Article

Differential regulation of epidermal function by VDR coactivators

Endocrine Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA.
The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology (Impact Factor: 4.05). 03/2010; 121(1-2):308-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2010.03.027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The transcriptional activity of the vitamin D receptor (VDR) is regulated by a number of coactivator and corepressor complexes, which bind to the VDR in a ligand (1,25(OH)2D3) dependent (coactivators) or inhibited (corepressors) process. In the keratinocyte the major coactivator complexes include the vitamin D interacting protein (DRIP) complex and the steroid receptor coactivator (SRC) complexes. These coactivator complexes are not interchangeable in their regulation of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. We found that the DRIP complex is the main complex binding to VDR in the proliferating keratinocyte, whereas SRC2 and 3 and their associated proteins are the major coactivators binding to VDR in the differentiated keratinocyte. Moreover, we have found a specific role for DRIP205 in the regulation of beta-catenin pathways regulating keratinocyte proliferation, whereas SRC3 uniquely regulates the ability of 1,25(OH)2D3 to induce more differentiated functions such as lipid synthesis and processing required for permeability barrier formation and the innate immune response triggered by disruption of the barrier. These findings provide a basis by which we can understand how one receptor (VDR) and one ligand (1,25(OH)2D3) can regulate a large number of genes in a sequential and differentiation specific fashion.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Leggy A Arnold, Jul 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
113 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ligand-independent actions of the vitamin D receptor (VDR) are required for normal post-morphogenic hair cycles; however, the molecular mechanisms by which the VDR exerts these actions are not clear. Previous studies demonstrated impaired regulation of the canonical Wnt signaling pathway in primary keratinocytes lacking the VDR. To identify the key effector of canonical Wnt signaling that interacts with the VDR, GST pulldown studies were performed. A novel interaction between the VDR and LEF1 (lymphoid enhancer-binding factor-1) that is independent of β-catenin was identified. This interaction is dependent upon sequences within the N-terminal region of the VDR, a domain required for VDR-DNA interactions and normal hair cycling in mice. Mutation of specific residues within the N-terminal region of the VDR not only abrogated interactions between the VDR and LEF1 but also impaired the ability of the VDR to enhance Wnt signaling in vdr(-/-) primary keratinocytes. Thus, this study demonstrates a novel interaction between the VDR and LEF1 that is mediated by the DNA-binding domain of the VDR and that is required for normal canonical Wnt signaling in keratinocytes.
    Journal of Biological Chemistry 04/2011; 286(21):18444-51. DOI:10.1074/jbc.M110.188219 · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two critical defensive functions of the outer epidermis, the permeability barrier and antimicrobial defense, share certain structural and biochemical features. Moreover, three antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), i.e., mouse β-defensin 3 (mBD3), mouse cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide (mCAMP), and the neuroendocrine peptide, catestatin (Cst), all localize to the outer epidermis, and both mBD3 and mCAMP are secreted from the epidermal lamellar bodies with other organelle contents that subserve the permeability barrier. These three AMPs are upregulated in response to acute permeability barrier disruption, whereas conversely, mCAMP-/- mice (unable to combat Gram-positive pathogens) also display abnormal barrier homeostasis. To determine further whether these two functions are co-regulated, we investigated changes in immunostaining for these three AMPs in skin samples in which the permeability barrier function in mice had been either compromised or enhanced. Compromised or enhanced barrier function correlated with reduced or enhanced immunohistochemical expression of mCAMP, respectively, but conversely with Cst expression, likely due to the role of this AMP as an endogenous inhibitor of cathelicidin expression. mBD3 expression correlated with experimental barrier perturbations, but poorly with developmental changes in barrier function. These studies show that changes in cathelicidin and Cst expression parallel changes in permeability barrier status, with a less clear relationship with mBD3 expression.
    Journal of Investigative Dermatology 07/2011; 131(11):2263-70. DOI:10.1038/jid.2011.210 · 6.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The keratinocytes of the skin are unique in being not only the primary source of vitamin D for the body, but in possessing both the enzymatic machinery to metabolize the vitamin D produced to active metabolites (in particular 1,25(OH)(2)D) and the vitamin D receptor (VDR) that enables the keratinocytes to respond to the 1,25(OH)(2)D thus generated. Numerous functions of the skin are regulated by vitamin D and/or its receptor. These include inhibition of proliferation, stimulation of differentiation including formation of the permeability barrier, promotion of innate immunity, regulation of the hair follicle cycle, and suppression of tumor formation. Regulation of these actions is exerted by a number of different coregulator complexes including the coactivators vitamin D receptor interacting protein (DRIP) complex also known as Mediator and the steroid receptor coactivator (SRC) family (of which SRC 2 and 3 are found in keratincytes), the inhibitor hairless (Hr), and β-catenin whose impact on VDR function is complex. Different coregulators appear to be involved in different VDR regulated functions. This review will examine the various functions of vitamin D and its receptor in the skin, and explore the mechanisms by which these functions are regulated.
    Reviews in Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders 08/2011; 13(1):3-19. DOI:10.1007/s11154-011-9194-0 · 3.81 Impact Factor