↓ Skip to main content

p53 Binds to and Is Required for the Repression of Arf Tumor Suppressor by HDAC and Polycomb

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Research, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
p53 Binds to and Is Required for the Repression of Arf Tumor Suppressor by HDAC and Polycomb
Published in
Cancer Research, March 2011
DOI 10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-3483
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yaxue Zeng, Yojiro Kotake, Xin-Hai Pei, Matthew D. Smith, Yue Xiong

Abstract

The expression of tumor suppressor Arf is tightly repressed during normal cell growth at a young age and is activated by oncogenic insults, and during aging, results in p53 activation and cell-cycle arrest to prevent hyperproliferation. The mechanisms of both transcriptional repression and activation of Arf are not understood. We show that p53 binds to and represses Arf expression and that this repression requires the function of both histone deacetylases (HDAC) and polycomb group (PcG) proteins. Inactivation of p53 leads to increased Arf transcription in both mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) cultured in vitro and in tissues and organs of p53 null mice. Activation of endogenous p53 enhances Arf repression, and reintroduction of p53 back into p53 null MEFs restores Arf repression. Both DNA binding and transactivation activities of p53 are required for Arf repression. We show that p53 is required for both HDAC and PcG to repress Arf expression. Bindings of both HDAC and PcG to Arf are disrupted by inactivation of p53 and can be restored in p53 null MEFs by the reintroduction of wild-type, but not mutant, p53. These results indicate that p53 recruits both HDAC and PcG to Arf locus to repress its expression, and this repression constitutes a second feedback loop in p53 regulation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 13 27%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Unspecified 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2011.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Research
#14,374
of 17,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,078
of 109,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Research
#198
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,829 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,276 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.