About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Biochemistry Research International
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 808934, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/808934
Review Article

Transcriptional Regulation of the p53 Tumor Suppressor Gene in S-Phase of the Cell-Cycle and the Cellular Response to DNA Damage

1Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
2Departamento de Genética, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
3Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105, USA

Received 3 April 2012; Revised 20 June 2012; Accepted 21 June 2012

Academic Editor: Rolf J. Craven

Copyright © 2012 David Reisman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The p53 tumor suppressor induces the transcription of genes that negatively regulate progression of the cell cycle in response to DNA damage or other cellular stressors and thus participates in maintaining genome stability. Numerous studies have demonstrated that p53 transcription is activated before or during early S-phase in cells progressing from G0/G1 into S-phase through the combined action of two DNA-binding factors RBP-Jκ and C/EBPβ-2. Here, we review evidence that this induction occurs to provide available p53 mRNA in order to prepare the cell for DNA damage in S-phase, this ensuring a rapid response to DNA damage before exiting this stage of the cell cycle.

1. Introduction

p53 is a DNA-binding transcription factor that activates genes responsible for a cell-cycle checkpoint or apoptosis after exposure to ionizing radiation, UV light, or other DNA-damaging agents [13]. The p53 protein is induced both in terms of its abundance and its activity in response to DNA damage. Increased levels of p53 protein are largely due to increased stability of the protein that is regulated through the loss of association with the MDM2 protein [13]. In normal cells where p53 is found at very low levels, p53 is present in a complex with MDM2 which targets p53 for degradation through the ubiquitin pathway [4].

Activation of p53 has been proposed to occur through a number of mechanisms which include phosphorylation, dephosphorylation by protein serine/threonine phoshatase-1 [5], acetylation by the transcriptional coactivator p300/CBP [6], and induced conformational changes mediated by the prolyl isomerase Pin1 [710]. The increase in the level of active p53 protein leads to an inhibition of entry into S-phase or the induction of apoptosis [2, 11, 12]. Thus, the loss or inactivation of p53 results in the loss of cell-cycle arrest or apoptosis after DNA damage or physiologic stresses. This loss, seen in many human cancers, has been proposed to lead to increased genetic instability, increased accumulation of mutations, and ultimately oncogenesis.

Interestingly, a number of studies indicate that tumor-derived mutant forms of p53, which are highly expressed in many cancers, while losing many of their DNA-damage checkpoint functions, function as active transforming genes [13, 14]. These mutant p53 genes serve as oncogenes that contribute to tumorigenesis [1517].

Ever since Arnold Levine’s group demonstrated that p53 expression was induced upon mitogenic stimulation of murine fibroblasts [18], and Reed et al. [19] demonstrated induced expression of p53 upon mitogenic stimulation of human lymphocytes, and the molecular mechanism responsible for this regulation has remained unexplored. Similarly, an understanding of the biological significance of this induction has remained unclear. This is especially true in light of our current understanding of the role of p53 as a suppressor of DNA synthesis and inducer of apoptosis. Although elevated levels of p53 protein have been shown to lead to either growth arrest or apoptosis in response to DNA damage, it might seem anomalous that transcription of the p53 gene and synthesis of p53 mRNA are low in cells in G0 and are induced upon induction with mitogens, with a peak in transcription prior to DNA synthesis and maximal mRNA synthesis during mid-S-phase. This type of response has been suggested to be important for a rapid p53-induced arrest in DNA synthesis in response to DNA damage at a time when cells are synthesizing DNA and thus would be most susceptible to DNA damaging events. In fact, Mosner et al. [20] demonstrated an exceptionally rapid accumulation of active p53 protein in response to DNA damage in synchronized cells populations in mid-S-phase. In this paper, we summarize recent data that describes the mechanism of cell-cycle regulation of the p53 gene and the role that this regulation plays in facilitating the DNA damage response during the S-phase of the cell cycle.

2. Regulation of p53 Gene Expression during S-Phase of the Cell Cycle

2.1. p53 Transcription Is Induced during S-Phase

The levels of p53 mRNA increase substantially prior to S-phase as early as 8 h after serum stimulation and peak at 18 h after serum stimulation [21, 22]. These results are in agreement with earlier publications [18, 20, 23]. c-myc mRNA levels are also increased by 3 h after serum stimulation, while no change in the levels of p21 or 14-3-3σ mRNA are detected indicating that while the levels of p53 mRNA is increased, there is no evidence for active p53 protein being produced.

The 1.7 Kbp murine p53 promoter has been seen to recapitulate the elevated transcription of the p53 gene when placed upstream of the luciferase [21]. Eighteen hours after transfection, the cells were maintained in serum-depleted medium for 24 h and then serum stimulated in order to induce S-phase. The 1.7 Kbp promoter decreased in activity after 24 h of serum depletion with a 4-fold reduction in expression and demonstrates an induction of promoter activity with maximal promoter activity after 24 h serum stimulation and entry into S-phase. Analysis of the region required for this induction was ultimately narrowed down to a 20 bp region mapping between −953 and −972 nucleotides upstream of the transcription initiation site [21, 22]. Database searches for transcription factors that may bind the p53 promoter within this region have provided possible leads as to what protein(s) are binding the promoter within this critical element. Two candidates that have proven to be involved in p53 regulation are C/EBPβ and RBP-Jκ [21, 22].

2.2. C/EBPβ

C/EBPβ is a CCAAT enhancer-binding protein (35) and is critical for the normal growth and differentiation of various cell types [2426]. Three protein isoforms of C/EBPβ are formed by alternative translation of three in-frame initiation sites on C/EBPβmRNA [2729]. C/EBPβ-1 is the full-length form of the protein (38 KDa) that contains an intact N-terminal transactivation domain and C-terminal DNA-binding domain. C/EBPβ-2 (35 kDa) differs from C/EBPβ-1 by only 21 amino acids at the N-terminus; however, the N-terminal transactivation domain is still functional. Both C/EBPβ-1 and C/EBPβ-2 are transactivators, although only recently have studies addressed their functional differences. C/EBPβ-3 (21 kDa) completely lacks the N-terminal transactivation domain and is thought to repress transcription by complexing with C/EBPβ-1 or =2 and inhibiting their ability to transactivate target genes [2729].

Electrophoretic mobility shift assays demonstrated binding by endogenous C/EBPβ to the p53 promoter [21]. Anti- C/EBPβ antibody, specific for the C-terminal DNA-binding domain, when included in the DNA-binding assays, resulted in a supershift of the bound complex. A C/EBPβ neutralizing peptide, which blocks the ability of the C/EBPβ antibody to bind, prevented the supershift and demonstrates the specificity of the anti-C/EBPβ antibody. To assay for C/EBPβ binding the p53 promoter during the cell cycle, nuclear extracts from arrested and serum-treated Swiss3T3 cells were assayed, and upon growth arrest in G0, there was a decrease in C/EBPβ binding to the promoter. By 3 h after serum and entry into S-phase stimulation, binding of C/EBPβ increased substantially and coincides with increased endogenous p53 mRNA levels and an increase in p53 promoter activity at 3 h after serum stimulation. Finally, it was demonstrated through the use of ChIP assays that C/EBPβ-2 binding occurs in vivo in a manner that is similar to the in vitro binding pattern described above [30]. Transfection studies have demonstrated that C/EBPβ-2 activated expression of the p53 promoter upon binding to the identified DNA sequence [21].

2.3. RBP-Jκ

RBP-Jκ is a 60 kDa DNA-binding transcription factor that shows a high degree of conservation across species ranging from Drosophila to human [31]. The factor has been shown to be a direct target of the Notch receptor which is central in the regulation of development and differentiation of numerous cell lineages during mammalian development [3235]. Activation of the Notch receptor results in release of RBP-Jκ from associated corepressors and the recruitment of coactivators [33, 36, 37]. Thus, in the absence of Notch signaling RBP-Jκ functions as a transcriptional repressor.

DNA-binding assays performed using nuclear extracts from Swiss3T3 cells that were growing either exponentially, serum depleted for 24 hours, or serum stimulated were employed to test for the presence of RBP-Jκ by adding an anti-RBP-Jκ antibody to the binding reaction. Maximal RBP-Jκ-binding activity is observed after cells are serum starved and arrested in G0 [38]. As p53 mRNA levels start to increase as cells enter S-phase, RBP-Jκ-binding activity to the regulatory site on p53 consistently decreases. This supports the findings that RBP- Jκ acts as a repressor of p53 transcription, since its binding activity is reduced as cells are released from G0. Finally, it was demonstrated through the use of ChIP assays that RBP binding occurs in vivo in a manner that is similar to the in vitro binding pattern observed. Transfection studies have demonstrated that RBP-Jκ repressed expression of the p53 promoter upon binding to the identified DNA sequence [38].

The results indicate that at least two transcriptional regulatory proteins bind to the −972/−953 regulatory region on the p53 gene and play two very different roles in regulating transcription of this important tumor suppressor. C/EBPβ-2 serves to enhance p53 transcription during the transition from the growth-arrested state to the entry into S-phase, while RBP-Jκ serves to repress p53 transcription during this transition. These results suggest that both factors (C/EBPβ-2 and RBP-Jκ) may work cooperatively or in a coordinated manner to help regulate the activity of p53 throughout the cell cycle.

3. p53-Mediated DNA Damage Response in S-Phase

3.1. p53-Mediated Induction of Bax and p21 in Response to DNA Damage

To investigate the rate of the p53 DNA-damage response as cells enter S-phase, two p53 targets, Bax and p21, were evaluated by RT-PCR analysis after treatment of cells with camptothecin, a cytotoxic compound which inhibits the DNA topoisomerase I resulting in DNA damage [39]. These experiments showed that both Bax and p21 mRNA levels were induced by 10 to 18 hrs after camptothecin treatment in exponentially growing cells, while the induction of Bax and p21 mRNA expression in cells in S-phase was exceptionally rapid, occurring within 60–90 minutes and remained 3- to 4-fold higher throughout the experiment.

3.2. Binding of p53 to the Bax Promoter in Response to DNA Damage

Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) analysis was performed in order to examine the rate of binding of p53 to the Bax promoter in response to DNA damage [39]. Results of a series of ChIP assays demonstrate that in cells not in S-phase and exposed to camptothecin, the binding of p53 to the Bax promoter remained constant throughout the experiment while in cells entering S-phase, an increase in p53 binding to the Bax promoter is observed after 0.5 hr of drug exposure and continued to increase over four hours. These findings indicate that, in response to camptothecin treatment, Bax levels in cells entering S-phase are expressed in a more rapid manner than in cells that are not in S-phase. In response to DNA damage in cells in S-phase, p53 protein levels increase, bind to the Bax promoter, and cause a more rapid expression of this proapoptotic regulator.

3.3. Apoptosis during S-Phase

The activity of caspases is one useful indicator of apoptosis. Therefore, the activities of two of these proteases, caspases 3 and 7, which are at the end of the apoptotic cascade, were measured in exponentially growing, and in cells entering S-phase after treatment with camptothecin. The activity of caspases 3 and 7 increased between 3 and 6 h in non-S-phase cells but between 0 and 3 h in cells both in S-phase. In addition to increasing more rapidly, the overall activity of these two caspases was higher in cells both in early and late S-phase. These findings indicate that apoptosis is induced earlier and to a greater extent in cells subjected to DNA damage during S-phase, during the period of enhanced p53 transcription [39].

DNA fragmentation is also a marker of late-stage apoptosis. Cells were treated with camptothecin and subjected to a TUNEL assay that labels the end of DNA fragments in cells undergoing apoptosis. The results of these assays demonstrate that by 18 h after drug exposure, the number of cells in S-phase with fragmented DNA was signifcantly greater compared to the same time point in non-S-phase cells.

4. Summary

p53 induces the transcription of genes that negatively regulate progression of the cell cycle in response to DNA damage or other cellular stressors and thus participates in maintaining genome stability. Under stress conditions, p53 must be activated to prohibit the replication of cells containing damaged DNA. Numerous studies have demonstrated that p53 transcription is activated before or during early S-phase in cells progressing from G0/G1 into S-phase via a coordinated expression of two transcription factors, RBP-Jκ and C/EBPβ-2, that act as a repressor and activator of p53 gene expression, respectively, through their binding to the same site on the promoter. In examining the rates of expression of p53 target genes and the rates of entry into apoptosis, evidence has accumulated that indicates that this induction occurs to provide sufficient p53 mRNA to ensure a rapid response to DNA damage before exiting S-phase. Figure 1 is a summary of published data illustrating the increase in rate of the p53 response when cells are in S-phase.

808934.fig.001
Figure 1

References

  1. M. Oren and J. Bartek, “The sunny side of p53,” Cell, vol. 128, no. 5, pp. 826–828, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. K. H. Vousden and C. Prives, “Blinded by the light: the growing complexity of p53,” Cell, vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 413–431, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. Beckerman and C. Prives, “Transcriptional regulation by p53,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 2, no. 8, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. F. Toledo and G. M. Wahl, “Regulating the p53 pathway: in vitro hypotheses, in vivo veritas,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 909–923, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. D. W. C. Li, J. P. Liu, P. C. Schmid et al., “Protein serine/threonine phosphatase-1 dephosphorylates p53 at Ser-15 and Ser-37 to modulate its transcriptional and apoptotic activities,” Oncogene, vol. 25, no. 21, pp. 3006–3022, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. R. Pedeux, S. Sengupta, J. C. Shen et al., “ING2 regulates the onset of replicative senescence by induction of p300-dependent p53 acetylation,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 25, no. 15, pp. 6639–6648, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. H. Zheng, H. You, X. Z. Zhou et al., “The prolyl isomerase Pin1 is a regulator of p53 in genotoxic response,” Nature, vol. 419, no. 6909, pp. 849–853, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. P. Zacchi, M. Gostissa, T. Uchida et al., “The prolyl isomerase Pin1 reveals a mechanism to control p53 functions after genotoxic insults,” Nature, vol. 419, no. 6909, pp. 853–857, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. P. Kruse and W. Gu, “SnapShot: p53 posttranslational modifications,” Cell, vol. 133, no. 5, pp. 930–e1, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Olsson, C. Manzl, A. Strasser, and A. Villunger, “How important are post-translational modifications in p53 for selectivity in target-gene transcription and tumour suppression?” Cell Death and Differentiation, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1561–1575, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. K. H. Vousden and X. Lu, “Live or let die: the cell's response to p53,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 594–604, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. N. E. Sharpless and R. A. DePinho, “p53: good cop/bad cop,” Cell, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 9–12, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. K. H. Vousden and C. Prives, “P53 and prognosis: new insights and further complexity,” Cell, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 7–10, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. B. Kastan and E. Berkovich, “p53: a two-faced cancer gene,” Nature Cell Biology, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 489–491, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. L. Weisz, M. Oren, and V. Rotter, “Transcription regulation by mutant p53,” Oncogene, vol. 26, no. 15, pp. 2202–2211, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Strano, S. Dell'Orso, S. Di Agostino, G. Fontemaggi, A. Sacchi, and G. Blandino, “Mutant p53: an oncogenic transcription factor,” Oncogene, vol. 26, no. 15, pp. 2212–2219, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. M. Goh, C. R. Coffill, and D. P. Lane, “The role of mutant p53 in human cancer,” Journal of Pathology, vol. 223, no. 2, pp. 116–126, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. N. C. Reich and A. J. Levine, “Growth regulation of a cellular tumour antigen, p53, in nontransformed cells,” Nature, vol. 308, no. 5955, pp. 199–201, 1984. View at Scopus
  19. J. C. Reed, J. D. Alpers, P. C. Nowell, and R. G. Hoover, “Sequential expression of protooncogenes during lectin-stimulated mitogenesis of normal human lymphocytes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 3982–3986, 1986. View at Scopus
  20. J. Mosner, T. Mummenbrauer, C. Bauer, G. Sczakiel, F. Grosse, and W. Deppert, “Negative feedback regulation of wild-type p53 biosynthesis,” EMBO Journal, vol. 14, no. 18, pp. 4442–4449, 1995. View at Scopus
  21. K. Boggs and D. Reisman, “Increased p53 transcription prior to DNA synthesis is regulated through a novel regulatory element within the p53 promoter,” Oncogene, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 555–565, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. K. Boggs and D. Reisman, “C/EBPβ participates in regulating transcription of the p53 gene in response to mitogen stimulation,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 282, no. 11, pp. 7982–7990, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. D. Ginsberg, M. Oren, M. Yaniv, and J. Piette, “Protein-binding elements in the promoter region of the mouse p53 gene,” Oncogene, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1285–1290, 1990. View at Scopus
  24. P. F. Johnson, “Molecular stop signs: regulation of cell-cycle arrest by C/EBP transcription factors,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 118, no. 12, pp. 2545–2555, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. D. P. Ramji and P. Foka, “CCAAT/enhancer-binding proteins: structure, function and regulation,” Biochemical Journal, vol. 365, no. 3, pp. 561–575, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. S. L. McKnight, “McBindall—a better name for CCAAT/enhancer binding proteins?” Cell, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 259–261, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. E. M. Eaton, M. Hanlon, L. Bundy, and L. Sealy, “Characterization of C/EBPβ isoforms in normal versus neoplastic mammary epithelial cells,” Journal of Cellular Physiology, vol. 189, no. 1, pp. 91–105, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. P. Descombes, M. Chojkier, S. Lichtsteiner, E. Falvey, and U. Schibler, “LAP, a novel member of the C/EBP gene family, encodes a liver-enriched transcriptional activator protein,” Genes and Development, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1541–1551, 1990. View at Scopus
  29. V. Ossipow, P. Descombes, and U. Schibler, “CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein mRNA is translated into multiple proteins with different transcription activation potentials,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 90, no. 17, pp. 8219–8223, 1993. View at Scopus
  30. A. Polson, P. Takahashi, and D. Reisman, “ChIP (chromatin immunoprecipitation) analysis demonstrates co-ordinated binding of two transcription factors to the promoter of the p53 tumour-suppressor gene,” Cell Biology International, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 883–891, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. F. Schweisguth and J. W. Posakony, “Suppressor of Hairless, the Drosophila homolog of the mouse recombination signal-binding protein gene, controls sensory organ cell fates,” Cell, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 1199–1212, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. H. Kato, Y. Taniguchi, H. Kurooka et al., “Involvement of RBP-J in biological functions of mouse Notch1 and its derivatives,” Development, vol. 124, no. 20, pp. 4133–4141, 1997. View at Scopus
  33. F. Oswald, M. Winkler, Y. Cao et al., “RBP-Jκ/SHARP recruits CtIP/CtBP corepressors to silence notch target genes,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 25, no. 23, pp. 10379–10390, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. A. Robert-Moreno, L. Espinosa, J. L. de la Pompa, and A. Bigas, “RBPjkappa-dependent Notch function regulates Gata2 and is essential for the formation of intra-embryonic hematopoietic cells,” Development, vol. 132, no. 5, pp. 1117–1126, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. L. Miele, “Notch signaling,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 12, article 1074e9, 2006.
  36. J. J. D. Hsieh and S. D. Hayward, “Masking of the CBF1/RBPJ(κ) transcriptional repression domain by Epstein-Barr virus EBNA2,” Science, vol. 268, no. 5210, pp. 560–563, 1995. View at Scopus
  37. I. Olave, D. Reinberg, and L. D. Vales, “The mammalian transcriptional repressor RBP (CBF1) targets TFIID and TFIAA to prevent activated transcription,” Genes and Development, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1621–1637, 1998. View at Scopus
  38. K. Boggs, B. Henderson, and D. Reisman, “RBP-Jκ binds to and represses transcription of the p53 tumor suppressor gene,” Cell Biology International, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 318–324, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. P. Takahashi, A. Polson, and D. Reisman, “Elevated transcription of the p53 gene in early S-phase leads to a rapid DNA-damage response during S-phase of the cell cycle,” Apoptosis, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 950–958, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus