Navigating Steroid Hormone Receptors through the Nuclear Compartment

Donald B. DeFranco

Department of Pharmacology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Dr. Donald DeFranco, Department of Pharmacology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Room E1352 BST, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261. E-mail: dod1{at}pitt.edu.

ABSTRACT

Steroid hormone receptors exert much of their effects on cellular physiology through regulating the rate of transcription from unique target genes. Much has been learned about the actions of steroid hormone receptors at regulated promoters through model in vitro studies, but it has always been a challenge to extrapolate these mechanistic insights to molecular events that occur in live cells. However, novel insights have recently been gained regarding the nature of receptor encounters with the transcriptional machinery from elegant experimental approaches that used advances gained in biochemical, molecular biological, cell biological, and biophysical disciplines. Although these is no doubt that steroid hormone receptors represent some of the most mobile proteins within the nucleus, they still maintain their ability to orchestrate a highly ordered recruitment of cofactors and coregulators at specific sites and remain accessible to alternative processing pathways that limit their action. As highlighted in this review, there may be interrelationships between seemingly distinct pathways of receptor trafficking and processing within the nucleus that impact receptor action at regulated promoters.

THE REQUIREMENT FOR nuclear localization of steroid hormone receptors to elicit the wide-ranging physiological effects of the steroid hormones was recognized in the earliest work on hormone action (1, 2). Although there is also an emerging interest in cytoplasmic targets of steroid receptors (3), many years of study have been devoted to probing steroid receptor function within the nucleus. In that regard, nuclear transport of the receptors is necessary for their direct action on target genes and is likely to serve as an important regulatory step in the steroid hormone signal transduction pathway. Furthermore, because steroid hormone receptors often exert rapid effects on gene transcription, specific mechanisms must exist to insure the timely and efficient localization of target sites by the receptors. In recent years, a number of exciting cell biological, genetic, and biochemical experiments have provided new insights into the complexities of steroid receptor trafficking within the nucleus. With the sophisticated tools and extensive reagents now available, the detailed molecular mechanisms of steroid hormone-regulated transcription revealed in model in vitro studies can now be elaborated in live cells.

STEROID RECEPTOR MOBILITY WITHIN THE NUCLEUS

Green fluorescence protein (GFP) chimeras have proven to be invaluable tools for cell biologists and allowed for the real-time visualization of protein movement and protein-protein interactions in live cells (4). For some steroid receptor proteins, GFP chimeras provided definitive proof of their hormone-dependent cytoplasmic to nuclear transport (5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Importantly, specific compartmentalization of steroid receptors within the nucleus could also be discerned in live cells (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). These studies confirmed earlier results obtained with fixed cells that implied that localization of bulk receptors within the nucleus was not random (12, 13). The nature and importance of steroid receptor foci visible within the nucleus at the light-microscope level has been controversial, but given the previous commentaries that have been written on this topic (e.g. see Ref. 14), this will not be discussed in detail here. However, it does seem likely that in addition to their concentration within regions of the nucleus associated with active transcription, receptors accumulate within visible foci that are transcriptionally inert (13) and likely to represent storage sites that transiently engage receptors destined for alternative processing fates.

Recently, the Hager and Mancini (15, 16) laboratories have used steroid receptor-GFP chimera to reveal the dynamic nature of steroid receptor movement within the nucleus. Both groups used fluorescence recovery after photobleaching and other techniques to provide real-time assessments of steroid receptor subnuclear trafficking. The Hager laboratory (15) took advantage of a cell line that contains a large array of integrated copies of the well-studied glucocorticoid-responsive promoter contained within the mouse mammary tumor virus long terminal repeat. Thus, they could visualize in real time and in live cells the movement of glucocorticoid receptors (GRs) within a specific nuclear site where receptors were actively engaged in transcriptional regulation (15). These elegant studies confirmed previous work from traditional biochemical experiments (17, 18) that implied that GR interactions with specific sequences within chromatin templates are dynamic. The model put forth by Hager and co-workers (15) proposes that GR occupies its target sites only transiently, relying on a "hit-and-run" mechanism to alter transcriptional efficiency from linked promoters. While bound, GR is likely to recruit essential coactivators and other cofactors to target genes (19), but continued occupancy by bound receptor may not be required for subsequent assembly of an active preinitiation complex and recruitment of RNA polymerase II.

Remarkably, the Mancini laboratory (16) found that the kinetics of bulk estrogen receptor (ER) movement within the nucleus was analogous to the rapid kinetics of GR exchange at a specific target site. We have confirmed that the movement of bulk GR within the nucleus of hormone-treated cells is also quite rapid (Rentsch, C., and D. DeFranco, unpublished observations). These results suggest that even receptors that are not intimately involved in transcriptional regulatory events at specific sites are nonetheless undergoing rapid movement within the nucleus. In fact, unliganded ER was found to exhibit the most rapid subnuclear movement, suggesting that there may be some retardation of receptor trafficking within the nucleus as activated receptors are scanning the genome in search of specific binding sites. ER bound to mixed antagonists are as mobile as agonist-bound ER, whereas the movement of receptors bound to pure antagonists is more retarded. Thus, the nuclear migration of antagonist-bound receptors may be limited by nonproductive interactions with some nuclear components (16). In this regard, it would be most informative when the dynamics of nuclear trafficking is followed for unliganded nuclear receptors, such as retinoic acid receptors or thyroid hormone receptors, that are associated with corepressors.

Another important contribution from the Mancini study (16) was the demonstrated role of ATP in receptor movement. The energy requirements for nuclear protein movement have not been generally agreed upon, as recent studies examining the nuclear trafficking of various GFP chimera did not show an effect of ATP depletion (20). Interestingly in the studies of Mancini and colleagues, ATP depletion led to a rapid and reversible inhibition of unliganded ER movement within the nucleus but did not affect the movement of agonist-bound ER (16). Perhaps the apparent energy requirement for unliganded ER movement is based upon their association with molecular chaperones. The binding and release of molecular chaperones to their substrate proteins is driven by a cycle of ATP hydrolysis and exchange (21). Disruption of this cycle upon ATP depletion may stabilize a nuclear ER/chaperone heteromeric complex and thereby limit its mobility. Ligand-bound ERs are not found in stable complexes with molecular chaperones (22) and may therefore not be subjected to limitations in nuclear migration upon ATP depletion. Furthermore, other proteins that do not show an ATP dependence for rapid nuclear trafficking (20) may likewise not assemble into stable heteromeric complexes with molecular chaperones. This hypothesis implicates molecular chaperones in nuclear migration of steroid receptors, an issue that has been addressed in previous reviews (23, 24). Alternatively, as discussed by Mancini and co-workers (16), unliganded ER in ATP-depleted cells might be immobilized by virtue of their stable association with the nuclear matrix. Previous biochemical studies have revealed an ATP requirement for GR release from the nuclear matrix (25).

RECRUITMENT OF COACTIVATORS TO SITES OF HORMONE-ACTIVATED TRANSCRIPTION

The regulation of promoter activity by nuclear receptors requires the highly orchestrated assembly of large multi-subunit complexes, which include components that either directly impact the basal transcription machinery (26) or remodel chromatin through specific modifications of core histones (19). Many cofactors (i.e. coactivators or corepressors) involved in nuclear receptor-regulated transcription have been identified and the biochemical basis for their impact on chromatin structure or the activity of basal transcription factors revealed (19). In fact, some of the first mechanistic studies of coactivator activity in model in vitro systems revealed the dynamic nature of coactivator action in nuclear receptor-mediated transcriptional activation. Using in vitro transcription reactions with purified ER and the p300 coactivator, Kraus and Kadonaga (27) showed that p300 acted to enhance the efficiency of transcriptional initiation from an estrogen-regulated template assembled into chromatin. The reassembly of active complexes during subsequent rounds of reinitiation did not require p300 in vitro. In contrast, agonist-bound ER enhanced both the efficiency of transcriptional initiation and reinitiation (27). In these model in vitro studies, it was not possible to assess the dynamic interaction of ER with its target site. However, given the recent work of the Hager and Mancini groups (Refs. 15 and 16 ; see above), it seems reasonable to assume that ER is not statically bound to chromatin templates in vitro and is likely to undergo rapid cycles of DNA binding and release. In fact, GR has been shown to be transiently associated with chromatin templates in vitro and requires ATP for chromatin release (28).

Coactivator recruitment to hormone-regulated templates has also been assessed at specific target sites through the use of chromatin immunoprecipitation assays. In addition to providing one of the first demonstrations of site-specific histone hyperacetylation at hormonally responsive promoters, Chen et al. (29) showed that the binding of coactivators to endogenous estrogen-responsive promoters is transient. The release of promoter-bound coactivators, despite the persistence of ER binding, leads to an attenuation of histone hyperacetylation and hormone-induced transcription (29). For the activator of thyroid hormone and retinoic acid receptors (ACTR) coactivator, release from promoter-bound ER may be brought about via its acetylation by p300 (29). It is curious that the chromatin immunoprecipitation assay used in this study could reveal dynamic interactions of coactivators but not of the ER with a hormone-responsive promoter. A differential stability of ER vs. the steroid hormone receptor coactivator-1 and CBP (cAMP response element binding protein-binding protein) coactivators has also been observed in vivo on a high-copy array of ER binding sites (30). However, these results are not consistent with the results of Hager’s group (15) showing rapid exchange of GR from a high-copy array of active glucocorticoid-responsive promoters in vivo. It is possible that the precise makeup of high-copy arrays used to visualize receptor binding to target sites in live cells, i.e. tandem repeats of hormone-responsive promoter (15) vs. tandem arrays of lac operator sites (28), influences receptor exchange.

Recent chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments from the Brown lab (31), while confirming the dynamic association of coactivators with hormonally responsive promoters in vivo, also distinguished "early" and "late" events in hormone-regulated transcription. Specifically, agonist-bound ER, and recruited coactivators amplified in breast cancer-1 (AIB1)/ACTR and peroxisome proliferator activator receptor-binding protein (PBP) show a biphasic association with chromatin at an estrogen-responsive promoter during chronic hormone exposure (31). ER and coactivators recruited to the promoter within 15–30 min of hormone treatment are released after an additional 60-min exposure to hormone and then reassembled on to the hormone-responsive promoter for an additional 30–45 min (31). Thus ER, AIB1/ACTR, p300/CBP-associated factor, CBP, and PBP appear to continually cycle onto a regulated promoter during a continuous hormone exposure. Interestingly, p300 is recruited to the promoter during the first phase of ER binding (i.e. within the initial 60 min of hormone treatment), but does not reassemble onto this same template with the recycled ER, AIB1/ACTR, and PBP (31). This result is consistent with those reported by Kraus and Kadonaga (27), which showed a requirement for p300 during initiation but not reinitiation of ER-dependent transcription from chromatin templates in vitro.

Although it may be inappropriate to compare the kinetics of nuclear receptor "occupancy" at target sites as revealed with GFP chimera in live cells vs. chromatin immunoprecipitation assays performed with nuclear extracts, the seemingly disparate findings obtained with these two approaches may in fact be compatible. Thus, the results of Hager and colleagues (15) imply that during the first 60 min of hormone treatment, where chromatin immunoprecipitation assays show stable receptor association with hormonally responsive templates, the receptor is in fact undergoing rapid exchange with kinetics that appear to be indistinguishable from their exchange within bulk chromatin. Although this rapid (i.e. within 5–10 sec) exchange of receptors at active sites of transcription may not be revealed when isolated chromatin is analyzed (29, 31), the in vitro assays do reveal a distinct cycling of hormone-bound receptors and coactivator proteins that occurs over a 2-h period of hormone exposure. Such an ordered exchange of coactivators may be elicited by rapidly cycling receptors that encounter biochemically distinct targets during different kinetic phases of a hormone-induced transcriptional response. The conditions used for chromatin immunoprecipitation assays may differentially stabilize or trap rapidly cycling receptors on unique templates that form in vivo during hormone-induced transcription. In any event, distinct patterns of coactivator cycling, which is prompted by hormone-bound receptor association with specific binding sites, might be necessary to insure the appropriate assembly of components required for efficient initiation and reinitiation of hormone-induced transcription.

DEGRADATION OF NUCLEAR RECEPTORS BY THE UBIQUITIN-PROTEASOME PATHWAY

Proteasomes are multi-subunit complexes that serve as the major soluble protein degradative machinery within eukaryotic cells (32). The targeting of proteins to proteasomes requires their covalent modification with multiple residues of the 76-amino acid ubiquitin protein (32). Although passage through the inner core of the proteasome leads to the degradation of target proteins into small peptides, intact ubiquitin moieties are liberated after target protein proteolysis and released for subsequent reutilization. In addition to serving as the major degradative pathway to eliminate damaged and denatured proteins, proteasomes operate to degrade proteins with both short and long half-lives (32). GR (33, 34, 35), like other nuclear receptors (36, 37, 38), is degraded via the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. The efficiency of GR (33) and ER (38) degradation by the proteasome is enhanced upon chronic hormone treatment and leads to down-regulation of receptor levels.

NUCLEAR RECEPTOR DEGRADATION AND NUCLEAR EXPORT

The efficiency of proteasome-mediated degradation of nucleocytoplasmic shuttling proteins has been linked in some cases with their rate of nuclear export (39, 40). For example, proteasome-mediated degradation of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor protein p27Kip1 is stimulated when its nuclear export rate is increased via its interaction with the Jun activation domain-binding protein-1 coactivator protein (41). The murine double minute (MDM2) RING-finger protein serves an analogous role to enhance the nuclear export and proteasome-mediated degradation of the p53 tumor suppressor protein (42, 43). When the rate of GR nuclear export is stimulated through linkage of a potent nuclear export signal sequence to its amino terminus, hormone-dependent down-regulation of the chimeric nuclear export signal sequence-GR is enhanced (44).

Although degradation of nuclear receptors may be coupled to their nuclear export, recent results with p53 and GR suggest that nuclear export and degradation of shuttling proteins are not always inextricably linked. For example, enhancement of p53 nuclear export upon expression of the chromosome maintenance region-1/exportin nuclear export factor did not lead to its increased degradation (45). Furthermore, proteasome-mediated degradation of a p53 mutant with reduced capacity for nuclear export was still increased upon overexpression of MDM2 (45). These results provide convincing evidence for the existence of active proteasomes within both the cytoplasm and nucleus and suggest that proteasome-dependent degradation of shuttling proteins may not be limited to a distinct subcellular compartment. The human ortholog of MDM2 (HDM2) may also be involved in GR ubiquitylation and degradation, perhaps acting in concert with p53 (46). HDM2 and p53 have been implicated in altered GR trafficking in hypoxic cells, but the impact of these proteins on the nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of the receptor under conditions of normoxia has not been fully resolved (46). The nuclear export pathway used by GR is clearly distinct from that of p53, as the receptor utilizes the calcium-binding protein calreticulin (47), and not chromosome maintenance region-1/exportin, as an essential nuclear export factor. The relationship between calreticulin and MDM2-stimulated ubiquitylation and subsequent degradation of GR has not been examined. Other proteins, such as the heat shock protein 90 (hsp90)-binding cochaperone carboxyl terminus of heat shock cognate protein-70-interacting protein (34), also influence GR ubiquitylation and degradation but have not been assessed for effects on GR trafficking.

ROLE OF PROTEASOMES IN NUCLEAR RECEPTOR TRANSACTIVATION

Hormone-dependent down-regulation of steroid hormone receptors, while limiting the duration of hormone responsiveness, also affects the efficiency of receptor transactivation (48). The relationship between steroid receptor abundance and efficiency of hormone- induced transcriptional responses was also revealed in model transfection studies (49) and recently shown to be relevant in vivo (50). It was therefore surprising when progesterone receptor and thyroid hormone receptor transactivation was found to be inhibited in transiently transfected cells treated with an inhibitor of proteasome function (51). In this case, elevated receptor levels caused by proteasome inhibition reduced, rather than potentiated, receptor transactivation. Curiously, proteasome inhibition does not reduce GR transactivation (51), but in fact leads to enhanced GR transactivation from both transiently transfected (35) and stably integrated templates (DeRoo, B., D. B. DeFranco, and T. Archer, unpublished). Nonetheless, a link between transcriptional activation and proteasome-mediated degradation had been revealed in previous model studies with chimeric transcriptional activators of differing potencies. Specifically, the rate of activator degradation was found to directly correlate with its transactivation potency (52, 53). One hypothesis that has emerged from these studies proposes a role for dynamic, proteasome-mediated turnover of transcriptional activators for efficient transcription (51, 53). This hypothesis is consistent with the observed effects of proteasome inhibition on ER mobility within the nucleus and implies that proteasomes may be involved in the bulk movement of transactivators within the nucleus (16). Proteasome inhibition likewise affects GR mobility within the nucleus, but these effects are not always correlated with effects on receptor transactivation (DeRoo, B., T. Archer, and D. B. DeFranco, unpublished data).

In addition to GR, other cases have been reported in which nuclear receptor transactivation is differentially responsive to receptor degradation. For example, an uncoupling of transactivation and degradation has been observed with specific mutants of the retinoid X receptor (54). In addition, a progesterone receptor mutant that does not undergo hormone-dependent degradation maintains some degree of hormone response in transfected HeLa cells, even though its ability to respond to the MAPK pathway is completely abrogated (55). Thus, the link between proteasome-mediated degradation and transactivation may be gene and receptor specific and responsive to a unique subset of signal transduction pathways that affect nuclear receptor activity.

In addition to potential indirect effects on transcription activation through regulation of receptor turnover and trafficking, specific proteasomal subunits may play a more direct role in regulating transcription. For example, the 19S regulatory subunit of the proteasomes functions in transcriptional elongation of RNA polymerase II, as measured in model in vitro transcription reactions (56). Genetic and biochemical studies imply that the 19S proteasome subunit-associated SUG1 ATPase (57) participates in transcriptional elongation by RNA polymerase II in vitro supplies the activity necessary for proteasome effects on transcription independent of its affects on protein degradation (56). Interestingly, SUG1 was identified as a nuclear receptor-interacting protein in yeast two-hybrid screens (58, 59). However, SUG1 has been found to impact nuclear receptor degradation and has not been directly shown to participate in nuclear receptor-activated transcription, particularly at the level of elongation (60). It is possible that SUG1, or other proteasome components, exert dual functions during RNA polymerase II transcription, facilitating global transcription elongation while at the same time limiting the efficiency of selected transcription initiation events through the recruitment of specific transactivators (e.g. nuclear receptors) for proteasome-mediated degradation.

In summary, as a result of recent advances in nuclear receptor action at chromatin templates and live cell imaging, a more complete understanding of the dynamic interplay between nuclear receptors and the multitude of cofactors and coregulators at transcriptionally active templates is beginning to emerge. In fact, unique regulatory features may be imparted onto specific hormonally responsive loci by variations in the order of assembly or turnover of individual components of the transcriptional machinery. The ubiquitin-proteasome system has emerged as a potential regulator of nuclear receptor transactivation acting through effects on receptor trafficking and turnover (Fig. 1Go). Furthermore, many posttranslational modifications (e.g. acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, ubiquitylation) and novel proteins (i.e. specific components of chromatin remodeling machines, molecular chaperones, proteasomal subunits) may have a role in maintaining efficient exchange and turnover of receptors and associated factors at active sites of transcription. Perhaps what is the most exciting aspect of the current state of receptor research is that we may now be able to elucidate these complex mechanisms in real time and in live cells.



View larger version (124K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. The various encounters of a steroid receptor protein within the nucleus. The unliganded GR exists in the cytoplasm as a heteromeric complex consisting minimally of a dimer of hsp90, a 23-kDa acidic protein (p23), and any one of a variety of immunophilin proteins (ImP). Hormone binding triggers the translocation of GR through the nuclear pore complex (NPC). When bound to specific target sites within chromatin, ligand-bound GR influences the transcriptional activity of linked promoters. GRs are not statically bound to chromatin and undergo rapid exchange through a process that appears to require functional 26S proteasomes (26S). After their release from chromatin, GRs can be directed to various processing pathways. Thus, unliganded nuclear receptors may be recycled within the nucleus with the aid of hsp90 and p23. Alternatively, receptors can be exported through the NPC to the cytoplasm driven by their interaction [via their DNA-binding domain (DBD)] with the calcium-binding protein calreticulin (CRT). Recycled receptors can also reassociate with hsp90, p23 and ImP to reacquire hormone-binding capacity. Finally receptors may be degraded both in the nucleus and cytoplasm when targeted to the 26S proteasome after their polyubiquitylation [(Ubi)n].

 

FOOTNOTES

Abbreviations: ACTR, Activator of thyroid hormone and retinoic acid receptors; AIB1, amplified in breast cancer-1; CBP, cAMP response element binding protein-binding protein; ER, estrogen receptor; GFP, green fluorescence protein; GR, glucocorticoid receptor; hsp90, heat shock protein 90; MDM2, murine double minute; PBP, peroxisome proliferator activator receptor-binding protein.

Received for publication January 18, 2002. Accepted for publication March 1, 2002.

REFERENCES

  1. Gorski J, Toft D, Shyamala G, Smith D, Notides A 1968 Hormone receptors: studies on the interaction of estrogen with the uterus. Recent Prog Horm Res 24:45–80[Medline]
  2. Jensen EV, Suzuki T, Kawashima T, Stumpf WE, Jungblut PW, DeSombre ER 1968 A two step mechanism for the interaction of estradiol with rat uterus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 59:632–638[Medline]
  3. Kousteni S, Bellido T, Plotkin LI, O’Brien CA, Bodenner DL, Han L, Han K, DiGregorio GB, Katzenellenbogen JA, Katzenellenbogen BS, Roberson PK, Weinstein RS, Jilka RL, Manolagas SC 2001 Nongenotropic, sex-nonspecific signaling through the estrogen or androgen receptors: dissociation from transcriptional activity. Cell 104:719–730[Medline]
  4. Lippincott-Schwartz J, Snapp E, Kenworthy A 2001 Studying protein dynamics in living cells. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2:444–456[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Htun H, Barsony J, Renyi I, Gould DL, Hager GL 1996 Visualization of glucocorticoid receptor translocation and intranuclear organization in living cells with a green fluorescent protein chimera. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4845–4850[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Georget V, Lobaccaro JM, Terouanne B, Mangeat P, Nicolas JC, Sultan C 1997 Trafficking of the androgen receptor in living cells with fused green fluorescent protein-androgen receptor. Mol Cell Endocrinol 129:17–26[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Fejes-Toth G, Pearce D, Naray-Fejes-Toth A 1998 Subcellular localization of mineralocorticoid receptors in living cells: effects of receptor agonists and antagonists. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:2973–2978[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Htun H, Holth LT, Walker D, Davie JR, Hager GL 1999 Direct visualization of the human estrogen receptor alpha reveals a role for ligand in the nuclear distribution of the receptor. Mol Biol Cell 10:471–486[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Lim CS, Baumann CT, Htun H, Xian W, Irie M, Smith CL, Hager GL 1999 Differential localization and activity of the A- and B-forms of the human progesterone receptor using green fluorescent protein chimeras. Mol Endocrinol 13:366–375[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Stenoien DL, Mancini MG, Patel K, Allegretto EA, Smith CL, Mancini MA 2000 Subnuclear trafficking of estrogen receptor-{alpha} and steroid receptor coactivator-1. Mol Endocrinol 14:518–534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Tyagi RK, Lavrovsky Y, Ahn SC, Song CS, Chatterjee B, Roy AK 2000 Dynamics of intracellular movement and nucleocytoplasmic recycling of the ligand-activated androgen receptor in living cells. Mol Endocrinol 14:1162–2274[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Martins VR, Pratt WB, Terracio L, Hirst MA, Ringold GM, Housley PR 1991 Demonstration by confocal microscopy that unliganded overexpressed glucocorticoid receptors are distributed in a nonrandom manner throughout all planes of the nucleus. Mol Endocrinol 5:217–225[Abstract]
  13. van Steensel B, Brink M, van der Meulen K, van Binnendijk EP, Wansink DG, de Jong L, de Kloet ER, van Driel R 1995 Localization of the glucocorticoid receptor in discrete clusters in the cell nucleus. J Cell Sci 108:3003–3011[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. DeFranco DB 1999 Regulation of steroid receptor subcellular trafficking. Cell Biochem Biophys 30:1–24[Medline]
  15. McNally JG, Muller WG, Walker D, Wolford R, Hager GL 2000 The glucocorticoid receptor: rapid exchange with regulatory sites in living cells. Science 287:1262–1265[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Stenoien DL, Patel K, Mancini MG, Dutertre M, Smith CL, O’Malley BW, Mancini MA 2001 FRAP reveals that mobility of oestrogen receptor-{alpha} is ligand- and proteasome-dependent. Nat Cell Biol 3:15–23[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Mymryk JS, Archer TK 1995 Influence of hormone antagonists on chromatin remodeling and transcription factor binding to the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter in vivo. Mol Endocrinol 9:1825–1834[Abstract]
  18. Reik A, Schutz G, Stewart AF 1991 Glucocorticoids are required for establishment and maintenance of an alteration in chromatin structure: induction leads to a reversible disruption of nucleosomes over an enhancer. EMBO J 10:2569–2576[Abstract]
  19. Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG 2000 The coregulator exchange in transcriptional functions of nuclear receptors. Genes Dev 14:121–141[Free Full Text]
  20. Phair RD, Misteli T 2000 High mobility of proteins in the mammalian cell nucleus. Nature 404:604–609[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Hartl FU 1996 Molecular chaperones in cellular protein folding. Nature 381:571–579[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Pratt WB, Toft DO 1997 Steroid receptor interactions with heat shock protein and immunophilin chaperones. Endocr Rev 18:306–360[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. DeFranco DB, Csermely P 2000 Steroid receptor and molecular chaperone encounters in the nucleus. Science’s STKE (http://www.stke.org/cgi/content/full/OCsigtrans;2000/42/pe1)
  24. Freeman BC, Yamamoto KR 2001 Continuous recycling: a mechanism for modulatory signal transduction. Trends Biochem Sci 26:285–290[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Tang Y, DeFranco DB 1996 ATP-dependent release of glucocorticoid receptors from the nuclear matrix. Mol Cell Biol 16:1989–2001[Abstract]
  26. Dilworth FJ, Chambon P 2001 Nuclear receptors coordinate the activities of chromatin remodeling complexes and coactivators to facilitate initiation of transcription. Oncogene 20:3047–3054[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Kraus WL, Kadonaga JT 1998 p300 and estrogen receptor cooperatively activate transcription via differential enhancement of initiation and reinitiation. Genes Dev 12:331–342[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Fletcher TM, Ryu BW, Baumann CT, Warren BS, Fragoso G, John S, Hager GL 2000 Structure and dynamic properties of a glucocorticoid receptor-induced chromatin transition. Mol Cell Biol 20:6466–6475[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Chen H, Lin RJ, Xie W, Wilpitz D, Evans RM 1999 Regulation of hormone-induced histone hyperacetylation and gene activation via acetylation of an acetylase. Cell 98:675–686[Medline]
  30. Stenoien DL, Nye AC, Mancini MG, Patel K, Dutertre M, O’Malley BW, Smith CL, Belmont AS, Mancini MA 2001 Ligand-mediated assembly and real-time cellular dynamics of estrogen receptor {alpha}-coactivator complexes in living cells. Mol Cell Biol 21:4404–4412[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Shang Y, Hu X, DiRenzo J, Lazar MA, Brown M 2000 Cofactor dynamics and sufficiency in estrogen receptor-regulated transcription. Cell 103:843–852[Medline]
  32. Ciechanover A, Orian A, Schwartz AL 2000 Ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis: biological regulation via destruction. Bioessays 22:442–451[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Whitesell L, Cook P 1996 Stable and specific binding of heat shock protein 90 by geldanamycin disrupts glucocorticoid receptor function in intact cells. Mol Endocrinol 10:705–712[Abstract]
  34. Connell P, Ballinger CA, Jiang J, Wu Y, Thompson LJ, Hohfeld J, Patterson C 2001 The co-chaperone CHIP regulates protein triage decisions mediated by heat-shock proteins. Nat Cell Biol 3:93–96[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Wallace AD, Cidlowski JA 2001 Proteasome mediated glucocorticoid receptor degradation restricts transcriptional signaling by glucocorticoids. J Biol Chem 276: 42714–42721
  36. Nawaz Z, Lonard DM, Dennis AP, Smith CL, O’Malley BW 1999 Proteasome-dependent degradation of the human estrogen receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:1858–1862[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Dace A, Zhao L, Park KS, Furuno T, Takamura N, Nakanishi M, West BL, Hanover JA, Cheng S 2000 Hormone binding induces rapid proteasome-mediated degradation of thyroid hormone receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:8985–8990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Wijayaratne AL, McDonnell DP 2001 The human estrogen receptor-{alpha} is a ubiquitinated protein whose stability is affected differentially by agonists, antagonists, and selective estrogen receptor modulators. J Biol Chem 276:35684–35692[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Freedman DA, Levine AJ 1998 Nuclear export is required for degradation of endogenous p53 by MDM2 and human papillomavirus E6. Mol Cell Biol 18:7288–7293[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Rodriguez MS, Thompson J, Hay RT, Dargemont C 1999 Nuclear retention of I{kappa}B{alpha} protects it from signal-induced degradation and inhibits nuclear factor {kappa}B transcriptional activation. J Biol Chem 274:9108–9115[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Tomoda K, Kubota Y, Kato J-y 1999 Degradation of the cyclin-dependent-kinase inhibitor p27Kip1 is instigated by Jab1. Nature 398:160–165[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Boyd SD, Tsai KY, Jacks T 2000 An intact HDM2 RING-finger domain is required for nuclear exclusion of p53. Nat Cell Biol 2:563–568[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Geyer RK, Zhong KY, Maki CG 2000 The MDM2 RING-finger domain is required to promote p53 nuclear export. Nat Cell Biol 2:569–573[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Liu J, DeFranco DB 2000 Protracted nuclear export of glucocorticoid receptor limits its turnover and does not require the exportin 1/CRM1-directed nuclear export pathway. Mol Endocrinol 14:40–51[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Lohrum MA, Woods DB, Ludwig RL, Balint E, Vousden KH 2001 C-terminal ubiquitination of p53 contributes to nuclear export. Mol Cell Biol 21:8521–8532[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Sengupta S, Wasylyk B 2001 Ligand-dependent interaction of the glucocorticoid receptor with p53 enhances their degradation by Hdm2. Genes Dev 15:2367–2380[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Holaska JM, Black BE, Love DC, Hanover JA, Leszyk J, Paschal BM 2001 Calreticulin is a receptor for nuclear export. J Cell Biol 152:127–140[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Bellingham DL, Sar M, Cidlowski JA 1992 Ligand-dependent down-regulation of stably transfected human glucocorticoid receptors is associated with the loss of functional glucocorticoid responsiveness. Mol Endocrinol 6:2090–2102[Abstract]
  49. Vanderbilt JN, Miesfeld R, Maler BA, Yamamoto KR 1987 Intracellular receptor concentration limits glucocorticoid-dependent enhancer activity. Mol Endocrinol 1:68–74[Abstract]
  50. Reichardt HM, Umland T, Bauer A, Kretz O, Schutz G 2000 Mice with an increased glucocorticoid receptor gene dosage show enhanced resistance to stress and endotoxic shock. Mol Cell Biol 20:9009–9017[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Lonard DM, Nawaz Z, Smith CL, O’Malley BW 2000 The 26S proteasome is required for estrogen receptor-{alpha} and coactivator turnover and for efficient estrogen receptor-{alpha} transactivation. Mol Cell 5:939–948[Medline]
  52. Molinari E, Gilman M, Natesan S 1999 Proteasome-mediated degradation of transcriptional activators correlates with activation domain potency in vivo. EMBO J 18:6439–6447[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Salghetti SE, Muratani M, Wijnen H, Futcher B, Tansey WP 2000 Functional overlap of sequences that activate transcription and signal ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:3118–3123[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Osburn DL, Shao G, Seidel HM, Schulman IG 2001 Ligand-dependent degradation of retinoid X receptors does not require transcriptional activity or coactivator interactions. Mol Cell Biol 21:4909–4918[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Shen T, Horwitz KB, Lange CA 2001 Transcriptional hyperactivity of human progesterone receptors is coupled to their ligand-dependent down-regulation by mitogen-activated protein kinase-dependent phosphorylation of serine 294. Mol Cell Biol 15:6122–6131[CrossRef]
  56. Ferdous A, Gonzalez F, Sun L, Kodadek T, Johnston SA 2001 The 19S regulatory particle of the proteasome is required for efficient transcription elongation by RNA polymerase II. Mol Cell 7:981–991[CrossRef][Medline]
  57. Rubin DM, Coux O, Wefes I, Hengartner C, Young RA, Goldberg AL, Finley D 1996 Identification of the gal4 suppressor Sug1 as a subunit of the yeast 26S proteasome. Nature 379:655–657[CrossRef][Medline]
  58. Lee JW, Ryan F, Swaffield JC, Johnston SA, Moore DD 1995 Interaction of thyroid-hormone receptor with a conserved transcriptional mediator. Nature 374:91–94[CrossRef][Medline]
  59. vom Baur E, Zechel C, Heery D, Heine MJ, Garnier JM, Vivat V, Le Douarin B, Gronemeyer H, Chambon P, Losson R 1996 Differential ligand-dependent interactions between the AF-2 activating domain of nuclear receptors and the putative transcriptional intermediary factors mSUG1 and TIF1. EMBO J 15:110–124[Abstract]
  60. Masuyama H, MacDonald PN 1998 Proteasome-mediated degradation of the vitamin D receptor (VDR) and a putative role for SUG1 interaction with the AF-2 domain of VDR. J Cell Biochem 71:429–440[CrossRef][Medline]