Modulation of microRNA processing by p53.

Department of Molecular Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 08/2009; 460(7254):529-33. DOI: 10.1038/nature08199
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as key post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression, involved in diverse physiological and pathological processes. Although miRNAs can function as both tumour suppressors and oncogenes in tumour development, a widespread downregulation of miRNAs is commonly observed in human cancers and promotes cellular transformation and tumorigenesis. This indicates an inherent significance of small RNAs in tumour suppression. However, the connection between tumour suppressor networks and miRNA biogenesis machineries has not been investigated in depth. Here we show that a central tumour suppressor, p53, enhances the post-transcriptional maturation of several miRNAs with growth-suppressive function, including miR-16-1, miR-143 and miR-145, in response to DNA damage. In HCT116 cells and human diploid fibroblasts, p53 interacts with the Drosha processing complex through the association with DEAD-box RNA helicase p68 (also known as DDX5) and facilitates the processing of primary miRNAs to precursor miRNAs. We also found that transcriptionally inactive p53 mutants interfere with a functional assembly between Drosha complex and p68, leading to attenuation of miRNA processing activity. These findings suggest that transcription-independent modulation of miRNA biogenesis is intrinsically embedded in a tumour suppressive program governed by p53. Our study reveals a previously unrecognized function of p53 in miRNA processing, which may underlie key aspects of cancer biology.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostatic small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNC) is a rare but aggressive form of prostate cancer (PCa) that is negative for androgen receptor (AR) and not responsive to hormonal therapy. The molecular etiology of this PCa variant is not well understood; however, mutation of the p53 (TP53) tumor suppressor in prostate neuroendocrine cells inactivates the IL8-CXCR2-p53 pathway that normally inhibits cellular proliferation, leading to the development of SCNC. SCNC also overexpresses Aurora kinase A (AURKA) which is considered to be a viable therapeutic target. Therefore, the relationship of these two molecular events was studied and we show that p53 mutation leads to increased expression of miR-25 and down-regulation of the E3 ubiquitin ligase FBXW7, resulting in elevated levels of Aurora kinase A. This study demonstrates an intracellular pathway by which p53 mutation leads to Aurora kinase A expression, which is critically important for the rapid proliferation and aggressive behavior of prostatic SCNC. Implications: The pathogenesis of prostatic SCNC involves a p53 and Aurora Kinase A signaling mechanism, both potentially targetable pathways.
    Molecular Cancer Research 12/2014; · 4.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MicroRNAs (miRNAs), as key regulators in gene expression networks, have participated in many biological processes, including cancer initiation, progression, and metastasis, indicative of potential diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets. To tackle the low abundance of miRNAs in single cell, we have developed programmable nanodevices with MNAzymes to realize stringent recognition and in situ amplification of intracellular miRNAs for multiplexed detection and controlled drug release. As a proof of concept, miR-21 and miR-145, respectively up- and down-expressed in most tumor tissues, were selected as endogenous cancer indicators and therapy triggers to test the efficacy of the photothermal nanodevices. The sequence programmability and specificity of MNAzyme motifs enabled the fluorescent turn-on probes not only to sensitively profile the distributions of miR-21/miR-145 in cell lysates of HeLa, HL-60 and NIH 3T3 (9632/0, 14147/0, 2047/421 copies per cell, respectively), but also to visualize trace amounts of miRNAs in single cell, allowing logic operation for graded cancer risk assessment and dynamic monitoring of therapy response by confocal microscopy and flow cytometry. Furthermore, through general molecular design, the MNAzyme motifs could serve as three-dimensional gatekeepers to lock the doxorubicin inside the nanocarriers, which were exclusively internalized into the target tumor cells via aptamer-guided recognition and re-opened by the endogenous miRNAs, where the drug release rates could be spatial-temporally controlled by the modulation of miRNA expression. Integrated with miRNA profiling techniques, the designed nanodevices can provide general strategy for disease diagnosis, prognosis, and combination treatment with chemotherapy and gene therapy.
    ACS Nano 12/2014; · 12.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MicroRNAs are small non-coding RNAs that inhibit the translation of target mRNAs. In humans, most microRNAs are transcribed by RNA polymerase II as long primary transcripts and processed by sequential cleavage of the two RNase III enzymes, DROSHA and DICER, into precursor and mature microRNAs, respectively. Although the fundamental functions of microRNAs in RNA silencing have been gradually uncovered, less is known about the regulatory mechanisms of microRNA expression. Here, we report that telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) extensively affects the expression levels of mature microRNAs. Deep sequencing-based screens of short RNA populations revealed that the suppression of TERT resulted in the downregulation of microRNAs expressed in THP-1 cells and HeLa cells. Primary and precursor microRNA levels were also reduced under the suppression of TERT. Similar results were obtained with the suppression of either BRG1 (also called SMARCA4) or nucleostemin, which are proteins interacting with TERT and functioning beyond telomeres. These results suggest that TERT regulates microRNAs at the very early phases in their biogenesis, presumably through non-telomerase mechanism(s).
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences 01/2015; 16(1):1192-208. · 2.46 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Aug 7, 2014