Estrogen receptor alpha somatic mutations Y537S and D538G confer breast cancer endocrine resistance by stabilizing the activating function-2 binding conformation

  1. Sean W Fanning
  2. Christopher G Mayne
  3. Venkatasubramanian Dharmarajan
  4. Kathryn E Carlson
  5. Teresa A Martin
  6. Scott J Novick
  7. Weiyi Toy
  8. Bradley Green
  9. Srinivas Panchamukhi
  10. Benita S Katzenellenbogen
  11. Emad Tajkhorshid
  12. Patrick R Griffin
  13. Yang Shen
  14. Sarat Chandarlapaty
  15. John A Katzenellenbogen
  16. Geoffrey L Griffin  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Chicago, United States
  2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
  3. The Scripps Research Institute-Scripps Florida, United States
  4. The Scripps Research Institute, United States
  5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States
  6. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, United States
  7. Texas A&M University, United States
  8. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, United States

Abstract

Somatic mutations in the estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) gene (ESR1), especially Y537S and D538G, have been linked to acquired resistance to endocrine therapies. Cell based studies demonstrated that these mutants confer ERα constitutive activity and antiestrogen resistance and suggest that ligand-binding domain dysfunction leads to endocrine therapy resistance. Here, we integrate biophysical and structural biology data to reveal how these mutations lead to a constitutively active and antiestrogen resistant ERα. We show that these mutant ERs recruit coactivator in the absence of hormone while their affinities for estrogen agonist (estradiol) and antagonist (4-hydroxytamoxifen) are reduced. Further, they confer antiestrogen resistance by altering the conformational dynamics of the loop connecting Helix 11 and Helix 12 in the ligand-binding domain of ERα, which leads to a stabilized agonist state and an altered antagonist state that resists inhibition.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sean W Fanning

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Christopher G Mayne

    Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Venkatasubramanian Dharmarajan

    Department of Molecular Therapeutics, The Scripps Research Institute-Scripps Florida, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kathryn E Carlson

    Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Teresa A Martin

    Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Scott J Novick

    Department of Molecular Therapeutics, The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Weiyi Toy

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Bradley Green

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Srinivas Panchamukhi

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Benita S Katzenellenbogen

    Department of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Emad Tajkhorshid

    Department of Biochemistry, Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, and Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Patrick R Griffin

    Department of Molecular Therapeutics, The Scripps Research Institute, Jupiter, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Yang Shen

    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and TEES-AgriLife Center for Bioinformatics and Genomic Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Sarat Chandarlapaty

    Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. John A Katzenellenbogen

    Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Geoffrey L Griffin

    Department of Molecular Therapeutics, University of Chicago, Jupiter, United States
    For correspondence
    ggreene@uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Fanning et al.

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

Metrics

  • 7,889
    views
  • 1,691
    downloads
  • 219
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

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

  1. Sean W Fanning
  2. Christopher G Mayne
  3. Venkatasubramanian Dharmarajan
  4. Kathryn E Carlson
  5. Teresa A Martin
  6. Scott J Novick
  7. Weiyi Toy
  8. Bradley Green
  9. Srinivas Panchamukhi
  10. Benita S Katzenellenbogen
  11. Emad Tajkhorshid
  12. Patrick R Griffin
  13. Yang Shen
  14. Sarat Chandarlapaty
  15. John A Katzenellenbogen
  16. Geoffrey L Griffin
(2016)
Estrogen receptor alpha somatic mutations Y537S and D538G confer breast cancer endocrine resistance by stabilizing the activating function-2 binding conformation
eLife 5:e12792.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12792

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12792

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Elise S Bruguera, Jacob P Mahoney, William I Weis
    Research Article

    Wnt/β-catenin signaling directs animal development and tissue renewal in a tightly controlled, cell- and tissue-specific manner. In the mammalian central nervous system, the atypical ligand Norrin controls angiogenesis and maintenance of the blood-brain barrier and blood-retina barrier through the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Like Wnt, Norrin activates signaling by binding and heterodimerizing the receptors Frizzled (Fzd) and low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 or 6 (LRP5/6), leading to membrane recruitment of the intracellular transducer Dishevelled (Dvl) and ultimately stabilizing the transcriptional coactivator β-catenin. Unlike Wnt, the cystine knot ligand Norrin only signals through Fzd4 and additionally requires the co-receptor Tetraspanin12 (Tspan12); however, the mechanism underlying Tspan12-mediated signal enhancement is unclear. It has been proposed that Tspan12 integrates into the Norrin-Fzd4 complex to enhance Norrin-Fzd4 affinity or otherwise allosterically modulate Fzd4 signaling. Here, we measure direct, high-affinity binding between purified Norrin and Tspan12 in a lipid environment and use AlphaFold models to interrogate this interaction interface. We find that Tspan12 and Fzd4 can simultaneously bind Norrin and that a pre-formed Tspan12/Fzd4 heterodimer, as well as cells co-expressing Tspan12 and Fzd4, more efficiently capture low concentrations of Norrin than Fzd4 alone. We also show that Tspan12 competes with both heparan sulfate proteoglycans and LRP6 for Norrin binding and that Tspan12 does not impact Fzd4-Dvl affinity in the presence or absence of Norrin. Our findings suggest that Tspan12 does not allosterically enhance Fzd4 binding to Norrin or Dvl, but instead functions to directly capture Norrin upstream of signaling.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Laura-Marie Silbermann, Benjamin Vermeer ... Katarzyna Tych
    Review Article

    Molecular chaperones are vital proteins that maintain protein homeostasis by assisting in protein folding, activation, degradation, and stress protection. Among them, heat-shock protein 90 (Hsp90) stands out as an essential proteostasis hub in eukaryotes, chaperoning hundreds of ‘clients’ (substrates). After decades of research, several ‘known unknowns’ about the molecular function of Hsp90 remain unanswered, hampering rational drug design for the treatment of cancers, neurodegenerative, and other diseases. We highlight three fundamental open questions, reviewing the current state of the field for each, and discuss new opportunities, including single-molecule technologies, to answer the known unknowns of the Hsp90 chaperone.