Cited by 422Cancer-related Molecular PathwaysDNA Repair MechanismsGene Regulatory Network Analysis

Recurrent Initiation: A Mechanism for Triggering p53 Pulses in Response to DNA Damage

Open access
Batchelor, Eric, Mock, Caroline S., Bhan, Irun, Loewer, Alexander, Lahav, Galit·2008·Molecular Cell

Abstract

DNA damage initiates a series of p53 pulses. Although much is known about the interactions surrounding p53, little is known about which interactions contribute to p53's dynamical behavior. The simplest explanation is that these pulses are oscillations intrinsic to the p53/Mdm2 negative feedback loop. Here we present evidence that this simple mechanism is insufficient to explain p53 pulses; we show that p53 pulses are externally driven by pulses in the upstream signaling kinases, ATM and Chk2, and that the negative feedback between p53 and ATM, via Wip1, is essential for maintaining the uniform shape of p53 pulses. We propose that p53 pulses result from repeated initiation by ATM, which is reactivated by persistent DNA damage. Our study emphasizes the importance of collecting quantitative dynamic information at high temporal resolution for understanding the regulation of signaling pathways and opens new ways to manipulate p53 pulses to ask questions about their function in response to DNA damage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.03.016

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DNA damage initiates a series of p53 pulses that ultimately lead to target gene activation.

    “DNA damage, for example, initiates a series of p53 pulses that ultimately lead to target gene activation.57”

    From Census and evaluation of p53 target genes (2017) · cites this paper as [57]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Batchelor, E., Mock, C. S., Bhan, I., Loewer, A., & Lahav, G.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Lahav, Galit
Venue
Molecular Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-05
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
277-289
ISSN
1097-2765 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010114834
Cited by
422
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 29
FWCI
14.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • American Cancer Society
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM083303, GM083303)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA Repair Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
DNA damage response, ATM kinase, Chk2, Wip1, p53 oscillations, persistent DNA damage
MeSH terms
Protein Phosphatase 2C, Animals, DNA Damage, DNA-Binding Proteins, Gamma Rays, Humans, Imidazoles, Mathematics, Models, Theoretical, Phosphoprotein Phosphatases, Piperazines, Signal Transduction, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53, Protein Serine-Threonine Kinases, Cell Cycle Proteins, Tumor Suppressor Proteins, RNA Interference, Cell Line, Tumor, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-mdm2, Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Proteins, Checkpoint Kinase 2

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review