4.6 Article

The forkhead box M1 protein regulates the transcription of the estrogen receptor α in breast cancer cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 281, 期 35, 页码 25167-25176

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M603906200

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [GR/S45713/01] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we have identified the Forkhead transcription factor FoxM1 as a physiological regulator of estrogen receptor alpha (ER alpha) expression in breast carcinoma cells. Our survey of a panel of 16 different breast cell lines showed a good correlation (13/16) between FoxM1 expression and expression of ER alpha at both protein and mRNA levels. We have also demonstrated that ectopic expression of FoxM1 in two different estrogen receptor positive breast cancer cell lines, MCF-7 and ZR-75-30, led to up-regulation of ER alpha expression at protein and transcript levels. Furthermore, treatment of MCF-7 cells with the MEK inhibitor U0126, which blocks ERK1/2-dependent activation of FoxM1, also repressed ER alpha expression. Consistent with this, silencing of FoxM1 expression in MCF-7 cells using small interfering RNA resulted in the almost complete abrogation of ER alpha expression. We also went on to show that FoxM1 can activate the transcriptional activity of human ER alpha promoter primarily through two closely located Forkhead response elements located at the proximal region of the ER alpha promoter. Chromatin immunoprecipitation and biotinylated oligonucleotide pulldown assays have allowed us to confirm these Forkhead response elements as important for FoxM1 binding. Further co-immunoprecipitation experiments showed that FoxO3a and FoxM1 interact in vivo. Together with the chromatin immunoprecipitation and biotinylated oligonucleotide pulldown data, the co-immunoprecipitation results also suggest the possibility that FoxM1 and FoxO3a cooperate to regulate ER alpha gene transcription.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据