Skip Navigation


Mutagenesis Advance Access originally published online on November 13, 2007
Mutagenesis 2008 23(1):43-50; doi:10.1093/mutage/gem041
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
23/1/43    most recent
gem041v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bhana, S.
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bhana, S.
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, D. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the UK Environmental Mutagen Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

The role of p53 in DNA damage-mediated cytotoxicity overrides its ability to regulate nucleotide excision repair in human fibroblasts

Sara Bhana and Daniel R. Lloyd*

Department of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NJ, UK

The p53 tumour suppressor protein plays a pivotal role in the response of mammalian cells to DNA damage. In addition to its regulatory role in cell cycle progression, p53 regulates apoptosis and can therefore influence cellular survival in response to DNA damage. More recent work has revealed that p53 is also involved in the nucleotide excision repair (NER) of structurally diverse types of DNA damage. The relative influence of p53 on NER and cellular sensitivity to DNA damage was investigated in this study using cells that differ in p53 status. Two cell models were selected: 041 TR fibroblasts in which the expression of p53 is regulated by a tetracycline-inducible promoter, and WI38 primary lung fibroblasts together with their isogenic derivative VA13, in which p53 is abrogated post-translationally by SV40 transformation. Cells were exposed to the clinically and environmentally relevant DNA-damaging agents cisplatin (0–5 µM, 2 h), (±)-anti-benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide (0–0.5 µM, 30 min) and UV-C (0–5 J/m2), each of which induce structurally distinct types of DNA damage known to be subject to p53-dependent NER. Sensitivity of the p53-proficient and p53-deficient cells to this DNA damage was then compared at each dose of DNA-damaging agent using the clonogenic survival assay and the colorimetric MTT assay. p53-proficient cells were more sensitive than p53-deficient cells to cisplatin, (±)-anti-benzo(a)pyrene-7,8-dihydrodiol-9,10-epoxide and UV-C; these differences in cellular sensitivity were more apparent in the 041 TR cells (up to 3.6-, 5.8- and 1.9-fold, respectively) than the WI38/VA13 cells (up to 2.3-, 1.4- and 1.4-fold, respectively). Thus, despite the well-documented persistence of DNA damage in p53-deficient fibroblasts due to impaired NER, loss of p53 results in reduced DNA damage-mediated cytotoxicity.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 01227 827357; Fax: 01227 763912; Email: D.Lloyd{at}kent.ac.uk

Received on April 26, 2007; revised on August 20, 2007; accepted on September 19, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
MutagenesisHome page
S. Bhana, A. Hewer, D. H. Phillips, and D. R. Lloyd
p53-dependent global nucleotide excision repair of cisplatin-induced intrastrand cross links in human cells
Mutagenesis, March 1, 2008; 23(2): 131 - 136.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.