Search

The estrogens are female sex hormones that are involved in a variety of physiological processes, including reproductive development and function, wound healing, and bone growth. They are mainly known for their roles in reproductive tissues--specifically, 17Β-estradiol (E2), the primary estrogen, which is secreted by the ovaries and induces cellular proliferation and growth of the uterus and mammary glands. In addition to the role of estrogens in promoting tissue growth and development during normal physiological states, they have a well-established role in determining susceptibility to disease, particularly cancer, in reproductive tissues. The responsiveness of various tissues to estrogen is genetically controlled, with marked quantitative variation observed across multiple species, including humans. This variation presents both researchers and clinicians with a veritable physiological puzzle, the pieces of which--many of them unknown--are complex and difficult to fit together. Although genetics is known to play a major role in determining sensitivity to estrogens, there are other factors, including parent of origin and the maternal environment, that are intimately linked to heritable phenotypes but do not represent genotype, per se. The objectives of this review article were to summarize the current knowledge of the role of genotype, and uterine and neonatal environments, in phenotypic variation in the response to estrogens; to discuss recent findings and the potential mechanisms involved; and to highlight exciting research opportunities for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The uterotropic response of the uterus to 17β-estradiol (E2) is genetically controlled, with marked variation observed depending on the mouse swain studied. Previous genetic studies from our laboratory using inbred mice that are high [C57BL/6J (B6)] or low [C3H/ HeJ (C3H)] responders to E2 led to the identification of quantitative trait (QT) loci associated with phenotypic variation in uterine growth and leukocyte infiltration. The mechanisms underlying differential responsiveness to E2, and the genes involved, are unknown. Therefore, we used a microarray approach to show association of distinct E2-regulated transcriptional signatures with genetically controlled high and low responses to E2 and their segregation in (C57BL/6JxC3H/HeJ) F1 hybrids. Among the 6664 E2-regulated transcripts, analysis of cellular functions of those that were strain specific indicated C3H-selective enrichment of apoptosis, consistent with a 7-fold increase in the apoptosis indicator CASP3, and a 2.4-fold decrease in the apoptosis inhibitor Naip1 (Bircla) in C3H vs. B6 following treatment with E2. In addition, several differentially expressed transcripts reside within our previously identified QT loci, including the ERα-tethering factor Runx1, demonstrated to enhance E2-mediated transcript regulation. The level of RUNX1 in uterine epithelial cells was shown to be 3.5-fold greater in B6 compared to C3H. Our novel insights into the mechanisms underlying the genetic control of tissue sensitivity to estrogen have great potential to advance understanding of individualized effects in physiological and disease states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The lactose operon and its control is a fundamental transcriptional regulatory concept presented in introductory and many advanced molecular biology courses. Much is known about the positive and negative control mechanisms that govern levels of expression of this operon. One basic principle that is taught about the Iac operon is that it is ‘leaky,’ meaning that the transcriptional control of the operon is not 100% efficient and that in wild-type cells, transcription from the promoter is never completely ‘off,’ but there is always some basal transcription. In contrast, the arabinose operon is often used as an example of a tightly controlled operon, and transcription from the ara promoter is very low in the absence of inducer. The relative levels of control of these two operons can be illustrated using Western blots of proteins expressed in the presence and absence of the appropriate inducers and antibodies against the gene products. Different times of growth and the addition of inducer can also be examined. The results are very dramatic and help to reinforce the principles of promoter control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]