Nuclear receptor最新文献

BACKGROUND: Estrogen receptors alpha and beta (ERalpha and ERbeta) differentially activate genes with AP-1 elements. ERalpha activates AP-1 targets via activation functions with estrogens (the AF-dependent pathway), whereas ERbeta, and a short version of ERalpha (ERalpha DBD-LBD) activate only with anti-estrogens (AF-independent pathway). The DNA binding domain (DBD) plays an important role in both pathways, even though neither pathway requires ERE recognition. RESULTS: Mutations of a highly conserved DBD lysine (ERalpha.K206A/G), lead to super-activation of AP-1 through activation function dependent pathways, up to 200 fold. This super-activity can be elicited either through ER AFs 1 or 2, or that of a heterologous activation function (VP16). The homologous substitution in ERbeta, K170A, or in ERalpha DBD-LBD leads to estrogen-dependent AP-1 activation and loss of the usually potent anti-estrogen effects. Each of numerous K206 substitutions in ERalpha, except K206R, eliminates anti-estrogen activation and this loss correlates perfectly with a loss of ability to titrate a repressive function from the RU486 bound progesterone receptor. CONCLUSION: We conclude that ER DBDs contain a complex regulatory function that influences ligand activation profiles at AP-1. This function, which requires the integrity of the conserved lysine, both allows for activation at AP-1 with anti-estrogens (with ERbeta and ERalpha DBD-LBD), and prevents ERalpha from becoming superactive at AP-1 with estrogens. We discuss the possibility that a repressor interaction with the DBD both mediates the AF-independent pathway and dampens the AF dependent pathway. Mutations in the conserved lysine might, by this model, disrupt the binding or function of the repressor.

BACKGROUND: The constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) plays a key role in the control of drug metabolism and transport by mediating the phenobarbital-type induction of many phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters. RESULTS: We identified transcripts generated by four different alternative splicing events in the human CAR gene. Two of the corresponding ligand binding domain isoforms demonstrated novel functional properties: First, CAR(SV3), which is encoded by a transcript containing an lengthened exon 7, differentially transactivated target gene promoters. Second, CAR(SV2), which results from the use of an alternative 3' splice site lengthening exon 8, showed ligand-dependent instead of constitutive interaction with coactivators. Furthermore, alternatively spliced transcripts demonstrated a tissue-specific expression pattern. In most tissues, only transcripts generated by alternative splicing within exon 9 were expressed. The encoded variant demonstrated a loss-of-function phenotype. Correct splicing of exon 8 to exon 9 is restricted to only a few tissues, among them liver and small intestine for which CAR function has been demonstrated, and is associated with the induction of CAR expression during differentiation of intestinal cells. CONCLUSION: Due to their specific activities, CAR variant proteins SV2 and SV3 may modulate the activity of reference CAR(SV1). Furthermore, we propose that transcriptional activation and regulation of splicing of exon 9 may be coupled to ensure appropriate tissue- and differentiation state-specific expression of transcripts encoding functional CAR protein. Altogether, alternative splicing seems to be of utmost importance for the regulation of CAR expression and function.

Background: PPARδ (NR1C2) promotes lipid accumulation in human macrophages in vitro and has been implicated in the response of macrophages to vLDL. We have investigated the role of PPARδ in PMA-stimulated macrophage differentiation. The THP-1 monocytic cell line which displays macrophage like differentiation in response to phorbol esters was used as a model system. We manipulated the response to PMA using a potent synthetic agonist of PPARδ , compound F. THP-1 sub-lines that either over-expressed PPARδ protein, or expressed PPARδ anti-sense RNA were generated. We then explored the effects of these genetic modulations on the differentiation process.

Results: The PPARδ agonist, compound F, stimulated differentiation in the presence of sub-nanomolar concentrations of phorbol ester. Several markers of differentiation were induced by compound F in a synergistic fashion with phorbol ester, including CD68 and IL8. Over-expression of PPARδ also sensitised THP-1 cells to phorbol ester and correspondingly, inhibition of PPARδ by anti-sense RNA completely abolished this response.

Conclusions: These data collectively demonstrate that PPARδ plays a fundamental role in mediating a subset of cellular effects of phorbol ester and supports observations from mouse knockout models that PPARδ is involved in macrophage-mediated inflammatory responses.

Since its discovery in the early 1990s, the orphan nuclear receptor SF-1 has been attributed a central role in the development and differentiation of steroidogenic tissues. SF-1 controls the expression of all the steroidogenic enzymes and cholesterol transporters required for steroidogenesis as well as the expression of steroidogenesis-stimulating hormones and their cognate receptors. SF-1 is also an essential regulator of genes involved in the sex determination cascade. The study of SF-1 null mice and of human mutants has been of great value to demonstrate the essential role of this factor in vivo, although the complete adrenal and gonadal agenesis in knock-out animals has impeded studies of its function as a transcriptional regulator. In particular, the role of SF-1 in the hormonal responsiveness of steroidogenic genes promoters is still a subject of debate. This extensive review takes into account recent data obtained from SF-1 haploinsufficient mice, pituitary-specific knock-outs and from transgenic mice experiments carried out with SF-1 target gene promoters. It also summarizes the pros and cons regarding the presumed role of SF-1 in cAMP signalling.

BACKGROUND: The specificity of a nuclear receptor's ability to modulate gene expression resides in its ability to bind a specific lipophilic ligand, associate with specific dimerization partners and bind specific DNA sequences in the promoter regions of genes. This sequence of events appears to be the basis for targeting an additional regulatory complex composed of a variety of protein and RNA components that deliver signals for facilitation or inhibition of the RNA polymerase complex. Characterization of the tissue and cell-specific components of these coregulatory complexes appear to be integral to our understanding of nuclear receptor regulation of transcription. RESULTS: A novel yeast screen sensitive to retinoid-X receptor (RXR) transcriptional activation resulted in the isolation of the rat homologue of the mouse NPDC-1 gene. NPDC-1 has been shown to be involved in the control of neural cell proliferation and differentiation, possibly through interactions with the cell cycle promoting transcription factor E2F-1. Although the amino acid sequence of NPDC-1 is highly conserved between mouse, rat and human homologues, their tissue specific expression was seen to vary. A potential for direct protein:protein interaction between NPDC-1, RXR and retinoic acid receptor beta (RARbeta) was observed in vitro and NPDC-1 facilitated RXR homodimer and RAR-RXR heterodimer DNA binding in vitro. Expression of NPDC-1 was also observed to repress transcription mediated by retinoid receptors as well as by several other nuclear receptor family members, although not in a universal manner. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that NPDC-1, through direct interaction with retinoid receptors, functions to enhance the transcription complex formation and DNA binding function of retinoid receptors, but ultimately repress retinoid receptor-mediated gene expression. As with NPDC-1, retinoids and their receptors have been implicated in brain development and these data provide a point of convergence for NPDC-1 and retinoid mediation of neuronal differentiation.

BACKGROUND: Retinoic acid receptors (RARs) are ligand-regulated transcription factors controlling cellular proliferation and differentiation. Receptor-interacting proteins such as corepressors and coactivators play a crucial role in specifying the overall transcriptional activity of the receptor in response to ligand treatment. Little is known however on how receptor activity is controlled by intermediary factors which interact with RARs in a ligand-independent manner. RESULTS: We have identified the promyelocytic leukemia zinc finger protein (PLZF), a transcriptional corepressor, to be a RAR-interacting protein using the yeast two-hybrid assay. We confirmed this interaction by GST-pull down assays and show that the PLZF N-terminal zinc finger domain is necessary and sufficient for PLZF to bind RAR. The RAR ligand binding domain displayed the highest affinity for PLZF, but corepressor and coactivator binding interfaces did not contribute to PLZF recruitment. The interaction was ligand-independent and correlated to a decreased transcriptional activity of the RXR-RAR heterodimer upon overexpression of PLZF. A similar transcriptional interference could be observed with the estrogen receptor alpha and the glucocorticoid receptor. We further show that PLZF is likely to act by preventing RXR-RAR heterodimerization, both in-vitro and in intact cells. CONCLUSION: Thus RAR and PLZF interact physically and functionally. Intriguingly, these two transcription factors play a determining role in hematopoiesis and regionalization of the hindbrain and may, upon chromosomal translocation, form fusion proteins. Our observations therefore define a novel mechanism by which RARs activity may be controlled.

Background: Hepatocyte nuclear factor-4α (HNF4α; NR2A1) is an orphan member of the nuclear receptor superfamily involved in various processes that could influence endoderm development, glucose and lipid metabolism. A loss-of-function mutation in human HNF4α causes one form of diabetes mellitus called maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 1 (MODY1) which is characterized in part by a diminished insulin secretory response to glucose. The expression of HNF4α in a variety of tissues has been examined predominantly at the mRNA level, and there is little information regarding the cellular localization of the endogenous HNF4α protein, due, in part, to the limited availability of human HNF4α-specific antibodies.

Results: Monoclonal antibodies have been produced using baculovirus particles displaying gp64-HNF4α fusion proteins as the immunizing agent. The mouse anti-human HNF4α monoclonal antibody (K9218) generated against human HNF4α1/α2/α3 amino acids 3-49 was shown to recognize not only the transfected and expressed P1 promoter-driven HNF4α proteins, but also endogenous proteins. Western blot analysis with whole cell extracts from Hep G2, Huh7 and Caco-2 showed the expression of HNF4α protein, but HEK293 showed no expression of HNF4α protein. Nuclear-specific localization of the HNF4α protein was observed in the hepatocytes of liver cells, proximal tubular epithelial cells of kidney, and mucosal epithelial cells of small intestine and colon, but no HNF4α protein was detected in the stomach, pancreas, glomerulus, and distal and collecting tubular epithelial cells of kidney. The same tissue distribution of HNF4α protein was observed in humans and rats. Electron microscopic immunohistochemistry showed a chromatin-like localization of HNF4α in the liver and kidney. As in the immunohistochemical investigation using K9218, HNF4α mRNA was found to be localized primarily to liver, kidney, small intestine and colon by RT-PCR and GeneChip analysis.

Conclusion: These results suggest that this method has the potential to produce valuable antibodies without the need for a protein purification step. Immunohistochemical studies indicate the tissue and subcellular specific localization of HNF4α and demonstrate the utility of K9218 for the detection of P1 promoter-driven HNF4α isoforms in humans and in several other mammalian species.

Nuclear receptors (NRs) usually bind the corepressors N-CoR and SMRT in the absence of ligand or in the presence of antagonists. Agonist binding leads to corepressor release and recruitment of coactivators. Here, we report that estrogen receptor beta (ERbeta) binds N-CoR and SMRT in the presence of agonists, but not antagonists, in vitro and in vivo. This ligand preference differs from that of ERalpha interactions with corepressors, which are inhibited by estradiol, and resembles that of ERbeta interactions with coactivators. ERbeta /N-CoR interactions involve ERbeta AF-2, which also mediates coactivator recognition. Moreover, ERbeta recognizes a sequence (PLTIRML) in the N-CoR C-terminus that resembles coactivator LXXLL motifs. Inhibition of histone deacetylase activity specifically potentiates ERbeta LBD activity, suggesting that corepressors restrict the activity of AF-2. We conclude that the ER isoforms show completely distinct modes of interaction with a physiologically important corepressor and discuss our results in terms of ER isoform specificity in vivo.

BACKGROUND: Steroid hormone receptors (SHRs) are members of the superfamily of ligand-activated transcription factors that regulate many biological processes. Co-regulators act as bridging molecules between the SHR and general transcription factors to enhance transactivation of target genes. Previous studies demonstrated that Stat3 is constitutively activated in prostate cancer and can enhance prostate specific antigen (PSA) expression and promote androgen independent growth. In this study, we investigate whether Stat3 can enhance steroid hormone receptors activation. METHODS: CV-1 cells in which plasmids expressing androgen receptor (AR), glucocorticoid receptor (GR), progesterone receptor (PR) or estrogen receptor (ER) were cotransfected with a constitutively active STAT3 mutant. RESULTS: Stat3 stimulates the transcriptional activity of all four SHR tested, AR, GR, PR and ER, in a hormone-dependent manner. Stat3 acts in a synergistic fashion with other coactivators such as SRC-1, pCAF, CBP, and TIF-2 on the transcriptional activity of these SHR. In addition, Stat3 significantly enhanced the sensitivity of androgen receptor in response to androgen. STAT3 did not affect the specificity of AR for other steroid hormones other than androgen or binding of AR to other hormone responsive elements. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Stat3 can enhance the transactivation of AR, GR, PR and ER, and activated Stat3 could have a role in the development or progression of a hypersensitive AR.

BACKGROUND: CAR/RXR heterodimers bind a variety of hormone response elements and activate transcription in the absence of added ligands. This constitutive activity of murine CAR can be inhibited by the inverse agonist ligand androstanol or increased by the agonist TCPOBOP. RXR agonists activate some RXR heterodimer complexes, which are termed permissive, while other non-permissive complexes are not responsive to such ligands. RESULTS: Direct protein-protein interaction studies demonstrate that the RXR agonist 9-cis-RA increases interaction of CAR/RXR heterodimers with the coactivator SRC-3, but also inhibits the ability of TCPOBOP to increase and androstanol to decrease coactivator binding. CAR transactivation of a response element with a five nucleotide spacer (DR-5) is unaffected by 9-cis-RA or the synthetic RXR agonist LG1069. In agreement with the inhibitory effect observed in vitro, these rexinoids block both the TCPOBOP mediated transactivation of this element and the androstanol dependent inhibition. In contrast, CAR transactivation of other response elements is increased by rexinoids. Stable expression of CAR in a HepG2 derived cell line increases expression of the endogenous CAR target CYP2B6. This expression is further increased by TCPOBOP but decreased by either androstanol or LG1069, and LG1069 blocks the stimulatory effect of TCPOBOP but not the inhibitory effect of androstanol. CONCLUSION: We conclude that CAR/RXR heterodimers are neither strictly permissive nor non-permissive for RXR signaling. Instead, rexinoids have distinct effects in different contexts. These results expand the potential regulatory mechanisms of rexinoids and suggest that such compounds may have complex and variable effects on xenobiotic responses.