Literature DB >> 27935583

Depleting stabilized GOF mutant p53 proteins by inhibiting molecular folding chaperones: a new promise in cancer therapy.

Evguenia M Alexandrova1, Ute M Moll1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27935583      PMCID: PMC5260503          DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2016.145

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Death Differ        ISSN: 1350-9047            Impact factor:   15.828


× No keyword cloud information.
TP53 is the most frequently mutated gene in human cancer. One unusual feature that adds to the exceptional status of p53 is that the vast majority (75%) of p53 alterations are missense mutations in the DNA-binding domain.[1] They fall into ‘DNA-contact' and ‘structural/conformational' mutant classes, which roughly – but not in every case – correlate with the degree of biophysical protein instability. Most if not all of these substitutions generate conformationally aberrant full-length mutant p53 (mutp53) proteins that have lost tumor suppressor functions and can have dominant-negative activities via hetero-oligomerization with wild-type p53. Importantly, however, many p53 mutants also acquire oncogenic gain-of-function (GOF) activities that actively promote malignant progression, cancer metabolism, stemness, invasion, metastasis and chemoresistance.[2, 3] mutp53 GOF is strongly supported by knockin mouse models and the human data.[2, 4] For example, R248Q mutp53 knockin mice have significantly earlier tumor onset and shorter survival than p53-null mice.[4] Moreover, germline Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) patients carrying R248Q missense mutations have significantly earlier cancer onset (by 10.5 years) and higher tumor burden than LFS patients with TP53 loss-of-function (LOF) mutations.[4] Similarly, sporadic human cancers across six major tumor entities show higher mortality (2-fold higher hazard ratios) for GOF mutant R282 and R248 patients, compared with p53 LOF mutant patients.[5] mutp53 proteins undergo massive constitutive stabilization specifically in tumors (but not in normal tissues of knockin mice), and this stabilization is prerequisite for GOF.[2] Currently, about 11 million patients worldwide live with cancers expressing highly stabilized mutp53. This raises the question: Is mutp53 itself an important therapeutic target? Compelling genetic evidence suggests so. Thus, RNAi-mediated mutp53 depletion has strong cytotoxic effects in human cancer cell lines in vitro and in xenografts.[3] In allografts, knockdown of mutp53 in KrasG12D pancreatic cancer cells strongly reduces their metastatic ability.[6] Finally, in a conditional inactivatable (‘floxable') autochthonous mouse model expressing R248Q mutp53, we showed that allele ablation extends animal survival by 37%, induces regression or stagnation of advanced tumors and strongly suppresses metastasis.[7] These data indicate that stabilized mutp53 is a tumor-specific vulnerability that can be pharmacologically exploited. Thus, understanding the mechanisms of mutp53 stabilization will be key for translation into therapy. The heat shock protein HSP90 chaperone machinery is highly activated in cancer versus normal tissues, rendering them resistant to proteotoxic stress by supporting proper folding – and preventing aggregation – of conformationally aberrant oncoproteins including mutp53.[8, 9] Both classes of mutp53 (structural and DNA-contact) require HSP90 for protection from degradation by their E3 ubiquitin ligases Mdm2 and CHIP (Figure 1a). Thus, combined inhibition of Hsp90 and its obligatory regulator cytosolic HDAC6 by small molecule inhibitors 17DMAG and Vorinostat/SAHA, respectively, or by Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib alone extends overall survival of R175H (structural class) and R248Q (DNA-contact class) mutp53 animals by 30–59% and strongly prevents T-lymphomagenesis (the main tumor type in these mice). Surprisingly, although these are pleiotropic drugs, in no instance do p53-null mice benefit from Hsp90 inhibition[7] (Figure 1a). These anti-cancer effects are concomitant with mutp53 degradation and cancer cell apoptosis, indicating tumor addiction to highly stabilized mutp53. Of note, a positive feed-forward loop from mutp53 to Hsp90 may further reinforce mutp53 stabilization (Figure 1a, green arrow). Thus, in HER2/EGFR-positive breast cancer, GOF mutp53 R175H activates the master heat shock transcription factor Hsf1, which in turn upregulates the heat shock response including HSP90, which then further stabilizes mutp53, HER2 and EGFR.[9] This loop likely contributes to the vulnerability of such cancers to Hsp90 inhibition. Hsp90 inhibitors are currently in clinical evaluation for cancer and other diseases, although none has reached FDA approval.
Figure 1

Degrading aberrantly stabilized mutant p53 proteins by drugging molecular heat shock folding chaperones. (a) The HSP90 chaperone machinery, including Hsp70, Hsp90 and its co-factor HDAC6, protects both classes of missense mutant p53 (DNA-contact and structural/conformational) from ubiquitination and degradation by the E3 ubiquitin ligases Mdm2 and CHIP. HDAC6 inhibitor Vorinostat (aka SAHA) and Hsp90 inhibitors 17AAG/17DMAG and Ganetespib promote mutp53 poly-ubiquitination and degradation, leading to apoptosis and regression of xenografts, allografts and autochthonous tumors (cytotoxic effect). Conversely, mutp53 upregulates the HSP90 machinery (as well as other stress chaperones, including Hsp40) by activating Hsf1, the master transcriptional regulator of the entire inducible heat shock response (green arrow). This represents a mutp53 GOF and a positive feedback loop for mutp53 stabilization. (b) Hsp40/DNAJA1 protects the conformational, but not the DNA-contact, class of mutp53 proteins from CHIP-mediated degradation. Statins inhibit HMG-CoA reductase in the mevalonate pathway, thus reducing levels of mevalonate-5-phosphate (MVP) that is normally required for protective mutp53–Hsp40 interaction, leading to CHIP-mediated nuclear export, poly-ubiquitination and degradation of this class of mutp53. This results in a cytostatic effect on tumor cells. Conversely, mutp53 can stimulate the mevalonate pathway by binding to and activating the sterol biosynthesis master transcription factor SREBP (green arrow), which is another mutp53 GOF and positive feedback loop for mutp53 stabilization. Overall, the two parallel pathways show symmetric architecture

In Nature Cell Biology, Parrales et al.[10] now identified DNAJA1, an Hsp40 isoform, as another important molecular chaperone promoting mutp53 stabilization in cancer. In a drug screen for factors that degrade mutp53 without affecting wild-type p53, they found that statins, cholesterol-lowering drugs, degrade structural (but not DNA-contact) class mutp53 proteins. Moreover, statins specifically suppress growth of structural mutp53 cancer cells in vitro and in xenografts (cytostatic). Mechanistically, statins work via the mevalonate pathway/Hsp40/CHIP axis (Figure 1b). Reduction of mevalonate-5-phosphate (MVP) via inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase by statins – somehow – liberates structural mutp53 from the protective interaction with DNAJA1 and induces CHIP-mediated nuclear export, ubiquitination and degradation of mutp53. These data provide strong evidence for a second tangible therapeutic anti-mutp53 strategy besides Hsp90 inhibition. It would be interesting to test Hsp90i and statins in combination. Also, the effect of statins should be confirmed in knockin mouse models with native tumor stroma and uncompromised immune system. Both Hsp40 and CHIP interact with Hsp70, and Hsp70 cooperates with Hsp90 in stabilizing mutp53.[11] Yet, Hsp70 was not implicated in mutp53 degradation by statins, although it should be noted that only the constitutively expressed Hsc70, but not the stress-induced cancer-relevant Hsp70, was analyzed.[10] The Hsp40/DNAJ family of co-chaperones modulate the activity of Hsp70 chaperones by stimulating their basal ATPase activity and substrate affinity,[8] whereas CHIP (carboxy-terminus of Hsp70-interacting protein) promotes degradation of Hsp70-bound misfolded proteins. Hsp70 and Hsp90 are found in the same cancer-associated ‘epichaperome' complex.[8, 12] Thus it is possible that other heat shock proteins besides Hsp90 and DNAJA1 protect mutp53 from statins-induced degradation. Statins are in wide clinical use as cholesterol-lowering drugs, but in epidemiological studies have long been suspected to have cancer chemoprevention ability.[13] Although this notion remains controversial, the findings of Parrales et al. might provide a possible mechanism. To resolve this important issue in future studies, the patients' mutp53 status, including structural versus DNA-contact class should be taken into account. One limitation is that the conformations of many ‘non-hot-spot' mutp53 proteins are unknown. Interestingly, the majority of published studies analyzed patients who at the time of their cancer diagnosis had already been on statins, possibly suggesting that statins might exert anti-cancer effects in clinically advanced tumors. Intriguingly, upregulation of the mevalonate pathway is one of mutp53's GOF. mutp53 upregulates expression of many mevalonate pathway genes by binding to and promoting the activity of the sterol biosynthesis master transcription factor SREBP[14] (Figure 1b, green arrow). Moreover, not just mutp53, but also mevalonate pathway upregulation correlates with poorer prognosis in breast cancer patients.[14] Thus, by stimulating the mevalonate pathway, mutp53 further reinforces its own DNAJA1/MVP-mediated stability, which could further sensitize mutp53 to statins. In sum, there are now two heat shock pathways mediating GOF mutp53 stabilization. Importantly, both are druggable and produce anti-tumoral effects. This further boosts the notion that indirect chaperone interception to degrade stabilized mutp53 is a more tangible strategy than the elusive long-term goal of identifying small molecules able to convert the many different aberrant conformations of mutp53 into a functional wild-type-like protein.
  14 in total

Review 1.  Statins and cancer prevention.

Authors:  Marie-France Demierre; Peter D R Higgins; Stephen B Gruber; Ernest Hawk; Scott M Lippman
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 2.  Rescuing the function of mutant p53.

Authors:  A N Bullock; A R Fersht
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 60.716

3.  Mutant p53 disrupts mammary tissue architecture via the mevalonate pathway.

Authors:  William A Freed-Pastor; Hideaki Mizuno; Xi Zhao; Anita Langerød; Sung-Hwan Moon; Ruth Rodriguez-Barrueco; Anthony Barsotti; Agustin Chicas; Wencheng Li; Alla Polotskaia; Mina J Bissell; Timothy F Osborne; Bin Tian; Scott W Lowe; Jose M Silva; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Arnold J Levine; Jill Bargonetti; Carol Prives
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 41.582

4.  The epichaperome is an integrated chaperome network that facilitates tumour survival.

Authors:  Anna Rodina; Tai Wang; Pengrong Yan; Erica DaGama Gomes; Mark P S Dunphy; Nagavarakishore Pillarsetty; John Koren; John F Gerecitano; Tony Taldone; Hongliang Zong; Eloisi Caldas-Lopes; Mary Alpaugh; Adriana Corben; Matthew Riolo; Brad Beattie; Christina Pressl; Radu I Peter; Chao Xu; Robert Trondl; Hardik J Patel; Fumiko Shimizu; Alexander Bolaender; Chenghua Yang; Palak Panchal; Mohammad F Farooq; Sarah Kishinevsky; Shanu Modi; Oscar Lin; Feixia Chu; Sujata Patil; Hediye Erdjument-Bromage; Pat Zanzonico; Clifford Hudis; Lorenz Studer; Gail J Roboz; Ethel Cesarman; Leandro Cerchietti; Ross Levine; Ari Melnick; Steven M Larson; Jason S Lewis; Monica L Guzman; Gabriela Chiosis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  HSP90 and the chaperoning of cancer.

Authors:  Luke Whitesell; Susan L Lindquist
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 60.716

6.  DNAJA1 controls the fate of misfolded mutant p53 through the mevalonate pathway.

Authors:  Alejandro Parrales; Atul Ranjan; Swathi V Iyer; Subhash Padhye; Scott J Weir; Anuradha Roy; Tomoo Iwakuma
Journal:  Nat Cell Biol       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 28.824

7.  Two hot spot mutant p53 mouse models display differential gain of function in tumorigenesis.

Authors:  W Hanel; N Marchenko; S Xu; S Xiaofeng Yu; W Weng; U Moll
Journal:  Cell Death Differ       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 15.828

Review 8.  When mutants gain new powers: news from the mutant p53 field.

Authors:  Ran Brosh; Varda Rotter
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 9.  Mutant p53 - Heat Shock Response Oncogenic Cooperation: A New Mechanism of Cancer Cell Survival.

Authors:  Evguenia M Alexandrova; Natalia D Marchenko
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 5.555

10.  Molecular mechanism of mutant p53 stabilization: the role of HSP70 and MDM2.

Authors:  Milena Wiech; Maciej B Olszewski; Zuzanna Tracz-Gaszewska; Bartosz Wawrzynow; Maciej Zylicz; Alicja Zylicz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  15 in total

1.  Sustained protein synthesis and reduced eEF2K levels in TAp73-\- mice brain: a possible compensatory mechanism.

Authors:  Barak Rotblat; Massimiliano Agostini; Maria Victoria Niklison-Chirou; Ivano Amelio; Anne E Willis; Gerry Melino
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 4.534

2.  Oncogenic pathways activated by pro-inflammatory cytokines promote mutant p53 stability: clue for novel anticancer therapies.

Authors:  Gabriella D'Orazi; Marco Cordani; Mara Cirone
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 9.261

Review 3.  Consensus report of the 8 and 9th Weinman Symposia on Gene x Environment Interaction in carcinogenesis: novel opportunities for precision medicine.

Authors:  Michele Carbone; Ivano Amelio; El Bachir Affar; James Brugarolas; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Lewis C Cantley; Webster K Cavenee; Zhijian Chen; Carlo M Croce; Alan D' Andrea; David Gandara; Carlotta Giorgi; Wei Jia; Qing Lan; Tak Wah Mak; James L Manley; Katsuhiko Mikoshiba; Jose N Onuchic; Harvey I Pass; Paolo Pinton; Carol Prives; Nathaniel Rothman; Said M Sebti; James Turkson; Xifeng Wu; Haining Yang; Herbert Yu; Gerry Melino
Journal:  Cell Death Differ       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 15.828

4.  p53 loss-of-heterozygosity is a necessary prerequisite for mutant p53 stabilization and gain-of-function in vivo.

Authors:  Evguenia M Alexandrova; Safia A Mirza; Sulan Xu; Ramona Schulz-Heddergott; Natalia D Marchenko; Ute M Moll
Journal:  Cell Death Dis       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 8.469

5.  A ruthenium(II)-curcumin compound modulates NRF2 expression balancing the cancer cell death/survival outcome according to p53 status.

Authors:  Alessia Garufi; Silvia Baldari; Riccardo Pettinari; Maria Saveria Gilardini Montani; Valerio D'Orazi; Giuseppa Pistritto; Alessandra Crispini; Eugenia Giorno; Gabriele Toietta; Fabio Marchetti; Mara Cirone; Gabriella D'Orazi
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-06-30

Review 6.  Gain-of-Function (GOF) Mutant p53 as Actionable Therapeutic Target.

Authors:  Ramona Schulz-Heddergott; Ute M Moll
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 7.  Cell death pathologies: targeting death pathways and the immune system for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Francesca Pentimalli; Sandro Grelli; Nicola Di Daniele; Gerry Melino; Ivano Amelio
Journal:  Genes Immun       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 2.676

8.  ZNF185 is a p53 target gene following DNA damage.

Authors:  Artem Smirnov; Angela Cappello; Anna Maria Lena; Lucia Anemona; Alessandro Mauriello; Nicola Di Daniele; Margherita Annicchiarico-Petruzzelli; Gerry Melino; Eleonora Candi
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 5.682

9.  Myoblasts rely on TAp63 to control basal mitochondria respiration.

Authors:  Veronica Ciuffoli; Anna Maria Lena; Alessandra Gambacurta; Gerry Melino; Eleonora Candi
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 5.682

Review 10.  Mutant p53 and Cellular Stress Pathways: A Criminal Alliance That Promotes Cancer Progression.

Authors:  Gabriella D'Orazi; Mara Cirone
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.