [47]. Nuclear export of EGFR/ErbB1 has been suggested to involve CRM1, involved in facilitating nuclear-cytoplasmic translocation [102].

    4. RTK Role in Disease

    4.1. Tumorigenesis

    A number of distinct mutations in RTK-encoding genes are linked to various types of cancer. These are documented within the list of known cancer-linked alleles in a database called the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) and in Table 1 [106]. Gain-of-function mutations within RTK ectodomains cause increased RTK dimer stabilization, activation and signaling in the absence of ligand [4,107]. Other RTK allelic polymorphisms in the juxtamembrane and kinase domains cause oncogenic transformation by promoting a constitutive signaling state and impairing auto-inhibitory regulation, as seen from studies on gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (Table 1) [108]. RTK gene polymorphisms within exons encoding the ligand-binding, transmembrane, juxtamembrane, TKD, activation loop and C-terminal tail are also linked to haematological and solid tumor malignancies (Table 1) [27].

    Table 1. Genetic mutations in RTKs and disease links.
    GENECOMMON MUTATIONSMAIN TISSUESTYPE OF MUTATION
    ALKR1275QAutonomic ganglia, large intestine, breast Missense substitution
    F1174LAutonomic gangliaMissense substitution
    H1030PUpper aerodigestive tract, thyroidMissense substitution
    CSF1RY969CHaematopoietic & lymphoidMissense substitution
    E705fs*22KidneyDeletion, frameshift
    EGFRL858RLungMissense substitution
    E746_A750LungDeletion, in frame
    T790MLungMissense substitution
    G598V, A289V, R108K, A289TCNSMissense substitution
    L861QLung, skin, oesophagusMissense substitution
    ERBB2/HER2A775_G776insYUMALung, ovary, breastInsertion, in-frame
    L755SBreast, small intestine, stomach, large intestine, endometriumMissense substitution
    S310FUrinary tract, stomach, lung, large intestine, breastMissense substitution
    R678QStomach, large intestine, urinary tract, enodmetrium, pancreasMissense substitution
    V842ILarge intestine, stomach, endometrium, biliary tract, breastMissense substitution
    V777LLarge intestine, stomach, breast, lungMissense substitution
    FGFR1N546KCNS, soft tissue, autonomic gangliaMissense substitution
    K656ECNS, haematopoietic & lymphoid Missense substitution
    T141ALarge intestineMissense substitution
    FGFR2S252WEndometriumMissense substitution
    N549KEndometrium, breast, lungMissense substitution
    C382REndometrium, biliary tract, large intestine, oesophagus, stomachMissense substitution
    Y375CEndometrium, biliary tract, salivary glan, liverMissense substitution
    K659EEndometrium, ovary, CNSMissense substitution
    N549KEndometrium, urinary tract, upper aerodigestive tract, breastMissense substitution
    FGFR3S249C, G370CUrinary tract, skinMissense substitution
    Y373C, R248CUrinary tract, skin, haematopoietic & lymphoidMissense substitution
    FGFR4N495KSoft tissue, large intestineMissense substitution
    FLT3Unknown insertionHaematopoietic & lymphoidInsertion, in frame
    D835Y, D835VHaematopoietic & lymphoidMissense substitution
    KITD816VHaematopoietic & lymphoid, skin, testes, ovaryMissense substitution
    W557_K558delSoft tissueDeletion, in-frame
    V559DSoft tissue, skinMissense substitution
    METY1253DUpper aerodigestive tractMissense substitution
    T1010ILung, thyroid, kidney, large intestine, boneMissense substitution
    M1268TKidney, large intestineMissense substitution
    Y1248CUpper aerodigestive tract, large intestine, kidneyMissense substitution
    NTRK1R649WLiver, ovaryMissense substitution
    A107VLung, large intestine, ovaryMissense substitution
    Q80*Lung, large intestineNonsense substitution
    NTRK3K732TStomach, upper aerodigestive tract, oesophagus, pancreas, large intestineMissense substitution
    PDGFRαD842VSoft tissue, stomach, large intestine, small intestineMissense substitution
    S566_E571>RSoft tissue, stomach, small intestineComplex, deletion in-frame
    V561DSoft tissue, stomachMissense substitution
    PDGFRβR853WPancreas, large intestineMissense substitution
    T369MLarge intestineMissense substitution
    R251HUrinary tract, large intestineMissense substitution
    Y589HStomachMissense substitution
    S650LCNSMissense substitution
    RETM918TThyroid, adrenal gland, breastMissense substitution
    C634R, C634YThyroidMissense substitution
    E632_T636>SSThyroidComplex, deletion in-frame
    ROSE1642K, P1108SSkinMissense substitution
    R245IEndometriumMissense substitution
    E527KSkin, large intestineMissense substitution
    VEGFR2/KDRQ472HLarge intestine, haematopoietic & lymphoid, stomachMissense substitution
    R1032QSkin, large intestineMissense substitution
    R1032*Haematopoietic & lymphoid, large intestine, prostate, CNS Nonsense substitution
    Compilation of disease mutations in different RTKs and linkage to human disease phenotypes. Many of these details were obtained from the COSMIC database (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic).
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Pathological angiogenesis is a hallmark of cancer, and as like all tissues, tumors require a healthy blood supply for providing nutrients and oxygen, as well as allowing the removal of metabolic wastes and carbon dioxide [109]. In order for a solid tumor to grow beyond 1-2 mm in diameter, it must recruit surrounding vasculature via stimulation of angigoenesis [110]. One way in which tumors promote angiogenesis is by increasing VEGF-A expression through hypoxia-induced HIF-1-dependent VEGFA gene transcription. Dysfunctional VEGFR2-VEGF-A signaling is linked to multiple disease pathologies such as tumor development and metatasis, atherosclerosis, ischemia, diabetes and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Increased VEGFR2 and VEGF-A expression is implicated in multiple cancers including bladder, brain, breast, colon, gastric, lung, and prostate [111]. Interestingly, autocrine VEGF-A-stimulated signal trasduction has also been attributed to tumor progression [112,113]. Autocrine VEGF-A signaling via PtdIns3K-Akt and MEK1-ERK1/2 signal transduction pathways in tumors is implicated in promoting cell growth, migration, survival and invasion [111].

    Hypoxic tumor cells primarily rely on glucose as a carbon source for rapidly generating ATP [114]. Oxygenated tumor cells can also use glucose (aerobic glycolysis), a phenomenon called the Warburg effect [115]. Both metabolic processes generate lactate as a byproduct. High levels of lactate can stimulate angiogenesis by promotingligand-independent activation of VEGFR2 and the PtdIns3K-Akt pathway [114]. This effect is dependent on three different RTKs working in concert: VEGFR2, Axl and Tie2 [114]. Moreover, lactate enters endothelial cells via the MCT1 transporter and inhibits the oxygen-sensing prolyl hydoxylase 2 enzyme (PHD2), thus stabilizing hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α); increased VEGFA gene transcription thereby further stimulates angiogenesis[116,117]. Under conditions of wound healing and tissue ischemia, a combination of reduced vascular perfusion and increased oxygen consumption leads to hypoxia [114,118,119]. This causes a metabolic switch favouring glycolysis and increased lactate production [114,119]. Elevated lactate levels stimulate angiogenesis as a means of promoting blood vessel growth to combat tissue ischemia and injury by previously described mechanisms.

    ErbB polymorphisms show a strong correlation with the incidence of malignant tumors (Table 1) [120]. Overexpression of the ErbB receptor family within neoplastic tissues is associated with poor patient prognosis [121,122]. Overexpression of EGFR/ErbB1 ligands such as EGF and TNFα within neoplastic tissues increases autocrine signal transduction and cell proliferation [123]. EGFR/ErbB1 signal transduction is characterized by positive feedback loops which have been the focus of monoclonal antibody therapy for such cancers [124]. EGFR polymorphisms within exons 18-24 that encode the TKD are associated with increased TK activity and signal transduction (Table 1) [125]. Interestingly, Sharma et al. point out the controversy surrounding the predictive value of EGFR mutations in non-selected patient groups where 10-20% of patients who show a partial response to the small molecule EGFR inhibitor gefitinib do not have an identifiable EGFR/ErbB1 mutation [126]. Thus EGFR/ErbB1 polymorphisms may not be solely responsible for the inhibitory effect caused by RTK-specific drugs [126,127,128].

    4.2. Atherosclerosis and Diabetes

    Hypercholesterolemia is associated with atherosclerosis, as well as being an underlying condition in ischemic vascular disease [129]. During periods of hypercholesterolemia, both vascular function and de novo blood vessel formation is impaired [129,130,131]. One reason is that increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels attenuate VEGF-A-stimulated signal transduction [129]. Endothelial cell exposure to LDL depletes VEGFR2 from the cell surface by promoting VEGFR2 turnover via a syntaxin-16-dependent mechanism [129]. Reduced VEGFR2 levels are responsible for the decrease in VEGF-A-stimulated Akt and ERK1/2 signal transduction, which impairs endothelial cell proliferation, migration and tubulogenesis [129].

    Diabetes patients suffer from multiple vascular problems and poor wound healing due to endothelial dysfunction [132]. Chronic diabetes creates a paradox whereby both accelerated and poor angiogenesis states exist in the same tissue [133,134]. Diabetes-linked hyperglycaemia can cause activation of protein kinase C-dependent pathways and other factors that stimulate ROS production [132]. Elevated ROS levels lead to ligand-independent VEGFR2 activation, depletion of plasma membrane levels and reduced VEGF-A-stimulated signal transduction [135].

    4.3. Other disease states

    Members of the FGFR family are strongly linked to boneabnormalities and developmental disorders. FGFR1-deficient mice display embryonic lethality with defects in mesoderm differentiation [136,137]. Furthermore, gain-of-function FGFR1 polymorphisms have been identified in osteoglophonic dysplasia, where such patients exhibit short-limbed dwarfism (Table 1); FGFR3 transmembrane mutations can induce achondroplasia (Table 1) [138,139]. The P252R polymorphism in FGFR1 causes Pfeiffer syndrome, characterized by premature fusion of certain bones of the skull. FGFR1-deficient adult mice show increased bone mass suggesting an important role in regulating bone density during development [140]. FGFR1 may regulate the differentiation of mesenchymal progenitors into pre-osteoblasts. However, FGFR1 simultaneously inhibits mesenchymal progenitor cell proliferation in addition to regulating osteoblast maturation and mineralization [140,141].

    5. Small Molecule-based Targeting of RTK Function

    Small molecule inhibitors are widely used therapeutics that can target RTK functionality in disease states such as cancer. A major advantage of this approach is unique intellectual property and patentability, lower industrial production costs and decreased potential immunogenicity. In most cases, RTK small molecule inhibitors are membrane-permeable organic molecules that diffuse across the membrane bilayer and target the TKD nucleotide-binding site, either through allosteric or competitive modes of inhibitory action. However, accumulating evidence from different tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in complex with different TKDs suggest structural similarities, implying decreased drug specificity and significant multi-kinase inhibition [142]. An example of select small molecule inhibitors can be seen in Figure 5. In addition to small molecule inhibitors, inhibition therapy utilizing monoclonal antibodies is of equal importance, and has proven to be highly effective. However, their use and mechanism of action is beyond the scope of this review, and has been adequately summarized in the following articles [143,144].

    Figure 5. Small molecule RTK inhibitors. Chemical compound structures and binding site interactions are shown for the equivalent regions within the EGFR and VEGFR2 tyrosine kinase domains . (A) Erlotinib and its binding mode within the active site of EGFR (PDB: 1M17). (B) The active site of VEGFR2 (PDB: 3CJG) shown docked to JKP3 using in silico modeling. (C) Sunitinib and its binding mode to VEGFR2 (PDB: 4AGD). Yellow dotted lines represent hydrogen bonds. Superimposing the crystal structures of the EGFR and VEGFR2 tyrosine kinase domains indicates that EGFR-M769 and VEGFR2-C919 are in equivalent positions.

    5.1. VEGFR Inhibitors

    VEGF-A is essential for human vascular homeostasis, growth and development [145]. However, VEGF-A-regulated angiogenesis is associated with diseases characterized by abnormal neovascularization including cancer, proliferativeretinopathy and age-related macular degeneration [145,146]. To combat these diseases, anti-VEGF-A humanized antibodies and small molecule TKIs have been developed as drugs for both local and systemic application. Therapeutics which inhibit angiogenesis by targeting VEGF-A (e.g. bevacizumab) have assisted in the treatment of several tumors [147]. Small molecule TKIs are increasingly produced through in silico modeling of drug design in conjecture with the binding site. One such example is the identification of a novel pyrazole-based scaffold produced through de novo structure-guided design (JK-P3; Figure 5B) for inhibition of VEGF-A-stimulated cell migration, proliferation, and angiogenesis [148]. The anti-cancer drug sunitinib (Sutent) is a member of the indolinone family of compounds and has been clinically approved for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and gastrointestinal tumors (GIST) [147]. A major drawback is lack of specificity due to a multi-kinase inhibitory profile, which additionally targets other RTKs including c-KIT, PDGFR, Flt-3, and RET [149]. A further worry is that meta-analyses on clinical trials of sunitinib and bevacizumab have correlated with increased risk of congestive heart failure [150].

    Other successful VEGF-related therapies which provide greatest improvement in progression-free survival in cancer patients include sorafenib [151]. Sorafenib is used to treat hepatocellular carcinoma and advanced RCC. Many small molecules designed to inhibit VEGFR2, such as sunitinib and sorafenib, are non-specific and inhibit other RTKs including PDGFR and c-KIT [152,153]. Dual FGFR-VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors under development include Vargatef and brivanib [154]. Although providing short-term benefits, activity of such drugs is limited by the appearance of compensatory pathways or resistance mechanisms in tumors within 6-24 months [153,155]. Thus targeting RTKs in a selective manner is important for a cancer-free state [153,155].

    Despite the relatively large number of TKIs that target VEGFR2 activity, certain structural features are conserved. Residues E917 and C919 within the VEGFR2 TKD are important for inhibitor binding through hydrogen donor and acceptor bonds (Figure 5B and 5C) [156,157,158]. Other residues involved in inhibitor binding to VEGFR2 include E883, K868 and N923 for pyrimidine analogues and D1046 for anilinophthalazines [156,157,158]. An Asp-Phe-Gly (DFG) motif in the kinase domain activation loop is also involved in the binding of multiple inhibitors [158,159]. Interestingly, pyrazole-based scaffold JK-P3 (Figure 5B) exhibits greater inhibition of VEGFR2 then FGFR1, a characteristic only observed for more selective VEGFR inhibitors such as anilinophthalazine PTK787 [158]. Notably, JK-P3 inhibits VEGF-A-dependent VEGFR2 activation and downstream signal transduction, but does not inhibit signaling in response to other ligands such as EGF, bFGF and IGF-1 [160]. Emerging TKIs that selectively inhibit VEGFR2 activity and signal transduction include ramucirumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the extracellular domain and apatinib, a small molecule inhibitor that binds the TKD [147].

    5.2. ErbB Inhibitors

    EGFR/ErbB1 is the most prominent signal transducer of the ErbB family, however ErbB2 has been found to have influential roles in disease states. Overexpression of ErbB2 (HER2) is correlated with dysregulated EGFR/ErbB1 signaling; ErbB2 overexpression has been observed in a number of breast cancers [161]. A small molecule kinase inhibitor termed lapatinib has been approved by the FDA for preventing ErbB2 activation. However, accounts have risen stating unprecedented developed resistance to lapatinib through alteration of apoptotic pathways [162,163].

    Furthermore, EGFRs contain a critical role in non-small lung cell carcinomas (NSCLCs), the malady representing the leading cause of cancer-related deaths [164]. EGFRs are present in 90% of squamous cell NSCLCs, and in 30-65% of adenocarcinoma subtypes of NSCLCs [165,166]. Two drugs, gefitinib and erlotinib (Figure 5A), were developed as reversible competitive inhibitors of the EGFR/ErbB1 TKD, exhibiting structural similarity to ATP (mimetic) and approved by the FDA in 2003 for clinical use [167].

    Due to controversy, studies had to be carried out on the actual effectiveness of gefitinib and erlotinib. Clinical randomized trials testing benefit of EGFR/ErbB1 small molecule inhibitors in tandem with first line platinum-based chemotherapy and placebos yielded negative results. As such, there was no general correlation detected of patients having a positive response between groups with and without gefitinib and erlotinib [168,169,170,171]. However, a small subgroup of patients benefited from the use of specific TKI therapy; 90% of their cancerousmutations were identified to contain either a small, in-frame deletion in exon 19 around the catalytic site of EGFR or a point mutation such as L858R in the RTK activation loop [172]. As a result of these mutations, there is a higher presence of anti-apoptotic intracellular signaling via Akt within cells [164]. Future therapeutics should therefore screen for unique mutations within patients to identify the specific drug to administer as part of a personalized medicine approach.

    6. Conclusion

    RTKs represent a set of gene products that play critical roles in cell function relating to animal health and disease. Moreover, RTK polymorphisms can cause major maladies due to altered signal transduction. There is a need to decipher the mechanisms that different RTKs employ upon activation to transfer information to multiple cellular circuits. Emerging novel mechanisms of RTK regulation (e.g. nuclear translocation, proteolysis and drug resistance) only serve to further highlight the need for future studies in this area. Genetic, structural, and biochemical analyses have been so far invaluable for the elucidation of the structure and temporal, dynamic action of RTKs. However, the development and utilization of new technologies and research tools could reveal further complexity in RTK-mediated signal transduction. Notable new areas of effort include incorporation of mathematical predictions of intracellular and autocrine signaling networks, and statistical responses to RTK therapeutics over a wide and diverse cohort of patients. Such approaches will help in not only allowing us to better understand this fascinating area of biology but apply such knowledge for derivation of new pharmaceuticals to treat a myriad of ailments.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was supported by Heart Research UK PhD award TRP11/11 (G.W.F.) and British Heart Foundation PhD studentship FS/12/20/29462 (G.A.S.).

    Conflict of Interest

    Authors state no conflicts of interest.

    [1] Cohen S (1965) The stimulation of epidermal proliferation by a specific protein (EGF). Dev Biol 12: 394–407. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(65)90005-9
    [2] Cohen S, Carpenter G, Lembach KJ (1975) Interaction of epidermal growth factor (EGF) with cultured fibroblasts. Adv Metab Disord 8: 265–284. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-027308-9.50024-X
    [3] Carpenter G, King L Jr., Cohen S (1978) Epidermal growth factor stimulates phosphorylation in membrane preparations in vitro. Nature 276: 409–410. doi: 10.1038/276409a0
    [4] Lemmon MA, Schlessinger J (2010) Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell 141: 1117–1134. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.011
    [5] Lemmon MA, Schlessinger J, Ferguson KM (2014) The EGFR family: not so prototypical receptor tyrosine kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 6: a020768. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a020768
    [6] Kovacs E, Zorn JA, Huang Y, et al. (2015) A Structural Perspective on the Regulation of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor. Annu Rev Biochem. E-pub ahead of print.
    [7] Ullrich A, Schlessinger J (1990) Signal transduction by receptors with tyrosine kinase activity. Cell 61: 203–212. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90801-K
    [8] Moriki T, Maruyama H, Maruyama IN (2001) Activation of preformed EGF receptor dimers by ligand-induced rotation of the transmembrane domain. J Mol Biol 311: 1011–1026. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2001.4923
    [9] Burgess AW, Cho HS, Eigenbrot C, et al. (2003) An open-and-shut case? Recent insights into the activation of EGF/ErbB receptors. Mol Cell 12: 541–552.
    [10] Yokoyama N, Miller WT (2003) Biochemical properties of the Cdc42-associated tyrosine kinase ACK1. Substrate specificity, authphosphorylation, and interaction with Hck. J Biol Chem 278: 47713–47723.
    [11] Burgess AW (2008) EGFR family: structure physiology signalling and therapeutic targets. Growth Factors 26: 263–274. doi: 10.1080/08977190802312844
    [12] Yarden Y, Sliwkowski MX (2001) Untangling the ErbB signalling network. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2: 127–137. doi: 10.1038/35052073
    [13] Jura N, Shan Y, Cao X, et al. (2009) Structural analysis of the catalytically inactive kinase domain of the human EGF receptor 3. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 21608–21613. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912101106
    [14] Endres NF, Engel K, Das R, et al. (2011) Regulation of the catalytic activity of the EGF receptor. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21: 777–784. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2011.07.007
    [15] Li S, Schmitz KR, Jeffrey PD, et al. (2005) Structural basis for inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor by cetuximab. Cancer Cell 7: 301–311. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2005.03.003
    [16] Vecchi M, Carpenter G (1997) Constitutive proteolysis of the ErbB-4 receptor tyrosine kinase by a unique, sequential mechanism. J Cell Biol 139: 995–1003. doi: 10.1083/jcb.139.4.995
    [17] Codony-Servat J, Albanell J, Lopez-Talavera JC, et al. (1999) Cleavage of the HER2 ectodomain is a pervanadate-activable process that is inhibited by the tissue inhibitor of metalloproteases-1 in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 59: 1196–1201.
    [18] Ullrich A, Coussens L, Hayflick JS, et al. (1984) Human epidermal growth factor receptor cDNA sequence and aberrant expression of the amplified gene in A431 epidermoid carcinoma cells. Nature 309: 418–425. doi: 10.1038/309418a0
    [19] Gamou S, Shimizu N (1988) Glycosylation of the epidermal growth factor receptor and its relationship to membrane transport and ligand binding. J Biochem 104: 388–396.
    [20] Terman BI, Carrion ME, Kovacs E, et al. (1991) Identification of a new endothelial cell growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase. Oncogene 6: 1677–1683.
    [21] Holmes K, Roberts OL, Thomas AM, et al. (2007) Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2: structure, function, intracellular signalling and therapeutic inhibition. Cellular Signalling 19: 2003–2012. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2007.05.013
    [22] Waltenberger J, Claesson-Welsh L, Siegbahn A, et al. (1994) Different signal transduction properties of KDR and Flt1, 2 receptors for vascular endothelial growth factor. J Biol Chem 269: 26988–26995.
    [23] Koch S, Claesson-Welsh L (2012) Signal transduction by vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2: a006502.
    [24] Takahashi T, Shibuya M (1997) The 230 kDa mature form of KDR/Flk-1 (VEGF receptor-2) activates the PLC-gamma pathway and partially induces mitotic signals in NIH3T3 fibroblasts. Oncogene 14: 2079–2089. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1201047
    [25] Shinkai A, Ito M, Anazawa H, et al. (1998) Mapping of the sites involved in ligand association and dissociation at the extracellular domain of the kinase insert domain-containing receptor for vascular endothelial growth factor. J Biol Chem 273: 31283–31288. doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.47.31283
    [26] Ruch C, Skiniotis G, Steinmetz MO, et al. (2007) Structure of a VEGF-VEGF receptor complex determined by electron microscopy. Nat Struct Mol Biol 14: 249–250. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1202
    [27] Toffalini F, Demoulin JB (2010) New insights into the mechanisms of hematopoietic cell transformation by activated receptor tyrosine kinases. Blood 116: 2429–2437. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-04-279752
    [28] Yang Y, Yuzawa S, Schlessinger J (2008) Contacts between membrane proximal regions of the PDGF receptor ectodomain are required for receptor activation but not for receptor dimerization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 7681–7686. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802896105
    [29] De Meyts P, Whittaker J (2002) Structural biology of insulin and IGF1 receptors: implications for drug design. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1: 769–783. doi: 10.1038/nrd917
    [30] Heldin CH, Ostman A (1996) Ligand-induced dimerization of growth factor receptors: variations on the theme. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 7: 3–10. doi: 10.1016/1359-6101(96)00002-0
    [31] Ward CW, Lawrence MC (2009) Ligand-induced activation of the insulin receptor: a multi-step process involving structural changes in both the ligand and the receptor. Bioessays 31: 422–434. doi: 10.1002/bies.200800210
    [32] Soos MA, Field CE, Siddle K (1993) Purified hybrid insulin/insulin-like growth factor-I receptors bind insulin-like growth factor-I, but not insulin, with high affinity. Biochem J 290 ( Pt 2): 419–426.
    [33] Xu H, Abe T, Liu JK, et al. (2014) Normal activation of discoidin domain receptor 1 mutants with disulfide cross-links, insertions, or deletions in the extracellular juxtamembrane region: mechanistic implications. J Biol Chem 289: 13565–13574. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.536144
    [34] Mason I (2007) Initiation to end point: the multiple roles of fibroblast growth factors in neural development. Nat Rev Neurosci 8: 583–596. doi: 10.1038/nrn2189
    [35] Mohammadi M, Olsen SK, Ibrahimi OA (2005) Structural basis for fibroblast growth factor receptor activation. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 16: 107–137. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2005.01.008
    [36] Grunewald FS, Prota AE, Giese A, et al. (2010) Structure-function analysis of VEGF receptor activation and the role of coreceptors in angiogenic signaling. Biochim Biophys Acta 1804: 567–580. doi: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2009.09.002
    [37] Nolen B, Taylor S, Ghosh G (2004) Regulation of protein kinases; controlling activity through activation segment conformation. Mol Cell 15: 661–675. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2004.08.024
    [38] Hubbard SR (2004) Juxtamembrane autoinhibition in receptor tyrosine kinases. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 5: 464–471. doi: 10.1038/nrm1399
    [39] Huse M, Kuriyan J (2002) The conformational plasticity of protein kinases. Cell 109: 275–282. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00741-9
    [40] Wybenga-Groot LE, Baskin B, Ong SH, et al. (2001) Structural basis for autoinhibition of the Ephb2 receptor tyrosine kinase by the unphosphorylated juxtamembrane region. Cell 106: 745–757. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00496-2
    [41] Mol CD, Dougan DR, Schneider TR, et al. (2004) Structural basis for the autoinhibition and STI-571 inhibition of c-Kit tyrosine kinase. J Biol Chem 279: 31655–31663. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M403319200
    [42] Till JH, Becerra M, Watty A, et al. (2002) Crystal structure of the MuSK tyrosine kinase: insights into receptor autoregulation. Structure 10: 1187–1196. doi: 10.1016/S0969-2126(02)00814-6
    [43] Griffith J, Black J, Faerman C, et al. (2004) The structural basis for autoinhibition of FLT3 by the juxtamembrane domain. Mol Cell 13: 169–178. doi: 10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00505-7
    [44] Dibb NJ, Dilworth SM, Mol CD (2004) Switching on kinases: oncogenic activation of BRAF and the PDGFR family. Nat Rev Cancer 4: 718–727. doi: 10.1038/nrc1434
    [45] Heisermann GJ, Wiley HS, Walsh BJ, et al. (1990) Mutational removal of the Thr669 and Ser671 phosphorylation sites alters substrate specificity and ligand-induced internalization of the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Biol Chem 265: 12820–12827.
    [46] Welsh JB, Gill GN, Rosenfeld MG, et al. (1991) A negative feedback loop attenuates EGF-induced morphological changes. J Cell Biol 114: 533–543. doi: 10.1083/jcb.114.3.533
    [47] Hsu SC, Hung MC (2007) Characterization of a novel tripartite nuclear localization sequence in the EGFR family. J Biol Chem 282: 10432–10440. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M610014200
    [48] Red Brewer M, Choi SH, Alvarado D, et al. (2009) The juxtamembrane region of the EGF receptor functions as an activation domain. Mol Cell 34: 641–651. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.04.034
    [49] Jura N, Endres NF, Engel K, et al. (2009) Mechanism for activation of the EGF receptor catalytic domain by the juxtamembrane segment. Cell 137: 1293–1307. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.025
    [50] Favelyukis S, Till JH, Hubbard SR, et al. (2001) Structure and autoregulation of the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor kinase. Nat Struct Biol 8: 1058–1063. doi: 10.1038/nsb721
    [51] Koch S, Tugues S, Li X, et al. (2011) Signal transduction by vascular endothelial growth factor receptors. Biochem J 437: 169–183. doi: 10.1042/BJ20110301
    [52] Roskoski R Jr (2007) Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling in tumor progression. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 62: 179–213. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2007.01.006
    [53] Kawamura H, Li X, Harper SJ, et al. (2008) Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A165b is a weak in vitro agonist for VEGF receptor-2 due to lack of coreceptor binding and deficient regulation of kinase activity. Cancer Res 68: 4683–4692. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6577
    [54] Harper SJ, Bates DO (2008) VEGF-A splicing: the key to anti-angiogenic therapeutics? Nature Rev Cancer 8: 880–887. doi: 10.1038/nrc2505
    [55] Zhang X, Gureasko J, Shen K, et al. (2006) An allosteric mechanism for activation of the kinase domain of epidermal growth factor receptor. Cell 125: 1137–1149. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.05.013
    [56] Knowles PP, Murray-Rust J, Kjaer S, et al. (2006) Structure and chemical inhibition of the RET tyrosine kinase domain. J Biol Chem 281: 33577–33587. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M605604200
    [57] Pawson T (2004) Specificity in signal transduction: from phosphotyrosine-SH2 domain interactions to complex cellular systems. Cell 116: 191–203. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)01077-8
    [58] Schlessinger J, Lemmon MA (2003) SH2 and PTB domains in tyrosine kinase signaling. Sci STKE 2003: RE12.
    [59] Eswarakumar VP, Lax I, Schlessinger J (2005) Cellular signaling by fibroblast growth factor receptors. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 16: 139–149. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2005.01.001
    [60] Seet BT, Dikic I, Zhou MM, et al. (2006) Reading protein modifications with interaction domains. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 473–483. doi: 10.1038/nrm1960
    [61] Ladbury JE, Arold S (2000) Searching for specificity in SH domains. Chem Biol 7: R3–8. doi: 10.1016/S1074-5521(00)00067-3
    [62] Eck MJ, Pluskey S, Trub T, et al. (1996) Spatial constraints on the recognition of phosphoproteins by the tandem SH2 domains of the phosphatase SH-PTP2. Nature 379: 277–280. doi: 10.1038/379277a0
    [63] Pawson T (2007) Dynamic control of signaling by modular adaptor proteins. Curr Opin Cell Biol 19: 112–116. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2007.02.013
    [64] Songyang Z, Shoelson SE, Chaudhuri M, et al. (1993) SH2 domains recognize specific phosphopeptide sequences. Cell 72: 767–778. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90404-E
    [65] Waksman G, Shoelson SE, Pant N, et al. (1993) Binding of a high affinity phosphotyrosyl peptide to the Src SH2 domain: crystal structures of the complexed and peptide-free forms. Cell 72: 779–790. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90405-F
    [66] Rhee SG (2001) Regulation of phosphoinositide-specific phospholipase C. Annu Rev Biochem 70: 281–312. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.70.1.281
    [67] Chattopadhyay A, Vecchi M, Ji Q, et al. (1999) The role of individual SH2 domains in mediating association of phospholipase C-gamma1 with the activated EGF receptor. J Biol Chem 274: 26091–26097. doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.37.26091
    [68] Bae JH, Lew ED, Yuzawa S, et al. (2009) The selectivity of receptor tyrosine kinase signaling is controlled by a secondary SH2 domain binding site. Cell 138: 514–524. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.05.028
    [69] Marshall CJ (1995) Specificity of receptor tyrosine kinase signaling: transient versus sustained extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation. Cell 80: 179–185. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(95)90401-8
    [70] Kitano H (2004) Biological robustness. Nat Rev Genet 5: 826–837. doi: 10.1038/nrg1471
    [71] Kholodenko BN (2006) Cell-signalling dynamics in time and space. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 165–176. doi: 10.1038/nrm1838
    [72]   Ostman A, Bohmer FD (2001) Regulation of receptor tyrosine kinase signaling by protein tyrosine phosphatases. Trends Cell Biol 11: 258–266. doi: 10.1016/S0962-8924(01)01990-0
    [73] Bae YS, Kang SW, Seo MS, et al. (1997) Epidermal growth factor (EGF)-induced generation of hydrogen peroxide. Role in EGF receptor-mediated tyrosine phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 272: 217–221.
    [74] Buday L, Warne PH, Downward J (1995) Downregulation of the Ras activation pathway by MAP kinase phosphorylation of Sos. Oncogene 11: 1327–1331.
    [75] Mittar S, Ulyatt C, Howell GJ, et al. (2009) VEGFR1 receptor tyrosine kinase localization to the Golgi apparatus is calcium-dependent. Exp Cell Res 315: 877–889. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.12.020
    [76] Goh LK, Sorkin A (2013) Endocytosis of receptor tyrosine kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5: a017459.
    [77] Sorkin A, Goh LK (2009) Endocytosis and intracellular trafficking of ErbBs. Exp Cell Res 315: 683–696. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.07.029
    [78] Auciello G, Cunningham DL, Tatar T, et al. (2013) Regulation of fibroblast growth factor receptor signalling and trafficking by Src and Eps8. J Cell Sci 126: 613–624. doi: 10.1242/jcs.116228
    [79] Ewan LC, Jopling HM, Jia H, et al. (2006) Intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity is required for vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 ubiquitination, sorting and degradation in endothelial cells. Traffic 7: 1270–1282. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2006.00462.x
    [80] Sigismund S, Woelk T, Puri C, et al. (2005) Clathrin-independent endocytosis of ubiquitinated cargos. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 2760–2765. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0409817102
    [81] Bruns AF, Herbert SP, Odell AF, et al. (2010) Ligand-stimulated VEGFR2 signaling is regulated by co-ordinated trafficking and proteolysis. Traffic 11: 161–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2009.01001.x
    [82] Henriksen L, Grandal MV, Knudsen SL, et al. (2013) Internalization mechanisms of the epidermal growth factor receptor after activation with different ligands. PLoS One 8: e58148. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058148
    [83] Miaczynska M (2013) Effects of membrane trafficking on signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 5: a009035. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a009035
    [84] de Melker AA, van der Horst G, Calafat J, et al. (2001) c-Cbl ubiquitinates the EGF receptor at the plasma membrane and remains receptor associated throughout the endocytic route. J Cell Sci 114: 2167–2178.
    [85] Duval M, Bedard-Goulet S, Delisle C, et al. (2003) Vascular endothelial growth factor-dependent down-regulation of Flk-1/KDR involves Cbl-mediated ubiquitination. Consequences on nitric oxide production from endothelial cells. J Biol Chem 278: 20091–20097.
    [86] Citri A, Alroy I, Lavi S, et al. (2002) Drug-induced ubiquitylation and degradation of ErbB receptor tyrosine kinases: implications for cancer therapy. EMBO J 21: 2407–2417. doi: 10.1093/emboj/21.10.2407
    [87] Xu Q (2002) Role of heat shock proteins in atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 22: 1547–1559. doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000029720.59649.50
    [88] Ehrlich ES, Wang T, Luo K, et al. (2009) Regulation of Hsp90 client proteins by a Cullin5-RING E3 ubiquitin ligase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 20330–20335. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810571106
    [89] Bruns AF, Yuldasheva N, Latham AM, et al. (2012) A heat-shock protein axis regulates VEGFR2 proteolysis, blood vessel development and repair. PLoS One 7: e48539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048539
    [90] Samant RS, Clarke PA, Workman P (2014) E3 ubiquitin ligase Cullin-5 modulates multiple molecular and cellular responses to heat shock protein 90 inhibition in human cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111: 6834–6839. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322412111
    [91] Ascano M, Richmond A, Borden P, et al. (2009) Axonal targeting of Trk receptors via transcytosis regulates sensitivity to neurotrophin responses. J Neurosci 29: 11674–11685. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1542-09.2009
    [92] Lazo OM, Gonzalez A, Ascano M, et al. (2013) BDNF regulates Rab11-mediated recycling endosome dynamics to induce dendritic branching. J Neurosci 33: 6112–6122. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4630-12.2013
    [93] Chen ZY, Ieraci A, Tanowitz M, et al. (2005) A novel endocytic recycling signal distinguishes biological responses of Trk neurotrophin receptors. Mol Biol Cell 16: 5761–5772. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E05-07-0651
    [94] Sadowski L, Pilecka I, Miaczynska M (2009) Signaling from endosomes: location makes a difference. Exp Cell Res 315: 1601–1609. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2008.09.021
    [95] Egea J, Klein R (2007) Bidirectional Eph-ephrin signaling during axon guidance. Trends Cell Biol 17: 230–238. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2007.03.004
    [96] Williams CC, Allison JG, Vidal GA, et al. (2004) The ERBB4/HER4 receptor tyrosine kinase regulates gene expression by functioning as a STAT5A nuclear chaperone. J Cell Biol 167: 469–478. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200403155
    [97] Tseng HC, Lyu PC, Lin WC (2010) Nuclear localization of orphan receptor protein kinase (Ror1) is mediated through the juxtamembrane domain. BMC Cell Biol 11: 48. doi: 10.1186/1471-2121-11-48
    [98] Wang YN, Hung MC (2012) Nuclear functions and subcellular trafficking mechanisms of the epidermal growth factor receptor family. Cell Biosci 2: 13. doi: 10.1186/2045-3701-2-13
    [99] Schlessinger J, Lemmon MA (2006) Nuclear signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases: the first robin of spring. Cell 127: 45–48. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.013
    [100] Kamio T, Shigematsu K, Sou H, et al. (1990) Immunohistochemical expression of epidermal growth factor receptors in human adrenocortical carcinoma. Hum Pathol 21: 277–282. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(90)90227-V
    [101] Marti U, Burwen SJ, Wells A, et al. (1991) Localization of epidermal growth factor receptor in hepatocyte nuclei. Hepatology 13: 15–20. doi: 10.1002/hep.1840130104
    [102] Lo HW, Ali-Seyed M, Wu Y, et al. (2006) Nuclear-cytoplasmic transport of EGFR involves receptor endocytosis, importin beta1 and CRM1. J Cell Biochem 98: 1570–1583. doi: 10.1002/jcb.20876
    [103] Brand TM, Iida M, Li C, et al. (2011) The nuclear epidermal growth factor receptor signaling network and its role in cancer. Discov Med 12: 419–432.
    [104] Domingues I, Rino J, Demmers JA, et al. (2011) VEGFR2 translocates to the nucleus to regulate its own transcription. PLoS One 6: e25668. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025668
    [105] Wang YN, Wang H, Yamaguchi H, et al. (2010) COPI-mediated retrograde trafficking from the Golgi to the ER regulates EGFR nuclear transport. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 399: 498–504. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.07.096
    [106] Forbes SA, Tang G, Bindal N, et al. (2010) COSMIC (the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer): a resource to investigate acquired mutations in human cancer. Nucleic Acids Res 38: D652–657. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp995
    [107] Yuzawa S, Opatowsky Y, Zhang Z, et al. (2007) Structural basis for activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase KIT by stem cell factor. Cell 130: 323–334. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.055
    [108] Corless CL, Heinrich MC (2008) Molecular pathobiology of gastrointestinal stromal sarcomas. Annu Rev Pathol 3: 557–586. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pathmechdis.3.121806.151538
    [109] Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144: 646–674. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
    [110] Folkman J (1971) Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med 285: 1182–1186. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197111182852108
    [111] Goel HL, Mercurio AM (2013) VEGF targets the tumour cell. Nat Rev Cancer 13: 871–882. doi: 10.1038/nrc3627
    [112] Lichtenberger BM, Tan PK, Niederleithner H, et al. (2010) Autocrine VEGF signaling synergizes with EGFR in tumor cells to promote epithelial cancer development. Cell 140: 268–279. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.12.046
    [113] Schoeffner DJ, Matheny SL, Akahane T, et al. (2005) VEGF contributes to mammary tumor growth in transgenic mice through paracrine and autocrine mechanisms. Lab Invest 85: 608–623. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700258
    [114] Ruan GX, Kazlauskas A (2013) Lactate engages receptor tyrosine kinases Axl, Tie2, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 to activate phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt and promote angiogenesis. J Biol Chem 288: 21161–21172. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.474619
    [115] Warburg O, Wind F, Negelein E (1927) The Metabolism of Tumors in the Body. J Gen Physiol 8: 519–530.
    [116] Sonveaux P, Copetti T, De Saedeleer CJ, et al. (2012) Targeting the lactate transporter MCT1 in endothelial cells inhibits lactate-induced HIF-1 activation and tumor angiogenesis. Plos One 7: e33418. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033418
    [117] De Saedeleer CJ, Copetti T, Porporato PE, et al. (2012) Lactate activates HIF-1 in oxidative but not in Warburg-phenotype human tumor cells. Plos One 7: e46571. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046571
    [118] Trabold O, Wagner S, Wicke C, et al. (2003) Lactate and oxygen constitute a fundamental regulatory mechanism in wound healing. Wound Repair Regen 11: 504–509. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-475X.2003.11621.x
    [119] Porporato PE, Payen VL, De Saedeleer CJ, et al. (2012) Lactate stimulates angiogenesis and accelerates the healing of superficial and ischemic wounds in mice. Angiogenesis 15: 581–592. doi: 10.1007/s10456-012-9282-0
    [120] Hynes NE, Lane HA (2005) ERBB receptors and cancer: the complexity of targeted inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer 5: 341–354. doi: 10.1038/nrc1609
    [121] Ohsaki Y, Tanno S, Fujita Y, et al. (2000) Epidermal growth factor receptor expression correlates with poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer patients with p53 overexpression. Oncol Rep 7: 603–607.
    [122] Nicholson RI, Gee JM, Harper ME (2001) EGFR and cancer prognosis. Eur J Cancer 37 Suppl 4: S9–15.
    [123] Fang K (1996) An enhanced and sensitive autocrine stimulation by transforming growth factor-alpha is acquired in the brain metastatic variant of a human non-small-cell lung cancer cell line. Br J Cancer 74: 1776–1782. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1996.629
    [124] Mendelsohn J (1992) Epidermal growth factor receptor as a target for therapy with antireceptor monoclonal antibodies. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 13: 125–131.
    [125] Kosaka T, Yatabe Y, Endoh H, et al. (2004) Mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in lung cancer: biological and clinical implications. Cancer Res 64: 8919–8923. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2818
    [126] Sharma SV, Bell DW, Settleman J, et al. (2007) Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 7: 169–181. doi: 10.1038/nrc2088
    [127] Kim KS, Jeong JY, Kim YC, et al. (2005) Predictors of the response to gefitinib in refractory non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 11: 2244–2251. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2081
    [128] Bell DW, Lynch TJ, Haserlat SM, et al. (2005) Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and gene amplification in non-small-cell lung cancer: molecular analysis of the IDEAL/INTACT gefitinib trials. J Clin Oncol 23: 8081–8092. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.7078
    [129] Jin F, Hagemann N, Brockmeier U, et al. (2013) LDL attenuates VEGF-induced angiogenesis via mechanisms involving VEGFR2 internalization and degradation following endosome-trans-Golgi network trafficking. Angiogenesis 16: 625–637. doi: 10.1007/s10456-013-9340-2
    [130] Tirziu D, Moodie KL, Zhuang ZW, et al. (2005) Delayed arteriogenesis in hypercholesterolemic mice. Circulation 112: 2501-2509. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.542829
    [131] Van Belle E, Rivard A, Chen D, et al. (1997) Hypercholesterolemia attenuates angiogenesis but does not preclude augmentation by angiogenic cytokines. Circulation 96: 2667-2674. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.96.8.2667
    [132] Rask-Madsen C, King GL (2013) Vascular complications of diabetes: mechanisms of injury and protective factors. Cell Metab 17: 20–33. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2012.11.012
    [133] Simons M (2005) Angiogenesis, arteriogenesis, and diabetes: paradigm reassessed? J Am Coll Cardiol 46: 835–837. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.06.008
    [134] Werner GS, Richartz BM, Heinke S, et al. (2003) Impaired acute collateral recruitment as a possible mechanism for increased cardiac adverse events in patients with diabetes mellitus. Eur Heart J 24: 1134–1142. doi: 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00187-8
    [135] Warren CM, Ziyad S, Briot A, et al. (2014) A ligand-independent VEGFR2 signaling pathway limits angiogenic responses in diabetes. Sci Signal 7: ra1. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2004235
    [136] Deng CX, Wynshaw-Boris A, Shen MM, et al. (1994) Murine FGFR-1 is required for early postimplantation growth and axial organization. Genes Dev 8: 3045–3057. doi: 10.1101/gad.8.24.3045
    [137] Yamaguchi TP, Harpal K, Henkemeyer M, et al. (1994) fgfr-1 is required for embryonic growth and mesodermal patterning during mouse gastrulation. Genes Dev 8: 3032–3044. doi: 10.1101/gad.8.24.3032
    [138] White KE, Cabral JM, Davis SI, et al. (2005) Mutations that cause osteoglophonic dysplasia define novel roles for FGFR1 in bone elongation. Am J Hum Genet 76: 361–367. doi: 10.1086/427956
    [139] Shiang R, Thompson LM, Zhu Y-Z, et al. (1994) Mutations in the transmembrane domain of FGFR3 cause the most common genetic form of dwarfism, achondroplasia. Cell 78: 335–342. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90302-6
    [140] Jacob AL, Smith C, Partanen J, et al. (2006) Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 signaling in the osteo-chondrogenic cell lineage regulates sequential steps of osteoblast maturation. Dev Biol 296: 315–328. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.05.031
    [141] Su N, Jin M, Chen L (2014) Role of FGF/FGFR signaling in skeletal development and homeostasis: learning from mouse models. Bone Res 2: 14003. doi: 10.1038/boneres.2014.3
    [142] Shawver LK, Slamon D, Ullrich A (2002) Smart drugs: tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer therapy. Cancer Cell 1: 117–123. doi: 10.1016/S1535-6108(02)00039-9
    [143] Ludwig DL, Pereira DS, Zhu Z, et al. (2003) Monoclonal antibody therapeutics and apoptosis. Oncogene 22: 9097–9106. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207104
    [144] Fauvel B, Yasri A (2014) Antibodies directed against receptor tyrosine kinases: current and future strategies to fight cancer. MAbs 6: 838–851. doi: 10.4161/mabs.29089
    [145] Ferrara N, Kerbel RS (2005) Angiogenesis as a therapeutic target. Nature 438: 967–974. doi: 10.1038/nature04483
    [146] Carmeliet P (2005) Angiogenesis in life, disease and medicine. Nature 438: 932–936. doi: 10.1038/nature04478
    [147] Fontanella C, Ongaro E, Bolzonello S, et al. (2014) Clinical advances in the development of novel VEGFR2 inhibitors. Ann Transl Med 2: 123.
    [148] Kankanala J, Latham AM, Johnson AP, et al. (2012) A combinatorial in silico and cellular approach to identify a new class of compounds that target VEGFR2 receptor tyrosine kinase activity and angiogenesis. Br J Pharmacol 166: 737–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01801.x
    [149] Chow LQ, Eckhardt SG (2007) Sunitinib: from rational design to clinical efficacy. J Clin Oncol 25: 884–896. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.3602
    [150] Ghatalia P, Morgan CJ, Je Y, et al. (2014) Congestive heart failure with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol.
    [151] Jain RK, Duda DG, Clark JW, et al. (2006) Lessons from phase III clinical trials on anti-VEGF therapy for cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 3: 24–40.
    [152] Mendel DB, Laird AD, Xin X, et al. (2003) In vivo antitumor activity of SU11248, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptors: determination of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship. Clin Cancer Res 9: 327–337.
    [153] Hasinoff BB, Patel D (2010) The lack of target specificity of small molecule anticancer kinase inhibitors is correlated with their ability to damage myocytes in vitro. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 249: 132–139. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2010.08.026
    [154] Knights V, Cook SJ (2010) De-regulated FGF receptors as therapeutic targets in cancer. Pharmacol Ther 125: 105–117. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2009.10.001
    [155] Zhang S, Cao Z, Tian H, et al. (2011) SKLB1002, a novel potent inhibitor of VEGF receptor 2 signaling, inhibits angiogenesis and tumor growth in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 17: 4439–4450. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-3109
    [156] Harris PA, Cheung M, Hunter RN, 3rd, et al. (2005) Discovery and evaluation of 2-anilino-5-aryloxazoles as a novel class of VEGFR2 kinase inhibitors. J Med Chem 48: 1610–1619. doi: 10.1021/jm049538w
    [157] Miyazaki Y, Matsunaga S, Tang J, et al. (2005) Novel 4-amino-furo[2,3-d]pyrimidines as Tie-2 and VEGFR2 dual inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 15: 2203–2207. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2005.03.034
    [158] Latham AM, Bruns AF, Kankanala J, et al. (2012) Indolinones and anilinophthalazines differentially target VEGF-A- and basic fibroblast growth factor-mediated responses in primary human endothelial cells. Br J Pharmacol 165: 245–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01545.x
    [159] Zhou T, Commodore L, Huang WS, et al. (2010) Structural analysis of DFG-in and DFG-out dual Src-Abl inhibitors sharing a common vinyl purine template. Chem Biol Drug Des 75: 18–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-0285.2009.00905.x
    [160] Imrie H, Abbas A, Viswambharan H, et al. (2009) Vascular insulin-like growth factor-I resistance and diet-induced obesity. Endocrinology 150: 4575–4582. doi: 10.1210/en.2008-1641
    [161] Canfield K, Li J, Wilkins OM, et al. (2015) Receptor tyrosine kinase ERBB4 mediates acquired resistance to ERBB2 inhibitors in breast cancer cells. Cell Cycle 14: 648–655.
    [162] Johnston S, Trudeau M, Kaufman B, et al. (2008) Phase II study of predictive biomarker profiles for response targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) in advanced inflammatory breast cancer with lapatinib monotherapy. J Clin Oncol 26: 1066–1072. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.9949
    [163] Kaufman B, Stein S, Casey MA, et al. (2008) Lapatinib in combination with capecitabine in the management of ErbB2-positive (HER2-positive) advanced breast cancer. Biologics 2: 61–65.
    [164] Sequist LV, Lynch TJ (2008) EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer: an evolving story. Annu Rev Med 59: 429–442. doi: 10.1146/annurev.med.59.090506.202405
    [165] Rusch V, Baselga J, Cordon-Cardo C, et al. (1993) Differential expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor and its ligands in primary non-small cell lung cancers and adjacent benign lung. Cancer Res 53: 2379–2385.
    [166] Dutu T, Michiels S, Fouret P, et al. (2005) Differential expression of biomarkers in lung adenocarcinoma: a comparative study between smokers and never-smokers. Ann Oncol 16: 1906–1914. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi408
    [167] Wakeling AE, Guy SP, Woodburn JR, et al. (2002) ZD1839 (Iressa): an orally active inhibitor of epidermal growth factor signaling with potential for cancer therapy. Cancer Res 62: 5749–5754.
    [168] Giaccone G, Herbst RS, Manegold C, et al. (2004) Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 1. J Clin Oncol 22: 777–784. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.001
    [169] Herbst RS, Giaccone G, Schiller JH, et al. (2004) Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 2. J Clin Oncol 22: 785–794. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.215
    [170] Herbst RS, Prager D, Hermann R, et al. (2005) TRIBUTE: a phase III trial of erlotinib hydrochloride (OSI-774) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23: 5892–5899. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.840
    [171] Gatzemeier U, Pluzanska A, Szczesna A, et al. (2007) Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial. J Clin Oncol 25: 1545–1552. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.1474
    [172] Marchetti A, Martella C, Felicioni L, et al. (2005) EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of a large series of cases and development of a rapid and sensitive method for diagnostic screening with potential implications on pharmacologic treatment. J Clin Oncol 23: 857–865. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.043
    [173]

    [174]

  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Soo Ji Woo, Hyae In Jo, Hyung Ho Lee, Joon Ki Chung, Molecular characterization and expression analysis of olive flounder ( Paralichthys olivaceus ) phospholipase C gamma 1 and gamma 2, 2017, 63, 10504648, 353, 10.1016/j.fsi.2016.11.052
    2. Faheem Shaik, Gary Cuthbert, Shervanthi Homer-Vanniasinkam, Stephen Muench, Sreenivasan Ponnambalam, Michael Harrison, Structural Basis for Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Activation and Implications for Disease Therapy, 2020, 10, 2218-273X, 1673, 10.3390/biom10121673
    3. Rudi Foth, Orr Shomroni, Matthias Sigler, Jürgen Hörer, Julie Cleuziou, Thomas Paul, Katja Eildermann, Screening for potential targets to reduce stenosis in bioprosthetic heart valves, 2021, 11, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-021-81340-2
    4. Giuseppe Tridente, 2017, 9780128094006, 9, 10.1016/B978-0-12-809400-6.00002-0
    5. Omkulthom M. Alkamaly, Najla Altwaijry, Rehab Sabour, Marwa F. Harras, Dual EGFR/VEGFR2 inhibitors and apoptosis inducers: Synthesis and antitumor activity of novel pyrazoline derivatives, 2020, 0365-6233, 10.1002/ardp.202000351
    6. Ehab M. Mostafa, Hamdoon A. Mohammed, Arafa Musa, Mohamed A. Abdelgawad, Mohammad M. Al-Sanea, Suliman A. Almahmoud, Mohammed M. Ghoneim, Hesham A. M. Gomaa, Fatema El-Zahraa S. Abdel Rahman, Khaled Shalaby, Samy Selim, Riaz A. Khan, In Vitro Anti-Proliferative, and Kinase Inhibitory Activity of Phenanthroindolizidine Alkaloids Isolated from Tylophora indica, 2022, 11, 2223-7747, 1295, 10.3390/plants11101295
    7. Tomasz Róg, Mykhailo Girych, Alex Bunker, Mechanistic Understanding from Molecular Dynamics in Pharmaceutical Research 2: Lipid Membrane in Drug Design, 2021, 14, 1424-8247, 1062, 10.3390/ph14101062
    8. Nasim Ebrahimi, Elmira Fardi, Hajarossadat Ghaderi, Sahar Palizdar, Roya Khorram, Reza Vafadar, Masoud Ghanaatian, Fatemeh Rezaei-Tazangi, Payam Baziyar, Amirhossein Ahmadi, Michael R. Hamblin, Amir Reza Aref, Receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer, 2023, 80, 1420-682X, 10.1007/s00018-023-04729-4
    9. Wael A. A. Fadaly, Mohamed T. M. Nemr, Taha H. Zidan, Fatma E. A. Mohamed, Marwa M. Abdelhakeem, Nour N. Abu Jayab, Hany A. Omar, Khaled R. A. Abdellatif, New 1,2,3-triazole/1,2,4-triazole hybrids linked to oxime moiety as nitric oxide donor selective COX-2, aromatase, B-RAF V600E and EGFR inhibitors celecoxib analogs: design, synthesis, anti-inflammatory/anti-proliferative activities, apoptosis and molecular modeling study , 2023, 38, 1475-6366, 10.1080/14756366.2023.2290461
    10. Anastasiia A. Latypova, Alexey V. Yaremenko, Nadezhda A. Pechnikova, Artem S. Minin, Ilya V. Zubarev, Magnetogenetics as a promising tool for controlling cellular signaling pathways, 2024, 22, 1477-3155, 10.1186/s12951-024-02616-z
    11. Jurnal Reang, Vinita Sharma, Vivek Yadav, Rajiv K. Tonk, Jaseela Majeed, Archana Sharma, Prabodh C. Sharma, Redefining the significance of quinoline containing compounds as potent VEGFR-2 inhibitors for cancer therapy, 2024, 33, 1054-2523, 1079, 10.1007/s00044-024-03252-w
    12. Soumyadip Mukherjee, Vedant Joshi, Kolimi Prashanth Reddy, Nidhi Singh, Priyanka Das, Pallab Datta, Biopharmaceutical and pharmacokinetic attributes to drive nanoformulations of small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 2024, 18180876, 100980, 10.1016/j.ajps.2024.100980
    13. Chi-Chuan Lin, Lukasz Wieteska, Guillaume Poncet-Montange, Kin Man Suen, Stefan T. Arold, Zamal Ahmed, John E. Ladbury, The combined action of the intracellular regions regulates FGFR2 kinase activity, 2023, 6, 2399-3642, 10.1038/s42003-023-05112-6
    14. Sarmistha Majumdar, Francesco Di Palma, Francesca Spyrakis, Sergio Decherchi, Andrea Cavalli, Molecular Dynamics and Machine Learning Give Insights on the Flexibility–Activity Relationships in Tyrosine Kinome, 2023, 63, 1549-9596, 4814, 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00738
    15. Ying Huang, Xi-Ye Wang, Jia-Yue Huang, Zheng-Wei Huang, Incorporation of human β-defensin-1 into immunoliposomes to facilitate targeted autophagy therapy of colon carcinoma, 2025, 16, 2218-4333, 10.5306/wjco.v16.i3.101098
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(21990) PDF downloads(3201) Cited by(15)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog