Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 176

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ribosomal protein S14 unties the MDM2–p53 loop upon ribosomal stress

Open access
Zhou, X, Hao, Q, Liao, J, Zhang, Q, Lu, H·2013·Oncogene

Abstract

The MDM2–p53 feedback loop is crucially important for restricting p53 level and activity during normal cell growth and proliferation, and is thus subjected to dynamic regulation in order for cells to activate p53 upon various stress signals. Several ribosomal proteins, such as RPL11, RPL5, RPL23, RPL26 or RPS7, have been shown to have a role in regulation of this feedback loop in response to ribosomal stress. Here, we identify another ribosomal protein S14, which is highly associated with 5q-syndrome, as a novel activator of p53 by inhibiting MDM2 activity. We found that RPS14, but not RPS19, binds to the central acidic domain of MDM2, similar to RPL5 and RPL23, and inhibits its E3 ubiquitin ligase activity toward p53. This RPS14–MDM2 binding was induced upon ribosomal stress caused by actinomycin D or mycophenolic acid. Overexpression of RPS14, but not RPS19, elevated p53 level and activity, leading to G1 or G2 arrest. Conversely, knockdown of RPS14 alleviated p53 induction by these two reagents. Interestingly, knockdown of either RPS14 or RPS19 caused a ribosomal stress that led to p53 activation, which was impaired by further knocking down the level of RPL11 or RPL5. Together, our results demonstrate that RPS14 and RPS19 have distinct roles in regulating the MDM2–p53 feedback loop in response to ribosomal stress.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/onc.2012.63

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 176

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, X., Hao, Q., Liao, J., Zhang, Q., & Lu, H.
Venue
Oncogene
Published
2012-03-05
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
388-396
ISSN
  • 0950-9232 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5594
OpenAlex
W1980473722
Cited by
176
References
10
FWCI
7.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.