c-Jun Is a JNK-independent Coactivator of the PU.1 Transcription Factor*

Gerhard BehreDagger §, Alan J. Whitmarsh, Matthew P. Coghlanparallel , Trang Hoang**||, Christopher L. Carpenterparallel , Dong-Er ZhangDagger Dagger Dagger , Roger J. Davis§§, and Daniel G. TenenDagger ¶¶

From the Divisions of Dagger  Hematology/Oncology and parallel  Signal Transduction, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, the  Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, and the ** Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec H2W1R7, Canada

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

The ETS domain transcription factor PU.1 is necessary for the development of monocytes and regulates, in particular, the expression of the monocyte-specific macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) receptor, which is critical for monocytic cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation. The bZIP transcription factor c-Jun, which is part of the AP-1 transcription factor complex, is also important for monocytic differentiation, but the monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter has no AP-1 consensus binding sites. We asked the question of whether c-Jun could promote the induction of the M-CSF receptor by collaborating with PU.1. We demonstrate that c-Jun enhances the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter as well as a minimal thymidine kinase promoter containing only PU.1 DNA binding sites. c-Jun does not directly bind to the M-CSF receptor promoter but associates via its basic domain with the ETS domain of PU.1. Consistent with our observation that AP-1 binding does not contribute to c-Jun coactivation is the observation that the activation of PU.1 by c-Jun is blocked by overexpression of c-Fos. Phosphorylation of c-Jun by c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase on Ser-63 and -73 does not alter the ability of c-Jun to enhance PU.1 transactivation. Activated Ras enhances the transcriptional activity of PU.1 by up-regulating c-Jun expression without changing the phosphorylation pattern of PU.1. The activation of PU.1 by Ras is blocked by a mutant c-Jun protein lacking the basic domain. The expression of this mutant form of c-Jun also completely blocks 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate-induced M-CSF receptor promoter activity during monocytic differentiation. We propose therefore that c-Jun acts as a c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase-independent coactivator of PU.1, resulting in M-CSF receptor expression and development of the monocytic lineage.

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

The ETS domain transcription factor PU.1 is preferentially expressed in myeloid and B cells (1, 2) and plays a pivotal role in their development (3, 4). Indeed, mice deficient in PU.1 display a complete block in development of monocytes, macrophages, and B cells (5, 6). During hematopoietic development, PU.1 mRNA is expressed at low levels in murine embryonic stem cells and human CD34+ stem cells and is specifically up-regulated upon myeloid differentiation, and down-regulated upon erythroid differentiation (7, 8). PU.1 regulates the expression of almost all characterized myeloid genes, including growth factor receptors, and in particular directs the monocyte-specific expression of the macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF)1 receptor (9, 10). Thus, PU.1-deficient hematopoietic cells display minimal expression of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptors and no detectable M-CSF receptors (11, 12).

The M-CSF receptor is critical for monocytic cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation (3, 13). M-CSF is known to augment monocyte survival and, therefore, to allow macrophage differentiation (14). The responsiveness of hematopoietic progenitor cells to M-CSF is regulated at the level of M-CSF receptor expression (15). Although the important role of the M-CSF receptor for the development of monocytes has been clearly demonstrated, little is known about the signaling molecules or protein-protein interactions that modulate the effect of PU.1 to regulate the M-CSF receptor promoter activity (3, 16).

c-Jun belongs to the bZIP group of DNA binding proteins and is a component of AP-1 transcription factor complexes (17). c-Jun forms homodimers or can heterodimerize with other Jun family members or with other bZIP proteins including members of the Fos and ATF/cAMP response element-binding protein (CREB) families (18, 19). AP-1 has been shown to be involved in many cellular processes including proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, and stress responses (18). In particular, there is evidence that c-Jun plays a role in monocytic differentiation. c-Jun mRNA is up-regulated upon monocyte differentiation of bipotential myeloid cell lines (20-22), while stable transfection of c-Jun into myeloid cell lines results in partial differentiation (23, 24).

Although c-Jun and PU.1 are both pivotal for monocytic development, it is still unclear whether c-Jun is involved in the regulation of the M-CSF receptor, which is critical for monocyte survival, proliferation, and differentiation. It has been shown that during 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA)-induced monocytic differentiation of U937 cells, c-Jun and M-CSF receptor mRNA expression increases (25). However, the monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter (9, 26, 27) contains no AP-1 consensus binding sites. As c-Jun and the regulation of the M-CSF receptor by PU.1 play important roles in monocytic differentiation, we hypothesized that c-Jun might be involved in the regulation of the M-CSF receptor, not by binding to AP-1 sites, but possibly via a novel mechanism. Therefore, we asked the question of whether c-Jun modulates the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the human monocyte specific M-CSF receptor promoter.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Cell Lines and Cell Culture-- Monkey kidney CV-1 cells (ATCC CCL-70; American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD) were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Life Technologies, Inc.) supplemented with 10% calf serum (HyClone, Logan, UT). Murine embryonal carcinoma F9 cells (ATCC CRL-1720; American Type Culture Collection) and human kidney 293T cells (kindly provided by John Blenis, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (HyClone). U937 cells (ATCC CRL 1593; American Type Culture Collection) were maintained in RPMI 1640 medium (Life Technologies) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, and differentiated with 2 × 10-7 M TPA (Sigma) (stock solution: 1 × 10-3 M in Me2SO) or vehicle only.

Reporter Constructs and Expression Plasmids-- The human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter ranging from bp -88 to +71 with respect to the major monocytic transcription start site (9, 26) was subcloned in the firefly luciferase vector pXP2 (28). pTK with PU.1 sites is a dimer of both PU.1 sites from the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor promoter from bp +28 to +54 (29) subcloned into pTK81luc, a pXP2-based luciferase construct with a TATA box only as a minimal promoter (28). pTK with mutated PU.1 sites is a dimer of both mutated PU.1 sites from the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor promoter from bp +28 to +54 (primers: 5'-TCG AGT GGT TTC ACA AAC TTT TGT TGA CGA GAG-3' and 5'-TCG ACT CTC GTC AAC AAA AGT TTG TGA AAC CAC-3') subcloned into pTK81luc and was constructed as described for pTK with PU.1 sites (29). As an internal control plasmid for co-transfection assays, the pRL-null construct driving a Renilla luciferase gene (Promega, Madison, WI) was used (30).

The PU.1 mutants pcDNA1-PU.1/Delta 1-133, pcDNA1-PU.1/Delta 1-100, and pcDNA1-PU.1/Delta 1-70 (31) were kindly provided by Marian Koshland (University of California, Berkeley, CA). The PU.1 deletion mutants pECE-PU.1/Delta 119-160 and pECE-PU.1/Delta 8-32 and PU.1 serine to alanine mutants pECE-PU.1-S41A/S45A and pECE-PU.1-S148A (32) were a gift from Richard Maki (the Burnham Institute, La Jolla, CA and Neurocrine Biosciences, San Diego, CA) and Michael Klemsz (Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN). pEBG, a mammalian GST expression vector using the strong constitutive EF1alpha promoter, was kindly provided by Bruce Mayer (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA). In order to subclone PU.1 into pEBG, the PvuI/EcoRI fragment of murine pECE-PU.1 (2), a gift from Michael Klemsz and Richard Maki, was first subcloned into the SmaI/EcoRI-cut vector pBluescript KS+/- (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA). Then the NaeI/NotI fragment of pBS-PU.1 was subcloned into the PmlI/NotI fragment of pEBG. The bacterial GST expression vector pGEX-2TK-PU.1 has been described previously (33).

Human pS3H-c-Jun containing wild-type c-Jun (34), pS3H-c-Jun-S63A/S73A containing serine to alanine mutations in amino acid residues 63 and 73 of the human c-Jun cDNA (34), and murine pSV40-c-Fos (35) were kindly provided by Jianmin Tian and Michael Karin (University of California, San Diego). Murine pSV-SPORT1-c-Jun, pUC18-c-Jun/Delta 1-87, pUC18-c-Jun/Delta 6-199, pSV-SPORT1-c-Jun/Delta LZ lacking amino acids 281-313, and pSV-SPORT1-c-Jun/Delta BD lacking amino acids 251-276 were described previously (36). pSP65-c-Jun and pSP65-c-Fos (37) were a gift from Elisabetta Mueller and Bruce Spiegelman (Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA). Human activated pMT3-Ha-Ras(L61) (38, 39) and inactive pMT3-Ha-Ras(N17) (38, 39) were kindly provided by Larry Feig (Tufts University, Boston, MA). pcDNA3-Flag-MEKK1 was constructed by subcloning Flag-MEKK1 (40) into the EcoRI and EcoRV sites of pcDNA3 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). pcDNA3/EGFP (enhanced green fluorescence protein) was kindly provided by Joseph Sodroski (Dana Farber Cancer Center Institute, Boston, MA).

Transient Transfections Using LipofectAMINE Plus or Electroporation and Reporter Assays for Firefly and Renilla Luciferase-- CV-1 cells, F9 cells, or 293T cells were transfected using LipofectAMINE Plus (Life Technologies) as described by the manufacturer. U937 cells were transiently transfected by electroporation as described previously (9). Firefly luciferase activities from the constructs pM-CSFR, pXP2, and pTK with PU.1 sites and pTK with mutated PU.1 sites and Renilla luciferase activity from the internal control plasmid pRL-null were determined 24 h after the initiation of the transfection protocols using the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System (Promega). Firefly luciferase activities were normalized to the Renilla luciferase values of pRL-null. Results are given as means ± S.E. of at least six independent experiments. The following DNA concentrations of the reporter constructs and expression plasmids were used for LipofectAMINE Plus transfections: 0.3 µg of the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter in pXP2, pXP2, the TK promoter with PU.1 sites, and the TK promoter with mutated PU.1 sites; 0.05 µg of the internal control plasmid pRL-null; 0.5 µg of pEBG-PU.1; 0.2 µg of the other expression plasmids for PU.1 and PU.1 mutants; 0.25 µg of Ras(L61), Ras(N17), and MEKK1; 0.1 µg of c-Jun, c-Jun mutants, and c-Fos; and the same concentrations of the empty expression vectors as controls, respectively. For electroporation, 10 µg of the firefly luciferase reporter constructs, 5 µg of expression plasmids, and 1 µg of the internal control plasmid were used. pRL-null was chosen as internal control plasmid, because it was not transactivated by Ras (30) or by PU.1, c-Jun, c-Fos, or MEKK1 in CV-1, F9, 293T, or U937 cells (data not shown).

Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay-- Electrophoretic mobility shift assays were performed as described previously (9, 26, 27, 29). As a positive control for c-Jun binding, a double-stranded AP-1 probe from the collagenase promoter (5'-AAT TCG CTT GAT GAC TCA GCC GGA A-3') was labeled with Klenow polymerase and [alpha -32P]dCTP (NEN Life Science Products) and incubated with 0.1 µg/µl of double-stranded poly(dI-dC) (Sigma) with 1 µl of in vitro translated c-Jun or c-Fos. In some experiments, a 100-fold molar excess of the AP-1 probe was added as specific unlabeled competitor. Similarly, a double-stranded M-CSF receptor promoter oligonucleotide extending from position bp -88 to +71 with respect to the major transcription start site (9, 26) was Klenow-labeled with [alpha -32P]dCTP and incubated with 0.1 µg/µl double-stranded poly(dI-dC) with 1 µl of in vitro translated PU.1, c-Jun, or c-Fos. In some experiments, a 100-fold molar excess of specific unlabeled competitor was added: an oligonucleotide with the PU.1 DNA binding site in the CD11b promoter (41), 3'-AGC CTA CTT CTC CTT TTC TGC CCT TCT TTG-5', to compete for PU.1, and the AP-1 probe described above to compete for c-Jun.

Protein Interaction Assay-- Protein interaction assays were performed as described previously (27, 42). c-Jun and c-Fos were in vitro transcribed and translated using the TNT Reticulocyte Lysate System (Promega) and labeled with [35S]methionine (NEN Life Science Products). 1 µl of labeled in vitro translated c-Jun or c-Fos was mixed with 1 µg of bacterially expressed GST-PU.1 or equivalent amounts of GST or glutathione-agarose beads (Sigma) for 1 h at 4 °C in NETN buffer (20 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 200 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, and 0.5% Nonidet P-40). GST-PU.1 was recovered using glutathione-agarose beads, washed seven times with NETN buffer, and separated by 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. Prior to autoradiography, the gel was stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue (Bio-Rad) to verify that the protein concentrations of GST-PU.1 and GST were the same in all lanes.

In Vivo Labeling, Phosphoamino Acid Analysis, and Phosphopeptide Mapping-- To detect changes in the phosphorylation pattern of PU.1 upon stimulation with activated Ras in vivo, 0.5 µg of pEBG-PU.1 either with 0.25 µg of activated Ras(L61) or with inactive Ras(N17) was transfected into 293T cells using LipofectAMINE Plus (Life Technologies). 3 h after transfection, cells were starved in serum-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium. After 18 h, cells were placed into serum-free and phosphate-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Life Technologies) for 30 min before they were metabolically labeled with [32P]orthophosphate (2.5 mCi/ml). After 4 h, cells were lysed with radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer containing 1% Nonidet P-40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS, 0.15 M NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, and 50 mM Tris (pH 8.0) and supplemented with aprotinin, phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, pepstatin A, leupeptin, antipain, and chymostatin as protease inhibitors (Sigma) and sodium pyrophosphate, sodium fluoride, and sodium vanadate as phosphatase inhibitors (Sigma). In parallel plates, 0.3 µg of the M-CSF receptor promoter was co-transfected in 293T cells, and luciferase activities were determined to ensure that Ras enhances the transactivation function of PU.1 in the particular experiment used in in vivo labeling and subsequent phosphoamino acid analysis and phosphopeptide mapping.

GST-PU.1 was isolated from the radioimmunoprecipitation assay lysates using glutathione-agarose beads (Sigma), washed four times with radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer, separated on 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gels, and transferred to Immobilon-P membrane (Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA) for phosphoamino acid analysis or nitrocellulose (Bio-Rad) for phosphopeptide mapping. After transfer, the 69-kDa GST-PU.1 protein bands were excised. For phosphoamino acid analysis, the samples were boiled at 100 °C for 1 h with 6 N HCl (Pierce), and the presence of serine, threonine, or tyrosine phosphorylation was determined as described (43). To determine the phosphorylated protein residues of PU.1, GST-PU.1 protein bands were digested with 1-chloro-3-tosylamido-7-amino-2-heptanone-treated chymotrypsin (Worthington) and endoproteinase Glu-C (V8 protease) (Boehringer Mannheim) and processed for phosphopeptide mapping as described previously (43).

Western Blot-- 24 h after the start of transfection, cells were lysed with radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer. Equal amounts of total protein were separated on 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gels and transferred to Immobilon-P membrane (Millipore). Membranes were incubated with anti-c-Jun antibody (catalog no. SC-45; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA), anti-PU.1 antibody (catalog no. SC-352; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), or anti-beta -tubulin antibody as an internal control (catalog no. 1111876; Boehringer Mannheim) for 60 min and then with Protein A-horseradish peroxidase conjugate (Amersham, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom) for 45 min. For U937 cells, an anti-M-CSF receptor antibody (catalog no. SC-692, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) was used. Signals were detected with ECL Western blotting detection reagents (Amersham). In parallel plates, the M-CSF receptor promoter construct was co-transfected, and luciferase activities were determined to ensure that Ras enhances the transactivation function of PU.1 in the particular experiment used for Western blot analysis of c-Jun expression or PU.1 expression and that the transfection efficacy was the same (less than 10% difference between plates) in the particular experiment. Differences in protein expression were quantitated by ImageQuant software (Molecular Dynamics).

    RESULTS

c-Jun Enhances the Ability of PU.1 to Transactivate the M-CSF Receptor Promoter and a Minimal TK Promoter Containing PU.1 DNA Binding Sites Only-- Since c-Jun and the regulation of the M-CSF receptor by PU.1 are both important for monocytic development, we asked the question of whether c-Jun enhances the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter. CV-1 cells, which contain c-Jun (Fig. 4B), were transfected with a plasmid containing the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter (9, 26) cloned upstream of the luciferase reporter gene along with expression plasmids for PU.1 and c-Jun, and reporter gene expression was determined 24 h post-transfection. Transfection of a c-Jun expression construct significantly enhanced the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter (Fig. 1A). Moreover, in c-Jun-deficient F9 cells, PU.1 weakly transactivated the M-CSF receptor promoter (2 fold), while co-expression of c-Jun with PU.1 led to robust transactivation (33-fold) (Fig. 1B). The cooperation of c-Jun with PU.1 is therefore important for M-CSF receptor promoter activity.


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Effect of c-Jun on the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter and a minimal TK promoter containing only PU.1 DNA binding sites. A, CV-1 cells were transfected with the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter or the promoterless vector pXP2 and with the expression plasmids pECE-PU.1 and pSV-SPORT1-c-Jun. Luciferase activities were determined 24 h after transient transfection with LipofectAMINE Plus and normalized to the activities of the internal control plasmid pRL-null. B, c-Jun-deficient F9 cells were transfected as described for Fig. 1A. C, F9 cells were transfected with a minimal TK promoter with PU.1 sites or a minimal TK promoter with mutated PU.1 sites and with the expression plasmids for PU.1 and c-Jun.

We next asked the following questions: (a) whether the binding of PU.1 to DNA was necessary for its activation by c-Jun and (b) whether a PU.1 binding site alone was sufficient for the c-Jun-enhanced PU.1 activation. We observed enhanced PU.1 transactivation mediated by c-Jun using a reporter construct containing four PU.1 binding sites cloned upstream of a minimal TK promoter (Fig. 1C). In control experiments, no effect of c-Jun on PU.1 activity was observed when the PU.1 binding sites were mutated (Fig. 1C). These data indicate that PU.1 binding to DNA is necessary for its activation by c-Jun and that PU.1 binding sites are sufficient to mediate this effect.

c-Jun Does Not Directly Bind to the M-CSF Receptor Promoter but Associates with the ETS Domain of PU.1; the Activation of PU.1 by c-Jun Is Blocked by Overexpression of c-Fos-- To elucidate the mechanism by which c-Jun augments the transcriptional activity of PU.1, we performed experiments to determine whether the activation of PU.1 by c-Jun required the binding of c-Jun·AP-1 complexes to the M-CSF receptor promoter. Since there are no AP-1 consensus sites in the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter from bp -88 to +71 with respect to the major monocytic transcription start site (9, 26) (Fig. 1, A and B) or in the TK promoter containing PU.1 sites (Fig. 1 C), our data suggested that c-Jun augmentation of PU.1 transactivation was not mediated by DNA binding of c-Jun. In order to formally exclude DNA binding by c-Jun, we performed an electrophoretic mobility shift assay using a bp -88 to +71 M-CSF receptor promoter fragment or a bp -62 to -29 oligonucleotide containing the PU.1 binding site of the M-CSF receptor promoter (9). In vitro translated c-Jun or a mixture of c-Jun and c-Fos specifically bound to a double-stranded AP-1 oligonucleotide probe from the collagenase promoter (Fig. 2A), while no specific binding was observed using the double-stranded bp -88 to +71 M-CSF receptor promoter (Fig. 2A) or bp -62 to -29 oligonucleotide containing the PU.1 binding site of the M-CSF receptor promoter (data not shown). In control experiments, in vitro translated PU.1 was shown to bind strongly and specifically to the same M-CSF receptor promoter fragments (Fig. 2A). These results indicate that binding of c-Jun to the M-CSF receptor promoter DNA is not required to mediate its activating effect on PU.1.


View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Physical interactions among c-Jun, PU.1, and the M-CSF receptor promoter and effect of c-Fos on the coactivation of PU.1 by c-Jun. A, in lanes 1-6, an AP-1 probe from the collagenase promoter was used as a positive control for an electrophoretic mobility shift assay, and in lanes 7-14, an M-CSF receptor promoter oligonucleotide extending from position bp -88 to +71 with respect to the major transcription start site was used. Probes were incubated with no added protein, 1 µl of in vitro translated c-Jun, 1 µl of c-Fos, or both. In lanes 3, 6, 11, and 14, a 100-fold molar excess of self-unlabeled competitor (AP-1 probe) was added to the electrophoretic mobility shift assay. In lanes 8 and 9, 1 µl of in vitro translated PU.1 was added, and in lane 9, a 100-fold excess of oligonucleotide from the PU.1 binding site in the CD11b promoter was added. B, for the protein interaction assay, [35S]Met-labeled in vitro translated c-Jun (top) or c-Fos (bottom) were incubated with 1 µg of bacterially expressed GST-PU.1 (lane 3) or equivalent amounts of GST protein plus glutathione-agarose beads (lane 2). GST-PU.1 was recovered using glutathione-agarose beads and separated by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis prior to autoradiography. [35S]Met-labeled in vitro translated c-Jun or c-Fos were run directly in the first lane. C, F9 cells were transfected with the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter or the promoterless vector pXP2 and with the expression plasmids pECE-PU.1, pSV-SPORT1-c-Jun, and pSV40-c-Fos. Luciferase activities were determined 24 h after transient transfection with LipofectAMINE Plus.

It has previously been reported that c-Jun can physically and functionally interact with ETS-1, which like PU.1 is an ETS family transcription factor (44). In these same studies, it was reported that c-Jun and PU.1 could physically interact, although the functional consequences of this interaction were not examined. We were able to confirm that c-Jun did indeed specifically interact with PU.1 in vitro (Fig. 2B). Because c-Jun can bind to PU.1 but does not bind to DNA itself (Fig. 2A), we therefore conclude that c-Jun acts as a coactivator (45) of PU.1.

Since c-Jun can form a heterodimer with c-Fos in AP-1 transcription factor complexes (17-19), we asked the question of whether c-Fos expression could modulate the synergy between c-Jun and PU.1 in F9 cells. Co-transfection of c-Fos did not enhance the synergy between c-Jun and PU.1 but instead completely blocked it (Fig. 2C). c-Fos did not bind to PU.1 (Fig. 2B) and therefore might compete with PU.1 for the binding partner c-Jun. These results are consistent with a model in which c-Jun mediates its effects through direct interactions with PU.1 and not by independent DNA binding to an AP-1 site.

Phosphorylation of c-Jun by c-Jun NH2-terminal Kinase (JNK) on Ser-63 and -73 Does Not Alter the Ability of c-Jun to Enhance PU.1 Transactivation-- PU.1 (Fig. 3A) and c-Jun (Fig. 3B) are composed of a number of discrete domains. We used deletion mutants to determine which domains of PU.1 and c-Jun are critical for the activation of PU.1 by c-Jun in the context of the M-CSF receptor promoter. The transactivation domain of PU.1 (amino acids 1-118) was necessary for the activation by c-Jun (Fig. 3A). The transactivation domain of c-Jun (amino acids 1-87); the basic domain of c-Jun, which can physically interact with PU.1 (44) and mediates DNA binding to AP-1 sites; and the leucine zipper domain, which is responsible for homodimerization and heterodimerization with c-Fos, were all necessary for the activation of PU.1 by c-Jun (Fig. 3B). The transcriptional activity of c-Jun is increased following phosphorylation on Ser-63 and -73 by JNK (34, 46). To determine whether phosphorylation of Ser-63 and -73 was important for the function of c-Jun as a transcriptional coactivator of PU.1, we used c-Jun constructs in which these sites were mutated to Ala residues. Surprisingly, we found no difference in the ability of wild type c-Jun and S63A/S73A c-Jun to enhance PU.1 transactivation of the M-CSF receptor promoter in F9 cells (Fig. 3B). Furthermore, co-transfection with an activated allele of Ras, which has been demonstrated to enhance the transcriptional activity of c-Jun via phosphorylation by JNK (34, 46), did not enhance the coactivator function of wild type or S63A/S73A c-Jun (Fig. 3C). These data indicate that the coactivator function of c-Jun to enhance the transcriptional activity of PU.1 is independent of JNK phosphorylation.


View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Domains of PU.1 and c-Jun relevant for coactivation of PU.1 by c-Jun. A, activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter by PU.1 or different PU.1 deletion mutants either with or without c-Jun in CV-1 cells as described in Fig. 1A. Also shown is a schematic representation of the transcription factor PU.1 with transactivation domain (amino acids 1-118), PEST domain (amino acids 118-160), and the ETS DNA binding domain (amino acids 161-255). B, activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter by c-Jun or different c-Jun deletion or point mutants either with or without PU.1 in F9 cells as described in the legend to Fig. 1B. Also shown is a schematic representation of c-Jun mutants, depicting the transactivation domain (amino acids 1-251), basic domain (BD, amino acids 251-281), and the leucine zipper (LZ, amino acids 281-313). C, activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter by PU.1, c-Jun, c-Jun mutated in the JNK phosphorylation sites (Ser-63 and -73), and activated pMT3-Ras(L61) in F9 cells as described in the legend to Fig. 1B.

Activated Ras Enhances the Transcriptional Activity of PU.1 by Up-regulating c-Jun Expression-- Although Ras signal transduction has been demonstrated to play an important role in myeloid differentiation (47-50), it has not been shown whether Ras increases the activity of the monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter. However, Ras is known to induce the expression of c-Jun (51). Therefore, we asked the question of whether Ras could augment the transcriptional activity of PU.1 and if this was mediated by enhancing c-Jun expression. In fact, activated Ras(L61) enhanced the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter in CV-1 cells to a similar degree as c-Jun (Fig. 4A). Furthermore, a dominant negative c-Jun mutant lacking the basic domain, which is required for physical interaction with PU.1 in vitro (44), blocked the activation of PU.1 by Ras (Fig. 4A). In the same experiment, Ras did not change the protein expression of transfected PU.1 (Fig. 4B) but up-regulated endogenous c-Jun protein expression 4-fold (Fig. 4B). Since the transfection efficiency in the CV-1 cells was 40% (Fig. 4B), we estimate that Ras up-regulated c-Jun expression 10-fold in transfected cells.


View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Effect of Ras on the transactivation capacity of PU.1, on c-Jun expression, and PU.1 phosphorylation pattern. A, activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter by PU.1, Ras(L61), a c-Jun mutant lacking the basic domain, wild type c-Jun, and MEKK1 in CV-1 cells as described in Fig. 1A. B, CV-1 cells were transfected with the M-CSF receptor promoter, PU.1, and/or activated Ras(L61), and Western blotting was performed. To determine transfection efficiency, CV-1 cells were co-transfected with pcDNA3/EGFP, and the percentage of transfected cells was determined by fluorescence microscopy. C, pEBG-PU.1 was transfected into 293T cells using LipofectAMINE Plus either with inactive Ras(N17) (left) or activated Ras(L61) (middle), and phosphopeptide mapping of PU.1 was performed. The right part shows a mixture of the left and middle samples.

The c-Jun promoter contains important TPA response elements that preferentially bind heterodimers of c-Jun and ATF-2, both of which are activated upon phosphorylation by JNK (17-19). We therefore tested the effect of another JNK activator, the MAP kinase kinase kinase MEKK1 (40), on the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter. In fact, MEKK1 enhanced the PU.1 transactivation function to a similar level as Ras (Fig. 4A).

Ras is known to modulate the activity of the ETS domain transcription factors ETS-1 and ETS-2 by phosphorylation (52). However, co-expression of Ras did not alter the phosphorylation pattern of PU.1 in vivo (Fig. 4C), and furthermore, Ras enhanced the transcriptional activity of known phosphorylation site mutants of PU.1 (Ser-41, -45, and -148) (53, 54) similar to wild type PU.1 (data not shown). In conclusion, these data suggest a model in which Ras enhances the transcriptional activity of PU.1 by increasing the expression of its coactivator c-Jun.

The Expression of the Mutant Form of c-Jun That Lacks the Basic Domain Completely Blocks TPA-induced M-CSF Receptor Promoter Activity during Monocytic Differentiation-- We next asked the question of whether the coactivator function of c-Jun could play a biological role during monocytic differentiation in vivo. We first showed that Ras enhanced the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter in myeloid U937 cells (Fig. 5A). U937 cells can be differentiated to monocytic cells upon treatment with TPA, and during this process c-Jun and M-CSF receptor mRNA expression increases (25). TPA increased reporter gene expression from our M-CSF receptor promoter construct (Fig. 5A) and also increased the expression of endogenous M-CSF receptor (Fig. 5B). This effect on the human monocytic M-CSF receptor promoter was blocked by co-expression with a dominant negative c-Jun mutant lacking the basic domain (Fig. 5A). These results indicate that c-Jun function is required for the increase in M-CSF receptor promoter activity observed in myeloid cells differentiated toward the monocytic lineage with TPA.


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Role of c-Jun in TPA-induced M-CSF receptor expression and monocytic differentiation. A, shown is luciferase activity directed from the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter or promoterless vector pXP2 following the addition of no plasmid, Ras(L61), PU.1, c-Jun basic domain deletion mutant, TPA, or combinations as indicated. B, Western blot analysis for M-CSF receptor expression of the experiment shown in Fig. 5A. C, model of c-Jun as a JNK-independent coactivator of PU.1.


    DISCUSSION

The transcription factor c-Jun (20-24) and the regulation of the M-CSF receptor by the transcription factor PU.1 (11, 12, 55) both play important roles in the development of the monocytic lineage. Therefore, we asked the question of whether c-Jun could promote the induction of the M-CSF receptor by PU.1. Here we demonstrate that c-Jun enhances the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter (Fig. 1, A and B).

These data explain how c-Jun, PU.1, and the M-CSF receptor might collaborate as major factors in the process of monocytic differentiation. Moreover, c-Jun and PU.1 are already known to cooperate in the induction of other monocytic genes containing PU.1 and AP-1 DNA binding sites, such as the macrosialin gene (56) and macrophage scavenger receptor gene (57). The c-Jun enhancement of the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter is novel, because the human monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter contains no AP-1 consensus binding sites. In contrast, the macrosialin promoter and macrophage scavenger receptor promoter contain PU.1 and AP-1 binding sites, which are critical for their monocyte-specific expression (56, 57). In fact, our data suggest a novel mechanism by which c-Jun can induce gene expression. c-Jun does not bind to the M-CSF receptor promoter (Fig. 2A) and, moreover, enhances the ability of PU.1 to transactivate a minimal promoter driven by PU.1 sites alone (Fig. 1C). Furthermore, c-Jun physically binds to PU.1 (Fig. 2B). Since c-Jun binds to PU.1 and functionally activates PU.1 without binding to the M-CSF receptor promoter DNA, we conclude that c-Jun acts as a coactivator (45) of PU.1. This is the first report demonstrating a coactivator function for c-Jun.

Usually, c-Jun forms heterodimers with c-Fos in AP-1 transcription factor complexes (17-19). However, c-Fos does not cooperate with c-Jun in its coactivator function. In contrast, c-Fos completely blocks the coactivation of PU.1 by c-Jun (Fig. 2C). Since c-Fos does not physically bind to PU.1 (Fig. 2B), it might compete with PU.1 for the binding partner c-Jun. Since c-Fos blocks coactivation of PU.1 by c-Jun, the requirement of the leucine zipper domain of c-Jun for the activation of PU.1 (Fig. 3B) suggests that a c-Jun homodimer or heterodimer with a non-c-Fos partner mediates activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter. These results are consistent with a model in which c-Jun mediates its effects through direct interactions with PU.1 and not by independent DNA binding to an AP-1 site (Fig. 5C).

Usually, the transcriptional activity of c-Jun is increased following phosphorylation on Ser-63 and -73 by JNK (34, 46). Furthermore, the general coactivator CBP/p300 stimulates c-Jun-dependent transcription, and the c-Jun residues Ser-63 and -73 are required for CBP/p300 stimulation in vivo and CBP/p300 binding in vitro (58). Surprisingly, we found no difference in the ability of wild type c-Jun and the S63A/S73A c-Jun mutant to enhance PU.1 transactivation of the M-CSF receptor promoter (Fig. 3B). Furthermore, co-transfection with an activated allele of Ras, which has been demonstrated to enhance the transcriptional activity of c-Jun via phosphorylation by JNK (34, 46), did not enhance the coactivator function of wild type or S63A/S73A c-Jun (Fig. 3C). Our data indicate that the coactivator function of c-Jun to enhance the transcriptional activity of PU.1 is independent of JNK phosphorylation.

In accordance with its pivotal role in B cell development (5, 6), PU.1 binds to the B cell-specific immunoglobulin kappa (Igkappa ) 3' enhancer and can control transcriptional activity (59). The immunoglobulin 3' enhancer is activated by PU.1, c-Jun, PIP, and c-Fos and contains respective DNA binding sites for these factors (60). In this context, mutants of PU.1 that lack the transcriptional activation domain are as efficient at stimulating enhancer activity as the wild-type PU.1 protein (60). In contrast, the transactivation domain of PU.1 (amino acids 1-118) is necessary for the basal transactivation of the M-CSF receptor promoter by PU.1 (Fig. 3A), and c-Jun cannot exert its coactivator function on PU.1 mutants that lack the transactivation domain (Fig. 3A). These data suggest that the function of different PU.1 domains might vary depending on the cell type (monocyte versus B cell) and on the cooperating proteins (c-Jun as part of the AP-1 transcription factor complex versus c-Jun as a JNK independent coactivator).

How is the coactivator function of c-Jun regulated? Since the coactivator function of c-Jun cannot be regulated via phosphorylation by JNK, the regulation of c-Jun expression might be crucial for the capacity of c-Jun to coactivate PU.1 and induce monocytic differentiation. The Ras signal transduction pathway, for example, induces the expression of c-Jun (51). The Ras family of proteins are GTP-dependent molecular switches that are essential for cell growth and differentiation (61, 62). Ras exerts its effect on cell growth mainly via ETS (63) and AP-1 (64) transcription factors. For example, cells with a null mutation in the c-jun gene lack many characteristics of Ras transformation (64), and dominant negative mutants of ETS-1, ETS-2, or PU.1 with just the DNA binding domain inhibit Ras activation of transcription and revert Ras-transformed cells (63). In particular, Ras has been demonstrated to play an important role in myeloid differentiation. Macrophage differentiation and M-CSF-dependent survival are altered in transgenic mice that express dominant suppressors of Ras signaling (47), while a number of hematopoietic cell lines undergo spontaneous monocytic differentiation in response to expression of activated Ras (48, 49). In addition, M-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, or interleukin-3-induced monocytopoiesis of CD34+ cells is inhibited by N-Ras antisense oligonucleotides (50).

Although Ras signaling plays an important role in monocytic differentiation, Ras has not previously been shown to increase activity of the monocyte-specific M-CSF receptor promoter. Our data suggest that Ras activates the M-CSF receptor promoter via c-Jun and PU.1, because in c-Jun-deficient F9 cells there is no effect of Ras on PU.1 (Fig. 3C), whereas Ras enhances the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter in c-Jun-containing CV-1 cells (Fig. 4A). Moreover, a c-Jun mutant lacking the basic domain blocks the Ras enhancement of PU.1 transactivation of the M-CSF receptor promoter (Fig. 4A). Ras signaling has been reported to induce the expression of c-Jun (51), and here we demonstrate that Ras induces c-Jun expression in CV-1 cells during activation of PU.1 (Fig. 4B). Thus, these data suggest that Ras enhances the transcriptional activity of PU.1 by up-regulating the expression of its coactivator c-Jun. In accordance with this model, another inducer of c-Jun expression, MEKK1 (40), enhanced the PU.1 transactivation function to a similar level as Ras or c-Jun (Fig. 4A).

Ras modulates the activity of ETS domain transcription factors such as ETS-1 or ETS-2 by phosphorylation (52). Moreover, the ETS domain factor PU.1, in particular, can be phosphorylated by casein kinase (53, 65) or JNK in vitro (66), and the activity of PU.1 is known to be regulated by phosphorylation (53, 54, 65). Phosphorylation of PU.1 at Ser-148 is necessary for interaction with NF-EM5 (53) or stimulation by lipopolysaccharide (65), and a PU.1 mutant at Ser-41 and -45 decreases the M-CSF- or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-dependent proliferation of bone marrow macrophages (54). However, co-expression of activated Ras does not alter the phosphoamino acid (data not shown) or phosphopeptide pattern (Fig. 4C) of PU.1 in vivo. Furthermore, Ras enhances the transcriptional activity of known phosphorylation site mutants of PU.1 (Ser-41, -45, and -148) (53, 54) similar to wild type PU.1 (data not shown). Our data are in accordance with a report that the ability of PU.1 to rescue macrophage development in PU.1-/- ES cells is not impaired by these same phosphorylation mutants (67). In conclusion, these results suggest a model in which Ras enhances the transcriptional activity of PU.1 by increasing the expression of its coactivator c-Jun without modifying the activity of PU.1 by phosphorylation.

Finally, we determined whether Ras and c-Jun could regulate the M-CSF receptor promoter during differentiation of myeloid cells. In fact, Ras enhanced the ability of PU.1 to transactivate the M-CSF receptor promoter in myeloid U937 cells (Fig. 5A). It has been shown that U937 cells can be differentiated with TPA to monocytic cells, and during this process c-Jun and M-CSF receptor mRNA expression increases (25). TPA increased reporter gene expression from our M-CSF receptor promoter construct (Fig. 5A) and also increased the expression of endogenous M-CSF receptor (Fig. 5B). This effect on the M-CSF receptor promoter is blocked by co-expression with a dominant negative c-Jun mutant lacking the basic domain, which interacts with PU.1 (Fig. 5A). These results indicate that c-Jun function is required for the increase in M-CSF receptor promoter activity observed in myeloid cells differentiated toward the monocytic lineage with TPA.

In summary, our data indicate that c-Jun is a JNK-independent coactivator of PU.1 (Fig. 5C). These results suggest a model in which growth factors or other signals (3, 68) activate the Ras pathway, which in turn increases c-Jun expression in monocytic progenitors. Increased c-Jun expression activates PU.1, resulting in increased M-CSF receptor up-regulation and survival, proliferation, and differentiation of the monocytic lineage.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Laura Smith for excellent suggestions and helpful discussions; Richard Maki, Michael Klemsz, and Marian Koshland for PU.1 expression vectors; Bruce Mayer for the vector pEBG; Joseph Sodroski for pcDNA3/EGFP; Jianmin Tian, Michael Karin, Elisabetta Mueller, and Bruce Spiegelman for c-Jun and c-Fos expression vectors; Larry Feig for Ras expression vectors; and John Blenis for 293T cells.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants CA41456 and P01 CA72009 (to D. G. T.) and Medical Research Council of Canada Grant MT-9734 (to T. H.).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.

§ Recipient of a fellowship from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Dagger Dagger A Leukemia Society of America Scholar.

§§ An investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

¶¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Harvard Institutes of Medicine, Room 954, 77 Ave. Louis Pasteur, Boston, MA 02115. Tel.: 617-667-5561; Fax: 617-667-3299; E-mail: dtenen{at}bidmc.harvard.edu.

|| Senior Scientist of the Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: M-CSF, macrophage colony-stimulating factor; TPA, 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate; bp, base pair(s); GST, glutathione S-transferase; TK, thymidine kinase.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References
  1. Chen, H. M., Zhang, P., Voso, M. T., Hohaus, S., Gonzalez, D. A., Glass, C. K., Zhang, D.-E., and Tenen, D. G. (1995) Blood 85, 2918-2928[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Klemsz, M. J., McKercher, S. R., Celada, A., Van Beveren, C., and Maki, R. A. (1990) Cell 61, 113-124[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Tenen, D. G., Hromas, R., Licht, J. D., and Zhang, D.-E. (1997) Blood 90, 489-519[Free Full Text]
  4. Shivdasani, R. A., and Orkin, S. H. (1996) Blood 87, 4025-4039[Free Full Text]
  5. Scott, E. W., Simon, M. C., Anastasi, J., and Singh, H. (1994) Science 265, 1573-1577[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. McKercher, S. R., Torbett, B. E., Anderson, K. L., Henkel, G. W., Vestal, D. J., Baribault, H., Klemsz, M., Feeney, A. J., Wu, G. E., Paige, C. J., and Maki, R. A. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 5647-5658[Abstract]
  7. Voso, M. T., Burn, T. C., Wulf, G., Lim, B., Leone, G., and Tenen, D. G. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 7932-7936[Abstract]
  8. Cheng, T., Shen, H., Giokas, D., Gere, J., Tenen, D. G., and Scadden, D. T. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 13158-13163[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Zhang, D.-E., Hetherington, C. J., Chen, H. M., and Tenen, D. G. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 373-381[Abstract]
  10. Reddy, M. A., Yang, B. S., Yue, X., Barnett, C. J. K., Ross, I. L., Sweet, M. J., Hume, D. A., and Ostrowski, M. C. (1994) J. Exp. Med. 180, 2309-2319[Abstract]
  11. Anderson, K. L., Smith, K. A., Conners, K., McKercher, S. R., Maki, R. A., and Torbett, B. E. (1998) Blood 91, 3702-3710[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Iwama, A., Zhang, P., Darlington, G. J., Maki, R. A., and Tenen, D. G. (1998) Nucleic Acids Res. 26, 3034-3043[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Sherr, C. J. (1990) Blood 75, 1-12[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Lagasse, E., and Weissman, I. L. (1997) Cell 89, 1021-1031[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Olweus, J., Thompson, P. A., and Lund-Johansen, F. (1996) Blood 88, 3741-3754[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Hume, D. A., Yue, X., Ross, I. L., Favot, P., Lichanska, A., and Ostrowski, M. C. (1997) Mol. Reprod. Dev. 46, 46-52[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Bohmann, D., Bos, T. J., Admon, A., Nishimura, T., Vogt, P. K., and Tjian, R. (1987) Science 238, 1386-1392[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Whitmarsh, A. J., and Davis, R. J. (1996) J. Mol. Med. 75, 589-607[CrossRef]
  19. van Dam, H., Duyndam, M., Rottier, R., Bosch, A., de Vries-Smits, L., Herrlich, P., Zanteman, A., Angel, P., and van der Eb, A. J. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 479-487[Abstract]
  20. Lord, K. A., Abdollahi, A., Hoffman-Liebermann, B., and Liebermann, D. A. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 841-851[Abstract]
  21. Mollinedo, F., Gajate, C., Tugores, A., Flores, I., and Naranjo, J. R. (1993) Biochem. J. 294, 137-144[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Gaynor, R., Simon, K., and Koeffler, P. (1991) Blood 77, 2618-2623[Abstract]
  23. Szabo, E., Preis, L. H., and Birrer, M. J. (1994) Cell Growth Differ. 5, 439-446[Abstract]
  24. Li, J., King, I., and Sartorelli, A. C. (1994) Cell Growth Differ. 5, 743-751[Abstract]
  25. Hass, R., Prudovsky, I., and Kruhoffer, M. (1997) Leuk. Res. 21, 589-594[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Zhang, D.-E., Fujioka, K. I., Hetherington, C. J., Shapiro, L. H., Chen, H. M., Look, A. T., and Tenen, D. G. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 8085-8095[Abstract]
  27. Zhang, D.-E., Hetherington, C. J., Meyers, S., Rhoades, K. L., Larson, C. J., Chen, H. M., Hiebert, S. W., and Tenen, D. G. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 1231-1240[Abstract]
  28. Nordeen, S. K. (1988) BioTechniques 6, 454-458[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Smith, L. T., Hohaus, S., Gonzalez, D. A., Dziennis, S. E., and Tenen, D. G. (1996) Blood 88, 1234-1247[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Behre, G., Smith, L. T., and Tenen, D. G. (1999) Biotechniques 26, 24-28[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Shin, M. K., and Koshland, M. E. (1993) Genes Dev. 7, 2006-2015[Abstract]
  32. Klemsz, M. J., and Maki, R. A. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 390-397[Abstract]
  33. Hagemeier, C., Bannister, A. J., Cook, A., and Kouzarides, T. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 1580-1584[Abstract]
  34. Smeal, T., Binetruy, B., Mercola, D. A., Birrer, M., and Karin, M. (1991) Nature 354, 494-496[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Deng, T., and Karin, M. (1994) Nature 371, 171-175[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Paradis, P., MacLellan, W. R., Belaguli, N. S., Schwartz, R. J., and Schneider, M. D. (1996) J Biol. Chem. 271, 10827-10833[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Hu, E., Mueller, E., Oliviero, S., Papaioannou, V. E., Johnson, R., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1994) EMBO J. 13, 3094-3103[Abstract]
  38. Feig, L. A. (1988) Mol. Cell. Biol. 8, 3235-3243[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Feig, L. A., and Cooper, G. M. (1988) Mol. Cell. Biol. 8, 2472-2478[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Yan, M., Dai, T., Deak, J. C., Kyriakis, J. M., Zon, L. I., Woodgett, J. R., and Templeton, D. J. (1994) Nature 372, 798-800[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Pahl, H. L., Scheibe, R. J., Zhang, D.-E., Chen, H. M., Galson, D. L., Maki, R. A., and Tenen, D. G. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 5014-5020[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Petrovick, M. S., Hiebert, S. W., Friedman, A. D., Hetherington, C. J., Tenen, D. G., and Zhang, D.-E. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 3915-3925[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Boyle, W. J., van, D. G., and Hunter, T. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 201, 110-149[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Bassuk, A. G., and Leiden, J. M. (1995) Immunity 3, 223-237[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Janknecht, R., and Hunter, T. (1996) Nature 383, 22-23[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  46. Derijard, B., Hibi, M., Wu, I. H., Barrett, T., Su, B., Deng, T., Karin, M., and Davis, R. J. (1994) Cell 76, 1025-1037[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Jin, D. I., Jameson, S. B., Reddy, M. A., Schenkman, D., and Ostrowski, M. C. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 693-703[Abstract]
  48. Hibi, S., Lohler, J., Friel, J., Stocking, C., and Ostertag, W. (1993) Blood 81, 1841-1848[Abstract]
  49. Maher, J., Baker, D., Dibb, N., and Roberts, I. (1996) Leukemia 10, 83-90[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Skorski, T., Szczylik, C., Ratajczak, M. Z., Malaguarnera, L., Gewirtz, A. M., and Calabretta, B. (1992) J. Exp. Med. 175, 743-750[Abstract]
  51. Sistonen, L., Holtta, E., Makela, T. P., Keski-Oja, J., and Alitalo, K. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 815-822[Abstract]
  52. Yang, B. S., Hauser, C. A., Henkel, G., Colman, M. S., Van Beveren, C., Stacey, K. J., Hume, D. A., Maki, R. A., and Ostrowski, M. C. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 538-547[Abstract]
  53. Pongubala, J. M., Van Beveren, C., Nagulapalli, S., Klemsz, M. J., McKercher, S. R., Maki, R. A., and Atchison, M. L. (1993) Science 259, 1622-1625[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Celada, A., Borras, F. E., Soler, C., Lloberas, J., Klemsz, M., Van Beveren, C., McKercher, S. C., and Maki, R. A. (1996) J. Exp. Med. 184, 61-69[Abstract]
  55. Henkel, G. W., McKercher, S. R., Yamamoto, H., Anderson, K. L., Oshima, R. G., and Maki, R. A. (1996) Blood 88, 2917-2926[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Li, A. C., Guidez, F. R., Collier, J. G., and Glass, C. K. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 5389-5399[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Moulton, K. S., Semple, K., Wu, H., and Glass, C. K. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 4408-4418[Abstract]
  58. Bannister, A. J., Oehler, T., Wilhelm, D., Angel, P., and Kouzarides, T. (1995) Oncogene 11, 2509-2514[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  59. Pongubala, J. M., Nagulapalli, S., Klemsz, M. J., McKercher, S. R., Maki, R. A., and Atchison, M. L. (1992) Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 368-378[Abstract]
  60. Pongubala, J. M., and Atchison, M. L. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 127-132[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. McCormick, F. (1995) Mol. Reprod. Dev. 42, 500-506[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Gutkind, J. S. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 1839-1842[Free Full Text]
  63. Wasylyk, C., Maira, S. M., Sobieszczuk, P., and Wasylyk, B. (1994) Oncogene 9, 3665-3673[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  64. Johnson, R., Spiegelman, B., Hanahan, D., and Wisdom, R. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 4504-4511[Abstract]
  65. Lodie, T. A., Savedra, R., Golenbaock, D. T., Van Beveren, C. P., Maki, R. A., and Fenton, M. J. (1997) J. Immunol. 158, 1848-1856[Abstract]
  66. Mao, C., Ray-Gallet, D., Tavitian, A., and Moreau-Gachelin, F. (1996) Oncogene 12, 863-873[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  67. Fisher, R. C., Olson, M. C., Pongubala, J. M. R., Perkel, J. M., Atchison, M. L., Scott, E. W., and Simon, M. C. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 4347-4357[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Lioubin, M. N., Myles, G. M., Carlberg, K., Bowtell, D., and Rohrschneider, L. R. (1994) Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 5682-5691[Abstract]


Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.