CBP (CREB Binding Protein) Integrates NF-
B (Nuclear Factor-
B) and Glucocorticoid Receptor Physical Interactions and Antagonism
Lorraine I. McKay and
John A. Cidlowski
Molecular Endocrinology Group Laboratory of Signal
Transduction National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences National Institutes of Health Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709-2233
 |
ABSTRACT
|
---|
Nuclear factor
B (NF-
B) and the
glucocorticoid receptor (GR) are transcription factors with opposing
actions in the modulation of immune/inflammatory responses. NF-
B
induces the expression of proinflammatory genes, while GR suppresses
immune function in part by suppressing expression of the same genes.
Previously, we demonstrated that physiological antagonism between
NF-
B and GR is due to a mutual transcriptional antagonism that
requires the p65 subunit of NF-
B and multiple domains of GR
(1). To elucidate the mechanism(s) of NF-
B p65 and GR
transcriptional antagonism, we analyzed the interactions of wild-type
p65 and p65 RHD (rel homology domain, a dominant negative mutant of p65
which lacks a transactivation domain) with GR. We show that p65RHD
blocks p65-mediated transactivation, yet does not block the repression
of GR transactivation by p65, indicating that transcriptional activity
by p65 is not required to repress GR function. Both p65 and p65 RHD
physically interact with GR, but only intact p65 represses GR-mediated
signaling, implicating the p65 transactivation domain in the
transcriptional repression of GR. To further characterize p65-GR
interactions, we examined the role of the transcriptional co-integrator
CREB binding protein (CBP) in their mutual antagonism. GR-mediated
repression of p65 transactivation and p65-mediated repression of GR
transactivation, as well as the physical interaction between NF-
B
and GR, are enhanced by CBP. GR bound to the antagonist RU 486,
although transcriptionally inactive, retains the ability to repress p65
transactivation. However, CBP does not physically interact with
antagonist-bound GR and does not enhance its repressive effect on p65.
These data suggest that CBP functions as an integrator of p65/GR
physical interaction, rather than as a limiting cofactor for which p65
and GR compete.
 |
INTRODUCTION
|
---|
The inflammatory response is a highly regulated
physiological process that is critically important to homeostasis.
Precise physiological control of inflammation allows a timely reaction
to invading pathogens or other insult without an overreaction that
might itself cause damage to the host. Two cellular signaling pathways
that have been identified as important regulators of inflammation are
the nuclear factor-
B (NF-
B) and glucocorticoid-mediated signal
transduction cascades.
NF-
B is a widely expressed transcription factor that positively
regulates the expression of genes involved in immune responses and
inflammation, including cytokines and cell adhesion molecules (for a
detailed list of NF-
B-regulated immune and inflammatory genes,
see Ref. 2). NF-
B transcription factors are dimers whose subunits
comprise the Rel family of transcriptional activators. Rel proteins
share a conserved, 300-amino acid Rel homology domain that contains the
DNA binding, dimerization, and nuclear localization functions of
NF-
B. The preferentially formed NF-
B transcription factor in most
cell types is the p50/p65 (Rel A) heterodimer (3). Unactivated NF-
B
is retained in the cytoplasm by the inhibitory protein I
B. Multiple
forms of I
B have been identified (4), and two of these forms
(I
B
and I
Bß) have been shown to modulate the function of the
NF-
B p65/p50 heterodimer. When a stimulus such as a proinflammatory
cytokine or an oxidative stressor activates the NF-
B signaling
pathway, I
B is phosphorylated (5) and consequently targeted for
ubiquitination (6, 7, 8) and removal via the proteosome. I
B
and
I
Bß are phosphorylated in response to different extracellular
stimuli (4, 9). Degradation of I
B allows NF-
B to migrate to the
nucleus (10, 11). There are two different but related ser/thr kinases,
IKK-1 and IKK-2, which are generally held responsible for the inducible
phosphorylation of I
B (9, 12, 13, 14).
Activation of NF-
B also involves phosphorylation of the p65 subunit
by the catalytic subunit of protein kinase A (PKAc). Dissociation of
I
B allows PKAc to phosphorylate p65 on serine 276, dramatically
increasing the transcriptional activity of NF-
B (15). Recent studies
show that this PKA-mediated phosphorylation of p65 is required for
recruitment of the transcriptional cofactor CREB-binding protein
(CBP)/p300 by NF-
B p65 (16). In the nucleus, activated NF-
B binds
to consensus sequences in the chromatin and activates specific
gene subsets, particularly those important to immune and
inflammatory function (4).
Glucocorticoid effects are mediated primarily by the
-form of the
glucocorticoid receptor (GR
or simply GR), a member of the
steroid/thyroid/retinoid receptor superfamily of nuclear receptors. GR
binds glucocorticoid in the cytoplasm, resulting in receptor
activation. Activation of GR involves a conformational change,
dissociation from cytoplasmic regulatory proteins, and increased
receptor phosphorylation. Ligand-activated receptor translocates to the
nucleus, where it functions as a modulator of gene transcription,
activating the transcription of specific sets of genes while repressing
the expression of others. Endogenous and exogenous glucocorticoids,
presumably acting via the GR, are potent
immunosuppressive/antiinflammatory agents. However, the widespread
clinical use of these steroid hormones to treat a broad range of
inflammatory disorders including chronic asthma (17, 18), rheumatoid
arthritis (19), and systemic lupus erythematosus (17) has been based
largely on the empirical evidence of their efficacy, while until
recently, little was understood concerning the mechanisms by which
glucocorticoids suppress the inflammatory response. Recent attention,
however, has turned to the opposing roles that NF-
B and GR play in
regulating the immune system as an important mechanism for
glucocorticoid suppression of immunity and inflammation. The mechanisms
by which NF-
B and GR antagonize each others function is now the
subject of intensive study (Refs. 1, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ; reviewed in Ref. 2).
Several studies have demonstrated that NF-
B and GR physically
interact (4, 27, 28), which presumably mediates their functional
antagonism. We have also demonstrated that GR and NF-
B are mutual
transcriptional antagonists. This mutual transcriptional antagonism
requires the p65 subunit of NF-
B and multiple domains of GR. We have
now expanded our examination of the mechanisms by which NF-
B/GR
mutual antagonism occurs. Using functional dissection of the p65
subunit of NF-
B, we demonstrate that the transactivation domain of
p65 is required to repress GR function but not for physical interaction
between NF-
B and GR. Thus, physical interaction alone is
insufficient to drive p65/GR antagonism. We show that CBP enhances the
physical interaction of GR and p65 and plays a role in their mutual
transcriptional antagonism. Based on these data, we propose a model for
NF-
B/GR antagonism that involves a physical stabilization mediated
by CBP.
 |
RESULTS
|
---|
The Transactivation Domain of p65 Mediates Inhibition of GR
Transactivation
Previous studies have demonstrated that the p65 subunit of the
NF-
B heterodimer inhibits GR transactivation function (1, 24). To
determine whether specific subdomains of p65 could be identified as
essential for the observed repression of GR function, we performed a
functional dissection of p65 using a C-terminal truncation of p65,
termed p65 RHD (Rel homology domain), in transient cotransfection/CAT
reporter assays as described in Fig. 1
.
p65 RHD (completely described in Ref. 29 and diagrammed in Fig. 1A
)
contains the highly conserved RHD found in all members of the Rel
family of transcriptional activators (reviewed in Refs. 2, 4),
including sequences that drive the nuclear localization of p65, DNA
binding, and homo-/heterodimerization. However, it lacks the C-terminal
transactivation domains that are present in wild-type p65 and is
therefore transcriptionally inactive. Figure 1B
demonstrates the
transcriptional inactivity of p65RHD as compared with wild-type p65
(control Western blots, not shown, confirm that the truncated form of
p65 is efficiently expressed, at levels comparable to intact p65, in
our transfection system). These data also indicate that p65RHD is a
dominant negative regulator of p65-mediated transactivation in our
model system as in others. Anrather et al. (29) have
demonstrated that this dominant negative function of p65RHD is probably
due to p65 RHD homodimers competing for NF-
B binding sites in the
DNA. Although other possibilities for the mechanism of dominant
negative activity cannot be ruled out, p65 RHD does not interfere with
the expression of the p65 protein (data not shown).

View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. p65 RHD Is a Dominant Negative Regulator of
p65-Mediated Transactivation, but Not the p65-Mediated Blockage of GR
Transactivation
COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with 2.5 µg total DNA,
including 0.7 µg of the appropriate CAT reporter construct (3XMHCCAT
for p65 transactivation, GRE2CAT for GR transactivation), 0.7
µg GR or 0.03 µg p65 and/or p65 RHD as transactivator, 0.7 µg GR
or 0.3 µg p65 or p65RHD as a repressor, and empty backbone vector
(pCMV5) to maintain a constant 2.5 µg DNA per transfection. Eighteen
hours after transfection, cells were harvested and subjected to CAT
assay and data analysis as described in Materials and
Methods. Data represent the mean ± SEM of
three to four independent experiments. A, Schematic representation of
the NF- B p65 subunit and the NF- B p65 RHD truncation mutant. Both
p65 and p65 RHD contain an N-terminal region of approximately 300 amino
acids termed the Rel homology domain (RHD), which includes the nuclear
localization sequence (NLS), as well as dimerization and DNA binding
functions. p65 also contains a C-terminal transactivation domain
(containing transactivation functions 1 and 2) which is missing in p65
RHD. B, Transactivation of the p65-responsive reporter 3XMHCCAT. p65
transactivates efficiently, while p65 RHD is transcriptionally inactive
on this reporter. When coexpressed, p65 RHD blocks the ability of p65
to transactivate this reporter. C, Transactivation of the GR-responsive
reporter GRE2CAT. The first two bars represent
GR-mediated transcriptional activity in the absence and presence of
ligand, respectively. p65 RHD alone (third bar) has no
effect on ligand-activated GR transactivation, while p65 (fourth
bar) antagonizes this GR-mediated transactivation.
Cotransfected p65 RHD does not rescue p65-mediated antagonism of GR
transactivation (bars 5 and 6).
|
|
The ability of p65RHD to interfere with the transactivation function of
ligand-activated GR was then assessed, as shown in Fig. 1C
. In contrast
to wild-type p65, p65RHD is unable to block GR-mediated
transactivation, indicating that the transactivation domain of p65
contains a function that mediates the repression of GR by p65.
Interestingly, when the truncated and full-length constructs of p65 are
coexpressed, p65RHD does not block the ability of p65 to repress GR
function, despite the fact that under these same conditions, p65RHD is
a dominant negative for p65 transactivation function (Fig. 1B
). These
data suggest that, while the transactivation domain of p65 is required
to block the transactivating function of GR, transcriptional activity
by p65 is not essential.
Physical Interaction of GR and p65 Is Independent of the p65
Transactivation Domain
To further understand the role of p65/GR physical interactions in
the repression of GR transactivation by NF-
B, we assessed the
ability of GR to physically interact with both intact p65 and the
truncated p65RHD (which lacks the LXXLL protein-protein interaction
motif found in the C terminus of intact p65) in an in vitro
coimmunoprecipitation assay. Confirming previous observations that p65
and GR physically interact (24, 27, 28),
35S-labeled in vitro translated GR
weakly coimmunoprecipitates with antisera recognizing p65.
Surprisingly, GR coimmunoprecipitates with p65 RHD more efficiently
than it does with intact p65. Similar results (not shown) were obtained
when 35S-labeled p65 or p65RHD were pulled down
in immune complexes with unlabeled GR using antisera recognizing GR.
These data indicate that the LXXLL motif is not necessary for the
physical interaction of p65 and GR in vitro. Taken together,
the data from Figs. 1
and 2
demonstrate
that a physical interaction alone is insufficient to explain the
antagonism of GR by p65 and suggests that a more complex function
mediates mutual p65-GR transcriptional antagonism.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. GR Physically Interacts with Both p65 and p65 RHD
IVT 35S-labeled GR was incubated with unlabeled, IVT p65 or
p65 RHD and then immunoprecipitated with antisera against the N
terminus of the p65 subunit. The labeled GR coimmunoprecipitates with
both intact (left panel) and truncated (center
panel) forms of p65. As an immunoprecipitation control and to
confirm GR integrity, labeled GR was also immunoprecipitated with
antisera recognizing GR (right panel) and HSP 90 (data
not shown).
|
|
CBP Enhances the Mutual Transcriptional Antagonism of GR and
p65
Given that physical interactions between GR and p65 are
insufficient to explain the mutual transcriptional antagonism of GR and
NF-
B, the potential role of transcriptional cofactors as mediators
of the antagonism was considered. The transcriptional cointegrator
molecule CBP has been reported to bind, and in some cases to
coactivate, both GR (30, 31) and NF-
B p65 (32, 33). We considered
that CBP might modulate p65-GR antagonism by serving as a limiting
cofactor required by both NF-
B and GR. Therefore, using transient
cotransfection/CAT reporter assays, we examined whether
overexpression of CBP influences p65/GR antagonism. [A similar
approach has recently been reported by Sheppard et al. (30).
However, the ratios of transfected components in that manuscript
differed significantly from those presented here.] Western blot
analyses showed that COS-1 cells have some detectable endogenous CBP,
and that CBP is overexpressed under the conditions used for the
transactivation assay (Fig. 3A
, top
panel, 3-fold induction over mock transfected cells). These
analyses also demonstrate that CBP cotransfection has little effect on
the expression of p65 and significantly influences neither the
expression nor the characteristic ligand-induced homologous
down-regulation of GR (Fig. 3A
, center and lower panels).
Transactivation of an NF-
B responsive reporter by low levels of
cotransfected p65, shown in Fig. 3B
, is coactivated by coexpressed CBP.
Surprisingly, coexpression of CBP under these submaximal
transactivation conditions significantly enhances the repressive effect
of GR on p65 signaling (Fig. 3C
). Specifically, coexpression of CBP
allowed full repression of p65 transactivation with only 100 ng of
transfected GR, while in the absence of CBP, 250 ng of GR are required
for full repression. When larger amounts of p65 are transfected (Fig. 3D
) the p65 signaling is not enhanced by overexpression of CBP,
presumably because there is already a maximal transcriptional response.
However, even under these conditions, GR-mediated repression of p65 is
enhanced by coexpressed CBP. Dexamethasone has been shown to increase
expression of the NF-
B inhibitory subunit I
B
in some cell
types (21). We therefore considered whether the observed repression of
p65 by GR might be due, in part, to induction of I
B
levels, an
effect that could be stimulated by overexpression of CBP. Western
analyses of the cotransfected cells 6 and 18 h after addition of
dexamethasone indicated that neither GR activation nor overexpression
of CBP alters I
B
levels in these cells (18 h, shown in Fig. 3C
).

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. CBP Enhances p65-Mediated Transactivation and
Transcriptional Antagonism of NF- B p65 by GR
COS-1 cells were transiently transfected with 5 µg total DNA as
described in Fig. 1 . DNA transfected included: .7 µg 3XMHCCAT
reporter; 00.7 µg GR as indicated; 0.03 µg (for A and D) or 4 ng
(for B and C) p65 as a transactivator; 0.35, 0.7, or 3.5 µg CBP; and
empty backbone vector (pCMV5) to maintain a constant amount of DNA per
transfection. All data points represent the mean ±
SEM of three to four independent experiments. Western blots
are representative samples of two to three independent experiments. A,
Western analysis of CBP overexpression in transfected COS-1 cells (3.5
µg, i.e. 10X, CBP DNA transfected) (top
panel), and the inability of CBP coexpression to alter p65
(center panel) or the expression or ligand-induced
down-regulation of GR (lower panel). B, Coactivation of
p65-mediated transactivation by overexpressed CBP. Suboptimal
p65-mediated transactivation of 3XMHCCAT (4 ng of p65) is increased by
64% in the presence of 3.5 µg cotransfected CBP. C, Submaximal p65
transactivation (4 ng p65). CBP (3.5 µg) significantly enhances
repression of p65 transactivation by ligand-bound GR (compare
third and fourth bars). D, Maximal transactivation of
the p65-responsive reporter 3XMHCCAT (0.03 µg p65; 0.7 µg GR; 0.35
or 0.7 µg CBP). Ligand-activated GR (third bar)
antagonizes p65 transactivation, while CBP alone (fourth
bar) does not affect p65 transactivation. CBP cotransfected
with GR (bars 5 and 6) enhances the GR-mediated
antagonism of p65 transactivation. (* = significant enhancement of
repression). E, Western blot of I B in COS-1 cotransfected with
0.7 µg GR or GR plus 3.5 µg CBP and subjected to 18 h of
dexamethasone stimulation. Neither activation of GR nor overexpression
of CBP alter I B levels.
|
|
We then considered the effect of overexpressed CBP on the
transactivation potential of GR and its repression by p65. We first
performed a GR transactivation assay using a submaximal concentration
of glucocorticoid (10-9 M
dexamethasone) as shown in Fig. 4A
. When
assessed under these conditions, GR transactivation is significantly
enhanced by coexpression of CBP. Although CBP coactivates GR
transcriptional activity under these conditions, GR function is not
fully rescued from p65-mediated repression by CBP (Fig. 4B
). Rather,
the partial repression of GR by p65 (Fig. 4B
, fourth set of
bars) is significantly enhanced to full repression by coexpressed
CBP. Figure 4C
shows that, under maximal stimulation (i.e.
10-7 M
dexamethasone), GR transactivation of the GRE2CAT reporter is not
enhanced by overexpressed CBP, but CBP slightly enhances the repressive
effect of p65 on GR function. We attribute the lack of GR coactivation
by overexpressed CBP to the fact that the saturating dexamethasone
concentration fully activated the GR in our transactivation assay,
leaving no room for transcriptional enhancement by CBP.

View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. CBP Enhances Transcriptional Activation by GR and
the Antagonism of GR by NF- B p65
COS-1 cells were transiently transfected as in Fig. 1 , with the
exception that in the GR transactivation studies, 3.5 µg CBP were
included where indicated, while p65 was ramped from 00.25 µg. For
panel D., 0.7 µg CBP and 0.35 µg p65RHD or p65 were used. All data
points represent the mean ± SEM of three to four
independent experiments. A. Coactivation of GR transcriptional activity
by CBP. At 109 M dex, GR transactivation of GRE2CAT is
significantly enhanced by coexpression of 10X CBP. B, Transactivation
of the reporter GRE2CAT by GR (10-9
M dex). Cotransfection of CBP (black bars)
significantly enhances p65-mediated antagonism of ligand-dependent GR
transactivation. (* = significant coactivation of GR, =
significantly enhanced p65-mediated repression of GR) C,
Transactivation of the reporter GRE2CAT by GR
(10-7 M dex).
Cotransfection of CBP (black bars) weakly enhances
p65-mediated antagonism of ligand-dependent GR transactivation. D,
Transactivation of GRE2CAT by GR (10-7
M dex). CBP (third bar) has no
significant effect on GR transactivation. p65 represses transactivation
by 87% (fourth bar), while coexpression of CBP with p65
increases this repression to 94% (fifth bar). p65RHD does
not significantly repress GR-mediated transactivation (sixth
bar), while coexpression of CBP with p65RHD (seventh
bar) represses GR function by 28%.
|
|
Together, the data presented in Figs. 3
and 4A
C support the idea that
CBP is an important modulator of NF-
B/GR interactions and
antagonism. However, since overexpressed CBP enhances NF-
B/GR
antagonism rather than rescuing their transcriptional activation, these
data argue that CBP does not function as a limiting factor for which
these transcription factors compete, as previously proposed (30). Since
CBP enhanced the mutual antagonism of p65 and GR, we also considered
the possibility that CBP might facilitate the ability of p65 RHD to
repress GR signaling. As shown in Fig. 4D
, overexpression of CBP
enables p65 RHD to partially repress GR transactivation. However,
although this repression is statistically significant, it is very weak
when compared with the repressive effect of the wild-type p65.
Together, the results of these functional studies indicate that CBP is
an integrator of GR/NF
B antagonism.
CBP Enhances the Physical Interaction and Function of p65 with
Agonist-Bound, but Not Antagonist-Bound, GR
To further elucidate the mechanism(s) by which CBP enhances p65-GR
antagonism, we examined the role of CBP in p65-GR physical interaction
by in vitro coimmunoprecipitation assay. Addition of
in vitro translated CBP enhanced the physical interaction of
p65 with GR bound to the glucocorticoid agonist dexamethasone (Fig. 5A
), suggesting that CBP enhances p65-GR
transcriptional antagonism by facilitating their proper physical
interaction. When GR was treated with the glucocorticoid antagonist RU
486 (Fig. 5B
), GR/p65 interactions in the absence of transfected CBP
were similar to those seen for agonist bound GR. However, addition of
CBP had no enhancing effect on the physical interaction of
antagonist-bound GR and p65. These data suggested that antagonist-bound
GR possesses a conformation sufficiently similar to the agonist-bound
GR to allow physical interaction with p65, yet sufficiently different
to block the GR interaction with CBP. To test this hypothesis, we
assessed the ability of CBP to coimmunoprecipitate GR in the presence
of dexamethasone as compared with RU 486. Figure 5C
shows that
dexamethasone-bound GR precipitates in immune complexes with CBP,
whereas RU 486-bound GR does not coimmunoprecipitate with CBP (similar
results were seen when an antibody against unlabeled GR was used to
coimmunoprecipitate labeled CBP, data not shown).

View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. CBP Differentially Affects the Physical Interaction
of Agonist- or Antagonist-Bound GR with p65
In vitro coimmunoprecipitation assays were performed as
described in Materials and Methods and Fig. 2 . For
panels A and B, labeled GR was immunoprecipitated with antiserum
recognizing the unlabeled p65. For panel C, antiserum recognizing the
unlabeled IVT CBP was used. Graphs represent the results
of five to seven independent coimmunoprecipitations expressed as the
mean ± SEM. A typical autoradiogram is shown for
each data set. A, CBP enhances physical interaction of
dexamethasone-bound GR with p65. B, CBP does not enhance physical
interaction of RU-486-bound GR with p65. C, Dexamethasone-bound GR
physically interacts with CBP, while RU-486-bound GR does not.
|
|
Since we observed that RU 486-bound GR is capable of repressing
p65-mediated transactivation (27), it became of considerable interest
to determine whether CBP overexpression also enhances the ability of
this RU 486/GR complex to repress p65 transactivation. To address this
question, we performed a p65 transactivation assay identical to the
assay depicted in Fig. 3B
, with the exception that RU 486 replaced
dexamethasone as the ligand for GR. The results, shown in Fig. 6
, confirm that RU 486-bound GR is
capable of repressing p65-mediated transactivation (the level of
repression is
50% of that seen with dexamethasone-bound GR, Figs. 6A
and 3B
), but CBP coexpression does not enhance the repressive effect
of antagonist-bound GR.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6. Repression of p65 Transactivation by
Antagonist-Bound GR is Not Enhanced by CBP
Transactivation assay was performed as described in Fig. 3B .
A, A representative experiment showing the effect of
dexamethasone-bound GR and CBP on p65 transactivation. B,
Antagonism of p65 function by RU 486-bound GR (third bar) is
not affected by cotransfected CBP (bars 4 and 5).
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION
|
---|
The regulation of immune and inflammatory responses is of profound
importance to the survival of an organism. Without inflammation and
activation of the immune system, an organism could not survive the
insult of injury or invading pathogens, yet without mechanisms to shut
down prolonged, inappropriate, or excessive immune response and
inflammation, the organism would die from damage caused by these
physiological responses. Given the critical nature of immune
homeostasis, understanding the mechanisms by which NF-
B and GR,
transcription factors with prominent and opposing roles in the
regulation of inflammation, interact to regulate these physiological
processes has become a major focus of research over the past
decade.
We have focused on understanding the nature of the mutual
transcriptional antagonism that occurs between NF-
B and GR, the
mechanism of which is understood to involve a physical interaction
between the p65 subunit of NF-
B and multiple domains of GR (1, 20, 24, 27, 28). The data presented here more clearly define the mechanisms
of interaction between p65 and GR that result in their mutual
antagonism, both by identifying the transactivation domain of p65 as an
essential element for transrepression of GR and by identifying a
potential role for transcriptional cofactors such as CBP as mediators
of the NF-
B/GR physiological antagonism.
We demonstrate that the p65 transactivation domain is required to block
GR transactivation (Fig. 1C
), but not for efficient physical
interactions between GR and p65 (Fig. 2
). These data argue that, while
physical interactions between NF-
B and GR probably mediate their
mutual antagonism, some function beyond the physical interaction must
occur to elicit efficient transrepression. Therefore, we considered the
role of the transcriptional cointegrator molecule CBP as a mediator of
the observed mutual antagonism. CBP is known to interact with a wide
variety of basal transcription factors, inducible transcription factors
(including NF-
B and GR), and cofactors, serving in some instances as
a coactivator and in others as a central "integrator/adapter" that
assembles multiple transcription regulatory proteins together on DNA
(30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36). Given the apparent dual nature of CBP function, we considered
two possible ways that CBP might modulate the interactions of p65 and
GR: first, as a limiting, mutually required transcriptional cofactor
for which GR and p65 compete [a mechanism of action previously
described for CBP as a modulator of GR/AP-1 antagonism (31)] or
second, as an adapter which brings p65 and GR into a specific physical
association on the DNA. A recently published study by Sheppard et
al. (30), using in vitro transactivation assays similar
to those employed here, concludes that CBP is indeed a limiting
cofactor for p65 and GR. The data shown here also indicate a role for
CBP in p65-GR antagonism but do not support the same proposed mechanism
of action. Given that our experiments showed overexpression of CBP to
enhance both the mutual antagonism of p65 and GR (Figs. 3
and 4
) and
the physical interaction between these two transcription factors (Fig. 5A
), our data clearly argue against a competition mechanism and support
a mechanism whereby CBP integrates p65 and GR on the DNA. Another
possible mechanism for CBP involvement in NF-
B/GR antagonism is
hinted at in studies by Lopez et al. (37) concerning the
role of CBP and other coactivators in the cross-talk between estrogen
(ER) and thyroid hormone (TR) receptors. These investigators also found
that overexpression of the coactivators CBP and SRC-1A exacerbated,
rather than abolished, nuclear receptor negative cross-talk.
Interestingly, unpublished data from our laboratory also suggest a role
for SRC-1A in mediating NF-
B/GR interactions.
Some important differences exist between the CBP overexpression studies
shown here and those of Sheppard et al., which may explain
the lack of agreement concerning the role of CBP in p65-GR
interactions. For example, we used an NF-
B reporter
construct containing three copies of the major
histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I NF-
B site (27),
which results in robust transactivation in response to p65 even in the
absence of cotransfected CBP; in contrast, those investigators used a
reporter construct containing a portion of the E-selectin promoter,
which apparently requires the presence of CBP, SRC-1, or other
coactivator to strongly activate transcription. While the GR reporter
construct and cell type we used for GR transactivation studies did not
differ from those reported by Sheppard et al., CBP or SRC-1
was required for strong transactivation by GR under their experimental
conditions; under the conditions reported here, however, GR exhibits a
strong ligand-dependent transactivation function in the absence of
cotransfected coactivators. Perhaps most importantly, we find that at
submaximal dexamethasone concentrations we get significant coactivation
of GR transactivation function with a 10-fold excess of transfected CBP
DNA, while Sheppard et al. demonstrate coactivation using as
much as 1000-fold excesses of CBP DNA.
Previous work from our laboratory showed that RU-486 (antagonist)-bound
GR, which is localized in the nucleus and binds DNA but is
transcriptionally inactive, represses p65-mediated transactivation
(27). However, as confirmed in Fig. 6
, the repression of p65
transactivation by antagonist-bound GR is only about 50% as efficient
as that observed with agonist-bound GR. These data led us to
hypothesize that antagonist-bound GR attains a conformation that allows
it to physically interact with both DNA and p65 in a manner similar to
agonist-bound GR, allowing partial repression of p65 transactivation,
yet differs in its interactions with CBP, therefore lacking the
efficiency of repression observed with the agonist-bound conformation.
Figure 6
shows that, unlike the situation for dexamethasone-bound GR
(Figs. 3B
and 6A
), CBP does not enhance the repression of p65
transactivation by antagonist-bound GR. Taken together with the data in
Fig. 5
, B and C, showing that 1) RU-486-bound GR coimmunoprecipitates
with p65, 2) the coimmunoprecipitation is not enhanced in the presence
of CBP, and 3) this antagonist-bound form of GR does not
co-immunoprecipitate with CBP whereas the agonist-bound form of GR
does, these data make a strong case for the validity of our
hypothesis.
As diagrammed in Fig. 7
, we propose a
working model for the mechanisms of NF-
B/GR interactions and
transcriptional antagonism that might explain, in part, their
physiological antagonism. Figure 7A
represents two alternative models
for the role of CBP in p65/GR interaction. As shown, activated NF-
B
and GR physically interact, and both transcription factors are capable
of binding to CBP. These two transcription factors may compete for
binding to available CBP, a mechanism that we term the "mutually
exclusive" model. Alternatively, as we propose, CBP might bind to
both factors simultaneously, resulting in the ternary complex
diagrammed in the bottom panel and termed the "integrative
model." This schematic may help to explain the apparent
inconsistencies in the observed role of CBP in p65-GR antagonism
between our studies and those of Sheppard et al. (30), since
vast overexpression of CBP would greatly increase the likelihood of
having each transcription factor bound to a separate molecule of CBP,
in effect driving the integrated complex of NF-
B, GR, and CBP to the
separate entities diagrammed in the mutually exclusive model. Figure 7B
summarizes the p65- and GR-mediated signaling pathways and the proposed
role of CBP both as a coactivator and as an integrator of
transcription factor cross-talk. Transactivation of a
glucocorticoid-responsive gene is mediated by binding of activated GR
homodimer to glucocorticoidresponsive elements in the promoter.
The DNA-bound GR then interacts, directly, and indirectly via CBP, with
the general transcriptional machinery to activate transcription.
Similarly, transactivation of an NF-
B-responsive gene is
mediated by binding of activated NF-
B p65/p50 heterodimer to
B-sites in the gene promoter and subsequent interaction of this
DNA-bound heterodimer with CBP and the general transcriptional
machinery. The simultaneous activation of GR and NF-
B results in
both factors being present in the same nucleus. We propose that the
interaction of these factors in the nucleus causes mutual
transcriptional antagonism because it results in a transcription
factor/cofactor complex that holds both GR and NF-
B in a
conformation that is incapable of forming correct contacts with the
general transcriptional machinery and/or other transcriptional
cofactors. Since p65 and GR interact both directly and through the
integrator CBP (reviewed in Ref. 2), the theorized function of CBP in
this model is to enhance or stabilize the interaction that occurs
between p65 and GR. The finding that antagonist-bound GR does not
interact with CBP, yet partially represses p65-mediated transcription,
suggests, however, that CBP integration is not the sole mediator of
p65-GR interaction. It is likely that direct transcription factor
interaction or the actions of other transcriptional cofactors also
contribute to the observed mutual antagonism.
The data presented here support an important role for CBP in modulating
the NF-
B/GR interactions and suggest that the relative abundance of
p65, GR, and CBP may be an important factor in the transcriptional
outcome of these interactions. For transcriptional
activation of the GR- and NF-
B responsive reporter genes examined in
this report, the result of NF-
B interacting with GR is mutual
transcriptional antagonism. Future study into the mechanisms of
NF-
B/GR interaction may also reveal other outcomes of this
transcription factor cross-talk, which are modulated by additional,
cell type-specific transcriptional cofactors. However, mutual
antagonism, mediated by the action of CBP and probably other
transcriptional cofactors [e.g. reports by Sheppard
et al. (30), Lopez et al. (37), and our
unpublished results suggest a role for SRC-1A in NF-
B/GR antagonism
as well], has been well studied and is very likely the predominant
outcome of NF-
B/GR interactions in immune cells in which both these
signaling pathways are activated.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
---|
Cell Culture
COS-1 (African Green Monkey kidney) cells were maintained at 37
C in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere in DMEM with
high glucose (DMEM-H), supplemented with 2 mM glutamine,
10% FCS-calf serum (CS) 1:1 (Summit Biotechnology, Ft.
Collins, CO), 100 IU/ml penicillin, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin. Cells
were passaged every 3 to 4 days. JEG-3 (human choriocarcinoma) cells
obtained from ATCC (Manassas, VA) were maintained at 37 C
in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere in Eagles
MEM with Earles salts, 2 mM glutamine, 10% FCS, 100
IU/ml penicillin, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin. Two hours before each
transfection experiment, culture media were changed to formulations
using sera stripped of endogenous steroids using dextran-coated
charcoal. Cells were maintained in this charcoal-stripped media until
cells were harvested for reporter assays after transfection.
Steroids
Dexamethasone (1,4-pregnadien-9
-fluoro-16
-methyl-11ß,
17, 21-triol-3, 20-dione) was purchased from Steraloids, Inc. (Wilton,
NH). RU 38486 (RU 486) was obtained from Roussel Uclaf (Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc., Kansas City, MO).
Recombinant Expression Vectors
Human transcription factor NF-
B p65 subunit (pCMVp65) in a
pCMV4T backbone and the NF-
B reporter 3XMHCCAT were obtained from
Dr. A. S. Baldwin (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC).
Detailed descriptions for these constructs are available elsewhere (27, 38, 39). 3XMHCCAT has three copies of a major histocompatibility
complex class I NF-
B site cloned upstream of a minimal promoter CAT
(chloramphenicol acetyl transferase) expression vector (27). The GR
expression vector pCYGR contains human GR cDNA cloned into the pCMV5
plasmid. For determination of GR transactivation, the GRE2CAT reporter
was used. This construct, described in detail elsewhere (40) contains
two copies of the GRE sequence from the tyrosine aminotransferase gene
and an adenoviral TATA box upstream from the CAT gene. p65 RHD was
obtained from Dr. H. Winkler (Sandoz Center for Immunobiology, Harvard
Medical School, Boston, MA). This truncated human p65 construct,
generated by PCR from the parent pCMV4Tp65 vector, was completely
described by Anrather et al. (29). The murine CBP expression
construct pcDNA3-CBP-FLAG2X, obtained from Dr.
M. G. Rosenfeld (University of California, San Diego, La Jolla,
CA) was described by Kamei et al. (31).
Transient Transfections
COS-1 cells were transfected with vector DNA constructs using
SuperFect (QIAGEN, Inc. Santa Clarita, CA) cationic
transfection reagent after a 2-h incubation in medium stripped of
endogenous steroids. SuperFect-DNA precipitates were applied to cells
for 1.5 h, after which the transfection solution was replaced with
fresh supplemented, charcoal-stripped growth medium. Where
appropriate, 10-7 M dexamethasone or
10-6 M RU 486 was added to the
medium after transfection, and cells were allowed to grow in the
presence or absence of hormone for 1820 h before harvest for CAT
assay. Parallel transfections to assess protein expression by Western
blot were processed as described previously (1).
CAT Assays
Transcriptional activities were determined by standard CAT assay
(41). Briefly, 1820 h after transfection, monolayer cells were
harvested by scraping from culture dish into cold PBS. Cells were then
pelleted, resuspended in 0.25 M Tris buffer (pH 8), and
lysed by tip sonication. Cellular debris was pelleted at 14,000 x
g, and the supernatant was incubated at 65 C for 10 min to
inactivate endogenous inhibitors of CAT. Activated cell extracts were
assayed for protein content by the method of Bradford (42), using a
commercially available reagent kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. Hercules, CA). Volumes of extract containing known amounts
of total protein from 1150 µg were then incubated for 18 h
with 14C-radiolabeled chloramphenicol (NEN Life Science Products, Boston, MA) in the presence of 1
mM acetyl-CoA (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Indianapolis, IN). Reactions were stopped by ethyl
acetate extraction, and CAT activities were determined by separation of
acetylated products from substrate by TLC on silica gel 60 plates in
1:19 methanol-chloroform. Acetylated product formed was detected by
exposing silica plates to an imaging plate and quantitated using
PhosphorImager technology (Molecular Dynamics, Inc.,
Sunnyvale, CA). CAT activities are measured as percent substrate
converted to acetylated products. Average percent acetylation in
control samples is set equal to 1, and all other values are presented
in terms of percent average control transactivation (acetylation).
Variations in fold induction of dexamethasone samples over control
samples between GR transactivation experiments are attributable to
fluctuations in absolute levels of background GR transactivation/CAT
activity, which we have observed to vary somewhat with batch of serum
and cell passage number. In all cases, the data represent the mean
± SEM of at least three independent
experiments.
In Vitro Coimmunoprecipitation Assays
Proteins to be assessed were in vitro translated
(IVT) using the TnT Reticulocyte Lysate System from Promega Corp. (Madison, WI). When a labeled product was desired,
Tran35S-label 70%
L-methionine (ICN Biochemicals, Inc., Irvine, CA) was included with the programmed lysate.
In vitro translated GR was treated with
10-7 M dexamethasone or
10-6 M RU 486 for 2 h
at 0 C and then activated by incubation at room temperature for 30 min.
IVT products were incubated together in cross-link buffer (20
mM HEPES, 50 mM KCl, 2.5
mM MgCl2 and 1
mM dithiothreitol) at room temperature and then
cross-linked with 2.5 mM DSP (dithiobis
succinmidyl propionate, Pierce Chemical Co., Rockford,
IL). Cross-link reagent was quenched with 0.1 M
ethanolamine, and samples were then diluted in IP buffer (10
mM Tris, pH 7.4, 150 mM
NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 0.5% Na+
deoxycholate, 0.5% NP40, 0.1 M ethanolamine) for
subsequent immunoprecipitation. A protease inhibitor cocktail
(containing phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, pefabloc, pepstatin,
aprotinin, leupeptin, antipain) at manufacturer-specified
concentrations (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) was included
in all buffers. Reactions were precleared for 20 min at room
temperature with normal rabbit serum and protein A sepharose to reduce
nonspecific binding to the sepharose beads. Antisera (described below)
to target proteins and protein A sepharose were then added to the
cleared reactions, and samples were rotated at 4 C overnight. Sepharose
was pelleted at 14,000 x g for 1 min and then washed
extensively in cold IP buffer. Pellets were resuspended in Laemmli
sample buffer boiled for 5 min to dissociate immune complexes from the
sepharose. Samples were subjected to SDS-PAGE and autoradiography to
detect the amount of labeled protein that was coimmunoprecipitated with
the unlabeled target protein. Amount of labeled protein
immunoprecipitated was quantitated (in pixels) by densitometry using
NIH Image software and was expressed as percent above background
(amount pulled down with nonspecific serum, i.e. preimmune
or normal rabbit serum, present). For each coimmunoprecipitation shown,
a converse control experiment was also performed where the opposite
component of the complex was radiolabeled and pulled down with antisera
against the unlabeled component. These data, not shown, were used to
confirm that precipitation results were not peculiar to one antiserum
but could be reproduced with antibodies against any component of the
immune complex.
Antibodies
To immunoprecipitate GR, a 1:1 mixture of antibodies 57 and 59
[epitope-specific rabbit polyclonal antibodies, described previously
(43)] were used. For p65 immunoprecipitation, a 1:1 mixture of NF-
B
p65 (A) and NF-
B p65 (C) rabbit polyclonal antibodies that
recognize, respectively, the amino- and carboxy-terminal regions of
p65, (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA) was
used. To immunoprecipitate CBP, anti-CBP CT, a rabbit polyclonal IgG
raised against the C terminus of murine CBP, was used (Upstate Biotechnology, Inc. Lake Placid, NY). For detection of proteins
by Western blot (some data not shown), antibody 57, NF-
B p65 (N),
anti- I
B
(Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.), and
anti-CBP CT were used.
Statistical Analyses
All data indicated as significant were analyzed using a
t test at the 0.05 confidence level. Western blot data were
analyzed for significance by performing densitometry using NIH Image
and performing a t test on the pixel data from each
lane.
Other
All other reagents were obtained from Sigma (St.
Louis, MO).
 |
FOOTNOTES
|
---|
Address requests for reprints to: Dr. John A. Cidlowski, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD E202, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. E-mail:
Cidlowski{at}NIEHS.NIH.GOV
Received for publication October 22, 1999.
Revision received April 20, 2000.
Accepted for publication May 1, 2000.
 |
REFERENCES
|
---|
-
McKay LI, Cidlowski JA 1998 Cross-talk between nuclear
factor kappa B and the steroid hormone receptors: mechanisms of mutual
antagonism. Mol Endocrinol 12:4556[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
McKay LI, Cidlowski JA 1999 Molecular control of
immune/inflammatory responses: interactions between nuclear factor-
B
and steroid receptor-signaling pathways. Endocr Rev 20:435459[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Fujita T, Nolan GP, Ghosh S, Baltimore D 1992 Independent
modes of transcriptional activation by the p50 and p65 subunits of
NF
B. Genes Dev 6:775787[Abstract]
-
Baldwin AS 1996 The NF
B and I
B proteins: new
discoveries and insights. Annu Rev Immunol 14:649683[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Brown K, Gerstberger S, Carlson L, Franzoso G, Siebenlist U 1995 Control of I
B
proteolysis by site-specific signal-induced
phosphorylation. Science 267:14851488[Medline]
-
Traenckner EB, Wilk S, Baeuerle PA 1994 A proteasome
inhibitor prevents activation of NFkB and stabilizes a phosphorylated
form of IkB
that is still bound to NF
B. EMBO J 13:54335441[Abstract]
-
Krappmann D, Wulczyn FG, Scheidereit C 1996 Different
mechanisms control signal-induced degradation and basal turnover of the
NF-kB inhibitor IkB
in vivo. EMBO J 15:67166726[Abstract]
-
Verma IM, Stevenson JK, Schwarz EM, Van Antwerp D, Miyamoto S 1995 Rel/NF
B/I
B family: intimate tales of association and
dissociation. Genes Dev 9:27232735[CrossRef][Medline]
-
DiDonato JA, Hayakawa M, Rothwarf DM, Zandi E, Karin M 1997 A
cytokine-responsive IKB kinase that activates the transcription factor
NFkB. Nature 388:548554[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Alkalay I, Yaron A, Hatzubai A, Orian A, Ciechanover A,
Ben-Neriah Y 1995 Stimulation-dependent I
B
phosphorylation
marks the NF
B inhibitor for degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome
pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:1059910603[Abstract]
-
Palombella VJ, Rando OJ, Goldberg AL, Maniatis T 1994 The
ubiquitin-proteasome pathway is required for processing the
NF-
B1 precursor protein and the activation of NF-
B. Cell 78:773785[Medline]
-
Mercurio F, Zhu H, Murray BW, Shevchenko A, Bennett BL, Li J,
DBY, Barbosa M, Mann M, Manning A, Rao A 1997 IKK-1 and IKK-2: cytokine
activated IkB kinase essential for NFkB activation. Science 278:860866[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Verma I, Stevenson J 1997 IkB kinase: beginning, not the end.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1175811760[Free Full Text]
-
Woronicz JD, Gao X, Cao Z, Rothe M, Goeddel DV 1997 IkB kinase
beta: NF-kB activation and complex formation with IkB kinase-
and
NIK. Science 278:866869[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Zhong H, SuYang H, Erdjument-Bromage H, Tempst P, Ghosh S 1997 The transcriptional activity of NF-KB is regulated by the
I-KB-associated PKAc subunit through a cyclic AMP-independent
mechanism. Cell 89:413424[Medline]
-
Zhong H, Voll R, Ghosh S 1998 Phosphorylation of NF-kB p65 by
PKA stimulates transcriptional activity by promoting a novel bivalent
interaction with the coactivator CBP/p300. Mol Cell 1:661671[Medline]
-
Adcock IM, Lane SJ, Brown CR, Lee TH, Barnes PJ 1995 Abnormal
glucocorticoid receptor-activator protein 1 interaction in
steroid-resistant asthma. J Exp Med 182:19511958[Abstract]
-
Barnes PJ 1995 Inhaled glucocorticoids for asthma. N Engl
J Med 332:868875[Free Full Text]
-
Kirkham BW, Corkill MM, Davison SC, Panayi GS 1991 Response to
glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: in vitro
cell mediated immune assay predicts in vivo responses.
J Rheumatol 18:821825[Medline]
-
Ray A, Siegel MD, Prefontaine KE, Ray P 1995 Anti-inflammation: direct physical association and functional
antagonism between transcription factor NF-KB and the glucocorticoid
receptor. Chest 107:139S[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Auphan N, DiDonato JA, Rosette C, Helmberg A, Karin M 1995 Molecular basis for immunosuppression by glucocorticoids: inhibition of
NF
B activity through induction of IKB synthesis. Science 270:286290[Abstract]
-
Barnes PJ, Adcock IM 1997 NF-KB: a pivotal role in asthma and
a new target for therapy. Trends Pharmacol Sci 18:4650[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Brostjan C, Anrather J, Csizmadia V, Stroka D, Soares M, Bach
FH, Winkler H 1996 Glucocorticoid-mediated repression of NF-kB activity
in endothelial cells does not involve induction of IkB
synthesis.
J Biol Chem 271:1961219616[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Caldenhoven E, Liden J, Wissink S, Van de Stolpe A,
Raaijimakers J, Koenderman L, Okret S, Gustafsson JA, Van der Saag PT 1995 Negative cross-talk between Rel A and the glucocorticoid receptor:
a possible mechanism for the antiinflammatory action of
glucocorticoids. Mol Endocrinol 9:401412[Abstract]
-
Cato AC, Wade E 1996 Molecular mechanisms of anti-inflammatory
action of glucocorticoids. Bioessays 18:371378[Medline]
-
Heck S, Bender K, Kullmann M, Gottlicher M, Herrlich P, Cato
AP 1997 IkB
-independent downregulation of NF-kB activity by
glucocorticoid receptor. EMBO J 16:46984707[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Scheinman RI, Gualberto A, Jewell CM, Cidlowski JA, Baldwin AS 1995 Characterization of mechanisms involved in transrepression of
NF
B by activated glucocorticoid receptors. Mol Cell Biol 15:943953[Abstract]
-
Ray A, Prefontaine K 1994 Physical association and functional
antagonism between the p65 subunit of transcription factor NF
B
and the glucocorticoid receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:752756[Abstract]
-
Anrather J, Csizmadia V, Brostjan C, Soares MP, Bach FH,
Winkler H 1997 Inhibition of bovine endothelial cell activation
in vitro by regulated expression of a transdominant
inhibitor of NF-
B. J Clin Invest 99:763772[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Sheppard KA, Phelps KM, Williams AJ, Thanos D, Glass CK,
Rosenfeld MG, Gerritsen ME, Collins T 1998 Nuclear integration of
glucocorticoid receptor and nuclear factor-
B signaling by
CREB-binding protein and steroid receptor coactivator-1. J Biol
Chem 273:2929129294[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Kamei Y, Xu L, Heinzel T, Torchia J, Kurokawa R, Gloss B, Lin
SC, Heyman RA, Rose DW, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG 1996 A CBP integrator
complex mediates transcriptional activation and AP-1 inhibition by
nuclear receptors. Cell 85:403414[Medline]
-
Kurokawa R, Kalafus D, Ogliastro MH, Kioussi C, Xu L, Torchia
J, Rosenfeld MG, Glass CK 1998 Differential use of CREB binding
protein-coactivator complexes. Science 279:700703[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Gerritsen ME, Williams AJ, ASN, Moore S, Shi Y, Collins T 1997 CREB-binding protein/p300 are transcriptional coactivators of p65. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 94:29272932[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Yao T-P, Ku G, Zhou N, Scully R, Livingston DM 1996 The
nuclear hormone receptor coactivator SRC-1 is a specific target of
p300. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:1062610631[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Shibata H, Spencer TE, Onate SA, Jenster G, Tsai SY, Tsai M-J,
OMalley BW 1997 Role of coactivators and corepressors in the
mechanism of steroid/thyroid receptor action. Recent Prog Horm Res 52:141164[Medline]
-
Shimizu M, Nishida A, Zensho H, Miyata M, Yamawaki S 1997 Down-regulation of 5-hydroxytryptamine 7 receptors by dexamethasone in
rat frontocortical astrocytes. J Neurochem 68:26042609[Medline]
-
Lopez GN, Webb P, Shinsako JH, Baxter JD, Greene GL, Kushner
PJ 1999 Titration by estrogen receptor activation function-2 of targets
that are downstream from coactivators. Mol Endocrinol 13:897909[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Stein B, Cogswell PC, ASBJ 1993 Functional and physical
association between NFKB and C/EBP family members. Mol Cell Biol 13:39643974[Abstract]
-
Stein B, Baldwin JAS, Ballard DW, Greene WC, Angel P, Herrlich
P 1993 Cross-coupling of the NF Kappa B p65 and FOS/JUN transcription
factors produces potentiated biological function. EMBO J 12:38793891[Abstract]
-
Allgood VE, Oakley RH, Cidlowski JA 1993 Modulation by
vitamin-B6 of glucocorticoid receptor-mediated gene expression requires
transcription factors in addition to the glucocorticoid receptor.
J Biol Chem 268:2087020876[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Gorman C 1985 High efficiency gene transfer in mammalian
cells. In: Glover DM (ed) DNA Cloning II: A Practical Approach. IRL
Press, Washington DC, pp 143161
-
Bradford MM 1976 A rapid and sensitive method for the
quantitiation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the
principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248254[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Cidlowski JA, Bellingham DL, Powell-Oliver FE, Lubahn DB, Sar
M 1990 Novel antipeptide antibodies to the human glucocorticoid
receptor: recognition of multiple receptor forms in vitro
and distinct localization of cytoplasmic and nuclear receptors. Mol
Endocrinol 4:14271437[Abstract]