Frank Claessens

The AF1 and AF2 Domains of the Androgen Receptor Interact with Distinct Regions of SRC1

ABSTRACT The androgen receptor is unusual among nuclear receptors in that most, if not all, of its activity is mediated via the constitutive activation function in the N terminus. Here we demonstrate that p160 coactivators such as SRC1 (steroid receptor coactivator 1) interact directly with the N terminus in a ligand-independent manner via a conserved glutamine-rich region between residues 1053 and 1123. Although SRC1 is capable of interacting with the ligand-binding domain by means of LXXLL motifs, this interaction is not essential since an SRC1 mutant with no functional LXXLL motifs retains its ability to potentiate androgen receptor activity. In contrast, mutants lacking the glutamine-rich region are inactive, indicating that this region is both necessary and sufficient for recruitment of SRC1 to the androgen receptor. This recruitment is in direct contrast to the recruitment of SRC1 to the estrogen receptor, which requires interaction with the ligand-binding domain.

The Androgen Receptor Amino-Terminal Domain Plays a Key Role in p160 Coactivator-Stimulated Gene Transcription

ABSTRACT Steroid receptors are conditional transcription factors that, upon binding to their response elements, regulate the expression of target genes via direct protein interactions with transcriptional coactivators. We have analyzed the functional interactions between the androgen receptor (AR) and 160-kDa nuclear receptor coactivators. Upon overexpression in mammalian cells, these coactivators enhance the transcriptional activity of both the amino-terminal domain (NTD) and the ligand-binding domain (LBD) of the AR. The coactivator activity for the LBD is strictly ligand-controlled and depends on the nature of the DNA-binding domain to which it is fused. We demonstrate that the NTD physically interacts with coactivators and with the LBD and that this interaction, like the functional interaction between the LBD and p160 coactivators, relies on the activation function 2 (AF2) core domain. The mutation of a highly conserved lysine residue in the predicted helix 3 of the LBD (K720A), however, blunts the functional interaction with coactivators but not with the NTD. Moreover, this mutation does not affect the transcriptional activity of the full-size AR. A mutation in the NTD of activation function AF1a (I182A/L183A), which dramatically impairs the activity of the AR, has no effect on the intrinsic transcriptional activity of the NTD but interferes with the cooperation between the NTD and the LBD. Finally, p160 proteins in which the three LXXLL motifs are mutated retain most of their coactivator activity for the full-size AR, although they are no longer functional for the isolated LBD. Together, these data suggest that in the native AR the efficient recruitment of coactivators requires a functional association of the NTD with the LBD and that the binding of coactivators occurs primarily through the NTD.

Fracture risk and zoledronic acid therapy in men with osteoporosis

BACKGROUND Fractures in men are a major health issue, and data on the antifracture efficacy of therapies for osteoporosis in men are limited. We studied the effect of zoledronic acid on fracture risk among men with osteoporosis. METHODS In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1199 men with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis who were 50 to 85 years of age to receive an intravenous infusion of zoledronic acid (5 mg) or placebo at baseline and at 12 months. Participants received daily calcium and vitamin D supplementation. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with one or more new morphometric vertebral fractures over a period of 24 months. RESULTS The rate of any new morphometric vertebral fracture was 1.6% in the zoledronic acid group and 4.9% in the placebo group over the 24-month period, representing a 67% risk reduction with zoledronic acid (relative risk, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.70; P=0.002). As compared with men who received placebo, men who received zoledronic acid had fewer moderate-to-severe vertebral fractures (P=0.03) and less height loss (P=0.002). Fewer participants who received zoledronic acid had clinical vertebral or nonvertebral fractures, although this difference did not reach significance because of the small number of fractures. Bone mineral density was higher and bone-turnover markers were lower in the men who received zoledronic acid (P<0.05 for both comparisons). Results were similar in men with low serum levels of total testosterone. The zoledronic acid and placebo groups did not differ significantly with respect to the incidence of death (2.6% and 2.9%, respectively) or serious adverse events (25.3% and 25.2%). CONCLUSIONS Zoledronic acid treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk of vertebral fracture among men with osteoporosis. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00439647.).

Diverse roles of androgen receptor (AR) domains in AR-mediated signaling

Androgens control male sexual development and maintenance of the adult male phenotype. They have very divergent effects on their target organs like the reproductive organs, muscle, bone, brain and skin. This is explained in part by the fact that different cell types respond differently to androgen stimulus, even when all these responses are mediated by the same intracellular androgen receptor. To understand these tissue- and cell-specific readouts of androgens, we have to learn the many different steps in the transcription activation mechanisms of the androgen receptor (NR3C4). Like all nuclear receptors, the steroid receptors have a central DNA-binding domain connected to a ligand-binding domain by a hinge region. In addition, all steroid receptors have a relatively large amino-terminal domain. Despite the overall structural homology with other nuclear receptors, the androgen receptor has several specific characteristics which will be discussed here. This receptor can bind two types of androgen response elements (AREs): one type being similar to the classical GRE/PRE-type elements, the other type being the more divergent and more selective AREs. The hormone-binding domain has low intrinsic transactivation properties, a feature that correlates with the low affinity of this domain for the canonical LxxLL-bearing coactivators. For the androgen receptor, transcriptional activation involves the alternative recruitment of coactivators to different regions in the amino-terminal domain, as well as the hinge region. Finally, a very strong ligand-induced interaction between the amino-terminal domain and the ligand-binding domain of the androgen receptor seems to be involved in many aspects of its function as a transcription factor. This review describes the current knowledge on the structure-function relationships within the domains of the androgen receptor and tries to integrate the involvement of different domains, subdomains and motifs in the functioning of this receptor as a transcription factor with tissue- and cell-specific readouts.

The androgen-specific probasin response element 2 interacts differentially with androgen and glucocorticoid receptors

The nuclear receptors constitute a large family of transcription factors characterized by a well conserved DNA-binding domain. The receptors for glucocorticoids, progestins, mineralocorticoids, and androgens constitute a subgroup because they bind in vitro with high affinity to DNA elements containing a partial palindrome of the core sequence 5′-TGTTCT-3′. In vivo, however, the corresponding steroids differentially regulate the expression of their target genes, even when more than one receptor type is present in a particular cell. The DNA-binding domains of the androgen and of the glucocorticoid receptors bind most androgen response elements with similar relative affinities. In contrast, one element (5′-TGG-3′) which was recently described in the promoter region of the probasin gene selectively interacts with the DNA-binding domain of the androgen receptor and not with that of the glucocorticoid receptor. From studies with chimeric elements, it can be deduced that it is the left subsequence 5′-GGTTCT-3′ which excludes the glucocorticoid receptor domain from binding. In co-transfection experiments where the ARE of the C3(1) gene is responsive to both androgens and glucocorticoids, the probasin element is induced only by androgens and not by glucocorticoids. The existence of response elements which are recognized preferentially by the androgen receptor provides yet another possible mechanism to explain the differences of the in vivo effects between androgens and other steroids of the subgroup.

Sex Steroid Actions in Male Bone

Sex steroids are chief regulators of gender differences in the skeleton, and male gender is one of the strongest protective factors against osteoporotic fractures. This advantage in bone strength relies mainly on greater cortical bone expansion during pubertal peak bone mass acquisition and superior skeletal maintenance during aging. During both these phases, estrogens acting via estrogen receptor-α in osteoblast lineage cells are crucial for male cortical and trabecular bone, as evident from conditional genetic mouse models, epidemiological studies, rare genetic conditions, genome-wide meta-analyses, and recent interventional trials. Genetic mouse models have also demonstrated a direct role for androgens independent of aromatization on trabecular bone via the androgen receptor in osteoblasts and osteocytes, although the target cell for their key effects on periosteal bone formation remains elusive. Low serum estradiol predicts incident fractures, but the highest risk occurs in men with additionally low T and high SHBG. Still, the possible clinical utility of serum sex steroids for fracture prediction is unknown. It is likely that sex steroid actions on male bone metabolism rely also on extraskeletal mechanisms and cross talk with other signaling pathways. We propose that estrogens influence fracture risk in aging men via direct effects on bone, whereas androgens exert an additional antifracture effect mainly via extraskeletal parameters such as muscle mass and propensity to fall. Given the demographic trends of increased longevity and consequent rise of osteoporosis, an increased understanding of how sex steroids influence male bone health remains a high research priority.

The Hinge Region Regulates DNA Binding, Nuclear Translocation, and Transactivation of the Androgen Receptor

The androgen receptor (AR) encoding gene can undergo mutations during the development and treatment of prostate cancer. Even in hormone-independent stages, mutations in the receptor paradoxically seem to result in an increased AR function. Two such point mutations have been described in the part of the AR involved in DNA binding and nuclear translocation, namely the hinge region. Despite a decreased nuclear translocation, these mutant ARs display increased transactivating potencies. Through detailed analysis of the hinge region, we found that deletion of residues 629 to 636 resulted in a stronger androgen response on different reporters, although this mutant displays an extremely low in vitro affinity for androgen response elements. This superactivity is independent of nuclear localization and can be inhibited by antiandrogens. Surprisingly, the AR activation functions, AF1 and AF2, are not dramatically affected when the inhibitory region (629-RKLKKLGN-636) is deleted, although cotransfected p160 coactivator TIF2 had a stronger potentiating effect in the absence of this motif. The ligand-dependent interaction between the amino-terminal domain and the ligand-binding domain (N/C interaction) plays an important role in transactivation by the AR. We found that this interaction is strongly enhanced by deletion of the inhibitory region. In conclusion, the description of prostate cancer mutations has led to the discovery of a complex role of the hinge region in nuclear localization, DNA binding, coactivator recruitment, and N/C interaction of the AR.

Androgens and skeletal muscle: cellular and molecular action mechanisms underlying the anabolic actions.

Androgens increase both the size and strength of skeletal muscle via diverse mechanisms. The aim of this review is to discuss the different cellular targets of androgens in skeletal muscle as well as the respective androgen actions in these cells leading to changes in proliferation, myogenic differentiation, and protein metabolism. Androgens bind and activate a specific nuclear receptor which will directly affect the transcription of target genes. These genes encode muscle-specific transcription factors, enzymes, structural proteins, as well as microRNAs. In addition, anabolic action of androgens is partly established through crosstalk with other signaling molecules such as Akt, myostatin, IGF-I, and Notch. Finally, androgens may also exert non-genomic effects in muscle by increasing Ca2+ uptake and modulating kinase activities. In conclusion, the anabolic effect of androgens on skeletal muscle is not only explained by activation of the myocyte androgen receptor but is also the combined result of many genomic and non-genomic actions.

Inhibition of Cathepsin K for Treatment of Osteoporosis

Cathepsin K is the protease that is primarily responsible for the degradation of bone matrix by osteoclasts. Inhibitors of cathepsin K are in development for treatment of osteoporosis. Currently available antiresorptive drugs interfere with osteoclast function. They inhibit both bone resorption and formation, due to the coupling between these processes. Cathepsin K inhibitors, conversely, target the resorption process itself and may not interfere with osteoclast stimulation of bone formation. In fact, when cathepsin K is absent or inhibited in mice, rabbits, or monkeys, bone formation is maintained or increased. In humans, inhibition of cathepsin K is associated with sustained reductions in bone resorption markers but with smaller and transient reductions in bone formation markers. The usefulness of cathepsin K inhibitors in osteoporosis is now being examined in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials of postmenopausal osteoporotic women.

Loss of androgen receptor binding to selective androgen response elements causes a reproductive phenotype in a knockin mouse model

Androgens influence transcription of their target genes through the activation of the androgen receptor (AR) that subsequently interacts with specific DNA motifs in these genes. These DNA motifs, called androgen response elements (AREs), can be classified in two classes: the classical AREs, which are also recognized by the other steroid hormone receptors; and the AR-selective AREs, which display selectivity for the AR. For in vitro interaction with the selective AREs, the androgen receptor DNA-binding domain is dependent on specific residues in its second zinc-finger. To evaluate the physiological relevance of these selective elements, we generated a germ-line knockin mouse model, termed SPARKI (SPecificity-affecting AR KnockIn), in which the second zinc-finger of the AR was replaced with that of the glucocorticoid receptor, resulting in a chimeric protein that retains its ability to bind classical AREs but is unable to bind selective AREs. The reproductive organs of SPARKI males are smaller compared with wild-type animals, and they are also subfertile. Intriguingly, however, they do not display any anabolic phenotype. The expression of two testis-specific, androgen-responsive genes is differentially affected by the SPARKI mutation, which is correlated with the involvement of different types of response elements in their androgen responsiveness. In this report, we present the first in vivo evidence of the existence of two functionally different types of AREs and demonstrate that AR-regulated gene expression can be targeted based on this distinction.