From the Department of Molecular and Cellular
Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
77030-3498 and the § Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio
43614-5804
Received for publication, December 4, 2002, and in revised form, January 30, 2003
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Although increases in
intracellular cAMP can stimulate estrogen receptor- The biological effects of estrogens are mediated by two estrogen
receptors (ERs),1 ER In the best studied mechanism of ER In addition to this relatively well characterized mode of activation,
ER In addition to these ER Some progress has been made in the effort to understand the mechanisms
involved in cAMP activation of nuclear receptor-dependent transcription. Although an increase in receptor phosphorylation accompanies the cAMP-mediated activation of ER The identification of ER Chemicals--
E2, IBMX, and
N-(2-(p-bromocinnamylamino)-ethyl)-5-isoquinolinesulfonamide
(H89) were obtained from Sigma. Forskolin was obtained from Calbiochem
(San Diego).
Plasmid DNAs--
The mammalian expression vectors for human
ER
The SRC-1a phosphorylation mutant pCR3.1-hSRC-1a-7Ala, which has
alanine substitutions at positions 372, 395, 517, 569, 1033, 1179, and
1185, was generated using the QuikChange site-directed mutagenesis kit
(Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) and the appropriate mutagenic primers. The
plasmids were sequenced to ensure that errors did not occur during
mutagenesis. The constructs for hER Cell Culture and Transfections--
HeLa (human cervical
carcinoma) cells were routinely maintained in Dulbecco's modified
Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS).
24 h prior to transfections for transactivation assays, cells were
plated in six-well culture dishes at a density of 3 × 105 cells/well in phenol red-free DMEM with 5%
charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum (sFBS). For transfections, medium
was replaced with serum-free medium, and DNA was introduced into cells
in the indicated amounts using LipofectAMINE (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's guidelines. 5 h later, serum-free medium was replaced with phenol red-free DMEM supplemented with 5% sFBS. 12 h thereafter, cells were treated with the indicated amounts of various
hormones. After 24 h of hormone treatment (12 h for inhibitor
experiments), cells were harvested, and extracts were assayed for CAT
activity, as described previously (45, 46) using butyryl-coenzyme A
(Amersham Biosciences) and [3H]chloramphenicol
(PerkinElmer Life Sciences). The quantity of resulting radiolabeled
product was determined by scintillation counting using biodegradable
counting scintillant (Amersham Biosciences) and a Beckman LS 6500 scintillation counter, and then normalized to total cellular protein
measured by Bio-Rad protein assay. Experiments were done in duplicate,
and values represent the average ± S.E. of at least three
individual experiments.
Western Blot Analysis--
To determine ER expression levels,
cells were transfected as above and harvested. Cell pellets were
resuspended in a 50 mM Tris (pH 8.0) buffer containing 5 mM EDTA, 1% Nonidet P-40, 0.2% Sarkosyl, 0.4 M NaCl, 100 µM sodium vanadate, 10 mM sodium molybdate, and 20 mM NaF and
incubated on ice for 1 h. The lysates were subsequently centrifuged at 21,000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C. The
resulting supernatants were mixed with SDS-PAGE loading buffer,
resolved on a 7.5% SDS-polyacrylamide gel, and subsequently
transferred to nitrocellulose membrane. The membranes were blocked
using 1% nonfat dried milk in 50 mM Tris (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, and 0.05% Tween 20, and sequentially incubated
with an anti-FLAG M2 antibody (Sigma) and a horseradish peroxidase-conjugated, anti-mouse antibody. Blots were visualized using
enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) reagents as recommended by the
manufacturer (Amersham Biosciences).
Gel Mobility Shift Assays--
HeLa cells were harvested in
phosphate-buffered saline using a cell scraper and subsequently
resuspended in ice-cold lysis buffer (10 mM Hepes (pH 7.9),
1 mM EDTA, 60 mM KCl, 1 mM
dithiothreitol, Complete Mini-Tablet protease inhibitor (Roche
Diagnostics), and 0.5% Nonidet P-40), and incubated on ice for 5-15
min to lyse the cell membranes. The resulting lysates were centrifuged
for 5 min at ~ 1,400 × g to pellet the nuclei.
Nuclei were washed in 2.5 ml of lysis buffer lacking Nonidet P-40 and
repelleted as before. Thereafter, the nuclei were resuspended in a
minimum volume of 250 mM Tris (pH 7.8) buffer containing 60 mM KCl and protease inhibitors and subjected to three
cycles of rapid freeze/thaw. The nuclear lysates were centrifuged for
15 min at 21,000 × g and 4 °C, and the protein
concentrations of the resulting supernatants were determined by
Bradford assay.
Complementary oligonucleotides corresponding to the region of the
ERE-E1b-CAT plasmids containing the
12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate response element (TRE)
(5'-TGAAAACCTCTGACACATGCAGCTCCC-3' and 5'-GGGAGCTGCATGTGTCAGAGGTTTTCA-3') or mTRE
(5'-TGAAAACCTCGGACTCATGCAGCTCCC-3' and
5'-GGGAGCTGCATGAGTCCGAGGTTTTCA-3') were synthesized by Invitrogen and
annealed in 10 mM Tris (pH 7.5) buffer containing 1 mM EDTA and 50 mM NaCl to create
double-stranded oligonucleotides. These DNA fragments were labeled
with [
The radiolabeled oligonucleotides were combined with nuclear extract in
binding reaction buffer (50 mM Tris (pH 7.5) containing 2.5 mM EDTA, 5 mM MgCl2, 2.5 mM dithiothreitol, 250 mM NaCl, 20% glycerol,
and 0.25 mg/ml poly(dI-dC)) and incubated for 15 min at room
temperature. For oligonucleotide binding competition and antibody
supershift experiments, unlabeled oligonucleotides or antibody
(anti-c-Jun (Upstate Biotechnology, Lake Placid, NY) or anti-c-Fos
(Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA)), respectively, were
incubated with the nuclear extract for 30 min on ice before the
addition of 32P-labeled probe. Free and complexed DNAs were
resolved on a nondenaturing acrylamide gel. To avoid any possible
influence of the loading dye on complex mobility, the gel-loading
buffer containing 250 mM Tris (pH 7.5), 0.2% bromphenol
blue, and 40% glycerol was added to the minus-extract control sample
only. After electrophoresis at 350 V, the gel was transferred to 3MM
Whatman paper, vacuum dried, and exposed to X-Omat film for autoradiography.
Assessment of Forskolin/IBMX-induced
Phosphorylation--
For metabolic labeling studies, 2 × 106 HeLa cells were plated onto 150-mm Petri dishes, and
24 h thereafter they were transfected with pBind-ER
After treatments, cells were harvested and incubated with lysis buffer
(10 mM Tris (pH 8.0), 0.4 M NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA, 10 mM
Activation of ER An ERE Is Required for ER CBP and p160/SRC Coactivators Enhance cAMP-stimulated
ER Activation of ER The Upstream TRE Enhancer in the ERE-E1b-CAT Reporter Is Required
but Not Sufficient for Activation of ER
To determine whether c-Jun and/or c-Fos expressed in HeLa cells could
bind to the putative TRE site, an electrophoretic mobility shift assay
was performed. As shown in Fig. 6, a
27-bp oligonucleotide corresponding to the TRE-containing region of the
target gene bound to factors present in a HeLa cell nuclear extract,
and this binding could be competed with an excess of cold
oligonucleotide. The addition of antibodies against c-Jun or c-Fos to
the binding reaction resulted in the supershift of the
oligonucleotide-protein complex, indicating that both of these proteins
associate with this DNA fragment. Notably, equivalent levels of
oligonucleotide-bound material were observed regardless of whether the
nuclear extract was prepared from vehicle- or forskolin/IBMX-treated
cells, indicating that the forskolin/IBMX-induced activation of
ER-dependent gene expression was not a result of increased
Jun/Fos occupancy of the promoter region. This is consistent with the
comparable levels of c-Jun and the small increase in c-Fos expression
detected by Western blot analyses of extracts prepared from vehicle-
and forskolin/IBMX-treated cells (data not shown).
The Carboxyl Terminus of ER
As shown in Fig. 7B, ER
Several studies have focused on the ability of the MAP kinase signaling
pathway to stimulate the AF-1 activity of ER Functional Interactions with the TRE-bound Factor(s) Can Be
Mediated by the EF Region of ER
To assess the effect of forskolin/IBMX treatment on Gal-ER Forskolin/IBMX-stimulated ER In this report, we demonstrated that forskolin/IBMX, through
increased intracellular cAMP and activation of PKA, can stimulate ER There has been considerable interest in understanding the relative
contributions of the ER The carboxyl-terminal ligand binding domains of ER The inability of the AF-1-deletion mutants (ER One potential mechanism through which TRE and ERE binding factors could
interact indirectly with one another is through coactivators. We have
demonstrated that CBP as well as all three p160 coactivators can
enhance forskolin/IBMX-induced transcription of ERE-E1b-CAT by ER Cyclic AMP signaling leads to phosphorylation of SRC-1 at
Thr1179 and Ser1185 residues contributing to
stabilizing interactions between CBP-P and p300/CBP-associated factor
and functional synergy between CBP and SRC-1 (34). Moreover, mutation
of these two amino acids to alanines reduced both
progesterone-stimulated and, in an even more marked fashion,
cAMP-stimulated chicken PR activity in COS cells. However, these
mutations did not completely block the ability of SRC-1 to enhance
cAMP-dependent activation of chicken PR, suggesting that
phosphorylation of another cofactor(s) may contribute to activation of
this receptor by cAMP. The same mutations only slightly impaired the
ability of SRC-1 to enhance ER The promoters of endogenous genes typically consist of binding sites
for many distinct transcription factors. Importantly, the human pS2
promoter contains binding sites for ERs as well as AP-1 transcription
factors (78), indicating that expression of this gene, which had
previously been demonstrated to be activated by cAMP in an ICI
164,384-inhibited manner, might involve cross-talk between ER and AP-1.
Unexpectedly, pS2-CAT was not activated by ER (ER
) activity
in the absence of exogenous hormone, no studies have addressed whether
ER
can be similarly regulated. In transient transfections, forskolin
plus 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine (IBMX), which increases intracellular
cAMP, stimulated the transcriptional activities of both ER
and
ER
. This effect was blocked by the protein kinase A inhibitor H89
(N-(2-(p-bromocinnamylamino)-ethyl)-5-isoquinolinesulfonamide) and was dependent on an estrogen response element. A
12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate response element (TRE)
located 5' to the estrogen response element was necessary for
cAMP-dependent activation of gene expression by ER
but
not ER
, indicating that the former subtype requires a functional
interaction with TRE-interacting factor(s) to stimulate transcription.
Both p160 and CREB-binding protein coactivators stimulated cAMP-induced
ER
and ER
transcriptional activity. However, mutation of the two
cAMP-inducible SRC-1 phosphorylation sites important for cAMP
activation of chicken progesterone receptor or all seven known SRC-1
phosphorylation sites did not specifically impair cAMP activation of
ER
. The E/F domains of ER
are sufficient for activation by
forskolin/IBMX, and this is accompanied by an increase in receptor
phosphorylation. In contrast, cAMP signaling reduces the
phosphorylation of the corresponding region of ER
, and this
correlates with the lack of forskolin/IBMX stimulated transcriptional
activity. Our data suggest that cAMP activation of ER
transcriptional activity is associated with receptor instead of SRC-1
phosphorylation. Moreover, differences in the cofactor requirements,
domains of ER
and ER
sufficient for forskolin/IBMX activation,
and the effect of cAMP on receptor phosphorylation indicate that this
signaling pathway utilizes distinct mechanisms to stimulate ER
and
ER
transcriptional activity.
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
and
ER
, which belong to a large superfamily of nuclear hormone receptors. These ligand-regulatable transcription factors possess six
structural domains labeled A through F (1). The A/B domain encompasses
activation function-1 (AF-1); the C and D domains correspond to the DNA
binding domain and the hinge region, respectively; the E region
encompasses a second activation function (AF-2) and an overlapping
ligand binding domain; and the F domain, located at the extreme
carboxyl terminus, is thought to play a modulatory role in ER activity.
Both ERs possess similar binding affinities for estradiol and their
cognate DNA binding site (estrogen response element; ERE), which is
likely caused by the high degree of sequence homology they share in
their ligand and DNA binding domains (2-6). The AF-2 domain of each
receptor is regulated by ligand-induced changes in receptor
conformation, but the activities of the poorly conserved AF-1 domains
are ligand-independent and can be modulated by phosphorylation (7-10).
Notable for ER
, in most cases the AF-1 and the AF-2 domains interact
functionally to enhance transcription in a cooperative manner (7,
11).
and ER
activation, hormone
diffuses into the cell, binds to the receptor, and induces a
conformational change in the receptor ligand binding domain (1).
Receptors, bound to their EREs either as ER
or ER
homodimers or
ER
:ER
heterodimers, can then recruit coactivators to the promoter
region of estrogen target genes via their interaction with the receptor
activation domains (2, 3, 12, 13). There, these molecules can stimulate
transcription by bridging ERs to the general transcriptional machinery
and promoting the formation of a stable preinitiation complex (12, 13).
Notably, various coactivators also possess ubiquitin ligase, arginine
methyltransferase, or histone acetyltransferase enzymatic activities
that may facilitate chromatin remodeling and gene activation
(14-17).
can be activated via the cAMP signaling pathway in the apparent
absence of estrogens (for review, see Ref. 18). In MCF-7 cells,
endogenous ER
target genes, including the progesterone receptor (PR;
Ref. 19), pS2 (20), Liv-1 (20), and cathepsin-D (21), can be stimulated
either with the cAMP analog 8-bromo-cAMP or a combination of the
phosphodiesterase inhibitor 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine (IBMX) and
cholera toxin, which increases cAMP production via a G protein-mediated
signal transduction pathway. Importantly, in these experiments as well
as in later studies the cAMP-induced responses are inhibited by
treatment with the pure antiestrogen ICI 164,384, signifying their
receptor dependence (19-21). Demonstrating the need to transfect ER
into cells lacking endogenous receptor further supported this receptor
dependence (22).
studies a number of reports indicate that
the transcriptional activities of several other nuclear receptors can
be modulated by the cAMP signaling pathway. For example, the chicken PR
(23), androgen receptor (24), retinoic acid receptor (25), retinoid X
receptor (26), and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-
(27)
can be activated by cAMP signaling, demonstrating that this mode of
ligand-independent activation is not exclusive to ER
. However, human
PR (28) cannot be activated ligand-independently via this mechanism,
nor can the unliganded glucocorticoid receptor, although cAMP
stimulation increases the hormone-dependent responses of
these receptors (29, 30). Collectively, these reports demonstrate the
specific nature by which the cAMP signaling pathway can cross-talk with
different nuclear receptors.
(31, 32), there is no
increase in chicken PR phosphorylation associated with its activation
in cells treated with 8-bromo-cAMP (33). Rather, cAMP/protein kinase A
(PKA) signaling enhances chicken PR-dependent
transcription, in part by increasing phosphorylation of a
receptor-interacting coactivator, steroid receptor coactivator-1 (SRC-1), and thereby promotes a more stable interaction between this
coactivator and p300/CREB-binding protein (CBP)-associated factor and
facilitates functional synergism between SRC-1 and CBP (34). Although
it is still unknown how the unliganded ER
is activated by cAMP/PKA,
there is evidence that the transcription factor, CREB, can interact
functionally with ER
and thereby mediate synergism between the
17
-estradiol (E2)-dependent and
cAMP-dependent signaling pathways (35).
has increased our awareness of the
diversity of potential mechanisms by which ER-dependent and
estrogenic responses may be achieved (6). Notably, the relative
magnitude of ER
- and ER
-mediated estrogen activation of
ERE-containing reporters typically varies depending on the cell type
and promoter context (36). In the absence of ligand, both ER
- and
ER
-dependent transcription can be modulated by a
mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAP kinase) signaling pathway
(8-10). It is unknown, however, whether ER
can be activated by the
cAMP/PKA signaling pathway, and we therefore examined this using
transient transfection assays and synthetic agents that increase
intracellular cAMP levels. In so doing, we have defined mechanistic
differences between cAMP activation of ER
and ER
, particularly
with respect to phosphorylation and the influence of cross-talk with
AP-1 transcription factors. Moreover, we report that all of the p160
coactivators, as well as CBP, can coactivate ER
and ER
transcriptional activity stimulated by cAMP pathways, and we
demonstrate that the importance of SRC-1 phosphorylation to cAMP
activation of gene expression is receptor-dependent.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
, pCMV5-hER
(31) and pCR3.1-hER
(15), and human
ER
, pCXN2-hER
(37) have been described previously.
The synthetic target genes pERE-E1b-CAT (38), pE1b-CAT (38),
pERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE) (39), 17mer-E1b-CAT (40), and pS2-CAT (41) were used
in previous studies, as were pATC0, pATC1, and pATC2 (42). The
pCR3.1-hSRC-1a (43) and pCR3.1-hSRC-1a-Ala1179/1185 (34)
expression plasmids have been published, as were the pCR3.1-TIF2, pCR3.1-RAC3, and pCR3.1-CBP vectors (44). The pBind expression plasmid
encoding the Gal4 DNA binding domain (amino acids 1-147) was obtained
from Promega (Madison, WI).
-179C (pCR3.1-hER
-179C) and
hER
-143C (pCR3.1-hER
-143C) were made by PCR using the primers
5'-ACCATGGCCAAGGAGACTCGCTACTGT-3' and 5'-CTCTCAGACTGTGGCAGGGAAACC-3' to amplify the segment of
pCMV5-hER
encoding amino acids 179-595 and the primers
5'-ACCATGAAGAGGGATGCTCACTTCTGC-3' and
5'-GCGTCACTGAGACTGTGGGTTCTG-3' to PCR amplify the segment of
pCXN2-hER
encoding residues 143-530, respectively. Each
of the resulting PCR fragments was subcloned into the pCR3.1 expression plasmid using the TA cloning kit (Invitrogen). The expression plasmids
encoding Gal-ER
EF (pBind-ER
EF) and Gal-ER
EF (pBind-ER
EF) were generated by PCR using the primers
5'-GGGATCCGTAAGAAGAACAGCCTGGCCTTGTTCC-3' and
5'-TCTAGAGACTGTGGCAGGGAAACCCTCTGCC-3' to amplify the segment of
pCMV5-hER
corresponding to amino acids 302-595 and the
primers 5'-CGGGATCCGAGTGCGGGAGCTGCTGCTGG-3' and
5'-ATAGTTTAGCGGCCGCTCACTGAGACTGTGGGTTCTG-3' to amplify the
portion of pCXN2-hER
encoding amino acids 254-530. Each
of the resulting fragments was subcloned into the pCR3.1 expression
plasmid via the TA cloning kit and subsequently transferred to the
pBind expression vector via a BamHI-XbaI
restriction fragment for pBind-ER
EF and
BamHI-NotI fragment for pBind-ER
EF. The pCR3.1-FLAG-hER
construct was generated by PCR using a 5'-primer (5'-GATATTGCTAGCATGGACTACAAGGACGACGATGACAAGACCCTCCACACCAAAGCATCT-3'), which incorporated the FLAG epitope (underlined), and
5'-CGCCGCAGCCTCAGACCCGGGGCC-3' to amplify the 5'-region of a
hER
cDNA within pCR3.1-hER
, and the resulting PCR fragment
was substituted back into the pCR3.1-hER
expression vector via
NheI and XmaI restriction sites. The
pCR3.1-FLAG-hER
expression vector was constructed as follows. First,
the coding region for hER
was removed from pCXN2-hER
via a partial digest with EcoRI and transferred to pCR3.1,
which yielded pCR3.1-hER
. The 5'-primer
(5'-CGTGACCGTGCTAGCATGGACTACAAGGACGACGATGACAAGGATATAAAAAACTCACCATCTAGC-3'), which encompasses a coding sequence for the FLAG peptide (underlined), and 3'-primer (5'-CACAAGGCGGTACCCACATCTCTC-3') were used to PCR amplify a portion of pCR3.1-hER
corresponding to the 5'-end of the
hER
cDNA. The resulting PCR product was substituted into pCR3.1-hER
via NheI and KpnI restriction
sites. All of the expression vectors that were made using PCR
amplification were sequenced to ensure that no errors occurred during
their synthesis. The 17mer-E1b-CAT(
TRE) reporter plasmid
was generated by an Eco0109-HindIII digest of the
17mer-E1b-CAT, which was religated after blunting the restriction ends.
-32P]ATP (7,000 Ci/mmol; ICN Biomedicals Inc.,
Irvine, CA) and T4 polynucleotide kinase. Unincorporated
[
-32P]ATP was removed with a MicroSpin G25 column
(Amersham Biosciences) according to the manufacturer's recommendation.
EF or
pBind-ER
EF using a nonrecombinant adenovirus DNA transfer procedure
(47). Briefly, plasmid DNA (200 ng/plate) was mixed with
polylysine-coupled adenovirus and incubated for 30 min at room
temperature. Before the addition of the adenovirus-plasmid particles to
the cells, the medium was aspirated and replaced with DMEM. The
adenovirus-plasmid particles were added to the cells at a 400:1
adenovirus:cell ratio. After incubation with the cells for 2 h at
37 °C, an equal volume of DMEM with 5% sFBS was added to each dish
resulting in a final concentration of 2.5% sFBS. 24 h after
transfection, the medium was aspirated from the dishes and replaced
with phosphate-free DMEM, and the cells were incubated for 1 h at
37 °C. The medium was removed and replaced with phosphate-free DMEM
containing 1% dialyzed FBS before the addition of 0.14 mCi/ml
[32P]H3PO4. After a 14-16-h
incubation, the plates were incubated for 90 min with either 0.1%
dimethyl sulfoxide (vehicle) or 10 µM forskolin + 100 µM IBMX.
-mercaptoethanol, 50 mM potassium phosphate, 50 mM sodium fluoride, 0.1% Triton X-100, 0.1 mM
phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, and a protease inhibitor mixture of 1 µg/ml each leupeptin, antipain, aprotinin, benzamidine HCl,
chymostatin, and pepstatin), vortexed, and centrifuged at 20,000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C. Protein A-Sepharose beads
(Amersham Biosciences) were incubated with 2 µg of antibody to the
Gal4 DNA binding domain (sc-577; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) for 1 h
at room temperature and then incubated with the cell lysate supernatant
for 2 h while rotating at 4 °C. The beads were washed with 100 volumes of phosphate-buffered saline. After the addition of Laemmli
sample buffer and boiling for 5 min, the samples were electrophoresed
on a 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel and transferred to a nitrocellulose
membrane for autoradiography. The same membrane was subsequently used
for Western blotting to detect pBind-ER
EF and pBind-ER
EF using
a horseradish peroxidase-conjugated antibody to the Gal4 DNA binding
domain (sc-510HRP; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and ECL. Autoradiography
signals were quantitated by densitometric scanning of films or
quantitation of the ECL signal using a Kodak Image Station 440CF.
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
and ER
by a cAMP Signaling
Pathway--
Several studies have demonstrated that agents that
stimulate increases in cAMP can promote ER
-dependent
gene expression in the apparent absence of hormone (19-22, 32, 48). To
determine whether ER
could be activated in a similar manner, HeLa
cells were transiently transfected with expression vectors for either human ER
or ER
along with an ERE-E1b-CAT synthetic target
construct that possesses an ERE from the Xenopus
vitellogenin A2 promoter linked to the adenoviral E1b TATA box and CAT
reporter gene. Cells were subsequently stimulated with either
E2 or a combination of forskolin and IBMX (forskolin/IBMX),
which increases cAMP production by activating adenylate cyclase and
inhibiting phosphodiesterases, respectively, and CAT activity was
measured. As expected, E2 stimulated both ER
- and
ER
-dependent transcription of this reporter (Fig. 1). Consistent with previous reports (22,
32), stimulation with forskolin/IBMX also resulted in a robust
stimulation of ER
transcriptional activity, although a longer (24 h)
hormone treatment greatly enhanced the E2-stimulated
relative to forskolin/IBMX-stimulated response (compare Figs. 1 and
2). Importantly, under the same conditions ER
was also activated upon stimulation of cells with forskolin/IBMX (Fig. 1). Pretreatment with a PKA-selective inhibitor, H89 (49), blocked forskolin/IBMX-induced gene expression by both
receptor subtypes, thus demonstrating that forskolin/IBMX induction of
ER
and ER
activity is mediated by a cAMP/PKA signaling pathway in
these cells. Moreover, this inhibition was specific for forskolin/IBMX
induction because H89 treatment did not significantly alter basal or
E2-stimulated responses for either ER
or ER
.
View larger version (16K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Forskolin and IBMX-induced
ER and ER
transcriptional activity are dependent upon PKA signaling.
HeLa cells were transiently transfected with 10 ng of expression
plasmid for ER
(pCMV5-ER
) or ER
(pCXN2-ER
) and 1 µg of ERE-E1b-CAT reporter plasmid.
Cells were subsequently treated for 12 h with vehicle (0.1%
ethanol), 1 nM E2, or 10 µM
forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I) after
a 1-h pretreatment with either 10 µM H89 (+) or dimethyl
sulfoxide (
). Values are normalized to the activity of ER
in the
absence of hormone and represent the average ± S.E. of three
independent experiments.
View larger version (15K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
cAMP/PKA stimulation of
ER-dependent transcription requires ER binding to its
cognate hormone response element. HeLa cells were transiently
transfected with either 10 ng of expression plasmid for ER
(pCMV5-ER
) or ER
(pCXN2-ER
) along with
1 µg of ERE-E1b-CAT or E1b-CAT. Cells were subsequently treated with
vehicle, 1 nM E2, or 10 µM
forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I) for
24 h. Values are normalized to ERE-E1b-CAT reporter activity for
ER
in the absence of hormone and represent the average ± S.E.
of three experiments.
and ER
Activation of ERE-E1b-CAT
Expression by the cAMP/PKA Signaling Pathway--
To test
whether the cAMP signaling response was mediated through an ER genomic
mechanism in which the ER binds directly to the promoter, the effects
of forskolin/IBMX on ER
and ER
was assessed on the E1b-CAT
reporter, which lacks an ERE. The expected ER
- and
ER
-dependent responses were observed for the ERE-E1b-CAT reporter. As anticipated, basal transcription of the E1b-CAT promoter was minimal, and E2 did not further increase CAT gene
expression in cells transfected with either ER
or ER
(Fig. 2).
Moreover, forskolin/IBMX did not stimulate E1b-CAT reporter gene
activity in the presence of transfected ER
, and only a very weak
forskolin/IBMX-dependent E1b-CAT expression was observed in
the presence of ER
. These data indicate that ER
- and
ER
-dependent transcription in response to forskolin/IBMX
requires the presence of an ERE.
and ER
Responses--
ER
- and ER
-dependent
transcriptional differences are partly attributable to the selectivity
these receptors possess for the different coactivators in the presence
of various ligands (50, 51). To extend this concept, we overexpressed
the p160 coactivators (SRC-1, TIF2, and RAC3) as well as the general
coactivator/cointegrator, CBP, in cells to determine whether any of
them might distinguish between ER
and ER
in their ability to
potentiate activation by cAMP-dependent signaling. Each of
these coactivators strongly enhanced ER
- and
ER
-dependent transcription compared with reporter activity in the absence of exogenous coactivator (Fig.
3). However, none of the coactivators
selectively enhanced the activity of estrogen-activated receptor over
cAMP-activated receptor, nor of one receptor subtype over the other.
These results suggest that each of the p160 coactivators and CBP can
contribute significantly to the forskolin/IBMX-induced activation of
both ER
and ER
.
View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
The p160 and CBP coactivators enhance
cAMP/PKA-mediated ER - and
ER
-dependent transcription.
HeLa cells were transiently transfected with 10 ng of expression
plasmid for ER
(pCMV5-ER
) or ER
(pCXN2-ER
) along with 250 ng of expression plasmid for
SRC-1e, TIF2, RAC3, or the empty vector (pCR3.1) and 1 µg of
ERE-E1b-CAT reporter. Cells were subsequently treated with vehicle, 1 nM E2, or 10 µM forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I). CAT measurements
were standardized to total protein, and the results are the
average ± S.E. of three experiments.
and ER
by cAMP Depends on Promoter
Context--
In general, ER-mediated transcription depends on the
promoter context in which an ERE is found (11, 52, 53). We therefore tested the extent to which forskolin/IBMX could stimulate
ER-dependent gene expression in the context of various
synthetic and natural ERE-containing promoters. The pS2 construct
contains the
1100 to +10 region of the E2-responsive
human pS2 promoter subcloned into a CAT reporter plasmid (41). The
pATC0, pATC1, and pATC2 are synthetic reporters that possess 0, 1, or 2 EREs, as indicated in their nomenclature. The ERE-E1b-CAT reporter
construct was included in these experiments as a control. There was no
E2-induced response for pATC0 because it had no ERE, a weak
response for pATC1, and a synergistic
E2-dependent response for pATC2, for both ER
subtypes (Fig. 4, A and
B). Notably, there was no forskolin/IBMX-induced response on
either of these promoters, demonstrating that the number of EREs, in
and of itself, had no effect on the forskolin/IBMX-induced activation.
Moreover, although the expected E2-dependent
increases were present for both ER
and ER
on the pS2 promoter,
there was no significant increase in reporter activity in response to
forskolin/IBMX. Thus, the cAMP/PKA signaling pathway mediates ER
-
and ER
-dependent gene expression in a
promoter-dependent fashion.
View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
cAMP activation of ER
and ER
depends on promoter context.
HeLa cells were transiently transfected with 10 ng of expression
plasmid for ER
(pCMV5-ER
) (A) or ER
(pCXN2-ER
) (B) along with 1 µg of the
indicated CAT reporter plasmids. Cells were subsequently treated with
vehicle, 1 nM E2, or 10 µM
forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I).
Values for ERE-E1b-CAT and pS2-CAT are normalized to their respective
vehicle-treated samples, which were arbitrarily set as 100. Values for
pATC0, pATC1, and pATC2 are normalized to vehicle treatment for pATC2,
which was set as 100. The results are the averages ± S.E. of
three experiments.
-dependent Gene
Activation by Forskolin/IBMX--
Promoter differences in
forskolin/IBMX-induced responses suggested that cis-acting
factor(s) in addition to EREs contributed to cAMP-stimulated ER
and
ER
transcriptional activities. It has been reported that ER
and
ER
can mediate ligand-dependent responses at TREs,
independent of EREs, when they are tethered to the promoter via AP-1
transcription factor complexes (54, 55). Previous sequence analysis
(56) revealed that a putative TRE (TGACACA) that differs from the
consensus TRE sequence (TGAGTCA) by two nucleotides resides in the
backbone of many plasmid vectors. In ERE-E1b-CAT such a putative TRE is
located ~255 bp upstream from the ERE. To determine whether this TRE
played any role in the ability of forskolin/IBMX to stimulate the
activity of either ER, we examined the ability of forskolin/IBMX to
increase CAT gene expression from a reporter plasmid
(ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE)) in which the TRE was mutated to GGACTCA, a mutation
previously demonstrated to abolish AP-1 binding (39, 57). As shown in
Fig. 5A, the TRE mutation
decreased overall reporter gene activity in the presence of both ER
and ER
whether cells were treated with vehicle, E2, or
forskolin/IBMX. However, E2 was still able to increase
ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE) activity above basal for both ERs, and forskolin/IBMX
stimulated this reporter activity in the presence of ER
. In
contrast, forskolin/IBMX was unable to stimulate
ER
-dependent transcription of ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE), suggesting that this putative TRE was necessary for cAMP-induced ER
-mediated increases in ERE-E1b-CAT reporter gene expression. Similar results were obtained when this TRE was removed by an NdeI to Eco0109I deletion of a 195-bp region
surrounding the site (39) as opposed to mutating it (data not shown).
Western blot analysis indicated that cAMP activation of ER
on the
ERE-E1b-CAT reporter (with or without the TRE) was not caused by an
increase ER
protein levels (Fig. 5B). In contrast to
ER
, ER
protein expression is elevated modestly by forskolin/IBMX.
However, this does not permit cAMP-stimulated ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE)
activity by ER
. Thus, cAMP activation of ER
is dependent on a
putative TRE site, but loss of this cis element only
partially attenuates ER
activity and indicates that activation of
ER
and ER
by cAMP signaling is distinct. Taken together with the
above data that demonstrated a requirement for an ERE, these data
suggest that forskolin/IBMX promotes synergism between either ER
or
ER
and a factor(s) that is bound to a neighboring DNA response
element (i.e. the putative TRE).
View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
A putative AP-1 response element in the
target gene promoter is essential for cAMP/PKA-mediated transcription
by ER . A, HeLa cells were
transiently transfected with 10 ng of expression plasmid for ER
(pCMV5-ER
) or ER
(pCXN2-ER
) along with
1 µg ERE-E1b-CAT or ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE). Cells were subsequently
treated with vehicle, 1 nM E2, or 10 µM forskolin + 100 µM IBMX
(F/I). Values are normalized to ERE-E1b-CAT
reporter activity for ER
in the absence of hormone and represent the
average ± S.E. of three experiments. B, HeLa cells
were transfected with 1 µg of either FLAG-ER
or 3xFLAG-ER
expression plasmid, and receptor expression was detected with anti-FLAG
(M2) antibody. The blot shown is representative of three
experiments.
View larger version (93K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
c-Jun and c-Fos binding to the putative TRE
is similar in vehicle- and forskolin/IBMX-treated HeLa cells.
Nuclear extracts prepared from vehicle ( ) or 10 µM
forskolin/100 µM IBMX-treated cells (+) were subjected to
electrophoretic mobility shift assays using a 32P-labeled
TRE as probe. Competitions with a 100-fold excess of unlabeled probe
(TRE) or a DNA fragment containing a mutation in the TRE
site (mTRE) are shown in lanes 3 and
6, and 4 and 7, respectively.
Supershift assays are shown with c-Jun (lanes 9 and
11) or c-Fos (lanes 8 and 10)
antibodies. Lane 1 contains no nuclear extract. A
representative experiment is shown.
and ER
Mediates
Forskolin/IBMX-induced Transcription, Which Can Be Enhanced
Further by the Amino Terminus of ER
but Not ER
--
Two previous
reports have characterized the physical interactions between ER
and
the AP-1 transcription factor family member, c-Jun (55, 58). Although
one of these studies demonstrated that ER
interaction with c-Jun is
predominantly mediated by the centrally located hinge region (domain D)
of the receptor (58), both indicated that an interaction with the amino
terminus of ER
is also possible. Therefore, to assess the potential
contribution of the amino-terminal A/B domain in mediating
forskolin/IBMX-induced responses, ER
and ER
deletion mutants
lacking their A/B domains (ER
-179C and ER
-143C) were constructed,
and the ability of the resulting receptors to stimulate ERE-E1b-CAT
reporter activity in response to forskolin/IBMX stimulation was
examined. In the absence of transfected ER (Fig.
7A, Empty), there
is very weak CAT gene expression in response to forskolin/IBMX
treatment. This minimal promoter activity is substantially less
compared with activity in the presence of transfected ERs. As shown by
comparison of ER
-179C (ER
amino acids 179-595) with wild type
ER
, deletion of the amino terminus of ER
reduced forskolin/IBMX
as well as basal and E2-stimulated activities, which is
consistent with the constitutively active amino-terminal AF-1 domain of
this receptor contributing to E2-dependent
ER
responses (7, 11). In contrast, removing the A/B region of ER
to generate ER
-143C (ER
amino acids 143-530) did not reduce
forskolin/IBMX induction of ER
-dependent target gene
expression. Notably, the E2-stimulated activity of ER
-143C is much higher than that of wild type ER
, which is in agreement with a previously reported inhibitory function for the amino
terminus of ER
(59).
View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Different ER and
ER
domains mediate promoter-specific gene
expression in response to the cAMP/PKA signaling pathway. HeLa
cells were transiently transfected with 10 ng of expression plasmid for
ER
(pCR3.1-ER
), ER
-179C (pCR3.1-ER
-179C), ER
(pCR3.1-ER
), ER
-143C (pCR3.1-ER
-143C), or empty vector
(pCR3.1) along with 1 µg of either ERE-E1b-CAT (A) or
ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE) (B). Cells were subsequently treated with
vehicle, 1 nM E2, or 10 µM
forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I).
Values are the average ± S.E. of three experiments.
but not ER
retained the
ability to stimulate CAT expression from the TRE-minus reporter
(ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE)) in response to forskolin/IBMX (see also
Fig. 5). Interestingly, much of the E2-induced and all of
the remaining forskolin/IBMX-induced ER
activity are lost when the
A/B domain is removed, as shown for ER
-179C, thus supporting the
above data that this domain can mediate cAMP-dependent
activation of ER
. Taken together, these results demonstrate that
domains C through F of ER
and ER
are sufficient for cAMP/PKA
signaling pathway activation of either receptor provided that an AP-1
DNA binding site is present on the promoter; these results also
indicate that this functional interaction is enhanced by the A/B domain
of ER
but not ER
.
(8, 10). Because it is
known that the cAMP/PKA signaling pathway can cross-talk with the MAP
kinase signaling pathway (34, 60), we examined whether the MAP
kinase-directed phosphorylation site in the amino terminus of ER
(Ser118) might be important for the forskolin/IBMX-induced
activity of the ER
AF-1 domain. However, mutating this serine to an
alanine (ER
-S118A) did not alter the ability of ER
to stimulate
transcription of the ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE) reporter in response to
forskolin/IBMX (data not shown). Similarly, alanine mutation of the
other known amino-terminal phosphorylated residues in ER
(Ser104/106/118 or Ser167) did not inhibit
forskolin/IBMX induction of reporter gene expression (data not shown),
indicating that these phosphoserine residues did not account for the
forskolin/IBMX-dependent activity of the ER
AF-1 domain.
Thus, ER
AF-1 activity in response to forskolin/IBMX is likely to be
mostly the result of cAMP/PKA signaling to a factor(s) that can
interact with the A/B domain rather than altering the phosphorylation
of the ER
amino terminus itself.
but Not ER
--
It has been
demonstrated that amino acids 259-302 of ER
constitute a major
interaction site with c-Jun (58), and because the ability of ER
-179C
to mediate forskolin-induced activation of CAT expression was dependent
on a TRE site within the reporter gene that has been shown to support
c-Jun physical and functional interactions (39, 56), we investigated
the possibility that cAMP activation of ER
-179C was caused by a
direct interaction between the hinge region of the receptor and c-Jun.
To test this hypothesis, the EF domain of ER
(amino acids 302-595)
and the corresponding ER
fragment (amino acids 254-530) were fused
to the Gal4 DNA binding domain (Gal-ER
EF and Gal-ER
EF) and
examined for their abilities to stimulate expression of 17mer-E1b-CAT, which contains four Gal4 binding sites upstream from the TATA box and
CAT gene. This reporter also possesses the TRE site upstream of the
Gal4 binding sites. As expected, both Gal-ER
EF and Gal-ER
EF
were stimulated by E2 (Fig.
8). Importantly, forskolin/IBMX stimulated Gal-ER
EF-dependent expression of the
17mer-E1b-CAT but not the TRE-minus reporter,
17mer-E1b-CAT(
TRE). This demonstrates that an ER
construct lacking all of the c-Jun binding sites can still be
activated; this indicates that the interaction between the TRE-binding
factor and ER
could be indirect and may be mediated via a
trans-acting factor that can bind to both the EF domain of
ER
and a TRE-binding factor such as c-Jun. In contrast, the EF
region of ER
is insufficient to activate reporter gene expression regardless of the presence or absence of a TRE site, indicating that
regions within the DNA binding domain and/or hinge of ER
are
important for activation of target gene expression in response to cAMP
signaling. Taken together, these results indicate that the EF domains
of ER
and ER
differ in their abilities to mediate ER cooperation
with a TRE-bound factor in response to cAMP.
View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 8.
Mapped c-Jun interaction sites in the
ER A/B domain and hinge are not required for
forskolin/IBMX stimulation. HeLa cells were transiently
transfected with 100 ng of expression plasmid for Gal-ER
EF
(pBind-ER
EF), Gal-ER
EF (pBind-ER
EF), or Gal4 DNA binding
domain (pBind) along with 1 µg of either 17mer-E1b-CAT or
17mer-E1b-CAT(
TRE). Cells were subsequently treated with
vehicle, 1 nM E2, or 10 µM
forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I).
Values are normalized to Gal-ER
EF activity for 17mer-E1b-CAT in the
presence of vehicle and represent the average ± S.E. of three
experiments.
EF and
Gal-ER
EF phosphorylation, expression vectors for Gal-ER
EF or
Gal-ER
EF were transfected into HeLa cells using an
adenovirus-mediated DNA transfer technique to increase protein
expression levels (47) followed by in vivo labeling with
[32P]H3PO4 and incubation with
forskolin/IBMX or vehicle for 90 min. The results of a representative
experiment are shown in Fig. 9, A and B, and demonstrate that when
32P signals were normalized to protein levels that there
was an increase in the overall level of Gal-ER
EF phosphorylation
after incubation with forskolin/IBMX, whereas the same treatment
induced a decrease in Gal-ER
EF phosphorylation. This experiment was repeated three times, and the averaged results reveal that
forskolin/IBMX increased Gal-ER
EF phosphorylation by 44 ± 6%
but decreased Gal-ER
EF phosphorylation by 45 ± 17% (Fig.
9C).
View larger version (30K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 9.
Effect of forskolin/IBMX treatment on
Gal-ER EF and Gal-ER
EF phosphorylation. HeLa cells were transfected with
expression vectors for Gal-ER
EF
(A) or Gal-ER
EF
(B), incubated with 0.14 mCi/ml
[32P]H3PO4 followed by incubation
for 90 min with either vehicle (veh) or 10 µM
forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I).
Gal-ER
EF and Gal-ER
EF were immunopurified and then
electrophoresed on a 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel. The proteins were
transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane, and the membrane was exposed
to X-AR film for autoradiography (left panels). After
autoradiography, the membrane was subjected to Western blotting with
anti-Gal-horseradish peroxidase antibody and detection using enhanced
chemiluminescence (right panels). C,
autoradiography signals were quantitated by densitometric scanning of
films, and Western blot signals were quantitated by either
densitometric scanning of films or quantitation of the ECL signal using
a Kodak Image Station 440CF. Normalized phosphorylation values for
Gal-ER
EF and Gal-ER
EF were calculated by dividing the value for
the 32P signal by the value for the protein signal. Data
are plotted as change in phosphorylation relative to vehicle treatment
(set at a value of 1). The experiment was repeated three times with the
mean ± S.E. reported.
Activity Is Not Caused
by cAMP/PKA-dependent SRC-1
Phosphorylation--
It had been demonstrated previously that the
chicken PR is not phosphorylated in response to cell treatment with
8-bromo-cAMP, but rather cAMP activation of transcription seems to be
mediated by an increase in SRC-1 phosphorylation (34). Moreover, SRC-1 binds to both the EF domain of ER
as well as c-Jun (61, 62) and is
therefore a good candidate for mediating indirect interactions between
these two transcription factors, as described above. Therefore, we
examined whether the ability of cAMP/PKA to modulate SRC-1 phosphorylation might also contribute to
forskolin/IBMX-dependent activation of ER
. SRC-1
expression vectors containing substitutions for the two cAMP-induced
phosphorylatable residues (T1179/S1185A) or substitutions for all of
the seven previously mapped phosphorylation sites (at positions 372, 395, 517, 569, 1033, 1179, and 1185; Ref. 63) were introduced into
cells, and the abilities of these mutant coactivators to enhance
ER
-dependent reporter activity was assessed. Compared
with wild type SRC-1 there is an ~20 and ~35% decrease in the
ability of the SRC-1T1179/S1185A and the seven-alanine
mutant (SRC-17Ala), respectively, to potentiate
forskolin/IBMX-induced ER
activity (Fig.
10, A and B).
Nonetheless, decreases in ER
coactivation by both the
SRC-1T1179/S1185A and the SRC-17Ala mutants
were equal for basal as well as for E2-stimulated and forskolin/IBMX-stimulated responses, suggesting that SRC-1
phosphorylation does not specifically modulate
cAMP-dependent activation of ER
.
View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 10.
Alanine mutation of SRC-1 phosphorylation
sites decreases its coactivation of ER but is
not specific to cAMP/PKA-dependent signaling.
A, a representative experiment in which HeLa cells were
transiently transfected with 10 ng of expression plasmid for ER
(pCMV5-ER
) along with 1 µg of expression plasmid for
either wild type or mutant SRC-1a (SRC1T1179/S1185A or
SRC-17Ala) or the empty vector (pCR3.1) and 1 µg
ERE-E1b-CAT reporter. Cells were subsequently treated with vehicle, 1 nM E2, or 10 µM forskolin + 100 µM IBMX (F/I). B,
combined results from seven experiments. Relative coactivation was
determined by dividing reporter activity in the presence of wild type
SRC-1 by values obtained in the absence of coactivator (pCR3.1) for
each treatment group (vehicle, E2, and F/I) and defining
this value as 100. Values for mutant SRC-1 coactivation are given
relative to wild type SRC-1 coactivation. Results are the averages ± S.E. of seven experiments.
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-dependent transcription, as was shown previously to
be the case for ER
. However, there are significant differences in
the ability of ER
and ER
to be ligand-independently activated by this mechanism. In particular, a TRE upstream from the ERE was necessary for ER
-dependent transcription in response to
stimulation with forskolin/IBMX, whereas this sequence contributed to,
but was not required for, activation of full-length ER
. Furthermore, functional interactions with the TRE-bound factor(s) could be mediated
by the EF region of ER
but not ER
, and forskolin/IBMX treatment
increased the phosphorylation of Gal-ER
EF but decreased the
phosphorylation of the corresponding ER
construct. Overexpression of
the p160 and CBP coactivators enhanced forskolin/IBMX-induced ER
and
ER
activity, indicating that these coactivators can form functional
complexes with the unliganded receptor. However, in contrast to the
previously reported importance of SRC-1 phosphorylation for
cAMP-mediated activation of chicken PR (34), the contribution of these
phosphorylation sites to SRC-1 coactivation of cAMP-induced ER
was
minor and not specific to ER activation by forskolin/IBMX. Taken
together, these data demonstrate that the cAMP signaling pathway can
stimulate ER-dependent transcription by promoting functional interactions among TRE-bound transcription factor(s), coactivators, and either ER
or ER
bound to an ERE.
and ER
AF-1 domains in mediating ER-dependent transcription. The A/B domain of ER
, which
encompasses the AF-1, is generally more active than that of ER
(59).
Interestingly, although a MAP kinase signaling pathway can induce ER
and ER
AF-1 activity in the absence of ligand (8-10), our results
demonstrate that cAMP signaling can stimulate the AF-1 activity of
ER
, but not ER
. Although it has been reported that the cAMP
signaling pathway can stimulate MAP kinase activity, mutation of the
previously identified amino-terminal MAP kinase phosphorylation site in
ER
(8, 10) does not inhibit its activation by forskolin/IBMX. Consistent with this result, our work and that of LeGoff et
al. (31) demonstrates cAMP-induced phosphorylation of the ER
carboxyl-terminal domain; however, the location of these
phosphorylation sites in vivo remains to be identified. It
is therefore likely that forskolin/IBMX activation of ER
via the AF-1 domain is caused by cAMP/PKA signaling effects on the
recruitment and/or activity of a coactivator(s) that interacts
selectively with the AF-1 domain of ER
. Interestingly, there are
several coactivators, including the p72/p68 RNA-binding DEAD box
proteins (64, 65) and the RNA coactivator,
SRA,2 which have been found
to interact selectively with the AF-1 domain of ER
but not that of
ER
. Moreover, in addition to p68 being a phosphorylated protein
(66), all three of these coactivators are found in complexes with other
coactivator molecules, such as CBP, SRC-1, TIF2, and AIB1 (64, 65),
which are known to be phosphoproteins (34, 67-69).
and ER
possess
considerably higher sequence homology than do the A/B domains.
Interestingly, however, there are also differences in the abilities of
the ER
and ER
EF domains to be activated by cAMP signaling, as
indicated by the ability of Gal-ER
EF but not Gal-ER
EF to
stimulate 17mer-E1b-CAT activity in response to forskolin/IBMX.
Interestingly, forskolin/IBMX induced opposite changes in overall
phosphorylation for these two constructs. Consistent with a previous
demonstration of cholera toxin and IBMX-induced phosphorylation of an
ER
mutant lacking its A/B domains (31), forskolin/IBMX increased the
phosphorylation of the Gal-ER
EF chimera. There are four protein
kinase A consensus sites
(XRRXSX or
SKKIXSIX) in the carboxyl terminus of ER
:
Ser236, Ser305, Ser338, and
Ser518. However, mutation of the Ser236,
Ser305, and Ser518 sites to alanines does not
block cAMP-induced ER
transcriptional activity (35), and the
Ser236 site is not present in the Gal-ER
EF construct.
Although a S338A mutation does inhibit cholera toxin/IBMX-induced ER
activity, substitution of a glutamic acid at this position does not
mimic the ligand-independent response, suggesting that mutation of this residue may affect cAMP signaling to the receptor by inducing structural perturbations (35). The only other phosphorylation sites
identified in the ER
carboxyl terminus, Thr311 (70) and
Tyr537 (71), are also unlikely to be the targets of the
forskolin/IBMX-induced phosphorylation site because cAMP signaling has
been reported to induce only serine phosphorylation of ER
(31). The
location of the phosphorylation site(s) induced by forskolin/IBMX
in vivo, as well as their importance for cAMP activation of
ER
transcriptional activity therefore remain to be characterized;
this is however, beyond the scope of this report. It should be noted
that the forskolin/IBMX-induced site need not lie within a protein
kinase A consensus sequence because the cAMP signaling has been shown
to cross-talk with other kinase pathways (34, 60). Apart from an
in vitro demonstration of p38-induced
phosphorylation of the AF2 domain of ER
(72), little is known about
phosphorylation of the ER
EF domain. Our results therefore provide
the first demonstration that the ER
carboxyl-terminal region is
phosphorylated in vivo, as well as novel information
indicating that the basal level of ER
EF domain phosphorylation is
reduced by forskolin/IBMX treatment in HeLa cells. Although this may
seem paradoxical, cAMP has been shown to inhibit MAP kinase pathways
through cross-talk with the G protein Rap1 and Raf-1 (60).
-179C and ER
-143C)
and the Gal-ER
EF chimera to stimulate the activities of reporters
lacking TREs (ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE) and 17mer-E1b-CAT(
TRE), respectively) in response to forskolin/IBMX also suggests that activation of domains EF of ER
and C through F of ER
require a
functional interaction between these receptor domains and a TRE-bound
transcription factor. Based on sequence information, this TRE-binding
factor most likely belongs to the AP-1 transcription factor family.
This includes Jun (c-Jun, JunB, JunD), Fos (c-Fos, FosB, Fra1, Fra2),
and ATF (ATFa, ATF2, ATF3) proteins, which can form homo/heterodimers
among themselves and promote transcription via binding to palindromic
sequences (TGA(C/G)TCA) that are found in a number of promoters (for
review, see Ref. 73). Although the sequence (TGACACA) present in our
ERE-E1b-CAT reporter diverges from the consensus TRE sequence, it has
been shown to bind to in vitro translated Jun and Fos (56),
and our gel mobility shift assays reveal that the levels of both c-Jun
and c-Fos expressed in HeLa cells are sufficient to bind to this DNA.
Moreover, our laboratory demonstrated previously through overexpression
studies that c-Jun can enhance ER
-mediated transcription of
ERE-E1b-CAT but not of the corresponding TRE mutant reporter,
ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE) (39). Because we demonstrate a requirement for the
ERE and TRE DNA sites, our data suggest that cooperation between ER and
AP-1 transcription factors bound to their respective target promoter sequences results in robust forskolin/IBMX activation of target gene
expression. Based on the ability of just the EF domains of ER
to be
activated by cAMP even though this portion of ER
does not bind c-Jun
or c-Fos (58), it is likely that the interactions between ER and AP-1
transcription factors need not be direct, although we cannot rule out
the possibility of other TRE-binding factors directly contacting ER
and/or ER
.
and ER
, suggesting that these coactivators can form functional complexes with ERs in the absence of hormone. Moreover, overexpression of these coactivators does not compensate for the inability of forskolin/IBMX to stimulate ER
-dependent transcription
of the ERE-E1b-CAT(mTRE) target construct (data not shown), indicating that their ability to stimulate cAMP-induced ER function is derived from ER and TRE-binding factor interactions. There are a number of
potential candidates that possess the ability to bind to c-Jun as well
as ERs. These include the coactivators SRC-1, JAB1, and CAPER as well
as the integrator protein, CBP (61, 74-77). In all cases but CAPER,
the coactivator protein utilizes distinct sites to bind to c-Jun and
nuclear receptors, suggesting that these coactivators are well suited
to act as physical bridges between these two classes of transcription
factors. Although all of the p160 coactivators and CBP contributed to
forskolin/IBMX-induced activation of ER target gene expression, we were
unable to observe a similar activity by the c-Jun activation-binding
protein, JAB1 (data not shown).
activity stimulated by E2
and cAMP. Moreover, mutation of all seven SRC-1 phosphorylation sites
identified by Rowan et al. (63) also reduced the overall efficacy of this coactivator but, again, regardless of receptor stimulus. These data suggest that SRC-1 is not specifically involved in
the activation of ER
by cAMP and that this ligand-independent activity can be mediated by another ER
-interacting cofactor(s). It
should be noted that growth factor and protein kinase C signal transduction pathways have been shown to alter the phosphorylation and/or coactivation potential of GRIP1/TIF2, AIB1/RAC3, and p300/CBP coactivators (67-69), and it is possible that cAMP cross-talk with one
or more of these factors is critical for activation of ER transcriptional activity. An examination of this possibility awaits identification of cAMP-induced phosphorylation sites in these coactivators. Taken together, our data indicate that cAMP activation of
cPR and ER
differ in the extent to which SRC-1 phosphorylation is
required for this process as well as whether the respective receptors
are themselves phosphorylated. In addition, ER
and ER
also differ
in their phosphorylation, their dependence on promoter TRE sites, and
the minimal region of receptor required to respond to cAMP signaling.
Overall, this argues that multiple mechanisms contribute to cAMP
activation of nuclear receptor transcriptional activity.
or ER
in response
to forskolin/IBMX treatment. This could be the result of cell type
differences and/or loss of a promoter region critical for cAMP
activation of ER during construction of the pS2-CAT reporter. DNA
sequence analyses have enabled us to identify several other target gene
promoters containing both TRE and ERE sites. Thus, the ability of the
cAMP signaling pathway to stimulate ER-dependent
transcription via ER-AP-1 interactions might be applicable to many
other ER target genes. Based on our studies, it is clear that
ER-dependent responses cannot be predicted on the presence
of an ERE alone, but consideration must be given to the complexity of
such promoters and how these receptors interact with various
nonreceptor transcription factors, either directly or through
coactivator/cointegrator molecules. Undoubtedly, the ability of
coactivators to integrate responses through various classes of
transcription factors adds another level of control and specificity to
regulation of gene expression.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
---|
We are grateful to Francesca Gordon and Drs. Pierre Chambon, Basem Jaber, Benita Katzenellenbogen, David Lonard, Masami Muramatsu, and David Shapiro for providing the plasmids.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
* This work was supported by a UNCF/Merck fellowship and National Institutes of Health Training Fellowship HD07165 (to K. M. C.), Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Fellowship DAMD17-00-1-0136 (to M. D.), Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program Awards DAMD17-02-1-0531 and DAMD17-02-1-0530 (to B. G. R.), and Department of Defense Grant DAMD17-98-1-8282 and National Institutes of Health Grant DK53002 (to C. L. S.).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.
¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. Molecular and Cellular Biology, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030. Tel.: 713-798-6235; Fax: 713-790-1275; E-mail: carolyns@bcm.tmc.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, January 31, 2003, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M212312200
2 K. M. Coleman and C. L. Smith, unpublished data.
![]() |
ABBREVIATIONS |
---|
The abbreviations used are:
ER(s), estrogen receptor(s);
AF, activation function;
AIB1, amplified in breast
cancer-1;
AP-1, activated protein-1;
CAT, chloramphenicol
acetyltransferase;
CBP, CREB-binding protein;
CMV, cytomegalovirus;
CREB, cAMP response element-binding protein;
DMEM, Dulbecco's modified
Eagle's medium;
E2, 17-estradiol;
ERE, estrogen
response element;
FBS, fetal bovine serum;
GRIP1, glucocorticoid
receptor-interacting protein-1;
H89, N-(2-(p-bromocinnamylamino)-ethyl)-5-isoquinolinesulfonamide;
IBMX, 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine;
MAP kinase, mitogen-activated
protein kinase;
PKA, protein kinase A;
PR, progesterone receptor;
RAC3, receptor-associated coactivator-3;
sFBS, charcoal-stripped fetal bovine
serum;
SRC-1, steroid receptor coactivator-1;
TIF2, transcription
intermediary factor-2;
TRE, tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate response
element.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
1. | Tsai, M.-J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1994) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 63, 451-486[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
2. |
Cowley, S. M.,
Hoare, S.,
Mosselman, S.,
and Parker, M. G.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
19858-19862 |
3. |
Pace, P.,
Taylor, J.,
Suntharalingam, S.,
Coombes, R. C.,
and Ali, S.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
25832-25838 |
4. |
Kuiper, G. J. M.,
Carlsson, B.,
Grandien, K.,
Enmark, E.,
Haggblad, J.,
Nilsson, S.,
and Gustafsson, J.
(1997)
Endocrinology
138,
863-870 |
5. |
Kuiper, G. J. M.,
Lemmen, J. G.,
Carlsson, B.,
Corton, J. C.,
Safe, S. H.,
van der Saag, P. T.,
van der Burg, B.,
and Gustafsson, J.-Å.
(1998)
Endocrinology
139,
4252-4263 |
6. |
Kuiper, G. J. M.,
Enmark, E.,
Pelto-Huikko, M.,
Nilsson, S.,
and Gustafsson, J.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
5925-5930 |
7. | Tora, L., White, J. H., Brou, C., Tasset, D. M., Webster, N. J. G., Scheer, E., and Chambon, P. (1989) Cell 59, 477-487[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
8. | Bunone, G., Briand, P.-A., Miksicek, R. J., and Picard, D. (1996) EMBO 15, 2174-2183[Abstract] |
9. | Tremblay, A., Tremblay, G. B., Labrie, F., and Giguère, V. (1999) Mol. Cell 3, 513-519[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
10. | 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] |
11. | Tzukerman, M. T., Esty, A., Santiso-Mere, D., Danielian, P., Parker, M. G., Stein, R. B., Pike, J. W., and McDonnell, D. P. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8, 21-30[Abstract] |
12. |
McKenna, N. J.,
Lanz, R. B.,
and O'Malley, B. W.
(1999)
Endocr. Rev.
20,
321-344 |
13. |
Glass, C. K.,
and Rosenfeld, M. G.
(2000)
Genes Dev.
14,
121-141 |
14. | Spencer, T. E., Jenster, G., Burcin, M. M., Allis, C. D., Zhou, J., Mizzen, C. A., McKenna, N. J., Onate, S. A., Tsai, S. Y., Tsai, M.-J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1997) Nature 389, 194-198[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
15. |
Nawaz, Z.,
Lonard, D. M.,
Smith, C. L.,
Lev-Lehman, E.,
Tsai, S. Y.,
Tsai, M.-J.,
and O'Malley, B. W.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
1182-1189 |
16. |
Chen, D.,
Ma, H.,
Hong, H.,
Koh, S. S.,
Huang, S. M.,
Schurter, B. T.,
Aswad, D. W.,
and Stallcup, M. R.
(1999)
Science
284,
2174-2177 |
17. | Ogryzko, V. V., Schlitz, R. L., Russanova, V., Howard, B. H., and Nakatani, Y. (1996) Cell 87, 953-959[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
18. | Coleman, K. M., and Smith, C. L. (2001) Front. Biosci. 6, D1379-D1391[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
19. | Cho, H., Aronica, S. M., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (1994) Endocrinology 134, 658-664[Abstract] |
20. | el-Tanani, M. K., and Green, C. D. (1996) Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 124, 71-77[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
21. | Chalbos, D., Philips, A., Galtier, F., and Rochefort, H. (1993) Endocrinology 133, 571-576[Abstract] |
22. |
El-Tanani, M.,
and Green, C. D.
(1997)
Mol. Endocrinol.
11,
928-937 |
23. | Denner, L. A., Weigel, N. L., Maxwell, B. L., Schrader, W. T., and O'Malley, B. W. (1990) Science 250, 1740-1743[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
24. |
Nazareth, L. V.,
and Weigel, N. L.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
19900-19907 |
25. | Huggenvik, J. I., Collard, M. W., Kim, Y.-W., and Sharma, R. P. (1993) Mol. Endocrinol. 7, 543-550[Abstract] |
26. |
Dowhan, D. H.,
and Muscat, G. E.
(1996)
Nucleic Acids Res.
24,
264-271 |
27. |
Hansen, J. B.,
Zhang, H.,
Rasmussen, T. H.,
Petersen, R. K.,
Flindt, E. N.,
and Kristiansen, K.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
3175-3182 |
28. | Beck, C. A., Weigel, N. L., and Edwards, D. P. (1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6, 607-620[Abstract] |
29. | Rangarajan, P. N., Umesono, K., and Evans, R. M. (1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6, 1451-1457[Abstract] |
30. | Nordeen, S. K., Moyer, M. L., and Bona, B. J. (1994) Endocrinology 134, 1723-1732[Abstract] |
31. |
LeGoff, P.,
Montano, M. M.,
Schodin, D. J.,
and Katzenellenbogen, B. S.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
4458-4466 |
32. | Aronica, S. M., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (1993) Mol. Endocrinol. 7, 743-752[Abstract] |
33. |
Bai, W.,
Rowan, B. G.,
Allgood, V. E.,
O'Malley, B. W.,
and Weigel, N. L.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
10457-10463 |
34. |
Rowan, B. G.,
Garrison, N.,
Weigel, N. L.,
and O'Malley, B. W.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
8720-8730 |
35. | Lazennec, G., Thomas, J. A., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (2001) J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 77, 193-203[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
36. |
Jones, P. S.,
Parrott, E.,
and White, I. N.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
32008-32014 |
37. | Ogawa, S., Inoue, S., Watanabe, T., Hiroi, H., Orimo, A., Hosoi, T., Ouchi, Y., and Muramatsu, M. (1998) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 243, 122-126[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
38. |
Allgood, V. E.,
Oakley, R. H.,
and Cidlowski, J. A.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
20870-20876 |
39. |
Walters, M. R.,
Dutertre, M.,
and Smith, C. L.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
1669-1679 |
40. |
Cooney, A. J.,
Leng, X.,
Tsai, S. Y.,
O'Malley, B. W.,
and Tsai, M.-J.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
4152-4160 |
41. | Kumar, V., Green, S., Stack, G., Berry, M., Jin, J.-R., and Chambon, P. (1987) Cell 51, 941-951[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
42. | Chang, T. C., Nardulli, A. M., Lew, D., and Shapiro, D. J. (1992) Mol. Endocrinol. 6, 346-354[Abstract] |
43. |
Jenster, G.,
Spencer, T. E.,
Burcin, M. M.,
Tsai, S. Y.,
Tsai, M.-J.,
and O'Malley, B. W.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
7879-7884 |
44. | Lonard, D. M., Nawaz, Z., Smith, C. L., and O'Malley, B. W. (2000) Mol. Cell 5, 939-948[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
45. | Smith, C. L., Conneely, O. M., and O'Malley, B. W. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 6120-6124[Abstract] |
46. | Seed, B., and Sheen, J.-Y. (1988) Gene (Amst.) 67, 271-277[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
47. | Allgood, V. E., Zhang, Y., O'Malley, B. W., and Weigel, N. L. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 224-232[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
48. | Ince, B. A., Montano, M. M., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8, 1397-1406[Abstract] |
49. |
Chijiwa, T.,
Mishima, A.,
Hagiwara, M.,
Sano, M.,
Hayashi, K.,
Inoue, T.,
Naito, K.,
Toshioka, T.,
and Hidaka, H.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
5267-5272 |
50. | Wong, C. W., Komm, B., and Cheskis, B. J. (2001) Biochemistry 40, 6756-6765[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
51. |
Bramlett, K. S.,
Wu, Y.,
and Burris, T. P.
(2001)
Mol. Endocrinol.
15,
909-922 |
52. | Fujimoto, N., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8, 296-304[Abstract] |
53. | Katzenellenbogen, B. S., Montano, M. M., LeGoff, P., Schodin, D. J., Kraus, W. L., Bhardwaj, B., and Fujimoto, N. (1995) J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 53, 387-393[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
54. |
Paech, K.,
Webb, P.,
Kuiper, G. J. M.,
Nilsson, S.,
Gustafsson, J.,
Kushner, P. J.,
and Scanlan, T. S.
(1997)
Science
277,
1508-1510 |
55. | Webb, P., Lopez, G. N., Uht, R. M., and Kushner, P. J. (1995) Mol. Endocrinol. 9, 443-456[Abstract] |
56. | Lopez, G., Schaufele, F., Webb, P., Holloway, J. M., Baxter, J. D., and Kushner, P. J. (1993) Mol. Cell. Biol. 13, 3042-3049[Abstract] |
57. | Angel, P., Imagawa, M., Chiu, R., Stein, B., Imbra, R. J., Rahmsdorf, H. J., Jonat, G., Herrlich, P., and Karin, M. (1987) Cell 49, 729-739[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
58. |
Teyssier, C.,
Belguise, K.,
Galtier, F.,
and Chalbos, D.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
36361-36369 |
59. |
Hall, J. M.,
and McDonnell, D. P.
(1999)
Endocrinology
140,
5566-5578 |
60. | Stork, P. J., and Schmitt, J. M. (2002) Trends Cell Biol. 12, 258-266[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
61. |
Lee, S.-K.,
Kim, H.-J.,
Na, S.-Y.,
Kim, T. S.,
Choi, H.-S.,
Im, S.-Y.,
and Lee, J. W.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
16651-16654 |
62. | Heery, D. M., Kalkhoven, E., Hoare, S., and Parker, M. G. (1997) Nature 387, 733-736[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
63. |
Rowan, B. G.,
Weigel, N. L.,
and O'Malley, B. W.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
4475-4483 |
64. |
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 |
65. |
Watanabe, M.,
Yanagisawa, J.,
Kitagawa, H.,
Takeyama, K.-I.,
Ogawa, S.,
Arao, Y.,
Suzawa, M.,
Kobayashi, Y.,
Yano, T.,
Yoshikawa, H.,
Masuhiro, Y.,
and Kato, S.
(2001)
EMBO J.
20,
1341-1352 |
66. |
Buelt, M. K.,
Glidden, B. J.,
and Storm, D. R.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
29367-29370 |
67. |
Font de Mora, J. F.,
and Brown, M.
(2000)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20,
5041-5047 |
68. |
Yuan, L. W.,
and Gambee, J. E.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
40946-40951 |
69. |
Lopez, G. N.,
Turck, C. W.,
Schaufele, F.,
Stallcup, M. R.,
and Kushner, P. J.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
22177-22182 |
70. |
Lee, H.,
and Bai, W.
(2002)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
22,
5835-5845 |
71. | Arnold, S. F., Obourn, J. D., Jaffe, H., and Notides, A. C. (1995) Mol. Endocrinol. 9, 24-33[Abstract] |
72. |
Driggers, P. H.,
Segars, J. H.,
and Rubino, D. M.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
46792-46797 |
73. | van Dam, H., and Castellazzi, M. (2001) Oncogene 20, 2453-2464[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
74. |
Chauchereau, A.,
Georgiakaki, M.,
Perrin-Wolff, M.,
Milgrom, E.,
and Loosfelt, H.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
8540-8548 |
75. |
Jung, D. J.,
Na, S.-Y.,
Na, D. S.,
and Lee, J. W.
(2002)
J. Biol. Chem.
277,
1229-1234 |
76. | Kamei, Y., Xu, L., Heinzel, T., Torchia, J., Kurokawa, R., Gloss, B., Lin, S.-C., Heyman, R. A., Rose, D. W., Glass, C. K., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (1996) Cell 85, 403-414[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
77. | Arias, J., Alberts, A. S., Brindle, P., Claret, F. X., Smeal, T., Karin, M., Feramisco, J., and Montminy, M. (1994) Nature 370, 226-229[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve] |
78. | Nunez, A.-M., Berry, M., Imler, J.-L., and Chambon, P. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 823-829[Abstract] |