scholarly journals Review of: Human progesterone receptor displays cell cycle-dependent changes in transcriptional activity

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. Lange
2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 2885-2898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Narayanan ◽  
Dean P. Edwards ◽  
Nancy L. Weigel

ABSTRACT The human progesterone receptor (PR) contains multiple Ser-Pro phosphorylation sites that are potential substrates for cyclin-dependent kinases, suggesting that PR activity might be regulated during the cell cycle. Using T47D breast cancer cells stably transfected with an mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) chloramphenicol acetyltransferase reporter (Cat0) synchronized in different phases of the cell cycle, we found that PR function and phosphorylation is remarkably cell cycle dependent, with the highest activity in S phase. Although PR expression was reduced in the G2/M phase, the activity per molecule of receptor was markedly reduced in both G1 and G2/M phases compared to the results seen with the S phase of the cell cycle. Although PR is recruited to the MMTV promoter equivalently in the G1 and S phases, recruitment of SRC-1, SRC-3, and, consequently, CBP is reduced in G1 phase despite comparable expression levels of SRC-1 and SRC-3. In G2/M phase, site-specific phosphorylation of PR at Ser162 and at Ser294, a site previously reported to be critical for transcriptional activity and receptor turnover, was abolished. Treatment with the histone deacetylase inhibitor trichostatin A elevated G1 and G2/M activity to that of the S phase, indicating that the failure to recruit sufficient levels of active histone acetyltransferase is the primary defect in PR-mediated transactivation.


2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Schneikert ◽  
Annette Grohmann ◽  
Jürgen Behrens

2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. 3102-3115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paloma H. Giangrande ◽  
Erin A. Kimbrel ◽  
Dean P. Edwards ◽  
Donald P. McDonnell

ABSTRACT The human progesterone receptor (PR) exists as two functionally distinct isoforms, hPRA and hPRB. hPRB functions as a transcriptional activator in most cell and promoter contexts, while hPRA is transcriptionally inactive and functions as a strong ligand-dependent transdominant repressor of steroid hormone receptor transcriptional activity. Although the precise mechanism of hPRA-mediated transrepression is not fully understood, an inhibitory domain (ID) within human PR, which is necessary for transrepression by hPRA, has been identified. Interestingly, although ID is present within both hPR isoforms, it is functionally active only in the context of hPRA, suggesting that the two receptors adopt distinct conformations within the cell which allow hPRA to interact with a set of cofactors that are different from those recognized by hPRB. In support of this hypothesis, we identified, using phage display technology, hPRA-selective peptides which differentially modulate hPRA and hPRB transcriptional activity. Furthermore, using a combination of in vitro and in vivo methodologies, we demonstrate that the two receptors exhibit different cofactor interactions. Specifically, it was determined that hPRA has a higher affinity for the corepressor SMRT than hPRB and that this interaction is facilitated by ID. Interestingly, inhibition of SMRT activity, by either a dominant negative mutant (C'SMRT) or histone deacetylase inhibitors, reverses hPRA-mediated transrepression but does not convert hPRA to a transcriptional activator. Together, these data indicate that the ability of hPRA to transrepress steroid hormone receptor transcriptional activity and its inability to activate progesterone-responsive promoters occur by distinct mechanisms. To this effect, we observed that hPRA, unlike hPRB, was unable to efficiently recruit the transcriptional coactivators GRIP1 and SRC-1 upon agonist binding. Thus, although both receptors contain sequences within their ligand-binding domains known to be required for coactivator binding, the ability of PR to interact with cofactors in a productive manner is regulated by sequences contained within the amino terminus of the receptors. We propose, therefore, that hPRA is transcriptionally inactive due to its inability to efficiently recruit coactivators. Furthermore, our experiments indicate that hPRA interacts efficiently with the corepressor SMRT and that this activity permits it to function as a transdominant repressor.


1994 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 8356-8364
Author(s):  
D X Wen ◽  
Y F Xu ◽  
D E Mais ◽  
M E Goldman ◽  
D P McDonnell

The biological response to progesterone is mediated by two distinct forms of the human progesterone receptor (hPR-A and hPR-B). In most cell contexts, hPR-B functions as a transcriptional activator of progesterone-responsive genes, whereas hPR-A functions as a transcriptional inhibitor of all steroid hormone receptors. We have created mutations within the carboxyl terminus of hPR which differentially effect the transcriptional activity of hPR-B in a cell- and promoter-specific manner. Analogous mutations, when introduced into hPR-A, have no effect on its ability to inhibit the transcriptional activity of other steroid hormone receptors. The observed differences in the structural requirements for hPR-B and hPR-A function suggest that transcriptional activation and repression by PR are mediated by two separate pathways within the cell. In support of this hypothesis, we have shown that hPR-A mediated repression of human estrogen receptor (hER) transcriptional activity is not dependent on hER expression level but depends largely on the absolute expression level of hPR-A. Thus, it appears that hPR-A inhibits hER transcriptional activity as a consequence of a noncompetitive interaction of hPR-A with either distinct cellular targets or different contact sites on the same target. We propose that hPR-A expression facilitates a ligand-dependent cross-talk among sex steroid receptor signaling pathways within the cell. It is likely, therefore, that alterations in the expression level of hPR-A or its cellular target can have profound effects on the physiological or pharmacological responses to sex steroid hormone receptor ligands.


2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yulia Koryakina ◽  
Karen E Knudsen ◽  
Daniel Gioeli

The androgen receptor (AR) is a critical oncogene in prostate cancer (PCa) development and progression. In this study, we demonstrate cell-cycle-dependent regulation of AR activity, localization, and phosphorylation. We show that for three AR-target genes, androgen-stimulated AR transactivation is highest during the G1 phase, decreased during S-phase, and abrogated during G2/M. This change in AR transactivation parallels changes in AR localization and phosphorylation. A combination of imaging techniques and quantitative analysis reveals nuclear AR localization during interphase and the exclusion of the majority, but not all, AR from chromatin during mitosis. Flow cytometry analyses using a phospho-S308 AR-specific antibody in asynchronous and chemically enriched G2/M PCa cells revealed ligand-independent induction of S308 phosphorylation in mitosis when CDK1 is activated. Consistent with our flow cytometry data, IP-western blotting revealed an increase in S308 phosphorylation in G2/M, and the results of anin vitrokinase assay indicated that CDK1 was able to phosphorylate the AR on S308. Pharmacological inhibition of CDK1 activity resulted in decreased S308 phosphorylation in PCa cells. Importantly, using a combination of anti-total AR and phospho-S308-specific antibodies in immunofluorescence experiments, we showed that the AR is excluded from condensed chromatin in mitotic cells when it was phosphorylated on S308. In summary, we show that the phosphorylation of the AR on S308 by CDK1 during mitosis regulates AR localization and correlates with changes inARtranscriptional activity. These findings have important implications for understanding the function ofARas an oncogene.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 3418
Author(s):  
Han-Teo Lee ◽  
Il-Hwan Lee ◽  
Jae-Hwan Kim ◽  
Sangho Lee ◽  
Sojung Kwak ◽  
...  

2-oxoglutarate and iron-dependent oxygenase domain-containing protein 1 (OGFOD1) expression is upregulated in a variety of cancers and has been related to poor prognosis. However, despite this significance to cancer progression, the precise oncogenic mechanism of OGFOD1 is not understood. We demonstrated that OGFOD1 plays a role in enhancing the transcriptional activity of RNA polymerase II in breast cancer cells. OGFOD1 directly binds to the C-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II to alter phosphorylation status. The elimination of OGFOD1 resulted in decreased tumor development. Additionally, cell cycle-dependent kinase 7 and cell cycle-dependent kinase 9, critical enzymes for activating RNA polymerase II, phosphorylated serine 256 of OGFOD1, whereas a non-phosphorylated mutant OGFOD1 failed to enhance transcriptional activation and tumor growth. Consequently, OGFOD1 helps promote tumor growth by enhancing RNA polymerase II, whereas simultaneous phosphorylation of OGFOD1 by CDK enzymes is essential in stimulating RNA polymerase II-mediated transcription both in vitro and in vivo, and expression of target genes.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 843-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
X Dong ◽  
SJ Lye ◽  

The human progesterone receptor (PR) exists in two major forms, PRA and PRB, which differentially regulate gene transcription in a cell- and promoter-specific manner. The molecular mechanisms underlying this differential transcriptional activity have been attributed to the presence of a unique AF3 domain within PRB that may result in the two isoforms adopting different protein conformations. We demonstrate here that in myometrial cells, PRB exhibits strong progesterone-dependent transcriptional activity that is dependent on the presence of two LXXLL motifs within the AF3 domain. In vitro and in vivo protein interaction assays indicate that these motifs mediate the direct interaction between the AF3 domain and C-PR in a progesterone-dependent manner. Mutation of either of the LXXLL motifs or deletion of the last 30 amino acids within the C-terminus disrupts this interaction and progesterone-dependent transcriptional activity of PRB. Members of the p160 family of co-activators (such as GRIP-1) also interact with C-PR through their LXXLL motifs. However, GRIP-1 does not compete with AF3 but rather acts to synergize these two transactivation domains. Our data suggest that a failure to form an appropriate AF3-C-terminus interaction results in an inability of co-activators to induce maximal PR-dependent transactivation. The absence of an AF3 domain within PRA may account for its inability to activate progesterone-responsive genes, as well as its actions as a dominant trans-repressor.


2006 ◽  
Vol 281 (37) ◽  
pp. 27426-27435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genbin Shi ◽  
Scott C. Boyle ◽  
Duncan B. Sparrow ◽  
Sally L. Dunwoodie ◽  
Toshi Shioda ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 1369-1378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandee L. Wagner ◽  
John D. Norris ◽  
Trina A. Knotts ◽  
Nancy L. Weigel ◽  
Donald P. McDonnell

ABSTRACT Previously, we defined a novel class of ligands for the human progesterone receptor (PR) which function as mixed agonists. These compounds induce a conformational change upon binding the receptor that is different from those induced by agonists and antagonists. This establishes a correlation between the structure of a ligand-receptor complex and its transcriptional activity. In an attempt to define the cellular components which distinguish between different ligand-induced PR conformations, we have determined, by using a mammalian two-hybrid assay, that the nuclear receptor corepressor (NCoR) and the silencing mediator for retinoid and thyroid hormone receptor (SMRT) differentially associate with PR depending upon the class of ligand bound to the receptor. Specifically, we observed that the corepressors preferentially associate with antagonist-occupied PR and that overexpression of these corepressors suppresses the partial agonist activity of antagonist-occupied PR. Binding studies performed in vitro, however, reveal that recombinant SMRT can interact with PR in a manner which is not influenced by the nature of the bound ligand. Thus, the inability of SMRT or NCoR to interact with agonist-activated PR when assayed in vivo may relate more to the increased affinity of PR for coactivators, with a subsequent displacement of corepressors, than to an inherent low affinity for the corepressor proteins. Previous work from other groups has shown that 8-bromo-cyclic AMP (8-bromo-cAMP) can convert the PR antagonist RU486 into an agonist and, additionally, can potentiate the transcriptional activity of agonist-bound PR. In this study, we show that exogenous expression of NCoR or SMRT suppresses all 8-bromo-cAMP-mediated potentiation of PR transcriptional activity. Further analysis revealed that 8-bromo-cAMP addition decreases the association of NCoR and SMRT with PR. Thus, we propose that 8-bromo-cAMP-mediated potentiation of PR transcriptional activity is due, at least in part, to a disruption of the interaction between PR and the corepressors NCoR and SMRT. Cumulatively, these results suggest that NCoR and SMRT expression may play a pivotal role in PR pharmacology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document