![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI. Toxicogenomics Articles Phenotypic Anchoring of Gene Expression Changes during Estrogen-Induced Uterine Growth 1Syngenta Central Toxicology Laboratory, Alderley Park, Cheshire, United Kingdom 2Syngenta Biotechnology Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA Address correspondence to G. Orphanides, Syngenta CTL, Alderley Park, Cheshire, SK10 4TJ, UK. Telephone: 44-1625-510803. Fax: 44-1625-585715. E-mail: george.orphanides@syngenta.com *Present address: Diversa Corporation, 4955 Directors Place, San Diego, CA 92121 USA. Supplemental data is available online (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/txg/members/2004/7345/supplemental.pdf) We thank M.G. Parker, D.G. Deavall, N. Wallis, and T. Barlow for critical comments on the manuscript; P. Lefevre and J. Odum for technical assistance; and I. Kupershmidt and E. Hunter (Silicon Genetics) for advice on statistical analysis of microarray data. This work was partially supported by the UK Food Standards Agency. The authors declare they have no competing financial interests. Received June 22, 2004; Accepted October 7, 2004. See "How E2 Induces Uterine Effects: Transcription Coordinates Cascade" on page A944b. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract A major challenge in the emerging field of toxicogenomics is to define the relationships between chemically induced changes in gene expression and alterations in conventional toxicologic parameters such as clinical chemistry and histopathology. We have explored these relationships in detail using the rodent uterotrophic assay as a model system. Gene expression levels, uterine weights, and histologic parameters were analyzed 1, 2, 4, 8, 24, 48, and 72 hr after exposure to the reference physiologic estrogen 17β-estradiol (E2). A multistep analysis method, involving unsupervised hierarchical clustering followed by supervised gene ontology–driven clustering, was used to define the transcriptional program associated with E2-induced uterine growth and to identify groups of genes that may drive specific histologic changes in the uterus. This revealed that uterine growth and maturation are preceded and accompanied by a complex, multistage molecular program. The program begins with the induction of genes involved in transcriptional regulation and signal transduction and is followed, sequentially, by the regulation of genes involved in protein biosynthesis, cell proliferation, and epithelial cell differentiation. Furthermore, we have identified genes with common molecular functions that may drive fluid uptake, coordinated cell division, and remodeling of luminal epithelial cells. These data define the mechanism by which an estrogen induces organ growth and tissue maturation, and demonstrate that comparison of temporal changes in gene expression and conventional toxicology end points can facilitate the phenotypic anchoring of toxicogenomic data. Keywords: estrogen, gene expression, microarray, phenotypic anchoring, uterus Gene expression profiling, used within the existing framework of toxicologic assessment, promises to advance significantly the mechanistic understanding and prediction of adverse effects. To benefit fully from the opportunities offered by gene expression profiling, we must first understand the relationships between changes in gene expression and alterations in traditional toxicology parameters. The process by which gene expression changes are linked to changes in phenotype has been termed “phenotypic anchoring” (Cunningham et al. 2003; Paules 2003; Schmidt 2003). This approach has been used successfully to identify groups of genes whose expression correlates with specific pathologic changes during griseofulvin-induced chronic liver injury (Gant et al. 2003), renal toxicity (Amin et al. 2004), furan-mediated hepatotoxicity (Hamadeh et al. 2004), and aceta-minophen-induced hepatotoxicity (Heinloth et al. 2004). In the present study we used phenotypic anchoring, in conjunction with gene ontology analysis, to define the transcriptional program associated with the response of the rodent uterus to a reference estrogen and to identify groups of genes that may drive specific histologic changes. The immature mouse uterus is a major estrogen-responsive organ and forms the basis for a reference assay of estrogenic activity of chemicals (Owens and Ashby 2002). The physiologic response of the uterus to exogenous estrogens has been documented in detail (Clark and Mani 1994). The immature mouse uterus is sensitive to elevations in endogenous levels of 17β -estradiol (E2) that occur during puberty. E2 releases the immature uterus from quiescence and promotes cell proliferation and differentiation. The initial effects of E2 are rapid (4–6 hr) and involve the uptake of fluid resulting from hyperemia and vasodilation of uterine capillaries, which causes the uterus to swell. This phenomenon is termed “water imbibition” and increases the availability of substrates and ions required for growth. Another early event is an increase in overall levels of mRNA and protein synthesis. The uterus then enters a proliferative phase that is responsible, at least in part, for the large increase in uterine weight that occurs 16–30 hr after E2 exposure. Later responses mimic the changes in uterine physiology that accompany the onset of puberty and include alterations in the surface of the luminal epithelia. Although the events described above have been characterized at the physiologic level, little is known about how E2, acting through the estrogen receptors ER-αand ER-β, coordinates at the molecular level the myriad cellular processes involved, despite significant progress in elucidating the molecular mechanisms by which ERs regulate gene expression in vitro (Hall et al. 2001; McKenna and O’Malley 2002; Metivier et al. 2003; Moggs and Orphanides 2001; Moggs et al. 2003; Tremblay and Giguere 2002). Our data reveal the transcriptional program associated with E2-induced uterine growth. We show that E2 induces a tightly coordinated transcriptional program that regulates successive and interlinked cellular processes during the uterotrophic response. Moreover, by comparing changes in gene expression with alterations in uterine weight and histology, we have identified classes of genes that may drive specific histologic changes in the uterus, including fluid uptake, coordinated cell division, and remodeling of the luminal epithelial cell layer in preparation for embryo implantation. Our data also provide novel insights into how E2 initiates paracrine signaling events, recruits immune and inflammatory cells, increases mRNA and protein synthesis, and suppresses apoptosis. These data describe, at an unprecedented level of detail, how E2 induces organ growth and maturation and provide a paradigm for understanding the mechanisms of action of other nuclear receptors. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that analysis of the temporal associations between a chemically induced transcriptional program and the accompanying histologic changes can provide valuable insight into the relationships between gene expression changes and phenotypic alterations. Materials and Methods Animals Female Alpk:ApfCD-1 mice (19–20 days old), weighing no more than 14 g on arrival in the laboratory, were obtained from a barriered animal breeding unit (AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK). The animals were housed five per cage in solid-bottom cages and allowed to acclimatize for 24 hr. They were allowed RM1 diet (Rat and Mouse No. 1; Special Diet Services Ltd., Witham, Essex, UK) and water ad libitum for the duration of the study. All animal experimentation described in this article was conducted in accord with accepted standards (local and national regulations) of humane animal care. Group sizes of 10 animals were used for the first two of the three replicate studies. Five animals per group were used in the third replicate study. Uterotrophic Assays The mice were given a single subcutaneous injection of E2 (400 μg/kg) or arachis oil (AO; vehicle control) using a dosing volume of 5 mL/kg body weight. A single dose of E2 was used to avoid the complex transcriptional program that may result from the standard uterotrophic assay exposure regime (i.e., repeated administration on 3 consecutive days; Odum et al. 1997). The relatively high dose level of 400 μg/kg was chosen to ensure a sustained and significant increase in blotted uterine weight during the 72-hr sampling period (Supplemental Data, Figure 1). No overt toxicity was observed during the 72-hr exposure to E2 (400 μg/kg). All animals were terminated at the appropriate time using an overdose of halothane (Concord Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Essex, UK) followed by cervical dislocation. Vaginal opening was recorded, and the uterus was then removed, trimmed free of fat, gently blotted, and weighed. Blotted uterine weights were analyzed by covariance with terminal body weights (SAS Institute Inc. 1999). Half of each left uterine horn was fixed in 10% formol saline and processed to paraffin wax for histologic analysis (Odum et al. 1997). The mean thickness of the endometrial and epithelial cell layers, indicators of cellular hypertrophy, were calculated based on the assessment of 10 locations on hemotoxylin- and eosin-stained longitudinal uterine sections for each animal. All hypertrophy data were assessed for statistical significance by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The remainder of the uterus was snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −70°C for RNA extraction. Mitotic Index The total number of mitotic figures in each uterus section was counted, noting the tissue location, and the area of the section was measured using a KS400 image analysis system (Imaging Associates, Bicester, UK). The number of mitotic figures per square millimeter was calculated, and the frequency after administration of E2 was compared with the frequency seen after the administration of AO using an appropriate statistical procedure. The number of mitoses per square millimeter was considered by a fixed-effects ANOVA allowing for treatment, time, and the treatment by time interaction. Analyses were carried out using the MIXED procedure in SAS, version 8.2 (SAS Institute Inc. 1999). Contrasts within the treatment by time interaction provided estimates of differences in E2 and control response at each time point. These were compared statistically using a two-sided Student t-test based on the error mean square in the ANOVA. Transcript Profiling and Data Analysis Three independent biologic replicates of the entire time course study for E2-treated and time-matched AO-treated groups of animals were used to generate transcript profiling data and for subsequent statistical analysis. To minimize the effect of any interanimal variability, total RNA was isolated from the pooled uteri for each treatment group (n = 10 in the first two studies; reduced to n = 5 for the last study because of highly similar transcriptional responses being obtained in replicate studies 1 and 2) using RNeasy Midi kits (Qiagen Ltd., Crawley, West Sussex, UK). Biotin-labeled complementary RNAs were synthesized using the Enzo Bioarray HighYield RNA transcript labeling kit and hybridized to Affymetrix murine U74-Av2 GeneChips as described previously (Zhu et al. 2001) and in the Affymetrix GeneChip expression analysis technical manual (Affymetrix, Inc. 2002). Probe arrays were scanned and the intensities were averaged using Microarray Analysis Suite 5.0 (Affymetrix, High Wycombe, UK). The mean signal intensity of each array was globally scaled to a target signal value of 500. To select E2-responsive genes, each gene was subjected to a mixed-model ANOVA allowing for treatment, time, and the treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and replicate study as a random effect. The use of mixed ANOVA models for the analysis of differential gene expression in microarray experiments has been previously described (Churchill 2004; Cui and Churchill 2003). Analyses were carried out using the MIXED procedure in SAS, version 8.2 (SAS Institute Inc. 1999). Contrasts within the treatment by time interaction provided estimates of differences in E2 and control response at each time point. These were compared statistically using a two-sided Student t-test based on the error mean square in the ANOVA [Supplemental Data, Table 1 (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/txg/members/2004/7345/supplemental.pdf)]. Data for genes exhibiting significant changes in expression (p < 0.01, two-sided) at one or more time points were then exported into GeneSpring 6.0 (SiliconGenetics, Redwood City, CA, USA), and a data transformation (values < 0.01 set to 0.01) and per-chip normalization (to the 50th percentile) were applied. Genes that did not have a Present detection call (Affymetrix) in any of the 14 treatment groups were removed from further analysis. Ratios of changes in gene expression were then calculated by normalizing each E2-treated sample to its corresponding time-matched vehicle (AO)-treated control. GeneChip data sets for the three independent biologic replicates were interpreted in log of ratio analysis mode, with biologic replicates being selected as a noncontinuous parameter. A total of 3,538 E2-responsive genes exhibiting a minimum of 1.5-fold up- or down-regulation in at least one time point were then subjected to gene tree–based hierarchical clustering (Pearson correlation). To identify genes that function in specific biologic pathways, these 3,538 genes were further filtered using functional annotations derived from the NetAffx database‚ Analysis Center (Liu et al. 2003; http://www.affymetrix.com/analysis/index.affx), together with manual annotations from published literature, before hierarchical clustering using GeneSpring. Gene names used in this article (see Appendix) were derived by homology searching of nucleotide sequence databases (BLASTn; http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/BLAST/) using Affymetrix probe target sequences and the interrogation of NetAffx (Liu et al. 2003) database. All genes described in the figures and text showed statistically significant alterations in expression in all three replicate studies. MIAME (Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment)-compliant microarray data for the three independent replicate studies are available as supplementary information and have been submitted to the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/). Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Uterine RNA was isolated and purified from all E2-treated and time-matched vehicle control groups (each consisting of pooled uteri) in all three replicate time course studies using the Qiagen RNeasy Midi kit (Qiagen). Before reverse transcription, RNA was treated with Dnase I (DNA-free kit; Ambion, Huntington, UK) to remove any contaminating genomic DNA. For each pool, 2 μg total RNA was reverse transcribed in a 25-μL reaction using SuperScript II (Invitrogen, Paisley, UK) and oligo-dT primer according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR; 25 μL) containing 2 μL first-strand cDNA (1:10 dilution), 12.5 μL of SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Warrington, UK), and 0.3 μM each of forward and reverse primers were run for 40 amplification cycles in an ABI PRISM 7700 Sequence Detection System (Applied Biosystems). Cycling conditions were 50°C for 2 min, 9°C for 10 min, 95°C for 15 sec, and 60°C for 1 min. All reactions were run in triplicate. Real-time (RT) PCR primers for FOS (5′-CTGTGGCCTCCCTGGATTTG-3′and 5′-TGAGAAGGGGCAGGGTGAAG-3′), LTF (5′-CGGGGGCCTTCAGACCATC-3′and 5′-CTAAAGTGACAGCAGGG AGTG-3′), and the control gene RPB1 (5′ - GTTCTGGACCCCATTTTTGATAGGC-3′ and 5′-CAGGGGACTGGCAGGGTAACAA-3′) were designed using Primer Express software (version 1.5; Applied Biosystems) to generate amplicons within their corresponding Affymetrix probe set target sequences. Results Histologic Changes and Increases in Uterine Weight Our aim was to identify the genes and molecular networks associated with the uterotrophic response and to define the relationships between gene expression changes and histologic alterations. To this end, we gave immature female mice a single subcutaneous injection of E 2 (400 μg/kg) or vehicle and used DNA microarrays to measure uterine gene expression profiles at seven different times (1, 2, 4, 8, 24, 48, and 72 hr) after exposure. To facilitate the phenotypic anchoring of expression changes, we also measured blotted uterine weights and determined the average heights of the luminal epithelium and stromal endometrium for each animal. Three independent replicate experiments were carried out to allow a rigorous statistical analysis of the gene expression data (see “Materials and Methods”). We chose to use a single dose of E2 to avoid the complex transcriptional program that may result from the standard uterotrophic assay exposure regime in which test compound is dosed by repeated administration on 3 consecutive days (Odum et al. 1997). This dose induced a sustained increase in blotted uterine weight that was similar in the three replicate experiments (Figure 1A
Histologic analysis of uterine sections revealed the cellular changes associated with the increase in uterine weight between 1 and 72 hr (Figure 2A
Multistep Method for Analysis of Gene Expression Changes Uterine RNA from the seven time points for each of the E2-treated and time-matched vehicle control groups was analyzed using Affymetrix MG-U74Av2 GeneChips. A total of 42 microarray data sets were collected for the three replicate experiments. We used a multistep method to analyze the microarray gene expression data (Figure 3A
Phase 1: Rapid Induction of Transcriptional Regulators and Signaling Components by E2 The first 4 hr of the uterotrophic response is characterized by the influx into the uterus of fluid that provides the nutrients and ions required for growth (Clark and Mani 1994). This leads to decompaction of stromal cells (Figure 4A
Signaling Genes The signaling genes rapidly up-regulated by E2 function in a broad array of signal transduction pathways (Figure 4B Transcriptional Regulators The sequence-specific transcription factors induced during the first 4 hr of the response can be divided into four main classes (Figure 4C We conclude that the initial response to E2 serves to a) modulate the activities of intra- and intercellular signaling pathways that, among other functions, promote vascular permeability and fluid uptake and b) up-regulate the expression levels of transcription factors that promote growth and differentiation. These early gene expression changes facilitate the amplification of the originating hormonal signal and set into motion the series of events that result in uterine growth and differentiation. Phase 2: Coordinated Induction of Genes Required for mRNA and Protein Synthesis No increase in uterine weight or obvious changes in uterine histology occur between 4 and 8 hr (Figures 1
In a broad sense, protein synthesis includes the interlinked processes of transcription, mRNA processing, mRNA export into the cytoplasm, protein translation, and protein folding (Orphanides and Reinberg 2002, and references therein; Figure 5G Therefore, during the first two phases of the transcriptional program, E2 induces the expression of a battery of sequence-specific transcriptional regulators (phase 1; Figure 4C
Phase 3: Coordinated Regulation of Genes Controlling Chromosome Replication and the Cell Cycle The next phase in the uterotrophic response occurs between 8 and 24 hr and involves an approximate doubling in uterine weight (Figure 1A
We found that genes required for the replication of chromosomal DNA (PCNA, FEN1, CDC6, MCM2, MCM3, MCM4, MCM5, ORC1, ORC6, RRM1, RRM2) and genes required for postreplicative phases of the cell division cycle (e.g., CCNB1, PLK1) are coordinately induced and reach maximal expression levels between 8 and 24 hr (Figure 6B Regulation of Cell Division Our data also provide insight into the mechanisms by which E2 releases cells of the immature uterus from quiescence and promotes cell division. The E2-induced expression profile of E2F1, a key transcriptional regulator of DNA replication genes (Ohtani 1999), closely parallels the induction of the chromosome replication genes (Figure 6B Suppression of Apoptosis E2 protects against apoptosis in a number of tissues, including brain, testes, and uterus (Thompson 1994). Although the anti-apoptotic activity of estrogen in the uterus is thought to play a crucial role in the maintenance of uterine homeostasis, the mechanistic basis for this action has not been defined. Our data reveal that E2 induces the expression of anti-apoptotic genes (BAG2, BAG3, DAD1) while simultaneously down-regulating the expression of pro-apoptotic genes (CASP2, NIX; Figure 6D Phase 4: Induction of Genes Involved in Uterine Cell Differentiation and Defense Responses The period from 24 to 72 hr after E 2 exposure is associated with remodeling of the luminal epithelial cell layer, including the formation of secretory epithelial cells and a glycocalyx layer consisting of glycoproteins (Paria et al. 2003; Weitlauf 1994). These changes result in the formation of a highly differentiated epithelial layer that is primed for cell recognition and adhesion events necessary for embryo attachment and implantation. Changes in Cytoarchitecture The final phase of the uterotrophic response coincides with the induction of a battery of genes involved in the cytoarchitectural remodeling of proliferating uterine cells, thus providing a further link between phenotypic and gene expression changes (Figure 7A
Defense Responses A number of genes involved in host defense processes or detoxification are first regulated between 24 and 72 hr (Figure 7B Several components of the complement system are also induced 48–72 hr after exposure to E 2. These include C1QA, C1QB, C1QC, C2, C3, C4, CFH, and CFI (Figure 7D Evidence for a Transcriptional Cascade in the Uterus It is striking that many different induction profiles can be seen in the genes regulated by E2: some genes are induced within 1 hr of exposure, whereas others are not induced until 48 hr (Figure 3B
Discussion Our data describe at an unprecedented level of detail the molecular events that initiate and drive uterine physiologic changes upon exposure to the sex steroid hormone E 2 in the immature mouse uterus. Gene expression profiling reveals that E2 induces a multistage and tightly coordinated transcriptional program that regulates successive and functionally interlinked cellular processes during the uterotrophic response (Figure 9
Comparison of gene expression changes with alterations in uterine weight and histologic alterations, and analysis of gene expression data according to gene function allowed us to implicate specific groups of genes in driving water imbibition in the stromal endothelium, synchronous cell proliferation, and cytoarchitectural changes associated with luminal epithelial cell differentiation. These data thus provide a detailed mechanistic view of the relationships between the uterotrophic response and the underlying transcriptional program. Furthermore, this work demonstrates that comparison of temporal changes in gene expression and conventional toxicology parameters (uterine weight and histologic changes) can provide an understanding of the relationships between gene expression patterns and phenotypic change. E2 can regulate transcription through a combination of at least two distinct signaling pathways: a) via activation of the nuclear transcription factors ER-αand ER-β(Hall et al. 2001; McKenna and O’Malley 2002; Moggs and Orphanides 2001; Tremblay and Giguere 2002) and b) via extranuclear or “nongenomic” signaling events (Falkenstein et al. 2000; Hammes 2003; Moggs et al. 2003). The transcriptional responses to E2 that we have defined here are likely to involve a combination of direct gene regulation by nuclear ERs and indirect gene regulation via extranuclear signaling pathways. Although the uterus of the immature mouse expresses both ER subtypes (αand β) at comparable levels (Weihua et al. 2000), recent transcript profiling studies using ovariectomized ER-knockout mice revealed a predominant role for ER-αin the regulation of estrogen-responsive genes in the uterus (Hewitt et al. 2003; Watanabe et al. 2003) consistent with the observation that only a partial uterotrophic response occurs in ER-αknockout mice (Lubahn et al. 1993). Therefore, it is likely that most E2-responsive genes we have identified are regulated by ER-α. However, identification of the direct gene targets for each ER subtype will ultimately require the development of methods for measuring the occupancy of receptor subtypes at promoters in vivo. Nevertheless, our temporal analysis of E2-responsive genes provides novel insights into the transcriptional cascades that are initiated through E2-responsive transcription factors. The molecular events described here for the reference natural estrogen E2 provide the basis for understanding how other estrogenic chemicals, including synthetic estrogens and phytoestrogens, induce their effects (Moggs et al. 2004). Increasing attention is being paid to the use of gene expression changes in the uterus for the identification of surrogate markers for short-term rodent estrogenicity assays (Naciff et al. 2002, 2003; Owens and Ashby 2002; Watanabe et al. 2002), and our data reveal a large number of novel candidate marker genes. The insights provided by these data, into how an ER ligand coordinates transcriptional regulatory networks that result in proliferation and differentiation in a complex organ, provide a paradigm for understanding the modes of action of other nuclear receptors. Supplemental Figures and Tables Click here to view.(35M, pdf) References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Nov; 111(15):A814-5.
[Environ Health Perspect. 2003]Environ Health Perspect. 2003 May; 111(6):A338-9.
[Environ Health Perspect. 2003]Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Mar; 112(4):465-79.
[Environ Health Perspect. 2004]Mutat Res. 2004 May 18; 549(1-2):169-83.
[Mutat Res. 2004]Toxicol Sci. 2004 Jul; 80(1):193-202.
[Toxicol Sci. 2004]Crit Rev Toxicol. 2002; 32(6):445-520.
[Crit Rev Toxicol. 2002]J Biol Chem. 2001 Oct 5; 276(40):36869-72.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]Cell. 2002 Feb 22; 108(4):465-74.
[Cell. 2002]Cell. 2003 Dec 12; 115(6):751-63.
[Cell. 2003]EMBO Rep. 2001 Sep; 2(9):775-81.
[EMBO Rep. 2001]Bioessays. 2003 Mar; 25(3):195-9.
[Bioessays. 2003]Biotechniques. 2004 Aug; 37(2):173-5, 177.
[Biotechniques. 2004]Genome Biol. 2003; 4(4):210.
[Genome Biol. 2003]Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jan 1; 31(1):82-6.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2003]Biochim Biophys Acta. 1971 Feb 29; 261(2):475-86.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 1971]Endocrinology. 1984 Mar; 114(3):694-702.
[Endocrinology. 1984]Mol Endocrinol. 1992 Mar; 6(3):355-64.
[Mol Endocrinol. 1992]Mol Endocrinol. 1988 Sep; 2(9):816-24.
[Mol Endocrinol. 1988]Nat Genet. 2002 Dec; 32 Suppl():496-501.
[Nat Genet. 2002]Bioinformatics. 2004 Jun 12; 20(9):1464-5.
[Bioinformatics. 2004]Oncogene. 2001 Apr 30; 20(19):2390-400.
[Oncogene. 2001]Cell. 2002 Feb 22; 108(4):439-51.
[Cell. 2002]Annu Rev Biochem. 1992; 61():441-70.
[Annu Rev Biochem. 1992]Biochim Biophys Acta. 1971 Feb 29; 261(2):475-86.
[Biochim Biophys Acta. 1971]Endocrinology. 1984 Mar; 114(3):694-702.
[Endocrinology. 1984]Front Biosci. 1999 Dec 1; 4():D793-804.
[Front Biosci. 1999]Mol Endocrinol. 2002 Jun; 16(6):1215-29.
[Mol Endocrinol. 2002]Cell. 1999 May 14; 97(4):431-4.
[Cell. 1999]Mol Endocrinol. 1994 Jun; 8(6):665-73.
[Mol Endocrinol. 1994]Mol Cell Biol. 2000 Apr; 20(8):2890-901.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2000]J Mol Endocrinol. 2001 Dec; 27(3):259-74.
[J Mol Endocrinol. 2001]Endocrinology. 2001 Oct; 142(10):4515-21.
[Endocrinology. 2001]Mol Endocrinol. 1992 Mar; 6(3):355-64.
[Mol Endocrinol. 1992]Nature. 2002 May 30; 417(6888):552-5.
[Nature. 2002]Cell. 2002 Nov 27; 111(5):603-6.
[Cell. 2002]J Biol Chem. 1989 Oct 5; 264(28):16941-7.
[J Biol Chem. 1989]Trends Immunol. 2002 Oct; 23(10):485-91.
[Trends Immunol. 2002]Immunity. 2003 Feb; 18(2):169-72.
[Immunity. 2003]Mamm Genome. 2003 Feb; 14(2):140-8.
[Mamm Genome. 2003]Science. 2002 Oct 25; 298(5594):799-804.
[Science. 2002]Physiol Genomics. 2003 Oct 17; 15(2):127-41.
[Physiol Genomics. 2003]Reproduction. 2003 Aug; 126(2):171-82.
[Reproduction. 2003]J Biol Chem. 2001 Oct 5; 276(40):36869-72.
[J Biol Chem. 2001]Cell. 2002 Feb 22; 108(4):465-74.
[Cell. 2002]EMBO Rep. 2001 Sep; 2(9):775-81.
[EMBO Rep. 2001]Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2002; 12(1):1-22.
[Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2002]Pharmacol Rev. 2000 Dec; 52(4):513-56.
[Pharmacol Rev. 2000]Environ Health Perspect. 2004 Aug; 112(11):1137-42.
[Environ Health Perspect. 2004]Toxicol Sci. 2002 Jul; 68(1):184-99.
[Toxicol Sci. 2002]Toxicol Sci. 2003 Apr; 72(2):314-30.
[Toxicol Sci. 2003]Crit Rev Toxicol. 2002; 32(6):445-520.
[Crit Rev Toxicol. 2002]Genes Cells. 2002 May; 7(5):497-507.
[Genes Cells. 2002]Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jan 1; 31(1):82-6.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2003]