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 Greene  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 Greene

    Ben May Department for Cancer Research, University of Chicago, Chicago, 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

  • 7,814
    views
  • 1,682
    downloads
  • 214
    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 Greene
(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
    Jinsai Shang, Douglas J Kojetin
    Research Advance

    Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) is a nuclear receptor transcription factor that regulates gene expression programs in response to ligand binding. Endogenous and synthetic ligands, including covalent antagonist inhibitors GW9662 and T0070907, are thought to compete for the orthosteric pocket in the ligand-binding domain (LBD). However, we previously showed that synthetic PPARγ ligands can cooperatively cobind with and reposition a bound endogenous orthosteric ligand to an alternate site, synergistically regulating PPARγ structure and function (Shang et al., 2018). Here, we reveal the structural mechanism of cobinding between a synthetic covalent antagonist inhibitor with other synthetic ligands. Biochemical and NMR data show that covalent inhibitors weaken—but do not prevent—the binding of other ligands via an allosteric mechanism, rather than direct ligand clashing, by shifting the LBD ensemble toward a transcriptionally repressive conformation, which structurally clashes with orthosteric ligand binding. Crystal structures reveal different cobinding mechanisms including alternate site binding to unexpectedly adopting an orthosteric binding mode by altering the covalent inhibitor binding pose. Our findings highlight the significant flexibility of the PPARγ orthosteric pocket, its ability to accommodate multiple ligands, and demonstrate that GW9662 and T0070907 should not be used as chemical tools to inhibit ligand binding to PPARγ.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Yuanyuan Wang, Fan Xu ... Yongning He
    Research Article

    SCARF1 (scavenger receptor class F member 1, SREC-1 or SR-F1) is a type I transmembrane protein that recognizes multiple endogenous and exogenous ligands such as modified low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and is important for maintaining homeostasis and immunity. But the structural information and the mechanisms of ligand recognition of SCARF1 are largely unavailable. Here, we solve the crystal structures of the N-terminal fragments of human SCARF1, which show that SCARF1 forms homodimers and its epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domains adopt a long-curved conformation. Then, we examine the interactions of SCARF1 with lipoproteins and are able to identify a region on SCARF1 for recognizing modified LDLs. The mutagenesis data show that the positively charged residues in the region are crucial for the interaction of SCARF1 with modified LDLs, which is confirmed by making chimeric molecules of SCARF1 and SCARF2. In addition, teichoic acids, a cell wall polymer expressed on the surface of gram-positive bacteria, are able to inhibit the interactions of modified LDLs with SCARF1, suggesting the ligand binding sites of SCARF1 might be shared for some of its scavenging targets. Overall, these results provide mechanistic insights into SCARF1 and its interactions with the ligands, which are important for understanding its physiological roles in homeostasis and the related diseases.