Letter | Published:

Mechanical cues control mutant p53 stability through a mevalonate–RhoA axis


Tumour-associated p53 missense mutants act as driver oncogenes affecting cancer progression, metastatic potential and drug resistance (gain-of-function)1. Mutant p53 protein stabilization is a prerequisite for gain-of-function manifestation; however, it does not represent an intrinsic property of p53 mutants, but rather requires secondary events2. Moreover, mutant p53 protein levels are often heterogeneous even within the same tumour, raising questions on the mechanisms that control local mutant p53 accumulation in some tumour cells but not in their neighbours2,3. By investigating the cellular pathways that induce protection of mutant p53 from ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis, we found that HDAC6/Hsp90-dependent mutant p53 accumulation is sustained by RhoA geranylgeranylation downstream of the mevalonate pathway, as well as by RhoA- and actin-dependent transduction of mechanical inputs, such as the stiffness of the extracellular environment. Our results provide evidence for an unpredicted layer of mutant p53 regulation that relies on metabolic and mechanical cues.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Mantovani, F., Walerych, D. & Del Sal, G. Targeting mutant p53 in cancer: a long road to precision therapy. FEBS J. 284, 837–850 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Terzian, T. et al. The inherent instability of mutant p53 is alleviated by Mdm2 or p16 INK4a loss. Genes Dev. 22, 1337–1344 (2008).

  3. 3.

    Koga, T. et al. Heterogeneous distribution of P53 immunoreactivity in human lung adenocarcinoma correlates with MDM2 protein expression, rather than with P53 gene mutation. Int. J. Cancer 95, 232–239 (2001).

  4. 4.

    Freed-Pastor, W. A. & Prives, C. Mutant p53: one name, many proteins. Genes Dev. 26, 1268–1286 (2012).

  5. 5.

    Girardini, J. E. et al. A Pin1/mutant p53 axis promotes aggressiveness in breast cancer. Cancer Cell 20, 79–91 (2011).

  6. 6.

    Ashcroft, M. & Vousden, K. H. Regulation of p53 stability. Oncogene 18, 7637–7643 (1999).

  7. 7.

    Bouchalova, P. et al. Mutant p53 accumulation in human breast cancer is not an intrinsic property or dependent on structural or functional disruption but is regulated by exogenous stress and receptor status. J. Pathol. 233, 238–246 (2014).

  8. 8.

    Sorrentino, G. et al. Metabolic control of YAP and TAZ by the mevalonate pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 357–366 (2014).

  9. 9.

    Sorrentino, G. et al. Glucocorticoid receptor signalling activates YAP in breast cancer. Nat. Commun. 8, 14073 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Wang, Z. et al. Cardiac glycosides inhibit p53 synthesis by a mechanism relieved by Src or MAPK inhibition. Cancer Res. 69, 6556–6564 (2009).

  11. 11.

    Hara, M. R. et al. A stress response pathway regulates DNA damage through β2-adrenoreceptors and β-arrestin-1. Nature 477, 349–353 (2011).

  12. 12.

    Mullen, P. J., Yu, R., Longo, J., Archer, M. C. & Penn, L. Z. The interplay between cell signalling and the mevalonate pathway in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 16, 718–731 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Lukashchuk, N. & Vousden, K. H. Ubiquitination and degradation of mutant p53. Mol. Cell. Biol. 27, 8284–8295 (2007).

  14. 14.

    Malkin, D. Li-fraumeni syndrome. Genes Cancer 2, 475–84 (2011).

  15. 15.

    Esser, C., Scheffner, M. & Höhfeld, J. The chaperone-associated ubiquitin ligase CHIP is able to target p53 for proteasomal degradation. J. Biol. Chem. 280, 27443–27448 (2005).

  16. 16.

    Nagata, Y. et al. The stabilization mechanism of mutant-type p53 by impaired ubiquitination: the loss of wild-type p53 function and the hsp90 association. Oncogene 18, 6037–6049 (1999).

  17. 17.

    Li, D., Marchenko, N. D. & Moll, U. M. SAHA shows preferential cytotoxicity in mutant p53 cancer cells by destabilizing mutant p53 through inhibition of the HDAC6-Hsp90 chaperone axis. Cell Death Differ. 18, 1904–1913 (2011).

  18. 18.

    Kovacs, J. J. et al. HDAC6 regulates Hsp90 acetylation and chaperone-dependent activation of glucocorticoid receptor. Mol. Cell 18, 601–607 (2005).

  19. 19.

    Lin, Y. C. et al. Statins increase p21 through inhibition of histone deacetylase activity and release of promoter-associated HDAC1/2. Cancer Res. 68, 2375–2383 (2008).

  20. 20.

    Feig, J. E. et al. Statins promote the regression of atherosclerosis via activation of the CCR7-dependent emigration pathway in macrophages. PLoS ONE 6, e28534 (2011).

  21. 21.

    Clarke, J. D., Hsu, A., Yu, Z., Dashwood, R. H. & Ho, E. Differential effects of sulforaphane on histone deacetylases, cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in normal prostate cells versus hyperplastic and cancerous prostate cells. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 55, 999–1009 (2011).

  22. 22.

    Brown, M. S. & Goldstein, J. L. The SREBP pathway: regulation of cholesterol metabolism by proteolysis of a membrane-bound transcription factor. Cell 89, 331–340 (1997).

  23. 23.

    Repko, E. M. & Maltese, W. A. Post-transitional isoprenylation of cellular proteins is altered in response to mevalonate availability. J. Biol. Chem. 264, 9945–9952 (1989).

  24. 24.

    Zhang, F. L. & Casey, P. J. Protein prenylation: molecular mechanisms and functional consequences. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 65, 241–269 (1996).

  25. 25.

    Wang, Z. et al. Interplay of mevalonate and Hippo pathways regulates RHAMM transcription via YAP to modulate breast cancer cell motility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E89–E98 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Zhang, C. et al. Tumour-associated mutant p53 drives the Warburg effect. Nat. Commun. 4, 2935 (2013).

  27. 27.

    Mi, W. et al. Geranylgeranylation signals to the Hippo pathway for breast cancer cell proliferation and migration. Oncogene 34, 3095–3106 (2014).

  28. 28.

    Ingber, D. E. Cellular mechanotransduction: putting all the pieces together again. FASEB J. 20, 811–822 (2006).

  29. 29.

    Butcher, D. T., Alliston, T. & Weaver, V. M. A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat. Rev. Cancer 9, 108–22 (2009).

  30. 30.

    Janmey, P. A. & Miller, R. T. Mechanisms of mechanical signaling in development and disease. J. Cell Sci. 124, 9–18 (2011).

  31. 31.

    Miller, L. D. et al. An expression signature for p53 status in human breast cancer predicts mutation status, transcriptional effects, and patient survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 13550–513555 (2005).

  32. 32.

    Zanconato, F. et al. Genome-wide association between YAP/TAZ/TEAD and AP-1 at enhancers drives oncogenic growth. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 1218–1227 (2015).

  33. 33.

    Aragona, M. et al. A mechanical checkpoint controls multicellular growth through YAP/TAZ regulation by actin-processing factors. Cell 154, 1047–1059 (2013).

  34. 34.

    Zanconato, F., Cordenonsi, M. & Piccolo, S. YAP/TAZ at the roots of cancer. Cancer Cell 29, 783–803 (2016).

  35. 35.

    Freed-Pastor, W. A. et al. Mutant p53 disrupts mammary tissue architecture via the mevalonate pathway. Cell 148, 244–258 (2012).

  36. 36.

    Destaing, O. et al. A novel Rho-mDia2-HDAC6 pathway controls podosome patterning through microtubule acetylation in osteoclasts. J. Cell Sci. 118, 2901–2911 (2005).

  37. 37.

    Boyault, C., Sadoul, K., Pabion, M. & Khochbin, S. HDAC6, at the crossroads between cytoskeleton and cell signaling by acetylation and ubiquitination. Oncogene 26, 5468–5476 (2007).

  38. 38.

    Parrales, A. et al. DNAJA1 controls the fate of misfolded mutant p53 through the mevalonate pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 1233–1243 (2016).

  39. 39.

    Netti, P. A., Berk, D. A., Swartz, M. A., Grodzinsky, A. J. & Jain, R. K. Role of extracellular matrix assembly in interstitial transport in solid tumours. Cancer Res. 60, 2497–2503 (2000).

  40. 40.

    Colpaert, C. G. et al. The presence of a fibrotic focus in invasive breast carcinoma correlates with the expression of carbonic anhydrase IX and is a marker of hypoxia and poor prognosis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 81, 137–147 (2003).

  41. 41.

    Rustighi, A. et al. Prolyl-isomerase Pin1 controls normal and cancer stem cells of the breast. EMBO Mol. Med. 6, 99–119 (2014).

  42. 42

    Irizarry, R. A. et al. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4, 249–264 (2003).

  43. 43

    Tusher, V. G., Tibshirani, R. & Chu, G. Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5116–5121 (2001).

  44. 44.

    Alonso, J. L. & Goldmann, W. H. Feeling the forces: atomic force microscopy in cell biology. Life Sci. 72, 2553–2560 (2003).

  45. 45.

    Sneddon, I. N. The relation between load and penetration in the axisymmetric Boussinesq problem for a punch of arbitrary profile. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 3, 47–57 (1965).

  46. 46.

    Silwal-Pandit, L. et al. TP53 mutation spectrum in breast cancer is subtype specific and has distinct prognostic relevance. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 3569–3580 (2014).

Download references


We thank A. Testa for discussions and proofreading the manuscript. We acknowledge G. Pastore for technical support. We thank S. Giulitti for preparation of hydrogels. We acknowledge support by the Italian Health Ministry (RF-2011-02346976 to G.D.S. and GR-2011-02348707 to D.S.), the Italian University and Research Ministry (PRIN-2015-8KZKE3), the Cariplo Foundation (grant no. 2014-0812) and Beneficentia-Stiftung to G.D.S. This work was supported by grants from the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) and AIRC Special Program Molecular Clinical Oncology ‘5 per mille’ (grant no. 10016) to G.D.S., S.B., A.R. and S.P., and AIRC IG (grant no. 17659) to G.D.S. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 670126-DENOVOSTEM) and an AIRC PI-Grant and by Epigenetics Flagship project CNR-Miur grants to S.P. M.M. is supported by the FIRB RBAP11Z4Z9 project from the Italian Ministry of Education and the FCT Investigator Programme IF/00694/2013 from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal. R.B. is a fellow of the Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (FIRC).

Author information

E.I., G.S., K.L., R.B., A.Z. and L.A. performed the experiments. A.R. performed mouse experiments. M.M. performed the high-content screening. S.B. performed bioinformatic analysis. D.S. and L.U.S. performed AFM experiments. G.S., E.I. and G.D.S. designed experiments. G.S., F.M., S.P. and G.D.S. wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence to Giannino Del Sal.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–6

  2. Life Sciences Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Table 1

    Small molecule screening details

  4. Supplementary Table 2

    Small molecule screening results

  5. Supplementary Table 3

    List of siRNA sequences used

  6. Supplementary Table 4

    List of primers used for qRT-PCR

  7. Supplementary Table 5

    Details of the genes composing the stiffness, YAP/TAZ and mutant p53 signatures

  8. Supplementary Table 6

    Statistical source data

Rights and permissions

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

About this article

Further reading

Fig. 1: Statins reduce missense mutant p53 protein levels in cancer cells.
Fig. 2: Statins unleash MDM2-mediated degradation of mutant p53 by disrupting its interaction with Hsp90.
Fig. 3: The SREBP–mevalonate pathway controls mutant p53 levels via GGPP.
Fig. 4: RhoA geranylgeranylation controls mutant p53 levels downstream of the mevalonate pathway.
Fig. 5: Mechanical cues control mutant p53 levels and activity via RhoA/actin cytoskeleton.