1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
  2. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
Download icon

Resveratrol modulates the inflammatory response via an estrogen receptor-signal integration network

Research Article
  • Cited 87
  • Views 5,034
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2014;3:e02057 doi: 10.7554/eLife.02057

Abstract

Resveratrol has beneficial effects on aging, inflammation and metabolism, which are thought to result from activation of the lysine deacetylase, sirtuin 1 (SIRT1), the cAMP pathway, or AMP-activated protein kinase. Here we report that resveratrol acts as a pathway-selective estrogen receptor-α (ERα) ligand to modulate the inflammatory response but not cell proliferation. A crystal structure of the ERα ligand-binding domain (LBD) as a complex with resveratrol revealed a unique perturbation of the coactivator-binding surface, consistent with an altered coregulator recruitment profile. Gene expression analyses revealed significant overlap of TNFα genes modulated by resveratrol and estradiol. Furthermore, the ability of resveratrol to suppress interleukin-6 transcription was shown to require ERα and several ERα coregulators, suggesting that ERα functions as a primary conduit for resveratrol activity.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jerome C Nwachukwu

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Sathish Srinivasan

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nelson E Bruno

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alex A Parent

    University of Illinois, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Travis S Hughes

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Julie A Pollock

    University of Illinois, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Olsi Gjyshi

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Valerie Cavett

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jason Nowak

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ruben D Garcia-Ordonez

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. René Houtman

    PamGene International, Den Bosch, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Patrick R Griffin

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Douglas J Kojetin

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. John A Katzenellenbogen

    University of Illinois, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Michael D Conkright

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Kendall W Nettles

    The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    For correspondence
    knettles@scripps.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Leemor Joshua-Tor, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: December 12, 2013
  2. Accepted: April 5, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 25, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 13, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Nwachukwu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,034
    Page views
  • 495
    Downloads
  • 87
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Jing Li et al.
    Research Article

    Integrin conformational ensembles contain two low-affinity states, bent-closed and extended-closed, and an active, high-affinity, extended-open state. It is widely thought that integrins must be activated before they bind ligand; however, one model holds that activation follows ligand binding. As ligand-binding kinetics are not only rate limiting for cell adhesion but also have important implications for the mechanism of activation, we measure them here for integrins α4β1 and α5β1 and show that the low-affinity states bind substantially faster than the high-affinity state. On and off-rates are similar for integrins on cell surfaces and as ectodomain fragments. Although the extended-open conformation's on-rate is ~20-fold slower, its off-rate is ~25,000-fold slower, resulting in a large affinity increase. The tighter ligand-binding pocket in the open state may slow its on-rate. Low affinity integrin states not only bind ligand more rapidly, but are also more populous on the cell surface than high affinity states. Thus, our results suggest that integrin binding to ligand may precede, rather than follow, activation by 'inside-out signaling'.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Cathrine Bergh et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Ligand-gated ion channels conduct currents in response to chemical stimuli, mediating electrochemical signaling in neurons and other excitable cells. For many channels, the details of gating remain unclear, partly due to limited structural data and simulation timescales. Here, we used enhanced sampling to simulate the pH-gated channel GLIC, and construct Markov state models (MSMs) of gating. Consistent with new functional recordings, we report in oocytes, our analysis revealed differential effects of protonation and mutation on free-energy wells. Clustering of closed- versus open-like states enabled estimation of open probabilities and transition rates, while higher-order clustering affirmed conformational trends in gating. Furthermore, our models uncovered state- and protonation-dependent symmetrization. This demonstrates the applicability of MSMs to map energetic and conformational transitions between ion-channel functional states, and how they reproduce shifts upon activation or mutation, with implications for modeling neuronal function and developing state-selective drugs.