|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online May 26, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 2337-2343 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02209
Review Article: Molecular Mechanisms of Phenotypic Plasticity |
Plasticity in cell defence: access to and reactivity of critical protein residues and DNA response elements
1 Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool,
Sherrington Buildings, Ashton Street, Liverpool L69 3GE, Merseyside,
UK
2 Cancer Immunotherapy Laboratory, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, INSERM
U517, Faculty of Medicine, Dijon, France
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: C.E.P.Goldring{at}liv.ac.uk)
Accepted 14 March 2006
Summary
Cellular and whole organ defence against pathogenic or chemical challenge is manifest as an adaptive response. Where appropriate, this may lead to induction of a cellular defence programme, thereby enhancing cell survival. When the challenge is overwhelming, the defence is breached and a switch is made to yield cell death, either by apoptosis or necrosis. Thus, a cell will defend itself where possible, but in extremis, it may recognise the futility of its resistance and allow itself to die. Transcription factor activation and access to the DNA regulatory elements that control a particular pattern of expression of defence genes is a major issue that may ultimately decide the fate of a cell in a changed environment. It is possible to visualise the access to the nucleus and to the genome, of paradigm gene loci or transcription factors, using a number of molecular techniques such as chromatin immunoprecipitation, in vivo footprinting and live/whole cell imaging. These methods are informative as to the array of transcription factors that may regulate a given gene, as well as the transitory nature of the transcriptional activation. The initial triggering of active transcription factor complexes typically occurs within the cytoplasm of the cell. Protein–protein interactions and signal transduction pathways, elucidated using a classical molecular genetics approach, have long been recognised as pivotal to the initial control of the levels and activity of transcription factors. We can now visualise modifications in critical residues of transcription factors and regulators during cellular response to chemical stress. These modifications may yield enhanced or repressed activity of transcription factors, they may be non-covalent or covalent, and they may occur in response to a variety of classes of chemicals. Such promiscuous signalling can provide plasticity in the cellular response to a wide array of chemical agents.
Key words: adaptation, proteins, stress, footprinting, transcription, iNOS, Nrf2, Keap1
Introduction
The over-arching theme of this review is the concept that there exists a large degree of plasticity in the innate ability of a cell to defend itself, and that this plasticity occurs at multiple layers within the normal physiology of a cell, but the control of gene transcription is absolutely fundamental to this process. This control may be at the level of access to DNA response elements, as well as at the levels of cellular localisation and inherent chemical reactivity of specific transcriptional control proteins. This review attempts to describe these two issues critical to plasticity in defence, by charting a route through various experiments employing different cell and whole tissue models. Furthermore, the different experimental approaches that have been used in these studies exemplify some of the techniques that need to be used to demonstrate different aspects of plasticity in cell defence.
The concept of cellular injury and cell defence
Cellular injury is a critical component of most disease processes. In order
to achieve a better understanding of the details of how the injury occurs and
thereby to improve the prospect of intervening in the disease to lead to
improved outcomes, it is important to understand the inherent ability of a
cell to withstand injury, which is literally the means by which a cell can
defend itself. The common types of disease-producing cellular stresses are
shown in Table 1. It is beyond
the scope of this review to deal with all of the experimental models and
techniques that can be employed to investigate each of these cellular
stresses. However, we focus on two of these in this review, namely infection
and chemical injury, which are dealt with in detail below.
|
The degree to which a cell becomes stressed depends critically on the dose and duration of the stress, and the particular vulnerability or inherent resistance of the particular cell or cell types that comprise a whole organ. With respect to the specific molecular targets of cell injury, four biochemical systems are particularly vulnerable, namely the cell membrane, energy metabolism, functional/structural proteins and the genetic machinery.
In fact, whilst every cell type would be expected to possess some form of innate defence, cellular and whole organ defence against challenge typically materialises as an adaptive response (see Fig. 1). This adaptation can take the form of metabolic and structural changes, as well as the triggering of changes in the number, abundance and location of critical proteins (typically transcription factors). These changes enable the cellular injury to be reversible. Where a cell is overwhelmed by a stress, and the innate and adaptive defences are breached, irreversible injury occurs and cell death ensues, either by apoptosis or necrosis. In fact, a cell may defend itself where possible, but under extreme conditions it may allow itself to die.
|
The plasticity in the cellular response to attack arises through multiple
layers of sensing machinery. These include extracellular soluble receptors,
plasma membrane receptors and intracellular proteins that act as receptors for
sensing cellular stress and that may operate as transcription factors or as
master controllers of such proteins. Transcription factors are the ultimate
molecular determinants of the phenotype of a cell. They are a series of more
than 100 different proteins, which are constitutively present in a cell or are
synthesised rapidly on demand, and which, by interacting with specific short
recognition sequences close to the start of coding sequences of genes, can
determine the quantity and diversity of gene expression for a given cell
within a specific environment [a comprehensive text on transcription factors
is given elsewhere (Latchman,
1999
)].
Use of the endotoxin tolerance model to study plasticity in access to DNA response elements
The phenomenon of endotoxin tolerance
One of the most common disease-producing cellular stresses is that elicited
by bacterial infection. Where the infection is due to Gram-negative bacteria
such as E. coli, it can cause a vigorous host response, typically due
to the molecular recognition of a cell wall component, lipopolysaccharide
(LPS). This response materialises as a massive production of cytokine
molecules, such as tumour necrosis factor-
and interleukin-1, as
well as one of the enzymes responsible for the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO)
in the body, inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)
(Triantafilou and Triantafilou,
2002). The synthesis of these molecules represents a classical
innate immune system response to deal with pathogen invasion. Unfortunately,
this response can often disturb homeostasis sufficiently to cause
life-threatening complications, typically referred to as septic or endotoxic
shock, which is manifested as low blood pressure and reduced blood flow. Vital
organs may not function properly or may fail. Interestingly, circulating
leukocytes from septic patients have a limited capacity to produce cytokines
in comparison to control individuals, which may represent an adaptive,
protective mechanism to reduce organ injury
(van Deuren et al., 1994).
This is similar to the well-characterised phenomenon of endotoxin tolerance
observed in monocytes/macrophages in vitro, in which a priming
exposure to LPS elicits a refractory response in the production of
TNF-, Il-1 and iNOS upon further exposure. This was first
reported in patients in 1946 by Beeson, who defined endotoxin tolerance as a
reduced endotoxin-induced fever following repeated injections of typhoid
vaccine (Beeson, 1946). There
are a number of mechanisms that have been postulated to account for endotoxin
tolerance (Cavaillon et al.,
2003; Fan and Cook,
2004). One of these mechanisms implicates a transcription factor
involved in processing many cellular immune and inflammatory signals, NF-kappa
B, specifically a subunit of NF-kappa B called p50 [the role of p50 in
endotoxin tolerance is reviewed elsewhere
(Ziegler-Heitbrock, 2001)],
which has the ability to bind strongly to DNA, but which does not possess the
transcriptional activating properties of the p65 subunit of NF-kappa B
(Schmitz and Baeuerle,
1991).
Use of in vivo footprinting to demonstrate changes in transcription factor binding in endotoxin tolerance
Using a technique known as in vivo footprinting it is possible to
visualise binding of NF-kappa B to its putative regulatory elements in the
iNOS gene promoter and enhancer. This technique demonstrates binding of
transcription factors to their regulatory elements in the chromatin in living
cells, and thus it is more representative of the in vivo relevance of
transcription factor changes than other techniques which necessitate the
preparation of extracts of cells or nuclei. The technique is summarised in
Fig. 2.
|
In brief, it depends on the variation in the susceptibility of a gene's transcriptional control regions to methylation of guanines by chemical modification with dimethylsulphate, due to the presence or absence of transcription factors. Variations in methylation can be detected by piperidine cleavage, isolation of genomic DNA G-cleaved fragments, and their ligation to a short universal double-stranded DNA sequence, which permits PCR amplification of these fragments, detection and quantification. The gene-specific promoter/enhancer fragments are resolved in a sequencing gel. Hyper- or hypo-methylations due to the presence of transcription factor are visualised as an increase or decrease in the abundance of the resolved fragments.
Using this technique, we have seen that in conditions of endotoxin
tolerance, measured as a decrease in the levels of NO release, iNOS protein
and iNOS gene transcription in macrophages, the same binding sites are
occupied in the iNOS promoter and enhancer of desensitised macrophages and of
LPS-responsive macrophages, yet the composition of NF-kappa B in the nuclei of
these cells was found to be altered
(Goldring et al., 1998). It
appears that the presence of an overwhelming excess of transcriptionally
inactive p50 homodimers on their kappa B sites in the iNOS control region in
pretreated cells may block kappa B site binding by p50-p65, thereby reducing
the activity of the protein complex governing iNOS transcription (see
Fig. 3).
|
Transcription factor localisation and reactivity of critical protein residues
The defence against liver injury as a model of a whole tissue in vivo adaptive response
The liver has evolved exceptional adaptive systems to deal with chemical
stress. It is therefore not surprising that most individuals can survive
significant chemical stress associated with certain pharmacological agents,
which are thus considered safe at therapeutic doses (e.g. paracetamol). There
is now an emerging literature that the adaptive response to chemical stress
from endogenous and exogenous chemically reactive species, is activated and
orchestrated by redox-sensitive transcription factors, which include Nrf2,
AP-1, NF-kappa B and STAT-1. Such a response is designed to prevent protein
and/or DNA damage and thus can be considered one of the earliest events in the
chemical interaction of drug (metabolites) with the predominant liver cell,
the hepatocyte.
|
The transcription factor Nrf2 is now considered to be an important
regulator of the antioxidant response element (ARE) found in the promoters of
genes involved in cellular defence against electrophilic or oxidising chemical
species: over 100 genes have now been shown to carry the ARE consensus
sequence. In the unstressed state, Nrf2 resides in the cell cytoplasm where it
associates with a repressor protein, Keap1
(Fig. 4). Although initially
considered a passive inhibitor protein
(Itoh et al., 1999;
Zipper and Mulcahy, 2002),
Keap1 is now known to play an active role in Nrf2 regulation by directing it
for proteasomal proteolysis (Itoh et al.,
2003; McMahon et al.,
2003). Thus Nrf2 exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium with a
half life of under 10 min (McMahon et al.,
2004). This situation, which is analogous to the action of p53
(Harris and Levine, 2005),
means that the cell is permanently primed to respond to a major chemical
insult through rapid upregulation of Nrf2-driven defence proteins. Hence, the
critical step in initiating a phase II response is perturbation of the
interaction between Keap1 and Nrf2, as supported by the enhanced Nrf2 activity
in Keap1 null transgenic mice (Wakabayashi
et al., 2003) and in cells transfected with a Keap1 specific siRNA
(Devling et al., 2005).
|
;
Li et al., 2004b;
Padmanabhan et al., 2005); not
surprisingly, this region is responsible for direct interaction with both Nrf2
and actin. A current model for the action of Keap1 is that it forms a
homodimer and that Nrf2 is sandwiched between two Kelch domains
(Fig. 6)
(Dinkova-Kostova et al., 2005;
Wakabayashi et al., 2004). The
site of dimerisation is the BTB domain, whilst the intervening region, which
is particularly cysteine-rich, forms the redox sensing part of the complex.
Specifically, two cysteines (273 and 288) within the intervening region,
through their proximity to basic amino acids, possess low pKa values and are
thus highly chemically reactive (Zhang and
Hannink, 2003). Oxidation of these cysteines results in release of
Nrf2, which then translocates to the nucleus, heterodimerises with another
nuclear protein (small Maf) and transactivates the ARE. Single and multiple
mutations of cysteine residues in Keap1 have confirmed that C273 and C288 are
critical for this protein in the repression of Nrf2 activity
(Levonen et al., 2004;
Wakabayashi et al., 2004;
Zhang and Hannink, 2003). In
addition, a further cysteine at position 151 in Keap1 has also recently been
shown to be necessary for activation of Nrf2 by oxidative stress
(Zhang et al., 2004b).
Although a useful working model, it is likely that regulation of Nrf2 is more
complex than depicted in Fig.
6. Ubiquitination (Kobayashi
et al., 2004; Zhang et al.,
2004a), phosphorylation (Bloom
and Jaiswal, 2003; Huang et
al., 2002) and nuclear shuttling mechanisms
(Jain et al., 2005;
Li et al., 2005) have all been
implicated in Nrf2 activity. Clearly there remains uncertainty over the
precise workings of the Keap1-Nrf2-ARE system; however, a consistent feature
of all models proposed so far is that the Keap1 protein, and in particular its
cysteine residues, plays a central role in both the detection and transduction
of the activating stimulus.
|
|
), iodoacetamide (Hong et
al., 2005), N-ethylmaleimide
(Hong et al., 2005),
sulphoraphane (Eggler et al.,
2005), dinitrochlorobenzene
(Eggler et al., 2005),
xanthohumol (Dietz et al.,
2005; Liu et al.,
2005) and the endogenous inducer
15-deoxy-
12,14-prostaglandin-J2
(Eggler et al., 2005),
although a consistent pattern of cysteine modification has failed to emerge.
Thus there is a clear need for the systematic characterisation of Keap1
modification by inducers of Nrf2 and to relate this to the ensuing phase II
response in the control of drug induced liver injury. We have developed
similar tools to explore the modification of proteins involved in the
Keap1-Nrf2-ARE system with the specific intention of exploring drug-derived
reactive metabolites generated in the liver. We have seen that NAPQI, the
reactive metabolite of paracetamol, binds to Keap1 (data not shown).
Furthermore, we have demonstrated in an in vivo mouse model that
paracetamol both induces nuclear translocation of Nrf2 (see
Fig. 7) and transcriptionally
activates several ARE-driven genes
(Goldring et al., 2004).
Three independent laboratories have developed Nrf2 null mice
(Chan et al., 1996;
Itoh et al., 1997;
Martin et al., 1998) and have
demonstrated the pivotal role of Nrf2 for both constitutive and inducible
expression of ARE-activated proteins. Nrf2 deficient strains were more
susceptible to the toxic effects of model hepatotoxins, such as paracetamol
(Chan et al., 2001;
Enomoto et al., 2001) and the
antioxidant butylated hydroxytoluene (Chan
and Kan, 1999). Overall, studies utilising the Nrf2 null mouse
model by ourselves (Kitteringham et al.,
2005) and others (Chan et al.,
2001; Chan et al.,
1996; Chanas et al.,
2002; Enomoto et al.,
2001; Hoshino et al.,
2000; Ishii et al.,
2000; Itoh et al.,
1997; Martin et al.,
1998; McMahon et al.,
2001; Nguyen et al.,
2000; Pietsch et al.,
2003; Thimmulappa et al.,
2002) indicate that the lack of Nrf2 precludes the
xenobiotic-induced enhanced expression of multiple antioxidant response
proteins, but that constitutive expression of the same genes is often only
marginally reduced by deletion of the Nrf2 gene. These data indicate that (i)
Nrf2 is an essential redox sensor of chemical stress in the liver and (ii)
that Nrf2 associated genes may define the threshold for toxicity caused by
various chemical hepatotoxins.
Thus the Nrf2 pathway may play an important role in the adaptive defence of the liver against hepatotoxins, as demonstrated by the fact that a lower dose of paracetamol elicits toxicity in Nrf2 null mice, but that it can also be induced by the hepatotoxins themselves, thereby raising the threshold for toxicity following repeat exposure. We are therefore currently attempting to define intra- and intercellular signalling systems that ultimately determine bioactivation of drugs and subsequent drug induced liver injury.
Conclusions
In summary, multiple layers of adaptation of cellular transcription factors exist to respond rapidly and effectively to changes in the environment. It is possible to use a number of different cell, tissue and animal models to investigate this phenomenon experimentally. Each of these will be informative of different aspects of adaptive defence responses. These approaches demonstrate that the adaptation may depend upon accessibility to DNA and abundance, localisation and activity of transcription control proteins. Interestingly, prototypic adaptive transcription factors often display linear dose-dependent adaptation in an in vivo context. Finally, the crucial question that now needs to be addressed is how the adaptation relates to chemical changes in these proteins.
References
Beeson, P. B. (1946). Development of tolerance to typhoid bacterial pyrogen and its abolition by reticulo-endothelial blockade. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 61,248 -250.[CrossRef]
Bloom, D. A. and Jaiswal, A. K. (2003).
Phosphorylation of Nrf2S40 by PKC in response to antioxidants leads to the
release of Nrf2 from INrf2 but not required for Nrf2
stabilization/accumulation in the nucleus and transcriptional activation of
ARE-mediated NQO1 gene expression. J. Biol. Chem.10.1074/jbc.M307633200
.
Cavaillon, J. M., Adrie, C., Fitting, C. and Adib-Conquy, M. (2003). Endotoxin tolerance: is there a clinical relevance? J. Endotoxin Res. 9,101 -107.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chan, K. and Kan, Y. W. (1999). Nrf2 is
essential for protection against acute pulmonary injury in mice.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
96,12731
-12736.
Chan, K., Lu, R., Chang, J. C. and Kan, Y. W.
(1996). Nrf2, a member of the NFE2 family of transcription
factors, is not essential for murine erythropoiesis, growth, and development.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
93,13943
-13948.
Chan, K., Han, X. D. and Kan, Y. W. (2001). An
important function of Nrf2 in combating oxidative stress: detoxification of
acetaminophen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
98,4611
-4616.
Chanas, S. A., Jiang, Q., McMahon, M., McWalter, G. K., McLellan, L. I., Elcombe, C. R., Henderson, C. J., Wolf, C. R., Moffat, G. J., Itoh, K. et al. (2002). Loss of the Nrf2 transcription factor causes a marked reduction in constitutive and inducible expression of the glutathione S-transferase Gsta1, Gsta2, Gstm1, Gstm2, Gstm3 and Gstm4 genes in the livers of male and female mice. Biochem. J. 365,405 -416.[CrossRef][Medline]
Devling, T. W., Lindsay, C. D., McLellan, L. I., McMahon, M. and
Hayes, J. D. (2005). Utility of siRNA against Keap1 as
a strategy to stimulate a cancer chemopreventive phenotype. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102,7280
-7285.
Dietz, B. M., Kang, Y. H., Liu, G., Eggler, A. L., Yao, P., Chadwick, L. R., Pauli, G. F., Farnsworth, N. R., Mesecar, A. D., van Breemen, R. B. et al. (2005). Xanthohumol isolated from Humulus lupulus inhibits menadione-induced DNA damage through induction of quinone reductase. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 18,1296 -1305.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dinkova-Kostova, A. T., Holtzclaw, W. D., Cole, R. N., Itoh,
K., Wakabayashi, N., Katoh, Y., Yamamoto, M. and Talalay, P.
(2002). Direct evidence that sulfhydryl groups of Keap1 are the
sensors regulating induction of phase 2 enzymes that protect against
carcinogens and oxidants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
99,11908
-11913.
Dinkova-Kostova, A. T., Holtzclaw, W. D. and Wakabayashi, N. (2005). Keap1, the sensor for electrophiles and oxidants that regulates the phase 2 response, is a zinc metalloprotein. Biochemistry 44,6889 -6899.[CrossRef][Medline]
Eggler, A. L., Liu, G., Pezzuto, J. M., van Breemen, R. B. and
Mesecar, A. D. (2005). Modifying specific cysteines of
the electrophile-sensing human Keap1 protein is insufficient to disrupt
binding to the Nrf2 domain Neh2. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 102,10070
-10075.
Enomoto, A., Itoh, K., Nagayoshi, E., Haruta, J., Kimura, T.,
O'Connor, T., Harada, T. and Yamamoto, M. (2001). High
sensitivity of Nrf2 knockout mice to acetaminophen hepatotoxicity associated
with decreased expression of ARE-regulated drug metabolizing enzymes and
antioxidant genes. Toxicol. Sci.
59,169
-177.
Fan, H. and Cook, J. A. (2004). Molecular mechanisms of endotoxin tolerance. J. Endotoxin Res. 10, 71-84.[CrossRef][Medline]
Goldring, C. E., Reveneau, S., Pinard, D. and Jeannin, J. F. (1998). Hyporesponsiveness to lipopolysaccharide alters the composition of NF-kappaB binding to the regulatory regions of inducible nitric oxide synthase gene. Eur. J. Immunol. 28,2960 -2970.[CrossRef][Medline]
Goldring, C. E., Kitteringham, N. R., Elsby, R., Randle, L. E., Clement, Y. N., Williams, D. P., McMahon, M., Hayes, J. D., Itoh, K., Yamamoto, M. et al. (2004). Activation of hepatic Nrf2 in vivo by acetaminophen in CD-1 mice. Hepatology 39,1267 -1276.[CrossRef][Medline]
Harris, S. L. and Levine, A. J. (2005). The p53 pathway: positive and negative feedback loops. Oncogene 24,2899 -2908.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hong, F., Sekhar, K. R., Freeman, M. L. and Liebler, D. C. (2005). Specific patterns of electrophile adduction trigger keap1 ubiquitination and NRF2 activation. J. Biol. Chem. 280,1768 -1775.
Hoshino, H., Kobayashi, A., Yoshida, M., Kudo, N., Oyake, T.,
Motohashi, H., Hayashi, N., Yamamoto, M. and Igarashi, K.
(2000). Oxidative stress abolishes leptomycin B-sensitive nuclear
export of transcription repressor Bach2 that counteracts activation of Maf
recognition element. J. Biol. Chem.
275,15370
-15376.
Huang, H. C., Nguyen, T. and Pickett, C. B.
(2002). Phosphorylation of Nrf2 at Ser-40 by protein kinase C
regulates antioxidant response element-mediated transcription. J.
Biol. Chem. 277,42769
-42774.
Ishii, T., Itoh, K., Takahashi, S., Sato, H., Yanagawa, T.,
Katoh, Y., Bannai, S. and Yamamoto, M. (2000).
Transcription factor Nrf2 coordinately regulates a group of oxidative
stress-inducible genes in macrophages. J. Biol. Chem.
275,16023
-16029.
Itoh, K., Chiba, T., Takahashi, S., Ishii, T., Igarashi, K., Katoh, Y., Oyake, T., Hayashi, N., Satoh, K., Hatayama, I. et al. (1997). An Nrf2/small Maf heterodimer mediates the induction of phase II detoxifying enzyme genes through antioxidant response elements. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 236,313 -322.[CrossRef][Medline]
Itoh, K., Wakabayashi, N., Katoh, Y., Ishii, T., Igarashi, K.,
Engel, J. D. and Yamamoto, M. (1999). Keap1 represses nuclear
activation of antioxidant responsive elements by Nrf2 through binding to the
amino-terminal Neh2 domain. Genes Dev.
13, 76-86.
Itoh, K., Wakabayashi, N., Katoh, Y., Ishii, T., O'Connor, T. and Yamamoto, M. (2003). Keap1 regulates both cytoplasmic-nuclear shuttling and degradation of Nrf2 in response to electrophiles. Genes Cells 8, 379-391.[Abstract]
Jain, A. K., Bloom, D. A. and Jaiswal, A. K.
(2005). Nuclear import and export signals in control of Nrf2.
J. Biol. Chem. 280,29158
-29168.
Kitteringham, N. R., Abdullah, A., Jenkins, R. E., Goldring, C. E. P., Hayes, J. D. and Park, B. K. (2005). Proteomic analysis of liver protein expression in transgenic mice deficient in the transcription factor Nrf2. Drug Metab. Rev. 37, 23.
Kobayashi, A., Kang, M. I., Okawa, H., Ohtsuji, M., Zenke, Y.,
Chiba, T., Igarashi, K. and Yamamoto, M. (2004).
Oxidative stress sensor Keap1 functions as an adaptor for Cul3-based E3 ligase
to regulate proteasomal degradation of Nrf2. Mol. Cell.
Biol. 24,7130
-7139.
Latchman, D. S. (1999). Transcription Factors: A Practical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levonen, A. L., Landar, A., Ramachandran, A., Ceaser, E. K., Dickinson, D. A., Zanoni, G., Morrow, J. D. and Darley-Usmar, V. M. (2004). Cellular mechanisms of redox cell signalling: role of cysteine modification in controlling antioxidant defences in response to electrophilic lipid oxidation products. Biochem. J. 378,373 -382.[CrossRef][Medline]
Li, W., Jain, M. R., Chen, C., Yue, X., Hebbar, V., Zhou, R. and
Kong, A. N. (2005). NRF2 possesses a Redox-insensitive
nuclear export signal overlapping with the leucine zipper motif. J.
Biol. Chem. 280,28430
-28438.
Li, X., Zhang, D., Hannink, M. and Beamer, L. J.
(2004a). Crystal structure of the Kelch domain of human Keap1.
J. Biol. Chem. 279,54750
-54758.
Li, X., Zhang, D., Hannink, M. and Beamer, L. J. (2004b). Crystallization and initial crystallographic analysis of the Kelch domain from human Keap1. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 60,2346 -2348.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liu, G., Eggler, A. L., Dietz, B. M., Mesecar, A. D., Bolton, J. L., Pezzuto, J. M. and van Breemen, R. B. (2005). Screening method for the discovery of potential cancer chemoprevention agents based on mass spectrometric detection of alkylated Keap1. Anal. Chem. 77,6407 -6414.[Medline]
Martin, F., van Deursen, J. M., Shivdasani, R. A., Jackson, C.
W., Troutman, A. G. and Ney, P. A. (1998). Erythroid
maturation and globin gene expression in mice with combined deficiency of
NF-E2 and nrf-2. Blood
91,3459
-3466.
McMahon, M., Itoh, K., Yamamoto, M., Chanas, S. A., Henderson,
C. J., McLellan, L. I., Wolf, C. R., Cavin, C. and Hayes, J. D.
(2001). The Cap'n'Collar basic leucine zipper transcription
factor Nrf2 (NF-E2 p45-related factor 2) controls both constitutive and
inducible expression of intestinal detoxification and glutathione biosynthetic
enzymes. Cancer Res. 61,3299
-3307.
McMahon, M., Itoh, K., Yamamoto, M. and Hayes, J. D.
(2003). Keap1-dependent proteasomal degradation of transcription
factor Nrf2 contributes to the negative regulation of antioxidant response
element-driven gene expression. J. Biol. Chem.
278,21592
-21600.
McMahon, M., Thomas, N., Itoh, K., Yamamoto, M. and Hayes, J.
D. (2004). Redox-regulated turnover of Nrf2 is determined by
at least two separate protein domains, the redox-sensitive Neh2 degron and the
redox-insensitive Neh6 degron. J. Biol. Chem.
279,31556
-31567.
Nguyen, T., Huang, H. C. and Pickett, C. B.
(2000). Transcriptional regulation of the antioxidant response
element. Activation by Nrf2 and repression by MafK. J. Biol.
Chem. 275,15466
-15473.
Padmanabhan, B., Scharlock, M., Tong, K. I., Nakamura, Y., Kang, M., Kobayashi, A., Matsumoto, T., Tanaka, A., Yamamoto, M. and Yokoyama, S. (2005). Purification, crystallization and preliminary X-ray diffraction analysis of the Kelch-like motif region of mouse Keap1. Acta Crystallogr. Sect. F Struct. Biol. Cryst. Commun. 61,153 -155.[CrossRef]
Pietsch, E. C., Chan, J. Y., Torti, F. M. and Torti, S. V.
(2003). Nrf2 mediates the induction of ferritin H in response to
xenobiotics and cancer chemopreventive dithiolethiones. J. Biol.
Chem. 278,2361
-2369.
Schmitz, M. L. and Baeuerle, P. A. (1991). The p65 subunit is responsible for the strong transcription activating potential of NF-kappa B. EMBO J. 10,3805 -3817.[Medline]
Thimmulappa, R. K., Mai, K. H., Srisuma, S., Kensler, T. W.,
Yamamoto, M. and Biswal, S. (2002). Identification of
Nrf2-regulated genes induced by the chemopreventive agent sulforaphane by
oligonucleotide microarray. Cancer Res.
62,5196
-5203.
Triantafilou, M. and Triantafilou, K. (2002). Lipopolysaccharide recognition: CD14, TLRs and the LPS-activation cluster. Trends Immunol. 23,301 -304.[CrossRef][Medline]
van Deuren, M., van der Ven-Jongekrijg, J., Demacker, P. N., Bartelink, A. K., van Dalen, R., Sauerwein, R. W., Gallati, H., Vannice, J. L. and van der Meer, J. W. (1994). Differential expression of proinflammatory cytokines and their inhibitors during the course of meningococcal infections. J. Infect. Dis. 169,157 -161.[Medline]
Wakabayashi, N., Itoh, K., Wakabayashi, J., Motohashi, H., Noda, S., Takahashi, S., Imakado, S., Kotsuji, T., Otsuka, F., Roop, D. R. et al. (2003). Keap1-null mutation leads to postnatal lethality due to constitutive Nrf2 activation. Nat. Genet. 35,238 -245.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wakabayashi, N., Dinkova-Kostova, A. T., Holtzclaw, W. D., Kang,
M. I., Kobayashi, A., Yamamoto, M., Kensler, T. W. and Talalay, P.
(2004). Protection against electrophile and oxidant stress by
induction of the phase 2 response: fate of cysteines of the Keap1 sensor
modified by inducers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
101,2040
-2045.
Zhang, D. D. and Hannink, M. (2003). Distinct
cysteine residues in Keap1 are required for Keap1-dependent ubiquitination of
Nrf2 and for stabilization of Nrf2 by chemopreventive agents and oxidative
stress. Mol. Cell. Biol.
23,8137
-8151.
Zhang, D. D., Lo, S. C., Cross, J. V., Templeton, D. J. and
Hannink, M. (2004a). Keap1 is a redox-regulated substrate
adaptor protein for a Cul3-dependent ubiquitin ligase complex. Mol.
Cell. Biol. 24,10941
-10953.
Zhang, X., Lu, L., Dixon, C., Wilmer, W., Song, H., Chen, X. and Rovin, B. H. (2004b). Stress protein activation by the cyclopentenone prostaglandin 15-deoxy-delta12,14-prostaglandin J2 in human mesangial cells. Kidney Int. 65,798 -810.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ziegler-Heitbrock, L. (2001). The p50-homodimer mechanism in tolerance to LPS. J. Endotoxin Res. 7, 219-222.[Medline]
Zipper, L. M. and Mulcahy, R. T. (2002). The
Keap1 BTB/POZ dimerization function is required to sequester Nrf2 in
cytoplasm. J. Biol. Chem.
277,36544
-36552.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
Related articles in JEB:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Shin, N. Wakabayashi, V. Misra, S. Biswal, G. H. Lee, E. S. Agoston, M. Yamamoto, and T. W. Kensler NRF2 Modulates Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Signaling: Influence on Adipogenesis Mol. Cell. Biol., October 15, 2007; 27(20): 7188 - 7197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
