![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 20, 17836-17844, May 17, 2002
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the a Hormone Research Center, d Department of
Biology, Chonnam National University, Kwangju 500-757, Republic of
Korea, the e Marine Biotechnology Laboratory, School of Earth
and Environmental Science, Seoul National University, Republic of
Korea, the f Department of Life Science, Sogang University,
Seoul 121-742, Republic of Korea, the g Laboratory of
Molecular Embryology, NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,
Maryland 20892-5431, the h Thyroid Division, Brigham and
Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, and the i Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Baylor
College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030
Received for publication, December 11, 2001, and in revised form, February 11, 2002
We have identified and characterized a new
amphibian orphan member of the nuclear receptor superfamily and termed
it FOR1 (farnesoid X receptor (FXR)-like Orphan
Receptor) because it shares the highest amino acid identity
with the mammalian FXR. We also identified a variant of FOR1, called
FOR2, which has 15 additional C-terminal amino acids. Both variants
include an unusual insertion of 33 amino acids in the helix 7 region of
the canonical ligand binding domain sequence, suggesting a unique
structure for FOR. Northern blot analysis demonstrates that the
FOR gene is highly expressed in adult and tadpole liver,
kidney, and tail bud stage of the embryo. Detailed expression analysis
using in situ hybridization indicates that FOR expression
is first detectable at stage 30/31 in the presumptive liver region
lasting until stage 41 with a peak level evident at stage 35/36. FOR
forms heterodimeric complexes with retinoid X receptor (RXR) as
demonstrated by biochemical and mammalian two-hybrid approaches. Gel
mobility shift assays demonstrate that FORs form specific DNA-protein
complexes on an FXR binding element consisting of an inverted repeat
DNA element with 1 nucleotide spacing (IR1) from the phospholipid
transfer protein gene promoter. Finally, although FORs do not
exhibit constitutive transcriptional activity, frog gallbladder extract
significantly augments the transcriptional activities of FORs.
The nuclear receptor superfamily comprises a large group of
structurally related ligand-dependent transcription factors
regulated by a variety of steroid and non-steroid hormones. It also
includes a large number of related proteins that do not have known
ligands, referred to as orphan nuclear receptors (reviewed in Refs.
1-3). The nuclear receptors modulate target gene transcription by
direct binding to specific DNA sequences, called hormone response
elements (HRE),1 which are
generally located in the promoter of the specific target genes. In
general, both classic nuclear hormone receptors and orphan nuclear
hormone receptors consist of four or five different modules or domains;
A/B, C, D, E, and F (1). The non-conserved N-terminal region of nuclear
receptors (A/B domain) is involved in transactivation in some cases but
is of unknown function or is absent in others. The DNA-binding C-domain
(DBD) shows the strongest sequence similarity among different nuclear
receptors and is engaged in the binding of these receptors to cognate
HREs. The C-domain consists of 65-68 amino acids, among which 8 cysteine residues are absolutely conserved and form two zinc-binding
modules (1, 3, 4). The D-domain, called the hinge region, shows relatively low sequence similarity and contains sequences involved in
HRE binding at its N terminus. The E-domain directly binds to ligands
or hormones and is also involved in nuclear localization and receptor
dimerization. The C terminus of the LBD contains a conserved motif
that, together with other portions of the LBD, forms the binding site
for transcriptional coactivators (1). The F-domain is an additional
C-terminal extension found in only subset of receptors. The function of
this non-conserved segment is unclear.
A large number of orphan nuclear receptor genes have been discovered by
several different approaches. These include 1) screening cDNA
libraries with conventional receptor cDNA probes at relaxed stringency (5) or with degenerate oligonucleotides based on the
conserved regions (6), 2) performing PCR with degenerate oligonucleotide PCR primers from the DBD (7, 8), 3) screening cDNA
libraries using nuclear receptor ligand binding domains (LBD) or
receptor interaction domains of coactivators as bait in a yeast two-hybrid system (9, 10).
Although the biological functions of most orphan nuclear receptors
remain to be elucidated, evidence indicates that orphan nuclear
receptors can play key roles in cell growth, differentiation, and cell
death. For example, NGF-induced clone B is involved in apoptosis
of immune T cells (11) and SHP functions as a negative regulator of
receptor-dependent signaling pathways (12). The regulation
of steroidogenesis in gonad and adrenal gland (reviewed in Ref. 13) and
homozygous loss of the HNF-4 gene in mice causes early
embryonic lethality, whereas loss of a single copy of this gene in
human causes MODY (maturity onset diabetes of the young) (14).
The former orphan nuclear receptor originally called RIP14 was isolated
from mouse liver using the yeast two-hybrid approach using the RXR
ligand binding domain as a bait (15). Its rat homologue, FXR, was
initially found to be activated by farnesol and its metabolites (16),
and both proteins were later found to be activated by TTNPB and
synthetic retinoids (17). More recently, bile acids, particularly
chenodeoxycholic acid, have been shown to be endogenous ligands for
this receptor, which is now referred to as FXR (18-20). This
receptor shows 81% amino acid identity in the DBD to
Drosophila nuclear receptor EcR, and both FXR and EcR bind
to an ecdysone response element (EcRE) from the Drosophila
hsp27 gene promoter (15) as a dimer with either RXR or
ultraspiracle (USP), the Drosophila homologue of RXR.
More recently, natural and potential binding sites for FXR were
discovered in the promoter of several genes, including intestinal bile
acid binding protein (21), cholesterol 7 In the current study, we describe the isolation and characterization of
a novel Xenopus orphan nuclear receptor, FOR, that associates with RXR and shares extensive sequence similarity to the
orphan nuclear receptor FXR. Two isoforms of FOR were isolated from
Xenopus liver cDNA library, termed FOR1 and FOR2. FOR1
and FOR2 share more than 90% amino acid sequence identity. FOR1 and FOR2 differ by a frameshift change at amino acid number 501 of FOR2
resulting in 15 extra amino acids in FOR2. Interestingly, when compared
with other nuclear receptors, the FORs bear an unusual insertion in the
helix 7 motif of the canonical LBD structure due to an addition of 33 extra amino acids. FOR mRNA is highly expressed in adult liver and
kidney, and FOR expression is also detected in the liver and kidney of
metamorphosing tadpoles. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays
demonstrate that both FOR1 and FOR2 specifically bind an IR1 element
from the PLTP gene promoter, previously described as an FXR
target. Finally, both FOR1 and FOR2 show significant transcriptional
activity upon treatment with frog gallbladder extract. These results
suggest that FORs function as ligand-dependent transcription factors during frog development and in adult organ function.
Isolation of FOR cDNAs--
Degenerate primers derived from
the most conserved regions of the nuclear receptor DBD were used to
amplify PCR products from a Xenopus laevis liver cDNA
library (Stratagene). The primers and PCR conditions were used
precisely as previously described (8). The expected 130-bp PCR products
were isolated by electrophoresis on a 1.5% agarose gel (high
resolution, Sigma Chemical Co.) and cloned into the pGEM-T Easy system
(Promega), and the clones were sequenced by dideoxy nucleotide
sequencing (Sequenase, U.S. Biochemicals). A 130-bp DNA fragment
showing high nucleotide sequence homology to FXR was labeled by random
priming and used to screen a X. laevis liver cDNA
library according to the manufacturer's protocols. Five positive
clones were excised and subcloned into pBS SK(+) using in
vivo excision by the Exassist system supplied with the library and
sequenced. Two clones revealed an entire coding region corresponding to
FOR1, and three clones represented FOR2.
Plasmids--
FOR1 and FOR2 cDNAs from pBS SK(+) were
subcloned into mammalian expression vector pCDNA3 (Invitrogen) at
the NotI and ApaI sites. For mammalian two-hybrid
assays, the LBD region of FOR corresponding to 319 amino acids for FOR1
and 346 amino acids for FOR2 was subcloned in-frame into pCMX-GAL4 in
the XbaI and BglII sites downstream of the GAL4
DBD. VP16AD fusion constructs for FOR1 and -2 were generated by
inserting fragments of FOR1 and -2 into pCMX-VP16. All the constructs
were confirmed by sequencing.
In Vitro Translation--
FOR1, FOR2, and RIP14/FXR cDNA in
pBluescript (Stratagene) were transcribed and translated in
vitro using a coupled rabbit reticulocyte system (TNT, Promega) in
the presence of [35S]methionine (Amersham Biosciences,
Inc.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The translated
proteins were analyzed on 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gels and visualized
by autoradiography.
Experimental Animals and Manipulation--
Eggs were obtained
from female X. laevis primed with 800 units of human
chorionic gonadotropin (Sigma). After in vitro fertilization the embryos were dejellied in 2% cystein, pH 8.0, and cultured in
0.4× Marc's Modified Ringer (28) until stage 4 then transferred to
0.1× Marc's Modified Ringer. Embryos were staged according to
Nieuwkoop and Faber (29).
Northern Blot Analysis--
Approximately 30 µg of total RNA
from X. laevis adult tissues was isolated, and Northern blot
analysis was carried out as described previously (30). For embryonic
stage blot, 10 µg of total RNA was isolated from whole specimens from
stage 0 (ovary) and embryonic stages 33, 41, 45, 50, 54, 58, 62, and
66. Embryonic stage Northern blot analyses were carried out as
described previously (31).
Whole Mount in Situ Hybridization--
Whole mount in
situ hybridization (WISH) was performed according to the standard
protocols (32, 33) with minor modifications. Briefly, fixed whole
embryos were hybridized with digoxigenin labeled sense or FOR1
riboprobes, followed by extensive washing and chromogenic detection
with alkaline phosphatase conjugated to anti-digoxigenin antibody and
BM Purple as an artificial substrate.
GST-Pull-down Assay--
A GST pull-down assay was performed as
described previously (10). Briefly, the GST fusion proteins and GST
control protein were expressed in Escherichia coli
BL21(DE3)pLys bacterial culture and purified using
glutathione-Sepharose 4B beads (Amersham Biosciences, Inc.). GST fusion
proteins bound to glutathione-Sepharose-4B beads were incubated for
2 h at 4 °C with various 35S-labeled receptors
expressed by in vitro translation. Bound proteins were
eluted from beads with 15 mM reduced glutathione in 50 mM Tris (pH 8.0) and analyzed by SDS-polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis and visualized by a phosphorimaging analyzer (BAS-1500, Fuji)
Gallbladder Extraction and Solvent Partition--
The
gallbladders (1 g) dissected from bullfrogs were freeze-dried and
extracted twice with 2 ml of methanol and dichloromethane (1:1, v/v).
The combined extract was concentrated under reduced pressure and
partitioned between hexane and methanol. The methanol-soluble fraction
was further partitioned three times between ethyl acetate and water.
The final solvent partition was accomplished between 1-butanol and
water. Each fraction was dried under vacuum and used in cotransfection
assays. The butanol-soluble fractions were further fractionated
by silica open column chromatography (230-400 mesh, 40-63 µm, EM
science) and eluted with methylene chloride and methanol (3:1, v/v).
These fractions were analyzed for luciferase activities as described below.
Cell Culture and Transient Transfection--
For mammalian
two-hybird assays, CV-1 cells were seeded in 24-well plates in
Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Invitrogen) supplemented with
10% fetal bovine serum and transfected with the indicated plasmids
using Superfect (Qiagen), according to the manufacturer's
instructions. Cells were harvested at 48 h, and luciferase
activities were assayed as described previously (15). Luciferase
activities were normalized to the Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay--
Electrophoretic
mobility shift assays were performed essentially as described
previously (23). Briefly, 10,000 cpm of end-labeled IR1 or EcRE
oligonucleotides (15, 23) was incubated with in vitro
transcribed and translated FOR1, FOR2, and RXR in indicated combinations. The reaction mixtures were subjected to 5%
non-denaturing gel electrophoresis followed by autoradiography.
Identification of FOR cDNA from X. laevis--
To identify new
members of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily, degenerate
oligonucleotide primers based on the most conserved region of the DBD
(8) were used to amplify nuclear receptor-related cDNA fragments
from a cDNA library of X. laevis liver. Amplified PCR
fragments were subcloned and sequenced, revealing several known nuclear
hormone receptors. Among these clones, one clone showed 86% amino acid
identity with the DBD of rat FXR (rFXR). This fragment was further used
as a probe to re-screen a Xenopus liver cDNA library to
find the full-length receptor. As shown in Fig.
1A, two
different isoforms of FOR, termed FOR1 and FOR2, were isolated. Based
on the nucleotide sequence, these two isoforms are encoded by distinct,
but highly related genes. The DBD of FOR1 and FOR2 shared identical
amino acid sequences (with 98% nucleotide sequence identity), whereas
the LBD showed 91% amino acid sequence identity. A single nucleotide
insertion was found at the position of amino acid number 501 in the
C-terminal region of FOR2, relative to FOR1, which caused an addition
of 15 amino acids and eliminated the classical AF-2 consensus motif
found in FOR1 (Fig. 1A). Both FOR1 and FOR2 were found to
share 89% amino acid identity in the DBD with FXR, indicating a
relatively close relationship. However, they share only 45% identity
in the LBD (Fig. 1B). This is modestly higher than observed
in pairwise comparisons with other members of the nuclear receptor
subfamily 1, group H, which also includes the oxysterol receptors
LXR
Although FOR1 and FOR2 include matches to conserved regions of the LBD,
both showed an unusual 33-amino acid insertion in the putative helix 7 (Fig. 1C). A range of shorter amino acid additions are also
present in this region of the mammalian orphan nuclear receptors SHP
(9), DAX-1 (34), and zebrafish RXR delta and epsilon (35) (Fig.
1C and data not shown). However, the functional significance
of this unusual structural feature remains unclear.
The high degree of homology between FOR1 and FOR2 and the fact that
X. laevis is a pseudotetraploid animal prompted us to determine the copy number of the FOR gene. To this end,
genomic Southern blot analysis was carried out. Several positive bands were obtained with the various restriction enzymes (Fig.
1D). Assuming that the FOR1 and FOR2
genes, like other nuclear receptor genes, contain a number of introns,
these results are consistent with the possibility that there are only
two FOR genes in the Xenopus genome. However, it
is possible that there are a limited number of additional copies.
In search of homologues of FXR in other vertebrate species we also
cloned a partial complementary DNA from chicken (cFXR) (Fig.
1E). Surprisingly, this clone demonstrated a very high amino acid identity with rat FXR (rFXR). FOR and rFXR shared an amino acid
identity of 20% in the hyper variable A/B domain whereas cFXR and rFXR
shared 53% amino acid identity in this region. The DBD of these two
FXRs shared 92% identity, and the DE region comprising the hinge
region, the complete helix 1, and helix 2 sequence showed amino acid
identity of 76%, whereas the DBD and DE domain of FOR1 and rFXR shared
amino acid identity of 86 and 46%, respectively. Fig. 1E
demonstrates domain by domain alignment of FOR1 and rFXR with
the partial cFXR cDNA. Taken together these results demonstrate that FORs are novel members of the FXR subfamily.
Expression of FOR--
To confirm the predicted size of the FOR
proteins, an in vitro translation assay was performed. As
shown in Fig. 2A, SDS-PAGE analysis of in vitro translated FOR1 and FOR2 showed
products close to 58 and 60 kDa, respectively. These results are
consistent with the estimated protein sizes based on the open reading
frames of the FOR1 and FOR2 cDNAs.
To characterize the expression of the FOR genes, Northern
blot analysis was performed. An ~1.8-kb FOR mRNA transcript is
dominantly expressed in liver and kidney in adult Xenopus
(Fig. 2B). FOR mRNA was not detected at significant
levels in early embryonic stages (morula, blastula, gastrula, and
neurula, data not shown) but is transiently present in tadpoles between
stages 33 and 45 (Fig. 2C). To further understand the
spatio-temporal expression profile of FOR, whole mount in
situ hybridization (WISH) was performed in a series of developing
Xenopus embryos. The examined stages are following; one cell
(stage 1), mid-blastula (stage 8), early gastrula (stage 10), yolk plug
(stage 12), neural plate (stage 14), neural fold (stage 16), neural
tube (stage 20), early tail bud (stage 25), mid-tail bud (stage 30),
hatching larvae (stage 35), swimming larvae (stage 41), and feeding
larvae (stage 45).
In agreement with the Northern blot analysis, FOR expression began to
be detected around stage 30 in the presumptive liver region (Figs.
3, A and B), and
the peak level of FOR expression was found at stages 35 to 36 (Fig. 3,
C and D). Especially, at this peak stage, not
only the intensity of hybridization signal was higher but also the
expression domain was broader than those in the previous stages.
Expression declined after stages 35 to 36, and only a low level of
hybridization signal was detected in the stage 41 embryos (Fig. 3,
E and F). Thereafter, FOR expression was no
longer detected.
The expression profile of FOR was consistent among the
Xenopus embryos examined by WISH, and very little variation
was observed among sibling embryos in their FOR signal expression.
Throughout the whole developmental stages, only a background level of
hybridization signal was detected with sense probe (data not shown).
Taken together, these results suggest that FOR expression primarily
functions in liver and kidney in adult Xenopus and may also
play an important role in liver development during late embryonic stages.
Interaction of FOR with RXR--
To determine whether FORs could
form heterodimeric complexes with the universal heterodimeric partner
RXR, GST pull-down assays were performed. As shown in Fig.
4 (A and B), FOR1
and FOR2 were able to form heterodimeric complexes with RXR in
vitro. To further confirm the interaction between RXR and FOR1 or
FOR2 in vivo, a mammalian two-hybrid assay was performed.
The LBD of both FOR1 and FOR2 were fused to the GAL4 DBD in a CMV
promoter-driven mammalian expression vector, and the RXR LBD was
similarly fused to the VP16 activation domain. Transient transfection
experiments were performed in CV-1 cells using a reporter in which
luciferase expression is controlled by a promoter containing GAL4 DNA
binding sites. As shown in Fig. 4C, the combination of the
FOR and RXR hybrids resulted in strong activation of this reporter,
demonstrating that FOR formed a heterodimeric complex with RXR.
However, neither homodimerization nor heterodimerization between the
two FOR isoforms were observed. These results demonstrate that FOR, as
expected from its relationship with FXR, forms a heterodimeric complex with RXR.
DNA Binding Properties of FOR--
Because the DBDs of FOR and FXR
showed 86% sequence identity and an identical P box motif, which
specifies the DNA hexamer recognized by receptor monomers (28), we
examined whether FOR binds to previously reported FXR binding sites.
Electrophoretic mobility shift assays were performed using an
oligonucleotide containing the IR1 site from the PLTP
gene promoter (23). As expected, both FOR1 and FOR2 formed specific DNA
protein complexes with this element when combined with RXR, and this
complex could be successfully competed with a 50-fold molar excess of
cold IR1 but not with a 50-fold molar excess of unrelated
oligonucleotide (Fig. 5A).
Neither FOR1 nor FOR2 formed a monomeric complex with the IR1 site in
the absence of RXR. Surprisingly, FORs did not bind other FXR binding
sites, including the ecdysone response element (EcRE) from the
Drosophila heat-shock protein 27 promoter (hsp27) (Fig.
5B) and various other direct and inverted repeat DNA
elements that have been reported as potential FXR target sites (data
not shown).
FORs Are Activated by Frog Gallbladder
Extract--
Solvent-partitioned organic extracts of tissues known to
express FOR, gallbladder and kidney, were examined to identify natural FOR ligands. HEK 293 cells were cotransfected with fusion proteins consisting of the GAL4 DNA binding domain and the ligand binding domains of FOR1 or hRXR
Taken together, FORs are ligand-responsive and their transactivation
functions were mediated through FOR1/RXR or FOR2/RXR heterodimers, and
these results indicate that FORs are ligand-activated receptors and
their specific ligands are present in the gallbladder of frogs. It is
expected that these ligands would be bile acids, and currently the
potential role of amphibian bile acids as ligands for FOR1 and FOR2 are
under investigation.
Herein we describe the isolation and characterization of
a novel orphan nuclear receptor that we have named FOR. The amino acid
sequence of FOR is most closely related to the previously characterized
orphan nuclear receptor FXR. Like FXR, FORs form heterodimeric
complexes with RXR and are most abundantly expressed in adult liver and
kidney (15, 16). Tissue-specific expression was also observed in
metamorphosing tadpole liver. FOR is not expressed in early embryonic
stages but shows a peak expression in early tadpole stages, raising
the possibility that FOR plays a role in development of liver in amphibians.
Several lines of evidence demonstrate that FOR is not an orthologue of
mammalian FXR. The simplest is that the LBD of FOR shows only 45%
amino acid identity to that of FXR, whereas human and
Xenopus RAR More direct evidence of the functional differences between the
Xenopus and mammalian protein is provided by the finding
that, although FOR binds the IR1 from PLTP gene promoter, it
does not bind other preferential FXR recognition elements, including
the EcRE from Drosophila hsp27 gene promoter,
despite the 86% amino acid identity between their DBDs. This result
was somewhat surprising, because FXR and the ecdysone receptor (EcR),
which share 81% identity, can both bind to this element. Furthermore,
several potential FXR ligands, including TTNPB, chenodeoxycholic acid,
and a large number of bile acid derivatives failed to cause any change
in FOR activity, indicating that although FORs are structurally similar to the FXR their ligand selectivity is quite different.
The 33-amino acid insertion in the putative helix 7 of FORs may be
responsible for the differences in DNA binding and transcriptional characteristics of FORs and FXR. A somewhat similar phenomenon has been
observed in zebrafish, where zebrafish RXR delta and epsilon (35)
contain an insertion in the similar region and these isoforms neither
bind RXR recognition elements nor are activated by RXR ligands.
However, the ability of the FOR LBD to interact with RXR demonstrates
that this domain retains at least this function.
The ability of partially purified frog gallbladder extract
to activate FORs indicates that FORs, like FXR, are ligand-activated receptors. Several reports have demonstrated the presence of bile acids
and bile alcohols in amphibians that are markedly different from their
mammalian counterparts (26, 27). Such amphibian bile acids or bile
alcohols may represent potential FOR ligands. Alternatively,
identification of the FOR ligand(s) may require purification and
detailed characterization.
In summary, we have isolated a novel orphan nuclear receptor termed
FOR, which is most closely related to the mammalian bile acid receptor
FXR. FOR belongs to the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily 1 group H
and, like several other members of this group, is expressed in liver.
Both the limited amino acid sequence conservation of the LBD and
the lack of functional similarities indicate that these relatives are
not true orthologues. Thus, FOR may be involved in the regulation of
metabolism of either endogenous or exogenous compounds in adult
animals, and in liver development in tadpoles, but its physiological
functions in amphibians remain to be identified.
We thank Dr. Jae Woon Lee for critical
reading of the manuscript and Joon Young Kim and Indranil Chatterjee
for excellent technical assistance.
*
This work was supported by KOSEF through the Hormone
Research Center (HRC1999L0001) and in part by KOSEF Grant
96-0401-08-01-3 (to H. S. C.), by Grant 00-J-LF-01-B-78 from Critical
Technology 21 on Life Phenomena and Function Research of the ministry
of Science & Technology (to H. K.), and by Grant KRF-1999-015-DI0093 from the Korea Research Foundation (to W. S. K.).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.
The nucleotide sequence(s) reported in this paper has been submitted to the GenBankTM/EBI Data Bank with accession number(s) AF456451, AF456452, and AF456453.
c
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
b
Present address: Korea Basic Science Institute, Kwangju
Branch, Kwangju 500-757, Republic of Korea.
j
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.:
82-62-530-0503; Fax: 82-62-530-0500; E-mail:
hsc@chonnam.chonnam.ac.kr.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 26, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M111795200
The abbreviations used are:
HRE, hormone
response element;
FXR, farnesoid X receptor;
FOR, FXR-like orphan
receptor;
DBD, DNA binding domain;
LBD, ligand binding domain;
PLTP, phospholipid transfer protein;
RXR, retinoid X receptor;
EcRE, ecdysone
response element;
hsp27, heat-shock protein 27;
WISH, whole mount
in situ hybridization;
GST, glutathione
S-transferase;
MEM, modified Eagle's medium;
cFXR, chicken
FXR;
rFXR, rat FXR;
CMV, cytomegalovirus;
TTNPB, 4-[(E)-2-(5,6,7,8,-tetrahydro-5,5,8,8-tetramethyl-2-napthalenyl)-1-propeny)]benzoicacid;
EcR, ecdysone receptor;
SHP, small heterodimer partner;
DAX-1, dosage-sensitive sex reversal, AHC critical region on the X chromosome,
gene 1.
FOR, a Novel Orphan Nuclear Receptor Related to Farnesoid X
Receptor*
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-hydroxylase (22),
phospholipid transfer protein (PLTP) (23), SHP (24, 25), and ileal bile acid-binding protein (18, 21).
![]()
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-galactosidase activity expressed
from the control plasmid CMX-
-GAL. For ligand testing, 293 human
embryonic kidney cells were grown in minimal Eagle's medium (MEM)
supplemented with 10% resin-charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum, 50 units/ml penicillin G, and 50 µg/ml streptomycin sulfate in
humidified air containing 5% CO2 at 37 °C. Transient transfections were carried out using SuperFect (Qiagen) according to
the manufacturer's instructions. Cytomegalovirus-driven receptor expression vectors (0.19 µg/105 cells), and luciferase
reporter construct containing the herpesvirus thymidine kinase promoter
linked the corresponding response elements (1.04 µg/105 cells) and CMX-
-GAL (0.56 µg/105
cells) as an internal control were added as indicated. After 16 h,
cells were treated with MEM-supplemented 5% resin-charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum and antibiotics containing amphibian gallbladder extract dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide for ~24 h. The cells were then harvested and assayed for luciferase and
-galactosidase activity.
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
and
, the vitamin D receptor, and the xenobiotic receptors
constitutive androstane receptor (CAR), pregnane X receptor (PXR), and
steroid and xenobiotic receptor (SXR) (Fig. 1B).


View larger version (130K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
FOR is a novel member of nuclear receptor
superfamily. A, deduced amino acid sequences of FOR1
(GenBankTM accession number AF456451) and FOR2
(GenBankTM accession number AF456452) were aligned using
MacVector software from Macintosh. The DBD is underlined,
and the numbers represent corresponding amino acids.
B, comparison of amino acid identities between FOR and
related members of the nuclear receptor superfamily. The amino acid
identities are indicated as percentages. The numbers
represent position of amino acids corresponding to the A/B, C, or DEF
domains. C, sequence alignment of the helix 7 motif
in the LBD of FOR with related nuclear receptors. The unusual addition
of amino acids in the helix 7 motif is characterized in SHP, DAX-1, and
FOR. Numbers represent respective amino acid positions.
D, genomic Southern blot analysis of the FOR
gene. 20 µg of Xenopus genomic DNA was digested with
indicated restriction enzymes and hybridized with
32P-labeled FOR1 cDNA. E, deduced amino acid
sequences of the A/B domain, DBD, or part of the LBDs of FOR, rFXR, and
cFXR (GenBankTM accession number AF456453) were aligned as
indicated. The hinge region is marked by a gray bar. Helices
1 and 2 are underlined. Dark shading represents
identical amino acids, and light shading represents similar
amino acids.

View larger version (62K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
Expression of FOR. A,
SDS-PAGE analysis of in vitro transcribed and translated
FOR1 and FOR2. FOR1 and FOR2 were transcribed and translated in the
presence of [35S]methionine in vitro, and
resolved by 12% PAGE. Murine FXR was used as a positive control.
Numbers on the right indicate molecular
mass in kilodaltons. The positions of the protein bands are
indicated by an arrow. B, expression of FOR in
adult Xenopus tissues. A Northern blot containing ~30 µg
of total RNA from the indicated Xenopus tissues was
hybridized with FOR1 cDNA and following washing was
autoradiographed. Equal loading of total RNA in each lane was
demonstrated with 18 S ribosomal RNA. C, expression of FOR
mRNA in developmental stages. 10 µg of total RNA was isolated
from the indicated developmental stages, and Northern blot analysis was
performed using the FOR1 cDNA as a probe. As an RNA loading
control, the blot was reprobed with the cDNA for the ribosomal
protein L8 (rpL8).

View larger version (50K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
The expression profiles of FOR in the
developing Xenopus embryos. FOR expression
was examined by whole mount in situ hybridization using
digoxigenin-labeled antisense riboprobe. The expression of FOR is
limited to the presumptive liver region indicated by the white
arrowhead. Panels A, C, and E are
lateral views of developing embryos and B, D, and
F are ventral views, respectively. A and
B, embryos at stage 30 (mid-tail bud stage). The
FOR expression begins to be detected from this stage in the
presumptive liver region (indicated by the white arrowhead).
C and D, embryo at stage 35. The FOR
expression in the embryo reaches a peak level at this stage. Note more
intense staining in the broader expression domain compared with the
embryos at stage 30. E and F, embryos at stage
41. The FOR expression declines remarkably at this stage.

View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
FOR interacts with RXR both in
vitro and in vivo. A and
B, GST-pull-down assay of FOR1 and FOR2. Equal amounts of
in vitro translated, [35S]-methionine labeled
FOR1 and FOR2 were incubated with either GST or GST RXR fusion protein.
In vitro translated RXR was used as a positive control. The
complex of GST-FOR1 and FOR2 was extensively washed, eluted with
reduced glutathione, and resolved by SDS-PAGE. Specific bands
corresponding to FOR1 and FOR2 were visualized by autoradiography.
C, mammalian two-hybrid assay of FOR1 and FOR2. CV-1 cells
were transiently cotransfected with a luciferase reporter construct
driven by four copies of GAL4 upstream activating sequence and CMV
promoter-driven expression vectors encoding the yeast GAL4-DBD alone,
GAL4-FOR1 and FOR2-LBD, herpesvirus VP16 transactivation domain alone,
or the VP16 activation domain linked to the amino-terminal end of RXR,
FOR1 LBD, and FOR2 LBD, as indicated. 48 h
post transfection, cells were lysed and luciferase activity was
measured and normalized against
-galactosidase activity. The result
shown is the mean of three independent experiments. F1,
FOR1; F2, FOR2; R, RXR; N; empty
vector.

View larger version (52K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
FORs specifically bind IR1 element from PLTP
gene promoter. End-labeled oligonucleotides corresponding to IR1
from PLTP (A) gene promoter or EcRE
(B) of the hsp27 promoter were incubated with in
vitro transcribed and translated FOR1, FOR2, and RXR in various
combinations as indicated in the Fig. 10- or 50-fold molar excess of
corresponding specific unlabeled oligonucleotides or unrelated
oligonucleotides (ns) were included in the reactions as
indicated. The DNA-protein complexes were resolved by 5%
non-denaturing PAGE and analyzed by autoradiography.
, along with an appropriate luciferase reporter plasmid and a vector expressing the LBD of hRXR
as
indicated. Following transfection, cells were treated with gallbladder
tissue extracts. Interestingly, the 1-butanol extract of bullfrog
gallbladder induced GAL-FOR1-mediated luciferase activity by 1.4-fold
at 10 µg/ml, whereas GAL4-hRXR
and L-hRXR
(data not shown)
demonstrated no response to the extract (Fig.
6A) indicating that the effect of this tissue extract was FOR-specific. Coexpression of the RXR ligand
binding domain with GAL4-FOR1 resulted in a somewhat higher activation
(1.8- fold) at the same concentration than observed with GAL4-FOR1
alone. These effects were dose-dependent (Fig. 6B), and similar results were obtained using GAL4-FOR2 (data
not shown). These results indicate that the 1-butanol-soluble extract of bullfrog gallbladder contains activators of the two orphan nuclear
receptors, FOR1 and FOR2. To further investigate this response,
full-length FORs and a reporter construct driven by three copies of IR1
elements from PLTP promoter were cotransfected in HEK 293 cells
followed by treatment with indicated doses of 1-butanol extract.
Results similar to those with the chimeric FOR1 were
obtained, and the 1-butanol extract was more effective in activating
FOR2 than FOR1 (Fig. 6C). To further confirm the gallbladder
extract-mediated FOR activity, the active 1-butanol-soluble fraction
was further fractionated by a silica open column and eluted
sequentially with methyl chloride and methanol (3:1, v/v) and 100%
methanol containing 0.01% trifluoroacetic acid. Among 56 fractions
collected, the sixth fraction (Rf = 0.75-0.85)
significantly activated GAL4-FOR 2 (Fig. 6D, 3.8-fold,
p < 0.001), and similar responses were obtained with
GAL4-FOR1 (data not shown). These results showed that the amphibian
gallbladder contains one or more distinct ligands for FORs. However,
known FXR agonists, including chenodeoxycholic acid and synthetic
retinoid TTNPB failed to activate the FORs indicating that the
amphibian bile acids, which act as the agonist for FORs, may
structurally differ from the mammalian bile acids.

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Transactivation of FOR genes
induced by extract of bullfrog gallbladders. A, GAL4
chimeric FOR1 was activated by extract of gallbladders on 293 cells.
The 293 cells were transiently transfected with indicated receptors and
reporter plasmids and treated with a 10 µg/ml 1-butanol-soluble
extract of bullfrog gallbladders or vehicle alone in triplicate.
Luciferase activity was normalized to the internal control
(
-galactosidase) and plotted as -fold induction relative to
untreated cells. Each experiment was repeated more than three times.
B and C, dose-response profiles on the 293 cells
transfected with indicated receptor and reporter that is regulated
either by GAL4 (B) or by FOR response element (PLTP,
C). D, following cotransfection of GAL4-FOR2 with
GAS Luc, the cells were treated with indicated fractions (40 µg/ml)
eluted from a silica open column with methyl chloride and methanol
(3:1, v/v). The fractions dissolved in Me2SO were tested in
triplicate, and the experiments were performed at least three times.
Single and double asterisks indicate the
respective p values as determined by Student's one-tailed
unpaired t test. GAL4N, empty vector containing
GAL4 DBD only; L-hRXR
, human RXR
LBD;
C, Me2SO vehicle alone.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
, for example, share 88% identity in the LBD. Moreover, comparison of FOR, rFXR, and a newly cloned cFXR amino acid
sequences revealed that, although the cFXR and rFXR shared a very high
amino acid identity, FOR exhibited significantly high homology with
rFXR only in the DBD. To identify potentially closer relatives of FXR,
several rounds of screening of appropriate Xenopus cDNA
libraries with various low and high stringent conditions were performed
using mouse FXR cDNA as a probe. However, no cDNA clones except
FOR1 and FOR2 were isolated, indicating that FOR may be the sole
representative of the FXR subfamily in Xenopus.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Evans, R. M.
(1988)
Science
240,
889-895 2.
Giguère, V.
(1999)
Endocr. Rev.
20,
689-725 3.
Umesono, K.,
and Evans, R. M.
(1989)
Cell
57,
1139-1146[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 4.
Giguère, V.
(1994)
Endocr. Rev.
15,
61-79[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 5.
Giguère, V.,
Yang, N.,
Segui, P.,
and Evans, R. M.
(1988)
Nature
331,
91-94[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 6.
Baes, M.,
Gulick, T.,
Choi, H.-S.,
Martinoli, M. G.,
Simha, D.,
and Moore, D. D.
(1994)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
14,
1544-1551 7.
Dumas, B.,
Harding, H. P.,
Choi, H. S.,
Lehmann, K. A.,
Chung, M.,
Lazar, M. A.,
and Moore, D. D.
(1994)
Mol. Endocrinol.
8,
996-1005[Abstract] 8.
Kostrouch, Z.,
Kostrouchova, M.,
and Rall, J. E.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
156-159 9.
Seol, W.,
Choi, H. S.,
and Moore, D. D.
(1996)
Science
272,
1336-1339[Abstract] 10.
Hong, H.,
Yang, L.,
and Stallcup, M. R.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
22618-22626 11.
Woronicz, J. D.,
Calnan, B.,
Ngo, V.,
and Winoto, A.
(1994)
Nature
367,
277-281[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 12.
Seol, W.,
Chung, M.,
and Moore, D. D.
(1997)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
17,
7126-7131[Abstract] 13.
Parker, K. L.
(1998)
Mol. Cell. Endocrinol.
145,
15-20[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 14.
Yamagata, K.,
Furuta, H.,
Oda, N.,
Kaisaki, P. J.,
Menzel, S.,
Cox, N. J.,
Fajans, S. S.,
Signorini, S.,
Stoffel, M.,
and Bell, G. I.
(1996)
Nature
384,
458-460[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 15.
Seol, W.,
Choi, H.-S.,
and Moore, D. D.
(1995)
Mol. Endocrinol
9,
72-85[Abstract] 16.
Forman, B. M.,
Goode, E.,
Chen, J.,
Oro, A. E.,
Bradly, D. J.,
Perlmann, T.,
Noonan, D. J.,
Burka, L. T.,
McMorris, T.,
Lamph, W. W.,
Evans, R. M.,
and Weinberger, C.
(1995)
Cell
81,
687-693[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 17.
Zavacki, A. M.,
Lehmann, J. M.,
Seol, W.,
Willson, T. M.,
Kliewer, S. A.,
and Moore, D. D.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
7909-7914 18.
Makishima, M.,
Okamoto, A. Y.,
Repa, J. J., Tu, H.,
Learned, R. M.,
Luk, A.,
Hull, M. V.,
Lustig, K. D.,
Mangelsdorf, D. J.,
and Shan, B.
(1999)
Science
284,
1362-1365 19.
Parks, D. J.,
Blanchard, S. G.,
Bledsoe, R. K.,
Chandra, G.,
Consler, T. G.,
Kliewer, S. A.,
Stimmel, J. B.,
Willson, T. M.,
Zavacki, A. M.,
Moore, D. D.,
and Lehmann, J. M.
(1999)
Science
284,
1365-1368 20.
Wang, H.,
Chen, J.,
Hollister, K.,
Sowers, L. C.,
and Forman, B. M.
(1999)
Mol. Cell
3,
543-553[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 21.
Grober, J.,
Zaghini, I.,
Fujii, H.,
Jones, S. A.,
Kliewer, S. A.,
Willson, T. M.,
Ono, T.,
and Besnard, P.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
29749-29754 22.
Chiang, J. Y. L.,
Kimmel, R.,
Weinberger, C.,
and Stroup, D.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
10918-10924 23.
Laffitte, B. A.,
Kast, H. R.,
Nguyen, C. M.,
Zavacki, A. M.,
Moore, D. D.,
and Edwards, P. A.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
10638-10647 24.
Goodwin, B.,
Jones, S. A.,
Price, R. R.,
Watson, M. A.,
McKee, D. D.,
Moore, L. B.,
Galardi, C.,
Wilson, J. G.,
Lewis, M. C.,
Roth, M. E.,
Maloney, P. R.,
Willson, T. M.,
and Kliewer, S. A.
(2000)
Mol. Cell
6,
517-526[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 25.
Lu, T. T.,
Makishima, M.,
Repa, J. J.,
Schoonjans, K.,
Kerr, T. A.,
Auwerx, J.,
and Mangelsdorf, D. J.
(2000)
Mol. Cell
6,
507-515[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 26.
Une, M.,
Matsumoto, N.,
Kihira, K.,
Yasuhara, M.,
Kuramoto, T.,
and Hoshita, T.
(1980)
J. Lipid Res.
21,
269-276[Abstract] 27.
Noma, Y.,
Une, M.,
Kihira, K.,
Yasuda, M.,
Kuramoto, T.,
and Hoshita, T.
(1980)
J. Lipid Res.
21,
339-346[Abstract] 28.
Ubbels, G. A.,
Hara, K.,
Koster, C. H.,
and Kirschner, M. W.
(1983)
J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
77,
15-37[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 29.
Niewkoop, P. D.,
and Faber, J.
(1994)
Normal Table of Xenopus laevis
, 2nd Ed.
, North Holland, Amsterdam
30.
Lee, H.-K.,
Lee, Y.-K.,
Park, S.-H.,
Kim, Y.-S.,
Park, S. H.,
Lee, J. W.,
Kwon, H.-B.,
Soh, J.,
Moore, D. D.,
and Choi, H.-S.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
14398-14402 31.
Liang, V. C.,
Sedgwick, T.,
and Shi, Y.-B.
(1997)
Cell Res.
7,
179-193[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 32.
Harland, R. M.
(1991)
Methods. Cell Biol.
36,
685-695[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 33.
Weinstein, D. C.,
Ruiz i Albata, A.,
Chen, W. S.,
Hoodless, P.,
Prezioso, V. R.,
Jessel, T. M.,
and Darnell, J. E., Jr.
(1994)
Cell
78,
575-588[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 34.
Zanaria, E.,
Muscatelli, F.,
Bardoni, B.,
Strom, T. M.,
Guioli, S.,
Guo, W.,
Lalli, E.,
Moser, C.,
Walker, A. P.,
McCabe, E. R. B.,
Meitinger, T.,
Monaco, A. P.,
Sassone-Corsi, P.,
and Camerino, G.
(1994)
Nature
372,
635-641[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve] 35.
Jones, B. B.,
Ohno, C. K.,
Allenby, G.,
Boffa, M. B.,
Levin, A. A.,
Grippo, J. F.,
and Petkovich, M.
(1995)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
15,
5226-5234[Abstract]
Copyright © 2002 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:
![]() |
E. J. Reschly, N. Ai, S. Ekins, W. J. Welsh, L. R. Hagey, A. F. Hofmann, and M. D. Krasowski Evolution of the bile salt nuclear receptor FXR in vertebrates J. Lipid Res., July 1, 2008; 49(7): 1577 - 1587. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S.-Y. Cai, L. Xiong, C. G. Wray, N. Ballatori, and J. L. Boyer The farnesoid X receptor FXR{alpha}/NR1H4 acquired ligand specificity for bile salts late in vertebrate evolution Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, September 1, 2007; 293(3): R1400 - R1409. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. A. McLin, S. A. Rankin, and A. M. Zorn Repression of Wnt/{beta}-catenin signaling in the anterior endoderm is essential for liver and pancreas development Development, June 15, 2007; 134(12): 2207 - 2217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Nishimaki-Mogami, M. Une, T. Fujino, Y. Sato, N. Tamehiro, Y. Kawahara, K. Shudo, and K. Inoue Identification of intermediates in the bile acid synthetic pathway as ligands for the farnesoid X receptor J. Lipid Res., August 1, 2004; 45(8): 1538 - 1545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K.-H. Song, Y.-Y. Park, K. C. Park, C. Y. Hong, J. H. Park, M. Shong, K. Lee, and H.-S. Choi The Atypical Orphan Nuclear Receptor DAX-1 Interacts with Orphan Nuclear Receptor Nur77 and Represses Its Transactivation Mol. Endocrinol., August 1, 2004; 18(8): 1929 - 1940. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y.-Y. Park, H.-J. Kim, J.-Y. Kim, M.-Y. Kim, K.-H. Song, K. Cheol Park, K.-Y. Yu, M. Shong, K.-H. Kim, and H.-S. Choi Differential Role of the Loop Region between Helices H6 and H7 within the Orphan Nuclear Receptors Small Heterodimer Partner and DAX-1 Mol. Endocrinol., May 1, 2004; 18(5): 1082 - 1095. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. V. Latinkic, S. Kotecha, and T. J. Mohun Induction of cardiomyocytes by GATA4 in Xenopus ectodermal explants Development, August 15, 2003; 130(16): 3865 - 3876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Otte, H. Kranz, I. Kober, P. Thompson, M. Hoefer, B. Haubold, B. Remmel, H. Voss, C. Kaiser, M. Albers, et al. Identification of Farnesoid X Receptor {beta} as a Novel Mammalian Nuclear Receptor Sensing Lanosterol Mol. Cell. Biol., February 1, 2003; 23(3): 864 - 872. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||