Encyclopedia of Signaling Molecules

2018 Edition
| Editors: Sangdun Choi

Casein Kinase II

  • Jacob P. Turowec
  • Nicole A. St. Denis
  • David W. Litchfield
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67199-4_110


Historical Background

Protein kinase CK2 was isolated almost 60 years ago on the basis of its ability to phosphorylate the milk protein casein (Allende and Allende 1995; Venerando et al. 2014). As a result, it was originally designated “casein kinase II,” though this misnomer is less frequently used because of the lack of physiological significance for the phosphorylation of casein by CK2. Ironically, the enzyme/substrate relationship between CK2 and casein illustrates somewhat of a recurring theme. In this respect, over 50 years of research on CK2 has resulted in a compilation of a very large number of putative CK2 substrates, while the functional analysis of these phosphorylation events has lagged comparatively behind. In large part, the identification of many CK2 substrates has been promoted by its relatively simple and somewhat unique preference for acidic specificity determinants (S/T-X-X- E/D/pS/pY) (Meggio and Pinna 2003). Even before the onset of the large-scale identification of phosphorylation sites, there were more than 300 candidate substrates identified with thousands of potential CK2 substrates now predicted on the basis of global phosphoproteomics and computational analyses (Pinna and Allende 2009). The promiscuity of CK2 in both its number of substrates and the cellular functions in which it has been implicated comes as little surprise when considering its lack of strict regulation (Litchfield 2003; Olsten and Litchfield 2004). Work to date has not yielded a unifying mechanism to explain the regulation of CK2 in cells. In this respect, it has been suggested that CK2 is constitutively active, although there is evidence that there are changes in the phosphorylation of some of its substrates in cells suggesting that its activity could in fact be regulated. Despite the uncertainties about its cellular regulation, evidence for pathogenic misregulation of CK2 in various human malignancies was observed over 20 years ago; CK2 activity and expression are elevated in a number of human cancers, while inhibition of CK2 results in cellular death (Duncan and Litchfield 2008; Trembley et al. 2009). This essay will outline structural and enzymatic features of CK2 and will highlight some of the mechanisms that may contribute to its physiological regulation along with an overview of its cellular functions and emergence as a candidate for molecular-targeted therapy.

Structural and Enzymatic Features of CK2

Protein kinase CK2 is ubiquitously expressed in eukaryotes and has generally been considered to be composed of two regulatory CK2β subunits and two catalytic subunits (CK2α and/or CK2α′) (Litchfield 2003). CK2α and CK2α′ are 90% similar within their catalytic domains but differ substantially in their C-terminal domains (Fig. 1). The close similarity of CK2α′ and CK2α results in an inability to distinguish them on the basis of their catalytic properties as they appear to share the same enzymatic features. For example, the substrate specificity of CK2α and CK2α′ appears to be indistinguishable, with both proteins exhibiting a minimal consensus motif of S/T-X-X-D/E/pS/pY. The regulatory CK2β subunit is relatively small protein (~25 kDa) in humans that displays limited sequence homology with any other protein but with exceptional conservation between species. While CK2 was traditionally considered to be a tetrameric enzyme, there are indications that its catalytic and regulatory subunits may also exist in cells independent of tetrameric complexes (reviewed in Olsten and Litchfield 2004; Bibby and Litchfield 2005). Although some of the enzymatic characteristics of tetrameric CK2 can be distinguished from that of the free catalytic subunits, a striking feature of CK2 is that both of these forms of CK2 are catalytically competent. In this respect, CK2 is distinct from cyclin-dependent kinases where catalytic activity is strictly dependent on the presence of an activating cyclin or from second messenger-dependent kinases such as PKA or PKC where catalytic activity is suppressed by an auto-inhibitory subunit or domain.
Casein Kinase II, Fig. 1

Schematic representation of CK2 subunits. Linear representation of the catalytic isoforms CK2α and CK2α′ and the regulatory subunit CK2β. In vivo phosphorylation sites are indicated, including the four mitotic phosphorylation sites on the extended C-terminal of CK2α and CK2β and the autophosphorylation sites located on CK2β

Although CK2β is not strictly required to turn on or turn off the catalytic activity of CK2α or CK2α′, it is apparent that it can affect the activity of the catalytic subunits and modulate substrate selectivity (Meggio and Pinna 2003; Olsten and Litchfield 2004; Bibby and Litchfield 2005). While the majority of CK2 substrates can be effectively phosphorylated by either tetrameric CK2 or free catalytic CK2 subunits, the regulatory CK2β subunit generally enhances thermal stability of the catalytic subunits and confers a modest increase (typically three- to fivefold) in catalytic activity toward most substrates. By comparison, there are other proteins, such as eIF2β, where CK2β is required to enable efficient phosphorylation, or calmodulin, where the presence of CK2β leads to complete inhibition of phosphorylation. The demonstration that calmodulin is phosphorylated at its CK2 sites in cells was among the first evidence provided to suggest that free catalytic subunits exist, and are functionally active, in cells. In a similar vein, CK2-independent functions and regulatory mechanisms of CK2β have been explored (reviewed by Bibby and Litchfield 2005). In this respect, it is interesting to note that CK2β is synthesized in excess of the catalytic subunits. Though it is believed that CK2β is quickly degraded when it is not incorporated into tetrameric CK2 complexes (Zhang et al. 2002), a number of reports highlight potential CK2-independent interactions of CK2β including interactions with a number of other protein kinases (e.g., c-Mos, Chk1, and A-Raf). Collectively, these findings illustrate not only the ability of CK2β to control the substrate specificity of CK2 but also raise the prospect that individual CK2 subunits exist outside the holoenzyme and are governed by unique modes of regulation. At this point, however, the precise mechanisms that regulate tetramer formation and dissociation in cells remain unclear.

Structural studies have yielded many insights into the unique features of protein kinase CK2 (Niefind et al. 2009). First, its constitutive activity is apparent in virtually all of its dozens of solved structures. In many instances, protein kinases contain an activation loop that can exist in either an open or closed confirmation that governs kinase activity. In the case of MAPKs, for example, phosphorylation of this loop by upstream protein kinases results in the open confirmation, thus activating the MAPK and promoting downstream phosphorylation of pathway constituents. By comparison, structures of CK2 predominantly provide evidence for its open conformation and constitutive activation. Second, the structure of the CK2 holoenzyme, consisting of both catalytic and regulatory subunits, revealed the tetrameric configuration of CK2 (Fig. 2). CK2β dimerizes to form the core of the tetramer, and individual catalytic subunits bind to the regulatory subunit dimer. Interestingly, the interaction surface between CK2β and the catalytic subunits is considered strikingly small given the extremely tight interactions that have been measured between the two subunits. Lastly, structures of CK2 in complex with purine analogues revealed unique features of its ATP-binding domain in relation to the ATP-binding domain of other protein kinases. In CK2, the ATP-binding domain is collapsed and relatively thin in one plane, while being wider in the second plane. The widening allows for unique utilization of GTP as a phosphate donor, a relatively unique characteristic among protein kinases, while the thinning in the other plane provides the opportunity for the rational design of specific, small molecule ATP competitive inhibitors that exploit unique van der Waals interactions in CK2. A more detailed discussion of the development of CK2 inhibitors will be presented later.
Casein Kinase II, Fig. 2

Crystal structure of tetrameric CK2. Catalytic subunits are shown in blue and yellow and regulatory subunits are shown in green and red. Also indicated is a non-hydrolyzable ATP analog, AMPPNP, in the active site of one of the catalytic subunits. Note that the C-terminal tail of CK2α is truncated in this structure (missing amino acids 337–391). The structure of the C-terminus is unknown. This representation of the CK2 tetramer was generated using Swiss PDB Viewer; PDB File 1JWH (Niefind et al. 2001).

Physiological Regulation of CK2

As mentioned previously, the activity of CK2 in cells is not subject to absolute “on/off” regulation by individual events such as posttranslational modifications, protein/protein interactions, or small molecule secondary messengers that are observed with other major protein kinase families such as MAPKs, CDKs, and PKCs, respectively. Rather, on the basis of structural characteristics (discussed above), the ability to isolate active, recombinant enzyme from bacterial sources (Turowec et al. 2010) and, most importantly, the observation that activity is neither turned on nor turned off in response to a variety cellular stimuli that modulate a large number of other protein kinases (Litchfield et al. 1993), CK2 is considered to be constitutively active. While it is apparent that CK2 lacks strict on/off regulation, it is conceivable that a number of more subtle mechanisms may contribute to its regulation in cells, including protein interactions and temporal or stimulus-specific changes in function that are discussed below (Olsten and Litchfield 2004).

The observation that CK2 phosphorylates proteins in multiple cellular compartments supports the hypothesis that interacting proteins regulate CK2 function by directing it to specific locations within the cell (Olsten and Litchfield 2004; Filhol and Cochet 2009). In this way, specific subpopulations of CK2 could be regulated by interacting proteins that permit spatial access to substrates, much the same way that AKAPs modulate the localization and function of PKA. One protein that may regulate CK2 in this manner is CKIP-1, a PH domain-containing protein that localizes CK2α, but not CK2α′, to the plasma membrane (Canton and Litchfield 2006). Changes in the expression of CKIP-1 induce alterations in cell morphology and the actin cytoskeleton. Since CKIP-1 interacts with CPα, a subunit of the heterodimeric actin-capping protein that can be phosphorylated by CK2, these observations are consistent with a working model suggesting that CKIP-1 could participate in the regulation of the actin cytoskeleton by modulating the CK2-catalyzed phosphorylation of CPα. In addition to CKIP-1, CK2 has a large number of other potential interaction partners (Gyenis and Litchfield 2015; Nunez de Villavicencio-Diaz et al. 2017). Again, given the large number of CK2 substrates located in numerous cellular locations, further elucidation of its interaction partners and investigation of their spatial distribution could reveal important new insights into the regulation and physiological functions of CK2.

Though not necessarily responsible for global changes in CK2 activity, it has been demonstrated that discrete populations of CK2 are modulated in response to specific stimuli (Filhol and Cochet 2009). For example, in response to UV radiation, CK2 interacts with the FACT complex, which consists of SSRP1 and hSPT16 (Keller et al. 2001). Binding of CK2 to the FACT complex results in increased phosphorylation of p53 by CK2 at Ser 392, an event believed to increase the transcription of apoptotic and cell cycle regulatory genes. Likewise, the regulation of specific CK2 protein interactors and substrates has been observed in nocodazole-arrested cells where CK2α has been shown to be phosphorylated at four proline-directed phosphorylation sites that can be phosphorylated by CDK1 in vitro (Fig. 1) (St-Denis et al. 2011). Phosphorylation of these sites within its unique C-terminal domain promotes interactions between CK2α and the peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1 (Messenger et al. 2002). Interactions with Pin1 modulate the ability of CK2 to phosphorylate topoisomerase IIα in vitro at sites that are known to be phosphorylated in mitotic cells. Collectively, the examples of FACT and Pin1 illustrate mechanisms by which the ability of CK2 to phosphorylate specific proteins can be modulated by interactions with other cellular proteins. Given the large number of protein interactions that have been reported for CK2, it is likely that other proteins will exert similar effects to modulate discrete populations of CK2 in cells.

The isoform-specific interactions of proteins such as CKIP-1 and Pin1 also reveal independent forms of regulation for CK2α as compared to CK2α′, an observation consistent with the demonstration of distinct phenotypes for CK2α and CK2α′ knockout mice (Dominguez et al. 2009). CK2α′ knockout mice are viable but exhibit defects in spermatogenesis in males which results in infertility. By comparison, CK2α knockout mice are embryonic lethal with embryos exhibiting significant defects in heart development. Taken together, these contrasting phenotypes suggest unique functions for both catalytic subunits, though CK2α appears more able to compensate for a loss of CK2α′. Furthermore, it is conceivable that unique regulatory mechanisms of CK2α are responsible for its greater importance to murine viability.

Though some progress has been made regarding the regulation of CK2 via posttranslational modifications and protein/protein interactions, relatively little is known about the transcriptional regulation of CK2. As previously noted, the expression of CK2 is elevated in rapidly dividing cells and a number of human cancers. The precise mechanism by which the expression of CK2, apparent housekeeping genes, is up-regulated in cancers has not been thoroughly characterized, though a number of putative binding sites for various transcription factors have been identified (Pyerin and Ackermann 2003). For example, it is intriguing that all of the human CK2 genes contain response elements for the Ets1 transcription factor that is regulated by mitogen-activated pathways. Other factors that may contribute to the regulation of CK2 levels include ubiquitination and degradation by the proteasome (Zhang et al. 2002).

Cellular Functions of CK2

In consideration of its large number of documented substrates (and the ever-expanding list of prospective substrates that are appearing in rapidly populating phosphoproteomic databases), it is not surprising that CK2 has been implicated in a broad range of cellular processes including cell proliferation and survival, apoptosis, circadian rhythms, viral infection, and transcriptional control (Duncan and Litchfield 2008; St-Denis and Litchfield 2009). Of particular interest to human disease are the observations that CK2 is over-expressed in a number of human cancers, including the kidney, mammary gland, lung, head and neck, and prostate, and that targeted over-expression of CK2 in mice T-cells and mammary glands results in lymphoma and mammary adenocarcinomas (Duncan and Litchfield 2008; Rabalski et al. 2016). Furthermore, synergistic effects in tumor formation are observed in mice when over-expressing CK2 in concert with the Myc or Tal-1 oncogenes or in p53 (−/−) backgrounds (Xu et al. 1999). Conversely, short hairpin RNA (shRNA) knockdown and pharmacological inhibition studies in a variety of model systems result in cell death, reinforcing the notion that targeted inhibition of CK2 represents a promising therapeutic strategy for the treatment of human cancers (Trembley et al. 2009; Ruzzene and Pinna 2010). Though it is clear that global changes in CK2 activity regulate processes pertaining to cellular proliferation and survival, the precise molecular mechanisms by which CK2 exerts these functions are still incompletely understood. In the following discussion, a number of advances regarding the specific role of CK2 in these cellular processes will be highlighted.

CK2 has been implicated in many signaling pathways directly involved in controlling the rate of cellular proliferation (Duncan and Litchfield 2008). As noted above, coordinated over-expression of CK2 and Myc in murine T-cells results in lymphoma development. Supporting the pathogenic synergism between CK2 and Myc is the observation that CK2 phosphorylates Myc and prevents its proteasome-dependent degradation, allowing increased transcriptional activity of proliferative and survival genes. Similarly, CK2 is believed to function at many levels within the Wnt signaling pathway, ultimately promoting β-catenin stability, dissociation from APC, and the transcription of pro-survival and proliferative genes.

In a related vein, evidence for the direct involvement of CK2 in the control of cell cycle progression is continually mounting (reviewed in St-Denis and Litchfield 2009). Knockout studies in genetically tractable organisms such as yeast highlight a requirement for CK2 in G1/S and G2/M transitions. Similarly, knockdown and pharmacological inhibition of CK2 mammalian cells results in attenuation of cell cycle progression. A specific role for CK2 in mitosis has also been revealed in mammalian cells, where disruption of mitotic phosphorylation of CK2α leads to multiple mitotic defects, including chromosome missegregation and induction of mitotic catastrophe, a form of cell death. CK2 substrates involved in mitotic progression have also been identified, including the aforementioned topoisomerase IIα, whose phosphorylation is regulated by mitosis-specific interaction of Pin1 with CK2α, and the cell cycle regulatory protein kinase Wee1. The phosphorylation of Wee1 reveals the intricate relationships between protein kinases since prior phosphorylation of Wee1 by CDK1 generates a consensus phosphorylation motif for CK2, which leads to the degradation of Wee1 and entry into mitosis (Watanabe et al. 2005). Wee1 is a prime example of the participation of CK2 in hierarchical phosphorylation (Fig. 3a). Given its preference for acidic determinants, including phosphoserine and phosphotyrosine, there will undoubtedly be other substrates that are phosphorylated by CK2 only after prior phosphorylation by other protein kinases (St. Denis et al. 2015). It is also noteworthy that CK2 can participate in hierarchical phosphorylation by enabling subsequent phosphorylation by another protein kinase (Fig. 3b). For example, the CK2-catalyzed phosphorylation of glycogen synthase is a prerequisite for its subsequent phosphorylation by GSK-3. Overall, the participation of CK2 in hierarchical phosphorylation, both as a primary and as a secondary protein kinase, reveals its capacity to participate in complex regulatory events with other protein kinases (Nunez de Villavicencio-Diaz et al. 2017).
Casein Kinase II, Fig. 3

Hierarchical phosphorylation events involving CK2. (a) A hypothetical example of CK2 acting as a secondary kinase in a hierarchical phosphorylation event whereby previous phosphorylation of a protein renders it a substrate of CK2. One example of this hierarchal phosphorylation, as discussed in the text, is observed when CDK1 primes Wee1 for phosphorylation by CK2 (Watanabe et al. 2005). (b) A depiction of CK2 phosphorylating and priming a protein for subsequent phosphorylation by a secondary kinase is shown. This form of regulation is observed, for example, on glycogen synthase, where phosphorylation by CK2 creates a phosphorylation site for GSK-3

The observation that shRNA-mediated knockdown and pharmacological inhibition of CK2 results in cell death has accelerated the identification of CK2 functions within apoptotic pathways (Duncan and Litchfield 2008). One provocative example involves the CK2-dependent regulation of PML – a tumor suppressor protein responsible for the formation of PML bodies in the nucleus, which acts to promote senescence and apoptosis (Scaglioni et al. 2006). Interestingly, phosphorylation of PML by CK2 results in its proteasome-mediated degradation. Moreover, CK2 activity and PML protein levels are inversely correlated in non-small cell lung cancers. The fact that PML over-expression induces senescence and apoptosis underscores the potential importance of CK2 in PML regulation and, ultimately, cell survival. A role for the direct regulation of apoptotic machinery by CK2 is also evident from a number of studies (reviewed in Duncan et al. 2010; Rabalski et al. 2016). Bid, a member of the Bcl-2 family of apoptotic signaling molecules, functions to permeabilize the mitochondrial membrane upon cleavage by caspase-8 and, therefore, promote the activation of downstream caspases. However, phosphorylation of Bid at CK2 phosphorylation sites proximal to the caspase-8 cleavage site blocks processing, mitochondrial permeabilization, and the progression of apoptosis. Notably, the strict requirement for acidic residues in both the caspase recognition site and the CK2 minimal consensus motif may illustrate a more widespread apoptotic regulatory mechanism for CK2 than is currently appreciated (Fig. 4). Along these lines, systematic investigation of the relationship between CK2 phosphorylation and caspase cleavage revealed an extensive number of proteins, including many known caspase substrates and some caspases themselves, with overlapping CK2 and caspase recognition motifs (Duncan et al. 2011). Moreover, in all sequences examined, phosphorylation by CK2 at sites immediately adjacent to caspase cleavage sites confers protection from caspase cleavage (Duncan et al. 2011; Turowec et al. 2014). These observations may provide at least a partial explanation for the enhanced survival that is observed in cancer cells with elevated levels of CK2. In this respect, given its constitutive activity, elevated levels of CK2 could result in increased phosphorylation of caspase substrates to attenuate caspase-mediated death pathways.
Casein Kinase II, Fig. 4

Modulation of caspase cleavage by phosphorylation. Shown here is an example where phosphorylation within a caspase degradation motif renders a substrate refractory to caspase cleavage

It is important to reiterate the vast repertoire of cellular functions involving CK2 and the diversity of its substrates. Even before the inception of predictive analyses of phosphoproteomic databases for putative CK2 substrates, CK2 was believed to have over 300 substrates, including over 60 transcription factors, 80 signaling molecules, and 40 viral proteins (Meggio and Pinna 2003). However, as a result of the constitutive activity of CK2 and its relatively simple consensus motif determinants, some analyses of phosphoproteomic databases have predicted the number of CK2 substrates to number in the thousands (Pinna and Allende 2009). While the systematic identification of all CK2 substrates remains a daunting task, a more complete evaluation of substrates will undoubtedly uncouple the pathogenic and physiological functions of CK2. Along these lines, an important avenue of future research will involve validating putative substrates. One appealing approach will certainly employ bioinformatic consensus motif analyses of phosphoproteomic databases to identify likely physiological targets of CK2, followed by in vitro phosphorylation assays that test the ability of CK2 to directly phosphorylate these sites (Turowec et al. 2010). In this sense, demonstration of direct phosphorylation of putative substrates by CK2 as well as the existence of these phosphorylation sites in cells should be adopted as the gold standard for classifying substrates as bona fide. Furthermore, sorting of biologically relevant CK2 substrates by GO designations will not only act to further clarify the physiological function of CK2 but may streamline the identification of substrates with pathological significance. Likewise, the demonstration that CK2 can participate in complex hierarchical regulatory mechanisms, such as protection of caspase substrates from degradation or acting as a primary or secondary kinase in hierarchical protein phosphorylation, may also be exploited by bioinformatics and/or high-throughput analyses that attempt to expand upon the role of CK2 in signaling pathways pertaining to cellular proliferation (Figs. 3 and 4) (St-Denis and Litchfield 2009; Duncan et al. 2010).

Emergence of CK2 as a Candidate for Molecular-Targeted Therapy

The over-expression of CK2 in a number of human malignancies and its participation in multiple pro-survival signaling pathways have driven the development of pharmacological inhibitors of CK2 for use as candidate lead compounds for molecular-targeted therapy (Sarno and Pinna 2008; Rabalski et al. 2016). In fact, clinical trials have been initiated with two distinct CK2 inhibitors. One of the clinical stage CK2 inhibitors is CX-4945 (silmitasertib), an ATP-competitive inhibitor of CK2 with an IC50 in the nanomolar range (Pierre et al. 2011). The other clinical stage inhibitor is CIGB-300, a cyclic peptide that was isolated from a screen to identify cyclic peptides that bind to the E7 protein of human papillomavirus type 16 (Solares et al. 2009). Although many details of its precise mechanism of action remain to be defined, CIGB-300 appears to inhibit CK2 by interfering with the binding of CK2 to many of its substrates. In addition to these clinical-stage inhibitors, there are a number of other compounds available from commercial sources that have been reported to be potent and/or selective CK2 inhibitors including DRB, emodin, TBB, TBBz, and DMAT (Ruzzene and Pinna 2010). Since the majority of available CK2 inhibitors are ATP-competitive inhibitors, it is important to acknowledge that a main challenge of developing ATP-competitive-specific protein kinase inhibitors relates to the high degree of conservation exhibited among all human protein kinases and to, a lesser extent, other ATP-binding proteins. Indeed, off-target effects of CK2 inhibitors are apparent and need to be considered when exploiting these compounds both as clinical agents and as research tool compounds (Duncan et al. 2008; Gyenis et al. 2013). Another key limitation relating to the utilization of CK2 inhibitors is the lack of bona fide biomarkers (Gyenis et al. 2011). The preclinical utility of CK2 inhibitors to date has generally been measured by gross phenotypic changes, such as apoptosis, as opposed to a decrease in phosphorylation of a particular biomarker (Ruzzene and Pinna 2010). Consequently, by developing tools that directly monitor the phosphorylation status of specific cellular substrates of CK2, the distinction between off-target effects and specific CK2 inhibition would be more easily clarified as biomarker status could be correlated to phenotypic changes. Furthermore, phosphospecific antibodies could also be useful for advancing clinical applications of CK2 inhibitors including the prospect of identifying patients with high levels of CK2 who may be candidates for CK2-targeted therapy and for monitoring clinical response to CK2 inhibition.


Since its discovery in 1954, much has been learned regarding the enzymatic characteristics, physiological regulation, and cellular functions of protein kinase CK2. Structural studies have yielded many insights into the unique features of CK2, such as its constitutive activity and ability to use GTP as a phosphate donor. While CK2 appears to be constitutively active, it is likely that a number of distinct mechanisms such as spatial regulation through protein interactions and possibly the regulated assembly or disassembly of tetrameric CK2 will govern how the phosphorylation of many of its substrates is controlled in cells. However, on the whole, many details regarding the precise manner by which CK2 is regulated in cells remain to be defined. Though the expanding list of CK2 substrates has illuminated many cellular functions, including roles pertaining to cell survival, proliferation, and involvement in diseases such as cancer, it is clear that CK2 has many undefined substrates whose phosphorylation status dictates unknown roles. In this sense, future endeavors should involve the use of phosphoproteomic databases which represent a tremendous resource of physiological protein phosphorylation sites, to guide the identification of bona fide CK2 substrates. In expanding our knowledge of CK2 substrates, it is more likely that the physiological and pathogenic functions of CK2 will be uncoupled and that the generation of convenient biomarkers capable of monitoring CK2 activity in cells will be established. Tools such as these will greatly accelerate the development and benchmarking of current and future generations of inhibitors, which in turn will feedback and drive the discovery of CK2 functions and benefit the treatment of cancers where CK2 hyperactivity contributes to tumorigenesis.


  1. Allende JE, Allende CC. Protein kinases. 4. Protein kinase CK2: an enzyme with multiple substrates and a puzzling regulation. FASEB J. 1995;9:313–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bibby AC, Litchfield DW. The multiple personalities of the regulatory subunit of protein kinase CK2: CK2 dependent and CK2 independent roles reveal a secret identity for CK2beta. Int J Biol Sci. 2005;1:67–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Canton DA, Litchfield DW. The shape of things to come: an emerging role for protein kinase CK2 in the regulation of cell morphology and the cytoskeleton. Cell Signal. 2006;18:267–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dominguez I, Sonenshein GE, Seldin DC. Protein kinase CK2 in health and disease: CK2 and its role in Wnt and NF-kappaB signaling: linking development and cancer. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66:1850–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan JS, Litchfield DW. Too much of a good thing: the role of protein kinase CK2 in tumorigenesis and prospects for therapeutic inhibition of CK2. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2008;1784:33–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Duncan JS, Gyenis L, Lenehan J, Bretner M, Graves LM, Haystead TA, Litchfield DW. An unbiased evaluation of CK2 inhibitors by chemoproteomics: characterization of inhibitor effects on CK2 and identification of novel inhibitor targets. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2008;7:1077–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Duncan JS, Turowec JP, Vilk G, Li SS, Gloor GB, Litchfield DW. Regulation of cell proliferation and survival: convergence of protein kinases and caspases. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1804:505–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncan JS, Turowec JP, Duncan KE, Vilk G, Wu C, Luscher B, Li SS, Gloor GB, Litchfield DW. A peptide-based target screen implicates protein kinase CK2 in the global regulation of caspase signaling. Sci Signal. 2011;4:ra30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Filhol O, Cochet C. Protein kinase CK2 in health and disease: Cellular functions of protein kinase CK2: a dynamic affair. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66:1830–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gyenis L, Litchfield DW. Protein kinase CK2: systematic relationships with other post-translation modifications. In: Protein kinase CK2: cellular function in normal and disease states. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 183–96.Google Scholar
  11. Gyenis L, Duncan JS, Turowec JP, Bretner M, Litchfield DW. Unbiased functional proteomics strategy for protein kinase inhibitor validation and identification of bonafide protein kinase substrates: application to identification of EEF1D as a substrate for CK2. J Proteome Res. 2011;10:4887–901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Gyenis L, Kus A, Bretner M, Litchfield DW. Functional proteomics strategy for validation of protein kinase inhibitors reveals new targets for a TBB-derived inhibitor of protein kinase CK2. J Proteome. 2013;81:70–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keller DM, Zeng X, Wang Y, Zhang QH, Kapoor M, Shu H, Goodman R, Lozano G, Zhao Y, Lu H. A DNA damage-induced p53 serine 392 kinase complex contains CK2, hSpt16 and SSRP1. Mol Cell. 2001;7:283–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Litchfield DW. Protein kinase CK2: structure, regulation and role in cellular decisions of life and death. Biochem J. 2003;369:1–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Litchfield DW, Dobrowolska G, Krebs EG. Regulation of casein kinase II by growth factors: a re-evaluation. Cell Mol Biol Res. 1993;40:501–11.Google Scholar
  16. Meggio F, Pinna LA. One-thousand-and-one substrates of protein kinase CK2? FASEB J. 2003;17:349–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Messenger MM, Saulnier RB, Gilchrist AD, Diamond P, Gorbsky GJ, Litchfield DW. Interactions between protein kinase CK2 and Pin1: evidence for phosphorylation-dependent interactions. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:23054–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Niefind K, Guerra B, Ermakowa I, Issinger O-G. Crystal structure of human protein kinase CK2: insights into basic properties of the CK2 holoenzyme. EMBO J. 2001;20:5320–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Niefind K, Raaf J, Issinger OG. Protein kinase CK2 in health and disease: protein kinase CK2: from structures to insights. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66:1800–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunez de Villavicencio-Diaz T, Rabalski A, Litchfield DW. Protein kinase CK2: intricate relationships within regulatory cellular networks. Pharmaceuticals. 2017 (under review).Google Scholar
  21. Olsten ME, Litchfield DW. Order or chaos? An evaluation of the regulation of protein kinase CK2. Biochem Cell Biol. 2004;82:681–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pierre F, Chua PC, O’Brien SE, Siddiqui-Jain A, Bourbon P, et al. Discovery and SAR of 5-(−3-chlorophenylamino)benzo[c][2,6]naphthyridine-8-carboxylic acid (CX-4945), the first clinical stage inhibitor of protein kinase CK2 for the treatment of cancer. J Med Chem. 2011;54:635–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pinna LA, Allende JE. Protein kinase CK2 in health and disease: protein kinase CK2: an ugly duckling in the kinome pond. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66:1795–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pyerin W, Ackermann K. The genes encoding human protein kinase CK2 and their functional links. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol. 2003;74:239–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rabalski A, Gyenis L, Litchfield DW. Molecular Pathways: emergence of protein kinase CK2 (CSNK2) as a potential target to inhibit survival and DNA damage response and repair pathways in cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:2840–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruzzene M, Pinna LA. Addiction to protein kinase CK2: a common denominator of diverse cancer cells? Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010;1804:499–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarno S, Pinna LA. Protein kinase CK2 as a druggable target. Mol BioSyst. 2008;4:889–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Scaglioni PP, Yung TM, Cai LF, Erdjument-Bromage H, Kaufman AJ, Singh B, et al. A CK2-dependent mechanism for degradation of the PML tumor suppressor. Cell. 2006;126:269–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Solares AM, Santana A, Baladrón I, Valenzuela C, González CA, Díaz A, Castillo D, Ramos T, Gómez R, Alonso DF, Herrera L, Sigman H, Perea SE, Acevedo BE, López-Saura P. Safety and preliminary efficacy data of a novel casein kinase 2 (CK2) peptide inhibitor administered intralesionally at four dose levels in patients with cervical malignancies. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:146.Google Scholar
  30. St-Denis NA, Litchfield DW. Protein kinase CK2 in health and disease: From birth to death: the role of protein kinase CK2 in the regulation of cell proliferation and survival. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66:1817–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. St-Denis N, Bailey ML, Parker EL, Vilk G, Litchfield DW. Localization of phosphorylated CK2alpha to the mitotic spindle requires the peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. J Cell Sci. 2011;124:2341–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. St-Denis N, Gabriel M, Turowec JP, Gloor GB, Li SS, Gingras AC, Litchfield DW. Systematic investigation of hierarchical phosphorylation by protein kinase CK2. J Proteome. 2015;118:49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trembley JH, Wang G, Unger G, Slaton J, Ahmed K. Protein kinase CK2 in health and disease: CK2: a key player in cancer biology. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2009;66:1858–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Turowec JP, Duncan JS, French AC, Gyenis L, St-Denis NA, Vilk G, Litchfield DW. Protein kinase CK2 is a constitutively active enzyme that promotes cell survival: strategies to identify CK2 substrates and manipulate its activity in cells. Methods Enzymol. 2010;484:471–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Turowec JP, Zukowski SA, Knight JD, Smalley DM, Graves LM, Johnson GL, Li SS, Lajoie GA, Litchfield DW. An unbiased proteomic screen reveals caspase cleavage is positively and negatively regulated by substrate phosphorylation. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2014;13:1184097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Venerando A, Ruzzene M, Pinna LA. Casein kinase: the triple meaning of a misnomer. Biochem J. 2014;460:141–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Watanabe N, Arai H, Iwasaki J, Shiina M, Ogata K, Hunter T, Osada H. Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) phosphorylation destabilizes somatic Wee1 via multiple pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:11663–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Xu X, Landesman-Bollag E, Channavajhala PL, Seldin DC. Murine protein kinase CK2: gene and oncogene. Mol Cell Biochem. 1999;191:65–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang C, Vilk G, Canton DA, Litchfield DW. Phosphorylation regulates the stability of the CK2beta subunit. Oncogene. 2002;23:3754–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob P. Turowec
    • 1
  • Nicole A. St. Denis
    • 1
  • David W. Litchfield
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry, Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Oncology, Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada