4.6 Article

Properties of the six isoforms of p63:: p53-like regulation in response to genotoxic stress and cross talk with ΔNp73

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 273-281

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgm258

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TP63, a member of the TP53 gene family, encodes two groups of three isoforms (alpha, beta and gamma). The TAp63 isoforms act as transcription factors. The Delta Np63 isoforms lack the main transcription activation domain and act as dominant-negative inhibitors of transactivation (TA) isoforms. To clarify the role of these isoforms and to better understand their functional overlap with p53, we ectopically expressed each p63 isoform in the p53-null hepatocellular carcinoma cell line Hep3B. All TA isoforms, as well as Delta Np63 alpha, had a half-life of < 1 h when transiently expressed and were degraded by the proteasome pathway. The most stable form was Delta Np63 gamma, with a half-life of > 8 h. As expected, TA isoforms differed in their transcriptional activities toward genes regulated by p53, TAp63 gamma being the most active form. In contrast, Delta Np63 isoforms were transcriptionally inactive on genes studied and inhibited TA isoforms in a dose-dependent manner. When stably expressed in polyclonal cell populations, TAp63 beta and gamma isoforms were undetectable. However, when treated with doxorubicin (DOX), p63 proteins rapidly accumulated in the cells. This stabilization was associated with an increase in phosphorylation. Strikingly, in DOX-treated polyclonal populations, increase in TAp63 levels was accompanied by overexpression of Delta Np73. This observation suggests complex regulatory cross talks between the different isoforms of the p53 family. In conclusion, p63 exhibits several transcriptional and stress-response properties similar to those of p53, suggesting that p63 activities should be taken into consideration in approaches to improve cancer therapies based on genotoxic agents.

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