Not Related with Nuclear Translocation of AR and HDAC RecruitmentThe effect

Not Related with Nuclear Translocation of AR and HDAC RecruitmentThe effect of COUP-TF II on AR nuclear translocation was assessed by coexpressing RFP-tagged AR and GFP-tagged COUP-TF II in COS-7 cells. When RFP-AR and GFP-COUPTF II were coexpressed, AR protein was predominantly located in the cytoplasm in the absence of ligand, but, AR protein translocated into the nucleus in the presence of 10 nM DHT (Figure 5A). Irrespective of DHT, COUP-TF II was predictably located in the nucleus. Therefore, neither AR nor COUP-TF II protein was mislocalized by their coexpression. These resultssuggest that AR repression by COUP-TF II is not likely due to the nuclear exclusion of AR. Corepressors of nuclear receptors are now known to utilize multiple mechanisms to repress the transactivation of nuclear receptors. They include the recruitment of histone deacetylase (HDAC), which also targets non-histone proteins including transcription factors and coregulators affecting their transcriptional function (reviewed in [46]). To investigate whether histone deacetylases (HDACs) were involved in the COUP-TF IImediated AR repression, we used the HDAC inhibitors trichostation A (TSA), sodium butylate (NaBut), and nicotinamide (NIC). In PPC-1 cells, the DHT-induced transactivation of AR was inhibited by COUP-TF II coexpression, while it was stimulated by treatment with HDAC inhibitors as previously reported [47,48]. The relived extent of the repressed AR transactivation byCOUP-TF II Inhibits AR TransactivationFigure 4. COUP-TF II inhibits the N/C terminal interaction of AR. (A) Mammalian two-hybrid assay. PPC-1 cells were transfected with 5XGAL4Luc3 together with or without VP-AR1-660, GAL-AR624-919, and COUP-TF II expression plasmids. Cells were treated with or without 10 nM DHT for 24 h. At least three BI-78D3 biological activity independent experiments were combined and values represent the mean6SEM. ***, P,0.001. (B) GST MedChemExpress Anlotinib pull-down competition assay. Immobilized GST-AR LBD proteins were incubated with [35S] methionine-labeled AR 22948146 AF1DBDh proteins produced by in vitro translation. For competition analysis, 5 and 10-fold excess of in vitro translated COUP-TF II proteins was added together with radiolabeled AR AF1DBDh proteins. Data are representative of three independent experiments. AF1DBDh: AF1+DBD+hinge region. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049026.gtreatment with TSA, NaBut or NIC was not significant compared to the stimulatory effect of relevant HDAC inhibitor itself on AR transactivation (Figure 5B, data not shown). These results suggest that HDACs are not involved in the COUP-TF II-mediated suppression of AR transactivation.repress the ARA70-enhanced AR transactivation in a dosedependent manner (Figure 6D). Together, these results suggest that COUP-TF II competes with some AR coactivators to modulate AR transactivation.Discussion COUP-TF II Inhibits AR Recruitment to a Target Promoter and Competes with Other Coregulators for the Modulation of AR TransactivationTo explore how COUP-TF II represses AR transactivaiton, we next investigated whether COUP-TF II could affect AR recruitment to the AR target PSA promoter. ChIP assays were performed with LNCaP prostate cancer cells infected with AdGFP or AdCOUP-TF II (Figure 6A). In LNCaP cells infected with AdGFP, the AR was recruited to the ARE-containing enhancer region of the PSA promoter in the presence of DHT, which was, however, strongly reduced by COUP-TF II overexpression in AdCOUP-TF II-infected cells. These results suggest the interfer.Not Related with Nuclear Translocation of AR and HDAC RecruitmentThe effect of COUP-TF II on AR nuclear translocation was assessed by coexpressing RFP-tagged AR and GFP-tagged COUP-TF II in COS-7 cells. When RFP-AR and GFP-COUPTF II were coexpressed, AR protein was predominantly located in the cytoplasm in the absence of ligand, but, AR protein translocated into the nucleus in the presence of 10 nM DHT (Figure 5A). Irrespective of DHT, COUP-TF II was predictably located in the nucleus. Therefore, neither AR nor COUP-TF II protein was mislocalized by their coexpression. These resultssuggest that AR repression by COUP-TF II is not likely due to the nuclear exclusion of AR. Corepressors of nuclear receptors are now known to utilize multiple mechanisms to repress the transactivation of nuclear receptors. They include the recruitment of histone deacetylase (HDAC), which also targets non-histone proteins including transcription factors and coregulators affecting their transcriptional function (reviewed in [46]). To investigate whether histone deacetylases (HDACs) were involved in the COUP-TF IImediated AR repression, we used the HDAC inhibitors trichostation A (TSA), sodium butylate (NaBut), and nicotinamide (NIC). In PPC-1 cells, the DHT-induced transactivation of AR was inhibited by COUP-TF II coexpression, while it was stimulated by treatment with HDAC inhibitors as previously reported [47,48]. The relived extent of the repressed AR transactivation byCOUP-TF II Inhibits AR TransactivationFigure 4. COUP-TF II inhibits the N/C terminal interaction of AR. (A) Mammalian two-hybrid assay. PPC-1 cells were transfected with 5XGAL4Luc3 together with or without VP-AR1-660, GAL-AR624-919, and COUP-TF II expression plasmids. Cells were treated with or without 10 nM DHT for 24 h. At least three independent experiments were combined and values represent the mean6SEM. ***, P,0.001. (B) GST pull-down competition assay. Immobilized GST-AR LBD proteins were incubated with [35S] methionine-labeled AR 22948146 AF1DBDh proteins produced by in vitro translation. For competition analysis, 5 and 10-fold excess of in vitro translated COUP-TF II proteins was added together with radiolabeled AR AF1DBDh proteins. Data are representative of three independent experiments. AF1DBDh: AF1+DBD+hinge region. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049026.gtreatment with TSA, NaBut or NIC was not significant compared to the stimulatory effect of relevant HDAC inhibitor itself on AR transactivation (Figure 5B, data not shown). These results suggest that HDACs are not involved in the COUP-TF II-mediated suppression of AR transactivation.repress the ARA70-enhanced AR transactivation in a dosedependent manner (Figure 6D). Together, these results suggest that COUP-TF II competes with some AR coactivators to modulate AR transactivation.Discussion COUP-TF II Inhibits AR Recruitment to a Target Promoter and Competes with Other Coregulators for the Modulation of AR TransactivationTo explore how COUP-TF II represses AR transactivaiton, we next investigated whether COUP-TF II could affect AR recruitment to the AR target PSA promoter. ChIP assays were performed with LNCaP prostate cancer cells infected with AdGFP or AdCOUP-TF II (Figure 6A). In LNCaP cells infected with AdGFP, the AR was recruited to the ARE-containing enhancer region of the PSA promoter in the presence of DHT, which was, however, strongly reduced by COUP-TF II overexpression in AdCOUP-TF II-infected cells. These results suggest the interfer.