Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M503188200 on June 14, 2005 Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M503188200 on June 10, 2005

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 280, Issue 33, 29728-29742, August 19, 2005
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/33/29728    most recent
M503188200v2
M503188200v1
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 Fu, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pestell, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fu, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pestell, R. G.
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?

Cyclin D1 Represses p300 Transactivation through a Cyclin-dependent Kinase-independent Mechanism*

Maofu Fu{ddagger}, Chenguang Wang{ddagger}, Mahadev Rao{ddagger}, Xiaofang Wu{ddagger}, Toula Bouras{ddagger}, Xueping Zhang{ddagger}, Zhiping Li{ddagger}, Xuanmao Jiao{ddagger}, Jianguo Yang{ddagger}, Anping Li{ddagger}, Neil D. Perkins§, Bayar Thimmapaya¶, Andrew L. Kung||, Alberto Munoz**, Antonio Giordano{ddagger}{ddagger}, Michael P. Lisanti§§, and Richard G. Pestell{ddagger}¶¶

From the {ddagger}Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. 20057, §Division of Gene Regulation and Expression, School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, MSI/WTB Complex, Dow Street, Dundee DD1 5EH, Scotland, United Kingdom, Department of Microbiology-Immunology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois 60611, ||Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, **Instituto de Investigaciones Biomedicas Alberto Sols, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas-Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Arturo Duperier 4, E-28029 Madrid, Spain, {ddagger}{ddagger}Department of Pathology, Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, and §§Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461

Received for publication, March 23, 2005 , and in revised form, June 9, 2005.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cyclin D1 encodes a regulatory subunit, which with its cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk)-binding partner forms a holoenzyme that phosphorylates and inactivates the retinoblastoma protein. In addition to its Cdk binding-dependent functions, cyclin D1 regulates cellular differentiation in part by modifying several transcription factors and nuclear receptors. The molecular mechanism through which cyclin D1 regulates the function of transcription factors involved in cellular differentiation remains to be clarified. The histone acetyltransferase protein p300 is a co-integrator required for regulation of multiple transcription factors. Here we show that cyclin D1 physically interacts with p300 and represses p300 transactivation. We demonstrated further that the interaction of the two proteins occurs at the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor {gamma}-responsive element of the lipoprotein lipase promoter in the context of the local chromatin structure. We have mapped the domains in p300 and cyclin D1 involved in this interaction. The bromo domain and cysteine- and histidine-rich domains of p300 were required for repression by cyclin D1. Cyclin D1 repression of p300 was independent of the Cdk- and retinoblastoma protein-binding domains of cyclin D1. Cyclin D1 inhibits histone acetyltransferase activity of p300 in vitro. Microarray analysis identified a signature of genes repressed by cyclin D1 and induced by p300 that promotes cellular differentiation and induces cell cycle arrest. Together, our results suggest that cyclin D1 plays an important role in cellular proliferation and differentiation through regulation of p300.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The cyclins and the associated cyclin-dependent kinases (Cdks)1 govern proliferation of mammalian cells. The regulatory subunit cyclin binds and activates their catalytic partners, or Cdks, allowing phosphorylation of a series of critical cellular substrates, thereby promoting cell cycle progression (1). D-type cyclins fluctuate in abundance during cell cycle progression, induced by mitogenic stimulation, and in the case of cyclin D1 serve as a key target in oncogenic and mitogenic signaling. Phosphorylation of pRb in normal cells by cyclin D/Cdk4/6 is thought to induce structural changes of pRb and in turn allow sequential phosphorylation by cyclin E/Cdk2 and cyclin A/Cdk2 (2, 3). Cyclin D-Cdk complexes associate with several other proteins, including cell cycle inhibitors of the p27KIP1 and p21CIP1 family to regulate the functional activity of these inhibitors in trans (1). Clinical observations have identified cyclin D1 overexpression as a frequent occurrence in human breast tumors, lymphomas, and several other tumor types. Molecular genetic analysis of cyclin D1 function in the mouse demonstrates an essential role for cyclin D1 in normal mammary gland development and nonredundant functions for the D-type cyclins in hematopoietic stem cell expansion (4). The terminal alveolar breast bud developmental defect in cyclin D1-deficient mice was recapitulated by deficiency of either IKK{alpha}, mutation of Nik (Aly) (5), deletion of the gene for osteoprotegerin (Opg1), or its ligand (OPGL also known as RANKL) (6, 7). Although substantial redundancy exists among the D-type cyclins for cellular proliferation, analysis of cyclin D1-/- animals identified an essential role for cyclin D1 in cellular migration, cellular survival, angiogenesis, and adipocyte differentiation (8–10). However, the mechanisms by which cyclin D1 regulates such diverse functions are not fully understood.

Several recent studies have identified functional interactions between cyclin D1 and diverse transcription factors. Cyclin D1 inhibits the activity of more than 30 distinct transcription factors (8). Mutational analysis demonstrated that the regulation of transcription factor activity by cyclin D1 was independent of the residues required for binding Cdk (10, 11). Cyclin D1-deficient animals show enhanced adipocyte differentiation in response to PPAR{gamma} ligands. As this phenotype was reversed by reintroduction of cyclin D1, the repression of PPAR{gamma} by cyclin D1 has been considered an important physiological function. Cyclin D1 inhibits PPAR{gamma} transcriptional activity independently of the Cdk-binding domain of cyclin D1 (10, 11). In addition to cyclin D1, the transcriptional co-activator p300 plays an essential role in PPAR{gamma} function (12).

The p300/CBP orthologs encode proteins that coordinate transcription factor function through distinct subdomains (13). The domains conserved between p300 and CBP include a histone acetyltransferase (HAT) domain, a bromo domain, three cysteine- and histidine-rich domains (CH), and a cell cycle regulatory domain (CRD1). p300 was initially cloned as an E1A interacting protein (14–16), and the formation of the multimeric complex between p300 and E1A is important in overcoming normal growth control, as E1A mutants that fail to bind p300 cannot efficiently transform cells (17). p300 also forms a physical bridge between transcription factors and the basal transcription apparatus to coordinate regulation of gene transcription. The subdomains of p300 that encode HAT function alter the acetylation of lysine residues on histones, thereby altering accessibility of transcription factors to target gene promoters. The bromo domain of p300 recognizes and facilitates binding of p300 to acetylated lysine residues of histones and transcription factors such as p53 (18). Direct acetylation of transcription factors by p300 also alters transcription factor activity (19, 20).

The ability of p300 to augment the activity of transcription factors involved in both cell proliferation and differentiation suggests mechanisms must exist to coordinate p300 functions with the cell cycle machinery. p21CIP1/WAF1 regulates p300 function (21, 22). p21CIP1/WAF1 augments HAT activity of p300/CBP and de-represses p300 through the CRD1 domain. It also induces p300-dependent transcription in a promoter-specific manner (23, 24). Several lines of evidence have implicated p300/CBP in tumor suppression (25). Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome, a developmental disorder caused by heterozygous germ line mutations of the CBP gene, is associated with increased predisposition to cancer (26–28). Somatic mutations of p300 occur in human tumors (29), and frequent translocations of p300 and CBP occur in acute myeloid leukemia (30–32). The somatic mutations of p300 in human cancers and cell lines include the bromo and CH3 domains. Finally, hematological malignancies are induced in mouse models inactivating these proteins, supporting the view that p300/CBP functions as a tumor suppressor (29). Because of the evidence that p300 is a rate-limiting transcriptional co-integrator and tumor suppressor, it has been hypothesized that additional cell cycle components may regulate p300 function and thereby coordinate growth factor and differentiation signals or functionally inactivate the putative tumor suppressor function of p300 during tumor progression (25).

Here studies were conducted to examine the mechanisms underlying the physiologically relevant role of cyclin D1 as an inhibitor of PPAR{gamma} function and adipocyte differentiation (10). As p300 is a limiting factor in PPAR{gamma} function, we assessed the role of cyclin D1 in regulating p300 function. We show that cyclin D1 physically interacts with p300 and represses p300 transactivation independent of its Cdk- and pRb-binding domains. Microarray analysis identified a signature of genes that are repressed by cyclin D1 and induced by p300. Collectively, our results suggest that cyclin D1 plays an important role to modulate p300 activity and its target gene expression.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Reagents, Reporter Genes, Expression Vectors, DNA Transfection, and Luciferase Assays—The (AOX)3LUC (acyl-coenzyme A oxidase triple PPAR{gamma}-responsive element (PPARE) luciferase) reporter gene, pCMX-PPAR{gamma}, the Gal4-p300 plasmids (24, 33), and the UAS5E1B-TATALUC were described previously (34). The Dkk1-LUC reporter (-2400 Dkk1-LUC (35), the FKHR-responsive gene reporter, 2XFHRE-LUC (36), the interferon-responsive element GAS8-LUC (37), and the luciferase reporter plasmid containing -2800 to +48 bp of the mTSP1 (mouse thrombospondin 1) promoter (38) were described previously.

E2-p300 constructs were a kind gift from Dr. Bayar Thimmapaya (2, 16, 40). The p21CIP1/WAF1 cDNA, a gift from Dr. W. El Deiry, was cloned into the expression vector pCMV5. Cyclin D1 mutants were generated by PCR and subcloned into p3xFLAG-CMV-10 (Sigma) (10). The p300+/+ and p300-/- mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), cyclin D1+/+ and cyclin D1-/- MEFs, and 3T3 cells (cyclin D1-/- and cyclin D1+/+) were described previously (41, 42). Cells were transfected by Superfect Transfection reagent (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) as described elsewhere (43). The medium was changed after 5 h; cells were treated with ligand or vehicle as indicated in the figure legends, and luciferase activity was determined after 24 h. Luciferase activity was normalized for transfection efficiency with {beta}-galactosidase or Renilla reporters as an internal control. Luciferase assays were performed at room temperature with an Autolumat LB 953 (EG & G Berthold) (34). The fold effect was determined by comparison to the empty expression vector cassette, and statistical analyses were performed using the Mann Whitney U test. The PPAR{gamma}-specific ligand, rosiglitazone, and troglitazone were purchased from Calbiochem; the histone deacetylase inhibitor, trichostatin A (TSA), was from Sigma.

Retroviral Production and Infection of Cells—Retroviral production was described elsewhere (9). The coding region of mouse cyclin D1 cDNA (GenBankTM accession number S78355 [GenBank] ) was inserted into the MSCV-IRESGFP vector at the EcoRI site upstream of the IRES driving expression of GFP. MSCV retroviruses were prepared by transient co-transfection with helper virus into 293T cells, by using calcium phosphate precipitation. The retroviral supernatants were harvested 48 h after transfection (44) and filtered through a 0.45-µm filter. Cyclin D1+/+ and cyclin D1-/- MEFs were incubated with fresh retroviral supernatants in the presence of 4 µg/ml Polybrene for 24 h, cultured for 6 more days, and subjected to fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS-Vantage SE, BD Biosciences) for GFP-positive cells.

RNA Isolation, Oligonucleotide Microarray, and Data Analysis— Total RNA was isolated from mouse p300+/+ and p300-/- MEFs or from cyclin D1-/- MEFs infected with either MSCV-IRESGFP vector or MSCV-cyclin D1-IRESGFP and was used to probe Affymetrix U74Av2 arrays (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). Probe synthesis and hybridization were performed according to the manufacturer's manual (see eukaryotic target preparation section at www.affymetrix.com/support for details). Single array analysis and comparison analysis were performed after scanning the genechips, and all chips were scaled by setting up the "Target Signal" at 500 under "All Probe Sets." The data were then transferred to the data base. Two sets of arrays (either p300+/+ versus p300-/- or cyclin D1 versus vector control), three samples within each group, were compared, and nine comparison analyses were generated. The genes with change calls consistently increased or decreased were selected using the Affymetrix Data Mining Tools and were further filtered based on absolute analysis using the t test and detection calls. To visualize expression difference of the selected genes, color coding was performed using Matlab software.

Immunoprecipitation and Western Blot—293T cells were transfected with expression vectors for cyclin D1 and p300. Thirty hours after transfection, the cells lysates were prepared in 600 µl of cell lysis buffer (10 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 100 mM KCl, 0.4 mM EDTA, 10 mM sodium fluoride, 0.2% Nonidet P-40, 1 mM dithiothreitol, 0.1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride with proteinase inhibitors (Roche Diagnostics, catalog number 1836145)). 600 µg of cellular lysate was subjected to immunoprecipitation with 10 µl of anti-p300 or cyclin D1 antibodies (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and 30 µl of protein A-agarose beads at 4 °C overnight. Normal rabbit IgG was used as a negative control. The beads were washed with 800 µl of cell lysis buffer five times, resuspended in 30 µl of cell lysis buffer plus 6 µl of SDS-PAGE loading buffer, and denatured by heating at 95 °C for 5 min. Proteins were dissolved in 10% SDS-PAGE. The membrane was blotted with either anti-p300 or anti-cyclin D1 antibody (DCS-6, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) at room temperature for 1 h and then washed three times with 0.05% Tween 20/phosphate-buffered saline. The membrane was then incubated with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit antibody. The immunoreactive proteins were visualized by an enhanced chemiluminescence system (Amersham Biosciences).

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP) Assay—ChIP analysis was performed as described previously (45). 2 x 107 cyclin D1+/+ or cyclin D1-/- MEF cells were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% charcoal-dextran-stripped serum for 3 days. Upon treatment, the cells were cross-linked by adding 1.0% formaldehyde buffer containing 100 mM sodium chloride, 1 mM EDTA-Na, pH 8.0, 0.5 mM EGTA-Na, Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, directly to culture medium for 10 min at 37 °C. The medium was aspirated, and the cells were washed twice using ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline containing 10 mM dithiothreitol and protease inhibitors. The cells were then lysed with 1% SDS lysis buffer and incubated for 10 min on ice. The cell lysates were sonicated to shear DNA to lengths between 200 and 500 bp, and the samples were diluted 10-fold in ChIP dilution buffer (0.01% SDS, 1.1% Triton X-100, 1.2 mM EDTA, 16.7 mM Tris, pH 8.1, 167 mM NaCl). To reduce nonspecific background, the cell pellet suspension was precleared with 60 µl of salmon sperm DNA/protein-A-agarose, 50% slurry (Upstate%20Biotechnology">Upstate Biotechnology, Inc.) for 2 h at 4 °C with agitation. Chromatin solutions were precipitated overnight at 4 °C with rotation using 4 µg of antibodies to either FLAG (Sigma) or p300 (Upstate%20Biotechnology">Upstate Biotechnology, Inc.). For a negative control, rabbit or mouse IgG was incubated with the supernatant fraction for 1 h at 4 °C with rotation. 60 µl of salmon sperm DNA/protein A-agarose slurry was added for 2 h at 4 °C with rotation to collect the antibody-histone complex and washed extensively following the manufacturer's protocol. Input and immunoprecipitated chromatin were incubated at 65 °C overnight to reverse cross-linking. After proteinase K digestion for 1 h, DNA was extracted using a Qiagen spin column kit. Precipitated DNAs were analyzed by PCR of 30 cycles. The oligonucleotides used for PCR to identify the PPARE in the mouse lipoprotein lipase (LPL) promoter were 5'-AAACCCCTCCTCTCTGCCTC-3' and 5'-CCTCGGAGGAGGAGTAGGAG-3'.

Immunoprecipitation Histone Acetyltransferase Assays—Immunoprecipitation histone acetyltransferase assays were performed as described previously with slight modifications (20, 43, 46–50). Briefly, HEK 293 cells were co-transfected with expression vectors for p300, either with expression vector of cyclin D1 or control vector. Cells were grown in 100-mm culture dishes for 36 h after transfection, collected by scraping in 1 ml of ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline, and pelleted by centrifugation. The cells were resuspended in 300 µl of cell lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 120 mM NaCl, 0.5% Nonidet P-40, 2 µg/ml leupeptin, 2 µg/ml aprotinin, 100 µM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 2 mM dithiothreitol) and incubated on ice for 30 min to extract the whole cell proteins. For immunoprecipitation the protein concentration was adjusted to 1 µg/µl in 500 µl cell lysis buffer and was incubated with 5 µg of p300 antibodies (N15, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) at 4 °C for 2 h with rotation. Protein A-agarose (30 µl) was then added, and the mixture was rotated slowly overnight at 4 °C. The immune complexes were pelleted by gentle centrifugation and washed three times with cell lysis buffer. The beads were then washed with HAT buffer (1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 10% glycerol, 10 mM butyric acid, 0.2 mM EDTA, 1 mM dithiothreitol) (47). For HAT assay, the immune complexes were incubated with 1.25 µl of 20 mg/ml core histones (mixture of H2A/B, H3, and H4) and 1 µl of [14C]acetyl-CoA (Amersham Biosciences) at 30 °C for 1 h. The reaction were then subjected to 12% SDS-PAGE followed by autoradiography.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Cyclin D1 Represses p300 Transactivation—Previously, we have shown that cyclin D1 inhibits PPAR{gamma} function and adipocyte differentiation (10, 11). p300 was shown previously to increase both basal and ligand-induced PPAR{gamma}-dependent activity (10). PPAR{gamma} ligand enhances p300 recruitment to PPAR{gamma} (51). As p300 is indispensable for the full activation of PPAR{gamma} and adipocyte differentiation (12), we examined the possibility that cyclin D1 could inhibit PPAR{gamma} function through repression of p300. The activity of the PPAR{gamma}-responsive reporter gene (AOX)3LUC was assessed in 293 cells. In the presence of ligand (rosiglitazone), PPAR{gamma} expression enhanced (AOX)3LUC activity 9–10-fold (Fig. 1A). p300 enhanced (AOX)3LUC activity 9-fold and in the presence of ligand increased the reporter activity 15-fold. Cyclin D1 expression reduced p300-mediated PPAR{gamma} basal and ligand-induced activity by 30–40% (Fig. 1A). These results suggest PPAR{gamma} activity is determined in part by the relative abundance of p300 and cyclin D1 in the cells.

A broad array of prior studies has demonstrated that p300 activates transcription when fused to the Gal4 or E2 DNA-binding domains (48, 52–56). To examine the role of cyclin D1 in regulating p300 transactivation function, the activity of p300 linked to a Gal4-DNA-binding domain (Gal4-DBD) was assessed by using a heterologous reporter system that encodes multimeric Gal4-DNA-binding sites linked to a luciferase reporter gene (UAS5E1BTATALUC) as described previously (22, 33). We next determined whether cyclin D1 was sufficient for repression of p300. Co-expression of cyclin D1 repressed Gal4-p300 activity ~3-fold compared with equal amounts of empty expression vector (Fig. 1B). A detailed dose response confirmed that cyclin D1 repressed p300 activity at low molar ratios, obviating concerns of spurious plasmid effects (57) (Fig. 1, C and D). These results contrast with our previous findings that cyclin D1 enhances activity of Gal4-ER{alpha} (58) and that cyclin D1 does not affect the transactivation function of Gal4-VP16 (59). The activity of p300 was compared in randomly cycling cyclin D1-/- and cyclin D1+/+ cells with activity normalized to Renilla luciferase activity. The basal activity of UAS5E1BTATALUC was lower in cyclin D1-/- cells compared with cyclin D1 wild-type (Fig. 1E, lane 1 versus 2). p300 activity was increased 15-fold compared with the Gal4-DBD in the cyclin D1 wild-type cells (Fig. 1E, lane 1 versus 3). p300 activity was induced some 60-fold in the cyclin D1-/- cells (Fig. 1E, lane 2 versus 4). We next examined the role of cyclin D1 in attenuating serum-induced p300 activity. The addition of 10% serum induced Gal4-p300 activity 25-fold in the cyclin D1-/- cells (Fig. 1F). As the cyclin D1-/- cells show reduced cellular proliferation, and cells were treated with serum for 12 h, the increased activity of Gal4-p300 was not due to an alteration in cellular number during the time of transfection. These studies suggested that the loss of cyclin D1 enhanced p300 activity and indicated that cyclin D1 inhibition of p300 activity is selective.

In view of the finding that expression of cyclin D1 inhibited activity of p300 transactivation, we examined the possibility that cyclin D1 may physically associate with p300. Immunoprecipitation Western blotting was conducted of 293T cells transfected with expression vectors for cyclin D1 and p300. Immunoprecipitation of cyclin D1 and subsequent Western blotting demonstrated the presence of both cyclin D1 and p300 in the immunoprecipitate (Fig. 2A, lane 3). The reciprocal immunoprecipitation analysis using antibody to p300 demonstrated a co-precipitation of p300 and cyclin D1 (Fig. 2A, lane 5). Together these studies demonstrate cyclin D1 is associated with p300 in cultured cells. To determine whether cyclin D1 and p300 co-associated in the context of the local chromatin structure of a PPAR{gamma} target gene repressed by cyclin D1, ChIP assay analyses were conducted. Cyclin D1 is known to inhibit ligand-induced activity of the synthetic PPARE. We therefore examined the protein complexes recruited to the PPARE of the endogenous murine LPL promoter. A comparison was made between cyclin D1-/- and cyclin D1+/+ MEFs. Cyclin D1 was reintroduced into cyclin D1-/- MEFs by transfecting with either the MSCV-cyclin D1-IRESGFP or the MSCV-IRESGFP control virus. Cells were treated with either differentiation medium or troglitazone (5 µM) compared with vehicle. The presence of cyclin D1 introduced into cyclin D1-/- cells was identified by the FLAG epitope used in ChIP assays (Fig. 2B). The addition of differentiation medium reduced the abundance of p300 at the PPARE of the LPL promoter in cyclin D1-/- cells. Co-expression of cyclin D1, as identified by the presence of the FLAG tag, was associated with the presence of p300 (Fig. 2B, lane 1 versus 3 and lane 2 versus 4). These findings are consistent with the model in which cyclin D1 and p300 are co-localized to the promoter sequences of target genes repressed by cyclin D1 and regulated by p300.

Cyclin D1 Repression of p300 Activity through Recruitment of HDAC—Transcriptional co-repression involves several distinct multiprotein complexes, including members of either the NcoR/mSin3/HDAC family or the NuRD family (60–62). To determine whether the repression of p300 by cyclin D1 involved proteins with histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity, 293 cells and cyclin D1+/+ and cyclin D1-/- cells transfected with Gal4-p300 were assessed. p300 activity was inhibited by co-expression of cyclin D1 in 293 cells, and the addition of TSA reduced this inhibition 80% (p < 0.05) (Fig. 3A). These studies suggested both HDAC-dependent and HDAC-independent functions regulated cyclin D1-dependent inhibition of p300 activity. Although expression of HDAC alone did not inhibit p300 activity in 293 cells (Fig. 3B), co-expression of HDAC1 with cyclin D1 further enhanced cyclin D1-dependent repression of p300 (Fig. 3B). The activity of Gal4-p300 was 6–7-fold lower in cyclin D1+/+ compared with cyclin D1-/- cells when normalized to the internal control of Renilla luciferase activity (Fig. 3C). The addition of TSA induced Gal4-p300 ~2-fold in cyclin D1-/- cells but augmented Gal4-p300 activity 10–12-fold in cyclin D1+/+ cells (Fig. 3D). These studies suggested that cyclin D1 repression of Gal4-p300 may involve the recruitment of proteins containing histone deacetylase activity. This finding is consistent with our previous finding that cyclin D1 inhibits PPAR{gamma}-mediated adipocyte differentiation through recruitment of HDACs (11).



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1.
Cyclin D1 inhibits p300 activity. A, PPAR{gamma} and the reporter (AOX)3LUC were transfected into 293 cells with an expression vector for p300 and/or cyclin D1 as indicated. Luciferase (LUC) activity was measured 24 h after treatment with vehicle or 100 nM rosiglitazone. Data are mean ± S.E. for n = 6 separate experiments. B, Gal4-p300 activity was assessed in 293 cells expressing either pRC/CMV-cyclin D1 or control vector. Data are shown as luciferase activity mean ± S.E. for n = 9 separate experiments. C and D, Gal4-p300 activity was assessed in the presence of increasing doses of either pRC/CMV-cyclin D1 or control vector. The data are shown as mean ± S.E. relative light units (RLU) for n = 3% repression. E, Gal4-p300 activity was assessed in cyclin D1+/+ or cyclin D1-/- 3T3 cells using expression vectors for Gal4-p300 and the luciferase reporter (UAS)5E1BTATA-LUC. Data are shown as luciferase activity mean ± S.E. for n = 12 separate experiments. F, p300 transactivity assessed in cyclin D1+/+ or cyclin D1-/- 3T3 cells in the presence of either 0, 0.1, or 10% serum. Data are shown as relative luciferase activity (mean ± S.E. for n = 12).

 



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2.
Cyclin D1 associates with p300 in vivo in the context of local chromatin. A, immunoprecipitation (IP) and Western blot (WB) analyses of 293T cells transfected with expression vectors for cyclin D1 and p300. Immunoprecipitation is shown with either IgG or equal amounts of antibody to either p300 or cyclin D1. B, PPARE of the murine LPL promoter was analyzed by ChIP assay in cyclin D1+/+ and cyclin D1-/- MEF cells. Cells were treated with differentiation medium (DM) plus either Me2SO or troglitazone (Trog).

 
Cyclin D1 Repression of p300 Activity Involves the Bromo and CH Domains of p300 —To identify the regions of p300 required for repression by cyclin D1, a series of p300 mutant constructs was assessed (Fig. 4A). Recent studies confirmed expression of the Gal4-p300 expression vectors (53). For ease of comparison, the repression of p300 wild-type activity by cyclin D1 was normalized to 100%. The Gal4-p300 constructs, {Delta}61–1736 or {Delta}243–1736, reduced repression by 70–80%, suggesting the regions required for cyclin D1 repression lie between 242 and 1737. The Gal4-p300 construct 964–1922 was repressed 60%, and the construct 1–596 conveyed wild-type repression (Fig. 4B), suggesting that residues between 242 and 596 and between 964 and 1737 play a key role in repression by cyclin D1. Further analysis was conducted using additional E2-p300 constructs (Fig. 4C). Consistent with the previous studies, deletion of residues 61–242 did not affect repression by cyclin D1, whereas deletion of the CH1 region (p300 {Delta}61–1032) significantly reduced repression. Deletion of either the bromo or CH2 domain reduced repression by 70–90%, whereas deletion of CH3 did not reduce repression by cyclin D1 (Fig. 4, D and E). Together these studies suggest that the CH1, bromo, and CH2 domains of p300 are required for full repression by cyclin D1.

The 1032–1139 region of p300 played a role in repression by cyclin D1 and overlapped with the CRD1. Previous studies had demonstrated that p21CIP1/WAF1 enhances Gal4-p300 activity through the CRD1 domain (24). To determine whether cyclin D1 and p21CIP1/WAF1 regulated p300 through similar or distinct domains of p300, direct comparison was made between cyclin D1 and p21CIP1/WAF1. Cyclin D1 overexpression inhibited Gal4-p300 activity, and p21CIP1/WAF1 enhanced Gal4-p300 activity (Fig. 5A). In keeping with previous studies, amino acids 1004–1044 were the site of repression by p21CIP1/WAF1 (Fig. 5, B and C) (24). p300 activity was repressed by cyclin D1; however, deletion of the CRD1 domain did not reduce the fold repression by cyclin D1 (Fig. 5, D and E). These studies suggest cyclin D1 does not repress p300 through the same domain affected by p21CIP1/WAF1.

Cyclin D1 Repression of p300 Is Independent of Cdk Binding—In order to examine the mechanisms by which cyclin D1 inhibits p300 activity, a series of cyclin D1 mutant constructs was assessed, including the previously described mutants of cyclin D1 that are defective in binding Cdk (K114E) and defective in binding the pRb protein GH (G7A/H8A) or T286A, a cyclin D1 mutant that cannot be phosphorylated by GSK-3{beta} (63, 64) (Fig. 6A). Western blot analysis in our previous studies has confirmed similar levels of expression of the cyclin D1 mutants compared with wild type in transfected cells using the FLAG antibody (10). Mutation of the Cdk-binding domain in cyclin D1 (K114E) augmented p300 activity, suggesting the Cdk function of cyclin D1 was not necessary for repression of p300. In addition, the cyclin D1 GH mutant (G7A/H8A) and T286A mutants enhanced p300 activity (Fig. 6A). The cyclin D1 T286A mutant binds to Cdk4 but fails to form active Cdk. These studies suggest that the kinase activity of cyclin D1 is not required for repression of p300 and raise the possibility that the kinase activity may actually augment p300 activity.

In order to delineate the region of cyclin D1 that is involved in repression of p300 transactivation, a series of N-terminal deletion constructs of cyclin D1 was prepared (Fig. 6B, left panel). The efficiency of p300 repression by the cyclin D1 deletion mutants was compared with those of cyclin D1 wild type. Deletion of amino acids 143–178 of cyclin D1 abolished repression of p300 (Fig. 6B, right panel), indicating that amino acids 143–178 of cyclin D1 are involved in p300 repression. The 143–178 region of cyclin D1 is predicted to form a helix-loop-helix structure (10). Homology model studies suggested that the cluster of hydrophobic residues (amino acids 137–148, LLXXXLLLVXXL) in this region binds PPAR{gamma} at the same region where co-repressors and co-activators bind to PPAR{gamma}. The current study suggests that the hydrophobic residues in 137–148 region of cyclin D1 are functionally important in interaction with and repression of the PPAR{gamma} co-activator p300 (10).



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3.
Cyclin D1 repression of p300 involves TSA-sensitive histone deacetylases. A, activity of Gal4-p300 was assessed in 293 cells using co-transfection with the (UAS)5E1BTATA-LUC reporter. TSA treatment reduced cyclin D1 inhibition of Gal4-p300 activity. B, co-expression of cyclin D1 with HDAC1 enhances repression of p300 activity. C and D, cyclin D1+/+ and cyclin D1-/- cells were transfected with Gal4-p300 along with pG5LUC reporter and then treated with either Me2SO (DMSO) (C) or TSA (30 nM) (D) as indicated. The data are shown as mean ± S.E. relative light units (RLU) for n = 9 separate experiments.

 
Molecular Genetic Phenotype of the Genes Co-regulated by Cyclin D1 and p300 —The current studies demonstrate that cyclin D1 inhibits p300 activity which in turn may regulate a subset of gene functions. To determine the genes repressed by cyclin D1 and regulated by p300 at physiological levels, we introduced cyclin D1 into cyclin D1-deficient cells and determined the molecular genetic phenotype of cyclin D1-regulated genes by using microarray analysis. Comparison was made between cyclin D1-deficient cells infected with the control vector virus and those infected with the cyclin D1 expression virus (Fig. 7A). Western blot analysis was conducted of the MEFs to ensure the levels of cyclin D1 expressed from the retroviral vector reflected physiological levels. Comparison was made between cyclin D1-/- MEFs, the cyclin D1-/- MEFs transduced with the MSCV-cyclin D1 vector, and cyclin D1+/+ MEFs. The levels of cyclin D1 were similar in the cyclin D1 expression vector and wild type MEFs (Fig. 7B). Microarray analysis identified a subset of genes that was either repressed or induced by cyclin D1 (Fig. 7C, lanes 1–3 versus 4–6). As we have shown that cyclin D1 inhibited p300 transactivation function, we next identified those genes regulated by p300 (Fig. 7C, lanes 7–9 versus 10–12). A subset of genes that was induced by cyclin D1 and reciprocally regulated by p300 includes genes involved in maintaining DNA replication fidelity, such as Mcm3 (minichromosome maintenance-deficient 3), Mcm4, and Rfc4 (replication factor C) (Table I).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE I
Genes co-regulated by cyclin D1 and p300

 
Consistent with the role for cyclin D1 as an inhibitor of differentiation and a promoter of cellular proliferation and migration, expression of cyclin D1 inhibited cell cycle inhibitory proteins, including RASSF1 (Ral GDS/AF6) and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2B (p15), LCN2 (lipocalin), thrombospondin 1, Foxg1 (forkhead box G1), and Dkk2 (Dickkopf homolog 2). Conversely, cyclin D1 induced several pro-proliferative proteins (cyclin F), polo-like kinase 4, ECT2 oncogene (Ect2), thymidine kinase 1, Cdc7 (cell division cycle-associated 7), thymidylate synthase, Cdc6 (cell division cycle 6 homolog), and Egr2 (early growth response 2). A subset of genes that was induced by cyclin D1 and reciprocally regulated by p300 includes genes involved in maintaining DNA replication fidelity, including Mcm3, Mcm4, and Rfc4 (Table I).

To determine whether the altered gene expression profile observed by microarray was recapitulated at the level of direct promoter interactions, a subset of genes was further assessed for repression by cyclin D1 and induction by p300. PPAR{gamma}-responsive genes were repressed by cyclin D1, consistent with previous studies (45). Several genes repressed by cyclin D1 and induced by p300 promoted cellular differentiation and cell cycle arrest (Dkk1 and FoxG1). Dkk1 (Dickkopf 1) is an inhibitor of Wnt signaling that depends upon LRP-6 and functions to inhibit endogenous Wnt (65). Consistent with mRNA expression data, cyclin D1 reduced Dkk1 promoter activity by 50% (Fig. 8A, lane 1 versus 2), whereas p300 induced Dkk1 promoter activity by 10-fold (Fig. 8A, lane 3 versus 4). Cyclin D1 inhibited p300-dependent induction of Dkk1 by 25% (Fig. 8A, lane 5 versus 6).



View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 4.
Repression of p300 by cyclin D1 requires the CH1, bromo, and CH2 domains of p300. Gal4-p300 (A and B) or E2-p300 (C, D, and E) expression vectors shown schematically were assessed for repression by cyclin D1. Data are shown as relative light units (D) or as percent repression (B and E) (mean ± S.E.) for >9 separate experiments. WT, wild type.

 



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 5.
Cyclin D1 repression of p300 activity does not involve the CRD1 domain. A, Gal4-p300 activity determined as relative luciferase activity in 293 cells transfected with expression vectors for either pRC/CMV-cyclin D1, pCMV5-p21CIP1/WAF1, or equal amounts of corresponding control vector. For ease of comparison, Gal4-p300 activity in the presence of the vector controls was normalized as 100%. The data are shown as mean ± S.E. for n = 6 separate experiments. B, schematic presentation of Gal4-p300 {Delta}CRD mutant expression vectors. C and D, activity of Gal4-p300 constructs in the presence of either pCMV5-p21WAF1/CIP1 (C) or pRC/CMV-cyclin D1 expression vector (D). Data are shown as mean ± S.E. for n = 9. E, percent repression of p300 activity by cyclin D1 normalized to 100% for Gal4-p300 wild-type.

 
The anti-angiogenic factor thrombospondin-1 (Tsp-1) was the first naturally occurring inhibitor of angiogenesis to be identified (66). Tsp-1, which inhibits MMP-9 activity and inhibits angiogenesis by binding to the CD36 receptor present on endothelial cells (67, 68), is repressed by several oncogenes, including Ras and c-Myc (69). Consistent with these signaling pathways, cyclin D1 repressed Tsp-1 promoter activity by 45% (Fig. 8B, lane 1 versus 2). p300 induced TSP-1 activity 4-fold (Fig. 8B, lane 3 versus 4). p300-dependent induction of TSP-1 was repressed by cyclin D1 by 60% (Fig. 8B, lane 5 versus 6).

Expression of FoxG1, a member of the Forkhead family that induces cellular differentiation and cell cycle arrest (70), was repressed by cyclin D1 and induced by p300. Forkhead proteins are known to inhibit cyclin D1 expression. To determine whether cyclin D1 inhibits Forkhead function further, the canonical Forkhead-binding site was used in heterologous reporter assays. Consistent with the mRNA findings, cyclin D1 inhibited FKHR signaling (Fig. 8C). Consistent with findings that CBP/p300 induces the FOXO1 and DAF6 involving the CH domain (71), p300 enhanced FKHRLUC activity up to 8-fold (Fig. 8C, lane 3 versus 4). Overexpression of cyclin D1 repressed FKHR activity by 35% (Fig. 8C, lane 1 versus 2). p300-mediated activation of FKHR was repressed by cyclin D1 by 50% (Fig. 8C, lane 5 versus 6).



View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 6.
Cyclin D1 repression of p300 is independent of Cdk4 or pRb binding. A, left panel, schematic presentation of expression vector for wild-type or mutant cyclin D1 and corresponding repression (%) of Gal4-p300 trans-activity in 293 cells. B, activity of the Gal4-p300 expression plasmid was assessed with (UAS)5E1BTATA-LUC reporter. Gene activity is shown as mean ± S.E. for luciferase activity determined 24 h after transfection (right panel) (n = 6).

 
Several genes induced by cyclin D1 are also induced by interferon (Table I). To determine whether cyclin D1 induced interferon-dependent signaling, a multiple synthetic response element was used (GAS8LUC) (40). Cyclin D1 induced multimeric GAS8LUC reporter activity, as did p300 (Fig. 8D), consistent with previous studies that p300 activates interferon signaling. Several viral control promoters (CMV and SV40) were not affected by cyclin D1 (59). Together, these studies identify the molecular genetic phenotype of cyclin D1-repressed genes that are also regulated by p300.

Cyclin D1 Inhibits p300 HAT Activity in Vitro—These studies demonstrated cyclin D1 co-associated with p300 in immune complexes and repressed p300 activity through the bromo and CH domains. The bromo domain binds to acetylated lysine residues and augments acetylation of target substrates (18, 72, 73). It would be predicted that cyclin D1 may inhibit p300-mediated substrate binding and/or acetylation. To examine the possibility that cyclin D1 inhibition of p300 activity through the bromo domain may in turn inhibit the ability of p300 to acetylate target substrates, including autoacetylation of p300 and acetylation of core histones, in vitro HAT assays were conducted. HEK 293 cells were co-transfected with expression vector for p300 and either an expression vector for cyclin D1 or vector control. Immunoprecipitation of p300 from the transfected cellular extracts was conducted as a source of HAT, and increasing amounts of immunoprecipitate were used in HAT assays with the histone mixture H2A/B, H3, and H4 as substrate for p300 enzyme activity. Analysis of p300 autoacetylation and p300-dependent acetylation of histones was compared by using the cellular extracts (Fig. 9). Collectively, these studies demonstrated that cyclin D1 expression inhibits autoacetylation of p300 (Fig. 9, A and B) and inhibits acetylation of core histones by p300 in cultured cells (Fig. 9, C and D). These studies raise the possibility that the inhibition of p300 acetylation by cyclin D1 may contribute to cyclin D1-dependent transcriptional repression of p300.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
p300 is a modular protein in which multiple distinct surfaces interact with regulatory proteins. Here cyclin D1 associated with p300 in immunoprecipitation assays, co-associated at target promoters in the context of local chromatin in ChIP assays, and repressed p300 trans-activity. p300 activity was regulated up to 60-fold by cyclin D1. Repression of p300 involved the CH1, CH3, and bromo domain. The region of repression within p300 was distinct from the domain regulated by p21CIP1/WAF1 (23, 24, 54, 74). The p21CIP1/WAF1 induction of p300 involves de-repression through the CRD1 domain. p21CIP1/WAF1 and cyclin D1 have therefore opposing effects on p300 activity through distinct domains. p21CIP1/WAF1 and cyclin D1 have been shown previously to regulate opposing effects of cell cycle progression and tumorigenesis in response to the Ras oncogene (75, 76). Thus, the current observations extend the previously defined interactions between cyclin D1 and p21CIP1/WAF1 by identifying their interaction with the histone acetyltransferase p300.

The abundance and activity of p300 are limiting in the activity of many transcription factors. Components impacting p300 activity are assessed by the Gal4 system, including {beta}-catenin, atrophin1, ATF-2, SIRT1, and p53, which regulate p300 activity up to 3-fold (20, 43, 46–50, 53). p300 function is regulated by several different enzymes and kinases, including acetylases and deacetylases (25). For example, SIRT1 inhibits p300 function, providing evidence for cross-talk between the NAD-dependent deacetylases (SIRT1) and histone acetyltransferase p300 (53). The abundance of cyclin D1 is tightly regulated by oncogenes and growth factor signals. Thus the inhibition of p300 by cyclin D1 may provide a mechanism to integrate mitogenic or oncogenic signals with a subset of target genes that are regulated by p300.

The bromo domain of p300 was required for cyclin D1-dependent repression. Bromo domains bind specifically to acetylated lysine residues of histones and non-histone proteins such as p53 (18, 77). It has been proposed that bromo domains in HAT proteins enhance the off rate of the catalytic domain, while hindering HAT activity to chromatin, thereby enhancing local chromatin acetylation (18). Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy demonstrated the physical association of the bromo domain from p300/CBP-associated factor and histone-derived peptides containing acetylated lysine (72). Bromo domains exhibit a left-hand twisted four-helical bundle, with two loops at one end of the bundle forming a hydrophobic lysine-binding pocket that selects acetyl-lysine rather than the charged unmodified lysine (78). Additional specificity of the bromo domain is derived from residues flanking the acetylated lysine in a given target protein (77). The bromo domain serves as a selective signaling module that is induced in response to physiological and pathological activities. Physical interaction between cyclin D1 and p300 may modulate p300 bromo domain interactions with its target proteins, thereby regulating these physiological responses. Thus, the CBP bromo domain was recently shown to bind a lysine-acetylated p53 peptide through specific interaction that is required for the activity of p53 in response to ultraviolet-induced DNA damage (77). Cyclin D1 abundance is tightly regulated in expression (10, 11, 45). Interactions between cyclin D1 and p300 may regulate acetylated lysine residues on histones and non-histone target proteins to regulate expression of p300 target genes and to modulate local chromatin remodeling complexes.



View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 7.
Molecular genetic phenotype of p300 and cyclin D1-dependent signaling. A, schematic representation of MEFs analyzed. B, Western blot analysis for cyclin D1 with vinculin as loading control; C, hierarchical clustering of microarray analysis from p300+/+ and p300-/- MEFs, cyclin D1-/- MEFs, infected either with MSCV-cyclin D1-IRESGFP or MSCV-IRESGFP control virus.

 
p300 regulates the activity of many transcription factors. To analyze the functional significance of cyclin D1-dependent regulation of p300, we conducted a genome-wide analysis of cyclin D1 and p300-regulated genes. We thereby determined the p300-regulated genetic targets shared with cyclin D1. Molecular genetic profiling identified a signature of genes that was both repressed by cyclin D1 and induced by p300 (Fig. 7 and Table I). Conversely, a subset of genes induced by cyclin D1 was also regulated by p300. This subset of genes promoted cell proliferation, DNA synthesis, and DNA replication.

It is of interest that a subset of genes repressed by cyclin D1 and induced by p300 plays a role in cellular differentiation. Dkk2 expression was reduced by cyclin D1 and induced by p300 at the mRNA and promoter level. Dkk1 is known to inhibit Wnt signaling, correlating with its ability to bind the LRP6 receptor (79). Dkk inhibits {beta}-catenin Tcf signaling (65). Thus, Dkk functions as an extracellular inhibitor to fine-tune spatial and temporal patterns of Wnt activity through regulating autocrine Wnt signaling in human cancer cells (80). Cyclin D1 is induced by activation of the Wnt/{beta}-catenin signaling pathway (81) through induction of Wnt (81–83) and activating {beta}-catenin mutants (81) or downstream component, including integrin-linked kinase (81, 83). Furthermore, cyclin D1 is required for adenomatous polyposis of the colon (Apc)-induced colonic tumorigenesis (45). Thus, cyclin D1 serves as both a downstream target of Wnt signaling and also as an upstream regulator of Wnt signaling through regulation of Dkk. The finding that cyclin D1 regulates Dkk expression and promoter activity is consistent with growing evidence that cyclin D1 functions through autocrine mechanisms to regulate cellular function (8). For example, cyclin D1 is known to regulate expression of several secreted proteins such as ACRP30 (10), which are involved in angiogenesis (84). Cyclin D1 inhibited p300-dependent induction of FKHR signaling. Forkhead transcription factors are involved in differentiation of erythropoietin stem cell factor-mediated signaling in primary erythroid progenitors (85). Along with FoxG1, the expression of a number of genes that induce cellular growth arrest was inhibited by cyclin D1 (RassF1, Cdkn2b, Mad4, and Tsp1), consistent with the known pro-proliferative function of cyclin D1.

Cyclin D1 repression of p300 and PPAR{gamma} activity was TSA-dependent and augmented by histone deacetylases. p300 activity was 7-fold greater in cyclin D1-/- cells, and the difference in activity between cyclin D1+/+ and cyclin D1-/- cells was TSA-reversible. Cyclin D1 repression of p300 involved TSA-sensitive histone deacetylases consistent with recent findings that cyclin D1 physically associates with and recruits HDACs to promoters in the context of their local chromatin structure (11).



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 8.
Reporter activity of DKK1-LUC (A), thrombospondin-LUC (B), FKHR-LUC (C), and GAS1-LUC (D) was assessed in 293 cells transfected with either pRC/CMV-cyclin D1, pC-MVp300, or control vectors. Data are shown as luciferase activity mean ± S.E. for n = 9 separate experiments.

 
Cyclin D1, in addition to binding cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (Cdk4/Cdk6) and pRb, forms physical associations with p300, P/CAF (p300/CBP associated factor), Myb, MyoD, and the cyclin D1 myb-like binding protein (DMP1) (reviewed in Refs. 8, 59, 86–88). Cyclin D1 and D2 were capable of inhibiting MyoD (71). v-Myb was preferentially repressed by cyclin D1 (87). Although cyclin D2 and D3 were also capable of repressing v-Myb, the helix-loop-helix-like protein DMP1 was repressed by each of the D-type cyclins (86). In contrast, the repression of BETA2/NeuroD by cyclin D1 was not reconstituted by either cyclin D2 or D3 (39). Previous studies have demonstrated a role for cyclin D1 in repression of several distinct transcription factors (8). Typically, the Cdk4-binding domain of cyclin D1 was not required for transcriptional repression. Here, cyclin D1 repression of p300 transactivation was Cdk-independent and may contribute to several of the previously identified transcriptional regulatory functions of cyclin D1.



View larger version (40K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 9.
Cyclin D1 inhibits HAT activity of p300 in vitro. HEK 293 cells were co-transfected with an expression vector for p300 and either with expression vector for cyclin D1 or vector control. The cellular lysates were immunoprecipitated with a p300 antibody. Increasing amounts of the immune complexes (10, 20, 40, and 80 µl) were incubated with a histone mixture (H2A/B, H3, and H4) in the presence of [14C]acetyl-CoA at 30 °C for 1 h. The reactions were dissolved in 12% SDS-PAGE followed by radiography. A, autoacetylation of p300 in the absence (lanes 1–4) or presence (lanes 5–8) of cyclin D1. B, quantitative presentation of p300 autoacetylation. Densitometry of [14C]acetyl incorporation is shown in arbitrary units. C, acetylation of core histones by p300 is inhibited by cyclin D1. Incorporation of [14C]acetyl group into histones by p300 was compared in the absence or presence of cyclin D1. Bottom panel, shorter exposure of the radiography is shown. D, quantitative presentation of histone acetylation by p300. Densitometry of [14C]acetyl incorporation into histone substrates is shown in arbitrary units.

 

   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported in part by Grants R01CA70896, R01CA75503, R01CA86072, R01CA93596, R01CA107382 from the National Institutes of Health (to R. G. P.) and NIDDK 1R21DK065220-02 from the National Institutes of Health (to M. F.). 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

¶¶ To whom correspondence should be addressed: Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dept. of Oncology, Georgetown University, Research Bldg. Rm. E501, 3970 Reservoir Rd. NW, Box 571468, Washington, D. C. 20057-1468. Tel.: 202-687-2110; Fax: 202-687-6402; E-mail: pestell{at}georgetown.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: Cdk, cyclin-dependent kinase; CBP, cAMP-response element-binding protein-binding protein; LPL, lipoprotein lipase; PPAR, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor; PPARE, PPAR{gamma}-responsive element; IRES, internal ribosome entry site; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HAT, histone acetyltransferase; MEF, mouse embryonic fibroblast; TSA, trichostatin A; ChIP, chromatin immunoprecipitation; HDAC, histone deacetylase; CH, cysteine- and histidine-rich domains; CMV, cytomegalovirus; pRb, retinoblastoma protein; MSCV, murine stem cell virus. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Dr. Paul Bornstein, Dr. Ron Evans, Dr. Wafik El Deiry, and Dr. Chris Glass for plasmids and Leonora Mia Caparas for assistance in preparing the manuscript. Work conducted at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center was supported by the NIH Comprehensive Cancer Center Core Grant CA51008-14 (to R. G. P.).



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Sherr, C. J., and Roberts, J. M. (1999) Genes Dev. 13, 1501-1512[Free Full Text]
  2. Harbour, J. W., Luo, R. X., Dei Santi, A., Postigo, A. A., and Dean, D. C. (1999) Cell 98, 859-869[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Lundberg, A. S., and Weinberg, R. A. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 753-761[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Kozar, K., Ciemerych, M. A., Rebel, V. I., Shigematsu, H., Zagozdzon, A., Sicinska, E., Geng, Y., Yu, Q., Bhattacharya, S., Bronson, R. T., Akashi, K., and Sicinski, P. (2004) Cell 118, 477-491[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Nishimura, T., Koike, R., and Miyasaka, M. (2000) Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 43, 351-358[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Cao, Y., Bonizzi, G., Seagroves, T., Greten, F. R., Johnson, R., Schmidt, E. V., and Karin, M. (2001) Cell 107, 763-775[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Fata, J. E., Kong, Y. Y., Li, J., Sasaki, T., Irie-Sasaki, J., Moorehead, R. A., Elliott, R., Scully, S., Voura, E. B., Lacey, D. L., Boyle, W. J., Khokha, R., and Penninger, J. M. (2000) Cell 103, 41-50[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Fu, M., Wang, C., Li, Z., Sakamaki, T., and Pestell, R. G. (2004) Endocrinology 145, 5439-5447[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Neumeister, P., Pixley, F. J., Xiong, Y., Xie, H., Wu, K., Ashton, A., Cammer, M., Chan, A., Symons, M., Stanley, E. R., and Pestell, R. G. (2003) Mol. Biol. Cell 14, 2005-2015[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Wang, C., Pattabiraman, N., Fu, M., Zhou, J. N., Sakamaki, T., Albanese, C., Li, Z., Wu, K., Hulit, J., Neumeister, P., Novikoff, P. M., Brownlee, M., Scherer, P., Jones, J. G., Whitney, K. D., Donehower, L. A., Harris, E. L., Rohan, T., Johns, D. C., and Pestell, R. G. (2003) Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 6159-6173[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Fu, M., Rao, M., Bouras, T., Wang, C., Wu, K., Zhang, X., Li, Z., Yao, T.-P., and Pestell, R. G. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 16934-16941[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Takahashi, N., Kawada, T., Yamamoto, T., Goto, T., Taimatsu, A., Aoki, N., Kawasaki, H., Taira, K., Yokoyama, K. K., Kamei, Y., and Fushiki, T. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 16906-16912[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Goodman, R. H., and Smolik, S. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 1553-1577[Free Full Text]
  14. Rikitake, Y., and Moran, E. (1992) Mol. Cell. Biol. 12, 2826-2836[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Eckner, R., Ewen, M. E., Newsome, D., Gerdes, M., DeCaprio, J. A., Lawrence, J. B., and Livingston, D. M. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 869-884[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Arany, Z., Newsome, D., Oldread, E., Livingston, D. M., and Eckner, R. (1995) Nature 374, 81-84[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Stein, R. W., Corrigan, M., Yaciuk, P., Whelan, J., and Moran, E. (1990) J. Virol. 64, 4421-4427[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Bottomley, M. J. (2004) EMBO Rep. 5, 464-469[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Fu, M., Wang, C., Wang, J., Zafonte, B., Lisanti, M. P., and Pestell, R. G. (2002) Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 13, 259-276[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Fu, M., Wang, C., Wang, J., Sakamaki, T., Di Vizio, D., Zhang, X., Albanese, C., Balk, S., Chang, C., Fan, S., Rosen, E., Palvimo, J. J., Janne, O. A., Muratoglu, S., Avantaggiati, M., and Pestell, R. G. (2003) Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 8563-8575[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Ait-Si-Ali, S., Polesskaya, A., Filleur, S., Ferreira, R., Duquet, A., Robin, P., Vervish, A., Trouche, D., Cabon, F., and Harel-Bellan, A. (2000) Oncogene 19, 2430-2437[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Perkins, N. D., Felzian, L. K., Betts, J. C., Leung, K., Beach, D. H., and Nabel, G. J. (1997) Science 275, 523-527[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Gregory, D. J., Garcia-Wilson, E., Poole, J. C., Snowden, A. W., Roninson, I. B., and Perkins, N. D. (2002) Cell Cycle 1, 343-350[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Snowden, A. W., Anderson, L. A., Webster, G. A., and Perkins, N. D. (2000) Mol. Cell. Biol. 20, 2676-2686[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Iyer, N. G., Ozdag, H., and Caldas, C. (2004) Oncogene 23, 4225-4231[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Petrij, F., Giles, R. H., Dauwerse, H. G., Saris, J. J., Hennekam, R. C., Masuno, M., Tommerup, N., van Ommen, G. J., Goodman, R. H., Peters, D. J., and Breuning, M. H. (1995) Nature 376, 348-351[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Roelfsema, J. H., White, S. J., Ariyurek, Y., Bartholdi, D., Niedrist, D., Papadia, F., Bacino, C. A., den Dunnen, J. T., van Ommen, G. J., Breuning, M. H., Hennekam, R. C., and Peters, D. J. (2005) Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76, 572-580[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Coupry, I., Monnet, L., Attia, A. A., Taine, L., Lacombe, D., and Arveiler, B. (2004) Hum. Mutat. 23, 278-284[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Shigeno, K., Yoshida, H., Pan, L., Luo, J. M., Fujisawa, S., Naito, K., Nakamura, S., Shinjo, K., Takeshita, A., Ohno, R., and Ohnishi, K. (2004) Cancer Lett. 213, 11-20[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Ida, K., Kitabayashi, I., Taki, T., Taniwaki, M., Noro, K., Yamamoto, M., Ohki, M., and Hayashi, Y. (1997) Blood 90, 4699-4704[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Kitabayashi, I., Aikawa, Y., Yokoyama, A., Hosoda, F., Nagai, M., Kakazu, N., Abe, T., and Ohki, M. (2001) Leukemia (Baltimore) 15, 89-94
  32. Zhang, Y., Zeleznik-Le, N., Emmanuel, N., Jayathilaka, N., Chen, J., Strissel, P., Strick, R., Li, L., Neilly, M. B., Taki, T., Hayashi, Y., Kaneko, Y., Schlegelberger, B., and Rowley, J. D. (2004) Genes Chromosomes Cancer 41, 257-265[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Yuan, W., Condorelli, G., Caruso, M., Felsani, A., and Giordano, A. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 9009-9013[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Watanabe, G., Howe, A., Lee, R. J., Albanese, C., Shu, I. W., Karnezis, A. N., Zon, L., Kyriakis, J., Rundell, K., and Pestell, R. G. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 12861-12866[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Gonzalez-Sancho, J. M., Aguilera, O., Garcia, J. M., Pendas-Franco, N., Pena, C., Cal, S., Garcia de Herreros, A., Bonilla, F., and Munoz, A. (2005) Oncogene 24, 1098-1103[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Rokudai, S., Fujita, N., Kitahara, O., Nakamura, Y., and Tsuruo, T. (2002) Mol. Cell. Biol. 22, 8695-8708[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Ricote, M., Li, A. C., Wilson, T. M., Kelly, C. J., and Glass, C. K. (1998) Nature 391, 79-82[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Bornstein, P., Alfi, D., Devarayalu, S., Framson, P., and Li, P. (1990) J. Biol. Chem. 265, 16691-16698[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Ratineau, C., Petry, M. W., Mutoh, H., and Leiter, A. B. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 8847-8853[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Bhattacharya, S., Eckner, R., Grossman, S., Oldread, E., Arany, Z., D'Andrea, A., and Livingston, D. M. (1996) Nature 383, 344-347[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Grossman, S. R., Perez, M., Kung, A. L., Joseph, M., Mansur, C., Xiao, Z. X., Kumar, S., Howley, P. M., and Livingston, D. M. (1998) Mol. Cell 2, 405-415[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Albanese, C., Wu, K., D'Amico, M., Jarrett, C., Joyce, D., Hughes, J., Hulit, J., Sakamaki, T., Fu, M., Ben-Ze'ev, A., Bromberg, J. F., Lamberti, C., Verma, U., Gaynor, R. B., Byers, S. W., and Pestell, R. G. (2003) Mol. Biol. Cell 14, 585-599[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Fu, M., Wang, C., Reutens, A. T., Angeletti, R., Siconolfi-Baez, L., Ogryzko, V., Avantaggiati, M. L., and Pestell, R. G. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 20853-20860[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Muller, A. J., Young, J. C., Pendergast, A. M., Pondel, M., Landau, N. R., Littman, D. R., and Witte, O. N. (1991) Mol. Cell. Biol. 11, 1785-1792[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Hulit, J., Wang, C., Albanese, C., Di Vizio, D., Mahmood, R., Augenlicht, L. H., Russell, R., and Pestell, R. G. (2004) Mol. Cell. Biol. 24, 7598-7611[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Bannister, A. J., and Kouzarides, T. (1996) Nature 384, 641-643[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Gu, W., and Roeder, R. G. (1997) Cell 90, 595-606[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Martinez-Balbas, M. A., Bannister, A. J., Martin, K., Haus-Seuffert, P., Meisterernst, M., and Kouzarides, T. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 2886-2893[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Wang, C., Fu, M., Angeletti, R., Siconolfi-Baez, L., Reutens, A., Lisanti, M. P., Katzenellenbogen, B., Kato, S., Hopp, T., Fuqua, S. A. W., Kushner, P. J., and Pestell, R. G. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 18375-18383[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Valls, E., de la Cruz, X., and Martinez-Balbas, M. A. (2003) Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3114-3122[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Gelman, L., Zhou, G., Fajas, L., Raspe, E., Fruchart, J. C., and Auwerx, J. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 7681-7688[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Hecht, A., Vleminckx, K., Stemmler, M. P., van Roy, F., and Kemler, R. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 1839-1850[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Bouras, T., Fu, M., Sauve, A. A., Wang, F., Quong, A. A., Perkins, N. D., Hay, R. T., Gu, W., and Pestell, R. G. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 10264-10276[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Girdwood, D., Bumpass, D., Vaughan, O. A., Thain, A., Anderson, L. A., Snowden, A. W., Garcia-Wilson, E., Perkins, N. D., and Hay, R. T. (2003) Mol. Cell 11, 1043-1054[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  55. Nucifora, F. C., Jr., Sasaki, M., Peters, M. F., Huang, H., Cooper, J. K., Yamada, M., Takahashi, H., Tsuji, S., Troncoso, J., Dawson, V. L., Dawson, T. M., and Ross, C. A. (2001) Science 291, 2423-2428[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Kawasaki, H., Song, J., Eckner, R., Ugai, H., Chiu, R., Taira, K., Shi, Y., Jones, N., and Yokoyama, K. K. (1998) Genes Dev. 12, 233-245[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Amanatullah, D., Zafonte, B., Albanese, C., Fu, M.-F., Messiers, C., Hassell, J., and Pestell, R. G. (2001) Methods Enzymol. 333, 116-127[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Neuman, E., Ladha, M. H., Lin, N., Upton, T. M., Miller, S. J., DiRenzo, J., Pestell, R. G., Hinds, P. W., Dowdy, S. F., Brown, M., and Ewen, M. E. (1997) Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 5338-5347[Abstract]
  59. Reutens, A. T., Fu, M., Watanabe, G., Albanese, C., McPhaul, M. J., Balk, S. P., Janne, O. A., Palvimo, J. J., and Pestell, R. G. (2001) Mol. Endocrinol. 15, 797-811[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Ayer, D. E. (1999) Trends Cell Biol. 9, 193-198[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Knoepfler, P. S., and Eisenman, R. N. (1999) Cell 99, 447-450[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Xue, Y., Wong, J., Moreno, G. T., Young, M. K., Cote, J., and Wang, W. (1998) Mol. Cell 2, 851-861[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Alt, J. R., Cleveland, J. L., Hannink, M., and Diehl, J. A. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 3102-3114[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Diehl, J. A., Zindy, F., and Sherr, C. J. (1997) Genes Dev. 11, 957-972[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Bafico, A., Liu, G., Yaniv, A., Gazit, A., and Aaronson, S. A. (2001) Nat. Cell Biol. 3, 683-686[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  66. Good, D. J., Polverini, P. J., Rastinejad, F., Le Beau, M. M., Lemons, R. S., Frazier, W. A., and Bouck, N. P. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87, 6624-6628[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Dawson, D. W., Pearce, S. F., Zhong, R., Silverstein, R. L., Frazier, W. A., and Bouck, N. P. (1997) J. Cell Biol. 138, 707-717[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Rodriguez-Manzaneque, J. C., Lane, T. F., Ortega, M. A., Hynes, R. O., Lawler, J., and Iruela-Arispe, M. L. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 12485-12490[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Watnick, R. S., Cheng, Y. N., Rangarajan, A., Ince, T. A., and Weinberg, R. A. (2003) Cancer Cells 3, 219-231
  70. Burgering, B. M., and Medema, R. H. (2003) J. Leukocyte Biol. 73, 689-701[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Skapek, S., Rhee, J., Spicer, D., and Lassar, A. (1995) Science 267, 1022-1024[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Dhalluin, C., Carlson, J., Zeng, L., He, C., Aggarwal, A., and Zhou, M. (1999) Nature 399, 491-496[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  73. Kanno, T., Kanno, Y., Siegel, R. M., Jang, M. K., Lenardo, M. J., and Ozato, K. (2004) Mol. Cell 13, 33-43[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  74. Rocha, S., Campbell, K. J., and Perkins, N. D. (2003) Mol. Cell 12, 15-25[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  75. Yu, Q., Geng, Y., and Sicinski, P. (2001) Nature 411, 1017-1021[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  76. Bearss, D. J., Lee, R. J., Troyer, D. A., Pestell, R. G., and Windle, J. J. (2002) Cancer Res. 62, 2077-2084[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  77. Mujtaba, S., He, Y., Zeng, L., Yan, S., Plotnikova, O., Sachchidanand, Sanchez, R., Zeleznik-Le, N. J., Ronai, Z., and Zhou, M. M. (2004) Mol. Cell 13, 251-263[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  78. Owen, D. J., Ornaghi, P., Yang, J. C., Lowe, N., Evans, P. R., Ballario, P., Neuhaus, D., Filetici, P., and Travers, A. A. (2000) EMBO J. 19, 6141-6149[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  79. Semenov, M. V., Tamai, K., Brott, B. K., Kuhl, M., Sokol, S., and He, X. (2001) Curr. Biol. 11, 951-961[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  80. Bafico, A., Liu, G., Goldin, L., Harris, V., and Aaronson, S. A. (2004) Cancer Cells 6, 497-506
  81. Shtutman, M., Zhurinsky, J., Simcha, I., Albanese, C., D'Amico, M., Pestell, R., and Ben-Ze'ev, A. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 5522-5527[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  82. D'Amico, M., Hulit, J., Amanatullah, D., Zafonte, B. T., Albanese, C., Maofu Fu, M., Ikui, A., Donehower, L. A., Shtutman, M., Ben-Ze'ev, A., Dedhar, S., Takemaru, K.-I., Moon, R. T., and Pestell, R. G. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 32649-32657[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  83. Lin, S.-Y., Xia, W., Wang, J. C., Kwong, K. Y., Spohn, B., Wen, Y., Pestell, R. G., and Hung, M.-C. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 4262-4266[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  84. Brakenhielm, E., Veitonmaki, N., Cao, R., Kihara, S., Matsuzawa, Y., Zhivotovsky, B., Funahashi, T., and Cao, Y. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 2476-2481[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  85. Seoane, J., Le, H. V., Shen, L., Anderson, S. A., and Massague, J. (2004) Cell 117, 211-223[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  86. Inoue, K., and Sherr, C. J. (1998) Mol. Cell. Biol. 18, 1590-1600[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  87. Ganter, B., Fu, S.-L., and Lipsick, J. S. (1998) EMBO J. 17, 255-268[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  88. McMahon, C., Suthiphongchai, T., DiRenzo, J., and Ewen, M. E. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 5382-5387[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 EndocrinolHome page
H.-W. Wang, M. Muguira, W.-D. Liu, T. Zhang, C. Chen, R. Aucoin, M. B Breslin, and M. S Lan
Identification of an INSM1-binding site in the insulin promoter: negative regulation of the insulin gene transcription
J. Endocrinol., July 1, 2008; 198(1): 29 - 39.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
Z. Li, C. Wang, X. Jiao, S. Katiyar, M. C. Casimiro, G. C. Prendergast, M. J. Powell, and R. G. Pestell
Alternate Cyclin D1 mRNA Splicing Modulates p27KIP1 Binding and Cell Migration
J. Biol. Chem., March 14, 2008; 283(11): 7007 - 7015.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Pathol.Home page
V. Kundumani-Sridharan, D. Wang, M. Karpurapu, Z. Liu, C. Zhang, N. Dronadula, and G. N. Rao
Suppression of Activation of Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription-5B Signaling in the Vessel Wall Reduces Balloon Injury-Induced Neointima Formation
Am. J. Pathol., October 1, 2007; 171(4): 1381 - 1394.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Pathol.Home page
F. Riuzzi, G. Sorci, and R. Donato
RAGE Expression in Rhabdomyosarcoma Cells Results in Myogenic Differentiation and Reduced Proliferation, Migration, Invasiveness, and Tumor Growth
Am. J. Pathol., September 1, 2007; 171(3): 947 - 961.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
I. Ozaki, H. Zhang, T. Mizuta, Y. Ide, Y. Eguchi, T. Yasutake, T. Sakamaki, R. G. Pestell, and K. Yamamoto
Menatetrenone, a Vitamin K2 Analogue, Inhibits Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cell Growth by Suppressing Cyclin D1 Expression through Inhibition of Nuclear Factor {kappa}B Activation
Clin. Cancer Res., April 1, 2007; 13(7): 2236 - 2245.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Circ. Res.Home page
D. Wang, Z. Liu, Q. Li, M. Karpurapu, V. Kundumani-Sridharan, H. Cao, N. Dronadula, F. Rizvi, A. K. Bajpai, C. Zhang, et al.
An Essential Role for gp130 in Neointima Formation Following Arterial Injury
Circ. Res., March 30, 2007; 100(6): 807 - 816.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Virol.Home page
J. W. Upton and S. H. Speck
Evidence for CDK-Dependent and CDK-Independent Functions of the Murine Gammaherpesvirus 68 v-Cyclin
J. Virol., December 15, 2006; 80(24): 11946 - 11959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Cell. Biol.Home page
T. Sakamaki, M. C. Casimiro, X. Ju, A. A. Quong, S. Katiyar, M. Liu, X. Jiao, A. Li, X. Zhang, Y. Lu, et al.
Cyclin d1 determines mitochondrial function in vivo.
Mol. Cell. Biol., July 1, 2006; 26(14): 5449 - 5469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
K. Leslie, C. Lang, G. Devgan, J. Azare, M. Berishaj, W. Gerald, Y. B. Kim, K. Paz, J. E. Darnell, C. Albanese, et al.
Cyclin d1 is transcriptionally regulated by and required for transformation by activated signal transducer and activator of transcription 3.
Cancer Res., March 1, 2006; 66(5): 2544 - 2552.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Cell. Biol.Home page
L. H. Kasper, T. Fukuyama, M. A. Biesen, F. Boussouar, C. Tong, A. de Pauw, P. J. Murray, J. M. A. van Deursen, and P. K. Brindle
Conditional Knockout Mice Reveal Distinct Functions for the Global Transcriptional Coactivators CBP and p300 in T-Cell Development
Mol. Cell. Biol., February 1, 2006; 26(3): 789 - 809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
280/33/29728    most recent
M503188200v2
M503188200v1
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 Fu, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pestell, R. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fu, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pestell, R. G.
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 © 2005 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement