Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M201003200 on March 14, 2002
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 277, Issue 22, 20079-20086, May 31, 2002
Conformational Analysis of the Androgen Receptor Amino-terminal
Domain Involved in Transactivation
INFLUENCE OF STRUCTURE-STABILIZING SOLUTES AND
PROTEIN-PROTEIN INTERACTIONS*
James
Reid
§,
Sharon M.
Kelly¶,
Kate
Watt
,
Nicholas C.
Price¶, and
Iain J.
McEwan
From the
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology,
Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen,
Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland, United Kingdom and
¶ IBLS Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Joseph
Black Building, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, United Kingdom
Received for publication, January 30, 2002, and in revised form, March 12, 2002
 |
ABSTRACT |
The androgen receptor (AR) is a member of the
nuclear receptor superfamily. Sequences within the large amino-terminal
domain of the receptor have been shown to be important for
transactivation and protein-protein interactions; however, little is
known about the structure and folding of this region. In the present
study we show that a 344-amino acid polypeptide representing the main determinants for transactivation has the propensity to form
-helical structure and that mutations which disrupt putative helical regions alter conformation. Folding of the AR was observed in the presence of
the helix-stabilizing solvent trifluoroethanol and the natural osmolyte
trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). TMAO resulted in the
movement of two tryptophan residues to a less solvent-exposed
environment and the formation of secondary/tertiary structure resistant
to protease cleavage. Critically, binding to the RAP74 subunit of the
general transcription factor TFIIF resulted in extensive protease resistance, consistent with induced folding of the receptor
transactivation domain. These data indicate that this region of the AR
is structurally flexible and folds into a stable conformation upon
interactions with a component of the general transcription machinery.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
The actions of the male sex hormones testosterone and
dihydrotestosterone are mediated by the intracellular androgen receptor (AR)1 (reviewed in Refs. 1
and 2). The AR belongs to a large family of nuclear receptors, whose
members mediate the actions of steroid and thyroid hormones, retinoic
acid, vitamin D3, and fatty acid derivatives. The majority
of these receptor proteins share a common domain organization (see Fig.
1A). The ligand binding domain (LBD) in the carboxyl
terminus binds ligand and participates in dimerization and
ligand-dependent transactivation. A hinge region connects
the LBD to the DNA binding domain (DBD), a region responsible for
recognition of and binding to DNA target sequences and receptor
dimerization. The amino-terminal domain (NTD) of these proteins is the
most variable in length and amino acid sequence but is often critical
for transactivation. In the case of the AR, the major transactivation
domain has been mapped to the amino-terminal domain (3-8). Sequences
within this domain have been shown to mediate protein-protein
interactions with the carboxyl-terminal LBD (9-15), the general
transcription factors TFIIF (16) and TFIIH (17), members of the p160
family of nuclear receptor coactivator proteins (18-21), cyclin E
(22), and an AR-associated protein 160 (23). This region of the
receptor also contains homopolymer stretches of the amino acids
glutamine (Gln), glycine (Gly), and proline (Pro). The largest stretch
of glutamines is of particular interest because expansion of this
sequence from on-average 22 to greater than 40 residues results in the
neuromuscular degenerative condition spinal bulbar muscular atrophy or
Kennedy's disease (reviewed in Refs. 24 and 25). In addition,
polymorphisms in this polyglutamine stretch have been associated with
prostate cancer risk, male infertility, and more recently, rheumatoid
arthritis (Ref. 25 and references therein).
Three-dimensional structures are available for the isolated DBD and LBD
from both steroid and non-steroid receptors. The DBD is characterized
by two zinc-coordinated modules that fold to give a compact globular
structure. The DNA recognition helix is part of module I and is
orientated at 90° to a second helix in module II, and together these
form the hydrophobic core of the domain (see Ref. 26 and references
therein). The LBD is characterized by a unique fold, termed a
"helical sandwich," consisting of three layers of anti-parallel
-helix. In the agonist-bound holo-LBD, the ligand is in a
hydrophobic pocket buried in the structure (26). The recently published
AR-LBD structure fits well with this canonical structure and contains
11 helical segments and 4
-strands (27, 28).
In contrast, little is known about the three-dimensional structure of
the NTD of nuclear receptors. Studies on the glucocorticoid receptor
(GR) transactivation domain (GR-AF1/
1, amino acids 77-262) revealed
little stable structure in aqueous solution (29, 30). However, in the
presence of the helix-stabilizing solvent trifluoroethanol (TFE) or the
natural osmolyte trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), the GR-AF1/
1 domain adopted a clear
-helical conformation (30). NMR spectroscopy revealed three
-helical regions within a
functional subdomain of this region (amino acids 187-242) (29).
Similarly, the amino-terminal transactivation domain (amino acids
15-44) of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor
adopted a helical conformation in the presence of TFE (31). For both the GR and
the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor
, the introduction of
helix-disrupting mutations supported the importance of helical structure for receptor-dependent transactivation (29,
31, 32).
To date, despite the importance of sequences within the AR-NTD for gene
regulation, there have been no reports on the structure of this domain.
In the present study we have used a combination of circular dichroism
(CD), fluorescence spectroscopy, and sensitivity to protease digestion
to analyze the secondary and tertiary structure of the amino-terminal
domain of the AR involved in transactivation. These studies reveal that
the AR contains limited stable secondary structure in aqueous solution
but adopts a more stable conformation in the presence of the secondary
structure-stabilizing solvents TFE and TMAO. Of particular note is that
binding of the AR transactivation domain to a target protein,
i.e. the general transcription factor TFIIF, was found to
induce a more stable conformation.
 |
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES |
Mutagenesis, Expression, and Purification of Recombinant
Proteins--
AR4 mutant polypeptides M5, M8, and M9 were created by
site-directed mutagenesis using the oligonucleotide primers described in Table I. For AR4-M5 the coding
sequence of AR4 was first subcloned into Bluescript pBSK (+), and
single-stranded DNA was prepared. AR4-M8 and -M9 were created using the
QuikChangeTM kit (Stratagene) and pET-AR4 (16) as template
DNA. In the case of mutant M8, the parent DNA was first mutated with
the L236P primers, and a second round of mutagenesis was then performed on the resulting mutant DNA using the L251P primers. The authenticity of all plasmids was confirmed by restriction enzyme digests and DNA
sequencing of the insert. It should be noted that one additional change, a conservative serine to threonine, was found in AR4-M8 at
position 255.
Histidine-tagged AR4, RAP74-CTD (amino acids 363-517; Ref. 33), and
LexADBD were expressed in Escherichia coli
strain BL21(pLys) by induction with 1 mM isopropyl
-D-thiogalactoside for 1-2 h at 37 °C in LB media.
The cells were harvested by centrifugation and lysed by a process of
freeze-thawing and incubation with 0.5 mg/ml lysozyme at 4 °C. The
recombinant proteins were purified from the soluble fraction using
Ni2+-nitriloacetate-agarose affinity chromatography resin (Qiagen).
A PCR product encoding AR4 was digested with BamHI and
BglII and subcloned into pGEX-2TK (Amersham Biosciences),
previously digested with BamHI, to generate pGEX-AR4. The
GST-AR4 fusion protein was expressed in E. coli strain
BLR(DE3) by induction with 0.1 mM isopropyl
-D-thiogalactoside for 4-5 h at room temperature in
2×TY media (1.6% Bactotryptone, 1.0% yeast extract, 0.5%
NaCl). The cells were lysed as before, and the recombinant proteins
were purified from the soluble fraction using glutathione-Sepharose 4B
resin (Amersham Biosciences). The purified proteins were dialyzed against 25 mM HEPES, pH 7.9, 100 mM sodium
acetate, 5% glycerol, 1 mM dithiothreitol. Protein
concentration was estimated against bovine serum albumin standards
using the Bradford assay (34). Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation
of the AR and representative SDS-polyacrylamide gels of the purified AR polypeptides.
Partial Proteolysis Assay--
Purified, recombinant AR4,
AR4-M5, -M8, and -M9 were diluted to a final concentration of 50 pmol/10-µl reaction in proteolysis buffer (25 mM HEPES,
pH 7.9, 10% glycerol, 0.2 mM EDTA, 5 mM
MgCl2, 20 mM CaCl2, 60 mM KCl) and digested with 0.25 ng/µl trypsin for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 min at room temperature. Reactions were stopped by addition
of 2× SDS-PAGE sample buffer and heating to 75 °C for 5 min. The
samples were separated on a 15% SDS-PAGE gel, transferred to a
nitrocellulose membrane, and probed with a mouse monoclonal anti-hexahistidine antibody (Sigma). GST-AR4 (50 pmol) in proteolysis buffer was partially digested alone or in the presence of
LexADBD, ARDBD, or RAP74-CTD. The digestions
were performed in a reaction volume of 25 µl at room temperature for
the indicated times with 0.25 ng/µl trypsin, 2 ng/µl chymotrypsin,
or 8 ng/µl endoproteinase Glu-C. GST-AR4 was also digested with each
enzyme in the presence of TFE and/or TMAO for the times indicated at
room temperature. All reactions were stopped by the addition of 2×
SDS-PAGE sample buffer and heating to 75 °C for 5 min. After
separation by SDS-PAGE, the digested proteins were detected by Western
blotting using an anti-GST antibody (Sigma) and visualized by ECL.
Enzymatic Assay of Trypsin--
The artificial trypsin substrate
N
-benzoyl-L-arginine ethyl ester (0.23 mM) was incubated with 0.25 ng/µl trypsin in 63 mM sodium phosphate, 0.06 mM HCl in the
presence of TFE or TMAO. The reactions were monitored at 253 nm, and
absorbance readings were taken every 2 min for 20 min.
Fluorescence Spectroscopy--
Fluorescence measurements were
made using a Shimadzu 1501 spectrofluorimeter with excitation and
emission band widths of 10 nm using a 1-cm path-length cuvette. The
fluorescence spectra of AR4 (30 µg/ml in dialysis buffer) were read
at excitation wavelengths of 278 and 295 nm and emission wavelengths
between 300 and 450 nm. Excitation at 278 nm resulted in fluorescence
emission from tryptophan and tyrosine residues; in addition, there
was energy transfer from tyrosine to tryptophan. However,
excitation at 295 nm resulted in selective tryptophan fluorescence. All
spectra were corrected for the contribution of the buffer and solute
concentrations. As a control, we measured the fluorescence spectrum of
1.6 µM N-acetyl-L-tryptophanamide
in the absence and presence of 3 M TMAO, the highest
concentration used in these experiments. There was a modest quenching
of the N-acetyl-L-tryptophanamide signal (less
than 15%) in the presence of TMAO (data not shown). Thus, we conclude
the effects of TMAO on AR4 fluorescence are genuine effects on protein
conformation. In the quenching experiments the fluorescence spectra for
AR4 was measured in the presence of increasing amounts of acrylamide in
the absence or presence of 3 M TMAO after excitation at 295 nm. The Stern-Volmer constant (Ksv) was
calculated using the equation
F0/F = 1 + Ksv[Q], where F0 and
F are the fluorescence in the absence and presence of
quencher, Q, respectively (see Ref. 35).
Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy--
Purified AR4 was dialyzed
against 4 mM NaH2PO4, 6 mM Na2HPO4, 100 mM
sodium sulfate, 1 mM dithiothreitol for CD analysis. The
far UV CD spectra for AR4 was measured at 20 °C in the presence or
absence of trifluoroethanol on a Jasco J-600 spectropolarimeter calibrated with (1S)-(+)-10-camphorsulfonic acid. Far UV CD
spectra (195-260 nm) were measured using a cell of 0.02-cm path
length. At the concentrations of protein obtainable in the presence of added solvents and solutes, it was not possible to record near UV CD
spectra (260-320 nm) with suitable precision.
 |
RESULTS |
The Androgen Receptor Transactivation Domain Can Adopt a Stable
-Helical Conformation--
Despite the importance of the
amino-terminal transactivation domain in the function of the AR, no
three-dimensional structure for this region is currently available. We
have therefore undertaken CD analysis of the AR transactivation domain
(Fig. 1A, amino acids 142-485) to gain insight into the secondary structure content of this
part of the receptor. The CD spectrum in the far UV range is sensitive
to the conformation of the polypeptide backbone and can be used to
estimate the proportions of secondary structure elements present and
changes in the conformation under specific conditions. In aqueous
solution, the AR polypeptide showed relatively little stable secondary
structure. The dominant feature of the CD spectrum was a minimum at
around 200 nm, which is characteristic of a non-ordered polypeptide
(Fig. 2A). In contrast, in the
presence of increasing amounts of the hydrophobic solvent TFE, the CD
spectrum was characterized by minima at 208 and 222 nm, indicative of a significant proportion of
-helical structure (Fig. 2A).
The increase in the value of the negative ellipticity at 222 nm with
increasing TFE was consistent with increasing
-helix content. We
used the SELCON procedure (36) to give an indication of the changes in secondary structure content at increasing concentrations of TFE, although it should be noted that the deconvolution analysis has only
been strictly calibrated for proteins in aqueous solutions. The
analysis indicates that the helical content increased from 13 to 40%
with a reduction in the turn and other structure contents from 32 to
20% and from 36 to 25%, respectively, as the TFE concentration was
increased from 0 to 50% (Fig. 2B). Despite the limitations of the analysis, the data indicate that under specific conditions, the
AR transactivation domain has the propensity to adopt a stable conformation with significant
-helical content.

View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1.
A, schematic representation of
the human androgen receptor, showing the region of the amino terminus
(amino acids 142-485) used in the present study. DBD and
LBD represent the DNA binding and ligand binding domains,
respectively. Polyglutamine (Q, solid box) and
poly-glycine (G, hatched box) repeats and the
position of tryptophans 396 and 432 (W) are
highlighted. B, Coomassie-stained gel of purified
wild-type (AR4) and mutant (M5 and M8) histidine-tagged proteins and
GST-AR4.
|
|

View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2.
CD spectroscopy of the AR transactivation
domain. A, CD spectrum for AR4 (0.26 mg/ml) in aqueous
phosphate buffer. Molar ellipticity [ ] =  × 3330 (degrees·cm2·dmol 1), where  is the
differential molar coefficient. The minimum at 200 nm is characteristic
of a non-ordered conformation, whereas in the presence of increasing
amounts of TFE the maximum at 190 nm and the minima at 208 and 222 nm
are characteristic of -helical conformation. B, changes
in secondary structure content as calculated using the SELCON method
(Ref. 36; see "Results" for details). Data are from a
representative experiment.
|
|
TMAO Promotes Folding of the AR Transactivation
Domain--
Fluorescence emission spectra for proteins result from the
presence of aromatic amino acids, with tryptophan fluorescence making
the dominant contribution. The AR4 polypeptide contains 13 tyrosines
and 2 tryptophan residues (Trp396 and Trp432)
(Fig. 1A). Excitation at 278 nm results in fluorescence
emission from tryptophan and tyrosine residues; in addition, there can be energy transfer from tyrosine to tryptophan. The spectrum thus provides information about the local conformation surrounding these
residues. The fluorescence spectrum for AR4 is characterized by an
emission maximum at 343 nm, due to the tryptophan residues, and a
shoulder at 309 nm, resulting from tyrosine emission (Fig. 3A). The folding of the AR
transactivation domain was investigated using TMAO, which has been
shown to facilitate the folding of proteins into "native"
conformations (see Ref. 37). In the presence of up to 3 M
TMAO there was an increase in the quantum yield, the tryptophan
emission maximum blue shifted to 336 nm, and the shoulder due to
tyrosine fluorescence was lost (Fig. 3A). A similar trend
was observed with 10 and 20% TFE (data not shown). These results
indicate that the two tryptophan residues become less solvent-exposed,
and there is an increase in the energy transfer from tyrosine to
tryptophan residues, consistent with the AR polypeptide becoming more
structured.

View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3.
Steady-state fluorescence spectroscopy of the
AR transactivation domain. A, steady-state fluorescence
emission spectra for AR4 in the absence or presence of increasing
concentrations of TMAO after excitation (Ex.) at 278 nm. As
TMAO concentration increased, the quantum yield increased, and the
max for tryptophan blue shifted. B,
acrylamide quenching of tryptophan fluorescence. Emission spectra for
AR4 in the presence of increasing concentrations of acrylamide after
excitation at 295 nm.
|
|
Acrylamide is known to act as a dynamic quencher of tryptophan
fluorescence and can therefore be used to investigate the accessibility of tryptophan residues. Tryptophan residues on the surface will be more
readily quenched than those buried within the protein structure. Fig.
3B shows that in the presence of increasing amounts of
acrylamide the fluorescence intensity for the tryptophan maximum after
excitation at 295 nm was reduced. Using the Stern-Volmer equation
("Experimental Procedures"), a plot of
F0/F against acrylamide concentration
was obtained, where F0 and F are the
fluorescence intensities in the absence and presence of the quenching
agent, respectively. From the linear plot, a Stern-Volmer constant
(Ksv) of 10.8 M
1 was
calculated, indicating that both tryptophans have a high degree of
exposure to solvent and behave in an identical fashion (35). In the
presence of 3 M TMAO, a Ksv of 9.7 M
1 was observed (data not shown). This is
consistent with the folding of the AR polypeptide, leading to the
tryptophan residues being less susceptible to the quenching agent.
Taken together the spectroscopy analysis indicates that the AR
transactivation domain is structurally flexible and capable of a
adopting a more folded conformation in the presence of the alcohol TFE
or the natural osmolyte TMAO.
The AR Transactivation Domain Does Contain Local Regions of
Secondary Structure--
The AR transactivation domain is predicted to
contain four
-helical regions, giving an
-helical content of
about 20% (Fig. 4), comparable with the
values calculated from CD analysis. Therefore, to investigate the
possible existence of local structural elements, the fluorescence
spectrum for AR4 after denaturation was measured. In the presence of 6 M urea the tryptophan emission maximum red-shifts to 350 nm, indicating the tryptophan residues have become even more fully
exposed to solvent (Fig. 5). In addition,
a clear peak of tyrosine fluorescence at 309 nm was now seen,
indicating a reduction in energy transfer and an increased separation
between tyrosine and tryptophan residues. Taken together with the CD
results, the fluorescence data indicate that AR4 has a limited amount
of secondary and tertiary structure, which is lost on treatment with urea.

View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4.
Secondary structure predictions for AR4
wild-type or mutant polypeptides (M5, M8, and M9) were obtained from
Network Protein Sequence Analysis (pbil.ibcp.fr/NPSA). Secondary
structure elements include -strand (short bars) and
-helix (tall bars). Mutation M5 was originally described
by Chamberlain et al. (7) for the corresponding residues in
the rat AR as disrupting transactivation activity of the full-length
receptor. Helical regions 1-3, targeted by mutagenesis, are
highlighted.
|
|

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5.
The fluorescence emission spectrum for AR4 in
the absence or presence of 6 M urea after
excitation (Ex.) at 278 nm. A max
for tryptophan was observed at 342 nm in the absence of urea. In the
presence of urea, the max for tryptophan increased to
350 nm, and a clear peak of tyrosine fluorescence at 309 nm was
observed. Data represent the average of three independent
experiments.
|
|
To investigate further the local conformation of the AR transactivation
domain, we used limited proteolytic digestion and site-directed
mutagenesis. The first three helical regions were targeted with double
point mutations, which were predicted to disrupt the local helical
conformation (Fig. 4). AR4 was digested with trypsin for different
times, and fragments retaining the amino-terminal histidine tag were
specifically detected using an anti-His antibody. Trypsin digestion of
AR4 led to four distinct amino-terminal fragments (Fig.
6, bands 2-5). Strikingly,
point mutations M5 and M8, predicted to disrupt helical regions 1 or 2, respectively, led to a loss or reduction in bands 4 and 5 (Fig. 6).
Furthermore, fluorescence spectroscopy of all three mutant polypeptides
(M5, M8, and M9) revealed an increase in the signal due to tyrosine
emission, consistent with the loss of local structure and an increase
in the distance between tyrosine and tryptophan residues (data not
shown). Taken together, these studies provide strong support for the
existence of local structural elements within the AR4 polypeptide,
which can be disrupted by helix-breaking mutations.

View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6.
Limited proteolysis of AR transactivation
domain. Limited proteolysis of wild-type and mutant forms of AR4
and M5 (A) and AR4 and M8 (B). Histidine-tagged
polypeptides were digested with trypsin for 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 min, and
the fragments were resolved by SDS-PAGE. Fragments containing
amino-terminal sequences were identified using an anti-histidine
antibody. The arrows represent the full-length protein
(band 1) and the major fragments at 41,000 (band
2), 38,000 (band 3), 33,000 (band 4), and
19,000 (band 5). C, summary of trypsin cleavage
patterns and predicted secondary structure elements.
|
|
Protein-Protein Interactions Induce Folding of the AR
Transactivation Domain--
The function of the AR is critically
dependent upon protein-protein interactions (see the Introduction).
Among such interactions, we have previously demonstrated binding of the
AR4 polypeptide to the general transcription factor TFIIF, which was
sufficient to relieve squelching by the receptor transactivation domain
(16). To investigate the role of protein-protein interactions on AR transactivation domain folding, a polypeptide containing the
carboxyl-terminal 155 amino acids of RAP 74 (RAP74-CTD), which contains
the receptor binding site,2
was used. Because RAP74-CTD has a carboxyl-terminal histidine tag, a
GST-AR4 fusion protein was used in these studies to permit specific
detection of AR polypeptides using an anti-GST monoclonal antibody. The
GST-AR4 fusion protein was extremely sensitive to proteolytic cleavage,
and treatment with trypsin, chymotrypsin, or endoproteinase
Glu-C resulted in the generation of a series of stable fragments
of relative molecular mass 24,000-30,000 Da, representing the GST
moiety (Figs. 7 and
8). In the presence of RAP74-CTD (amino
acids 363-517), the AR polypeptide was markedly less susceptible to
cleavage by trypsin (Fig. 7A) and chymotrypsin (Fig.
8A). In addition to the full-length protein, fragments of 55,000 Da (band 2) and 34,000-37,000 Da (bands
3-4) or 59,000 Da (band 2) were protected from
cleavage with trypsin or chymotrypsin, respectively. Total protein
concentration was kept constant in all samples using the
LexADBD or ARDBD as nonspecific proteins of
comparable molecular mass to RAP74-CTD. RAP74-CTD was less efficient at
protecting the AR polypeptide from endoproteinase Glu-C cleavage,
although limited protection of the full-length and a 57,000-Da fragment
was seen (Fig. 8C, bands 1 and 2).

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7.
Limited proteolysis of GST-AR4.
A, trypsin cleavage of GST-AR4 in the absence or presence of
a 5 M excess of the AR-binding protein TFIIF
(RAP74-CTD) for 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 min. Tryptic fragments are
resolved by SDS-PAGE, and amino-terminal fragments were identified
using an anti-GST antibody. The arrows indicate the
full-length protein (band 1) and major fragments at 55,000 Da (band 2), 37,000 Da (band 3), and 34,000 Da
(band 4) and a series of stable fragments at 24,000-29,000
Da (bands 5-8). B, trypsin cleavage of GST-AR4
in the presence of increasing concentrations of TMAO (0.025-2
M). C, trypsin cleavage of GST-AR4 in the
presence of increasing concentrations of TFE (0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and
4%).
|
|

View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8.
Limited proteolysis of GST-AR4 with
chymotrypsin and endoproteinase Glu-C. A, chymotrypsin
cleavage of GST-AR4 in the absence or presence of a 5 M
excess of the AR-binding protein TFIIF (RAP74-CTD) for 2, 5, 10, or 20 min. Proteolytic fragments were resolved by SDS-PAGE, and
amino-terminal fragments were identified using an anti-GST antibody.
The arrows indicate the full-length protein (band
1) and major fragments at 59,000 Da (band 2) and 33,000 Da (band 3) and a stable fragment at 26,000 Da (band
4). B, chymotrypsin cleavage of GST-AR4 in the presence
of 3 M TMAO. C, endoproteinase Glu-C cleavage of
GST-AR4 in the absence or presence of a 5 M excess of the
AR-binding protein TFIIF (RAP74-CTD) for 10, 30, 60, 90, or
120 min. Proteolytic fragments were resolved by SDS-PAGE, and
amino-terminal fragments were identified using an anti-GST antibody.
The arrows indicate the full-length protein (band
1) and major fragments at 57,000 Da (band 2), 54,000 Da
(band 3), 49,000 and 47,000 Da (bands 4 and
5) and a stable fragment at 32,000 Da (band 6).
D, endoproteinase Glu-C cleavage of GST-AR4 in the presence
of 3 M TMAO.
|
|
Resistance to protease digestion upon binding of RAP74-CTD could result
from the masking of cleavage sites, induced folding of the AR
transactivation domain, or a combination of the two. Because RAP74-CTD
binding resulted in extensive protection of the AR polypeptide from
digestion, it seemed likely that a conformational change was playing
some role. To investigate the effects of protein folding on protease
sensitivity, the effects of the hydrophobic solvent TFE and the natural
osmolyte TMAO were examined. In the presence of increasing
concentrations of TMAO or TFE, AR4 became less susceptible to trypsin
cleavage (Fig. 7, B and C). TFE, and to lesser
degree TMAO, also resulted in the generation of 34,000-37,000-Da (bands 3 and 4) and 55,000 Da (band 2)
fragments, as seen with RAP74-CTD binding. Cleavage of the synthetic
substrate, N
-benzoyl-L-arginine ethyl ester,
was monitored at 253 nm to ensure that TFE and TMAO did not inhibit
trypsin enzyme activity. In fact, in the presence of 10% TFE or 3 M TMAO there was a modest increase in trypsin activity of
10-15% after a 20-min incubation (data not shown). In the presence of
TMAO the AR transactivation domain was dramatically less susceptible to
chymotrypsin and endoproteinase Glu-C digestion (Fig. 8, B
and D). The pattern of chymotrypsin protection seen in the
presence of TMAO was very similar to that seen upon RAP74-CTD binding
(compare Fig. 8, A and B). In contrast, the
pattern of protection with endoproteinase Glu-C digestion was more
complex, with TMAO having a much more dramatic impact upon protease
sensitivity (Fig. 8, C and D). We interpret these
results as providing evidence for at least in part a conformational
change in the AR4 polypeptide upon binding of RAP74-CTD, which leads to
a protease resistant state. The folding of the AR4 appears similar to
structures induced and/or stabilized by the solutes TFE and TMAO, as
revealed by trypsin and chymotrypsin cleavage, but is clearly not
identical, resulting in differences in sensitivity to the
endoproteinase Glu-C cleavage.
 |
DISCUSSION |
The major determinants for androgen receptor-dependent
gene activation have been mapped to the amino-terminal domain of the receptor. Studies involving deletion constructs (3-5, 8), fusion
proteins (6), and point mutations (7) have highlighted the importance
of amino acids 142-485 and suggested a modular nature for the
transactivation domain. In the present study we show that this region
of the AR-NTD undergoes a conformational change during interactions
with the RAP74 subunit of TFIIF and in the presence of solvents that
stabilize secondary structure. The isolated AR transactivation domain
in aqueous buffer at neutral pH generally lacked stable structure but
had the propensity to adopt an
-helical conformation in water:TFE
solutions. Furthermore, fluorescence spectroscopy and limited
proteolysis provided evidence for local secondary and/or tertiary
structure elements. There are potentially up to 17 cleavage sites
within AR4 for trypsin, yet digestion with this enzyme resulted in a
series of discrete fragments, suggesting limited resistance to
cleavage. The simplest explanation is that some sites are less
accessible to enzyme cleavage as a result of protein structure (Fig.
6C). Introduction of point mutations with the intention of
disrupting regions of predicted
-helix altered the pattern of
fragments generated, consistent with the loss of local structure.
Significantly, the AR transactivation domain was extensively protected
from protease digestion in the presence of the RAP74 subunit of the
AR-binding protein TFIIF or the solutes TFE and TMAO, compounds known
to stabilize the
-helical structure (38, 39) or to enable
polypeptides to fold into native conformations (Ref. 37 and references
therein), respectively. Fig. 9 shows a
summary of the amino-terminal fragments generated by trypsin,
chymotrypsin, and endoproteinase Glu-C digestion. The extensive
protection of the full-length AR polypeptide together with
amino-terminal fragments of 55,000-59,000 Da from cleavage with
different proteases suggested a conformational change upon RAP74-CTD
binding. This is further supported by the fact that in the presence of
the structure-stabilizing solutes TMAO and TFE, very similar patterns
of protection are seen. This was most obvious with trypsin and
chymotrypsin cleavage. However, even with endoproteinase Glu-C, where
TMAO resulted in a more complex pattern of protection, the full-length
AR transactivation domain was less susceptible to cleavage in the
presence of RAP74-CTD. Taken together, the partial proteolysis results
suggest that (i) TFE- and TMAO-induced folding of the AR
transactivation domain leads to an overall more protease-resistant
conformation and (ii) RAP74 binding in part leads to a conformation
that shares some similarity with that induced by the two solutes but is
not necessarily identical. The formation of secondary/tertiary
structure, as judged by resistance to proteases and the movement of
tryptophan residues to a less solvent-exposed environment, in the
presence of TMAO is likely to reflect the folding of the AR
transactivation function into a "native" state, in which it
possesses stable three-dimensional structure.

View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 9.
Schematic representation of the AR4
polypeptide showing the position of predicted secondary structure
elements (cylinders, -helix;
arrows, -strand) and trypsin
cleavage sites (i.e. arginine and lysine residues
(white lines). Based on the size of the fragments
observed, cleavage of GST-AR4 by trypsin gave rise to three major
amino-terminal fragments, Arg359,
Arg383/Lys385 (band 2),
Arg207/209, Arg219 (band 3), and
Lys179 (band 4). Chymotrypsin cleavage gave rise
to two major amino-terminal fragments, Tyr363/391
(band 2) and Phe168 (band 3).
Endoproteinase Glu-C gave rise to four major amino-terminal fragments,
Asp360 (band 2), Glu337 (band
3), Glu301/Asp302 (band 4),
Glu286 (band 5), and Asp177/180
(band 6).
|
|
The AR transactivation domain shares a number of structural properties
with both the GR and progesterone receptors (PR), two other members of
the same subfamily of steroid receptors, as well as the estrogen
receptors
and
. The GR-AF-1/
1 transactivation domain (amino
acids 77-262) shows little evidence for stable structure in aqueous
solution (29, 30, 40) but undergoes a coil to helix transition in the
presence of TFE or TMAO (30). Significantly, the ability to form an
-helical conformation correlated with the ability of a 41-amino acid
polypeptide, constituting the
1 core (amino acids 187-244), to
activate a reporter gene (32). More recently, Thompson and co-workers
(40) report that in the presence of TMAO, GR-AF-1/
1 adopted a more
compact conformation that was resistant to protease cleavage. Our
findings with the AR transactivation domain are in good agreement with
the above studies. However, we find evidence for local structural
elements (Figs. 4-6), which were lost by the introduction of
helix-breaking mutations (Figs. 4 and 6). In contrast to the
GR-AF-1/
1, the full-length NTD of the GR was found to contain some
structure when contiguous with the DBD (41). Furthermore, there was a clear increase in secondary structure content upon binding to a
specific glucocorticoid response element (41). The NTD of the
progesterone-A form was also found to be structured when linked with
the DBD (42). However, although the DBD stabilized the structure of the
NTD, there was no significant alteration in protease sensitivity upon
DNA binding (42). Thus, these studies would suggest there are subtle
but clear differences between the AR, GR, and PR transactivation
domains, which may have important implications for the mechanisms of
transactivation by these receptors. Recently, Wärnmark et
al. (43) show that the amino-terminal domains of both estrogen
receptor
and
lacked stable structure in aqueous solution.
Significantly, the CD spectrum for the estrogen receptor
NTD was
altered in the presence of the binding partner TATA-binding protein,
consistent with a conformational change in the receptor polypeptide
(43). Thus, the picture that is emerging is that, although the NTD of
the steroid receptor shares little if any amino acid sequence identity,
it does share a number of structural properties. These include (i) a
general lack of stable structure in aqueous solution and (ii) the
ability to undergo conformational changes upon interactions with DNA
and/or target proteins as well as in the presence of
structure-stabilizing solutes.
Initial studies of the transactivation domain structure emphasized the
non-ordered nature of these polypeptides and the ability to undergo
coil to helix transitions or to become more structurally ordered in the
presence of hydrophobic solvents (29, 30, 44-49) or target proteins
(48, 50-52). However, although it remains accepted that
transactivation domains lack stable tertiary structures in the absence
of protein-protein interactions, there is growing evidence that
elements of secondary structure may exist. Recent NMR spectroscopy
analysis of the 73-amino acid transactivation domain of the tumor
suppressor p53 revealed the presence of an
-helix and two
-turns
in solution (53). The transactivation domain of the transcription
factor ATF-2 consists of a structured subdomain containing two
-strands and an
-helix and a non-ordered domain (54). Similarly,
the pKID domain of the cAMP-binding protein (CREB) consists of a stable
-helix and a region that undergoes a coil to helix transition upon
interactions with the KIX domain of the CREB-binding protein (49, 51).
In contrast, the transactivation domain of c-Myb adopts a helical
conformation even in the absence of the binding to KIX (55). Therefore,
depending on the transcription factor and possibly the target factor,
protein-protein interactions may lead to the induction and/or
stabilization of
-helical conformation. Thermodynamically,
interactions involving folding are enthalpy-driven, relying on a high
degree of specific interactions (hydrogen bonding, electrostatic)
between the activator and the target protein for high affinity binding
(see Refs. 55 and 56). It is interesting, therefore, that TMAO-induced
folding of the GR-AF1/
1 domain enhanced the interaction of this
domain with the target proteins TATA-binding protein, cAMP-binding
protein (CREB)-binding protein, and SRC-1 (40). It will be important to
test if these factors alone are capable of inducing folding of the GR
transactivation domain. In the present study we show that binding of
the RAP74 subunit of TFIIF results in folding of the AR transactivation
domain. It will be interesting to test if this is unique to TFIIF and
whether such a conformational change alters the interaction of the AR
with other potential binding partners. Taken together these data
suggest a model for a possible hierarchy of protein-protein
interactions, with high affinity binding inducing one or more surfaces
that permit subsequent interactions.
The results of the present study demonstrate that the AR
transactivation domain exists in a partially unfolded conformation with
regions of secondary structure. Upon binding the RAP74 subunit of the
general transcription factor TFIIF, the AR transactivation domain
adopts a more folded conformation, possibly involving significant
-helix formation. We propose that the folded AR-NTD could then serve
as a platform for further protein-protein interactions, leading to the
assembly of a transcriptional-competent complex, including interactions
with other basal transcription factors and bridging factors. The
composition of such a complex could in turn be regulated by the
architecture of the DNA response elements. It remains a task of future
work to map the conformational changes in more detail by analysis of
the fragments produced by proteolysis.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
We are grateful to the following for the gift
of plasmids: Drs. A. O. Brinkmann (Erasmus University, Rotterdam)
and Z. Burton (Michigan State University, East Lansing), and to I. Hunter (University of Aberdeen) for critical reading of the manuscript.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
This work was supported in part by Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council Grant 1/C10407.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.
§
Supported by a three-year Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council Ph.D. studentship.
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.:
44-1224-273107; Fax: 44-1224-273144; E-mail:
iain.mcewan@abdn.ac.uk.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, March 14, 2002, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M201003200
2
J. Reid, R. Betney, I. Murray, K. Walt, and I. J. McEwan, manuscript in preparation.
 |
ABBREVIATIONS |
The abbreviations used are:
AR, androgen
receptor;
LBD, ligand binding domain;
DBD, DNA binding domain;
NTD, amino-terminal domain;
CTD, carboxyl-terminal domain;
GR, glucocorticoid receptor;
TMAO, trimethylamine N-oxide;
TFE, trifluoroethanol;
GST, glutathione S-transferase.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Cato, A. C. B.,
and Peterziel, H.
(1998)
Trends Endocrinol. Metab.
9,
150-154
|
| 2.
|
Hiipakka, R. A.,
and Liao, S.
(1998)
Trends Endocrinol. Metab.
9,
317-324[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 3.
|
Simental, J. A.,
Sar, M.,
Lane, M. V.,
French, F. S.,
and Wilson, E. M.
(1991)
J. Biol. Chem.
266,
510-518[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 4.
|
Jenster, G.,
van der Korput, H. A.,
van Vroonhoven, C.,
van der Kwast, T. H.,
Trapman, J.,
and Brinkmann, A. O.
(1991)
Mol. Endocrinol.
5,
1396-1404[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 5.
|
Jenster, G.,
de Ruiter, P. E.,
van der Korput, H. A.,
Kuiper, G. G.,
Trapman, J.,
and Brinkmann, A. O.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
14064-14072[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 6.
|
Jenster, G.,
van der Korput, H A.,
Trapman, J.,
and Brinkmann, A. O.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
7341-7346[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 7.
|
Chamberlain, N. L.,
Whitacre, D. C.,
and Miesfeld, R. L.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
26772-26778[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 8.
|
Gao, T.,
Marcelli, M.,
and McPhaul, M. J.
(1996)
J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol.
59,
9-20[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 9.
|
Langley, E.,
Zhou, Z. X.,
and Wilson, E. M.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
29983-29990[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 10.
|
Doesburg, P.,
Kuil, C. W.,
Berrevoets, C. A.,
Steketee, K.,
Faber, P. W.,
Mulder, E.,
Brinkmann, A. O.,
and Trapman, J.
(1997)
Biochemistry
36,
1052-1064[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 11.
|
Ikonen, T.,
Palvimo, J. J.,
and Janne, O. A.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
29821-29828[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 12.
|
Langley, E.,
Kemppainen, J. A.,
and Wilson, E. M.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
92-101[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 13.
|
Berrevoets, C. A.,
Doesburg, P.,
Steketee, K.,
Trapman, J.,
and Brinkmann, A. O.
(1998)
Mol. Endocrinol.
12,
1172-1183[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 14.
|
He, B.,
Kemppainen, J. A.,
Voegel, J. J.,
Gronemeyer, H.,
and Wilson, E. M.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
37219-37225[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 15.
|
He, B.,
Kemppainen, J. A.,
and Wilson, E. M.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
22986-22994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 16.
|
McEwan, I. J.,
and Gustafsson, J.-Å.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
8485-8490[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 17.
|
Lee, D. K.,
Duan, H. O.,
and Chang, C.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
9308-9313[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 18.
|
Alen, P.,
Claessens, F.,
Verhoeven, G.,
Rombauts, W.,
and Peeters, B.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
6085-6097[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 19.
|
Ma, H.,
Hong, H.,
Huang, S. M.,
Irvine, R. A.,
Webb, P.,
Kushner, P. J.,
Coetzee, G. A.,
and Stallcup, M. R.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
6164-6173[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 20.
|
Bevan, C. L.,
Hoare, S.,
Claessens, F.,
Heery, D. M.,
and Parker, M. G.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
8383-8392[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 21.
|
Tan, J. A.,
Hall, S. H.,
Petrusz, P.,
and French, F. S.
(2000)
Endocrinology
141,
3440-3450[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 22.
|
Yamamoto, A.,
Hashimoto, Y.,
Kohri, K.,
Ogata, E.,
Kato, S.,
Ikeda, K.,
and Nakanishi, M.
(2000)
J. Cell Biol.
150,
873-880[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 23.
|
Hsiao, P. W.,
and Chang, C.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
22373-22379[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 24.
|
Choong, C. S.,
and Wilson, E. M.
(1998)
J. Mol. Endocr.
21,
235-257[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 25.
|
McEwan, I. J.
(2001)
Biochem. Soc. Trans.
29,
222-227[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 26.
|
Kumar, R.,
and Thompson, E. B.
(1999)
Steroids
64,
310-319[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 27.
|
Poujol, N.,
Wurtz, J. M.,
Tahiri, B.,
Lumbroso, S.,
Nicolas, J. C.,
Moras, D.,
and Sultan, C.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
24022-24031[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 28.
|
Matias, P. M.,
Donner, P.,
Coelho, R.,
Thomaz, M.,
Peixoto, C.,
Macedo, S.,
Otto, N.,
Joschko, S.,
Scholz, P.,
Wegg, A.,
Basler, S.,
Schafer, M.,
Egner, U.,
and Carrondo, M. A.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
26164-26171[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 29.
|
Dahlman-Wright, K.,
Baumann, H.,
McEwan, I. J.,
Almlöf, T.,
Wright, A. P.,
Gustafsson, J-Å.,
and Härd, T.
(1995)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
92,
1699-1703[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 30.
|
Baskakov, I. V.,
Kumar, R.,
Srinivasan, G., J. Y. S.,
Bolen, D. W.,
and Thompson, E. B.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
10693-10696[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 31.
|
Hi, R.,
Osada, S.,
Yumoto, N.,
and Osumi, T.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
35152-35158[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 32.
|
Dahlman-Wright, K.,
and McEwan, I. J.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
1323-1327[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 33.
|
Wang, B. Q.,
and Burton, Z. F.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
27035-27044[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 34.
|
Bradford, M. M.
(1997)
Anal. Biochem.
72,
248-254[CrossRef]
|
| 35.
|
Eftink, M. R.,
and Ghiron, C. A.
(1976)
Biochemistry
15,
672-680[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 36.
|
Sreerama, N.,
and Woody, R. W.
(1993)
Anal. Biochem.
209,
32-44[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 37.
|
Baskakov, I.,
and Bolen, D. W.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
4831-4834[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 38.
|
Cammers-Goodwin, A.,
Allen, T. J.,
Oslick, S. L.,
McClure, K. F.,
Lee, J. H.,
and Kemp, D. S.
(1996)
J. Am. Chem. Soc.
118,
3082-3090[CrossRef]
|
| 39.
|
Rajun, R.,
and Balaram, P.
(1996)
Int. J. Pept. Protein Res.
48,
328-336[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 40.
|
Kumar, R.,
Lee, J. C.,
Bolen, D. W.,
and Thompson, E. B.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
18146-18152[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 41.
|
Kumar, R.,
Baskakov, I. V.,
Srinivasan, G.,
Bolen, D. W.,
Lee, J. C.,
and Thompson, E. B
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
24737-24741[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 42.
|
Bain, D. L.,
Franden, M. A., Mc,
Manaman, J. L.,
Takimoto, G. S.,
and Horwitz, K. B.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
7313-7320[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 43.
|
Wärnmark, A.,
Wikström, A.,
Wright, A. P. H.,
Gustafsson, J-.Å.,
and Härd, T.
(2001)
J. Biol. Chem.
276,
45939-45944[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 44.
|
Donaldson, L.,
and Capone, J. P.
(1992)
J. Biol. Chem.
267,
1411-1414[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 45.
|
O'Hare, P.,
and Williams, G.
(1992)
Biochemistry
31,
4150-4156[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 46.
|
Shen, F.,
Triezenberg, S. J.,
Hensley, P.,
Porter, D.,
and Knutson, J. R.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
4819-4826[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 47.
|
Schmitz, M. L.,
dos Santos Silva, M. A.,
Altmann, H.,
Czisch, M.,
Holak, T. A.,
and Baeuerle, P. A.
(1994)
J. Biol. Chem.
269,
25613-25620[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 48.
|
McEwan, I. J.,
Dahlman-Wright, K.,
Ford, J.,
and Wright, A. P.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
9584-9593[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 49.
|
Hua, Q. X.,
Jia, W. H.,
Bullock, B. P.,
Habener, J. F.,
and Weiss, M. A.
(1998)
Biochemistry
37,
5858-5866[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 50.
|
Shen, F.,
Triezenberg, S. J.,
Hensley, P.,
Porter, D.,
and Knutson, J. R.
(1996)
J. Biol. Chem.
271,
4827-4837[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 51.
|
Radhakrishnan, I.,
Perez-Alvarado, G. C.,
Parker, D.,
Dyson, H. J.,
Montminy, M. R.,
and Wright, P. E.
(1997)
Cell
91,
741-752[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 52.
|
Uesugi, M.,
Nyanguile, O., Lu, H.,
Levine, A. J.,
and Verdine, G. L.
(1997)
Science
277,
1310-1313[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 53.
|
Lee, H.,
Mok, K. H.,
Muhandiram, R.,
Park, K.-H.,
Suk, J.-E.,
Kim, D.-H.,
Chang, J.,
Sung, Y. C.,
Choi, K. Y.,
and Han, K.-H.
(2000)
J. Biol. Chem.
275,
29426-29432[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 54.
|
Nagadoi, A.,
Nakazawa, K.-I.,
Uda, H.,
Okuno, K.,
Maekawa, T.,
Ishii, S.,
and Nishimura, Y.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
287,
593-607[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
| 55.
|
Parker, D.,
Rivera, M.,
Zor, T.,
Henrion-Caude, A.,
Radhakrishnan, I.,
Kumar, A.,
Shapiro, L. H.,
Wright, P. E.,
Montminy, M.,
and Brindle, P. K.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
5601-5607[Abstract/Free Full Text]
|
| 56.
|
Wright, P. E.,
and Dyson, H. J.
(1999)
J. Mol. Biol.
293,
321-331[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
|
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:

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. Davies, K. Watt, S. M Kelly, C. C |