PTH and PTH-related protein (PTHrP) bind to the PTH-1 (PTH/PTHrP) receptor and produce anabolic and catabolic effects in bone. To investigate postreceptor mechanisms of action, MC3T3-E1 cells were induced to differentiate to optimize PTH-1 receptor expression, and differentiated MC3T3-E1 cells were treated with varying doses of PTH (1-34) for 1 h. Northern blot analysis revealed a dose-dependent stimulation of steady state c-fos messenger RNA (mRNA), with measurable expression at doses as low as 1 pM PTH. The time course of c-fos mRNA induction was rapid, with peak levels detected at 30-45 min. Increased steady state c-fos mRNA was due to increased transcription of the c-fos gene as demonstrated by nuclear run-on assays and was dependent on the temporal differentiation state of the MC3T3-E1 cells. Stimulation of c-fos mRNA was induced exclusively by N-terminal PTH and PTHrP (which is also responsible for cAMP activation), and did not occur with PTH (7-34), (53-84), or PTHrP (107-139). The effects of PTH (1-34) on c-fos stimulation were dependent on intracellular cAMP. Forskolin [a guanine-nucleotide-binding protein (G(alpha)) agonist] stimulated c-fos mRNA, whereas 9-(tetrahydro-2-furyl) adenine (THFA) (a cAMP antagonist), 1,9 dideoxyforskolin (a cAMP independent analog of forskolin), and phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (a protein kinase C activator) did not. Furthermore, THFA inhibited the ability of PTH (1-34) to stimulate c-fos mRNA in a time-dependent manner. These findings indicate that c-fos is transcriptionally regulated by PTH (1-34) in osteoblastic cells, and that cAMP is a mediator of PTH-stimulated c-fos induction. Several known bone-associated proteins contain DNA binding sites in their promoter regions that recognize c-fos in conjunction with c-jun (AP-1 sites). Consequently, the induction of c-fos by PTH (1-34) in osteoblastic cells may be a sensitive indicator of PTH effects in vitro and in vivo, and provide valuable information regarding mechanisms of PTH action in bone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCauley et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: