A polymorphism in the tumor suppressor p53 affects aging and longevity in mouse models

  1. Yuhan Zhao
  2. Lihua Wu
  3. Xuetian Yue
  4. Cen Zhang
  5. Jianming Wang
  6. Jun Li
  7. Xiaohui Sun
  8. Yiming Zhu
  9. Zhaohui Feng
  10. Wenwei Hu  Is a corresponding author
  1. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, United States
  2. Zhejiang University, China

Abstract

Tumor suppressor p53 prevents early death due to cancer development. However, the role of p53 in aging process and longevity has not been well-established. In humans, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) with either arginine (R72) or proline (P72) at codon 72 influences p53 activity; the P72 allele has a weaker p53 activity and function in tumor suppression. Here, employing a mouse model with knock-in of human TP53 gene carrying codon 72 SNP, we found that despite increased cancer risk, P72 mice that escape tumor development display a longer lifespan than R72 mice. Further, P72 mice have a delayed development of aging-associated phenotypes compared with R72 mice. Mechanistically, P72 mice can better retain the self-renewal function of stem/progenitor cells compared with R72 mice during aging. This study provides direct genetic evidence demonstrating that p53 codon 72 SNP directly impacts aging and longevity, which supports a role of p53 in regulation of longevity.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yuhan Zhao

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5529-1907
  2. Lihua Wu

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Xuetian Yue

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Cen Zhang

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jianming Wang

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jun Li

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Xiaohui Sun

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yiming Zhu

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Zhaohui Feng

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Wenwei Hu

    Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
    For correspondence
    wh221@cinj.rutgers.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3971-4257

Funding

Lawrence Ellison Foundation (New Investigate Award AG-NS-0781-11)

  • Wenwei Hu

National Institutes of Health (1R01CA160558)

  • Wenwei Hu

National Institutes of Health (1R01CA203965)

  • Wenwei Hu

National Institutes of Health (F99CA222734)

  • Yuhan Zhao

National Institutes of Health (1R01CA227912)

  • Zhaohui Feng
  • Wenwei Hu

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animal experiments were approved by institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol (I14-012) of the University of Rutgers.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Maureen Murphy, The Wistar Institute, United States

Version history

  1. Received: December 28, 2017
  2. Accepted: March 18, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 20, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 18, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Zhao 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

  • 3,865
    Page views
  • 536
    Downloads
  • 30
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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. Yuhan Zhao
  2. Lihua Wu
  3. Xuetian Yue
  4. Cen Zhang
  5. Jianming Wang
  6. Jun Li
  7. Xiaohui Sun
  8. Yiming Zhu
  9. Zhaohui Feng
  10. Wenwei Hu
(2018)
A polymorphism in the tumor suppressor p53 affects aging and longevity in mouse models
eLife 7:e34701.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.34701

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Elena Farmaki, Aritro Nath ... Andrea H Bild
    Research Article

    The mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, is an important clinical management component of metastatic ER+ breast cancer (BC). However, most patients develop resistance and progress on therapy, highlighting the need to discover strategies that increase mTOR inhibitor effectiveness. We developed ER+ BC cell lines, sensitive or resistant to everolimus, and discovered that combination treatment of ONC201/TIC10 with everolimus inhibited cell growth in 2D/3D in vitro studies. We confirmed increased therapeutic response in primary patient cells progressing on everolimus, supporting clinical relevance. We show that ONC201/TIC10 mechanism in metastatic ER+ BC cells involves oxidative phosphorylation inhibition and stress response activation. Transcriptomic analysis in everolimus resistant breast patient tumors and mitochondrial functional assays in resistant cell lines demonstrated increased mitochondrial respiration dependency, contributing to ONC201/TIC10 sensitivity. We propose that ONC201/TIC10 and modulation of mitochondrial function may provide an effective add-on therapy strategy for patients with metastatic ER+ BCs resistant to mTOR inhibitors.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Megan E Kelley, Adi Y Berman ... Gregory P Way
    Research Article

    Drug resistance is a challenge in anticancer therapy. In many cases, cancers can be resistant to the drug prior to exposure, i.e., possess intrinsic drug resistance. However, we lack target-independent methods to anticipate resistance in cancer cell lines or characterize intrinsic drug resistance without a priori knowledge of its cause. We hypothesized that cell morphology could provide an unbiased readout of drug resistance. To test this hypothesis, we used HCT116 cells, a mismatch repair-deficient cancer cell line, to isolate clones that were resistant or sensitive to bortezomib, a well-characterized proteasome inhibitor and anticancer drug to which many cancer cells possess intrinsic resistance. We then expanded these clones and measured high-dimensional single-cell morphology profiles using Cell Painting, a high-content microscopy assay. Our imaging- and computation-based profiling pipeline identified morphological features that differed between resistant and sensitive cells. We used these features to generate a morphological signature of bortezomib resistance. We then employed this morphological signature to analyze a set of HCT116 clones (five resistant and five sensitive) that had not been included in the signature training dataset, and correctly predicted sensitivity to bortezomib in seven cases, in the absence of drug treatment. This signature predicted bortezomib resistance better than resistance to other drugs targeting the ubiquitin-proteasome system. Our results establish a proof-of-concept framework for the unbiased analysis of drug resistance using high-content microscopy of cancer cells, in the absence of drug treatment.