Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Determinants of p53 DNA binding, gene regulation, and cell fate decisions

Fischer, Martin, Sammons, Morgan A.·2024·Cell Death & Differentiation
DOI 10.1038/s41418-024-01326-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The extent to which transcription factors read and respond to specific information content within short DNA sequences remains an important question that the tumor suppressor p53 is helping us answer. We discuss recent insights into how local information content at p53 binding sites might control modes of p53 target gene activation and cell fate decisions. Significant prior work has yielded data supporting two potential models of how p53 determines cell fate through its target genes: a selective target gene binding and activation model and a p53 level threshold model. Both of these models largely revolve around an analogy of whether p53 is acting in a “smart” or “dumb” manner. Here, we synthesize recent and past studies on p53 decoding of DNA sequence, chromatin context, and cellular signaling cascades to elicit variable cell fates critical in human development, homeostasis, and disease.

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/s41418-024-01326-1

Cites

8 of 8 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

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?

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

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 83

  1. Sammons MA, Nguyen T-AT, McDade SS, Fischer M. Tumor suppressor p53: from engaging DNA to target gene regulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:8848–69. · DOI
  2. Kastenhuber ER, Lowe SW. Putting p53 in Context. Cell. 2017;170:1062–78. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Haupt Y, Maya R, Kazaz A, Oren M. Mdm2 promotes the rapid degradation of p53. Nature. 1997;387:296–9. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Liu Y, Leslie PL, Zhang Y. Life and Death Decision-Making by p53 and Implications for Cancer Immunotherapy. Trends Cancer. 2021;7:226–39. · DOI
  5. Fischer M. Census and evaluation of p53 target genes. Oncogene. 2017;36:3943–56. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Waldman T, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. p21 is necessary for the p53-mediated G1 arrest in human cancer cells. Cancer Res. 1995;55:5187–90.
  7. Yu J, Zhang L, Hwang PM, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. PUMA Induces the Rapid Apoptosis of Colorectal Cancer Cells. Mol Cell. 2001;7:673–82. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Nakano K, Vousden KH. PUMA, a Novel Proapoptotic Gene, Is Induced by p53. Mol Cell. 2001;7:683–94. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Vousden KH. p53. Cell. 2000;103:691–4. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Oda K, Arakawa H, Tanaka T, Matsuda K, Tanikawa C, Mori T, et al. p53AIP1, a potential mediator of p53-dependent apoptosis, and its regulation by Ser-46-phosphorylated p53. Cell. 2000;102:849–62. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Tang Y, Luo J, Zhang W, Gu W. Tip60-Dependent Acetylation of p53 Modulates the Decision between Cell-Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis. Mol Cell. 2006;24:827–39. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Das S, Raj L, Zhao B, Kimura Y, Bernstein A, Aaronson SA, et al. Hzf Determines Cell Survival upon Genotoxic Stress by Modulating p53 Transactivation. Cell. 2007;130:624–37. · DOI
  13. Szak ST, Mays D, Pietenpol JA. Kinetics of p53 Binding to Promoter Sites In Vivo. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21:3375–86. · DOI
  14. Qian H, Wang T, Naumovski L, Lopez CD, Brachmann RK. Groups of p53 target genes involved in specific p53 downstream effects cluster into different classes of DNA binding sites. Oncogene. 2002;21:7901–11. · DOI
  15. Inga A, Storici F, Darden TA, Resnick MA. Differential Transactivation by the p53 Transcription Factor Is Highly Dependent on p53 Level and Promoter Target Sequence. Mol Cell Biol. 2002;22:8612–25. · DOI
  16. Veprintsev DB, Fersht AR. Algorithm for prediction of tumour suppressor p53 affinity for binding sites in DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:1589–98. · DOI
  17. Hafner A, Stewart-Ornstein J, Purvis JE, Forrester WC, Bulyk ML, Lahav G. p53 pulses lead to distinct patterns of gene expression albeit similar DNA-binding dynamics. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2017;24:840–7. · DOI
  18. Nguyen T-AT, Grimm SA, Bushel PR, Li J, Li Y, Bennett BD, et al. Revealing a human p53 universe. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:8153–67. · DOI
  19. Hafner A, Kublo L, Tsabar M, Lahav G, Stewart-Ornstein J. Identification of universal and cell-type specific p53 DNA binding. BMC Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21:5. · DOI
  20. Resnick-Silverman L, Zhou R, Campbell MJ, Leibling I, Parsons R, Manfredi JJ. In vivo RNA-seq and ChIP-seq analyses show an obligatory role for the C terminus of p53 in conferring tissue-specific radiation sensitivity. Cell Rep. 2023;42:112216. · DOI
  21. Jiménez A, Lu D, Kalocsay M, Berberich MJ, Balbi P, Jambhekar A, et al. Time‐series transcriptomics and proteomics reveal alternative modes to decode p53 oscillations. Mol Syst Biol. 2022;18:e10588. · DOI
  22. Wu X, Bayle JH, Olson D, Levine AJ. The p53-mdm-2 autoregulatory feedback loop. Genes Dev. 1993;7:1126–32. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Korkmaz G, Lopes R, Ugalde AP, Nevedomskaya E, Han R, Myacheva K, et al. Functional genetic screens for enhancer elements in the human genome using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:192–8. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Catizone AN, Uzunbas GK, Celadova P, Kuang S, Bose D, Sammons MA. Locally acting transcription factors regulate p53-dependent cis-regulatory element activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:4195–213. · DOI
  25. Johnson RA, Ince TA, Scotto KW. Transcriptional Repression by p53 through Direct Binding to a Novel DNA Element. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:27716–20. · DOI
  26. Wang B, Xiao Z, Ren EC. Redefining the p53 response element. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:14373–8. · DOI
  27. Kenzelmann Broz D, Mello SS, Bieging KT, Jiang D, Dusek RL, Brady CA, et al. Global genomic profiling reveals an extensive p53-regulated autophagy program contributing to key p53 responses. Genes Dev. 2013;27:1016–31. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Fischer M, Steiner L, Engeland K. The transcription factor p53: Not a repressor, solely an activator. Cell Cycle. 2014;13:3037–58. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Allen MA, Andrysik Z, Dengler VL, Mellert HS, Guarnieri A, Freeman JA, et al. Global analysis of p53-regulated transcription identifies its direct targets and unexpected regulatory mechanisms. Elife. 2014;3:e02200. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Andrysik Z, Galbraith MD, Guarnieri AL, Zaccara S, Sullivan KD, Pandey A, et al. Identification of a core TP53 transcriptional program with highly distributed tumor suppressive activity. Genome Res. 2017;27:1645–57. · DOI
  31. Fischer M. Conservation and divergence of the p53 gene regulatory network between mice and humans. Oncogene. 2019;38:4095–109. · DOI
  32. Riege K, Kretzmer H, Sahm A, McDade SS, Hoffmann S, Fischer M. Dissecting the DNA binding landscape and gene regulatory network of p63 and p53. Elife. 2020;9:e63266. · DOI
  33. Verfaillie A, Svetlichnyy D, Imrichova H, Davie K, Fiers M, Atak ZK, et al. Multiplex enhancer-reporter assays uncover unsophisticated TP53 enhancer logic. Genome Res. 2016;26:882–95. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Trauernicht M, Rastogi C, Manzo SG, Bussemaker HJ, van Steensel B, van Steensel B. Optimisation of TP53 reporters by systematic dissection of synthetic TP53 response elements. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51:9690–702. · DOI
  35. Senitzki A, Safieh J, Sharma V, Golovenko D, Danin-Poleg Y, Inga A, et al. The complex architecture of p53 binding sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:1364–82. · DOI
  36. Farkas M, Hashimoto H, Bi Y, Davuluri RV, Resnick-Silverman L, Manfredi JJ, et al. Distinct mechanisms control genome recognition by p53 at its target genes linked to different cell fates. Nat Commun. 2021;12:484. · DOI
  37. Safieh J, Chazan A, Saleem H, Vyas P, Danin-Poleg Y, Ron D, et al. A molecular mechanism for the “digital” response of p53 to stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2023;120:e2305713120. · DOI
  38. Younger ST, Rinn JL. p53 regulates enhancer accessibility and activity in response to DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:9889–9900. · DOI
  39. Peng T, Zhai Y, Atlasi Y, ter Huurne M, Marks H, Stunnenberg HG, et al. STARR-seq identifies active, chromatin-masked, and dormant enhancers in pluripotent mouse embryonic stem cells. Genome Biol. 2020;21:243. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Sahu B, Hartonen T, Pihlajamaa P, Wei B, Dave K, Zhu F, et al. Sequence determinants of human gene regulatory elements. Nat Genet. 2022;54:283–94. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Sahu G, Wang D, Chen CB, Zhurkin VB, Harrington RE, Appella E, et al. p53 binding to nucleosomal DNA depends on the rotational positioning of DNA response element. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:1321–32. · DOI
  42. Yu X, Buck MJ. Defining TP53 pioneering capabilities with competitive nucleosome binding assays. Genome Res. 2019;29:107–15. · DOI
  43. Nishimura M, Arimura Y, Nozawa K, Kurumizaka H. Linker DNA and histone contributions in nucleosome binding by p53. J Biochem. 2020;168:669–75. · DOI
  44. Nishimura M, Takizawa Y, Nozawa K, Kurumizaka H. Structural basis for p53 binding to its nucleosomal target DNA sequence. PNAS Nexus. 2022;1:pgac177. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Cui F, Zhurkin VB. Rotational positioning of nucleosomes facilitates selective binding of p53 to response elements associated with cell cycle arrest. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:836–47. · DOI
  46. Freewoman JM, Snape R, Cui F. Temporal gene regulation by p53 is associated with the rotational setting of its binding sites in nucleosomes. Cell Cycle. 2021;20:792–807. · DOI
  47. Fischer M, Grossmann P, Padi M, DeCaprio JA. Integration of TP53, DREAM, MMB-FOXM1 and RB-E2F target gene analyses identifies cell cycle gene regulatory networks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:6070–86. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Tatavosian R, Donovan MG, Galbraith MD, Duc HN, Szwarc MM, Joshi MU, et al. Cell differentiation modifies the p53 transcriptional program through a combination of gene silencing and constitutive transactivation. Cell Death Differ. 2023;30:952–65. · DOI
  49. Karsli Uzunbas G, Ahmed F, Sammons MA. Control of p53-dependent transcription and enhancer activity by the p53 family member p63. J Biol Chem. 2019;294:10720–36. · DOI
  50. Sammons MA, Zhu J, Drake AM, Berger SL. TP53 engagement with the genome occurs in distinct local chromatin environments via pioneer factor activity. Genome Res. 2015;25:179–88. · DOI
  51. Isbel L, Iskar M, Durdu S, Weiss J, Grand RS, Hietter-Pfeiffer E, et al. Readout of histone methylation by Trim24 locally restricts chromatin opening by p53. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2023;30:948–57. · DOI
  52. Serra F, Nieto-Aliseda A, Fanlo-Escudero L, Rovirosa L, Cabrera-Pasadas M, Lazarenkov A, et al. p53 rapidly restructures 3D chromatin organization to trigger a transcriptional response. Nat Commun. 2024;15:2821. · DOI
  53. Gulve N, Su C, Deng Z, Soldan SS, Vladimirova O, Wickramasinghe J, et al. DAXX-ATRX regulation of p53 chromatin binding and DNA damage response. Nat Commun. 2022;13:5033. · DOI
  54. Tang Z, Chen W-Y, Shimada M, Nguyen UTT, Kim J, Sun X-J, et al. SET1 and p300 Act Synergistically, through Coupled Histone Modifications, in Transcriptional Activation by p53. Cell. 2013;154:297–310. · DOI
  55. Bergamaschi D, Samuels Y, O’Neil NJ, Trigiante G, Crook T, Hsieh J-K, et al. iASPP oncoprotein is a key inhibitor of p53 conserved from worm to human. Nat Genet. 2003;33:162–7. · DOI · Paper page
  56. Chen S, Wu J, Zhong S, Li Y, Zhang P, Ma J, et al. iASPP mediates p53 selectivity through a modular mechanism fine-tuning DNA recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116:17470–9. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Liebl MC, Moehlenbrink J, Becker H, Raddatz G, Abdeen SK, Aqeilan RI, et al. DAZAP2 acts as specifier of the p53 response to DNA damage. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:2759–76. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Lin T, Hou P-F, Meng S, Chen F, Jiang T, Li M-L, et al. Emerging Roles of p53 Related lncRNAs in Cancer Progression: A Systematic Review. Int J Biol Sci. 2019;15:1287–98. · DOI
  59. Morachis JM, Murawsky CM, Emerson BM. Regulation of the p53 transcriptional response by structurally diverse core promoters. Genes Dev. 2010;24:135–47. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Woodstock DL, Sammons MA, Fischer M. p63 and p53: Collaborative Partners or Dueling Rivals? Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:701986. · DOI
  61. Batchelor E, Loewer A, Mock C, Lahav G. Stimulus‐dependent dynamics of p53 in single cells. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7:488. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Purvis JE, Karhohs KW, Mock C, Batchelor E, Loewer A, Lahav G. p53 Dynamics Control Cell Fate. Science. 2012;336:1440–4. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Wu M, Ye H, Tang Z, Shao C, Lu G, Chen B, et al. p53 dynamics orchestrates with binding affinity to target genes for cell fate decision. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8:e3130–e3130. · DOI
  64. Porter JR, Fisher BE, Batchelor E. p53 Pulses Diversify Target Gene Expression Dynamics in an mRNA Half-Life-Dependent Manner and Delineate Co-regulated Target Gene Subnetworks. Cell Syst. 2016;2:272–82. · DOI
  65. Pant V, Xiong S, Jackson JG, Post SM, Abbas HA, Quintás-Cardama A, et al. The p53–Mdm2 feedback loop protects against DNA damage by inhibiting p53 activity but is dispensable for p53 stability, development, and longevity. Genes Dev. 2013;27:1857–67. · DOI
  66. Friedrich D, Friedel L, Finzel A, Herrmann A, Preibisch S, Loewer A. Stochastic transcription in the p53-mediated response to DNA damage is modulated by burst frequency. Mol Syst Biol. 2019;15:e9068. · DOI
  67. Harton MD, Koh WS, Bunker AD, Singh A, Batchelor E. p53 pulse modulation differentially regulates target gene promoters to regulate cell fate decisions. Mol Syst Biol. 2019;15:e8685. · DOI
  68. Antwi EB, Marrakchi Y, Çiçek Ö, Brox T, Di Ventura B. Requirements for mammalian promoters to decode transcription factor dynamics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51:4674–90. · DOI
  69. Kaeser MD, Iggo RD. Chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis fails to support the latency model for regulation of p53 DNA binding activity in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002;99:95–100. · DOI · Paper page
  70. Spencer SL, Sorger PK. Measuring and Modeling Apoptosis in Single Cells. Cell. 2011;144:926–39. · DOI · Paper page
  71. Shats I, Deng M, Davidovich A, Zhang C, Kwon JS, Manandhar D, et al. Expression level is a key determinant of E2F1-mediated cell fate. Cell Death Differ. 2017;24:626–37. · DOI
  72. Murphy DJ, Junttila MR, Pouyet L, Karnezis A, Shchors K, Bui DA, et al. Distinct Thresholds Govern Myc’s Biological Output In Vivo. Cancer Cell. 2008;14:447–57. · DOI · Paper page
  73. Hemann MT, Bric A, Teruya-Feldstein J, Herbst A, Nilsson JA, Cordon-Cardo C, et al. Evasion of the p53 tumour surveillance network by tumour-derived MYC mutants. Nature. 2005;436:807–11. · DOI · Paper page
  74. Sánchez-Rivera FJ, Ryan J, Soto-Feliciano YM, Clare Beytagh M, Xuan L, Feldser DM, et al. Mitochondrial apoptotic priming is a key determinant of cell fate upon p53 restoration. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118:e2019740118. · DOI
  75. Paek AL, Liu JC, Loewer A, Forrester WC, Lahav G. Cell-to-Cell Variation in p53 Dynamics Leads to Fractional Killing. Cell. 2016;165:631–42. · DOI · Paper page
  76. Lees A, McIntyre AJ, Crawford NT, Falcone F, McCann C, Holohan C, et al. The pseudo-caspase FLIP(L) regulates cell fate following p53 activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117:17808–19. · DOI
  77. Pan R, Ruvolo V, Mu H, Leverson JD, Nichols G, Reed JC, et al. Synthetic Lethality of Combined Bcl-2 Inhibition and p53 Activation in AML: Mechanisms and Superior Antileukemic Efficacy. Cancer Cell. 2017;32:748–760.e6. · DOI · Paper page
  78. Bharti V, Watkins R, Kumar A, Shattuck-Brandt RL, Mossing A, Mittra A, et al. BCL-xL inhibition potentiates cancer therapies by redirecting the outcome of p53 activation from senescence to apoptosis. Cell Rep. 2022;41:111826. · DOI
  79. Baniulyte G, Durham SA, Merchant LE, Sammons MA. Shared Gene Targets of the ATF4 and p53 Transcriptional Networks. Mol Cell Biol. 2023;43:426–49. · DOI
  80. Andrysik Z, Sullivan KD, Kieft JS, Espinosa JM. PPM1D suppresses p53-dependent transactivation and cell death by inhibiting the Integrated Stress Response. Nat Commun. 2022;13:7400. · DOI
  81. Sun T, Mu D, Cui J. Mathematical model identifies effective P53 accumulation with target gene binding affinity in DNA damage response for cell fate decision. Cell Cycle. 2018;17:2716–30. · DOI
  82. Wang P, Yu J, Zhang L. The nuclear function of p53 is required for PUMA-mediated apoptosis induced by DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:4054–9. · DOI · Paper page
  83. Zeron-Medina J, Wang X, Repapi E, Campbell MR, Su D, Castro-Giner F, et al. A Polymorphic p53 Response Element in KIT Ligand Influences Cancer Risk and Has Undergone Natural Selection. Cell. 2013;155:410–22. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 56

Metadata

Authors
Fischer, M., & Sammons, M. A.
ORCID
Venue
Cell Death & Differentiation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-06-29
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
836-843
ISSN
  • 1350-9047
  • 1476-5403
DOI
10.1038/s41418-024-01326-1
Cited by
56
References
8
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FI 1993/7-1)
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (GM138120)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Determinants of p53 DNA binding, gene regulation, and cell fate decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41418-024-01326-1
The paper
Fischer, M., & Sammons, M. A. (2024). Determinants of p53 DNA binding, gene regulation, and cell fate decisions. Cell Death & Differentiation. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41418-024-01326-1

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.