A Common Pro-opiomelanocortin-binding Element Mediates Leukemia Inhibitory Factor and Corticotropin-releasing Hormone Transcriptional Synergy*

(Received for publication, December 19, 1996, and in revised form, February 14, 1997)

Corinne Bousquet Dagger , David W. Ray and Shlomo Melmed §

From the Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Research Institute-UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90048

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
FOOTNOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
REFERENCES


ABSTRACT

Using murine AtT20 pituitary cells transfected with a rat pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) promoter (-706/+64) linked to the luciferase reporter, we showed leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) to strongly potentiate corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) induction of POMC gene expression. We therefore tested mechanisms for molecular interactions between LIF and CRH. Although LIF and CRH synergized to induce an 8-fold induction of POMC transcription, CRH alone (but not LIF) induced cAMP response element-binding protein phosphorylation (5-fold) or an increase of c-fos mRNA levels (>100-fold), suggesting that these pathways are not implicated in LIF transcriptional synergistic effects. Using a DNase I footprint assay, POMC promoter regions protected by AtT20 cell nuclear extracts were identified (-121/-109, and -143/-134, and -173/-160). The protected -173/-160 element fused to a heterologous promoter conferred LIF-CRH synergy (6.5-fold induction of POMC) and formed a specific complex with AtT20 cell nuclear extracts. This complex was supershifted by an anti-phosphoserine antibody, and a serine/threonine kinase inhibitor also altered both this complex and LIF-CRH transcriptional synergy on the POMC promoter-luciferase reporter construct, indicating that these events depend on post-translational serine phosphorylations. LIF-CRH synergy on POMC transcription is therefore mediated at least in part by -173/-160 sequences conferring confluent transcriptional activity of both peptides.


INTRODUCTION

CRH,1 a well characterized 41-residue neuropeptide, is the principal central regulator of the stress response (1). It stimulates transcription and biosynthesis of POMC, leading to increased adrenal glucocorticoid production (2). CRH acts through specific CRH receptors (G protein-coupled receptors) to activate adenylate cyclase, thereby increasing intracellular cAMP levels (3). Intriguingly, although cAMP agonists also induce POMC transcription, the POMC gene does not contain a consensus cAMP response element (4). However, CRH also activates the c-fos proto-oncogene, implying cAMP and protein kinase A or Ca2+ and calmodulin kinase signaling (5). Furthermore, a c-fos-binding element in POMC exon 1 (indistinguishable from an AP-1-binding site) has recently been identified to be responsible for part of the CRH transactivating effect on POMC transcription (4). Another CRH-inducible element centered at position -166 on the POMC promoter has also been described and could be responsible for c-fos-independent induction of POMC transcription by CRH (6).

The development and function of differentiated pituitary neuroendocrine cells are regulated both by hypothalamic trophic hormones and by intrapituitary cytokines and growth factors. Several cytokines stimulate the hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal axis in vivo and pituicyte ACTH production in vitro (7-10). LIF is a pleiotropic cytokine, whose gene expression has recently been reported in human fetal and adult and murine pituitary cells (11, 12). The biological functions of LIF are mediated through its binding to a high-affinity cell-surface LIF-receptor complex, consisting of a low-affinity LIF-binding subunit (LIF-R) and a gp130 subunit (13). Ligand activation of LIF-R is followed by gp130 and LIF-R heterodimerization and subsequent activation of tyrosine kinases (14). The Janus-activated kinase family of transmembrane receptor-associated tyrosine kinases is phosphorylated by LIF (15), leading to subsequent activation and translocation into the nucleus of STAT1alpha (ignal ransducer and ctivator of ranscription) and STAT3 (16-19).

LIF also synergizes with CRH to induce secretion of ACTH (20-fold) and to stimulate POMC gene expression (8-fold) in AtT20 cells (16). However, the mechanism for this potent synergy is difficult to explain as no specific cytokine response elements have thus far been identified in the POMC gene. In this study, we therefore explored mechanisms of interaction between the LIF and CRH signaling cascades to determine points of confluence that might explain the synergy exerted by both peptides on POMC transcription. We report here that LIF does not influence the cAMP/c-fos-dependent activation of POMC transcription by CRH. However, a LIF- and CRH-responsive element has been identified in the POMC gene (-173/-160) and is defined to be responsible for mediating LIF-CRH synergy on POMC transcription.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cell Culture

AtT20 cells, obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD), were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 units/ml streptomycin, 100 units/ml penicillin, and 0.25 µg/ml amphotericin B (Life Technologies, Inc.).

Western Analysis

AtT20 cells were grown in 10-ml dishes to 80% confluency and serum-deprived 24 h before a 30-min treatment with LIF (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN), CRH (American Peptide Co., Sunnyvale, CA), LIF and CRH, forskolin, or phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (Sigma). Cells were then lysed by scraping into 2 × SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis loading buffer. Samples were separated by electrophoresis on 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and proteins were transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Millipore Corp., Milford, MA). The membrane was blocked in 5% nonfat milk. Anti-phospho-CREB detection was carried out with polyclonal anti-phosphorylated CREB antibody (Upstate Biotechnology, Inc., Lake Placid, NY) in blocking buffer for 14 h at 4 °C. Anti-rabbit Ig conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (Amersham Corp.) was incubated with the membrane in blocking buffer, and detection was accomplished using ECL reagent (Amersham Corp.) as suggested by the manufacturer. To reprobe the membrane, the antibody was stripped using 100 mM beta -mercaptoethanol, 2% SDS, and 62.5 mM Tris-HCl (pH 6.7) at 50 °C for 30 min.

Northern Analysis

Poly(A) RNA was prepared from AtT20 cells treated with LIF, CRH, or both using trizol reagent (Life Technologies, Inc.). 10 µg of RNA/lane was size-fractionated under denaturing conditions using formaldehyde-agarose (1.2%) gel, transferred to nitrocellulose, and hybridized as described (20). A cDNA fragment of c-fos was used as a template for a 32P-labeled probe generated using random primers.

Nuclear Extracts

AtT20 cells were grown to 80% confluency and serum-deprived 24 h before a 1-h treatment with or without LIF, CRH, or both. Cells were then harvested in cold phosphate-buffered saline. Nuclear extracts were prepared as described (21). Final concentrations were typically 3 µg/µl as determined by Bio-Rad protein assay.

DNase I Footprinting

A double-stranded DNA fragment was prepared by polymerase chain reaction. Briefly, the antisense primer was end-labeled using T4 polynucleotide kinase and [gamma -32P]dATP (6000 mCi/mmol; DuPont NEN), purified through a Bio-Spin 30 chromatography column (Bio-Rad), and used in the polymerase chain reaction. The -351/-7 region of the rat POMC promoter was also amplified and purified on a 1.3% agarose gel. DNA was recovered using a USBioclean kit.

Nuclear extracts (0-50 µg) were incubated for 20 min at room temperature with 1-2 ng of 32P-labeled DNA (25,000 cpm) in binding buffer (22 mM HEPES (pH 7.9), 6 mM KCl, 10 mM dithiothreitol, 5 mM spermidine, 8% glycerol, and 2% Ficoll) with 2 µg of poly(dI-dC). Samples were briefly treated (1 min at room temperature) with DNase I (Pharmacia Biotech Inc.), titrated to determine a partial digestion pattern. Digestion was terminated by addition of 3 volumes of 768 mM sodium acetate, 128 mM EDTA, 0.56% SDS, and 256 µg/ml yeast RNA and by treatment (5 min at 55 °C) with 2 µg of proteinase K. DNA was also extracted with phenol/CHCl3 and ethanol-precipitated. Reaction products were then analyzed on a standard 8 M urea, 8% polyacrylamide gel adjacent to a sequencing ladder (G + A) generated from the same end-labeled DNA fragment to precisely identify borders of DNase protection.

Gel-shift Assay

All nucleotides were synthesized by the Cedars-Sinai Molecular Biology Core Facility. The superscript numbers are in reference to POMC promoter sequence with the transcription start site as position +1: oligonucleotide A,5'--175tcgaTCTGCTGTGCGCGCAGCC-158-3'; oligonucleotide B, 5'--189ACTTTCCAGGCACATCTGCTGT-168-3'; and oligonucleotide C, 5'--167GCGCGCAGCCCCGACCGGGAAG-146-3'.

10 pmol of double-stranded oligonucleotide were end-labeled with [gamma -32P]dATP using T4 polynucleotide kinase, purified through a Bio-Spin 30 chromatography column, resolved on a 10% acrylamide gel, and eluted from the gel in 10 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8) and 1 mM EDTA. Approximately 30 pg of labeled DNA (20,000-30,000 cpm) were added to the nuclear extracts.

For the binding assays, 7.5 µg of nuclear extracts were preincubated for 15 min at room temperature in 20 µl of binding buffer with 1 µg of poly(dI-dC). 32P-Labeled probe was added, and the binding reaction was left at room temperature for 15 min. In competition experiments, a 100-fold molar excess of unlabeled competitor oligonucleotides was added to the preincubation reaction. Antibody experiments were performed using 1 µl of anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (Santa Cruz Bioreagents, Santa Cruz, CA) or 1 µl of anti-phosphoserine antibody (Sigma), which was added to the preincubation reaction and incubated for 1 h at 4 °C. The protein-DNA complexes were resolved on a 4% polyacrylamide gel in 0.5 × Tris borate/EDTA. Gels were dried and autoradiographed with intensifying screens at -70 °C with Amersham Hyperfilm-MP films.

Mutagenesis and Plasmid Construction

Deletion of the -167/-117 region of the POMC promoter was performed with an ExSite polymerase chain reaction-based mutagenesis kit (Stratagene Cloning Systems, La Jolla, CA) according to manufacturer's instructions. The -173/-160 element-luciferase plasmid was made by synthesizing two complementary DNA sequences (5'-tcgaTCTGCTGTGCGCGCAGC-3'), annealing, and ligating them into pGL3 (Promega) linearized at the KpnI/SacI site. All constructs were sequenced for verification.

Transfection and Luciferase Assay

AtT20 cells were plated in 2-ml dishes (100,000 cells/well) and allowed to adhere for 24 h. Cells were transfected as described (16), and 24 h after transfection, they were treated in triplicate for 6 h. After cell lysis, the luciferase activity was measured in a Berthold Lumat LB 9501 luminometer (Wallac, Gaithersburg, MD). Cotransfection of the beta -galactosidase reporter showed transfection efficiency to vary <15% within a given experiment.


RESULTS

Synergy of LIF-CRH on POMC Transcription

Using the rat POMC promoter (-706/+64) fused to the luciferase reporter gene, we previously showed that LIF induced CRH action on rat POMC transcription (16). To determine the specificity of LIF action, the transcriptional effects of other cytokines, notably TNFalpha and IL-1beta , which are also induced by acute inflammatory insults (22, 23), were examined. AtT20 cells transiently transfected with the POMC promoter-luciferase construct were treated for 6 h with LIF (1 nM), CRH (10 nM), TNFalpha (1 ng/ml), IL-1beta (100 pg/ml), or combinations of CRH and one of the other cytokines. Neither TNFalpha nor IL-1beta alone exerted transcriptional effects, nor did they alter CRH induction of POMC (Fig. 1). Thus, there does not appear to be redundancy in the response of POMC to these inflammatory cytokines, i.e. the LIF synergistic effect with CRH on POMC transcription appears selective. Presumably, the specificity of the LIF response is determined by LIF receptor expression (11). Urocortin, a novel neuropeptide related to both urotensin and CRH, activates CRH receptors and, in vivo, is a more powerful stimulant of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis than CRH (24). We therefore examined urocortin transcriptional activity and demonstrated that it could also activate POMC transcription as well as potentiate LIF effects on POMC (Fig. 1). These results provide evidence for the role of CRH receptor subtype I (25) in modulating LIF action. Therefore, to determine points of confluence between the two signaling cascades, we explored the hypothesis by which LIF could enhance CRH signaling pathways leading to POMC transcription and ACTH secretion.


Fig. 1. LIF-CRH synergy is specific for LIF and CRH receptor subtype I ligands. Rat POMC promoter-luciferase-transfected AtT20 cells were treated for 6 h with 1 nM LIF; 10 nM CRH; 100 pg/ml IL-1beta ; 1 ng/ml TNFalpha ; 10 nM urocortin; or a combination of CRH + LIF, IL-1beta  + CRH, TNFalpha  + CRH, or urocortin + LIF. Luciferase activity was measured as described under "Materials and Methods."
[View Larger Version of this Image (14K GIF file)]


LIF and CRH Effects on the cAMP Pathway

CRH induction of POMC transcription was reported to be mediated through a cAMP pathway (3, 26-29), although LIF itself did not alter AtT20 cAMP levels (16). cAMP signaling leads to phosphorylation of CREB and to a transient increase of c-fos mRNA levels (30-32). We therefore tested whether LIF could activate these two events.

CREB Phosphorylation

As CRH stimulates accumulation of cAMP and protein kinase A activation in target cells (16, 26), we tested whether LIF altered CREB phosphorylation. Using an antibody that exclusively recognizes the phosphorylated form of CREB (33), CRH (10 nM), but not LIF (1 nM), induced a striking increase (>5-fold) in the proportion of intracellular phosphorylated CREB within 30 min (Fig. 2): a doublet that migrated with the 43-kDa marker, the expected size for CREB, was detected by an anti-phospho-CREB antibody. These two inducible bands may be CREBalpha and CREBDelta , which differ in sequence by 14 amino acids (33). These changes were not accompanied by increases in the amount of total intracellular CREB, as measured by an antibody recognizing all forms of CREB. Interestingly, although LIF and CRH powerfully synergize to stimulate POMC expression, LIF does not further enhance CREB phosphorylation over that observed with CRH treatment. We concluded that CREB phosphorylation is therefore not a molecular event responsible for LIF synergistic effects on CRH-induced POMC transcription.


Fig. 2. CRH (but not LIF) enhances CREB protein phosphorylation. AtT20 cells were untreated (first lane) or treated for 30 min with 1 nM LIF (second lane), 10 nM CRH (third lane), 1 nM LIF and 10 nM CRH (fourth lane), 5 µM forskolin (fifth lane), or 10 nM phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA; sixth lane). After cell lysis, proteins were separated on a 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel and transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane. Immunodetection was carried out using an antibody recognizing the phosphorylated form of CREB (upper panel) and an antibody recognizing equally all molecular forms of the CREB molecules (lower panel).
[View Larger Version of this Image (43K GIF file)]


c-fos Expression

c-fos is a member of a family of related acute-phase transcription factors that form heterodimers to bind DNA and activate transcription (34). c-fos mRNA accumulation occurs during treatment of AtT20 cells with CRH, and overexpression of c-fos results in enhanced POMC transcription (5). In addition, LIF may, in some systems, enhance c-fos transcription (35). Therefore, changes in c-fos mRNA were analyzed after cells were treated for 15 min with LIF and CRH (1 and 10 nM, respectively). Striking inductions (>100-fold) of c-fos mRNA after CRH treatment were observed, in keeping with previous reports (5). However, in these cells, LIF alone failed to induce c-fos expression and furthermore failed to enhance the CRH effect on c-fos mRNA levels (Fig. 3). Therefore, although c-fos may play a role in mediating CRH action, it does not appear to be important for LIF action or, more significantly, for mediating the strong synergy between LIF and CRH.


Fig. 3. c-fos mRNA induction is not implicated in LIF-CRH synergy. 10 µg of RNA from AtT20 cells untreated (first lane) or treated for 15 min with 1 nM LIF (second lane), 10 nM CRH (third lane), or 1 nM LIF and 10 nM CRH (fourth lane) were loaded per lane and size-fractionated on a denaturing formaldehyde-agarose (1.2%) gel. After transfer to nitrocellulose membrane, hybridization was accomplished using radiolabeled c-fos cDNA (A). Equal loading and transfer were verified by examining fluorescence of ethidium bromide-stained RNA (B).
[View Larger Version of this Image (48K GIF file)]


In addition, c-fos has been shown to stimulate POMC transcription through an AP-1 site located in exon 1 of the POMC promoter. Using this site as a probe in the gel-shift assay or a construct containing the POMC promoter mutated at this site and fused to the luciferase reporter, we showed this site not to be critical in the context of LIF and CRH synergy on POMC transcription (data not shown).

LIF Action on CRH-induced POMC Transcription, Implying a c-fos-independent Pathway

CRH may also induce POMC transcription and ACTH secretion by a c-fos-independent pathway (4). A region in the POMC promoter (-171/-160), different from the exon 1 AP-1 site, was shown to confer strong CRH stimulation on POMC transcription (6). We therefore explored whether this element could be the point of convergence of the CRH and LIF pathways.

Using a DNase I footprint assay, we examined POMC promoter regions whose DNase sensitivity was protected by bound nuclear proteins present in AtT20 whole cell extracts previously treated for 1 h with CRH (10 nM), LIF (1 nM), and LIF + CRH (1 and 10 nM, respectively) (Fig. 4). We focused on -351/-7 footprinting sequences as this region contains the important regulatory element for the synergy of LIF-CRH on POMC transcription (16).


Fig. 4. DNase I footprinting analysis of the POMC promoter region. Antisense (lower) strand 3'-32P-labeled at position -7 was subjected to DNase I footprint analysis in the presence of AtT20 cell extract untreated (lanes 1-3) or treated with 1 nM LIF (60 min; lanes 4-6), 10 nM CRH (60 min; lanes 7-9), with 1 nM LIF and 10 nM CRH (60 min; lanes 10-12). Different amounts of AtT20 cell extracts were added to the reaction: 0 µg (lanes 1, 4, 7, and 10), 20 µg (lanes 2, 5, 8, and 11), or 50 µg (lanes 3, 6, 9, and 12). A Maxam-Gilbert sequencing ladder of the same end-labeled fragment is shown to identify the exact footprints. Positions of each footprint are shown relative to the transcription start site.
[View Larger Version of this Image (64K GIF file)]


50 µg of AtT20 cell nuclear extracts protected three elements (-109/-121, -134/-143, and -173/-160) in this region, both in the basal state and after stimulation of the cells by LIF, CRH, or both agents together. These regions have previously been designated as potential overlapping AP-2- and NF-kappa B-binding sites (-134/-143 element) (6) and as a mouse metallothionein metal regulatory element (-173/-160 element) (6). However, we also found that no additional regions were further protected after treatment of the cells with both LIF and CRH compared with LIF or CRH alone.

To further analyze whether these regions could be important for the synergy of LIF-CRH on POMC transcription, we performed functional assays by transfecting AtT20 cells treated with LIF (1 nM) and CRH (10 nM) for 6 h with the rat POMC promoter lacking the -167/-117 region and fused to a luciferase reporter gene (Fig. 5). This deletion reduced basal promoter activity and also severely reduced the LIF-CRH synergy (61.5%) on reporter activity. We therefore fused the -173/-160 element to the same luciferase reporter gene with a heterologous SV40 promoter (Fig. 5). We focused on this element first because of its identification during footprint analysis and also because of previous work demonstrating that this region was bound by a CRH-inducible factor and was the major CRH-responsive element in the POMC promoter (6). As expected, CRH exerted its positive regulation of transcription, but surprisingly, LIF and CRH together strongly enhanced this induction (6.5-fold), thus conferring LIF responsiveness to the heterologous construct.


Fig. 5. Identification of a POMC promoter element mediating the synergy of LIF-CRH on POMC transcription. The luciferase assay was carried out using the rat POMC promoter-luciferase construct lacking the -167/-117 region (open bars) or the -173/-160 element of the POMC promoter fused to the SV40-luciferase reporter gene (shaded bars). AtT20 cells were transfected with these constructs and treated with 1 nM LIF, 10 nM CRH, or both. Luciferase activity was measured as described under "Materials and Methods." Closed bars, wild-type promoter.
[View Larger Version of this Image (22K GIF file)]


To confirm these results, we analyzed binding protein states in the -173/-160 region by using AtT20 whole cell extracts (after cell treatment with LIF, CRH, or both) and a radioactive probe comprising this element using a gel-shift assay. Nuclear extracts from control, CRH-treated (10 nM, 60 min), LIF-treated (1 nM, 60 min), or (LIF + CRH)-treated (1 and 10 nM, respectively; 60 min) AtT20 cells were prepared as described under "Materials and Methods." These extracts were also shown to bind efficiently to oligonucleotide A, containing the region (-173/-160) important for the LIF + CRH induction of POMC transcription (Fig. 6A). In fact, three complexes were shifted, and therefore, to determine the exact binding localization of each on the A probe, two oligonucleotides were designed: B and C. After addition of B and C sequences, the entire A nucleotide sequence was covered without overlap, while A-C were the same size. From these experiments, we concluded that only the slowest migrating band (designated Y) was specific for the -167/-158 region as it appeared only with the A and C probes (Fig. 6, A and C, respectively). The "intermediate" complex (designated I) seemed to bind the -175/-168 region (overlapping region between the A and B probes) (Fig. 6, A and B), but was not further considered because of its diffuse nature. The faster migrating band (designated L) was not specific for any region as it appeared with all three probes (A-C) (Fig. 6, A-C).


Fig. 6. Identification of a protein-DNA complex (Y) stimulated by CRH and localized on the -167/-158 sequence of the POMC promoter. A, gel-shift analyses with nuclear extracts (7.5 µg) from untreated (lane 1), CRH-treated (10 nM, 60 min; lane 2), (LIF + CRH)-treated (1 and 10 nM, respectively; 60 min; lane 3), and LIF-treated (1 nM, 60 min; lane 4) AtT20 cells. 32P-Labeled oligonucleotide A was used as the probe with no competitor (lanes 1-4) or with a 100-fold molar excess of unlabeled oligonucleotide A (lane 5), a 100-fold molar excess of unlabeled oligonucleotide B (lane 6), or a 100-fold molar excess of unlabeled oligonucleotide C (lane 7) as competitor. B, gel-shift analyses with nuclear extracts (7.5 µg) from untreated (lane 8), LIF-treated (1 nM, 60 min; lane 9), CRH-treated (10 nM, 60 min; lane 10), and (LIF + CRH)-treated (1 and 10 nM, respectively; 60 min; lanes 11 and 12) AtT20 cells. 32P-Labeled oligonucleotide B was used as the probe with no competitor (lanes 8-11) or with a 100-fold molar excess of unlabeled oligonucleotide B (lane 12) as competitor. C, gel-shift analyses with nuclear extracts (7.5 µg) from untreated (lane 13), LIF-treated (1 nM, 60 min; lane 14), CRH-treated (10 nM, 60 min; lane 15), and (LIF + CRH)-treated (1 and 10 nM, respectively; 60 min; lanes 16 and 17) AtT20 cells. 32P-Labeled oligonucleotide C was used as the probe with no competitor (lanes 13-16) or with a 100-fold molar excess of unlabeled oligonucleotide C (lane 17) as competitor.
[View Larger Version of this Image (52K GIF file)]


To analyze the binding specificity of the Y complex on the A probe, competition experiments were performed (Fig. 7). The Y complex was shown to be efficiently competed by unlabeled oligonucleotide A (100-fold molar excess) (Fig. 7, lanes 5 and 7), whereas an AP-1 oligonucleotide was inefficient in competing (lanes 9-11). The binding specificity of the Y complex on the -167/-158 motif was further confirmed by a less efficient competition with a unlabeled oligonucleotide similar to oligonucleotide A except that it contained a mutation at GCGC (-167/-164) (Fig. 7, lanes 12-14). This -167/-164 region must therefore be at least a component of the binding site of the Y complex. In addition, competition experiments with unlabeled oligonucleotides B and C further strengthened the binding specificity of the Y complex on the -167/-158 region as oligonucleotide B did not compete this binding, whereas oligonucleotide C competed effectively (Fig. 6A, lanes 6 and 7).


Fig. 7. Competition experiment: effects of excess unlabeled oligonucleotide on Y complex binding. Gel-shift analyses were carried out with nuclear extracts (7.5 µg) from untreated (lane 1), CRH-treated (10 nM, 60 min; lanes 2 and 5), (LIF + CRH)-treated (1 and 10 nM, respectively; 60 min; lanes 3 and 6-14), and LIF-treated (1 nM, 60 min; lane 4) AtT20 cells. 32P-Labeled oligonucleotide A was used as the probe with no competitor (lanes 1-4) or with a 100-fold molar excess of unlabeled oligonucleotide A (lane 5); 10-, 100-, and 1000-fold molar excesses of unlabeled oligonucleotide A (lanes 6-8, respectively); 10-, 100-, and 1000-fold molar excesses of unlabeled AP-1 oligonucleotide (lanes 9-11, respectively); or 10-, 100-, and 1000-fold molar excesses of unlabeled mutated (GC) oligonucleotide A (lanes 12-14, respectively) as competitor.
[View Larger Version of this Image (47K GIF file)]


In addition, Figs. 6A and 7 show that greater amounts of the shifted Y complex were detected in assays that contained nuclear extracts from AtT20 cells treated with CRH for 60 min as compared with untreated cell extracts. No quantitative enhancement of the shifted Y complex was observed with extracts from AtT20 cells treated with LIF + CRH for 60 min as compared with those treated with CRH alone for 60 min. We also concluded that LIF, at the concentrations used and for the duration of the treatments, did not further enhance CRH-induced complex shifts or the amount of Y complex. LIF and CRH may also act through the same binding element (-173/-160) by activating similar transcription factor(s) by modifying their conformation or phosphorylation state. Indeed, no significant correlation was observed between the quantitative binding state of these proteins on the -173/-160 element after cell treatment with CRH, LIF, or both or in the corresponding stimulation of POMC transcription in experiments where the -173/-160 element was fused to the heterologous SV40-luciferase reporter gene.

The time-dependent activation of the Y complex by both cytokines suggested a post-translational regulation. To explore this hypothesis, we analyzed POMC transcription in the luciferase assay as well as Y complex formation in the gel-shift assay with or without pretreating AtT20 cells for 30 min with 10 µg/ml cycloheximide. This inhibitor did not alter these LIF- and CRH-induced events (data not shown), demonstrating that ongoing protein synthesis is not required. To investigate whether phosphorylated events are critical, supershift experiments were performed using anti-phosphoprotein antibodies and showed the Y complex to contain protein(s) phosphorylated on serine residues, but not on tyrosine. Indeed, the Y complex was supershifted by an anti-phosphoserine antibody (Fig. 8A, lane 12) and not by an anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (lane 13) or by preimmune serum (lane 11). Several complexes were in fact supershifted by the anti-phosphoserine antibody; however, only the two upper bands (designated alpha  and beta ) are specific since they did not appear in a control reaction containing the A probe with the anti-phosphoserine antibody but without AtT20 cell nuclear extracts (data not shown). The appearance of at least two supershifted complexes suggests that different serine-phosphorylated proteins are components of the Y complex with DNA. Furthermore, the presence of these complexes even in the untreated reaction reveals that the signaling pathway leading to these serine phosphorylations is constitutively activated. To provide further functional confirmation for these observations, AtT20 cells were pretreated for 1 h with a 0.5 µM concentration of a serine/threonine inhibitor, staurosporine, before adding LIF or CRH, and Y complex formation was tested or luciferase activity was measured (Fig. 8, B and C, respectively). LIF-, CRH-, or (LIF + CRH)-induced POMC transcription was abolished by staurosporine, and Y complex formation was severely reduced after staurosporine treatment, whereas this agent only modestly altered these parameters in control cells. Furthermore, treatment of AtT20 cells with 100 µg/ml genistein, a specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor, did not alter LIF and CRH induction (data not shown). These results indicate that LIF- and CRH-triggered signaling pathways involve the specific action of serine/threonine protein kinases.


Fig. 8.

Phosphorylation events on serine/threonine residues are required for LIF- and CRH-enhanced POMC transcription. A, gel-shift analyses with nuclear extracts (7.5 µg) from untreated (control (C)); lanes 1, 2, and 9), LIF-treated (1 nM, 60 min; lanes 3 and 4), CRH-treated (10 nM, 60 min; lanes 5 and 6), and (LIF + CRH)-treated (1 and 10 nM, respectively; 60 min; lanes 7, 8, and 10-13) AtT20 cells. 32P-Labeled oligonucleotide A was used as the probe. An anti-phosphoserine antibody (Ab alpha -PSerine) was added to the binding reaction in lanes 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 and shifted the Y complex, while an anti-phosphotyrosine antibody (Ab alpha -PTyrosine; lane 13) or nonimmune serum (lane 11) added under the same conditions did not. B, gel-shift analyses with nuclear extracts (7.5 µg) from untreated (lanes 1 and 2), LIF-treated (1 nM, 60 min; lanes 3 and 4), CRH-treated (10 nM, 60 min; lanes 5 and 6), and (LIF + CRH)-treated (1 and 10 nM, respectively; 60 min; lanes 7 and 8) AtT20 cells. Before cytokine treatment, cells were preincubated for 60 min with 0.5 µM staurosporine (Sigma) (lanes 1, 3, 5, and 7). 32P-Labeled oligonucleotide A was used as the probe. C, rat POMC reporter-luciferase-transfected AtT20 cells untreated or treated for 6 h with 1 nM LIF, 10 nM CRH, or a combination of both with (shaded bars) or without (closed bars) a 1-h pretreatment with 0.5 µM staurosporine. Luciferase activity was measured.


[View Larger Version of this Image (28K GIF file)]



DISCUSSION

Our earlier work had shown the pleiotropic cytokine LIF to demonstrate a very robust interaction with CRH in potentiating its effects on POMC transcription (16). However, these two peptides exerted opposing effects on a number of indices of cell proliferation, including S phase accumulation (36). These either synergistic effects on POMC transcription or antagonistic effects on the cell cycle indicated complex interactions between both peptides.

It is also relevant that the CRH type II receptor ligand urocortin (24) has similar synergistic effects on the rat POMC promoter, presumably acting through the type I receptor (25). However, the synergistic effect appears to be highly specific to LIF as two unrelated inflammatory cytokines, IL-1beta and TNFalpha , had no effect on POMC alone and did not alter the stimulation caused by CRH.

These studies were performed to dissect interactions between the LIF and CRH signaling cascades and to identify potential intracellular loci where the observed alterations in the target gene (i.e. POMC) activity could occur. Cross-talk between signaling cascades is being increasingly recognized as important for fine-tuning cellular responses to extracellular signals (37). The regulation of POMC expression by both CRH and LIF appears to be a novel model for studying cross-talk between two different signaling pathways. Previously, inhibition of cytokine signaling by the cAMP pathway has been described (38), making the potentiated responses we observed of even greater interest. The results shown here indicate a complex pattern of signaling interaction between LIF and CRH in AtT20 cells.

CRH is the major positive regulator of the POMC transcriptional response (2). Although its primary effects are an increase in cAMP levels and activation of protein kinase A (16, 26), leading to phosphorylation of CREB, the induction of phospho-CREB by CRH has not previously been reported. However, our results show that CRH signaling through phospho-CREB is not altered by LIF alone or in combination with CRH, and consequently, this signal is apparently not a mechanism for both peptides to exert their synergy on POMC transcription.

A putative downstream target of both LIF and CRH is the proto-oncogene c-fos. c-fos mediates a component of the CRH activation of POMC transcription through a c-fos-responsive sequence in exon 1 of the POMC promoter and was therefore a rational end point to examine. We were surprised that LIF had no effect on c-fos mRNA in pituicytes, whereas CRH clearly was a powerful stimulant at the mRNA level. LIF did not enhance c-fos mRNA and, in fact, inhibited the marked increase observed with CRH. Thus, LIF and CRH exhibit antagonistic effects on c-fos mRNA, similar to the discordant effect we have previously observed for cell cycle progression in AtT20 cells (36).

Our previous studies had indicated that the cytokine-responsive region on the POMC gene was situated in the 5'-promoter sequence between positions -323 and -166 (16). To further dissect this region, a footprint analysis was performed and showed three elements whose DNase sensitivity was protected by AtT20 cell nuclear extracts. Also, further deletions between positions -167 and -117 led to severe abrogation of LIF-CRH synergy on POMC transcription. In addition, fusion of the -173/-160 element to a heterologous SV40-luciferase reporter gene led to enhancement of POMC transcription by both peptides to the same extent as the wild-type promoter. This implied that both LIF and CRH act mostly through closely apposed or similar DNA elements present within the -173/-160 region of the POMC promoter.

To confirm these results, dynamic binding assays, using a radiolabeled probe covering the -173/-160 sequences and AtT20 cell nuclear extracts, were performed and showed no significant differences between binding states induced by CRH alone or in combination with LIF. We conclude that both peptides may stimulate two signaling pathways, converging distally and leading to enhancement of similar transcription factor(s) binding to the -173/-160 element.

Involvement of a similar promoter element mediating two different signaling pathways to enhance transcription of a common target gene has been reported (39, 40). For example, the acute-phase response element fused to a heterologous promoter conferred responsiveness to both interferon-gamma and IL-6 in HepG2 cells (39). Furthermore, an 18-base pair core region of the rat alpha 2-macroglobulin gene was sufficient to confer both induction by IL-6 and synergy of IL-6 plus glucocorticoids to a minimal promoter (40). However, in these latter cases, two separate transduction pathways leading to the activation of distinct transcription factors converged on a common element on the promoter to give a synergistic effect. We questioned therefore whether LIF and CRH pathways converge upstream of the transcription factor level, leading to enhancement of the same binding protein, or downstream, directly on the -173/-160 element by activating different transcription factors. The notion of different transcription factors whose homo- or heterodimerization or coordinated effects are responsible for transcriptional synergistic induction between cytokines is now well recognized (41, 42). However, LIF-, CRH-, or (LIF + CRH)-induced activation of POMC transcription is insensitive to protein synthesis inhibition by cycloheximide, occurring therefore at the post-translational level, and could be prevented by the protein kinase inhibitor staurosporine, known to inhibit most serine/threonine protein kinases. Furthermore, a supershift binding assay with an anti-phosphoserine antibody showed the Y complex to contain several serine-phosphorylated proteins. However, since these proteins are phosphorylated and bind DNA constitutively in the basal unstimulated state, we propose that LIF and CRH synergy occurs through an enhancement of the phosphorylation level of these proteins and/or through other conformational modifications. We therefore conclude that LIF and CRH may activate either a common binding protein or distinct transcription factors, whose activation through serine/threonine phosphorylation events may influence their common transcriptional activity. Requirement of serine phosphorylation events for formation of the activated homodimer STAT3-STAT3, which binds DNA, has similarly been reported (43). However, STAT3 and STAT1alpha are not implicated in LIF- and CRH-triggered synergy on POMC transcription since neither STAT3 nor STAT1alpha antibodies were able to supershift the Y complex in binding assays (data not shown).

In summary, we have demonstrated that LIF and CRH effectively synergize to induce POMC transcription in AtT20 cells and that LIF and CRH effects are not dissociated and are centered on the -173/-160 element. Interestingly, this element was previously shown to bind a novel CRH-inducible transcription factor, a metallothionein protein, whose binding may transactivate POMC gene expression (6). This protein could also be a molecular target for the convergence of LIF and CRH pathways. Furthermore, LIF and CRH synergy appears to occur post-translationally and to involve serine/threonine-mediated phosphorylation events. We have thus identified and characterized a novel interaction between a G protein-coupled receptor and a cytokine receptor that results in synergy at the level of POMC gene transcription.


FOOTNOTES

*   The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Dagger    Recipient of a doctoral fellowship from the Ministere de l'Education Nationale, de l'Enseignement Supérieur, et de la Recherche, France.
§   To whom correspondence should be addressed: Div. of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd., B-131, Los Angeles, CA 90048. Tel.: 310-855-4691; Fax: 310-967-0119; E-mail: MELMED{at}CSMC.EDU.
1   The abbreviations used are: CRH, corticotropin-releasing hormone; POMC, pro-opiomelanocortin; ACTH, adrenocorticotropic hormone; LIF, leukemia inhibitory factor; CREB, cAMP response element-binding protein; TNFalpha , tumor necrosis factor alpha ; IL, interleukin.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank Dr. Lin Pei (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA) for technical advice and critical reading of the manuscript.


REFERENCES

  1. Vale, W., Spiess, J., Rivier, C., and Rivier, J. (1981) Science 213, 1394-1397 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Autelitano, D. J., Lundblad, J. R., Blum, M., and Roberts, J. L. (1989) Annu. Rev. Physiol. 51, 715-726 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Miyazaki, K., Reisine, T., and Kebabian, J. (1984) Endocrinology 115, 1933-1945 [Abstract]
  4. Boutellier, A. L., Monnier, D., Lorang, D., Lundblad, J. R., Roberts, J. L., and Loeffler, J. P. (1995) Mol. Endocrinol. 9, 745-755 [Abstract]
  5. Boutellier, A. L., Sassone-Corsi, P., and Loeffler, J. P. (1991) Mol. Endocrinol. 5, 1301-1310 [Abstract]
  6. Jin, W. D., Boutellier, A. L., Glucksman, M. J., Salton, S. R. J., Loeffler, J. P., and Roberts, J. L. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8, 1377-1399 [Abstract]
  7. Bernton, E. W., Beach, J. E., Holaday, J. W., Smallridge, R. C., and Fein, H. G. (1987) Science 238, 519-521 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Suda, T., Tozawo, F., Ushiyama, T., Tomori, N., Sumitamo, T., Nakagami, Y., Yamada, M., Demura, H., and Shizume, K. (1989) Endocrinology 124, 1444-1449 [Abstract]
  9. Spangelo, B. L., Judd, A. M., Isakson, P. C., and Mac Lead, R. M. (1989) Endocrinology 125, 575-577 [Abstract]
  10. Sacerdote, P., Brini, A. T., Locatelli, L., Radulovic, J., and Panerai, A. E. (1994) Neuroimmunomodulation 1, 357-360 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Akita, S., Webster, J., Ren, S.-G., Takino, H., Said, J., Zand, O., and Melmed, S. (1995) J. Clin. Invest. 95, 1288-1298 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Wang, Z., Ren, S.-G., and Melmed, S. (1996) Endocrinology 137, 2947-2953 [Abstract]
  13. Gearing, D. P., Thut, C. J., Vanden Bos, T., Gimpel, S. D., Delaney, P. B., King, J., Price, V., Cosman, D., and Beckmann, M. P. (1991) EMBO J. 10, 2839-2848 [Abstract]
  14. Davis, S., Aldrich, T. H., Stahl, N., Pan, L., Taga, T., Kishimoto, T., Ip, N. Y., and Yancopoulos, G. D. (1993) Science 260, 1805-1808 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Stahl, N., Boulton, T. G., Farrugella, T., Ip, N. Y., Davis, S., Witthuhn, B. A., Quelle, F. W., Silvennoinen, O., Barbieri, G., Pellegrini, S., Ihle, J. N., and Yancopoulous, G. D. (1994) Science 263, 92-95 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Ray, D. W., Ren, S. G., and Melmed, S. (1996) J. Clin. Invest. 97, 1852-1859 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Fu, X.-Y. (1992) Cell 70, 323-335 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Schindler, C., Fu, X.-Y., Improta, T., Aebersold, R., and Darnell, J. E. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 7836-7839 [Abstract]
  19. Schuai, K., Schindler, C., Prezioso, V. R., and Darnell, J. E. (1992) Science 258, 1808-1812 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Maniatis, T., Fritsch, E. F., and Sambrook, J. (1982) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY
  21. Dignam, J. D., Lebovitz, R. M., and Roeder, R. G. (1983) Nucleic Acids Res. 11, 1475-1489 [Abstract]
  22. Sapolsky, R., Rivier, C., Yamamoto, G., Plotsky, P., and Vale, W. (1987) Science 238, 522-524 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Bernardini, R., Kamilavis, T. C., Calogero, A. E., Johnson, E. O., Gomez, M. T., Gold, P. W., and Chrousos, G. P. (1990) Endocrinology 126, 2876-2881 [Abstract]
  24. Vaughan, J., Donaldson, C., Bittencourt, J., Perrin, M. H., Lewis, K., Sutton, S., Chan, R., Turnbull, A. V., Lovejoy, D., Rivier, C., Rivier, J., Sawchenko, P. E., and Vale, W. (1995) Nature 378, 287-292 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Chen, R., Lewis, K. A., Perrin, P. H., and Vale, W. W. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 8967-8971 [Abstract]
  26. Reisine, T., Rougon, G., Barbet, J., and Affolter, H. S. (1985) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 82, 8261-8266 [Abstract]
  27. Luini, A., Lewis, D., Guild, S., Corda, D., and Axelrod, J. (1985) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 82, 8034-8038 [Abstract]
  28. Guild, S., and Reisine, T. (1987) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 241, 125-129 [Abstract]
  29. Von Dreden, G., Loeffler, J. P., Grimm, C., and Hollt, V. (1988) Neuroendocrinology 47, 32-37 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Sheng, M., Mc Fadden, and Greenberg, M. E. (1990) Neuron 4, 571-582 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Sassone-Corsi, P., Visvader, J., Ferland, L., Mellon, P. L., and Verma, I. (1988) Genes Dev. 2, 1529-1538 [Abstract]
  32. Fisch, T. M., Prywes, R., Simon, M. C., and Roeder, R. G. (1989) Genes Dev. 3, 198-211 [Abstract]
  33. Ginty, D. D., Kornhauser, J. M., Thompson, M. A., Bading, H., Mayo, K. E., Takahashi, J. S., and Greenberg, M. E. (1993) Science 260, 238-241 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Chin, R., Boyle, W. J., Meek, J., Smeal, T., Hunter, T., and Karin, M. (1988) Cell 54, 541-552 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Wollert, K. C., Taga, T., Saito, M., Narazaki, M., Kishimoto, T., Glembotski, C. C., Vernallis, A. B., Heath, J. K., Pennica, D., Wood, W. I., and Chien, K. R. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 9535-9545 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Stefana, B., Ray, D. W., and Melmed, S. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 12502-12506 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Yarwood, S. J., Kilgour, E., and Anderson, N. G. (1996) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 224, 734-739 [CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Fandrey, J., Huwiler, A., Frede, S., Pfeilshifter, J., and Jelkmann, W. (1994) Eur. J. Biochem. 226, 335-340 [Abstract]
  39. Yuan, J., Wegenka, U. M., Lutticken, C., Buschmann, J., Decker, T., Schindler, C., Heinrich, P. C., and Horn, F. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 1657-1668 [Abstract]
  40. Hocke, G. M., Barry, D., and Fey, G. H. (1992) Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 2282-2294 [Abstract]
  41. Sanceau, J., Kaisho, T., Hirano, T., and Wietzerbien, J. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 27920-27931 [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Kinoshita, S., Akira, S., and Kishimoto, T. (1992) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 89, 1473-1476 [Abstract]
  43. Zhang, X., Blenis, J., Li, H. C., Schindler, C., and Chen-Kiang, S. (1995) Science 267, 1990-1994 [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

©1997 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.