Heat Shock Protein 90-Dependent (Geldanamycin-Inhibited) Movement of the Glucocorticoid Receptor through the Cytoplasm to the Nucleus Requires Intact Cytoskeleton
Mario D. Galigniana,
Jennifer L. Scruggs,
James Herrington,
Michael J. Welsh,
Christin Carter-Su,
Paul R. Housley and
William B. Pratt
Departments of Pharmacology (M.D.G., W.B.P.), Physiology
(J.H., C.C.-S.), and Anatomy and Cell Biology (M.J.W.) The
University of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Department of Pharmacology (J.L.S., P.R.H.) University of
South Carolina School of Medicine Columbia, South Carolina
29208
 |
ABSTRACT
|
---|
We use here a chimera of the green fluorescent
protein (GFP) and the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) to test the notion
that the protein chaperone heat shock protein-90 (hsp90) is required
for steroid-dependent translocation of the receptor through the
cytoplasm along cytoskeletal tracks. The GFP-GR fusion protein
undergoes steroid-mediated translocation from the cytoplasm to the
nucleus, where it is transcriptionally active. Treatment of 3T3 cells
containing steroid-bound GFP-GR with geldanamycin, a benzoquinone
ansamycin that binds to hsp90 and disrupts its function, inhibits
dexamethasone-dependent translocation from the cytoplasm to the
nucleus. The t1/2 for translocation in the
absence of geldanamycin is
5 min, and the
t1/2 in the presence of geldanamycin is
45
min. In cells treated for 1 h with the cytoskeletal disrupting
agents colcemid, cytochalasin D, and ß,ß'-iminodipropionitrile to
completely disrupt the microtubule, microfilament, and intermediate
filament networks, respectively, the GFP-GR still translocates rapidly
to the nucleus in a strictly dexamethasone-dependent manner but
translocation is no longer affected by geldanamycin. After withdrawal
of the cytoskeletal disrupting agents for 3 h, normal cytoskeletal
architecture is restored, and geldanamycin inhibition of
dexamethasone-dependent GFP-GR translocation is restored. We suggest
that in cells without an intact cytoskeletal system, the GFP-GR moves
through the cytoplasm by diffusion. However, under physiological
conditions in which the cytoskeleton is intact, diffusion is limited,
and the GFP-GR utilizes a movement machinery that is dependent upon
hsp90 chaperone activity. In contrast to the GR, GFP-STAT5B, a
signaling protein that is not complexed with hsp90, undergoes
GH-dependent translocation to the nucleus in a manner that is not
dependent upon hsp90 chaperone activity.
 |
INTRODUCTION
|
---|
Although there is considerable understanding of how organelles
move through the cytoplasm and axoplasm (1), very little is known about
how nonvesicle-associated proteins, such as steroid receptors and other
signaling proteins, move through the cytoplasm to arrive at their sites
of action in the nucleus. It could be that these protein solutes move
through the cytoplasm by diffusion and then become trapped at their
sites of action by protein-protein interactions, such as by the binding
of a localization signal by a signal recognition protein.
Alternatively, protein solutes may utilize a movement machinery to
traverse the cytoplasm, in which case, movement would likely occur
along cytoskeletal tracts. Evidence exists in support of both movement
by diffusion and a movement machinery, and it may be that protein
solutes move through the cytoplasm by both mechanisms.
Observations of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching of
microinjected fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextrans indicate that
macromolecular solutes up to
500 kDa freely and rapidly diffuse in
the cytoplasm and within the nucleus (2). Yet, there is evidence that
protein solutes containing a nuclear localization signal (NLS) utilize
a cytoskeleton-linked machinery for targeted movement through axoplasm.
For example, when rhodamine-labeled human serum albumin coupled to a
peptide containing the NLS of the SV40 large T antigen was injected
into the axoplasm of Aplysia californica neurons, it was
rapidly transported in the retrograde direction to the cell body and
then into the nucleus (3). There was little movement in the anterograde
direction, and retrograde movement depended upon intact microtubules.
Inasmuch as rhodamine-albumin without the NLS was not transported, but
accumulated in organelles near the axonal injection site, it was
concluded that the NLS provided access to the retrograde movement
system as well as to the nuclear import apparatus.
Steroid receptors are ligand-regulated transcription factors that must
move through the cytoplasm, traverse the nuclear pores, and
subsequently move within the nucleus to arrive at their sites of
action. Their nuclear localization is determined by NLS sequences in
the receptors themselves (4), and shuttling of receptors into and out
of the nucleus occurs constantly (58; for review, see Ref. 9). In
hormone-free cells, two patterns of shuttling are seen under
steady-state conditions. For example, the progesterone receptor (PR) is
predominantly localized in the nucleus (10), whereas the glucocorticoid
receptor (GR) is predominantly localized in the cytoplasm of most cells
(4, 11). Because its transfer from the cytoplasm to the nucleus is
entirely steroid dependent, the GR is an excellent model for studying
targeted protein movement.
In their hormone-free state, the steroid receptors are recovered from
cells in multiprotein heterocomplexes containing the protein chaperones
heat shock protein (hsp)90, hsp70, p23, and one of several high mol wt
immunophilins, such as FK506 binding protein (FKBP52) and cyclosporin A
binding protein-40 (for review, see Ref. 12). Although no specific GR
movement machinery has been identified, there is indirect evidence in
support of the notion that chaperone proteins are somehow involved in
GR movement from cytoplasm to nucleus (13, 14, 15, 16). For example, Yang and
DeFranco (15) showed that molybdate, which binds to hsp90 and
stabilizes receptor-hsp90 complexes in vivo (17), trapped
both the GR and the PR in the cytoplasm of cells chronically exposed to
hormone, suggesting that the receptors can export from nuclei but
cannot be reimported into nuclei in the presence of molybdate. Smith
(18) has shown that receptor-hsp90 complexes are in a dynamic state, in
that they are constantly dissociating and being reformed under
physiological conditions in the cell. Dynamic interaction with the
chaperone may be a component of the protein movement mechanism, and
molybdate stabilization of complexes hinders the dynamic process.
Consistent with the notion that hsp90 plays a role in receptor
trafficking through the cytoplasm, we have shown (16) that
geldanamycin, an antibiotic that binds to hsp90 and disrupts its
function (19), impedes steroid-dependent movement of the GR from
cytoplasm to nucleus. Also, consistent with the notion that
immunophilin components of the receptor-hsp90 heterocomplexes are
involved in GR movement, microinjection of an antibody against FKBP52
into L cells was shown to impede steroid-mediated shift of the GR from
cytoplasm to nucleus (14).
In considering the possibility that GR movement through the cytoplasm
utilizes an, as yet undefined, movement machinery, it is a reasonable
notion that some sort of cytoskeletal network must serve as a scaffold
for such facilitated movement (20, 21). Immunolocalization studies have
shown both diffuse dispersion of the GR throughout the cytoplasm
(e.g. Refs. 4, 11, 14) and localization to microtubules
(2224; for review, see Ref. 25). Cytoplasmic vitamin D receptors have
also been localized to microtubules (26, 27). Consistent with the
possibility that steroid receptor-associated chaperones play a role in
movement along cytoskeletal tracks, at least a portion of the
chaperones hsp90 (28, 29, 30), hsp70 (31), and FKBP52 (32, 33) colocalizes
with microtubules.
The quandary regarding models of GR movement by random diffusion
vs. movement by an organized machinery along cytoskeletal
tracts is still unresolved. There is clearly a bias toward the random
diffusion model because microtubule-disrupting agents do not inhibit
cytoplasmic-nuclear translocation of PR (34) or GR (14), and they do
not affect hormone-mediated transcriptional activation by the GR (35).
In contrast to the steroid receptors, microtubule- disrupting agents
did inhibit both nuclear (27) and mitochondrial (36) accumulation of
the vitamin D receptor, and they inhibited 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin
D3-dependent modulation of gene transcription (36).
In this work, we utilize a fusion protein of murine GR with
Aequorea green fluorescent protein (GFP-GR) to determine
whether there is any linkage between hsp90-dependent movement and
cytoskeleton. Two patterns of GFP-GR localization in the cytoplasm of
living cells have been reported previously: Ogawa et al.
(37) observed a general, diffuse distribution throughout the cytoplasm
of COS-1 cells, whereas Htun et al. (38) observed that the
GFP-GR accumulated along fibrillar structures in murine adenocarcinoma
cells. In both cases, the GFP-GR moved to the nucleus rapidly in a
strictly steroid-dependent manner. Here, we find that GFP-GR
fluorescence is randomly distributed throughout the cytoplasm of
hormone-free 3T3 fibroblasts, and we provide evidence that rapid
hormone-dependent movement of the GFP-GR through the cytoplasm utilizes
a movement machinery that is dependent upon both hsp90 chaperone
activity and cytoskeleton.
 |
RESULTS
|
---|
Dexamethasone-Dependent Movement and Transcriptional Activation by
GFP-GR
The E82.A3 cell line is a subclone of L929 selected for
glucocorticoid resistance, it does not contain GR mRNA or GR protein,
and it responds to glucocorticoid only when transfected with a GR
expression plasmid (39). In Fig. 1
, E82.A3 cells were transfected with expression plasmids for GFP or the
GFP-GR chimera, and fluorescence was examined in living cells. In cells
expressing GFP, fluorescence is located in both the cytoplasm and the
nucleus, with the fluorescence being more intense in the nucleus (Fig. 1A
), and this distribution is unaffected by dexamethasone (Fig. 1B
).
The GFP-GR chimera, however, is retained predominantly in the cytoplasm
in the absence of hormone (Fig. 1C
), and it moves to the nucleus when
cells are treated with dexamethasone (Fig. 1D
). Figure 1E
shows that
the GFP-GR activates transcription from a reporter plasmid in a
dexamethasone-dependent manner to nearly the same extent as the
transfected wild-type GR.

View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Dexamethasone-Dependent GFP-GR Translocation from
Cytoplasm to Nucleus and Transcriptional Activation in L Cells
The E82.A3 subline of L cells was transfected with GFP or GFP-GR
expression plasmid as described in Materials and
Methods. Cells expressing GFP (A and B) or GFP-GR (C and D)
were incubated for 20 min with 0.1% ethanol (A and C) or 1
µM dexamethasone (B and D), and the fluorescence was
photographed from the living cells. Panel E shows the CAT activity in
E82.A3 cells transfected with GFP expression plasmid (bars on
left), with GFP-GR (hatched bars in middle), or
with the wild-type GR (WTGR) expression plasmid (SV2Wrec) (solid
bars on right) after 20 h incubation in the absence (-)
or presence (+) of 1 µM dexamethasone. CAT activity is
normalized to ß-galactosidase activity in the same samples, and the
bars are the average of two experiments with the range
of values shown by the vertical line.
|
|
Geldanamycin Inhibits Translocation of the GFP-GR
Although the E82.A3 cells are an optimal system for testing the
biological activity of the GFP-GR in the absence of any endogenous GR,
these L cells are not optimal for visualizing cytoskeleton. 3T3 cells
are better for visualizing cytoskeleton because they have a flatter
shape with a higher ratio of cytoplasmic to nuclear volume. The effect
of geldanamycin on GFP-GR translocation from the cytoplasm to the
nucleus in 3T3 cells is shown in Fig. 2
.
In the protocol used in these experiments, cells are first placed on
ice and incubated for 1 h with 1 µM dexamethasone to
permit steroid binding to receptors. Geldanamycin is added for the last
30 min at 0 C to permit its equilibration with the cells. The
temperature is then increased to 37 C for 20 min to permit the
steroid-bound receptors to undergo translocation from cytoplasm to
nucleus. The microtubules depolymerize when 3T3 cells are placed on
ice, but they repolymerize within 2 min of warming at 37 C (data not
shown). Geldanamycin interacts with hsp90 (19) and blocks the formation
of mature receptor-hsp90 heterocomplexes (40), but it does not cause
steroid to dissociate from prebound GR or inhibit the transformation of
steroid-bound GR (16). If dynamic interaction of hsp90 with the
steroid-bound and transformed GFP-GR is required for its rapid movement
through the cytoplasm, then geldanamycin should inhibit
cytoplasmic-nuclear translocation.

View larger version (62K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Inhibition of Dexamethasone-Mediated Movement of
GFP-GR from Cytoplasm to Nucleus by Geldanamycin in 3T3 Cells
3T3 cells expressing GFP-GR were placed on ice and maintained at 0 C
for 1 h with vehicle (0.1% ethanol) or 1 µM
dexamethsaone (Dex), with 10 µM geldanamycin (GA) or
vehicle (0.1% dimethylsulfoxide) being added at 30 min. At the end of
the 1-h incubation at 0 C, cells were shifted to 37 C for 20 min to
allow the steroid-bound receptors to translocate to the nucleus.
Fluorescence was then photographed from the living cells. Conditions
are: A, control exposed only to vehicle; B, dexamethasone only; C,
geldanamycin only; DF, dexamethasone and geldanamycin. Panel G
presents a bar graph of the nuclear translocation score for each
condition determined according to a scale from 0 to 4 shown on the
right, where C represents cytoplasmic and N represents
nuclear fluorescence. The values represent the mean ±
SEM from three experiments in which >100 cells were scored
per experiment. Translocation scores for AF are: A, 0; B, 4; C, 0; D,
0; E, 1; F, 2.
|
|
Under hormone-free conditions, GFP-GR expressed in 3T3 cells is
predominantly cytoplasmic (Fig. 2A
), and dexamethasone causes it to
move to the nucleus (Fig. 2B
). Treatment with geldanamycin alone does
not affect the cytoplasmic localization of GFP-GR in hormone-free cells
(Fig. 2C
), but geldanamycin does inhibit nuclear transfer of the GFP-GR
in dexamethasone-treated cells (c.f. Fig. 2
, DF, with Fig. 2B
). By 20 min at 37 C, essentially all cells treated with
dexamethasone alone show a concentrated nuclear fluorescence like that
shown in Fig. 2B
, but cells treated with both dexamethasone and
geldanamycin show the range of fluorescence patterns illustrated in
Fig. 2
, DF. A scoring of cytoplasmic vs. nuclear
fluorescence was established from 0, which represents cytoplasmic
fluorescence >> nuclear, to 4, which represents nuclear >>
cytoplasmic, as illustrated in Fig. 2
. The bar graphs in
Fig. 2G
show the nuclear translocation scores from 0 to 4 for GFP-GR in
cells treated with dexamethasone alone (lane 3) and the inhibition of
dexamethasone-mediated translocation by geldanamycin (lane 4), as
determined for several hundred cells per condition. Geldampicin, an
inactive analog of geldanamycin that does not bind to hsp90 (19), does
not affect dexamethasone-mediated GFP-GR translocation (data not
shown).
Geldanamycin Does Not Inhibit GFP-GR Translocation When
Cytoskeleton Is Disrupted
Figure 3
presents the effects of a
1-h treatment with cytoskeletal disrupting agents (each at the
concentration used throughout this paper) on three cytoskeletal systems
in 3T3 cells. The top row (panel A) shows microtubules,
microfilaments, and intermediate filaments in untreated cells. The
second row (panel B) shows disruption of microtubule (left),
microfilament (middle), and intermediate filament
(right) networks by colcemid, cytochalasin D, or
ß,ß'-iminodipropionitrile (IDPN), respectively. Cells treated
simultaneously with all disrupting agents (panel C) have lost all three
cytoskeletal networks. When 3T3 cells that have been treated for 1
h with all disrupting agents are washed and incubated for 1 h in
normal medium without drug, the cytoskeletal networks are restored
(panel D). We have shown previously that in cells that are long-term (6
h) fixed with formaldehyde, hsp90 that is detected by indirect
immunofluorescence with the monoclonal AC88 antibody is colocalized
with microtubules (28, 30). The localization of this
microtubule-associated fraction of hsp90 is disrupted by colcemid (28),
but it is not affected by treatment of 3T3 cells with cytochalasin D,
IDPN, or geldanamycin (data not shown).

View larger version (167K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Disruption of Cytoskeletal Networks in 3T3 Cells
Cells were incubated for 1 h in the presence of the indicated
cytoskeletal disrupting agent. The cells were then fixed, and tubulin
(microtubules), actin (microfilaments), and vimentin (intermediate
filaments) were visualized by indirect immunofluorescence as described
in Materials and Methods. Conditions are: A, no
treatment; B, treatment with 0.6 µg/ml colcemid
(left), 1 µg/ml cytochalasin D
(middle), or 1% IDPN (right); C,
treatment with all three agents together; D, after treatment with all
three agents together, cells were incubated for 1 h in normal
(inhibitor-free) growth medium.
|
|
Figure 4
shows the effect of geldanamycin
on dexamethasone-induced GFP-GR movement in control cells with normal
cytoskeleton (top row) and in cells treated simultaneously
with three cytoskeletal disrupting agents (bottom row). Both
in the presence and absence of cytoskeletal networks, the GFP-GR is
localized in the cytoplasm of hormone-free cells (left
panels, -Dex) and moves to the nucleus with dexamethasone treatment
(middle panels, +Dex). In untreated cells with normal
cytoskeleton, geldanamycin inhibits GFP-GR translocation, whereas
geldanamycin has no effect on cytoplasmic-nuclear transfer when all
three cytoskeletal networks are disrupted (right panels and
bar graphs). Treatment of 3T3 cells with all three
cytoskeletal drugs distorts cell shape, and vesicles from which the
GFP-GR is excluded can be seen in the cytoplasm of some of the cells
(Fig. 4
, bottom panels).

View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. Loss of Geldanamycin Inhibition of
Dexamethasone-Mediated GFP-GR Movement from Cytoplasm to Nucleus When
All Three Cytoskeletal Networks of 3T3 Cells Are Disrupted
3T3 cells expressing GFP-GR were incubated for 1 h at 37 C with
vehicle (top row) or with colcemid, cytochalasin D, and
IDPN (bottom row). Cells were then incubated 1 h at
0 C with dexamethasone, with geldanamycin being present for the last 30
min. The incubation temperature was then increased to 37 C for 20 min
to permit GFP-GR transfer from cytoplasm to nucleus. The bar
graphs present the nuclear translocation scores from
dexamethasone-treated cells in the absence (solid bar)
or presence (hatched bar) of geldanamycin determined as
described in the legend to Fig. 2 .
|
|
Disruption of Any Individual Cytoskeletal Network Makes GFP-GR
Translocation Geldanamycin Insensitive
Inasmuch as 1-h treatment with individual cytoskeletal disrupting
agents produced relatively selective disruption (by indirect
immunofluorescence) of individual cytoskeletal networks in 3T3 cells,
we asked whether treatment with any single agent or combination of
agents would convert GFP-GR translocation to geldanamycin
insensitivity. In the experiments of Fig. 5
, 3T
3 cells were treated with colcemid
(A), or cytochalasin D (B), or IDPN (C), or all three drugs
simultaneously (D). As shown by the open bars, in all cases
GFP-GR translocation was no longer affected by geldanamycin. As shown
by the black bars in Fig. 5
, movement of the GFP-GR in
drug-treated cells that were then washed and incubated in drug-free
medium to allow restoration of the cytoskeletal networks (as shown in
Fig. 3D
) has been returned to a geldanamycin-inhibited mode.

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Any Single Cytoskeletal Disrupting Agent Renders
GFP-GR Movement in 3T3 Cells Geldanamycin Insensitive, and Geldanamycin
Inhibition of Movement Returns upon Withdrawal of the Disrupting Agent
3T3 cells expressing GFP-GR were treated with colcemid (A),
cytochalasin D (B), IDPN (C), or all three agents (D) (open
bars). For the cells shown in the black bars,
cytoskeletal disrupting agents were washed away after 1 h, and
cells were incubated for 3 h in medium without disrupting agents
to permit restoration of cytoskeletal networks. All cells were then
incubated with dexamethasone in the absence or presence of geldanamycin
as described in the legend to Fig. 4 . Nuclear translocation scores
represent the mean ± SEM from three experiments.
|
|
We also observed that treatment of 3T3 cells with geldanamycin
inhibited dexamethasone-mediated translocation of the endogenous GR
visualized by indirect immunofluorescence. As with the chimera,
microtubular disruption with colcemid restored steroid-induced GR
translocation in geldanamycin-treated cells (data not shown).
Effects of Geldanamycin and Cytoskeletal Disruption on the Rate of
GFP-GR Translocation
As shown in Fig. 6A
, dexamethasone-mediated GFP-GR cytoplasmic-nuclear translocation occurs
at a similar rate in cells lacking the three cytoskeletal networks
(solid squares) as it does in cells with intact cytoskeletal
networks (open squares). In both control cells and cells
treated for 1 h with all three cytoskeletal disrupting agents, the
t1/2 for translocation is
5 min (Fig. 6A
), which is
consistent with previously published rates for GR translocation in COS7
cells (4) and L cells (14). The fact that the overall rate of
cytoplasmic-nuclear translocation is the same with and without
cytoskeleton suggests that movement of the GFP-GR through the cytoplasm
to the nucleus is not rate-limiting in either case, leaving nuclear
import and possibly subsequent movement within the nucleus as
rate-limiting. When geldanamycin is present, the cytoplasmic phase of
GFP-GR movement becomes rate limiting in cells with intact cytoskeletal
networks. As shown in Fig. 6B
, geldanamycin slows the overall process
of translocation when the cytoskeleton is intact by nearly 1 order of
magnitude (t1/2
45 min). In cells treated with
cytoskeletal disrupting agents, the GFP-GR moves at the same rate in
the presence and absence of geldanamycin (Fig. 6C
).

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6. Effect of Disruption of Cytoskeleton and Effect of
Geldanamycin on the Rate of Dexamethasone-Mediated Movement of GFP-GR
from Cytoplasm to Nucleus
A, 3T3 cells expressing GFP-GR were incubated for 1 h without
( ) or with ( ) all three cytoskeletal disrupting agents (colcemid,
cytochalasin D, and IDPN). Dexamethasone-mediated movement of GFP-GR at
37 C was then assayed by fixing the cells in cold methanol at the
indicated times and determining the nuclear translocation score on the
fixed cells. B, 3T3 cells expressing GFP-GR were preincubated at 0 C
with dexamethasone in the absence ( ) or presence ( ) of 10
µM geldanamycin, and dexamethasone-mediated movement of
GFP-GR at 37 C was assayed at the indicated times. C, 3T3 cells
expressing GFP-GR were incubated with all three cytoskeletal disrupting
agents (colcemid, cytochalasin D, and IDPN). Dexamethasone-dependent
movement of GFP-GR was then assayed under three conditions: without
geldanamycin treatment ( ) or treatment with 10 µM
() or 500 µM ( ) geldanamycin. D, Cells expressing
GFP-GR were treated with 1 µM colchicine (black
bars) or 1 µM -lumicolchicine (hatched
bars), and dexamethasone-dependent movement was then assayed in
the presence or absence of 10 µM geldanamycin (GA).
Values are the average of two experiments with the range of values
shown by the vertical line.
|
|
It can be argued that the cytoskeletal disrupting agents in some way
inactivate geldanamycin, e.g. by metabolism or by exclusion
from the cell. It could also be argued that disruption of any of the
three cytoskeletal networks causes a common change in some cellular
component such that geldanamycin is inactivated. However, in Fig. 6C
, we show that in the presence of cytoskeletal disrupting agents,
geldanamycin has no effect on GFP-GR translocation rate even when it is
present at 500 µM concentration (
). Thus, in the event
that the cytoskeletal disruptors were to inactivate geldanamycin, they
would have to do so in a way that is not overcome by a 50-fold
elevation in geldanamycin concentration. The proposal that it is
disruption of the cytoskeleton that renders GFP-GR translocation
insensitive to geldanamycin is strongly supported by the data of Fig. 6D
. In this case, 3T3 cells were treated either with colchicine
(black bars) or with
-lumicolchicine (hatched
bars), a biologically inactive isomer of colchicine that does not
interact with tubulin (41). 3T3 cells treated with colchicine lose
their microtubules, but cells treated with
-lumicolchicine do not
(data not shown). As shown in Fig. 6D
, geldanamycin did not inhibit
GFP-GR translocation in colchicine-treated cells, but translocation is
inhibited in
-lumicolchicine-treated cells.
Geldanamycin Does Not Inhibit GH-Dependent Translocation of
GFP-STAT5B
In contrast to steroid receptors, STAT (signal transducers and
activators of transcription) proteins are not bound to hsp90 (42), but
they translocate to the nucleus in response to a variety of cytokines,
hormones, and growth factors (43), much like the GR translocates in
response to steroid. When 3T3 cells are transfected with cDNAs encoding
the GH receptor (GHR) and GFP-STAT5B, the chimeric STAT5B translocates
to the nucleus in a GH-dependent manner (J. Herrington, L. Rui, G.
Luo, L. Yu-Lee, and C. Carter-Su, submitted). In the experiments shown
in Fig. 7
, the effects of geldanamycin
and colcemid on GH-dependent GFP-STAT5B movement were assessed. As with
the GR and the GFP-GR, GFP-STAT5B translocated to the nucleus in a
hormone-dependent manner in both control cells (upper row
and black bars on the left) and in
colcemid-treated cells with disrupted microtubular structure
(lower row and hatched bars on the
right). Geldanamycin, however, did not affect nuclear
translocation under either condition.

View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7. Geldanamycin Does Not Inhibit GH-Dependent Movement
of GFP-STAT5B from Cytoplasm to Nucleus of 3T3 Cells
3T3 cells expressing GHR and GFP-STAT5B were treated for 1 h at 37
C with colcemid (+COLC) or vehicle (CONTROL). Cells were then placed on
ice and incubated with 500 ng/ml of GH for 1.5 h (+GH) with 10
µM geldanamycin being present for the last 30 min (+GA).
The temperature was then shifted to 37 C for 30 min, and the nuclear
translocation score was quantified as described in the legend to Fig. 2 . The three black bars on the left are from control
cells, and the hatched bars on the right are from cells
treated with colcemid.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION
|
---|
The GFP-GR chimera we have used here to study cytoplasmic-nuclear
translocation in living cells moves in a dexamethasone-dependent manner
and is transcriptionally active (Fig. 1
). Translocation of GFP-GR is
inhibited in cells with intact cytoskeleton by the inhibitor of hsp90
chaperone function, geldanamycin (Fig. 2
). However, when 3T3 cells are
treated with cytoskeletal disrupting agents, translocation of GFP-GR
(Figs. 4
and 5
) or endogenous GR is no longer geldanamycin sensitive.
The effect of cytoskeletal disruption is reversible in that withdrawal
of the disrupting agents results in restoration of cytoskeletal
networks (Fig. 3
) and geldanamycin sensitivity (Fig. 5
). Surprisingly,
no specificity for cytoskeletal systems was found in that any of the
three disruptive agents made GFP-GR translocation no longer
geldanamycin sensitive (Fig. 5
). That this loss of geldanamycin effect
results from cytoskeletal disruption and is not a toxic effect of the
cytoskeletal disrupting agents is supported by the failure of
-lumicolchicine, the biologically inactive isomer of colchicine, to
affect geldanamycin sensitivity of GFP-GR movement (Fig. 6D
). These
observations are consistent with a model in which the GR normally moves
along cytoskeletal tracts, and in this normal movement mode,
steroid-transformed receptors require dynamic interaction with the
hsp90-based chaperone system for rapid movement.
Because geldanamycin sensitivity was lost when 3T3 cells were treated
with any one of the disrupting agents alone (Fig. 5
), it is not clear
which cytoskeletal networks are required for what we will call
hsp90-dependent (i.e. geldanamycin-inhibited) GFP-GR
movement. Much as rapid organelle movement in axoplasm proceeds along
both microtubules and actin filaments (e.g. Ref. 44),
hsp90-dependent movement of the GFP-GR could involve its interaction
with multiple cytoskeletal systems. Indeed, hsp90 has been localized in
various reports to multiple cytoskeletal networks, including actin in
membrane ruffles (45), microtubules (28, 29, 30), and intermediate
filaments (29, 30). However, the fluorescence methods we have used to
observe selective disruption of different cytoskeletal networks by
individual disrupting agents are crude, and we have no indication
whether or not the remaining networks are functionally intact. It is
entirely possible that disruption of one system compromises other
cytoskeletal systems as well, and at this time, we can only say that
hsp90-dependent movement requires intact cytoskeleton.
The fact that rapid-dexamethasone-dependent GFP-GR translocation is
hsp90 dependent under the physiologically normal condition in which
cytoskeletal networks are intact but is hsp90-independent
(i.e. geldanamycin-insensitive) when cytoskeleton is
disrupted suggests that there are two mechanisms of movement.
Perrot-Applanat et al. (34) shifted the PR from the nucleus
into the cytoplasm by administration of energy-depleting drugs and
observed reaccumulation of the receptor in the nucleus upon removal of
the drugs, regardless of whether cytoskeleton was intact or disrupted.
They concluded that cytoskeleton is not involved and that
"karyophilic signals and interactions with the nuclear pore seem to
be the primary determinants of the cellular traffic of the progesterone
receptor." Because we see the same rate of GFP-GR nuclear
translocation when cytoskeleton is intact as when it is totally
disrupted (Fig. 6A
), it may be that nuclear import and not receptor
movement through the cytoplasm is rate limiting for nuclear
accumulation under both conditions. We suggest that in the presence of
a normal cytoskeletal network, receptor movement occurs on a
cytoskeleton-based movement machinery that requires dynamic interaction
of the receptor with hsp90. When cytoskeleton is disrupted, the GR may
move through the cytoplasm by diffusion.
Although movement of receptor through the cytoplasm is not the
rate-limiting step in cytoplasmic-nuclear translocation under
physiological conditions in cells with intact cytoskeleton, it becomes
rate limiting when geldanamycin is present. As shown in Fig. 6B
, GFP-GR
that is bound by dexamethasone still translocates, but very slowly. If
movement through the cytoplasm was normal and nuclear import was
inhibited in the presence of geldanamycin, then the GFP-GR fluorescence
should accumulate at the nuclear periphery. This is not what we see.
Rather, the fluorescence remains diffusely distributed in the
cytoplasm, consistent with impairment of movement through the
cytoplasmic space. Thus, we suggest that the presence of an intact
cytoskeletal system may limit receptor diffusion, and rapid receptor
movement utilizes a movement machinery that is hsp90 dependent. In
contrast, hormone-dependent movement of GFP-STAT5B, a signaling protein
that is not recovered from cells in complexes with hsp90 (data not
shown), is not inhibited by geldanamycin (Fig. 7
). At this time, it is
not known whether GFP-STAT5B moves solely by diffusion or utilizes a
movement machinery in a manner that does not require hsp90
chaperoning.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
---|
Materials
Rhodamine-conjugated donkey antimouse IgG and rhodamine
phalloidin were from Molecular Probes (Eugene, OR). TUB2.1 monoclonal
anti-ß-tubulin IgG, the V9 monoclonal antivimentin IgG, colcemid,
cytochalasin D, colchicine,
-lumicolchicine, and
charcoal-stripped, delipidated calf serum were from Sigma (St. Louis,
MO). IDPN was from Fisher (Pittsburgh, PA). Recombinant human GH was a
gift from Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN). Phenol red-free DMEM was from
BioWhittaker (Walkersville, MD). Opti-MEM medium and Lipofectamine were
from GIBCO BRL (Gaithersburg, MD). Geldanamycin was obtained from the
Drug Synthesis and Chemistry Branch of the Developmental Therapeutics
Program, National Cancer Institute, and geldampicin was generously
provided by Dr. Kenneth Rinehart (University of Illinois, Urbana). The
aP1 rabbit antiserum raised against amino acids 440795 of the rat GR
(46) was a kind gift from Dr. Bernd Groner (Institute for Experimental
Cancer Research, Freiburg, Germany). Rat GHR cDNA (47) was kindly
provided by Dr. Gunnar Norstedt (Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden).
Plasmids
The mouse wild-type GR cDNA vector SV2Wrec and the murine
mammary tumor virus-chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (MMTV-CAT)
reporter plasmid have been described (48). CMVßgal and pEGFP-C3 were
from CLONTECH (Palo Alto, CA). The stop codon in the 5'-untranslated
region of the GR cDNA was converted to a leucine codon using
oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis of SV2Wrec as described (49). The
BglII-XbaI fragment containing the GR cDNA was
then excised and cloned into the corresponding sites of pEGFP-C3 to
give an expression plasmid with the C terminus of GFP fused in frame to
the N terminus of the GR. Rat STAT5B (50) was inserted into the
BgIII site of EGFP-C1 (CLONTECH) as described (J.
Herrington, L. Rui, G. Luo, L. Yu-Lee, and C. Carter-Su,
submitted).
Cell Culture and Transfection
The E82.A3 subline of L929 mouse fibroblasts (39) and NIH-3T3
cells were grown on 11 x 22-mm coverslips in DMEM supplemented
with 10% bovine calf serum in 35-mm tissue culture dishes. When cells
were
60% confluent, they were rinsed three times with serum-free
medium and then incubated an additional hour in fresh medium. For each
transfection of GFP-GR cDNA, a 2-ml solution containing 2 µg DNA, 10
µl Lipofectamine, and 0.8 ml Opti-MEM medium was added to the culture
dish and mixed gently to assure uniform distribution. For transfection
of GFP-STAT5B, a 2 ml solution containing 2 µg GFP-STAT5B cDNA and 4
µg of GHR cDNA were added and incubated under the same conditions.
Cells were incubated with the transfection mixture for 56 h at 37 C,
and the medium was then replaced by complete growth medium for an
additional 18 h of incubation. At the end of this incubation, the
coverslips were washed extensively with and then incubated for 24
h in phenol red-free DMEM supplemented with 10% charcoal-stripped,
delipidated bovine calf serum. After the 18-h incubation, cells
expressing GFP-STAT5B and GHR were incubated for an additional 12
h in serum-free medium before treatment with colcemid, GH, and
geldanamycin as described in the legend to Fig. 7
.
Assay of GFP-GR Fluorescence in Living Cells
To test the ability of the chimeric protein to move from
cytoplasm to nucleus, cells expressing GFP-GR were incubated for 20 min
at 37 C with 1 µM dexamethasone added to the medium in
the culture dish. Coverslips were then inverted onto a microslide with
a concavity (18 mm in diameter x 0.5 mm deep) that contained the
same medium. Cells were photographed with a Leitz Aristoplan
epiillumination fluorescence microscope (E. Leitz, Inc.,
Rockleigh, NJ) and a Leitz Vario-Orthomat camera using T-Max 3200 film.
The bars in the figures represent 10 µm.
To assay the effect of geldanamycin on GFP-GR movement, dexamethasone
(1 µM) or vehicle (0.1% ethanol) was added to cells that
had been precooled for 10 min on ice. Cells were maintained on ice for
1 h to allow steroid occupation of all receptors, with 10
µM geldanamycin or vehicle (0.1% dimethylsulfoxide)
being added at 30 min. At the end of the 1-h preincubation on ice,
cells were shifted to 37 C for 20 min to allow the steroid-bound
receptors to translocate to the nucleus. Coverslips were then inverted
onto microslides for fluorescence imaging.
To assay the effect of cytoskeletal disruption on GFP-GR nuclear
translocation, cells were incubated for 1 h at 37 C with 0.6
µg/ml colcemid, 1 µg/ml cytochalasin D, and/or 1% IDPN before
cooling them on ice and adding dexa-methasone.
Cells were scored for GFP-GR translocation using a score of 4 for
nuclear fluorescence much greater than cytoplasmic fluorescence, 3 for
nuclear fluorescence greater than cytoplasmic fluorescence, 2 for
nuclear fluorescence equal to cytoplasmic fluorescence, 1 for nuclear
fluorescence less than cytoplasmic fluorescence, and 0 for nuclear
fluorescence much less than cytoplasmic fluorescence. The translocation
scores represent the mean ± SEM from three
experiments in which >100 cells per condition per experiment were
scored.
Immunofluorescence Visualization
3T3 cells were grown on coverslips in DMEM with 10% calf-serum
for 24 h and then incubated for 1 h with the indicated
cytoskeletal disrupting agent. The coverslips were then rinsed with PBS
at room temperature and simultaneously fixed and permeabilized by
immersion in cold methanol (-25 C) for at least 15 min. Cells were
rinsed again with PBS, and the coverslips were inverted onto a 30 µl
drop of blocking solution (20 mM Tris, pH 8.0, 130
mM NaCl, 0.2% saponin, 0.05% Tween 20, 1% BSA)
containing 1 µl TUB 2.1 antibody against tubulin, 1 µl V9 antibody
against vimentin, 1 µl rhodamine-phalloidin (200 U/ml) to label
F-actin, or 0.3 µl of aP1 anti-GR serum. After overnight incubation
with antibody at 4 C and subsequent washing with PBS, coverslips were
inverted again on 30 µl drops of blocking solution containing 1 µl
of rhodamine-conjugated antimouse or antirabbit IgG and incubated for
2 h at room temperature. Incubations with rhodamine-phalloidin
were performed at room temperature for 45 min only. Cells on coverslips
were photographed as described above.
Transcriptional Activation
E82.A3 cells were incubated with DMEM containing DEAE-Dextran
(0.2 mg/ml), chloroquine (30 µM), MMTV-CAT (3 µg/ml),
CMVßgal (2 µg/ml), and the GFP expression plasmid, the GFP-GR
expression plasmid, or the wild-type GR expression plasmid (3 µg/ml)
for 2 h, and then shocked for 1 min with 15%
dimethylsulfoxide/HEPES-buffered saline. After
40 h of incubation in
phenol red-free DMEM and charcoal-stripped calf serum, 1.0
µM dexamethasone was added and cells were incubated an
additional 20 h to allow induction of CAT activity. Cell extracts
were assayed for CAT as described by Nordeen et al. (51),
and values were normalized to ß-galactosidase activity assayed in the
same cell samples.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
---|
The authors thank Kenneth Rinehart, Bernd Groner, Gunnar
Norstedt, Li-yuan Yu-Lee, and The Eli Lilly Company for providing
reagents used in this work. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
technical assistance of Cheryl DiCapua and Mary Morales.
 |
FOOTNOTES
|
---|
Address requests for reprints to: William B. Pratt, Department of Pharmacology, The University of Michigan Medical School, Medical Science Research Building III, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0632.
This work was supported by NIH Grants DK-34171 (to C.C.-S.), DK-47951
(to P.R.H.), CA-28010 (to W.B.P.), and ES-06265 and ES-07006 (to
M.J.W.).
Received for publication May 27, 1998.
Revision received August 3, 1998.
Accepted for publication September 2, 1998.
 |
REFERENCES
|
---|
-
Langford GM 1995 Actin- and microtubule-dependent
organelle motors: interrelationship between the two motility systems.
Curr Opinion Cell Biol 7:8288[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Seksek O, Biwersi J, Verkman AS 1997 Translational diffusion
of macromolecule-sized solutes in cytoplasm and nucleus. J Cell
Biol 138:131142[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Ambron RT, Schmied R, Huang C-C, Smedman M 1992 A signal
sequence mediates the retrograde transport of proteins from the axon
periphery to the cell body and then into the nucleus. J Neurosci 12:28132818[Abstract]
-
Picard D, Yamamoto KR 1987 Two signals mediate
hormone-dependent nuclear localization of the glucocorticoid receptor.
EMBO J 6:33333340[Abstract]
-
Guichon-Mantel A, Lescop P, Christin-Maitre S, Loosfelt H,
Perrot-Applanat M, Milgrom E 1991 Nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of
progesterone receptor. EMBO J 10:38513859[Abstract]
-
Chandran UR, DeFranco DB 1992 Internuclear migration of
chicken progesterone receptor, but not simian virus-40 large tumor
antigen, in transient heterokaryons. Mol Endocrinol 6:837844[Abstract]
-
Madan AP, DeFranco DB 1993 Bidirectional transport of
glucocorticoid receptors across the nuclear envelope. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 90:35883592[Abstract]
-
Dauvois S, White R, Parker MG 1993 The antiestrogen ICI
182780 disrupts estrogen receptor nucleocytoplasmic shuttling. J
Cell Sci 106:13771388[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
DeFranco DB, Madan AP, Tang Y, Chandran UR, Xiao N, Yang J 1995 Nucleocytoplasmic shuttling of steroid receptors. Vitam Horm 51:315338[Medline]
-
Perrot-Applanat M, Logeat F, Groyer-Picard MT, Milgrom E 1985 Immunocytochemical study of mammalian progesterone receptor using
monoclonal antibodies. Endocrinology 116:14731484[Abstract]
-
Qi M, Hamilton BJ, DeFranco D 1989 v-mos
Oncoproteins affect the nuclear retention and reutilization of
glucocorticoid receptors. Mol Endocrinol 3:12791288[Abstract]
-
Pratt WB, Toft DO 1997 Steroid receptor interactions with heat
shock protein and immunophilin chaperones. Endocr Rev 18:306360[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Kang KI, Devin J, Cadepond F, Jibard N, Guichon-Mantel A,
Baulieu EE, Catelli MG 1994 In vivo functional
protein-protein interaction: nuclear targeted hsp90 shifts cytoplasmic
steroid receptor mutants into the nucleus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:340344[Abstract]
-
Czar MJ, Lyons RH, Welsh MJ, Renoir JM, Pratt WB 1995 Evidence
that the FK506-binding immunophilin heat shock protein 56 is required
for trafficking of the glucocorticoid receptor from the cytoplasm to
the nucleus. Mol Endocrinol 9:15491560[Abstract]
-
Yang J, DeFranco DB 1996 Assessment of glucocorticoid
receptor-heat shock protein 90 interactions in vivo during
nucleocytoplasmic trafficking. Mol Endocrinol 10:313[Abstract]
-
Czar MJ, Galigniana MD, Silverstein AM, Pratt WB 1997 Geldanamycin, a heat shock protein 90-binding benzoquinone ansamycin,
inhibits steroid-dependent translocation of the glucocorticoid receptor
from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. Biochemistry 36:77767785[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Raaka BM, Finnerty M, Sun E, Samuels HH 1985 Effects of
molybdate on steroid receptors in intact GH1 cells.
Evidence for dissociation of an intracellular 10S receptor oligomer
prior to nuclear accumulation. J Biol Chem 260:1400914015[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Smith DF 1993 Dynamics of heat shock protein 90-progesterone
receptor binding and the disactivation loop model for steroid receptor
complexes. Mol Endocrinol 7:14181429[Abstract]
-
Whitesell L, Mimnaugh EG DeCosta B, Myers CE, Neckers LM 1994 Inhibition of heat shock protein HSP90-pp60v-src
heteroprotein complex formation by benzoquinone ansamycins: essential
role for stress proteins in oncogenic transformation. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 91:83248328[Abstract]
-
Pratt WB 1992 Control of steroid receptor function and
cytoplasmic-nuclear transport by heat shock proteins. Bioessays 14:841848[Medline]
-
Pratt WB 1993 The role of heat shock proteins in regulating
the function, folding, and trafficking of the glucocorticoid receptor.
J Biol Chem 268:2145521458[Free Full Text]
-
Fuxe K, Wikstrom AC, Okret S, Agnati LF, Harfstr A, Yu ZY,
Granholm L, Zoli M, Vale W, Gustafsson JA 1985 Mapping of the
glucocorticoid receptor immunoreactive neurons in the rat tel- and
diencephalon using a monoclonal antibody against rat glucocorticoid
receptor. Endocrinology 117:18031812[Abstract]
-
Akner G, Sundqvist KG, Denis M, Wikstrom AC, Gustafsson JA 1990 Immunocytochemical localization of glucocorticoid receptor in
human gingival fibroblasts and evidence for colocalization of
glucocorticoid receptor with cytoplasmic microtubules. Eur J Cell
Biol 53:390401[Medline]
-
Akner G, Mossberg K, Wikstrom AC, Sundqvist KG, Gustafsson JA 1991 Evidence for colocalization of glucocorticoid receptor with
cytoplasmic microtubules in human gingival fibroblasts, using two
different monoclonal anti-GR antibodies, confocal laser scanning
microscopy and image analysis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 39:419432[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Akner G, Wikstrom AC, Gustafsson JA 1995 Subcellular
distribution of the glucocorticoid receptor and evidence for its
association with microtubules. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 52:116[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Barsony J, Pike JW, DeLuca HF, Marx SJ 1990 Immunocytology
with microwave-fixed fibroblasts shows 1
, 25-dihydroxyvitamin
D3-dependent rapid and estrogen-dependent slow
reorganization of vitamin D receptors. J Cell Biol 111:23852395[Abstract]
-
Barsony J, McKoy W 1992 Molybdate increases intracellular 3',
5'-guanosine cyclic monophosphate and stabilizes vitamin D receptor
association with tubulin-containing filaments. J Biol Chem 267:2445724465[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Redmond T, Sanchez ER, Bresnick EH, Schlesinger MJ, Toft DO,
Pratt WB, Welsh MJ 1989 Immunofluorescence colocalization of the 90-kDa
heat shock protein and microtubules in interphase and mitotic mammalian
cells. Eur J Cell Biol 50:6675[Medline]
-
Fostinis Y, Theodoropoulos PA, Gravanis A, Stournaras C 1992 Heat shock protein HSP90 and its association with the cytoskeleton: a
morphological study. Biochem Cell Biol 70:779786[Medline]
-
Czar MJ, Welsh MJ, Pratt WB 1996 Immunofluorescence
localization of the 90-kDa heat-shock protein to cytoskeleton. Eur
J Cell Biol 70:322330[Medline]
-
Green LAD, Liem RKH 1989 ß-Internexin is a
microtubule-associated protein identical to the 70-kDa heat shock
cognate protein and the clathrin uncoating ATPase. J Biol Chem 264:1521015215[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Czar MJ, Owens-Grillo JK, Yem AW, Leach KL, Deibel MR, Welsh
MJ, Pratt WB 1994 The hsp56 immunophilin component of untransformed
steroid receptor heterocomplexes is localized both to microtubules in
the cytoplasm and to the same nonrandom regions within the nucleus as
the steroid receptor. Mol Endocrinol 8:17311741[Abstract]
-
Perrot-Applanat M, Cibert C, Geraud G, Renoir JM, Baulieu EE 1995 The 59 kDa FK506-binding protein, a 90 kDa heat shock protein
binding immunophilin (FKBP59-HBI), is associated with the nucleus, the
cytoskeleton and mitotic apparatus. J Cell Sci 108:20372051[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Perrot-Applanat M, Lescop P, Milgrom E 1992 The cytoskeleton
and the cellular traffic of the progesterone receptor. J Cell Biol 119:337348[Abstract]
-
Szapary D, Barber T, Dwyer NK, Blanchette-Mackie EJ, Simons SS 1994 Microtubules are not required for glucocorticoid receptor mediated
gene induction. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 51:143148[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Kamimura S, Gallieni M, Zhong M, Beron W, Slatopolsky E, Dusso
A 1995 Microtubules mediate cellular 25-hydroxyvitamin
D3 trafficking and the genomic response to
1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 in human monocytes. J Biol Chem 270:2216022166[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Ogawa H, Inouye S, Tsuji FI, Yasuda K, Umesono K 1995 Localization, trafficking, and temperature-dependence of the
Aeuorea green fluorescent protein in cultured vertebrate
cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:1189911903[Abstract]
-
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 93:48454850[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Housley PR, Forsthoefel AM 1989 Isolation and characterization
of a mouse L cell variant deficient in glucocorticoid receptors.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun 164:480487[Medline]
-
Smith DF, Whitesell L, Nair SC, Chen S, Prapapanich V,
Rimerman RA 1995 Progesterone receptor structure and function altered
by galdanamycin, an hsp90-binding agent. Mol Cell Biol 15:68046812[Abstract]
-
Wilson L 1970 Properties of colchicine binding protein from
chick embryo brain. Interactions with vinca alkaloids and
podophyllotoxin. Biochemistry 9:49995007[Medline]
-
Stancato LF, David M, Carter-Su C, Larner AC, Pratt WB 1996 Preassociation of STAT1 with STAT2 and STAT3 in separate signalling
complexes prior to cytokine stimulation. J Biol Chem 271:41344137[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Ihle JN 1996 STATs: signal transduction and activators of
transcription. Cell 84:331334[Medline]
-
Kuznetsov SA, Langford GM, Weiss DG 1992 Actin-dependent
organelle movement in squid axoplasm. Nature 356:722725[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Koyasu S, Nishida E, Kadowaki T, Matsuzaki F, Iida K, Harada
F, Kasuga M, Sakai H, Yahara I 1986 Two mammalian heat shock proteins,
HSP90 and HSP100, are actin binding proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:80548058[Abstract]
-
Hoeck W, Rusconi S, Groner B 1989 Down-regulation and
phosphorylation of glucocorticoid receptors in cultured cells. J
Biol Chem 264:1439614402[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Mathews LS, Engerg B, Norstedt G 1989 Regulation of rat growth
hormone receptor gene expression. J Biol Chem 264:99059910[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Danielsen M, Northrop JP, Ringold GM 1986 The mouse
glucocorticoid receptor: mapping of functional domains by cloning,
sequencing, and expression of wild-type and mutant receptor proteins.
EMBO J 5:25132522[Abstract]
-
Mason SA, Housley PR 1993 Site-directed mutagenesis of the
phosphorylation sites in the mouse glucocorticoid receptor. J Biol
Chem 268:2150121504[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Luo G, Yu-Lee L 1997 Transcriptional inhibition by Stat5.
J Biol Chem 272:2684126849[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Nordeen SK, Green PP, Fowlkes DM 1987 A rapid, sensitive, and
inexpensive assay for chloramphenicol acetyltransferase. DNA 6:173178[Medline]