![[Feedback]](/icons/banner/feedbackACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[For Subscribers]](/icons/banner/subscriberACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Archive]](/icons/banner/archiveACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Search]](/icons/banner/searchACT.gif){kind=icon}
![[Contents]](/icons/banner/tocACT.gif){kind=icon}
|
|
|
|
|
||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
METABOLISM, TRANSPORT, AND PHARMACOGENOMICS
Division of Molecular Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (S.R.F., C.M.S., H.W.); Pharmacogenetics Section, Laboratory of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (T.S., M.N.); and CellzDirect, Inc., Pittsboro, North Carolina (E.L.L.)
Received November 4, 2005; accepted March 1, 2006.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Materials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
; Honkakoski et al., 2003). In response to structurally diverse compounds, these receptors increase transcriptional activity by binding to target enhancer sequences in the promoters of an overlapping set of xenobiotic metabolism and transport genes, including those encoding cytochromes P450, glucuronosyltransferases, sulfotransferases, glutathione transferases, and drug transporters (Sugatani et al., 2001; Maglich et al., 2002; Ueda et al., 2002; Rosenfeld et al., 2003). The complex interplay between PXR and CAR regulation has been proposed to create a biological safety net to ensure comprehensive protection against drug, hormone, bilirubin, and bile acid toxicity (Huang et al., 2003; Xie et al., 2003; Maglich et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2004).
PXR and CAR were established originally as the predominant regulators of xenobiotic-induced CYP3A and CYP2B hepatic expression, respectively (Blumberg et al., 1998; Honkakoski et al., 1998; Kliewer et al., 1998). However, recent lines of evidence suggest that cross-talk between PXR and CAR results in reciprocal activation of rodent and human CYP2B and CYP3A genes (Moore et al., 2000; Xie et al., 2000b; Smirlis et al., 2001; Wei et al., 2002). For example, Cyp2b10 is induced by the PXR ligand dexamethasone in CAR-null mice, and Cyp3a11 is induced by the CAR activator PB in PXR-null mice (Xie et al., 2000a,b; Wei et al., 2002). Furthermore, CYP2B and CYP3A genes can be induced simultaneously by the same compounds such as PCN in rats and RIF in humans (Burger et al., 1992; Kocarek et al., 1994; Goodwin et al., 2001; Faucette et al., 2004). Because only a limited number of chemicals activate both PXR and CAR, cross-talk between these receptors results primarily from their binding of different response elements within the CYP2B and CYP3A promoters. In addition to binding to the rat DR3 or human ER6 motifs in the CYP3A PXRE, PXR binds to the DR4-type NR1 and NR2 sequences in the rodent and human CYP2B PBREM (Blumberg et al., 1998; Kliewer et al., 1998; Lehmann et al., 1998; Goodwin et al., 2001). Conversely, CAR binds CYP3A proximal response elements in addition to CYP2B NR1 and NR2 sequences (Honkakoski et al., 1998; Sueyoshi et al., 1999; Tzameli et al., 2000). hPXR and hCAR also share the ability to bind and activate the DR4-type NR3 motif in the CYP2B6 XREM and the DR3 (dNR1) and ER6 (dNR2) motifs in the CYP3A4 XREM (Goodwin et al., 1999, 2002; Wang et al., 2003). Previous studies have demonstrated that these distal enhancer modules function cooperatively with the more proximal elements to elicit maximum induction of the respective genes (Goodwin et al., 1999, 2002; Wang et al., 2003).
The current model of cross-talk between PXR and CAR is derived primarily from rodent data and commonly depicts symmetrical cross-regulation of CYP2B and CYP3A induction by PXR and CAR, respectively. However, because of documented species differences in nuclear receptor signaling pathways, it is speculative to extrapolate the extents of cross-regulation of CYP2B and CYP3A genes by rodent PXR and CAR to the corresponding human receptors. The selectivities of hPXR and hCAR for their cross-regulatory genes remain unclear because of the lack of comparisons of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 promoter binding and functional activation between hPXR and hCAR as well as the previous unavailability of selective hCAR activators. These comparisons are now feasible because of the recent identification of CITCO and phenytoin as selective hCAR activators (Maglich et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004). Therefore, these compounds represent useful chemical-based tools to facilitate determination of the relative contributions of hPXR and hCAR to the respective cross-regulation of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4.
The objective of this study was to compare the target gene selectivities of hCAR and hPXR with respect to regulation of hepatic CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 induction. Studies in primary human hepatocytes revealed indiscriminant induction of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 by hPXR activation but preferential induction of CYP2B6 over CYP3A4 by hCAR activation. A mechanistic explanation for these observations was generated from gel shift and cell-based transfection reporter assays in that hCAR, but not hPXR, exhibits marked differential binding and activation of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 response elements. Results presented here support the proposal of a new model to describe cross-regulation of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 genes by hPXR and hCAR.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Plasmid Constructs. The pSG5-hPXR expression vector was provided generously by Dr. Steven Kliewer (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Lehmann et al., 1998), and the CYP3A4-PXRE/XREM luciferase reporter construct [p3A4-362(7836/7208ins)] was provided generously by Dr. Bryan Goodwin (GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC). The latter construct consisted of the CYP3A4 native proximal promoter, including the PXRE containing an ER6 motif, as well as the distal XREM region bearing one DR3 motif (dNR1) and one ER6 motif (dNR2) (Goodwin et al., 1999). As reported earlier, the CYP2B6-PBREM/XREM construct consisted of 1.8 kb of the native promoter, including the 51-bp PBREM harboring two DR4 motifs (NR1 and NR2) and the 400-bp distal XREM region containing the DR4 motif termed NR3 (Wang et al., 2003). A mutant hCAR1–338 expression plasmid that lacked the last 10 C-terminal residues of wild-type hCAR was constructed using pEGFP-c1-hCAR1–338 as template and cloning the amplified fragment between the BamHI and EcoRI sites of pCR3 vector (Zelko et al., 2001). Expression plasmids encoding full-length (1–348) hCAR (designated hCARwt), EYFP-hCARwt, and EYFP-hCAR1–338 were described previously (Sueyoshi et al., 1999; Zelko et al., 2001). The CYP3A4 (ER6)2 luciferase construct, generated using pGL3-promoter vector (Promega), was provided generously by Dr. Bingfang Yan (University of Rhode Island, Kingsport, RI). The CYP2B6 (NR1)2 reporter plasmid was generated by inserting two repeats of the NR1 motif into the KpnI and XhoI sites of pGL3-promoter vector, respectively. Sequencing was performed to verify correct insert orientation of all generated plasmids. The pRL-TK vector was used as internal control (Promega).
Induction Studies in Primary Human Hepatocyte Cultures. Human hepatocytes were obtained commercially from CellzDirect, Inc. (Pittsboro, NC) or ADMET Technologies, Inc. (Research Triangle Park, NC). Alternatively, hepatic tissues were obtained through surgical resections by qualified medical staff following donor consent and prior approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hepatocytes were isolated from liver tissue resections by modification of a two-step collagenase digestion method described previously (LeCluyse et al., 2005).
Cells were seeded at 1.5 x 106 cells/well in six-well Biocoat plates in DMEM supplemented with 5% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, 4 µg/ml insulin, and 1 µM dexamethasone, and allowed to attach at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2. After 4 to 6 h, cells were overlaid with Matrigel (0.25 mg/ml) in serum-free modified Chee's medium supplemented with ITS+ (6.25 µg/ml insulin, 6.25 µg/ml transferrin, and 6.25 ng/ml selenium) and 0.1 µM dexamethasone. After 36 to 48 h in culture, hepatocytes were treated for 24 h with vehicle (0.1% DMSO), 10 µM RIF, and 0.5 or 1 µM CITCO. For detailed concentration-response studies, cells were exposed for 24 h to 0.1 to 150 µM RIF or 0.001 to 10 µM CITCO. RIF and CITCO stock solutions were prepared in DMSO and added to modified Chee's medium at dilutions of 1/1000 to provide solvent concentrations of 0.1%.
Real-Time PCR. Total RNA was isolated from treated human hepatocytes using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen) and reverse transcribed using the SuperScript First-Strand Synthesis System for PCR (Invitrogen). CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 primers and TaqMan fluorescent probes were designed using Primer Express version 2.0 software (Applied Biosystems). Primers and probes for CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 mRNA detection are as follows, in the order of forward primer, probe, and reverse primer (FAM, 5-carboxyfluorescein; TAMRA, 5-carboxytetramethylrhodamine): CYP2B6 1299 to 1366 bp, 5'-AAGCGGATTTGTCTTGGTGAA-3', 6-FAM-CATCGCCCGTGCGGAATTGTTC-TAMRA, and 5'-TGGAGGATGGTGGTGAAGAAG-3'; and CYP3A4 59 to 179 bp, 5'-TCAGCCTGGTGCTCCTCTATCTAT-3', 6-FAM-TCCAGGGCCCACACCTCTGCCT-TAMRA, and 5'-AAGCCCTTATGGTAGGACAAAATATTT-3'. Intron and exon junctions were considered during primer and probe design to avoid potential genomic DNA contamination. CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 primers and probes were designed to exclude nonselective amplification of CYP2B7 and CYP3A5/7/43, respectively. CYP2B6 or CYP3A4 mRNA expression was normalized against that of human 
-actin, which was detected using a predeveloped primer/probe mixture (Applied Biosystems). Multiplexed TaqMan PCR assays were performed in 96-well optical plates on an ABI Prism 7000 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems). -Fold induction values were calculated according to the equation 2
Ct, where Ct represents the differences in cycle threshold numbers between the target gene and -actin, and Ct represents the relative change in these differences between control and treatment groups.
Transient Transfection of Human Hepatoma Cells. HepG2 cells were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD) and maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin, and 100 µg/ml streptomycin at 37°C, 5% CO2. For reporter assays, cells were seeded into 24-well plates at 1.5 x 105 cells/well and transfected 24 h later with CellPhect reagents according to supplier's recommendations (Amersham). With transfections involving a single nuclear receptor (hPXR or hCARwt), transfection mixes contained 100 ng of firefly luciferase reporter construct, 10 ng of pRL-TK, and 50 ng of nuclear receptor expression vector in DMEM/F-12 supplemented with 10% charcoal/dextran-treated FBS. In the case of cotransfection with two receptors (hPXR + hCARwt, hCARwt + hCAR1–338, or hPXR + hCAR1–338), mixes were the same as above except for a fixed amount of one receptor (25 ng) with increasing amounts of the other (25, 50, 75, 100, 175, and 250 ng). pCR3 empty vector was transfected in varying amounts to ensure 275 ng of total DNA per transfection. Cells were washed with fresh DMEM/F-12 12 h after transfection, and treatment was initiated with vehicle (0.1% DMSO) or RIF 10 µM. After 24 h, cells were lysed, and firefly and Renilla luciferase activities were measured from three to six independent transfections using the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System (Promega). Transfection data were expressed as the fold induction of firefly to Renilla luciferase activities relative to empty vector or vehicle control.
For hCAR localization studies, 200 ng of EYFP-hCARwt or EYFP-hCAR1–338 expression plasmid was transfected into HepG2 cells using Effectene transfection reagent following the manufacturer's instructions. Twenty-four hours later, hCAR cellular distribution was visualized using a Zeiss Axiovert 100 TV fluorescent microscope (Carl Zeiss, Thornburg, NY).
Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assays. Gel shift assays were performed as described previously (Wang et al., 2003). hPXR, hCAR, and hRXR
proteins were synthesized from pSG5-hPXR, pCR3-hCAR, and pGEM-hRXR expression vectors by using the TNT Quick-Coupled In Vitro Transcription/Translation system (Promega). Oligonucleotide probes were labeled with [-32P]dATP and purified by Microspin G-25 columns (Amersham). All binding reactions consisted of 5 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 0.25 mM dithiothreitol, 10% glycerol, 0.05% Nonidet P-40, 25 mM NaCl, 1.5 µg of poly (dI-dC), 1 µl of each in vitro translated nuclear receptor protein, and 4 x 104 cpm of labeled probe. For competition experiments, binding reactions also contained unlabeled competitor in 25- or 50-fold excess of labeled probe. After incubation at room temperature for 10 min, reaction mixtures were resolved on nondenaturing 5% acrylamide gels in 7 mM Tris-acetic acid buffer, pH 7.5, containing 1 mM EDTA at 180 V for 1.5 h. Shifted complexes were visualized by drying gels under vacuum for 1 h and developing on X-ray film overnight at –70°C. Band densities were determined using NIH imaging software (ImageJ 1.34S; Bethesda, MD).
Data Analysis. Results from reporter gene assays and real-time PCR are expressed as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate determinations unless otherwise indicated. Statistical comparisons were made where appropriate using an unpaired t test. The criterion of significance was set at p = 0.05, and tests were performed using SigmaStat version 2.03 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
; Faucette et al., 2004). Relative mRNA expression levels were quantitated by real-time PCR analysis. RIF induced CYP3A4 by 5- to 13-fold among six human hepatocyte preparations (mean ± S.D., 9.2 ± 3.2), whereas CITCO induced the gene by 1.4- to 2.7-fold (mean ± S.D., 1.8 ± 0.5). Combining data from all hepatocyte donors, greater magnitudes of CYP3A4 induction were observed with RIF compared with CITCO (p < 0.01; Fig. 1A). In contrast, extents of RIF- and CITCO-mediated CYP2B6 induction were characterized by less discerning differences (p > 0.05; Fig. 1B). Among the six donors, CYP2B6 was induced from 3.7- to 8.9-fold by RIF (mean ± S.D., 6.0 ± 2.0) and from 4.3- to 16.8-fold by CITCO (mean ± S.D., 7.0 ± 4.8). It is noteworthy that CITCO exhibited marked preferential induction of CYP2B6 compared with CYP3A4 among all evaluated hepatocyte cultures, whereas RIF induced both genes efficaciously in a less discriminating manner (Fig. 1, A versus B).
|
|
; Sueyoshi et al., 1999). For hCAR transfection, ligand-independent activation of reporter genes was examined because of the high basal activity of hCAR in immortalized cells resulting from its spontaneous nuclear accumulation (Kawamoto et al., 1999).
|
Compared with empty vector, constitutive activation of hCAR increased CYP2B6-PBREM/XREM activities by 6.4-fold and CYP3A4-PXRE/XREM activities by only 3.3-fold (p < 0.05; Fig. 3B). In contrast, differences in hPXR activation by RIF were less pronounced between CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 reporters (15.8- versus 23.7-fold relative to control) (p > 0.05; Fig. 3C). Although CYP3A4 reporter activities were slightly higher, differences between the extents of hPXR activation of CYP3A4 and CYP2B6 reporters were less prominent compared with hCAR activation. Results from cell-based transfection assays are in agreement with induction studies in human hepatocytes and provide additional evidence for greater CYP2B6 versus CYP3A4 selectivity of hCAR compared with hPXR.
Differential Binding of hPXR and hCAR to CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 Promoter Elements. It was hypothesized that preferred induction of CYP2B6 to CYP3A4 by hCAR, and lack of selective induction by hPXR, could be explained by differences in hPXR and hCAR binding to one or more motifs in the proximal and distal promoter regions of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4. To test this possibility, gel shift assays were performed to compare the binding affinities of hPXR- and hCAR-hRXR heterodimers with the CYP2B6 NR1 (DR4) and NR3 (DR4) and with the CYP3A4 PXRE (ER6), dNR1 (DR3), and dNR2 (ER6) (Fig. 4A).
|
, 2001; Wang et al., 2003), hPXR-hRXR bound competently to the CYP2B6 NR1 and NR3 sequences and to the CYP3A4 ER6 and dNR1 sequences (Fig. 4B, left). hCAR-hRXR complexed with these same sequences, as previously reported (Sueyoshi et al., 1999; Goodwin et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2003) (Fig. 4B, right). However, neither hPXR-RXR nor hCAR-RXR heterodimers significantly bound CYP3A4 dNR2. In contrast to hPXR, hCAR displayed a strikingly lower binding affinity for the CYP3A4 ER6 element compared with the other elements. Both hPXR and hCAR bound the DR4-type NR1 and NR3 and the DR3-containing dNR1 elements with similar affinities or with less prominent differences than observed with the ER6 motif.
To evaluate whether differential or similar binding to DR4 or ER6 motifs could account for preferred induction of CYP2B6 over CYP3A4 by hCAR activation, or indiscriminant induction of these genes by hPXR activation, respectively, competition binding experiments were performed using labeled CYP2B6 NR3 probe with unlabeled CYP3A4 ER6 competitor or labeled ER6 probe with unlabeled NR3 competitor (Fig. 4C). For hPXR, binding to 32P-labeled NR3 was decreased by 39 and 66% in the presence of 25- and 50-fold excess of ER6 competitor, respectively (relative densities of 1.0, 0.61, and 0.34 in the presence of 0, 25x, or 50x of unlabeled competitor). Likewise, hPXR binding to 32P-labeled ER6 was decreased by 29 and 58% by increasing amounts of NR3 competitor (relative densities of 1.0, 0.71, and 0.42 in the presence of 0, 25x, or 50x of unlabeled competitor). In contrast, 25- and 50-fold excess ER6 decreased hCAR binding to NR3 by 7 and 28%, respectively (relative densities of 1.0, 0.93, and 0.72). Despite weak hCAR binding to the labeled ER6 probe in the absence of competitor, as observed in Fig. 4B, increasing amounts of unlabeled NR3 competitor further reduced this binding (Fig. 4C). These results indicate that hPXR binds CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 response elements with appreciable affinities but that hCAR binds more strongly to the CYP2B6 DR4 motifs compared with the CYP3A4 proximal ER6. The comparatively lower affinity of hCAR for the CYP3A4 ER6 provides a mechanistic basis for selective hCAR-mediated induction of CYP2B6 relative to CYP3A4, whereas similar affinities of hPXR for the DR4 and ER6 motifs explain its nonselective induction of both genes.
Comparison of hPXR and hCAR Activation of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 Reporter Genes Containing Repeats of Single Response Motifs. To determine the functional relevance of differential binding to CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 promoter elements by hCAR but not hPXR, additional experiments focused on select elements from the CYP2B6 (DR4/NR1) and CYP3A4 (ER6) promoters. Thus, HepG2 cells were cotransfected with hPXR or hCAR expression plasmids and heterologous reporter constructs containing two repeats of the CYP2B6 NR1 or CYP3A4 ER6 motifs. Relative to empty vector, pGL3-CYP2B6 (NR1)2 reporter gene expression was 12.7-fold higher in HepG2 cells transfected with hCAR, compared with 2.6-fold higher for pGL3-CYP3A4 (ER6)2 (p < 0.05; Fig. 5A). In cells transfected with hPXR, RIF treatment was associated with similar degrees of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 reporter gene activation (3.3- and 4.8-fold, respectively) (p > 0.05; Fig. 5B). Overall, these transfection results demonstrate the functional consequences of impaired binding of hCAR to the CYP3A4 ER6 motif. Furthermore, they suggest that lower levels of CYP3A4 induction by selective hCAR activators derive primarily from its weak ER6 binding.
|
|
The second experiment examined the ability of hCAR to compete with RIF-activated hPXR for binding and activation of the pGL3-CYP3A4 (ER6)2-luciferase reporter gene. However, hCARwt was not appropriate to use in this study because of its inherently high constitutive activity. To avoid this potential confounding factor, we desired a mutant hCAR that displayed minimal or no constitutive activity, but similar binding to CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 response elements as hCARwt. Thus, a truncated hCAR mutant was used as competitor of hPXR instead of hCARwt. The hCAR mutant was generated by deleting the last 10 C-terminal amino acid residues of the ligand binding domain comprising the ligand-independent activation function 2 region (Zelko et al., 2001).
The hCAR1–338 deletion mutant exhibited predominant nuclear distribution in HepG2 cells, as did hCARwt (Fig. 7A). Gel shift analysis revealed that mutant hCAR1–338 was capable of binding to the CYP2B6 NR1 motif with similar affinity as hCARwt (Fig. 7B), but only weakly to the CYP3A4 ER6 motif (data not shown). However, when cotransfected with the pGL3-CYP2B6 (NR1)2 reporter in HepG2 cells, hCAR1–338 failed to demonstrate constitutive activity compared with hCARwt, regardless of the amount of hCAR1–338 transfected (10 to 250 ng) (Fig. 7C). These results validated that hCAR1–338 shared the DNA binding characteristics and cellular localization of hCARwt but not its constitutive activation.
|
In competition studies, HepG2 cells were transfected with the pGL3-CYP2B6 (NR1)2-reporter plasmid and 25 ng of hCARwt, with or without increasing amounts of mutant hCAR1–338 (25–250 ng). As expected, constitutive activation of the CYP2B6 reporter by hCARwt decreased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing amounts of cotransfected hCAR1–338, reaching a maximum decrease with 10-fold excess of the mutant receptor (Fig. 7C). Thereafter, HepG2 cells were cotransfected with hPXR alone or with increasing amounts of hCAR1–338 and treated with solvent or RIF (Fig. 7D). In the absence of mutant hCAR, hPXR exhibited negligible constitutive activation but 5-fold RIF-mediated activation of the pGL3-CYP3A4 (ER6)2 reporter construct. This extent of hPXR activation did not decrease significantly when hCAR1–338 was cotransfected over the range of 25 to 250 ng (Fig. 7D). Collectively, these transfection experiments indicate that hCAR cannot compete with hPXR for binding and activation of the CYP3A4 proximal ER6 motif, and support a lower affinity of hCAR for this element compared with hPXR.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
; Wei et al., 2000, 2002; Smirlis et al., 2001), the contribution of hCAR to CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 regulation has remained obscured in the absence of identified ligands and/or activators. However, this study's comparison of the CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 transcriptional selectivity of hCAR was facilitated by the recent validation of CITCO as a selective hCAR activator (Maglich et al., 2003). In this investigation, selective hCAR activation by CITCO was associated with impaired induction of CYP3A4 in human hepatocytes relative to CYP2B6. It is noteworthy that this phenomenon was observed across an extended concentration range with 24-h treatment. Although time course studies were not performed with CITCO, it is likely that preferential induction of CYP2B6 would occur with other treatment times because our previous study demonstrated similar temporal kinetics of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 induction (Faucette et al., 2004). In addition, preferred induction of CYP2B6 over CYP3A4 has been observed with three other compounds identified by our laboratory as selective hCAR activators (data not shown), suggesting that this phenomenon is a shared class effect rather than a unique compound-specific effect of CITCO.
The selectivity of hCAR for CYP2B6 rather than CYP3A4 results presumably from its stronger binding to the DR4 motifs (NR1 and NR3) in the CYP2B6 promoter relative to the ER6 motif in the CYP3A4 proximal promoter. In gel shift assays conducted in this study, hCAR displayed appreciable binding to all known CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 regulatory elements except the ER6. Furthermore, the ER6 failed to compete with the CYP2B6 DR4-type NR3 element for binding to hCAR, although the NR3 competed effectively with the ER6. Other reports have confirmed the weaker ER6 binding potential of hCAR relative to other response elements. For example, Frank et al. (2003) reported that hCAR-hRXR bound a perfect ER6 motif with 50% lower capacity than a perfect DR4 motif. In addition, Goodwin et al. (2002) noted from competition binding studies that the affinity of hCAR-hRXR heterodimers was approximately 4- to 5-fold greater for the distal CYP3A4 DR3 motif (dNR1) than the proximal ER6 motif. In this same study, it was observed that hCAR failed to activate a CYP3A4 reporter construct driven by 
400 bp of the native proximal promoter containing the PXRE (Goodwin et al., 2002).
The current study further illustrates the functional consequences of impaired ER6 binding by hCAR. Compared with the CYP2B6 NR1 motif, hCAR exhibited a diminished capacity to promote transcription of a heterologous reporter construct containing two copies of the ER6 motif. In addition, hCAR was unable to compete efficiently with hPXR for activation of this same construct. Although hCAR can bind to the DR3 motif in the CYP3A4 distal XREM with strong affinity [Fig. 4B (Goodwin et al., 2002)], hCAR-mediated induction of CYP3A4 endogenous or reporter gene expression is significantly lower than for CYP2B6, suggesting that the proximal ER6 plays a critical role in determining the overall CYP3A4 transcriptional response. Previous studies have demonstrated that the ER6-containing PXRE interacts cooperatively with the DR3-containing XREM to achieve optimal CYP3A4 induction by both hPXR and hCAR (Goodwin et al., 1999, 2002). Although maximum hCAR activation was achieved with a CYP3A4 reporter construct containing the native proximal promoter (including the PXRE) and the XREM, hCAR responsiveness was reduced by approximately 50% when the ER6 site within the PXRE was mutated and the XREM module was preserved (Goodwin et al., 2002). Dependence of the full hCAR-mediated CYP3A4 response on ER6 binding and activation is consistent with the current study findings of a greater difference in hCAR constitutive activation of CYP3A4 and CYP2B6 when CYP3A4 reporter constructs contained two repeats of the ER6 motif (4.9-fold) compared with both the proximal PXRE and XREM (2.3-fold).
In contrast to CYP3A4, patterns of CYP2B6 induction were similar or associated with less discerning differences in response to selective hPXR and hCAR activators. In several human hepatocyte preparations, CYP2B6 was induced to similar extents by RIF and CITCO. Furthermore, hPXR and hCAR competed effectively for transcriptional activation of the CYP2B6 (NR1)2-reporter gene in cell-based transfection assays. These findings are not surprising given that both receptors bind competently to the CYP2B6 DR4-type NR1 and NR3 elements, which differ from each other by only one base pair. In general, differences between hPXR and hCAR binding to these elements were not as pronounced as the difference noted for the CYP3A4 ER6 motif. Overall, these results reveal two important aspects of cross-regulation of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 by hPXR and hCAR. First, the ability of hPXR to cross-regulate CYP2B6 is greater than the ability of hCAR to cross-regulate CYP3A4, and secondly, hPXR regulates these target genes in a nondifferential fashion compared with the selective manner of hCAR.
The model proposed in this study to explain the degree of cross-regulation of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 by hPXR and hCAR contrasts with the inferred model of cross-regulation of rodent CYP2B and CYP3A genes by the corresponding rodent receptors. Although illustrations of the rodent model of crosstalk portray equal cross-regulation of CYP2B and CYP3A genes by rodent PXR and CAR, respectively, it is unknown whether this representation is accurate because of the absence of studies designed to compare the cross-regulatory abilities of both receptors in parallel. Regardless of the actual selectivities of rodent PXR and CAR for these target genes, comparison of rodent data with the current study's data suggests that rodent CAR exhibits a stronger ability to regulate CYP3A relative to hCAR. In contrast to the weak CYP3A4 induction by CITCO observed in this study, previous studies have demonstrated that Cyp3a11 or CYP3A1 is induced moderately to strongly by the mCAR activators PB and 1,4-bis[2-(3,5-dichloropyridyloxy)]benzene in CAR wild type but not deficient mice (Xie et al., 2000b; Wei et al., 2002; Wyde et al., 2003; Anakk et al., 2004). Furthermore, the magnitudes of PB- or 1,4-bis[2-(3,5-dichloropyridyloxy)]benzene-mediated mCAR activation of a CYP3A1 heterologous reporter construct or CYP3A23 homologous reporter construct were similar to that of PCN-mediated mPXR or RIF-mediated hPXR activation in transfected primary rat hepatocytes (Xie et al., 2000b; Smirlis et al., 2001). Differences between rodent and human CAR in their capacities for CYP3A regulation may stem from dissimilarities in the proximal promoters of the rodent and human CYP3A genes; specifically, the rodent proximal PXRE contains a DR3 motif, whereas the human response element contains an ER6. Previous studies have demonstrated that mCAR can bind efficiently to the DR3 motifs in the rat CYP3A1 and CYP3A23 promoters (Tzameli et al., 2000; Xie et al., 2000b), which contrasts to the weak ER6 binding of hCAR. Overall, comparisons of cross-regulation of CYP2B and CYP3A genes between rodents and humans suggest that species differences in PXR and CAR regulation extend to target genes in addition to ligand binding and activation.
In conclusion, hPXR and hCAR exhibited differential target gene selectivities with respect to CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 gene induction, leading to a model of asymmetrical cross-regulation of these genes that differs from the presumed rodent model (Fig. 8, A and B). The greater selectivity of hCAR activation resulted in preferred induction of CYP2B6 over CYP3A4, whereas the lower selectivity of hPXR activation conferred efficacious induction of both target genes. This study demonstrated that degrees of selectivities are related to similarities or differences in hPXR and hCAR binding to response elements in the CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 promoters. Whereas hCAR binds the proximal CYP3A4 ER6 with weaker affinity than hPXR, both receptors bind similarly to the distal NR3 in the CYP2B6 XREM. Interestingly, the preference of hCAR for CYP2B6 over CYP3A4 may have clinical relevance with respect to drugs metabolized by both enzymes and coadministered with inducers that are selective hCAR activators. Cyclophosphamide (CPA) is an example of such a drug. This antineoplastic undergoes N-dechloroethylation to an inactive toxic metabolite exclusively by CYP3A4 and 4-hydroxylation to a therapeutically active metabolite primarily by CYP2B6 (Roy et al., 1999; Schwartz et al., 2003). Assuming that hCAR selectivity for CYP2B6 also occurs in vivo, concurrent administration of CPA with a selective hCAR activator should facilitate enhanced production of its beneficial metabolite without simultaneously increasing formation of its toxic metabolite. These expected effects provide the opportunity to develop therapeutic regimens that optimize beneficial versus undesired toxic effects of CPA in cancer treatment.
|
Acknowledgements |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
ABBREVIATIONS: PXR, pregnane X receptor; CAR, constitutive androstane receptor; PB, phenobarbital; PCN, pregnenolone 16-carbonitrile; RIF, rifampin; DR, direct repeat; NR, nuclear receptor binding site; PBREM, phenobarbital-responsive enhancer module; PXRE, pregnane X receptor response element; h, human; CITCO, 6-(4-chlorophenyl:imidazo[2,1-b]thiazole-5-carbaldehyde O-(3,4-dichlorobenzyl)oxime; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; XREM, xenobiotic-responsive enhancer module; kb, kilobase(s); bp, base pair(s); ER6, everted repeat separated by six base pairs; EYFP, enhanced yellow fluorescent protein; wt, wild type; DMEM, Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium; FBS, fetal bovine serum; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; RXR, 9-cis retinoic acid receptor-; m, mouse; CPA, cyclophosphamide.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Hongbing Wang, Division of Molecular Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7360. E-mail: wang4{at}email.unc.edu
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Anakk S, Kalsotra A, Kikuta Y, Huang W, Zhang J, Staudinger JL, Moore DD, and Strobel HW (2004) CAR/PXR provide directives for Cyp3a41 gene regulation differently from Cyp3a11. Pharmacogenomics J 4: 91–101.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blumberg B, Sabbagh W Jr, Juguilon H, Bolado J Jr, van Meter CM, Ong ES, and Evans RM (1998) SXR, a novel steroid and xenobiotic-sensing nuclear receptor. Genes Dev 12: 3195–3205.
Burger HJ, Schuetz JD, Schuetz EG, and Guzelian PS (1992) Paradoxical transcriptional activation of rat liver cytochrome P-450 3A1 by dexamethasone and the antiglucocorticoid pregnenolone 16 alpha-carbonitrile: analysis by transient transfection into primary monolayer cultures of adult rat hepatocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 2145–2149.
Faucette SR, Wang H, Hamilton GA, Jolley SL, Gilbert D, Lindley C, Yan B, Negishi M, and LeCluyse EL (2004) Regulation of CYP2B6 in primary human hepatocytes by prototypical inducers. Drug Metab Dispos 32: 348–358.
Frank C, Gonzalez MM, Oinonen C, Dunlop TW, and Carlberg C (2003) Characterization of DNA complexes formed by the nuclear receptor constitutive androstane receptor. J Biol Chem 278: 43299–43310.
Goodwin B, Hodgson E, D'Costa DJ, Robertson GR, and Liddle C (2002) Transcriptional regulation of the human CYP3A4 gene by the constitutive androstane receptor. Mol Pharmacol 62: 359–365.
Goodwin B, Hodgson E, and Liddle C (1999) The orphan human pregnane X receptor mediates the transcriptional activation of CYP3A4 by rifampicin through a distal enhancer module. Mol Pharmacol 56: 1329–1339.
Goodwin B, Moore LB, Stoltz CM, McKee DD, and Kliewer SA (2001) Regulation of the human CYP2B6 gene by the nuclear pregnane X receptor. Mol Pharmacol 60: 427–431.
Handschin C and Meyer UA (2003) Induction of drug metabolism: the role of nuclear receptors. Pharmacol Rev 55: 649–673.
Honkakoski P, Sueyoshi T, and Negishi M (2003) Drug-activated nuclear receptors CAR and PXR. Ann Med 35: 172–182.[CrossRef][Medline]
Honkakoski P, Zelko I, Sueyoshi T, and Negishi M (1998) The nuclear orphan receptor CAR-retinoid X receptor heterodimer activates the phenobarbital-responsive enhancer module of the CYP2B gene. Mol Cell Biol 18: 5652–5658.
Huang W, Zhang J, Chua SS, Qatanani M, Han Y, Granata R, and Moore DD (2003) Induction of bilirubin clearance by the constitutive androstane receptor (CAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 4156–4161.
Kawamoto T, Sueyoshi T, Zelko I, Moore R, Washburn K, and Negishi M (1999) Phenobarbital-responsive nuclear translocation of the receptor CAR in induction of the CYP2B gene. Mol Cell Biol 19: 6318–6322.
Kliewer SA, Moore JT, Wade L, Staudinger JL, Watson MA, Jones SA, McKee DD, Oliver BB, Willson TM, Zetterstrom RH, et al. (1998) An orphan nuclear receptor activated by pregnanes defines a novel steroid signaling pathway. Cell 92: 73–82.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kocarek TA, Schuetz EG, and Guzelian PS (1994) Biphasic regulation of cytochrome P450 2B1/2 mRNA expression by dexamethasone in primary cultures of adult rat hepatocytes maintained on matrigel. Biochem Pharmacol 48: 1815–1822.[CrossRef][Medline]
LeCluyse EL, Alexandre E, Hamilton GA, Viollon-Abadie C, Coon DJ, Jolley S, and Richert L (2005) Isolation and culture of primary human hepatocytes. Methods Mol Biol 290: 207–229.[Medline]
Lehmann JM, McKee DD, Watson MA, Willson TM, Moore JT, and Kliewer SA (1998) The human orphan nuclear receptor PXR is activated by compounds that regulate CYP3A4 gene expression and cause drug interactions. J Clin Investig 102: 1016–1023.[Medline]
Maglich JM, Parks DJ, Moore LB, Collins JL, Goodwin B, Billin AN, Stoltz CA, Kliewer SA, Lambert MH, Willson TM, et al. (2003) Identification of a novel human constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) agonist and its use in the identification of CAR target genes. J Biol Chem 278: 17277–17283.
Maglich JM, Stoltz CM, Goodwin B, Hawkins-Brown D, Moore JT, and Kliewer SA (2002) Nuclear pregnane X receptor and constitutive androstane receptor regulate overlapping but distinct sets of genes involved in xenobiotic detoxification. Mol Pharmacol 62: 638–646.
Maglich JM, Watson J, McMillen PJ, Goodwin B, Willson TM, and Moore JT (2004) The nuclear receptor CAR is a regulator of thyroid hormone metabolism during caloric restriction. J Biol Chem 279: 19832–19838.
Moore LB, Parks DJ, Jones SA, Bledsoe RK, Consler TG, Stimmel JB, Goodwin B, Liddle C, Blanchard SG, Willson TM, et al. (2000) Orphan nuclear receptors constitutive androstane receptor and pregnane X receptor share xenobiotic and steroid ligands. J Biol Chem 275: 15122–15127.
Rosenfeld JM, Vargas R Jr, Xie W, and Evans RM (2003) Genetic profiling defines the xenobiotic gene network controlled by the nuclear receptor pregnane X receptor. Mol Endocrinol 17: 1268–1282.
Roy P, Yu LJ, Crespi CL, and Waxman DJ (1999) Development of a substrateactivity based approach to identify the major human liver P-450 catalysts of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide activation based on cDNA-expressed activities and liver microsomal P-450 profiles. Drug Metab Dispos 27: 655–666.
Schwartz PS, Chen CS, and Waxman DJ (2003) Sustained P450 expression and prodrug activation in bolus cyclophosphamide-treated cultured tumor cells. Impact of prodrug schedule on P450 gene-directed enzyme prodrug therapy. Cancer Gene Ther 10: 571–582.[Medline]
Smirlis D, Muangmoonchai R, Edwards M, Phillips IR, and Shephard EA (2001) Orphan receptor promiscuity in the induction of cytochromes p450 by xenobiotics. J Biol Chem 276: 12822–12826.
Sueyoshi T, Kawamoto T, Zelko I, Honkakoski P, and Negishi M (1999) The repressed nuclear receptor CAR responds to phenobarbital in activating the human CYP2B6 gene. J Biol Chem 274: 6043–6046.
Sugatani J, Kojima H, Ueda A, Kakizaki S, Yoshinari K, Gong QH, Owens IS, Negishi M, and Sueyoshi T (2001) The phenobarbital response enhancer module in the human bilirubin UDP-glucuronosyltransferase UGT1A1 gene and regulation by the nuclear receptor CAR. Hepatology 33: 1232–1238.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tzameli I, Pissios P, Schuetz EG, and Moore DD (2000) The xenobiotic compound 1,4-bis[2-(3,5-dichloropyridyloxy)]benzene is an agonist ligand for the nuclear receptor CAR. Mol Cell Biol 20: 2951–2958.
Ueda A, Hamadeh HK, Webb HK, Yamamoto Y, Sueyoshi T, Afshari CA, Lehmann JM, and Negishi M (2002) Diverse roles of the nuclear orphan receptor CAR in regulating hepatic genes in response to phenobarbital. Mol Pharmacol 61: 1–6.
Wang H, Faucette S, Moore R, Sueyoshi T, Negishi M, and LeCluyse E (2004) Human constitutive androstane receptor mediates induction of CYP2B6 gene expression by phenytoin. J Biol Chem 279: 29295–29301.
Wang H, Faucette S, Sueyoshi T, Moore R, Ferguson S, Negishi M, and LeCluyse EL (2003) A novel distal enhancer module regulated by pregnane X receptor/constitutive androstane receptor is essential for the maximal induction of CYP2B6 gene expression. J Biol Chem 278: 14146–14152.
Wei P, Zhang J, Dowhan DH, Han Y, and Moore DD (2002) Specific and overlapping functions of the nuclear hormone receptors CAR and PXR in xenobiotic response. Pharmacogenomics J 2: 117–126.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wei P, Zhang J, Egan-Hafley M, Liang S, and Moore DD (2000) The nuclear receptor CAR mediates specific xenobiotic induction of drug metabolism. Nature (Lond) 407: 920–923.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wyde ME, Bartolucci E, Ueda A, Zhang H, Yan B, Negishi M, and You L (2003) The environmental pollutant 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)ethylene induces rat hepatic cytochrome P450 2B and 3A expression through the constitutive androstane receptor and pregnane X receptor. Mol Pharmacol 64: 474–481.
Xie W, Barwick JL, Downes M, Blumberg B, Simon CM, Nelson MC, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Brunt EM, Guzelian PS, and Evans RM (2000a) Humanized xenobiotic response in mice expressing nuclear receptor SXR. Nature (Lond) 406: 435–439.[CrossRef][Medline]
Xie W, Barwick JL, Simon CM, Pierce AM, Safe S, Blumberg B, Guzelian PS, and Evans RM (2000b) Reciprocal activation of xenobiotic response genes by nuclear receptors SXR/PXR and CAR. Genes Dev 14: 3014–3023.
Xie W, Yeuh MF, Radominska-Pandya A, Saini SP, Negishi Y, Bottroff BS, Cabrera GY, Tukey RH, and Evans RM (2003) Control of steroid, heme and carcinogen metabolism by nuclear pregnane X receptor and constitutive androstane receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 4150–4155.
Zelko I, Sueyoshi T, Kawamoto T, Moore R, and Negishi M (2001) The peptide near the C terminus regulates receptor CAR nuclear translocation induced by xenochemicals in mouse liver. Mol Cell Biol 21: 2838–2846.
Zhang J, Huang W, Qatanani M, Evans RM, and Moore DD (2004) The constitutive androstane receptor and pregnane X receptor function coordinately to prevent bile acid-induced hepatotoxicity. J Biol Chem 279: 49517–49522.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Hariparsad, B. A. Carr, R. Evers, and X. Chu Comparison of Immortalized Fa2N-4 Cells and Human Hepatocytes as in Vitro Models for Cytochrome P450 Induction Drug Metab. Dispos., June 1, 2008; 36(6): 1046 - 1055. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. D. Kharasch, D. Mitchell, R. Coles, and R. Blanco Rapid Clinical Induction of Hepatic Cytochrome P4502B6 Activity by Ritonavir Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., May 1, 2008; 52(5): 1663 - 1669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Richert, G. Tuschl, C. Viollon-Abadie, N. Blanchard, A. Bonet, B. Heyd, N. Halkic, E. Wimmer, H. Dolgos, and S. O. Mueller Species Differences in the Response of Liver Drug-Metabolizing Enzymes to (S)-4-O-Tolylsulfanyl-2-(4-trifluormethyl-phenoxy)-butyric Acid (EMD 392949) in Vivo and in Vitro Drug Metab. Dispos., April 1, 2008; 36(4): 702 - 714. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Healan-Greenberg, J. F. Waring, D. J. Kempf, E. A. G. Blomme, R. G. Tirona, and R. B. Kim A Human Immunodeficiency Virus Protease Inhibitor Is a Novel Functional Inhibitor of Human Pregnane X Receptor Drug Metab. Dispos., March 1, 2008; 36(3): 500 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. R. Faucette, T.-C. Zhang, R. Moore, T. Sueyoshi, C. J. Omiecinski, E. L. LeCluyse, M. Negishi, and H. Wang Relative Activation of Human Pregnane X Receptor versus Constitutive Androstane Receptor Defines Distinct Classes of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 Inducers J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., January 1, 2007; 320(1): 72 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||
) and CYP2B6 (
) expression levels were normalized against those of 
