Evolutionary Action Score of TP53 Identifies High-Risk Mutations Associated with Decreased Survival and Increased Distant Metastases in Head and Neck Cancer.

TP53 is the most frequently altered gene in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, with mutations occurring in over two-thirds of cases, but the prognostic significance of these mutations remains elusive. In the current study, we evaluated a novel computational approach termed evolutionary action (EAp53) to stratify patients with tumors harboring TP53 mutations as high or low risk, and validated this system in both in vivo and in vitro models. Patients with high-risk TP53 mutations had the poorest survival outcomes and the shortest time to the development of distant metastases. Tumor cells expressing high-risk TP53 mutations were more invasive and tumorigenic and they exhibited a higher incidence of lung metastases. We also documented an association between the presence of high-risk mutations and decreased expression of TP53 target genes, highlighting key cellular pathways that are likely to be dysregulated by this subset of p53 mutations that confer particularly aggressive tumor behavior. Overall, our work validated EAp53 as a novel computational tool that may be useful in clinical prognosis of tumors harboring p53 mutations.

[1]  Angela D. Wilkins,et al.  Single nucleotide variations: Biological impact and theoretical interpretation , 2014, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[2]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  A formal perturbation equation between genotype and phenotype determines the Evolutionary Action of protein-coding variations on fitness , 2014, Genome research.

[3]  Ryan K. Orosco,et al.  Multi-tiered genomic analysis of head and neck cancer ties TP53 mutation to 3p loss , 2014, Nature Genetics.

[4]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Effects of TP53 mutational status on gene expression patterns across 10 human cancer types , 2014, The Journal of pathology.

[5]  Olivier Lichtarge,et al.  Prediction and experimental validation of enzyme substrate specificity in protein structures , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Integrative genomic characterization of oral squamous cell carcinoma identifies frequent somatic drivers. , 2013, Cancer discovery.

[7]  Ge Zhou,et al.  Serine substitution of proline at codon 151 of TP53 confers gain of function activity leading to anoikis resistance and tumor progression of head and neck cancer cells , 2013, The Laryngoscope.

[8]  D. Hayes,et al.  Abstract 1117: Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the Cancer Genome Atlas. , 2013 .

[9]  K. Vousden,et al.  p53 mutations in cancer , 2013, Nature Cell Biology.

[10]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Exome Sequencing of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Reveals Inactivating Mutations in NOTCH1 , 2011, Science.

[11]  Mei Zhao,et al.  Assembly and Initial Characterization of a Panel of 85 Genomically Validated Cell Lines from Diverse Head and Neck Tumor Sites , 2011, Clinical Cancer Research.

[12]  A. McKenna,et al.  The Mutational Landscape of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma , 2011, Science.

[13]  C. R. Leemans,et al.  Imaging , Diagnosis , Prognosis Prognostic Significance of Truncating TP 53 Mutations in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma , 2011 .

[14]  Mei Zhao,et al.  Targeted molecular therapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor vandetanib in a mouse model , 2010, Head & neck.

[15]  Angela D. Wilkins,et al.  Evolution: a guide to perturb protein function and networks. , 2010, Current opinion in structural biology.

[16]  S. Erdin,et al.  Evolutionary trace annotation of protein function in the structural proteome. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[17]  Varda Rotter,et al.  When mutants gain new powers: news from the mutant p53 field , 2009, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[18]  J. Myers,et al.  Xenograft models of head and neck cancers , 2009, Head & neck oncology.

[19]  J. Manola,et al.  TP53 mutations and survival in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  M. Olivier,et al.  Impact of mutant p53 functional properties on TP53 mutation patterns and tumor phenotype: lessons from recent developments in the IARC TP53 database , 2007, Human mutation.

[21]  Ming K. Lee,et al.  Cancer-derived p53 mutants suppress p53-target gene expression—potential mechanism for gain of function of mutant p53 , 2007, Nucleic acids research.

[22]  S. Kato,et al.  Lack of correlation between p53-dependent transcriptional activity and the ability to induce apoptosis among 179 mutant p53s. , 2005, Cancer research.

[23]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics, 2002 , 2005, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[24]  Handbook of Statistics 23: Advances in Survival Analysis , 2005 .

[25]  Xinbin Chen,et al.  Mutant p53 exerts a dominant negative effect by preventing wild-type p53 from binding to the promoter of its target genes , 2004, Oncogene.

[26]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  A family of evolution-entropy hybrid methods for ranking protein residues by importance. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  S. Kato,et al.  Understanding the function–structure and function–mutation relationships of p53 tumor suppressor protein by high-resolution missense mutation analysis , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[28]  O. Lichtarge,et al.  Structural clusters of evolutionary trace residues are statistically significant and common in proteins. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  John O'Quigley,et al.  An application of changepoint methods in studying the effect of age on survival in breast cancer , 1999 .

[30]  F. Bosch,et al.  TP53 DNA contact mutations are selectively associated with allelic loss and have a strong clinical impact in head and neck cancer , 1998, Oncogene.

[31]  S. Goodman,et al.  p53 mutation and locoregional treatment failure in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. , 1996, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[32]  F. Cohen,et al.  An evolutionary trace method defines binding surfaces common to protein families. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[33]  A. Levine,et al.  Gain of function mutations in p53 , 1993, Nature Genetics.

[34]  S. Henikoff,et al.  Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  A. Ketcham,et al.  Experimental study of metastases. , 1966, JAMA.

[36]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics , 2011 .

[37]  John P. Klein,et al.  Discretizing a Continuous Covariate in Survival Studies , 2003, Advances in Survival Analysis.

[38]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.