4.8 Article

Pyrimidine biosynthesis links mitochondrial respiration to the p53 pathway

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0910885107

关键词

dihydroorotate dehydrogenase; mitochondrial electron transport chain; NQO1 and NQO2; p53 tumor suppressor; apoptosis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA104903, AG025276]
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute [55005603]
  3. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [09-04-01246a, 08-04-00686a, 07-04-00335a]
  4. Russian Academy of Sciences
  5. Russian Ministry of Education and Science [NK-542P, P334]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While many functions of the p53 tumor suppressor affect mitochondrial processes, the role of altered mitochondrial physiology in a modulation of p53 response remains unclear. As mitochondrial respiration is affected in many pathologic conditions such as hypoxia and intoxications, the impaired electron transport chain could emit additional p53-inducing signals and thereby contribute to tissue damage. Here we show that a shutdown of mitochondrial respiration per se does not trigger p53 response, because inhibitors acting in the proximal and distal segments of the respiratory chain do not activate p53. However, strong p53 response is induced specifically after an inhibition of the mitochondrial cytochrome bc1 ( the electron transport chain complex III). The p53 response is triggered by the deficiency in pyrimidines that is developed due to a suppression of the functionally coupled mitochondrial pyrimidine biosynthesis enzyme dihydroorotate dehydrogenase ( DHODH). In epithelial carcinoma cells the activation of p53 in response to mitochondrial electron transport chain complex III inhibitors does not require phosphorylation of p53 at Serine 15 or up-regulation of p14(ARF). Instead, our data suggest a contribution of NQO1 and NQO2 in stabilization of p53 in the nuclei. The results establish the deficiency in pyrimidine biosynthesis as the cause of p53 response in the cells with impaired mitochondrial respiration.

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