| A Knack for the Right
Place: Amgen Institute's Tak W. Mak |
Few areas of biomedicine are hotter these days than the effort to unravel the complicated cellular operations underlying apoptosis, more commonly known as cellular suicide. Researchers have recently made remarkable progress in plumbing the molecular depths of this suicide program to understand where it goes awry in human diseases

"I've been accused of being all over the place," says Tak W. Mak of the Amgen Institute, Toronto, Canada, whose research has spanned biochemistry, immunology, and genetics. |
Three of the most important papers on the nature of genes that participate in the crucial decision-making process of cell death or cell survival come out of the laboratory of Tak Wah
Mak, director of the Amgen Institute at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto and the University of Toronto.
Mak, however, has also recently published two other papers on genes that participate in the equally interesting area of bone formation. Collectively, these five highly cited reports gave Mak a prominent place in this publication's latest roundup of the hottest researchers in science (see Science Watch, 11[2]:1-2, March/April
2000).
Mak’s resume demonstrates the remarkable range of his research career, from cloning the human T-cell receptor in 1984–an achievement documented in a Nature article that has garnered over 1,100 citations since then–to creating nearly 100 different gene-targeted "knockout mice" in the early 1990s, to his latest work on apoptosis and tumor suppressor genes. "I’ve been accused of being all over the place," says Mak with some pride.
Mak, now 53, obtained his bachelor’s degree in biochemistry in 1967 and a master’s in biophysics two years later, both at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He obtained his doctorate at the University of Alberta in Edmonton in 1972. He then moved on to a post-doctoral fellowship at the Ontario Cancer Institute in Toronto, where he’s been a member of the senior scientific staff ever since. In 1974, Mak joined the faculty of the University of Toronto, where he is now a University Professor. In 1993, he became the founding Director of the Amgen Institute at the Ontario Cancer Institute.
Mak spoke with
Science Watch correspondent Gary Taubes from his Toronto office.
You say your research interests have been "all over the place." Can you give us a brief summary of your career path?
Mak: I started off with retroviruses and then worked with the Friend leukemia virus, which causes
erythroleukemia. I next worked with Howard Temin and cloned a gene called v-rel, a member of what is now recognized as one of the most important gene families in the immune system.
kB, for instance, is part of the rel family. My group and I then shifted into immunology and were lucky enough to have cloned the human T-cell receptor genes. This basically opened up T-cell molecular site-recognition studies. Then, to look at the physiological functions of some of the genes that we and others discovered, my group learned how to make knockout mice. In fact, we were one of the first labs in the world to make a knockout mouse. We stayed in immunology for a while, making mutant mice to define cellular and molecular pathways of immune-system development and activation. Cellular and embryonic development require apoptosis, which is how we got into studying genes involved in programmed cell death. We started looking at tumor suppressor genes because defects in cell death and survival pathways can contribute to cancer. We're now shifting to Drosophila genetics because many of the pathways uncovered in mammalian cells are conserved in the fly. The Drosophila genome has just been sequenced, and the reproduction time of these animals is short, making it easier and fast for us to do our work.
What’s the connection in your five hot papers–between the genes involved with apoptosis and genes involved with bone formation?
Mak: Apoptosis occurs in response to balancing of the triggering of survival and death receptors, and many genes in very complex signaling pathways lie downstream of these receptors. What we want to do is define the biological roles of these genes in different situations: whether they are participating in certain pathways but not others, in certain tissues but not others, or in response to only certain death stimuli. This has long been an area of intense research interest. Biochemistry was originally promising as an approach but has sometimes led to confusion in defining, once and for all, the requirement for a gene and the proteins it encodes. Our approach is genetic, and the advantage of the genetic approach is that once you obtain a mutant and it behaves in a certain way, you can deduce the gene's function and basically get a solid answer. After such a definition people don’t usually have to go over it again, and so these sorts of papers tend to get more attention than others.
To answer your question, we got into the bone work as part of our immunology program. There is a molecule called OPGL, which is part of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) family. Dr. Josef Penninger and his colleagues had imagined that OPGL would be involved in the development and activation of T and B cells. It was found, to our surprise, that OPGL also has a critical role in bone formation because it is the primary differentiation factor for osteoclasts. OPGL is going to be one of those factors that pharmaceutical companies will explore as a possible treatment for bone diseases. In addition, we found that a TNF receptor family downstream effector molecule called TRAF-6, which was thought to be only in signaling for inflammation, is also involved in osteoclasts differentiation.
Your most highly cited paper was the cloning of the T-cell receptor. How did that come about?
Mak: This is a little bit of a digression, but in Canada there are two main granting agencies: the Medical Research Council
(MRC) of Canada and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of Canada. Each agency was adamant that projects it funded not overlap with projects funded by the other. So, while I had a grant from the MRC to study Friend leukemia virus, I needed to do something completely different if I wanted funding from the NCI. I decided to study T-cell leukemia, and subsequently became fascinated by changes in T-cell differentiation. Also, monoclonal antibodies had just been developed, and some were available that specifically recognized T cells.
My idea was to do a subtraction hybridization between T-cell cDNAs and B-cell RNA, but my grant was turned down because the NCI thought it wasn’t feasible to do subtraction hybridization between two such similar cell types. They ignored the fact that such hybridizations, albeit for fewer genes, had already been performed successfully by Dominique
Stehelin, Harold Varmus, and Michael Bishop in cloning the rous oncogene–work for which Varmus and Bishop received the Nobel Prize. Subtraction technology was already established in my lab for studies of Friend virus genes, so we went ahead anyway to clone genes that were T-cell specific by taking T-cell cDNAs and subtracting from them sequences present in B-cell RNA.
This was the early 1980s. Considering that the world of immunology had been frustrated by the lack of progress in identifying the T-cell receptor–which was in fact called the "Holy Grail of Immunology" at the time–and that we had submitted a grant that was turned down largely because of lack of faith in its technology, it would have been foolhardy to think we could in fact clone the T-cell receptor this way. You must keep in mind that one of the dominant theories of the T-cell receptor
(TCR) structure at the time was that it was part of immunoglobulin G.
To make a long story short, I and my postdoctoral fellow named Yusuke Yanagi performed a whole series of subtraction hybridizations and ended up with 1,500 T-cell-specific
CDNAs. We then looked for gene rearrangements in these CDNAs, in the hope that, since the germline IgG gene has to rearrange to be functional, maybe the same mechanism might be used in T cells to produce
TCR. If so, then maybe these T-cell-specific cDNAs we isolated would lead us to genes that were rearranged in T cells but not non-T cells, and indeed, that's how we discovered the T-cell receptor. At the same time that we cloned the human
TCR, Mark Davis at Stanford did the same for the mouse TCR, so we published our findings in back-to-back papers in Nature (Y.
Yanagi, et al., Nature, 308[5955]:145-9, 1984). As I mentioned earlier, this, in essence, in some manner marked the beginning of T-cell recognition studies.
continued
|