| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
CELLULAR METABOLISM
Departments of Biology1 and Biochemistry,2 Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Submitted 15 September 2005 ; accepted in final form 16 November 2005
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT MATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSREFERENCES |
|---|
increased 60% by the third day of myogenesis, whereas NRF-1 and NRF-2 reporter gene activity increased by fivefold over the same period. Although peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR) mRNA levels increased almost 10-fold, the activity of a PPAR reporter was unchanged during myogenesis. The PPAR coactivator PPAR-
coactivator-1 (PGC1), a master controller of mitochondrial biogenesis, was not expressed at detectable levels. However, the mRNA for both PGC1-related coactivator and PGC1
was abundant, with the latter increasing by 50% over 3 days of differentiation. We also conducted promoter analysis of the gene for citrate synthase (CS), a common mitochondrial marker enzyme. The proximal promoter (
2,100 bp) of the human CS lacks binding sites for PPAR, NRF-1, or NRF-2. Deletion mutants, a targeted mutation, and an Sp1 site-containing reporter construct suggest that changes in Sp1 regulation also participate in mitochondrial biogenesis during myogenesis. Because most mitochondrial genes are regulated by PPARs, NRF-1, and/or NRF-2, we conducted inhibitor studies to further support the existence of a distinct pathway for CS gene regulation in myogenesis. Although both LY-294002 (a phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor) and SB-203580 (a p38-MAPK inhibitor) blocked myogenesis (as indicated by creatine phosphokinase activity), only SB-203580 prevented the myogenic increase in cytochrome oxidase activity, whereas only LY-294002 blocked the increase in CS (enzyme and reporter gene activities). Collectively, these studies help delineate the roles of some transcriptional regulators involved in mitochondrial biogenesis associated with myogenesis and underscore an import role for posttranscriptional regulation of transcription factor activity. citrate synthase; muscle; transcription factor; coactivator; metabolism
Mitochondrial biogenesis requires coordinated changes in the metabolic enzymes of oxidative phosphorylation, TCA cycle, and fatty acid oxidation. Expression of the hundreds of nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes is coordinated by a few transcription factors that coregulate gene networks. Nuclear respiratory factor (NRF)-1 and NRF-2 regulate many of the genes encoding oxidative phosphorylation proteins (39, 40). Peroxisome proliferator activated receptors (PPARs) regulate genes encoding enzymes and transporters of fatty acid oxidation (4). Most studies of the control of mitochondrial gene expression implicate PPAR coactivator PGC1 as a "master controller" of mitochondrial biogenesis, coactivating nuclear hormone receptors (PPARs, retinoic acid receptors, and thyroid hormone receptors) as well as NRF-1 (see Ref. 36). PGC1 may provide an important link between myogenesis and mitochondrial biogenesis. The myogenic transcription factor myocyte enhancer factor 2 induces PGC1 expression (10), and PGC1 overexpression can stimulate the formation of slow oxidative muscle (28). Two other members of the PGC1 gene family, PGC1 and PRC (PGC1-related coactivator), have structural similarities to PGC1 and may play a similar role in coordinating mitochondrial gene expression (39, 40). These same transcriptional regulators (PGC1s, PPARs, and NRFs) also play vital roles in the maintenance and adaptive remodeling of striated muscle energetics (3, 33).
In this study, we investigate the pathways that regulate nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes during myogenesis, focusing on the transcription factors that are most commonly implicated in control of mitochondrial biogenesis: PGC1 gene family of coactivators and DNA binding proteins including PPARs, NRFs, and Sp1.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSREFERENCES |
|---|
These experiments were conducted with murine immortalized myoblasts. Most experiments were conducted with both C2C12 and Sol8 cells, with few notable differences between lines. All cell culture media, antibiotics, and sera were supplied by Invitrogen. Cells were grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) with 25 mM glucose, 4 mM glutamine, and 1 mM pyruvate supplemented with FBS (10% for C2Cl2, 20% for Sol8) at 10% CO2 and 37°C. Once the cells had reached 90% confluence, differentiation was induced by changing the medium to DMEM supplemented with 2% horse serum. All media contained penicillin, streptomycin, and neomycin. Within 2–3 days of serum starvation, myotubes begin to form and the myogenic marker creatine phosphokinase increases (34). We studied regulatory events in this window of differentiation because this is the point at which mRNA levels for mitochondrial genes increase, typically doubling and remaining high for the duration of the myogenic program (34).
Plasmids
Transcriptional regulation of mitochondrial genes was assessed with the use of a series of reporter constructs.
Transcription factor and thymidine kinase-control reporters. Four reporter constructs were used to assess the influence of specific transcription factors on regulation of a minimal promoter. The reporters for NRF-1 (NRF-1-TKLuc) and NRF-2 (NRF-2-TKLuc), each with four tandem elements upstream of a thymidine kinase (TK) minimal promoter, were constructed in house (32). The PPAR reporter gene (PPAR-TKLuc), also with four tandem elements upstream of the TK minimal promoter, was a gift of Daniel P. Kelly of Washington University (17). All members of the PPAR gene family bind to the same element, and thus the PPAR reporter gene does not distinguish among family members. The Sp1-Luc reporter possesses a multimerized consensus Sp1 binding site (5'-CTGCGGGGCGGGGCAGAC-3' repeated 9 times) cloned upstream of the albumin TATA box in a G-free construct containing the firefly luciferase gene digested from pGL2-Basic (Promega) (24).
CS promoter-reporter.
We also explored a complex promoter from the citrate synthase (CS) gene, which appears to lack binding sites for NRF-1 and NRF-2. In the absence of a TATA box, there is no definitive transcription start site, but the longest 5' UTR available in the GenBank database includes 165 bp upstream of the start codon. We chose to use the human gene for these studies because the murine gene has a large intron in the region of the gene encoding the 5' UTR. Because multiple transcription start sites are feasible, we defined our CS promoter as sequences upstream of the translation start codon. Figure 1 shows potential transcription factor binding sites.
|
|
The CS–559Luc construct was created by digesting CS–2113Luc with BssHII and KpnI. The resulting fragment was blunt-ended with Klenow fragment and ligated into blunt-ended pGL2-Basic at the MluI and KpnI sites. To generate CS–254Luc, the primers forward, F2 (Table 1), and reverse, GLprimer2 (Promega), were used to amplify a fragment from CS–757Luc that was digested using MluI and XhoI and ligated into pGL2-Basic. The CS–163Luc construct was generated by SmaI digestion of CS–223Luc and subsequent recircularization of the plasmid.
CS Sp1 mutant.
The CS–2113
Sp1Luc reporter was created using the forward primer, F3 (Table 1), and the reverse primer, GLprimer2. Using CS–2113Luc as a template, we amplified a fragment that was then digested with ApaI and XhoI. The fragment was ligated back into CS–2113Luc that had been digested with ApaI and XhoI. The resulting plasmid contains a two-nucleotide substitution (GG to TT) in the proximal Sp1 site of the CS 5'-flanking sequence.
CS promoter-reporter for Renilla luciferase. The CS–757RL reporter plasmid was made in the following manner. The simian virus 40 (SV40) promoter-driven region of Renilla luciferase (pRL)-SV40 (Promega) was removed by digestion with BglII, followed by treatment with Klenow to create a blunt end, and then by digestion with HindIII. The 757-bp CS promoter insert was prepared with compatible ends by first digesting the luciferase vector (CS–757Luc) with KpnI, treating with Klenow, and then digesting with HindIII. The gel-purified insert and plasmid were then ligated together to produce CS–757Ren.
Transfections
Plasmids were prepared for transfection using Plasmid Maxi kit (Qiagen). Cells were transfected using FuGENE 6 (Roche). Briefly, cells grown to 50% confluence in 24-well cell culture plates were transfected into fresh growth medium with 250 ng of firefly luciferase plasmid and 50 ng of pRL-TK, a TK promoter-driven Renilla luciferase expression vector used as an internal reference. After 24 h, either the cells were extracted for luciferase measurements (proliferating myoblasts) or the medium was changed to fresh DMEM with 2% horse serum. After 3 additional days, luciferase measurements were performed on the differentiated myocytes.
Luciferase expression was determined using the Dual Luciferase Assay System (Promega) according to the manufacturer's instructions on a luminometer (Lmax; Molecular Devices) with automatic injector. Briefly, cells grown in 24-well plates were harvested in 100 µl of 1x passive lysis buffer and frozen at –80°C. To measure firefly luciferase, 100 µl of luciferase assay reagent (LARII) were added to 20 µl of room-temperature cell lysate in a white 96-well plate. Relative light units were measured for 10 s, with a 2-s premeasurement delay. To measure Renilla luciferase, 100 µl of Stop & Glow solution (Promega) were then added to the same well, and relative light units were again measured for 10 s, with a 2-s delay.
RNA Analyses
Cells were harvested in guanidium thiocyanate and extracted as previously described (34). Northern blot analysis was used to measure RNA levels for PGC1, PRC, and CS. From total RNA, 200 µg were further purified to obtain mRNA using a Fast Track Mag kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Following denaturation, the purified mRNA was electrophoresed in a 1% formaldehyde gel, blotted overnight on a Duralon-UV membrane (Stratagene), and UV cross linked. The blot was hybridized to cDNA probes generated using specific primers for each gene (see Table 2) and phosphoimaged.
|
, and PPAR. Briefly, 3 µg of purified RNA were reverse transcribed with 0.375 µg of oligo (dT) primers, 1.125 µg of random hexamers, and 45 units of AMV RT (Promega) following the supplier's instructions. During each real-time PCR reaction, 2.5 µl of cDNA were mixed with 12.5 µl of Quantitect SYBR Green master mix (Qiagen) and 0.58 µM of each primer (see Table 2) for a final volume of 25 µl. PCR was performed on a Cepheid Smart Cycler as follows: initial step of 10 min at 95°C, then 40 cycles of 15-s denaturation at 95°C, 30-s annealing at 59°C (PPAR, NRF-1, and NRF-2) or 60°C TATA binding protein and 30-s extension at 72°C. The cycle time value was automatically detected. For both real-time and Northern blot analyses, TATA binding protein was used as an internal standard, correcting for loading differences (Northern blots) or amplification differences (real-time PCR).
Inhibition of Myogenesis
Given the emphasis on the roles of NRFs and PPARs in mitochondrial gene expression, we were surprised to find little evidence of a role in controlling CS expression. Thus we employed an alternate approach to identifying differences in its regulation during myogenesis, focusing on differences between CS and a NRF-1/NRF-2 regulated enzyme, cytochrome oxidase (COX). To assess whether the myogenic increases in CS and COX were induced by different signaling pathways, we determined the effectiveness of the chemical inhibitors LY-294002 and SB-203580 at preventing the increase in CS and COX. Both of these inhibitors have been shown in previous studies to block myogenesis at the doses employed (10, 26). SB-203580 is an inhibitor of p38-MAPK, whereas LY-294002 is an inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K). Each of these drugs has the potential to affect other kinases, and we made no effort to show that the effects were specific. The effectiveness of these drugs in blocking myogenesis was assessed by measuring creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in parallel with the mitochondrial enzymes. Myoblasts express primarily muscle isoform of CPK: the mRNA for this isoform increases 60-fold by 3 days of differentiation. The brain isoform of CPK is also expressed, but at much lower levels and with less induction in myogenesis (data not shown).
In each experiment, the inhibitors were solubilized in DMSO at stock concentrations of 10 mM and frozen at –80°C. Drugs or vehicle were added to cultures at the doses and times indicated in the figure legends.
In one experiment, we treated cells and assessed the effects on the patterns of enzyme catalytic activity. Cells were rinsed in phosphate-buffered saline and extracted in 20 mM HEPES, 1 mM EDTA, and 0.1% Triton X-100 (pH 7.4). The catalytic activities were measured using spectrophotometric assays, as previously described (34).
In another experiment, we assessed the effects of these inhibitors on the CS promoter, using our reporter construct. First, we transferred the promoter of CS–757-Luc to Renilla reporter gene, producing the plasmid CS–757Ren. Renilla luciferase tends to perform better in stable transfections than does firefly luciferase. Next, we produced stable transfectants of CS–757Ren. The cells, grown to 50% confluence in 10-cm cell culture plates, were transfected as described above using 25 µg of plasmid and 2.5 µg of pPuro, a plasmid that confers puromycin resistance. After 48 h, cells were passaged (1:6) in medium containing 1 µg/ml puromycin. Cells were maintained in medium containing puromycin (fresh every 2–3 days) for 8 more days and were passaged and pooled as necessary to maintain a cell density below 50% confluence. Finally, cells were grown for 2 additional days until they reached 80% confluence. They were then frozen in DMEM with 20% FBS and 5% DMSO. By using stable transfectants, we were able to treat proliferating cells that had already been transfected rather than conducting both the drug treatment and the transient transfection simultaneously.
Statistics
Enzyme data and induction ratios (myocyte luciferase/myoblast lucifierase) were assessed using ANOVA, followed by Dunn's post hoc test. Because of the variability in transfection efficiency between experiments, reporter gene data were analyzed relative to internal controls. For example, for each transcription factor reporter gene, the data for an experiment were expressed as the ratio of modified reporter relative to the minimal promoter (e.g., NRF-1-TKLuc/TKLuc). Likewise, the effects of the Sp1 mutant of the CS–757Luc reporter were expressed as CS–757Sp1Luc/CS–757Luc from the same experiment. The internal control for CS deletion analyses was the full-length construct (CS–2113Luc). The effects of the modified reporters were significant if the 95% confidence intervals around the mean of the ratio did not overlap with a value of 1.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Gene FamilyLuciferase reporter constructs for NRF-1, NRF-2, PPAR, and Sp1 elements were assessed in proliferating myoblasts (day 0) and differentiating myocytes (day 3). Luciferase activities were first corrected for transfection efficiency using the cotransfected Renilla plasmid. Analyses were conducted in both proliferating cells (24 h after transfection) and in differentiating cells (after 3 days of differentiation). In each case, the data are expressed relative to luciferase activity seen in cells transfected with TK-Luc.
NRF-1 and NRF-2 reporter genes displayed similar patterns with differentiation (Fig. 2A). Neither element had major effects in proliferating cells, enhancing TK-Luc expression by <50% (significant only for NRF-1). During differentiation, NRF-1 and NRF-2 elements enhanced TK-Luc expression 15-fold (similar results were seen in Sol8 cells; data not shown). The stimulation of NRF-1 and NRF-2 reporters coincided with an increase in expression of NRF-1 and NRF-2 genes, as indicated by mRNA levels (Fig. 2B).
|
mRNA rose 10-fold by 3 days of differentiation (Fig. 2B).
We were unable to detect PGC1 using either poly(A)+ blots or real-time PCR, as has been shown in other studies on mouse myoblasts (1, 15). However, the other members of the PGC1 family were present in C2C12 cells. PRC mRNA was readily detectable via Northern blot analysis but did not change with differentiation. PGC1 mRNA was also present in cells and increased by 60% with 3 days of differentiation (Fig. 3).
|
We incorporated into these analyses a complex promoter of the CS gene, which appears to lack elements for any of the transcription factors commonly implicated in coordinating mitochondrial gene expression (i.e., NRF-1, NRF-2, and PPAR).
The series of 5' deletion constructs was used to assess the contribution of various elements in regulation of CS expression (Fig. 4). Similar results were seen in Sol8 and C2C12 myoblasts; only the C2C12 data are presented. Deletion of the region between –2113 and –757 nucleotides from the 5' end of the promoter had little effect on the activity of the CS promoter. Deletion of the region between –757 and –559 nucleotides reduced luciferase activity by 20%. The greatest loss in activity occurred on deletion of the elements between –559 and –254 nucleotides upstream of the translation initiation site. This deletion, which removed a Sp1 site, as well as elements for NF1, CAAT, and MyoD, reduced luciferase activity by 80% compared with the full-length promoter. Further reduction of the promoter by deleting another 31 bp to yield CS–223Luc caused only a nominal loss of luciferase activity. Deletion of all but 163 bp upstream of the start codon removed a proximal pair of Sp1 sites and reduced reporter activity to barely detectable levels.
|
Each of these critical regions possesses Sp1 sites, consequently, we constructed a site-specific mutant with a defective Sp1 site. The longest reporter construct (CS–2113Luc) was mutated to ablate the most proximal Sp1 site (5'-GGGCGG-3' 5'-GTTCGG-3'), leaving the second proximal Sp1 sites intact. The expression of the mutated construct (CS–2113Sp1Luc) was reduced in myoblasts by 39% and in myocytes by 48% (Fig. 5).
|
Signaling Pathways
The activities of the mitochondrial enzymes CS and COX increased by about twofold after 3 days of differentiation, whereas CPK increased >20-fold. Thus the effects of the inhibitors are expressed in terms of how effective they were at preventing the increase in enzyme activity (Fig. 6). The LY-294002 blocked the increase in both CPK and CS to a similar extent at both 10 µM (35–50%) and 50 µM (90%). However, there was no effect of LY-294002 on the myogenic increase in COX. In contrast, the SB-203580 had no effect on CS activity, although it inhibited the increase in the activities of CPK and COX to a similar extent (Fig. 6).
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSREFERENCES |
|---|
gene family play central roles as master regulators of transcription, acting through a network of DNA-binding proteins, including NRF-1, NRF-2, and PPARs.
NRFs, PPARs, and the PGC1 Family
As in previous studies (1, 15), we found no evidence of a significant expression of PGC1 in either myoblasts or myocytes. However, both of the other family members were present. PRC has been shown to coactivate NRF-1 (1, 15), and PGC1 can interact with NRF-1 and PPAR (27, 29).
Less is known about the role of the other PGC1 family members in mediating adaptive changes in mitochondrial content. In this study, the levels of PGC1 increased 60% during myogenesis (Fig. 3). PGC1 has been shown to increase during differentiation of brown fat (27). The third family member, PRC, was also abundant, although the mRNA levels were similar in both myoblasts and myocytes. Thus, both PRC and PGC1 may functionally replace PGC1 in these cells, but only PGC1 mRNA changes in parallel with nuclear-encoded mitochondrial genes, as indicated by the pattern in CS mRNA.
The role of PPARs in control of mitochondrial gene expression is best established with the enzymes of fatty acid oxidation (4, 17). Although PPAR mRNA increased several-fold, there was no corresponding increase in PPAR reporter gene activity. Furthermore, PPAR elements cloned upstream of a minimal promoter did not enhance the reporter gene expression in either myoblasts or myocytes. The same plasmid construct (courtesy of D. Kelly) is a faithful reporter gene in other contexts (15); therefore, we conclude that the discrepancy between mRNA changes and reporter gene expression is related to other factors. First, on the basis of real-time PCR, PPAR mRNA levels are <5% of NRF-1 and NRF-2 mRNA levels and may be too low to yield a significant effect (PPAR protein levels were not measured). Second, PPARs rely upon ligands for activation, and though cells were grown in the presence of 2% horse serum, there may not have been enough natural ligand (e.g., fatty acids) to activate the existing receptors. Third, the low levels of the PPAR coactivator PGC1 may limit PPAR reporter activity. Although PGC1 was present, PPAR coactivation by PGC1 is strongly ligand dependent (29). This could explain why the PPAR reporter gene activity was unchanged despite an increase in PPAR synthesis, as indicated by transcript levels. PPAR regulation is very complex, with each of the gene family members exhibiting distinct kinetic properties, such as DNA binding and coactivator affinity (42).
NRF-1 and NRF-2 are believed to be key regulators of mitochondrial gene expression (39, 40). In this study, NRF-1 and NRF-2 elements enhanced the activity of a minimal promoter. In myoblasts, there was a minor increase in reporter gene activity, significant only for NRF-1. However, in myocytes, NRF-1 and NRF-2 reporter genes were both strongly induced (Fig. 2). These increases in activity coincided with an increase in the mRNA levels for both NRF-1 and NRF-2 (subunit ). The difference in the magnitude of the changes in reporter gene activity vs. mRNA levels may reflect posttranscriptional effects. There may be an increase in translation of existing mRNA. There may also be an increase in protein activity (e.g., DNA binding activity). For example, posttranslational modifications can alter the activity of NRF-1 (16) and NRF-2 (31, 43).
CS Gene Expression
Most studies of mitochondrial gene expression focus on enzymes of oxidative phosphorylation and fatty acid oxidation and have established roles for the regulation of mitochondrial genes by NRFs and PPARs. CS is a common marker of mitochondrial content, yet little is known of its regulation. In our study, 3 days of differentiation increased CS enzyme activity by 70% (Fig. 6) and mRNA by about 60% (Fig. 3). Likewise, the CS reporter gene demonstrated a marked increase in expression after 3 days of differentiation. The difference in the magnitude of the increase between endogenous gene products (CS mRNA and protein) and reporter gene (luciferase activity) can be attributed to two factors. First, a reporter gene in a transient transfection remains as naked DNA, with its promoter readily accessible to regulatory factors. In contrast, the context of the endogenous promoter within chromatin limits the accessibility of the regulatory elements to DNA binding proteins. Second, although the half-life of CS protein is unknown, it is likely much longer than the half-life of luciferase (3.5 h for the luciferase encoded by pGL2), and thus a longer period of elevated expression of the endogenous gene is needed to achieve an elevation in protein levels.
Given the importance of NRF-1 and NRF-2 in regulation of the genes of oxidative phosphorylation (12, 45), we were surprised to find no evidence of elements for either transcription factor in CS promoters of human or mouse. It is possible that NRF-1 and/or NRF-2 sites exist within the promoter but escaped detection. The 5'-flanking region of the rat gene for mitochondrial transcription factor also lacks typical NRF-1 binding motifs, yet responds to increased NRF-1 expression and binds NRF-1 in gel mobility shift assays (8). Whereas NRF-1 and/or NRF-2 regulate COX genes (39, 40), the data herein argue against a hidden role in myogenic induction of CS. Conditions that mediate a NRF-1-dependent upregulation of the cytochrome c gene do not appear to affect CS activity (18).
Further support for independent pathways of regulation of CS and COX can be found in our kinase inhibitor studies (Figs. 6 and 7). The myogenic increase in COX was curtailed by SB-203580, an inhibitor of p38-MAPK, the known targets of which include PPAR (5) and PGC1 (22). Conversely, SB-203580 had no effect on the normal increase in CS catalytic activity or CS reporter gene activity in differentiation. In contrast, LY-294002 had no effect on COX activity, yet it curtailed the normal increases in the CS catalytic activity (Fig. 6) and CS reporter gene activity (Fig. 7). It is important to acknowledge that these inhibitors can have effects on other signaling pathways. Whereas SB-203580 is fairly specific for p38-MAPK (11), LY-294002 is less specific for PI3K and can exert effects on other kinases, including mammalian target of rapamycin (7), casein kinase 2, and phosphorylase kinase (11). Regardless of the actual targets in our study, it was clear that the two inhibitors had distinct effects on CS and COX, reinforcing the conclusion that these mitochondrial genes are differentially regulated during myogenesis.
A variety of putative transcription factor binding sites are present in the 2113 nucleotide 5' flanking region of the CS gene (Fig. 1), suggesting that regulation of this enzyme may involve the interaction of both cell-specific factors (i.e., myogenic factors such as MyoD via an E-box motif) and ubiquitous regulatory signals via Sp1, CAAT box, and NF1 sites. Sequential 5' deletions of the CS promoter-reporter construct point to a subset of these putative transcription factor binding sites that might contribute to CS expression under differentiating conditions. The proximal 757 nucleotides upstream of the CS gene were sufficient to drive maximal expression of a luciferase reporter in both myoblasts and differentiating myotubes (Fig. 3). The primary decrease in basal promoter activity occurs upon deletion of the region from –559 to –254 bp. The main decrease in inducibility also occurs when this region is deleted. Subsequent studies implicated Sp1 sites, which occur in this critical region of promoter. First, the Sp1 reporter gene increased activity about fivefold during differentiation. Second, major decreases in CS promoter activity occur when regions possessing Sp1 sites are deleted. Third, specific mutation of one of three proximal Sp1 sites of the 2113-bp promoter caused a 40% reduction in luciferase expression.
While the potential role for Sp1 sites is clear, the exact mechanism of action is less certain. The action of Sp1 depends on the number of Sp1 sites and their context within the promoter. Many genes, including CS (Fig. 1), possess multiple Sp1 sites arranged in small clusters, as in the rat mitochondrial transcription factor A promoter (8), the rat cytochrome c promoter (12), and the rat calmodulin promoter (33). The context can alter the response of different Sp1-sensitive promoters, such that a given stimulus can enhance transcription at one Sp1 site and repress it at another (6, 35, 47). Sp1 sites are regulated through a large family of Sp1 site-recognizing proteins with varied expression (6). For example, an antagonistic transcription factor of the Sp1 family, Sp3, is expressed in at least three variants. The inhibitory variants act by interfering with DNA binding by other Sp1 family members (20, 21) and through intrinsic repressor activity (38). The DNA binding and transactivation activity of Sp1 can also be influenced by posttranslational modifications, such as phosphorylation (2, 6, 23) and glycosylation (19).
In general, the complexity of the mode of action of the members of the Sp1 family makes it difficult to predict their transcriptional effects. Several studies have characterized the pattern of change in the levels of Sp1 family members during myogenesis. Sp1 levels increase within the first 12 h of myogenesis (44), although Sp1 levels decline later in myotube formation (14, 44). Sp3 expression is upregulated early in IGF-stimulated myocytes (14), peaking as Sp1 expression returns to baseline levels (24 h postdifferentiation). Whereas nuclear extracts appear to possess less Sp1 as myogenesis progresses (25), the profile of Sp1 family members is not known. The results from our inhibitor studies suggest that CS is regulated by a PI3K-dependent pathway, and it is possible that these effects are exerted via Sp1.
Perspectives
Collectively, these data provide some caveats about the omnipotence of PGC1 as a master regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis in all systems. First, there is clearly a role for the other PGC1 family members. Second, despite a central role for the coactivators, the DNA binding proteins themselves are also critical components of the transcriptional pathways. These transcription factors are subject to complex posttranscriptional, translational, and posttranslational regulation.
|
GRANTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONGRANTSREFERENCES |
|---|
2. Armstrong SA, Barry DA, Leggett RW, and Mueller CR. Casein kinase II-mediated phosphorylation of the C terminus of Sp1 decreases its DNA binding activity. J Biol Chem 272: 13489–13495, 1997.
3. Baar K. Involvement of PPAR co-activator-1, nuclear respiratory factors 1 and 2, and PPAR in the adaptive response to endurance exercise. Proc Nutr Soc 63: 269–273, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Barger PM and Kelly DP. PPAR signaling in the control of cardiac energy metabolism. Trends Cardiovasc Med 10: 238–245, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. Barger PM, Browning AC, Garner AN, and Kelly DP. p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-: a potential role in the cardiac metabolic stress response. J Biol Chem 276: 44495–44501, 2001.
6. Black AR, Black JD, and Azizkhan-Clifford J. Sp1 and Krüppel-like factor family of transcription factors in cell growth regulation and cancer. J Cell Physiol 188: 143–160, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Brunn GJ, Williams J, Sabers C, Wiederrecht G, Lawrence JC Jr, and Abraham RT. Direct inhibition of the signaling functions of the mammalian target of rapamycin by the phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, wortmannin and LY294002. EMBO J 15: 5256–5267, 1996.[Web of Science][Medline]
8. Choi YS, Lee HK, and Pak YK. Characterization of the 5'-flanking region of the rat gene for mitochondrial transcription factor A (Tfam). Biochim Biophys Acta 1574: 200–204, 2002.[Medline]
9. Coolican SA, Samuel DS, Ewton DZ, McWade FJ, and Florini JR. The mitogenic and myogenic actions of insulin-like growth factors utilize distinct signaling pathways. J Biol Chem 272: 6653–6662, 1997.
10. Czubryt MP, McNally J, Fishman GI, and Olsen EN. Regulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor coactivator 1 (PGC1) and mitochondrial function by MEF2 and HDAC5. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 1711–1716, 2003.
11. Davies SP, Reddy H, Caivano M, and Cohen P. Specificity and mechanism of action of some commonly used protein kinase inhibitors. Biochem J 351: 95–105, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
12. Evans MJ and Scarpulla RC. Interaction of nuclear factors with multiple sites in the somatic cytochrome c promoter: characterization of upstream NRF-1, ATF, and intron Sp1 recognition sequences. J Biol Chem 264: 14361–14368, 1989.
13. Evans MF and Scarpulla RC. NRF-1: a trans-activator of nuclear-encoded respiratory genes in animal cells. Genes Dev 4: 1023–1034, 1990.
14. Fandos C, Sánchez-Feutrie M, Santalucía T, Viñals F, Cadefau J, Gumà A, Cussó R, Kaliman P, Canicio J, Palacín M, and Zorzano A. GLUT1 glucose transporter gene transcription is repressed by Sp3. Evidence for a regulatory role of Sp3 during myogenesis. J Mol Biol 294: 103–119, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
15. Gleyzer N, Vercauteren K, and Scarpulla RC. Control of mitochondrial transcription specificity factors (TFB1M and TFB2M) by nuclear respiratory factors (NRF-1 and NRF-2) and PGC1 family coactivators. Mol Cell Biol 25:1354–1366, 2005.
16. Gugneja S and Scarpulla RC. Serine phosphorylation within a concise amino-terminal domain in nuclear respiratory factor 1 enhances DNA binding. J Biol Chem 272: 18732–18739, 1997.
17. Gulick T, Cresci S, Caira T, Moore DD, and Kelly DP. The peroxisome proliferator activated receptor regulates mitochondrial fatty acid oxidative enzyme gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 11012–11016, 1994.
18. Herzig RP, Scacco S, and Scarpulla RC. Sequential serum-dependent activation of CREB and NRF-1 leads to enhanced mitochondrial respiration through the induction of cytochrome c. J Biol Chem 275: 13134–13141, 2000.
19. Keembiyehetty CN, Candelaria RP, Majumdar G, Raghow R, Martinez-Hernandez A, and Solomon SS. Paradoxical regulation of Sp1 transcription factor by glucagon. Endocrinology 143: 1512–1520, 2002.
20. Kennett SB, Moorefield KS, and Horowitz JM. Sp3 represses gene expression via the titration of promoter-specific transcription factors. J Biol Chem 277: 9780–9789, 2002.
21. Kennett SB, Udvadia AJ, and Horowitz JM. Sp3 encodes multiple proteins that differ in their capacity to stimulate or repress transcription. Nucleic Acids Res 25: 3110–3117, 1997.
22. Knutti D, Kressler D, and Kralli A. Regulation of the transcriptional coactivator PGC1 via MAPK-sensitive interaction with a repressor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 9713–9718, 2001.
23. Lam JK, Matsubara S, Mihara K, Zheng XL, Mooradian AD, and Wong NC. Insulin induction of apolipoprotein AI: role of Sp1. Biochemistry 42: 2680–2690, 2003.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Leggett RW, Armstrong SA, Barry D, and Mueller CR. Sp1 is phosphorylated and its DNA binding activity down-regulated upon terminal differentiation of the liver. J Biol Chem 270: 25879–25884, 1995.
25. Lehtinen SK, Rahkila P, Helenius M, Korhonen P, and Salminen A. Down-regulation of transcription factors AP-1, Sp-1, and NF-
B precedes myocyte differentiation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 229: 36–43, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Li Y, Jiang BH, Ensign WY, Vogt PK, and Han J. Myogenic differentiation requires signalling through both phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase and p38 MAP kinase. Cell Signal 12: 751–757, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
27. Lin J, Puigserver P, Donovan J, Tarr P, and Spiegelman BM. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1 (PGC1), a novel PGC1-related transcription coactivator associated with host cell factor. J Biol Chem 277: 1645–1648, 2002.
28. Lin J, Wu H, Tarr PT, Zhang CY, Wu Z, Boss O, Michael LF, Puigserver P, Isotani E, Olson EN, Lowell BB, Bassel-Duby R, and Spiegelman BM. Transcriptional co-activator PGC1 drives the formation of slow-twitch muscle fibres. Nature 418: 797–801, 2002.[CrossRef][Medline]
29. Lin J, Tarr PT, Yang R, Rhee J, Puigserver P, Newgard CB, and Spiegelman BM. PGC1beta in the regulation of hepatic glucose and energy metabolism. J Biol Chem 278: 30843–30848, 2003.
30. Lyons CN, Leary SC, and Moyes CD. Bioenergetic remodeling during cellular differentiation: influence of changes in cytochrome c oxidase regulation. Biochem Cell Biol 82: 391–399, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
31. Martin ME, Chinenov Y, Yu M, Schmidt TK, and Yang XY. Redox regulation of GA-binding protein- DNA binding activity. J Biol Chem 271: 25617–25623, 1996.
32. McClelland GB, Kraft CS, Michaud D, Russell JC, Mueller CR, and Moyes CD. Leptin and the control of respiratory gene expression in muscle. Biochim Biophys Acta 1688: 86–93, 2004.[Medline]
33. Moyes CD and Hood DA. Origins and consequences of mitochondrial variation in vertebrate muscle. Annu Rev Physiol 65: 23–47, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
34. Moyes CD, Mathieu-Costello OA, Tsuchiya N, Filburn C, and Hansford RG. Mitochondrial biogenesis during cellular differentiation. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 272: C1345–C1351, 1997.
35. Pan X, Solomon SS, Shah RJ, Palazzolo MR, and Raghow RS. Members of the Sp transcription family regulate rat calmodulin gene expression. J Lab Clin Med 136: 157–163, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
36. Puigserver P and Spiegelman BM. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor- coactivator 1 (PGC1): transcriptional coactivator and metabolic regulator. Endocr Rev 24: 78–90, 2003.
37. Quandt K, Frech K, Karas H, Wingender E, and Werner T. MatInd and MatInspector–new fast and versatile tools for detection of consensus matches in nucleotide sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res 23: 4878–4884, 1995.
38. Sapetschnig A, Rischitor G, Braun H, Doll A, Schergaut M, Melchior F, and Suske G. Transcription factor Sp3 is silenced through SUMO modification by PIAS1. EMBO J 21: 5206–5215, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
39. Scarpulla RC. Transcriptional activators and coactivators in the nuclear control of mitochondrial function in mammalian cells. Gene 286: 81–89, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
40. Scarpulla RC. Nuclear activators and coactivators in mammalian mitochondrial biogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta 1576: 1–14, 2002.[Medline]
41. Schug J and Overton GC. TESS: Transcription Element Search Software on the WWW. Philadelphia, PA: Computational Biology and Informatics Laboratory, School of Medicine, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1997 (technical report CBIL-TR-1997-1001-v0.0).
42. Tan NS, Michalik L, Desvergne B, and Wahli W. Multiple expression control mechanisms of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors and their target genes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 93: 99–105, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
43. Vallejo CG, Escriva H, and Rodriguez-Pena A. Evidence of tissue-specific, post-transcriptional regulation of NRF-2 expression. Biochimie 82: 1129–1133, 2000.[Medline]
44. Viñals F, Fandos C, Santalucia T, Ferréy J, Testar X, Palacín M, and Zorzano A. Myogenesis and MyoD down-regulate Sp1: a mechanism for the repression of GLUT1 during muscle cell differentiation. J Biol Chem 272: 12913–12921, 1997.
45. Wan B and Moreadith RW. Structural characterization and regulatory element analysis of the heart isoform of cytochrome c oxidase VIa. J Biol Chem 270: 26433–26440, 1995.
46. Wingender E, Chen X, Hehl R, Karas H, Liebich I, MatysV, Meinhardt T, Prüss M, Reuter I, and Schacherer F. TRANSFAC: an integrated system for gene expression regulation. Nucleic Acids Res 28: 316–319, 2000.
47. Zaid A, Li R, Luciakova K, Barath P, Nery S, and Nelson BD. On the role of the general transcription factor Sp1 in the activation and repression of diverse mammalian oxidative phosphorylation genes. J Bioenerg Biomembr 31: 129–135, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. E. Jahnke, O. Sabido, and D. Freyssenet Control of mitochondrial biogenesis, ROS level, and cytosolic Ca2+ concentration during the cell cycle and the onset of differentiation in L6E9 myoblasts Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, May 1, 2009; 296(5): C1185 - C1194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Chen, X. Shi, R. Padmanabhan, Q. Wang, Z. Wu, S. C. Stevenson, M. Hild, D. Garza, and H. Li Identification of novel modulators of mitochondrial function by a genome-wide RNAi screen in Drosophila melanogaster Genome Res., January 1, 2008; 18(1): 123 - 136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Vergani, A. Malena, P. Sabatelli, E. Loro, L. Cavallini, P. Magalhaes, L. Valente, F. Bragantini, F. Carrara, B. Leger, et al. Cultured muscle cells display defects of mitochondrial myopathy ameliorated by anti-oxidants Brain, October 1, 2007; 130(10): 2715 - 2724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
