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.

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

  • 7,620
    views
  • 1,652
    downloads
  • 208
    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
    Simon M Lichtinger, Joanne L Parker ... Philip C Biggin
    Research Article

    Proton-coupled oligopeptide transporters (POTs) are of great pharmaceutical interest owing to their promiscuous substrate binding site that has been linked to improved oral bioavailability of several classes of drugs. Members of the POT family are conserved across all phylogenetic kingdoms and function by coupling peptide uptake to the proton electrochemical gradient. Cryo-EM structures and alphafold models have recently provided new insights into different conformational states of two mammalian POTs, SLC15A1, and SLC15A2. Nevertheless, these studies leave open important questions regarding the mechanism of proton and substrate coupling, while simultaneously providing a unique opportunity to investigate these processes using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Here, we employ extensive unbiased and enhanced-sampling MD to map out the full SLC15A2 conformational cycle and its thermodynamic driving forces. By computing conformational free energy landscapes in different protonation states and in the absence or presence of peptide substrate, we identify a likely sequence of intermediate protonation steps that drive inward-directed alternating access. These simulations identify key differences in the extracellular gate between mammalian and bacterial POTs, which we validate experimentally in cell-based transport assays. Our results from constant-PH MD and absolute binding free energy (ABFE) calculations also establish a mechanistic link between proton binding and peptide recognition, revealing key details underpining secondary active transport in POTs. This study provides a vital step forward in understanding proton-coupled peptide and drug transport in mammals and pave the way to integrate knowledge of solute carrier structural biology with enhanced drug design to target tissue and organ bioavailability.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Hitendra Negi, Aravind Ravichandran ... Ranabir Das
    Research Article

    The proteasome controls levels of most cellular proteins, and its activity is regulated under stress, quiescence, and inflammation. However, factors determining the proteasomal degradation rate remain poorly understood. Proteasome substrates are conjugated with small proteins (tags) like ubiquitin and Fat10 to target them to the proteasome. It is unclear if the structural plasticity of proteasome-targeting tags can influence substrate degradation. Fat10 is upregulated during inflammation, and its substrates undergo rapid proteasomal degradation. We report that the degradation rate of Fat10 substrates critically depends on the structural plasticity of Fat10. While the ubiquitin tag is recycled at the proteasome, Fat10 is degraded with the substrate. Our results suggest significantly lower thermodynamic stability and faster mechanical unfolding in Fat10 compared to ubiquitin. Long-range salt bridges are absent in the Fat10 structure, creating a plastic protein with partially unstructured regions suitable for proteasome engagement. Fat10 plasticity destabilizes substrates significantly and creates partially unstructured regions in the substrate to enhance degradation. NMR-relaxation-derived order parameters and temperature dependence of chemical shifts identify the Fat10-induced partially unstructured regions in the substrate, which correlated excellently to Fat10-substrate contacts, suggesting that the tag-substrate collision destabilizes the substrate. These results highlight a strong dependence of proteasomal degradation on the structural plasticity and thermodynamic properties of the proteasome-targeting tags.