Previous Article |
Table of Contents
| Next Article
* Department of Molecular Medicine and Institute of Biotechnology,
University of Texas Health Science Center, 15355 Lambda Drive, San
Antonio, TX 78245; and Edited by Robert G. Roeder, The Rockefeller University, New York,
NY, and approved June 19, 2001 (received for review April 9, 2001)
Mutational inactivation of BRCA1 confers a cumulative lifetime risk
of breast and ovarian cancers. However, the underlying basis for the
tissue-restricted tumor-suppressive properties of BRCA1 remains poorly
defined. Here we show that BRCA1 mediates ligand-independent
transcriptional repression of the estrogen receptor Germline inactivation of the
gene that encodes BRCA1 represents a predisposing genetic factor in
Because the DNA damage-induced signaling pathways that converge on
BRCA1 are likely to be conserved in most cell types, BRCA1 is likely to
occupy a fundamental and universally conserved role in the mammalian
DNA damage response. Nonetheless, germ-line inactivation of BRCA1 leads
predominantly to cancer of the breast and ovary, and the underlying
basis for its tissue-restricted tumor-suppressive properties thus
remains undefined.
At least two hypotheses have been proposed to explain the
tissue-specific nature of BRCA1-mediated tumor suppression, both of
which invoke a role for estrogen in either the initiation or promotion
of tumor formation (15). According to one model, the tissue-specific
tumor-suppressive properties of BRCA1 derive, at least in part, from
its response to tissue-specific DNA damage. In this regard, certain
oxidative metabolites of estrogen itself have been documented to be
genotoxic in nature (16), and BRCA1 may therefore play a role in
protecting breast and ovarian tissue from estrogen-induced DNA damage.
A second model, not mutually exclusive with the one described above, to
account for the this tissue-specific tumor-suppressive function invokes
a role for BRCA1 in the modulation of estrogen signaling pathways and,
hence, the expression of hormone-responsive genes. In this regard,
BRCA1 has been reported to inhibit estrogen-dependent transactivation
by the estrogen receptor Herein, we describe a role for BRCA1 in mediating ligand-independent
transcriptional repression of the ER Cell Culture.
p53 Plasmids and Transfections.
Transfection assays were performed by using the following conditions.
Biochemistry
BRCA1 mediates ligand-independent transcriptional repression of
the estrogen receptor
,
,
, and
Laboratory of Molecular
Carcinogenesis, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
![]()
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
(ER
), a
principal determinant of the growth, differentiation, and normal
functional status of breasts and ovaries. In Brca1-null mouse embryo
fibroblasts and BRCA1-deficient human ovarian cancer cells, ER
exhibited ligand-independent transcriptional activity that was not
observed in Brca1-proficient cells. Ectopic expression in
Brca1-deficient cells of wild-type BRCA1, but not clinically validated
BRCA1 missense mutants, restored ligand-independent repression of ER
in a manner dependent upon apparent histone deacetylase activity. In
estrogen-dependent human breast cancer cells, chromatin
immunoprecipitation analysis revealed the association of BRCA1 with
ER
at endogenous estrogen-response elements before, but
not after estrogen stimulation. Collectively, these results reveal
BRCA1 to be a ligand-reversible barrier to transcriptional activation
by unliganded promoter-bound ER
and suggest a possible mechanism by
which functional inactivation of BRCA1 could promote tumorigenesis through inappropriate hormonal regulation of mammary and
ovarian epithelial cell proliferation.
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
15-45% of hereditary breast cancers, and minimally 80% of
combined hereditary breast and ovarian cancer cases (1). Functionally,
BRCA1 has been implicated in the maintenance of global genome stability
(2-4), and the underlying basis for this activity likely derives from
its central role in the cellular response to DNA damage, wherein it
controls both DNA damage repair and the transcription of DNA
damage-inducible genes (5-14).
(ER
) through its direct interaction
with ER
(17, 18). BRCA1 has also been reported to enhance
androgen-dependent transactivation by the androgen receptor, allelic
variants of which modify cancer penetrance in BRCA1 mutation carriers
(19-21). Based on its postulated role in the control of nuclear
hormone signaling pathways, BRCA1 could therefore influence epithelial
cell proliferation and, by implication, cancer risk in tissues such as
breast and ovary.
. Initial efforts to elucidate
the mechanistic basis for this repression reveal that BRCA1 represents
a ligand-reversible barrier to transcriptional activation by unliganded
promoter-bound ER
. These findings suggest a potential role for BRCA1
in the proliferative control of normal estrogen-regulated tissues and a
potential basis by which its mutational inactivation could promote
tumorigenesis through inappropriate hormonal responses.
![]()
Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
/
(Brca1+/+) and p53
/
;
Brca1
/
(Brca1
/
) mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs)
were cultured as described (14). Human MCF7 cells were maintained in
DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS. Human BG-1-derived NEO1 and AS4 cell
lines were maintained as described (22). Depletion of hormone ligands
for nuclear/steroid receptor activation studies was achieved by cell
culture in medium containing either 10% charcoal/dextran-treated
serum (HyClone) or defined serum replacement 2 (Sigma).
, RSV-hGR, RSV-hER
, and
RSV-hPR
(23).
BRCA1 expression plasmids.
Used at 1.0 µg each, including pcDNA3.1-BRCA1, pcDNA3.1-BRCA1-A1708E,
pcDNA3.1-BRCA1-Q356R, and pcDNA3.1-BRCA1-A1708E/Q356R expressing
either human wild-type BRCA1 or familial breast cancer-derived BRCA1
mutants (14).
Chimeric activators.
Used at 1.0 µg of GAL4-ER
, generated by an amino-terminal
fusion of ER
with the GAL4 DNA-binding domain in pM3 (25); 0.1 µg
of pVP16-GAL4 or pVP16-GAL4-ER
containing ER
amino acids 251-595, as described (26).
MEFs (6 × 104) or BG-1 cells (2 × 105) cultured in ligand-free medium were
transfected by Lipofectin-based methods under serum-free conditions.
Culture medium was replaced with fresh ligand-free medium 24 h
after transfection, and 10
7 M 17
-estradiol
(E2) or 330 nM trichostatin A was added as indicated. Cells were
harvested 48 h after transfection for luciferase assay as
described (14) or chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) assay by
liquid scintillation counting (Promega).
Reverse Transcription (RT)-PCR Analysis.
BG-1-derived cells were cultured in ligand-free medium for at least 5 days, and treated with 10
7 M E2 for 1 h as
indicated. Approximately 15 µg of total cellular RNA was subjected to
semiquantitative RT-PCR analysis following a procedure previously
described for estrogen-responsive genes (27, 28).
Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP).
MCF7 cells were cultured in ligand-free medium for at least 5 days and treated with 10
7 E2 for 1 h as indicated.
ChIP assays were performed as described (29).
Antibodies.
Antibodies used for soluble and chromatin immunoprecipitations and
immunoblot analyses were as follows: BRCA1 (mAb 6B4); ER
(rabbit
polyclonal antibody HC-20 or mouse mAb D-12, Santa Cruz Biotechnology);
CtIP (mAb 19E8); TFIIH p89 (rabbit polyclonal antibody S-19, Santa Cruz
Biotechnology); glutathione S-transferase (MAb 8G11); RNA
polymerase II large subunit (mAb 8WG16); cathepsin D (rabbit polyclonal
antibody 06-467, Upstate Biotechnology, Lake Placid, NY); pS2 (mouse
mAb V3030, Biomeda, Hayward, CA); human progesterone receptor
(mouse mAb PriB-30, Santa Cruz Biotechnology); p84 (mAb 5E10).
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
BRCA1 has been shown to modulate the ligand-dependent transcriptional activity of specific members of the nuclear hormone receptor family (17-20). However, endogenous BRCA1 present in the transfected cell lines used in previous studies precluded analysis of the effect of BRCA1 on the ligand-independent function of these receptors. Therefore, to more directly assess the role of BRCA1 in nuclear receptor transactivation without competition from endogenous BRCA1, we analyzed a panel of nuclear receptors for their respective ligand-independent transcriptional activities in Brca1-nullizygous MEFs.
A set of minimal thymidine kinase (TK) promoters, each under control of
distinct hormone-response elements specific for either the human
thyroid receptor
(TR
), the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), the
ER
, or the progesterone receptor
(PR
) were individually tested for their respective abilities to direct expression of a
reporter gene in the absence or presence of each corresponding receptor
(absent ligand) after transfection into Brca1-proficient (Brca1+/+)
or Brca1-deficient (Brca1
/
) MEFs (14). Unexpectedly, we observed
significant ligand-independent activation of reporter gene expression
directed by both the progesterone receptor
and the ER
in
Brca1-deficient MEFs compared with Brca1-proficient MEFs (Fig.
1A). By contrast, no
ligand-independent stimulation of reporter activity directed by either
the thyroid receptor
or the glucocorticoid receptor could be
observed in Brca1-deficient MEFs (Fig. 1A).
Interestingly, although E2 activated the ER
in both Brca1-proficient
and Brca1-deficient MEFs, the relative level of induction observed in
Brca1-deficient MEFs was diminished 2-fold relative to Brca1-proficient
MEFs (Fig. 1B). We confirmed by immunoblot analysis that the
transfected ER
was expressed equivalently in BRCA1-proficient and
BRCA1-deficient MEFs, thus excluding the possibility that differences
in receptor activity derive from differences in receptor protein
expression (Fig. 1C).
|
Ectopic expression of wild-type BRCA1 in Brca1-deficient MEFs repressed
ligand-independent activation directed by ER
(Fig. 2A). Likewise, a BRCA1
derivative carrying a familial breast cancer-derived missense mutation
in the ring finger (C64G) also repressed ligand-independent activation
by ER
(Fig. 2A). By contrast, BRCA1 derivatives
carrying familial breast cancer-derived missense mutations in either an exon 11-encoded region that binds Rad50 and the transcriptional repressor ZBRK1 (Q356R) or the C-terminal BRCT domain (A1708E) abolished the ability of BRCA1 to repress ligand-independent
transactivation directed by ER
(Fig. 2A).
Differences in the transcriptional repression activities of the various
BRCA1 mutant derivatives could not be attributed to differences in
their respective levels of expression because each of the BRCA1 mutant
derivatives was expressed at a level comparable to wild-type BRCA1
(Fig. 2C). BRCA1-mediated, ligand-independent repression of
ER
was largely reversed by trichostatin A, implicating histone
deacetylase (HDAC) activity in this process (Fig.
2B). Collectively, these results reveal a function
for BRCA1 as a repressor of ligand-independent, ER
-mediated
transactivation.
|
To confirm these results in a biologically relevant cell type, we
analyzed the ligand-independent activity of ER
in human ovarian
adenocarcinoma BG-1 cells, which are ER
-positive and estrogen-dependent for growth (30). Previously, Annab et al. (22) described the generation of independent BG-1 clonal cell lines
that support stably reduced BRCA1 mRNA and protein levels by
retroviral-mediated BRCA1 antisense delivery. We tested the ability of
ER
to direct ligand-independent transcription of the ERE-TK-Luc
reporter gene after transfection into either a control retroviral
vector-infected BG-1 clonal cell line (NEO1) or, alternatively, a BRCA1
antisense-infected BG-1 clonal cell line (AS4) exhibiting severely
reduced BRCA1 expression levels (Fig.
3E; ref. 22). Consistent with
the results obtained in MEF cells, ER
exhibited significantly
increased ligand-independent activity in BRCA1-deficient AS4 cells
compared with BRCA1-proficient NEO1 cells (Fig. 3A). We also
observed a 2-fold reduction in the relative level of E2-mediated induction of reporter gene activity in AS4 cells compared with NEO1
cells, once again consistent with the results obtained in MEF cells
(Fig. 3B). These results confirm that in a biologically relevant epithelial cell type, BRCA1 can mediate repression of ligand-independent ER
transactivation activity.
|
To determine whether the reduced BRCA1 expression levels in AS4 cells
could be correlated with an increase in the ligand-independent expression of endogenous estrogen-responsive genes, we
performed a direct comparative analysis of NEO1 and AS4 cells with
respect to their ligand-independent expression of several
estrogen-responsive genes. Individual monolayer cultures of NEO1 and
AS4 cells were grown in the absence of estrogen for 5 days followed by
the addition of either no hormone or, alternatively, E2
(10
7 M) for 1 h. Subsequently, cells were
harvested and analyzed by semiquantitative RT-PCR for the expression
levels of the endogenous estrogen-responsive pS2, cathepsin
D, and progesterone receptor genes.
Relative to the expression level of an internal control ribosomal S16
gene, we observed increases in the ligand-independent expression levels
of the pS2, cathepsin D, and progesterone receptor genes of 3-, 5-, and
9-fold, respectively, in BRCA1-deficient AS4 cells compared with
BRCA1-proficient NEO1 cells (Fig. 3C). Interestingly,
although the addition of E2 stimulated transcription of the pS2,
cathepsin D, and the progesterone receptor genes in NEO1 cells, no such
E2-dependent increase in the transcription of these genes could be
observed in AS4 cells (Fig. 3C). Qualitatively similar
results were observed at the protein level by immunoblot analysis.
Relative to the level of an internal control protein (nuclear matrix
protein p84), E2-independent increases in the steady-state levels of
the pS2, cathepsin D, and progesterone receptor proteins could be
observed in AS4 cells compared with NEO1 cells (Fig. 3D).
Furthermore, although the addition of E2 elevated the steady-state
level of each of these proteins in NEO1 cells, no such E2-dependent
increase could be observed in AS4 cells (Fig. 3D).
Quantitative differences between RT-PCR and immunoblot analyses could
reflect the influence of posttranscriptional regulatory processes.
Nonetheless, RT-PCR and immunoblot analyses both reveal that the
ligand-independent expression of endogenous ER
-target genes is increased in BRCA1-deficient cells. Collectively, these results implicate BRCA1 in the ligand-independent repression of endogenous estrogen-responsive genes.
To explore the mechanism by which BRCA1 mediates ligand-independent
repression of ER
, we first determined whether BRCA1 could interact
with unliganded ER
in vivo by coimmunoprecipitation of
the two proteins in human breast cancer MCF7 cells cultured in the
absence of estrogen. Consistent with previous results (18), BRCA1 could
be specifically coimmunoprecipitated with unliganded ER
, thus
demonstrating that the two proteins can interact in vivo in
a ligand-independent manner (data not shown).
To explore the possibility that BRCA1 represses the transactivation
function of promoter-bound, unliganded ER
, we first tested the
effect of BRCA1 on the ligand-independent transcriptional activity of
ER
tethered to the yeast GAL4 DNA-binding domain by using a reporter
template bearing GAL4 DNA-binding sites. This approach permitted us to
assess the effect of BRCA1 on the transactivation function of
unliganded ER
independent of any effects that BRCA1 might have on
the DNA-binding activity of unliganded ER
. GAL4-ER
was
cotransfected along with a GAL4-SV40-luciferase reporter template into
Brca1-proficient and Brca1-deficient MEFs. We observed significant ligand-independent stimulation of reporter activity in Brca1-deficient, but not in Brca1-proficient, MEFs (Fig.
4A), suggesting one mechanism by which BRCA1 mediates ligand-independent repression of ER
is through direct repression of the DNA-bound receptor.
|
To confirm this observation under biologically relevant conditions
in vivo, we used ChIP analyses to determine whether BRCA1 can be recruited directly to estrogen-responsive promoters in the
absence of ligand. MCF-7 cells were grown in the absence of estrogen
for 5 days followed by the addition of either no hormone or,
alternatively, E2 (10
7 M) for 1 h.
Promoter occupancy before and after E2 treatment at the estrogen
response elements within the endogenous pS2 and cathepsin D
gene promoters by ER
, BRCA1, and RNA polymerase II was then
monitored by ChIP using antibodies specific for each of the three
proteins and semiquantitative PCR with primers flanking the estrogen
response elements of the pS2 and cathepsin D promoters. In the absence
of E2, ER
could be detected in association with both the pS2 and
cathepsin D promoters, and this level was increased dramatically by the
addition of E2 (Fig. 4B, lanes 2 and 6). Strikingly, we also
observed pS2 and cathepsin D promoter occupancy by BRCA1 in the absence
of E2, and a reduction in such occupancy after E2 treatment (Fig.
4B, lanes 3 and 7). By contrast, RNA polymerase II could be
detected only following, but not before, E2 treatment, consistent with
its ligand-dependent recruitment concomitant with transcriptional
activation of the pS2 and cathepsin D genes (Fig. 4B, lanes
4 and 8 and C, lanes 1 and 2). The specificity of factor association within the estrogen-responsive region of the pS2 and cathepsin D promoters was confirmed by ChIP analysis using antibodies specific for ZBRK1, a sequence-specific DNA-binding transcriptional repressor that does not bind to pS2 or cathepsin D promoter sequences (14). ZBRK1-specific antibodies failed to immunoprecipitate pS2 and
cathepsin D promoter sequences (data not shown). Further specificity of
the ChIP assay was demonstrated by the inability to detect occupancy by
ER
, BRCA1, or RNA polymerase II of a region
3 kb upstream of the
cathepsin D promoter (Fig. 4B). These results thus reveal
the association of BRCA1 with unliganded ER
at
endogenous estrogen-responsive promoters under
physiologically relevant conditions in vivo.
Like other steroid receptors, ER
contains two transactivation
domains, an N-terminal ligand-independent activation function (AF-1)
that is targeted by a variety of steroid-independent cell-signaling pathways, and a C-terminal ligand-inducible activation function (AF-2)
that resides within the receptor ligand-binding domain (31, 32).
Previous analyses of ER
suggest a model whereby repressive factors
binding to sequences within its C-terminal ligand-binding domain
repress constitutively active AF-1 in the absence of an agonist or in
the presence of an antagonist (26, 33). To determine whether
ligand-independent repression of ER
by BRCA1 is mediated through the
ER
ligand-binding domain, we tested the ligand-independent activity
of a VP16-GAL4-ER
receptor chimera after its expression in both
BRCA1-proficient and BRCA1-deficient BG-1 clonal cell lines. This
chimera encodes ER
amino acids 251-595, including the hinge region
and the ligand-binding domain, fused C-terminally to the hybrid
transactivator VP16-GAL4 (26).
Previously, deletion analysis of this receptor chimera revealed that
constitutive VP16-GAL4-ER
activity could be recovered by the removal
of sequences within the ligand-binding domain of the ER
moiety,
thereby implicating the ER
ligand-binding domain in
ligand-independent transcriptional repression of a neighboring constitutive activation domain (26). To determine whether this ligand-independent repression is mediated by BRCA1, we transfected the
VP16-GAL4-ER
chimera along with a reporter template bearing GAL4 DNA
binding sites into both BRCA1-proficient NEO1 cells and BRCA1-deficient
AS4 cells. In NEO1 cells, the VP16-GAL4-ER
chimera exhibited minimal
constitutive transactivation activity in the absence of E2; in response
to E2, this level was dramatically increased to one approaching that of
the potent VP16-GAL4 activator alone (Fig.
5 A and B). By
contrast, in AS4 cells the VP16-GAL4-ER
chimera exhibited
constitutive transactivation activity comparable to that exhibited by
the VP16-GAL4 activator alone (Fig. 5C). The addition of E2
had a minimal effect on the elevated constitutive transactivation
activity of the ER
chimera in AS4 cells (data not shown), suggesting
that the principle effect of E2 is to override a ligand-independent
barrier to the transactivation activity of the chimeric receptor. This
barrier is present in NEO1 cells, but deficient in AS4 cells. Similar
results were also observed by using isogenic Brca1-proficient and
Brca1-deficient MEFs, eliminating the possibility that cell
type-specific peculiarities contribute to the differential
transactivation properties of the VP16-GAL4-ER
chimera in the
presence and absence of BRCA1 (data not shown). Collectively, these
results reveal the ER
ligand-binding domain to be a platform for the
recruitment of BRCA1 from which the latter may confer
ligand-independent repression on a linked activation domain. Hence, we
conclude that BRCA1-mediated ligand-independent repression of ER
is
likely to be mediated through the ER
ligand-binding domain.
|
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Recently, BRCA1 has been proposed to inhibit the ligand-dependent
transcriptional activity of ER
through a direct interaction between
the two proteins (18). Our current analysis of ER
transcriptional activity in Brca1-nullizygous MEFs revealed BRCA1 to be a
ligand-reversible barrier to transcriptional activation by unliganded
ER
. The biological relevance of this finding is further strengthened
by the observation that BRCA1 also mediates ligand-independent
repression of the ER
in human ovarian adenocarcinoma cells.
The underlying mechanism by which BRCA1 mediates ligand-independent
repression of ER
transcriptional activity appears to involve
targeted recruitment by unliganded, promoter-bound ER
of a
BRCA1-associated HDAC activity. This conclusion is based first on the
observation that the HDAC inhibitor trichostatin A can effectively
reverse ligand-independent repression mediated by BRCA1 and, second, on
the results of ChIP analyses, which revealed the association of
unliganded ER
with BRCA1 on endogenous estrogen-response elements in vivo. A likely target of BRCA1-mediated
ligand-independent ER
repression is the constitutive AF-1 activation
domain within ER
. Previous studies have indicated that
antagonist-bound AF-2 can repress AF-1 activity through the recruitment
of the nuclear corepressor N-CoR (33), whereas the ligand-binding
domain of unliganded ER
can repress a linked heterologous activation
domain in a ligand-reversible manner, presumably by the recruitment of a soluble corepressor (26). Our observation that an estrogen-dependent VP16-GAL4 chimeric transactivator carrying the ER
ligand-binding domain exhibits constitutive activity in BRCA1-deficient, but not in
BRCA1-proficient BG-1 cells, reveals the ER
ligand-binding domain to
be a potential site of BRCA1 recruitment for ligand-independent repression of a linked activation domain. Hence, BRCA1 could be recruited to the ER
ligand-binding domain as part of a larger repression complex to silence AF-1 function in the absence of ligand.
The recent report of a direct interaction between BRCA1 and the ER
ligand-binding domain (18) lends additional support to this model.
Should BRCA1 function to inhibit the ligand-dependent transcriptional
activity of ER
(17, 18), it seems unlikely to do so through a
mechanism that involves promoter-bound ER
. Our ChIP analysis
revealed the association of BRCA1 with ER
at endogenous estrogen-response elements before, but not after, estrogen stimulation. Thus, we favor a model in which BRCA1, along with an associated corepressor(s) that minimally includes an HDAC activity, is recruited by unliganded, promoter-bound ER
to effectively silence the
constitutive AF-1 activation domain and thereby repress
estrogen-responsive target gene transcription. After estrogen
stimulation, a ligand-induced conformational change within ER
could
lead to enhanced affinity of the ER
for its cognate binding site and
release of a BRCA1-containing repression complex, thereby liberating
AF-1 and AF-2 to synergistically recruit coactivators and the RNA
polymerase II holoenzyme to promote transcription (29). It is also
possible that BRCA1 could function additionally as a barrier to the
productive association of either unliganded and/or liganded ER
with promoter DNA, and this could underlie the previous observation
that BRCA1 can inhibit ligand-dependent ER
transactivation (17, 18).
Interestingly, we observed that a deficiency of BRCA1 also leads to a
reduction in the relative level of E2-mediated ER
activation. In
both Brca1-nullizygous MEFs and BRCA1-deficient BG-1 (AS4) cells, the
relative level of E2-mediated activation of a transfected ER
-responsive reporter gene was diminished when compared with Brca1-proficient cells. Furthermore, in AS4 cells, the
endogenous estrogen-response genes that we monitored
exhibited increased estrogen-independent expression and little or no
estrogen-dependent stimulation when compared with BRCA1-proficient BG-1
(NEO1) cells. It is possible that the expression of these genes is
largely derepressed in a BRCA1-deficient background and cannot
therefore be increased substantially in response to estrogen.
Previously, Annab et al. (22) demonstrated that relative to
parental or retroviral vector-infected BG-1 cell clones, BRCA1 antisense-infected BG-1 cell clones exhibit enhanced
estrogen-independent growth in culture (22). Furthermore, BG-1 clone
AS4, which exhibits severely reduced BRCA1 expression levels, exhibited
increased tumorigenicity in ovariectomized nude mice compared with the
retroviral vector-infected NEO1 cell clone (22). These observations
suggest that forced reduction of BRCA1 in BG-1 ovarian adenocarcinoma cells may influence estrogen-independent growth both in
vitro and in vivo. Our observation that AS4 cells
support significant increases in the estrogen-independent expression
levels of different ER
-target genes compared with BRCA1-proficient
NEO1 cells may provide a mechanistic basis for the estrogen-independent
growth advantages that AS4 cells exhibit.
The finding that BRCA1 can function as a ligand-reversible barrier to
transcriptional activation by unliganded ER
suggests the potential
involvement of BRCA1 in the proliferative control of normal
estrogen-regulated tissues. Thus, mutational inactivation of BRCA1
could result in persistent expression of estrogen-responsive genes in
the absence of threshold levels of estrogenic stimulation. In this way,
inappropriate hormonal responses brought about by BRCA1 mutation might
possibly promote the proliferation of transformation-initiated cells.
Previous analyses have revealed that a significant proportion of
BRCA1-associated breast tumors are negative for ER
expression (34).
However, the loss of ER
expression in BRCA1-associated tumors is
likely to represent a relatively late event in breast tumor
progression, one that may have occurred after any proliferative advantages conferred upon transformation-initiated cells by homozygous BRCA1 mutation have ensued. Possibly, the down-regulation of ER
expression in BRCA1-mutated tumors could derive in part from negative feedback control enlisted by BRCA1-mutated breast epithelial cells to
restrict the promiscuous expression of estrogen-responsive genes.
Future studies should illuminate the mechanistic basis for
BRCA1-mediated transcriptional repression of ER
and clarify its
functional role in the larger network of hormone signaling pathways
that control the growth, differentiation, and homeostasis of breast and ovary.
| |
Acknowledgements |
|---|
We thank D. Jones and P. Garza for technical assistance, Drs.
M. J. Tsai and B. W. O'Malley for the receptor expression
and reporter plasmids, Dr. J. H. White for the GAL4-VP16-ER
expression plasmid, and Dr. P.-L. Chen, Dr. P. R. Yew, and W. Tan
for advice and comments. This work was supported by National Institutes
of Health Grants P01CA30195 and P01CA81020, the McDermott Endowment Fund, and a San Antonio Cancer Institute Pilot Project Grant.
| |
Abbreviations |
|---|
ER
, estrogen receptor
;
MEF, mouse
embryonic fibroblast;
E2, 17
-estradiol;
RT-PCR, reverse
transcription-PCR;
HDAC, histone deacetylase;
ChIP, chromatin
immunoprecipitation;
AF-1, N-terminal ligand-independent activation
function;
AF-2, C-terminal ligand-inducible activation function.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
To whom reprint requests may be addressed. E-mail:
leew{at}uthscsa.edu or boyer{at}uthscsa.edu.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Martin, A. M. & Weber, B. L. (2000) J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 92, 1126-1135. |
| 2. | Tirkkonen, M. , Johannsson, O. , Agnarsson, B. A. , Olsson, H. , Ingvarsson, S. , Karhu, R. , Tanner, M. , Isola, J. , Barkardottir, R. B. , Borg, A. & Kallioniemi, O. (1997) Cancer Res. 57, 1222-1227. |
| 3. | Tomlinson, G. E. , Chen, T. T. , Stastny, V. A. , Virmani, A. K. , Spillman, M. A. , Tonk, V. , Blum, J. L. , Schneider, N. R. , Wistuba, I. I. , Shay, J. W. , et al. (1998) Cancer Res. 58, 3237-3243. |
| 4. | Xu, X. , Weaver, Z. , Linke, S. P. , Li, C. , Gotay, J. , Wang, X. W. , Harris, C. C. , Ried, T. & Deng, C. X. (1999) Mol. Cell 3, 389-395. |
| 5. | Zheng, L. , Li, S. , Boyer, T. G. & Lee, W.-H. (2000) Oncogene 19, 6159-6175. |
| 6. | Welsch, P. L. , Owens, K. N. & King, M. C. (2000) Trends Genet. 16, 69-74. |
| 7. | Gowen, L. C. , Avrutskaya, A. V. , Latour, A. M. , Koller, B. H. & Leadon, S. A. (1998) Science 281, 1009-1012. |
| 8. | Moynahan, M. E. , Chiu, J. W. , Koller, B. H. & Jasin, M. (1999) Mol. Cell 4, 511-518. |
| 9. | Zhong, Q. , Chen, C. F. , Li, S. , Chen, Y. , Wang, C.-C. , Xiao, J. , Chen, P.-L. , Sharp, Z. D. & Lee, W.-H. (1999) Science 285, 747-750. |
| 10. | Harkin, D. P. , Bean, J. M. , Miklos, D. , Song, Y.-H. , Truong, V.B. , Englert, C. , Christians, F. C. , Ellisen, L. W. , Maheswaran, S. , Oliner, J. D. & Haber, D. A. (1999) Cell 97, 575-586. |
| 11. | Hollander, M. C. , Sheikh, M. S. , Bulavin, D. V. , Lundgren, K. , Augeri-Henmueller, L. , Shehee, R. , Molinaro, T. A. , Kim, K. E. , Tolosa, E. , Ashwell, J. D. , et al. (1999) Nat. Genet. 23, 176-184. |
| 12. | Somasundaram, K. , Zhang, H. , Zeng, Y. X. , Houvras, H. , Peng, Y. , Zhang, H. , Wu, G. S. , Licht, J. D. , Weber, B. L. & El-Deiry, W. S. (1997) Nature (London) 389, 187-190. |
| 13. | Wang, X. W. , Zhan, Q. , Coursen, J. D. , Khan, M. A. , Kontny, U. , Yu, L. , Hollander, M. C. , O'Conner, P. M. , Fornace, A. J., Jr. & Harris, C. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 3706-3711. |
| 14. | Zheng, L. , Pan, H. , Li, S. , Fleskin-Nikitin, A. , Chen, P.-L. , Boyer, T. G. & Lee, W.-H. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 757-768. |
| 15. | Hilakivi-Clarke, L. (2000) Cancer Res. 60, 4993-5001. |
| 16. | Liehr, J. G. (2000) Endocr. Rev. 21, 40-54. |
| 17. | Fan, S. , Wang, J.-A. , Yuan, R. , Meng, Q. , Yuan, R.-Q. , Ma, Y. X. , Erdos, M. R. , Pestell, R. G. , Yuan, F. , Auborn, K. J. , et al. (1999) Science 284, 1354-1356. |
| 18. | Fan, S. , Yong, X. , Wang, C. , Yuan, R.-Q. , Meng, Q. , Wang, J.-A. , Erdos, M. , Goldberg, I. D. , Webb, P. , Kushner, P. J. , et al. (2001) Oncogene 20, 77-87. |
| 19. | Yeh, S. , Hu, Y.-C. , Rahman, M. , Lin, H.-K. , Hsu, C.-L. , Ting, H.-J. , Kang, H.-Y. & Chang, C. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 11256-11261. (First Published October 3, 2000; 10.1073/pnas.19053897) |
| 20. | Park, J. J. , Irvine, R. A. , Buchanan, G. , Koh, S. S. , Park, J. M. , Tilley, W. D. , Stallcup, M. R. , Press, M. F. & Coetzee, G. A. (2000) Cancer Res. 60, 5946-5949. |
| 21. | Rebbeck, T. R. , Kantoff, P. W. , Krithivas, K. , Neuhausen, S. , Blackwood, M. A. , Godwin, A. K. , Daly, M. B. , Narod, S. A. , Garber, J. E. , Lynch, H. T. , et al. (1999) Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64, 1371-1377. |
| 22. | Annab, L. A. , Hawkins, R. E. , Solomon, G. , Barrett, J. C. & Afshari, C. A. (2000) Breast Cancer Res. 2, 139-148. |
| 23. | Leng, X. , Blanco, J. , Tsai, S. Y. , Ozato, K. , O'Malley, B. W. & Tsai, M. J. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 31436-31442. |
| 24. | Hsu, H.-L. , Wadman, I. & Baer, R. (1994) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 3181-3185. |
| 25. | Sadowski, I. , Bell, B. , Broad, P. & Hollis, M. (1992) Gene 118, 137-141. |
| 26. | Lee, H. S. , Aumais, J. & White, J. H. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 25727-25730. |
| 27. | Tong, D. , Schneeberger, C. , Leodolter, S. & Zeilinger, R. (1997) Anal. Biochem. 251, 173-177. |
| 28. | Liu, Z. , Brattain, M. G. & Appert, H. (1997) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 231, 283-289. |
| 29. | Shang, Y. , Hu, X. , DiRenzo, J. , Lazar, M. A. & Brown, M. (2000) Cell 103, 843-852. |
| 30. | Geisinger, K. R. , Kute, T. E. , Pettenati, M. J. , Welander, C. E. , Dennard, Y. , Collins, L. A. & Berens, M. E. (1989) Cancer 63, 280-288. |
| 31. | Weigel, N. & Zhang, Y. (1998) J. Mol. Med. 76, 469-479. |
| 32. | Klinge, C. M. (2000) Steroids 65, 227-251. |
| 33. | Lavinsky, R. M. , Jepsen, K. , Heinzel, T. , Torchia, J. , Mullen, T. M. , Schiff, R. , Del-Rio, A. L. , Ricote, M. , Ngo, S. , Gemsch, J. , et al. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 2920-2925. |
| 34. | Loman, N. , Johannsson, O. , Bendahl, P. O. , Borg, A. , Ferno, M. & Olsson, H. (1998) Cancer 83, 310-319. |
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
L. Li, S. Ryser, E. Dizin, D. Pils, M. Krainer, C. E. Jefford, F. Bertoni, R. Zeillinger, and I. Irminger-Finger Oncogenic BARD1 Isoforms Expressed in Gynecological Cancers Cancer Res., December 15, 2007; 67(24): 11876 - 11885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Wu, D. R. Soler, M. C. Abba, M. I. Nunez, R. Baer, C. Hatzis, A. Llombart-Cussac, A. Llombart-Bosch, and C. M. Aldaz CtIP Silencing as a Novel Mechanism of Tamoxifen Resistance in Breast Cancer Mol. Cancer Res., December 1, 2007; 5(12): 1285 - 1295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Ma, C. Hu, A. T. Riegel, S. Fan, and E. M. Rosen Growth Factor Signaling Pathways Modulate BRCA1 Repression of Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} Activity Mol. Endocrinol., August 1, 2007; 21(8): 1905 - 1923. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. N. Birrell, L. M. Butler, J. M. Harris, G. Buchanan, and W. D. Tilley Disruption of androgen receptor signaling by synthetic progestins may increase risk of developing breast cancer FASEB J, August 1, 2007; 21(10): 2285 - 2293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Heldring, A. Pike, S. Andersson, J. Matthews, G. Cheng, J. Hartman, M. Tujague, A. Strom, E. Treuter, M. Warner, et al. Estrogen Receptors: How Do They Signal and What Are Their Targets Physiol Rev, July 1, 2007; 87(3): 905 - 931. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. M. Trauernicht, S. J. Kim, N. H. Kim, and T. G. Boyer Modulation of Estrogen Receptor {alpha} Protein Level and Survival Function by DBC-1 Mol. Endocrinol., July 1, 2007; 21(7): 1526 - 1536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. F. Heine and J. D. Parvin BRCA1 Control of Steroid Receptor Ubiquitination Sci. Signal., June 19, 2007; 2007(391): pe34 - pe34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. A. Horwitz, E. B. Affar, G. F. Heine, Y. Shi, and J. D. Parvin A mechanism for transcriptional repression dependent on the BRCA1 E3 ubiquitin ligase PNAS, April 17, 2007; 104(16): 6614 - 6619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Lu, A. Amleh, J. Sun, X. Jin, S. D. McCullough, R. Baer, D. Ren, R. Li, and Y. Hu Ubiquitination and Proteasome-Mediated Degradation of BRCA1 and BARD1 during Steroidogenesis in Human Ovarian Granulosa Cells Mol. Endocrinol., March 1, 2007; 21(3): 651 - 663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. C.K. Leung and J.-H. Choi Endocrine signaling in ovarian surface epithelium and cancer Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2007; 13(2): 143 - 162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. J. Poole, Y. Li, Y. Kim, S.-C. J. Lin, W.-H. Lee, and E. Y.-H. P. Lee Prevention of Brca1-Mediated Mammary Tumorigenesis in Mice by a Progesterone Antagonist Science, December 1, 2006; 314(5804): 1467 - 1470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Lu, D. Chen, Z. Lin, S. Reierstad, A. M. Trauernicht, T. G. Boyer, and S. E. Bulun BRCA1 Negatively Reg |