4.6 Article

Increased Oxidative Damage in Carriers of the Germline TP53 p.R337H Mutation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Brazilian CNPq [133439/2010-0]
  2. Brazilian FAPERGS-PRONEX [10/0051-9]
  3. Brazilian FIPE/HCPA
  4. Brazilian MCT/CNPq INCT-TM [573671/2008-7]
  5. Brazilian FAPERGS-PRONEX
  6. GlaxoSmithKline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Germline mutations in TP53 are the underlying defect of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) and Li-Fraumeni-like (LFL) Syndrome, autosomal dominant disorders characterized by predisposition to multiple early onset cancers. In Brazil, a variant form of LFS/LFL is commonly detected because of the high prevalence of a founder mutation at codon 337 in TP53 (p.R337H). The p53 protein exerts multiple roles in the regulation of oxidative metabolism and cellular anti-oxidant defense systems. Herein, we analyzed the redox parameters in blood samples from p.R337H mutation carriers (C, n = 17) and non-carriers (NC, n = 17). We identified a significant increase in erythrocyte GPx activity and in plasma carbonyl content, an indicator of protein oxidative damage, in mutation carriers compared to non-carriers (P = 0.048 and P = 0.035, respectively). Mutation carriers also showed a four-fold increase in plasma malondialdehyde levels, indicating increased lipid peroxidation (NC = 40.20 +/- 0.71, C = 160.5 +/- 0.88, P<0.0001). Finally, carriers showed increased total antioxidant status but a decrease in plasma ascorbic acid content. The observed imbalance could be associated with deregulated cell bioenergetics and/or with increased inflammatory stress, two effects that may result from loss of wild-type p53 function. These findings provide the first evidence that oxidative damage occurs in carriers of a germline TP53 mutation, and these may have important implications regarding our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for germline TP53 p.R337H mutation-associated carcinogenesis.

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

4.6
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