Regulation of rat glutamate-cysteine ligase ({gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase) subunits by chemopreventive agents and in aflatoxin B1-induced preneoplasia

A.Graeme Shepherd1,3, Margaret M. Manson2, Helen W.L. Ball2 and Lesley I. McLellan1,4

1 Biomedical Research Centre, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY and
2 MRC Toxicology Unit, Hodgkin Building, University of Leicester, PO Box 138, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 9HN, UK


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Certain dietary constituents can protect against chemically induced carcinogenesis in rodents. A principal mechanism by which these chemopreventive compounds exert their protective effects is likely to be via induction of carcinogen detoxification. This can be mediated by conjugation with glutathione, which is synthesized by the sequential actions of glutamate-cysteine ligase (GLCL) and glutathione synthetase. We have demonstrated that dietary administration of the naturally occurring chemopreventive agents, ellagic acid, coumarin or {alpha}-angelicalactone caused an increase in GLCL activity of between ~3- and 5-fold in rat liver. Treatment with the synthetic antioxidant ethoxyquin or the classic inducer phenobarbital caused < 2-fold induction of GLCL activity in rat liver, which was not found to be significant. The increases in GLCL activity were accompanied by increases (between 2- and 4-fold) in levels of both the catalytic heavy subunit (GLCLC) and regulatory light subunit (GLCLR). No substantial induction of GLCL was observed in rat kidney. The glutathione S-transferase (GST) subunits A1, A3, A4, A5, P1 and M1 were all found to be inducible in rat liver by most of the agents. The greatest levels of induction were observed for GST P1, following treatment with coumarin (20-fold), {alpha}-angelicalactone (10-fold) or ellagic acid (6-fold), and GST A5, following treatment with coumarin (7-fold), {alpha}-angelicalactone (6-fold) and ethoxyquin (6-fold). Glutathione synthetase was induced ~1.5-fold by coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone, ellagic acid and ethoxyquin. The expression of glutathione-related enzymes was also examined in preneoplastic lesions induced in rat liver by aflatoxin B1. The majority of {gamma}-glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT)-positive preneoplastic foci contained increased levels of GLCLC relative to the surrounding tissue. This was usually found to be accompanied by an increase in GLCLR. Cells in the inner cortex of rat kidney were found to contain the highest levels of both GLCLC and GLCLR. The same cells showed the strongest staining for GGT activity.

Abbreviations: AFB1, aflatoxin B1; AP-1, activator protein 1; ARE, antioxidant-responsive element; BHA, butylated hydroxyanisole; GGT, {gamma}-glutamyltranspeptidase; GLCL, glutamate-cysteine ligase; GLCLC, glutamate-cysteine ligase catalytic subunit; GLCLR, glutamate-cysteine ligase regulatory subunit; GS, glutathione synthetase; GST, glutathione S-transferase; I3C, indole-3-carbinol; NQO, NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase; TNF-{alpha}, tumour necrosis factor {alpha}.


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
A wide variety of structurally diverse chemicals can protect against chemically induced neoplasia in rodents. Whilst many mechanisms exist for chemoprevention, there is compelling evidence to suggest that induction of detoxification systems is of principal importance in prevention of mutagenesis and the initiation of cancer (1). Induction of glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) and enhancement of glutathione levels result from treatment with an extensive range of chemopreventive agents, many of which are naturally occurring in the diet. This effect has the potential to provide cells with protection from electrophilic DNA-damaging agents. In addition, the antioxidant properties of glutathione can protect against the oxidative damage generated by many carcinogens, as well as influencing redox-sensitive signalling pathways involved in responses to stress (2).

GSTs are a major group of detoxification enzymes conjugating glutathione to a vast spectrum of reactive metabolites and multiple cytosolic and membrane-bound isoenzymes exist. To date, six distinct gene families encoding the cytosolic GSTs have been identified in mammals, namely {alpha}, µ, {pi}, {theta}, {sigma} and {zeta} (2). It has been shown previously that the {alpha} class GST subunit A5 can be induced in rat liver between 10- and 20-fold by the synthetic antioxidant ethoxyquin, as well as by other chemopreventive agents, including coumarin and indole-3-carbinol (I3C) (36). This is of particular interest because of the association between ethoxyquin, coumarin or I3C treatment and protection against aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)-induced hepatic neoplasia (4,6,7). GST A5-5 has been shown to possess a high specific activity towards AFB1 8,9-epoxide, a mutagenic metabolite of AFB1 (6,8). Furthermore, treatment of rats with the glutathione-depleting agents buthionine sulphoximine and diethylmaleate prior to AFB1 treatment increases AFB1 DNA binding in liver and kidney (9), supporting the hypothesis that glutathione is of critical importance in protection from certain mutagens.

Glutathione is synthesized from its constituent amino acids by glutamate-cysteine ligase (GLCL) and glutathione synthetase (GS) (10). Evidence suggests that GLCL catalyses the rate limiting step in glutathione synthesis, as it is subject to feedback inhibition by glutathione (10,11). GLCL is a heterodimer composed of a catalytic subunit (73 kDa, heavy subunit, GLCLC) and a regulatory subunit (30 kDa, light subunit, GLCLR). Both hydrophobic and disulphide interactions between GLCLC and GLCLR exist and it has been proposed that variation in intracellular glutathione concentrations may modulate disulphide bridge formation between the subunits causing conformational changes in the enzyme (1214). This regulates the Km of GLCLC for glutamate and feedback inhibition by glutathione.

GLCLC and GLCLR are encoded by separate genes, but under certain conditions can be regulated in an apparently coordinate manner. It has been shown previously that both subunits are induced by t-butylhydroquinone or ß-naphthoflavone in human HepG2 cells (15,16). The involvement of antioxidant-responsive elements (ARE) in the promoters of both subunits as a mediator of transcriptional activation of the human GLCL genes by these inducing agents has been predicted (1618). Recent studies in our laboratory, however, have provided evidence that induction of GLCLR may occur by an ARE-independent mechanism (19). Separate studies have shown that an activator protein 1 (AP-1) site is important in the induction of GLCLC by oxidants or tumour necrosis factor {alpha} (TNF-{alpha}) (2023). Furthermore, the involvement of an AP-1 site in the overexpression of GLCLC in certain drug-resistant cancer cell lines has been proposed (24). Other studies have demonstrated differential regulation of GLCLR and GLCLC by hormones and plating density in cultured rat hepatocytes (25). The promoters of the rat GLCL subunits have not been characterized and it is unknown whether they may be subject to transcriptional control by mechanisms similar to the human GLCL subunits. The regulation of both subunits in vivo has received little attention, although it has been shown that GLCLC mRNA is increased during rat liver regeneration, whereas GLCLR mRNA levels remain unchanged (26).

Treatment of mice with the synthetic antioxidant butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) causes an increase in hepatic glutathione levels and this has been shown to be associated with an increase in GLCLC mRNA; levels of GLCLR were not determined (27,28). Whilst several agents that protect against cancer increase hepatic glutathione levels in rodents, the effect of the majority of chemopreventive agents on GLCL levels has not been examined. In particular, it is unknown whether both GLCLC and GLCLR can be induced by chemopreventive agents in vivo.

{gamma}-Glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT), another component of the {gamma}-glutamyl cycle, is the only known enzyme to break the {gamma}-glutamyl bond of glutathione and, as such, is important for the recycling of glutathione and the metabolism of glutathione–xenobiotic conjugates (29). This enzyme is induced, mainly in the periportal areas of the liver, by a wide range of chemopreventive agents, including ethoxyquin (30) and coumarin (unpublished data). It has been shown previously that chronic low level feeding of rats with AFB1 gives rise to sub-populations of cells that have increased GST, GGT and glutathione levels; these sub-populations of cells are resistant to the cytotoxicity of AFB1 (31). The mechanism for the increase in glutathione levels in these cells could be, in part, a consequence of the increased GGT levels. Alternatively, or in addition, it is possible that levels of glutathione synthesizing enzymes are increased in AFB1-induced preneoplastic foci, as overexpression of GLCLC in cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer cells has been predicted to be responsible for increased glutathione levels and drug resistance (32). GGT has also been found to be a mediator of cisplatin resistance in tumour cells in vivo (33).

The regulation of glutathione synthesizing enzymes is likely to be of critical importance in cancer prevention and in resistance to environmental carcinogens and oxidative stress. In the present study we have examined the induction of GLCLC and GLCLR in the rat by naturally occurring and synthetic chemopreventive agents and in AFB1-induced preneoplasia. We show that induction of GLCL is likely to contribute to a mechanism for enhanced detoxification and resistance to carcinogens.


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Chemicals
All chemicals were of analytical grade and are readily available commercially.

Animals
Adult male Wistar rats (200–250 g), bred and maintained at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund Animal Unit, Clare Hall, London, were used to examine the effect of chemopreventive agents on levels of GLCL and glutathione-metabolizing enzymes. Each group of rats (3 animals/group) was fed the same basic powdered diet (Standard Mouse/Rat Food; Special Diet Services, Essex, UK) to which the following compounds were added: no additives; 0.5% w/w coumarin; 0.5% w/w {alpha}-angelicalactone; 1% w/w ellagic acid; 0.1% w/w phenobarbital; 0.5% w/w ethoxyquin. Levels of dietary additives were similar to those used in previous studies where chemoprevention and induction of xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes have been shown (1,34,35) and were administered for 14 days, after which the animals were fasted overnight and killed the following day. Adult male Fischer 344 rats, purchased from Harlan Olac UK and maintained at the MRC Toxicology Unit, Leicester, were used to examine GLCL expression in hepatic preneoplasia. Rats were fed a diet containing AFB1 (2 p.p.m.) for 13 weeks to induce preneoplastic foci in liver (4).

Tissue and cytosol preparation
Livers and kidneys from rats treated with chemopreventive agents were stored at –80°C for up to 2 months. Cytosols were prepared from frozen tissue as described previously (36). Slices of tissue for immunohistochemistry were fixed immediately after excision in ice-cold acetone (37).

Analytical
GLCL activity, GST activity towards 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene and total glutathione concentrations were determined as described previously (36,38). Glutathione peroxidase activity was measured as described by Howie et al. (39). Glutathione reductase activity was measured using the method of Carlberg and Mannervik (40) adapted for use on a Cobas Fara centrifugal analyser. Statistical analyses were performed using a one-way Anova, with post hoc analyses carried out using Scheffe's test. Protein determination was by the method of Bradford (41) adapted for use on a Cobas Fara Centrifugal analyser (38).

Antibodies
The antibodies raised against peptides corresponding to regions of GLCLC or GLCLR have been described previously (15). Antibodies raised against rat GST A1-1, A3-3, A4-4, A5-5, M1-1 and P1-1 were a generous gift from Professor John Hayes (University of Dundee) and have been characterized previously (5). GS was purified from rat kidney using a modification of the method of Oppenheimer et al. (42) and antibodies raised in rabbits using standard protocols.

Immunoblotting
Western blot analysis was performed by the method of Towbin et al. (43). The relative intensities of bands on autoradiographs were estimated by scanning densitometry. Loading and transfer of samples was assessed by staining the nitrocellulose membranes after transfer with Ponceau S (38).

Immunohistochemistry and histochemistry
Antisera raised against the GLCL peptides or purified rat GST P1-1 were used at 1:200 dilutions with anti-rabbit alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary antibody as described previously (44). GGT activity was located histochemically as described by Manson et al. (37).


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The effect of dietary chemopreventive agents on induction of GLCL activity in rat liver
It is unknown whether GLCL activity can be regulated by chemopreventive agents such as those which are found naturally in vegetables and fruits. To address this, we examined the effect of a range of agents [coumarin, found in peas and beans; {alpha}-angelicalactone, found in Archangelica officinalis; ellagic acid, found in grapes and strawberries (1); ethoxyquin and phenobarbital, known to induce drug-metabolizing enzymes] on GLCL activity in rat liver. Table IGo shows that, at the doses used, ellagic acid and coumarin cause the greatest induction of GLCL activity of 4.8- and 4.6-fold, respectively. {alpha}-Angelicalactone was found to increase activity 3-fold, whereas phenobarbital and ethoxyquin caused lesser increases which were not found to be significant.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I. The effect of dietary chemopreventive agents on enzymes associated with glutathione metabolism in rat liver
 
In order to determine whether the increases in activity are caused by increases in the catalytic subunit of GLCL alone or whether both catalytic and regulatory subunits are involved, cytosols from the livers of treated rats were subject to western blotting using antibodies raised against peptides corresponding to regions from GLCLC or GLCLR (15). Figure 1Go shows induction of both GLCLC and GLCLR by coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone, ellagic acid and ethoxyquin treatment. As suggested by measurement of GLCL specific activity, coumarin and ellagic acid were the best inducing agents for both subunits. Based on scanning densitometry of western blots, coumarin caused induction of GLCLC by 3-fold and GLCLR by 4.5-fold on average. Induction mediated by ellagic acid was 2.5- and 4-fold for GLCLC and GLCLR, respectively, while treatment with {alpha}-angelicalactone led to a 2- and 4-fold induction. Treatment with ethoxyquin resulted in induction of each GLCL subunit by ~2-fold, whereas induction of either subunit following phenobarbital treatment was not evident.



View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Induction of GLCL heavy and light subunits in rat liver. Cytosolic protein (50 µg) from the livers of rats (3 animals/group) fed with different chemopreventive agents was resolved by SDS–PAGE and electrotransferred to nitrocellulose membrane. Western blot analysis was performed using antisera raised against peptides corresponding to a region of the GLCLC subunit (A) or the GLCLR subunit (B). The lanes were loaded with hepatic protein from rats fed with dietary supplements as follows; lanes 1–3, no dietary additives; lanes 4–6, coumarin; lanes 7–9, {alpha}-angelicalactone; lanes 10–12, ellagic acid; lanes 13–15, phenobarbital; lanes 16–18, ethoxyquin.

 
Levels of glutathione were determined in the liver cytosols from treated rats (Table IGo). Despite an apparent increase in capacity to synthesize glutathione in rat liver after treatment with chemopreventive agents, only ellagic acid was found to increase glutathione concentrations.

To determine whether the chemopreventive agents used in the present study induce the GLCL subunits in kidney as well as liver, kidney cytosols from rats treated with the different agents were examined by western blotting. Figure 2Go shows that very little change in levels of expression of GLCLC occurred in kidney after treatment with any of the compounds studied. A low level of induction of GLCLR was observed in kidneys from rats treated with all agents.



View larger version (64K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. The effect of chemopreventive agents on GLCL subunit levels in rat kidney. Cytosolic protein (20 µg) from the kidneys of rats fed with different chemopreventive agents was resolved by SDS–PAGE and electrotransferred to nitrocellulose membrane. Western blot analysis was performed using antisera raised against peptides corresponding to a region of the GLCLC subunit (A) or the GLCLR subunit (B). The lanes were loaded with kidney cytosol from rats fed with dietary supplements as follows; lane 1, no dietary additives; lane 2, coumarin; lane 3, {alpha}-angelicalactone; lane 4, ellagic acid; lane 5, phenobarbital; lane 6, ethoxyquin. The experiment was performed in triplicate (3 animals/ group) and representative blots are shown.

 
The effect of chemopreventive agents on other glutathione metabolizing enzymes in rat liver
Since coumarin, ellagic acid and {alpha}-angelicalactone were found to be effective inducing agents for GLCLR and GLCLC in rat liver, it was important to determine whether a potential increase in the capacity to synthesize glutathione is associated with an increase in other glutathione-associated detoxification mechanisms. Of particular interest is the regulation of GST isoenzymes by these compounds, as it has been demonstrated in several other studies that GST activity and separate members of the GST gene family can be regulated by many chemopreventive agents (1,5,7).

Liver cytosol from rats treated with coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone, ellagic acid, phenobarbital and ethoxyquin were subject to western blotting using antibodies raised against the rat {alpha} class GSTs A1-1, A3-3, A4-4 or A5-5, µ class GST M1-1 or {pi} class GST P1-1. Figure 3Go shows that coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone and ellagic acid are the most effective inducers of {pi} class GST, with coumarin causing the greatest level of induction. Coumarin caused an increase in the GST P1 subunit of ~20-fold, whereas {alpha}-angelicalactone and ellagic acid treatment resulted in ~10- and 6-fold induction, respectively. The synthetic antioxidant ethoxyquin caused lower levels of induction of the P1 subunit (4-fold) and phenobarbital had no effect on P1 expression. Of all the compounds studied, coumarin was also found to be the most effective inducer of the AFB1-metabolizing {alpha} class GST A5-5, causing a 7-fold induction (the A5 subunit is the lower of the two cross-reacting subunits shown in Figure 4cGo, indicated by the arrow; the polyclonal antibodies raised against the recombinant A5 subunit cross-react with the constitutively expressed A3 subunit due to the high level of amino acid sequence identity between the two polypeptides). {alpha}-Angelicalactone and ethoxyquin were both found to cause similar levels of induction of ~6-fold and phenobarbital and ellagic acid resulted in induction of A5 by 4- and 3-fold, respectively. The {alpha} class GST subunits A1 and A3, which have a higher basal expression than A5, showed less pronounced levels of induction. Figure 3Go shows that the A1 subunit was induced ~2-fold by coumarin and {alpha}-angelicalactone and ~1.5-fold by the other compounds examined. The A3 subunit was induced 2-fold by coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone and ethoxyquin and ~1.5-fold by the remaining compounds. The A4 subunit was also found to be inducible by coumarin (4-fold), {alpha}-angelicalactone (3-fold), ethoxyquin (3-fold), ellagic acid (2.5-fold) and phenobarbital (2-fold). It is interesting to note that the antibody raised against A4-4 also cross-reacts with a higher molecular weight subunit that was apparent in cytosols from coumarin-, {alpha}-angelicalactone- and ethoxyquin-treated rats. The identity of this band is, however, unknown. The µ class GST M1-1 was inducible to a similar extent (~2-fold) by all of the compounds used in the present study.



View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Regulation of GST and GS by chemopreventive agents in rat liver. Cytosolic protein (10 µg for analysis of GST and 20 µg for analysis of GS) from the livers of rats fed with different chemopreventive agents was resolved by SDS–PAGE and electrotransferred to nitrocellulose membrane. Western blot analysis was performed using antisera raised against rat GSTs A1-1 (A), A3-3 (B), A4-4 (C), A5-5 (D) (the mobility of the A5 subunit is indicated by the arrow), M1-1 (E) and P1-1 (F) and GS (G). The lanes were loaded with liver cytosol from rats fed with dietary supplements as follows; lane 1, no dietary additives; lane 2, coumarin; lane 3, {alpha}-angelicalactone; lane 4, ellagic acid; lane 5, phenobarbital; lane 6, ethoxyquin. The experiment was performed in triplicate (3 animals/group) and representative blots are shown.

 


View larger version (136K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Expression of glutathione-associated enzymes in aflatoxin B1-induced hepatic preneoplastic foci. Rat livers bearing AFB1-induced preneoplastic nodules were examined for expression of GST P1 (a), GGT (b), GLCLC (c) and GLCLR (d).

 
Very little is known about the regulation of GS, but as the GLCL subunits are effectively induced by coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone and ellagic acid, it is possible that co-induction of the ultimate enzyme of glutathione synthesis may occur. Hepatic cytosols from rats treated with the chemopreventive agents described above were examined for GS expression by western blotting (Figure 3Go). GS was found to undergo a modest induction of ~1.5-fold after treatment with coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone, ellagic acid and ethoxyquin; treatment with phenobarbital caused no detectable change. The antibodies raised against purified rat kidney GS cross-react with a higher molecular weight band in rat liver. This is unlikely to be related to GS, as antibodies raised against recombinant human GS do not cross-react with this secondary higher molecular weight band (data not shown).

In addition to determining the effect of chemopreventive agents on GST isoenzyme expression levels, it was important to establish whether the activities of GST, glutathione peroxidase or glutathione reductase were altered. Table IGo shows that coumarin caused the greatest increase in GST activity towards the model substrate1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (2-fold), with ethoxyquin and {alpha}-angelicalactone each causing an increase of 1.6- and 1.7-fold, respectively. Phenobarbital and ellagic acid were found to increase GST activity by 1.5- and 1.3-fold, respectively. It is important to note, however, that not all GST isoforms have high activity towards1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene and that the increases in GST activity towards this substrate will not reflect the levels of induction of several of the different GST subunits.

Glutathione reductase activity was also increased by treatment with all of the chemopreventive agents used in this study. Ethoxyquin had the greatest effect, causing an induction of 3.3-fold. Coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone, phenobarbital and ellagic acid induced glutathione reductase activity by 3-, 2.9-, 2.7- and 1.9-fold, respectively. In contrast, the chemopreventive agents were not found to increase glutathione peroxidase activity towards H2O2 in rat liver (Table IGo). Coumarin was found to decrease glutathione peroxidase activity to approximately half that of the control activity. Ethoxyquin was also found to cause a modest decrease in glutathione peroxidase activity, whereas none of the other agents had any significant effect. A decrease in hepatic glutathione peroxidase activity towards H2O2 following ethoxyquin treatment has been observed previously, although the mechanism for this is unknown (3). Glutathione peroxidase activity towards cumene hydroperoxide was not changed significantly following treatment with any of the chemopreventive agents.

Regulation of GLCL subunits in preneoplastic foci and co-localization with GGT and GST P1-1
AFB1-induced preneoplastic foci are resistant to AFB1 cytotoxicity. This has been shown to be associated with increased glutathione levels and GST activity in the resistant cells (31). Because there is an intimate association between glutathione metabolism and resistance to environmental carcinogens, it is important to determine whether the increased glutathione levels in AFB1-induced hepatic foci could be a consequence of increased de novo synthesis of glutathione. Male Fischer 344 rats were treated with dietary AFB1 for 13 weeks to induce the appearance of focal preneoplastic lesions. The livers were subjected to immunohistochemistry using antibodies raised against peptides corresponding to regions of GLCLC or GLCLR, as well as antibodies raised against purified GST P1-1. GGT activity was examined histochemically. Induction of GGT and GST P1-1 in altered cell foci are classical markers of preneoplastic changes in initiated rat liver.

Treatment with AFB1 resulted in the appearance of focal lesions which stained positively for GST P1-1. Whilst not all of these contained increased levels of GGT, the majority of GGT-positive foci also contained increased levels of GLCLC (Figure 4Go). GLCLR was also found to be up-regulated in most (although not all) of the GLCLC-positive foci, but the level of staining was consistently less than that seen for GLCLC relative to the surrounding tissue (Figure 4Go). The GLCL subunits therefore appear to be subject to regulation in preneoplastic foci, although it is apparent that this is not always a coordinated response, as several of the GLCLC-positive foci did not contain a detectable increase in GLCLR.

Co-localization of GLCL subunits with GGT and GST P-1-1 in rat kidney
Having found that GLCLC and GLCLR are induced in rat liver by chemopreventive agents and by carcinogens in preneoplastic foci, it was therefore of interest to determine whether each of the GLCL subunits is expressed in the same cells in normal rat kidney or whether differential regulation could occur in a cell-specific manner. Normal rat kidney was subject to immunohistochemistry with the antibodies raised against the GLCLC or GLCLR peptides and GST P1-1 and to histochemistry for GGT activity. Figure 5Go shows that GLCLC and GLCLR were both present in the highest concentrations in the proximal tubules in the inner cortex where staining for GGT and GST P1-1 staining were strongest. Both GLCLC and GLCLR are present in high concentrations in the same cells, suggesting coordinate regulation by tissue-specific factors. In the outer cortex, staining for GGT was much more widespread than for any of the other enzyme subunits (Figure 6Go).



View larger version (91K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Co-regulation of GLCL, GGT and GST P1 in the inner cortex of rat kidney. The localization of GST P1 (a), GGT (b), GLCLC (c) and GLCLR (d) was examined in tissue slices from the inner cortex of rat kidney.

 


View larger version (146K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Localization of glutathione-associated enzymes in the outer cortex of rat kidney. The distribution of GST P1 (a), GGT (b), GLCLC (c) and GLCLR (d) was examined in tissue slices from the outer cortex of rat kidney.

 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Blocking the initiation of cancer by enhancing detoxification systems is one of several different ways by which dietary constituents can protect against cancer (1). Some of these blocking agents are capable of inducing GST, NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase (NQO) and other phase II drug-metabolizing enzymes, without affecting levels of cytochrome P450 enzymes (specifically those with arylhydrocarbon hydroxylase activity) (1,2,45,46). Others affect cytochrome P450 enzymes as well as phase II drug-metabolizing enzymes (30). A number of phase II enzymes and related proteins (GLCL, GGT, GST and NQO) contain AREs in their promoter regions and it has been suggested that some chemopreventive agents induce these genes via this responsive element (1).

Several studies have demonstrated that, in addition to inducing phase II enzyme activity, certain chemopreventive agents cause an increase in acid-soluble thiol or glutathione levels (27,4749). In livers from BHA-treated mice an increase in the mRNA encoding GLCLC was demonstrated and it was proposed that this could be a mechanism by which BHA increases hepatic glutathione levels (28). A separate study showed that BHA and ethoxyquin caused an increase in GLCL activity and GLCLC mRNA levels in rat liver, whereas Oltipraz had no effect (50). The effect of other naturally occurring chemopreventive agents on GLCL activity has received little attention, but induction of GLCL activity could potentially make an important contribution to their anticancer properties.

In the present study we have demonstrated that certain naturally occurring phytochemicals, which have been shown previously to protect against cancer, cause induction of GLCL activity in rat liver. Of particular interest is the finding that the increase in GLCL activity is associated with induction of both the catalytic and regulatory subunits. This co-induction is likely to be of critical importance in vivo as GLCLC has a low affinity for glutamate (Km = 18.2 mM) in the absence of GLCLR (14). GLCLC is also sensitive to competitive inhibition by glutathione unless associated with GLCLR (14). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated recently that overexpression of human GLCLR in HeLa cells, without an increase in GLCLC expression, is sufficient to increase GLCL activity and generate an enhanced ability to resynthesize glutathione following its depletion by diethylmaleate (51). These studies demonstrate that both GLCLC and GLCLR are likely to be important in regulating glutathione homeostasis.

Despite induction of the GLCL subunits by the chemopreventive agents used in the present study, only ellagic acid was found to cause an increase in the apparent steady-state glutathione levels. Nevertheless, the capacity to resynthesize glutathione following its depletion is probably more important for cellular protection than the absolute levels of glutathione in the cell (51,52). It is likely that glutathione concentrations are subject to tight control mechanisms and, whilst temporary fluctuations could occur in response to different stimuli, it is possible that in a longer term feeding study such as ours, glutathione levels have been subject to homeostatic regulation. This could, in part, be due to feedback inhibition by glutathione of GLCL activity. The fact that the animals were fasted overnight before the glutathione measurements were performed may also have been a contributory factor, with substrate availability being rate limiting for glutathione synthesis.

To our knowledge this is the first demonstration that both the GLCLC and GLCLR subunits are induced by chemopreventive agents in vivo. It has, however, been reported that t-butylhydroquinone, which is the metabolite of BHA believed to be responsible for induction of gene expression, causes induction of both subunits in human cell lines (15,38), as does ß-naphthoflavone (16,17). AREs have been described in the 5'-flanking regions of the respective human genes and it has been proposed that induction by ß-naphthoflavone is mediated through these (16,17). A separate 42 bp region of DNA which is responsive to t-butylhydroquinone has also been identified in the 5'-flanking region of the gene encoding GLCLR (19). In addition, AP-1 sites have been shown to be involved in the induction of human GLCLC by oxidants and cigarette smoke condensates, as well as by TNF-{alpha} (20,21,23,53). AP-1 has also been shown to be important in the basal expression of the genes encoding both the human GLCLR and GLCLC subunits (16,17,19). It is, however, unknown whether the rat GLCL genes contain AREs or AP-1 sites in their promoter regions and it remains to be determined whether the chemopreventive agents shown in the present study to induce levels of the GLCL polypeptides involve ARE-dependent mechanisms.

Recent studies have shown that induction of gene expression mediated by an ARE is influenced by the transcription factor Nrf2 (54,55). Mice with deletions in the gene encoding Nrf2 were found to have no overt abnormalities, but are defective in their ability to induce NQO or certain GSTs in response to treatment with BHA. The effect of BHA on the GLCL subunits was not determined in these experiments and Nrf2–/– mice should provide an important in vivo model to examine the role of the ARE and Nrf2 in regulating GLCL expression in the mouse. Furthermore, as it has not been demonstrated unequivocally that inducers of drug-metabolizing enzymes such as {alpha}-angelicalactone, coumarin and ellagic acid mediate induction of gene expression via an ARE, the Nrf2–/– mouse model should allow this hypothesis to be explored in greater depth.

The most effective inducers of GLCL expression and activity were coumarin, {alpha}-angelicalactone and ellagic acid; these were also found to be good inducers of the GST P1 and A5 subunits. These three naturally occurring phytochemicals have been shown to be effective chemopreventive agents in rodents (1,7). This has been demonstrated previously to be associated with increases in activity of glutathione S-transferases, and enhanced detoxification of carcinogens has been proposed to be a major mechanism of action by which many chemopreventive agents act (1). It is interesting to note, however, that induction of glutathione-related enzymes by chemopreventive agents does not necessarily constitute a coordinated response. For example, in contrast to the marked induction of GST P1 and GST A5 specifically by coumarin and {alpha}-angelicalactone, the µ class GST M1 subunit seemed to be induced equally as well (~2-fold) by all the inducing agents used in the present study. Other studies have also demonstrated that the {theta} class GST T1 is inducible by chemopreventive agents, but is not coordinately induced with {alpha}, µ and {pi} class GSTs (5). Ethoxyquin was found to be equally as effective an inducer of the GST T1 subunit as coumarin. This is in contrast to the induction of GST P1 and GST A5, where coumarin caused a substantially greater induction than ethoxyquin.

The fact that coordinate up-regulation of enzymes participating in glutathione metabolism does not occur in response to treatment with chemopreventive agents is highlighted by the fact that glutathione peroxidase activity towards H2O2 was decreased in response to coumarin and to a lesser extent by ethoxyquin. Other studies have also demonstrated that certain antioxidants cause a decrease in glutathione peroxidase activity in rat liver (3). The mechanism for this decrease is unclear, although it is possible that administration of coumarin or ethoxyquin results in an altered disposition of selenium compounds, causing a reduced availability of selenocysteine, which could be rate limiting in glutathione peroxidase 1 synthesis. Alternatively, it is feasible that the chemopreventive agents or their metabolites could result in inactivation of glutathione peroxidase enzyme activity. This area certainly warrants further investigation.

GLCL and GGT are clearly both important participants in the {gamma}-glutamyl cycle and in influencing glutathione homeostasis. GST P1 is also likely to have a protective role and it is apparent from the expression of GGT, GLCL and GST P1 in AFB1-induced preneoplastic lesions that an intrinsic link in the regulation of these enzymes exists. It is notable that although expression patterns of each of the four polypeptides were similar in the AFB1-treated rat liver, a tightly coordinated regulation of the GLCL subunits, GGT and GST P1 does not appear to exist. The expression of GST P1 in the focal lesions was more frequent than GGT or the GLCL subunits. Most, but not all, of the GGT-positive foci contained increased levels of the GLCL catalytic subunit, while the GLCL regulatory subunit appeared to be overexpressed to a lesser extent than the catalytic subunit. The frequent overexpression of the GLCL subunits in preneoplastic cells does, however, suggest that GLCL activity is likely to contribute to the increased glutathione levels observed in these cells (31).

A more tightly linked regulation of GLCLC, GLCLR, GGT and GST P1 was observed in the inner cortex of the kidney. Here, each of the glutathione-related enzymes was found to be most highly expressed in the proximal tubules (Figure 5Go). We have also found that GS is highly expressed in the same cells as GGT and GLCL (data not shown). This suggests that in cells with a high capacity for glutathione synthesis and turnover, each of these components of the {gamma}-glutamyl cycle would be required to be expressed at high levels in the same cell, including GS, which is not generally believed to be rate limiting in glutathione synthesis. In the outer cortex, however, this co-regulation is less apparent and GGT is more widely expressed than the other enzymes (Figure 6Go).

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that GLCL can be added to the list of enzymes induced by chemopreventive agents and by carcinogens in preneoplastic foci. This is of critical importance, as GLCL activity is a principal determinant of the ability to synthesize glutathione. Hence, the induction of GLCL contributes to the glutathione-dependent battery of defences utilized by cells to protect against reactive electrophiles and peroxides. In addition to induction of GST and other phase II enzymes, part of the chemopreventive action of many antioxidants and phytochemicals may also be by their ability to regulate GLCL activity.


    Notes
 
3 Present address: Genomic Research Centre, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, PMB 50, Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, Australia Back

4 To whom correspondence should be addressed Email: mclellan{at}icrf.icnet.uk Back


    Acknowledgments
 
We gratefully acknowledge Prof. John Hayes for antibodies raised against GST, as well as for helpful discussion, and Dr David Balfour for advice on the statistical analyses. The BBSRC is thanked for financial support (grant no. 94/F08200). We are also grateful to Tenovus, Scotland, for supporting the studentship of A.G.S.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Hayes,J.D. and Pulford,D.J. (1995) The glutathione S-transferase supergene family: regulation of GST and the contribution of the isoenzymes to cancer chemoprotection and drug-resistance. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol., 30, 445–600.[Abstract]
  2. Hayes,J.D. and McLellan,L.I. (1999) Glutathione and glutathione-dependent enzymes represent a co-ordinately regulated defence against oxidative stress. Free Radic. Res., 31, 273–300.[ISI][Medline]
  3. McLellan,L.I., Judah,D.J., Neal,G.E. and Hayes,J.D. (1994) Regulation of aflatoxin B1-metabolising aldehyde reductase and glutathione S-transferase by chemoprotectors. Biochem. J., 300, 117–124.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Manson,M.M., Hudson,E.A., Ball,H.W.L., Barrett,M.C., Clark,H.L., Judah,D.J., Verschoyle,R.D. and Neal,G.E. (1998) Chemoprevention of aflatoxin B1-induced carcinogenesis by indole-3-carbinol in rat liver—predicting the outcome using early biomarkers. Carcinogenesis, 19, 1829–1836.[Abstract]
  5. Sherrat,P.J., Manson,M.M., Thomson,A.M., Hissink,E.A.M., Neal,G.E., van Bladeren,P.J., Green,T., Neal,T. and Hayes,J.D. (1998) Increased bioactivation of dihaloalkanes in rat liver due to induction of class theta glutathione S-transferase T1-1. Biochem. J., 335, 619–630.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Hayes,J.D., Pulford,D.J., Ellis,E.M., McLeod,R., James,R.F.L., Seidegard,J., Mosialou,E., Jernstrom,B. and Neal,G.E. (1998) Regulation of rat glutathione-S-transferase A5 by cancer chemopreventive agents: mechanisms of inducible resistance to aflatoxin B1. Chem. Biol. Interact., 111/112, 51–67.
  7. Kelly,V.P., Ellis,E.M., Manson,M.M., Chanas,S.A., Moffat,G.J., McLeod,R., Judah,D.J., Neal,G.E. and Hayes,J.D. (2000) Chemoprevention of aflatoxin B1 hepatocarcinogenesis by coumarin, a natural benzopyrone that is a potent inducer of aflatoxin B1-aldehyde reductase, the glutathione S-transferase A5 and P1 subunits and NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase in rat liver. Cancer Res., 60, 957–969.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Hayes,J.D., Judah,D.J., McLellan,L.I., Kerr,L.A., Peacock,S.D. and Neal,G.E. (1991) Ethoxyquin-induced resistance to aflatoxin B1 in the rat is associated with the expression of a novel alpha-class glutathione S-transferase subunit, Yc2, which possesses high catalytic activity for aflatoxin B1-8,9-epoxide. Biochem. J., 279, 385–398.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Gopalan-Kriczky,P., Hiruma,S. and Lotlikar,P.D. (1994) Effect of glutathione levels on aflatoxin B1-DNA binding in livers and kidneys of male rats and hamsters pretreated with buthionine sulfoximine and diethylmaleate. Cancer Lett., 76, 25–30.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Meister,A. and Anderson,M.E. (1983) Glutathione. Annu. Rev. Biochem., 52, 711–760.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Richman,P.G. and Meister,A. (1975) Regulation of {gamma}-glutamyl-cysteine synthetase by nonallosteric feedback inhibition by glutathione. J. Biol. Chem., 250, 1422–1426.[Abstract]
  12. Yan,N. and Meister,A. (1990) Amino acid sequence of rat kidney {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase. J. Biol. Chem., 265, 1588–1593.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Huang,C.-S., Anderson,M.E. and Meister,A. (1993) Amino acid sequence and function of the light subunit of rat kidney {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase. J. Biol. Chem., 268, 20578–20583.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Huang,C.-S., Chang,L.-S., Anderson,M.E. and Meister,A. (1993) Catalytic and regulatory properties of the heavy subunit of rat kidney {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase. J. Biol. Chem., 268, 19675–19680.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Galloway,D.C., Blake,D.G., Shepherd,A.G. and McLellan,L.I. (1997) Regulation of human {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase: co-ordinate induction of the catalytic and regulatory subunits in HepG2 cells. Biochem. J., 328, 99–104.[ISI][Medline]
  16. Moinova,H.R. and Mulcahy,R.T. (1998) An electrophile responsive element (EpRE) regulates ß-naphthoflavone induction of the human {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase regulatory subunit gene. J. Biol. Chem., 273, 14683–14689.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Mulcahy,R.T., Wartman,M.A., Bailey,H.H. and Gipp,J.J. (1997) Constitutive and ß-naphthoflavone-induced expression of the human {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase heavy subunit gene is regulated by a distal antioxidant response element/TRE sequence. J. Biol. Chem., 272, 7445–7454.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Wild,A.C., Moinova,H.R. and Mulcahy,R.T. (1999) Regulation of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase subunit gene expression by the transcription factor Nrf2. J. Biol. Chem., 274, 33627–33636.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Galloway,D.C. and McLellan,L.I. (1998) Inducible expression of the {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase light subunit by t-butylhydroquinone in HepG2 cells is not dependent on an antioxidant-responsive element. Biochem. J., 336, 535–539.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Rahman,I., Bel,A., Mulier,B., Lawson,M.F., Harrison,D.J., MacNee,W. and Smith,C.A.D. (1996) Transcriptional regulation of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase-heavy subunit by oxidants in human alveolar epithelial cells. Biochem. Biophys Res. Commun., 229, 832–837.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Rahman,I., Smith,C.A.D., Antonicelli,F. and MacNee,W. (1998) Characterisation of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase-heavy subunit promoter: a critical role for AP-1. FEBS Lett., 427, 129–133.[ISI][Medline]
  22. Tu,Z. and Anders,M.W. (1998) Up-regulation of glutamate-cysteine ligase gene expression by butylated hydroxytoluene is mediated by transcription factor AP-1. Biochem. Biophys Res. Commun., 244, 801–805.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Rahman,I., Antonicelli,F. and MacNee,W. (1999) Molecular mechanism of the regulation of glutathione synthesis by tumour necrosis factor-{alpha} and dexamethasone in human alveolar epithelial cells. J. Biol. Chem., 274, 5088–5096.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Yao,K.-S., Godwin,A.K., Johnson,S.W., Ozols,R.F., O'Dwyer,P.J. and Hamilton,T.C. (1995) Evidence for altered regulation of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase gene expression among cisplatin-sensitive and cisplatin-resistant human ovarian cancer cell lines. Cancer Res., 55, 4367–4374.[Abstract]
  25. Cai,J., Huang,Z.-Z. and Lu,S.C. (1997) Differential regulation of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase heavy and light subunit gene expression. Biochem. J., 326, 167–172.[ISI][Medline]
  26. Lu,S.C. (1999) Regulation of hepatic glutathione synthesis: current concepts and controversies. FASEB J., 13, 1169–1183.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Eaton,D.E. and Hamel,D.M. (1994) Increase in {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase activity as a mechanism for butylated hydroxyanisole-mediated elevation of hepatic glutathione. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 126, 145–149.[ISI][Medline]
  28. Borroz,K.I., Buetler,T.M. and Eaton,D.L. (1994) Modulation of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase large subunit mRNA expression by butylated hydroxyanisole. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 126, 150–155.[ISI][Medline]
  29. Moss,E.J., Manson,M.M. and Neal,G.E. (1984) Effect of manipulation of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase levels on biliary excretion of aflatoxin B1 conjugates. Carcinogenesis, 5, 869–874.[Abstract]
  30. Manson,M.M., Ball,H.W.L., Barrett,M.C., Clark,H.L., Judah,D.J., Williamson,G. and Neal,G.E. (1997) Mechanism of action of dietary chemopreventive agents in rat liver: induction of phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes and aflatoxin B1 metabolism. Carcinogenesis, 18, 1729–1738.[Abstract]
  31. Neal,G.E., Metcalfe,S.A., Legg,R.F., Judah,D.J. and Green,J.A. (1981) Mechanism of the resistance to cytotoxicity which precedes aflatoxin B1 hepatocarcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis, 2, 457–461.[ISI][Medline]
  32. Godwin,A.K., Meister,A., O'Dwyer,P.J., Huang,C.S., Hamilton,T.C. and Anderson,M.E. (1992) High resistance to cisplatin in human ovarian cancer cell lines is associated with a marked increase of glutathione synthesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 89, 3070–3074.[Abstract]
  33. Hanigan,M.H., Gallagher,B.C., Townsend,D.M. and Gabarra,V. (1999) {gamma}-Glutamyl transpeptidase accelerates tumor growth and increases the resistance of tumors to cisplatin in vivo. Carcinogenesis, 20, 553–559.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Wattenberg,L.W. (1983) Inhibition of neoplasia by minor dietary constituents. Cancer Res., 43, 2448s–2453s.[Abstract]
  35. Nijhoff,W.A., Groen,G.M. and Peters,W.H.M. (1993) Induction of rat hepatic and intestinal glutathione S-transferases and glutathione by dietary naturally occurring anticarcinogens. Int. J. Oncol., 3, 1131–1139.[ISI]
  36. McLellan,L.I., Kerr,L.A., Cronshaw,A.D. and Hayes,J.D. (1991) Regulation of mouse glutathione S-transferases by chemoprotectors. Biochem. J., 276, 461–469.[ISI][Medline]
  37. Manson,M.M., Legg,R.F., Watson,J.V., Green,J.A. and Neal,G.E. (1981) An examination of the relative resistances to aflatoxin B1 and susceptibilities to gamma-glutamyl p-phenylene diamine mustard of gamma-glutamyl transferase negative and positive cell lines. Carcinogenesis, 2, 661–670.[ISI][Medline]
  38. Galloway,D.C., Blake,D.G. and McLellan,L.I. (1999) Regulation of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase regulatory subunit (GLCLR) gene expression: identification of the major transcriptional start site in HT29 cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1446, 47–56.[ISI][Medline]
  39. Howie,A.F., Forrester,L.M., Glancey,M.J., Schlager,J.J., Powis,G., Beckett,G.J., Hayes,J.D. and Wolf,C.R. (1990) Glutathione S-transferase and glutathione peroxidase expression in normal and tumour human tissues. Carcinogenesis, 11, 451–458.[Abstract]
  40. Carlberg,I. and Mannervik,B. (1985) Glutathione reductase. Methods Enzymol., 113, 484–490.[ISI][Medline]
  41. Bradford,M.M. (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem., 72, 248–254.[ISI][Medline]
  42. Oppenheimer,L., Wellner,V.P., Griffith,O.W. and Meister,A. (1979) Glutathione synthetase. J. Biol. Chem., 254, 5184–5190.[ISI][Medline]
  43. Towbin,H., Staehelin,T. and Gordon,J. (1979) Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to nitrocellulose sheets: procedure and some applications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 76, 4350–4354.[Abstract]
  44. Manson,M.M., Green,J.A. and Neal,G.E. (1984) Monoclonal antibody against tumour-derived cell line shows heterogeneity of altered hepatocytes during AFB1-induced carcinogenesis. Int. J. Cancer, 34, 869–874.[ISI][Medline]
  45. Prochaska,H.J. and Talalay,P. (1988) Regulatory mechanisms of monofunctional and bifunctional anticarcinogenic enzyme inducers in murine liver. Cancer Res., 48, 4776–4782.[Abstract]
  46. Prochaska,H.J., De Long,M.J. and Talalay,P. (1985) On the mechanisms of induction of cancer-protective enzymes: a unifying proposal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 82, 8232–8236.[Abstract]
  47. Cha,Y.-N. and Heine,H.S. (1982) Comparative effects of dietary administration of 2(3)-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole on several hepatic enzyme activities in mice and rats. Cancer Res., 42, 2609–2615.[Abstract]
  48. Nijhoff,W.A. and Peters,W.H.M. (1994) Quantification of induction of rat oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic glutathione and glutathione S-transferases by dietary anticarcinogens. Carcinogenesis, 15, 1769–1772.[Abstract]
  49. Nijhoff,W.M., Bosboom,M.A., Smidt,M.H. and Peters,W.H.M. (1995) Enhancement of rat hepatic and gastrointestinal glutathione and glutathione S-transferases by {alpha}-angelicalactone and flavone. Carcinogenesis, 16, 607–612.[Abstract]
  50. Buetler,T.M., Gallagher,E.P., Wang,C., Stahl,D.L., Hayes,J.D. and Eaton,D.L. (1995) Induction of phase I and phase II drug-metabolising enzyme mRNA, protein and activity by BHA, ethoxyquin and Oltipraz. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 135, 45–57.[ISI][Medline]
  51. Tipnis,S.R., Blake,D.G., Shepherd,A.G. and McLellan,L.I. (1999) Overexpression of the regulatory subunit of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase in HeLa cells increases {gamma}-glutamycysteine synthetase activity and confers drug resistance. Biochem. J., 337, 559–566.[ISI][Medline]
  52. Moore,W.R., Anderson,M.E., Meister,A., Murata,K. and Kimura,A. (1989) Increased capacity for glutathione synthesis enhances resistance to radiation in Escherichia coli: a possible model for mammalian cell protection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 86, 1461–1464.[Abstract]
  53. Rahman,I., Smith,C.A.D., Lawson,M.F., Harrison,D.J. and MacNee,W. (1996) Induction of {gamma}-glutamylcysteine synthetase by cigarette smoke is associated with AP-1 in human alveolar epithelial cells. FEBS Lett., 396, 21–25.[ISI][Medline]
  54. Itoh,K., Chiba,T., Takahashi,S., Ishii,T., Igarashi,K., Katoh,Y., Oyake,T., Hayashi,N., Satoh,K., Hatayama,I., Yamamoto,M. and Nabeshima,Y.-I. (1997) An Nrf2/small Maf heterodimer mediates the induction of phase II detoxifying enzyme genes through antioxidant response elements. Biochem. Biophys Res. Commun., 236, 313–322.[ISI][Medline]
  55. Itoh,K., Wakabayashi, N., Katoh,Y., Ishii,T., Igarashi,K., Engel,J.D. and Yamamoto,M. (1999) Keap1 represses nuclear activation of antioxidant responsive elements by Nrf2 through binding to the amino-terminal Neh2 domain. Genes Dev., 13, 76–86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Received February 14, 2000; revised May 10, 2000; accepted June 28, 2000.