| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Endocrinology |
in Estrogen Receptor
-negative MCF-7 Cells Restores both Estrogen and Insulin-like Growth Factor-mediated Signaling and Growth1
Breast Center, Department of Medicine and Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030 [S. O., P. Z., R. L. G., X. S., C. K. O., A. V. L.], and Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 [E. M. C., W. V. W.]
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(ER
) would result in reduced IGF-mediated signaling and growth. To test this hypothesis, we examined IGF-I effects in MCF-7 breast cancer cell sublines that have been selected for loss of ER
(C4 and C4-12 cells are ER
-negative) by long-term estrogen withdrawal. C4 and C4-12 cells had reduced IGF-IR and IRS-1 mRNA and protein expression (compared with MCF-7 cells) that was not inducible by estrogen. Furthermore, C4 and C4-12 cells showed reduced IGF-I signaling and failed to show any growth response to either estrogen or IGF-I. To prove that loss of IGF and estrogen-mediated signaling and growth was a consequence of loss of ER
, we re-expressed ER
in C4-12 cells by stable transfection with HA-tagged ER
. Three independent C4-12 ER
-HA clones expressed a functional ER
that (a) was down-regulated by estrogen, (b) conferred estrogen-induction of cyclin D1 expression, and (c) caused estrogen-mediated increase in the number of cells in S phase. All of the effects were completely blocked by antiestrogens. Interestingly, ER
-HA expression in C4-12 cells did not restore estrogen induction of progesterone receptor expression. However, ER
-positive C4-12 cells now exhibited estrogen-induction of IGF-IR and IRS-1 levels and responded mitogenically to both estrogen and IGF-I. These data show that ER
is a critical requirement for IGF signaling, and to our knowledge this is the first report of functional ER
expression that confers estrogen-mediated growth of an ER-negative breast cancer cell line. | INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The IGF family consists of two ligands (IGF-I and II), two receptors (IGF-IR and IGF-IIR), six high-affinity binding proteins (IGFBP 16), and several IGFBP-related proteins (8) . IGF-I and II are circulating peptide hormones that can act in an endocrine, paracrine, or autocrine manner and can affect a wide variety of processes such as cell growth, survival, transformation, and differentiation (9) .
Estrogen can affect IGF signaling at multiple levels, altering expression of nearly all of the IGF family members including IGF-I (10)
, IGF-II (11)
, IGF-IR (12)
, IGF-IIR (13)
, IGFBPs (14)
, and IRS-1 (6
, 15)
. The result of estrogen action is to increase expression of IGF activators (IGF-I/IGF-II, IGF-IR, and IRS-1) and decrease expression of IGF inhibitors (IGFBP-3, IGF-IIR), resulting in enhanced response to IGF. Furthermore, it has been shown recently (16)
that estrogen activation of ER
causes a direct interaction between ER
and IGF-IR and results in activation and phosphorylation of IGF-IR and IGF-IR downstream signals such as ERK1/2. In addition to the estrogen activation of IGF-signaling pathways, IGF-I in turn enhances ER-mediated transactivation (17)
, possibly via ERK1/2 (18)
, Akt (19)
, src/JNK (20)
, or pp90rsk1 (21)
.
Supporting the concept of cross-talk between ER and IGF is evidence that specific targeting of either pathway can affect signaling and mitogenesis through the other pathway. Antiestrogens can inhibit IGF signaling by down-regulation (6 , 15 , 22) or dephosphorylation (23 , 24) of signaling molecules such as IGF-IR or IRS-1, thus inhibiting IGF-mediated growth. Anti-IGF strategies, such as overexpression of IGFBP-1 (17 , 25) or IGFBP-3 (26) , blocking antibody against IGF-IR (27) , or down-regulation of IRS-1 (28) , not only inhibit IGF-mediated signaling, but also inhibit ER-mediated transactivation and estrogen-mediated growth.
In this study, we describe the effects of ER
expression on IGF-mediated signaling and growth. We show that loss of ER
in MCF-7 cells causes reduced expression of IGF-signaling molecules, diminished IGF signaling, and failure to proliferate in response to estrogen or IGF-I. Re-expression of ER
in the same cell line restores ER
function (signaling and proliferation) but also restores the IGF-responsive phenotype, with re-expression of IGF-signaling molecules and growth in response to IGF. Thus, in MCF-7 cells, ER
is a critical regulator of IGF-mediated signaling and growth.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cell Lines.
MCF-7 cells were routinely maintained in
MEM + 5% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone, Logan, Utah) + 2 mM glutamine + 50 IU/ml penicillin, 50 µg/ml streptomycin. C4 and C4-12 cells were routinely maintained in
MEM without phenol red + 5% charcoal/dextran-treated fetal bovine serum (Hyclone) + 2 mM glutamine + 50 IU/ml penicillin, 50 µg/ml streptomycin. SFM has been described previously (6)
.
Immunoblotting and Immunoprecipitation.
Cells were stimulated with hormones and then lysed in TNESV buffer as described previously (6)
. Total protein (50 µg) was separated by 8% SDS-PAGE and electrophoretically transferred to nitrocellulose overnight at 4°C. Immunoblotting was performed using techniques and antibodies described previously (6)
. In addition, lysates were immunoblotted for cyclin D1 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology; 1:200) and PR (1:1000; Dako, Carpinteria, CA).
RNase Protection Assay.
MCF-7 cells were plated at 3 x 106 cells in 15-cm dishes (Becton Dickinson) and allowed to adhere overnight. Cells were harvested by trypsin/EDTA and pelleted in 15-cm tubes. Total RNA was prepared by Qiagen RNeasy Midi Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturers instructions and checked for integrity by separation on a 1% agarose gel. RNase protection was performed according to our method published previously (6)
, and RNA loading was normalized to mRNA of the ribosomal protein 36B4 (29)
.
Transient and Stable Transfection.
Construction of the HA-tagged ER
expression construct has been described previously (30)
. Stable transfection of C4-12 cells with pCDNA3.1 or pCDNA3.1ER
-HA was performed using lipofectin according to the manufacturers instructions. Briefly, C4-12 cells were plated at 1 x 106 cells in 10-cm dishes and transfected with 30 µg of ER
-HA plasmid and 1 µg of pSVneo. Transfected cells were selected in 800 µg/ml G418S (Life Technologies, Inc.) and screened by HA immunoblot.
Growth Assay.
MTT proliferation assay has been described previously (6)
. Briefly, 20 µl of MTT (5 mg/ml in PBS) was added to the medium and incubated for 4 h, after which the medium was aspirated and color developed by the addition of DMSO + 2.5% Improved Modified Eagle Medium. Absorbance was read at 540 nm. All of the time points were performed in quadruplicate.
Flow Cytometry.
Flow cytometry and flow data analysis were performed by the Flow Cytometry Core at Baylor College of Medicine using a Beckman Coulter EPICS XL-MCS. Cells were plated at 1 x 106 cells in 6-cm dishes and allowed to adhere overnight. The cells were incubated in SFM for 48 h and then stimulated with E2 (1 nM), ICI 182780 (100 nM), or a combination for 16 h. Cells were trypsinized, washed with PBS, resuspended in 0.2 ml of PBS, and fixed by adding 0.1 ml of ethanol with vortexing. After 30 min at room temperature, the cells were stored at 4°C until analysis. Before analysis, the cells were centrifuged, fixative was removed, and the cells were resuspended in 0.5 ml of PBS. One ml of propidium iodide (50 µg/ml) in PBS was added, and 30 min before analysis, 100 µl of RNase A (1 mg/ml) was added.
Statistical Analysis.
All of the statistical analysis was performed using Prism 3.0. The changes between individual treatments of cells were analyzed using one-way unpaired t tests. To analyze statistical differences among all of the treatment groups within each cell line, we performed one-way ANOVA.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
expression.4
C4 and C4-12 cells were derived by clonal selection from MCF-7 cells grown in the absence of estrogen for 9 months. The derivation of C4 and C4-12 cells from MCF-7 was confirmed by DNA fingerprinting. Although the initial passages of C4 and C4-12 cells showed variable or very low ER, the passages used in these studies were stably ER-negative by Western blotting, ligand-binding assay, and RNase protection assay. C4-12 cells were immunoblotted for ER
in every experiment to confirm that they were negative. Additionally, C4 and C4-12 cells did not exhibit estrogen induction of PR mRNA or binding sites.4
MCF-7, C4, and C4-12 cells were incubated overnight in SFM and then stimulated for 48 h with E2 (1 nM). As a control, we immunoblotted the cells for ER
to confirm that our C4 and C4-12 cells were ER
-negative (Fig. 1A)
. Treatment of MCF-7 cells with E2 (1 nM) resulted in a decrease in ER
expression. C4 and C4-12 cells had undetectable ER
expression. As expected, E2-stimulation of MCF-7 cells resulted in increased protein expression of both IRS-1 and IGF-IR. C4 and C4-12 cells showed lower basal IRS-1 expression and no induction by E2. Similarly, IGF-IR basal expression was lower in C4 and C4-12 cells compared with MCF-7 cells in the absence of E2, and again there was no increase in IGF-IR expression when cells were stimulated with E2.
|
is associated with loss of IGF-IR and IRS-1 protein and mRNA expression.
ER-negative MCF-7 Cells Have Diminished IGF Signaling.
Because of the decrease in both IGF-IR and IRS-1 expression in the absence of ER
, we examined the ability of IGF to signal through the ERK1/2 and phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase pathways (32)
. MCF-7, C4, and C4-12 cells were incubated in SFM overnight and then stimulated with IGF-I (5 nM) for 10 min (Fig. 2)
. IRS-1 immunoprecipitation followed by antiphosphotyrosine immunoblotting revealed that IGF-I stimulation of MCF-7 cells caused tyrosine phosphorylation of IRS-1, but that both C4 and C4-12 cells had reduced IGF-I-mediated tyrosine phosphorylation of IRS-1.
|
regulatory subunit of phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase revealed enhanced association between IRS-1 and P85
in MCF-7 cells treated with IGF-I. In C4 and C4-12 cells, less p85
was associated with IRS-1, and little or no increase in association was seen after IGF treatment. Immunoblotting of total cell lysates for ERK1/2 activation (Fig. 2)
ER-negative MCF-7 Cells Have Increased Basal Cell Number but No Increase in Response to E2 or IGF-I.
It is well established that E2 and IGF-I are potent mitogens for ER-positive breast cancer cells and that, in most instances, addition of both mitogens results in additive or synergistic growth (6)
. MCF-7, C4, and C4-12 cells were incubated in SFM with E2 (1 nM), IGF-I (5 nM), or a combination, and cell number was assessed by MTT assay (Fig. 3)
. C4 and C4-12 cells increased in cell number under basal conditions (SFM) faster than the parental MCF-7 cells. MCF-7 cell number was increased in cell number by both IGF-I and E2 (Fig. 3
, top graph; growth curves overlap), and the combination of mitogens (E2 + IGF-I) caused an increase that was greater than either ligand alone. C4 and C4-12 cells failed to respond to E2 as a result of their lack of ER
, but both cell lines also failed to respond to IGF-I.
|
.
expression and not simply a simultaneous event, we reintroduced ER
into C4-12 cells by stable transfection of ER
-HA. The initial screen of clones revealed a very high number of positive ER
-expressing clones (35 positive of 75 clones tested), suggesting that expression of ER
in C4-12 cells is not growth inhibitory or toxic. Indeed, the positive clones expressed ER
at levels that were both below and significantly above that of MCF-7 cells (data not shown). For further analysis, we chose transfectants that expressed levels of ER
similar to MCF-7 cells. As can be seen in Fig. 4
-negative. C4-12ER
-HA clones (#4, #17, and #29) expressed ER
(bottom) that was also HA immunoreactive (top).
|
-HA Clones Have Estrogen-inducible Cyclin D1 Expression but Not PR Expression.
in ER-negative cell lines have resulted in ER
that either is nonfunctional, and thus does not increase expression of E2-responsive genes or alter growth, or actually inhibits proliferation. This phenomenon is not seen when ER
is expressed in ER
-positive cells (42)
. It has been found recently (43)
that estrogen does not increase cyclin D1 expression in ER
-negative cells (MDA-321 and HELA) that are stably transfected with ER
. Therefore, we examined MCF-7, C4-12, and C4-12ER
-HA clones for ER function by analyzing two estrogen-regulated genes, PR and cyclin D1. MCF-7, C4-12pCDNA, and C4-12ER
-HA clones were incubated overnight in SFM, stimulated with E2 for 6 h, and then immunoblotted for ER
(data not shown), cyclin D1 (Fig. 5
levels in C4-12ER
-HA cells were down-regulated in response to E2 (data not shown; and Fig. 7
-HA was functional and responded in a similar manner to wild-type ER (Fig. 2)
-HA clones all had higher basal expression of cyclin D1 compared with C4-12pCDNA clones, with cyclin D1 expression being similar to that of MCF-7. Additionally, C4-12ER
-HA clones all exhibited estrogen-induction of cyclin D1 that was inhibited by ICI. Thus, C4-12ER
-HA clones express a functional ER that can regulate expression of cyclin D1. Immunoblotting for PR expression, using an antibody that recognizes both the A and B isoforms, we found that MCF-7 cells had estrogen-induction of PR expression, which was blocked by ICI (the relatively minor induction of PR levels is attributable to the short time of estrogen stimulation). As expected, C4-12 cells did not express PR; however, C4-12ER
-HA cells also failed to express any PR. Therefore, re-expression of ER
in C4-12 cells restores estrogen responsiveness to cyclin D1 but not to PR.
|
|
-HA clones were incubated in SFM for 24 h, stimulated with estrogen or antiestrogen for 16 h, and then analyzed by fluorescence-activated cell sorter (Fig. 6)
-HA clones showed a 38.0% (#4) and 31.9% (#29) increase in S phase in response to E2. This response was completely blocked by ICI (#4, P < 0.05; and #29, P < 0.001). Therefore, C4-12ER
-HA cells contain a functional ER
that (a) is down-regulated by E2 (data not shown; and Fig. 7
in these cells affected IGF signaling and growth.
|
HA Clones Exhibit Estrogen Induction of IGF-IR and IRS-1.
-HA clones were incubated in SFM overnight and then stimulated with E2 (1 nM) for 24 h. MCF-7 cells had detectable ER
that was down-regulated by E2 (Fig. 7)
. In contrast, C4-12ER
-HA clones expressed ER
, and it was down-regulated by E2 as in MCF-7 cells. As expected, MCF-7 cells had E2-inducible IRS-1 expression levels. C4-12 and C4-12pCDNA clones all had low or undetectable IRS-1 levels. C4-12ER
-HA clones all had elevated basal IRS-1 expression that was increased by E2. E2 induction of IRS-1 expression was seen in all of the clones tested and mirrored that seen in MCF-7 cells. Exactly the same results were seen for IGF-IR. C4-12ER
-HA clones had higher basal expression of IGF-IR than C4-12 and C4-12pCDNA, and E2 induced IGF-IR expression in the C4-12ER
-HA clones. These data clearly show that ER
is a critical requirement for estrogen induction of IGF-IR and IRS-1, and the fact that the pattern of IGF-IR and IRS-1 up-regulation in ER
-HA-expressing clones mirrored that of cyclin D1 confirms that these cells do indeed express a functional ER.
C4-12 ER
HA Clones Proliferate in Response to both IGF-I and E2.
The previous characterization of C4-12ER
-HA cells indicated that they contained a functional ER
and expressed E2-inducible IGF-IR and IRS-1. Next, we tested whether this conferred mitogenic responsiveness to IGF on these cells. Cells were stimulated with E2 (1 nM), IGF-I (5 nM), or a combination for 3 days, and cell numbers were assessed by MTT assay (Fig. 8)
. For simplicity and because of the fact that cells had varying basal proliferation rates, data are presented as fold over control (SFM) after 3 days. However, for direct comparison of basal differences, some of the absorbance values were MCF-7 (0.294), C4-12 (0.512), C4-12pCDNA #6 (0.531), and C4-12ERHA #29 (0.367). As can be seen, C4-12 and its derivatives all had higher basal cell numbers than MCF-7 (similar to Fig. 3
). In MCF-7 cells, E2 caused an 82% increase in cell number (P < 0.05). IGF-I was more potent, causing a 195% increase in cell number (P < 0.01). C4-12 cell proliferation was not affected by either E2 or IGF-I (as also shown previously in Fig. 3
). Control transfectants (C4-12pCDNA #4 and #6) also showed no change in proliferation in response to E2 or IGF-I, substantiating the cell-cycle analysis in Fig. 6
. In contrast, C4-12ER
-HA clones proliferated in response to E2 with a 56% increase (C4-12ER
-HA #29, P < 0.05) and a 26% increase (C4-12ER
-HA #4, P < 0.01) in cell number over control (cells in SFM). Most importantly, reintroduction of HA-ER
now allowed these cells to respond to IGF-I, with a 126% (C4-12ER
-HA #29, P < 0.01) and 87% (C4-12ER
-HA #4, P < 0.01) increase in cell number. These data and data from Fig. 6
show that reintroduction of ER
into C4-12 cells confers responsiveness to both estrogen and IGF. In both S-phase and cell number analysis, we consistently observed that the response of C4-12ER
-HA cells to estrogen was approximately one-half that of wild-type MCF-7 cells.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
and are actually hypersensitive to low concentrations of E2. C4 and C4-12 are unique in that they are ER
-negative and estrogen-unresponsive. C4 and C4-12 cells were derived by clonal selection from MCF-7 cells grown in the absence of estrogen for 9 months. The derivation of C4 and C4-12 cells from MCF-7 was confirmed by DNA fingerprinting. Although the initial passages of C4 and C4-12 cells showed variable or very low ER, the passages used in these studies were stably ER-negative by Western blotting, ligand-binding assay, and RNase protection assay. C4-12 cells were immunoblotted for ER
in every experiment to confirm that they were negative. Additionally, C4 and C4-12 cells did not exhibit estrogen induction of PR mRNA or binding sites.4
We have shown here that loss of ER
in MCF-7 cells is associated with reduced expression of critical IGF-signaling components (IGF-IR and IRS-1) and that this is associated with an inability to respond mitogenically to IGF-I. This result mimics the effect of antiestrogens in IGF action both in vitro and in vivo (6)
and confirms that ER is a critical regulator of IGF signaling and growth in MCF-7 cells. Importantly, this is not a single cell-line phenomenon, because Dougherty et al. (51)
have recently reported similar findings using the T47D cell line. Thus, in two different cell lines, loss of ER
results in changes in expression of critical IGF-signaling molecules. Can these cell-line models be used to explain why the majority of ER-negative cells do not proliferate in response to IGFs, whereas all of the ER-positive cells are IGF-responsive? ER-negative cell lines tend to have decreased IGF-IR and IRS-1 expression compared with ER-positive breast cancer cells. However, simple re-expression of IRS-1 (52)
or IGF-IR (53)
does not restore IGF-mediated growth, suggesting that these cells have further disruption of their IGF-signaling pathways. Despite ER-negative cell lines not proliferating in response to IGFs, these cells seem to depend upon IGFs for their invasive and metastatic potential because several strategies that inhibit IGF signaling, e.g., expression of dominant-negative IGF-IR, are most successful at inhibiting in ER-negative cell growth and metastasis in vivo (54)
. Although evidence suggests that IGFs are important in ER-positive breast cancer, our data does not imply that IGFs have no role in ER-negative cancer. IGF-IR (55)
and IRS-1 (6)
are higher in ER-positive patients than in ER-negative patients, correlating with expression seen in our ER
-negative MCF-7 model. However, although our data relate to a single cell-line model, there are presumably many pathways for a tumor to become ER-negative in vivo; e.g., it has been shown that IGF-IR is expressed in a subset of ER-negative tumors and that high expression is correlated with a worse prognosis (56
, 57)
. Furthermore, as stated previously, most anti-IGF strategies thus far have been successful in ER-negative cell lines, suggesting that IGFs may have a role in ER-negative breast cancer.
The main purpose of the present study was to characterize the loss of IGF signaling in these ER-negative cells and not how these cells overcame the need for ER signals, but data from our studies can rule out certain possibilities for this transition; e.g., although C4 and C4-12 cells have increased cell number in SFM, they actually have decreased cyclin D1 expression (Fig. 5)
. Additionally, these cells clearly do not have increased basal ERK1/2 activity (Fig. 2)
, suggesting that signaling through ERK1/2 is not responsible for the increased cell number.
How have the C4-12 cells adapted to grow in the absence of E2? Clearly, C4-12 cells show increased cell numbers in SFM compared with MCF-7 cells (Fig. 3)
. However, this increase in basal cell number was not associated with a change in distribution of cells in the cell cycle, suggesting that the cells are not proliferating greater in SFM. Indeed, we believe that these cells may have adapted to survive estrogen withdrawal by increasing cell survival pathways and, thus, lowering their rates of apoptosis. We are currently testing this hypothesis in C4-12 cells. We cannot, however, rule out the possibility that C4-12 cells have increased proliferation in the absence of increased S phase. It is possible that these cells have an overall shortened cell cycle that results in altered proliferative rate without changes in specific phases of the cell cycle. This has been noted previously (58)
in IGF-IR null fibroblasts.
Several groups have introduced ER
into ER-negative cells (33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
. However, in all of the previous cases, this has resulted in ER
expression either having no effect or actually being growth inhibitory (33
, 59)
. It has been found recently (43)
that estrogen does not increase cyclin D1 expression in ER
-negative cells (MDA-321 and HELA) that are stably transfected with ER
. The lack of cyclin D1 induction has been suggested as a reason why these cells do not proliferate in response to E2. In contrast to previous studies, C4-12 cells expressing ER
do exhibit estrogen induction of cyclin D1 and do proliferate in response to estrogen (increase in S phase and cell number). This suggests that C4-12 cells have retained the appropriate cofactors for normal ER function that are not found in other ER-negative cell lines. This result probably reflects the fact that these cells have only recently lost ER
expression and are genetically similar to their MCF-7 counterparts, whereas other ER-negative cell lines may have lost ER expression and critical ER cofactors many passages ago. Despite C4-12ER
-HA cells having estrogen induction of cyclin D1 expression, these cells do not show estrogen induction of PR. Thus, ER cannot induce expression of all of the estrogen-regulated genes, and comparison of MCF-7 with C4-12ER
cells will be a unique model for elucidating the ER cofactors necessary for estrogen induction of genes such as PR.
In summary, we provide evidence that stable expression of ER
, in an ER
negative cell line (C4-12), can confer an estrogen-responsive phenotype with estrogen induction of gene expression and proliferation. Furthermore, we have shown in this model system that ER
is a critical requirement for IGF signaling and growth, with changes in ER
expression absolutely controlling responses to IGFs.
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
-HA expression plasmid and Drs. Gary Chamness, Darryl Hadsell, and Douglas Yee for critical review of the manuscript. | FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 Supported by a Breast Cancer Specialized Program of Excellence award PHS P50 CA58183 (to C. K. O.), NIH CA50354 (to W. V. W.), and a Susan G. Komen Research award (to A. V. L.). ![]()
2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Breast Center, Department of Medicine and Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: (713) 798-1624; Fax: (713) 798-1659; E-Mail: avlee{at}breastcenter.tmc.edu ![]()
3 The abbreviations used are: IGF, insulin-like growth factor; IGF-IR, IGF-I receptor; IGFBP, IGF-binding protein; IRS-1, insulin receptor substrate-1; ER, estrogen receptor; ERK, extracellular signal-regulated kinase; SFM, serum-free medium; PR, progesterone receptor; MTT, 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide; E2, estradiol; ER
-HA, HA-tagged ER
; HA, hemagglutinin. ![]()
4 E. M. Curran et al., submitted for publication. ![]()
Received 2/ 7/01. Accepted 5/24/01.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
rapidly activates the IGF-1 receptor pathway. J. Biol. Chem., 275: 18447-18453, 2000.
in ECV304 cells inhibits proliferation and levels of secreted endothelin-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol., 152: 1-9, 1999.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. L. Nott, Y. Huang, X. Li, B. R. Fluharty, X. Qiu, W. V. Welshons, S. Yeh, and M. Muyan Genomic Responses from the Estrogen-responsive Element-dependent Signaling Pathway Mediated by Estrogen Receptor {alpha} Are Required to Elicit Cellular Alterations J. Biol. Chem., May 29, 2009; 284(22): 15277 - 15288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. L. Kleinberg, T. L. Wood, P. A. Furth, and A. V. Lee Growth Hormone and Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I in the Transition from Normal Mammary Development to Preneoplastic Mammary Lesions Endocr. Rev., February 1, 2009; 30(1): 51 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. H. Ibrahim, S. A. Byron, X. Cui, A. V. Lee, and D. Yee Progesterone Receptor-B Regulation of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-Stimulated Cell Migration in Breast Cancer Cells via Insulin Receptor Substrate-2 Mol. Cancer Res., September 1, 2008; 6(9): 1491 - 1498. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. B. Berry, M. Fan, and K. P. Nephew Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} Hinge-Region Lysines 302 and 303 Regulate Receptor Degradation by the Proteasome Mol. Endocrinol., July 1, 2008; 22(7): 1535 - 1551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Boonyaratanakornkit, E. McGowan, L. Sherman, M. A. Mancini, B. J. Cheskis, and D. P. Edwards The Role of Extranuclear Signaling Actions of Progesterone Receptor in Mediating Progesterone Regulation of Gene Expression and the Cell Cycle Mol. Endocrinol., February 1, 2007; 21(2): 359 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Maor, D. Mayer, R. I Yarden, A. V Lee, R. Sarfstein, H. Werner, and M. Z Papa Estrogen receptor regulates insulin-like growth factor-I receptor gene expression in breast tumor cells: involvement of transcription factor Sp1 J. Endocrinol., December 1, 2006; 191(3): 605 - 612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. H. Herynk, A. R. Beyer, Y. Cui, H. Weiss, E. Anderson, T. P. Green, and S. A.W. Fuqua Cooperative action of tamoxifen and c-Src inhibition in preventing the growth of estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer cells Mol. Cancer Ther., December 1, 2006; 5(12): 3023 - 3031. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. Ohnemus, M. Uenalan, J. Inzunza, J.-A. Gustafsson, and R. Paus The Hair Follicle as an Estrogen Target and Source Endocr. Rev., October 1, 2006; 27(6): 677 - 706. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Yu, Y. Hao, and L. A. Feig The R-Ras GTPase Mediates Cross Talk between Estrogen and Insulin Signaling in Breast Cancer Cells. Mol. Cell. Biol., September 1, 2006; 26(17): 6372 - 6380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Qi, J. Tang, M. Loesch, N. Pohl, S. Alkan, and G. Chen p38{gamma} Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Integrates Signaling Crosstalk between Ras and Estrogen Receptor to Increase Breast Cancer Invasion. Cancer Res., August 1, 2006; 66(15): 7540 - 7547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Long and K. P. Nephew Fulvestrant (ICI 182,780)-dependent Interacting Proteins Mediate Immobilization and Degradation of Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} J. Biol. Chem., April 7, 2006; 281(14): 9607 - 9615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. M. Fowler, N. M. Solodin, C. C. Valley, and E. T. Alarid Altered Target Gene Regulation Controlled by Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} Concentration Mol. Endocrinol., February 1, 2006; 20(2): 291 - 301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. Zhou, Z. Liu, J. Wu, J.-h. Liu, S. M. Hyder, E. Antoniou, and D. B. Lubahn Identification and Characterization of Two Novel Splicing Isoforms of Human Estrogen-Related Receptor {beta} J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., February 1, 2006; 91(2): 569 - 579. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S Zhang, X Li, R Burghardt, R Smith III, and S H Safe Role of estrogen receptor (ER) {alpha} in insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I-induced responses in MCF-7 breast cancer cells J. Mol. Endocrinol., December 1, 2005; 35(3): 433 - 447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L-A Martin, S Pancholi, C M W Chan, I Farmer, C Kimberley, M Dowsett, and S R D Johnston The anti-oestrogen ICI 182,780, but not tamoxifen, inhibits the growth of MCF-7 breast cancer cells refractory to long-term oestrogen deprivation through down-regulation of oestrogen receptor and IGF signalling Endocr. Relat. Cancer, December 1, 2005; 12(4): 1017 - 1036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Cui, R. Schiff, G. Arpino, C. K. Osborne, and A. V. Lee Biology of Progesterone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer and Its Implications for Endocrine Therapy J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2005; 23(30): 7721 - 7735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Kishimoto, Z. Wang, P. Bhat-Nakshatri, D. Chang, R. Clarke, and H. Nakshatri The p160 family coactivators regulate breast cancer cell proliferation and invasion through autocrine/paracrine activity of SDF-1{alpha}/CXCL12 Carcinogenesis, October 1, 2005; 26(10): 1706 - 1715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Reizner, S. Maor, R. Sarfstein, S. Abramovitch, W. V Welshons, E. M Curran, A. V Lee, and H. Werner The WT1 Wilms' tumor suppressor gene product interacts with estrogen receptor-{alpha} and regulates IGF-I receptor gene transcription in breast cancer cells J. Mol. Endocrinol., August 1, 2005; 35(1): 135 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Cui, M. Zhang, R. Pestell, E. M. Curran, W. V. Welshons, and S. A. W. Fuqua Phosphorylation of Estrogen Receptor {alpha} Blocks Its Acetylation and Regulates Estrogen Sensitivity Cancer Res., December 15, 2004; 64(24): 9199 - 9208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. J. Fabian, B. F. Kimler, J. Anderson, O. W. Tawfik, M. S. Mayo, W. E. Burak Jr., J. A. O'Shaughnessy, K. S. Albain, D. M. Hyams, G. T. Budd, et al. Breast Cancer Chemoprevention Phase I Evaluation of Biomarker Modulation by Arzoxifene, a Third Generation Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2004; 10(16): 5403 - 5417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Bourdeau, J. Deschenes, R. Metivier, Y. Nagai, D. Nguyen, N. Bretschneider, F. Gannon, J. H. White, and S. Mader Genome-Wide Identification of High-Affinity Estrogen Response Elements in Human and Mouse Mol. Endocrinol., June 1, 2004; 18(6): 1411 - 1427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Paruthiyil, H. Parmar, V. Kerekatte, G. R. Cunha, G. L. Firestone, and D. C. Leitman Estrogen Receptor {beta} Inhibits Human Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation and Tumor Formation by Causing a G2 Cell Cycle Arrest Cancer Res., January 1, 2004; 64(1): 423 - 428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. J. Ansell, C. Espinosa-Nicholas, E. M. Curran, B. M. Judy, B. J. Philips, M. Hannink, and D. B. Lubahn In Vitro and in Vivo Regulation of Antioxidant Response Element-Dependent Gene Expression by Estrogens Endocrinology, January 1, 2004; 145(1): 311 - 317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. B. Boyd Insulin and Cancer Integr Cancer Ther, December 1, 2003; 2(4): 315 - 329. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Yu, X.-O. Shu, B. D. L. Li, Q. Dai, Y.-T. Gao, F. Jin, and W. Zheng Joint Effect of Insulin-like Growth Factors and Sex Steroids on Breast Cancer Risk Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2003; 12(10): 1067 - 1073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Cui, P. Zhang, W. Deng, S. Oesterreich, Y. Lu, G. B. Mills, and A. V. Lee Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I Inhibits Progesterone Receptor Expression in Breast Cancer Cells via the Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase/Akt/Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Pathway: Progesterone Receptor as a Potential Indicator of Growth Factor Activity in Breast Cancer Mol. Endocrinol., April 1, 2003; 17(4): 575 - 588. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. R. Levin Bidirectional Signaling between the Estrogen Receptor and the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mol. Endocrinol., March 1, 2003; 17(3): 309 - 317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. V. Lee, R. Schiff, X. Cui, D. Sachdev, D. Yee, A. P. Gilmore, C. H. Streuli, S. Oesterreich, and D. L. Hadsell New Mechanisms of Signal Transduction Inhibitor Action: Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Down-Regulation and Blockade of Signal Transactivation Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2003; 9(1): 516S - 523S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
X. Zhang and D. Yee Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein-1 (IGFBP-1) Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Motility Cancer Res., August 1, 2002; 62(15): 4369 - 4375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |