4.8 Article

p53-dependent and p53-independent activation of autophagy by ARF

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 352-357

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2069

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA131439, R01 CA104843, R01 CA129627, P01 CA097403, R01 CA085533, R01 CA098821, R01 CA118561] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ARF tumor suppressor is a crucial component of the cellular response to hyperproliferative signals, including oncogene activation, and functions by inducing a p53-dependent cell growth arrest and apoptosis program. It has recently been reported that the ARF mRNA can produce a smARF isoform that lacks the NH2-terminal region required for p53 activation. Overexpression of this isoform can induce autophagy, a cellular process characterized by the formation of cytoplasmic vesicles and the digestion of cellular content, independently of p53. However, the level of this isoform is extremely low in cells, and it remains unclear whether the predominant form of ARF, the full-length protein, is able to activate autophagy. Here, we show that full-length ARF can induce autophagy in 293T cells where p53 is inactivated by viral proteins, and, notably, expression of the NH2-terminal region alone, which is required for nucleolar localization, is sufficient for autophagy activation, independently of p53. Given the reported ability of p53 to induce autophagy, we also investigated the role of p53 in ARF-mediated autophagy induction. We found that full-length ARF expression induces p53 activation and promotes autophagy in a p53-positive cell line, and that ARF-mediated autophagy can be abrogated, at least in part, by RNAi-mediated knockdown of p53 in this cellular context. Thus, our findings modify the current view regarding the mechanism of autophagy induction by ARF and suggest an important role for autophagy in tumor suppression via full-length ARF in both p53-dependent and p53-independent manners, depending on cellular context.

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