Transcriptional Synergism on the pS2 Gene Promoter between a p160 Coactivator and Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} Depends on the Coactivator Subtype, the Type of Estrogen Response Element, and the Promoter Context

Tomas Barkhem, Lars-Arne Haldosén, Jan-Åke Gustafsson and Stefan Nilsson

Karo Bio AB (T.B., S.N.), Department of Medical Nutrition (L.-A.H., J.-A.G.), Novum, S-141 57 Huddinge, Sweden

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Tomas Barkhem, Karo Bio AB, Novum, S-141 57 Huddinge, Sweden. E-mail: tomas.barkhem{at}karobio.se.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
The pS2 gene is estrogen responsive in hepatocarcinoma cells (HepG2) in the presence of estrogen receptor {alpha} (ER{alpha}). The estrogenic activity is mediated through an estrogen response element (ERE) in the 5'-flanking region of the pS2 gene; however, an activator protein 1 (AP1) response element located close to the ERE in the pS2 promoter has also proven essential for a maximum response to estrogen.

In the present study, we show estrogen-induced synergistic activity by the p160 coactivator steroid receptor coactivator-1 (SRC-1), mediated via the ERE and the AP1 response element in the pS2 promoter. In addition, we present data that support an interaction between the ERE and the AP1 motif via SRC-1. The related but distinct p160 coactivator, transcriptional intermediary factor-2, was a more potent activator of pS2 gene expression. In addition, transcriptional intermediary factor-2 was less dependent on an intact AP1 response element in the pS2 promoter than SRC-1.

Furthermore, the type of ERE in the pS2 promoter influenced the potentiation by SRC-1, supported by less dependence on the AP1 motif when the natural ERE was substituted for by a consensus ERE.

These results highlight several mechanisms whereby fine-tuning of estrogen responsiveness of an individual gene may be achieved.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
ESTROGENS ARE ESSENTIAL regulators of the development and function of the female reproductive system. However, estrogens play important roles also in tissues not traditionally considered as estrogen target tissues. These include tissues such as bone (1) and the central nervous system (2), but also the cardiovascular system where estrogens are believed to have beneficial effects. Estrogens appear to decrease the incidence of cardiovascular disease both through direct action on the cardiovascular system (3) and indirectly via estrogenic effects in the liver (4).

The transcriptional response of estrogen target genes is mediated by a specific nuclear receptor, the estrogen receptor (ER). Presently, two subtypes have been described, ER{alpha} (5, 6) and ERß (7), which appear to have distinct physiological roles and tissue distribution (8).

The ERs are structurally organized in functional domains. These include a DNA binding domain (9, 10), located between the N-terminal region and the C-terminal region, the latter of which has been shown to be organized into {alpha}-helices forming the ligand binding domain (LBD) (11). ER{alpha} harbors two activation domains, activation function (AF)-1 in the N-terminal region of the receptor and AF-2 in the C-terminal region (12).

The transcriptional activity of AF-1 is less well understood, whereas a significant amount of knowledge has emerged as to how AF-2 transactivates target genes. When activated through ligand binding, the ERs bind to specific target sequences on DNA, referred to as estrogen response elements (ERE) (13). In concert with associated factors, termed coactivators, the ERs stimulate the transcriptional activity of target genes. Subsequent to ligand binding, the ER LBD is structurally remodeled so that the AF-2 core within helix 12 together with helices 3–5 form a hydrophobic cleft that serves as an interaction surface for coactivators (11, 14). Among the best-studied components of coactivator complexes that have been demonstrated to interact with the ERs (15, 16) are the p160 proteins, which are thought to be specific for nuclear receptors (16).

The p160s are divided into three distinct but related family members, which include steroid receptor coactivator-1 (SRC-1)/nuclear coactivator 1 (NCoA-1), transcription intermediary factor-2 (TIF-2)/glucocorticoid receptor interacting protein (GRIP)-1/nuclear coactivator 2 (NCoA-2) and p300/CBP cointegrator-associated protein (pCIP)/activator of thyroid and retinoic acid receptors (ACTR)/amplified in breast cancer 1 (AIB1). They all contain, in their central region, multiple copies of the signature motif LxxLL [nuclear receptor (NR) box] (17). Through these motifs, the p160 proteins interact with the hydrophobic patch within AF-2 of the ER, thus tethering the coactivator complex to the receptor (14).

In addition to the structural studies that have revealed similar ligand-induced conformational changes in the LBD of several nuclear receptors, enabling coactivator interaction, numerous functional studies have been performed to understand how nuclear receptors transactivate target genes. The majority of these mechanistic studies have been done with artificial promoters that basically consist of a hormone response element and core sequences for the general transcription machinery. However, natural promoters, whose activity is controlled by nuclear receptors, are usually considerably more complex. These promoters usually harbor recognition sequences for multiple transcription factors. Interactions between the nuclear receptor and other transcription factors result in transcriptional synergism, which may be a prerequisite for responsiveness to the nuclear receptor and its cognate hormone (18, 19, 20).

We have previously reported that the endogenous pS2 gene is estrogen responsive in ER{alpha} expressing hepatocarcinoma (HepG2) cells (21). Using pS2 gene promoter constructs, the effect of estrogen was found to be dependent on a transcriptional synergy between the ERE and an adjacent AP1 response element in the pS2 promoter (22). Moreover, the potentiation of the pS2 promoter activity through the AP1 motif was dependent on the LBD of ER{alpha}. Our data suggested an interaction, direct or indirect, between factors associated with the respective response element.

The p160 coactivator SRC-1 constitutes a potential bridging factor between the ERE and the AP1 response element through its competence to interact via its NR box with the AF-2 of ER{alpha} and via its C-terminal region (23) with the factors forming the AP1 complex (24).

In this report, we have investigated the role of p160 coactivators in the estrogen-induced activation process of the pS2 promoter. We show strong transcriptional synergy on the pS2 promoter mediated by SRC-1 or the related p160 coactivator TIF-2 via the ERE and the AP1 response element. In addition, data are presented that further support an interaction between the ERE and the AP1 motif via SRC-1. Furthermore, we show qualitative and functional differences between SRC-1 and TIF-2. Finally, we report that the type of ERE modulates the activity of SRC-1 in the context of the pS2 promoter.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
Estrogen Activation of the pS2 Gene Is Mediated via an ERE and an AP1 Response Element whose Relative Position on DNA Determines the Transcriptional Response
We have previously reported on a cross-talk between the ERE and the AP1 motif of the pS2 promoter in response to estrogen (22). The transcriptional activity of the pS2 promoter decreases dramatically when either the ERE (mutERE) or the AP1 (mutAP1) response elements were mutated (Fig. 1Go). In the absence of a functional AP1 motif, the transcriptional activity was reduced up to 10-fold, whereas lack of a functional ERE resulted in a pS2 promoter that was basically unresponsive to estrogen (Fig. 1BGo). The pS2 promoter in which both the ERE and AP1 motifs were mutated showed negligible basal and estrogen-induced activity.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Effect of Moxestrol on the pS2 Promoter

A, Schematics of the pS2-ALP, mutAP1, mutERE, and mutERE/mutAP1 reporter constructs. B, The effect of moxestrol on intact, AP1- and ERE- and double-mutated pS2 promoter, respectively. HepG2 cells were cotransfected with ER{alpha} (HE0) and the respective pS2-promoter-ALP-reporter variants followed by induction with 10-9 M moxestrol. As control, transfected cells were treated with medium and solvent only. The activity of pS2-ALP in the presence of moxestrol was defined as 100. The columns represent the mean of three independent experiments with the SEM indicated. For some determinations, error bars are too small to be visible.

 
Furthermore, mutation of the AP1 response element resulted in reduced background expression from the pS2 promoter reporter in the absence of hormone (Fig. 1BGo). We have previously reported that the ligand- independent activity of ER{alpha} on the pS2 promoter, i.e. the effect of the phorbol ester phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate, mainly is mediated via the AP1 response element, whereas the ERE is less important (22). Thus, we believe the increased background expression from pS2 promoter constructs that contain an intact AP1 response element results from factors present in the tissue culture medium whose activity converge on the AP1 response element.

We have preferred to use the synthetic estrogen analog moxestrol rather than estradiol (E2) in the hormone induction experiments because moxestrol appeared to be more stable than E2 in liver cells. Moxestrol exhibited the same characteristics as E2 regarding induction of the pS2 gene in the HepG2 cells except for an approximately 10-fold leftward shift in the EC50 value relative to E2 (data not shown).

We next evaluated whether the distance between the ERE and AP1 response elements and also whether their relative phase on the DNA-helix influenced the transcriptional activity of the pS2 gene in response to estrogen. The distance between the response elements was decreased by 15, 20, or 25 nucleotides, respectively (Fig. 2AGo). The helical structure of DNA repeats after approximately ten residues. By decreasing the distance between the response elements using intervals of five nucleotides, the relative phasing of the ERE and the AP1 motifs on the DNA-helix was either preserved [pS2–20-alkaline phosphatase (ALP)] or altered (pS2–15-ALP and pS2–25-ALP). The transcriptional activity of the pS2–15-ALP reporter, in which the relative phase position of the response element on the DNA helix was altered, was decreased to approximately 30% of the wild-type (wt) promoter (pS2-ALP) (Fig. 2BGo). The pS2–20-ALP, in which the relative phase of the ERE and the AP1 response element was preserved, showed a significantly increased activity. The pS2–25-ALP displayed a somewhat decreased transcriptional activity as compared with the pS2-ALP reporter but a significantly higher activity compared with the pS2–15-ALP. The decreased distance between the ERE and the AP1 motif thus appears to compensate for the change of their relative phase position on the DNA helix in the pS2–25-ALP construct. In conclusion, the transcriptional activity of the pS2 promoter was dependent not only on the distance between the ERE and the AP1 motif but also on their relative phase on the DNA helix. This supports the notion that an interaction between factors at the respective response element occurs.



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. The Relative Position of the ERE and AP1 Motif in the pS2 Promoter Determines the Transcriptional Response

A, The ERE, the AP1, and intervening sequences of pS2-ALP, pS2–15-ALP, pS2–20-ALP, and pS2–25-ALP, respectively. The response elements are capitalized and underlined. B, Effect of moxestrol on pS2-ALP, pS2–15-ALP, pS2–20-ALP, and pS2–25-ALP, respectively. HepG2 cells were cotransfected with ER{alpha} (HE0) and the respective pS2 reporter constructs. The cells were treated with 10-9 M moxestrol. As control, transfected cells were treated with medium and solvent only. The activity of pS2-ALP in the presence of moxestrol was defined as 100. The columns represent the mean of three independent experiments with the SEM indicated. For some determinations, error bars are too small to be visible.

 
Overexpression of Full-Length p160 Coactivators Potentiates pS2 Promoter Activity
The effect of full-length SRC-1 on the pS2 promoter was evaluated. Increasing amounts of SRC-1 were expressed together with intact or mutated pS2 promoter. The estrogen-induced expression of the pS2-ALP promoter reporter construct was potentiated in a dose-dependent fashion when cotransfected with increasing amounts of the cytomegalovirus (CMV)-SRC-1 expression vector. Already, 10 ng of the CMV-SRC-1 expression vector had an effect on the pS2-ALP reporter vector expression (Fig. 3AGo). Also, the estrogen-induced expression of the pS2 promoter reporter that lacks a functional AP1 response element (mutAP1) was potentiated in a dose-dependent manner by SRC-1. However, in this case the effect of SRC-1 was substantially less pronounced (Fig. 3CGo). Interestingly, the pS2 promoter variant in which the ERE (mutERE) had been mutated was also able to respond to SRC-1 (Fig. 3BGo). This reporter construct was basically unresponsive to estrogen when SRC-1 was not overexpressed (Figs. 1Go and 3BGo). However, at increasing amounts of the CMV-SRC-1 expression vector, the mutERE pS2 promoter conferred estrogen responsiveness. The promoter that lacks both a functional ERE and an AP1 response element showed very low activity also when SRC-1 was overexpressed (Fig. 3DGo). Thus, the pS2 promoter activity was potentiated by the p160 coactivator SRC-1, both via the ERE and the AP1 motif. Overexpression of SRC-1, together with the intact pS2 promoter, resulted in strong synergism with severalfold higher increase of ALP-reporter gene expression compared with the sum of ALP expression from the ERE and AP1 mutated pS2 promoter variants, respectively, at an equal amount of SRC-1.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Effect of SRC-1 on pS2 Gene Expression

HepG2 cells were cotransfected with the vector expressing ER{alpha} (HE0), increasing amounts of CMV-SRC-1 and the pS2-ALP (A), mutERE (B), mutAP1 (C), or mutERE/mutAP1 (D), respectively. The cells were treated with 10-9 M moxestrol or with solvent and medium only. The activity of pS2-ALP in the presence of moxestrol was defined as 100. The columns represent the mean of nine independent experiments with the SEM indicated. For some determinations, error bars are too small to be visible.

 
The effect of the p160 coactivator subtype TIF-2 was also examined. We found that TIF-2 had a greater impact on estrogen-induced pS2 promoter activity than SRC-1. Overexpression of TIF-2 resulted in approximately 3-fold higher estrogen-induced reporter gene expression from the intact pS2 promoter as compared with the estrogen-induced reporter gene activity seen when an equal amount of SRC-1 expression vector was transfected (Figs. 3AGo and 4AGo). Also, TIF-2 showed strong synergism on the pS2 promoter that was mediated via the ERE and AP1 response element (Fig. 4Go, A–D). In agreement with SRC-1, TIF-2 showed a minor effect on the promoter mutated in both the ERE and the AP1 response elements. However, TIF-2 potentiated the estrogen-induced activity of the AP1 mutated (mutAP1) or ERE mutated (mutERE) pS2 promoters (Fig. 4Go, B and C) more effectively than SRC-1. As shown in Fig. 4Go, B and C, the estrogen-induced reporter gene expression from the AP1 or ERE mutated pS2 promoter was potentiated by TIF-2 to a level similar to the expression level from intact pS2 promoter in response to estrogen but in the absence of cotransfected coactivator. Thus, overexpression of TIF-2 resulted in compensation for the lack of a functional AP1 or ERE motif in the pS2 promoter.



View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4. Effect of TIF-2 on pS2 Gene Expression

HepG2 cells were cotransfected with the vector expressing ER{alpha} (HE0), increasing amounts of CMV-TIF-2 and the pS2-ALP (A), mutERE (B), mutAP1 (C), or mutERE/mutAP1 (D), respectively. The cells were treated with 10-9 M moxestrol or with solvent and medium only. The activity of pS2-ALP in the presence of moxestrol was defined as 100. The columns represent the mean of nine independent experiments with the SEM indicated. For some determinations, error bars are too small to be visible.

 
A trivial explanation for the difference in effect on the pS2 promoter evoked by SRC-1 and TIF-2, respectively, is that the coactivators were differentially expressed. However, the effect of TIF-2 or SRC-1 on the pS2 promoter peaked at the same amount of the respective expression vector followed by a similar relative decrease in activation (data not shown). This is possibly due to squelching of additional factors and indicates that TIF-2 and SRC-1 were expressed at similar levels.

The Transcriptional Activity of the pS2 Promoter Is Inhibited by the Isolated C-Terminus of SRC-1
We postulated that SRC-1 may act as a bridging factor between the ERE and the AP1 motif of the pS2 promoter, interacting via its C-terminal domain with AP1 and its central NR box containing domain with the AF-2 of ER{alpha}.

To further test this concept, we overexpressed the C-terminal fragment encoding amino acids 1101 to 1441 of SRC-1 (SRC1101–1441), which has been reported to interact in vitro with either c-jun or c-fos (23). We expressed the SRC1101–1441 fragment as a fusion protein with the DNA binding domain of the yeast protein Gal4, to ensure nuclear translocation of the chimeric protein. Intact or AP1 mutated pS2 promoter-reporter was cotransfected with increasing amounts of the vector expressing SRC1101–1441. The responses were normalized to the activity of a CMV-luciferase (Luc) reporter. We found that the estrogen-induced activity of the pS2 promoter was suppressed in a dose-dependent fashion when the SRC1101–1441 construct was overexpressed (Fig. 5Go), whereas the basal activity was not affected (data not shown). Interestingly, the intact pS2 promoter-reporter was significantly more sensitive than the AP1-mutated pS2 promoter variant (mutAP1) to suppression by SRC1101–1441 (Fig. 5Go). Furthermore, the SRC-1 potentiated pS2 promoter that lacks a functional ERE was more sensitive to overexpression of the dominant negative SRC1101–1441 fragment than SRC-1 potentiated pS2 promoter in which the AP1 response element was mutated (data not shown). These results suggest that the intact pS2 promoter is destabilized by SRC1101–1441, presumably competing with endogenous full-length p160 coactivator, e.g. SRC-1, for binding to the AP1 complex.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 5. Suppression of pS2 Promoter Activity by Overexpression of a C-Terminal Fragment of SRC-1, Representing Amino Acids 1101 to 1441 as a Fusion with Gal4DBD (Gal4-SRC1101–1441)

HepG2 cells were cotransfected with ER{alpha} (HE0), CMV-Luc, the pS2-ALP or mutAP1 reporter vectors together with 0, 50, 100, or 200 ng of the vector expressing Gal4-SRC1101–1441 or the equal amount of empty Gal4 expression vector. The responses are expressed as the ratio of cells transfected with Gal4-SRC1101–1441 and cells transfected with empty Gal4 expression vector. The responses were normalized to the activity of CMV-Luc. The values obtained for cells transfected with ER{alpha}, CMV-Luc, and the respective pS2 promoter variants in the absence of Gal4-SRC1101–1441 were defined as 100. The columns represent the mean of nine independent experiments with the SEM indicated.

 
TIF-2 Is Less Dependent than SRC-1 on a Functional AP1 Response Element to Potentiate pS2 Promoter Activity
A closer examination of the effects evoked by SRC-1 and TIF-2 revealed differences in their dependence of the pS2 promoter context. We next compared the relative potentiation of reporter gene expression by TIF-2 and SRC-1 via the ERE in the pS2 promoter in the presence (pS2-ALP) or absence (mutAP1) of an intact AP1 response element (Fig. 6Go, A and B). The ability of the respective coactivator to potentiate reporter gene expression in the presence of estrogen was assessed. The effect of the different coactivators was expressed as fold potentiation, i.e. the relative increase in activity of the respective reporter construct in the presence of estrogen.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 6. Comparison of the Effect of SRC-1 and TIF-2

A, HepG2 cells were cotransfected with ER{alpha} expressing vector (HE0) and either pS2-ALP or mutAP1 reporter vector together with increasing amounts of CMV-SRC-1 or (B) CMV-TIF-2 vector, followed by induction with 10-9 M moxestrol. The responses are expressed as fold potentiation of the ALP expression in the presence of moxestrol and coactivator. The columns represent the mean of nine independent experiments with the SEM indicated.

 
TIF-2 induced a greater relative potentiation than SRC-1 on both wt pS2 and AP1 mutated pS2 promoter (Fig. 6Go, A and B). Interestingly, potentiation of pS2 promoter activity by TIF-2 was much less dependent on a functional AP1 motif as compared with SRC-1. SRC-1 had a very modest effect on the pS2 promoter that lacked a functional AP1 response element (Fig. 6AGo). In fact, TIF-2 induced a greater relative potentiation of the mutAP1 reporter constructs than of the wt pS2-promoter reporter (pS2-ALP). Thus, SRC-1 and TIF-2 displayed qualitative and functional differences with respect to estrogen-induced pS2 promoter activation. SRC-1 showed a greater dependence on the presence of a functional AP1 motif in the promoter.

The Type of ERE in the pS2 Promoter Determines the Response to SRC-1
We next examined the impact of two different EREs on the potentiation by SRC-1 of estrogen-induced pS2 promoter activity. Recent data suggest that different types of EREs may induce distinct conformational changes of the ER structure that could influence receptor-coactivator interaction (25, 26).

The natural ERE of the pS2 promoter binds ER{alpha} with low affinity as compared with the ERE derived from the vitellogenin promoter (27), which is regarded as the consensus ERE (EREvit) (13). The presence of EREvit in the context of the pS2 promoter results in approximately 5-fold higher estrogen-induced reporter gene expression as compared with estrogen-induced reporter gene activity from the wt pS2 promoter-reporter (22). We evaluated the effect of SRC-1 on intact and AP1-mutated pS2 promoter-reporter constructs where the natural ERE had been substituted for by the EREvit [pS2(EREvit)-ALP or pS2(EREvit) mutAP1] (Fig. 7AGo). The effect of SRC-1 was expressed as the potentiation of reporter protein expression from the respective reporter constructs relative to reporter protein expression in the presence of estrogen only. The responses evoked by SRC-1 on the EREvit containing pS2 promoter variants were compared with responses of SRC-1 on the wt pS2 promoter (pS2-ALP) as well as pS2 promoter containing its natural ERE but lacking a functional AP1 response element (mutAP1). The presence of a functional AP1 element has been shown to potentiate also the activity of the pS2 promoter that was substituted with the EREvit in the absence of exogenous SRC-1 (22). However, in contrast to the wt pS2 promoter, the pS2 promoter-reporters containing the EREvit showed a similar relative potentiation in response to overexpression of SRC-1 either in the presence or absence of an intact AP1 motif (Fig. 7BGo). Thus, the type of ERE, in the context of the pS2 promoter, modulated the activity of the coactivator SRC-1. However, in contrast to SRC-1, TIF-2 showed similar effects on the relative potentiation of the pS2 promoter activity regardless of the type of ERE present in the promoter (Fig. 6BGo; data not shown).



View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 7. The Type of ERE Modulates the Response to SRC-1

A, Schematics of pS2-ALP, mutAP1, pS2(EREvit)-ALP, and pS2(EREvit) mutAP1, respectively. B, HepG2 cells were cotransfected with ER{alpha} expressing vector (HE0) and either pS2-ALP, mutAP1, pS2(EREvit)-ALP, or pS2(EREvit) mutAP1 reporter vector together with increasing amounts of CMV-SRC-1 vector, followed by induction with 10-9 M moxestrol. The responses are expressed as fold potentiation of the ALP expression in the presence of moxestrol and coactivator. The columns represent the mean of four independent experiments with the SEM indicated.

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
The transcriptional activity of the pS2 gene in HepG2 cells is governed by a synergism between an ERE and a nearby AP1 response element in the 5'-flanking promoter region of the gene (22). The transcriptional rate of complex natural promoters that are controlled by nuclear receptors has previously been shown to depend on synergistic interactions between the nuclear receptor and transcription factors binding to specific sequences adjacent to the hormone responsive element. For instance, thyroid hormone receptor (TR)-mediated activation of the rat GH (rGH) gene required coexpression and binding of the pituitary specific transcription factor Pit-1 to its recognition sequence in the rGH-promoter, which resulted in a synergistic increase of the transcription (19). A direct protein-protein interaction between TR and Pit-1 appears to mediate this synergism (20). Also, ER{alpha}-dependent stimulation of the rat prolactin promoter (rPRL) relies on synergistic activity between Pit-1 and ER{alpha} (19). Both Pit-1/ER{alpha} and Pit-1/TR synergy at the rPRL and rGH promoters required an intact AF-2 in the LBD of the ER{alpha} and TR, respectively. Notably, this parallels our previous observation on the synergistic action between the ERE and AP1 response element in the pS2 promoter, which was also shown to require an intact LBD (22).

In the present study, we observed that the transcriptional response of the pS2 gene was modulated by the distance and the relative phasing of the ERE and the AP1 motif on the DNA helix (Fig. 2BGo), supporting a direct or indirect interaction between factors bound to the respective response elements. Thus, decreasing the distance between the ERE and the AP1 motif may facilitate an interaction between proteins that results in increased transcription, whereas changing the relative phase position of the response elements on the DNA helix may disturb the interaction and hamper transcription.

Overexpression of SRC-1 resulted in a synergistic estrogen-induced response of the intact pS2 promoter as compared with overexpression of SRC-1 in cells transfected with pS2 promoter constructs with mutated ERE and/or AP1 motifs (Fig. 3Go, A–D). Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 6AGo, the potentiation by SRC-1 of the pS2 promoter was significantly less in terms of relative potentiation when the AP1 response element was mutated.

One potential link between the ER{alpha}/ERE and AP1 and its response element could be SRC-1, which may interact via its NR-boxes with the AF-2 of ER{alpha} and via its C-terminal region with the AP1 complex. We overexpressed the C-terminal fragment of SRC-1 that has been reported to interact with either c-jun or c-fos in GST-pull-down experiments (23). The intact pS2 promoter was more sensitive to overexpression of the SRC1101–1441 fragment than the AP1-mutated promoter (Fig. 5Go), possibly due to binding of the SRC1101–1441 fragment to the AP1 complex, preventing full-length SRC-1 to act as a bridging factor between the ERE and the AP1 motif. Also, the activity of AP1 mutated pS2 promoter was suppressed by overexpression of C-terminal SRC1101–1441 fragment, although significantly less than the intact pS2 promoter. The splice variant of SRC-1 (28) from which the sequence encoding the C-terminal SRC-1 fragment was derived contains an LxxLL motif. Thus, overexpression of the LxxLL motif within the SRC1101–1441 fragment may disturb an interaction between the AF-2 of ER{alpha} and the NR boxes in the central region of full-length SRC-1, resulting in repression also of the AP1-mutated promoter.

There are opposing reports on a direct interaction between ER{alpha} and AP1 (29, 30). Teyssier et al. (30) demonstrated an interaction between the hinge region of ER{alpha} and c-jun. Interestingly, this interaction was shown to stabilize a tripartite interaction with the p160 coactivator GRIP-1. We have overexpressed the hinge region of ER{alpha} either together with intact or AP1- mutated pS2 promoter. However, we were not able to demonstrate selective suppression of either promoter constructs (data not shown). Thus, we have no indication that a direct interaction between the hinge domain of ER{alpha} and the AP1 complex contributes to the potentiation of pS2 promoter activity in the presence of an intact AP1 motif in the promoter.

The related p160 coactivator TIF-2 was a more potent enhancer of the pS2 promoter activity than SRC-1 (Figs. 3Go and 4Go). The potentiation of pS2 promoter activity in terms of the relative fold increase of reporter gene expression in the presence of TIF-2 was less dependent on the AP1 motif in the pS2 promoter as compared with SRC-1 (Fig. 6Go, A and B). Indeed, TIF-2 had a greater relative impact on the AP1 mutated (mutAP1) than the intact pS2 promoter. These differences could be due to the fact that TIF-2 binds to ER{alpha} with a stronger affinity than SRC-1. Hence, TIF-2 might be less dependent on stabilizing interactions with nearby factors at the AP1 response element as compared with SRC-1. In fact, a recent report showed that GRIP-1, the mouse ortholog of TIF-2, interacted with higher affinity than SRC-1 with ER{alpha} bound to the natural ERE (pS2 ERE) of the pS2 promoter (26).

Interestingly, the type of ERE in the pS2 promoter influenced the degree of potentiation evoked by SRC-1. The pS2 promoter in which the natural ERE was substituted for by a high affinity consensus ERE (EREvit), showed an equal relative potentiation in response to SRC-1 irrespective of the presence or absence of an intact AP1 response element in the pS2 promoter (Fig. 7BGo). This contrasts to the influence of the AP1 motif in the wt pS2 promoter, which showed significantly decreased relative potentiation in the absence of a functional AP1 motif (Fig. 7BGo). One potential explanation could be that allosteric modulation of ER conformation by the respective ERE influences the interaction with coactivator proteins. Previous experiments employing partial protease digestion of ER{alpha} bound to various types of EREs revealed distinct cleavage products depending on the individual ERE, suggesting that the response element has an effect on receptor conformation (27, 31). Interestingly, Hall et al. (26) showed that SRC-1 had a higher affinity for ER{alpha} bound to the EREvit than for ER{alpha} bound to the natural ERE of the pS2 promoter. It seems plausible that ER{alpha} bound to the natural ERE of the pS2 promoter recruits SRC-1 less effectively and therefore relies on additional stabilization of the p160 protein, i.e. via the AP1 motif. Furthermore, GRIP-1, the mouse ortholog of TIF-2, was shown to interact with ER{alpha} bound to either the EREvit or the pS2 ERE with a similar affinity (26). This is in agreement with our observation that irrespective of the type of ERE, TIF-2 showed similar effects on the relative potentiation of the pS2 promoter activity (Fig. 6BGo; data not shown). Furthermore, coactivator binding to ER{alpha} has been shown to stabilize the ER{alpha}/ERE complex (25). Thus, it is tempting to speculate that an interaction between the AP1 complex and ER{alpha} via SRC-1 also stabilizes the ER{alpha}/ERE interaction in the pS2 promoter.

Among the estrogen-responsive genes presently known, very few contain consensus EREs. Instead the majority harbors imperfect EREs (32, 33) that bind ER with low affinity. These may induce a receptor conformation that has a reduced affinity for p160 coactivators (25, 26). One potential reason for this scenario from an evolutionary point of view could be that stabilization of the ER-coactivator interaction by adjacent transcription factors provides a mechanism allowing a more exact tuning of gene regulation, permitting additional signal transduction pathways that converge on other specific sequences in the promoter to influence the transcriptional activity mediated through the hormone response element. For instance, we have previously shown that the MAPK signal transduction pathway, which may converge on the AP1 motif in the pS2 promoter, contributes significantly to pS2 gene expression in response to estrogen (22).

Thus, the transcriptional rate of the pS2 promoter is influenced in a variety of ways (Fig. 8Go). We have shown that the promoter context, i.e. an intact AP1 response element adjacent to the ERE in the pS2 promoter, had a significant effect on the potentiation of the pS2 gene expression by the p160 coactivator SRC-1. However, also the type of p160 had a clear effect on the transcriptional rate, TIF-2 being a significantly more potent activator of transcription than SRC-1 in the context of the pS2 promoter. Furthermore, TIF-2 showed less dependence than SRC-1 on the presence of an intact AP1 response element to mediate transcription via the ERE of the pS2 promoter.



View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 8. Putative Model of SRC-1-Mediated Synergism on the pS2 Promoter

The p160 coactivator, SRC-1, is a potential bridging factor between the ERE and the AP1 response element in the pS2 promoter through its competence to interact via its LxxLL motifs with AF-2 of ER{alpha} and via its C-terminal region with the AP1 complex. These interactions may stabilize the ER{alpha}/coactivator complex and result in potentiation of the transcriptional activity.

 
In addition, the type of ERE appears to determine the relative dependence on the promoter context, the consensus EREvit being relatively less dependent on the adjacent AP1 motif as compared with the natural ERE of the pS2 promoter.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
Materials
Moxestrol (R2858) was purchased from Perkin-Elmer Life Sciences (Boston, MA). The MEM cell culture media, fetal calf serum (FCS), nonessential amino acids, sodium pyruvate, L-glutamine, Opti-MEM, lipofectin, G418, and gentamicin were purchased from Invitrogen (Carlsbad, CA). Phenol red-free Coon’s/F12 medium was from SVA (Uppsala, Sweden). The chemiluminescence solutions for assessment of the placental ALP or the Luc reporter gene activities were purchased from Perkin-Elmer Life Sciences. Oligonucleotides were synthesized by CyberGene AB (Huddinge, Sweden).

Plasmids
The pS2-ALP vector consists of a 1100 nucleotide pS2 promoter fragment fused to a secreted alkaline phosphatase reporter gene (ALP) (34) (Fig. 1AGo). The mutERE, the mutAP1, or the mutERE/mutAP1 reporters are identical to the pS2-ALP, except that the ERE (mutERE), the AP1 motif (mutAP1) or both motifs have been substituted for by nonsense nucleotides (Fig. 1AGo). These constructs have previously been described (22).

In the pS2(EREvit)-ALP vector, the natural ERE of the pS2 promoter has been replaced by the consensus ERE derived from the vitellogenin gene (EREvit) (22). The pS2(EREvit) mutAP1 contains the EREvit, whereas the AP1 motif has been mutated into nonsense nucleotides (22).

The pS2–15-ALP, pS2–20-ALP, and pS2–25-ALP were constructed by insertion of oligonucleotides into the SacI-PstI sites at -429 and -328 in the pS2 promoter. The sequences of the ERE and AP1 response elements and intervening sequences (upper strand) of the respective constructs are shown in Fig. 2AGo.

The HE0 vector that expresses ER{alpha} mutated at amino acid 400 (Gly to Val) has been described previously (35).

Full-length cDNA encoding SRC-1 or TIF-2 was cloned into the CMV-5 expression vector. The vector expressing the Gal4-SRC1101–1441 was constructed as follows: the cDNA sequence encoding amino acids 1101–1441 of SRC-1 was PCR-amplified using the upstream primer; 5'-TCCGAATTCCCCCTGAATGCTCAAATGTTG-3' and the downstream primer; 5'-AATGTCGACTTATTCAGTCAGTAGCTGCTGA-3'. The amplified fragment was digested with EcoRI and SalI and cloned into the corresponding sites of the pM vector (CLONTECH Laboratories, Inc., Palo Alto, CA).

Cell Cultures
HepG2 cells were maintained in MEM containing 10% FCS, 1% nonessential amino acids, 1 µM sodium pyruvate, and 2 mM L-glutamine. The cells were cultured at 37 C in humidified chambers in 5% CO2.

Transient Tansfections
HepG2 cells were transiently transfected using the OptiMEM/lipofectin procedure essentially performed according to recommendations of manufacturer (Invitrogen). Cells (5 x 104) were seeded in 48-well plates in Coon’s/F12 medium supplemented with 1% FCS (double dextran charcoal stripped), 2 mM L-glutamine, and 50 µg/ml gentamicin. Twenty-four hours after seeding, the cells were transfected for 5 h with 200 ng of the different pS2 promoter ALP reporter constructs, 50 ng HE0, and various amounts (exact amounts are given in the figure legends) of expression vector for the different coactivators or fragment of coactivator. The cells were then rinsed once and induced with 10-9 M moxestrol in Coon’s/F12 medium. In all transient transfection experiments, cells were exposed to hormone 60 h before being harvested and analyzed for reporter gene expression. In the suppression experiment with the SRC1101–1441 fragment, a CMV-Luc reporter was cotransfected for normalization of the ALP reporter gene expression (Fig. 5Go). All transient transfection experiments were performed in triplicates and repeated several times. The data presented in the figures are the mean of several independent experiments with the SEM indicated. The number of performed experiments is indicated in the respective figure legend.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Pierre Chambon (Strausbourg, France) and Dr. Eckardt Treuter (Huddinge, Sweden) for providing plasmids used in the study.


    FOOTNOTES
 
This work was supported by Karo Bio AB and the Foundation for Knowledge and Competence Development.

Abbreviations: AF, Activation function; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; AP1, activator protein 1; CMV, cytomegalovirus; E2, estradiol; ER{alpha}, estrogen receptor {alpha}; ERE, estrogen receptor {alpha}; EREvit, ERE derived from the vitellogenin promoter; FCS, fetal calf serum; GRIP, glucocorticoid receptor interacting protein; HepG2, hepatocarcinoma cells; LBD, ligand binding domain; Luc, luciferase; mutAP1, mutated AP1; mutERE, mutated ERE; NR, nuclear receptor; Pit-1, pituitary specific transcription factor; rGH, rat GH; rPRL, rat prolactin; SRC-1, steroid receptor coactivator-1; TIF-2, transcriptional intermediary factor-2; TR, thyroid hormone receptor; wt, wild-type.

Received for publication February 4, 2002. Accepted for publication July 23, 2002.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Jilka RL, Hangoc G, Girasole G, Passeri G, Williams DC, Abrams JS, Boyce B, Broxmeyer H, Manolagas SC 1992 Increased osteoclast development after estrogen loss: mediation by interleukin-6. Science 257:88–91[Medline]
  2. Kuiper GG, Shughrue PJ, Merchenthaler I, Gustafsson JA 1998 The estrogen receptor ß subtype: a novel mediator of estrogen action in neuroendocrine systems. Front Neuroendocrinol 19:253–286[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Iafrati MD, Karas RH, Aronovitz M, Kim S, Sullivan Jr TR, Lubahn DB, O’Donnell Jr TF, Korach KS, Mendelsohn ME 1997 Estrogen inhibits the vascular injury response in estrogen receptor {alpha}-deficient mice. Nat Med 3:545–548[Medline]
  4. Nabulsi AA, Folsom AR, White A, Patsch W, Heiss G, Wu KK, Szklo M 1993 Association of hormone-replacement therapy with various cardiovascular risk factors in postmenopausal women. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study Investigators [see comments]. N Engl J Med 328:1069–1075[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Green S, Walter P, Kumar V, Krust A, Bornert JM, Argos P, Chambon P 1986 Human oestrogen receptor cDNA: sequence, expression and homology to v-erb-A. Nature 320:134–139[Medline]
  6. Greene GL, Gilna P, Waterfield M, Baker A, Hort Y, Shine J 1986 Sequence and expression of human estrogen receptor complementary DNA. Science 231:1150–1154[Medline]
  7. Kuiper GG, Enmark E, Pelto-Huikko M, Nilsson S, Gustafsson JA 1996 Cloning of a novel receptor expressed in rat prostate and ovary. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:5925–5930[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Nilsson S, Makela S, Treuter E, Tujague M, Thomsen J, Andersson G, Enmark E, Pettersson K, Warner M, Gustafsson JA 2001 Mechanisms of estrogen action. Physiol Rev 81:1535–1565[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Schwabe JW, Neuhaus D, Rhodes D 1990 Solution structure of the DNA-binding domain of the oestrogen receptor. Nature 348:458–461[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Schwabe JW, Chapman L, Finch JT, Rhodes D 1993 The crystal structure of the estrogen receptor DNA-binding domain bound to DNA: how receptors discriminate between their response elements. Cell 75:567–578[Medline]
  11. Brzozowski AM, Pike AC, Dauter Z, Hubbard RE, Bonn T, Engstrom O, Ohman L, Greene GL, Gustafsson JA, Carlquist M 1997 Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor. Nature 389:753–775[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Tora L, White J, Brou C, Tasset D, Webster N, Scheer E, Chambon P 1989 The human estrogen receptor has two independent nonacidic transcriptional activation functions. Cell 59:477–487[Medline]
  13. Klein-Hitpass L, Schorpp M, Wagner U, Ryffel GU 1986 An estrogen-responsive element derived from the 5' flanking region of the Xenopus vitellogenin A2 gene functions in transfected human cells. Cell 46:1053–1061[Medline]
  14. Shiau AK, Barstad D, Loria PM, Cheng L, Kushner PJ, Agard DA, Greene GL 1998 The structural basis of estrogen receptor/coactivator recognition and the antagonism of this interaction by tamoxifen. Cell 95:927–937[Medline]
  15. Xu L, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG 1999 Coactivator and corepressor complexes in nuclear receptor function. Curr Opin Genet Dev 9:140–147[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. McKenna NJ, Lanz RB, O’Malley BW 1999 Nuclear receptor coregulators: cellular and molecular biology. Endocr Rev 20:321–344[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Ding XF, Anderson CM, Ma H, Hong H, Uht RM, Kushner PJ, Stallcup MR 1998 Nuclear receptor-binding sites of coactivators glucocorticoid receptor interacting protein 1 (GRIP1) and steroid receptor coactivator 1 (SRC-1): multiple motifs with different binding specificities. Mol Endocrinol 12:302–313[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Bruggemeier U, Kalff M, Franke S, Scheidereit C, Beato M 1991 Ubiquitous transcription factor OTF-1 mediates induction of the MMTV promoter through synergistic interaction with hormone receptors. Cell 64:565–572[Medline]
  19. Chuang FM, West BL, Baxter JD, Schaufele F 1997 Activities in Pit-1 determine whether receptor interacting protein 140 activates or inhibits Pit-1/nuclear receptor transcriptional synergy. Mol Endocrinol 11:1332–1341[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Palomino T, Sanchez-Pacheco A, Pena P, Aranda A 1998 A direct protein-protein interaction is involved in the cooperation between thyroid hormone and retinoic acid receptors and the transcription factor GHF-1. FASEB J 12:1201–1209[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Barkhem T, Andersson-Ross C, Hoglund M, Nilsson S 1997 Characterization of the "estrogenicity" of tamoxifen and raloxifene in HepG2 cells: regulation of gene expression from an ERE controlled reporter vector vs. regulation of the endogenous SHBG and PS2 genes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 62:53–64[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Barkhem T, Haldosen LA, Gustafsson JA, Nilsson S2002 pS2 Gene expression in HepG2 cells: complex regulation through crosstalk between the estrogen receptor {alpha}, an estrogen-responsive element, and the activator protein 1 response element. Mol Pharmacol 61:1273–1283
  23. Lee SK, Kim HJ, Na SY, Kim TS, Choi HS, Im SY, Lee JW 1998 Steroid receptor coactivator-1 coactivates activating protein-1-mediated transactivations through interaction with the c-Jun and c-Fos subunits. J Biol Chem 273:16651–16654[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Angel P, Karin M 1991 The role of Jun, Fos and the AP-1 complex in cell-proliferation and transformation. Biochim Biophys Acta 1072:129–157[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Wood JR, Likhite VS, Loven MA, Nardulli AM 2001 Allosteric modulation of estrogen receptor conformation by different estrogen response elements. Mol Endocrinol 15:1114–1126[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Hall JM, McDonnell DP, Korach KS 2002 Allosteric regulation of estrogen receptor structure, function, and coactivator recruitment by different estrogen response elements. Mol Endocrinol 16:469–486[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Klinge CM, Jernigan SC, Smith SL, Tyulmenkov VV, Kulakosky PC 2001 Estrogen response element sequence impacts the conformation and transcriptional activity of estrogen receptor {alpha}. Mol Cell Endocrinol 174:151–166[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Kalkhoven E, Valentine JE, Heery DM, Parker MG 1998 Isoforms of steroid receptor co-activator 1 differ in their ability to potentiate transcription by the oestrogen receptor. EMBO J 17:232–243[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Webb P, Lopez GN, Uht RM, Kushner PJ 1995 Tamoxifen activation of the estrogen receptor/AP-1 pathway: potential origin for the cell-specific estrogen-like effects of antiestrogens. Mol Endocrinol 9:443–456[Abstract]
  30. Teyssier C, Belguise K, Galtier F, Chalbos D2001 Characterization of the physical interaction between estrogen receptor {alpha} and JUN proteins. J Biol Chem 276:36361–36369
  31. Wood JR, Greene GL, Nardulli AM 1998 Estrogen response elements function as allosteric modulators of estrogen receptor conformation. Mol Cell Biol 18:1927–1934[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Berry M, Nunez AM, Chambon P 1989 Estrogen-responsive element of the human pS2 gene is an imperfectly palindromic sequence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:1218–1222[Abstract]
  33. Richard S, Zingg HH 1990 The human oxytocin gene promoter is regulated by estrogens. J Biol Chem 265:6098–6103[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Berger J, Hauber J, Hauber R, Geiger R, Cullen BR 1988 Secreted placental alkaline phosphatase: a powerful new quantitative indicator of gene expression in eukaryotic cells. Gene 66:1–10[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Tora L, Mullick A, Metzger D, Ponglikitmongkol M, Park I, Chambon P 1989 The cloned human oestrogen receptor contains a mutation which alters its hormone binding properties. EMBO J 8:1981–1986[Abstract]