Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.

RB1 : a prototype tumor suppressor and an enigma

Nicholas J. Dyson

Genes & Development · 2016 · Review

doi:10.1101/gad.282145.116

Abstract

The retinoblastoma susceptibility gene ( RB1 ) was the first tumor suppressor gene to be molecularly defined. RB1 mutations occur in almost all familial and sporadic forms of retinoblastoma, and this gene is mutated at variable frequencies in a variety of other human cancers. Because of its early discovery, the recessive nature of RB1 mutations, and its frequency of inactivation, RB1 is often described as a prototype for the class of tumor suppressor genes. Its gene product (pRB) regulates transcription and is a negative regulator of cell proliferation. Although these general features are well established, a precise description of pRB's mechanism of action has remained elusive. Indeed, in many regards, pRB remains an enigma. This review summarizes some recent developments in pRB research and focuses on progress toward answers for the three fundamental questions that sit at the heart of the pRB literature: What does pRB do? How does the inactivation of RB change the cell? How can our knowledge of RB function be exploited to provide better treatment for cancer patients?

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 17, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

The textbook model for pRB function is appealingly simple (Fig. 1). pRB is a chromatin-associated protein that limits the transcription of cell cycle genes, primarily via regulation of the E2F transcription factor. In addition to binding to E2F, pRB interacts with chromatin regulators. These contacts allow pRB to recruit and stabilize complexes that repress transcription. By suppressing transcription of E2F targets, pRB restricts the expression of genes that are needed for cell proliferation. pRB is broadly expressed, but its activity is controlled by cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs). Active pRB is found in quiescent cells, during G1 phase of the cell cycle, and during checkpoint-mediated cell cycle arrest. Hyperphosphorylation of pRB at the G1/S transition relieves pRB's inhibition of E2F and allows cell cycle progression. An extensive body of data shows that pRB is functionally compromised in many tumors either as a result of mutations in RB1 or mutations that increase the phosphorylation of pRB or through the expression of viral oncoproteins that target pRB. The inactivation of pRB compromises the ability of cells to exit the cell cycle, and this places them in a state that is highly susceptible to oncogenic proliferation (for a review, see;;; ).

As readers of the RB literature will appreciate, this description glosses over several inconvenient gaps in the data, and research over the past two decades has given us an increasingly complex picture of pRB action (Fig. 2). Although E2F is the best-known target of pRB, mapping the genome-wide distribution of pRB on chromatin has been technically challenging. Currently, there is surprisingly little information about precisely which genomic loci are controlled directly and specifically by pRB. The genomic distribution of pRB varies between cycling, quiescent, and senescent cells. It is uncertain what proportion of pRB is bound directly at E2F-regulated promoters or whether this is the most functionally relevant population of the protein, and it is unclear which or how many E2F-regulated promoters are truly rate-limiting for pRB-mediated control of cell proliferation.

In addition to the repression of E2F-regulated genes, pRB has been implicated in the organization of chromosomal domains and has roles in gene activation, particularly in response to apoptotic and differentiation signals. The RNA signatures associated with RB1 mutation include both up-regulated and down-regulated transcripts. Multiple proteins have been implicated in pRB-mediated repression, but the mechanisms of pRB-mediated activation have not been characterized in as much detail. In addition to E2F, pRB associates at substoichiometric levels with a large number of nuclear proteins. Factors reported to interact with pRB include multiple cyclins, CDKs, and phosphatases (that act on pRB) as well as an assortment of chromatin-associated proteins that have varied activities. It is undoubtedly true that pRB is a cell cycle-dependent regulator of chromatin, but it is more accurate to describe pRB as a multifunctional, chromatin-associated protein rather than viewing it simply as a repressor of E2F.

pRB-mediated control of cell cycle progression also turned out to be more complex than initially imagined. pRB not only targets E2F but also has transcription-independent effects. Notably, a physical interaction with Skp2 enables pRB to regulate the stability of p27. Indeed, in some assay systems, pRB-mediated cell cycle exit correlates better with its effects on p27 levels than with changes in proteins expressed from E2F-regulated genes. A pool of pRB has been detected at mitochondria, where it suppresses apoptosis, providing further support for the view that pRB has effects on cell proliferation that extend beyond transcription.

RB function is especially relevant during tumorigenesis. Cancer genome sequencing confirmed that RB1 is mutated in most retinoblastomas, osteosarcomas, and small-cell lung cancers, and it is mutated at lower frequencies in a variety of other cancer types. pRB is often described as a component of a regulatory pathway that is inactivated in most cancers (the INK4A/Cyclin D1/pRB/E2F pathway). The proteins in this “pathway” are actually components of a much larger network of cell cycle regulators. Significantly, individual types of cancer typically associate with particular lesions in this network (e.g., mutation of RB1 in retinoblastoma, mutation of INK4A in pancreatic cancer, amplification of Cyclin D1 in breast tumors, etc.). This selectivity suggests that the various perturbations of this “pathway” are not identical but that specific mutations have different consequences in different contexts. Data indicating that pRB retains some degree of E2F regulation in INK4A mutant cells or when phosphorylated by cyclin D-dependent kinases and evidence that hyperphosphorylated pRB interacts with the mTORC2 complex and attenuates Akt activation support the view that the inactivation of pRB by phosphorylation is not functionally equivalent to the mutation of the RB1 gene.

Animal studies demonstrate that the biological role of RB1 is context-dependent. In much of the developing mouse embryo, pRB loss does not have major effects on tissue pathology. In specific compartments, the genetic ablation of RB1 alters cell cycle progression/cell cycle exit, sensitivity to apoptosis, senescence, and differentiation (for review, see;;; ). The mutation of RB1 can alter the type of differentiation programs that are activated, the extent of differentiation that occurs, and the ability of differentiated cells to permanently exit the cell cycle (for examples, see;; for review, see; ).

Viewed together, the many reported pRB-associated proteins and the evidence that the impact of RB1 mutation is context-dependent highlight a central issue in RB research that is not fully resolved. On one hand, pRB's interaction with E2F has been conserved during evolution, and this role is evident in many different experimental systems. On the other hand, it is also clear that pRB has the ability to interact with various proteins, sometimes with context-specific effects. The relative importance of these two aspects of RB biology is uncertain. Does pRB primarily function in the same way in most cell types, with the variable effects of RB1 inactivation mostly reflecting the impact of a complex phenotype in different situations, or is pRB such a multifunctional protein that its key mechanism of action is fundamentally different in different situations?

The textbook models of pRB function were built by combining results from different cell systems. In those early studies, it was generally assumed that results obtained in one cell type would be true in all others. In current research, much more emphasis is placed on understanding pRB's role in specific contexts. This thinking was influenced in part by evidence of a variable functional overlap between RB1 and the two related genes p107 and p130 and also the observation that the expression of these three family members varies greatly during animal development. The importance of context has been beautifully illustrated by the extensive efforts that have been devoted to identifying the precise cell type of origin of retinoblastoma, an origin that differs between mouse models and the human disease. Such detailed studies were needed because of the possibility that there may be unique features to the molecular circuitry around pRB in these progenitor cells that could not be inferred by studying other cell types. Presumably, equivalent studies will be needed to understand the activity of pRB in each of the contexts in which it plays an important role. In a sense, RB research has matured from searching for a simple generic model that explains all observations to a more nuanced picture in which the precise role of pRB may vary and the consequences of RB1 inactivation are extensive.

In summary, we know a great deal about what pRB can do. Despite the multitude of theories or perhaps because of the number of possibilities, it is difficult to pinpoint the precise mechanism by which pRB acts. As a result, pRB has remained an enigma—a tumor suppressor whose action is more easily described in general terms rather than in specific details. Despite this, there has been a great deal of progress. Below, I summarize some of the recent studies that provided new insights into the biochemical properties of pRB and studies that have examined the consequences of RB1 inactivation. Ultimately, the most meaningful test of our understanding of pRB is whether this knowledge has been used to improve treatments for cancer patients, and the final section describes some of the progress toward the translation of this research.

How large is the pRB interactome and how is it organized?

Shortly after the cloning of RB1, it was discovered that a set of viral oncoproteins directly targets pRB and that these physical interactions were necessary for the transforming properties of the viral products. The notion that viral proteins might interfere with pRB's interaction with its normal cellular partners led to extensive searches for these pRB-interacting proteins. By 2001, >110 pRB-associated proteins had been reported, many of which bound to pRB in a manner that was disrupted by viral proteins or tumor-derived mutations (for review, see ). According to current interaction databases (Euorpoean Bioinformatics Institute [EBI]-IntAct, Molecular Interaction [MINT], Interologous Interaction Database [I2D], and String), there are >300 proteins that interact with pRB. These lists are useful starting points for discussion so long as one accepts that many of these interactions need additional validation.

In the absence of a quick, simple, and definitive assay for pRB's tumor suppressor function, there is little consensus on the number of “true” pRB partners, and it is uncertain how many of the reported interactions with pRB are functionally significant. In a few cases, mutant alleles of binding partners have been shown to modify the tumor phenotype associated with mutant RB1 alleles. However, these alleles can have dominant effects, and it is unclear how much of the genetic interaction should be attributed specifically to the loss of the physical interaction between the proteins. Indeed, one of the most remarkable features of the pRB literature is that, even after close to 30 years of study, the molecular mechanism of pRB-mediated tumor suppression has not been definitively identified. There are no mutational studies of RB1, for example, showing that the precise elimination of pRB's interaction with a single partner (or even a class of proteins) eliminates its tumor suppressor activity. In the absence of definitive data, the mechanism of pRB-mediated tumor suppression remains a matter of debate. At present, it seems likely that pRB does not have a single activity but that it acts as a tumor suppressor through its effects on multiple targets.

The large body of literature on pRB-associated proteins may be evidence that pRB is a very versatile protein involved in many processes and capable of nucleating a variety of interactions (for review, see ). A contrarian viewpoint is that the length of these lists of interacting proteins is a testament to the sensitivity of molecular biology techniques but little more. An important but often overlooked feature of this literature is that different groups have focused on different partners of pRB, and very few of the reported interactions have been confirmed by independent studies. The vast number of potential interactions creates difficulties for structure/function studies on pRB; it is now extremely difficult to examine the potential impact of any RB1 mutation on pRB's interactions with all of its possible partners. This task is compounded by the fact that most of the tumor-derived mutant alleles of RB1 that have been characterized to date have extensive effects on protein structure or stability and are little use for separating activities. As a result, each single study of pRB-associated proteins provides only part of the picture. For several years, it has been unclear how we should think about pRB's overall mechanism of action or how the different activities of pRB are controlled.

Recent studies of RB structure have led to a new perspective on the pRB “interactome.” At 928 amino acids, pRB is a relatively large protein. It has not yet been possible to determine the structure of the full-length protein, but analyses of pRB fragments have provided valuable insights, and recent progress has shed light on the structural changes triggered by individual phosphorylation events. Remarkably, phosphorylation of T373 promotes a major conformational change that allows the N-terminal domain to dock against the pocket domain. Phosphorylation of S608 also triggers a conformational change in which a loop containing the phosphorylation site interacts with part of the pocket domain. In both cases, the structural changes driven by individual phosphorylation events alter specific binding domains but do not compromise the overall integrity of the protein and leave other binding surfaces intact. These observations are especially significant when combined with experiments that used isoelectric focusing gels to assess the number of phosphorylation events on endogenous pRB. reported that the “hypophosphorylated” form of pRB isolated from asynchronously dividing cells in tissue culture is entirely composed of monophosphorylated protein. Remarkably, the single phosphorylation event can be found at many, perhaps all, of the 14 known sites for CDK phosphorylation. show that monophosphorylated protein is the predominant form of pRB in contact-inhibited cells and cells arrested by DNA damage, situations in which pRB is known to be active (Fig. 3A).

These biochemical studies raise the fascinating possibility that there may be many different forms of “active” pRB in a cell. Indeed, a single cell may contain up to 14 different monophosphorylated forms of pRB, each potentially having a different set of binding partners. The idea that pRB's binding activity is tailored by phosphorylation is only part of the story. Evidence that pRB is both acetylated and methylated in specific contexts, evidence of interplay between different post-translational modifications, and evidence that pRB interacts with specific partners in response to cellular cues all suggest additional levels of diversity. Collectively, these observations raise several intriguing possibilities: (1) There may be multiple pools of pRB that perform different functions. (2) Depending on their precise location (subcellular compartment or chromatin location) and modification, pRB molecules may interact with different sets of proteins. (3) The roles that pRB plays may be determined by signals that direct its specific post-translational modifications.

One of the appealing features of this model is that it helps to explain why pRB has been reported to interact with so many different proteins yet, at the same time, why so little of pRB is stably bound to any one of these partners. It also suggests how the multiple activities attributed to pRB might be regulated. If this model is correct, then pRB has a very complex mechanism of action (Fig. 3B). Clearly, a key goal for future studies of pRB will be to unravel this complexity: How many different types of pRB are there? How are these pools of pRB controlled? What are the biochemical properties of each different form of the protein? Which forms of pRB are key for specific molecular events and biological activities? The proof of the model will lie in the details and whether it is possible to define unique roles for specific isoforms of pRB.

The cellular consequences of RB inactivation

Since it is the inactivation of pRB that is linked to tumorigenesis, understanding how cells change when RB1 is mutated is a central issue. A clear picture of these changes may guide therapeutic strategies for targeting RB1 mutant cells.

In agreement with the idea that pRB is a key negative regulator of proliferation, RB1 loss has been demonstrated to lead to defects in cell cycle exit, facilitate entry into the cell division cycle, compromise G1/S arrest, and reduce senescence (for review, see; ). The transcriptional signatures associated with RB1 mutation include an up-regulation of many genes that are needed for cell proliferation, although careful examination shows that the mutation of RB1 increases transcription of some, but not all, E2F targets. Recent analysis of transcriptional patterns in the mouse intestine shows that, in addition to E2F, Myc plays an important role in the altered transcriptional profiles of RB1 mutant cells. Unexpectedly, RB1 loss leads to the redistribution of both Myc and E2F3 proteins on chromatin, raising the possibility that these transcription factors act differently in RB1 mutant cells compared with normal cells. Such observations underscore the fact that relatively little is known about the overall impact of pRB loss on chromatin biology.

A theme emerging from many different studies is the idea that that the functional consequences of RB1 inactivation extend much further than the G1/S transition or the deregulation of E2F. One example of this is a series of studies showing that the loss of pRB affects progression through mitosis, increasing the incidence of lagging chromosomes and reducing the fidelity of chromosome segregation. These changes promote aneuploidy, particularly when combined with mutations in p53. The mitotic phenotypes resulting from pRB loss have been linked to the altered expression of mitotic proteins, reduced loading of the Condensin II protein CapD3, reduced chromosomal cohesion, and altered accumulation of cohesin complexes at pericentromeric chromatin.

The mitotic defects associated with the inactivation of pRB are subtle. They do not lead to catastrophic mitotic failure, for example. At first glance, such changes might seem unimportant, particularly when compared with the abrupt cell cycle arrest seen when pRB is expressed in RB1 mutant tumor cell lines such as Saos2 cells that are primed for arrest and senescence when they regain pRB. However, chromosome instability and aneuploidy are common features of tumor cells. These phenotypes correlate with worse outcomes, and changes that increase chromosomal instability have been shown to promote resistance to targeted therapies. While retinoblastomas resemble other early-childhood cancers in having relatively low numbers of genetic lesions, pan-cancer studies show that mutations in the pRB pathway are associated with tumors that have elevated levels of gene copy number changes. Surveys of cell line and genomic data show that loss of one copy of RB1 is associated with an increased level of genome instability. Thus, the mitotic defects resulting from pRB inactivation may be relevant in many cancers. Significantly, the mitotic defects associated with pRB loss can be suppressed by knockdown of the checkpoint protein Mad2, depletion of Wapl (to increase cohesin loading), addition of nucleosides (which improves replication dynamics and chromosome cohesion), or manipulations that change chromatin marks at centromeric and pericentromeric heterochromatin. These raise the intriguing idea that it may be possible to reduce genome instability caused by RB1 mutation.

Additional lines of evidence point to roles for pRB that seem separable from cell cycle control. A set of reports highlights a series of links between RB and metabolic pathways. RB1 mutation (either alone or in conjunction with other pRB family members) causes change in metabolic pathways. These alterations include reduced mitochondrial respiration, reduced activity in the electron transport chain, changes in mitochondrial polarity, and altered flux from glucose or glutamine in RB1 mutant cells (;;,;; for review, see; ). Indeed, proteomic studies show that changes in mitochondrial function are a major feature of RB1 mutant mouse tissues. While the mechanistic basis for these metabolic changes has not been fully elucidated, these results are consistent with reports showing that E2F and RB proteins bind directly to promoters of genes encoding important regulators of metabolic flux, oxidative phosphorylation, and mitochondrial function. Indeed, in Drosophila, E2F1 is needed for full activation of mitochondrial and muscle-specific genes during myogenic differentiation, and the presence of E2F in adult skeletal muscles is essential for animal viability.

A key part of the explanation for the metabolic changes in pRB-deficient cells may stem from functional interplay between pRB, RBP2/KDM5a, and PGC-1α (PPARGc1A). proposed that pRB promotes expression of these mitochondrial proteins by antagonizing a repressive activity of the KDM5a H3K4 lysine demethylase, thereby enhancing the effects of the PCG-1α coactivator. Remarkably, manipulations that increase mitochondrial function in pRB-deficient cells (inactivation of KDM5a and overexpression of PCG-1α) not only increase oxygen consumption rate but also suppress the muscle differentiation defects of RB1 mutant cells. Changes in mitochondrial biogenesis have also been implicated in the ineffective erythropoiesis observed in RB1 mutant mice, and other studies have shown that autophagy inhibitors also promote a healthy mitochondrial network in RB1 mutant cells and promote differentiation. Taken together, these studies suggest that metabolic changes are likely a major cause of the differentiation defects seen in RB1 mutant mouse tissues (for review, see ).

Other studies have shown that a subpopulation of pRB is located at the outer mitochondrial membrane, where it physically interacts with Bax and promotes apoptosis, suggesting that pRB loss impacts multiple aspects of mitochondrial function. This observation adds to a large number of studies showing that, under specific conditions, pRB can cooperate with other factors to promote the transcriptional activation of differentiation programs and regulate the expression of apoptotic regulators (for examples, see;;; for review, see ).

In the light of such results, one might question whether the long-standing focus on the role of pRB/E2F in the control of the G1/S transition has given us a complete picture of the cellular changes that occur when RB1 is mutated. Proteomic profiles of RB1 mutant mouse tissues show that changes in the levels of proliferation proteins are not a uniform feature of RB1 mutant tissues or the major proteomic effect of pRB loss. Substantial differences between the effects of pRB loss on mRNA and protein levels suggest that post-transcriptional controls are likely to play a significant role in determining the ultimate effects of RB1 inactivation.

Much more research is needed to understand how many cellular processes are altered when RB1 is mutated. However, already it is clear that the consequences of RB1 inactivation are far-reaching, affecting many aspects of cell biology (Fig. 4). Moving forward, the key questions will be: Which of these changes are relevant during tumorigenesis and which can be exploited to target cancer cells?

The translation of RB research

The genetic lesions causing the frequent functional inactivation of pRB in tumors create two different types of challenges: In cells where RB1 is mutated, the challenge is to identify features that distinguish RB1 mutant cells from normal cells and represent points of vulnerability that can be exploited; in tumors where pRB is present but functionally inactivated, there is an additional possibility to reactivate the latent tumor-suppressive properties of pRB.

The development of effective inhibitors for Cdk4/6 kinases has been one of the most impactful applications of pRB research (; for review, see ). Complexes of Cdk4/6 and D-type Cyclins have multiple substrates, but it is clear that pRB is one of their most important targets. Cdk4/6 inhibitors have a capacity to activate pRB in G1 phase, and, in most normal cells, this triggers a reversible pRB-dependent cell cycle arrest. Cdk4/6 inhibitors also have pRB-independent effects, particularly when used at high concentrations. In contexts where deregulation of Cyclin D:Cdk4/6 kinases drives tumorigenesis, inhibition of these kinases can trigger cellular senescence or apoptosis. Cdk4/6 inhibitors had modest effects when tested as a monotherapy in solid tumors. This may reflect the fact that many signaling pathways converge on CDK regulation, and cells can express alternative CDKs that phosphorylate similar or overlapping sets of substrates. However, Cdk4/6 inhibitors have shown great efficacy when combined with other inhibitors targeting key mitogenic and/or survival pathways. Cdk4/6 inhibitors synergize strongly with inhibition of HER2, PI3K/mTOR, MEK, IGF1R/IR, and B-RAF. In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to a combination of the Cdk4/6 inhibitor palbociclib and letrozole for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, and the efficacy of palbociclib in this setting has been confirmed in subsequent large-scale trials. Large-scale studies of mouse models of patient-derived xenografts show that Cdk4/6 inhibitors are synergistic with many different classes of compounds, and they may ultimately be useful in a variety of combination therapies.

Several strategies have been described for targeting RB1 mutant tumor cells. The fact that RB1 mutant cells fail to arrest at the G1/S transition in response to checkpoint signals may explain why RB1 mutant tumors are often sensitive to DNA-damaging agents and why some RB1 mutant tumors initially respond well to treatment. The current models of RB function predict that the uncontrolled cell proliferation of RB1 mutant cells is driven by deregulated E2F. Remarkably, studies using mouse models of retinoblastoma have shown that the short-term exposure of fetuses to E2F or CDK inhibitors is sufficient to suppress tumor formation in long-term assays. One might imagine that effective inhibitors of E2F activation would be high on the wish list of many pharmaceutical companies, but, to date, very little progress has been reported on this subject, and only a few compounds have been available for research.

Unlike most RB1 mutant tumors, retinoblastomas lack mutations in p53. These tumors develop from progenitor cells that are dependent on Mdm2, and, as they also often express high levels of Mdm4, they may be targetable by agents such as Nutlin that activate p53 signaling. Retinoblastoma tumor cells have also been reported to be selectively sensitive to inhibition of the Syk kinase. However, follow-up studies were unable to show similar effects in orthotopic xenografts, and drug sensitivity profiles of a broad panel of cell lines do not show a general association between RB1 status and sensitivity to Syk inhibitors.

In most human cancers, RB1 mutations occur in tumors that also mutate p53. Zhu and colleagues have shown that inactivation of Skp2 can suppress proliferation of p53- and pRB-deficient cells in part through an up-regulation of p27 and the activation of E2F1-mediated apoptosis. This genetic interaction is effective at suppressing tumorigenesis in mouse models but has yet to be applied to human tumors. Based on genetic interactions that were discovered in Drosophila, others have suggested targeting TSC2 to elevate reactive oxygen species (ROS) in RB1 mutant tumors. Potentially, other metabolic features of RB1 mutant cells, such as the changes in mitochondrial activity, depletion of nucleotide pools, or changes in autophagy, might provide alternative therapeutic strategies. Ultimately, there may not be a single vulnerability that is characteristic of all RB1 mutant cells, but different strategies may be necessary for specific types of tumors. Changes that activate differentiation programs are one potential strategy. Recent work has suggested that Notch signaling may be important in mouse models of small-cell lung cancer, one of the most common types of RB1 mutant cancers. Inactivation of Sox2 has also been shown to suppress RB1 mutant pituitary tumors in mouse models. In part, these effects may reflect the context-specific signals that are important for the formation of tumor-initiating cells, signals that likely vary between cancer types. Collectively, these studies illustrate the fact that there may be many ways to target an RB1 mutant cell, and there are good reasons to expect that the next decade will be a very exciting time for pRB research.

In summary, the retinoblastoma susceptibility gene was identified in the pregenomic era, at a time when the tools for molecular biology were relatively limited. Modern technologies are providing a wealth of new information, and, in keeping with this, the ideas about the role of pRB are evolving too. The notion that pRB suppresses E2F-regulated transcription is still true, but the emerging view is that pRB's molecular activity is far more complex than initially supposed, with many different forms of pRB and many potential partners. It is also evident that the mutation of RB1 is not a surgical change that alters cell cycle control while leaving the cell otherwise unaffected. pRB loss causes extensive changes to chromatin organization, patterns of transcription, metabolic pathways, and the proteome. The idea that RB1 mutation has such far-reaching effects is consistent with the fact that this change is sufficient, in some contexts, to cause cancer. However, the central issue in RB research has not changed at all: The challenge for us all is to use this information to improve cancer treatment.

References 150

  1. 1.

    Aagaard L, Lukas J, Bartkova J, Kjerulff AA, Strauss M, Bartek J. 1995 Aberrations of p16Ink4 and retinoblastoma tumour-suppressor genes occur in distinct sub-sets of human cancer cell lines. Int J Cancer 61: 115–120.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.2910610120

  2. 2.
    CENPA overexpression promotes genome instability in pRb-depleted human cells · 2009
    No notice
  3. 3.

    Ambrus AM, Islam AB, Holmes KB, Moon NS, Lopez-Bigas N, Benevolenskaya EV, Frolov MV. 2013 Loss of dE2F compromises mitochondrial function. Dev Cell 27: 438–451.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.devcel.2013.10.002

  4. 4.

    Angus SP, Wheeler LJ, Ranmal SA, Zhang X, Markey MP, Mathews CK, Knudsen ES. 2002 Retinoblastoma tumor suppressor targets dNTP metabolism to regulate DNA replication. J Biol Chem 277: 44376–44384.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m205911200

  5. 5.

    Attardi LD, Sage J. 2013 RB goes mitochondrial. Genes Dev 27: 975–979.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.219451.113

  6. 6.

    Benevolenskaya EV, Frolov MV. 2015 Emerging links between E2F control and mitochondrial function. Cancer Res 75: 619–623.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-2173

  7. 7.

    Bester AC, Roniger M, Oren YS, Im MM, Sarni D, Chaoat M, Bensimon A, Zamir G, Shewach DS, Kerem B. 2011 Nucleotide deficiency promotes genomic instability in early stages of cancer development. Cell 145: 435–446.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.03.044

  8. 8.

    Binne UK, Classon MK, Dick FA, Wei W, Rape M, Kaelin WG Jr, Naar AM, Dyson NJ. 2007 Retinoblastoma protein and anaphase-promoting complex physically interact and functionally cooperate during cell-cycle exit. Nat Cell Biol 9: 225–232.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb1532

  9. 9.

    Black EP, Huang E, Dressman H, Rempel R, Laakso N, Asa SL, Ishida S, West M, Nevins JR. 2003 Distinct gene expression phenotypes of cells lacking Rb and Rb family members. Cancer Res 63: 3716–3723.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Blanchet E, Annicotte JS, Lagarrigue S, Aguilar V, Clape C, Chavey C, Fritz V, Casas F, Apparailly F, Auwerx J, 2011 E2F transcription factor-1 regulates oxidative metabolism. Nat Cell Biol 13: 1146–1152.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb2309

  11. 11.

    Bosco EE, Wang Y, Xu H, Zilfou JT, Knudsen KE, Aronow BJ, Lowe SW, Knudsen ES. 2007 The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor modifies the therapeutic response of breast cancer. J Clin Invest 117: 218–228.

    Not in our library10.1172/jci28803

  12. 12.

    Burke JR, Deshong AJ, Pelton JG, Rubin SM. 2010 Phosphorylation-induced conformational changes in the retinoblastoma protein inhibit E2F transactivation domain binding. J Biol Chem 285: 16286–16293.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m110.108167

  13. 13.

    Burke JR, Hura GL, Rubin SM. 2012 Structures of inactive retinoblastoma protein reveal multiple mechanisms for cell cycle control. Genes Dev 26: 1156–1166.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.189837.112

  14. 14.

    Burkhart DL, Sage J. 2008 Cellular mechanisms of tumour suppression by the retinoblastoma gene. Nat Rev Cancer 8: 671–682.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc2399

  15. 15.

    Burrell RA, McClelland SE, Endesfelder D, Groth P, Weller MC, Shaikh N, Domingo E, Kanu N, Dewhurst SM, Gronroos E, 2013 Replication stress links structural and numerical cancer chromosomal instability. Nature 494: 492–496.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11935

  16. 16.

    Cadoo KA, Gucalp A, Traina TA. 2014 Palbociclib: an evidence-based review of its potential in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 6: 123–133.

    Not in our library10.2147/bctt.s46725

  17. 17.

    Calo E, Quintero-Estades JA, Danielian PS, Nedelcu S, Berman SD, Lees JA. 2010 Rb regulates fate choice and lineage commitment in vivo. Nature 466: 1110–1114.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature09264

  18. 18.

    Cam H, Balciunaite E, Blais A, Spektor A, Scarpulla RC, Young R, Kluger Y, Dynlacht BD. 2004 A common set of gene regulatory networks links metabolism and growth inhibition. Mol Cell 16: 399–411.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2004.09.037

  19. 19.

    Carr SM, Munro S, Kessler B, Oppermann U, La Thangue NB. 2011 Interplay between lysine methylation and Cdk phosphorylation in growth control by the retinoblastoma protein. EMBO J 30: 317–327.

    Not in our library10.1038/emboj.2010.311

  20. 20.

    Carr SM, Munro S, Zalmas LP, Fedorov O, Johansson C, Krojer T, Sagum CA, Bedford MT, Oppermann U, La Thangue NB. 2014 Lysine methylation-dependent binding of 53BP1 to the pRb tumor suppressor. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111: 11341–11346.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1403737111

  21. 21.

    Chan HM, Krstic-Demonacos M, Smith L, Demonacos C, La Thangue NB. 2001 Acetylation control of the retinoblastoma tumour-suppressor protein. Nat Cell Biol 3: 667–674.

    Not in our library10.1038/35083062

  22. 22.

    Chen D, Livne-bar I, Vanderluit JL, Slack RS, Agochiya M, Bremner R. 2004 Cell-specific effects of RB or RB/p107 loss on retinal development implicate an intrinsically death-resistant cell-of-origin in retinoblastoma. Cancer Cell 5: 539–551.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2004.05.025

  23. 23.

    Chicas A, Wang X, Zhang C, McCurrach M, Zhao Z, Mert O, Dickins RA, Narita M, Zhang M, Lowe SW. 2010 Dissecting the unique role of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor during cellular senescence. Cancer Cell 17: 376–387.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2010.01.023

  24. 24.

    Choi YJ, Li X, Hydbring P, Sanda T, Stefano J, Christie AL, Signoretti S, Look AT, Kung AL, von Boehmer H, 2012 The requirement for cyclin D function in tumor maintenance. Cancer Cell 22: 438–451.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2012.09.015

  25. 25.

    Ciavarra G, Zacksenhaus E. 2010 Rescue of myogenic defects in Rb-deficient cells by inhibition of autophagy or by hypoxia-induced glycolytic shift. J Cell Biol 191: 291–301.

    Not in our library10.1083/jcb.201005067

  26. 26.

    Ciavarra G, Zacksenhaus E. 2011 Multiple pathways counteract cell death induced by RB1 loss: implications for cancer. Cell Cycle 10: 1533–1539.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.10.10.15520

  27. 27.

    Ciriello G, Miller ML, Aksoy BA, Senbabaoglu Y, Schultz N, Sander C. 2013 Emerging landscape of oncogenic signatures across human cancers. Nat Genet 45: 1127–1133.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.2762

  28. 28.

    Clem BF, Chesney J. 2012 Molecular pathways: regulation of metabolism by RB. Clin Cancer Res 18: 6096–6100.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-3164

  29. 29.

    Coschi CH, Martens AL, Ritchie K, Francis SM, Chakrabarti S, Berube NG, Dick FA. 2010 Mitotic chromosome condensation mediated by the retinoblastoma protein is tumor-suppressive. Genes Dev 24: 1351–1363.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.1917610

  30. 30.

    Coschi CH, Ishak CA, Gallo D, Marshall A, Talluri S, Wang J, Cecchini MJ, Martens AL, Percy V, Welch I, 2014 Haploinsufficiency of an RB–E2F1–Condensin II complex leads to aberrant replication and aneuploidy. Cancer Discov 4: 840–853.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-14-0215

  31. 31.

    DeCaprio JA, Ludlow JW, Figge J, Shew JY, Huang CM, Lee WH, Marsilio E, Paucha E, Livingston DM. 1988 SV40 large tumor antigen forms a specific complex with the product of the retinoblastoma susceptibility gene. Cell 54: 275–283.

    Not in our library10.1016/0092-8674(88)90559-4

  32. 32.

    DeMichele A, Clark AS, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Gramlich K, Gallagher M, Lal P, Feldman M, Zhang P, Colameco C, 2015 CDK 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (PD0332991) in Rb+ advanced breast cancer: phase II activity, safety, and predictive biomarker assessment. Clin Cancer Res 21: 995–1001.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-2258

  33. 33.
    Structure-function analysis of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein – is the whole a sum of its parts? · 2007
    Not checked
  34. 34.

    Dick FA, Dyson N. 2003 pRB contains an E2F1-specific binding domain that allows E2F1-induced apoptosis to be regulated separately from other E2F activities. Mol Cell 12: 639–649.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1097-2765(03)00344-7

  35. 35.

    Dick FA, Rubin SM. 2013 Molecular mechanisms underlying RB protein function. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 14: 297–306.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrm3567

  36. 36.

    Dickson MA, Tap WD, Keohan ML, D'Angelo SP, Gounder MM, Antonescu CR, Landa J, Qin LX, Rathbone DD, Condy MM, 2013 Phase II trial of the CDK4 inhibitor PD0332991 in patients with advanced CDK4-amplified well-differentiated or dedifferentiated liposarcoma. J Clin Oncol 31: 2024–2028.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2012.46.5476

  37. 37.

    Dyer MA, Bremner R. 2005 The search for the retinoblastoma cell of origin. Nat Rev Cancer 5: 91–101.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc1545

  38. 38.

    Dyson N, Howley PM, Munger K, Harlow E. 1989 The human papilloma virus-16 E7 oncoprotein is able to bind to the retinoblastoma gene product. Science 243: 934–937.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.2537532

  39. 39.

    Elison JR, Cobrinik D, Claros N, Abramson DH, Lee TC. 2006 Small molecule inhibition of HDM2 leads to p53-mediated cell death in retinoblastoma cells. Arch Ophthalmol 124: 1269–1275.

    Not in our library10.1001/archopht.124.9.1269

  40. 40.

    Ertel A, Dean JL, Rui H, Liu C, Witkiewicz AK, Knudsen KE, Knudsen ES. 2010 RB-pathway disruption in breast cancer: differential association with disease subtypes, disease-specific prognosis and therapeutic response. Cell Cycle 9: 4153–4163.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.9.20.13454

  41. 41.

    Ferecatu I, Le Floch N, Bergeaud M, Rodriguez-Enfedaque A, Rincheval V, Oliver L, Vallette FM, Mignotte B, Vayssiere JL. 2009 Evidence for a mitochondrial localization of the retinoblastoma protein. BMC Cell Biol 10: 50.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2121-10-50

  42. 42.

    Ferrari R, Gou D, Jawdekar G, Johnson SA, Nava M, Su T, Yousef AF, Zemke NR, Pellegrini M, Kurdistani SK, 2014 Adenovirus small E1A employs the lysine acetylases p300/CBP and tumor suppressor Rb to repress select host genes and promote productive virus infection. Cell Host Microbe 16: 663–676.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chom.2014.10.004

  43. 43.
    PD 0332991, a selective cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitor, preferentially inhibits proliferation of luminal estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer cell lines in vitro · 2009
    No notice
  44. 44.

    Finn RS, Crown JP, Lang I, Boer K, Bondarenko IM, Kulyk SO, Ettl J, Patel R, Pinter T, Schmidt M, 2015 The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 16: 25–35.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(14)71159-3

  45. 45.

    Flaherty KT, Lorusso PM, Demichele A, Abramson VG, Courtney R, Randolph SS, Shaik MN, Wilner KD, O'Dwyer PJ, Schwartz GK. 2012 Phase I, dose-escalation trial of the oral cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor PD 0332991, administered using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18: 568–576.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-0509

  46. 46.
    CDK4/6 inhibitors have potent activity in combination with pathway selective therapeutic agents in models of pancreatic cancer · 2014
    No notice
  47. 47.

    Friend SH, Bernards R, Rogelj S, Weinberg RA, Rapaport JM, Albert DM, Dryja TP. 1986 A human DNA segment with properties of the gene that predisposes to retinoblastoma and osteosarcoma. Nature 323: 643–646.

    Not in our library10.1038/323643a0

  48. 48.

    Fry DW, Harvey PJ, Keller PR, Elliott WL, Meade M, Trachet E, Albassam M, Zheng X, Leopold WR, Pryer NK, 2004 Specific inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 by PD 0332991 and associated antitumor activity in human tumor xenografts. Mol Cancer Ther 3: 1427–1438.

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    Fung YK, Murphree AL, T'Ang A, Qian J, Hinrichs SH, Benedict WF. 1987 Structural evidence for the authenticity of the human retinoblastoma gene. Science 236: 1657–1661.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.2885916

  50. 50.

    Gao H, Korn JM, Ferretti S, Monahan JE, Wang Y, Singh M, Zhang C, Schnell C, Yang G, Zhang Y, 2015 High-throughput screening using patient-derived tumor xenografts to predict clinical trial drug response. Nat Med 21: 1318–1325.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.3954

  51. 51.

    Garnett MJ, Edelman EJ, Heidorn SJ, Greenman CD, Dastur A, Lau KW, Greninger P, Thompson IR, Luo X, Soares J, 2012 Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells. Nature 483: 570–575.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11005

  52. 52.

    George J, Lim JS, Jang SJ, Cun Y, Ozretic L, Kong G, Leenders F, Lu X, Fernandez-Cuesta L, Bosco G, 2015 Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer. Nature 524: 47–53.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature14664

  53. 53.

    Goodrich DW. 2006 The retinoblastoma tumor-suppressor gene, the exception that proves the rule. Oncogene 25: 5233–5243.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1209616

  54. 54.

    Gordon GM, Zhang T, Zhao J, Du W. 2013 Deregulated G1–S control and energy stress contribute to the synthetic-lethal interactions between inactivation of RB and TSC1 or TSC2. J Cell Sci 126: 2004–2013.

    Not in our library10.1242/jcs.121301

  55. 55.

    Haberichter T, Madge B, Christopher RA, Yoshioka N, Dhiman A, Miller R, Gendelman R, Aksenov SV, Khalil IG, Dowdy SF. 2007 A systems biology dynamical model of mammalian G1 cell cycle progression. Mol Syst Biol 3: 84.

    Not in our library10.1038/msb4100126

  56. 56.

    Harbour JW, Dean DC. 2000 The Rb/E2F pathway: expanding roles and emerging paradigms. Genes Dev 14: 2393–2409.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.813200

  57. 57.

    Harrington EA, Bruce JL, Harlow E, Dyson N. 1998 pRB plays an essential role in cell cycle arrest induced by DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95: 11945–11950.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.95.20.11945

  58. 58.

    Heilmann AM, Perera RM, Ecker V, Nicolay BN, Bardeesy N, Benes CH, Dyson NJ. 2014 CDK4/6 and IGF1 receptor inhibitors synergize to suppress the growth of p16INK4A-deficient pancreatic cancers. Cancer Res 74: 3947–3958.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-2923

  59. 59.

    Hernando E, Nahle Z, Juan G, Diaz-Rodriguez E, Alaminos M, Hemann M, Michel L, Mittal V, Gerald W, Benezra R, 2004 Rb inactivation promotes genomic instability by uncoupling cell cycle progression from mitotic control. Nature 430: 797–802.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature02820

  60. 60.

    Hilgendorf KI, Leshchiner ES, Nedelcu S, Maynard MA, Calo E, Ianari A, Walensky LD, Lees JA. 2013 The retinoblastoma protein induces apoptosis directly at the mitochondria. Genes Dev 27: 1003–1015.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.211326.112

  61. 61.

    Hinds PW, Weinberg RA. 1994 Tumor suppressor genes. Curr Opin Genet Dev 4: 135–141.

    Not in our library10.1016/0959-437x(94)90102-3

  62. 62.

    Hinds PW, Mittnacht S, Dulic V, Arnold A, Reed SI, Weinberg RA. 1992 Regulation of retinoblastoma protein functions by ectopic expression of human cyclins. Cell 70: 993–1006.

    Not in our library10.1016/0092-8674(92)90249-c

  63. 63.

    Hsieh MC, Das D, Sambandam N, Zhang MQ, Nahle Z. 2008 Regulation of the PDK4 isozyme by the Rb–E2F1 complex. J Biol Chem 283: 27410–27417.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m802418200

  64. 64.

    Hurford RK Jr, Cobrinik D, Lee MH, Dyson N. 1997 pRB and p107/p130 are required for the regulated expression of different sets of E2F responsive genes. Genes Dev 11: 1447–1463.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.11.11.1447

  65. 65.

    Ianari A, Natale T, Calo E, Ferretti E, Alesse E, Screpanti I, Haigis K, Gulino A, Lees JA. 2009 Proapoptotic function of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein. Cancer Cell 15: 184–194.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2009.01.026

  66. 66.

    Iovino F, Lentini L, Amato A, Di Leonardo A. 2006 RB acute loss induces centrosome amplification and aneuploidy in murine primary fibroblasts. Mol Cancer 5: 38.

    Not in our library10.1186/1476-4598-5-38

  67. 67.

    Ji P, Jiang H, Rekhtman K, Bloom J, Ichetovkin M, Pagano M, Zhu L. 2004 An Rb–Skp2–p27 pathway mediates acute cell cycle inhibition by Rb and is retained in a partial-penetrance Rb mutant. Mol Cell 16: 47–58.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2004.09.029

  68. 68.

    Jiang Z, Zacksenhaus E, Gallie BL, Phillips RA. 1997 The retinoblastoma gene family is differentially expressed during embryogenesis. Oncogene 14: 1789–1797.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1201014

  69. 69.

    Kareta MS, Gorges LL, Hafeez S, Benayoun BA, Marro S, Zmoos AF, Cecchini MJ, Spacek D, Batista LF, O'Brien M, 2015 Inhibition of pluripotency networks by the Rb tumor suppressor restricts reprogramming and tumorigenesis. Cell Stem Cell 16: 39–50.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.stem.2014.10.019

  70. 70.

    Kato J, Matsushime H, Hiebert SW, Ewen ME, Sherr CJ. 1993 Direct binding of cyclin D to the retinoblastoma gene product (pRb) and pRb phosphorylation by the cyclin D-dependent kinase CDK4. Genes Dev 7: 331–342.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.7.3.331

  71. 71.

    Kim KY, Wang DH, Campbell M, Huerta SB, Shevchenko B, Izumiya C, Izumiya Y. 2015 PRMT4-mediated arginine methylation negatively regulates retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein and promotes E2F-1 dissociation. Mol Cell Biol 35: 238–248.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.00945-14

  72. 72.

    Knudsen ES, Buckmaster C, Chen TT, Feramisco JR, Wang JY. 1998 Inhibition of DNA synthesis by RB: effects on G1/S transition and S-phase progression. Genes Dev 12: 2278–2292.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.12.15.2278

  73. 73.

    Koh J, Enders GH, Dynlacht BD, Harlow E. 1995 Tumour-derived p16 alleles encoding proteins defective in cell-cycle inhibition. Nature 375: 506–510.

    Not in our library10.1038/375506a0

  74. 74.
    E2F inhibition synergizes with paclitaxel in lung cancer cell lines. · 2014
    Not checked
  75. 75.

    Lasorella A, Rothschild G, Yokota Y, Russell RG, Iavarone A. 2005 Id2 mediates tumor initiation, proliferation, and angiogenesis in Rb mutant mice. Mol Cell Biol 25: 3563–3574.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.25.9.3563-3574.2005

  76. 76.

    Laurie NA, Donovan SL, Shih CS, Zhang J, Mills N, Fuller C, Teunisse A, Lam S, Ramos Y, Mohan A, 2006 Inactivation of the p53 pathway in retinoblastoma. Nature 444: 61–66.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature05194

  77. 77.

    Laurie NA, Shih CS, Dyer MA. 2007 Targeting MDM2 and MDMX in retinoblastoma. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 7: 689–695.

    Not in our library10.2174/156800907782418266

  78. 78.

    Leduc C, Claverie P, Eymin B, Col E, Khochbin S, Brambilla E, Gazzeri S. 2006 p14ARF promotes RB accumulation through inhibition of its Tip60-dependent acetylation. Oncogene 25: 4147–4154.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1209446

  79. 79.

    Lee WH, Bookstein R, Hong F, Young LJ, Shew JY, Lee EY. 1987 Human retinoblastoma susceptibility gene: cloning, identification, and sequence. Science 235: 1394–1399.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.3823889

  80. 80.

    Li B, Gordon GM, Du CH, Xu J, Du W. 2010 Specific killing of Rb mutant cancer cells by inactivating TSC2. Cancer cell 17: 469–480.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2010.03.019

  81. 81.

    Lin W, Cao J, Liu J, Beshiri ML, Fujiwara Y, Francis J, Cherniack AD, Geisen C, Blair LP, Zou MR, 2011 Loss of the retinoblastoma binding protein 2 (RBP2) histone demethylase suppresses tumorigenesis in mice lacking Rb1 or Men1. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108: 13379–13386.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1110104108

  82. 82.

    Liu H, Tang X, Srivastava A, Pecot T, Daniel P, Hemmelgarn B, Reyes S, Fackler N, Bajwa A, Kladney R, 2015 Redeployment of Myc and E2f1–3 drives Rb-deficient cell cycles. Nat Cell Biol 17: 1036–1048.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb3210

  83. 83.

    Longworth MS, Herr A, Ji JY, Dyson NJ. 2008 RBF1 promotes chromatin condensation through a conserved interaction with the Condensin II protein dCAP-D3. Genes Dev 22: 1011–1024.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.1631508

  84. 84.

    Lopez-Mejia IC, Fajas L. 2015 Cell cycle regulation of mitochondrial function. Curr Opin Cell Biol 33: 19–25.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ceb.2014.10.006

  85. 85.

    Lu Z, Bauzon F, Fu H, Cui J, Zhao H, Nakayama K, Nakayama KI, Zhu L. 2014 Skp2 suppresses apoptosis in Rb1-deficient tumours by limiting E2F1 activity. Nat Commun 5: 3463.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms4463

  86. 86.

    Lukas J, Parry D, Aagaard L, Mann DJ, Bartkova J, Strauss M, Peters G, Bartek J. 1995 Retinoblastoma-protein-dependent cell-cycle inhibition by the tumour suppressor p16. Nature 375: 503–506.

    Not in our library10.1038/375503a0

  87. 87.

    Ma Y, Kurtyka CA, Boyapalle S, Sung SS, Lawrence H, Guida W, Cress WD. 2008 A small-molecule E2F inhibitor blocks growth in a melanoma culture model. Cancer Res 68: 6292–6299.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-08-0121

  88. 88.

    Macdonald JI, Dick FA. 2012 Posttranslational modifications of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein as determinants of function. Genes Cancer 3: 619–633.

    Not in our library10.1177/1947601912473305

  89. 89.

    MacLellan WR, Xiao G, Abdellatif M, Schneider MD. 2000 A novel Rb- and p300-binding protein inhibits transactivation by MyoD. Mol Cell Biol 20: 8903–8915.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.20.23.8903-8915.2000

  90. 90.

    Macleod KF. 2008 The role of the RB tumour suppressor pathway in oxidative stress responses in the haematopoietic system. Nat Rev Cancer 8: 769–781.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc2504

  91. 91.

    Manning AL, Longworth MS, Dyson NJ. 2010 Loss of pRB causes centromere dysfunction and chromosomal instability. Genes Dev 24: 1364–1376.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.1917310

  92. 92.

    Manning AL, Benes C, Dyson NJ. 2014a Whole chromosome instability resulting from the synergistic effects of pRB and p53 inactivation. Oncogene 33: 2487–2494.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2013.201

  93. 93.

    Manning AL, Yazinski SA, Nicolay B, Bryll A, Zou L, Dyson NJ. 2014b Suppression of genome instability in pRB-deficient cells by enhancement of chromosome cohesion. Mol Cell 53: 993–1004.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2014.01.032

  94. 94.

    Markey MP, Bergseid J, Bosco EE, Stengel K, Xu H, Mayhew CN, Schwemberger SJ, Braden WA, Jiang Y, Babcock GF, 2007 Loss of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor: differential action on transcriptional programs related to cell cycle control and immune function. Oncogene 26: 6307–6318.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1210450

  95. 95.

    McClelland SE, Burrell RA, Swanton C. 2009 Chromosomal instability: a composite phenotype that influences sensitivity to chemotherapy. Cell Cycle 8: 3262–3266.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.8.20.9690

  96. 96.

    Miyake S, Sellers WR, Safran M, Li X, Zhao W, Grossman SR, Gan J, DeCaprio JA, Adams PD, Kaelin WG Jr. 2000 Cells degrade a novel inhibitor of differentiation with E1A-like properties upon exiting the cell cycle. Mol Cell Biol 20: 8889–8902.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.20.23.8889-8902.2000

  97. 97.

    Morris EJ, Dyson NJ. 2001 Retinoblastoma protein partners. Adv Cancer Res 82: 1–54.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0065-230x(01)82001-7

  98. 98.

    Munro S, Khaire N, Inche A, Carr S, La Thangue NB. 2010 Lysine methylation regulates the pRb tumour suppressor protein. Oncogene 29: 2357–2367.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2009.511

  99. 99.

    Munro S, Carr SM, La Thangue NB. 2012 Diversity within the pRb pathway: is there a code of conduct? Oncogene 31: 4343–4352.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2011.603

  100. 100.
    Cyclin D activates the Rb tumor suppressor by mono-phosphorylation · 2014
    No notice
  101. 101.

    Nevins JR. 2001 The Rb/E2F pathway and cancer. Hum Mol Genet 10: 699–703.

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/10.7.699

  102. 102.

    Nguyen DX, Baglia LA, Huang SM, Baker CM, McCance DJ. 2004 Acetylation regulates the differentiation-specific functions of the retinoblastoma protein. EMBO J 23: 1609–1618.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.emboj.7600176

  103. 103.

    Nicolay BN, Dyson NJ. 2013 The multiple connections between pRB and cell metabolism. Curr Opin Cell Biol 25: 735–740.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ceb.2013.07.012

  104. 104.

    Nicolay BN, Gameiro PA, Tschop K, Korenjak M, Heilmann AM, Asara JM, Stephanopoulos G, Iliopoulos O, Dyson NJ. 2013 Loss of RBF1 changes glutamine catabolism. Genes Dev 27: 182–196.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.206227.112

  105. 105.

    Nicolay BN, Danielian PS, Kottakis F, Lapek JD Jr, Sanidas I, Miles WO, Dehnad M, Tschop K, Gierut JJ, Manning AL, 2015 Proteomic analysis of pRb loss highlights a signature of decreased mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. Genes Dev 29: 1875–1889.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.264127.115

  106. 106.

    Parisi T, Yuan TL, Faust AM, Caron AM, Bronson R, Lees JA. 2007 Selective requirements for E2f3 in the development and tumorigenicity of Rb-deficient chimeric tissues. Mol Cell Biol 27: 2283–2293.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.01854-06

  107. 107.

    Pritchard EM, Stewart E, Zhu F, Bradley C, Griffiths L, Yang L, Suryadevara PK, Zhang J, Freeman BB III, Guy RK, 2014 Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of the spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor r406 after ocular delivery for retinoblastoma. Pharm Res 31: 3060–3072.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11095-014-1399-y

  108. 108.

    Rajagopalan H, Lengauer C. 2004 hCDC4 and genetic instability in cancer. Cell Cycle 3: 693–694.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.3.6.940

  109. 109.

    Reynolds MR, Lane AN, Robertson B, Kemp S, Liu Y, Hill BG, Dean DC, Clem BF. 2014 Control of glutamine metabolism by the tumor suppressor Rb. Oncogene 33: 556–566.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2012.635

  110. 110.

    Rubin SM. 2013 Deciphering the retinoblastoma protein phosphorylation code. Trends Biochem Sci 38: 12–19.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2012.10.007

  111. 111.

    Saddic LA, West LE, Aslanian A, Yates JR III, Rubin SM, Gozani O, Sage J. 2010 Methylation of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor by SMYD2. J Biol Chem 285: 37733–37740.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m110.137612

  112. 112.

    Sage J. 2012 The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor and stem cell biology. Genes Dev 26: 1409–1420.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.193730.112

  113. 113.

    Sangwan M, McCurdy SR, Livne-Bar I, Ahmad M, Wrana JL, Chen D, Bremner R. 2012 Established and new mouse models reveal E2f1 and Cdk2 dependency of retinoblastoma, and expose effective strategies to block tumor initiation. Oncogene 31: 5019–5028.

    Not in our library10.1038/onc.2011.654

  114. 114.

    Sankaran VG, Orkin SH, Walkley CR. 2008 Rb intrinsically promotes erythropoiesis by coupling cell cycle exit with mitochondrial biogenesis. Genes Dev 22: 463–475.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.1627208

  115. 115.

    Sawai CM, Freund J, Oh P, Ndiaye-Lobry D, Bretz JC, Strikoudis A, Genesca L, Trimarchi T, Kelliher MA, Clark M, 2012 Therapeutic targeting of the cyclin D3:CDK4/6 complex in T cell leukemia. Cancer Cell 22: 452–465.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2012.09.016

  116. 116.

    Schvartzman JM, Duijf PH, Sotillo R, Coker C, Benezra R. 2011 Mad2 is a critical mediator of the chromosome instability observed upon Rb and p53 pathway inhibition. Cancer Cell 19: 701–714.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2011.04.017

  117. 117.

    Sharma A, Comstock CE, Knudsen ES, Cao KH, Hess-Wilson JK, Morey LM, Barrera J, Knudsen KE. 2007 Retinoblastoma tumor suppressor status is a critical determinant of therapeutic response in prostate cancer cells. Cancer Res 67: 6192–6203.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-4424

  118. 118.

    Sherr CJ. 1996 Cancer cell cycles. Science 274: 1672–1677.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.274.5293.1672

  119. 119.

    Sherr CJ, Beach D, Shapiro GI. 2016 Targeting CDK4 and CDK6: from discovery to therapy. Cancer Discov 6: 353–367.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-15-0894

  120. 120.

    Sotillo R, Schvartzman JM, Socci ND, Benezra R. 2010 Mad2-induced chromosome instability leads to lung tumour relapse after oncogene withdrawal. Nature 464: 436–440.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature08803

  121. 121.

    Sun H, Wang Y, Chinnam M, Zhang X, Hayward SW, Foster BA, Nikitin AY, Wills M, Goodrich DW. 2011 E2f binding-deficient Rb1 protein suppresses prostate tumor progression in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108: 704–709.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1015027108

  122. 122.

    Talluri S, Dick FA. 2012 Regulation of transcription and chromatin structure by pRB: here, there and everywhere. Cell Cycle 11: 3189–3198.

    Not in our library10.4161/cc.21263

  123. 123.

    Tanno Y, Susumu H, Kawamura M, Sugimura H, Honda T, Watanabe Y. 2015 The inner centromere–shugoshin network prevents chromosomal instability. Science 349: 1237–1240.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa2655

  124. 124.

    Thangavel C, Dean JL, Ertel A, Knudsen KE, Aldaz CM, Witkiewicz AK, Clarke R, Knudsen ES. 2011 Therapeutically activating RB: reestablishing cell cycle control in endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 18: 333–345.

    Not in our library10.1530/erc-10-0262

  125. 125.

    Thomas DM, Carty SA, Piscopo DM, Lee JS, Wang WF, Forrester WC, Hinds PW. 2001 The retinoblastoma protein acts as a transcriptional coactivator required for osteogenic differentiation. Mol Cell 8: 303–316.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1097-2765(01)00327-6

  126. 126.

    Thomas DM, Yang HS, Alexander K, Hinds PW. 2003 Role of the retinoblastoma protein in differentiation and senescence. Cancer Biol Ther 2: 124–130.

    Not in our library

  127. 127.

    Tracy K, Dibling BC, Spike BT, Knabb JR, Schumacker P, Macleod KF. 2007 BNIP3 is an RB/E2F target gene required for hypoxia-induced autophagy. Mol Cell Biol 27: 6229–6242.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.02246-06

  128. 128.

    Turner NC, Ro J, Andre F, Loi S, Verma S, Iwata H, Harbeck N, Loibl S, Huang Bartlett C, Zhang K, 2015 Palbociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 373: 209–219.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1505270

  129. 129.

    van Harn T, Foijer F, van Vugt M, Banerjee R, Yang F, Oostra A, Joenje H, te Riele H. 2010 Loss of Rb proteins causes genomic instability in the absence of mitogenic signaling. Genes Dev 24: 1377–1388.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.580710

  130. 130.

    Varaljai R, Islam AB, Beshiri ML, Rehman J, Lopez-Bigas N, Benevolenskaya EV. 2015 Increased mitochondrial function downstream from KDM5A histone demethylase rescues differentiation in pRB-deficient cells. Genes Dev 29: 1817–1834.

    Not in our library10.1101/gad.264036.115

  131. 131.

    Vaughn DJ, Hwang WT, Lal P, Rosen MA, Gallagher M, O'Dwyer PJ. 2015 Phase 2 trial of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in patients with retinoblastoma protein-expressing germ cell tumors. Cancer 121: 1463–1468.

    Not in our library10.1002/cncr.29213

  132. 132.

    Viatour P, Sage J. 2011 Newly identified aspects of tumor suppression by RB. Dis Model Mech 4: 581–585.

    Not in our library10.1242/dmm.008060

  133. 133.

    Vooijs M, Berns A. 1999 Developmental defects and tumor predisposition in Rb mutant mice. Oncogene 18: 5293–5303.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1202999

  134. 134.

    Vora SR, Juric D, Kim N, Mino-Kenudson M, Huynh T, Costa C, Lockerman EL, Pollack SF, Liu M, Li X, 2014 CDK 4/6 inhibitors sensitize PIK3CA mutant breast cancer to PI3K inhibitors. Cancer Cell 26: 136–149.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2014.05.020

  135. 135.

    Wang H, Bauzon F, Ji P, Xu X, Sun D, Locker J, Sellers RS, Nakayama K, Nakayama KI, Cobrinik D, 2010 Skp2 is required for survival of aberrantly proliferating Rb1-deficient cells and for tumorigenesis in Rb1+/- mice. Nat Genet 42: 83–88.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.498

  136. 136.

    Weinberg RA. 1995 The retinoblastoma protein and cell cycle control. Cell 81: 323–330.

    Not in our library10.1016/0092-8674(95)90385-2

  137. 137.

    Wells J, Yan PS, Cechvala M, Huang T, Farnham PJ. 2003 Identification of novel pRb binding sites using CpG microarrays suggests that E2F recruits pRb to specific genomic sites during S phase. Oncogene 22: 1445–1460.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1206264

  138. 138.

    Whyte P, Buchkovich KJ, Horowitz JM, Friend SH, Raybuck M, Weinberg RA, Harlow E. 1988 Association between an oncogene and an anti-oncogene: the adenovirus E1A proteins bind to the retinoblastoma gene product. Nature 334: 124–129.

    Not in our library10.1038/334124a0

  139. 139.

    Witkiewicz AK, Ertel A, McFalls J, Valsecchi ME, Schwartz G, Knudsen ES. 2012 RB-pathway disruption is associated with improved response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18: 5110–5122.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-0903

  140. 140.

    Xu XL, Fang Y, Lee TC, Forrest D, Gregory-Evans C, Almeida D, Liu A, Jhanwar SC, Abramson DH, Cobrinik D. 2009 Retinoblastoma has properties of a cone precursor tumor and depends upon cone-specific MDM2 signaling. Cell 137: 1018–1031.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2009.03.051

  141. 141.

    Xu XL, Singh HP, Wang L, Qi DL, Poulos BK, Abramson DH, Jhanwar SC, Cobrinik D. 2014 Rb suppresses human cone-precursor-derived retinoblastoma tumours. Nature 514: 385–388.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13813

  142. 142.

    Yadav V, Burke TF, Huber L, Van Horn RD, Zhang Y, Buchanan SG, Chan EM, Starling JJ, Beckmann RP, Peng SB. 2014 The CDK4/6 inhibitor LY2835219 overcomes vemurafenib resistance resulting from MAPK reactivation and cyclin D1 upregulation. Mol Cancer Ther 13: 2253–2263.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-14-0257

  143. 143.

    Yamasaki L, Bronson R, Williams BO, Dyson NJ, Harlow E, Jacks T. 1998 Loss of E2F-1 reduces tumorigenesis and extends the lifespan of Rb1(+/−) mice. Nat Genet 18: 360–364.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng0498-360

  144. 144.

    Zappia MP, Frolov MV. 2016 E2F function in muscle growth is necessary and sufficient for viability in Drosophila. Nat Commun 7: 10509.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms10509

  145. 145.

    Zhang J, Benavente CA, McEvoy J, Flores-Otero J, Ding L, Chen X, Ulyanov A, Wu G, Wilson M, Wang J, 2012 A novel retinoblastoma therapy from genomic and epigenetic analyses. Nature 481: 329–334.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10733

  146. 146.

    Zhang J, Xu K, Liu P, Geng Y, Wang B, Gan W, Guo J, Wu F, Chin YR, Berrios C, 2016 Inhibition of Rb phosphorylation leads to mTORC-mediated activation of Akt. Mol Cell 62: 1–14.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2016.04.023

  147. 147.

    Zhao H, Bauzon F, Fu H, Lu Z, Cui J, Nakayama K, Nakayama KI, Locker J, Zhu L. 2013 Skp2 deletion unmasks a p27 safeguard that blocks tumorigenesis in the absence of pRb and p53 tumor suppressors. Cancer Cell 24: 645–659.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2013.09.021

  148. 148.

    Zhao H, Bauzon F, Bi E, Yu JJ, Fu H, Lu Z, Cui J, Jeon H, Zang X, Ye BH, 2015 Substituting threonine 187 with alanine in p27Kip1 prevents pituitary tumorigenesis by two-hit loss of Rb1 and enhances humoral immunity in old age. J Biol Chem 290: 5797–5809.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m114.625350

  149. 149.

    Zheng L, Flesken-Nikitin A, Chen PL, Lee WH. 2002 Deficiency of retinoblastoma gene in mouse embryonic stem cells leads to genetic instability. Cancer Res 62: 2498–2502.

    Not in our library

  150. 150.

    Ziebold U, Lee EY, Bronson RT, Lees JA. 2003 E2F3 loss has opposing effects on different pRB-deficient tumors, resulting in suppression of pituitary tumors but metastasis of medullary thyroid carcinomas. Mol Cell Biol 23: 6542–6552.

    Not in our library10.1128/mcb.23.18.6542-6552.2003

Cited by papers we hold 10

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.