![]()
|
|
||||||||
J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 51, 36031-36034, December 17, 1999
From the Department of Molecular Cell Biology, The Weizmann Institute, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor
gene occur in about 50% of all human tumors, making it the most
frequent target for genetic alterations in cancer (for recent reviews
on p53 see Refs. 1-5). Such mutations probably facilitate
carcinogenesis primarily through abrogating the tumor suppressor
activities of the wild type p53 protein, although at least some forms
of tumor-associated mutant p53 proteins may also contribute overt
oncogenic activities (gain of function). Excessive wild type p53
activity gives rise to a variety of cellular outcomes, most notably
cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. These cellular effects of wild type
p53 can reduce cancer incidence through elimination of cancer-prone
cells from the replicative pool. However, such effects might become
very undesirable if occurring in a normal, unperturbed cell. p53
activity must therefore be kept under tight control, being unleashed
only when a cell accumulates lesions that may otherwise drive it into a
cancerous state. The signals and mechanisms that regulate p53 activity,
maintaining it at low levels under normal conditions and turning it on
in cancer-prone cells, are the subject of this review.
Under normal conditions, p53 is most probably latent.
Consequently, it does not interfere with cell cycle progression and cell survival. Moreover, p53 knock-out mice appear in most cases to
undergo proper development and maturation (6), suggesting that p53 is
not essential for the normal performance of cells within the body.
However, a variety of conditions can lead to rapid induction of p53
activity (Fig. 1). The common denominator of these conditions is that they represent various types of stress, which are likely to favor the emergence of cancer-bound cells. Such
conditions include direct DNA damage (7-9) as well as damage to
components involved in the proper handling and segregation of the
cellular genetic material (e.g. the mitotic spindle (10)), ribonucleotide depletion (11), hypoxia (12), heat shock (13), and
exposure to nitric oxide (NO) (14). Accumulation of genomic aberrations
is a key carcinogenic mechanism; the rapid induction of p53 activity in
response to genomic damage thus serves to ensure that cells carrying
such damage are effectively taken care of. Furthermore, p53 may also
contribute, directly or indirectly, to particular DNA repair processes
(15, 16). The pivotal role of p53 in maintaining genomic integrity has
earned it the nickname "guardian of the genome" (17). In addition,
p53 activity is triggered by a variety of oncogenic proteins, including
Myc, Ras, adenovirus E1A, and As described later, induction of the p53 response upon stress
occurs largely through alterations in the p53 protein. Changes in the
rate of transcription of the p53 gene play a minor role, if
any, in such induction. Consequently, the transcriptional regulation of
the p53 gene has received very little attention during
recent years. This need not imply that the regulation of p53
gene expression is totally irrelevant. In fact, it was observed long
ago that p53 mRNA levels rise substantially upon serum stimulation
(22). This rise may be because of the presence of binding sites for serum-induced factors in the p53 promoter (23) as well as to the
ability of the p53 gene to bind the c-Myc protein and to be transcriptionally stimulated by excess c-Myc (24). The induction of an
anti-proliferative gene, p53, by serum and growth factors may at first glance seem paradoxical. However, it does make good sense.
Cells undergoing DNA replication and extensive proliferation are at
higher risk of acquiring DNA damage and giving rise to multiple
cancer-prone progeny than quiescent cells. Induction of higher p53
mRNA levels under such conditions places the cells in a state of
anticipation; as long as there is no DNA damage or other stress, p53
remains latent and does not interfere with normal cellular
transactions. However, if conditions emerge that call for a p53
response, the presence of higher levels of p53 mRNA ensures that
such a response will be rapid and effective.
Exposure of cells to p53-activating signals can lead within a
relatively short time to a marked elevation in p53 protein. To some
extent, this can be achieved by increased translation of the p53
mRNA, probably involving relief of a translational repression
mechanism operating through the 3'-untranslated region of this mRNA
(25). There also exists evidence that p53 itself can inhibit p53
synthesis through binding to its own mRNA (26, 27). Yet, it is
generally accepted that the accumulation of active p53 in response to
stress occurs mainly through post-translational mechanisms. Pivotal is
the increase in the protein half-life of p53. p53 is usually a very
labile protein, turning over with a half-life sometimes as short as a
few minutes (28). In response to DNA damage and other types of stress,
p53 is markedly stabilized (7, 8). A rapid increase in p53
concentration without a need for de novo transcription is
particularly advantageous in cells with severely damaged genomes. In
addition, there is most probably a qualitative conversion of p53 from
latent to active form. The best documented change concerns the
sequence-specific DNA binding activity of p53. p53 operates as a
gene-specific transcriptional activator, which relies on its ability to
bind defined sequence elements within target genes (1-5). The
sequence-specific DNA binding activity of p53 is subject to
constitutive negative regulation, primarily through its inhibitory
C-terminal domain (29-31). Relief of this inhibition upon exposure to
stress results in increased DNA binding (32-34) and consequently
increased biochemical and biological activity. The transcriptional
activity of p53 may also be induced by changes in other regions,
e.g. modifications within its N-terminal transactivation
domain, enabling a more efficient recruitment of components of the
transcription machinery (35). Finally, p53 activation may also involve
a change in subcellular localization; whereas latent p53 may often be
cytoplasmic, at least during part of the cell cycle (36), exposure to
stress results in its accumulation in the nucleus, where it is expected to exert its biochemical activities.
A key player in the regulation of p53 is the Mdm2 protein. Mdm2 is
the product of an oncogene, whose excess activity facilitates several
types of human cancer (for reviews see Refs. 37-39). Mdm2 exhibits a
unique relationship with p53. On the one hand, the Mdm2 protein binds
to p53 and inactivates it (40-42). The binding occurs right within the
p53 transactivation domain, interfering with recruitment of basal
transcription machinery components (43, 44). Moreover, Mdm2 can
actively repress transcription when tethered to p53 (45). Importantly,
Mdm2 binding can also lead to complete elimination of p53 through
proteolytic degradation. On the other hand, p53 binds specifically to
the mdm2 gene and stimulates its transcription (46, 47).
This duality defines a negative feedback loop (Fig.
2), which probably serves to keep p53 in
tight check and to terminate the p53 signal once the triggering stress
has been effectively dealt with. In some situations, mdm2 transcription is induced later than that of other p53 target
genes (48, 49); this may set a time window within which p53 is allowed to exert freely its biochemical and biological effects. The critical importance of the p53-Mdm2 loop is best illustrated by the analysis of
mdm2 knock-out mice. Inactivation of the mdm2
gene results in early embryonal lethality, but this is completely
prevented by simultaneous inactivation of p53 (50, 51). Conceivably, in
the absence of functional Mdm2 protein, p53 becomes strongly deregulated to the extent that its excess activity leads to embryonic death. The other side of the coin is revealed in certain human cancers;
excessive Mdm2 expression, achieved through mdm2 gene amplification (52) or other mechanisms (53), can lead to constitutive inhibition of p53 and thereby promote cancer without a need to alter
the p53 gene itself. It should be kept in mind, however, that excess Mdm2 can also promote cancer independently of p53 (54,
55).
Much of the activation of p53 is achieved through p53 protein
stabilization. This realization has markedly accelerated research on
p53 degradation. It is now well established that the rapid demise of
p53 is achieved largely through the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway (56),
although a role for other proteolytic enzymes such as calpain has also
been implied (57). Mdm2 plays a pivotal role here as well. Elevated
Mdm2 levels result in rapid p53 degradation, which is dependent on the
ability of the two proteins to engage in direct binding (58, 59).
Furthermore, interference with p53-Mdm2 binding by monoclonal
antibodies or competitor peptides results in a dramatic stabilization
and accumulation of p53 in non-stressed cells (60). This strongly
argues that the low basal levels of p53 in such cells are due
primarily to continuous Mdm2-promoted degradation.
How does Mdm2 promote p53 degradation? When the proteolytic activity of
the proteasome is blocked by specific inhibitors, excess Mdm2 augments
the accumulation of ubiquitinated forms of p53 (58, 59), suggesting
that Mdm2 facilitates p53 ubiquitination. Strong support for this
conclusion was provided by showing that Mdm2 can directly function
in vitro as a p53-specific E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase,
which covalently attaches ubiquitin groups to p53 (61, 62) (Fig.
3A). It remains to be
determined whether Mdm2 operates alone in vivo or is part of
a larger E3 complex.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
INTRODUCTION
p53-activating Signals
Regulation of p53 Gene...
Activation of p53 by...
The p53-Mdm2 Loop
Regulation of p53 Protein...
Covalent Modifications of p53
The ARF Connection
p53 and Oncogenic Stress
REFERENCES
![]()
p53-activating Signals
TOP
INTRODUCTION
p53-activating Signals
Regulation of p53 Gene...
Activation of p53 by...
The p53-Mdm2 Loop
Regulation of p53 Protein...
Covalent Modifications of p53
The ARF Connection
p53 and Oncogenic Stress
REFERENCES
-catenin (18-21), providing a direct
link between oncogenic processes and the tumor suppressor action of p53
(see below).

View larger version (32K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Signals that activate p53. Activation
results in markedly increased overall p53 protein levels and most
probably also in qualitative changes in the protein (= increased
specific activity).
![]()
Regulation of p53 Gene Expression
TOP
INTRODUCTION
p53-activating Signals
Regulation of p53 Gene...
Activation of p53 by...
The p53-Mdm2 Loop
Regulation of p53 Protein...
Covalent Modifications of p53
The ARF Connection
p53 and Oncogenic Stress
REFERENCES
![]()
Activation of p53 by Post-transcriptional Mechanisms
TOP
INTRODUCTION
p53-activating Signals
Regulation of p53 Gene...
Activation of p53 by...
The p53-Mdm2 Loop
Regulation of p53 Protein...
Covalent Modifications of p53
The ARF Connection
p53 and Oncogenic Stress
REFERENCES
![]()
The p53-Mdm2 Loop
TOP
INTRODUCTION
p53-activating Signals
Regulation of p53 Gene...
Activation of p53 by...
The p53-Mdm2 Loop
Regulation of p53 Protein...
Covalent Modifications of p53
The ARF Connection
p53 and Oncogenic Stress
REFERENCES

View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
The p53-Mdm2 autoregulatory loop. The
p53 protein binds to the mdm2 gene and activates its
transcription. The resultant Mdm2 protein binds to p53 and blocks its
activity.
![]()
Regulation of p53 Protein Degradation
TOP
INTRODUCTION
p53-activating Signals
Regulation of p53 Gene...
Activation of p53 by...
The p53-Mdm2 Loop
Regulation of p53 Protein...
Covalent Modifications of p53
The ARF Connection
p53 and Oncogenic Stress
REFERENCES

View larger version (34K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Regulation of p53-mediated p53
degradation. The binding of Mdm2 to p53 promotes the
ubiquitination of p53 and its subsequent degradation by the proteasome
(A). DNA damage induces covalent modifications of p53 and
Mdm2, particularly phosphorylation (indicated by (P)).
Phosphorylation within the Mdm2-p53 binding interface can block binding
and thereby protect p53 from degradation (B).
Phosphorylation of Mdm2 within domain(s) required for its biochemical
activity will also block p53 degradation, even if Mdm2-p53 binding is
maintained (C). Deregulated oncoproteins induce the
synthesis of ARF, which binds to Mdm2 and prevents its action
(D). Ub, ubiquitin monomer. N and
C denote the amino and carboxyl terminus, respectively, of
each protein.
Although Mdm2 emerges as the key regulator of p53 stability, other
mechanisms for p53 ubiquitination and degradation also exist. Of
particular interest is the possible role of the c-Jun N-terminal kinase
(JNK)1; in vitro
and in vivo studies suggest that the binding of JNK to p53
results in ubiquitination and proteolytic removal of p53 (63). The
"division of labor" between Mdm2 and JNK is presently unclear;
however, there are strong indications that it changes during the cell
cycle (63).
| |
Covalent Modifications of p53 |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Rapid post-translational activation of signaling proteins is often achieved through covalent modifications, particularly protein phosphorylation. It was thus conceivable that the rapid stabilization and activation of the p53 protein upon stress also involves stress-induced covalent modifications of p53. Indeed, there is mounting evidence in support of this conjecture. p53 becomes phosphorylated on multiple sites in vivo in response to various types of stress, and many stress-activated kinases can phosphorylate p53 in vitro (reviewed in Refs. 5 and 64-67). A potential outcome of such phosphorylation might be the stabilization of p53 through inhibition of p53 ubiquitination and degradation. The pivotal role of Mdm2 in these processes suggests several likely scenarios. For instance, because degradation requires the binding of Mdm2 to p53 (58, 59), phosphorylation of residues positioned within the binding interface of either protein may interfere with binding and lead to p53 stabilization (Fig. 3B). In the case of p53, several candidate sites within its Mdm2-binding domain have been identified which are modified in response to DNA damage and whose phosphorylation reduces the affinity of p53 for Mdm2 (68-70). Of particular interest are serines 15 and 20 and threonine 18 of human p53, all located within or very close to the Mdm2-binding domain of p53. Serine 15 has been studied particularly closely, as it is the site of p53 phosphorylation by the ATM kinase (71, 72), whose activity is required for p53 stabilization in response to ionizing radiation and some other types of DNA damage (73, 74). It should be noted that although the idea that such phosphorylation events are responsible for p53 stabilization is very attractive, the in vivo relevance of this idea has been challenged recently (75, 76). Hence, the effect of p53 phosphorylation on stability may depend on the intracellular context and particularly on the availability of alternative mechanisms for p53 degradation.
Stabilization of p53 might be achieved by modifying not only p53 but also Mdm2. In a simple scenario, Mdm2 may become phosphorylated in a manner that disrupts its interaction with p53 (Fig. 3B). In fact, a candidate phosphorylation site within Mdm2 has been described (77). Alternatively, phosphorylated Mdm2 may retain p53 binding but become impaired with regard to its E3 ubiquitin ligase activity (Fig. 3C). This may particularly apply to the C-terminal part of Mdm2, known to be required for p53 ubiquitination (61, 78).
Finally, both p53 and Mdm2 may also be subject to other types of modifications. Acetylation of p53, leading to increased DNA binding, has been well documented (33, 79). p53 glycosylation has also been reported, and it too may increase DNA binding (80). The role of covalent modifications in p53 activation by stress remains a very challenging area of research.
In addition to covalent modifications, protein-protein interactions
also play a key role in regulating cellular p53 levels and activity.
Such interactions and their implications are the subject of numerous
studies, and it is impossible to discuss them thoroughly here. The
reader is referred to several recent comprehensive reviews (5, 67,
81).
| |
The ARF Connection |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The ability of Mdm2 to promote p53 ubiquitination can be modulated
not only by covalent modifications but also by the binding of other
regulatory proteins. The most vivid and perhaps most important example
is provided by the ARF protein. This small protein arises through
translation of an alternative reading frame derived from the
INK4A tumor suppressor gene (82). Of note, ARF binds to Mdm2
and to a lesser extent also to p53, and this binding prevents Mdm2-mediated p53 proteolysis (83-85), apparently by blocking the E3
ligase activity of Mdm2 (62). The interaction between Mdm2 and ARF is
therefore another attractive candidate for modulation by stress signals.
| |
p53 and Oncogenic Stress |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Of particular interest is the activation of the p53 response by
oncogenic stress, such as the deregulated expression of oncoproteins like adenovirus E1A, Ras, Myc, and
-catenin (Fig. 1). Although the
importance of this response to tumor suppression is very obvious (Fig.
4A), its biochemical basis has
remained unknown until the discovery of ARF and its role in p53
stabilization. Recent work has revealed that excess activity of several
oncoproteins leads to massive induction of ARF (86-88). This induction
is primarily because of enhanced transcription, at least some of which
is mediated through the E2F transcription factor (89). The induced ARF
protein then binds to Mdm2, thus preventing p53 ubiquitination and
degradation (Fig. 3D). Obviously, the inhibitory effects of
p53 are not triggered when Myc or Ras proteins are recruited as part of
a properly orchestrated growth response, initiated by the binding of a
growth factor to its receptor, or else such cells would not be able to
execute a mitogenic response. The question that comes to mind is: how can p53 tell between such "healthy" activation of Ras, Myc, or E2F
and one that occurs independently of a proper growth signal and may
lead to cancer? One possible difference may lie in the more transient
nature of the activation in the first case. However, it is also
conceivable that when a cell is exposed to a growth factor, one arm of
the response drives the neutralization of p53 concurrently with the
activation of Myc, Ras, and E2F by the other arm. Support for this
notion comes from the observation that factors such as basic fibroblast
growth factor and insulin-like growth factor-1 up-regulate Mdm2 and
quench p53 activity (90, 91). This mechanism could also contribute to
the anti-apoptotic potency of these factors. In other cases,
receptor-generated signals may act downstream of p53 to abolish its
cellular effects without impinging on p53 itself.
|
Obviously, p53 can respond to a plethora of stress conditions. This
versatility is provided through its intricate regulation, which allows
it to collect inputs from very diverse signaling pathways.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* This minireview will be reprinted in the 1999 Minireview Compendium, which will be available in December, 1999. Work in the author's laboratory is supported in part by Grant RO1 CA-40099 from the National Cancer Institute, by the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities Centers of Excellence Program, the German-Israeli Project Cooperation (DIP), and the Yad Abraham Center for Cancer Diagnostics and Therapy.
| |
ABBREVIATIONS |
|---|
The abbreviation used is: JNK, c-Jun N-terminal kinase.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Hansen, R., and Oren, M. (1997) Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 7, 46-51[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 2. | Levine, A. J. (1997) Cell 88, 323-331[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 3. |
Agarwal, M. L.,
Taylor, W. R.,
Chernov, M. V.,
Chernova, O. B.,
and Stark, G. R.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
1-4 |
| 4. | Almog, N., and Rotter, V. (1998) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1378, R43-54[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 5. | Prives, C., and Hall, P. A. (1999) J. Pathol. 187, 112-126[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 6. | Donehower, L. A., Harvey, M., Slagle, B. L., Mcarthur, M. J., Montgomery, C. A., Butel, J. S., and Bradley, A. (1992) Nature 356, 215-221[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 7. | Kastan, M. B., Onyekwere, O., Sidransky, D., Vogelstein, B., and Craig, R. W. (1991) Cancer Res. 51, 6304-6311[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 8. |
Maltzman, W.,
and Czyzyk, L.
(1984)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
4,
1689-1694 |
| 9. |
Huang, L. C.,
Clarkin, K. C.,
and Wahl, G. M.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
4827-4832 |
| 10. |
Cross, S. M.,
Sanchez, C. A.,
Morgan, C. A.,
Schimke, M. K.,
Ramel, S.,
Idzerda, R. L.,
Raskind, W. H.,
and Reid, B. J.
(1995)
Science
267,
1353-1356 |
| 11. |
Linke, S. P.,
Clarkin, K. C.,
Di, L. A.,
Tsou, A.,
and Wahl, G. M.
(1996)
Genes Dev.
10,
934-947 |
| 12. | Graeber, T. G., Osmanian, C., Jacks, T., Housman, D. E., Koch, C. J., Lowe, S. W., and Giaccia, A. J. (1996) Nature 379, 88-91[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 13. |
Ohnishi, T.,
Wang, X. J.,
Ohnishi, K.,
Matsumoto, H.,
and Takahashi, A.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
14510-14513 |
| 14. |
Forrester, K.,
Ambs, S.,
Lupold, S. E.,
Kapust, R. B.,
Spillare, E. A.,
Weinberg, W. C.,
Felleybosco, E.,
Wang, X. W.,
Geller, D. A.,
Tzeng, E.,
Billiar, T. R.,
and Harris, C. C.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
2442-2447 |
| 15. | Smith, M. L., Chen, I. T., Zhan, Q. M., Oconnor, P. M., and Fornace, A. J. (1995) Oncogene 10, 1053-1059[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 16. | Offer, H., Wolkowicz, R., Matas, D., Blumenstein, S., Livneh, Z., and Rotter, V. (1999) FEBS Lett. 450, 197-204[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 17. | Lane, D. P. (1992) Nature 358, 15-16[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 18. |
Hermeking, H.,
and Eick, D.
(1994)
Science
265,
2091-2093 |
| 19. | Serrano, M., Lin, A. W., McCurrach, M. E., Beach, D., and Lowe, S. W. (1997) Cell 88, 593-602[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 20. |
Debbas, M.,
and White, E.
(1993)
Gene Dev.
7,
546-554 |
| 21. | Damalas, A., Ben-Ze'ev, A., Simcha, I., Shtutman, M., Leal, J. F., Zhurinsky, J., Geiger, B., and Oren, M. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 3054-3063[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 22. | Reich, N. C., and Levine, A. J. (1984) Nature 308, 199-201[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 23. | Ginsberg, D., Oren, M., Yaniv, M., and Piette, J. (1990) Oncogene 5, 1285-1290[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 24. | Reisman, D., Elkind, N. B., Roy, B., Beamon, J., and Rotter, V. (1993) Cell Growth Differ. 4, 57-65[Abstract] |
| 25. | Fu, L. N., Minden, M. D., and Benchimol, S. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 4392-4401[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 26. | Mosner, J., Mummenbrauer, T., Bauer, C., Sczakiel, G., Grosse, F., and Deppert, W. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 4442-4449[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 27. | Fontoura, B. M. A., Atienza, C. A., Sorokina, E. A., Morimoto, T., and Carroll, R. B. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 3146-3154[Abstract] |
| 28. |
Rogel, A.,
Popliker, M.,
Webb, C. A.,
and Oren, M.
(1985)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
5,
2851-2855 |
| 29. | Hupp, T. R., Meek, D. W., Midgley, C. A., and Lane, D. P. (1992) Cell 71, 875-886[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 30. |
Bayle, J. H.,
Elenbaas, B.,
and Levine, A. J.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
5729-5733 |
| 31. |
Wolkowicz, R.,
Peled, A.,
Elkind, N. B.,
and Rotter, V.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
6842-6846 |
| 32. |
Hupp, T. R.,
and Lane, D. P.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
18165-18174 |
| 33. | Gu, W., and Roeder, R. G. (1997) Cell 90, 595-606[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 34. | Waterman, M. J., Stavridi, E. S., Waterman, J. L., and Halazonetis, T. D. (1998) Nat. Genet. 19, 175-178[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 35. |
Lambert, P. F.,
Kashanchi, F.,
Radonovich, M. F.,
Shiekhattar, R.,
and Brady, J. N.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
33048-33053 |
| 36. | Shaulsky, G., Ben-Zeev, A., and Rotter, V. (1990) Oncogene 5, 1707-1711[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 37. | Lozano, G., and Montes de Oca Luna, R. (1998) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1377, M55-9[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 38. | Freedman, D. A., Wu, L., and Levine, A. J. (1999) Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 55, 96-107[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 39. | Juven-Gershon, T., and Oren, M. (1999) Mol. Med. 5, 71-83[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 40. | Momand, J., Zambetti, G. P., Olson, D. C., George, D., and Levine, A. J. (1992) Cell 69, 1237-1245[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 41. | Chen, J. D., Wu, X. W., Lin, J. Y., and Levine, A. J. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 2445-2452[Abstract] |
| 42. | Haupt, Y., Barak, Y., and Oren, M. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 1596-1606[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 43. |
Thut, C. J.,
Chen, J. L.,
Klemm, R.,
and Tjian, R.
(1995)
Science
267,
100-104 |
| 44. |
Lu, H.,
and Levine, A. J.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
5154-5158 |
| 45. |
Thut, C. J.,
Goodrich, J. A.,
and Tjian, R.
(1997)
Gene Dev.
11,
1974-1986 |
| 46. | Barak, Y., Juven, T., Haffner, R., and Oren, M. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 461-468[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 47. |
Wu, X. W.,
Bayle, J. H.,
Olson, D.,
and Levine, A. J.
(1993)
Genes Dev.
7,
1126-1132 |
| 48. |
Perry, M. E.,
Piette, J.,
Zawadzki, J. A.,
Harvey, D.,
and Levine, A. J.
(1993)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
90,
11623-11627 |
| 49. | Wu, L., and Levine, A. J. (1997) Mol. Med. 3, 441-451[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 50. | Jones, S. N., Roe, A. E., Donehower, L. A., and Bradley, A. (1995) Nature 378, 206-208[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 51. | Montes de Oca Luna, R., Wagner, D. S., and Lozano, G. (1995) Nature 378, 203-206[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 52. | Oliner, J. D., Kinzler, K. W., Meltzer, P. S., George, D. L., and Vogelstein, B. (1992) Nature 358, 80-83[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 53. | Landers, J. E., Haines, D. S., Strauss, J. F., and George, D. L. (1994) Oncogene 9, 2745-2750[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 54. |
Lundgren, K.,
Montes de Oca Luna, R.,
McNeill, Y. B.,
Emerick, E. P.,
Spencer, B.,
Barfield, C. R.,
Lozano, G.,
Rosenberg, M. P.,
and Finlay, C. A.
(1997)
Genes Dev.
11,
714-725 |
| 55. |
Sun, P.,
Dong, P.,
Dai, K.,
Hannon, G. J.,
and Beach, D.
(1998)
Science
282,
2270-2272 |
| 56. |
Maki, C. G.,
Huibregtse, J. M.,
and Howley, P. M.
(1996)
Cancer Res.
56,
2649-2654 |
| 57. | Kubbutat, M. H. G., and Vousden, K. H. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 460-468[Abstract] |
| 58. | Haupt, Y., Maya, R., Kazaz, A., and Oren, M. (1997) Nature 387, 296-299[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 59. | Kubbutat, M. H. G., Jones, S. N., and Vousden, K. H. (1997) Nature 387, 299-303[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 60. | Bottger, A., Bottger, V., Sparks, A., Liu, W. L., Howard, S. F., and Lane, D. P. (1997) Curr. Biol. 7, 860-869[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 61. | Honda, R., Tanaka, H., and Yasuda, H. (1997) FEBS Lett. 420, 25-27[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 62. | Honda, R., and Yasuda, H. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 22-27[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 63. |
Fuchs, S. Y.,
Adler, V.,
Buschmann, T.,
Yin, Z.,
Wu, X.,
Jones, S. N.,
and Ronai, Z.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
2658-2663 |
| 64. | Fuchs, S. Y., Fried, V. A., and Ronai, Z. (1998) Oncogene 17, 1483-1490[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 65. | Meek, D. W. (1998) Cell. Signal. 10, 159-166[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 66. |
Giaccia, A. J.,
and Kastan, M. B.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
2973-2983 |
| 67. | Jayaraman, L., and Prives, C. (1999) Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 55, 76-87[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 68. | Shieh, S. Y., Ikeda, M., Taya, Y., and Prives, C. (1997) Cell. 91, 325-334[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 69. | Shieh, S. Y., Taya, Y., and Prives, C. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 1815-1823[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 70. | Unger, T., Juven-Gershon, T., Moallem, E., Berger, M., Vogt Sionov, R., Lozano, G., Oren, M., and Haupt, Y. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 1805-1814[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 71. |
Banin, S.,
Moyal, L.,
Shieh, S.,
Taya, Y.,
Anderson, C. W.,
Chessa, L.,
Smorodinsky, N. I.,
Prives, C.,
Reiss, Y.,
Shiloh, Y.,
and Ziv, Y.
(1998)
Science
281,
1674-1677 |
| 72. |
Canman, C. E.,
Lim, D. S.,
Cimprich, K. A.,
Taya, Y.,
Tamai, K.,
Sakaguchi, K.,
Appella, E.,
Kastan, M. B.,
and Siliciano, J. D.
(1998)
Science
281,
1677-1679 |
| 73. | Kastan, M. B., Zhan, Q. M., Eldeiry, W. S., Carrier, F., Jacks, T., Walsh, W. V., Plunkett, B. S., Vogelstein, B., and Fornace, A. J. (1992) Cell 71, 587-597[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 74. | Khanna, K. K., Beamish, H., Yan, J., Hobson, K., Williams, R., Dunn, I., and Lavin, M. F. (1995) Oncogene 11, 609-618[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 75. |
Ashcroft, M.,
Kubbutat, M. H.,
and Vousden, K. H.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
1751-1758 |
| 76. | Blattner, C., Tobiasch, E., Litfen, M., Rahmsdorf, H. J., and Herrlich, P. (1999) Oncogene 18, 1723-1732[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 77. |
Mayo, L. D.,
Turchi, J. J.,
and Berberich, S. J.
(1997)
Cancer Res.
57,
5013-5016 |
| 78. |
Kubbutat, M. H.,
Ludwig, R. L.,
Levine, A. J.,
and Vousden, K. H.
(1999)
Cell Growth Differ.
10,
87-92 |
| 79. |
Sakaguchi, K.,
Herrera, J. E.,
Saito, S.,
Miki, T.,
Bustin, M.,
Vassilev, A.,
Anderson, C. W.,
and Appella, E.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
2831-2841 |
| 80. | Shaw, P., Freeman, J., Bovey, R., and Iggo, R. (1996) Oncogene 12, 921-930[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 81. | Hupp, T. R. (1999) Cell Mol. Life Sci. 55, 88-95[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 82. | Kamijo, T., Zindy, F., Roussel, M. F., Quelle, D. E., Downing, J. R., Ashmun, R. A., Grosveld, G., and Sherr, C. J. (1997) Cell 91, 649-659[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 83. |
Kamijo, T.,
Weber, J. D.,
Zambetti, G.,
Zindy, F.,
Roussel, M. F.,
and Sherr, C. J.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
8292-8297 |
| 84. | Pomerantz, J., Schreiber-Agus, N., Liegeois, N., Silverman, A., Alland, L., Chin, L., Potes, J., Chen, K., Orlow, I., Lee, H.-W., Cordon-Cardo, C., and DePinho, R. A. (1998) Cell 92, 713-723[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 85. | Zhang, Y., Xiong, Y., and Yarbrough, W. G. (1998) Cell 92, 725-734[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 86. |
Zindy, F.,
Eischen, C. M.,
Randle, D. H.,
Kamijo, T.,
Cleveland, J. L.,
Sherr, C. J.,
and Roussel, M. F.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
2424-2433 |
| 87. |
de Stanchina, E.,
McCurrach, M. E.,
Zindy, F.,
Shieh, S. Y.,
Ferbeyre, G.,
Samuelson, A. V.,
Prives, C.,
Roussel, M. F.,
Sherr, C. J.,
and Lowe, S. W.
(1998)
Genes Dev.
12,
2434-2442 |
| 88. | Palmero, I., Pantoja, C., and Serrano, M. (1998) Nature 395, 125-126[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 89. | Bates, S., Phillips, A. C., Clark, P. A., Stott, F., Peters, G., Ludwig, R. L., and Vousden, K. H. (1998) Nature 395, 124-125[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 90. | Shaulian, E., Resnitzky, D., Shifman, O., Blandino, G., Amsterdam, A., Yayon, A., and Oren, M. (1997) Oncogene 15, 2717-2725[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
| 91. |
Leri, A.,
Liu, Y.,
Claudio, P. P.,
Kajstura, J.,
Wang, X.,
Wang, S.,
Kang, P.,
Malhotra, A.,
and Anversa, P.
(1999)
Am. J. Pathol.
154,
567-580 |
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. Setzer, D. Lebrecht, and U. A. Walker Pyrimidine Nucleoside Depletion Sensitizes to the Mitochondrial Hepatotoxicity of the Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Stavudine Am. J. Pathol., March 1, 2008; 172(3): 681 - 690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Wang, C. Gu, T. Qi, W. Tang, L. Wang, S. Wang, and X. Zeng BAF53 Interacts with p53 and Functions in p53-mediated p21-gene Transcription J. Biochem., November 1, 2007; 142(5): 613 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Kishi, A. Ikeda, R. Nagao, and N. Koyama The SCFCdc4 ubiquitin ligase regulates calcineurin signaling through degradation of phosphorylated Rcn1, an inhibitor of calcineurin PNAS, October 30, 2007; 104(44): 17418 - 17423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Ishii, H. Sootome, A. J. King, M. Suda, N. Noro, K. Yamashita, and T. Noumi A Robust, Target-Driven, Cell-Based Assay for Checkpoint Kinase 1 Inhibitors J Biomol Screen, September 1, 2007; 12(6): 809 - 817. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. P. Morton, T. Kantidakis, and R. J. White RNA polymerase III transcription is repressed in response to the tumour suppressor ARF Nucleic Acids Res., May 14, 2007; 35(9): 3046 - 3052. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. K.S. Ku, D. C. Nguyen, M. Karaman, P. Gill, J. G. Hacia, and D. L. Crowe Loss of p53 Expression Correlates with Metastatic Phenotype and Transcriptional Profile in a New Mouse Model of Head and Neck Cancer Mol. Cancer Res., April 1, 2007; 5(4): 351 - 362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Nag, A. Germaniuk-Kurowska, M. Dimri, M. A. Sassack, C. B. Gurumurthy, Q. Gao, G. Dimri, H. Band, and V. Band An Essential Role of Human Ada3 in p53 Acetylation J. Biol. Chem., March 23, 2007; 282(12): 8812 - 8820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. H. Limesand, K. L. Schwertfeger, and S. M. Anderson MDM2 Is Required for Suppression of Apoptosis by Activated Akt1 in Salivary Acinar Cells Mol. Cell. Biol., December 1, 2006; 26(23): 8840 - 8856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Laine, I. Topisirovic, D. Zhai, J. C. Reed, K. L. B. Borden, and Z. Ronai Regulation of p53 Localization and Activity by Ubc13 Mol. Cell. Biol., December 1, 2006; 26(23): 8901 - 8913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. Oh, E.-W. Lee, Y. H. Sung, M.-R. Yang, J. Ghim, H.-W. Lee, and J. Song Jab1 Induces the Cytoplasmic Localization and Degradation of p53 in Coordination with Hdm2 J. Biol. Chem., June 23, 2006; 281(25): 17457 - 17465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. C. Chua, X. Liu, J. Gao, R. C. Hamdy, and B. H. L. Chua Multiple actions of pifithrin-{alpha} on doxorubicin-induced apoptosis in rat myoblastic H9c2 cells Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, June 1, 2006; 290(6): H2606 - H2613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Klochendler-Yeivin, E. Picarsky, and M. Yaniv Increased DNA Damage Sensitivity and Apoptosis in Cells Lacking the Snf5/Ini1 Subunit of the SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeling Complex. Mol. Cell. Biol., April 1, 2006; 26(7): 2661 - 2674. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||