Advertisement

Complete reduction of p53 expression by RNA interference following heterozygous knockout in porcine fibroblasts

  • Young June Kim
  • Tae-Hyun Kim
  • Minjeong Kim
  • Min Ju Kim
  • Hae-Won Kim
  • Hosup ShimEmail author
Article
  • 232 Downloads

Abstract

Tumor suppressor p53 plays a critical role in the regulation of cell cycle and apoptosis in mammals. Mutations of p53 often cause various cancers. Murine models have improved our understanding on tumorigenesis associated with p53 mutations. However, mice and humans are different in many ways. For example, the short lifespans of mice limit the clinical application of the data obtained from this species. Porcine model could be an alternative as pigs share many anatomical and physiological similarities with humans. Here, we modified the expression levels of p53 messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein in porcine fetal fibroblasts using a combination of gene targeting and RNA interference. First, we disrupted the p53 gene to produce p53 knockout (KO) cells. Second, the p53 shRNA expression vector was introduced into fibroblasts to isolate p53 knockdown (KD) cells. We obtained p53 KO, KD, and KO + KD fibroblasts which involve p53 KO and KD either separately or simultaneously. The mRNA expression of p53 in p53 KO fibroblasts was similar to that in the wild-type control. However, the mRNA expression levels of p53 in KD and KO + KD cells were significantly decreased. The p53 protein level significant reduced in p53 KD. Interestingly, no p53 protein was detected in KO + KD, suggesting a complete reduction of the protein by synergistic effect of KO and KD. This study demonstrated that various expression levels of p53 in porcine fibroblasts could be achieved by gene targeting and RNA interference. Moreover, complete abolishment of protein expression is feasible using a combination of gene targeting and RNA interference.

Keywords

Knockout Knockdown p53 Pig 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant (PJ011375) from the Next-Generation BioGreen 21 Program, Rural Development Administration, a grant (2014034046) supported by the Bio & Medical Technology Development Program, and a grant (2009–0093829) supported by the Priority Research Centers Program through National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning.

References

  1. Adam SJ, Rund LA, Kuzmuk KN, Zachary JF, Schook LB, Counter CM (2007) Genetic induction of tumorigenesis in swine. Oncogene 26:1038–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn KS, Kim YJ, Kim M, Lee BH, Heo SY, Kang MJ, Kang YK, Lee JW, Lee KK, Kim JH, Nho WG, Hwang SS, Woo JS, Park JK, Park SB, Shim H (2011) Resurrection of an alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase gene-targeted miniature pig by recloning using postmortem ear skin fibroblasts. Theriogenology 75:933–939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Basel MT, Balivada S, Beck AP, Kerrigan MA, Pyle MM, Dekkers JC, Wyatt CR, Rowland RR, Anderson DE, Bossmann SH, Troyer DL (2012) Human xenografts are not rejected in a naturally occurring immunodeficient porcine line: a human tumor model in pigs. Biores Open Access 1:63–68CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Donehower LA (1996) The p53-deficient mouse: a model for basic and applied cancer studies. Semin Cancer Biol 7:269–278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Donehower LA, Harvey M, Slagle BL, McArthur MJ, Montgomery CA Jr, Butel JS, Bradley A (1992) Mice deficient for p53 are developmentally normal but susceptible to spontaneous tumours. Nature 356:215–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Flisikowska T, Kind A, Schnieke A (2013) The new pig on the block: modelling cancer in pigs. Transgenic Res 22:673–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fontemaggi G, Dell’Orso S, Trisciuoglio D, Shay T, Melucci E, Fazi F, Terrenato I, Mottolese M, Muti P, Domany E, Del Bufalo D, Strano S, Blandino G (2009) The execution of the transcriptional axis mutant p53, E2F1 and ID4 promotes tumor neo-angiogenesis. Nat Struct Mol Biol 16:1086–1093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Forslund A, Lönnroth C, Andersson M, Brevinge H, Lundholm K (2001) Mutations and allelic loss of p53 in primary tumor DNA from potentially cured patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 19:2829–2836PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Garber K (2006) Realistic rodents? Debate grows over new mouse models of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1176–1178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenblatt MS, Bennett WP, Hollstein M, Harris CC (1994) Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: clues to cancer etiology and molecular pathogenesis. Cancer Res 54:4855–4878PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Guidi CJ, Veal TM, Jones SN, Imbalzano AN (2004) Transcriptional compensation for loss of an allele of the Ini1 tumor suppressor. J Biol Chem 279:4180–4185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kawamura T, Suzuki J, Wang YV, Menendez S, Morera LB, Raya A, Wahl GM, Izpisúa Belmonte JC (2009) Linking the p53 tumour suppressor pathway to somatic cell reprogramming. Nature 460:1140–1144CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelland LR (2004) Of mice and men: values and liabilities of the athymic nude mouse model in anticancer drug development. Eur J Cancer 40:827–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lane DP (1992) Cancer. p53, guardian of the genome. Nature 358:15–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Leuchs S, Saalfrank A, Merkl C, Flisikowska T, Edlinger M, Durkovic M, Rezaei N, Kurome M, Zakhartchenko V, Kessler B, Flisikowski K, Kind A, Wolf E, Schnieke A (2012) Inactivation and inducible oncogenic mutation of p53 in gene targeted pigs. PLoS One 7:e43323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Merkl C, Leuchs S, Saalfrank A, Kind A, Schnieke A (2011) RNA interference in pigs: comparison of RNAi test systems and expression vectors. Mol Biotechnol 48:38–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Muller PA, Caswell PT, Doyle B, Iwanicki MP, Tan EH, Karim S, Lukashchuk N, Gillespie DA, Ludwig RL, Gosselin P, Cromer A, Brugge JS, Sansom OJ, Norman JC, Vousden KH (2009) Mutant p53 drives invasion by promoting integrin recycling. Cell 139:1327–1341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sausville EA, Burger AM (2006) Contributions of human tumor xenografts to anticancer drug development. Cancer Res 66:3351–3354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schook L, Beattie C, Beever J, Donovan S, Jamison R, Zuckermann F, Niemi S, Rothschild M, Rutherford M, Smith D (2005) Swine in biomedical research: creating the building blocks of animal models. Anim Biotechnol 16:183–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sieren JC, Meyerholz DK, Wang XJ, Davis BT, Newell JD Jr, Hammond E, Rohret JA, Rohret FA, Struzynski JT, Goeken JA, Naumann PW, Leidinger MR, Taghiyev A, Van Rheeden R, Hagen J, Darbro BW, Quelle DE, Rogers CS (2014) Development and translational imaging of a TP53 porcine tumorigenesis model. J Clin Invest 124:4052–4066CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Tovar C, Graves B, Packman K, Filipovic Z, Higgins B, Xia M, Tardell C, Garrido R, Lee E, Kolinsky K, To KH, Linn M, Podlaski F, Wovkulich P, Vu B, Vassilev LT (2013) MDM2 small-molecule antagonist RG7112 activates p53 signaling and regresses human tumors in preclinical cancer models. Cancer Res 73:2587–2597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. van Boxtel R, Kuiper RV, Toonen PW, van Heesch S, Hermsen R, de Bruin A, Cuppen E (2011) Homozygous and heterozygous p53 knockout rats develop metastasizing sarcomas with high frequency. Am J Pathol 179:1616–1622CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Vandamme TF (2014) Use of rodents as models of human diseases. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 6:2–9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang XJ, Greenhalgh DA, Jiang A, He D, Zhong L, Medina D, Brinkley BR, Roop DR (1998) Expression of a p53 mutant in the epidermis of transgenic mice accelerates chemical carcinogenesis. Oncogene 17:35–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Yamamoto M, Tsukamoto T, Sakai H, Shirai N, Ohgaki H, Furihata C, Donehower LA, Yoshida K, Tatematsu M (2000) p53 knockout mice (−/−) are more susceptible than (+/−) or (+/+) mice to N-methyl-N-nitrosourea stomach carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 21:1891–1897CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for In Vitro Biology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young June Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tae-Hyun Kim
    • 3
  • Minjeong Kim
    • 1
  • Min Ju Kim
    • 1
  • Hae-Won Kim
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hosup Shim
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Nanobiomedical Science and BK21 PLUS NBM Global Research Center for Regenerative MedicineDankook UniversityCheonanSouth Korea
  2. 2.Institute of Green Bioscience and TechnologySeoul National UniversityPyeongchangSouth Korea
  3. 3.Institute of Tissue Regeneration EngineeringDankook UniversityCheonanSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Physiology, School of MedicineDankook UniversityCheonanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations