Skip Navigation


Carcinogenesis Advance Access originally published online on May 25, 2005
Carcinogenesis 2005 26(10):1829-1834; doi:10.1093/carcin/bgi142
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/10/1829    most recent
bgi142v2
bgi142v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jaworski, M.
Right arrow Articles by Schwarz, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jaworski, M.
Right arrow Articles by Schwarz, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Carcinogenesis vol.26 no.10 © Oxford University Press 2005; all rights reserved.

Human p53 knock-in (hupki) mice do not differ in liver tumor response from their counterparts with murine p53

Maike Jaworski {dagger}, Stephan Hailfinger {dagger}, Albrecht Buchmann, Manfred Hergenhahn 1, Monica Hollstein 1, Carina Ittrich 2 and Michael Schwarz *

Department of Toxicology, Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Tübingen, Wilhelmstrasse 56, 72074 Tübingen, Germany, 1 Department of Genetic Alterations in Carcinogenesis and 2 Central Unit Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, PO Box 101949, 69009 Heidelberg, Germany

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +49 7071 29 77398; Fax: +49 7071 29 2273; Email: michael.schwarz{at}uni-tuebingen.de

Mouse models are important tools in toxicologic research. Differences between species in pathways contributing to tumor development, however, raise the question in how far mouse models are valid for human risk assessment. One striking difference relates to the frequency of spontaneous liver cancer which is high in certain mouse strains but rather low in humans. Similarly, mutation frequencies in cancer genes are characteristically different, i.e. P53 mutations are frequent in human but very rare in murine liver tumors, whereas Ras genes are often mutated in mouse liver tumors but hardly ever in human liver cancers. Since P53 has been shown to control oncogenic RAS in human cells, we hypothesized that this function of the tumor suppressor could differ in mouse hepatocytes. To test this hypothesis, we used hupki (human p53 knock-in) mice which carry a partly humanized P53 sequence (P53KI). In this study, we report the results of the first hepatocarcinogenesis experiment with this strain of mice. Mice of the genotypes P53KI/KI, P53WT/KI and P53WT/WT were treated with N-nitrosodiethylamine at 2 weeks of age and killed 35 weeks later. The frequency of liver tumors and glucose-6-phosphatase-altered liver lesions was almost identical in all three P53 genotypes and ~40–50% of liver tumors showed activating mutations in codon 61 of the Ha-Ras gene independent of genotype. Moreover, only very few P53-positive lesions were observed but without nuclear localization of the protein, suggesting the absence of P53 mutations. These data suggest that the hupki allele behaves like its murine ortholog in mouse hepatocarcinogenesis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
MutagenesisHome page
U. Cardellino, Y. Ciribilli, V. Andreotti, P. Modesto, P. Menichini, G. Fronza, C. Pellegrino, and A. Inga
Transcriptional properties of feline p53 and its tumour-associated mutants: a yeast-based approach
Mutagenesis, November 1, 2007; 22(6): 417 - 423.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.