J Biol Chem, Vol. 274, Issue 37, 26591-26598, September 10, 1999
CCAAT/Enhancer-binding Proteins Regulate Expression of the Human
Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory Protein (StAR) Gene*
Lane K.
Christenson
§,
Peter F.
Johnson¶,
Jan M.
McAllister
, and
Jerome F.
Strauss III
From the
Center for Research on Reproduction and
Women's Health, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, ¶ Advanced
BioScience Laboratories-Basic Research Program, NCI-Frederick Cancer
Research and Development Center, Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201, and
the
Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology,
Pennsylvania State College of Medicine,
Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033
 |
ABSTRACT |
Two putative CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein
(C/EBP) response elements were identified in the proximal promoter of
the human steroidogenic acute regulatory protein (StAR)
gene, which encodes a key protein-regulating steroid hormone synthesis.
Expression of C/EBP
and -
increased StAR promoter activity in
COS-1 and HepG2 cells. Cotransfection of C/EBP
or -
and
steroidogenic factor 1, a transcription factor required for cAMP
regulation of StAR expression, into COS-1 augmented 8-bromoadenosine
3':5'-cyclic monophosphate (8-Br-cAMP)-stimulated promoter activity.
When the putative C/EBP response elements were mutated, individually or together, a pronounced decline in basal StAR promoter
activity in human granulosa-lutein cells resulted, but the fold
stimulation of promoter activity by 8-Br-cAMP was unaffected.
Recombinant C/EBP
and -
bound to the two identified sequences but
not the mutated elements. Human granulosa-lutein cell nuclear extracts also bound these elements but not the mutated sequences. An antibody to
C/EBP
, but not C/EBP
, supershifted the nuclear protein complex associated with the more distal element. The complex formed by nuclear
extracts with the proximal element was not supershifted by either
antibody. Western blot analysis revealed the presence of C/EBP
and
C/EBP
in human granulosa-lutein cell nuclear extracts. C/EBP
levels were up-regulated 3-fold by 8-Br-cAMP treatment. Our studies
demonstrate a role for C/EBP
as well as yet to be identified
proteins, which can bind to C/EBP response elements, in the regulation
of StAR gene expression and suggest a mechanism by which
C/EBP
participates in the cAMP regulation of StAR gene transcription.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The translocation of cholesterol from the sterol-rich outer
mitochondrial membrane to the cholesterol-poor inner mitochondrial membrane is the rate-limiting step in steroid hormone synthesis (1).
The steroidogenic acute regulatory protein
(StAR)1 has an integral role
in this cholesterol translocation process in highly steroidogenic
tissues such as the ovary, testis, and adrenal gland as evidenced in
experiments of nature and mouse gene knockout studies. Congenital
lipoid adrenal hyperplasia, a disease in which the production of all
adrenal and gonadal steroids is severely impaired prior to the
synthesis of pregnenolone, is caused by mutations that inactivate the
StAR protein (1, 2). Targeted disruption of the mouse StAR
gene results in a phenotype identical to human congenital lipoid
adrenal hyperplasia in nullizygous animals (3).
StAR gene expression as determined by in situ
hybridization and Northern blot analysis in gonadal and adrenal cells
revealed that the steroidogenic capacity of these cells was tightly
linked to the abundance of the StAR transcripts (4, 5). Transcriptional control of the human StAR gene has only recently been
examined with initial studies focusing on the orphan nuclear receptor, steroidogenic factor-1 (SF-1) (6) because of its known role in the
regulation of other key genes involved in steroidogenesis (e.g. P450scc, P450c17, aromatase, 3
-hydroxysteroid
dehydrogenase) (7). Indeed, the human StAR promoter was
shown to have at least three SF-1 binding sites that are functionally
important for basal as well as cAMP-stimulated transcription (8). SF-1
has also been shown to be important for transcriptional regulation of
the mouse (9), rat (10), and bovine StAR genes (11).
Sequence analysis also indicated the presence of a variety of other
transcription factor binding sites including multiple putative Sp-1
binding sites, several of which were recently implicated in
transcriptional control of StAR gene expression (12).
Deletion analysis of the StAR promoter suggested that other
transcription factors were also likely to play an important role in
StAR gene expression. In addition to the known SF-1 response
elements and a novel DAX-1 hairpin loop binding site (13), the
StAR promoter contains several putative transcriptional
response elements including a series of three sites at
80 to
69
that resemble sterol regulatory element-binding protein (SREBP) motifs,
the most proximal of which is similar to a Ying Yang 1 (YY1)
transcription factor binding site. The presence of SREBP binding sites
is consistent with our recent demonstration that SREBP-1a stimulates
StAR reporter activity (14).
Recent observations revealed that ovarian CCAAT/enhancer-binding
proteins (C/EBPs), basic leucine zipper transcription factors implicated in the regulation of a variety of genes involved in energy
metabolism and cell differentiation pathways (15), are modulated by
luteinizing hormone, which acts on ovarian cells through the
intermediacy of cAMP, and that steroidogenic cell function is altered
in mice upon loss of C/EBP
or -
. Gene knockout studies (C/EBP
)
(16) and antisense experiments (C/EBP
) (17) demonstrated that loss
of either of these two members of the C/EBP transcription factor family
results in the failure of differentiation of the ovulatory follicle as
evidenced by the lack of ovulation and formation of the corpus luteum.
The focus of the present studies was to determine if C/EBPs modulate
basal and cAMP-stimulated StAR gene expression.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Plasmids--
The cDNA for mouse SF-1, a generous gift from
Dr. K.L. Parker (Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX), was cloned
into the pSV-SPORT-1 expression vector using standard procedures. The
pMEX-C/EBP
and pMEX-C/EBP
expression plasmids were described
previously (18). The pGL2-basic vector (Promega) was the source of the luciferase reporter gene for the 1.3-kilobase human StAR promoter and
all other StAR promoter constructs (19). The pGL2-basic vector was also
the source of the luciferase reporter gene for DEI-4, which contains 4 copies of the DEI element, a known C/EBP response element, upstream of
the albumin minimal promoter (20). The
-galactosidase expression
vector (pCH110, Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, or pCMV-
-galactosidase)
was used for normalization of luciferase data. Mutant StAR reporter
constructs were prepared using the wild-type
235 StAR promoter
construct. We introduced three base pair substitutions (i.e.
replacing GCA in the wild type with TTT) in the C/EBP sites at
119/
110/
110 and
50/
41 (see Fig. 1) that are known to disrupt
C/EBP binding sites using the transformer site-directed mutagenesis kit
(Promega, Madison, WI). The mutant StAR promoters will be referred to
as the
119/
110 C/EBP mutant, the
50/
41 C/EBP mutant, and the
119/
110 +
50/-41 double C/EBP mutant. Sequence analysis verified
the presence of mutations. Plasmids for transfection were prepared
using the Qiagen Maxiprep system.
Cell Culture and Transfection--
COS-1 and HepG2 cells were
cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented
with 10% fetal calf serum and 50 µg of gentamycin/ml at 5%
CO2 and 37 °C for cell propagation and plating. These
cells were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection
(Manassas, VA). Proliferating human granulosa cells were prepared and
cultured as described previously by McAllister et al. (21).
COS-1 and HepG2 cells were plated at 40,000 (FUGENE-6) or 60,000 (LipofectAMINE) cells/well in 12-well plates, respectively, on day 0. On day 1, cells were washed twice in DMEM alone and then transfected
with LipofectAMINE (Life Technologies Inc.) plus plasmid DNA or were
transfected with FUGENE-6 (Roche Molecular Biochemicals) plus plasmid
DNA in the presence of serum as described by the manufacturer's
protocol. Cells were transfected with 500 ng of each of the
-galactosidase expression and reporter vectors, 500 ng of the
SF-1 expression plasmid, and 1-500 ng of the C/EBP expression
plasmids. After a 2-h exposure to the DNA·LipofectAMINE complex, an
equal volume of DMEM + 20% fetal calf serum was added to each well and
left overnight. Cells transfected with FUGENE-6 received no further
manipulation until day 2. On day 2, medium was changed to DMEM + 10%
fetal calf serum, and 8-bromoadenosine 3':5'-cyclic monophosphate
(8-Br-cAMP; Sigma) was added to selected wells. After 24 h, cells
were harvested by scraping the cells in reporter lysis buffer (Promega)
followed by a single freeze/thaw cycle. Transfection of human granulosa
cells utilized the FUGENE-6 protocol as described by the manufacturer.
Human granulosa cells were transfected overnight with 500 ng of the
StAR reporter constructs and 100 ng of pCMV-
-galactosidase
expression vectors. On day 2 cells were then cultured in DMEM/F12 with
10% fetal calf serum in the presence and absence of 8-Br-cAMP for
24 h. Cell extracts were assayed for luciferase and
-galactosidase
activity. Human granulosa cells (60-80% confluent) for Western blot
analysis of nuclear levels of C/EBP
and -
were cultured in the
absence and presence of 8-Br-cAMP for 24 h before harvesting.
Enzymatic Assays--
Luciferase activity was determined in a
LUMAT LB 9507 luminometer (EG&G Berthold) with Promega luciferin as
substrate as described previously (14).
-galactosidase activity was
determined by a standard colorimetric assay using 2-nitrophenyl
-D-galactopyranoside as substrate. Relative luciferase
activity (RLU) for each well was determined by dividing luciferase
relative light units by the
-galactosidase activity
(A420).
Preparation of Nuclear Extracts and Western Blot
Analysis--
Nuclear extracts from human granulosa cells were
generated as described previously (22). Protein concentrations of the
extracts were determined by the Bio-Rad dye binding assay. Equal
amounts of protein (100 µg) were loaded for SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis. After electrophoresis, proteins were transferred to
polyvinylidene difluoride membranes for probing with antibodies to
C/EBP
(rabbit polyclonal sc-61, Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc., Santa
Cruz, CA) and C/EBP
(rabbit polyclonal sc-150, Santa Cruz
Biotechnology Inc.). The ECL kit (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech) was used
for antigen·antibody complex detection.
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays--
Double-stranded
oligonucleotide probes (see Fig. 1) 24-32 bases in length with 4-base
overhangs (CTAG) based on the wild-type StAR promoter sequence were
labeled with [
-32P]dCTP by fill-in reaction with DNA
polymerase I Klenow (large fragment, NEN Life Science Products). Mutant
probes for the StAR oligonucleotides had the same base pair
substitutions as indicated by the bold letters in Fig. 1 for
mutant StAR reporter constructs. The C/EBP oligonucleotide (positive
control) was described previously (20). The labeled probes were used in
electrophoretic mobility shift assays as described previously (20).
Briefly, recombinant C/EBP
, C/EBP
, or granulosa cell nuclear
extracts (5 µg) were incubated with labeled oligonucleotide probes
for 20 min on ice before loading onto prerun acrylamide gels. Where
indicated, antibodies to C/EBP
or -
were incubated with
recombinant proteins/nuclear proteins for 20 min on ice prior to the
addition of oligonucleotides. Additionally, unlabeled oligonucleotides
(10-50-fold excess) were added to selected samples to demonstrate
specificity of binding.
Statistical Analysis--
Results of promoter analysis studies
were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the JMP 3.1 program
(SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Following the observation of a
significant (p < 0.05) F-test, differences between
means were determined using the Tukey-Kramer mean separation test.
 |
RESULTS |
Identification of Motifs Resembling CCAAT/Enhancer-binding Protein
Response Elements--
Sequence alignment (Fig.
1) indicated that the human, bovine, rat,
and mouse StAR gene promoters exhibit a high degree of sequence similarity within the first ~130 bases from the
transcriptional start site. Shaded nucleotides shown in Fig.
1 illustrate sequences that are conserved in three of the four species.
The two known SF-1 response elements in the human promoter are shown,
as are the putative SREBP-1a/YY1 binding sites. Two highly conserved sequences resembling CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein sites are located
immediately 5' to the human SF-1 response elements. The site located at
119 to
110 contains a perfect consensus half-site "GCAAT,"
whereas the site at
50 to
41 diverges from the consensus motif with
only 5 of 10 bases being similar to the consensus sequence. However,
this region of the promoter is highly conserved across species with
only the bovine sequence showing any divergence.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
Sequence homology of the human, bovine,
mouse, and rat StAR gene promoters and the known and putative response
elements in the human StAR gene are depicted.
Shaded bases mark those bases in the human, bovine, rat, and
mouse StAR gene promoters that are identical in three of the
four sequences. Known SF-1 binding sites in the human StAR promoter and
the putative regions that interact with SREBP and YY1 are
boxed. The DAX-1 DNA hairpin loop encompasses bases 61 to
27 (not shown). The location of the C/EBP sites and the mutations
that block C/EBP binding (bold bases) are indicated below
the human StAR promoter sequence. The sequences of the oligonucleotides
used for the electrophoretic mobility shift assay are also shown. All
oligonucleotides included 4-base pair extensions that were used for
radiolabeling purposes (fill-in reaction).
|
|
Promoter Analysis in COS-1 and HepG2 Cells--
To determine if
the C/EBP
and -
transcription factors are functionally important
for StAR gene expression, we cotransfected COS-1 and HepG2
cells, which do not express StAR endogenously, with StAR
promoter-luciferase constructs and plasmids that express these
transcription factors. These cells were used to test StAR promoter
activity in cells that do not express endogenous SF-1. Fig.
2 shows the results of studies in COS-1
and HepG2 cells transfected with 50 ng (maximal stimulatory dose) of
either C/EBP
or -
with either the 1.3-kilobase
StAR-luciferase reporter or the DEI-4-luciferase reporter, a
control C/EBP-responsive promoter construct. In COS-1 cells, the
StAR and DEI-4 promoter activities increased in a
dose-dependent manner with expression of both C/EBP
and
-
(data not shown). C/EBP
was a more effective stimulator of the
promoters than C/EBP
. In HepG2 cells, C/EBP
and -
were equally
potent stimulators of the StAR and DEI-4 promoter activities (Fig.
2).

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
StAR promoter activity in COS-1 and HepG2
cells transiently expressing C/EBP ,
C/EBP , or the empty expression plasmid
(pMEX). Results are the means ± S.D. of a single experiment
with three replicates/treatment group. Experiments were replicated at
least twice with similar results. RLU, relative luciferase
units.
|
|
Studies with the full-length StAR promoter (1.3 kilobases)
indicated that coexpression of increasing amounts of C/EBP
expression plasmid (1-50 ng/well) with SF-1 (500 ng/well) had an
additive or greater effect on StAR promoter activity (Fig.
3). Fig. 3 depicts the results for the
50-ng doses of C/EBP
, C/EBP
, or the empty pMEX carrier plasmid in
the absence/presence of the SF-1 or its empty pSV-SPORT-1 carrier
plasmid. Additionally, each of the six treatment groups was further
subdivided, and the cells were cultured in the presence and absence of
8-Br-cAMP (1 mM). Comparison of the mean values
(n = 3) for the control group (empty pSV-SPORT-1 + empty pMEX) ± 8-Br-cAMP indicated that StAR promoter
activities with and without 8-Br-cAMP were not significantly different
(p > 0.1; 28,000 ± 11,000; 40,800 ± 15,900; mean ± S.E.). The remaining data were expressed as fold
increases over the mean of these control values, which were given a
value of 1. The transient expression of C/EBP
and -
in the COS-1
cells increased basal StAR promoter activity 5.7- and
3.7-fold, respectively, over the control (empty pSV-SPORT-1 + empty
pMEX minus 8-Br-cAMP). Promoter activity was not affected by 8-Br-cAMP
treatment. In contrast, transient expression of SF-1 alone had little
effect on basal StAR promoter activity, whereas it
potentiated cAMP responsiveness of the StAR promoter (6.3-fold). Coexpression of C/EBP
and SF-1 had a greater than additive effect on both basal (10.9-fold) and
cAMP-dependent (26-fold) StAR promoter activity
(Fig. 3). Transient expression of C/EBP
also augmented
8-Br-cAMP-stimulated StAR promoter activity in the presence of SF-1 but
to a lesser extent than C/EBP
(Fig. 3).

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
C/EBP and SF-1 transactivation of the human
StAR promoter in COS-1 cells. StAR promoter activity is expressed
as the fold increase in luciferase activity/ -galactosidase values
over the negative controls (cells transfected with empty-pSV-SPORT-1 + empty-pMEX), which were given a value of 1. StAR promoter activities
for the negative controls (n = 3) were not different
(p > 0.1; 28,000 ± 11,000 and 40,800 ± 15,900; means ± S.E.) for cells cultured in the absence and
presence of 8-Br-cAMP, respectively. *, means ± S.E., denotes a
significant difference between the ( ) 8-Br-cAMP and the (+)
8-Br-cAMP-treated cells within a treatment group (i.e. same
expression vector). a-c, means ± S.E. for
( ) 8-Br-cAMP or (+) 8-Br-cAMP-treated cells with different
superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
|
|
StAR Promoter Function in Human Granulosa-Lutein Cell--
To
investigate the role of C/EBP in cells that normally express StAR, we
transfected human granulosa-lutein cells with a series of
StAR promoter deletion constructs (Fig.
4). Basal StAR promoter activity increased (p < 0.05) ~2-fold following the
deletion of the distal 400 bases of the 1.3-kilobase StAR
promoter, and this level of activity was maintained in the
235
StAR construct. The
150 StAR promoter construct
displayed activity similar to the full-length StAR promoter,
but all further deletions caused a pronounced decline
(p < 0.05) in basal StAR promoter activity with the
95,
60, and
43 constructs exhibiting similar low
promoter activity levels. Cells transfected with the shortest of the
StAR promoter constructs (
43 to +39) displayed ~2-fold
greater luciferase activities than the pGL2-basic plasmid.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Human granulosa cell expression of the StAR
promoter deletion constructs. Cells were transfected with the
indicated StAR promoter-luciferase-based reporter constructs, and the
pGL2-basic reporter and luciferase activities were determined 36 h
later. Each reporter was tested in triplicate during each experiment
and the figure represents the results of 3 independent experiments.
a-d, means ± S.E. with different
superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
|
|
Based on the above results, the putative C/EBP response elements were
mutated in the context of the
235 promoter construct. Fig.
5 illustrates the activities of the C/EBP
mutant constructs in proliferating human granulosa-lutein cells. The
119/
110,
50/
41, and the double C/EBP mutant StAR
promoters contained a 3-base pair substitution in each site that
disrupts the core C/EBP element. The
235 wild-type StAR
promoter construct had activity well above that of the empty pGL-2
basic reporter and exhibited a 2-fold increase in response to 24 h
of treatment with 8-Br-cAMP. In contrast, there was a pronounced
decline (~4-fold, p < 0.05) in basal promoter
activity in the
119/
110 and
50/
41 C/EBP mutation constructs.
However, these single C/EBP mutant constructs retained their ability to
respond to cAMP as evidenced by the 2-fold increase in promoter
activity over basal activity in response to 1 mM 8-Br-cAMP
treatment. Mutation of both C/EBP sites resulted in a further reduction
in basal StAR promoter activity (>90% of the wild type)
although not affecting cAMP responsiveness.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Comparison of human granulosa cell expression
of the wild-type StAR promoter construct ( 235) and the C/EBP mutant
StAR promoter constructs in the absence and presence of 8-Br-cAMP.
Cells were transfected with the indicated StAR
promoter-luciferase-based reporter constructs, and the pGL2-basic
construct and luciferase activities were determined 36 h later.
Each reporter was tested in triplicate during each experiment, which
was replicated 3 times. a-c, means ± S.E. with
different superscripts have significantly different (p < 0.05) basal (( )8-Br-cAMP) reporter activities. *, means ± S.E. indicates difference between control (basal) and the
8-Br-cAMP-treated cells treated with a similar reporter
construct.
|
|
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays--
Recombinant
C/EBP
and -
were both able to elicit a mobility shift of the
oligonucleotide probe containing the
119 to
110 and
50 to
41
elements (Fig. 6). The gel-shift bands
observed for the StAR oligonucleotides were similar to those
observed with a consensus C/EBP site probe. Binding of both C/EBP
and -
proteins to the probes could be competitively inhibited by the
addition of increasing doses of unlabeled oligonucleotide (highest
dose, 20×, is shown). Additionally, the C/EBP
and -
protein·DNA complexes could be supershifted with the cognate
antibodies (Fig. 6). These binding interactions were specific, as
mutations of the putative C/EBP
and -
binding site in the
55 to
31 StAR oligonucleotide prevented the interaction of this probe with
the recombinant C/EBP
and -
proteins. Furthermore, this mutant
oligonucleotide failed to inhibit the formation of a protein·DNA
complex with either of the recombinant C/EBPs. Additionally, we tested
oligonucleotides representing nucleotides
89 to
64 and
96 to
64
of the human StAR promoter, which contains no C/EBP
consensus binding sites, and were unable to detect any protein·DNA
complexes with the recombinant C/EBP
and -
(data not shown).

View larger version (63K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Recombinant human
C/EBP and - bind to the 126 to 100 (A) and 55 to 31
(B) StAR oligonucleotides. A positive control
(C/EBP) oligonucleotide bound both C/EBP and - . C/EBP and -
protein·DNA complex formation to the 126 to 100 oligo was
suppressed by 20-fold molar excess unlabeled probe but was not
suppressed by the 55 to 31 mutant probe (data not shown).
Preincubation of the C/EBP and - proteins with the appropriate
antibody caused a supershift of the protein· 126 to 100 DNA
complex. The 55 to 31 StAR oligonucleotide (B) exhibited
similar C/EBP and - ·DNA complex formations that were also
supershifted by the appropriate antibodies and suppressed by the
addition of a 20-fold molar excess of unlabeled oligonucleotides. The
addition of excess 55 to 31 probe with the mutated C/EBP site
failed to alter the C/EBP and - ·wild-type DNA complex
formation. Furthermore, no C/EBP or - ·DNA complex formations
were visible when the 55 to 31 C/EBP mutant oligonucleotide was
used as the labeled probe.
|
|
Having established that recombinant C/EBPs bind to sequences in the
StAR promoter, we next determined if human granulosa-lutein cell nuclear extracts contained proteins capable of interacting with
these elements. Fig. 7A shows
that a protein·DNA complex is formed when granulosa-lutein cell
nuclear extracts are incubated with the
126 to
100 oligonucleotide.
Binding specificity was demonstrated by showing that 10-50× molar
excess of the cold wild-type competitor ablated the complex between
nuclear proteins and the labeled oligonucleotide, whereas a mutant cold
oligonucleotide containing the same 3-base mutation used for promoter
assays failed to disrupt the protein-DNA interaction. The complex was
supershifted by C/EBP
-specific antibodies, but antibodies to
C/EBP
failed to elicit a supershift, indicating that the shift in
mobility was because of the interaction of C/EBP
with the labeled
oligonucleotide probe.

View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Proteins in granulosa-lutein cell nuclear
extracts bind to the StAR promoter. Electrophoretic mobility shift
assays were performed as indicated under "Experimental Procedures"
using 32P-labeled probes (A, 126 to 100;
B, 55 to 31) and human granulosa-lutein cell nuclear
extracts (5 µg/lane) obtained from cells cultured under control
conditions. In A, the DNA·protein complexes formed with
the 126 to 100 oligonucleotide containing the putative 119/ 110
C/EBP response element and the free probe are indicated. The addition
of 10 and 50× molar excess of unlabeled wild-type and mutant
oligonucleotides (see Fig. 1) demonstrated competition by the wild-type
oligonucleotide but no competition by the mutant probe. Supershift
studies with antibodies to C/EBP and - indicated that the
119/ 110 element interacted with C/EBP present in the human
granulosa-lutein cell nuclear extracts. Electrophoretic mobility shift
assay using nuclear extracts from cells treated with 8-Br-cAMP retarded
a greater amount of the oligonucleotide (data not shown). In
B, DNA·protein complexes for the 55 to 31
oligonucleotide containing the putative 50/ 41 element and the free
probe are indicated. Addition of 10 and 50× molar excess of unlabeled
wild-type and mutant oligonucleotides (see Fig. 1) indicated specific
binding to the wild-type oligonucleotide. Antibodies to C/EBP and
- failed to supershift the 55/ 31 oligonucleotide·protein
complex. n.s., nonspecific interaction.
|
|
Fig. 7B depicts the results of the electrophoretic mobility
shift assay studies with the
55 to
31 oligonucleotide and human granulosa-lutein cell nuclear extracts. A protein·DNA complex of
greater molecular weight than that observed for the distal site was
observed. Binding specificity was demonstrated by inclusion of 10-50×
molar excess of cold wild-type and mutant oligonucleotides, with
ablation of the radiolabeled complex with the wild-type oligonucleotide and no effect of the mutant. In contrast to our observations with the
distal C/EBP response element, antibodies to C/EBP
and -
did not
supershift this DNA·protein complex, indicating that another protein(s) with binding specificity similar to that displayed by
C/EBP
or -
was interacting with the oligonucleotide probe.
Western Blot Analysis of C/EBPs in Human Granulosa-Lutein Cell
Nuclear Extracts--
Granulosa-lutein cell nuclear extracts were
tested for the presence of C/EBP
and -
by Western blot analysis
(Fig. 8). A doublet of ~42 kDa of
C/EBP
was identified, and levels of these proteins were not altered
by treatment of the granulosa-lutein cells with 1 mM
8-Br-cAMP. Western blot analysis also indicated that C/EBP
(38 kDa)
was present in granulosa-lutein cell nuclei, and levels of C/EBP
increased 3-fold (p < 0.05) in response to a 24-h
treatment with 1 mM 8-Br-cAMP.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Western blot detection of
C/EBP (A) and
C/EBP (B) in control and
8-Br-cAMP-treated human granulosa cells nuclear extracts. A double
band at ~42 kDa representing immunoreactive C/EBP protein was
detected in the nuclear contents of the granulosa cells for both
control and 8-Br-cAMP-treated human granulosa cells. A 38-kDa
immunoreactive protein representing C/EBP was observed in the
control and 8-Br-cAMP-treated human granulosa cells. 8-Br-cAMP
treatment caused a pronounced increase in C/EBP within human
granulosa cells.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
This is the first study to demonstrate that members of the family
of C/EBP proteins regulate expression of the human StAR gene. We identified two putative C/EBP binding sites within the proximal StAR promoter by sequence homology that were subsequently shown to bind recombinant C/EBP
and -
. Both C/EBP
and -
increased the activity of the StAR reporter construct in
COS-1 and HepG2 cells. Furthermore, mutation of the individual C/EBP
binding sites markedly reduced basal StAR promoter activity
in human granulosa-lutein cells, and combined mutations caused a more
pronounced loss in basal StAR promoter function. Although
the overall level of promoter activity in response to 8-Br-cAMP was
reduced when the C/EBP binding sites were mutated, there was no change
in the fold increase in promoter activity in response to 8-Br-cAMP
stimulation, demonstrating that C/EBPs, and in particular C/EBP
, and
the cognate response elements regulate the basal level of
StAR gene expression and boost the overall response to
8-Br-cAMP.
Our studies with COS-1 cells, a monkey kidney cell line, and HepG2
cells, a liver cell line, demonstrate that C/EBP
and/or -
transactivate the StAR promoter in cells that do not
normally express StAR or significant levels of SF-1 (6). This is the second instance in which basal StAR gene promoter activity
could be stimulated in SF-1-deficient cell hosts. Our previous studies showed that sterol regulatory element-binding protein-1a increases StAR promoter activity in COS-1 cells in the absence of
exogenous SF-1 (14). Collectively, these studies suggest that SF-1
per se is not absolutely required for basal StAR
gene expression. It is possible that COS-1 and HepG2 cells contain a
homolog(s) of SF-1 that is able to activate SF-1 response elements in
the presence of excess exogenous C/EBPs and/or SREBP-1a. However, cAMP
responsiveness appears to require SF-1, because StAR promoter activity
in COS-1 cells transfected with either C/EBP
or -
did not
increase when cells were treated with 8-Br-cAMP unless exogenous SF-1
was present. Consonant with these observations, we found that mutation
of either C/EBP site individually caused a pronounced loss in basal
StAR promoter activity in granulosa-lutein cells, which
express the endogenous StAR gene. However,
cAMP-dependent StAR transactivation in the
granulosa-lutein cells was not ablated. Mutation of both elements
further diminished basal promoter function but again did not prevent
8-Br-cAMP from stimulating promoter activity. Conversely, our
previous studies demonstrated that mutation of SF-1 response elements
in the StAR promoter reduced basal promoter activity but
produced a more profound loss of cAMP responsiveness (8).
The nuclear factors in cells that express StAR that bind to the two
motifs we identified as C/EBP response elements appear to be different.
The distal element binds C/EBP
and apparently not C/EBP
, even
though C/EBP
is expressed in granulosa-lutein cells. This may
reflect binding selectivity of the distal site for C/EBP
,
differences in the concentrations of the factors in the nuclear
extract, or posttranslational modifications that influence binding
activity. There has been one previous report suggesting selective
binding of C/EBPs to a response element (23) providing a precedent for
the first possibility. In contrast, the proximal element binds neither
C/EBP
nor -
but rather other protein(s) that evidently have a
binding specificity similar to that of C/EBPs. Although recombinant
C/EBP
and -
bound specifically to the StAR oligonucleotides
representing the two putative response elements, the repertoire of
transcription factors and co-activators expressed in granulosa-lutein
cells evidently restricts the interaction of C/EBP
and C/EBP
with
the proximal site in favor of other binding proteins that might include
other members of the C/EBP family or possibly ATF/CREB, which can bind
to elements that recognize C/EBPs (24). The basis for the apparent
selectivity of the distal site for C/EBP
and the proximal site for
other factors remains to be elucidated.
The expression of C/EBPs in ovarian cells is regulated providing a
potential mechanism for modulating StAR gene transcription. In the immature rat ovary, C/EBP
mRNA and protein are present in
granulosa cells of small, antral follicles following the administration of pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (25). The levels of C/EBP
increased with development and differentiation of the antral follicle into a preovulatory follicle, at which stage granulosa cells exhibit maximal levels of C/EBP
. Administration of an ovulatory dose of
human chorionic gonadotropin caused a rapid loss of C/EBP
mRNA
in rat granulosa cells that rebounded as the cells luteinized. In
contrast to these in vivo observations in the immature rat, we observed no change in nuclear C/EBP
levels following a 24-h treatment with 8-Br-cAMP, suggesting that regulation of C/EBP
may
differ in rodent and human granulosa cells. Interestingly, Piontkewitz
et al. (17) demonstrated that injection of antisense oligonucleotides that recognize C/EBP
prevented ovulation. This study failed to detect a difference in steroidogenic output
(progesterone and estradiol) in mice given the antisense
versus sense oligonucleotide. However, antisense treatment
did not result in the complete loss of C/EBP
expression, and these
observations do not rule out the possibility that other members of the
C/EBP transcription factor family (e.g. C/EBP
) could
compensate for the loss of C/EBP
and permit certain promoters
(i.e. StAR) to function at normal activity, although
still preventing follicular differentiation and ovulation.
In the rat ovary, C/EBP
levels were also shown to be low prior to
ovulation, to increase dramatically in granulosa cells after the
luteinizing hormone surge, and to then decline during the later stages
of luteinization (26). We found that 8-Br-cAMP treatment of human
granulosa-lutein cells increased nuclear C/EBP
levels 3-fold,
demonstrating that in vitro, the cAMP signaling pathway
leads to increased C/EBP
expression. Cyclic AMP and
Ca2+/calmodulin kinase activation are also known to
stimulate C/EBP
expression in other cell lines (27). Recent
observations document that cAMP causes the synthesis of C/EBP
, -
,
and -
in Sertoli cells (28). C/EBP
transactivation potential can
also be augmented by extracellular signaling pathways such as
inflammatory cytokines and intracellular signaling pathways such as the
mitogen-activated protein kinase, cAMP-dependent protein
kinase A, Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein
kinase, and protein kinase C by the differential phosphorylation of
specific amino acids (see Refs. 20 and 29 and references therein).
Similar to the C/EBP
antisense experiments, the targeted deletion of
the mouse C/EBP
gene did not prevent StAR gene expression in the
ovary.2 It is not known
whether C/EBP
could compensate for the absence of C/EBP
in this
model or whether promoter activity driven by other transcription
factors is sufficient to sustain some StAR gene expression.
Targeted deletion of C/EBP
in the ovary may provide additional
insight into the role that this factor plays in mouse ovarian function.
However, because of the different expression patterns of C/EBP
and
-
between rodents and human granulosa cells and the known
differences in SF-1 regulation of the StAR gene between the
mouse and human described below, these gene knockout studies may not
provide useful information regarding the control of the human
StAR gene. Testing the roles each of these transcription factors plays in vivo in the regulation of StAR expression
is complicated by the lack of ovaries in SF-1 knockout mice (30) as
well as the perinatal lethality of the C/EBP
gene knockout (31).
Our findings suggest that tropic hormones that increase cAMP levels can
activate StAR gene transcription through a concerted mechanism that includes SF-1-dependent transactivation as
well as cAMP induction of C/EBP
, which through interactions with the distal element identified in this study raises the level of promoter activity. We have previously shown that 8-Br-cAMP-induced increases in
steady state StAR mRNA levels in proliferating granulosa cells are
the result of increased StAR gene transcription and that the protein synthesis inhibitor, cycloheximide, blocks the
8-Br-cAMP-provoked increase in StAR mRNA (4). Granulosa cell SF-1
expression does not dramatically change following hormone or cAMP
treatment, suggesting that another factor must be involved in the
increase in StAR gene transactivation (32). C/EBP
may be
the protein factor required for 8-Br-cAMP to induce StAR
gene transcription.
After this paper was submitted for publication, Reinhart et
al. (33) reported that C/EBP
regulates mouse StAR
gene transcription. These authors proposed that C/EBP
and SF-1
interact cooperatively to enhance StAR gene expression and
provided evidence for physical interactions between SF-1 and C/EBP
.
They found that the mouse promoter retained responsiveness to cAMP
despite mutations in the two C/EBP response elements they identified, a
finding that parallels our observations. However, in contrast to our
findings, which indicate that C/EBP response elements augment the
overall response to cAMP in the presence of SF-1, Reinhart et
al. (33) concluded that C/EBP response elements are required for
SF-1 to transactivate the StAR promoter. This apparent
discrepancy may be explained by previously described differences in the
mouse and human StAR promoters. SF-1 has been reported to be important for basal but not cAMP-stimulated mouse StAR gene
transcription (3), whereas SF-1 is essential for cAMP activation of the
human promoter (6, 8).
The more distal site identified by Reinhart et al. (33),
which is homologous to the distal site we described in the human promoter, bound C/EBP
present in mouse Leydig cell nuclear extracts, but an antibody against C/EBP
did not completely supershift the complex raising questions regarding the presence of other components in
the complex. This differs from our findings on the human distal element. Our proximal element, which was conserved in the mouse and rat
StAR promoters, is 40 bp 3' from the proximal site identified by
Reinhart et al. (33) in the mouse promoter. Reinhart
et al. (33) did not identify, using immunologic probes, the
factors binding to the more proximal element, which they suggested was a "low affinity C/EBP site." We were unable to demonstrate binding of recombinant C/EBPs to two different human StAR oligonucleotides spanning the sequence of the murine proximal site. However, it is
possible that the proximal site in the murine StAR promoter recognizes proteins other than C/EBP
, as we have shown in the case
of the human proximal element.
The conserved nature of the response elements within the region of the
StAR promoter containing the C/EBP response element across
multiple species (Fig. 1) as well as our evidence that these response
elements are bona fide regulators of StAR gene promoter function suggests a regulatory role for these factors, specifically C/EBP
, in StAR gene expression. Regulation
of StAR gene transcription in human steroidogenic cells
plays a critical role in their primary function, as cholesterol
mobilization and delivery of cholesterol to the inner mitochondrial
membrane is the rate-limiting step in steroidogenesis. In this study,
we have examined a small region (bases
126 to
31) of the
StAR promoter that appears to be an integration site
for multiple transcription responses. Our observations provide a
starting point for additional studies to examine the role that each of
these families of transcription factors play in regulation of
StAR gene expression and ultimately steroidogenesis.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT |
We thank Judith Wood for assistance in the
preparation of this manuscript.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health
Grants HD06274 (to J. F. S.) and HD34449 (to J. M. M. and
J. F. S.) and the NCI under contract with Advanced BioScience
Laboratories (to P. F. J.).The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§
To whom correspondence should be addressed: 1354 BRBII/III, 421 Curie Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104. Tel.: (215) 898-0147; Fax: (215)
573-5408; E-mail: lchriste@mail.med.upenn.edu.
2
E. Sterneck and P. F. Johnson, unpublished observation.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
StAR, steroidogenic
acute regulatory protein;
SF-1, steroidogenic factor 1;
C/EBP, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein;
8-Br-cAMP, 8-bromoadenosine
3':5'-cyclic monophosphate;
SREBP, sterol regulatory element-binding
protein;
DMEM, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Strauss, J. F., III,
Kallen, C. B.,
Christenson, L. K.,
Watari, H.,
Devoto, L.,
Arakane, F.,
Kiriakidou, M.,
and Sugawara, T.
(1999)
Recent Prog. Horm. Res.
54,
1-27
|
| 2.
|
Lin, D.,
Sugawara, T.,
Strauss, J. F., III,
Clark, B. J.,
Stocco, D. M.,
Saenger, P.,
Rogol, A.,
and Miller, W. L.
(1995)
Science
267,
1828-1831[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 3.
|
Caron, K. M.,
Soo, S. C.,
Wetsel, W. C.,
Stocco, D. M.,
Clark, B. J.,
and Parker, K. L.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
11540-11545[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Kiriakidou, M.,
McAllister, J. M.,
Sugawara, T.,
and Strauss, J. F., III
(1996)
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
81,
4122-4128[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 5.
|
Ronen-Fuhrmann, T.,
Timberg, R.,
King, S. R.,
Hales, K. H.,
Hales, D. B.,
Stocco, D. M.,
and Orly, J.
(1998)
Endocrinology
139,
303-315[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Sugawara, T.,
Holt, J. A.,
Kiriakidou, M.,
and Strauss, J. F., III
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
9052-9059[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
Parker, K. L.,
and Schimmer, B. P.
(1997)
Endocr. Rev.
18,
361-367[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Sugawara, T.,
Kiriakidou, M.,
McAllister, J. M.,
Kallen, C. B.,
and Strauss, J. F., III
(1997)
Biochemistry
36,
7249-7255[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Caron, K. M.,
Ikeda, Y.,
Soo, S.,
Stocco, D. M.,
Parker, K. L.,
and Clark, B. J.
(1997)
Mol. Endocrinol.
11,
138-147[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Sandhoff, T. W.,
Hales, D. B.,
Hales, K. H.,
and McLean, M. P.
(1998)
Endocrinology
139,
4820-4831[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Rust, W.,
Stedronsky, K.,
Tillmann, G.,
Morley, S.,
Walther, N.,
and Ivell, R.
(1998)
J. Mol. Endocrinol.
21,
189-200[Abstract]
|
| 12.
|
Sugawara, T.,
Saito, M.,
and Fujimoto, S.
(1998)
Endocr. Soc. Proc.
98,
118
|
| 13.
|
Zazopoulos, E.,
Lalli, E.,
Stocco, D. M.,
and Sassone-Corsi, P.
(1997)
Nature
390,
311-315[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Christenson, L. K.,
McAllister, J. M.,
Martin, K. O.,
Javitt, N. B.,
Osborne, T. F.,
and Strauss, J. F., III.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
30729-30735[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Lekstrom-Himes, J.,
and Xanthopoulos, K. G.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
28545-28548[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
Sterneck, E.,
Tessarollo, L.,
and Johnson, P. F.
(1997)
Genes Dev.
11,
2153-2162[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Piontkewitz, Y.,
Enerback, S.,
and Hedin, L.
(1996)
Dev. Biol.
179,
288-296[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 18.
|
Williams, S. C.,
Cantwell, C. A.,
and Johnson, P. F.
(1991)
Genes Dev.
5,
1553-1567[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Sugawara, T.,
Lin, D.,
Holt, J. A.,
Martin, K. O.,
Javitt, N. B.,
Miller, W. L.,
and Strauss, J. F., III
(1995)
Biochemistry
34,
12506-12512[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 20.
|
Williams, S. C.,
Baer, M.,
Dillner, A. J.,
and Johnson, P. F.
(1995)
EMBO J.
14,
3170-3183[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 21.
|
McAllister, J. M.,
Byrd, W.,
and Simpson, E. R.
(1994)
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
79,
106-112[Abstract]
|
| 22.
|
Hurst, H. C.,
Masson, N.,
Jones, N. C.,
and Lee, K. A.
(1990)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
10,
6192-6203[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Pope, R. M.,
Leutz, A.,
and Ness, S. A.
(1994)
J Clin. Invest.
94,
1449-1455
|
| 24.
|
Kageyama, R.,
Sasai, Y.,
and Nakanishi, S.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
15525-15531[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 25.
|
Piontkewitz, Y.,
Enerback, S.,
and Hedin, L.
(1993)
Endocrinology
133,
2327-2333[Abstract]
|
| 26.
|
Sirois, J.,
and Richards, J. S.
(1993)
J. Biol. Chem.
268,
21931-21938[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 27.
|
Yukawa, K.,
Tanaka, T.,
Tsuji, S.,
and Akira, S.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
31345-31351[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Grønning, L. M.,
Dahle, M. K.,
Taskén, K. A.,
Enerbäck, S.,
Hedin, L.,
Taskéu, K.,
and Knutsen, H. K.
(1999)
Endocrinology
140,
835-843[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 29.
|
Poli, V.,
Mancini, F. P.,
and Cortese, R.
(1990)
Cell
63,
643-653[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 30.
|
Luo, X.,
Ikeda, Y.,
and Parker, K. L.
(1994)
Cell
77,
481-490[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 31.
|
Wang, N.,
Finegold, M. J.,
Bradley, A.,
Ou, C. N.,
Abdelsayed, S. V.,
Wilde, M. D.,
Taylor, L. R.,
Wilson, D. R.,
and Darlington, G. J.
(1995)
Science
269,
1108-1112[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
Clemens, J. W.,
Lala, D. S.,
Parker, K. L.,
and Richards, J. S.
(1994)
Endocrinology
134,
1499-1508[Abstract]
|
| 33.
|
Reinhart, A.,
Williams, S. C.,
Clark, B. J.,
and Stocco, D. M.
(1999)
Mol. Endocrinol.
13,
729-741[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
C.-C. Hsu, C.-W. Lu, B.-M. Huang, M.-H. Wu, and S.-J. Tsai
Cyclic Adenosine 3',5'-Monophosphate Response Element-Binding Protein and CCAAT/Enhancer-Binding Protein Mediate Prostaglandin E2-Induced Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory Protein Expression in Endometriotic Stromal Cells
Am. J. Pathol.,
August 1, 2008;
173(2):
433 - 441.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. L. Russell and R. L. Robker
Molecular mechanisms of ovulation: co-ordination through the cumulus complex
Hum. Reprod. Update,
May 1, 2007;
13(3):
289 - 312.
[Abstract]
|