Published online before print February 10, 2005, doi: 10.1161/01.RES.0000158967.96231.88
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.
Molecular Medicine |
Molecular Basis of Estrogen-Induced Cyclooxygenase Type 1 Upregulation in Endothelial Cells
From the Department of Pediatrics (L.L.G., L.H., S.O.-L., Z.G., K.L.C., P.W.S.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas and the Vascular Biology Research Center (K.K.W.), University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center, Dallas, Tex.
Correspondence to Philip W. Shaul, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390. E-mail philip.shaul{at}utsouthwestern.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Estrogen upregulates cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) expression in endothelial cells. To determine the basis of this process, studies were performed in ovine endothelial cells transfected with the human COX-1 promoter fused to luciferase. Estradiol (E2) caused activation of the COX-1 promoter with maximal stimulation at 10–8 mol/L E2, and the response was mediated by either ER
or ERß. Mutagenesis revealed a primary role for a putative Sp1 binding motif at –89 (relative to the ATG codon) and lesser involvement of a consensus Sp1 site at –111. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays yielded a single complex with the site at –89, and supershift analyses implicated AP-2 and ER, and not Sp1, in protein-DNA complex formation. In endothelial cells with minimal endogenous ER, the transfection of ER mutants lacking the DNA binding domain or primary nuclear localization signals caused 4-fold greater stimulation of promoter activity with E2 than wild-type ER. In contrast, mutant ER lacking the A-B domains was inactive. Thus, estrogen-mediated upregulation of COX-1 in endothelium is uniquely independent of direct ER-DNA binding and instead entails protein-DNA interaction involving AP-2 and ER at a proximal regulatory element. In addition, the process may be initiated by cytoplasmic ER, and critical receptor elements reside within the amino terminus.
Key Words: cyclooxygenase • endothelium • estrogen • estrogen receptor
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Evidence from multiple paradigms indicates that estrogen has potent impact on endothelial cell function. The hormone activates signaling by endothelium, and it modifies endothelial cell growth, migration, and apoptosis. These actions are primarily mediated by estrogen receptor (ER) subtypes
and ß, which classically function as transcription factors.1–3 We have demonstrated that ER and ERß are expressed in endothelium, and that subpopulations of ER and ERß reside in endothelial caveolae/lipid rafts.4,5 One of the most thoroughly delineated targets of endothelial ER action is endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS). eNOS transcription is upregulated by the activation of classical ER and estrogen-related receptor 1 in processes that involve diverse regulatory elements within the 5' flanking region of the eNOS gene.6,7 In addition, eNOS activity is rapidly stimulated by ER or ERß ligand activation in endothelial caveolae.4,5 Through these multiple mechanisms estrogen enhances the production of the important atheroprotective molecule NO.8 In contrast to the detailed understanding of the basis of estrogen action on endothelial NO production, considerably less is known about the equally potent ability of the hormone to stimulate endothelial prostacyclin synthesis. This process is critical to the overall impact of estrogen on vascular health.9 We have previously demonstrated that estrogen acutely activates endothelial prostacyclin synthesis through an ERß-dependent, calcium-dependent process.10 We have also shown that estrogen upregulates the expression of the rate-limiting enzyme in prostacyclin synthesis, cyclooxygenase type 1 (COX-1) in endothelial cells, resulting in enhanced basal and agonist-stimulated prostacyclin synthesis. We have further demonstrated that this is mediated by increases in steady-state COX-1 mRNA levels, which are not related to changes in mRNA degradation, thus implicating transcriptional processes.11 However, the molecular mechanisms by which COX-1 is upregulated by estrogen are unknown.
The purpose of the present study was to determine the processes by which COX-1 expression is upregulated in endothelium by estrogen. The 5' flanking sequence of the COX-1 gene lacks estrogen response elements (EREs) or ERE half-palindrome motifs.12 The hypothesis was therefore raised that estrogen activates COX-1 gene transcription via the involvement of putative Sp1 elements, which are prevalent in the COX-1 promoter and which mediate the estrogen responsiveness of certain genes.13 In addition to testing this hypothesis, experiments were performed to determine the role of ER and ERß in this process. The specific cis DNA sequences involved in the estrogen response were also identified, along with nuclear proteins that are involved. Furthermore, studies were done to begin to determine the features of ER that play a role in mediating COX-1 expression.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Cell Culture
Experiments were performed in primary ovine endothelial cells obtained as previously described and studied at passage 4 to 6.14 These cells have been used previously in studies of COX-1 regulation.11,15 In experiments evaluating the actions of estrogen receptor mutants, primary endothelial cell cultures were specifically selected that had negligible expression of endogenous ER
or ERß by immunoblot analysis.
Construction of Reporter and Receptor Plasmids and Mutagenesis
The basis of estrogen-induced activation of COX-1 transcription was investigated using a 2075-base pair fragment (–2095 to –21 relative to the ATG codon, A as +1) of the human COX-1 5' flanking region inserted into KpnI/HindIII sites of the luciferase reporter gene plasmid, pGL2 (Promega Corp) to yield the full-length promoter-reporter plasmid denoted as –2095COX-1-Luc. Two 5' deletion mutants were also studied including 1241 (–1261 to –21) or 117 (–137 to –21) base pairs of 5' flanking sequence of COX-1, designated –1261COX-1-Luc and –137COX-1-Luc, respectively. The COX-1 genomic sequences for these plasmids were obtained from COX-1 promoter reporter constructs originally made using pXP1.12 Site-directed mutants were also generated of the putative Sp1 element at –111, the putative Sp1 element at –89, or of both elements (see online data supplement available at http://circres.ahajournals.org).12
In studies of the role of estrogen receptors in COX-1 gene transcription, cells were cotransfected with cDNAs for wild-type human ER inserted into pCDNA3.14 or deletion mutants of ER. These included a mutant lacking the two primary NLS, NLS 2 and 3 (ER
250–274), a mutant lacking the DNA binding domain (ERß 185–251), and an N-terminal deletion mutant lacking residues 1 to 175 (ERß1–175) (see online data supplement and online Figure I). In selected experiments, cells were transfected with mouse ERß cDNA cloned into pCDNA3.1.5
Cell Transfection and Reporter Activity
Cell transfection was performed using methods that have been previously reported.16 Twenty four hours later, the cells were placed in media containing charcoal-stripped serum and were treated with either vehicle, 17ß-estradiol (E2, 10–12 to 10–6 mol/L), or E2 plus ICI 182,780 (10–5 mol/L) for 48 hour. The cells were lysed, extracts were centrifuged at 10 000g, and luciferase and ß-galactosidase activity were measured.17,18 The results are normalized as relative luciferase light units/ß-galactosidase activity. In selected wells, the cells were transfected with pGL2-Control Vector (Promega Corp) to serve as a positive control for luciferase expression. In preliminary studies, 17-estradiol had no effect on promoter activity. In experiments focused on the role of ER, sham plasmid or cDNAs for wild-type or mutant ER were cotransfected with the promoter-reporter constructs and pSV-ß-Gal, and equal expression of ER forms was confirmed by immunoblot analysis.4
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays
After 0 to 48 hours treatment of endothelial cells with vehicle or 10–8 mol/L E2, nuclear extracts were prepared.16 Oligonucleotide probes were generated and added to incubations of nuclear extracts using methods that have been previously reported.16 In competition studies, excess wild-type, mutant, or unrelated oligonucleotides were added in 2- to 200-fold molar excess before the addition of the 32P-labeled probe. The wild-type –111 Sp1 probe was 5'-GAGGGAGGAGCGGGGGTGGAGCCGGGGGAA-3' (upper strand) and the mutant probe was 5'-GAGGGAGGAGCGGTTTTAGAGCCGGGGGAA-3'. The wild-type –89 Sp1 probe was 5'-GGGGGAAGGGTGGGGAGGGGATGGGCTGGA-3' (upper strand), and the mutant probe was 5'-GGGGGAAGGGTGTTTAAGGGATGGGCTGGA-3'.
To identify the nuclear proteins that bound to the putative Sp1 domains, supershifting of the DNA-protein complex was performed. For ER, 2 µL of MAB461 (Chemicon International Inc) or unrelated IgG was added. For Sp1, Sp3, AP-2, and AP-2
, 2 µL of antiserum to the respective transcription factors was added. The antibodies were 2 µg/µL from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc, and with the exception of Sp3, all were monoclonal. To confirm effective supershifting with antibody to Sp1, additional experiments were performed with an Sp1 probe from the eNOS promoter (5'-GGATAGGGGCGGGGCGAGG-3', upper strand).16 All nuclear protein-DNA complexes were resolved on 5% nondenaturing polyacrylamide gels containing 1x Tris borate/EDTA buffer. Dried gels were exposed to Kodak XAR film for autoradiograpy.
Statistical Analysis
Data for promoter activity were analyzed by ANOVA and Neuman-Keuls post hoc testing.19 Results are expressed as mean±SEM. All stated differences achieved statistical significance at the 0.05 level of probability or less.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
COX-1 Promoter Activation by Estrogen
To determine whether estrogen activates COX-1 transcription, the effects of the hormone on the activation of the full-length promoter (–2095COX-1-Luc) were determined. The levels of basal promoter activity obtained with –2095COX-1-Luc was at least 3-fold greater than with vector alone, and activity with vector alone was not altered by hormone treatment (data not shown). In cells transfected with –2095COX-1-Luc, treatment with 10–8 mol/L E2 for 48 hours caused a 2.6-fold increase in promoter activity that was fully reversed by concomitant treatment with ICI 182,780 (Figure 1A). In additional studies, the dose-response to E2 was evaluated (Figure 1B). Activation was observed at 10–10 mol/L E2, and maximal response occurred with 10–8 mol/L E2. Minimal stimulation of promoter activity was seen with 10–6 mol/L E2, indicating a biphasic dose-response.
|
P<0.05 vs E2 alone. B, Using the same approach, the dose-response to E2 (10–12 to 10–6 mol/L) was evaluated over 48 hours. *P<0.05 vs no E2, 
P<0.05 vs sham transfection for receptor cDNA. For A, B, and C, values are mean±SEM, n=4 to 6.
To further determine the role of ER in COX-1 gene modulation, experiments were done in endothelial cells overexpressing either ER or ERß (Figure 1C). Relative to the responses seen with endogenous ER action in sham-transfected cells, there was a 2.3-fold greater E2-mediated promoter activity after ER overexpression. Similarly, there was a 2.2-fold enhancement of the E2 response with overexpression of ERß. As such, both ER subtypes are capable of activating COX-1 transcriptional transactivation.
Promoter Elements Required for Regulation by Estrogen
To determine the elements in the COX-1 promoter required for estrogen responsiveness, the activities of 5' deletion mutants were evaluated in endothelial cells. Basal promoter activity fell by 63% with deletion from –2095 to –1261, and it fell a comparable 70% with deletion from –2095 to –137 (Figure 2A). However, the relative capacity for E2-stimulated promoter activity was conserved with deletion from –2095 to –1261, with the hormone causing similar 2.4-fold and 2.6-fold increases in activity over basal, respectively. In addition, there was continued conservation of E2 activation of the promoter with deletion to –137, with –137COX-1-Luc displaying a 2.8-fold response to hormone. Importantly, ER antagonism with ICI 182,780 reversed estrogen responses in all cases. To further implicate the proximal promoter in hormone action, additional experiments were done using –2095COX-1-Luc and –137COX-1-Luc in cells cotransfected with ER cDNA (Figure 2B). With ER overexpression, E2-stimulated activity of –2095COX-1-Luc was raised by 2.4-fold. Similarly, with overexpression of the receptor the E2-induced activity of –137COX-1-Luc increased by 2.2-fold.
|
Inspection of the proximal COX-1 promoter reveals a lack of estrogen response elements (ERE) or ERE half-palindrome motifs known to mediate the estrogen responsiveness of certain genes.20 However, there is a potential Sp1 binding site at –111 and another at –89,12 and Sp1 is known to mediate estrogen responsiveness in the absence of ERE-like motifs in certain paradigms.13 Because E2-induced activation of the promoter in endothelial cells was conserved with 5' deletions, which retained these domains, site-directed mutants of either or both of these putative Sp1 elements within –2095COX-1-Luc were tested. First, the basal activity of mutated promoter sequences was evaluated (Figure 2C). Compared with full-length wild-type promoter (–2095COX-1-Luc), mutation of the –111 Sp1 caused a 58% decline in activity, mutation of the –89 Sp1 yielded a 72% fall, and mutation of both elements caused a 53% decrease. Estrogen-stimulated promoter activity expressed relative to the level of basal activity for the same construct is shown in Figure 2D. Mutation of the Sp1 element at –111 caused a decline in E2-induced activity of 43%, and mutation of –89 Sp1 resulted in a 73% decline in the E2 response. Mutation of both domains yielded an 88% fall in E2-induced promoter activity.
Evaluation of Relevant Nuclear Proteins
To evaluate the nuclear proteins in endothelial cells involved in estrogen actions mediated by the consensus Sp1 elements of the COX-1 promoter at –111 and at –89, electrophoretic mobility shift assays were performed. Incubation of nuclear extracts from E2-treated endothelial cells (48 hours) with a double-stranded oligonucleotide probe encompassing the putative Sp1 site at –111 resulted in the appearance of one major DNA-protein complex that was diminished by 200-fold molar excess of unlabeled probe (Figure 3A, left). In contrast, three minor complexes were formed with mutated –111 Sp1 site probe. The use of mutated oligonucleotide as a competitor did not prevent the formation of the major complex by the wild-type probe (Figure 3A, right). Incubation of nuclear extracts with a probe containing the putative Sp1 site at –89 resulted in the appearance of one major DNA-protein complex that were prevented by 200-fold molar excess of unlabeled probe (Figure 3B, left). The complex was minimally formed with mutated –89 Sp1 DNA probe, and the mutated oligonucleotide only partially prevented the formation of the complex by the wild-type probe (Figure 3B, right).
|
To identify the endothelial nuclear proteins involved in complex formation with the presumptive –111 Sp1 and the –89 Sp1COX-1 promoter elements, supershift analyses were done. Two different antisera to Sp1 did not cause supershifting of either the –111 Sp1 protein-DNA complex or the –89 Sp1 protein-DNA complex (Figure 4A and 4B, left). To provide a control for supershifting of Sp1, a study was performed using the same endothelial nuclear proteins and the Sp1 element from the proximal eNOS promoter. With the Sp1 domain from eNOS, supershifting was observed as previously described (data not shown).16 In an effort to identify other potential nuclear proteins relevant to gene regulation by Sp1 elements, the effects of antisera to Sp3 were also assessed, and supershifting was not evident for either the –111 Sp1 protein-DNA complex or the –89 Sp1 protein-DNA complex (Figure 4A and 4B, middle). In studies of potential involvement of AP-2 or AP-2, which have consensus binding sequences similar to Sp1,21–24 antisera to either protein did not cause supershifting of the –111 Sp1 protein-DNA complex (Figure 4A, right). However, antisera to AP-2 caused supershifting of the –89 Sp1 protein-DNA complex (Figure 4B, right). In experiments comparing nuclear proteins from endothelial cells treated with vehicle vs 10–8 mol/L E2 for 48 hours, there was no difference in the overall formation of the –111 Sp1 protein-DNA complex or the –89 Sp1-protein DNA complex, and the supershifting of AP-2 in the –89 Sp1 protein-DNA complex was also similar (data not shown).
|
The contribution of ER to complex formation was also assessed by supershift analyses. Using nuclear proteins from cells treated with E2 for 48 hours, antiserum to ER shifted both the –111 Sp1 protein-DNA complex and the –89 Sp1 protein-DNA complex, whereas an unrelated IgG did not (Figure 5A and 5B, left). In evaluations of the temporal features of ER involvement in complex formation, studies of nuclear proteins from cells treated with E2 for 0 versus 6 hours yielded comparable supershifting of ER from the –111 Sp1 complex (Figure 5A, right). In contrast, the supershifted bands for ER in the –89 Sp1 complex differed at 0 and 6 hours of E2 exposure; there was less prevalence of a rapidly migrating supershifted complex and greater abundance of a slowly-migrating supershifted complex after 6 hours of E2 treatment versus control (Figure 5B, right).
|
Features of ER Required for Modulation of COX-1 Transcription
There are multiple mechanisms by which ER regulates gene transcription.13,20 To begin to elucidate the features of the receptor necessary for modulation of COX-1, experiments were performed in a primary endothelial cell culture selected to have negligible endogenous ER or ERß into which ER mutant constructs were cotransfected along with –2095COX-1-Luc. In cells transfected with sham plasmid for wild-type ER, E2 caused no change in the activity of –2095COX-1-Luc (Figure 6A). In contrast, cells transfected with wild-type ER displayed a 2.5-fold increase in promoter activity with E2. In simultaneous comparisons of wild-type ER and ER185–251, E2 caused a 1.8-fold increase in promoter activity in cells expressing wild-type receptor and there was a 7-fold increase in activity with E2 in cells expressing ER185–251 (Figure 6B). Additional independent studies revealed a 2.3-fold stimulation of promoter activity with E2 via wild-type ER and a markedly greater 9.2-fold stimulation in cells expressing ER250–274 (Figure 6C). In contrast, the N-terminal truncation mutant of ER, ER1–175, was incapable of E2-induced activation of the COX-1 promoter (Figure 6D).
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Estrogen causes upregulation of COX-1 expression in endothelial cells that is instrumental to the impact of the hormone on vascular function.9 We have previously demonstrated that this is mediated by an increase in steady-state levels of COX-1 mRNA, and that the degradation of the mRNA is unaltered.11 In the present study, we show that E2 activates COX-1 gene transcription in an ER-dependent manner. We further demonstrate that the process entails unique ERE-independent mechanisms, providing new insights into the complex nature of E2 actions in endothelium.
Role of ER and Regulatory Elements on COX-1 Gene
In transient transfection experiments in endothelial cells with a construct containing the human COX-1 promoter fused to luciferase, we have observed E2-induced promoter activation of sequence residing between –2095 and –21 of the 5' flanking sequence relative to the ATG codon. Experiments with ICI 182,780 indicated that the process is ER-dependent, and the dose-response was biphasic with a threshold concentration of 10–10 mol/L and maximal activation at 10–8 mol/L E2. The biphasic dose-response mimics that found previously for changes in COX-1 mRNA abundance with E2.11 Interestingly, the nongenomic activation of prostacyclin synthesis by E2 does not display a biphasic dose response,10 suggesting quite different kinetics for genomic versus nongenomic E2 modulation of prostacyclin synthesis in endothelial cells. Cotransfection studies further indicated that the COX-1 promoter response can be mediated by either ER or ERß. Thus, COX-1 regulation by E2 occurs at a physiological concentration of the hormone8 and via either of the ER subtypes.
To determine the regulatory elements within the COX-1 promoter required for estrogen responsiveness, the activities of progressive 5' deletion mutants were evaluated. The capacity for E2-stimulated promoter activity was fully conserved with 5' deletion from –2095 to –1261 and also to –137. In addition, the enhancement in E2 response with ER overexpression was similar for –2095COX-1-Luc and –137COX-1-Luc. These findings indicate that the estrogen responsiveness of the COX-1 gene resides within the proximal promoter.
Because the 5' flanking sequence of the COX-1 gene lacks EREs or ERE half-palindrome motifs, alternative modes of estrogen regulation were contemplated. Within the proximal COX-1 promoter, there are potential Sp1 binding sites at –111 and at –89,12 and Sp1 mediates estrogen responsiveness in the absence of ERE-like motifs in certain paradigms. Sp1 physically associates with ER, resulting in increased binding of Sp1 to its DNA site.13 With mutation of –111Sp1, E2-induced promoter activity was attenuated by 43%, and it was decreased by over 70% with mutation of –89Sp1 alone and by almost 90% with mutation of both –111Sp1 and –89Sp1. These findings indicate that putative Sp elements within the core COX-1 promoter are critical to E2-induced upregulation.
Identification of Nuclear Proteins Mediating COX-1 Response
To evaluate the nuclear proteins involved in binding to the proximal consensus Sp1 domains of the COX-1 promoter, electrophoretic mobility shift assays were performed with nuclei from E2-treated endothelial cells and oligonucleotide probes encompassing either –111Sp1 or –89Sp1. With –111Sp1, one major DNA-protein complex was formed with wild-type probe that was less apparent with mutant probe. Because the identical mutation of –2095COX-Luc yielded a modest decrease in E2 responsiveness, it suggests that the complex with –111Sp1 plays a minor role in hormonal regulation of COX-1 expression. With –89Sp1, a single major DNA-protein complex was formed with wild-type but not mutant probe, and the same mutation in –2095COX-Luc prevented the majority of E2 responsiveness either alone or in combination with mutation of –111Sp1. As such, the complex with –89Sp1 most likely depicts the principal protein-DNA interaction mediating E2 induction of the COX-1 gene in endothelium.
To identify the nuclear proteins involved, supershift analyses were done. Antiserum to Sp1did not shift either the –111Sp1 or the –89Sp1 probe-nuclear protein complexes. Because Sp3 can interact with ER to mediate Sp1 responses,13 supershifts for Sp3 were also done that were negative. AP-2 was then considered because Sp1 and AP-2 have similar consensus binding sequences consisting of short GC-rich elements, and Sp1 and AP-2 bind to the same or overlapping regions within a variety of promoters.21–24 Furthermore, AP-2 and AP-2 are both known to be involved in E2 modulation of gene expression.25 Antisera to AP-2 or AP-2 did not shift the –111Sp1 probe-nuclear protein complex. However, antiserum to AP-2 uniquely caused supershifting of the –89Sp1 probe-nuclear protein complex. Thus, AP-2 is likely to play an important role in the modulation of COX-1 gene expression by E2.
The participation of ER was also investigated. Antibody to ER supershifted the –111Sp1 and the –89Sp1 probe-nuclear protein complexes, indicating that ER is a component of both complexes. However, differences in overall complex formation were not observed in the absence versus presence of E2 treatment for 6 or 48 hours, there were only modest changes in the relative quantities of supershifted bands for the –89Sp1 complex with ER antibody at 0 versus 6 hours of E2, and no changes in AP-2 recruitment were apparent. Thus, although the current approaches revealed important roles for the proximal Sp1-like elements and for ER and AP-2, the exact events activated by ER ligand binding are yet to be elucidated. Recent work using chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) suggests that ER and coregulator association in gene promoters is temporally regulated. ChIP and cell imaging studies further show that members of the steroid receptor coactivator (SRC)-1 family and other coactivators may cycle on and off promoters with rapid kinetics.20,26 Further experiments are now indicated using strategies including ChIP to interrogate this unique promodulatory role of AP-2, which is collaborating with ER and other yet-to-be identified coactivators to target proximal regulatory elements on an important endothelial cell gene.
Features of ER-Mediating COX-1 Response
The features of ER required for COX-1 upregulation were also investigated. In studies of primary endothelial cells specifically selected to have minimal endogenous ER, the transient transfection of wild-type receptor caused COX-1 promoter responsiveness to E2 comparable to that observed at endogenous levels of ER expression. In contrast, a mutant form of ER lacking the DNA binding domain (ER185–251) yielded a 4-fold greater E2 response than wild-type receptor. This finding indicates that E2 upregulation of COX-1 is independent of direct ER-DNA interaction, which is consistent with the involvement of Sp1-like elements and AP-2. In addition, a mutant form of ER lacking the two primary nuclear localization signals (ER250–274) displayed 5-fold greater E2 responsiveness than wild-type receptor. Because ER250–274 (HE257G) has attenuated nuclear localization in the absence or presence of E2,27 this finding suggests that the process may be initiated primarily by cytoplasmic ER, and that other mechanisms besides NLS must be responsible for nuclear import of the ER-related transcriptional machinery in this paradigm. Furthermore, we found that mutant ER lacking the A-B domains (ER1–175) was incapable of inducing COX-1 promoter activity. This observation parallels the findings in prior work indicating that the AF-1 region within the A-B domains of ER is important for Sp1 activation.13,28 Similar domains within AF-1 may bind Sp1 and AP-2, and further detailed mutagenesis will be required to delineate these domains.
The ability of estrogen to upregulate COX-1 expression in endothelium through transcriptional transactivation represents a novel mode of regulation of a gene for which there are few means of dynamic regulation.29,30 Our collective observations indicate that this process is independent of direct ER-DNA binding, and that it instead entails protein-DNA interaction involving AP-2 and ER at proximal regulatory elements within the COX-1 promoter. In addition, cytoplasmic ER may play a key role in this process, and critical receptor elements reside within the amino terminus. As such, ER modulation of COX-1 entails mechanisms that are both shared and unique to the known processes whereby estrogen regulates a variety of gene targets.20,26 Further studies in this realm will increase our understanding of both COX-1 regulation and the potent, diverse capacities of estrogen to alter endothelial cell function.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants HL53546 (to P.W.S.), and HL50675 and NS23327 (to K.K.W.). Partial support was also provided by the Crystal Charity Ball Center for Pediatric Critical Care Research and the Lowe Foundation. We are indebted to Marilyn Dixon for preparing the manuscript.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
*Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Original received October 17, 2004; revision received January 3, 2005; accepted January 27, 2005.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
- Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH. The protective effects of estrogen on the cardiovascular system. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 1801–1811.
[Free Full Text] - Razandi M, Pedram A, Levin ER. Estrogen signals to the preservation of endothelial cell form and function. J Biol Chem. 2000; 275: 38540–38546.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Carson-Jurica MA, Schrader WT, O‘Malley BW. Steroid receptor family: structure and functions. Endocr Rev. 1990; 11: 201–220.[Abstract]
- Chambliss KL, Yuhanna IS, Mineo C, Liu P, German Z, Sherman TS, Mendelsohn ME, Anderson RG, Shaul PW. Estrogen receptor alpha and endothelial nitric oxide synthase are organized into a functional signaling module in caveolae. Circ Res. 2000; 87: e44–e52.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Chambliss KL, Yuhanna IS, Anderson RG, Mendelsohn ME, Shaul PW. ERbeta has nongenomic action in caveolae. Mol Endocrinol. 2002; 16: 938–946.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Kleinert H, Wallerath T, Euchenhofer C, Ihrig-Biedert I, Li H, Forstermann U. Estrogens increase transcription of the human endothelial NO synthase gene: analysis of the transcription factors involved. Hypertension. 1998; 31: 582–588.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Sumi D, Ignarro LJ. Estrogen-related receptor alpha 1 up-regulates endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003; 100: 14451–14456.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Chambliss KL, Shaul PW. Estrogen modulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Endo Rev. 2002; 23: 665–686.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Orshal JM, Khalil RA. Gender, sex hormones, and vascular tone. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004; 286: R233–R249.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Sherman TS, Chambliss KL, Gibson LL, Pace MC, Mendelsohn ME, Pfister SL, Shaul PW. Estrogen acutely activates prostacyclin synthesis in ovine fetal pulmonary artery endothelium. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2002; 26: 610–616.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Jun SS, Chen Z, Pace MC, Shaul PW. Estrogen upregulates cyclooxygenase-1 gene expression in ovine fetal pulmonary artery endothelium. J Clin Invest. 1998; 102: 176–183.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Xu XM, Tang JL, Chen X, Wang LH, Wu KK. Involvement of two Sp1 elements in basal endothelial prostaglandin H synthase-1 promoter activity. J Biol Chem. 1997; 272: 6943–6950.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Sanchez R, Nguyen D, Rocha W, White JH, Mader S. Diversity in the mechanisms of gene regulation by estrogen receptors. Bioessays. 2002; 24: 244–254.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Shaul PW, Wells LB. Oxygen modulates nitric oxide production selectively in fetal pulmonary endothelial cells. Am J Respir Cell Molec Biol. 1994; 11: 432–438.[Abstract]
- Shaul PW, Pace MC, Chen Z, Brannon TS. Developmental changes in prostacyclin synthesis are conserved in cultured pulmonary endothelium and vascular smooth muscle. Am J Respir Cell Molec Biol. 1999; 20: 113–121.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - German Z, Chambliss KL, Pace MC, Arnet UA, Lowenstein CJ, Shaul PW. Molecular basis of cell-specific endothelial nitric-oxide synthase expression in airway epithelium. J Biol Chem. 2000; 275: 8183–8189.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Ow DW, Wood KV, DeLuca M, DeWet JR, Helinski DR, Howell SH. Transient and stable expresion of the firefly luciferase gene in plant cells and transgenic plants. Science. 1986; 234: 856–859.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Rosenthal N. Identification of regulatory elements of cloned genes with functional assays. Methods Enzymol. 1987; 152: 704–720.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. Ames. Iowa: Iowa State University Press; 1980.
- Moggs JG, Orphanides G. Estrogen receptors: orchestrators of pleiotropic cellular responses. EMBO Rep. 2001; 2: 775–781.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Descheemaeker KA, Wyns S, Nelles L, Auwerx J, Ny T, Collen D. Interaction of AP-1-, AP-2-, and Sp1-like proteins with two distinct sites in the upstream regulatory region of the plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 gene mediates the phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate response. J Biol Chem. 1992; 267: 15086–15091.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Piao YS, Peltoketo H, Vihko P, Vihko R. The proximal promoter region of the gene encoding human 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 contains GATA, AP-2, and Sp1 response elements: analysis of promoter function in choriocarcinoma cells. Endocrinology. 1997; 138: 3417–3425.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Chen TT, Wu RL, Castro-Munozledo F, Sun TT. Regulation of K3 keratin gene transcription by Sp1 and AP-2 in differentiating rabbit corneal epithelial cells. Mol Cell Biol. 1997; 17: 3056–3064.[Abstract]
- Ries S, Buchler C, Langmann T, Fehringer P, Aslanidis C, Schmitz G. Transcriptional regulation of lysosomal acid lipase in differentiating monocytes is mediated by transcription factors Sp1 and AP-2. J Lipid Res. 1998; 39: 2125–2134.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Newman SP, Bates NP, Vernimmen D, Parker MG, Hurst HC. Cofactor competition between the ligand-bound oestrogen receptor and an intron 1 enhancer leads to oestrogen repression of ERBB2 expression in breast cancer. Oncogene. 2000; 19: 490–497.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Smith CL, O’Malley BW. Coregulator function: a key to understanding tissue specificity of selective receptor modulators. Endocr Rev. 2004; 25: 45–71.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Ylikomi T, Bocquel MT, Berry M, Gronemeyer H, Chambon P. Cooperation of proto-signals for nuclear accumulation of estrogen and progesterone receptors. EMBO J. 1992; 11: 3681–3694.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Safe S. Transcriptional activation of genes by 17 beta-estradiol through estrogen receptor-Sp1 interactions. Vitam Horm. 2001; 62: 231–252.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Smith WL. Molecular biology of prostanoid biosynthetic enzymes and receptors. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997; 400: 989–1011.
- Wu KK. Regulation of prostaglandin H synthase-1 gene expression. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997; 400: 121–126.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  H. Sun, E. Sheveleva, and Q. M. Chen Corticosteroids Induce Cyclooxygenase 1 Expression in Cardiomyocytes: Role of Glucocorticoid Receptor and Sp3 Transcription Factor Mol. Endocrinol., September 1, 2008; 22(9): 2076 - 2084. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Hawse, M. Subramaniam, D. G. Monroe, A. H. Hemmingsen, J. N. Ingle, S. Khosla, M. J. Oursler, and T. C. Spelsberg Estrogen Receptor {beta} Isoform-Specific Induction of Transforming Growth Factor {beta}-Inducible Early Gene-1 in Human Osteoblast Cells: An Essential Role for the Activation Function 1 Domain Mol. Endocrinol., July 1, 2008; 22(7): 1579 - 1595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. S. Molloy, M. P. Morgan, G. A. Doherty, B. McDonnell, M. Hilliard, J. O'Byrne, D. J. Fitzgerald, and G. M. McCarthy Mechanism of basic calcium phosphate crystal-stimulated cyclo-oxygenase-1 up-regulation in osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts Rheumatology, July 1, 2008; 47(7): 965 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. M. Miller and S. P. Duckles Vascular Actions of Estrogens: Functional Implications Pharmacol. Rev., June 1, 2008; 60(2): 210 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Bolego, E. Vegeto, C. Pinna, A. Maggi, and A. Cignarella Selective Agonists of Estrogen Receptor Isoforms: New Perspectives for Cardiovascular Disease Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., October 1, 2006; 26(10): 2192 - 2199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Urata, Y. Ihara, H. Murata, S. Goto, T. Koji, J. Yodoi, S. Inoue, and T. Kondo 17beta-Estradiol Protects against Oxidative Stress-induced Cell Death through the Glutathione/Glutaredoxin-dependent Redox Regulation of Akt in Myocardiac H9c2 Cells J. Biol. Chem., May 12, 2006; 281(19): 13092 - 13102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Fosslien Cardiovascular Complications of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., October 1, 2005; 35(4): 347 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||