Progesterone receptor-induced bending of its target DNA: distinct effects of the A and B receptor forms

Structural and functional analysis of domains of the progesterone receptor

Steroid hormone receptors are multi-domain proteins composed of conserved well-structured regions, such as ligand (LBD) and DNA binding domains (DBD), plus other naturally unstructured regions including the amino-terminal domain (NTD) and the hinge region between the LBD and DBD. The hinge is more than just a flexible region between the DBD and LBD and is capable of binding co-regulatory proteins and the minor groove of DNA flanking hormone response elements. Because the hinge can directly participate in DNA binding it has also been termed the carboxyl terminal extension (CTE) of the DNA binding domain. The CTE and NTD are dynamic regions of the receptor that can adopt multiple conformations depending on the environment of interacting proteins and DNA. Both regions have important regulatory roles for multiple receptor functions that are related to the ability of the CTE and NTD to form multiple active conformations. This review focuses on studies of the CTE and NTD of progesterone receptor (PR), as well as related work with other steroid/nuclear receptors.

Thermodynamic dissection of progesterone receptor interactions at the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter: monomer binding and strong cooperativity dominate the assembly reaction

Progesterone receptors (PRs) play critical roles in eukaryotic gene regulation, yet the mechanisms by which they assemble at their promoters are poorly understood. One of the few promoters amenable to analysis is the mouse mammary tumor virus gene regulatory sequence. Embedded within this sequence are four progesterone response elements (PREs) corresponding to a palindromic PRE and three half-site PREs. Early mutational studies indicated that the presence of all four sites generated a synergistic and strong transcriptional response. However, DNA binding analyses suggested that receptor assembly at the promoter occurred in the absence of significant cooperativity. Taken together, the results indicated that cooperative interactions among PREs could not account for the observed functional synergy. More broadly, the studies raised the question of whether cooperativity was a common feature of PR-mediated gene regulation. As a step toward obtaining a quantitative and, thus, predictive understanding of receptor function, we have carried out a thermodynamic dissection of PR A-isoform interactions at the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter. Utilizing analytical ultracentrifugation and quantitative footprinting, we have resolved the microscopic energetics of PR A-isoform binding, including cooperativity terms. Our results reveal a model contrary to that inferred from previous biochemical investigations. Specifically, the binding unit at a half-site is not a receptor dimer but is instead a monomer; monomers bound at half-sites are capable of significant pairwise cooperative interactions; occupancy of all three half-sites is required to cooperatively engage the palindromic-bound dimer; and finally, large unfavorable forces accompany assembly. Overall, monomer binding accounts for the majority of the intrinsic binding energetics and cooperativity contributes an approximately 1000-fold increase in receptor-promoter stability. Finally, the partitioning of cooperativity suggests a framework for interpreting in vivo transcriptional synergy. These results highlight the insight available from rigorous analysis and demonstrate that receptor-promoter interactions are considerably more complex than typically envisioned.

Thermodynamic analysis of progesterone receptor-promoter interactions reveals a molecular model for isoform-specific function

Human progesterone receptors (PR) exist as two functionally distinct isoforms, PR-A and PR-B. The proteins are identical except for an additional 164 residues located at the N terminus of PR-B. To determine the mechanisms responsible for isoform-specific functional differences, we present here a thermodynamic dissection of PR-A-promoter interactions and compare the results to our previous work on PR-B. This analysis has generated a number of results inconsistent with the traditional, biochemically based model of receptor function. Specifically, statistical models invoking preformed PR-A dimers as the active binding species demonstrate that intrinsic binding energetics are over an order of magnitude greater than is apparent. High-affinity binding is opposed, however, by a large energetic penalty. The consequences of this penalty are 2-fold: Successive monomer binding to a palindromic response element is thermodynamically favored over preformed dimer binding, and DNA-induced dimerization of the monomers is largely abolished. Furthermore, PR-A binding to multiple PREs is only weakly cooperative, as judged by a 5-fold increase in overall stability. Comparison of these results to our work on PR-B demonstrates that whereas both isoforms appear to have similar DNA binding affinities, PR-B in fact has a greatly increased intrinsic binding affinity and cooperative binding ability relative to PR-A. These differences thus suggest that residues unique to PR-B allosterically regulate the energetics of cooperative promoter assembly. From a functional perspective, the differences in microscopic affinities predict receptor-promoter occupancies that accurately correlate with the transcriptional activation profiles seen for each isoform.

Comparative analysis of the influence of the high-mobility group box 1 protein on DNA binding and transcriptional activation by the androgen, glucocorticoid, progesterone and mineralocorticoid receptors

We performed a comparative analysis of the effect of high-mobility group box protein 1 (HMGB1) on DNA binding by the DNA-binding domains (DBDs) of the androgen, glucocorticoid, progesterone and mineralocorticoid receptors. The affinity of the DBDs of the different receptors for the tyrosine aminotransferase glucocorticoid response element, a classical high-affinity binding element, was augmented up to 7-fold by HMGB1. We found no major differences in the effects of HMGB1 on DNA binding between the different steroid hormone receptors. In transient transfection assays, however, HMGB1 significantly enhances the activity of the glucocorticoid and progesterone receptors but not the androgen or mineralocorticoid receptor. We also investigated the effect of HMGB1 on the binding of the androgen receptor DBD to a subclass of directly repeated response elements that is recognized exclusively by the androgen receptor and not by the glucocorticoid, progesterone or mineralocorticoid receptor. Surprisingly, a deletion of 26 amino acid residues from the C-terminal extension of the androgen receptor DBD does not influence DNA binding but destroys its sensitivity to HMGB1. Deletion of the corresponding fragment in the DBDs of the glucocorticoid, progesterone and mineralocorticoid receptor destroyed their DNA binding. This 26-residue fragment is therefore essential for the influence of HMGB1 on DNA recognition by all steroid hormone receptors that were tested. However, it is dispensable for DNA binding by the androgen receptor.

High-mobility group chromatin proteins 1 and 2 functionally interact with steroid hormone receptors to enhance their DNA binding in vitro and transcriptional activity in mammalian cells

We previously reported that the chromatin high-mobility group protein 1 (HMG-1) enhances the sequence-specific DNA binding activity of progesterone receptor (PR) in vitro, thus providing the first evidence that HMG-1 may have a coregulatory role in steroid receptor-mediated gene transcription. Here we show that HMG-1 and the highly related HMG-2 stimulate DNA binding by other steroid receptors, including estrogen, androgen, and glucocorticoid receptors, but have no effect on DNA binding by several nonsteroid nuclear receptors, including retinoid acid receptor (RAR), retinoic X receptor (RXR), and vitamin D receptor (VDR). As highly purified recombinant full-length proteins, all steroid receptors tested exhibited weak binding affinity for their optimal palindromic hormone response elements (HREs), and the addition of purified HMG-1 or -2 substantially increased their affinity for HREs. Purified RAR, RXR, and VDR also exhibited little to no detectable binding to their cognate direct repeat HREs but, in contrast to results with steroid receptors, the addition of HMG-1 or HMG-2 had no stimulatory effect. Instead, the addition of purified RXR enhanced RAR and VDR DNA binding through a heterodimerization mechanism and HMG-1 or HMG-2 had no further effect on DNA binding by RXR-RAR or RXR-VDR heterodimers. HMG-1 and HMG-2 (HMG-1/-2) themselves do not bind to progesterone response elements, but in the presence of PR they were detected as part of an HMG-PR-DNA ternary complex. HMG-1/-2 can also interact transiently in vitro with PR in the absence of DNA; however, no direct protein interaction was detected with VDR. These results, taken together with the fact that PR can bend its target DNA and that HMG-1/-2 are non-sequence-specific DNA binding proteins that recognize DNA structure, suggest that HMG-1/-2 are recruited to the PR-DNA complex by the combined effect of transient protein interaction and DNA bending. In transient-transfection assays, coexpression of HMG-1 or HMG-2 increased PR-mediated transcription in mammalian cells by as much as 7- to 10-fold without altering the basal promoter activity of target reporter genes. This increase in PR-mediated gene activation by coexpression of HMG-1/-2 was observed in different cell types and with different target promoters, suggesting a generality to the functional interaction between HMG-1/-2 and PR in vivo. Cotransfection of HMG-1 also increased reporter gene activation mediated by other steroid receptors, including glucocorticoid and androgen receptors, but it had a minimal influence on VDR-dependent transcription in vivo. These results support the conclusion that HMG-1/-2 are coregulatory proteins that increase the DNA binding and transcriptional activity of the steroid hormone class of receptors but that do not functionally interact with certain nonsteroid classes of nuclear receptors.

Prebending the estrogen response element destabilizes binding of the estrogen receptor DNA binding domain

Binding of many eukaryotic transcription regulatory proteins to their DNA recognition sequences results in conformational changes in DNA. To test the effect of altering DNA topology by prebending a transcription factor binding site, we examined the interaction of the estrogen receptor (ER) DNA binding domain (DBD) with prebent estrogen response elements (EREs). When the ERE in minicircle DNA was prebent toward the major groove, which is in the same direction as the ER-induced DNA bend, there was no significant effect on ER DBD binding relative to the linear counterparts. However, when the ERE was bent toward the minor groove, in a direction that opposes the ER-induced DNA bend, there was a four- to eightfold reduction in ER DBD binding. Since reduced binding was also observed with the ERE in nicked circles, the reduction in binding was not due to torsional force induced by binding of ER DBD to the prebent ERE in covalently closed minicircles. To determine the mechanism responsible for reduced binding to the prebent ERE, we examined the effect of prebending the ERE on the association and dissociation of the ER DBD. Binding of the ER DBD to ERE-containing minicircles was rapid when the EREs were prebent toward either the major or minor groove of the DNA (k(on) of 9.9 x 10(6) to 1.7 x 10(7) M(-1) s(-1)). Prebending the ERE toward the minor groove resulted in an increase in k(off) of four- to fivefold. Increased dissociation of the ER DBD from the ERE is, therefore, the major factor responsible for reduced binding of the ER DBD to an ERE prebent toward the minor groove. These data provide the first direct demonstration that the interaction of a eukaryotic transcription factor with its recognition sequence can be strongly influenced by altering DNA topology through prebending the DNA.

Nucleosome-mediated synergism between transcription factors on the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter

In unstimulated mammalian cells and in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) promoter is silent and organized into positioned nucleosomes, one of which encompasses the binding sites for glucocorticoid receptor (GR) and nuclear factor I (NFI). Glucocorticoid induction in vivo involves a functional synergism between GR and NFI and simultaneous occupancy of the promoter sites for both proteins that cannot be reproduced on naked DNA. The role of chromatin in the process of induction was investigated by manipulating the nucleosome density in yeast strains carrying a regulated histone H4 gene. Following depletion of nucleosomes, independent transactivation by NFI or by GR, as well as binding of the individual proteins to the MMTV promoter, were enhanced, in agreement with a repressive function of nucleosomes. In contrast, NFI-dependent hormone induction of the promoter and the simultaneous binding of receptor and NFI were compromised by nucleosome depletion. This effect could be partly mediated by a cryptic binding site for the receptor that is functional only in the nucleosomal context. Thus, positioned nucleosomes do not only account for constitutive repression of the MMTV promoter, but also participate in induction by mediating cooperative binding and functional synergism between GR and NFI.