Transforming Growth Factor-beta Inhibits Adipocyte Differentiation by Smad3 Interacting with CCAAT/Enhancer-binding Protein (C/EBP) and Repressing C/EBP Transactivation Function*

Lisa Choy and Rik DerynckDagger

From the Departments of Growth and Development, and Anatomy, Programs in Cell Biology and Developmental Biology, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143-0640

Received for publication, December 2, 2002

    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta is a potent inhibitor of adipocyte differentiation. To identify which adipocyte transcription factors might be targeted by TGF-beta , we overexpressed key adipogenic transcription factors, C/EBPbeta , C/EBPdelta , or peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) gamma  in NIH3T3 cells and tested the ability of TGF-beta to block adipogenesis. We show that TGF-beta inhibits adipocyte differentiation driven by either C/EBPbeta or C/EBPdelta without affecting C/EBP protein expression levels, suggesting that these C/EBPs are a direct target of TGF-beta action. Because TGF-beta inhibits adipogenesis by signaling through Smad3, we examined physical and functional interactions of Smad3 and Smad4 with C/EBPbeta , C/EBPdelta , and PPARgamma 2. C/EBPbeta and C/EBPdelta were found to physically interact with Smad3 and Smad4, and Smad3 cooperated with Smad4 and TGF-beta signaling to repress the transcriptional activity of C/EBPs. Thus, repression of the activity of C/EBPs by Smad3/4 at C/EBP binding sites inhibited transcription from the PPARgamma 2 and leptin promoters. In contrast, PPARgamma interacted only very weakly with Smad3 and its transcriptional activity was not repressed by Smad3/4 or in response to TGF-beta . Smad3/4 did not reduce the ability of C/EBP to bind to its cognate DNA sequence, but repressed transcription by inhibiting the transactivation function of C/EBP.

    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Cell differentiation requires changes in protein expression patterns to allow manifestation of a specialized phenotype from a precursor state. Defined transcription factors, often referred to as "master regulators," are necessary and often sufficient to activate the differentiation process. In mesenchymal differentiation, MyoD, PPARgamma ,1 and CBFA1 represent master regulators that drive muscle, fat, and bone cell differentiation, respectively. The signaling pathways that regulate their function are not well understood.

Several transcription factors play key roles in adipocyte differentiation. C/EBP transcription factors, belonging to the basic region-leucine zipper superfamily, were the first to be recognized as critical for adipogenesis. C/EBPalpha expression induces growth arrest and adipocyte differentiation of mesenchymal cells (1-3), but the time course of its expression is delayed relative to the earliest adipocyte marker genes. The beta  and delta  isoforms of C/EBP were subsequently identified as essential initiators of adipocyte differentiation (4, 5), and mice with both genes deleted have grossly defective adipose tissue development (6). Analysis of the gene for aP2, an early adipocyte marker, led to the identification of PPARgamma , a nuclear hormone receptor (7). Like C/EBPs, PPARgamma can drive adipogenesis in mesenchymal cells (8), and deletion of PPARgamma blocks adipocyte differentiation in vivo (9). ADD-1/SREBP1c, a basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor, may be involved in the generation of the ligand for transcriptional activation of PPARgamma (10).

Specification of adipocyte differentiation involves cooperation of C/EBPs with PPARgamma 2. C/EBPbeta and C/EBPdelta are induced in response to hormonal stimuli and, together, directly activate transcription of the PPARgamma 2 gene (11, 12) and other genes linked to adipogenesis (13). Whereas many adipocyte gene promoters contain binding sites for C/EBP and PPARgamma , no PPARgamma binding site has been found in the PPARgamma promoter (14). Activation of PPARgamma 2 transcription and transcriptional activation by ligand results in further activation of adipocyte marker genes. C/EBPbeta and -delta are down-regulated as differentiation proceeds, and their transcription functions are thought to be replaced by C/EBPalpha (4). C/EBPalpha activates many of the same genes as C/EBPbeta and -delta , and also triggers growth arrest that accompanies full differentiation (1, 15). C/EBPalpha cooperates with PPARgamma 2 to activate adipocyte gene expression, and both factors are required for adipocyte differentiation (16). Thus, any of these transcription factors could represent targets for regulation by signaling pathways that affect adipogenesis.

One signaling pathway that affects adipocyte differentiation is initiated by TGF-beta . TGF-beta regulates mesenchymal differentiation, inhibiting osteoblast (17), myoblast (18), and adipocyte differentiation (19, 20). TGF-beta blocks adipocyte differentiation in vitro (19, 21), and transgenic overexpression of TGF-beta in adipose tissue inhibits differentiation in vivo (22). However, TGF-beta is expressed endogenously in adipose tissue in vivo (23), and in cultured preadipocytes and adipocytes (24-26). In animal models of obesity (23) and humans with obesity, TGF-beta 1 expression is increased, correlating directly with body mass index and increased expression of PAI-1 (plasminogen activator inhibitor-1), which in turn are closely related to insulin resistance (27). These observations contrast with the ability of TGF-beta to strongly inhibit adipocyte differentiation. However, increased TGF-beta expression in obese adipose tissue is believed to be related to increased tumor necrosis factor-alpha expression in obese adipose tissue (28). Like TGF-beta , tumor necrosis factor-alpha strongly inhibits adipocyte differentiation in culture (29). Whereas there is already an extensive body of literature on the role of tumor necrosis factor-alpha in adipocyte tissue physiology and insulin resistance, little is as yet known about the role of TGF-beta in adipose tissue.

TGF-beta signals through two types of transmembrane serine-threonine kinase receptors. Ligand binding to the type II TGF-beta receptor stabilizes complex formation with the type I TGF-beta receptor and induces activation of the type I receptor (Tbeta RI) by the type II receptor (Tbeta RII) kinase (30). Smads then act as signaling effectors (31, 32). C-terminal phosphorylation of Smad2 or Smad3 by Tbeta RI results in a conformational change that promotes heteromerization with Smad4, and stimulates nuclear translocation of Smad complexes. In the nucleus, Smad proteins regulate transcription by binding to DNA and interacting with other transcription factors.

We have shown that Smad3, and not Smad2, mediates inhibition of adipocyte differentiation by TGF-beta (20). Smad3 also acts as an effector of TGF-beta inhibition of osteoblast (33) and myoblast differentiation (34). In the latter case, Smad3 physically interacts with MyoD and disrupts its binding to DNA, thus reducing activation of muscle-specific gene expression. In TGF-beta -mediated inhibition of osteoblast differentiation, Smad3 represses CBFA1 function without disrupting its DNA binding, although the mechanism of Smad3-mediated repression of CBFA1 remains to be characterized (33).

In this report, we examined the mechanism by which Smad3 and TGF-beta inhibit adipocyte differentiation. We found that adipogenesis, driven by either C/EBPbeta or C/EBPdelta , could be inhibited by TGF-beta without a decrease in C/EBP protein levels. C/EBPs physically interacted with both Smad3 and Smad4, whereas PPARgamma 2 interacted weakly or not at all with Smads. This interaction correlated with repression of C/EBP-mediated transcription by Smad3 and Smad4 at adipocyte differentiation-dependent promoters and multimerized C/EBP binding sites. In contrast, Smad3 and Smad4 did not affect transcription by PPARgamma 2. Smad3 and Smad4 cooperated to repress the transcription function of C/EBPs without inhibition of target DNA sequence binding. These data represent the first example of direct inhibition of the transactivation function of a transcription factor by Smads.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

Expression and Reporter Plasmids-- C/EBPalpha -pSV-SPORT and PPARgamma 2-pBabepuro (8) were from B. Spiegelman. pCMX-RXRalpha and PPRE-3X-TK-luc (35) were from R. Evans, pCMV-LAP, encoding C/EBPbeta starting from the second methionine (36), was from U. Schibler, MSV-C/EBPdelta was from S. McKnight, and GAL4-C/EBPalpha (37) was from W. Roesler. The reporter -159leptin-luc, containing the mouse leptin promoter from -159 to +9 bp relative to the transcription start (38), was from B. Lowell, and the PPARgamma 2 promoter plasmid pGL3-gamma 2p1000 (14) was from J. Auwerx.

For transient transfections, the coding regions for RXRalpha , PPARgamma 2, C/EBPalpha , C/EBPbeta , and C/EBPdelta were cloned into pRK5 (39). To make stable NIH3T3 cells expressing an adipogenic transcription factor, the C/EBPalpha , C/EBPbeta , and C/EBPdelta coding sequences were cloned into pBabepuro (40). VP16-C/EBPdelta and GAL4-C/EBPdelta were constructed using PCR to generate full-length C/EBPdelta fused to the VP16 transactivation domain in pXFVP16, or the GAL4 DNA-binding domain in pXFGAL4 (41). The 3× C/EBP-luc reporter was made by cloning a double-stranded oligonucleotide (5'-AGATCTGTTGCGCAAGTGGAGGTTGCGCAAGTGGCAGGTTGCGCAAGCTCGAG-3'), containing 3 C/EBP binding sites, into pTA-luc (42). The PPARgamma 2 promoter construct -190PPARgamma 2-luc was made by PCR, using pGL3-gamma 2p1000 as a template, to generate a PPARgamma 2 promoter fragment from -190 to +3 relative to the transcription start, which was cloned into pTA-luc.

Cell Culture, Generation of Stable Cell Lines-- 3T3-F442A cells (43) were purchased from H. Green and maintained as described (20). 3T3-L1 and NIH3T3 cells (ATCC) were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% calf serum, 10 units/ml penicillin, 10 µg/ml streptomycin, and passaged prior to reaching confluence. Phoenix E cells (G. Nolan) and COS-1 cells (ATCC) were cultured as described (34).

Retrovirally infected NIH3T3 cells were made as described (20). Selection with 2 µg/ml puromycin was started 48 h postinfection. For differentiation, confluent cells were treated for 48 h with 1 µM dexamethasone and 0.5 mM isobutylmethylxanthine in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 5 µg/ml insulin and 10% fetal bovine serum. Cells expressing PPARgamma 2 were also treated with, and maintained in, 5 µM troglitizone (Parke-Davis). As needed, 10 ng/ml TGF-beta was added at the same time as the differentiation inducers and readded when the medium was changed. All cells were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% fetal bovine serum plus 5 µg/ml insulin after the dexamethasone-isobutylmethylxanthine treatment.

Analysis of Lipid Accumulation, RNA, and Protein-- NIH3T3 cells, expressing the transcription factor of interest, were analyzed 8 days after initiation of differentiation treatment for lipid by Oil Red O staining (20). Parallel cultures were harvested for RNA or protein extraction. RNA was extracted using the SV total RNA isolation kit (Promega) and processed for Northern analysis (20). For protein extraction, cells were lysed in 300 µl/well with FLAG lysis buffer (300 mM NaCl, 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1% Triton X-100, 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 20 µg/ml leupeptin, 20 µg/ml aprotinin). 50 µg of clarified lysate was run on SDS-PAGE gels and transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride. Western blotting and development with ECL+ was performed as directed (Amersham Biosciences), using anti-C/EBPbeta , anti-C/EBPdelta , and anti-PPARgamma primary antibodies from Santa Cruz Biotechnology.

Transient Transfections and Reporter Assays-- 3T3-F442A or 3T3-L1 cells, plated 18 h prior to transfection at 9 × 104 cells per well of 6-well dishes, and COS cells, plated at 1 × 106 per 10-cm plate, were transfected using LipofectAMINE (Invitrogen). For 3T3-F442A and 3T3-L1 cells, 1 µg of DNA was used per well, and for COS cells, 5 µg of DNA was used per plate, and the total amount of DNA was constant by addition of pRK5. For luciferase assay, cells were lysed in 300 µl/well with 1× reporter lysis buffer (Promega), and assayed using reagents from BD Pharmingen. Assays were performed at least 3 times in duplicate or triplicate. All values are expressed as the -fold induction relative to the basal activity.

GST Interaction Assays and Immunoprecipitations-- GST-Smad proteins (44) were prepared and purified on glutathione-Sepharose beads (Amersham Biosciences). 35S-Labeled C/EBPalpha , -beta , -delta , or PPARgamma 2 was generated by in vitro translation using the TNT quick-coupled transcription/translation kit (Promega) and [35S]methionine. 5 µl of translation mixture, adjusted to 1 ml with GST pull-down buffer, was incubated with 2 µg of GST or GST-Smads, and adsorbed proteins were analyzed, as described (33).

For analysis of Smad-C/EBP interactions in vivo, transfected COS cells were metabolically labeled with [35S]methionine and cysteine and processed for immunoprecipitation as described (45), except that cells were lysed in FLAG lysis buffer. Precipitates were washed twice with HSA (12.5 mM potassium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, 600 mM NaCl), once with MDB (0.1% SDS, 0.05% Nonidet P-40, 300 mM NaCl, 10 mM Tris, pH 8.3), once with HSA, and once with SA (12.5 mM potassium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4, 300 mM NaCl). For sequential immunoprecipitation of C/EBP immunoprecipitates, 50 µl of a buffer containing 1% SDS, 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 50 mM NaCl, and 1 mM dithiothreitol was added to the washed beads, and the samples were heated at 95 °C for 4 min. The eluted samples were then immunoprecipitated using anti-FLAG antibody. Immunoprecipitated proteins were run on SDS-PAGE, and gels were soaked in Amplify (Amersham Biosciences) prior to autoradiography.

Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays and Biotinylated Oligonucleotide Interactions-- For electrophoretic mobility shift assay, the following oligonucleotides were synthesized: 2× wild-type C/EBP (top strand only), 5'-CTTGGCATATTGCGCAATATGCTTGGCATATTGCGCAAT ATGC-3'; 2× mutant C/EBP, 5'-CTAGCGATAaaGCGCttTATGCTTGCGATAaaGCGCttTATGC-3'. The mutations, indicated by lowercase letters, are in the residues that are critical for C/EBP binding (46). For biotinylated oligonucleotide binding reactions, the identical oligonucleotides (top strand) were modified by 5' addition of biotin.

To generate nuclear extracts, 3T3-F442A cells were plated at 5 × 104 cells per 10-cm dish in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% fetal bovine serum, 5 µg/ml insulin. Five days later, 10 ng/ml TGF-beta was added to some dishes. After 1 h, nuclear extracts were prepared as described (47). The double-stranded, wild-type 2× C/EBP oligonucleotide was 5' labeled with [gamma -32P]ATP and 1 µl of labeled probe (20,000-50,000 cpm) was incubated with 5 µg of 3T3-F442A nuclear extract, in the presence of 4 µg of bovine serum albumin, 1 µg of poly(dI-dC), 12 mM HEPES, pH 7.9, 12% glycerol, 0.12 mM EDTA, 0.9 mM MgCl2, 0.6 mM dithiothreitol, and 120 mM KCl, in a volume of 10 µl, for 15-20 min at room temperature. For supershift analysis, 250 ng of anti-C/EBPbeta , 2 µg of anti-Smad2/3 (N-19; Santa Cruz), or 1 µg of anti-Smad4 (Upstate Biotechnology, Inc.) were added prior to probe addition, and incubated 45 min at 4 °C.

For each biotinylated oligonucleotide reaction, 30 µl of streptavidin magnetic beads (Promega) were washed twice with 2× B&W buffer (10 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA, 2 M NaCl), then 100 ng of wild-type or mutant oligonucleotide was bound to the beads in 1× B&W buffer. Beads were washed twice with 2× B&W buffer, once with binding buffer (5% glycerol, 20 mM Tris, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 0.15% Triton X-100, 100 mM NaCl, 4 mM MgCl2), blocked for 30 min using 1% bovine serum albumin in binding buffer, and resuspended in 50 µl of binding buffer. Transfected COS cells were lysed in 1 ml of FLAG lysis buffer, and 100 µl of clarified lysate was used in a 0.5-ml reaction with 150 µl of 3× binding buffer, 10 µg of poly(dI-dC), and 50 µl of DNA-bound streptavidin magnetic beads. Incubations proceeded for 1 h at 4 °C with gentle mixing, followed by 5 washes in 1× binding buffer. Bound proteins were analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by Western blot analysis.

    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

TGF-beta Inhibits C/EBPbeta - and C/EBPdelta -mediated Adipocyte Differentiation-- We have previously shown that TGF-beta signaling inhibits adipocyte differentiation through TGF-beta -activated Smad3 (20). To address whether TGF-beta inhibits the function of individual adipocyte transcription factors, we generated NIH3T3 cell lines stably infected with retroviruses encoding C/EBPbeta , C/EBPdelta , C/EBPalpha , or PPARgamma . NIH3T3 cells, while unable to differentiate into adipocytes, support adipogenesis when any one of these transcription factors is expressed (4, 8). Furthermore, these cells have a functional TGF-beta signaling system (48, 49). Expression of the respective transcription factors was confirmed by Western blot (Fig. 1A). Whereas TGF-beta treatment did not affect C/EBP expression, PPARgamma expression in the stable PPARgamma -infected cells consistently decreased upon treatment with TGF-beta .


View larger version (103K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Effect of TGF-beta on adipogenesis in NIH3T3 cells, expressing C/EBPbeta , C/EBPdelta , or PPARgamma . A, stably infected NIH3T3 cells overexpress adipocyte transcription factors in the presence or absence of TGF-beta , as shown by Western blots. Equal amounts of protein were loaded. B, morphology and lipid accumulation in NIH3T3 cells overexpressing C/EBPbeta or -delta or PPARgamma , in the absence or presence of TGF-beta . Cells were subjected to differentiation treatments in the absence or presence of 10 ng/ml TGF-beta . Neutral lipid accumulation was visualized by Oil Red O staining 8 days after initiation of treatment.

Adipocyte differentiation of these cells was induced, and cells infected with empty vector were subjected to the same treatments. Consistent with previous reports (4, 8), all three transcription factors caused characteristic adipocyte rounding and lipid accumulation, as assessed by microscopic examination and Oil Red O staining of lipid accumulation (Fig. 1B). However, in the presence of 10 ng/ml TGF-beta , the differentiation of C/EBPdelta cells was prevented. TGF-beta also completely inhibited adipogenesis in NIH3T3 cells that stably expressed C/EBPalpha (data not shown). Cells expressing C/EBPbeta were also inhibited, but to a lesser extent (Fig. 1B). We also observed a low level decrease in differentiation of PPARgamma expressing cells in response to TGF-beta (Fig. 1B), which is likely related to the decreased PPARgamma levels in TGF-beta -treated cells (Fig. 1A).

TGF-beta Represses Adipocyte Marker Gene Expression Activated by C/EBPbeta or C/EBPdelta -- We assessed the effect of TGF-beta on the expression of several adipocyte differentiation genes. Ectopic expression of any of the three transcription factors induced expression of PPARgamma , aP2, and adipsin mRNAs, but none induced C/EBPalpha expression, consistent with previous reports (4, 50). Expression of C/EBPbeta led to the highest levels of adipocyte marker gene expression (Fig. 2). TGF-beta treatment of these cells moderately decreased the level of PPARgamma expression and strongly inhibited aP2 and adipsin expression (Fig. 2). NIH3T3 cells expressing C/EBPdelta had lower levels of PPARgamma , aP2, and adipsin than C/EBPbeta -expressing cells, consistent with the lower number of lipid-filled cells in cultures expressing C/EBPdelta versus C/EBPbeta (Fig. 1B). Treatment of the C/EBPdelta -expressing cells with TGF-beta blocked the expression of PPARgamma , aP2, and adipsin (Fig. 2). C/EBPs can directly activate the PPARgamma and aP2 promoters (11, 12, 51) and are critical for induction of adipsin expression (52). Because the levels of C/EBPbeta and -delta were unaffected by TGF-beta , these results suggest that TGF-beta inhibits the transcriptional activity of C/EBPbeta and -delta , and that this repression may result in decreased adipocyte marker mRNA levels and reduced adipogenesis.


View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Effects of TGF-beta on adipocyte-specific mRNA expression in NIH3T3 cells expressing adipocyte transcription factors. NIH3T3 cells, infected with empty vector or expressing C/EBPbeta , C/EBPdelta , or PPARgamma were treated to induce adipogenesis in the presence or absence of TGF-beta . Northern blotting was performed using the indicated probes. In the case of C/EBPbeta , C/EBPdelta , and PPARgamma , the endogenous and retroviral transcripts are indicated. Ethidium bromide staining (EtBr, bottom panel) demonstrates the RNA loading. The appearance of a C/EBPdelta -hybridizing band of the size of the viral transcript in C/EBPbeta overexpressing cells is likely because of cross-hybridization of C/EBPbeta RNA.

TGF-beta treatment of PPARgamma expressing cells decreased the levels of both viral and endogenous PPARgamma mRNA (Fig. 2) and protein (Fig. 1A). Expression of aP2 mRNA, which is directly activated by PPARgamma (7), was only modestly decreased by TGF-beta . This decrease was consistent with the decreased PPARgamma mRNA and protein levels. In contrast, adipsin and PPARgamma mRNAs, which require C/EBP transcription factors for full induction, and are not directly induced by PPARgamma 2 (14, 52), were strongly down-regulated. These data support the notion that TGF-beta primarily inhibits the activity of C/EBPs, i.e. C/EBPdelta and C/EBPbeta , whereas inhibition of PPARgamma may occur at the level of PPARgamma protein and mRNA accumulation, rather than its transcriptional activity.

Physical Interaction of Smad3 with C/EBPs-- To evaluate a direct role of TGF-beta in inhibiting the function of the adipogenic transcription factors, we examined their ability to physically interact with Smads. In vitro translated C/EBPbeta , C/EBPdelta , C/EBPalpha , and PPARgamma were tested for interaction with GST-fused Smad1, -2, -3, or -4 (Fig. 3A). The three C/EBPs had an identical interaction profile, having strong interaction with both GST-Smad3 and GST-Smad4, very weak interaction with GST-Smad1, and no interaction with Smad2. PPARgamma exhibited a marginal interaction with GST-Smad3 only. Neither the addition of PPARgamma ligand nor cotranslating PPARgamma with its partner RXRalpha improved the ability of PPARgamma to interact with GST-Smads (data not shown).


View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   C/EBPs physically interact with Smad3 and Smad4. A, in vitro interaction of 35S-labeled C/EBPdelta , -beta , or -alpha , or PPARgamma with GST-Smad proteins. The complexes were subjected to SDS-PAGE, Coomassie staining, and autoradiography. Because the amounts of GST proteins were the same in the different experiments, only one Coomassie-stained gel is shown (bottom panel). B, C/EBPdelta interacts with Smad3 and Smad4 in transfected COS cells. Lysates were subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-FLAG or anti-C/EBPdelta antibodies, or sequential immunoprecipitation with C/EBPdelta , then anti-FLAG. The different proteins are indicated (arrows).

The interaction of C/EBPdelta with Smad3 and Smad4 was also observed in vivo (Fig. 3B). For this purpose, we expressed C/EBPdelta , FLAG-tagged Smad3 or Smad4, and the constitutively active Tbeta RII/RI chimera (53) in various combinations in COS cells. The high transfection efficiency of COS cells that allows this type of analysis stands in contrast with 3T3-F442A cells, which were not amenable for protein interaction experiments (data not shown). The minimal sensitivity of COS cells to TGF-beta , coincident with their very low levels of TGF-beta receptors, requires coexpression of an activated TGF-beta receptor rather than TGF-beta treatment, to activate transfected Smads. Transfected cells were 35S-labeled, and subjected to immunoprecipitation with anti-FLAG or anti-C/EBPdelta , or sequential immunoprecipitation with anti-C/EBPdelta followed by anti-FLAG (Fig. 3B). Smad3 or Smad4 were detected in anti-C/EBPdelta immunoprecipitations, but only when C/EBPdelta was expressed. Tbeta RII/RI expression did not stimulate this interaction, as has been observed for interactions of Smads with transcription factors expressed in COS cells (33). Identical results were obtained when C/EBPbeta was expressed instead of C/EBPdelta (data not shown). The inability of the anti-Smad or anti-C/EBP antibodies to immunoprecipitate denatured proteins generated in sequential immunoprecipitation precluded a similar analysis of endogenous protein interactions in 3T3-F442A cells (data not shown).

We next made truncation mutants of C/EBPdelta consisting of its transcription activation domain or basic region plus leucine zipper, required for DNA binding and dimerization, and assessed their abilities to interact with GST-fused Smad3 and -4. The interactions of Smad3 and Smad4 with the basic region plus leucine zipper segment were strong, but we also detected a weak, yet specific interaction with the transcription activation domain (Fig. 4A). Conversely, C/EBPdelta primarily interacted with the MH1 (N) domain of Smad3, although there was also a very weak interaction with the MH2 (C) domain (Fig. 4B). In transfected cells, C/EBPdelta interacted with the MH2 domain as well as, or perhaps better than, the MH1 domain of Smad3 (Fig. 4C). This stronger interaction of the MH2 domain in vivo versus in vitro has also been observed with the interaction of Smad3 with MyoD (34), and may reflect the stabilizing participation of additional proteins in the transcription machinery. Neither truncated Smad3 protein could interact as strongly with C/EBPdelta as full-length Smad3, consistent with an interaction of both Smad3 domains with C/EBPdelta .


View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Analysis of interaction domains of C/EBPdelta and Smad3. A, in vitro interactions of C/EBP domains with Smad3 and Smad4. Interactions of 35S-labeled C/EBPdelta segments, generated in vitro, with GST-Smad3 or -Smad4 were assessed as in Fig. 3A. The top and bottom panels show the autoradiogram and Coomassie staining, respectively. TAD, C/EBPdelta transactivation domain; BLZ, C/EBPdelta basic region and leucine zipper. B, in vitro interactions of 35S-labeled, in vitro generated C/EBPdelta with GST-fused domains of Smad3. N, MH1 domain; L, linker region; C, MH2 domain. C, interaction of Smad3 domains with C/EBPdelta in vivo. FLAG-tagged Smad3, Smad3 NL, or Smad3 C were expressed in COS cells, with or without C/EBPdelta and Tbeta RII/RI chimeric receptor. 35S-Labeled cell lysates were subjected to single or sequential immunoprecipitations, as shown.

Smad3 Inhibits Transcriptional Activation of Adipocyte Marker Genes by C/EBPs-- The adipogenic function of C/EBPbeta has been shown to depend on the transcription activation domain of C/EBPbeta (4). The association of Smad3 and Smad4 with C/EBPs (Figs. 3 and 4) and the inhibition of differentiation of cells expressing C/EBPs by TGF-beta (Figs. 1 and 2) suggests that Smad3, in cooperation with Smad4, may decrease the ability of C/EBPbeta or C/EBPdelta to activate transcription. We tested this hypothesis using promoters from the PPARgamma 2 and leptin genes, two adipocyte differentiation-induced promoters known to be activated by C/EBPs.

As shown in Fig. 5A, C/EBPdelta activated transcription of a promoter segment of PPARgamma 2 containing 190 bp upstream from the transcription start. Smad3 inhibited C/EBPdelta -mediated transcription, and this inhibition was enhanced in the presence of activated TGF-beta receptor. TGF-beta itself exerted only a minimal decrease (data not shown), consistent with the high numbers of reporter plasmids and high expression levels of transcription factors in these transient transfection/reporter assays (e.g. Refs. 54 and 55). Smad4 enhanced the ability of Smad3 to down-regulate C/EBP-mediated transcription of the PPAR-gamma promoter segment. Similar results were seen using a promoter segment containing 159 base pairs upstream from the transcription start site of the leptin gene (Fig. 5B). C/EBPbeta -induced transcription was inhibited by Smad3 and by TGF-beta signaling. This inhibition was more dramatic when Smad4 was coexpressed with Smad3.


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Smad3 or Smad3/4 repress transcription from adipocyte differentiation-induced promoters by C/EBP. 3T3-F442A cells were transfected with the indicated plasmids and luciferase activities were measured. A, activation of the PPARgamma 2 promoter by C/EBPdelta is inhibited by Smad3 with Smad4 and TGF-beta receptor signaling. C/EBPdelta was expressed with increasing amounts of Smad3, with or without Smad4. B, activation of the leptin promoter by C/EBPbeta is inhibited by Smad3 with Smad4 and TGF-beta receptor signaling. Relative luciferase activities are shown.

TGF-beta Signaling and Smad3 Inhibit Transcription at C/EBP Binding Sites-- The down-regulation of C/EBPbeta - or delta -activated transcription from the PPARgamma 2 and leptin promoters by TGF-beta and Smads did not exclude functional interactions with other DNA binding transcription factors, besides C/EBPbeta and -delta . We therefore tested if Smad3 repressed transcription from an artificial promoter that is specifically activated by C/EBP, i.e. an artificial promoter with three tandem C/EBP binding sequences. Luciferase reporter assays were again carried out in 3T3-F442A preadipocytes.

As shown in Fig. 6, A-C, C/EBPbeta , -delta , and -alpha activated transcription from this 3× C/EBP promoter, and their activities were mildly inhibited by an activated TGF-beta receptor. C/EBP-induced transcription was inhibited by Smad3, and strongly inhibited by Smad3 and Smad4, but not Smad4 alone, and their inhibition was enhanced when the activated TGF-beta receptor was coexpressed. Smad3 and Smad4 also decreased the basal transcription in the absence of cotransfected C/EBPs, presumably because of inhibition of endogenous C/EBP activity. This repression was not because of decreased C/EBP expression (Fig. 6, A and B, bottom panels). The inhibition of the C/EBPs by Smad3/4 was not restricted to 3T3-F442A preadipocytes, but was also observed in 3T3-L1 preadipocytes (Fig. 6D).


View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Smad3 or Smad3/4 repress transcriptional activation of a C/EBP reporter gene by C/EBPbeta , -delta , or -alpha . Cells were transfected with the indicated plasmids and a luciferase reporter driven by three C/EBP binding sites (3XC/EBP-luc). A, Smad3 and Smad3/4 repress activation of 3× C/EBP-luc by C/EBPbeta in 3T3-F442A cells. Lower panel shows a Western blot for C/EBPbeta expression in parallel transfected cell lysates. B, Smad3 and Smad3/4 repress activation of 3× C/EBP-luc by C/EBPdelta in 3T3-F442A cells. Lower panel shows a Western blot for C/EBPdelta expression. C, Smad3 and Smad3/4 repress activation of 3× C/EBP-luc by C/EBPalpha in 3T3-F442A cells. D, Smad3 and Smad3/4 repress C/EBPalpha , -beta , and -delta activation of 3× C/EBP-luc in 3T3-L1 cells. E, comparison of the effects of Smad3 and Smad4 on PPARgamma 2/RXRalpha -mediated transcription versus C/EBPdelta -mediated transcription. 3T3-F442A cells were transfected with a luciferase reporter driven by a promoter with three PPARgamma binding sites (3× PPRE-luc) or the 3× C/EBP-luc reporter. Transfected cells expressed PPARgamma 2 and RXRalpha to activate 3× PPRE-luc, or C/EBPdelta to activate 3× C/EBP-luc, with or without coexpressed Smad3/4 and Tbeta RII/RI. Relative luciferase activities are shown.

We also tested the effects of Smad3 and Smad4 on transcription by PPARgamma 2. We used a luciferase reporter containing 3 PPARgamma binding sites, similar to the 3× C/EBP luciferase reporter, and tested the ability of Smad3 and Smad4 to repress transcription activated by PPARgamma 2 in 3T3-F442A cells. Smad3 and Smad4 did not inhibit the activation of the 3× PPRE reporter by PPARgamma 2 and RXRalpha (Fig. 6E), despite their ability to inhibit C/EBPdelta activation of the 3× C/EBP luciferase reporter. These data support the idea that TGF-beta inhibits adipocyte differentiation by inhibiting the abilities of C/EBPs, but not PPARgamma 2, to activate target gene expression.

DNA Binding of Smad3 Is Not Required for Repression of C/EBP Activity-- Transcriptional activation by Smad3 involves Smad3 binding to DNA. However, Smad3 DNA binding is not required in the one example of Smad3-mediated repression where this requirement was tested (33). To determine whether Smad3 needs to bind DNA to inhibit transcription by C/EBP, we tested the ability of the R47D mutant of Smad3, which is unable to bind to DNA (56), to inhibit C/EBPdelta -mediated transcription from 3× C/EBP-luc. As shown in Fig. 7A, Smad3 R47D repressed transcriptional activation by C/EBPdelta , similarly to the wild-type Smad3. However, Smad4 did not potentiate the inhibition by Smad3 R47D, as compared with wild-type Smad3. Similar results (data not shown) were obtained using the Smad3Delta LG mutant, which likewise does not bind DNA (56).


View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   Analysis of Smad3 repression of C/EBPdelta -activated transcription. A, repression of C/EBPdelta transcription does not require Smad3 DNA binding. 3T3-F442A cells were transfected with 3× C/EBP-luc, and combinations of Smad3 or its DNA binding-defective R47D mutant, Smad4, C/EBPdelta , and Tbeta RII/RI. B, the MH2 domain of Smad3 is necessary and sufficient for repression of C/EBPdelta transcription. 3T3-F442A cells were transfected with Smad3, or Smad3 lacking the MH2 domain (Smad3NL), or the Smad3 MH2 domain (Smad3C), and combinations of C/EBPdelta , Smad4, and Tbeta RII/RI. Relative luciferase activities are shown.

We also assessed the effects of Smad3NL, i.e. the Smad3 MH1 domain with the linker segment, and Smad3C, consisting of the MH2 domain, to inhibit activation of the C/EBP reporter by C/EBP. Smad3C exhibited a stronger inhibition than Smad3, and Smad3NL, which can also interact with C/EBP, did not inhibit C/EBP transcriptional activation, and tended to slightly enhance it (Fig. 7B). These results are consistent with the inability of DNA binding mutations in the MH1 domain to impair the repression of C/EBP by Smad3 (Fig. 7A).

Smad3 Does Not Inhibit DNA Binding of C/EBP-- Smad3 could repress C/EBP transcription through interference with the DNA binding of C/EBP, similarly to the inhibition of MyoD activity by Smad3 (34). Alternatively, Smad3 could target the C/EBP transactivation domain, which mediates transcription once C/EBP is bound to DNA. Because Smad3 interacted strongly with the basic region plus leucine zipper segment of C/EBP that binds DNA, we examined the abilities of Smad3 and -4 to block DNA binding of C/EBPdelta .

Transcription from the transactivation domain of VP16 is not influenced by TGF-beta /Smad3 signaling (34). Thus, when fused to a DNA binding segment, alterations in transcription from the DNA binding site are likely to correlate with changes in DNA binding. A chimera of VP16 and the basic region plus leucine zipper segment of C/EBPdelta did not activate transcription from the 3× C/EBP promoter (data not shown). We therefore fused the VP16 transactivation domain to full-size C/EBPdelta , and this chimera activated transcription from C/EBP binding sites to a higher level than C/EBPdelta itself (Fig. 8A). Coexpression of an activated TGF-beta receptor, Smad3 or -4, or Smad3/4, had little or no effect on transcription by VP16-C/EBPdelta at the 3× C/EBP promoter; the minor repression may have been because of repression of the C/EBPdelta activation domain in VP16-C/EBPdelta (see below). This is in contrast with the strong repression of C/EBPdelta by Smad3/4 in the same assay (Fig. 8A). These data suggest that Smad3 and/or Smad4 has little or no effect on DNA binding of C/EBPdelta .


View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8.   Smad3/4 and TGF-beta do not inhibit C/EBP binding to DNA. A, Smad3 or Smad3/4 do not inhibit transcription by VP16-C/EBPdelta . 3T3-F442A cells were transfected with VP16-C/EBPdelta or C/EBPdelta , and combinations of Smad3, Smad4, or Tbeta RII/RI, and the activation of the 3× C/EBP-luc reporter was measured. B, Smad3 or Smad4 do not interfere with C/EBPdelta binding to DNA. COS cells were transfected with plasmids for C/EBPdelta , FLAG-tagged Smad3, and/or Smad4, using a 4-fold excess of Smad plasmid DNA relative to C/EBPdelta DNA. Biotinylated oligonucleotides with two consensus C/EBP binding sequences (W), or a mutated sequence that does not bind C/EBP (M), were incubated with cell lysates. Bound proteins were precipitated by streptavidin-linked magnetic beads and subjected to Western analysis. Equal amounts of cell lysates were blotted directly to show the levels of Smads and C/EBPdelta . C, TGF-beta does not decrease C/EBP binding to DNA in gel-shift analysis (electrophoretic mobility shift assay). 3T3-F442A cells, grown under differentiation conditions, were untreated or treated for 1 h with 10 ng/ml TGF-beta . Nuclear extracts were incubated with a 32P-labeled 2× C/EBP binding sequence oligonucleotide. wt 2× C/EBP, unlabeled 2× C/EBP binding sequence oligonucleotide at indicated molar excess; mut 2× C/EBP, unlabeled mutant 2× C/EBP oligonucleotide at the indicated molar excess; alpha -C/EBPbeta , incubation with anti-C/EBPbeta to disrupt the C/EBP complex and generate a supershift (ss); alpha -Smad3, alpha -Smad4, complexes incubated with these antibodies.

We also used a biotinylated oligonucleotide binding assay to assess whether excess Smad3 or -4 affected C/EBPdelta binding to its DNA sequence. C/EBPdelta and/or Smad3 or -4 were expressed in COS cells and their binding to an oligonucleotide comprising a wild-type or mutant C/EBP binding sequence was assessed by Western blotting (Fig. 8B). C/EBPdelta specifically bound the wild-type but not the mutant oligonucleotide. Smad3 or Smad4, expressed at high levels (as high as 10-fold excess, data not shown), did not reduce C/EBPdelta binding to a single (not shown) or double C/EBP binding sequence; if anything, Smad3 slightly increased binding. A small amount of Smad3 could be detected specifically bound to C/EBP at the DNA, but not in the absence of C/EBP or to the mutant oligonucleotide in the presence of C/EBP. The low level binding of Smad3 through C/EBP to the C/EBP binding sequence is similar to the interaction of Smad3 through CBFA1 to the CBFA1-binding oligonucleotide (33). This weak, yet specific protein interaction is likely stabilized by the many protein interactions in the multiprotein transcription machinery (57). Smad4 binding to C/EBP at the DNA was barely detectable and similar to background.

Finally, we assessed whether 10 ng/ml TGF-beta affected the binding of endogenous C/EBP in 3T3-F442A cells to a 32P-labeled oligonucleotide containing two C/EBP binding sites, in an electrophoretic mobility shift assay. A complex was detected that was specifically competed by excess C/EBP oligonucleotide, but not by mutant C/EBP oligonucleotide, and could be displaced and supershifted by a C/EBPbeta antibody (Fig. 8C). TGF-beta treatment did not affect the formation of this complex. These nuclear extracts were able to form a TGF-beta -inducible complex on a Smad-binding element oligonucleotide, which could be supershifted with Smad3 or Smad4 antibody (data not shown), indicating that the cells were responsive to TGF-beta . However, anti-Smad3 or anti-Smad4 did not supershift the C/EBP complex (Fig. 8C), suggesting an unstable interaction or a conformation unfavorable for antibody-Smad interaction. This result is consistent with the low amount of interaction detected in the oligonucleotide pull-down assay (Fig. 8B), and is similar to what has been seen for Smad3-Cbfa1 interaction (33).

Smad3 Represses the Transactivation Function of C/EBPs-- Because Smad3 and Smad4 did not inhibit C/EBP binding to DNA, we assessed whether Smad3 and -4 inhibited the transcription function of C/EBPs. We fused C/EBPdelta to the DNA binding domain of GAL4 and measured the activation of transcription of the FR-luc reporter by this fusion protein. TGF-beta /Smad3 signaling does not affect the binding of the Gal4 DNA binding domain to the Gal4 binding sites in FR-luc (34); so this reporter system allows measurements of transactivation function under conditions of constant DNA binding.

As shown in Fig. 9, A and B, TGF-beta signaling repressed the transactivation function of GAL4-fused C/EBPdelta . Smad3 also repressed GAL4-C/EBPdelta -activated transcription of FR-luc, and this repression was stronger with an activated TGF-beta receptor. Smad4 only weakly suppressed transcription by GAL4-C/EBPdelta (Fig. 9A). The repression was dose-responsive (Fig. 9B), and greatest when Smad3 and -4 were coexpressed (Fig. 9, A and B). This profile of repression by TGF-beta /Smad3 signaling was similar to the repression of C/EBPdelta function at the C/EBP binding site (Fig. 6). GAL4-C/EBPalpha was also repressed by Smad3 or Smad3/4 (Fig. 9C), similarly to GAL4-C/EBPdelta . For unknown reasons, GAL4-C/EBPbeta was unable to activate transcription of FR-luc in 3T3-F442A cells (data not shown). Together, the data show that Smad3 cooperates with Smad4 to repress the transactivation function of C/EBPs, without affecting C/EBP binding to the promoter DNA sequences of target genes, and that this may represent a mechanism by which TGF-beta blocks adipogenesis.


View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9.   Smad3 or Smad3/4 inhibit the transcription function of C/EBPdelta and C/EBPalpha . 3T3-F442A cells were transfected with the indicated plasmids and assayed for luciferase activity. A, Smad3 or Smad3/4 repress activation of the GAL4 reporter FR-luc by GAL4-C/EBPdelta . B, dose-response of repression of GAL4-C/EBPdelta by increasing amounts of Smad3/4. C, Smad3 or Smad3/4 inhibit FR-luc activation by GAL4-C/EBPalpha . Relative luciferase activities are shown.


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

TGF-beta /Smad3 Signaling Inhibits Adipogenic Differentiation Primarily through Functional Repression of C/EBPbeta and C/EBPdelta -- We previously observed that inhibition of adipogenesis by TGF-beta was accompanied by reduced mRNA levels for PPARgamma , C/EBPalpha , and ADD1/SREBP1c, but not of C/EBPbeta and -delta (20). These data suggested that TGF-beta targets the transcription factor cascade upstream of PPARgamma , possibly by repressing the functions of C/EBPbeta and -delta . We therefore expressed the adipogenic transcription factors individually in NIH3T3 cells, and evaluated the effect of TGF-beta on the adipocyte differentiation program activated by each transcription factor. This analysis revealed that TGF-beta repressed adipogenesis directed by C/EBPbeta or -delta (or C/EBPalpha ; data not shown), without decreasing their levels. This indicates that TGF-beta signaling represses the function of C/EBPbeta and -delta , a conclusion confirmed by the TGF-beta /Smad3-mediated repression of transcription by C/EBPs at synthetic and natural promoters, including the PPARgamma 2 promoter. Taken together, these observations let us conclude that adipogenic differentiation is inhibited by TGF-beta at the level of C/EBPbeta and -delta function, upstream from PPARgamma expression.

The differentiation of NIH3T3 cells driven by ectopic PPARgamma expression was also mildly inhibited by TGF-beta . However, TGF-beta also decreased PPARgamma mRNA and protein levels. This decrease in PPARgamma 2 expression may occur post-transcriptionally, because C/EBPbeta or -delta expression from the same retroviral promoter was not affected by TGF-beta . Also, the induction of aP2 expression was relatively unaffected by TGF-beta , when considering the reduced level of PPARgamma expression. The differentiation-dependent expression of aP2 depends primarily on PPARgamma , with C/EBP playing a contributory role (58), whereas C/EBP is critical for PPARgamma and adipsin expression (14, 52). The relative insensitivity of aP2 expression to TGF-beta , in contrast to the strong repression of PPARgamma and adipsin, in NIH3T3 cells expressing PPARgamma , suggests that the transcription function of PPARgamma is less affected by TGF-beta than that of C/EBP. Accordingly, TGF-beta /Smad3 signaling did not repress the transcription activity of PPARgamma . Together, our data suggest that the repression of C/EBPbeta and -delta by TGF-beta /Smad3 signaling prevents induction of PPARgamma expression, and that the function of PPARgamma itself is not a direct target of repression by TGF-beta .

Mechanism of Smad3-mediated Repression of C/EBPs-- The mechanism of TGF-beta -induced transcriptional activation through cooperation of Smads with sequence-specific transcription factors, and the role of Smad corepressors in reducing activation, are well documented. In contrast, little is known about mechanisms of TGF-beta -mediated repression of transcription. In epithelial cells, TGF-beta /Smad3 signaling can repress transcription by the androgen receptor (59), and activin and Smad3 repress C/EBPbeta -induced transcription from the haptoglobin promoter (60). In mesenchymal cells, TGF-beta /Smad3 signaling represses the functions of CBFA1 in osteoblastic differentiation (33), and of myogenic basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors (34). A mechanism of TGF-beta /Smad-mediated repression was clearly demonstrated only in the latter case. In response to TGF-beta , Smad3 represses MyoD function through physical interaction with the helix-loop-helix domain of MyoD, interfering with its dimerization with E12/47, thus impairing MyoD binding to DNA and blocking transcriptional activation. We now show that in mesenchymal cells, TGF-beta represses the functions of C/EBPbeta and -delta through Smad3, resulting in inhibition of adipogenic differentiation by TGF-beta . The physical association of Smad3 and -4 with C/EBPs provides the basis for this functional repression. In contrast, Smad3 can only marginally, if at all, associate with PPARgamma and did not reduce its transcriptional activity. Physical association per se is not predictive of Smad-mediated repression versus activation. Indeed, Smads interact with various transcription factors to activate transcription (31, 32); and interaction of Smads with AMLs (acute myeloid leukemia transcription factors) results in coactivation or repression of transcription, depending on the cell and promoter sequence contexts (33, 42). There is as yet no evidence for differential physical interactions that mediate transcriptional activation versus repression.

Because Smad3 interacts with the DNA binding domain of C/EBP (Fig. 4A), we evaluated whether Smad3 or -4 impaired DNA binding of C/EBPbeta or -delta . In contrast to MyoD (34), Smad3 did not decrease DNA binding of C/EBPs, suggesting a different mechanism of repression. Similarly, repression of CBFA1 transcription by Smad3 was not accompanied by decreased DNA binding of CBFA1 (33). The physical interactions of Smad3 and -4 with C/EBP are reminiscent of c-Jun (44, 56), another bZIP transcription factor. Smad3 interacts in vitro with the DNA binding domains of both C/EBP or c-Jun. Smad3 did not disrupt and, instead, increased the DNA binding of c-Jun. However, in contrast to the transcriptional cooperativity of Smad3 with c-Jun, Smad3 repressed the C/EBP activity.

We also showed that direct DNA binding of Smad3 is not required for repression of C/EBP function by Smad3. DNA binding-defective Smad3 mutants repressed C/EBP transcription (Fig. 7), repression occurred at C/EBP binding sites without an adjacent Smad binding DNA sequence (Figs. 5-7), and Smad3 only interacted with the C/EBP binding site through C/EBP (Fig. 8). Similarly, Smad3 represses transcription by CBFA1 without the need for DNA binding (33). These observations stand in contrast with the required DNA binding of Smad3 in TGF-beta /Smad3-mediated transcriptional activation, e.g. in the cooperativity of Smad3 with c-Jun (56). It remains to be explored whether this lack of requirement of Smad3 binding to DNA is a general aspect of Smad3-mediated repression.

In contrast to repression of MyoD, Smad3 represses C/EBP transcription by repressing its transactivation function (Fig. 9). This is the first evidence for Smad-mediated repression of the transactivation function of a transcription factor. How Smad3 represses the transactivation function is as yet unclear. One possibility would be that Smad3 recruits histone deacetylases, because its MH1 domain is able to recruit deacetylase activity (61). However, the MH1 domain was dispensable for repression of C/EBP, and the MH2 domain by itself potently repressed C/EBP transcription. Furthermore, trichostatin A, which inhibits class I and II histone deacetylase activities, did not reverse Smad3-mediated repression of transcription by C/EBP (data not shown).

Another possibility would be that Smad3 interferes with the function of CBP/p300 as coactivator for C/EBP. Indeed, C/EBPbeta interacts with, and is transcriptionally activated by, p300 (62), and Smad3 also interacts with CBP/p300 as coactivators (41, 63). However, p300 did not reverse Smad3 repression of C/EBP (data not shown), in contrast to the partial reversion observed on the haptoglobin promoter in hepatoma cells (60). Instead, increased p300 levels repressed, rather than enhanced, C/EBP-mediated transcription from the PPARgamma promoter (data not shown). Furthermore, a Smad3-binding, dominant-negative segment of p300 (64) did not inhibit the repression of C/EBP by Smad3 (data not shown). Perhaps CBP or p300 contribute to Smad3-mediated repression of C/EBP function in our system, and/or as yet unidentified cofactors may be involved. Further research will address the mechanism and co-factor(s) involved in mediating this repression.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge the generous gifts of reagents by J. Auwerx, R. Evans, B. Lowell, S. McKnight, W. Roesler, U. Schibler, B. Spiegelman, and P. Tontonoz; and thank T. Alliston for help with the GST proteins and other techniques, J. Skillington for help with retrovirus production, J. Qing for help with the protein-DNA interaction studies, and D. Liu for computer assistance; and all the members of the Derynck lab who gave support and helpful advice.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants RO1-CA63101 and P60 DE-13058 (Project III) (to R. D.) and K01-DK02877 (to L. 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.

Dagger To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Growth and Development, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0640. Tel.: 415-476-7322; Fax: 415-476-1499; E-mail: derynck@itsa.ucsf.edu.

Published, JBC Papers in Press, January 9, 2003, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M212259200

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: PPAR, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor; TGF-beta , transforming growth factor-beta ; GST, glutathione S-transferase; C/EBP, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein; RXR, retoinoid X receptor.

    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

1. Umek, R. M., Friedman, A. D., and McKnight, S. L. (1991) Science 251, 288-292[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Lin, F. T., and Lane, M. D. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 8757-8761[Abstract]
3. Freytag, S. O., Paielli, D. L., and Gilbert, J. D. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 1654-1663[Abstract]
4. Yeh, W. C., Cao, Z., Classon, M., and McKnight, S. L. (1995) Genes Dev. 9, 168-181[Abstract]
5. Wu, Z., Bucher, N. L., and Farmer, S. R. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 4128-4136[Abstract]
6. Tanaka, T., Yoshida, N., Kishimoto, T., and Akira, S. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 7432-7443[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Tontonoz, P., Hu, E., Graves, R. A., Budavari, A. I., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 1224-1234[Abstract]
8. Tontonoz, P., Hu, E., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1994) Cell 79, 1147-1156[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Rosen, E. D., Sarraf, P., Troy, A. E., Bradwin, G., Moore, K., Milstone, D. S., Spiegelman, B. M., and Mortensen, R. M. (1999) Mol. Cell 4, 611-617[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Kim, J. B., Wright, H. M., Wright, M., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 4333-4337[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Clarke, S. L., Robinson, C. E., and Gimble, J. M. (1997) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 240, 99-103[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Saladin, R., Fajas, L., Dana, S., Halvorsen, Y. D., Auwerx, J., and Briggs, M. (1999) Cell Growth Differ. 10, 43-48[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Fajas, L., Fruchart, J.-C., and Auwerx, J. (1998) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 10, 165-173[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Fajas, L., Auboeuf, D., Raspe, E., Schoonjans, K., Lefebvre, A. M., Saladin, R., Najib, J., Laville, M., Fruchart, J. C., Deeb, S., Vidal-Puig, A., Flier, J., Briggs, M. R., Staels, B., Vidal, H., and Auwerx, J. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 18779-18789[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Freytag, S. O., and Geddes, T. J. (1992) Science 256, 379-382[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Wu, Z., Rosen, E. D., Brun, R., Hauser, S., Adelmant, G., Troy, A. E., McKeon, C., Darlington, G. J., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1999) Mol. Cell 3, 151-158[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Centrella, M., Horowitz, M. C., Wozney, J. M., and McCarthy, T. L. (1994) Endocr. Rev. 15, 27-39[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Massagué, J., Cheifetz, S., Endo, T., and Nadal-Ginard, B. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 83, 8206-8210[Abstract]
19. Ignotz, R. A., and Massagué, J. (1985) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 82, 8530-8534[Abstract]
20. Choy, L., Skillington, J., and Derynck, R. (2000) J. Cell Biol. 149, 667-682[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Sparks, R. L., Allen, B. J., and Strauss, E. E. (1992) J. Cell. Physiol. 150, 568-577[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Clouthier, D. E., Comerford, S. A., and Hammer, R. E. (1997) J. Clin. Invest. 100, 2697-2713[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Samad, F., Yamamoto, K., Pandey, M., and Loskutoff, D. J. (1997) Mol. Med. 3, 37-48[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Sparks, R. L., Allen, B. J., Zygmunt, A. I., and Strauss, E. E. (1993) Cancer Res. 53, 1770-1776[Abstract]
25. Bortell, R., Owen, T. A., Ignotz, R., Stein, G. S., and Stein, J. L. (1994) J. Cell. Biochem. 54, 256-263[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Rahimi, N., Tremblay, E., McAdam, L., Roberts, A., and Elliott, B. (1998) In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 34, 412-420
27. Alessi, M. C., Bastelica, D., Morange, P., Berthet, B., Leduc, I., Verdier, M., Geel, O., and Juhan-Vague, I. (2000) Diabetes 49, 1374-1380[Abstract]
28. Samad, F., Uysal, K. T., Wiesbrock, S. M., Pandey, M., Hotamisligil, G. S., and Loskutoff, D. J. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 6902-6907[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Torti, F. M., Dieckmann, B., Beutler, B., Cerami, A., and Ringold, G. M. (1985) Science 229, 867-869[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Heldin, C.-H., Miyazono, K., and ten Dijke, P. (1997) Nature 390, 465-471[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Massague, J., and Wotton, D. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 1745-1754[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Itoh, S., Itoh, F., Goumans, M. J., and ten Dijke, P. (2000) Eur. J. Biochem. 267, 6954-6967[Abstract/Free Full Text]
33. Alliston, T., Choy, L., Ducy, P., Karsenty, G., and Derynck, R. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 2254-2272[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Liu, D., Black, B. L., and Derynck, R. (2001) Genes Dev. 15, 2950-2966[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Forman, B. M., Tontonoz, P., Chen, J., Brun, R. P., Spiegelman, B. M., and Evans, R. M. (1995) Cell 83, 803-812[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Descombes, P., and Schibler, U. (1991) Cell 67, 569-579[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Roesler, W. J., Crosson, S. M., Vinson, C., and McFie, P. J. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 8068-8074[Abstract/Free Full Text]
38. Hollenberg, A. N., Susulic, V. S., Madura, J. P., Zhang, B., Moller, D. E., Tontonoz, P., Sarraf, P., Spiegelman, B. M., and Lowell, B. B. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 5283-5290[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. Graycar, J. L., Miller, D. A., Arrick, B. A., Lyons, R. M., Moses, H. L., and Derynck, R. (1989) Mol. Endocrinol. 3, 1977-1986[Abstract]
40. Morgenstern, J. P., and Land, H. (1990) Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 3587-3596[Abstract]
41. Feng, X.-H., Zhang, Y., Wu, R.-Y., and Derynck, R. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 2153-2163[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Zhang, Y., and Derynck, R. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 16979-16985[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Green, H., and Kehinde, O. (1976) Cell 7, 105-113[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
44. Zhang, Y., Feng, X.-H., and Derynck, R. (1998) Nature 394, 909-913[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
45. Shum, L., Reeves, S. A., Kuo, A., Fromer, E. S., and Derynck, R. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 125, 903-916[Abstract]
46. Osada, S., Yamamoto, H., Nishihara, T., and Imagawa, M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 3891-3896[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Schreiber, E., Matthias, P., Muller, M. M., and Schaffner, W. (1989) Nucleic Acids Res. 17, 6419[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
48. Benzakour, O., Merzak, A., Dooghe, Y., Pironin, M., Lawrence, D., and Vigier, P. (1992) Growth Factors 6, 265-275[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
49. Pierreux, C. E., Nicolas, F. J., and Hill, C. S. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 9041-9054[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Wu, Z., Xie, Y., Morrison, R. F., Bucher, N. L., and Farmer, S. R. (1998) J. Clin. Invest. 101, 22-32[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Herrera, R., Ro, H. S., Robinson, G. S., Xanthopoulos, K. G., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1989) Mol. Cell. Biol. 9, 5331-5339[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
52. Chen, S. S., Chen, J. F., Johnson, P. F., Muppala, V., and Lee, Y. H. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 7292-7299[Abstract/Free Full Text]
53. Feng, X.-H., and Derynck, R. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 13123-13129[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54. Hanai, J., Chen, L. F., Kanno, T., Ohtani-Fujita, N., Kim, W. Y., Guo, W. H., Imamura, T., Ishidou, Y., Fukuchi, M., Shi, M. J., Stavnezer, J., Kawabata, M., Miyazono, K., and Ito, Y. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 31577-31582[Abstract/Free Full Text]
55. Pardali, E., Xie, X. Q., Tsapogas, P., Itoh, S., Arvanitidis, K., Heldin, C. H., ten Dijke, P., Grundstrom, T., and Sideras, P. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 3552-3560[Abstract/Free Full Text]
56. Qing, J., Zhang, Y., and Derynck, R. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 38802-38812[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57. Lemon, B., and Tjian, R. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 2551-2569[Free Full Text]
58. Ross, S. R., Graves, R. A., Greenstein, A., Platt, K. A., Shyu, H. L., Mellovitz, B., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87, 9590-9594[Abstract]
59. Hayes, S. A., Zarnegar, M., Sharma, M., Yang, F., Peehl, D. M., ten Dijke, P., and Sun, Z. (2001) Cancer Res. 61, 2112-2118[Abstract/Free Full Text]
60. Zauberman, A., Lapter, S., and Zipori, D. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 24719-24725[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Liberati, N. T., Moniwa, M., Borton, A. J., Davie, J. R., and Wang, X. F. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 22595-22603[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Mink, S., Haenig, B., and Klempnauer, K.-H. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 6609-6617[Abstract]
63. Janknecht, R., Wells, N. J., and Hunter, T. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 2114-2119[Abstract/Free Full Text]
64. Werner, F., Jain, M. K., Feinberg, M. W., Sibinga, N. E., Pellacani, A., Wiesel, P., Chin, M. T., Topper, J. N., Perrella, M. A., and Lee, M. E. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 36653-36658[Abstract/Free Full Text]


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