FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2048656957> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2048656957 endingPage "23994" @default.
• W2048656957 startingPage "23986" @default.
• W2048656957 abstract "The underlying molecular mechanism for the expression of agonist versus antagonist activity for a given receptor-steroid complex is still not known. One attractive hypothesis, based on data from progesterone receptors, is that agonistversus antagonist binding induces unique conformations at the C terminus of receptors, which can be detected by the different fragments produced by partial proteolysis. We now report that the determinants of glucocorticoid receptor (GR)-antagonist complex activity are more complex. Steroid binding did cause a conformational change in the GR that was detected by partial trypsin digestion, as described previously (Simons, S. S., Jr., Sistare, F. D., and Chakraborti, P. K. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 14493–14497). However, there was no uniformity in the digestion patterns of unactivated or activated receptors bound by a series of six structurally different antagonists including the affinity labeling antiglucocorticoid dexamethasone 21-mesylate. A total of four resistant bands were observed on SDS-polyacrylamide gels in the range of 30–27 kDa. Using a series of point mutations and epitope-specific antibodies, it was determined that the 30-kDa species represented the entire C-terminal sequence of amino acids 518–795, whereas the other bands arose from additional N-terminal and/or C-terminal cleavages. Bioassays with GRs containing various point and deletion mutations failed to reveal any C-terminal alterations that could convert antagonists into biologically active agonists. Thus, the presence or absence of C-terminal amino acids of the GR did not uniquely determine either the appearance of smaller trypsin-resistant fragments or the nature of the biological response of receptor-bound antisteroids. When compared with the current model of the ligand-binding domain, which is based on the x-ray structures of the comparable region of thyroid and retinoic acid receptors, the present results suggest that sequences outside of the model structure are relevant for the binding and biological activity of GRs. The underlying molecular mechanism for the expression of agonist versus antagonist activity for a given receptor-steroid complex is still not known. One attractive hypothesis, based on data from progesterone receptors, is that agonistversus antagonist binding induces unique conformations at the C terminus of receptors, which can be detected by the different fragments produced by partial proteolysis. We now report that the determinants of glucocorticoid receptor (GR)-antagonist complex activity are more complex. Steroid binding did cause a conformational change in the GR that was detected by partial trypsin digestion, as described previously (Simons, S. S., Jr., Sistare, F. D., and Chakraborti, P. K. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 14493–14497). However, there was no uniformity in the digestion patterns of unactivated or activated receptors bound by a series of six structurally different antagonists including the affinity labeling antiglucocorticoid dexamethasone 21-mesylate. A total of four resistant bands were observed on SDS-polyacrylamide gels in the range of 30–27 kDa. Using a series of point mutations and epitope-specific antibodies, it was determined that the 30-kDa species represented the entire C-terminal sequence of amino acids 518–795, whereas the other bands arose from additional N-terminal and/or C-terminal cleavages. Bioassays with GRs containing various point and deletion mutations failed to reveal any C-terminal alterations that could convert antagonists into biologically active agonists. Thus, the presence or absence of C-terminal amino acids of the GR did not uniquely determine either the appearance of smaller trypsin-resistant fragments or the nature of the biological response of receptor-bound antisteroids. When compared with the current model of the ligand-binding domain, which is based on the x-ray structures of the comparable region of thyroid and retinoic acid receptors, the present results suggest that sequences outside of the model structure are relevant for the binding and biological activity of GRs. Ligand binding to the cognate intracellular receptor is the obligate first step by which steroid hormones in the circulatory system regulate gene transcription in selected cells of mammals. In general, the steroid receptors contain two transactivation domains, AF-1 and AF-2, in the amino- and carboxyl-terminal portions of the molecule, respectively (1Bocquel M.T. Kumar V. Stricker C. Chambon P. Gronemeyer H. Nucleic Acids Res. 1989; 17: 2581-2595Crossref PubMed Scopus (230) Google Scholar). The binding of agonists to the ligand-binding domain (LBD) 1The abbreviations used are: LBD, ligand-binding domain; GR, glucocorticoid receptor; rGR, rat glucocorticoid receptor; TAPS, 3-[tris(hydroxymethyl)methyl]aminopropanesulfonic acid; TBS, Tris-buffered saline; DM, dexamethasone 21-mesylate. in the carboxyl-terminal half of the receptor is thought to cause a conformational change to uncover/create the AF-2 domain that regulates the transcriptional activation of receptors bound to the appropriate hormone response element (Ref. 2Wurtz J.-M. Bourguet W. Renaud J.-P. Vivat V. Chambon P. Moras D. Gronemeyer H. Nat. Struct. Biol. 1996; 3: 87-94Crossref PubMed Scopus (685) Google Scholar; reviewed in Refs. 3Simons Jr., S.S. Vitam. Horm. 1994; 48: 49-130Crossref Scopus (53) Google Scholar and 4Simons Jr., S.S. The Molecular Biology of Steroid and Nuclear Hormone Receptors.in: Freedman L.P. Birkhaeuser Boston, Inc., Boston1997Google Scholar). Many antisteroids can also cause the binding of receptors to hormone response elements (5Miller P.A. Ostrowski M.C. Hager G.L. Simons Jr., S.S. Biochemistry. 1984; 23: 6883-6889Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar, 6DeLabre K. Guiochon-Mantel A. Milgrom E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1993; 90: 4421-4425Crossref PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar), but the resulting complexes appear to be transcriptionally inactive (7Richard-Foy H. Sistare F.D. Riegel A.T. Simons Jr., S.S. Hager G.L. Mol. Endocrinol. 1987; 1: 659-665Crossref PubMed Scopus (36) Google Scholar, 8Webster N.J.G. Green S. Jin J.R. Chambon P. Cell. 1988; 54: 199-207Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (442) Google Scholar, 9Meyer M.-E. Pornon A. Ji J. Bocquel M.T. Chambon P. Gronemeyer H. EMBO J. 1990; 9: 3923-3932Crossref PubMed Scopus (299) Google Scholar). This ability of antisteroids to block the action of agonist steroids makes them useful both as probes of the mechanism of steroid hormone action and as drugs. Antiestrogens are commonly used to treat estrogen-dependent breast cancers, and antiandrogens are prescribed to combat prostate cancer (10Newling D.W. Br. J. Urol. 1996; 77: 776-784Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 11Wilson J.D. Hardman J.G.G. Limbird L.L. Gilman A. Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York1996: 1441-1457Google Scholar, 12Parczyk K. Schneider M.R. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 1996; 122: 383-396Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar). Despite the differences in the final biological response, the initial steps for most agonist and antagonist steroids are identical. The high affinity binding site in the LBD appears to be the same for both classes of steroid, as indicated by the affinity labeling of the same amino acid of the human estrogen receptor by an estrogen agonist (ketononestrol aziridine) and antagonist (tamoxifen aziridine) (13Harlow K.W. Smith D.N. Katzenellenbogen J.A. Greene G.L. Katzenellenbogen B.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 17476-17485Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). Both classes of steroid can cause release of hsp90 after steroid binding that is accompanied by the acquisition of high affinity DNA binding (Refs. 5Miller P.A. Ostrowski M.C. Hager G.L. Simons Jr., S.S. Biochemistry. 1984; 23: 6883-6889Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar and 6DeLabre K. Guiochon-Mantel A. Milgrom E. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1993; 90: 4421-4425Crossref PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar; reviewed in Ref. 14Pratt, W. B., and Toft, D. O. (1997) Endocr. Rev., in press.Google Scholar). Perhaps most revealing is that virtually all antagonists have been observed to exhibit partial agonist activity under some condition. The fact that even the “best” antagonists for glucocorticoid (15Simons Jr., S.S. Yen P.M. Spelsberg T.C. Kumar R. Steroid Sterol Hormone Action. M. Nijhoff, Boston, MA1987: 251-268Google Scholar, 16Hoeck W. Rusconi S. Groner B. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 14396-14402Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 17Guido E.C. Delorme E.O. Clemm D.L. Stein R.B. Rosen J. Miner J.N. Mol. Endocrinol. 1996; 10: 1178-1190PubMed Google Scholar), progesterone (18Gravanis A. Schaison G. George M. de Brux J. Satyaswaroop P.G. Baulieu E.E. Robel P. J. Clin. Endocrinol. & Metab. 1985; 60: 156-163Crossref PubMed Scopus (185) Google Scholar,19Tung L. Mohamed M.K. Hoeffler J.P. Takimoto G.S. Horwitz K.B. Mol. Endocrinol. 1993; 7: 1257-1265Google Scholar), and estrogen (8Webster N.J.G. Green S. Jin J.R. Chambon P. Cell. 1988; 54: 199-207Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (442) Google Scholar, 20Weaver C.A. Springer P.A. Katzenellenbogen B.S. Mol. Endocrinol. 1988; 2: 936-945Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar, 21Sundstrom S.A. Komm B.S. Xu Q. Boundy V. Lyttle C.R. Endocrinology. 1990; 126: 1449-1456Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar) receptors can be made to display significant amounts of agonist activity suggests that the differences between agonist and antagonist complexes are quantitative rather than qualitative. Thus, receptors complexed with either agonists or antagonists share at least a portion of the various components required for transcriptional activation. While the distinction in biological activity between agonist and antagonist steroids may not be absolute, there usually are major differences in the amount of activity that need to be explained. Clearly, the structure of each steroid is of primary importance. Often changes in just the substituents of the basic steroid structure are sufficient to convert an agonist into an antagonist. However, the same substituent may not be equally effective within each group of agonists (22Lamontagne N. Mercier L. Pons M. Thompson E.B. Simons Jr., S.S. Endocrinology. 1984; 114: 2252-2263Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar). Thus, structure-activity relationships have yet to provide a satisfactory framework for predicting the properties of a given steroid. For this reason, attention has shifted from differences in the structure of the steroid to possible modifications in receptor conformation following steroid binding. The most commonly used method for detecting conformational changes has been site-selective proteolysis. This method was first used to study the tertiary structure of the DNA- and non-DNA-binding forms of glucocorticoid receptors (GRs) (23Reichman M.E. Foster C.M. Eisen L.P. Eisen H.J. Torain B.F. Simons Jr., S.S. Biochemistry. 1984; 23: 5376-5384Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar) and then to establish a conformational change in GRs following steroid binding (24Simons Jr., S.S. Sistare F.D. Chakraborti P.K. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 14493-14497Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). These studies employed affinity labeling to identify the various receptor fragments. Since then, the utility of the method has been greatly expanded both by the availability of anti-receptor antibodies and by the use of in vitro translated, [35S]methionine-labeled receptors in the elegant studies of O'Malley and co-workers (25Allan G.F. Leng X. Tsai S.Y. Weigel N.L. Edwards D.P. Tsai M.-J. O'Malley B.W. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 19513-19520Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 26Beekman J.M. Allan G.F. Tsai S.Y. Tsai M.-J. O'Malley B.W. Mol. Endocrinol. 1993; 7: 1266-1274PubMed Google Scholar, 27Leng X. Tsai S.Y. O'Malley B.W. Tsai M.-J. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1993; 46: 643-661Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar). Thus, protease digestion studies have confirmed that steroid binding induces conformational changes in all of the members of the steroid receptor superfamily that have been examined (reviewed in Ref. 4Simons Jr., S.S. The Molecular Biology of Steroid and Nuclear Hormone Receptors.in: Freedman L.P. Birkhaeuser Boston, Inc., Boston1997Google Scholar). Even more tantalizing were the observations that antisteroids appeared to place the receptor in a conformation that rendered the carboxyl-terminal tail of the protein more susceptible to proteolytic cleavage (25Allan G.F. Leng X. Tsai S.Y. Weigel N.L. Edwards D.P. Tsai M.-J. O'Malley B.W. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 19513-19520Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). At the same time, studies with the long form of the human progesterone receptor (B form) indicated that deletion of the last 42 amino acids, which were required for the binding of progesterone but not the antiprogestin RU 486, permitted RU 486 to act as an agonist (28Vegeto E. Allan G.F. Schrader W.T. Tsai M.-J. McDonnell D.P. O'Malley B.W. Cell. 1992; 69: 703-713Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (338) Google Scholar). Apparently similar phenomena for other receptors and additional confirmatory data have subsequently appeared (25Allan G.F. Leng X. Tsai S.Y. Weigel N.L. Edwards D.P. Tsai M.-J. O'Malley B.W. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 19513-19520Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 29Weigel N.L. Beck C.A. Estes P.A. Prendergast P. Altmann M. Christensen K. Edwards D.P. Mol. Endocrinol. 1992; 6: 1585-1597PubMed Google Scholar, 30Durand B. Saunders M. Gaudon C. Roy B. Losson R. Chambon P. EMBO J. 1994; 13: 5370-5382Crossref PubMed Scopus (316) Google Scholar, 31Keidel S. LeMotte P. Apfel C. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1994; 14: 287-298Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google Scholar, 32Wang Y. O'Malley B.W.J. Tsai S.Y. O'Malley B.W. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1994; 91: 8180-8184Crossref PubMed Scopus (390) Google Scholar, 33Xu J. Nawaz Z. Tsai S.Y. Tsai M.-J. O'Malley B.W. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1996; 93: 12195-12199Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar). Thus, it has been proposed that the transcriptional inactivation by antisteroids is controlled by a steroid-induced conformational change in the C terminus of the LBD that can be detected by differential proteolysis of the individual receptor-steroid complexes (25Allan G.F. Leng X. Tsai S.Y. Weigel N.L. Edwards D.P. Tsai M.-J. O'Malley B.W. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 19513-19520Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 34Wagner B.L. Pollio G. Leonhardt S. Wani M.C. Lee D.Y.-W. Imhof M.O. Edwards D.P. Cook C.E. McDonnell D.P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1996; 93: 8739-8744Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar). Other studies, however, with partially proteolyzed complexes of steroid-bound androgen (35Zeng Z. Allan G.F. Thaller C. Cooney A.J. Tsai S.Y. O'Malley B.W. Tsai M.-J. Endocrinology. 1994; 135: 248-252Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar, 36Kuil C.W. Berrevoets C.A. Mulder E. J. Biol. Chem. 1995; 270: 27569-27576Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (127) Google Scholar), estrogen (37McDonnell D.P. Clemm D.L. Hermann T. Goldman M.E. Pike J.W. Mol. Endocrinol. 1995; 9: 659-669Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), mineralocorticoid (38Trapp T. Holsboer F. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1995; 215: 286-291Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar), and progesterone (39Allan G.F. Lombardi E. Haynes-Johnson D. Palmer S. Kiddoe M. Kraft P. Campen C. Rybczynski P. Combs D.W. Phillips A. Mol. Endocrinol. 1996; 10: 1206-1213PubMed Google Scholar) receptors and retinoic acid receptor α (31Keidel S. LeMotte P. Apfel C. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1994; 14: 287-298Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google Scholar, 40Lamour F.P.Y. Lardelli P. Apfel C.M. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1996; 16: 5386-5392Crossref PubMed Google Scholar) have raised questions about the generality of this hypothesis. The purpose of this study was to address several major unanswered questions concerning the importance of the C-terminal sequences of the GR LBD in the expression of antiglucocorticoid activity. Thus, we wanted to know whether steroid-induced conformational changes in the GR were specific for agonist versus antagonist steroids and where precisely in the receptor LBD the steroid-induced conformational changes occurred. To answer these questions, we have used trypsin to probe rat GRs bound by a variety of steroids. The receptor fragments were identified with affinity labeling and/or anti-receptor antibodies. Receptor mutations were used to confirm various assignments. Unless otherwise indicated, all operations were performed at 0 °C. [1,2,4-3H]Dexamethasone was purchased from Amersham Corp. [6,7-3H]Dexamethasone 21-mesylate (DM), R5020, and Enlightning were obtained from NEN Life Science Products. TAPS, dextran, and lysyl endopeptidase C were purchased from Calbiochem. Hydrofluor was from National Diagnostics, Inc. (Atlanta, GA). Tween, acrylamide, bisacrylamide, and SDS were purchased from Bio-Rad. Deacylcortivazol, RU 486, and ZK 98,299 were gifts from Roussel-UCLAF (Romainville, France), Etienne Baulieu (INSERM U33 and Collège de France, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, Paris), and David Henderson (Schering AG, Berlin), respectively. Dexamethasone oxetanone (41Pons M. Simons Jr., S.S. J. Org. Chem. 1981; 46: 3262-3264Crossref Scopus (33) Google Scholar) and DM (42Simons Jr., S.S. Pons M. Johnson D.F. J. Org. Chem. 1980; 45: 3084-3088Crossref Scopus (95) Google Scholar) were prepared as described. All other chemicals were obtained from Sigma, includingN α-p-tosyl-l-lysine chloromethyl ketone-treated chymotrypsin andl-1-tosylamido-2-phenylethyl chloromethyl ketone-treated trypsin. The polyclonal antibody aP1, which was raised against the carboxyl-terminal region of the rGR (amino acids 440–795) (16Hoeck W. Rusconi S. Groner B. J. Biol. Chem. 1989; 264: 14396-14402Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar), was a gift from Dr. Bernd Groner (Friedrich Miescher-Institut, Basel, Switzerland), and the antibody hGRα, which was raised against the C-terminal 19 amino acids of human (and rat or mouse) GR (43de Castro M. Elliot S. Kino T. Bamberger C. Karl M. Webster E. Chrousos G.P. Mol. Med. 1996; 2: 597-607Crossref PubMed Google Scholar), was a gift from Dr. George Chrousos (NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). The anti-GR-(788–795) antibody (44Flach H. Kaiser U. Westphal H.M. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1992; 42: 467-474Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar) was a gift from Dr. Heinrich Westphal (University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany). TAPS buffer (25 mm TAPS, 1 mm EDTA, and 10% glycerol) was adjusted to pH 8.8 or 9.5 at 0 °C with NaOH. Tris-buffered saline (TBS) contained 20 mm Tris and 0.28 m NaCl (pH 7.5). The 2 × SDS sample buffer contained 0.6 m Tris (pH 8.85), 0.2m dithiothreitol, 2% SDS, 20% glycerol, and bromphenol blue. The Western blot transfer buffer was composed of 25 mm Tris (pH 8.3), 192 mm glycine, and 20% methanol. The K536A mutant GR was prepared using the Sculptor in vitro mutagenesis kit (Amersham Corp.) by annealing a synthetic oligonucleotide, with the underlined base changes to create the desired mutant (5′-AAAATCCTAACGCAACAATAGTTCCTG-3′), to the full-length single-stranded GR cloned in the pTZ18U plasmid (45Chakraborti P.K. Garabedian M.J. Yamamoto K.R. Simons Jr., S.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 11366-11373Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). After the annealed oligonucleotide was extended and ligated using Klenow polymerase and T4 DNA ligase, the remaining single-stranded template was removed with T5 exonuclease. The non-mutant strand was then nicked with NciI and digested with exonuclease III. Repolymerization with DNA polymerase I and T4 DNA ligase resulted in a double-stranded homoduplex. After transformation into MV1190 cells, colonies were picked and screened for the desired mutation by DNA sequencing using Sequenase Version 2.0 (U. S. Biochemical Corp.). The CS1, CD, and CS1/CD mutant GRs were gifts from Dr. Sandro Rusconi (University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland). HTC Spinner cultures were grown in Swim's S77 medium supplemented with 5% newborn calf serum, 5% fetal calf serum, and 0.03% glutamine (46Mercier L. Thompson E.B. Simons Jr., S.S. Endocrinology. 1983; 112: 601-609Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar). The calcium phosphate-mediated transient transfection of wild-type (pSVL-GR) or mutant receptors into monolayer cultures of COS-7 cells was conducted as described previously (45Chakraborti P.K. Garabedian M.J. Yamamoto K.R. Simons Jr., S.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1992; 267: 11366-11373Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). HTC cell cytosol containing steroid-free receptors was prepared as reported (23Reichman M.E. Foster C.M. Eisen L.P. Eisen H.J. Torain B.F. Simons Jr., S.S. Biochemistry. 1984; 23: 5376-5384Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar). Transfected COS-7 cell cytosol was made by resuspending the frozen cell pellet in TAPS buffer (pH 9.5), slowly thawing the pellet on ice, followed by centrifugation at 17,000 × g. The supernatant was used as cytosol. For purified receptors, HTC cell cytosol was first covalently labeled by incubation with [3H]DM for 2.5 h at 0 °C. A 6-ml aliquot of labeled cytosol was loaded onto a PD10 column packed with 3.7 ml of DNA-cellulose (Pharmacia Biotech Inc.) that had been equilibrated with TAPS buffer (pH 8.8) containing 50 mmNaCl. The column was washed with 30 ml of the same buffer, and the receptor was eluted in 0.4-ml fractions with TAPS buffer (pH 8.8) containing 500 mm NaCl. The peak fractions of radioactivity were stored at −80 °C until needed (47Simons Jr., S.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1987; 262: 9669-9675Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar). For Scatchard analysis, duplicate aliquots of HTC cell or transiently transfected COS-7 cell cytosol were incubated in TAPS buffer (pH 8.8) plus 20 mm sodium molybdate with 0.625–50 nm [3H]dexamethasone ± a 500-fold excess of unlabeled dexamethasone for 24 h at 0–4 °C. Free steroid was removed by adding an aliquot of 10% dextran-coated charcoal solution. Specific binding was determined by subtracting the nonspecific binding seen in the presence of unlabeled dexamethasone from the total binding. The affinity (K d) was determined by plotting the ratio of bound steroid/free steroidversus bound steroid. Proteolytic digestion was performed with HTC or transfected COS-7 cell cytosol that had been incubated with ethanol or 1 μmsteroid for 2.5 h at 0–4 °C. Only unactivated receptor solutions contained 20 mm sodium molybdate. Receptor-steroid complexes were activated by heating at 20 °C for 30 min. Affinity-labeled receptors were prepared by incubating cytosol with 150 nm [3H]DM ± a 100-fold excess of unlabeled dexamethasone for 2.5 h at 0–4 °C (48Simons Jr., S.S. Miller P.A. Biochemistry. 1984; 23: 6876-6882Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar). The proteolytic fragments were generated by incubation of steroid-bound receptors with 15–300 μg/ml trypsin for 1 h at 0 °C. A 10-fold excess of soybean trypsin inhibitor or aprotinin was then added to prevent further proteolysis, and the samples were quick-frozen at −80 °C. Samples were diluted 1:2 in 2 × SDS sample buffer, heated for 5 min in a boiling water bath, and analyzed on 12% polyacrylamide gels run in a water-cooled (15 °C) Bio-Rad Protean II slab gel apparatus. Gels were fixed and stained in a solution of 50% methanol, 7.5% acetic acid, and 0.01% Coomassie Blue R-250 for 30 min at room temperature. The gels were destained overnight in a solution of 10% methanol and 7.5% acetic acid and then incubated with constant shaking in Enlightning for 1 h, followed by a 10% polyethylene glycol 8000 solution for 30 min at room temperature. The gels were dried on a Bio-Rad Model 443 slab gel drier at 80 °C for 2 h and exposed to Kodak X-Omat XAR-5 film at −80 °C for at least 2 weeks after marking the positions of the molecular mass markers (Pharmacia) with a fluorescent paint. Samples were diluted with 2 × SDS sample buffer and analyzed on polyacrylamide gels as described above. The gels were equilibrated in transfer buffer for 30 min at room temperature prior to electrophoretic transfer of receptor to nitrocellulose membranes in a Bio-Rad Transblot apparatus (100 mA overnight followed by 250 mA for 2 h). The nitrocellulose was stained in Ponceau S (0.02% Ponceau S and 0.04% glacial acetic acid in water) to localize molecular mass markers, incubated with 10% Carnation nonfat dry milk in TBS for 45 min, and washed three times with TBS containing 0.1% Tween (0.1TTBS) for 5 min. Primary antibody was diluted in 0.1TTBS (1:20,000 for aP1, 1:5000 for hGRα, or 1:5 for anti-GR-(788–795)) and added to the nitrocellulose for a 2-h incubation at room temperature. Biotinylated anti-rabbit or anti-mouse (for the antibody provided by Dr. Heinrich Westphal) secondary antibody and ABC reagents (each diluted 1:1000; Vector Laboratories, Inc., Burlingame, CA) were each added for sequential 30-min incubations at room temperature. After the incubation periods with primary antibody, secondary antibody, and ABC reagents, the nitrocellulose was washed three times for 5 min each with 0.1TTBS and an additional three washes with TBS containing 0.3% Tween immediately after incubation with the ABC reagents. Detection of signal was performed by enhanced chemiluminescence using the recommended protocol of the supplier (Amersham Corp.). The positions of the molecular mass markers were indicated by overlaying with a fluorescent paint marker. A total of six antiglucocorticoids and two glucocorticoids (22Lamontagne N. Mercier L. Pons M. Thompson E.B. Simons Jr., S.S. Endocrinology. 1984; 114: 2252-2263Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 49Mercier L. Miller P.A. Simons Jr., S.S. J. Steroid Biochem. 1986; 25: 11-20Crossref PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar, 50Ojasoo T. Dore J.-C. Gilbert J. Raynaud J.-P. J. Med. Chem. 1988; 31: 1160-1169Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar, 51Szapary D. Xu M. Simons Jr., S.S. J. Biol. Chem. 1996; 271: 30576-30582Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (72) Google Scholar) of relatively different structures were selected (Fig.1). HTC cell receptors were prebound by each steroid in the presence of 20 mm sodium molybdate to afford unactivated complexes that do not bind DNA. A series of fragments in the range of 30–27 kDa were visualized by Western blotting after digestion with chymotrypsin and trypsin (Fig.2) or lysyl endopeptidase C (data not shown). With all three proteases, one or more intense bands at ≤29 kDa were seen for receptors prebound by RU 486 as opposed to dexamethasone. The smaller band(s) was also seen with ZK 98,299 but not with any other antiglucocorticoid examined (Fig. 2 and data not shown). Thus, a unique digestion pattern with lysyl endopeptidase C, chymotrypsin, or trypsin appears to be a function of receptors bound by steroids containing a bulky 11β-substituent (Fig. 1) as opposed to diagnostic property of unactivated GRs bound by antiglucocorticoids in general. Furthermore, receptors bound by the most potent agonist, deacylcortivazol (52Simons Jr., S.S. Thompson E.B. Johnson D.F. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1979; 86: 793-800Crossref Scopus (46) Google Scholar), gave the same lower band after lysyl endopeptidase C digestion as seen for RU 486 (data not shown). Therefore, no obvious correlation with steroid activity existed among the digestion patterns of unactivated receptor-steroid complexes for any of the three proteases.Figure 2Digestion of unactivated complexes with chymotrypsin or trypsin. Aliquots of HTC cell cytosol (30% in TAPS buffer (final pH ≈8.8 at 0 °C) with 20 mm sodium molybdate) with 1 μm steroid (except for 1.5 × 10−7m DM ± 150 × 10−7m dexamethasone) were incubated at 0 °C, digested with the indicated amounts of chymotrypsin or trypsin, separated on SDS-polyacrylamide (9%) gels, Western-blotted with aP1 anti-GR antibody, and visualized by enhanced chemiluminescence as described under “Materials and Methods.” The numberson the left indicate the molecular masses (in kilodaltons) of the standard proteins, which were located by overlays of spots of fluorescent paint. The arrows correspond to the positions of the four major species between 30 and 27 kDa. See Fig. 1 for definitions of abbreviations used.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) The axiom that one steroid molecule is bound per receptor monomer has only recently received direct support from biochemical (reviewed in Ref. 4Simons Jr., S.S. The Molecular Biology of Steroid and Nuclear Hormone Receptors.in: Freedman L.P. Birkhaeuser Boston, Inc., Boston1997Google Scholar) and x-ray crystallographic (53Renaud J.-P. Rochel N. Ruff M. Vivat V. Chambon P. Gronemeyer H. Moras D. Nature. 1995; 378: 681-689Crossref PubMed Scopus (1034) Google Scholar, 54Wagner R.L. Apriletti J.W. McGrath M.E. West B.L. Baxter J.D. Fletterick R.J. Nature. 1995; 378: 690-697Crossref PubMed Scopus (815) Google Scholar) studies. However, earlier reports of a second site, especially with high concentrations of steroid (55Svec F. Teubner V. Tate D. Endocrinology. 1989; 125: 3103-3108Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar), have lately attracted considerable attention (56Simons Jr., S.S. Science. 1996; 272: 1451Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar) with the description of synergistic responses among weak estrogens (57Arnold S.F. Klotz D.M. Collins B.M. Vonier P.M. Guillette Jr., L.J. McLachlan J.A. Science. 1996; 272: 1489-1492Crossref PubMed Scopus (446) Google Scholar). We were unable to detect such a second site. The chymotry" @default.
• W2048656957 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2048656957 creator A5018945206 @default.
• W2048656957 creator A5033495206 @default.
• W2048656957 creator A5036023059 @default.
• W2048656957 creator A5044255341 @default.
• W2048656957 creator A5081232899 @default.
• W2048656957 date "1997-09-01" @default.
• W2048656957 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2048656957 title "Steroid-induced Conformational Changes at Ends of the Hormone-binding Domain in the Rat Glucocorticoid Receptor Are Independent of Agonist Versus Antagonist Activity" @default.
• W2048656957 cites W143316405 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1494025494 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1555115548 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1569540889 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1578330187 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1578851062 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1593531443 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1606155202 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1670106293 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1965996562 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1971752198 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1971789320 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1973774144 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1984222876 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1990779482 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1992235715 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1993140334 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1997423629 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W1999198359 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2002021255 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2002910558 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2007048730 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2007095985 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2008822380 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2009061501 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2013378362 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2014943183 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2015333813 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2023279243 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2029475329 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2030300262 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2033351296 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2035856471 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2040053707 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2047946194 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2049701004 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2050372538 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2054422637 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2054824453 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2060868921 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2073719647 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2076983130 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2084413248 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2086711072 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2110410009 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2119806021 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2123015098 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2130243020 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2141662437 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2146150501 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2168700356 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2207136697 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2336109171 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W2951829768 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W348240306 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W4243548450 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W4294250616 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W59002756 @default.
• W2048656957 cites W74071586 @default.
• W2048656957 doi "https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.38.23986" @default.
• W2048656957 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9295350" @default.
• W2048656957 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W2048656957 type Work @default.
• W2048656957 sameAs 2048656957 @default.
• W2048656957 citedByCount "31" @default.
• W2048656957 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2048656957 hasAuthorship W2048656957A5018945206 @default.
• W2048656957 hasAuthorship W2048656957A5033495206 @default.
• W2048656957 hasAuthorship W2048656957A5036023059 @default.
• W2048656957 hasAuthorship W2048656957A5044255341 @default.
• W2048656957 hasAuthorship W2048656957A5081232899 @default.
• W2048656957 hasBestOaLocation W20486569571 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C134018914 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C170493617 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C2776885963 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C2776888042 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C2778938600 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C2780841215 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C2780902042 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C59493245 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C71240020 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C71315377 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2048656957 hasConceptScore W2048656957C126322002 @default.

• next