In vitro and in vivo analysis of the interaction between 5.8S rRNA and ARF protein reveal a new difference between murine p19ARF and human p14ARF

Combined p14ARFand Antisense EGFR Potentiate the Efficacy of Adenovirus-Mediated Gene Therapy in Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (LSCC)

The tumor suppressor p14(ARF) and protooncogene epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) play an important role in the development of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC). We explored the inhibition of proliferation and induction of differentiation in human larynx cancer cells (Hep-2) in vitro when p14(ARF) couples with antisense complementary DNA of EGFR to transfect into Hep-2 cells via the AdEasy-1 vector system. In vitro studies, using standard isobologram analyses, identified whether Ad-antisense EGFR is synergistic with Ad-14(ARF). To evaluate the cytotoxicity of these agents the gold standard clonogenic survival assay was used. Western blotting analyses, 3'(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, and flow cytometer (FCM) analysis was used to detect protein expression, proliferation, and cell cycle distribution of Hep-2 cells, respectively. Meanwhile, empty vector and PBS were set as a control. The activity of proliferation of Hep-2 cells was inhibited markedly by infection of Ad-p14(ARF) combined with Ad-antisense EGFR compared with Ad-p14(ARF) or Ad-antisense EGFR alone (P = 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively), with Ad-sense EGFR (P = 0.0005), with vector control (Ad-Ctrl) (P = 0.0001), and with PBS (P = 0.0001). FCM revealed that the proportion in the G(0)/G(1) phases increased by up to 86.9% when Ad-p14(ARF) was associated with Ad-antisense EGFR to transfect Hep-2 cells. A weakened expression of EGFR protein and P14 (ARF) protein overexpression was observed. Our study in vitro indicated that association of Ad-p14(ARF) with Ad-antisense EGFR remarkably inhibited activity of proliferation and inducted differentiation of Hep-2 cells. Therefore, not only EGFR, but also p14(ARF), plays a major role in the genesis and in modulating cell growth and differentiation of LSCC, and their synergistic effect was obvious. An effective potential target of gene therapy to prevent LSCC proliferation was provided.

[The negative regulation of ribosome biogenesis: a new Arf-dependent pathway controlling cell proliferation?]

The nucleolar Arf protein has initially been shown to regulate cell cycle through the so-called Arf-mdm2-p53 pathway. In addition to this well characterized pathway, convergent data published since 2000 indicate that Arf can inhibit cell proliferation in absence of p53, suggesting the existence of a p53-independent pathway. Several partners have recently been described that could participate in an alternative regulatory process. Recent results show that : (1) Arf binds the rDNA promoter to inhibit the transcription of the 47S rRNA precursor and (2) Arf interacts with the nucleophosmin/B23 protein to negatively regulate rRNA maturation, it is assumed that the tumour suppressor may downregulate the cell cycle progression through the control of ribosome biogenesis, thus resulting in completion of cell cycle arrest.

Human tumor suppressor p14ARF negatively regulates rRNA transcription and inhibits UBF1 transcription factor phosphorylation

The nucleolar Arf protein has been shown to regulate cell cycle through both p53-dependent and -independent pathways. In addition to the well-characterized Arf-mdm2-p53 pathway, several partners of Arf have recently been described that could participate in alternative regulation process. Among those is the nucleolar protein B23/NPM, involved in the sequential maturation of rRNA. p19ARF can interact with B23/NPM in high molecular complexes and partially inhibit the cleavage of the 32S rRNA, whereas the human p14ARF protein has been shown to participate in the degradation of NPM/B23 by the proteasome. These data led to define Arf as a negative regulator of ribosomal RNA maturation. Our recent finding that the human p14ARF protein was able to specifically interact with the rRNA promoter in a p53-independent context, led us to analyse in vitro and in vivo the consequences of this interaction. Luciferase assay and pulse-chase experiments demonstrated that the rRNA transcription was strongly reduced upon p14ARF overexpression. Investigations on potential interactions between p14ARF and the transcription machinery proteins demonstrated that the upstream binding factor (UBF), required for the initiation of the transcriptional complex, was a new partner of the p14ARF protein. We next examined the phosphorylation status of UBF as UBF phosphorylation is required to recruit on the promoter factors involved in the transcriptional complex. Upon p14ARF overexpression, UBF was found hypophosphorylated, thus unable to efficiently recruit the transcription complex. Taken together, these data define a new p53-independent pathway that could regulate cell cycle through the negative control of rRNA transcription.

p14ARF inhibits the growth of p53 deficient cells in a cell-specific manner

While p14(ARF) suppression of tumorigenesis in a p53-dependent manner is well studied, the mechanism by which p14(ARF) inhibits tumorigenesis independently of p53 remains elusive. A variety of factors have been reported to play a role in this latter process. We report here that p14(ARF) displays different effects on the anchorage-dependent and -independent growth of p53-null/Mdm2 wild type cells. p14(ARF) blocks both the anchorage-dependent and-independent (soft agar) proliferation of 293T and p53(-/-) HCT116, but not p53-null H1299 lung carcinoma cells. While p14(ARF) had no effect on the anchorage-dependent proliferation of p53(-/-) MEFs and Ras12V-transformed p53(-/-) MEFs, it inhibited the growth of Ras12V-transformed p53(-/-) MEFs in soft agar. Furthermore, ectopic expression of p14(ARF) did not lead to degradation of the E2F1 protein and did not result in the reduction of E2F1 activity detected by two E2F1 responsible promoters, Apaf1 and p14(ARF) promoter, in 293T, p53(-/-) HCT116, and H1299 cells. This is consistent with our observations that p14(ARF) did not result in G1 arrest, but induced apoptosis via Bax up-regulation. Taken together, our data demonstrate that the response of p53-null cells to ARF is cell type dependent and involves factors other than Mdm2 and E2F1.