UTR Interactions Regulate P53 Mrna Translation and Provide a Target for Modulating P53 Induction After DNA Damage
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on October 4, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 59–39-UTR interactions regulate p53 mRNA translation and provide a target for modulating p53 induction after DNA damage Jing Chen and Michael B. Kastan1 Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee 38105, USA Optimal induction of p53 protein after DNA damage requires RPL26-mediated increases in p53 mRNA translation. We report here the existence of a dsRNA region containing complementary sequences of the 59- and 39-untranslated regions (UTRs) of human p53 mRNA that is critical for its translational regulation by RPL26. Mutating as few as 3 bases in either of the two complementary UTR sequences abrogates the ability of RPL26 to bind to p53 mRNA and stimulate p53 translation, while compensatory mutations restore this binding and regulation. Short, single-strand oligonucleotides that target this 59–39-UTR base-pairing region blunt the binding of RPL26 to p53 mRNA in cells and reduce p53 induction and p53-mediated cell death after several different types of DNA damage and cellular stress. The ability to reduce stress induction of p53 with oligonucleotides or other small molecules has numerous potential therapeutic uses. [Keywords: p53; translational control; DNA damage; cytoprotection] Supplemental material is available at http://www.genesdev.org. Received July 12, 2010; revised version accepted August 12, 2010. Cellular DNA is constantly damaged by endogenous mol- physiological and pathological processes (Levine and Oren ecules, such as reactive oxygen species, and exogenous 2009). Levels of p53 protein increase in cells following sources, including natural or man-made chemicals and exposure to DNA damage and other stresses, leading to radiation. Effective responses to such damage are critical cellular responses such as cell cycle arrest or programmed to reduce disease burden, including cancer development. cell death (Kastan and Bartek 2004). An ability to modulate The high incidence of cancer seen in individuals who stress induction of p53 in tumor cells or normal cells could inherit mutations in genes involved in DNA damage prove to be useful in various clinical settings. responses—such as ATM, p53, BRCA1, and BRCA2—un- Increases in p53 protein levels after DNA damage have derscores the important role that such responses play in been largely attributed to increases in the half-life of p53 tumorigenesis (Kastan and Bartek 2004). In addition, since protein. Proteasome-mediated degradation of p53 protein most current cancer therapeutics target cellular DNA, regulated by the E3–ubiquitin ligase Mdm2 helps maintain cellular responses to DNA damage are also critical de- low levels of p53 protein in nonstressed cells (Haupt et al. terminants of both tumor responses to therapy and the side 1997; Honda et al. 1997; Kubbutat et al. 1997). Cellular effects of cancer treatments. The p53 gene product is exposure to DNA damage results in an inhibition of particularly important in this regard, since the gene is Mdm2-mediated degradation of p53 protein, contributing mutated in >50% of sporadic human tumors, and inher- to an increase in p53 protein half-life and increased cellular itance of germline p53 mutations leads to a profound sus- levels of p53 protein (Ashcroft and Vousden 1999; Wade ceptibility to cancer development (Malkin et al. 1990; et al. 2010). We reported recently that increased translation Levine 1997; Olivier et al. 2010). p53 protein transcription- of p53 mRNA is also a requisite step for optimal p53 ally regulates a complex network of genes involved in induction following DNA damage (Takagi et al. 2005). In tumor suppression, metabolism, autophagy, and various particular, we found that RPL26 protein binds to the 59-untranslated region (UTR) of p53 mRNA after DNA dam- age, enhances the association of p53 mRNA with heavy 1Corresponding author. polysomes, and increases the translation of p53 mRNA. E-MAIL [email protected]; FAX (901) 595-3966. Article published online ahead of print. Article and publication date are Furthermore, the Mdm2–p53 feedback loop, which regu- online at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.1968910. lates p53 levels after DNA damage (Levine 1997; Prives 2146 GENES & DEVELOPMENT 24:2146–2156 Ó 2010 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press ISSN 0890-9369/10; www.genesdev.org Downloaded from genesdev.cshlp.org on October 4, 2021 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Modulation of p53 translation 1998; Michael and Oren 2003), also appears to involve To determine if such a 59–39-UTR dsRNA structure Mdm2–RPL26 interactions, which affect p53 translation existed in p53 mRNA, human p53 mRNA was probed (Ofir-Rosenfeld et al. 2008). Down-regulation of RPL26 with single-strand-specific (RNases A and T1) and double- protein levels with siRNA not only reduces the increases strand-specific (RNase V1) RNase enzymes. RNase A in p53 translation seen after DNA damage, it also reduces specifically recognizes ssRNA and cuts at the 39 side of increases in total p53 protein levels and cell death after C/U bases, while RNase T1 cuts at the 39 side of G bases in DNA damage (Takagi et al. 2005). Thus, blockade of ssRNA. The vast majority of cellular p53 mRNA contains RPL26-mediated translational induction of p53 is sufficient 59-UTRs with 140–170 bases (Takagi et al. 2005), so a p53 to reduce p53 induction and p53-mediated cell death. mRNA containing 145 bases of the 59-UTR and either We report here that translation of human p53 mRNA containing or lacking a full-length 39-UTR was transcribed is regulated by base-pairing interactions between 59- and in vitro, end-labeled at the 59 end with 32P, and digested 39-UTR sequences. Mutations that disrupt the interaction with RNase A or RNase T1. RNase A treatment of an end- abolish the binding of RPL26 to human p53 mRNA and labeled p53 mRNA lacking a 39-UTR resulted in a prom- diminish RPL26-dependent p53 induction. Compensatory inent band migrating at a molecular weight consistent with mutations that restore this UTR interaction rescue the cutting next to the uridine at position À36 in the 59-UTR RPL26 binding as well as translational regulation of p53 by [U(À36)] (Fig. 1C [lane 6], D [lanes 1,3]; Supplemental Fig. RPL26. Small, single-strand oligonucleotides containing S2). In contrast, RNase A failed to cut at this 59-UTR site critical sequences from this RNA interaction region in- (Fig. 1D, lane 5) if the RNA lacking the 39-UTR was hibit the binding of RPL26 to p53 mRNA and blunt p53 mutated at U(À36) (UGG to AAA, À36 to À34) (Fig. 1B, induction after exposure of cells to a variety of DNA- 59-UTR mutation/5M), thus confirming this as the site damaging agents. These observations demonstrate a novel of RNase A cutting. Addition of a full-length 39-UTR se- mechanism of regulating cellular protein levels and quence to the p53 mRNA blocked RNase A cutting at provide a reagent (oligonucleotides) that can be used to U(À36) (Fig. 1C, lane 7), consistent with the appearance of modulate stress induction of p53 in cells—a potentially a dsRNA structure at this 59-UTR site when the 39-UTR is clinically useful intervention. These mechanistic insights included in the p53 mRNA. Interestingly, a new prominent also set the stage for identifying small molecules other than band appeared when the full-length, wild-type p53 mRNA oligonucleotides that could modulate p53 induction by was digested with the C/U-directed, single-strand-specific targeting this mechanism. RNase A (Fig. 1C, lane 7, band noted by arrowhead). This new band runs at a size consistent with cutting at the Results C/U(À52/À49) sites in the putative double-strand region, the unpaired bases in this 21-base 59-UTR region (Fig. 1B). p53 mRNA contains a dsRNA structure Mutating as few as 3 bases in the predicted interacting with base-pairing between the 59- and 39-UTRs region of the 39-UTR, which should disrupt the base- RPL26 stimulation of p53 translation requires the 59-UTR, pairing of the two UTRs at this site, was sufficient to but not the coding sequence, of p53 mRNA (Takagi et al. partially restore RNase A cutting at U(À36) (Fig. 1C, lane 2005; Ofir-Rosenfeld et al. 2008). This 59-UTR translational 8). RNase A cutting at U(À36) of a p53 mRNA lacking dependence was recapitulated by a cell-based, dual-lucifer- a39-UTR could even be abrogated by simple addition of ase reporter assay, in which RPL26 selectively enhanced a DNA oligonucleotide complementary to the predicted the expression level of a chimera firefly luciferase reporter 59-UTR-interacting region (Fig. 1D, lane 2), as would be gene containing a 59-UTR sequence of human p53 mRNA expected from the creation of a double-strand structure at relative to the expression of the internal control renilla this site. Importantly, addition of a control oligonucleo- luciferase gene (Fig. 1A). Unexpectedly, adding the 39-UTR tide that would not pair with this 59-UTR region failed sequence of human p53 mRNA further enhanced RPL26 to abrogate RNase A cutting at this site in the p53 mRNA stimulation of firefly luciferase expression (Fig. 1A). This lacking the 39-UTR (Fig. 1D, lane 4). observation raised the question of why RPL26 stimulation Digestion of the various p53 mRNA species with the would simultaneously require both UTR sequences, so other single-strand-specific RNase, the G-directed RNase mathematical modeling of the p53 mRNA structure was T1 enzyme, gave similar results, cutting both a p53 mRNA performed using an RNAfold program (http://www.tbi. lacking the 39-UTR and a full-length p53 mRNA mutated univie.ac.at/RNA) to predict the minimum free energy at the 39-UTR-interacting site at G(À34/À35) (Fig.