Mathematical model identifies effective P53 accumulation with target gene binding affinity in DNA damage response for cell fate decision

References

• Purvis JE, Lahav G. Encoding and decoding cellular information through signaling dynamics. Cell. 2013;152(5):945–956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sims RJ 3rd, Reinberg D. Is there a code embedded in proteins that is based on post-translational modifications? Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9(10):815–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vishwanath S, Sukhwal A, Sowdhamini R, et al. Specificity and stability of transient protein-protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2017;44:77–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purvis JE, Karhohs KW, Mock C, et al. p53 dynamics control cell fate. Science. 2012;336(6087):1440–1444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legewie S, Herzel H, Westerhoff HV, et al. Recurrent design patterns in the feedback regulation of the mammalian signalling network. Mol Syst Biol. 2008;4:190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zlotorynski E. Cancer biology: A neat target of p53. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017;18(9):532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joerger AC, Fersht AR. The p53 pathway: origins, inactivation in cancer, and emerging therapeutic approaches. Annu Rev Biochem. 2016;85:375–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris SL, Levine AJ. The p53 pathway: positive and negative feedback loops. Oncogene. 2005;24(17):2899–2908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park JH, Yang SW, Park JM, et al. Positive feedback regulation of p53 transactivity by DNA damage-induced ISG15 modification. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu R, Kang W, Yang X, et al. USP49 participates in the DNA damage response by forming a positive feedback loop with p53. Cell Death Dis. 2018;9(5):553.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen X, Chen J, Gan S, et al. DNA damage strength modulates a bimodal switch of p53 dynamics for cell-fate control. BMC Biol. 2013;11:73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewer A, Karanam K, Mock C, et al. The p53 response in single cells is linearly correlated to the number of DNA breaks without a distinct threshold. BMC Biol. 2013;11:114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu M, Ye H, Tang Z, et al. p53 dynamics orchestrates with binding affinity to target genes for cell fate decision. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8(10):e3130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loewer A, Batchelor E, Gaglia G, et al. Basal dynamics of p53 reveal transcriptionally attenuated pulses in cycling cells. Cell. 2010;142(1):89–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gajjar M, Candeias MM, Malbert-Colas L, et al. The p53 mRNA-Mdm2 interaction controls Mdm2 nuclear trafficking and is required for p53 activation following DNA damage. Cancer Cell. 2012;21(1):25–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geva-Zatorsky N, Rosenfeld N, Itzkovitz S, et al. Oscillations and variability in the p53 system. Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2:0033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batchelor E, Loewer A, Mock C, et al. Stimulus-dependent dynamics of p53 in single cells. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7:488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiel C, Serrano L. Cell type-specific importance of ras-c-raf complex association rate constants for MAPK signaling. Sci Signal. 2009;2(81):ra38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colman-Lerner A, Gordon A, Serra E, et al. Regulated cell-to-cell variation in a cell-fate decision system. Nature. 2005;437(7059):699–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang XP, Liu F, Wang W. Two-phase dynamics of p53 in the DNA damage response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(22):8990–8995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner A, Stewart-Ornstein J, Purvis JE, et al. p53 pulses lead to distinct patterns of gene expression albeit similar DNA-binding dynamics. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2017;24(10):840–847.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robles AI, Bemmels NA, Foraker AB, et al. APAF-1 is a transcriptional target of p53 in DNA damage-induced apoptosis. Cancer Res. 2001;61(18):6660–6664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao X, Deng X, May WS. Cleavage of Bax to p18 Bax accelerates stress-induced apoptosis, and a cathepsin-like protease may rapidly degrade p18 Bax. Blood. 2003;102(7):2605–2614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veprintsev DB, Fersht AR. Algorithm for prediction of tumour suppressor p53 affinity for binding sites in DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36(5):1589–1598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strasen J, Sarma U, Jentsch M, et al. Cell-specific responses to the cytokine TGFbeta are determined by variability in protein levels. Mol Syst Biol. 2018;14(1):e7733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensimon A, Schmidt A, Ziv Y, et al. ATM-dependent and -independent dynamics of the nuclear phosphoproteome after DNA damage. Sci Signal. 2010;3(151):rs3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sionov RV, Coen S, Goldberg Z, et al. c-Abl regulates p53 levels under normal and stress conditions by preventing its nuclear export and ubiquitination. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21(17):5869–5878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade M, Wang YV, Wahl GM. The p53 orchestra: mdm2 and Mdmx set the tone. Trends Cell Biol. 2010;20(5):299–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theon AP, Pusterla N, Magdesian KG, et al. A pilot phase II study of the efficacy and biosafety of doxorubicin chemotherapy in tumor-bearing equidae. J Vet Intern Med. 2013;27(6):1581–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka T, Halicka HD, Traganos F, et al. Induction of ATM activation, histone H2AX phosphorylation and apoptosis by etoposide: relation to cell cycle phase. Cell Cycle. 2007;6(3):371–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirai Y, Hayashi T, Kubo Y, et al. X-irradiation induces up-regulation of ATM gene expression in wild-type lymphoblastoid cell lines, but not in their heterozygous or homozygous ataxia-telangiectasia counterparts. Jpn J Cancer Res. 2001;92(6):710–717.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meek DW, Knippschild U. Posttransiational modification of MDM2. Mol Cancer Res. 2003;1(14):1017–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu B, Zhu WG. Surf the post-translational modification network of p53 regulation. Int J Biol Sci. 2012;8(5):672–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahav G. Oscillations by the p53-Mdm2 feedback loop. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008;641:28–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batchelor E, Mock CS, Bhan I, et al. Recurrent initiation: a mechanism for triggering p53 pulses in response to DNA damage. Mol Cell. 2008;30(3):277–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun T, Cui J. A plausible model for bimodal p53 switch in DNA damage response. FEBS Lett. 2014;588(5):815–821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai X, Yuan ZM. Stochastic modeling and simulation of the p53-MDM2/MDMX loop. J Comput Biol. 2009;16(7):917–933.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsing A, Faller DV, Vaziri C. DNA-damaging aryl hydrocarbons induce Mdm2 expression via p53-independent post-transcriptional mechanisms. J Biol Chem. 2000;275(34):26024–26031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendrysa SM, McElwee MK, Perry ME. Characterization of the 5ʹ and 3ʹ untranslated regions in murine mdm2 mRNAs. Gene. 2001;264(1):139–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma L, Wagner J, Rice JJ, et al. A plausible model for the digital response of p53 to DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(40):14266–14271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stommel JM, Wahl GM. Accelerated MDM2 auto-degradation induced by DNA-damage kinases is required for p53 activation. Embo J. 2004;23(7):1547–1556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong KH, Samarasinghe S, Kulasiri D. Mathematical modelling of p53 basal dynamics and DNA damage response. Math Biosci. 2015;259:27–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun T, Li X, Shen P. Modeling amplified p53 responses under DNA-PK inhibition in DNA damage response. Oncotarget. 2017;8(10):17105–17114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ludtke N, Panzeri S, Brown M, et al. Information-theoretic sensitivity analysis: a general method for credit assignment in complex networks. J R Soc Interface. 2008;5(19):223–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterjee A, Vlachos DG, Katsoulakis MA. Binomial distribution based tau-leap accelerated stochastic simulation. J Chem Phys. 2005;122(2):403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leier A, Marquez-Lago TT, Burrage K. Generalized binomial tau-leap method for biochemical kinetics incorporating both delay and intrinsic noise. J Chem Phys. 2008;128(20):05B623–E.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raj A, Peskin CS, Tranchina D, et al. Stochastic mRNA synthesis in mammalian cells. Plos Biol. 2006;4(10):1707–1719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun T, Lin X, Wei Y, et al. Evaluating bistability of bax activation switch. FEBS Lett. 2010;584(5):954–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar