The antiestrogen tamoxifen is extensively metabolized in patients to form a series of compounds with altered affinity for estrogen receptors (ERs), the primary target of this drug. Furthermore, these metabolites exhibit a range of partial agonist and antagonist activities for ER mediated effects that do not depend directly on their absolute affinity for ERs. Thus, clinical response to tamoxifen therapy is likely to depend on the aggregate effect of these different metabolites resulting from their abundance in the patient, their affinity for the receptors, and their agonist/antagonist profile. A recent study has shown that plasma concentrations of the tamoxifen metabolite 4-hydroxy- N -desmethyl tamoxifen (endoxifen), in patents undergoing tamoxifen therapy, are dependent on the cytochrome p450 (CYP) 206 ge notype of the patient and that medications commonly prescribed to patients on tamoxifen therapy can also inhibit endoxifen production. In this study we characterized the properties of this metabolite with respect to binding to ERs, ability to inhibit estrogen stimulated breast cancer cell proliferation and the regulation of estrogen responsive genes. We demonstrate that endoxifen has essentially equivalent activity to the potent metabolite 4-hydroxy tamoxifen (4-OH-tam) often described as the active metabolite of this drug. Since plasma levels of endoxifen in patients with functional CYP2D6 frequently exceed the levels of 4-OH-tam, it seems likely that endoxifen is at least as important as 4-OH-tam to the overall activity of this drug and suggests that CYP2D6 status and concomitant administration of drugs that inhibit CYP2D6 activity have the potential to affect response to tamoxifen therapy.

The determination of several structures of nuclear receptor ligand binding domains (LBD) has led to new insights into the mechanism of action of this very important class of receptors. This review describes and compares the different LBD structures and their relationship to the function of the nuclear receptors. The role of the ligand in the LBD structures and the implications of ligand structure on receptor activity are also discussed. Structural information regarding interactions between the LBD and coactivator proteins and the potential role of these interactions in ligand agonism and antagonism is reviewed. Different pathways for nuclear receptor signaling and the use of new ligands to investigate these pathways are also described.

No abstract

The binding of the mannose/glucose specific lectins from Canavalia ensiformis (concanavalin A) and Dioclea grandiflora to a series of C-glucosides were studied by titration microcalorimetry and fluorescence anisotropy titration. These closely related lectins share a specificity for the trimannoside methyl 3,6-di-O-(alpha-D-mannopyranosyl)-alpha-D-mannopyranoside, and are a useful model system for addressing the feasibility of differentiating between lectins with overlapping carbohydrate specificities. The ligands were designed to address two issues: (1) how the recognition properties of non-hydrolyzable C-glycoside analogues compare with those of the corresponding O-glycosides and (2) the effect of presentation of more than one saccharide recognition epitope on both affinity and specificity. Both lectins bind the C-glycosides with affinities comparable to those of the O-glycoside analogues; however, the ability of both lectins to differentiate between gluco and manno diastereomers was diminished in the C-glycoside series. Bivalent norbornyl C-glycoside esters were bound by the lectin from Canavalia but only weakly by the lectin from Dioclea. In addition to binding the bivalent ligands, concanavalin A discriminated between C-2 epimers, with the manno configuration binding more tightly than the gluco. The stoichiometry of binding of the bivalent ligands to both di- and tetrameric lectin was two binding sites per ligand, rather than the expected 1:1 stoichiometry. Together, these results suggest that concanavalin A may possess more than one class of carbohydrate binding sites and that these additional sites show stereochemical discrimination similar to that of the previously identified monosaccharide binding site. The implications of these findings for possible in vivo roles of plant lectins and for the use of concanavalin A as a research tool are discussed.

Despite similar binding affinities to isolated ERalpha and ERbeta, GW-5638 and GW-7604 show markedly lower EC(50) values with ERbeta at an AP-1-driven promoter as compared to ERalpha. This suggests that the two compounds produce a more active ER/AP-1 conformation of the ER/AP-1 transcription factor complex when bound to ERbeta than when bound to ERalpha.

The two subtypes of human estrogen receptor, ␣ (hER␣) and ␤ (hER␤), regulate transcription at an AP-1 response element differently in response to estradiol and the anti-estrogens tamoxifen and raloxifene. To better understand the protein determinants of these differences, chimeric and deletional mutants of the N-terminal domain and the F region of ER␣ and ER␤ were made and tested in transient transfection assays at the classical estrogen response element (ERE) site as well as at an AP-1 site. Although the same regions on each receptor subtype appeared to be primarily responsible for estradiol activation at an ERE and in HeLa cells, major differences between ER␣ and ER␤ mutants were seen in the estrogen and anti-estrogen responses at an AP-1 site. This differential ligand response maps to the N-terminal domain and the F region. These results suggest that different estrogenic and anti-estrogenic ligands use different mechanisms of activation and inhibition at the AP-1 site. In contrast to previous studies, this work also shows that many of subtype-specific responses are not transferred to the other subtype by swapping the Nterminal domain of the receptor. This implies that there are other unique surfaces presented by each subtype outside of the N-terminal domain, and these surfaces can play a role in subtype-selective signaling. Together, these data suggest a complex interface between ligand, response element, and receptor that underlies ligand activation in estrogen signaling pathways. The estrogen receptors (ER␣ and ER␤)1 are members of a large family of nuclear receptors that activate or repress the transcription of hormone-regulated genes upon binding to a ligand (1). One feature of the nuclear receptor family is that a receptor can both activate and repress different sets of genes in response to the same ligand, but the mechanisms behind these differential effects are still not well understood. Estrogen receptor is unusual among the nuclear receptors, because its differential regulatory effects manifest themselves as tissuespecific responses to a given ligand (2). For example, tamoxifen functions as an anti-estrogen in breast tissue, but acts as an estrogen in the uterus and bone. Controlling these tissue-specific effects is the ultimate goal in the design and study of selective estrogen receptor modulators for the treatment of diseases such as breast cancer and osteoporosis (3).One explanation for the different effects is that a ligand may elicit different responses when the receptor acts through different effector sites (4). The estrogen receptor regulates transcription through binding to estrogen response elements (EREs) in the upstream promoter regions of target genes as well as through interactions with a growing number of "nonclassical" response sites (5, 6). These nonclassical sites do not necessarily require DNA-protein interactions between the receptor and the promoter element, but instead regulate transcription through protein-protein interactions between the receptor and other transcription factors...

Some aspects of ligand-regulated transcription activation by the estrogen receptor (ER) are associated with the estrogen-dependent formation of a hydrophobic cleft on the receptor surface. At least in vitro, this cleft is required for direct interaction of ER with an alpha helix, containing variants of the sequence LXXLL, found in many coactivators. In cells, it is unknown whether ER interactions with the different LXXLL-containing helices are uniformly similar or whether they vary with LXXLL sequence or activating ligand. Using fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET), we confirm in the physiological environment a direct interaction between the estradiol (E2)-bound ER and LXXLL peptides expressed in living cells as fusions with spectral variants of the green fluorescent protein. This interaction was blocked by a single amino acid mutation in the hydrophobic cleft. No FRET was detected when cells were incubated with the antiestrogenic ligands tamoxifen and ICI 182,780. E2, diethylstilbestrol, ethyl indenestrol A, and 6,4'-dihydroxyflavone all promoted FRET and activated ER-dependent transcription. Measurement of the level of FRET of ER with different LXXLL-containing peptides suggested that the orientations or affinities of the LXXLL interactions with the hydrophobic cleft were globally similar but slightly different for some activating ligands.

Membrane receptors for steroid hormones are currently a subject of considerable debate. One approach to selectively target these putative receptors has been to couple ligands to substances that restrict cell permeability. Using this approach, an analog of the estrogen receptor ligand 4-hydroxytamoxifen was attached to fluorescent dyes with differing degrees of predicted cell permeability. The conjugates bound to estrogen receptor in vitro, but all three conjugates, including one predicted to be cell-impermeable, inhibited estradiol-induced transcriptional activation. Fluorescence microscopy revealed cytoplasmic localization for all three conjugates. We further characterized a 4-hydroxytamoxifen analog conjugated to a BODIPY fluorophore in breast cancer cell lines. Those experiments suggested a similar, but not identical, mode of action to 4-hydroxytamoxifen, as the fluorescent conjugate was equally effective at inhibiting proliferation of both tamoxifen-sensitive and tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cell lines. While these findings point to significant complicating factors in designing steroid hormone mimics targeted to the plasma membrane, the results also reveal a possible new direction for designing estrogen receptor modulators.