Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 575

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Two distinct mechanisms alter p53 in breast cancer: mutation and nuclear exclusion.

Open access
Moll, U M, Riou, G, Levine, A J·1992·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Twenty-seven cases of inflammatory breast cancer were screened for the presence of the p53 protein by immunocytochemical methods using a monoclonal antibody directed against the p53 protein. Three groups were detected: 8 cases (30%) had high levels of p53 in the nucleus of the cancer cells; 9 cases (33%) had a complete lack of detectable staining; 10 cases (37%) showed a pattern of cytoplasmic staining with nuclear sparing. Nucleotide sequence analysis of p53 cDNAs derived from the samples with cytoplasmic staining revealed only wild-type p53 alleles in 6 out of 7 cases. An eighth case was determined to be wild type by a single-strand conformation polymorphism. In contrast, the samples containing nuclear p53 contained a variety of missense mutations and a nonsense mutation. The p53 cDNAs from 3 of the tumors that lacked detectable p53 staining were analyzed, and all 3 had wild-type nucleotide sequences. Interestingly, a case of normal lactating breast tissue also showed intense cytoplasmic staining for p53 with nuclear sparing. These data suggest that some breast cancers that contain the wild-type form of p53 protein may inactivate its tumor-suppressing activity by sequestering this protein in the cytoplasm, away from its site of action in the cell nucleus. The detection of cytoplasmic p53 in normal lactating breast tissue could suggest that this is the mechanism employed in specific physiological situations to permit transient cell proliferation. This observation could explain how some breast cancer tissues inactivate p53 function without mutation.

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.89.15.7262

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 575

Metadata

Authors
Moll, U. M., Riou, G., & Levine, A. J.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1992-08
Volume
89
Issue
15
Pages
7262-7266
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1997646834
Cited by
575
References
4
FWCI
15.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Two distinct mechanisms alter p53 in breast cancer: mutation and nuclear exclusion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.89.15.7262
The paper
Moll, U. M., Riou, G., & Levine, A. J. (1992). Two distinct mechanisms alter p53 in breast cancer: mutation and nuclear exclusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.15.7262

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.