EDITORIAL FOCUS
Inducible nitric oxide synthase: a tissue-specific affair?
S. John
Wort,
Jane A.
Mitchell, and
Timothy W.
Evans
Unit of Critical Care, Imperial College School of Medicine,
Royal Brompton Hospital, London SW3 6NP, United Kingdom
 |
ARTICLE |
NITRIC OXIDE (NO) modulates vascular control but also
displays properties relevant to the pathogenesis of autoimmune
(16), chronic inflammatory (8), and
neurodegenerative disorders (20); transplantation
rejection (10); carcinogenesis (1); and
sepsis (18). NO is synthesized from an
L-arginine substrate by NO synthase (NOS), of which there
are three isoforms. NO is produced constitutively by endothelial and
neuronal NOS. In contrast, under inflammatory conditions, activation of
an inducible NOS (iNOS) enzyme occurs, resulting in NO production over
longer time periods and in larger quantities, which may have both
cytotoxic and cytoprotective effects (17). The iNOS gene,
which is expressed in many tissues in humans and other species, is
under the transcriptional control of a number of inflammatory
mediators, including cytokines and lipopolysaccharide (17). The human iNOS gene is 37 kb in length and is
localized to chromosome 17 (3, 13). Although iNOS isoforms
are highly conserved between species, suggesting that all are products
of the same gene, there is less homology of the 5'-flanking region
(3, 5, 14, 21). Moreover, although there appear to be only small variations in the deduced amino acid sequences between various human cell lines, iNOS gene transcription seems to be regulated differently (2, 5, 11) as it is in other species
(14). Furthermore, cytokine combinations leading to iNOS
induction may vary between species (14) and between cell
types in the same species (2, 5, 12).
Identifying precisely the nature of such cell- and stimulus-specific
control of NO production may be important in determining its
physiological and pathophysiological roles in different tissues in
humans. What is already known? First, a large span of the 5' region
(lying between
3.8 and
16 kb) is required for cytokine-mediated iNOS induction in humans (4, 11), in marked contrast to
the murine iNOS promoter region where only 1 kb is necessary to confer inducibility to lipopolysaccharide and interferon (IFN)-
(22). Second, depending on the cell type studied,
different regions of the 5'-flanking sequence support cytokine-mediated
iNOS induction (4, 11, 19). Third, the extent of iNOS gene
expression differs according to cell or organ type. Fourth,
posttranscriptional regulation may be important in determining the
steady-state level of iNOS mRNA, at least in some human cell types, a
phenomenon that may not be important in other species (11,
15). Finally, the human iNOS promoter exhibits differential
responsiveness to mixtures of the same two cytokines (i.e., IFN-
and
interleukin-1
) in different cell lines (4).
Despite these recent findings, information concerning the actual
control elements of human iNOS gene regulation and tissue specificity
is lacking. In this sense, the study by Mellott et al. (13a)
published in this issue of the American Journal of
Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology provides a
significant boost to our understanding. What were their principal
observations? First, two epithelial cell lines from two different
tissues were shown to have different cytokine requirements for minimal
iNOS induction. Thus, in A549 cells derived from pulmonary epithelial cells, there was a minimal requirement for both interleukin-1
and
IFN-
, whereas in the AKN-1 hepatic biliary epithelial cell line,
only IFN-
was required. Second, the authors explored the hypothesis
that this difference might reflect tissue-specific molecular control
mechanisms for iNOS induction by analyzing the large 5'-flanking region
previously shown to be important in this process in humans
(4, 11, 19). Large regions of chromatin were screened for
regulatory regions with DNase I-hypersensitive (HS) site analysis
(6). DNase I-HS sites are a subset of the more generally
termed nuclease-HS sites, thought to represent the "open windows"
that allow enhanced access of important cis-acting DNA to
trans-acting factors. These sites are generally two orders more sensitive to nuclease digestion than the rest of the bulk chromatin. Within a given cell type, nuclease-HS sites fall into two
main categories: constitutive and inducible. Several classes of nuclear
proteins have been associated with a subset of HS sites including
topoisomerases I and II, RNA polymerase II, and transcription factors.
With these HS sites as a guide, in vivo footprint analysis was
performed to identify potential DNA binding sites of regulatory proteins at single-nucleotide resolution. In essence, this technique involved chemical modification of the N7 of guanine residues with dimethyl sulfate (DMS). These modifications cause rare
nicks in the phosphodiesterase backbone of DNA, leading to 5'-ends
that could be ligated, allowing PCR to be performed [ligation-mediated PCR (9)]. When a region of the iNOS promoter between
5.8 and
13 kb was examined, large differences in chromatin
structure were identified between the pulmonary (A459) and hepatic
biliary (AKN-1) epithelial cell lines. In particular, the induction of iNOS with cytokines resulted in the appearance of several inducible HS
sites. Although most were common to both cell types, each had unique,
tissue-specific sites. Furthermore, taking the chromatin structure data
as a whole, HS sites were more likely to be constitutive in the AKN-1
cells and inducible in the A549 cells. As the authors (13a) suggested,
these differences may reflect a varying cytokine requirement to
minimally induce iNOS mRNA levels. DMS in vivo footprint analysis was
performed on a region of chromatin (approximately
5.45 to
4.95 kb)
that contained both constitutive, inducible, and tissue-specific sites
and because genomic sequence data was available. The authors reported a
good correlation between the nature of the HS sites and that of the in
vivo footprints. Interestingly, in A549 cells, there was
cytokine-induced, increased DMS reactivity at approximately
5.5 kb,
an area that maps to inducible HS sites in A549 cells but is
constitutively accessible in AKN-1 cells. As the authors hypothesize,
this difference may relate to tissue-specific regulation in terms of
the minimal requirement of cytokines for iNOS induction. Furthermore,
computer analysis identified activator protein-1 and Ets-1 consensus
sequences within identified footprints, suggesting that these molecules
may be involved in regulation of transcription of the human iNOS gene.
How robust are these data and what do they infer? The advantages of
this kind of study are that DNA-protein interactions are preserved and
the experiments therefore supply functional information. In this sense,
they are complementary to those using transfection methods with
deletion analysis of the desired promoter region, in which functional
regulation by intact chromatin may be lost. Thus, to a large extent,
the results of Mellott et al. (13a) support previous data from
transfection studies, but they also highlight differences.
Specifically, a region of the promoter shown by others to be cytokine
inducible using deletion analysis (4) was inactive in the
present study, which employed DNase I-HS site analysis. The authors
(13a) argue that this observed difference may be due to the inability
of a plasmid-based construct to attain a chromatin structure similar to
that of the endogenous gene. How important such in vitro versus in vivo
differences are remains unclear. Either way, HS site analysis will
narrow down the areas of promoters that are likely to be functional.
Could anything be added to enhance the utility of these investigations?
Analysis of the functional significance of the cytokine alterations at
5.5 kb in AKN-1 cells might have improved the study, as would the
identification of which transcription factors bind to this region.
The clinical significance of these findings is as yet limited. However,
it is clear from animal experimentation and early clinical studies that
simple blanket inhibition of NOS is unlikely to lead to therapeutic
advances in complex inflammatory conditions such as sepsis. Thus NOS
inhibition in patients with hypodynamic septic shock has recently been
shown to adversely influence outcome (7). Clearly,
research into specific regulation of NOS at a tissue level of the kind
reported here may at least enable future pharmacological interventions
to be directed more specifically and, therefore, effectively. At best,
improved understanding of iNOS gene regulation may also provide future
opportunities for molecular, tissue-specific manipulation of NO production.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
S. J. Wort and J. A. Mitchell were supported by the
Wellcome Trust.
 |
REFERENCES |
1.
Ambs, S,
Merriam WG,
Bennett WP,
Felley-Bosco E,
Ogunfusika MO,
Oser SM,
Klein S,
Shields PG,
Billiar TR,
and
Harris CC.
Frequent nitric oxide synthase-2 expression in human colon adenomas: implication for tumor angiogenesis and colon cancer progression.
Cancer Res
58:
334-341,
1998[Abstract].
2.
Charles, IG,
Palmer RM,
Hickery MS,
Bayliss MT,
Chubb AP,
Hall VS,
Moss DW,
and
Moncada S.
Cloning, characterization, and expression of a cDNA encoding an inducible nitric oxide synthase from the human chondrocyte.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
90:
11419-11423,
1993[Abstract].
3.
Chartrain, NA,
Geller DA,
Koty PP,
Sitrin NF,
Nussler AK,
Hoffman EP,
Billiar TR,
Hutchinson NI,
and
Mudgett JS.
Molecular cloning, structure, and chromosomal localization of the human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene.
J Biol Chem
269:
6765-6772,
1994[Abstract/Free Full Text].
4.
De Vera, ME,
Shapiro RA,
Nussler AK,
Mudgett JS,
Simmons RL,
Morris SM, Jr,
Billiar TR,
and
Geller DA.
Transcriptional regulation of human inducible nitric oxide synthase (NOS2) gene by cytokines: initial analysis of the human NOS2 promoter.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
93:
1054-1059,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text].
5.
Geller, DA,
Lowenstein CJ,
Shapiro RA,
Nussler AK,
Di Silvio M,
Wang SC,
Nakayama DK,
Simmons RL,
Snyder SH,
and
Billiar TR.
Molecular cloning and expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase from human hepatocytes.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
90:
3491-3495,
1993[Abstract].
6.
Gross, DS,
and
Garrard WT.
Nuclease hypersensitive sites in chromatin.
Annu Rev Biochem
57:
159-197,
1988[ISI][Medline].
7.
Grover, R,
Lopez A,
Lorente J,
Steingrub J,
Bakker J,
Willatts S,
McLuckie A,
and
Takala J.
Multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study of the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor 546C88: effect on survival in patients with septic shock (Abstract).
Crit Care Med
27:
A33,
1999[ISI].
8.
Hamid, Q,
Springall DR,
Riveros-Moreno V,
Chanez P,
Howarth P,
Redington A,
Bousquet J,
Godard P,
Holgate S,
and
Polak JM.
Induction of nitric oxide synthase in asthma.
Lancet
342:
1510-1513,
1993[ISI][Medline].
9.
Hershkovitz, M,
and
Riggs AD.
Ligation-mediated PCR for chromatin-structure analysis of interphase and metaphase chromatin.
Methods
11:
253-263,
1997[ISI][Medline].
10.
Lewis, NP,
Tsao PS,
Rickenbacher PR,
Xue C,
Johns RA,
Haywood GA,
von der Leyen H,
Trindade PT,
Cooke JP,
Hunt SA,
Billingham ME,
Valantine HA,
and
Fowler MB.
Induction of nitric oxide synthase in the human cardiac allograft is associated with contractile dysfunction of the left ventricle.
Circulation
93:
720-729,
1996[Abstract/Free Full Text].
11.
Linn, SC,
Morelli PJ,
Edry I,
Cottongim SE,
Szabo C,
and
Salzman AL.
Transcriptional regulation of human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene in an intestinal epithelial cell line.
Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol
272:
G1499-G1508,
1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].
12.
Lowenstein, CJ,
Alley EW,
Raval P,
Snowman AM,
Snyder SH,
Russell SW,
and
Murphy WJ.
Macrophage nitric oxide synthase gene: two upstream regions mediate induction by interferon gamma and lipopolysaccharide.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
90:
9730-9734,
1993[Abstract].
13.
Marsden, PA,
Heng HH,
Duff CL,
Shi XM,
Tsui LC,
and
Hall AV.
Localization of the human gene for inducible nitric oxide synthase (NOS2) to chromosome 17q11.2-q12.
Genomics
19:
183-185,
1994[ISI][Medline].
13a.
Mellott, JK,
Nick HS,
Waters MF,
Billiar TR,
Geller DA,
and
Chesrown SE.
Cytokine-induced changes in chromatin structure and in vivo footprints in the inducible NOS promoter.
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol
280:
L390-L399,
2001[Abstract/Free Full Text].
14.
Nunokawa, Y,
Ishida N,
and
Tanaka S.
Promoter analysis of human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene associated with cardiovascular homeostasis.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
200:
802-807,
1994[ISI][Medline].
15.
Nunokawa, Y,
Oikawa S,
and
Tanaka S.
Expression of human inducible nitric oxide synthase is regulated by both promoter and 3'-regions.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun
233:
523-526,
1997[ISI][Medline].
16.
Sakurai, H,
Kohsaka H,
Liu MF,
Higashiyama H,
Hirata Y,
Kanno K,
Saito I,
and
Miyasaka N.
Nitric oxide production and inducible nitric oxide synthase expression in inflammatory arthritides.
J Clin Invest
96:
2357-2363,
1995[ISI][Medline].
17.
Singh, S,
and
Evans TW.
Nitric oxide, the biological mediator of the decade: fact or fiction?
Eur Respir J
10:
699-707,
1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].
18.
Singh, S,
Wort SJ,
and
Evans TW.
Inducible nitric oxide and pulmonary infection.
Thorax
54:
959-960,
1999[Free Full Text].
19.
Spitsin, SV,
Koprowski H,
and
Michaels FH.
Characterization and functional analysis of the human inducible nitric oxide synthase gene promoter.
Mol Med
2:
226-235,
1996[ISI][Medline].
20.
Vodovotz, Y,
Geiser AG,
Chesler L,
Letterio JJ,
Campbell A,
Lucia MS,
Sporn MB,
and
Roberts AB.
Spontaneously increased production of nitric oxide and aberrant expression of the inducible nitric oxide synthase in vivo in the transforming growth factor beta 1 null mouse.
J Exp Med
183:
2337-2342,
1996[Abstract].
21.
Xie, QW,
Cho HJ,
Calaycay J,
Mumford RA,
Swiderek KM,
Lee TD,
Ding A,
Troso T,
and
Nathan C.
Cloning and characterization of inducible nitric oxide synthase from mouse macrophages.
Science
256:
225-228,
1992[ISI][Medline].
22.
Xie, QW,
Kashiwabara Y,
and
Nathan C.
Role of transcription factor NF-kappa B/Rel in induction of nitric oxide synthase.
J Biol Chem
269:
4705-4708,
1994[Abstract/Free Full Text].
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 280(3):L387-L389
1040-0605/01 $5.00
Copyright © 2001 the American Physiological Society