Smad4 as a Transcription Corepressor for Estrogen Receptor alpha *

Liyu WuDagger , Yalei WuDagger , Bill Gathings§, Mei WanDagger , Xuelin LiDagger , William GrizzleDagger , Zhiyong LiuDagger , Chongyuan LuDagger , Zhengkuan MaoDagger , and Xu CaoDagger

From the Dagger  Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama 35294 and the § Consortium for Materials Development in Space, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama 35899

Received for publication, December 4, 2002, and in revised form, February 6, 2003

    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Antiestrogen compounds exhibit a variety of different effects in different tissues and are widely used for the treatment of osteoporosis, breast cancer, and other diseases. Upon examining the molecular mechanisms, we found that Smad4, a common signal transducer in the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)/transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta ) signaling pathway, functions as a transcription corepressor for human estrogen receptor alpha  (ERalpha ). Endogenous ERalpha was co-immunoprecipitated with Smad4, and the interaction was induced by antiestrogen ligands such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, and droloxifen, which was confirmed in chromatin immunoprecipitation assays. Smad4 and ERalpha form a complex when ERalpha binds to the estrogen-responsive element within the estrogen target gene promoter. Importantly, the expression of Smad4 inhibits both antiestrogen-induced luciferase activity and estrogen downstream target gene transcription in breast cancer cells. Mapping of the interaction domains indicates that the activation function 1 (AF1) domain of ERalpha is essential for its interaction with Smad4, while the MH1 domain and linker region of Smad4 are essential for the interaction. Our findings represent a novel mechanism that TGF-beta may regulate cell fate through Smad4-mediated cross-talk with estrogen.

    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Estrogen regulates cell proliferation, differentiation, motility, and apoptosis in a variety of cell types (1, 2). The effects of estrogen, including breast cancer, are mediated through its binding to estrogen receptors (3). The estrogen receptor (ER),1 of which two isoforms (alpha  and beta ) have been identified, are members of the steroid/thyroid hormone superfamily of nuclear receptors (4-8). ERalpha and ERbeta display distinct expression patterns and biological functions in different tissues (9). Both of the two receptors are ligand-dependent transcriptional activators and regulate gene transcription either by binding directly to the estrogen-responsive element with a consensus sequence of 5'-GGTCAnnnTGACC-3' (10) or interacting with other transcription factors such as Sp1 and AP1 (10). Estrogen receptors recruit coactivators and corepressors in the regulation of gene transcription. Numerous coactivators have been shown to be associated with activated ER, such as CBP/p300 (11-13), SRC-1 (14, 15), TIF2 (16), GRIP1 (17, 18), TIF1 (19, 20), and RIP140 (21, 22). Fewer corepressors have been reported to date, among which SMRT (23, 24) and N-CoR (25, 26) are the important ones. These cofactors may function as molecular gates to enable integration of diverse signal transduction pathways at nuclear receptor-regulated promoters (27).

A relatively new class of synthetic drugs known as selective estrogen receptor modulators or SERMs are currently in use for treatment of osteoporosis, breast cancer, and other hormone-dependent medical disorders (3). SERMs exhibit a wide range of estrogen-like and antiestrogen actions based on the target tissue being studied (28). For example, tamoxifen is an ER antagonist in breast tissue (29) but an ER agonist in bone (30) and uterine (31) tissue. Raloxifene, a compound related to tamoxifen, is also an ER antagonist in breast tissue; however, it exerts agonist activity in bone but not uterine tissue (28). It has been believed that novel and as yet unidentified cofactors bind to the antiestrogen-modulated ER and are responsible for the observed tissue-specific activity (10).

In contrast to estrogen promotion of the development of breast cancer, transforming growth factor beta  (TGF-beta ) is known to inhibit the growth of mammary epithelial cells and may play a protective role in mammary carcinogenesis (32). TGF-beta is the prototypic autocrine or paracrine inhibitor of cell cycle progression in epithelial cells and appears to directly antagonize the effects of many different mitogenic growth factors (33, 34). Loss of responsiveness to TGF-beta is believed to be a major factor in tumor formation (35-43). Specific defects in TGF-beta receptors (e.g. TGF-beta -related signal transduction/gene activation) and TGF-beta -regulated cell cycle proteins have been implicated in oncogenesis (35-43). Alterations of TGF-beta signal components have occurred in some breast cancer cell lines, and these may contribute to tumor formation and proliferation (44-47). Additionally, inhibition of breast cancer cell growth by tamoxifen is mediated by TGF-beta (44-48). TGF-beta 1 inhibition of ERalpha transcription expression occurs within 3 h in MCF-7 breast cancer cells (49). These data suggest that cross-talk between estrogen receptors and TGF-beta signaling is critical in breast cancer development.

The signaling responses to TGF-beta s are mediated by their intracellular substrates, the Smad proteins (34, 50). Upon ligand binding, the activated receptors directly phosphorylate regulatory Smads (R-Smads). Phosphorylated R-Smads interact with Smad4, and the complex translocates into the nucleus to regulate gene transcription. Smad4 is the common signaling molecule shared in the TGF-beta superfamily. Smad4/DPC4 is also known as a tumor suppressor (37), mutations of which are frequently found in human cancers. Smad4 mutations account for half of pancreas cancers (37, 38) and more than 30% of invasive metastatic colorectal cancers (39) and other tumors. Oncogene Jab1 mediates the degradation of Smad4 (51). It has been shown that Smad1, Smad2, Smad3, and Smad4 all have physical interactions with ERalpha and might be important for TGF-beta regulation of ERalpha signaling (52, 53). Among these Smads, Smad3 and Smad4 have also been studied in another steroid receptor, the androgen receptor, and androgen receptor-mediated signaling and important functions have been suggested (54). However, the possible significance of Smad4 in estrogen signaling has not been well assessed, and the detailed mechanism of the cross-talk is not clear.

In this study, we examined the potential role of Smad4 in estrogen signaling. We demonstrate that Smad4 interacts with ERalpha in vivo and represses estrogen-induced transcriptional activity mediated through the ERE. Smad4 is incorporated in the ERalpha -DNA complex and might recruit other corepressors to the complex. Finally, we show that Smad4 strongly inhibits the transcription of various downstream genes of estrogen signaling. These findings suggest that TGF-beta may regulate cell fate through Smad4-mediated cross-talk with estrogen and may provide a molecular basis to explain the wide range of SERM-mediated, tissue-selective effects in breast cancer patients.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Constructs and Cell Culture-- In the yeast two-hybrid assay, we cloned the full-length Smad4 coding sequence into pGBT9 (Clontech) to generate the pGBT9-Smad4 bait plasmid in which Smad4 is fused with the Gal4 DNA binding domain. Likewise, the human ERalpha was cloned into pACT2 (Clontech) and fused with the VP16 activation domain (pACT2-hERalpha ). The HA-tagged human ERalpha expression plasmid was cloned into a pCDNA3 vector linked with HA at the amino terminus by PCR using pRST7-ERalpha (a gift from the National Institutes of Health) as the template. The AF1 (E2), AF1 + DNA binding domain (DBD) (E1), DBD + AF2 (E3), and AF2 (E4) domains of ERalpha were cloned into the same pCDNA3 vector by PCR and restriction enzyme digestion in BamHI and XhoI sites. An estrogen-response element-containing reporter (3× ERE-TATA) was a gift from Dr. Valerie Clack (Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC). The FLAG-tagged Smad4 expression plasmid was a gift from Dr. Rik Derynk (University of California, San Francisco, CA). We cloned the MH1, MH1 + linker, linker, MH2 + linker, and MH2 domains of Smad4 into a pCMV5 vector linked with FLAG at the carboxyl terminus by PCR. COS-1 cells were incubated in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with antibiotics and 10% fetal bovine serum at 37 °C in 5% CO2. MCF-7 and T47D cells were bought from the American Type Culture Collection and maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Yeast Two-hybrid-- According to the manufacturer's instruction (Clontech) and previous work (51), the interaction was quantified by a liquid beta -galactosidase assay when ERalpha and Smad4 were coexpressed. pACT2 and pGBT9 vectors were also examined as negative controls. The stimulation of beta -galactosidase activity indicates interaction between these two overexpressed proteins.

Coimmunoprecipitation Assay-- COS-1 cells were split and plated at 1 × 106 cells per 100-mm dish and starved with phenol red-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 10% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum (Cellgro) for 24 h. HA-tagged hERalpha was cotransfected with FLAG-tagged Smad4 into COS-1 cells using Tfx-50 according to the manufacturer's instructions (Promega). The cells were treated with different ligands as follows: 1 nM beta -estradiol (E2); 100 nM tamoxifen (Tam); 10 nM raloxifene (Ral); 10 nM droloxifen (Dro); 2 ng/µl TGF-beta 1; or an ethanol (EtOH) vehicle (control) for 24 h. Forty-eight hours after transfection, the cells were lysed with 0.6 ml radioimmune precipitation assay buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4, 1% Nonidet P-40, 0.25% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS, 2 mM EDTA, and 150 mM NaCl) with freshly added inhibitors (0.01 mg/ml aprotinin, 0.01 mg/ml leupeptin, 0.1 mM Na3VO4, and 0.1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride). Anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody (Sigma) was added into the 0.2-ml cell lysate of the protein samples and rotated at 4 °C for 3 h. The protein complexes were immunoprecipitated by protein G-Sepharose beads (Amersham Biosciences), and the samples were loaded and run in a 7% SDS-PAGE gel. The precipitates were transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane and immunoblotted by anti-HA polyclonal antibody (Berkeley Antibody). Likewise, the immunoprecipitation was also done with anti-HA polyclonal antibody and immunoblotted with an anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody. The truncated HA-hERalpha or FLAG-Smad4 expression plasmids were also transfected into COS-1 cells, and co-immunoprecipitation was done with the same method. MCF-7 or T47D cells were split and plated at 80% confluence per 100-mm dish and starved with RPMI 1640 phenol red-free medium supplemented with 10% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum (Cellgro) for 24 h. The aliquots of cells were treated with ligands and lysed in 0.6 ml of RIPA buffer (with freshly added inhibitors) 24 h after treatment. Anti-Smad4 monoclonal antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) was added to 0.5-ml cell lysates for the immunoprecipitation, and the immunoblotting was done with anti-hERalpha polyclonal antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology).

Transfection and Luciferase Assay-- To identify the function of Smad4 on estrogen response element, 2× ERE-TATA was used as the reporter plasmid. MCF-7 cells were split and plated at 5 × 104 cells per 24-well plate and starved with RPMI 1640 phenol red-free medium supplemented with 10% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum (Cellgro) for 24 h. The cells were transfected using Tfx-50 with 0.2 µg of luciferase reporter and 20 ng of the hERalpha expression plasmid. 50 ng of Smad4 expression plasmid or empty vector was also cotransfected. Twenty-four hours after transfection, the aliquots of cells were treated with one of the ligands, i.e. E2, Tam, Ral, Dro, and TGF-beta 1 or vehicle. Luciferase activities were assayed 48 h after transfection using the Dual-LuciferaseTM assay kit (Promega) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Firefly luciferase activity was assayed and normalized against Renilla luciferase activity. Luciferase values shown in the figures are representative of transfection experiments performed in triplicate from at least three independent experiments. The standard deviations are shown in vertical lines.

Gel-shift Assay-- The expression plasmids of human ERalpha and Smad4 were cotransfected into COS-1 cells. Forty-eight hours after the transfection, the transfected cell lysate and an aliquot of non-transfected cell lysate were collected and incubated with radiolabeled ERE, which is the probe in gel-shift assays. The ERE DNA oligomers were radiolabeled by a kinase reaction with a DNA polymerase I large (Klenow) fragment and [alpha -32P]dCTP. Binding reactions were preincubated for 20 min at 22 °C with indicated lysates in 75 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 6% of bovine serum albumin, and 25 ng of poly(dIdC) in a volume of 19 µl. One microliter of DNA probe (0.5 ng, 50,000-100,000 cpm) was added to each of the reactions. The reactions were subjected to nondenaturing electrophoresis on a 4% polyacrylamide gel.

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP) Assay-- The MCF-7 cells were grown to 95% confluences in phenol red-free Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium supplemented with 10% charcoal-dextran-stripped fetal bovine serum for at least 3 days. Following the addition of ligands for 3 h, cells were washed and lysed according to the protocol from Dr. Myles Brown (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA). Immunoprecipitation was performed overnight at 4 °C with specific antibodies against ERalpha or Smad4. The precipitates were extracted and heated as described (55). For PCR, (the sequences of specific primers were given as a gift from Dr. Myles Brown) 1 µl from a 50-µl DNA extraction and 21-25 cycles of amplification were used.

Principle of Real Time PCR-- A fluorescence signal from each real time quantitative PCR reaction (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) is collected as normalized values plotted versus the cycle number. Reactions are characterized by comparing threshold cycle (C(t)) values. The C(t) is a value defined by the fractional cycle number at which the sample fluorescence signal passes a fixed threshold above base. Quantitative values are obtained from the C(t) numbers at which the increase in signal associated with an exponential growth of PCR product starts to be detected (Applied Biosystems) according to the manufacturer's manual. The beta -actin gene is used as a control for the endogenous RNA transcripts, and each sample was normalized by its beta -actin content. The final result is expressed as relative fold by comparing the amount of RNA of target gene to the beta -actin gene, which is determined by the equation 2-(C(t)target -C(t)beta -actin).

Oligonucleotide Primers Design-- The target cDNA sequence was evaluated using Primer3 (www.genome.wi.mit.edu/cgi-bin/primer/primer3_www.cgi). The sequences of primers are listed as follows: beta -actin upper primer, 5'-AGA CTT CGA GCA GGA GAT GG-3'; beta -actin lower primer, 5'-CGG ATG TCA ACG TCA CAC TT-3'; CATD upper primer, 5'-TCT GTG GAG GAC CTG ATT GC-3'; CATD lower primer, 5'-AGG TTG GAG GAG CCC GTG T-3'; EBAG9 upper primer, 5'-CGT CGG CTT GTA TAA CCT-3'; and EBAG9 lower primer, 5'-TTA ATT TCC GTC CTC TGC-3'. The forward and reverse primers were designed to flank at least one intron to prevent amplification of genomic DNA that may be contained in samples.

RNA Extraction and PCR Amplification-- Total RNA was extracted from T47D cells by using STAT-60 (TEL-TEST Inc.). The quality of the RNA samples was determined by electrophoresis through agarose gels and staining with ethidium bromide. The 18 and 28 S RNA bands were visualized under UV light. Equal amounts of total RNA were reverse-transcribed to cDNA by TaqMan® Reverse Transcription Reagents (Applied Biosystems) according to manufacturer's protocol. PCR was performed using the SYBR® Green PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems). The amplification reactions were performed in 25 µl of final volume containing 1× SYBR buffer, 0.4 µM primer mixture, and 3 µl cDNA. To reduce variability between replicates, PCR premixes, which contain all reagents except for cDNA, were prepared and aliquoted into 0.2-ml thin-wall strip tubes (MJ Research, Cambridge, MA). The thermal cycling conditions comprised an initial denaturation step at 95 °C for 10 min and 40 cycles at 95 °C for 30s and 60 °C for 1min. For each set of primers, PCR thermal cycle conditions have been optimized to achieve single band PCR product in 1% agarose gel with ethidium bromide staining. Experiments were performed with duplicates for each data point. All of the PCR reactions were performed using OPTICONTM DNA Engine (MJ Research).

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Smad4 Interacts with ERalpha in Vivo-- To study the potential cross-talk between estrogen receptor and Smads, we first examined the interaction between Smad4 and ERalpha in a yeast two-hybrid system because Smad4/DPC4 has been identified as a candidate tumor suppressor (37). Human ERalpha was cloned into the pACT2 plasmid, and human Smad4 was cloned into the pGBT9 plasmid. beta -galactosidase activity was stimulated when both ERalpha and Smad4 were expressed (Fig. 1A), indicating Smad4 interaction with ERalpha in yeast. To examine the physical interaction in mammalian cells, we performed a coimmunoprecipitation experiment in COS-1 cells. HA-tagged ERalpha and FLAG-tagged Smad4 were cotransfected into COS-1 cells in the presence of different ligands. The interaction was detected by immunoprecipitation with anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody followed by immunoblotting with an anti-HA polyclonal antibody (Fig. 1B). We confirmed the result by immunoprecipitation with an anti-HA antibody followed by immunoblotting with an anti-FLAG antibody (Fig. 1C). The interaction was independent of beta -estradiol E2 and antiestrogen ligands in both assays.


View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Interaction between Smad4 and ERalpha . A, beta -galactosidase activity was stimulated when both ERalpha and Smad4 were expresseds, indicating Smad4 interaction with ERalpha . PACT2 and pGBT9 vectors were also examined as negative controls. B, FLAG-tagged Smad4 (lanes 1 and 3-7) and HA-tagged hERalpha (lanes 2-7) or empty pCDNA3 vector (lanes 1 and 2) were cotransfected into COS-1 cells treated with E2 (lane 4), Tam (lane 5), Ral (lane 6), Dro (lane 7) or ethanol (EtOH) vehicle (control) (lanes 1-3). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated by anti-FLAG M2 monoclonal antibody 48 h after transfection. The precipitates were then immunoblotted with anti-HA polyclonal antibody. The result was confirmed in panel C by immunoprecipitation with anti-HA polyclonal antibody and immunoblotting with anti-FLAG monoclonal antibody.

To further confirm the endogenous protein interaction between Smad4 and ERalpha in breast cancer cells, co-immunoprecipitation assays were performed with MCF-7 cells and T47D cells. The aliquot of cells was treated with one of the ligands as indicated in Fig. 2. The whole cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Smad4 monoclonal antibody, and the precipitates were immunoblotted with an anti-ERalpha polyclonal antibody. The endogenous ERalpha and Smad4 were coimmuno- precipitated in MCF-7 cells as expected (Fig. 2A, lane 2), indicating the interaction between these two endogenous proteins. Moreover, the interaction was enhanced to different levels with the treatment of different antiestrogen ligands (Fig. 2A, lanes 4-6). Unlike the case in MCF-7 cells, however, the endogenous interaction was not detectible in T47D cells even with E2 treatment (Fig. 2B, lanes 3-4), which can be due to the lower expression level of endogenous Smad4 proteins in T47D cells. Interestingly, only antiestrogen ligands induced the interaction (Fig. 2B, lanes 5-7). Taken together, these results suggest that the interaction between endogenous Smad4 and ERalpha proteins are differentially regulated by SERMs.


View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Smad4 interacts with ERalpha in breast cancer cells. T47D cells (A), or MCF-7 cells (B), were treated with E2 (lane 4), Tam (lane 5), Ral (lane 6), Dro (lane 7) or vehicle (lanes 1-3). Cell lysates were immunoprecipitated by an anti-Smad4 monoclonal antibody (Smad4) (lanes 1 and 3-7) or pre-immunized antibody (Pre) (lane 2) (control) 48 h after transfection. The precipitates were then immunoblotted with an anti-hERalpha polyclonal antibody.

Smad4 Represses Transactivation by Estrogen-- To examine the function of the interaction between Smad4 and ERalpha , a luciferase reporter plasmid bearing two repeats of ERE (2× ERE-TATA) was cotransfected into MCF-7 cells with ERalpha . The aliquots of cells were treated with 17beta -estradiol (E2), TGF-beta 1, or both. Fig. 3A shows that TGF-beta 1 inhibited E2-induced transcription activity as expected. The ectopic expression of Smad4 exhibited a stronger inhibition of E2-induced luciferase activity in comparison with TGF-beta 1. The inhibition was further demonstrated in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 3B). Because different SERMs exhibit tissue-specific transcription activity, the antiestrogen compounds tamoxifen, raloxifene, and droloxifen were also examined. As expected, binding of these ligands to ERalpha did not result in luciferase activation. In the presence of Smad4, however, the transcription levels were suppressed by these antiestrogen ligands (Fig. 3C). Raloxifene appears to be the most potent inhibitor of luciferase activity, exhibiting ~3-fold higher levels of inhibition than the control vehicle. Consistent with previous data that SERMs can affect the interaction between Smad4 and ERalpha , these results indicate that Smad4 acts as an ERalpha transcription corepressor, and its repression activity is differentially regulated by different SERMs. Similar results were obtained in T47D cells (data not shown).


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Effect of Smad4 on ERalpha -mediated transcriptional activity. A luciferase reporter plasmid containing estrogen response element (2× ERE-TATA) was cotransfected with human ERalpha into the MCF-7 cells. A, the effect of Smad4 on ERalpha transactivation by estrogen was examined. The aliquot of cells was treated with E2, TGF-beta 1, E2, and TGF-beta 1 or ethanol vehicle (control). The values represent artificial units of luciferase activity after normalization. B, increased amounts of Smad4 were cotransfected, and luciferase activity was assayed. C, the effect of Smad4 on ligand-mediated ERalpha transactivation was examined. The MCF-7 cells were cotransfected with 2× ERE-TATA reporter, ERalpha (open bar), ERalpha and Smad4 (closed bar). The aliquot of cells was treated with one of the four ligands, i.e. E2, Tam, Ral, Dro or vehicle. Luciferase activity was assayed and compared. D, the effect of Smad4 on Smad3-enhanced ERalpha transactivation was examined. Increased amounts of Smad4 were cotransfected with fixed amount of Smad3. The aliquot of cells was treated with E2 and TGF-beta 1. Luciferase activity was assayed and analyzed as described.

Previous reports showed that ER-mediated transcriptional activation can be enhanced by Smad3 (52, 53) by physical interaction between Smad3 and ERalpha . Because TGF-beta induces the formation of a Smad3 and Smad4 complex (58), we examined the effect of Smad4 on Smad3-enhanced ERalpha transactivation in MCF-7 cells. As shown in Fig. 3D, Smad3 increased E2 activity on ERalpha transcription in the presence of TGF-beta 1. The addition of Smad4, however, can repress the Smad3-enhanced ERalpha transactivation in a dose-dependent manner. It is also noteworthy that the amounts of Smad4 used in this assay are significantly lower than that of Smad3. Together, the results from luciferase assays indicate that Smad4 is a corepressor of ERalpha and suppresses Smad3-mediated ERalpha transactivation.

Smad4 Forms a Complex with ERalpha on DNA Element-- Because ERalpha can regulate gene transcription via direct binding to the ERE on the target gene promoter, we tested whether Smad4 and ERalpha form a complex on ERE using gel-shift assays. Smad4 and ERalpha expression plasmids were cotransfected into COS-1 cells, and the complex of Smad4-ERalpha formed a shift band (Fig. 4A, lane 3) when compared with non-transfected COS-1 cell lysate (Fig. 4A, lane 2). The addition of antibodies against ERalpha or Smad4 supershifted the complex (Fig. 4A, lanes 4 and 5), confirming that the complex contains Smad4 and ERalpha . This result argues against the idea that Smad4 interferes with the DNA binding of ERalpha . Genes regulated through direct ER binding include cathepsin D (CATD) (59) and ER binding fragment-associated antigen 9 (EBAG9) (50, 60). To confirm Smad4-ERalpha -DNA complex formation in vivo, we applied a chromatin immunoprecipitation assay (55) with the promoter region of CATD containing ERE (55). MCF-7 cells were grown in the absence of estrogen for at least 3 days followed by treatment with vehicle or different ligands. The endogenous transcription complex present on the ERE region of the promoter was determined by immunoprecipitation using antibodies against Smad4 or ERalpha , followed by semi-quantitative reverse transcriptions PCR with specific pairs of primers spanning the ERE region. As shown in Fig. 4B, the occupancy by both ERalpha and Smad4 indicates the formation of the Smad4-ERalpha complex on the CATD gene promoter. Treatment with antiestrogen ligands increased the occupancy, which is consistent with our previous finding that SERMs regulate Smad4 interaction with ERalpha and the repression activity of Smad4 on estrogen signaling.


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Smad4 forms a complex with ERalpha on DNA. A, Smad4 and ERalpha were cotransfected into COS-1 cells, and the cell lysates were collected and incubated with radiolabeled ERE as a probe in the presence or absence of anti-hERalpha (lane 4) and/or anti-Smad4 (lane 5) antibodies as indicated. The Smad4/hERalpha complexes are indicated in lanes 3-5. B, MCF-7 cells were starved for 3 days and treated with different ligands (E2, Tam, and Ral) for 3 h. The cell lysates were collected and immunoprecipitated with anti-ERalpha and anti-Smad4 monoclonal antibodies, respectively. Semi-quantitative reverse transcription PCR was performed with the precipitates and specific primers for the CATD promoter region as indicated.

Interaction Domains of Smad4 and ERalpha -- We mapped the interaction domain(s) of both Smad4 and ERalpha . ERalpha has A to F domains from the NH2 terminus to COOH terminus containing two important activation function (AF) domains, AF1 and AF2 (61-63). A series of truncated ERalpha constructs in HA-tagged pCDNA3 vector have been cloned, with deletion of either the AF1 or the AF2 domain as shown in Fig. 5A. HA-tagged ERalpha (E) or one of its four deletion mutants was cotransfected into COS-1 cells with FLAG-tagged Smad4. The immunoprecipitation was performed with either anti-FLAG antibody or anti-HA antibody, followed by immunoblotting with anti-HA or anti-FLAG antibody, respectively. It has been shown in Fig. 5B that the mutants E3 and E4 in which AF1 domain is deleted are unable to bind Smad4, whereas E1 and E2 lacking either AF2 or AF2 + DBD retained the interaction. These results indicate that AF1 domain is essential for the interaction of ERalpha with Smad4, whereas the AF2 domain or the DBD is not required.


View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Mapping the interaction domains of ERalpha . A, the protein structure of ERalpha is shown. The numbers indicate the locations of the amino acids at the boundaries of each domain. Four deletion mutants used in the following experiments are aligned. E, E1, E2, E3, and E4 denote full-length ERalpha , the AF1 domain + DBD, the AF1 domain, DBD + the AF2 domain, and the AF2 domain, respectively. B, the interaction of FLAG-Smad4 with various ERalpha deletion mutants was examined by immunoprecipitation with anti-FLAG or anti-HA antibody followed by immunoblotting with anti-HA or anti-FLAG antibody in COS-1 cells. The top two panels show the interaction, and the bottom two panels show the expression of each protein as indicated.

We next determined the domain(s) of Smad4 which mediate(s) the interaction with ERalpha , using MH1, linker (L), MH1 + linker (m1), MH2 + linker (m2), or MH2 (m3) truncated fragments of Smad4 (Fig. 6A). FLAG-tagged Smad4 (S4) or one of its five fragments was cotransfected into COS-1 cells with ERalpha . Cells were lysed and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-FLAG antibody, followed by immunoblotting with anti-HA antibody. As indicated in Fig. 6B, the MH1 domain and linker region were both sufficient to interact with ERalpha , whereas the MH2 domain was unable to bind ERalpha . As expected, the MH2 domain could not inhibit E2-induced transactivity whereas the MH1 domain and linker region retained the ability of inhibition (Fig. 6C).


View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Mapping the interaction domains of Smad4. A, the protein structure of Smad4 is shown. The five deletion mutants used are aligned. S4, MH1, m1, m2, m3, and L denote full-length Smad4, the MH1 domain, the MH1 domain + linker, the MH2 domain + linker, and the MH2 domain and linker, respectively. B, the interaction of ERalpha with various Smad4 deletion mutants was examined by immunoprecipitation using anti-FLAG antibody followed by immunoblotting with anti-HA antibody. The top panel shows the interaction, and the bottom two panels show the expression of each protein as indicated. C, the Smad4 deletion mutants were cotransfected into MCF-7 cells with 2× ERE-TATA luciferase reporter, and luciferase activity was assayed.

Smad4 Inhibits Downstream Gene Expression of Estrogen Signaling-- To further confirm the repression effects of Smad4 on ER transactivation, we applied real time PCR to examine the mRNA expression level of the ER target gene CATD and EBAG9. T47D cells were transfected with Smad4 expression plasmids or empty vector as a control. The aliquot of cells was treated with 100 nM E2 for 24 h before RNA extraction and PCR assays. As Fig. 7 shows, E2 can induce the mRNA expression of both CATD (Fig. 7A) and EBAG9 (Fig. 7B). Ectopic Smad4 decreases the E2 induction of both genes without changing their basal expression levels, confirming that Smad4 can suppress estrogen signaling in breast cancer cells.


View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Smad4 inhibits E2-induced gene activation. T47D cells were plated in 6-well dishes and transfected with Smad4 expression plasmids or empty pCDNA3 vector (control plasmid). The aliquot of cells were treated with E2 or ethanol vehicle (-) as indicated. CATD (A) and EBAG9 (B) expression was monitored by reverse transcription and real time PCR. The expression of beta -actin was also examined as control. The relative amounts of mRNA of CATD and EBAG9 to beta -actin were calculated using the equation 2-(C (t) target-C (t) beta -actin). Experiments were performed in triplicate for each data point, and standard deviations are shown in vertical lines.


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Estrogen regulates cell proliferation, differentiation, motility, and apoptosis in a variety of different cell types. It plays important roles not only in normal mammary gland cells but also in breast cancer cells. Recent studies indicate that various ligands, including SERMs, induce distinct conformational changes in the ER (64, 65). These changes in ER may, in turn, alter the interactions of the receptor with cell- and tissue-specific coactivating or corepressing transcription factors (4, 10). Here we have identified Smad4 as an ERalpha corepressor and have found that antiestrogens enhance the endogenous interactions between Smad4 and ERalpha . This finding provides further evidence to support the belief that ER conformational changes regulate the interaction of ER with its cofactors and may also help to explain the diversity of estrogen biological activity.

Smad4 is a common partner for the signaling molecules in the TGF-beta pathway. Identification of Smad4 as an ERalpha corepressor provides a mechanism of cross-talk between TGF-beta and estrogen. Consistent with the previous observation (52), our data also demonstrated that Smad3 enhanced ER-mediated transactivation. Interestingly, Smad4 can reverse Smad3-enhanced gene transcription. Both Smad3 and Smad4 can interact with ERalpha independently. It appears that Smad3 alone activates ER-mediated gene transcription, whereas TGF-beta or the Smad3 and Smad4 complex inhibit ER-mediated transcription. As we know, TGF-beta induces Smad3 phosphorylation, which forms a complex with Smad4 and translocates into the nucleus in regulation of gene transcription. So our results indicate that, in the presence of Smad4, TGF-beta inhibits ER-induced transactivation. When Smad4 is mutated or deleted in cancer cells, TGF-beta is no longer able to inhibit ER-induced gene transcription and likely activates gene transcription instead. If the findings are confirmed to be true in clinical samples, Smad4 may be used for a therapeutic purpose.

As our data have shown, antiestrogens can induce the interaction between endogenous Smad4 and ERalpha in T47D cells, which have a low abundance of Smad3 mRNA (45), suggesting that Smad4 and ERalpha interaction is not likely to be dependent on Smad3. The MH2 domain of Smad proteins are known for their interactions with other proteins (67-69). However, our mapping data show that the Smad4 MH2 domain is not involved in binding with ERalpha . Because the MH2 domain of Smad3 is required for efficient physical and functional interaction with ERalpha (52,53), and the MH2 domains mediate homomeric and heteromeric complex formation (67-69), it is possible that the interaction of Smad3 with ERalpha is mediated through Smad4. Furthermore, Smad4 could also disrupt the interaction between Smad3 and ERalpha by competing with the Smad3 MH2 domain binding site of ERalpha . In their recent work, Kang et al. (54) have also demonstrated that Smad4 can decrease the AR-Smad3 interaction and repress the Smad3-enhanced AR transactivation. Nevertheless, there are many important questions that remain to be addressed relevant to other R-Smads such as Smad2 and Smad1 in bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling.

The AF1 and AF2 domains are two important activation functional domains of ER. AF1, which is localized in the NH2-terminal A/B region, is believed to be constitutive in a cell- and promoter-specific manner (72), whereas AF2 resides in the COOH-terminal ligand-binding domain (LBD) (region E) and exerts estrogen-dependent transcriptional activity by recruiting coactivators. These two domains have been tested frequently in studying the regulation of ER function. In mapping the ERalpha interaction domains with Smad4, our data demonstrate that ERalpha N-terminal AF1 is sufficient to mediate ERalpha interaction with Smad4. Several lines of evidence indicate that ERalpha AF1 domain is under negative regulation. Corepressors such as N-CoR bind to the tamoxifen-liganded ERalpha and inhibit AF1 activity in which the mechanism remains unknown (25, 26). It is also known that SERM agonist effects stem from ERalpha AF1, which directly contacts coactivators. Interestingly, tamoxifen-liganded ERalpha enhances the activity of the progesterone receptor AF1, presumably by sequestration of active repressor complex, and overexpression of N-CoR reverses this effect. It is clear that SERMs inhibit ERalpha action both by blocking coactivator recruitment and promoting corepressor recruitment. Interaction of Smad4 with the ERalpha AF1 domain provides evidence to explain SERM-liganded ERalpha transcription activity. The SERMs do not behave the same in the presence of ERbeta (9), however. ERbeta also inhibits ERalpha -dependent estrogen and tamoxifen responses in heterodimers, and it is believed that ERbeta homodimers respond to SERMs differently.

We have examined potential interaction between ERbeta and Smad4 in similar co-immunoprecipitation and gel shift assays. In comparison to ERalpha , the interaction was not detectable, and Smad4 could not form a complex with ERbeta on DNA (data not shown). ERbeta appears unresponsive to Smad4-mediated transcription repression induced by tamoxifen (data not shown). Tamoxifen produces objective tumor shrinkage in advanced breast cancer and reduces the risk of relapse in women treated for invasive breast cancer (71). Clinically, breast cancer patients with ERalpha tumors will initially benefit from tamoxifen treatment. However, most of the patients eventually develop tamoxifen resistance, the mechanism of which is not well understood, although several possible mechanisms have been proposed (66, 70). It has been shown that ERbeta mRNA expression in primary breast tumors is up-regulated in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer patients (57). Clinical studies show that the beneficial response of breast cancer to tamoxifen is related to ERalpha , and ERbeta -positive cells are associated to elevated levels of the proliferation markers Ki67 and cyclin A (56). Because the resistance of breast cancer to tamoxifen therapy is correlated to the presence of ERbeta (56, 57), it is likely that tamoxifen specifically induces the interaction of ERalpha , instead of ERbeta , with some tumor suppressors such as Smad4. Smad4 is able to regulate ERbeta -mediated transcription activity by interacting with the other partner (i.e. ERalpha ) of the heterodimer. However, with the increased ratio of expression level of ERbeta /ERalpha , the effect of Smad4 on ER could be decreased; thus, the tamoxifen effect on transcription repression would also be abolished. Likewise, the effects of Smad4 on antiestrogen-mediated transcription can also be variable in cells with a different ratio of ERalpha /ERbeta .

Taken together, we demonstrated an in vivo interaction between Smad4 and ERalpha and identified the function of Smad4 as a transcriptional corepressor for ERalpha . It would be a future focus to investigate how the R-Smads and Smad4 are assembled in the physiological context with mutually exclusive function of coactivation and corepression. More detailed understanding of the regulation by different SERMs may also be helpful in the design of novel selective estrogen receptor modulators for the treatment of hormone-dependent medical disorders such as breast cancer, osteoporosis, and other pathological conditions.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr. David Ke for the antiestrogen compounds and Janice Walker for proofreading of the manuscript.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by National Aeronautics and Space Administration/University of Alabama in Huntsville Grant NCC8-132 (to X. C.), Department of Defense Grant DAMD17-02-1-0265, and National Institutes of Health Grant DK60913 and DK57501 (to X. C.).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. Tel.: 205-934-0162; Fax: 205-934-1775; E-mail: cao@path.uab.edu.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 7, 2003, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M212332200

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: ER, estrogen receptor; EBAG, ER binding fragment-associated antigen 9; TGF-beta , transforming growth factor-beta ; SERM, selective estrogen receptor modulator; ERE, estrogen-response element; Tam, tamoxifen; Ral, raloxifene; Dro, droloxifen; E2, beta -estradiol; AF1, activation function 1; DBD, DNA-binding domain; MH1, Mad homology 1; R-Smad, regulatory Smad; HA, hemagglutinin; CATD, cathepsin D.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1. Mangelsdorf, D. J., Thummel, C., Beato, M., Herrlich, P., Schutz, G., Umesono, K., Blumberg, B., Kastner, P., Mark, M., and Chambon, P. (1995) Cell 83, 835-839[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Couse, J. F., and Korach, K. S. (1999) Endocr. Rev. 20, 358-417[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Osborne, C. K., Zhao, H., and Fuqua, S. A. (2000) J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 3172-3186[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Chen, H., Lin, R. J., Xie, W., Wilpitz, D., and Evans, R. M. (1999) Cell 98, 675-686[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Evans, R. M. (1988) Science 240, 889-895[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Beato, M., Herrlich, P., and Schutz, G. (1995) Cell 83, 851-857[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. McKenna, N. J., Xu, J., Nawaz, Z., Tsai, S. Y., Tsai, M. J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1999) J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 69, 3-12[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Klinge, C. M. (2000) Steroids 65, 227-251[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Hall, J. M., Couse, J. F., and Korach, K. S. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 36869-36872[Free Full Text]
10. Shang, Y., and Brown, M. (2002) Science 295, 2465-2468[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Chrivia, J. C., Kwok, R. P., Lamb, N., Hagiwara, M., Montminy, M. R., and Goodman, R. H. (1993) Nature 365, 855-859[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. 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]
13. Smith, C. L., Onate, S. A., Tsai, M. J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 8884-8888[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Onate, S. A., Tsai, S. Y., Tsai, M. J., and O'Malley, B. W. (1995) Science 270, 1354-1357[Abstract]
15. Takeshita, A., Yen, P. M., Misiti, S., Cardona, G. R., Liu, Y., and Chin, W. W. (1996) Endocrinology 137, 3594-3597[Abstract]
16. Voegel, J. J., Heine, M. J., Zechel, C., Chambon, P., and Gronemeyer, H. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 3667-3675[Abstract]
17. Hong, H., Kohli, K., Garabedian, M. J., and Stallcup, M. R. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 2735-2744[Abstract]
18. Hong, H., Kohli, K., Trivedi, A., Johnson, D. L., and Stallcup, M. R. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 4948-4952[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Thenot, S., Henriquet, C., Rochefort, H., and Cavailles, V. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 12062-12068[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Cavailles, V., Dauvois, S., L'Horset, F., Lopez, G., Hoare, S., Kushner, P. J., and Parker, M. G. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 3741-3751[Abstract]
21. Le Douarin, B., Zechel, C., Garnier, J. M., Lutz, Y., Tora, L., Pierrat, P., Heery, D., Gronemeyer, H., Chambon, P., and Losson, R. (1995) EMBO J. 14, 2020-2033[Abstract]
22. L'Horset, F., Dauvois, S., Heery, D. M., Cavailles, V., and Parker, M. G. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 6029-6036[Abstract]
23. Horlein, A. J., Naar, A. M., Heinzel, T., Torchia, J., Gloss, B., Kurokawa, R., Ryan, A., Kamei, Y., Soderstrom, M., Glass, C. K., and Rosenfeld, M. G. (1995) Nature 377, 397-404[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Kurokawa, R., Soderstrom, M., Horlein, A., Halachmi, S., Brown, M., Rosenfeld, M. G., and Glass, C. K. (1995) Nature 377, 451-454[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Jackson, T. A., Richer, J. K., Bain, D. L., Takimoto, G. S., Tung, L., and Horwitz, K. B. (1997) Mol. Endocrinol. 11, 693-705[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Chen, J. D., and Evans, R. M. (1995) Nature 377, 454-457[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. McKenna, N. J., Lanz, R. B., and O'Malley, B. W. (1999) Endocr. Rev. 20, 321-344[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Black, L. J., Sato, M., Rowley, E. R., Magee, D. E., Bekele, A., Williams, D. C., Cullinan, G. J., Bendele, R., Kauffman, R. F., Bensch, W. R., Frolik, C. A., Termine, J. D., and Bryant, H. U. (1994) J. Clin. Invest. 93, 63-69[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Jordan, V. C. (1992) Cancer 70, 977-982[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Love, R. R., Mazess, R. B., Barden, H. S., Epstein, S., Newcomb, P. A., Jordan, V. C., Carbone, P. P., and DeMets, D. L. (1992) N. Engl. J. Med. 326, 852-856[Abstract]
31. Kedar, R. P., Bourne, T. H., Powles, T. J., Collins, W. P., Ashley, S. E., Cosgrove, D. O., and Campbell, S. (1994) Lancet 343, 1318-1321[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
32. Akhurst, R. J., and Derynck, R. (2001) Trends Cell Biol. 11, S44-S51[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Massague, J., and Chen, Y. G. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 627-644[Free Full Text]
34. Massague, J. (1998) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 753-791[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Markowitz, S., Wang, J., Myeroff, L., Parsons, R., Sun, L., Lutterbaugh, J., Fan, R. S., Zborowska, E., Kinzler, K. W., Vogelstein, B., Brattain, M., and Wilson, J. K. V. (1995) Science 268, 1336-1338[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Grady, W. M., Rajput, A., Myeroff, L., Liu, D. F., Kwon, K., Willis, J., and Markowitz, S. (1998) Cancer Res. 58, 3101-3104[Abstract]
37. Hahn, S. A., Schutte, M., Hoque, A. T., Moskaluk, C. A., da Costa, L. T., Rozenblum, E., Weinstein, C. L., Fischer, A., Yeo, C. J., Hruban, R. H., and Kern, S. E. (1996) Science 271, 350-353[Abstract]
38. Goggins, M., Shekher, M., Turnacioglu, K., Yeo, C. J., Hruban, R. H., and Kern, S. E. (1998) Cancer Res. 58, 5329-5332[Abstract]
39. Miyaki, M., Iijima, T., Konishi, M., Sakai, K., Ishii, A., Yasuno, M., Hishima, T., Koike, M., Shitara, N., Iwama, T., Utsunomiya, J., Kuroki, T., and Mori, T. (1999) Oncogene 18, 3098-3103[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
40. Cui, W., Fowlis, D. J., Bryson, S., Duffie, E., Ireland, H., Balmain, A., and Akhurst, R. J. (1996) Cell 86, 531-542[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
41. Hata, A., Shi, Y., and Massague, J. (1998) Mol. Med. Today 4, 257-262[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
42. He, W., Cao, T., Smith, D. A., Myers, T. E., and Wang, X. J. (2001) Oncogene 20, 471-483[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
43. Zhu, Y., Richardson, J. A., Parada, L. F., and Graff, J. M. (1998) Cell 94, 703-714[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
44. Brattain, M. G., Ko, Y., Banerji, S. S., Wu, G., and Willson, J. K. (1996) J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 1, 365-372[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Pouliot, F., and Labrie, C. (1999) Int. J. Cancer 81, 98-103[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
46. Kalkhoven, E., Roelen, B. A., de Winter, J. P., Mummery, C. L., van den Eijnden-van Raaij, AJ, van der Saag, P. T., and van der, B. B. (1995) Cell Growth & Differ. 6, 1151-1161[Abstract]
47. Sun, L., Wu, G., Willson, J. K., Zborowska, E., Yang, J., Rajkarunanayake, I., Wang, J., Gentry, L. E., Wang, X. F., and Brattain, M. G. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 26449-26455[Abstract/Free Full Text]
48. Perry, R. R., Kang, Y., and Greaves, B. R. (1995) Br. J. Cancer 72, 1441-1446[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
49. Stoica, A., Saceda, M., Fakhro, A., Solomon, H. B., Fenster, B. D., and Martin, M. B. (1997) Endocrinology 138, 1498-1505[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Watanabe, T., Inoue, S., Hiroi, H., Orimo, A., Kawashima, H., and Muramatsu, M. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 442-449[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Wan, M., Cao, X., Wu, Y., Bai, S., Wu, L., Shi, X., Wang, N., and Cao, X. (2002) EMBO Rep. 3, 171-176[Abstract/Free Full Text]
52. Matsuda, T., Yamamoto, T., Muraguchi, A., and Saatcioglu, F. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 42908-42914[Abstract/Free Full Text]
53. Yamamoto, T., Saatcioglu, F., and Matsuda, T. (2002) Endocrinology 143, 2635-2642[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54. Kang, H. Y., Huang, K. E., Chang, S. Y., Ma, W. L., Lin, W. J., and Chang, C. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 43749-43756[Abstract/Free Full Text]
55. Shang, Y., Hu, X., DiRenzo, J., Lazar, M. A., and Brown, M. (2000) Cell 103, 843-852[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
56. Jensen, E. V., Cheng, G., Palmieri, C., Saji, S., Makela, S., Van Noorden, S., Wahlstrom, T., Warner, M., Coombes, R. C., and Gustafsson, J. A. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 15197-15202[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57. Speirs, V., Malone, C., Walton, D. S., Kerin, M. J., and Atkin, S. L. (1999) Cancer Res. 59, 5421-5424[Abstract/Free Full Text]
58. Derynck, R., Zhang, Y., and Feng, X. H. (1998) Cell 95, 737-740[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
59. Augereau, P., Miralles, F., Cavailles, V., Gaudelet, C., Parker, M., and Rochefort, H. (1994) Mol. Endocrinol. 8, 693-703[Abstract]
60. Tsuchiya, F., Ikeda, K., Tsutsumi, O., Hiroi, H., Momoeda, M., Taketani, Y., Muramatsu, M., and Inoue, S. (2001) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 284, 2-10[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
61. Kumar, V., Green, S., Staub, A., and Chambon, P. (1986) EMBO J. 5, 2231-2236[Abstract]
62. Kumar, V., Green, S., Stack, G., Berry, M., Jin, J. R., and Chambon, P. (1987) Cell 51, 941-951[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
63. Tora, L., White, J., Brou, C., Tasset, D., Webster, N., Scheer, E., and Chambon, P. (1989) Cell 59, 477-487[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
64. Norris, J. D., Paige, L. A., Christensen, D. J., Chang, C. Y., Huacani, M. R., Fan, D., Hamilton, P. T., Fowlkes, D. M., and McDonnell, D. P. (1999) Science 285, 744-746[Abstract/Free Full Text]
65. Shiau, A. K., Barstad, D., Loria, P. M., Cheng, L., Kushner, P. J., Agard, D. A., and Greene, G. L. (1998) Cell 95, 927-937[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
66. Fuqua, S. A., Schiff, R., Parra, I., Friedrichs, W. E., Su, J. L., McKee, D. D., Slentz-Kesler, K., Moore, L. B., Willson, T. M., and Moore, J. T. (1999) Cancer Res. 59, 5425-5428[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Itoh, S., Itoh, F., Goumans, M. J., and Ten Dijke, P. (2000) Eur. J. Biochem. 267, 6954-6967[Abstract/Free Full Text]
68. Lagna, G., Hata, A., Hemmati-Brivanlou, A., and Massague, J. (1996) Nature 383, 832-836[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
69. Wu, R. Y., Zhang, Y., Feng, X. H., and Derynck, R. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 2521-2528[Abstract]
70. Speirs, V., and Kerin, M. J. (2000) Br. J. Surg. 87, 405-409[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
71. Muss, H. B. (1992) Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 21, 15-26[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
72. Berry, M., Metzger, D., and Chambon, P. (1990) EMBO J. 9, 2811-2818[Abstract]


Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.