Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We have recently demonstrated that signal transducers and activators of transcription (STATs) 1, 3, 5A, 5B, and 6 are expressed in both cultured and native adipocytes. Our current studies have focused on the activation of STATs 1 and 3 by leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), oncostatin-M (OSM), and interferon-gamma (IFNgamma) in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. IFNgamma is shown to be a potent activator of STAT 1 as indicated by both tyrosine phosphorylation and nuclear translocation. However, LIF and OSM, which are potent inducers of STAT 3, are less potent activators of STAT 1 as measured by both tyrosine phosphorylation and nuclear translocation. Both STATs 1 and 3 were translocated to the nucleus in a time-dependent fashion following LIF treatment. In addition, IFNgamma resulted in a time- and dose-dependent effect on STATs 1 and 3 nuclear translocation. Growth hormone, a potent activator of STATs 5A and 5B, had a minimal effect on STAT 1 and STAT 3 tyrosine phosphorylation. Preincubation with either insulin or growth hormone had no detectable effects on the tyrosine phosphorylation or nuclear translocation of STATs 1 and 3 induced by LIF, OSM, or IFNgamma. The effects of LIF and IFNgamma on STAT 1 and 3 tyrosine phosphorylation and nuclear translocation were confirmed in native rat adipocytes. In 3T3-L1 adipocytes, a low level of serine phosphorylation of STAT 3 on residue 727 was observed and was markedly enhanced by insulin, LIF, or OSM. This increase in STAT 3 Ser727 phosphorylation was dependent upon the activation of MAPK, since the MAPK kinase inhibitor (PD98059) reduced STAT 3 Ser727 phosphorylation to basal levels. The inhibition of MAPK had no effect on the ability of STATs 1 and 3 to be tyrosine-phosphorylated or translocate to the nucleus. These studies demonstrate the highly specific and quantitative activation of STATs 1 and 3 by LIF, OSM, and IFNgamma in adipocytes and indicate that STAT 3 is a substrate for MAPK in adipocytes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephens et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: