Abstract
Estrogen receptors (ERs) are critical regulators of breast cancer development. Identification of molecules that regulate the function of ERs may facilitate the development of more effective breast cancer treatment strategies. In this study, we showed that the forkhead transcription factor FOXK2 interacted with ERα and inhibited ERα-regulated transcriptional activities by enhancing the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of ERα. This process involved the interaction between FOXK2 and BRCA1/BARD1, the E3 ubiquitin ligase of ERα. FOXK2 interacted with BARD1 and acted as a scaffold protein for BRCA1/BARD1 and ERα, leading to enhanced degradation of ERα, which eventually accounted for its decreased transcriptional activity. Consistent with these observations, overexpression of FOXK2 inhibited the transcriptional activity of ERα, decreased the transcription of ERα target genes and suppressed the proliferation of ERα-positive breast cancer cells. In contract, knockdown of FOXK2 in MCF-7 cells promoted cell proliferation. However, when ERα was also knocked down, knockdown of FOXK2 had no effect on cell proliferation. These findings suggested that FOXK2 might act as a negative regulator of ERα and its association with both ERα and BRCA1/BARD1 could lead to the down-regulation of ERα transcriptional activity, effectively regulating the function of ERα.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Breast cancer, the most common form of malignant disease among women, has become the second leading cause of cancer death1. The common risk factors for breast cancer include family history, reproductive factors, dietary factors and estrogen2. Among them, estrogen has been recognized as a key carcinogenic factor in the initiation and progression of breast cancer. Longer exposures to estrogen result in an increased risk of breast cancer3. Estrogen exerts its physiological function through binding with ERs, which then forms a dimer and binds to estrogen-responsive elements (EREs) in the promoters of the target genes to regulate their expressions. There are two isoforms of ERs and these are ERα and ERβ. ERα is closely associated with the development of ER-positive breast cancer4. Nearly 70% of breast cancer express ERα and are estrogen dependent5. Clinically, ERα is viewed as a valuable predictive and prognostic factor for breast cancer treatment. Consequently, inhibition of ERα has become one of the major strategies for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. Currently, ERα is a major target for endocrine therapy6. Multiple cellular and molecular events can regulate ERα function, such as genic mutation, epigenetic modification, or direct interaction with corepressor proteins that repress ER-α-mediated transcriptional activity7. However, the detailed mechanism involved in the regulation of ERα function is still inconclusive and this appears to restrict our understanding on the pathogenesis of ERα-positive breast cancer. Thus it is extremely important to gain further insight into how ERα function is regulated.
Numerous studies have shown that ERα is tightly regulated by post-translational modifications (PTMs), such as phosphorylation, methylation, acetylation, sumoylation and ubiquitination8,9,10,11,12. In these PTMs, ubiquitination can down-regulate the protein level of ERα and suppress its transcriptional activity13. Ubiquitination involves several steps and three well-known enzymes called ubiquitin activating enzyme (E1), ubiquitin conjugating enzyme (E2) and ubiquitin ligases (E3). Among the three enzymes, only E3 ubiquitin ligases physically interact with their substrates and therefore confer some degree of specificity. Several E3 ubiquitin ligases are known to associate with the ubiquitination of ERα, include the C terminus of Hsc70-interacting protein (CHIP), Breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein (BRCA1)/BRCA1-associated RING domain protein 1 (BARD1), murine double minute 2 (MDM2) and ring finger protein (RNF31)13,14,15,16. Among them, BRCA1/BARD1 complex is a well-known E3 ubiquitin ligase and it has been widely investigated. BRCA1/BARD1 plays important roles in DNA-damage response and tumor suppression through degrading a set of substrates such as RNA pol II and FANCD2 in addition to ERα17.
Forkhead box K2 (FOXK2), also known as ILF or ILF1, is one of the forkhead transcription factors that contain a conserved forkhead winged helix-turn-helix DNA binding domain (FOX domain). It was first identified as a regulator of IL-2 transcription, where it acts as a transcriptional repressor18. In common with other forkhead transcription factors, FOXK2 contains a FOX domain in addition to a FHA domain that mediates its interaction with other proteins. The function of FOXK2 is regulated by the CDK1/Cyclin B kinase complex which modulates its stability and activity19. FOXK2 interacts with AP-1 and promotes the binding of AP-1 to chromatin, resulting in the up-regulation of AP-1-dependent gene expression20. It can also bind to G/T-mismatch DNA and initiate the process of DNA mismatch repair21. FOXA1, another member of the forkhead transcription factors, has been shown to interact with ERα via its FOX domain and mediates the recruitment of ERα to chromatin, leading to the up-regulation of ERα target genes22. Other members of this protein family, such as FOXO3a can also interact with ERα via its FOX domain, but its action inhibits ERα transcriptional activities, causing a down-regulation in the expression of ERs target genes and suppression of the proliferation of ERα-positive breast cancer cells6. Both FOXA1 and FOXO3a can interact with ERα via their FOX domains, but they exert completely different effects on the regulation of ERα. This suggests that FOX domain just mediates the interaction of forkhead proteins with ERα, whereas other domains in their structures may affect ERα function. FOXK2 contains a conserved FOX domain and our preliminary data have shown that FOXK2 can inhibit the transcriptional activity of ERα. We therefore wanted to know whether FOXK2 can interact with ERα and regulate its function.
In this report, we observed a negative correlation between ERα and FOXK2 in human breast cancer. We demonstrated that FOXK2 could interact with ERα via the region containing FOX domain (amino acids 128 to 353), leading to lower protein stability for ERα and inhibition of its transcriptional activity. Such regulation of ERα by FOXK2 occurred via a mechanism that involved BRCA1/BARD1. We also showed that FOXK2 could suppress ERα-mediated proliferation of breast cancer cells. Taken together, our data suggested that FOXK2 might act as a negative regulator of ERα.
Results
FOXK2 is associated with ERα in human breast cancer
Aberrant ERα signaling is known to play an important role in the occurrence of ERα-positive breast cancer. However, little is known about the role of FOXK2 in tumorigenesis of breast cancer. In order to examine the relationship between FOXK2 and ERα in breast cancer, we compared the protein levels of FOXK2 and ERα in the breast cancer specimens (Fig. 1a). A total of 53 breast tumor specimens (27 ERα-positive and 26 ERα-negative) were analyzed by immunohistochemical assay. According to the comparison of H-score, seventeen of the ERα-positive samples (63%) showed low FOXK2 expression, whereas only eight of the ERα-negative samples (31%) showed low FOXK2 expression (Fig. 1b). We also examined the protein levels of endogenous ERα and FOXK2 in various breast cancer cell lines. As shown in Fig. 1c, the levels of FOXK2 expression in the ERα-positive breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7, T47D, ZR-51-30 and BT474) were significantly lower than that in ERα-negative breast cancer cell lines (MDA-MB-231 and Bcap-37). Taken together, these results suggested that a negative correlation existed between ERα and FOXK2 in breast cancer.
FOXK2 interacts with ERα in breast cancer cells
In breast cancer cells, FOXA1 and FOXO3a can regulate the function of ERα via their FOX domains and since FOXK2 also contains a conserved FOX domain, we speculated that it too may interact with ERα. In order to investigate this possibility, we performed co-immunoprecipitation experiments in two different cell lines (MCF-7 and T47D) using either anti-FOXK2 or anti-ERα antibody. A positive interaction between endogenous FOXK2 and ERα was evident in MCF-7 and T47D cells (Figs. 2a and 2b). Similar co-precipitation of FOXK2 and ERα were obtained when the same immunoprecipitation experiment was carried out in HEK 293T cells that were transfected with EGFP-FOXK2 and Flag-ERα (Fig. 2c). The interaction between FOXK2 and ERα was confirmed using mammalian two-hybrid system. Transactivation by pBIND–ERα was evident by co-expressing a pACT–FOXK2 fusion protein (Fig. 2d). Moreover, GST pull-down assay further confirmed the interaction between FOXK2 Δ1 and ERα in vitro (Fig. 2e). Double-label fluorescence immunohistochemistry carried out in MCF-7 cells showed that both of FOXK2 and ERα were localized in the nucleus (Fig. 2f), further strengthening our speculation that FOXK2 may directly participate in the estrogen signaling pathway. To elucidate the region of FOXK2 that might mediate the interaction between FOXK2 and ERα, HEK 293T cells were transfected with EGFP-tagged ERα together with Flag-tagged full-length FOXK2 (FOXK2 FL) or mutant FOXK2 (FOXK2 Δ1 contained FHA and FOX domains, FOXK2 Δ2 contained FHA domain, FOXK2 Δ3 contained FOX domain and FOXK2 Δ4 contained C-terminal tail domain). The transfected cells were subjected to immunoprecipitation carried out with anti-GFP antibody, followed by Western blot with anti-Flag antibody. Positive interactions were obtained only between ERα and FOXK2 FL or Δ1 or Δ3, but not with ERα and FOXK2 Δ2 or Δ4 (Fig. 2g), indicating that the region containing the FOX domain (amino acids 128 to 353) mediated the interaction between FOXK2 and ERα and probably exerted an important effect on the regulation of ERα.
FOXK2 decreases ERα protein level by promoting its ubiquitin-dependent degradation
Given that there was a negative correlation between ERα and FOXK2 in human breast cancer, we speculated that there may be a causal relationship between FOXK2 and ERα at the protein level. To investigate this possibility, MCF-7 cells were transfected with a control vector or His-Flag-FOXK2 and their endogenous levels of ERα were compared by Western blot. Overexpression of FOXK2 resulted in reduced ERα protein level (Fig. 3a). Considering that this could be also due to changes in level of ERα transcript, changes in ERα mRNA levels in MCF-7 cells were then examined. Real-time PCR analysis showed that overexpression of FOXK2 had no effect on the level of ERα mRNA (Fig. 3b). Furthermore, knockdown of FOXK2 by siRNA pool (with four individual siRNAs targeting FOXK2 gene) increased the endogenous ERα protein level (Fig. 3c) without changing the level of ERα mRNA in MCF-7 cells (Fig. 3d), suggesting that the reduced level of ERα protein caused by FOXK2 was due to the change in ERα protein stability. Considering the stability of ERα is known to be regulated by proteasome-mediated degradation23,24, the effect of overexpression of FOXK2 on the stability of ERα was further examined in the absence and presence of MG132, a proteasome inhibitor. In the absence of MG132, the protein level of endogenous ERα decreased with increasing dosages of FOXK2, whereas in the presence of MG132, the levels were similar among regardless of the dosages of FOXK2 (Fig. 3e), suggesting that MG132 could inhibit the proteasome-dependent degradation of ERα promoted by FOXK2. The half-life of ERα in MCF-7 cells transfected with or without wild-type FOXK2 was determined after the cells were treated with cycloheximide, an inhibitor of protein biosynthesis. The results demonstrated that overexpression of FOXK2 shortened the half-life of ERα from 11 h to 5 h (Fig. 3f) and increased the ubiquitination of ERα (Fig. 3g). Taken together, these results suggested that FOXK2 could decrease the stability of ERα through promoting its ubiquitin-dependent degradation.
FOXK2 interacts with BARD1 and increases the ubiquitination of ERα
Protein sequence analysis showed that FOXK2 did not have the RING, U-box and HECT domains, which are catalytic domains of ubiquitin E3 ligase and therefore FOXK2 may not function as an ubiquitin E3 ligase. So we speculated that FOXK2 may increase the ubiquitination of ERα through interaction with other E3 ligases. In order to examine which ubiquitin E3 ligase is involved in FOXK2-promoted ubiquitination of ERα, we examined the interaction between FOXK2 and the ubiquitin E3 ligases of ERα. Co-immunoprecipitation experiments revealed a positive interaction between FOXK2 and BARD1 (Fig. 4a), whereas no interaction between FOXK2 and CHIP or FOXK2 and MDM2 was observed (Fig. 4b and 4c), suggesting that BRCA1/BARD1 might participate in FOXK2-mediated degradation of ERα. To further confirm the interaction of FOXK2 with BARD1, we performed co-immunoprecipitation experiment using MCF-7 cells and either anti-FOXK2 or anti-BARD1 antibody. A positive interaction between endogenous FOXK2 and BARD1 was observed (Fig. 4d). To map the region of FOXK2 that interacted with BARD1, we performed the same experiment for the different truncated FOXK2 mutants. Positive interaction was seen between BARD1 and FOXK2 FL or Δ1 or Δ2, whereas no interaction was detected between BARD1 and FOXK2 Δ3 or Δ4 (Fig. 4e), suggesting that the interaction of FOXK2 and BARD1 was mediated by the amino-terminal region containing FHA domain (amino acids 1 to 128) of FOXK2. Double-label fluorescence immunohistochemistry further revealed that both FOXK2 and BARD1 were localized in the nucleus of the cell (Fig. 4f). Given that FOXK2 could interact with both ERα and BARD1, we speculated that an ERα-FOXK2-BARD1 complex might exist. To investigate this possibility, we performed re-immunoprecipitation and Western blot assay. A band was detected when extract of MCF-7 cells that overexpressed Flag-ERα and HA-BARD1 was probed with anti-FOXK2 antibody (Fig. 4g), indicating the existence of ERα-FOXK2-BARD1 complex. We further examined whether FOXK2 could affect the interaction of ERα with BARD1. The results showed that overexpression of FOXK2 enhanced the interaction between ERα and BARD1 (Fig. 4h), whereas knockdown of FOXK2 by siRNA decreased this interaction (Fig. 4i), indicating that FOXK2 probably acted as a scaffold protein to enhance the interaction of BRCA1/BARD1 with ERα. Next, we examined the effect of FOXK2 on BARD1-mediated ubiquitination of ERα. As shown in Fig. 4j, both FOXK2 and BARD1 enhanced the ubiquitination of ERα, with the extent of ubiquitination being enhanced when both FOXK2 and BARD1 were overexpressed. In contrast, knockdown of FOXK2 decreased the ubiquitination of ERα. Taken together, these results suggested that FOXK2 probably facilitated the interaction of ERα with its ubiquitin E3 ligase BRCA1/BARD1 complex, therefore, promoting the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of ERα.
FOXK2 suppresses the transcriptional activity of ERα
FOXK2-promoted degradation of ERα was expected to have a negative effect on the transcriptional activity of ERα. Therefore, the effect of FOXK2 on the transcriptional activity of ERα was determined by using a reporter gene construct consisting of estrogen responsive element-luciferase (ERE-luc). MCF-7 and T47D cells were transfected with the ERE-luc construct and ERα only, or ERE-luc, ERα and FOXK2 and the level of reporter activity in these cells was measured following treatment with or without 17β-estradiol (E2). As shown in Fig. 5a, in the presence of E2 treatment, ERE-luc activity was highest when the cells overexpressed ERα alone. However, when these cells also overexpressed FOXK2, the level of ERE-luc activity was significantly reduced in a dose-dependent manner. Indeed, FOXK2 could both inhibit the transcriptional activity of ERα in the absence and presence of E2 treatment. These results corresponded to the reduction of ERα protein detected by Western blot (Fig. 3e). Cyclin D1 is a classical ERα-targeted gene and its promoter contains EREs. Similar results were obtained when the same experiment was carried out using MCF-7 and T47D cells that were transfected with Cyclin D1-luc, Flag-ERα and His-Flag-FOXK2 with or without E2 treatment (Fig. 5b). Next, we detected the effect of different FOXK2 constructs on the transcriptional activity of ERα using MCF-7 and T47D cells. Luciferase reporter assay showed that the transcriptional activity of ERα in cells transfected with FOXK2 FL significantly decreased compared to non-transfected cells; the transcriptional activity of ERα in cells transfected with FOXK2 Δ1 was similar to that in cells transfected with FOXK2 FL, whereas the transcriptional activity of ERα in cells transfected with FOXK2 Δ2 and Δ3 increased significantly, compared with that in cells transfected with FOXK2 Δ1 both in the cases of MCF-7 and T47D cells (Fig. 5c and 5d). Furthermore, we examined the ability of FOXK2 to regulate the expression of the well-established ERα-targeted genes (Cyclin D1 and GREB1) in MCF-7 cells. Real-time PCR analysis showed that overexpression of FOXK2 reduced the mRNA levels of both Cyclin D1 and GREB1 (Fig. 5e). Taken together, these results showed that FOXK2 might suppress the transcriptional activity of ERα through promoting its degradation and in doing so, it caused the down-regulation of the expression of ERα target genes.
FOXK2 suppresses ERα-mediated growth of breast cancer cell
As FOXK2 was able to interact with ERα and regulate its function, it may in fact affect ERα-mediated proliferation of breast cancer cells, especially since ERα is known to play a major role in the proliferation of breast cancer. Crystal violet staining assay showed that MCF-7 cells transfected with Flag-ERα produced more colonies than cells that were transfected with an empty vector (control cells) or cells that were transfected with both Flag-ERα and His-Flag-FOXK2 (Fig. 6a). In contrast, knockdown of ERα decreased, whereas knockdown of FOXK2 increased the colony numbers of MCF-7 cells compared with the control groups, whereas knockdown of FOXK2 increased the colony numbers of MCF-7 cells compared with control group. However when ERα was also knocked down, knockdown of FOXK2 had no effect on cell proliferation (Fig. 6b). We also examined the effect of FOXK2 on cell viability. Growth of both MCF-7 and T47D cells was inhibited when these cells were transfected with FOXK2 and cultured either in the absence of presence of E2 (Fig. 6c). The effect of FOXK2 on the cell-cycle was also investigated. MCF-7 cells transfected with either Flag-ERα or His-Flag-FOXK2 or both were subjected to flow cytometry analysis to evaluate the cell cycle profile of asynchronous cells. Cells transfected with ERα showed an overall increase in the percentage of cells in the S phase, with a corresponding reduction in the percentage of cells in G0/G1 phase compared with control cells (Fig. 6d). In contrast, the percentage of cells in the S phase decreased for cells transfected with FOXK2 decreased the percentage of S phase cells compared with control cells. When the cells were transfected with both ERα and FOXK2, the percentage of S phase cells decreased compared with cells only transfected with ERα. Taken together, these results suggested that FOXK2 could suppress the growth of breast cancer cells through its modulation of ERα.
Discussion
Growing evidence has shown that ERα plays a key role in the initiation and development of breast cancer and this has made ERα a valuable predictive and prognostic biomarker for the treatment of breast cancer25,26,27. However, much of the detailed mechanism involved in the regulation of ERα function is still unclear and this appears to restrict our understanding of the pathogenesis of ERα-positive breast cancer. Thus it is important to gain further insight into how ERα function is regulated. In this study, we focused on the role of FOXK2 in ERα-positive breast cancer cells as this would allow us to investigate the connection between FOXK2 and ERα in breast cancer and to interpret this connection in terms of its significance in biological function.
The forkhead transcription factors are an evolutionarily conserved family of proteins. In mammals, there are over 40 different forkhead transcription factors and these proteins control several cellular processes, including growth, development, proliferation and cell cycle through regulating the expression of their target genes28,29,30. Forkhead transcription factors also interact with other transcription factors and regulate their functions, such as the co-association of FOXA1 with ER and AR22,31, FOXO3a with ERα and ERβ7, FOXM1 with Sp132 and p5333 and FOXO1A with HoxA-1134. The data from breast tumor specimens that we analyzed indicated a negative correlation between FOXK2 and ERα (Fig. 1). Furthermore, the data from coimmunoprecipitation, mammalian two hybrid system and GST pull-down assay clearly revealed that FOXK2 interacted with ERα (Figs. 2a–e), although we could not conclude from our data whether FOXK2 and ERα directly interact with each other or via some an accessory element. The interaction was obvious and real and subsequent reporter gene assay showed that FOXK2 suppressed the transcriptional activity of ERα and it achieved this through affecting its protein stability rather than its gene expression (Figs. 5a–d). The mechanism may stem from FOXK2 playing a structural role, such as stabilizing the protein complex, thereby making ERα more readily for ubiquitination. In the case of FOXO3a, its interaction with ERα has been demonstrated to occur via its FOX domain and this interaction also results in the inhibition of ERα transcriptional activity7. However, whether FOXO3a affects ERα at the level of protein or gene was not demonstrated. We not only identified the exact domain of FOXK2 that interacted with ERα, but also showed that such interaction led to enhanced the degradation of ERα via the proteasome and hence, its loss of transcriptional activity.
Ubiquitin-dependent protein degradation plays an important role in many basic cellular functions through regulating different cell regulators, such as tumor regulators, transcriptional factors and cell surface receptors35,36. Before the target protein is degradated by 26S proteasome, it must be attached conjugated to ubiquitin, a process that is catalyzed by an E3 ubiquitin ligase37,38,39,40. FOXK2 lacks the catalytic domains of ubiquitin E3 ligase and does not have the function of ubiquitin E3 ligase. Thus we speculated that FOXK2 may increase the ubiquitination of ERα through regulating the interaction between ERα and its E3 ligases. Indeed, FOXK2 interacted with BARD1 and thus, the BRCA1/BARD1 complex could be responsible for the degradation of ERα. If so, then FOXK2 would appear to mediate the degradation of ERα via an accessory protein, BARD1. Furthermore, FOXK2 interacted with ERα and BARD1 at different domains (Figs. 2e and 4d), suggesting that the interaction was rather specific in each case. The involvement of BARD1 in FOXK2-regulated ERα activity was clearly supported by the data which showed that overexpression of FOXK2 promoted the interaction between BARD1 and ERα (Fig. 4h), whereas knockdown of FOXK2 weakened their interaction (Fig. 4i).
ERα is a member of the steroid hormone receptor superfamily of ligand-activated transcription factors. As a transcription factor, ERα plays a crucial role in regulating the normal function of reproductive tissues and proliferation of epithelial cells. It also plays an important role in the genesis and malignant progression of breast cancer. Aberrant activation of ERα contributes to tumorigenesis of the breast by up-regulating its target genes such as TFF1, SDF-1, Cyclin D1 and GREB141,42,43,44,45. Among them, Cyclin D1 is a major regulator that governs the entrance of a cell into the proliferative stage of the cell cycle and its expression is regulated by ERα, which mediates its proliferative action on mammary cancer cells44. Thus, there is a strong correlation between increased proliferative response and increased levels of Cyclin D1 mRNA and this could be seen from the increased levels of ERα in MCF-7 cells that stably expressed ERα compared to control cells (no overexpression of ERα46. Our data here that the mRNA level of Cyclin D1 was up-regulated in MCF-7 cells following treatment with E2, whereas this up-regulation was inhibited when the cells overexpressed FOXK2. The up-regulation of GREB1 mRNA level was also inhibited by FOXK2 (Fig. 5e) and was consistent with the result obtained for Cycline D1. This indicated that FOXK2 could suppress the transcriptional activity of ERα, which would effectively down-regulate the expression of genes that are regulated by ERα.
Since FOXK2 could act as a negative regulator of ERα, we expected it to play a role in ERα-mediated cell proliferation. According to our data, either overexpression of ERα alone or knockdown of FOXK2 in MCF-7 cells could result in significant increases in cell number compared to control cells (no overexpression or knockdown of exogenous ERα or FOXK2) (Fig. 6a and 6b). This clearly showed that increase in the level of ERα activity resulting either from increased expression of the gene from exogenous source or from crippling FOXK2 (which had the effect of amplifying ERα activity) would ultimately lead to increased cell growth. A similar trend was observed in the cell viability assay (Fig. 6c). Furthermore, FOXK2 appeared to suppress ERα-mediated proliferation of breast cancer cells through inhibiting cell cycle progression (Fig. 6d).
In conclusion, we showed in this study that FOXK2 negatively regulated the function of ERα through enhancing its degradation via the proteasome and identified the ubiquitin E3 ligase BRCA1/BARD1 complex as an important contributing factor. This negative regulation of ERα by FOXK2 would disrupt the ERα-mediated cell growth and in the case of breast cancer cells, it would mean a reduction in cell proliferation and possibly, the spread of cancer cells. However, since ERα is also needed for the normal functioning of the cell, targeting it with a negative regulator gene that would result in its degradation is not an ideal strategy for combating breast cancer, even for ERα-positive breast cancer. Therefore, further work is desirable, such as more in depth investigation of the molecular interaction between FOXK2 and ERα and their effect on normal cells.
Methods
Ethics statement
The study involving human participants was approved by the institutional review board of Dalian University of Technology. Written consent was obtained from all the participants. The methods were carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines. All clinical research was performed on the basis of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Plasmids and antibodies
His-Flag-tagged FOXK2 and EGFP-FOXK2 were gifts kindly provided by Dr. Andrew D. Sharrocks (University of Manchester). HA-BARD1 was a gift kindly provided by Tomohiko Ohta (St. Marianna University). Cyclin D1-luc was kindly provided by Dr. Robert Weinberg (Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research). Flag-tagged full-length and truncated FOXK2 (Δ1, Δ2, Δ3 and Δ4) were constructed according to standard PCR-based cloning procedures using His-Flag-FOXK2 as templates. PCR fragments were inserted into pcDNA3.1-3×Flag at the BamHI and HindIII sites. Plasmid encoding GST-fusion protein was prepared by standard PCR methods using His-Flag-FOXK2 as templates and the PCR fragment was cloned in frame into pGEX-4T3 (Amersham Pharmacia) at the BamHI and SalI sites. SMARTpool® siRNAs (Control, ERα and FOXK2) with four individual siRNAs targeting a single gene were obtained from Thermo (USA).
Rabbit polyclonal anti-Flag, anti-HA, anti-ERα, anti-GFP, anti-IgG and mouse monoclonal anti-Actin antibodies were obtained from Santa Cruz Biotechnology (Santa Cruz, CA). Mouse monoclonal anti-ERα and anti-GST antibodies were obtained from Millipore. Mouse monoclonal anti-HA and anti-GFP antibodies were obtained from GeneTex. Rabbit polyclonal anti-c-Myc and mouse monoclonal anti-Flag (M2) antibodies were purchased from Sigma. Goat polyclonal anti-FOXK2 (ILF1, ab5298) and rabbit polyclonal anti-FOXK2 (ILF1, ab84761) antibodies were obtained from Abcam. Rabbit polyclonal anti-BARD1 antibody was obtained from BIOSS (Beijing, China). Rabbit polyclonal anti-MDM2 antibodies were obtained from Sangon (Shanghai, China). Cycloheximide was obtained from Sigma and MG132 was obtained from Merck.
Cell culture and transfection
HEK 293T, MCF-7, Bcap-37, MDA-MB-231 and T47D cells had been used in our previous study47,48. ZR-51-30 and BT474 cells were obtained from the cell bank of the Shanghai branch of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Unless other stated, all cell cultures were incubated at 37°C in the presence of 5% CO2. HEK 293T, MCF-7, Bcap-37, MDA-MB-231 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM, Invitrogen) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone) and penicillin-streptomycin (100 U/ml penicillin and 0.1 mg/ml streptomycin). ZR-51-30 and BT474 cells were maintained in Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) 1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, penicillin-streptomycin. T47D cells were maintained in Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) 1640 medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, penicillin-streptomycin and insulin (5 g/ml). For E2 stimulation experiments, MCF-7 and T47D cells were subjected to serum starvation for 24 h in 2% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum (Gibico) and phenol red free medium and then treated with or without 10 nM E2 for 16 h. Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) was used for cell transfection. Corresponding empty vectors were used in each transfection experiment to guarantee the same amount of plasmids for all parallel groups. All transfection experiments were transient transfection.
Immunoprecipitation and Western blot
Cells were harvested and then lysed in a cold hypotonic buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% SDS, 1% NP-40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate and a mixture of protease inhibitors. After centrifugation at 10000 × g/4°C for 10 min, the supernatant was incubated with the desired antibody or with control IgG and protein A-Sepharose (Amersham Biosciences) or protein G-Sepharose (Santa Cruz, CA) at 4°C for overnight. After that, the sample was centrifuged at 5000 × g/4°C for 10 min and the pellet was washed twice with Washing Buffer I (50 mM Tris–HCl [pH 7.5], 150 mM sodium chloride, 1% NP-40 and 0.05% sodium deoxycholate) and once with Washing Buffer II (50 mM Tris–HCl [pH 7.5], 500 mM sodium chloride, 0.1% NP-40 and 0.05% sodium deoxycholate) and then subjected to SDS-PAGE. After electrophoresis, protein bands in the gel were transferred to PVDF membrane (Millipore) and probed with the specified primary antibody, followed by the appropriate secondary antibody and then visualized using the enhanced chemiluminescence detection reagents (Thermo). Immunoblot data were quantified by scanning the appropriate bands of interest and plotted as relative density of gray scale. Re-immunoprecipitation was conducted as previously described49.
Immunofluorescence staining
MCF-7 cells were cultured for overnight on cover slips. After 24 h, the cells were fixed in 1% paraformaldehyde for 15 min at room temperature, permeabilized with methanol for 40 min at −20°C and then blocked with 0.8% BSA for 1 h at 4°C. The cells were then incubated with appropriate antibodies at 4°C for overnight, followed by further incubation with TRITC-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG for 1 h. The cover slips were then mounted on glass slides with mounting medium containing 49, 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI). Images were taken with a confocal fluorescence microscope (Olympus FV1000-IX81, Tokyo, Japan).
Immunohistochemical assay
A total of 53 breast cancer specimens were obtained from female patients of Han Chinese descent, with a median age of 59.1 years, ranging from 39 to 78 years. Out of 53 specimens, 27 were ERα-positive and 26 were ERα-negative as determined by clinical diagnosis performed by Qiqihar Medical University. Sections (4 micrometers thickness) of the obtained specimens were cut out and used for immunohistochemical analysis. The immunohistochemical assay kit was obtained from Maixin Bio. Immunohistochemical assay was conducted as previously described50. The primary antibodies used in immunohistochemical assay were rabbit anti-human FOXK2 and mouse anti-human ERα. The levels of FOXK2 and ERα expression were quantified according to their H-scores51. ERα was considered positive if the H-score was more than 152,53. The median H-score of all samples was used as a cutoff for grouping the samples into high or low FOXK2 expression category54.
Luciferase reporter assay
Cells were cultured in a 24-well plate for 24 h. The cells were then transfected with the appropriate plasmid construct using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen). Eighteen hours after transfection, the medium was replaced with phenol red-free medium containing 2% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum for 24 h, followed by treatment with or without 10 nM E2 for 16 h. The cells were harvested and Luc reporter assay was performed in accordance to the manufacturer's instructions (Promega, Madison, WI, USA).
Mammalian two hybrid assay
The checkmate TM mammalian two-hybrid system was obtained from Promega. ERα and FOXK2 were subcloned into BamHI–SalI cut pACT and pBIND, respectively.
GST pull-down assay
The GST alone and GST fusion protein were expressed in E. coli BL21 (Takara) and purified by Pierce GST Spin Purification Kit (Thermo scientific). GST pull-down assay was performed using a Pierce GST Protein Interaction Pull-Down Kit (Thermo scientific). The purified GST-tagged fusion protein (BAIT) was immobilized on the Pierce Spin Column. MCF-7 cells were lysed in pull-down lysis buffer containing DNase (Takara). The supernatant was loaded onto the Pierce Spin Column and then incubated at 4°C for 2 hour with gentle agitation. The column was centrifuged at 1250 × g for 1 minute and the flow through was discarded. Then the column was washed five times using wash solution. Elution buffer was added to the column followed by 5-min incubation with gentle agitation. After that, the column was centrifuged at 1250 × g for 1 minute and the eluent was subjected to Western blot assay.
Cell growth assays
MTT and Flow Cytometry assays were performed as previously described47,54. For Flow Cytometry assay, MCF-7 cells transfected with different plasmids were stained with propidium iodide (PI) (BD Pharmingen, CA). Experimental data were collected by FACSCalibur (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA, USA). Cell cycle profiles were determined using ModFit LT (BD Biosciences). For crystal violet staining assay, MCF-7 cells transfected with the appropriate plasmids were transferred to 35 mm plate and were cultured until the recognizable clones appeared. Then, the cells were stained with crystal violet for 30 min at room temperature.
Real-time PCR
MCF-7 cells were transfected with appropriate plasmids. Twenty four hours after transfection, the cells were replaced with phenol red-free medium containing 2% charcoal-stripped fetal bovine serum for 24 h, then treated with or without 10 nM E2 for 16 h. Total RNA was isolated from the cells using TRIzol reagent (Takara) and then subjected to reverse transcription with oligo(dT)15. The mRNA levels of ERα, Cyclin D1, GREB1 and GADPH (as an internal control) were quantitated by real-time PCR using Corbett Research RG 3000 analyzer (Australia), Maxima SYBR Green/ROX qPCR (Thermo Scientific). The following primer sequences were used: ERα: 5′-ACTCGCTACTGTGCAGTGTGCAAT (forward) and 5′-CCTCTTCGGTCTTTTCGTATCCCA (reverse); Cyclin D1: 5′-GCTGCTCCTGGTGAACAAGC (forward) and 5′-AAGTGTTCAATGAAATCGTGCG (reverse); GREB1: 5′-CAGGCTTTTGCACCGAATCT (forward) and 5′-CAAAGCGTGTCGTCTTCAGCT (reverse); GADPH: 5′-GGGTTGAACCATGAGAAGT (forward) and 5′-GACTGTGGTCATGAGTCCT (reverse). The mRNA levels of ERα, Cyclin D1 and GREB1 were normalized against GAPDH, which served as an endogenous control. Each gene was measured in triplicate.
Statistical analysis
A Chi-square (χ2) test was used to examine the correlation between FOXK2 and ERα gene expression in breast cancer tissues from 53 patients. All statistical analyses of other data were performed with ANOVA, followed by the Bonferroni test for pairwise comparisons55,56. Data were given as means ± SDs and significance was considered at the P value < 0.05 level.
References
Wang, M. et al. AIB1 cooperates with ERα to promote epithelial mesenchymal transition in breast cancer through SNAL1 activation. PLoS One 8, e65556 (2012).
Asif, H. M. et al. Prevalence, risk factors and disease knowledge of breast cancer in Pakistan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15, 4411–4416 (2014).
Platet, N., Cathiard, A. M., Gleizes, M. & Garcia, M. Estrogens and their receptors in breast cancer progression: a dual role in cancer proliferation and invasion. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol 51, 55–67 (2004).
Li, S. et al. CLOCK is a substrate of SUMO and sumoylation of CLOCK upregulates the transcriptional activity of estrogen receptor-alpha. Oncogene 32, 4883–4891 (2013).
Panno, M. L. et al. Bergapten induces ER depletion in breast cancer cells through SMAD4-mediated ubiquitination. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136, 443–455 (2012).
Keen, J. C. & Davidson, N. E. The biology of breast carcinoma. Cancer 97, 825–833 (2003).
Zou, Y. et al. Forkhead box transcription factor FOXO3a suppresses estrogen-dependent breast cancer cell proliferation and tumorigenesis. Breast Cancer Research 10, R21 (2008).
Grabinski, N. et al. AKT3 regulates ErbB2, ErbB3 and estrogen receptor α expression and contributes to endocrine therapy resistance of ErbB2(+) breast tumor cells from Balb-neuT mice. Cell Signal 26, 1021–1029 (2014).
Poulard, C. et al. JMJD6 regulates ERα methylation on arginine. PLoS One 9, e87982 (2014).
Kim, S. H., Kang, H. J., Na, H. & Lee, M. O. Trichostatin A enhances acetylation as well as protein stability of ERalpha through induction of p300 protein. Breast Cancer Res 12, R22 (2010).
Nait-Achour, T. et al. Transcriptional repression of estrogen receptor α signaling by SENP2 in breast cancer cells. Mol Endocrinol 28, 183–196 (2014).
Iizuka, M. et al. Histone acetyltransferase Hbo1 destabilizes estrogen receptor α by ubiquitination and modulates proliferation of breast cancers. Cancer Sci 104, 1647–1655 (2013).
Fan, M., Park, A. & Nephew, K. P. CHIP (carboxyl terminus of Hsc70-interacting protein) promotes basal and geldanamycin-induced degradation of estrogen receptor-alpha. Mol Endocrinol 19, 2901–2914 (2005).
Eakin, C. M., Maccoss, M. J., Finney, G. L. & Klevit, R. E. Estrogen receptor alpha is a putative substrate for the BRCA1 ubiquitin ligase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104, 5794–5799 (2007).
Kim, K. et al. MDM2 regulates estrogen receptor α and estrogen responsiveness in breast cancer cells. J Mol Endocrinol 46, 67–79 (2011).
Zhu, J. et al. The atypical ubiquitin ligase RNF31 stabilizes estrogen receptor α and modulates estrogen-stimulated breast cancer cell proliferation. Oncogene 33, 4340–4351 (2014).
Baer, R. & Ludwiq, T. The BRCA1/BARD1 heterodimer, a tumor suppressor complex with ubiquitin E3 ligase activity. Curr Opin Genet Dev 12, 86–91 (2002).
Li, C., Lai, C. F., Sigman, D. S. & Gaynor, R. B. Cloning of a cellular factor, interleukin binding factor, that binds to NFAT-like motifs in the human immunodeficiency virus long terminal repeat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 88, 7739–7743 (1991).
Marais, A. et al. Cell cycle-dependent regulation of the forkhead transcription factor FOXK2 by CDK·cyclin complexes. J Biol Chem 285, 35728–35739 (2010).
Ji, Z. et al. The forkhead transcription factor FOXK2 promotes AP-1-mediated transcriptional regulation. Mol Cell Biol 34, 1892 (2014).
Fujii, Y. & Nakamura, M. FOXK2 transcription factor is a novel G/T-mismatch DNA binding protein. J. Biochem 147, 705–709 (2010).
Carroll, J. S. et al. Chromosome-wide mapping of estrogen receptor binding reveals long-range regulation requiring the forkhead protein FoxA1. Cell 122, 33–43 (2005).
Calligé, M., Kieffer, I. & Richard-Foy, H. CSN5/Jab1 is involved in ligand-dependent degradation of estrogen receptor {alpha} by the proteasome. Mol Cell Biol 25, 4349–4358 (2005).
Jeong, K. W. Flightless I (Drosophila) homolog facilitates chromatin accessibility of the estrogen receptor α target genes in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 446, 608–613 (2014).
Shrivastav, A. et al. The mechanistic target for rapamycin pathway is related to the phosphorylation score for estrogen receptor-alpha in human breast tumors in vivo. Breast Cancer Res 16, R49 (2014).
Wang, B. et al. Expression of NgBR is highly associated with estrogen receptor alpha and survivin in breast cancer. PLoS One 8, e78083 (2013).
Zhang, Y., Cheng, J. C., Huang, H. F. & Leung, P. C. Homeobox A7 stimulates breast cancer cell proliferation by up-regulating estrogen receptor-alpha. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 440, 652–657 (2013).
Hannenhalli, S. & Kaestner, K. H. The evolution of Fox genes and their role in development and disease. Nat. Rev. Genet 10, 233–240 (2009).
Myatt, S. S. & Lam, E. W. The emerging roles of forkhead box (Fox) proteins in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 7, 847–859 (2007).
Carlsson, P. & Mahlapuu, M. Forkhead transcription factors: key players in development and metabolism. Dev. Biol 250, 1–23 (2002).
Gao, N. et al. The role of hepatocyte nuclear factor-3 alpha (Forkhead Box A1) and androgen receptor in transcriptional regulation of prostatic genes. Mol Endocrinol 17, 1484–1507 (2003).
Xu, K. & Shu, H. K. The FOXM1 transcription factor interacts with Sp1 to mediate EGF-dependent COX-2 expression in human glioma cells. Mol Cancer Res 11, 875–886 (2013).
Wang, F. et al. Biochemical and structural characterization of an intramolecular interaction in FOXO3a and its binding with p53. J Mol Biol 384, 590–603 (2008).
Lynch, V. J., Brayer, K., Gellersen, B. & Wagner, G. P. HoxA-11 and FOXO1A cooperate to regulate decidual prolactin expression: towards inferring the core transcriptional regulators of decidual genes. PLoS One 4, e6845 (2009).
Ciechanover, A., Orian, A. & Schwartz, A. L. Ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis: biological regulation via destruction. Bioessays 22, 442–451 (2000).
Hershko, A. & Ciechanover, A. The ubiquitin system. Annu Rev Biochem 67, 425–479 (1998).
Ardley, H. C. & Robinson, P. A. Robinson. E3 ubiquitin ligases. Essays Biochem 41, 15–30 (2005).
Cheng, J. & Guggino, W. Ubiquitination and degradation of CFTR by the E3 ubiquitin ligase MARCH2 through its association with adaptor proteins CAL and STX6. PLoS One 8, e68001 (2013).
Samant, R. S., Clarke, P. A. & Workman, P. E3 ubiquitin ligase Cullin-5 modulates multiple molecular and cellular responses to heat shock protein 90 inhibition in human cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111, 6834–6839 (2014).
Kane, L. A. et al. PINK1 phosphorylates ubiquitin to activate Parkin E3 ubiquitin ligase activity. J Cell Biol 205, 143–153 (2014).
Li, Y. et al. The histone modifications governing TFF1 transcription mediated by estrogen receptor. J Biol Chem 286, 13925–13936 (2011).
Zhang, Y. et al. CCCTC-binding factor acts upstream of FOXA1 and demarcates the genomic response to estrogen. J Biol Chem 285, 28604–28613 (2010).
Hall, J. M. & Korach, K. S. Stromal cell-derived factor 1, a novel target of estrogen receptor action, mediates the mitogenic effects of estradiol in ovarian and breast cancer cells. Mol Endocrinol 17, 792–803 (2003).
Prall, O. W., Rogan, E. M. & Sutherland, R. L. Estrogen regulation of cell cycle progression in breast cancer cells. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol 65, 169–174 (1998).
Ghosh, M. G., Thompson, D. A. & Weigel, R. J. PDZK1 and GREB1 are estrogen-regulated genes expressed in hormone-responsive breast cancer. Cancer Res 60, 6367–6375 (2000).
Wilcken, N. R., Prall, O. W., Musgrove, E. A. & Sutherland, R. L. Inducible overexpression of cyclin D1 in breast cancer cells reverses the growth-inhibitory effects of antiestrogens. Clin. Cancer Res 3, 849–854 (1997).
Yang, C. et al. PTEN suppresses the oncogenic function of AIB1 through decreasing its protein stability via mechanism involving Fbw7 alpha. Molecular Cancer 12, 21 (2013).
Bi, H. et al. SUMOylation of GPS2 protein regulates its transcription-suppressing function. Mol Biol Cell 25, 2499–2508 (2014).
Li, S. et al. The transcriptional activity of co-activator AIB1 is regulated by the SUMO E3 ligase PIAS1. Biol Cell 104, 287–296 (2012).
Xiao, L. et al. Induction of the CLOCK Gene by E2-ERα Signaling Promotes the Proliferation of Breast Cancer Cells. PLoS One 9, e95878 (2014).
Budwit-Novotny, D. A. et al. Immunohistochemical analyses of estrogen receptor in endometrial adenocarcinoma using a monoclonal antibody. Cancer Res 46, 5419–5425 (1986).
Dowsett, M. et al. Relationship between quantitative estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) statuses with recurrence in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial. J Clin Oncol 26, 1059–1065 (2008).
Ellis, M. J. et al. Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 100, 1380–1388 (2008).
Chen, C. et al. High cytoplasmic FOXO1 and pFOXO1 expression in astrocytomas are associated with worse surgical outcome. PLoS One 8, e69260 (2013).
Hong, Y. et al. SUMOylation of DEC1 protein regulates its transcriptional activity and enhances its stability. PLoS One 6, e23046 (2011).
Xing, X. et al. SUMOylation of AhR modulates its activity and stability through inhibiting its ubiquitination. J Cell Physiol 227, 3812–3819 (2012).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. Alan K. Chang for his valuable contribution in the preparation of this manuscript. We thank Dr. Andrew D. Sharrocks (University of Manchester) for the present of His-Flag-FOXK2 and EGFP-FOXK2 constructs. We thank Dr. Tomohiko Ohta (St. Marianna University) for the present of HA-BARD1 construct. We thank Dr. Robert Weinberg (Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research) for the present of Cyclin D1-luc. We also thank Hongming Pan (Qiqihar Medical University) for providing the breast tumor specimens. This work was supported by grants (31171353, 31271500 to H.W.) from the National Nature Science Foundation of China and grants (973 Program 2011CB504201 to H.W.) from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Y.L., X.A. and H.W. conceived and designed the experiments. Y.L., X.A., Z.J., X.B., Z.X., G.H., X.J. and M.C. performed the experiments. Y.L., X.A. and H.W. analyzed the data. Y.L., X.A., Z.J., X.B., Z.X., G.H., X.J. and M.C. contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. Y.L., X.A. and H.W. wrote the paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder in order to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, Y., Ao, X., Jia, Z. et al. FOXK2 Transcription Factor Suppresses ERα-positive Breast Cancer Cell Growth Through Down-Regulating the Stability of ERα via mechanism involving BRCA1/BARD1. Sci Rep 5, 8796 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08796
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08796
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Phosphorylation of FOXK2 at Thr13 and Ser30 by PDK2 sustains glycolysis through a positive feedback manner in ovarian cancer
Oncogene (2024)
-
Identification, characterization and functional analysis of gonadal long noncoding RNAs in a protogynous hermaphroditic teleost fish, the ricefield eel (Monopterus albus)
BMC Genomics (2022)
-
TIMELESS inhibits breast cancer cell invasion and metastasis by down-regulating the expression of MMP9
Cancer Cell International (2021)
-
Acetylation of ELF5 suppresses breast cancer progression by promoting its degradation and targeting CCND1
npj Precision Oncology (2021)
-
ELF5 inhibits the proliferation and invasion of breast cancer cells by regulating CD24
Molecular Biology Reports (2021)