Previous Article | Next Article 
Molecular and Cellular Biology, July 2001, p. 4379-4390, Vol. 21, No. 13
0270-7306/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.21.13.4379-4390.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Use of Suppressor Mutants To Probe the Function of
Estrogen Receptor-p160 Coactivator Interactions
Ho Yi
Mak
and
Malcolm
G.
Parker*
Molecular Endocrinology Laboratory, Imperial
Cancer Research Fund, London WC2A 3PX, United Kingdom
Received 21 December 2000/Returned for modification 20 February
2001/Accepted 9 April 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
Estrogen-dependent recruitment of coactivators by estrogen receptor
alpha (ER
) represents a crucial step in the transcriptional activation of target genes. However, studies of the function of individual coactivators has been hindered by the presence of endogenous coactivators, many of which are potentially recruited in the presence of agonist via a common mechanism. To circumvent this problem, we have
generated second-site suppressor mutations in the nuclear receptor
interaction domain of p160 coactivators which rescue their binding to a
transcriptionally defective ER
that is refractory to wild-type
coactivators. Analysis of these altered-specificity receptor-coactivator combinations, in the absence of interference from
endogenous coregulators, indicated that estrogen-dependent transcription from reporter genes is critically dependent on direct recruitment of a p160 coactivator in mammalian cells and that the three
p160 family members serve functionally redundant roles. Furthermore,
our results suggest that such a change-of-specificity mutation may act
as a transposable protein-protein interaction module which provides a
novel tool with which to dissect the functional roles of other nuclear
receptor coregulators at the cellular level.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Estrogen receptor alpha (ER
) is a
ligand-inducible transcription factor which belongs to the nuclear
receptor superfamily (10, 25). Upon binding to its natural
ligand, 17
-estradiol, activated ER
has been proposed to recruit a
number of putative coactivators which lead to transcriptional
activation through physical or enzymatic modification of local
chromatin structure and recruitment of the basal transcription
machinery at target gene promoters (13, 28). Recruitment
of coactivators is mediated by two distinct transcriptional activation
domains (ADs): ligand-independent AF1 at the N terminus and
ligand-dependent AF2 at the C terminus, which is encompassed by the
ligand binding domain (LBD) (8, 37). A large number of
putative coactivators which are capable of binding nuclear receptors in
a ligand-dependent manner have been isolated through a variety of
genetic and biochemical methods. Among them are the p160 family of
coactivators, SRC1, TIF2/GRIP1, and RAC3/AIB1/ACTR/p/CIP (14,
27). Together with CBP/p300 and P/CAF, they form a subgroup of
nuclear receptor coregulators which possess histone acetyltransferase
activity. Several other functionally distinct nuclear receptor
coregulators include the TRAP/DRIP complexes (24),
TIF1
, PGC-1, SRA (14, 27), and ASC-2/RAP250/NRC1
(4, 19, 22).
A common feature of most, if not all, putative nuclear receptor
coactivators is the presence of one or more copies of the LXXLL motif
(where L stands for leucine and X is any amino acid), a signature
sequence which confers agonist-dependent binding to nuclear receptors
(15, 18, 38). From crystallographical studies, the LXXLL
motif was shown to be encompassed in a two-turn, amphipathic
-helical structure which docks to a hydrophobic groove on the
surface of agonist-bound nuclear receptor LBDs (9, 29, 34). Notably, the coactivator docking sites, which formally define AF2 of ER
, PPAR
, and TR
, appear to share striking
similarity and this conservation is likely to extend to other members
of the nuclear receptor superfamily, as predicted by sequence and structural comparisons (41, 43). Although a number of
features at the receptor-coactivator interface had been noted which may confer binding specificity to isolated LXXLL-containing
-helices (9, 11, 23, 26), preferential binding of a given
coactivator to a single nuclear receptor is rarely observed in the
context of full-length protein. Given the common mechanism of
receptor-coregulator interaction, it has been difficult to assign
specific functional roles to a designated coregulator in nuclear
receptor transactivation in mammalian cell culture systems.
We are particularly interested in determining the relative
importance of putative coactivators in ER
transactivation. It has
been reported that exogenous expression of p160 coactivators, CBP/p300,
ASC-2/RAP250/NRC1, or PGC-1 potentiates the ability of ER
to
stimulate transcription from reporter genes (6, 17, 19, 36,
40). On the other hand, there is evidence that the TRAP/DRIP
complex is also involved in mediating nuclear receptor transactivation
(12, 32). Notably, the TRAP220/DRIP205 component, which
possesses two LXXLL motifs, is thought to anchor the complex to
agonist-bound nuclear receptors, including ER
(3, 31, 47,
48).
Our overall goal was to examine the ability of specific p160 family
members to mediate transcription by ER
in the absence of
interference from endogenous coactivators. In mammalian cells, endogenous coactivators are usually sufficient to support
estrogen-dependent transcriptional activation of reporter genes. As a
result, it is not feasible to determine whether exogenously expressed
coactivators potentiate ER
transactivation by direct interaction or
in combination with endogenous coregulators which are already in direct
contact with the receptor. Through genetic selection in yeast, we
isolated a mutant SRC1 which is capable of interacting with mER
V380H, a transcriptionally defective receptor refractory to wild-type coactivators. By using this altered-specificity receptor-coactivator pair, we demonstrated that ER
transactivation is dependent upon direct recruitment of SRC1 and its subsequent interaction with CBP/p300
in mammalian cells. Furthermore, we obtained evidence that all p160
coactivator family members serve redundant functions by examining
mutant versions of TIF2 and RAC3 which carry the same
altered-specificity mutation.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Plasmids. (i) mER
.
The point mutation V380H in the mouse
ER
(mER
) LBD was introduced by recombinant PCR using
PfuTurbo DNA polymerase (Stratagene). A PCR fragment was
introduced into plasmid pSP6MORK (8) digested with
NdeI and BglII. The full-length mutant receptor
was subsequently subcloned into pSG5 as an EcoRI fragment,
designated pSG5 MORK V380H, for transient transfection. The LBD of
mER
V380H was fused to the Gal4 DNA binding domain (DBD) by
subcloning an XbaI restriction fragment from pSG5 MORK V380H
into pSG-Gal MORK (23). The LBD of the wild-type receptor
and the V380H mutant receptor was fused to the Gal4 AD by cloning PCR
fragments encompassing Ser313 and Ile599 of mER
into pGAD424
(Clontech) digested with EcoRI and BamHI.
(ii) hRAR
.
To generate the construct pSG-Gal hRAR
LBD,
a PCR fragment encompassing Ser154 to Pro462 of human retinoic acid
receptor alpha (hRAR
) was cloned into pSG-Gal digested with
EcoRI and BglII. The point mutation I258H was
introduced by recombinant PCR using PfuTurbo DNA polymerase
(Stratagene). A PCR fragment containing the mutation was inserted into
pSG-Gal hRAR
LBD which had been digested with SacI and
SmaI.
(iii) SRC1.
The construct pSG5 SRC1e m13, in which the first
and third LXXLL motifs had been mutated to LXXAA, was described
previously (17). An XhoI site was introduced at
nucleotide position 2040 by recombinant PCR in order to generate the
construct pSG5 SRCX1e m13 (where X denotes the new XhoI
site). A double-FLAG epitope tag was introduced into the N terminus of
SRC1e by transferring an SmaI-CelII fragment from
pSG5 FLAG SRC1e (E. Kalkhoven, unpublished data) into pSG5 SRCX1e m13
to give pSG5 FLAG SRCX1e m13. In order to generate pGBDU-SRCX1 m13 RID,
in which the SRC1 m13 receptor interaction domain encompassing Pro570
and Asp782 was fused to the Gal4 DBD, a PCR fragment was subcloned into
pGBDU-C1 (a gift from P. James; 16) which had been
digested with EcoRI and SalI. The VHC mutation
was transferred from the yeast library construct into full-length SRC1e
by subcloning an XhoI-EcoRV fragment into pSG5
FLAG SRCX1e m13 to generate pSG5 FLAG SRCX1e VHC. The point mutation
1689A was introduced into pSG5 FLAG SRCX1e VHC by subcloning an
XhoI-EcoRV recombinant PCR fragment. The
construct pSG5 FLAG SRCX1e VHC
AD1 was generated by subcloning a
BamHI-MscI restriction fragment from pSG5 SRC1e
AD1 which lacked residues 900 to 950 (1).
(iv) TIF2.
The construct pSG5 TIF2 m123, in which all three
LXXLL motifs had been mutated to LXXAA, was a gift from H. Gronemeyer.
Full-length TIF2 m123 was subcloned into pSG-FLAG (a vector based on
pSG5; B. Belandia, unpublished data) where an N-terminal FLAG epitope tag was placed in frame with the TIF2 open reading frame to give pSG
FLAG TIF2 m123. The second LXXLL motif was reverted back to the wild
type to give pSG FLAG TIF2 m13 by subcloning a PstI-digested recombinant PCR fragment. The VHC mutation was introduced into pSG FLAG
TIF2 m13 by subcloning a PstI-digested recombinant PCR fragment in order to generate the construct pSG FLAG TIF2 VHC.
(v) RAC3.
The construct pCMX-F.RAC3 was a gift from J. D. Chen. Full-length RAC3 was subcloned into pSG-FLAG, where an
N-terminal FLAG epitope tag was placed in frame with the RAC3 open
reading frame to give pSG FLAG RAC3. Mutations of the LXXLL motifs to
LXXAA, either individually or in all possible combinations, were
generated by recombinant PCR and subcloned into pSG FLAG RAC3 as either HindIII-SpeI or
XhoI-SpeI fragments. The new XhoI site
at nucleotide position 1881 was introduced during mutagenesis of LXXLL
motif 1. The VHC mutation was introduced into pSG FLAG RAC3 m13 by
subcloning an XhoI-SpeI recombinant PCR fragment
to produce pSG FLAG RAC3 VHC.
Library construction and yeast two-hybrid screening.
A
library was constructed based on plasmid pGBDU-SRC1 m13 RID, in which
the codons for Leu690 and Leu694 were randomized by using the
QuickChange Site-Directed Mutagenesis kit (Stratagene) with
complementary primers
5'-cagaacggcataaaattnnscaccggctcnnscaggagggtagcccctcag-3'. Escherichia coli strain DH5
was transformed by
electroporation with mutated plasmids, and 2,800 independent colonies
were harvested from which the library DNA was prepared. Sequencing of
randomly selected clones indicated that approximately 80% of the
library contained the targeted mutations.
The yeast two-hybrid screening was performed by using strain
PJ69-4A (MATa trp1-901 leu2-3,112 ura3-52 his3-200
gal4
gal80
GAL2-ADE2
LYS2::GAL1-HIS3
met2::GAL7-lacZ) (16)
transformed with pGAD mER
V380H and the mutant library. We selected
59,000 transformants on plates with synthetic medium lacking uracil, leucine, and histidine and containing 100 nM 17
-estradiol and 5 mM
3-aminotriazole in order to suppress any spontaneous activation of the
HIS3 reporter gene by the Gal4 DBD fusion proteins of the library. One colony was recovered, and the ligand-dependent interaction between the putative clone and mER
V380H was verified by growth on
plates with synthetic medium lacking uracil, leucine, and adenine, either in the absence or in the presence of 100 nM 17
-estradiol.
Cell culture and transient-transfection experiments.
HeLa,
COS-1, and 293-T cells were routinely maintained in Dulbecco's
modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) containing 10% fetal bovine serum
(FBS; Gibco BRL). For transient-transfection reporter assays, HeLa and
COS-1 cells were plated in 96-well microtiter plates in phenol red-free
DMEM containing 5% charcoal-dextran-stripped FBS. Cells were
transfected by calcium phosphate coprecipitation as described earlier
(8). For each individual well, the transfected DNA
included a pRL-CMV control plasmid (0.5 ng; Promega); a
p2×ERE-TATA-GL3, p2×ERE-pS2-GL3, or p5Gal-E1B-GL3 reporter (10 ng);
and a pSG5-based expression plasmid encoding either full-length mER
or a Gal4 fusion of mER
(2 ng) plus or minus designated coactivators
(15 ng). A constant amount of DNA was maintained in each well with an
appropriate amount of the pSG5-based expression vector. After 16 h, the cells were washed and then maintained in medium containing 5%
charcoal-dextran-stripped FBS and phenol red-free DMEM in the presence
or absence of ligand for 24 h. Subsequently, cells were harvested
and extracts were assayed for luciferase activity with the LucLite
luciferase reporter assay kit (Packard) and for Renilla luciferase activity by using 250 ng of Coelenterazine (dissolved in
dimethyl sulfoxide and diluted in 0.5 M HEPES [pH 7.8]-40 mM EDTA)
(Calbiochem) per well as the reaction substrate. The Renilla luciferase activity was used to correct for differences in transfection efficiency.
For transient transfection of 293-T cells, a calcium phosphate
coprecipitation method (Profection; Promega) was used in accordance with the manufacturer's protocol. For each 10-cm-diameter dish, 20 µg of a pSG5-based expression plasmid was transfected (12 µg for
wild-type or mutant mER
and 8 µg for designated coactivators).
Immunoprecipitation and Western blot analysis.
After 24 h of incubation, 293-T cells transfected with combinations of wild-type
or mutant mER
and p160 coactivators were lysed by using buffer A (20 mM Tris-HCl [pH 8], 75 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA [pH 8], 1% Nonidet P-40)
which contained a cocktail of protease inhibitors (Roche). For each
10-cm-diameter culture dish, 1 ml of buffer A was used. The crude
lysate was centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 20 min at
4°C, and the supernatant was precleared by incubation with protein
G-Sepharose (Pharmacia) for 30 min at 4°C. The cleared lysate was
divided into 400-µl aliquots and subjected to immunoprecipitation
with the addition of 25 µg of Anti-FLAG M2 agarose (Kodak) plus or
minus 17
-estradiol (1 µM final concentration) in a total volume of
1 ml. After incubation at 4°C for 5 h, agarose beads were washed
four times with buffer A and once with phosphate-buffered saline. The
immunoprecipitated complexes were eluted by boiling in sodium dodecyl
sulfate gel loading buffer.
The protein samples were separated by sodium dodecyl
sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and transferred to
nitrocellulose membrane. For detection of mER
, monoclonal antibody
H222 (a gift of Geoff Greene) was used at a 1:2,000 dilution. For
detection of the FLAG epitope, an anti-FLAG M2 monoclonal antibody
(Kodak) was used at a 1:1,000 dilution. This was followed by a
horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibody (DAKO) at a
1:3,000 dilution. Bound antibodies were visualized with ECL reagent (Amersham).
 |
RESULTS |
Experimental design.
To investigate the functional consequence
of a direct interaction between p160 coactivators and ER
in
mammalian cells, we first generated mutant receptors which were
transcriptionally defective by disrupting the coactivator interaction
surface. This was followed by directed genetic selection for
altered-specificity SRC1 mutants that were capable of binding the
mutant receptors. The ER
mutants were unable to activate reporter
genes presumably because they could not interact with endogenous
coactivators (Fig. 1A). We then wished to
determine whether transcriptional activation would be conditional upon
exogenous expression of altered-specificity SRC1. Rescue of
transcriptional activity would suggest that direct recruitment of SRC1
is required for ER
transactivation, whereas failure to do so would
imply either that a direct interaction between ER
and SRC1 is not
crucial or that transcription must be dependent on the recruitment of
other coactivators to the AF2 surface of ER
.

View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Estrogen-dependent gene activation through
ER -coactivator interaction. (A) Model for gene activation by
wild-type and mutant ER . (i) In mammalian cells, wild-type ER
interacts with endogenous coactivators in a ligand-dependent manner to
activate the transcription of a reporter gene. Different shadings
represent distinct species of coactivators which are capable of
interacting with agonist-bound ER and whose relative functional
importance is unresolved. (ii) Disruption of the coactivator
interaction surface of ER prevents its binding to any endogenous
coactivators. The mutant ER is therefore unable to activate
transcription. (iii) Conditional gene activation may be achieved by
coexpression of the mutant ER with its altered-specificity
coactivator partner on the assumption that the coactivator is directly
recruited by ER under physiological conditions. (B) A close-up view
of the agonist-bound hER -GRIP1 NR box II peptide cocrystal structure
showing the receptor-peptide interface. The residues that form the
coactivator-interacting surface in the receptor moiety are yellow
(hydrophobic), red (acidic), and blue (basic) and are numbered as in
mER . The peptide is in cyan. The two leucine residues, in close
contact with V380 of mER , are shown in space-filled mode to
highlight the interaction. The model was generated by RasMol and was
based on the coordinates under Protein Data Bank entry code 3ERD.
|
|
Mutant mER
impaired for interaction with transcriptional
coactivators.
The molecular determinants of the mER
-coactivator
interface have been established in biochemical and crystallographic
studies, and selected residues which mediate the protein-protein
interactions are highlighted in Fig. 1B (2, 23, 34). We
have previously analyzed the role of V380, a conserved residue on the
surface of mER
LBD, in coactivator binding. While the V380D mutant
receptor failed to bind SRC1e, binding by the V380A mutant receptor was unaffected. In contrast, replacement of L543 with alanine was sufficient to abolish coactivator interaction (23). This
prompted us to conclude that V380 is not essential at the mER
coactivator-interacting surface and mutations at V380 which abolish
coactivator binding might be more amenable to complementation.
We generated one additional mutant receptor, V380H, which satisfied the
criteria for potential complementation by altered-specificity SRC1e.
V380H was unable to interact with SRC1e in vivo and in vitro and
displayed greatly reduced transcriptional activity when transiently
transfected into mammalian cells (see below). The structural integrity
of the mutant receptor was demonstrated by (i) normal binding affinity
for 17
-estradiol (Kd = 0.87 nM for V380H and
0.33 nM for the wild-type receptor) and (ii) binding to a consensus
estrogen response element from the vitellogenin A2 promoter (data not
shown). Furthermore, V380H was expressed at a similar level in 293-T
cells compared with the wild-type control (see below). Taken together,
the results show that the tertiary structure of the V380H mutant
remained intact and its reduced transcriptional activity could be
attributed to an impairment in coactivator recruitment.
Screen for an altered-specificity mutant of SRC1e capable of
interacting with mER
mutants.
The crystal structure of the
agonist-bound human ER
LBD complexed with the GRIP1 nuclear receptor
box II peptide indicates that V376 of human ER
(which corresponds to
V380 of mER
) interdigitates with L690 and L694 of GRIP1
(34). We assumed that similar van der Waals contacts exist
between V380 of mER
and L690 and L694 of SRC1e since the residues
which constitute the receptor-coactivator interface are highly
conserved (Fig. 1B). Furthermore, the failure of both V380D and V380H
mutant receptors to bind wild-type SRC1e was most likely due to
disruption of these contacts. In order to isolate altered-specificity
SRC1e mutants capable of interacting with mER
V380D or V380H, we
randomly mutated SRC1e at L690 and L694, which form part of the second
LXXLL motif. The second LXXLL motif was chosen because it was shown to
preferentially interact with mER
(17, 23). The mutant
library was based on a construct encompassing the entire
receptor-interacting domain of SRC1e, where the first and third LXXLL
motifs were rendered nonfunctional by mutation to LXXAA (SRC1 m13)
(Fig. 2A). This ensured that interaction with the mutant receptors would be restored solely by mutations based
on the second LXXLL motif and not by cooperation with a wild-type
motif. It also justified the use of SRC1 m13 as a wild-type reference
for receptor-coactivator interaction and function in subsequent
experiments.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Altered-specificity SRC1e. (A) Schematic representation
of constructs used in the yeast two-hybrid screen for SRC1 mutants
which suppress mutations in V380 of mER . The numbers indicate amino
acid positions in the full-length protein. The letter X represents any
amino acids and signifies the two randomized positions. In addition,
LXXLL motifs 1 and 3 of SRC1 were rendered nonfunctional by mutation to
LXXAA and the construct was denoted by the suffix m13. The lightly
shaded box represents the AD of Gal4 (amino acids 768 to 881), and the
darkly shaded box represents the DBD of Gal4 (amino acids 1 to 147).
(B) Sequence comparison of wild-type SRC1 and SRC1 VHC. The black box
encompasses the 15-amino-acid insertion found immediately C terminal to
the wild-type LXXLL motif. The variant motif YXXLK is marked with
asterisks. (C) Ligand-dependent interaction of mER V380H with SRC1
VHC in vivo. Expression of Gal4 AD-V380H and Gal4 DBD-SRC1 VHC
two-hybrid proteins conferred E2 (100 nM)-dependent growth of yeast
strain PJ69-4A on synthetic medium lacking adenine by activating the
ADE2 gene, which was under the control of the
Gal2 promoter. PJ69-4A transformed with plasmids encoding
Gal4 AD-wild type (wt) mER and Gal4 DBD-SRC1 m13 acted as a positive
control. Plates were incubated at 30°C for 2 days. NH, no hormone.
(D) Ligand-dependent interaction of mER V380H with SRC1e VHC in
vitro. Full-length mER and FLAG epitope-tagged wild-type or mutant
SRC1e was transiently expressed in 293-T cells, and the whole-cell
lysate was subjected to immunoprecipitation (IP) with an anti-FLAG
antibody immobilized on agarose beads in the absence or presence of 1 µM E2. SRC1e was detected by Western blotting using an anti-FLAG
antibody. The coimmunoprecipitated mER was detected by using
anti-ER antibody H222. VH, V380H; WB, Western blot.
|
|
A yeast two-hybrid screen was performed in which a library of SRC1e
mutants, representing 2,800 independent clones, were selected for
binding to Gal4 activation domain fusions of mER
LBD containing either the V380D or V380H mutation. We were unable to recover any
suppressor allele for the V380D mutant receptor. However, one
suppressor allele, designated SRC1 VHC for V380H complement, was
recovered among 59,000 transformants for the V380H mutation. To gain
insight into the molecular basis of complementation, the DNA sequence
of the mutant SRC1 allele was determined. To our surprise, the mutant
allele consisted of a wild-type LXXLL motif, followed immediately by a
C-terminal insertion of 15 amino acids containing a variant motif,
YXXLK (Fig. 2B). It was plausible that two mutagenic primers were
incorporated in tandem during the library construction. This was
supported by the observation that codons which encoded L690 and L694 in
the mutant allele differed from those of the wild-type. The mutant
allele represented a rare species in the library and provided an
explanation for the recovery of a single allele from an apparent
saturation screen.
Next, we verified the binding properties of the suppressor mutant.
Ligand-dependent interaction between SRC1 VHC and mER
V380H in yeast
was confirmed by the ability of the two-hybrid proteins to activate a
Gal2-ADE2 reporter and thereby conferred growth on Ade
medium (Fig. 2C). Full-length SRC1e VHC coimmunoprecipitated with
mER
V380H in a ligand-dependent manner in vitro (Fig. 2D). The
strength of interaction was approximately 50% compared with that of
the wild-type receptor-coactivator pair (Fig. 2D, compare lanes 8 and
10). In addition, ligand-dependent interaction between SRC1e VHC and
wild-type mER
was also detected because of the presence of an intact
LXXLL motif (Fig. 2D, lanes 5 and 6). Taken together, our results have
identified an altered-specifity mutant SRC1e through directed genetic
selection in yeast which is capable of interacting with mER
V380H in
vivo and in vitro.
Functional rescue of mER
V380H by altered specificity
SRC1e.
Having established that SRC1e VHC interacts with mER
V380H, we next asked whether it could restore the transcriptional
activity of the mutant receptor. The full-length wild-type or V380H
mutant receptor was transiently transfected into HeLa cells and tested for the ability to activate a 2×ERE-TATA-luciferase reporter. The
V380H mutant receptor had markedly reduced transcriptional activity,
indicating that it was severely compromised in its interaction with
endogenous coactivators (Fig 3A). In the
presence of exogenously expressed SRC1e m13 and SRC1e VHC, the
transcriptional activity of the wild-type receptor was potentiated by
approximately four- to sixfold (Fig. 3A). Exogenous expression of SRC1e
VHC led to a 14-fold induction of V380H agonist-dependent activity. The
level of reporter gene activation was comparable to that achieved by the wild-type receptor-coactivator pair and represented a complete functional rescue of V380H. A similar profile of transcriptional activation was obtained when the full-length wild-type or V380H mutant
receptor was tested on a 2×ERE-pS2-luciferase reporter in HeLa cells
(Fig. 3B). Taken together, our results demonstrated the functional
rescue of V380H by SRC1e VHC in the context of two different promoters,
which implied that direct recruitment of SRC1e by mER
might be
sufficient to elicit transcriptional activation in mammalian cells.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Specific functional rescue of mER V380H by SRC1e VHC.
(A) Wild-type and mutant full-length receptors were transiently
transfected into HeLa cells together with the p2×ERE-TATA-GL3 reporter
in the absence ( ) or presence of full-length SRC1e m13 or SRC1e VHC.
The pRL-CMV plasmid, which encoded the Renilla luciferase
gene driven by a cytomegalovirus promoter, was cotransfected as an
internal control. After transfection, cells were treated with the
ethanol vehicle alone (no hormone [NH]) or 17 -estradiol (E2) at 10 nM for 24 h. Subsequently, cells were assayed for firefly
luciferase (LUC) and Renilla luciferase activities.
Normalized values are expressed as percentages of the activity of
wild-type mER alone in the presence of E2 (100%). The results shown
are averages of at least two independent experiments assayed in
quadruplicate plus the standard errors. (B) Full-length wild-type or
mutant mER was transiently transfected into HeLa cells together with
the p2×ERE-pS2-GL3 reporter. Experimental procedures and data
presentation are as described for panel A. (C) Wild-type or mutant
chimeric receptors consisting of the mER LBD fused to the Gal4 DBD
were transiently transfected into HeLa cells together with the
p5Gal-E1B-GL3 reporter. Experimental procedures and data presentation
are as described for panel A. (D) Wild-type and mutant chimeric
receptors consisting of the hRAR LBD fused to the Gal4 DBD were
transiently transfected into HeLa cells together with the p5Gal-E1B-GL3
reporter. After transfection, cells were treated with the ethanol
vehicle alone (NH) or all-trans retinoic acid (at-RA) at 100 nM for 24 h. Presentation of data is as described for panel A,
except that normalized values are expressed as percentages of the
activity of wild-type hRAR alone in the presence of at-RA (100%).
|
|
We next investigated whether SRC1e VHC could rescue V380H AF2 activity
in the absence of AF1, which is located at the N terminus of the
receptor, by testing the ability of Gal4 DBD-ER LBD chimeric receptors
to activate a Gal4 reporter gene in HeLa cells. Exogenously expressed SRC1e m13 potentiated the transcriptional activity of Gal4-ER
by fivefold (Fig. 3C). A sevenfold potentiation of the wild-type chimeric receptor activity by SRC1e VHC was also observed (Fig. 3C). The Gal4-V380H mutant had negligible transcriptional activity and was partially rescued by exogenously expressed SRC1e m13
(Fig. 3C). Remarkably, coexpression of SRC1e VHC potentiated the
activity of the mutant chimeric receptor by more than 80-fold and the
level of reporter gene activation was comparable to that observed with
the wild-type receptor-coactivator pair. Similar results were obtained
with COS-1 cells (see Fig. 4D) and 293-T cells (data not shown). Taken
together, our results clearly established that mER
V380H could be
functionally rescued by SRC1e, which we attribute to the restoration of
AF2 activity in the mutant receptor.
Next, we asked whether SRC1e VHC was able to rescue the transcriptional
activity of other nuclear receptors that bear mutations analogous to
V380H in mER
. As predicted by sequence analysis and by inspection of
the hRAR
LBD crystal structure, I258 in hRAR
occupies a position
in helix 5 of the LBD similar to that of V380 in mER
. When I258 was
replaced with histidine (I258H), a chimeric receptor containing the LBD
of the mutant receptor fused to the Gal4 DBD was unable to activate a
reporter gene when transiently transfected into HeLa cells (Fig. 3D).
In addition, coexpression of SRC1e VHC had no effect on the
transcriptional activity of the I258H mutant. Hence, the functional
rescue of mER
V380H by SRC1e VHC appears to be highly specific and
is most likely due to recognition of features of the mER
LBD that
are not present in other nuclear receptors.
Molecular determinants of the mER
V380H-SRC1e VHC
interaction.
Given the composite nature of the second-site
suppressor mutation, we attempted to determine the relative
contribution of the wild-type LXXLL motif and the variant YXXLK motif
present in SRC1e VHC in mutant receptor-coactivator interaction. By
using a yeast two-hybrid interaction assay, we found that SRC1e VHC L693A-L694A in which the wild-type LXXLL motif had been mutated to
LXXAA was unable to bind either the wild-type or the V380H mutant
receptor (Fig. 4A and B). Furthermore, an
SRC1e mutant which contained a single copy of the variant motif but was
devoid of any wild-type motif failed to rescue the interaction with
V380H (Fig. 4A and B). It was shown that I689 in SRC1e made extensive van der Waals contacts with the ER
coactivator docking surface (34) and that this
1 position relative to the LXXLL
motif is frequently occupied by hydrophobic residues, indicating
functional importance (15). When I689 of SRC1e VHC was
replaced with alanine, the mutant coactivator was unable to bind both
the wild-type and V380H mutant receptors in vitro (Fig. 4A and C). In
keeping with the loss of interaction, the I689A mutant neither
potentiated the transcriptional activity of wild-type mER
nor
functionally rescued V380H in transiently transfected COS-1 cells (Fig.
4D). In conclusion, the variant motif YXXLK is not sufficient to
mediate mutant receptor-coactivator interaction. These results suggest that the LXXLL motif and its flanking residues are likely to function in conjunction with the 15-amino-acid insertion in SRC1e VHC as an
integral module and are indispensible for its interaction with mER
V380H.

View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 4.
Molecular determinants of the mER V380H-SRC1e VHC
interaction. (A) Sequence comparison of SRC1e mutants. Mutated residues
are marked with asterisks. (B) Yeast two-hybrid interaction assay using
the Gal7-lacZ reporter in strain PJ69-4A. Transformants with
the indicated constructs were grown overnight in selective medium in
the absence (no hormone [NH]) or presence of 1 mM 17 -estradiol
(E2). -Galactosidase activity was measured by using
o-nitrophenyl- -D-galactopyranoside as the
substrate and is expressed in Miller units. The results shown represent
the average activity of two independent transformants. wt, wild type.
(C) The I689A mutation in SRC1e VHC abolished its in vitro binding to
wild-type and V380H mutant mER . Coimmunoprecipitation was carried
out as described for Fig. 2D. The input control represents 2% of the
whole-cell extract employed in the immunoprecipitation (IP) reaction.
(D) Wild-type and mutant chimeric receptors consisting of the mER
LBD fused to the Gal4 DBD were transiently transfected into COS-1 cells
together with the p5Gal-E1B-GL3 reporter in the absence ( ) or
presence (+) of full-length SRC1e m13, SRC1e VHC, or SRC1e VHC 1689A as
indicated. The pRL-CMV plasmid was cotransfected as an internal
control. Data are presented as described for Fig. 3A.
|
|
Functional rescue of mER
V380H by TIF2 and RAC3
altered-specificity mutants.
To explore the possibility that the
suppressor mutation in SRC1e VHC functions as a protein-protein
interaction module, we introduced analogous mutations into other p160
coactivator family members. The sequence conservation among the three
p160 coactivators in the vicinity of the second LXXLL motif allowed us
to place the 15-amino-acid insertion found in SRC1e VHC at a similar
position C terminal to the LXXLL motif in TIF2 and RAC3 (Fig.
5A and 6A). The mutants, designated TIF2 VHC and RAC3 VHC, were then tested for the
ability to interact with mER
V380H. Both TIF2 VHC and RAC3 VHC
coimmunoprecipitated with mER
V380H in a ligand-dependent manner in
vitro (Fig. 5B, lanes 9 and 10, and 6B, lanes 9 and 10). As we found
for SRC1e VHC, they also bound to wild-type mER
(Fig. 5B, lanes 5 and 6, and 6B, lanes 5 and 6). These data suggest that the suppressor
mutation originally recovered in SRC1e can function in other p160
coactivators when placed in a similar context and confers the ability
to interact with mER
V380H.

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 5.
Analysis of altered-specificity TIF2. (A) Sequence
comparison of wild-type TIF2 and TIF2 VHC. The 15-amino-acid insertion
found in SRC1e VHC (encompassed by the black box) was placed
immediately C terminal to TIF2 wild-type LXXLL motif 2 as indicated.
(B) Ligand-dependent interaction of mER V380H with TIF2 VHC in
vitro. Coimmunoprecipitation (IP) was carried out as described for Fig.
2D. VH, V380H; wt, wild type; WB, western blot. (C) Wild-type and
mutant chimeric receptors consisting of the mER LBD fused to the
Gal4 DBD were transiently transfected into HeLa cells together with the
p5Gal-E1B-GL3 reporter in the absence ( ) or presence of full-length
TIF2 m13 or TIF2 VHC as indicated. The pRL-CMV plasmid was
cotransfected as an internal control. Data are presented as described
for Fig. 3A. NH, no hormone.
|
|

View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 6.
Analysis of altered-specificity RAC3. (A) Sequence
comparison of wild-type RAC3 and RAC3 VHC. The 15-amino-acid insertion
found in SRC1e VHC (encompassed by the black box) was placed
immediately C terminal to RAC3 wild-type LXXLL motif 2 as indicated.
(B) Ligand-dependent interaction of mER V380H with RAC3 VHC in
vitro. Coimmunoprecipitation (IP) was carried out as described for Fig.
2D. VH, V380H; wt, wild type; WB, western blot. (C) Wild-type and
mutant chimeric receptors consisting of the mER LBD fused to the
Gal4 DBD were transiently transfected into HeLa cells together with the
p5Gal-E1B-GL3 reporter in the absence ( ) or presence of full-length
RAC3 m13 or RAC3 VHC as indicated. The pRL-CMV plasmid was
cotransfected as an internal control. Data are presented as described
for Fig. 3A. NH, no hormone. (D) Potentiation of mER transcriptional
activity by RAC3 mutants. Wild-type and mutant chimeric receptors
consisting of the mER LBD fused to the Gal4 DBD were transiently
transfected into HeLa cells together with the p5Gal-E1B-GL3 reporter in
the absence ( ) or presence of of full-length RAC3 mutants as
indicated. m1 denotes nonfunctional LXXLL motif 1, and the same
nomenclature scheme applies to all of the other mutants. The pRL-CMV
plasmid was cotransfected as an internal control. Data are presented as
described for Fig. 3A.
|
|
Next, we tested whether TIF2 VHC, and RAC3 VHC could rescue the ability
of mER
V380H to stimulate transcription from reporter genes. In HeLa
cells, coexpression of TIF2 VHC led to a 90-fold induction of V380H
transcriptional activity on a Gal4 reporter gene (Fig. 5C).
The level of gene activation achieved was comparable to that of the
wild-type receptor-coactivator pair, indicating complete functional
rescue. Similarly, RAC3 VHC was able to induce the transcriptional
activity of mER
V380H by 22-fold (Fig. 6C), approximately 60% of
that achieved by the wild-type counterparts. We therefore concluded
that TIF2 VHC and RAC3 VHC are capable of rescuing the transcriptional
activity of mER
V380H, albeit to various degrees. Furthermore, our
results imply that recruitment of SRC1e, TIF2, or RAC3 is sufficient to
mediate the AF2 activity of mER
.
One possibility for the incomplete functional rescue of mER
V380H by
RAC3 VHC was that the second LXXLL motif was not preferentially used
for ER
-RAC3 interaction. As a result, the suppressor mutation may
not be presented in an optimal conformation, which might, as a
consequence, hinder the rescue. In SRC1e and TIF2, the second LXXLL
motif was clearly preferred for interaction with ER
and retention of
this motif alone allowed SRC1e and TIF2 to function as efficiently as
their wild-type counterparts (17, 40). To gain insight
into the preference of LXXLL motifs in RAC3 by mER
, a complete
series of RAC3 mutants were generated in which the LXXLL motifs were
rendered nonfunctional by mutation to LXXAA either individually or in
all possible combinations. We then tested the abilities of these
mutants to potentiate the transcriptional activity of Gal4-ER
in
HeLa cells. Unlike SRC1e and TIF2, mutation of a single LXXLL motif
impaired the ability of RAC3 to function as a coactivator, with the
effects most pronounced when motif 1 was mutated (Fig. 6D). When only
one LXXLL motif was retained, none of the mutants were able to
recapitulate the full activity of wild-type RAC3. Mutation of all three
motifs eliminate the ability of RAC3 to potentiate ER
activity. Our
functional data correlate well with other studies in which ER
-RAC3
interaction was examined (6, 20) and led us to postulate
that cooperation of multiple LXXLL motifs might be necessary to foster
ER
-RAC3 interaction. Hence, the incomplete functional rescue of
mER
V380H by RAC3 VHC could be attributed to the absence of
cooperating motifs for the functional motif in RAC3 VHC, which resulted
in suboptimal interaction with the receptor.
By inserting the altered-specificity mutation from SRC1e VHC into TIF2
and RAC3, we showed that this mutation functions as a protein-protein
interaction module which confers the ability to suppress the V380H
mutation in mER
. More importantly, our results demonstrate that
SRC1e, TIF2, and RAC3 are functionally redundant and that direct
recruitment of a single species of p160 coactivator by the ER
LBD is
sufficient to instigate agonist-dependent transcriptional activation.
Role of CBP/p300 in functional rescue of mER
V380H by SRC1e
VHC.
AD1 of SRC1e and other p160 coactivator family members was
shown to physically interact with CBP and p300 (5, 17,
40). To directly address whether AD1, and thereby recruitment of
CBP/p300 or other coactivator proteins, is central to the function of
p160 coactivators, we utilized a SRC1e VHC construct which lacks AD1 and tested its ability to mediate transactivation by the V380H mutant
receptor. The deletion mutant was expressed at a level comparable to
that of the wild-type control (data not shown), and the deletion did
not grossly affect the structure of the coactivator, as exemplified by
its binding to both wild-type and V380H mutant receptors in vitro (Fig.
7A). However, expression of SRC1e VHC
AD1 failed to rescue the transcriptional activity of a chimeric receptor consisting of the mER
V380H LBD fused to the Gal4 DBD in
transiently transfected COS-1 cells (Fig. 7B). Similar results were
also obtained with HeLa cells (data not shown). This demonstrates that
recruitment of CBP/p300 and/or other coactivator proteins through the
AD1 region of SRC1e VHC is essential for functional rescue of the
transcriptionally defective V380H mutant. Our data further suggest that
p160 coactivators serve as ligand-dependent adapter proteins whose
primary function is to recruit other coactivators, such as CBP/p300, to
the promoter where ER
is bound.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 7.
Functional analysis of SRC1e VHC AD1. (A)
Ligand-dependent interaction of mER V380H with SRC1e VHC AD1 in
vitro. Coimmunoprecipitation was carried out as described for Fig. 2D.
The input control represents 2% of the whole-cell extract employed in
the immunoprecipitation (IP) reaction. wt, wild type. (B) Wild-type and
mutant chimeric receptors consisting of the mER LBD fused to the
Gal4 DBD were transiently transfected into HeLa cells together with the
p5Gal-E1B-GL3 reporter in the absence ( ) or presence of full-length
SRC1e VHC or SRC1e VHC AD1 as indicated. The pRL-CMV plasmid was
cotransfected as an internal control. Data are presented as described
for Fig. 3A. NH, no hormone.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Genetic selection for second-site suppressor mutations has been
used to study the significance of specific protein-protein interaction
in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems and was employed here to
probe the functional roles of p160 coactivators in ER
action
(7, 21, 35, 42). Numerous proteins have been postulated to
function as coregulators of the agonist-dependent transcriptional
activity of ER
; however, attempts to decipher their function and
biological relevance in cells have been hindered by their common mode
of interaction with the ER
AF2 surface. In this study, we focused on
the p160 family of coactivators and circumvented this problem by
selecting a mutant version of SRC1 that interacts with mER
V380H, a
mutant receptor incapable of interacting with endogenous p160
coactivators. Our strategy for the identification of SRC1
altered-specificity mutants relied on the clear indication from the
available cocrystal structures that V380 of mER
is most likely to
interdigitate with L690 and L694 of SRC1 (9, 29, 34). As a
result, targeted random mutations were made at these two residues in
SRC1. Our genetic selection in yeast yielded a single suppressor
allele, SRC1 VHC, which specifically restored binding to mER
V380H.
Interestingly, this suppressor allele contains an insertional mutation,
which indicates that mutations at L690 and L694 of SRC1 alone are not sufficient to reconstitute a functional interface with mER
V380H (see below).
Transcriptional activation by ER
through direct recruitment of
p160 coactivator.
The coexpression of SRC1 VHC fully restored the
transcriptional activity of mER
V380H. Although a large number of
proteins have been reported to interact with agonist-bound ER
via
the LXXLL motifs, our results suggest that ER
transactivation
through AF2 is primarily dependent on direct recruitment of p160
coactivators. We further demonstrated, by using a version of SRC1 VHC
which lacks its CBP/p300 binding domain (
AD1), that the recruitment of CBP/p300 and/or other coactivator proteins via the AD1 region is an
obligatory second step in SRC1-mediated gene activation. Recent reports
concerning activation of the estrogen-responsive pS2 gene
support our hypothesis that the p160 coactivators are primary mediators
of ER
AF2 activity. In chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments,
ACTR/RAC3 was found to associate with the pS2 promoter upon hormone
treatment and, importantly, the cessation of hormone-induced gene
activation was accompanied by the dissociation of ACTR/RAC3 and CBP
from the promoter (6).
In addition to p160 coactivators and CBP/p300, it has been proposed
that the TRAP/DRIP complex serves an important role as a mediator for a
number of transcription factors, including nuclear receptors
(24). The TRAP/DRIP complex appears to be recruited to the
nuclear receptor AF2 surface via LXXLL motifs in TRAP220 (3, 32,
47). This led to the hypothesis that either there is competition
between the TRAP/DRIP complex and p160 coactivators for the AF2 surface
(39) or, alternatively, there may be sequential recruitment, first of p160 coactivators and then of the TRAP/DRIP complex (12, 46). More recently, it was demonstrated that p160 coactivators and the TRAP/DRIP complex could be recruited concomitantly to the same estrogen-responsive promoter
(33). Nevertheless, there appeared to be a strict
requirement for a p160 coactivator in ER
-mediated activation of the
endogenous cathepsin D gene which cannot be replaced by directed
recruitment of TRAP220 (33). This is in agreement with our
observation that restoration of SRC1 binding to a defective ER
AF2
surface is sufficient to fully rescue its activity, which points to a
critical role of p160 coactivators in ER
-regulated transcription.
A model for mER
V380H-SRC1 VHC interaction.
Several lines
of evidence suggest that both the wild-type LXXLL motif and the
15-amino-acid insertion found in SRC1 VHC are necessary for mutant
receptor-coactivator interaction. First, disruption of the wild-type
LXXLL motif in SRC1 VHC abolished its ability to bind mER
V380H.
Second, mutant SRC1 that was devoid of the wild-type LXXLL motif but
contained a single copy of the variant motif YXXLK found in SRC1 VHC
was unable to interact with mER
V380H. Finally, SRC1 VHC was unable
to rescue the transcriptional activity of mER
V380H in the presence
of antiestrogens such as tamoxifen and ICI 182780, implying that SRC1
VHC could not interact with an antagonist-bound receptor (data not
shown). Tamoxifen binding forces helix 12 to adopt a position which
occludes the docking site for the wild-type LXXLL motif, with minimal
effects on the rest of the ER
LBD structure (34). The
last observation, therefore, suggests that mER
V380H-SRC1 VHC
interaction employs a variant interface which is likely to be based on
the one utilized by their wild-type counterparts. Although the
interaction between the wild-type LXXLL motif with the remodeled
coactivator docking surface in V380H is severely impaired, it is
tempting to speculate that it remains as a recognition or anchoring
module for the mutant mER
-SRC1 interaction. Nevertheless, stable
equilibrium binding requires the sequence insertion in the mutant SRC1
VHC allele which might interact directly with the histidine or arginine
side chain where V380 is normally found. Alternatively, the sequence insertion may contact a second site on the receptor surface which is
only available in the presence of ligand. We favor the latter model
based on our observations that SRC1 VHC is a more potent coactivator of
the wild-type receptor (Fig. 3), which might be attributed to enhanced
intereaction with SRC1 VHC. One candidate for the second contact site
is helix 1 of the receptor LBD, which has recently been shown to
undergo subtle conformational change upon ligand binding
(30).
It is important to note that the sequence insertion in SRC1 VHC is
unlikely to alter the structural integrity of the protein. This is
because the SRC1 moiety (residues 623 to 710) in the holo-PPAR
-SRC1 complex is unstructured except for the short helices which contain the
LXXLL motifs (29). Therefore, the 15-amino-acid insertion is likely to be accommodated in the random coil region without major
disruption to the tertiary structure. Setting aside the question of the
precise nature of the mutant receptor-coactivator interaction, it is
clear that the altered-specificity mutation in SRC1 VHC does not
constitute a promiscuous protein binding motif. This is supported by
the observation that SRC1 VHC was unable to rescue an hRAR
mutant
which bears a mutation analogous to V380H in mER
.
Introduction of the SRC1 VHC suppressor mutation into other p160
coactivators allowed us to generate mutant versions of TIF2 and RAC3
which could interact with mER
V380H. This suggests that the
suppressor mutation may function as a transposable protein-protein interaction module, enabling heterologous proteins to interact with
mER
V380H. It may be possible to use this module to study other
nuclear receptor interacting proteins which contain the LXXLL motif,
such as TRAP220, and enable us to probe the functional consequence of
direct recruitment of TRAP220 by ER
in the future.
Functional redundancy of p160 coactivators.
In mammalian
cells, the agonist-dependent transcriptional activity of mER
V380H
could be rescued by mutant versions of SRC1, TIF2, or RAC3. Hence, the
recruitment of any one of the p160 coactivators appears to be
sufficient to instigate ER
transactivation. This clearly suggests
that the three p160 proteins are functionally redundant and that
expression of one family member could potentially compensate for the
absence of others. Therefore, our data are in line with the relatively
mild phenotype of SRC1-null mice, which has been attributed to the
upregulation of TIF2 gene expression in selected tissues
(45). In contrast, our results do not support an earlier
proposal that p/CIP might be functionally distinct from other p160
family members, based on cell microinjection experiments using
immunoglobulins against SRC1 and p/CIP (38).
The observations that mice lacking SRC3/RAC3 do not display phenotypes
similar to that of SRC1-null mice led to the suggestion that they may
have distinct roles in vivo (44, 45). However, it is
important to note that our proposal about functional redundancy of the
p160 coactivators addresses their role in ER
transactivation at the
cellular level and is compatible with these animal models, where
distinct phenotypes have been attributed to differential gene
expression (44). It is apparent that phenotypes of the SRC1- and SRC3/RAC3-null mice may be complicated by the existence of
both cell-autonomous and cell-nonautonomous effects. For example, SRC3/RAC3-null mice have a lower level of systemic estrogen, which predictably affects multiple aspects of the sexual maturation and
reproductive function of female mice (44). We therefore propose that the use of altered-specificity mutants may complement existing animal models in the study of the cell-autonomous function of
individual receptor-coactivator pairs in the complex network of nuclear
receptor-coregulator interactions.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Hinrich Gronemeyer, Don Chen, Philip James, Borja
Belandia, and David Heery for plasmid and yeast strain gifts; Geoff Greene for the H222 antibody; I. Goldsmith and staff for
oligonucleotides; and G. Clark and staff for DNA sequencing. We also
thank Caroline Hill, Jesper Svejstrup, Roger White, and members of the
Molecular Endocrinology Laboratory for discussions and comments on the manuscript.
This work was supported by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Institute of
Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London W12 ONN, United Kingdom. Phone: 44 20 7594 2177. Fax: 44 20 7594 2184. E-mail: m.parker{at}ic.ac.uk.
Present address: Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts
General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Bevan, C. L.,
S. Hoare,
F. Claessens,
D. M. Heery, and M. G. Parker.
1999.
The AF1 and AF2 domains of the androgen receptor interact with distinct regions of SRC1.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:8383-8392.
|
| 2.
|
Brzozowski, A. M.,
A. C. W. Pike,
Z. Dauter,
R. E. Hubbard,
T. Bonn,
O. Engstrom,
L. Ohman,
G. L. Greene,
J.-A. Gustafsson, and M. Carlquist.
1997.
Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor.
Nature
389:753-758[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 3.
|
Burakov, D.,
C. W. Wong,
C. Rachez,
B. J. Cheskis, and L. P. Freedman.
2000.
Functional interactions between the estrogen receptor and DRIP205, a subunit of the heteromeric DRIP coactivator complex.
J. Biol. Chem.
275:20928-20934[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Caira, F.,
P. Antonson,
M. Pelto-Huikko,
E. Treuter, and J. A. Gustafsson.
2000.
Cloning and characterization of RAP250, a novel nuclear receptor coactivator.
J. Biol. Chem.
275:5308-5317[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 5.
|
Chen, H.,
R. J. Lin,
R. L. Schiltz,
D. Chakravarti,
A. Nash,
L. Nagy,
M. L. Privalsky,
Y. Nakatani, and R. M. Evans.
1997.
Nuclear receptor coactivator ACTR is a novel histone acetyltransferase and forms a multimeric activation complex with P/CAF and CBP/p300.
Cell
90:569-580[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Chen, H.,
R. J. Lin,
W. Xie,
D. Wilpitz, and R. M. Evans.
1999.
Regulation of hormone-induced histone hyperacetylation and gene activation via acetylation of an acetylase.
Cell
98:675-686[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Crispino, J. D.,
M. B. Lodish,
J. P. MacKay, and S. H. Orkin.
1999.
Use of altered specificity mutants to probe a specific protein-protein interaction in differentiation: the GATA-1:FOG complex.
Mol. Cell
3:219-228[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Danielian, P. S.,
R. White,
J. A. Lees, and M. G. Parker.
1992.
Identification of a conserved region required for hormone dependent transcriptional activation by steroid hormone receptors.
EMBO J.
11:1025-1033[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Darimont, B. D.,
R. L. Wagner,
J. W. Apriletti,
M. R. Stallcup,
P. J. Kushner,
J. D. Baxter,
R. J. Fletterick, and K. R. Yamamoto.
1998.
Structure and specificity of nuclear receptor-coactivator interactions.
Genes Dev.
12:3343-3356[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Di Croce, L.,
S. Okret,
S. Kersten,
J. A. Gustafsson,
M. Parker,
W. Wahli, and M. Beato.
1999.
Steroid and nuclear receptors. Villefranche-sur-Mer, France, May 25-27, 1999.
EMBO J.
18:6201-6210[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Ding, X. F.,
C. M. Anderson,
H. Ma,
H. Hong,
R. M. Uht,
P. J. Kushner, and M. R. Stallcup.
1998.
Nuclear receptor-binding sites of coactivators glucocorticoid receptor interacting protein 1 (GRIP1) and steroid receptor coactivator 1 (SRC-1): multiple motifs with different binding specificities.
Mol. Endocrinol.
12:302-313[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Fondell, J. D.,
M. Guermah,
S. Malik, and R. G. Roeder.
1999.
Thyroid hormone receptor-associated proteins and general positive cofactors mediate thyroid hormone receptor function in the absence of the TATA box-binding protein-associated factors of TFIID.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
96:1959-1964[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 13.
|
Freedman, L. P.
1999.
Increasing the complexity of coactivation in nuclear receptor signaling.
Cell
97:5-8[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Glass, C. K., and M. G. Rosenfeld.
2000.
The coregulator exchange in transcriptional functions of nuclear receptors.
Genes Dev.
14:121-141[Free Full Text].
|
| 15.
|
Heery, D. M.,
E. Kalkhoven,
S. Hoare, and M. G. Parker.
1997.
A signature motif in transcriptional co-activators mediates binding to nuclear receptors.
Nature
387:733-736[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 16.
|
James, P.,
J. Halladay, and E. A. Craig.
1996.
Genomic libraries and a host strain designed for highly efficient two-hybrid selection in yeast.
Genetics
144:1425-1436[Abstract].
|
| 17.
|
Kalkhoven, E.,
J. E. Valentine,
D. M. Heery, and M. G. Parker.
1998.
Isoforms of steroid receptor coactivator 1 differ in their ability to potentiate transcription by the oestrogen receptor.
EMBO J.
17:232-243[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 18.
|
Le Douarin, B.,
A. L. Nielsen,
J.-M. Garnier,
H. Ichinose,
F. Jeanmougin,
R. Losson, and P. Chambon.
1996.
A possible involvement of TIF1 and TIF1 in the epigenetic control of transcription by nuclear receptors.
EMBO J.
15:6701-6715[Medline].
|
| 19.
|
Lee, S. K.,
S. L. Anzick,
J. E. Choi,
L. Bubendorf,
X. Y. Guan,
Y. K. Jung,
O. P. Kallioniemi,
J. Kononen,
J. M. Trent,
D. Azorsa,
B. H. Jhun,
J. H. Cheong,
Y. C. Lee,
P. S. Meltzer, and J. W. Lee.
1999.
A nuclear factor, ASC-2, as a cancer-amplified transcriptional coactivator essential for ligand-dependent transactivation by nuclear receptors in vivo.
J. Biol. Chem.
274:34283-34293[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 20.
|
Leo, C.,
H. Li, and J. D. Chen.
2000.
Differential mechanisms of nuclear receptor regulation by receptor-associated coactivator 3.
J. Biol. Chem.
275:5976-5982[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 21.
|
Li, M.,
H. Moyle, and M. M. Susskind.
1994.
Target of the transcriptional activation function of phage lambda cI protein.
Science
263:75-77[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 22.
|
Mahajan, M. A., and H. H. Samuels.
2000.
A new family of nuclear receptor coregulators that integrate nuclear receptor signaling through CREB-binding protein.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:5048-5063[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 23.
|
Mak, H. Y.,
S. Hoare,
P. M. A. Henttu, and M. G. Parker.
1999.
Molecular determinants of the estrogen receptor-coactivator interface.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19:3895-3903[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Malik, S., and R. G. Roeder.
2000.
Transcriptional regulation through mediator-like coactivators in yeast and metazoan cells.
Trends Biochem. Sci.
25:277-283[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 25.
|
Mangelsdorf, D. J.,
C. Thummel,
M. Beato,
P. Herrlich,
G. Schutz,
K. Umesono,
B. Blumberg,
P. Kastner,
M. Mark,
P. Chambon, and R. E. Evans.
1995.
The nuclear receptor superfamily: the second decade.
Cell
83:835-839[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 26.
|
McInerney, E. M.,
D. W. Rose,
S. E. Flynn,
S. Westin,
T. M. Mullen,
A. Krones,
J. Inostroza,
J. Torchia,
R. T. Nolte,
N. Assa-Munt,
M. V. Milburn,
C. K. Glass, and M. G. Rosenfeld.
1998.
Determinants of coactivator LXXLL motif specificity in nuclear receptor transcriptional activation.
Genes Dev.
12:3357-3368[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 27.
|
McKenna, N. J.,
R. B. Lanz, and B. W. O'Malley.
1999.
Nuclear receptor coregulators: cellular and molecular biology.
Endocrinol. Rev.
20:321-344[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 28.
|
Moras, D., and H. Gronemeyer.
1998.
The nuclear receptor ligand-binding domain: structure and function.
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
10:384-391[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 29.
|
Nolte, R. T.,
G. B. Wisely,
S. Westin,
J. E. Cobb,
M. H. Lambert,
R. Kurokawa,
M. G. Rosenfeld,
T. M. Willson,
C. K. Glass, and M. V. Milburn.
1998.
Ligand binding and co-activator assembly of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma.
Nature
395:137-143[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 30.
|
Pissios, P.,
I. Tzameli,
P. Kushner, and D. D. Moore.
2000.
Dynamic stabilization of nuclear receptor ligand binding domains by hormone or corepressor binding.
Mol. Cell
6:245-253[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Rachez, C.,
M. Gamble,
C.-P. B. Chang,
G. B. Atkins,
M. A. Lazar, and L. P. Freedman.
2000.
The DRIP complex and SRC-1/p160 coactivators share similar nuclear receptor binding determinants but constitute functionally distinct complexes.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
20:2718-2726[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 32.
|
Rachez, C.,
B. D. Lemon,
Z. Suldan,
V. Bromleigh,
M. Gamble,
A. M. Naar,
H. Erdjument-Bromage,
P. Tempst, and L. P. Freedman.
1999.
Ligand-dependent transcription activation by nuclear receptors requires the DRIP complex.
Nature
398:824-828[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 33.
|
Shang, Y.,
X. Hu,
J. DiRenzo,
M. A. Lazar, and M. Brown.
2000.
Cofactor dynamics and sufficiency in estrogen receptor-regulated transcription.
Cell
103:843-852[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 34.
|
Shiau, A. K.,
D. Barstad,
P. M. Loria,
L. Cheng,
P. J. Kushner,
D. A. Agard, and G. L. Greene.
1998.
The structural basis of estrogen receptor/coactivator recognition and the antagonism of this interaction by tamoxifen.
Cell
95:927-937[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 35.
|
Tansey, W. P., and W. Herr.
1997.
Selective use of TBP and TFIIB revealed by a TATA-TBP-TFIIB array with altered specificity.
Science
275:829-831[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 36.
|
Tcherepanova, I.,
P. Puigserver,
J. D. Norris,
B. M. Spiegelman, and D. P. McDonnell.
2000.
Modulation of estrogen receptor-alpha transcriptional activity by the coactivator PGC-1.
J. Biol. Chem.
275:16302-16308[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 37.
|
Tora, L.,
J. White,
C. Brou,
D. Tasset,
N. Webster,
E. Scheer, and P. Chambon.
1989.
The human estrogen receptor has two independent non-acidic transcriptional activation functions.
Cell
59:477-487[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 38.
|
Torchia, J.,
D. W. Rose,
J. Inostroza,
Y. Kamei,
S. Westin,
C. K. Glass, and M. G. Rosenfeld.
1997.
The transcriptional co-activator p/CIP binds CBP and mediates nuclear-receptor function.
Nature
387:677-684[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 39.
|
Treuter, E.,
L. Johansson,
J. S. Thomsen,
A. Warnmark,
J. Leers,
M. Pelto-Huikko,
M. Sjoberg,
A. P. Wright,
G. Spyrou, and J. A. Gustafsson.
1999.
Competition between thyroid hormone receptor-associated protein (TRAP) 220 and transcriptional intermediary factor (TIF) 2 for binding to nuclear receptors. Implications for the recruitment of TRAP and p160 coactivator complexes.
J. Biol. Chem.
274:6667-6677[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 40.
|
Voegel, J. J.,
M. J. Heine,
M. Tini,
V. Vivat,
P. Chambon, and H. Gronemeyer.
1998.
The coactivator TIF2 contains three nuclear receptor-binding motifs and mediates transactivation through CBP binding-dependent and -independent pathways.
EMBO J.
17:507-519[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 41.
|
Weatherman, R. V.,
R. J. Fletterick, and T. S. Scanlan.
1999.
Nuclear-receptor ligands a |