4.5 Article

Selective activation of estrogen receptor-β transcriptional pathways by an herbal extract

Journal

ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 148, Issue 2, Pages 538-547

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/en.2006-0803

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCCIH NIH HHS [AT002173] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Novel estrogenic therapies are needed that ameliorate menopausal symptoms and have the bone-sparing effects of endogenous estrogens but do not promote breast or uterine cancer. Recent evidence suggests that selective activation of the estrogen receptor (ER)-beta subtype inhibits breast cancer cell proliferation. To establish whether ER beta-selective ligands represent a viable approach to improve hormone therapy, we investigated whether the estrogenic activities present in an herbal extract, MF101, used to treat hot flashes, are ER beta selective. MF101 promoted ER beta, but not ER alpha, activation of an estrogen response element upstream of the luciferase reporter gene. MF101 also selectively regulates transcription of endogenous genes through ER beta. The ER beta selectivity was not due to differential binding because MF101 binds equally to alpha and ER beta. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer and protease digestion studies showed that MF101 produces a different conformation in ER alpha from ER beta when compared with the conformations produced by estradiol. The specific conformational change induced by MF101 allows ER beta to bind to an estrogen response element and recruit coregulatory proteins that are required for gene activation. MF101 did not activate the ER alpha-regulated proliferative genes, c-myc and cyclin D1, or stimulate MCF-7 breast cancer cell proliferation or tumor formation in a mouse xenograft model. Our results demonstrate that herbal ER beta-selective estrogens may be a safer alternative for hormone therapy than estrogens that nonselectively activate both ER subtypes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available