![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 49, 38524-38531, December 8, 2000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the
Received for publication, June 15, 2000, and in revised form, August 30, 2000
The EGR1 transactivator is overexpressed in
prostate cancer, and its expression pattern suggests that EGR1 could
potentially regulate a number of steps involved in initiation and
progression of prostate cancer, such as mitogenesis, invasiveness,
angiogenesis, and metastasis. To identify potential EGR1 target genes
in an unbiased manner, we have utilized adenovirus-mediated expression of EGR1 in a prostate cancer cell line to identify specific genes that
are induced by EGR1. Using oligonucleotide arrays, a number of
EGR1-regulated genes were identified and their regulation was confirmed
by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction
analysis. One of the largest gene classes identified in this screen
includes several neuroendocrine-associated genes (neuron-specific
enolase, neurogranin), suggesting that EGR1 overexpression may
contribute to the neuroendocrine differentiation that often accompanies
prostate cancer progression. This screen also identified several growth
factors such as insulin-like growth factor-II, platelet-derived growth
factor-A, and transforming growth factor- Cancer initiation and progression depends upon altered expression
of whole networks of genes. Therefore, transcriptional regulators constitute one of the most important classes of differentially expressed genes in cancer, as they are uniquely poised to coordinately regulate gene networks. For example, the protooncogene c-myc
can be activated through gene amplification or dysregulation of tumor suppressor pathways, and is able to promote proliferation by activating the expression of many genes involved in cell cycle progression (1, 2).
To understand the physiological significance of this overexpression, it
is imperative to identify target genes that become activated in
response to such overexpression. Until recently, identifying target
genes of specific transactivators has been impeded by the scarcity of
promoter sequence data. However, even comprehensive genome sequence is
insufficient to unambiguously identify target promoters, since many
transactivators bind to cognate sequences that deviate considerably
from consensus binding sites. Techniques such as DNA footprinting and
reporter assays have been extremely useful in the analysis of suspected
target promoters, but these techniques do not provide proof that a
transactivator activates a given promoter in vivo. In
addition, these methods are time-consuming and are not suited for
efficient identification of novel target genes.
Recent studies have demonstrated that at least two transcription
factors, ETS2 and EGR1, are overexpressed in prostate cancer (3-5).
The EGR1 transactivator was originally identified as an immediate-early
gene that is rapidly induced in response to a variety of stimuli. More
recently, several studies have focused attention on the role of EGR1 in
coordinating responses to hypoxia and vascular injury. In these
systems, EGR1 activates expression of tissue factor (which eventually
triggers vascular fibrin deposition) and several growth factors such as
PDGF-A,1 PDGF-B, TGF- To determine the physiological significance of EGR1 overexpression in
prostate cancer, we have developed a high-throughput screen for genes
that are induced by EGR1. This strategy employs a recombinant
adenovirus that expresses EGR1 in the LAPC4 prostate cancer cell line.
Changes in gene expression are then analyzed using microarray
technology, which has made it possible to simultaneously track changes
in expression levels of thousands of genes. Finally, expression of the
candidate target genes in primary prostate tumor specimens is rapidly
determined using quantitative RT-PCR analysis. Compared with
reporter-based assays, a major advantage of this approach is that it
measures the response of endogenous promoters in their native chromatin
context. Using this strategy, we have identified several genes that are
regulated by EGR1 overexpression. These include signaling proteins,
transcription regulators, neuroendocrine proteins, and
membrane-associated proteins involved in adhesion and signaling. These
results not only illuminate the consequences of EGR1 overexpression in
prostate cancer, but also provide a model for identifying target genes
of specific transactivators in other types of cancer.
Adenovirus Infection--
LAPC4 human prostate carcinoma cells
(13) (kindly provided by C. Sawyers, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA), were
maintained in Iscove's growth medium supplemented with 10% fetal
bovine serum. Adenoviral recombinants were prepared essentially as
described (14). EGR1 I293F (15) was subcloned into the pAC adenoviral
transfer plasmid and inserted by homologous recombination into the E1
region of adenovirus Ad5PacIGFP (14, 16). As a negative
control, we used an adenovirus (Ad5PacIGFP) expressing the
Gal4 DNA-binding domain () fused to a mutant, nonfunctional form
of the EGR1 R1 domain (EGR1 residues 269-304 with I293F mutation).
LAPC4 cells were infected at a viral titer of 1 × 108
plaque-forming units/ml for 2 h. Thereafter, cells were washed once with medium and then cultured for another 24 h. Examination of the cells for GFP expression revealed that each virus infected >90% of the cells. For the immunoblot analysis of Fig. 1, lysates from adenovirus-infected cells were harvested 24 h after
infection, resolved on a 10% polyacrylamide gel, and blotted onto
nitrocellulose. Culture and stimulation of PC12 cells with NGF was
performed as described previously, and the blot was probed with the
6H10 anti-EGR1 monoclonal antibody (17).
Oligonucleotide Microarray Analysis--
Hybridization probes
for GeneChip analysis were prepared from poly(A)+ RNA
prepared from cultures of LAPC4 cells that had been infected with
either adenovirus expressing EGR1 (I293F) or the control adenovirus.
The poly(A)+ RNA was converted to double-stranded cDNA
using an oligo(dT) primer containing the T7 promoter, and this was used
to prepare biotinylated cRNA using the Bioarray HighYield kit (Enzo)
according to the manufacturer's directions. The biotinylated cRNA
probes were fragmented and applied as described (18, 19) to individual oligonucleotide HuGeneFL GeneChip arrays (Affymetrix), which contain probe sets for 5600 human genes. The signal intensities from hybridized cRNA were quantified, and the GeneChip analysis software was used to
identify differentially expressed genes.
Quantitative RT-PCR (TaqMan) Analysis--
Total RNA was
purified, and 1 µg was used to prepare cDNA (20). Quantitative
RT-PCR was performed by monitoring in real time the increase in
fluorescence of the SYBR Green dye as described (21, 22) using the
TaqMan 7700 sequence detection system (PerkinElmer Life Sciences). For
comparison of transcript levels between samples, a standard curve of
cycle thresholds for several serial dilutions of a cDNA sample was
established and then used to calculate the relative abundance of each
gene. Values were then normalized to the relative amounts of
glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase cDNA, which were obtained
from a similar standard curve. All PCR reactions were performed in
duplicate. Sequences of primers used for PCR analysis are available
upon request.
Tissue Specimens--
Prostate tissue specimens, derived from
radical prostatectomy, were obtained from the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer
Center Tissue Procurement Core Facility at Washington University. All
samples had a Gleason grade of 3 + 3 (23). Guided by hematoxylin and eosin-stained frozen sections, the tissue blocks were grossly dissected
so that, by visual estimate, the epithelial component of the isolated
tissue contained at least 75% carcinoma cells. The tissues were
sectioned at 50 µm on the cryostat microtome and used for RNA
isolation. A serial frozen section was stained to verify that the
tissue sections used for RNA preparation were predominantly carcinoma.
Quantitative RT-PCR analysis was performed as described above, with the
exception that 18 S rRNA was used to normalize for the amount of input cDNA.
Analysis of IGF-II Imprinting--
Detection of IGF-II
imprinting in human samples was performed as described (24-26).
Briefly, genomic DNA from LAPC4 cells was isolated and amplified using
two primers that span an IGF-II gene segment that contains a single
nucleotide polymorphism. Sequencing of both strands of the PCR fragment
revealed that LAPC4 DNA is heterozygous for this polymorphism. To
determine which allele is induced by EGR1 expression, cDNA from
LAPC4 cells infected with adenovirus expressing EGR1 I293F was
amplified with the same primers, and this product was sequenced.
Activation of Endogenous EGR1 Target Genes--
Previous work has
shown that the EGR1 transactivator is overexpressed in a majority of
prostate cancers (4, 5). To identify genes that are regulated by EGR1,
we wished to achieve overexpression of EGR1 in a prostate cell line
without using stimuli (e.g. growth factors) that would
activate signaling pathways and induce other transcription factors.
Therefore, we utilized a recombinant adenovirus that expresses EGR1
(I293F), a mutant that is resistant to repression by endogenous
NAB transcriptional corepressors (27, 28), which could repress
any activation by wild type EGR1. The recombinant adenovirus was used
to infect the LAPC4 prostate cell line. This cell line was derived as
an explant of metastatic prostate cancer, and retains many of the
characteristics of normal prostate cells such as prostate- specific
antigen expression and androgen dependence (13). In addition to EGR1
(I293F), the adenovirus also expresses GFP from an independent
transcription unit, which allows monitoring of infection. After
infection with EGR1-expressing adenovirus, visualization by
fluorescence microscopy confirmed that essentially all (>95%) of the
cells in culture were infected.
To determine if the level of EGR1 expression in adenovirus-infected
cells is significantly higher than is ever observed physiologically, the expression level of EGR1 (I293F) created by the recombinant adenovirus (Fig. 1, lane
4 of inset) was compared with the induced level
of EGR1 in NGF-stimulated PC12 cells (lane 2)
(29). This immunoblot reveals that use of recombinant adenovirus is an
efficient means to target EGR1 overexpression to a cell line, and that
the resulting level of EGR1 expression is comparable to the level of
induced EGR1 observed in the NGF-treated PC12 system. The endogenous expression level of EGR1 in cultured LAPC4 cells is relatively low, at
a level that is comparable to that observed in normal prostate tissue
(data not shown).
To test whether EGR1 (I293F) could activate potential target genes in
this cell line, we measured expression levels of three EGR1 target
genes that have been identified in other systems: IGF-II, PDGF-A, and
TGF- Microarray Analysis of LAPC4 Cells--
The same cDNA samples
used in Fig. 1 were used to prepare biotinylated cRNA targets, which
were then hybridized to individual oligonucleotide HuGeneFL GeneChip
arrays (Affymetrix), which contain probe sets for 5600 human genes. The
signal intensities from hybridized cRNA were quantified as described
(18, 19). Using the default parameters of the GeneChip analysis
software, 37% and 33% of the genes on the HuGeneFL array were scored
as being present (or marginal) in the control-infected and EGR1 (I293F)
expressing LAPC4 cells, respectively. The normalization factor used to
compare the two data sets indicated that the global levels of
hybridization from the two cRNA samples were roughly equivalent. Using
defined copy numbers of synthetic, biotinylated cRNA transcripts that
were added to the hybridization mixture, we estimate that the detection threshold in this experiment was approximately 5-10 copies/cell.
The GeneChip data was first used to identify genes that are abundantly
expressed in this cell line, since this profile may provide information
regarding potential diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets in
prostate cancer. A list of the 50 most highly expressed genes
(excluding genes for ribosomal proteins) in Table
I contains several genes that have
previously been associated with various types of tumors. For example,
the thymosin Identification of EGR1 Target Genes by Microarray
Hybridization--
Because we had observed up-regulation of several
potential EGR1 target genes (Fig. 1) after expression of EGR1 (I293F),
we used the GeneChip data sets to identify other genes that become induced as a consequence of EGR1 (I293F) expression. The average hybridization intensity across all probe sets using the cRNA prepared from LAPC4 cells expressing EGR1 I293F was normalized to that obtained
from LAPC4 cells infected with a control virus. Comparison of the two
data sets revealed that 144 of the genes found to be "present" in
both samples (2.1% of total genes represented on the array) were
induced in LAPC4 cells expressing EGR1 (I293F), but only 30 of these
genes (0.5%) were induced more than 3-fold.
Analysis of the results indicated several genes that were significantly
altered in response to EGR1 overexpression (Table II), most of which had not previously
been identified as EGR1 target genes. Many of the induced genes could
be grouped into functional classes of molecules. These include
transcriptional regulators, signaling molecules, as well as some
neuroendocrine proteins. One signaling molecule was the Rad gene, a Ras
homolog that was originally identified to be overexpressed in the
muscle of patients with type II diabetes (41). More recently, Rad
expression has been shown to potentiate serum-stimulated DNA synthesis
in a melanoma cell line. In addition, this activity of Rad is inhibited by the nm23 gene product, a putative suppressor of tumor metastasis (42). An example of the transcription factor group is CBF- Validation of GeneChip Results Using Quantitative RT-PCR
Analysis--
To independently measure the fold induction of specific
EGR1 target genes, quantitative RT-PCR analysis was used to measure expression of some of the genes identified by GeneChip analysis. The
induction by EGR1 (I293F) of the genes chosen for this analysis spanned
a range from 2- to 50-fold. Fold induction calculated from the GeneChip
data was compared with that obtained using quantitative RT-PCR analysis
(Table III). Induction of specific genes
was confirmed for the most part by our quantitative RT-PCR analysis.
However, for some genes, the actual fold induction by quantitative
RT-PCR (e.g. protease M, Rad, IGF-II, and TGF-
Since the GeneChip detection system significantly underestimated the
fold induction of several genes (e.g. IGF-II and TGF-
The identification of several known EGR1 target genes suggests that
most of these genes are probably activated directly by EGR1. However,
this analysis cannot exclude the possibility that activation occurs
indirectly through activation of one or more intermediary molecules.
For some target genes, such as TGF- Analysis of EGR1 Target Gene Expression in Prostate Cancer--
To
extend our analysis to prostate tumors, we examined the expression of a
several EGR1-regulated genes identified above in tumor specimens
obtained after prostatectomy. Because the infiltrative nature of most
prostate carcinomas makes it difficult to obtain homogeneous samples of
prostate cancer, the frozen tissue blocks were examined to select
samples in which the epithelial component consisted of >75%
carcinoma. RNA was prepared from these samples, and EGR1 expression was
determined by quantitative RT-PCR analysis. For subsequent analysis of
EGR1 target genes, we chose four samples with high EGR1 levels and
three samples with low EGR1 expression, similar to that found in normal
prostate. The increased expression of EGR1 in these samples should be
considered to be a minimum estimate since the isolated carcinoma
samples also contain some stromal cells that do not express EGR1.
We found that the relative expression levels of a number of EGR1 target
genes (IGF-II, NSE, Rad, Id4, and EF-1 EGR1 Activation of Genes in the Imprinted 11p15
Locus--
Analysis of the genes induced by EGR1 expression in LAPC4
cells surprisingly revealed that many potential EGR1 target genes lie
within the 11p15 chromosomal locus. This locus contains a cluster of
imprinted genes, and loss of imprinting for several of these genes has
been associated with a variety of adult and childhood cancers (48, 49).
The genes up-regulated by EGR1 in this locus are IGF-II, IPL/TSSC3, and
p57KIP2. Elevated IGF-II expression is observed in many
types of cancer and is often associated with loss of imprinting in
which the normally silent, maternal allele becomes activated (26). Some
of the more recently identified imprinted genes in this domain are not represented in the human FL array that we used in our GeneChip experiment. Therefore, we used quantitative RT-PCR to assay expression of the imprinted genes in the 11p15 locus that are not represented on
the array (Fig. 3). Not all of the
imprinted genes in this locus respond to EGR1 overexpression, but our
results do indicate a clustering of several EGR1 target genes in this
domain. Of the genes activated by EGR1, IGF-II would appear to be one
of the more likely candidates to enhance prostate tumor progression, and we therefore examined activation of IGF-II expression by EGR1 in
greater detail.
The human IGF-II gene has four independent promoters, which are
differentially regulated in a tissue- and developmental stage-specific manner (50, 51). To determine which IGF-II promoter(s) are activated by
EGR1 in LAPC4 prostate cells, we used promoter-specific primers (26) to
analyze transcription from the four promoters following EGR1
expression. As shown in Fig. 4, the
EGR1-mediated activation of IGF-II expression occurs principally
through the P3 and P4 promoters, although all four promoters are
activated to some extent. This pattern of promoter activation
correlates well with the number of EGR1 binding sites (47) that were
found in the IGF-II promoters. Within 1000 base pairs upstream of the respective transcription initiation sites, promoters P1, P2, P3, and P4
have 1, 0, 4, and 6 binding sites, respectively.
It has been previously reported that elevated IGF-II expression in
prostate cancer is associated with loss of imprinting (25). To
determine if the activation of IGF-II expression by EGR1 (I293F) in
LAPC4 cells is also biallelic, we took advantage of a single nucleotide
polymorphism in the IGF-II 3'-untranslated region, which has previously
been used to examine IGF-II imprinting status (24-26). Genomic DNA
obtained from the LAPC4 line was amplified and found to be heterozygous
for this polymorphism (Fig. 5). When we
examined the cDNA from EGR1-expressing LAPC4 cells, it was evident
that both alleles are being expressed, consistent with results
previously obtained in prostate cancer samples (25).
Two groups have recently identified EGR1 as a gene that is
overexpressed in prostate cancer (4, 5). As we have also confirmed
these observations
ourselves,2 these data have
prompted our investigation of two questions. 1) Does EGR1 promote
prostate cancer initiation and/or progression, and 2) what genes
activated by EGR1 participate in its functional role in prostate
cancer? For the first question, we have recently mated a mouse model of
prostate cancer developed by Garabedian et al. (52) with the
targeted disruption of the mouse Egr1 gene that we had previously
generated (53). Our results indicate that activation of Egr1 is an
early event in development of prostate cancer in this model, and that
the absence of the mouse Egr1 gene results in significantly delayed
tumor development as measured by tumor mass and survival
rates.2 These results provide genetic evidence that Egr1
plays an important role in tumor development subsequent to formation of
prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.
Therefore, it is imperative to address the second question
(i.e. identification of EGR1 target genes) in order to
understand the functional role of EGR1 in prostate cancer. To explore
the EGR1 transcriptional network, we have employed adenovirus-mediated expression of the EGR1 transactivator followed by microarray
hybridization to determine how EGR1 overexpression alone (in the
absence of other stimuli) is able to change patterns of gene regulation
in the LAPC4 prostate cancer cell line. One class of genes that was identified in our screen is associated with neuroendocrine cells. Neuroendocrine differentiation occurs frequently in prostate cancer, and it is thought that neuroendocrine cells may secrete factors that
allow prostate carcinoma to become androgen-independent (45, 46, 52).
Neuron-specific enolase is a common marker used to identify
neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate carcinoma. Other such genes
identified in this screen include neurogranin, h-neuro-d4 (a zinc
finger protein related to requiem), and telencephalin/ICAM5. Many of
the neuroendocrine genes are also highly expressed in the central
nervous system, where EGR1 and related family members (i.e.
EGR2/Krox20, EGR3, and EGR4) are present at high levels.
Another class of EGR1-induced genes includes several growth factors
(PDGF-A, IGF-II, and TGF- IGF-II overexpression is the most common molecular event observed in
Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), which is characterized by prenatal
overgrowth phenotypes and predisposition for several childhood tumors
(48, 49). Transgenic mouse models that overexpress IGF-II recapitulate
many of the phenotypes observed in BWS (65, 66). A major cause of
IGF-II overexpression in BWS appears to be biallelic expression of the
IGF-II gene, which is normally maternally imprinted. Loss of imprinting
of the IGF-II gene is similarly observed in a wide range of cancers
(including prostate) (25, 26). The biallelic induction of IGF-II
expression leads us to speculate that EGR1 overexpression may help
bypass the imprinting mechanism that normally silences the maternal
allele, and thereby be at least one factor that contributes to higher
levels of IGF-II in prostate cancer.
In examining the genes induced by EGR1 activity, we found that two
additional genes within the 11p15.5 locus are induced by EGR1 activity,
IPL/TSSC3 and p57KIP2. The induction of the
p57KIP2 CDK inhibitor would not seem to be consistent with
accelerated tumor progression. However, both IGF-II and
p57KIP2 have very similar developmental expression
patterns, and recent work has documented a genetic interaction between
these genes in a mouse model of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (67). From
these results, it was proposed that IGF-II and p57KIP2 play
antagonistic roles in controlling cell proliferation during normal
development. Therefore, it is possible that co-induction of these two
genes by EGR1 might reflect a normal regulatory loop that is disrupted
by increased expression of IGF-II and/or loss of function (mutation) of
p57KIP2.
One caveat in interpreting the results of GeneChip analysis is that the
detection sensitivity of the current technology results in a
significant underestimate of -fold induction for certain genes.
Although the detection threshold may vary between individual genes
because of differential hybridization efficiency, use of labeled
control transcripts in our experiment indicate that the detection
threshold is approximately 5-10 copies/cell (assuming complete
conversion of mRNA to cDNA), a number that is consistent with
that obtained in other experiments employing the same technology. This
estimate, however, does not include loss of sensitivity associated with
conversion of mRNA to cDNA and subsequent in vitro
transcription to generate labeled cRNA target. In a typical cell, it
has been estimated that most of the expressed genes (~10,000) are
expressed at 5-15 copies/cell. Therefore, a large number of these
genes would be expressed at (or below) the detection threshold of
GeneChip technology. Genes that are expressed in this abundance class
(5-15 copies/cell) include many genes that do not need to be expressed at extremely high levels in order to be biologically active, such as
growth factors and transcriptional regulators. For example, the
expression level of important transcriptional regulatory proteins such
as Sp1 and TATA-binding protein is at or below the level of detection
in our experiment, as well as similar data sets published by other
groups (68, 69). Therefore, using a more sensitive method such as
quantitative RT-PCR analysis is a complementary strategy that can not
only validate GeneChip data, but also help identify significantly
induced genes whose transcripts are in the lower abundance classes.
Over the last 15 years, enormous progress has been made in identifying
transcriptional regulators and understanding the molecular details of
how they modulate gene expression. However, the relatively small number
of promoters with which they have been tested in vitro has
limited our knowledge of these factors. The recent growth of genome
data bases and microarray techniques has now made it possible to
explore the physiological significance of these transcriptional regulators by identifying the complement of genes that they regulate. Although these techniques are also well suited for identifying target
genes in loss-of-function models (e.g. mouse knockouts), the
gain-of function approach that we have described will be particularly helpful in cases where redundancy of related transactivators makes loss-of-function studies impractical.
We thank Charles Sawyers for providing the
LAPC4 cell line. GeneChip analysis was performed by the Siteman Cancer
Center GeneChip Core at Washington University School of Medicine.
*
This work was supported in part by National Institutes of
Health Grant 5 P01 CA49712-08 and grants from the Association for the
Cure of Cancer of the Prostate (CaP CURE) and from the Monsanto Corp.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.
§
Present address: Dept. of Comparative Biosciences, School of
Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
¶
Supported by National Institutes of Health Training Grant 5 T32 CA 09547-13.
**
Supported by Swiss National Science Foundation Grant
31-57/125.99).
Published, JBC Papers in Press, September 12, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M005220200
2
S. A. Abdulkadir, J. Svaren, and J. Milbrandt, submitted for publication.
The abbreviations used are:
PDGF, platelet-derived growth factor;
PCR, polymerase chain reaction;
RT, reverse transcription;
IGF, insulin-like growth factor;
TGF, transforming growth factor;
GFP, green fluorescent protein;
NGF, nerve
growth factor;
CBF, core-binding factor;
BWS, Beckwith-Wiedemann
syndrome;
bFGF, basic fibroblast growth factor.
EGR1 Target Genes in Prostate Carcinoma Cells Identified by
Microarray Analysis*
§,
,
¶,
**,
, and

Departments of Pathology and Internal
Medicine, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Washington University
School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110 and the
Brain
Research Institute, University of Zurich,
Zurich CH-8057, Switzerland
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1, which have previously
been implicated in enhancing tumor progression. The insulin-like growth
factor-II gene lies within the 11p15.5 chromosomal locus, which
contains a number of other imprinted genes, and EGR1 expression was
found to induce at least two other genes in this locus (IPL,
p57KIP2). Based on our results, coupling adenoviral
overexpression with microarray and quantitative reverse
transcription-polymerase chain reaction analyses could be a versatile
strategy for identifying target genes of transactivators.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1,
IGF-II, and bFGF (6, 7-9). Interestingly, many of these same factors
have also been implicated in various stages of prostate tumor
progression (e.g. angiogenesis, metastasis), adding further
evidence that at least some steps of tumor progression are
mechanistically related to wound healing and hypoxic responses (10).
Although increased expression of several of these genes has been
implicated in development and progression of prostate cancer (11, 12),
it has not yet been established whether their up-regulation in this
context is functionally linked to increased levels of transactivators
such as EGR1.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES

View larger version (25K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
Adenovirus-mediated expression of EGR1.
A, lysates from LAPC4 cells that were uninfected
(lane 3) or infected with AdEGR1 (I293F)
(lane 4) were resolved on a SDS-polyacrylamide
gel. In addition, lysates from normal PC12 cells (lane
1) and PC12 cells stimulated with NGF for 1 h
(lane 2) were added for comparison. The
arrow denotes full-length EGR1 protein. The lower band in
lane 2 is a previously described proteolytic
product of EGR1 found in NGF-stimulated PC12 cells (17). Equal amounts
of protein lysates were loaded in each lane. B, the
expression levels of the indicated genes were determined by
quantitative RT-PCR analysis of cDNA samples obtained from LAPC4
cells that had been infected with adenovirus expressing EGR1 I293F.
Expression levels for each gene were normalized to the level of
glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase expression, and then
normalized to the level found in LAPC4 cells infected with a control
adenovirus (set as 1). All reactions were performed in duplicate, and
the standard error is indicated.
1 (30-34). After 24 h of infection, RNA was purified from
these cultures and used to generate cDNA. We employed a technique
for quantitative RT-PCR analysis, in which a fluorescent dye (SYBR
Green) that binds double-stranded DNA is used to quantitate the amount
of amplicon as it accumulates during the PCR reaction (22, 35-37). For
each cDNA sample, we measured the cycle number at which PCR product
accumulation reaches a defined threshold. Then, the relative levels of
gene expression were determined using a standard curve obtained from
assays of serial dilutions of a cDNA sample containing the gene of
interest. To control for genes induced by adenovirus infection alone,
expression levels of these three genes in EGR1-infected LAPC4 cells
were compared with those obtained in LAPC4 cells infected with a
control adenovirus. As shown in Fig. 1B, IGF-II, TGF-
1,
and PDGF-A were all induced in response to EGR1 expression, indicating
for the first time that these genes, in their endogenous loci, are
induced by EGR1 in a prostate cell type.
-10 protein binds and sequesters G-actin and is
overexpressed in a wide range of tumor types (38). In addition, CD81, a
cell-surface molecule involved in cell adhesion and integrin signaling
(39), is also expressed at a high level. Neuroleukin is a
multifunctional protein that is a phosphoglucose isomerase, but also
functions as a tumor-secreted cytokine that regulates invasion and
metastasis (40). The significance of the high expression levels of
these proteins in the LAPC4 cell line remains to be established, but
similar analyses of other prostate cancer models may substantiate their
overexpression as a general characteristic of prostate cancer.
Highly expressed genes in LAPC4 cells
, the
non-DNA-binding subunit of the heterodimeric transcription factor
core-binding factor (CBF)/polyoma enhancer-binding protein 2. Chromosomal translocations involving the human CBF-
gene
(CBF-
-MYH11) are associated with a large percentage of human
leukemias (43). Recently, CBF activity has been shown to be required
for angiogenesis in an endothelial cell line, where expression of all
CBF subunits is induced by angiogenic factors, such as bFGF and
vascular endothelial growth factor (44). The neuroendocrine
genes are particularly interesting since neuroendocrine differentiation
is often observed during prostate cancer progression. Neuron-specific
enolase is a widely used marker for determining the extent of
neuroendocrine differentiation (45, 46).
EGR1 target genes in LAPC4 cells
1) was
significantly greater than that derived from the GeneChip analysis. In
these cases, the expression level in the control RNA sample appeared to
be below the threshold of detection by GeneChip analysis. In such samples (marked with >), the software employed the background noise
(computed by Affymetrix software) to calculate fold induction.
Validation of EGR1 target genes
1), the data were sorted to identify genes that were absent in the base-line chip (control infected LAPC4 cells) and then emerged above
the detection threshold in the sample obtained from EGR1-expressing LAPC4 cells. Testing several of these genes revealed others that were
significantly induced beyond the level indicated by the GeneChip analysis. For example, the EF1-
2 and telencephalin/ICAM-5 genes were
induced 3.7- and 3-fold, respectively, in the GeneChip data set, but
subsequent quantitative RT-PCR analysis demonstrated inductions of 9.4- and 13.3-fold, respectively.
1, PDGF-A, and IGF-II, in
vitro assays have identified one or more EGR1 binding sites in
these promoters that appear to mediate EGR1 activation (30-34).
However, the promoters of most of the other genes have not been studied
in any great detail. The promoters of these genes were screened for
sequences that conform to the EGR1 consensus-binding site defined
previously (47). The presence of such sites in many of the promoter
regions (i.e. within 1000 base pairs upstream of the
transcription start site) suggests that activation by EGR1 is direct
(Table III).
) correlated well with that of
EGR1 in many of the tumors (Fig. 2). The
carcinomas with high levels of EGR1 generally expressed high levels of
these target genes, whereas tumors with low EGR1 expressed low levels of the target genes. Some EGR1 target genes (neurogranin, protease M,
IPL, and telencephalin) were expressed at very low levels in all of the
prostate cancer samples tested (data not shown), suggesting that these
genes may not be relevant to prostate tumorigenesis. Overall, these
results support the idea that EGR1 overexpression in prostate tumors
activates expression of downstream target genes that may influence
tumor growth.

View larger version (26K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Expression of EGR1 target genes in prostate
carcinoma samples. RNA was prepared from prostate carcinoma
samples, and the relative EGR1 expression levels in these samples were
determined by quantitative RT-PCR analysis. Four samples with high EGR1
levels and three samples with low EGR1 were then assayed for expression
of the indicated genes. For each gene, a standard curve was used to
calculate relative expression levels in the samples, which were then
normalized to the amount of 18 S rRNA in each sample. The expression
level of each gene is indicated relative to the sample containing the
highest level of that gene, which was set as 1. All reactions were
performed in duplicate, and the standard error is indicated.

View larger version (9K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
Regulation of genes in the 11p15.5 locus by
EGR1. The relative positions of imprinted genes within a
1-megabase segment of the 11p15.5 locus are diagrammed. -Fold induction
of each gene in response to adenovirus-mediated expression of EGR1 was
computed using either GeneChip analysis or quantitative RT-PCR
analysis. N.D. means not determined. Genes that were
undetectable in both control and EGR-1-expressing cell lines are
labeled A for absent. Filled and open
rectangles designate paternally and maternally imprinted
genes, respectively.

View larger version (59K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Activation of IGF-II in EGR1-overexpressing
LAPC4 cells. The diagram indicates the 10 exons and 4 alternate
promoters (P1, P2, P3, and P4) that comprise the human IGF-II gene
(70). Promoter-specific primers (26) were individually paired with a
reverse primer at the junction of exons 8 and 9 (common to all IGF-II
transcripts). The products of PCR reactions using cDNA prepared
from control-infected (con) and AdEGR1 I293F (labeled
EGR1) are shown below. Note that the transcript initiating
at promoter P2 has an alternatively spliced exon (exon 5), which gives
rise to the two bands in the PCR reaction (71). The promoters were
scanned for EGR1 binding sites, and promoters P1, P2, P3, and P4 were
found to have 1, 0, 4, and 6 binding sites, respectively.

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
EGR1 activates both alleles of IGF-II.
Genomic DNA from LAPC4 cells was amplified with primers that encompass
a single nucleotide polymorphism in the 3'-untranslated region of the
IGF-II gene. Sequencing of both strands of the PCR fragment
demonstrated that LAPC4 cells were heterozygous for this polymorphism.
The same primers were then used to amplify cDNA prepared from cells
infected with the adenovirus expressing EGR1 I293F. The sequence traces
reveal that both alleles of IGF-II are induced by expression of EGR1.
Under the PCR conditions used, there was no observable band using
cDNA from control-infected LAPC4 cells.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1) that respond to EGR1 activity in other
systems (30-32, 34). All of these factors have been implicated in
accelerating one or more aspects of tumor progression, such as
mitogenesis, angiogenesis, or invasiveness (12, 54-59). Analysis of
mouse models has directly demonstrated that IGF-II is an autocrine
factor that can contribute to malignant hyperproliferation (60, 61).
Furthermore, ribozyme-mediated reduction of IGF-II levels has been
shown to inhibit growth of the PC3 prostate cancer cell line (62). It
has been proposed that EGR1 and WT1 have opposing effects on IGF-II
expression, since the two proteins have similar DNA binding specificity
(30, 63). Furthermore, decreased WT1 levels are associated with
elevated IGF-II levels in benign prostatic hyperplasia (64).
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Depts. of Pathology
and Internal Medicine, Div. of Laboratory Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110. Tel.: 314-362-4650; Fax: 314-362-8756; E-mail:
jeff@pathbox.wustl.edu.
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Grandori, C.,
and Eisenman, R. N.
(1997)
Trends Biochem. Sci.
22,
177-181
2.
Dang, C. V.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
1-11
3.
Liu, A. Y.,
Corey, E.,
Vessella, R. L.,
Lange, P. H.,
True, L. D.,
Huang, G. M.,
Nelson, P. S.,
and Hood, L.
(1997)
Prostate
30,
145-153
4.
Eid, M. A.,
Kumar, M. V.,
Iczkowski, K. A.,
Bostwick, D. G.,
and Tindall, D. J.
(1998)
Cancer Res.
58,
2461-2468
5.
Thigpen, A. E.,
Cala, K. M.,
Guileyardo, J. M.,
Molberg, K. H.,
McConnell, J. D.,
and Russell, D. W.
(1996)
J. Urol.
155,
975-981
6.
Yan, S. F.,
Zou, Y. S.,
Gao, Y.,
Zhai, C.,
Mackman, N.,
Lee, S. L.,
Milbrandt, J.,
Pinsky, D.,
Kisiel, W.,
and Stern, D.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
8298-8303
7.
Bae, S. K.,
Bae, M. H.,
Ahn, M. Y.,
Son, M. J.,
Lee, Y. M.,
Bae, M. K.,
Lee, O. H.,
Park, B. C.,
and Kim, K. W.
(1999)
Cancer Res.
59,
5989-5994
8.
Silverman, E. S.,
and Collins, T.
(1999)
Am. J. Pathol.
154,
665-670
9.
Liu, C.,
Calogero, A.,
Ragona, G.,
Adamson, E.,
and Mercola, D.
(1996)
Crit. Rev. Oncog.
7,
101-125
10.
Battegay, E. J.
(1995)
J. Mol. Med.
73,
333-346
11.
Gold, L. I.
(1999)
Crit. Rev. Oncog.
10,
303-360
12.
Culig, Z.,
Hobisch, A.,
Cronauer, M. V.,
Radmayr, C.,
Hittmair, A.,
Zhang, J.,
Thurnher, M.,
Bartsch, G.,
and Klocker, H.
(1996)
Prostate
28,
392-405
13.
Klein, K. A.,
Reiter, R. E.,
Redula, J.,
Moradi, H.,
Zhu, X. L.,
Brothman, A. R.,
Lamb, D. J.,
Marcelli, M.,
Belldegrun, A.,
Witte, O. N.,
and Sawyers, C. L.
(1997)
Nat. Med.
3,
402-408
14.
Ehrengruber, M. U.,
Lanzrein, M.,
Xu, Y.,
Jasek, M. C.,
Kantor, D. B.,
Xu, Y.,
Schuman, E. M.,
Lester, H. A.,
and Davidson, N.
(1998)
Methods Enzymol.
293,
483-503
15.
Russo, M. W.,
Matheny, C.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1993)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
13,
6858-6865
16.
Qu, Z.,
Wolfraim, L. A.,
Svaren, J.,
Ehrengruber, M. U.,
Davidson, N.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1998)
J. Cell Biol.
142,
1075-1082
17.
Day, M. L.,
Fahrner, T. J.,
Ayken, S.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
15253-15260
18.
Lockhart, D. J.,
Dong, H.,
Byrne, M. C.,
Follettie, M. T.,
Gallo, M. V.,
Chee, M. S.,
Mittmann, M.,
Wang, C.,
Kobayashi, M.,
Horton, H.,
and Brown, E. L.
(1996)
Nat. Biotechnol.
14,
1675-1680
19.
Lipshutz, R. J.,
Fodor, S. P.,
Gingeras, T. R.,
and Lockhart, D. J.
(1999)
Nat. Genet.
21 Suppl.,
20-24
20.
Lee, S. L.,
Wang, Y.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1996)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16,
4566-4572
21.
Wittwer, C. T.,
Herrmann, M. G.,
Moss, A. A.,
and Rasmussen, R. P.
(1997)
BioTechniques
22,
130-138
22.
Morrison, T. B.,
Weis, J. J.,
and Wittwer, C. T.
(1998)
BioTechniques
24,
954-962
23.
Bostwick, D. G.
(1997)
in
Urologic Surgical Pathology
(Bostwick, D. G.
, and Eble, J. N., eds)
, pp. 343-422, Mosby, Saint Louis
24.
Tadokoro, K.,
Fujii, H.,
Inoue, T.,
and Yamada, M.
(1991)
Nucleic Acids Res.
19,
6967
25.
Jarrard, D. F.,
Bussemakers, M. J.,
Bova, G. S.,
and Isaacs, W. B.
(1995)
Clin. Cancer Res.
1,
1471-1478
26.
Zhan, S.,
Shapiro, D.,
Zhang, L.,
Hirschfeld, S.,
Elassal, J.,
and Helman, L. J.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
27983-27986
27.
Russo, M. W.,
Sevetson, B. R.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
6873-6877
28.
Svaren, J.,
Sevetson, B. R.,
Apel, E. D.,
Zimonjic, D. B.,
Popescu, N. C.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1996)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16,
3545-3553
29.
Milbrandt, J.
(1987)
Science
238,
797-799
30.
Lee, Y. I.,
and Kim, S. J.
(1996)
DNA Cell. Biol.
15,
99-104
31.
Dey, B. R.,
Sukhatme, V. P.,
Roberts, A. B.,
Sporn, M. B.,
Rauscher, F. J., 3rd,
and Kim, S. J.
(1994)
Mol. Endocrinol.
8,
595-602
32.
Liu, C.,
Adamson, E.,
and Mercola, D.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
11831-11836
33.
Takimoto, Y.,
Wang, Z. Y.,
Kobler, K.,
and Deuel, T. F.
(1991)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
88,
1686-1690
34.
Khachigian, L. M.,
Williams, A. J.,
and Collins, T.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
27679-27686
35.
Schneeberger, C.,
Speiser, P.,
Kury, F.,
and Zeillinger, R.
(1995)
PCR Methods Appl.
4,
234-238
36.
Becker, A.,
Reith, A.,
Napiwotzki, J.,
and Kadenbach, B.
(1996)
Anal. Biochem.
237,
204-207
37.
Ririe, K. M.,
Rasmussen, R. P.,
and Wittwer, C. T.
(1997)
Anal. Biochem.
245,
154-160
38.
Santelli, G.,
Califano, D.,
Chiappetta, G.,
Vento, M. T.,
Bartoli, P. C.,
Zullo, F.,
Trapasso, F.,
Viglietto, G.,
and Fusco, A.
(1999)
Am. J. Pathol.
155,
799-804
39.
Maecker, H. T.,
Todd, S. C.,
and Levy, S.
(1997)
FASEB J.
11,
428-442
40.
Watanabe, H.,
Takehana, K.,
Date, M.,
Shinozaki, T.,
and Raz, A.
(1996)
Cancer Res.
56,
2960-2963
41.
Reynet, C.,
and Kahn, C. R.
(1993)
Science
262,
1441-1444
42.
Zhu, J.,
Tseng, Y. H.,
Kantor, J. D.,
Rhodes, C. J.,
Zetter, B. R.,
Moyers, J. S.,
and Kahn, C. R.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
14911-14918
43.
Speck, N. A.,
and Terryl, S.
(1995)
Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Exp.
5,
337-364
44.
Namba, K.,
Abe, M.,
Saito, S.,
Satake, M.,
Ohmoto, T.,
Watanabe, T.,
and Sato, Y.
(2000)
Oncogene
19,
106-114
45.
Di Sant'Agnese, P. A.,
and Cockett, A. T.
(1994)
J. Urol.
152,
1927-1931
46.
Abrahamsson, P. A.
(1999)
Prostate
39,
135-148
47.
Swirnoff, A. H.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
2275-2287
48.
Reik, W.,
and Maher, E. R.
(1997)
Trends Genet.
13,
330-334
49.
Feinberg, A. P.
(1999)
Cancer Res.
59 Suppl.,
1743s-1746s
50.
van Dijk, M. A.,
van Schaik, F. M.,
Bootsma, H. J.,
Holthuizen, P.,
and Sussenbach, J. S.
(1991)
Mol. Cell. Endocrinol.
81,
81-94
51.
Holthuizen, P. E.,
Steenbergh, P. H.,
and Sussenbach, J. S.
(1999)
in
The IGF System: Molecular Biology, Physiology, and Clinical Application
(Rosenfeld, R. G.
, and Roberts, C. T., eds), Vol. 17
, pp. 37-61, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
52.
Garabedian, E. M.,
Humphrey, P. A.,
and Gordon, J. I.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
15382-15387
53.
Lee, S. L.,
Sadovsky, Y.,
Swirnoff, A. H.,
Polish, J. A.,
Goda, P.,
Gavrilina, G.,
and Milbrandt, J.
(1996)
Science
273,
1219-1222
54.
Toretsky, J. A.,
and Helman, L. J.
(1996)
J. Endocrinol.
149,
367-372
55.
Li, S. L.,
Goko, H.,
Xu, Z. D.,
Kimura, G.,
Sun, Y.,
Kawachi, M. H.,
Wilson, T. G.,
Wilczynski, S.,
and Fujita-Yamaguchi, Y.
(1998)
Cell Tissue Res.
291,
469-479
56.
Tennant, M. K.,
Thrasher, J. B.,
Twomey, P. A.,
Drivdahl, R. H.,
Birnbaum, R. S.,
and Plymate, S. R.
(1996)
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
81,
3774-3782
57.
Barrack, E. R.
(1997)
Prostate
31,
61-70
58.
Fynan, T. M.,
and Reiss, M.
(1993)
Crit. Rev. Oncog.
4,
493-540
59.
Fudge, K.,
Wang, C. Y.,
and Stearns, M. E.
(1994)
Mod. Pathol.
7,
549-554
60.
Rogler, C. E.,
Yang, D.,
Rossetti, L.,
Donohoe, J.,
Alt, E.,
Chang, C. J.,
Rosenfeld, R.,
Neely, K.,
and Hintz, R.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
13779-13784
61.
Christofori, G.,
Naik, P.,
and Hanahan, D.
(1995)
Nat. Genet.
10,
196-201
62.
Xu, Z. D.,
Oey, L.,
Mohan, S.,
Kawachi, M. H.,
Lee, N. S.,
Rossi, J. J.,
and Fujita-Yamaguchi, Y.
(1999)
Endocrinology
140,
2134-2144
63.
Drummond, I. A.,
Madden, S. L.,
Rohwer-Nutter, P.,
Bell, G. I.,
Sukhatme, V. P.,
and Rauscher, F. J.
(1992)
Science
257,
674-678
64.
Dong, G.,
Rajah, R.,
Vu, T.,
Hoffman, A. R.,
Rosenfeld, R. G.,
Roberts, C. T., Jr.,
Peehl, D. M.,
and Cohen, P.
(1997)
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.
82,
2198-2203
65.
Eggenschwiler, J.,
Ludwig, T.,
Fisher, P.,
Leighton, P. A.,
Tilghman, S. M.,
and Efstratiadis, A.
(1997)
Genes Dev.
11,
3128-3142
66.
Sun, F. L.,
Dean, W. L.,
Kelsey, G.,
Allen, N. D.,
and Reik, W.
(1997)
Nature
389,
809-815
67.
Caspary, T.,
Cleary, M. A.,
Perlman, E. J.,
Zhang, P.,
Elledge, S. J.,
and Tilghman, S. M.
(1999)
Genes Dev.
13,
3115-3124
68.
Fambrough, D.,
McClure, K.,
Kazlauskas, A.,
and Lander, E. S.
(1999)
Cell
97,
727-741
69.
Tamayo, P.,
Slonim, D.,
Mesirov, J.,
Zhu, Q.,
Kitareewan, S.,
Dmitrovsky, E.,
Lander, E. S.,
and Golub, T. R.
(1999)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
2907-2912
70.
Rotwein, P.
(1999)
in
The IGF System: Molecular Biology, Physiology, and Clinical Applications
(Rosenfeld, R. G.
, and Roberts, C. T., eds), Vol. 17
, pp. 19-35, Humana Press, Totawa, NJ
71.
Ikejiri, K.,
Wasada, T.,
Haruki, K.,
Hizuka, N.,
Hirata, Y.,
and Yamamoto, M.
(1991)
Biochem. J.
280,
439-444
Copyright © 2000 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:
![]() |
W. Roeb, A. Boyer, W. K. Cavenee, and K. C. Arden PAX3-FOXO1 controls expression of the p57Kip2 cell-cycle regulator through degradation of EGR1 PNAS, November 13, 2007; 104(46): 18085 - 18090. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Zhang, S. Jain, H. Song, M. Fu, R. O. Heuckeroth, J. M. Erlich, P. Y. Jay, and J. Milbrandt Mice lacking sister chromatid cohesion protein PDS5B exhibit developmental abnormalities reminiscent of Cornelia de Lange syndrome Development, September 1, 2007; 134(17): 3191 - 3201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Eto, V. Kaur, and M. K. Thomas Regulation of Pancreas Duodenum Homeobox-1 Expression by Early Growth Response-1 J. Biol. Chem., March 2, 2007; 282(9): 5973 - 5983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. A. Handley, P. H. Dube, and V. L. Miller From the Cover: Histamine signaling through the H2 receptor in the Peyer's patch is important for controlling Yersinia enterocolitica infection PNAS, June 13, 2006; 103(24): 9268 - 9273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Srinivasan, G. M. Mager, R. M. Ward, J. Mayer, and J. Svaren NAB2 Represses Transcription by Interacting with the CHD4 Subunit of the Nucleosome Remodeling and Deacetylase (NuRD) Complex J. Biol. Chem., June 2, 2006; 281(22): 15129 - 15137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Ponomarev, R. Maiya, M. T. Harnett, G. L. Schafer, A. E. Ryabinin, Y. A. Blednov, H. Morikawa, S. L. Boehm II, G. E. Homanics, A. Berman, et al. Transcriptional Signatures of Cellular Plasticity in Mice Lacking the {alpha}1 Subunit of GABAA Receptors J. Neurosci., May 24, 2006; 26(21): 5673 - 5683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Jain, M. Encinas, E. M. Johnson Jr., and J. Milbrandt Critical and distinct roles for key RET tyrosine docking sites in renal development Genes & Dev., February 1, 2006; 20(3): 321 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Krones-Herzig, S. Mittal, K. Yule, H. Liang, C. English, R. Urcis, T. Soni, E. D. Adamson, and D. Mercola Early Growth Response 1 Acts as a Tumor Suppressor In vivo and In vitro via Regulation of p53 Cancer Res., June 15, 2005; 65(12): 5133 - 5143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Ferraro, G. Bepler, S. Sharma, A. Cantor, and E. B. Haura EGR1 Predicts PTEN and Survival in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2005; 23(9): 1921 - 1926. |