| Literature DB >> 19379143 |
Roman Hrstka1, Philip J Coates, Borivoj Vojtesek.
Abstract
The p53 tumour suppressor protein lies at the crossroads of multiple cellular response pathways that control the fate of the cell in response to endogenous or exogenous stresses and inactivation of the p53 tumour suppressor signalling pathway is seen in most human cancers. Such aberrant p53 activity may be caused by mutations in the TP53 gene sequence producing truncated or inactive mutant proteins, or by aberrant production of other proteins that regulate p53 activity, such as gene amplification and overexpression of MDM2 or viral proteins that inhibit or degrade p53. Recent studies have also suggested that inherited genetic polymorphisms in the p53 pathway influence tumour formation, progression and/or response to therapy. In some cases, these variants are clearly associated with clinico-pathological variables or prognosis of cancer, whereas in other cases the evidence is less conclusive. Here, we review the evidence that common polymorphisms in various aspects of p53 biology have important consequences for overall tumour susceptibility, clinico-pathology and prognosis. We also suggest reasons for some of the reported discrepancies in the effects of common polymorphisms on tumourigenesis, which relate to the complexity of effects on tumour formation in combination with other oncogenic changes and other polymorphisms. It is likely that future studies of combinations of polymorphisms in the p53 pathway will be useful for predicting tumour susceptibility in the human population and may serve as predictive biomarkers of tumour response to standard therapies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19379143 PMCID: PMC3822507 DOI: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00634.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
1TP53, TP63 and TP73 gene structure and the positions of the most important polymorphisms.
The roles of R72P polymorphism in cancer
| Phenomenon | p53 status | Mechanism | Ref. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apoptosis | Wt Wt | The R72 allele correlates with more efficient induction of apoptosis compared to the P72 variant. | [ | |||||
| Degradation | R72 allele has greater capacity to interact with MDM2. | [ | ||||||
| R72 was found more efficiently targeted for degradation by the E6 protein of HPV16. | [ | |||||||
| Gain of function | mut | The R72 allele is preferentially mutated and these mutants confer stronger affinity for interaction with p73 followed by its inactivation. | [ | |||||
| Response to chemotherapy | Wt | R72 allele cases have higher response rates and longer survival than those with P72. | [ | |||||
| P72 variant is more frequent and tumours are less sensitive to apoptosis-inducing treatment. | [ | |||||||
| mut | Cancers expressing R72 mutants have lower response rates than those expressing P72 mutants. | [ | ||||||
| R72 mutants tend to confer resistance to anticancer drugs, but it is not an universal phenomenon and depends on the mutation and drug utilization. | [ | |||||||
| Reparation | Wt | P72 is more efficient than R72 in specifically activating several p53-dependent DNA-repair target genes. | [ | |||||
Discussed TP53 polymorphisms in cancer epidemiology
| Polymorphism of | Cancer | Population / other comments | Allele or Genotype | Association with cancer risk / OR (95% CI) | Ref. | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breast | Finnish | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| Familial: 0.94 (0.80–1.09) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Unselected: 0.96 (0.82–1.12) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Iranian | No | [ | |||||||||||||||||
| / | 1.1 (0.84–1.44) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Greek | RR | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| / | 6.66 (2.63–16.9) ( | ||||||||||||||||||
| Turkish | RR | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| 3.05 (1.19–7.8) | |||||||||||||||||||
| (P = 0.017) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Chinese | R | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| / | ( | ||||||||||||||||||
| Japanese | PP | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| ER positive | 2.04 ( | ||||||||||||||||||
| Cervical | Peruvian | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| Japanese | No | [ | |||||||||||||||||
| Portuguese | / | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| Indian | RR | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| 2.59 (1.18–5.67) ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| SCCHN | non-Hispanic whites | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| // | 1.04 (0.75–1.44) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Lung | Caucasian | RP PP | Yes | [ | |||||||||||||||
| / | 1.34 (1.03–1.74) 1.47 (0.90–2.40) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Japanese | PP | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| 2.2 (1.3–3.9) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Glioma | Portuguese | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| 1.07 (0.66–1.72) ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| American | P | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| PIN3 Ins 16bp | |||||||||||||||||||
| Breast | Unknown | / | No | [ | |||||||||||||||
| Portuguese | A2A2 | Yes Familial: 4.4 (1.60–12.00) Sporadic: 3.88 (1.18–12.8) | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| Blader | American | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| Gastric | Korean | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| ( | |||||||||||||||||||
| Ovarian | German | A2A2 | Yes 8.64 (2.97–25.16) | [ | |||||||||||||||
| Lung | Caucasian | A1/A2 A2/A2 | Yes 1.59 (1.17–2.15) 1.63 (0.72–3.72) | [ | |||||||||||||||
| PIN6 G13494A | |||||||||||||||||||
| Breast | Caucasian | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| Ovarian | German | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| 1.93 (1.27–2.91) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Ovarian | Caucasian | Yes | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| PIN6 G13964C | |||||||||||||||||||
| Breast | Australian | No | [ | ||||||||||||||||
| Poland | No | [ | |||||||||||||||||
| American | Yes | [ | |||||||||||||||||
| ( | |||||||||||||||||||
Discussed TP73 polymorphisms in cancer epidemiology
| Polymorphism | Comments | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prognosis | 708 SCCHN patients and 1229 cancer-free controls. Genotypes (GC/AT + AT/AT) were associated with significantly increased risk for SCCHN (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.10–1.60). | [ | ||
| 1054 lung cancer patients and 1139 cancer-free controls. Genotypes (GC/AT + AT/AT) were associated with significantly increased risk for lung cancer (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.10–1.59). | [ | |||
| 114 endometrial cancer patients and 442 controls. Association between the | [ | |||
| Protective role of AT variant | 84 oesophageal cancers (25 squamous and 59 adenocarcinoma) and 152 cancer-free controls. | [ | ||
| AT/AT homozygotes were less prevalent in the cancer population (1.2%) compared to controls (9.9%) ( | ||||
| 425 lung cancer patients and 588 cancer-free controls. AT haplotypes were less common in the cancers ( | [ | |||
| Association with cancer risk | Study of 526 breast cancer patients with a median follow-up of 7.3 years.GC/GC genotype was associated with worse clinical outcome ( | [ | ||
| Intron 1 del 73 bp | ||||
| Tumour and normal tissue from 81 colorectal cancer patients. 73 bp deletion was found in at least one allele in 40.7% of the patients, its presence was associated with advanced stages ( | [ | |||
| 45 colorectal and 43 breast cancer patients and 34 healthy controls. Allele with Intron 1 del 73 bp was significantly associated with increased risk of tumour ( | [ | |||
2Polymorphisms in p53 pathways. (A) Role of p73 polymorphism. The presence of 73 bp deletion in the first intron of the TP73 gene is associated with lower levels of p73 but do not affect expression of Δp73 resulting in increased ratio of TAp73/ATAp73 forms, favouring p73 oncogenic variants. (B) Role of MDM2 SNP309. Single nucleotide polymorphism 309 in a region of the MDM2 promoter increases the affinity of the transcriptional activator Sp1, which along with active oestrogen receptors (ER) and genotoxic stress, was found to attenuate the p53 pathways resulting in the acceleration of tumour formation. (C) Role of RE polymorphisms. C to T SNP at the Flt-1 promoter creates a p53 binding site resulting in p53-dependent up-regulation of Flt-1 transcription in human cells. Active oestrogen receptor signalling considerably enhances this effect.