Cited by 2,199Cancer-related Molecular PathwaysCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

TP53 mutations in human cancers: origins, consequences, and clinical use.

Open access
Olivier, M., Hollstein, M., Hainaut, P.·2010·Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology

Abstract

Somatic mutations in the TP53 gene are one of the most frequent alterations in human cancers, and germline mutations are the underlying cause of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which predisposes to a wide spectrum of early-onset cancers. Most mutations are single-base substitutions distributed throughout the coding sequence. Their diverse types and positions may inform on the nature of mutagenic mechanisms involved in cancer etiology. TP53 mutations are also potential prognostic and predictive markers, as well as targets for pharmacological intervention. All mutations found in human cancers are compiled in the IARC TP53 Database (http://www-p53.iarc.fr/). A human TP53 knockin mouse model (Hupki mouse) provides an experimental model to study mutagenesis in the context of a human TP53 sequence. Here, we summarize current knowledge on TP53 gene variations observed in human cancers and populations, and current clinical applications derived from this knowledge.

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 · 10.1101/cshperspect.a001008

Cites

108 of 108 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?

  • 38-50% of human cancers carry inactivating alterations in TP53, 48-80% in CDKN2A and 14% in CIP1, while 15-20% and up to 8% harbour oncogenic mutations in RAS and BRAF, respectively.

    “Of note, 38-50% of human cancers carry inactivating alterations in TP53 (ref. 132 ) , 48-80% in CDKN2A 133 and 14% in CIP1 (ref. 134 ) , while 15-20% and up to 8% harbour oncogenic mutations in RAS and BRAF , respectively 135,136 .”

    From Senescence and cancer — role and therapeutic opportunities (2022) · cites this paper as [132]

    The Somatic Mutations section (page not provided) reports TP53 mutation rates of 38–50% in several specified cancer types, but about 5% in others. It does not support applying the 38–50% figure to human cancers overall. The other genes have separate citations in the citing sentence and are not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Activated p53 regulates expression of a set of anti-proliferative genes.

    “Activated p53 regulates expression of a set of anti-proliferative genes (Olivier et al., 2010; Kastenhuber and Lowe, 2017).”
  • About half of human cancers retain wild-type p53.

    “As p53 remains wild type in $50% of human cancers, 6 reactivation of p53 by small molecules is an attractive therapeutic approach.”
  • Tumors use several routes to disable TP53, and the most frequent route is missense mutation of TP53, with some mutants acquiring gain-of-function activities.

    “Tumors, which drastically deviate from these parameters, have evolved multiple mechanisms to inactivate TP53, the most prevalent of which is the emergence of TP53 missense mutations, some of which have gain-of function activities.”

    From The Mdm network and its regulation of p53 activities: a rheostat of cancer risk (2014) · cites this paper as Olivier, et al., 2010

  • About 75% of TP53 mutations in cancer are missense mutations.

    “In particular, missense mutations account for approximately 75% of all TP53 mutations in cancer (Hamroun, et al., 2006; Olivier, et al., 2010)”

    From The Mdm network and its regulation of p53 activities: a rheostat of cancer risk (2014) · cites this paper as Olivier, et al., 2010

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

10 of the 118 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olivier, M., Hollstein, M., & Hainaut, P.
Affiliations
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Venue
Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology
Published
2009-11-11
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
a001008-a001008
ISSN
1943-0264 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129769331
Cited by
2,199
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 136 · 2025: 174 · 2024: 233 · 2023: 229 · 2022: 222 · 2021: 178 · 2020: 174 · 2019: 112 · 2018: 139 · 2017: 131 · 2016: 101 · 2015: 97 · 2014: 88 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 72
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
TP53 mutation, somatic mutations, germline TP53 mutation, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, cancer susceptibility, mutagenesis mechanism, prognostic factors, predictive biomarkers, therapeutic target, cancer etiology
MeSH terms
Animals, Carcinogens, Humans, Mice, Transgenic, Models, Biological, Mutation, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Genes, p53, Mutagenesis, CpG Islands, Mice

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