Abstract

TP53 is conventionally thought to prevent cancer formation and progression to metastasis, while mutant TP53 has transforming activities. However, in the clinic, TP53 mutation status does not accurately predict cancer progression. Here we report, based on clinical analysis corroborated with experimental data, that the p53 isoform Δ133p53β promotes cancer cell invasion, regardless of TP53 mutation status. Δ133p53β increases risk of cancer recurrence and death in breast cancer patients. Furthermore Δ133p53β is critical to define invasiveness in a panel of breast and colon cell lines, expressing WT or mutant TP53. Endogenous mutant Δ133p53β depletion prevents invasiveness without affecting mutant full-length p53 protein expression. Mechanistically WT and mutant Δ133p53β induces EMT. Our findings provide explanations to 2 long-lasting and important clinical conundrums: how WT TP53 can promote cancer cell invasion and reciprocally why mutant TP53 gene does not systematically induce cancer progression.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Gilles Gadea

    CNRS, Centre de Recherche de Biochimie Macromoléculaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Nikola Arsic

    CNRS, Centre de Recherche de Biochimie Macromoléculaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kenneth Fernandes

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alexandra Diot

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sébastien M Joruiz

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Samer Abdallah

    CNRS, Centre de Recherche de Biochimie Macromoléculaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Valerie Meuray

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Stéphanie Vinot

    CNRS, Centre de Recherche de Biochimie Macromoléculaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Christelle Anguille

    CNRS, Centre de Recherche de Biochimie Macromoléculaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Judit Remenyi

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Marie P Khoury

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Philip R Quinlan

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Colin A Purdie

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Lee B Jordan

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Frances V Fuller-Pace

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5859-2932
  16. Marion de Toledo

    Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Maïlys Cren

    Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Alastair M Thompson

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Jean-Christophe Bourdon

    Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    j.bourdon@dundee.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Pierre Roux

    CNRS, Centre de Recherche de Biochimie Macromoléculaire de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
    For correspondence
    pierre.roux@crbm.cnrs.fr
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0671-5413

Funding

Breast Cancer Campaign (2012MaySF127)

  • Jean-Christophe Bourdon

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joaquín M Espinosa, University of Colorado School of Medicine, United States

Ethics

Human subjects: Samples were examined following Local Research EthicsCommittee approval under delegated authority by the Tayside Tissue Bank(www.taysidetissuebank.org).

Version history

  1. Received: January 29, 2016
  2. Accepted: September 13, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 15, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 17, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: March 30, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Gadea et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,040
    views
  • 609
    downloads
  • 44
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Gilles Gadea
  2. Nikola Arsic
  3. Kenneth Fernandes
  4. Alexandra Diot
  5. Sébastien M Joruiz
  6. Samer Abdallah
  7. Valerie Meuray
  8. Stéphanie Vinot
  9. Christelle Anguille
  10. Judit Remenyi
  11. Marie P Khoury
  12. Philip R Quinlan
  13. Colin A Purdie
  14. Lee B Jordan
  15. Frances V Fuller-Pace
  16. Marion de Toledo
  17. Maïlys Cren
  18. Alastair M Thompson
  19. Jean-Christophe Bourdon
  20. Pierre Roux
(2016)
TP53 drives invasion through expression of its Δ133p53β variant
eLife 5:e14734.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14734

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14734

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Fang Huang, Zhenwei Dai ... Yang Wang
    Research Article

    Aberrant alternative splicing is well-known to be closely associated with tumorigenesis of various cancers. However, the intricate mechanisms underlying breast cancer metastasis driven by deregulated splicing events remain largely unexplored. Here, we unveiled that RBM7 is decreased in lymph node and distant organ metastases of breast cancer as compared to primary lesions and low expression of RBM7 is correlated with the reduced disease-free survival of breast cancer patients. Breast cancer cells with RBM7 depletion exhibited an increased potential for lung metastasis compared to scramble control cells. The absence of RBM7 stimulated breast cancer cell migration, invasion, and angiogenesis. Mechanistically, RBM7 controlled the splicing switch of MFGE8, favoring the production of the predominant isoform of MFGE8, MFGE8-L. This resulted in the attenuation of STAT1 phosphorylation and alterations in cell adhesion molecules. MFGE8-L exerted an inhibitory effect on the migratory and invasive capability of breast cancer cells, while the truncated isoform MFGE8-S, which lack the second F5/8 type C domain had the opposite effect. In addition, RBM7 negatively regulates the NF-κB cascade and an NF-κB inhibitor could obstruct the increase in HUVEC tube formation caused by RBM7 silencing. Clinically, we noticed a positive correlation between RBM7 expression and MFGE8 exon7 inclusion in breast cancer tissues, providing new mechanistic insights for molecular-targeted therapy in combating breast cancer.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Nicholas J Mullen, Surendra K Shukla ... Pankaj K Singh
    Research Article

    Pyrimidine nucleotide biosynthesis is a druggable metabolic dependency of cancer cells, and chemotherapy agents targeting pyrimidine metabolism are the backbone of treatment for many cancers. Dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH) is an essential enzyme in the de novo pyrimidine biosynthesis pathway that can be targeted by clinically approved inhibitors. However, despite robust preclinical anticancer efficacy, DHODH inhibitors have shown limited single-agent activity in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. Therefore, novel combination therapy strategies are necessary to realize the potential of these drugs. To search for therapeutic vulnerabilities induced by DHODH inhibition, we examined gene expression changes in cancer cells treated with the potent and selective DHODH inhibitor brequinar (BQ). This revealed that BQ treatment causes upregulation of antigen presentation pathway genes and cell surface MHC class I expression. Mechanistic studies showed that this effect is (1) strictly dependent on pyrimidine nucleotide depletion, (2) independent of canonical antigen presentation pathway transcriptional regulators, and (3) mediated by RNA polymerase II elongation control by positive transcription elongation factor B (P-TEFb). Furthermore, BQ showed impressive single-agent efficacy in the immunocompetent B16F10 melanoma model, and combination treatment with BQ and dual immune checkpoint blockade (anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1) significantly prolonged mouse survival compared to either therapy alone. Our results have important implications for the clinical development of DHODH inhibitors and provide a rationale for combination therapy with BQ and immune checkpoint blockade.