Rho GTPases as Modulators of the Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Response*

Laura F. SuDagger, Roland Knoblauch§, and Michael J. Garabedian

From the Department of Microbiology and the Kaplan Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016

Received for publication, June 23, 2000, and in revised form, November 1, 2000



    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The estrogen receptor alpha  (ER) is a ligand-dependent transcription factor that plays a critical role in the development and progression of breast cancer, in part, by regulating target genes involved in cellular proliferation. To identify novel components that affect the ER transcriptional response, we performed a genetic screen in yeast and identified RDI1, a Rho guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitor (Rho GDI), as a positive regulator of ER transactivation. Overexpression of the human homologue of RDI1, Rho GDIalpha , increases ERalpha , ERbeta , androgen receptor, and glucocorticoid receptor transcriptional activation in mammalian cells but not activation by the unrelated transcription factors serum response factor and Sp1. In contrast, expression of constitutively active forms of RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42 decrease ER transcriptional activity, suggesting that Rho GDI increases ER transactivation by antagonizing Rho function. Inhibition of RhoA by expression of either the Clostridium botulinum C3 transferase or a dominant negative RhoA resulted in enhanced ER transcriptional activation, thus phenocopying the effect of Rho GDI expression on ER transactivation. Together, these findings establish the Rho GTPases as important modulators of ER transcriptional activation. Since Rho GTPases regulate actin polymerization, our findings suggest a link between the major regulators of cellular architecture and steroid receptor transcriptional response.



    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

The estrogen receptor alpha  (ER)1 is a ligand-dependent transcription factor that transduces the estrogen signal (1). Activation of ER is responsible for female sexual development and maintenance of bone density (2, 3). In addition, ER plays a critical role in the development and progression of breast cancer by regulating genes and signaling pathways involved in cellular proliferation (4). Regulation of gene expression by the ER requires the coordinate activity of ligand binding, phosphorylation, and cofactor interactions, with particular combinations probably resulting in the tissue-specific responses elicited by the receptor (5-7). However, the extracellular cues and intracellular signaling pathways modulating these components and regulating ER transcriptional activation are not fully understood.

To identify novel proteins that modulate ER transcriptional activation, we have carried out a genetic screen in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The ability of the human ER to function within yeast allows a wide variety of genetic approaches to be taken toward further defining the mechanism of ER transcriptional activation given the ease of genetic manipulation and simplicity of gene identification in yeast. In addition, with the large number of orthologous proteins carrying out the same biological functions in both S. cerevisiae and metazoans (8-10), it is likely that the yeast factors affecting ER transactivation will have mammalian counterparts, which can be examined in vertebrate systems.

The genetic approach we have used to identify factors that affect ER transcriptional activation is dosage suppression analysis. In this technique, a mutant ER protein with a reduced ability to activate transcription is used as a substrate to isolate yeast gene product(s) that are capable of overcoming this mutant phenotype, thus restoring receptor transcriptional activity. The mutant ER derivative used in this screen is defective in transactivation by virtue of serine to alanine mutations in the three major N-terminal phosphorylation sites, serines 104, 106, and 118 (ERAAA). This mutant was selected as the substrate because it has only a modest effect on ER transactivation and therefore has the potential to isolate a broad range of factors that affect receptor activity. We expect to isolate yeast factors that enhance ER transcriptional activity and, importantly, have human homologues that can then be examined in mammalian cells for effects on ER transcriptional response. This approach has proven successful for investigating various aspects of ER signal transduction (11). Using this system, we have isolated RDI1, the yeast Rho guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitor (Rho GDI), as a gene product that is capable of increasing both ERAAA and WT ER transcriptional activation when overexpressed. This gene product is the yeast homologue of the mammalian Rho GDIalpha , a cytoplasmic protein originally identified as a negative regulator of the Rho family of GTP-binding proteins (12-15). The Rho family of GTPases, which include RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42, are best known for their ability to regulate actin cytoskeletal remodeling in response to extracellular signals, thereby promoting changes in cell morphology, adhesion, and motility (16). In addition, by affecting multiple signaling pathways, Rho family members regulate gene transcription and cell cycle progression and have been implicated in cellular transformation and metastasis (17-22). The Rho family members possess intrinsic GTPase activity and cycle between the inactive cytoplasmic GDP-bound and the active membrane-associated GTP-bound state. The exchange of GDP for GTP induces a conformational change in the G protein that allows effector molecules, such as protein kinases, to bind and initiate downstream signaling events (23). This GTP/GDP cycle is tightly regulated in response to extracellular signals by three different classes of proteins. Guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) catalyze the exchange of GDP for GTP, GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) accelerate the intrinsic GTPase activity of the Rho GTPases, and GDIs antagonize their activity by blocking GEFs and GAPs (12, 24). However, since the cytoplasmic GDP-bound Rho GTPases predominate under physiological conditions, Rho GDI acts as a negative regulator of Rho GTPases mainly by blocking the dissociation of GDP. In addition, Rho GDI controls the subcellular localization of the GTPases, stimulating their release from the plasma membrane (12, 25). Interestingly, Rubino et al. (26) identified an ER-interacting protein, termed Brx, which contains a domain virtually identical to the Rho GEF Lbc and was first to demonstrate a link between ER signaling and the Rho GTPases.

In this report, we extend the findings of Rubino et al. (26) and examine the effects of human Rho GDIalpha as well as the Rho GTPases, RhoA, Rac1, Cdc42, on transcriptional activation by ER and other members of the steroid receptor family in mammalian cells. Our findings indicate that Rho GDIalpha specifically increases the transcriptional activity of ERalpha and ERbeta as well as the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) and androgen receptor (AR), but not of the unrelated transcription factors serum response factor (SRF) and Sp1, and that this activation is mediated via repression of Rho GTPases. These results further establish the Rho-mediated signaling pathway as an important regulator of ER, GR, and AR transcriptional activity.


    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Plasmids

Yeast-- The reporter plasmid ERE-CYC1-LacZ contains a single estrogen response element (ERE) upstream of a truncated CYC1 promoter linked to the beta -galactosidase gene (27). The yeast high copy genomic library was described by Engebrecht et al. (28) and was generated by subcloning Sau3A partially digested yeast genomic DNA into the BamHI site of the YEP351 plasmid. WT ER and ERAAA were expressed from the Gal1-10 promoter in Trp1, 2 µM plasmid (p2T-GAL) (29). p2T-GAL-ERAAA was constructed by subcloning the BamHI fragment containing ERAAA sequence from pcDNA3 (30) plasmid into p2T-GAL (29).

Mammalian Cells-- The ER reporter plasmid contains one ERE from the Xenopus vitellogenin A2 gene, upstream of the herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase promoter (-109) linked to the firefly luciferase coding sequence (XETL) (31). The GR reporter plasmid (XG46TL) is identical to XETL, except two consensus GREs are substituted for the ERE (31). The steroid receptor expression plasmids are pcDNA3-human ERalpha , pCMV5-human ERbeta (32), pcDNA3-rat GR (33), and pcDNA3-human AR (34). A BamHI/EcoRI fragment of human Rho GDIalpha from pGEX2T (35) was subcloned into pcDNA3 to create a Rho GDIalpha mammalian expression construct.2 Expression plasmids for N-terminally Myc-tagged Rac1.L61 and Cdc42.L61 have been described previously (36). pRK5-Myc-RhoA.V14 was subcloned as an EcoRI fragment containing Myc-tagged RhoA.V14 from EXV plasmid (18). Both EXV.RhoA.V14 and EFC3- expressing Myc-tagged C3 transferase under the EF1alpha promoter have been described elsewhere (37, 38). The dominant negative form of RhoA, RhoA.N19, was made by site-directed mutagenesis using the oligonucleotide 5'-GGAGCCTGTGGAAAGAACTGCTTGCTCATAGTC-3' and the QuickChange mutagenesis kit (Stratagene) with pRK5-Myc-RhoA as the template. The entire RhoA.N19 coding region was sequenced to verify the base changed and to ensure that no other mutations were introduced. The Sp1 reporter contains six Sp1 binding sites upstream of the adenovirus major late promoter in front of the luciferase gene (39), and SRF reporter contains a fragment of the c-Fos promoter upstream of luciferase (18).

Yeast Strains, Growth Conditions, and beta -Galactosidase Assay

The yeast strain W303a (a ade2 leu2 his3 trp1 ura3) was used to screen for ER activators. Yeast transformation was performed by the lithium acetate/polyethylene glycol method (40). To assay ER transcriptional activation, cells were cultured overnight in the appropriate selective medium containing 2% glucose and subcultured 1:20 in selective minimal medium containing 2% galactose, 1% raffinose to induce receptor expression and treated with 17beta -estradiol for 12 h. Quantitative liquid beta -galactosidase assays were performed as described previously (11). Plate assays were performed by replica-plating colonies from glucose plates onto galactose X-gal indicator plates containing 0.1 nM 17beta -estradiol.

Cell Culture, Transfection, and Luciferase Assays

Human osteosarcoma U2OS (HTB 96) and human breast cancer MCF-7 (HTB-22) cell lines were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA), and the Ishikawa human uterine cancer cell line was obtained from Dr. Seth Guller (NYU School of Medicine). Cells were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Life Technologies, Inc.) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (HyClone), 10 units/ml each of penicillin and streptomycin (Cellgro), and 2 mM L-glutamine (Cellgro). Between 1.2 and 1.3 × 105 cells were seeded onto 35-mm plates in phenol red-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Cellgro) supplemented with 10% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum and 2 mM L-glutamine. Transfections using LipofectAMINE Plus reagent (Life Technologies) were performed according to the manufacturer's recommendation. Cells were treated with hormone agonists (100 nM 17beta -estradiol, 100 nM dexamethasone, and 100 nM R1881 for ER, GR, and AR, respectively), the ER antagonist ICI 182,780 (41) (100 nM), or ethanol vehicle 12 h post-transfection for 24 h. Transfected cells were washed once in phosphate-buffered saline and harvested in 1× reporter lysis buffer (Promega) as per the manufacturer's instructions. Luciferase activity was quantified in a reaction mixture containing 25 mM glycylglycine, pH 7.8, 15 mM MgSO4, 1 mM ATP, 0.1 mg/ml bovine serum albumin, 1 mM dithiothreitol, using an LB 9507 luminometer (EG & G Berthold) and 1 mM D-luciferin as substrate. The steroid receptor transcriptional activity is normalized to reporter activity in the absence of transfected steroid receptors and to protein concentration as determined by the Bradford protein assay (Bio-Rad). Since MCF-7 cells contain endogenous ER, transcriptional activity of the receptor is normalized to XETL activity in the presence of ER antagonist ICI 182,780. The data presented represent the average of two experimental values, with error bars representing the range of the data points.

Immunoblotting

To prepare protein extracts from transfected cells, whole cell extracts prepared for luciferase assay in 1× reporter lysis buffer were normalized for total protein and boiled for 3 min in SDS sample buffer. Protein extracts were fractionated by 12% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, transferred to Immobilon membrane (Millipore Corp.), and probed with anti-ERalpha polyclonal antibody (HC-20; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA), anti-Rho GDI polyclonal antibody (A-20; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), or anti-c-Myc monoclonal antibody (9E10; Santa Cruz Biotechnology). The blots were developed using horseradish peroxidase-coupled sheep anti-mouse or goat anti-rabbit antibodies and the ECL substrate as per the manufacturer's instructions (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech).


    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

A Genetic Screen for Activators of ERalpha Transcriptional Enhancement-- Concomitant serine to alanine mutations at N-terminal phosphorylation sites 104, 106, and 118 (ERAAA) result in a ~50% reduction in ER transcriptional activity in mammalian cells (42, 43). To determine whether the transcriptional activity of ERAAA is also reduced in yeast, strains were constructed containing a galactose-inducible expression vector encoding either WT ER or ERAAA and an ER-responsive reporter plasmid. The transcriptional activities of WT ER and ERAAA were measured as a function of hormone concentration. Compared with WT ER, ERAAA exhibited ~40% reduction of transcriptional activity at all hormone concentrations tested, suggesting that the ERAAA is less efficient at engaging in the interactions necessary for transcriptional activation (Fig. 1A).



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Isolation of yeast factors that increase transcriptional activation by ERalpha . A, transcriptional activation of WT ER and ERAAA as a function of 17beta -estradiol concentration. Yeast strains were transformed with either a galactose-inducible WT ER or ERAAA, along with an ERE-containing beta -galactosidase reporter plasmid. Transcriptional activation by the WT ER (dotted line) and ERAAA (solid line) in response to increasing 17beta -estradiol concentration was determined by liquid beta -galactosidase assay as described under "Experimental Procedures." Note that the ERAAA in yeast exhibits ~40% of the WT ER transcriptional activity at each estradiol concentration tested. The dosage suppression screen was carried out in the presence of 1 × 10-10 M 17beta -estradiol, conditions under which the ERAAA phenotype is the most pronounced. B, the relative activity of WT ER, ERAAA, and ERAAA with an ER activator. Three independent colonies on X-gal indicator plates in the presence of 1 × 10-10 M 17beta -estradiol are shown and represent WT ER with an empty expression vector (WT ER), ERAAA plus an empty expression vector (ER (AAA)), and ERAAA plus the RDI1 suppressor plasmid (ER (AAA) + ER activator). Under these conditions, colonies expressing WT ER are blue, ERAAA-expressing colonies appear white, and ERAAA-expressing the ER activator RDI1 are blue.

The ERAAA phenotype is most striking at 0.1 nM 17beta -estradiol. Under these conditions, yeast colonies expressing WT ER are blue, while ERAAA-expressing colonies appear white (Fig. 1B). To screen for ER activators, yeasts expressing ERAAA, along with an estrogen-responsive reporter gene, were transformed with a high copy yeast genomic library and assayed for receptor transcriptional activation on X-gal indicator plates containing 0.1 nM 17beta -estradiol. Candidate high copy suppressors changing the ERAAA-expressing yeast from white to blue were selected for further analysis (Fig. 1B). Of the 29,000 colonies screened, which represents approximately 3 times the size of the yeast genome, we identified six yeast open reading frames that enhance ER transcriptional activation (Table I).


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I
Yeast genes that enhance ER transactivation
At the top are shown yeast homologues of two previously known mammalian regulators that affect ER function. At the bottom are four factors that appear to link ER transcriptional activation to signal transduction pathways previously not known to affect ER function.

A search of the yeast genome data base revealed that two of the candidate suppressors were yeast homologues of mammalian proteins previously shown to affect ER transactivation. These include 1) CKA1 (44), a homologue of the mammalian alpha -subunit of casein kinase II that phosphorylates ER at serine 167 in vitro (45) and 2) CAD1 (46), a member of the Jun transcription factor family that synergizes with ER in mammalian cells (47). In addition to genes known to regulate ER activity, several genes not known to affect ER were identified. YAK1 (48), a serine/threonine kinase with homology to ANPK, a protein kinase that interacts with the zinc finger region of the AR and increases AR-dependent transcriptional activation, was isolated once (49). In addition, MCK1 (50), a protein kinase with homology to glycogen synthase kinase-3 (51), was identified once. We also isolated RDI1 (14), the yeast Rho guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitor (Rho GDI), three times, and LRG1 (52), a yeast protein that contains a GTPase-activating protein (GAP) homology domain, once. Although LRG1 is presently linked to GAP merely through sequence homology, it is interesting to note that GAP and RDI1 are both negative regulators of Rho GTPases. The recovery of known ER regulators together with the repeated isolation of certain genes indicates that the approach was sound and that the library was probably screened to saturation. Since Rho GDI negatively regulates Rho GTPases, this result suggests that the Rho GTPases may modulate ER transcriptional activation and is the focus of this report.

Rho GDI Expression Increases ER Transactivation-- Among the human Rho GDIs, RDI1 is most similar to human Rho GDIalpha , which negatively regulates the best studied Rho GTPases, RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42. To examine whether the mammalian Rho GDI affects ER transcription in mammalian cells, we tested the ability of human Rho GDIalpha to enhance ER transcriptional activity in the human osteosarcoma cell line U2OS. ER-negative U2OS cells were transiently transfected with ERalpha , an ER-responsive reporter plasmid, along with increasing amounts of Rho GDIalpha . As shown in Fig. 2A, Rho GDIalpha stimulates ER transactivation in a dose-dependent manner. Enhancement of ER transcriptional activation by Rho GDIalpha was also observed for ERAAA mutant (not shown). To ensure that this enhanced transcriptional activity was not a result of increased ER protein production, we monitored protein expression in whole cell extracts using Western blot analysis. Fig. 2B illustrates that ER levels are not increased by Rho GDI expression. Indeed, the steady state concentration of ER decreased slightly with increasing Rho GDI expression, indicating that the effect of Rho GDIalpha on ER activity is greater than that observed. The effect of Rho GDI on ER transactivation is not restricted to single cell type, since Rho GDIalpha also enhanced ER transactivation in MCF-7 and Ishikawa cells (Fig. 2C). Thus, Rho GDIalpha can act as a positive regulator of ER-dependent transcriptional activation in a variety of mammalian cell lines.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Enhancement of ERalpha transcriptional activation by overexpression of Rho GDIalpha . A, ER-deficient U2OS cells (1.2 × 105 cells/35-mm dish) were transiently transfected using LipofectAMINE Plus reagent with 0.1 µg of ERalpha expression construct or empty vector, 0.2 µg of the ERE-containing reporter gene XETL, and increasing amounts of Rho GDIalpha , as indicated. 12 h after the transfection, cells were treated with 100 nM 17beta -estradiol (E2) (dark bars) or the ethanol vehicle (light bars) for 24 h, harvested, and assayed for luciferase activity. ERalpha transcriptional activity is normalized to XETL reporter activity in the absence of ER. The data represent the mean of an experiment done in duplicate, which was repeated three times. B, expression of ERalpha does not increase by Rho GDIalpha coexpression. Whole cell extracts were prepared from transfected cells as described under "Experimental Procedures," and the expression of ERalpha and Rho GDIalpha was analyzed by Western blotting. C, MCF-7 and Ishikawa cells were transfected as above and assayed for luciferase activity. For Ishikawa cells, ERalpha transcriptional activity is normalized to XETL reporter activity in the absence of ER. For MCF-7 cells that contain endogenous ER, transcriptional activity of the receptor is normalized to XETL activity in the presence of ER antagonist ICI 182,780. The data represents the mean of experiments done in duplicate, which were repeated two times.

Rho GDI Specifically Activates Steroid Hormone Receptors-- We next tested the ability of Rho GDIalpha to affect transactivation by other members of the steroid receptor family, ERbeta , GR, and AR, using transient transfection assays. Our results indicate that Rho GDIalpha also increased the transcriptional activity of ERbeta , GR, and AR in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 3, A-C). To determine whether Rho GDI-mediated activation is specific to steroid receptors, we tested the effect of Rho GDIalpha on Sp1- and SRF-dependent transactivation. Rho GTPase signaling has been previously shown to enhance transcriptional activation by SRF (18); thus, we would expect Rho GDIalpha , as a negative regulator of Rho GTPases, to decrease SRF transcriptional activity. Consistent with this idea, Rho GDIalpha expression decreased SRF activity from a reporter plasmid containing the c-Fos SRF element (Fig. 4A). Similarly, Sp1 transcriptional activity using an Sp1-responsive reporter also decreased in response to Rho GDI overexpression (Fig. 4B). Taken together, these results strongly suggest that Rho GDI specifically increases transactivation by steroid hormone receptors, perhaps through a mechanism involving suppression of Rho GTPase signaling.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Rho GDIalpha enhances the transcriptional activation by ERbeta , GR, and AR. U2OS cells were transfected as described in Fig. 2 with paired expression and reporter plasmids for ERbeta  + XETL (A), GR + XG46TL (B), or AR + XG46TL (C) and, along with the indicated amount of Rho GDIalpha , were treated with 100 nM 17beta -estradiol (E2), dexamethasone (Dex), and R1881, respectively, and harvested. In each case, receptor transcriptional activity shown is normalized to reporter activity in the absence of the receptor. The data shown represent experiments done in duplicate that have been repeated at least twice with similar results.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Rho GDI inhibits transcriptional activation by SRF and Sp1. U2OS cells were transfected as in Fig. 2 with 0.4 µg of Rho GDIalpha together with 0.2 µg of SRF reporter (A) or Sp1 reporter (B), harvested after 24 h, and assayed for luciferase activity. Results shown represent an experiment done in duplicate and repeated twice.

Rho GTPases Inhibit ER Transactivation-- The GTPases known to interact with Rho GDIalpha include RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42. To determine whether Rho GDI increases ER transactivation by inhibiting the Rho GTPases, we expressed constitutively active forms of Rho GTPases (RhoA.V14, Rac1.L61, and Cdc42.L61) in U2OS cells and examined ER transcriptional activation. As shown in Fig. 5, expression of RhoA.V14, Rac1.L61, and Cdc42.L61 decreased ER transcriptional enhancement. Active forms of Rho GTPases also decreased ER transactivation in MCF-7 and Ishikawa cells (Fig. 6). In all three cell types, expression of the constitutively active forms of RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42 resulted in an accumulation of filamentous actin, as determined by fluorescent phalloidin staining.3 These results are consistent with the model that Rho GDI activates ER transcriptional enhancement by antagonizing Rho GTPases.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   The Rho GTPases, RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42, inhibit ER transcriptional activation. U2OS cells were transfected as in Fig. 2 with the indicated amount of constitutively active forms of the Rho GTPases, RhoA.V14, Rac1.L61, and Cdc42.L61, along with 0.1 µg of ERalpha and 0.2 µg of XETL. Cells were treated with 100 nM 17beta -estradiol (E2) 12 h post-transfection and harvested after 24 h of estradiol treatment. ER transcriptional activity as depicted is normalized to reporter activity in the absence of ER. Results shown represent an experiment done in duplicate and repeated twice with similar results.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   The Rho GTPases inhibit ER transcriptional activation in MCF-7 and Ishikawa cells. MCF-7 and Ishikawa cells were transfected with the indicated amount of the constitutively active forms of the Rho GTPases, RhoA.V14, Rac1.L61, and Cdc42.L61, and ER transcriptional activity was measured as described in the legend to Fig. 2. Shown is a representative experiment performed in duplicate and repeated three times with similar results.

As an independent means of examining the effect of RhoA inhibition on ER transcriptional activation, we ectopically expressed the Clostridium botulinum C3 transferase, a protein toxin that ADP-ribosylates and inhibits RhoA but not Rac1 or Cdc42 (37, 38). As with Rho GDI, expression of C3 transferase results in an enhancement of ER transcriptional activity but decreases SRF transcriptional activation in U2OS cells (Fig. 7A and data not shown). Inhibition of ER transcriptional activation by activated RhoA, but not Rac1 or Cdc42, was also relieved by C3 coexpression (not shown). Ectopic expression of C3 transferase also increased ER transcriptional activation in MCF-7 and Ishikawa cells (not shown). Likewise, inhibition of endogenous RhoA by expression of a dominant negative form of RhoA (RhoA.N19) also results in greater ER transactivation (Fig. 7B). Thus, inhibition of RhoA results in enhanced ER transcriptional activation, indicating that Rho-mediated signaling events suppress ER transactivation.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Inhibition of endogenous RhoA by C3 transferase and dominant negative RhoA potentiates ER transactivation. U2OS cells were transfected as in Fig. 2 with the indicated amount of C3 expression vector (A) or dominant negative form of RhoA (RhoA.N19) (B) along with 0.1 µg of ERalpha and 0.2 µg of XETL. Cells were treated as described in the legend to Fig. 2, and ER transcriptional activation was measured. Shown is a representative experiment performed in duplicate.



    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

We have demonstrated that Rho GDIalpha enhances the transcriptional activity of the ERalpha as well as ERbeta , GR, and AR but not SRF or Sp1. We also show that activated mutant forms of RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42 decrease, whereas inhibition of endogenous RhoA by C3 transferase or dominant negative RhoA increases ER transcriptional activation. From these results, we conclude that the enhanced ER transactivation observed upon Rho GDIalpha overexpression is mediated by antagonism of Rho GTPases and implicates the Rho family proteins RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42 in signaling to ER.

What is the mechanism underlying the modulation of ER transactivation by RhoA? Since Rho GTPases mediate actin cytoskeleton reorganization as well as the activation of multiple signaling pathways, such as c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) and p38, Rho-mediated inhibition of ER may result from either of these events. The ability of the Rho GTPase family members to repress ER transcriptional activity suggests that RhoA-, Rac1-, and Cdc42-mediated signaling to ER may converge at some common point through a shared signaling molecule. An attractive candidate for such a common regulator is LIM kinase (53). The GTP-bound forms of RhoA and Rac1/Cdc42 activate LIM kinase via phosphorylation through effector kinases ROCK and Pak, respectively (54, 55). The activated LIM kinase phosphorylates cofilin, an actin-binding protein, thereby inhibiting its actin-depolymerizing activity and leading to the accumulation of actin filaments. Recently, it has been shown that changes in the actin cytoskeleton can affect transcriptional activation by SRF (56). In a model reminiscent of that proposed for regulation of SRF by actin (56), we speculate that suppression of ER transactivation could result either from releasing an ER corepressor that is associated with free G-actin or from binding a coactivator to actin filaments, thus preventing its interaction with the ER. One such putative actin-regulated factor is the SWI/SNF complex, which has previously been shown to be a coactivator for steroid receptors, including ER, in both yeast and mammalian cells (57-59) and contains beta -actin as well as two actin-related protein subunits (60-62). We are currently testing whether SWI/SNF and/or LIM kinase mediate the modulatory effects of Rho GTPases on ER transactivation. While the effect of actin cytoskeletal changes on ER remains unknown, actin dynamics may provide a means of modulating ER transcriptional activity during normal development or in pathological settings, such as tumor progression, when cells undergo extensive actin reorganization.

Alternatively, changes in ER transcriptional regulatory properties may result from the activation of signal transduction pathways by Rho GTPases. For example, Rac1/Cdc42 activate JNK and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways, which may affect ER or its coregulatory factors via phosphorylation. Unlike Rac1/Cdc42, RhoA is not thought to activate the JNK and p38 pathways; therefore, it is unlikely that the activated Rho GTPases are effecting ER transactivation via these pathways. Nevertheless, since we have not excluded the possibility that JNK and p38 are mediating the effect of the Rho GTPases on ER transcriptional activation, we are currently testing the impact of activation and inhibition of JNK and p38 on receptor transactivation.

A cellular activity induced by activated RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42 is NF-kappa B, which has been shown to inhibit steroid receptor transactivation by forming inhibitory heterocomplexes (63, 64). It is tempting to speculate that the inhibition of ER by the Rho GTPases is mediated by NF-kappa B. However, our preliminary findings suggest that inhibition of NF-kappa B by overexpressing Ikappa B does not relieve the repressive effects of Rho GTPases on ER transactivation (not shown), suggesting that Rho GTPases regulate ER independent of NF-kappa B.

Recently, an ER-interacting protein, termed Brx, was identified and shown to contain a domain virtually identical to the Rho GEF Lbc, although its enzymatic activity has not been demonstrated (26). Overexpression of Brx in Ishikawa cells increases ER transcriptional activation, and a dominant negative form of Cdc42, but not RhoA or Rac1, reduces its coactivator function (26). Our results differ from this report in assessing the effect of Rho GTPases on ER transactivation and showing that RhoA, Rac1, and Cdc42 negatively regulate ER transcriptional activity. This apparent discrepancy between what would be predicted from Rubino et al. (26), that Cdc42 increases ER transactivation, and our results showing that Cdc42, RhoA, and Rac1 decreased ER transcriptional activation may be attributed to methodological or cell-specific differences. Alternatively, since Brx coactivator function is probably mediated by direct ER binding, the inhibition of ER activity by the dominant negative form of Cdc42 may have resulted from competition between ER and dominant negative Cdc42 for Brx binding, rather than from blocking the signaling pathway downstream of Brx. In contrast, the effect of Rho GDI and the Rho GTPases on ER appears to be indirect. Localization studies indicate that ER and Rho GDI are found in distinct subcellular compartments, with Rho GDI residing in the cytoplasm, whereas ER is confined to the nucleus.3 In addition, GST-Rho GDI is unable to associate with estradiol-bound ER, although it is capable of binding Rho A in vitro.3 While Brx and Rho GTPases may modulate ER activity through distinct mechanisms, the identification of different components in the Rho signaling pathway as modulators of ER transactivation underscores their importance in receptor regulation.

Our findings suggest that the Rho GTPases decrease transcriptional activation by ERalpha , thus establishing a novel pathway of cross-talk between cell surface receptors that regulate Rho GTPase signaling and steroid receptor transcriptional activation. Another example of cross-talk between the cell surface and ER is the modulation of ER ligand-independent transcriptional activation by the epidermal growth factor/Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway (65, 66). It has been shown that treatment of cells with epidermal growth factor results in ER ligand-independent activation and phosphorylation by the mitogen-activated protein kinase, Erk1 (31, 67). Although the mechanism of this increased ER transcriptional activation remains to be elucidated, it probably involves phosphorylation-dependent cofactor recruitment (68). Thus, Ras acts as a positive regulator of ER transcriptional enhancement (67),3 whereas Rho GTPases suppress receptor transactivation. We speculate that the opposing actions of Ras and Rho GTPases on ER-mediated transcriptional activation provide a means of fine tuning the ER transcriptional response to changes in the extracellular environment.


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Drs. Richard Treisman, Alan Hall, and Mark Philips for RhoA, Rac1, Cdc42, C3 transferase, and Rho GDIalpha plasmids; Dr. Jan-Ake Gustafsson for the ERbeta expression construct; Dr. Roger Miesfeld for the AR plasmid; and Dr. Naoko Tanese for the Sp1 reporter construct. We are grateful to Dr. Seth Guller for the Ishikawa cells and Dr. Alan Wakeling for the ICI compound. We thank Dr. Danny Manor for helpful discussion and Drs. Mark Philips, Susan Logan, and Inez Rogatsky for critically reading the manuscript.


    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by Army Breast Cancer Research Fund Career Development Award DAMD17-96-6032 and the Irma T. Hirschl Charitable Trust (to M. J. G.).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 Supported by Army Breast Cancer Research Fund Predoctoral Grant DAMD17-97-7275 and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant T32 GM07308.

§ Supported by Army Breast Cancer Research Fund Predoctoral Grant DAMD17-98-8134 and NIH Grant T32 GM07308.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Microbiology, NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Ave., New York, NY 10016. Tel.: 212-263-7662; Fax: 212-263-8276; E-mail: garabm01@med.nyu.edu.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, November 1, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M005547200

2 D. Michaelson and M. Philips, unpublished results.

3 L. F. Su and M. J. Garabedian, unpublished observations.


    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: ER or ERalpha , estrogen receptor alpha ; ERbeta , estrogen receptor beta ; GDI, guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitor; WT, wild type; GEF, guanine nucleotide exchange factor; GAP, GTPase-activating protein; GR, glucocorticoid receptor; AR, androgen receptor; SRF, serum response factor; ERE, estrogen response element; X-gal, 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl beta -D-galactopyranoside; RLU, relative luminescence units.


    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES


1. Parker, M. G. (1998) Biochem. Soc. Symp. 63, 45-50[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Warner, M., Nilsson, S., and Gustafsson, J. A. (1999) Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 11, 249-54[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Bland, R. (2000) Clin. Sci. 98, 217-240[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Jordan, V. C. (1999) J. Lab. Clin. Med. 133, 408-414[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Robyr, D., Wolffe, A. P., and Wahli, W. (2000) Mol. Endocrinol. 14, 329-347[Free Full Text]
6. Schapira, M., Raaka, B. M., Samuels, H. H., and Abagyan, R. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 1008-1013[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Weigel, N. L. (1996) Biochem. J. 319, 657-667[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Rubin, G. M., Yandell, M. D., Wortman, J. R., Gabor Miklos, G. L., Nelson, C. R., Hariharan, I. K., Fortini, M. E., Li, P. W., Apweiler, R., Fleischmann, W., Cherry, J. M., Henikoff, S., Skupski, M. P., Misra, S., Ashburner, M., Birney, E., Boguski, M. S., Brody, T., Brokstein, P., Celniker, S. E., Chervitz, S. A., Coates, D., Cravchik, A., Gabrielian, A., Galle, R. F., Gelbart, W. M., George, R. A., Goldstein, L. S., Gong, F., Guan, P., Harris, N. L., Hay, B. A., Hoskins, R. A., Li, J., Li, Z., Hynes, R. O., Jones, S. J., Kuehl, P. M., Lemaitre, B., Littleton, J. T., Morrison, D. K., Mungall, C., O'Farrell, P. H., Pickeral, O. K., Shue, C., Vosshall, L. B., Zhang, J., Zhao, Q., Zheng, X. H., Zhong, F., Zhong, W., Gibbs, R., Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., and Lewis, S. (2000) Science 287, 2204-2215[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Chervitz, S. A., Aravind, L., Sherlock, G., Ball, C. A., Koonin, E. V., Dwight, S. S., Harris, M. A., Dolinski, K., Mohr, S., Smith, T., Weng, S., Cherry, J. M., and Botstein, D. (1998) Science 282, 2022-2028[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Botstein, D., Chervitz, S. A., and Cherry, J. M. (1997) Science 277, 1259-1260[Free Full Text]
11. Knoblauch, R., and Garabedian, M. J. (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 3748-3759[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Fukumoto, Y., Kaibuchi, K., Hori, Y., Fujioka, H., Araki, S., Ueda, T., Kikuchi, A., and Takai, Y. (1990) Oncogene 5, 1321-1328[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Leonard, D., Hart, M. J., Platko, J. V., Eva, A., Henzel, W., Evans, T., and Cerione, R. A. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 22860-22868[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Masuda, T., Tanaka, K., Nonaka, H., Yamochi, W., Maeda, A., and Takai, Y. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 19713-19718[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Koch, G., Tanaka, K., Masuda, T., Yamochi, W., Nonaka, H., and Takai, Y. (1997) Oncogene 15, 417-422[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Hall, A. (1998) Science 279, 509-514[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Narumiya, S. (1996) J. Biochem. (Tokyo) 120, 215-228[Abstract]
18. Hill, C. S., Wynne, J., and Treisman, R. (1995) Cell 81, 1159-1170[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Coso, O. A., Chiariello, M., Yu, J. C., Teramoto, H., Crespo, P., Xu, N., Miki, T., and Gutkind, J. S. (1995) Cell 81, 1137-1146[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Minden, A., Lin, A., Claret, F. X., Abo, A., and Karin, M. (1995) Cell 81, 1147-1157[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Olson, M. F., Ashworth, A., and Hall, A. (1995) Science 269, 1270-1272[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Clark, E. A., Golub, T. R., Lander, E. S., and Hynes, R. O. (2000) Nature 406, 532-535[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
23. Bishop, A. L., and Hall, A. (2000) Biochem. J. 348, 241-255[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Hart, M. J., Maru, Y., Leonard, D., Witte, O. N., Evans, T., and Cerione, R. A. (1992) Science 258, 812-815[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Hoffman, G. R., Nassar, N., and Cerione, R. A. (2000) Cell 100, 345-356[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Rubino, D., Driggers, P., Arbit, D., Kemp, L., Miller, B., Coso, O., Pagliai, K., Gray, K., Gutkind, S., and Segars, J. (1998) Oncogene 16, 2513-2526[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. Picard, D., Khursheed, B., Garabedian, M. J., Fortin, M. G., Lindquist, S., and Yamamoto, K. R. (1990) Nature 348, 166-168[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Engebrecht, J., Hirsch, J., and Roeder, G. S. (1990) Cell 62, 927-937[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Schena, M., Picard, D., and Yamamoto, K. R. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 194, 389-398[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Rogatsky, I., Trowbridge, J. M., and Garabedian, M. J. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 22296-22302[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Bunone, G., Briand, P. A., Miksicek, R. J., and Picard, D. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 2174-2183[Abstract]
32. Kuiper, G. G., Carlsson, B., Grandien, K., Enmark, E., Haggblad, J., Nilsson, S., and Gustafsson, J. A. (1997) Endocrinology 138, 863-870[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Hittelman, A. B., Burakov, D., Iniguez-Lluhi, J. A., Freedman, L. P., and Garabedian, M. J. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 5380-5388[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Chamberlain, N. L., Whitacre, D. C., and Miesfeld, R. L. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 26772-26778[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Hancock, J. F., and Hall, A. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 1915-1921[Abstract]
36. Nobes, C. D., and Hall, A. (1995) Cell 81, 53-62[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Narumiya, S., Sekine, A., and Fujiwara, M. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 17255-17257[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Sekine, A., Fujiwara, M., and Narumiya, S. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 8602-8605[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Tanese, N., Saluja, D., Vassallo, M. F., Chen, J. L., and Admon, A. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 13611-13616[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Schiestl, R. H., and Gietz, R. D. (1989) Curr. Genet. 16, 339-346[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Dauvois, S., White, R., and Parker, M. G. (1993) J. Cell Sci. 106, 1377-1388[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Le Goff, P., Montano, M. M., Schodin, D. J., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 4458-4466[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Ali, S., Metzger, D., Bornert, J. M., and Chambon, P. (1993) EMBO J. 12, 1153-1160[Abstract]
44. Chen-Wu, J. L., Padmanabha, R., and Glover, C. V. (1988) Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 4981-4990[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Arnold, S. F., Obourn, J. D., Jaffe, H., and Notides, A. C. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8, 1208-1214[Abstract]
46. Wu, A., Wemmie, J. A., Edgington, N. P., Goebl, M., Guevara, J. L., and Moye-Rowley, W. S. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 18850-18858[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Uht, R. M., Anderson, C. M., Webb, P., and Kushner, P. J. (1997) Endocrinology 138, 2900-2908[Abstract/Free Full Text]
48. Garrett, S., and Broach, J. (1989) Genes Dev. 3, 1336-1348[Abstract]
49. Moilanen, A. M., Karvonen, U., Poukka, H., Janne, O. A., and Palvimo, J. J. (1998) Mol. Biol. Cell. 9, 2527-2543[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Su, S. S., and Mitchell, A. P. (1993) Genetics 133, 67-77[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Bianchi, M. W., Plyte, S. E., Kreis, M., and Woodgett, J. R. (1993) Gene (Amst.) 134, 51-56[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
52. Muller, L., Xu, G., Wells, R., Hollenberg, C. P., and Piepersberg, W. (1994) Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 3151-3154[Abstract]
53. Lawler, S. (1999) Curr. Biol. 9, 800-802[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
54. Ohashi, K., Nagata, K., Maekawa, M., Ishizaki, T., Narumiya, S., and Mizuno, K. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 3577-3582[Abstract/Free Full Text]
55. Edwards, D. C., Sanders, L. C., Bokoch, G. M., and Gill, G. N. (1999) Nat. Cell Biol. 1, 253-259[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
56. Sotiropoulos, A., Gineitis, D., Copeland, J., and Treisman, R. (1999) Cell 98, 159-169[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
57. Yoshinaga, S. K., Peterson, C. L., Herskowitz, I., and Yamamoto, K. R. (1992) Science 258, 1598-1604[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
58. Chiba, H., Muramatsu, M., Nomoto, A., and Kato, H. (1994) Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 1815-1820[Abstract]
59. Ichinose, H., Garnier, J. M., Chambon, P., and Losson, R. (1997) Gene (Amst.) 188, 95-100[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
60. Zhao, K., Wang, W., Rando, O. J., Xue, Y., Swiderek, K., Kuo, A., and Crabtree, G. R. (1998) Cell 95, 625-636[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
61. Peterson, C. L., Zhao, Y., and Chait, B. T. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 23641-23644[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Cairns, B. R., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P., Winston, F., and Kornberg, R. D. (1998) Mol. Cell. 2, 639-651[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
63. Perona, R., Montaner, S., Saniger, L., Sanchez-Perez, I., Bravo, R., and Lacal, J. C. (1997) Genes Dev. 11, 463-475[Abstract]
64. McKay, L. I., and Cidlowski, J. A. (1998) Mol. Endocrinol. 12, 45-56[Abstract/Free Full Text]
65. Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (1996) Biol. Reprod. 54, 287-293[Abstract]
66. Kato, S., Kitamoto, T., Masuhiro, Y., and Yanagisawa, J. (1998) ONCOLOGY 55 Suppl. 1, 5-10[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
67. Kato, S., Endoh, H., Masuhiro, Y., Kitamoto, T., Uchiyama, S., Sasaki, H., Masushige, S., Gotoh, Y., Nishida, E., Kawashima, H., Metzger, D., and Chambon, P. (1995) Science 270, 1491-1494[Abstract]
68. Endoh, H., Maruyama, K., Masuhiro, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Goto, M., Tai, H., Yanagisawa, J., Metzger, D., Hashimoto, S., and Kato, S. (1999) Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 5363-5372[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Copyright © 2001 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.