Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M200135200 on February 20, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 20, 17933-17943, May 17, 2002
The Androgen Receptor Can Promote
-Catenin Nuclear
Translocation Independently of Adenomatous Polyposis Coli*
David J.
Mulholland
,
Helen
Cheng,
Kim
Reid,
Paul S.
Rennie, and
Colleen C.
Nelson
From the Prostate Research Centre, 2660 Oak St., Jack Bell
Research, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia
V6H 3Z6, Canada
Received for publication, January 6, 2002, and in revised form, February 19, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
We provide evidence that the androgen
receptor (AR) can promote nuclear translocation of
-catenin in LNCaP
and PC3 prostate cancer cells. Using AR-expressing cells (LNCaP) and
non-AR-expressing cells (PC3) we showed by time course cell
fractionation that the AR can shuttle
-catenin into the
nucleus when exposed to exogenous androgen. Cells exposed to the
synthetic androgen, R1881, show distinct, punctate, nuclear
co-localization of the AR and
-catenin. We further showed that the
AR does not interact with adenomatous polyposis coli or glycogen
synthase kinase-3
and, therefore, conclude that androgen-mediated
transport of
-catenin occurs through a distinct pathway. The minimal
necessary components of the AR and
-catenin required for binding
nuclear accumulation of
-catenin nuclear import appears to be the
DNA/ligand binding regions and the Armadillo repeats of
-catenin. We
also employed a novel DNA binding assay to illustrate that
-catenin
has the capacity to bind to the probasin promoter in an
AR-dependent manner. The physiological relevance of
AR-mediated transport of
-catenin and binding to an AR promoter
appeared to be a substantial increase in AR transcriptional reporter
activity. AR-mediated import represents a novel mode of nuclear
accumulation of
-catenin.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The androgen receptor
(AR)1 has a fundamental role
in development and differentiation of androgen-sensitive tissue but
also has an important role in prostate cancer (1). Proliferation of
prostatic epithelium is dependent on the uptake of androgens from the
serum through the cell membrane, binding to the cognate steroid
receptors, and translocation to the nucleus leading to activation of
transcription (2, 3) of downstream genes (4). Structurally, the AR
belongs to a superfamily of ligand-activated transcription factors
composed of a highly conserved DNA binding domain (ARDBD)
and a moderately conserved ligand binding domain (ARLBD),
while containing an N-terminal domain (ARNt), which is least conserved (5-7). The ARNt contains a
ligand-independent transcriptional activating function whereas the
ARCt contains one that is ligand-dependent (8).
The ligand binding domain of nuclear receptors interact with a variety
of other proteins following ligand binding (9), which has the potential
to augment or modulate transcriptional response. The transcriptional
activity of the AR is largely determined by the presence or absence of other co-factors, including co-activators, which enhance AR activity, and co-repressors, which repress AR activity. Examples of previously identified co-activating molecules of the AR include CBP, SRC1, and
TIF-2 (10-12).
There is strong documentation to suggest steroid receptor shuttling
upon exposure to the cognate ligand. Such studies have pertained to the
AR (13-16), glucocorticoid receptor (GR) (17), estrogen
receptor (ER) (19), mineralocorticoid receptor (20), and thyroid
receptor (TR) (21). These receptors show a certain degree of
trafficking either to or from the nucleus but also in a subnuclear
fashion. Those that show a strong migration to the nucleus upon
exposure to ligand are termed "translocating receptors" and can be
contrasted with receptors that are constitutively nuclear (4). The ER
shows expression that is mainly nuclear in the absence of ligand (22),
whereas the AR and GR show a distribution that is both cytoplasmic and
nuclear (23, 22). Curiously, there are varying reports as to relative
abundance of AR in the cytoplasm (24) and in the nucleus (6) in many
cell types. Upon receptor stimulation by DHT, or potent analogues of
DHT, including R1881, the AR will dissociate from heat-shock proteins, translocate to the nucleus, and form transcriptionally active DNA-protein complexes (4). In general, this two-step model for
steroid hormone receptor action can be applied to the AR and GR whereby
the unliganded receptor is localized in the cytoplasm and upon ligand
binding undergoes conformational change that permits translocation to
the nucleus. This homodimerization leads to initiation of target gene
regulation (15). Within the nucleus most members of the receptor
superfamily form focal accumulations within the nucleus in the presence
of ligand (4).
Proteins that are carried or shuttled with steroid receptors into the
nucleus have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, with the ability
of the AR to translocate to the nucleus, we hypothesize that the AR
could co-traffic other molecules to the nucleus. Examples of this
phenomenon are few if any. Cytoplasmic to nuclear and subnuclear
trafficking could allow for formation of multiprotein-DNA complexes and
AR transcriptional activation (15). Given the documented
ligand-dependent relationship between the AR and
-catenin (25), we hypothesize that
-catenin could be part of a
complex that translocates to the nucleus as a pre-requisite to forming transcriptionally active, nuclear complexes.
-Catenin is a multifunctional protein. Specifically, it plays a
central role in cell adhesion by its association with E-cadherin and
the actin cytoskeleton via linking to
-catenin (26, 27). In addition
to its role at adherens junctions,
-catenin is a major component in
the Wnt/Wingless signaling pathway. This well-studied pathway is
important both in normal tissue development and differentiation (28) as
well as in oncogenesis (27). In the absence of Wnt/Wingless signaling,
-catenin is found mainly at cell junctions but also associates with
cytoplasmic proteins, including adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) (29);
glycogen synthase kinase-3
(GSK-3) (30), and axin (30). When
-catenin accumulates, it is phosphorylated by GSK-3 and targeted for
ubiquitination by the proteasome complex (30). Stimulation of
the Wnt/Wingless pathway inhibits GSK-3 and allows for accumulation of
hypo-phosphorylated
-catenin in the cytoplasm. Stabilized
-catenin can then translocate to the nucleus, with Lef, and interact
with the Lef/Tcf family to stimulate gene expression of cell
cycle-associated proteins. Some of the targeted genes, that are thought
to be regulated by a
-catenin-Tcf complex, include c-myc,
tcf-1, and cyclin D1 (31).
An intriguing feature of Wnt signaling is the manner in which
-catenin is actively translocated to the nucleus. Although
-catenin does not have a nuclear localization signal (32), APC
(adenomatous polyposis coli) can act as a nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling
protein (32). Such studies have shown that alteration of the amino
nuclear export sequence on APC could accumulate nuclear
-catenin and
concluded that APC can shuttle between the nucleus and cytoplasm while
directing
-catenin to functionally important locations. APC also
contains two nuclear localization signals that are necessary for
optimal nuclear APC activity (33) and likely for its tumor suppressor
function. Recently, studies have shown that nuclear export of
-catenin can occur independent of the CRM1 export protein and
suggested that there could be alternative pathways associated with
-catenin transport (34). Previous studies have also shown that
-catenin can localize to the nucleus independent of the shuttling
protein Ran (35).
Little is known about the functional contribution of the recently
identified ligand-dependent interaction between
-catenin and the AR. In this study, 1) we used confocal microscopy and a novel
DNA binding assay to provide evidence that
-catenin binds in an AR
ligand-dependent manner, via the AR, to an
androgen-regulated promoter; 2) we defined the domains of the AR and
-catenin as they related to protein interactions and related this to
transcriptional activity; 3) we demonstrated that AR can translocate
-catenin to the nucleus in an AR ligand-dependent
fashion as a distinct pathway that is independent of APC; 4)
finally, we identified the structural components of the AR and
-catenin that are necessary and sufficient for co-translocation.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Cell Culture--
PC3 and HeLa FLAG-AR cells were
cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 5% FBS and
LNCaP cells in RPMI media containing 5% FBS. Cells were transiently
transfected in serum-free media for 6-20 h with the following
expression cDNAs: (WT HA-tagged),
-catenin (WT myc-tagged),
-catenin (Nt),
-catenin (Arm repeats HA-tagged),
-catenin
(Nt/Ct HA-tagged), rat AR (WT), AR (Nt), AR (Nt/LBD), AR (DBD), AR
(DBD/LBD), GR (WT), TR (WT), and RAR (WT). Cells were treated with 10 nM steroid receptor ligand in 5% dextran/charcoal-stripped
serum. Stable AR FLAG-tagged HeLa cells were kindly donated by Dr.
Michael Carey (UCLA School of Medicine).
Plasmids--
AR luciferase reporter, AR, and GR expression
constructs were constructed as previously described (Snoek et
al. (8)).
-catenin cDNAs were obtained both from Dr.
Berry Gumbiner (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY)
and Dr. Randall Moon (Howard Hughes Medical Institute,
University of Washington). All remaining receptor expression constructs
were obtained from Dr. Ronald Evans (Salk Institute, La Jolla, CA).
Immunofluorescence--
Cells were grown in 5% FBS in RPMI on
glass coverslips, fixed in cold methanol for 10 min, and air-dried.
Cells were reconstituted in 4% normal serum in 0.1% Tween
20/phosphate-buffered saline for 20 min. Primary polyclonal
-catenin
(sc-8199) antibodies and monoclonal AR (DNA binding domain, 15071A)
antibodies were used at a dilution of 1:100 and incubated for 1-2 h at
37 °C followed by 3 × 10-min washes. Secondary antibodies
conjugated to fluorophores were used at a 1:100 dilution and were
incubated for 1 h at 37 °C followed by 3 × 10-min washes.
Coverslips were mounted with mounting media containing DAPI (Vector
Laboratory) on glass slides. Confocal microscopy images were obtained
used a Bio-Rad 1024 system and were digitally compiled using IMAGE
software (National Institutes of Health).
Cell Fractionation and Time Course Study--
Subsequent to
transfection and a least 12-h growth in charcoal-stripped serum, LNCaP,
PC3, and HeLa FLAG-AR cells were treated with 10 nM ligand
for up to 60 min. Prior to harvest, cells were washed once in cold PBS
and separated into cytoplasmic and nuclear fractions using the Nuclear
and Cytoplasmic Extraction Reagent (Pierce) at 10-min intervals.
Fractions were assayed for total protein using the BCA protein assay
(Pierce, 23223).
Western Blotting and Immunoprecipitation--
Subconfluent cell
cultures were washed with PBS, sheared with a 30-gauge needle, and
solubilized with Nonidet P-40 lysis buffer (0.5% Nonidet-P-40, 150 nM NaCl, 50 mM Tris, pH 8.0) on ice for 30 min
with the addition of a protease inhibitor mixture (Roche Molecular
Biochemicals, 1697498). Cell lysates were centrifuged at 15,000 rpm for
10 min, standardized for total protein, and separated by SDS-PAGE.
Immunoprecipitations were carried out overnight at 4 °C with up to 5 µg of precipitation antibody. During the last 60 min of incubation 30 µl of Protein A/G-Sepharose beads (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-2003)
were added. Immune complexes were washed four to five times in cold
lysis buffer containing inhibitors. After boiling in Laemmli sample
buffer, samples were separated by SDS-PAGE and the proteins were
transferred onto a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Amersham
Biosciences, Inc.). Membranes were blocked with 5% nonfat milk in TPBS
(0.05% Tween 20 in PBS) for 1 h and then incubated for 1-2 h at
room temperature with primary antibodies, either actin (Sigma-Aldrich,
A2066), Histone (Chemicon International),
-catenin (Transduction
Laboratory, C19220; Santa Cruz, sc-8199), E-Cadherin (Santa Cruz,
sc-1500), GSK-3
(Transduction Laboratory, G22320), N-terminal
Androgen Receptor (ABR, PA1-111A), DNA binding domain Androgen
Receptor (BD PharMingen, 15071A), or C-terminal domain Androgen
Receptor (Santa Cruz, sc-815). Detection was achieved with either
anti-mouse-horseradish peroxidase (Santa Cruz, sc-2031) or
anti-rabbit-horseradish peroxidase (Santa Cruz, sc-2030) and ECL
Western blotting detection agents (Amersham Biosciences, Inc., RPN 2106).
In Vitro Translation--
Plasmid cDNA was transcribed and
translated in vitro using the rabbit reticulocyte lysate TnT
(Promega) system. A standard reaction was used consisting of 40 µl of
TnT Quick Master (SP6 or T7 promoter), 2 µl of cold 2 mM
methionine (1000 Ci/mol at 10 mCi/ml), 1-2 µg of plasmid DNA made up
to a final volume of 50 µl with nuclease-free water. Reactions were
incubated at 30 °C for 90 min and either used immediately for
binding reactions or stored at
20 °C. The efficiency of in
vitro translation reactions were assessed by monitoring
[35S]methionine incorporation by SDS-PAGE and radiography
following equilibration in ENHANCE (Cat. NEF981, PerkinElmer Life
Sciences). Gels were washed 2 × 10 min with dH2O,
dried, and exposed to radiographic film.
GST-Pull Downs--
Recombinant proteins were labeled with
[35S]methionine (Promega TnT) in a volume of 50 µl.
GST-bound beads were equilibrated with binding buffer (20 mM HEPES, pH 7.6, 150 mM KCl, 5 mM
MgCl2, 1 mM EDTA, 0.05% Nonidet P-40, and
protease inhibitors) and incubated with lysate for 2 h at 4 °C.
Complexes were washed 4× with 1 ml of cold binding buffer, boiled in
Laemmli sample buffer, and separated by SDS-PAGE. Gels were enhanced,
dried, and exposed to film.
Acrydite Capture of DNA-binding Complexes--
The ACDC assay
(36) was carried out by incubating recombinant His-tag androgen
receptor DNA binding domain (His-tag ARDBD) without DNA or
with NF-1 acrydite binding sites or ARE acrydite binding sites
(ARE-ac). The nuclear factor-1 (NF-1) acrydite served as a negative
binding control. Binding reactions were polymerized in the well of a
5% polyacrylamide acrydite gel, run on a 15% SDS-PAGE and probed with
anti His-tag antibody. LNCaP nuclear extracts (NE) treated with 10 nM R1881 were incubated with ARE-ac and polymerized inside
the well of a 5% polyacrylamide gel. After electrophoresis, the
specifically bound protein was extracted from the acrydite gel,
separated by SDS-PAGE (8.5%), and probed with an anti-AR antibody (DBD
epitope). NE were incubated without DNA or with acrydite probasin
(P
-ac) promoter (
286 to +28) or the pBluescript acrydite multiple
cloning site (MCS-ac) created by PCR amplification using specific
primers with a 5'-acrydite moiety attached.
Luciferase Reporter Assays--
PC3 and LNCaP cells were plated
in 6-well dishes and incubated overnight at 37 °C. Cells were
transfected with a total of no more than 4 µg of DNA per well for
8-16 h using LipofectAMINE (Invitrogen) according to the
manufacturer's protocol. After transfection, cells were incubated in
charcoal-stripped serum containing 10 nM R1881,
dexamethasone, estradiol, all-trans-retinoic acid, or tri-iodothyronine for at least 16 h. All assays were
carried in at least triplicate and evaluated using the Dual Luciferase
Reporter system (Promega).
 |
RESULTS |
Ligand-dependent Co-localization of
-Catenin and
AR--
The localization of AR (Fig. 1,
ai) and
-catenin (aii) was viewed with
confocal microscopy using antibodies to the DNA binding domain of the
AR and Arm repeats/Ct portion of
-catenin in fixed LNCaP cells that
were treated with and without R1881 for 60 min (Fig. 1). Images
captured by confocal microscopy and compiled in images analysis
software suggest that in the absence of androgen the AR (bi)
stained diffusely throughout the cell, whereas
-catenin staining
(bii) was predominately found at cell borders, diffusely in
the cytoplasm, and within the nucleus. In the presence of ligand we
observed a specific, punctate staining pattern of AR (ai), which was strongly nuclear.
-Catenin also showed nuclear
localization (aii) in cells upon ligand addition and
co-localized in many instances with AR (arrowheads) whereas
in some instances it did not (arrows). Levels of
-catenin
at cell borders were not observed to change in response to AR ligand,
whereas cytoplasmic levels appeared to decrease moderately. Nuclei were
stained using DAPI (Fig. 1, aiv and biv).

View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
. Localization of the AR (ai)
and -catenin (aii) in
methanol-fixed LNCaP cells treated with 10 nM R1881 for 60 min viewed with confocal laser microscopy. In the absence
of R1881, AR staining (bi) appears diffuse and throughout
the cytoplasm whereas that for -catenin (bii) is
localized at the cell membrane, in the cytosol, and in the nucleus.
When serial images collected by confocal microscopy were digitally
compiled, the distribution of the AR appeared punctate and nuclear
(ai). Similarly, -catenin (aii) showed a
punctate pattern that co-localized in some instances
(arrowheads) whereas in others (arrows) did not
(overlay = aiii, biii;
DAPI = aiv, biv)
(bar = 5 µm).
|
|
ARDBD/LBD Interacts with the
-Catenin Arm
Repeats--
As a prerequisite to assessing the trafficking properties
of the AR, we determined the relative affinity of binding between the
AR and
-catenin. To do this we used recombinant AR proteins, including ARNt, ARDBD/LBD, ARDBD,
and ARNt/DBD (Fig.
2a).
-Catenin 35S-labeled deletion mutants included Nt-(1-140), Arm
repeats-(140-664), and Ct-(664-781) domains (Fig.
2b) translated in vitro from Xenopus expression constructs. Although relatively weak interactions were detected between the
-CatNt, or
-CatCt,
and any portion of the AR (only slightly greater than the GST-negative
control), strong interactions were detected between the
-catenin Arm
repeats and AR (Fig. 2c). The Arm repeats showed moderate
interactions with the ARDBD but increased affinity with the
ARDBD/LBD suggesting a role both for the DBD and LBD in
binding AR and
-catenin. Despite the differences detected in our
physical mapping using our recombinant truncations we were unable to
detect a significant difference (<10%) between AR-GST/
-catenin
binding affinity in the presence or absence of ligand. We have
attributed this to potential masking of interaction sites by chaperone
proteins in the cell in absence of ligand, which is not present in the
recombinant system. In general, these data support transcriptional
assays, immunoprecipitation studies, and shuttling time courses.

View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
a, structural maps of recombinant AR
deletion truncations (WT, Nt, DBD/LBD, DBD, Nt/DBD); b,
in vitro translated -catenin/35S deletion
truncations (WT, Arm repeats, Nt, and Ct components). Relative to the
total input the highest affinity of interaction was detected between
the -catenin/35S Arm repeats and the
ARDBD/LBD (c). Interestingly, there was little
difference (<10%) in the efficiency of binding reactions with or
without the presence of AR ligand (data not shown).
|
|
Ligand-bound AR Promotes Nuclear Translocation of Cytosolic
-Catenin--
To determine if
-catenin was able to translocate
to the nucleus in an androgen-dependent manner, we
performed a series of cell fractionations on LNCaP cells and HeLa-FLAG
AR cells over a time course of androgen exposure (Fig.
3). Cytoplasmic and nuclear compartments
were efficiently separated as determined by probing nuclear fractions
for pan-Cadherin and probing cytoplasmic fractions for total histone
(Fig. 3A). The low levels of pan-Cadherin in nuclear
fractions and histone in the cytosol suggested an efficient separation
of cellular compartments. We further demonstrated equal total protein
loads through a time course by assessing total cytosolic actin and
nuclear histone (Fig. 3A). Non-transfected LNCaP cells that
were treated with R1881 and were fractionated into cytoplasmic and
nuclear compartments at 10-min intervals over 60 min (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min) showed a moderate accumulation of endogenous, nuclear
-catenin (Fig. 3B). We observed a similar increase in
nuclear AR. Densitometry evaluation of nuclear accumulation of AR and
-catenin suggest a similar rate of increase. Loading controls
(actin) remained constant (Fig. 3Bii). A less noticeable decrease in cytosolic
-catenin was observed when compared with changes in nuclear
-catenin levels. This is likely accounted for by
the large amount of
-catenin that remained stationary; that is, that
does not migrate upon addition of AR ligand. Interestingly, the shift
in
-catenin found in cytosolic and nuclear compartments was
considerably more noticeable in LNCaP cells, which were transiently transfected with tagged expression constructs for
-catenin (Fig. 3C). Specifically, by transfecting LNCaP cells with either
HA-tagged and myc-tagged
-catenin constructs, we observed a greater
amount of nuclear accumulation of the de novo synthesized
-catenin as compared with non-transfected cells. Densitometry
analysis (Fig. 3Cii) showed a similar trend in nuclear
accumulation of
-catenin and illustrated a plateau at 50-min
post-ligand addition suggesting a decreased rate of nuclear import. We
further chose to consider whether AR-dependent movement of
-catenin could occur using other AR ligands, including the
physiological androgen, DHT. DHT, like its analogue, R1881,
promoted nuclear accumulation of both the AR and
-catenin although
to a slightly lesser extent than with R1881 (data not shown). We next
investigated whether other non-prostate cancer cell lines, including
stably AR-FLAG-transfected HeLa cells could mediate AR-mediated
-catenin nuclear translocation. To do this we isolated cell
fractions at 0 and 60 min post-ligand addition and immunoprecipitated
AR, FLAG, and
-catenin (Fig. 3D). We observed a trend of
nuclear accumulation of
-catenin similar to that in LNCaP cells,
although
-catenin movement from the cytosol was not as apparent as
neither was the overall movement of the FLAG-AR. We further assessed
the relative amounts of nuclear and cytosolic AR-associated
-catenin
in these cells by immunoprecipitation of FLAG tagged AR (Fig.
3D). In the absence of androgen, there were greater amounts
AR in the cytosol as judged by anti-FLAG and anti-AR antibodies whereas
greater amounts in the nuclear fractions of cells were treated with
ligand. We found detectable
-catenin with AR and FLAG-AR
immunoprecipitates in the absence of androgen confirming the presence
of a constitutive interaction as observed with LNCaP
immunoprecipitations (Fig. 3D). We further demonstrated that
there were detectable amounts of the AR/
-catenin complex in nuclei
without androgen but substantially higher in its presence (Fig.
3D).

View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
LNCaP cell nuclear translocation of
-catenin in the presence AR ligands over a time
course of 60 min (10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-min intervals).
A, cells were fractionated into cytoplasmic and nuclear
components and assessed for relative amounts of AR and -catenin.
Clean separation was assessed by probing cytoplasmic fractions for
histone and nuclear fractions for cadherins. Total protein loads
(A) were assessed by the abundance of actin and histone in
cytoplasmic and nuclear fractions, respectively. LNCaP nuclear
translocation of endogenous -catenin (Bi) and
accompanying densitometry (Bii). HA- and myc-tagged forms of
-catenin. Translocation of HA- and myc-tagged -catenin
(Ci) in LNCaP cells and accompanying densitometry
(Cii). Stable AR-FLAG-tagged HeLa cells (D) show
a moderate movement of AR and -catenin from a cytoplasmic fraction
(0 min) when compared with R1881 treated fractions (60 min).
|
|
The ARDBD/LBD Is Necessary and Sufficient for Nuclear
Translocation of
-Catenin in PC3 Cells--
Having found evidence
that the AR can translocate
-catenin to the nucleus in LNCaP and
HeLa cells, we chose to ascertain whether other nuclear receptors have
this capability in PC3 prostate cancer cells. To do this we used a
prostate cancer cell line that dose not express the androgen receptor.
When PC3 cells were transiently transfected with RAR (Fig.
4A), ER (Fig. 4B),
GR (Fig. 4C), TR (Fig. 4D), or
-catenin
(HA-tag) we observed an inability to move
-catenin to the nucleus
with ligand exposure. Although the GR shows an ability to translocate
to the nucleus upon exposure to ligand, co-trafficking with
-catenin
was not detected in this cell line despite minor fluctuation in GR
cellular levels.

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
PC3 cells transfected with full-length
-catenin (HA-tagged) with either
(A) RAR, (B) ER, (C)
GR, or (D) TR. Receptor-mediated translocation of
-catenin in PC3 cells transiently transfected with (E) no
AR (PRC/CMV vector), (F) ARNt, (G)
ARNt/DBD, (Hi) ARDBD/LBD, and
(Hii) accompanying densitometry. Time course examination of
LNCaP cells transfected with ARWT and -catenin
truncations, including that with the amino and carboxyl components and
that with only the Arm repeats.
|
|
With
-catenin translocation being detected most pronounced with the
AR we chose to assess
-catenin movement using various AR deletion
mutants (Fig. 4, E-Hi). In PC3 cells the empty, control expression vector (PRC/CMV) and that of the amino terminus (Nt) of the
AR showed little ability to move
-catenin to the nucleus (Fig.
4F). However, constructs expressing the ARNt/DBD
showed a more prominent cellular expression but did not show
ligand-dependent changes in nuclear distribution of itself
or
-catenin as a function of ligand (Fig. 4G). When cells
were transfected with constructs expressing both the ARLBD
and the ARDBD ligand-dependent translocation of
-catenin was readily apparent (Fig. 4Hi). This indicated
to us the necessity of both the DNA binding domain and the ligand binding domain of the AR for efficient
-catenin nuclear
translocation. Densitometry indicated a coincident movement between the
AR and
-catenin. Additionally, accumulation in PC3 cells was similar to that in LNCaPs in that both appeared to plateau at 50-60 min post-ligand addition. We further demonstrated that the Arm repeats are
both necessary and sufficient for AR-dependent nuclear
translocation of Catenin. Constructs expressing the Nt and Ct
components of Catenin showed little, if any, fluctuation between
compartments whereas the Arm repeats showed accumulation to the nucleus
over 60 min (Fig. 4I).
AR-mediated Translocation of
-Catenin Is Distinct from
APC/GSK3--
To determine if AR-mediated import of
-catenin was a
distinct pathway, we assessed whether the AR had the ability to
interact with APC and GSK3 in LNCaPs (whole cell lysates) treated with and without R1881. As controls we probed AR immunoprecipitations for AR
(Fig. 5a) and
-catenin
(Fig. 5b). We detected little fluctuation in AR levels as a
function of hormone treatment but observed a ligand sensitive
interaction between AR and
-catenin, which is more
-catenin-associated with AR in the presence of androgen. Immunoprecipitated GSK3 showed a distinct band at about 45 kDa but was
not detected in AR immunoprecipitates. Although APC immunoprecipitates showed some degradation at ~180 and 200 kDa, major species were detected at 300 kDa. These immunoprecipitates also did not contain detectable AR either with or without ligand.

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
Assessment of interaction between AR and Wnt
components including -catenin
(a), GSK3 (b), and APC
(c) in LNCaP cells treated with (+) and without ( )
R1881. Although AR interacted with -catenin in a
ligand-sensitive manner, an interaction with GSK3 and APC was not
detected. Control immunoprecipitations for AR (a) and APC
(c) showed species at 120 and 300 kDa, respectively.
|
|
-Catenin and the AR Complex Directly on the Probasin
Promoter--
Acrydite experiments operate on the premise that protein
specifically bound to a DNA sequence during a binding reaction will remain intact after being exposed to a electrophoretic current. Such
species were then denatured and separated by SDS-PAGE. Our results
showed that the androgen receptor from nuclear receptor extracts
treated with R1881 bound specifically to ARE-acrydite (ARE-ac) PCR
products (Fig. 6). This was verified by
the presence of the HIS-tag component of the ARDBD in the
elution from the ARE-ac binding reaction (Fig. 6a). AR
antibodies also reacted strongly with androgen response elements and
with only a small amount of nonspecific binding with negative controls,
including a binding reaction for NF-1 and binding reactions without DNA (Fig. 6bi). Fig. 6bii indicates the extent of
recovery of the androgen receptor in nuclear extract binding reactions
and was measured by comparing the reactivity with antibodies toward the DNA binding region of the AR with that which is specifically bound to
the ARE-ac DNA sequence. Fig. 6c suggests that, when binding reactions were probed for
-catenin using a promoter sequence known
to contain four cooperative ARE (
286/+28), high amounts of
-catenin were detected. Only small amounts of
-catenin were detected in negative control binding reactions, including the multiple
cloning site-acrydite PCR reaction (MCS-ac) or binding reactions
without DNA. These data strongly support the presence of a
ligand-dependent transcriptionally active AR/
-catenin
complex directly associated with the probasin promoter. Treating LNCaP nuclear extracts with 2 M NaCl and separating the
non-extracted nuclear components by SDS-PAGE show a greater amount of
both AR and
-catenin retained in the presence of ligand (Fig.
6d). This suggests that both are incorporated into the
nuclear matrix to a greater extent in the presence of ligand.

View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Specific retention of proteins to
androgen-regulated promoter regions using the acrydite capture of DNA
complexes (ACDC) method. a, retention of the His-tag
ARDBD was observed only for the specific ARE-ac binding
site not for the non-cognate N1-ac binding or in the absence of DNA.
bi, The ACDC method was used to capture the full-length AR
and a proteolytic cleavage product of the AR that binds DNA.
c, the ACDC assay was used to capture -catenin from LNCaP
nuclear extracts treated with 10 nM R1881. Nuclear extracts
were incubated without DNA or with acrydite probasin
(P -ac) promoter ( 286 to +28) or the
pBluescript acrydite multiple cloning site (MCS-ac).
Retention of -catenin for the AR-containing LNCaP NE was observed
only for P -ac, which contains four known AREs. No retention was
observed with the nonspecific MCS-ac or in the absence of DNA.
|
|
The Arm Repeats and ARLBD Are Sufficient for
Ligand-dependent Interaction of AR and
-Catenin--
Using PC3 cells we sought to evaluate the various
components of the AR and
-catenin that were necessary for
ligand-dependent transcriptional activation. To do this, we
transfected AR and
-catenin truncations into PC3 cells and monitored
ARR3-Luc activity as a function of increasing
-catenin. We observed
that AR truncations containing only Nt provided little transcriptional
response whereas AR constructs expressing the Nt plus the DBD showed
constitutive activation and some augmentation by
-catenin. Cells
transfected with both the LBD and the DBD showed a dose- and
ligand-dependent transcriptional response to increasing
-catenin (Fig. 7A). This suggests the requirement of the ARLBD for
ligand-dependent co-activation of the AR by
-catenin as
well as for AR-mediated translocation of
-catenin. Cells transfected
with only the ARNt or control vector (PRC/CMV) showed
relatively little transcriptional activity. Transfections using
constructs coding for only the Arm repeats (Fig. 7B) were
still able to enhance the AR transcriptional response using the
ARR3-Luc reporter in a ligand-dependent manner but not to
the same extent as the full-length
-catenin. Deletion of the Arms
diminishes the ability of
-catenin to augment AR transcription considerably.

View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
A, transcriptional response of
transiently transfected LNCaP cells with the ARR3-luc reporter with
either: ARNt, ARNt/DBD, ARDBD/LBD,
or empty vector (PRC-CMV). B, ARR3-luc response in
transiently transfected LNCaP cells using ARWT and
-catenin deletion constructs, including -CatWT,
-CatArm, -CatNt, and
-CatCt. Cells were transfected with full-length
-catenin with (+) or without ( ) the presence of 10 nM
R1881.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Androgen receptor trafficking of
-catenin is a particularly
attractive hypothesis for several reasons. First,
-catenin does not
have an identified nuclear localization signal making it dependent upon
other chaperone molecules for nuclear import. Second, the nuclear
interactions between the AR and
-catenin are ligand sensitive. Third, AR-mediated transport of
-catenin appears to be distinct from
APC transport of
-catenin. Fourth, transcriptional activity of AR
promoters is augmented with increased levels of transfected
-catenin
when in the presence of ligand.
In this study, we provided evidence for a novel and distinct mechanism
by which
-catenin can enter the nucleus of AR expressing cancer cell
lines. We showed that upon exposure to androgen the AR is capable of
shuttling
-catenin to the nucleus, thus providing a means by which
-catenin can augment the transcriptional activity of AR reporters.
This mode of import appears to be functionally independent of the
-catenin transporter protein, APC. Immunofluorescence studies
strongly suggest co-localization of endogenous AR and
-catenin at
punctate complexes in the nucleus of LNCaP prostate cancer cells in the
presence of R1881. Co-immunoprecipitation studies suggest a cytosolic
AR/
-catenin interaction but not with APC or GSK3. Further evidence
for an AR/
-catenin complex that can directly bind to an AR-regulated
promoter was provided using a novel DNA binding assay. Finally, we
provided evidence that the
-catenin Armadillo repeats, and the
ARDBD/LBD sequence is sufficient for
ligand-dependent nuclear translocation and
transcriptional activation.
AR and
-Catenin Can Co-localize at Transcriptionally Active,
Multiprotein Nuclear Complexes--
Using confocal laser microscopy we
showed that
-catenin can co-localize with AR using antibodies
specific for the DNA binding region of the receptor in the presence of
androgen. The localization of other steroid receptors in the nucleus
has been described, and, as with the GR (17), ER (37), and TR (38), the
AR shows a distinct punctate appearance upon exposure to ligand.
Although the RAR and TR do not show substantial migration to the
nucleus upon addition of ligand, it is reasonable to assume that there is dynamic subnuclear trafficking of these receptors. Focal
accumulations of nuclear proteins in androgen-treated cells likely
consist of transcriptionally active protein complexes with the AR,
-catenin, and other associated co-factors, including SRC, CBP, and
TCF4 being present. These studies are currently being addressed. The co-localization of the AR and
-catenin was not exclusive as seen by
confocal microscopy suggesting that there are many AR complexes unoccupied by
-catenin and, similarly,
-catenin complexes that are unoccupied by the AR. The co-localization of
-catenin with the
AR also implies that
-catenin could be involved with the transcriptional machinery of LNCaP cells. This prospect was explored with the use of a novel DNA binding assay. Using an acrydite polymer, we were able to show specific AR-dependent binding of
-catenin to the probasin promoter. This suggests that
-catenin
could have the capacity to modulate the cell cycle in prostate cancer
cells in an androgen-dependent fashion, likely by altering
levels of downstream known AR-modulated transcription factors such as
c-myc (39) and the cyclins (40). It is probable that
-catenin regulates downstream transcription factors by acting as an
AR co-activator in a pro-survival manner. Similarly, the AR could have
an influence on the Wnt pathway as other steroid receptors such as the
RAR and TR have been shown to repress the Wnt pathway. Such a
ligand-dependent interplay might suggest sharing of nuclear
-catenin between various promoter sites.
Steroid Receptor Nuclear Translocation of
-Catenin by the
Androgen Receptor--
AR-mediated translocation of
-catenin was
considerable both with light level experiments and biochemical data
with the majority of migrating AR reaching the nucleus by 60 min after
the addition of ligand. Time-course experiments extended beyond this
time point (data not shown) did not yield significant amounts of AR or
-catenin movement between compartments. In both endogenously
expressed AR cells (LNCaP) and transfected AR-expressing cells (PC3),
time series cell fractionations showed a modest,
ligand-dependent, nuclear translocation of
-catenin. The
movement of
-catenin was, in general, much less obvious in the
cytosolic fraction. We attribute this to the fact that the percentage
of
-catenin associated with the AR and able to move to the nucleus
is relatively small compared with the total cytosolic pool of
-catenin. Additionally, it is likely that the amount of "free,"
non-bound,
-catenin varies considerably between different cell
lines. The issue of different cytoplasmic pools of
-catenin has been
raised in previous studies and could be functionally important in AR
transcription. Previous reports (41) have identified distinct
pools of catenins, which are suggestive of a balancing between APC and
AR interactive
-catenin. It would be interesting to evaluate how
other cytoplasmic pathways are altered as a function of the removal of
androgen-associated
-catenin upon its nuclear translocation.
Certainly, prior to an achieved equilibrium of cellular
-catenin,
there would be perturbation to the Wnt pathway and Wnt-associated
transcription factors. An equally interesting notion is the concept of
different nuclear compartments of
-catenin of which are likely in a
constant state of flux as nuclear receptors and TCF4-related complexes could trade off available
-catenin.
Time series experiments showed relatively little, if any, movement of
ER between the cytosol and the nucleus. This finding supports previous
reports showing that the ER is found predominantly in the nucleus with
or without the presence of ligand (22). Given that we did not detect
nuclear translocation of TR and RAR, the mechanism as to how
-catenin augments their transcriptional activity (42, 43) requires
future investigation. Although we were not able to detect trafficking
of
-catenin with these receptors, we cannot rule out the possibility
that during the initial translation and modification of these receptors
some
-catenin is brought to the nucleus. Such a form of Catenin
trafficking would not be detectable with the techniques used in this
study. The finding that GR does not facilitate
-catenin
translocation in the same manner as AR does could be a function of the
cell lines used in the present studies; that is, cells that express high levels of GR likely show a greater ability to translocate
-catenin as compared with prostate cancer cell lines. Future studies
using such cell lines will help elucidate if a functional relationship
exists between GR and
-catenin.
We sought to determine the minimally required components for
translocation of
-catenin to the nucleus. By transiently
transfecting a series of deletion mutants into PC3 cells we able to
determine that
-catenin requires the ARDBD region for
binding but requires the ARDBD/LBD for significant
ligand-dependent nuclear translocation. These observations
are consistent with previous reports describing the necessity of the
ligand binding domain for nuclear localization.
-Catenin showed a
small degree of nuclear movement in cells that were
ARNt/DBD-transfected but not in prominent,
ligand-dependent manner as observed when cells were
transfected with ARDBD/LBD. By GST fusion protein
interactions we determined that the ARDBD region is capable
of a strong receptor/
-catenin interaction without the
ARLBD indicating that minor amounts of
-catenin,
although not detected by our methods, may be carried into the nucleus
by the ARDBD independent of the ARDBD. When we
examined the relative affinities between the AR and
-catenin as a
function of the presence of ligand presence, we did not observe any
difference, likely due to the absence of chaperone proteins that would
otherwise mask binding. We further investigated what the minimal
requirement of AR and
-catenin domains for nuclear translocation and
found that ligand-dependent movement could be achieved
using transfected ARDBD/LBD and the Arm repeats of
-catenin. The Arm repeats of
-catenin are known binding sites for
other molecules, including E-Cadherin, TCF, CBP, and fascin. The
elucidation of the exact region of Arm repeat binding to a region such
as the DNA binding domain of steroid receptors is currently being investigated.
LNCaP and PC3 prostate cancer cells are in many respects good systems
to demonstrate the hypothesis of AR-mediated nuclear translocation of
-catenin. This is mainly due to constitutively low activity of GSK-3
and highly active Akt (18), a regulator of GSK-3. Irregular GSK-3 and
Akt levels can be attributed to the mutated tumor suppressor
phosphatase with tensin homology, which both cell types carry.
Furthermore, the relative amounts of unphosphorylated
-catenin are
likely higher than other cell types where GSK-3 activity are at higher
endogenous levels implying that any additional cytosolic
-catenin
could have the potential for other binding partners such as cytosolic
steroid receptors. By using tagged
-catenin constructs, we were more
easily able to monitor the movement of this exogenous
-catenin.
Western blotting for the transiently transfected tagged
-catenin
showed a much more pronounced translocation of
-catenin, likely
because the large amount of endogenous
-catenin, by our detection
methods, previously masked its movement. Although
AR-dependent movement of
-catenin appears to be
functional independent of functional APC, the continual movement of
-catenin from the cytoplasm to the nucleus and back to the cytoplasm
in cancer cells suggests that these pathways can be functionally
independent but can also draw from similar pools of
-catenin.
Our proposed model of AR mediated transport of
-catenin (Fig.
8) shows that upon ligand occupation
heat-shock proteins (Hsp) also dissociate from the AR allowing for
augmentation of
-catenin binding. Hsp dissociation also exposes the
AR nuclear localization site, which could promote translocation of an
AR-
-catenin complex into the nucleus and binding to one or more AR
promoters. Our finding of an AR-mediated trafficking pathway leads to
the logical implication for a role in oncogenesis whereby stimulation
of the Wnt pathway could promote greater cytosolic
-catenin and
therefore greater AR transcriptional activity. Increased nuclear
-catenin could result in altered cell cycle or increased
differentiation.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Proposed model showing that the androgen
receptor (AR) may facilitate translocation of
cytoplasmic -catenin
( Cat) to the nucleus and thereby
increase AR transcription and possibly regulate Wnt. Upon ligand
occupation heat-shock proteins (Hsp) dissociate from the AR allowing
for augmentation of -catenin binding. Hsp dissociation also exposes
the AR nuclear localization site, which could promote translocation of
an AR- -catenin complex into the nucleus and binding to one or more
AR promoters.
|
|
Future studies will likely include investigations of how the AR and
other nuclear receptors interact with the Wnt pathway. With the high
degree of conservation between the DNA binding regions within the
nuclear receptor family, it is likely that there are many commonalities
between the AR, GR, and ER with respect to how they could influence
Wnt-related genes as a function of ligand exposure. Similarly, the
ability of
-catenin to augment transcriptional activity of other
nuclear receptors is a significant finding and will likely lead to
further studies in specific tissues such as the thyroid-targeted
tissues, breast and liver. With the apparent similarities in how
-catenin may interact with the currently investigated nuclear
receptors, it is likely there are many caveats to how
-catenin could
influence individual receptor pathways. Ultimately, such interactions
may lead to more invasive studies whereby repression of Wnt members
could attenuate steroid receptor associated transcriptional activation.
A key to elucidating how the Wnt pathway interacts with nuclear
receptors lies in understanding the likely dynamic interplay between
TCF components, nuclear receptor promoters, and
-catenin, but also
shared co-factors such as CBP and many, yet, undefined ones with the
potential to facilitate both pathways.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
The costs of publication of this
article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Tel.: 604-875-5555 (ext. 61473); Fax: 604-875-5654; E-mail: djm@interchange.ubc.ca.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, February 20, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M200135200
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
AR, androgen
receptor;
GR, glucocorticoid receptor;
ER, estrogen receptor;
RAR, retinoic acid receptor;
TR, thyroid receptor, Nt, amino-terminal
domain;
Ct, carboxyl-terminal domain;
DBD, DNA binding domain;
LBD, ligand binding domain;
APC, adenomatous polyposis coli;
GSK-3B, glycogen synthase kinase-3B;
TCF, T cell factor;
GST, glutathione
S-transferase;
DHT, dihydrotestosterone;
LEF, lymphoid
enhancer factor;
ARE, androgen response element;
FBS, fetal bovine
serum;
WT, wild-type;
HA, hemagglutinin;
DAPI, 4',6-diamidino-2-phenyl-indole;
ACDC, acrydite capture of DNA complex;
NF-1, nuclear factor-1;
NE, nuclear extract;
CMV, cytomegalovirus;
Hsp, heat-shock protein;
PB-ac, acrydite probasin;
MCS-ac, acrydite multiple
cloning site.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Quigley, C. A., De,
Bellis, A.,
Marschke, K. B.,
el-Awady, M. K.,
Wilson, E. M.,
and French, F. S.
(1995)
Endocrine Rev.
16,
271-321[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 2.
|
Rennie, P. S.,
Bruchovsky, N.,
Leco, K. J.,
Sheppard, P. C.,
McQueen, S. A.,
Cheng, H.,
Snoek, S.,
Hamel, A.,
Bock, M. E.,
MacDonald, B. S.,
Nickel, B. E.,
Chang, C.,
Liao, S.,
Cattini, P. A.,
and Matusik, R. J.
(1993)
Mol. Endocrinol.
7,
23-36[Abstract]
|
| 3.
|
Reid, K. J.,
Hendy, S. C.,
Saito, J.,
Sorensen, P.,
and Nelson, C. C.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
2943-2953[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Hager, G. L.,
Lim, C. S.,
Elbi, C.,
and Baumann, C. T.
(2000)
J. Steroid Biochem. Mol Biol.
30,
249-254
|
| 5.
|
Evans, R. M.
(1988)
Science
240,
889-895[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 6.
|
Jenster, G.,
van der Korput, H. A.,
van Vroonhoven, C.,
van der Kwast, T. H.,
Trapman, J.,
and Brinkman, A. O.
(1991)
Mol. Endocrinol.
5,
1396-1404[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 7.
|
MacLean, H. E.,
Warne, G. L.,
and Zajac, J. D.
(1997)
J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol.
62,
233-242[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 8.
|
Snoek, R.,
Bruchovsky, N.,
Kasper, S.,
Matusik, R. J.,
Gleave, M.,
Sato, N.,
Mawji, N. R.,
and Rennie, P. S.
(1998)
The Prostate
36,
256-263[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Danielian, P. S.,
White, R.,
Lees, A.,
and Parker, M. G.
(1992)
Identification of a conserved region required for hormone dependent transcriptional activation by steroid hormone receptors.
EMBO J.
11,
1025-1033[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 10.
|
Ikonen, T.,
Palvimo, J. J.,
and Janne, O. A.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
29821-29828[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 11.
|
Yeh, S.,
Chang, H. C.,
Miyamoto, H.,
Takatera, H.,
Rahman, M., Hy, K.,
Thin, T. H.,
Lin, H. K.,
and Chang, C.
(1999)
Keio J. Med.
2,
87-92
|
| 12.
|
Janne, O. A.,
Moilanen, A. M.,
Poukka, H.,
Rouleau, N.,
Karvonen, U.,
Kotaja, N.,
Hakli, M.,
and Palvimo, J. J.
(2000)
Biochem. Soc. Trans.
4,
401-405
|
| 13.
|
Georget, V.,
Lobaccaro, J. M.,
Terouanne, B.,
Mangeat, P.,
Nicolas, J. C.,
and Sultan, C.
(1997)
Mol. Cell Endocrinol.
129,
17-26[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 14.
|
Rakesh, K. T.,
Lavrovsky, Y.,
Ahn, S. C.,
Song, C. S.,
Chatterjee, B.,
and Roy, A. K.
(2000)
Mol. Endocrinol.
14,
1162-1174[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
Tyagi, R. K.,
Lavrosky, Y.,
Soon, C. A.,
Chung, S. S.,
Chatterjee, B.,
and Roy, K.
(2000)
Mol. Endocrinol.
8,
1162-1174
|
| 16.
|
Tomura, A.,
Goto, K.,
Morinaga, H.,
Nomura, M.,
Okabe, T.,
Yanase, T.,
Takayanagi, R.,
and Nawata, H.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
28395-28401[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Hache, R. J. G.,
Tse, R.,
Reich, T.,
Savory, J. G. A.,
and Lefebvre, Y. A.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
1432-1439[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Wong, W., Hu, M. C.-T.,
Makino, K.,
Spohn, B.,
Bartolomeusz, G.,
Yan, D.,
and Hung, M.
(2000)
Cancer Res.
60,
6841-6845[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Stenoien, D. L.,
Mancini, M. G.,
Patel, K.,
Allegretto, E. A.,
Smith, C. L.,
and Mancini, M. A.
(2000)
Mol. Endocrinol.
14,
518-534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Fejes-Toth, G.,
Pearce, D.,
and Naray-Fejes-Toth, A.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
96,
2973-2978
|
| 21.
|
Zhu, X. G.,
Hanover, J. A.,
Hager, G. L.,
and Cheng, S. Y.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
42,
27058-27063
|
| 22.
|
Htun, H.,
Holth, L. T.,
Walker, D.,
Davie, J. R.,
and Hager, G. L.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
471-486[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Ogawa, H.,
Inouye, S.,
Tsuji, F. I.,
Yasudu, K.,
and Umesono, K.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
11899-11950[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 24.
|
Simental, J. A.,
Saw, M.,
Lane, M. V.,
French, F. S.,
and Wilson, E. M.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
226,
510-518
|
| 25.
|
Truica, C. I.,
Byers, S.,
and Gelmann, E. P.
(2000)
Cancer Res.
17,
4709-4713
|
| 26.
|
Barker, N.,
and Clevers, H.
(2000)
Bioessays
11,
961-965
|
| 27.
|
Polakis, P.
(2001)
Cell
5,
563-566
|
| 28.
|
Wodarz, A.,
and Nusse, R.
(1998)
Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol.
14,
59-88[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 29.
|
Fearnhead, N. S.,
Britton, M. P.,
and Bodmer, W. F.
(2001)
Hum. Mol. Genet.
7,
721-733
|
| 30.
|
Hart, M. J.,
de los Santos, R.,
Albert, I. N.,
Rubinfield, B.,
and Polakis, P.
(1998)
Curr. Biol.
10,
573-581
|
| 31.
|
Hecht, A.,
and Kemler, R.
(2000)
EMBO J.
1,
24-28[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 32.
|
Henderson, B. R.
(2000)
Nat. Cell Biol.
2,
653-660[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Zhang, F.,
White, R. L.,
and Neufeld, K. L.
(2000)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
23,
12577-12582
|
| 34.
|
Eleftheriou, A.,
Yoshida, M.,
and Henderson, B.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
25883-25888[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 35.
|
Yokoya, F.,
Imamoto, N.,
Tachibana, T.,
and Yoneda, Y.
(1999)
Mol. Biol. Cell
10,
1119-1131[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 36.
| Nelson, C., Hendy, S., Reid, K., and Cavanagh, J. (2001)
BioTechniques, in press
|
| 37.
|
Htun, H.,
Barsony, J.,
Renyi, I.,
Gould, D. L.,
and Hager, G. L.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
4845-4850[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 38.
|
Bunn, C. F.,
Neidig, J. A.,
Freidinger, K. E.,
Stankiewicz, T. A.,
Weaver, B. S.,
McGrew, J.,
and Allison, L. A.
(2001)
Mol. Endocrinol.
4,
512-533
|
| 39.
|
Bieche, I.,
Parfait, B.,
Tozlu, S.,
Lidereau, R.,
and Vidaud, M.
(2001)
Carcinogenesis
22,
1521-1526[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 40.
|
Reutens, A. T., Fu, M.,
|