Cited by 163Cancer-related Molecular PathwaysCell death mechanisms and regulationHeat shock proteins research

The many faces of p53: something for everyone

Open access
Levine, Arnold J·2019·Journal of Molecular Cell Biology

Abstract

Forty years ago four research laboratories in London, Paris, New York/Bethesda, and Princeton uncovered the existence of the p53 protein (Deleo et al., 1979; Lane and Crawford, 1979; Linzer and Levine, 1979; Kress et al., 1979). Each laboratory came upon this protein for a different reason and with a different experimental approach that uncovered this unanticipated result. Together, the four papers permitted one to conclude the following: (i) in SV40-infected and transformed cells the SV40-encoded oncogene protein, the large T-antigen, formed a protein complex with a cellular-encoded protein of ~53000 daltons in size. (ii) This p53 protein was detected at high levels in a variety of transformed cells derived from viral, chemical, or inherited (teratocarcinomas) transformation events. (iii) Nontransformed cells expressed lower levels of the p53 protein. (iv) Animals bearing tumors produced antibodies directed against the p53 protein. A temperature-sensitive mutation in the SV40 large T-antigen gene (the oncogene of this virus) was employed to demonstrate that the p53–T-antigen complex was formed at the permissive temperature, where the cells are transformed, but not at the nonpermissive temperature, where the cells behave normally (Linzer and Levine, 1979; Linzer et al., 1979). At a later date p53 protein complexes with viral oncogene products were observed, including the adenovirus E1b-58kd protein (Sarnow et al., 1982) and the human papilloma virus E6 oncoprotein (Scheffner, et al. 1990; Werness et al., 1990; which is the cause of human cervical cancers and some head and neck cancers). In order to explore the functions of the p53 protein, several p53 cDNAs were isolated and cloned (Oren and Levine, 1983; Oren et al., 1983; Pennica et al., 1984). These clones were tested for oncogene activities and found to cooperate with the RAS oncogene in transforming embryonic cells (Eliyahu et al., 1984; Parada et al., 1984). Thus, it appeared that the p53 gene was an oncogene whose protein forms a complex with viral oncogene proteins, possibly mediating transformation. However, the cDNA clone isolated by Pennica failed to transform cells in culture and had a single amino acid change when compared with the Oren cDNA clone, which did transform cells. Was the amino acid difference between these clones significant? Was this difference a sequencing mistake? A polymorphism? Or a mutation? If it was a mutation, which clone was the wild-type and which was the mutant? To address these questions, Oren and Levine exchanged clones (and reproduced each other’s observations). By 1989 it became clear that mutations in the p53 cDNA clones resulted in cellular transformation, and wild-type p53 protein prevented transformation and functioned as a tumor suppressor (Eliyahu et al., 1989; Finlay et al., 1989). p53 mutations in both p53 alleles in colon cancers of humans resulted in the same conclusion; p53 functioned as a tumor suppressor gene that helped to prevent cancer (Baker et al., 1990a, b, Nigro et al., 1995). From 1979 to 1989 the p53 protein was alternatively referred to as a fetal antigen expressed in the teratocarcinoma stem cells, a tumor antigen that induced antibodies in animals and humans with tumors, an oncogene whose mutant forms could transform cells, and, finally, a tumor suppressor gene that prevented cancers. During this time the p53 protein was demonstrated to increase its concentration in response to DNA damage (Maltzman and Czyzyk, 1984). Over these first 10 years of research the p53 protein was shown to have many diverse faces and activities, functioning as an oncogene and a tumor suppressor gene while responding to DNA damage in a cell. The mutant forms of p53 add to the many faces of p53. There are multiple ways to inactivate p53 protein functions. There are mutations such as deletions, nonsense mutations, and frameshift mutations, which are all true loss-of-function mutations, but more commonly there are missense mutations localized in the p53 protein DNA-binding domain (Bouaoun et al., 2016). In addition, there are gene amplifications in the MDM-2 gene that overexpress this ubiquitin ligase, which is a negative regulator of the levels of the p53 protein. Thirdly, there are protein modifications that reduce or eliminate p53 transcriptional activity (Zhu et al., 2016; Levine, 2017). To date, >500 different missense mutations, located in the DNA-binding domain of the p53 protein, have been isolated and sequenced from human cancers. Missense mutations that produce high levels of mutant p53 proteins can function as dominant negative proteins, inactivating the wild-type p53 protein, in cells with normal levels of wild-type proteins. This is why mutant p53 cDNA clones transform normal cells in culture. A tetramer of the wild-type p53 protein functions as the transcription factor. Faulty or mutant monomeric proteins contributing to the tetrameric protein poison its activity and act in a dominant negative fashion. A s

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 · 10.1093/jmcb/mjz026

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Raj N., and Attardi L.D. (2016). The transactivation domains of the p53 protein In: Lozano G., and Levine A.J. (eds). The p53 Protein: From Cell Regulation to Cancer. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 51– 68.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levine, A. J.
Affiliations
Institute for Advanced Study (US)
Corresponding author
Levine, Arnold J
Venue
Journal of Molecular Cell Biology
Published
2019-07
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
524-530
ISSN
  • 1674-2788 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4685
OpenAlex
W2929402967
Cited by
163
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Cell Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (5PO1CA087497-17)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Cell death mechanisms and regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Heat shock proteins research
Keywords
p53, tumor suppressor, SV40 large T antigen, E6 oncoprotein, TP53 mutation, p53 function
MeSH terms
Humans, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53

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