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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Peter Tontonoz, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, United States

Version history

  1. Received: November 3, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 31, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 2, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: February 3, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: March 24, 2016 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: September 18, 2018 (version 4)

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

  • 7,515
    views
  • 1,626
    downloads
  • 203
    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. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Marco van den Noort, Panagiotis Drougkas ... Bert Poolman
    Research Article

    Bacteria utilize various strategies to prevent internal dehydration during hypertonic stress. A common approach to countering the effects of the stress is to import compatible solutes such as glycine betaine, leading to simultaneous passive water fluxes following the osmotic gradient. OpuA from Lactococcus lactis is a type I ABC-importer that uses two substrate-binding domains (SBDs) to capture extracellular glycine betaine and deliver the substrate to the transmembrane domains for subsequent transport. OpuA senses osmotic stress via changes in the internal ionic strength and is furthermore regulated by the 2nd messenger cyclic-di-AMP. We now show, by means of solution-based single-molecule FRET and analysis with multi-parameter photon-by-photon hidden Markov modeling, that the SBDs transiently interact in an ionic strength-dependent manner. The smFRET data are in accordance with the apparent cooperativity in transport and supported by new cryo-EM data of OpuA. We propose that the physical interactions between SBDs and cooperativity in substrate delivery are part of the transport mechanism.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiao-Ru Chen, Karuna Dixit ... Tatyana I Igumenova
    Research Article

    Regulated hydrolysis of the phosphoinositide phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bis-phosphate to diacylglycerol and inositol-1,4,5-P3 defines a major eukaryotic pathway for translation of extracellular cues to intracellular signaling circuits. Members of the lipid-activated protein kinase C isoenzyme family (PKCs) play central roles in this signaling circuit. One of the regulatory mechanisms employed to downregulate stimulated PKC activity is via a proteasome-dependent degradation pathway that is potentiated by peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. Here, we show that contrary to prevailing models, Pin1 does not regulate conventional PKC isoforms α and βII via a canonical cis-trans isomerization of the peptidyl-prolyl bond. Rather, Pin1 acts as a PKC binding partner that controls PKC activity via sequestration of the C-terminal tail of the kinase. The high-resolution structure of full-length Pin1 complexed to the C-terminal tail of PKCβII reveals that a novel bivalent interaction mode underlies the non-catalytic mode of Pin1 action. Specifically, Pin1 adopts a conformation in which it uses the WW and PPIase domains to engage two conserved phosphorylated PKC motifs, the turn motif and hydrophobic motif, respectively. Hydrophobic motif is a non-canonical Pin1-interacting element. The structural information combined with the results of extensive binding studies and experiments in cultured cells suggest that non-catalytic mechanisms represent unappreciated modes of Pin1-mediated regulation of AGC kinases and other key enzymes/substrates.