Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Structural basis of p53 inactivation by cavity-creating cancer mutations and its implications for the development of mutant p53 reactivators

Balourdas, Dimitrios-Ilias, Markl, Anja M., Krämer, Andreas, Settanni, Giovanni, Joerger, Andreas C.·2024·Cell Death & Disease
DOI 10.1038/s41419-024-06739-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: The cavity-creating p53 cancer mutation Y220C is an ideal paradigm for developing small-molecule drugs based on protein stabilization. Here, we have systematically analyzed the structural and stability effects of all oncogenic Tyr-to-Cys mutations (Y126C, Y163C, Y205C, Y220C, Y234C, and Y236C) in the p53 DNA-binding domain (DBD). They were all highly destabilizing, drastically lowering the melting temperature of the protein by 8–17 °C. In contrast, two non-cancerous mutations, Y103C and Y107C, had only a moderate effect on protein stability. Differential stabilization of the mutants upon treatment with the anticancer agent arsenic trioxide and stibogluconate revealed an interesting proximity effect. Crystallographic studies complemented by MD simulations showed that two of the mutations, Y234C and Y236C, create internal cavities of different size and shape, whereas the others induce unique surface lesions. The mutation-induced pockets in the Y126C and Y205C mutant were, however, relatively small compared with that of the already druggable Y220C mutant. Intriguingly, our structural studies suggest a pronounced plasticity of the mutation-induced pocket in the frequently occurring Y163C mutant, which may be exploited for the development of small-molecule stabilizers. We point out general principles for reactivating thermolabile cancer mutants and highlight special cases where mutant-specific drugs are needed for the pharmacological rescue of p53 function in tumors.

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/s41419-024-06739-x

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Hassin O, Oren M. Drugging p53 in cancer: one protein, many targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22:127–44. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Joerger AC, Fersht AR. The p53 pathway: origins, inactivation in cancer, and emerging therapeutic approaches. Annu Rev Biochem. 2016;85:375–404. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Khoo KH, Verma CS, Lane DP. Drugging the p53 pathway: understanding the route to clinical efficacy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:217–36. · DOI · Paper page
  4. de Andrade KC, Lee EE, Tookmanian EM, Kesserwan CA, Manfredi JJ, Hatton JN, et al. The TP53 database: transition from the International Agency for Research on Cancer to the US National Cancer Institute. Cell Death Differ. 2022;29:1071–3. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Stiewe T, Haran TE. How mutations shape p53 interactions with the genome to promote tumorigenesis and drug resistance. Drug Resist Updat. 2018;38:27–43. · DOI
  6. Joerger AC, Fersht AR. Structure-function-rescue: the diverse nature of common p53 cancer mutants. Oncogene. 2007;26:2226–42. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Wilcken R, Wang G, Boeckler FM, Fersht AR. Kinetic mechanism of p53 oncogenic mutant aggregation and its inhibition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:13584–9. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Di Como CJ, Prives C. Human tumor-derived p53 proteins exhibit binding site selectivity and temperature sensitivity for transactivation in a yeast-based assay. Oncogene. 1998;16:2527–39. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dearth LR, Qian H, Wang T, Baroni TE, Zeng J, Chen SW, et al. Inactive full-length p53 mutants lacking dominant wild-type p53 inhibition highlight loss of heterozygosity as an important aspect of p53 status in human cancers. Carcinogenesis. 2007;28:289–98. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Lu J, Chen L, Song Z, Das M, Chen J. Hypothermia effectively treats tumors with temperature-sensitive p53 mutations. Cancer Res. 2021;81:3905–15. · DOI
  11. Chen S, Wu JL, Liang Y, Tang YG, Song HX, Wu LL, et al. Arsenic trioxide rescues structural p53 mutations through a cryptic allosteric site. Cancer Cell. 2021;39:225–39.e8 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Tang Y, Song H, Wang Z, Xiao S, Xiang X, Zhan H, et al. Repurposing antiparasitic antimonials to noncovalently rescue temperature-sensitive p53 mutations. Cell Rep. 2022;39:110622. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Durairaj G, Demir O, Lim B, Baronio R, Tifrea D, Hall LV, et al. Discovery of compounds that reactivate p53 mutants in vitro and in vivo. Cell Chem Biol. 2022;29:1381–95. e13 · DOI
  14. Ha JH, Prela O, Carpizo DR, Loh SN. p53 and zinc: a malleable relationship. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9:895887. · DOI
  15. Yu X, Vazquez A, Levine AJ, Carpizo DR. Allele-specific p53 mutant reactivation. Cancer Cell. 2012;21:614–25. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Joerger AC, Ang HC, Fersht AR. Structural basis for understanding oncogenic p53 mutations and designing rescue drugs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:15056–61. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Basse N, Kaar JL, Settanni G, Joerger AC, Rutherford TJ, Fersht AR. Toward the rational design of p53-stabilizing drugs: probing the surface of the oncogenic Y220C mutant. Chem Biol. 2010;17:46–56. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Wilcken R, Liu X, Zimmermann MO, Rutherford TJ, Fersht AR, Joerger AC, et al. Halogen-enriched fragment libraries as leads for drug rescue of mutant p53. J Am Chem Soc. 2012;134:6810–8. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Joerger AC, Bauer MR, Wilcken R, Baud MGJ, Harbrecht H, Exner TE, et al. Exploiting transient protein states for the design of small-molecule stabilizers of mutant p53. Structure. 2015;23:2246–55. · DOI
  20. Stephenson Clarke JR, Douglas LR, Duriez PJ, Balourdas DI, Joerger AC, Khadiullina R, et al. Discovery of nanomolar-affinity pharmacological chaperones stabilizing the oncogenic p53 mutant Y220C. ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 2022;5:1169–80. · DOI
  21. Bauer MR, Jones RN, Tareque RK, Springett B, Dingler FA, Verduci L, et al. A structure-guided molecular chaperone approach for restoring the transcriptional activity of the p53 cancer mutant Y220C. Future Med Chem. 2019;11:2491–504. · DOI
  22. Baud MGJ, Bauer MR, Verduci L, Dingler FA, Patel KJ, Horil Roy D, et al. Aminobenzothiazole derivatives stabilize the thermolabile p53 cancer mutant Y220C and show anticancer activity in p53-Y220C cell lines. Eur J Med Chem. 2018;152:101–14. · DOI
  23. Dumbrava EE, Johnson ML, Tolcher AW, Shapiro G, Thompson JA, El-Khoueiry AB, et al. First-in-human study of PC14586, a small molecule structural corrector of Y220C mutant p53, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a TP53 Y220C mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:3003. · DOI
  24. Bauer MR, Kramer A, Settanni G, Jones RN, Ni X, Khan Tareque R, et al. Targeting cavity-creating p53 cancer mutations with small-molecule stabilizers: the Y220X paradigm. ACS Chem Biol. 2020;15:657–68. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Leroy B, Ballinger ML, Baran-Marszak F, Bond GL, Braithwaite A, Concin N, et al. Recommended guidelines for validation, quality control, and reporting of TP53 variants in clinical practice. Cancer Res. 2017;77:1250–60. · DOI
  26. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Lazarian G, Theves F, Hormi M, Letestu R, Eclache V, Bidet A, et al. TP53 mutations at codon 234 are associated with chlorambucil treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Am J Hematol. 2022;97:E159–62. · DOI
  28. Doffe F, Carbonnier V, Tissier M, Leroy B, Martins I, Mattsson JSM, et al. Identification and functional characterization of new missense SNPs in the coding region of the TP53 gene. Cell Death Differ. 2021;28:1477–92. · DOI
  29. Leung JC, Leu JI, Indeglia A, Kannan T, Clarke NL, Kirven NA, et al. Common activities and predictive gene signature identified for genetic hypomorphs of TP53. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2023;120:e2212940120. · DOI
  30. Funk J, Klimovich M, Pavlakis E, Neumann M, Drangenstein D, Noeparast M, et al. Functional diversity of the TP53 mutome revealed by saturating CRISPR mutagenesis. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.10.531074 [Preprint]. 2023. · doi:10.1101/2023.03.10.531074
  31. Joerger AC, Allen MD, Fersht AR. Crystal structure of a superstable mutant of human p53 core domain. Insights into the mechanism of rescuing oncogenic mutations. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:1291–6. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Liu X, Wilcken R, Joerger AC, Chuckowree IS, Amin J, Spencer J, et al. Small molecule induced reactivation of mutant p53 in cancer cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:6034–44. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Joerger AC, Ang HC, Veprintsev DB, Blair CM, Fersht AR. Structures of p53 cancer mutants and mechanism of rescue by second-site suppressor mutations. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:16030–7. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Suad O, Rozenberg H, Brosh R, Diskin-Posner Y, Kessler N, Shimon LJ, et al. Structural basis of restoring sequence-specific DNA binding and transactivation to mutant p53 by suppressor mutations. J Mol Biol. 2009;385:249–65. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Wang PL, Sait F, Winter G. The ‘wildtype’ conformation of p53: epitope mapping using hybrid proteins. Oncogene. 2001;20:2318–24. · DOI
  36. Song H, Wu J, Tang Y, Dai Y, Xiang X, Li Y, et al. Diverse rescue potencies of p53 mutations to ATO are predetermined by intrinsic mutational properties. Sci Transl Med. 2023;15:eabn9155. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Klimovich B, Meyer L, Merle N, Neumann M, Konig AM, Ananikidis N, et al. Partial p53 reactivation is sufficient to induce cancer regression. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022;41:80. · DOI
  38. Amaro RE, Li WW. Emerging methods for ensemble-based virtual screening. Curr Top Med Chem. 2010;10:3–13. · DOI
  39. Hussein HA, Borrel A, Geneix C, Petitjean M, Regad L, Camproux AC. PockDrug-Server: a new web server for predicting pocket druggability on holo and apo proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:W436–42. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Guiley KZ, Shokat KM. A small molecule reacts with the p53 somatic mutant Y220C to rescue wild-type thermal stability. Cancer Discov. 2023;13:56–69. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Kabsch W. Xds. Acta Crystallogr Sec D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66:125–32. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Evans PR. An introduction to data reduction: space-group determination, scaling and intensity statistics. Acta Crystallogr Sec D Biol Crystallogr. 2011;67:282–92. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Winn MD, Ballard CC, Cowtan KD, Dodson EJ, Emsley P, Evans PR, et al. Overview of the CCP4 suite and current developments. Acta Crystallogr Sect D Biol Crystallogr. 2011;67:235–42. · DOI · Paper page
  44. McCoy AJ, Grosse-Kunstleve RW, Adams PD, Winn MD, Storoni LC, Read RJ. Phaser crystallographic software. J Appl Crystallogr. 2007;40:658–74. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Emsley P, Lohkamp B, Scott WG, Cowtan K. Features and development of Coot. Acta Crystallogr Sec D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66:486–501. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Liebschner D, Afonine PV, Baker ML, Bunkoczi G, Chen VB, Croll TI, et al. Macromolecular structure determination using X-rays, neutrons and electrons: recent developments in Phenix. Acta Crystallogr D Struct Biol. 2019;75:861–77. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Williams CJ, Headd JJ, Moriarty NW, Prisant MG, Videau LL, Deis LN, et al. MolProbity: more and better reference data for improved all-atom structure validation. Protein Sci. 2018;27:293–315. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys. 1983;79:926–35. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Huang J, Rauscher S, Nawrocki G, Ran T, Feig M, de Groot BL, et al. CHARMM36m: an improved force field for folded and intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat Methods. 2017;14:71–3. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, Páll S, Smith JC, Hess B, et al. GROMACS: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX. 2015;1:19–25. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Budiman ME, Knaggs MH, Fetrow JS, Alexander RW. Using molecular dynamics to map interaction networks in an aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase. Proteins. 2007;68:670–89. · doi:10.1002/prot.21426
  52. Godwin RC, Melvin RL, Gmeiner WH, Salsbury FR Jr. Binding site configurations probe the structure and dynamics of the zinc finger of NEMO (NF-kappaB essential modulator). Biochemistry. 2017;56:623–33. · DOI
  53. Nosé S. A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods. J Chem Phys. 1984;81:511–9. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Hoover WG. Canonical dynamics: equilibrium phase-space distributions. Phys Rev A Gen Phys. 1985;31:1695–7. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Parrinello M, Rahman A. Crystal structure and pair potentials: a molecular-dynamics study. Phys Rev Lett. 1980;45:1196–9. · DOI · Paper page
  56. Essmann U, Perera L, Berkowitz ML, Darden T, Lee H, Pedersen LG. A smooth particle mesh Ewald method. J Chem Phys. 1995;103:8577–92. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Hess B, Bekker H, Berendsen HJC, Fraaije JGEM. LINCS: a linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem. 1997;18:1463–72. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph. 1996;14:33–8. · DOI · Paper page
  59. Seeber M, Cecchini M, Rao F, Settanni G, Caflisch A. Wordom: a program for efficient analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:2625–7. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Ang HC, Joerger AC, Mayer S, Fersht AR. Effects of common cancer mutations on stability and DNA binding of full-length p53 compared with isolated core domains. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:21934–41. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Brandt T, Kaar JL, Fersht AR, Veprintsev DB. Stability of p53 homologs. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e47889. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Tian W, Chen C, Lei X, Zhao J, Liang J. CASTp 3.0: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:W363–7. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Natan E, Baloglu C, Pagel K, Freund SM, Morgner N, Robinson CV, et al. Interaction of the p53 DNA-binding domain with its n-terminal extension modulates the stability of the p53 tetramer. J Mol Biol. 2011;409:358–68. · DOI

Cited by

See all 24

Metadata

Authors
Balourdas, D.-I., Markl, A. M., Krämer, A., Settanni, G., & Joerger, A. C.
ORCID
Venue
Cell Death & Disease
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-06-11
Volume
15
Issue
6
ISSN
2041-4889
DOI
10.1038/s41419-024-06739-x
Cited by
24
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (JO 1473/1-3, SFB1066 project Q1, SFB-TRR146)

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: Structural basis of p53 inactivation by cavity-creating cancer mutations and its implications for the development of mutant p53 reactivators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41419-024-06739-x
The paper
Balourdas, D.-I., Markl, A. M., Krämer, A., Settanni, G., & Joerger, A. C. (2024). Structural basis of p53 inactivation by cavity-creating cancer mutations and its implications for the development of mutant p53 reactivators. Cell Death & Disease. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-024-06739-x

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.