Reviews in Medical Virology· 2026Q1· Review
Modulation of the FAK–Src Signalling Axis by Oncoviruses: Molecular Mechanisms, Functional Consequences, and Therapeutic Opportunities
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Oncoviruses manipulate the FAK-Src signaling pathway, crucial for cell growth and survival, to promote cancer development. Viral proteins directly interact with and reprogram this axis, leading to increased cell migration, invasion, and immune evasion.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Oncoviruses (e.g., HPV, EBV, HBV, HCV, KSHV) manipulate the FAK-Src signaling axis to promote cancer.
- Viral proteins modulate FAK-Src through direct interactions, integrin signaling, and epigenetic changes.
- FAK-Src pathway activation enhances cancer cell migration, invasion, survival, and angiogenesis.
- Targeting FAK/Src is a potential therapeutic strategy, but clinical evidence remains limited.
- pFAK and pSrc show potential as pharmacodynamic markers but are insufficient as diagnostic or predictive biomarkers.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Oncoviruses play a role in cellular transformation and cancer progression by manipulating host signalling pathways, such as the FAK‐Src axis. Preclinical evidence suggests that viral proteins can modulate this axis through direct interactions, integrin signalling, tumour suppressor inactivation, transcriptional and kinase reprogramming, calcium/ROS signalling, regulation of phosphatases, and epigenetic modifications. Important examples include HPV E2 and E6/E7, EBV LMP1 and LMP2A, HBV HBx, HCV Core and E2, and KSHV proteins. FAK‐Src disruption can activate pathways such as PI3K/AKT, Rho GTPase, AP‐1, and NF‐κB, thereby enhancing migration, invasion, survival, angiogenesis, and modulation of the immune response. In some infections, this axis may also be involved at different stages of the viral life cycle. This review examines the molecular mechanisms of FAK‐Src regulation by oncoviruses and its functional and therapeutic implications. It also reviews FAK/Src targeting strategies, distinguishing experimental inhibitors, multitargeted agents, and compounds under clinical evaluation, emphasising the limited clinical evidence specific to each virus. Finally, pFAK and pSrc are reviewed as potential markers of pathway activation and pharmacodynamic interaction with the target; however, current evidence is insufficient for their use as valid diagnostic or predictive biomarkers. A better understanding of the virus–host–FAK/Src interaction could help develop mechanism‐based therapeutic approaches and biomarker‐based patient selection.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Reviews in Medical Virology, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Immunology and Allergy
Immunology and AllergyMedicine