Early Growth Response Protein 1 Binds to the Luteinizing Hormone-ß Promoter and Mediates Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone-Stimulated Gene Expression
Michael W. Wolfe and
Gerald B. Call
Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology University
of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City, Kansas 66160-7401
 |
ABSTRACT
|
---|
The hypothalamic neuropeptide, GnRH, regulates the
synthesis and secretion of LH from pituitary gonadotropes. Furthermore,
it has been shown that the LH ß-subunit gene is regulated by the
transcription factors steroidogenic factor-1 (SF-1) and early growth
response protein 1 (Egr1) in vitro and in vivo.
The present study investigated the roles played by Egr1 and SF-1 in
regulating activity of the equine LHß-subunit promoter in the
gonadotrope cell line,
T31, and the importance of these factors
and cis-acting elements in regulation of the promoter by
GnRH. All four members of the Egr family were found to induce activity
of the equine promoter. The region responsible for induction by Egr was
localized to the proximal 185 bp of the promoter, which contained two
Egr response elements. Coexpression of Egr1 and SF-1 led to a
synergistic activation of the equine (e)LHß promoter. Mutation of any
of the Egr or SF-1 response elements attenuated this synergism.
Endogenous expression of Egr1 in
T31 cells was not detectable
under basal conditions, but was rapidly induced after GnRH stimulation.
Reexamination of the promoter constructs harboring mutant Egr or SF-1
sites indicated that these sites were required for GnRH induction. In
fact, mutation of both Egr sites within the eLHß promoter completely
attenuated its induction by GnRH. Thus, GnRH induces expression of
Egr1, which subsequently activates the eLHß promoter. Finally, GnRH
not only induced expression of Egr1, but also its corepressor, NGFI-A
(Egr1) binding protein (Nab1), which can repress Egr1- induced
transcription of the eLHß promoter.
 |
INTRODUCTION
|
---|
Reproduction is critical for the perpetuation of a species.
The pituitary gonadotropic hormones, LH and FSH, are important
regulators of reproduction in mammals. LH and FSH are members of the
glycoprotein hormone family that also includes TSH and the placental
CGs (1). These hormones are heterodimeric in structure, composed of a
common
-subunit noncovalently linked to a unique ß-subunit that
confers biological activity (2, 3).
It has been known for more than two decades that the hypothalamic
factor, GnRH, stimulates the synthesis and secretion of gonadotropins
from the anterior pituitary gland. Mice that are homozygous for a
mutation in the gene encoding GnRH (hpg) are sexually
immature and have arrested germ cell development (4). These mice lack
detectable levels of GnRH, leading to low pituitary levels of LH and
FSH. Administration of exogenous GnRH to hpg mice restored
pituitary levels of
- and LHß-subunit mRNAs as well as LH content
and secretion (5). A similar phenomenon exists in humans (Kallmanns
syndrome) where GnRH neurons fail to migrate from the olfactory placode
into the hypothalamus (6). These individuals lack hypothalamic
secretion of GnRH and as a consequence are infertile due to
hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (lack of synthesis and secretion of LH
and FSH).
Not only is GnRH critical for synthesis and secretion of gonadotropins,
the pattern in which it is secreted has a profound impact on
gonadotrope function. GnRH is released in a pulsatile fashion from the
hypothalamus. The frequency and amplitude of the GnRH pulses vary with
sex of the individual, age, and physiological state (7, 8). Alterations
in the GnRH pulse profile can change the secretory profile for LH and
FSH as well as the biosynthesis of the gonadotropin subunits
(9, 10, 11).
Resolution of the molecular mechanisms responsible for
pituitary-specific expression and GnRH regulation of the LHß-subunit
gene has lagged behind studies of LH secretion. Homozygous disruption
of the Ftz-F1 gene, which encodes the orphan nuclear
receptor steroidogenic factor-1 (SF-1), resulted in the loss of
-,
LHß, and FSHß expression in mice (12). The bovine and rat LHß
promoters have been shown to be regulated by SF-1 (13, 14). Mutation of
the single SF-1 site in the bovine promoter severely attenuated
activity of this construct and disrupted its regulation by GnRH in
transgenic mice (14). Thus, SF-1 plays a role in regulating activity of
the LHß-subunit gene.
Targeted disruption of the immediate-early response gene, early
growth response protein 1 (Egr1), has been reported to result in the
selective loss of LH synthesis and secretion (15, 16). Expression of
the LHß subunit gene was severely, if not completely, diminished
while little or no change was observed in steady-state mRNA levels for
the
-subunit. A subsequent study has identified two Egr1 DNA
response elements in the rat LHß promoter, and they appear to be
conserved within the LHß promoters of other species (17). The
response elements within the rat promoter bind Egr1, enabling Egr1
to functionally interact with SF-1 (binding to adjacent sites)
to transactivate the LHß promoter (15, 17). Based on its homology
with other LHß promoters, the bovine promoter contains two putative
Egr sites and a single SF-1 site. Mutation of this SF-1 site disrupted
GnRH regulation of the transgene in vivo. The importance of
the Egr sites in GnRH induction of the bovine promoter has not been
determined.
Expression of Egr1, also called NGFIA (18), Zif268 (19), and Krox24
(20), can be induced through activation of the protein kinase C (PKC)
and mitogen- activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways (21). These are
also pathways activated by GnRH in gonadotropes (22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). In the
present study we investigated the role played by Egr1 in regulating
activity of the equine (e)LHß promoter and determined the involvement
of Egr1 in GnRH induction of eLHß. Mutation of the Egr sites within
the equine promoter reduced or completely attenuated the ability of
Egr1 to transactivate the promoter. Data are also presented indicating
that Egr1 and SF-1 act in a synergistic manner to regulate LHß
promoter activity. Furthermore, both Egr and SF-1 sites are required
for full activation of the equine LHß promoter by GnRH. Finally,
evidence is presented suggesting that GnRH can induce Egr1 expression
as well as that of the corepressor, Nab1, which represses transcription
induced by Egr1.
 |
RESULTS
|
---|
The eLHß Promoter Is Responsive to Egr
Overexpression of Egr1 or other members of the Egr family
transactivated the -448/+60 eLHß promoter (Fig. 1A
). Furthermore, this promoter was
responsive to low levels of Egr1 (Fig. 1B
) and was maximally responsive
to 100 ng of Egr1 (data not shown). As little as 3 ng of the Egr1
expression vector elicited an increase in activity of the eLHß
promoter. Egr1 was equally effective in transactivating eLHß
constructs containing 2200, 448, 387, and 185 bp of 5'-flanking
sequence (Fig. 1C
). The 185-bp promoter contains both of the Egr sites
previously identified in the rat promoter (Fig. 2
). Furthermore, these LHß Egr sites
are highly homologous across species. Truncation of the eLHß
promoter from -185 to -100 severely attenuated the ability of Egr1 to
transactivate the promoter (Fig. 1C
). Interestingly, the -100
construct retained the proximal Egr site; nonetheless, it was
unresponsive to Egr1. These data tend to suggest that the proximal Egr
site is not functional in the eLHß promoter.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Transactivation of the eLHß Promoter by Egr
Proteins
Transient transfections were performed in T31 cells to evaluate
the ability of Egr1 and other Egr family members to regulate activity
of the eLHß promoter. A, The -448/+60 eLHß promoter linked to
luciferase (eß -448) or a promoterless control (pGL2) was
cotransfected with a control expression vector or the indicated Egr
expression vectors, and luciferase activity was measured. B, The
ability of Egr1 to induce activity of the -448/+60 eLHß promoter in
a dose-responsive manner was assessed by cotransfection of 3100 ng of
the Egr1 expression vector. C, The region of the eLHß promoter
required for eliciting a response to Egr1 was determined by evaluating
Egr1 induction of 5'-deletion mutants of the promoter. The data in
panels AC are expressed as fold induction (mean ±
SEM) over that achieved after cotransfection with the
control expression vector.
|
|

View larger version (78K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. DNA Sequence Alignment of the Proximal Promoter
Regions from the Equine, Bovine, Human, Mouse, and Rat LHß Genes
Nucleotide sequences for the bovine (B; 38), human (H; 39), mouse
(M; 40), and rat (R; 41) LHß promoters were aligned relative to that
of the eLHß promoter (E; 43). The numbering below the
sequence is based on the eLHß promoter with +1 representing the start
site of transcription. Uppercase letters indicate
promoter sequence while lowercase letters represent
transcribed sequence. Shaded regions identify the distal
(d) and proximal (p) sequences that have homology to SF-1 and Egr
response elements.
|
|
It has previously been shown that, unlike other LHß promoters, the
equine promoter is active basally in
T31 cells (28). The role
played by the Egr response elements in maintaining basal activity of
the eLHß promoter was assessed either individually or in combination
after mutation of these sites. Surprisingly, none of these
mutations adversely affected basal promoter activity (Fig. 3
).

View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3. The Egr Response Elements Are Not Required for
Basal Expression of the eLHß Promoter in T31 Cells
Basal luciferase activity (relative light units, RLU; mean ±
SEM) of a promoterless control vector as well as the
-448/+60 eLHß promoters containing native sequence (eß -448) or
mutations in the distal (eßµdEgr), proximal (eßµpEgr), or both
(eßµdpEgr) Egr sites.
|
|
Egr1 and SF-1 Act Synergistically to Transactivate eLHß
A similar scenario occurs with SF-1 regulation of the eLHß
promoter in this cell line. SF-1 does not play a major role in
regulating basal expression of eLHß in
T31 cells, but can induce
promoter activity when overexpressed (28). Previous studies have
indicated that Egr1 and SF-1 can interact in solution and that they
work in a synergistic manner to transactivate the rat LHß promoter
(15, 17). Based on these data, the functional importance of the SF-1
and Egr sites for achieving full transactivation of the eLHß promoter
by Egr1 was evaluated. Mutation of either Egr site severely attenuated
the ability of Egr1 to transactivate the eLHß promoter (Fig. 4
). Mutation of both Egr sites completely
blocked responsiveness to Egr1. Similarly, mutation of either SF-1 site
attenuated the ability of Egr1 to induce eLHß promoter activity (Fig. 4
). The double Egr or SF-1 mutations completely eliminated the
synergism observed between these two factors in transactivating the
eLHß promoter. Furthermore, it appeared that the synergism was also
lost when only a single SF-1 site was disrupted. These data suggest
that both Egr sites and both SF-1 sites are required to achieve full
transactivation of the eLHß promoter by Egr1.

View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4. Transactivation of Wild-Type and Mutant eLHß
Promoters by Egr1 and SF-1
Transient transfections were performed in T31 cells to assess the
ability of Egr1 and SF-1 alone or in combination to regulate activity
of the eLHß promoter. The following promoters were evaluated: the
-448/+60 eLHß promoter containing native sequence (eß -448), eß
-448 with mutations in the distal (eßµdEgr), proximal
(eßµpEgr), or both (eßµdpEgr) Egr sites, eß -448 with
mutations in the distal (eßµdSF1), proximal (eßµpSF1), or both
(eßµdpSF1) SF-1 sites, and the eß -100 promoter (-100/+60),
which retains the proximal SF-1 and Egr sites. These constructs were
also cotransfected with a control expression vector. The data are
expressed as fold induction (mean ± SEM) over that
achieved after cotransfection with the control expression vector.
|
|
The Distal and Proximal Egr Sites in the eLHß Promoter Can Bind
Egr1 from Stimulated
T31 Cells
Although the eLHß promoter has two Egr sites, the functional
significance of these sites in
T31 cells was only revealed in an
overexpression model. The ability of Egr1 to specifically bind to these
Egr sites was assessed by performing electrophoretic mobility shift
assays (EMSAs) using oligodeoxynucleotides representing the distal and
proximal Egr sites (eßdEgr and eßpEgr, respectively; Fig. 5A
). Each oligo also contained its
adjacent SF-1 binding site. The equine Egr sites are highly homologous
to a consensus Egr site (Fig. 5A
) and to the rat LHß Egr sites, which
were previously shown to bind in vitro translated Egr1 (17).
Surprisingly, these investigators were unable to detect Egr1 binding to
these sites using
T31 nuclear extracts. Our initial attempts at
detecting Egr binding to the eßpEgr were also unsuccessful (Fig. 5B
).
The proximal Egr probe did interact with SF-1 and a slower migrating,
unidentified protein complex. Binding of this additional complex could
not be competed for by inclusion of a 50-fold molar excess of two
different consensus Egr sites (Fig. 5B
, lanes 5 and 6). Inclusion of
antibodies to Sp1, Sp3, SF-1, or Egr1 (Fig. 5B
, lanes 810) had little
effect on the complex. Binding was also unaffected by antibodies
against Egr2 or 3 (data not shown). The proximal Egr site in the rat
LHß promoter differs from the homologous equine site by a single
nucleotide (CACCCCCAC vs. CtCCCCCAC for rat and equine,
respectively) and has been shown to bind in vitro translated
Egr1 (17) and respond to Egr1 when overexpressed (15, 17). Therefore,
either this single nucleotide change completely disrupted Egr1 binding
or
T31 cells fail to express Egr1.

View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5. Egr1 Is Expressed in T31 Cells after
Stimulation with PMA and Can Bind to Both Egr Sites in the eLHß
Promoter
A, Homology of the distal (eßdEgr) and proximal (eßpEgr) Egr sites
in the eLHß promoter to that of a consensus Egr site. The nucleotides
in bold lowercase letters represent bases that are not
homologous with the consensus Egr. Shown below are the Egr
oligodeoxynucleotides used in panels BE including two consensus Egr
oligos (cEgr and scEgr). The SF-1 and Egr response elements within
these oligos are underlined. B, EMSA was performed using
the proximal eLHß Egr as labeled probe and nuclei from T31 cells
cultured under normal conditions. Two protein complexes were observed
and are indicated: SF-1 and one that is unknown (does not represent
Sp1, Sp3, SF-1, or Egr1). Competitions (50-fold molar excess) were
performed using oligos representing the proximal (pEgr), mutated
proximal (µpEgr), and distal Egr sites in the eLHß promoter, the
two different consensus Egr oligos (cEgr and scEgr), and an oligo
representing the distal eLHß SF-1 site (dSF-1). Antibodies to Sp1,
Sp3, SF-1, and Egr1 were used to identify proteins within the retarded
complexes. The antibody to SF-1 disrupts DNA binding and as such does
not result in a supershift. C, EMSAs were performed using the consensus
Egr (cEgr), distal eLHß Egr (eßdEgr), and proximal eLHß Egr
(eßpEgr) as labeled probes and T31 nuclei isolated from
serum-starved cells with or without simulation with PMA for 1 h.
An antibody to Egr1 was used to determine whether any of the complexes
contained Egr1. Complexes identified as SF-1, Egr1, and the
unidentified protein described in panel B are indicated.
Autoradiography was performed for 2 h with the cEgr probe and
6 h with the eßdEgr and eßpEgr probes in panel C. D and E,
EMSAs were performed using the cEgr oligo (consensus Egr) as labeled
probe and T31 nuclei isolated from serum-starved cells that had
been simulated with PMA (1 µM) for 1 h. Competitions
(5- to 500-fold molar excess) were performed using the oligos described
above as well as oligos containing a mutation in the eßpEgr site
(eßµpEgr) and an oligo representing a consensus Sp1 site.
|
|
To distinguish between these possibilities, one of the consensus Egr
sites (cEgr) was used as probe in an EMSA. This oligo contains a
high-affinity consensus site for Egr14 (33). The cEgr also failed to
interact with a protein that could be identified as Egr1 (Fig. 5C
, lane
1), but weakly interacted with two other complexes (data not shown).
This suggested that
T31 cells do not express Egr1, which supports
the data of others (17). In other cell lines it has been shown that
expression of Egr1 is low or absent under basal conditions but can be
induced after an acute stimulation with the PKC activator, phorbol
12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) (21). Therefore, nuclei were
isolated from
T31 cells that had been stimulated with PMA (1
µM) for 1 h and subsequently evaluated for the
presence of Egr proteins by EMSA. Treatment of
T31 cells with PMA
resulted in the appearance of a new complex (Fig. 5C
, lane 2) that
could be supershifted by inclusion of an antibody to Egr1 (Fig. 5C
, lane 3). Furthermore, based on EMSAs using the cEgr probe, Egr1 was the
only Egr protein induced by PMA in
T31 cells (Fig. 5C
, lane 3 and
data not shown).
The PMA-stimulated
T31 nuclei were subsequently used to evaluate
Egr1 binding to the labeled eßdEgr and eßpEgr oligos (Fig. 5C
, lanes 49). Stimulation of
T31 cells with PMA resulted in the
appearance of a new protein complex on the distal (lane 5) and proximal
(lane 8) eLHß Egr oligos that could be supershifted by the Egr1
antibody (lanes 6 and 9, respectively). The supershifted complex was
evident after a longer exposure of the gel (data not shown). Binding of
this complex to the cEgr, eßdEgr, and eßpEgr was unaffected by
inclusion of an antibody to Sp1 (data not shown). In support of
previous findings (17), it is interesting to note that an SF-1/Egr1/DNA
ternary complex was not observed in these experiments. Thus, both Egr
sites in the eLHß promoter can bind Egr1, but this appears to be a
weak interaction as compared with that observed with the cEgr
probe.
A series of competitions were conducted to determine the relative
affinities of the LHß Egr sites as compared with that of the
consensus Egr (Fig. 5
, D and E). A 5-fold molar excess of unlabeled
cEgr (homologous competitor) reduced binding of Egr1 by 76% (Fig. 5D
, lane 1 vs. 2). In contrast, a 50-fold molar excess of the
Santa Cruz Consensus Egr (scEgr) competitor was required to
reduce binding by 65% (Fig. 5E
, lanes 1 vs. 5), suggesting
that the affinities of these consensus sites differed by at least
10-fold. Addition of increasing amounts of either the distal or
proximal eLHß Egr site competed for Egr1 binding to the cEgr probe
(Fig. 5D
, lanes 615); however, a larger molar excess was required,
indicating a weaker interaction (lower affinity) as compared with the
cEgr and scEgr sites. A 250-fold molar excess of the distal or proximal
site was required to reduce Egr1 binding to the cEgr probe by 46% and
33%, respectively. Mutation of the Egr site within the eßpEgr
sequence disrupted its ability to compete for Egr1 binding (Fig. 5E
, lanes 610). Finally, an Sp1 response element that has some similarity
to an Egr site was a fairly ineffective competitor (Fig. 5E
, lanes
1115).
Mutation of the Egr and SF-1 Sites within the eLHß Promoter
Disrupts Induction by GnRH
We have shown that activation of PKC via PMA can induce expression
of Egr1 in
T31 cells; however, the importance of the Egr1 and SF-1
response elements for GnRH induction of the eLHß promoter has not
been determined. The promoter constructs shown in Fig. 4
were
reevaluated for their responsiveness to GnRH. Mutation of both Egr
sites completely blocked GnRH induction of the eLHß promoter (Fig. 6
). This appeared to be predominantly due
to mutation of the distal Egr site. Disruption of SF-1 binding through
mutagenesis of both SF-1 sites also reduced GnRH responsiveness of
eLHß from an induction of 11-fold to 3-fold. Mutation of the distal
SF-1 site had no detrimental effect alone, while mutation of the
proximal site reduced responsiveness to GnRH. Interestingly, the -100
eLHß promoter retained 50% of the responsiveness to GnRH as compared
with the -448 construct.

View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6. Mutation of the Egr or SF-1 Sites in the eLHß
Promoter Disrupts Induction by GnRH
Transient transfections were performed in T31 cells with the
native and mutant promoters described in Fig. 3 . Cells were stimulated
with GnRH (10 nM) or received media alone for 8 h
before harvesting lysates. Data are expressed as the fold induction
(mean ± SEM) by GnRH over control.
|
|
Nab1 Can Repress Egr1 Induction of eLHß
Egr1 contains an internal inhibitory domain consisting of 34 amino
acids (29). A single-point mutation within this domain resulted in a
15-fold increase in transcriptional activity of Egr1. This point
mutation effectively disrupts an interaction between Egr1 and an
additional cellular protein(s). Subsequent studies have identified
these proteins as NGFI-A (Egr1) binding proteins, Nab1 and Nab2, which
function to repress the activity of Egr1 (29, 30, 31).
Transient transfections were performed to determine the ability of Nab1
to repress Egr transactivation of the eLHß promoter (Fig. 7
). Overexpression of Nab1 repressed Egr1
transactivation of the eLHß promoter in a dose-dependent manner, but
had no effect on basal activity of the promoter. These data indicate
that Egr1 can transactivate the eLHß promoter and that the
corepressor Nab1 can disrupt transactivation by Egr1.

View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7. The Corepressor Nab1 Represses Egr1 Induction of
the eLHß Promoter
Luciferase activity (RLU) of the eLHß -448/+60 promoter was
evaluated after cotransfection with a control expression vector, Egr1,
Egr1 plus Nab1, or Nab1 alone. A constant amount of Egr1 (100 ng) was
transfected, whereas the indicated amount (nanograms) of Nab1 was used.
The total amount of DNA transfected for each treatment was equalized
using the control expression vector.
|
|
GnRH Induces Expression of Egr1 and Nab1
Nab1 has been shown to be expressed in a number of tissues (29);
however, its presence in pituitary gonadotropes has not been reported.
Furthermore, it is unknown as to how the expression of Nab1 is
regulated. In contrast, expression of Egr1 can be stimulated by
activation of the PKC and MAPK pathways (21). GnRH has been shown to
activate both of these pathways in gonadotropes (22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). The data
shown in Fig. 5
demonstrate that PMA can indeed induce expression of
Egr1 in
T31 cells. Therefore, based on these observations and
those described above, expression of Egr1, Nab1, and SF-1 was evaluated
in
T31 cells at various time points after stimulation with GnRH.
Initial experiments revealed that GnRH induced a rapid, yet transient,
increase in RNA transcripts for Egr1, characteristic of an
immediate-early response gene (Fig. 8
).
Increased expression of Egr1 was evident by 10 min, peaked at 50 min,
and had returned to unstimulated levels by approximately 180 min after
stimulation with GnRH. The presence of Nab1 in
T31 cells and the
ability of GnRH to induce its expression, as well as that of SF-1, were
subsequently evaluated. Basal expression of Nab1 was observed in
T31 cells and was induced 2.6-fold by GnRH. This increase was
delayed as compared with that observed for Egr1 (Fig. 9A
). GnRH induction of Nab1 was first
evident at 90 min and continued to increase through 180 min. In
contrast, GnRH did not appear to induce expression of SF-1 (Fig. 9B
).
In fact, the data suggest that levels of the SF-1 mRNA tended to
decrease over time. Data from several experiments were combined and are
summarized in Fig. 9E
. These data indicate that GnRH stimulation of
T31 cells results in a transient burst in expression of Egr1,
little or no change in SF-1 expression, and a somewhat delayed
induction of the Egr1 corepressor, Nab1.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 8. GnRH Induces a Transient Increase in Expression of
Egr1 in T31 Cells
Total RNA was isolated from T31 cells maintained in serum
containing media (S) or from cells that had been serum starved
overnight and subsequently stimulated with GnRH (10 nM) for
the indicated periods of time. Northern blot analysis was performed on
10 µg of RNA using a 32P-labeled Egr1 probe. RNA size
markers are shown along the left side of the figure.
|
|

View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 9. GnRH Induces Expression of Egr1 and Nab1
Northern blots were performed on total RNA (10 µg) isolated from
T31 cells treated as described in Fig. 8 . Cells were stimulated
with GnRH (10 nM) for the indicated periods of time. Blots
were hybridized to 32P-labeled Nab1 (A), SF-1 (B), Egr1
(C), and mouse ribosomal L7 protein (D) probes. The data shown in
panels AD are from the same blot and are representative of data from
additional experiments. E, The blots shown in panels AD were
quantitated using a PhosphorImager. The quantitative data obtained from
the PhosphorImager were corrected for RNA loading using the data
obtained from the L7 blots. Shown is the change in steady-state RNA
levels (mean ± SEM) for Nab1, SF-1, and Egr1 relative
to levels from serum- treated cells (arbitrarily set at 1) from at
least three different experiments.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION
|
---|
Little is known about the molecular events involved in GnRH
regulation of transcription of the LHß-subunit gene. Recent reports
have examined the signal transduction pathways used by GnRH to induce
promoter activity (26, 27). Previous studies (22, 23, 24, 25) have reported
that stimulation of
T31 cells with GnRH results in activation of
the PKC and MAPK pathways and can lead to induction of expression of
immediate-early gene products such as c-jun and
c-fos (32, 33). In the present study we have examined the
ability of the immediate-early gene product, Egr1, and the orphan
nuclear receptor, SF-1, to regulate transcriptional activity of the
equine LHß promoter. Similar to the rat LHß promoter (17), the
eLHß promoter contains two Egr and two SF-1 sites. These sites are
located within the proximal 185 bp of the promoter. This segment of the
promoter is the shortest tested to date that still maintains full
responsiveness to Egr1 and SF-1 in an overexpression model.
Interestingly, the -185/+60 portion of the eLHß promoter also
retains full responsiveness to GnRH (our unpublished data).
The initial indication that Egr1 played a role in gonadotrope function
was discovered after targeted mutagenesis of the Egr1 gene (15).
Disruption of Egr1 expression led to fertility problems in these mice,
which was later determined to be due to a diminished or complete lack
of expression of LHß. These findings were subsequently confirmed by
another laboratory (16). It is interesting to note that the loss of
Egr1 expression in pituitary gonadotropes was not compensated for by an
increase in expression of the other Egr family members, or, if this did
occur, they could not functionally replace Egr1 in regulating
expression of LHß. Our data would indirectly indicate that Egr2,
Egr3, and Egr4 are not expressed in pituitary gonadotropes. All four
Egrs can transactivate the eLHß promoter and presumably the mouse
LHß promoter. One would predict that if present in gonadotropes, they
could functionally replace Egr1 after disruption of the Egr1 gene.
Furthermore, Egr1 was the only Egr protein that we could detect in
T31 cells. These findings and those from the gene disruption
studies strongly support the contention that Egr1 is the only family
member expressed in pituitary gonadotropes.
The two Egr sites within the eLHß promoter appear to be of low
affinity. Egr1 binding to the distal and proximal sites was extremely
weak as compared with that of the consensus Egr site. We estimate these
sites to have affinities that are 10-fold weaker than the scEgr site
and approximately 100-fold weaker than the cEgr. This occurred even
though there was a considerable amount of homology between these sites.
The guanosine located at position 4 in the equine sites is a
conservative change that should not have a dramatic effect on Egr1
binding (34). The remaining deviations from the consensus site, and in
particular the cytosine at position 1 in the distal LHß Egr site,
must be more deleterious to Egr1 binding. Nonetheless, the Egr sites in
the eLHß promoter are functional. It has been previously reported
that the affinity of the proximal rat LHß Egr site to Egr1 is 10-fold
greater than that of the distal site (17). However, the affinity of
Egr1 to the rat LHß sites was not compared with that of a consensus
Egr site. We would predict that the Egr sites on the LHß promoters
from other species would have similar characteristics. The distal
eLHß Egr site is completely homologous to the distal Egr sites in the
bovine and human LHß promoters. The proximal Egr in the eLHß
promoter differs by a single nucleotide from that in the bovine and
human, which also differ at the same nucleotide position from the
proximal Egr in the rat and mouse LHß promoters (Fig. 2
). None of
these sites are completely homologous to the high-affinity Egr response
element, GCG(T/G)GGGCG, identified previously (34).
Our data indicate that the two Egr sites identified in eLHß are the
only ones present within the proximal 448 bp and potentially 2200 bp of
the promoter. Furthermore, these data as well as those from Halvorson
et al. (17) indicate that the presence of two Egr sites
makes the promoter more responsive to Egr and that this is more than an
additive effect. In the present work, this can be partially explained
by the fact that the
T31 cell line was used, which
endogenously expresses SF-1, and that SF-1 and Egr1 act synergistically
to increase promoter activity. Synergism between Egr1 and SF-1 is
supported by the fact that coexpression of Egr1 and SF-1 led to a
greater than additive induction of eLHß promoter activity and was
lost upon mutation of either the Egr or SF-1 binding sites. These
findings are in agreement with those of others (15, 17). Furthermore,
it has been reported that Egr1 and SF-1 can interact in solution in the
absence of DNA; however, we and others (17) have been unable to detect
similar protein-protein interactions in an EMSA. The previous study
used in vitro translated proteins and, therefore, the lack
of formation of a ternary complex in an EMSA should not have been due
to limiting amounts of protein. It is unknown as to whether other
proteins are required to stabilize this complex and, hence, visualize
it in an EMSA. If this is the case, they must be limiting in our EMSA
conditions. Thus, the molecular events responsible for eliciting the
Egr1-SF-1 synergism are currently obscure.
Data from the present study demonstrate that the eLHß promoter is
responsive to GnRH in
T31 cells. Responsiveness to GnRH was
dependent upon the presence of the Egr and SF-1 sites in the eLHß
promoter. Mutation of both Egr or SF-1 sites severely attenuated the
ability of GnRH to transactivate the eLHß promoter. Disruption of
either Egr site individually had a slight negative impact on GnRH
induction, suggesting that only one site was required. In contrast,
mutation of the proximal SF-1 site had a more dramatic effect on GnRH
induction than did the distal site. Furthermore, retention of the
proximal Egr and SF-1 sites resulted in a response to GnRH that was
approximately 50% of that of a construct containing all four sites
plus additional 5'-flanking sequence. Thus, a minimum of one Egr and
SF-1 site is required for GnRH induction of LHß promoter
activity.
Two groups have recently identified regions of the rat LHß promoter
that are required for induction of the promoter by GnRH and can convey
GnRH responsiveness to a heterologous promoter (26, 35). A region
upstream of -245 was identified by both groups, while a more proximal
segment (-207/-82) was determined to augment responsiveness of the
upstream region (35) or not to be required at all (26). It was
concluded that a GnRH response element(s) was located within the distal
portion (-491/-352) of the rat promoter (35). Interestingly, GnRH was
able to induce the rat promoter in the absence of SF-1, and the
addition of SF-1 increased basal activity, but not fold induction by
GnRH. Data from a subsequent study indicated that the -491/-352
region of the rat LHß promoter contained multiple Sp1 sites (36). Sp1
was shown to interact with these sites, and mutation of two of the Sp1
sites reduced GnRH induction of the promoter by 50%. It should be
pointed out that these later studies (27, 35, 36) were performed in
GH3 cells. This is a rat pituitary somatolactotropic cell
line (37, 38) that does not have GnRH receptors (these studies used an
overexpression model to get the GnRH receptor expressed) and as such
may not truly represent responses in gonadotropes. Furthermore,
GH3 cells do not express SF-1 (35). Thus, an important
transcription factor that is known to be expressed in gonadotropes and
involved in expression of the LHß subunit gene is absent in
GH3 cells.
Data presented from the present study are some of the first to identify
specific DNA response elements that are responsible for GnRH induction
of an LHß-subunit promoter in a gonadotrope cell line. Furthermore,
they reinforce the previously shown interactions between Egr1 and SF-1.
However, they differ somewhat from that obtained through use of the
overexpression model (Fig. 4
, Egr1 + SF-1 compared with Fig. 6
). We
suspect that this is due to differences in the manner and extent of
expression of Egr1 and SF-1 (48 h vs. a transient increase
or no increase at all) and potentially due to GnRH activation of
additional intracellular events.
The PKC and MAPK pathways are known activators of Egr1 expression (21).
We demonstrate that GnRH induces a transient burst in expression of
Egr1, characteristic of an immediate-early gene product. GnRH did not
induce expression of SF-1 in
T31 cells. In fact, our data suggest
that steady-state levels of SF-1 mRNA declined after stimulation with
GnRH. These findings are in contrast to data indicating that GnRH can
increase SF-1 mRNA levels by approximately 2-fold (39). These data were
obtained using an in vivo model and pulsatile administration
of GnRH, which could account for the discrepancies with our data.
Nonetheless, our data indicate that GnRH induction of eLHß in
T31 cells can be partially accounted for by an increase in
expression of Egr1 with little change in basal expression of SF-1. It
should be pointed out that SF-1 is expressed in
T31 cells in the
absence of stimulation, whereas Egr1 is not. Therefore, the limiting
component for achieving the synergism between SF-1 and Egr1 that leads
to the induction of LHß is an increase in expression of Egr1. If Egr1
and SF-1 are both induced by GnRH in vivo, this would result
in an even stronger response of the LHß promoter to GnRH.
GnRH not only induced expression of Egr1, it also induced expression of
the Egr1 corepressor, Nab1. Furthermore, both of these nuclear factors
can regulate activity of the eLHß promoter. Nab1 was initially
identified due to its ability to interact with a 34-amino acid domain
of Egr1 and to repress transcription mediated by Egr1 (29). A
subsequent study determined that Nab1 functioned as a corepressor by
binding to Egr1 and actively repressing gene transcription (31). Nab1
is expressed at low levels in most tissues of the adult mouse (29) and
has been suggested to be expressed in a constitutive manner (30).
Therefore, we were surprised by the fact that GnRH induced its
expression. The time course for GnRH induction of Nab1 was delayed as
compared with Egr1 and was reminiscent of serum stimulation of Nab2
expression in NIH 3T3 cells (30). Furthermore, although continuous
exposure to GnRH was used in the current study, it is tempting to
speculate that the frequency of GnRH stimulation (pulses) will
determine the pattern of expression of Egr1 and Nab1, and this may
dictate whether transcription of Egr-responsive genes is induced or
repressed.
These data provide some important insights into the mechanisms
responsible for GnRH induction of the LHß-subunit promoter. Our data,
as well as that of others, highlight the importance of both Egr1 and
SF-1 in regulating the activity of the LHß-subunit promoter. The
exquisite regulation of the LHß gene by GnRH in vivo may,
in fact, be linked to these two transcription factors. This is
supported by data from the targeted disruption of the SF-1 and Egr1
genes. We believe that the temporal pattern of expression for these
factors after stimulation by GnRH dictates how different GnRH pulse
profiles ultimately influence expression of the LHß-subunit gene.
Thus, the GnRH pulse profile that is most effective in inducing LHß
expression would maximize the expression or activity of activating
factors while minimizing the expression or activity of repressing
factors. This can be illustrated using the data shown in Fig. 9E
.
Maximal induction of the LHß promoter by GnRH would require that the
pulses occur at a frequency such that Egr1 is present when Nab1 is low
or that Egr1 is induced to a greater extent than Nab1. Alternate
patterns of GnRH pulses may result in inadequate levels of Egr1 and a
lack of LHß induction or elevated levels of Egr1 occurring when Nab1
levels are also elevated, resulting in repression of the LHß
promoter. Finally, it is important to point out that this is an
oversimplification of GnRH induction of the LHß-subunit gene. Other
transcription factors may be involved, and it is equally likely that
GnRH induces posttranslational modifications in some of these
proteins.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
---|
Materials
Restriction enzymes and other enzymes were obtained from the
Promega Corp. (Madison, WI), Life Technologies (Gaithersburg, MD), and New England Biolabs, Inc. (Beverly, MA). All oligodeoxynucleotides were obtained from
Life Technologies except for the scEgr oligo, which was
originally obtained from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc.
(Santa Cruz, CA) and the Sp1 oligo purchased from Promega Corp. The luciferase reporter vector (pGL2 basic) was obtained
from Promega Corp. The GnRH agonist
(des-Gly10,[D-Ala6]-GnRH ethylamide) and PMA
were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO).
Antibodies to Egr1, Egr2, Egr3, Sp1, and Sp3 were purchased from
Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. The antibody to SF-1 was
purchased from Upstate Biotechnology, Inc. (Lake Placid,
NY). All radionuclides were purchased from New England Nuclear Life
Science Products, Inc. (Boston, MA). DNA sequencing was conducted using
Sequenase purchased from United States Biochemical Corp.
(Cleveland, OH) or through cycling sequencing using reagents purchased
from PE Applied Biosystems (Foster City, CA) and
subsequently run on the ABI 310 sequencer (PE Applied Biosystems). PCR amplification of DNA was performed using
Taq polymerase (Life Technologies) or Deep Vent
DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs, Inc.). All other
chemicals and reagents were obtained from Pharmacia Biotech (Piscataway, NJ), Fisher Scientific
(Pittsburgh, PA), Sigma Chemical Co., and Life Technologies.
Plasmid Constructs
The pGL2 basic plasmid was used as a reporter vector for all of
the promoter constructs used in this study. The eLHß promoter
constructs containing various lengths of 5'-flanking sequence and those
containing mutant SF-1 sites have been described previously (28).
The eLHß promoter constructs that contained Egr mutations were made
in the context of the -448/+60 promoter in a manner similar to the
SF-1 mutant constructs (28). Mutation of the distal Egr site was
accomplished by PCR using an upstream oligodeoxynucleotide located in
the pGL2 vector (GL1, Promega Corp.), a downstream mutant
oligodeoxynucleotide encompassing bases -113 to -73 and eß
-448/+60 Luc as template. The dEgr site was mutated from CGCCCCCGG to
CGCtgCaGG. This should disrupt binding of the
first and second zinc fingers of Egr1 to this response element (34).
The PCR product was digested with SstI and BstEII
and subsequently gel isolated (-343 to -78). The eß -448/+60 Luc
vector was digested with SstI and BglII, and both
fragments were isolated. The smaller fragment (-343 to the
BglII site 5' to the luciferase gene) was digested with
BstEII, and the BstEII/BglII fragment
was isolated. The SstI/BglII-digested eß
-448/+60 Luc vector, the BstEII/BglII fragment,
and the SstI/BstEII PCR fragment were
subsequently ligated to generate eßµdEgr Luc.
The proximal Egr site was mutated by a similar PCR strategy. Two
PCR reactions were performed using eß -448/+60 Luc as template. The
first used GL2 (downstream oligodeoxynucleotide located in luciferase)
and an oligodeoxynucleotide encompassing the proximal Egr (bases -64
to -27, sense strand), while the second reaction used GL1 and an
antisense oligodeoxynucleotide encompassing the same region of the
promoter (-64/-27). The oligodeoxynucleotides encompassing -64 to
-27 mutated the pEgr from CTCCCCCAC to
tatttCtag. The GL1 to µpEgr PCR product was
digested with SstI and XbaI (cuts within the Egr
mutation), while the µpEgr to GL2 PCR product was digested with
XbaI (cuts within the Egr mutation) and BglII.
These fragments were subsequently ligated into the eß -448/+60 Luc
vector previously digested with SstI and BglII.
Positive clones were evaluated for the correct orientation. Both Egr
mutant clones were sequenced to confirm that the appropriate mutations
had been made and to ensure that random point mutations had not been
generated in the native sequence during PCR (44, 45).
The double-Egr mutant promoter was generated as follows. The
eßµdEgr Luc and eßµpEgr Luc plasmids were digested with
BstEII to excise the portion of DNA between -78 in the
promoter and the BstEII site within the 5'- end of
luciferase. The BstEII fragment from eßµpEgr Luc was
isolated and ligated into the homologous region of the eßµdEgr Luc
plasmid. This essentially replaced the segment of DNA containing the
wild-type pEgr with the mutant pEgr.
Overexpression experiments involving SF-1 used a mouse cDNA (46) that
had been subcloned into an expression vector that contained the Rous
sarcoma virus (RSV) long-terminal repeat to drive expression
(28). The Egr and Nab expression vectors were obtained from the
laboratory of Dr. Jeffrey Milbrandt and were driven by cytomegalovirus
(CMV) promoter sequences (29, 30). In addition, a 1.8-kb fragment from
the CMV-NGFIA (Egr1) vector was isolated and subcloned into the
previously mentioned RSV expression vector. A similar construct
containing a globin cDNA or a CMV expression vector was used as a
control in the overexpression experiments.
Cell Culture and Transient Transfections
Cultures of
T31 cells (47) were plated in DMEM with 5%
FBS, 5% horse serum, and antibiotics. On the day before transfection,
T31 cells were plated at a density of 1.8 x 105
cells per well in six-well plates. Cells were transfected with up to
1.5 µg of plasmid DNA (luciferase reporter with or without expression
vectors), 400 ng of RSVßGal (internal control of transfection
efficiency), and 7 µl of LipofectAmine (Life Technologies) according to the manufacturers recommendations
(28). Cell lysates were harvested 2 days post transfection. For
experiments involving GnRH induction, DNA constructs were transfected
as described above with the following additions. On the afternoon
before harvesting, the culture medium was replaced with serum-free
DMEM, and the cells were maintained in this medium overnight.
Approximately 1618 h after the initiation of serum-free conditions,
the medium was replaced with serum-free DMEM containing 10
nM GnRH (des-Gly10,[D-Ala6]-GnRH
ethylamide, Sigma Chemical Co.). Cell lysates were
harvested 8 h later. Plasmid constructs were evaluated in
triplicate within each transfection, and transfections were performed a
minimum of three times.
Reporter Assays
Luciferase assays were performed following the protocol for the
Promega luciferase assay system (Promega Corp.). Briefly,
cells were washed twice in PBS and harvested in 150 µl of reporter
lysis buffer (Promega Corp.). After the addition of
luciferase assay buffer (100 µl), relative luciferase activity (20
µl of lysate) was measured for 10 sec in a Berthold Lumat LB 9501
luminometer (Wallac, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD). The
Galacto-Light ß-galactosidase reporter gene assay system (Tropix,
Bedford, MA) was used to analyze ß-galactosidase activity. Reaction
buffer (100 µl) was added to cell lysates (20 µl) and incubated at
room temperature for 1 h. Light emission accelerator (150 µl)
was added, and light emission was measured for 5 sec in a luminometer.
Luciferase activity (relative light units, RLU) was normalized to the
activity of ß-galactosidase (RLU).
Nuclear Preparation and EMSAs
Nuclei were prepared from
T31 cells according to the
methods of Hagenbuchle and Wellaur (48). Cells were 7080%
confluent when harvested and had been maintained in normal media,
serum-free media for 1618 h, or serum starved for 1618 h followed
by a 60 min stimulation with 1 µM PMA. Nuclei were
diluted to a concentration of 24 x 105 nuclei/µl
and stored at -80 C. Oligodeoxynucleotides (shown in Fig. 5
) were
end-labeled with [32P]ATP using T4 kinase. These labeled
DNAs were used as probes in EMSAs. Nuclei (12 µl) were incubated
for 15 min at room temperature in binding buffer (10 mM
HEPES, pH 7.9, 100 mM KCl, 5 mM
MgCl2, 10 µM ZnCl2, 1
mM EDTA, 10% glycerol) containing 0.5 µg poly (dA-dT),
0.25 µg poly (dI-dC), and 0.1 µg salmon sperm DNA. Labeled probe
(2550 fmol) and competitor were then added and incubated for an
additional 15 min at room temperature (total reaction volume of 20
µl). The DNA-protein complexes were resolved on a 4% native
polyacrylamide gel (pre-run for
30 min) in 0.5x Tris-borate-EDTA
buffer. The gel was subsequently transferred to blotting paper
(Schleicher & Schuell, Inc., Keene, NH) and dried, and
autoradiography was performed using reflection autoradiography film
(New England Nuclear, Boston, MA). In experiments in which antibodies
were used, sera (12 µl) were added to the reaction 30 min before
addition of labeled probe. The reaction was allowed to incubate for an
additional 15 min after inclusion of labeled probe. For competition
experiments, Egr1 binding to the cEgr probe was quantitated using a
PhosphorImager (Molecular Dynamics, Inc., Sunnyvale,
CA).
RNA Isolation and Northern Blots
T31 cells were grown until 7090% confluent, serum
starved for 1618 h, and subsequently stimulated with 10
nM GnRH for 10 min to 4 h. At selected time points,
cells were quickly washed with cold PBS and harvested in 5 ml of Trizol
reagent (Life Technologies). Total RNA was isolated
following the manufacturers protocol. Total RNA (10 µg) was
fractionated on a 1% agarose/formaldehyde gel. The RNA was blotted,
hybridized, washed, and stripped using standard protocols (45).
Membranes were hybridized with random oligodeoxynucleotide
primer-generated 32P-labeled probes for Egr1, Nab1, SF-1,
and mouse ribosomal L7 protein to control for RNA loading. Membranes
were autoradiographed and subsequently quantitated using a
PhosphorImager. Blots shown are representative of at least three
different experiments unless otherwise noted.
 |
Note Added in Proof
|
---|
During review of this manuscript another report was published
indicating that GnRH and PMA could induce Egr1 expression in
T31
cells and that this led to increased expression of the rat LHß
promoter (49).
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
---|
We would like to thank Dr. Pamela Mellon for the
T31 cell
line, Dr. Keith Parker for the SF-1 cDNA, Dr. Ulf Rapp for the RSV
expression vector, Dr. Leslie Heckert for the mouse L7 cDNA, and Dr.
Jeffery Millbrandt for the Egr and Nab expression vectors.
 |
FOOTNOTES
|
---|
Address requests for reprints to: Michael W. Wolfe, Ph.D., Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas 66160-7401. E-mail: mwolfe2{at}kumc.edu
This work was supported by NIH Grant R29-DK50668 (M.W.W.) and was
performed with the assistance of the Imaging/Photography and Cell
Culture Cores of the NIH-supported Center of Reproductive Sciences
(P30-HD-33994).
Received for publication September 24, 1998.
Revision received January 26, 1999.
Accepted for publication February 3, 1999.
 |
REFERENCES
|
---|
-
Pierce J, Parsons TF 1981 Glycoprotein hormones:
structure, function. Annu Rev Biochem 50:465495[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Gharib SD, Wierman ME, Shupnik MA, Chin WW 1990 Molecular biology of the pituitary gonadotropins. Endocr Rev 11:177199[Medline]
-
Jameson JL, Hollenberg AN 1993 Regulation of
chorionic gonadotropin gene expression. Endocr Rev 14:203221[Medline]
-
Cattanach BM, Iddon C, Charlton HM, Chiappa SA, Fink
G 1977 Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone deficiency in a mutant mouse
with hypogonadism. Nature 269:338[Medline]
-
Saade F, London DR, Clayton R 1989 The interaction of
gonadotropin-releasing hormone and estradiol on luteinizing hormone and
prolactin gene expression in female hypogonadal (hpg) mice.
Endocrinology 124:17441753[Abstract]
-
Lutz B, Rugarli EI, Eichele G, Ballabio A 1993 X-linked Kallmann syndrome. A neuronal targeting defect in the
olfactory system? FEBS Lett 325:128134[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Crowley Jr WF, Filicori M, Spratt KL, Santoro
NF 1985 The physiology of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in men
and women. Recent Prog Horm Res 41:473531[Medline]
-
Levine JE, Ramirez VD 1982 Luteinizing hormone-releasing
hormone release during the rat estrous cycle and after ovariectomy as
estimated with push-pull cannulae. Endocrinology 111:14391448[Medline]
-
Wierman ME, Rivier JE, Wang C 1989 GnRH-dependent
regulation of gonadotropin subunit mRNA levels in the rat.
Endocrinology 124:272278[Abstract]
-
Haisenleder DJ, Dalkin AC, Ortolano GA, Marshall JC,
Shupnik MA 1991 A pulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulus is
required to increase transcription of the gonadotropin subunit genes:
evidence for differential regulation of transcription by pulse
frequency in vivo. Endocrinology 128:509517[Abstract]
-
Shupnik MA 1990 Effects of
gonadotropin-releasing hormone on rat gonadotropin gene transcription
in vitro: requirement for pulsatile administration for
luteinizing hormone-ß gene stimulation. Mol Endocrinol 4:14441450[Abstract]
-
Ingraham HA, Lala DS, Ikeda Y, Luo X, Shen W,
Nachtigal MW, Abbud R, Nilson JH, Parker KL 1994 The nuclear receptor
steroidogenic factor 1 acts at multiple levels of the reproductive
axis. Genes Dev 8:23022312[Abstract]
-
Halvorson LM, Kaiser UB, Chin WW 1996 Stimulation of
luteinizing hormone ß gene promoter activity by the orphan nuclear
receptor, steroidogenic factor-1. J Biol Chem 271:66456650[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Keri RA, Nilson JH 1996 A steroidogenic factor-1 binding site
is required for activity of the luteinizing hormone ß subunit
promoter in gonadotropes of transgenic mice. J Biol Chem 271:1078210785[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Lee SL, Sadovsky Y, Swirnoff AH, Polish JA, Goda P, Gavrilina
G, Milbrandt J 1996 Luteinizing hormone deficiency and female
infertility in mice lacking the transcription factor NGFI-A (Egr-1).
Science 273:12191221[Abstract]
-
Topilko P, Schneider-Maunoury S, Levi G, Trembleau A, Gourdji
D, Driancourt M, Rao CV, Charnay P 1998 Multiple pituitary and ovarian
defects in Krox-24 (NGFI-A, Egr-1)-targeted mice.
Mol Endocrinol 12:107122[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Halvorson LM, Masafumi I, Jameson JL, Chin WW 1998 Steroidogenic factor-1 and early growth response protein 1 act through
two composite DNA binding sites to regulate luteinizing hormone
ß-subunit gene expression. J Biol Chem 273:1471214720[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Milbrandt J 1987 A nerve growth factor-induced gene encodes a
possible transcriptional regulatory factor. Science 238:797799[Medline]
-
Christy BA, Lau LF, Nathans D 1988 A gene activated in mouse
3T3 cells by serum growth factors encodes a protein with "zinc
finger" sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:78577861[Abstract]
-
Lemaire P, Revelant O, Bravo R, Charnay P 1988 Two mouse genes
encoding potential transcription factors with identical DNA-binding
domains are activated by growth factors in cultured cells. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 85:46914695[Abstract]
-
Gashler A, Sukhatme VP 1995 Early growth response protein 1
(Egr-1): prototype of a zinc-finger family of transcription factors.
Prog Nucleic Acid Res 50:191224[Medline]
-
Mitchell R, Sim PJ, Leslie T, Johnson MS, Thomson FJ 1994 Activation of MAP kinase associated with the priming effect of LHRH. J
Endocrinol 140:R1518
-
Reiss N, Levi LN, Shacham S, Harris D, Seger R, Naor Z 1997 Mechanism of mitogen-activated protein kinase by gonadotropin-releasing
hormone in the pituitary
T31 cell line: differential roles of
calcium and protein kinase C. Endocrinology 138:16731682[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Roberson MS, Misra-Press A, Laurance ME, Stork PJS, Maurer RA 1995 A role for mitogen-activated protein kinase in mediating
activation of the glycoprotein hormone
-subunit promoter. Mol Cell
Biol 15:35313539[Abstract]
-
Sundaresan S, Colin IM, Pestell RG, Jameson JL 1996 Stimulation of mitogen-activated protein kinase by
gonadotropin-releasing hormone: evidence for the involvement of protein
kinase C. Endocrinology 137:304311[Abstract]
-
Weck J, Fallest PC, Pitt LK, Shupnik MA 1998 Differential
gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulation of rat luteinizing hormone
subunit gene transcription by calcium influx and mitogen-activated
protein kinase-signaling pathways. Mol Endocrinol 12:451457[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Saunders BD, Sabbagh E, Chin WW, Kaiser UB 1998 Differential
use of signal transduction pathways in the gonadotropin-releasing
hormone-mediated regulation of gonadotropin subunit gene expression.
Endocrinology 139:18351843[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Wolfe MW The equine luteinizing hormone ß promoter contains
two functional steroidogenic factor-1 response elements. Mol Endocrinol
(submitted)
-
Russo MW, Sevetson BR, Milbrandt J 1995 Identification of
NAB1, a repressor of NGFI-A and Krox20-mediated transcription. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 92:68736877[Abstract]
-
Svaren J, Sevetson BR, Apel ED, Zimonjic DB, Popescu NC,
Milbrandt J 1996 NAB2, a corepressor of NGFI-A (Egr-1) and Krox20, is
induced by proliferative and differentiative stimuli. Mol Cell Biol 16:35453553[Abstract]
-
Swirnoff AH, Apel ED, Svaren J, Sevetson BR, Zimonjic DB,
Popescu NC, Milbrandt J 1998 Nab1, a corepressor of NGFI-A (Egr-1),
contains an active transcriptional repression domain. Mol Cell Biol 18:512524[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Cesnjaj M, Zheng L, Catt KJ, Stojilkovic SS 1995 Dependence of
stimulus-transcription coupling on phospholipase D in
agonist-stimulated pituitary cells. Mol Biol Cell 6:10371047[Abstract]
-
Levi NL, Hanoch T, Benard O, Rozenblat M, Harris D, Reiss N,
Naor Z, Seger R 1998 Stimulation of Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) by
gonadotropin-releasing hormone in pituitary
T31 cell line is
mediated by protein kinase C, c-Src, and CDC42. Mol Endocrinol 12:815824[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Swirnoff AH, Milbrandt J 1995 DNA-binding specificity of
NGFI-A and related zinc finger transcription factors. Mol Cell Biol 15:22752287[Abstract]
-
Kaiser UB, Sabbagh E, Saunders BD, Chin WW 1998 Identification
of cis-acting deoxyribonucleic acid elements that mediate
gonadotropin-releasing hormone stimulation of the rat luteinizing
hormone ß-subunit gene. Endocrinology 139:24432451[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Kaiser UB, Sabbagh E, Chen MT, Chin WW, Saunders BD 1998 Sp1
binds to the rat luteinizing hormone ß (LHß) gene promoter and
mediates gonadotropin-releasing hormone-stimulated expression of the
LHß subunit gene. J Biol Chem 273:1294312951[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Tashjian Jr AH, Yasumura Y, Levine L, Sato GH, Parker ML 1968 Establishment of clonal strains of rat pituitary tumor cells that
secrete growth hormone. Endocrinology 82:342352[Medline]
-
Hinkle PM, Tashjian Jr AH 1973 Receptors for
thyrotropin-releasing hormone in prolactin-producing rat pituitary
cells in culture. J Biol Chem 248:61806186[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Haisenleder DJ, Yasin M, Dalkin AC, Gilrain J, Marshall JC 1996 GnRH regulates steroidogenic factor-1 (SF-1) gene expression in
the rat pituitary. Endocrinology 137:57195722[Abstract]
-
Virgin JB, Silver BJ, Thomason AR, Nilson JH 1985 The gene for
the ß subunit of bovine luteinizing hormone encodes a gonadotropin
mRNA with an unusually short 5'-untranslated region. J Biol Chem 260:70727077[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Jameson JL, Chin WW, Hollenberg AN, Chong AS, Habener JF 1984 The gene encoding the ß-subunit of rat luteinizing hormone. J
Biol Chem 259:1547415480[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Talmadge K, Vamvakopoulos NC, Fiddes JC 1984 Evolution of the
genes for the ß subunits of chorionic gonadotropin and luteinizing
hormone. Nature 307:3740[Medline]
-
Kumar TR, Matzuk MM 1995 Cloning of the mouse gonadotropin
ß-subunit-encoding genes, II. Structure of the luteinizing hormone
ß-subunit-encoding genes. Gene 166:335336[CrossRef][Medline]
-
Sanger F, Nicklen S, Coulson AR 1977 DNA sequencing with
chain-termination inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74:54635467[Abstract]
-
Sherman GB, Wolfe MW, Farmerie TA, Clay CM, Threadgill DS,
Sharp DC, Nilson JH 1992 A single gene encodes the ß-subunits of
equine luteinizing hormone and chorionic gonadotropin. Mol Endocrinol 6:951959[Abstract]
-
Lala DS, Rice DA, Parker KL 1992 Steroidogenic factor I, a key
regulator of steroidogenic enzyme expression, is the mouse homolog of
fushi tarazu-factor I. Mol Endocrinol 6:12491258[Abstract]
-
Windle JJ, Weiner RI, Mellon PL 1990 Cell lines of the
pituitary gonadotrope lineage derived by targeted oncogenesis in
transgenic mice. Mol Endocrinol 4:597603[Abstract]
-
Hagenbuchle O, Wellaur PK 1992 A rapid method for the
isolation of DNA-binding proteins from purified nuclei of tissues and
cells in culture. Nucleic Acids Res 20:35553559[Abstract]
-
Halvorson LM, Kaiser UB, Chin WW 1999 The protein kinase C
system acts through the early growth response protein 1 to increase
LHß gene expression in synergy with steroidogenic factor-1. Mol
Endocrinol 13:106116[Abstract/Free Full Text]