revealed that coordinated induction of growth
arrest and immunosurveillance is a distinctive
feature of p21 (fig. S17 and table S8).
Oncogene-induced p21 triggers
immunosurveillance
We sought to critically test the physiological
relevance of p21-dependent immunosurveil-
lance in a cancer-related context. To this end,
we adapted our transgenic approach for co-
induction of Tom and p21 in hepatocytes by
replacingp21withKRASG12V(Fig. 5A), an
oncoprotein that can induce p21 via mitogenic
stress ( 4 ). Indeed, ~25% of d4 Tom+KRASG12V
hepatocytes had elevated levels of p21 (Fig. 5B
and fig. S18A). These hepatocytes attracted
macrophages, whereas those that failed to
induce p21 did not (Fig. 5C). Use of a newly
generatedp21conditional knockout strain con-
clusively demonstrated that d4 Tom+KRASG12V
hepatocytes recruit macrophages in a p21-
dependent manner (Fig. 5, A to C, and fig.
S18B). Furthermore, d4 Tom+KRASG12Vhepa-
tocytes in whichRbwas conditionally knocked
out retained p21 induction but nevertheless
failed to attract macrophages, validating cell
culture experiments indicating that p21 places
cells under immunosurveillance in an Rb-
dependent fashion (Fig. 5, A to C, and fig. S18B).
Hepatocytes from d4 Tom+KRASG12Vmice
had a PASP, which they lost with condition-
al inactivation ofp21(Fig.6A).ThePASP
includedCxcl14, explaining why d4 Tom+
KRASG12Vhepatocytes attract macrophages
and their counterparts lacking p21 do not.
Tom+hepatocyte numbers remained largely
unchanged at d4, d12, and d28 after induc-
tion when KRASG12Vwas absent (Fig. 6B), but
progressively declined because of cell death
when KRASG12Vwas coexpressed (Fig. 6, B and
C). However, no such decline occurred when
p21was inactivated upon KRASG12Vinduction.
This was not due to compensatory cell prolif-
eration becausep21inactivation had no im-
pact on the mitotic index of Tom+KRASG12V
hepatocytes (fig. S18, C and D). Consistent
with p21-dependent cell elimination, Tom+
KRASG12Vhepatocytes with high p21 levels
gradually decreased from d4 to d28 (Fig. 5B).
At d12, Tom+KRASG12Vhepatocytes were
surrounded by M1 macrophages and T lym-
phocytes, whereas their d4 counterparts were
not (Fig. 6, D and E). Thus, p21-mediated mac-
rophage recruitment represents an essential
first step toward cell elimination upon KRASG12V
induction, which then appears to be executed
by subsequently recruited T lymphocytes. This
conclusion is supported by the earlier observa-
tion that clearance of hepatocytes expressing
oncogenic NRAS depends on monocytes and
macrophages and on CD4 T cells ( 4 ).
Regardless of whetherp21was intact or in-
activated, Tom+KRASG12Vhepatocytes hard-
ly proliferated and showed signs of cellular
Sturmlechneret al.,Science 374 , eabb3420 (2021) 29 October 2021 5 of 15
***
Tom
+
hepatocytes (%)
ns
ns
A
iNOS
Tom
DNA
Tom
+
hepatocytes joined
by
1 B220
+
cells (%)
***
**
ns
Tom
+
hepatocytes joined
by
1 CD3
+
cells (%)
CD3
Tom
DNA
ns ns
***
B
n=5n=5n=5
n=5
n=4n=4
n=4
n=4n=4
n=4
n=4n=4
n=5n=5n=5
n=5
n=4
n=4
***
ns
n=5
n=5
n=5
n=4
Tom
+
hepatocytes joined
by
1 iNOS
+
cells (%)
Dying Tom
+
p21-OE hepatocytes
joined by
1 iNOS
+
cells (%)
n=4
Dying Tom
+
hepatocytes (%)
D ***
ns
ns
Tom
DNA n=4
n=4
n=5n=5
n=5
n=5
C
E F
B220
Tom
DNA
Ai14
Ai14;L-p21
d2d4 d8
0
10
20
30
50
40
60
0
5
10
15
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
40
30
0
10
20
50
30
40
0
25
50
75
100
Fig. 4. Hepatocytes under surveillance die upon macrophage differentiation and lymphocyte
recruitment.(A) Representative image and quantification of Tom+hepatocytes associated with≥1 B220+
cells (arrowhead). (B) Representative image and quantification of Tom+hepatocytes associated
with≥1 CD3e+cells (arrowhead). (C) Proportion of Tom+and healthy (not dying) hepatocytes.
(D) Representative image and quantification of dying Tom+hepatocytes. (E) Representative image
and quantification of Tom+hepatocytes associated with≥1 iNOS+cells (arrowhead). (F) Quantitation
of dying p21-OE Tom+hepatocytes associated with≥1 iNOS+cells. Scale bars: 10mm [(A), (B), (D),
and (E)]. Mice used were on a C57BL/6×129Sv mixed genetic background. Data represent means ± SEM.
Experiments in the above panels were performed once. ns, not significant. **P< 0.01; ***P< 0.001.
One-way ANOVA with SidakÕscorrection[(A)to(E)].
RESEARCH | RESEARCH ARTICLE