Alternative splicing of the c-erbA alpha gene transcript generates mRNAs encoding a thyroid hormone (T3) receptor (alpha 1) and a non-T3-binding variant (alpha 2). Also encoded at this genomic locus is Rev-ErbA alpha (Rev), a non-T3-binding member of the T3/steroid hormone receptor family. The DNA strand coding for Rev is opposite of that encoding the c-erbA alpha proteins, such that bidirectional transcription is required to generate the Rev and alpha 2 mRNAs. We have used cycloheximide as a tool for studying the regulation of gene expression from this complex genomic locus. In 235-1 cells cycloheximide treatment increased Rev mRNA levels by 50-100-fold. The effect was detectable after a 1-2-h incubation with 20 micrograms/ml cycloheximide and maximal at 24 h. The cycloheximide-induced increase in Rev gene expression was due to inhibition of protein synthesis since anisomycin caused a similar induction of Rev mRNA. Nuclear run-on assays revealed an approximately 10-fold increase in the transcriptional rate of the Rev gene during cycloheximide treatment. In addition, cycloheximide stabilized the Rev mRNA, as evidenced by half-life determinations in the presence of actinomycin D (5 ng/ml). Thus, labile proteins repress basal Rev gene expression both transcriptionally and post-transcriptionally. Cycloheximide treatment also increased alpha 1 and decreased alpha 2 mRNA levels, with the alpha 1/alpha 2 ratio increasing approximately 10-fold. Interestingly, however, these effects appeared not to be due to changes in rates of transcription or degradation of either mRNA. A likely alternative, given the structure of the c-erbA alpha gene, is that inhibition of protein synthesis resulted in a change in the c-erbA alpha splicing pattern. We hypothesize that this may be causally related to the accumulation of Rev mRNA (or the nascent Rev gene transcript), which could inhibit splicing to alpha 2 by hybridizing to complementary sequences, favoring alpha 1 mRNA production. Since alpha 1 is a T3 receptor whereas alpha 2 is an inhibitor of T3 action, such changes could influence target cell responsiveness to T3.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lazar et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: