©1995 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
The Factor Binding to the Glucocorticoid Modulatory Element of the Tyrosine Aminotransferase Gene Is a Novel and Ubiquitous Heteromeric Complex (*)

(Received for publication, April 30, 1995; and in revised form, June 21, 1995)

Hisaji Oshima (§) Daniele Szapary S. Stoney Simons , Jr. (¶)

From the Steroid Hormones Section, NIDDK/Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Biology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

Glucocorticoid induction of the tyrosine aminotransferase gene deviates from that of many glucocorticoid-responsive genes by having a lower EC and displaying more agonist activity with a given antiglucocorticoid. A cis-acting element, located 3646 base pairs upstream of the start of tyrosine aminotransferase gene transcription, has been found to be sufficient to reproduce these variations with heterologous genes and promoters (Oshima, H., and Simons, S. S., Jr.(1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6, 416-428). This element has been called a glucocorticoid modulatory element, or GME. Others have called this sequence a cyclic AMP-responsive element (CRE) due to the binding of the cyclic AMP response element binding protein (CREB). We now report the partial purification and characterization of two new proteins (GMEB1 and -2) of 88 and 67 kDa that bind to the GME/CRE as a heteromeric complex. This purification was followed by the formation of a previously characterized, biologically relevant band in gel shift assays. By several biochemical criteria, the GMEBs differed from many of the previously described CREB/CREM/ATF family members. Partial peptide sequencing revealed that the sequences of these two proteins have not yet been described. Size exclusion chromatography and molecular weight measurements of the gel-shifted band demonstrated that the GMEBs bound to the GME as a macromolecular complex of about 550 kDa that could be dissociated by deoxycholate. Similar experiments showed that CREB bound to the GME as heteromeric complexes of about 310 and 360 kDa. As determined from gel shift assays, GMEB1 and -2 are not restricted to rat liver cells but appear to be ubiquitous. Thus, these novel GMEBs may participate in a similar modulation of other glucocorticoid-inducible genes in a variety of cells.


INTRODUCTION

For many years, the accepted model of steroid hormone action predicted that the responses of all regulated genes were a property of the steroid used. Thus, a gene is induced, or repressed, by agonists, and the action of agonists is prevented by antisteroids. Furthermore, the concentration of steroid required for half-maximal induction by an agonist and the amount of agonist activity possessed by a given antisteroid should be constant for each steroid and independent of the gene examined (reviewed in (1) and (2) ).

Recently, this model has had to be modified as exceptions were defined. Thus, junbulletfos heterodimers (AP-1), and AP-1 inducers such as phorbol esters block steroid induction (3, 4) in what can be a cell-specific manner(5, 6) , while junbulletjun homodimers augment glucocorticoid induction(4) . Cyclic AMP, via protein kinase A, can often (but not always(7, 8, 9) ) cause greater induction by agonists (10, 11) and increased percentages of agonist activity for antisteroids(11, 12) . Heat shock, or chemical shock, afforded a synergistic increase in glucocorticoid inducibility(13) , while the immunosuppressive agent FK506 augmented the activity of subsaturating concentrations of glucocorticoids(14) . Finally, dopamine can cause ligand-independent gene activation of some receptors(15) . None of the above agents effected any shift in the dose-response curve for agonists except for FK506, which was postulated to increase the nuclear binding of activated complexes(14) .

Other observations that did not appear to fit with the conventional model of steroid hormone action originated from studies on glucocorticoid induction of the tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT) (^1)gene in rat hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells, which had become a paradigm for steroid-inducible genes. We found that the dose-response curve for dexamethasone induction of TAT gene expression in the related Fu5-5 rat hepatoma cell line was left shifted compared to that in HTC cells(16) . Similarly, TAT enzyme activity was induced at lower cAMP concentrations in Fu5-5 cells than in HTC cells(7) . Furthermore, all antiglucocorticoids examined displayed a higher percentage of agonist activity for TAT gene expression in Fu5-5 than in HTC cells(16, 17, 18) . This left shift in the TAT dose-response curve, and increased agonist activity with antisteroids, was not a general response of all glucocorticoid-inducible genes in Fu5-5 cells (19) and occurred at the level of correctly initiated transcripts(7, 19) . Surprisingly, the magnitudes both of the left shift in the dose-response curve and of the increased amount of agonist activity were not constant but varied slowly over time (17, 20) in a manner that was eventually found to be related to the density of the cells in culture(21) . Therefore, it appeared that some event downstream of steroid binding to the glucocorticoid receptor selectively modulated the properties of TAT gene induction by glucocorticoid agonists and antagonists.

We previously proposed that this modulation of TAT gene induction in rat hepatoma cells occurred via the binding of a trans-acting factor to a cis-acting element of the TAT gene(1) . Stable (22) and transient (23) transfection assays succeeded in identifying such a cis-acting element, at about -3646 bp of the rat TAT gene, that conveyed all of the glucocorticoid induction properties of the endogenous TAT gene to heterologous genes and promoters. This cis-acting element was called a glucocorticoid modulatory element (GME) and was found to bind a trans-acting factor(s)(23) . The mechanism of action of the GME, unlike that of the commonly discussed transcription factor binding sites, does not involve synergism with the glucocorticoid response element, or GRE(24) . This suggests that the GME-bound factor(s) (GMEB) might be a novel protein.

The binding site of the GMEB has also been identified as a cyclic AMP-responsive element (CRE)(25, 26, 27) , but several lines of evidence indicate that two different sets of proteins are responsible for GME and CRE activity. First, the biological activities mediated by GMEB and the CRE binding protein (CREB) are quite dissimilar ((21, 22, 23) versus 25, 28). Second, no additional element is needed for GME biological activity, while a functional CRE requires a second TAT gene sequence, initially called BIII (25) and more recently found to bind HNF-4(27) . Third, both the GME (23) and the CRE (28) give a closely spaced, three-band pattern in gel shift assays. However, the GMEB is responsible for slowest migrating of the three bands (23) , which has been shown not to contain CREB(26) .

The GME contains the sequence CGTCA, which is a common CRE element that binds homo- and heterodimers of CREB/ATF along with other family members or unrelated proteins (29) such as AP-1(30) . Thus, many known and unknown trans-acting factors could bind to the GME/CRE site at -3646 bp of the TAT gene. The purpose of this paper, therefore, was to characterize and purify the binding protein(s) proposed to be responsible for the GME activity of modulating glucocorticoid receptor function.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chemicals

The following chemicals were obtained from the indicated sources: [P]dCTP and dATP (3000Ci/mmol), DuPont NEN; deoxycholate, dimethyl sulfate, and Nonidet P-40, Sigma; p-aminoethylbenzenesulfonyl fluoride, ICN (Cleveland, OH); acrylamide, bisacrylamide, and molecular weight markers for Superose 6 HR columns and silver staining kit, Bio-Rad; prestained molecular weight markers, Bio-Rad and Life Technologies, Inc.; native molecular weight markers for gel shift assays and SDS-polyacrylamide gels, Pharmacia Biotech Inc.

Antibodies

The listed antibodies were gifts of, or purchased from, the sources in parentheses: anti-CREB (Dr. G. Schütz), anti-fos (PC05) and anti-jun (PC07) (Oncogene Science), rabbit polyclonal anti-CBP (alphaHCBP3, Dr. R. Goodman), rabbit polyclonal anti-CREM (Dr. J. Habener), mouse monoclonal anti-ATF-1 (C41-5.1), anti-ATF-2 (F2BR-1), anti-CREB-1 (24H4B), rabbit polyclonal anti-ATF-3 (C-19), and anti-CREB-2 (C-20) (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA).

Buffers

Buffer 20T contained 20 mM Tris (pH 8.0 at room temperature), 2 mM MgCl(2), 0.5 mM dithiothreitol, 50 µMp-aminoethylbenzenesulfonyl fluoride, 10% glycerol, 0.2 mM EDTA, and 20 mM NaCl. Buffers 150T and 1000T were the same as buffer 20T except that the NaCl concentrations were 150 and 1000 mM, respectively. Buffer TN was the same as buffer 20T with 0.05% Nonidet P-40 but without NaCl. TBE buffer contained 50 mM Tris base, 50 mM boric acid, and 1 mM EDTA.

Cell Culture, Transfections, and Preparation of Cellular Fractions

Rat hepatoma tissue culture cells (uncloned and clone 27 Fu5-5 cells (19) and uncloned and clone 28 HTC cells(20) ) were grown at 37 °C in a humidified incubator (5% CO(2)) in Richter's improved minimum essential medium with zinc and supplemented with 0.03% glutamine and 10% heat-inactivated fetal calf serum (Biofluids, Rockville, MD) as described. HeLa (G. Hager, NIH), L (tk; G. Schütz, Heidelberg), and PC12 cells (M. Iadarola, NIH) were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (low glucose with 0.4% glutamine and 110 mg/ml sodium pyruvate) with 10% heat-inactivated fetal calf serum. Transient transfections of cells were achieved with calcium phosphate (22) or Lipofectin (Life Technologies, Inc.) (23) and analyzed as described. Nuclear extracts (23) and cytosols (31) were prepared as usual.

Gel Shift Assays

The following double-stranded GME oligonucleotide, 5`-tcgaCTTCTGCGTCAGCGCCAGTATg-3`, 3`-GAAGACGCAGTCGCGGTCATAcagct-5` (capitalized letters correspond to the rat TAT sequence from -3654 to -3634 bp from the start of transcription; lower case letters are for added nucleotides to make SalI cohesive ends), was used for gel shift assays, after filling in the single-stranded DNA with Klenow enzyme and labeling with [P]dCTP at room temperature. Gel shift experiments were performed as described (23) with some modifications. In brief, nuclear extracts (3 µg) or cytosol preparations (7 µg) were incubated with 20,000 cpm of the P-end-labeled probe (0.6 fmol) in a total volume of 10 µl for 15 min at 0 °C with sheered, non-denatured herring sperm DNA (0.15 µg) as a nonspecific competitor. After electrophoresis at 4 °C in a 5% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel at 150 V in 0.4 times TBE, the dried gels were autoradiographed for 12-24 h at room temperature with Kodak X-Omat XAR-5 film or were exposed to the phosphorimagizing screen for the Molecular Dynamics ImageQuant system (Molecular Dynamics) for 16-72 h at room temperature. For supershift experiments, the antibodies (0.8 µl) were preincubated with the nuclear extracts or cytosol for 60 min at 0 °C before adding spermidine, herring sperm DNA, and P-labeled GME. The upper strand sequences of blunt-ended, double strand oligonucleotides used for competition experiments were as follows: GME, 5`-CTTCTGCGTCAGCGCCAGTAT-3`; M1, 5`-TGCTGACGTCAGCGCCAGTAT-3`; M2, 5`-CTTCTGTATGAGCGCCAGTAT-3`; M3, 5`-CTTCTGCGTCAGTATGCGTAT-3`; M4, 5`-CTTCTGCGTCAGCGCCATGCG-3`; AP-1, 5`-TTCCGGCTGACTCATCAAGCG-3`; CRE, 5`-AGAGATTGCCTGACGTCAGAGAGCTAG-3` ( (23) and (24) and references therein).

Immunodepletion

Nuclear extracts (6 µg) were incubated with antibodies (2 µl) in 20 µl of 10 mM HEPES (pH 7.9 at room temperature), 25 mM KCl, 5 mM MgCl(2), 0.1 mM EDTA, 0.25 mM dithiothreitol, 5% glycerol, 50 µMp-aminoethylbenzenesulfonyl fluoride for 1 h at 0 °C. Protein A/G-agarose (Pierce) (2 µl of a 50% slurry in 25 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 0.5 mM EDTA, 1 mg/ml bovine serum albumin) was added and incubated an additional 1-16 h at 0 °C. The mixture was then centrifuged at 14,000 times g for 2 min at 0 °C, and the supernatant (8.45 µl) was used for gel shift assays.

Fractionation Procedures for GMEB

Nuclear extracts (50 µl) in the absence or presence of 1 or 2.7 M guanidine hydrochloride were loaded onto a Microcon 100 (molecular cut-off, 100 kDa) (Amicon) and centrifuged at 2500 times g for 20-25 min until 50% of the initial volume had passed through the membrane. The retentates and pass-through fractions containing guanidine hydrochloride were dialyzed against buffer 20T at 4 °C for 16 h and stored at -70 °C.

For size exclusion chromatography, 200 µl of nuclear extract or cytosol was loaded onto a Superose 6 HR 10/30 column (Pharmacia), which had been equilibrated with buffer 150T at 4 °C. The column was run at 0.5 ml/min in a FPLC system (Pharmacia). Every 500-µl fraction was collected and stored at -70 °C.

For ion exchange chromatography, HTC cytosol (about 30 ml) was loaded with a Superloop in a FPLC system (Pharmacia) onto Mono Q HR 10/10 column that had been equilibrated with buffer 20T at 1 ml/min. After washing the column with the same buffer, the column was eluted with a linear gradient up to 40% of buffer 1000T. Every 2-ml fraction was collected and stored at -70 °C.

For size fractionation by electrophoresis, partially purified nuclear extract or cytosol was separated on 6 or 8% SDS-PAGE gels (1.5 mm thick) (32) and the desired M(r) ranges, based on the migration of pre-stained molecular weight markers (Life Technologies, Inc., Bio-Rad) in adjacent lanes, were cut out of the gel and electroeluted in 1 times SDS running buffer (25 mM Tris, 0.19 M glycine, 0.1% SDS) at 125 V in a model 1750 electroeluter (ISCO, Lincoln, NE) for 60 min at room temperature. After elution, the protein was precipitated with 4 volumes of acetone (-60 °C), and the pellets were washed with 80% acetone, 20% buffer 20T (4 °C) as described (33) . The pellets were redissolved in buffer 20T and reprecipitated with acetone as before. After the second precipitation, the recovered samples were denatured and renatured by redissolving in 60 µl of buffer 20T containing 6 M guanidine-hydrochloride and dialyzing against buffer 20T at 4 °C for 16 h. After dialysis, the renatured samples were concentrated to about 20 µl with a Microcon 10 concentrator (12,000 rpm for 15 min at 4 °C) (Amicon) and stored at -70 °C.

Methylation Interference Assay

The sequence of the double-stranded oligonucleotide used was as follows (capitalized letters correspond to the rat TAT sequence from -3654 to -3634 bp from the start of transcription): 5`-tcgaCTTCTGCGTCAGCGCCAGTATg-3`, 3`-gctGAAGACGCAGTCGCGGTCATAcg-5`. The probe was filled-in by Klenow fragment with [P]dCTP or [P]dATP for labeling specifically the upper or lower strand, respectively. The labeled probes were partially methylated with dimethyl sulfate as described by Maniatis et al.(34) . The binding reaction and gel electrophoresis were performed as for the gel shift assay, except that the binding reaction was scaled up 8-fold and wider sample wells (5 cm width) were used. After electrophoresis, the gel was electroblotted onto DEAE filters (NA45; Schleicher & Schuell) in 0.5 times TBE buffer at 30 V at 4 °C for 16 h. The filter was exposed to Kodak X-Omat XAR-5 film at 4 °C for 120 min. The retarded and free bands were identified from the x-ray film and cut out from the filter. The DNA was extracted from the excised filter in elution buffer (1 M NaCl, 0.1 mM EDTA, 20 mM Tris (pH 8.0 at room temperature)) for 30 min at 60 °C, precipitated by ethanol with 5 µg of native, sheered herring sperm DNA, and subjected to piperidine treatments(35) . Equivalent amounts of radioactivity obtained from the retarded and free gel shift bands were loaded onto 15% sequencing gels. After electrophoresis, the gel was dried and exposed to Kodak X-Omat XAR-5 film at -70 °C for 3-5 days.

In Vitro Transcription and Translation

Mouse CREB, mouse c-Jun, and rat c-Fos proteins were expressed in vitro with TNT SP6 or TNT T7-coupled reticulocyte lysate system (Promega) from pET-3alpha/mDeltaCREB (Dr. G. Schütz), c-Jun (Dr. I. Verma), and pc-Fos (rat)-1 (Dr. T. Curran) plasmids, respectively.

DNA Affinity Chromatography

Oligonucleotides for the M3 sequence (5`-tcgaCTTCTGCGTCAGTATGCGTATg-3`, 3`-GAAGACGCAGTCATACGCATAcagct-3`) or M2 sequence (5`-tcgaCTTCTGTATGAGCGCCAGTATg-3`, 3`-GAAGACATACTCGCGGTCATAcagct-3`) (capitalized letters correspond to the rat TAT sequence from -3654 to -3634 bp from the start of transcription, bold letters indicate mutations of native TAT sequence, and lower case letters are for added nucleotides to make SalI cohesive ends) were synthesized and purified by HPLC. Sequence-specific DNA affinity columns were prepared as described (36) except that 500 µg of oligonucleotides were coupled to 1 ml (bed volume) of CNBr-activated Sepharose CL-4B (Pharmacia). GMEB activity throughout the chromatography was monitored by gel shift assays with P-labeled GME. Mono Q fractions containing GMEB activity (42.5 ml) were pooled, diluted with an equal volume of buffer TN to reduce the NaCl concentration to about 100 mM, mixed with sheered herring sperm DNA (final concentration of 5 µg/ml) and spermidine (final concentration of 2 mM; U. S. Biochemical Corp.), and incubated on ice for 10 min before being spun at 12,000 times g for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant (20 ml) was applied with gravity onto the M2 DNA affinity column (400-µl bed volume) equilibrated with buffer TN plus 100 mM NaCl. The column was then washed with 4 times 2 ml of buffer TN containing 100 mM NaCl followed by 550 µl of buffer TN with 200, 300, 400, or 800 mM NaCl in stepwise fashion. The flow-through fraction that contained GMEB activity was loaded onto a 400-µl bed volume M3 DNA affinity column that was washed as for the M2 DNA affinity column and eluted with buffer TN containing 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, or 800 mM NaCl. The fractions (300-500 mM NaCl) containing GMEB activity were pooled and diluted with buffer TN to a final NaCl concentration of 100 mM and reloaded on the M3 column. A total of three sequential M3 DNA affinity column purifications were performed. The final M3 DNA affinity column had a 250-µl bed volume, and the GMEB activity was eluted in the 300-500 mM NaCl fraction. All samples were aliquoted, quickly frozen in a dry ice-methanol bath, and stored at -70 °C.


RESULTS

GMEB Is Present and Active in Non-hepatic Cells

The GME was initially defined in the context of the cloned rat hepatoma tissue culture cells Fu5-5 and HTC. There, the percentage of maximal agonist activity obtained from transiently transfected GREtkCAT reporter constructs with either subsaturating concentrations of agonists or saturating concentrations of antiglucocorticoids was increased by the presence of the GME(23) . As shown in Table 1with the agonist dexamethasone and the antagonist dexamethasone 21-mesylate, GME activity was not restricted to the originally investigated cloned hepatoma cells. The GME caused increased percentages of agonist activity in uncloned Fu5-5 cells as well as transformed mouse fibroblasts (L cells) and human cervical adenocarcinoma cells (HeLa cells) in a manner that required the crucial CGTC sequence of the GME, which was not present in the inactive M2 mutation of the GME(23) . Thus, the capacity to express GME activity, which presumably reflects the existence of the requisite GMEB factor(s), is not restricted to hepatic cells but crosses species lines. The inactivity of the GME in rat adrenal pheochromocytoma cells (PC-12) suggests, though, that there is some cellular selectivity for GME action.



The presence of the GMEB in the above cell lines was examined in gel shift assays. Normally, a three-band pattern was obtained, of which the slowest migrating band corresponds to the biologically relevant interaction of GMEB with the GME(23) . Nuclear extracts from each cell line afforded somewhat different patterns; but in each case, a complex of the same low mobility was observed that was blocked only by excess non-labeled GME oligonucleotide (Fig. 1A). In all cases, the biologically inactive M2 oligonucleotide (23) was unable to competitively inhibit the formation of this band (Fig. 1A). Thus, both liver and non-liver cells appear to contain GMEB.


Figure 1: Presence of GMEBs in nuclear extracts of various cells (A) and nuclear extracts (Nuc. Extr.) versus cytosol solutions from HTC and PC-12 cells (B). Nuclear extracts or cytosols from different cell lines were analyzed in gel shift assays with P GME probe as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' Bands were visualized by autoradiography (A and HTC cell data of B) or by phosphorimagizer. Unlabeled oligonucleotides were added in 100-fold molar excess. The filledarrow indicates the position of the GMEB-containing band, the two CREB-containing bands are just below, and the openarrow is at the position of nonspecifically bound species.



Properties of GMEB

The GMEB-DNA complex observed in gel shift assays migrated only slightly slower than several other complexes (Fig. 1A). As expected, cytosol solutions prepared by lysis of cells with hypotonic buffer or by the freeze-thaw techniques used to obtain crude glucocorticoid receptors (31) contained very few DNA binding species. However, each cytosol solution still appeared to include the same GME binding species that was observed in nuclear extracts (Fig. 1B). This cytosolic binding protein (Fig. 1B) was further identified as the GMEB because the only DNAs that competitively inhibited the formation of the gel-shifted complex were the known biologically active oligonucleotides of GME, M1, M3, and M4(23) . This procedure thus provided a simple method for separating the GMEB from most of the other GME binding proteins. The presence of the GMEB in PC-12 cells, where the GME is inactive (Table 1), suggests either that other factors besides the GMEB and glucocorticoid receptors are required for activity or that the GMEB is present in PC-12 cells in a biologically inactive form.

When cytosols were prepared from HTC cells treated with saturating concentrations of dexamethasone at 37 °C, conditions that cause the nuclear translocation of most of the cytoplasmic glucocorticoid receptors(37) , there was no appreciable decrease in the intensity of the gel-shifted band with P GME (data not shown). Similarly, cytosolic preparations of receptors treated with saturating concentrations of dexamethasone and then heated to activate the complexes to the DNA binding form did not display an increased amount of the GMEB complex in gel shift assays (data not shown). Therefore, we conclude that this GMEB-containing band does not involve any interaction of the glucocorticoid receptor with the GME.

GMEB bound to several polycationic columns. GMEB was eluted from heparin-agarose at 0.3-0.8 M NaCl, from DEAE-Sepharose CL-6B by 0.1-0.2 M NaCl, and from Mono Q columns with 0.2 M NaCl. Thus, GMEB would be predicted to contain at least one surface containing a net abundance of anionic charges, as would be expected for a factor involved in the modulation of transcription. GMEB also bound to phenyl-Sepharose and a Mono S polyanionic column, but the recovery was very low (data not shown).

Several results indicate that GMEB and CREB are different proteins. First, heating the nuclear extracts to 65 °C (but not 37 °C) for 10 min eliminated the formation of the GMEB-bound complex (data not shown). In contrast, CREB is stable under these conditions (data not shown, (29) ). Second, an anti-CREB antibody supershifted some of the lower two bands in gel shift assays but none of the more slowly migrating GMEB-containing bands (data not shown). This confirms the earlier report that only the lower two bands contain CREB(26) . Third, a 0.5-h treatment with 10 µM of forskolin, which increases the cellular cAMP (and activates CREB), had no effect on the amount of GMEB in the gel shift assay (data not shown) or on the percent agonist activity seen for 1 µM dexamethasone 21-mesylate with the GREtkCAT reporter (30 versus 34%) and only slightly increased the percent agonist for dexamethasone 21-mesylate with the GMEGREtkCAT reporter (67 versus 57%). Fourth, a P oligonucleotide containing the consensus CRE (38) of the somatostatin gene (SOM/CRE) (25, 26) differs from the GME in 9 out of 19 nucleotides (see below; identical nucleotides are underlined, and lower case letters indicate flanking DNA in the reporter plasmids) and did not afford the slower migrating, GMEB-containing band in gel shift assays (GME, 5`-tcgaCTTCTGCGTCAGCGCCAGTATtcga-3`; SOM/CRE, 5`-gatccCTCTCTGACGTCAGCCAAGGAgatc-3`). Also, non-labeled SOM/CRE oligonucleotides only weakly competed for the formation of this band with the P GME oligonucleotide (data not shown).

Two factors that are closely related to CREB, which heterodimerize with CREB, and can replace CREB in vivo are CREM and ATF-1(39) . However, neither a broad spectrum antibody (anti-CREM) nor a variety of mono-specific antibodies could supershift the GMEB-containing band in gel shift assays. Similarly, immunodepletion of the nuclear extracts with these antibodies did not prevent the formation of the GMEB-containing band (data not shown). These results argue that the GMEB is not ATF-1, -2, or -3, CREB-1 or -2, CBP, or CREM. Similar experiments with anti-jun and anti-fos antibodies ruled out jun and/or fos as being the GMEB (data not shown), even though AP-1 is active with a highly homologous DNA sequence(40) .

GMEB Is a Multimeric Protein

Methylation interference experiments revealed that all of the guanines in a 10-bp region of the GME are important for binding in the gel shift assay (Fig. 2). An even larger region of 26 bp is protected from DNase I digestion (data not shown). Under most circumstances, more than one protein would be required to cover such a large stretch of DNA.


Figure 2: Methylation interference assay for GMEB binding to GME. Nuclear extracts from Fu5-5 clone 27 cells were incubated with partially methylated P GME probe and fractionated on a 5% non-denaturing PAGE gel. The top and bottomstrands of free and GMEB-bound probe DNA were processed for sequencing and autoradiographed as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' The DNA sequence of the top and bottomstrands is shown at the left and right, respectively, of the autoradiograph. B, bound probe; F, free probe; arrows mark those guanosine residues that must remain unmethylated for complex formation with GMEB to occur.



When compared to molecular weight markers in the gel shift assay(41) , the size of the GMEB was calculated to be 550 kDa; the sizes of the CREB-containing bands were about 310 and 360 kDa (data not shown). A similar very large size of 600 kDa for the GMEB was observed by gel shift assays of the peak binding activity after fractionation by size exclusion chromatography on Superose 6 HR (Fig. 3, A and B) and Sepharose S-3000. To determine whether this 550-600-kDa species was a monomeric or oligomeric protein, we made use of the report that deoxycholate dissociates protein-protein complexes, but not protein-DNA complexes, in a manner that can be reversed by added Nonidet P-40 detergent(42, 43) . As shown in Fig. 3C, the appearance of the GMEB-containing band (and the lower CREB-containing bands) was blocked by deoxycholate and restored by added Nonidet P-40. However, these GMEB and CREB protein complexes are relatively resistant to dissociation by salt. All three bands were seen in gel shift assays of material retained by a Microcon 100 filter in the presence of 1 M guanidinium hydrochloride while no band was observed in the flow through, which would contain species leq100 kDa (Fig. 3D). Raising the guanidinium hydrochloride concentration to 2.7 M still did not allow any GMEB to appear in the flow-through of the Microcon 100 filter, as evidenced by the formation of the appropriate gel shift bands (data not shown). Collectively, these data suggest that GMEB and the 42-kDa CREB either can exist as a multimeric complex that resists dissociation in salt or requires other proteins larger than 100 kDa to form the observed DNA complexes on gels.


Figure 3: GMEB is a multimeric protein complex. A, size exclusion column chromatography of HTC cytosol. HTC cytosol (200 µl) was separated on a Superose 6HR 10/30 column as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' The amount of protein in each fraction (0.5 ml) was monitored by the UV absorption at 280 nm. Molecular mass markers: T, thyroglobulin (670 kDa); G, bovine globulin (158 kDa); O, chicken ovalbumin (44 kDa); M, equine myoglobulin (17 kDa); V, vitamin B (1.35 kDa). B, gel shift properties of size-fractionated HTC cytosol. Unfractionated cytosol (lanes1 and 24) and aliquots (3 µl) of the indicated column fractions were assayed in the gel shift assay as in Fig. 1and visualized by phosphorimagizer. The arrow marks the position of the GMEB-containing band. C, effects of deoxycholate and Nonidet P-40 on the binding of GMEB and CREB to GME. Fu5-5 nuclear extract was incubated with P GME oligonucleotide in the presence of the indicated percentage of deoxycholate ± 1% Nonidet P-40. Complexes were separated on 5% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel as described under ``Materials and Methods'' and visualized by autoradiography. The filledarrow indicates the position of the GMEB-containing band, the two CREB-containing bands are just below, and the openarrow is at the position of nonspecifically bound species. D, size fractionation of GMEB in 1 M guanidine hydrochloride. Fu5-5 nuclear extracts ± 1 M guanidine hydrochloride were centrifuged through a membrane (Microcon 100) whose molecular cutoff was 100 kDa. After centrifugation, the filtrate (Filt.) and retentate (Ret.) fractions were dialyzed and analyzed individually or in combination in gel shift assays with P GME probe as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' The filledarrow indicates the position of the GMEB-containing band.



GMEB Is a Heterooligomer

Southwestern blotting of proteins that had been separated on SDS-polyacrylamide gels and then renatured prior to being probed with P GME oligonucleotide was performed to determine the size of the monomeric GMEB. No signal was seen with either crude or partially purified (by FPLC on a Mono Q column) GMEB under conditions where CREB was readily visualized at 42 kDa (data not shown). This implies that the GMEB may be comprised of proteins of different molecular weights. Direct evidence for this conclusion came from gel shift assays with Mono Q purified material that was separated on, and then extracted from, SDS-polyacrylamide gels. No one size of fractionated proteins yielded the original band in gel shift assays, even though samples containing a broad size range of proteins retained the ability to form the gel-shifted band both after exposure to SDS (Fig. 4, lane2) and after extraction from an SDS gel (Fig. 4, lane3). However, when two fractions encompassing species of 101-80 kDa and 80-62 kDa were mixed, a strong gel shift band was obtained (Fig. 4, lanes5, 13, and 20). Each fraction by itself bound DNA weakly and afforded different complexes. The reassociation of both components occurred more efficiently when they were mixed before, as opposed to after, renaturation (Fig. 4, lanes20versus22). When the components were mixed after renaturation, increased incubation time favored complex formation (Fig. 4, lanes20-22).


Figure 4: Reconstitution of GMEB activity requires two separable species. HTC cell cytosol (about 37 µg of protein) that had been partially purified by Mono Q column chromatography was size fractionated on a 6% SDS-PAGE gel. Molecular weight ranges of HTC cell proteins were isolated by cutting the sample lanes, as indicated in the unshaded gel lane strip, relative to the migrations of prestained markers (Life Technologies, Inc., Bio-Rad) in adjacent lanes (note that gel was cut below the 71-kDa marker). Proteins in the excised pieces of the gel were electroeluted, kept separate, or mixed as indicated by the shadedgellanestrips, and then precipitated, denatured, and renatured as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' About 1-2 µl of the 20 µl of renatured proteins was used in gel shift assays with P-GME probe. Lane1, mono Q-purified cytosol; lane2, mono Q-purified HTC cytosol mixed with the SDS loading buffer followed by precipitation, denaturation, and renaturation; lane3, proteins eluted from the entire molecular weight range of the SDS-PAGE gel; lanes7-10, 14-17, and 20, protein fractions were mixed before denaturation; lanes21 and 22, proteins were renatured separately and then mixed for indicated time on ice just before the gel shift assay. The position of the GMEB-containing band is indicated by the arrow.



Purification and Peptide Sequencing of GMEB1 and -2

The above data indicated that the GMEB is composed of two proteins. To confirm this conclusion, the GMEBs were purified from about 130 g of HTC cells (Table 2). Each stage of the purification scheme was monitored for its ability to give the appropriate gel-shifted band. Thus, the GMEBs in crude cytosol devoid of CREB were fractionated first on a preparative Mono Q HR 10/10 column and then on a column containing tandem repeats (>10) of the biologically inactive GME mutant oligonucleotide M2 (23) to remove nonspecific binding proteins. The flow-through from this column was loaded onto a column with tandem repeats (>10) of the GME mutant oligonucleotide M3 to bind GMEB. The mutant oligonucleotide M3 was used because M3 had a higher apparent affinity for GMEB than did the native GME, as determined from competitive gel shift experiments (Fig. 1B) and affinity chromatography with multiple repeats of DNA oligonucleotides (data not shown). After three rounds of DNA affinity chromatography, the GMEBs had been purified about 5000-fold (Table 2). As with crude GMEB, the gel-shifted band obtained with purified GMEB was inhibited only by added biologically active oligonucleotides (i.e. GME, M1, M3, M4 but not M2, AP-1, or CRE) ( (23) and data not shown). Analysis of this purified material on denaturing SDS-polyacrylamide gels followed by staining with copper, Coomassie Blue, or silver (Fig. 5A) revealed three major species. However, only the combination of the highest and lowest molecular mass proteins at 88 and 67 kDa could reconstitute the GMEB band in gel shift assays after the elution of each band from SDS-polyacrylamide gels (Fig. 5B). Confirmation that this was the authentic gel-shifted band came from the ability of only the biologically active GME and not the mutant M2 oligonucleotide (23) to competitively inhibit the formation of this band (Fig. 5C).




Figure 5: Purification and reconstitution of GMEB activity. A, silver-stained SDS-PAGE gel of material during various stages of purification. Unstained molecular weight markers, lanes1 and 8; about 100 ng each of HTC cytosol, lane2; mono Q column purified cytosol, lane3; M2 DNA affinity column flow through, lane4; and the GME binding fractions from the first (lane5), second (lane6), and third (lane7) M3 DNA affinity column. The arrows indicate the three candidate GMEBs (labeled 1-3, best seen in lanes6 and 7). B, reconstitution of GMEB activity in gel shift assays. The three major proteins in the eluant from the third M3 DNA affinity column (proteins 1-3 in A) were individually cut out from a silver-stained gel such as in A, electroeluted, denatured, and renatured as described under ``Materials and Methods.'' Aliquots (0.4 µl out of 17 µl) from the renatured sample were analyzed in the gel shift assay. lanes1 and 9, purified GMEB from the third M3 DNA affinity column; lanes2-7, indicated individual proteins or mixtures of proteins that were mixed, precipitated, denatured, and renatured. C, specificity of binding activity of purified and reconstituted GMEBs. Protein bands 1 and 2 from the SDS gel of A were isolated and reconstituted as in B and then analyzed in the standard gel shift assay without (lane2) or with a 100-fold molar excess of non-labeled specifically (GME) or nonspecifically (M2) binding oligonucleotides. The complex formed with GMEB from the third M3 affinity column, but not fractionated on SDS gels, is shown in lane1.



About 130 µg of the two proteins GMEB1 (88 kDa) and GMEB2 (67 kDa) was isolated from denaturing SDS-polyacrylamide gels and sent to the Kreck Foundation (Yale University) for peptide sequencing. The procedure involved in-gel trypsin digestion of each protein, HPLC separation of the fragments, and laser desorption mass spectroscopy to determine which fragments would be most amenable to micro-sequencing. The partial sequences of the three peptides from each protein digest that were sequenced are given in Table 3. The yield of most sequenced peptides was 5-23%, which is the normal range. For peptide 2-73, a very high yield of 78% was obtained, which also proves that this protein was not a mixture of two or more proteins when isolated from the SDS-polyacrylamide gel. The high concentration of acidic residues in some of these peptides (i.e. 1-109 and 2-145) is compatible with the retention of the proteins on polycationic columns (see above). A TBLASTN search of numerous DNA and protein data bases using the NCBI BLAST E-mail server (44) revealed no significant homology with any of the peptides of Table 3. Therefore, the GMEB may be a heterooligomeric complex of two novel proteins.




DISCUSSION

We have called the element at -3.6 kilobases of the rat TAT gene a glucocorticoid modulatory element, or GME, because it modulates the induction properties of both subsaturating concentrations of agonists and saturating concentrations of antagonists(23) . The binding of a protein(s) to the GME was observed that was directly related to the biological activity of the GME oligonucleotide(23, 24) , which was different from synergism(24) . We now report that the GMEB appears to be a heterooligomer of two previously unsequenced proteins, GMEB1 and GMEB2, of apparent molecular masses of 88 and 67 kDa, respectively. However, conclusive identification must await the cloning of both proteins and a demonstration of biological activity with the cloned proteins in cells lacking GMEBs.

Several properties of the GMEBs emerged during their purification that pertain to the mechanism of GME action. First, although the DNA sequence to which the GMEBs bind is very similar to that for the CREB/CREM/ATF and the Jun/Fos/AP-1 superfamilies, and CREB even binds to a non-consensus CRE at the same position as the GME at -3646 bp of the TAT gene(25, 26, 27) , there is little similarity between the GMEBs and these other proteins. The GMEBs are not related to CREB by the criteria of size, biological activity(23, 24, 38) , antibody reactivity, methylation interference patterns for protein binding (Fig. 2Aversus Fig. 7 of (28) ), or amino acid sequence (Table 3). Some AP-1 sites contain the CGTC of the GME, and AP-1 may bind to the GME/CRE, as it has recently been reported that 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate both inhibited glucocorticoid (and cAMP) induction of TAT and caused a decreased protein occupancy of the CRE at -3646 bp(45) . However, again there was no similarity between the peptide sequences of the GMEBs and AP-1, an anti-AP-1 antibody did not cause a supershift of GMEB-GME complexes, and 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate alone did not elicit any response from GME-containing constructs (data not shown). Thus, there is little physical or biological similarity between the GMEBs and the other factors binding to the same DNA sequence. This, then, is an additional example of different proteins that bind to the same DNA region(46, 47) .

Second, we do not know if GMEB and CREB can both bind to the GME/CRE at the same time. However, it seems that CREB is unable to block GMEB action. The low levels of the protein kinase A regulatory subunit (Tse-1) in liver cells are thought to result in high amounts of active CREB that would bind to the GME/CRE(48) . Nevertheless, reporter constructs containing either a single GME (GMEGREtkCAT) or other elements that are needed for CRE activity, such as multiple tandem repeats of the GME or the GME plus the downstream BIII sequence(25) , show full GME activity in Fu5-5 rat hepatoma cells(23) . Furthermore, conditions that elevate protein kinase A activity, such as forskolin treatment, did not inhibit GME activity. Thus, while CREB binds to the same DNA sequence as GMEB, CREB does not appear to competitively inhibit GMEB binding in intact cells.

Third, GME activity is not limited to rat liver cells (Table 1), and the GMEBs are not tissue-specific proteins (Fig. 1A). Furthermore, the fact that the GME was active with synthetic GREs and a variety of promoters, including a minimum thymidine kinase promoter (23) , suggests that no tissue-specific DNA binding factors are required for GME activity.

Fourth, the GMEBs are clearly of nuclear origin but can be readily extracted from nuclei under conditions where other factors, such as CREB, stay in the nucleus. This is reminiscent of several other nuclear proteins(49) , including the progesterone and estrogen receptors, which are predominantly nuclear but appear in most cytosolic preparations. The cytosolic appearance of the GMEBs could be indicative of a dynamic equilibrium between the two cellular compartments, as established for the progesterone receptors(49, 50, 51) , or may simply reflect a repartitioning of the GMEBs in the lysis buffer.

Fifth, the mass and stability of the GMEB complex are notable. The 550-600-kDa size of the protein complex seen in both gel shift assays and size exclusion chromatography (Fig. 3, A and B) argue against a nonspecific aggregate. Involvement of the 265-kDa protein CBP that binds phosphorylated CREB (52) was discounted by the observed sizes of GMEB1 and -2 and their lack of immunoreactivity with anti-CBP antibody. The most purified preparation of GMEB appeared to contain about equal amounts of GMEB1 and -2 (Fig. 5A), which would require three or four molecules of each protein in the final complex to achieve a molecular mass of 550-600 kDa. Such a massive complex is probably not too large to be extracted intact from HTC cell nuclei because identically prepared nuclei were found to be permeable to molecules as large as the 240-kDa protein complex of phycoerythrin(53) . However, the GMEB complex must be quite stable to retain specific binding to the GME after extraction from the nucleus (Fig. 1), even in the presence of up to 2.7 M guanidinium hydrochloride and after various degrees of purification (Table 2). Despite the stability of the GMEB complex with regard to dissociation, the rate of reassociation of the separated components was relatively slow (Fig. 4).

Finally, from the yield of purified GMEB1 and -2 in Table 3, it can be calculated that there are about 40,000 molecules of each GMEB per HTC cell. This is similar to the approximately 80,000 molecules of glucocorticoid receptor that are present in an HTC cell(16) . Considering the fact that most glucocorticoid-responsive genes contain two GREs, each of which binds a dimer of the receptor, the ratio of GME-bound GMEB complexes to GRE-bound receptors is about 1:2. Given the facts that the GMEBs are not limited to rat liver cells and that GME-like modulation has been observed with several other glucocorticoid regulated genes(2) , it will be interesting to pursue the possible role of a GME and its heteromeric binding complex in the transcription of genes other than TAT.

While CREB has been identified as a component that also binds to the DNA sequence of the GME/CRE(26) , it is not known if it is the only protein in the complex. Several lines of evidence argue that the CREB-containing complexes bound to the GME are also multimeric. Most obvious is the size of the CREB-containing complexes, which were 310-360 kDa in gel shift assays and 400 kDa on size exclusion columns (Fig. 3A and data not shown). Deoxycholate blocked the formation of the CREB-containing bands in gel shift assays, just as was observed for GMEB (Fig. 3B). Given the fact that CREB is relatively small (42 kDa), it would seem that the CREB complexes must contain either multiple copies of CREB or other proteins. CREB will bind to the GME-containing oligonucleotide in Southwestern blots (see ``Results'') and will afford gel-shifted bands with a CRE-containing oligonucleotide (26) so that homooligomeric complexes of CREB may form. However, the gel-shifted band that the somatostatin CRE formed with purified CREB exhibited a faster migration than that with crude nuclear extracts(26) . Thus, the CREB-containing complex from nuclear extracts probably is not the same as that formed just from CREB and would contain some other protein(s). Further experiments are required to determine whether the suspected additional proteins are CBP (52) , other members of the CREB/CREM/ATF superfamily that can heterodimerize with CREB(39) , or even GMEB1 or -2.

In summary, we have found that a heteromeric complex of two potentially new proteins binds to a cis-acting element of the TAT gene. These two proteins, GMEB1 and GMEB2, are associated with changes in the transcriptional activity of antiglucocorticoids and low concentrations of glucocorticoids. These are phenomena that have not been previously described for steroid receptors and thus are of considerable mechanistic interest. It remains to be seen whether the GMEBs interact with glucocorticoid receptors and the transcriptional machinery in the manner that we have proposed(2, 23) . The cloning of GMEB1 and GMEB2 and the production of specific antibodies will be of major assistance in understanding the mechanistic details of this interesting system.


FOOTNOTES

*
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore by hereby marked ``advertisement'' in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

§
Current address: Dept. of Medicine, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake, Aichi 470-11, Japan.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Bldg. 8, Rm. B2A-07, NIDDK/LMCB, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892. Tel.: 301-496-6796; Fax: 301-402-3572.

(^1)
The abbreviations used are: TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase; bp, base pair(s); CREB, cyclic AMP response element binding protein; GME, glucocorticoid modulatory element; HTC, hepatoma tissue culture; CRE, cyclic AMP-responsive element; FPLC, fast protein liquid chromatography; CBP, CREB binding protein; GRE, glucocorticoid response element; CAT, chloramphenicol acetyltransferase; PAGE, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis; HPLC, high pressure liquid chromatography.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Mari Oshima and Yoko Hirata (NICHD, National Institutes of Health (NIH)) for technical suggestions with the FPLC, David Jackson (NIDDK, NIH) for helpful comments, Mark Reitman (NIDDK, NIH) for critical review of the paper, Tom Curran (Roche Institute of Molecular Biology) for pc-Fos-1, Richard H. Goodman (Vollum Institute) for anti-CBP, Joel Habener (Massachusetts General Hospital) for anti-CREM, Gordon Hager (NCI, NIH) for HeLa cells, Michael J. Iadarola (NIDR, NIH) for PC-12 cells, Günther Schütz (Heidelberg, Germany) for L cells and anti-CREB and pET-3alpha/mDeltaCREB antibodies, and Inder Verma (Salk Institute) for a c-Jun plasmid.


REFERENCES

  1. Simons, S. S., Jr., Mercier, L., Miller, N. R., Miller, P. A., Oshima, H., Sistare, F. D., Thompson, E. B., Wasner, G., and Yen, P. M. (1989) Cancer Res. 49, 2244-2252
  2. Simons, S. S., Jr., Oshima, H., and Szapary, D. (1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6,995-1002 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Jonat, C., Rahmsdorf, H. J., Park, K-K., Cato, A. C. B., Gebel, S., Ponta, H., and Herrlich, P. (1990) Cell 62,1189-1204 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Diamond, M. I., Miner, J. N., Yoshinaga, S. K., and Yamamoto, K. R. (1990) Science 249,1266-1272 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Cho, H., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (1993) Mol. Endocrinol. 7,441-452 [Abstract]
  6. Maroder, M., Farina, A. R., Vacca, A., Felli, M. P., Meco, D., Screpanti, I., Frati, L., and Gulino, A. (1993) Mol. Endocrinol. 7,570-584 [Abstract]
  7. Wasner, G., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1987) Mol. Endocrinol. 1,109-120 [Abstract]
  8. Kazmi, S. M. I., Visconti, V., Plante, R. K., Ishaque, A., and Lau, C. (1993) Endocrinology 133,1230-1238 [Abstract]
  9. Nordeen, S. K., Bona, B. J., and Moyer, M. L. (1993) Mol. Endocrinol. 7,731-742 [Abstract]
  10. Rangarajan, P. N., Umesono, K., and Evans, R. M. (1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6,1451-1457 [Abstract]
  11. Sartorius, C. A., Tung, L., Takimoto, G. S., and Horwitz, K. B. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268,9262-9266 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Beck, C. A., Weigel, N. L., Moyer, M. L., Nordeen, S. K., and Edwards, D. P. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90,4441-4445 [Abstract]
  13. Sanchez, E. R., Hu, J-L., Zhong, S., Shen, P., Greene, M. J., and Housley, P. R. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8,408-421 [Abstract]
  14. Ning, Y-M., and Sanchez, E. R. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268,6073-6076 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Power, R. F., Mani, S. K., Codina, J., Conneely, O. M., O'Malley, B. W. (1991) Science 254,1636-1639 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Mercier, L., Thompson, E. B., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1983) Endocrinology 112,601-609 [Abstract]
  17. Mercier, L., Miller, P. A., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1986) J. Steroid Biochem. 25,11-20 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Simons, S. S., Jr., and Yen, P. M. (1987) in Steroid and Sterol Hormone Action (Spelsberg, T. C., and Kumar, R., eds) pp. 251-268, M. Nijhoff, Boston
  19. Wasner, G., Oshima, H., Thompson, E. B., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1988) Mol. Endocrinol. 2,1009-1017 [Abstract]
  20. Simons, S. S., Jr., Miller, P. A., Wasner, G., Miller, N. R., and Mercier, L. (1988) J. Steroid Biochem. 31,1-7 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Oshima, H., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1992) Endocrinology 130,2106-2112 [Abstract]
  22. Szapary, D., Oshima, H., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1992) Endocrinology 130,3492-3502 [Abstract]
  23. Oshima, H., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6,416-428 [Abstract]
  24. Oshima, H., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268,26858-26865 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Boshart, M., Weih, F., Schimdt, A., Fournier, R. E. K., and Schutz, G. (1990) Cell 61,905-916 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Nichols, M., Weih, F., Schmid, W., DeVack, C., Kowenz-Leutz, E., Luckow, B., Boshart, M., and Schutz, G. (1992) EMBO J. 11,3337-3346 [Abstract]
  27. Nitsch, D., Boshart, M., and Schutz, G. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90,5479-5483 [Abstract]
  28. Weih, F., Stewart, A. F., Boshart, M., Nitsch, D., and Schutz, G. (1990) Genes & Dev. 4,1437-1449
  29. Shepard, A. R., Zhang, W., and Eberhardt, N. L. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269,1804-1814 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Ray, A., Sassone-Corsi, P., and Sehgal, P. B. (1989) Mol. Cell. Biol. 9,5537-5547 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Reichman, M. E., Foster, C. M., Eisen, L. P., Eisen, H. J., Torain, B. F., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1984) Biochemistry 23,5376-5384 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Simons, S. S., Jr. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262,9669-9675 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Cooney, A. J., Tsai, S. Y., and Tsai, M-J. (1993) In Transcription Factors: A Practical Approach (Latchman, D. S., ed) p. 49, IRL Press, New York
  34. Maniatis, T., Fritsch, E. F., and Sambrook, J. (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual , 2nd Ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  35. Maxam, A. M., and Gilbert, W. (1977) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 74,560-564 [Abstract]
  36. Kadonaga, J. T. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 208,10-23 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Miller, P. A., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1988) Endocrinology 122,2990-2998 [Abstract]
  38. Lalli, E., and Sassone-Corsi, P. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269,17359-17362 [Free Full Text]
  39. Hummler, E., Cole, T. J., Blendy, J. A., Ganss, R., Aguzzi, A., Schmid, W., Beermann, F., and Schutz, G. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91,5647-5651 [Abstract]
  40. Gaub, M-P., Bellard, M., Scheuer, I., Chambon, P., and Sassone-Corsi, P. (1990) Cell 63,1267-1276 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Heinrichs, A. A. J., Bortell, R., Rahman, S., Stein, J. L., Alnemri, E. S., Litwack, G., Lian, J. B., and Stein, G. S. (1993) Biochemistry 32,11436-11444 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Baeuerle, P. A., and Baltimore, D. (1988) Cell 53,211-217 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Kupfer, S. R., Marschke, K. B., Wilson, E. M., and French, F. S. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268,17519-17527 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., and Lipman, D. J. (1990) J. Mol. Biol. 215,403-410 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Reik, A., Stewart, A. F., and Schutz, G. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8,490-497 [Abstract]
  46. Steitz, T. A. (1990) Q. Rev. Biophys. 23,205-280 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Harrison, S. C. (1991) Nature 353,715-719 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Jones, K. W., Shapero, M. H., Chevrette, M., and Fournier, R. E. (1991) Cell 66,861-872 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Guiochon-Mantel, A., Delabre, K., Lescop, P., and Milgrom, E. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91,7179-7183 [Abstract]
  50. Guiochon-Mantel, A., Lescop, P., Christin-Martre, S., Loosfelt, H., Perrot-Applanat, M., and Milgrom, E. (1991) EMBO J. 10,3851-3859 [Abstract]
  51. Chandran, U. R., and DeFranco, D. B. (1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6,837-844 [Abstract]
  52. Chrivia, J. C., Kwok, R. P. S., Lamb, N., Hagiwara, M., Montminy, M. R., and Goodman, R. H. (1993) Nature 365,855-859 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Miyashita, Y., Miller, M., Yen, P. M., Harmon, J. M., Hanover, J. A., and Simons, S. S., Jr. (1993) J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 46,309-320 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

©1995 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.