Advertisement
JBC

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


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1074/jbc.M608456200 on January 3, 2007

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 282, Issue 9, 6875-6886, March 2, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/9/6875    most recent
M608456200v1
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 Hock, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hock, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, A.
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?

JunB and JunD Regulate Human Heme Oxygenase-1 Gene Expression in Renal Epithelial Cells*

Thomas D. Hock{ddagger}§, Karen Liby, Marcienne M. Wright{ddagger}§, Sean McConnell§1, Marina Schorpp-Kistner||, Thomas M. Ryan§, and Anupam Agarwal{ddagger}§2

From the {ddagger}Department of Medicine, Nephrology Research and Training Center, and the §Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, and ||Division for Signal Transduction and Growth Control, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Received for publication, September 1, 2006 , and in revised form, November 24, 2006.


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Heme oxygenase-1 is a highly inducible gene, the product of which catalyzes breakdown of the prooxidant heme. The purpose of this study was to investigate the regulation of the human heme oxygenase-1 gene in renal epithelial cells. DNase I hyper-sensitivity studies identified three distal sites (HS-2, -3, and -4) corresponding to approximately -4.0, -7.2, and -9.2 kb, respectively, of the heme oxygenase-1 promoter in addition to one proximal region, HS-1, which we have shown previously to be an E box. In vivo dimethyl sulfate footprinting of the HS-2 region revealed six individual protected guanines. Two mutations within HS-2 combined with a third mutation of the proximal E box abolished hemin- and cadmium-driven heme oxygenase-1 promoter activation, suggesting that these three sites synergized for maximal heme oxygenase-1 induction. Jun proteins bound to the antioxidant response element in the HS-2 region in vitro and associated with the heme oxygenase-1 promoter in vivo. JunB and JunD contribute opposing effects; JunB activated whereas JunD repressed heme oxygenase-1 expression in human renal epithelial cells, results that were corroborated in junB-/- and junD-/- cells. We propose that heme oxygenase-1 induction is controlled by a dynamic interplay of regulatory proteins, and we provide new insights into the molecular control of the human heme oxygenase-1 gene.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1)3 catalyzes heme degradation resulting in the release of equimolar amounts of biliverdin, iron, and carbon monoxide (1, 2). Biliverdin is subsequently reduced to bilirubin via biliverdin reductase. Two isoforms of HO have been described as follows: a highly inducible form, HO-1, and a constitutive isoform, HO-2. HO-1 is induced by several stimuli such as heme, heavy metals, cytokines, growth factors, nitric oxide, oxidized lipids, hydrogen peroxide, shear stress, glucose deprivation, angiotensin II, statins, as well as others (3). Recent reports have demonstrated the critical importance of HO-1 expression in mediating anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-apoptotic effects in several disease states, including acute renal failure, organ transplant rejection, atherosclerosis, sepsis, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and vascular restenosis (2, 4). These have been confirmed both in vitro and in vivo using pharmacological as well as genetic approaches to modulate HO-1 expression in animal models. The importance of HO-1 has also been corroborated in Ho-1 knock-out mice and a patient with HO-1 deficiency, both exhibiting increased susceptibility to inflammatory injury (5, 6).

The mechanisms underlying HO-1 induction by multiple inducers are regulated predominantly at the level of transcription. Previous studies pertaining to the regulation of the mouse Ho-1 gene have focused on the transcription factors, NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) and Bach1 (7, 8). Nrf2 has been associated with the induction of phase 2 detoxifying enzymes that include but are not limited to NAD(P)H quinone oxidoreductase, glutathione S-transferases, HO-1, aldo-keto reductases, ferritin, and UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (reviewed in Ref. 9). These genes contain an extended AP-1-like element in their promoters that has been referred to as a stress-response element (StRE) or an antioxidant-response element (ARE) (10, 11). Upon exposure to stress, Nrf2 is proposed to be released from Keap1, its cytosolic binding partner, which then translocates to the nucleus and binds to the promoters of genes resulting in transcriptional activation (12-16). Recent studies, however, have challenged this concept and have suggested that Nrf2 is mostly nuclear and is recruited to the DNA constitutively to activate gene expression (17). On the other hand, Bach1, a bZip transcription factor, has been identified as a negative regulator of mouse Ho-1 induction (18). When stimulated with heme, the heme binds to Bach1 (8, 18), releasing Bach1 from the ARE motif, allowing Nrf2 to bind to the ARE and activate transcription (8, 18).

Previous studies have reported the presence of both positive and negative regulatory sequences in the human HO-1 promoter (19). Consensus sequences for DNA-binding proteins, such as nuclear factor-{kappa}B, activator protein-1 (AP-1), AP-2, Sp1, upstream stimulatory factor (USF), c-Myc/Max, and interleukin-6 response elements as well as other transcription factors, have been reported in the promoter region of the human HO-1 gene (20-25). Most of these results were derived from promoter deletion studies, in vitro DNase I footprinting, or computer-based consensus sequence predictions. The ARE core sequence, 5'-TGCTGAGTCA-3' (26), is present in both the mouse and human HO-1 promoters. Within this sequence is a classical AP-1 site (TGAGTCA) that is a binding site for the Jun family of proteins, c-Jun, JunB, and JunD (27-32). Juns dimerize with themselves or with other members of the AP-1 family (e.g. c-Fos, FosB, Fra1, and Fra2) (33). The downstream effects of Jun proteins have only recently been unveiled (reviewed in Refs. 34 and 35)). For example, mice deficient in JunB die early in embryogenesis due to lack of proper placenta formation (36). JunD overexpression has been shown to reduce tumor angiogenesis (37), whereas lack of JunD promotes angiogenesis in the heart (38, 39).

In the work presented here, using in vivo footprinting and DNase I hypersensitivity analyses of the human HO-1 promoter, we show that three regions containing a cAMP-response/AP-1 element (CRE/AP-1), ARE, and E box, respectively, are cooperatively required for hemin and cadmium-mediated HO-1 promoter activation in human renal epithelial cells. We provide evidence that JunB and JunD associate with the HO-1 promoter in vivo and are capable of influencing HO-1 expression in an opposing manner.


   EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Reagents—Tissue culture media, serum, and supplements were obtained from Invitrogen. Hemin, cadmium chloride, and dimethyl sulfate (DMS) were purchased from Sigma. DNase I was from Worthington. Restriction endonucleases and reagents for PCR, including synthetic oligonucleotides, were from New England Biolabs (Beverly, MA) and Invitrogen, respectively. Anti-JunD (sc-74), anti-pan-Jun (sc-44), anti-c-Jun (sc-1694), anti-JunB (sc-8051), anti-Nrf2 (sc-722 and sc-13032), anti-Nrf1 (sc-721), and anti-USF1 (sc-229) antibodies were from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA). Anti-menin antibody (A300-105A) was from Bethyl Laboratories (Montgomery, TX); anti-HO-1 (SPA-895) was from StressGen, and anti-V5 (R960-25) antibody was from Invitrogen. Goat anti-mouse horseradish peroxidase, goat anti-rabbit horseradish peroxidase, and goat anti-rabbit FITC were obtained from Jackson ImmunoResearch (West Grove, PA). Goat anti-mouse Alexa Fluor 594 was obtained from Invitrogen.

Cell Culture, Plasmids, and Transfection—HK-2 cells (ATCC, Manassas, VA), an immortalized human proximal tubular epithelial cell line from normal adult kidney (42), were grown on collagen-coated dishes in keratinocyte serum-free media supplemented with 5 ng/ml recombinant epidermal growth factor and 40 µg/ml bovine pituitary extract. HEK293 cells (ATCC) were grown in minimum essential medium supplemented with 0.1 mM nonessential amino acids, 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 1 mM sodium pyruvate, and 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate. junB+/+ and junB-/- mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) described previously (43) were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine, 0.1 mM nonessential amino acids, 10% FBS, 50 µg/ml gentamicin, and 50 µg/ml amphotericin B. 24 h prior to stimulation with hemin (5 µM) or vehicle (Me2SO), MEFs were switched to medium supplemented with 0.1% FBS. junD+/+ and junD-/- MEFs (developed in Dr. Moshe Yaniv's laboratory), also grown in the aforementioned medium, were obtained from Dr. Sunita Agarwal (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda) and have been described previously (44). T47D cells (human breast ductal cancer cell line) (ATCC) were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium/F-12 + 5% FBS.

The -4.5-kb human HO-1 promoter construct in the human growth hormone (hGH) reporter vector (pHOGH/4.5) or the luciferase reporter (pHOGL3/4.5) (45, 46) was used as the parental clone for the single, double, and triple mutation constructs and have been described previously (40). All mutations were made using the QuikChange XL mutagenesis kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The JunB expression plasmid was constructed by amplifying the JunB cDNA from HK-2 cell-derived cDNA using the primers 5'-atgtgcactaaaatggaacagcccttc-3' (forward) and 5'-gaaggcgtgtcccttgaccccaag-3' (reverse), 5:1 units/unit mixture of Taq and Vent DNA polymerase, and subsequently cloned into pcDNA3.1/V5-His Topo vector (Invitrogen). The clone was sequence-verified. The JunD expression plasmid constructs were kindly provided by Dr. Jean-Michel Mesnard (47). The c-Jun expression plasmid was from Dr. Rik Derynck (University of California, San Francisco).

HK-2 cells were transfected with Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instructions using a batch transfection protocol as described previously (46). Briefly, the indicated HO-1 promoter construct was transfected into HK-2 cells at ~90% confluency in a 10-cm tissue culture dish. Twenty four hours post-transfection the cells were split into two or three 10-cm dishes (for hGH mRNA analyses) or into a 12-well tray (for luciferase assays), in order to ensure equal transfection efficiency between experimental treatments. After the cells were allowed to recover for 16 h, each dish was treated with the stimulus (hemin or cadmium) or vehicle (control) and assayed for hGH mRNA by Northern analysis. For luciferase assays, 6 of the 12 wells derived from transfection of the promoter construct in the 10-cm dish were treated with vehicle (control) or stimulus and assayed for luciferase activity. In control experiments, wherein pcDNA3.1/lacz was co-transfected using the batch transfection protocol, equal amounts of beta-galactosidase expression were observed in each of the wells (46). For T47D transfections, cells were plated in 24-well plates and transfected with FuGENE 6 (Roche Applied Science) and pHOGL3/4.5 or mutated constructs (150 ng/well), a JunB or JunD expression plasmid (150 ng/well), and pCMX-beta-gal (50 ng/well). Twenty four hours after transfection, cells were treated with control media or media containing hemin (5 µM). After an additional 24 h, cells were lysed, and luciferase activity was measured and normalized to beta-galactosidase activity for each well.

DNase I Hypersensitivity—DNase I hypersensitivity assays were performed as described previously (48). Briefly, HK-2 cells were treated with hemin (5 µM) or vehicle (Me2SO) for 2 h. Cells were collected and nuclei isolated. The nuclei were exposed to increasing amounts of DNase I for 45 s at 37 °C. The nuclei were then lysed in a standard SDS/proteinase K buffer. DNA was purified using the salt out technique (adding 1/3 volume of saturated NaCl to precipitate the SDS) followed by ethanol precipitation. The DNA was then digested with EcoRI or HindIII. 15 µg of digested DNA was electrophoresed, blotted, and hybridized with a random prime (Invitrogen)-labeled 225-bp probe that abuts the EcoRI site at -1.4 kb and extends distally.

In Vivo DMS Footprinting and LMPCR—HK-2 cells were grown to ~80% confluency on 15-cm collagen-coated plates and treated with hemin (5 µM), cadmium (10 µM), or Me2SO for 2 h. Cells were washed once at room temperature with PBS followed by DMS (0.5% in PBS) treatment for 30 s with gentle agitation. In vivo footprinting and ligation-mediated PCR (LMPCR) were performed as described previously (21, 49). After DMS treatment and piperidine cleavage, the oligonucleotide 5'-GAGGAGAATATCCAGGCAAG-3' was annealed and extended with Vent DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs). The linker was ligated to the DNA fragments and subsequently amplified for 25 cycles using the HO-1 nested primer 5'-GCTGCCCAAACCACTTCTGTTTCCTGA-3' and the linker primer 5'-GCGGTGACCCGGGAGATCTGAATTC-3' (Table 1). Amplicons were electrophoresed on a 5% acrylamide, 7% urea sequencing gel, electroblotted, and hybridized at 45 °C with the same nested primer end-labeled with [{gamma}-32P]ATP. Both strands were analyzed from DNAs derived from the same DMS-treated HK-2 cells and processed in parallel under identical conditions.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1
Sequences of oligonucleotide primers

 
Northern Analysis—Following transfections, Northern analysis was performed as described previously (21). HK-2 cells grown on 10-cm collagen-coated dishes were transfected with the indicated HO-1 reporter constructs (4 µg) and, where indicated, co-transfected with an equimolar ratio of c-Jun, JunB, or JunD. Each dish was then split into two or three 10-cm dishes. After a 16-h recovery, cells were induced with hemin (5 µM), cadmium chloride (10 µM), or vehicle (Me2SO) for 16 h. Total RNA was extracted, electrophoresed, blotted, and sequentially hybridized with hGH, HO-1, and GAPDH probes as described previously (21).

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP)—HK-2 cells were grown in 15-cm collagen-coated dishes and treated with vehicle (Me2SO) or hemin (5 µM) for 2 h. Cells were fixed with 1% formaldehyde for 10 min at room temperature, and ChIP was performed as described (21). Normal rabbit serum was used instead of the primary antibody (no antibody) as a negative control. The recovered DNA was amplified for 26 cycles at three different loci. PCR products were electrophoresed, blotted, and hybridized with the corresponding nested oligonucleotides listed in Table 1. Autoradiographs from 3-5 independent assays were scanned using a ScanMaker 9800 XL with Transparency Media adapter (Microtek, Carson, CA) using Adobe Photoshop Elements version 2.0 software (Adobe Systems Inc. San Jose, CA), and densitometry was performed using NIH Image 1.63 software.

Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays (EMSA)—Nuclear extracts were prepared from HK-2 cells stimulated with hemin (5 µM), cadmium (10 µM), or vehicle (Me2SO) as described previously (21). Binding reactions were electrophoresed in a 0.5x TBE, 5% nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel, fixed, dried, and exposed to film. The G-5 wild-type probe consisted of the following oligonucleotides and its complement annealed, 5'-gctagattttgctgagtCaCcagtgcctcctcagc-3'. The G-5 and G-6 nucleotides are in uppercase left to right, respectively and were mutated to form AT base pairs. Supershifts were performed by adding 2 µg of the indicated antibody after addition of labeled probe and incubated at 22 °C for 15 min. HEK293 cells were grown in 10-cm collagen-coated dishes and transfected with 10 µg of Nrf2-GFP plasmid (kindly provided by Dr. Tony Kong, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway) for 24 h. Gel shift assays were performed using whole cell extracts as described (50) and the mouse StRE oligonucleotide 5'-ttttctgctgagtcaaggtccg-3'.

Immunocytochemistry—HK-2 cells were plated on collagen-coated chambered slides and transfected with the indicated expression construct. After 16 h, the cells were stimulated with vehicle (Me2SO) or hemin (5 µM) for 7 h. Cells were fixed in cold methanol for 5 min and then washed with PBS twice. Cells were incubated in PBS containing 7% nonfat dried milk and 0.1% Tween 20. Primary antibodies were added (1:400 dilution) and incubated overnight at 4 °C. After several PBS/Tween 20 washes, secondary antibodies were added in the presence of 10% normal goat serum for 2 h at 22 °C. A polyclonal anti-HO-1 antibody was used as primary and detected with a FITC-conjugated secondary antibody (green). JunB was detected with antiV5-mAb, and AlexaFluor 594 (red)-labeled secondary antibody. 4,6-Diamidino-2-phenylindole (blue) was used as a nuclear stain. Image acquisition was performed using a Leica DM6000 epifluorescence microscope (Leica Microsystems, Bannockburn, IL) with a Hamamatsu ORCA ER cooled CCD camera and SimplePCI software. Images from 8 to 10 fields were captured using a x20 objective, and total number of cells expressing JunB, JunD, and Ho-1 were counted from three independent experiments.


Figure 1
View larger version (82K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1.
Low resolution long range DNase I hypersensitivity analysis of the human heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) promoter. HK-2 cells were treated with vehicle or hemin (5 µM) for 2 h. Nuclei were prepared and then treated with the indicated units of DNase I. The purified DNA was then digested with HindIII (A) or EcoRI (B), blotted, and hybridized with a 225-bp probe that is shown in the restriction map below. A, HO-1 promoter region extending from -2 kb into the HO-1 gene. B, region from -1.4 kb extending distally. Size markers are shown, and hypersensitive sites are indicated by arrows as HS1-4. The hemin control sample (0 DNase I units) did not digest. H, HindIII; E, EcoRI.

 
Western Blot Analysis—For junB+/+ and junB-/- MEFs, nuclear extracts were harvested as described previously (21) for the gel shift assays, and 75 µg of nuclear protein was electrophoresed on a 10% Tris-glycine SDS-polyacrylamide gel. For junD+/+ and junD-/- MEFs, whole cell protein was lysed in RIPA buffer and quantitated using a Bradford assay (Bio-Rad), and 25 µg of total protein was electrophoresed on a 12% Trisglycine SDS-polyacrylamide gel. After transfer to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Millipore, Billerica, MA), JunB and JunD were detected using 1:200 dilutions of rabbit anti-JunB (N-17, sc-46; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) or rabbit anti-JunD (sc-74; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) antibodies, followed by a horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG (Jackson ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA). Protein was visualized using the ECL chemiluminescent detection system (Amersham Biosciences).

Real Time PCR—The junB+/+, junB-/-, junD+/+, and junD-/- MEFs were stimulated with vehicle (Me2SO) or hemin (5 µM), and RNA was collected at 2 and 5 h as described previously (21). The RNA was then precipitated with 1.75 M lithium chloride on ice for 2h. An equal volume of 70% ethanol was added, and the RNA was collected by centrifugation. After drying, the RNA was resuspended in diethyl pyrocarbonate-treated water, and its integrity was verified by gel electrophoresis. 3 µg was used in 1st strand cDNA synthesis using a superscript kit (Invitrogen). The cDNA was then diluted to a total of 50 µl, and 1 µl of this was used in amplification. Quantitative real time PCR was performed with 2x SYBR Green Mastermix (Invitrogen) and 900 nM primers for mouse Ho-1 and GAPDH. Cycling was performed on a Applied Biosystems Prism 7900HT sequence detection system with the following cycling parameters: 50 °C for 2 min, Taq activation at 95 °C for 10 min. then 40 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s and 60 °C for 1 min. Reactions were performed in triplicate and specificity monitored using melting curve analysis after cycling. Primers used are as follows (5'-3'): GAPDH, 5'-TCCCACTCTTCCACCTTCGA-3' and 5'-AGTTGGGATAGGGCCTCTCTTG-3'; Ho-1, 5'-AGGTACACATCCAAGCCGAGAA-3' and 5'-CTCTGGACACCTGACCCTTCT-G-3'.

Statistical Analysis—Results are expressed as mean ± S.E. For the luciferase activity assay, analyses were performed using analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test. All results are considered significant at p < 0.05.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Identification of DNase I-hypersensitive Regions and DMS-protected Guanines in the Human HO-1 Promoter—DNase I hypersensitivity analysis of the HO-1 promoter in human renal proximal tubule cells (HK-2) revealed one constitutive hypersensitive region (HS-1) that maps to ~2.2 kb proximal to the indicated HindIII site (Fig. 1A). This region corresponds to an E box (CACGTG) motif at -44/-38 bp we have previously shown to be bound by both USF1 and USF2 in vivo in HK-2 cells (21). No other obvious hypersensitive sites were observed 3' to the HS-1 site. We also performed DNase I hypersensitivity analysis of distal regions of the HO-1 promoter. As shown in Fig. 1B, three distinct hypersensitive sites denoted as HS-2, HS-3, and HS-4 at approximately -4.0, -7.2, and -9.2 kb of the HO-1 promoter, respectively, were detected. These three HS regions were also constitutive as they were present in both vehicle- and hemin-treated cells. The sequence of the HO-1 promoter in the HS-3 region also contains an E box motif. The HS-4 region is more intense in signal than HS-3 and contains another E box consensus sequence and multiple AP-1 sites. This HS-4 region is required for HO-1 induction by transforming growth factor-beta,4 and experiments to determine the factors responsible for the HS-4-hypersensitive site are currently ongoing. In this study, we have focused on HS-2, because this region is contained within a 4.5-kb promoter construct that has been demonstrated previously to be the minimal promoter responsive to hemin and cadmium (45, 46).


Figure 2
View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2.
DMS in vivo footprinting of the transcribed strand of the HS-2 region in the human HO-1 promoter. A and B, each lane represents HK-2 cells from a single plate that was exposed to vehicle (Veh) or 5 µM hemin for 2 h. In vitro samples represent "naked" DNA treated with DMS. The cells were treated with 0.5% DMS for 30 s. The genomic DNA was purified and then treated with piperidine. An oligonucleotide was annealed to the DNA and extended with Vent DNA polymerase. The samples were then subjected to LMPCR. The PCR products were electrophoresed on a 5% sequencing gel, electroblotted, and hybridized. Protected guanines labeled as G1-6 are identified with an open circle and enhanced (hypermethylated) guanines with a closed circle. The transcribed strand is shown in A and the nontranscribed strand in B. Results are representative of three independent experiments. The relevant sequences are shown in B. C, the genomic sequence of the G1-6 region and the protected (open circles) and enhanced guanines (closed circles) are indicated. *, additional control point mutation. Consensus DNA sequences are indicated in C. The corresponding consensus mouse StRE sequences in this region are underlined. NFAT, nuclear factor activated T cells; CRE/AP-1, cAMP-response element/activating protein-1; NF-E2/AP-1, nuclear factor erythroid-2/AP-1.

 
To analyze the HS-2 region at single nucleotide resolution, we performed in vivo DMS footprinting on the transcribed strand of the HO-1 promoter in HK-2 cells. Six guanine bases (open circles referred to as G1-6) were protected from DMS methylation in comparison with their respective signal intensity in the in vitro controls (Fig. 2A). Three guanines (Fig. 2A, closed circles) were hypermethylated. G-1, -2, and -3 reside in a sequence that data base searches suggest may be bound by REL factors, including c-Rel, nuclear factor of activated T cells, and NF-{kappa}B. G-4 is located within a cAMP response element (CRE) that has been suggested previously to be bound by cAMP-response element-binding protein and contributes to HO-1 promoter activation by oxidized phospholipids (51). The CRE also resembles an AP-1 like sequence and will be referred to as CRE/AP-1. G-5 is within a classic AP-1 sequence (TGACTCA) that extends to form an ARE. G-6 is 2 bp downstream of G-5. DMS footprinting of the nontranscribed strand was also performed and revealed no obvious protections (Fig. 2B). The relative locations and sequences of the G1-6 region are illustrated in Fig. 2C. The consensus StRE sequences corresponding to the mouse HO-1 E1 enhancer region are underlined in Fig. 2C.

Mutational Analysis of the G1-6 DMS Footprints—The six protected guanines were each mutated to an adenine in the pHOGH/4.5 reporter construct containing a 4.5-kb fragment of the human HO-1 promoter. Reporter transcription was assayed in HK-2 cells stimulated with hemin (5 µM) or cadmium (10 µM) by Northern blot hybridization. As shown in Fig. 3A, the only mutation that produced a significant effect on HO-1-driven promoter activity was G-5. This single mutation decreased HO-1 promoter activity by ~50% in both hemin- and cadmium-treated cells as compared with the wild-type 4.5-kb construct as well as the others shown. The levels of endogenous HO-1 gene expression were assessed to verify hemin- and cadmium-mediated HO-1 induction (Fig. 3A, middle panel). The result for the G-5 mutation was also confirmed using a luciferase reporter system (data not shown).


Figure 3
View larger version (49K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3.
Mutational analysis of the human HO-1 promoter in human renal epithelial cells. For Northern analysis of reporter gene expression, HK-2 cells were transfected with the indicated construct in 10-cm collagen-coated tissue culture dishes using Lipofectamine 2000 and split into two or three plates using a batch transfection protocol as described under "Experimental Procedures." Cells were treated with vehicle (V), 10 µM cadmium (Cd), or 5 µM hemin (H) for 16 h. Total RNA was collected, electrophoresed, blotted, and hybridized with an hGH probe. Northern blots were then stripped and hybridized with an HO-1 probe as control for induction and subsequently a GAPDH probe as control for loading. A, each protected guanine, G1-6, was mutated to an adenine in the pHOGH/4.5 reporter plasmid. B, schematic showing the wild-type pHOGH or GL3/4.5 plasmid with the intact (upper panel) and mutated (lower panel) sequences with their corresponding junctions. The cAMP-response element/AP-1 (CRE/AP-1) was deleted ({Delta}CRE/AP-1) as was the G1-3 region ({Delta}G1-3). The E box M3 and the G-5 point mutations are indicated by the lowercase t. C, the mutated constructs in the pHOGH/4.5 plasmid were tested following transfection in HK-2 cells as described above. The results of the {Delta}CRE, E box M3 point mutation combined with the G-5 mutation, {Delta}G1-3, {Delta}CRE + G-5, {Delta}CRE + G-5 + E box M3 and the E box M3 alone are shown. D, densitometric analysis of the autoradiograms showing fold increase in hGH mRNA corrected for GAPDH for the wild-type 4.5-kb HO-1 promoter, and the mutated G-5 and {Delta}CRE construct. Open bars represent vehicle-treated control cells, and the dark bars represent hemin-stimulated cells. Results are representative of 3-4 independent experiments (mean ± S.E.). *, p < 0.05 versus other groups by analysis of variance.

 
We observed little or no effect with the G1-4 or the G-6 mutation. An additional control point mutation (G to A) of the guanine nucleotide immediately adjacent to the G-6 footprint (denoted by an asterisk in Fig. 2C) was also tested and revealed no effect on reporter activity (Fig. 3A, lower panel). As stated above, however, because G1-3 and G-4 reside in consensus DNA-binding motifs, we constructed deletions of both these regions. The sequence junctions of the wild-type pHOGH/4.5 and the deletions are shown in Fig. 3B. As shown in Fig. 3C, deletion of the CRE/AP-1 ({Delta}CRE) resulted in a significant decrease in reporter expression. A densitometric analysis of the Northern data from 3 to 4 independent experiments for the wild-type 4.5-kb HO-1 promoter in comparison with the G-5 mutation and the {Delta}CRE construct is shown in Fig. 3D. The deletion of G1-3 ({Delta}G1-3) produced a minimal effect. We also examined double and triple mutant reporter constructs that contained the {Delta}CRE, E box M3 (the point mutation within the proximal E box that abolished USF binding) (21), and the G-5 single point mutation. As shown in Fig. 3C, the triple mutation ({Delta}CRE, E box M3, and G-5) completely abolished reporter transcription with hemin and cadmium stimulation. The two double mutants ({Delta}CRE + G-5 and E box M3 + G-5) tested reduced reporter transcription, but it was still detectable at longer exposures (data not shown). The E boxM3 mutation alone partially reduced reporter expression as observed previously (21). Similar results were also obtained with the luciferase reporter (data not shown). These results suggest that HO-1 promoter activity requires the CRE/AP-1 as well as the G-5-protected guanine in addition to the proximal E box.

Identification of Proteins Binding to the G-5 Guanine—We investigated the importance of the G-5 and G-6 guanine mutations (adenine substituted for guanine) in an EMSA. As shown in Fig. 4A, an obvious protein-DNA complex was observed with the wild-type oligonucleotide probe (2nd lane). The G-6 mutant oligonucleotide was as efficient as the wild-type competitor in blocking this shift indicating that the G-6 guanine was not essential for protein binding in vitro. The G-5 mutant competitor, however, was unable to compete away the shifted protein-DNA complex, indicating that the G-5 guanine was essential for the protein complex to bind to this DNA sequence. These findings are in agreement with our results in Fig. 3A, wherein the G-6 mutation had no effect on reporter-driven gene expression, but the G-5 mutation reduced reporter expression.

It has been suggested previously that the transcription factor, Nrf2, binds to AREs in many genes, including HO-1. Because the 4.5-kb construct contains a putative ARE, which overlaps a consensus AP-1 site and this AP-1/ARE site also contains the critical G-5 guanine, it is possible that Nrf2 may be responsible for the G-5 footprint. To test this antibody, supershift experiments were performed with anti-Nrf1, anti-Nrf2, and anti-pan-Jun (recognizing c-Jun, JunB, and JunD) antibodies. As shown in Fig. 4B, only the pan-Jun antibody produced a reduction in band shift intensity, and a small supershift in nuclear extracts from uninduced (control) or hemin-stimulated HK-2 cells. Both Nrf1 and Nrf2 antibodies failed to show a supershift or signal reduction of the protein-DNA complex. As a positive control for Nrf2 binding, we used whole cell extracts from HEK293 cells overexpressing Nrf2-GFP or mock-transfected cells in gel shift assays. Overexpression of Nrf2 was confirmed by Western blot analysis. Using the mouse StRE oligonucleotide, a faint supershift was observed with the C-20 Nrf2 antibody in cells overexpressing Nrf2 (data not shown).


Figure 4
View larger version (73K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 4.
Jun proteins bind to the ARE in vitro in the HS-2 site. A, nuclear extracts were prepared from vehicle (Me2SO)-treated HK-2 cells and incubated with a wild-type (WT) probe containing the G-5/AP-1 site from the human HO-1 promoter. The arrow indicates the shifted DNA-protein complex. A 30-fold excess of cold competitor (CC) was added as indicated consisting of either the cold probe itself (WT) or the G-5 and G-6 mutant probes. NS = nonspecific binding. B, EMSA performed using the same probe as in A using the indicated antibodies for supershift experiments. Nuclear extracts were derived from HK-2 cells treated with 10 µM cadmium, 5 µM hemin, or control (Me2SO) for 2 h. C, EMSA using nuclear extracts from 5 µM hemin or control (Me2SO)-treated HK-2 cells. The wild-type probe was used in these experiments. Specific Jun antibodies (Ab) used are indicated, and supershifts are marked with an asterisk. Cold competitors (CC) used are in 50-fold excess of labeled probe.

 
We also tested other applicable antibodies to transcription factors, including Fra1, Fra2, c-Fos, pan-Maf (MafG, -F, and -K), and the erythroid-specific factor NF-E2 and observed no supershifted complexes (data not shown). We also tested anti-Bach1 polyclonal sera and observed no specific supershift or reduction of the protein-DNA complex (data not shown). We then tested antibodies to the specific Jun proteins c-Jun, JunB, and JunD. Both JunD and c-Jun antibodies clearly supershifted the protein-DNA complex (Fig. 4C). Even though we did not detect any super-shift with the JunB antibody, it is still possible that it could interact with the region because JunB has been shown previously to bind DNA with a 10-fold less affinity in vitro than for example c-Jun (52). These in vitro data suggest that Jun proteins, JunD and c-Jun, interact with the ARE/AP-1 sequence within the HO-1 promoter.

Jun Proteins Associate with the Human HO-1 Promoter in Vivo—We then determined whether Jun proteins interacted with the HO-1 promoter in vivo. We performed ChIP assays and analyzed regions spanning from +2.2 kb to the HS-2 region which, as indicated in Fig. 1, is located at approximately -4.0 kb from the transcriptional start site of the HO-1 promoter. We used antibodies to c-Jun, JunB, JunD, Nrf2 and USF1, as well as Menin, a tumor suppressor nuclear protein capable of interacting with JunD (53). The results of these analyses are shown in Fig. 5. The +2.2-kb region, where no DNase I hypersensitivity was detected, showed that none of the factors tested associated with this region (Fig. 5A, upper panel). We then examined the proximal promoter region and confirmed that USF1 (positive control) showed a strong association; however, we also detected a significant signal with JunD in the vehicle-treated lane but not following hemin induction (Fig. 5A, 2nd panel). In the -4.0-kb region, we observed a significant association with JunB (in vehicle and hemin-treated samples) and USF1 and to a lesser extent with JunD and Nrf2 (in vehicle-treated samples) (Fig. 5A, lower panel). A quantitative analysis of the ChIP results for the -4.0-kb region from 3 to 5 independent experiments is shown in Fig. 5B.

Overexpression of Jun Proteins and HO-1 Reporter Expression—Co-transfection studies were performed using c-Jun, JunB, and JunD expression plasmids and the 4.5-kb HO-1 promoter construct. Both c-Jun and JunB increased promoter activation, whereas JunD inhibited this induction by about 50% (Fig. 6, A and B).


Figure 5
View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 5.
Jun proteins associate with the HO-1 promoter in vivo. A, HK-2 cells were treated with 5 µM hemin (+) for 2 h or with vehicle (-) and processed for the chromatin immunoprecipitation assay with the indicated antibodies as described previously (21). Normal rabbit serum was used instead of the primary antibody as a negative control (No Ab). DNA isolated from the immunoprecipitation was amplified with primers (see Table 1) for the indicated regions of the HO-1 promoter. PCR products were electrophoresed, blotted, and hybridized with a corresponding endlabeled nested oligonucleotide. B, quantitative analysis of the ChIP assay for the -4.0-kb region by densitometry of autoradiographs as described under "Experimental Procedures." Results shown are fold increase over background (normalized to 1) from 3 to 5 independent experiments (mean ± S.E.).

 


Figure 6
View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 6.
Effect of overexpression of Jun proteins on HO-1 promoter activity. A, pHOGH/4.5 plasmid was co-transfected into HK-2 cells with empty vector or vector containing the indicated cDNAs for c-Jun, JunB, or JunD. HK-2 cells were treated with vehicle (V) or 5 µM hemin (H) for 16 h and assayed for hGH expression by Northern blot hybridization. HO-1 detection is shown as control for induction and GAPDH as a control for loading and transfer. B, densitometric analysis of the autoradiograms corrected for GAPDH is shown. Open bars represent vehicle-treated control cells, and the dark bars represent hemin-stimulated cells. Results are derived from 2 to 3 independent experiments (mean ± S.E.).

 
Effects of Overexpression of Jun Proteins on Mutated HO-1 Reporter Constructs—To establish whether the effects of JunB were mediated through one or more of the identified regulatory elements, co-transfection studies were performed using a JunB expression plasmid and mutations of the 4.5-kb HO-1 promoter construct in HK-2 cells. As shown in Fig. 7A, overexpression of JunB in HK-2 cells resulted in a significant increase in reporter activity with the wild-type pHOGL3/4.5 construct in vehicle and hemin-treated cells. This increase was not affected in the {Delta}CRE mutant reporter. However, the double mutant consisting of the {Delta}CRE with the G-5 point mutation caused a significant reduction in JunB-inducible reporter activity, suggesting that JunB may be acting through the G-5 guanine in HK-2 cells. Using the triple mutation ({Delta}CRE+G-5+E boxM3), JunB-inducible reporter activity was also significantly reduced. Similarly, we tested the effects of JunB and JunD overexpression in T47D cells. As shown in Fig. 7B, JunB augmented and JunD reduced reporter expression of the wild-type 4.5-kb construct following hemin stimulation. These effects were significantly reduced in the presence of the {Delta}CRE mutation, suggesting that in T47D cells, both JunB and JunD may be acting through the CRE/AP-1 site. These results were also observed with the double and triple mutant constructs.

Effect of JunB and JunD on Endogenous HO-1 Expression in HK-2 Cells—We focused our attention on JunB and JunD because both showed an association with the HO-1 promoter and modulated HO-1 promoter activity. As shown in Fig. 6A (middle panel), we did not observe any obvious differences in HO-1 mRNA induction with Jun overexpression, and we attribute this to the relatively low transfection efficiency of HK-2 cells. To address the effects of JunB and JunD overexpression on endogenous HO-1 expression in HK-2 cells, immunocyto-chemistry was performed. A significant number of JunB-overexpressing cells (77.6 ± 2.1%) were positive for HO-1 expression in the absence of any stimulus (Fig. 8, A, left upper panel, and B). On the other hand, the majority of JunD-overexpressing cells (79.8 ± 80%) was negative for HO-1 expression following hemin stimulation (Fig. 8, A, right lower panel, and C). These results are consistent with the HO-1 promoter assays shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Taken together, these results demonstrate that JunB and JunD have opposing effects; JunD is a repressor whereas JunB activates HO-1 promoter activity and endogenous HO-1 expression in human renal epithelial cells.


Figure 7
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 7.
Effect of overexpression of Jun proteins on mutated HO-1 promoter constructs. A, HK-2 cells were co-transfected with the wild-type or mutated 4.5-kb HO-1 promoter-reporter plasmid (pHOGL3/4.5) and empty vector (-) or with equimolar amounts of the JunB expression plasmid using a batch transfection protocol as described under "Experimental Procedures." 24 h following transfection, cells were split into a 24-well plate and stimulated with vehicle (Me2SO) or hemin (5 µM) for 16 h prior to assessment of luciferase reporter activity. Results are derived from two independent experiments with 10 replicates/group and expressed as mean ± S.E. *, p < 0.05 versus vehicle-treated cells; #, p = not significant (NS) versus corresponding group with empty vector (-). B, T47D cells were co-transfected with various pHOGL3/4.5 reporter plasmids and either a JunB or JunD expression vector. Cells were treated with vehicle and 5 µM hemin for 24 h, and luciferase/beta-galactosidase activity were measured (n = 3/group). *, p < 0.05 versus vehicle-treated cells; #, p = not significant versus corresponding group with empty vector (-).

 


Figure 8
View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 8.
JunB enhances and JunD represses HO-1 expression in HK-2 cells. A, HK-2 cells were grown on chamber slides and transfected with a V5-tagged JunB (left panel) or JunD red fluorescent protein (right panel) plasmid constructs. 16 h after transfection, cells were exposed to vehicle (Me2SO) or 5 µM hemin. HO-1 protein was examined 7 h after stimulation by immunofluorescence microscopy using a polyclonal anti-HO-1 antibody and detected with a FITC-conjugated secondary antibody (green). JunB was detected with antiV5-mAb and AlexaFluor 594 (red)-labeled secondary antibody. 4,6-Diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) (blue) was used as a nuclear stain. Arrows indicate cells with JunB or JunD overexpression. B and C, quantitative analysis of HO-1 expression in HK-2 cells transfected with JunB (B) (JunB tx) or JunD (C) (JunD tx) and effects on unstimulated (for JunB) or hemin-induced (for JunD) HO-1 expression are shown. JunB- or JunD-overexpressing cells showing positive (HO-1 +) or negative (HO-1 -) HO-1 expression were quantified from 8 to 10 fields using a x20 magnification from three independent transfections (mean ± S.E.). *, p < 0.001 versus HO-1-cells.

 
Hemin-induced HO-1 Expression in JunB- and JunD-deficient Fibroblasts—To confirm the involvement of Jun proteins in HO-1 regulation, Ho-1 mRNA levels were evaluated by real time PCR using junB+/+ and junB-/- as well as junD+/+ and junD-/- MEFs treated with vehicle (Me2SO) or hemin. As shown in Fig. 9A, junB-/- cells showed an 83 and 59% decrease in Ho-1 mRNA levels at 2 and 5 h, respectively, following hemin stimulation, as compared with junB+/+ cells (p < 0.001). Conversely, junD-/- cells showed a 15% increase in Ho-1 mRNA levels at 2 h, which was significantly higher (64%) at 5 h (p < 0.05), in comparison with junD+/+ cells (Fig. 9B). These results provide conclusive evidence for the positive and negative regulatory roles for Jun proteins in the molecular regulation of HO-1 induction.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In this work we present a comprehensive evaluation of the regulatory regions of the human HO-1 gene using DNase I hypersensitivity and in vivo DMS footprinting in human renal epithelial cells. Coupled with our previous in vivo analysis of the proximal E box sequence (21), this work provides new insights into the molecular regulation of human HO-1 gene expression. We have identified four DNase I HS regions in the human HO-1 promoter. HS-3 and HS-4 are located distal to the HS-2 regulatory region, and each contains a single consensus E box motif. Thus, there are a total of three E box sequences in the HO-1 promoter, and each of them is associated with a constitutive DNase I HS site. The DMS footprinting of HS-2 illustrates that this region is rich in DNA-binding proteins as determined by the presence of six DMS protected guanines in three different consensus sequences. The first region in HS-2, G1-3, is bound by an unknown factor(s) and when deleted results in only a modest decrease of hemin or cadmium-mediated induction (Fig. 3C). The second region, G-4, is contained within a cAMP-response/AP-1 element (CRE/AP-1) and contributes significantly to HO-1 promoter activation (Fig. 3C). The third region (HS-2), located within a classical AP-1 site, is bound by Jun proteins in vitro (Fig. 4, B and C) and in vivo as suggested by our ChIP results (Fig. 5). Two of these regulatory regions, G-4 and G-5, as well as the E box at -44 bp synergize for maximal hemin and cadmium-induced HO-1 promoter activity (Fig. 3C). We also show that JunB overexpression is capable of activating the HO-1 promoter, whereas JunD negatively regulates promoter activity (Figs. 6 and 7). Furthermore, overexpression of JunB increases endogenous HO-1 protein, and JunD inhibits hemin-induced HO-1 expression in HK-2 cells (Fig. 8). The opposing effects of JunB and JunD were also observed in mouse embryonic fibroblasts genetically deficient for these proteins (Fig. 9) underscoring their important role in providing the cell with a means of modulating HO-1 expression.


Figure 9
View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 9.
HO-1 expression in JunB- and JunD-deficient MEFs. SYBR Green incorporation real time PCR was performed on samples derived from junB+/+ and junB-/- (A) as well as junD+/+ and junD-/- (B) MEFs that were induced with vehicle (Me2SO) or 5 µM hemin for the indicated time points. The reactions were performed in triplicate. Results shown are fold increase over vehicle-treated cells and were normalized to the fold increase seen in wild-type JunD MEFs. Insets, the absence of JunB and JunD was verified by Western blotting using nuclear extracts for JunB and whole cell lysates for JunD cells, as described under "Experimental Procedures." *, p < 0.001 versus junB-/-; **, p < 0.05 versus junD+/+.

 
Our results demonstrate that JunB associates with the HS-2 region and JunD with the proximal promoter region (HS-1) preferentially in the uninduced state. JunD also associates with the HS-2 region, although this interaction is lower than that for JunB. The results of our co-transfection studies (Fig. 7) using mutant reporters are also suggestive that JunB and JunD exert their effects at the CRE/AP-1 and the G-5 guanine. However, as shown in Fig. 9A, HO-1 expression, albeit significantly reduced, was still inducible in JunB-deficient cells, suggesting that other co-factors may be involved. These could include c-Jun, USF, Nrf2, Menin, and possibly others. The observation of JunD interacting with the proximal promoter is intriguing because there are no canonical AP-1 sites in this region, the nearest being ~4 kb upstream from the HS-1 site in HS-2. It is possible that long range chromatin interactions and "capturing" of JunD in the formaldehyde cross-linking step of the ChIP assay are responsible for this finding. The appearance of USF1 at HS-2 in the ChIP assay, even though there is no E box sequence in this region, would suggest an interaction between the HS-1 and HS-2 regions. This seems plausible given that we detect far distal hypersensitive sites in the HO-1 promoter. To confirm this phenomenon, experiments to Capture Chromosome Conformation (3C assay) (54) are currently being pursued in our laboratory.

The cap `n' collar transcription factor, Nrf2, has been proposed to be the principal regulator that mediates mouse Ho-1 gene activation through interaction with the ARE sequence(s) (7). Overexpression of Nrf2 is capable of activating the 4.5-kb human HO-1 promoter in HK-2 cells (data not shown). However, our results with induction of the human HO-1 gene cannot be explained entirely by the involvement of Nrf2 for several reasons. First, we were unable to show Nrf2 binding to the G-5 probe on gel shift-supershift assays. These findings are consistent with the observations of Kronke et al. (51), who were unable to supershift the human ARE sequence with Nrf2 antibodies. Second, Nrf2 does not conclusively associate with the HS-2 region containing the ARE sequence. Third, mutations in multiple regulatory sequences, including the ARE, CRE/AP-1, and E box, were required to abolish HO-1 promoter responsiveness. It is possible that Nrf2 activates the human HO-1 promoter indirectly through AP-1 family members as shown recently for the rat glutamate-cysteine ligase catalytic subunit gene (55). A comparison of the HS-2 region with the previously described E1 enhancer region located at -4.0 kb of the mouse Ho-1 gene (7, 56) reveals that the three StRE sequences of the mouse E1 region (Fig. 2C, underlined) closely align with the analogous region in the human HO-1 promoter. The G-4 and G-5 foot-prints are within the corresponding mouse HO-1 StRE sequences. However, to the best of our knowledge, in vivo foot-printing of these regions in the mouse Ho-1 gene has not been reported.

Our findings demonstrate that the detected HS sites and the in vivo footprints in the human HO-1 promoter are constitutive. There are also no hypersensitive sites or DMS-protected guanines that appear upon addition of hemin. However, mutational analysis of at least some of the footprints alone or in combination resulted in a functionally significant effect on stimulus-dependent HO-1 promoter activity. The question then arises as to how HO-1 induction is triggered given that these regulatory regions are constitutively bound. Several mechanisms may account for these observations. The ChIP findings showing the presence of JunD in the uninduced state and its absence following hemin stimulation (Fig. 5) provide one level of control. Whether JunD interacts with USFs or the basal transcriptional machinery remains to be elucidated. It is also reasonable to consider the effects of hemin stimulation on upstream signaling cascades that alter phosphorylation of proteins or protein-protein interactions. In addition, histone modifications could also contribute to the epigenetic control of HO-1 gene expression. Furthermore, chromatin looping may bring long range enhancers close to critical regulatory regions in the promoter following stimuli as has been shown for the beta-globin locus (57).

We have described previously an internal enhancer that in conjunction with the -4.5-kb HO-1 promoter activates hemin- and cadmium-stimulated reporter gene expression to levels significantly higher than the -4.5-kb promoter alone in human endothelial and renal epithelial cells (46). However, DNase I-hypersensitive studies have been unable to detect any hypersensitive sites in the introns of the HO-1 gene. It is possible that the chromatin in the intronic region is open, and hence all regions are always equally accessible to DNase I, making it difficult to be identified by this assay. By sequential 5' and 3' deletions of this previously described large 12.5-kb internal enhancer, we have delineated a 220-bp intronic region of the human HO-1 gene that functions as the minimal enhancer and more importantly requires critical sequences in the HS-2 region of the human HO-1 promoter described in this work.5 Further studies to characterize the interaction between this minimal intronic sequence and the 4.5-kb HO-1 promoter and its role in human HO-1 gene regulation are in progress. The results of our studies are not applicable to all HO-1 inducers. For several other stimuli, including oxidized lipids and transforming growth factor-beta,4 more distal regulatory regions that map to the HS-4 site are required.

The physiological relevance of our findings showing a role for Jun proteins in regulating HO-1 expression are germane to the effects of HO-1 and Jun in vascular biology, particularly in angiogenesis. Induction of HO-1 promotes angiogenesis, and this pro-angiogenic effect is mediated through the production of carbon monoxide (58-61). Conversely, blockade of HO activity reduces tumor growth, because of inhibition of angiogenesis (62). Recent studies have shown that the Jun proteins, especially JunB and JunD, are important in vasculogenesis. JunD, which represses HO-1 expression, reduces pressure overload-induced angiogenesis in the heart (38) and tumor angiogenesis (37). JunB deficiency leads to defective placental angiogenesis and early embryonic lethality (36). Given the aforementioned data regarding JunD and JunB and the relationship between HO-1 and angiogenesis, it is tempting to speculate that the effects of Jun proteins in angiogenesis may be a consequence of altered HO-1 induction and may provide insights into the genetic hierarchy for the effects of HO-1 in angiogenesis.


   FOOTNOTES
 
* This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grants DK059600, HL068157, and DK067472 (to A. A.). 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

1 Recipient of support from the Carmichael Fund. Back

2 To whom correspondence should be addressed: Division of Nephrology, Zeigler Research Bldg., Rm. 614, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 703 19th St. South, Birmingham, AL 35294. Tel.: 205-996-6670; Fax: 205-996-6650; E-mail: agarwal{at}uab.edu.

3 The abbreviations used are: HO-1, heme oxygenase-1; ARE, antioxidant response element; ChIP, chromatin immunoprecipitation; CRE, cAMP response element; DMS, dimethyl sulfate; EMSA, electrophoretic mobility shift assay; hGH, human growth hormone; HK-2, human renal proximal tubular cells; HS, hypersensitive site; LMPCR, ligated-mediated PCR; MEF, mouse embryonic fibroblasts; Nrf2, NF-E2-related factor 2; StRE, stress-response element; FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate; GAPDH, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase; FBS, fetal bovine serum; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline; USF, upstream stimulatory factor. Back

4 A. Mark, T. Hock, and N. Hill-Kapturczak, manuscript in preparation. Back

5 J. Deshane, T. Hock, N. Hill-Kapturczak, and A. Agarwal, manuscript in preparation. Back


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We are grateful to Jean-Michel Mesnard for the JunD expression vectors, Rik Derynck for the c-Jun expression plasmids, Moshe Yaniv and Sunita Agarwal for the JunD-deficient mouse embryonic fibroblasts, and Tony Kong for the Nrf2-GFP expression plasmid. We are grateful to Tim Townes for help with the real time PCR studies. We thank Harry Nick, Paul Sanders, Nathalie Hill-Kapturczak, and Jessy Deshane for helpful suggestions.



   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Maines, M. D. (1997) Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 37, 517-554
  2. Nath, K. A. (2006) Kidney Int. 70, 432-443[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Sikorski, E. M., Hock, T., Hill-Kapturczak, N., and Agarwal, A. (2004) Am. J. Physiol. 286, F425-F441
  4. Deshane, J., Wright, M., and Agarwal, A. (2005) Acta Biochim. Pol. 52, 273-284[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Poss, K. D., and Tonegawa, S. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 10925-10930[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Yachie, A., Niida, Y., Wada, T., Igarashi, N., Kaneda, H., Toma, T., Ohta, K., Kasahara, Y., and Koizumi, S. (1999) J. Clin. Investig. 103, 129-135[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Alam, J., Stewart, D., Touchard, C., Boinapally, S., Choi, A. M., and Cook, J. L. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 26071-26078[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Ogawa, K., Sun, J., Taketani, S., Nakajima, O., Nishitani, C., Sassa, S., Hayashi, N., Yamamoto, M., Shibahara, S., Fujita, H., and Igarashi, K. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 2835-2843[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Jeong, W. S., Jun, M., and Kong, A. N. (2006) Antioxid. Redox. Signal. 8, 99-106[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Itoh, K., Chiba, T., Takahashi, S., Ishii, T., Igarashi, K., Katoh, Y., Oyake, T., Hayashi, N., Satoh, K., Hatayama, I., Yamamoto, M., and Nabeshima, Y. (1997) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 236, 313-322[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Rushmore, T. H., Morton, M. R., and Pickett, C. B. (1991) J. Biol. Chem. 266, 11632-11639[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Dhakshinamoorthy, S., and Jaiswal, A. K. (2001) Oncogene 20, 3906-3917[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Itoh, K., Wakabayashi, N., Katoh, Y., Ishii, T., Igarashi, K., Engel, J. D., and Yamamoto, M. (1999) Genes Dev. 13, 76-86[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Itoh, K., Wakabayashi, N., Katoh, Y., Ishii, T., O'Connor, T., and Yamamoto, M. (2003) Genes Cells 8, 379-391[Abstract]
  15. Motohashi, H., and Yamamoto, M. (2004) Trends Mol. Med. 10, 549-557[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Zhang, D. D., and Hannink, M. (2003) Mol. Cell. Biol. 23, 8137-8151[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Nguyen, T., Sherratt, P. J., Nioi, P., Yang, C. S., and Pickett, C. B. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 32485-32492[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Sun, J., Hoshino, H., Takaku, K., Nakajima, O., Muto, A., Suzuki, H., Tashiro, S., Takahashi, S., Shibahara, S., Alam, J., Taketo, M. M., Yamamoto, M., and Igarashi, K. (2002) EMBO J. 21, 5216-5224[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Takahashi, S., Takahashi, Y., Ito, K., Nagano, T., Shibahara, S., and Miura, T. (1999) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1447, 231-235[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Deramaudt, B. M., Remy, P., and Abraham, N. G. (1999) J. Cell. Biochem. 72, 311-321[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Hock, T. D., Nick, H. S., and Agarwal, A. (2004) Biochem. J. 383, 209-218[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Lavrovsky, Y., Schwartzman, M. L., Levere, R. D., Kappas, A., and Abraham, N. G. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 91, 5987-5991[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Sato, M., Ishizawa, S., Yoshida, T., and Shibahara, S. (1990) Eur. J. Biochem. 188, 231-237[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Shibahara, S., Sato, M., Muller, R. M., and Yoshida, T. (1989) Eur. J. Biochem. 179, 557-563[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Takeda, K., Ishizawa, S., Sato, M., Yoshida, T., and Shibahara, S. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 22858-22867[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Nguyen, T., Rushmore, T. H., and Pickett, C. B. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 13656-13662[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Angel, P., Allegretto, E. A., Okino, S. T., Hattori, K., Boyle, W. J., Hunter, T., and Karin, M. (1988) Nature 332, 166-171[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  28. Bohmann, D., Bos, T. J., Admon, A., Nishimura, T., Vogt, P. K., and Tjian, R. (1987) Science 238, 1386-1392[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Hazel, T. G., Nathans, D., and Lau, L. F. (1988) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 85, 8444-8448[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Hirai, S. I., Ryseck, R. P., Mechta, F., Bravo, R., and Yaniv, M. (1989) EMBO J. 8, 1433-1439[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Ryder, K., Lanahan, A., Perez-Albuerne, E., and Nathans, D. (1989) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 86, 1500-1503[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Ryder, K., Lau, L. F., and Nathans, D. (1988) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 85, 1487-1491[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Angel, P., and Karin, M. (1991) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1072, 129-157[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Eferl, R., and Wagner, E. F. (2003) Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 859-868[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Hess, J., Angel, P., and Schorpp-Kistner, M. (2004) J. Cell Sci. 117, 5965-5973[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Schorpp-Kistner, M., Wang, Z. Q., Angel, P., and Wagner, E. F. (1999) EMBO J. 18, 934-948[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Gerald, D., Berra, E., Frapart, Y. M., Chan, D. A., Giaccia, A. J., Mansuy, D., Pouyssegur, J., Yaniv, M., and Mechta-Grigoriou, F. (2004) Cell 118, 781-794[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Hilfiker-Kleiner, D., Hilfiker, A., Kaminski, K., Schaefer, A., Park, J. K., Michel, K., Quint, A., Yaniv, M., Weitzman, J. B., and Drexler, H. (2005) Circulation 112, 1470-1477
  39. Ricci, R., Eriksson, U., Oudit, G. Y., Eferl, R., Akhmedov, A., Sumara, I., Sumara, G., Kassiri, Z., David, J. P., Bakiri, L., Sasse, B., Idarraga, M. H., Rath, M., Kurz, D., Theussl, H. C., Perriard, J. C., Backx, P., Penninger, J. M., and Wagner, E. F. (2005) Genes Dev. 19, 208-213[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Liby, K., Hock, T., Yore, M. M., Suh, N., Place, A. E., Risingsong, R., Williams, C. R., Royce, D. B., Honda, T., Honda, Y., Gribble, G. W., Hill-Kapturczak, N., Agarwal, A., and Sporn, M. B. (2005) Cancer Res. 65, 4789-4798[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Deleted in proof
  42. Ryan, M. J., Johnson, G., Kirk, J., Fuerstenberg, S. M., Zager, R. A., and Torok-Storb, B. (1994) Kidney Int. 45, 48-57[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Andrecht, S., Kolbus, A., Hartenstein, B., Angel, P., and Schorpp-Kistner, M. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 35961-35968[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Weitzman, J. B., Fiette, L., Matsuo, K., and Yaniv, M. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 1109-1119[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Agarwal, A., Shiraishi, F., Visner, G. A., and Nick, H. S. (1998) J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 9, 1990-1997[Abstract]
  46. Hill-Kapturczak, N., Sikorski, E., Voakes, C., Garcia, J., Nick, H. S., and Agarwal, A. (2003) Am. J. Physiol. 285, F515-F523
  47. Thebault, S., Basbous, J., Hivin, P., Devaux, C., and Mesnard, J. M. (2004) FEBS Lett. 562, 165-170[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Mellott, J. K., Nick, H. S., Waters, M. F., Billiar, T. R., Geller, D. A., and Chesrown, S. E. (2001) Am. J. Physiol. 280, L390-L399
  49. Barbosa-Tessmann, I. P., Chen, C., Zhong, C., Siu, F., Schuster, S. M., Nick, H. S., and Kilberg, M. S. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 26976-26985[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Gong, P., Hu, B., Stewart, D., Ellerbe, M., Figueroa, Y. G., Blank, V., Beckman, B. S., and Alam, J. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 27018-27025[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Kronke, G., Bochkov, V. N., Huber, J., Gruber, F., Bluml, S., Furnkranz, A., Kadl, A., Binder, B. R., and Leitinger, N. (2003) J. Biol. Chem. 278, 51006-51014[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Deng, T., and Karin, M. (1993) Genes Dev. 7, 479-490[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Agarwal, S. K., Guru, S. C., Heppner, C., Erdos, M. R., Collins, R. M., Park, S. Y., Saggar, S., Chandrasekharappa, S. C., Collins, F. S., Spiegel, A. M., Marx, S. J., and Burns, A. L. (1999) Cell 96, 143-152[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  54. Dekker, J., Rippe, K., Dekker, M., and Kleckner, N. (2002) Science 295, 1306-1311[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Yang, H., Magilnick, N., Lee, C., Kalmaz, D., Ou, X., Chan, J. Y., and Lu, S. C. (2005) Mol. Cell. Biol. 25, 5933-5946[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Alam, J., Wicks, C., Stewart, D., Gong, P., Touchard, C., Otterbein, S., Choi, A. M., Burow, M. E., and Tou, J. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 27694-27702[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Vakoc, C. R., Letting, D. L., Gheldof, N., Sawado, T., Bender, M. A., Groudine, M., Weiss, M. J., Dekker, J., and Blobel, G. A. (2005) Mol. Cell 17, 453-462[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Bussolati, B., Ahmed, A., Pemberton, H., Landis, R. C., Di Carlo, F., Haskard, D. O., and Mason, J. C. (2004) Blood 103, 761-766[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Deramaudt, B. M., Braunstein, S., Remy, P., and Abraham, N. G. (1998) J. Cell. Biochem. 68, 121-127[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  60. Dulak, J., Loboda, A., Zagorska, A., and Jozkowicz, A. (2004) Antioxid. Redox. Signal. 6, 858-866[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Volti, G. L., Sacerdoti, D., Sangras, B., Vanella, A., Mezentsev, A., Scapagnini, G., Falck, J. R., and Abraham, N. G. (2005) Antioxid. Redox. Signal. 7, 704-710[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Sunamura, M., Duda, D. G., Ghattas, M. H., Lozonschi, L., Motoi, F., Yamauchi, J., Matsuno, S., Shibahara, S., and Abraham, N. G. (2003) Angiogenesis 6, 15-24[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

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
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
P. G. Tipping
Crescentic nephritis--is it in your genes?
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., October 1, 2008; 23(10): 3065 - 3066.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Biol. CellHome page
J. Chen, L. Xiao, J. N. Rao, T. Zou, L. Liu, E. Bellavance, M. Gorospe, and J.-Y. Wang
JunD Represses Transcription and Translation of the Tight Junction Protein Zona Occludens-1 Modulating Intestinal Epithelial Barrier Function
Mol. Biol. Cell, September 1, 2008; 19(9): 3701 - 3712.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
S. Pugazhenthi, L. Akhov, G. Selvaraj, M. Wang, and J. Alam
Regulation of heme oxygenase-1 expression by demethoxy curcuminoids through Nrf2 by a PI3-kinase/Akt-mediated pathway in mouse beta-cells
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, September 1, 2007; 293(3): E645 - E655.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
282/9/6875    most recent
M608456200v1
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 Hock, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hock, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Agarwal, A.
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 © 2007 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
Advertisement
spacer
Advertisement
Advertisement