4.8 Article

Reciprocal repression between P53 and TCTP

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 91-99

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm.2546

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche Programme Blanc [ANR-09-BLAN-0292-01]
  2. European Union
  3. Association Sclerose Tubereuse de Bourneville
  4. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro
  5. Italian Ministries of Education University Research (MIUR)
  6. Italian Ministry of Health
  7. European Community
  8. European Research Council
  9. Ferrari Foundation
  10. Monzino Foundation and the Cassa Risparmio Provincie Lombarde (CARIPLO) Foundation
  11. Vollaro Foundation
  12. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)
  13. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-09-BLAN-0292] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Screening for genes that reprogram cancer cells for the tumor reversion switch identified TCTP (encoding translationally controlled tumor protein) as a crucial regulator of apoptosis. Here we report a negative feedback loop between P53 and TCTP. TCTP promotes P53 degradation by competing with NUMB for binding to P53-MDM2-containing complexes. TCTP inhibits MDM2 auto-ubiquitination and promotes MDM2-mediated ubiquitination and degradation of P53. Notably, Tctp haploinsufficient mice are sensitized to P53-dependent apoptosis. In addition, P53 directly represses TCTPtranscription. In 508 breast cancers, high-TCTP status associates with poorly differentiated, aggressive G3-grade tumors, predicting poor prognosis (P < 0.0005). Tctp knockdown in primary mammary tumor cells from ErbB2 transgenic mice results in increased P53 expression and a decreased number of stem-like cancer cells. The pharmacological compounds sertraline and thioridazine increase the amount of P53 by neutralizing TCTP's action on the MDM2-P53 axis. This study links TCTP and P53 in a previously unidentified regulatory circuitry that may underlie the relevance of TCTP in cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据