Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

Gain-of-function mutant p53 in cancer progression and therapy

Cen Zhang, Juan Liu, Dandan Xu and 3 more

Journal of Molecular Cell Biology · 2020 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1093/jmcb/mjaa040

Abstract

p53 is a key tumor suppressor, and loss of p53 function is frequently a prerequisite for cancer development. The p53 gene is the most frequently mutated gene in human cancers; p53 mutations occur in >50% of all human cancers and in almost every type of human cancers. Most of p53 mutations in cancers are missense mutations, which produce the full-length mutant p53 (mutp53) protein with only one amino acid difference from wild-type p53 protein. In addition to loss of the tumor-suppressive function of wild-type p53, many mutp53 proteins acquire new oncogenic activities independently of wild-type p53 to promote cancer progression, termed gain-of-function (GOF). Mutp53 protein often accumulates to very high levels in cancer cells, which is critical for its GOF. Given the high mutation frequency of the p53 gene and the GOF activities of mutp53 in cancer, therapies targeting mutp53 have attracted great interest. Further understanding the mechanisms underlying mutp53 protein accumulation and GOF will help develop effective therapies treating human cancers containing mutp53. In this review, we summarize the recent advances in the studies on mutp53 regulation and GOF as well as therapies targeting mutp53 in human cancers.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 18, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Since the discovery of p53 in 1979, extensive studies have been done on p53, which have established the key role of p53 in tumor suppression. Loss of wild-type p53 function through mutations of the p53 gene and other mechanisms such as overexpression of negative regulators of p53 (e.g. MDM2, MDM4, and PPM1D) has been known as a prerequisite for initiation and/or progression of many human cancers. As a transcription factor, p53 executes its tumor-suppressive function mainly through binding to p53 DNA-binding elements in its target genes to regulate their expression. Through transcriptionally regulating these genes, p53 plays critical roles in many important biological processes, including apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, senescence, DNA repair, cell metabolism, and antioxidant defense, which contribute to p53’s function in tumor suppression. The p53 gene is the most frequently mutated gene in human cancers; p53 mutations occur in >50% of all cancers. Interestingly, unlike many other tumor suppressor genes, such as BRCA1, RB, and APC, that are usually inactivated by deletions or truncating mutations in cancers, majority of p53 mutations in cancers are missense mutations, which leads to the production of full-length mutp53 proteins with only one amino acid substitution. While p53 mutations are distributed in all coding exons of the p53 gene, the majority occur in the DNA-binding domain of p53, which impairs the ability of p53 to bind to the p53 DNA-binding elements in its target genes and thus the transcriptional activity of p53. Notably, ∼30% of p53 mutations occur at the six mutational hotspots in its DNA-binding domain, including R175, R245, R248, R249, R273, and R282.

In addition to the loss of wild-type p53 function in tumor suppression, mutp53 often promotes tumor progression through the gain-of-function (GOF) mechanism. The GOF activity of mutp53 was first demonstrated in 1993, when reported that ectopic expression of R175H or R273H mutp53 endowed p53-null cells with an increased ability to form colonies in soft agar and form xenograft tumors in nude mice. Since then, numerous studies, including those using cell culture systems and mouse models and clinical studies, have shown that many missense mutp53 proteins display GOF activities to promote cancer progression, which is independent of wild-type p53. For instance, compared with p53 knockout mice, R172H and R270H (equivalent to human R175H and R273H, respectively) mutp53 knock-in mice develop more malignant and metastatic tumors. Humanized R248Q mutp53 knock-in mice display accelerated onset of tumors and shorter survival compared with p53-null mice. For Li-Fraumeni syndrome patients who carry heterozygous germline p53 mutations, patients carrying p53 missense mutations have an earlier cancer onset compared with patients carrying p53 deletion mutations. GOF mutp53 has also been reported to be associated with poor clinical outcomes in cancer patients. Various mutp53 GOF activities have been reported so far, including promoting cell proliferation, metastasis, genomic instability, metabolic reprogramming, cell stemness, tumor microenvironment reshaping, immune suppression, and resistance to therapy in cancer (Figure 1;;;; ).

In addition to the GOF mechanism, mutp53 has also been reported to inhibit wild-type p53 function through a dominant-negative mechanism in a heterozygous situation, where both wild-type and mutp53 alleles exist. Mutp53 was reported to form heterodimer complexes with wild-type p53 to attenuate wild-type p53 function though conformational shifts or inhibiting the DNA-binding activity of wild-type p53 on target genes. Recently, an in vitro mutational scanning of p53 single amino acid mutants in human leukemia cells showed that missense mutants in the DNA-binding domain exert a dominant-negative effect in myeloid malignancies. Furthermore, analysis of clinical outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia showed no evidence of GOF for p53 missense mutations, suggesting that mutp53 GOF may not play an important role in this type of cancer. Notably, a recent study analyzed p53 mutations in 10225 samples from 32 cancers from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and reported that >91% of p53-mutant cancers exhibit loss of the second allele of p53 by mutation, chromosomal deletion, or copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity. This implies that such a heterozygous state of p53 is often transient during cancer progression and there is a selective force driving the inactivation of the remaining wild-type p53 allele in cancers, and also suggests that the dominant-negative effect of mutp53 is not sufficient to completely inactivate the remaining wild-type p53 allele in majority of cancers.

While mutp53 cannot bind to the p53 DNA-binding elements to transcriptionally regulate target genes of wild-type p53, mutp53 has been reported to exert its GOF activities through different mechanisms to promote tumorigenesis (Figure 1;;;; ). For instance, mutp53 binds to many different transcription factors and co-factors, such as p63, p73, NF-Y, SREBPs, Sp1, E2F1, ETS1/2, VDR, NF-κB, and regulates the transcription of their target genes. Mutp53 also regulates expression of some genes by directly binding to specific DNA regions, such as the matrix attachment regions with a high potential for base unpairing. Mutp53 also binds to several chromatin regulatory genes to upregulate their expression, including histone lysine methyltransferase genes MLL1 and MLL2 and histone lysine acetyltransferase gene MOZ, which in turn results in genome-wide increases of histone methylation and acetylation to regulate gene expression. Furthermore, mutp53 can regulate genome-wide gene expression through directly interacting with the histone lysine methyltransferase protein MLL4 or inducing chromatin remodeling via the interaction with the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex and Pontin, the AAA+ ATPase that is associated with several chromatin-remodeling complexes (e.g. Ino80, TIP60/NuA4, and SWR1 complexes) and involved in chromatin remodeling. Mutp53 interacts with many different proteins other than transcription factors, including tumor suppressors and oncogenic proteins, to affect their functions. Additionally, mutp53 regulates expression of many noncoding RNAs, including microRNAs (miRNAs), circular RNAs (circRNAs), and long noncoding RNAs (lncRNA), to exert its GOF activities. In this review, we summarize recent advances in studies on mutp53 GOF in cancer and mutp53-targeted cancer therapies.

Cell proliferation

p53 plays a critical role in suppression of cancer cell proliferation through different mechanisms, such as cell cycle arrest, senescence, and apoptosis. In contrast, GOF mutp53 promotes cancer cell proliferation. Mutp53 forms a complex with the transcription factor NF-Y and co-factor p300 and transcriptionally activates NF-Y target genes, such as cyclin A, cyclin B1, CDK1, and CDC25C, to promote cell cycle progression. Mutp53 binds to the promoter of MAP2K3, an upstream activator of the p38 MAPK, and recruits NF-Y and NF-κB to the MAP2K3 promoter, inducing MAP2K3 expression to promote cell proliferation. Mutp53 binds to the transcription factor YAP to induce the transcription of cyclin A, cyclin B, and CDK1 to promote cell proliferation. Mutp53 promotes colorectal tumor growth through interacting with the transcription factor STAT3 to activate STAT3 transcription program. In addition, R249S mutp53 interacts with Pin1 after being phosphorylated by CDK4/cyclin D1 at the S249 residue and then is imported into the nucleus to stabilize c-Myc protein, resulting in the transcriptional activation of Myc target genes to promote proliferation of hepatocellular carcinoma cells.

Mutp53 also promotes cell proliferation through regulating noncoding RNAs. For instance, R273H mutp53 suppresses miR-27a expression by binding to its promoter region, which in turn activates EGFR/ERK signaling to promote cell proliferation. Mutp53 induces the expression of the circular RNA circPVT1 through YAP/TEAD signaling that represses miR-497-5p expression and induces the expression of cell cycle-regulated genes to promote cell proliferation.

Metastasis

p53 plays a key role in suppression of migration, invasion, and metastasis of cancer cells. In contrast, promoting cancer metastasis is a well-known GOF activity of mutp53. R172H and R273H mutp53 knock-in mice develop more metastatic tumors than p53−/− mice, providing clear evidence of mutp53 in promoting tumor metastasis in vivo. Mutp53 has been reported to promote metastasis through different mechanisms. One important mechanism is through promoting epithelial‒mesenchymal transition (EMT). Mutp53 transcriptionally represses miR-130b to upregulate ZEB1, a key EMT-related transcription factor, to promote EMT and cancer cell invasion. Mutp53 also promotes EMT and metastasis by upregulating the EMT-related transcription factor Twist1 and interacting with p53 family member p63 to form a complex with Smad2 to activate the TGF-β signaling, which is important for EMT. In addition to EMT, other mechanisms include modulating cell motility and extracellular matrix. For instance, mutp53 promotes metastasis by regulating SUMOylation modification of small GTPase Rac1 to activate Rac1, which plays an important role in cell motility and cancer metastasis. Mutp53 promotes tumor cell invasion and motility by enhancing the interaction between α5β1 integrin and Rab-coupling protein (RCP), an important regulator of endocytic trafficking, which in turn promotes the recycling of EGFR and the protein tyrosine kinase MET. Mutp53 also promotes these RCP-dependent endocytic trafficking in cancer neighboring cells by exosome secretion, leading to deposition of a highly pro-invasive extracellular matrix. Mutp53 sequesters p73 from forming the complex with NF-Y, activating PDGF receptor β (PDGFRβ) signaling to promote pancreatic cancer metastasis. In addition, in the R172H mutp53 knock-in mouse model, R172H mutp53 promotes tumor metastasis through interaction with the transcription factor ETS2, inducing the expression of a cluster of small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) and upregulating the Pla2g16 gene encoding a phospholipase that catalyzes phosphatidic acid into lysophosphatidic acid and free fatty acid, both of which are implicated in metastasis.

Genomic instability

Genome instability is a hallmark of cancer. While p53, as a guardian of genome, plays a critical role in maintaining genomic stability, GOF mutp53 promotes genomic instability, such as chromosomal and amplification instability. For instance, fibroblasts from Li-Fraumeni syndrome patients expressing missense p53 mutations including R175H undergo S-phase reentry after being exposed to spindle depolymerizing agents that disrupt mitotic spindles, leading to the generation of polyploid cells, whereas p53-null fibroblasts are blocked from reentry. Ectopic expression of mouse R172H (equivalent to human R175H) mutp53 in p53-null primary mouse mammary epithelial cells leads to marked centrosome amplification and an increased frequency of aberrant mitosis. In the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma mouse model, expression of R172H mutp53 and Kras (G12D) leads to the cooperative development of invasive and metastatic carcinomas with a high degree of genomic instability manifested by nonreciprocal translocations without obvious telomere erosion.

The proper DNA damage response and DNA repair function are crucial for maintaining genomic stability in cells. Mutp53 can induce genomic instability through impairing DNA damage response and DNA repair. R248W and R273H mutp53 can bind to the nuclease Mre11 and prevent the association of the Mre11‒Rad50‒NBS1 (MRN) complex to DNA double-stranded breaks (DSBs), which in turn impairs ATM activation and DNA damage response. Mutp53 interacts with the transcription factor E2F4 and binds to the promoter region of BRCA1 and RAD17, key proteins involved in DSB DNA repair, to repress BRCA1 and RAD17 expression and impair DNA repair. Mutp53 was also reported to enhance the association of the DNA repair protein PARP1 with chromatin and increase the levels of nuclear replication proteins MCM4 and PCNA, which in turn impairs DNA repair and at the same time promotes DNA replication to cause genomic instability. In addition, other mechanisms have also been suggested to contribute to mutp53 GOF in inducing genomic instability. The p53 family member p73 plays an important role in spindle assembly checkpoint by directly interacting with BubR1, a spindle assembly checkpoint protein crucial for proper centrosome maintenance and chromosomal stability, to enhance its ability to phosphorylate downstream checkpoint effectors. Since mutp53 can bind to p73 and inhibit its transcription activity, mutp53 may impair BubR1 function, leading to the spindle assembly checkpoint defect and aneuploidy. Mutp53 also promotes the formation of cell-in-cell (CIC) structures via live-cell engulfment, which interferes with the cell division of host cells to result in genomic instability.

Cell differentiation and stemness

p53 promotes differentiation and restrains proliferation of stem cells, acting as a barrier of the formation of cancer stem cells (CSCs). In contrast, mutp53 displays a GOF activity to regulate dedifferentiation processes and facilitate CSC maintenance. It was reported that bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cells in Li-Fraumeni syndrome patients are tumorigenic and can induce sarcomas. Similarly, accumulation of mutp53 in progenitor-like cells in the brain subventricular zone-associated areas leads to the initiation of glioma. Mutp53 enhances the expression of colorectal CSC markers (e.g. CD44, Lgr5, and ALDH) by binding to CD44, Lgr5, and ALDH1A1 promoter sequences in colorectal cancer cells. Mutp53 promotes proliferation and growth capacity of CSC-like cells and increases CSC markers (CD133, CD44, and YAP/TAZ) in glioblastoma and breast cancer cells by regulating WASP-interacting protein (WIP), which in turn stabilizes YAP/TAZ. Mutp53 also promotes aberrant self-renewal in leukemic cells, a phenotype that is present in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells even prior to their transformation, by upregulating FoxH1, a transcription factor involved in the regulation of stem cell-associated genes.

Metabolic reprogramming

Metabolic reprogramming is a hallmark of cancer, which sustains the needs of energy and macromolecules for the rapid growth and proliferation of cancer cells. While p53 plays a critical role in maintaining metabolic homeostasis of normal cells, GOF mutp53 promotes metabolic reprogramming in cancer cells. The enhanced aerobic glycolysis (namely the Warburg effect) is the most well-characterized metabolic change in cancer cells. Wild-type p53 has been reported to repress the Warburg effect in cancer cells through transactivating target genes that are required for oxidative phosphorylation, such as SCO2, as well as genes such as TIGAR and Parkin to negatively regulate glycolysis. In contrast, mutp53 enhances glucose uptake and glycolysis by promoting trafficking of glucose transporter GLUT1 to the plasma membrane through activation of the small GTPase RhoA and its direct downstream kinase ROCK both in cultured cancer cells and in R172H mutp53 knock-in mice, which promotes tumorigenesis. Mutp53 also promotes glycolysis through enhancing the expression of glycolytic enzyme hexokinase II (HK2) and phosphorylation of PKM2. Mutp53 activates the mevalonate pathway through binding to and activating the transcription factor SREBPs, which in turn induces the expression of genes in the mevalonate pathway. Mutp53 enhances nucleotide synthesis via cooperating with ETS2 to activate multiple nucleotide metabolism genes, such as RRM2b, dCK, and TK1, to promote tumorigenesis. In addition, mutp53 binds to and activates PGC-1α, a master regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative phosphorylation, enhancing mitochondrial function to promote cancer metastasis. The codon 72 polymorphism of p53 (R72 or P72) influences p53 activity and is associated with the cancer risk and longevity. Interestingly, PGC-1α activation by mutp53 is impacted by the codon 72 polymorphism; cancer cells with R72 variant of mutp53 show more markedly increased PGC-1α function, mitochondrial function, and metastatic capability.

Tumor microenvironment and immune response regulation

Cancer cells actively shape a permissive microenvironment for cancer progression. Growing evidence has shown that mutp53 remodels the tumor microenvironment and promotes adaptation of cancer cells to the microenvironment. Mutp53 affects the expression of various secreted proteins to remodel the tumor microenvironment. For instance, mutp53 activates PKC to increase VEGF expression to promote angiogenesis. Mutp53 forms a complex with E2F1 and binds to the promoter of inhibitor of DNA-binding 4 (ID4) to induce ID4 expression, which in turn enhances the expression of pro-angiogenic factors IL8 and GRO-α to promote angiogenesis. Mutp53 binds to the lncRNA MALAT1 to promote the association of MALAT1 with chromatin and induce VEGF expression in breast cancer cells. Mutp53 induces the release of a pro-invasive secretome into the tumor microenvironment through interaction with p63. Mutp53 facilitates premetastatic niche formation by releasing exosomes to promote integrin trafficking, which enhances deposition of a highly pro-invasive extracellular matrix. Furthermore, mutp53 forms a complex with hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) that binds to the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex and induces the expression of a selective subset of hypoxia-responsive genes. Thus, mutp53 enhances HIF-1-mediated expression of some extracellular matrix components, including type VIIa1 collagen and laminin-γ2, to promote the adaptation of cancer cells to hypoxia in the tumor microenvironment. In addition, mutp53 protects cancer cells from tumor-suppressive IFN-β secreted by cancer-associated fibroblasts through SOCS1-mediated inhibition of STAT1 phosphorylation.

The status of p53 in cancer cells has a profound impact on the immune response, resulting in various outcomes that can impede or support cancer development. It was reported that the expression of mutp53 in human lung cancer correlates with increased PD-L1 expression, which may help to identify patients responsive to checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-L1. NF-κB plays a key role in regulating immune response to chronic inflammation. Mutp53 activates NF-κB signaling by promoting p65 translocation to the nucleus or inhibiting tumor suppressor DAB2IP. R273H mutp53 transcriptionally represses IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA) to sustain IL-1β signaling. In addition, R248W mutp53 increases exosome secretion of miR-1246 to reprogram macrophages to tumor-supporting macrophages. Thus, through the mutp53 GOF mechanism, cancer cells can reprogram macrophages and other myeloid subsets to support cancer development.

Cancer therapy resistance

p53 induces apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, senescence, and other biological processes to mediate cancer cell response to therapies. In contrast, GOF mutp53 has been reported to promote therapeutic resistance in cancer. Enhanced drug efflux through upregulation of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters that extrude drugs out of cells is an important mechanism for multidrug resistance. While p53 represses the expression of ABC transporter ABCB1, GOF mutp53 induces ABCB1 expression to mediate the ATP-dependent efflux of drugs from cells to promote chemoresistance. Mechanistically, mutp53 is recruited to the ABCB1 promotor through interacting with ETS1 to activate ABCB1 transcription. Mutp53 interacts with NF-Y to induce the expression of ephrin-B2, a ligand for the receptor tyrosine kinases ephrin receptors, which in turn upregulates the expression of the ABC transporter ABCG2 to promote chemoresistance. Cytochrome P450 (CYP450) family members are key enzymes in drug metabolism, mediating the process of drug oxidation. Mutp53 (e.g. R282W) induces CYP450 enzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4) expression to promote resistance to several CYP3A4-metabolized chemotherapeutic drugs.

Mutp53 also promotes chemoresistance by inhibiting apoptosis and autophagy. Mutp53 binds to p63 and p73 and represses their transcriptional activities to inhibit apoptosis induced by chemotherapeutic agents. Mutp53 interacts with AMPKα to repress AMPK signaling, activating mTOR to suppress autophagy. Furthermore, mutp53 inhibits autophagy by forming a complex with p50 of NF-κB and binding to the promoter of autophagic gene ATG12 to repress its expression.

Mutp53 also regulates miRNA expression to promote chemoresistance. For instance, R175H mutp53 induces the expression of miR128-2, which targets the transcription factor E2F5 to upregulate p21, to inhibit apoptosis and confers resistance to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracyl treatments. Furthermore, mutp53 (e.g. R175H) downregulates miR-223 expression in cancer cells to induce chemoresistance through binding to miR-223 promoter to reduce its expression via the transcriptional repressor ZEB-1, which in turn induces Stathmin-1, an oncoprotein that confers chemoresistance partially through regulating microtubule dynamics.

Mutp53 protein accumulation and regulation

p53 protein is exquisitely regulated by many different mechanisms to maintain its proper levels and function in cells. Among these mechanisms, posttranslational modifications represent a very efficient and critical one for p53 regulation. The posttranslational modifications include ubiquitination, phosphorylation, acetylation, methylation, sumoylation, etc., which affect p53 protein stability, conformation, localization, and interaction with other proteins. The E3 ubiquitin ligase MDM2, which directly binds to p53 and ubiquitinates it for proteasomal degradation, is the most critical negative regulator of p53 in cells. Meanwhile, MDM2 is a direct target of p53; p53 transcriptionally induces MDM2. Thus, MDM2 and p53 form a negative feedback loop to tightly regulate p53 protein levels. Mutp53 protein is frequently stabilized and accumulated to very high levels in tumor tissues, which is required for the execution of its GOF activities. Currently, the mechanism of mutp53 accumulation in cancer is incompletely understood. Recent studies have shown that mutp53 can be regulated by posttranslational modifications (e.g. ubiquitination, acetylation, phosphorylation, etc.), chaperones and co-chaperone proteins, and different stress signals (Figure 2).

The inability of mutp53 to transcriptionally induce MDM2 was considered to account for mutp53 accumulation in tumor tissues. However, studies in mutp53 knock-in mouse models show that mutp53 is only accumulated in tumors but not normal tissues, and knockdown of MDM2 promotes mutp53 accumulation in both normal tissues and tumors, suggesting that mutp53 is inherently unstable and can be degraded by MDM2 in vivo like wild-type p53 in normal tissues and that some changes in tumors inhibit mutp53 degradation by MDM2. Notably, studies also show that MDM2 can ubiquitinate and degrade mutp53 in cultured cancer cells. In addition to MDM2, other E3 ubiquitin ligases for p53, such as CHIP, COP1, and Pirh2, can also ubiquitinate mutp53 and promote its degradation. MDM2 isoform B is a splice variant of MDM2 that lacks the p53-binding domain but retains the ability to interact with full-length MDM2. MDM2 isoform B is frequently overexpressed in cancers and inhibits mutp53 ubiquitination and degradation through blocking full-length MDM2, which in turn promotes mutp53 accumulation in cancer cells.

Chaperones, such as the heat-shock proteins (HSPs), interact with newly synthesized proteins to promote their proper folding and help refold damaged or misfolded proteins. HSP90 forms a complex with mutp53 to inhibit ubiquitination and degradation of mutp53 by MDM2 and CHIP. Histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) activates HSP90 activity to inhibit MDM2- and CHIP-mediated mutp53 ubiquitination and degradation. Interestingly, HSP70 not only inhibits MDM2-mediated ubiquitination and degradation of mutp53 but also promotes the formation of amyloid-like aggregation for mutp53 R175H, both of which promote mutp53 stabilization. DNAJA1, a member of HSP40 family, stabilizes mutp53 by competitively binding to CHIP ubiquitin ligase. In addition, BAG2 and BAG5, two co-chaperone proteins, bind to mutp53 to inhibit its degradation by MDM2 and CHIP.

Some deubiquitinases have been reported to be involved in the regulation of mutp53. USP10 deubiquitinates both wild-type p53 and mutp53. In renal cell carcinoma (RCC), USP10 is overexpressed only in tumors expressing mutp53 but undetectable in tumors expressing wild-type p53. The overexpression of USP10 in p53-mutant RCCs inhibits MDM2-mediated mutp53 ubiquitination, leading to mutp53 accumulation. USP15 inhibits the nuclear export, ubiquitination, and lysosome-mediated degradation of R175H mutp53 independently of MDM2 in ovarian cancer cells.

In addition to ubiquitination and deubiquitination, the acetylation modification also plays an important role in the regulation of mutp53. TRRAP, a constituent of several histone acetyltransferase complexes, induces mutp53 stabilization via blocking MDM2 function in lymphoma. Inhibition of HDACs, specifically HDAC1/2/3, induces mutp53 degradation. Interestingly, HDAC1/2 also directly binds to the promoter region of mutp53 gene to increase the mutp53 mRNA expression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cells.

The phosphorylation modification also regulates mutp53 protein levels and/or functions. Interestingly, different phosphorylation modifications show different effects upon mutp53, and the mechanism is not well understood. For instance, some phosphorylation modifications, such as S6/S9 phosphorylation of mutp53 R280K by Ras signaling, S15 phosphorylation of mutp53 R248W and R273H by ATM, and S15/S37 phosphorylation of mutp53 R175H and R273H by DNA-PK, were reported to stabilize mutp53 and enhance its GOF activities. In contrast, some other phosphorylation modifications, such as S15 phosphorylation of mutp53 P223L and V274V via JNK1 activation, were reported to restore the wild-type p53 function of mutp53.

It has been well established that wild-type p53 can be stabilized and activated by a wide variety of stress signals, including DNA damage, hypoxia, nutritional deprivation, and activation of oncogenes. Interestingly, recent studies showed that mutp53 can also be regulated by different stress signals, including oxidative stress, proteotoxic stress, mechanical constraints, nutrient limitations, hyperproliferation-related DNA damage, and hypoxia, contributing to stabilization, accumulation, and GOF of mutp53. For example, DNA damage, oxidative stress, and activation of oncogenes (e.g. Myc and Ras) induce mutp53 accumulation. Oxidative and proteotoxic stress can induce stabilization of heat-shock factor 1 (HSF1), which stimulates HSP90 transcription to stabilize mutp53. In turn, mutp53 interacts with HSF1 to facilitate HSF1 recruitment to the promoter region of HSP90 to induce HSP90 expression, which forms a feed-forward loop to sustain mutp53 accumulation. Constitutive activation of DNA damage checkpoint signaling promotes mutp53 stabilization through ATM-mediated regulation of ubiquitin/proteasome activity toward mutp53. Cancer-associated fibrosis generates a dense and mechanically rigid extracellular matrix as an extracellular mechanical signal, leading to RhoA geranylgeranylation and HDAC6/Hsp90-dependent mutp53 stabilization in cancer cells. Nutrient availability also affects mutp53 stabilization and accumulation in tumors. For instance, mevalonate pathway activation has been reported to promote mutp53 stabilization and accumulation in cells. In contrast, glucose restriction induces mutp53 degradation through chaperone-mediated autophagy. Taken together, these results suggest that stress signals modulate mutp53 accumulation and GOF through its posttranslational modification, adding a new layer of regulation for mutp53 in cancer cells.

Therapeutic strategies to target mutp53

Given that the p53 gene is mutated in >50% of all human cancers and mutp53 frequently displays GOF activities, mutp53 has become an attractive target for cancer therapy. Based on the facts that mutp53 is frequently accumulated to very higher levels in tumor tissues, loses transcriptional activity of wild-type p53, and frequently acquires GOF activities through interacting with other proteins and/or regulating critical downstream signaling pathways, different strategies have been developed to target mutp53 for cancer therapy. These therapeutic strategies can be classified into two major categories (Figure 3). The first is to target mutp53 directly by restoration of the wild-type tumor-suppressive function of p53 or deprivation of mutp53 through inducing its degradation. The second is to target specific mutp53-binding proteins or critical downstream signaling pathways of mutp53 to inhibit mutp53 GOF activities.

Restoring wild-type p53 function

Since majority of p53 mutations in cancers are missense mutations, the idea to convert mutp53 to the wild-type p53 conformation and restore its transcriptional activity has attracted many studies. CP-31398, a styrylquinazoline compound, was identified to be able to restore the wild-type p53 conformation and transcriptional activity in cancer cells expressing mutp53 and inhibit their proliferation in 1999 from a high-throughput screen. Identified from screening a small library of compounds by in vitro DNA-binding assays, p53R3 can inhibit the proliferation of cancer cells expressing mutp53 by inducing the expression of p53 target genes, including p21, PUMA, and BAX, to induce cell cycle arrest and apoptosis of cancer cells. Identified from a cell-based luciferase-reporter screen, Chetomin specifically reactivates R175H mutp53 to the wild-type p53 conformation through increasing its binding capacity with DNAJB1 (Hsp40), which selectively inhibits the growth of cancer cells with R175H but not R273H mutp53. It is known that a single zinc ion binds to p53 near the DNA-binding interface, which is critical for the conformation and transcriptional activity of wild-type p53, and zinc treatment can restore the wild-type conformation and DNA-binding activity to R175H and R273H mutp53 in cancer cells. NSC319726 (also known as ZMC1), a zinc metallochaperones, restores wild-type conformation and function to R175H mutp53 through its zinc ion chelating activity. COTI-2, a recently developed zinc ion chelator, can restore wild-type conformation to mutp53 and inhibit growth of tumors expressing mutp53.

Identified by the screen for compounds that suppress the growth of cancer cells expressing mutp53, PRIMA-1 covalently binds to thiol groups of R175H, R248Q, and R273H mutp53, refolding mutp53 into a wild-type conformation. Methylated analog of PRIMA-1, PRIMA-1MET (also known as APR-246), is more potent and less toxic than PRIMA-1. The natural compound phenethyl isothiocyanate from cruciferous vegetables restores the wild-type conformation and transcription activity of R175H mutp53, sensitizes the R175H mutp53 to proteasomal degradation, and shows a growth inhibitory effect on cancer cells expressing R175H mutp53.

Interestingly, recent studies have suggested that some GOF mutp53 (e.g. R248Q, R248W, and R175H) can form protein aggregates, contributing to mutp53 GOF activities. Suppressing the aggregation of mutp53 abrogates its GOF activities and restores activity of wild-type p53. For instance, ReACp53, a cell-penetrating peptide, can inhibit mutp53 aggregation and rescue p53 function in cancer cells and organoids derived from high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas, an aggressive cancer characterized by ubiquitous p53 mutations. Polyarginine, a synthetic cationic peptide, can inhibit mutp53 aggregation to suppress the proliferation of p53-mutant lung cancer H719 (R248Q) and breast cancer SK-BR-3 (R175H) cells.

Inducing mutp53 degradation

Given that mutp53 is frequently accumulated to high levels in cancer cells to exert its GOF activities, inducing mutp53 degradation should be an effective strategy for cancer therapy. Since the interaction of mutp53 with the HDAC6/HSP90 chaperone complex is critical for mutp53 stabilization in cancer cells, disruption of the HDAC6/HSP90 complex by inhibitors of HSP90 or HDAC6 has been shown to be a promising strategy to induce mutp53 degradation. Geldanamycin is the first HSP90 inhibitor used for targeting mutp53 to induce its degradation. 17-AAG, an analog of Geldanamycin, induces proteasomal degradation of mutp53 through MDM2 and CHIP-mediated ubiquitination. Ganetespib, another HSP90 inhibitor, has a much higher potency in mutp53 degradation and has entered the phase III clinical trials. The HDAC inhibitors, such as trichostatin A, FR901228, and SAHA, can also induce the proteasomal degradation of mutp53 mediated by MDM2 and CHIP. Activation of the mevalonate pathway and RhoA- and actin-dependent transduction of mechanical inputs, such as the stiffness of extracellular environment, have been reported to promote mutp53 stabilization and accumulation in cancer cells. Inhibition of critical enzymes in the mevalonate pathway, such as inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase by Statins, geranylgeranyl transferase 1 (GGTase 1) by GGTI-298, and farnesyl diphosphate synthase (FDPS) by zoledronic acid, was shown to destabilize mutp53 and inhibit the growth and invasion of cancer cells expressing mutp53. In addition, Statins also induce CHIP-mediated degradation of mutp53 by blocking the interaction between mutp53 and DNAJA1. Gambogic acid, a natural product derived from the Garcinia hanburyi tree, reduces mutp53 levels by targeting the CHIP-mediated nuclear export and ubiquitination of mutp53.

In addition to proteasomal degradation, mutp53 can also be degraded through autophagy/lysosomal degradation. For instance, spautin-1, a small molecule designed for inhibition of macroautophagy, induces the lysosomal degradation of mutp53 through the HSC70-mediated autophagy pathway to kill cancer cells expressing mutp53. MCB-613, a small-molecule stimulator of steroid receptor coactivators, induces ubiquitination, nuclear export, and degradation of R175H mutp53 through a lysosome-mediated pathway by depletion of USP15, leading to catastrophic death of ovarian cancer cells.

Inhibition of the interactions of mutp53 with its binding partners

Mutp53 interacts with many proteins, including transcription factors and nontranscription factors, to exert its GOF activities. Therefore, blocking these interactions has been tested as a strategy to treat cancers with mutp53. Identified from a screen of compounds that reactivate the transcriptional activity of wild-type p53 in mutp53, the small molecule RETRA can release p73 from the mutp53/p73 complex, resulting in the tumor-suppressive effect similar to the functional reactivation of p53. The small molecule prodigiosin induces p73 expression and disrupts p73 interaction with mutp53, thereby displaying antitumor effects.

Targeting critical downstream pathways of mutp53

Mutp53 frequently displays GOF activities through regulating different downstream signaling pathways in cancer cells. Therefore, targeting some critical downstream pathways of mutp53 provides an alternative strategy for treating cancers expressing mutp53. For instance, mutp53 upregulates EGFR/integrin recycling and PDGFRβ to promote tumor metastasis, and thus inhibition of EGFR by cetuximab or inhibition of PDGFRβ by imatinib blocks cancer metastasis. The Rac1 inhibitor NSC23766 inhibits mutp53 GOF activity in tumor growth and metastasis through blocking the activation of Rac1 signaling by mutp53. The ROCK inhibitor Y27632 blocks RhoA/ROCK pathway activated by mutp53 and inhibits mutp53 GOF in promoting glycolysis and tumorigenesis. The AAA+ ATPase Pontin is a mutp53-specific binding protein that enhances mutp53 transcriptional activity and GOF, and blocking the ATPase activity of Pontin by rottlerin has been shown to compromise mutp53 GOF in tumor growth and metastasis.

A growing body of evidence has demonstrated that mutp53 often renders cancer cells dependent on some downstream pathways for survival, and inhibition of these pathways leads to synthetic lethality, providing new therapeutic targets for tumors expressing mutp53. For example, p53 mutations result in loss of the G1/S checkpoint, leading to the dependency of cells on the G2/M check point. Therefore, inhibition of G2/M checkpoint regulators, such as CHK1/2 and WEE1, has been reported to induce synthetic lethality in cancer cells expressing mutp53. CHK1 inhibitors, such as UCN-01, PF477736, SCH900776, and AZD-7762, potentiate the cytotoxicity of topoisomerase inhibitors and ionizing radiation in cancer cells with mutp53. AZD1775, a specific WEE1 inhibitor, displays a synergistic cytotoxicity with the chemotherapeutic agent gemcitabine or the PARP1 inhibitor olaparib in p53-mutant ovarian and endometrial cancer cells. Furthermore, AZD1775 was shown to enhance carboplatin efficacy in p53-mutant tumors refractory or resistant (<3 months) to first-line platinum-based therapy in a phase II clinical trial. However, it remains unclear whether the synthetic lethality in some of these studies is dependent on the loss of wild-type p53 function or mutp53 GOF activity. Notably, it was reported that GOF mutp53 upregulates CHK1 expression to prevent collapse of replication forks, and CHK1 inhibitor PF477736 suppresses the growth of lung cancer xenograft tumors in mice in a GOF mutp53-dependent manner. GOF mutp53 was also reported to enhance the expression of proteasome genes to protect cancer cells against proteotoxic stress, conferring cancer cells resistance to proteasome inhibitors. Combination of PRIMA-1MET and carfilzomib, a proteasome inhibitor used as an anti-cancer drug, inhibits breast xenograft tumors in mice in a mutp53-dependent manner. GOF mutp53 impairs DNA repair through interacting with PARP1. The PARP inhibitor talazoparib in combination with temozolomide, an alkylating agent, was reported to display synergistic cytotoxicity in breast cancer cells expressing GOF mutp53 (particularly R273H mutp53).

Some recent studies have also shown the potential application of immunotherapies for treating cancers with mutp53. The infiltration of mutp53-reactive T cells has been identified in ovarian cancer metastases. The immunogenicity of mutp53 has been confirmed by a p53-specific screening assay showing that mutp53 neoantigens can be recognized by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with epithelial cancers. These studies suggest that adoptive T-cell therapy is a potential therapeutic strategy to directly target mutp53.

It is worth noting that a recent study analyzing the genome sequence of 140 human embryonic stem cell lines, including 26 cell lines prepared for potential clinical use, reported that the mutation of p53 gene increases with passage number under standard culture conditions, suggesting a selective advantage of the p53 mutations. Given that human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) have become an attractive source for regenerative therapies and the critical role of p53 in tumor suppression, careful genetic characterization of hPSCs and their derivatives should be carried out before clinical use.

Concluding remarks

Since p53 gene is mutated in >50% of all cancers and mutp53 often displays GOF activities in tumorigenesis, mutp53 has become an attractive target for cancer therapy. p53 has been discovered for over 40 years, and p53 is one of the most extensively studied proteins; however, majority of studies on p53 have been focused on the wild-type p53. Although significant progress has been made in our studies on mutp53 in cancer during the past decade, our understanding of the role and mechanism of mutp53 regulation and GOF activities in cancer is still limited, with many questions unresolved. For instance, while well established by tremendous in vitro cell experiments and various animal models, the mutp53 GOF needs to be further validated in clinical studies. Furthermore, majority of mutp53 GOF studies have been focused on several hotspot p53 mutants in cancer, while it remains unclear whether other nonhotspot p53 mutants can exert similar GOF activities through similar mechanisms. Based on the results from previously published studies, mutp53 GOF effects and mechanisms appear to vary in different contexts, potentially depending on mutation positions, cell and tissue types, cancer types, and even the tumor microenvironment and stress signals. This complexity presents challenges in developing some general therapeutic strategies to target different GOF mutp53 in different types of cancers. So far, different mutp53-targeted therapeutic strategies, as summarized above, have been developed, shown to be effective to certain extent and promising in preclinical studies, and some even entered clinical trials; however, there are still unresolved obstacles in mutp53-targeted cancer therapy, and currently, there are no approved drugs for clinical treatment of cancers expressing mutp53. Obviously, more studies on mutp53 regulation and GOF and mutp53-targeted therapies are necessary, which will lead to more effective and precise therapies targeting mutp53 in cancers.

Funding

This work was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH; R01CA227912 and R01CA214746) to Z.F. and grants from NIH (R01CA203965) and Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP; W81XWH-16-1-0358 and W81XWH1810238) to W.H.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References 157

  1. 1.

    Adorno M., Cordenonsi M., Montagner M., et al (2009 ). A mutant-p53/Smad complex opposes p63 to empower TGFβ-induced metastasis. Cell137, 87–98.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.039

  2. 2.

    Aggarwal M., Saxena R., Sinclair E., et al (2016 ). Reactivation of mutant p53 by a dietary-related compound phenethyl isothiocyanate inhibits tumor growth. Cell Death Differ.23, 1615–1627.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2016.48

  3. 3.

    Alam S.K., Yadav V.K., Bajaj S., et al (2016 ). DNA damage-induced ephrin-B2 reverse signaling promotes chemoresistance and drives EMT in colorectal carcinoma harboring mutant p53. Cell Death Differ.23, 707–722.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2015.133

  4. 4.

    Alexandrova E.M., Yallowitz A.R., Li D., et al (2015 ). Improving survival by exploiting tumour dependence on stabilized mutant p53 for treatment. Nature523, 352–356.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature14430

  5. 5.

    Amelio I., Mancini M., Petrova V., et al (2018 ). p53 mutants cooperate with HIF-1 in transcriptional regulation of extracellular matrix components to promote tumor progression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA115, E10869–E10878.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1808314115

  6. 6.

    Barnoud T., Parris J.L.D., Murphy M.E. (2019 ). Common genetic variants in the TP53 pathway and their impact on cancer. J. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 578–585.

    Not in our library10.1093/jmcb/mjz052

  7. 7.

    Basu S., Gnanapradeepan K., Barnoud T., et al (2018 ). Mutant p53 controls tumor metabolism and metastasis by regulating PGC-1α. Genes Dev.32, 230–243.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.309062.117

  8. 8.

    Bensaad K., Tsuruta A., Selak M.A., et al (2006 ). TIGAR, a p53-inducible regulator of glycolysis and apoptosis. Cell126, 107–120.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2006.05.036

  9. 9.

    Blagih J., Buck M.D., Vousden K.H. (2020 ). p53, cancer and the immune response. J. Cell Sci.133, jcs237453.

    Not in our library10.1242/jcs.237453

  10. 10.

    Blagosklonny M.V. (2000 ). p53 from complexity to simplicity: mutant p53 stabilization, gain-of-function, and dominant-negative effect. FASEB J.14, 1901–1907.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.99-1078rev

  11. 11.

    Blagosklonny M.V., Toretsky J., Neckers L. (1995 ). Geldanamycin selectively destabilizes and conformationally alters mutated p53. Oncogene11, 933–939.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    Blagosklonny M.V., Trostel S., Kayastha G., et al (2005 ). Depletion of mutant p53 and cytotoxicity of histone deacetylase inhibitors. Cancer Res.65, 7386–7392.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-3433

  13. 13.
  14. 14.

    Boettcher S., Miller P.G., Sharma R., et al (2019 ). A dominant-negative effect drives selection of TP53 missense mutations in myeloid malignancies. Science365, 599–604.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aax3649

  15. 15.

    Bougeard G., Sesboue R., Baert-Desurmont S., et al (2008 ). Molecular basis of the Li-Fraumeni syndrome: an update from the French LFS families. J. Med. Genet.45, 535–538.

    Not in our library10.1136/jmg.2008.057570

  16. 16.

    Bykov V.J., Issaeva N., Shilov A., et al (2002 ). Restoration of the tumor suppressor function to mutant p53 by a low-molecular-weight compound. Nat. Med.8, 282–288.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm0302-282

  17. 17.

    Chen Z., Chen J., Keshamouni V.G., et al (2017 ). Polyarginine and its analogues inhibit p53 mutant aggregation and cancer cell proliferation in vitro. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.489, 130–134.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2017.05.111

  18. 18.

    Chin K.V., Ueda K., Pastan I., et al (1992 ). Modulation of activity of the promoter of the human MDR1 gene by Ras and p53. Science255, 459–462.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1346476

  19. 19.
  20. 20.

    Cooks T., Pateras I.S., Tarcic O., et al (2013 ). Mutant p53 prolongs NF-κB activation and promotes chronic inflammation and inflammation-associated colorectal cancer. Cancer Cell23, 634–646.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2013.03.022

  21. 21.

    Cordani M., Oppici E., Dando I., et al (2016 ). Mutant p53 proteins counteract autophagic mechanism sensitizing cancer cells to mTOR inhibition. Mol. Oncol.10, 1008–1029.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molonc.2016.04.001

  22. 22.

    Dando I., Cordani M., Donadelli M. (2016 ). Mutant p53 and mTOR/PKM2 regulation in cancer cells. IUBMB Life68, 722–726.

    Not in our library10.1002/iub.1534

  23. 23.

    Deniger D.C., Pasetto A., Robbins P.F., et al (2018 ). T-cell responses to TP53 ‘hotspot’ mutations and unique neoantigens expressed by human ovarian cancers. Clin. Cancer Res.24, 5562–5573.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-0573

  24. 24.

    Di Agostino S. (2020 ). The impact of mutant p53 in the non-coding RNA world. Biomolecules10, 472.

    Not in our library10.3390/biom10030472

  25. 25.

    Di Agostino S., Sorrentino G., Ingallina E., et al (2016 ). YAP enhances the pro-proliferative transcriptional activity of mutant p53 proteins. EMBO Rep.17, 188–201.

    Not in our library10.15252/embr.201540488

  26. 26.

    Di Agostino S., Strano S., Emiliozzi V., et al (2006 ). Gain of function of mutant p53: the mutant p53/NF-Y protein complex reveals an aberrant transcriptional mechanism of cell cycle regulation. Cancer Cell10, 191–202.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2006.08.013

  27. 27.

    Di Como C.J., Gaiddon C., Prives C. (1999 ). p73 function is inhibited by tumor-derived p53 mutants in mammalian cells. Mol. Cell. Biol.19, 1438–1449.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.19.2.1438

  28. 28.

    Di Minin G., Bellazzo A., Dal Ferro M., et al (2014 ). Mutant p53 reprograms TNF signaling in cancer cells through interaction with the tumor suppressor DAB2IP. Mol. Cell56, 617–629.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2014.10.013

  29. 29.

    Dittmer D., Pati S., Zambetti G., et al (1993 ). Gain of function mutations in p53. Nat. Genet.4, 42–46.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng0593-42

  30. 30.
  31. 31.

    Dong P., Karaayvaz M., Jia N., et al (2013 ). Mutant p53 gain-of-function induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition through modulation of the miR-130b–ZEB1 axis. Oncogene32, 3286–3295.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2012.334

  32. 32.

    Dong Z.Y., Zhong W.Z., Zhang X.C., et al (2017 ). Potential predictive value of TP53 and KRAS mutation status for response to PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in lung adenocarcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res.23, 3012–3024.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-2554

  33. 33.

    Donzelli S., Fontemaggi G., Fazi F., et al (2012 ). MicroRNA-128-2 targets the transcriptional repressor E2F5 enhancing mutant p53 gain of function. Cell Death Differ.19, 1038–1048.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2011.190

  34. 34.

    Escoll M., Gargini R., Cuadrado A., et al (2017 ). Mutant p53 oncogenic functions in cancer stem cells are regulated by WIP through YAP/TAZ. Oncogene36, 3515–3527.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2016.518

  35. 35.

    Fontemaggi G., Dell'Orso S., Trisciuoglio D., et al (2009 ). The execution of the transcriptional axis mutant p53, E2F1 and ID4 promotes tumor neo-angiogenesis. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.16, 1086–1093.

    Not in our library10.1038/nsmb.1669

  36. 36.

    Foster B.A., Coffey H.A., Morin M.J., et al (1999 ). Pharmacological rescue of mutant p53 conformation and function. Science286, 2507–2510.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.286.5449.2507

  37. 37.

    Freed-Pastor W.A., Mizuno H., Zhao X., et al (2012 ). Mutant p53 disrupts mammary tissue architecture via the mevalonate pathway. Cell148, 244–258.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.12.017

  38. 38.

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

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.190678.112

  39. 39.

    Frum R.A., Love I.M., Damle P.K., et al (2016 ). Constitutive activation of DNA damage checkpoint signaling contributes to mutant p53 accumulation via modulation of p53 ubiquitination. Mol. Cancer Res.14, 423–436.

    Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-15-0363

  40. 40.

    Gaiddon C., Lokshin M., Ahn J., et al (2001 ). A subset of tumor-derived mutant forms of p53 down-regulate p63 and p73 through a direct interaction with the p53 core domain. Mol. Cell. Biol.21, 1874–1887.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.21.5.1874-1887.2001

  41. 41.
  42. 42.

    Gurtner A., Starace G., Norelli G., et al (2010 ). Mutant p53-induced up-regulation of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 3 contributes to gain of function. J. Biol. Chem.285, 14160–14169.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m109.094813

  43. 43.

    Hanel W., Marchenko N., Xu S., et al (2013 ). Two hot spot mutant p53 mouse models display differential gain of function in tumorigenesis. Cell Death Differ.20, 898–909.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2013.17

  44. 44.

    Hanel W., Moll U.M. (2012 ). Links between mutant p53 and genomic instability. J. Cell. Biochem.113, 433–439.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcb.23400

  45. 45.

    He C., Li L., Guan X., et al (2017 ). Mutant p53 gain of function and chemoresistance: the role of mutant p53 in response to clinical chemotherapy. Chemotherapy62, 43–53.

    Not in our library10.1159/000446361

  46. 46.

    Hingorani S.R., Wang L., Multani A.S., et al (2005 ). Trp53R172H and KrasG12D cooperate to promote chromosomal instability and widely metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in mice. Cancer Cell7, 469–483.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2005.04.023

  47. 47.

    Hiraki M., Hwang S.Y., Cao S., et al (2015 ). Small-molecule reactivation of mutant p53 to wild-type-like p53 through the p53–Hsp40 regulatory axis. Chem. Biol.22, 1206–1216.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.07.016

  48. 48.

    Hong B., Prabhu V.V., Zhang S., et al (2014 ). Prodigiosin rescues deficient p53 signaling and antitumor effects via upregulating p73 and disrupting its interaction with mutant p53. Cancer Res.74, 1153–1165.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-0955

  49. 49.

    Ingallina E., Sorrentino G., Bertolio R., et al (2018 ). Mechanical cues control mutant p53 stability through a mevalonate–RhoA axis. Nat. Cell Biol.20, 28–35.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41556-017-0009-8

  50. 50.

    Jethwa A., Slabicki M., Hullein J., et al (2018 ). TRRAP is essential for regulating the accumulation of mutant and wild-type p53 in lymphoma. Blood131, 2789–2802.

    Not in our library10.1182/blood-2017-09-806679

  51. 51.

    Kieser A., Weich H.A., Brandner G., et al (1994 ). Mutant p53 potentiates protein kinase C induction of vascular endothelial growth factor expression. Oncogene9, 963–969.

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Kogan-Sakin I., Tabach Y., Buganim Y., et al (2011 ). Mutant p53(R175H) upregulates Twist1 expression and promotes epithelial–mesenchymal transition in immortalized prostate cells. Cell Death Differ.18, 271–281.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2010.94

  53. 53.

    Kollareddy M., Dimitrova E., Vallabhaneni K.C., et al (2015 ). Regulation of nucleotide metabolism by mutant p53 contributes to its gain-of-function activities. Nat. Commun.6, 7389.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms8389

  54. 54.

    Kravchenko J.E., Ilyinskaya G.V., Komarov P.G., et al (2008 ). Small-molecule RETRA suppresses mutant p53-bearing cancer cells through a p73-dependent salvage pathway. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA105, 6302–6307.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0802091105

  55. 55.

    Labuschagne C.F., Zani F., Vousden K.H. (2018 ). Control of metabolism by p53—cancer and beyond. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Rev. Cancer1870, 32–42.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbcan.2018.06.001

  56. 56.

    Ladds M., Lain S. (2019 ). Small molecule activators of the p53 response. J. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 245–254.

    Not in our library10.1093/jmcb/mjz006

  57. 57.

    Lambert J.M., Gorzov P., Veprintsev D.B., et al (2009 ). PRIMA-1 reactivates mutant p53 by covalent binding to the core domain. Cancer Cell15, 376–388.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2009.03.003

  58. 58.

    Lang G.A., Iwakuma T., Suh Y.A., et al (2004 ). Gain of function of a p53 hot spot mutation in a mouse model of Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Cell119, 861–872.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.006

  59. 59.

    Leijen S., van Geel R.M., Sonke G.S., et al (2016 ). Phase II study of WEE1 inhibitor AZD1775 plus carboplatin in patients with TP53-mutated ovarian cancer refractory or resistant to first-line therapy within 3 months. J. Clin. Oncol.34, 4354–4361.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.67.5942

  60. 60.
  61. 61.

    Levine A.J., Hu W., Feng Z. (2006 ). The P53 pathway: what questions remain to be explored?Cell Death Differ.13, 1027–1036.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.cdd.4401910

  62. 62.

    Li D., Marchenko N.D., Moll U.M. (2011 a). 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.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2011.71

  63. 63.

    Li D., Marchenko N.D., Schulz R., et al (2011 b). Functional inactivation of endogenous MDM2 and CHIP by HSP90 causes aberrant stabilization of mutant p53 in human cancer cells. Mol. Cancer Res.9, 577–588.

    Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-10-0534

  64. 64.

    Li D., Yallowitz A., Ozog L., et al (2014 ). A gain-of-function mutant p53–HSF1 feed forward circuit governs adaptation of cancer cells to proteotoxic stress. Cell Death Dis.5, e1194.

    Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2014.158

  65. 65.

    Liao P., Zeng S.X., Zhou X., et al (2017 ). Mutant p53 gains its function via c-Myc activation upon CDK4 phosphorylation at serine 249 and consequent PIN1 binding. Mol. Cell68, 1134–1146.e6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2017.11.006

  66. 66.

    Liu J., Zhang C., Hu W., et al (2019 a). Tumor suppressor p53 and metabolism. J. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 284–292.

    Not in our library10.1093/jmcb/mjy070

  67. 67.

    Liu J., Zhang C., Zhao Y., et al (2017 a). MicroRNA control of p53. J. Cell. Biochem.118, 7–14.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcb.25609

  68. 68.
  69. 69.

    Liu Y., Tavana O., Gu W. (2019 b). p53 modifications: exquisite decorations of the powerful guardian. J. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 564–577.

    Not in our library10.1093/jmcb/mjz060

  70. 70.

    Loizou E., Banito A., Livshits G., et al (2019 ). A gain-of-function p53-mutant oncogene promotes cell fate plasticity and myeloid leukemia through the pluripotency factor FOXH1. Cancer Discov.9, 962–979.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-18-1391

  71. 71.

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

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.00050-07

  72. 72.

    Mackay H.L., Moore D., Hall C., et al (2018 ). Genomic instability in mutant p53 cancer cells upon entotic engulfment. Nat. Commun.9, 3070.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-018-05368-1

  73. 73.

    Madar S., Harel E., Goldstein I., et al (2013 ). Mutant p53 attenuates the anti-tumorigenic activity of fibroblasts-secreted interferon β. PLoS One8, e61353.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0061353

  74. 74.

    Malekzadeh P., Pasetto A., Robbins P.F., et al (2019 ). Neoantigen screening identifies broad TP53 mutant immunogenicity in patients with epithelial cancers. J. Clin. Invest.129, 1109–1114.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci123791

  75. 75.
  76. 76.

    Masciarelli S., Fontemaggi G., Di Agostino S., et al (2014 ). Gain-of-function mutant p53 downregulates miR-223 contributing to chemoresistance of cultured tumor cells. Oncogene33, 1601–1608.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2013.106

  77. 77.

    Mathupala S.P., Heese C., Pedersen P.L. (1997 ). Glucose catabolism in cancer cells. The type II hexokinase promoter contains functionally active response elements for the tumor suppressor p53. J. Biol. Chem.272, 22776–22780.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.272.36.22776

  78. 78.

    Matoba S., Kang J.G., Patino W.D., et al (2006 ). p53 regulates mitochondrial respiration. Science312, 1650–1653.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1126863

  79. 79.

    Meng X., Bi J., Li Y., et al (2018 ). AZD1775 increases sensitivity to olaparib and gemcitabine in cancer cells with p53 mutations. Cancers10, 149.

    Not in our library10.3390/cancers10050149

  80. 80.

    Merkle F.T., Ghosh S., Kamitaki N., et al (2017 ). Human pluripotent stem cells recurrently acquire and expand dominant negative P53 mutations. Nature545, 229–233.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature22312

  81. 81.

    Milner J., Medcalf E.A. (1991 ). Cotranslation of activated mutant p53 with wild type drives the wild-type p53 protein into the mutant conformation. Cell65, 765–774.

    Not in our library10.1016/0092-8674(91)90384-b

  82. 82.

    Milner J., Medcalf E.A., Cook A.C. (1991 ). Tumor suppressor p53: analysis of wild-type and mutant p53 complexes. Mol. Cell. Biol.11, 12–19.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.11.1.12-19.1991

  83. 83.

    Muller P.A., Caswell P.T., Doyle B., et al (2009 ). Mutant p53 drives invasion by promoting integrin recycling. Cell139, 1327–1341.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2009.11.026

  84. 84.

    Muller P.A., Trinidad A.G., Timpson P., et al (2013 ). Mutant p53 enhances MET trafficking and signalling to drive cell scattering and invasion. Oncogene32, 1252–1265.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2012.148

  85. 85.

    Muller P.A., Vousden K.H. (2013 ). p53 mutations in cancer. Nat. Cell Biol.15, 2–8.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb2641

  86. 86.

    Muller P.A., Vousden K.H. (2014 ). Mutant p53 in cancer: new functions and therapeutic opportunities. Cancer Cell25, 304–317.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2014.01.021

  87. 87.

    Muller P.A., Vousden K.H., Norman J.C. (2011 ). p53 and its mutants in tumor cell migration and invasion. J. Cell Biol.192, 209–218.

    Not in our library10.1083/jcb.201009059

  88. 88.

    Murphy K.L., Dennis A.P., Rosen J.M. (2000 ). A gain of function p53 mutant promotes both genomic instability and cell survival in a novel p53-null mammary epithelial cell model. FASEB J.14, 2291–2302.

    Not in our library10.1096/fj.00-0128com

  89. 89.

    Neilsen P.M., Noll J.E., Suetani R.J., et al (2011 ). Mutant p53 uses p63 as a molecular chaperone to alter gene expression and induce a pro-invasive secretome. Oncotarget2, 1203–1217.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.382

  90. 90.
  91. 91.

    Olive K.P., Tuveson D.A., Ruhe Z.C., et al (2004 ). Mutant p53 gain of function in two mouse models of Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Cell119, 847–860.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.004

  92. 92.

    Padmanabhan A., Candelaria N., Wong K.K., et al (2018 ). USP15-dependent lysosomal pathway controls p53-R175H turnover in ovarian cancer cells. Nat. Commun.9, 1270.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-018-03599-w

  93. 93.

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

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb3427

  94. 94.

    Peng Y., Chen L., Li C., et al (2001 ). Inhibition of MDM2 by hsp90 contributes to mutant p53 stabilization. J. Biol. Chem.276, 40583–40590.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m102817200

  95. 95.

    Pfister N.T., Fomin V., Regunath K., et al (2015 ). Mutant p53 cooperates with the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex to regulate VEGFR2 in breast cancer cells. Genes Dev.29, 1298–1315.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.263202.115

  96. 96.

    Pfister N.T., Prives C. (2017 ). Transcriptional regulation by wild-type and cancer-related mutant forms of p53. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med.7, a026054.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a026054

  97. 97.

    Polotskaia A., Xiao G., Reynoso K., et al (2015 ). Proteome-wide analysis of mutant p53 targets in breast cancer identifies new levels of gain-of-function that influence PARP, PCNA, and MCM4. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA112, E1220–E1229.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1416318112

  98. 98.

    Pourebrahim R., Zhang Y., Liu B., et al (2017 ). Integrative genome analysis of somatic p53 mutant osteosarcomas identifies Ets2-dependent regulation of small nucleolar RNAs by mutant p53 protein. Genes Dev.31, 1847–1857.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.304972.117

  99. 99.

    Powell E., Piwnica-Worms D., Piwnica-Worms H. (2014 ). Contribution of p53 to metastasis. Cancer Discov.4, 405–414.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-13-0136

  100. 100.

    Pruszko M., Milano E., Forcato M., et al (2017 ). The mutant p53–ID4 complex controls VEGFA isoforms by recruiting lncRNA MALAT1. EMBO Rep.18, 1331–1351.

    Not in our library10.15252/embr.201643370

  101. 101.

    Puca R., Nardinocchi L., Porru M., et al (2011 ). Restoring p53 active conformation by zinc increases the response of mutant p53 tumor cells to anticancer drugs. Cell Cycle10, 1679–1689.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.10.10.15642

  102. 102.

    Qiu Z., Oleinick N.L., Zhang J. (2018 ). ATR/CHK1 inhibitors and cancer therapy. Radiother. Oncol.126, 450–464.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.043

  103. 103.

    Rahnamoun H., Hong J., Sun Z., et al (2018 ). Mutant p53 regulates enhancer-associated H3K4 monomethylation through interactions with the methyltransferase MLL4. J. Biol. Chem.293, 13234–13246.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.ra118.003387

  104. 104.

    Rivlin N., Brosh R., Oren M., et al (2011 ). Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: important milestones at the various steps of tumorigenesis. Genes Cancer2, 466–474.

    Not in our library10.1177/1947601911408889

  105. 105.

    Rodriguez O.C., Choudhury S., Kolukula V., et al (2012 ). Dietary downregulation of mutant p53 levels via glucose restriction: mechanisms and implications for tumor therapy. Cell Cycle11, 4436–4446.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.22778

  106. 106.

    Sampath J., Sun D., Kidd V.J., et al (2001 ). Mutant p53 cooperates with ETS and selectively up-regulates human MDR1 not MRP1. J. Biol. Chem.276, 39359–39367.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m103429200

  107. 107.

    Schulz-Heddergott R., Stark N., Edmunds S.J., et al (2018 ). Therapeutic ablation of gain-of-function mutant p53 in colorectal cancer inhibits Stat3-mediated tumor growth and invasion. Cancer Cell34, 298–314.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2018.07.004

  108. 108.

    Shetzer Y., Kagan S., Koifman G., et al (2014 ). The onset of p53 loss of heterozygosity is differentially induced in various stem cell types and may involve the loss of either allele. Cell Death Differ.21, 1419–1431.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2014.57

  109. 109.

    Shetzer Y., Molchadsky A., Rotter V. (2016 ). Oncogenic mutant p53 gain of function nourishes the vicious cycle of tumor development and cancer stem-cell formation. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med.6, a026203.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a026203

  110. 110.

    Silva J.L., Cino E.A., Soares I.N., et al (2018 ). Targeting the prion-like aggregation of mutant p53 to combat cancer. Acc. Chem. Res.51, 181–190.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00473

  111. 111.

    Singh S., Vaughan C.A., Frum R.A., et al (2017 ). Mutant p53 establishes targetable tumor dependency by promoting unscheduled replication. J. Clin. Invest.127, 1839–1855.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci87724

  112. 112.

    Solomon H., Dinowitz N., Pateras I.S., et al (2018 ). Mutant p53 gain of function underlies high expression levels of colorectal cancer stem cells markers. Oncogene37, 1669–1684.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41388-017-0060-8

  113. 113.

    Sonego M., Schiappacassi M., Lovisa S., et al (2013 ). Stathmin regulates mutant p53 stability and transcriptional activity in ovarian cancer. EMBO Mol. Med.5, 707–722.

    Not in our library10.1002/emmm.201201504

  114. 114.

    Song H., Hollstein M., Xu Y. (2007 ). p53 gain-of-function cancer mutants induce genetic instability by inactivating ATM. Nat. Cell Biol.9, 573–580.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb1571

  115. 115.

    Soragni A., Janzen D.M., Johnson L.M., et al (2016 ). A designed inhibitor of p53 aggregation rescues p53 tumor suppression in ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Cell29, 90–103.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2015.12.002

  116. 116.

    Stein Y., Aloni-Grinstein R., Rotter V. (2019 ). Mutant p53—a potential player in shaping the tumor–stroma crosstalk. J. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 600–604.

    Not in our library10.1093/jmcb/mjz071

  117. 117.

    Stojanovic N., Hassan Z., Wirth M., et al (2017 ). HDAC1 and HDAC2 integrate the expression of p53 mutants in pancreatic cancer. Oncogene36, 1804–1815.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2016.344

  118. 118.

    Suh Y.A., Post S.M., Elizondo-Fraire A.C., et al (2011 ). Multiple stress signals activate mutant p53 in vivo. Cancer Res.71, 7168–7175.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-0459

  119. 119.

    Synnott N.C., O'Connell D., Crown J., et al (2020 ). COTI-2 reactivates mutant p53 and inhibits growth of triple-negative breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.179, 47–56.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10549-019-05435-1

  120. 120.

    Terzian T., Suh Y.A., Iwakuma T., et al (2008 ). The inherent instability of mutant p53 is alleviated by Mdm2 or p16INK4a loss. Genes Dev.22, 1337–1344.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.1662908

  121. 121.

    Tomasini R., Tsuchihara K., Tsuda C., et al (2009 ). TAp73 regulates the spindle assembly checkpoint by modulating BubR1 activity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA106, 797–802.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0812096106

  122. 122.

    Ubertini V., Norelli G., D'Arcangelo D., et al (2015 ). Mutant p53 gains new function in promoting inflammatory signals by repression of the secreted interleukin-1 receptor antagonist. Oncogene34, 2493–2504.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2014.191

  123. 123.

    Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg H., Kim M., Xia H.G., et al (2013 ). Chaperone-mediated autophagy degrades mutant p53. Genes Dev.27, 1718–1730.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.220897.113

  124. 124.

    Valenti F., Ganci F., Fontemaggi G., et al (2015 ). Gain of function mutant p53 proteins cooperate with E2F4 to transcriptionally downregulate RAD17 and BRCA1 gene expression. Oncotarget6, 5547–5566.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.2587

  125. 125.

    Vaughan C., Pearsall I., Yeudall A., et al (2014 ). p53: its mutations and their impact on transcription. Subcell. Biochem.85, 71–90.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-94-017-9211-0_4

  126. 126.
  127. 127.

    Walerych D., Lisek K., Sommaggio R., et al (2016 ). Proteasome machinery is instrumental in a common gain-of-function program of the p53 missense mutants in cancer. Nat. Cell Biol.18, 897–909.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb3380

  128. 128.

    Wang H., Liao P., Zeng S.X., et al (2019 ). It takes a team: a gain-of-function story of p53-R249S. J. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 277–283.

    Not in our library10.1093/jmcb/mjy086

  129. 129.

    Wang J., Zhao Q., Qi Q., et al (2011 ). Gambogic acid-induced degradation of mutant p53 is mediated by proteasome and related to CHIP. J. Cell. Biochem.112, 509–519.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcb.22941

  130. 130.

    Wang W., Cheng B., Miao L., et al (2013 ). Mutant p53-R273H gains new function in sustained activation of EGFR signaling via suppressing miR-27a expression. Cell Death Dis.4, e574.

    Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2013.97

  131. 131.

    Wang X., Chen J.X., Liu J.P., et al (2014 ). Gain of function of mutant TP53 in glioblastoma: prognosis and response to temozolomide. Ann. Surg. Oncol.21, 1337–1344.

    Not in our library10.1245/s10434-013-3380-0

  132. 132.

    Wang Y., Yang J., Zheng H., et al (2009 ). Expression of mutant p53 proteins implicates a lineage relationship between neural stem cells and malignant astrocytic glioma in a murine model. Cancer Cell15, 514–526.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2009.04.001

  133. 133.

    Weinmann L., Wischhusen J., Demma M.J., et al (2008 ). A novel p53 rescue compound induces p53-dependent growth arrest and sensitises glioma cells to Apo2L/TRAIL-induced apoptosis. Cell Death Differ.15, 718–729.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.cdd.4402301

  134. 134.

    Weissmueller S., Manchado E., Saborowski M., et al (2014 ). Mutant p53 drives pancreatic cancer metastasis through cell-autonomous PDGF receptor β signaling. Cell157, 382–394.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.066

  135. 135.
  136. 136.

    Will K., Warnecke G., Wiesmuller L., et al (1998 ). Specific interaction of mutant p53 with regions of matrix attachment region DNA elements (MARs) with a high potential for base-unpairing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA95, 13681–13686.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.95.23.13681

  137. 137.

    Xiao G., Lundine D., Annor G.K., et al (2020 ). Gain-of-function mutant p53 R273H interacts with replicating DNA and PARP1 in breast cancer. Cancer Res.80, 394–405.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-19-1036

  138. 138.

    Xiong S., Tu H., Kollareddy M., et al (2014 ). Pla2g16 phospholipase mediates gain-of-function activities of mutant p53. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA111, 11145–11150.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1404139111

  139. 139.

    Xu J., Wang J., Hu Y., et al (2014 ). Unequal prognostic potentials of p53 gain-of-function mutations in human cancers associate with drug-metabolizing activity. Cell Death Dis.5, e1108.

    Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2014.75

  140. 140.
  141. 141.

    Yu X., Vazquez A., Levine A.J., et al (2012 ). Allele-specific p53 mutant reactivation. Cancer Cell21, 614–625.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2012.03.042

  142. 142.

    Yuan J., Luo K., Zhang L., et al (2010 ). USP10 regulates p53 localization and stability by deubiquitinating p53. Cell140, 384–396.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2009.12.032

  143. 143.

    Yue X., Zhang C., Zhao Y., et al (2017 a). Gain-of-function mutant p53 activates small GTPase Rac1 through SUMOylation to promote tumor progression. Genes Dev.31, 1641–1654.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.301564.117

  144. 144.

    Yue X., Zhao Y., Huang G., et al (2016 ). A novel mutant p53 binding partner BAG5 stabilizes mutant p53 and promotes mutant p53 GOFs in tumorigenesis. Cell Discov.2, 16039.

    Not in our library10.1038/celldisc.2016.39

  145. 145.

    Yue X., Zhao Y., Liu J., et al (2015 ). BAG2 promotes tumorigenesis through enhancing mutant p53 protein levels and function. eLife4, e08401.

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.08401

  146. 146.

    Yue X., Zhao Y., Xu Y., et al (2017 b). Mutant p53 in cancer: accumulation, gain-of-function, and therapy. J. Mol. Biol.429, 1595–1606.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2017.03.030

  147. 147.

    Zerbini L.F., Wang Y., Correa R.G., et al (2005 ). Blockage of NF-κB induces serine 15 phosphorylation of mutant p53 by JNK kinase in prostate cancer cells. Cell Cycle4, 1247–1253.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.4.9.1966

  148. 148.

    Zhang C., Lin M., Wu R., et al (2011 ). Parkin, a p53 target gene, mediates the role of p53 in glucose metabolism and the Warburg effect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA108, 16259–16264.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1113884108

  149. 149.

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

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms3935

  150. 150.

    Zhang C., Liu J., Zhao Y., et al (2016 ). Glutaminase 2 is a novel negative regulator of small GTPase Rac1 and mediates p53 function in suppressing metastasis. eLife5, e10727.

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.10727

  151. 151.

    Zhao Y., Wu L., Yue X., et al (2018 ). A polymorphism in the tumor suppressor p53 affects aging and longevity in mouse models. eLife7, e34701.

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.34701

  152. 152.

    Zhao Y., Yu H., Hu W. (2014 ). The regulation of MDM2 oncogene and its impact on human cancers. Acta Biochim. Biophys. Sin.46, 180–189.

    Not in our library10.1093/abbs/gmt147

  153. 153.

    Zhao Y., Zhang C., Yue X., et al (2015 ). Pontin, a new mutant p53-binding protein, promotes gain-of-function of mutant p53. Cell Death Differ. 22, 1824–1836.

    Not in our library10.1038/cdd.2015.33

  154. 154.

    Zheng T., Wang J., Zhao Y., et al (2013 ). Spliced MDM2 isoforms promote mutant p53 accumulation and gain-of-function in tumorigenesis. Nat. Commun.4, 2996.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms3996

  155. 155.

    Zhou G., Wang J., Zhao M., et al (2014 ). Gain-of-function mutant p53 promotes cell growth and cancer cell metabolism via inhibition of AMPK activation. Mol. Cell54, 960–974.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2014.04.024

  156. 156.

    Zhou X., Hao Q., Lu H. (2019 ). Mutant p53 in cancer therapy—the barrier or the path. J. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 293–305.

    Not in our library10.1093/jmcb/mjy072

  157. 157.

    Zhu J., Sammons M.A., Donahue G., et al (2015 ). Gain-of-function p53 mutants co-opt chromatin pathways to drive cancer growth. Nature525, 206–211.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature15251

Cited by papers we hold 6

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.