p63 and p73 isoform expression in non-small cell lung cancer and corresponding morphological normal lung tissue.
ABSTRACT The TP73 and TP63 genes are members of the p53 tumor suppressor family and are expressed in different N-terminal isoforms either with proapoptotic (transactivation domain, TA) and antiapoptotic (N-terminally truncated, ΔN) function. Unlike p53, the role of p73 and p63 in tumor is controversial. It has been recently hypothesized that altered ΔN:TA expression ratio, rather than single isoform overexpression, plays a role in the pathogenesis of many diseases, including lung cancer.
Isoform-specific, real-time polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry analysis on matched cancer and corresponding normal tissues from surgically resected non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) have been performed aiming to explore the expression levels of each p63 and p73 N-terminal isoforms and their ΔN:TA expression ratio.
For both p63 and p73, a N-terminal isoform-specific modulation that alter ΔN:TA isoform balance was identified. In particular, ΔNp63 isoform was significantly up-modulated, whereas TAp63 was slightly down-modulated in NSCLC specimens. Likewise, Δ2p73 and Δ2/3p73 were up-modulated, whereas ΔNp73 and ΔN'p73 isoforms were down-modulated. Moreover, a higher TAp63 and ΔN'p73 transcripts expression, detected in the normal tissue surrounding the tumors, correlates with poor patient outcome, representing independent prognostic factors for overall survival (ΔN'p73: p = 0.049, hazard ratio = 3.091, 95% confidence interval = 1.005-9.524 and TAp63: p = 0.001, hazard ratio = 8.091, 95% confidence interval = 2.254-29.05).
Our findings suggest that p63 and p73 altered ΔN:TA expression ratio occurs in NSCLC likely contributing to the molecular pathogenesis of this tumor.
- SourceAvailable from: jean-christophe Bourdon[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: p63, p73 and p53 compose a family of transcription factors involved in cell response to stress and development. p53 is the most frequently mutated gene in cancer (50%) and loss of p53 activity is considered to be ubiquitous to all cancers. Recent publications may have a profound impact on our understanding of p53 tumour suppressor activity. p63, p73 and p53 genes have a dual gene structure conserved in drosophila, zebrafish and man. They encode for multiple p63, p73 or p53 proteins containing different protein domains (isoforms) due to multiple splicing, alternative promoter and alternative initiation of translation. In this review, we describe the different isoforms of p63, p73, p53 and their roles in development and cancer. The changes in the interactions between p53, p63 and p73 isoforms are likely to be fundamental to our understanding in the transition between normal cell cycling and the onset of tumour formation.Cell Death and Differentiation 07/2006; 13(6):962-72. · 8.37 Impact Factor
- Cell growth & differentiation: the molecular biology journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 08/2001; 12(7):337-49.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The p53 tumor suppressor continues to hold distinction as the most frequently mutated gene in human cancer. The ability of p53 to induce programmed cell death, or apoptosis, of cells exposed to environmental or oncogenic stress constitutes a major pathway whereby p53 exerts its tumor suppressor function. In the past decade, we have discovered that p53 is not alone in its mission to destroy damaged or aberrantly proliferating cells: it has two homologs, p63 and p73, that in various cellular contexts and stresses contribute to this process. In this review, the mechanisms whereby p53, and in some cases p63 and p73, induce apoptosis are discussed. Other reviews have focused more extensively on the contribution of individual p53-regulated genes to apoptosis induction by this protein, whereas in this review, we focus more on those factors that mediate the decision between growth arrest and apoptosis by p53, p63 and p73, and on the post-translational modifications and protein-protein interactions that influence this decision.Oncogene 12/2008; 27(50):6507-21. · 7.36 Impact Factor