Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Rapid Impact Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Metabolism Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Spotlight on Genomic Analysis of Rare and Understudied Cancers
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular Cancer Research
Molecular Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Rapid Impact Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Metabolism Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Spotlight on Genomic Analysis of Rare and Understudied Cancers
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Reviews

Smoking, p53 Mutation, and Lung Cancer

Don L. Gibbons, Lauren A. Byers and Jonathan M. Kurie
Don L. Gibbons
1Departments of Thoracic, Head/Neck Medical Oncology, and 2Molecular and Cellular Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
1Departments of Thoracic, Head/Neck Medical Oncology, and 2Molecular and Cellular Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauren A. Byers
1Departments of Thoracic, Head/Neck Medical Oncology, and 2Molecular and Cellular Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan M. Kurie
1Departments of Thoracic, Head/Neck Medical Oncology, and 2Molecular and Cellular Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0539 Published January 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

This issue marks the 50th anniversary of the release of the U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health. Perhaps no other singular event has done more to highlight the effects of smoking on the development of cancer. Tobacco exposure is the leading cause of cancers involving the oral cavity, conductive airways, and the lung. Owing to the many carcinogens in tobacco smoke, smoking-related malignancies have a high genome-wide burden of mutations, including in the gene encoding for p53. The p53 protein is the most frequently mutated tumor suppressor in cancer, responsible for a range of critical cellular functions that are compromised by the presence of a mutation. Herein, we review the epidemiologic connection between tobacco exposure and cancer, the molecular basis of p53 mutation in lung cancer, and the normal molecular and cellular roles of p53 that are abrogated during lung tumor development and progression as defined by in vitro and in vivo studies. We also consider the therapeutic potential of targeting mutant p53 in a clinical setting based upon the cellular role of mutant p53 and data from genetic murine models. Mol Cancer Res; 12(1); 3–13. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction

Smoking and lung cancer

Although smoking confers increased risk of multiple tumor types, perhaps no malignancy is more closely linked with smoking than lung cancer. Before the commercial introduction of cigarettes, the incidence of lung cancer was extremely low, but small epidemiologic studies and clinical observations as early as the 1930s suggested a potential causative relationship between tobacco exposure and a rise in lung cancer cases (reviewed in refs. 1, 2). These observations spurred large, definitive studies, along with the development of the appropriate methodology required for epidemiologic studies of chronic diseases, which by the 1950s provided strong epidemiologic evidence for the relationship between the amount of tobacco exposure and risk of cancer, the beneficial effects of cessation, and an association with tumor histology (3, 4).

However, these studies provided epidemiologic association without causation. Because no clear evidence for specific carcinogens in tobacco smoke had been found, and because experimental data recapitulating tobacco as a cancerous agent or providing a mechanistic biochemical explanation were lacking, the effect of smoking on lung cancer was not broadly endorsed and instead engendered significant debate in the medical community. This attitude began to change in the medical community on both sides of the Atlantic with statements by the British Medical Research Council in 1957 that endorsed tobacco as a direct cause of cancer and by the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Leroy E. Burney, in 1959, which defined smoking as the “principal etiologic factor in the increased incidence of lung cancer (5, 6).” The weight of the epidemiologic evidence was sufficient enough that the release of the first report of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health on January 11, 1964, by Dr. Luther L. Terry set into motion significant legislation by the U.S. Congress, and great public debate over how best to address smoking cessation and the health issues caused by smoking (7). Toward this end, the U.S. Congress adopted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 and the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, which required health warnings on cigarette packaging, banned advertising in the media, and called for the issuance of an annual report on the health consequences of smoking. In September 1965, the Public Health Service established a unit called the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, which was succeeded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Office on Smoking and Health. Since 1965, these two agencies have been responsible for 29 reports on the health consequences of smoking and have provided on-going support for tobacco cessation and prevention efforts on the part of all levels of government and local communities. These efforts have produced substantial reductions in the number of current smokers in the United States, and recent estimates are that roughly 800,000 deaths from lung cancer were prevented due to these efforts (8).

Smoking and genetic mutations

It was not until the late 1980s that the data were presented demonstrating that lung tumors have high rates of mutation in known oncogenes like KRAS and in emerging tumor suppressors such as TP53. It was reported from analyses of both primary tumors and cell lines of many tumor types (including non–small cell and small cell lung cancer) that regions of the short arm of chromosome 17 (containing TP53) are frequently deleted, often along with point mutations in the remaining TP53 allele (9–13). At about the same time it was identified that patients with the Li–Fraumeni syndrome, who are susceptible to multiple tumor types at an early age, including lung carcinoma in the absence of tobacco exposure, have germline TP53 mutations (14). A database was established in the early 1990s of the documented TP53 mutations from all tumor types and cell lines (15), which continues to be maintained and updated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer for use by the scientific community (http://p53.iarc.fr/).

Tobacco smoke contains thousands of vapor phase and particulate phase compounds, at least 60 of which have been classified as carcinogens (Hoffman 2001), including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) such as BaP (benzo[a]pyrene), dibenz[a,h]anthracene, 5-methylchrysene and dibenzo[a,i]pyrene, and the N-nitrosamines [such as NNK (nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone) and NNN (N′-nitrosonornicotine)]. Chronic exposure of the lung epithelium to this mixture of compounds confers increased cancer susceptibility due to the formation of DNA adducts that produce oncogenic mutations [reviewed in (16)]. The heightened mutation rate is observed in smoking-related cancers versus other tumor types, in lung cancers from smokers versus nonsmokers, and an increase in mutations is even found in the noncancerous lung tissues of smokers (17). Additionally, the mutations observed in relation to tobacco exposure are commonly due to the presence of G to T transversions. This mutational pattern is consistent with the mechanism of DNA adduct formation from carcinogens in tobacco smoke, most prominently PAH and NNK (18). Of the multitude of carcinogens found in tobacco smoke, these are the best documented to produce lung tumors in experimental conditions and to produce DNA adducts at the same DNA sites found in patient tumors. These findings provide a mechanistic link between the epidemiologic association of smoking with lung cancer and the observed mutation profiles in lung tumors.

More recently, whole-genome, exome, and RNA sequencing of patient tumors from individual institutions and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) projects on lung adenocarcinoma, lung squamous cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck have confirmed several of these points in regard to the effect of tobacco exposure (19–21). First, the genome-wide mutational burden is significantly higher in lung adenocarcinoma from patients who are current or former smokers, similar to that found in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, a group in which the percentage of smokers is much higher (Fig. 1). Second, lung cancers have a high p53-specific mutation rate (46% in lung adenocarcinoma and 81% in squamous cell) and display a high percentage of mutations in hotspots regions (Fig. 2; ref. 19).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Genome-wide mutation density from the TCGA datasets for lung adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. Plot of mutations/megabase of the genome, with the X-axis representing the probability density. Current smokers were grouped with those reformed for less than 15 years, whereas those reformed greater than 15 years and lifelong nonsmokers are presented separately. Because 96% of the squamous cell lung cancer group was identified as a smoker, this group was not further segregated.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

p53 mutation spectrum from the TCGA lung squamous and lung adenocarcinoma datasets. A graphical representation is shown of the percent with p53 mutations (colored) versus wild-type p53 (gray). The mutations within a 5-residue stretch are grouped and colored to represent one of four hotspot regions, around amino acid 157 (orange), 175 (green), 248 (red), and 273 (yellow). Mutations outside of these four hotspots are grouped and colored blue.

Normal cellular functions of p53 and potential roles in cancer

The early data on p53 arose from studies of tumorigenic DNA viruses such as simian virus 40 (SV40) and human papilloma virus (HPV), which revealed that p53 is often the target of viral oncoproteins (22). The p53 protein was originally discovered and the gene subsequently cloned by investigation of proteins interacting with the SV40 large T antigen that account for the transforming capability of the virus (23, 24). The unique nature of p53 function generated initial confusion about whether it is an oncogene or a tumor suppressor (22). Analysis of tumor tissues and tumor cell lines revealed that the half-life of p53 and the amounts of protein found were greater than in nontransformed cells. Along with the initial in vitro data that demonstrated transforming capability for p53, this evidence suggested p53 as a new oncoprotein similar to the previously discovered Ras and Myc. But it was subsequently found that the DNA clones used in these early experiments contained mutant TP53 sequences, and that wild-type (WT) TP53 not only lacked transforming capability, but was able to suppress Ras-induced transformation in vitro in complementation assays and the formation of tumors in animals (25, 26). Conversely, mutant TP53 was able to transform rodent and human cell lines or primary cultured cells, and both null and point mutant alleles were able to cooperate with Ras to transform cultured cells, although the point mutation produced a stronger effect (27). The conclusion from these results was that p53 normally serves as a tumor suppressor, the function of which is lost upon allelic loss or mutation.

The TP53 gene encodes for a protein of 53 kDa, which is a sequence-specific transcription factor found at low levels under normal cellular conditions due to the regulatory action of the E3 ubiquitin ligase mouse double minute 2 (MDM2) (28, 29). In response to many types of cellular stress, including DNA replication stress or damage (30), p53 is rapidly stabilized and the accumulated protein localizes to the nucleus. The outcome of p53 function is highly context-dependent, depending on its complex effects in activating transcriptional activity at some sites while repressing others, the balance of which may result in cell cycle arrest and repair of the damaged DNA, cellular apoptosis, senescence, metabolic changes, or autophagy (31, 32). Multiple factors affect this outcome, including the affinity of gene promoters for p53 binding, the ability of p53 to cooperatively bind to DNA, and the effects of cofactor binding at p53 promoter sites (33–35). Recent genome-wide chromatin immunoprecipitation and sequencing (ChIP-seq) studies have demonstrated a core p53 default program that is significantly modified by the presence of cofactor binding at p53 sites to generate composite response elements and the affinity of p53 oligomers for binding to high- or low-affinity sites (34–36).

The domain structure of p53 reveals an N-terminal transactivation domain, a core DNA-binding domain, and a C-terminus containing both a tetramerization and a C-terminal regulatory domain (Fig. 3A). Extensive posttranslational modification occurs in each of the domains of p53, including serine/threonine phosphorylation (most prominently in the N-terminus), lysine acetylation, ubiquitination, neddylation, sumoylation, and methylation. The schema depicted here is a simplified version and the reader is referred to several detailed reviews for a thorough treatment of this subject (31, 32, 36). The posttranslational modifications modulate p53 protein stability, cellular localization, its complement of interacting proteins, and its subsequent target promoter selectivity. Acetylation or ubiquitination of the same amino acid residues has counteracting roles to respectively stabilize or destabilize the protein and thereby regulate activity. Although many of the posttranslational modifications have pronounced effects when tested in vitro, testing in mice by knock-in approaches instead demonstrates that they fine-tune p53 function, likely due to functional redundancy of many of the sites. Of particular interest in this regard is a recent report comparing p53 null mice with the 3KR mutant, in which three acetylation cites of the DNA binding domain (K117, K161, K162; mouse protein numbering) were replaced with arginine, which demonstrated a lack of cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, or senescence in vivo during thymic lymphoma formation (37). Nevertheless, the 3KR mutant p53 retained the ability to regulate energy metabolism (glucose uptake and glycolysis) and antioxidant function, and thereby suppress formation of thymic lymphomas. These findings challenge the prevailing models of p53 centered around cell cycle arrest and apoptosis/senescence, and highlight other cellular functions regulated by p53 that are critical to regulating in vivo tumorigenesis.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Domain structure of the p53 protein. A, the functional domains and some of the sites of posttranslational modification are illustrated. The concentration of N-terminal Ser/Thr phosphorylation sites is schematically shown. The major sites of lysine acetylation are shown in green arrows at K120 and K164, whereas the cluster of 6 lysines in the TD and CRD that can be ubiquitinated or acetylated are schematically indicated with blue arrows. B, the amino acid residues in the four mutational hotspot regions of the DNA-binding domain are shown. TD, tetramerization domain; CRD, C-terminal regulatory domain.

In addition to the direct effects of tobacco carcinogens on the cellular DNA of bronchial epithelial cells, tobacco smoke indirectly affects the overall tumor microenvironment by eliciting chronic inflammation in the lungs (38). Even the inflammation from short-term experimental tobacco smoke exposure has been shown to promote lung cancer progression in both carcinogen- and genetic Kras-initiated models (39). These findings are complemented by work from several groups demonstrating that Kras and p53 mutation drive NF-κB–dependent signaling in murine lung tumors (40, 41). Within the setting of chronic inflammation, mutant p53 in tumor cells could potentially abrogate the normal p53-mediated check on cellular response to the inflammatory signals.

The DNA damage checkpoint serves as a potent activator of p53 function and allelic dilution of WT p53 by chromosomal deletion, along with point mutation in the remaining copy, is frequently observed in diverse human tumor types as a mechanism to bypass this critical checkpoint (30). Although mutations have been found at almost all amino acid positions in the protein, several hot spot regions have been identified (V157, R158, R175, G245, R248, R249, and R273), which highlight the critical function of the core DNA-binding domain (Fig. 3B). Two classes of mutations emerge: structural mutants that affect the folding and stability of the protein, and mutations that critically affect direct amino acid–DNA contacts. Interestingly, besides classic tumor suppressor functions that are lost upon mutation of the protein, both classes of mutants have also been shown to produce gain-of-function phenotypes. Because p53 monomers oligomerize to form functional tetramers, and interact with many other proteins and sequence-specific promoter elements to produce target gene transcription, the presence of mutations can alter the protein–protein interactions that define its proper function (42). The missense mutant p53 alleles demonstrate dominant-negative activity through their ability to form p53 tetramers or other protein–protein complexes, and the altered DNA binding of the mutant proteins can produce gain-of-function activity. Many of the effects of mutant p53 may be through its ability to oligomerize to form mixed tetramers with the p53 family members, p63 and p73 (43).

Early work with autopsy-derived explants of human bronchial epithelial tissues demonstrated the ability to study these tissues in culture over many weeks and derive primary normal human bronchial epithelial (NHBE) cells (44, 45). Further work showed that these primary cells could be transformed with viral oncogenes from SV40, allowing extended study in culture to test for genetic changes that would reproduce the multistage bronchial carcinogenesis in vitro (46). Work with the tissues and primary cells confirmed that components of cigarette smoke condensate (CSC), including BAP and PAH, bind to the cellular DNA and produce phenotypic changes (47–49). Long-term exposure to NNK or CSC of the immortalized nontumorigenic human bronchial epithelial cells grown in deepithelialized rat tracheas in vivo produced neoplastic transformation to invasive adenocarcinomas (48). More recently, Minna's group produced human bronchial epithelial cell (HBEC) lines that are immortalized without viral oncogenes by overexpression of WT cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4), to prevent the p16INK4a-mediated growth arrest, and the catalytic subunit of telomerase [hTERT (human telomerase reverse transcriptase)], to bypass telomere-dependent senescence (50). The CDK4/hTERT-immortalized cells have an intact p53 checkpoint and display gene expression profiles that cluster with normal nonimmortalized bronchial cells, distinct from both lung cancer cell lines and HBECs immortalized with the HPV-16 viral oncoproteins E6/7. In line with the multistage carcinogenesis model, multiple additional oncogenic changes [mutant KRASV12 expression, loss of p53, c-MYC, and/or serum-induced epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT)] are required to confer a full malignant phenotype on these cells, including in vivo tumor growth (51). Strikingly, a partial malignant phenotype was produced by moderate mutant KRASV12 expression, but full malignant transformation was dependent on high levels of KRASV12 expression, which required p53 loss to bypass oncogene-induced senescence (52).

Animal models of p53 loss and mutation

Although in vitro studies with cultured cell lines have revealed some of the functions of p53, description of the more nuanced in vivo biology relied upon the generation of animal models. Many laboratories have generated animal models to test the in vivo consequences of p53 loss or mutation. The first animal data were reported by Lavigueur and colleagues (53), in which cDNA fragments from Friend leukemia viruses were electroporated into embryos to obtain transgenic animals carrying mutated p53 fragments along with the two copies of WT p53. Multiple types of tumors developed in these transgenic animals, including lung, sarcoma, and lymphoid malignancies.

The second generation of animal models that were created relied upon gene targeting to produce a null p53 allele, which could then be studied in heterozygous or homozygous conditions (54). Surprisingly, these animals had normal development, but in the homozygous state were found to have a pronounced increase in the susceptibility for early tumor onset (approximately 20 weeks) of many tumor types (approximately 75% of animals), mostly sarcomas and T-cell lymphomas, although a few epithelial tumors were described. Further work with these and similar models revealed that the animals had enhanced progression of carcinogen-induced malignancies (55), increased susceptibility to radiation-induced sarcomas and lymphomas, and accumulation of chromosomal abnormalities (56).

Despite the findings from these TP53 knockout models, most human tumors have a missense mutation in p53. To better understand the potential dominant-negative and gain-of-function effects of mutant TP53, a transgenic animal model was generated carrying the TP53Ala135Val mutant as a single autosomal allele. To test the role of mutant p53 in different backgrounds, these animals were crossed with the WT or p53 null alleles (57). In this study, the presence of the mutant transgene both enhanced tumorigenesis and shifted the tumor spectrum, with a strikingly high occurrence of lung adenocarcinomas (20%) in the heterozygous animals carrying the point mutant transgene (p53+/−; Tg), but not in the heterozygous animals without the transgene (p53+/−), nor in the p53 null animals. This report clearly demonstrated that mutant p53 can produce a striking gain-of-function phenotype.

Because human tumors frequently have multiple genes affected by mutation and because early in vitro models revealed synergy between p53 and other oncogenes, murine models were generated with a combination of the p53 null alleles and other activated oncogenes or tumor suppressors, e.g., Rb. The combination of Rb and TP53 knockout produced a faithful model of small cell lung cancer, consistent with the fact that approximately 90% of human small cell lung cancers have simultaneous loss of both genes (58–60). In non–small cell lung cancer, the two most frequently mutated genes are KRAS and TP53. The presence of an activating KrasG12D or KrasG12V allele in the lung epithelia of animals produces adenomatous hyperplasia, adenomas, and histologic progression to nonmetastatic adenocarcinomas (61–63). In contrast, combination of a mutant Kras allele with either TP53 loss or mutation (R172H, structural mutation; R270H, contact mutation) produces faster growing tumors with higher tumor grade, and greater histopathologic similarity to the human disease (64, 65). Additionally, tumors in these animals display invasive and metastatic capability. The synergy between the Kras and TP53 mutations was demonstrated by the phenotypically more advanced lung tumors in the combination and the shift in the tumor spectrum from a preponderance of sarcomas and lymphomas in the animals with only p53 mutation to epithelial tumors, such as lung adenocarcinoma.

The gain-of-function phenotype observed with mutant p53 in cell and animal models may result from the fact that p63 and p73 preferentially bind to mutant rather than WT p53 (43, 66). These results have been confirmed by several groups using the murine models of Li–Fraumeni containing a TP53R172H allele (67, 68). Additionally, transfection of siRNA against p63 or p73 into the p53 null mouse embryo fibroblasts (MEF) produced transformation potential similar to that of TP53R172H homozygous MEFs. Further evidence for this gain-of-function mechanism from missense mutant p53 has been presented from analysis of compound mutant mice containing p53 loss along with p63+/− or p73+/− (69, 70). Similar to the effect of Kras and p53 combination, the p63/p53 or p73/p53 combinations exhibited a shift in tumor spectra, with a high rate of epithelial tumor types. In addition, the p63+/−; p73+/− mice developed many of the same tumor types, suggesting a p53-independent tumor suppressive role for these family members.

Role of p53 on tumor progression and metastasis

Multiple alleles of p53 have been generated over the years to better study the many aspects of p53 function in vivo, including invasion and metastasis. Both the p53 null and the p53 mutant models (R172H and R270H) in combination with mutant Kras recapitulate the tumor progression and metastatic phenotype observed in patients with lung cancer (64, 65). The pattern of metastatic spread and compromised longevity of the animals is similar to that found in patients with lung cancer and transcriptome expression profiling of these primary and metastatic tumors recapitulates features of the patient tumors (71, 72). As such, these models have been useful to identify oncogenic dependencies in established tumors, such as NF-κB activation (40, 41), transcriptional or epigenetic drivers of histologic progression and metastasis, such as Nkx2-1 or microRNA (miRNA) changes (72, 73), and signaling pathway altered during tumor invasion, e.g., Notch signaling (74).

Work by our group and others has shown that there is a prominent role for miRNA reprogramming in these models that is necessary for tumor cell progression and metastasis. The EMT occurs in a subset of tumor cells in this model, producing invasion and metastasis (73, 74). This phenotype is dependent upon the loss of expression of the miR-200 family members, the derepression of the EMT-inducing transcription factors such as Zeb1, and the concomitant reprogramming of the protein expression in the cells (75). Similar changes in the miR-200 family members were seen in human non–small cell lung cancer cell lines and more recently in tumors from the TCGA dataset (73, 76). The upregulation of transcription factors such as Zeb1 also produces concomitant changes in the expression of other miRNAs such as miR-34a (77, 78). These complementary miRNA changes are required for the full invasive and metastatic phenotype. Interestingly, work from the Belinsky laboratory has shown that treatment of HBECs with stressful, but not genotoxic, doses of tobacco carcinogens (methylnitrosourea and benzo(a)pyrene-diolepoxide) produces epigenetic repression of miR-200 family members by promoter hypermethylation (79). The cells then display mesenchymal features, including increased anchorage-independent growth and invasion in 3D culture.

Clinical implications of p53 mutation

There is certainly a role in Li–Fraumeni kindreds for genetic testing of individuals, with regular medical check-ups and early screening for breast and colon cancer recommended for family members with a documented TP53 mutation. However, there is no role for TP53 mutation screening in the general population. In patients with a diagnosed lung cancer, molecular profiling of tumor tissue is frequently obtained, but the p53 status of the tumor is not currently used in therapeutic decision-making. Review of historic data is controversial about the predictive or prognostic role of p53 in lung cancer, but more recent data from a meta-analysis reported that TP53 mutations are a marker of poor prognosis (80), which has been confirmed by retrospective immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of samples from two independent clinical trials (CALGB 9633 and JBR.10) in which p53-positive staining by IHC conferred inferior survival, with a HR of 2.3 and 1.89, respectively, and was also predictive of benefit from chemotherapy (81, 82). However, it is unclear if all p53 mutants confer the same clinical risk, whether the status of the second p53 allele is important for outcome and whether IHC is the best assay for assessing the p53 status of tumors. Our clinical thinking on this point will likely evolve as further analyses emerge from more complete datasets of sequenced patient tumors, such as found in The Cancer Genome Atlas and similar projects.

Multiple groups have generated murine models with conditional null or hypomorphic alleles of p53 to test the effect of reactivating WT p53 in established tumors. The results of these studies were surprising in several ways. First, the effect on tumor cells is dependent upon the tumor type, with lymphomas responding differently than sarcomas and carcinomas. The Evan laboratory used the Eμ-Myc model in combination with an allele encoding a p53-estrogen receptor fusion protein (83). Upon activation of p53 by treatment with tamoxifen, induction of apoptosis occurred in the established lymphomas, with subsequent tumor regression. Using their p53LSL/LSL model, the Jacks laboratory showed that reactivation of WT p53 in lymphomas produced rapid induction of apoptosis and tumor regression, whereas sarcomas displayed delayed tumor regression due to reduced proliferation, cell cycle arrest, and senescence (84). The Lowe laboratory used a Tet-responsive promoter to drive shRNA-mediated p53 repression in a mutant Kras-driven model of liver carcinoma (85). Upon even temporally limited re-expression of p53 with doxycycline treatment, senescence occurred in the liver carcinoma cells, followed by tumor cell clearance by the immune system. These studies also demonstrated that p53 reactivation had no apparent effects on the WT tissues in the animals, an important finding in thinking about the possible side effects from therapeutic applications and in understanding the role of p53 activation in different tumor types. This point was further illustrated in reports from two different laboratories using the KrasG12D allele along with a reactivatable p53 (86, 87), which produces lung adenoma and adenocarcinoma. The response of tumor cells to WT p53 reactivation differed depending upon the stage of tumor progression and the degree of oncogenic signaling through the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, as measured by levels of p-ERK. The more advanced, later stage tumors, with elevated MAPK signaling provided a greater oncogenic activation, thereby enhancing p53 stability and producing a more pronounced effect of reactivation in this population of cells. These results highlight the heterogeneous response that is likely to be seen in clinical targeting of p53.

Because p53 is seldom null in human tumors, but frequently develops loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at one allele and a missense mutation in the second allele, the presence of a mutant allele with gain-of-function activity becomes a potentially important therapeutic issue. To compare the effect of reactivating WT p53 in the setting of either a null second allele or missense mutation, the Lozano laboratory used the p53R172H allele, combined with a p53 WT allele containing a Lox-PGKneo-Lox cassette in intron 4, which makes it functionally hypomorphic (88). Upon Cre recombinase removal of the neo cassette, WT p53 expression was restored to normal levels, while maintaining continued expression of the mutant p53. Reactivation of the WT on the background of a null second allele produced regression of established lymphomas and sarcomas, consistent with the findings from other groups. However, when the WT was restored in the presence of the R172H mutant, the tumors stopped growing, but did not undergo apoptosis, senescence, or tumor regression. They further demonstrated by chromatin immunoprecipitation that these results were a consequence of the mutant p53R172H protein binding the WT p53 and blunting its transcriptional activity of proapoptotic genes such as puma, but not its ability to bind the p21 promoter and block the cell cycle. Unfortunately in this pure model of p53 function, the animals developed almost exclusively sarcomas and lymphomas, so it is unknown if the same results would be found in a combined model that develops lung cancer or another epithelial tumor type (e.g., the mutant Kras/p53 model).

Clinical practice with standard and combination therapies may also be influenced by the work emerging from animal models. A recently published coclinical trial in lung cancer described the results of treating mouse models containing single or combined alleles (mutant Kras, mutant Kras + TP53 null, or mutant Kras + LKB1 null) with docetaxel alone or docetaxel combined with the MAP–ERK kinase inhibitor selumetinib (AZD6244), a combination being explored in clinical trials (89). This animal trial demonstrated that Kras mutant tumors respond better to treatment than tumors with concomitant mutations (either TP53 or LKB1 null), and that the Kras and Kras/p53 tumor types responded better to the combination than to docetaxel alone. The Kras/LKB1 tumors displayed primary resistance to the addition of selumetinib. These results demonstrate that the underlying survival pathways differ depending upon the combination of mutations found in the tumor. However, given the gain-of-function activity of mutant TP53, it is unclear how the results might have differed if the animal model contained mutant TP53 rather than the null allele combined with mutant Kras.

Early studies using adenovirus early region 1A (E1A) and Ras transformed TP53 null MEF cell lines and a syngeneic tumor model of fibrosarcoma demonstrated that p53 is required for tumor cell killing by γ irradiation or several different chemotherapy agents (90, 91). These findings supported the concept that therapy-induced apoptosis in vitro or in vivo requires active p53, the loss of which produces tumor resistance. However, a recent study addressed the more complex question of how mutant or null p53 status predicts for chemotherapy response in a spontaneous model of breast cancer (92). In this report, the MMTV (mouse mammary tumor virus)-Wnt1 mice were crossed onto three different p53 backgrounds, WT, p53 null, and the R172H mutant. These animals all formed breast carcinomas that were treated with doxorubicin. The animals with WT p53 had minimal tumor shrinkage, with rapid relapse. By contrast, the animals with the R172H allele, and LOH of the second WT allele, had the best response to doxorubicin and longer time to relapse. At the cellular level, this phenotype was due to cell cycle arrest/senescence in the tumors retaining WT p53 versus progression through the cell cycle in tumors with mutant p53, which resulted in aberrant mitoses and induction of apoptosis. These results may explain the paradoxical findings that mutant TP53 is a poor prognostic factor, but a good predictive factor for response to chemotherapy in some tumor types. They also highlight the importance of full TP53 genotyping if clinical decisions are to made on this information, as the LOH status of the tumors in this study was critical to their response to chemotherapy.

Targeted therapies for p53

Multiple strategies have been advocated to restore WT p53 function and target the p53 missense mutants frequently found in cancers. These include viral vector delivery of WT p53, small molecules designed to alter the mutant protein conformation or targeted disruption of its interaction with other proteins. Due to the difficulties of appropriately delivering vector-based TP53, and the modest results in phase I and II trials (93, 94), the efforts in the field have shifted. Nutlin (RG7112) was the first compound described in its class, capable of targeting the interaction of p53 and MDM2 (95). By blocking the p53 binding cleft of MDM2, nutlins inhibit MDM2-mediated degradation of WT p53, increasing p53 transcriptional activity. However, because many tumors do not retain any WT p53, these agents have found limited potential clinical application.

Other agents, such as p53 reactivation and induction of massive apoptosis (PRIMA-1) and reactivation of transcriptional reporter activity (RETRA), were discovered in screens specifically designed to find compounds able of suppressing tumor cell growth in a mutant p53-dependent manner. The compound 2,2-bis(hydroxymethyl)-1-azabicyclo[2,2,2]octan-3-one was identified more than 10 years ago and named PRIMA-1 (96). The reported mechanism of action relies upon binding of the molecule to the core domain of mutant p53, stabilizing its conformation via alkylation of thiol groups, producing a p53 molecule with WT conformation that is capable of appropriately binding its transcriptional targets, leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in tumor cells. It has been reported to have efficacy in cell culture and animal xenograft models of mutant p53 cancers. The PRIMA-1 structural analog, APR-246 (PRIMA-1MET), is a methylated derivative that is the first drug of this class to reach clinical testing. Recently, a phase I trial was completed and reported on the dosing and safety profile of APR-246 in 22 patients with hematologic malignancies or hormone refractory prostate cancer (97). Given by intravenous infusion once per day for four consecutive days, it was well tolerated by patients, with predictable pharmacokinetic properties. Evidence from global expression profiling of circulating hematologic tumor cells from treated patients demonstrated cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, and upregulation of p53 target genes, NOXA, PUMA, BAX. Whether all of the gene expression changes induced by APR-246 in patient tumors can be attributed to p53-specific mechanisms versus off-target effects is currently unclear.

RETRA (2-(4,5-dihydro-1,3-thiazol-2-ylthio)-1-(3,4-dihyrdrophyenyl)ethanone hydrobromide) is reportedly the best in a small class of compounds with p53-mutant–specific activity that produces slower growth, reactivation of apoptosis, and repression of tumor formation in a xenograft model. The reported mechanism of action is that treatment with RETRA releases p73 from its complex with mutant p53, producing reactivation of many downstream p73 transcriptional targets, such as CDKN1A and the effector caspases 3 and 7 (98).

Perspective and Conclusions

Tobacco exposure produces a heavy burden of genomic mutations in lung cancer, including mutation of the tumor suppressor TP53. Both loss of the WT p53 function and gain of mutant p53 function are important to the tumorigenic process. TP53 alterations are very frequent in squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and small cell carcinoma of the lung. Both in vitro and in vivo models of lung cancer reveal the critical role of p53 alteration to malignant transformation, histologic progression, invasion, and metastasis. Clinical treatment paradigms will need to evolve to incorporate the role of p53 loss and mutation, accounting for the differential effect on outcomes and our current inability to directly target p53 status in tumors. Preclinical models will remain an invaluable set of tools for elucidating a more complete understanding of p53 biology and the continued investigation of how to best target aberrant p53 function clinically.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: D.L. Gibbons

Development of methodology: L.A. Byers

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J.M. Kurie

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): D.L. Gibbons, L.A. Byers

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: D.L. Gibbons, L.A. Byers, J.M. Kurie

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): D.L. Gibbons

Study supervision: J.M. Kurie

Grant Support

This work was supported by the MD Anderson Cancer Center Physician-Scientist Program (D.L. Gibbons and L.A. Byers), NCI K08 CA151651 (D.L. Gibbons), and the Elza and Ina A. Schackelford Endowed Professorship in Lung Cancer Research (J.M. Kurie).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Lixia Diao and Dr. Jing Wang for their assistance in analyzing the TCGA datasets for the information in Figs. 1 and 2. The authors also apologize to the authors whose work they have not been able to cite owing to space limitations.

Footnotes

  • This article is being published as part of the AACR's commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health. You are encouraged to visit http://www.aacr.org/surgeongeneral for information on additional AACR publications and activities related to the recognition of this important anniversary.

  • Received October 8, 2013.
  • Revision received December 11, 2013.
  • Accepted December 12, 2013.
  • ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. White C
    . Research on smoking and lung cancer: a landmark in the history of chronic disease epidemiology. Yale J Biol Med 1990;63:29–46.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ochsner A,
    2. DeBakey M
    . Primary pulmonary malignancy: treatment by total pneumonectomy analysis of 79 collected cases and presentation of 7 personal cases. Surg Gyn Obst 1939;68:435–51.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Doll R,
    2. Hill AB
    . Smoking and carcinoma of the lung; preliminary report. Br Med J 1950;2:739–48.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Wynder EL,
    2. Graham EA
    . Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in bronchiogenic carcinoma; a study of 684 proved cases. J Am Med Assoc 1950;143:329–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Burney LE
    . Smoking and lung cancer: a statement of the Public Health Service. J Am Med Assoc 1959;171:1829–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Medical Research Council's statement on tobacco smoking and cancer of the lung. Lancet 1957;269:1345–7.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. United States Public Health Service: Smoking and Health
    . Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service 1964. Chapter 5 (PHS Publication No. 1103).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Moolgavkar SH,
    2. Holford TR,
    3. Levy DT,
    4. Kong CY,
    5. Foy M,
    6. Clarke L,
    7. et al.
    Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975–2000. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012;104:541–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Brauch H,
    2. Johnson B,
    3. Hovis J,
    4. Yano T,
    5. Gazdar A,
    6. Pettengill OS,
    7. et al.
    Molecular analysis of the short arm of chromosome 3 in small-cell and non-small-cell carcinoma of the lung. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1109–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chiba I,
    2. Takahashi T,
    3. Nau MM,
    4. D'Amico D,
    5. Curiel DT,
    6. Mitsudomi T,
    7. et al.
    Mutations in the p53 gene are frequent in primary, resected non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer Study Group. Oncogene 1990;5:1603–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nigro JM,
    2. Baker SJ,
    3. Preisinger AC,
    4. Jessup JM,
    5. Hostetter R,
    6. Cleary K,
    7. et al.
    Mutations in the p53 gene occur in diverse human tumour types. Nature 1989;342:705–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Takahashi T,
    2. Nau MM,
    3. Chiba I,
    4. Birrer MJ,
    5. Rosenberg RK,
    6. Vinocour M,
    7. et al.
    p53: a frequent target for genetic abnormalities in lung cancer. Science 1989;246:491–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Iggo R,
    2. Gatter K,
    3. Bartek J,
    4. Lane D,
    5. Harris AL
    . Increased expression of mutant forms of p53 oncogene in primary lung cancer. Lancet 1990;335:675–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Malkin D,
    2. Li FP,
    3. Strong LC,
    4. Fraumeni JF Jr.,
    5. Nelson CE,
    6. Kim DH,
    7. et al.
    Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science 1990;250:1233–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hollstein M,
    2. Rice K,
    3. Greenblatt MS,
    4. Soussi T,
    5. Fuchs R,
    6. Sørlie T,
    7. et al.
    Database of p53 gene somatic mutations in human tumors and cell lines. Nucleic Acids Res 1994;22:3551–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Pfeifer GP,
    2. Denissenko MF,
    3. Olivier M,
    4. Tretyakova N,
    5. Hecht SS,
    6. Hainaut P
    . Tobacco smoke carcinogens, DNA damage and p53 mutations in smoking-associated cancers. Oncogene 2002;21:7435–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hussain SP,
    2. Amstad P,
    3. Raja K,
    4. Sawyer M,
    5. Hofseth L,
    6. Shields PG,
    7. et al.
    Mutability of p53 hotspot codons to benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide (BPDE) and the frequency of p53 mutations in nontumorous human lung. Cancer Res 2001;61:6350–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hecht SS
    . Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1194–210.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature 2012;489:519–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Govindan R,
    2. Ding L,
    3. Griffith M,
    4. Subramanian J,
    5. Dees ND,
    6. Kanchi KL,
    7. et al.
    Genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in smokers and never-smokers. Cell 2012;150:1121–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Lawrence MS,
    2. Stojanov P,
    3. Polak P,
    4. Kryukov GV,
    5. Cibulskis K,
    6. Sivachenko A,
    7. et al.
    Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 2013;499:214–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Levine AJ,
    2. Momand J,
    3. Finlay CA
    . The p53 tumour suppressor gene. Nature 1991;351:453–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Linzer DI,
    2. Levine AJ
    . Characterization of a 54K dalton cellular SV40 tumor antigen present in SV40-transformed cells and uninfected embryonal carcinoma cells. Cell 1979;17:43–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Lane DP,
    2. Crawford LV
    . T antigen is bound to a host protein in SV40-transformed cells. Nature 1979;278:261–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Chen PL,
    2. Chen YM,
    3. Bookstein R,
    4. Lee WH
    . Genetic mechanisms of tumor suppression by the human p53 gene. Science 1990;250:1576–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Finlay CA,
    2. Hinds PW,
    3. Levine AJ
    . The p53 proto-oncogene can act as a suppressor of transformation. Cell 1989;57:1083–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Eliyahu D,
    2. Raz A,
    3. Gruss P,
    4. Givol D,
    5. Oren M
    . Participation of p53 cellular tumour antigen in transformation of normal embryonic cells. Nature 1984;312:646–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Haupt Y,
    2. Maya R,
    3. Kazaz A,
    4. Oren M
    . Mdm2 promotes the rapid degradation of p53. Nature 1997;387:296–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kubbutat MH,
    2. Jones SN,
    3. Vousden KH
    . Regulation of p53 stability by Mdm2. Nature 1997;387:299–303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Halazonetis TD,
    2. Gorgoulis VG,
    3. Bartek J
    . An oncogene-induced DNA damage model for cancer development. Science 2008;319:1352–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Kruse JP,
    2. Gu W
    . Modes of p53 regulation. Cell 2009;137:609–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Dai C,
    2. Gu W
    . p53 post-translational modification: deregulated in tumorigenesis. Trends Mol Med 2010;16:528–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Resnick-Silverman L,
    2. St Clair S,
    3. Maurer M,
    4. Zhao K,
    5. Manfredi JJ
    . Identification of a novel class of genomic DNA-binding sites suggests a mechanism for selectivity in target gene activation by the tumor suppressor protein p53. Genes Dev 1998;12:2102–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Nikulenkov F,
    2. Spinnler C,
    3. Li H,
    4. Tonelli C,
    5. Shi Y,
    6. Turunen M,
    7. et al.
    Insights into p53 transcriptional function via genome-wide chromatin occupancy and gene expression analysis. Cell Death Differ 2012;19:1992–2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Schlereth K,
    2. Heyl C,
    3. Krampitz AM,
    4. Mernberger M,
    5. Finkernagel F,
    6. Scharfe M,
    7. et al.
    Characterization of the p53 cistrome–DNA binding cooperativity dissects p53′s tumor suppressor functions. PLoS Genet 2013;9:e1003726.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Carvajal LA,
    2. Manfredi JJ
    . Another fork in the road–life or death decisions by the tumour suppressor p53. EMBO Rep 2013;14:414–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Li T,
    2. Kon N,
    3. Jiang L,
    4. Tan M,
    5. Ludwig T,
    6. Zhao Y,
    7. et al.
    Tumor suppression in the absence of p53-mediated cell-cycle arrest, apoptosis, and senescence. Cell 2012;149:1269–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Vlahos R,
    2. Bozinovski S,
    3. Jones JE,
    4. Powell J,
    5. Gras J,
    6. Lilja A,
    7. et al.
    Differential protease, innate immunity, and NF-kappaB induction profiles during lung inflammation induced by subchronic cigarette smoke exposure in mice. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2006;290:L931–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Takahashi H,
    2. Ogata H,
    3. Nishigaki R,
    4. Broide DH,
    5. Karin M
    . Tobacco smoke promotes lung tumorigenesis by triggering IKKbeta- and JNK1-dependent inflammation. Cancer Cell 2010;17:89–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Meylan E,
    2. Dooley AL,
    3. Feldser DM,
    4. Shen L,
    5. Turk E,
    6. Ouyang C,
    7. et al.
    Requirement for NF-kappaB signalling in a mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature 2009;462:104–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Xue W,
    2. Meylan E,
    3. Oliver TG,
    4. Feldser DM,
    5. Winslow MM,
    6. Bronson R,
    7. et al.
    Response and resistance to NF-kappaB inhibitors in mouse models of lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Discov 2011;1:236–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Muller PA,
    2. Vousden KH
    . p53 mutations in cancer. Nat Cell Biol 2013;15:2–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Gaiddon C,
    2. Lokshin M,
    3. Ahn J,
    4. Zhang T,
    5. Prives C
    . 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 2001;21:1874–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Barrett LA,
    2. McDowell EM,
    3. Frank AL,
    4. Harris CC,
    5. Trump BF
    . Long-term organ culture of human bronchial epithelium. Cancer Res 1976;36:1003–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Lechner JF,
    2. Haugen A,
    3. Autrup H,
    4. McClendon IA,
    5. Trump BF,
    6. Harris CC
    . Clonal growth of epithelial cells from normal adult human bronchus. Cancer Res 1981;41:2294–304.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Reddel RR,
    2. Ke Y,
    3. Gerwin BI,
    4. McMenamin MG,
    5. Lechner JF,
    6. Su RT,
    7. et al.
    Transformation of human bronchial epithelial cells by infection with SV40 or adenovirus-12 SV40 hybrid virus, or transfection via strontium phosphate coprecipitation with a plasmid containing SV40 early region genes. Cancer Res 1988;48:1904–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Harris CC,
    2. Autrup H,
    3. Connor R,
    4. Barrett LA,
    5. McDowell EM,
    6. Trump BF
    . Interindividual variation in binding of benzo[a]pyrene to DNA in cultured human bronchi. Science 1976;194:1067–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Klein-Szanto AJ,
    2. Iizasa T,
    3. Momiki S,
    4. Garcia-Palazzo I,
    5. Caamano J,
    6. Metcalf R,
    7. et al.
    A tobacco-specific N-nitrosamine or cigarette smoke condensate causes neoplastic transformation of xenotransplanted human bronchial epithelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:6693–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Willey JC,
    2. Grafstrom RC,
    3. Moser CE Jr.,
    4. Ozanne C,
    5. Sundquvist K,
    6. Harris CC
    . Biochemical and morphological effects of cigarette smoke condensate and its fractions on normal human bronchial epithelial cells in vitro. Cancer Res 1987;47:2045–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Ramirez RD,
    2. Sheridan S,
    3. Girard L,
    4. Sato M,
    5. Kim Y,
    6. Pollack J,
    7. et al.
    Immortalization of human bronchial epithelial cells in the absence of viral oncoproteins. Cancer Res 2004;64:9027–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Sato M,
    2. Larsen JE,
    3. Lee W,
    4. Sun H,
    5. Shames DS,
    6. Dalvi MP,
    7. et al.
    Human lung epithelial cells progressed to malignancy through specific oncogenic manipulations. Mol Cancer Res 2013;11:638–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Sato M,
    2. Vaughan MB,
    3. Girard L,
    4. Peyton M,
    5. Lee W,
    6. Shames DS,
    7. et al.
    Multiple oncogenic changes (K-RAS(V12), p53 knockdown, mutant EGFRs, p16 bypass, telomerase) are not sufficient to confer a full malignant phenotype on human bronchial epithelial cells. Cancer Res 2006;66:2116–28.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Lavigueur A,
    2. Maltby V,
    3. Mock D,
    4. Rossant J,
    5. Pawson T,
    6. Bernstein A
    . High incidence of lung, bone, and lymphoid tumors in transgenic mice overexpressing mutant alleles of the p53 oncogene. Mol Cell Biol 1989;9:3982–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Donehower LA,
    2. Harvey M,
    3. Slagle BL,
    4. McArthur MJ,
    5. Montgomery CA Jr.,
    6. Butel JS,
    7. et al.
    Mice deficient for p53 are developmentally normal but susceptible to spontaneous tumours. Nature 1992;356:215–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Kemp CJ,
    2. Donehower LA,
    3. Bradley A,
    4. Balmain A
    . Reduction of p53 gene dosage does not increase initiation or promotion but enhances malignant progression of chemically induced skin tumors. Cell 1993;74:813–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Lee JM,
    2. Abrahamson JL,
    3. Kandel R,
    4. Donehower LA,
    5. Bernstein A
    . Susceptibility to radiation-carcinogenesis and accumulation of chromosomal breakage in p53 deficient mice. Oncogene 1994;9:3731–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Harvey M,
    2. Vogel H,
    3. Morris D,
    4. Bradley A,
    5. Bernstein A,
    6. Donehower LA
    . A mutant p53 transgene accelerates tumour development in heterozygous but not nullizygous p53-deficient mice. Nat Genet 1995;9:305–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Gouyer V,
    2. Gazzéri S,
    3. Bolon I,
    4. Drevet C,
    5. Brambilla C,
    6. Brambilla E
    . Mechanism of retinoblastoma gene inactivation in the spectrum of neuroendocrine lung tumors. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1998;18:188–96.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Meuwissen R,
    2. Linn SC,
    3. Linnoila RI,
    4. Zevenhoven J,
    5. Mooi WJ,
    6. Berns A
    . Induction of small cell lung cancer by somatic inactivation of both Trp53 and Rb1 in a conditional mouse model. Cancer Cell 2003;4:181–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Williams BO,
    2. Remington L,
    3. Albert DM,
    4. Mukai S,
    5. Bronson RT,
    6. Jacks T
    . Cooperative tumorigenic effects of germline mutations in Rb and p53. Nat Genet 1994;7:480–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Jackson EL,
    2. Willis N,
    3. Mercer K,
    4. Bronson RT,
    5. Crowley D,
    6. Montoya R,
    7. et al.
    Analysis of lung tumor initiation and progression using conditional expression of oncogenic K-ras. Genes Dev 2001;15:3243–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. 62.↵
    1. Johnson L,
    2. Mercer K,
    3. Greenbaum D,
    4. Bronson RT,
    5. Crowley D,
    6. Tuveson DA,
    7. et al.
    Somatic activation of the K-ras oncogene causes early onset lung cancer in mice. Nature 2001;410:1111–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.↵
    1. Meuwissen R,
    2. Linn SC,
    3. van der Valk M,
    4. Mooi WJ,
    5. Berns A
    . Mouse model for lung tumorigenesis through Cre/lox controlled sporadic activation of the K-Ras oncogene. Oncogene 2001;20:6551–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Jackson EL,
    2. Olive KP,
    3. Tuveson DA,
    4. Bronson R,
    5. Crowley D,
    6. Brown M,
    7. et al.
    The differential effects of mutant p53 alleles on advanced murine lung cancer. Cancer Res 2005;65:10280–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Zheng S,
    2. El-Naggar AK,
    3. Kim ES,
    4. Kurie JM,
    5. Lozano G
    . A genetic mouse model for metastatic lung cancer with gender differences in survival. Oncogene 2007;26:6896–904.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Di Como CJ,
    2. Gaiddon C,
    3. Prives C
    . p73 function is inhibited by tumor-derived p53 mutants in mammalian cells. Mol Cell Biol 1999;19:1438–49.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Lang GA,
    2. Iwakuma T,
    3. Suh YA,
    4. Liu G,
    5. Rao VA,
    6. Parant JM,
    7. et al.
    Gain of function of a p53 hot spot mutation in a mouse model of Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Cell 2004;119:861–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Olive KP,
    2. Tuveson DA,
    3. Ruhe ZC,
    4. Yin B,
    5. Willis NA,
    6. Bronson RT,
    7. et al.
    Mutant p53 gain of function in two mouse models of Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Cell 2004;119:847–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Flores ER,
    2. Sengupta S,
    3. Miller JB,
    4. Newman JJ,
    5. Bronson R,
    6. Crowley D,
    7. et al.
    Tumor predisposition in mice mutant for p63 and p73: evidence for broader tumor suppressor functions for the p53 family. Cancer Cell 2005;7:363–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    1. Flores ER,
    2. Tsai KY,
    3. Crowley D,
    4. Sengupta S,
    5. Yang A,
    6. McKeon F,
    7. et al.
    p63 and p73 are required for p53-dependent apoptosis in response to DNA damage. Nature 2002;416:560–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Gibbons DL,
    2. Lin W,
    3. Creighton CJ,
    4. Zheng S,
    5. Berel D,
    6. Yang Y,
    7. et al.
    Expression signatures of metastatic capacity in a genetic mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS ONE 2009;4:e5401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Winslow MM,
    2. Dayton TL,
    3. Verhaak RG,
    4. Kim-Kiselak C,
    5. Snyder EL,
    6. Feldser DM,
    7. et al.
    Suppression of lung adenocarcinoma progression by Nkx2-1. Nature 2011;473:101–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Gibbons DL,
    2. Lin W,
    3. Creighton CJ,
    4. Rizvi ZH,
    5. Gregory PA,
    6. Goodall GJ,
    7. et al.
    Contextual extracellular cues promote tumor cell EMT and metastasis by regulating miR-200 family expression. Genes Dev 2009;23:2140–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. 74.↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Ahn YH,
    3. Gibbons DL,
    4. Zang Y,
    5. Lin W,
    6. Thilaganathan N,
    7. et al.
    The Notch ligand Jagged2 promotes lung adenocarcinoma metastasis through a miR-200-dependent pathway in mice. J Clin Invest 2011;121:1373–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Schliekelman MJ,
    2. Gibbons DL,
    3. Faca VM,
    4. Creighton CJ,
    5. Rizvi ZH,
    6. Zhang Q,
    7. et al.
    Targets of the tumor suppressor miR-200 in regulation of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer. Cancer Res 2011;71:7670–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Pecot CV,
    2. Rupaimoole R,
    3. Yang D,
    4. Akbani R,
    5. Ivan C,
    6. Lu C,
    7. et al.
    Tumour angiogenesis regulation by the miR-200 family. Nat Commun 2013;4:2427.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Ahn YH,
    2. Gibbons DL,
    3. Chakravarti D,
    4. Creighton CJ,
    5. Rizvi ZH,
    6. Adams HP,
    7. et al.
    ZEB1 drives prometastatic actin cytoskeletal remodeling by downregulating miR-34a expression. J Clin Invest 2012;122:3170–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Kasinski AL,
    2. Slack FJ
    . miRNA-34 prevents cancer initiation and progression in a therapeutically resistant K-ras and p53-induced mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2012;72:5576–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Tellez CS,
    2. Juri DE,
    3. Do K,
    4. Bernauer AM,
    5. Thomas CL,
    6. Damiani LA,
    7. et al.
    EMT and stem cell-like properties associated with miR-205 and miR-200 epigenetic silencing are early manifestations during carcinogen-induced transformation of human lung epithelial cells. Cancer Res 2011;71:3087–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Mitsudomi T,
    2. Hamajima N,
    3. Ogawa M,
    4. Takahashi T
    . Prognostic significance of p53 alterations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:4055–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    1. Graziano SL,
    2. Gu L,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Tatum AH,
    5. Vollmer RT,
    6. Strauss GM,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic significance of mucin and p53 expression in stage IB non-small cell lung cancer: a laboratory companion study to CALGB 9633. J Thorac Oncol 2010;5:810–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Tsao MS,
    2. Aviel-Ronen S,
    3. Ding K,
    4. Lau D,
    5. Liu N,
    6. Sakurada A,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic and predictive importance of p53 and RAS for adjuvant chemotherapy in non small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5240–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  83. 83.↵
    1. Christophorou MA,
    2. Martin-Zanca D,
    3. Soucek L,
    4. Lawlor ER,
    5. Brown-Swigart L,
    6. Verschuren EW,
    7. et al.
    Temporal dissection of p53 function in vitro and in vivo. Nat Genet 2005;37:718–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Ventura A,
    2. Kirsch DG,
    3. McLaughlin ME,
    4. Tuveson DA,
    5. Grimm J,
    6. Lintault L,
    7. et al.
    Restoration of p53 function leads to tumour regression in vivo. Nature 2007;445:661–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Xue W,
    2. Zender L,
    3. Miething C,
    4. Dickins RA,
    5. Hernando E,
    6. Krizhanovsky V,
    7. et al.
    Senescence and tumour clearance is triggered by p53 restoration in murine liver carcinomas. Nature 2007;445:656–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Feldser DM,
    2. Kostova KK,
    3. Winslow MM,
    4. Taylor SE,
    5. Cashman C,
    6. Whittaker CA,
    7. et al.
    Stage-specific sensitivity to p53 restoration during lung cancer progression. Nature 2010;468:572–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Junttila MR,
    2. Karnezis AN,
    3. Garcia D,
    4. Madriles F,
    5. Kortlever RM,
    6. Rostker F,
    7. et al.
    Selective activation of p53-mediated tumour suppression in high-grade tumours. Nature 2010;468:567–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Suh YA,
    3. Fuller MY,
    4. Jackson JG,
    5. Xiong S,
    6. Terzian T,
    7. et al.
    Restoring expression of wild-type p53 suppresses tumor growth but does not cause tumor regression in mice with a p53 missense mutation. J Clin Invest 2011;121:893–904.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Chen Z,
    2. Cheng K,
    3. Walton Z,
    4. Wang Y,
    5. Ebi H,
    6. Shimamura T,
    7. et al.
    A murine lung cancer co-clinical trial identifies genetic modifiers of therapeutic response. Nature 2012;483:613–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Lowe SW,
    2. Bodis S,
    3. McClatchey A,
    4. Remington L,
    5. Ruley HE,
    6. Fisher DE,
    7. et al.
    p53 status and the efficacy of cancer therapy in vivo. Science 1994;266:807–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. 91.↵
    1. Lowe SW,
    2. Ruley HE,
    3. Jacks T,
    4. Housman DE
    . p53-dependent apoptosis modulates the cytotoxicity of anticancer agents. Cell 1993;74:957–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Jackson JG,
    2. Pant V,
    3. Li Q,
    4. Chang LL,
    5. Quintás-Cardama A,
    6. Garza D,
    7. et al.
    p53-mediated senescence impairs the apoptotic response to chemotherapy and clinical outcome in breast cancer. Cancer Cell 2012;21:793–806.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Roth JA,
    2. Nguyen D,
    3. Lawrence DD,
    4. Kemp BL,
    5. Carrasco CH,
    6. Ferson DZ,
    7. et al.
    Retrovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer to tumors of patients with lung cancer. Nat Med 1996;2:985–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Schuler M,
    2. Herrmann R,
    3. De Greve JL,
    4. Stewart AK,
    5. Gatzemeier U,
    6. Stewart DJ,
    7. et al.
    Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer in patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1750–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.↵
    1. Vassilev LT,
    2. Vu BT,
    3. Graves B,
    4. Carvajal D,
    5. Podlaski F,
    6. Filipovic Z,
    7. et al.
    In vivo activation of the p53 pathway by small-molecule antagonists of MDM2. Science 2004;303:844–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. 96.↵
    1. Bykov VJ,
    2. Issaeva N,
    3. Shilov A,
    4. Hultcrantz M,
    5. Pugacheva E,
    6. Chumakov P,
    7. et al.
    Restoration of the tumor suppressor function to mutant p53 by a low-molecular-weight compound. Nat Med 2002;8:282–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    1. Lehmann S,
    2. Bykov VJ,
    3. Ali D,
    4. Andrén O,
    5. Cherif H,
    6. Tidefelt U,
    7. et al.
    Targeting p53 in vivo: a first-in-human study with p53-targeting compound APR-246 in refractory hematologic malignancies and prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3633–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    1. Kravchenko JE,
    2. Ilyinskaya GV,
    3. Komarov PG,
    4. Agapova LS,
    5. Kochetkov DV,
    6. Strom E,
    7. et al.
    Small-molecule RETRA suppresses mutant p53-bearing cancer cells through a p73-dependent salvage pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:6302–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Molecular Cancer Research: 12 (1)
January 2014
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Molecular Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Smoking, p53 Mutation, and Lung Cancer
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Smoking, p53 Mutation, and Lung Cancer
Don L. Gibbons, Lauren A. Byers and Jonathan M. Kurie
Mol Cancer Res January 1 2014 (12) (1) 3-13; DOI: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0539

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Smoking, p53 Mutation, and Lung Cancer
Don L. Gibbons, Lauren A. Byers and Jonathan M. Kurie
Mol Cancer Res January 1 2014 (12) (1) 3-13; DOI: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0539
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Perspective and Conclusions
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • O-GlcNAc Transferase—Oncogene or Not?
  • BTK for COVID-19 Treatment
  • MEK/ERK Network as a Therapeutic Target
Show more Reviews
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Rapid Impact Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Information for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About MCR

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Molecular Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3125
ISSN: 1541-7786

Advertisement