This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alsner, J. Articles by Overgaard, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Alsner, J. Articles by Overgaard, J.

Heterogeneity in the Clinical Phenotype of TP53 Mutations in Breast Cancer Patients¹

Danish Cancer Society, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8000 Aarhus C [J. A., J. O.]; Department of Tumour Cell Biology, Institute of Cancer Biology, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø [P. G.]; and Departments of Oncology [M. Y.] and Human Genetics [L. L. H.], Aarhus University Hospital, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

	ABSTRACT

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
TP53 mutation is a strong independent marker for survival in breast cancer with some heterogeneity in the clinical phenotype of various types of mutations. Based on 315 patients with breast carcinoma, we suggest a new model for the differentiation of TP53 mutations. Although TP53 mutation in general was associated with aggressive tumor/patient characteristics, missense mutations outside any conserved or structural domain did not affect the clinical outcome (risk of disseminated disease and death). In contrast, patients with missense mutations affecting amino acids directly involved in DNA or zinc binding displayed a very aggressive clinical phenotype. Null mutations (including missense mutations disrupting the tetramerization domain) and the remaining missense mutations displayed an intermediate aggressive clinical phenotype. When patients with primary early breast cancer were divided into three groups (wild-type together with missense mutations outside structural/conserved domains, null mutations and missense mutations with intermediate clinical phenotype, and very aggressive missense mutations), disease-specific survival rates were 89%, 58%, and 35% (5-year actuarial values, P < 0.0001), respectively. In a Cox proportional hazards analysis, separation of TP53 mutations according to these criteria eliminated the prognostic importance of all investigated classical factors except nodal status.

	INTRODUCTION

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
In patients with primary breast cancer, somatic mutation in the p53 gene (TP53) is a strong, independent marker for survival (reviewed in Ref. 1 ). The p53 protein is a multifunctional protein (reviewed in 2 ) containing five domains (I–V) that are highly conserved throughout evolution from invertebrates like the squid to vertebrates like humans (3) . These conserved domains more or less colocalize with the structural domains identified in the X-ray crystallographic study by Cho et al. (4) .

Because different missense mutations (i.e., mutations that cause amino acid substitutions) have different effects on the structure and function of the protein (4) , attempts have been made to correlate clinical outcome with the location of the mutation. Thus, Bergh et al. (5) found that mutations in the conserved domains II and V were associated with significantly worse prognosis. Others have compared mutations affecting different structural domains of p53. Børresen-Dale et al. (6) and Gentile et al. (7) have shown that patients with missense mutations in the parts of the protein involving zinc binding have a particularly poor prognosis. Kucera et al. (8) could not confirm the importance of the zinc-binding domain, and finally, Berns et al. (9) found the poorest prognosis associated with missense mutations affecting amino acids directly involved in DNA contact. Although it is still unclear which mutations are associated with the worst prognosis, these studies have demonstrated a heterogeneity in the clinical phenotype of TP53 mutations in breast cancer. Whereas the aggressive phenotype of certain mutations has been seen, it has also been speculated that there might be other missense mutations that display a clinically "silent" phenotype (10) .

We have previously evaluated 294 patients with primary early breast carcinoma for mutations in TP53 (11) . Among these patients, 69 (23%) carry a sporadic TP53 mutation that is significantly associated with increased risk of distant metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival in both node-negative and node-positive patients. Also, in a Cox proportional hazards analysis, TP53 mutation independently predicts the occurrence of distant metastasis and death (overall survival), with relative risks of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.5–3.9) and 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.7–4.2), respectively (11) .

In the present study, tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of these 294 patients are related to the presence, type, and location of TP53 mutations. Also, we present data on 21 additional patients identified within the same period but presenting with either disseminated or bilateral disease or with other neoplastic disease at the time of diagnosis. We demonstrate that a prediction of biochemical phenotype or aggressiveness of different TP53 mutations correlates with the clinical phenotype (risk of disseminated disease and death).

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Patients and Tumor Samples.
Tumor material was collected between August 1992 and January 1994 from 315 patients with breast cancer for whom complete clinical, histopathological, and biological information as well as a full history of follow-up was available. A total of 294 of these patients had primary unilateral breast carcinoma and showed no evidence of disseminated disease or other neoplastic malignancies at time of diagnosis. Patient and tumor characteristics for these patients are reported elsewhere (11) . Treatment was either lumpectomy or total mastectomy, both of which were associated with axillary dissection and removal of lymph nodes involving level I and partially involving level II. Most patients with advanced disease after total mastectomy and all patients treated by lumpectomy were given adjuvant radiotherapy. Adjuvant systemic hormone and/or chemotherapy were given to all patients at high risk, i.e., with positive axillary nodes and/or other signs of aggressive tumor behavior. The remaining 21 patients excluded from the previous study (11) include 8 patients presenting with disseminated disease, 6 patients with bilateral disease, and 7 patients with other neoplastic diseases when diagnosed with breast cancer, respectively. All patients were treated according to the National Danish treatment policy according to The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperation Group (DBCG 89 protocols; Ref. 11 ).

DGGE Analysis.
DNA was extracted from the pellet left over from estrogen receptor analysis. The quality of DNA from this material has previously been assesed by loss of heterozygosity analysis (12) . The entire coding region and all exon/intron boundaries of TP53 were analyzed by DGGE.³ Twelve sets of primers for amplification and DGGE analysis of exons 2–11 (including overlapping amplicons for exons 4 and 5) have been described previously (13) . Amplification reactions were carried out by 38 rounds of thermal cycling (94°C for 20 s, 62°C for 20 s, and 72°C for 20 s) in final volumes of 15 µl containing 10 mM Tris-HCL (pH 8.3), 50 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl₂, 0.02% gelatin, 0.2 mM cresol red, 12% sucrose, 5% DMSO, 100 µM of each deoxynucleotide triphosphate, 0.6 µM of each primer, 100 ng of DNA, and 0.5 unit of AmpliTaq DNA polymerase (Perkin-Elmer Cetus, Emeryville, CA). For DGGE analysis, PCR products were run on 6% polyacrylamide gels containing various gradients of urea and formamide (100% denaturant consisted of 7 M urea and 40% formamide). As a modification to a previous approach (13) , the gradient ranges were narrowed and adapted to each exon to increase the separation between mutant and wild-type alleles. The gradient ranges were 35–75% for exons 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10; 20–60% for exon 9; 25–65% for exon 6; and 40–80% for exon 5, respectively. The gels were run at 160 V for 5 h in 1x TAE buffer at a constant temperature of 58°C. After electrophoresis, gels were stained in 1x TAE buffer containing 2 µg/ml ethidium bromide and analyzed under UV transillumination. Each sample was analyzed once by DGGE.

DNA Sequencing.
Mutant heteroduplex or homoduplex bands were excised and reamplified as described previously (13) . Sequencing of PCR products was performed either with ³³P-end-labeled primers using the ThermoPrime Cycle Sequencing Kit (Amersham, Cleveland, OH) or with the BigDye DyeTerminator Cycle Sequencing Kit and analyzed on an ABI 310 (Perkin-Elmer Cetus). Only excised bands were sequenced.

Statistics.
A two-sided ² test was used to test for an association between categorial data. The probability of treatment failure was calculated for the end points of freedom from distant metastasis, disease-specific survival (death of cancer), and overall survival by the Kaplan-Meier product-limit analysis. The Mantel-Cox test was used for comparison, and a test for trend with equal weighing was performed if more than two groups were compared. All time estimates were done using the date of primary surgery as the initial value.

A multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to evaluate prognostic parameters with respect to risk of distant metastasis, disease-specific death, and overall death. Parameters were included in the model using forward selection, and statistical analysis was performed by using the Wald test. The level of statistical significance was set to 5%. The Ps estimated are those for a two-tailed test. The statistical analysis was performed using the BMDP program package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

The date for evaluation of disease-specific and overall survival was October 1, 1999. This gives a median potential observation time of 77 months (range, 25–85 months); all patients were followed for at least 60 months, except for one patient who emigrated after 25 months. The median observation time for evaluation of distant metastasis was 60 months (range, 1–79 months).

	RESULTS

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Characterization of TP53 Mutations.
In Fig. 1 , a simplified illustration of the p53 domains is presented. The conserved domains include the following amino acids: (a) 117–142 (domain II); (b) 171–181 (domain III); (c) 234–258 (domain IV); and (d) 270–286 (domain V) (3) . Based on the crystal structure of the human p53 protein, the domains involved in DNA binding and coordination of the zinc molecule have been identified previously (4) . Thus, DNA binding involves the loop-sheet-helix motif [including the L1 loop (amino acids 112–124), the S2-S2' ß-strand (amino acids 124–141), the COOH-terminal part of the S10 ß-strand (amino acids 271–274), amino acids 275–277, and the H2 helix (amino acids 278–286)] together with the L3 loop (236–251). Within these domains, the following amino acids are in direct contact with DNA: (a) Lys-120; (b) Ser-241; (c) Arg-248; (d) Arg-273; (e) Ala-276; (f) Cys-277; (g) Arg-280; and (h) Arg-283. The zinc-binding domain involves the L2 loop (amino acids 163–195) and the L3 loop. Within these domains, Cys-176, His-179, Cys-238, and Cys-242 directly bind the zinc molecule. Finally, the tetramerization domain (amino acids 326–355) includes a ß-strand (amino acids 326–334), a turn (amino acids 335–336), and an -helix (amino acids 337–355) (14) .

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 1. Domain structure of the p53 protein and correlations with the location and number of mutations found in 315 patients with breast cancer.

In Fig. 1 , the location and number of the mutations are illustrated and compared with the domain structure of p53. Six mutations were identified in the tetramerization domain. Four of these were identical nonsense mutations, Q331X. The remaining two mutations consisted of a small in-frame deletion and insertion, respectively. In Fig. 1 , these two mutations are classified as missense mutations. However, because missense mutations in the tetramerization domain can destabilize the protein structure without being dominant negative (15 , 16) , these two in-frame deletion and insertions are also expected to produce a nonfunctional protein and will be included in the null mutations along with the nonsense and frameshift mutations. With this adjustment, the material includes 47 missense mutations (64%) and 27 null mutations (36%). Detailed description of these 74 missense or null mutations and of 1 silent mutation is given in Table 1 , together with the clinical details of the patients.

Analysis of the outcome for the 294 patients with primary unilateral disease who had no evidence of distant metastasis at the time of diagnosis showed distinct clinical phenotypes associated with the proposed grouping of TP53 mutations (Fig. 2) . Thus, 60 months after treatment, disease-specific survival for patients with mutations affecting amino acids directly involved in DNA or zinc binding was only 35% compared with 89% for patients without mutations. Patients with null mutations or with any of the remaining missense mutations within the conserved/structural domains had an intermediate survival of 67% and 48%, respectively. Finally, the disease-specific survival for patients with missense mutations outside the domains was 89%. Similar patterns are found for two other end points, freedom from distant metastasis and overall survival (data not shown).

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 2. Disease-specific survival as a function of TP53 mutation type in 294 patients with primary unilateral breast cancer without distant metastasis or other neoplastic disease at time of diagnosis.

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 3. Freedom from distant metastasis (A), disease-specific survival (B), and overall survival (C) as a function of TP53 mutation types when stratified by TP53 mutation group (WT + Neutral, Aggressive, or Very aggressive) in 294 patients with primary unilateral breast cancer without distant metastasis or other neoplastic disease at time of diagnosis.

	DISCUSSION

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Although biased by the choice of methods (17) , the majority of published missense mutations in TP53 are located within or near the structural domains important for DNA binding and coordination of the zinc molecule (18) . With an unbiased screening of all coding exons, the same pattern is observed here (Fig. 1) .

Previous attempts to link missense mutations in specific domains or residues within this central part of the p53 molecule to clinical outcome for breast cancer patients have yielded contradictory results. Thus, it is not clear whether particularly poor prognosis is correlated with missense mutations in the conserved domains II and V, the L2 and L3 domains, or those amino acids directly involved in DNA contact (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) .

Here, we suggest a new model for the differentiation of TP53 mutations. Null mutations are considered as one group and include traditional nonsense and frameshift mutations. Also, we suggest that missense mutations that are predicted to disrupt the function of the tetramerization domain be classified as null mutations. In the present study, the only two in-frame deletions/insertions identified (Table 1) affect amino acids shown to be essential for tetramerization (15 , 16) . Missense mutations are divided into three groups: (a) a small group containing amino acids directly involved in DNA or zinc binding; (b) a large group containing the remaining missense mutations within the structural/conserved domains (as depicted in Fig. 1 ); and (c) a small group containing all mutations affecting amino acids outside these domains.

When correlated with tumor/patient characteristics like tumor size, estrogen receptor status, nodal status, and (for ductal carcinomas) grade of anaplasia, all four groups of mutations are associated with a more aggressive phenotype than tumors from patients without TP53 mutation (Table 2) . As a point of interest, it has been suggested that medullary carcinoma is a distinct genetic subtype with a very high frequency of TP53 mutations of up to 100% in typical medullary breast carcinoma (19) . The medullary carcinomas in the present study have not been subtyped, but the finding that seven of eight are wild-type for TP53 indicates that this correlation might be less strict.

Although all types of TP53 mutations are associated with an increase in the aggressiveness of the tumor/patient characteristics, different mutations might still be associated with different effects on the ability of the tumor to metastasize and/or the ability to respond to radiation or chemotherapeutic therapy. When TP53 mutation status is correlated with either freedom from distant metastasis, disease-specific survival, or overall survival, a strong association is indeed observed between the different groups of mutations and clinical outcome (Fig. 3) . Thus, optimal separation of prognosis, disease progression, and survival based on TP53 status is obtained by grouping patients into three groups: (a) wild-type + neutral, patients with wild-type tumors together with missense mutations outside structural/conserved domains; (b) very aggressive, patients with missense mutations affecting amino acids directly involved in DNA or zinc binding; and (c) aggressive, patients with the remaining missense mutations and all null mutations. Dividing patients according to other parameters such as the presence of missense mutations in L2/L3 or those affecting DNA binding is also prognostic for the clinical outcome, but not to the same extent as shown in Figs. 2 and 3 (data not shown).

The very poor prognosis for patients with missense mutations affecting amino acids directly involved in DNA or zinc binding could reflect dominant positive effects [gain of function (20) ] or a particularly strong dominant negative phenotype (21) of these mutations. Among the rest of the missense mutations within the structural/conserved domains, a high percentage might have a dominant negative phenotype. Whether loss of p53 function in general leads to a less aggressive phenotype than dominant positive mutations or whether the intermediate clinical phenotype reflects a heterogeneity within this group of patients is not clear. Null mutations are also associated with an intermediate aggressive phenotype. It is possible that reduction of p53 dosage in itself is sufficient to promote some tumor progression (22) , but without information of the retention of the wild-type allele, the intermediate phenotype in this group could also reflect a patient heterogeneity.

The final group of mutations includes the missense mutations outside any structural or conserved domains. Although they occur in only 9 of 69 mutations found in patients with primary unilateral disease and no evidence of distant metastasis (13% of tumors with mutations or 3% of the patients), they appear to define a novel class of TP53 mutations in breast cancer. Although they are associated with aggressive clinical parameters like large size, negative estrogen receptor status, positive nodal status, and the absence of low-grade ductal carcinomas, these mutations do not seem to confer a worse prognosis on the patients as compared to patients without TP53 mutations. Recently, a detailed analysis of mutations selected in BRCA-associated tumors has identified a class of mutations that is frequent in these tumors but rare in sporadic tumors not associated with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (23) . These mutations have lost the ability to suppress transformation and are likely to be selected on that basis; however, they still retain a biochemical phenotype close to that of the normal protein. Thus, to a certain degree, these mutant proteins can still transactivate downstream targets, suppress growth, and induce apoptosis (23) . The majority of these BRCA-associated mutations are indeed located outside structural/conserved domains, thus providing a possible link between a novel biochemical phenotype and the lack of effect on clinical outcome for breast cancer patients seen in the present study. In this respect, it might be relevant to note that although BRCA-associated tumors contain a very high frequency of TP53 mutations compared to sporadic tumors without BRCA mutations (24) , survival for these patients is apparently not significantly different (reviewed in Ref. 25 ). Interestingly, in a recent analysis of cases of childhood adrenocortical carcinoma unselected for a family history of cancer, 80% of the children carried a germ-line mutation in TP53 (26) . Adrenocortical carcinoma, together with bone and soft tissue sarcomas and breast and brain tumors, is part the Li-Fraumeni syndrome associated with germ-line mutations in TP53 (27 , 28) . The identified missense mutations were all located outside structural/conserved domains, and several carriers unaffected in their 40s and 50s were identified, demonstrating a low-penetrance phenotype of these mutations (26) .

When stratified according to the biochemical phenotype, TP53 mutations together with nodal status contained all of the significant prognostic information (with the addition of postmenopausal status for the end point of overall survival). However, with the number of patients included in this study, it is not possible to clarify whether TP53 mutation in breast cancer is a prognostic marker for distant metastasis or whether it predicts response to specific types of therapy, e.g., adjuvant chemotherapy. The observation that three of eight patients with distant metastasis already present at the time of diagnosis carried a mutation and that two of these three mutations are of the very aggressive type (Table 1) suggests that TP53 mutation can carry prognostic information for metastatic capability. As a predictive marker, this study lacks the power to detect a potential difference in outcome from specific types of therapy. To obtain a sufficient number of patients, a large national study has recently been initiated by The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperation Group.

In conclusion, we suggest a new model for the prediction of the clinical phenotype of different TP53 mutations in patients with primary breast cancer and predict two interesting groups of patients. First, if mutational analysis of the p53 gene is included in any clinical decision-making for breast cancer patients, it is important to realize that mutations might be identified that will have no effect on prognosis and/or response to therapy. A second important group of patients identified in this study is the group of patients with missense mutations affecting amino acids that are directly involved in DNA or zinc binding (the very aggressive group). These patients are at a very high risk of developing distant metastasis within 5 years after treatment. Finally, the results presented here demonstrate the necessity of including at least exons 4–10 in any analysis of TP53 mutations in breast cancer. Although only 1 of the 47 missense mutations occurred outside exons 5–8, 7 of 27 (26%) of the nonsense mutations, frameshift mutations, or in-frame deletions/insertions were found outside these exons, including four Q331X, which might be a novel hot spot in breast cancer.

	FOOTNOTES

 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

¹ Supported by Danish Cancer Society Grants 9510057 and 9810017; Danish Medical Research Council Grant 9900767; Mrs. Astrid Thaysen’s Foundation; the Clinical Research Unit, Danish Cancer Society, Oncologic Center, Aarhus University Hospital (Grant KFE-Aa-132-98); and Frits, Georg og Marie Cecilie Gluds Legat, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus.

² To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Danish Cancer Society, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Noerrebrogade 44, Building 5, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Phone: 45-8949-2626; E-mail: jan{at}oncology.dk

³ The abbreviation used is: DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis.

Received 3/17/00; revised 7/17/00; accepted 7/17/00.

	REFERENCES

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1. Pharoah P. D., Day N. E., Caldas C. Somatic mutations in the p53 gene and prognosis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Br. J. Cancer, 80: 1968-1973, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Levine A. J. p53, the cellular gatekeeper for growth and division. Cell, 88: 323-331, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Soussi T., May P. Structural aspects of the p53 protein in relation to gene evolution: a second look. J. Mol. Biol., 260: 623-637, 1996.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Cho Y., Gorina S., Jeffrey P. D., Pavletich N. P. Crystal structure of a p53 tumor suppressor-DNA complex: understanding tumorigenic mutations. Science (Washington DC), 265: 346-355, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Bergh J., Norberg T., Sjogren S., Lindgren A., Holmberg L. Complete sequencing of the p53 gene provides prognostic information in breast cancer patients, particularly in relation to adjuvant systemic therapy and radiotherapy. Nat. Med., 1: 1029-1034, 1995.[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Børresen A. L., Andersen T. I., Eyfjord J. E., Cornelis R. S., Thorlacius S., Borg A., Johansson U., Theillet C., Scherneck S., Hartman S. TP53 mutations and breast cancer prognosis: particularly poor survival rates for cases with mutations in the zinc-binding domains. Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 14: 71-75, 1995.[Medline]
7. Gentile, M., Bergman Jungestrom, M., Olsen, K. E., Soderkvist, P., and Wingren, S. p53 and survival in early onset breast cancer: analysis of gene mutations, loss of heterozygosity and protein accumulation. Eur. J. Cancer, 35: 1202–1207, 1999.
8. Kucera E., Speiser P., Gnant M., Szabo L., Samonigg H., Hausmaninger H., Mittlbock M., Fridrik M., Seifert M., Kubista E., Reiner A., Zeillinger R., Jakesz R. Prognostic significance of mutations in the p53 gene, particularly in the zinc-binding domains, in lymph node- and steroid receptor-positive breast cancer patients. Austrian Breast Cancer Study Group. Eur. J. Cancer, 35: 398-405, 1999.
9. Berns E. M., van Staveren I. L., Look M. P., Smid M., Klijn J. G., Foekens J. A. Mutations in residues of TP53 that directly contact DNA predict poor outcome in human primary breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer, 77: 1130-1136, 1998.[Medline]
10. Bergh J. Determination and use of p53 in the management of cancer patients with special focus on breast cancer: a review Klijn J. G. eds. . Prognostic and Predictive Value of p53, 1: 35-50, Elsevier Science B. V. Amsterdam 1997.
11. Overgaard J., Yilmaz M., Guldberg P., Hansen L. L., Alsner J. TP53 mutation is an independent prognostic marker for poor outcome in both node-negative and node-positive breast cancer. Acta Oncol., 39: 327-333, 2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Hansen L. L., Andersen J., Overgaard J., Kruse T. A. Molecular genetic analysis of easily accessible breast tumour DNA, purified from tissue left over from hormone receptor measurement. APMIS, 106: 371-377, 1998.[Medline]
13. Guldberg P., Nedergaard T., Nielsen H. J., Olsen A. C., Ahrenkiel V., Zeuthen J. Single-step DGGE-based mutation scanning of the p53 gene: application to genetic diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Hum. Mutat., 9: 348-355, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Clore G. M., Omichinski J. G., Sakaguchi K., Zambrano N., Sakamoto H., Appella E., Gronenborn A. M. High-resolution structure of the oligomerization domain of p53 by multidimensional NMR. Science (Washington DC), 265: 386-391, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Chene P., Mittl P., Grutter M. In vitro structure-function analysis of the ß-strand 326–333 of human p53. J. Mol. Biol., 273: 873-881, 1997.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Chene P., Bechter E. p53 mutants without a functional tetramerisation domain are not oncogenic. J. Mol. Biol., 286: 1269-1274, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Hernandez-Boussard T., Montesano R., Hainaut P. Sources of bias in the detection and reporting of p53 mutations in human cancer: analysis of the IARC p53 mutation database. Genet. Anal., 14: 229-233, 1999.[Medline]
18. Hernandez-Boussard T., Rodriguez-Tome P., Montesano R., Hainaut P. IARC p53 mutation database: a relational database to compile and analyze p53 mutations in human tumors and cell lines. IARC. Hum. Mutat., 14: 1-8, 1999.
19. de Cremoux P., Salomon A. V., Liva S., Dendale R., Bouchind’homme B., Martin E., Sastre-Garau X., Magdelenat H., Fourquet A., Soussi T. p53 mutation as a genetic trait of typical medullary breast carcinoma. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 91: 641-643, 1999.[Free Full Text]
20. Dittmer D., Pati S., Zambetti G., Chu S., Teresky A. K., Moore M., Finlay C., Levine A. J. Gain of function mutations in p53. Nat. Genet., 4: 42-46, 1993.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Milner J., Medcalf E. A. Cotranslation of activated mutant p53 with wild type drives the wild-type p53 protein into the mutant conformation. Cell, 65: 765-774, 1991.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Venkatachalam S., Shi Y. P., Jones S. N., Vogel H., Bradley A., Pinkel D., Donehower L. A. Retention of wild-type p53 in tumors from p53 heterozygous mice: reduction of p53 dosage can promote cancer formation. EMBO J., 17: 4657-4667, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Smith P. D., Crossland S., Parker G., Osin P., Brooks L., Waller J., Philp E., Crompton M. R., Gusterson B. A., Allday M. J., Crook T. Novel p53 mutants selected in BRCA-associated tumours which dissociate transformation suppression from other wild-type p53 functions. Oncogene, 18: 2451-2459, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Crook T., Brooks L. A., Crossland S., Osin P., Barker K. T., Waller J., Philp E., Smith P. D., Yulug I., Peto J., Parker G., Allday M. J., Crompton M. R., Gusterson B. A. p53 mutation with frequent novel condons but not a mutator phenotype in BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast tumours. Oncogene, 17: 1681-1689, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Burke W., Laya M. B. Genetic risk and breast cancer survival: another link in the chain of evidence. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 91: 201-203, 1999.[Free Full Text]
26. Varley J. M., McGown G., Thorncroft M., James L. A., Margison G. P., Forster G., Evans D. G., Harris M., Kelsey A. M., Birch J. M. Are there low-penetrance TP53 alleles?. Evidence from childhood adrenocortical tumors. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 65: 995-1006, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
27. Li F. P., Fraumeni J. F. J., Mulvihill J. J., Blattner W. A., Dreyfus M. G., Tucker M. A., Miller R. W. A cancer family syndrome in twenty-four kindreds. Cancer Res., 48: 5358-5362, 1988.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Malkin D., Li F. P., Strong L. C., Fraumeni J. F. J., Nelson C. E., Kim D. H., Kassel J., Gryka M. A., Bischoff F. Z., Tainsky M. A. Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science (Washington DC), 250: 1233-1238, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. J. Chae, J. S. Bae, A. Lee, W. C. Park, Y. J. Seo, B. J. Song, J. S. Kim, and S. S. Jung p53 as a Specific Prognostic Factor in Triple-negative Breast Cancer Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., April 1, 2009; 39(4): 217 - 224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y Wang, G. Kristensen, A-L Borresen-Dale, and A Helland TP53 mutations and codon 72 genotype--impact on survival among ovarian cancer patients Ann. Onc., May 1, 2007; 18(5): 964 - 966. [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Tort, J. Bartkova, M. Sehested, T. Orntoft, J. Lukas, and J. Bartek Retinoblastoma Pathway Defects Show Differential Ability to Activate the Constitutive DNA Damage Response in Human Tumorigenesis Cancer Res., November 1, 2006; 66(21): 10258 - 10263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. E. Rohan, S.-Q. Li, R. Hartwick, and R. A. Kandel p53 Alterations and Protein Accumulation in Benign Breast Tissue and Breast Cancer Risk: A Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2006; 15(7): 1316 - 1323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Makower, A. Rozenblit, H. Kaufman, M. Edelman, M. E. Lane, J. Zwiebel, H. Haynes, and S. Wadler Phase II Clinical Trial of Intralesional Administration of the Oncolytic Adenovirus ONYX-015 in Patients with Hepatobiliary Tumors with Correlative p53 Studies Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2003; 9(2): 693 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Buller, M. S. Shahin, J. P. Geisler, M. Zogg, B. R. De Young, and C. S. Davis Failure of BRCA1 Dysfunction to Alter Ovarian Cancer Survival Clin. Cancer Res., May 1, 2002; 8(5): 1196 - 1202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Greenblatt, P. O. Chappuis, J. P. Bond, N. Hamel, and W. D. Foulkes TP53 Mutations in Breast Cancer Associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 Germ-line Mutations: Distinctive Spectrum and Structural Distribution Cancer Res., May 1, 2001; 61(10): 4092 - 4097. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Alsner, J. Articles by Overgaard, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Alsner, J. Articles by Overgaard, J.