Activity of the GR in G2 and Mitosis

G. Alexander Abel, Gabriela M. Wochnik, Joëlle Rüegg, Audrey Rouyer, Florian Holsboer and Theo Rein

Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Munich D-80804, Germany

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Theo Rein, Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry, Kraepelinstrasse 10, Munich D-80804, Germany. E-mail: theorein{at}mpipsykl.mpg.de.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
To elucidate the mechanisms mediating the reported transient physiological glucocorticoid resistance in G2/M cell cycle phase, we sought to establish a model system of glucocorticoid-resistant cells in G2. We synchronized various cell lines in G2 to measure dexamethasone (DEX)-induced transactivation of either two endogenous promoters (rat tyrosine aminotransferase and mouse metallothionein I) or the mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) promoter stably or transiently transfected. To circumvent the need for synchronization drugs, we stably transfected an MMTV-driven green fluorescent protein to directly correlate DEX-induced transactivation with the cell cycle position for each cell of an asynchronous population using flow cytometry. Surprisingly, all promoters tested were DEX-inducible in G2. Even in mitotic cells, only the stably transfected MMTV promoter was repressed, whereas the same promoter transiently transfected was inducible. The use of Hoechst 33342 for synchronization in previous studies probably caused a misinterpretation, because we detected interference of this drug with GR-dependent transcription independent of the cell cycle. Finally, GR activated a simple promoter in G2, excluding a functional effect of cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation of GR, as implied previously. We conclude that GR itself is fully functional throughout the entire cell cycle, but GR responsiveness is repressed in mitosis due to chromatin condensation rather than to specific modification of GR.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
GLUCOCORTICOIDS ARE INVOLVED in regulation of various biological processes, including development and reproduction, cell growth and proliferation, and metabolism of carbohydrate, lipids, and protein (1, 2, 3). As a family member of ligand-dependent transcription factors (4, 5) the GR is activated by hormone binding. GR is subsequently translocated into the nucleus, where it binds to specific DNA sequences termed glucocorticoid-responsive elements (GREs) and increases transcription from nearby promoters. Several cofactors are important for proper function of GR. Molecular chaperones in the cytosol keep the receptor in a conformation capable of binding to hormone with high affinity (6). Chaperones may also be involved in nuclear translocation of GR (7, 8, 9). Several nuclear cofactors of GR are also necessary for chromatin remodeling of nucleosomally organized promoters and for efficient interaction with the basal transcriptional machinery (10, 11). Important effects of GR are not mediated by transactivation of target promoters, but by transrepression (12, 13). Transrepression is independent of DNA binding (14) but requires interaction with other transcription factors such as activator protein 1 or nuclear factor {kappa}B (15, 16).

It is a long-standing observation that glucocorticoids exert antiproliferative effects in most cellular contexts. Conversely, transactivation of GR-responsive promoters is presumed to be cell cycle-dependent since more than 30 yr. One of the first observations was a cell cycle-dependent induction of tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT) by glucocorticoids in hepatoma cells (17). While cells were glucocorticoid-responsive during the G1 and S cell cycle phases, cells in G2 as well as in M were reported to be completely resistant to glucocorticoids. Moreover, induction of endogenous alkaline phosphatase (18) or later on of epidermal growth factor receptors (19) in HeLa cells was shown to be most effective in late G1 and S-phase with an apparent lack of glucocorticoid responsiveness during G2/M and early G1. More recently, it was demonstrated that in fibroblasts synchronized in G2 the stably transfected mouse mammary tumor-virus (MMTV) promoter as well as the endogenous metallothionein-I (MT-I) promoter could not be activated by glucocorticoids (20). However, in accordance with the hypothesis of specific glucocorticoid resistance in G2 the MT-I promoter was still inducible by heavy metals in G2. Remarkably, inhibition of GR seemed to be confined to transactivation, because transrepression by GR was not affected in G2 cells (21).

Despite several observations relating to cell cycle-dependent activity of GR, including different hormone binding during the cell cycle (19, 22, 23) or decreased nuclear translocation of GR in G2 (19, 20), the molecular mechanisms leading to G2 silencing of GR function remained largely unclear. It has been speculated that differential phosphorylation of GR throughout the cell cycle (24, 25) might contribute to or account for cell cycle-dependent function of GR. Indeed, rat GR was shown to be a target for cyclin-dependent kinases and mitogen activated protein kinases in vitro (26). However, using site-specific mutations of phosphorylation sites of GR, it was not possible to identify a distinct phosphorylation pattern of GR that would lead to complete silencing of the receptor (27, 28). Interestingly, some functional consequences of GR phosphorylation were found, but these effects turned out to be promoter specific because they were apparent only at simple promoters containing just one to three GREs, but not at complex promoters like the MMTV promoter (29, 30, 31). Complex promoters are able to recruit additional cofactors, which themselves might be cell cycle-dependently regulated (32, 33, 34).

With the aim to identify molecular mechanisms explaining glucocorticoid resistance in G2, we sought to establish an experimental model to measure cell cycle-dependent glucocorticoid resistance. We tested cell cycle-dependent transactivation of endogenous as well as exogenous glucocorticoid-sensitive promoters, stably or transiently transfected in various cell lines. To our surprise, we found no silencing of GR function in G2 at all. Furthermore, mitotic repression of GR-induced transcription apparently is due to general chromatin condensation, and not to specific inactivation of GR.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
Induction of TAT by Dexamethasone (DEX) in Hepatoma Cells in G2 or Mitosis
The first systematic investigation of cell cycle-dependent function of GR reported that induction of endogenous TAT in cultured rat hepatoma cells by DEX is completely repressed in the G2 phase of the cell cycle and in mitosis (17). Using the same methodical approach, we first checked whether this original finding is reproducible in our cells endogenously expressing GR and TAT. Asynchronously proliferating rat hepatoma H4-II-E-C3 cells were incubated with colcemid, 6-3H-thymidine and DEX at time zero. Every 90 min, mitotic cells were harvested for determination of TAT-activity as reporter of GR-induced transcription and 6-3H-thymidine incorporation as a control marker for cell cycle position of cells at the beginning of induction (time zero). The rationale of the procedure is that cells collected in mitosis a certain time after stimulation should have started in the cell cycle phase corresponding to the time before mitosis. For example, cells harvested in mitosis after 3 h are expected to have started in G2 cell cycle phase at the time of induction (zero). In our experiment, cells harvested after 6 h and later showed significant incorporation of 6-3H-thymidine indicating the expected appearance of cells having been in S-phase at the time of induction (Fig. 1Go). In contrast, cells collected after 1.5–4.5 h showed minimal incorporation of 3H-thymidine and, therefore, were regarded as cells in G2 between time zero and 1.5–4.5 h thereafter. These G2 cells showed only a slight, nonsignificant decrease of TAT induction by DEX compared with asynchronously proliferating cells stimulated under the same conditions in the presence of colcemid (Fig. 1Go).



View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Induction of TAT Activity in G2 and Mitosis

At time zero, asynchronously proliferating H4-II-E-C3 cells were stimulated with DEX (5 nM) in the presence of colcemid (300 nM) and 6-3H-thymidine (0.1 µCi). At the indicated times after stimulation, mitotic cells were harvested by shaking them off and TAT activity and 3H-thymidine incorporation were determined. In parallel, aliquots of asynchronously proliferating cells were stimulated with DEX in the presence of colcemid and prepared at the same times for control. Gray bars represent the DEX-induced TAT activity of G2 cells (relative to vehicle-treated cells) as a function of their position in the cell cycle at the time of DEX induction (i.e. the time before mitosis) compared with asynchronously proliferating control cells (white bars). Data are given as mean ± SEM of three independent experiments each performed in triplicate. The time course of 3H-thymidine incorporation is given up to 11.5 h after time zero (from right to left).

 
The TAT activities of the noninduced reference cells also provide no indication for a decrease of the ligand-independent activity of GR in G2. On the contrary, there is even a small increase from asynchronously proliferating cells to G2 cells (1.5- to 1.6-fold for each time point; data used for Fig. 1Go, but not displayed).

The slight decrease in inducibility in G2 cells might either indicate an only partial repression of GR reactivity or, more likely, reflect simply the fact that these cells were synchronized in mitosis before preparation. To address this issue, H4-II-E-C3 cells were synchronized in G2 by incubation with nocodazole after 48 h of serum deprivation. For synchronization analysis of a population grown in parallel under the same conditions, mitotic cells were shaken off and discarded before cell harvesting to eliminate metaphase cells and to obtain cells synchronized in G2. Fluorescence- activated cell sorter (FACS) analysis confirmed synchronization of H4-II-E-C3 cells by nocodazole in G2 to about 77% (Fig. 2BGo) compared with about 14% cells in G2 within the asynchronously proliferating control population (Fig. 2AGo). Likewise, mitotic cells were collected by synchronization with colcemid and shaking off. FACS analysis showed more than 95% tetraploid mitotic cells in these preparations (Fig. 2CGo). After synchronization, cells were stimulated with DEX (5 nM) for 8 h, mitotic cells were discarded and the remaining cells harvested for determination of TAT activity. Asynchronously proliferating cells revealed 5.6-fold TAT activity compared with nonstimulated control cells (Fig. 2DGo). Cells synchronized in G2 showed almost the same TAT activity after DEX-stimulation as asynchronous cells but a slightly diminished inducibility (4.9-fold over basal). This is mainly due to a slightly increased TAT activity of nonstimulated cells in G2 (1.2-fold compared with asynchronous cells, Fig. 2DGo). In mitotic cells TAT induction by DEX was almost completely abolished (1.2-fold over basal); this is in accordance with the expected repression of DNA transcription during mitosis. These data suggest that there is only little reduction of GR inducibility in H4-II-E-C3 cells in G2, in stark contrast to data in the literature that indicate an almost complete inhibition (17).



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. TAT Activity of H4-II-E-C3 Cells Synchronized in G2 or in Mitosis

Cells were synchronized in G2 using nocodazole or in mitosis using colcemid. After 8 h, TAT activity was determined for DEX-stimulated and control cells. The histograms show representative FACS analyses of the cell cycle of asynchronously proliferating cells (A), nocodazole-treated (B), and colcemid-treated cells (C) before stimulation. The TAT activity (arbitrary scale with noninduced, asynchronous cells set as 1) of asynchronous, G2 and M cells is given as mean ± SEM of five independent experiments each performed in duplicate (D). Black bars represent noninduced cells; gray bars, DEX-stimulated cells.

 
Cell Cycle-Dependent Transactivation of the MMTV Promoter in Randomly Proliferating Cells
To evaluate whether the reported G2 silence of GR may be observed with some promoters, but not with others, we decided to use the well-described MMTV promoter. GR inactivity in G2 has been observed at this promoter (20, 21). In addition, we were concerned about potential nonspecific effects by the use of synchronization drugs. Thus, to establish a system that allows to determine simultaneously transcriptional activity and cell cycle phase in individual cells, we stably integrated a mammary tumor virus (MTV)-green fluorescent protein (GFP) construct into HT-22 cells to obtain the cell line HT-22-GFP. HT-22 is a murine neuronal cell line endogenously expressing GR (35). Using FACS analysis, it was possible to measure GFP fluorescence and propidium iodide (PI) fluorescence, i.e. DNA content, simultaneously for each cell of a randomly proliferating cell population, thereby directly correlating transcriptional activity with the position in the cell cycle. Figure 3Go shows the MMTV-driven GFP expression correlated with the DNA content of asynchronously proliferating HT-22-GFP cells before stimulation (Fig. 3AGo) and after stimulation with 1 µM DEX (Fig. 3Go, B and C). Stimulation with 1 µM DEX for 8 h resulted in an about 4-fold increase of mean GFP fluorescence (Fig. 3BGo). By gating the population of interest, we determined the DEX-induced increase of mean GFP fluorescence within the G1, S and G2 gate, respectively. With the inducibility of cells within the G1 gate set as 100%, we calculated the relative increase of GFP fluorescence of the S and G2 gate relative to that in G1. Figure 3DGo shows that there is no difference in glucocorticoid responsivity between the three populations after stimulation with DEX for 8 h. The fact that cells in G2 after the 8-h period of DEX-induction were in the S-phase at the beginning of the induction could obscure a potential G2 effect, if the reporter gene product was stable for at least 8 h. Therefore, we also performed DEX-inductions for only 3 h (Fig. 3CGo). The increase of mean GFP intensity was about 2-fold, but again stimulation was uniform for G1, S, and G2 (Fig. 3Go, C and D).



View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Correlation of DEX-induced MMTV Activity and Cellular DNA Content

The MMTV-driven GFP expression of each single HT-22-GFP cell, determined as fluorescence at 525 nm, is given as function of the DNA content, determined as PI-fluorescence at 630 nm. A, Representative cell population before stimulation; B, 3 h; C, 8 h after stimulation with DEX. G1, S, and G2 denote the positions of the gates of the corresponding phase of the cell cycle. D, Values of relative GFP expression induced by DEX within the S and G2 gate were normalized to the value of inducibility of GFP expression within the G1 gate and are given as mean ± SEM of four independent experiments performed in triplicate.

 
We observed a steady increase of GFP reporter with increasing PI fluorescence leading to an almost 2-fold higher mean GFP fluorescence in G2 than G1 cells, both in nonstimulated (Fig. 3AGo) and stimulated cell populations (Fig. 3Go, B and C). This increase can be explained either by a continuous accumulation of reporter between each cell division or by an increase in GR number in G2, which could give rise to an increase of both, ligand-dependent and -independent activity. We also noted an increase in the proportion of G1 cells after 8 h of incubation with DEX (Fig. 3BGo). This is consistent with an extended G1 phase, probably due to some unknown effect of DEX in this cell cycle phase. It is unlikely that this would affect our measurement of G2 cells. G1 cells also appear readily stimulated by DEX. Moreover, we did not observe significant changes in growth behavior of these cells upon incubation with DEX for 1–3 d (not shown), suggesting a transient effect of DEX on the G1 population. Taken together, our data of the MMTV promoter in nonsynchronized cells provide no support for transcriptional inactivity of GR in G2.

Transactivation of the MMTV Promoter in Cells Synchronized in G2
To address the possibility that a potential silencing of GR in G2 was obscured even at the short DEX-induction time of 3 h we set out to verify our data with the MMTV promoter by using G2 synchronizing drugs. HT-22-GFP cells were subjected to serum starvation (0.5% FCS) for 48 h followed by at least 18 h release in medium containing (10% FCS) in the absence (control) or presence of either nocodazole or taxol. Aliquots were taken to confirm synchronization using FACS analysis. Mitotic cells were discarded before as described above. Cells were treated with 1 µM DEX vs. ethanol for 8 h and then processed for measurement of MMTV-driven GFP expression by FACS. Treatment with nocodazole resulted in synchronization in G2 of on average 86% of the cell population (Fig. 4BGo) compared with 12% cells in G2 in the absence of synchronizing agent (Fig. 4AGo). With taxol, 80% of the cells were synchronized in G2 (Fig. 4CGo). By gating of either the entire cell population or cells in G2 (Fig. 4Go, A–C) we determined the cell cycle-dependent transactivation of the MMTV promoter. It is obvious from Fig. 4DGo that also in these G2 cell preparation there is no reduced response to DEX. The small, nonsignificant increase in stimulated G2 cells as compared with asynchronous cells is similarly observed in the GFP fluorescence of nonstimulated cells: nocodazole and taxol arrested cells each display a 1.5-fold higher reporter level. This is also reflected in a virtually unchanged stimulation after DEX (4.37 ± 0.34-fold for asynchronous cells, 3.86 ± 0.21-fold for nocodazole-arrested cells, and 3.54 ± 0.21-fold for taxol-arrested cells; data used for Fig. 4Go, but not displayed).



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4. MMTV Activity of Cells Synchronized in G2

Asynchronously proliferating (A), nocodazole-synchronized (B), or taxol-synchronized (C) HT-22-GFP cells were analyzed by FACS before stimulation. MMTV activity was determined as DEX-induced GFP expression relative to noninduced cells by either gating the entire asynchronously proliferating cell population (A) or solely G2 cells (B, C) and is presented as mean ± SEM of five independent experiments performed in triplicate (D). Black bars represent noninduced cells; gray bars, DEX-stimulated cells.

 
In sum, our data obtained from the TAT promoter in hepatoma cells as well as from the MMTV promoter in neuronal cells indicate that the cell cycle-dependent silencing of GR function reported in previous publications is not reproducible in our cell systems and, therefore, at least, may not be a common principle of regulation of GR function. We next asked whether silencing of GR can be found in the phase after G2, mitosis.

GR Activity in Mitosis on Transient Templates
Two explanations are provided, in general, for the nonspecific repression of DNA transcription in mitosis (36): condensation of chromatin or modification of distinct transcription factors (37, 38, 39). We were interested to find out what mechanism may apply to GR-dependent transcription.

First, we issued whether GR-mediated transcription is impaired during mitosis. We decided to use the MT-I promoter in HT-22 cells, because this endogenously active promoter is inducible by glucocorticoids and by heavy metals. This allowed us to check GR-independent inducibility of the promoter. Moreover, this promoter also was used to show GR silence in G2 (20). Therefore, we additionally checked for transactivation of MT-I by DEX in G2. HT-22 cells were synchronized in G2 using nocodazole or in mitosis using colcemid as described above. After synchronization, cells were stimulated either with 1 µM DEX or 5 µM CdCl2 for 8 h. Transcriptional activity of the MT-I promoter was determined using quantitative RT-PCR. The amount of amplified MT-I mRNA (280 bp) was normalized to the intensity of the corresponding ß-actin mRNA. Colcemid treatment resulted in over 95% accumulation of tetraploid cells (Fig. 5AGo). Transcription from the MT-I promoter in asynchronously proliferating cells increased on average 3.34-fold ± 0.78 (n = 5) over basal activity by DEX (representative gel in Fig. 5BGo, lane 1 and 2) and on average 5.47-fold ± 1.60 (n = 5) by CdCl2 (lane 3). Cells synchronized in G2 showed no significantly altered MT-I transcription neither by DEX nor by CdCl2 (DEX 2.43-fold ± 1.36, n = 5, and CdCl2 5.49-fold ± 1.79, n = 5, respectively, Fig. 5BGo, lanes 4–6). Cells synchronized in mitosis showed a negligible induction of MT-I by DEX, but still a noticeable induction by CdCl2 (DEX 1.15-fold ± 0.38 and CdCl2 3.28-fold ± 1.60, both n = 5 activity over basal value; Fig. 5BGo, lanes 7–9). Noninduced cells show no difference in the amount of MT-I mRNA before induction (G2 cells 1.07-fold ± 0.19 compared with asynchronous, M cells 0.99 ± 0.54; n = 5). These data confirm that cells in G2 are not glucocorticoid resistant, whereas induction of transcription by glucocorticoids is repressed in mitotic cells, probably through chromatin condensation.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 5. Inducibility of the MT-I Promoter by DEX or CdCl2 in Either G2 or Mitosis

HT-22-GFP cells were synchronized in G2 by nocodazole or in mitosis by colcemid (A). Asynchronous and synchronized cells were stimulated for 8 h with either DEX or CdCl2. MT-I mRNA was determined by RT-PCR. B, Representative agarose gel showing the RT-PCR products of MT-I and ß-actin mRNA of asynchronous cells or cells synchronized in G2 or mitosis. Ctrl, Noninduced; DX, DEX-induced; Cd, CdCl2-induced, {phi}, {phi}X-HaeIII DNA molecular weight marker.

 
To answer the question whether mitotic repression of a glucocorticoid responsive promoter is mediated solely by mitotic condensation of chromatin, HT-22-GFP cells stably expressing MMTV-driven GFP were transiently cotransfected with the same promoter linked to another reporter, i.e. the luciferase gene (pMTV-Luc). The MMTV promoter is organized into a phased array of nucleosomes when stably integrated into cellular DNA (40), whereas the same promoter transiently transfected remains in an unorganized state (41, 42, 43) and is excluded from mitotic condensation of nuclear chromatin. Therefore, transcription from the transient template in mitosis should only be affected if transcription factors like GR are inhibited directly.

Cells were synchronized in G2 or M. During the synchronization procedure, HT-22-GFP cells were transiently cotransfected with pMTV-Luc and pCMV (cytomegalovirus)-ß-galactosidase (gal). While in G2 both MMTV templates were inducible, in mitosis the transiently transfected MMTV promoter was inducible and the stably integrated one was silent (Fig. 6Go). The reporter activities of noninduced cells showed no significant difference (compare black bars). These data show that mitotic repression of GR-dependent transcription is likely due to chromatin condensation rather than to modification (e.g. by phosphorylation) of GR or any cofactor of GR.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 6. Comparison of Transiently with Stably Transfected MMTV Promoter Templates in G2 or in Mitosis

HT-22-GFP cells were transiently cotransfected with pMTV-Luc and pCMV-ß-gal and treated with DEX or ethanol only, either without synchronization or after synchronization in G2 or mitosis. After harvesting, aliquots of each sample were either processed for determination of GFP fluorescence using FACS analysis (right panel) or for determination of luciferase and ß-gal activities (left panel). GFP expression and luciferase activity (normalized to ß-gal activity, which was similar for asynchronous, G2, and M phase cell populations) after DEX-treatment (gray bars) are given in comparison with ethanol-treated samples (black bars) as mean ± SEMR of five independent experiments each performed in duplicate. ***, P <= 0.005.

 
Transactivation of a Simple Glucocorticoid-Responsive Promoter in G2 Cells
GR was reported not only to be differentially active throughout the cell cycle, but also to be differentially phosphorylated (24). In addition, it has been concluded that only simple glucocorticoid-responsive promoters are functionally sensitive to GR phosphorylation, but not complex promoters like the MMTV (29, 30, 31). Therefore, we asked whether GR silence in G2 might exist for simple promoters. HT-22-GFP cells or H4-II-E-C3 cells were transiently transfected with a simple promoter construct, a truncated thymidine kinase (TK) promoter linked to a single GRE and to the luciferase gene (pTK-GRE-Luc). Cells were synchronized in G2 as described and stimulated with DEX for 8 h. In both cell lines, the promoter was equally inducible in G2 and in asynchronous cells (Fig. 7Go). Noninduced G2 cells again showed a small, nonsignificant increase in reporter activity (1.3-fold for HT22 cells and 2-fold for H4-II-E-C3 cells, data used for Fig. 7Go, but not shown). This confirms that phosphorylation of GR has at least no direct effect on transactivation of glucocorticoid sensitive promoters. Moreover, GR is active in G2 on both complex and simple promoters.



View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 7. DEX-induced Transactivation of a Simple Promoter in Cells Synchronized in G2

HT-22-GFP or H4-II-E-C3 cells transiently transfected with pTK-GRE-luc were synchronized in G2 using nocodazole and stimulated with DEX (1 µM) for 8 h. Luciferase activity was normalized to the ß-gal activity of the cotransfected pCMV-ß-gal. The DEX-induced luciferase activity is given for each cell line relative to ethanol-treated cells as mean ± SEM together with the numbers of independently performed experiments.

 
GR-Induced Transactivation in Cells Treated with Hoechst 33342 (HOE)
Looking for methodological differences between our experimental set-up and previous reports showing G2 silence of GR we noted that previous studies had used HOE to synchronize cells in G2 (20, 21). We initially refrained from using this drug, because it is known as topoisomerase inhibitor (44), nonspecific inhibitor of transcription (45, 46), and a toxic agent for some cell types (47, 48). Nevertheless, it was necessary to test whether the described GR silence in G2 depends on the way cells are synchronized in G2.

Therefore, we began by testing the efficiency of HOE to synchronize our cells in G2. It first should be noted that HT-22-GFP cells we had used for this study were not efficiently synchronized in G2 by treatment with HOE (data not shown). The only cell line that in our hands readily synchronized in G2 after HOE treatment was Chinese hamster ovary (CHO)-TRex (Fig. 8AGo). These cells are a commercially available derivative of CHO cells, which have been reported to synchronize in G2 by treatment with HOE (49). After pretreatment with hydroxyurea and 18 h incubation with HOE, DEX-induced transactivation of the transiently transfected MMTV promoter was indeed not detectable in these cells (Fig. 8BGo). However, DEX response was not affected in G2 CHO-TRex cells synchronized by nocodazole (Fig. 8Go, A and B). To explore the differences between the synchronization procedures, we treated cells with different concentrations of HOE for 12 h without the preceding hydroxyurea incubation. Again, DEX response was not measurable at a concentration of 6 µg/ml HOE (Fig. 9AGo). However, FACS analysis revealed that these cells were not synchronized in G2 (Fig. 9BGo). This strongly suggested that the inhibition observed with HOE treatment is not due to synchronization in G2, but to some cell cycle-independent effect of HOE. Paradoxically, while at low concentrations of HOE there is still inducibility of the MMTV promoter, we observed a significant increase of the nonstimulated MMTV activity at 1 and 2 µg/ml of HOE (Fig. 9AGo).



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 8. MMTV Promoter Activity of CHO-Trex Cells Synchronized by Nocodazole or HOE

Asynchronously proliferating cells were presynchronized with hydroxyurea, transiently transfected with MTV-Luc reporter plasmid and released into medium containing either nocodazole or HOE (6 µg/ml). The histograms in A show representative results of cell synchronization compared with asynchronously prolifareting cells. B, Corresponding transcriptional activation. Synchronized cells were stimulated with DEX and tetracyclin for 12 h. Data are presented as mean values ± SEM of MTV-Luc activity normalized to the ß-gal activity of the cotransfected pCMV-ß-gal from four experiments independently performed in duplicate. Black bars, Ethanol control; gray bars, DEX induction.

 


View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 9. Cell Cycle-independent Effect of HOE on GR-Dependent Transcription in CHO-TRex Cells

A, Transactivation of MTV-Luc transiently transfected in CHO-TRex cells induced by 1 µM DEX in the presence of increasing concentrations of HOE (exposure time 12 h). Bars represent mean values ± SEM of either basal MTV-Luc activity (without DEX) in the presence of HOE (black bars) or stimulated MTV-Luc activity (DEX + HOE, gray bars). Significance is given for black bars (i.e. significant difference of cells in the absence of DEX treated with HOE vs. untreated cells). Luciferase activity was normalized to protein. B, DNA histogram of asynchronously proliferating cells incubated with HOE (6 µg/ml) for 12 h. C, Tetracycline-induced ß-gal activity in CHO-TRex cells in the presence of HOE. Cells were stimulated with 1 µM tetracycline in the presence of HOE. *, P <= 0.05; ***, P <= 0.005.

 
We wondered whether the stimulating effect of HOE is observed at GR-independent promoters. We measured the activity of transiently transfected ß-gal driven by a tetracyclin-inducible CMV promoter in CHO-TRex in the presence or absence of HOE. Transcriptional activity was not significantly elevated with increasing concentrations of HOE (Fig. 9CGo), suggesting a somewhat specific effect of HOE on GR-dependent promoters.

To corroborate these findings, HT-22-GFP cells were coincubated with DEX and increasing concentrations of HOE ranging from 0.25 up to 4 µg/ml for 8 h. Although the cell cycle of these cells was not affected by HOE (Fig. 10AGo), induction of the MMTV promoter by DEX was dose dependently inhibited (Fig. 10BGo). In contrast to the transiently transfected MMTV promoter in CHO-Trex cells, the transcription from the stably integrated MMTV promoter in the absence of DEX was not significantly increased in HT-22-GFP cells (Fig. 10CGo). However, when we transiently transfected these cells with the MTV-Luc construct, again the promoter activity was significantly enhanced by HOE in the absence of DEX (Fig. 10DGo).



View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 10. Differential Effect of HOE on Transiently or Stably Transfected MMTV Promoter Templates

A, Representative histogram showing the effect of a short-time (8 h) exposure of asynchronously proliferating HT-22-GFP cells to 1 µg/ml HOE. B, Transactivation of HT-22-GFP in the presence of increasing concentrations of HOE. Bars represent mean values ± SEM of MTV-GFP induction by 1 µM DEX for 8 h (relative to uninduced cells). C, Basal values of MTV-GFP activity in the presence of HOE. D, Effect of increasing concentrations of HOE on the transactivation of MTV-Luc transiently transfected in HT-22-GFP cells. Bars represent luciferase activity stimulated by DEX at 1 µM for 12 h in the presence of HOE (12 h, i.e. added simultaneously with DEX) (gray bars) or luciferase activity in the presence of HOE and the absence of DEX. Significance is given for black bars. *, P <= 0.05.

 
Thus, although we did not further analyze the mechanism leading to inhibition of GR-mediated transactivation by HOE in this study, we note a paradoxical difference in the effect of low concentrations of HOE (about 1–4 µg/ml) on transiently vs. stably transfected MMTV promoter templates in the absence of hormone. While transcription from the stably integrated template is not affected (Fig. 10CGo), transcription from transient templates is enhanced (Figs. 9AGo and 10DGo). With concentrations of HOE as high as in previous reports [7.5 µg/ml (20)] MMTV promoter activity was always down, with or without DEX and independent of synchronization (not shown).


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
The initial aim of our study was to identify new mechanisms that could explain glucocorticoid resistance as it occurs under certain physiological and pathological conditions. Because we aimed at processes that may pertain to GR function in vivo, we decided to make use of the transient GR silence within the physiological context of the cell cycle, which has been reported previously (17, 18, 19, 20, 21).

However, from our extensive studies of four different promoters in three different cell types, we conclude that GR is active throughout the entire cell cycle, thereby completely changing our view of GR.

Inactivity of GR in G2 cells was first reported in 1969 using the TAT promoter in rat hepatoma cells (17). In an effort to reproduce this previous report directly, we investigated the activity of the TAT promoter in H4-II-E-C3 rat hepatoma cells. While there was clear repression of TAT induction in mitosis (Fig. 2DGo), in G2 cells we found no difference in the TAT activity after induction with dexamethasone and only a marginal reduction of TAT inducibility compared with asynchronously proliferating cells (Figs. 1Go and 2Go). This slight decrease of TAT inducibility in G2 cannot be explained by nonspecific effects of cytoskeleton disrupting agents like colcemid or nocodazol, because we found that they did not affect GR function neither in asynchronously proliferating H4-II-E-C3 cells nor in HT-22 cells (data not shown). This is in accordance with previous reports regarding nuclear translocation of GR (8, 50). We cannot rule out the possibility that this slight decrease reflects a partial impairment of GR in G2 in H4-II-E-C3 cells. However, we consider it more likely that this minor reduction is explained by the higher proportion of cells in mitosis in this population as compared with randomly proliferating cells.

We can only speculate why the previous report (17) is in contrast to our observations: for example, the TAT promoter is regulated not only by glucocorticoids via a GRE (51, 52), but also by other factors like cAMP (53, 54), or liver-specific hepatocyte nuclear factors (55, 56). Activation of TAT transcription by the cAMP pathway has been reported to be differentially sensitive in different liver-derived cell lines downstream of protein kinase A (57). Therefore, it is possible that cell type-specific and cell cycle-dependent variations in the cross-talk between these different signal transduction pathways may finally lead to impaired transactivation of the TAT promoter in G2. This would also mean that GR function itself is not directly linked to the cell cycle. An alternative, though less likely, explanation would be that it can be difficult to avoid contaminations of G2 cell preparations with mitotic cells in the way G2 cells have been prepared (17).

To either corroborate or disprove our conclusions, we used the MMTV promoter as another model system because it represents one of the best-studied GR-dependent promoters and because it has been used to show GR silence in G2 before (20, 21). We created HT-22 cells stably transfected with an MMTV-driven GFP gene to be able to directly correlate GR-dependent transactivation with the cell cycle for each cell in either synchronized cells or unsynchronized, randomly proliferating cells. A similar methodical approach was successfully used to show that heat shock protein 70 is cell cycle-dependently induced after heat stress in a limited number of cell lines (58). In our HT-22-GFP cells, FACS analysis revealed no cell cycle dependence of DEX-inducibility of GFP expression (Fig. 3Go). We noted, however, that cells with or without induction with DEX displayed an increasing amount of reporter product as they moved from G1 to S and to G2. We cannot completely rule out that this reflects a more efficient hormone binding and transactivational activity of GR during S-phase (17, 18, 19, 23), which may seemingly extend into G2, if GFP protein is stable. However, because the increase is independent of induction with DEX, the more likely explanation is that it is due to a steady accumulation of GFP between each cell division. Similarly, it is possible that the substantially greater mean variation of GFP expression of cells in G1 reflects differential DEX-responsiveness between early G1 cells and late G1 cells as suggested elsewhere (25). However, we consider it more likely that the higher variation in G1 is due to the higher proportion of G1 cells in the total population, i.e. cells spend more time in G1 which means that cells late in G1 had more time to accumulate GFP. The difference of our results to the data describing silencing of GR in G2 (20, 21) cannot be explained by the fact that GR silence previously was found in synchronized cells, because we also used nocodazole or taxol to synchronize HT-22-GFP cells in G2 and found no GR silencing at all.

Similarly, promoter specificity is unlikely to be the cue for explaining the difference between our data and those of others, because we also tested the endogenously expressed MT-I promoter and a simple promoter construct, again with no evidence for GR silencing in G2. The MT-I promoter was also used to show impaired GR function in G2 (20). The simple promoter containing only one GRE was of particular interest, because on the one hand GR is differentially phosphorylated during G1/S and during G2/M (24, 25) and on the other hand mutations of certain phosphorylation sites of GR affects transactivation only with simple glucocorticoid responsive promoters (25, 29, 30, 31). Thus, one would have predicted that a cell cycle-dependent activity of GR would be detectable only with a simple promoter construct, if differential phosphorylation was causal for it. Because we found no cell cycle dependence of GR function also on our simple promoter, we postulate that the cell cycle-dependent phosphorylation of GR has no effect on its ability to transactivate.

The discrepancy of our results to those obtained previously is, most likely, explained by the use of HOE in previous studies to synchronize cells in G2 (20, 21). We demonstrate that HOE itself interferes with GR-dependent transcription. The bisbenzimide HOE was reported to be suitable for reversible cell cycle synchronization of CHO cells (49, 59) and, more recently, of primary cultured porcine fibroblasts (60). CHO cells (49) and L-fibroblasts (20) apparently synchronized well in G2 at a concentration of HOE of 7.5 µg/ml. While our CHO-TRex cells readily synchronized in G2 at a concentration of HOE of 6 µg/ml, HT-22-GFP cells failed to synchronize efficiently by HOE treatment, even after presynchronization in S-phase by hydroxyurea (data not shown). Importantly, we found that HOE interfered with GR-mediated transactivation of MMTV in HT-22-GFP cells and CHO-TRex cells even in the absence of cell synchronization (Figs. 9Go and 10Go). Strikingly, while HOE inhibited transcription from a stably integrated MMTV promoter, the same promoter transiently transfected was activated even in the absence of DEX (Fig. 10Go). Although we did not pursue this phenomenon further, we conclude that the use of HOE is not recommendable for assaying GR function.

It is well described that prolonged exposure to HOE is toxic to several cell types at nanomolar (48, 61) to micromolar concentrations (62). Using the MTT assay, we found no cytotoxicity after 8 or 12 h incubation of HT-22-GFP and CHO-TRex cells with HOE (not shown), but determined a half-maximal cytotoxic concentration of HOE for HT-22-GFP cells of about 3 µg/ml after 32 h of exposure (data not shown). While we observed inhibition of DEX-response already at nontoxic concentrations, one might speculate that cells are nevertheless already determined for an apoptotic process. This process could involve p53, which functionally inhibits GR function (63). Another potential mechanism explaining inhibition of DEX-induced transcription involves interference of HOE with DNA binding of transcription factors, which has been shown at several examples (45, 46, 47, 64). It may be for these reasons that HOE seems not to be used as the standard agent for cell synchronization in G2 (65, 66).

While the use of HOE can serve as a possible explanation for the difference between our conclusions and those using HOE, we can only speculate about other studies (17, 18, 19). We discussed Ref. 17 above. Citation (19) reports on the induction of EGF binding by DEX treatment throughout the cell cycle. Unfortunately, samples have been taken at the S/G2 transition and at the G2/M transition, but none clearly in G2 (Fig. 2Go of Ref. 19). Because G2 and M cells were not differentiated, one might speculate that the cell preparation contained a significant fraction of M-phase cells. In addition, it cannot be excluded that EGF binding is down-regulated by ways other than reduced transcription. The work by Griffin and Ber (18) has been cited as support for inactivity of GR in G2 in numerous publications (e.g. Refs. 25 , 67, 68, 69, 70). However, although the authors analyzed induction of alkaline phosphatase by hydrocortisone for 48 h after mitotic cell selection, they did not analyze cells in the G2 phase. Inactivity in G2 may have been inferred from the 20 h lag period of induction when cells are exposed to DEX 12 h after mitosis (see Fig. 2Go in Ref. 18). However, this is a rather indirect conclusion and the authors themselves make no claim about G2, they actually never mention G2 (18).

In most experiments, we observed a small, albeit nonsignificant increase in the amount of GR-dependent reporter in G2. When observed for each cell (Fig. 3Go), this may be explained by a steady increase in reporter between each cell division (see above). When normalized by total protein or ß-gal activity, this increase may reflect the reported increase of GR binding sites in S and G2 as compared with G1 (19), an explanation that would also apply to measurements per cell, of course. From Western blotting of protein extracts of asynchronous or G2/M-synchronized HT-22-GFP cells, we actually have preliminary evidence for a small increase in GR protein in G2 and M-phase (data not shown). However, given the about equally small increase in ligand-independent reporter activity in G2 and unchanged inducibility, we consider it unlikely that the increase in GR number in G2 compensates for a possible reduction in GR activity per se.

While we found no inhibition of GR-dependent transcription in G2, transcription of the endogenous MT-I promoter and the stably integrated MMTV promoter was not inducible by DEX in mitotic cells. With the endogenous MT-I promoter, we observed in mitosis only a reduced, but still evident inducibility by CdCl2. While we do not know the reason for this partial activity even during mitosis, we note that during mitosis DNase I hypersensitive sites can persist (38) and even TFIID-promoter complexes remain stable (71). Therefore, it may be possible that CdCl2, in contrast to DEX, activates factors that are able to activate the MT-I promoter preassembled with TFIID complexes even in mitosis.

In contrast to the stably integrated, chromosomal template, the MMTV promoter transiently transfected clearly was inducible by DEX even in mitosis. This model system of stable and transient cotransfection of the MMTV promoter at the same time has been successfully employed to elucidate the critical relevance of nucleosomal organization for GR-mediated transcription (42, 72, 73, 74, 75). We exploited this model system here for the first time to shed light on the mechanism of mitotic inhibition of GR-dependent transcription. The hypotheses put forward to explain transcriptional repression during mitosis fall into two general categories: hypotheses using chromosome condensation and hypotheses using inactivation of transcription factors as explanation (36, 37, 38, 39). Our findings clearly show that GR itself is not inhibited in mitotic cells, and therefore, repression of GR-dependent transcription in mitosis must be due to the nonspecific effect of chromatin condensation. Further, our results exclude the hypothesis that there is bulk inactivation of the basal transcriptional machinery during mitosis.

In summary, we propose a model of cell cycle-dependent activity of GR, in which GR-dependent transcription is silenced only during mitosis. This silencing, however, is due to chromatin condensation rather than to inactivation of GR itself. Therefore, chromatin-independent functions of GR are not suppressed in mitosis, e.g. transcription from viral templates or, possibly, DNA-independent activities of GR. Our model leaves open the possibility that certain GR-responsive promoters are regulated in a cell cycle-dependent manner due to cell cycle-dependent activity of promoter-specific cofactors.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 
Cell Lines and Culture
Mouse neuronal HT-22 cells (35) and CHO-TRex cells were maintained in DMEM (Life Technologies, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD) supplemented with 10% FCS (Biochrom, Berlin, Germany), 50 U/ml each of penicillin and streptomycin, and 4.5 g/liter glucose. CHO-TRex were from Invitrogen (Carlsbad, CA). H4-II-E-C3 rat hepatoma cells (ATCC CRL-1600, Manassas, VA) were maintained in DMEM devoid of phenol red supplemented with FCS and antibiotics as above, 1 g/liter glucose and 2 mM L-glutamine.

Plasmids and Transfection
The plasmid pRK5MLuc was obtained by cloning the PvuII-BamHI fragment from pMTV-Luc (76) encompassing the MMTV-LTR, the firefly luciferase structural gene and the SV40 polyA signal into the SpeI-AccI vector fragment from pRK5SV40PUR (77) containing the puromycin resistance gene. The Acc65I site was blunted and the SpeI site was ligated to the BamHI site via a linker. The plasmid pMTV-GFP was cloned by replacing the luciferase structural gene of pRK5Mluc (excised with XhoI and Acc65I) with the GFP gene linked to a sorting signal for localization to the endoplasmatic reticulum, which was amplified by PCR from the plasmid ER-GFP kindly provided by D. Pestov (78).

The plasmid pTK-GRE containing a single GRE from a truncated TK promoter linked to the luciferase gene was kindly provided by D. Spengler (79). Cells were transiently transfected using ExGene 500 (MBI Fermentas, St. Leon-Rot, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For transfection of cells synchronized in G2 or M, transfection was at the end of serum starvation before incubation with either nocodazole, taxol or colcemid (all from Calbiochem, La Jolla, CA).

Electroporation was used to obtain HT-22 cells stably transfected with pMTV-GFP (80). Individual cell clones were grown in the presence of puromycin (10 µg/ml) and picked as described elsewhere (81). One of these subclones was further purified by the criterion of maximally DEX-induced GFP expression using a fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACScalibur, Becton Dickinson and Co., Heidelberg, Germany) to obtain the clone HT-22-GFP. CHO-TRex cells stably expressing a tetracyclin sensitive repressor protein were transiently cotransfected with a construct of a tetracyclin inducible CMV promoter linked to the ß-gal gene and pMTV-Luc.

Cell Synchronization and Induction
Exponentially growing HT-22 and H4-II-E-C3 cells were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 0.5% charcoal-stripped FCS for 48 h. After serum starvation cells were released into DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS containing either 500 ng/ml nocodazole or 100 nM taxol for synchronization in G2 or containing 300 nM colcemid for synchro-nization in mitosis. Cells were maintained in the presence of each synchronizing agent for 18–24 h. After this time, aliquots of cells grown under identical conditions were either prepared for FACS analysis to verify synchrony or were stimulated with DEX or CdCl2. To obtain populations of cells in G2, mitotic cells were eliminated from adherent cell cultures treated with either nocodazole or taxol by shaking them off before FACS analysis or determination of luciferase or TAT activity. Conversely, for preparation of mitotic cells, metaphase cells were shaken off from adherent cell populations treated with colcemid before stimulation.

Routinely, all cell lines were cultured in DMEM containing charcoal-stripped steroid-free FCS for at least 24 h before hormone treatment. All treatments were done in steroid-free DMEM with either DEX dissolved at the concentrations indicated in ethanol or an identical volume of ethanol. Cadmium chloride was dissolved in water and used at a concentration of 5 µM. HT-22-GFP and H4-II-E-C3 cells were routinely exposed to DEX or CdCl2 for 8 h. CHO-TRex cells transiently transfected with either MTV-Luc or pTK-GRE-luc were routinely exposed to DEX for 12 h.

FACS Analysis
Cells were harvested by trypsinization and fixed in 70% ethanol at 4 C over night. Samples of fixed cells were resuspended and stained in PBS containing 20 µg/ml PI and 10 µg/ml RNAse A. FACS analysis of GFP emission at 525 nm (Fl1) and PI emission at 630 nm (Fl4) was performed using a Beckman Coulter (Krefeld, Germany) XL flow cytometer. After gating out doublets and clumps as described elsewhere (82), results of MMTV-driven GFP induction in HT-22-GFP cells were obtained from the mean GFP fluorescence of all events within a particular gate, e.g. a G2 gate or a gate spanning the entire cell cycle. Cell cycle analysis of DNA histograms was done using the Multicycle software (Phoenix Flow Systems, San Diego, CA).

Assays of Luciferase, ß-gal, and TAT Activity
Luciferase activity was determined according to manufacturer’s instructions (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Mannheim, Germany) using a luminometer [Wallac, Inc. (Wildbad, Germany), victor2 multilabel counter]. Assays of ß-gal activity were performed using the Galacto-Light assay (Tropix, Inc., Bedford, MA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Luciferase activity obtained from pMTV-Luc transiently transfected in HT-22-GFP or H4-II-E-C3 cells was normalized to gal activity of cotransfected pCMV-ß-gal to correct for variations in transfection efficiency. Luciferase activity obtained from pMTV-Luc transiently transfected in CHO-TRex cells with or without stimulation by DEX was normalized to protein. In these cells, inducibility of general transcription was determined by induction of pCMV-ß-gal activity by tetracyclin (1 µg/ml for 12 h) after normalization to protein.

TAT activity was determined as described (83). In short, 10 µl samples of Triton-X 100-lyzed H4-II-E-C3 cells were incubated in 100 µl of a potassium phosphate buffer containing 125 mM K2HPO4/KH2PO4, pH 7.6; 4 mM L-tyrosine; 70 µM pyridoxal-5-phosphate; 13 mM {alpha}-ketoglutaric acid; and 0.5% Triton-X-100 at 37 C for 40 min. After addition of 50 µl 1% hexatrimethyl-ammonium bromide dissolved in 2.8 M NaOH, samples were incubated at 37 C. After 30 min TAT activity of each sample was assayed by measuring the absorbance at 340 nm using a plate reader (Dynatech Corp. MR 7000). TAT activity was normalized to protein.

The relative activity of reporter enzymes was the ratio of stimulated activity divided by nonstimulated activity. The luciferase signal from pMTV-Luc transiently transfected in CHO-TRex cells was either normalized to protein or to tetracyclin-induced gal activity normalized to protein. All statistics were performed using the U test to determine significance.

Mitotic Shakeoff
Asynchronously proliferating H4-II-E-C3 cells were incubated in fresh DMEM without phenol red supplemented with 10% charcoal-stripped FCS containing 300 nM colcemid and 0.1 µCi 6-3H thymidine at time zero. Within intervals of 90 min after time zero, mitotic cells were shaken off from the adherent cell population by gently shaking the culture flask. Mitotic cells were collected by centrifugation and resuspended in PBS. For protein determinations and TAT assays, aliquots of cells were Triton X-100-lyzed in a buffer containing 125 mM K2HPO4 (pH 7.2). Incorporation of 6-3H-thymidine in mitotic cells was determined as described elsewhere (17, 66) using a scintillation-counter (Beckman Coulter LS 6500). TAT activity as well as 6-3H-thymidine incorporation were normalized to protein.

RT-PCR
Preparation of mRNA from samples of cells stored in RNAlater (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) were performed using the RNeasy kit (QIAGEN) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Reverse transcription of 5 µg mRNA was performed as described elsewhere (84). Of each cDNA sample, 5 µl were used for PCR. PCR conditions were 94 C/45 sec, 60 C/45 sec and 72 C/2 min, 24 cycles. Primers for mouse-ß-actin were forward: GTG GGC CGC TCT AGG CAC CAA, reverse: CTC TTT GAT GTC ACG CAC GAT TTC, for mouse-MT-I forward: TTC ACC AGA TCT CGG AAT GGA C, reverse: TTC GTC ACA TCA GGC ACA GCA C. PCR products were separated by electrophoresis through a 2% agarose gel. After staining with ethidium bromide the bands corresponding to MT-I mRNA (280 bp) or ß-actin (540 bp) were quantified using a gel imaging system [Kodak (Rochester, NY) image station 440CF and Kodak 1D Image Analysis software] and the NIH image program. Using RNA from CdCl2-induced cells and the MT-I primers a linear increase in the amount of amplified DNA was observed between 1 and 6 µg mRNA used in the initial reverse transcription (data not shown). Amplification of ß-actin was linear up to 3 µg of input RNA in test assays (data not shown). Because we used 1 µg of RNA in our experimental assays and the variation in amplified ß-actin was at most 1.8-fold, our experimental conditions should have been in the linear response range.

MTT Assays and Protein Determination
Cell viability of cells grown in microtiter plates was assayed with the MTT assay as described (81). Protein was determined using the BCA assay (Pierce Chemical Co., Madison, WI).


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank A. Jarzabek for excellent technical assistance, F. Kiefer for providing H4-II-E-C3 cells, C. Behl for the plasmid MTV-Luc and HT22 cells (initially a kind gift from P. Maher, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA), D. Spengler for the plasmids tk-GRE-Luc and ER-GFP (initially a kind gift by D. Pestov, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL), R. Abraham (Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Martinsried, Germany) for help with the FACScalibur, and D. Spengler for critically reading the manuscript.


    FOOTNOTES
 
Abbreviations: CHO, Chinese hamster ovary; CMV, cytomegaly virus; DEX, dexamethasone; FACS, fluorescence-activated cell sorter; gal, galactosidase; GFP, green fluorescent protein; GRE, glucocorticoid-responsive elements; HOE, Hoechst 33342; Luc, luciferase gene; MTV, mammary tumor virus; MMTV, mouse mammary tumor virus; MT, metallothionein; p, plasmid; PI, propidium iodide; TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase; TK, thymidine kinase.

Received for publication October 12, 2001. Accepted for publication February 8, 2002.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Kimberly RP 1994 Glucocorticoids. Curr Opin Rheumatol 6:273–280[Medline]
  2. Beato M, Klug J 2000 Steroid hormone receptors: an update. Hum Reprod Update 6:225–236[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Schmid W, Cole TJ, Blendy JA, Schütz G 1995 Molecular genetic analysis of glucocorticoid signalling in development. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 53:33–35[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Mangelsdorf DJ, Thummel C, Beato M, Herrlich P, Schütz G, Umesono K, Blumberg B, Kastner P, Mark M, Chambon P 1995 The nuclear receptor superfamily: the second decade. Cell 83:835–839[Medline]
  5. Whitfield GK, Jurutka PW, Haussler CA, Haussler MR 1999 Steroid hormone receptors: evolution, ligands, and molecular basis of biologic function. J Cell Biochem Suppl 32–33:110–122
  6. Pratt WB, Toft DO 1997 Steroid receptor interactions with heat shock protein and immunophilin chaperones. Endocr Rev 18:306–360[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Pratt WB, Silverstein AM, Galigniana MD 1999 A model for the cytoplasmic trafficking of signalling proteins involving the hsp90-binding immunophilins and p50cdc37. Cell Signal 11:839–851[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Galigniana MD, Scruggs JL, Herrington J, Welsh MJ, Carter-Su C, Housley PR, Pratt WB 1998 Heat shock protein 90-dependent (geldanamycin-inhibited) movement of the glucocorticoid receptor through the cytoplasm to the nucleus requires intact cytoskeleton. Mol Endocrinol 12:1903–1913[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Murphy PJ, Kanelakis KC, Galigniana MD, Morishima Y, Pratt WB 2001 Stoichiometry, abundance and functional significance of the hsp90/hsp70-based multiprotein chaperone machinery in reticulocyte lysate. J Biol Chem 276:30092–30098[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Wallberg AE, Wright A, Gustafsson JA 2000 Chromatin-remodeling complexes involved in gene activation by the glucocorticoid receptor. Vitam Horm 60:75–122[Medline]
  11. Freedman LP 1999 Increasing the complexity of coactivation in nuclear receptor signaling. Cell 97:5–8[Medline]
  12. Herrlich P 2001 Cross-talk between glucocorticoid receptor and AP-1. Oncogene 20:2465–2475[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Gottlicher M, Heck S, Herrlich P 1998 Transcriptional cross-talk, the second mode of steroid hormone receptor action. J Mol Med 76:480–489[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Heck S, Kullmann M, Gast A, Ponta H, Rahmsdorf HJ, Herrlich P, Cato AC 1994 A distinct modulating domain in glucocorticoid receptor monomers in the repression of activity of the transcription factor AP-1. EMBO J 13:4087–4095[Abstract]
  15. Beato M, Herrlich P, Schütz G 1995 Steroid hormone receptors: many actors in search of a plot. Cell 83:851–857[Medline]
  16. Karin M 1998 New twists in gene regulation by glucocorticoid receptor: is DNA binding dispensable? Cell 93:487–490[Medline]
  17. Martin DJ, Tomkins GM, Granner D 1969 Synthesis and induction of tyrosine aminotransferase in synchronized hepatoma cells in culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 62:248–255[Abstract]
  18. Griffin MJ, Ber R 1969 Cell cycle events in the hydrocortisone regulation of alkaline phosphatase in HeLa S3 cells. J Cell Biol 40:297–304[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Fanger BO, Currie RA, Cidlowski JA 1986 Regulation of epidermal growth factor receptors by glucocorticoids during the cell cycle in HeLa S3 cells. Arch Biochem Biophys 249:116–125[Medline]
  20. Hsu SC, Qi M, DeFranco DB 1992 Cell cycle regulation of glucocorticoid receptor function. EMBO J 11:3457–3468[Abstract]
  21. Hsu SC, DeFranco DB 1995 Selectivity of cell cycle regulation of glucocorticoid receptor function. J Biol Chem 270:3359–3364[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Cidlowski JA, Michaels GA 1977 Alteration in glucocorticoid binding site number during the cell cycle in HeLa cells. Nature 266:643–645[Medline]
  23. Distelhorst CW, Benutto BM, Bergamini RA 1984 Effect of cell cycle position on dexamethasone binding by mouse and human lymphoid cell lines: correlation between an increase in dexamethasone binding during S phase and dexamethasone sensitivity. Blood 63:105–113[Abstract]
  24. Hu JM, Bodwell JE, Munck A 1994 Cell cycle-dependent glucocorticoid receptor phosphorylation and activity. Mol Endocrinol 8:1709–1713[Abstract]
  25. Bodwell JE, Webster JC, Jewell CM, Cidlowski JA, Hu JM, Munck A 1998 Glucocorticoid receptor phosphorylation: overview, function and cell cycle-dependence. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 65:91–99[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Krstic MD, Rogatsky I, Yamamoto KR, Garabedian MJ 1997 Mitogen-activated and cyclin-dependent protein kinases selectively and differentially modulate transcriptional enhancement by the glucocorticoid receptor. Mol Cell Biol 17:3947–3954[Abstract]
  27. Mason SA, Housley PR 1993 Site-directed mutagenesis of the phosphorylation sites in the mouse glucocorticoid receptor. J Biol Chem 268:21501–21504[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Almlöf T, Wright AP, Gustafsson, JA 1995 Role of acidic and phosphorylated residues in gene activation by the glucocorticoid receptor. J Biol Chem 270:17535–17540[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Webster, JC, Jewell CM, Bodwell JE, Munck A, Sar M, Cidlowski JA 1997 Mouse glucocorticoid receptor phosphorylation status influences multiple functions of the receptor protein. J Biol Chem 272:9287–9293[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Rogatsky I, Logan SK, Garabedian MJ 1998 Antagonism of glucocorticoid receptor transcriptional activation by the c-Jun N-terminal kinase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:2050–2055[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Rogatsky I, Waase CL, Garabedian MJ 1998 Phosphorylation and inhibition of rat glucocorticoid receptor transcriptional activation by glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3). Species-specific differences between human and rat glucocorticoid receptor signaling as revealed through GSK-3 phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 273:14315–14321[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Roberts SB, Segil N, Heintz N 1991 Differential phosphorylation of the transcription factor Oct1 during the cell cycle. Science 253:1022–1026[Medline]
  33. Archer TK, Lefebvre P, Wolford RG, Hager GL 1992 Transcription factor loading on the MMTV promoter: a bimodal mechanism for promoter activation. Science 255:1573–1576[Medline]
  34. Préfontaine GG, Lemieux ME, Giffin W, Schild-Poulter C, Pope L, LaCasse E, Walker P, Hache RJ 1998 Recruitment of octamer transcription factors to DNA by glucocorticoid receptor. Mol Cell Biol 18:3416–3430[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Davis JB, Maher P 1994 Protein kinase C activation inhibits glutamate-induced cytotoxicity in a neuronal cell line. Brain Res 652:169–173[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Gottesfeld JM, Forbes DJ 1997 Mitotic repression of the transcriptional machinery. Trends Biochem Sci 22:197–202[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Hartl P, Gottesfeld J, Forbes DJ 1993 Mitotic repression of transcription in vitro. J Cell Biol 120:613–624[Abstract]
  38. Martínez-Balbás MA, Dey A, Rabindran SK, Ozato K, Wu C 1995 Displacement of sequence-specific transcription factors from mitotic chromatin. Cell 83:29–38[Medline]
  39. Spencer CA, Kruhlak MJ, Jenkins HL, Sun X, Bazett-Jones DP 2000 Mitotic transcription repression in vivo in the absence of nucleosomal chromatin condensation. J Cell Biol 150:13–26[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Richard-Foy H, Hager GL 1987 Sequence-specific positioning of nucleosomes over the steroid-inducible MMTV promoter. EMBO J 6:2321–2328[Abstract]
  41. Bresnick EH, John S, Berard DS, Lefebvre P, Hager GL 1990 Glucocorticoid receptor-dependent disruption of a specific nucleosome on the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter is prevented by sodium butyrate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3977–3981[Abstract]
  42. Lee HL, Archer TK 1998 Prolonged glucocorticoid exposure dephosphorylates histone H1 and inactivates the MMTV promoter. EMBO J 17:1454–1466[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Bonovich MT, List HJ, Zhang S, Danielsen M, Riegel AT 1998 Identification of glucocorticoid receptor domains necessary for transcriptional activation of the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter integrated in the genome. Exp Cell Res 239:454–462[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Sumner AT 1995 Inhibitors of topoisomerase II delay progress through mitosis and induce a doubling of the DNA content in CHO cells. Exp Cell Res 217:440–447[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Ferguson LR, Liu AP, Denny WA, Cullinane C, Talarico T, Phillips DR 2000 Transcriptional blockages in a cell-free system by sequence-selective DNA alkylating agents. Chem Biol Interact 126:15–31[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. White CM, Heidenreich O, Nordheim A, Beerman TA 2000 Evaluation of the effectiveness of DNA-binding drugs to inhibit transcription using the c-fos serum response element as a target. Biochemistry 39:12262–12273[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Zhang X, Kiechle FL 1998 Hoechst 33342 induces apoptosis and alters tata box binding protein/DNA complexes in nuclei from BC3H-1 myocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 248:18–21[CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Chen AY, Yu C, Bodley A, Peng LF, Liu LF 1993 A new mammalian DNA topoisomerase I poison Hoechst 33342: cytotoxicity and drug resistance in human cell cultures. Cancer Res 53:1332–1337[Abstract]
  49. Tobey RA, Oishi N, Crissman HA 1990 Cell cycle synchronization: reversible induction of G2 synchrony in cultured rodent and human diploid fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:5104–5108[Abstract]
  50. Inoue H, Umesono K, Nishimori T, Hirata Y, Tanabe T 1999 Glucocorticoid-mediated suppression of the promoter activity of the cyclooxygenase-2 gene is modulated by expression of its receptor in vascular endothelial cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 254:292–298[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. Oshima H, Szapary D, Simons SSJ 1995 The factor binding to the glucocorticoid modulatory element of the tyrosine aminotransferase gene is a novel and ubiquitous heteromeric complex. J Biol Chem 270:21893–21901[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Zeng H, Jackson DA, Oshima H, Simons SSJ 1998 Cloning and characterization of a novel binding factor (GMEB-2) of the glucocorticoid modulatory element. J Biol Chem 273:17756–17762[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Nitsch D, Boshart M, Schutz G 1993 Activation of the tyrosine aminotransferase gene is dependent on synergy between liver-specific and hormone-responsive elements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:5479–5483[Abstract]
  54. Reik A, Stewart AF, Schütz G 1994 Cross-talk modulation of signal transduction pathways: two mechanisms are involved in the control of tyrosine aminotransferase gene expression by phorbol esters. Mol Endocrinol 8:490–497[Abstract]
  55. Rigaud G, Roux J, Pictet R, Grange T 1991 In vivo footprinting of rat TAT gene: dynamic interplay between the glucocorticoid receptor and a liver-specific factor. Cell 67:977–986[Medline]
  56. Roux J, Pictet R, Grange T 1995 Hepatocyte nuclear factor 3 determines the amplitude of the glucocorticoid response of the rat tyrosine aminotransferase gene. DNA Cell Biol 14:385–396[Medline]
  57. Pickering CS, Watkins RH, Dickson AJ 1998 Rat primary hepatocytes and H4 hepatoma cells display differential sensitivity to cyclic AMP at the level of expression of tyrosine aminotransferase. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 252:764–769[CrossRef][Medline]
  58. Hang H, Fox MH 1996 Levels of 70-kDa heat shock protein through the cell cycle in several mammalian cell lines. Cytometry 25:367–373[CrossRef][Medline]
  59. Gurley LR, Valdez JG, Buchanan JS 1995 Characterization of the mitotic specific phosphorylation site of histone H1. Absence of a consensus sequence for the p34cdc2/cyclin B kinase. J Biol Chem 270:27653–27660[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Kühholzer B, Prather RS 2001 Synchronization of porcine fetal fibroblast cells with topoisomerase-inhibitor Hoechst 33342. Anim Reprod Sci 66:109–116[CrossRef][Medline]
  61. Morgan SA, Watson JV, Twentyman PR, Smith PJ 1990 Reduced nuclear binding of a DNA minor groove ligand (Hoechst 33342) and its impact on cytotoxicity in drug resistant murine cell lines. Br J Cancer 62:959–965[Medline]
  62. Zhang X, Kiechle F 2001 Hoechst 33342-induced apoptosis is associated with decreased immunoreactive topoisomerase I and topoisomerase I-DNA complex formation. Ann Clin Lab Sci 31:187–198[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Sengupta S, Vonesch JL, Waltzinger C, Zheng H, Wasylyk B 2000 Negative cross-talk between p53 and the glucocorticoid receptor and its role in neuroblastoma cells. EMBO J 19:6051–6064[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Wong SS, Sturm RA, Michel J, Zhang XM, Danoy PA, McGregor K, Jacobs JJ, Kaushal A, Dong Y, Dunn IS 1994 Transcriptional regulation of differentiation, selective toxicity and ATGCAAAT binding of bisbenzimidazole derivatives in human melanoma cells. Biochem Pharmacol 47:827–837[CrossRef][Medline]
  65. Krek W, DeCaprio JA 1995 Cell synchronization. Methods Enzymol 254:114–124[Medline]
  66. Merrill, GF 1998 Cell synchronization. Methods Cell Biol 57:229–249[Medline]
  67. Hu JM, Bodwell JE, Munck A 1997 Control by basal phosphorylation of cell cycle-dependent, hormone-induced glucocorticoid receptor hyperphosphorylation. Mol Endocrinol 11:305–311[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Bodwell JE, Hu LM, Hu JM, Orti E, Munck A 1993 Glucocorticoid receptors: ATP-dependent cycling and hormone-dependent hyperphosphorylation. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 47:31–38[CrossRef][Medline]
  69. Littlefield BA, Cidlowski JA 1984 Increased steroid responsiveness during sodium butyrate-induced "differentiation" of HeLa S3 cells. Endocrinology 114:566–575[Abstract]
  70. Cidlowski JA, Cidlowski NB 1982 Glucocorticoid receptors and the cell cycle: evidence that the accumulation of glucocorticoid receptors during the S phase of the cell cycle is dependent on ribonucleic acid and protein synthesis. Endocrinology 110:1653–1662[Abstract]
  71. Christova R, Oelgeschlager T 2001 Association of human TFIID-promoter complexes with silenced mitotic chromatin in vivo. Nat Cell Biol 4:79–82[CrossRef]
  72. Yoshinaga SK, Peterson CL, Herskowitz I, Yamamoto KR 1992 Roles of SWI1, SWI2, and SWI3 proteins for transcriptional enhancement by steroid receptors. Science 258:1598–1604[Medline]
  73. Truss M, Bartsch J, Schelbert A, Haché RJ, Beato M 1995 Hormone induces binding of receptors and transcription factors to a rearranged nucleosome on the MMTV promoter in vivo. EMBO J 14:1737–1751[Abstract]
  74. Fryer CJ, Archer TK 1998 Chromatin remodelling by the glucocorticoid receptor requires the BRG1 complex. Nature 393:88–91[CrossRef][Medline]
  75. Sheldon LA, Smith CL, Bodwell JE, Munck AU, Hager GL 1999 A ligand binding domain mutation in the mouse glucocorticoid receptor functionally links chromatin remodeling and transcription initiation. Mol Cell Biol 19:8146–8157[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Hollenberg SM, Evans RM 1988 Multiple and cooperative trans-activation domains of the human glucocorticoid receptor. Cell 55:899–906[Medline]
  77. Spengler D, Waeber C, Pantaloni C, Holsboer F, Bockaert J, Seeburg PH, Journot L 1993 Differential signal transduction by five splice variants of the PACAP receptor. Nature 365:170–175[CrossRef][Medline]
  78. Pestov DG, Polonskaia M, Lau LF 1999 Flow cytometric analysis of the cell cycle in transfected cells without cell fixation. Biotechniques 26:102–106[Medline]
  79. Rupprecht R, Arriza JL, Spengler D, Reul JM, Evans RM, Holsboer F, Damm K 1993 Transactivation and synergistic properties of the mineralocorticoid receptor: relationship to the glucocorticoid receptor. Mol Endocrinol 7:597–603[Abstract]
  80. Herr A, Wochnik GM, Rosenhagen MC, Holsboer F, Rein T 2000 Rifampicin is not an activator of the glucocorticoid receptor. Mol Pharmacol 57:732–737[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  81. Teifel M 1999 Transfektion von Säugerzellen. In: Gassen HG, Schrimpf G, eds. Gentechnische Methoden. Berlin, Germany: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag; 361–390
  82. Davies D 2000 In: Diamond RA, DeMaggio D, eds. In living color. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag; 361–371
  83. Diamondstone TI 1966 Assay of tyrosine transaminase activity by conversion of p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate to p-hydroxybenzaldehyde. Anal Biochem 16:395–401
  84. Bangsow T, Male DA 1999 Polymerase-Kettenreaktion (PCR). In: Gassen HG, Schrimpf G, eds. Gentechnische Methoden. Berlin, Germany: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag; 333–347