The orphan nuclear receptor LRH-1 promotes breast cancer motility and invasion

The orphan nuclear receptor liver receptor homologue-1 (LRH-1) has roles in the development, cholesterol and bile acid homeostasis, and steroidogenesis. It also enhances proliferation and cell cycle progression of cancer cells. In breast cancer, LRH-1 expression is associated with invasive breast cancer; positively correlates with ERα status and aromatase activity; and promotes oestrogen-dependent cell proliferation. However, the mechanism of action of LRH-1 in breast cancer epithelial cells is still not clear. By silencing or over-expressing LRH-1 in ER-positive MCF-7 and ER-negative MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells, we have demonstrated that LRH-1 promotes motility and cell invasiveness. Similar effects were observed in the non-tumourigenic mammary epithelial cell line, MCF-10A. Remodelling of the actin cytoskeleton and E-cadherin cleavage was observed with LRH-1 over-expression, contributing to increased migratory and invasive properties. Additionally, in LRH-1 over-expressing cells, the truncation of the 120 kDa E-cadherin to the inactive 97 kDa form was observed. These post-translational modifications in E-cadherin may be associated with LRH-1-dependent changes to matrix metalloproteinase 9 expression. These findings suggest a new role of LRH-1 in promoting migration and invasion in breast cancer, independent of oestrogen sensitivity. Therefore, LRH-1 may represent a new target for breast cancer therapeutics.

Detection of mRNA levels for the estrogen alpha, estrogen beta and androgen nuclear receptor genes in archival breast cancer tissue

Previous studies in our laboratory have shown association of nuclear receptor expression and histological breast cancer grade. To further investigate these findings, it was the objective of this study to determine if expression levels of the estrogen alpha, estrogen beta and androgen nuclear receptor genes varied in different breast cancer grades. RNA extracted from paraffin embedded archival breast tumour tissue was converted into cDNA and cDNA underwent PCR to enable quantitation of mRNA expression. Expression data was normalised against the 18S ribosomal gene multiplex and analysed using ANOVA. Analysis indicated a significant alteration of expression for the androgen receptor in different cancer grades (P=0.014), as well as in tissues that no longer possess estrogen receptor alpha proteins (P=0.025). However, expression of estrogen receptors alpha and beta did not vary significantly with cancer grade (P=0.057 and 0.622, respectively). Also, the expression of estrogen receptor alpha or beta did not change, regardless of the presence of estrogen receptor alpha protein in the tissue (P=0.794 and 0.716, respectively). Post-hoc tests indicate that the expression of the androgen receptor is increased in estrogen receptor negative tissue as well as in grade 2 and grade 3 tumours, compared to control tissue. This increased expression in late stage breast tumours may have implications to the treatment of breast tumours, particularly those lacking expression of other nuclear receptor genes.

Detection of mRNA for nuclear receptor co-activators 1 and 3 in archival breast cancer tissue and surrounding stroma : a tissue expression study

Before the age of 75 years, approximately 10% of women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, one of the most common malignancies and a leading cause of death among women. The objective of this study was to determine if expression of the nuclear receptor coactivators 1 and 3 (NCoA1 and NCoA3) varied in breast cancer grades. RNA was extracted from 25 breast tumours and transcribed into cDNA which underwent semi-quantitative polymerase chain reaction, normalised using 18S. Analysis indicated that an expression change for NCoA1 in cancer grades and estrogen receptor alpha negative tissue (P= 0.028 and 0.001 respectively). NCoA1 expression increased in grade 3 and estrogen receptor alpha negative tumours, compared to controls. NCoA3 showed a similar, but not significant, trend in grade and a non-significant decrease in estrogen receptor alpha negative tissues. Expression of NCoA1 in late stage and estrogen receptor alpha negative breast tumours may have implications to breast cancer treatment, particularly in the area of manipulation of hormone signalling systems in advanced tumours.

Expression of glucocorticoid and progesterone nuclear receptor genes in archival breast cancer tissue.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in our laboratory have shown associations of specific nuclear receptor gene variants with sporadic breast cancer. In order to investigate these findings further, we conducted the present study to determine whether expression levels of the progesterone and glucocorticoid nuclear receptor genes vary in different breast cancer grades. METHODS: RNA was extracted from paraffin-embedded archival breast tumour tissue and converted into cDNA. Sample cDNA underwent PCR using labelled primers to enable quantitation of mRNA expression. Expression data were normalized against the 18S ribosomal gene multiplex and analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Analysis of variance indicated a variable level of expression of both genes with regard to breast cancer grade (P = 0.00033 for glucocorticoid receptor and P = 0.023 for progesterone receptor). CONCLUSION: Statistical analysis indicated that expression of the progesterone nuclear receptor is elevated in late grade breast cancer tissue.

The contribution of different androgen receptor domains to receptor dimerization and signaling

The androgen receptor (AR) is a ligand-activated transcription factor of the nuclear receptor superfamily that plays a critical role in male physiology and pathology. Activated by binding of the native androgens testosterone and 5-dihydrotestosterone, the AR regulates transcription of genes involved in the development and maintenance of male phenotype and male reproductive function as well as other tissues such as bone and muscle. Deregulation of AR signaling can cause a diverse range of clinical conditions, including the X-linked androgen insensitivity syndrome, a form of motor neuron disease known as Kennedy’s disease, and male infertility. In addition, there is now compelling evidence that the AR is involved in all stages of prostate tumorigenesis including initiation, progression, and treatment resistance. To better understand the role of AR signaling in the pathogenesis of these conditions, it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of the key determinants of AR structure and function. Binding of androgens to the AR induces receptor dimerization, facilitating DNA binding and the recruitment of cofactors and transcriptional machinery to regulate expression of target genes. Various models of dimerization have been described for the AR, the most well characterized interaction being DNA-binding domain- mediated dimerization, which is essential for the AR to bind DNA and regulate transcription. Additional AR interactions with potential to contribute to receptor dimerization include the intermolecular interaction between the AR amino terminal domain and ligand-binding domain known as the N-terminal/C-terminal interaction, and ligand-binding domain dimerization. In this review, we discuss each form of dimerization utilized by the AR to achieve transcriptional competence and highlight that dimerization through multiple domains is necessary for optimal AR signaling.

Receptor-DNA interactions: EMSA and footprinting

Defining the precise promoter DNA sequence motifs where nuclear receptors and other transcription factors bind is an essential prerequisite for understanding how these proteins modulate the expression of their specific target genes. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with a detailed guide with respect to the materials and the key methods required to perform this type of DNA-binding analysis. Irrespective of whether starting with purified DNA-binding proteins or somewhat crude cellular extracts, the tried-and-true procedures described here will enable one to accurately access the capacity of specific proteins to bind to DNA as well as to determine the exact sequences and DNA contact nucleotides involved. For illustrative purposes, we primarily have used the interaction of the androgen receptor with the rat probasin proximal promoter as our model system.

Progesterone, glucocorticoid, but not estrogen receptor mRNA is altered in breast cancer stroma

Our laboratory has previously found that anti-mitogenic nuclear receptor mRNA is elevated in late stage tumours and this study was performed to scrutinize the possibility of cancer-stroma crosstalk using hormone signaling in these tissues. RNA levels in stromal tissue were examined for the estrogen α, estrogen β, androgen, progesterone and glucocorticoid nuclear receptors by a semi-quantitative PCR. Significant differences in expression between the cancer stroma and control tissue were seen, analyzing for both cancer grade and estrogen receptor status. Stroma and control tissue were significantly different for the progesterone and glucocorticoid nuclear receptors (p = 5.908 × 10−7 and 2.761 × 10−5, respectively). Glucocorticoid receptor also showed a significant increase to mRNA levels in the stroma of estrogen receptor negative tumours (p = 5.85 × 10−5). By contrast, the estrogen receptors α and β, those most closely associated with breast tissue growth, showed no significant change in mRNA (p = 0.372 and 0.655, respectively). Androgen receptor mRNA also remained unaffected (p = 0.174).

Oestrogen and progestin responses in human endometrium

Our understanding of the mechanisms of the actions of oestrogens and progestins have evolved from the simple concept of nuclear receptor-mediated regulation of transcription to a highly sophisticated, finely tuned interplay between various coregulators, other signaling cascades and transcription factors. The net result of these complex regulatory mechanisms is a steroid-, cell-, or tissue-specific action of oestrogens and progestins. their antagonists or selective modulators of their receptors. In this review, we have attempted to shed some light on the regulation of the actions of oestrogens and progestins on the human endometrium. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Different correlation of Sphingosine-1-Phosphate receptor 1 with receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand and regulatory T cells in rat periapical lesions

Introduction Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) is crucial for regulation of immunity and bone metabolism. This study aimed to investigate the expression of S1P1 in rat periapical lesions and its relationship with receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL) and regulatory T (Treg) cells. Methods Periapical lesions were induced by pulp exposure in the first lower molars of 55 Wistar rats. Thirty rats were killed on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35, and their mandibles were harvested for x-ray imaging, micro–computed tomography scanning, histologic observation, immunohistochemistry, enzyme histochemistry, and double immunofluorescence analysis. The remaining 25 rats were killed on days 0, 14, 21, 28, and 35, and mandibles were harvested for flow cytometry. Results The volume and area of the periapical lesions increased from day 0 to day 21 and then remained comparably stable after day 28. S1P1-positive cells were observed in the inflammatory periapical regions; the number of S1P1-positive cells peaked at day 14 and then decreased from day 21 to day 35. The distribution of S1P1-positive cells was positively correlated with the dynamics of RANKL-positive cells but was negatively correlated with that of Treg cells. Conclusions S1P1 expression was differentially correlated with RANKL and Treg cell infiltration in the periapical lesions and is therefore a contributing factor to the pathogenesis of such lesions.

Nuclear localization of NPR1 is required for activation of PR gene expression

Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) is a broad-spectrum resistance in plants that involves the upregulation of a battery of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes. NPR1 is a key regulator in the signal transduction pathway that leads to SAR. Mutations in NPR1 result in a failure to induce PR genes in systemic tissues and a heightened susceptibility to pathogen infection, whereas overexpression of the NPR1 protein leads to increased induction of the PR genes and enhanced disease resistance. We analyzed the subcellular localization of NPR1 to gain insight into the mechanism by which this protein regulates SAR. An NPR1–green fluorescent protein fusion protein, which functions the same as the endogenous NPR1 protein, was shown to accumulate in the nucleus in response to activators of SAR. To control the nuclear transport of NPR1, we made a fusion of NPR1 with the glucocorticoid receptor hormone binding domain. Using this steroid-inducible system, we clearly demonstrate that nuclear localization of NPR1 is essential for its activity in inducing PR genes.

The ghrelin receptor isoforms (GHS-R1a and GHS-R1b) and GPR39 : an investigation into receptor dimerisation

Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in Western males. Current diagnostic, prognostic and treatment approaches are not ideal and advanced metastatic prostate cancer is incurable. There is an urgent need for improved adjunctive therapies and markers for this disease. GPCRs are likely to play a significant role in the initiation and progression of prostate cancer. Over the last decade, it has emerged that G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are likely to function as homodimers and heterodimers. Heterodimerisation between GPCRs can result in the formation of novel pharmacological receptors with altered functional outcomes, and a number of GPCR heterodimers have been implicated in the pathogenesis of human disease. Importantly, novel GPCR heterodimers represent potential new targets for the development of more specific therapeutic drugs. Ghrelin is a 28 amino acid peptide hormone which has a unique n-octanoic acid post-translational modification. Ghrelin has a number of important physiological roles, including roles in appetite regulation and the stimulation of growth hormone release. The ghrelin receptor is the growth hormone secretagogue receptor type 1a, GHS-R1a, a seven transmembrane domain GPCR, and GHS-R1b is a C-terminally truncated isoform of the ghrelin receptor, consisting of five transmembrane domains. Growing evidence suggests that ghrelin and the ghrelin receptor isoforms, GHS-R1a and GHS-R1b, may have a role in the progression of a number of cancers, including prostate cancer. Previous studies by our research group have shown that the truncated ghrelin receptor isoform, GHS-R1b, is not expressed in normal prostate, however, it is expressed in prostate cancer. The altered expression of this truncated isoform may reflect a difference between a normal and cancerous state. A number of mutant GPCRs have been shown to regulate the function of their corresponding wild-type receptors. Therefore, we investigated the potential role of interactions between GHS-R1a and GHS-R1b, which are co-expressed in prostate cancer and aimed to investigate the function of this potentially new pharmacological receptor. In 2005, obestatin, a 23 amino acid C-terminally amidated peptide derived from preproghrelin was identified and was described as opposing the stimulating effects of ghrelin on appetite and food intake. GPR39, an orphan GPCR which is closely related to the ghrelin receptor, was identified as the endogenous receptor for obestatin. Recently, however, the ability of obestatin to oppose the effects of ghrelin on appetite and food intake has been questioned, and furthermore, it appears that GPR39 may in fact not be the obestatin receptor. The role of GPR39 in the prostate is of interest, however, as it is a zinc receptor. Zinc has a unique role in the biology of the prostate, where it is normally accumulated at high levels, and zinc accumulation is altered in the development of prostate malignancy. Ghrelin and zinc have important roles in prostate cancer and dimerisation of their receptors may have novel roles in malignant prostate cells. The aim of the current study, therefore, was to demonstrate the formation of GHS-R1a/GHS-R1b and GHS-R1a/GPR39 heterodimers and to investigate potential functions of these heterodimers in prostate cancer cell lines. To demonstrate dimerisation we first employed a classical co-immunoprecipitation technique. Using cells co-overexpressing FLAG- and Myc- tagged GHS-R1a, GHS-R1b and GPR39, we were able to co-immunoprecipitate these receptors. Significantly, however, the receptors formed high molecular weight aggregates. A number of questions have been raised over the propensity of GPCRs to aggregate during co-immunoprecipitation as a result of their hydrophobic nature and this may be misinterpreted as receptor dimerisation. As we observed significant receptor aggregation in this study, we used additional methods to confirm the specificity of these putative GPCR interactions. We used two different resonance energy transfer (RET) methods; bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) and fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET), to investigate interactions between the ghrelin receptor isoforms and GPR39. RET is the transfer of energy from a donor fluorophore to an acceptor fluorophore when they are in close proximity, and RET methods are, therefore, applicable to the observation of specific protein-protein interactions. Extensive studies using the second generation bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET2) technology were performed, however, a number of technical limitations were observed. The substrate used during BRET2 studies, coelenterazine 400a, has a low quantum yield and rapid signal decay. This study highlighted the requirement for the expression of donor and acceptor tagged receptors at high levels so that a BRET ratio can be determined. After performing a number of BRET2 experimental controls, our BRET2 data did not fit the predicted results for a specific interaction between these receptors. The interactions that we observed may in fact represent ‘bystander BRET’ resulting from high levels of expression, forcing the donor and acceptor into close proximity. Our FRET studies employed two different FRET techniques, acceptor photobleaching FRET and sensitised emission FRET measured by flow cytometry. We were unable to observe any significant FRET, or FRET values that were likely to result from specific receptor dimerisation between GHS-R1a, GHS-R1b and GPR39. While we were unable to conclusively demonstrate direct dimerisation between GHS-R1a, GHS-R1b and GPR39 using several methods, our findings do not exclude the possibility that these receptors interact. We aimed to investigate if co-expression of combinations of these receptors had functional effects in prostate cancers cells. It has previously been demonstrated that ghrelin stimulates cell proliferation in prostate cancer cell lines, through ERK1/2 activation, and GPR39 can stimulate ERK1/2 signalling in response to zinc treatments. Additionally, both GHS-R1a and GPR39 display a high level of constitutive signalling and these constitutively active receptors can attenuate apoptosis when overexpressed individually in some cell types. We, therefore, investigated ERK1/2 and AKT signalling and cell survival in prostate cancer the potential modulation of these functions by dimerisation between GHS-R1a, GHS-R1b and GPR39. Expression of these receptors in the PC-3 prostate cancer cell line, either alone or in combination, did not alter constitutive ERK1/2 or AKT signalling, basal apoptosis or tunicamycin-stimulated apoptosis, compared to controls. In summary, the potential interactions between the ghrelin receptor isoforms, GHS-R1a and GHS-R1b, and the related zinc receptor, GPR39, and the potential for functional outcomes in prostate cancer were investigated using a number of independent methods. We did not definitively demonstrate the formation of these dimers using a number of state of the art methods to directly demonstrate receptor-receptor interactions. We investigated a number of potential functions of GPR39 and GHS-R1a in the prostate and did not observe altered function in response to co-expression of these receptors. The technical questions raised by this study highlight the requirement for the application of extensive controls when using current methods for the demonstration of GPCR dimerisation. Similar findings in this field reflect the current controversy surrounding the investigation of GPCR dimerisation. Although GHS-R1a/GHS-R1b or GHS-R1a/GPR39 heterodimerisation was not clearly demonstrated, this study provides a basis for future investigations of these receptors in prostate cancer. Additionally, the results presented in this study and growing evidence in the literature highlight the requirement for an extensive understanding of the experimental method and the performance of a range of controls to avoid the spurious interpretation of data gained from artificial expression systems. The future development of more robust techniques for investigating GPCR dimerisation is clearly required and will enable us to elucidate whether GHS-R1a, GHS-R1b and GPR39 form physiologically relevant dimers.

Signal transduction mechanisms underlying growth hormone receptor action

Our understanding of the mechanisms of action of GH and its receptor, the GHR, has advanced significantly in the last decade and has provided some important surprises. It is now clear that the GH-GHR axis activates a number of inter-related signalling pathways, not all of which are dependent on the intracellular tyrosine kinase, JAK2 as originally postulated. JAK2-independent pathways, mediated via the Src family kinases, together with a number of negative regulators of GH signalling and emerging cross-talk mechanisms with other growth factor receptors, provide a complex array of mechanisms that are capable of fine-tuning responses to GH in a cell context dependent manner. Additionally, it is also now clear that GH and the GHR can translocate to the nucleus of target cells and initiate, as yet not well defined, nuclear responses. Continued emphasis on elucidation of these complex mechanisms is critical to provide further insights into the diverse physiological and pathophysiological effects of GH.