Advertisement
JBC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M303913200 on July 2, 2003

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 278, Issue 38, 36418-36429, September 19, 2003
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/38/36418    most recent
M303913200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lai, K.
Right arrow Articles by Evans, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lai, K.
Right arrow Articles by Evans, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Estrogen Receptor {alpha} Regulates Expression of the Orphan Receptor Small Heterodimer Partner*,

KehDih Lai, Douglas C. Harnish and Mark J. Evans {ddagger}

From the Wyeth Research, Collegeville, Pennsylvania 19426

Received for publication, April 14, 2003 , and in revised form, July 1, 2003.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Hormonal status can influence diverse metabolic pathways. Small heterodimer partner (SHP) is an orphan nuclear receptor that can modulate the activity of several transcription factors. Estrogens are here shown to directly induce expression of the SHP in the mouse and rat liver and in human HepG2 cells. SHP is rapidly induced within 2 h following treatment of mice with ethynylestradiol (EE) or the estrogen receptor {alpha} (ER{alpha})-selective compound propyl pyrazole triol (PPT). SHP induction by these estrogens is completely absent in ER{alpha}KO mice. Mutation of the human SHP promoter defined HNF-3, HNF-4, GATA, and AP-1 sites as important for basal activity, whereas EE induction required two distinct elements located between –309 and –267. One of these elements contains an estrogen response element half-site that bound purified ER{alpha}, and ER{alpha} with a mutated DNA binding domain was unable to stimulate SHP promoter activity. This ER{alpha} binding site overlaps the known farnesoid X receptor (FXR) binding site in the SHP promoter, and the combination of EE plus FXR agonists did not produce an additive induction of SHP expression in mice. Surprisingly, induction of SHP by EE did not inhibit expression of the known SHP target genes cholesterol 7{alpha}-hydroxylase (CYP7A1) or sterol 12{alpha}-hydroxylase (CYP8B1). However, the direct regulation of SHP expression may provide a basis for some of the numerous biological effects of estrogens.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Estrogens exert biological effects in numerous organs throughout the body. The role of estrogens in reproductive biology, the prevention of postmenopausal hot flushes, and the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis are well established (1). Estrogens reduce low density lipoprotein (LDL)1 cholesterol levels and elevate HDL cholesterol levels (2–4), although these beneficial lipid changes may not translate into favorable clinical results (5). Estrogens may also inhibit the development of colon cancer (5), inhibit the development of Alzheimer's disease (6), and inhibit development of cataracts (7, 8). The multitude of estrogen responses matches the widespread distribution of estrogen receptors (ERs) throughout numerous organs, with ER{alpha} expression the highest in uterus, pituitary, kidney, and adrenal gland and ER{beta} expression highest in ovary, uterus, bladder, and lung (9).

Although many of these actions of estrogens are due to the classic signaling pathway in which an ER binds to an estrogen response element in the promoter of a gene (10), it is now clear that many actions of estrogens are mediated by interaction of ER with other signaling pathways. For example, estrogens inhibit chronic and acute liver inflammation in the mouse by a mechanism that does not require ER activation of gene expression (11, 12). This in vivo activity of ER correlates with the in vitro ability of ER to inhibit NF{kappa}B signaling (13, 14), likely through a coactivator competition mechanism (15). Similarly, ER can regulate gene expression via interaction with AP-1 response elements (16).

An additional mechanism by which ER could influence diverse signaling pathways is by altering expression levels of other transcription factors. For example, estrogen treatment induces expression of STAT5A in both the kidney (17) and liver (11). Intriguingly, recent microarray studies have demonstrated that chronic treatment with estrogens induces expression of the orphan short heterodimer partner (SHP) receptor in the mouse liver (11). SHP is known to be able to repress the activity of many nuclear hormone receptors in vitro, including ER{alpha} and ER{beta} (18, 19), estrogen receptor-related receptor {gamma} (ERR{gamma}) (20), androgen receptor (21), arylhydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator (22), hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 (23, 24), constitutive androstane receptor (25), retinoic acid receptor {beta} (25), retinoid X receptor (24), liver X receptor {alpha} (26), and liver receptor homologous protein-1 (LRH-1) (27–29). Conversely, SHP stimulates the activity of nuclear factor-{kappa}B (30), peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor {alpha} (31), and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor {gamma} (32). Whether all these interactions occur in vivo is less clear, with only the activity of SHP in regulating bile acid synthetic gene expression having been characterized (33, 34). Nevertheless, regulation of SHP expression has the potential to influence a wide array of physiological processes.

Estrogen regulation of SHP expression might thus contribute to many facets of estrogen biology. However, previous studies have not differentiated between a direct induction of SHP expression by estrogens and an indirect induction of SHP as a secondary consequence of prolonged treatment with estrogens. To discern between these two possibilities, both in vivo kinetic studies and in vitro transfection studies were used here to characterize estrogen regulation of SHP expression. The results indicate that ER{alpha} directly stimulates expression of the SHP gene.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Animal Studies—Ovariectomized 129 strain mice (20 g) or Sprague-Dawley rats (200 g) were purchased from Taconic Farms (Lexington, KY). ER{alpha}KOCH knockout (obtained from Dr. Ken Korach (35)), ER{beta} knockout (developed at Wyeth (36)), and ER{alpha}CHER{beta} knockout mice (developed at Wyeth (36)), all on a 129 background, were bred and ovariectomized at Wyeth. All animals were fed a casein-based diet (#8117, Test Diet, Richmond, IN) unless otherwise specified. All compounds tested were synthesized at Wyeth. Compounds given as daily subcutaneous injections were administered in 0.1 ml of 1:1 dimethyl sulfoxide/phosphate-buffered saline or 0.1 ml of 90% corn oil/10% ethanol. Compounds given orally by gavage were administered in 0.1 ml of 0.5% methylcellulose, 2% Tween 80. Compounds given orally in feed were added to the casein diet ground to a powder by mixing. For 5-day treatment studies, cholic acid (CA, Sigma, St. Louis, MO) was added to the ground casein diet. For 5-week cholic acid feeding studies, mice were fed a commercial high fat diet containing 0.5% CA (#21539, Purina, Richmond, IN). Animals were euthanized 2 h after the final treatment, generally 4 h after commencement of the light cycle. For kinetic studies, animals were treated at ~7:30 a.m. and euthanized at various times throughout the day. For cycling studies, CD-1 strain young adult female mice (Charles River, Wilmington, MA) were assessed daily by vaginal smear for two complete cycles before use. All animals were euthanized at midday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. during the third cycle, with livers removed for RNA analysis. All treatments were in accord with accepted standards of care as specified by the Wyeth animal care committee.

RNA Analysis—RNA was prepared from frozen organs or from cultured cells by using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and was treated with DNase to remove contaminating genomic DNA. Following repurification by RNeasy spin columns (Qiagen, Valencia, CA), 100 ng of total RNA was assayed for gene expression by real time reverse transcription-PCR as previously described (12) using the primers and 6-carboxyfluorescein-labeled probes listed in Table I. GAPDH expression was monitored using standard rodent and human assay kits (#4308313 and #402869, respectively, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Statistical significance was determined by analysis of variance on log-transformed data using Huber weighting.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Primers used for real-time PCR quantification of mRNA levels

 

Cell Culture—HepG2 cells (American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD) or Hep89 cells (37) were maintained in high glucose Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Invitrogen, Rockville, MD) supplemented with 100 units/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, 1x glutamax, 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 0.1 mM nonessential amino acids, and 10% fetal bovine serum. For cycloheximide studies, Hep89 cells plated in deficient growth media (maintenance media without phenol red and supplemented with 10% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum) were grown to 80% confluence. The cells were treated overnight with deficient growth medium containing 1 nM ICI182780 to minimize residual estrogenic activity in the medium. The following day, the medium was supplemented with Me2SO vehicle or 10 µg/ml cycloheximide (Sigma). After 30-min incubation at 37 °C, the medium was further supplemented with Me2SO vehicle or 30 nM 17{beta}-estradiol (E2). After incubation for a final 4 h at 37 °C, the cells were harvested for RNA preparation using TRIzol reagent.

Plasmids—A 1.4-kb region of the human SHP promoter spanning –1383 to +19 was obtained through PCR amplification using 5'-TGAGAAAGATGCCCGGGACAGA-3' forward and 5'-GGGCTCGAGCCCCTGGTTGGCTGGTGCTCA-3' reverse oligonucleotides with the human BAC clone RP11-285H13 (#MB11201, Invitrogen) as a template. This fragment was then digested with NheI and XhoI and cloned into the luciferase reporter gene pGL3-Basic (Promega, Madison, WI). Each of the human SHP promoter mutations used in this study were created by PCR amplifications using the –1383 SHP promoter as template followed by digestion with appropriate restriction enzymes and ligation into pGL3-Basic.

Transfections—HepG2 cells were seeded into 24-well plates (Falcon, Franklin Lakes, NJ) at a density of 150,000 cells/well in deficient growth media. After 24 h, the cells were transfected with 250 ng of SHP reporter construct, 30 ng of ER expression plasmid, and 100 ng of M19 {beta}-galactosidase control expression plasmid using LipofectAMINE 2000 (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer's protocol. Six hours later, the cells were treated with Me2SO vehicle or 10 nM E2. Cell lysates in 1x lysis buffer (Promega) were prepared 16 h later and assayed for luciferase and {beta}-galactosidase activity using luciferase (Promega) and {beta}-galactosidase (Tropix, Bedford, MD) assay systems. The normalized luciferase expression level of the pGL3-Basic plasmid lacking any promoter was defined as 1.0. All values reported are the mean of multiple independent assays.

Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays—Protein-DNA complexes were analyzed by incubation of baculovirus-expressed human ER{alpha} (Panvera, Madison, WI) with 32P-labeled DNA probe containing the SHP –309/ –267 region followed by electrophoresis in low ionic strength polyacrylamide gels as described previously (37).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Recently we have demonstrated that treatment of ovariectomized mice with estrogens for 5 days induces expression of SHP in the liver (11). This induction by chronic estrogen treatment could be mediated either through a direct induction of SHP expression by ER, or through a secondary response subsequent to some other action of estrogen treatment. To delineate between these possibilities, expression of SHP and several other estrogen-regulated genes was determined at various times following treatment of ovariectomized mice with ethynylestradiol (EE) or the ER{alpha}-selective agonist 4-propyl-1,3,5-tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)pyrazole (PPT). Of the known estrogen-responsive genes in the liver, SHP induction was the most rapid, with peak increases in SHP mRNA levels occurring 2 h after estrogen treatment (Fig. 1A). The STAT5A gene also responded rapidly, with a peak induction at 4 h. Three other known estrogen-responsive genes, prostaglandin D synthase (PgD syn), inositol-1-phosphate synthase (IPS), and intestinal trefoil factor (ITF) all showed significantly slower induction kinetics than either SHP or STAT5A. The induction kinetics of SHP and STAT5A in the liver was equivalent to those seen for several genes, including STAT5A and tissue factor in the kidney (Fig. 1B), suggesting these genes are directly responsive to circulating estrogen levels. Finally, identical rapid kinetics for SHP induction occurred following the oral administration of either EE or GW4064 (Fig. 1C), an FXR agonist that directly activates the SHP promoter. These results together suggest that induction of SHP expression is a primary effect of treatment with estrogens.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Estrogens rapidly induce expression of SHP in the mouse liver. Ovariectomized mice were administered a single subcutaneous injection of corn oil/ethanol vehicle (gray circles), 10 µg/kg EE (black circles), or 5 mg/kg PPT (open circles). At 1, 2, 4, 8, or 24 h following treatment, livers (A) and kidneys (B) were removed and mRNA levels for SHP, STAT5A, prostaglandin D synthase (PgD Syn), inositol-1-phosphate synthase (IPS), intestinal trefoil factor (ITF), tissue factor (TF), and CYP3A11 in each individual animal were quantified by real-time PCR. All expression values were normalized for expression of GAPDH and are presented as the mean ± S.E., with six animals per group. The mean expression of each gene in animals receiving a vehicle treatment and assayed at time 0 is defined as 1.0, with all other expression values reported relative to this value. C, ovariectomized mice were administered a single dose of 10 µg/kg EE or 30 mg/kg GW4064 in methylcellulose Tween vehicle. At 1, 2, 4, 8, or 24 h following treatment, livers were removed and mRNA levels for SHP in each individual animal were quantified by real-time PCR. The mean expression of each gene in animals receiving a vehicle treatment and assayed at time 0 is defined as 1.0, with all other expression values reported relative to this value.

 

Synthetic estrogens have been reported to act as human pregnane X receptor agonists (38). However, neither EE nor PPT induced expression of CYP3A11, a sensitive marker for pregnane X receptor activation (39), at any time point (Fig. 1A). To verify that SHP induction was mediated through ER{alpha}, ovariectomized wild type mice or ER{alpha}KOCH mice were treated with EE, EE plus the antagonist ICI182780, or PPT (Fig. 2). Induction of SHP expression by EE was inhibited by ICI182780, and neither EE nor PPT treatment induced SHP expression in the ER{alpha}KOCH mouse. Similar results were obtained for the STAT5A, PgD syn, and IPS genes. However, the ITF gene remained responsive to EE and PPT induction in the ER{alpha}KOCH mouse. This induction of ITF in the ER{alpha}KOCH mouse could be blocked by ICI182780 (not shown) and is likely mediated by the aberrantly spliced ER{alpha} transcripts that are found in the ERaKOCH mouse, as has been described for genes in several other tissues (40, 41). Chronic treatment of mice with 17{beta}-estradiol (E2) induced SHP expression in WT and ER{beta}KO mice but not in either ER{alpha}KOCH or ER{alpha}ER{beta}KO mice (Fig. 2B). Together, the induction of SHP expression by the ER{alpha}-selective agonist PPT and the lack of induction of SHP by estrogens in the ER{alpha}KOCH mouse suggest that ER{alpha} is responsible for the direct induction of SHP expression. Finally, the ability of ER{alpha} to induce expression of SHP was not limited to the mouse, because both EE and PPT induced expression of SHP in the rat (Fig. 3).



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
ER{alpha} is required for induction of SHP. A, ovariectomized wild type mice (black bars) or ovariectomized ER{alpha}KOCH mice (gray bars) were administered a single subcutaneous injection of corn oil/ethanol vehicle (veh), 10 µg/kg EE (EE), 10 µg/kg EE plus 10 mg/kg ICI182780 (EE + ICI), or 5 mg/kg PPT (PPT). Four hours later the livers were removed and mRNA levels for SHP, STAT5A, PgD syn, IPS, ITF, and CYP3A11 were quantified by real-time PCR. All expression values were normalized for expression of GAPDH and are presented as the mean ± S.E. *, p < 0.01 for comparison to vehicle-treated wild type animals. B, ovariectomized wild type, ER{alpha}KOCH, ER{beta}KO, or ER{alpha}CHER{beta}KO mice were treated by daily subcutaneous injection of vehicle (veh), 10 µg/kg E2 (E2), or 10 µg/kg E2 plus 5 mg/kg ICI182780 (E2 + ICI) for 6 weeks. Livers were removed 2 h following the last treatment, and expression of SHP was quantified by real-time PCR with GAPDH expression used for normalization. The data are presented as the mean ± S.E., with the mean expression value in wild type animals treated with vehicle defined as 1.0. *, p < 0.01 for comparison to vehicle treated wild type animals.

 


View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
ER{alpha} regulates SHP expression in the rat. Ovariectomized Sprague-Dawley rats were treated by daily subcutaneous injection of vehicle, 10 µg/kg E2, or 5 mg/kg PPT for 6 weeks. Livers were removed 2 h following the last treatment and expression of SHP was quantified by real-time PCR with GAPDH expression used for normalization. The data are presented as the mean ± S.E., with the mean expression value in wild type animals treated with vehicle defined as 1.0. *, p < 0.01 for comparison to vehicle-treated wild type animals.

 

In these studies, the magnitude of gene induction by PPT was consistently greater than the magnitude of induction by EE. To determine whether this represented a fundamental difference between PPT, which activates only ER{alpha}, and EE, which activates both ER{alpha} and ER{beta}, ovariectomized mice were treated with increasing amounts of either EE or PPT. Both EE and PPT produced very similar dose response curves for induction of SHP (Fig. 4A). The previous differences in the magnitude of SHP induction by PPT as compared with EE reflect simply the dose of compound administered. Approximately 10-fold higher concentrations of PPT than of EE are required to produce the same degree of activation of a synthetic reporter construct in vitro (42), and the dose-response curves of EE and PPT induction of genes such as STAT5A, PgD syn, and IPS show the expected 10-fold shift. In contrast, the ED50 of PPT for SHP induction was ~100-fold higher than the ED50 of EE for SHP induction. This may suggest that the mechanism of ER{alpha} induction of SHP expression is different from the mechanism of ER{alpha} induction of these other genes.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
EE and PPT dose-response curves for induction of gene expression in the mouse liver. A, ovariectomized mice were administered a single subcutaneous injection of increasing amounts of EE (0.3–100 µg/kg, black circles) or PPT (0.1–10 mg/kg, open circles). Four hours following treatment, livers were removed and mRNA levels for SHP, STAT5A, PgD syn, IPS, and CYP3A11 in each individual animal were quantified by real-time PCR. All expression values were normalized for expression of GAPDH, and are presented as the mean ± S.E., with six animals per group. The mean expression of each gene in animals receiving vehicle treatment is defined as 1.0, with all other expression values reported relative to this level. B, SHP mRNA levels were determined in CD-1 mice at proestrus (gray bar) or at estrus (black bar) by real-time PCR with GAPDH expression used for normalization. The data are presented as the mean ± S.E., with the mean expression value in mice at estrus defined as 1.0. *, p < 0.01 for comparison to estrus mice.

 

The high sensitivity of SHP to induction by EE suggested that SHP expression could be regulated by natural fluctuations in estrogen levels. In the mouse, plasma E2 levels are typically about 3-fold higher at proestrus than at estrus (43, 44). In concordance with these levels, mice at proestrus had 4-fold higher levels of liver SHP mRNA than did mice at estrus (Fig. 4B). Thus SHP expression is not only regulated by exogenous administration of estrogens but is also regulated by natural fluctuations of estrogen levels.

To determine whether E2 regulation of SHP gene expression also occurs in human hepatocytes, HepG2 cells, which have lost the ability to express ER{alpha}, or Hep89, a derivative of HepG2 cells engineered to constitutively express ER{alpha} (37), were treated with E2. No regulation of SHP mRNA levels occurred in the HepG2 cells (Fig. 5A). SHP mRNA was constitutively elevated in the Hep89 cells relative to the HepG2 cells. Treatment of Hep89 cells with E2 stimulated SHP expression, whereas treatment with ICI182780 reduced SHP expression to the level found in HepG2 cells and also blocked E2 stimulation of SHP expression. To verify that the stimulation seen in Hep89 cells was due to ER{alpha}, HepG2 cells were transiently cotransfected with a plasmid containing 1383 bp of the human SHP promoter (45) driving expression of a luciferase reporter gene along with either an empty expression vector or an ER{alpha} expression vector. Treatment with E2 or PPT induced SHP promoter activity only in the cells cotransfected with ER{alpha} (Fig. 5B).



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
ER{alpha} induces expression of SHP in human cells. A, HepG2 cells or Hep89 cells were cultured for 16 h in medium containing Me2SO vehicle (gray bars), 100 nM E2 (black bars), 1 µM ICI182780 (open bar), or 100 nM E2 + 1 µM ICI182780 (hatched bar). SHP mRNA was subsequently quantified by real-time PCR. Values were normalized for GAPDH expression and are presented as the mean ± S.E. The level of SHP expression in vehicle-treated HepG2 cells was defined as 1.0. B, HepG2 cells were cotransfected with 250 ng of SHP reporter plasmid (containing 1.4 kb of the human SHP promoter driving expression of a luciferase reporter) along with either 30 ng of either empty expression vector (cDNA3) or 30 ng of human ER{alpha} expression vector (cDNA3 ER{alpha}) and 100 ng of M19 {beta}-galactosidase control plasmid. Following transfection, the cells were cultured in medium containing vehicle, 10 nM E2, or 1 µM PPT for 16 h. Cell lysates were prepared and assayed for luciferase and {beta}-galactosidase activities. Luciferase activities were normalized for {beta}-galactosidase activities for each individual sample. Values are the mean ± S.E. from triplicate determinations. C, Hep89 cells were cultured for 16 h in the presence of 1 nM ICI182780. Me2SO vehicle or 10 µg/ml cycloheximide was then added to the medium. After 30 min, Me2SO vehicle or 30 nM E2 was added to the medium. After a further 4-h incubation, the cells were harvested. Isolated RNA was assayed for expression of SHP and ICAM-1 by real-time PCR. Values were normalized for GAPDH expression and are presented as the mean ± S.E. from quadruplicate samples. D, HepG2 cells were cotransfected with 250 ng of the SHP reporter plasmid, 100 ng of M19 {beta}-galactosidase control plasmid, and 30 ng of pcDNA3.1 expression vector containing either no insert (None), the human ER{alpha} coding region (ER{alpha}), or human ER{alpha} in which three amino acids were mutated within the DNA binding domain to change recognition to a glucocorticoid response (ER{alpha} DBD). Following transfection, the cells were cultured in medium containing vehicle or 30 nM E2 for 16 h. Luciferase activities were then quantified and normalized for {beta}-galactosidase activities. The results are plotted as the -fold induction of SHP promoter activity by E2 in cells cotransfected with the different expression plasmids.

 

Although the rapid induction of SHP by ER{alpha} in vivo suggested a direct activation of the SHP promoter, this was directly confirmed by monitoring the ability of E2 to induce SHP expression in cells treated with cycloheximide. Cycloheximide treatment of Hep89 cells itself increased SHP expression levels, as has been seen in HepG2 cells for at least one other estrogen-regulated gene, the proteinase inhibitor 9 gene (46). In the presence of cycloheximide, E2 treatment still resulted in a further augmentation of SHP expression (Fig. 5C). As a control for inhibition of protein synthesis, treatment of Hep89 cells with cycloheximide induced expression of ICAM-1, a known effect of cycloheximide inhibition of translation of the short-lived I{kappa}B protein (47). Finally, ER{alpha} induction of SHP promoter activity required an intact DNA binding domain. Cotransfection of an expression plasmid encoding an ER{alpha} protein with the DNA binding specificity altered to that of the glucocorticoid receptor failed to activate the SHP promoter following E2 treatment (Fig. 5D), although this chimeric receptor did activate a glucocorticoid response element reporter plasmid following E2 treatment (data not shown). These results suggest a direct activation of the SHP promoter by ER{alpha}, potentially through a direct binding mechanism.

Analysis of the SHP promoter region up to –1383 failed to identify any good matches to a consensus estrogen receptor response element (ERE), although several ERE half-sites were identified. Analysis of promoter elements required for basal and ER{alpha}-induced SHP expression in hepatocytes was performed by cotransfection of a series of SHP promoter mutations (delineated in Fig. 6) into HepG2 cells (Fig. 7 and Supplemental Table SII). Four major elements (HNF-4, HNF-3, GATA, and AP-1 as shown in Fig. 6) driving basal expression were identified. Thus, removal of an HNF-4 consensus element at –550 by a 5' deletion (/–560 compared with –529, Fig. 7A), by an internal deletion (del –580/–529, Fig. 7C) or by destruction of the HNF-4 site with an SpeI restriction site (LS-554/–548, Fig. 7D) all reduced basal activity by about 2-fold. Second, removal of an HNF-3 consensus element at –465 by a 5' deletion (/–481 compared with /–429, Fig. 7A), by a 3' deletion (del –462/–126 compared with del –468/–126, Fig 7B), by an internal deletion (del –480/–429, Fig. 7C), or by destruction of the HNF-3 site with an SpeI restriction site (LS –467/–462, Fig. 7D) reduced basal promoter activity by 3- to 10-fold. Third, removal of a GATA site at –450 by a 3' deletion (del –430/–126 compared with del –456/–126, Fig. 7B) or by destruction of the GATA site with an SpeI site (LS –455/–450, Fig. 7D) also reduced basal promoter activity by about 2- to 4-fold. Introduction of an SpeI site between the HNF-3 and GATA elements (LS –461/–455) did not alter basal promoter activity. Fourth, removal of an AP-1 site at –265 by a 5' deletion (/–279 compared with /–229, Fig. 7A), by a 3' deletion (–260/–126 compared with –267/–126, Fig. 7B), by an internal deletion (del –267/–179, Fig. 7C), or by destruction of the AP-1 site with an SpeI site (LS –266/–261, Fig. 7D) all lowered basal promoter activity by 2- to 4-fold. Thus the major elements regulating basal SHP expression in HepG2 cells appear to be HNF-3, GATA, AP-1, and HNF-4 sites, in approximately that order of importance.



View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
Human SHP promoter mutations. A, the end point of 5' deletions (upper strand) or 3' deletions (lower strand) are indicated by flags, with the numbers indicating the first base pair of SHP sequence present in the construct. The position of LS mutations are indicated by boxes enclosing the six SHP promoter base pairs that were replaced by either an SpeI restriction site (ACTAGT) or an EcoRI restriction site (GAATTC). Consensus transcription factor binding sites present in the regions of the SHP promoter identified as important for basal activity are indicated in red. B, a comparison of human, mouse, and rat SHP promoters from –309 to –267 in the human sequence. Changes in the mouse and rat promoters are denoted in red, with defined promoter elements indicated as either an IR1 FXRE, DR4 LXRE (human sequence only), or ERE half site.

 


View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
Elements mediating basal SHP promoter activity. HepG2 cells were cotransfected with 250 ng of SHP luciferase reporter plasmid containing various regions of human SHP promoter sequence, 30 ng of pcDNA3 ER{alpha} expression plasmid, and 100 ng of M19 {beta}-galactosidase control plasmid. After treatment with vehicle for 16 h, cell extracts were prepared and assayed for luciferase and {beta}-galactosidase activities. All luciferase values were normalized for {beta}-galactosidase expression. The luciferase activity in cells transfected with the promoterless pGL3-Basic luciferase plasmid and treated with vehicle was defined as 1.0 for each independent transfection study. All plasmids were assayed in at least three independent transfections. A, results from a series of 5' progressive truncations of the SHP promoter. B, results from a series of 3' progressive truncations of the upstream SHP promoter joined to the proximal SHP promoter at position –126. C, results from a series of small internal deletions in the SHP promoter. D, results from a series of clustered point mutations at the indicated positions produced by introduction of an SpeI restriction site into the SHP promoter.

 

None of these elements was required for E2 induction of the SHP promoter. Thus promoter constructs in which the HNF-4 site (LS –554/–549), the HNF-3 site (LS –467/–462), the GATA site (LS –455/–450), or the AP-1 site (LS –266/–261) were disrupted all were still induced by E2 (Fig. 8C). Removal of either the HNF-3 or GATA site actually increased induction by E2, potentially because of an increased contribution of the E2-responsive element to the remaining SHP promoter activity in the absence of these constitutive elements. Analysis of the series of 5' deletions suggested that the region between –316 and –229 was involved in E2 induction (Fig. 8A). Similarly, the 3' series of deletions suggested that the E2 response element was located between –307 and –273 (Fig. 8B). However, in both series of mutations, the loss of E2 induction occurred over a series of progressive deletions, and a complete sudden loss of E2 induction did not occur. To further characterize this region in detail, a series of clustered point mutations covering the SHP promoter between –309 and –261 were assayed for E2 induction (Fig. 8C). No single mutation could be identified that completely eliminated E2 induction. However, a set of mutations at the 5' end of this region (LS –309/–304, LS –307/–302E, and LS –303/–298) and another set of mutations at the 3' end of this region (LS –285/–280, LS –278/–273, and LS –272/–267) partially reduced E2 inductions. When a mutation from the 5' set was combined with a mutation from the 3' set (LS –307/–302E and –278/–273), E2 induction of the SHP promoter was completely abolished. A combination of two mutations that individually did not alter E2 induction (LS –297/–292 and –266/–261E) also did not reduce E2 induction. Thus E2 induction of the SHP promoter relied upon two distinct but closely linked sites.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.
Elements mediating ER{alpha} induction of SHP promoter activity. HepG2 cells were cotransfected with 250 ng of SHP luciferase reporter plasmid containing various regions of human SHP promoter sequence, 30 ng of pcDNA3 ER{alpha} expression plasmid, and 100 ng of M19 {beta}-galactosidase control plasmid. After treatment with either vehicle or 10 nM E2 for 16 h, cell extracts were prepared and assayed for luciferase and {beta}-galactosidase activities. All luciferase values were normalized for {beta}-galactosidase expression. The -fold regulation was calculated as the ratio of normalized luciferase activity in E2-treated cells to the normalized luciferase activity in vehicle-treated cells. The -fold regulation for the control plasmid pGL3-Basic was defined as 1.0 for each independent study. All plasmids were assayed in at least three independent transfections. A, results from a series of 5' progressive truncations of the SHP promoter. B, results from a series of 3' progressive truncations of the upstream SHP promoter joined to the proximal SHP promoter at position –126. C, results from a series of clustered point mutations produced by introduction of either SpeI or EcoRI (denoted by E) restriction sites into the SHP promoter.

 

The previous finding that an intact DNA binding domain was required for ER{alpha} activation of the SHP promoter suggested that ER{alpha} might bind to one of these two regions. Purified human ER{alpha} bound to an oligonucleotide containing the –309 to –267 region of the SHP promoter (Fig. 9A). This binding could be competed by an authentic ERE, but not by a mutated ERE, and inclusion of an antibody directed against ER{alpha} produced a supershifted complex. Binding analysis of the series of mutations tested in HepG2 cells revealed that the LS –285/–280 mutation alone was able to disrupt binding of ER{alpha} to this fragment of the SHP promoter (Fig. 9B). This mutation destroys an ERE half-site (GGTCA, Fig. 6) present within this region. ER{alpha} direct recognition of this ERE half-site likely contributes to E2 induction of the SHP promoter, although other interactions must also contribute to this induction based upon the transfection results.



View larger version (67K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 9.
Binding of ER{alpha} to the SHP promoter. A, a 32P-labeled DNA probe containing the –309 to –267 region of the SHP promoter was incubated with 0.33 µg of recombinant human ER{alpha} (lanes 2–5). Competition experiments were performed by inclusion of a 100-fold excess of wild type (lane 3) or mutated (lane 4) vitellogenin ERE oligonucleotides in the incubation. Supershift analysis was performed by the addition of an affinity-purified monoclonal antibody against human ER{alpha} in the incubation (lane 5). Protein-DNA complexes were resolved by electrophoresis in low ionic strength polyacrylamide gels. B, 32P-labeled DNA probes containing the –309 to –267 region of the SHP promoter (WT) or this region with the indicated clustered point mutations were incubated with 0.33 µg of recombinant human ER{alpha} and subjected to gel electrophoresis.

 

The identified ER{alpha} binding site comprises one arm of the inverted repeat IR-1 FXR binding site within the SHP promoter, suggesting that simultaneous occupancy of this site by both ER{alpha} and FXR should not occur. To determine whether ER{alpha} and FXR agonists could produce an additive induction of SHP expression, ovariectomized mice were fed a diet containing an ER agonist (EE), an FXR agonist (GW4064), or both together. Both EE and GW4064 individually stimulated expression of SHP (Fig. 10). However, the addition of EE to GW4064 treatment did not produce any further stimulation of SHP expression. EE induction of STAT5A, PgD syn, IPS, and ITF was not altered by treatment with GW4064. To verify that these results were not unique to GW4064, ovariectomized mice were fed either a control diet or a diet containing cholic acid (to activate FXR) along with subcutaneous EE treatment. EE activated SHP expression in the mice consuming the control diet but not in mice consuming the cholic acid-containing diet (Fig. 11A). The same result was obtained if the study period was extended to 5 weeks to ensure equilibrium had been obtained (Fig. 11A). The inability of ER{alpha} to activate SHP expression in animals in which FXR was activated is consistent with the overlapping ER{alpha} and FXR response elements identified by the transfection analysis and binding studies.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 10.
EE induction of gene expression in the presence of GW4064. Ovariectomized mice were fed a casein-based powdered diet supplemented to deliver no treatment (–), 10 µg/kg/day EE (EE), 10 mg/kg/day GW4064 (GW), or 10 µg/kg/day EE (EE) plus 10 mg/kg/day GW4064 (EE + GW). After 5-day treatment, livers were removed and mRNA levels for SHP, STAT5A, PgD syn, IPS, and ITF in each individual animal were quantified by real-time PCR. All expression values were normalized for expression of GAPDH and are presented as the mean ± S.E., with six animals per group. The mean expression of each gene in animals receiving a vehicle treatment is defined as 1.0, with all other expression values reported relative to this value. *, p < 0.01 for comparison to untreated animals.

 


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 11.
EE induction of SHP does not repress CYP7A1 or CYP8B1 expression. A, ovariectomized mice were fed either a casein-based diet (–) for 5 days, a casein-based diet supplemented with 0.3% cholic acid (CA, +) for 5 days, a control diet (–) for 5 weeks, or a high fat diet containing 0.5% CA (+) for 5 weeks. All animals received daily subcutaneous injections of vehicle (–) or 10 µg/kg EE (+). After 5 days of treatment, livers were removed 1 h after the last subcutaneous treatment. After 5 weeks of treatment, livers were removed 24 h after the last subcutaneous treatment. Levels of SHP, CYP7A1, and CYP8B1 mRNA were quantified by real-time PCR with normalization for GAPDH expression. Values shown are the mean ± S.E. determined from six animals per group, with gene expression in animals consuming the control diet and treated with vehicle for either 5 days or 5 weeks defined as 1.0. *, p < 0.01 for comparison to control diet vehicle animals. B, ovariectomized mice were fed a casein diet supplemented with various concentrations of CA. After 5 days of treatment, liver mRNA levels for SHP, CYP7A1, and CYP8B1 were determined by real-time PCR with normalization for GAPDH expression. Values shown are the mean ± S.E. of determinations, with 12–18 animals total per group. The expression level of each gene in the absence of CA supplementation was defined as 1.0. *, p < 0.01 for regulation by CA.

 

One of the known in vivo effects of SHP induction is to repress expression of the bile acid synthetic pathway genes CYP7A1 and CYP8B1. However, treatment with EE for either 5 days or 5 weeks induced expression of SHP, but no corresponding reduction in CYP7A1 or CYP8B1 mRNA levels occurred (Fig. 11A). Similar results were obtained using E2 (data not shown). Induction of SHP mRNA levels by either 5-day or 5-week treatment with CA induced SHP slightly more than did the estrogen treatment, yet CA treatment completely abolished CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 expression. To determine whether the degree of SHP induction produced by EE was sufficient for repression of bile acid synthetic genes, ovariectomized mice were fed diets containing increasing amounts of CA (Fig. 11B). Addition of 0.1% CA was sufficient to repress expression of CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 by 80–90%, with this amount of CA inducing SHP expression to a lesser extent than did EE treatment. Thus, although the magnitude of SHP induction by EE would appear to be sufficient to produce a significant reduction in CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 expression, no such reduction occurred.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Previously we have demonstrated that chronic dosing of mice with 17{beta}-estradiol increased expression of SHP (11). Here, we demonstrate that this is due to a direct induction of SHP promoter activity mediated by ER{alpha}. In cultured HepG2-expressing ER{alpha}, E2 induced expression of SHP in the presence of cycloheximide, and cotransfection of an ER{alpha} expression plasmid conferred estrogen responsiveness upon a reporter plasmid driven by the human SHP promoter. Estrogen regulation of the SHP promoter was localized to between –309 and –267 and was distinct from four major sites (HNF-4, HNF-3, GATA, and AP-1) controlling basal SHP promoter activity in HepG2 cells. This region contained two elements important for maximal induction by estrogens, with one element located between –309 and–298 and a second element located between –285 and –267. Both elements are highly conserved among the human, mouse, and rat promoters (Fig. 6B). The second element contained an ERE half-site that bound to purified ER{alpha} and contributed to the induction of the SHP promoter by EE treatment of HepG2 cells. The related nuclear hormone transcription factor ERR{gamma} can also bind to ERE half sites (48) and activates the SHP promoter (20). However, ERR{gamma} activation does not utilize this ERE half-site but, rather, utilizes an SF1 site located at –80 in the SHP promoter (49).

Although estrogen regulation of gene expression has been typically considered as being mediated by a canonical inverted repeat ERE, a growing number of genes are known to require additional elements for estrogen regulation. For example, ERE half-sites in combination with SP1 sites can confer estrogen regulation to multiple genes (50), whereas an AP-1 site is required for function of an ERE within the pS2 gene promoter (51). Neither of these mechanisms are likely for the SHP promoter, because the upstream region has poor homology to either SP1 or AP-1 binding sites. The one functional AP-1 site in the SHP promoter as identified here and by others (52) is clearly dispensable for estrogen regulation of SHP promoter activity. Interestingly, SREBP-1 is required for estrogen induction of LDL receptor expression (53), and our analysis of the human LDL receptor promoter suggests the presence of an ERE half-site ~15 nucleotides upstream from the SREBP-1 binding site (data not shown). The corresponding position relative to the ERE half-site is within the –309/–298 element, and this element has partial homology to the SREBP-1 consensus binding site (54). However, this element also contains a base change known to disrupt SREBP-1 binding in the LDL receptor promoter (55). Furthermore, cycloheximide treatment rapidly diminishes SREBP-1 protein levels (56), suggesting that cycloheximide treatment likely would have blocked E2 induction of the SHP promoter if SREBP-1 were required. Finally, many genes that utilize half-ERE sites to confer regulation have multiple functional half-sites, ranging from two active half-sites in the prothymosin {alpha} promoter (57) to numerous active sites in the NHE-RF gene promoter (58). The –309/–298 element contains a near match (AGGgCA) to an ERE half-site. Although this site did not demonstrate binding by ER{alpha} in gel shift assays, the ability of ER{alpha} to interact with this site may be greater in the context of the full promoter with associated transcription factors bound.

The direct activation of the SHP promoter by ER{alpha} in cultured cells was reflected by activation of the SHP promoter in vivo. Thus, either subcutaneous or oral administration of EE or the ER{alpha}-specific agonist PPT rapidly induced SHP expression, with peak SHP expression occurring at 1–2 h following treatment. Interestingly, a set of transcription factors exhibited these rapid inductions. For example, STAT5A was also rapidly induced by estrogen treatment. These kinetics were similar to those seen for gene induction in the kidney (17) and for immediate response genes in the uterus (59). The induction of SHP was blocked by ICI182780 treatment and was completely absent in ER{alpha}KOCH mice. Although the plasma concentrations of EE and PPT were not measured in these studies, the inductions of SHP and STAT5A in the liver as well as STAT5A and tissue factor in the kidney give a pattern very similar to the plasma concentration profile following administration of a single dose of EE to women, suggesting that expression levels of these genes all rapidly reflect circulating estrogen levels. Whereas all genes in the kidney were rapidly induced, in the liver several genes such as PgD syn, IPS, ITF, and others had much slower kinetics of induction. Because SHP is demonstrated here to be a direct target of ER{alpha}, and the presence of a perfect ERE in the mouse STAT5A promoter (not shown) suggests it may also be a direct target of ER{alpha}, it may be that estrogen induction of a small number of transcription regulators such as SHP and STAT5A mediate the subsequent slower induction of many additional genes.

The ER binding site in the SHP promoter utilizes one of the inverted repeats of the FXR binding site (29), suggesting that FXR and ER{alpha} should not be able to simultaneously occupy this site. In concordance with this, EE treatment failed to further induce expression of SHP in mice in which FXR was activated either by treatment with GW4064 or by consumption of a diet containing cholic acid. Interestingly, the human SHP promoter has also been shown to bind LXR at a DR-4 site, which also overlaps the FXR IR-1 element (60), in a manner analogous to the ER{alpha} binding site. Thus at least three nuclear hormone receptors, FXR, LXR, and ER{alpha}, all bind to the same region of the human SHP promoter. In the mouse and rat, the LXR DR-4 binding site is disrupted by a single nucleotide change that disrupts LXR activation. Thus no activation of SHP expression occurs after treatment of rodent hepatocytes with an LXR agonist (60). Whether ER{alpha} interaction with the human SHP promoter influences LXR activation of SHP expression remains to be determined.

SHP has been suggested to regulate the activity of numerous transcription factors in transfection assays. However, in animals the only clearly defined regulatory effect for SHP is in the bile acid feedback pathway in which FXR induction of SHP inhibits expression of CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 (28, 29). This has been most clearly demonstrated in the SHP KO mouse, in which expression of CYP7A1 is constitutively elevated (33, 34). SHP repression of CYP7A1 expression is mediated by inhibition of {alpha}1-fetoprotein transcription factor (LRH-1) activation of the SHP promoter (28, 29), whereas SHP repression of CYP8B1 expression appears to differ between species, with SHP inhibition of HNF-4{alpha} activity responsible for repression of human CYP8B1 promoter activity (23) and SHP inhibition of {alpha}1-fetoprotein transcription factor responsible for repression of rat CYP8B1 promoter activity (61). Surprisingly, although the magnitude of induction of SHP by EE was similar to that produced by 0.1% cholic acid (which resulted in 90% repression of expression of CYP7A1 and CYP8B1), EE treatment did not produce the expected repression of either CYP7A1 or CYP8B1 expression. Similar results were found for E2 treatment (data not shown), and there was no correlation between SHP expression and CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 repression in cycling animals (data not shown). Some FXR ligands such as GW4064 both induce SHP expression and repress CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 expression (29, 33), whereas others such as guggelsterone induce SHP expression but fail to repress either CYP7A1 or CYP8B1 expression (62), as seen here for EE. It is not yet clear whether a similar pattern will emerge for ER{alpha}, with some ER{alpha} ligands both inducing SHP and repressing CYP7A1 and CYP8B1.

The basis for the lack of repression of CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 repression despite the induction of SHP in EE-treated mice remains to be determined. In SHP KO mice, cholic acid still represses CYP7A1 expression via alternative mechanisms (33, 34). SHP induction by itself might not be sufficient to mediate repression of CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 without these additional signaling pathways. FXR activation could provide additional signals such as production of a SHP ligand with the ability to confer SHP repression upon CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 promoters. A second possibility is that ER sends a stimulatory signal to the CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 promoters to countervail the SHP repression signal. However, ER{alpha} does not stimulate activity of either the human CYP7A1 or CYP8B1 promoters in cotransfection assays, and EE treatment of mice did not increase mRNA levels for either LRH-1 or HNF-4{alpha} (data not shown). A third possible explanation relies on the ability of liganded ER{alpha} to bind to SHP, which then represses ER{alpha} activity (18, 19, 63). If the affinity of SHP for liganded ER{alpha} were significantly greater than for either LRH-1 or HNF-4{alpha}, then the SHP produced by ER{alpha} activation might be sequestered by the active ER{alpha} and thereby be unable to mediate repression of LRH-1 or HNF-4{alpha} activity. In this model, it would be expected that EE treatment could reverse bile acid-mediated repression of CYP7A1 and CYP8B1 expression, but only a very small effect in this direction was seen in the studies performed here. Whatever the basis, it appears that in vivo mechanisms have been provided to prevent cross-talk between SHP utilization in bile acid signaling pathways and in estrogen signaling pathways.

SHP is expressed in many tissues of the body aside from liver (25, 45), suggesting that regulation of bile acid synthesis is unlikely to be its sole role. Estrogen treatment can regulate SHP expression in organs other than the liver and coexpression of ER{beta} in HepG2 cells can induce SHP promoter activity (data not shown), suggesting that all in vivo estrogenic regulations of SHP need not necessarily be mediated through ER{alpha}. The conservation of estrogen regulation between rodents and human suggests estrogen regulation of SHP in these organs may play a role in the biology of estrogen. For example, postmenopausal women have increased amounts of white adipose tissue, and hormone replacement therapy decreases the level of white adipose tissue (64–66). Similarly, white adipose tissue is increased by ovariectomy (67) or in ER{alpha}KO mice (68). Inactivating mutations in the SHP gene have been associated with mild obesity in the Japanese population (69). Given the direct regulation of SHP by ER{alpha} demonstrated here, these findings suggest the hypothesis that regulation of SHP levels are an important part of the mechanism by which estrogens regulate adipose tissue levels. Further analysis of the role of estrogen induction of SHP in specific organs other than the liver will be necessary to delineate the contributions of SHP to estrogen physiology.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Back

The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains Supplemental Table SII. Back

{ddagger} To whom correspondence should be addressed: Wyeth Research, 500 Arcola Rd., Collegeville, PA 19426. Tel.: 484-865-5538; Fax: 484-865-9394; E-mail: Evansm{at}wyeth.com.

1 The abbreviations used are: LDL, low density lipoprotein; HDL, high density lipoprotein; AP-1, activating protein-1; CA, cholic acid; CYP, cytochrome P450 enzyme; E2, 17{beta}-estradiol; EE, 17{alpha}-ethynyl,17{beta}-estradiol; ER, estrogen receptor; ERE, estrogen response element; ERR{gamma}, estrogen-related receptor {gamma}; FXR, farnesoid X receptor; HNF-3, hepatocyte nuclear factor-3; HNF-4, hepatocyte nuclear factor-4; ICAM-1, intercellular adhesion molecule-1; IPS, inositol-1-phosphate synthase; ITF, intestinal trefoil factor; KO, knock-out; PgD syn, prostaglandin D synthase; PPT, 4-propyl-1,3,5-tris(4-hydroxyphenyl)-pyrazole; SHP, small heterodimer partner; SREBP, sterol regulatory element-binding protein; STAT5A, signal transducer and activation of transcription 5A; LRH-1, liver receptor homologous protein-1; GAPDH, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; LXR, liver X receptor. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Cathy Felegi-Rudolph for performing ovariectomies, Brad Saville for performing transfections, Sharon Terry for staging cycling animals, and Xiaochun Zhang for real-time PCR analysis of rat liver samples.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Belchetz, P. E. (1994) N. Engl. J. Med. 330, 1062–1071[Free Full Text]
  2. Barrett-Connor, E., Slone, S., Greendale, G., Kritz-Silverstein, D., Espeland, M., Johnson, S. R., Waclawiw, M., and Fineberg, S. E. (1997) Maturitas 27, 261–274[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Godsland, I. F. (2001) Fertil. Steril. 75, 898–915[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Lobo, R. A., Bush, T., Carr, B. R., and Pickar, J. H. (2001) Fertil. Steril. 76, 13–24[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative, I. (2002) JAMA 288, 321–333[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Kawas, C., Resnick, S., Morrison, A., Brookmeyer, R., Corrada, M., Zonderman, A., Bacal, C., Lingle, D. D., and Metter, E. (1997) Neurology 48, 1517–1521[Abstract]
  7. Worzala, K., Hiller, R., Sperduto, R. D., Mutalik, K., Murabito, J. M., Moskowitz, M., D'Agostino, R. B., and Wilson, P. W. (2001) Arch. Int. Med. 161, 1448–1454
  8. Paganini-Hill, A., and Clark, L. J. (2000) Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 60, 167–172[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Kuiper, G. G., Carlsson, B., Grandien, K., Enmark, E., Haggblad, J., Nilsson, S., and Gustafsson, J. A. (1997) Endocrinology 138, 863–870[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Gruber, C. J., Tschugguel, W., Schneeberger, C., and Huber, J. C. (2002) N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 340–352[Free Full Text]
  11. Evans, M. J., Lai, K., Shaw, L. J., Harnish, D. C., and Chadwick, C. C. (2002) Endocrinology 143, 2559–2570[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Evans, M. J., Eckert, A., Lai, K., Adelman, S. J., and Harnish, D. C. (2001) Circ. Res. 89, 823–830[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Pottratz, S. T., Bellido, T., Mocharla, H., Crabb, D., and Manolagas, S. C. (1994) J. Clin. Invest. 93, 944–950[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Stein, B., and Yang, M. X. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 4971–4979[Abstract]
  15. Harnish, D. C., Scicchitano, M. S., Adelman, S. J., Lyttle, C. R., and Karathanasis, S. K. (2000) Endocrinology 141, 3403–3411[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Paech, K., Webb, P., Kuiper, G. G., Nilsson, S., Gustafsson, J., Kushner, P. J., and Scanlan, T. S. (1997) Science 277, 1508–1510[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Jelinsky, S. A., Harris, H. A., Brown, E. L., Flanagan, K., Zhang, X., Tunkey, C., Lai, K., Lane, M. V., Simcoe, D. K., and Evans, M. J. (2003) Endocrinology 144, 701–710[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Johansson, L., Thomsen, J. S., Damdimopoulos, A. E., Spyrou, G., Gustafsson, J. A., and Treuter, E. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 345–353[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Seol, W., Hanstein, B., Brown, M., and Moore, D. D. (1998) Mol. Endocrinol. 12, 1551–1557[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Sanyal, S., Kim, J. Y., Kim, H. J., Takeda, J., Lee, Y. K., Moore, D. D., and Choi, H. S. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 1739–1748[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Gobinet, J., Auzou, G., Nicolas, J. C., Sultan, C., and Jalaguier, S. (2001) Biochemistry 40, 15369–15377[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Klinge, C. M., Jernigan, S. C., Risinger, K. E., Lee, J. E., Tyulmenkov, V. V., Falkner, K. C., and Prough, R. A. (2001) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 390, 64–70[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Zhang, M., and Chiang, J. Y. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 41690–41699[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Lee, Y. K., Dell, H., Dowhan, D. H., Hadzopoulou-Cladaras, M., and Moore, D. D. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 187–195[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Seol, W., Choi, H. S., and Moore, D. D. (1996) Science 272, 1336–1339[Abstract]
  26. Brendel, C., Schoonjans, K., Botrugno, O. A., Treuter, E., and Auwerx, J. (2002) Mol. Endocrinol. 16, 2065–2076[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Luo, Y., Liang, C. P., and Tall, A. R. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 24767–24773[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Lu, T. T., Makishima, M., Repa, J. J., Schoonjans, K., Kerr, T. A., Auwerx, J., and Mangelsdorf, D. J. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 507–515[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Goodwin, B., Jones, S. A., Price, R. R., Watson, M. A., McKee, D. D., Moore, L. B., Galardi, C., Wilson, J. G., Lewis, M. C., Roth, M. E., Maloney, P. R., Willson, T. M., and Kliewer, S. A. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 517–526[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Kim, Y. S., Han, C. Y., Kim, S. W., Kim, J. H., Lee, S. K., Jung, D. J., Park, S. Y., Kang, H., Choi, H. S., Lee, J. W., and Pak, Y. K. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 33736–33740[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Kassam, A., Capone, J. P., and Rachubinski, R. A. (2001) Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 176, 49–56[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Nishizawa, H., Yamagata, K., Shimomura, I., Takahashi, M., Kuriyama, H., Kishida, K., Hotta, K., Nagaretani, H., Maeda, N., Matsuda, M., Kihara, S., Nakamura, T., Nishigori, H., Tomura, H., Moore, D. D., Takeda, J., Funahashi, T., and Matsuzawa, Y. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 1586–1592[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Kerr, T. A., Saeki, S., Schneider, M., Schaefer, K., Berdy, S., Redder, T., Shan, B., Russell, D. W., and Schwarz, M. (2002) Dev. Cell 2, 713–720[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Wang, L., Lee, Y. K., Bundman, D., Han, Y., Thevananther, S., Kim, C. S., Chua, S. S., Wei, P., Heyman, R. A., Karin, M., and Moore, D. D. (2002) Dev. Cell 2, 721–731[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Lubahn, D. B., Moyer, J. S., Golding, T. S., Couse, J. F., Korach, K. S., and Smithies, O. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 11162–11166[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Shughrue, P. J., Askew, G. R., Dellovade, T. L., and Merchenthaler, I. (2002) Endocrinology 143, 1643–1650[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Harnish, D. C., Evans, M. J., Scicchitano, M. S., Bhat, R. A., and Karathanasis, S. K. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 9270–9278[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Desai, P. B., Nallani, S. C., Sane, R. S., Moore, L. B., Goodwin, B. J., Buckley, D. J., and Buckley, A. R. (2002) Drug Metab. Dispos. 30, 608–612[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Staudinger, J. L., Goodwin, B., Jones, S. A., Hawkins-Brown, D., MacKenzie, K. I., LaTour, A., Liu, Y., Klaassen, C. D., Brown, K. K., Reinhard, J., Willson, T. M., Koller, B. H., and Kliewer, S. A. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 3369–3374[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Pendaries, C., Darblade, B., Rochaix, P., Krust, A., Chambon, P., Korach, K. S., Bayard, F., and Arnal, J. F. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 2205–2210[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Couse, J. F., Curtis, S. W., Washburn, T. F., Lindzey, J., Golding, T. S., Lubahn, D. B., Smithies, O., and Korach, K. S. (1995) Mol. Endocrinol. 9, 1441–1454[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Kraichely, D. M., Sun, J., Katzenellenbogen, J. A., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (2000) Endocrinology 141, 3534–3545[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Walmer, D. K., Wrona, M. A., Hughes, C. L., and Nelson, K. G. (1992) Endocrinology 131, 1458–1466[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Bergman, M. D., Schachter, B. S., Karelus, K., Combatsiaris, E. P., Garcia, T., and Nelson, J. F. (1992) Endocrinology 130, 1923–1930[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Lee, H. K., Lee, Y. K., Park, S. H., Kim, Y. S., Lee, J. W., Kwon, H. B., Soh, J., Moore, D. D., and Choi, H. S. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 14398–14402[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Kanamori, H., Krieg, S., Mao, C., Di Pippo, V. A., Wang, S., Zajchowski, D. A., and Shapiro, D. J. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 5867–5873[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Ghersa, P., Hooft van Huijsduijnen, R., Whelan, J., and DeLamarter, J. F. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 19226–19232[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Giguere, V. (2002) Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 13, 220–225[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Lee, Y. K., Parker, K. L., Choi, H. S., and Moore, D. D. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 20869–20873[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Safe, S. (2001) Vitam. Horm. 62, 231–252[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Barkhem, T., Haldosen, L. A., Gustafsson, J. A., and Nilsson, S. (2002) Mol. Pharmacol. 61, 1273–1283[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Gupta, S., Stravitz, R. T., Dent, P., and Hylemon, P. B. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 15816–15822[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Streicher, R., Kotzka, J., Muller-Wieland, D., Siemeister, G., Munck, M., Avci, H., and Krone, W. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 7128–7133[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Vallett, S. M., Sanchez, H. B., Rosenfeld, J. M., and Osborne, T. F. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 12247–12253[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Yokoyama, C., Wang, X., Briggs, M. R., Admon, A., Wu, J., Hua, X., Goldstein, J. L., and Brown, M. S. (1993) Cell 75, 187–197[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  56. Wang, X., Sato, R., Brown, M. S., Hua, X., and Goldstein, J. L. (1994) Cell 77, 53–62[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Martini, P. G., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (2001) Endocrinology 142, 3493–3501[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Ediger, T. R., Park, S. E., and Katzenellenbogen, B. S. (2002) Mol. Endocrinol. 16, 1828–1839[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Hyder, S. M., Chiappetta, C., and Stancel, G. M. (1999) J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 290, 740–747[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Goodwin, B., Watson, M. A., Kim, H., Miao, J., Kemper, J. K., and Kliewer, S. A. (2003) Mol. Endocrinol. 17, 386–394[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. del Castillo-Olivares, A., and Gil, G. (2001) Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 4035–4042[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Cui, J., Huang, L., Zhao, A., Lew, J. L., Yu, J., Sahoo, S., Meinke, P. T., Royo, I., Pelaez, F., and Wright, S. D. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 10214–10220[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Johansson, L., Bavner, A., Thomsen, J. S., Farnegardh, M., Gustafsson, J. A., and Treuter, E. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 1124–1133[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Tchernof, A., Calles-Escandon, J., Sites, C. K., and Poehlman, E. T. (1998) Coronary Artery Dis. 9, 503–511[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Sites, C. K., Brochu, M., Tchernof, A., and Poehlman, E. T. (2001) Metab. Clin. Exp. 50, 835–840
  66. Munoz, J., Derstine, A., and Gower, B. A. (2002) Obes. Res. 10, 424–431[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  67. Picard, F., Deshaies, Y., Lalonde, J., Samson, P., Labrie, C., Belanger, A., Labrie, F., and Richard, D. (2000) Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 24, 830–840[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  68. Heine, P. A., Taylor, J. A., Iwamoto, G. A., Lubahn, D. B., and Cooke, P. S. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 12729–12734[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Nishigori, H., Tomura, H., Tonooka, N., Kanamori, M., Yamada, S., Sho, K., Inoue, I., Kikuchi, N., Onigata, K., Kojima, I., Kohama, T., Yamagata, K., Yang, Q., Matsuzawa, Y., Miki, T., Seino, S., Kim, M. Y., Choi, H. S., Lee, Y. K., Moore, D. D., and Takeda, J. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 575–580[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Lipid Res.Home page
H. B. Hartman, S. J. Gardell, C. J. Petucci, S. Wang, J. A. Krueger, and M. J. Evans
Activation of farnesoid X receptor prevents atherosclerotic lesion formation in LDLR-/- and apoE-/- mice
J. Lipid Res., June 1, 2009; 50(6): 1090 - 1100.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Lipid Res.Home page
H. B. Hartman, K. Lai, and M. J. Evans
Loss of small heterodimer partner expression in the liver protects against dyslipidemia
J. Lipid Res., February 1, 2009; 50(2): 193 - 203.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J EndocrinolHome page
L Lundholm, G Bryzgalova, H Gao, N Portwood, S Falt, K D Berndt, A Dicker, D Galuska, J R Zierath, J-A Gustafsson, et al.
The estrogen receptor {alpha}-selective agonist propyl pyrazole triol improves glucose tolerance in ob/ob mice; potential molecular mechanisms
J. Endocrinol., November 1, 2008; 199(2): 275 - 286.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
H. Gao, S. Falt, A. Sandelin, J.-A. Gustafsson, and K. Dahlman-Wright
Genome-Wide Identification of Estrogen Receptor {alpha}-Binding Sites in Mouse Liver
Mol. Endocrinol., January 1, 2008; 22(1): 10 - 22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.Home page
L. A. Henriquez-Hernandez, A. Flores-Morales, R. Santana-Farre, M. Axelson, P. Nilsson, G. Norstedt, and L. Fernandez-Perez
Role of Pituitary Hormones on 17{alpha}-Ethinylestradiol-Induced Cholestasis in Rat
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., February 1, 2007; 320(2): 695 - 705.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
J. H. Suh, J. Huang, Y.-Y. Park, H.-A Seong, D. Kim, M. Shong, H. Ha, I.-K. Lee, K. Lee, L. Wang, et al.
Orphan Nuclear Receptor Small Heterodimer Partner Inhibits Transforming Growth Factor-beta Signaling by Repressing SMAD3 Transactivation
J. Biol. Chem., December 22, 2006; 281(51): 39169 - 39178.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 EndocrinologyHome page
S. Wang, K. Lai, F. J. Moy, A. Bhat, H. B. Hartman, and M. J. Evans
The Nuclear Hormone Receptor Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR) Is Activated by Androsterone
Endocrinology, September 1, 2006; 147(9): 4025 - 4033.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
J. Frasor, J. M. Danes, C. C. Funk, and B. S. Katzenellenbogen
Estrogen down-regulation of the corepressor N-CoR: Mechanism and implications for estrogen derepression of N-CoR-regulated genes
PNAS, September 13, 2005; 102(37): 13153 - 13157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USAHome page
J. Laganiere, G. Deblois, C. Lefebvre, A. R. Bataille, F. Robert, and V. Giguere
From the Cover: Location analysis of estrogen receptor {alpha} target promoters reveals that FOXA1 defines a domain of the estrogen response
PNAS, August 16, 2005; 102(33): 11651 - 11656.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.Home page
S. Fiorucci, G. Rizzo, E. Antonelli, B. Renga, A. Mencarelli, L. Riccardi, S. Orlandi, M. Pruzanski, A. Morelli, and R. Pellicciari
A Farnesoid X Receptor-Small Heterodimer Partner Regulatory Cascade Modulates Tissue Metalloproteinase Inhibitor-1 and Matrix Metalloprotease Expression in Hepatic Stellate Cells and Promotes Resolution of Liver Fibrosis
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., August 1, 2005; 314(2): 584 - 595.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.Home page
S. Fiorucci, C. Clerici, E. Antonelli, S. Orlandi, B. Goodwin, B. M. Sadeghpour, G. Sabatino, G. Russo, D. Castellani, T. M. Willson, et al.
Protective Effects of 6-Ethyl Chenodeoxycholic Acid, a Farnesoid X Receptor Ligand, in Estrogen-Induced Cholestasis
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., May 1, 2005; 313(2): 604 - 612.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
A. van de Stolpe, A. J. Slycke, M. O. Reinders, A. W. M. Zomer, S. Goodenough, C. Behl, A. F. Seasholtz, and P. T. van der Saag
Estrogen Receptor (ER)-Mediated Transcriptional Regulation of the Human Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone-Binding Protein Promoter: Differential Effects of ER{alpha} and ER{beta}
Mol. Endocrinol., December 1, 2004; 18(12): 2908 - 2923.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
J.-Y. Kim, H.-J. Kim, K. T. Kim, Y.-Y. Park, H.-A Seong, K. C. Park, I.-K. Lee, H. Ha, M. Shong, S. C. Park, et al.
Orphan Nuclear Receptor Small Heterodimer Partner Represses Hepatocyte Nuclear Factor 3/Foxa Transactivation via Inhibition of Its DNA Binding
Mol. Endocrinol., December 1, 2004; 18(12): 2880 - 2894.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CarcinogenesisHome page
D. R. Boverhof, K. C. Fertuck, L. D. Burgoon, J. E. Eckel, C. Gennings, and T. R. Zacharewski
Temporal- and dose-dependent hepatic gene expression changes in immature ovariectomized mice following exposure to ethynyl estradiol
Carcinogenesis, July 1, 2004; 25(7): 1277 - 1291.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
J.-Y. Kim, K. Chu, H.-J. Kim, H.-A Seong, K.-C. Park, S. Sanyal, J. Takeda, H. Ha, M. Shong, M.-J. Tsai, et al.
Orphan Nuclear Receptor Small Heterodimer Partner, a Novel Corepressor for a Basic Helix-Loop-Helix Transcription Factor BETA2/NeuroD
Mol. Endocrinol., April 1, 2004; 18(4): 776 - 790.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
278/38/36418    most recent
M303913200v1
Right arrow Submit a Letter to Editor
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lai, K.
Right arrow Articles by Evans, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lai, K.
Right arrow Articles by Evans, M. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 All ASBMB Journals   Molecular and Cellular Proteomics 
 Journal of Lipid Research   ASBMB Today 
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement