INTRODUCTION: Mdm2 inhibits p53 transactivation by forming a p53-Mdm2 complex on chromatin. Upon DNA damage-induced complex disruption, such latent p53 can be activated, but in cells overexpressing Mdm2 because of a homozygous single nucleotide polymorphism at position 309 (T --> G) of mdm2, the complex is highly stable and cannot be disrupted by DNA damage, rendering p53 inactive. METHODS: To determine whether the p53 response phenotype is influenced differentially in cells with variable mdm2 genotypes, we compared responses to DNA damage and targeted p53-Mdm2 complex disruption by Nutlin-3 in the following wild-type p53 human cancer cell lines: A875 and CCF-STTG-1 (G/G for mdm2 SNP309), SJSA-1 (mdm2 genomic amplification and T/T for mdm2 SNP309), MCF-7 (estrogen-induced Mdm2 overexpression and T/G for mdm2 SNP309), ML-1 and H460 (T/T for mdm2 SNP309), and K562 (p53-null and T/G for mdm2 SNP309). We also examined mdm2 gene-splicing patterns in these lines by cloning and sequencing analyses. RESULTS: While Mdm2-overexpressing G/G cells were resistant to p53 activation by DNA damage, they were sensitive to Nutlin-3. Strikingly, the p53 G1 checkpoint in G/G cells was activated by Nutlin-3 but not by etoposide, whereas in other Mdm2-overexpressing cells, both drugs activated p53 and subsequent G1 arrest or apoptosis. cDNA clones lacking exons 5-9 were generated at a high frequency in cells overexpressing Mdm2. CONCLUSION: Nutlin-3 and DNA damage distinguish a differential phenotype in human cancer cells with G/G mdm2 SNP309 from other Mdm2 overexpressers. Categorization of the Mdm2 isoforms produced and their influence on p53 activity will help in characterization and treatment development for different cancers.
INTRODUCTION:Mdm2 inhibits p53 transactivation by forming a p53-Mdm2 complex on chromatin. Upon DNA damage-induced complex disruption, such latent p53 can be activated, but in cells overexpressing Mdm2 because of a homozygous single nucleotide polymorphism at position 309 (T --> G) of mdm2, the complex is highly stable and cannot be disrupted by DNA damage, rendering p53 inactive. METHODS: To determine whether the p53 response phenotype is influenced differentially in cells with variable mdm2 genotypes, we compared responses to DNA damage and targeted p53-Mdm2 complex disruption by Nutlin-3 in the following wild-type p53humancancer cell lines: A875 and CCF-STTG-1 (G/G for mdm2 SNP309), SJSA-1 (mdm2 genomic amplification and T/T for mdm2 SNP309), MCF-7 (estrogen-induced Mdm2 overexpression and T/G for mdm2 SNP309), ML-1 and H460 (T/T for mdm2 SNP309), and K562 (p53-null and T/G for mdm2 SNP309). We also examined mdm2 gene-splicing patterns in these lines by cloning and sequencing analyses. RESULTS: While Mdm2-overexpressing G/G cells were resistant to p53 activation by DNA damage, they were sensitive to Nutlin-3. Strikingly, the p53 G1 checkpoint in G/G cells was activated by Nutlin-3 but not by etoposide, whereas in other Mdm2-overexpressing cells, both drugs activated p53 and subsequent G1 arrest or apoptosis. cDNA clones lacking exons 5-9 were generated at a high frequency in cells overexpressing Mdm2. CONCLUSION:Nutlin-3 and DNA damage distinguish a differential phenotype in humancancer cells with G/G mdm2 SNP309 from other Mdm2 overexpressers. Categorization of the Mdm2 isoforms produced and their influence on p53 activity will help in characterization and treatment development for different cancers.
Authors: Nicoleta C Arva; Tamara R Gopen; Kathryn E Talbott; Latoya E Campbell; Agustin Chicas; David E White; Gareth L Bond; Arnold J Levine; Jill Bargonetti Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2005-05-20 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Christian Tovar; James Rosinski; Zoran Filipovic; Brian Higgins; Kenneth Kolinsky; Holly Hilton; Xiaolan Zhao; Binh T Vu; Weiguo Qing; Kathryn Packman; Ola Myklebost; David C Heimbrook; Lyubomir T Vassilev Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-01-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gareth L Bond; Wenwei Hu; Elisabeth E Bond; Harlan Robins; Stuart G Lutzker; Nicoleta C Arva; Jill Bargonetti; Frank Bartel; Helge Taubert; Peter Wuerl; Kenan Onel; Linwah Yip; Shih-Jen Hwang; Louise C Strong; Guillermina Lozano; Arnold J Levine Journal: Cell Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Lyubomir T Vassilev; Binh T Vu; Bradford Graves; Daisy Carvajal; Frank Podlaski; Zoran Filipovic; Norman Kong; Ursula Kammlott; Christine Lukacs; Christian Klein; Nader Fotouhi; Emily A Liu Journal: Science Date: 2004-01-02 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Maite Verreault; Charlotte Schmitt; Lauriane Goldwirt; Kristine Pelton; Samer Haidar; Camille Levasseur; Jeremy Guehennec; David Knoff; Marianne Labussière; Yannick Marie; Azra H Ligon; Karima Mokhtari; Khê Hoang-Xuan; Marc Sanson; Brian M Alexander; Patrick Y Wen; Jean-Yves Delattre; Keith L Ligon; Ahmed Idbaih Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Johanna Huun; Liv B Gansmo; Bård Mannsåker; Gjertrud T Iversen; Jan Sommerfelt-Pettersen; Jan Inge Øvrebø; Per E Lønning; Stian Knappskog Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Johanna Huun; Liv B Gansmo; Bård Mannsåker; Gjertrud Titlestad Iversen; Jan Inge Øvrebø; Per E Lønning; Stian Knappskog Journal: BMC Cell Biol Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 4.241