Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis fails to support the latency model for regulation of p53 DNA binding activity in vivo

Open access
Kaeser, M. D., Iggo, R. D.·2002·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

p53 can adopt two forms in vitro , a latent form that binds naked DNA poorly and an active form that binds DNA well. Conversion of the latent form to the active form is thought to occur by an allosteric mechanism induced by phosphorylation and acetylation. Despite the large differences in affinity produced by regulatory modifications in vitro , mutation of putative regulatory sites has not produced correspondingly large effects on transcription of p53 target genes in vivo . To determine whether genotoxic stress regulates DNA binding by p53 in vivo , we have performed quantitative chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays on tumor and normal cell lines containing wild-type p53. ChIP recovers several hundredfold more p21 and MDM2 promoter DNA from p53 wild-type than p53-null cells, indicating that the assay is specific for p53. Genotoxic stress induces much smaller increases in chromatin precipitation, which are matched by changes in the p53 protein level. Thus, in the experimental systems tested, allosteric regulation of DNA binding is not a major level of regulation of p53 activity. The p53 target genes tested can be divided into a group showing high promoter occupancy in vivo (p21, MDM2, and PUMA) and a group giving substantially weaker or background p53 binding (bax, AIP1, and PIG3). Neither group shows selective recruitment of p53 to the promoter in cells undergoing apoptosis, indicating that the decision to undergo apoptosis or cell cycle arrest depends on other changes in the cell.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.012283399

Cites

6 of 6 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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 302

Metadata

Authors
Kaeser, M. D., & Iggo, R. D.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2001-12-26
Volume
99
Issue
1
Pages
95-100
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2039760853
Cited by
302
References
6
FWCI
8.41
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis fails to support the latency model for regulation of p53 DNA binding activity in vivo. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.012283399
The paper
Kaeser, M. D., & Iggo, R. D. (2002). Chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis fails to support the latency model for regulation of p53 DNA binding activity in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.012283399

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.