Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M510843200 on December 1, 2005

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 281, Issue 6, 3398-3407, February 10, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
281/6/3398    most recent
M510843200v1
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 Tsukahara, T.
Right arrow Articles by Tigyi, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tsukahara, T.
Right arrow Articles by Tigyi, 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?

Different Residues Mediate Recognition of 1-O-Oleyllysophosphatidic Acid and Rosiglitazone in the Ligand Binding Domain of Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor {gamma}*Formula

Tamotsu Tsukahara{ddagger}, Ryoko Tsukahara{ddagger}, Satoshi Yasuda{ddagger}, Natalia Makarova{ddagger}, William J. Valentine{ddagger}, Patrick Allison§, Hongbin Yuan§, Daniel L. Baker||**, Zaiguo Li{ddagger}{ddagger}, Robert Bittman{ddagger}{ddagger}, Abby Parrill§§§, and Gabor Tigyi{ddagger}§**1

From the Departments of {ddagger}Physiology and §§Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, the §Department of Chemistry and and Computational Research Institute on Materials, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee 38152, the ||Department of Medicine and the Vascular Biology and Genomics & Bioinformatics Centers of Excellence, **University of Tennessee Health Science Center, University of Tennessee Cancer Institute, Memphis, Tennessee 38152, and the {ddagger}{ddagger}Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Queens College, City University of New York, New York, New York 11367

Received for publication, October 4, 2005 , and in revised form, November 29, 2005.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Here we showed that a naturally occurring ether analog of lysophosphatidic acid, 1-O-octadecenyl-2-hydroxy-sn-glycero-3-phosphate (AGP), is a high affinity partial agonist of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor {gamma} (PPAR{gamma}). Binding studies using the PPAR{gamma} ligand binding domain showed that [32P]AGP and [3H]rosiglitazone (Rosi) both specifically bind to PPAR{gamma} and compete with each other. [32P]AGP bound PPAR{gamma} with an affinity (Kd(app) 60 nM) similar to that of Rosi. However, AGP displaced ~40% of bound [3H]Rosi even when applied at a 2000-fold excess. Activation of PPAR{gamma} reporter gene expression by AGP and Rosi showed similar potency, yet AGP-mediated activation was ~40% that of Rosi. A complex between AGP and PPAR{gamma} was generated using molecular modeling based on a PPAR{gamma} crystal structure. AGP-interacting residues were compared with Rosi-interacting residues identified within the Rosi-PPAR{gamma} co-crystal complex. These comparisons showed that the two ligands occupy partially overlapping positions but make different hydrogen bonding and ion pairing interactions. Site-specific mutants of PPAR{gamma} were prepared to examine individual ligand binding. H323A and H449A mutants showed reduced binding of Rosi but maintained binding of AGP. In contrast, the R288A showed reduced AGP binding but maintained Rosi binding. Finally, alanine replacement of Tyr-473 abolished binding and activation by Rosi and AGP. These observations indicate that the endogenous lipid mediator AGP is a high affinity ligand of PPAR{gamma} but that it binds via interactions distinct from those involved in Rosi binding. These distinct interactions are likely responsible for the partial PPAR{gamma} agonism of AGP.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs)2 are members of the nuclear receptor superfamily that are involved in the regulation of lipid metabolism, glucose homeostasis, cell differentiation, and motility (1-4). The nuclear receptor superfamily consists of several ligand-regulated transcription factors that include the steroid and thyroid hormone receptors, vitamin D3 receptor, retinoic acid receptors, and the PPARs (5-7). The PPAR subfamily consists of three isoforms, PPAR{alpha}, PPARbeta/{delta}, and PPAR{gamma}. PPAR{gamma} has two isotypes, {gamma}1 and {gamma}2, that differ by a 30-amino acid extension on the N terminus of PPAR{gamma}2. Genetic deletion of PPAR{gamma}1 is embryonic lethal (8); however, deletion of PPAR{gamma}2 causes minimal alterations in lipid metabolism (9). The effects of ligands on PPAR{gamma} and retinoid X receptor are mediated through their ligand binding domains (LBD), conserved regions of ~250 amino acids within the C-terminal half of the receptors (10). PPAR{gamma}, like other PPAR isoforms, undergoes a conformational change that stabilizes the AF-2 helix upon binding of agonist. Upon activation, these isoforms heterodimerize with the retinoid X receptor and bind to the peroxisome proliferator-response element (PPRE) in the promoters of target genes (5-7, 11, 12).

A number of natural ligands for PPAR{gamma} have been identified and include two main groups of compounds, fatty acids and phospholipids. PPAR{gamma} exhibits a modest preference for essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, including linoleic (13), linolenic (14), arachidonic (15), and eicosapentaenoic acids (16). PPAR{gamma} is also activated by the monounsaturated fatty acid oleic acid (17). Several oxidatively modified lipids bind to and activate PPAR{gamma}, including 15-deoxy-{Delta}-prostaglandin J2 (18, 19), 9-hydroxy-10,12-octadecadienoic acid, 13-hydroxy-10,12-octadecadienoic acid (20), the oxidized alkyl phospholipid hexadecyl azelaoyl phosphatidylcholine (21), and nitrolinoleic acid (22). Many of these endogenous molecules require high concentrations and are weak activators of PPAR{gamma}, casting doubt about their physiological relevance as bona fide agonists. The thiozolidinedione (TZD) class of anti-diabetics, including rosiglitazone (Rosi), troglitazone, and pioglitazone, are full agonists with nanomolar equilibrium binding constants. These synthetic agents are clinically used to improve insulin sensitivity and fat metabolism in type 2 diabetics (23-26). However, these classical full PPAR{gamma} agonists elicit a variety of side effects, including weight gain, edema, increased fat mass, and tumor formation in rodents (27). To reduce unwanted side effects associated with TZD therapy, new partial agonists have been developed (28).

PPAR{gamma} was originally identified as an orphan nuclear receptor and an adipocyte transcription factor (29, 30). Activation of PPAR{gamma} by TZDs leads to altered metabolism in adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, and liver that collectively results in insulin sensitization, lowering of blood glucose, and elevation of triglyceride clearance (31). Clinical data indicate that PPAR{gamma} agonists protect type 2 diabetics from atherosclerosis (32). On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to support a deleterious role for oxidized phospholipids and fatty acids as important signaling molecules in the context of the atherosclerotic lesion (33). The LDL particle acquires a number of important biological activities as a result of oxidative modification. Mild oxidation of LDL produces prothrombotic and proatherogenic mox-LDL (34-36). Recent studies suggest that lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) GPCR antagonists abolish platelet aggregation elicited by mox-LDL, indicating that an LPA-like lipid plays an essential role in the thrombogenic effects of mox-LDL (35). Oxidation of LDL creates a host of PPAR{gamma} agonists (37), including AGP (38). AGP is also formed from alkyl dihydroxyacetone phosphate through enzymatic reduction (39). In the brain, AGP is present at 0.44 nmol/g, ~15% that of acyl-LPA levels (40). Here we provide evidence that AGP is a ligand of PPAR{gamma} with potency similar to that of the TZD Rosi but with only 40% efficacy. Computational and mutational analysis of the AGP-PPAR{gamma} complex indicates differential interaction with key residues in the ligand binding and activation domains that explain the partial activation elicited by AGP. We further provide evidence that LPA GPCRs are not required for AGP-induced activation of PPAR{gamma}. However, individual LPA GPCRs differentially regulate the transcriptional activity of PPAR{gamma}1.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Materials—Alkyl-glycerophosphate (AGP 16:0 and 18:1), monoalkyl-glycerol 18:1, lysophosphatidic acid (LPA 16:0, 18:0, 18:1, and 20:4), cyclic phosphatidic acid (cPA 18:1), Az-PC, and sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) were purchased from Avanti%20Polar%20Lipids">Avanti Polar Lipids (Alabaster, AL). LPAs (18:2 and 18:3) were obtained from Echelon Biosciences (Salt Lake City, UT). 15-Deoxy-PGJ2, linoleic acid, oleic acid, GW9662, anti-FLAG M2 antibody, and horseradish peroxidase-labeled anti-mouse IgG were obtained from Sigma. [32P]AGP 18:1 was synthesized from 1-O-octadecenyl-sn-glycerol (18:1) by using purified recombinant 1,2-diacylglycerol kinase (Calbiochem). 3H-Labeled Rosi (50 Ci/mmol) and cold Rosi were purchased from American Radiolabeled Chemicals (St. Louis, MO). The SV40-beta-galactosidase reporter was from Promega (Madison, WI). Anti-PPAR{gamma} (E-8) antibody was purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA). The pET15b and pcDNA3.1 vectors were obtained from Novagen and Invitrogen, respectively.

Plasmids and Adenoviruses—The wild type pcDNA3.1-PPAR{gamma}1 expression plasmid, encoding full-length PPAR{gamma}1 (amino acids 1-475), and the pET15b-PPAR{gamma}-LBD expression plasmid, encoding the PPAR{gamma} ligand binding domain (amino acids 173-475), were used as templates for mutagenesis. The pGL3b-PPRE (ACO)-Fluc plasmid has been described previously (38). The SV40-beta-galactosidase reporter was from Promega (Madison, WI). Transpose-Ad adenoviral vector system was purchased from Qbiogene (Irvine, CA), and the PPRE (ACO)-Fluc reporter gene construct was cloned into the pCR276 adenoviral transfer vector between KpnI and XbaI sites. Recombinant replication-deficient adenovirus was generated according to the manufacturer's protocol. Viral titer was determined by plaque assay on QBI cells (Qbiogene), and optimal multiplicity of infection was chosen based on prior experiments.

Cell Culture—CV-1 (African green monkey kidney cells, lacking endogenous PPAR{gamma}), McA-RH7777 (rat hepatoma cells, lacking LPA GPCR, obtained from American Type Culture Collection), and B103 (rat neuroblastoma cells, lacking EDG family LPA GPCR) were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium containing 10% (v/v) fetal bovine serum, 100 units/ml penicillin, 10 µg/ml streptomycin, and 1 mM sodium pyruvate. Cells were grown in a humidified atmosphere containing 5% CO2 at 37 °C.

Western Blot Analysis—Proteins from whole cell lysates were separated by 10% SDS-PAGE and transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Bio-Rad). The membrane was blocked with 5% (w/v) nonfat dried milk in 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 100 mM NaCl, 0.05% Tween 20 (TBST) for 1 h and incubated with primary antibody in TBST with 5% (w/v) nonfat dried milk for 12 h. Secondary immunoreactive bands were visualized using the SuperSignal chemiluminescent substrate kit (Pierce).

Site-directed Mutagenesis—Point mutations were introduced into pcDNA3.1-PPAR{gamma}1 by using a PCR-based mutagenesis strategy with the following mutagenic forward primers (residues underlined represent the mutated codon): R280A, 5'-AGGTGGCCATCGCCATCTTTCAGG-3'; R288A, 5'-CTGCCAGTTTGCCTCCGTG GAG-3'; S289A, 5'-TGCCAGTTTCGCGCCGTGGAGGCT-3'; H323A, 5'-AAATATGGAGTCGCCGAGATCATTTAC-3'; H449A, 5'-ATTGTCACGGAAGCCGTGCAGCTAC-3'; and Y473F, 5'-GCAGGAGATCTTCAAGGACTTGTAC-3'. All mutations were confirmed by sequencing of the complete construct. Bacterial expression plasmids for the wild type and mutant LBD of PPAR{gamma} were generated by in-frame insertion into the pET-15b vector between the XhoI and NdeI sites.

Ligand Binding Assays—Hexahistidine (His6) tag PPAR{gamma} fusion proteins or His6 and thrombin recognition site containing empty vector controls were expressed in BL-21(DE3) cells. Transformed BL-21 cells were induced using 0.3 mM isopropyl 1-beta-D-galactopyranoside (Fisher) for 12 h at 25 °C and collected by centrifugation. Recombinant LBD-PPAR{gamma} was extracted with lysis buffer (50 mM HEPES-KOH, pH 6.8, 200 mM NaCl, 5 mM DTT, 1 mM phenylmethanesulfonyl fluoride, 0.5% Triton X-100, and 15% glycerol) and centrifugation at 12,000 x g for 20 min. 1 ml of the supernatant was incubated with 50 µl of TALON metal affinity resin (BD Biosciences) at 4 °C for 1 h in lysis buffer. The resin was washed five times with wash buffer (50 mM HEPES-KOH, pH 6.8, 200 mM NaCl, 5 mM DTT, 15% glycerol, and 5 mM imidazole) and eluted with 150 mM imidazole in wash buffer. The PPAR{gamma}-LBD protein was quantified using the Bradford protein assay (Pierce) and Coomassie Blue staining. For saturation binding assay, 1 µg of His6-PPAR{gamma}-LBD fusion protein was incubated at 18 °C for 1 h in binding buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 6.8, 100 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 5 mM DTT) and [32P]AGP. The radioligand-LBD fusion protein was precipitated using 3.3% (w/v) {gamma}-globulin (Sigma) and 36% (w/v) polyethylene glycol 8000 (Fisher), collected on a DEAE-81 filter disks (Whatman), and quantified by liquid scintillation counting. Nonspecific binding was determined in the presence of nonradioactive AGP (10 µM). For competition binding assays, 1 µg of His6-PPAR{gamma}-LBD protein was incubated at 18 °C for 1 h in 200 µl of binding buffer in the presence of 5 nM [3H]Rosi or 5 nM [32P]AGP with or without cold compounds. [32P]AGP-bound His6-PPAR{gamma} was precipitated using {gamma}-globulin and polyethylene glycol 8000, collected on a DEAE-81 filter disk. [3H]Rosi-bound protein was collected on a filter disks. Radioligand bound to His6-PPAR{gamma} was washed three times with wash buffer (50 mM HEPES, pH 6.8, 100 mM NaCl, 5 mM DTT), and bound radioactivity was quantified in a Beckman scintillation counter LS-6500.

Photoaffinity Labeling of PPAR{gamma}-LBD with [32P]Benzophenone-AGP 18:1—The synthesis and radioactive labeling of 1-alkylbenzophenone-2-hydroxy-sn-glycero-3-phosphate-[32P] (AGP-BP) was done as described previously (23). Purified PPAR{gamma}-LBD (0.25 µg/µl) was combined with AGP-BP at a 200 nM final concentration with and without 10 µM AGP or Rosi. The samples were irradiated using a UV cross-linker (Spectroline) on ice for up to 15 min. Samples were subsequently diluted with SDS sample buffer and separated by 10% SDS-PAGE. Gels were dried and radioactive bands detected by autoradiography using BioMax MS x-ray film (Eastman Kodak Co.) and a BioMax Transcreen-HE intensifying screen (Kodak).


Figure 1
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1.
Structural formulas of compounds examined in the present study.

 
Transfection of Cultured Cells and Reporter Gene Assay—Determination of PPAR{gamma} activation in CV-1 and B103 cells transfected with the acyl-coenzyme A oxidase-luciferase (PPRE-ACox-Luc) reporter gene construct was performed as reported previously (38). RH7777 cells were transduced with 10 multiplicities of infection of ad5-PPRE-ACox-Luc recombinant virus. Two days post-transduction, Rosi and AGP 18:1 dissolved in Opti-MEM I (Invitrogen), 1% fetal bovine serum, and 1% Me2SO were applied for 20 h. Luciferase and beta-galactosidase activities were measured with the Steady-Glo® luciferase assay system (Promega) and the Galacto-Light PlusTM system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), respectively. Samples were run in quadruplicate, and the means ± S.E. were calculated. Data are representative of at least two independent transfections. Student's t test was used for null hypothesis testing, and p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Ligand Docking—The PPAR{gamma} protein structure was derived from Protein Data Bank entry 1FM9 [PDB] (41). The agonist farglitazar (GI262570) and crystallographic water molecules were removed. Hydrogen atoms of protein amino acids and conserved water molecules were added and optimized to a root mean square gradient of 0.01 kcal/mol·Å using the MMFF94 (41) force field. Nonpolar hydrogen atoms were removed prior to docking. The docking box volume was 30 x 30 x 30 Å, and the center was near the sulfur atom of residue Cys-285. The default software docking parameters were used except the following changes: maximum number of energy evaluations equaled 9 x 109; maximum number of generations equaled 4 x 104; number of iterations of Solis and Wets local search equaled 3,000. AGP 18:1 was built in the -1 ionization state and minimized to a root mean square gradient of 0.01 kcal/mol·Å using the MMFF94 force field (41) in the MOE software program (42). Docking studies were performed using the Autodock 3.0 software (43, 44).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
AGP 18:1 Directly Interacts with the Ligand Binding Pocket of PPAR{gamma}—To obtain direct proof for the interaction of AGP with the ligand binding domain of PPAR{gamma}, a benzophenone derivative of AGP (AGP-BP) was synthesized (Fig. 1) (45). Cold AGP-BP elicited a dose-dependent activation of the PPRE-ACox-Luc reporter gene in CV-1 cells, similar to that of Rosi (Fig. 2A). The PPAR{gamma}-LBD was incubated with 200 nM [32P]AGP-BP in the presence or absence of 10 µM cold AGP or Rosi on ice and illuminated under ultraviolet light for up to 15 min. Modified PPAR{gamma}-LBD was isolated from free [32P]AGP-BP by SDS-PAGE, and covalently bound radioactivity was monitored by autoradiography. PPAR{gamma}-LBD showed a time-dependent increase in labeling by [32P]AGP-BP, which was decreased by a 50-fold excess of either AGP or Rosi (Fig. 2B). This result suggests that AGP-BP interacts with a binding site within the PPAR{gamma}-LBD utilized by both AGP and Rosi. AGP 18:1 and 16:0 have been shown to activate LPA GPCR (46, 47). To establish that none of the four known LPA GPCRs is required for activation of PPAR{gamma}, we sought cell lines that lack endogenous expression of known cell surface and intracellular LPA receptors. The rat hepatoma McA-RH7777 and the rat neuroblastoma B103 have been widely used to study LPA receptors because these cells do not respond to LPA when subjected to standard assays of GPCR (48, 49). When tested using gene-specific primers with reverse transcription-PCR, RH7777 showed a lack of transcripts encoding each of the four known LPA GPCRs. B103 cells, even though not responsive to LPA, showed the expression of the LPA4 transcript (Fig. 2C and supplemental Fig. S1). RH7777 cells abundantly expressed the PPAR{gamma} transcript, although we were unable to detect PPAR{gamma} transcript in B103 cells in experiments using up to 40 cycles of PCR amplification. Western blot analysis using a PPAR{gamma}-specific antibody confirmed the presence of this transcription factor in RH7777 cells (Fig. 2D). In contrast, we could not detect PPAR{gamma} in B103 cells or CV-1 cells. We also confirmed that Rosi or AGP can activate endogenous PPAR{gamma} expressed in LPA1/2/3/4-negative RH7777 cells (Fig. 2E). We discounted the role of LPA4 because in B103 cells that lack PPAR{gamma} and LPA1/2/3 but express LPA4, AGP did not activate PPAR{gamma} unless it was introduced heterologously. When B103 cells were transfected with empty pcDNA3.1 vector, we could not detect transcriptional activity of the PPRE-ACox-Luc reporter gene after exposure to either Rosi, AGP, or AGP + Rosi (Fig. 2F). Heterologous expression of PPAR{gamma} introduced responsiveness to both ligands. Ligand-induced activation of the reporter gene was abolished by the specific PPAR{gamma} inhibitor GW9662 (Fig. 2G). These results together suggest that AGP specifically interacts with PPAR{gamma} and can activate the PPRE-ACox-Luc reporter gene independently of the expression of known LPA GPCRS. Henceforth, we used B103 cells to further characterize the effect of AGP on PPAR{gamma}.

AGP 18:1 Is a High Affinity Ligand for PPAR{gamma}—To quantitatively characterize the binding properties of AGP with PPAR{gamma}-LBD, [32P]AGP 18:1 was synthesized. Equilibrium binding studies showed that the binding of [32P]AGP was concentration-dependent and saturable with an apparent Kd of ~60 nM (Fig. 3A). For comparison, we also determined binding of [3H]Rosi to the same batch of purified His6-PPAR{gamma}-LBD. In agreement with previous reports (50), [3H]Rosi showed concentration-dependent, saturable binding to PPAR{gamma}-LBD with an apparent Kd(app) of ~40 nM (data not shown). Thus, these two ligands show similar high affinity binding to PPAR{gamma}. Next, we determined whether AGP bound to PPAR{gamma} as effectively as Rosi by directly comparing the concentration dependence of [32P]AGP binding to [3H]Rosi binding at nanomolar concentrations, a range representative of physiological ligand concentrations. We found that specific [32P]AGP binding was slightly lower than [3H]Rosi binding at all concentrations, which is consistent with its lower apparent Kd (Fig. 3B).


Figure 2
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 2.
A, AGP-BP dose-dependently activates PPAR{gamma}-dependent PPRE-ACox-Luc expression. CV-1 cells were transfected with PPRE-ACox-Luc along with SV40-beta-galactosidase plasmids and treated for 20 h with Rosi or AGP-BP. Luciferase and beta-galactosidase activities were determined, and the data are presented as the ratio of luciferase activity normalized to beta-galactosidase activity (mean ± S.E., [n = 6]). **, p < 0.01, significant differences over vehicle control. B, photoaffinity labeling of PPAR{gamma}-LBD with [32P]AGP-BP. Purified PPAR{gamma}-LBD was irradiated in the presence of 200 nM ligand for 5-15 min with or without cold 10 µM AGP 18:1 or Rosi. The bound radioactivity was separated from free ligand using SDS-PAGE. Radioactive bands were visualized by autoradiography. The arrowhead indicates the position of the PPAR{gamma}-LBD protein. C, reverse transcription-PCR analysis of LPA GPCRS and PPAR{gamma} expression in RH7777 and B103 cells. D, Western blot analysis of PPAR{gamma} expression in RH7777, B103, and CV-1 cells. E, activation of endogenous PPAR{gamma} in RH7777 cells by Rosi and AGP (10 µM). Cells were transduced with 10 multiplicities of infection of Ad5-PPRE-ACox-Luc recombinant virus and 48 h post-infection were treated with compounds dissolved in 1% Me2SO (DMSO) in Opti-MEM I and incubated for an additional 20 h. *, p < 0.05, significant differences over vehicle control. F, PPAR{gamma} is required for PPRE-ACox-Luc expression in B103 cells. Cells were cotransfected with empty vector or PPAR{gamma}, and the reporter gene plasmid was stimulated for 20 h with vehicle, 10 µM Rosi, 10 µM AGP, or 10 µM Rosi + 10 µM AGP. Normalized luciferase activity (mean ± S.E., n = 5) was measured. **, p < 0.01, significant differences over vehicle control. G, PPRE-ACox-Luc expression is blocked by the PPAR{gamma}-specific antagonist GW9662 (500 nM). Transfection and assay conditions were the same as in F. **, p < 0.01, significant differences over vehicle control.

 


Figure 3
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 3.
AGP 18:1 is a high affinity ligand for PPAR{gamma}. A, saturable binding of [32P]AGP 18:1 to purified human PPAR{gamma}-LBD. Total binding (squares), nonspecific binding (triangles), and specific binding (circles) were determined. Nonspecific binding was determined in the presence of nonradioactive AGP (10 µM). The binding constant was calculated by Scatchard analysis. Data are representative of three independent experiments. B, direct comparison of [32P]AGP and [3H]Rosi binding at low concentrations. The shallower slope of AGP binding is consistent with its lower Kd than that of Rosi. C and D, competition between Rosi and AGP binding to purified His6-PPAR{gamma}-LBD. 5 nM [3H]Rosi or [32P]AGP 18:1 was incubated with increasing concentrations of cold competitor. Data are the mean ± S.D. of triplicates analyses and are representative of two independent assays. Note the biphasic character of the displacement curves.

 
[32P]AGP was displaced by cold AGP in a concentration-dependent manner. Over 80% of bound [32P]AGP was displaced with a 1,000-fold excess of cold AGP (Fig. 3C). In contrast, only ~55% of bound [32P]AGP could be displaced by Rosi even with a 10,000-fold excess of the cold competitor (Fig. 3C). When the labeled ligands were reversed (Fig. 3D), ~95% of [3H]Rosi was displaced using a 2,000-fold excess of cold Rosi, whereas only ~40% of [3H]Rosi was displaced by the same 2,000-fold excess of cold AGP. The displacement curve was biphasic with as little as 1 nM cold AGP able to displace ~45% of bound [3H]Rosi (Fig. 3D), whereas levels of cold AGP >1 µM only brought about an additional ~10% increase in displacement. These results suggest that both ligands bind tightly to PPAR{gamma} and that their binding sites are overlapping but not identical.

To delineate further the differences between binding of [3H]Rosi and [32P]AGP, we examined a panel of related lipids as cold competitors. All cold lipids were applied at 2.5 µM, corresponding to a 500-fold excess over the radiolabeled ligand (Fig. 4, A and B). In this competition binding assay, only linoleic acid blocked >95% of [3H]Rosi binding. The other lipids were less effective; AGP 18:1, LPA 16:0, LPA 18:0, LPA 18:1, LPA 20:0, cPA 18:1, 15-deoxy-PGJ2, and oleic acid partially blocked [3H]Rosi binding. In contrast, AGP 16:0, Az-PC, and S1P failed to displace labeled Rosi at the concentration tested. We also tested these lipids for their ability to block [32P]AGP binding (Fig. 4B). In this case, AGP 16:0, AGP 18:1, LPA 18:1, cPA 18:1, LPA 20:0, and PC displaced more than 50% of the radioligand. Most surprisingly, 15-deoxy-PGJ2, oleic acid, and linoleic acid, compounds widely regarded as endogenous PPAR{gamma} agonists, were unable to displace [32P]AGP 18:1 at the concentration applied. The differences in the displacement of the two radioligands further support the notion that they interact differently with PPAR{gamma}.


Figure 4
View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 4.
AGP 18:1 is a partial agonist of PPAR{gamma}. A, competition between [3H]Rosi (5 nM) and other putative PPAR{gamma} ligands applied at 2.5 µM binding to His6-PPAR{gamma}-LBD. Cold Rosi and linoleic acid are the most effective competitors at this concentration. B, competition between [32P]AGP (5 nM) binding to PPAR{gamma}-LBD and other putative PPAR{gamma} ligands applied at 2.5 µM. C, dose-response relationship of PPAR{gamma} activation in B103 cells transfected with the PPRE-ACox-Luc reporter gene and beta-galactosidase. The cells were treated for 20 h with Rosi, AGP 18:1, LPA 18:1, or S1P. Normalized luciferase activity was calculated for quadruplicate samples. Data are representative of two independent transfections. Note that AGP and Rosi elicit significant transcriptional activity as low as 10 nM. D, comparison of PPAR{gamma} activation by 10 nM AGP 18:1, Rosi, Az-PC, oleic acid, 15-deoxy-PGJ2, and LPA 18:1 in B103 cells after 20 h of stimulation. beta-Galactosidase-normalized luciferase activities (mean ± S.E.) were measured in the cell lysate (n = 6). **, p < 0.01, significant differences over vehicle control.

 
AGP 18:1 Is a Partial Agonist of PPAR{gamma}—B103 cells that lack PPAR{gamma} and LPA1/2/3 were transfected with the PPRE-ACox-Luc reporter construct and treated with increasing concentrations of AGP, Rosi, and S1P. We found the threshold of AGP-induced reporter gene activation to be ~10 nM (~1.5-fold; Fig. 4C). A further increase in AGP concentration elicited only modest incremental increases in transcriptional activation so that maximal expression was achieved at 10 µM (~1.9-fold). Rosi also induced a concentration-dependent increase in transcriptional activity with a threshold concentration ~10 nM. However, the magnitude of this response was greater than that of AGP reaching a maximum of ~3.4-fold activation in this cell line. The related lipid mediator S1P failed to activate (Fig. 4C) the reporter gene despite that B103 cells express the S1P1 GPCR (data not shown). Because as little as 10 nM AGP or Rosi was effective in eliciting a modest, yet significant increase in transcriptional activation of the reporter gene, we compared the transcriptional activity elicited by several putative, endogenous activators of PPAR{gamma} at this concentration. Tokumura et al. (51) established previously that 10-14% of AGP remains intact in the cytoplasm within 30 min after extracellular application, indicating that a significant portion of AGP is imported into the cell. B103 cells transfected with the reporter gene construct were treated with 10 nM AGP 18:1, oleic acid, Az-PC, 15-deoxy-PGJ2, LPA 18:1, or Rosi. Among these putative endogenous PPAR{gamma} ligands, only AGP and Rosi induced significant increases in transcriptional activity (1.5- and 1.7-fold, respectively; Fig. 4D). These results, taken together with the binding data, are consistent with the notion that AGP functions as a partial agonist of PPAR{gamma} that is capable of activating this transcription factor at low nanomolar concentrations. Furthermore, AGP is more potent in activating the PPRE-ACox-Luc reporter gene construct than several putative endogenous PPAR{gamma} agonists. AGP activation is surpassed only by the synthetic full agonist, Rosi.


Figure 5
View larger version (45K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 5.
Modeled interactions of AGP 18:1 differ from crystallographic interactions of rosiglitazone with PPAR{gamma}1. Protein backbone of the PPAR{gamma} ligand binding domain is shown as a ribbon model shaded from red at the N terminus to blue at the C terminus. The co-activator peptide present in the Protein Data Bank entry 1FM6 [PDB] (41) crystallographic structure is shown as a yellow ribbon. The AF-2 loop is labeled. Selected protein residues discussed in the text are shown as stick models. AGP 18:1 and rosiglitazone are shown as space-filling models and are labeled. A, model structure of AGP 18:1 in the -1 ionization state was docked into a crystallographic structure of the PPAR{gamma} ligand binding domain (67) (Protein Data Bank entry 1FM9 [PDB] (41)) after deletion of ligand and crystallographic water molecules. All three panels are viewed from the same perspective. B, crystallographic complex of Rosiglitazone (Protein Data Bank entry 1FM6 [PDB] ) (41). C, overlay of docked AGP 18:1 position on the crystallographic position of rosiglitazone. Overlapping atoms in both structures are colored light gray. Nonoverlapping atoms of AGP 18:1 and rosiglitazone are shown in green and orange, respectively.

 
Structural Basis for the Differential Interaction of AGP and Rosi with PPAR{gamma}—Because crystal structures of ligand-free and Rosi-bound PPAR{gamma} structures are available, we used molecular modeling techniques to computationally dock AGP within the PPAR{gamma} structure (Protein Data Bank entry 1FM9 [PDB] ). The energetically most favorable model placed AGP in a position that partially overlapped with the position occupied by Rosi in its co-crystal structure with PPAR{gamma} (Fig. 5, A and B). Histidine residues 323 and 449 form critical interactions with the thiozolidine ring of Rosi that have been experimentally validated to play a role in TZD binding and activation (52). Tyrosine 473 in the AF-2 helix plays an essential role in Rosi-mediated activation of PPAR{gamma}. Mutation of this residue renders PPAR{gamma} nonactivable by TZD (53). The predicted position of AGP within the PPAR{gamma} ligand binding pocket shows significant overlap with that of the Rosi-occupied volume (Fig. 5C), particularly relative to residues His-323, His-449, and Tyr-473. However, AGP hydrocarbons make no hydrogen bonding interactions with the two histidines like Rosi does. In contrast, the phosphate head group of AGP is predicted to make a salt bridge with Arg-288, a residue that is not engaged by Rosi (Fig. 5C). Furthermore, Ser-289 makes van der Waals contact with the central portion of the AGP hydrophobic tail. The terminus of the AGP hydrophobic tail interacts with residues that are not engaged by Rosi. We hypothesized that Arg-288 is likely to play a differentiating role in the interactions between PPAR{gamma} and AGP or Rosi. In contrast, we predicted that Tyr-473 is in the vicinity of the double bond and is likely to be important for interactions with both ligands. To test these hypotheses, we generated alanine or phenylalanine replacement mutants of these residues in the PPAR{gamma}-LBD and tested their binding to and activation by Rosi and AGP. In agreement with our predictions, H323A, H449A, H323A/H449A, and Y473F completely lost their ability to bind Rosi (Fig. 6A). In contrast, H323A maintained ~80% and H449A maintained normal AGP binding (Fig. 6A). The R288A mutant showed reduced AGP, but normal Rosi binding and the Y473A mutant were unable to bind either ligand.

To examine the impact of these mutations on PPAR activation, we examined their transcriptional activity using the PPRE-ACox-Luc reporter gene system. B103 cells were transfected with individual PPAR{gamma} mutants, the reporter gene construct, and SV40-beta-galactosidase for normalization. The transcriptional activity of wild type PPAR{gamma} increased 2.5-fold after exposure to 10 µM Rosi. In contrast, the H323A, H449A, Y473F, and H323/449A mutants all showed significantly reduced transcriptional activity in response to Rosi (Fig. 6B). The R288A and Y473F mutants showed reduced transcriptional activity in response to 10 µM AGP, whereas activation of the H323A, H449A, and H323A/H449A mutants was indistinguishable from that of the wild type (Fig. 6C). These results highlight distinct interactions between AGP or Rosi with select residues within the PPAR{gamma}-LBD.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Recent studies have provided evidence that select forms of lysophosphatidic acid applied extracellularly activate the lipid-regulated transcription factor PPAR{gamma}. LPA, the cognate ligand for four mammalian GPCR, has been viewed primarily as an extracellular mediator (34, 38, 54, 55). AGP has been detected in several vertebrate biological fluids and tissues, including rat brain, human ascitic fluid, saliva, and hen egg (40, 56-58). In the brain, the steady-state concentration of AGP was 0.44 nmol/g (40), whereas in ascites fluids from ovarian cancer patients AGP was 3.7 nmol/g relative to 0.4 nmol/g in controls (56). Human saliva contains 0.104 nmol/ml AGP (57), and hen egg contains 1.09 nmol/g of egg yolk and 0.02 nmol/g of egg white (58). It is noteworthy that yolk is enriched in AGP and that this concentration is sufficient to activate PPAR{gamma}. Nuclei have the capability to synthesize PA from LPA and AGP and also break it down (59-63). The significance of the nuclear lipid metabolic pathways is presently unclear because of the paucity of data.

In the present study we examined the interactions between alkyl analogs of LPA and PPAR{gamma}. We showed previously that AGP but not acyl-LPA accumulates in oxidatively modified LDL (35). Likewise, AGP was found to be the most potent activator of PPAR{gamma}-mediated transcription compared with the acyl-LPA species (38). Furthermore, Tokumura et al. (51) have established that 10-14% of extracellularly applied AGP can be recovered intact, from the cytoplasm, 30 min after application. Recent evidence indicates that PPAR{gamma} is present in the cytoplasm (64) where it is potentially available for direct interaction with AGP. Therefore, we first examined the quantitative aspects of AGP interaction with the LBD of PPAR{gamma} to establish whether physiologic concentrations are capable of eliciting activation. We utilized a photoaffinity analog of AGP to examine specific binding to purified PPAR{gamma}-LBD. These experiments revealed time-dependent, specific labeling of PPAR{gamma}-LBD with AGP-BP that was competitively reduced by excess cold AGP or Rosi. By using radioligand binding assays, we determined that AGP 18:1 has high affinity for PPAR{gamma} with an apparent Kd of 60 nM. This value is comparable with PPAR{gamma} binding of the TZD compound, Rosi, reported in the literature (40-325 nM) (18, 50, 65). However, despite the high binding affinity of AGP, competition with Rosi indicated that the two ligands cannot mutually and fully displace each other. A 500-fold excess of various putative endogenous PPAR{gamma} ligands competed with AGP or Rosi (Fig. 4, A and B) with varying success, revealing substantial differences in efficacies. Long chain (≥C18) LPA species, oleate, linoleate, and 15-deoxy-PGJ2 effectively competed with Rosi. In contrast, the latter three lipids did not displace [32P]AGP. Most interestingly, the endogenous phospholipid ligand Az-PC (21) and the LPA analogs were effective in competing with AGP for binding. The Rosi displacement curve showed two distinct parts. In the picomolar to low nanomolar range, AGP was a more effective competitor than Rosi; however, in the micromolar range AGP failed to displace more than ~55% of bound TZD. The distinct pattern of displacement by endogenous PPAR{gamma} ligands combined with the biphasic displacement curve suggests that AGP and Rosi interact differentially with the PPAR{gamma}-LBD. To examine this hypothesis, we applied a computational modeling-guided mutagenesis strategy, which utilized an agonist-bound PPAR{gamma} crystal structure as the docking target. Computational docking of AGP and LPA analogs with the PPAR{gamma} binding pocket indicated only partial common ligand-occupied volume and predicted several overlapping and distinct interactions with key ligand binding pocket residues (Fig. 5). Residues His-323, His-449, and the AF2 activation loop residue Tyr-473 were predicted to be in close proximity to both ligands. These residues are essential for TZD binding and activation (52, 66). In contrast the AGP head group was shown to make a salt bridge with Arg-288. Alanine replacement mutations confirmed predictions of the model in that AGP binding was selectively diminished in the R288A mutant without any effect on Rosi binding. This finding is consistent with the demonstrated impairment of binding of natural, but not synthetic, ligands to the R288H mutant identified in sporadic colon cancers (53). Alanine replacement of Tyr-473, an essential residue for TZD binding to PPAR{gamma} (67), abolished binding to both Rosi and AGP, suggesting a common mechanism of activation. Altogether, these findings provide strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that AGP is a high affinity endogenous ligand of PPAR{gamma}. Nonetheless, AGP interacts with a different set of residues in the large ligand binding pocket of PPAR{gamma}.


Figure 6
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 6.
Differential binding to and activation of PPAR{gamma} mutants by Rosi and AGP. A, ligand binding properties to wild type and mutant PPAR{gamma}-LBD. Purified wild type, R288A, S289A, H323A, H449A, Y473F, and H323A/H449A mutants were incubated with 5 nM [3H]Rosi or [32P]AGP 18:1. Specific binding was calculated in quadruplicate samples. Data shown are representative of two independent experiments. B and C, activation of PPAR{gamma}-dependent reporter gene activation in B103 cells transfected with mutants shown in A. Normalized luciferase reporter gene activity was measured 20 h after the addition of 10 µM Rosi (B) or AGP 18:1 (C). *, p < 0.01 compared with wild type PPAR{gamma}-LBD. Data shown in these panels are representative of two independent transfections.

 
Our next goal was to assess how the high affinity binding of AGP translates to activation of PPAR{gamma}. To address this question, we tested several cell lines to identify a PPAR{gamma} and LPA GPCR null background, where using a receptor add-back approach could also be pursued to examine the role of LPA GPCR modulation of PPAR{gamma} activation. We confirmed that RH7777 hepatoma cells, which lack the four known LPA GPCRs (48) but endogenously express PPAR{gamma}, were activated by both Rosi and AGP (Fig. 2E). This observation strongly supports the hypothesis that LPA GPCRs are not necessary for the activation of PPAR{gamma} by AGP. We found that the B103 cell line expressed traces of LPA4 transcript but was devoid of other LPA GPCRS and endogenous PPAR{gamma} transcripts, hence providing a unique tool to study the effect of LPA GPCRS on PPAR{gamma} activation. Wild type B103 cells showed no AGP- or Rosi-elicited transcriptional activation of the reporter gene. Heterologous expression of PPAR{gamma} introduced transcriptional activation to both ligands that was abolished by the specific and irreversible PPAR{gamma} antagonist GW9662. These results provide strong evidence that AGP can specifically activate transcription of a PPAR{gamma} target gene in a mammalian cell line. This extends the previous observation by McIntyre et al. (34) obtained in yeast cells that lack all nuclear hormone receptors and contain only a single GPCR-linked receptor for mating factor. They (34) found that LPA directly acts on PPAR{gamma}, rather than stimulating an unknown ligand through an LPA GPCR.

The lack of LPA1/2/3 expression in B103 cells permitted the evaluation of the effect of these receptors on PPAR{gamma} activation. These experiments revealed a pattern of interaction between AGP- and Rosi-induced transcriptional activity of PPAR{gamma}. LPA1 overexpression significantly augmented the transcriptional activity of PPAR{gamma} elicited by the simultaneous application of Rosi and AGP. In contrast, LPA2 and LPA3 expression significantly attenuated reporter-gene activity elicited by the simultaneous application of Rosi and AGP (data not shown). The observation that LPA1 expression synergizes with PPAR{gamma} activation is consistent with our previous observation that uncoupling of LPA1 signaling by pertussis toxin partially attenuated the LPA-induced PPAR{gamma} transcriptional activity in vitro and in vivo (38). These results are in sharp contrast to the report by Simon et al. (68), who showed an attenuation of PPAR{gamma} activity in adipocytes treated with LPA 18:1. Because of the complexity and many possible points of interaction between the GPCR and PPAR{gamma} signaling pathways (69), dissection of this mechanism is beyond the scope of the present study.

High affinity binding of AGP to PPAR{gamma} is supported by the reporter gene activation data, indicating that as little as 10 nM AGP or Rosi were effective in eliciting a modest but significant transcriptional activation of the reporter gene in B103 cells (Fig. 4D). This is in stark contrast to previously identified, putative endogenous PPAR{gamma} ligands, including Az-PC, oleic acid, 15-deoxy-PGJ2, and LPA 18:1, which were not effective at this low concentration. Based on these findings, we propose AGP be considered as an additional endogenous ligand of PPAR{gamma}. The efficacy of AGP does not match that of full agonist TZD analogs Rosi (Fig. 4C), pioglitazone, or troglitazone (data not shown). AGP is a partial agonist compared with the TZD compounds, which are clearly more efficacious than any endogenous ligand known to date. Nevertheless, in terms of potency AGP and Rosi show similar levels of activation within the low nanomolar concentration range. Our mutagenesis studies support an hypothesis that the differential interactions with key residues in the PPAR{gamma}-LBD are responsible for the partial agonist properties of AGP as compared with the full agonist Rosi. The computational model will allow us to design novel AGP analogs that show more favorable interactions with the residues uniquely interacting with TZD full agonists, such as His-323 and -449. We predict that AGP analogs can be designed that will have efficacy comparable with TZD. It is important that we acknowledge a new trend in the PPAR{gamma} field that puts more emphasis on the use of partial agonists because of reduced side effects (23). By taking this into account, AGP might serve as a useful scaffold for lead optimization studies. Another important consideration for future investigation is based on the well established differences in signaling properties and gene activation patterns between full versus partial PPAR{gamma} agonists (70). In this context, it is expected that AGP activates a different set of PPAR{gamma} target genes, because of differences in the recruitment of co-activators and co-repressors as compared with full agonists. Again, experimental testing of this hypothesis is beyond the scope of the present study.

Previously we found that AGP content was elevated 6-fold upon mild oxidation of LDL, with the octadecenyl species showing a 10-fold increase over native LDL (38). Most interestingly, the rank order of AGP species present in mox-LDL was the same as that reported in the lipid core of human atherosclerotic plaques (35). These observations serve as important corollaries to the hypothesis that endogenous ligands of PPAR{gamma} regulate cellular events within the vessel wall during atherogenesis. In conclusion, we propose that AGP should be considered as endogenous ligand of PPAR{gamma}. The simultaneous activations of PPAR{gamma} and LPA GPCR are likely to lead to complex cellular responses that will be deciphered in future studies.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported by United States Public Health Service Grants CA92160 (to G. T.), HL61469 (to G. T.), HL79004 (to G. T.), HL083187 (to R. B.), and T32 HL007641 (to W. J. V.), the American Heart Association Grants 50006N, 355199B (to A. P.), and 0525489B (to T. T.), and National Science Foundation Grant CHE0353885 (to A. P.). 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

Formula The on-line version of this article (available at http://www.jbc.org) contains Fig. S1. Back

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Physiology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 894 Union Ave., Memphis, TN 38163. Tel.: 901-448-4793; Fax: 901-448-7126; E-mail: gtigyi{at}physio1.utmem.edu.

2 The abbreviations used are: PPAR peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor; ACox, acyl-coenzyme (CoA) oxidase; AGP, 1-O-oleyl-glycerophosphate; AGP-BP, 1-O-(13-(4-benzoylphenyl)-9(Z)-tridecenyl)-2-O-methoxymethyl-sn-glycerol phosphate; cPA, 1-oleoyl-sn-glycero-2,3-cyclic phosphate; Az-PC, 1-O-hexadecyl-2-azelaoyl phosphatidylcholine; Me2SO, dimethyl sulfoxide; GPCR, G-protein-coupled receptor; LPA, lysophosphatidic acid; PPRE, PPAR-response element; PVDF, polyvinylidene difluoride; Rosi, rosiglitazone; S1P, D-erythro-sphingosine 1-phosphate; LBD, ligand binding domains; TZD, thiozolidinedione; PG, prostaglandin; LDL, low density lipoprotein; EDG, endothelial differentiation gene. Back



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Duval, C., Chinetti, G., Trottein, F., Fruchart, J. C., and Staels, B. (2002) Trends Mol. Med. 8, 422-430[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Kiec-Wilk, B., Dembinska-Kiec, A., Olszanecka, A., Bodzioch, M., and Kawecka-Jaszcz, K. (2005) J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 56, 149-162[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Liu, K., Xu, L., Berger, J. P., Macnaul, K. L., Zhou, G., Doebber, T. W., Forrest, M. J., Moller, D. E., and Jones, A. B. (2005) J. Med. Chem. 48, 2262-2265[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Wang, G., Wei, J., Guan, Y., Jin, N., Mao, J., and Wang, X. (2005) Metabolism 54, 590-597[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Mangelsdorf, D. J., Thummel, C., Beato, M., Herrlich, P., Schutz, G., Umesono, K., Blumberg, B., Kastner, P., Mark, M., Chambon, P., and Evans, R. M. (1995) Cell 83, 835-839[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Brivanlou, A. H., and Darnell, J. E., Jr. (2002) Science 295, 813-818[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. McKenna, N. J., Lanz, R. B., and O'Malley, B. W. (1999) Endocr. Rev. 20, 321-344[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Asami-Miyagishi, R., Iseki, S., Usui, M., Uchida, K., Kubo, H., and Morita, I. (2004) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 315, 497-501[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Medina-Gomez, G., Virtue, S., Lelliott, C., Boiani, R., Campbell, M., Christodoulides, C., Perrin, C., Jimenez-Linan, M., Blount, M., Dixon, J., Zahn, D., Thresher, R. R., Aparicio, S., Carlton, M., Colledge, W. H., Kettunen, M. I., Seppanen-Laakso, T., Sethi, J. K., O'Rahilly, S., Brindle, K., Cinti, S., Oresic, M., Burcelin, R., and Vidal-Puig, A. (2005) Diabetes 54, 1706-1716[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Weatherman, R. V., Fletterick, R. J., and Scanlan, T. S. (1999) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 68, 559-581[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Desvergne, B., and Wahli, W. (1999) Endocr. Rev. 20, 649-688[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Schoonjans, K., Martin, G., Staels, B., and Auwerx, J. (1997) Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 8, 159-166[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Bocos, C., Gottlicher, M., Gearing, K., Banner, C., Enmark, E., Teboul, M., Crickmore, A., and Gustafsson, J. A. (1995) J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 53, 467-473[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Jiang, W. G., Redfern, A., Bryce, R. P., and Mansel, R. E. (2000) Prostaglandins Leukotrienes Essent. Fatty Acids 62, 119-127[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Krey, G., Braissant, O., L'Horset, F., Kalkhoven, E., Perroud, M., Parker, M. G., and Wahli, W. (1997) Mol. Endocrinol. 11, 779-791[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Huang, J. T., Welch, J. S., Ricote, M., Binder, C. J., Willson, T. M., Kelly, C., Witztum, J. L., Funk, C. D., Conrad, D., and Glass, C. K. (1999) Nature 400, 378-382[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  17. Santini, E., Fallahi, P., Ferrari, S. M., Masoni, A., Antonelli, A., and Ferrannini, E. (2004) Diabetes 53, Suppl. 3, 79-83
  18. Forman, B. M., Tontonoz, P., Chen, J., Brun, R. P., Spiegelman, B. M., and Evans, R. M. (1995) Cell 83, 803-812[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Kliewer, S. A., Lenhard, J. M., Willson, T. M., Patel, I., Morris, D. C., and Lehmann, J. M. (1995) Cell 83, 813-819[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Lenz, M. L., Hughes, H., Mitchell, J. R., Via, D. P., Guyton, J. R., Taylor, A. A., Gotto, A. M., Jr., and Smith, C. V. (1990) J. Lipid Res. 31, 1043-1050[Abstract]
  21. Davies, S. S., Pontsler, A. V., Marathe, G. K., Harrison, K. A., Murphy, R. C., Hinshaw, J. C., Prestwich, G. D., Hilaire, A. S., Prescott, S. M., Zimmerman, G. A., and McIntyre, T. M. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 16015-16023[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Schopfer, F. J., Lin, Y., Baker, P. R., Cui, T., Garcia-Barrio, M., Zhang, J., Chen, K., Chen, Y. E., and Freeman, B. A. (2005) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102, 2340-2345[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Berger, J. P. (2005) Int. J. Obes. 29, Suppl. 1, 3-4[CrossRef]
  24. Lautamaki, R., Airaksinen, K. E., Seppanen, M., Toikka, J., Luotolahti, M., Ball, E., Borra, R., Harkonen, R., Iozzo, P., Stewart, M., Knuuti, J., and Nuutila, P. (2005) Diabetes 54, 2787-2794[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Negro, R., Mangieri, T., Dazzi, D., Pezzarossa, A., and Hassan, H. (2005) Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 70, 20-25[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Sarafidis, P. A., Lasaridis, A. N., Nilsson, P. M., Mouslech, T. F., Hitoglou-Makedou, A. D., Stafylas, P. C., Kazakos, K. A., Yovos, J. G., and Tourkantonis, A. A. (2005) Metabolism 54, 1236-1242[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Lebovitz, H. E. (2002) Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 18, Suppl. 2, 23-29
  28. Knouff, C., and Auwerx, J. (2004) Endocr. Rev. 25, 899-918[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Kliewer, S. A., Forman, B. M., Blumberg, B., Ong, E. S., Borgmeyer, U., Mangelsdorf, D. J., Umesono, K., and Evans, R. M. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 7355-7359[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Tontonoz, P., Hu, E., Graves, R. A., Budavari, A. I., and Spiegelman, B. M. (1994) Genes Dev. 8, 1224-1234[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Way, J. M., Harrington, W. W., Brown, K. K., Gottschalk, W. K., Sundseth, S. S., Mansfield, T. A., Ramachandran, R. K., Willson, T. M., and Kliewer, S. A. (2001) Endocrinology 142, 1269-1277[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Minamikawa, J., Tanaka, S., Yamauchi, M., Inoue, D., and Koshiyama, H. (1998) J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 83, 1818-1820[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Nicholson, A. C. (2004) Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 14, 8-12
  34. McIntyre, T. M., Pontsler, A. V., Silva, A. R., St Hilaire, A., Xu, Y., Hinshaw, J. C., Zimmerman, G. A., Hama, K., Aoki, J., Arai, H., and Prestwich, G. D. (2003) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 131-136[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Rother, E., Brandl, R., Baker, D. L., Goyal, P., Gebhard, H., Tigyi, G., and Siess, W. (2003) Circulation 108, 741-747[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Siess, W., Zangl, K. J., Essler, M., Bauer, M., Brandl, R., Corrinth, C., Bittman, R., Tigyi, G., and Aepfelbacher, M. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 6931-6936[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Tontonoz, P., Nagy, L., Alvarez, J. G., Thomazy, V. A., and Evans, R. M. (1998) Cell 93, 241-252[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Zhang, C., Baker, D. L., Yasuda, S., Makarova, N., Balazs, L., Johnson, L. R., Marathe, G. K., McIntyre, T. M., Xu, Y., Prestwich, G. D., Byun, H. S., Bittman, R., and Tigyi, G. (2004) J. Exp. Med. 199, 763-774[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Gaits, F., Fourcade, O., Le Balle, F., Gueguen, G., Gaige, B., Gassama-Diagne, A., Fauvel, J., Salles, J. P., Mauco, G., Simon, M. F., and Chap, H. (1997) FEBS Lett. 410, 54-58[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  40. Sugiura, T., Nakane, S., Kishimoto, S., Waku, K., Yoshioka, Y., Tokumura, A., and Hanahan, D. J. (1999) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1440, 194-204[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Gampe, R. T., Jr., Montana, V. G., Lambert, M. H., Miller, A. B., Bledsoe, R. K., Milburn, M. V., Kliewer, S. A., Willson, T. M., and Xu, H. E. (2000) Mol. Cell 5, 545-555[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  42. Chemical Computing Group (2003) MOE, Version 2003.02, Chemical Computing Group, Montreal, Canada
  43. Morris, G. M., Goodsell, D. S., Halliday, R. S., Huey, R., Hart, W. E., Belew, R. K., and Olson, A. J. (1998) J. Comput. Chem. 19, 1639-1662[CrossRef]
  44. Goodsell, D. S., and Olson, A. J. (1990) Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 8, 195-202[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Li, Z., Baker, D. L., Tigyi, G., and Bittman, R. (2005) J. Org. Chem., in press
  46. Bandoh, K., Aoki, J., Taira, A., Tsujimoto, M., Arai, H., and Inoue, K. (2000) FEBS Lett. 478, 159-165[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Fujiwara, Y., Sardar, V., Tokumura, A., Baker, D. L., Murakami-Murofushi, K., Parrill, A. L., and Tigyi, G. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 35038-35050[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Ishii, I., Contos, J. J., Fukushima, N., and Chun, J. (2000) Mol. Pharmacol. 58, 895-902[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Noguchi, K., Ishii, S., and Shimizu, T. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 25600-25606[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Lehmann, J. M., Moore, L. B., Smith-Oliver, T. A., Wilkison, W. O., Willson, T. M., and Kliewer, S. A. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 12953-12956[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Tokumura, A., Tsutsumi, T., and Tsukatani, H. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 7275-7283[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Oberfield, J. L., Collins, J. L., Holmes, C. P., Goreham, D. M., Cooper, J. P., Cobb, J. E., Lenhard, J. M., Hull-Ryde, E. A., Mohr, C. P., Blanchard, S. G., Parks, D. J., Moore, L. B., Lehmann, J. M., Plunket, K., Miller, A. B., Milburn, M. V., Kliewer, S. A., and Willson, T. M. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 6102-6106[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Sarraf, P., Mueller, E., Smith, W. M., Wright, H. M., Kum, J. B., Aaltonen, L. A., de la Chapelle, A., Spiegelman, B. M., and Eng, C. (1999) Mol. Cell 3, 799-804[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Angeli, V., Hammad, H., Staels, B., Capron, M., Lambrecht, B. N., and Trottein, F. (2003) J. Immunol. 170, 5295-5301[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Llodra, J., Angeli, V., Liu, J., Trogan, E., Fisher, E. A., and Randolph, G. J. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 11779-11784[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Xiao, Y. J., Schwartz, B., Washington, M., Kennedy, A., Webster, K., Belinson, J., and Xu, Y. (2001) Anal. Biochem. 290, 302-313[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Sugiura, T., Nakane, S., Kishimoto, S., Waku, K., Yoshioka, Y., and Tokumura, A. (2002) J. Lipid Res. 43, 2049-2055[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Nakane, S., Tokumura, A., Waku, K., and Sugiura, T. (2001) Lipids 36, 413-419[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  59. Baker, R. R., and Chang, H. (1998) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1392, 351-360[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Baker, R. R., and Chang, H. (2000) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1483, 58-68[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Baker, R. R., and Chang, H. Y. (1988) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 960, 390-400[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Baker, R. R., and Chang, H. Y. (1990) Biochem. Cell Biol. 68, 641-647[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  63. Baker, R. R., and Chang, H. Y. (1999) Mol. Cell Biochem. 198, 47-55[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  64. Kelly, D., Campbell, J. I., King, T. P., Grant, G., Jansson, E. A., Coutts, A. G., Pettersson, S., and Conway, S. (2004) Nat. Immun. 5, 104-112[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Shao, D., Rangwala, S. M., Bailey, S. T., Krakow, S. L., Reginato, M. J., and Lazar, M. A. (1998) Nature 396, 377-380[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  66. Xu, H. E., Lambert, M. H., Montana, V. G., Plunket, K. D., Moore, L. B., Collins, J. L., Oplinger, J. A., Kliewer, S. A., Gampe, R. T., Jr., McKee, D. D., Moore, J. T., and Willson, T. M. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98, 13919-13924[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Nolte, R. T., Wisely, G. B., Westin, S., Cobb, J. E., Lambert, M. H., Kurokawa, R., Rosenfeld, M. G., Willson, T. M., Glass, C. K., and Milburn, M. V. (1998) Nature 395, 137-143[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  68. Simon, M. F., Rey, A., Castan-Laurel, I., Gres, S., Sibrac, D., Valet, P., and Saulnier-Blache, J. S. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 23131-23136[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Rodway, H. A., Hunt, A. N., Kohler, J. A., Postle, A. D., and Lillycrop, K. A. (2004) Biochem. J. 382, 83-91[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  70. Berger, J. P., Petro, A. E., Macnaul, K. L., Kelly, L. J., Zhang, B. B., Richards, K., Elbrecht, A., Johnson, B. A., Zhou, G., Doebber, T. W., Biswas, C., Parikh, M., Sharma, N., Tanen, M. R., Thompson, G. M., Ventre, J., Adams, A. D., Mosley, R., Surwit, R. S., and Moller, D. E. (2003) Mol. Endocrinol. 17, 662-676[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
 Molecular Cancer TherapeuticsHome page
S. Handeli and J. A. Simon
A small-molecule inhibitor of Tcf/{beta}-catenin signaling down-regulates PPAR{gamma} and PPAR{delta} activities
Mol. Cancer Ther., March 1, 2008; 7(3): 521 - 529.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Cell. Biol.Home page
D. Li, A. N. Urs, J. Allegood, A. Leon, A. H. Merrill Jr., and M. B. Sewer
Cyclic AMP-Stimulated Interaction between Steroidogenic Factor 1 and Diacylglycerol Kinase {theta} Facilitates Induction of CYP17
Mol. Cell. Biol., October 1, 2007; 27(19): 6669 - 6685.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
L. Michalik, V. Zoete, G. Krey, A. Grosdidier, L. Gelman, P. Chodanowski, J. N. Feige, B. Desvergne, W. Wahli, and O. Michielin
Combined Simulation and Mutagenesis Analyses Reveal the Involvement of Key Residues for Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor{alpha} Helix 12 Dynamic Behavior
J. Biol. Chem., March 30, 2007; 282(13): 9666 - 9677.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 FASEB J.Home page
E. J. Goetzl
Diverse pathways for nuclear signaling by G protein-coupled receptors and their ligands
FASEB J, March 1, 2007; 21(3): 638 - 642.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
K. Yanagida, S. Ishii, F. Hamano, K. Noguchi, and T. Shimizu
LPA4/p2y9/GPR23 Mediates Rho-dependent Morphological Changes in a Rat Neuronal Cell Line
J. Biol. Chem., February 23, 2007; 282(8): 5814 - 5824.
[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:
281/6/3398    most recent
M510843200v1
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 Tsukahara, T.
Right arrow Articles by Tigyi, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tsukahara, T.
Right arrow Articles by Tigyi, 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 © 2006 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement