Differentially expressed protein Pdcd4 inhibits tumor promoter-induced neoplastic transformation

An mRNA differential display comparison of mouse JB6 promotion-sensitive (P+) and -resistant (P−) cells identified a novel gene product that inhibits neoplastic transformation. The JB6 P+ and P− cells are genetic variants that differ in their transformation response to tumor promoters; P+ cells form anchorage-independent colonies that are tumorigenic, and P− cells do not. A differentially displayed fragment, A7-1, was preferentially expressed in P− cells at levels ≥10-fold those in P+ cells, making its mRNA a candidate inhibitor of neoplastic transformation. An A7-1 cDNA was isolated that was identical to murine Pdcd4 gene cDNAs, also known as MA-3 or TIS, and analogous to human H731 and 197/15a. Until now, the function of the Pdcd4 protein has been unknown. Paralleling the mRNA levels, Pdcd4 protein levels were greater in P− than in P+ cells. Pdcd4 mRNA was also expressed at greater levels in the less progressed keratinocytes of another mouse skin neoplastic progression series. To test the hypothesis that Pdcd4 inhibits tumor promoter-induced transformation, stable cell lines expressing antisense Pdcd4 were generated from parental P− cells. The reduction of Pdcd4 proteins in antisense lines was accompanied by acquisition of a transformation-sensitive (P+) phenotype. The antisense-transfected cells were reverted to their initial P− phenotype by overexpression of a Pdcd4 sense fragment. These observations demonstrate that the Pdcd4 protein inhibits neoplastic transformation.

The challenge of contracting for technological information

Contracting to provide technological information (TI) is a significant challenge. TI is an unusual commodity in five ways. (i) TI is difficult to count and value; conventional indicators, such as patents and citations, hardly indicate value. TI is often sold at different prices to different parties. (ii) To value TI, it may be necessary to “give away the secret.” This danger, despite nondisclosure agreements, inhibits efforts to market TI. (iii) To prove its value, TI is often bundled into complete products, such as a computer chip or pharmaceutical product. Efficient exchange, by contrast, would involve merely the raw information. (iv) Sellers’ superior knowledge about TI’s value make buyers wary of overpaying. (v) Inefficient contracts are often designed to secure rents from TI. For example, licensing agreements charge more than marginal cost. These contracting difficulties affect the way TI is produced, encouraging self-reliance. This should be an advantage to large firms. However, small research and development firms spend more per employee than large firms, and nonprofit universities are major producers. Networks of organizational relationships, particularly between universities and industry, are critical in transmitting TI. Implicit barter—money for guidance—is common. Property rights for TI are hard to establish. Patents, quite suitable for better mousetraps, are inadequate for an era when we design better mice. Much TI is not patented, and what is patented sets fuzzy demarcations. New organizational forms are a promising approach to contracting difficulties for TI. Webs of relationships, formal and informal, involving universities, start-up firms, corporate giants, and venture capitalists play a major role in facilitating the production and spread of TI.

Chickpea Defensive Proteinase Inhibitors Can Be Inactivated by Podborer Gut Proteinases1

Developing chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seeds 12 to 60 d after flowering (DAF) were analyzed for proteinase inhibitor (Pi) activity. In addition, the electrophoretic profiles of trypsin inhibitor (Ti) accumulation were determined using a gel-radiographic film-contact print method. There was a progressive increase in Pi activity throughout seed development, whereas the synthesis of other proteins was low from 12 to 36 DAF and increased from 36 to 60 DAF. Seven different Ti bands were present in seeds at 36 DAF, the time of maximum podborer (Helicoverpa armigera) attack. Chickpea Pis showed differential inhibitory activity against trypsin, chymotrypsin, H. armigera gut proteinases, and bacterial proteinase(s). In vitro proteolysis of chickpea Ti-1 with various proteinases generated Ti-5 as the major fragment, whereas Ti-6 and -7 were not produced. The amount of Pi activity increased severalfold when seeds were injured by H. armigera feeding. In vitro and in vivo proteolysis of the early- and late-stage-specific Tis indicated that the chickpea Pis were prone to proteolytic digestion by H. armigera gut proteinases. These data suggest that survival of H. armigera on chickpea may result from the production of inhibitor-insensitive proteinases and by secretion of proteinases that digest chickpea Pis.