|
|
||||||||
as a therapeutic target in cancer
Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA
(Requests for offprints should be addressed to D P McDonnell; Email: donald.mcdonnell{at}duke.edu)
This paper was presented at the 2nd Tenovus/AstraZeneca Workshop, Cardiff (2006). AstraZeneca supported the meeting and the Welsh School of Pharmacy, Cardiff University has supported the publication of these proceedings.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(ERR
) is a member of the nuclear receptor superfamily of ligand-regulated transcription factors. This protein is structurally most related to the canonical estrogen receptor and has been shown to modulate estrogen signaling in some contexts. These observations have heightened interest in ERR
as a therapeutic target in both breast and ovarian cancer and in other estrogenopathies. This review details our present understanding of ERR
action with a view to highlight specific aspects of its signal-transduction pathway in breast cancer that may be amenable to pharmaceutical manipulation.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
signaling have been and will continue to be an important part of pharmacotherapy in breast cancer. Foremost among these therapies are selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), compounds which antagonize the mitogenic actions of estrogens in breast tissue but which function as estrogens in bone and the cardiovascular system. Of late, aromatase inhibitors have proven to be more efficacious than SERMs in certain circumstances. Although these two classes of drugs are extremely effective, it is clear that there remains a need for agents that target estrogen signaling by alternate mechanisms. Of significance in this regard is the observation that SERMs are clinically beneficial for only 5080% of ER
-positive breast cancer patients. An additional limitation of anti-estrogen treatment is that many patients, particularly those with metastatic disease, rapidly develop resistance (Robertson et al. 1996). Indeed, in some cases it has been observed that tumors in which tamoxifen initially functions as an antagonist can switch to recognizing this drug as an agonist. Not surprisingly, resistance to aromatase inhibitors has also emerged as a significant issue in the clinic. Resistance to anti-estrogens, SERMs, and aromatase inhibitors is multifactorial in cause, and an array of potential mechanisms to explain this phenomenon has emerged. Leading hypotheses include changes in drug metabolism, receptor mutations, inappropriate activation of growth and survival pathways, and alterations in the activity of the ER
-signaling pathway. These activities underscore the need for novel strategies to inhibit estrogen signaling in breast cancer. Our investigation into the estrogen-related receptors (ERRs) in breast cancer was prompted in part by the hypothesis that these orphan nuclear receptors may play a role in both de novo and acquired resistance to anti-hormonal agents. ERR expression, structure, and function suggest that these nuclear receptors may be intimately linked to estrogen signaling. This review will discuss the relationship between the ERR
pathway and classical estrogen signaling and evaluate the present evidence supporting a role for ERR
in breast cancer. Finally, we will identify key obstacles and questions that must be resolved if ERR
is to be utilized as a therapeutic target in breast cancer. | The estrogen receptor-signaling pathway |
|---|
|
|
|---|
and ERß. Additional complexity is introduced into the model described above as these receptor subtypes can form both homo- and heterodimeric complexes, each of which manifests distinct functional activities. Most of what we know about estrogen signaling in the breast comes from studies of ER
action. The specific roles of ERß and the functional consequences of its expression in normal and malignant breast remain to be determined.
Until relatively recently, it was believed that estrogen binding was the only biochemical event that enabled the conversion of ER from an inactive to a transcriptionally active form in cells. However, several seminal studies published by the OMalley group indicated that ER transcriptional activity can be activated in a ligand-independent manner by impinging signaling pathways. It is now clear that the transcriptional activity of ER
and other nuclear receptors can be altered by post-translational receptor modifications, the presence of non-hormone receptor ligands, and the particular complement of other nuclear receptors active at a given time. Since many cofactors (both co-activators and co-repressors) interact with multiple nuclear receptors and may be in limited supply, cofactor availability has also been suggested to play a role in determining the cell-specific activity of ER
(McKenna et al. 1999). The activity of ER
can also be regulated by changes in the phosphorylation state of the receptor downstream of growth factor stimulation. Increases in phosphorylation can enhance both ligand-independent and ligand-dependent activity in vitro (Kato et al. 1995). ER
phosphorylation has recently been implicated in tamoxifen resistance, which suggests new methods for predicting the occurrence of refractory tumors as well as for use in their treatment (Cui et al. 2006). Each of the signaling pathways impinging on ER
presents a potential avenue through which other nuclear receptors including the ERRs may influence ER
. More generally, the entire complicated web of ER
regulation introduces numerous opportunities for the pharmacologic regulation of its activity.
| Overview of estrogen-related receptors |
|---|
|
|
|---|
and ERRß, using the DNA-binding domain (DBD) of ER
as a probe to screen recombinant DNA libraries. A third isoform, ERR
, was later identified by Eudy et al.(1998). Sequence analysis reveals that the ERRs and the classical estrogen receptors share a high degree of homology within their DNA and ligand-binding domains (LBDs) (Laudet et al. 1992). In particular, ERR
shares with ER
approximately 68% sequence identity within the DBD and 33% within the LBD (Fig. 1
and ER
.
|
and ER
bind to similar DNA-response elements in target genes is not surprising in light of the observation that the P-box region of the DNA-binding domains (which determines DNA specificity) in both the ERs and ERRs is highly conserved (Laudet et al. 1992). DNA-binding studies performed in vitro indicate that ER
and ERR
may have slightly different DNA-binding preferences. While ER
binds preferentially to the sequence AGGTCAnnnTGACCT, termed an estrogen-response element (ERE), ERR
binds with the highest affinity to the extended half-site sequence TnAAGGTCA, termed an estrogen-related response element (ERRE; Sladek et al. 1997, Vanacker et al. 1999a,b). When initially discovered, this divergence in DNA-binding preference in vitro suggested that these receptors might not display significant DNA-binding cross-reactivity. However, recently, ER
has been found to activate many of its target genes through imperfect EREs composed of multiple half-sites. This supports the hypothesis that many EREs may function as ERREs in vivo, and conversely, that a subset of ERREs may function as EREs (Vanacker et al. 1999a,b).
The transcriptional activity of several endogenous genes is regulated by both ERR
and ER
, including the pS2 breast cancer marker, osteopontin and lactoferrin (Yang et al. 1996, Vanacker et al. 1999a,b, Lu et al. 2001, Kraus et al. 2002). Early evidence that ERR
can activate ER
target genes in the absence of estrogen suggested that the ERRs might drive estrogen-independent breast tumor growth. These findings not only generated considerable interest in elucidating the role of ERR
in the development and maintenance of tumors, but also raised the possibility that ERR
antagonists might be of benefit in treating breast cancer. As yet, this hypothesis has not been formally tested. However, it has been demonstrated that in some contexts, ERR
can repress ligand-activated ER
-dependent transcriptional activity. Given the similarity in the DNA-binding specificity of these two receptors, it is possible that direct competition for promoter occupancy can explain this inhibitory activity (Fig. 2
). The hypothesis that ER
and ERR
compete for binding to a shared promoter is supported by gene-expression analysis performed on breast cancer samples. In particular, Suzuki et al.(2004) found that the correlation between the expression of ER
and ER
target genes that contain an ERE within their promoters is significantly blunted when there is coincident high levels of ERR
expression. In contrast, the correlation between ER
and genes thought to be regulated by ER
binding to a non-canonical ERE is not altered by ERR
expression. Importantly, gel shift assays performed by Krause et al. verified that ER
and ERR
can compete directly for promoter binding in MCF7 cells. They went on to show that this is not merely a passive process but that ERR
recruits co-repressor proteins that actively suppress the expression of ER
responsive target genes (Kraus et al. 2002). However, they note that the relationship between these two receptors seems to depend on the particular cell line tested. Furthermore, it has been shown that the phosphorylation state of ERR
can alter its activity. Of particular relevance, it has been shown that phosphorylation of ERR
, downstream of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling, increases its transcriptional activity on the pS2 promoter. However, this increased activity seems to be promoter selective as ERR
-mediated auto-induction is not enhanced (Yang et al. 1998, Barry & Giguere 2005). The publication of the data from chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) on ChIP studies aimed at defining the primary target genes of ERR
(discussed only at meetings thus far) should provide the information needed to define the extent of overlap in genes regulated by these two receptors.
|
Indirect crosstalk between ERR and ER
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
can stimulate the transcription of the aromatase gene, as well as the genes for several other key steroidogenic enzymes (Yang et al. 1998, Seely et al. 2005; Fig. 2
ER
crosstalk (Simpson 2003). In post-menopausal women, ERR
-stimulated aromatase transcription in the breast may enhance local production of estrogen, which would in turn stimulate breast cancer progression. Beyond the local role of ERR
, recent data suggest that ERR
induces transcription of the steroid sulfotransferase SULT2A1 within the adrenal glands (Seely et al. 2005). This sulfotransferase maintains high levels of peripheral dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), which in turn is thought to be required for estrogen synthesis in certain peripheral tissues. An additional role of SULT2A1, however, is the inactivation of the SERMs tamoxifen and raloxifene (Apak & Duffel 2004). Therefore, by activating SULT2A1, ERR
may both enhance estrogen production and decrease the efficacy of these SERMs. Further studies are warranted by the clinical significance of tamoxifen resistance as well as the evidence linking the ERR
and ER
signaling pathways.
Insights into ERR ER crosstalk from studies in bone
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
and ERR
as these receptors are co-expressed in osteoblasts in vivo and in vitro (Bonnelye et al. 2002). The importance of ER
in bone is supported by the finding that the cessation of ovarian estrogen production in post-menopausal women is largely responsible for the development of osteoporosis. In this setting, circulating estrogen levels track with lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) (Felson et al. 1993, Bonnelye & Aubin 2005). ERR
is expressed throughout osteoblast development, and in vitro bone nodule formation can be inhibited by knocking down ERR
expression (Bonnelye et al. 2001). Furthermore, a polymorphism has recently been discovered within the ERR
promoter that is associated with high LS-BMD (Laflamme et al. 2005). Patients with this allelic variant, in which a portion of the promoter containing an ERRE is amplified up to four times, express increased levels of ERR
protein. Given the potential regulation of steroidogenesis by ERR
discussed above, ERR
activity may serve to enhance ER
signaling, leading to improved bone maintenance. Alternately, it may serve to activate ER
target genes in bone in the absence of estrogen as indicated by the finding that the shared ER
and ERR
target lactoferrin promotes bone formation in vivo and protects osteoblasts from apoptosis in vitro (Yang et al. 1996, Cornish et al. 2004). ERR
also may afford protection from bone loss independent of ER
as it has been shown to directly regulate several genes that are associated with osteoblast function, such as osteopontin and c-erbA1 (Bonnelye & Aubin 2005). Although these findings indicate several possible levels of interplay between ER
and ERR
, their specific roles in physiology and pathology require further investigation.
The emerging role of ERR in cancer
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
in breast cancer progression (Ariazi et al. 2002, Suzuki et al. 2004). Analysis of 102 breast cancer samples revealed that the expression of ERR
in greater than 10% of malignant cells was associated with a 20% decrease in overall disease survival at 13 years (relative risk=5.1). Furthermore, ERR
was found to be an independent prognostic factor controlling for factors, including ER
status. Although in this study there was no correlation between ERR
and ER
expression, an earlier study by Ariazi et al. demonstrated that high levels of ERR
mRNA correlated with ER
-negative tumor status in the 38 tumors examined. Analysis of the other ERRs revealed that high expression of ERR
correlates with positive outcomes for patients with breast cancer suggesting an opposing role to that of ERR
(Ariazi et al. 2002).
Following the studies implicating ERR
in breast cancer, the expression and activity of this orphan nuclear receptor have been measured in ovarian, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Sun et al.(2005) demonstrated that approximately 60% of ovarian malignancies express ERR
and postulated that ERR
may play an important role by modulating ER
signaling in this context. Measuring the expression of the ERRs in 33 ovarian cancer samples and 12 samples from normal ovaries, they demonstrated that a greater number of cancer samples had ERR
mRNA levels detectable by quantitative real-time PCR. Furthermore, a positive correlation between ERR
expression and advanced tumor stage and grade was observed. Notably, multivariate analysis implicated ERR
expression as an independent prognostic factor for poor overall patient survival. In contrast to the success of targeting ER
in breast cancer, this receptor has not been a useful target in ovarian cancer. In vitro data demonstrating the proliferative role of estrogen in ovarian cancer cell lines and the in vivo correlation between circulating estrogens and tumor development suggest that ER
likely plays an essential role in ovarian cancer. However, only 1520% of patients with ER
-positive tumors show a clinical response to anti-estrogens (Clinton & Hua 1997). Given the potential crosstalk between the estrogen-signaling pathway and that of ERR
, it is tempting to speculate that ERR
may be part of the explanation for the common resistance of ovarian cancers to ER
blockade.
ERR in energy homeostasis: a potential link to cancer?
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
, it appears that it may have two distinct functional activities in the cell. ERR
was first described as a regulator offatty acid oxidation, mitochondrial biogenesis, and oxidative phosphorylation (Sladek et al. 1997). More recent literature, as reviewed herein, establishes a role for ERR
as a modulator of ER signaling (Giguere 2002). How, and if, these activities are linked in the pathogenesis of cancers expressing ERR
remains an open question.
In considering the potential for targeting the ERR
to alter estrogen signaling, it is worth noting the wide range of roles that it can play in physiological and pathological settings. The tissue distribution of ERR
in the mouse provided the first clue that ERR
may regulate metabolic activity. Almost all organs express ERR
at some level. However, it is most highly expressed in kidney, heart, cerebellum, intestine, and skeletal muscle, tissues that preferentially utilize fatty acids as energy sources (Bookout & Mangelsdorf 2006). The function of ERR
as a metabolic regulator is further supported by the observation that ERR
-null mice demonstrate impaired fat metabolism and absorption (Luo et al. 2003). That the expression of ERR
is elevated in exercising muscle and fasting liver specifically implicates this receptor in ß-oxidation of fatty acids, which occurs under the same conditions. On a mechanistic level, several studies have revealed that ERR
is involved in the transcriptional regulation of genes required for mitochondrial biogenesis, oxidative phosphorylation, and fatty acid oxidation (Wu et al. 1999, Yoon et al. 2001, Huss et al. 2004, Mootha et al. 2004).
Most of the metabolic studies of ERR
focus on its role as the downstream effector of PPAR
co-activator 1
(PGC-1
). PGC-1
is a promiscuous nuclear receptor co-activator expressed at low basal levels but induced by fasting and other metabolic stresses (Puigserver & Spiegelman 2003). PGC-1ß, a related cofactor, may have similar functions under certain circumstances, although its expression level is not as acutely regulated by variations in energy demand (Yoon et al. 2001, Lin et al. 2003, 2005). Rather than being regulated by ligand, the magnitude of ERR
activity is thought to be largely dependent on the presence of transcriptional co-activators, such as PGC-1
and PGC-1ß. Interest in the ERRPGC-1 regulatory axis was heightened by the observation that there is a decrease in both PGC-1
and PGC-1ß in the skeletal muscle of patients with diabetes and obesity (Kelley et al. 2002, Mootha et al. 2003, Oberkofler et al. 2004, Lowell & Shulman 2005). The recently identified allelic variant of the ERR
promoter thought to sensitize ERR
to PGC-1
co-activation was found to be associated not only with high bone density, but also with obesity (Kamei et al. 2005). It is essential that the effects of ERR
activity in both energy metabolism and tumor biology be understood if we are to further develop ERR
as a therapeutic target.
Pharmacologic regulation of ERR activity
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
and apo-ERR
have indicated that these receptors are in a transcriptionally active conformation (Greschik et al. 2002, 2004, Kallen et al. 2004). Furthermore, the lack of any obvious electron density in the ligand-binding pockets (LBP) indicates that the apo-receptors are indeed capable of adopting an active conformation (Greschik et al. 2002, Kallen et al. 2004). With an estimated volume of only 100 Å, the LBP of ERR
is large enough to accommodate the binding of a small molecule agonist of only four or five carbons. It is not surprising, therefore, that the vast majority of pharmacologically active ERR
ligands act as antagonists.
The first compounds screened for activity on the ERRs were known endocrine disrupters with estrogen-like activity. Yang & Chen (1999) found that the organochlorine pesticides toxaphene and chlordane function as low-affinity ERR
antagonists in the micromolar range. The synthetic estrogen diethylstilbesterol was also found to act as a weak antagonist, disrupting co-activatorERR interaction and inhibiting constitutive activity of all three ERRs in transfection assays (Coward et al. 2001, Tremblay et al. 2001). Recently, high throughput screening yielded an ERR
inverse agonist which was subsequently optimized to the ERR
-selective XCT790 (Busch et al. 2004). This thiadiazole-based compound inhibits ERR
activity in transfection assays with submicromolar activity, and has been used to further define the role of ERR
in the regulation of metabolic signaling pathways (Mootha et al. 2004, Willy et al. 2004). Several other ERR
inverse agonists with submicromolar activity have been reported, including an indole, pyrazole, and thiazolidinedione (Deuschle et al. 2004, Player et al. 2004, Nolte et al. 2005). Unfortunately, many of the antagonists reported cross-react with ERRß and ERR
as well as with a variety of other nuclear receptors. As an alternative to the small molecule approach, our lab has used phage display to develop several ERR
peptide antagonists. These peptides bind with high affinity to ERR
and block co-activator binding (S Gaillard & DP McDonnell, unpublished observations). In contrast to the numerous ERR
antagonists reported, few natural or synthetic agonists of ERR
have been identified. However, the phytoestrogens flavone and isoflavone function in transfection assays as non-selective ERR agonists (Suetsugi et al. 2003). Due to the small size of the LBP, it may be necessary to design drugs to enhance ERR
activity using alternative strategies, such as altering the phosphorylation status of the receptor or targeting other upstream regulators of ERR
.
Further development of ERR as a therapeutic target
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
activity is likely to shed light on unresolved aspects of ER signaling and pharmacology and may validate ERR
as a useful therapeutic target in breast cancer. Ultimately, if we are to pharmacologically manipulate ERR
in the setting of metabolic disorders or cancer, we must determine if ERR
expression and activity is a cause or consequence of the underlying pathology. Regarding the role of ERR
in breast cancer, larger clinical studies as well as investigation into the molecular mechanism of ERR
function in this particular setting are essential. The extent to which ERR
signaling is intertwined with that of ER
and the extent to which ERR
function in cancer is distinct from its activity as a metabolic regulator are as yet undetermined. Answers to these compelling questions will both inform and motivate future development of ERR
as a therapeutic target within the settings of malignancy and metabolic disorders.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Ariazi EA, Clark GM & Mertz JE 2002 Estrogen-related receptor alpha and estrogen-related receptor gamma associate with unfavorable and favorable biomarkers, respectively, in human breast cancer. Cancer Research 62 65106518.
Barry JB & Giguere V 2005 Epidermal growth factor-induced signaling in breast cancer cells results in selective target gene activation by orphan nuclear receptor estrogen-related receptor alpha. Cancer Research 65 61206129.
Bonnelye E & Aubin JE 2005 Estrogen receptor-related receptor alpha: a mediator of estrogen response in bone. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 90 31153121.
Bonnelye E, Meerdad L & Aubin JE 2001 The orphan receptor, estrogen related receptor ERR alpha, is highly expressed in osteoblasts and is required for bone formation. Bone 28 S87.
Bonnelye E, Kung V, Laplace C, Galson DL & Aubin JE 2002 Estrogen receptor-related receptor alpha impinges on the estrogen axis in bone: potential function in osteoporosis. Endocrinology 143 36583670.
Bookout A & Mangelsdorf D 2006 Anatomical profiling of nuclear receptor expression reveals a hierarchical transcriptional network. Cell 126 789799.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Busch BB, Stevens WC, Martin R, Ordentlich P, Zhou S, Sapp DW, Horlick RA & Mohan R 2004 Identification of a selective inverse agonist for the orphan nuclear receptor estrogen-related receptor alpha. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 47 55935596.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Chen S, Zhou DJ, Yang C & Sherman M 2001 Molecular basis for the constitutive activity of estrogen-related receptor alpha-1. Journal of Biological Chemistry 276 2846528470.
Clinton GM & Hua W 1997 Estrogen action in human ovarian cancer. Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology 25 1.[Web of Science][Medline]
Cornish J, Callon KE, Naot D, Palmano KP, Banovic T, Bava U, Watson M, Lin JM, Tong PC, Chen Q et al. 2004 Lactoferrin is a potent regulator of bone cell activity and increases bone formation in vivo. Endocrinology 145 43664374.
Coward P, Lee D, Hull MV, Lehmann JM4-Hydroxyt & Lehmann JM 2001 4-Hydroxytamoxifen binds to and deactivates the estrogen-related receptor gamma. PNAS 98 88808884.
Cui Y, Parra I, Zhang M, Hilsenbeck SG, Tsimelzon A, Furukawa T, Horii A, Zhang Z-Y, Nicholson RI & Fuqua SAW 2006 Elevated expression of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase 3 in breast tumors: a mechanism of tamoxifen resistance. Cancer Research 66 59505959.
Deuschle U, Heck S, Kober I, Bauer U & Balogh I. (Lion Bioscience AG) (2004). NR3B1 nuclear receptor-binding 3-substituted pyrazole derivatives, and therapeutic uses. EP001398029A8.
Eudy JD, Yao S, Weston MD, Ma-Edmonds M, Talmadge CB, Cheng JJ, Kimberling WJ & Sumegi J 1998 Isolation of a gene encoding a novel member of the nuclear receptor superfamily from the critical region of Usher syndrome type IIa at 1q41. Genomics 50 382384.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Felson DT, Zhang Y, Hannan MT, Kiel DP, Wilson PWF & Anderson JJ 1993 The effect of postmenopausal estrogen therapy on bone density in elderly women. New England Journal of Medicine 329 11411146.
Giguere V 2002 To ERR in the estrogen pathway. Trends In Endocrinology And Metabolism 13 220225.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Giguere V, Yang N, Segui P & Evans RM 1988 Identification of a new class of steroid hormone receptors. Nature 331 9194.[CrossRef][Medline]
Greschik H, Wurtz J-M, Sanglier S, Bourguet W, Dorsselaer AV, Moras D & Renaud JP 2002 Structural and functional evidence for ligand-independent transcriptional activation by the estrogen-related receptor 3. Molecular Cell 9 303313.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Greschik H, Flaig R, Renaud JP & Moras D 2004 Structural basis for the deactivation of the estrogen-related receptor gamma by diethylstilbestrol or 4-hydroxytamoxifen and determinants of selectivity. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279 3363933646.
Huss JM, Torra IP, Staels B, Giguere V & Kelly DP 2004 Estrogen-related receptor alpha directs peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor at signaling in the transcriptional control of energy metabolism in cardiac and skeletal muscle. Molecular and Cellular Biology 24 90799091.
Kallen J, Schlaeppi JM, Bitsch F, Filipuzzi I, Schilb A, Riou V, Graham A, Strauss A, Geiser M & Fournier B 2004 Evidence for ligand-independent transcriptional activation of the human estrogen-related receptor alpha (ERR alpha) Crystal structure of ERR alpha ligand binding domain in complex with peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor coactivator-1 alpha. Journal of Biological Chemistry 279 4933049337.
Kamei Y, Lwin H, Saito K, Yokoyama T, Yoshiike N, Ezaki O & Tanaka H 2005 The 2.3 genotype of ESRRA23 of the ERR alpha gene is associated with a higher BMI than the 2.2 genotype. Obesity Research 13 18431844.[Web of Science][Medline]
Kato S, Endoh H, Masuhiro Y, Kitamoto T, Uchiyama S, Sasaki H, Masushige S, Gotoh Y, Nishida E & Kawashima H 1995 Activation of the estrogen receptor through phosphorylation by mitogen-activated protein kinase. Science 270 14911494.
Kelley DE, He J, Menshikova EV & Ritov VB 2002 Dysfunction of mitochondria in human skeletal muscle in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 51 29442950.
Kraus RJ, Ariazi EA, Farrell ML & Mertz JE 2002 Estrogen-related receptor alpha 1 actively antagonizes estrogen receptor-regulated transcription in MCF-7 mammary cells. Journal of Biological Chemistry 277 2482624834.
Laflamme N, Giroux S, Loredo-Osti JC, Elfassihi L, Dodin S, Blanchet C, Morgan K, Giguere V & Rousseau F 2005 A frequent regulatory variant of the estrogen-related receptor alpha gene associated with BMD in FrenchCanadian premenopausal women. Journal of Bone Mineral Research 20 938944.
Laudet V 1997 Evolution of the nuclear receptor superfamily: early diversification from an ancestral orphan receptor. Journal of Molecular Endocrinology 19 207226.
Laudet V, Hänni C, Coll J, Catzeflis F & Stéhelin D 1992 Evolution of the nuclear receptor gene superfamily. EMBO Journal 11 10031013.[Web of Science][Medline]
Lin J, Tarr PT, Yang R, Rhee J, Puigserver P, Newgard CB & Spiegelman BM 2003 PGC-1beta in the regulation of hepatic glucose and energy metabolism. Journal of Biological Chemistry 278 3084330848.
Lin J, Yang R, Tarr PT, Wu P-H, Handschin C, Li S, Yang W, Pei L, Uldry M, Tontonoz P et al. 2005 Hyperlipidemic effects of dietary saturated fats mediated through PGC-1 beta coactivation of SREBP. Cell 120 261273.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lowell BB & Shulman GI 2005 Mitochondrial dysfunction and type 2 diabetes. Science 307 384387.
Lu D, Kiriyama Y, Lee KY & Giguere V 2001 Transcriptional regulation of the estrogen-inducible pS2 breast cancer marker gene by the ERR family of orphan nuclear receptors. Cancer Research 61 67556761.
Luo JM, Sladek R, Carrier J, Bader JA, Richard D & Giguere V 2003 Reduced fat mass in mice lacking orphan nuclear receptor estrogen-related receptor alpha. Molecular and Cellular Biology 23 79477956.
McKenna NJ, Lanz RB & OMalley BW 1999 Nuclear receptor coregulators: cellular and molecular biology. Endocrine Reviews 20 321344.
Mootha VK, Lindgren CM, Eriksson KF, Subramanian A, Sihag S, Lehar J, Puigserver P, Carlsson E, Ridderstrale M, Laurila E et al. 2003 PGC-1alpha-responsive genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation are coordinately downregulated in human diabetes. Nature Genetics 34 267273.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mootha VK, Handschin C, Arlow D, Xie XH, Pierre J, St, Sihag S, Yang WL, Altshuler D, Puigserver P, Patterson N et al. 2004 ERR alpha and Gabpa/b specify PGC-1 alpha-dependent oxidative phosphorylation gene expression that is altered in diabetic muscle. PNAS 101 65706575.
Nolte RT, Wang L, Orband-Miller LA, Way JM, Martin JJ, Roa AM, Vela L, Miller AB, Willson TM & Zuercher WJ 2005 Identification and X-ray Crystal Structure of an ERR Alpha Inverse Agonist Reveals a New Mechanism of Nuclear Receptor Antagonism 230th American Chemical Society National Meeting, Washington, DC, USA 2005.
Oberkofler H, Linnemayr V, Weitgasser R, Klein K, Xie M, Iglseder B, Krempler F, Paulweber B & Patsch W 2004 Complex haplotypes of the PGC-1alpha gene are associated with carbohydrate metabolism and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 53 13851393.
Player MR, Pottorf RS, Rentzeperis D & De D. (Johnson and Johnson) 2004 Use of estrogen related receptor-modulating aryl ethers. US. 2006014812.
Puigserver P & Spiegelman BM 2003 Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma coactivator 1 alpha (PGC-1 alpha): transcriptional coactivator and metabolic regulator. Endocrine Reviews 24 7890.
Robertson JF, Cannon PM, Nicholson RI & Blamey RW 1996 Oestrogen and progesterone receptors as prognostic variables in hormonally treated breast cancer. International Journal of Biological Markers 11 2935.[Web of Science][Medline]
Seely J, Amigh KS, Suzuki T, Mayhew B, Sasano H, Giguere V, Laganiere J, Carr BR & Rainey WE 2005 Transcriptional regulation of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfotransferase (SULT2A1) by estrogen-related receptor alpha. Endocrinology 146 36053613.
Simpson ER 2003 Sources of estrogen and their importance. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 86 225230.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Sladek R, Bader JA & Giguere V 1997 The orphan nuclear receptor estrogen-related receptor alpha is a transcriptional regulator of the human medium-chain acyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase gene. Molecular and Cellular Biology 17 54005409.
Suetsugi M, Su L, Karlsberg K, Yuan YC & Chen S 2003 Flavone and isoflavone phytoestrogens are agonists of estrogen-related receptors. Molecular Cancer Research 1 981991.
Sun P, Sehouli J, Denkert C, Mustea A, Konsgen D, Koch I, Wei L & Lichtenegger W 2005 Expression of estrogen receptor-related receptors, a subfamily of orphan nuclear receptors, as new tumor biomarkers in ovarian cancer cells. Journal of Molecular Medicine 26 16991706.
Suzuki T, Miki Y, Moriya T, Shimada N, Ishida T, Hirakawa H, Ohuchi N & Sasano H 2004 Estrogen-related receptor alpha in human breast carcinoma as a potent prognostic factor. Cancer Research 64 46704676.
Tremblay GB, Bergeron D & Giguere V 2001 4-Hydroxytamoxifen is an isoform-specific inhibitor of orphan estrogen-receptor-related (ERR) nuclear receptors beta and gamma. Endocrinology 142 45724575.
Vanacker JM, Bonnelye E, Chopin-Delannoy S, Delmarre C, Cavailles V & Laudet V 1999a Transcriptional activities of the orphan nuclear receptor ERR alpha (estrogen receptor-related receptor-alpha). Molecular Endocrinology 13 764773.
Vanacker JM, Pettersson K, Gustafsson JA & Laudet V 1999b Transcriptional targets shared by estrogen receptor-related receptors (ERRs) and estrogen receptor (ER) alpha, but not by ER beta. EMBO Journal 18 42704279.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Willy PJ, Murray IR, Qian J, Busch BB, Stevens WC, Martin R, Mohan R, Zhou SH, Ordentlich P, Wei P et al. 2004 Regulation of PPAR gamma coactivator 1 alpha (PGC-1 alpha) signaling by an estrogen-related receptor alpha (ERR alpha) ligand. PNAS 101 89128917.
Wu Z, Puigserver P, Andersson U, Zhang C, Adelmant G, Mootha V, Troy A, Cinti S, Lowell B, Scarpulla RC et al. 1999 Mechanisms controlling mitochondrial biogenesis and respiration through the thermogenic coactivator PGC-1. Cell 98 115124.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Xie W, Hong H, Yang NN, Lin RJ, Simon CM, Stallcup MR & Evans RM 1999 Constitutive activation of transcription and binding of coactivator by estrogen-related receptors 1 and 2. Molecular Endocrinology 13 21512162.
Yang C & Chen S 1999 Two organochlorine pesticides, toxaphene and chlordane, are antagonists for estrogen-related receptor alpha-1 orphan receptor. Cancer Research 59 45194524.
Yang C, Zhou DJ & Chen S 1998 Modulation of aromatase expression in the breast tissue by ERR alpha-1 orphan receptor. Cancer Research 58 56955700.
Yang NY, Shigeta H, Shi HP & Teng CT 1996 Estrogen-related receptor, hERR1, modulates estrogen receptor-mediated responses of human lactoferrin gene promoter. Journal of Biological Chemistry 271 57955804.
Yoon JC, Puigserver P, Chen G, Donovan J, Wu Z, Rhee J, Adelmant G, Stafford J, Khan CR, Granner DK et al. 2001 Control of hepatic gluconeogenesis through the transcriptional coactivator PGC-1. Nature 413 131138.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
X. Kong, H. Fan, X. Liu, R. Wang, J. Liang, N. Gupta, Y. Chen, F. Fang, and Y. Chang Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor {gamma} Coactivator-1{alpha} Enhances Antiproliferative Activity of 5'-Deoxy-5-Fluorouridine in Cancer Cells through Induction of Uridine Phosphorylase Mol. Pharmacol., October 1, 2009; 76(4): 854 - 860. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. A. Mankoff, J. M. Link, H. M. Linden, L. Sundararajan, and K. A. Krohn Tumor Receptor Imaging J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2008; 49(Suppl_2): 149S - 163S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Consensus Statement Endocr. Relat. Cancer, December 1, 2006; 13(Supplement_1): S1 - S2. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |