Correspondence to: Mats Ljungman, Ph.D., Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Cancer Biology, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Program in Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Michigan Medical School, 4306 CCGC, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 481090936 (e-mail: ljungman{at}umich.edu).
The tumor suppressor p53 is part of the cellular emergency team that is designated to respond to various cellular stresses such as DNA damage. After exposure to UV or ionizing radiation, p53 proteins accumulate in the nucleus and transactivate specific target genes. Expression of the p53-inducible p21WAF1 gene product enhances the survival of cells by activating cell cycle checkpoints, thus allowing the cell to have more time for DNA repair before entering S phase or mitosis. However, p53 can also stimulate cells to undergo apoptosis, a programmed cell death pathway. These activities of p53 contribute to the protection of the organism from acquiring mutated cells and thus suppress tumor formation (1).
Although UV and ionizing radiation are both physical DNA-damaging agents that induce p53, the types of lesions induced in DNA are quite different, as are the signal transduction pathways leading to p53 induction (1). Ionizing radiation induces single- and double-strand breaks and a large spectrum of base damages (2,3), while UV radiation predominantly induces pyrimidine dimers and (64) photoproducts (4). Induction of p53 after ionizing radiation is thought to be triggered by DNA strand breaks and is mediated by the ataxia-telangiectasia gene product (ATM) that can directly (5,6) or indirectly (7) phosphorylate p53. However, the ATM protein is not required for p53 induction after UV irradiation (8). Rather, it is thought that, after UV irradiation, p53 is triggered when RNA polymerase II is blocked by DNA lesions in the transcribed strand of active genes (9,10).
In this issue of the Journal, Pontén et al. (11) present an intriguing study revealing that p53 responsiveness to UV and ionizing radiation shows great individual variability. Previously, this group had found that the induction of p53 and p21WAF1 varied greatly in UV-irradiated skin from different individuals (12). In this new study, they went one step further and investigated whether individuals who have a strong p53 response after UV irradiation also have a strong response to ionizing radiation. Induction of p53 and p21WAF1 after exposure to UVA, UVB, or ionizing radiation was examined by immunohistochemistry of skin biopsy specimens from 50 breast cancer patients. Exposure to ionizing radiation was part of a postsurgical treatment of the breast, while the UV irradiation was applied experimentally to the backs of these patients. The results show that the induction of p53 and p21WAF1 after exposure to these agents varied substantially between different individuals. More important, individuals with strong induction of p53 and p21WAF1 after UV irradiation also were found to be good p53 responders to ionizing radiation. Conversely, individuals with low p53 responsiveness after UV irradiation were equally poor p53 responders after ionizing radiation. Thus, the study by Pontén et al. suggests that the general p53 responsiveness to DNA-damaging agents may vary substantially in the general population.
What could be the molecular explanation for the interindividual variations in p53 responsiveness found in the study by Pontén et al.? The fact that individual p53 responsiveness to UV radiation tracked with the responsiveness to ionizing radiation makes it unlikely that these interindividual variations are due to differences in DNA repair capacities, because these different agents induce distinct DNA repair pathways. Rather, it is more likely that these variations are due to differences in some mechanistic step(s) downstream of those for DNA damage sensing and processing. These steps may include the regulation of p53 protein modifications, p53 stability, or nuclear localization of p53. It is already known that there is a great heterogeneity of p53 responsiveness among different tissues (13) and during different stages of development (1416). Thus, it appears that the regulation of p53 responsiveness plays an important role during embryogenesis and in normal tissue physiology.
It has been suggested that p53 may act as "a guardian of the tissue" in response to UV radiation and other DNA-damaging agents (17). By inducing apoptosis, p53 is thought to cleanse the tissue from damaged, potentially preneoplastic cells. UV radiation may act twice during carcinogenesis, first by inducing mutations in the p53 gene leading to a hypermutable phenotype and second by selecting for clonal expansion of p53-mutated cells (18). However, inactivation of p53 in human cell model systems does not result in tolerance against UV radiation-induced apoptosis, as would be predicted from the guardian-of-the-tissue model. In fact, human cells with a compromised p53 function induce apoptosis at lower doses than cells with wild-type p53 (19,20). Furthermore, after exposure of skin to UV or ionizing radiation, Pontén et al. (11) found no correlation between the induction of p53 and erythema, which is thought to be the physiologic consequence of apoptosis in the skin (21,22). Thus, p53 does not appear to be required for the induction of apoptosis in human skin after exposure to UV or ionizing radiation. Moreover, LiFraumeni patients harboring a mutated p53 gene in all cells are not predisposed to UV radiation-induced skin cancer (23), which also puts into question the role of p53 as a tumor suppressor in the skin.
Is the variation in p53 responsiveness among different individuals shown by Pontén et al. (11) limited to skin or does the responsiveness of skin predict the responsiveness of other tissues? Although LiFraumeni patients are not predisposed to sun-induced skin cancer, they have an extremely high susceptibility to many internal types of cancer (23). Thus, if an individual has poor p53 responsiveness to DNA-damaging agents in internal tissues, it is possible that this individual may be at a higher risk of contracting cancer in these tissues. A recent study (24) has shown that stimulation of normal mammary tissue with placenta hormones can convert this tissue from a nonresponsive tissue to a tissue that readily induces p53 in response to ionizing radiation. It is possible that the protective effect of early pregnancy against the development of breast cancer is due to this hormone-mediated activation of the p53 responsiveness of the mammary tissue. It would be of great interest to examine whether poor p53 responders are more susceptible to cancer and, if so, whether future cancer-preventive therapies could be aimed at awakening the sleeping guardian of the genome.
REFERENCES
1 Ljungman M. Dial 9-1-1 for p53: mechanisms of p53 activation by cellular stress. Neoplasia 2000;2:20825.[Medline]
2 Hutchinson F. Chemical changes induced in DNA by ionizing radiation. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 1985;32:11554.[Medline]
3 Ward JF. DNA damage produced by ionizing radiation in mammalian cells: identities, mechanisms of formation, and repairability. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 1988;35:95125.[Medline]
4 Friedberg E, Walker G, Siede W. DNA repair and mutagenesis. Washington (DC): ASM Press; 1995.
5
Banin S, Moyal L, Shieh SY, Taya Y, Anderson CW, Chessa L, et al. Enhanced phosphorylation of p53 by ATN in response to DNA damage. Science 1998;281:16747.
6
Canman CE, Lim DS, Cimprich KA, Taya Y, Tamai K, Sakaguchi K, et al. Activation of the ATM kinase by ionizing radiation and phosphorylation of p53. Science 1998;281:16779.
7
Hirao A, Kong YY, Matsuoka S, Wakeham A, Ruland J, Yoshida H, et al. DNA damage-induced activation of p53 by the checkpoint kinase Chk2. Science 2000;287:18247.
8 Lu X, Lane DP. Differential induction of transcriptionally active p53 following UV or ionizing radiation: defects in chromosome instability syndromes? Cell 1993;75:76578.[Medline]
9 Yamaizumi M, Sugano T. U.v.-induced nuclear accumulation of p53 is evoked through DNA damage of actively transcribed genes independent of the cell cycle. Oncogene 1994;9:277584.[Medline]
10 Ljungman M, Zhang F. Blockage of RNA polymerase as a possible trigger for u.v. light-induced apoptosis. Oncogene 1996;13:82331.[Medline]
11
Ponten F, Lindman H, Bostrom, Berne B, Bergh J. Induction of p53 expression in skin by radiotherapy and UV radiation: a randomized study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:12833.
12 Ponten F, Berne B, Ren ZP, Nister M, Ponten J. Ultraviolet light induces expression of p53 and p21 in human skin: effect of sunscreen and constitutive p21 expression in skin appendages. J Invest Dermatol 1995;105:4026.[Abstract]
13
Midgley CA, Owens B, Briscoe CV, Thomas DB, Lane DP, Hall PA. Coupling between gamma irradiation, p53 induction and the apoptotic response depends upon cell type in vivo. J Cell Sci 1995;108(Pt 5):18438.
14 MacCallum DE, Hupp TR, Midgley CA, Stuart D, Campbell SJ, Harper A, et al. The p53 response to ionising radiation in adult and developing murine tissues. Oncogene 1996;13:257587.[Medline]
15
Gottlieb E, Haffner R, King A, Asher G, Gruss P, Lonai P, et al. Transgenic mouse model for studying the transcriptional activity of the p53 protein: age- and tissue-dependent changes in radiation-induced activation during embryogenesis. EMBO J 1997;16:138190.
16
Komarova EA, Chernov MV, Franks R, Wang K, Armin G, Zelnick CR, et al. Transgenic mice with p53-responsive lacZ: P53 activity varies dramatically during normal development and determines radiation and drug sensitivity in vivo. EMBO J 1997;16:1391400.
17 Ziegler A, Jonason AS, Leffell DJ, Simon JA, Sharma HW, Kimmelman J, et al. Sunburn and p53 in the onset of skin cancer. Nature 1994;372:7736.[Medline]
18 Brash DE. Sunlight and the onset of skin cancer. Trends Genet 1997;13:4104.[Medline]
19 McKay BC, Ljungman M. Role for p53 in the recovery of transcription and protection against apoptosis induced by ultraviolet light. Neoplasia 1999;1:27684.[Medline]
20
McKay BC, Chen F, Perumalswami CR, Zhang F, Ljungman M. The tumor suppressor p53 can both stimulate and inhibit ultraviolet light-induced apoptosis. Mol Biol Cell 2000;11:254351.
21 Berg RJ, Ruven HJ, Sands AT, de Gruijl FR, Mullenders LH. Defective global genome repair in XPC mice is associated with skin cancer susceptibility but not with sensitivity to UVB induced erythema and edema. J Invest Dermatol 1998;110:4059.[Abstract]
22
Berg RJ, Rebel H, van der Horst GT, van Kranen HJ, Mullenders LH, van Vloten WA, et al. Impact of global genome repair versus transcription-coupled repair on ultraviolet carcinogenesis in hairless mice. Cancer Res 2000;60:285863.
23
Hisada M, Garber JE, Fung CY, Fraumeni JF Jr, Li LP. Multiple primary cancers in families with LiFraumeni syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:60611.
24
Kuperwasser C, Pinkas J, Hurlbut GD, Naber SP, Jerry DJ. Cytoplasmic sequestration and functional repression of p53 in the mammary epithelium is reversed by hormonal treatment. Cancer Res 2000;60:27239.
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |