Tamoxifen-Bound Estrogen Receptor (ER) Strongly Interacts with the Nuclear Matrix Protein HET/SAF-B, a Novel Inhibitor of ER-Mediated Transactivation
Steffi Oesterreich1,
Qingping Zhang1,
Torsten Hopp1,
Suzanne A. W. Fuqua1,
Marten Michaelis,
Holly H. Zhao,
James R. Davie,
C. Kent Osborne1 and
Adrian V. Lee1
Department of Medicine (S.O., Q.Z., T.H., S.A.W.F., M.M., H.H.Z.,
C.K.O., A.V.L.) Division of Oncology University of Texas Health
Science Center San Antonio, Texas 78284
Department of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (J.R.D.) University of
Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3E 0W3
 |
ABSTRACT
|
---|
The estrogen receptor (ER) is a
ligand-dependent transcription factor that acts in a cell- and
promoter-specific manner. Evidence suggests that the activity of the ER
can be regulated by a number of other stimuli (e.g. growth
factors) and that the effects of the ER are modulated by nuclear
factors termed coregulators. While the interplay among these factors
may in part explain the pleiotropic effects elicited by the ER, there
are several other less well described mechanisms of control, such as
interactions with the nuclear matrix. Here we report that the nuclear
matrix protein/scaffold attachment factor HET/SAF-B is an
ER-interacting protein. ER and HET/SAF-B interact in in
vitro binding assays, with HET binding to both the ER DNA-binding
domain and the hinge region. Coimmunoprecipitation experiments reveal
that HET/SAF-B and ER associate in cell lines in the presence or
absence of estradiol, but binding is increased by the antiestrogen
tamoxifen. HET/SAF-B enhances tamoxifen antagonism of estrogen-induced
ER-mediated transactivation, but at high concentrations can inhibit
both estrogen and tamoxifen-induced ER activity. HET/SAF-B-mediated
repression of ER activity is dependent upon interaction with the
ER-DBD. While the existence of high-affinity binding sites for the ER
in the nuclear matrix has been known for some time, we now provide
evidence of a specific nuclear matrix protein binding to the ER.
Furthermore, our data showing that HET/SAF-B binds to ER particularly
strongly in the presence of tamoxifen suggests that it may be important
for the antagonist effect of tamoxifen.
 |
INTRODUCTION
|
---|
The estrogen receptor (ER) is a member of a superfamily of nuclear
transcription factors. When the ER binds estrogen it undergoes a
conformational change that results in dimerization, binding to specific
elements of DNA, and finally altered gene transcription (1, 2). While
this model of ER action has held true for the last 30 yr, a more
complete understanding has revealed that activation of the ER is
extremely complex, with regulation by a diverse set of signals and
nuclear factors. ER action can be altered by: 1) interaction with other
nuclear transcription factors such as AP1 (3), SP1 (4, 5, 6), and members
of the basal transcription machinery (1); 2) cross-talk with growth
factor systems (7); and 3) associations with nuclear receptor
coactivators and corepressors (8).
The existence of cofactors that can regulate the transcriptional
activity of nuclear hormone receptors was first suggested by
transcriptional squelching between ER and progesterone receptor
(9, 10). A number of cofactors capable of increasing hormone
receptor action, termed coactivators, have been identified (reviewed in
Refs. 8, 11). The family of corepressors is smaller, the best
characterized being nuclear receptor corepressor (N-CoR) (8, 12) and
silencing mediator of retinoid and thyroid receptors (SMRT) (13, 14).
Recently, a corepressor termed REA, which is specific for ER, has been
identified (15). Many cofactors seem to regulate receptor activity by
modulating chromatin structure. Coactivators such as p300/CBP (16, 17),
PCAF (18, 19), and SRC-1 (20) have intrinsic histone acetyltransferase
activity, which results in the destabilization of nucleosomes, creating
a permissive state for promoter activation. In contrast, the
corepressors N-CoR (21) and SMRT (22) associate with histone
deacetylases, leading to a repressive chromatin state.
Another modulator of hormone action is the nuclear matrix, which is a
dynamic structure involved in DNA replication, transcription, repair,
and RNA processing (23). A role for the nuclear matrix in hormone
receptor action was postulated many years ago (24, 25, 26, 27, 28), but only
recently have specific nuclear matrix proteins been characterized that
directly bind to hormone receptors and modulate their activity (29).
Most recently, the glucocorticoid receptor-interacting protein GRIP 120
has been identified as the nuclear matrix protein hnRNPU (30).
HET was originally cloned in our laboratory as a nuclear matrix protein
binding to the promoter of the estrogen-regulated heat shock protein
hsp27 (31). Renz and Fackelmayer (32) cloned the same protein based on
its ability to bind to scaffold/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs),
and hence called it scaffold attachment factor B (SAF-B). Scaffold
attachment factors are a specific subset of nuclear matrix proteins
that are thought to mediate the attachment of chromatin to nuclear
protein structures (33, 34). A specific role for scaffold attachment
factors in hormone receptor action has not been described.
HET/SAF-B has recently been shown to bind to the C-terminal domain of
RNA polymerase II (RNA pol II) and to a subset of serine-/arginine-rich
RNA processing factors (SR proteins) (35). This suggests that HET/SAF-B
is involved in the formation of a transcriptosomal complex, bringing
transcription and pre-mRNA processing together. These macromolecular
complexes have previously been shown to be associated with the nuclear
matrix (36, 37).
Given the recent identification of nuclear matrix factors in hormone
receptor action, we asked whether the nuclear matrix protein HET/SAF-B
might be involved in ER action. In this report we describe the in
vitro and in vivo association of ER with HET/SAF-B,
with HET/SAF-B binding the ER in both the DBD and the hinge region. The
association of ER with HET/SAF-B occurs in the absence of ligand but is
increased by the antiestrogen tamoxifen (Tam). HET/SAF-B can enhance
the antiestrogenic effect of Tam, but when overexpressed at high levels
can also repress both estrogen and Tam agonist activity on the ER.
Finally, we have shown that the ER DBD is critical for the repressive
activity of HET/SAF-B on ER, as HET/SAF-B does not repress activity of
an ER-GAL4DBD chimera and can cause transcriptional repression of an ER
DBD fused to a heterologous transcription factor. We are currently
performing further studies to identify the mechanism of transcriptional
repression and whether this is dependent upon the nuclear matrix
properties of HET/SAF-B.
 |
RESULTS
|
---|
HET/SAF-B Binds to the ER
To analyze whether HET/SAF-B could bind to ER, we performed
glutathione-S- transferase (GST)-pulldown experiments (Fig. 1
). First we incubated in
vitro transcribed and translated ER with full-length GST-HET/SAF-B
bound to glutathione-sepharose beads (Fig. 1A
). There was no signal
when ER was incubated with GST only, in the absence of hormone or in
the presence of estradiol (E2). In contrast, ER
interacted with GST-HET/SAF-B in the absence of hormone, in the
presence of E2, and especially in the presence of
Tam. We consistently saw increased binding of ER to HET/SAF-B in the
presence of Tam compared with no ligand.

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. HET/SAF-B Directly Interacts with ER in
Vitro (GST-Pull-Down Experiments)
A, ER was labeled with 35S-methionine by in
vitro transcription/translation and tested for interaction with
GST alone and GST-HET/SAF-B in the absence of ligands, or in the
presence of 10-6 M E2 or
10-6 M Tam (as indicated). The input lane
contains 20% input of the in vitro
transcribed/translated ER. B, Schematic presentation of GST-tagged
ER domains. The numbers indicate amino acids in ERs open reading
frame. C, HET/SAF-B was labeled with 35S-methionine by
in vitro transcription/translation and tested for
interaction with GST alone and a number of GST-ER domain fusion
proteins (as indicated). The input lane contains 20% input of the
in vitro transcribed/translated HET/SAF-B.
|
|
Next we examined the ability of HET/SAF-B to interact with different
domains of ER (represented graphically in Fig. 1B
) in GST-pulldown
assays. The different GST-ER domain fusion proteins were separated on
SDS-PAGE and Coomassie stained, to ensure that the input of immobilized
GST-fusion proteins was equal (data not shown). We examined HET/SAF-B
interaction with the AF1, AF1/DNA-binding domain (DBD), DBD/Hinge, DBD,
Hinge, and AF2/Hinge domains. All incubations were performed in the
absence of hormone. As shown in Fig. 1C
, HET/SAF-B consistently
interacted strongly with the DBD/Hinge, AF2/Hinge, and AF1/DBD domains
and weakly with the Hinge or DBD only. In contrast, we could not detect
an interaction between HET/SAF-B and AF1. Thus, there are at least two
HET/SAF-B binding sites in the ER protein, one in the DBD and the other
one in the Hinge region. The HET/SAF-B interaction with AF2/Hinge was
stronger than the interaction with Hinge only, suggesting that there
may be another interaction domain within AF2. Thus, as described for
the interaction between other cofactors and steroid receptors (38),
HET/SAF-B potentially interacts with multiple regions within ER.
We next asked whether we could detect an interaction between HET/SAF-B
and ER within cells. Therefore, we transiently transfected COS-7 cells
with expression plasmids for HET/SAF-B and hemagglutinin (HA)-tagged
ER. Immunoprecipitation of HET/SAF-B followed by immunoblotting for HA
revealed a band with the molecular mass of ER (
68 kDa) that was only
seen when cells were transfected with both ER and HET/SAF-B, but not in
cells transfected with HET/SAF-B only (Fig. 2A
, left panel). A similar
experiment, but in a reciprocal manner, was performed using an
HA-antibody to immunoprecipitate and the HET/SAF-B antibody for
immunoblotting. As expected, a band at the molecular mass of HET/SAF-B
(
130 kDa) was detected in cells transfected with HET/SAF-B and ER,
but not in cells transfected with HET/SAF-B only (Fig. 2A
, right
panel).

View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. HET/SAF-B and ER Interact in Cells
(Coimmunoprecipitations)
A, COS-7 cells were transiently transfected with expression
constructs for HA-tagged ER (ER/HA) and HET/SAF-B as indicated, and
lysed in low stringency buffer. The cell lysates were
immunoprecipitated with an anti-HET/SAF-B antibody, subjected to
electrophoresis, and immunoblotted with an anti-HA antibody
(left panel). The cell lysates were immunoprecipitated
with an anti-HA antibody, subjected to electrophoresis, and
immunoblotted with an anti-HET/SAF-B antibody (right
panel). B, MCF-7 cells were lysed in LS and HS buffer, the
lysates from duplicate plates were immunoprecipitated with an
anti-HET/SAF-B antibody, and the immunoprecipitates were subjected to
electrophoresis. For the immunoblot anti-HET/SAF-B and anti-ER antibody
were used. C, MCF-7 LS lysates were immunoprecipitated with an
HET/SAF-B antibody, with HET/SAF-B antibodies preincubated with
HET/SAF-B peptide, or without antibody. The immunoblots were performed
with HET/SAF-B antibody. D, MCF-7 cells were incubated without ligand,
with 10-9 M E2, or with
10-9 M Tam for 24 h. The immunoblots were
performed with HET/SAF-B antibody (left top panel) and
ER antibody (left bottom panel). The
lysates were also immunoblotted with an ER antibody (right top
panel). The bar graph represents intensity
ratios of immunoprecipiated ER to immunoblotted ER in the lysates (see
Materials and Methods). E, COS-7 cells were
transfected with expression plasmids for HET/SAF-B and ER-HA. Treatment
of the cells, immunoprecipitation, and immunoblotting were performed as
described in panel C with the exception that HA antibody was used
instead of ER antibody.
|
|
The next set of coimmunoprecipitation experiments was performed to see
whether endogenous HET/SAF-B and ER indeed interact and whether this
interaction was altered by E2 or Tam. First, we
immunoprecipitated HET/SAF-B from MCF-7 breast cancer cells lysed under
low stringency (LS) and high stringency (HS) conditions (Fig. 2B
).
Under low-stringency conditions we observed coimmunoprecipitation of ER
and HET/SAF-B, whereas under high-stringency conditions more HET/SAF-B
was immunoprecipitated, but ER was dissociated from the complex. To
demonstrate that the bands on the immunoblot are indeed antibody
specific, we repeated the HET/SAF-B immunoprecipitation with HET/SAF-B
antibodies preincubated with HET/SAF-B peptide, or without antibody. As
shown in Fig. 2C
, only the immunoprecipitation with HET/SAF-B antibody
resulted in a detectable band at the molecular mass of HET/SAF-B
(
130 kDa), whereas no bands were detected using a
peptide-preincubated antibody or no antibody. Thus, in breast cancer
cells endogenous HET/SAF-B and ER interact, and this interaction can be
detected when the cells are lysed under low-stringency conditions.
To investigate the ligand dependency of this interaction, we incubated
MCF-7 cells in the absence of ligand and in the presence of
E2 or Tam, and lysed them in LS buffer. After
immunoprecipitation with HET/SAF-B antibodies, the membrane was
immunoblotted with HET/SAF-B antibodies (Fig. 2D
, left top
panel) and ER antibodies (left bottom panel). While
HET/SAF-B levels remained constant, coimmunoprecipitated ER levels
changed. ER was detectable in the absence of ligand, low levels were
detectable in the presence of E2, but much higher
levels of ER were coimmunoprecipitated in the presence of Tam. Since ER
itself is known to be down-regulated by E2 via
ubiquitin-mediated degradation (39, 40), as a control we also measured
ER levels in the lysate (Fig. 2D
, right top panel). In
contrast to HET/SAF-B, which did not change with
E2 and Tam treatment (data not shown), ER levels
decreased dramatically after E2 treatment but
were unaffected by Tam. To account for the differences in ER levels
within the actual lysates, we measured the amount of ER in the
immunoprecipitate and the lysate by densitometry and presented the
results as the ratio of ER levels immunoprecipiated with HET/SAF-B
antibodies to ER levels in the lysate (Fig. 2D
, bar graph).
While the changes in ER levels complicate an exact quantitative
analysis of the coimmunoprecipitation in the
E2-treated samples, Tam did not affect ER levels,
and it can be clearly seen that ER binds more strongly to ER in the
presence of Tam than in its absence (i.e. no ligand).
Finally, we confirmed that HET/SAF-B is strongly bound to ER in the
presence of Tam by transfecting COS-7 cells with HET/SAF-B and an
HA-tagged ER construct (Fig. 2E
). As in MCF-7 cells, there was an
association between HET/SAF-B and ER in the absence of ligand or in the
presence of E2, but again association was greater
in the presence of Tam (left bottom panel). In cell lysates,
HET/SAF-B levels did not change as a result of E2
or Tam treatment (data not shown). However, as seen with endogenous ER
in MCF-7 cells, ER levels were reduced in COS-7 cells after
E2 treatment (right top panel). When
we corrected the changes in immunoprecipitated ER for the changes in
endogenous ER levels, we were again able to detect a significant
increase in the binding of HET/SAF-B to ER in the presence of Tam (Fig. 2E
, bar graph). Thus, we conclude from our
coimmunoprecipitation experiments that HET/SAF-B and ER interact, and
that this interaction is stronger in the presence of the antiestrogen
Tam.
HET/SAF-B Overexpression Decreases ER Activity
As shown in Fig. 2
, the association between HET/SAF-B and ER is
stronger in the presence of Tam as compared with no ligand. This
observation prompted us to study the effect of HET/SAF-B on the
antagonist activity of Tam. To do this we performed transient
transfection assays in ER-negative HepG2 cells using a single estrogen
response element (ERE)-tk-luciferase construct as the reporter
gene (Fig. 3A
). The results in Fig. 3A
represent the effect of HET/SAF-B on Tam acting as an antagonist of
E2-occupied ER; i.e. cells were
incubated in the presence of both E2 and Tam. As
expected, increasing concentrations of Tam resulted in a dose-dependent
inhibition of E2-mediated ER activity (pcDNAI curve).
Cotransfection of 10 ng HET/SAF-B vector did not affect
E2-mediated activation of the ER in the absence
of Tam, or when Tam was added at a low concentration that does not have
an antagonistic effect (10-10
M). In contrast, at higher concentrations of Tam
(10-9 to 10-6
M) which antagonize E2
activation of ER, coexpression of HET/SAF-B (10 ng) significantly
enhanced the antagonism by Tam.

View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. Overexpression of HET/SAF-B Inhibits ER Activity
Cotransfection of the ERE-tk-luc (1 µg) reporter gene with expression
vectors coding for HET/SAF-B and ER as indicated in HepG2 cells. Values
are the mean ± SEM of triplicate wells, and the
graphs are representative of at least three experiments each. A, Cells
were transiently transfected with ER (25 ng) and 10 ng of pcDNAI or
HET/SAF-B plasmids and incubated in the presence of 10-9
M E2 and increasing amounts of Tam, as
indicated (*, P < 0.05, t test). B,
Cells were transfected with ER and HET/SAF-B plasmids as indicated.
Open bars represent incubation in the absence of
E2, and black bars represent incubation in
the presence of 10-9 M E2. C,
Cells were transiently transfected with ER (25 ng) and HET/SAF-B (100
and 250 ng) plasmids and incubated in the presence of 10-9
M E2 and increasing amounts of Tam, as
indicated. D, Cells were incubated in the absence of ligand
(open bar) and in the presence of 10-8
M Tam (black bars), and transfected with ER
(25 ng) and the indicated amounts of HET/SAF-B.
|
|
We next addressed how increased overexpression of HET/SAF-B could
affect the transcriptional activity of
E2-occupied ER. In the absence of ER, the
addition of E2 did not result in a significant
change in basal activity of the construct, and HET/SAF-B had no effect
on this basal activity. As expected, transfection of ER led to an
approximately 6-fold increase of transcriptional activity in the
presence of E2. The coexpression of increasing
amounts of HET/SAF-B (0150 ng) led to a significant dose-dependent
decrease in ER activity (Fig. 3B
). A similar HET/SAF-B-mediated
repression was also seen in Saos-2 cells transfected with ER (data not
shown). Increasing concentrations of HET/SAF-B (100 and 250 ng) were
also able to further enhance the antagonist activity of Tam, as shown
in Fig. 3C
.
Using the same transfection system in HepG2 cells, but incubating the
cells in the presence of Tam alone, Tam acts as an agonist and can
activate the ER. We therefore tested whether HET/SAF-B overexpression
could affect Tam agonist activity. Figure 3D
shows that Tam
(10-8 M) caused a 2- to 2.5-fold
increase in ER activity. Cotransfection with HET (100 ng) reduced this
increase by 58%, while 250 ng HET completely abolished Tam agonist
activity.
We next performed a series of additional control experiments (Fig. 4
) to exclude a nonspecific repressor
effect of HET/SAF-B. As shown in Fig. 3
, A and B, basal activity of the
ERE-tk-promoter was not inhibited by overexpression of HET/SAF-B. As
expected, the deletion of the ERE sequence led to a tk-promoter
construct that was also not affected by HET/SAF-B overexpression (Fig. 4A
, left bars). In the same experiment the ERE-tk-promoter
was inhibited by overexpression of HET/SAF-B (Fig. 4A
, right
bars), as shown previously (Fig. 3
). As is common for transient
transfection assays, the luciferase values were corrected for the
values of a second cotransfected gene, which is, in our case, an
SV40-promoter-driven ß-galactosidase (ß-gal) construct.
Overexpression of HET/SAF-B did not change ß-gal expression (Fig. 4B
), thus representing another internal negative control. In several
other experiments using other transcription factors and other reporter
constructs, we again did not see a nonspecific repression by HET/SAF-B
(detailed later).

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. HET/SAF-B-Mediated Repression of ERs
Transcriptional Activity Is Not the Result of a General Repression
Mechanism
Cotransfection of ERE-tk-luc and tk-luc reporter genes with
expression vectors coding for HET/SAF-B and ER as indicated.
Bars are the mean ± SEM of triplicate
wells and each graph is representative of at least three
experiments. A, HepG2 cells were transfected with expression plasmids
for ER and HET/SAF-B, as indicated, and with the reporter constructs
tk-luc and ERE-tk-luc, respectively. Cells were incubated in the
presence of 10-9 M E2.
B, ß-Gal values measured from the experiment shown in
panel A.
|
|
The ER-DBD Is Necessary for the Repressive Effects of HET/SAF-B
Most nuclear receptors including ER share a typical domain
structure: a Zn finger DBD is flanked by an N-terminal region that
displays a constitutive activator function domain 1 (AF-1) and the C
terminus containing the ligand-binding domain, heterodimerization
domain, and ligand-dependent activation function domain 2 (AF-2). To
delineate the importance of the DBD of ER on HET/SAF-B-mediated
repression, we made use of chimeric constructs in which the ER-DBD (aa
178257) was replaced by a GAL4-DBD and tested reporter activity on
four copies of a gal4-responsive element upstream of luciferase
(gal4-luc). As a negative control we included the GAL4DBD alone
(GAL4DBD). As a positive control we transfected wild-type ER,
HET/SAF-B, and the ERE-tk-luc. All constructs were cotransfected with
HET/SAF-B into HepG2 cells. The data are presented in Fig. 5A
(left panel) as fold over
control of each construct, since the activity of the different GAL4DBD
constructs varied over magnitudes. The relative luciferase units for
the controls (no estrogen and no HET/SAF-B) were ER = 1437.0,
gal4DBD = 1.2, and ER-gal4DBD = 26.1.

View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. ER-DBD Is Involved in HET/SAF-Bs Mediated
Repression of ERs Activity
HepG2 cells were transiently transfected with expression vectors as
indicated. Bars are the mean ± SEM of
triplicate wells and the graphs are representative of at
least three experiments each. A, Cells were transiently transfected
with various ER constructs (25 ng) and HET/SAF-B (200 ng), as
indicated, and ERE-tk-luc and the Gal4-responsive promoter construct
Gal4-luc, respectively. Since the activity of the different Gal4DBD
constructs varied over magnitudes, the data are presented as fold over
control calculated in relation to the activity of each construct seen
in the absence of ligand. The right panel shows the
result from an immunoprecipitation using lysates from COS-7 cells which
were transiently transfected with expression plasmids for HET/SAF-B and
ER-Gal4DBD. The cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with an
anti-HET/SAF-B antibody, subjected to electrophoresis, and
immunoblotted with an anti-ER antibody. B, Cells were transiently
transfected with HET/SAF-B (as indicated), with 25 ng VP16-gal4DBD and
VP16-ERDBD, and with the Gal4-responsive promoter construct Gal4-luc
and ERE-tk-luc, respectively. C, Cells were transfected with 1 µg
CMV-ERE-CAT, and ER, and HET/SAF-B as indicated. Cells were incubated
in the absence of ligand (white bars), in the presence
of 10-9 M E2 (gray
bars), and 10-7 M Tam (black
bars).
|
|
As expected, E2 increased transcriptional
activity from the ERE-tk-luc reporter construct, and the induction was
repressed by coexpression of HET/SAF-B (Fig. 5A
). Coexpression of the
gal4DBD with the gal4-luc reporter construct resulted in basal activity
that was not affected by E2 treatment and was
also not affected by coexpression of HET/SAF-B. Expression of both the
AF-1 and the AF-2 domains fused to GAL4DBD (ER-GAL4DBD) behaved like
wild-type ER with strong E2 inducibility.
However, HET/SAF-B did not repress activity while it did repress
wild-type ER activity. In addition, HET/SAF-B was not able to repress
activity of either AF-1 fused to GAL4DBD, or AF-2 fused to GAL4DBD
(data not shown). Interestingly, while HET/SAF-B was not able to
repress activity of the ER-GAL4DBD chimera, HET/SAF-B was still able to
bind to this chimera as shown by coimmunoprecipitation (Fig. 5A
, right panel). The binding of HET/SAF-B to ER GAL4DBD
substantiates the earlier in vitro GST binding experiments
indicating that HET/SAF-B can bind ER not only in the DBD, but also in
the Hinge/AF2 region. Thus, while HET/SAF-B can bind ER-GAL4DBD, it
cannot repress its activity, suggesting that the ERE-DBD is required
for transcriptional repression.
To directly assess the importance of the ER-DBD in HET/SAF-B-mediated
repression, we examined the effect of HET/SAF-B on the ER-DBD fused
with a heterologous transcription factor (VP16). As a control we
examined the effect of HET/SAF-B on VP-16 with a GAL4-DBD. As shown in
Fig. 5B
, the addition of increasing amounts of HET/SAF-B (50, 100, and
250 ng) did not affect the activity of VP16-GAL4 DBD on a GAL4 reporter
construct. In contrast, HET/SAF-B caused a dose-dependent decrease of
VP16-ER-DBD activity on a ERE-Luc reporter construct. Thus we can
conclude that the ER-DBD can mediate the HET/SAF-B transcriptional
repression effect.
A simple explanation for the repressive effect of HET/SAF-B would be if
HET/SAF-B bound to the ERE-DBD and blocked ER binding to DNA. To
examine this possibility, we asked whether HET/SAF-B had an effect on
the DNA binding properties of ER. First we confirmed that HET/SAF-B
could not bind directly to an ERE sequence using gel-shift assays and
in vitro transcribed and translated HET/SAF-B (data not
shown). To then examine whether HET/SAF-B could inhibit ER binding to
DNA, we used a promoter interference assay originally described by
Reese and Katzenellenbogen (41) in which an ERE is inserted between
the cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter (containing the TATA box) and the
start site of transcription of the chloramphenicol acetyl transferase
reporter gene (CMV-ERE-CAT) (Fig. 5C
). Constitutive expression of this
reporter construct was inhibited by coexpression of ER (Fig. 5C
). This
inhibition occurs in the absence of ligand, but is enhanced by addition
of E2 or Tam, as previously shown by Reese and
Katzenellenbogen. Coexpression of HET/SAF-B (10 ng) did not
affect the activity of the reporter construct in the absence of ER and
did not alter the ability of ER to inhibit reporter activity either in
the absence or in presence of ligand. Overexpression of HET (250 ng)
again did not affect the constitutive expression of the reporter
construct in the absence of ER. However, this high concentration of
HET/SAF-B actually increased the ability of ER to reduce reporter
activity. This would suggest that binding of HET/SAF-B does not block
the ability of ER to bind DNA, but rather that in the presence of high
concentrations of HET/SAF-B more interference occurs.
 |
DISCUSSION
|
---|
Nuclear receptors are divided into three groups: steroid
receptors, retinoic acid/thyroid receptors, and orphan receptors. A
fundamental difference between steroid receptors and retinoic
acid/thyroid receptors is that the latter are DNA-bound active
repressors in the absence of ligand. An active role for corepressors
such as N-CoR (8, 12) and SMRT (14) for the silencing activity of
unliganded retinoic acid/thyroid receptors has been well established.
Recent findings of disturbed corepressor interaction with mutated
thyroid receptors in patients with resistance to thyroid hormone
support the importance of corepressors for the normal action of
agonist- and antagonist-bound receptors (42, 43, 44).
In contrast to retinoid/thyroid receptors, steroid receptors show
little DNA binding activity in the absence of ligand and thus are
thought to have no silencing ability. However, recently it has become
clear that steroid receptors are also found in repressor complexes,
particularly when the receptor is bound to antagonists, and that the
antagonist function may in part be mediated by corepressors (15, 45, 46).
In the presence of the antiestrogen Tam, ER can still dissociate from
heat shock proteins and bind to DNA, but its AF-2 domain activity is
inhibited (47). It has been shown that ER can bind the corepressors
N-CoR and SMRT (45, 46). While binding of these corepressors is
constitutive under in vitro conditions (48),
coimmunoprecipitation experiments have indicated that N-CoR binds to ER
only in the presence of Tam (46). The specific role of N-CoR and SMRT
in the antagonist effect of Tam is unclear, but more detailed studies
have been performed concerning the agonist role of Tam. It has been
shown that overexpression of N-CoR or SMRT can inhibit Tams agonist
activity (45, 46, 48). Additionally, reduction of N-CoR by
microinjection of N-CoR-specific antibodies can convert Tam into a full
ER agonist displaying activity similar to estrogen (46). However, no
data at present confirm that N-CoR or SMRT are actually responsible or
necessary for the antagonist activity of Tam. More recently a novel
ER-specific corepressor, termed REA, has been discovered (15). REA can
potentiate the antiestrogenic effect of Tam, but when overexpressed at
high levels also inhibits estrogen activation of the ER.
In the present paper we describe another protein association with ER,
that of the nuclear matrix protein HET/SAF-B, which also has properties
consistent with its being an ER corepressor. Under in vitro
conditions, HET/SAF-B interacts with ER in the absence of ligand,
although the association is increased by Tam. Furthermore,
coimmunoprecipitation experiments show that the interaction between
HET/SAF-B and ER is stronger in the presence of Tam. The ability of Tam
to recruit HET/SAF-B, as well as N-CoR and REA, to ER suggests an
active corepression mechanism, although this remains to be specifically
proven. Due to the ability of N-CoR and REA to alter the
agonist/antagonist activity of Tam, it has been proposed that the ratio
of corepressor to coactivator levels can alter the response of the ER
to estrogen or Tam (46). Our studies with HET/SAF-B certainly fit this
model. We show that HET/SAF-B potentiates Tams antagonist activity,
while overexpression of HET/SAF-B at high levels inhibits
E2 and Tam agonist activities. Although
HET/SAF-Bs interaction with ER is weaker in the presence of
E2 as compared with Tam, we were able to detect
repression of E2-activated ER, just as described
for N-CoR (45) and REA (15). This repression probably represents
inappropriate binding between ER and HET/SAF-B in the presence of
E2 resulting from transient overexpression of
HET/SAF-B. Under normal conditions we believe that Tam recruits
HET/SAF-B to ER and that this association may be responsible, in part,
for the antagonist effect of Tam.
Over the last couple of years it has become clear that transcriptional
repression is an important strategy for fine regulation of growth,
development, and differentiation. Despite the identification of
corepressors, repressor motifs, and their targets, little is known
about specific mechanisms of repression. Models that have been proposed
include 1) interference with the formation or activity of the basal
transcriptional machinery, 2) quenching of a transcriptional activator,
and 3) induction of an inactive chromatin structure (reviewed in Ref.
49). It is likely that repression mediated by a corepressor like N-CoR
is the result of a combination of these mechanisms. N-CoR is a large
protein (270 kDa) that interacts with mSin3 and recruits histone
deacetylase (21). Deacetylation results in conformational
changes of the nucleosome structure, thereby limiting the accessibility
of chromatin to the transcriptional machinery. In addition to its
interaction with chromatin remodeling factors, Muscat et al.
(50) have recently shown that N-CoR directly interacts with the basal
transcription factors TFIIB, TAFII32, and
TAFII70.
HET/SAF-B is a nuclear matrix protein with several recently described
characteristics (31, 32, 35), which could be involved in repressive
mechanisms. Like N-CoR, which interacts with multiple factors,
HET/SAF-B is probably part of a multiprotein complex regulating ER
activity. While the work described here does not directly address the
mechanism of HET/SAF-B-mediated repression, some potential mechanisms
can be considered.
First, HET/SAF-B has recently been shown to bind to the C-terminal
domain of RNA pol II (35) in yeast two-hybrid systems. As hypothesized
for the interaction of N-CoR and basal transcription factors (50), it
is conceivable that HET/SAF-B locks the transcriptional initiation
complex into a nonfunctional state. Second, HET/SAF-B-mediated
repression might also involve changes in histone acetylation, since in
our own preliminary experiments treatment with the histone deacetylase
inhibitor trichostatin A (51) relieves HET/SAF-B-mediated
repression (S. Oesterreich, unpublished results). Third, it is possible
that the RNA-binding domain of HET/SAF-B is involved in repression. In
addition to HET/SAF-B, other RNA-binding proteins, such as L7/SPA (45),
hnRNP U (30), and more recently RNA itself, SRA (52), have been
described as coregulators of nuclear hormone receptor
action.
While HET/SAF-B shares some of the characteristics of other
coregulators, it is possible that its repressive action results from
its ability to associate with the nuclear matrix. The presence of
specific binding sites for ER, also called "acceptor proteins", in
the nuclear matrix was postulated several years ago after in
vitro reconstitution experiments showed binding of the ER to the
nuclear matrix to be saturable and of high affinity (53, 54). We have
shown previously that 1) HET/SAF-B is associated with the nuclear
matrix in biochemical fractionations (31); 2) HET/SAF-B and ER can both
be cross-linked to scaffold attachment regions (55); and 3) ER can
associate with the nuclear matrix as shown by direct visualization with
a green fluorescent protein-tagged ER (56). In this paper we
have described HET/SAF-B as a nuclear matrix protein/scaffold
attachment factor that associates with the ER.
Finally, it is important to define the domains of the steroid receptors
that are involved in the interaction with the nuclear matrix. Eggert
et al. (30) demonstrated that the C terminus of the
glucocorticoid receptor was sufficient for hnRNP U-mediated repression.
In contrast, Tang et al. (57, 58) and van Steensel et
al. (59) have shown that the DBD of the glucocorticoid receptor is
required for interaction with the nuclear matrix, and that replacement
of the GR-DBD by a Gal4DBD resulted in loss of hnRNPU-mediated
repression. In a similar way, HET/SAF-B-mediated repression is lost
when the ER-DBD is substituted by a Gal4DBD. Indeed, the ER-DBD is
sufficient for HET/SAF-B-mediated repression. However, the repression
is not a result of inhibiting ERs ability to bind to DNA.
In summary, our study has revealed that the nuclear matrix
protein/scaffold attachment factor HET/SAF-B directly binds to ER and
inhibits its activity. The binding is stronger in the presence of Tam,
as compared with no ligand, suggesting that HET/SAF-B-mediated
corepression may be involved in the antiestrogenic effects of Tam.
 |
MATERIAL AND METHODS
|
---|
Plasmid Constructs and Chemicals
The cloning of the HET/SAF-B expression construct (31) and
of the mammalian expression vector for full-length ER has been
previously described (60). To generate an HA-tagged full length ER
construct, ER was PCR-amplified (61) using the following primers: sense
5'-GCGAATTCATGGCTTACCCCTACGACGTC-CCCGACTACGCCATGACCATGACCCTCCAC-3'
comprising the HA-tag, and nucleotides 118 coding for the ER, and the
antisense primer was 5'-GATGAATTCCTCAGACTGTGGC-AGGGAA-3' comprising
nucleotides 17701789 of the ER. The PCR product was cloned into
pcDNA3.1/V5/His-TOPO (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). To
generate a GST-fusion protein, the full-length HET/SAF-B clone (31) was
cloned into EcoRI sites of the pGEX-2TK gene fusion vector
(Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ). Bacterial expression
vectors for GST-ER fusion proteins containing the AF1, DBD/Hinge, DBD,
Hinge, and AF2/Hinge domains were generated by performing ligation
reactions with the appropriate PCR products and
EcoRI/BamHI-digested pGEX-2TK. The positions of
the PCR primers (linked to EcoRI or BamHI sites)
within the ER
cDNA (61) are: AF1 sense (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20) and antisense
(519540); DBD/Hinge sense (519540) and antisense (849869); DBD
sense (513533) and antisense (730746); Hinge sense (750771)
and antisense (844863); AF2/Hinge sense (756775) and antisense
(17691788). The AF1/DBD construct was a kind gift of Dr. S. Kato (62, 63). The gal4-luc construct (pfrluc) was purchased from
Stratagene (La Jolla, CA). Constructs containing the
activation domains (AF-1 and AF-2) of the ER fused to the gal4 DBD
(amino acids 194) were a kind gift of Dr. OMalley, and have been
previously described (60). Briefly, the AF-1 domain of the ER was
cloned upstream of the gal4DBD in pABgal94 (64) to create AF-1 gal4.
The AF-2 domain of ER was cloned downstream of the gal4DBD to create
AF2-gal4. Finally the AF-1 and AF-2 domains were cloned upstream and
downstream, respectively, of the gal4DBD to create ER-gal4DBD. A
construct containing a chimeric activator with the ER DBD and the
activation region of VP16 was provided by Dr. P. Chambon and has been
previously described (65). Finally, the ER-dependent promoter
interference reporter plasmid was provided by Dr. B. Katzenellenbogen
and has been described by Reese and Katzenellenbogen (41). The
antiestrogen 4-hydroxytamoxifen (Tam) was a gift from Zeneca Pharmaceuticals (Macclesfield, UK). All other chemicals were
purchased from Sigma (St. Louis, MO) unless stated
otherwise.
Cell Culture and Transient Transfection
Human breast cancer cells (MCF-7), human hepatocyte carcinoma
cells (HepG2) cells, and human osteosarcoma cells (Saos-2) were
maintained in improved MEM (IMEM) supplemented with 5% FBS
(Life Technologies, Gaithersburg, MD), 200 U/ml
penicillin, 200 µg/ml streptomycin, 6 ng/ml insulin. COS-7 cells were
maintained in DMEM +10% FBS, 200 U/ml penicillin, 200 µg/ml
streptomycin, 6 ng/ml insulin. For reporter assays, cells were
transiently transfected using Fugene (Roche Clinical Laboratories, Indianapolis, IN) following the
manufacturers protocol. One day before transfection cells were plated
at 8 x 105 in six-well plates. For
E2 induction experiments the cells were plated in
serum-free medium which consisted of phenol red-free IMEM + 10
mM HEPES, pH 7.4 + 1 µg/ml fibronectin (Life Technologies) + trace elements (Biofluids,
Rockville, MD) + 1 µg/ml transferrin (Life Technologies). Cotransfections were performed using 1 µg
reporter plasmid, 100 ng ß-galactosidase (ß-gal) expression vector,
and HET/SAF-B and ER plasmids as indicated in the figure legends for
each experiment. Twenty-four hours after transfection, the medium was
replaced with serum free medium containing the appropriate ligand.
Forty-eight hours later cells were washed twice with PBS, and
luciferase activity was measured using the Luciferase kit from
Promega Corp. (Madison, WI). ß-gal activity was measured
as described (31), and the luciferase activities were normalized by
dividing by the ß-gal activity to give relative luciferase units. For
determining CAT activity, we used a CAT enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay from Roche Clinical Laboratories and followed the
manufacturers instructions. Values were corrected for protein
concentrations and are presented as relative CAT activity. For
transient transfections, triplicate samples were measured in each
experiment, and the data are presented as the average ±
SEM and are representative of at least three independent
experiments. For coimmunoprecipitation experiments, COS-7 cells were
plated at 0.6 x 106 into 10- cm dishes, and
transiently transfected with 5 µg expression plasmids for HET/SAF-B
and ER-HA. Twelve hours later the medium was replaced with phenol
red-free IMEM + 5% charcoal-stripped serum and ligands as indicated in
the figure legends. The cells were lysed 24 h later.
In Vitro Protein-Protein Interaction (GST
Pull-Down)
Overnight cultures of Escherichia coli BL21
expressing the appropriate fusion constructs were diluted 1:10 in LB
medium and incubated for 1 h. GST only or GST-fusion proteins were
induced for 2.5 h with 0.1 mM
isopropyl-ß-D-thiogalactoside, followed by
centrifugation, and resuspended at 1:100 in cell suspension buffer (1x
PBS, 100 mM EDTA, pH 8.0, 0.1
mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 0.2 µg/ml
pepstatin, 0.2 µg/ml leupeptin, 0.2 µg/ml aprotinin, 0.2 µg/ml
antipain). Cells were sonicated and then centrifuged for 10 min at 4 C,
and 400 µg of crude E. coli bacterial extract proteins
were incubated with 60 µl glutathione Sepharose 4B beads (50%
slurry, Pharmacia Biotech) (1 h, 4 C). For the binding
assay, the beads were incubated in IPAB buffer (150
mM KCl, 0.1% Triton X-100, 0.1% NP40, 5
mM MgCl2, 20
mM HEPES, 20 µg/ml BSA, protease inhibitors),
and ligand was added as indicated in the experiments. In
vitro transcription-translation mixture (TNT kit, Promega Corp.) containing 35S-methionine was
programmed with HET/SAF-B and ER expression plasmids. Lysates (10 µl)
were incubated with 60 µl equivalent amounts of GST proteins (as
assessed by Coomassie staining) at 4 C for 1 h. The beads were
washed three times with IPAB buffer without BSA. Bound proteins were
eluted in SDS sample buffer, resolved by SDS-PAGE, and visualized by
fluorography.
Generation of Anti-HET/SAF-B Monoclonal Antibodies
The peptide used for generation of a monoclonal antibody (mAb)
to HET-SAF/B was identical to the peptide used to generate a polyclonal
antibody described previously (31). The mAb was generated at the
UTHSCSA Institutional Hybridoma Facility following methods described by
Kohler (66) and Oi and Herzenberg (67). Briefly, spleen cells from two
BALB/c female mice immunized subcutaneously three times with 50 µg
keyhole limpet hemocyanin-coupled peptide in Freunds adjuvant were
fused with NS-1 myeloma cell line. A 50% PEG solution was added in a
drop-wise manner. The subsequent dilution was performed in selection
media (hypoxanthine, aminopterin, thymidine-containing medium),
and 10 days later supernatants were screened for relevant antibody
using the A156 HET/SAF-B peptide coupled to an alternative carrier
(BSA). Culture supernatant from clone 6F7 was purified using the
ImmunoPure (A/G) IgG purification kit (Pierce Chemical Co., Rockford, IL).
Coimmunoprecipitation
MCF-7 cells were plated at 2 x 106
cells in 10-cm dishes. The next day the media was changed to media
containing 5% charcoal-stripped FCS and ligand as indicated in the
figure legends. Twenty-four hours later the cells were lysed in
low-stringency (LS) buffer (PBS, 0.1% NP40, protease inhibitors), and
HS buffer (20 mM Tris, pH 7.4, 50 mM NaCl, 1
mM EDTA, 0.5% NP40, 0.5% SDS, 0.5% deoxycholate, and
protease inhibitors), followed by sonication. Sodium tetrathionate (50
µM) was added to the lysis buffer since it is known to
selectively stabilize interactions between hormone receptors and the
nuclear matrix (68); however, its addition is not essential for
coimmunoprecipitation of ER and HET/SAF-B. The lysate was precleared
with 50 µl protein G-agarose for 30 min at 4 C, and then incubated
overnight with 7 µl HET/SAF-B mAb at 4 C. Protein G agarose was added
for another 4 h, and the beads were pelleted and washed three
times with the indicated buffer. For immunoprecipitation of HA-ER we
precleared the lysates with 20 µl protein A-agarose, incubated with 5
µl HA antibodies (Babco, Richmond, CA) overnight, and finally added
20 µl protein A-agarose. Bound proteins were eluted in SDS sample
buffer, subjected to SDS-PAGE, and analyzed by immunoblotting (see
below). For quantification, the scanned image was analyzed using NIH
Image 2.0. The background intensity was subtracted from the intensity
of the ER band in the immunoprecipitation, and this arbitrary number
was divided by the intensity for the ER band in the immunoblot. The
result is represented as an arbitrary number of the intensity ratio of
immunoprecipitated ER to immunoblotted ER in the lysates.
Immunoblotting
Proteins were resolved on 8% SDS-PAGE and electrophoretically
transferred to nitrocellulose. The membrane was blocked in PBS/0.1%
Tween 20 (PBST) + 5% milk for 1 h at room temperature. HET/SAF-B,
ER (6F11, Novacastra, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK), and HA-(Babco,
Richmond, CA) antibodies were diluted at 1:1000, 1:100, and 1:1000,
respectively, in PBST + 5% milk. After incubation for 1 h, the
membrane was washed six times for 5 min each time with PBST, the
membrane was incubated with horseradish peroxidase-linked
anti-mouse IgG at 1:1000 (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech,
Arlington Heights, IL) in PBST + 5% milk, washed six times for
5 min each time, and the signal was developed using enhanced
chemiluminescence according to the manufacturers instructions
(Pierce Chemical Co.).
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
---|
We would like to thank Drs. M. Gottardis, B.W. OMalley,
B. Katzenellenbogen, P. Chambon, and S. Kato for providing
constructs [ERE-tk-luc (M.C.), ER-gal4 (B.OM.),
pCMV(ERE)2CAT (B.K.), GalVP16/pSG5 (P.C.),
ER(C)-VP16 (P.C.), pGEX2T-AF1/DBD (S.K.)]. The authors are grateful to
L. Hernandez for excellent technical assistance and to Dr. G. Chamness
for critical reading of the manuscript. We also would like to thank Dr.
C. Smith for providing access to laboratory facilities at Baylor
College of Medicine.
 |
FOOTNOTES
|
---|
Address requests for reprints to: Steffi Oesterreich, Baylor College of Medicine, Breast Center, Alkek MS:600, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas 77030. E-mail: steffio{at}bcm.tmc.edu
This work was supported by an NIH Howard Temin Award (KO1 CA-77674) and
a Department of Defense Grant (DAMD1798-18340) to S.O., a Breast
Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence (PHS P50
CA-58183) and 5P01 CA30195 to C.K.O., a Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Foundation Award to A.V.L., a NIH Cancer Center Support Grant (P30
CA-54174), and the Medical Research Council of Canada and Manitoba
Health Research Council (J.R.D.). T.H. was supported by a Department of
Defense Grant (DAMD 17945-4112).
1 Present Address: Breast Center/Department of Medicine and Department
of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, One
Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas 77030. 
Received for publication May 28, 1999.
Revision received November 19, 1999.
Accepted for publication December 9, 1999.
 |
REFERENCES
|
---|
-
Tsai MJ, OMalley BW 1994 Molecular mechanisms of action
of steroid/thyroid receptor superfamily members. Annu Rev Biochem 63:451486[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Smith DF, Toft DO 1993 Steroid receptors and their associated
proteins. Mol Endocrinol 7:411[Medline]
-
Webb P, Lopez N, Uht RM, Kushner PJ 1995 Tamoxifen activation
of the estrogen receptor/AP-1 pathway: potential origin for the
cell-specific estrogen-like effects of antiestrogens. Mol Endocrinol 9:442456
-
Rishi AK, Shao ZM, Baumann RG, Li XS, Sheikh MS, Kimura S,
Bashilelahi N, Fonatna JA 1995 Estradiol regulation of the human
retinoic acid receptor
gene in human breast carcinoma cells is
mediated via an imperfect half-palindromic estrogen response element
and Sp1 motifs. Cancer Res 55:49995006[Abstract]
-
Porter W, Saville B, Hoivik D, Safe S 1997 Functional synergy
between the transcription factor Sp1 and the estrogen receptor. Mol
Endocrinol 11:15691580[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Porter W, Wang F, Duan R, Safe S 1996 Role of estrogen
receptor/Sp1 complexes in estrogen-induced heat shock protein 27 gene
expression. Mol Endocrinol 10:13711378[Abstract]
-
Kato S, Kitamoto T, Masuhiro Y, Yanagisawa J 1998 Molecular
mechanism of a cross-talk between estrogen and growth-factor signaling
pathways. Oncology 55:510[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Shibata H, Spencer TE, Onate SA, Jenster G, Tsai SY, Tsai MJ,
OMalley BW 1997 Role of co-activators and co-repressors in the
mechanism of steroid/thyroid receptor action. Recent Prog Horm Res 52:141164[Medline]
-
Conneely OM, Kettelberger DM, Tsai M-J, OMalley BW 1989 Promoter specific activating domains of the progesterone receptor. In:
Roy AK, Clark JH (eds) Gene Regulation by Steroid Hormones.
Springer Verlag, New York, pp 220231
-
Bocquel MT, Kumar V, Stricker C, Chambon P, Gronemeyer H 1989 The contribution of the N- and C-terminal regions of steroid receptors
to activation of transcription is both receptor and cell-specific.
Nucleic Acids Res 17:25812595[Abstract]
-
Glass CK, Rose DW, Rosenfeld MG 1997 Nuclear receptor
coactivators. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2:222232
-
Hörlein AJ, Näär AM, Heinzel T, Torchia J,
Gloss B, Kurokawa R, Ryan A, Kamei Y, Söderström M, Glass
CK, Rosenfeld MG 1995 Ligand-independent repression by the
thyroid hormone receptor mediated by a nuclear receptor co-repressor.
Nature 377:397404[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Sande S, Privalsky ML 1996 Identification of TRACs (T3
receptor-associating cofactors), a family of cofactors that associate
with, and modulate the activity of, nuclear hormone receptors. Mol
Endocrinol 10:813825[Abstract]
-
Chen JD, Evans RM 1995 A transcriptional co-repressor that
interacts with nuclear hormone receptors. Nature 5:454457
-
Montano MM, Ekena K, Delage-Mourroux R, Chang W, Martini P,
Katzenellenbogen BS 1999 An estrogen receptor-selective coregulator
that potentiates the effectiveness of antiestrogens and represses the
activity of estrogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:69476952[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Ogryzko VV, Schiltz RL, Russanova V, Howard BH, Nakatani Y 1996 The transcriptional coactivators p300 and CBP are histone
acetyltransferases. Cell 87:953959[Medline]
-
Bannister AJ, Kouzarides T 1996 The CBP co-activator is a
histone acetyltransferase. Nature 384:641643[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Yang XJ, Ogryzko VV, Nishikawa J, Howard BH, Nakatani Y 1996 A
p300/CBP-associated factor that competes with the adenoviral
oncoprotein E1A. Nature 382:319324[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Chen H, Lin RJ, Schiltz RL, Chakravarti D, Nash A, Nagy L,
Privalsky ML, Nakatani Y, Evans RM 1997 Nuclear receptor coactivator
ACTR is a novel histone acetyltransferase and forms a multimeric
activation complex with P/CAF and CBP/p300. Cell 90:569580[Medline]
-
Spencer TE, Jenster G, Burcin MM, Allis CD, Zhou J, Mizzen CA,
McKenna NJ, Onate SA, Tsai SY, Tsai MJ, OMalley BW 1997 Steroid
receptor coactivator-1 is a histone acetyltransferase. Nature 389:194198[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Heinzel T, Lavinsky R, Mullen T-M, Soderstrom M, Laherty
C, Torchia J, Yang W-M, Brard G, Ngo S, Davie J, Seto E, Eisenman R,
Rose D, Glass C, Rosenfeld M 1997 A complex containing N-CoR, mSin3 and
histone deacetylase mediates transcriptional repression. Nature 387:4348[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Nagy L, Kao H-Y, Chakravarti D, Lin R, Hassig C, Ayer D,
Schreiber S, Evans R 1997 Nuclear receptor repression mediated by a
complex containing SMRT, mSin3A, and histone deacetylase. Cell 69:373380
-
Bird RC, Stein GS, Lian JB, Stein JL 1997 Nuclear structure
and gene expression. In: Buetow DE, Cameron IL, Padilla GM, Zimmerman
AM (eds) Cell Biology: A Series of Monographs. Academic Press, New
York, pp 35295
-
Getzenberg RH, Coffey DS 1990 Tissue specificity of the
hormonal response in sex accessory tissues is associated with nuclear
matrix protein patterns. Mol Endocrinol 4:13361342[Abstract]
-
Barrack ER, Coffey DS 1980 The specific binding of estrogens
and androgens to the nuclear matrix of sex hormone responsive tissues.
J Biol Chem 255:72657275[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Barrack ER, Coffey DS 1982 Biological properties of the
nuclear matrix: steroid hormone binding. Recent Prog Horm Res 38:133195[Medline]
-
Rue M, Dunn R, Ruh T 1996 Interrelationships between nuclear
structure and ligand-activated intracellular receptors. Crit Rev
Eukaryot Gene Expr 62:271283
-
Getzenberg R, Pienta K, Coffey D 1990 The tissue matrixcell
dynamics and hormone action. Endocr Rev 11:399417[Medline]
-
Barrett TJ, Spelsberg TC 1999 Nuclear matrix and steroid
hormone action. Vitam Horm 55:127163[Medline]
-
Eggert M, Michel J, Schneider S, Bornfleth H, Baniahmad A,
Fackelmayer F, Schmidt S, Renkawitz R 1997 The glucocorticoid receptor
is associated with the RNA-binding nuclear matrix protein hnRNP U.
J Biol Chem 272:2847128478[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Oesterreich S, Lee AV, Sullivan TM, Samuel SK, Davie JR, Fuqua
SA 1997 Novel nuclear matrix protein HET binds to and influences
activity of the HSP27 promoter in human breast cancer cells. J
Cell Biochem 67:275286[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Renz A, Fackelmayer FO 1996 Purification and molecular cloning
of the scaffold attachment factor B (SAF-B), a novel human nuclear
protein that specifically binds to S/MAR-DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 24:843849[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Udvardy A 1999 Dividing the empire: boundary chromatin
elements delimit the territory of enhancers. EMBO J 18:18[Free Full Text]
-
Bode J, Schlake T, Rios-Ramirez M, Mielke C, Stengert M, Kay
V, Klehr-Wirth D 1995 Scaffold/matrix-attached regions: structural
properties creating transcriptionally active loci. Int Rev Cytol
162A:389454
-
Nayler O, Stratling W, Bourquin J-P, Stagljar I, Lindemann L,
Jasper H, Hartmann A, Fackelmayer F, Ullrich A, Stamm S 1998 SAF-B protein couples transcription and pre-mRNA splicing to
SAR/MAR elements. Nucleic Acids Res 26:35423549[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Mortillaro MJ, Blencowe BJ, Wei X, Nakayasu H, Du L, Warren
SL, Sharp PA, Berezney R 1996 A hyperphosphorylated form of the large
subunit of RNA polymerase II is associated with splicing complexes and
the nuclear matrix. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:82538257[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Blencowe BJ, Nickerson JA, Issner R, Penman S, Sharp PA 1994 Association of nuclear matrix antigens with exon-containing splicing
complexes. J Cell Biol 127:593607[Abstract]
-
Onate SA, Boonyaratanakornkit V, Spencer TE, Tsai SY, Tsai MJ,
Edwards DP, OMalley BW 1998 The steroid receptor coactivator-1
contains multiple receptor interacting and activation domains that
cooperatively enhance the activation function 1 (AF1) and AF2 domains
of steroid receptors. J Biol Chem 273:1210112108[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Nawaz Z, Lonard DM, Dennis AP, Smith CL, OMalley BW 1999 Proteasome-dependent degradation of the human estrogen receptor. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 96:18581862[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Alarid ET, Bakopoulos N, Solodin N 1999 Proteasome-mediated
proteolysis of estrogen receptor: a novel component in autologous
down-regulation. Mol Endocrinol 13:15221534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Reese JC, Katzenellenbogen BS 1992 Examination of the
DNA-binding ability of estrogen receptor in whole cells: implications
for hormone-independent transactivation and the actions of
antiestrogens. Mol Cell Biol 12:45314538[Abstract]
-
Safer JD, Cohen RN, Hollenberg AN, Wondisford FE 1998 Defective release of corepressor by hinge mutants of the thyroid
hormone receptor found in patients with resistance to thyroid hormone.
J Biol Chem 273:3017530182[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Tagami T, Gu W-X, Peaairs PT, West BL, Jameson JL 1998 A novel
mutation in the thyroid hormone receptor defines a dual function domain
that exchanges nuclear receptor corepressors and coactivators. Mol
Endocrinol 12:18881902[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Liu Y, Takeshita A, Misti S, Chin BW, Yen PM 1998 Lack of
coactivator interaction can be a mechanism for dominant negative
activity by mutant thyroid hormone receptors. Endocrinology 139:41974204[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Jackson TA, Richer JK, Bain DL, Takimoto GS, Tung L, Horwitz
KB 1997 The partial agonist activity of antagonist-occupied steroid
receptors is controlled by a novel hinge domain-binding coactivator
L7/SPA and the corepressors N-CoR or SMRT. Mol Endocrinol 11:693705[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Lavinsky R, Jepsen K, Heinzel T, Torchia J, Mullen T-M, Schiff
R, AD-R, Ricote M, Ngo S, Gemsch J, Hisenbeck S, Osborne C, Glass C,
Rosenfeld M, Rose D 1998 Diverse signaling pathways modulate nuclear
receptor recruitment of N-CoR and SMRT complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA 95:29202925[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Jordan VC 1995 Studies on the estrogen receptor in breast
cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 36:267285[Medline]
-
Smith CL, Nawaz Z, OMalley BW 1997 Coactivator and
corepressor regulation of the agonist/antagonist activity of the mixed
antiestrogen, 4-hydroxytamoxifen. Mol Endocrinol 11:657666[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Hanna-Rose W, Hansen U 1996 Active repression mechanisms of
eukaryotic transcription repressors. Trends Genet 12:229234[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Muscat GEO, Burke LJ, Downes M 1998 The corepressor N-CoR and
its variant RIP13a and RIP13
1 directly interact with the basal
transcription factors TFIIB, TASII32 and
TAFII70. Nucleic Acids Res 26:28992907[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Yoshida M, Horinouchi S, Beppu T 1995 Trichostatin A and
trapoxin: novel chemical probes for the role of histone acetylation in
chromatin structure and function. Bioessays 17:423430[Medline]
-
Lanz RB, McKenna NJ, Onate SA, Albrecht U, Wong J, Tsai SY,
Tsai MJ, OMalley BW 1999 A steroid receptor coactivator, SRA,
functions as an RNA and is present in an SRC-1 complex. Cell 97:1727[Medline]
-
Belisle S, Bellabarba D, Lehoux J-G 1989 Estradiol
receptor-nuclear interactions in aging mouse uteri: the role of DNA and
nuclear matrix. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 32:4143
-
Metzger D, Korach K 1990 Cell-free interaction of the estrogen
receptor with mouse uterine nuclear matrix: evidence of saturability,
specificity, and resistance to KCI extraction. Endocrinology 126:21902195[Abstract]
-
Samuel SK, Spencer VA, Bajno L, Sun JM, Holth LT, Oesterreich
S, Davie JR 1998 In situ cross-linking by cisplatin of nuclear
matrix-bound transcription factors to nuclear DNA of human breast
cancer cells. Cancer Res 58:30043008[Abstract]
-
Htun H, Holth HL, Walker D, Davie JR, Hager GL 1999 Direct
visualization of the human estrogen receptor
reveals a role for
ligand in the nuclear distribution of the receptor. Mol Biol Cell 10:471486[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Tang Y, DeFranco D 1996 ATP-dependent release of
glucocorticoid receptors from the nuclear matrix. Mol Cell Biol 16:19892001[Abstract]
-
Tang Y, Getzenberg RH, Vietmeier BN, Stallcup MR, Eggert M,
Renkawitz R, DeFranco DB 1998 The DNA-binding and tau2 transactivation
domains of the rat glucocorticoid receptor constitute a nuclear
matrix-targeting signal. Mol Endocrinol 12:14201431[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
van Steensel B, Jenster G, Damm K, Brinkmann AO, van Driel R 1995 Domains of the human androgen receptor and glucocorticoid receptor
involved in binding to the nuclear matrix. J Cell Biochem 57:465478[Medline]
-
Castles CG, Oesterreich S, Hansen R, Fuqua SA 1997 Auto-regulation of the estrogen receptor promoter. J Steroid Biochem
Mol Biol 62:155163[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Greene GL, Gilna P, Waterfield M, Baker A, Hort Y, Shine J 1986 Sequence and expression of human estrogen receptor complementary
DNA. Science 231:11501154[Medline]
-
Kumar V, Green S, Stack G, Berry M, Jin J-R, Chambon P 1987 Functional domains of the human estrogen receptor. Cell 51:941951[Medline]
-
Kato S, Endoh H, Masuhiro Y, Kitamoto T, Uchiyama S, Sasaki H,
Masushige S, Gotoh Y, Nishida E, Kawashima H 1995 Activation of the estrogen receptor through phosphorylation by
mitogen-activated protein kinase. Science 270:14911494[Abstract]
-
Baniahmad A, Leng X, Burris TP, Tsai SY, Tsai MJ, OMalley BW 1995 The tau 4 activation domain of the thyroid hormone receptor is
required for release of a putative corepressor(s) necessary for
transcriptional silencing. Mol Cell Biol 15:7686[Abstract]
-
Tora L, White J, Brou C, Tasset D, Webster N, Scheer E,
Chambon P 1989 The human estrogen receptor has two independent
nonacidic transcriptional activation functions. Cell 59:477487[Medline]
-
Kohler G 1979 Fusion of lymphocytes. In:
Immunological Methods. Academic Press, New York, vol 2
-
Oi VT, Herzenberg LA 1980 Immunoglobin-producing hybrid cell
lines. In: Miscell B, Bas, SM (ed) Selected Methods in Cellular
Immunology. WH Freeman and Co, San Francisco, pp 351372
-
Kaufmann S, Okret S, Wistrom A, Gustafsson J-A, Shaper J 1986 Binding of the glucocorticoid receptor to the rat liver
nuclear matrix. J Biol Chem 261:1196211967[Abstract/Free Full Text]