Blood online
Home About Blood Authors Subscriptions Permission Advertising Public Access contact us
 

 
Advanced
Current Issue
First Edition
Future Articles
Archives
Submit to Blood
Search
American Society of Hematology
Meeting Abstracts
Email Alerts
Blood, 15 October 2008, Vol. 112, No. 8, pp. 2997-2998.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levine, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Vosburgh, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Levine, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Vosburgh, E.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Articles in Blood Online
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Next Article next article arrow

InsideBlood

CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS

Comment on Young et al, page 3088, andO'Shea et al, page 3126

P53 mutations in lymphomas: position matters

Arnold J. Levine, and Evan Vosburgh

CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY; INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY

The p53 protein integrates the combination of mutations that cause a cancer with the set of environmental stresses that act on that cancer. Mutations in the p53 gene can therefore have dramatic impacts on the overall survival of cancer patients.

The p53 protein is a transcription factor that responds to a wide variety of stress signals (DNA damage, hypoxia, etc) that decrease the fidelity of the cellular replication processes. The duplication of damaged DNA results in a high mutation rate and activates the p53 protein, producing cell-cycle arrest, senescence, or cell death.1 The tumor suppressor properties of p53 protein prevent mutational mistakes and the development of cancers. Germ line mutations in the p53 gene result in cancers occurring at a young age, while somatic mutations in the p53 gene are common (approximately 50% incidence) in a wide variety of cancers.2 Thus, the p53 status of a person's germ line or a cancer's genome can impact not only the risk of developing a cancer, but also the response to therapy, which often activates a p53 response in cancers with a wild-type p53 gene. In this issue of Blood, Young and colleagues demonstrate that the mutational status of the p53 gene in germinal center B cell–like, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mutant or wild-type, has a large impact on overall survival (OS; 5-year survival and median survival) in this patient cohort. While the 24% of the cohort that contained p53 mutations had a poor OS, the location of the missense mutation in the p53 gene was also important.


Figure 1
View larger version (69K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
The distribution pattern of TP53 mutations in the central core domain model designed from published crystal structure (red, patients with poor survival; green, those with survival similar to WT group; blue, survival data unavailable). See the complete figure in the article beginning on page 3088.

 
The human p53 gene contains 393 codons and the p53 protein this gene produces is commonly divided into 5 domains: an RNA polymerase transactivating domain, a proline rich domain, a DNA-binding domain, a tetramerization domain, and a carboxy-terminal regulatory domain. Virtually all of the p53 mutations found in cancers are localized to the DNA-binding domain. That protein domain is commonly divided into 3 loops: L1 (codons 112-141), L2 (codons 163-195), and L3 (codons 236-251), and 2 loop-sheet-helix regions (codons 119-135; 272-287) that reflect the structure of this protein. Loops 1 and 3 and the Loop-Sheet-Helix (LSH) region from codons 272 to 287 make direct contacts with the DNA adjacent to a gene that is regulated by the p53 transcription factor, while loop 2 is required for folding and stabilization of this DNA-binding domain and is not in direct contact with the DNA. P53 mutations (62 mutations) in the part of the protein that make DNA contacts, loops 1 and 3, and the LSH codons 272 to 287 had poor median survivals (1 year) and poor 5-year survivals (19%, P = .008), while the p53 mutations in portions of the DNA-binding domain of the protein not in contact with DNA (loop 2) had no significant impact on OS. This has also been observed in a variety of other cancers.3,4

In a second paper in this issue of Blood, by O'Shea and colleagues, p53 mutational status of a follicular lymphoma (FL) was also associated with a shorter progression-free survival and with a shorter overall survival. In FLs, only a small percentage of these cancers have p53 mutations (6%), and these 12 cases were correlated with older ages of patients and a higher International Prognostic Index. P53 mutations also correlated with a poorer nature of the immune response in FL. The consistent and strong results in both studies suggest that analysis of the type of p53 mutation in a lymphoma could be very useful prognostic information with utility for treatment decisions. These ideas could be validated in a clinical trial, providing rational selection criteria for patients who could benefit from more intensive up-front or postremission therapy rather than waiting for a tumor relapse.

How can these results be functionally interpreted? First, there are 2 classes of missense mutations in the DNA binding domain, one that disrupts the structure of the entire protein commonly by eliminating the binding of zinc molecules (cystines-176, -238, and -242 and histidine-179), and a second where mutations in the protein's DNA contact regions that weaken the binding of the protein to its targeted DNA but retain a similar protein structure. It is this second class that both gives rise to the adverse prognosis of DLBCL and often demonstrates allele-specific "gain-of-function mutations"5,6 that confers new properties on a mutant p53 protein. These mutant proteins apparently bind to other transcription factors (like p73) and alter their functions, making the cell more resistant to apoptosis and chemotherapy. These "gain-of-function" phenotypes have been demonstrated in cell cultures and in transgenic mice.7 The observations made in these papers suggest the possibility that allele-specific "gain-of-function" mutations can act in humans to contribute to poor overall survival. Unlike many tumor suppressor gene mutations, most of the p53 mutations found in tumors are missense mutations (92 in the DLBCL study), rather than deletions or insertions (10 in that study) that destroy the structure of the protein. That observation suggests that tumors may select for a p53 missense mutation that provides a helpful "gain-of-function" for tumor growth and survival before and during treatments. This idea will clearly need additional studies examining the possible altered transcriptional patterns brought about in a p53 mutant allele-specific fashion in DLBCL and FL. There ought to be a transcriptional "signature of genes" of that mutant p53 protein, disrupting the function of other transcription factors. The concept that tumor suppressor genes contribute to the origins and development of cancers by their loss of a function will now have to be modified to include the oncogene-like activity of a mutant p53 protein that has a "gain-of-function."

Footnotes

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests. {blacksquare}

REFERENCES

  1. Levine AJ, Hu W, Feng Z. The p53 pathway: what questions remain to be explored? Cell Death Differ. 2006;13:1027–1036.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

  2. Hollstein M, Sidransky D, Vogelstein B, et al. p53 mutations in human cancers. Science. 1991;253:49–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  3. Borresen AL, Andersen TI, Eyfjord JE, et al. TP53 mutations and breast cancer prognosis: particularlypoor survival rates for cases with mutations in the zinc- binding domains. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1995;14:71–75.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

  4. Olivier M, Langerod A, Carrieri P, et al. The clinical value of somatic TP53 gene mutations in 1,794 patients with breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:1157–1167.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  5. Blandino G, Levine AJ, Oren M. Mutant p53 gain of function: differential effects of different p53 mutants on resistance of cultured cells to chemotherapy. Oncogene. 1999;18:477–485.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

  6. Song H, Hollstein M, Xu Y. p53 gain-of-function cancer mutants induce genetic instability by inactivating ATM. Nat Cell Biol. 2007;9:573–580.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

  7. Lozano G, Zambetti GP. What have animal models taught us about the p53 pathway? J Pathol. 2005;205:206–220.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles in Blood Online:

Structural profiles of TP53 gene mutations predict clinical outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an international collaborative study
Ken H. Young, Karen Leroy, Michael B. Møller, Gisele W. B. Colleoni, Margarita Sánchez-Beato, Fábio R. Kerbauy, Corinne Haioun, Jens C. Eickhoff, Allen H. Young, Philippe Gaulard, Miguel A. Piris, Terry D. Oberley, William M. Rehrauer, Brad S. Kahl, James S. Malter, Elias Campo, Jan Delabie, Randy D. Gascoyne, Andreas Rosenwald, Lisa Rimsza, James Huang, Rita M. Braziel, Elaine S. Jaffe, Wyndham H. Wilson, Louis M. Staudt, Julie M. Vose, Wing C. Chan, Dennis D. Weisenburger, and Timothy C. Greiner
Blood 2008 112: 3088-3098. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The presence of TP53 mutation at diagnosis of follicular lymphoma identifies a high-risk group of patients with shortened time to disease progression and poorer overall survival
Derville O'Shea, Ciarán O'Riain, Claire Taylor, Rachel Waters, Emanuela Carlotti, Finlay MacDougall, John Gribben, Andreas Rosenwald, German Ott, Lisa M. Rimsza, Erlend B. Smeland, Nathalie Johnson, Elias Campo, Timothy C. Greiner, Wing C. Chan, Randy D. Gascoyne, George Wright, Louis M. Staudt, T. Andrew Lister, and Jude Fitzgibbon
Blood 2008 112: 3126-3129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levine, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Vosburgh, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Levine, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Vosburgh, E.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Articles in Blood Online
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

 click for free articles
home about blood authors subscriptions permissions advertising public access contact us
  Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Hematology         Online ISSN: 1528-0020