This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement All Versions of this Article: 24/8/1384    most recent 01.ATV.0000136548.17816.07v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kawai-Kowase, K. Articles by Kurabayashi, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kawai-Kowase, K. Articles by Kurabayashi, M. Related Collections Smooth muscle proliferation and differentiation Mechanism of atherosclerosis/growth factors

(Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2004;24:1384.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.

Vascular Biology

Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor Antagonizes Transforming Growth Factor-ß1–Induced Smooth Muscle Gene Expression Through Extracellular Signal–Regulated Kinase 1/2 Signaling Pathway Activation

Keiko Kawai-Kowase; Hiroko Sato; Yuko Oyama; Hiroyoshi Kanai; Mahito Sato; Hiroshi Doi; Masahiko Kurabayashi

From the Department of Medicine and Biological Science, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan.

Correspondence to Masahiko Kurabayashi, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine and Biological Science, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-15 Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan. E-mail mkuraba{at}med.gunma-u.ac.jp

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Objective— Transforming growth factor-ß1 (TGFß1) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) families play a pivotal role during vascular development and in the pathogenesis of vascular disease. However, the interaction of intracellular signaling evoked by each of these growth factors is not well understood. The present study was undertaken to examine the molecular mechanisms that mediate the effects of TGFß1 and basic FGF (bFGF) on smooth muscle cell (SMC) gene expression.

Methods and Results— TGFß1 induction of SMC gene expression, including smooth muscle protein 22- (SM22) and smooth muscle -actin, was examined in the pluripotent 10T1/2 cells. Marked increase in these mRNA levels by TGFß1 was inhibited by c-Src-tyrosine kinase inhibitors and protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide. Functional studies with deletion and site-directed mutation analysis of the SM22 promoter demonstrated that TGFß1 activated the SM22 promoter through a CC(A/T-rich)₆GG (CArG) box, which serves as a serum response factor (SRF)–binding site. TGFß1 increased SRF expression through an increase in transcription of the SRF gene. In the presence of bFGF, TGFß1 induction of SMC marker gene expression was significantly attenuated. Transient transfection assays showed that bFGF significantly suppressed induction of the SM22 promoter–driven luciferase activity by TGFß1, whereas bFGF had no effects on the TGFß1-mediated increase in SRF expression and SRF:DNA binding activity. Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase-1 (MEK1) inhibitor PD98059 abrogated the bFGF-mediated suppression of TGFß1-induced SMC gene expression.

Conclusion— Our data suggest that bFGF-induced MEK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling plays an antagonistic role in TGFß1-induced SMC gene expression through suppression of the SRF function. These data indicate that opposing effects of bFGF and TGFß1 on SMC gene expression control the phenotypic plasticity of SMCs.

TGFß1 induces SMC gene expression through an increase in SRF gene expression, which activates CArG-dependent transcription, and Src-tyrosine kinase is required for such an induction in 10T1/2 cells and vascular SMC. bFGF antagonizes TGFß1-induced SMC gene expression, although MEK1 activation without interfering with SRF:DNA binding activity and SRF gene expression.

Key Words: basic fibroblast growth factor • transforming growth factor-ß1 • serum response factor • SM22 • smooth muscle cells

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Phenotypic modulation of smooth muscle cells (SMCs) contributes to development of atherosclerotic and restenotic lesions. There is considerable interest in identifying the various extracellular signals that regulate SMC phenotype and the molecular mechanisms underlying such SMC plasticity. Transforming growth factor-ß1 (TGFß1) is one of the primary differentiation factors for SMCs.¹ TGFß1 upregulates several SMC differentiation markers, such as smooth muscle -actin (SM-actin), smooth muscle myosin heavy chain, SM22, and h1 calponin in vitro. Moreover, TGFß1 induces expression of these SMC differentiation maker genes in a variety of nonsmooth muscle precursor cell types in culture, including multipotent embryonic fibroblast (10T1/2 cells) and neural crest cells.^2,3 These results suggest that TGFß1 evokes an important signal that induces SMC differentiation.

In contrast, basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) is one of the most important mitogenic growth factors for SMCs¹ and plays an important role in the onset and development of vascular disease. Several studies indicated that experimental reduction in bFGF expression inhibits SMC proliferation after intimal injury. Lindner et al suggested that in injured arteries, bFGF and FGF receptor-type 1 may be involved in the continued proliferative response of SMCs leading to neointima formation.⁴ SMCs respond to bFGF stimulation with proliferation, migration, and cytokine secretion occurring after vascular lesion.⁵

The promoter of almost all examined SMC-specific genes contain CArG (CC[A/T]6GG) box,^6,7 which serves as a binding site for serum response factor (SRF)⁸. An increasing number of studies provide direct evidence that the CArG boxes are required for promoter activation of SMC genes in vitro and in vivo.^9–11 The smooth muscle calponin gene contains CArG box within the first intron, which mediates SMC-specific enhancer activity.¹² However, the signaling pathways that regulate SRF expression and function have been poorly understood.

In the present study, we investigated the effects of TGFß1 and bFGF on SMC gene expression in the pluripotent 10T1/2 cells and in vascular SMCs. The results demonstrated that TGFß1 induces CArG-dependent SM22 gene expression via an increase in SRF expression, and Src family of tyrosine kinase is important for this effect. Furthermore, bFGF inhibits TGFß1-induced SM22 gene expression via mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase-1 (MEK1) by repressing SRF function without affecting SRF expression. Thus, we suggest that TGFß1 and bFGF act as antagonistic growth factors that regulate the CArG-dependent SMC marker gene expression by modulating SRF expression and function, respectively. These findings shed light on the role of TGFß1 and bFGF for modulating SMC gene expression during development and in vascular disease, in which SMC phenotypic change plays a crucial role.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The Materials and Methods section can be found in an online supplement available at http://atvb.ahajournals.org.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
TGFß1 Induces Expression of SMC Marker Genes in 10T1/2 Cells
Northern blot analyses revealed that the levels of mRNAs for SM22 and SM-actin were significantly induced by TGFß1 in 10T1/2 cells. Embryonic type of smooth muscle myosine heavy chain (SMemb) and Krüppel-like zinc-finger transcription factor 5/basic transcription regulatory element binding protein 2 (KLF5/BTEB2), a transcription factor implicated in the regulation of SMemb and others, were also induced. Calponin mRNA was scarcely detected by Northern blot, but RT-PCR analysis revealed its significant induction by TGFß1 in 10T1/2 cells. Analysis of temporal expression showed that SM-actin and SM22 mRNA levels were induced by TGFß1x2 hours and remained elevated for 12 hours after TGFß1 stimulation. SRF mRNA levels were peaked at 6 hours after TGFß1 stimulation (Figure IA through IC, available online at http://atvb.ahajournals.org).

As shown in Figure ID, cycloheximide (4 µg/mL, a nonspecific inhibitor for protein synthesis) alone modestly increased the expression of SM22 and SM-actin mRNAs. TGFß1-induced expression of SM22 and SM-actin mRNAs was rather attenuated by cycloheximide. These results suggest that de novo protein synthesis is partly required for the TGFß1-induced expression of SM22 and SM-actin genes.

Src Family of Tyrosine Kinase Mediates TGFß1-Induced Expression of SM22 and SM-Actin Genes
As shown in Figure 1A, TGFß1-induced SM22 mRNA expression in 10T1/2 cells was blocked by genistein (10 µmol/L; a tyrosine kinase inhibitor) but not by other protein kinase inhibitors, such as PD98059 (50 µmol/L; a specific inhibitor for MEK1, a mitogen-activated protein [MAP] kinase kinase for extracellular signal–regulated kinase [ERK]), SB203580 (10 µmol/L; a specific inhibitor for p38MAP kinase), calphostin C (1 µmol/L; protein kinase C inhibitor), and wortmannin (1 µmol/L; a PI3 kinase inhibitor). We then examined the effect of daidzein (10 µmol/L; an inactive analog of genistein) and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as herbimycin A (1 µmol/L; a relatively specific inhibitor for Src tyrosine kinases), tyrphostin 23 (100 µmol/L; a broad inhibitor for tyrosine kinase), and protein phosphatase 1 (PP1; 4 µmol/L; a more specific inhibitor for Src tyrosine kinases). As shown in Figure 1B, tyrphostin 23 as well as genistein but not daidzein dramatically inhibited induction of SM22 by TGFß1. Furthermore, herbimycin A and PP1 potently attenuated the TGFß1-induced SM22 expression. To examine the effect of Src family of tyrosine kinase in cultured rat aortic SMCs (RASMCs), levels of SM22 and SM-actin mRNA were measured by real-time RT-PCR in TGFß1-treated RASMCs (Figure II, available online at http://atvb.ahajournals.org). TGFß1-induced SM22 and SM-actin mRNA expression in RASMCs was significantly blocked by herbimycin A. These results suggest that Src family of tyrosine kinase pathways mediate TGFß1-induced SM22 gene expression.

View larger version (57K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Effect of Src-tyrosine kinase inhibitors on induction of SM22 and SM-actin expression by TGFß1. A, 10T1/2 cells were pretreated with PD98059, SB203580, calphostin C, genistein, and wortmannin for 1 hour and were exposed to TGFß1 (1 ng/mL) for 12 hours. Total cellular RNA (10 µg) was analyzed by Northern blotting for SM22 and SM -actin mRNA. B, 10T1/2 cells were pretreated with genistein, daidzein, herbimycin A, tyrphostin 23, and PP1 for 1 hour and were exposed to TGFß1 (1 ng/mL) for 12 hours. Methylene blue–stained 28S ribosomal RNA indicates that comparable amounts of total RNA actually blotted onto a membrane. PD indicates PD98059; SB, SB203580; Calph, calphostin C; Genist, genistein; Wort, wortmannin; Daidz, daidzein; Herb, herbimycin A; Tyr23, tyrphostin 23.

CArG Box Is Required for TGFß1-Mediated Increase in SM22 Promoter Activity
To determine the effects of TGFß1 on SM22 promoter activity, a series of 5'-deletion constructs of SM22 promoter was transfected into 10T1/2 cells and cultured RASMCs (Figure IIIA and IIIB, available online at http://atvb.ahajournals.org). TGFß1 induced promoter activity of –305Luc, –215Luc, and –158Luc, whereas –115Luc was unresponsive. Because the sequence between –158 and –115 contains 1 CArG box, (5'-CCAAATATGG-3', located at –150), we then tested the role of CArG box in the induction of promoter activity in response to TGFß1. We introduced nucleotide substitutions of 5 successive bases into the flanking or core sequence within the CArG box in the context of the –158Luc construct (Figure 2A and 2B). Luciferase activity in unstimulated cells transfected with –158m1Luc, –158m2Luc, and –158m3Luc was significantly lower than that of wild-type promoter construct –158Luc. More importantly, neither –158m2Luc nor –158m3Luc were responsive to TGFß1. These results suggest that integrity of CArG box is essential for activation of the SM22 promoter by TGFß1.

View larger version (29K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Effects of TGFß1on SM22 promoter activity. A, Mutated bases within the CArG box. Mutation 1 (m1), 2 (m2), and (m3) were introduced into the –158Luc context, which yielded –158m1Luc, –158m2Luc, and –158m3Luc, respectively. Mutations of wild-type sequence appear in boldface. B, Luciferase activity of the each construct shown in A. Cells transfected with indicated reporter genes were incubated with vehicle or TGFß1 (1 ng/mL) for 24 hours as described in Materials and Methods. *P<0.05 vs control.

TGFß1 Stimulates SRF Gene Expression at the Transcriptional Level Through Src Family of Tyrosine Kinase Pathway
To determine whether TGFß1 increases SRF binding activity, we performed electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) by using the nuclear protein extracts from unstimulated or TGFß1-stimulated 10T1/2 cells and the oligonucleotide-containing sequence between –158 and –133 of the SM22 promoter as probe. Shifted complex was increased in amounts in TGFß1-treated 10T1/2 cells, and anti-SRF antibody completely supershifted the complex (Figure 3A and Figure IVA, available online at http://atvb.ahajournals.org). An increase in SRF binding by TGFß1 was observed in the presence of PP1 because PP1 by itself increased SRF binding (Figure 3A). We next performed Northern blot analysis to test the effect of Src inhibition on TGFß1-induced SRF mRNA expression in 10T1/2 cells. TGFß1 induction of SRF was completely inhibited by PP1 or herbimycin, both of which are the Src family kinase inhibitors (Figure 3B). Western blot analysis showed the increase in SRF protein levels in response to TGFß1 (Figure IVB). TGFß1 effects on SRF promoter activity were evaluated by transfecting –2052SRF/Luc, a luciferase reporter gene containing SRF promoter region between –2052 and 114 into 10T1/2 cells and cultured RASMCs. As shown in Figure IVC, TGFß1 stimulated luciferase activity of –2052SRF/Luc by 2.5-fold in 10T1/2 cells and by 1.7-fold in RASMCs. These results indicate that TGFß1 stimulates SRF gene expression at least partly at the transcriptional level through Src family of tyrosine kinase pathway.

View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Effect of TGFß1 on SRF gene expression and binding to CArG box. A, EMSA. Nuclear extracts from 10T1/2 cells grown in absence or presence of TGFß1 were incubated with wild-type probe, which corresponds to SM22 (from –158 bp to –133 bp) sequence, and were subjected to electrophoresis. Nuclear extract from 10T1/2 cells in absence or presence of TGFß1 or PP1 were incubated with the probe using the antibody against SRF. Positions of the sequence-specific DNA protein complexes (C) and supershifted complexes (S) are indicated. B, Northern blot analysis. 10T1/2 cells were pretreated with either PP1 or herbimycin A for 1 hour, exposed to TGFß1 for 12 hours, and analyzed by Northern blotting for SRF.

bFGF Inhibits TGFß1-Induced SM22 and SM-Actin Gene Via Activation of MEK1
To investigate the effects of mitogenic stimulation on TGFß1-induced SM22 and SM-actin gene expression, we used various growth factors, including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-BB, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin (IL)-6, epidermal growth factor (EGF) and bFGF in 10T1/2 cells (Figure VA, available online at http://atvb.ahajournals.org). Among these, bFGF markedly inhibited TGFß1 induction of mRNA levels for SM22, SM-actin, and calponin. In contrast, dedifferentiated markers, such as SMemb and KLF5/BTEB2, were not affected (Figure 4A).

View larger version (39K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. bFGF effects on TGFß1-stimulated SMC marker gene expression. A, Top, Total RNA was extracted from 10T1/2 cells treated with TGFß1 (1 ng/mL) or bFGF (10 ng/mL) and analyzed by Northern blotting for SM22, SM-actin, SMemb, and KLF5/BTEB2 mRNAs. Methylene blue–stained 28S ribosomal RNA indicates that comparable amounts of total RNA actually blotted onto a membrane. Bottom, Southern blot analysis of RT-PCR products for calponin and GAPDH. B, Top, 10T1/2 cells were pretreated with PD98059, SB203580, genistein, and wortmannin for 1 hour and were exposed to TGFß1 or bFGF for 12 hours. Total cellular RNA was analyzed by Northern blot for SM22. PD indicates PD98059; SB, SB203580; Genist, genistein; Wort, wortmannin. Bottom, Statistical analysis of the effect of protein kinase inhibitors on reduction of TGFß1-induced SM22 expression by bFGF. *P<0.05 vs bFGF(–). C, Phosphorylation of ERK1/2 by TGFß1 or bFGF for 5 minutes in 10T1/2 cells. 10T1/2 cells were treated with or without TGFß1 or bFGF, and total cellular lysates were prepared for Western blotting using either anti-phospho-ERK1/2 or anti-ERK1/2.

To investigate the signaling pathways involved in this repression, we tested the effects of inhibitors for protein kinases on TGFß1-induced SM22 gene expression. As shown in Figure 4B, bFGF inhibited TGFß1-induced SM22 expression by 55% and 17% in the absence and presence of PD98059 (MEK1 inhibitor), respectively, in 10T1/2 cells. In contrast, SB203580, genistein, and wortmannin had no effect on bFGF inhibition. To examine whether PD98059 inhibits bFGF effect in cultured RASMCs, levels of SM22 mRNA were measured by real-time RT-PCR in TGFß1-treated or bFGF-treated RASMCs. As shown in supplemental Figure VB, bFGF did not attenuate TGFß1-induced SM22 expression in the presence of PD98059 in RASMCs. These results indicated that bFGF represses TGFß1-induced expression of the SM22 gene via activation of MEK1.

To examine whether bFGF affects TGFß1-induced SM22 promoter activity, we performed luciferase assays. bFGF significantly attenuated TGFß1 effects on the SM22 promoter, and PD98059 inhibited such an effect of bFGF (Figure VC).

To evaluate TGFß1 or bFGF pathway for ERK1/2 activation, 10T1/2 cells were treated with TGFß1 or bFGF. Figure 4C and Figure VD show ERK phosphorylation was detected at 5 minutes and remained 60 minutes after bFGF stimulation. Although ERK phosphorylation was detected 5 minutes after TGFß1 stimulation, this phosphorylation significantly attenuated thereafter.

Next, we performed Western blot analyses to test whether activation of MEK1 pathways by bFGF inhibits TGFß1-induced c-Src activation. As shown in Figure VI (available online at http://atvb.ahajournals.org), bFGF as well as TGFß1 induced c-Src activation, and simultaneous stimulation with TGFß1 and bFGF exerts the additive effect on c-Src phosphorylation. PD98059 by itself induced c-Src phosphorylation, and thus an induction of c-Src phosphorylation by bFGF was not blocked by PD98059. However, these data imply that the inhibitory effects of bFGF on TGFß1-induced SM22 expression are not mediated through inhibition of c-Src phosphorylation.

MEK1 Inhibits SRF Function Independent of Expression and DNA Binding Activity of SRF
To determine whether MEK1 activation inhibits SM22 expression, 10T1/2 cells and cultured RASMCs were transfected with expression vector for MEK1 or empty vector pcDNA3 along with the SM22-luciferase reporter gene. Overexpression of MEK1 reduced TGFß1-stimulated luciferase activity of –305Luc (Figure 5 and Figure VIIA, available online at http://atvb.ahajournals.org). Furthermore, induction of the SM22 promoter activity by SRF was prevented by MEK1 overexpression in 10T1/2 cells (Figure 5).

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 5. MEK1 effects on TGFß1-stimulated SRF function. 10T1/2 cells were transfected with the SM22-305Luc along with pcDNA3 or MEK1/pcDNA3. Left, TGFß1 effect on SM22-305Luc promoter activity with or without MEK1. Right, Effect of SRF overexpression on SM22-305Luc promoter activity with or without MEK1. *P<0.05 vs control. Bottom, Activation of ERK by overexpressing MEK1. 10T1/2 cells were transfected with MEK1/pcDNA3 plasmid, and total cellular lysates were prepared for Western blotting using either anti-phospho-ERK1/2 or anti-ERK1/2.

The observation that bFGF inhibited the TGFß1-induced SM22 promoter activity led us to test whether bFGF inhibits SRF expression. Interestingly, bFGF had no measurable effects on SRF expression as assessed by Northern blot and Western blot analyses. Furthermore, EMSA showed that bFGF did not decrease and rather increased the binding of SRF to the CArG box (Figure VIIB through VIID). Collectively, these results suggest that bFGF inhibits SM22 expression not through inhibition of the SRF protein synthesis or inhibition of DNA binding but possibly through repression of SRF function (Figure 6).

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 6. A model for intracellular signaling that controls SMC gene expression in response to TGFß1 and bFGF. Signaling pathways mediating TGFß1-induced expression of the SMC gene and bFGF-mediated repression of TGFß1 signaling. Activation of MEK1 and subsequent activation of ERK1/2 play key roles in bFGF-mediated repression of SRF function.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The current study shows TGFß1 actions on SMC gene expression in 10T1/2 cells and RASMCs. TGFß1-directed SMC gene expression is mediated through Src-tyrosine kinase activation and is associated with the increases in SRF gene expression at the transcriptional level. We also demonstrated that TGFß1 induction on SMC gene expression is significantly inhibited by bFGF. ERK1/2 activation mediates this effect of bFGF on TGFß1 induction of SMC gene expression; in fact, inducible expression of SM22 was attenuated in the presence of PD98059. In addition, phosphorylation of ERK1/2 by transfecting MEK1 expression plasmid inhibited TGFß1 action on SM22 promoter. Furthermore, bFGF did not inhibit TGFß1-induced SRF expression and DNA binding activity. Finally, when several growth factors were tested for their capacity to inhibit TGFß1 action on SMC gene expression, we observed that PDGF-BB, VEGF, PGI₂, IL-6, and EGF did not possess the potent capacity of inhibiting TGFß1-driven SM22 expression in 10T1/2 cells. Thus, our data highlight the critical role of bFGF–MEK1 pathway in inhibition of TGFß1-driven SMC differentiation.

It is worth stressing that TGFß1 signaling was inhibited by Src family of tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This finding is somewhat surprising because it has been described that TGFß1 decreased Src kinase activity or induced degradation of activated Src kinase.¹³ Very few precedent reports showed the activation of Src tyrosine kinases by TGFß1. Su et al have shown that in bovine articular chondrocyte, TGFß1-mediated induction of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-3 expression was inhibited by Src tyrosine kinase inhibitor as well as by serine/threonine protein kinase inhibitor.¹⁴ We confirmed the activation of Src family of tyrosine kinase by Western blot analysis using the anti-c-Src antibody. Although the precise mechanisms remain to be determined, it is possible that TGFß1 signaling varies depending on cell types.

Despite the fact that bFGF did not decrease but rather increased SRF mRNA and protein levels, bFGF significantly attenuated induction of TGFß1-mediated SMC-specific genes. Then how can bFGF inhibit the effect of TGFß1? We examined whether bFGF inhibits the binding of SRF to CArG box and found that bFGF had essentially no effect on the binding activity of SRF to the CArG box. These data led us to speculate that bFGF represses SRF function through: (1) post-transcriptional SRF modification; (2) an induction of repressors of SRF including SRF5,¹⁵ Id2,¹⁶ and SMART;¹⁷ (3) a repression of SRF coactivators such as ternary complex factor, p300/CBP, SRC-1, and myocardin;^18,19 and (4) an alteration of chromatin structure regulated by histone acetylase or histone deacetylase activity.^20,21 Studies to examine these possibilities are currently in progress.

Our finding that MEK1 inhibitor PD98059 attenuated bFGF-mediated repression of TGFß1-induced SM-actin and SM22 expression deserves further attention. Previous studies have provided ample evidence indicating that MEK1 activation leads to the increase in SRF-dependent transcription through activation of accessory factors that bind to the SRF–CArG box complex, including members of the Ets family of transcription factors, Elk-1, SAP-1a, b, SAP-2, and ERP-1.²² Thus, a critical question is how SRF function could selectively be upregulated or downregulated by MEK1. This issue appears to be analogous to the question regarding the differential effects of mitogenic stimulation on the expression of SMC-specific genes and c-fos gene, both of which contain functional CArG box.²³ The most plausible explanation is that modulation of SRF function by MEK1 signaling is dependent on sequence flanking CArG box. However, our data indicate that PDGF and EGF, both of which are known to activate MEK1 signaling, are less potent than bFGF in inhibiting TGFß1-induced SM22 expression in 10T1/2 cells. Thus, it is tempting to speculate that bFGF-specific events other than MEK1 activation are necessary to inhibit TGFß1-induced SMC gene expression.

It has been shown that the nuclear factors involved in the TGFß1 control element–mediated transcription belong to the zinc finger family of KLFs, such as GKLF and KLF5/BTEB2.²⁴ MacLellan et al have described previously that TGFß1-induced activation of skeletal -actin promoter required cooperation of SRF, YY1, and transcriptional enhancer factor-1.²⁵ However, our data suggest that GKLF, BTEB2/IKLF, or YY1 do not play a major role in repressing the SM22 promoter by bFGF. The reasons for such an assumption are: (1) mRNA for BTEB2/IKLF, which positively regulates SM22 promoter, was induced by bFGF; (2) mRNA for GKLF, which functions as a negative regulator of SM22 expression, was not changed by bFGF; and (3) anti-YY1 antibody did not affect the DNA:protein complex as assessed by EMSA (data not shown).

What is the in vivo relevance of our observation? It has been shown previously that in early, simple, and advanced atherosclerotic lesions, both TGFß1 and bFGF were expressed in intimal SMCs. Although TGFß1 acts as a bifunctional regulator for SMC differentiation depending on growth status and the presence of other growth factors, an increased expression of bFGF was associated consistently with SMC proliferation of the atheromatous lesions.²⁶ However, the role of bFGF in SMC differentiation has been described poorly. Our data indicate that SMC or embryonic fibroblasts exposed simultaneously to TGFß1 and bFGF express SMC marker genes significantly less than in response to TGFß1 alone. This suggests that SMCs in atherosclerotic lesions that contain abundant bFGF are less differentiated than those expressing predominant TGFß1. Given that undifferentiated SMCs that highly express the genes for proteases that degrade matrix proteins and bFGF may potentially be involved in plaque neovascularization, bFGF-driven events may contribute to formation of unstable plaques and to life-threatening complications of atheroma and provide new options for therapeutic intervention.

In summary, we demonstrated that 2 growth factors (TGFß1 and bFGF), which have been shown independently to play critical roles in regulation of smooth muscle development, antagonistically affect SRF-dependent SMC gene expression. In addition, we demonstrate that bFGF-induced MEK1 signaling attenuates SRF function but not its DNA binding activity and expression. These findings provide novel insight into SRF function regulation during SMC differentiation, which is influenced profoundly by growth factors.

	Acknowledgments

 
Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by a grant-in-aid for scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sport, and Culture of Japan and a grant from the Japan Cardiovascular Foundation. We thank Miki Yamazaki and Akemi Yoguchi for excellent technical help.

Received December 26, 2003; accepted May 24, 2004.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
1. Owens GK. Regulation of differentiation of vascular smooth muscle cells. Physiol Rev. 1995; 75: 487–517.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Shah NM, Groves AK, Anderson DJ. Alternative neural crest cell fates are instructively promoted by TGFß superfamily members. Cell. 1996; 85: 331–343.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

3. Hirschi KK, Rohovsky SA, D’Amore PA. PDGF, TGFß, and heterotypic cell-cell interactions mediate endothelial cell-induced recruitment of 10T1/2 cells and their differentiation to a smooth muscle fate. J Cell Biol. 1998; 141: 805–814.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Lindner V, Reidy MA. Proliferation of smooth muscle cells after vascular injury is inhibited by an antibody against basic fibroblast growth factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991; 88: 3739–3743.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5. Nugent MA, Karnovsky MJ, Edelman ER. Vascular cell-derived heparan sulfate shows coupled inhibition of basic fibroblast growth factor binding and mitogenesis in vascular smooth muscle cells. Circ Res. 1993; 73: 1051–1060.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

6. Madsen CS, Regan CP, Owens GK. Interaction of CArG elements and a GC-rich repressor element in transcriptional regulation of the smooth muscle myosin heavy chain gene in vascular smooth muscle cells. J Biol Chem. 1997; 272: 29842–29851.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Solway J, Seltzer J, Samaha FF, Kim S, Alger LE, Niu Q, Morrisey EE, Ip HS, Parmacek MS. Structure and expression of a smooth muscle cell-specific gene, SM22. J Biol Chem. 1995; 270: 13460–13469.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

8. Miwa T, Kedes L. Duplicated CArG box domains have positive and mutually dependent regulatory roles in expression of the human -cardiac actin gene. Mol Cell Biol. 1987; 7: 2803–2813.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Mack CP, Thompson MM, Lawrenz SS, Owens GK. Smooth muscle -actin CArG elements coordinate formation of a smooth muscle cell-selective, serum response factor-containing activation complex. Circ Res. 1999; 86: 221–232.

10. Li L, Liu Z, Mercer B, Overbeek P, Olson EN. Evidence for serum response factor-mediated regulatory networks governing SM22 transcription in smooth, skeletal, and cardiac muscle cells. Dev Biol. 1997; 187: 311–321.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

11. Kim S, Ip HS, Lu MM, Clendenin C, Parmacek MS. A serum response factor-dependent transcriptional regulatory program identifies distinct smooth muscle cell sublineages. Mol Cell Biol. 1997; 17: 2266–2278.[Abstract]

12. Miano JM, Carlson MJ, Spencer JA, Misra RP. Serum response factor-dependent regulation of the smooth muscle calponin gene. J Biol Chem. 2000; 275: 9814–9822.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Fukuda K, Kawata S, Tamura S, Matsuda Y, Inui Y, Igura T, Inoue S, Kudara T, Matsuzawa Y. Transforming growth factor-ß1-induced degradation of activated Src tyrosine kinase in rat fibroblasts. Oncogene. 1998; 16: 3349–3356.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

14. Su S, DiBattista JA, Sun Y, Li WQ, Zafarullah M. Up-regulation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-3 gene expression by TGF-ß in articular chondrocytes is mediated by serine/threonine and tyrosine kinases. J Cell Biochem. 1998; 70: 517–527.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

15. Belaguli NS, Zhou W, Trinh TH, Majesky MW, Schwartz RJ. Dominant negative murine serum response factor: alternative splicing within the activation domain inhibits transactivation of serum response factor binding targets. Mol Cell Biol. 1999; 19: 4582–4591.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

16. Yates PR, Atherton GT, Deed RW, Norton JD, Sharrocks AD. Id helix-loop-helix proteins inhibit nucleoprotein complex formation by the TCF ETS-domain transcription factors. EMBO J. 1999; 18: 968–976.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

17. Lee SK, Kim JH, Lee YC, Cheong J, Lee JW. Silencing mediator of retinoic acid and thyroid hormone receptors, as a novel transcriptional corepressor molecule of activating protein-1, nuclear factor-kappaB, and serum response factor. J Biol Chem. 2000; 275: 12470–12474.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18. Wang D, Chang PS, Wang Z, Sutherland L, Richardson JA, Small E, Krieg PA, Olson EN. Activation of cardiac gene expression by myocardin, a transcriptional cofactor for serum response factor. Cell. 2001; 105: 851–862.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

19. Yoshida T, Shinha S, Dandre F, Wamhoff BR, Hoofnagle MH, Kremer BE, Wang D, Olson EN, Owens GK. Myocardin is a key regulator of CArG-dependent transcription of multiple smooth muscle marker gene. Circ Res. 2003; 92: 856–864.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

20. Manabe I, Owens GK. Recruitment of serum response factor and hyperacetylation of histones at smooth muscle-specific regulatory regions during differentiation of a novel P19-derived in vitro smooth muscle differentiation system. Circ Res. 2002; 88: 1127–1134.

21. Qiu P, Li L. Histone acetylation and recruitment of serum responsive factor and CREB-binding protein onto SM22 promoter during SM22 gene expression. Circ Res. 2002; 90: 858–865.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

22. Masutani H, Magnaghi JL, Ait SAS, Groisman R, Robin P, Harel BA, Ait SAS. Activation of the c-fos SRE through SAP-1a. Oncogene. 1997; 15: 1661–1669.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

23. Chang PS, Li L, McAnally J, Olson EN. Muscle specificity encoded by specific serum response factor-binding sites. J Biol Chem. 2001; 276: 17206–17212.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24. Adam PJ, Regan CP, Hautmann MB, Owens GK. Positive- and negative-acting Kruppel-like transcription factors bind a transforming growth factor ß control element required for expression of the smooth muscle cell differentiation marker SM22 in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2000; 275: 37798–37806.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

25. MacLellan WR, Lee TC, Schwartz RJ, Schneider MD. Transforming growth factor-ß response elements of the skeletal alpha-actin gene. Combinatorial action of serum response factor, YY1, and the SV40 enhancer-binding protein, TEF-1. J Biol Chem. 1994; 269: 16754–16760.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

26. Hughes SE, Crossman D, Hall PA. Expression of basic and acidic fibrobast growth factors and their receptor in normal and atherosclerotic human arteries. Cardiovasc Res. 1993; 27: 1214–1219.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. Kamada, Y. Yoshida, Y. Saji, J. Fukushima, S. Tamura, S. Kiso, and N. Hayashi Transplantation of basic fibroblast growth factor-pretreated adipose tissue-derived stromal cells enhances regression of liver fibrosis in mice Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, February 1, 2009; 296(2): G157 - G167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kawai-Kowase, T. Ohshima, H. Matsui, T. Tanaka, T. Shimizu, T. Iso, M. Arai, G. K. Owens, and M. Kurabayashi PIAS1 Mediates TGF{beta}-Induced SM {alpha}-Actin Gene Expression Through Inhibition of KLF4 Function-Expression by Protein Sumoylation Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., January 1, 2009; 29(1): 99 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Kim, E. S. Jeon, Y. M. Kim, J. S. Lee, and J. H. Kim Thromboxane A2 Induces Differentiation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Smooth Muscle-Like Cells Stem Cells, January 1, 2009; 27(1): 191 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Lemmon and B. R. Wamhoff "FRNKly, Smooth Muscle, I Don't Give a CArG!": A Novel Mechanism for Smooth Muscle Cell Differentiation Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., December 1, 2008; 28(12): 2091 - 2093. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Jeon, H. J. Moon, M. J. Lee, H. Y. Song, Y. M. Kim, Y. C. Bae, J. S. Jung, and J. H. Kim Sphingosylphosphorylcholine induces differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells into smooth-muscle-like cells through a TGF-{beta}-dependent mechanism J. Cell Sci., December 1, 2006; 119(23): 4994 - 5005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Doi, T. Iso, H. Sato, M. Yamazaki, H. Matsui, T. Tanaka, I. Manabe, M. Arai, R. Nagai, and M. Kurabayashi Jagged1-selective Notch Signaling Induces Smooth Muscle Differentiation via a RBP-J{kappa}-dependent Pathway J. Biol. Chem., September 29, 2006; 281(39): 28555 - 28564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. R. Montague, M. G. Hunter, M. A. Gavrilin, G. S. Phillips, P. J. Goldschmidt-Clermont, and C. B. Marsh Activation of Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} Reduces Aortic Smooth Muscle Differentiation Circ. Res., September 1, 2006; 99(5): 477 - 484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Greenberg, A. M. Bernstein, M. Benezra, I. H. Gelman, L. Taliana, and S. K. Masur FAK-dependent regulation of myofibroblast differentiation FASEB J, May 1, 2006; 20(7): 1006 - 1008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Koch, P. Hoppmann, J. C. Mueller, A. Schomig, and A. Kastrati Association of Transforming Growth Factor-{beta}1 Gene Polymorphisms With Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Angiographically Proven Coronary Heart Disease Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., May 1, 2006; 26(5): 1114 - 1119. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement All Versions of this Article: 24/8/1384    most recent 01.ATV.0000136548.17816.07v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kawai-Kowase, K. Articles by Kurabayashi, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kawai-Kowase, K. Articles by Kurabayashi, M. Related Collections Smooth muscle proliferation and differentiation Mechanism of atherosclerosis/growth factors