Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Paper
  • Published:

Activation of the p53-dependent G1 checkpoint response in mouse embryo fibroblasts depends on the specific DNA damage inducer

Abstract

The p53 tumor suppressor protein inhibits proliferation by inducing either cell cycle arrest or apoptosis in response to cellular stresses. Mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEFs) provide a primary cell model system in which to examine both functions of p53. MEFs treated with gamma-rays undergo p53-dependent G1 arrest, while oncogene-expressing MEFs treated with a variety of DNA-damaging agents undergo p53-dependent apoptosis. Although the p53-dependent G1 arrest checkpoint response to gamma-rays in MEFs has been well characterized, the response to other DNA-damaging agents has not. Here, we examine the effects of commonly utilized chemotherapeutics, including doxorubicin, etoposide, and cisplatin, on cell cycle arrest in MEFs, and we define the p53 dependence of these effects. In addition, we examine the response of MEFs to ultraviolet light (UVC), as a representative agent acting by inducing pyrimidine dimers. Although p53 is clearly activated by all the agents examined, as measured by p21 induction, there are surprising differences in the activities of these agents. For example, doxorubicin but not cisplatin can effectively induce a p53-dependent G1 arrest. UVC, in contrast, induces a p53-independent G1 arrest response. Thus, the exact response of cells to DNA damage depends on the specific agent used.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 5
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appella E and Anderson CW . (2001). Eur. J. Biochem., 268, 2764–2772.

  • Attardi LD, Reczek EE, Cosmas C, Demicco EG, McCurrach ME, Lowe SW and Jacks T . (2000). Genes Dev., 14, 704–718.

  • Bargonetti J and Manfredi JJ . (2002). Curr. Opin. Oncol., 14, 86–91.

  • Brugarolas J, Chandrasekaran C, Gordon JI, Beach D, Jacks T and Hannon GJ . (1995). Nature, 377, 552–557.

  • Chang D, Chen F, Zhang F, McKay BC and Ljungman M . (1999). Cell Growth Differ., 10, 155–162.

  • Deng C, Zhang P, Harper JW, Elledge SJ and Leder P . (1995). Cell, 82, 675–684.

  • El-Deiry WS, Tokino T, Velculescu VE, Levy DB, Parsons R, Trent JM, Lin D, Mercer WE, Kinzler KW and Vogelstein B . (1993). Cell, 75, 817–825.

  • Johnstone RW, Ruefli AA and Lowe SW . (2002). Cell, 108, 153–164.

  • Kapoor M and Lozano G . (1998). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 2834–2837.

  • Kastan MB, Zhan Q, el-Deiry WS, Carrier F, Jacks T, Walsh WV, Plunkett BS, Vogelstein B and Fornace Jr AJ . (1992). Cell, 71, 587–597.

  • Lowe SW, Ruley HE, Jacks T and Housman DE . (1993). Cell, 74, 957–967.

  • Lu H, Taya Y, Ikeda M and Levine AJ . (1998). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 6399–6402.

  • Nelson WG and Kastan MB . (1994). Mol. Cell. Biol., 14, 1815–1823.

  • O'Dwyer PJ, Johnson SW and Hamilton TC . (1997). Principles and Practice of Oncology. DeVita Jr V, Hellman S and Rosenberg SA (eds). Lippincott-Raven: Philadelphia, pp. 419–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pines J . (1994). Nature, 369, 520–521.

  • Soengas MS, Alarcon RM, Yoshida H, Giaccia AJ, Hakem R, Mak TW and Lowe SW . (1999). Science, 284, 156–159.

  • Stewart CF and Ratain MJ . (1997). Principles and Practice of Oncology. DeVita Jr V, Hellman S and Rosenberg SA (eds). Lippincott-Raven: Philadelphia, pp. 452–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang D, Wu D, Hirao A, Lahti JM, Liu L, Mazza B, Kidd VJ, Mak TW and Ingram AJ . (2002). J. Biol. Chem., 277, 12710–12717.

  • Wahl GM and Carr AM . (2001). Nat. Cell. Biol., 3, E277–E286.

  • Waldman T, Kinzler KW and Vogelstein B . (1995). Cancer Res., 55, 5187–5190.

  • Zamble DB, Jacks T and Lippard SJ . (1998). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 6163–6168.

  • Zhou BB and Elledge SJ . (2000). Nature, 408, 433–439.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J Sage, J Brugarolas, E Flores, A Giaccia, M Brown, G Chu, G Wahl, S Lowe, K Cimprich, S Artandi, R Ihrie, and T Johnson for critical reading of the manuscript. This work has been supported by the American Cancer Society, the Bunting Institute at Radcliffe College, Merck, and the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation to LDA and by the Dutch Cancer Society to ADV. This work has been supported by the HHMI and NCI funding to TJ.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura D Attardi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Attardi, L., de Vries, A. & Jacks, T. Activation of the p53-dependent G1 checkpoint response in mouse embryo fibroblasts depends on the specific DNA damage inducer. Oncogene 23, 973–980 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207026

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207026

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links