Restoration of wild-type conformation and activity of a temperature-sensitive mutant of p53 (p53(V272M)) by the cytoprotective aminothiol WR1065 in the esophageal cancer cell line TE-1.
ABSTRACT The aminothiol WR1065, the active metabolite of the cytoprotector amifostine, exerts its antimutagenic effects through free-radical scavenging and other unknown mechanisms. In an earlier report, we showed that WR1065 activates wild-type p53 in MCF-7 cells, leading to p53-dependent arrest in the G(1) phase of the cell cycle. To determine whether WR1065 activates p53 by modulating protein conformation, we analyzed its effects on p53 conformation and activity in the esophageal cancer cell line TE-1. This cell line contains a mutation in codon 272 of p53 (p53(V272M), with methionine instead of a valine), conferring temperature-sensitive properties to the p53 protein. At the nonpermissive temperature (37 degrees C), p53(V272M) adopts the mutant p53 conformation (nonreactive with the antibody PAb1620), does not bind specifically to DNA, and is not activated in response to DNA-damaging treatment. However, treatment with 0.5-4 mM WR1065 partially restored wild-type conformation at 37 degrees C, stimulated DNA binding activity, and increased the expression of p53 target genes WAF-1, GADD45, and MDM2, leading to cell-cycle arrest in G(1). These results suggest that WR1065 activates p53 through a mechanism distinct from DNA-damage signaling, which involves modulation of p53 protein conformation.
- SourceAvailable from: Alan Fersht[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The p53 cancer mutation Y220C induces formation of a cavity on the protein's surface that can accommodate stabilizing small molecules. We combined fragment screening and molecular dynamics to assess the druggability of p53-Y220C and map ligand interaction sites within the mutational cavity. Elucidation of the binding mode of fragment hits by crystallography yielded a clear picture of how a drug might dock in the cavity. Simulations that solvate the protein with isopropanol found additional sites that extend the druggable surface. Moreover, structural observations and simulation revealed the dynamic landscape of the cavity, which improves our understanding of the impact of the mutation on p53 stability. This underpins the importance of considering flexibility of the cavity in screening for optimized ligands. Our findings provide a blueprint for the design of effective drugs that rescue p53-Y220C.Chemistry & biology 01/2010; 17(1):46-56. · 6.52 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recent scientific discoveries have thrust mutants of the tumor suppressor protein p53 into the forefront of the war on cancer, and hold out eventual hope for a small molecule drug that will be useful in treating human cancers with mutant p53 protein.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) 09/2004; 3(8):1030-4. · 5.24 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The p53 tumor suppressor pathway blocks tumor development by triggering apoptosis or cellular senescence in response to oncogenic stress. A large fraction of human tumors carry p53 mutations that disrupt DNA binding of p53 and transcriptional regulation of target genes. Reconstitution of wild-type p53 in vivo triggers rapid elimination of tumors. Therefore, pharmacological reactivation of mutant p53 is a promising strategy for novel cancer therapy. Several approaches for identification of small molecules that target mutant p53 have been applied, including rational design and screening of chemical libraries. The compound PhiKan083 binds with high affinity to a crevice created by the Y220C mutation in p53 and stabilizes the mutant protein. The compound PRIMA-1 (p53 reactivation and induction of massive apoptosis) restores wild-type conformation to mutant p53 by binding to the core and induces apoptosis in human tumor cells. The PRIMA-1 analog APR-246 is currently tested in a clinical trial. Successful development of mutant p53-reactivating anticancer drugs should have a major impact on the treatment of cancer.Oncogene 05/2010; 29(30):4245-52. · 8.56 Impact Factor